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