1

BEFORE THE HEARING COMMISSIONERS

IN THE MATTER OF the Resource Management Act 1991

AND The Proposed Natural Resources Plan

for the Wellington Region

AND Hearing 6 – Coast, Natural Hazards, Significant historic heritage values and Contaminated land, and hazardous substances

ECOLOGY EVIDENCE OF

SHONA CLAIRE MYERS

on behalf of:

The Minister of Conservation

Dated: 18 May 2018

Department of Conservation

PO Box 10 420, WELLINGTON

Counsel acting: Katherine Anton / May Downing

Contact email: kanton@doc.govt.nz / mdowning@doc.govt.nz

2

Table of Contents

ABBREVIATIONS USED ................................................................................................................. 3

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .............................................................................................. 4

CODE OF CONDUCT FOR EXPERT WITNESSES ........................................................................................... 6 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE .......................................................................................................................... 6

ECOLOGICAL VALUES OF WELLINGTON’S COASTAL AND MARINE AREA ......................................... 8

REGIONAL PLAN SCHEDULES ............................................................................................................. 10 ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS OF ACTIVITIES IN THE COASTAL MARINE AREA ........................................................... 12

ANALYSIS OF PROVISIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 14

MANAGEMENT OF THE COASTAL MARINE AREA .................................................................................... 14 STRUCTURES IN THE CMA ........................................................................................................................... 14 SEAWALLS ................................................................................................................................................ 17 CONTROLLED ACTIVITY STATUS – SCHEDULED ECOLOGICAL SITES ....................................................................... 18 ACTIVITIES IN THE COASTAL MARINE AREA ........................................................................................... 18 UNDERWATER NOISE .................................................................................................................................. 18 RECLAMATION, DRAINAGE AND DESTRUCTION ................................................................................................ 19 INTRODUCTION OF PEST PLANTS ................................................................................................................... 20 GENERAL CONDITIONS ................................................................................................................................ 21 DISTURBANCE OR DAMAGE OF FORESHORE AND SEABED .................................................................................. 22 DESTRUCTION, DAMAGE, DISTURBANCE AND DEPOSITION ................................................................................. 23 PLANTING IN THE CMA .............................................................................................................................. 24 NATURAL BUFFERS .................................................................................................................................... 25

CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 26

REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................. 27

3

Abbreviations Used The primary abbreviations I have used in my evidence are:

The Plan/PNRP Proposed Natural Resources Plan for the Wellington Region

The Council Greater Wellington Region Council

NZCPS The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010

RPS The Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region

CMA Coastal Marine Area

The Minister The Minister for Conservation

MOC The Minister for Conservation

DOC Department of Conservation

4

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1. My full name is Shona Claire Myers.

2. I hold the degrees of Bachelor of Science and Master of Science (First Class Honours)

in ecology and botany. I am the Director and Principal Ecologist of Myers Ecology Ltd.

I have been a self-employed ecologist and running my own ecology company since

October 2015. I have over 30 years' experience as an ecologist and have been

employed by regional and central government agencies, and more recently in private

consultancy.

3. Prior to running my own company, I was employed by the Department of Conservation

as a Resource Management Advisor, assisting with prioritisation of the Department's

resource management advocacy work, and with the Department’s refresh of the NZ

Biodiversity Strategy. I was previously employed by the former Auckland Regional

Council, as Group Manager Heritage. In that role, I managed natural and cultural

heritage teams undertaking biodiversity and heritage conservation work throughout

the Auckland region. I have also previously been employed as a senior ecologist at

Wildlands Consultants in Auckland, as a scientist with the Department of Scientific and

Industrial Research, a conservation officer with the Department of Conservation, and

as a natural heritage scientist and natural heritage team leader with the former

Auckland Regional Council. I have been an independent hearing commissioner for

Auckland Council since 2015.

4. I am an Honorary Life Member of the New Zealand Ecological Society, and a past-

president and past secretary of that society. I am also a committee member of the

Auckland Botanical Society, and a member of the New Zealand Plant Conservation

Network and the New Zealand Wetland Trust. I am the immediate Past President of

the International Association for Ecology (INTECOL) and was president of INTECOL from

2013 to August 2017, and have been a Board member since 2009.

5

5. I have undertaken ecological surveys in many parts of New Zealand including forests,

shrublands, wetlands and coastal ecosystems, including dunelands, estuaries and

intertidal areas and coastal bird surveys. I was involved in developing the Protected

Natural Areas Programme and the first national wetland inventory (WERI) (including

coastal wetlands) in the 1980s.

6. I have presented ecological evidence at numerous Environment Court and Board of

Inquiry hearings, and have been involved in many regional and district plan reviews

and assessments of effects, including in relation to the coastal marine area. Recently

this has included:

a. Developing the Significant Ecological Area (Marine) (SEA-M) overlay on behalf

of Auckland Council for the Auckland Unitary Plan. I presented evidence at

the Unitary Plan Hearings in 2015/6, including on the following topics:

Significant Ecological Area (marine and terrestrial overlay); rules for coastal

activities in the SEA-M overlay; earthworks and effects on SEAs; rural

activities and controls, rural urban boundary areas and precincts.

b. In 2016/17, I undertook the terrestrial ecological assessment of effects and

presented evidence on behalf of New Zealand Transport Agency for the East

West Link project.

c. In 2017 I presented ecological evidence and was involved in caucusing on

behalf of Forest & Bird for the Bay of Plenty Coastal Plan and the Whakatane

District Plan; and in 2018 for Environmental Defence Society and Forest and

Bird on the Otago Regional Policy Statement.

d. In 2017, I presented evidence on behalf of the Marine Farming Association

and Aquaculture New Zealand at hearings for the Proposed Marlborough

Environment Plan.

e. Since 2016, I have assisted Greater Wellington Regional Council with

establishing ecological monitoring programmes for measuring the state and

condition of wetlands in Wellington.

6

f. In 2018, I have been working with Waikato Regional Council identifying and

analysing biodiversity in the coastal and marine environment that meets

Policy 11 of the NZCPS for the review of the Coastal Plan.

7. I published a major review of protection mechanisms for wetlands in NZ in 2013. I am

a joint author of the DOC guidelines on assessing ecological significance.

8. I am familiar with the ecology of the Wellington Region, and have undertaken

ecological survey work in this region since the 1980s.

Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses

9. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the Environment Court

Practice Note. This evidence has been prepared in accordance with it and I agree to

comply with it. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might

alter or detract from the opinions expressed. I confirm that the issues addressed in this

brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. I have specified where my opinion is

based on limited or partial information and identified any assumptions I have made in

forming my opinions.

Scope of evidence

10. I have been asked by the Minister of Conservation to prepare marine and coastal

ecological evidence in relation to the submissions and further submissions they made

on the Proposed Natural Resource Plan for the Wellington Region. This brief of

evidence is related to Hearing 6 - Coast, Natural Hazards, Significant historic heritage

values and Contaminated land, and hazardous substances

11. In preparing this statement, I have read the following documents and evidence:

a. The original and further submissions by the Minister of Conservation;

b. The following technical reports on marine and coastal ecology, supporting

Schedules F4 and F5 of the draft Natural Resources Plan:

7

McArthur N, Robertson H, Adams L and D Small 2015. A review of coastal and freshwater habitats of significance for indigenous birds in the Wellington region. Greater Wellington Regional Council. McArthur N and Lawson J 2013 Coastal and freshwater sites of significance for indigenous birds in the Wellington region. Greater Wellington Regional Council MacDiarmid A, Nelson W, Gordon D, Bowden D, Mountjoy J, Lamarche G 2012. Sites of significance for indigenous marine biodiversity in the Wellington region Prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council NIWA Client Report No: WLG2012-19 Oliver M and Beaglehole J 2014. Coastal sites and habitats with significant indigenous biodiversity values in the Wellington region: Technical memo to support Schedules F4 and F5 of the draft Natural Resources Plan. Todd, M.; Kettles, H.; Graeme, C.; Sawyer, J.; McEwan, A.; Adams, L. 2016: Estuarine systems in the lower North Island/Te Ika-a-Māui: ranking of significance, current status and future management options. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 400 p.

c. The Regional Council’s s42A report, Wetlands and Biodiversity. Pam Guest and

Paul Denton;

d. The Regional Council’s s42A report, Topic: Activities in the CMA. Tim

Blackman;

e. The Regional Council’s s42A report, Topic: Management of the Coast, Paul

Denton.

12. My evidence will address the following:

• Ecological values and significance of coastal marine area in Wellington Region;

• Ecological importance of scheduled sites in regional plan;

• Impacts of activities in the coastal marine area on sites of significance, the

consequences of loss and damage, and the importance of protecting sites from

effects of activities;

• My comments and recommendations on the s42A response to the Ministers

submission points, relating to ecology.

8

13. I rely on the planning evidence of Ms Lucy Cooper regarding a full analysis of the s42A

report and the response on each of the Minister’s submission points. I also rely on the

evidence of Mr Roger Shand regarding coastal hazards.

Ecological values of Wellington’s coastal and marine area

14. The marine environment of the Wellington Region contains a diverse range of habitats

and species from giant kelp forests, rhodolith beds at Kapiti, soft sediment red algae

beds in Wellington Harbour and rare tube worms associated with methane seeps

offshore from the Wairarapa Coast (Department of Conservation 2015).

15. The ecological values of the coastal marine area of the Wellington region are described

in technical reports undertaken by NIWA, Department of Conservation and Greater

Wellington Regional Council (Oliver and Beaglehole 2014, MacDiarmid et al 2012,

McArthur et al 2015, McArthur and Lawson 2013, Todd et al 2016). Sites of ecological

value described in these reports have formed the basis of scheduled sites in the

Proposed Regional Plan. These include marine reserves, some open coast beaches,

dunes, rocky shores and estuaries.

16. The region’s coastline is almost 500km long and is a high energy environment

dominated by the strong tidal flows of Cook Strait which deliver nutrient-rich deep

ocean waters to the continental shelf (Oliver and Milne 2012). The marine area of

Wellington region covers about 742,484 ha, with about 1.5% occurring in harbours and

estuaries, and the majority occurring on the continental shelf, and continental slope

(MacDiarmid et al 2012). The near-shore coastal environment supports two harbours

(Porirua and Wellington), estuaries, and extensive sandy beaches, dunes and rocky

shores (Oliver and Milne 2012). The harbours and estuaries of the region provide

diverse saltmarsh ecosystems and habitats for threatened species.

17. A total of 58 threatened and at risk species have been recorded across 48 estuarine

sites in the region (Todd et al. 2016). Naturally uncommon ecosystems found in the

region include active sand dunes (endangered), coastal cliffs (endangered), coastal

9

turfs (critically endangered), shingle beaches (endangered), estuaries (vulnerable) and

lagoons (endangered) (Holdaway et al. 2012).

18. Two of the largest estuaries in the Wellington region, Porirua/Pauatahanui Harbour

and Waikanae Estuary, contain a particularly high diversity of ecosystems and support

a relatively high number of threatened and ‘at risk’ species. They support a total 29

and 34 threatened and at risk species respectively (Todd et al. 2016). Both estuaries

provide important foraging and roosting habitat for South Island pied oystercatcher

(‘at risk declining’) and bar-tailed godwit (‘at risk declining’). The Waikanae Estuary is

one of only two sites in the Wellington region at which North Island fernbird (‘at risk

declining’) has been recorded.

19. A high proportion (78%) of the bird species dependent on coastal and freshwater

habitats are ranked as either ‘Nationally Threatened’ or ‘At Risk’1. Important habitats

identified by McArthur et al 2015 in a review of coastal habitats, include Riversdale

Beach with the only breeding population in the region of New Zealand dotterels (at risk

recovering), and Onoke Spit which supports the only breeding colony of Caspian terns

(nationally vulnerable) in the lower North Island. Taputeranga Island supports a large

proportion of the regional population of the reef heron (nationally endangered) and

Castlepoint reef supports the Wellington region’s largest nesting colonies of both red-

billed gulls (at risk declining) and white-fronted terns (nationally vulnerable).

20. There is a large variety of marine mammals in the Wellington marine environment such

as the New Zealand fur seal, aihe/common dolphin, and tohorā/southern right whale

(nationally vulnerable) (Department of Conservation 2016).

21. The marine ecosystems of the Wellington region are particularly rich in shelf edge and

slope habitats such as canyons, methane seeps and woodfalls that are uncommon in

most other regions (MacDiarmid et al. 2012). The ecosystem services provided by the

1 Section 42A Hearing Report: Wetlands and Biodiversity

10

coastal environment, include climate and natural hazard regulation, and provision of

fish or bird nursery areas and hotspots of biodiversity (Oliver and Milne 2012)

22. The Wellington region has a number of coastal conservation areas, including two

marine reserves: the Kāpiti Marine Reserve extending offshore from Waikanae; and

the Taputeranga Marine Reserve on Wellington city’s south coast. The Kāpiti Marine

Reserve links the Kāpiti Island Nature Reserve and the Waikanae Estuary Scientific

Reserve, creating a continuum of protected land, sea and estuary (Oliver and Milne

2012).

Regional Plan Schedules

23. The Regional Plan contains policies, objectives and rules for protecting and restoring

ecosystems and habitats with significant indigenous biodiversity values, and rules for

managing effects. These are important for giving effect to Policy 11 of the NZCPS which

contains a hierarchy of protection for indigenous biodiversity. Policy 11 (a) requires a

higher level of protection and the avoidance of adverse effects on threatened and at-

risk species, rare habitats and ecosystems and habitats that are nationally significant,

rare or threatened. Policy 11 (b) requires significant adverse effects to be avoided,

remedied or mitigated, including in areas of predominantly indigenous vegetation in

the coastal environment and indigenous ecosystems and habitats that are particularly

vulnerable to modification.

24. The Plan contains schedules of significant indigenous biodiversity values in the CMA:

a. Schedule F2c and Map 18 – habitats for indigenous birds in the CMA

b. Schedule F4 and Map 19 – sites with significant indigenous biodiversity values

in the CMA

c. Schedule F5 – habitats with significant indigenous biodiversity values in CMA.

d. Schedule F1b and Map 14 – known rivers and parts of the CMA with inanga

spawning habitat.

25. Schedule F4 of the proposed Plan identifies sites with significant indigenous

biodiversity values in the CMA and Schedule F5 identifies habitats with significant

11

indigenous biodiversity values in the CMA. Schedules F4 and F5 list estuaries, coastal

and offshore marine sites and habitats in the Wellington region with significant

indigenous biodiversity values. These schedules have been based on a report on

estuarine systems in the lower North Island (Todd et al. 2016), and sites of significant

marine biodiversity identified by NIWA (MacDiarmid et al. 2012). Schedule F5 includes

seal haul-outs, inanga spawning habitat, saltmarsh and seagrass habitats.

26. The schedules have been developed based on the criteria set out in RPS Policy 23

(representativeness, rarity, diversity, ecological context of an area)2. The Section 42A

report (wetlands and biodiversity) identifies a difference between the approach in RPS

Policy 23 and NZCPS Policy 11. The report concludes that the “RPS criteria address

some of the NZCPS criteria (e.g. for rarity/threat, representativeness) but not all”, and

that there is a gap in the plan meeting Policy 11 (a). I agree with this assessment. The

criteria in Policy 23 are ecological significance criteria based on significance assessment

methodology for terrestrial and wetland ecosystems (as described in Davis et al. 2016).

NZCPS Policy 11 contains more specific criteria particularly regarding the protection of

threatened species and ecosystems in the CMA, nationally significant examples of

community types, and indigenous ecosystems and habitats that are only found in the

coastal environment. As I discuss in paragraph 23 of my evidence Policy 11 contains a

hierarchy with more significant biodiversity addressed by Policy 11 (a), where effects

are to be avoided. There are significant overlaps between Policy 23 and NZCPS Policy

11, particularly with habitats for threatened species and rare ecosystem types however

there are differences with the more coastal and marine specific focus of Policy 11.

27. While the schedules cover estuaries relatively comprehensively, there are significant

information gaps for marine sites and habitats and it is identified in the s42A report

that there is insufficient information to prepare a definitive list of significant sites3. The

scheduled sites in the proposed plan identify hotspots of biodiversity, however, here

2 Section 42A Hearing Report: Wetlands and Biodiversity 3 Oliver and Beaglehole 2014. Coastal sites and habitats with significant indigenous biodiversity values in the Wellington region: Technical memo to support Schedules F4 and F5 of the draft Natural Resources Plan

12

will be threatened species (including new species) and threatened ecosystems outside

of scheduled sites.

28. As an example, a Bioblitz undertaken in Island Bay on Wellington’s south coast in 2007

identified over 500 species including at least four new endemic species4. The lack of

data on significant marine environments is a global issue and has been recognised by

other regional councils (e.g. Northland, Auckland, Waikato) during the development of

coastal plans. Undertaking a comprehensive survey of the marine environment is an

enormous job. An example of work that is being done to understand the region’s

marine values, is a survey, undertaken in 2015, by DOC, NIWA, LINZ and Victoria

University to identify physical marine habitats and to map biophysical marine habitat

layers around Kāpiti Island. New fragile and sensitive habitats outside protected areas

were identified.

29. Another example is a rare marine gravel maggot (Smeagol) that has been found in only

one place in the Wellington region, a western beach area of Lyall Bay where a specific

coarse gravel habitat is located5. This animal is ranked amongst the most endangered

marine invertebrates in the country. It is not contained in a Scheduled site. It is an

example of the undiscovered marine species that are out there.

30. A precautionary approach to the protection of indigenous biodiversity in the CMA is

therefore needed in the plan.

31. Due to the information gap, it is important that the proposed plan addresses the

protection of significant indigenous biodiversity within Schedules F4 and F5, as well as

protection of significant biodiversity (including threatened species and ecosystems)

outside the Schedules.

Ecological Impacts of activities in the coastal marine area

4 http://www.forestandbird.org.nz/what-we-do/publications/media-releases/marine-bioblitz-uncovers-biodiversity-bonanza 5 http://www.pressreader.com/new-zealand/the-dominion-post/20101117/281694021169926

13

32. Activities at a range of scales can impact values in the CMA and these can have

significant cumulative adverse effects on marine habitats, marine mammals, fish,

wading birds, sea birds and benthic animals and plants. A range of pressures come from

climate change e.g. rising average temperatures, changing temperature extremes,

ocean acidification, sealevel rise and increased storminess and freshwater discharge

from catchments. Catchment-sourced effects include those from land-use, especially

intensification, that can result in sedimentation, eutrophication and contamination

(e.g. from stormwater runoff). Effects from activities occurring within the CMA, such

as commercial and recreational fishing, add to the cumulative pressures. Activities in

the marine environment such as dredging, reclamation, dumping of waste and

construction, can lead to habitat disturbance and destruction.

33. The impacts of coastal development and other activities occurring in the coastal marine

area can include6:

a. Habitat loss through construction and maintenance of coastal structures;

b. Alteration to and loss of habitats from dredging and reclamation;

c. Release of stormwater, wastewater, anti-foulants and other contaminants;

d. Increased biosecurity risks for marine biota and coastal vegetation; and

e. Threats to coastal species through direct, and indirect, disturbance and habitat

loss.

34. The identified marine sites and habitats in the Wellington Region are threatened by a

large range of human activities (MacDiarmid et al. 2012). Pressures and threats in the

region include recreational and commercial fishing, land use intensification,

wastewater and stormwater discharges, erosion, and dredging (Oliver and Milne

2012).

35. Contaminants, particularly sediment, nutrients and heavy metals from upstream

catchments are adversely affecting the estuaries and harbours (Todd et al 2016). The

accumulation of different adverse effects has led to the degradation of ecosystem and

6 Hauraki Gulf Forum 2014. State of Our Gulf 2014. Hauraki Gulf – Tikapa Moana/Te Moananui a Toi. State of the Environment Report

14

biodiversity values of coastal environments7 . Despite these pressures the region

contains significant marine and coastal biodiversity, including threatened species and

ecosystems.

Analysis of Provisions and Recommendations

36. In this section I provide a response to the reporting officers recommendations on

submission points made by the MOC, relating to marine and coastal ecology.

37. The MOC submission largely supports the approach in the proposed plan to protection

of significant ecological values in the CMA. It supports and seeks to enhance:

a. Policies on avoidance of effects;

b. Rules regarding adverse effects of sedimentation and deposition on ecological

values, reclamation and drainage, and destruction in the CMA.

38. However, there are several issues that I discuss in my analysis below, and which need

to be addressed in the plan to protect the ecological values of the CMA, and meet the

requirements of NZCPS Policy 11. These are:

a. Ensuring the rules in the plan address the avoidance of adverse effects on sites

which meet NZCPS Policy 11(a);

b. Addressing the gaps in knowledge of the ecological values of the coastal

marine area and the protection of significant biodiversity outside of scheduled

sites;

c. Ensuring that the rules allow for the protection of scheduled sites.

Management of the Coastal Marine Area

Structures in the CMA

39. The Minister made the following submission supporting Policy P138, avoiding

structures within sites with significant ecological values.

7 Oliver and Beaglehole 2014. Coastal sites and habitats with significant indigenous biodiversity values in the Wellington region: Technical memo to support Schedules F4 and F5 of the draft Natural Resources Plan

15

Analysis

40. This policy avoids new structures or replacement of structures in Schedule F4 and F5

sites with exceptions including whether the structures are for educational, scientific

or research purposes, navigational safety, or regionally significant infrastructure

provided there is no practicable alternative method. The MOC submission supports

retaining the policy but seeks that it meets Policy 11 of the NZCPS which requires the

protection of biodiversity in the coastal environment.

41. A range of human activities impacting on the CMA are described in paragraphs 32-35

of my evidence, and can include habitat loss and threats to marine fauna and

ecosystems through construction and maintenance of coastal structures. The CMA

and adjacent coastal environment can be impacted from structures (e.g. seawalls

which prevent landward migration of intertidal and vegetation sequences), and from

access routes for maintenance to structures (e.g. powerlines sited in saltmarsh

wetlands need a track for vehicle access – see example in photograph below from

Todd et al. 2016).

MOCs submission

Provision MOC Submission Reference

Support, Oppose, Amend

Reasons Decision Sought Reporting Officer’s Recommendation

Policy P138 Structures in Sites with significant values

S75/108 Support The avoidance of structures in sites with significant values except for the listed exclusions is supported as appropriate guidance. However, Policy 11 NZCPS may require avoidance of adverse effects on these sites or values.

Retain policy but ensure that Policy 11 NZCPS is given effect to in policies.

Reject – see Issue 7 and s42A report: Wetlands and Biodiversity

Policy P138 FS41/021 Coastal Ratepayers

Oppose

16

42. The officer has recommended rejecting the MOC submission and instead refers to the

issue being addressed in the s42A report for wetlands and biodiversity (Hearing stream

7). The s42A report for the wetlands and biodiversity stream acknowledges there is a

gap in the plan regarding addressing NZCPS Policy 11. It proposes changes to Policy 22

of the Plan to avoid adverse effects on habitats, species and ecosystems in the CMA

that meet policies in NZCPS 11(a).

Recommendation

43. I support the proposed changes to Policy 22 as these require avoidance of adverse

effects on significant biodiversity values including threatened and at-risk species, and

threatened ecosystems and vegetation types in the CMA. However, I do not agree with

the reporting officer that there is no need to amend Policy P138. Schedules 4 and 5

identify areas based on ecological criteria in the RPS, and as discussed in the s42A

report for Hearing Stream 5 (wetlands and biodiversity) the RPS criteria will address

some of the issues in Policy 11 but not all. In addition, Policy P138 includes exceptions

and this will not result in avoidance of effects on sites meeting Policy 11 (a). There is

therefore a gap in the proposed Plan in terms of requiring avoidance of adverse effects

on ecosystems and habitats described in Policy 11 (a).

44. I refer to the evidence of Ms Cooper on behalf of MOC, as she proposes additional

wording to Policy 138 to address Policy 11. I agree with this proposed wording.

45. I do not support the submission from Coastal Ratepayers which opposes Policy 138 in

part and seeks a more permissive approach. The coastal marine area contains

17

significant ecological values and indigenous biodiversity that require protection from

the adverse effects of activities.

Seawalls 46. The Minister has made the following submission proposing amendments to Policy P139

regarding seawalls and to minimise adverse effects on the coastal environment.

47. I support the proposed amendments. Seawalls put hard barriers in place of natural

coastal ecosystem functions and prevent coastal ecosystems from responding to

MOC submission

Provision Submission Reference

Support, Oppose, Amend

Reasons Decision Sought Reporting Officer’s Recommendation

Policy P139 S75/109 Amend This policy provides direction on the appropriateness of seawalls. Although supported, amendment is required to ensure consistency with Policy 27(3) NZCPS and give direction that form and location seek to minimise adverse effects on the coastal environment.

Amend as follows, or similar: (d) suitably located and designed to minimise adverse effects on the coastal environment, and certified by a qualified, professional engineer

Accept

Policy P139 FS41/022 Oppose Disallow

Policy P139 FS61/040 on Roading, Parks and Gardens and Solid Waste departments of Hutt City Council and Upper Hutt City Council S85/053

Support in part

Amend Policy P139 to recognise that seawalls can be the only reasonably practicable option to protect important assets from damage. Insert a policy providing for the alteration, addition, replacement, and occupation of existing seawalls.

Allow

18

erosion or sea level rise8. Intact and restored estuarine, marsh and dune coastal

ecosystems are more resilient and able to adapt to pressures.

Controlled Activity Status – scheduled ecological sites

48. There are rules in the plan that allow for a controlled activity status for management

of infrastructure inside scheduled ecological sites. I am concerned about this from an

ecological point of view, as there could be adverse effects on significant ecological sites

(including threatened species and threatened ecosystems) from the activities covered

in these rules. For example, Rule R151 provides for additions or alterations to

structures as a controlled activity. Rule R202 in the plan provides for maintenance

dredging outside a Commercial Port Area or navigation protection areas as a controlled

activity. The effects on Schedule F4 and F5 sites is a matter of control under both these

rules, however, a controlled activity status does not allow for a resource consent to be

declined if there was a significant ecological effect. This is of concern, as alterations

and additions to structures, and dredging can have significant adverse effects on

ecological values of the CMA. The activity status would not meet the requirement for

avoidance of effects on sites which meet the NZCPS Policy 11 (a), including threatened

species and threatened ecosystems in the CMA. I recommend that the plan address

the protection of Schedule F4 and F5 sites within these rules and ensure that the plan

is consistent with NZCPS Policy 11.

Activities in the Coastal Marine Area

Underwater noise 49. The Minister made the following submission supporting Objective 058, managing

underwater noise and effects on marine fauna.

8 McGlone M and S Walker 2011. Potential effects of climate change of New Zealand’s terrestrial biodiversity and policy recommendations for mitigation, adaptation and research. Science for Conservation 312.

MOC submission

Provision Submission Reference

Support, Oppose, Amend

Reasons Decision Sought Reporting Officer’s Recommendation

Objective O58 Noise, including underwater

S75/049 Support Requiring the management of underwater noise to

Retain as notified

retain

19

50. The officers report recommends retaining this objective, and I support this to ensure

the protection of marine fauna from adverse effects. Marine fauna, such as marine

mammals, are vulnerable to the effects of underwater noise including effects on

communication, orientation and navigation, and foraging. For example, rock lobster

juveniles use the natural sound of reef systems as a cue for the direction to settle.

Underwater sound is an extremely important part of the marine environment and plays

an integral role in the survival of most marine species. Anthropogenic underwater

noise is known to have a variety of impacts on marine species, ranging from

behavioural disturbances, to hearing loss, physical injury and mortality (United Nations

Environment Programme 2012).

Reclamation, drainage and destruction

51. The Minister made the following submission supporting Policy 145, which avoids

reclamation, drainage and destruction, except in association with regionally significant

infrastructure where there are no other locations and no practicable alternatives.

noise, from activities in the coastal marine area is managed to maintain the health and well-being of marine fauna, and the health and amenity value of users of the coastal marine area

maintain the health and well-being of marine fauna is supported.

MOC submission

Provision Submission Reference

Support, Oppose, Amend

Reasons Decision Sought Reporting Officer’s Recommendation

Policy P145 Reclamation, drainage and destruction

S75/112 Support This Policy is consistent with Policy 10 NZCPS.

Retain as notified

retain

Policy P145 FS41/024 Oppose

Policy P145 FS61/041 on Coastal

Oppose in part

Revise the policy so that appropriate coastal hazard mitigation activities are

20

52. The reporting officer has recommended retaining this policy. I support retention of this

policy as damage to marine ecosystems from these activities can result in9:

a. Direct loss of habitat;

b. Disruption of sensitive and or ecologically productive ecosystems and

transition zones;

c. Damage to intertidal and subtidal habitats of birds, fish and invertebrates;

d. Removal of all marine life from parts of the seabed.

53. As discussed earlier in my evidence activities such as reclamation, drainage and

destruction should be avoided to protect indigenous biodiversity in the CMA.

Introduction of pest plants 54. The Minister has made the following submission supporting Policy 146 which avoids

the introduction of pest plants into the coastal marine area.

55. The reporting officer recommends accepting the submission and retaining this policy.

I support this as the introduction of pest plants into the coastal marine area has

significant adverse effects on the health and integrity of coastal and marine ecosystems

9 Brake and Peart 2015

Ratepayers S93/066

enabled (using appropriate language that is consistent with that used in the PNRP). Include definitions of “destruction”, “disturbance”, and “damage” so that the differences in meaning of the terms is clear

MOC submission

Provision Submission Reference

Support, Oppose, Amend

Reasons Decision Sought Reporting Officer’s Recommendation

Policy P146 Introduction of Pest plants

S75/113 Support This Policy is appropriate.

Retain as notified

Accept.

21

and the diversity of indigenous habitats. Pest plants invade and replace natural

communities and species.

General conditions

56. The Minister has made the following submission supporting Rule 5.7.2 which provides

general conditions for activities in the coastal marine area. The submission in particular

supports provision for fish passage and protection of inanga spawning habitat.

57. The reporting officer has proposed changes to 5.7.2 (k) to provide further clarification

and so that adverse effects of barriers to fish passage are avoided.

58. The interface between the coast and freshwater provides important habitat for

migratory fish species. Many of our threatened native fish species such as inanga and

longfin eel need to move between the sea and rivers to complete their life cycle. If

these migratory pathways are blocked or fish may be prevented from completing their

life cycles and this could have significant adverse effects on the survival of species.

Provision Submission Reference

Support, Oppose, Amend

Reasons Decision Sought Reporting Officer’s Recommendation

5.7.2 Coastal Management General Guidelines

S75/160 Support These guidelines, especially providing for fish passage (k) and protecting inanga spawning habitat (l) are considered appropriate requirements for coastal permits.

Retain as notified.

Amendments to (k) proposed: “Any structure constructed in the coastal marine area shall not impede provide for fish passage between coastal and fresh water habitat (including between fresh water and coastal water) at all times, unless a temporary restriction is required for construction activities, and”

22

59. I support the intent of the reporting officers wording to ensure avoidance of barriers

to fish passage, however I recommend that this should more specific to avoid creation

of barriers to the migration or movement of indigenous fish. I prefer the wording

proposed for Policy P35 in the evidence of Natasha Petrove on behalf of Minister of

Conservation in Hearing Stream 510. She recommended wording as follows:

“avoid creating barriers to the migration or movement of indigenous aquatic species, except where this is required for the protection of indigenous fish and koura populations, and restore the connections between fragmented aquatic habitats where appropriate”.

Disturbance or damage of foreshore and seabed

60. The Minister has made the following further submission in support of retaining Rule

194 which makes disturbance or damage of the foreshore or seabed outside of

Schedule F4 and F5 sites a discretionary activity.

Analysis and recommendation

61. The reporting officer has recommended retaining this rule. I agree with this, as the

rule is important for protecting coastal and marine ecological values that are outside

of scheduled sites, from disturbance and damage. As discussed in paragraph 26 of my

evidence there are likely to be marine and coastal ecosystems and habitats that meet

criteria in Policy 11 of the NZCPS, and which have not been identified in Schedule F4

and F5. It is important that the values of these areas are protected in the plan.

62. The Minister has made the following submission supporting Rule 195 which identifies

disturbance and damage of the foreshore and seabed inside sites of significance

(including Schedule F4 and Schedule F5) as being a non-complying activity.

10 Natasha Petrove technical freshwater ecology evidence, Appendix 2, pg. 25

MOC submission

Provision Submission Reference

Support, Oppose, Amend

Reasons Decision Sought Reporting Officer’s Recommendation

Rule R194: Disturbance or damage - discretionary activity

FS61/062 on NZTA S146/212

Support Retain Accept

23

63. The reporting officer has recommended accepting this submission. I support this, as

retaining this rule as a non-complying activity is necessary for protecting the

significant ecological values of sites in Schedules F4 and F5, and preventing adverse

effects on these resources.

Destruction, damage, disturbance and deposition

64. The Minister has made the following submissions in support of:

a. Rules R204 and R205, which identify destruction, damage or disturbance

outside sites of significance as being a discretionary activity, and a non-

complying activity inside areas of significance.

b. Rules R207, 208 and 209 regarding deposition for beach nourishment,

including deposition outside sites of significance, and deposition inside sites of

significance.

MOC submission

Provision Submission Reference

Support, Oppose, Amend

Reasons Decision Sought Reporting Officer’s Recommendation

Rule R195: Disturbance or damage inside sites of significance – non-complying activity

S75/172 Support This rule provides appropriate protection for significant coastal sites and habitats.

Retain as notified.

Retain

MOC submission

Provision Submission Reference

Support, Oppose, Amend

Reasons Decision Sought Reporting Officer’s Recommendation

Rule R204 & R205 Destruction, damage or disturbance outside sites of significance – discretionary activity; and inside sites of significance – non-complying

S75/178 S75/179 S75/180 S75/181 S75/182

Support These rules provide an appropriate framework for the consideration of destruction, damage or disturbance, and for consideration of deposition.

Retain as notified.

Accept

24

65. The reporting officer has recommended accepting these submission points. I support

these rules as it is important to provide stringent protection for scheduled sites of

significance, as well as providing for protection of coastal and marine biodiversity

outside of scheduled sites. There are likely to be sites that meet Policy 11 of the NZCPS

and that have not been identified in Schedule F4 or F5. As discussed earlier in my

evidence deposition can have significant adverse effects on the marine environment.

Beach nourishment can have long term negative impacts on coastal ecosystems such

as reducing the abundance of intertidal invertebrates and impacting on shorebird

populations that feed on these species.

Planting in the CMA

66. Submission point S75/185 below seeks that planting in the CMA is restricted to native

plants.

Rules R207, R208 & R209 Deposition for beach nourishment, deposition outside sites of significance, deposition inside sites of significance

MOC submission

Provision Submission Reference

Support, Oppose, Amend

Reasons Decision Sought Reporting Officer’s Recommendation

Rule R217 – Planting in the CMA

S75/185 Amend The rule currently allows the planting of any plant that is not identified as a pest plant or within a site in Schedule E4. This does not provide appropriate control for a permitted activity. The rule should be restricted to native species appropriate to the ecology

Restrict planting to native plant species and to specified ecological enhancement and hazard mitigation objectives.

Reject submission and allow for planting of exotic species

25

67. The reporting officer has rejected the submission. I do not agree with this, as native

species are better adapted to growing in the dynamic coastal environments and will

better protect the indigenous biodiversity of the CMA. The example of poplar poles

used for erosion control, as discussed in the s42a report, is not relevant as this species

is not planted in the coastal marine environment. Seagrass is a native species that is

planted in the coastal marine area, and there are some restoration initiatives underway

restoring and planting this in intertidal areas.

68. The adverse effects of planting inappropriate species could include the disruption of

natural ecological processes, the replacement of native communities, and the invasion

of exotic species that are more aggressive than native species (for example, Spartina is

an exotic species that takes over intertidal areas, leads to loss of habitat for shorebirds

and raises the ground so that it is no longer inter tidal. Saltwater paspalum is also

invading native saltmarsh communities)

69. Planting guides such as the ‘Wellington Regional Native Plant Guide 2010’, and ‘A Guide

to Planting Native Plants in Kapiti’ provide information on what native plants to grow

in coastal edge zones of the Wellington region.

70. I prefer the wording proposed by Forest and Bird for Rule R217: “The plant species

planted shall be native species that naturally grow in the area planting occurs”, and I

recommend that this wording is adopted.

Natural Buffers

71. The MOC submission seeks that Policy P30 be amended to provide for the protection,

restoration or enhancement of natural buffers in the CMA. Natural coastal buffers

include biogenic habitats (such as seagrass and horse mussel beds) and riparian

ecosystems such as coastal wetlands, estuarine vegetation, gravel banks, cliffs and

dunelands play an important role in buffering coastal land from effects such as sea level

of the site that will not have adverse effects on the coastal environment.

26

rise11. These systems are dynamic and intact connections between the sea and the land

are needed to allow natural changes to be accommodated and for resilience of

ecosystems and species. Hard inland boundaries prevent coastal ecosystems from

responding to habitat loss through coastal erosion and sea level rise.

72. I refer to Mr Shand’s evidence on behalf of the MOC which provides further details

regarding addressing coastal hazards.

Conclusions

73. The Wellington Region contains significant coastal and marine ecological values. They

are under cumulative impacts from climate change, catchments and activities

occurring in the CMA. Polices, objectives and rules in the proposed plan address the

protection of significant ecological values and the adverse effects of destruction,

reclamation, drainage, and construction. The focus of the plan on protection of

ecological values in the CMA is supported. Amendments however are needed to the

plan to ensure:

a. Avoidance of adverse effects on sites which meet NZCPS Policy 11(a);

b. Protection of scheduled sites, and management and avoidance of adverse

effects on these sites;

c. Protection of significant biodiversity outside of scheduled sites, due to gaps in

knowledge of the ecological values of the coastal marine area.

74. Some submitters have requested a more permissive approach to management and

activities and I consider these proposed amendments are not appropriate. The coastal

marine area contains significant ecological values and indigenous biodiversity that

requires protection from the adverse effects of activities.

11 Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 2015. Preparing New Zealand for rising seas: Certainty and uncertainty

27

References Baker, C.S., B.L. Chilvers, S. Childerhouse, R. Constantine, R. Currey, R. Mattlin, A. Van Helden, R. Hitchmough, and Rolfe J. 2016. Conservation status of New Zealand marine mammals, 2013. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 14. 18 p. Davis, M.; Head, N.J.; Myers, S.C.; Moore, S.H. 2016: Department of Conservation guidelines for assessing significant ecological values. Science for Conservation 327. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 73 p.

Department of Conservation 2016. Conservation Management Strategy. Wellington, 2016. Volume 1 – Draft. Brake L. and Peart R. 2015. Sustainable Seas. Managing the marine environment. Environmental Defence Society. Hauraki Gulf Forum 2014. State of Our Gulf 2014. Hauraki Gulf – Tikapa Moana/Te Moananui a Toi. State of the Environment Report. Holdaway, R. J., Wiser, S. K. and Williams, P. A. (2012), Status Assessment of New Zealand's Naturally Uncommon Ecosystems. Conservation Biology, 26: 619–629. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2012.01868.x McArthur N., Robertson H., Adams L. and Small D. 2015. A review of coastal and freshwater habitats of significance for indigenous birds in the Wellington region. Greater Wellington Regional Council.

McArthur N. and Lawson J. 2013 Coastal and freshwater sites of significance for indigenous birds in the Wellington region. Greater Wellington Regional Council.

MacDiarmid A., Nelson W., Gordon D., Bowden D., Mountjoy J., Lamarche G. 2012. Sites of significance for indigenous marine biodiversity in the Wellington region Prepared for Greater Wellington Regional Council NIWA Client Report No: WLG2012-19. McGlone M. and S. Walker 2011. Potential effects of climate change on New Zealand’s terrestrial biodiversity and policy recommendations for mitigation, adaptation and research. Science for Conservation 312. Oliver M. and Beaglehole J. 2014. Coastal sites and habitats with significant indigenous biodiversity values in the Wellington region: Technical memo to support Schedules F4 and F5 of the draft Natural Resources Plan. Oliver, M.D. and Milne, J.R. 2012. Coastal water quality and ecology in the Wellington region: State and trends. Greater Wellington Regional Council, Publication No. GW/EMI-T-12/144, Wellington.

28

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 2015. Preparing New Zealand for rising seas: Certainty and uncertainty. Robertson, H.A.; Baird, K.; Dowding, J.E.; Elliott, G.P.; Hitchmough, R.A.; Miskelly, C.M.; McArthur, N.; O’Donnell, C.F.J.; Sagar, P.M.; Scofield, R.P.; Taylor, G.A. 2017: “Conservation status of New Zealand birds, 2016”. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 19. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 23 p. Todd, M.; Kettles, H.; Graeme, C.; Sawyer, J.; McEwan, A.; Adams, L. 2016: Estuarine systems in the lower North Island/Te Ika-a-Māui: ranking of significance, current status and future management options. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 400 p. Available at https://www.doc.govt.nz/about-us/science-publications/conservation-publications/land-and-freshwater/estuaries/estuarine-systems-in-the-lower-north-island-te-ika-a-maui/

United Nations Environment Programme 2012. Scientific synthesis on the impacts of underwater noise on marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats. Available at http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-16/information/sbstta-16-inf-12-en.doc