Before a Board of Inquiry
Under
the Resource Management Act 1991
In the matter of
Notices of requirement for designations and resource
consent applications by NZ Transport Agency, Porirua
City Council and Transpower New Zealand Limited for
the Transmission Gully Proposal
Between
New Zealand Transport Agency
Requiring Authority and Applicant
And
Porirua City Council
Local Authority and Applicant
And
Transpower New Zealand Limited
Applicant
Brief of supplementary evidence of Tracey Jean Grant regarding
conditions
Date: 21 February 2012
50-64 Customhouse Quay, Wellington 6011
PO Box 2791, Wellington 6140
DX SP20002, Wellington
Tel +64 4 472 6289
Fax +64 4 472 7429
Solicitor on the record
Contact solicitor
525890_1
S F Quinn
K Anderson
stephen.quinn@dlapf.com
kerry.anderson@dlapf.com
Tel +64 4 474 3217
Tel +64 4 474 3255
Qualifications and experience
1
My name is Tracey Jean Grant.
2
I have the qualifications and experience as set out in paragraphs 1 – 4 of my
original statement of evidence (dated 21 December 2011). I repeat the
confirmation given in that statement that I have read and agree to comply with
the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses.
Scope of Supplementary Evidence
3
The purpose of this statement is to provide an outline of the matters that are
outstanding from my Evidence In Chief and Supplementary evidence (dated
21 December 2011 and 9 February 2012 respectively) which have not been
resolved by further conferencing.
4
Many of the areas identified in my supplementary evidence dated 9 February
2012 have now been resolved. The only outstanding issues relate to consent
conditions and a designation condition. I have provided an outline on the 3
key outstanding conditions and an appendix on the other conditions:
4.1
Winter works
4.2
Mixing zone
4.3
Mitigation condition
4.4
Other conditions
Winter works condition – E condition
5
I consider a winter works condition should be added to the discharge
consents (‘E’) as per paragraph 32 of my supplementary evidence (dated 9
February 2012). I have provided a draft in Appendix 1. Mr Martell’s rebuttal
evidence of 16 February 2012 identifies the frequency of events over 40mm
in a year. As stated in my supplementary evidence, rainfall is at its highest in
525890_1
2
winter and spring and lowest in summer1. Therefore, while high intensity
events may occur throughout the year, the risk of increased runoff is greater
during winter because of soils that may already be saturated.
Mixing Zone condition – E condition
6
I consider a mixing zone condition is desirable (paragraph 95.2 of my EIC).
7
An appropriate mixing zone of 20-50m has been added to earthworks
consents in the region, and is typically determined by hydrologists.
8
I consider that the wording can be amended to state that it is restricted to
stormwater discharged as a direct result of site works, will not give rise… As
this makes it clear that any discharges that are from other works (for instance
upstream of the Transmission Gully works) are not covered by this condition.
I do not agree with the inclusion of any words restricting it to ‘temporary’
nature etc…
Mitigation conditions – S5, G15E, G15G, G15H, G15M
9
As stated in my supplementary evidence paragraph 18, mitigation conditions
are scattered throughout the conditions, and it is difficult to ascertain how
they fit together and importantly if all relevant matters are covered. For
clarity, it would greatly assist if all mitigation conditions were grouped
together.
10
In addition, for ease of assessing compliance and reporting of monitoring
results, I consider a new condition should be added that requires reporting on
all vegetation restoration areas (as identified in G15G) in a comprehensive
standalone document that is updated as the works continue (and more areas
are established). I consider this reporting to be a key aspect of the proposal
and from a planning perspective fundamental to determine compliance with
the consent, in particular ensuring the ongoing protection and maintenance of
the mitigation areas.
1
Wellington Regional Council 2005 State of the Environment report
525890_1
3
11
In my view, the new condition will require the following details to be submitted
to the Manager for approval:
Plan showing area (including GIS coordinates),
Unique identifier for each area
the protection mechanism for each area clearly stated (in accordance with
G15Ga,b,c),
ongoing maintenance for each area, and
monitoring proposed for the areas
I have provided an initial draft condition in Appendix 2. Results from
monitoring can then be referred back to the relevant mitigation area.
It is unclear whether the conditions as currently written intend for the RMS or
the EMMP to cover all or part of this information.
12
Further I note that it is unclear how the Mitigation Success monitoring
(required under condition G15M) fits with the revegetation and mitigation
success monitoring required in S5, as it appears there is duplication.
There does not appear to be any reporting mechanism attached to this
monitoring, and I consider this important.
Other conditions and interpretation
13
I have provided detail in Appendix 3, over changes to the conditions. Many of
these changes represent ‘polishing’ of the conditions.
Conclusion
14
The matters originally identified in my EIC have largely been resolved with the
exception of new conditions surrounding Mixing zones and Winter works, and
the additional condition I consider is required on mitigation to clarify the areas
established and ongoing protection of these areas.
525890_1
4
15
I have suggested other minor changes to the conditions above.
T Grant
21 February 2012
525890_1
5
Appendix 1
Proposed new condition – to be added to the earthworks conditions – regarding winter
works.
1.
The consent holder shall ensure that the site is appropriately stabilised by 30
April of each year unless otherwise approved in writing by the Manager.
Stabilisation shall be undertaken in accordance with the measures identified in
the approved ESCP.
2.
Apart from necessary maintenance works, earthworks and vegetation clearance
conducted during the period 30 April to 1 October inclusive during any year that
this resource consent is current shall only be undertaken if written approval for
those works is firstly obtained from the Manager.
3.
Requests for written approval to undertake earthworks and vegetation
clearance during the period 30 April to 1 October inclusive, during any year that
this resource consent is current, shall be submitted in writing to the Manager by
1 April. This request shall include, but not be limited to:
The nature of the site and the winter soil disturbance works
proposed;
The proposed erosion and sediment controls;
Seasonal/local soil and weather conditions;
Sensitivity of the receiving environment;
Methods to be used for stabilisation; and
Works staging
525890_1
6
Appendix 2
Proposed new condition – to be added to the general conditions – regarding Mitigation
The consent holder shall prepare, submit and implement a Mitigation Identification,
Maintenance and Protection Plan (MIMPP) to the Manager for approval within 20
working days of the works commencing. The MIMPP shall be updated throughout the
works as each new mitigation area is identified. For each mitigation area identified the
following information shall be clearly provided:
A Plan showing area (including GIS coordinates) and description of the
area (including a comment with regard to G15G),
Unique identifier for each area
the protection mechanism clearly stated (in accordance with G15Ga,b,c),
revegetation programme (if relevant)
maintenance programme (including pest and weed control) for each area,
and
monitoring proposed for each areas
525890_1
7
Appendix 3 – Other conditions
General comments on conditions
16
For consistency, I consider all references to ‘Watercourses etc…’ should be
changed to river/stream and have the same meaning as ‘river’ as defined in
the Resource Management Act 1991. I therefore consider an additional
definition should be included ‘River/Stream: For the purpose of these
conditions of consent, „river/stream‟ has the same meaning as in the
interpretation of “river” in the Resource Management Act 1991.‟
17
Likewise, many inconsistencies exist within the conditions (for example
GWRC / the Manager / the enforcement officer). I have not listed all these in
this document.
Designation condition – Essential Services NZTA20bb
18
I do not agree with the revised version of Ms Rickard's condition NZTA20bb.
I consider the wording proposed in my supplementary evidence is necessary
to ‘ensure’ rather than ‘seek to ensure’ essential services.
Clarifications and changes to other conditions
19
Stabilisation condition – E3ii
The stabilisation condition sets a ‘target’ rainfall event of 50mm in 24hrs. As
stated in my supplementary evidence (paragraph 15), I am wary of this
condition, as in my view, it sets a trigger that may be appropriate in some
instances, but may be not appropriate depending on the stage of works. I
consider it more appropriate that the consent holder take all reasonable and
necessary steps to control discharges from the site, and this may mean the
need to stabilise in some instances. I therefore do not consider that it is
necessary to include reference to a stabilisation trigger event. Rather, the
heavy rainfall event to include stabilisation ‘when required’.
20
Pre-construction condition – G3
Given the importance of pre-construction meetings, I consider G3 should be
amended to ensure appropriate representatives from relevant contractors
525890_1
8
attend, and that they (as well as WRC and Consent holder) need to attend for
compliance to be met. I also note that this should be undertaken on a stage
by stage basis given the number of contractors that may be involved, and the
different challenges and consenting issues within the site.
21
Staging and programme conditions – G8, G8a and G9
I do not consider the staging plan needs certification by the Manager. I
consider the purpose of the staging plan (from WRC perspective) is to ensure
the Council is aware of the likely timing of key stages in the project, to assist
in compliance, and to ensure we have resources in place to assess and
approve Management Plans. I do not consider condition G8a is necessary. I
agree with the wording of condition G9.
22
Changes to Management Plans – G11
In my experience, 20 working days notice of any changes is overly onerous
and the timeframe should be removed in this instance.
23
Construction Environment Management Plan, Erosion and Sediment Control
Plan, Site Specific Environmental Plan
As currently worded the conditions require the Construction Environment
Management Plan (CEMP – G12), Erosion and Sediment Control Plan (E4
and E5) and Site Specific Environmental Management Plans (SSEMP G15A)
to be submitted in stages for approval. It remains unclear in my view the
scope of each plan. There also appears to be duplication about what is
prepared in each plan. I consider the ‘earthworks experts’ should conference
on the appropriate level and scope for each plan.
In my view, I consider the following:
23.1
SSEMPS:
It is appropriate for SSEMPs to be provided on a stage by stage
basis. I agree with the general wording of G15A, though aspects
such as monitoring may be more appropriate in the EAMP or
ESCMP with any departures in monitoring from these plans detailed
in the relevant SSEMP.
Condition G15A needs to be amended so that the SSEMPS are
consistent with all other approved plans.
G15A(c)iv – it is confusing the intent of this.
525890_1
9
From a compliance perspective, it will be appropriate if the SSEMP
provided details on the anticipated maximum non stabilised area
through each stage to ensure compliance with conditions E1 and
E2.
G15A(a)ii should be changed to ‘key contractors’ rather than all
contractors.
G15A(b) needs to refer to GW Guidelines (including latest version) –
as per condition E6.
23.2
CEMP
I consider the CEMP as an umbrella document and this appears to
be reflected in Ms Rickard’s wiring document. The CEMP condition
as currently wording requires detailed engineering design, and is
submitted on a staged basis for approval. Given this information is
also required as part of the SSEMP’s, it is possible that the CEMP
could be a high level plan to cover Quality Procedures, Training and
Site Management that is approved at the start of the project, and
updated as required.
24
Changes to SSEMP – G15C
Needs to be amended to require no changes to take effect prior to
certification. I consider it appropriate to remove the working days in this
instance.
25
Fish Passage trials - G15II and G15III
These conditions could be moved to the EMMP so all monitoring
requirements are in the same place.
26
Monitoring – G15J
The timing monitoring to be supplied will largely be determined by the type of
monitoring undertaken. Suggest this condition be reworded to state ‘monthly
monitoring’ unless agreed.
27
Fish barriers – G15K
Clarity over whether this condition refers to fish barriers during construction or
following construction is required.
525890_1
10
28
Fish migration – G15L
Reporting and approval required of the programme and methodology is
required. This could include the words …(Hamer 2007) and programme
approved by the Manager prior to the relevant works occurring. All
monitoring undertaken as part of the programme shall be provided to the
Manager.
29
Fish Passage review – G15MM
As currently worded there is no reporting mechanism as part of this condition.
I suggest after the word ‘populations’ it states ‘the results of the review should
be provided to the Manager within ? of obtaining the results’ be added to the
first paragraph. I consider an extra line be added to the end of the last
paragraph requiring approval from the Manager, for any contingency plans or
remedial actions as they may have consenting implications. ‘…fish passage.
Any contingency plans or remedial actions shall be approved by the Manager
prior to implementation.‟
30
Conditions M3 – M6
These do not currently require the monitoring to be submitted to the Manager
or Department of Conservation. This information should be provided to both
parties for their information.
31
Earthworks condition – E1 and E2
Replace ‘writing with the Manager’ to ‘writing by the Manager’.
32
Devices – E3A
If appropriate, E3A(a) should also refer to decanting earth bunds
E3A(c) suggest the one month time period be reduced to 2/3 weeks.
33
Peer Review Panel – E5A
Note my comments above about the Erosion and Sediment Control Plans.
I also note that it may be appropriate for a Peer Review Panel to review key
SSEMP’s. In particular Te Puka. Suggest a new line under the Role of the
Peer Review Panel is ‘review key SSEMP‟s – for example Te Puka’.
34
Certification – E7
Include ‘approved’ before ESCP and remove the wording as specified.
525890_1
11
35
Forestry – E34A
Include a sentence stating ‘no removal of pine and/or associated works
(including establishing haul roads and skid sites) shall occur until the FHP is
approved by the Manager’
36
Duck 1
Include (d) detail on the construction methodology and (e) description and
plans showing final gradient and length of replacement culverts. I also
consider it appropriate that along with this plan, information is provided from a
suitably experienced ecologist certifying the effect on fish passage once the
culverts are completed.
I consider monitoring necessary on the performance of the culverts once
established. This should be explicitly referenced as part of the monitoring
conditions.
37
Concrete Batching Plant – CBP 3
Air Quality Measures - Remove ‘seek to’ from (b) and ‘visual’ from (e)
Stormwater Quality Measures – change (b) to Methods to capture all runoff
from the concrete batching plant, concrete truck access, delivery and loading
area‟ (as per paragraph 67 of Mr Edwards EIC). Add ‘(e) Layout plans
showing the concrete batching plant, associated infrastructure, and earth
bund (which will fully enclose the site)‟ (as per paragraph 67 of Mr Edwards
EIC).
38
Changes to the CBMP – CBP 5
Any changes to the CBMP need to be submitted for approval to the Manager,
with no changes taking effect until approved. I suggest CBP5 be reworded to
state „The consent holder shall review the CBMP within two months of the
date of commencement of operation of the concrete batching plant and on
each anniversary of commencement of operation (or more frequently). The
review shall cover monitoring results, trends in monitoring results,, stormwater
management systems, air discharge system and recommended
improvements. The review shall be undertaken by a suitably qualified and
experienced person. The review shall be provided to the Manager for
approval. The consent CBMP shall be updated in accordance with the Best
525890_1
12
Practicable Option and submitted to the Manager for approval. No changes
shall occur prior to the Manager approving the changes‟.
39
Limit condition – CBP7
Add ‘and discharges’ after air emissions
40
Remove CBP25 – duplication
41
Monitoring – CBP 30
Add ‘Monitoring results shall be provided to the Manager on a monthly basis‟.
After management prior to discharge add ‘in accordance with the approved
CBMP required under condition CBP3‟. Also add ‘the Manager should be
notified of any discharges that do not meet this standard in accordance with
condition G39‟.
42
CBP31 needs to be updated to reflect the wording of E6.
43
Remove CBP32 – duplication of CBP 24
44
CBP35 – for consistency remove ‘enforcement officer’ and replace with ‘the
Manager‟.
45
Remove CBP36 – duplication of G38
46
Remove CBP37 – duplication of G7.
525890_1
13