30 september 2010 department of conservation southland ......30 september 2010 department of...
TRANSCRIPT
-
30 September 2010
Department of Conservation Southland Conservancyc/o Chris VisserP O Box 123Stewart Island 9848
Dear Chris
Thank you for the opportunity to meet with yourself and Martin Kessick. It was invaluable to usto have the discussion that took place and to thereby afford us a late stage opportunity to reviewour Revised Concession Application before we ask the Department to proceed.
We consider our Application to be very robust. It is the product of many years of considerationsince the monorail was first proposed. Along the way substantial modifications to the route(such as avoiding Dunton Swamp altogether) and to construction methodology (creation ofservice track) have been introduced. These changes have invariably followed consultationswith stakeholders and meetings with DOC and its advisors.
There may remain elements of our Application that require further explanation before theDepartment can make a Determination. If this proves to be necessary we will be in a position torespond, however, we consider that we have arrived at a point (subject only to the furthercontents of this letter and its attachments where some significant additional modifications arecontained) where we are asking the Department to proceed with the Application as it now exists.
Our Application can be summarised as follows:
1) We have proposed an engineering approach which your advisors have since formallydescribed as credible. We have also addressed the issue of a staged approach. Wehave always seen this Application as involving a staged approach and this is discussedelsewhere and highlighted with a Flow Chart that emphasises the staging. What wecannot accept are the commercial and financial risks in the particular staging modelproposed by your advisor MWH.
2) We propose a 200 metre wide easement for the 29 kilometres of journey that is acrossyour estate (with the exception of the 300 metre wide stretch described in theapplication). This provides the basis for what we both describe as the envelopeapproach.
3) Following our meeting in July we determined that there continued to be concerns held byDOC over some terrestrial ecology issues. We have since modified our proposal tocreate and include a Forest Management Plan and a Predator and Weed ControlManagement Plan. The elevation of both these areas of concern to discreteManagement Plan status together with a robust expansion of our commitments withineach and the submission of draft concession conditions for each reflects our intention tosatisfy the provisions of Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987 and in particular, therelevant provisions of Section 17 and the Department’s “Guide to Preparing yourEnvironmental Impact Assessment for Concessions Applications”.
-
2
4) With the addition of the new plans and their contents we consider we have now providedDOC with a sufficient overall assessment of effects that are known and acceptable.Where issues of avoidance, remediation or mitigation arise, we propose theManagement Plan approach. These plans are intended to be comprehensive in theareas to be covered and the detail to which they extend. Additionally, they will allowDOC to actively manage the Applicant’s activities 24/7, year by year and in each of thepre-construction, construction and operations phases. The standard of these plans willbe according to international best practice.
5) We consider the Application process is ideally suited to potential concessionairescommitting to detailed Management Plans. We expect any Concession Agreemententered into with the Department would specifically recognise the various ensuingconstruction and operational phases and would contractually require Riverstone tosubmit detailed Management Plans to be approved on every relevant matter beforeconstruction or operations could commence. By ultimately designing the ConcessionAgreement and the provisions within it to incorporate each Management Plan weconsider the Department is able, without risk, to defer asking the Applicant to provide aspeculative level of detail now that is best addressed later with greater certainty.
6) Our proposal for DOC to appoint a Project Advisor reporting to DOC but funded by theApplicant will allow DOC to access relevant external project skills and experience for thepre-construction and earlier construction periods with the then subsequent ability forthose skills through training and mentoring to be capable of transfer to DOC personnel.
Response from DOC External Advisors
We do not propose to go through each issue raised by your Advisors, in this letter. At ourInvercargill meeting there was a useful discussion on this and the items that you indicatedrequired a further response from us. Please find attached a report which addresses thosematters. We are grateful to have the working notes dated 18 August to assist us in doing this.
Applicant’s proposal on various issues raised at Invercargill meeting of 26 July and/orcontained in working notes of 18 August.
We intend to continue to pursue the envelope approach and where “any assessment of effects”issue arises we will demonstrate that the effects are known and acceptable. We do not acceptthe view stated by some of your auditors that we have not yet provided sufficient information tounderstand the effects anticipated by the construction and operation of the monorail andassociated activities to a level required to meet the Conservation Act thresholds. We havesought legal advice on this matter and we have made that advice available to you.
Where it is not pragmatic or appropriate to explicitly describe and assess effects at a detailedlevel now, we consider the Management Plan approach which in principle identifies theecological/environmental criteria to be met and then enforces the protection of those values isthe optimal strategy. We believe that this approach will result in a lesser level of adverseeffects, such as removal of significant trees, than would occur by prematurely drawing a “line ona map” to demarcate the route which we and DOC would be required to stick with, regardless ofon the ground realities.
Additional Management Plans - New
As mentioned in Paragraph (3) of the Summary above we have (in addition to responding to theadvice of your external advisors by way of a separate report attached) now proposed twoadditional Management Plans that are designed to give greater prominence and focus to issuesraised by you and your terrestrial ecology advisers. Additionally, we have attached DraftConcession Conditions for each along with Draft Concession Conditions for all other activitieswe propose.
-
3
Forest Management Plan (FMP)
Given the Department’s desire for a more prescribed description now of matters such as edgeeffect, likely wood volumes to be removed and the ultimate fate of cleared vegetation, we havedescribed the proposed principles we will be accountable against and the management actionswe will implement to avoid and remedy any potentially adverse effects.
Further, in time as with any Management Plan there can be updating to allow for improvedknowledge, particularly when design and construction methodologies are finalised andparticularly upon completion of the “walk through” with DOC personnel.
Predator and Weed Control Management Plan (PWCMP)
We remain committed to the view that the best mitigation we can provide is to the bat populationin the Eglington Valley, being the largest and most well studied population in the South Island.We consider our mitigation proposed will provide the greatest overall benefit to bats.Nevertheless we have modified our approach and will now in addition place greater emphasisthan we previously indicated on predator control along the monorail route. We have arrived atthat view for two reasons:
1) We recognise our obligation as the easement holder to the landowner (DOC) and to ourneighbours and adjacent landowners in the Mararoa, Whitestone and UpukeroraValleys, and
2) The conservation ranking for bats has been revised since we lodged our application andlong-tailed bats have a higher ranking than previously. While this reinforces our viewthat improvement of existing habitat in the Eglington Valley is the most criticalcontribution we can make, our modified approach also leaves flexibility to address whatwe may encounter along the route and to then design a relevant predator control plan forthe area in which we may encounter “endangered species” presence. With the advent ofnew technologies to better control mammalian predators it is appropriate to design aManagement Plan with the flexibility to adopt these technologies now and in the future toaddress any “endangered species” populations issues encountered along the route.
We would also wish to emphasise the expertise we have engaged within and throughMitchell Partners to assist and advise us on both Management Plans. Our advisors arehighly regarded by DOC in other conservancies for their specialist knowledge andexperience.
This letter (and the information attached) has been written in a manner that:
1. Proposes to bring the Riverstone Application to a conclusion.
2. Sets out the basis of our approach – credible engineering, a suitably staged process, anenvelope approach to the land over which we seek an easement, a Management Planapproach enshrined in the concession contract to provide certainty of performance andof the basis of the monitoring of that performance for both parties and for the public.
3. Provides sufficient commitment to a precise route definition in the areas of greatestsensitivity together with additional discrete Management Plans on key outstandingissues to satisfy the Minister as to the sufficiency and adequacy of informationconcerning effects.
4. Sets out the advice from legal counsel on the nature and quality of the information wehave now provided.
-
4
5. Demonstrates the Applicant’s commitment to operating according to standards ofinternational best practice.
6. Acknowledges the enormous amount of research and advice tendered by the Applicantand its advisors, and by the Department and its advisors both internal and external tothis project over a lengthy period of time. This Application has involved a genuine andcautious iterative and consultative process. Many changes to route and methodologieshave been considered and made where appropriate.
It remains to thank the Department for the manner in which the Applicant has been able topursue its Application and to remind all involved that what the Applicant has always wished toachieve is the highest quality tourism experience which will provide an opportunity for local andinternational visitors (and now mountain bikers) to experience landscapes and ecosystems thatthey would not normally encounter. We would not be meeting our goal if those landscapes andecosystems suffered adverse effects. We consider that this Application more than meets thatgoal through the contributions made by everyone and the process that has been followed thisfar.
Yours sincerely,
John Beattie
-
Res
Rive
Fior
sponse
erstone
rdland
to DepAud
Sep
e Holdin
Link E
partmendit Rep
ptember 2
ngs Lim
Experie
nt of Coorts
2010
mited
ence
onservaation
-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 1
2. HISTORY OF THE PROJECT ................................................................... 1
3. OVERARCHING THEMES ........................................................................ 7
3.1 ENVELOPE APPROACH .......................................................................... 7
3.2 MANAGEMENT OF EFFECTS AND MITIGATION ................................... 9
3.3 PROVISION OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ...................................... 10
3.4 RESEARCH METHODOLOGIES ............................................................ 11
4. SPECIFIC MATTERS – ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS .......................... 14
4.1 ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION - MWH ..................................... 15
4.2 TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY – WILDLAND CONSULTANTS LIMITED .... 17
4.3 LANDSCAPE – MORGAN+POLLARD ASSOCIATES ............................ 20
4.4 AQUATIC ECOLOGY – RYDER CONSULTING ..................................... 23
4.5 RECREATION – RECREATION AND TOURISM CONSULTING ........... 25
4.6 NOISE – BEL ACOUSTIC ....................................................................... 27
5. MOUNTAIN BIKE TRAIL ........................................................................ 27
6. CONCLUSION ......................................................................................... 28
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1: Draft Forest Management Plan
Attachment 2: Draft Predator and Weed Control Management Plan
Attachment 3: Draft Concession Conditions – Guide to Conditions, and Flow Chart
-
1.
2.
INTROThank ypreparedresponseeasemenFiordlandfeedbackwithin thmatters response It shouldreport whpotentialprovidedas to thsummary Incre The
cong To e
expe The
Eglin Edu
valu The
Ana The
ongoasso
This repso far, aaudit, foeffects tregardin
HISTO The moconstrucmonorailengineer The currproposalPartners
ODUCTyou for the d for the e to Rivernt to constd. The purk from RHhe technicaraised in te is include
d be noted hich assessl adverse e
d with any ahe significay, these are
eased tourisreduction i
gestion alonenable thoserience sucuse of a p
nton Valleycation of paes of the arprovision
u Downs, Tcreation of
oing emploociated serv
ort has beeand then adollowed by hat has beg the moun
ORY Onorail prop
cts designedl been conring constra
rent applical sought by
ships peer
TION opportunityDepartmen
rstone Holdtruct and orpose of thL as to thal audits. Rhe audits ad here.
that somesed tourismeffects of tssessment
ant benefitse:
sm opportun time takeng Milford Rse who wouch a place, iortion of ev; assengers area; of a moun
Te Anau andf substantiayment throuvices.
en structureddress the o
a more speen undertatain bike tra
F THE posal is und to transponstructed waints, which
tion supersy RHL in 2
review th
1
y to reviewnt of Consdings Limitoperate a mhis report ise conclusioRHL’s specand a coor
e reports w benefits. Ithe proposor stated v
s of the F
unity for Fiorn to travel t
Road and atuld not normn a controll
very ticket s
along the ro
ntain bike trd Lake Man
al employmeugh the ope
ed to initialloverarchingpecific discaken and thail is also pr
PROJEnique in theort people
with the coare encoun
sedes an ap2006. In eahe 2006 c
w the technservation (ted’s (RHLmonorail as to providons and recialist advirdinated leg
were not aun general te
sal, and to iew of the D
FiordlandLin
rdland; to and from t Milford durmally have ed manner
sold to inve
oute of the
rack, whichnapouri; andent during teration pha
y review thg themes thcussion reghe mitigatiorovided.
ECT e world. short distan
onstraints, ntered with
pplication forly 2008 Roncession
ical audits DoC, the
L) applicatind mounta
de you withecommendasors have gal, plannin
dited, namerms, the a
date, we Department k Experien
Fiordland, ring the midthe opportu; st in predat
ecological
h will link Qd he construc
ase through
he progresshat have begarding the on proposed
Most mononces. Nowparticularly this propos
or a concessHL requestapplication
that have Departmenon to see
ain bike trah clarificatioations cont
consideredng and tech
mely the Moudits focusehave not
t of Conservnce project
and reductddle of the dunity to visi
tor control i
and recrea
Queenstow
ction phase developme
s of the proeen raised i assessmed. Further
orails are uwhere else h
ecologicalsal.
sion for a sted that Min. Our re
been nt) in ek an ack in on or ained d the hnical
oriarty ed on been
vation t. In
ion of day; it and
in the
tional
n, Te
e, and ent of
posal in the ent of detail
urban has a l and
imilar itchell eview
-
highlightwas deterequired environmapplicatiand is th Prior to comprehElliott ththis iteranecessaas increatechnicaconstruceffects in As a resapplicatiBetweenin 2009, again refEach of earlier tebefore aapplicatiaddress prior plan As part o Mitc
and (onethe the e
Opuentirdesi
Stepentir
In Mthe wate
Robloca
Marshelicwho
ted a numbermined tha
with respmental effecon lightly.
he result of m
the lodgemhensively inen of Landative knowry to protecased knowll auditors
ction methoncluding tho
ult of the 20on and the
n receiving a substant
fined and ththe new teechnical auand any limon was devany percei
nning and c
of the revisi
chell Partnesurrounds
e in May 20route took aecological v
us Internatiore route anign details. phen Brownre route twic
May 2009 NIproposed m
er. b Greenawaations for theshall Day Acopter and
ole route.
ber of deficiat a revisedpect to encts. RHL hThe 2009 cmore than f
ment of thnvestigated care Resea
wledge gathct the recogedge camewho raised
ods and theose on lands
006 audit it e route wathe audit reially new te
hen compream membe
udit. As a mitations of
veloped asved shortco
consideratio
on process
rships Ltd uincluding t
009 and the approximatevalues preseonal Consulnd conside
n walked apce. He alsoIWA staff unmonorail ro
ay walked e Kiwi Burn
Acoustics flemeasured
2
encies in thd applicationgineering as not undeconcessionfifteen years
e 2006 apand refine
arch), 2004hering procgnised ecoloe to hand. Td significane effects oscape and
was decideas further mesults in 20eam of expeehensively sers was pro
result the those earl
s a responsomings withon (refer Ta
the followin
undertook twthe propose second inely five weeent along thltants spent
ering the a
pproximatelyo undertookndertook fieoute, the su
the route hut.
ew into seveambient no
he 2006 con was requdesign, c
ertaken the applications of plannin
pplication thed in 1995 4 and 2006 cess the rogical and oThe 2006 a
nt issues, pon terrestriarecreation v
ed to complmodified to 07 and lodgerts was assurveyed byvided with team wereier investig
se to the 2h the addedble 1).
ng field wor
wo surveys ed cycle linlate Novemeks and comhe route. t approximapproach to
y 24 km of k field work eld surveys urveys invo
and in ad
eral of the roise levels,
oncession auired. Substconstructione preparation has been g and inves
he approxim(by Bill Le(by Boffa M
oute was other valuesapplication wparticularly al ecology,values.
etely reviseprotect the
ging the revsembled an
y each memthe earlier
e aware of gations. T006 audit a
d advantage
rk was unde
of the entirk track to T
mber 2009). mprehensiv
ately two we constructi
the route ain the widerin rivers an
olved exten
ddition expl
remote part as well as
application atantial work
n activities on of this re
well considstigation.
mate routeee and GraMiskell). Dmodified w
s along the was reviewewith respe
, but also
e the concee local ecovised applicnd the route
mber of the tmaterial anwhat had
Thus the cuand designe of ten yea
ertaken:
re monorail Te Anau D The surve
vely docume
eeks walkinon and sp
and flew over area.
nd streams sive time i
lored altern
ts of the rous flying ove
and it k was
and evised dered
e was aeme
During where route ed by ect to other
ession ology. cation e was team.
nd the gone
urrent ed to ars of
route Downs eys of ented
ng the pecific
er the
along n the
native
ute by er the
-
As well investigaincluded J &
tour Traf
traff New
alsobuild
As a resproposalconsiderconstrucconsisteand histoZealande
as this subations. Othe:
H Moriartyism in the vffic Design Gic and trans
w terminal bo visited thedings in the
sult of the l. It was oration and cction track innt with the oric heritagers by advo
bstantial fieler desktop
y undertookvicinity and Group prepasportation mbuildings wterminal sitvicinity as
refinement originally intconsultationn situ for uDepartmen
ge assets foocating and
3
ld componecomponen
k an assessin the widerared a traff
matters arisiere designetes and conwell as the
process, atended to ren with the Dse as a mont of Conseor the greatpromoting
ent, all the ts included
sment of thr area, incluic impact asing from theed by Salmnsidered thesurroundin
a constructioehabilitate
Department ountain bikeervation's mtest benefitnatural her
experts und in the rev
he effects ouding Milfordssessment e proposal. mond Archite form and g landscape
on track wathis track, bit was decie route. Th
mandate to t and enjoyitage.
ndertook devised applic
of the projed. report relat
tecture Ltd,function of e.
as added tbut upon fuded to leavhis was seemanage na
yment of all
sktop cation
ect on
ing to
, who other
to the urther ve the en as atural New
-
Table 1:
AREA O
Enginee
Terrestr
: Summary of P
OF EXPERTISE
ering & Constructi
rial Ecology
Project History
2006 AUD
ion Lack of ce
Lack of de
Engineerin
Insufficient
More comp
Need to coArea.
Assessmevegetation
Insufficientbe felled a
No descripNo ecologi
No conside
Scale of ef
No mitigati
No strateg
y
DIT FINDINGS
rtainty over the ro
tail and prescripti
ng constraints not
t site work to dete
prehensive fauna
onsider context of
nt of the local, reg and habitats at th
t information to dend in which locati
ption given of apprical criteria for sel
eration of vegetat
ffects not quantifie
ion proposed.
y for rehabilitation
oute options.
on around constru
adequately asses
ermine all the issu
surveys required
f Te Wahipounam
gional and nationahe site
etermine how manons.
roach to minimiselecting the final al
ion disposal.
ed.
n.
4
uction methodolog
ssed.
es that may apply
.
u World Heritage
al significance of t
ny canopy trees w
e ecological impacignment.
2009 REVIS
The route e
gy. The constru
The enginee
y. Extensive s
Two additioconfirmed pbats confirmconfirmed a
Covered (Se
the Covered (Se
will Approximatemaking no atrees (Sectio
cts. Ecological cManagemen
Forest Mana
21.96ha of vreports.
Predator anand 200ha o
Rehabilitatio
SED RESPONSE
nvelope has been
uction methodolog
ering constraints a
ite work has been
nal bird surveys cpresent (11 threatemed present. Greeas present nearby
ection 2.3 of Octo
ection 6 of Octobe
ely 10, 859 trees allowance for furthon 3.2 of January
criteria are proposnt plan approach
agement Plan dev
vegetation remova
nd Weed Control Mof ecosystem man
on an integral par
n defined.
gy has been presc
are clearly identifi
n completed.
completed. Forty ened). Bat surveyen skink (Oligoso.
ober 2009 report).
er 2009 report).
and 14, 439 sapliher refinement of y 2010 report).
sed (Section 8 of Odescribed.
veloped.
al and other effec
Management Plannagement propos
rt of Construction
cribed.
ied and discussed
three species of by completed. Lon
oma chloronoton)
ngs will be removthe route to prote
October 2009 rep
cts considered in b
n developed. Bothed for Eglinton Va
Management and
d.
bird ng-tailed
ved, ct large
ort).
both
h on site alley.
d
-
Landsca
Recreat
ape
tion
No weed a
Not sufficiedifferent ch
Addressed
Lack of coteam.
Statutory aof Conserv
Amenity vaother amen
Lack of coconstructio
Assessmeconsider v
Does not arecreation
No alterna
Safety conconstructio
Potential to
Monorail w
and pest monitorin
ently detailed in itsharacter areas alo
d both the proposa
llaboration betwee
assessment RMA vation Act.
alues focussed onnity values.
nstruction detail pon effects on land
nt focussed on imalues in wider are
address public valinfrastructure.
tive location nomi
ncerns with respecon and operation.
o increase visitatio
will change visitor
ng or control propo
s identification anong the concessio
al and effects in a
en engineering te
focussed, needs
n visual values, do
precludes considescape.
mpacts along corriea.
lues associated w
inated for Kiwi Bu
ct to public access
on rate.
setting and visitor
5
osed.
d examination of on route.
a lightweight mann
eam and landscap
to be set in conte
oes not address
eration of
dor, does not
with existing
urn Hut.
s during
r profile to the are
Operation E
Predator anand off site threatened s
Stephen Broconsidered
ner. Stephen Bro
e Team appro
ext DoC advisois set in the
Considered
Considered
Further fieldwith audit fin
Considers p
Alternative l
Considered
Considered
ea. Considered
Environment Mana
nd Weed Control Mpredator control pspecies. Weed co
own divided the rothe route both as
own gave the pro
oach taken.
ors have placed incontext of Conse
.
.
d work undertakenndings.
public values of ex
location nominate
.
.
and recommenda
agement Plans.
Management Planproposed, with focontrol and monito
oute into different a whole and with
posal and effects
appropriate focuservation Act.
n and assessment
xisting situation.
ed.
ations made.
n developed. Bothcus on protection oring proposed.
character areas ahin the Fiordland c
due consideration
s on RMA, the app
t revised in accord
h on site of
and context.
n.
plication
dance
-
Freshwa
Noise
Architec
Tourism
ater Ecology
cture
m
Lack of inf
Characteri
Lack of inf
Lack of co
Effects of c
Considerat
Siting of bu
No tourism
formation – limited
stics of streams a
formation with res
llaboration with en
construction noise
tion of noise on re
uildings, not desig
m assessment und
d to fish.
and waterways no
pect to constructio
ngineering team.
e not considered.
ecreational users.
gn is the main foc
dertaken.
6
ot detailed.
on near waterway
us.
Other taxonconsidered.
Main stream
ys. Constructiomanagemen
Team appro
Considered
Considered
Design of bof buildings
Tourism ass
nomic groups (inve
ms and waterways
n near waterwaysnt plan.
oach taken.
.
.
uildings to fit in lastill under consid
sessment comple
ertebrates, periph
s described.
s outlined. More d
ndscape the maineration.
ted by J&H Moria
hyton) and water q
detail to form part
n focus. Precise l
arty.
quality
of
ocation
-
3.
3.1
OVERThere hathe technincluding Enve Man Prov Res
These thby RHL.
ENVELA numbethe concmay occnot provand doequantifie As descrmost of arbitrarilyinvestigaRHL betentire teallows thsurvey aenvironmaccommenvironmmountainfurther in Adoptingthe expeEach exeffects a It is notethe applapproprioverall arecognisthe appli
RARCHas been a cnical audit rg:
elope appronagement ovision of Adearch Meth
hemes are aOur respon
LOPE APer of auditocession eascur within thvide sufficiees not alloed.
ribed in the the length
y. Rather ations, inclutween 1995echnical exhe final accand the desmental con
modate sigmental valun bike trail wnformation a
g an enveloerts engagexpert has eassessment
ed that eachlication releate approa
assessmentsing the “bigication itself
HING THcommon thereports. In o
oach; f Effects anditional Info
hodologies.
applicable tnse to these
PPROACrs have idesement corhat corridorent certaintyow the adv
concessionh of the roit is the r
uding the a and 2010 apert team.
cess, layoutsign to be anditions ennificant eces during without the at this early
ope approaed by RHLeffectively a within the c
h audit repoevant to eaach, and not of the appgger picturef.
7
HEMESeme to somour review o
nd Mitigationormation;
to all the ase common t
CH entified a porridor or “en. Some audy that avoidverse effec
n applicatiooute. The result of dassessmenand a signifThis appro
t and positioadapted acncountered.cological, lconstructioconsiderab
y stage.
ch at this eL have hadassumed a corridor.
ort effectiveach main fio doubt wiplication, it he” matters
S me of the critof the audit
n;
ssessments themes is o
otential risk nvelope” anditors suggedance of imcts of the
n a 200m wproposed c
detailed ents that havficant amouoach puts on of the roccording to . This aplandscape, n and ope
ble upfront c
early stage d to adopt
worst cas
ely assesseeld of expell be usefuhas resultewhich were
ticisms thatreports we
that have boutlined belo
with respecnd the variaest that this
mportant habproposal to
wide corridocorridor havironmentave been count of grounthe environ
oute to be sgeotechnicproach en
geotechnration of thcost of prov
in the proca precautioe scenario
d the technertise. Whul to the Ded in some oe addressed
t has emergidentify the
been underow.
ct to the widable effectss approach bitats will oo be accu
or is proposeas not beeal and techommissionend truthing bnment firstsubject to fucal foundatinables RHical and
he monoraividing subst
cess meansonary appr
o in terms
nical appenhilst this waepartment of the auditd in the bo
ged in se as
taken
dth of s that does
occur, rately
ed for n set hnical ed by by the , and urther on or
HL to other l and
tantial
s that oach. of an
dix to as an in its ts not
ody of
-
To guideseries oconstrucpractice the waycomprehmanage A dr A co An o A fo A pr
The first and will phases tmonorailinfluence The Foreas criteriduring codisposal Predatorworks boboth durPredatorAttachm It is envito DoC aand impl RHL conare apprtool in dthat, we the footconsisteconstrucagree ona “walk t(on behaprocess. We refehave reconditionConserv
e constructiof managemction and o
for projectsy that a dhensive moment respo
raft communonstruction operations arest manag
redator and
three of thebe popula
through to dl proposal e these plan
est Manageia for large onstruction)(either wit
r and Weedoth on site ring and posr and Weed
ment 1 and A
saged that and coordinlementation
nsiders thatropriate to dealing with
acknowledprint, consnt with the
ction it is pn the final mthrough” analf of DoC)
r to a letteeceived (dans and the vation Act
on and opement plans peration of s of this naevelopmentnitoring req
onse as nec
nications prmanagemeand environgement plan
weed contr
ese were atted and re
design and the selecti
ns.
ement Plan tree avoida), developmthin the sited Control Maand in the st constructd Control MAttachmen
an Indepennates the ren of these pr
t the envelothe circums
h potential dge that youtruction eff
e level thatroposed tha
monorail aligd other field) will be inv
er prepared ated 28 S
use of maand the R
8
eration of thwill be pre
f the monorature. The t occurs a
quirements acessary. RH
rotocol; ent plan; nmental man; and rol manage
ttached to tefined as thconstructioon of a fin
is proposeance (both dment of mete area or tanagementEglinton Vation. The drManagemennt 2 respect
ndent Projecesponse of rotocols and
ope approastances anand actual u have advfects and vt is proposat RHL wilgnment andd investigatvolved thro
by Paul BSeptember anagement
Resource M
he monorailepared to rail. This ismanageme
at the outsand subseq
HL proposes
nagement p
ment plan.
he concesshe project mn. Because
nal monora
ed to specifiduring the rhodologies total remov Plan sets oalley and alraft Forest Mnt Plan aretively.
ct Advisor, fDoC staff
d managem
ch and thed compriseeffects of
vised you revegetation ed in the al engage w
d mountain tions. The Inughout the
Beverley of 2010). Thplans in o
Managemen
l and mounmanage th now consnt plans ar
set, and arquent and os five manag
plan.
sion applicamoves from
e of the uniqil provider
ically addreroute selectfor vegetat
val), and mout specific so address
Managemen attached t
funded by Rwill oversee
ment plans.
use of mae an effectivthis propos
equire furthremoval w
application.with DoC tobike route. ndependent
entire rout
Buddle Finhis relates other casest Act. We
ntain bike tre effects o
sidered accere used to re coupledongoing adagement pla
ation in draftm its conceque nature owill signific
ess matters tion processtion remova
monitoring. predator co
ses weed cont Plan andto this repo
RHL who ree the popu
anagement ve managesal. Havingher certaintywill in realit. Prior too determineThis will int Project Adte determin
ndlay whichto conce
s relating te note tha
ack a of the epted guide
with aptive ns:
t form eptual of the cantly
such s and al and
The ontrol ontrol
d draft ort as
eports lation
plans ement g said y that ty be o any e and clude
dvisor nation
h you ession o the
at the
-
3.2 3.2.1
3.2.2
Minister imposedlater stagon the ba
MANA1 Effects
As descmatters uncommfollow thfactor inecology,easily ininvestiga As discuprocesseduring eawhile themethodsprogresssignificanand submconcess The mathroughoand moprotocol RHL is omonorailarising frappropriactual efwill ensucan be a
2 MitigatioThe audcannot bassesseapproachstages. methodo
and Depard on any coge in the pasis of any
AGEMENT
cribed aboveat Kiwi Bur
mon in a prohe concessin some fle constructio
ncorporate ations.
ussed in thes to be apach stage oe outcome cs of achievinses. RHL nt contributmission of aion.
anagement out the variountain bikebetween R
of the view l and mourom construate range offects. The ure this outachieved thr
on ditors have be determind. It seemh to the dev
RHL wouologies for s
rtment haveoncession. rocess (succoncerns o
T OF EFF
e, RHL hasn or Te Anaoject of thison and res
exibility in on effects knowledge
he concesspplied in orof the constcan to a larng that outcwill contin
tion from Doany manage
plans reqous phasese trail. ThisHL and DoC
that DoC cntain bike
uction will beof mitigation
proposed tcome. Absrough condi
expressed ned and thems that somvelopment buld be restages prior
9
e significantIt should b
ch as followover the info
FECTS A
s not adoptau Downs a
s scale and ource consits manageand sedime
e acquired
sion applicarder to achitruction or orge extent bcome will b
nue to devoC. It is enement plans
quire ongois of the conss will be mC.
can be contrail, any
e answeredn or offsettinmanageme
solute compitions attach
concern therefore the me of the aby allowingequired tor to the conc
t control ovbe noted thawing a hearormation pro
AND MIT
ted a fixed at this stagesignificanc
sent approvement of tent managvia further
ation, manaieve a certaoperation prbe agreed abe subject tvelop thesevisaged thas will form p
ng input astruction anmanaged th
nfident that residual qu
d and DoC wng options aent plans apliance withhed to the c
at the residsuitability ouditors may the propos
o submit cession bein
ver the natuat the Minisring) declineovided.
IGATION
route, or ce in the proe. Design dal phase. Rterrestrial eement so tr research
agement plaain environrocess. RHat an early o refinemen
e managemat the contepart of the c
and verificand operationhrough the
prior to conuestions abwill have coare availablend commun
h such planconcession.
dual effectsof mitigationy prefer a msal to procedesign an
ng granted.
ure of condster could ae the applic
N
confirmed docess. This developmenRHL proposecology, aqthat it can and monit
ans set oumental out
HL considersstage, the nt as the p
ment plans,ents, preparconditions o
ation with n of the mo communic
nstruction obout the eonfidence the to addresnication prons and prot
s of the mon cannot bemore presc
eed in a sernd constru
ditions at any cation
esign is not nt will ses to quatic more toring
ut the come s that exact roject with ration of any
DoC norail cation
of the ffects
hat an s any otocol tocols
norail e fully cribed ries of uction
-
3.3
RHL ancommercmanagemcircumstrespond 100% ceoccur. Iand mitieffects. consider The infoaddition monitorinthat anyavoided. We do neffects inapproach To demimplemedraft conincludedconstruc The strumanage
PROVIThe exacis not liktype of mkey comsupplier obtainedaccount methodoand safe As discudetail wiconfidentrue for terms, sconcludeapplicati
nd its legacially in imment plan tances. It ito the cons
ertainty. Then some casigation sho
Furthermored appropr
ormation alto the invesng that will
y potential e
not considern this regah does how
monstrate ented with cnditions of Cd will ensuction phase
ucture of ment plans
ISION OFct specifica
ke any othemonorail are
mponent of immediate
d. Deferrinany fut
ologies or tety standard
ussed, we ath respect t
nce in the lethe engine
seems to hed that effon.
al advisors plementing approach
s unrealiststruction anere is a neeses, effects
ould be tailore ecosysriate today c
ready gathstigations thbe carried
effects will
r that a stagrd, nor is it
wever lead to
how the certainty for Concessionure DoC reof the proje
the proposis outlined
F ADDITtions for the
er in the woe unique (rethe design
ely followinng the desigure improechnologies
ds.
acknowledgto various a
evel of effeceers and tehave been fects may
10
do not s the projecis the reaic to sugge
nd presenceed to monitos may not mored to me
stem manacould be su
hered in tehat will be n out in conbe known
ged approact likely to leo greater co
managemethe entirety submitted emains in ect (refer At
sed draft in the flow
IONAL INe monorail aorld. The paemote locatn phase wig the necgn developmovements s and inco
ge that maaspects of tct concludederrestrial ec
that in thewell be m
see merit ct on a stagasonable anest that the of the monor closely anmanifest for eet actual agement isperseded w
rms of thenecessary pnjunction wi
and can b
ch will achieead to imprommercial u
ent plans y of the projwith the apcontrol th
ttachment
conditions chart (refer
NFORMAare not yet articular contion, topogrll be to woessary conment will alor develo
rporate up
ny of the athe proposad in the appcologists. Te absence
much greate
either envged basis. nd appropre way the norail can bnd respond a number as opposes evolving
with the pass
e environmerior to consth construcbe adequat
eve any greroved mitigauncertainty
will be ject, we havplication. T
hroughout t3).
and interrr Attachme
ATION known. Thenstraints forraphy, ecoloork closely nstruction aso enable Ropments ito the min
auditors woal in order fplication. ThTheir approof more d
er than an
vironmentalIn our view
riate one in ecosystem
be predicted to effects ifof years if
ed to theorg and whsage of tim
ental effecstruction, anction, will entely mitigate
eater certaiation. A stfor RHL.
developed ve expande
The level of the design
relationship nt 3).
e proposed r the designogical valuewith a mo
approvals RHL to takein constru
nute constru
ould prefer for them to his is particoach, in gedetail they nticipated in
ly or w the n the m will d with f they at all, retical at is e.
ts, in nd the nsure ed or
nty of taged
and ed the detail and
with
route n and es). A norail being e into uction uction
more have
cularly eneral
have n the
-
3.4
3.4.1
The recoto underthis sizedevelopmto compconcessdecides developm There wparticulasufficientfaithfully We referalready with a cothe size the activto declininsufficiethe Act. On the bRHL is omanage the cond Further report.
RESEAIn a nummethodscould haunfair anRHL arebeen trieinternatio
1 The TeaAll of tdocumensensitivemethododetermin
ommendatiortake the nee and costment to be lete the woion and reon the basiment phase
will always bar stage in at informatio.
r to the opinbeen provid
oncession aand scale o
vity and its pne an applent or inade
basis of theof the opinio
effects throditions of the
information
ARCH Mmber of th
s adopted bave lead to nd incorrecte not uniqueed, tested aonally.
am the expertsnted expere environmologies to ane balanced
ons in someext phase o, it is premundertaken
ork are granesource cons of comme
e.
be a continua process son to enable
nion prepareded to DoC
application uof the EIA spotential efflication if sequate, but
e advice recon that the ough the dee concessio
regarding
ETHODOe audit repby RHL’s tebiased dat
t. The methe, and are cand peer re
s engagedrtise in deents. Theyassess the d and object
11
e of the auof work: desmature andn at the outsnted. Such nsent apprercial and o
uum of infosuch as thise the Depa
ed by Paul C. This conunder the Cshould be infects and nos/he consid this is not
ceived fromfurther infoesign proceon.
the mounta
OLOGIESports there eam of expta collectionhodologies considered eviewed els
d by RHL ealing with y rely on
level of etive conclus
ditor’s reposign develo
d inapproprset before awork will b
rovals haveother inform
ormation thas. It is our vartment to u
Beverley ofnsiders the Conservationn proportionotes that theders that th
a requirem
m its expertsormation caess which w
ain bike tra
S is the sug
perts are nn. We consemployed best practic
sewhere thr
are highllarge sca
best practienvironmentsions.
orts essentiaopment. Giriate to reqany concessbe undertake been secation to pro
at could be view that wundertake th
f Buddle Fininformation
n Act 1987 n with the se Minister hhe informatment of the
s, including n be obtain
will by then
ail is discus
ggestion thnot sufficiensider this asby the expece methodoroughout Ne
y experienale projectsice and intal effects
ally requireiven a proje
quire the dsion or conken if and cured and
oceed to the
provided awe have pro
heir assess
ndlay, whicn to be proand advise
size and scahas a discrtion availabe Minister u
Buddle Finned to refine
be governe
ssed later in
hat the resently accuratssumption erts engageologies that ew Zealand
nced and s in particdustry stanand use th
e RHL ect of esign sents when RHL
e next
at any vided
sment
h has vided s that ale of
retion ble is under
ndlay, e and ed by
n this
earch te, or to be ed by have
d and
have cularly ndard his to
-
Each exuphold. expert hspecific was requassurancreports pin an imp
To addrextensivRHL hasinvestigaor actuathe beneissues wexpert aadvice idependin RHL hasInstead to assesGary BraDr Ruthassessmkiwi manand Mr respect tterrestriaecology ChristchMuseumZealand)Peter WDr PeterDr Rob ForestryWardle ( The aquin freshwSuren, aWech anCrown Rscience necessa
xpert engagIn accorda
has based tareas of exuired to assce system fprepared onpartial and o
ress the dee search tos invested cate possiblel effects tha
efit of peer rwith this proadvice on tincludes thng on the p
s not adoptRHL has es the propoamley, who Bartlett, a
ments of ennagement, Rhys Buck
to survey foal, forest a
reports thurch), Bria
m), Ines Sch), Anne Kar
Wilson (Retirr Dilks (DoCAllen (Land), John Ro(Retired bee
atic ecologwater fisheran expert on expert onResearch Iand the tery.
ed by RHLance with ththeir assesxpertise andsist in the afor review pn behalf of Robjective fra
eficiencies o engage econsiderablee effects anat may occureview fromoposal are the likely ehe need forecise natu
ted a one sngaged a te
osal. For exase expertisan expert vironmentapreparationkingham w
or bats, birdnd predatohe team hn Rance (onberger (Lren (Downered kaka bioC Christchudcare Reseobinson (Haech forest e
y team fromries; Ms Caon invertebn freshwateInstitute wieam were a
12
L has a highhe Code osment on fd have souassessmenpurposes. YRHL are coamework.
in the 200experts whoe time and end recommeur as a resu
m the audit ocomplex a
effects and or close mre and sign
size fits alleam of expample the t
se is in wildin botanica
al effects; Dn of manag
who is the ds and snailor control mhas consul(DoC InverLandcare Rer EDI), Dr ologist), Dr
urch), Dr Peearch), Alanarvest Man
ecologist).
m NIWA conathy Kilroyrate commer ecology.ith respect able to dra
h ethical stof Conduct fact; they hught additiot. Each ha
You can be omprehensiv
06 applicatio are leaderexpense in end method
ult of this proof the first cand RHL ha
managemmonitoring a
ificance of a
approach pert consulterrestrial eclife survey al survey aDr Sibilla Ggement plaleading exs. In additi
managemenlted with Drcargill), Dr
Research), GRobyn Sim
r Ron Mooreter Bellingn Griffiths (nager for J
nsisted of M, an expertunities in f NIWA ito aquatic
aw on that
andard andfor expert
have not strnal expert
as adopted confident th
ve and have
ion RHL ers in their remploying
ds to addreoposal. Theoncession aas taken thent of thosand flexibilany effects.
to the effecants with scology teamand predatoand preparirardet, whns and hab
xpert in Neon, in prepa
nt plans anDr Colin O
Rhys GarGraham Joncock (Land
rhouse (DoCham (Land(Ministry of JNL forestry
Mr Marty Bot in periphyfreshwater; s New Zeac biodiversinstitutiona
d a reputatiwitnesses rayed frominput wherea robust q
hat the teche been prep
embarked orespective fthese expe
ess any potey have alsoapplication.he best posse effects. lity in resp.
cts assessspecific expm consisted or manageration of reose expertbitat restor
ew Zealandaring the vand the terreO’Donnell rdner (Aucnes (Transitdcare ReseaC Christchu
dcare Reseaf Agriculturey) and Dr
onnett, an eyton; Dr Al
and Ms Jaland’s foresity and clal knowledg
ion to each their e this
quality hnical pared
on an fields. erts to tential o had . The ssible That
ponse
ment. ertise of Dr
ment; elated ise is ation;
d with arious estrial (DoC
ckland t New arch), urch), arch), e and John
expert astair anine
emost imate ge as
-
3.4.2
The valuknowledunderest
2 CriticismThe audStephenwhether The audcontentsthat the matters assessmhas undea projector regionDirectors The audStephencorridor KiwiburnPlateau the 29.5level heengineerlandscapof terrainisolated travellingand aerialong the At parasuggestsplacemebiased standardvegetatiobias as areport. The Terspring suwas to bcritical inwith resappears original a
ue that hasge of the timated.
m by the Audit by Morga Brown Ethe report itor raises a
s, that the epresentati
appear relament. Stephertaken a lat level (of an wide leves of the Env
dit by Morga Brown. Inhave been
n saddle anto the Upukms assess
elicopter fligring teams:pes assessen, vegetatiolocation of
g through thal based ise concessio
graph 4.1.s that the
ent of surveinterpretatio
d industry on survey pa result of t
rrestrial Ecourvey unde
build on the n confirmingpect to thethe spring
assessmen
been addeexperts a
uditors an+Pollard
Environmenthas been pa number oexecutive suon of imag
atively pettyhen Brown arge numbell scales), ael, throughovironmental
an+Pollardn reality, al walked. Tnd over a kerora Rivesed. These ghts twice : both of wed on the g
on cover, caboth segm
hem on foos simply noton route.
1.1 of the vegetatio
ey plots. Thon of the best pract
plots were the selectio
ology Audirtaken by Moriginal ass
g methodoloe fauna ansurvey hast and little o
13
ed to the asand the co
apparentlyt Ltd’s lan
produced toof areas of cummary doges is akiny and do nois a highly
er of visual aand strategicout the couDefence S
suggests tl but two reThe two ‘m
short parter: these amtwo sectionand were
whom indicground at banopy densments, suggot. The implt true and f
e Terrestrian assessmhe audit replot data.
tice methoselected a n of these s
t Report inMitchell Parsessment aogies and fnd the dens been consor no regard
ssessmentsollaborative
y seeks to undscape as an appropconcern incoes not matn to a proot in any wexperience
and landscac assessmeuntry. He ociety for th
hat the rouelatively sh
missing segmt of the samount to apns were vie
e discussedated that t
both ends oity and heig
gested that lication thatfails to refle
al Ecology ment was eport sugge
RHL’s ecodologies a
priori to besurvey plots
ncludes a srtnerships.
and the secofindings of tnsity and vsidered veryd has been
s because oapproach
undermine ssessment riate profesluding the ltch the repoomotional b
way affect thed landscapape impact ents undertahas been ohe past nine
te has not hort segmenments’ are addle from pproximatel
ewed from ad with the hey differef these segght). This, tlittle would t the study ect the phot
Audit Repbased on
ests that thcological teand can ce every 300s as is infer
section (seThe purposond survey the earlier wolume of ty much in isgiven in the
of the comshould no
the credibiby questi
ssional stanlack of a taort structurebrochure. The validity ope architectassessmenaken at a don the Boae years.
been walkents of the wover part othe White
ly 5.5kms oabove durin
ecologicaled little fromgments (in ttogether wit be gainedwas solely tos clearly
port the athe subje
is could leeam have confirm tha0m. There rred by the
ection 5) ose of this sof the route
work, partictrees presesolation frome Audit Rep
bined ot be
lity of oning
ndard. ble of e and These of the t who nts, at district ard of
ed by whole of the stone out of g low l and m the terms th the from desk
taken
author ective ad to used t the is no audit
n the urvey e was cularly ent. It m the
port to
-
3.4.3
4.
the valueIt is our terrestriathe routealong thconsidervegetatio
3 Work CoAll of thewalked necessa Key expeextensivassessm
Stephenlandscapsuggest,landscap All river in the coor assum
SPECEFFEIn this seraised inAugust 2formulati In our viarising frextent cu With carassociatIn a fewproposindeemed project a While wein mind applicatiand brief
e the springview this h
al ecology be. The foche route, ration of thon at the ex
ompleted e experts ethe entire ry tool in th
erts in terree amount o
ments.
n Brown’s pe variation Mr Brow
pe occurs.
and streamourse of themption that t
CIFIC ECTS
ection of then the DoC a2010. As ion of this re
iew it is conrom this prourrently pos
eful managed activitiesw isolated ng a signif
an approprare positive.
e have comthat each oon, and nonf, but it is o
g survey adhas resultedby the auditcus of the and the se faunal as
xpense of th
engaged bylength. Their assessm
estrial ecoloof time surve
landscape in the field
wn walked
crossing p field work this work ha
MATTE
e report weudit reportsmentioned
esponse.
nsidered thoject have bssible.
ement durins many of thcircumstan
ficant compriate manag
mented on of the reporne addresseour view tha
14
ded to the d in an emptors at the espring surv
survey wasspects hashe wider ter
y RHL are fhis has noment.
ogy, aquaticeying the a
assessme work. As thall areas
points assocand aquaticas not occu
ERS –
e address ths and summd above RH
hat the potebeen appro
ng construchese effects
nces wherepensation ogement res
the individurts audited ed the applat upon rev
overall terrephasis on thexpense of vey was lars timed ac resulted in
rrestrial eco
familiar witht been ove
ecology anrea using b
nt coveredhe photos inwhere ap
ciated with tc ecology arred is simp
– ASS
he more spemarised in yHL’s expert
ential and apriately ide
ction and ops can be su
e adverse or programponse to en
ual audit repindividual tication as aiew of the w
estrial ecolohe botanicathe threatergely on theccordingly. n an overelogy issues
h the routeerlooked b
nd landscapoth aerial v
all areas ncluded in tpreciable v
the proposassessment
ply incorrect
SESSM
ecific issuesour workingts have co
ctual environtified and
peration of tuitably mitigeffects will
mme of offnsure the n
ports, it is imechnical ap
a whole. Thway the ind
ogy assessal aspects oened fauna e fauna pr
This lacemphasis os.
e and most by experts
pe have speviews and o
of apprecthe report cvariation in
al were trave. Any implic
ct.
MENT
s that have g notes dateontributed to
onmental equantified t
the monoragated or avol occur, RHfsetting. Th
net effects o
mportant to ppendices this was theidividual tech
ment. of the along esent ck of n the
have as a
ent an n site
ciable clearly n the
ersed cation
OF
been ed 18 o the
ffects to the
il and oided. HL is his is of this
keep to the ir role hnical
-
4.1
reports hprocess take theapplicati
ENGIN The Enengineerfurther inactivity recomme See
and cons
Seeand envi
Seecorr
As mentoccur ndevelopebeen obimplemewould beinfluencenecessa Design wterrain tyBurn Sadetailed dimensiothe workand genand spequantificaccuratefootprint effects. develope
MWH’s clarificatmanagemterminus
have been proposed b
e findings oon as a who
NEERINGngineering ring perspenformation ion the Coends the fo
k preliminaassociated
struction ank independ
operation ronment; ak a lower idor.
tioned abovnow, whiched design btained. Thentation of te a key pare design pa
ary.
work is inteypes as weaddle and t
investigatonal imaginks required eral treatmecific engine
cation and e estimates
and quantDuring this
ed as const
audit raiseion is requment of se
s, managem
drawn togebecomes evof the reporole.
G AND COand Constctive the pris required onservationllowing actio
ary design sd activities, nd extent of dent advice
and risksnd and upper
ve these reh as outlinwould be
his detailedthe managerticipant in tarameters t
ended to tall as the mothe Bluff Sion and a
ng will be usin these sp
ent situatioeering desig
presentatiof the cut
tification of s phase, futraints and m
es specificuired relatinewage at
ment of solid
15
ether in the vident. Werts and the
ONSTRUtruction auroposal is cin order to
n Estate. Tons:
standards foincluding Leffects with
e from soms of opera
bound ea
ecommendaned abovecompleted
d work woement planthis designto protect s
arget both tore challengSlip in the analysis, insed to prodpecific arean to be defgn. Compleon of moand fill req
f the precisurther desigmonorail de
c matters ng to the the Kiwi B
d waste and
applicatione consider ten look at t
UCTION -udit report redible. Thedetermine
To address
or the alignLiDAR of phin test areaeone expetion of a
rthworks fo
ations requie is consid
once the uld be use
ns before cphase and
significant
ypical sectiging sectionUpukerora.
ncluding geduce a deveas. This woufined and deetion of thisnorail visibquired, delise extent ogn standardesign param
of concernwidth of t
Burn termind traffic.
itself, the that it is Dothem in the
- MWH concludes
e report notthe effects
s this conc
nment of thepart of the as; rienced in monorail i
ootprint and
re the devedered unrenecessary ed in the onstruction
d would havconservatio
ions of aligns of the rou At these
eotech, LiDeloped desuld enable emonstrateds work phasbility througneation of f tree clear
ds and guidmeters are q
n or areashe construnus and T
real value ioC’s role noe context o
s that fromtes howeveof the prop
cern the r
e monorail route to co
monorail din a wilde
d tree clear
eloped desieasonable. approvals formulation proceeds.
ve opportunon values w
gnment in tyute such as
e sites suffDAR and sign and qu
an upper bd based onse would egh the cathe construrance and
delines wouquantified.
s where fuuction trackTe Anau D
in the ow to of the
m an er that posed report
track onfirm
esign rness
rance
ign to The
have n and
DoC nity to where
ypical s Kiwi ficient three antify
bound n data nable nopy, uction edge
uld be
urther k, the
Downs
-
The conaccess tmanagerecology monorail The MWand dispconstrainspace alocalitiesconsent be mitiga The MWand dispaddresserequires waste anwould besubstancnecessa The MWno guidathe dispfoundatiomaterial.but this w VegetatiManageproceduproposesbe enacpreparat The MWhas not number road userecomme It is our the entirepoint for The MWenvironmand the
nceptual detrack has ber of HEB team and
l and 3m wi
WH audit sugposal at Kiwnts at both lavailable fos. This mattwould likely
ated throug
WH audit repposal of hazed in the mthe develo
nd these woe briefed reces and sry.
WH audit conance on theposal of veon excavat. There will would be m
on will bement Plan. res to mins monitorincted if thetion, revisio
WH audit repbeen confirof mountaiers and inends that su
view that the Three Lapeople usin
WH audit ment and fudesign and
esign and ceen developConstructiohas resultede construc
ggests that wi Burn andlocations. Cr an approter is likelyy be requireh the appro
port raises azardous sub
managemenopment of ould be dev
egarding thepill kits an
nsiders that e managemegetation mtions will bbe a slightanaged by
e disposed This Plan
nimise canog to ensure
ey are not.n and imple
port notes thrmed in then bike usecreased pruch effects
he cycle trakes ride. King this track
report couture potend constructio
16
constructionped by Opuon. This aed in the pction acces
the land ad Te Anau Conceptual opriate treay to be a reed for these
opriate desig
a number obstances. Tt plans. Themergency
veloped wite appropriatnd other e
the draft coment of excmaterial is e backfilledt surplus dulocalised re
of as ou sets out in
opy clearane the goals a. DoC woementation
hat provisioe applicationrs may resressure onshould be c
ack proposaiwi Burn is k because o
oncludes thntial risks won will evol
n methodous Engineepproach haproposed cs track.
rea requireDowns coudesign indi
atment andegional coue activities. gn and cond
of concerns This matter e draft cons
y response hin the plante use and quipment w
onstruction ess cleanfilconflicting.
d with comue to the voe-shaping a
tlined in thn detail the nce as far are achieveuld be anof this plan
on and size n. The repoult in there the Kiwi considered.
al needs to unlikely to of its remote
hat becauswill developlve in respo
logy for thrs and Noeas been vclearance e
d for the seuld be signcates that t
d disposal uncil concer
Any adversditions to th
with respecwould be cstruction mprocedures
n. The contmanageme
would be a
managemell and the g
Opus rempacted excolume of preround each
he proposeconstructioas is pra
ed and contactive pa
.
of any car ort states the being a h
Burn facilit.
be considebe a significeness.
se knowled with furthe
onse to this
he monoraiel Brand, gevalidated byenvelope fo
ewage treatnificant givethere is suffsystem at rn and reso
rse effects what consent
ct to the stocomprehens
managements for hazartractors engent of hazaavailable w
ent plan proguidance aresponds thcavated cleecast found
h pier.
ed Draft Fon and operacticable. Ittingency plaarticipant in
parking fachat growth iigher numbties. The r
red in relatcant start o
dge abouter investigas knowledge
l and eneral y the or the
tment en the ficient
both ource would .
orage sively t plan rdous
gaged rdous where
ovides round at all eanfill dation
Forest rating
also ans to n the
cilities in the ber of report
ion to or end
t the ations e, the
-
4.2
better uconcessconcess In our vieagree oprocess,concessthe comappointmenvisagewould bplans, cobe to edevelopmany man To reitercertaintycertainlyviability o
TERRELIMITEThe Teindigenohave beEcology The audcritical im Mitchell significaThe ecoroute senine proroute spremoval.ecologicother sigphase acorridor.the Foreinform texpectedimplemetriggers
understandinion procesion.
ew the mosn an appro which theion conditio
mmunicationment of aned that thise involved onstruction engage wiment progrenagement p
rate it is ouy to DoC ay a staged of this proje
ESTRIALED errestrial Eous ecologieen identifie
report haddit considersmportance.
Partnershint in this ar
ological criteeek to proteoposed critepecifically m. Furtherm
cal criteria agnificant ecoand used to This alignm
est Managehe subsequd to have
entation of have been
ng of effecss should
st effective wopriate mae Departmons. In our ns protoco Independe
s advisor woin the dev
and operatth both Desses in linlans require
ur view thatas to the approach w
ect for RHL.
L ECOLO
cology audcal values ed. Howevd underestims that the a
ps agrees ea. Their re
eria proposeect red beeceria (criteria
mention red more we noas being ‘reaological feao determinement definitement Planuent mana
e input intit, includingactivated re
17
cts, and thbe staged
way of contanagement ment would
view input ols and ment Projectould be apveloped detion of the m
DoC and Rne with the ed.
t a staged level of efwill create
OGY – WI
dit generaand that t
ver concermated the avoidance o
with the aeport rankeded by Mitchch trees wha ii, iii, v, v
beech or cote that theasonably soatures woule the final tion would b (refer Attagement of to any reg at such tequiring furt
he input o so as to
trolling the eresponsehave inpu
would be vmanagement Advisor.
ppointed by esign, popumonorail. ThRHL repreterms of th
approach wffects and significant
ILDLAND
ally supporhe most imn was expimportance
of adverse
assessmentd red beechhell Partnerhere possibvi and ix) wcanopy cov
e audit repoound’. The d be underalignment
be governedachment 1the vegeta
evision of time as mother forest p
of monorail o adequate
evolution of via the maut to and via review at plans aAs describDoC, fund
ulation of thhe role of thsentatives he concess
will not provmitigation commercia
D CONSU
ts RHL’s mportant indressed tha
e of large reffects on t
t that red h forest as brships for sele. We note
with respect ver and seeort describemapping oftaken as pawithin the d by the pro for draft p
ation clearathis plan,
onitoring indprotection.
expertise,ely manage
f this projecanagement control via
and commeas well asbed above,ded by RHLhe managehe person w
to ensuresion granted
vide any grnecessary,
al risk as t
ULTANTS
assessmedigenous v
at the Terrered beech tthese trees
beech forebeing signifelecting thee that five o
to the moek to avoides the propf these treesart of the dproposed 2
ocess outlinplan) and wance. DoC
and alsodicates tha
, any e the
t is to plan
a the ent on s the
it is L and ement would e the d and
reater , and o the
S
nt of values estrial trees.
s is of
est is ficant. e final of the norail their
posed s and esign 200m ned in would C are o the at key
-
The audremoval effects athe foressubstantamount canopy ccompleteor compedge eff2m. Thretained alignmenAttachm There isremoval mitigatedaudit reproute wo RHL’s evicinity ostations wide womaintainwould lik Due to tfeasibilityacutely discoveragreememitigatiobe specconsistethis planas Attac In addithabitat lbeech tconservamanagehave as includinghabitat pexisting beech. 200 ha
dit expresseof the cano
are somewhst edge alotially modifof any edg
clearance tely, edge efletely remofects are like ecologica
as possibnt and im
ment 1 for th
s a suggestof indige
d particularport suggesould be the
cologists noof the monoover an areuld contain
n low pest dkely never re
the matters y of onsite threatened red prior toent with theon to be procific to thent with the
n. A specifichment 2 w
ion, RHL’s oss is an orees in theation estatement. Withhabitat for
g possums per se. Fohabitat to This is encof pest co
es concernopy. Our echat mitigateong most ofied the nage effect what occursffects will beved (initial
kely to be sal criterion ble. This mplementatihe draft plan
tion in the nous vegely with respsts that pesbest onsite
ote that if porail, it wouea approxim at most fodensities alesult in a m
raised in tpredator cospecies (b
o constructie Departmenovided to pre species o
level of anc Predator
which sets o
experts hongoing thre immediate and little mh respect tor fauna, the
and predar that reasoimprove it
capsulated ntrol in the
18
n regarding cologist noted by the faof the routeaturally exiwill depend at a particue larger. In survey indi
small, oftenix) requireswill be en
ion of then).
audit repoetation andpect to potest control ooffset for th
pest controluld require mately 170mour traps or long any of
measurable
the Wildlandontrol, it is bats, birds, ion, the cont of Conserotect the sor habitat ny effects aand Weed
out a method
have responreat to indigte vicinity more can bo the ecolo
e degradatioators, is moon they havts productivin the ecos
e Eglinton V
potential ees that in th
act that the e and that isting fores
to a largeular site: wh
areas whecates appro
n less than s as much nacted via e Forest
rt that the d habitat hential effectsof at least 5he effects o
were impleapproximat
m wide. A rbait station
f the route decline in p
ds report, anow proposor plants)
oncession hervation as species con
identified and once dControl Ma
dology for th
nded that genous comof the rou
be done to gical value
on of that hore significave recommvity as mitsystem appValley to o
edge effecthis situationroute is posthe presen
st edge. e extent onhere the canre the canooximately 81m and ceof the canthe definitManageme
potential ehas not bes on red be500 ha alof the projec
emented ovtely 29.5kmribbon of pens across itbecause of
pests.
and MPL’s ased that in
or significaholder is reto the type cerned. Thand the qecided will
anagement his propose
whilst theymmunities, ute are alreprotect themthat large
habitat by inant than los
mended the igation for roach whic
offset effect
ts resulting n, potential sitioned clo
nce of deerAccordingly
n the amounopy is remopy is not br80% of the rertainly lessopy cover tion of the ent Plan
edge effectseen adequ
eech habitatong the moct.
ver 500 ha im of traps oest control t. This woulf reinvasion
advise as tinstances want habitat
equired to rand quantu
he mitigatioquantum w
be describPlan is atta
ed approach
y recognisemost of theady withinm without ared beech
ntroduced pss of red bmanagemeremoval o
h recommets on red b
from edge
ose to r, has y the unt of moved roken route) s than to be final
(refer
s and uately t. The norail
in the or bait 170m ld not n and
to the where s are reach um of
on will ill be
bed in ached h.
e that e red n the active trees
pests, beech ent of of red ended beech
-
species recomme An
promof senviendawhic
Deenativremoeffec
In apprand
In telayocontoper
An afor tproje
Conachiadd partsthe boththe recosurvO’Dofoun
Eglinman
Eglinhabi
Modpopu50 y
Overall thighly reIt is a vmanageproject adetailed Attachm
and otheending 200
ecosystemmoted and ispecies posaged reqanger yelloch are carnier are difficve plants. Toval prohibctive in the order to roximately conservatio
erms of serout as proptractors andrate. area of 200he removalect’s effectsservation oieve a largevalue to a
s of it are wroute, and
h areas. ThEglinton Va
ommended vey of Snowonnell (DoC
nd there. nton Valley
nagement dnton Valleyitats similar
delling has sulations of l
years, despi
the populatesponsive tovery approment to ensare sufficien
in the Pment 2).
er indigeno ha of pest
m approachis likely to htentially afquires mu
ow mistletoevores. ult to contrThe abundaitive and wivicinity of thmaximise
circular shaon value, lorvicing the posed mind is more lik
ha is appr of 27 ha ofs. of most spee area, andan existing within the samobile spehe headwaalley) form as a priorit
wdon ForesC Christchu
y has a hisirection and
y includes sr to those prshown that ong tailed bite the level
ions preseno effective priate areasure biodivently offset. Predator a
19
ous habitacontrol is a
h, rather thhave better ffected by ltispecies e, rats whic
rol to the vance of deeithout this che monorai
the effecaped area ong thin area
traps or banimises doukely to be s
ropriate. Anf forest and
ecies requi thereby acproject. Th
ame Ecologecies such aaters of Boy
part of Sty area for
st that has burch) also
tory of resed decisions.similar habiresent alongpredation a
bats in the El of manage
nt at the Bopredator co
a in which ersity value The metho
and Weed
at and sps follows:
han a sinconservatiothe propocontrol, in
ch are seed
very low nuer along the control othel. ctiveness is best. In tas are less ait stations ubling backuccessfully
area of 50d grassland
res large achieve real he Eglintongical Districas kaka anyd Creek an
Snowdon Foprotection
been foundindicated a
earch whic. tat to mostg the route and other faEglinton Vaement they
oyd Creek sontrol to the
to carry oes are mainodology for Control
pecies. The
gle specieon outcome
osal. The pncluding pd predators
umbers reqmonorail ro
r pest contr
of predatoterms of coeffective. the approx
k or othermaintained
0 – 1000 his out of pro
areas. Theconservatio
n Valley is t and Regiod bats maynd Retford orest and Bin the only. Discussioa resident
h can be u
t of the mocould be pr
actors are elley toward currently re
site have the extent we out long terntained and
this propoManageme
e rationale
es approaces for the vpredator copossums ws, and mus
quired to poute makesrol would be
or removaost effective
ximately cirr delays tod and cheap
a of pest cooportion wit
e easiest won benefits,located ne
on as portioy move betStream (bo
Boyd Creeky prior ecoloon with Dr bat colony
utilised to in
onorail routerotected. expected to
extinction weceive.
e potential have proprm conserv losses fromsed approa
ent Plan
e for
ch, is ariety ontrol which
stelids
rotect s deer e less
al an eness
rcular o the per to
ontrol th the
way to , is to earby, ons of tween oth in k was ogical Colin
y was
nform
e and
drive within
to be osed. vation m the ach is (refer
-
4.3
The audand potequickly dsoils so are coneffectivemethodssuccessfrespect mines, manage The audspecies Downs, respect thave beefinal desaudit, lannet loss.
LANDS The Lanconcernsby Steph The audwith resmatters rthese asare not vthis prop The audthe lands There isearlier Bthat repoand examaddressiHoweverlandscapespecialconfusinwhat arethe natuin the cu
dit raises coential weeddirect transas to avoid
nfident thately mitigates and monful transfer to rehabilitand their ment plans
ditor notes tin the mowbut that thto these areen identifiedsign of the tndscaping w
SCAPE –ndscape aus with respehen Brown E
it also identpect to therelating to v
spects of thevalid in the
posal.
it identifies scape asse
s criticism tBoffa Miskeort was critmination of ing both ther, the monope report wly near theg to start c
e, in effect, tre of any c
urrent landsc
oncerns withd invasion. fer of tussoleaving ga
t with careed. The manitoring thaoccurs. Wtation of ecinvolvemenfor the prop
that the terwn areas of hey have neas would bd, and thereterminus buwill include
– MORGAudit has ideect to the laEnvironmen
tifies a nume width of vegetation ae audit repo
e considerat
a number ssment. Th
that the lanll assessmeticised for ndifferent ch
e proposal aorail proposas preparedUpukerora
comparing two differenomparison cape asses
20
h respect toThis pote
ock vegetatps open foreful managanagementat will be
We note the cologically nt in prepaposed Cypr
rrestrial ecof Fiordland not yet beebe the sameefore will beuildings andsuch spec
AN+POLentified a nandscape ants Ltd.
mber of “infothe propos
and ecologyort step outstion of land
of informathese are add
ndscape asent for the not being sharacter areand effects sal was stid and the ra River / Scthe results
nt proposalswould simp
ssment.
o the disturbntial effect tion can ocr colonisatiogement this
plans wilrequired texperiencevaluable saration of ress Mine.
ology assesNational Pa
en evaluatee as the rese avoided wd monorail sies where p
LLARD Anumber of assessment
ormation gased corridoy. With respside the autdscape and
tion gaps thdressed be
ssessment monorail.
sufficiently eas along thin a lightwell in gestatioute has sicarp. In ou
of two diffs approacheply dilute th
bance to tuis directly
ccur to rehaon of weedss potential l set out tto ensure of our ecolites, includextremely
ssment idenark Lodge led. The mst of the rou
where possibstructures. possible so
ASSOCIAperceived dt that has b
ps” and expr, engineer
pect, we arethor’s area visual effe
hat are howlow.
has failed It is importdetailed in he concessieight manneion when thnce changeur view it wferent repored in two difhe key mess
ussock gras related to
abilitate exps. Our ecolo effect cathe procedthat quick
logical teamding former
comprehe
ntified nativawn at Te
methodologyute. The spble as part o As noted ias to ensu
ATES deficienciesbeen under
presses coring issuese of the viewof expertise
ects arising
wever releva
to considetant to noteits identific
ion route aner (see Tabhe Boffa Med significa
would have rts in relatifferent waysages cont
sland o how posed ogists n be
dures, k and m with r coal ensive
e turf Anau
y with pecies of the in the
ure no
s and taken
ncern , and w that e and from
ant to
er the e that cation nd for ble 1). Miskell
ntly – been on to s and ained
-
The audof the Raudit repagainst tthis propRMA is the audi6(b) of applicatiapplicati The routas lying beyond) the routesimply breached The audregardinrehabilitahabitat aecologicreports rehabilitaemergedincorporaresolveddisturbednear Kiwlandscap The audincludingread in these us The audthe moneffects thof the foto be lim5.1, 5.2 exposuredifferent Sound. when trcomparaanticipat
it is concerResource Mport is also the modifieposal is for not the reletors of the the RMA ion for a ons under t
te, apart frowithin an the modifie
e of the conbecause the.
dit report sg rehabilitaation for thand ecologal report aare intend
ation detail d after comated within
d at the timd tussock, c
wiburn / Mavpes address
it also inferg hunters aconjunction
ser groups.
it states thanorail. The hat the monrest – not lo
mited, for thand 6 of
e is describnature of v
It is very dravelling atable experited speed s
ned that theManagement
critical of a d Pigeon Ba concess
evant legisla2006 concs not the concessionthe RMA at
om the termOutstandinged Pigeon Bncession coere was no
states that tion, the mo
his project gy. These and not repded to bedescribed,
mpletion of it. Details
me of the recoarse pasvora and opsed within th
rs that thereand trampern with the
at there is landscape
norail wouldooking out fhe most par
the landsbed and comviews obtaindifficult to at 70 km/hrence – othuggested b
21
ere has beet Act (RMAperceived
Bay criteria.sion applicaation to ap
cession appappropriate
n applicatioa later date
mini, was idg Natural LBay criteriaorridor was
need to do
t the landsountain bikeis focussematters arepeated in t
e read togtogether wthe draft lain relation eport’s comture grasse
pen lawn at he rest of th
e has beenrs. The landrecreationa
lack of detae assessmed generate ffrom within rt, to the imscape assempared witned elsewhaccurately pr though iher than in
by the audito
en a failure A) in the lafailure to as We consid
ation under ply to this p
plication. We test to aon. RHL e.
dentified in Landscape . Each chanot assesse
o so once th
scape assee trail and teed around e comprehthe landsca
gether. Fith other deandscape rto both term
mpletion, bues and weeTe Anau D
he concess
n a failure todscape assal report w
ail about scent is primfor those loothe carriag
mmediate foessment theh the muchere, such aportray “hoit” withoutn a generaor appears
to address andscape assess the lader it importhe Conse
proposal, asWe note furt
pply when will make
the landscafor reasons
aracter areaed in termshis determin
essment is erminus prorehabilitatioensively adape assessurthermore
etails such areport and minus sitesut primarily ds surroundowns, not thion route.
o recognisesessment is
which addre
cenic vistasarily conceoking in andes. Views o
orest. Evene intimate
h more expaas when travw the fores
having thal way. Fexcessive.
the requireassessmentandscape vrtant to noteervation Acts determinether that se
considerinany nece
ape assesss including
a identified s of these crnation had
light on oposals. Thon of the fddressed insment. The, much ofas the cyclehave yet t
s were still y affect areded by farmhe higher q
e key audies intended esses effec
s and viewserned aboud on the maout appear n so, in secnature of
ansive and velling to Mst would aphe benefit Furthermore
ement . The
values e that . The ed by ection ng an ssary
sment (and
along riteria been
detail e key forest n the e two f the
e trail, to be being as of
mland quality
nces, to be ts on
s from ut the argins likely
ctions such quite
Milford ppear of a
e, the
-
The audthe landsalso critistate of tthis wou The audassessmadopted part of thave beWhile it ilandscapassessm The metin New Zthe ‘projemethodolandscapcriticism and therexplanatfor the sscale to descripti The audvalidity definitionexactly wvalid in potentialaccount in the acondition The aud‘localised‘composcomposilocalisedreport. Rand the some sitand that rise to aclearly reffects (a
it criticises scape assecises the athe environld have bee
dit is criticament. Instea
a catchmethe concesseen too coais agreed thpe values,
ment.
hodology uZealand andect’ in this
ology are inpe professi
is levelled re is an intion for, or jsake of bein
help furtheve commen
dit identifiesof the landn of some ‘swhich ‘segthe contextl effects of tin identifyinaudit or wns.
dit report cd effects’ aite effects/cte effects r
d and externRather, theyidentified etuations jusin other sit
a compositeeflected in all effects, n
the field woessment, asbsence of dment that th
en acknowle
al of the aad the audient based asion route arse to mehat catchmethey are n
sed in the lad its sequeninstance. Tnconsistent ionals for at the use
nference thajustificationng critical. er explain tnts and find
s a numberdscape asssegments’, ments’ are t of both lathe monorang the segmwhether the
considers tand ‘externconclusion’.ratings are nal effects iy were derivffects of the
st one effectuations it ise effect or discussion
not just com
22
ork that hass referred todates. The he corridor edged.
assessmenitor conside
approach. and as wit
eaningfully ents would bnot conside
andscape antial nature The commet with whatconcession
e of terms lat the sum
n of, these cIt is, howevthe effects ings alread
r of what it sessment. but does noincorrect.
andscape cail and its coments and ite audit sim
that the asal effects’ In our viewnot simply n a reductioved from tae monorail
ct or value cs the accum
effects. I of key find
mposite effe
s been undeo earlier in treport is dapasses thro
t method ers that theCatchmentsth Boffa Miaddress thbe useful fored approp
assessmentsimply respnts in the at is accepten applicatioike ‘limited’
mmary tablecomments, ver, acknowratings wouy elaborate
regards asThe audit
ot elaborateThe segm
characteristonstruction.t is unclear mply focuse
ssessment effectively w this is a mthe result oonist manne
aking into acproject as acan be mormulation of vt is considdings after
ects / conclu
ertaken in ththis report.
ated and refough. If it ha
adopted ine assessmes would haskell’s earl
he effects oor a strategipriate for a
t has been uponds to theaudit regarded as prac
ons in part to describ
e is “partisawhich appe
wledged thauld be usef
e on any ‘rat
s flaws withdoes not
e on why thents are coics on the Both limbsif this has bed on exis
ranking is being subo
matter of intof averaginer, as is impccount botha whole, re