BEFORE A BOARD OF INQUIRY EAST WEST LINK PROJECT
UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 (the RMA)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF Notices of requirement for designation and resource consent applications by the NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY for the East West Link Project
STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF AMELIA JOAN LINZEY ON BEHALF OF THE NEW ZEALAND TRANSPORT AGENCY
Cultural Values Assessment (Engagement)
Dated: 20 June 2017
Barristers and Solicitors Auckland
Solicitor Acting: Pat Mulligan Email: [email protected] Tel 64 9 358 2555 Fax 64 9 358 2055 PO Box 1433 DX CP24024 Auckland 1140
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE 1 2. INTRODUCTION 2 3. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 3 4. ENGAGEMENT 3 5. EFFECTS ON CULTURAL SITES 13 6. TREATY OF WAITANGI CLAIM TO THE MANUKAU HARBOUR 13 7. DREDGING 17 8. CONCLUSION 18 ATTACHMENT A: SUMMARY OF MANA WHENUA ENGAGEMENT 2015-2017 20 ATTACHMENT B: HUI MINUTES 2015-2017 28 ATTACHMENT C: REVIEW OF PROJECT AGAINST WAI-8) RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE DIRECTIVES SET / OUTCOMES OF THE MANUKAU HARBOUR ACTION PLAN 1990 156
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY
1. SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE
1.1 I have read the statements of evidence provided by the submitters in relation to cultural values and effects (engagement) and make the following conclusions:
(a) My evidence focuses on how engagement with Mana Whenua has informed the Project assessment and design process, and how the Project team has sought to progress and make changes on the basis of matters raised in this engagement;
(b) It is my opinion that engagement with Mana Whenua was not intended to commit Mana Whenua to the outcomes of the Project per se, but rather to work with them as Project partners to assist in understanding and responding to issues of cultural effects and interest;
(c) The Project team has endeavoured to respectfully and fulsomely meet its obligations to Iwi and Mana Whenua as set out in the RMA (insomuch as it can in this consenting / approvals process), and in particular has sought to engage in a manner reflective of the principle of partnership between Iwi and the Transport Agency (as a representative of the Crown). In my opinion, the engagement with all representatives of Mana Groups has been positive and assisted the Project team to:
(i) Understand and respond to the potential cultural effects of the Project (as identified by them);
(ii) To respond to the identified effects in a manner that both seeks to enhance the mauri of the Māngere Inlet, respect the environment and maintain the relationship that Mana Whenua have to that environment;
(iii) To identify opportunities in the ongoing monitoring of this Project to facilitate implementation of positive long term environmental outcomes for the Māngere Inlet (recognising that these opportunities will not be limited to this project alone).
(d) The records of Mana Whenua engagement shows that representatives from Ngāti Whātua o Ōrakei attended the Mana Whenua Group meetings, over the course of the Project, and that their contribution (with others) has also assisted the Project team to identify and respond to cultural effects identified;
(e) The importance of unsettled claims (particularly pertaining to the Manukau Harbour) have been identified and recognised in the Project (demonstrated through the CVR). In particular, consideration has been given to the
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 1
recommendations made by the Waitangi Tribunal from the WAI 8 claim (and the subsequent Manukau Harbour Action Plan 1990, prepared following the directive of those recommendations).
(f) I consider that Mana Whenua engagement and input has also been responsive to and reflective of the directions of the WAI 8 claim and other outstanding claims in respect of both the Manukau Harbour and the Waitematā (in respect of Otāhuhu Creek). This is evident in the record of Mana Whenua Group hui and in the various values assessments and cultural impact assessments that have been provided for the Project.
(g) I acknowledge and recognise the importance of future Treaty settlement processes and processes in relation to customary rights. While the Project reclamation will require future vesting of land, I understand that the Project will not adversely affect those processes or the settlement of claims. I further understand that the Transport Agency is in consultation with, and will make a statement to, Mana Whenua confirming that position.
(h) Since filing my EIC, the Project team has met with the Mana Whenua Group in respect of dredging, which has informed us on the concerns of Mana Whenua in respect of this proposed activity (ecological impacts and sediment disturbance arising from the activity). I consider the conditions, which set controls on sediment loads arising from the works, require engagement with the Mana Whenua Group and set out a process for cultural monitoring conditions during construction, will provide a management regime and process whereby the cultural effects of this activity can be appropriately managed.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 My name is Amelia Joan Linzey.
2.2 I have the qualifications and experience set out at paragraphs 2.1 to 2.5 of my statement of evidence in chief (EIC) dated 12 April 2017.
2.3 I have been engaged by the New Zealand Transport Agency (the Transport Agency) to facilitate engagement with Mana Whenua and have supported the summation of that process in documenting the Project Team’s understanding of the cultural effects in the Assessment of Effects on the Environment (AEE) of the East West Link Project (the Project), for which the Notices of Requirement (NORs) and resource consent applications have been lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA). My
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 2
EIC described this process, the preparation of the Cultural Values Report (reporting the outcomes of this process) and the cultural effects assessment. In this context, my rebuttal evidence responds to the evidence of submitters within my area of expertise. I further refer to the evidence of Mr Eynon Delamere which provides further detail on his role in the Mana Whenua engagement process and the evidence of Mr Scott Wickman, who provides detail on the engagement of the Transport Agency in the context of Mana Whenua governance.
2.4 I repeat the confirmation given in my EIC that I have read the 'Code of Conduct' for expert witnesses contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014 and that my evidence has been prepared in compliance with that Code.
2.5 I attended a non-expert facilitated session held on 9 June 2017 about Cultural values and cultural effects. I confirm that I understand and have responded to the outcomes of that meeting, where it is within my area of expertise.
3. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
3.1 In this statement of rebuttal evidence I will respond to the evidence of:
(a) Ngarimu Blair on behalf of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust;
(b) Karen Wilson on behalf of Te Ākitai Waiohua Waka Taua Incorporated;
(c) Te Warena Taua on behalf of Te Kawerau Iwi Tribal Authority and Makaurau Marae Māori Trust; and
(d) John McCaffery, filed in June 2017 (6 June 2017).
3.2 The fact that this rebuttal statement does not respond to every matter raised in the evidence of submitter witnesses within my area of expertise should not be taken as acceptance of the matters raised. Rather, I rely on my EIC, the Cultural Values Report (CVR), and Chapter 12.6 of the AEE, and this rebuttal statement to set out my opinion on what I consider to be the key cultural values matters for this hearing.
3.3 Given the matters raised in the evidence cited above, and the questions posed in the non-expert facilitated meetings, I have provided a rebuttal response in respect of specific issues and subsequently respond to specific issues raised by submitters.
4. ENGAGEMENT
4.1 I have set out the Mana Whenua represented in consultation on the Project (including earlier phases of the project) in my EIC. The submissions of Mr Te Warena Taua and
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 3
Mr Ngarimu Blair raise matters in respect of engagement and in particular the purpose of or outcomes from engagement.
4.2 Paragraph 51 of Mr Blair’s evidence on behalf of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust states that: ‘I am unaware of any formal correspondence from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei that indicates any level of support for the project arising out of any attendances at these meetings. It is important to note that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei’s attendance or otherwise or the receiving of project information solicited or otherwise cannot amount to any level of support for the project’.
4.3 Further to my EIC,1 I have attached a summary of engagement with the Project Mana Whenua Group (the Group) and the NZ Transport Agency Southern Iwi Integration Group (Southern IIG), from 2015 – 2017 (see Attachment A).2 I have also attached a full collection of the hui minutes during this time (see Attachment B).
4.4 I do not challenge the view expressed by Mr Blair that the consultation and engagement undertaken did not constitute statutory support for the Project, and that participation was not intended to commit Mana Whenua to the outcomes of the Project per se. However, it is important to understand that this was not the intent of the engagement. Rather, the engagement was (as set out in my EIC)3 intended (and intends) to:
(a) Identify issues and potential opportunities of the Project in respect of cultural values;
(b) On an iterative basis, present information on project design elements for feedback from Mana Whenua on the potential cultural effects of options being considered and to change design elements in response to issues raised (where practicable); and
(c) Identify measures proposed to remedy and mitigate potential cultural effects and to monitor the outcomes of the Project, with respect to cultural effects and where practicable, implement them.
4.5 However, I cannot accept Mr Blair’s conclusion that as a result of this process, there has been no indication of ‘any level of support’ for the Project from Mana Whenua (and I consider that his conclusion is not consistent with a number of submissions received from Mana Whenua groups). I note that the parties involved in the Mana Whenua hui (as identified in my EIC) were all formal representatives (‘officers’) of these
1 See Paragraph 9.10. 2 See in particular, footnote 4, page 6 of my EIC. 3 Paragraph 7.9.
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 4
organisations. They all attended over a long period of time, provided feedback and saw the Project change iteratively, including in response to that feedback. While this process was not necessarily intended to commit them to the outcome, it did afford them the opportunity over an extended period to voice concerns and identify cultural effects and opportunities for the Project team to respond to these. On many occasions they provided feedback which we responded to, either by providing more information to clarify why the Project had a certain feature, to change the Project to address concerns or to scope conditions for management responses to address concerns that were raised.
4.6 In my opinion, the Group and their feedback was both heard and provided substantial guidance on how the Project team developed the Project. It was my understanding that this engagement process was undertaken in good faith; reflecting principles of partnership. By this I mean that it was my understanding that by meeting, working collaboratively together and responding to issues raised, there was capacity to reach an outcome that would be accepted by the parties involved.4
4.7 The outcomes of this process are documented in the CVR and Section 12.6 of the AEE.5 In my opinion, this is consistent with submissions made by other Mana Whenua submitters (who have been involved in the above engagement process),6 where the decisions being sought by those submitters are either ‘Approve with Conditions’, ‘No View’ or ‘Decline the Proposal’, but are expressed on the basis that there are unresolved issues or matters that need to be addressed, conditions that need to be accepted or changes to design that need to be made to adequately respond to outstanding effects on cultural values.
4.8 To assist the Board, Table 1 sets out the key decisions on Project development that were made in response to the specific phases or stages of engagement with Mana Whenua. I note that details of some elements of this engagement are discussed in the evidence of Mr Wickman and Mr Delamere, while my evidence focuses on how this engagement informed the Project assessment and design process, and how we sought
4 Ngāti Whātua Orākei also have an Iwi Management Plan in place, which sets out the iwi's aspirations and approach in recognising and providing for Ngāti Whātua Orākei's values and relationship with the land and water. Part of this Plan emphasises the importance of early engagement with Ngāti Whātua Orākei in respect of consent processes to ensure their cultural values are appropriately recognised. In my view, the Transport Agency has consulted with Ngāti Whātua Orākei in a manner consistent with this plan by engaging with Ngāti Whātua Orākei early on and throughout the design process to ensure their values are recognised and incorporated into the Project. 5 I acknowledge that at the time those documents were prepared the issues relating to the future ownership / management of the proposed land area reclaimed by the Project and the relationship of this with the outstanding claims on the Manukau Harbour, were also not resolved. This matter (which is also raised in the evidence of Ms Wilson), is discussed further in my rebuttal evidence below in respect of Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi. 6 I note that similar sentiment is expressed in other submissions (including those from Te Kawerau a Maki, Ngāti Whatua (through Te Rununga o Ngāti Whatua), Te Ahi Waru (Makaurau Marae), Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Ngāti Maru Rununga, Te Āki Tai Waiohua) where submitters are either neutral or supportive but reliant on project changes or conditions conditions to address effects, or opposed (subject to conditions).
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 5
to progress and make changes on the basis of matters raised in this engagement. This summary from engagement processes is more fully reported in Attachment A.
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 6
Table 1: Summary of How Mana Whenua Engagement and Input has Informed Specific Design and Assessment on the EWL Project
Phase Mana Whenua Engagement Purpose Summary of Mana Whenua Engagement Actions / Process Decisions / Design Actions Taken in Response Jan – July Issues in the East West Connections A number of Hui were held with Mana Whenua prior to the start of The issues and opportunities identified from engagement and those 2014 Project area (AT / NZTA) formal engagement by Auckland Transport and the NZ Transport MVA’s received informed the development of the Long List and Short Agency to understand the issues in the area. List of Corridor Options Developed.
Maori Value Assessments or Draft Assessments were received from the following:
- Te Kawerau a Maki – (Preliminary Cultural Impact Assessment) – November 2013;
- Te Ākitai Waiohua (15 January 2014);
- Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua (14 January 2014); and
- Ngāti Maru Rūnanga – draft (19 June 2014).
July – MCA I - Evaluation of Corridor Options Three Hui were held with Mana Whenua to discuss the Project and the Factors considered in the option evaluation and reported through into November (Indicative Business Case) short-listed options during the IBC Phase. The purpose of these the scoring of options in the MCA process: 2014 sessions was: - Acknowledgement of the importance of economic impacts of the - To provide information on the Project, discuss the short-listed options (importance of holistic consideration of options). options and to hear feedback from Mana Whenua representatives; - Cultural and ecological value of Ann’s Creek identified for design - To discuss possible construction alternatives for the options at the assessment. Māngere Inlet foreshore; and - Opportunities and options to improve the quality of the environment - To receive Mana Whenua feedback on the options for input to the should be considered. option evaluation process. - Potential reclamation in Māngere Inlet is an issue of design Representatives of the Mana Whenua Group were also present that the opportunity for benefits to be realised (i.e. clean-up of the Harbour). MCA Workshop in late 2014 (representatives of Ngāti Maru and Ngāti Key themes advanced: how the reclaimed area could create a Whātua attended). ‘barrier’ for contaminants (hui 1); opportunity for stormwater treatment and land contamination management (hui 2).
- The significance of Mutukāroa and as result concerns with [Short- list] Option B (due to impacts on this Maunga). Corridor Assessment
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 7
Phase Mana Whenua Engagement Purpose Summary of Mana Whenua Engagement Actions / Process Decisions / Design Actions Taken in Response January – Confirmation of Preferred Corridor A number of Hui were held with Mana Whenua (Project Partners) to Design directions heard – which informed documentation of the corridor July 2015 Option and Scope of Investigation discuss the Project and the Preferred Approach which was being effects and scoping work for alignment investigation (on the preferred recommended as part of the DBC. Hui were held from April to July corridor option): 2015. - Importance of managing leachate entering the Māngere Inlet Over this period, site visits were undertaken for Anns Creek, Ōtāhuhu especially around Anns Creek and Hugo Johnston Drive; Portage, Mutukāroa, Great South Road, Neilson Street, Te Hōpua a Rangi, Onehunga, Panama Road, Waikaraka. - Opportunities to restore natural state as much as practicable, including changes to physical infrastructure and improved In April 2015, a number of Mana Whenua groups sent letters of support landscaping; (to the NZ Transport Agency Board and Auckland Transport Board Representatives) to confirm their support for the Contamination - Biodiversity and riparian planting enhancement across the Containment Bund option. It was noted that their support was entire alignment; conditional on the environmental benefits being realised as part of the Project (see also the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wickman on this matter). - Stormwater treatment to a high standard across the entire alignment;
- Potential of finding cultural remains;
- Mana Whenua clarified they prefer the proposal of new structures over reclamation and building over rather than cutting, in the Hopua Tuff Ring area. They also stressed the importance of visual impacts and opportunities for cycle infrastructure and other transport infrastructure in the area;
- Further clarification from the Project team on matters such as stormwater, ecological values and coastal processes was requested;
- Mana Whenua also identified the potential to improve access into the Port; and
- It is also noted there are a number of particularly sensitive cultural sites near State Highway 1, including the Ōtāhuhu Portage which should be considered during the next phase of the Project.
Reporting to the Board on the recommendation to support Short-list Option F, noting the provisional support and the issues remaining for further assessment (I refer to the rebuttal evidence of Mr Wickman in respect of this matter).
January – Issues and Opportunities for EWL Progress the Mana Whenua issues map (commenced in 2015) to Development of MCA Methodology, including ultimate decision that April 2016 Alignment Design identify issues, areas of focus and opportunities. To present the MCA Mana Whenua would not score ‘Cultural Effects’. Process and discuss the alignment option design process. Noted requirements for CIAs (and MVAs) to be completed. Development of Te Cultural blessing and protocols for geotechnical investigations. Aranga Principles for Design / Mauri Matrix. Design progress for Neilson Street interchange, due to impacts on Te Scoping issues for specific environmental investigation, including Hopua a Rangi identified (revised design reported back with revisions stormwater, contamination, ecology, geology, including comment on to designs at Anns Creek). alignment options as they were developed. Review of option development in respect of identified cultural values, Importance of advice on Treaty Settlement issues and advice directed including active Treaty claims and recommendations. to John Hutton. EWL Assessment Alignment
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 8
Phase Mana Whenua Engagement Purpose Summary of Mana Whenua Engagement Actions / Process Decisions / Design Actions Taken in Response Maori Value Assessments and Cultural Impact Assessments were received from the following:
- Ngāti Te Ata Waiohua (March 2016)
- Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki (March 2016).
April – MCA II Alignment Option Assessment Input to MCA process Mana Whenua Group commentary on alignment option preferences August for the EWL Project recorded. 2016 Commentary on options and impacts of options Design review and further review of SH1 ramp design given Urupā at Concern regarding the extent of reclamation (while supportive of design Mt Wellington. options – in respect of Options 4, 6 and 10 for foreshore sector). Recognition of te reo as taonga and inclusion of Māori place names on Recognition of the need for governance hui to progress outstanding all mapping outputs. matters of Treaty claims and direction on project.
Maori Value Assessments and Cultural Impact Assessments were received from the following:
- Ngāti Tamaoho (April 2016)
- Ngāti Paoa (8 April 2016 version 2).
August – Design refinement, effects Discussion on intent of conditions, ULDF, Design / Alignment Plans and Design amendment to reduce extent of reclamation (from over 24ha) by December Assessment, Reporting and other measures to appropriately address outstanding cultural issues. changes to construction methodology (works on landfill) and changes 2016 Identification of Management Options to stormwater management design (biofilter design). Review and input to ULDF. Amendment and responses to ULDF. Development of CVR. CVR Prepared. Noted through development of the CVR that at this stage Ngāti Te Ata are in principle opposed to further reclamation of the Harbour, and this is recorded as such in the CVR.
Development of draft conditions for consideration by NZ Transport Agency.
January Design development and progress on Review and input to conditions and design development matters. Amendment to conditions and issue of CVR. 2017 – management option detail (post current lodgement). Maori Value Assessments and Cultural Impact Assessments were received from the following:
- Ngāti Paoa (11 May 2017).
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 9
Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Participation in Engagement Processes
4.9 Given that the issue of engagement is largely raised by Mr Blair on behalf of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, I provide specific commentary on the role of their engagement over the Project.
4.10 From 2015 – 2017 I understand there were three different kaitiaki / environmental officers from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei that attended the Mana Whenua Group hui (and Southern IIG meetings): Mr Eruera Rarere-Wilton,7 Ms Moana Waa and Ms Mei Hill. The involvement of these representatives during the Project (with other Mana Whenua representatives) has contributed positively to understanding the potential effects of various corridor and alignment options, to the development of project design and to the outcomes of the Project.
4.11 By way of summary, having regard to the approach to engagement with Mana Whenua, the attached records (Attachment B) and the CVR, it is my opinion that Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei were represented and actively participated in these processes (which informed and progressed the Project design and the measures to avoid, remedy and mitigate effects) from the Project inception in 2014 up until the time they withdrew from engagement on the Project (in March 2017).
4.12 To support the above conclusion, I make reference below to a number of hui in which Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei representatives were present. In my opinion these hui were important in understanding key issues and opportunities from Mana Whenua, and in obtaining Mana Whenua input into the options selection process:
(a) On 15 July 2015 the Group participated in a Project hui and discussions were held on activities within Gloucester Park (Neilson Street Interchange area) or potentially impacting on Te Hopūa ā Rangi. Mr Eruera Rarere-Wilton was in attendance as the nominated representative of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. At this hui, issues highlighted included potential damage to the Tuff Ring / Te Hopūa ā Rangi, reclamation, visual impacts of structures, works to the saltwater marsh and that alternatives of the proposed corridor design be further explored.
(b) On 12 August 2015 the Group participated in a workshop and site visit. Again, this included the representative of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. I note the key purpose of this hui was to understand the issues identified by Mana Whenua and opportunities to address those issues going forward along the route. The site visit
7 I understand that Mr Rarere-Wilton was the Manager of Ngāti Whatua O Orakei Toki Taiao Environmental Heritage and Resource Management Unit until May 2016.
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 10
took the Group to Ōtāhuhu Creek, Great South Road / Anns Creek, Waikaraka Cemetery, Waikaraka shared path and the ‘Green Stream’ (Miami Parade). The record of key outcomes from this workshop and site visit (see the meeting notes in Attachment B) included:
(i) The opportunity to remove the culverts on SH1 at Ōtāhuhu Creek as restoration for this waterway;
(ii) Identification of cultural sites in Panama Road / SH1 area. A concern was also highlighted regarding the potential of unearthing remains at the Tip Top corner site;
(iii) Opportunities to enhance stormwater treatment. The Group identified an opportunity for the Project to make a collaborative approach to stormwater treatment (with the Council and Mana Whenua) to improve water quality outcomes for the Harbour; and
(iv) Concerns raised over visual impacts of structures in Great South Road / Sylvia Park / Anns Creek area.
(c) During the 9 February 2016 hui I understand the contaminant containment bund was discussed with the Group including the opportunity to contain contaminants from dredging material, issues of removing of marine life in dredged areas and loss of habitat. Ms Moana Waa attended this hui as a representative of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. The issue of combined treatment of stormwater, groundwater and leachate was also discussed. More information was requested regarding historical data of depths of sedimentation in the inlet. The process for putting together the Urban and Landscape Design Framework (ULDF) was also introduced. At this hui, the Group raised the potential for the Cultural Values Framework to sit alongside the ULDF.
(d) At the Project hui on 17 March 2016, three design options for Neilson Street Interchange were presented. Again, representatives of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei attended this hui. It was recorded by the Group that there were concerns regarding impacts on Te Hopua a Rangi associated with all options and a subsequent design was developed (Option 4).
(e) At the Project hui on 29 April 2016 new options for Neilson Street were presented to the Group. The minutes again note the in principle support by the Group for reclamation on the northern edge of the Māngere Inlet, conditional on treatment
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 11
of stormwater and leachate. Representatives of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei attended this hui, and no specific opposition to the discussion points was recorded from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei.
(f) At the 6 May 2016 Project hui there was general support recorded for independent cultural assessments of options. This was intended to provide input into the overall Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) for the Project. Again, representatives of Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei are recorded as being present at this hui. General comments from the Group were recorded for each section of the Project area and a collective preference noted for each section (following closed door discussions with the Group, without the Project team). No specific opposition was noted from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei and I note representatives were included in collective discussion and identification of preference. In my opinion, this hui was an instrumental hui for the Project team to obtain input into the options selection process. I discussed this in my alternatives and engagement (cultural effects) EICs.
(g) During the 15 July 2016 hui there was a discussion on communication to Mana Whenua governance through a Pānui (or newsletter). I note that representatives from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei were in attendance. The Group present identified preference for the MCA process with Mana Whenua input to be profiled in the newsletter. I note there was also a discussion on furthering the cultural values report process, and preference was noted that the person writing the report be independent of the current process. It was also noted that they would not be speaking directly on behalf of Mana Whenua but would review documents and hui minutes and prepare a draft based on that for consideration of the Group. I note there was an official record of Te Akitai and Ngāti Tamaoho support in principle for this process, and that there was no specific opposition recorded from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei.
(h) I note the final hui in which Ms Waa from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei was present was on 2 August 2016. This hui included further discussion on the CVA process and the proposal to use independent authors for this document. There was also further discussion on the Governance Pānui draft.
4.13 On 20 July 2016 I was forwarded an email from Ms Waa advising that Ms Mei Hill - the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei expert in art & design - would be representing Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei in this area of work from that point onwards. Ms Hill attended the hui on
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 12
26 July 2016 on the ULDF to provide design feedback as well as email feedback, which was received on the ULDF draft on 25 October 2016.
4.14 I acknowledge that from 2 August 2016 there was no representation at hui from Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei. I note that on 1 March 2017, I received an email from Ms Waa stating she was withdrawing from the Project and to direct emails to the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei team email address.
5. EFFECTS ON CULTURAL SITES
5.1 Ms Wilson raises a number of issues regarding effects of the Project on cultural sites of significance to Te Ākitai Waiohua. In particular Ms Wilson highlights potential effects on Te Hopua a Rangi, the Manukau Harbour and Mutukāroa. As I noted in my EIC,8 I am aware of these issues and recognise their importance to Mana Whenua.
5.2 In my opinion the application has adequately acknowledged the cultural significance of these sites to Mana Whenua. I consider that the conditions that relate to continuation of the Mana Whenua Group (Condition MW.1), involvement of the Group on various matters in Condition MW.2 and preparation of a Cultural Monitoring Plan (Conditions MW.3 – MW.5) will provide adequate opportunity for Mana Whenua input and consideration of culturally significant sites.
5.3 Ms Wilson has requested a specific condition9 requiring the Transport Agency to engage specifically with Te Ākitai Waiohua, with particular regard to effects of the project on Te Hopua a Rangi and the Manukau Harbour. I concur that this is the intent of the Mana Whenua Group conditions (MW.1), and that both of these areas are specifically identified as areas where the design development and construction planning should include consultation with Mana Whenua.
6. TREATY OF WAITANGI CLAIM TO THE MANUKAU HARBOUR
6.1 Both Ms Wilson and Mr McCaffery raises the issue of whether the Project has properly considered the Treaty of Waitangi, and in particular the future settlement claim negotiations over the Manukau Harbour (Mr McCaffery specifically refers to the WAI 8 claim in this regard). I further note that this question was raised (with only initial responses provided) in the non-expert meeting of 9 June 2017.
6.2 I can confirm, as summarised in the CVR, that the significance of unsettled claims (particularly pertaining to the Manukau Harbour) have been identified and recognised in
8 Paragraph 9.5. 9 Paragraph 4.2 of Ms Wilson’s evidence.
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 13
the Project (in considering the existing environment, in identifying cultural values and in undertaking the assessment of effects on cultural values). I can further confirm that specific consideration was given to these claims, and the recommendations made from that claim (including the Manukau Harbour Action Plan 1990, which was prepared following the directive of those recommendations). I also note that Mana Whenua representatives were also responsive to and reflective of the directions of the WAI 8 claim and other outstanding claims, in respect of both the Manukau Harbour and the Waitematā (in respect of Otāhuhu Creek). In my opinion, this is evident in the Group hui, sometimes due to direct reference to claims, but in other instances evident in the issues and matters raised (Attachment B) and in the various values assessments and cultural impact assessments that have been provided to the Project team over the Project's development.
6.3 I recognise that the formal status of the Harbour Action Plan 199010 has changed over time with the introduction into law of the Resource Management Act in 1991, and subsequently the statutory plans required under that Act. In particular, these include the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (1994, replaced in 2010), the Auckland Regional Coastal Plan 1999 and most recently the Auckland Unitary Plan that includes the Coastal Plan (Operative in Part) in 2017.
6.4 However, in my view, the Harbour Action Plan has had a significant impact and is reflected in the statutes, policy, regulation and guidelines that has followed. I reach this conclusion drawing from my experience in planning in Auckland and reflecting on the intent of the Harbour Action Plan and its influence in subsequent planning responses (including as examples, the focus on non-point source stormwater discharges and the development of Technical Paper 10 (TP10) relating to stormwater management, and the policy directives of subsequent planning documents regarding reclamation (as set out in the EIC of Ms Rickard).
6.5 In response to the specific questions and issues raised by Ms Wilson and Mr McCaffery, and as identified in the non-expert meeting of 9 June 2017, I have provided a summary of my understanding of the key WAI 8 recommendations and the directives set / outcomes of the Harbour Action Plan (Attachment C) relevant to this Project. I make the following comments:
(a) The Waitangi Tribunal found that the tribal enjoyment of the lands and fisheries has been and continues to be prejudiced by the taking of land, land development, industrial activities and land uses, reclamations, waste discharges, commercial
10 The document specifically formulated by the then Harbour Board in response to the recommendations of WAI 8.
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 14
fishing and the denial of traditional harbour access in such a manner not consistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi.
(b) The Tribunal recognised the role of the Auckland Harbour Board (at that time) in addressing the above matters and directed the development of a Harbour Action Plan to respond to the recommendations and findings of their decision.
(c) The Harbour Action Plan sets objectives and policies with respect to use and development of the Manukau Harbour. This relates to the impacts of stormwater, leachate, reclamation, dredging, discharges, and public access to and along the foreshore. While the regulatory controls of the Harbour Action Plan are no longer effective (in a statutory sense), as set out above, I consider these objectives and policies provide direction on the outcomes sought for this environment that is both consistent with current planning and (drawing on the conclusions from Ms Rickards evidence) the Project.
(d) More specifically, the design of the Project has sought to respond to issues identified through the process of considering the WAI 8 claim, the Tribunal recommendations (including the Harbour Action Plan), and ongoing engagement and direction from Mana Whenua in respect of both this claim and other outstanding claims in respect of the harbour. These responses include recognising the need for active protection of the Mangere Inlet (and harbour) and the role of Mana Whenua in exercising kaitiakitanga. Specific response outcomes include (but are not limited to):
(i) The alignment providing a ‘contamination containment bund’ between the areas of contaminated landfill (both managed and unmanaged fill areas), effectively stopping the current tidal intrusion of sea water from the Mangere Inlet into the landfill areas;
(ii) The design providing for the ongoing collection of leachate (from both managed land fill and unmanaged fill areas) for treatment (either through the wetland or through off-site discharge) (I refer here to the amended conditions of Ms Hopkins, which provides further detail on the unmanaged fill areas and includes Conditions L.1 and L.2);
(iii) The design providing for the detainment of reticulated stormwater from the wider Onehunga catchment (over 600ha of established urban and industrial land uses), and treatment of this stormwater prior to its discharge into the Manukau Harbour (particularly in light of amended
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 15
conditions for the stormwater system included in Ms Hopkins rebuttal as Conditions C1.F and C1.G);
(iv) The design providing for the restoration of a more naturalised coastal edge, responding to the need for the work to visually integrate with the Harbour (I refer here to the amended conditions of Ms Hopkins rebuttal including Conditions C1.B to C1E);
(v) The ongoing management methods proposed, including reporting of environmental outcomes, recognising the kaitiaki role of Mana Whenua in the ongoing management of this coastal environment (I refer here to Conditions MW.3 – MW.5 as set out in the EIC (and rebuttal) of Ms Hopkins);
(vi) The proposals for interpretative signage and naming, as set out in the ULDF and required by the conditions, recognising cultural heritage and values in the area and has potential to promote Te Reo and the cultural landscape of this area for Mana Whenua (I refer here to the Conditions MW.2 and LV.5); and
(vii) The conditions that provide for the ongoing partnership of Mana Whenua with the Transport Agency in detailed design and cultural monitoring of construction activities and ongoing environmental outcomes of operation of the Project (I refer here to Conditions MW.6 – MW.10 as set out in the EIC (and rebuttal) of Ms Hopkins).
(e) I also refer to the vision document for the Māngere Inlet ‘Restoring the Mauri of the Māngere Inlet’ Māngere Inlet Strategy (attached to the CVR), which was initiated through the Project and developed by Mana Whenua in partnership with central and local government agencies. This strategy sets environmental outcomes for the Māngere Inlet area and recognise the role of Mana Whenua as kaitiaki and a key partner in the management of this taonga. In my view, this strategy also emulates the directives and Tribunal recommendations of the WAI 8 claim (and the subsequent Harbour Action Plan) and has been a formative strategy in the design and development of management options for the Project.11
6.6 In addition to the above, Ms Wilson (as with other Mana Whenua submitters), recommends that a strategy is required for dealing with outstanding Te Tiriti o Waitangi /
11 I note that the outcomes from this strategy have informed the monitoring conditions proposed for the cultural effects monitoring of environmental outcomes. I refer to Conditions MW.6 – MW.10 as set out in the EIC (and rebuttal) of Ms Hopkins.
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 16
Treaty of Waitangi claims and other matters in respect of the foreshore (e.g. in respect of the more recent Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011). I acknowledge the importance of future Treaty settlement processes and processes in relation to customary rights, and I understand that the Project will not adversely affect those processes or the settlement of claims (albeit that it does involve the future vesting of land). I further understand that the Transport Agency intends to make a statement to Mana Whenua confirming that position. The future ownership of the land established by the proposed reclamation is a matter that will be dealt with through the reclamation vesting process conducted by Land Information New Zealand. That vesting process would generally commence after the reclamations are completed. As such, this is not a matter that can be addressed in the current RMA process concerning the resource
consents for the reclamation. However, I acknowledge it as a central one, having regard to the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi. On this basis, I consider the commitment that the Transport Agency intends to make to Mana Whenua is an important step towards fulfilling Iwi aspirations (albeit outside the current statutory process). I understand that these discussions about the process are already underway.
7. DREDGING
7.1 In my EIC I acknowledged the concerns expressed by a number of Mana Whenua in respect of the proposed dredging.
7.2 My role has been to ensure that the Mana Whenua Group (including the submitters who raised this concern) had the opportunity to discuss the dredging activity proposed. This opportunity was provided by a project hui on 2 May 2017 (where our coastal ecologist (Dr De Luca) and coastal process expert (Mr Priestley) attended). In particular, discussion focused on:
(a) The ecological impacts of dredging material being taken from the sub-tidal area of Mangere Inlet; and
(b) Concern regarding the disturbance of sediment during dredging operations.
7.3 We discussed the rational for the dredging location (being an area of Asian date mussel invasion, as discussed in the EIC of Dr De Luca) and discussed dredging methods, with concerns expressed regarding the construction flexibility and the impacts some examples of dredging have had on marine sediments (but also the success of other dredging operations, such as at Wynyard Quarter/Port of Auckland).
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 17
7.4 Ms Hopkins has proposed conditions to manage the effects of dredging (including the Coastal CEMP and specific dredging conditions). I note that the proposed conditions (presented in the EIC of Ms Hopkins) regarding water quality monitoring and sediment limits were already proposed to address potential suspended solid release during dredging works (D.2 to D.18).
7.5 Further, as a result of expert evidence, a number of amendments are proposed to these conditions (as identified in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Hopkins). These amendments provide for specific ecological and sediment contaminant surveys to better understand the extent of Asian date mussels, and the contaminant profile of the sediments in the Mangere Inlet area proposed for dredging (Condition D.1A).
7.6 In my opinion, the engagement requirements of the Mana Whenua Group (specifically I refer here to Conditions MW.1 and MW.2 of Ms Hopkins EIC) and the cultural monitoring conditions (particularly MW.5), will provide Mana Whenua with the opportunity to provide ongoing input and comment on the limits set in the Construction Environmental Management Plan.12 As such, I am satisfied that there is a process whereby the cultural effects of this activity can be appropriately managed over construction.
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 The Project is a significant infrastructure project, representing a major potential change to the environment. The scale and importance of this has been understood by the Transport Agency (and earlier, its delivery partner Auckland Transport) from the outset. With this in mind, Mana Whenua engagement has been proactive and collaborative, with input in the identification and evaluation of corridors; in identification, design and assessment of alignment options and in the development of Project design and management methods.
8.2 Key to this engagement has been an understanding (with guidance from Mana Whenua themselves) on the significance of the Manukau Harbour, the context of outstanding claims (including WAI 8) and other matters pertaining to the foreshore and the need to respond to cultural effects, both in the avoidance, remediation and mitigation of adverse effects identified but also the exploration of opportunities identified to deliver positive cultural effects through the Project.
8.3 I conclude that cultural input from Mana Whenua has influenced the design and development of the Project to date. Further, I consider that the conditions for ongoing
12 I note that I support the minor amendment presented in the rebuttal evidence of Ms Hopkins to Condition MW.2(e) to recognise this includes coastal construction management as well as the Construction Environmental Management Plan.
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 18
engagement, input in design processes and monitoring respond to the cultural issues and matters raised during engagement with Mana Whenua.
Amelia Linzey
20 June 2017
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 19
ATTACHMENT A: SUMMARY OF MANA WHENUA ENGAGEMENT 2015-2017
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 20 Kaitiaki / Mana Whenua representatives present at Hui 2015 – 2017 (n.b. does not include governance representation at governance hui)
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua: Tame Te Rangi Ngāti Te Ata: Karl Flavell, Berenize Peita, Josy Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei: Eruera Wilton, Mei Hill (Urban design/ landscape input), Moana Waa Peita East West Link – Mana Whenua Engagement Summary 2015 - 2017 Te Kawerau a Maki: Scott Lomas Te Akitai Waiohua: Leaha Clark, Kathleen Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki: Jeff Lee, Zaelene Maxwell-Butler Wilson Ngāti Tamaoho: Hero Potini, Lucie Rutherfurd Te Ahiwaru: Kowhai Olsen Ngāti Paoa: Lucy Tukua, Dean Ogilvie Ngāti Maru: Geoff Cook
2015
Date Mana whenua EWL Alliance / others Purpose Outcomes 4 May Representatives from: Amelia Linzey Review of option plans Discussion of multiple sites along alignment, noted feedback on these sites. Notes prepared in a discussion focussing on specific areas along Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Andrea Rickard and review section by the route, and after a partial site visit along the route. Sites discussed: Ann’s Creek, Otahuhu Portage, Mutukaroa/Sylvia Park Road, Great South Whātua Murray Wallis section. Site visit to Road, Neilson Street/Captain Springs Road, Hopua Tuff Ring. Key outcomes: Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara Scott Wickman Anns Creek. Seek Anns Creek – concerns for water courses, culverting, reserves in the area. Issues of aesthetics in area. Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Joe Schady principles or outcomes Southdown: Remediation of area important Te Kawerau a Maki Emma Monk from Mana Whenua, Manage leachate in Harbour (specific to Mangere Inlet) to lift the Mauri of the Manukau as a whole. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Sarah MacCormick what information is Explore expanding bund across Port to Anns Creek but preference to avoid reclamation of the natural coastline. Ngāti Tamaoho Noel Nancekivell needed and key steps Opportunities for stormwater management Ngāti Te Ata Eynon Delamare for production of CIA Ecological values at lava flows noted Te Akitai Waiohua Stephanie Otahuhu portage / creek: enhance area recognise portage, consider opening culvert and giving clearance at bridge for waka Te Ahiwaru Spedding Mutukaroa – access and connectivity enhanced. No land to be taken
Ngāti Paoa Concerns over previous TR Group land filling application Ngāti Whanaunga Eco sourcing planting for biodiversity Ngāti Maru Potential for cultural remains along whole route Ngāti Tamaterā Mana Whenua involved closely with stormwater Patukirikiri Waikaraka heritage Waikato-Tainui Green stream – clean up opportunities Structures preferred for Neilson Street over reclamation and cutting into feature Panama Road cultural sites Tip top corner high likelihood of finding cultural remains Comfort with Board letter Request assistance for mana whenua to prepare / populate documents and collate feedback 15 July Lucie Rutherfurd Ben Frost Focus on Gloucester Feedback on Gloucester Park Interchange (see A3 Summary notes attached) Eruera Wilton Scott Wickman Park, feedback from the Leaha Clark Noel Nancekivell community Kowhai Olsen Amelia Linzey Jeff Lee Sarah MacCormick
Geoff Cook Lucy Tukua Hero Potini
12 August Karl Flavell Noel Nancekivell Workshop: Site visit – Otahuhu Creek Waikaraka Walkway, Mangere Inlet foreshore Leaha Clark Murray Wallis Mangere Inlet health, See photos from Jeff Lee and Sarah MacCormick Eruera Wilton Scott Wickman Otahuhu Creek, Panama Eynon Delamere Amelia Linzey Rd, Sylvia Park 2nd half: Feedback on sites following site visit. Key outcomes: Kowhai Olsen Hero Potini Road/Great South Monitoring of Mangere Inlet needed – reason for bund Scott Lomas Lucie Rutherfurd Road/Anns Creek, green Steering group to be set up
Jeff Lee stream. Get issues and Explore opportunity to replace culverts at Otahuhu Creek with bridges Geoff Cook opportunities Explore opportunity for daylighting stream at Sylvia Park Road
Gloucester park cultural importance and need to avoid impacts on this
2016
Date Mana whenua EWL Alliance / others Purpose Outcomes (and link to more information) 9 February Lucie Rutherford Andrea Rickard Mana Whenua feedback map Issues around reclamation: habitat loss, stormwater treatment Hero Potini Sarah MacCormick presented, MCA process to discuss, ULDF feedback: cultural values – bind all iwi: Manukau food bowl, key waka transportation routes, planting Geoff Cook Scott Wickman Discuss containment bund. Overall Key outcomes: Jeff Lee David Grieg principles and approaches for ULDF Mana whenua opposition to Tip Top corner construction due to concerns of potential koiwi being found Kowhai Olsen Stephen Priestley (cultural values and core principles) – Containment bund discussed. Issue of removal of life in area dredged and loss of habitat in fill areas Kathleen Wilson Lynne Hancock following review of MVAs Issue of where fill will come from i.e. elsewhere Karl Flavell Noel Nancekivell Issue of treatment of stormwater, groundwater and leachate in same embayment Moana Waa CIAs to be produced and further workshops on ULDF with Lynne Dean Ogilvie 17 March Tame Te Rangi Noel Nancekivell Early works update, geotechnical Blessing for geotechnical testing Lucie Rutherfurd Lynne Hancock testing update, ULDF, Neilson Street Potential for ULDF vision to have a Te Reo translation Hero Potini Lesley Hopkins Interchange Options Presented 3 options for Neilson Street Interchange, key outcomes: Geoff Cook Scott Wickman o Concerns over impact on Tuff Ring for all options Jeff Lee Sarah MacCormick o Discussion on MCA process – talk to replicating AWHC process Kowhai Olsen Kathleen Wilson Karl Flavell Moana Waa Dean Ogilvie Scott Lomas 7 April Kathleen Wilson Noel Nancekivell Representatives who attended MCA Mana Whenua representatives to attend MCA workshops if they can. Then there will be a Hui after each workshop Scott Lomas Lynne Hancock workshops to give overview, Neilson to go into detail about the options and seek feedback. Lucie Rutherfurd Amelia Linzey Street Options, Geotechnical Te Aranga principles / Mauri matrix Geoff Cook Scott Wickman investigations, SH20 Auxiliary lanes Neilson Street – effects on Hopua Tuff Ring. Look at options which use more of Galway Street. Jeff Lee Sarah MacCormick local works Hui was closed – recommendations: Dean Ogilvie Lucy Tukua 1. Cultural Heritage weighted against each MCA Category Berenize Peita Caitlin Borgfeldt 2. Cultural Heritage over-arching preamble – RMA s.6 – National Significance. Karl Flavell How: Kowhai Olsen a. Provide for appropriate MW input b. MW consideration as to engagement: specialist or otherwise – how? c. Timing: i. Clarity on future workshops Retrospective engagement before today Cultural monitoring for Geotech 15 April Geoff Cook Keelin Flynn Presentation at Southern ILG Hui Geotechnical testing and cultural induction for contractors Jeff Lee Sarah MacCormick Discussion on next hui and MCA – what will be covered Lucie Rutherfurd Kelli Sullivan More clarification on post-workshop weighting Kathleen Wilson Karl Burt What the process is going forward Berenize Peita Chandra Perara Council advice on Treaty Settlement – Harbour. John Hutton at AC. (9.30-10.30) Leone Hansen Kowhai Olsen Lucy Tukaua Dean Oglivie Rebekah Poukura Ward 29 April Kathleen Wilson Noel Nancekivell Present options for each area. Discussion on various options Scott Lomas Amelia Linzey Presentations by Tony Cain Presentation of new options – Neilson Street and Anns Creek (that were not circulated previously). Lucie Rutherfurd Scott Wickman (Stormwater), Ann Williams Comments on various technical specialists Geoff Cook Sarah MacCormick (groundwater/ecology) and George Key outcomes Neilson Street: Jeff Lee Tony Cain Woolford (Landscape). o Option 3B reduces impact on Tuff Ring – more positive but no avoidance of impacts Dean Ogilvie Ann Williams o Open 2 not preferred. Extra investigation of 3B as additional option ‘Option 4’ Berenize Peita George Woolford Key outcomes Embankment: Moana Waa o Confirmation of strong desire for containment from reclamation and also stormwater treatment Kowhai Olsen o Query amount of reclamation justified o Support for reclamation conditional on treatment of stormwater and leachate (Lucie showed photo of a stormwater outfall from Mangere Inlet). o Discussion on leachate tradewaste to wastewater treatment plant 6 May Blaine Hoete Amelia Linzey All options run through and then Mana Whenua preference on different options recorded: Tame Te Rangi Sarah MacCormick discussion generally and then o Neilson Street: Option 4 preferred. Issue of pedestrian connection to Onehunga and structures at Jeff Lee Noel Nancekivell specifically each option by Mana Galway Street Berenize Peita Scott Wickman Whenua. For input into the MCA o Embankment: Option 10 preferred. Noted to minimise reclamation footprint Lucie Rutherfurd Eynon Delamere decision. o Anns Creek: Option 4 preferred. Opportunity noted for land remediation and stormwater treatment Geoff Cook outcomes. Discharge coming from Port area to be investigated and managed. Moana Waa o Princes St Interchange: Option 2 preferred due to less residential property impact. Dean Ogilvie o Ōtāhuhu Creek: Option 4 preferred. Strong preference for bridge option, waka access and removal of Kathleen Wilson siltation o Kowhai Olsen Captain Springs Road: Option 2 preferred for pedestrians / cyclists to use Alfred Street Scott Lomas General comments on Sylvia Park and SH1 ramps – avoid urupā, stormwater treatment and information requested. 20 May Geoff Cook Amelia Linzey Hand out decision on options going Next Hui dates Jeff Lee Karl Burt forward and notes from last Hui. An executive summary of the draft commentary is to be provided by Tame / Berenize which will be included in the Lucie Rutherfurd Chandra Perera input/feedback document Hero Potini Leone Hansen Maori place names to be added to the map being circulated to the public. Kathleen Wilson Lucy Tukua Berenize Peita Rebekah C Poukura- Ward Kowhai Olsen Dean Ogilvie 17 June Geoff Cook Scott Wickman Hand out of the evaluation report – Mana Whenua would like more information about how engagement with Auckland Council as a whole works. Jeff Lee Sarah MacCormick mana whenua record from last hui Want contaminated land presentation Lucie Rutherfurd Ann Williams Sensitivity testing summary for Target UDLF discussion at next hui or the one after that if possible. Kathleen Wilson George Woolford comment / review. Update of Panui draft for Mana Whenua review Berenize Peita Noel Nancekivell engagement programme. Draft UDLF. Kowhai Olsen Gavin Lister Stormwater investigations. Dean Ogilvie Eynon Delamere Groundwater investigation. Governance discussion 5 July Jeff Lee Amelia Linzey To discuss consent conditions, seek Faecal Coliforms and e-coli found in the stormwater. These have been passed along to Watercare and Stormwater Berenize Peita Sarah MacCormick resolution of some of the more recent More information on archaeological findings for tip top corner Lucie Rutherfurd Noel Nancekivell design approaches and hear an update Conditions / AEE discussion – iwi involved in the avoid/remedy/mitigate discussion Hero Potini Scott Wickman on contaminated land testing Issue of resource consents held by others (i.e. not NZTA) Geoff Cook Murray Wallis Panuku engagement – make specific Onehunga agenda Moana Waa Kathleen Wilson Kowhai Olsen Scott Lomas Tame Te Rangi Blaine Hoete Dean Ogilvie 15 July Kowhai Olsen Scott Wickman Get comment on Panui draft, Discussion mainly on Panui draft. Comments recorded. Geoff Cook Amelia Linzey distribute hard copies of Governance hui – decision to have morning for governance and kaitiaki discussion in the afternoon Dean Ogilvie Sarah MacCormick Archaeological records also getting Get Matt F to speak at an upcoming hui Kathleen Wilson Eynon Delamere CVA or similar in AEE AEE inputs – how this will happen. Te Akitai and Ngati Tamaoho – supportive in principle for this process Moana Waa (notwithstanding the person who is doing it has not be confirmed). Jeff Cook Lucie Rutherfurd 26 July Josie Peita Amelia Linzey ULDF - To Discuss and agree upon Established what a ULDF is/is not Geoff Cook Scott Wickman ideas that would support the Idea for EWL ULDF Jeff Lee Noel Nancekivell implementation of an effective Urban Kathleen Wilson Sarah Johnson Landscape Design Framework for East Kowhai Olsen Eynon Delamere West Link Dean Ogilvie Vickie Moses Scott Lomas (facilitator) Tame Te Rangi Blaine Hoete Mei Hill 2 August Josie Peita Amelia Linzey To provide an update on Generally supported that Independent Authors write report, if MW able to review before it goes in Lucie Rutherfurd Sarah MacCormick archaeological findings and recent Make clear to governance that there is that consideration of a mana whenua representative on the Board of Inquiry Geoff Cook Scott Wickman design changes. Whether there would be proactive testing for archaeology, Matt F noted hard with a live motorway Moana Waa Mathew Felgate Important to make accidental discovery process clear and expectations for procurement Kathleen Wilson Noel Nancekivell See Matt F report before ‘published’ in AEE Scott Lomas Gavin Lister Opportunity for Council to come on board with more stormwater treatment for wider catchment in Mt Wellington Dean Ogilvie area Feedback from group: Project team have clearly considered mana whenua request to see shift of alignment to the south. Good to understand this for future discussions with governance. Miami stream and private land issue Opportunity for the Project to look at how salt water treatment can work Reduce headland size to reduce reclamation? Mana whenua expressed disappointment in Council’s track record of stormwater maintenance.
2 August Ngati Te Ata Scott Wickman Presentation to Ngati Te Ata governance an update on the EWL and what is to be covered on the 24 August representatives Amelia Linzey 4 August Email letter sent by Scott Wickman to all Mana Whenua governance to invite them to workshop on 24th August 24 August Part 1: Part 1: 2 Parts: Suggestion that mana whenua objectives for project be mentioned in ULDF Tame Te Rangi Lynne Hancock Need for long term benefits to be considered and accounted for Geoff Cook Sarah Johnson i. ULDF with kaitiaki/ operations Discussion of governance in terms of: MCA process, environmental investigations, BOI process, treaty claims, Blaine Hoete Amelia Linzey group in morning relationship agreements with NZTA, navigation of commercial interests Lucie Rutherfurd Scott Wickman ii. Governance in afternoon Eynon Delamere Part 2: Governance Part 2: Part 1: representatives Amelia Linzey The purpose of the hui was to present Scott Wickman the key themes and relevant sections Brett Gliddon of the Draft ULDF with mana whenua Ernst Zollner for their input. Eynon Delamere Amos Kamo Part 2: Discuss EWL with Mana whenua governance 6 Lucie Rutherfurd Amelia Linzey Discuss potential approach to Draft mitigation presented. Importance of good monitoring framework, critical to mitigation of effects noted. September Hero Potini Scott Wickman mitigation and conditions and to Draft ULDF objectives presented. Changes proposed. Geoff Cook Sarah MacCormick receive comment on draft ULDF MW there agreed that NZPI paper a good idea – to profile the positive aspects of this Project and what consultation Kathleen Wilson Eynon Delamere objectives. Also feedback on NZPI with mana whenua can be and positives to that. Dean Ogilvie paper on Mangere Inlet Next hui to discuss full draft ULDF and Vision document to ‘finalise’ – 21st? Tame Te Rangi Vision/Steering group. Berenize Peita Blaine Hoete (arrived 12.30pm) 21 James Brown Amelia Linzey Present the Project description and Project description September Berenize Peita Sarah MacCormick groundwater/contaminated land o As part of the AEE Lucie Rutherfurd Scott Wickman assessment conclusions that have o Version going back to AC and EPA for the completeness check Geoff Cook Sarah Johnson been submitted to the EPA. Also Groundwater assessment – hand-out and discuss conclusions/recommendations Moana Waa Eynon Delamere present the current ULDF draft. Contaminated land assessment – hand-out and discuss conclusions/recommendations Kathleen Wilson Draft ULDF report Scott Lomas Blaine Hoete Dean Oglivie Tame Te Rangi Kowhai Olsen 4 October Invited: Scott Wickman Independent authors will facilitate the Mangere Inlet vision Laurie Beamish Eynon Delamere discussion on how to approach the Great South Road – for discussion Berenize Peita Independent CVR preparation of the Cultural Values CVR Lucie Rutherfurd authors Report (CVR) for EWL there will also o The approach to matters such as document structure and style Hero Potini be a discussion on the Māngere Inlet o What information is to be contained in the CVA and to what level of detail Geoff Cook Vision and The Onehunga o How best to source information from Mana Whenua (such as through MVAs) Moana Waa Enhancement Society / Onehunga TOES/OBA option – presentation of their option for Neilson St Interchange Kathleen Wilson Business Association option. Scott Lomas Blaine Hoete n.b. formal minutes not available but agenda attached Dean Ogilvie Tame Te Rangi Kowhai Olsen Jim Jackson 18 October Zaelene Maxwell- Scott Wickman Independent authors will facilitate a Butler Amelia Linzey discussion on the CVA for EWL. There Cultural values report draft Berenize Peita Sarah MacCormick will be a chance to discuss Great South o Opportunity bund creates – social effects positive, importance of area economically Lucie Rutherfurd Eynon Delamere Road and ask questions about the o Cultural landscape – clarification on wording Hero Potini Independent CVR EWL technical reports that have been o Treaty settlement –harbour settlement Geoff Cook authors distributed. Great South Rd Moana Waa o Consultation with stakeholders Kathleen Wilson o Possibility of grade separation – addendum Scott Lomas Community workshop Blaine Hoete o Independent review of engagement nd Dean Ogilvie o What to expect – 2 Nov Kowhai Olsen EWL technical reports o Contaminated land – acknowledge wider contamination, areas that need extra attention o Effect on people during construction – asbestos o Reviewed resource consents o Embankment stromwater treatment and climate change (Dale Paice response) 1 Zaelene Maxwell- Scott Wickman Independent authors will facilitate a Amelia present technical reports (SIA and EA) November Butler Amelia Linzey further discussion on the draft CVA for OBA Option (Scott/Amelia) Berenize Peita Sarah MacCormick EWL. o Neilson St Interchange, OBA and TOES option nd Lucie Rutherfurd Eynon Delamere o What to expect from community discussion evening (2 Nov) Hero Potini Independent CVR Cultural Values Assessment, Independent authors run through draft Geoff Cook authors Moana Waa Kathleen Wilson Scott Lomas Blaine Hoete Dean Ogilvie Kowhai Olsen Tame Te Rangi 23 Zaelene Maxwell- Scott Wickman Further discussion on the draft CVA Changes to CVA noted November Butler Amelia Linzey for EWL and Great South Road. Issue with OBA option, impact on Mangere Bridge area Josy Peita Sarah MacCormick Lucie Rutherfurd Eynon Delamere Geoff Cook Kylie Tawha 15 Eynon Delamere Scott Wickman Further discussion on the draft CVA Mana Whenua opposed to Jim Jackson attending Council meetings – member of public getting rights they don’t get December Zaelene Maxwell- Amelia Linzey for EWL, Great South Road, OBA Changes to conditions noted Butler Sarah MacCormick Option and Conditions. Josy Peita Lesley Hopkins Lucie Rutherfurd Noel Nancekivell Geoff Cook Kathleen Wilson Scott Lomas Kowhai Olsen Tame Te Rangi
2017
Date Mana whenua EWL Alliance / others Purpose Outcomes (and link to more information) 25 Zaelene Maxwell- Scott Wickman Monitoring conditions and Mana whenua feedback on monitoring conditions January Butler Amelia Linzey update on the Project Josy Peita Sarah MacCormick Lucie Rutherfurd Lesley Hopkins Geoff Cook Eynon Delamere Kathleen Wilson Scott Lomas Kowhai Olsen Dean Ogilvie 14 Josy Peita Scott Wickman (From Stormwater update, and Mana whenua reiterated the importance of harbour health being improved, and use of innovative solutions February Hero Potini 1.30pm) conditions changes Changes to conditions noted Geoff Cook Amelia Linzey Kathleen Wilson Dale Paice Kowhai Olsen Noel Nancekivell Kylie Tawha Brittany Goodwin Dean Ogilvie Tame Te Rangi 7 march Josy Peita Scott Wickman Presentation on Karetu Path, Mana whenua feedback on Karetu path, and conditions Lucie Rutherfurd Amelia Linzey conditions update, and feedback Geoff Cook Sarah MacCormick on stormwater design issues Kathleen Wilson Lesley Hopkins discussed on Feb 14th Scott Lomas Noel Nancekivell Dean Ogilvie Gavin Lister Tame Te Rangi Eynon Delamere
2 May Zaelene Maxwell- Scott Wickman Ecological update, dredging Discussion of ecological effects of dredging, how this will be mitigated Butler Amelia Linzey presentation Josy Peita Sarah MacCormick Lucie Rutherfurd Eynon Delamere Geoff Cook Stephen Priestley Kathleen Wilson Sharon De Luca Scott Lomas George Woolford Dean Ogilvie Andrew Scott
6 June Zaelene Maxwell- Scott Wickman EPA update and hearings Waka narrative for Princes Street Interchange Butler Sarah MacCormick processes, next phase of Mana Whenua involvement in tender documents Josy Peita Eynon Delamere engagement and Princes Street Lucie Rutherfurd Robert Strong Interchange narrative workshop Kathleen Wilson Scott Cairney Dean Ogilvie Kowhai Olsen
ATTACHMENT B: HUI MINUTES 2015-2017
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 28
Meeting Notes By: Sarah MacCormick / Amelia Linzey / Andrea Date: 4th May 2015 Rickard Subject: East West Connections Hui – 4th May Our Ref: 3818683
These notes were prepared in a discussion focussing on specific areas along the route, and after a partial site visit along the route. It was noted that an additional site visit would be needed at a later date to those parts of the route that were not visited.
1 Ann’s Creek Strong interest in contaminant sources to Māngere inlet and how best managed. For example, leachate material from filling near Ann’s Creek and on land at Hugo Johnston Drive Key outcome = to manage leachate in that part of the Harbour and to lift the mauri of the Manukau as a whole. Idea of extending bund across Port and to Ann’s Creek. However, preference is to avoid reclamation of the natural coastline. Stormwater management opportunities noted Ecological values at lava flows – these are shown on planning documents Concerns: – water courses in area – culverting – use of reserve areas – state of Creek area Southdown reserve – Remediation of this area important. How will mauri of area be improved if the reserve area is handed over to NZTA – open space, values of the environment – Creek in Southdown reserve – has value – Extent of asbestos in reserve area – opportunity General discussion about different leachate properties and stormwater – this area is more likely to be general fill than municipal waste. Concern about the aesthetics and current state of Anns Creek area opportunity to address.
2 Ōtāhuhu Portage Information required to assist understanding – Currently a culvert (under SH1) – how is this performing/working – Increased impervious surface areas for whole route – knowledge of extra area and treatment. – Site visit would assist understanding – stormwater, ecological values, area of road draining to the area Finding cultural remains is possible during construction – noted Issue – site of significance and cultural disconnection opportunity to address this.
Beca // 13 May 2015 // Page 1 3818683 // NZ1-10670572-4 0.4
File Note
– Looking for outcome of enhancing the portage function – replace culvert with bridge, potential for waka passage. Concerns – siltation, restrictions on flow through Creek – Would opening of culvert result in short-term impacts (likely) but long term benefits Clearance at bridge – ‘waka clearance’ opportunity improve ‘uniqueness’ of Auckland – 2.5-3.0m clearance required at high tide – Bridging will allow reconnection to the area
3 Mutukaroa / Sylvia Park Road Access and connectivity to maunga – enhancing this is supported More detail of works at Great South Road would assist understanding Importance of: – Rectifying the culvert at Great South Road noted – Beautification programme for the Maunga – Interest in walking and cycling extended across to link to Maunga. Retention of ownership of any remaining strips of land Request that no more land to be taken up towards Mutukaroa
4 Great South Road Culvert is of interest. Widening would be seen as part of Mutukaroa and the waka portage General interest in the TR Trucking application for land-filling (earthworks): – Mana whenua submitted and did not support this application. Concerns were largely not heard, noted that times have changed since then. Issues: Planting requirements, ‘black’ stormwater system – Question about whether the Agency and TR Trucking could work together? Potential to stop culverting occurring? Noted that they have a consent so can implement it. Agency can talk to them, but can’t do anything before getting Board sign off and the ability to acquire land. – Potential to remove or rectify culverts and other damaged areas.
5 General – alignment wide Riparian planting enhancement Eco sourcing for biodiversity – Mana Whenua want input to biodiversity especially plant choice. Mana Whenua involved in stormwater and expectation of stormwater treatment along whole route. Potential for cultural remains at cultural sites – whole route.
6 Neilson Street / Captain Springs Site visit yet to be undertaken – including at Pikes Point and “Green Stream” – Noted interest in heritage at Waikaraka (walls and cottage) – all “heritage” is still of interest to mana whenua
Beca // 13 May 2015 // Page 2 3818683 // NZ1-10670572-4 0.4
File Note
– Stormwater outlets along foreshore Coastal processes report requested Comments on “Green Stream” – copper legacy plume of ground water. What happens to clean this area up as part of the project? – Stormwater and Greenstream flows . Tidal control or not – would this work? . Stormwater treatment/ filtration . Wetland management. – Stream flow monitoring – sources, contaminants – keen to understand where contaminants are coming from.
7 Hopua tuff ring Site visit yet to be undertaken. Questions raised: – Future rail provision? – Access to the new foreshore development? Comments: – Structure is preferred to reclamation – Building over is preferred to cutting into (the remnant volcanic cone)
8 Other / General At Panama Road – Upgrade stormwater treatment – Recognition of cultural sites at Panama Bridge and opportunity to address this – Potential for cultural remains at this area – Basalt lava flow in the area too and groundwater (spring park and water) – Geotechnical issues. At Tip Top corner (and surrounds) – High potential for cultural remains in the area (noted historic finds) – Impact on stream through Sylvia Park area (concreted watercourse already) – includes Clemow Drive, channel at Bowden Road, and railway. – Information requested: . Historical site (Koiwi) reports . Stream impacts – watercourses at Sylvia Park and Southdown
9 Next steps NZ Transport Agency board meeting, AT board meeting follows Landowners – who are directly affected will be given information first. General public will follow with open days etc. Points to note for future hui: – Noted preference that the route be divided into sections – useful way to discuss issues.
Beca // 13 May 2015 // Page 3 3818683 // NZ1-10670572-4 0.4
File Note
– Reasonable level of comfort with letter to the Board – Request for a consultant to be engaged to assist mana whenua to prepare / populate documents and collect and collate general feedback going forward. – Lock in timing (early) for continued engagement and regular meetings.
Notes prepared by: Sarah MacCormick
Beca // 13 May 2015 // Page 4 3818683 // NZ1-10670572-4 0.4
Drawing Plotted: 08 May 2015 6:42 a.m.
SUPPORTING REPORTS - ASSESSMENT N - HERITAGE - SOCIAL IMPACT - URBAN & LANDSCAPE / VISUAL - STORMWATER - CONTAMINATED LAND - GROUND WATER - COASTAL PROCESSES - ECOLOGICAL - AIR QUALITY - EROSION & SEDIMENT - NOISE - CONSENTABILITY - CONSTRUCTABILITY
- STRUCTURE ACCESS TO SH1 - TO AVOID / MANAGE IMPACT ON TRANSPOWER
LARGE VIADUCT ON / OFF RAMPS ~ 1 KM TO SH1 - SH20 WIDENING - ONE LANE EACH WAY - WITHIN DESIGNATION ? DESIGN DETAIL - STORMWATER TREATMENT ? USE OF RESERVE
- POSSIBLE ON - OFF ACCESS TO HUGO - WIDEN NIELSON / CAPT. SPRING INTERSECTION JOHNSTON DRIVE - RELOCATE STONE WALLS AND COTTAGE - SOUTH DOWN RESERVE CONTAMINATION - MIGHTY RIVER POWER PLANT CLOSING ? TREE
? IMPROVE ACCESS TO MUTUKAROA BRIDGE OVER SH20
LENGTHEN PANAMA RD BRIDGE BRIDGE OVER ~ 700m
- INTERCHANGE - ALL DIR - ACCESS TO ORPHEUS DR. - STRUCTURE OVER ANNS CREEK - RELOCATE SCOUT HALL - PIER LOCATION FLEXIBLE - OVER SH20 - 4-5 LANES - STRUCTURE IN CMA ? AREAS OF SENSITIVITY - PORT ACCESS ? INLAND V. INLET (POAL CORNER)
? STRUCTURAL V. RECLAMATION ? OVER HOPUA V. CUTTING IN BRIDGE OR CULVERT ? PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY - CONTAMINATION CONTAINMENT BUND OVER OTAHUHU CREEK- ? FUTURE PORT ACTIVITY / USE (ENGINEERED DESIGN) 60m + wide PORTAGE - 4 X LANES - 2 EACH WAY - ARTERIAL ROAD (60km / h ? - TBA) - WIDEN BOTH SIDES SH1 - PEDESTRIAN & CYCLEWAY - "SCALLOPEDD" EDGE - "NATURALISED" ? BRIDGE V. CULVERT COASTLINE ? REFLECT PORTAGE
LEGEND
? POSSIBLE ISSUES BRIDGE
RESERVE
FOR DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY
Drawing Originator: Original Design Approved For Client: Project: Title: Discipline 3818683-SK_OVERALL.DWG Scale (A1) Construction* RECOMMENDED Drawn CIVIL Dsg Verifier Reduced OPTION Drawing No. Rev. + UNDER REVISION Scale (A3) Dwg Check Date + No. Revision By Chk Appd Date * Refer to Revision 1 for Original Signature ISSUES PLAN 3818683-SK_OVERALL Document No.
DO NOT SCALE IF IN DOUBT ASK. N POTENTIAL WETLAND FOR TREATMENT
POTENTIAL USE OF RESERVE FOR TREATMENT
CONSIDERING VISUAL IMPACT HERE & AMENITY OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE POTENTIAL WETLAND FOR TREATMENT CONSTRUCTION METHOD FOR ROAD IN TUFF CONSIDERING IMPACT ON SPRING AT SPRING STREET POSSIBLE BRIDGE FOR WETLAND
INFORMATION REQUIRED : IMPROVEMENT OF STORMWATER TREATMENT LEGIBILTY OF TUFF RING OUTCOMES (AMA)
OPPORTUNITY TO 'SOFTEN' COSTAL EDGE - NATURALISATION OF FORESHORE
AVOIDING TOWER DOES IT INCREASE IMPACT AT GLOUCESTER PARK
SALT WATER POTENTIAL STRUCTURE MONITORING IMPACTS OF CONCERN CULTURAL SIGNIFICANCE OF VOLCANIC HERITAGE
VEGETATION LOSS + MITIGATION
LEGEND: OPPORTUNITY TO OPPORTUNITIES ECOLOGICAL VALUE OF MARSH LOWER ROAD CONSIDERATIONS/ + OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE POTENTIAL ISSUES SALT WATER INFLOW QUESTIONS/ INFORMATION REQUIRED
PRELIMINARY DO NOT SCALE Drawn RB Designer RB Client Drafting Design Project Conditions of Use. Check Check This document may only be used by the Title project's client (and any other person Approved who the project team has agreed can (Project Director) use this document) for the purpose for Date which it was prepared and must not be This Drawing must not be Original Size Job Project used by any other person or for any Scale AS SHOWN used for Construction unless No Revision Note: * indicates signatures on original issue of drawing or last revision of drawing Drawn Manager Director Date other purpose. signed as Approved A1 3818683-C101_C110 A
Plot Date: 11 August 2015 - 3:32 p.m. Plotted by: Joseph dela Torre Cad File No: D:\EWLink\3818683-C101_C110.dwg
Draft Minutes of Meeting EWC Hui 12th August Minutes Held 12 August 2015 at 9am - 4pm at Fisher House Present: Karl Flavell Ngāti Te Ata Leaha Clark Te Akitai Eruera Wilton Ngāti Whātua o Orakei Eynon Delamere NZ Transport Agency Kowhai Olsen Te Ahiwaru Scott Lomas Te Kawerau a Maki Jeff Lee Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki Geoff Cook Ngāti Maru Noel Nancekivell Beca Murray Wallis GHD Scott Wickman NZ Transport Agency Amelia Linzey Beca Hero Potini Ngāti Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngāti Tamaoho Sarah MacCormick Beca Apologies: Tame TeRangi Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua Distribution: As above
Item Action 1 Karakia / Mihi
2 Site Visit / Health and Safety
3 Workshop – 1st half Monitoring of the Mangere Inlet – want this because it is the reason for the bund. More comprehensive state of the environment reporting of this area.
Scott: Steering group to be set up to look at health of the harbour. For East West need to be careful about monitoring as we want a bigger picture outcome for the Inlet
Knowing where contaminants are coming out will inform the design of the bund.
Amelia: Will show how the treatment on the land can be accommodated by Project.
Noel: Agreed, currently Stormwater currently not treated – significant area for opportunities on project
Would like to see objectives of all the Hui up to now – see this in writing.
4 Site Visit
Beca // 19 August 2015 // Page 1 3818683 // NZ1-11190243-2 0.2
Otahuhu creek Great South Road/Anns Creek Waikaraka Cemetery / Walkway “Green Stream”
5 Workshop 2nd half
Otahuhu Creek
Amelia: We want the key messages for next team on the next phase of the project – issues and opportunities going forward
Is the existing culvert being taken out? (SH1) Scott: Options being looked at – and therefore can recognise as a matter for future design work Council to be made away of Option to replace culvert with bridge system? Access to portage important. Stormwater Remove culvert and able to take waka down there. – Opportunity outlet on Luke Mitigation: Enhancement of the mauri around the catchment for mana Street Reserve whenua and social mitigation outcomes. Saw the poor state of that waterway full of rubbish. on site visit – so opportunities for restoration. Good to understand how various Council and Government agencies to work together collaboratively to achieve better outcomes.
Restoration of the area with plants sourced by mana whenua – improving capacity of mana whenua to start nurseries etc. School nearby to the Creek – EWC team to might be an opportunity to get them involved. find out more about who Stormwater outlet at the Luke Street reserve (playground) full of rubbish. Noted this should be passed along to Council. owns the ex- tannery site Stormwater treatment over-arching throughout the whole area – should be near Otahuhu noted on the map. Creek (n.b: this has been done Discussion around monitoring – opportunity to initiate monitoring in the area and added to Scott: Where steering group will come in – they will give direction on Mana Whenua monitoring of the Inlet Teamview site)
Panama Road / SH1
Proximity to cultural sites. Panama Road Bridge not pleasant to walk over. EWC add to From site visit could see extent of vegetation that would be required to take map – as a result of widening. stormwater treatment Opportunities: removal of pest species in the area i.e. Wattle (at Anns Creek). along whole Add eco-sourced vegetation – from midden sites (first priority), then next route. options are natives. Incorporate in the procurement process. (n.b: this has Scott/Eynon: We can try build this in. Government processes also have to be been done and up to scrutiny. added to the map for this hui) Bidders for next stage should be measured against cultural responsiveness. Scott: Can discuss at IIG – pulling together tender documents at the moment.
Bridges – potential amenity / visual impacts. Would be good to see a Scott to reference on the map of concerns to do with unearthing cultural remains discuss tender around Tip-Top area. Request for NZ Transport Agency to provide more process at IIG information on this – archaeological reports. Koiwi found in this area. Hui Amelia: Not publicly available but we can look into this. They may be held at Council.
Scott: During next round there will be report for detailed archaeological Note concerns assessments. around cultural remains in tip- Sylvia Park Road / Great South Road / Anns Creek top area Exploration of day lighting the stream along Sylvia Park Road – removing (n.b: this has culvert been done and
Beca // 19 August 2015 // Page 2 3818683 // NZ1-11190243-2 0.2
Opportunity to enhance stormwater treatment in this area. added to the map for this hui) Positive if this is a collaborative approach from AC – including stormwater team.
Concern over visual impacts of new structures.
Green Stream area What is the hydrology of the harbour and where contaminants are going?
Murray: we have done a coastal processes report. Mangere Inlet long residence time – over 20 days. Uncertainty around levels and locations of contaminants – importance of getting data to establish the existing situation.
Port access road: opportunities to mitigate stormwater run-off around there Views on opportunities for upgrading green stream – what can be done there?
Murray: If embankment structure has tidal control on it (flows at low tide) – can provide for additional treatment with wetlands to treat stormwater off the road. Embayment provide for the wetland treatment.
Murray: to green stream itself – issue: bridging across it – do you control the flow and treat it (run through wetlands), will change nature of the stream.
Would you want in tidal state (not much to do about water quality), or do you
control flow and alter the stream (becomes freshwater environment).
High level – looking for ecological and cultural enhancement in this area and looking for opportunities to improve this here. Potential to day-light stream here
Scott: Also looking at whether the new port road will be an extension of Angle
Street – and this will influence what you do with the Green Stream
Murray: Bund as opportunity to deal with accidental releases in the future – argument in favour of having tidal control.
Is the team working with AC Stormwater on this area and outfalls etc. What are the priorities they have to improve these? Scott: We are working with them and will continue to do so going through to the next phase. Opportunity through project to push the discussion along. We are next catching up with them next Friday.
Discussion on formation of working party.
Lava flows – need to understand impacts. Pikes Point – remnant lava flow – constraints of protecting this considered.
Would like to know other projects going on around the project area – and the potential opportunities here.
6 Other Identify areas of interest to Discussion on Onehunga Port Auckland Gloucester Park – reiterated cultural importance and need to avoid impacts Council and on this. opportunities for integration Noted that Auckland Council feedback has been received – identifying areas of work. of interest to them, and opportunities for work to be done.
7 Next steps Put together a memo for Amelia: Circulate these notes from today and previous hui. mana whenua Amelia: Opportunity to give feedback. This isn’t the last opportunity to give outlining the process and
Beca // 19 August 2015 // Page 3 3818683 // NZ1-11190243-2 0.2
that feedback, given to tenders for their consideration. Final feedback what is received by 28th August. required. Include other projects happening in the area.
Minuted by: Sarah MacCormick
Beca // 19 August 2015 // Page 4 3818683 // NZ1-11190243-2 0.2
East West Link Alliance Meeting Minutes
Mana Whenua Hui Thursday 7 April 9am-4pm The Landing, Onehunga
Attendees Noel Nancekivell EWL Alliance Lynne Hancock EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Scott Wickman EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick EWL Alliance Lucy Tukua Panuku Caitlin Borgfeldt Panuku T Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas Ngāti Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngāti Maru Geoff Cook Ngāi Tai Ki Tamaki Jeff Lee Ngāti Paoa Dean Ogilvie Ngāti Te Ata Berenize Peita Ngāti Te Ata Karl Flavell Te Ahi Waru Kowhai Olsen
Apologies Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua Tame Te Rangi Ngāti Whatua o Ōrakei Moana Waa Ngāti Tamaoho Hero Potini
Item
1. Mihi / Karakia
EWL Main Project
2. MCA Process . Workshop on Neilson Street MCA 6 April – Kowhai and Geoff attended . MCA Process – importance of assessing the project as a whole – with wider context/environmental considerations . Consideration of holistic thinking important from a mana whenua perspective . Weighting of criteria – will be undertaken by planning and legal teams. . Mana whenua attendance at MCA: • Project team have heard a lot of feedback already from Mana whenua. Process is that mana whenua representatives have the option to attend the MCA workshops, but there will be a hui after each workshop to go into detail about the options and seek feedback. . Kowhai observations on MCA workshop 6 April: Put her in a position to think about impacts on her people, individual specialists spoke specifically to their task. Mana Whenua values considered at the end. . AWHC Process – criteria separated into: moana, whenua, wairua . Project team flexible in approach we take. . Benefits to specialists meeting with mana whenua so that cultural considerations can be discussed (Dean) . Stormwater MCA Workshops – Lucie noted she would like as much notice as possible for these as she would like to attend.
20/08/2014/ /Page | 1
. Te Aranga Principles and Mauri Matrix to be distributed to Project team >>Hui was closed to EWL Alliance team members, whilst mana whenua discussed recommendations for process going forward <<< Recommendations 1. Cultural Heritage weighted against each MCA Category 2. Cultural Heritage over-arching preamble – RMA s.6 – National Significance. How: a. Provide for appropriate MW input b. MW consideration as to engagement: specialist or otherwise – how? c. Timing: i. Clarity on future workshops ii. Retrospective engagement pre-today
3. Options for Neilson Street Interchange . Effects on Gloucester Park need to be avoided . Consider option which has more use of Galway Street Actions 1. Send out Hui invites for rest of the year: Done
2. Te Aranga Principles and Mauri Matrix distributed to team
4. Geotechnical Investigations . Cultural significance of the area . Potential concerns around Testpits. Would like more information on existing ground conditions. . Queries around boreholes – and how the ground conditions are viewed – most likely in a lab. . Ngai Tai keen to monitor the area including Sylvia Park Road and to the east. Defer to other iwi for areas to the west. . Cultural induction for contractors . Noted that cultural monitoring for sites not requiring consent is not setting a precedent for other NZ Transport Agency projects, this done for alliance. . MW confirmed they would waive CIAs for geotechnical investigations if provision for cultural induction / monitoring put in place. . Noted that Jeff saw what could be shell on roadside berm on Waikaraka Park where we walked for the dawn blessing – would like Matt Felgate to take a look Actions 3. Send information on ground conditions relating to Testpits and the likely material that will be found there (e.g. landfill). 4. Send Matt Felgate report when finalised to MW 5. Let Matt F know about potential shell on Waikaraka so that he can have a look
EWL Early Works / Local Improvements
5. SH20 Auxiliary Lanes . Details of stormwater distributed for SH20 Auxiliary Lanes . Ngai Tai confirmed deferring monitoring for Neilson St to other iwi . Query about existing swale that is remaining and is this on grass or vegetation, whether there was any plan to plant. • We have had a response from the AMA on this: We have investigated the recommendation by iwi to plant the swale, using native species. If planted, the swale will compromise the conveyance capacity of the stormwater system to
below that of a 10 year storm, this is predominantly due to the low level of fall between the road, the swale and sea level. Therefore we are recommending the swale be retained with a grass covering to avoid potential flooding in storm events . Discussion on treatment of stormwater on Orpheus Drive – under AT. . Noted there will be an Erosion Sediment Control Plan (ESCP) submitted with the resource consent. Has not come through yet. . Noted that the AMA will provide comment on the consent and ESCP, monitoring will come from Auckland Council. Actions 6. Put lodgement date for SH20 Auxiliary Lanes 29th April. in minutes: Iwi would like to attend pre-start meeting.
.
Subject: Iwi Integration Group – hui notes
Date : 9.30am -5pm, Friday 15 April 2016
Venue: Waipuna Conference centre Highbrook
Attendees:
Ngati Maru Geoff Cook (GC) Ngai Tai Jeff Lee Ngati Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd
Te Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Ngati Te Ata Berenize Peita 9.30- 10.30 Makaurau Marae Kowhai Olsen Ngati Paoa Dean Ogilvie
Kelli Sullivan Rebekah C Poukura ward
Project teams: Karl Burt Chandra Perera Leone Hansen Lucy Tukua Rebekah C Poukura-ward Kelli Sullivan Keelin Flynn
Apologies:
Ngati Whatua Moana Waa Ngati Tamaoho Hero Potini Eynon Delamere
Minute Taker: Eynon Delamere
Welcome, Introductions & Project Discussion
Item Discussion Action 1.0 Karakia & Introductions
Karakia and Mihi Whakatau
1.1 General NZTA update
2.0 Old Mangare Bridge Update on Hearing. Six submitters, most wanted to change design so bridge could have an opening span to allow vessels. Granted consent, subject to conditions (provided in . hard copy to attendees). Conditions focused on korero with iwi and have incorporated as consent conditions where possible Cond.8 – have included invitation to manawhenua site blessing and cultural induction prior Cond. 9- Construction and Environment Management Plan conditions Cond. 10- Consent holder to engage with manawhenua to develop CEMP and cultural monitoring Cond. 13- working with manawhenua in urban design and landscape plans Jeff Lee- an NZ Transport Agency project day- how do we make these conditions happen? Cond. 34- heritage and archaeology Currently in the appeal period (closes end of April), no appeals in opposition yet.
2 Old bridge deteriorating so want to get going on this project. Tender out end of May. Looking to start construction in September, complete 2018. 3.1 East West connections Circulate maps geotech test pits Jeff Lee- requests cultural induction with contractors. Need to coordinate with interested iwi to arrange this soon. First test pits won’t start until permits gained and access to individual properties granted, (ones with HNZ authority likely to take longer due to consents process). Jeff seeks timeframes and locations so iwi can identify which areas require iwi monitoring (likely to be all HNZ ones). Everything has an archaeological interest needs to be referred to iwi for whether monitoring required and need to firm a date for cultural induction. Keelin- Cultural induction needs to be done prior to end of April due to programme. Iwi to go to contractors’ premises to have korero. KF- to set it up. Jeff- prefers early morning, tentatively next Thursday morning, subject to confirmation of iwi not here? Likely to be Hero from Ngati Tamaoho, Jeff Lee, 7.30am. Request Matt Holgate there to take archaeological matters. BECCA could look at the Southern Ngai Tai happy for Accidental Discovery Protocol, as corridor model for the AEE as long as contractors have had cultural induction. consent conditions Jeff Lee- requests a comms strategy re monitoring/induction so wider iwi groups are aware of what’s going on. Sarah- need further clarification on the location of some sites of cultural significance provided by iwi in CVA’s to Lynne Hancock (who is preparing UDLF). Lists of areas provided to relevant iwi present. Scott Lomas and Geoff Cook have elected to speak directly to Lynne regarding these, rather than tabling during hui. Kathleen requests a separate UDLF meeting with Lynne, rather than capturing inputs within broader East-West hui. Keelin to set up a separate hui with Lynne and Amelia to focus on UDLF only. East West hui dates are already booked in – one will become solely UDLF focused. Scott Wickman-discussion about MCA on 29 April and 6 May. Have supplied four MCA that have been done, still need to get the notes for those and two further packages- will be provided week prior to MCA. Two packages to be sent out: 1. Local roads- Neilson St, Captain Springs, Church St
3 2. Sylvia Park road to the ramps Jeff Lee- seeks clarity for after 6 May. Scott “MCA done without any weighting done, but have a firm idea by mid-May. Weighting after we’ve done assessments, including sensitivity testing. Developing the process for setting up the weighting is currently sitting with legal and planning teams.” Jeff Lee- Where does remedy, avoidance and mitigation come in? “Once we have preferred option selected and understanding of all impacts, we’re able to undertake technical assessment on static option, and then can develop mitigations” Panuku – Scott met with Mike Dreaver this week, re shared interests around Gloucester Park/Neilson St end. IIG group happy for this collaboration.
Check in with Amos around cultural design processes from other areas (eg Toia in Wellington). Preferred option likely to be mid-May and first draft of AEE is expected mid-July/early August. How best to use the project hui locked already in to ensure iwi input into AEE? This is where iwi can input recommendations for consideration as consent conditions. The first draft will be a skeleton (won’t include inputs from public consultation), based on what we know to date. Scott- to provide iwi with overview of BOI processes. Jeff Lee – Concerns around Treaty space, particular for harbour areas. John Hutton is the representative for NZ Transport and AT in this space. Would like to know how Treaty factors considered through BOI 4.0 Southern Corridor Lucy Tukua Hui Tue 2.30pm 19.04.16 to select Mark ? (PSI ?) names (Lucy T to organise) Henriatta Nicolas Andrea Dury (PSI ?) Helen Preston Jones Chandra Perera Cultural monitoring update – no issues Naming opoortunities – 3 months have been given to put forward names.
Artworks - Cultural Design overview • Lucy T thanked MW for input to cultural design review register
• Tuesday19th is cut-off for tohu to be included • Discussions around stencilling or embedding • Request that Henriata remain in overview role
4 when EOI issued for artworks production • IP with Sam Borne NZTA for wording
UDLMP • Signage needs synergy between NZTA and AT • Planting plan – important to have the right plants in the right places. Will MW have iput into this Chandra, Sam Borne
Lucy to discuss with tipa Compain
Chandra - Upon award of tender MW discuss planting plan with contractor 5.0 TFUG Notes done by Kristy
5
East West Link Alliance Meeting Minutes
Mana Whenua Hui Thursday 29 April, 2016 9am-4pm 203 Queen Street (EWL Project Office)
Attendees Noel Nancekivell EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Scott Wickman EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick EWL Alliance Tony Cain EWL Alliance Ann Williams EWL Alliance George Woolford EWL Alliance Te Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas Ngāti Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngāti Maru Geoff Cook Ngāi Tai Ki Tamaki Jeff Lee Ngāti Paoa Dean Ogilvie Ngāti Te Ata Berenize Peita Ngāti Whatua o Ōrakei Moana Waa Te Ahi Waru Kowhai Olsen Apologies Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua Tame Te Rangi Ngāti Tamaoho Hero Potini
Item
1. Mihi / Karakia
MCA Process
2. Overview . Run through of Princes Street Scoring, Draft table 3. Neilson Street Interchange . New options for Neilson Street outlined . 3B – reduces impact on the Tuff? And additional structure in the harbour to the south. More positive impact TONY – STORMWATER . If you increase capacity can you increase catchment you are treating? . Tony: Becomes trickier . Would new pond to the north provide additional treatment for the catchment? . Tony: would definitely provide treatment for the new road, would become challenging to treat the wider catchment in this area. Currently no treatment there, the stormwater goes into culverts and discharged near Orpheus Drive. . Area with no room for vegetated systems, challenges with gravity – can look to installing 360 devices, and whether there is other land being purchased – could have other wetlands ANN – GROUNDWATER / GEOLOGY . Where is the groundwater located? . Extent of sea water intrusion? . Ann: We would need to look at that, have currently been focused on options GEORGE – LANDSCAPE 20/08/2014/ /Page | 1
. Objectives for this area and Tuff Ring – Protection and Legibility. . Opportunity for landscape treatments
. Amelia went through the preliminary scorings for N.S.I Meeting closed to Project team members for Mana Whenua discussion FEEDBACK . All options have significant adverse effects . All options do not avoid damage to the Tuff Ring. . Option 2 not preferred . Extra investigation needed for Option 3b as an additional option Actions 1. Ann – investigate potential salt water intrusion in the area
2. Tony – what the quality of the existing stormwater pond is?
3. Noel to continue to investigation 3b as an additional option ‘Option 4’
4. Embankment . Maximum reclamation 120m (option 10) . Confirming again strong desire for containment from the reclamation and stormwater treatment. . Query amount of reclamation and whether justified . Query about process for reclamation and getting approval • Board of Inquiry Process. Minister for Conservation approval • Vesting of land with new reclamation (e.g. Onehunga Foreshore ownership of land still be sorted out). Causeway for SH16 – section of reclamation that will go to the Crown for transport purposes, section that will go to Marginal Strip – might be managed by DoC / Mana Whenua / Council or a mixture. • Outstanding Treaty Settlements for Manukau Harbour – Governance issue • Landownership runs in parallel and can continue once the project is finalised . 2 strong policy tests working with – Coastal Policy Statement. . What options would require the most reclamation? DALE - STORMWATER . Support for reclamation conditional on treatment of stormwater and leachate (Lucie showed photo of a stormwater outfall from Mangere Inlet). . What is the catchment area? . Dale: 550ha approximately connected to stormwater network and discharging into Inlet . What are climate change scenarios? . Amelia: We will be doing a challenge workshop on this. Challenge are we using worst case scenarios, if we are providing for resilience? At the moment we are designing to medium risk. . Dale: Starting point that we don’t worsen flooding for properties . How can you ensure that long term the wetland does not become a ‘cesspool’ . Dale: long term wetland will definitely be a priority . How supportive are Council stormwater and closed landfill? . Current leachate system? . Ann: Proportionately along the foreshore – roughly 1/3 (only one of the fill areas – is a managed, closed landfill). Leachate system is only part way down the fill, and collects shallow area, so not all water discharged is collected. Therefore embankment next to the fill is positive for leachate treatment.
. If reclamation went ahead would it eliminate tradewaste going to Watercare? . Amelia: Opportunity, but another discussion with Council. Doesn’t require it though. GEORGE – LANDSCAPE . 4 and 10 provide the landscape opportunities to move the coastline in and out – more naturalised. . Stormwater treatment – about 100,000m2 of treatable wetland (close to 2% for whole catchment) shown on concept . Boardwalks over features to avoid impacts on these, and pontoons Actions 4. Paul Beverley? To come and talk to MW about reclamation / redress etc?
5. Anns Creek TONY – STORMWATER . Discussion on existing treatment . Catchment wide treatment in this area? . Not particularly in this area as constrained in area . Southdown Reserve and asbestos issues – opportunity to cap this (from dumping site to the south) – Issue here is the stormwater . Bridges less impact on CMA FEEDBACK . What could be done to clean up the contamination in this area? Actions 5.
6. Anns Creek TONY – STORMWATER . Discussion on existing treatment . Catchment wide treatment in this area? . Not particularly in this area as constrained in area . Southdown Reserve and asbestos issues – opportunity to cap this (from dumping site to the south) – Issue here is the stormwater . Bridges less impact on CMA FEEDBACK
7. Princes Street . Property take impacts . Walking and cycling . Team looking at ‘skewing the bridge’ in order to align with Princes Street East 8. Otahuhu Creek . Discussion on existing reclamation . Big challenge – build with functioning motorway. . Option 4: Example of improving significant access way from east to west. Opportunity for cultural / social / environmental outcomes and possibly climate change resilience (looking into this more) – this should be really carefully measured. Importance to iwi to construct the bridge vs other options. . Council aspirations for portage cycling links etc . Noel Option 4: Huge cost implications
TONY – STORMWATER . Identified areas for additional stormwater treatment . Sand filter converted to stormfilter 9. Sylvia Park Road – SH1 . Discuss complexities of interchange – and where we are at the moment. . Tip top corner – small cut area there approximately 4m widest point – wedge. Will try minimise as much as possible. . Exposed basalt on the corner – could potentially be koiwi there – burial caves etc. . Need more information on where urupa is – possible it is crossing right through. . Can you avoid? And if no clear as to why the urupa can’t be avoided (other constraints) . Not considering going straight over to SH1 – was ruled out during last stage of the project. Were cultural sites around Panama Road area that could be equally as affected that were considered during last phase. . Not scoring this section but looking for feedback. . Noted Tony has not had a detailed look at the stormwater opportunities as the Project team have only just begun discussing these options. . Constraints Anns Creek avoidance, Hamlins Hill avoidance, not being able to go along Panama Road. . Possibly look at sub-options developed – potential stacking options Actions
6. Noel to come back with potential ‘sub-options’ for this area for MW to consider, with more commentary around the constraints of each etc.
10. Closing . Jeff – reaffirming the adverse effects this project . 18 May need to be clear on the options that are being consulted on (beginning June through to July)
Karakia
Mana Whenua Hui 6 May 2016
Attendees
All on Agenda, plus:
• Blaine Hoete • Tame Te Rangi
Main resolutions:
1. Still put overarching objectives – as discussed at last hui – sitting over the top 2. No scoring done 3. Outline preferred options and why (issues / opportunities – ones with least impact etc). 4. Tame and Berenize work paragraph overview 5. Send Mana Whenua the ‘pack’ sent to the Alliance PAB – feedback by Monday 16 May 5pm 6. Discussion on mana whenua rep on Alliance PAB – feedback to go back to the Agency. 7. Holistic view, challenge with 'western science' way of making decision. 8. Memo on design of SH1/Sylvia Park, including supporting assessments
Notes on Options:
Neilson Street General comments:
• No support for any permanent land modification of the Hopua Tuff Ring - Iwi preference is complete avoidance • All options will have adverse effects • Iwi preference is complete avoidance of the CMA
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 • Most impact on natural CMA at • Least preferred, impacts on Tuff ring • Impacts on Tuff Ring • Preferred option Orpheus Drive and CMA< with additional bridge • Issue of pedestrian connection to Onehunga along EWL under structures at intersection crossing impacting the marae. with Galway Link • Embankment General comments:
• Conditional support for reclamation along the foreshore contingent on any bund achieving the environmental outcomes of treatment, containment and detention of discharges going into the Inlet • Avoidance of the remnant lava flows along the coastline • Only option 10 reaches the level of leachate and stormwater treatment (100%) (noting that Option 4 may achieve this level with design). Mana whenua have significant concerns regarding the extent of reclamation in this option. Any opportunities to reduce reclamation extent, including ability to construct treatment bund on land in response to the investigation on leachate concentrations (rather than through reclamation) should be explored.
Option 1 Option 3 Option 4 Option Option 6 Option 8 Option 9 Option 10 • • Concern of piles drilling into • Concern of piles drilling • • • Concern of piles • • Preferred option but contamination with potential into contamination with drilling into need to minimise to infiltrate the aquifer potential to infiltrate the contamination with reclamation footprint aquifer potential to infiltrate (see earlier comment) the
Anns Creek General comments:
• Complete avoidance of impacts to SEAs and ONFs in the Anns Creek area
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 • Option 4 preferred with opportunity for land remediation (primarily at Southdown reserve) and stormwater treatment outcomes • Discharge coming from Port area investigated and managed
Princes Street Interchange General Comments:
• Less impact on residential properties, good stormwater treatment critical (opportunities for treatment/containment of run-off from outside the road)
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 • • Support due to less residential property • • impact
Otahuhu Creek General comments:
• Cultural significance of the Otahuhu Portage and opportunity to reinstate the mana of this place • Opportunity for waka use along Creek • Strong preference for bridge • No support for culverts • Environmental / ecological enhancement of the area • Opportunity for removal of (during construction) / reduction in silting (from bridge long-term)
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 • • • • Strong preference for bridge option (comments above) • High enough for waka to pass underneath • Remove siltation
Captain Springs Road General comments:
• Is there a better way to construct intersection without signals? - reduce 'stop/start' movement
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3
• • Preferred for pedestrians / cyclists to use Alfred Street •
Sylvia Park / SH1 Ramps General Comments:
• Complete avoidance of the urupa • Significant stormwater treatment as part of this • Memo - information on where the project team are with design of this area o Historical archaeological assessments of the area o Assessment from IBC/DBC phase
.
Subject: Iwi Integration Group – hui notes
Date : 9.30am -5pm, Friday 20 May 2016
Venue: Waipuna Conference centre Highbrook
Attendees:
Ngati Maru Geoff Cook (GC) Ngai Tai Jeff Lee Ngati Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Hero Potini (start)
Te Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Ngati Te Ata Berenize Peita Makaurau Marae Kowhai Olsen Ngati Paoa Dean Ogilvie
Project teams: Karl Burt Chandra Perera Leone Hansen Lucy Tukua Rebekah C Poukura-ward Amelia Linzey
Apologies:
Ngati Whatua Moana Waa Kowhai Olsen Eynon Delamere
Minute Taker: Eynon Delamere
Welcome, Introductions & Project Discussion
Item Discussion Action 1.0 Karakia & Introductions Hero Karakia and Mihi Whakatau
1.1 General NZTA update - First hui of Governance group will be Eynon happening in the ;last week of May kaupapa would be to see if this is a forum iwi want to continue and what kaupapa do they see as important or at a level for this roopu.
2.0 AMA Quick over view of recent crash into the bridge vs truck which shut the motorway down for 3 hours.
Handed out draft Invitation for quote document for iwi Iwi to feedback on draft doc in two to feed back – there are some key points that the AMA weeks. will oversee such as safety, workability.
But approval of the final design will sit at this table. There was a robust debate on the process for the art works especially around timing and what comes first. The key theme that came through was should we not develop he narrative prior to going out with the doc.
Iwi were keen to follow up supply of plants and Follow up with Chris at the next iig maintenance of Motorways central.
2 Iwi are keen to make sure appropriate Artists is selected for the appropriate areas need to lock down a process that has flexibility and deliver
Organise a couple of times for iwi and site visit AMA stormwater assets and others things of the network of interest such as hot spots for graffiti etc.…..
3 Southern Corridor Team arrived with apologies from Leighton’s team. NB Iwi want Leighton’s to be at the meeting to provide updates on the There seems to be a huge breakdown in communication project between the contractors and Iwi. Iwi monitors want to see a construction plan so they can plan the cultural monitoring. The hot spots have been map so a construction plan is needed so iwi can have the appropriate monitor there.
Try and coordinate a meeting with Iwi and contractors for Tuesday
On Tuesday 24 8am is the next tool box Nigel is attending but iwi whom want to attend are able to
Ngai Tai still defer to Akitai but want to be kept up-to- date : Naming- draft notes of the previous minutes were passed out names for the bridges and structures pathway were decided see attached document.
After Ngati Te Ata governance reviewed the names they Eynon to arrange Te Akitai and only have one concern that was Te Mara o Hine – Ngati Te Ata to meet regarding the Pescara Bridge – they would prefer Te Maro o Hinewai name of the one bridge and we or alternatively Kaiwhare. They believe that the Mara o adopt the names agreed to for the Hine is a miss print. rest.
Other iwi also supported Te Akitai names
Design – Iwi don’t support the current UDLMP as the last iteration they saw did not adequately encompass the designs included Henriats designs and whakaaro must be incorporated before it gets iwi sign off.
4.0 SH20A
3 Things coming up in the next month ED to arrange site visit • Northern trench - complete first 7 base slabs in the northern trench; install the first permanent props to the northern trench • Local Road Improvements – continue drainage and widening east to Mangere Presbyterian Church; service relocation and drainage west • Noise walls – complete S/B on-ramp • north and southbound widening continues • Westney/ Kirkbride/Jordan signals – work starts July • Stage #4 traffic switch – July or early August • Permanent props - all precast permanent props have been poured offsite and the northern props will be landed onto site from this week onwards. • Noise walls – 95% complete on the northbound on-ramp. Works have commenced on the southbound on-ramp with 20% of the noise wall posts installed to date. • Permanent props - all precast permanent props have been poured offsite and the northern props will be landed onto site from this week onwards. • Bulk excavation of the trench is progressing well with no signs or evidence of any cultural layers in the soil / peat profile. • Water quality monitoring during dewatering activities continues to produce outstanding results. In anticipation of greater volumes of peat stained water requiring disposal during winter, we are increasing (during May) our storage / treatment capacity on site to ensure certainty of compliant water quality at discharge. • Winter works have been approved for the full winter period in lieu of the standard month to month rolling approvals typical of most Auckland earthworks sites
Indicative Construction Programme • Complete traffic signals @ Westney/Kirkbride/Jordan – End 2016 • Close Montgomerie Road – End 2016 • Traffic stages four/five (traffic split – Kirkbride Bridge) – Early July / November 2016
4 • Complete Kirkbride Bridge – December 2016 • Traffic in the trench – June 2017 • Project completion – July 2017
We are due for a site visit and we will focus on stormwater and ecology there may be other things people want.
5.0 East West Connections Went through in detail the mana whenua response from Berenieze and Tame to come up the MCA process. In particular the paper that Tame wrote that would incorporate Mana Whenua in the with a paragraph for the doc by opening statement of the MCA. June 10
Mana whenua support the paper as being well written
Mana Whenua think it would be better to include a one paragraph statement that succulently outlines mana whenua responsibility to Ranginui and Papatuanuku and also links to the paper drafted by Tame.
Went through in detail the options for all Hononga and also highlighted options that were currently preferred by the project and align to most iwi whakaaro
Next meeting on June 2 is to : a) discuss the UDLF draft overview b) Ecology overview c) Engagement timeframes with land owners etc…..
Cancel June 16 Hui
Scott is coming from Hui with Panuku whom wish to be more involved especially around the end with the wharf.
East West would like to confirm 3 hours on the Southern IIG agenda to focus on Urban Design Leatchate and High construction design options
Karakia Whakamutunga Eynon
5 .
Subject: Iwi Integration Group – hui notes
Date : 9.30am -5pm, Friday 17 June 2016
Venue: Waipuna Conference centre Highbrook
Attendees:
Ngati Maru Geoff Cook (GC) Ngai Tai Jeff Lee Ngati Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd
Te Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Ngati Te Ata Berenize Peita Makaurau Marae Kowhai Olsen Ngati Paoa Dean Ogilvie
Project teams: Karl Burt Chandra Perera Leone Hansen Lucy Tukua Rebekah C Poukura-ward Amelia Linzey
Apologies:
Ngati Whatua Moana Waa Hero Potini
Minute Taker: Eynon Delamere
Welcome, Introductions & Project Discussion
Item Discussion Action 1.0 Karakia & Introductions Eynon Karakia and Mihi Whakatau
1.1 General NZTA update - Deferred as we had a general korero and then Eynon the Project team turned up
2.0 East West Link MCA Hand out of the Evaluation Report – Mana Whenua 1. Mana Whenua would like record in the tables and the hui notes more information about how Sensitivity testing summary for comment / review engagement with Auckland Council We will incorporate as a whole works. All other partners 2.1 Wider Engagement Update 2Target UDLF discussion at next Update of engagement programme and highlight of key hui or the one after that if possible. dates (letters to landowners to go out 20th and door Panui draft for Mana Whenua review knocking. Open Days and Open Evening sessions being held. Presentation to the Auckland Development Committee circulated Panuku progress and design integration. Governance workshop that Panuku having with Mana Whenua on 20th. 2.2 Urban Design and Landscape Update Draft UDLF material circulated. Landscape drawings for design ‘hold’ assessment 2.3 Stormwater (Noel)
2 Outcomes from investigations to date, Initiatives to reduce the extent of wetland (through combination of wetland and bio-filtration system). Iwi are supportive of proposals to limit reclamation – use of Green Stream as a wetland instead of further reclamation Leachate and Groundwater (Ann) Issues / outcomes from investigation to date Look into evaporation as treatment for landfill (See Woodford landfill) Look at other new tools for treating landfill leachate 2.4 Governance Current potential topics are: extent of reclamation and Amos will put a paper to the governance hui – the next one is about 2 months away. Thinking of doing a Panui update – those present confirmed they would like to review it
Iwi Management Plans The Project team have looked at the ones that are publicly available. Seeking confirmation on whether there are others that can be accessed.
Ngai Tai Ki Tāmaki confirmed there is one they are working on at the moment, but it won’t be finalised before the submission of the AEE. Whether other documents can be used such as the Auckland Plan / PAUP
3 Mangare Bridge Revision of concept design for the kaupapa went through presentation both artists but there wasn’t really one slide or picture that pulled the whole theme together,
Not much have changed from the last time they presented but there was some more detail on the Pou design and the thinking behind this.
Consenting there were There has been quite a lag in the development of this kaupapa and where we are today, also there are people around the tale that are new and have no background. No one wants to reinvent the wheel but it would be good to see if the same themes and concepts that were
3 agreed to by iwi are being carried through.
Given the short timeframes at the next hui Mangare bridge will look at having two hours to present and give an overview on the design of the bridge and an update on the appeals process. 4.0 SH 20A Looking forward for the next two months Karakia wanted by some iwi for new Northern trench - complete first 7 base slabs in the road opening project team supports northern trench; install the first permanent props to the this and we will look at the detail northern trench on the site visit
Local Road Improvements – continue drainage and widening east to Mangere Presbyterian Church; service relocation and drainage west Noise walls – complete S/B on-ramp SH20A - north and southbound widening continues Westney/ Kirkbride/Jordan signals – work starts July Stage #4 traffic switch – July Site visit locked and loaded for project day 10 – 12 this will be followed by Hockey site visit Environmental:
Bulk excavation of the trench is progressing well with no signs or evidence of any cultural layers in the soil / peat profile.
Water quality monitoring during dewatering activities continues to produce outstanding results. In anticipation of greater volumes of peat stained water requiring disposal during winter, we are increasing ( during May) our storage / treatment capacity on site to ensure certainty of compliant water quality at discharge.
Winter works have been approved for the full winter period in lieu of the standard month to month rolling approvals typical of most Auckland earthworks sites.
Project milestone • Complete traffic signals Westney/Kirkbride/Jordan – End 2016 • Close Montgomerie Road – End 2016 • Traffic stages four/five (traffic split – Kirkbride Bridge) – Early July / November 2016 • Complete Kirkbride Bridge – December 2016 • Traffic in the trench – June 2017
4 • Project completion – July 2017
5.0 Southern Corridor
Chandra outlined new process for Monitoring and there has been some frustrations on both sides. There will be a three month construction plan developed and then the project team will meet with Nigel to look at where and when monitoring is required.
UDLF 100 percent – most iwi would have seen the final
UDLF 100 percent we don’t have time to run through the detail today but at the next hui we will get the design team to come and present to show how they have incorporated the design from Henriata in the 00 percent.
Henriata is looking at detail design for the bridge in conjunction with Warren and Mahnoy.
Karakia Whakamutunga Eynon
5 Minutes - Hui 5 July 2016 10am-3.30pm
Contaminated Land Testing Update • Combined leachate and stormwater treatment though combination of wetland and bio filtration design – Ammonia Cal Nitrogen (results in nitrification and de-nitrification) • Metals in the stormwater? In wetland – constructed with soil material – metals will be ‘stuck onto’ the soils (sorption) and will have limited mobility. From a maintenance point of view – designed for materials to be contained and then taken to landfills. Conditions: Clear on maintenance in wetlands. • When will plants be ‘saturated’ and not be able to ‘do their job’ – not relying on plants in the bio filtration to be taking majority of the plants – will occur in the entire wetland system. • Leachate over time: Overtime the leachate has been lost into the environment – there is connection with the deeper groundwater. Some of the contaminants have been lost. Leachate movement through stormwater pipes (preferential flow – historically?), higher ground (minor pathway) and deeper groundwater. Essentially things used to be worse. • When you dig into landfill – are you going to move all of the contaminants • Excavated material – • Funding for contaminated site – MfE. EWL will be a partner with Council. Council the applicant. • Faecal Coliforms and e-coli found in the stormwater. These have been passed along to Watercare and Stormwater Action: send this report around. And how we have advised Watercare / Council. • Gases in landfill – are they captured and re-used? These are diffused discharges into the air
Recent Design Updates 1. Mt Wellington Ramps • Land at TipTop corner – 3 – 4m off the corner there may be required. • Further down there may not be any landtake or 1-2m depending on the land. • Archaeological investigations – will follow up with Matt Felgate and findings from his report Panui – Tip top corner- amount of work, driving of design to date, sensitivity of the site and constraints. • Stormwater – still looking at options 2. Anns Creek • Pulling alignment down from kiwirail land • Previous option looked to avoid CMA and Anns Creek as much as possible • All land is designated for rail purposes. • Can you build over the rail and pile over it? Kiwirail have a designation. We can get approval for designation providing it doesn’t conflict with the railway purposes. Use of those raillines (from PoT with containers etc).
3. Foreshore • Action Report back original shoreline at Galway Street •
General • ADC Memo 6th July – doesn’t make clear the closed landfill issues. Confirmed we are talking to the closed landfill team.
Conditions / AEE • What standards for earthworks – TP10? – need to confirm with you wetland size with compliance over TP10 • How iwi involved in avoid/mitigate/remedy discussion • Purpose of AEE document the summary of consideration of effects / process. Doesn’t have to be quantified account of every effect unless that is how it supposed to be. Need guidance from MW on how they want this recorded. • Have received CVAs and MVAs in the past. This is what we are proposing to put in the AEE report. There can be other VA’s or CIAs to support thing (from individual iwi or collectively). • Lodgement in December. Need a draft in September • Resource consents held by others? Issue • Cultural effects section – written by EWL team and review by MW? Or other way round? • Tame: The overall project effects need to be taken into consideration. • Map of NoR – will have an outline in August. At the moment discussions with 147 landowners that there may be a requirement for their land. Panui • Draft panui next Tuesday • Comments by Friday @ the southern ILG hui – have we raised the right issues? • Mangere Inlet steering group? • Next Hui • Involvement of Panuku. MW hui with Panuku – best way forward is for them to host the hui and for EWL to attend • Or for EWL Hui to have dedicated Onehunga part of the agenda and make it clear and therefore Panuku can engage during that agenda item. • 26th July – UDLF 12pm – 6pm • Also want summary of what people said during public consultation
Action:
• All files on Teamview. • Re-send Teamview instructions 15th July 2016
Mana Whenua Hui (Southern ILG Hui – BNZ Highbrook)
• Kowhai, Geoff, Dean, Kathleen, Moana, Jeff, Lucie • SW, AL, SM, ED
Pānui
• Formal ‘memo’ attached to the Pānui from Amos – the purpose • List items of discussion at the hui • List mana whenua who opted into on first page (next to kaitiaki / operations group) (SEPARATE BOX). • How does it apply to wider network and the seabed… • Governance – treaty claim for Manukau Harbour, social / economic implications of the project. • Clear on what kaitiaki feedback from MCA process was – adverse effects = bullet under each of the numbers. ‘The key inputs we received from mana whenua in regards to this area has been:……..’ • Under 2: ‘waste/discharges from unmanaged fill areas and former industrial areas’ added in. ‘Miami Stream – 5th most contaminated site in NZ’. • There were workshops undertaken for the MCA process and mana whenua offered attendance at these. What MCA process was. Mana Whenua found a different way to feed into the process. Add box at the beginning (background to date) • Introductory letter: explain context of MCA process – still that process but it has been tweaked (MCA + sensitivity process). Things we want to present/talk to you on at the hui – summary has been highlighted in the Panui. • Aerial – more photos of the features. Could highlight on this map the landfill areas and extent of the contamination and the stormwater outfall locations. • Agenda for Governance - Board of Inquiry process – agenda. Add on kaitiaki as invitees. (we welcome attendance from both governance and kaitiaki/operations) • Kowhai: Previous governance hui – partnership model, commercial interests, liability, procurements, consistency of processes (such as MCA) throughout Projects. Wanted to know key issues rather than specific technical issues. • Box 4 – Waahi Tapu urupā site (Tip Top Corner) . • Extent of reclamation on the aerial
24th August - Governance Hui? Morning for Governance and then Kaitiaki in the afternoon.
Panui ready to go early next week as a draft. Then circulated at the end of the week
Archaeology Report • 2 sets of reports have been uploaded to Teamview that have been sourced from Matt Felgate. • Proposed to set aside time at early August hui for Matt to speak
AEE inputs • Send email to MW: Seek approval for course of action. Flexibility for who does it but there is a timeframe challenge. • Person will have access to minutes from hui / MCA notes and the MVA/CVAs that have been received. • Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki will be seeking governance direction. • Clear that this person will not be speaking on behalf of mana whenua. Will review documents, interview people and will present the information. • Te Akitai and Ngati Tamaoho – supportive in principle for this process (notwithstanding the person who is doing it has not be confirmed). • Te Akitai – include the MCA process / sensitivity.
Corporate Interaction E – [email protected] W – www.corporateinteraction.com.au
EAST WEST LINK
ULDF Hui
26th July 2016
Facilitated by:
Vickie Moses Corporate Interaction
Venue:
EWL Information Hub Level 10 Gloucester Park Road
© Corporate Interaction Page 1 of 5 Monday, 19 June 2017
Corporate Interaction E – [email protected] W – www.corporateinteraction.com.au
CONTENTS
1 Objectives ...... 3 2 What is a ULDF? ...... 3 3 What a ULDF is not ...... 3 4 Lessons Learnt...... 4 5 Ideas for East West Link ULDF ...... 4
© Corporate Interaction Page 2 of 5 Monday, 19 June 2017
Corporate Interaction E – [email protected] W – www.corporateinteraction.com.au
1 Objectives
The purpose of the session was o Discuss and agree upon ideas that would support the implementation of an effective Urban Landscape Design Framework for East West Link
2 What is a ULDF?
During the first discussion with the team the purpose of the ULDF document was discussed and the following points were raised: • It is the starting document • Feel good look • Should ‘tie into’ the natural forms • Provides a canvas for culture and heritage to be installed • Overarching document for the project that takes into account ecological and cultural landscapes • It is the framework of project • Aesthetic • Guidance for the design of the project • Social/people integration • Social, cultural and environmental aspirations and outcomes • Sets parameters • Being clear on what it doesn’t do – ‘what’s in, what’s out’ • Working with existing environment and associated human activities • Takes into account predictions for future growth • Site specific • Realistic and achievable • Masterplan for urban design • Integrated approach • Quality design / co-design / collaborative • Considers connectivity • Consistency of design / clarity • Community / business / MW well-being • All-encompassing across disciplines • Constraints of city – influence framework • Landscape = culture • Future proofing – setting direction • Communication tool
3 What a ULDF is not
The team also explored what the ULDF would not achieve and the following points were capaured: • A detailed and final design document • Not structural design • Not rules
© Corporate Interaction Page 3 of 5 Monday, 19 June 2017
Corporate Interaction E – [email protected] W – www.corporateinteraction.com.au
• Not universal • Not to be ‘done and shelved’ • Scope of work • Not a treaty / contract • Not fixed / static
4 Lessons Learnt
Team members were then asked to explore lessons which had been learnt as a result of previous experiences with a ULDF.
What worked What didn’t work • Removed persons who started and • Engaged too late – ULDF at 35% at first replaced with good folk who listened engagement • Mana Whenua artist involved • Poor communications • Know which contractors not to use • Made huge assumptions • Mana Whenua engagement from • Making ass out of you and me beginning • Bad implementation • No assumptions made • Too rushed • Strong Korero upfront and throughout • Wasn’t specific enough about areas of • Highlights potential to leverage other interest / importance (procurement) investments / projects • Linkage between ULDD and conditions • Consistent and transparent approach • Recognise / respond to procurement throughout development including model communication • Timing crucial and process so outcomes • Appointing Mana Whenua design can be influenced from the start specialists • When design complete before • Establish clear themes / narratives engagement starts (Mana Whenua workshops) • Rushing • Mana Whenua engaged at the very start • Didn’t want surprises at end (i.e. of the project Southern Corridor noise walls) – lost • Identify high-level opp’s at start opportunities • Flexibility in project corridor / ULDF • Determine degree of significance (national / regional / local)
5 Ideas for East West Link ULDF
Following the conversations around lessons learnt the team was asked to identify ideas that could be used as a part of the EWLink ULDF in order to help ensure it is effective.
Step 1 • Conduct a workshop for EWL MW on the draft ULDF, to be held as soon as possible with an independent facilitator. It was noted that prior to this workshop the participants would review ULDF and the area’s most critical to the Mana Whenua (i.e where their values have been incorporated) would be highlighted for the purpose of
© Corporate Interaction Page 4 of 5 Monday, 19 June 2017
Corporate Interaction E – [email protected] W – www.corporateinteraction.com.au
easy document review and more focused feedback on these areas. It was also noted that it would be important to compare during the workshop the objectives of NZTA with objectives of Mana Whenua.
Step 2 • Consider the formation of working group once the initial workshop on the draft ULDF has been undertaken to ensure feedback is progressed and incorporated into the document. If this working group is developed it would work closely with EWLink on a weekly basis and provide feedback into the fortnightly MW Hui.
Other ideas • Extraordinary art works, digital technology and matauranga • Medium – for document digital technology to include all Mana Whenua Korero and ideas. Video / audit / Te Reo Rangatira • Cultural induction at all stages of design and construction • Changing the perspective for the relationship between Mana Whenua / NZTA from project based to: o Cadetships o Employment opportunities o Looking for genuine collaboration o Project manager role o Management hui o Succession planning o Next step internship o Capacity building o Governance It was noted that these ideas are currently being explored at a higher level. • Undertake face-to-face meetings during the procurement phase. Contractors can then be briefed on important aspects for the Mana Whenua prior to the tender process and this can be incorporated into the tender process and tender document • Undertake regular conversations to discuss ‘how do we create the best of outcomes?’ Thinking big!!! • Identifying opportunities – building relative connectivity throughout ULDF • Iwi could develop the ULDF (e.g. Hokai Nuku)
© Corporate Interaction Page 5 of 5 Monday, 19 June 2017
MEETING MINUTES East West Link – Hui 2 August 2016, 10am – 3.00pm Location: EWL Project Office – Respect Room (City Fitness Building, 203 Queen Street, Auckland Central)
Invitees: EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick EWL Alliance Scott Wickman EWL Archaeology Mathew Felgate EWL Design Lead Noel Nancekivell EWL Landscape Design Gavin Lister Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Anne McLeod Ngāti Te Ata Josie Peita Ngāti Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngāti Maru Geoff Cook Ngāti Whatua o Orakei Moana Waa Te Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas Ngāti Paoa Dean Ogilvie Apologies: Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua Tame Te Rangi Te Ahi Waru Kowhai Olsen Ngaati Mahuta Te Puea Memorial Marae Blaine Hoete Ngāti Te Ata Berenize Peita
Purpose of Meeting: To provide an update on archaeological findings and recent design changes.
Item Actions
Karakia / Mihi
EWL Review of MVA
SW: Proposal to use Paul Beverley SW: Plan for timeframes LR: Will be able to review before anything goes in. for MVA and other th SW: Timeframes: Next hui 24 . Half day governance, half day UDLF. work going forward EPA Completeness check – mid-September. Will be a placeholder for (including review of September information and hui) AL: September / October – Conditions discussion. Review of MVA before hui discussion on MVA
Pānui SW: Invite to go out today 10-12 on 24th August. / tomorrow Change/typo back page (‘requirement of RMA for EPA to consider this’) Make clear to governance that there is that consideration of a mana Check Governance list whenua representative on the Board and circulate
Archaeology Investigation & Findings ED: Send through EPA MF update on research and findings learnings MF recommending archaeological authority to cover the works
Item Actions
LR: Cultural monitoring – learnings for southern corridor. Conditions AL: Cultural monitoring included in application regarding monitoring (so contractors aware of it) in conditions Te Apunga o Tainui – SL: Will there be proactive testing? The integration of cultural MF: Challenging with active motorways and shoulders. Also what does a assessment and negative result show? archaeology GC: Noted good relationship with AMA MF: more likely to see something during cutting / earthworks phase for MF: Bibliography construction of the road. SL: GPR technology? MF: Can do, depends on ground conditions etc KW: Important to make the process clear, and expectations for procurement AL: Yes, being clear on management plans and programme for contractors GC: Would like to see recommendations on MF report before published
Lunch
SH1 / Mt Wellington Design update
Update at ‘Tip Top’ Corner / SH1 Ramps. 2 lanes at Mt Wellington remaining – EWL does not preclude this being widened in the future. Noted that there is a ‘lane gain’ going south through to Highbrook. This process will not be specifying where materials come from (i.e. steel), but we can recommend through procurement phase. Will set building/design standards for detailed design going forward however. Stormwater 360 proprietary devices proposed in this area – approximately 3. Will be looking to treat the motorway in this area too – as it is currently not being treated. Discharged into the Clemow stream. Pipes already going there will be upsized. LR: Opportunity to upsize for rest of the catchment? NN: Opportunity to talk to Council about them coming on board and AL: Council discussion wider treatment area on stormwater at Mt AL: Have sought to minimise impact on northern side of SH1. Still Wellington impacting on rocky outcrop on Tip Top corner (although reduced extent). From safety audit – southern side extent of work has come further to NN/ AL: Matt overlay on west (is on structure, not cutting, however that will require piling). plans NN: Structure on north-bound ramp means stormwater can be managed closer Feedback: Project team have clearly considered mana whenua request to see shift of alignment to the south. Good to understand this for future discussions with governance.
Foreshore Design Update
AL presented GL presentation GL and importance of an integrated design. LR: Could this landscape plan be overlaid with original foreshore map (1940?) Miami stream is private land. NZTA challenge of designating an area for AC stormwater. Opportunity for Council to designate. Otherwise pumping can occur. GC: Issue of treatment from discharge from stream Galway area – vegetation area under MHX: Salt water treatment being explored (but no evidence to suggest that the salt water wetlands do that). Small portion pumped from wetland into bio filtration area. LR / GC: Opportunity to look at how salt water treatment can work Mobilisation of contaminants. Gavin Key consideration – scale of the design. Design: headlands – made out of basalt, gravel banks and behind the wetlands. Timber will be used for embayment – for water to meander through treatments. Construction of a couple of small islands – for bird habitat LR: Is that more reclamation or is there a high sand bar there?
EWL 2 August Hui
Item Actions
AL: Challenge of our avifauna specialist issue with loss of habitat for significant bird colonies that currently forage, roost and nest in the area. Will still be a loss – but if can make area better (less predator prone etc). GL: Will be at -2 so will permanently be under water. AL: Not ‘land’ navigating definition – occupation or reclamation. Where no reclamation the paths will go on boardwalk paths. Reclamation area about 19ha at this stage. LR: Can the size of the headlands be reduced to reduce reclamation
Recap and Next steps
MoU between Council and Transport Agency on stormwater maintenance going forward AL: recirculate Mana whenua expressed disappointment in Council’s track record of specialists list and stormwater maintenance. mana whenua can Next hui – 24th UDLF and governance highlight future hui September: – Paul Beverley MVA discussion, plus opportunity for topics specialists to come and discuss findings.
EWL 2 August Hui
From: Scott Wickman To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Cc: Amos Kamo; Eynon Delamere; [email protected]; Brett Gliddon; Ernst Zollner; Amelia Linzey; Sarah MacCormick Subject: East West Link hui Date: Thursday, 4 August 2016 9:10:11 p.m. Attachments: 02082016142449-0001.pdf
Kia ora koutou,
As you will be aware, the NZ Transport Agency and Auckland Transport are currently in the process of developing the designs and completing the environmental assessments to support the necessary planning approvals for the East West Link project in Auckland. The East West Link is a new state highway between SH1 at Mt Wellington and SH20 at Neilson Street, generally following the northern foreshore of the Mangere Inlet.
Throughout the development of the project (since 2013), we have been working in close partnership with those mana whenua groups that have opted to work with us on this project. The current design is a reflection of the feedback and input we’ve received through this process. We are now at a stage where we would welcome the opportunity to hold a special governance hui on Wednesday, 24th of August, from 2:30 to 4:30pm. We would like to take this opportunity to discuss some of the details of the Project further with you in your capacity as the respective Chairs of the iwi groups we’ve been working with. We would like to hear your feedback on a number of matters, including:
· The Multi Criteria Analysis (MCA) Process undertaken for the assessment of options and decision on the current scheme design, including engagement and role of mana whenua in this process;
· Environmental investigations process for assessing the potential effects on the environment of the Project;
· The Board of Inquiry (BoI) Process, including the need for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to consider mana whenua representation on the board;
· The treaty claims on the Manukau Harbour and relationship to EWL; · Relationship agreements going forward with the NZ Transport Agency; · How we may navigate commercial interests, liabilities in decisions being made and opportunities during procurement phase for mana whenua investment.
Attached you will find a Pānui relating to the latest designs and a summary of engagement with mana whenua for the East West Link project. As you will note there are several key areas of interest that we have been focusing on with the Kaitiaki/operations group in the engagement through 2016. We are proposing to extend the invite for this hui to the kaikiaki / operations group to assist in the discussion. I have also extended the invite to Brett Gliddon, the State Highway Manager for Auckland & Northland who will also attend.
Should you have any questions prior to the hui please do not hesitate to contact me or Amos. I look forward to meeting each of you.
Nga mihi
Scott Wickman / Principal Transport Planner Highways & Network Operations DDI 64 9 928 8797 / M 64 21 245 8041 E [email protected] / w nzta.govt.nz Auckland Regional Office / Level 11, HSBC House, 1 Queen Street Private Bag 106602, Auckland 1143, New Zealand
Find the latest transport news, information, and advice on our website: www.nzta.govt.nz
This email is only intended to be read by the named recipient. It may contain information which is confidential, proprietary or the subject of legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient you must delete this email and may not use any information contained in it. Legal privilege is not waived because you have read this email.
MEETING MINUTES East West Link – Hui (Part 1) 24 August 2016, 10am – 12pm Location: NZ Transport Agency - HSBC (Level 12)
Invitees: EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Scott Wickman EWL Alliance Lynne Hancock EWL Alliance Sarah Johnson Ngāti Maru Geoff Cook Ngaati Mahuta Te Puea Memorial Blaine Hoete Ngāti Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Te Runanga o Ngāti Whatua Tame Te Rangi Te Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson
Apologies:
Purpose of Meeting: Discuss ULDF
Item Actions
Karakia / Mihi
General comments - ULDF
Suggestion (from Geoff Cook, endorsed by others including Tame Te Rangi and others), that the objectives of the project for mana whenua are acknowledged. In particular: That the values of the environment, culture and community are holistic and acknowledgement of cultural values needs to be reflective of that; That the cultural landscape of the area is significant, for settlement (e.g. as a place), for access (e.g. as a portage) and for movement (e.g. as a trade hub and with different whakapapa for many Iwi) There are numerous opportunities to explore these narratives in elements of the Project: . Retaining Walls; . Paths and walkways (form, signage, alignment etc) . Bridges and structures . Habitat areas / wetland planting areas etc . Trenches. There was consensus from Iwi (led by Lucille Rutherford and confirmed by others) that the ULDF should identify these opportunities for mana whenua comment / review There was a discussion, what comes first mauri or mana. A core principle is that we are restoring and/or replenishing mauri to the environment to enhance and acknowledge the mana of the Māngere Inlet (emphasis of point from Tame Te Rangi)
Foreshore Some key themes of place to be recognised in the ULDF The movement of water (stormwater, groundwater to the coastal marine area)
Item Actions
The historic coastal edge and the extent of reclamation – what has been done and what stories are told for these changes (e.g. signage on walkways) The ecological outcomes and the importance of place for avifauna, what are the stories of this place for valued bird species, but also what opportunities are there for the people of the Manukau (and wider) to appreciate these stories in this place (accessible to the community including mana whenua) Principle that ‘less is sometimes better’ was expressed (this was tabled by Blaine Hoete and not well endorsed by other participants)… eg. Could/should we have pedestrian bridge at Alfred Street for links to walkway and foreshore (could it be underpass and the importance of CPTED issues). Pest management is respect for ecological place – noted cats, rats and bird pests (pigeon) Concept of a ‘restorative natural highway’ – Tame Te Rangi reiterated the importance of standing in the Māngere Inlet and looking back at the project, what is it [the Project] doing for this taonga – for mana whenua it is key that this is how the project outcomes are considered/assessed… (general consensus view and reiterated from earlier hui) It is important that management processes (this is not just ULDF) progress so they retain the holistic and balanced focus, not captured by any one group – an example was discussed on the biodiversity outcomes still needing to balance for use opportunities for the people… (this is something we need to consider in the management structure / conditions for ULDF going forward) Issue of how much future proofing in the balance of amount of reclamation – e.g. three laning the project. (Note more as discussion point not advocating for increasing width of reclamation) Opportunities for increasing the ‘restorative rehabilitation’ of the project – identified in areas such as stormwater pond on James Hardy dump site, acknowledgement that not all remediation of the harbour can be delivered by this project, but point was made that we need to bring an ethical consideration in the delivery of the project and seek opportunities to address these wrongs (most strongly identified by Lucille Rutherford, but endorsed by others) – this issue was bought up both in respect of the James Hardy site (pond) and Ōtāhuhu Creek, tannery site
Reclamation and outcomes of the project
Need to look at the management outcomes of Council (including consenting of land activities in Anns Creek) Compare these to the management outcomes in other areas (e.g. Mutukāroa) Consider how we can do things differently in the delivery of this project (this is not ULDF matter, but important for NZTA / Wider project process – Paul Beverly) Specific responses: Opportunity for stormwater management in the area adjacent to Sylvia Park Road (noting issues of flow between waterways for the Tāmaki and Māngere Inlet) - concept raised, but reservations expressed also. Technical information to be provided Need for recognition of open space in area – extent and rationale to be confirmed (note)
Anns Creek
What is iconic and endemic in the area and recognise / provide for this; Consider the naming and acknowledge the portage (karetu) Statement that there is ‘little that can be done for this portage’ with the investment and management of others (including Council)
Te Apunga o Tainui Re-use of basalt if required to be removed from project (ULDF) Importance of management and engagement protocols for detailed design and for site management and monitoring over construction (Project Conditions) The team is aware of the sensitivity of this area and that works in this area should . First seek to avoid and minimise disturbance . If such works cannot achieve i. be undertaken in a manner where that acknowledges and respects the waahi tapu of this area . That site monitoring and management for mana whenua
EWL 2 August Hui
Item Actions . That this relationship is needed between NZTA and Mana Whenua (not something that can be negotiated out to contractor etc) . This is an area of historic grievance and the project (by needing to connect to SH1) raises these grievances again. . Amelia provided summary of archaeological approvals process (being later in design) . Mana whenua input / partnership in nomination of s7 Archaeologist for such works in future (noting currently Matt Felgate)
Ōtāhuhu Creek
Mana whenua reiterated that their values acknowledge the need to look to long term benefits and opportunities of the project (not overshadowed by short-term impacts of sedimentation disturbance) Again, the issue of ‘what is the socially responsible approach’ should be considered, not just what is the ‘do minimus’ approach Acknowledge that ‘steps for restoration’ may need to be identified as some will rely on works by others This PORTAGE is the key (as compared to the karetu, not that it is a case of trading, but rather acknowledging the opportunities in this area and the constraints in the other)
Key ‘geographic areas’ of interest for the project Within the context of the landscape – confirmation of earlier comments (all) Te Hōpua a Rangi; Anns Creek (Ani Creek) Mutūkāroa “Tip Top Corner” (Te Apunga o Tainui, waahi tapu site – we have had some mixed views on what and how specifically to name this area, but the reference to Te Apunga o Tainui seems accepted by Tainui and Te Akitai) Ōtāhuhu Creek
EWL 2 August Hui
MEETING MINUTES East West Link – Hui 6 September 2016, 10am – 1pm Location: EWL Project Office – Respect Room (City Fitness Building, 203 Queen Street, Auckland Central)
Attendees EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick EWL Alliance Scott Wickman NZ Transport Agency Eynon Delamere Ngati Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngati Tamaoho Hero Potini Ngati Maru Geoff Cook Te Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Ngati Paoa Dean Ogilvie Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua Tame Te Rangi Ngati Te Ata Berenize Peita Ngaati Mahuta Te Puea Memorial Marae Blaine Hoete (arrivived 12.30pmp )
Apologies: Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Anne McLeod Ngati Whatua o Orakei Moana Waa Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas Te Ahi Waru Kowhai Olsen
Purpose of Meeting: discuss potential approach to mitigation and conditiions and to receive comment on draft ULDF objectives.
Item Actions
1 Karakia / Mihi
2 Mitigation and Conditions Table of EWL Proposed Mitigation – for discussion purposes only – Distribute aerial photos distributed (dated 6 September 2016) Hopua – design process that involves mana whenua, also involve Auckland council as owners of the land and also retaining sports fields Onehunga Wharf – Land bridge over EWL from local road – up to feasible for bridging of 50-70m though local road acceess requirements only need local road (e.g. 20m) bridging Galway Street area – Opportunity for declamation Mangere Inlet – salt water wetlands. Being looked at, at the moment. Can be ‘trialled’ if it doesn’t work can be re-established as fresh water. GC: Will there be enough to treat the whole catchment? AL: Our design makes assumption of permeability etc, and BPO for treatment and no. of wetland. Will be sufficiennt space for amount of water. With AUP – some discussion going on with level of assumptions. Risk: size of wetlands based on increase in impervious surface etc in catchment. LR: Shouldn’t clean run-off be entering the Acquifer? AL: Discussion we are having with them at the moment. TTR: Recovery and remediation. We are dealing with current situation. Total ‘passage’ needs to be considered. Look at it frrom the environment and what
Page | 1 Item Actions
we are trying to achieve – remediation for the whole area. Then followed by recovery by ecology. AL: Acknowledge this might like project to a wider or overall monitoring strategy. Environmental outcomes to address current issues whilst still expecting change in the area – business continuity. Miami stream – proposed wetland. However Auckland Council need to purchase the land, which they are aware of (again matter of current discussions with Council). Asbestos area to south of Southdown reserve – other wetland proposed. Will this be able to ‘seal’ the asbestos. Noted tthat the methodology would address land contamination issues in the area of the pond. The extent of restorative work for the remaining site would not solely be an issue for the NZTA. Mangere Inlet: Boardwalk, signage. Anns Creek – wetland, moving some mangroves on eastern area, establish Raupo wetland. LR: Still need to deal with the fact of why the mangroves are there (sediments, run-off etc). Port area: bund to go down eastern side of the Port reclamation area. GC: Why can’t continue bund through to Hugo Johnston Drive? TTR: Look at starting point at Anns Creek. Work to strengthen / enhance what is there. Connect to Ports of Auckland area (rather than the other way around). AL: Indicated this might be an area of further iinvestigation, with other project partners such as POAL and Kiwi Rail. Is there scope to bring POAL into environmental strategy – don’t consider this is just role for the Agency, Finnd out about treatment particularly given the development plans of others in this area? on Sylvia Park road and LR: Opportunity for Po whenua or similar reflection in design for waka rellationship to existing. movement at Otahuhu Creek bridge to signal the portage. GC: Treatment area on Sylvia Park Road – Gross pollutant treatment, are we upgrading? SC: Will be treatment required because we are widening the road. – Yes confirmed that NZTA would be treating stormwater from widened road and Project works. Again, this is not necessarily piicking up wider treatment works. TTR: EWL monitoring framework will be critical. Looked through table. 33 times monitoring is mentioned. Businesses also need to buy into outcomes and moniitor their impacts. Can then use moniitoring data to use models. AL: Look at approach to Predict then where sediments, heavy metals etc – where they are more mitigation based on likely to come from. Concern DOC may be sitting on the sideline as an discussion interested ‘observer’. They are critical party when talking about mitigation and moniitoring. SW: Action for the team to talk to DOC policy team, looking at that at the moment. AL: Understanding it is a ‘pan-management’ approach – for the whole area. AL: Questioned are there specialist reports people would like to see? TTR: Part 1: Economic /landuse and social. Part 2: Groundwater. Surface water. Part 3: Contaminated land and coastal processes. Consider appropriate way to make this information available, including access to reports. ED: How do we use locals / iwi for construction etc – out of Mataawaka engagement etc. TTR: Learnings from Hōkai Nuku. AL: We are also in the Southern Initiative – so policy direction. Will consider how this can be appropriately reflected in conssenting or subsequent procurement processes SW: Two avenues to include – in conditions and also EOI documentation. BP: Noted the Southern Initiative does not have specific recognition of Iwi direction..
3 Māngere Inlet Vision – Planning paper Wanted to check with group is comfortable with abstract / paper being submitted to NZPI conference Collaborative Initiative? TTR: Opportunity – analysis of what might work to cover off where we are
Page | 2 Item Actions at. Unique about Project – converting ‘bad’ sittuation that will benefit a number of fronts. TTR: Support opportunity to encourage positive change. LR: Good opportunity to promote mana whenuua and NZTA working together to promotte 4 well-beings. GC: Also need to show positive view of engagement. TTR: If you can show the audience this is a step towards the ‘whole of the project’ not just superficial signage / artworks, cultural expression etc – whole thing.
Lunch
4 Draft ULDF Objectives
Draft objectives circulated GC: Include what Tame said earlier. Whole of Project elements considered. Need to consider all values of the project and project area collectively and holistically. Suggested amendment - Include Economic inn first point? BH: Each part of the Project has an effect. Noted ‘no special significance for one particular spot’ KW: Noted importance of Matt F in giving MW idea of narratives etc through his korero. DO: Clearer intent on recognition and on Portaages. TTR: Mauri leads to mana – important to recognise this. GC: ‘remaining’ areas of interest. TTR: Add in ‘remaining iconic’ Hōpua etc – iconic. Remove ‘Tip Top’ corner. Wriite up and re-circulate Other changes noted below incorporating Noted economic history of the area: comments – Flax mills, timber, meatworks – Today – Sanfords for example
5 Recap and Next steps Next hui on 21/9 – will have a completed draft of ULDF. Also discuss vision document, getting it ‘finalised’ Agenda for next hui to BH: Noted that KiwiRail have been doing some testing work at Westfield. To be sent out and check at next hui what was found minutes Hui closed at 1.10pm
Minuted by: SSarah MacCormick
Page | 3
(Draft) Mana Whenua Objectives Following review at Hui 6/9/16
Additions shown are underlined, deletions strikethrough
The following objectives have been prepared following extensive consultation with mana whenua and have been a key consideration throughout the preparation of the ULDF. The values of the environment (including the economy, culture, nature and community) are holistic across the Project area. The cultural landscape of the area is significant, for settlement (e.g. as a residence but also as a ), for access (e.g. as a portage) and for movement (e.g. as a trade hub and with different whakapapa for many iwi) The project should seek to restore and / or replenish mauri of the environment - to enhance and acknowledge the mana of the Māngere Inlet and the Manukau Harbour The project should seek opportunities to increase the restorative rehabilitation aspects capacity of the project environment. The project should acknowledge and give special design consideration to the following remaining iconic 'geographic areas' of interest as ‘features of the cultural landscape’, including: o Te Hōpua ā Rangi o Anns Creek o Mutukāroa o Tip Top Corner (Te Apunga o Tainui, waahi tapu site) o Ōtāhuhu Creek o Pikes Point / Pāhurehure lava flows o Portages: Karetu and Ōtāhuhu
Page | 4
MEETING MINUTES East West Link – Hui 21 September 2016, 10am – 2pm Location: EWL Project Office – Respect Room (City Fitness Building, 203 Queen Street, Auckland Central)
Attendees EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick EWL Alliance Scott Wickman Ngati Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngati Maru Geoff Cook Te Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Ngati Paoa Dean Ogilvie (arrived 11.30pm) Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua Tame Te Rangi Ngati Te Ata Berenize Peita Ngaati Mahuta Te Puea Memorial Marae Blaine Hoete Te Ahi Waru Kowhai Olsen
Apologies: Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Laurie Beamish Ngati Whatua o Orakei Moana Waa Ngati Whatua o Orakei Mei Hill Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas NZ Transport Agency Eynon Delamere Ngati Tamaoho Hero Potini
Purpose of Meeting: discuss potential approach to mitigation and conditions and to receive comment on draft ULDF objectives.
Item Actions
Karakia / Mihi
Previous minutes actions Sylvia Park Road treatment and relationship to existing: Design will collect existing and treat new roadway
CIA Opportunities around treaty settlements (concluded, pending) Paul Beverley will be here on 4th October to talk directly
Landscape Plans Neilson Street area / Galway Northern part of Gloucester Park – why is there a footpath shown in there – remove?
Page | 1 Item Actions
Artwork at southern Gloucester Park area: question on whose artwork it is? Is in designation Gavin proposing to acknowledge the form of the Tuff Ring. Will be outside the designation – so will need to be in collaboration with the Parks Department. Port area: project requires about 8,000m2 of the Wharf area (permanently), if local road goes back to AT then this can be reduced potentially by 2,000m2. Discussion on area of land in gap between Onehunga Harbour Road and Galway Street. At the moment is showing stormwater ponds. Noted these ponds are not futureproofing so future impervious surface needs to treat their stormwater. If area to be developed – would need to be offered back to the previous landowner it was bought off. Signage strategy – to encourage people to use old Māngere Bridge over bridge or land bridge to port instead of underpass. LR: reason for large area of green space near Galway Street? AL: Pushed out further because of the MHX abutments GC: What is the contamination coming out of the Galway landfill areas? AL: Will be able to get info to you with the contaminated land assessment
Foreshore BH: Underpass at Alfred Street area? AL: Yes, Sarah J will be able to answer why GC: Where is the salt treatment area? AL: I think it is the second pond, treatment area Queries about the width of shared path. AL: We will be fitting these into what can be built on the embankment. Walkway will be left if embankment sized reduced. Plans should show 1.8m path on the non-coastal side First landform has access into the water. Look into access from boat TTR: Access to inlet from crafts? crafts on Landform 2 AL: Landform 2 would be the place to do that. Can look into that. Opportunity to view birds – especially in Ann’s Creek Discussion on alternative heliport area. Amelia to check about fly zone area and how this might impact on birds. BH: Sea-level rise provided for? AL: IPPC levels provided for
Ann’s Creek AL – bund goes round the port area AL: Black lines are piers LR: What happens to mangroves? AL: Will be disturbed during construction. Will probably mean the bund has to go landward side. Great South Road Noted this intersection is struggling from an operation point of view Grade separation is being considered at this intersection GC: Gross pollutant trap. Is that being upgraded?
Sylvia Park Road AL: Sylvia Park Road treatment upgraded – 5pits along SPR. The AC trap will be retained. Some will be going into new wetland LR: Will there be devices before it goes into wetland? AL: There will be devices on SPR and SH1 before goes into wetland. Noted area on south showing park – this will likely be converted back to commercial.
SH1 Ramps / SH1 area Some properties shown there to be acquired for construction purposes – access etc. T&G: Buildings there will be required for relocation Some areas showing landscaping – will have to be offered back to landowners. TTR: Retaining walls: are they inclusive of noise walls? AL: Noise walls run whole way along LR: Princes Street area? Is there any plans to put more wetlands in?
Page | 2 Item Actions
AL: Not needed in this area, replacing existing one that is at off-ramp
Lunch
Coastal Processes Assessment Stephen Priestly – Coastal Engineer. NIWA did coastal modelling Declamation in area under Mangere Bridge where there is Asian date mussel and at Otahuhu Creek. TTR: Otahuhu Creek Bridge (point 18) – not sure statement is correct at end of first sentence – get that re-drafted. Point 18 of Coastal LR: Does not agree the current culverts perform hydraulic function. processes – remove He notes that with declamation there will be potential disturbance of ‘satisfy iwi concerns’ material up stream, with change of tidal movement 100,000m2 dredged material
Archaeological Assessment To let Matt F know about Draft report handed out changes to report TTR: Sector 4 and 5 discussion. 5.21 referred to in Sector 4 description. Remove ‘ Dr Malcolm Paterson’ Mana whenua to provide comment on reports EPA currently reviewing these documents at the moment. Will be getting before 10th October comments back 10th/11th October please
Draft ULDF Report TTR: Integrate opportunity at Mutukaroa with Trust. Already in action reserve management plans / governance / strategic. Not to lose sight of treaty settlements, those under negotiation and achieved (project wide at the end) GC: Is there a clause that changes can be made based on technological Add clause about change and legislative changes / guidelines. What if guidelines change? to guidelines on page 3. Note this on Page 3 SJ: are there other ideas along SPR to reference the Portage (in areas that won’t be able to be returned to commercial). LR: Resolution that Mana Whenua guides the artwork in this area. Mana Whenua collaborate 4.1: change to cultural framework to be developed. on design of artwork TTR: Portage: Outside scope/ for future – signage masterplan. We should along Sylvia Park Road be noting what can be included in the design and embed in there. DO: Then connects to objective – restoring the mauri. TTR: Anns Creek – opportunity for eco-sourcing
Recap and next steps 4th October – Paul present. Also for MW to discuss meeting in Onehunga 18th October (change of date from 20th) – Paul report back with content 21st October – More assessment information Preference for hui in Onehunga Onehunga workshop Invite to interested parties (stakeholders – government, community, business) to discuss the design there. Probably last week of October. Will need to confirm the date Mana Whenua representation?
Other GC: What leachate coming out of Galway Landfill SW: We will be able to distribute the contaminated land assessment end of this week. GC: Ports of Auckland area – landfill. Before this plastic bags were coming out of that area, and area moves around. Shows not stable. Comment that area is poor. Would like NZTA support to discuss with KiwiRail continuation of bund across that area.
Page | 3 Minuted by: Sarah MacCormick
Page | 4
MEETING AGENDA East West Link – Hui 4 October 2016, 10am – 4pm Location: EWL Info Hub – 10 Gloucester Park Road, Onehunga
Invitees: EWL Alliance Scott Wickman NZ Transport Agency Eynon Delamere Buddle Findlay Paul Beverley Buddle Findlay Libby Cowper Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Laurie Beamish Ngati Te Ata Berenize Peita Ngati Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngati Tamaoho Hero Potini Ngati Maru Geoff Cook Ngati Whatua o Orakei Moana Waa Te Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas Ngaati Mahuta Te Puea Memorial Marae Blaine Hoete Ngati Paoa Dean Ogilvie Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua Tame Te Rangi Te Ahi Waru Kowhai Olsen The Onehunga Enhancement Society (TOES) Jim Jackson Apologies: EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick
Purpose of Meeting: Paul Beverley and Libby Cowper will facilitate the discussion on how to approach the preparation of the CVA for EWL there will also be a discussion on the Māngere Inlet Vision and The Onehunga Enhancement Society / Onehunga Business Association option.
Item Who Time
Karakia / Mihi 10.00am-10.15am
Māngere Inlet Vision Scott 10.15am-12.00pm
Lunch 12.00pm-12.30pm
Great South Road Scott 12.30-1.00pm For discussion
CVA
The approach to matters such as document structure and style 1.00pm-3.00pm What information is to be contained in the CVA and to Paul and Libby what level of detail How best to source information from Mana Whenua (such as through MVAs)
TOES / OBA Option Jim Jackson 3.00pm-3.45pm
Item Who Time
Presentation of their option for the Neilson Street Interchange.
Recap and Next steps Scott 3.45pm-4.00pm
[Type text]
MEETING MINUTES East West Link – Hui 18 October 2016, 10am – 2.30pm Location: EWL Office – Level 9, 203 Queen Street (Respect room)
Attendees: EWL Alliance Scott Wickman EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick EWL Alliance Murray Wallis NZ Transport Agency Eynon Delamere Buddle Findlay Paul Beverley Buddle Findlay Libby Cowper Ngāi Tai ki Tamaki Zaelene Maxwell-Butler Ngati Te Ata Josie Peita Ngati Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngati Maru Geoff Cook Te Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Ngati Paoa Dean Ogilvie Te Ahi Waru Kylie Apologies: Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua Tame Te Rangi Ngati Whatua o Orakei Moana Waa Ngati Whatua o Orakei Mei Hill Ngati Tamaoho Hero Potini Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas Ngaati Mahuta Te Puea Memorial Marae Blaine Hoete
Item Actions
Karakia / Mihi
Cultural Values Report draft
Draft report distributed. Imagery will need to be included
Introduction/Purpose GC: Clean-up of Manukau Harbour, Mangere Inlet included into aspiration Changes to be added DO: Reclamation and benefit this provides. by Libby / Paul into AL: Consideration on how ‘extra-ordinary’ this situation is (i.e. reclamation next draft etc).
KW/GC: Agreed. Outside of normal scope of Mana Whenua principles and
helps to support this. Activity of reclamation supported as provides for mauri
of Inlet and wider harbour.
1.2 add in ‘to date’
3 and 4
AL: Addition of importance of connection to Waitematā Harbour through
Ōtāhuhu Creek
DO: Māori framework for improving mauri of the inlet. Measuring success,
monitoring etc.
SW: Noted the Māngere Inlet Strategy does not go into this detail
GC: Page 5: Previous landfill landuse Amelia provide
information on bund to 4.9: Opportunity bund creates
Item Actions
LR: Whole catchment stormwater treatment emphasised. Also social effect Paul and Libby. positive – as it is not running through town and separating traffic. Historic landuses AL: Also connecting town to the foreshore (Galway, Alfred St - opportunity (Matt F report) connect to waterfront). LR: Ngati Tamaoho – social aspects weighed highly in original decision making AL: Also Tame noting importance of area for its economic functioning. Source information and reports can be provided to Paul and Libby re. stormwater treatment, catchment and groundwater conditions. GC: Noted one of top 5 most contaminated sites (Miami Stream) in the area and discharges directly into the Harbour. Contamination and leachate needs to be noted here. LR: Remove reference to Manukau Harbour Forum GC: Distinguish between partners and stakeholder. Reword: Central government, local government and other stakeholders. GC: 4.6 Note not only Te Aranga principles. Amelia to provide summary on this.
Cultural landscape JP: Josie will send information on wording change here. (Sentence starting Kiwi Tamaki…) KW/JP: Kiwi Tamaki – Te Akitai Tai subtribe of Waiohua. Refer to grandfather Huakaiwaka (takes it back a generation). 5.2: Remove ‘since the time of European colonisation’. No. 2 removed. AL: MVAs still stand for the detailed history. Need more clarification on whether MVAs are attached. Likely that Board can request these but do not need to be lodged or served.
Section 6: Purpose to outline these. Came from ULDF, discussions at Hui and cross checked in MVAs Where Mutukaroa sits: not a volcano but is a maunga. 6.2 / 6.3? GC: Number of maunga that have been quarried out and have ‘disappeared’ from the landscape. KW: Has information on this.
Treaty settlement Harbour settlement – Wai 08 and other claims to come in. PB: Add MACA AL: Note some points will not be resolved as we go through the process. Amelia: Project Board needs to understand where jurisdiction lies. description circulated DO: Add RFR mechanism
Legal Framework Te Tiriti should be further up in the report but also in this section?
Engagement Paul and Libby to Ensure governance issues have been sorted out before including 9.3(a) distribute next draft 1 Project description – need to circulate. week before hui (1 Add conditions? November)
Effects LC: Have noted effects as said by ‘Mana Whenua’ rather than individual groups. Opportunities, mitigation and design input. ED: Opportunities for employment in the region – would this be included in here? AL: Procurement opportunities – loop back. Opportunity as a result of the Project.
Great South Road Consultation with stakeholders. Congestion and performance Looking at possibility of grade separation of this intersection. Run out of time for specialists and Mana Whenua to consider before lodgement. If we go down this path will be an addendum to the documentation.
2
Item Actions
Viaduct option not performing well from transport perspective and safety. So another option likely to be considered.
Community Workshop
Independent review of engagement from Twyfords Invite to discussion to Miranda O’Connell – what to expect: be sent to all in – Onehunga community – independent facilitating workshop. 2nd November Mana Whenua – evening. 5.30-8.30 at Mt Smart group. Anyone – Not a public meeting, invites sent to people. welcome to attend Mana Whenua ‘role’ at the meeting. but no obligation. KW: High level discussion – benefits – economic, social, environmental. Explain rationale. Whakapapa – what it used to be, and aspiration to what it could be. Holistic overview.
EWL Technical Reports Murray Wallis – Contaminated land Acknowledge wider contamination and land uses Acknowledged areas that need particular attention: – Galway St landfill – Pikes point landfill – Waikaraka landfill beside Cemetery – Hugo Johnson drive – asbestos dump Assessed the effects of project and nature of construction works Site model – people that could be affected during construction and operation and the environment affected. Asbestos site higher sensitivity because of mobilising dust. Classified as toxic to humans. Reviewed resource consents for those sites. Are discharge group consents held by Council for the landfill sites. Provide for monitoring and checking leachate breakouts at the seawall. Have leachate interception system. – For project: Will need to replace some of these monitoring wells. Progressively as project is built. – Monitoring leachate breakout. Done visually. Project going to change where land meets the sea, but will maintain ability to visually monitor these areas. – During construction – will be opening land to build new leachate system. Designed to a higher standard. Pumping groundwater table – flow will come into new trench which stops it escaping and have own trade waste discharge. Because of refuse disruption will be some localisation of mobile contaminants. – In longer term – ground water conditions will settle down again. Apply for discharge consents to take leachate with stormwater to wetland/bio filtration system to be treated. Confident contaminants can be treated. Nitrate will become nutrient for wetland and plants. – Trade waste discharge – ability to change valve and send to trade waste as a contingency. LR: Collection system for trade waste during construction understood whilst contaminants are mobile. Once containment bund constructed, small percentage will get through the bund that will enter stormwater system. MW: Leachate contaminants: almost PH neutral. Because very close to neutral. Metal concentrations are very low, only one of note is ammoniacal nitrate which has similar concentrations in stormwater. AL: Confident it can be treated the ‘natural’ way through wetland, but contingency to go to be treated through trade waste system if needed. GC: Understanding bund is the causeway and not wetlands. Are all PH levels of landfills the same? And types of leachate different between landfills? Dominion oil refinery – effects from dumping from tanks before they were moved. Old fertiliser works site (Miami Stream, 5th worst contaminated site) MW: – Galway – no interception system (Pikes point does). When testing, found similar range of concentrations between those landfills (but didn’t think they would). Technical report has all results and groundwater monitoring reports. – Dominion oil refinery: Oil on the groundwater table in this area. Which will have to be managed. Sewerage in wetlands (from stormwater contamination).
3
Item Actions – LR: Isn’t solution to the problem, shouldn’t be dealing with Watercare’s issue of contamination. – MW: is not a treatment objective to treat sewerage. But essential part of highlighting the existing environment. – LR: Spotlight from Taumanu on stormwater/wastewater. Need that highlighted for EWL. Embankment stormwater treatment and climate change. Response from Dale Paice: – The first flush will always be treated to remove contaminants – about 25mm of any rainfall event. After that, any contaminants in the runoff will be much more dilute so for bigger events (25mm up to 200mm+ of rainfall) – flow will be bypassed to discharge safely in a way that doesn’t affect flooding upstream. – Treatment areas will not be flooded more than 50% of the time. They will always be wet and will occasionally get a bit of sea water in them in a very big tide plus storm surge but plants will be selected that are relatively resistant to sale which will minimise replanting/restoration after such an event. – The foreshore treatment areas are being designed considering climate change. Two climate change effects that influence stormwater design in this area, including: . Rainfall increase: 17% more rainfall depth in the 100 year storm. This might translate roughly to 200mm higher flood depths in a heavy rainfall event. . Sea level rise: 1000mm higher in a 100 year timeframe – Noted: if the outer bund and wetland outlets are set at a lever that allows for 1000mm of sea level rise (i.e. future proofing for 100 years) the lower lying properties near the foreshore will flood more frequently than they do now as they’ll be lower than the bund level. . Bund has been designed to suit currently climate tide levels but future proofed so it can be adapted over time. This would mean works perhaps 1 or 2 times over 100 years. The works would be increasing the level of the outer bund and changing pipe inlet and outlet levels. New pipes are being sized considering future proofing for 100 years of climate change.
– AL: Also future growth and land uses – this design will not provide for these on the proviso that these should be treating/containing their own stormwater in the future.
Recap and Next steps Sarah to send executive Economic and social reports to be distributed this week. summaries and full reports (to those who requests them)
Minuted by: Sarah MacCormick
4
MEETING MINUTES East West Link – Hui 1 November 2016, 10am – 4pm Location: EWL Office – Level 9, 203 Queen Street (Respect room)
Invitees: EWL Alliance Scott Wickman EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick NZ Transport Agency Eynon Delamere Buddle Findlay Paul Beverley Buddle Findlay Libby Cowper Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Zaelene Maxwell-Butler Ngati Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngati Tamaoho Hero Potini Ngati Maru Geoff Cook Te Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Ngaati Mahuta Te Puea Memorial Blaine Hoete Marae Te Ahi Waru Dean Ogilvie
Apologies: Berenize Peita, Moana Waa, Tame Te Rangi, Scott Lomas
Purpose of Meeting: Paul Beverley and Libby Cowper will facilitate a further discussion on the draft CVA for EWL.
Item Who Action
Karakia / Mihi
Social Impact Assessment Amelia – Informed by engagement with community – door knocking, open days etc – Residential property take . The project will full acquire 13-14 residential Action: Send both properties in full. 70 residential properties reports where partial land take is required electronically (approximately 1-3m on boundary). . Did start with about 40 properties requiring full land take – have worked hard to reduce this number. . Some people have signalised they would like to be bought out early, get on with their lives etc. Item Who Action . Some anxiety due to lack of other housing options in Auckland. . Some properties are under high voltage transmission lines, cannot build new building under these on these sites. . Door knocking this evening (1 November) to talk to 13 residential property owners to make sure they are aware. . Compensation: landowners entitled to a market rate (if project not there) as part of Public Works Act (PWA) process. At least 2 houses need extraordinary help to find somewhere else to live (disability and sickness). - Business land take . About 40 business affected . About half are full buy out . Natural ‘churn’ of businesses – can help to get them to relocate (i.e. have enough time to move). . Have avoided large scale businesses. . Have identified some properties are full take but are optimistic that activities can be re- organised on site or moved elsewhere. - Connectivity . Some commuters use the Waikaraka Shared Path. Recommendation to make sure the path has an alternative during construction . Better walking and cycling connections as a result of operation of EWL . Maintain walking and cycling connections from Manger Bridge and Onehunga town centre during construction - Sea Scouts . SIA recommending either relocating temporarily during construction or relocating to a permanent facilities – somewhere like the Onehunga Wharf. - Other effects and points in the executive summary Economic Assessment
- Success of this project will mean that the zoning pattern the Council has put in place will be very important. Zoning correct in Unitary Plan in this area – provides for the activities the city says it needs. - GDP relates to Project area – Business case included Highbrook / Airport too. Being realistic about the Item Who Action benefits and not ‘over selling’. Wider context is discussed in the Assessment (part 3) - During construction – major recommendations that cannot do construction on both ends of the Project at the same time (i.e. SH20 and SH1 at separate times) - Location of the project along foreshore avoids major impacts to businesses during construction
Onehunga – OBA Option • OBA option with EWL engineering plans showing how it could be achieved. • What consultation with iwi / community has been done on this? • Reclamation to the west for moving Aotea Sea Scouts on OBA option. Reclamation not shown on engineering plans as not provided for under Unitary Plan. • Where does Local Board sit? • Met with new local board members the other day. Feedback that need to explain why have picked option. Briefing for new local board this afternoon. Scott / • Denise Lee (nee Krum): Meeting with her shortly to Amelia discuss. • Have not done a full MCA. Used scoring for Option 2 (previous MCA session) – how you would amend with revised design (what we have at the moment). Red = option NZTA recommending • Road safety – Option 4 = have been some changes to design to address safety. May increase score but will not be on same level as OBA option (as this one is more ‘motorway to motorway’)
Cultural Values Assessment Paul and Libby • Figures added at front of document – Eynon will look for some RFR (right of first • Changes noted on documents by Paul and Libby refusal) – included in • RFR (right of first refusal) – included in CVA and what to CVA and what to include = action check include = action • More from AL on wider catchment stormwater check treatment • Job opportunities – procurement. Look at Puhoi conditions.
Item Who Action
Recap and Next steps • Compilation of engagement to date. Breadth of conversation • Stand alone document
• Influenced across AEE (not just engagement/mana Sarah whenua section) • To discuss at next Southern IIG hui
Minuted by: Sarah MacCormick
MEETING MINUTES: East West Link – Hui 23 November 2016, 10am – 2pm Location: EWL Office – Level 9, 203 Queen Street (Respect room) Invitees: EWL Alliance Scott Wickman EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick NZ Transport Agency Eynon Delamere Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Zaelene Maxwell-Butler Ngati Te Ata Josy Peita Ngati Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngati Maru Geoff Cook Te Ahiwaru Kylie Tawha Apologies: Buddle Findlay Paul Beverley Buddle Findlay Libby Cowper Te Ahiwaru Kowhai Olsen Ngati Paoa Dean Ogilvie Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua Tame Te Rangi Ngati Tamaoho Hero Potini Ngati Whatua o Orakei Moana Waa Te Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas
Purpose of Meeting: Further discussion on the draft CVA for EWL and Great South Road. Tabled: CVA Draft 3 for 23 November and Great South Road programme (back page)
Item Actions
Karakia / Mihi
Update on engagement Update on engagement with the community from Amelia LR noted issue with OBA option that impacts on Mangere Bridge area, and that they are not being considered. GC: Noted representation of Mangere Bridge residents at the Community discussion not accurate representation of those – especially business owners. Old Mangere Bridge Project: Master plan – TOES and Council.
Cultural Values Report Further discussion on CV Report and inputs needed from Mana Whenua Noted some changes from Te Ahiwaru (Kowhai) Page turn to agree on changes (noted in the document)
Lunch
Recap and Next steps AEE lodgement update Next round of public information and newsletter 15 December hui: Conditions
Great South Road
Item Actions
Run through of plans and programme.
[Type text]
MEETING MINUTES East West Link – Hui 15 December 2016, 10am –4pm Location: EWL Office – Level 9, 203 Queen Street (Respect room)
Invites: EWL Alliance Scott Wickman EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick EWL Alliance Lesley Hopkins EWL Alliance Noel Nancekivell NZ Transport Agency Eynon Delamere Ngai Tai ki Tamaki Zaelene Maxwell-Butler Ngati Te Ata Josy Peita Ngati Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngati Maru Geoff Cook Te Akitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas Te Ahiwaru Kowhai Olsen Te Runanga o Ngati Whatua Tame Te Rangi
Apologies: Ngati Paoa Dean Ogilvie Ngati Tamaoho Hero Potini Ngati Whatua o Orakei Moana Waa
Purpose of Meeting: Further discussion on the draft CVA for EWL, Great South Road, OBA Option and Conditions.
Item Action
Karakia / Mihi
Cultural Values Report Run through of report Changes noted in the report (attached to the minutes)
Great South Road
Noel ran through grade separated plans, being lodged with the application.
OBA Option MCA
Meeting with council tomorrow – discuss OBA assessment. Peer review. Meeting tomorrow is council officers, Councillors and local board chairs. Have had visualisations done of the option. – Panuku will be there – GC: Will Boards of CCOs be present. – SW: No not tomorrow but discussions with them are occurring. – Jim Jackson will be in attendance
Item Action – General consensus from Mana Whenua they were not happy with this. Is a Council meeting and other people from ‘outside’ are not allowed to attend, including Mana Whenua. – LR: Member of the community getting rights that the rest of us don’t have. – SW: Agree it is frustrating. – ED: Scott to convey frustration of Mana Whenua at the meeting tomorrow and confirm Mana Whenua support for the Project
Conditions
Structure Lesley to make Review Mana Whenua specific matters changes to Tame: Push for condition for a Project Completion Report – level of conditions and compliance with consent conditions. Be honest on what has occurred as report back at part of the work, report against each of the conditions. next hui Ran through conditions. Changes made to draft document
Recap and Next steps
Lodgement th – Tomorrow (16 ) – Once lodged – all will be available on the NZ Transport Agency website (AEE, plans and technical reports).
Minuted by: Sarah MacCormick Attached: CVA changes
[Type text]
CULTURAL VALUES REPORT FOR THE EAST WEST LINK PROJECT
[DRAFT AS AT 15 DECEMBER 2016]
Draft as at 15 December 2016
Draft as at 15 December 2016
CONTENTS
[TO INSERT: 3 • KARAKIA? 3 • WHAKATAUKI? 3 • IMAGERY OF THE HARBOUR / INLET] 3 1. ENHANCING THE MAURI OF THE MĀNGERE INLET 4 2. INTRODUCTION 5 3. PURPOSE 6 4. CULTURAL VALUES 6 5. HISTORY AND ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROJECT AREA 7 6. PARTICULAR SITES AND AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE 8 7. LEGAL FRAMEWORK 10 8. TREATY SETTLEMENTS 12 9. POLICY DOCUMENTS AND PLANS 13 10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 14 11. PROJECT OUTCOMES 15 12. ENGAGEMENT UNDERTAKEN WITH MANA WHENUA 16 13. IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS 19 14. ENHANCING CULTURAL VALUES THROUGH ONGOING PROJECT DESIGN 22 15. CONCLUSIONS 23
Draft as at 15 December 2016
[TO INSERT:INSERT
• KARAKIA?
• WHAKATAUKI?
• IMAGERY OF THE HARBOUR / INLET]
BF\56478721\1 | Page 3
Draft as at 15 December 2016
1. ENHANCING THE MAURI OF THE MĀNGERE INLET
1.1 The water bodies of the Manukau Harbour, including the Māngere Inlet, which the East West Link Project ("Project") traverses, are of great spiritual importance to Mana Whenua. 1.2 The Inlet has a long history of Mana Whenua use and development, due to its fertile volcanic soils, abundant marine life and strategic importance for east-west transport. Small fishing settlements once dotted the shoreline where Mana Whenua gathered kai moana and harvested the rich soils of the surrounding land. 1.3 Although the Inlet had strong mauri in its early days, intensive industrial growth in the late 18th and 19th centuries resulted in large amounts of untreated human and commercial waste being discharged into the Inlet. This was documented in the 1985 Waitangi Tribunal Report and the resulting 1990 Manukau Harbour Action Plan. 1.4 To this day, historic landfills across the northern coastal edge of the Inlet continue to discharge contaminants into the water, significantly degrading water quality and the overall ecological health of the Inlet. 1.5 In addition, extensive landfilling and industrial development around the Inlet has resulted in gradual reclamation of the coastal edge. 1.6 Mana In Principle, Mana Whenua do not support reclamations. Ngati te Ata Waiohua state they are opposed to reclamation.
1.7 Larger reclamation of the foreshore was proposed early on in the Project's development. Mana Whenua opposed the extent of this reclamation and because of this engagement and by working together, were able to revise the design and significantly reduce the land area set to be reclaimed. 1.8 In this ProjectIn principle, due to extenuating circumstances and the need to clean up contamination (including sediment) in and around the Māngere Inlet. Mana Whenua are Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial not opposed to the proposed design reclamation. This is due to eExtenuating circumstances of this Project include and the need to progress the clean-upcontainment, remediation and clean up of contamination (including sediment) in and around the Inlet. How does this statement relate to 1.6 above? Formatted: Highlight 1.9 Significantly, early on in the Project's development Mana Whenua recognised opportunities to incorporate environmental improvements into the Project design to enhance the mauri of the Inlet for further generations. This is integral to their kaitiaki role. 1.10 As a resultresZaelult of engagement with Mana Whenua, the foreshore design provides for the removal of materials from the closed landfills along the Inlet and the installation of a contamination containment bund ("bund") at Onehunga. 1.11 The bund will sit between the existing reclaimed industrial land once used as a landfill, and the Inlet. This will provide a physical barrier between the areas releasing contaminants
BF\56478721\1 | Page 4
Draft as at 15 December 2016
(such as asbestos and leachate) and the broader coastal environment. It will reduce the concentration of contaminants entering the Inlet by trapping them in the bund. 1.12 As well as restoring the natural environment, the bund is expected to have significant positive social effects by separating the traffic coming out of town and connecting the town to the foreshore. These factors will positively contribute to the economic functioning of the region, enhancing employment and productivity throughout the Onehunga area. 1.13 In addition to the installation of the bund, Mana Whenua have developed a number of other initiatives to enhance the mauri of the Inlet. These include: (a) Tthe development of a vision document focussed on restoring the mauri of the Inlet. Mana Whenua created this in partnership with central government, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, KiwiRailKiwi Rail and Watercare. The purpose of the document is to present a shared vision, a set of values as well as nd desired outcomes to be aachieved through current and future investments and activities in and around the Māngere Inlet. A copy of the document is attached at Appendix A; (b) Ssediment controls and stormwater measures to prevent further pollution of the Inlet. These are discussed further in the 'Identification and mitigation of potential effects' section of this Report; and (c) Tthe development of an ongoing monitoring programme for the bund and stormwater outcomes for the wetlands. A Monitoring Liaison Group including Mana Whenua, the NZ Transport Agency ("Transport Agency") and Auckland Council will monitor progress and develop any contingency measures that may be required. 1.14 Through regular and sustained engagement with the Project team, Mana Whenua have sought to turn their aspirations for the Inlet into a reality. In doing so, they have enabled the Project to achieve positive environmental and cultural outcomes that will work to enhance the mauri of the Inlet.
2. INTRODUCTION
2.1 This Cultural Values Report ("Report") has been commissioned by the Transport Agency to support the Assessment of Environmental Effects ("AEE") for the notices of requirement ("NOR") and resource consents for the Project. 2.2 The following iwi and hapū (listed in alphabetical order) have been engaged within and have provided input into the Project to date: (a) Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki; (b) Ngāti Maru;
(c) Ngāti Paoa;
BF\56478721\1 | Page 5
Draft as at 15 December 2016
(d) Ngāti Tamaoho;
(e) Ngāti Te Ata WaihouaWaiohua; (f) Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei; (g) Te Ahiwaru;
(h) Te ĀAkitai Waiohua; Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial (i) Te Kawerau ā Maki; and (j) Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua.
2.3 These iwi and hapū are recognised as the Project's key Mana Whenua Partners ("Mana Whenua"). 2.4 A number of Mana Whenua submitted Māori Values Assessments ("MVAs") on this Project. These iwi and hapū are listed at paragraph 12.12 of this Report.
3. PURPOSE
3.1 The purpose of this Report is to: (a) outlineOutline the aspirations of Mana Whenua to enhance the mauri of the Māngere Inlet and record how this is to be achieved; (b) outlineOutline the cultural values of Mana Whenua and how these have been recognised and provided for throughout the development of the Project;
(c) recordRecord the effective engagement undertaken with Mana Whenua for the Project; and (d) summariseSummarise the issues, information and recommendations contained in the MVAs received to date, and arising out of engagement with Mana Whenua.
4. CULTURAL VALUES
4.1 At a Project Hui on 9 February 2016, Mana Whenua emphasised once again the deep and important relationship Mana Whenua have with the natural environment surrounding the Project area and the need to recognise this throughout the development and construction of the Project. 4.2 Incorporating cultural values throughout the Project was identified as one way the Project can respond to Mana Whenua and enhance the work that has already been done to date. 4.3 To Mana Whenua, the entire Project area has a mauri that binds the current generations through mana, tapu and whakapapa to the whenua. Included is the myriad of wāhi tapu and cultural sites all of which have links to tūpuna and kōrero tawhito. The landscape and cultural sites act as a repository for the whakapapa, mana, tikanga and traditions for the current and future generations.
BF\56478721\1 | Page 6
Draft as at 15 December 2016
4.4 Mana Whenua acknowledge the environment, and objects within the environment, as having not only a physical presence, but also as having spiritual and metaphysical values. Every living thing is recognised as having value and as having a mana, wairua and mauri of its own. The spiritual values are as important as the physical. Mana Whenua believe that the physical and spiritual aspects of a person or thing are joined by mauri to make a complete whole. 4.5 For Mana Whenua, kaitiakitanga means more than just mere guardianship. It is the intergenerational responsibility inherited at birth to care for the environment, which is passed down from generation to generation. Kaitiakitanga is the key means by which sustainability is achieved. 4.6 The purpose of kaitiakitanga is not only about protecting the life supporting capacity of resources, but of fulfilling spiritual and inherited responsibilities to the environment, maintaining mana over those resources and ensuring the welfare of the people those resources support.
5. HISTORY AND ASSOCIATION WITH THE PROJECT AREA
5.1 The cultural landscape includes areas of historic through to current settlement, trade, economic prosperity and occupation extending across the whole Project area. In particular, local iwi and hapū place specific importance on the cultural values of Onehunga and the Manukau Harbour. Mana Whenua retain important connections to these areas today.
Onehunga 5.2 Onehunga dates from the earliest time of occupation by the older tribes of Tāmaki such as Te Waiohua and Te Kawarau ā Maki. By 1100AD, the Ōtāhuhu portage linking the Māngere Inlet with the Tāmaki River was already in use. Onehunga saw the arrival of the Great Fleet’s Tainui Waka into the project area via the Kāretu and Ōtāhuhu portages in 1350AD. From this time onwards, successive tribes gained territory on the isthmus by marriage and through allegiances and warfare.
5.3 Historically, Onehunga was a desirable location for many reasons. Its location, adjacent to the Māngere Inlet was once a rich source of food and its proximity to strategic portages connecting the Manukau Harbour, Tāmaki River and Māngere Inlet made it an important trade and commerce hub. 5.4 The area is also known for its agriculture and was previously densely populated by Māori who produced gardens of kumara, taro and gourds within the rich soils, providing an important resource for successive generations of iwi and hapū. 5.5 The area includes a range of landscapes, values and significant sites and areas of value to Mana Whenua, including the water bodies of the Manukau Harbour.
BF\56478721\1 | Page 7
Draft as at 15 December 2016
Manukau Harbour 5.6 The Manukau Harbour has been a place of Māori for Māori was a place of sustenance, commerce, transport and communication for many hundreds of years. It has specific significance to Mana Whenua as a strategic resource for east west movements and, he pātaka kai, he wāhi mahinga mātaitai (a customary seafood gathering site), a valuable food basket for kai ika and kai moana, with one iwi reportingit was said: (I’m not sure about the use of the word ‘reporting’)
"It was once said that the fish in the Manukau were so plentiful that they lept out of the water and into the boats of our tūpuna" [Request Te Reo translation from Zaelene]
“e ai kī ngā kōrero.....Ngā pōtiki toa a Taikehu”, it was once said in the sea off Te Mānuka (now called Manukau) they found many kanae (mullet), so many they could catch one in each hand.
5.7 The water bodies of the Manukau Harbour, including the Māngere Inlet, continue to hold considerable importance to Mana Whenua who regard them as taonga. As guardians, or kaitiaki of the Inlet and its surrounding environment, Mana Whenua have an obligation to protect and enhance its wellbeing for future generations.
6. PARTICULAR SITES AND AREAS OF SIGNIFICANCE
6.1 The Project traverses an area rich in Māori history that dates back to the earliest time of Māori occupation in the region.
6.2 The Project area includes the following specific cultural sites and features, as identified by Mana Whenua: (a) Te Waimokoia (Māngere Inlet);
(b) Ngā Tapuwae o Mataoho; (c) theThe Kāretu, Ōtāhuhu and Pukaki portages; (d) ancestralAncestral pā; and
(e) Te Apunga o Tainui.
Te Waimokoia (Māngere Inlet)
6.3 The Te Waimokoia is identified as a taonga. Notable features within the Inlet include: (a) theThe portages between the Manukau and Tāmaki harbours that extend from the reaches of the Inlet. These include the Ōtāhuhu and Kāretu portages; (b) the The small island Ngāa Rano e ErRua o Tainui, the final resting place of the Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial skids used to haul the great waka Tainui across the Ōtāhuhu portage around 1300AD; and
BF\56478721\1 | Page 8
Draft as at 15 December 2016
(c) allAll coastline and riverbanks, marine and freshwater areas including AnnsAnn’s Creek.
Ngā Tapuwae o Mataoho 6.4 Several maunga form the backdrop and landscape setting of the Project area. These include Te Pane o Mataoho (Māngere Mountain), Maungakiekie (One Tree Hill), Maungarei (Mt Wellington), and Rarotonga (Mt Smart). 6.5 Other significant maunga have been quarried out of the landscape, including Maungataketake (Mt Ellett), Te Ihu a Mataoho, Pukeiti / PuketaapapaPuketāpapa (Otuataua Historic Reserve), Te Motu a Hiaroa (Puketutu Island) and Waitomokia (Mt Gabriel). 6.6 Features in the immediate area include: (a) Te Hōpua a Rangi, the basin of Rangi Huamoa (the wife of the first Waiohua paramount chief Huakaiwaka). This is the tuff ring formally open to the Manukau Harbour and now infilled and bisected by State Highway 20 ("SH20"); (b) Pahoehoe lava flows at Pikes Point and west of Alfred Street; (c) Mutukāroa (HamlinsHamlin’s Hill); and
(d) Ōtāhuhu / Maungatorohe (Mt Richmond).
Portages 6.7 Waka portages were vital for east-west trade and supported a strategic network of pā from the far North to the South Island. 6.8 Mana Whenua have identified the following portages within the Project area: (a) theThe Kāretu portage linking AnnsAnn’s Creek with Kāretu, south of the Panmure Basin. The portage is located alongside Mutukāroa; (b) the The Ōtāhuhu (Tauoma / Te To Waka) portage which was in use by 1100AD and was the most important in the area because of its location, gradient and length: it was the narrowest point between east and west coasts of New Zealand, sloping gently for less than one kilometre from the Tāmaki River to the Manukau Harbour; and (c) theThe Pukaki portage, while outside the immediate project area, formed part of the linked waterway routes.
Ancestral pā 6.9 Mana Whenua have identified a number of ancestral pā in the Project area. These include: (a) Mutukāroa – a strategic site for the Kāretu portage, with many houses and storage pits among the cultivated slopes;
BF\56478721\1 | Page 9
Draft as at 15 December 2016
(b) Rarotonga – to the north of the Project area but whose cultural sites reach down towards the Māngere Inlet; (c) Ōtāhuhu / Maungatorohe – just north of the Ōtāhuhu portage routes and closely associated with the portage; (d) Mauinaina and Mokoia – fortified pā at the mouth of the Panmure basin positioned to control movement on the Tāmaki River; (e) atAt Ihumatao on or around the volcanic cones of Te Ihu o MataaohoMataoho / the nose of MataaohoMataoho, and at Te Pane o MataaohoMataoho; and (f) Maungakiekie, which dominates the centre of the isthmus between the harbours and one of the largest and most significant pā sites in the area. [Josy Peita to follow up]
Te Apunga o Tainui 6.10 Within the cultural landscape, the area referred to as Te Apunga o Tainui is an area of specific heritage and history, initially for Māori settlement (referring to the arrival of the Tainui waka) and subsequently as the colonial military camp area at McLennan Hills. This area is geographically defined by the current landmark areas from Maungarei (Mt Wellington) to the Ōtāhuhu Creek. 6.11 Mana Whenua have specific ancestral associations with this area and identify the area as wāhi tapu. 6.12 This significance is formally acknowledged by the recorded and protected urupāa, which is a specific property site to the west of SH1 in this area at Mutukāroa. However, the Project team acknowledge that the particular grievances and issues of the wāhi tapu extend well beyond the identified urupāa.
7. LEGAL FRAMEWORK
Te Tiriti o Waitangi/ The Treaty of Waitangi 7.1 Te Tiriti o Waitangi has constitutional significance and is regarded as the founding document of Aotearoa. Both Te Tiriti and its principles are referenced in legislation, including the Resource Management Act 1991 ("RMA"). 7.2 The principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi have been found to include: (a) RangitiratangaRangatiratanga – the duty to recognise Māori rights of independence, autonomy and self-determination. This principle empowers Māori to determine and manage matters of significance to them. (b) Partnership – the duty to interact in good faith and in the nature of a partnership. This includes a sense of shared enterprise and mutual benefits; where each partner must take into account the needs and interests of the other.
BF\56478721\1 | Page 10
Draft as at 15 December 2016
(c) Active protection – the duty of the Crown to proactively protect the rights and interests of Māori, including the need to build Māori capacity and capability. (d) Mutual benefit – the need to recognise that benefits should accrue to both Māori and non-Māori, and that both must participate in the prosperity of Aotearoa. (e) The Right of Development – recognising that Treaty rights are not confined to customary uses or the state of knowledge as at 1840, but include an active duty to assist Māori in the development of their properties and taonga.
Part 2 of the RMA 7.3 Various sections of Part 2 of the RMA require the consideration of Māori values. These provisions are relevant to the lodging of the NOR and resource consents for the Project.
7.4 All persons exercising functions and powers under the RMA must: (a) giveGive effect to the purpose of the Act in section 5 which refers to 'cultural wellbeing';
(b) under section 6(e), recognise and provide for the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga, being a matter of national importance; (c) underUnder section 6(f), recognise and provide for the protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use and development, being a matter of national importance; (d) underUnder section 6(g), recognise and provide for the protection of recognised customary activities, being a matter of national importance; (e) underUnder section 7(a), have particular regard to kaitiakitanga; and
(f) underUnder section 8, take into account the principles of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi (including those listed above). 7.5 The Supreme Court in King Salmon,1 provided guidance as to the interpretation of Part 2 of the RMA. The Court described section 5 as a guiding principle, supplemented by sections 6, 7 and 8 which8, which refer to particular obligations, including the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 7.6 The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 provides useful context to this Report. The Act sets in place a regime to: (a) recogniseRecognise the mana tuku iho exercised in the marine and coastal area by iwi, hapū, and whānau as tangata whenua;
1 Environmental Defence Society Inc v The New Zealand King Salmon Co Ltd [2014] NZSC 38.
BF\56478721\1 | Page 11
Draft as at 15 December 2016
(b) provideProvide for the exercise of customary interests in the common marine and coastal area; (c) acknowledgeAcknowledge Te Tiriti o Waitangi; and (d) ensureEnsure the protection of the legitimate interests of all New Zealanders in the marine and coastal area of New Zealand.
8. TREATY SETTLEMENTS
8.1 The Treaty settlement process involves negotiations between iwi and the Crown relating to historic (pre-1992) breaches of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi by the Crown. The Treaty settlement process provides important context to the Project. 8.2 In recent years, a number of iwi and hapū in Auckland have settled claims with the Crown for breaches of the Treaty. Other iwi are at various stages of negotiations with the Crown.
8.3 Of particular relevance to this Project are the Ngāti Whatua Ōrākei Claim Settlement Act 2012, the Te Kawerau ā Maki Claims Settlement Act 2015 and the Tāmaki Collective Settlement.
Tāmaki Collective Settlement 8.4 In July 2009, a collective of 13 iwi and hapū2 with interests in the Tāmaki Inquiry district began negotiating with the Crown on a collective deed of settlement. The resulting Tāmaki Makaurau Collective Deed of Settlement (“Deed”) was signed on 8 September 2012. 8.5 The 13 iwi and hapū negotiated as Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau / Tāmaki Collective (“Tāmaki Collective”). 8.6 Mana Whenua involved in the Project and the Tāmaki Collective settlement include Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Te Ākitai Waiohua, Te Kawerau ā Maki, and Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua.
8.7 The Deed provides redress for the shared interests of the Tāmaki Collective, recognising the traditional, historical, cultural and spiritual association of iwi and hapū with maunga, motu and lands within Tāmaki Makaurau.
8.8 The redress includes a 172 year right of first refusal over Crown-owned land and certain Crown Entity-owned land that becomes surplus in the area specified in the Deed. 8.9 Although not providing specific redress for the Manukau Harbour (to be developed in separate negotiations), the Deed recognises its great cultural and spiritual importance to the Tāmaki Collective by way of a specific Crown acknowledgement: “2.5 Ngā Mana Whenua has a centuries old spiritual, ancestral, cultural, customary and historic relationship with Tikapa Moana, the Waitematā and Manukau Harbours,
2 Ngāti Maru, Ngāti Paoa, Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Tamaterā, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Whātua o Kaipara, Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei, Te ĀĀkitai Waiohua, Te Kawerau ā Maki, Te Patukirikiri, Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial Whātua.
BF\56478721\1 | Page 12
Draft as at 15 December 2016
the motu of those seas, and the whenua, waters, and indigenous flora and fauna within the Tāmaki Makaurau Region.
2.6 Ngā Mana Whenua has an inter-generational responsibility as Mana Whenua and kaitiaki under tikanga Māori to preserve, protect, manage and utilise those taonga for all generations.”
8.10 The need to develop separate redress for the Waitematā and Manukau harbours is acknowledged at Part 10 of the Deed: 10.1 Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau and the Crown acknowledge and agree that - 10.1.1 the Waitematā and Manukau harbours are of extremely high spiritual, ancestral, cultural, customary and historical importance to Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau; and 10.1.2 thisThis deed does not - (a) provide for cultural redress in relation to those harbours, as that is to be developed in separate negotiations between the Crown and Ngā Mana Whenua o Tāmaki Makaurau; nor (b) preventPrevent the development of cultural redress in relation to these harbours in those negotiations. Harbour Settlements 8.11 Treaty settlement negotiations to address the Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Manukau Claim ("Wai 8") and other claims relating to the harbours have not been settled. Wai 8 is the oldest Waitangi Tribunal claim yet to be settled and provides important context to this Report.
9. POLICY DOCUMENTS AND PLANS
9.1 The following RMA policy and planning documents containing provisions relating to Māori values are relevant to the NOR and resource consents:
(a) New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (“NZCPS”); and (b) The Auckland Unitary Plan (operative in part). 9.2 Relevant Iwi Management Plans, for example:
(a) Waikato Tainui Environmental Plan (2013); (b) Hauraki Iwi Environmental Plan (2000); (c) Ngāi Tai Ki Tāamaki Iwi Management and Development Plan; (d) Ngā Tikanga o Ngāti Te Ata: Tribal Policy Statement 1991; (e) Te Kawerau ā Maki Resource Management Statement (1995); (f) Ngāti Paoa Resource Management Plan (May 1996) / Ngāti Paoa Interim Iwi Management Plan (2013); and (g) Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Iwi Management Plan (2012).
BF\56478721\1 | Page 13
Draft as at 15 December 2016
NZCPS 9.3 The whole NZCPS is relevant to the Project; howeverhowever, Objective 3 and Policy 2 are of particular importance. 9.4 Objective 3 of the NZCPS reinforces the role of Mana Whenua as kaitiaki and recognises this kaitiaki role in the management of the coastal environment. 9.5 Policy 2 similarly recognises the relationship of Mana Whenua with the coastal environment, and recognises the need to incorporate mātauranga Māori (among other matters) as part of the consideration of the NOR and resource consents.
Auckland Unitary Plan 9.6 The Auckland Unitary Plan became operative in part on 15 November 2016. The operative Chapters B6 and D21 are particularly relevant to the Project. 9.7 Chapter B6 contains the Mana Whenua part of the Regional Policy Statement. It contains objectives and policies that enhance Te Tiriti o Waitangi partnerships and participation and the consideration of Mana Whenua values. 9.8 Chapter D21 contains objectives and policies to protect and enhance sites and places of significance to Mana Whenua.
10. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
10.1 The Project involves the construction, operation and maintenance of a new four lane arterial road from SH20 at the Neilson Street Interchange in Onehunga, connecting to State Highway 1 ("SH1") at Mount Wellington and an upgrade to SH1 between the Mount Wellington Interchange and the Princes Street Interchange at Ōtāhuhu.
BF\56478721\1 | Page 14
Draft as at 15 December 2016
10.2 New local road connections are provided at Galway Street, Captain Springs Road, the port link road and Hugo Johnston Drive and cycle and pedestrian facilities are provided along the alignment. 10.3 The primary objective of the Project is to address the current traffic congestion problems in the Onehunga, Penrose and Mount Wellington commercial areas whichareas that will improve freight efficiency and travel reliability for all road users. Improvements to public transport, cycling and walking facilities are also proposed. 10.4 The Project also includes environmental enhancement to the Project area including planting along the alignment and a contamination containment and stormwater treatment wetlands on the coastal edge of the Māngere Inlet.
11. PROJECT OUTCOMES
11.1 The Transport Agency has identified a number of key outcomes they are seeking to achieve through the construction and operation of the Project. These include: (a) enhancing Enhancing the mauri of Māngere Inlet and Manukau Harbour through improved water quality outcomes from stormwater treatment wetlands (treating the wider run-off from the Onehunga-Penrose catchment) and a contamination containment bund (preventing leachate from existing landfills from entering the Inlet along the proposed embankment); (b) creatingCreating better access to the Māngere Inlet foreshore through the new coastal edge and boardwalks;
BF\56478721\1 | Page 15
Draft as at 15 December 2016
(c) restoringRestoring the ecology of the area through planting of ‘green corridors’ and providing improved habitat for wildlife; (d) recognisingRecognising the cultural significance of the area, including at Ōtāhuhu Creek (removal of culverts and replacement with a bridge), improving the ecology and water quality in this area; (e) saferSafer access to schools, community facilities and places of employment through improved walking and cycling connections (such as across the Princes Street Bridge); (f) supportingSupporting economic growth by reducing the cost of transporting goods and people and improving the reliability of freight journeys;
(g) enablingEnabling more reliable journey times for buses and commuters (especially between SH20 and the Onehunga Town Centre); (h) implementingImplementing more direct walking and cycling routes between Māngere Bridge, the Onehunga Town Centre and Sylvia Park; (i) openingOpening up access to the Onehunga wharf and enabling its development; and
(j) improvingImproving access to the rail freight hub at Southdown and the interface between road and rail.
12. ENGAGEMENT UNDERTAKEN WITH MANA WHENUA
Partnership and collaboration 12.1 The Transport Agency (with Auckland Transport in the early stages of the East-West Connections Project) recognised early on in the development of the Project that the way to achieve the best outcomes for the Project and for wider infrastructure development was to engage comprehensively with Mana Whenua. 12.2 This engagement has been underpinned by the commitment of partnership between Mana Whenua and the Transport Agency (as representative of the Crown) founded by Te Tiriti o Waitangi. 12.3 As reflected in the Transport Agency’s 'Working with Māori' statement:3 "…we acknowledge the status of Māori as tangata whenua – the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand – and as partners with the Crown in the Treaty of Waitangi. As a Crown agency we: • work to achieve the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; • extend the opportunity for Māori to participate in our decision making;
3 https://www.nzta.govt.nz/about-us/about-the-nz-transport-agency/working-with-communities/
BF\56478721\1 | Page 16
Draft as at 15 December 2016
• build Māori capacity to contribute to our decision making; and
• consultConsult with Māori wherever possible on activities that are likely to affect them or their interests." 12.4 Throughout the Project development, the Transport Agency has actively recognised the relationship Mana Whenua have with the Project area and has worked to address and appropriately mitigate any potential effects. 12.5 The Transport Agency is engaging with Mana Whenua in a number of ways, including: (a) atAt governance level; and (b) throughThrough a kaitiaki group made up of Mana Whenua and the Project team. This group continue to work collaboratively to identify and mitigate issues as they arise. 12.6 Mana Whenua consider that the process of engagement undertaken for the Project has been exemplary, respecting the mana of the iwi involved and the values Mana Whenua have with the Project area.
Early engagement 12.7 The collaborative working process for the Project (then the ‘East-West Connections Project’) was formally initiated on 13 November 2013 by the Transport Agency and Auckland TransportTransport Agency and Auckland Transport formally initiated the collaborative working process for the Project (then the East-West Connections Project’) on 13 November 2013. A memorandum was sent to Mana Whenua inviting them to a series of workshops between 18 and 21 November 2013. 12.8 The memorandum identified that the Transport Agency and Auckland Transport would be managing the proposal for the Project, and outlined the background, status and targeted outcomes sought for the workshops. 12.9 During the initial workshops Mana Whenua were presented the proposal. The presentation identified key options for consideration, the specific Project area involved and potential framework policies. A further full day workshop with Mana Whenua took place on 4 December 2013 to discuss and evaluate options.
MVAs 12.10 During these early workshops, Mana Whenua identified processes they wished to be implemented to minimise potential impacts on their cultural interests. As part of this, Mana Whenua requested that the Transport Agency and Auckland Transport invite MVAs. 12.11 The opportunity for Mana Whenua to receive support to undertake MVAs was made by the Transport Agency on 21 September 2013 [Amelia to confirm date] 25th September 2016 Formatted: Highlight Hui at Mt Smart? (GC) - MMEWS. Formatted: Superscript Formatted: Highlight
BF\56478721\1 | Page 17
Draft as at 15 December 2016
12.12 Subsequently, between 2013 and November 2016 the following Mana Whenua have submitted MVAs on the Project: (a) Ngāi Tai Ki Tāmaki; (b) Ngāti Maru; (c) Ngāti Paoa; (d) Ngāti Tamaoho; (e) Ngāti Te Ata WaihouaWaiohua;
(f) Te ĀAkitai Waiohua; Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial (g) Te Kawerau ā Maki; and (h) Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Whātua.
12.13 These MVAs are considered to hold sensitive information. They have been made available to the Project Team in preparing option evaluation (MCA) and wider environmental assessments of the Project and have been reviewed in the compilation of this Report.
Hui 12.14 Throughout the development of the ProjectProject, the Project team have engaged with Mana Whenua through a variety of different fora, including:
(a) theThe EWL Mana Whenua Group; (b) monthlyMonthly Southern Iwi Integration Group; (c) theThe Māngere Inlet Environment Steering Group; and
(d) attendanceAttendance at / participation in other technical, stakeholder and community engagement processes. 12.15 A schedule of the Mana Whenua specific engagement is set out at Appendix B. More information on the wider engagement processes for the Project is provided in the AEE. 12.16 During these meetings, Mana Whenua were engaged on their aspirations for the Project area and bespoke issues relating to the Project design, the assessment of option alternatives and the measures needed to mitigate and address identified effects. In particular, Mana Whenua gave feedback on the options being assessed through the Multi Criteria Analysis Process and helped to determine the preferred concept alignment for the Project.
Ongoing engagement 12.17 Regular hui are scheduled to continue up to the lodgement of the NOR and resource consents. The key objectives of this engagement are to:
BF\56478721\1 | Page 18
Draft as at 15 December 2016
(a) inform Mana Whenua of any updates to the design and seek feedback, and work collaboratively on outcomes, particularly regarding reclamation, stormwater, leachate treatment options and biodiversity and ecology outcomes; (b) collaborateCollaborate on the production of the Urban Landscape and Design Framework ("ULDF"); and (c) gatherGather cultural values information from iwi and hapū to assist in design response and for input into the AEE documentation for lodgement.
12.18 It is anticipated that there will be ongoing engagement following lodgement of the NOR and resource consents, particularly as submissions are received from parties. The key objectives of this engagement will be to: (a) inform Inform Mana Whenua of any updates or responses to the Project that are being considered in respect of submissions received (particularly regarding extent of reclamation, treatment of leachate and stormwater, outcomes for the quality of the receiving environment and any other design changes that may impact on identified cultural values); (b) collaborate Collaborate with Mana Whenua to understand any cultural issues / concerns they have regarding potential design or management responses to the above and the appropriate response to maintain the objective that the Project provides an integrated response to these issues; and (c) toTo receive specific comment / feedback on the drafting of proposed conditions for the NOR and resource consents for the Project. 12.19 To maintain and enhance the processes throughout the delivery and operation of the Project, measures have been proposed to ensure Mana Whenua continue to be involved in the development of the Project's detailed design, construction management, implementation and monitoring. These measures are proposed to be implemented through conditions (referred to above) but also wider processes in respect of the Transport Agency's procurement and contract management processes.
13. IDENTIFICATION AND MITIGATION OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS
13.1 Although Mana Whenua appreciate the benefits that this Project is likely to have, they also acknowledge the potential for the Project to negatively impactaffect the cultural values of Mana Whenua. 13.2 As part of the application process for the NOR and resource consents, the Project team have sought to identify all potential cultural, environmental, social and economic effects of the Project and have worked with Mana Whenua to determine how best to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects.
BF\56478721\1 | Page 19
Draft as at 15 December 2016
13.3 Mana Whenua identified a number of adverse effects in their MVAs, including the potential for: (a) increasedIncreased sedimentation; (b) increasedIncreased stormwater discharge;
(c) negativeNegative impacts on sites and values of significance; (d) damageDamage to archaeological sites; and (e) impactsImpacts on ecology.
Sedimentation effects 13.4 One of the effects identified was the risk of Project earthworks increasing sediment discharge into the Māngere Inlet. This was likely to detrimentally affect local ecosystems and habitats in and around the Inlet, including sea birds, shellfish, fish species and indigenous vegetation. 13.5 In order to mitigate this, Mana Whenua recommended the implementation of robust sediment controls, to reduce the risk of sediment from the Project entering nearby waterways. 13.6 Mana Whenua play a role in the ongoing construction planning, monitoring and implementation of measures to reduce sediment discharge. 13.7 As discussed earlier in the Report, the construction methodology also provides for the removal of materials from the closed landfills along the Māngere Inlet and the establishment of a contamination containment bund at Onehunga. These measures will also work to reduce sediment entering the Inlet.
Effects of increased stormwater discharge 13.8 In the past, large volumes of stormwater have been discharged into the Inlet carrying a significant amount of pollutants. This pollution has adversely affected the ecological environment in and around the Inlet. The mauri of the Inlet has also been reduced through the mixing and cross contamination of different water sources. 13.9 The effects of contamination are discussed further in Technical Report 17 – Contaminated Land Assessment, which was lodged with the AEE. Those are the extenuating circumstances that have extensively degraded the mauri of the Māngere Inlet and impact the whole harbour. 13.10 During engagement, Mana Whenua identified the need to ensure that appropriate stormwater systems are in place to prevent environmental degradation in and around the Project area caused by increased stormwater runoff. These measures will seek to ensure that the mauri of the water is not further degraded.
BF\56478721\1 | Page 20
Draft as at 15 December 2016
13.11 As well as the removal of nearby landfill materials that have been polluting the water, the Project team have worked to establish new systems to manage stormwater discharge. 13.12 The Project design provides for the collection and treatment of stormwater from all new and some existing road areas in the Project area. This equates to a total road surface area of 46 hectares. This will improve the quality of water being discharged into nearby coastal marine areas, including the Māngere Inlet and the Tāmaki estuary. Temporary stormwater ponds will also be installed to manage sediment discharges throughout the Project’s construction. 13.13 Another feature of the Project is the foreshore stormwater treatment areas whichareas that cater for existing runoff from a further 611 hectares in Onehunga and Penrose within the Project area. These areas currently drain directly into the Inlet without treatment, including discharge from the contaminated industrial land areas. This is expected to enhance the mauri of this water body and help to restore the mana of the wider area. It is expected that Auckland Council will take long-term responsibilities for these treatment facilities.
Effects on sites and values of significance 13.14 Mana Whenua have identified a number of sites of cultural significance in and around the Project area. Sites are listed in the 'Particular sites and areas of significance' section of the Report. 13.15 The Project team have sought to recognise and acknowledge the importance of these sites and avoid any potential adverse effects to these areas. Specific mitigation measures include: (a) fullFull bridging of Ōtāhuhu Creek to acknowledge the significance of this historic portage and removing existing restrictive culverts on SH1; (b) avoiding cutting into or through the tuff ring of Te Hōpua ā Rangi and works that would require covering exposed lava in the coastal marine area and no waste footprint for SH20 (e.g. realigning ramps); (c) avoidingAvoiding the mapped area of Mutukāroa by dismissing earlier corridor options and alignment designs that had the potential to require land from the reserve at Mutukāroa (along Sylvia Park Road); (d) ensuringEnsuring the design does not intrude on existing view shafts to the maunga, including Māngere and Maungakiekie; and (e) reducingReducing the impact on Te Apunga o Tainui by developing a construction design including ramps to connect the Project with SH1 at Mt Wellington. 13.16 The avoidance of these sites acknowledges the importance the Project team have placed in retaining these cultural features within the Project landscape.
BF\56478721\1 | Page 21
Draft as at 15 December 2016
Damage to archaeological sites 13.17 The construction of the Project will require earthworks and the disturbance of ground surfaces in and around areas of previous Māori occupation. These works have the potential to disturb or uncover previously unknown artefacts of cultural significance, including taonga and kōiwi tangata. 13.18 Throughout engagement, Mana Whenua have expressed the need for contractors to have a clear commitment to environmental and heritage protection. They suggested that education and training, including cultural induction, willwould be needed to assist project managers and construction workers to recognise archaeological sites and, once recognised, enable these sites to be managed in accordance with tikanga and the law. 13.19 A number of iwi also presented specific protocols and processes for dealing with archaeological artefacts in their MVAs. These recommendations can be summarised as follows: (a) culturalCultural monitoring of works; (b) ifIf intact subsurface archaeological features or artefacts are associated with Māori should be exposed, earthworks should cease immediately; or
(c) ifIf kōiwi should be exposed, works should cease immediately and the police, Mana Whenua and the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga should be contacted; and (d) Mana Whenua, in consultation with others, should determine next steps in accordance with relevant legislation and tikanga principles. 13.20 To minimise any potential impacts to cultural artefacts, specific tikanga protocols are to be applied when undertaking works in culturally significant areas, such as the area between SH1 and Ōtāhuhu Creek. These will supplement the accidental discovery protocols already provided for in legislation. 13.21 These requirements will be prepared in consultation with Mana Whenua who will be involved in the preparation of management procedures to ensure these are in accordance with tikanga.
14. ENHANCING CULTURAL VALUES THROUGH ONGOING PROJECT DESIGN
14.1 As well as identifying and mitigating adverse impacts, Mana Whenua have recognised significant opportunities for the Project to positively enhance cultural values. In addition to enhancing the mauri of the Māngere Inlet, Mana Whenua have played an important role in incorporating cultural values and concepts into the Project design. 14.2 Through their MVAs, Mana Whenua emphasised the importance of the Project recognising and celebrating the cultural significance of the Project area to Māori. One way Mana
BF\56478721\1 | Page 22
Draft as at 15 December 2016
Whenua suggested this could be achieved was by incorporating cultural values into the Project design. 14.3 In order to give effect to this, Mana Whenua requested that an adequate budget be assigned for the incorporation of cultural elements, including design motifs, lighting design, sculptural elements or artworks. Where possible, the use of Māori colours, symbols and building materials were requested, as well as traditional Māori place names. 14.4 Te Aranga Principles and other processes were also incorporated into the ULDF to ensure that these values were properly acknowledged and reflected through the Project design. 14.5 As a result, a number of cultural values and concepts have been included in the Project design. Examples include:
(a) Te Hōpua ā Rangi – Mana Whenua artworks are to be included in the design; (b) AnnsAnn’s Creek – design and interpretive signage is to be included within the AnnsAnn’s Creek area to acknowledge the value of this environment to Mana Whenua; (c) Kāretu Portage alongside Mutukāroa – signage and interpretive information is to be included in the portage area; and
(d) Ōtāhuhu Portage – the importance of the portage is recognised in the design of the bridge and the passage beneath the bridge is to be enhanced. 14.6 Implementation of the Project design is planned through conditions setting a process of ongoing consultation and engagement with Mana Whenua. This will include design reviews and input to design development and approval of design outcomes as they relate to cultural values and will ensure that contractors and the Project team workteamwork effectively in partnership with Mana Whenua.
15. CONCLUSIONS
15.1 The primary focus for Mana Whenua throughout the development of the Project has been the opportunity to enhance the mauri of the Māngere Inlet, the Ōtāhuhu Creek, and the Manukau and Waitematā Harbours. 15.2 Mana Whenua have also been mindful of the social and economic outcomes provided by the Project. 15.3 As a result, exemplary engagement between Mana Whenua and the Project team has resulted in a number of environmental improvements being added to the Project design. These include the installation of a contamination bund at Onehunga, the removal of contaminated materials along the Inlet, and increased stormwater and sediment controls.
BF\56478721\1 | Page 23
Draft as at 15 December 2016
15.4 The ongoing process of engagement between Mana Whenua and the Transport Agency has enabled potential effects of the Project to be identified and has helped to ensure that mitigation measures are targeted and effective.
BF\56478721\1 | Page 24
Draft as at 15 December 2016
APPENDIX A – RESTORING THE MAURI OF THE MĀNGERE INLET SW provide updated Formatted: Highlight
BF\56478721\1 | Page 25
Draft as at 15 December 2016
BF\56478721\1 | Page 26
Draft as at 15 December 2016
APPENDIX B – SUMMARY OF MANA WHENUA ENGAGEMENT FOR THE PROJECT4
Date Type of meeting
9 February 2016 Project Hui
17 March 2016 Project Hui
7 April 2016 Project Hui
15 April 2016 Southern Iwi Integration Group
29 April 2016 Project Hui
6 May 2016 Project Hui
20 May 2016 Southern Iwi Integration Group
17 June 2016 Southern Iwi Integration Group
5 July 2016 Project Hui
15 July 2016 Southern Iwi Integration Group
26 July 2016 Project Hui
2 August 2016 Project Hui
24 August 2016 Project Hui
6 September 2016 Project Hui
21 September 2016 Project Hui
4 October 2016 Project Hui
18 October 2016 Project Hui
1 November 2016 Project Hui
23 November 2016 Project Hui
15 December 2016 Project Hui
4 It is important to note this schedule relates to engagement processes specifically for the EWL Project (not earlier phases of the East West Connections process 2013-2015, see earlier paragraphs 12.7 – 12.9)). The different phases of the engagement and processes are also described further in the Engagement section of the AEE.
BF\56478721\1 | Page 27
MEETING MINUTES East West Link – Hui 25 January 2017, 12.30pm-3.30pm Location: EWL Office – Level 9, 203 Queen Street (Respect room)
Invites: EWL Alliance Scott Wickman EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick EWL Alliance Lesley Hopkins NZ Transport Agency Eynon Delamere Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki Zaelene Maxwell-Butler Ngāti Te Ata Josy Peita Ngāti Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngāti Maru Geoff Cook Te Ākitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas Te Ahiwaru Kowhai Olsen Ngāti Paoa Dean Ogilvie
Apologies: Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua Tame Te Rangi Ngāti Tamaoho Hero Potini Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Moana Waa
Purpose of Meeting: Monitoring conditions and update on the Project
Item Action
Karakia / Mihi
Lunch
Update on the Project
Application was formally accepted by the EPA on 22nd December. Link to the lodged documents discussed and also emailed. http://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/east-west-link/east-west-link-application-to-the- environmental-protection-authority-epa/assessment-of-effects-on-the-environment/
Council meeting with Mana Whenua
Some of Mana Whenua Group met with the Auckland Council – Councillors and Local Board members on 23 January. Purpose to understand position of Mana Whenua and how Mana Whenua and the Council family will approach the Board of Inquiry process for the EWL
KO: Determination of closed landfills – James Corbett discussed disruption to closed landfills. Didn’t seem the EWL team were privy to the previous background information from the Council. LR: James C also discussed why Mana Whenua didn’t ask for an extension of the leachate system, but noted there were not told that might be a possibility. KO – noted other CCOs were there
Item Action
GC: Watercare noted there were no ‘engineered discharges in the area’. LR: Noted that Mana Whenua has done a CVR which clearly states the Mana Whenua position. AL: Confirmed this has been sent to Auckland Council.
Conditions
Mana Whenua specific conditions Run through of next iteration of conditions with Lesley Hopkins (Planner – conditions lead) AL: Process of conditions – reflecting different expectations and outcomes people are looking for. Does not remove process where Mana Whenua can recommend conditions they think are appropriate through submission process. LH: Conditions will continue to evolve – especially through submissions. Not final conditions when submitted to EPA – is steer on how effects can be managed / mitigated GC: Conditions need to be consistent with other Projects that have been worked on, and used to date. Many coming from the rest of the country LH: Would be good to have a good example of monitoring condition. KW: Challenge because there hasn’t been a Project yet with pro-active monitoring by Mana Whenua. Noted specific challenge of monitoring for Southern Corridor – using screens for dust suppression etc. What are the methods – and how do they help or hinder? Barriers to monitoring. SW: Good to get those ‘lessons learnt’ from other Project – put into conditions and procurement. Also safety in design aspects that we need to understand. AL: EWL monitoring wider than earthworks – may want to monitor planting for example Condition should include (MW.2) co-ordination of cultural monitors KO: Extent of areas? For example for Ōtāhuhu Creek – does that include military camp GC: Noted for vegetation – should be collecting seeds from the area at the Lesley and Amelia to moment to start growing for planting come up with Discussion on ‘consequences’ for contractors i.e. having to stop work if not suitable meeting condition and what they have to do in order to start work again i.e. monitoring doing another cultural induction condition LR: Te Hōpua a Rangi and Gloucester Park. Lynda Lucas asked what MW aspiration is for the Park, and mitigation. Felt it was a Parks issue AL: NZTA not acquiring Gloucester Park, are applying to temporarily acquire some for construction. Planning to do a wetland to the south and enhance existing wetland. Best Practice: Input to Heritage Management Plan Nigel Denny input from experience on Southern Corridor Site Blessing to start Project Cultural Induction for workers – Those in management – get them aware of their responsibilities – People on the ground Co-ordinated approach Monitors to fully understand extent of construction One monitor, one digger Action plan once something is found – ‘trigger’ – (Matt F) What monitoring should cover: Earthworks Landscaping – wetlands etc. Terrestrial vegetation and planting – sourcing, species selection, streams and water ways – how they are planted). Opportunities for iwi to do planting, karakia to start planting. Collection of seeds Removing mangroves Relocating wildlife – i.e. bees, eel, lizards
[Type text]
Item Action
Sustainable practice of construction Building capacity – training for other iwi = co-ordinated approach Mauri of the Inlet – Bird monitoring - roosting – Invertebrates – Water quality and sediment – Benchmark – prior on health of the Harbour – Shellfish, and other wildlife – Models to look at : Keper Morgan, Jared Walker – measuring Mauri, cultural index, Sean Awatere, cultural index of Ngai Tahu KO: Noted each CVA might have a different focus which relates to what each person wants in monitoring conditions. Looking at resources for all of these and whether Mana Whenua has this. GC: Long term Project – opportunity for people to be trained properly. Other long term projects in the pipeline. Could have a pool of dedicated monitors. Post construction outcomes Role in “Hand-over” – process for completion and audit
Next hui
Stormwater to come back and discuss - including climate change design, flooding and stormwater levels. AL: Discussion with Council on-going about maintenance of assets once constructed Answer on Watercare discharge consents – 4 engineered overflows Next hui 14th February – focus on Stormwater, likely to be led by Dale Paice
Minuted by: Sarah MacCormick
[Type text]
East West Link Alliance Minutes of Meeting East West Link- Hui Held 14th February at 10am – 4pm at EWL Office, 203 Queen Street Present: EWL Alliance Scott Wickman (From 1.30pm) EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Dale Paice EWL Alliance Noel Nancekivell EWL Alliance Brittany Goodwin Ngāti Te Ata Josy Peita Ngāti Tamaoho Hero Potini Ngāti Maru Geoff Cook Te Ākitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Te Ahiwaru Kowhai Olsen Te Ahiwaru Kylie Tawha Ngāti Paoa Dean Ogilvie Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua Tame Te Rangi Apologies: NZ Transport Agency Eynon Delamere EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick Ngaitai ki tamaki Zaelene Maxwell-Butler Ngāti Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Moana Waa Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas Distribution:
Item Action 1 Karakia / Mihi
2 Update on Council Local Board Meeting - The group shared observations from the Local Board hui, which a number of people attended. - AL also confirmed that the decision on BOI process from Government was ‘imminent’ and expected notification late Feb through to late March (post hui note, this is confirmed with notification expected 22 Feb 2017)
3 Stormwater . Dale provided summary presentation of the foreshore stormwater treatment areas o 3 landforms o + Miami Stream and Galway St Intersection inland o Purpose = treat runoff from catchment (670 hectares)
. Comment from Group: Important that the ‘view from the Inlet’ was at the core of the evaluation of options and outcomes of the stormwater treatment. Mana Whenua perspective is for ‘the health of the Inlet / harbour’ and think this could be shown from the Mangere Inlet. . Dale: Confirmed that the EWL team focus has been on inlet as receiving environment, retain contaminants in treatment areas but with the balancing objective of seeking to minimise extent of reclamation to greatest extent practicable (with outcomes in mind). The team reiterated that Miami Street treatment area requires AC to secure land (which is part of our current discussions with them). o Workshop with council late Nov 2016 > led to creation of design philosophy statement o Two main issues council had = Flooding and saltwater intrusion
. Mana Whenua reiterated the importance of the options in maximising water quality outcomes for the harbour. This was acknowledged but the EWL Alliance team also identified the importance of reducing reclamation – a balancing act.
. Mana Whenua emphasised the importance of innovation to achieve outcomes – which was agreed. EWL Alliance confirmed innovative approaches being used, which had allowed for reduction in footprint extent while maintaining an average sediment removal for the area of at least 75% TSS.
. Mana Whenua reiterated importance of looking for opportunities to improve the treatment of stormwater to remove suspended solids.
. Mana Whenua acknowledged that the treatment of this area was ‘part of the picture’ and opportunities for wider catchment treatment need to be pursued in future (e.g. not just increasing treatment levels here, but increasing the spread of treatment from the wider catchment to Mangere Inlet).
. Dale discussed the issue of Council that the treatment was designed “too low”, allowing for 100yr Sea Level Rise(changes to MSL) - Options to combat this: o Low with a one way valve o Pump out, not direct gravity pathway o Lift treatment area and pump up, discharge via gravity - Allowing for high intensity, low frequency events > high flow bypass - Integrating wetlands and bio filtration – innovation - Putting barriers in place to stop salt water intrusion occurring - Properties would be effected by SLR, but project accommodates this – weir can be lifted up (importance of future proofing)
. Amelia summarised Difference between Council and EWL position = done now vs done over time . Lucie email question: Leachate containment and how this was being managed – identified this as important and key to project outcomes
. Noel emphasised that the EWL Project is creating a more robust system, build a trench for leachate with impermeable bund that will collect the leachate and feed into wetland if appropriate . If inappropriate, will be pumped into trade waste . Lesley noted that monitoring conditions would result that if leachate contaminant levels exceed amount of contaminants can send straight to trade waste . Agreed: EWL Team to prepare a similar leachate design philosophy (as for stormwater) for Mana Whenua
4 Great South Road (GSR) Workshop . Amelia provided overview of purpose of workshop to discuss urban form, cyclists, portage and the interface of GSR and Mutukāroa . Mana Whenua sought clarification that we were liaising AMETI team and Amelia confirmed this.
Lunch
5 Conditions “management plan” title rearrange . Two conditions were tabled: Cultural Monitoring and ‘Mangere Inlet Monitoring’ draft. Both were prepared by Amelia for the purpose of Mana Whenua feedback. It was noted that NZTA review still underway. . Only the Cultural Construction Monitoring condition would be submitted for notification . Discussion followed and amendments made to draft conditions in light of Mana Whenua preliminary feedback. A copy of DRAFT conditions as discussed at hui attached to minutes. . Note, following hui the NZTA conditions have been released. Relevant Cultural Monitoring Condition submitted by NZTA attached. . The following provides a summary of the intent of conditions: o That there could be one monitoring plan for construction or a series of plans prepared for different areas o That there are provisions to build a common understanding of expectations > accountability o Mana Whenua approval of person appointed
. Kowhai sought clarification if there could be an issue of developers cancelling out Mana Whenua engagement on basis of the consent conditions. . Lesley and Amelia confirmed that Developers would require own consents, would need approval and that developers can’t ride on coattails of this consent
. Mana Whenua commented on the following outcomes for conditions: 1. an assurance conditions are being met 2. Focus on the lived experience, not historical setting 3. Cultural health index, less of a scientific, raw measure and more of a comparative aspect
4. Recognition that effect of this project may not be a ‘quick fix’ for Inlet but rather set up for future long term change 5. Getting people back in the areas for appropriate use 6. Importance that some connectivity (e.g. ecological) may mean people connectivity needs to be managed - not a blanket connection to everywhere 7. Should include consideration of cultural diversity issues (e.g. the sensitivity of burials and ashes etc)
6 Next Steps AL: Next hui = 7th March - Conditions and Great South Road alignment outcomes - Application will be notified by then - 3 x public info sessions planned about traffic, ecological, noise etc.
Scott provided update on meeting with Council and TOES / OBA - Community wants to reclaim more land (east) - Council “not opposed” but do want to know more information first
Minuted by: Brittany Goodwin
MEETING MINUTES East West Link – Hui Held 7 March 2017, 10am – 2pm Location: EWL Office – Level 9, 203 Queen Street (Respect room)
Attendees: EWL Alliance Scott Wickman EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick EWL Alliance Lesley Hopkins EWL Alliance Noel Nancekivell Isthmus Gavin Lister NZ Transport Agency Eynon Delamere Ngāti Te Ata Josy Peita Ngāti Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngāti Maru Geoff Cook Te Ākitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas Ngāti Paoa Dean Ogilvie Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua Tame Te Rangi Apologies: Te Ahiwaru Kowhai Olsen Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Moana Waa Ngāti Tamaoho Hero Potini Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki Zaelene Maxwell-Butler
Notes Action
Karakia / Mihi
Karetu path Presentation from Gavin on Karetu Path Pedestrian connection – grade separation and separate structure with connections to Great South Road and into Mutukāroa. Concept design done for purpose of assessing effects– opportunity for Mana Whenua artist to work on more detailed design.
GC: Will this be wide enough to support emergency vehicles if needed (like light path?). Noted this hasn’t been considered but could be designed in at a later stage if required. TTR: Build in observation look out areas along Anns Creek to emphasise importance of the area. GC: Original vegetation on the lava – opportunity to point out these features Concept to echo the Karetu portage. Function: carries people over land above railway lines and roads (in opinion better than previous at-grade design). Will be higher than the road. Visually stronger than previous design. Vertical profile to represent movement over portage, pass over high point past GSR and near Stratex site, then comes down and floats above the ground near Mt Wellington Highway – consistent design for the whole length. Length important for scale in terms of Mutukāroa and convey length of the portage.
GC: Noted that there should be off-set mitigation which would include the extension of the containment bund along length of Anns Creek.
Notes Action
Cross section – hint at waka passing over the portage. Piers are alternating (echo rollers) box girders – echo the keel, timber on sides – battern used to lash the hull, ribs underneath holding up the deck.
Model of the path passed round – LR noted that at bottom of the barriers to include a rubbish mesh trap. Amelia to find out Barriers could be colourful (with mesh) or clear (like light path) opportunities about litter traps on to use colours. structures and Distance: over 1km in length distribute information DO: Opportunities for augmented reality (seeing landscape as it was), and also along the foreshore – technology showing efforts to clean up harbour etc. AL: Some themes are in the ULDF. Opportunity now to bring in ways this could be realised – i.e. Augmented Reality. LR: Requested 3D visualisation to see visual impact over Anns Creek AL: Gavin doing visual simulation from the railway line looking back, Landscape team doing artistic visualisation. AL: We are doing a number of visualisations, but if any that Mana Whenua request we can add to the list. GC: What about KiwiRail – their commitment to cleaning up around the bridge? AL: Already identified this are to do weed and pest management (subject to approval from landowners) as part of mitigation package. Land currently owned by TR Group – am working with them on opportunity to take bit of their land that is left to do restoration work there. LR: TR Group stormwater pond – has already requested them to clean out their pond. GC: Connections into Mt Wellington SW: Tie into AMETI shared path at Mt Wellington – cross using signals and then connection into back of Sylvia Park to train station etc. Working with AT in terms of facilities on Mt Wellington highway and desire lines etc. TTR: Importance of Mutukāroa. Should be a priority for the design and connection into it. Lesson of how we don’t want things to go again. AL: At the moment the main entrance is off GSR. Plan is for path to drop down to access this through GSR intersection. Area along Sylvia Park – not suitable for access due to topography. TTR: Naming one of the components of this needing to be explored – Anns Creek etc. Place making focus needed. ZMB: Importance to Ngai Tai to stop obliteration of culture in this area. KW: Thanks to Isthmus team for design. GC: Ōtāhuhu bus/train interchange as good example – a lot of work done on the waka/maunga theme AL: Karetu path will need its own condition to tie down the critical elements
Conditions Lodged set of conditions distributed AL: At the last hui talked about long term monitoring condition. NZTA have come back with changes – more certainty. Will highlight differences and send through. May be good to start drafting the monitoring plan to show what it might look like. Confirm Murray’s view Noted that conditions relating to conditions are in the lodged set. – monitoring just NH4N. LR: Why just ammoniac nitrate (NH4N) monitoring? Are others able to be treated? (see below) AL: Murray has said all others apart from this can be treated in the wetland, if NH4N high then won’t be able to be treated in wetland. Will double check and get explanation from Murray LR: ANZECC guidelines - are the goalposts shifting? (i.e. what is happening Confirm last time when worldwide generally…) ANZECC guidelines LH: Leachate condition: Continuous monitoring is for flow (not for quality) – were reviewed what is happening currently. Quality might take several samples (average across). LR: If there is a high measure recorded – should trigger multiple weekly (or daily) readings to ensure that this is picked up.
7 March 2017
Notes Action
LH: Have asked comments from Council regarding leachate conditions – so may be some changes following that discussion. Will tell you outcomes of this.
LR: Council feedback that EWL not putting in leachate interception along whole alignment. LH: Design of the bund: longer travel times for contaminants, and binding of Confirm from Ann these to the material in the bund. Permeable to impermeable binding. Ann regarding date of Williams’ technical report. material and ZMB: Would mutcrete need to be repaired because of contamination contamination LR: 30-40 years for contaminants to saturate liners of landfills etc. AL: Ann to answer this (answer below) TTR: In place treatment preferable. Is Pikes Point only interception drain? LH: Goes across 2 sections of landfill. None at Galway Street. Relying on design of the bud to contain from the rest. TTR: Should word ‘interception drain from Point A to Point B’ - gives perception is only at one point but relates to whole area. GC: As well as AC Management – results should be sent to Mana Whenua
AL: Goes to the long term monitoring condition. This can list what group wants results for. Idea as this will go for 5 years. LR: Why stop after 5 years? Shouldn’t be discontinued – at least after that point do yearly monitoring? DO: Vision set for 2041 in Mangere Inlet Strategy LH/AL: Mana Whenua conditions to apply to all. Not in resource consents as these will need to be confirmed and then will go across both NoR and resource consents. AL: Page 15 conditions: MW.2 changed. GC: Use of words like ‘Aesthetics’ LH: Intention that it was set up apart from geotech/structural components. TTR: Change to ‘works in’. Not naming area as Anns Creek. Recognised that statutory process has name logged through this. Through promoting place making approach, to highlight miss-spelled names etc. How to add Mana Whenua perspectives to it. LR: LV.5 – Why mention of ponds? Take out mention of this and just refer to
wetlands and swales LH: Will take that out LR: Include litter trap on all structures in conditions. TTR: Noted over 20 years of monitoring with no actions – how can conditions assist with Council doing more following results. AL: Conditions around reporting to others (i.e. Mana Whenua) will assist with this. Sarah send out 15 March – reminder about submission period ending in 7 days reminder that Heritage conditions: LH noted that Jane Mathews (built heritage specialist) and Mat Felgate (archaeology) have had input into these. Also in submissions due in 7 consultation with Council and Heritage NZ. days on 15 March SL: Heritage management plan condition – should have timeframe for completing. TTR: History of highway board – 1868 – plans for highway, and Onehunga borough Council – plans for the area – heritage of the area. – Amelia – social.
Stormwater and contaminated land
Feedback on design issues from last hui Update from Noel on meeting with Auckland Council: – Council concern for ongoing cost of maintenance or raising them due to sea level rise in the future. – Pump stormwater into the wetlands. – Gavin: change appearance of the landscape in that area. Can’t support that approach. Council landscape architect agrees. – Compromise from Dale – a bit higher and pump in water and pump out. – Pumping can alleviate flooding issues. – Big cost implication. Working through OPEX cost. Working through with Council.
7 March 2017
Notes Action – From Council perspective: why pumping – low nature of wetlands was an issue – wetlands at risk of getting inundated with sea water. Pipes in tidal area – making one way valve works – a lot of maintenance to make sure they continue to work. All: agreed that should be easiest maintenance option. LR: Can’t see why pumps are the easiest maintenance option. GC: What happens when losing power? AL: Three tiers of control.
Other
Recent Council hui Discussion on boardwalk and bird impacts – next hui? LH: Meeting with DOC tomorrow regarding bird impacts – progressing issue. Will have more information by next hui LH noted have met with Forest and Bird TOES/OBA Design: TTR: Importance of Auckland Council forum – and addressing Council as a Items for next hui whole (including CCOs). Need all parts of Council Watercare discharges – will come along with more info at next hui - Bird habitats and KW: Council brought up rationale around mudcrete and confused by Mana boardwalk Whenua support for this: - – Need more detail on dredging for mudcrete on this Project Long-term – LR: Noted that have gone out into Waitematā and viewed mudcrete monitoring process. condition – TTR: Council talked about dredging along Inlet that it would create - Mudcrete islands, amount of dredging needed – AL: In ecological report has dredging area that has Asian date mussels – - Watercare geographic square. Can get more information from Stephen Priestly at next hui. – GC: what about contaminants in the sediment? Will dredging get areas of high contamination: – LH: Testing showed that higher contaminants closer to northern shoreline and near outfalls. So these will be used and ‘locked up’ through formation of the headlands.
Board of inquiry (on EPA website: http://www.epa.govt.nz/Resource- management/east-west-link/Pages/About-the-Board.aspx ) Cultural Values Report final – distributed. Noted preamble added and minor typos post- Mana Whenua review EPA site visit – 11 April
Minuted by: Sarah MacCormick
Distributed: • Cultural Values Report • Draft conditions (lodged with EPA) • Minutes from last hui
Response from Murray Wallis regarding NH4N monitoring:
• NH4N (Ammoniacal Nitrogen) has been selected as a “contaminant of potential concern” from the leachate monitoring data because all the other contaminants exhibited relatively low concentrations (in fact similar to what you would observe in urban stormwater).
• NH4N includes free NH3 (Ammonia) and this is toxic for aquatic organisms. As such, an ANZECC based trigger is appropriate.
• Even though NH4N has this toxicity characteristic, it is a form of nitrogen that is a nutrient. Fertilisers like urea and ammonium sulphate provide their N as the NH4N form. In soil and in wetland systems, some of the NH4N gets attached (sorbed) to organic material. Some NH4N gets transformed (oxidised) to nitrate which gets taken up by plants and also used by bacteria
7 March 2017
and other microorganisms to build their body tissue. So, NH4N shouldn’t be seen as just a “nasty” – it is a useful nutrient as well. It is only if excess NH4N gets right through the wetland and biofiltration system that it could be a problem.
• It is important to recognise that a wide range of inorganic elements (all heavy metals, including lead, zinc, cadmium and also arsenic) occur naturally in our soils and sediments. Volcanic soils tend to have a higher natural background range of these elements than other soils. The solubility of the heavy metals is strongly influenced by pH. In a young landfill, the pH is low (acidic) and this mobilises metals. In the closed landfills for the project they are older and the pH is near neutral. The result is we do not observe elevated concentrations of heavy metals in the leachate. Potassium (K) is not toxic. It is also a plant nutrient.
Response from Ann Williams (and Murray Wallis) regarding amount of contaminants in mudcrete:
• In summary: The actual contaminants that are fixed are a very small proportion of the water that flows from the land to the sea. The mudcrete will have the capacity to fix the contaminants in water passing through it over an effectively infinite period.
Sorption • The process is called ‘sorption’ (a physical and chemical process by which one substance becomes attached to another. The main mechanisms relevant to the contaminants in groundwater for EWL are adsorption and ion exchange: o Adsorption – the physical adherence or bonding of ions and molecules onto the surface of another phase (e.g., reagents adsorbed to a solid catalyst surface); o Ion exchange – an exchange of ions between two electrolytes or between an electrolyte solution and a complex. • Metals are bound through adsorption – metals are positively charged and they are attached to the negative surface charge of silts and clays. • Organic compounds are more likely to become bound to the organic fraction of a soil matrix
Desorption • The balance between sorption and desorption is influenced by the chemistry of the soil solution (pH, composition of the ions). Because the groundwater flow is introducing water with higher concentrations of contaminants in it than are in the mudcrete material, sorption will predominate. The fine textured (very small size) clay and silt sized particles have a very large “specific surface” (the surface area per gram of material). • A significant change in the chemistry would be required to alter this regime, and there are no mechanisms foreseeable that would impose such a change. Therefore, the sorption of the contaminants is effectively permanent.
7 March 2017
MEETING MINUTES East West Link – Hui Tuesday 2 May 2017, 10am – 2pm Location: EWL Office – Level 9, 203 Queen Street (Respect room)
Attendees EWL Alliance Scott Wickman EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick NZ Transport Agency Eynon Delamere EWL Coastal processes specialist Stephen Priestley EWL Ecology specialist Sharon De Luca EWL Landscape/urban design George Woolford NZ Transport Agency Andrew Scott Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki Zaelene Maxwell-Butler Ngāti Te Ata Josy Peita Ngāti Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Ngāti Maru Geoff Cook Te Ākitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas Ngāti Paoa Dean Ogilvie
Apologies: Ngāti Whātua o Ōrākei Te Ahiwaru Kowhai Olsen Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua Tame Te Rangi
Item Action
Karakia / Mihi
General
Early works blessing confirmed this morning – 12 May 2pm (invite should have been received).
Ecological – Dredging and Boardwalk
Sharon De Luca Habitats and values Intertidal mudflats Sub-tidal where dredging is proposed Focused on where there are invasive Asian date mussel beds – lower ecological values (smother other benthic (on inlet floor) organisms – 1 or 2 species present where the ‘mats’ of mussels are. Modified shoreline. Sediment quality low around stormwater outlets (info in slideshow) GC: Prior to silting – invertebrates – would they still be existing is same dominant way, if no silt and limited runoff. SDL: Understanding has always been muddy environment. 29 marine bird species recorded in Mangere Inlet Explanation on Asian date mussel mats – can be deep and smother what is underneath. DO: What is prevalence around the Manukau? SDL: Quite far spread around the Harbour.
Effects of dredging on ecology Temporary effects on animals that might filter feed Other effects outlined in PowerPoint slide Recommended dredging is minimised (smallest area possible) and focus on areas of Asian Date Mussels
Item Action
LR: Is it focusing on sediment being built up over the years by humans? SP: ‘By accident’ it does achieve some of it, main focus is to build the road. GC: Also focus on dredging in areas of contamination? SP: Area of contamination spread out through inlet rather low. Area already a ‘sink’ for sediment, lower amount of energy which allows movement.
Boardwalk Red line showing latest alignment of the boardwalk (on powerpoint). 0.7ha. Beneath boardwalk loss of some habitat due to piles Reduce ecological effects – pushing closer to the coastal edge Additional offset (also in powerpoint slide) – Statutory protection – Predator control in south island – Construction of new high tide roost in Mangere Inlet – Awareness raising for building owners – importance of roofs for habitat i.e. re-think repainting (avoid times when birds are there) DO: Awareness raising on boardwalk? SDL: Opportunity for that General discussion on people dropping rubbish and potential impacts on this.
Dredging
Stephen Priestly GC: Extraction of highly contaminated silts in the Mangere Inlet – rather than ‘Dredging’ Video of Hobsonville dredging. Sediment sink – has been building up over time – reasonably ‘natural process’ JP: Explain what over time is SP: Studies have been done over the past 50 years. Average of 10mm per year Map showing area of deposition in the Inlet – red higher concentration of deposition. Also some erosion in main tidal channels. Birds like these areas (as eroded away and provides food source). AL: Dredging In terms of patterns (i.e. what is happening) – reclamation and dredging unlikely condition – how to impact on these patterns to provide for SL: Sea level rise and climate change? good practice for SP: Will make a difference. dredging LR: Noted should not be getting same levels of sedimentation. methodology Quantities of dredging – in power point. Noted Council has talked about wanting (look at West bund higher – but shouldn’t affect amount of material. Key driver is ‘building in Haven conditions the dry’ and Hobsonville SP: In situ dredging for outer bund – where light blue is shown in slide Point) In consultation with ecology team – dredging area in sub-tidal area in 15ha. Noted may better to capture more contaminated in inter-tidal area if wanting to capture contaminants, but important foraging area for birds. GC: Birds coming from south to the north – not many on the northern side than the southern side (more food stocks). SDL: Noted a range of species feeding on the northern side. LR: Not going to look elsewhere from the harbour for dredging? SP: Not currently proposed. Difficulty is navigating to getting there. SP: Benefits of mudcrete – can tie up contaminants and impermeable barrier. If didn’t go for mudcrete – would have to work behind. Preferred option – not AL: Scope for going to inhibit other options if better. declamation at SW: Not precluding contractors from using better technology / methodology in Old Mangere the future which they will still need to manage the effects we have identified. Bridge SP: Areas of historical contamination – we are forming barriers onto these embankment – areas. Areas exist but still contained. southern side LR: Would be concerned about fill if was going to be shipped in – where it would come from. LR: Input Mana Whenua will have?
Effects Sediment quality variability Depth profiles – S47 – Galway St. 63 at Pikes Point Sediment plumes from dredging and mudcrete operation will have a minor adverse effect – Manukau Harbour noted for having high natural levels of TSS and deposition Dredging likely to happen for a year and plume effects to occur over that time too.
[Type text]
Item Action
LR: Minimum requirements/baseline – not happy if contractors working to these. Should be starting point – and get better than these. Did we have input? SW: Mana Whenua will have input – have not been developed yet SP: Agree best practice is important and has been a theme – shown in stormwater design we have proposed. SP: Usually intensive monitoring period as soon as work kicks off. Picks up how operation is going. If exceedence of reasonable trigger levels – can go back to the contractor to fix this. And prior to this a review of the methodology. SL: Mitigate or offset? SP: Can avoid (i.e. not do it). Dredging operation and capability of the contractor to use best practice. Monitoring picks up issues and allows you to actively intervene.
Lunch
Board of Inquiry / EPA update Eynon to report Mana Whenua group to think about opening / closing – discuss at next back Southern IIG Hui – 19th May
Princes Street detailed design
Attached: • Ecological presentation • Coastal processes presentation
[Type text]
MEETING MINUTES East West Link – Hui Tuesday 6 June 2017, 10am -1.30pm Location: EWL Office – Level 9, 203 Queen Street (Respect room)
Attendee: EWL Alliance Scott Wickman EWL Alliance Sarah MacCormick NZ Transport Agency Eynon Delamere NZ Transport Agency Robert Strong (Princes St Interchange) (from 10.30) EWL Alliance / Procurement Scott Cairney Ngai Tai ki Tāmaki Zaelene Maxwell-Butler Ngāti Te Ata Josy Peita Ngāti Tamaoho Lucie Rutherfurd Te Ākitai Waiohua Kathleen Wilson Ngāti Paoa Dean Ogilvie Te Ahiwaru Kowhai Olsen
Apologies: Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Ngāti Tamaoho Hero Potini Te Kawerau a Maki Scott Lomas EWL Alliance Amelia Linzey EWL Alliance George Woolford (Landscape and Urban Design) Te Runanga o Ngāti Whātua Tame Te Rangi Ngāti Maru Geoff Cook
Purpose of Meeting: EPA update and hearings processes, next phase of engagement and Princes Street Interchange narrative workshop
Item Action
Board of Inquiry / EPA update All evidence has come in from submitters Noted some Mana Whenua had seen (late) evidence from John McCaffery. Some of what is in that evidence appears untrue (LR) – i.e. Mana Whenua Circulate draft agenda supported Taumanu. to Mana Whenua Conferencing on Friday for cultural values – Board / EPA run process (i.e. not group for our timeframes). Purpose to understand what is agreed on / not agreed on conferencing on before hearing commences. Friday – non experts can attend but is facilitated Friday - Scott (i.e. formally run). If anyone wants to present at the hearing – can feed that back to EPA. Circulate list of those Discussion on opening hearing. To allow 30minutes at the start for Mana presenting at hearing Whenua. when available - Scott
Mana Whenua Group Next phase of engagement – as required by conditions Conditions – 6months prior to construction. Letter circulated to Letter format to formalise involvement. formalise Propose at this stage to continue format similar to what has been happening involvement - Sarah – regular monthly hui (already scheduled) plus attendance at Southern IIG hui.
Princes Street Interchange
Introduction / Mana Whenua involvement – general update on procurement phase
Item Action
Robert Strong – project manager on delivery side. Andrew Scott acting director for project. Scott Cairney – current delivery manager for Alliance. Transitioning into Beca / GHD team to support NZTA for procurement phase. Starting transition into working with Mana Whenua to produce documents for construction. LR noted concern with potentially damaging dredging practice and other damaging construction practice. Acknowledge good engagement at this stage but concern about contractors further down the track not resulting in good outcomes. Robert: Important to get that information into the contracts, and the contractors have to comply and will be monitored. Scott W: Important those evaluating tenders are up to speed with these outcomes. Principal’s requirements – development of these – certain things you can require to be demonstrated in tender and ongoing during construction. How those get evaluated needs to be considered. Alliance model vs fixed price contracts. Alliance about working together to get better outcome – more flexibility to change things if not working.
Princes Street
Princes Street – detailed design being undertaken by NZTA – then provided to contractor. Design – 30/40% through design. Currently undertaking geotechnical testing in the area. Design expected to be finalised early August. Plan to release tender document to industry mid-August (approx. 2month tender process). Construction likely to be begin February. Construction timeframe 18- 24months. Evaluation October – November. 1st Alliance contract: Neilson St / Foreshore works. Tender documents aimed to be released December 2017 / January 2018. Awarded October 2018 2nd Alliance – Anns creek / SH1 – sent out after first contract awarded
Urban Design / Landscape
Concept design – one taken forward for BoI Narrative options – design needs to be done with Mana Whenua. Examples provided. Noted a lot of detail provided. KW: Other Projects occurring at the moment – Auckland Transport Ōtāhuhu George to look at town centre upgrades – part of that forum. Portage Road – also exploring Otahuhu Train what this might look like. Ōtāhuhu train / bus station – won a recent design Station as award. Themes supported: Portage itself and what it meant from a transport precedent and design point of view. Strategic transport hub – waka design. Also paid options for waka homage to viewshafts / Maunga in the area, and seen at strategic points. narrative, to bring Opportunity to expand design iterations used before. back for comment Process – agreement on narrative. Tender documents allow for Mana Whenua endorsed design - price in recent noise walls / construction work so can be provided for. Importance of waka traditionally – connectivity between portages, importance for all iwi. Travel by foot and sea – mode of transport – many reasons for their uses. Main thoroughfare. Consistent with the ULDF narratives. Following same route that used to be followed etc…
Next steps Upcoming hui to incorporate Mana Whenua involvement in tender documents for next phase of procurement.
Minuted by: Sarah MacCormick
[Type text]
ATTACHMENT C: REVIEW OF PROJECT AGAINST WAI-8) RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE DIRECTIVES SET / OUTCOMES OF THE MANUKAU HARBOUR ACTION PLAN 1990
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 156
Relevant Wai-8 Findings EWL Project Response 9.2.1 In the Manukau the tribal enjoyment of the lands and fisheries has been and continues to be severely prejudiced by compulsory acquisitions, land development, industrial developments, reclamations, waste discharges, zonings, commercial fishing and the denial of traditional harbour access (para 6.4)
The omission of the Crown to provide a protection against these things is contrary to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (para 6.3) 9.2.2 (page 75)There is inadequate research to determine precisely the depletion of the seafood resource through overfishing on the one hand The Project acknowledges the effect that reclamation has on marine habitats, and pollution (in its broadest sense) on the other. We cannot quantify the losses but can conclude that overfishing has depleted the fish stocks however notes the positive impact the Project will have on waste discharges into and the quantity and quality of the fish and marine habitats has been seriously affected by reclamations, sedimentation through land the Māngere Inlet to go some way to addressing ‘pollution’ impacts on the Inlet. development, and the deterioration of the water quality through waste discharges. Furthermore, the proposed monitoring conditions will assist in better understanding the status of and changes to issues of mahinga kai. 9.2.2 (page 76) From those findings we move to examine the claimants’ various proposals for relief. They were: The Transport Agency has acknowledged Mana Whenua of Auckland as Project (b) To vest the control of the harbour in the Manukau tribes as the persons best able to protect it Partners under the Treaty of Waitangi and their role as ‘Māori Guardians’ or (c) A moratorium on granting further water rights for both the harbour and river Kaitiaki, through the process of Project engagement. The Transport Agency has (d) The appointment of Maori Guardians to contribute to planning and policy formulation and the application of those plans and policies to actively recognised the relationship Mana Whenua have with the Project area and particular cases has worked to address appropriately mitigate any potential effects. (i) A share in the rewards of development The Transport Agency acknowledges, through the conditions, that this partnership relationship should continue through more detailed design, construction and operation of the Project in order to achieve positive outcomes for the Project as a whole. This ongoing role in the Project is provided for in Project conditions (e.g. cultural monitoring of outcomes in collaboration with Mana Whenua and providing for cultural values monitoring). Mana Whenua has developed ‘Restoring the Mauri of the Māngere Inlet’ (a vision document) focussed on restoring the mauri of the Inlet, in partnership with central government, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport, KiwiRail and Watercare. As outlined in the CVR, its purpose is to present a shared vision, set of values and desired outcomes to be achieved through current and future investments and activities in and around the Māngere Inlet. There are ongoing discussions with Mana Whenua (at a governance level) on possible legal arrangements regarding the process of future land to be vested as a result of the reclamation. 9.2.3 (page 76) …But is it necessary for the Harbour Board to own the tidal lands either in order to maintain a control? We do not think so for The Project Team considers the above response address or consider the the same reason. We do not think that a revesting of harbour lands in the Crown need affect existing reclamations or the right to control, lease directives of this commentary. and receive an income from them or future reclamations… 9.2.6 On Guardians and an Action Plan Following the WAI 8 claim the Manukau Harbour Action Plan was produced. This The Manukau Harbour occupies a unique position. It is the second biggest harbour in New Zealand. Its importance in the West Coast fishing completed with input from ‘Tangatawhenua’. system is recognised (although imperfectly understood). It is subject to the special demands of the largest city in New Zealand and the demands Further to this, and as noted above, the Transport Agency has been working in of major projects approved and supported by the Crown. It has had more than its fair share of abuse. Protection and management of the harbour partnership with Mana Whenua on the vision document. In addition the Transport now deserves national as well as regional support. Agency has been working closely with Mana Whenua on related conditions for the Project. This includes an ongoing monitoring programme for the ‘bund’ and ….pending the formulation of an action plan we consider the Government should not approve further reclamations. stormwater outcomes for the wetlands. We see the need for the appointment of Guardians to advise and assist win the formulation of management and action plans to speak with authority on matters affecting the harbour… Relevant Wai-8 Recommendations 4. To the Minister of Transport, that pending the formulation of an Action Plan as in 3 above, further reclamations in the Manukau be prohibited It is noted that this recommendation was ‘pending the outcome’ of the Harbour (refer para 9.2.6) Action Plan. This document was prepared and confirmed in 1995. In light of this directive, we have undertaken specific review of that Plan. Relevant directions / policies of the Manukau Harbour Action plan EWL Project Response 5.10.2 Dredging and disposal methods The controls of the Plan relate more to disposal of dredged material for ports to …Disposal practices relate to environmental impact by affecting the extent of dispersion and mixing of the spoil and the rate of disposal. In any create channels. Given the proposal to use dredged materials in construction of particular instance choice of disposal practice will be largely determined by the nature of the disposal site and its proximity to the site of dredging. landforms and embankment (as such disposal is managed). However, rate is a more controllable operational parameter…’
Conclusions It appears from the work done on behalf of the Ports of Auckland that the present level of marine dredged material disposal activities are apparently resulting in only minor impact on the norther Manukau Harbour ecosystem. However, the question of the actual fate of the material which is discharged to the site remains to be resolved. If tentative proposals to expand the Port of Onehunga or develop new port facilities in the area come to fruition then the conclusions based on the work need reviewing with respect to identifying a long term strategy for dredged material disposal for the Manukau Harbour. 5.11.2 Walkways The Project will contribute to this policy of the Harbour Action Plan by creating a continuous walkway from Taumanu Reserve, to Old Māngere Bridge (and onto
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 157
Relevant Wai-8 Findings EWL Project Response The major finding of the report titled ‘Manukau Harbour Coastal Walkways’ (ARA, ARWB 1989b) was that a continuous shoreline walkway Ambury Park) through to Sylvia Park. This will complement other harbour around a large portion of the Manukau Harbour could be achieved relatively easily. This is because the existing roading network on the walkways (either planned or constructed) in the area (such as the Waikowhai urbanised north and north-eastern sides of the Harbour follows the shoreline fairly closely and many parks and some walkways are already Walkway from Hillsborough to Lynfield Cove Beach) and contributes to filling the adjacent to the Harbour. By linking the gaps in this network, it would be possible to have a continuous walkway around the Harbour from the gap along this network (specifically from Onehunga Wharf to Taumanu Reserve). Waitakere Ranges to Ambury Farm Park in Mangere. Differently parts of the walkway could be established as shoreline land and resources become available, with the shoreline walkways linked by the roading network until a more continuous walkway in achieved.
The report recommended that priority be given to linking the gaps in the network around the Mangere Inlet, as it was regarded that the provision of a continuous walkway in this area would achieve the most impact in terms of the objectives listed in 4.11.2. 6.10.1 Foreshore Works and Reclamation The Project has sought to clearly identify the environmental outcomes and 160 The policies of the Proposed Manukau Harbour Maritime Planning Scheme, which seek to minimise the extent and impact of reclamations in potential benefits of reclamation and avoid a design that results in the road the Harbour (as set out below), are supported. The objections… traversing the foreshore. In particular the Project seeks: - The reclamation design has sought to provide a contamination …To avoid, where possible, further reclamations in the Manukau Harbour and to require any reclamation proposals that may be advanced to be containment bund from areas of managed and unmanaged landfill fully assessed and justified. - To collect and treat current stormwater discharging (untreated) from the To support, where appropriate, the removal of illegal reclamations. wider Onehunga catchment Criteria for policies: - To restore the coastal edge and naturalise the coastal foreshore All reclamations shall be exceptions to the scheme and shall be evaluated against the following criteria: (compared to the linear landform created from managed and unmanaged a. The objectives and policies of the scheme. land fill) b. The purpose of reclamation. - To undertake the works in a manner that addresses visual impacts and c. The extent to which the proposed use has an operational need for Harbour location. particularly the relationship of the landform when viewed from the taonga d. An examination of alternative proposals for the use not involving reclamation. of the harbour e. Impact on the amenities and uses of adjoining land and water areas. - To undertake the works in a manner that maintains and improves public f. The extent of the reclamation. access to and along the foreshore g. The impact upon tidal flows, navigation, water quality, erosion and sedimentation. - To undertake the works in a manner that mitigates ecological effects and h. Impact on ecological values. where possible enhances ecological outcomes, (e.g. the design of the i. Impact on visual qualities of the Harbour and shoreline. wetlands) 161 Public authorities should not plan or approve alignment of roads or railways along foreshores; the crossing of marine areas should be - To design the reclamation in a manner that will not adversely impact on consistent with the proposed maritime plan. coastal processes in the Harbour, including tidal flows and navigation channels.
6.15 Water Board policies arising from Tangatawhenua perspectives The Transport Agency has worked extensively with Mana Whenua regarding the Although these policies do not directly address the concerns of Tanagawhenua, the overall aim is similar – to reduce the impact of contamination contamination containment bund, and recognises the ‘conditional’ support from a of natural waters by environmentally hazardous materials. number of Mana Whenua groups in respect of the reclamation and the importance of maintaining and exercising partnership in the design and evaluation of options …Section 6.12.2 contains regional and district planning land use management policies. These policies have been developed from the findings of for the Project and for the future management of the land area being established the review of regional and district planning in Section 5.12.2 of this report. However they do not satisfy the specific ‘no development’ request by by the proposed reclamation. Tangatawhenua.
BF\EWL\APPREBUTTAL\CULTURALENGAGEMENT\ALINZEY Page 158