OTAIKA QUARRY – PROPOSED

OVERBURDEN DISPOSAL AREA

CULTURAL REPORT

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON MAORI VALUES

Prepared by Marina Fletcher, Hauauru Trust for:

GBC Winstones

PO Box 17 195

Greenlane

Auckland 1546

March 2018

CONTENTS

He Whakatau 1 PART ONE: Introduction 2

1.1 Introduction 2 1.2 The Cultural Environs 2 1.3 Tangata Whenua 4 1.4 Purpose 5 1.5 Intellectual Property 6 1.6 The Study 6 1.7 The Study Brief and Methodology 11 1.8 Consultation Process 16 1.9 The Study Team 16

PART TWO: Background 17 2.1 Traditional History 17 2.2 Contemporary Maori History 18 2.3 Ruarangi Maori Land Block 18 2.4 Relationship with Otaika Quarry 20 2.5 Ruarangi Maori Reserve 20 2.6 Ruarangi Significant Burial Ground 21

PART THREE: The Study 25 3.1 Summary of Technical Reports 25 3.2 Statutory Requirements 28

PART FOUR: Consultation 32 PART FIVE: Assessment of Effects 37

5.1 Dust Management 38 5.2 Ecology effects 39 5.3 Water Quality 39 5.4 Landscape 40 5.5 Geology / Hydrology 41 5.6 Noise 42 5.7 Mitigation 42

PART SIX: Conclusion 44 PART SEVEN: Recommendation 44

Appendices Appendix 1: Statutory Framework (National) Appendix 2: Statutory Framework (Regional and District) Appendix 3: Formal Peer Reviews Appendix 4: Suggested Consent Conditions Appendix 5: Maps

Figures

Figure 1: Ruarangi and Pegram Blocks (Source: Boffa Miskell, Map 79) ...... 8

Figure 2: Features surrounding Pegram Block (Source: Boffa Miskell, Map 57) 9

Figure 3: Ruarangi Block, Pegram Block, Otaika Quarry and NZAA sites (Source: Boffa Miskell, Map 78) ........................................................................ 10

Figure 4: View from Ruarangi out toward Whangarei Harbour (Source: Boffa Miskell, 2017) .................................................................................................... 18

Figure 5: The Ruarangi Area including limestone and caves (Source: University of Auckland, 1965) ........................................................................................... 19

Figure 6: Photographs taken at Ruarangi ..................................................... 21

Figure 7 Te Nohonga o Torongare (Source: Marina Fletcher) ................. 21

Figure 8: Map of Kioreroa showing Ruarangi block; ML 3494A (Source: Land Information New Zealand) ............................................................................. 23

Figure 9: Kioreroa ML Plan 3494 with significant sites of Te Parawhau... 24

1

He Whakatau

Kua tukua te tira mate ki tua o paerau

Ka noho te tira ora ki te Ao Turoa

Ka tu te tira o

Te Parawhau

Ko Kākā Porowini te tangata

Ko Parawhau te iwi

Ko Manaia te maunga

Ko Raumanga te awa.

This whakatauki was composed by Himi Pou for the opening of Whangarei Terenga Paraoa marae in

1984 and to commemorate Kākā Porowini’s gift of the land for a city marae. It also recalls the tribe of

the area and the important river and sacred mountain. The ancient version began Ko Tirarau te

tangata… to refer to his chieftainship.

2

PART ONE: Introduction

1.1 Introduction

GBC Winstone have applied to Whangarei District Council for land use consents to place overburden

from Otaika Quarry onto the adjacent ‘Pegram Block’ over the next 35 years. Both the Otaika Quarry

and the ‘Pegram Block’ are owned by GBC Winstone and are located to the immediate west of State

Highway 1, at Toetoe, 4 kms south of Whangarei CBD. Otaika Quarry is Northland’s largest quarry

and has been in operation since the 1950’s. In 2006, GBC Winstone purchased the Pegram Block to

provide for future placement of overburden. The company estimates at least 100 years of resource

remaining in Otaika quarry.

GBC Winstone propose to place in the Pegram block, in total, approximately 2.4 million m3 of

overburden. The final footprint of the overburden disposal area is designed to be 16.7 hectares in area.

The overburden disposal activity will occur in two distinct phases being an ‘enabling works’ phase and

a ‘general works’ phase. It is anticipated that the placement of overburden during the general works

phase will typically take place at 3 to 5 year intervals over the forthcoming 35 years depending on the

market demand for aggregate. As a result, the overburden disposal activity can be viewed as an

infrequent and temporary but reoccurring activity, with no works occurring on site for much of the time

over the 35-year duration of the consent. All enabling works and general works will generally be

undertaken over the months of October to April however there may be occasion to deposit overburden

at other times.

1.2 The Cultural Environs

The Otaika Quarry and Pegram Block are within the ancestral lands of the estate of Te Parawhau. The

Te Parawhau whanau hapu living in close proximity to the quarry at Toetoe and Otaika are mana

whenua, ahi ka, kaitiaki, by virtue of their long-term occupation of their tribal lands. Other whanau

hapu members living on the neighbouring suburbs of Raumanga and Maunu can also claim mana

whenua ahi ka by virtue of their affiliation to Toetoe Marae Reserve and Otaika Marae Reserve.

Of significance to Te Parawhau is the 16.16 ha Maori land block given the appellation ‘Ruarangi.’

Ruarangi are neighbours of the quarry operation with land located on the north west boundary of the

quarry site. Ruarangi is an ancient Wahi Tapu identified as a significant burial ground in 1863 by the

3

Parawhau chief Tirarau. In the 1960’s, despite opposition, Ruarangi’s Maori values were ‘cleared’ by

the Maori land court, research and scientific values substituted, given the appellation ‘Maori Reserve,’

and mined for its limestone content.

Ruangaio was declared to be the deceased sole owner of Ruangaio by the Papatupu Komiti in 1906.

The nine sub-tribes descended from Ruangaio are the beneficial owners of Ruarangi. These sub-tribes

are as follows:

• Parawhau

• Uriroroi

• Ngatirua

• Ngatitu

• Uri-o-te-tangata

• Koiwi

• Ngatihau

• Ngatihaua

• Whanaupani

Ruarangi Trustees are kaitiaki of Ruarangi land block by virtue of section 23 of their Trust Deed.

Ruarangi is land locked - access to the block is over GBC Winstone’s Quarry Road. On 12 May 2006,

a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was entered into between Ruarangi Trust Board and GBC

Winstone. The legally mandated iwi authority to represent Ruarangi at 24 January 2006, were the

following Ruarangi Trust Board members:

• Taipari Munro - Chairman

• Peti Kingi - Kake (never attended a meeting)

• Tony Munro - Secretary

• Mira Norris - Treasurer

• Marina Fletcher - trustee

• Fred Tito - trustee

• Maria Reece (deceased)

• Tepora Kauwhata (last attended a meeting about 11 yrs ago).

• Browne Davis. (was overseas for most of the time)

Essentially, the MOU recognises the desire of Ruarangi to retain access over the quarry site onto

Ruarangi land in exchange for Winstone’s desire to carry out quarry activities in keeping with applicable

activity standards set by councils. The Otaika Quarry Manager, Supervisor and Environmental

Manager together with the Chairman and representatives of the Ruarangi Trust agreed to liaise and/or

4

meet to discuss each other’s activities (if any). At least once a month the Quarry Manager would liaise

(over the boundary fence) with Ruarangi’s informal land supervisor. From these liaisons, trustees

would be informed of (i) dates and numbers of people trespassing on the property and (ii) acts of

vandalism and (iii) theft of property.

1.3 Tangata Whenua

Te Parawhau hapu and whanau are located at the southern boundary of Ngāpuhi. Te Parawhau estate

encompasses the area from Tangiteroria in the west, east to Whangarei and south to Brynderwyn.

Parawhau whanau share whakapapa links to Ngāpuhi and Ngati Whātua, and through this can tātai or

connect by geneology to most hapu of Whangarei. Both the Whangarei Harbour and the upper Northern

Wairoa of the Kaipara Harbour are inclusive of Te Parawhau’s estates.

Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust also known as Te Parawhau ki Tai was created to promote,

advance and assist the interests and aspirations of those hapū that it represents. The Hauauru Trust, an

informal Trust, is the environmental subsidiary of Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust, whose

environmental portfolio includes responsibility for RMA matters as they relate to the social, economic

and cultural well-being and for their health and safety when assessing the use, development and

protection of the physical, aesthetic and spiritual resources of Te Parawhau ki Tai.

Values

The Te Parawhau values as noted in the Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust deed are outlined

below and include:

• Manaakitanga - Giving prestige to or elevating the prestige of individuals or organisations through

the expression of affection, hospitality, generosity and mutual respect,

• Rangatiratanga - Finding opportunities to develop Maori, Indigenous self-determination of

tāngata whenua through mana Atua, mana Tūpuna and mana Whenua,

• Whanaungatanga - Affirming the relationships that tāngata whenua and other people have to each

other individually or with whānau, and iwi through a common whakapapa and reciprocal

obligations inherent in that relationship,

• Kotahitanga - Demonstrating commitment and unity of purpose in pursuit of a vision,

• Wairuatanga - Connecting people to their maunga, awa, moana, marae, Tūpuna, atua and other

cultural taumata or icons,

• Kaitiakitanga - Exercising the responsibility that we have to our collectives of whānau, hapu and

iwi to protect the environment for future generations,

5

• Mana Tupuna/Whakapapa - connecting us to the past, present and future and ultimately to one

another.

Objectives

The vision for Te Parawhau is whakatūria anō te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa and will be realised

when the following objectives are occurring:

Culture ►

We know who we are and where we belong ♦ Te Reo me ona tikanga is widely used across our segment of our hapū ♦ there is active participation at our marae and community levels ♦ healthy numbers of people to carry out roles on the marae and at community levels ♦ opportunities for whanau to connect and be involved ♦ our Treaty partnerships and relationships with the Crown and Crown Agencies is working

We are fulfilling our kaitiaki roles across our rohe ♦ our environment is rejuvenated and can sustain our communities ♦ we know our whenua and moana intimately ♦ outside agencies recognise our authority and the importance of our role

◄ Environment

Social ►

Educational opportunities to fulfil our potential ♦ we are safe, health and well-housed ♦ we have worthwhile jobs especially within our rohe ♦ everyone is making a contribution ♦ marae communities are flourishing ♦ we are happy ♦ young people have a bright future

Strong local economy ♦ leaders in the regional and local economy ♦ economic base supports whanau and hapu aspirations ♦ commercially successful ♦ incomes have improved ♦ land base is growing and our people too

◄ Economic

1.4 Purpose

The purpose of this report is to provide information to help assist the applicant to recognise Te Parawhau

cultural, heritage, traditional and spiritual connections and values associated with Otaika, Toetoe,

Ruarangi, Raumanga and Maunu. The report determines appropriate ways to avoid, remedy or mitigate

any potential adverse effects the proposal may have on the values of Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa

Trust.

The cultural impact assessment report provides a description of Te Parawhau interests in the area and

the effects of the proposal on their relationships with their ancestral lands, heritage and connections.

The report is provided for the resource consent application for the placement of overburden from Otaika

Quarry onto the Pegram Block and includes:

6

• A brief description of the site and context

• An outline of the histories and traditions of tangata whenua associated with Otaika

• The key issues and concerns of Te Parawhau for the existing and future management of the

proposal area

• Recommended approaches to manage key issues for Te Parawhau

1.5 Intellectual Property

The Cultural Impact Assessment Report remains the intellectual property of the Hauauru Trust and is

provided for the purposes of GBC Winstone’s resource consent application to provide for the placement

of overburden from Otaika Quarry on an adjacent block of land known as the ‘Pegram Block’.

1.6 The Study

The aim of the study is to assist in the decision-making process by providing an assessment of the use,

development, and protection of natural and physical resources against matters set out in Part II of the

RMA. Specifically assessing the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their

ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga, kaitiakitanga, and the principles of the Treaty

of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) are considered and protected.

The Study informs the activity, rates and gives weighting to the effects, provides possible alternatives

and mitigation measures, rates any risks to the environment including discharge of contaminant, and

identifies persons affected, the consultation undertaken and their responses, and assesses monitoring

needs.

The Study prepares the assessment by addressing the effects of the proposal on neighbours, the wider

community, locality including landscape and visual, ecosystems including plants or animals and

disturbance of habitats, natural and physical resources having historical, spiritual or cultural value, or

other special value for present or future generations, unreasonable emission of noise, and any risk to

the neighbourhood and the wider community.

Hauauru Trust was commissioned to prepare an assessment of the effects this proposal could have on

Maori cultural values.

7

The assessment documents Maori cultural, historical, traditional and spiritual values, interests and

associations with an area or a resource, and the potential impacts a proposed activity have on these. The

assessment is written as a result of Te Parawhau’s involvement in the resource consent process

providing meaningful and effective consultation with the applicant.

The Proposal

GBC Winstone seek to provide for the placement of overburden from the Otaika Quarry on the ‘Pegram

Block’. The project will be undertaken in stages over the duration of the 35 year consents period.

Individual earthworks seasons are likely to occur every 3 - 4 years (depending on market demand) and

lasting for approximately 6 – 8 months. Appendix 5 contains larger versions of maps provided at figures

1, 2 and 3.

GBC Winstone operate the Otaika Quarry near Whangarei and has future expansion plans to gradually

expand westwards within its designated Quarry Zone. A proposed Overburden Disposal Area known

as the Pegram Block is located outside of the Quarry Zone and will receive the overburden as the quarry

expands. The Overburden Disposal Area will be within the Pegram Block to the east and disposal of

this overburden will require resource consents for earthworks and streamworks. The Otaika Quarry is

located on Quarry Road, Otaika, Whangarei. Pegram Block is located to the east of the quarry and is

within Limeburners Catchment. The watercourses of Pegram Block drain directly into the Te Waiiti

Stream, and out into the Limeburners Creek and into the Hatea River. The headwaters of the Te Waiiti

Stream are located within the Otaika Valley Scenic Reserve; a large area of diverse native forest and

can be identified by the blue line on figure 1 below which shows the Ruarangi and Pegram Blocks.

8

Figure 1: Ruarangi and Pegram Blocks (Source: Boffa Miskell, Map 79)

Site Location and Activity

The Pegram site is located immediately east of the existing Otaika Quarry, Raumanga, Whangarei. The

site is held in two parcels of land containing approximately 40.7ha known collectively as the ‘Pegram

Block’ and accessed from SH 1 on the southern edge of Whangarei, 4km to the south of the CBD, and

over a private road (Quarry Road). The site is owned by GBC Winstone, a division of Fletcher Concrete

and Infrastructure Limited.

The Site Environs

To the north of the site is Acacia Park, a 46-lot gated residential community. The properties on the

southern side of Acacia Drive directly adjoin the site. At the western end of Acacia Drive is No. 52

Acacia Drive where recorded archaeological sites Q07/913 (historic lime burning site) and Q07/914

(burial ground) are located and can be identified on figure 3. Access to Acacia Park is over Tauroa

Street. Situated to the east of the site, is an established residential area located around Smeaton Drive.

Some properties within the western part of Smeaton Drive adjoin the eastern boundary of the Pegram

Block. Immediately to the south east is a recorded archaeological site Q07/545 (botanical evidence)

located on the western side of Quarry Road. The Otaika Sports Park and Te Waiiti Stream is situated

immediately beyond Quarry Road and are identified on figure 2.

9

Figure 2: Features surrounding Pegram Block (Source: Boffa Miskell, Map 57)

Beyond the site to the north west is Ruarangi, a Maori land block, managed by the Ruarangi Trust

Board. The block directly adjoins the north-western boundary of the existing Otaika Quarry. Ruarangi

is zoned Countryside Living and is also located within the buffer area of the Mineral Extraction Overlay

(MEA3). A Notable Landscape Area is also located on the Ruarangi Block as identified in the District

Plan. Recorded archaeological sites confirm Ruarangi Pa site and burial caves. The Otaika Valley

Scenic Reserve and recreation network including the Otaika Valley Walkway lies further to the west of

the Otaika Quarry.

10

Figure 3: Ruarangi Block, Pegram Block, Otaika Quarry and NZAA sites (Source: Boffa Miskell, Map 78)

Pegram Block

The site is in a flood susceptible area. It is predominantly in pasture and is used for stock grazing under

lease from a local farmer. Highly-modified watercourses and wet seepage areas are located on the

Block. The main watercourse on the site is a tributary of the Waiiti Stream which runs generally through

the center of the site in west to east direction towards Quarry Road, then contained in a culvert, under

the road, to a wetland area adjoining Otaika Sports Park. This watercourse has relatively steep banks, a

gravel bottom and very little riparian vegetation.

Limestone outcrops and siltstone outcrops have been observed at surface level on the site towards the

northern boundary and also on adjoining private property at 52 Acacia Drive. An archaeological

assessment of the Pegram Block was undertaken by Clough and Associates. The report confirms no

prior archaeological sites recorded on the block but identifies a newly recorded site, Q07/1416 a midden,

in poor condition, in the roots of a partially fallen tree.

11

1.7 The Study Brief and Methodology

A three-fold Study methodology was considered appropriate in the preparation of this study.

Research

A research process, a review process, and a consultation process was undertaken. The main aim of the

research process was to provide a snapshot of Maori early environment leading to contemporary

environment laying the foundation for the promotion and conservation of Te Parawhau heritage values.

This was achieved through searching the files of Hauauru Trust to identify relevant documents for

review. The various documents searched included (i) completed Tangata Whenua Cultural Impact

Assessments prepared by the writer, and (ii) evidence presented to the Waitangi Tribunal by the writer,

and (iii) transcripts of Hearings, and (iv) Native land court Minute Books.

Review

An on-line review of statutory legislation, and council’s policy statement and plans including Hapu

environment management plans, plan changes and submissions made on the proposal was undertaken

to ensure up-to-date information required to address matters in the assessment section of the report.

The various technical reports supporting the proposal, supplied via an on-line Dropbox link set up by

Ian Wallace of GBC Winstone, were also reviewed in order to gauge areas/matters of concern to be

addressed with Ian Wallace and/or the authors of said reports.

Consultation

GBC Winstone’s proposal to seek consent to place overburden from their Otaika quarry onto their

adjacent land known as the Pegram Block came to the attention of Hauauru Trust on 29 April

2016. Since that time a number of hui, meetings, technical briefings and communications have taken

place as part of the consent application process. Additionally, Te Parawhau has met regularly with

GBC Winstones to determine an approach to work together meaningfully into the future. A process of

regular consultation and partnership has been established between Te Parawhau and GBC Winstones

and will be formally confirmed into the future.

In terms of the long-standing operations of the Otaika Quarry, the tangata whenua consultation has also

been with the whanau of Toe Toe Marae and Otaika Marae. These marae and their tupuna Pa sites,

encompass Otaika Quarry and Ruarangi. Parts of the consultation process with whanau has involved:

12

• Private visits to whanau known for their knowledge of whakapapa and history

• Hui with whanau, at marae and as trustees

• Site visits to the proposal area

• Meetings with various technical experts at Ruarangi and Pegram

Initially the consultation process adopted was to hui primarily with Ruarangi Trustees as the immediate

neighbour to Otaika quarry and partner to an existing Memorandum of Understanding with GBC

Winstone, and, secondly with Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust, whose descendants remain on

their tribal lands at Toetoe, Otaika, Maunu, Mangapai Paina, Titahi, and Takahiwai. The consultation

process was interrupted and to complete the study further consultation with Ruarangi trustees was

discontinued.

Consultation continued with Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust (t/a Parawhau ki Tai) at its regular

monthly meetings. Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust is an incorporated society with Charitable

status created to promote, advance and assist the interests and aspirations of those hapu of Te Parawhau

that it represents viz.,

• Te Uri o Te Tangata • Te Uri Puha • Ngati Wharepaea • Te Whanau Pani • Te Koiwi. • Te Patuharakeke.

Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust identifies Te Putake o Te Parawhau as below:

• Ngai Tahuhu - Ngati Tu

• Ngati Whatua

• Ngati Ruangaio

The consultation process also records the details of Hui and meetings held, the issues raised, and the

responses to the issues raised. A more comprehensive record of consultation is discussed later in this

report.

Review of Technical Reports

All of the expert technical reports provided as part of the consent application were reviewed. As a result

of preliminary considerations, the Hauauru Trust engaged professional services for two technical

13

reports to be peer reviewed. Geotechnical, hydrological and air quality assessments were formally peer

reviewed and are discussed later in this report.

The expert technical reports that have been reviewed by Te Parawhau ki Tai are as follows:

• Dust Management Assessment

The Dust Management Assessment – Pegram block by AECOM (March 2017) and the

accompanying memo on Relevant District Plan Rules by AECOM (May 2017), assess factors

that affect the potential for dust nuisance. The assessment by AECOM concludes the placement

of overburden material will most likely result in an increase in dust, if left unmitigated.

AECOM has recommended mitigation measures. Provided these mitigation measures are

strictly adhered to, AECOM concludes the potential air quality (dust nuisance) effects of the

proposal will be no more than minor and not result in any adverse off-site effects.

The Memorandum from Andrew Curtis AECOM, to Ian Wallace, GBC Winstone regarding

Assessment of Off-site Effects associated with Overburden placement on the Pegram block,

dated 25 September 2017 addresses concerns about potential air quality effects including

concerns from Northland District Health Board (NDHB) about potential effects associated with

crystalline silica (quartz), and also concerns in other submissions about “other toxic”

compounds.

Note The Hauauru Trust engaged Dr Jennifer Salmond (Auckland University) to all review this

material prepared by AECOM and assess the Air Quality Implications of the Development at

Pegram Block. The findings of this review are contained in Appendix 3: Formal Peer reviews.

• Geotechnical Assessment:

The Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment by Tonkin and Taylor (March 2017) and the letter

dated May 2017 from Tonkin and Taylor concludes that provided the geotechnical design

recommendations are implemented, that they anticipate higher levels of stability than currently

exist for natural slopes within the proposed overburden disposal area. It is concluded that the

proposed design is appropriate and is unlikely to have a significant adverse effect on land

stability.

The Memorandum from Cameron Lines, Tonkin and Taylor, to Ian Wallace, GBC Winstone

regarding Otaika Quarry, Pegram Block, Geotechnical Drilling, dated 28 September 2017,

14

(Ref 1000785.000) reports on drilling investigations (boreholes) undertaken to determine the

extent of limestone along the NW boundary of the proposed overburden disposal area and to

support the geotechnical design of the overburden disposal area. The memorandum states the

boreholes confirmed the previous interpretation of the site by Tonkin and Taylor that limestone

within the Pegram block is limited to exposed outcrops on the NW boundary outside of the

overburden footprint and they are of the opinion there are no caves beneath the overburden

footprint.

Note: The Hauauru Trust engaged Dr Martin Brook (Auckland University) to review all this

material prepared by Tonkin and Taylor. The findings of this review are in Appendix 3: Formal

Peer reviews and are discussed in more detail later in this report.

• Assessment of Noise and Vibration Effects:

The Assessment of Noise and Vibration Effects by Marshall Day Acoustics (May 2017) has

predicted potential noise generated by the placement of overburden material on the Pegram

block. The report concludes the proposal can comply with the District Plan noise rules in all

but two cases (at 5-7 and 11 Grove Lane) when the works are closest to the boundary. The

report recommends conditions of consent specify limits on the hours of operation, the relevant

noise standards for the Enabling and General Works, limits the speed of trucks, and requires

the consent holder to give notice to residents within 250 m of the Pegram block at least 1 month

before any works commence.

• Ecological Assessment:

The Pegram Block, Overburden Disposal, Ecological Assessment prepared by Boffa Miskell

(March 2017) and the accompanying Memo on Ecological assessment - Land Use Consenting

Matters by Boffa Miskell (May 2017) were reviewed. These assessments consider the

ecological values within the area of proposed overburden placement are of low value,

containing vegetation types that are either predominantly exotic or are relatively common and

widespread. The assessments consider none of the features meet any criteria as significant

ecosystems. No species were recorded as being of conservation interest or listed as threatened.

The assessment recommends riparian planting and stock exclusion for both the constructed

stream diversion and the lower mainstem reaches of the Te Waiiti Stream tributary as mitigation

for the loss of the overall low ecological values. Fish relocation measures are also recommended

before any stream works are undertaken to divert the stream.

15

• Archaeological Assessment:

The Overburden Placement, Pegram Block Otaika Quarry, Whangarei; Archaeological

Assessment by Clough and Associates Ltd (March 2017) assesses the impacts of the proposed

overburden disposal on archaeological values. The assessment concludes no archaeological

sites have previously been recorded within the area of the proposed overburden disposal, though

archaeological sites have been identified on other properties nearby. Archaeological effects are

discussed later in this report.

• Surface Water Hydrology Assessment:

The Surface Water Hydrology Assessment by Tonkin and Taylor (May 2017) and the

accompanying memo dated 22 May 2017 assess hydrological effects including flooding. This

assessment concludes that with the implementation of the recommended design mitigation

measures, the flow conditions in the diverted channel will not differ significantly from those in

the existing stream channel, where the stream diversion joins the existing stream channel, and

any downstream hydrological effects will be no more than minor.

• Assessment of Adverse Effects from Erosion and Sediment:

The Assessment of Adverse Effects arising from Erosion and Sediment prepared by Winstone

Aggregates (June 2017) sets out the erosion and sediment control measures that will be

employed. These methods for controlling erosion and sediment runoff have been assessed as

being acceptable, and already approved by the Northland Regional Council.

• Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects:

The Assessment of Landscape and Visual Effects prepared by Boffa Miskell (2017) concludes

the proposal will have adverse landscape and visual effects with the most significant adverse

effects on visual amenity occurring on some adjacent properties in Acacia Park. This

assessment report sets out a number of features of the proposal that will minimise adverse

effects on landscape and visual amenity including the configuration of the shape and the form

of the overburden footprint, tree planting and other proposed planting, and returning the site to

grazed pasture at the completion of overburden disposal activity.

16

1.8 Consultation Process

GBC Winstone’s proposal to seek consent to place overburden from their Otaika quarry onto their

adjacent land known as the Pegram Block came to the attention of Hauauru Trust on 29 April 2016.

Since that time a number of hui, meetings, technical briefings and communications have taken place as

part of the consent application process. Additionally, Te Parawhau has met regularly with GBC

Winstones to determine an approach to work together meaningfully into the future. A process of

regular consultation and partnership has been established between Te Parawhau and GBC Winstones

and will be formally confirmed into the future.

In terms of the long-standing operations of the Otaika Quarry, the tangata whenua consultation is also

with the whanau of Toe Toe Marae and Otaika Marae. These marae and their tupuna Pa sites,

encompass Otaika Quarry and Ruarangi. Parts of the consultation process with whanau has involved:

• Private visits to whanau known for their knowledge of whakapapa and history

• Hui with whanau, at marae and as trustees

• Site visits to the proposal area

• Meetings with various technical experts at Ruarangi and Pegram

1.9 The Study Team

The trustees of Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust and the Hauauru Trust are tangata whenua over

the Te Parawhau area. This group comprises the study team who have written and contributed to this

cultural impact assessment report.

17

PART TWO: Background

2.1 Traditional History

A brief overview of the traditional Maori history of Whangarei is presented here to provide a foundation

for the achievement of resolving cultural well-being concerns outlined by Te Parawhau ki Tai.

Ngai Tahuhu and Ngati Ruangaio

Whangarei belonged formerly to the Ngai Tahuhu people who landed at Te Arai during the ‘Great Fleet

c.1350’ in the canoe Tu Nui a Rangi. This ancient tribe at one time owned all the land from the

Auckland Peninsula, to a point about fifty miles north of Whangarei. Signs of the presence of this

extant tribe remain in many of the old names; for instance, Otahuhu, which signifies the place of

Tahuhu, named after the founder of the tribe. Of almost pure Ngai-Tahuhu descent, namely, the Ngati-

Ruangaio, of Whangarei, the chief factors in the destruction of this ancient tribe, who can also claim

descent from Tahuhu-nui-a-rangi.

Whangarei Terenga Paraoa

The 1600’s to the mid 1800’s was a time of great warfare for the tribes of the north. Whangarei became

the meeting place where the northern warriors assembled on their way southward in their canoes. Here

the armies, sometimes 2000 – 3000 men, would camp on the shores of the harbour, exercising their

powers of oratory, retelling their stories of past victories and defeats. It was these great gatherings of

the tribes that gave the harbour the name, “Whangarei Terenga Paraoa” – the swimming place of the

whales, which could be translated as “the meeting place of the chiefs”, since the whale-bone mere was

a weapon of chiefly status. The Whangarei war-chiefs, each in his carved war canoe, would paddle

away southward and onto battle. But the southern tribes retaliated and Whangarei Harbour became the

battleground for attacks from the Hauraki and Waikato tribes.

Te Ponaharakeke

c. 1750, the Ngati Ruangaio chief, Te Ponaharakeke came from Ngapuhi of Orauta, and lived among

the Ngai Tahuhu people on the western shores of Whangarei harbour. To avenge a perceived insult, he

sent a ngakau to the descendants of that Rahiri, whose father Puhi came thither in the canoe Mata-atua.

They all joined in the ensuing battle, but it was planned by Ponaharakeke and Ngaro-ki-te-uru. They

secured the area from Whangarei to Waipu and Waihonga to Tangihua and their descendants have held

it ever since. Tawhiro took part in the affair. The conquerors divided the land among them. Each got

18

an estate. Te Ponaharakeke and Te Tokaitawhio got the western shores of Whangarei Harbour from Te

Awatawhiti to Mangapai. The latter lived on Otaika until his wife was pregnant, he then went to

Hokianga and died there. When the news of his death reached Haumu, she abandoned their boy child,

Kukupa, and retreated to Kaipara.

But the conquerors were vulnerable on the shores of Whangarei Harbour. Unlike Ngai Tahuhu who

could retreat inland, Ngapuhi’s escape route was north. Inland or west was their old enemy Ngati

Whatua. Tawhiro was living at his pa Motukiwi (Tapu Point), when he was attacked by the Hauraki

people, Ngati Maru. Tawhiro and his nephew Ngo (Te Waikeri’s son) were killed in this battle called

Otaika-timu. Te Wha and Hautakere were killed by the Ngati Whatua tribe of Kaipara. Te

Ponaharakeke, Te Waikeri and Te Tirarau Ist were killed by the Ngāpuhi of the Bay of Islands.

2.2 Contemporary Maori History

Several traditions describe the naming of Whangarei in relation to the two Waikato sisters Reitu and

Reipae such as Te Whanga-o-Reitū or Te Whanga-o-Reipae. Te Parawhau continue to maintain

connection and identity in Whangarei and continue to explore opportunities to connect to their whenua

and surrounding landscapes.

2.3 Ruarangi Maori Land Block

The Ruarangi site commands an excellent view of the upper reaches of the Whangarei Harbour and

surrounding countryside. Within the southern boundary, the terrain is partly open undulating land.

Figure 4: View from Ruarangi out toward Whangarei Harbour (Source: Boffa Miskell, 2017)

19

The main burial cave is located toward the western boundary while the schoolhouse relocated from

Kauri is located toward the eastern boundary. The major portion of the block, say 25-30 acres, lies

within the northern boundary and is in steep heavy bush comprising mainly gorse and self-sown pine

trees.

Figure 5: The Ruarangi Area including limestone and caves (Source: University of Auckland, 1965)

20

2.5 Relationship with Otaika Quarry

The people of Te Parawhau have a proud history, tradition, and culture. Their descendants, those who

retain their tribal lands at Toe Toe, Otaika are the tangata whenua who hold mana whenua, ahi ka over

the quarry area. The responsibilities include to perform ‘kaitiakitanga roles in pursuit of ora, oranga

tonutanga for [its people]’.

Te Parawhau interest in the site is not focused on the archaeological remnants over the site area but is

manifest in the place and locality as wahi tupuna and the effect on the importance of mana, tapu and

mauri of those resources. In keeping with the kaitiakitanga responsibilities and cultural commitments

for its people, Te Parawhau seek to restore, protect and enhance the mauri of taonga (whether that be a

resource or species or place).

2.6 Ruarangi Maori Reserve

Ruarangi Maori Reserve, once a sacred burial ground, is enclosed significantly, in the heart of the tribal

estate of Te Parawhau protected by outlying hapu living at Raumanga, Waiiti, Toetoe, Rewarewa,

Otaika, Otara, and Maunu. Figure 5 outlines a provisional map of the Ruarangi area. This was the case

for over 200 years, then in 1970, the Court removed the protection and the lime-rock on Ruarangi was

mined. However, periodic attempts to protect the area against trespassers and vandals since 1895

continued.

The issue of mining Ruarangi sparked lengthy and irreconcilable tensions between those of the whanau

seeking to utilise or gain some return from their lands and those of the whanau very strongly seeking

the protection of urupa and wahi tapu. Eventually, a compromise was reached. Prior to quarrying

operations, the Court commissioned Research and Scientific Studies: Ruarangi Pa (Q07/30) was

excavated by archaeologists. The Burial caves (Q07/39) were examined by archaeologists and explored

by a speleologist.

Access to Ruarangi is over Quarry Road, owned by Winstone’s which surround the southern boundaries

of the block. The rest of the block is surrounded by general land.

Between Ruarangi and the general land is a gas line designation. The western boundary adjoins onto

the Otaika Valley Walkway connecting Raumanga Heights Rd and the Otaika Reserve walkway.

Ruarangi is zoned countryside but has a mineral extraction resource area over it and is partly within a

notable landscape area. Under council’s proposed plan change it will be zoned rural production, the

21

notable landscape area overlay is removed and the mineral extraction resource area overlay becomes a

mineral extraction area buffer zone.

2.4 Ruarangi Significant Burial Ground

The burial caves on Ruarangi, once popular with picnickers, vandals and grave robbers, no longer exist.

Cattle grazing on the land is intermittent and controlled. Ruarangi continues to be plagued by

trespassers and vandals coming in from Raumanga Heights Rd and more recently from Acacia Park.

The schoolhouse is currently occupied in an attempt to deter trespassers. Ruarangi remains landlocked,

telephone service remains unavailable, a generator provides electricity, and water is supplied by rain

caught and stored in tanks.

Figure 7 At left: Te Nohonga o Torongare showing bronze above T Paki’s left shoulder, from left to right are C Rheinhart

(Winstones); T Paki; unknown; B Parsons; T George (Source; Marina Fletcher) At Right: View of upper reaches of Whangarei

Harbour and schoolhouse from Te Nohonga o Torongare from left to right are Bev’s grand-daughter; T George; B Parsons;

C Rheinhart (Winstones) (Source: Marina Fletcher)

Figure 6: Photographs taken at Ruarangi

22

Memorandum of Understanding

On 12 May 2006 at Matauranga Marae in Whangarei, in front of witnesses, a Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) was signed between Ruarangi Trust Board and GBC Winstone. The MOU

establishes and maintains a long-term relationship that has mutual benefits and outcomes for both

parties which includes working through any issues associated with quarry development and maintaining

a kaitiakitanga or guardianship role over Ruarangi land. Consultation clauses included in the MOU

recognise the importance of consistent dialogue and clear lines of communication which aims to ensure

continuity so that the relationship between the parties can continue to grow and develop.

This is the premise and intent of current discussions with Te Parawhau ki Tai as part of the land use

consent proposal application. Discussions are centered on working to progress and develop further

relationships and agreements into the future.

23

Figure 8: Map of Kioreroa showing Ruarangi block; ML 3494A (Source: Land Information New Zealand)

Ruarangi Block

24

Figure 9: Kioreroa ML Plan 3494 with significant sites of Te Parawhau

Ruarangi Block

Te Rewarewa Block: Kainga of Te

Ponaharakeke’s sister

Pa Site of Tiakiriri Kukupa

Descendants of Haumu at Otaika and Toetoe

25

PART THREE: The Study

3.1 Summary of Technical Reports

Te Parawhau expressed particular interest in the archaeological, geotechnical and hydrological

assessments provided as part of the consent application. As a result of this, further examinations

were made into these reports and Hauauru Trust formally engaged professional services for the

peer review of the geotechnical and hydrological assessments.

Archaeological Assessment Report

Cultural heritage is related to expression, identity and connection and is of paramount importance

to Te Parawhau. Tangata whenua values and relationships with ancestral lands, waters, sites, wāhi

tapu and taonga include both tangible and intangible values that need to be assessed and provided

for. Te Parawhau are particularly concerned about the processes to protect, restore and maintain

any archaeology that may be found during proposal operations. Of further importance is to ensure

that any archaeological process is carried out with guidance from Te Parawhau hapu

representatives. This will ensure that tikanga and appropriate cultural practices, based on and

informed by mātauranga Maori, are followed.

These considerations elevated the desire to review archaeological assessments and to ensure a

mātauranga Maori perspective was established. With this as a particular focus, the Hauauru Trust

reviewed the Overburden Placement, Pegram Block Otaika Quarry, Whangarei; Archaeological

Assessment by Clough and Associates Ltd (March 2017). Whilst the assessment does not include

an assessment of effects on Maori cultural values, it does note these assessments should be made

by tangata whenua and Maori cultural concerns may encompass a wider range of values that those

associated with archaeological sites. Additionally, the historical association of the general area

with tangata whenua is evident from the recorded sites, traditional histories and known Maori

place names. Figures 8, 9 and 10 are original survey maps noting sites of particular importance

to Te Parawhau and demonstrates the important historical and cultural association Te Parawhau

has with the Otaika and Whangarei areas.

26

The assessment concluded no archaeological sites have previously been recorded within the area

of the proposed overburden disposal, though archaeological sites have been identified on other

properties nearby. One previously unrecorded midden was found during site investigations,

considered to be of limited archaeological value due to its poor condition. The assessment

concludes the proposal will have minor adverse effects on the site and archaeological values of

Whangarei. A number of recommendations were included in this assessment report including

applying for an authority under s44(a) of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga 2017 prior to

starting any works that will affect the site; the immediate cessation of work in the event of koiwi

tangata remains being uncovered and appropriate protocols be followed; and consulting tangata

whenua regarding cultural effects of the proposal.

Figure 10: Subdivision plan AKC DP 13347 showing the Whangarei High School Endowment Lands (Source:

Clough & Associates Ltd, 2017)

27

Geotechnical and Hydrological Reports

The protection of the cultural landscape and heritage values of the Pegram Block and wider Otaika

area is important to Te Parawhau. Te Parawhau ki Tai were particularly concerned about the

possible presence of caves, wāhi tapu and sites of significance, particularly as such sites have

been vandalised, damaged and destroyed in the past.

In order to better understand the potential geological and hydrological effects of the proposed

overburden disposal, including the likelihood that limestone features may underlie the Pegram

block and the proposed overburden disposal area, the Hauauru Trust engaged Dr Martin Brook of

the University of Auckland to review the hydrological and geological assessments undertaken by

Tonkin and Taylor for GBC Winstone, including their professional opinion that limestone does

not extend under the proposed overburden disposal area.

The review by Dr Brook concluded that the series of investigations carried out by Tonkin and

Taylor and their subcontractors appear to confirm that Whangarei Limestone is unlikely to be

underlying the Pegram Block south of the ridgeline exposures seen at the north-west of the site.

This is because the Whangarei Limestone is northwards -dipping. His review also agreed that

while further ground investigations with more appropriate geophysical techniques may be useful,

it is unknown as to whether this would improve what is already know about the site. It continued

that LiDAR may provide an enhanced understanding of the geomorphology, and could be useful

for hydrological modelling, but whether or not this enhances what is already presented, is difficult

to determine. Dye-tracing experiments could also be useful in constraining both the ground model

and hydrological model, but again, whether or not this would enhance what is already presented

is debatable.

The review by Dr Brook is contained in Appendix 3. Dr Brook also gave a presentation of his

findings to the members of Te Parawhau ki Tai and answered questions raised by members.

During his presentation Dr Brook again confirmed that in his opinion Whangarei Limestone does

not extend under the overburden disposal area and is limited to the north-west boundary of the

Pegram block.

This review report and presentation by Dr Brook has now allayed all previous fears and concerns

held by Te Parawhau ki Tai regarding the potential geological and hydrological effects of the

28

proposal particularly any concerns previously held by members about any potential presence of

caves under the overburden disposal area.

3.2 Statutory Requirements

As well as review technical reports relating to the study in 3.1 above, Te Parawhau reviewed the

statutory requirements. These are further outlined at Appendix 1 and 2.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi

The Treaty of Waitangi confirmed the Te Parawhau people as having rangatiratanga, customary

rights and interests for natural resources and treasured taonga. In carrying out its kaitiakitanga

responsibilities, Te Parawhau consider this means they as kaitiaki and/or exercise mana whenua

over part or all of their taonga tuku iho, treasured things will determine and have influence over

matters that affect them.

Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993

Te Parawhau consider the Te Ture Whenua Māori Act 1993 is the primary legislation to facilitate

and promote the retention, use, development, and control of Māori land (Māori customary land

and Māori freehold land) as taonga tuku iho by Māori owners, their whānau, their hapū, and their

descendants, and protects wāhi tapu.

Resource Management Act 1991

The RMA provides a legal framework to promote the sustainable management of natural and

physical resources. It also explicitly considers Māori issues and the Treaty of Waitangi. The

definition of sustainable management in section 5(2), clearly includes the “cultural wellbeing” of

people and communities.

In addition, the RMA recognises the relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with

their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu and other taonga as a matter of national importance

(Part 2 s. 6(e)), the protection of historic heritage sites of significance to Māori, including wāhi

tapu (s. 6(f)), as well as provision for customary rights s.6 (g). Section 7(a) of the Act identifies

29

kaitiakitanga as a matter that particular regard must be given in relation to managing the use,

development and protection of natural and physical resources, and section 8 establishes that all

persons exercising functions and powers under the Act shall take into account the principles of

the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty of Waitangi provides for the exercise of kawanatanga (the

right of the Crown to govern), while actively protecting tino rangatiratanga (self-determination)

of tangata whenua with respect to their natural, physical and spiritual resources.

Tangata whenua refers to the iwi (tribe) or hapu (sub-tribe) who hold mana whenua, the traditional

status, rights and responsibilities over a particular area in respect of their natural, physical and

spiritual resources. GBC Winstones as a party acting under the Resource Management Act 1991

(RMA) recognises it has both statutory and moral obligations to take into account the principles

of the Treaty of Waitangi pursuant to (s8 RMA).

Local Government Act 2002

The Local Government Act 2002 is the statute for local authorities. The provisions of this Act

which require specific consideration of Māori interests and principles of the Treaty of Waitangi

are therefore of fundamental importance. In particular, section 4 refers to opportunities for Māori

to contribute to local government decision-making processes.

Heritage NZ Pouhere Taonga Act 2014

The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 replaced the Historic Places Act 1993 on

20th May 2014. The legislation reforms the governance of the New Zealand Historic Places Trust

in line with its status as a Crown entity and streamlines many procedures under the Act. In the

case of sites of interest to Māori, the archaeologist approved to undertake archaeological work

under an authority must have skills and competencies relating to recognising and respecting Māori

values and have access to appropriate cultural support.

Operative Regional Policy Statement for Northland (May 2016)

The RPS provides that Northland’s natural and physical resources are sustainably managed in a

way that is attractive for business and investment that will improve the economic wellbeing of

Northland and its communities. Te Parawhau consider the objectives to improve their ability to

30

manage their resources their way, including the ability to carry out kaitiakitanga responsibilities

of utmost importance. Te Parawhau support:

Objective 3.12 – Tangata whenua kaitiaki role is recognised and provided for in decision making

over natural and physical resources.

Objective 3.15 – Maintain and / or improve

The natural character of the coastal environment and fresh water bodies and their margins; by

supporting, enabling and positively recognising active management arising from the efforts of

landowners, individuals, iwi, hapu and community groups.

Policy 8.1.1 – Policy – Tangata whenua participation

The regional and district councils shall provide opportunities for tangata whenua to participate in

the review, development, implementation, and monitoring of plans and resource consent

processes under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Policy 8.1.3 - Use of Mātauranga Māori

The regional and district councils shall provide opportunities for the use and incorporation of

Mātauranga Māori into decision-making, management, implementation, and monitoring of

natural and physical resources under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Policy 8.1.4 - Māori concepts, values and practices

Relevant Māori concepts, values and practices will be clarified through consultation with tangata

whenua to develop common understandings of their meaning and to develop methodologies for

their implementation.

Operative District Plan for Whangarei

Chapter 7 of the Operative Whangarei District Plan provides for tangata whenua. Te Parawhau

consider the exercise of rangatiratanga and kawanatanga a priority in carrying out their kaitiaki

responsibilities. This will ensure that priority is afforded to the act of protection of taonga

of tangata whenua, and to the relationship of tangata whenua and their culture and traditions

with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.

31

Proposed Rural Plan Changes to the Whangarei District Plan / Proposed Plan Change 102 – Minerals (as notified, 2016)

Minerals are expressly excluded from “sustainability” in section 5(2)(a) of the RMA in terms of

sustaining the potential of natural and physical resources to meet the needs of future generations.

However, minerals are included in “sustainability” as it applies (in section (2)(c)) to avoiding,

remedying or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment. To this extent the

activity of exploration, quarrying, mining and other disturbance of land is covered by the RMA

and can therefore be addressed and regulated in district plans.

The Whangarei District contains mineral deposits that may be of considerable social and

economic importance to the district, and the nation, but that could be constrained by conflicting

land use. Mineral development and associated land restoration can provide an opportunity to

enhance the land resource and landscape. However, the development of mineral resources has

the potential to have significant adverse effects upon soil, water and air resources, and landscape

heritage values if not appropriately controlled.

Regional Water and Soil Plan for Northland

Section 6 provides for the recognition of and provision for Maori and their culture and traditions.

Te Parawhau supports the provisions that enable kaitiakitanga and consideration of tangata

whenua involvement in monitoring the use, development and protection of resources within the

Northland region.

32

PART FOUR: Consultation

Consultation commenced well before the current resource consent process. GBC Winstone

approached Ruarangi Trust Board prior to purchasing the Pegram block to discuss the company’s

intentions to purchase the block and to place overburden on it. A number of meetings were held

before and after the purchase.

In May 2016, Mr Ian Wallace, GBC Winstone’s Environmental Projects Leader, wrote to the

Ruarangi Trust explaining the purpose of making contact and sought to establish a process of

engagement and consultation regarding the proposed overburden disposal area on the Pegram

Block. To assist in the process, a Consultation Pack and Feedback Form was provided. Over the

last 18 months there have been extensive discussions with representatives of the Ruarangi Trust

and Te Parawhau regarding the project. Hauauru Trust was engaged by GBC Winstone to prepare

a cultural impact assessment of the proposal on behalf of Te Parawhau Ki Tai.

GBC Winstone have worked at the pace of tangata whenua over an 18-month period, which is

reflective of the cultural significance of Ruarangi. The company has also undertaken additional

work to understand and address concerns raised through the consultation process (geotechnical

and air quality) and has provided Hauauru Trust with sufficient time to engage The University of

Auckland to peer review the air quality, geotechnical and hydrology reports to enable the Hauauru

Trust to be better informed about the effects of the proposal.

A summary of consultation and engagement since mid-2016 is provided in the following table:

DATE HUI/SITE ATTENDANCE BUSINESS

19 May 2016 Hui 1

Ruarangi Trust Board & Te Parawhau

Te Parawhau: Dr B Pittman, P Walker, Te Parawhau/Ruarangi Trustees: M Norris, M Fletcher, GBC Winstone: I Wallace, C Edmonds, S Dodd.

Ian Wallace gave a brief overview of the proposal to place overburden on the Pegram block and to rezone this land as part of the District Plan Review. • Discussion about the Ruarangi block and

overview of its history

• Discussion about placing overburden within Ruarangi block to tie in with existing overburden placed along the boundary

• Discussion around the current zoning of the quarry and Ruarangi block

33

DATE HUI/SITE ATTENDANCE BUSINESS

• Ian notified of MoU. Mira to contact Chair of Ruarangi Trust and add he and the Secretary to contact list.

10 Jun 2016 Hui 2

Ruarangi Trust Board & Te Parawhau

Te Parawhau: S Norris, Dr B Pittman, P. Walker. Te Parawhau/Ruarangi Trustees: M Fletcher, M Norris, GBC Winstone: C Edmonds, I Wallace, S Dodd.

• Project update, next steps (council process)

• Brief discussion about Pegram block proposal, planning and Ruarangi block

• Discussion about reviewing and updating the MoU

10 June 2016 Site 1 Ruarangi Maori Reserve.

(following hui). Te Parawhau: Dr B Pittman, P Walker, S Norris GBC Winstone: I Wallace, S Dodd, C Edmonds

Report by Dr B Pittman: Disturbed at what has been done - extent of vandalism. Considers property requires a re-vamped and re-invigorated Ruarangi Trust. Proposes an enhancement plan be prepared.

22 Jul 2016 Hui 3

Te Parawhau

Te Parawhau: S Norris, Dr B Pittman, P Walker, GBC Winstone: C Edmonds, S Dodd and I Wallace

• Brief discussion about Pegram block proposal, planning and Ruarangi block

• Discussion on Ruarangi enhancement plan:

• levelling and infilling of area in front of buildings (eastern side)

• Ruarangi trustees to meet and discuss proposed works.

7 Oct 2016 Site 2 Ruarangi Maori Reserve

Dr B Pittman, S Norris with M Knoche (Sustainability Northland)

Martin Knoche sees Ruarangi as having huge potential for a sustainability and cultural educational hub. Report on suggestions provided by Benjamin (e.Oct 8, 2016). On hold till AGM and new trustees appointed).

28 Oct 2016 Hui 4 Ruarangi Trust Board & Te Parawhau

Te Parawhau: S Norris, Dr B Pittman, O George, Ruarangi Triustees: M Norris, Taipari Munro, Tony Munro, GBC Winstone: C Edmonds, M Harris and I Wallace

• Project update – discussed proposal to apply for resource consent for reduced area under operative District Plan Rules (proposed zoning not carried through into notified version of District Plan)

• Ian presented draft landscape staging plans & visual simulations.

• Discussed history around limestone caves in the area and cultural significance of these

17 Nov 2016 Site 3 Pegram block.

Te Parawhau: Dr B Pittman, Ruarangi Trustees: Taipari Munro, M Fletcher, GBC Winstone: C Edmonds, M Harris and I Wallace

• Pegram block site walkover – from North western corner, along northern boundary, concluding on the southern boundary by the farm sheds

• Mike Harris explained our understanding to date regarding the underlying geology and technical studies underway to confirm this (scan tech and Tonkin & Taylor)

34

DATE HUI/SITE ATTENDANCE BUSINESS

• Taipari questioned objectivity of reports commissioned by Winstone’s.

10 Feb 2017 Hui 5

Ruarangi Trust Board & Te Parawhau

Te Parawhau: Dr B Pittman, B Murphy, S Norris, O George, Te Parawhau/Ruarangi Trustee: M Norris, M Fletcher. GBC Winstone: I Wallace, C Edmonds, S Dodd, M Harris.

To be familiar with and discuss draft tech reports: Geotech - Tonkin and Taylor Landscape - Boffa Miskell Hydrology - Mike Ecology - Boffa Miskell Noise - Marshall Day Air Quality Ian notified intention to lodge application mid-March.

27 Feb 2017 Hui 6 Te Parawhau/Ruarangi Trustee: M Fletcher GBC Winstone: I Wallace

Meeting to discuss: • CIA

• Ruarangi Management Plan

• Consent conditions

27 July 2017 Hui 7 Te Parawhau/Ruarangi Trustee: M Norris & S Norris GBC Winstone: I Wallace, C Edmonds & A Cave

Meeting to discuss Pegram block project: Project update – design changes, process and timings

30 August 2017

Hui 8 Ruarangi Trust Board & Te Parawhau

Te Parawhau: S Norris, M Norris, P Walker, O George, J Nathan. Ruarangi Trustees: Taipari Munro, Tony Munro, M Norris. GBC Winstone: C Edmonds, S Dodd. Guest Speakers: S Phear, C Lines.

Meeting to review technical reports, with guest speakers from Tonkin & Taylor and Clough Associates to discuss geotech, hydrology and archaeology assessments in detail.

31 October 2017

Hui 9 Ruarangi Trust Board & Te Parawhau

Te Parawhau: S Norris, M Norris, P Walker. Ruarangi Trustees:

Hui to discuss the drafting of a new relationship agreement between GBC Winstone & the Ruarangi Trust.

35

DATE HUI/SITE ATTENDANCE BUSINESS

Taipari Munro, Tony Munro, M Norris, M Fletcher. GBC Winstone: C Edmonds, S Dodd, I Wallace, A Kamo.

1 December 2017

Hui 10 Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust

Te Parawhau: Dr B Pittman, S Norris, M Norris, P Walker, M Kay, O George, T George, M Fletcher. GBC Winstone: Ian Jones, Mike Harris, Ian Wallace, A Kamo.

Hui held at Ringa Atawhai Office. Company overview – Fletcher Building Whangarei & Northland operations. Proposed Relationship Agreement, what this could look like, robust discussion around the benefits of establishing this. Agreed action that both parties would prepare draft agreements and then bring these together. Detailed discussion around outstanding geology, hydrology and air quality concerns. Agreement to engage AKL Uni to undertake independent peer review of these technical studies.

19 January 2018

Hui 11 Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust & Te Rae Trust

Te Parawhau: S Norris, M Norris, P Walker, M Kay, O George, M Fletcherm. Te Rae Trust: J Panoho, P Anderson. GBC Winstone: P Thorn, C Edmonds, A Cave, I Wallace, A Kamo, S Dodd.

Hui to review and finalise proposed Relationship Agreement.

36

DATE HUI/SITE ATTENDANCE BUSINESS

19 February 2018

Hui 12 Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust & Te Rae Trust

Te Parawhau: Dr B Pittman, S Norris, M Norris, P Walker, O George, T George, M Fletcher, Te Rae Trust: P Anderson. GBC Winstone: I Jones, P Thorn, A Cave, I Wallace, T Hall, A Kamo, S Dodd.

Formal signing of Relationship Agreement (between Te Parawhau & GBC Winstone)

28 February 2018

Hui 13 Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust

Te Parawhau: Dr B Pittman, S Norris, M Norris, P Walker. GBC Winstone: I Wallace A Kamo

Hui to discuss proposed Partnership Agreement / Management Plan.

37

PART FIVE: Assessment of Effects

The following section describes the cultural effects of concern, which have been outlined and

assessed by Te Parawhau Ki Tai. This includes a summary table as an overview of effects.

Overview of Cultural / Environmental Effects

Issue Effects of concern Response Mitigation / mātauranga Maori Environmental Monitoring Plan

Air quality

Dust

Adverse effects on health and nuisance effects

Technical Review undertaken by Dr Salmond - Auckland University for Hauauru Trust allayed earlier concerns about air quality raised by Te Parawhau ki Tai.

Te Parawhau ki Tai will work with GBC Winstone to develop mātauranga Maori Environmental Monitoring Plan including opportunities for Te Parawhau ki Tai to input into the Dust Management Plan and to undertake air quality monitoring.

Adverse ecological impacts

Depletion of local ecological resources, habitats, biodiversity, aquatic / fish species

Te Parawhau ki Tai consider low ecological values and effects will be minor.

Te Parawhau ki Tai to work with GBC Winstone to (i) develop opportunities for Te Parawhau ki Tai to input into Riparian Management Plan including riparian vegetation and stock exclusion measures and (ii) undertake Fish relocation measures.

Water quality and aquatic life

Effects on health and wellbeing of Te Parawhau is linked to water quality and protecting aquatic life / fish species.

Te Parawhau ki Tai consider concerns regarding water quality and aquatic life / fish been addressed.

Opportunities for Te Parawhau ki Tai to undertake water quality monitoring.

Water quality of tributaries of Te Waiiti stream on Pegram block recorded ‘before’ and ‘after’ stream works and riparian enhancement implemented, and these records compared.

Dye tracing to be considered in water quality monitoring programme.

Landscape Highly modified landscape

Effects of vegetation removal and soil disturbance.

Te Parawhau ki Tai consider low ecological values and landscape effects will be minor.

Te Parawhau ki Tai to work with GBC Winstone to input into the development, implementation and monitoring of Landscape Rehabilitation Plan.

GBC Winstone to provide Te Parawhau ki Tai opportunity to observe all topsoil removal as part of cultural monitoring.

Accidental discovery protocols will be adopted by GBC Winstone to ensure appropriate protocols that respect tikanga and mātauranga Maori are observed.

38

Geology / Hydrology

Potential effects on geology and any limestone caves under the overburden disposal area.

Technical Review undertaken by Dr Brook - Auckland University for Hauauru Trust has allayed earlier concerns about any limestone caves under the proposed overburden disposal area.

Te Parawhau ki Tai will work with GBC Winstone to develop mātauranga Maori Environmental Monitoring Plan. including dye tracing to better understand waterways and inform tikanga and traditional knowledge of Te Parawhau.

Noise

Potential levels of noise pollution.

Noise effect not considered a significant issue by Te Parawhau ki Tai.

Opportunities for Te Parawhau ki Tai to undertake noise monitoring.

5.1 Dust Management

Air quality is an important issue for Te Parawhau. Te Parawhau ki Tai consider that air quality

should be protected and enhanced as high-quality air levels are important for the health and

wellbeing of Te Parawhau and the environment.

Te Parawhau ki Tai are concerned about the potential for elevated levels of dust as a result of the

proposed overburden disposal and how this might impact on air quality. The adverse effects of

air discharges (dust) is of particular concern near where people gather i.e. marae, playing fields,

community housing, facilities located on the Ruarangi block and areas of cultural significance.

In particular, two areas of specific concern regarding dust emissions, were health effects

(including crystalline silica) and nuisance effects.

The University of Auckland were engaged by Hauauru Trust to assist in understanding the

potential air quality effects on the people (see Appendix 3 - Peer Reviews, The University of

Auckland). As discussed already, Dr Jennifer Salmond undertook a formal peer review of the

resource consent application in particular a review of assessment of air quality effects prepared

by AECOM and concluded there is limited potential for ‘noxious or dangerous levels’ of airborne

material to be transported beyond the site boundary provided the dust management plan is adhered

to. She also concluded nuisance dust is a more likely problem, but adhering to the management

plan and responsiveness to community complaints will limit any impacts.

Dr Salmond’s presentation of her Peer Review Report to the members of Te Parawhau ki

Tai and her clarification of questions raised, allayed all previous fears and concerns with

respect to air discharges (dust).

39

Further GBC Winstone has agreed to work with Te Parawhau ki Tai to develop a mātauranga

Maori Environmental Monitoring Plan for the proposal. This includes the company working in

partnership with Te Parawhau ki Tai, and providing opportunities for Te Parawhau ki Tai to input

into the development of the Dust Management Plan and also to undertake air quality monitoring.

5.2 Ecology effects

Any impacts on ecological health is an issue for Te Parawhau. Te Parawhau continue to be

concerned at the localised depletion of ecological resources, fish and invertebrate movements and

the ability of the local ecosystem to manage habitats and increase biodiversity.

The aquatic life of the unnamed tributary of Te Waiiti stream requires protecting and conserving

along with the relocation of any fish species.

Te Parawhau ki Tai and GBC Winstone are together preparing a Riparian Management Plan as

part of the development of the mātauranga Maori Environmental Monitoring Plan. The Riparian

Management Plan will seek to enhance the riparian vegetation on the site and impose stock

exclusion measures along the newly constructed stream and the lower reaches of the Te Waiiti

stream.

Te Parawhau ki Tai and GBC Winstone will also work together to undertake fish relocation

measures on the site, so that prior to any stream works within the section of Te Waiiti stream on

Pegram block, fish relocation measures will be employed and fish will be relocated downstream

to the section of the Te Waiiti stream in the adjacent Otaika Sports Park.

Te Parawhau ki Tai consider that the proposal will have minor effects on ecological values,

and that those concerns raised by Te Parawhau ki Tai have now been addressed.

5.3 Water Quality

The health and wellbeing of Te Parawhau is directly linked to the health and wellbeing of water

quality. Water quality and protection of aquatic life in Te Waiiti stream is a concern for Te

Parawhau.

40

Te Parawhau ki Tai want the water quality of tributaries of the Te Waiiti stream on the Pegram

block recorded ‘before’ any works start on the stream relocation. Te Parawhau ki Tai also want

the water quality of the relocated stream recorded ‘after’ the stream relocation works have been

completed and the riparian management measures (including riparian planting and stock

exclusion) implemented. These ‘before’ and ‘after’ water quality records will then be compared,

where Te Parawhau ki Tai expect the water quality ‘after’ the completion of the stream works and

the implementation of the riparian management measures to be no any worse, and more likely to

be better.

Te Parawhau ki Tai also expect the monitoring of sediment in the tributaries of the Te Waiiti

stream will be undertaken during all earthworks operations on the site, and that there will be

opportunities for Te Parawhau ki Tai to be involved in this water quality monitoring.

Te Parawhau ki Tai also consider dye tracing is a useful tool to further understand it’s waterways.

Incorporating this tool into a monitoring programme centred on mātauranga Maori, would provide

both educational opportunities and the retention of tikanga and the traditional knowledge of Te

Parawhau.

As a result of these measures to address water quality being considered as part of the

mātauranga Maori Environmental Monitoring Plan, the concerns of Te Parawhau ki Tai

regarding water quality have been addressed.

5.4 Landscape

Te Parawhau ki Tai considers that part pf the Pegram block proposed for overburden disposal is

a highly modified landscape, which includes with two fragmented stands of vegetation with

different character.

Through discussions, Te Parawhau ki Tai is aware that GBC Winstone proposes to address the

landscape effects of the proposed overburden disposal through land stabilisation and landscape

rehabilitation. This includes preparing and submitting a Landscape Rehabilitation Plan to

Council. Landscape effects will be minimised by the configuration of the shape and form of the

overburden footprint. Tree planting will also occur throughout the proposal.

41

Te Parawhau ki Tai expects the mātauranga Maori Environmental Monitoring Plan to include

opportunities for Te Parawhau ki Tai to input into the development, implementation and

monitoring of this Landscape Rehabilitation Plan.

Furthermore, before any soil disturbance and vegetation removal occurs part of the proposed

works on the Pegram block, GBC Winstone will provide Te Parawhau ki Tai, acting as cultural

monitors, the opportunity to walk over the site and also the opportunity to observe all topsoil

removal as part of cultural monitoring.

GBC Winstone has also advised Te Parawhau ki Tai that during all vegetation removal and soil

disturbance works on the site, accidental discovery protocols will also be adopted by the company,

in the event any urupa, taonga, koiwi or artefact material are discovered during any works,

appropriate protocols that respect tikanga and mātauranga Maori are observed. The company has

requested these accidental discovery protocols be included as consent conditions of any resource

consent, which Te Parawhau ki Tai support.

Te Parawhau ki Tai consider the proposal will have minor adverse effects on landscape.

Further the ability to input into the Landscape rehabilitation plan as part of the mātauranga

Maori Environmental Monitoring Plan, cultural monitoring opportunities provided and

adopting accidental discovery protocols, have addressed any concerns of Te Parawhau ki

Tai has relating to effects on the landscape.

5.5 Geology / Hydrology

The main concern relating to geology and hydrology for Te Parawhau ki Tai was the possible

location of caves, wāhi tapu and sites of significance to Te Parawhau. Historically, these sites

have been vandalised, damaged and destroyed and for Te Parawhau ki Tai, the protection and

enhancement of cultural heritage is important.

Dr Martin Brook of the University of Auckland was engaged by Hauauru Trust to assist in better

understanding the potential geology and hydrology of the area and the likelihood of Whangarei

limestone underlying the Pegram block and extending under the proposed overburden disposal

area. (see Appendix 3 – Peer Reviews, the University of Auckland). Dr Brooks presented his

findings to members of Te Parawhau ki Tai and these results have already been discussed in detail

above.

42

Dr Brook’s presentation of his Peer Review Report to the members of Te Parawhau ki Tai

and his clarification of questions raised by Te Parawhau ki Tai, has now allayed all previous

fears and concerns with respect to potential effects on geology and the possibility of any

limestone caves extending under the overburden disposal area.

5.6 Noise

Te Parawhau ki Tai is concerned at the potential levels of noise pollution that may arise from the

quarry operations however this is not considered to be a significant issue. Te Parawhau ki Tai

considers that advances in the equipment and technology used in operations will provide

appropriate mitigation for the concerns relating to noise.

Te Parawhau ki Tai is also aware that GBC Winstone proposes a series of measures to manage

noise effects of the proposed overburden disposal proposal. These include submitting provisions

for noise management and noise monitoring.

Te Parawhau ki Tai does not consider noise effects to be a significant issue and

implementing the noise control measures proposed by GBC Winstone will allay any

concerns of Te Parawhau ki Tai regarding the effects of noise.

5.7 Mitigation

Te Parawhau ki Tai have been in discussions with GBC Winstone regarding the mana whenua

relationship of Te Parawhau with the Otaika area and the cultural impacts of the proposed

overburden disposal on this relationship.

Arising from these discussions, a Partnership Agreement with GBC Winstone has been entered

into. This agreement addresses opportunities for Te Parawhau ki Tai to work in partnership with

GBC Winstone to address environmental/cultural aspects of the proposal through the

development of a mātauranga Maori Environmental Monitoring Plan.

43

Further, this Partnership Agreement sets out the support that GBC Winstone will provide for the

social opportunity, economic development and cultural enhancement aspirations of Te Parawhau

ki Tai. Te Parawhau ki Tai is now comfortable that the cultural effects of the proposal have been

properly addressed.

Te Parawhau ki Tai and GBC Winstone have also discussed how some of the agreed mitigation

measures can be incorporated as consent conditions to be included in any land use consent granted

by the Council. Conditions of consent that have been agreed between TPKT and GBC Winstone

are set out in Appendix 4.

44

PART SIX: Conclusion

Te Parawhau are the original people of Whangarei and they hold strong historical and cultural

associations with the proposal area of Otaika. Te Parawhau are represented by Te Pouwhenua o

Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust and the vision of the trust is based on aspirations to provide better

opportunities for their people. The proposal by GBC Winstone to gradually expand westwards

and require resource consent for earthworks and stream works for the disposal of overburden is

generally supported by Te Parawhau. In conclusion, subject to the proposed mitigation and

additional consent conditions the cultural effects have been mitigated to an acceptable level.

PART SEVEN: Recommendation

In the interests of ensuring that the values of Te Parawhau are acknowledged throughout the

consent application process, the recommendation is to support the proposal subject to the agreed

mitigation measures being adopted throughout the consent.

Signed on behalf of Hauauru Trust

Marina Fletcher, Hauauru Trust

Signed: _______________________________________________ Date: 12/03/2018

APPENDICES

OTAIKA QUARRY – PROPOSED

OVERBURDEN DISPOSAL AREA

Assessment of Effects on Tangata

Whenua

Appendix 1: Statutory Framework

(National)

Resource Management Act 1991

The purpose of the Resource Management Act (RMA) 1991 is to promote the sustainable management

of natural and physical resources. The definition of sustainable management in section 5(2), clearly

includes the “cultural wellbeing” of people and communities. In addition, the RMA recognises the

relationship of Māori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu

and other taonga as a matter of national importance (Part 2 s. 6(e)), the protection of historic heritage

sites of significance to Māori, including wāhi tapu (s. 6(f)), as well as provision for customary rights

s.6 (g). Section 7(a) of the Act identifies kaitiakitanga as a matter that particular regard must be given

in relation to managing the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources, and

section 8 establishes that all persons exercising functions and powers under the Act shall take into

account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Specific provisions of the RMA that are pertinent to the protection of their values within of Te Parawhau

include:

• Section 5(2)(b): The life-supporting capacity of water and ecosystems.

• Section 6(c): The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant

habitats of indigenous fauna.

• Section 6(e): Recognise and provide for the relationship of Māori and their culture and

traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu, and other taonga.

• Section 6(f): The protection of historic heritage from inappropriate subdivision, use, and

development.

• Section 6(g): The protection of protected customary rights.

• Section 7(a): Have particular regard to kaitiakitanga – which is defined in the RMA as the

exercise of guardianship by the tangata whenua of an area in accordance with tikanga Māori in

relation to natural and physical resources;

• Section 7(aa): the ethic of stewardship.

• Section7(d): Intrinsic values of ecosystems.

• Section 7(f): Maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment.

• Section 8: Take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Crown Minerals Act 1991

4 Treaty of Waitangi

All persons exercising functions and powers under this Act shall have regard to the Treaty of Waitangi

(Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

14 (c) On the request of an iwi or hapu, a minerals programme may provide that defined areas of land

of particular importance to the iwi’s or hapu’s mana are excluded from the operation of the minerals

programme or are not to be included in any permit.

Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014

The HNZ Act came into force in May 2014 and was designed to rectify any weaknesses in the previous

legislative regime - the Historic Places Act 1993 (HPA). The purpose of the HNZ Act is identical to

the HPT and is to promote the identification, protection, preservation, and conservation of the historical

and cultural heritage of New Zealand.

Under this Act the relationship of Maori and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water,

sites, wahi tupuna, wahi tapu, and other taonga must be recognised.

The HNZ Act established the HNZ Board and retained the Maori Heritage Council. These bodies are

responsible for supplying and maintaining the New Zealand Heritage List. The list identifies and

records places or areas of historical significance, wahi tapu and wahi tupuna. Any person can apply to

have a site/place included on the List.

HNZ has greater powers in relation to the protection of archaeological sites. An archaeological site is

defined in the HNZ Act as any place in New Zealand (including buildings, structures or shipwrecks)

that was associated with pre-1900 human activity, which provides or may provide evidence relating to

the history of New Zealand that can be investigated using archaeological methods.

The HNZ Act makes it unlawful for any person to modify or destroy, or cause to be modified or

destroyed, the whole or any part of an archaeological site without the prior authority of Heritage New

Zealand. If you wish to do any work that may affect an archaeological site you must obtain an authority

from Heritage New Zealand before you begin.

Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993

Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 recognises that land is a taonga tuku iho of special significance to

Maori people and, for that reason, promotes the retention of that land in the hands of its owners, their

whanau, and their hapu, and to protect wahi tapu; and to facilitate the occupation, development, and

utilisation of that land for the benefit of it’s owners, their whanau, and their hapu.

The principles set out in the preamble of the Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993 are to promote the

retention of that land in the hands of its owners, their whānau, and their hapu, and to protect wāhi tapu,

and to facilitate the occupation, development, and utilisation of that land for the benefit of its owners,

their whānau, and their hapu.

Historic Places Act 1993

The Historic Places Act 1993 (HPA) provides for the recognition and protection of New Zealand’s

heritage sites and places. The purpose of the Act is to promote the identification, protection,

preservation, and conservation of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand.

The HPA provides various mechanisms for the recognition and protection of heritage sites and places

in New Zealand which include:

• Heritage covenants

• Heritage orders (under the RMA)

• Authorities to destroy damage or modify an archaeological site

• Registration of historic place/area wāhi tapu place/area

The Land Transport Management Act 2003

The purpose of the Land Transport Management Act (LTMA) is to contribute to the aim of achieving

an affordable, integrated, safe, responsive, and sustainable land transport system.

The LTMA recognises the importance of the Treaty of Waitangi and directs those exercising functions

under the Act to maintain and improve opportunities for Maori to participate in land transport decision

making processes. See in particular:

• Section 4 Treaty of Waitangi

• Section 18G Separate consultation with Maori on particular activities

• Section 18H Maori contribution to decision making

The Te Parawhau Trust’s interpretation of the above provisions and associated obligations is that they

apply to the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA).

Appendix 2: Statutory Framework

(Regional and District)

OPERATIVE REGIONAL POLICY STATEMENT FOR NORTHLAND (May 2016)

Objective 3.5

Northland’s natural and physical resources are sustainably managed in a way that is attractive for business and

investment that will improve the economic wellbeing of Northland and its communities.

Objective 3.12 – Tangata whenua role in decision making

Tangata whenua kaitiaki role is recognised and provided for in decision making over natural and physical

resources.

Objective 3.15 – Active management

Maintain and / or improve

(a) The natural character of the coastal environment and fresh water bodies and their margins;

(b) Outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes;

(c) Historic heritage;

(d) Areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna

(including those within estuaries and harbours);

(e) Public access to the coast; and

(f) Fresh and coastal water quality.

by supporting, enabling and positively recognising active management arising from the efforts of landowners,

individuals, iwi, hapu and community groups.

Policy 4.4.2 – Supporting restoration and enhancement

Support voluntary efforts of landowners and community groups, iwi and hapu, to achieve Objective 3.5.

Policy 4.7.1 – Promote active management

In plan provisions and the resource consent process, recognise and promote the positive effects of the following

activities that contribute to active management:

a) Pest control, particularly where it will complement an existing pest control project / programme;

b) Soil conservation / erosion control;

c) Measures to improve water quality in parts of the coastal marine area where it has deteriorated and is

having significant adverse effects, or in freshwater bodies targeted for water quality enhancement;

d) Measures to improve flows and / or levels in over allocated freshwater bodies;

e) Re-vegetation with indigenous species, particularly in areas identified for natural character

improvement;

f) Maintenance of historic heritage resources (including sites, buildings and structures);

g) Improvement of public access to and along the coastal marine area or the margins of rivers or lakes

except where this would compromise the conservation of historic heritage or significant indigenous

vegetation and / or significant habitats of indigenous fauna;

h) Exclusion of stock from waterways and areas of significant indigenous vegetation and / or significant

habitats of indigenous fauna;

i) Protection of indigenous biodiversity values identified under Policy 4.4.1, outstanding natural

character, outstanding natural landscapes or outstanding natural features either through legal means or

physical works;

j) Removal of redundant or unwanted structures and / or buildings except where these are of historic

heritage value or where removal reduces public access to and along the coast or lakes and rivers;

k) Restoration or creation of natural habitat and processes, including ecological corridors in association

with indigenous biodiversity values identified under Policy 4.4.1, particularly wetlands and / or

wetland sequences;

l) Restoration of natural processes in marine and freshwater habitats.

Policy 4.7.2 – Policy – Supporting landowner and community efforts

Support landowners, iwi, hapū, and community efforts to actively manage or improve key aspects of the

environment especially where there is willing collaboration between participants and those efforts are directed at

one or more of the activities in Policy 4.7.1.

Policy 5.1.3 Policy - Avoiding the adverse effects of new uses(s) and development

Avoid the adverse effects, including reverse sensitivity effects of new subdivision, use and development,

particularly residential development on the following:

(a) Primary production activities in primary production zones (including within the coastal marine area);

(b) Commercial and industrial activities in commercial and industrial zones;

(c) The operation, maintenance or upgrading of existing or planned regionally significant infrastructure

and

(d) The use and development of regionally significant mineral resources.

Policy 5.1.4 – Policy - Regionally significant mineral resources

Mineral resources will be considered regionally significant, based on one or more of the following:

(a) Relative scarcity;

(b) Current or potential contribution to the regional economy from the extraction;

(c) Current and potential demand, and location with respect to demand;

(d) Constraints on extraction including existing or planned settlement and access to the site;

(e) Constraints on other development and land use as a result of extraction;

(f) Quality and size of deposit;

(g) Average annual extraction rate of minerals (more than 50,000 tonnes per annum for aggregates); and

(h) Importance to infrastructure development.

Policy 8.1.1 – Policy – Tangata whenua participation

The regional and district councils shall provide opportunities for tangata whenua to participate in the review,

development, implementation, and monitoring of plans and resource consent processes under the Resource

Management Act 1991.

Policy 8.1.2 – The regional and district council statutory responsibilities

The regional and district councils shall when developing plans and processing resource consents under the

Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA):

(a) Recognise and provide for the relationship of tangata whenua and their culture and traditions with their

ancestral land, water, sites wāhi tapu, and other taonga;

(b) Have particular regard to kaitiakitanga; and

(c) Take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi including partnership.

Policy 8.1.3 - Use of Mātauranga Māori

The regional and district councils shall provide opportunities for the use and incorporation of Mātauranga Māori

into decision-making, management, implementation, and monitoring of natural and physical resources under the

Resource Management Act 1991.

Policy 8.1.4 - Māori concepts, values and practices

Relevant Māori concepts, values and practices will be clarified through consultation with tangata whenua to

develop common understandings of their meaning and to develop methodologies for their implementation.

Policy 8.2.1 – Support for iwi and hapū management plans

The regional council will recognise the value of iwi and hapū management plans in decision-making under the

Resource Management Act 1991 and the need to support tangata whenua in the development and

implementation of these plans.

Policy 8.3.1 – Kaitiaki role

The regional and district councils shall support tangata whenua to have a kaitiaki role in the management of

their land, resources, and other taonga.

Policy 8.3.2 – Marae and Papa kainga

The regional and district councils shall recognise the historical, cultural, and social importance of marae and

papa kāinga, and enable their ongoing use and development in regional and district plans.

Policy 8.3.3 – Provision of information

The regional and district councils shall, when requested by iwi authorities, provide information, analysis of

regional and district plan provisions, and advice during and after the Treaty settlement processes to enable

tangata whenua to identify potential land use opportunities and constraints associated with returned assets.

OPERATIVE DISTRICT PLAN FOR WHANGAREI

CHAPTER 7 - TANGATA WHENUA – OPERATIVE WHANGAREI DISTRICT PLAN

Objective 7.3.1

Within the respective domains of the exercise of rangatiratanga and kawanatanga, ensure that priority

is afforded to the act of protection of taonga of tangata whenua, and to the relationship of tangata

whenua and their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other

taonga.

Explanation and Reasons: In the Manukau Report, the Waitangi Tribunal indicated that the intention

of both texts of the Treaty is to afford an appropriate priority and respect to Maori people (pages 78

and 91). It found that the Treaty represented an exchange of gifts. The gift of the right to make laws, and

the promise to do so in such a way as to accord the Maori interest an appropriate priority, is an example

of this exchange.

It is important that the Council and tangata whenua develop and implement an understanding that is

relevant and appropriate to the District. From that understanding of rangatiratanga and kawanatanga,

the Council and tangata whenua will better recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and

their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga, as a

matter of national importance.

Objective 7.3.2

To enable tangata whenua to exercise rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga over their ancestral lands, waters,

sites, waahi tapu and other taonga in the District.

Explanation and Reasons: Customary authority and rights are the source of well-being of tangata whenua.

The ability to exercise rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga is the ability to exercise political and use rights.

Tangata whenua's well-being also includes associated rights, such as ahi kaa (keeping the fires warm). If

tangata whenua are unable to exercise their customary rights, rights that were guaranteed to them by the

Treaty of Waitangi, their well-being is adversely affected.

Section 7(a) of the Resource Management Act 1991 requires particular regard to be given to kaitiakitanga.

In Maori cultural terms, kaitiakitanga is a part of rangatiratanga. Section 5(2) of the Resource

Management Act 1991 also requires the Council to manage resources in the way that enables the wellbeing

of people and communities. The exercise of rangatiratanga and kaitiakitanga contributes to tangata

whenua's well-being and helps to ensure that the mauri of taonga is healthy and strong.

Objective 7.3.3

In the implementation of this Plan, no action will be taken which will knowingly exacerbate registered treaty

claims.

Policy 7.4.1 - Interests of Tangata Whenua

To ensure that in the use, development and protection of natural and physical resources, the views and interests

of the tangata whenua are fully represented at every stage of the process, including the preparation and

implementation of the District Plan.

Explanation and Reasons: The Council is required to recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and

their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga, under the

Resource Management Act 1991.

Traditional Maori culture and values are closely linked to the environment. Land, in particular, confers dignity

and rank, is the resting place for the dead, a spiritual base for traditional beliefs and a heritage for future

generations. Land establishes personal and tribal identity, is a symbol of social stability and is an important

source of emotional and spiritual strength.

The High Court has indicated that, in considering the effects of activities on the relationship of tangata whenua

with ancestral land, there must be some factor, or nexus, between Maori culture and traditions, and the land in

question, which affects the relationship of Maori people to the land. For example, the extent to which a special

relationship is claimed through several generations is one factor.

The principles of the Treaty which the Council must take into account (section 8 Resource Management Act

1991), include active protection of taonga as a means to enable hapu and iwi to exercise rangatiratanga over

their resources. Section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act 1991 requires the recognition and provision for

the relationship of Maori people with their taonga. Tangata whenua have expressed concern for the quality and

condition of areas and places of significance to them. Of particular concern is the need to protect waahi tapu

from desecration through development. Some Sites of Significance to Maori are shown on the Planning Maps,

and others will be identified in Hapu Environmental Management Plans.

In addition to specific places of significance, archaeological sites may include signs of Maori occupation within

the District, such as middens, ovens and caves. Archaeological sites are a connection to past generations and

are a source of information on their activities. The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 requires

an archaeological authority to be granted for any destruction, damage or modification of an archaeological

site. As archaeological sites are defined under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, in terms

of human activity prior to 1900, many will be of significance to tangata whenua. Tangata whenua should be

consulted regarding any proposal to modify, damage or destroy such sites.

Policy 7.4.2 – Sites of Significance to Maori

To ensure that land use, subdivision and development does not adversely affect Sites of Significance to Maori,

or other taonga identified in the District Plan or Hapu Environmental Management Plans.

Explanation and Reasons: The Council is required to recognise and provide for the relationship of Maori and

their culture and traditions with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga, under the

Resource Management Act 1991.

Traditional Maori culture and values are closely linked to the environment. Land, in particular, confers dignity

and rank, is the resting place for the dead, a spiritual base for traditional beliefs and a heritage for future

generations. Land establishes personal and tribal identity, is a symbol of social stability and is an important

source of emotional and spiritual strength.

The High Court has indicated that, in considering the effects of activities on the relationship of tangata whenua

with ancestral land, there must be some factor, or nexus, between Maori culture and traditions, and the land in

question, which affects the relationship of Maori people to the land. For example, the extent to which a special

relationship is claimed through several generations is one factor.

The principles of the Treaty which the Council must take into account (section 8 Resource Management Act

1991), include active protection of taonga as a means to enable hapu and iwi to exercise rangatiratanga over

their resources. Section 6(e) of the Resource Management Act 1991 requires the recognition and provision for

the relationship of Maori people with their taonga. Tangata whenua have expressed concern for the quality and

condition of areas and places of significance to them. Of particular concern is the need to protect waahi tapu

from desecration through development. Some Sites of Significance to Maori are shown on the Planning Maps,

and others will be identified in Hapu Environmental Management Plans.

In addition to specific places of significance, archaeological sites may include signs of Maori occupation within

the District, such as middens, ovens and caves. Archaeological sites are a connection to past generations and

are a source of information on their activities. The Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 requires

an archaeological authority to be granted for any destruction, damage or modification of an archaeological

site. As archaeological sites are defined under the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014, in terms

of human activity prior to 1900, many will be of significance to tangata whenua. Tangata whenua should be

consulted regarding any proposal to modify, damage or destroy such sites.

Policy 7.4.3 – Waterbodies

To ensure that indigenous wetlands, estuaries, coastal areas and waterbodies, of significance to tangata whenua,

are maintained and enhanced, and that access for tangata whenua to those water bodies is provided.

Explanation and Reasons: Water bodies are of social, cultural and spiritual value to Maori and contain

resources important for their well-being. Water bodies are areas of mahinga ka, which provide an important

source of the traditional food of the Maori, such as the tuna (eel) and kewai (freshwater crayfish). These

traditional food sources are central to their economic, spiritual and cultural well-being. Traditional food

resources of the District are degraded due to past destruction of habitat, degradation of water quality,

discharges from land development activities, water extraction for farming and horticultural purposes, the

damming and drainage of the waterways and the introduction of predators. It is therefore important that waters

and indigenous wetlands are sustainably managed for protection and enhancement of those mahinga kai areas,

and the food resources therein, and that access to these traditional food resources for tangata whenua is

maintained.

Policy 7.4.4 – Consultation

To ensure effective consultation with, and participation of tangata whenua in resource management processes

by:

• Fostering partnerships and relationships with the tangata whenua of the area;

• Avoiding unnecessary conflict on resource management issues;

• Recognising and respecting iwi authority and affiliations;

• Acknowledging and providing for historical circumstances and their impacts on resource needs;

• Respecting tikanga Maori;

• Acknowledging the rights of hapu and whanau to speak and act on matters that affect them;

• Allowing tangata whenua time for informed assessments of proposals and to determine their responses,

consistent with the time constraints in the Resource Management Act 1991;

• Encouraging applicants to consult tangata whenua, where appropriate.

Explanation and Reasons: Consultation is considered both a principle of the Treaty of Waitangi, and a duty to

ensure that the principles are given effect to. Essential elements of general consultation have been defined by

the High Court. These elements include: sufficient information being provided to the consulted party, sufficient

time for participation and consideration of information and genuine consideration of advice received. For

consultation with tangata whenua on resource management matters, four particular elements of consultation

can be identified:

a) Consultation needs to be conducted on a marae of the tangata whenua, in mutual good faith and to a

sufficient degree so that Councils are familiar with the nature and substance of the interests and

concerns of tangata whenua.

b) Consultation does not mean consensus. Councils must consult for a reasonable time in a spirit of

goodwill and open-mindedness, so that all reasonable planning options are carefully considered and

explored. If the outcome is disagreement, then this has to be accepted.

c) Consultation should be ongoing, and an integral part of processes expected, to monitor the suitability

and effectiveness of a plan. Councils should reopen consultation if other factors and information are

brought to its notice and necessitate review of the understanding previously reached.

d) Consultation should not fetter the decision-making responsibility. Councils must be free to determine

submissions or cross-submissions made on a plan without being fettered in their decision-making

responsibility by an understanding reached prior to the notification of the plan.

In order to assess the actual or potential effects of proposals, the Council will encourage applicants to consult

with tangata whenua, where the District Plan requires effects on Sites of Significance to Maori to be identified,

or where tangata whenua make Council aware that they are an affected party.

Policy 7.4.5 – Use of Maori Land

To enable tangata whenua to use, develop and protect their lands in accordance with their cultural preferences,

consistent with the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Explanation and Reasons: Planning policies and rules may limit tangata whenua use rights over their own land.

The principles of the Treaty indicate that the Plan should enable Maori people to live in accordance with their

cultural values, as guaranteed in the Articles, subject to the effects of their activities being in accordance with

the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991: promoting the sustainable management of natural and

physical resources. This also fulfils the Council's statutory responsibilities in terms of section 6(e) of the

Resource Management Act 1991.

Policy 7.4.6 – Iwi Management Plans

To take into account any relevant planning document recognised by an iwi authority when preparing or

changing a District Plan to the extent that its content has a bearing on resource management issues of the

District.

CHAPTER 16: LANDSCAPE

Objective 16.3.4

The preservation of natural features significant to Maori and their culture and traditions, with their ancestral lands,

water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga.

Policy 16.4.12

To identify for protection and, where possible, enhance natural features that are significant to Maori and their

culture and traditions, with their ancestral lands, water, sites, waahi tapu and other taonga and to ensure that these

natural features are not adversely affected by inappropriate subdivision, use and development.

CHAPTER 18: MINERALS

Objective 18.3.1

Exploration, extraction and processing of minerals occurs in a manner that avoids, remedies or mitigates any

adverse effects on the environment and community, and on the relationship of tangata whenua with their

ancestral lands, sites, water, waahi tapu and other taonga.

Explanation and Reasons: There is potential for the adverse effects of mineral extraction to impact on the well-

being of people and communities, unless the effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Objective 18.3.2

Subdivision, use and development of land should not compromise existing safe and efficient mineral extraction,

or unduly constrain potential access to, and the development of, identified significant mineral resources.

Explanation and reasons: While the adverse effects of mineral extraction must be avoided, remedied or

mitigated, it is also appropriate to ensure that activities that are sensitive to the effects of mineral extraction,

such as housing, are not sited so as to prevent the managed extraction of mineral resources.

Policy 18.4.1- Adverse Effects

To avoid, remedy or mitigate to the extent practical, the adverse effects of mineral extraction on the ecological,

landscape, heritage and amenity values of surrounding areas and on the amenity values of existing residential

areas.

Explanation and Reasons: Possible effects of mining and exploration activities include noise, dust and air

emissions, natural hazards, land subsidence, erosion and sedimentation, traffic, visual impact and hazardous

substance storage. Some receiving environments, such as those in residential areas, are especially vulnerable to

such effects. Conflicts with other land uses can be minimised by managing the effects of mineral extraction (for

example, setting standards for noise and dust).

Policy 18.4.2 – Incompatible Activities

To manage conflicts between the effects of mineral extraction activities and other land uses by ensuring that

activities that are incompatible with the effects of mineral extraction activities are not established close to

quarries or mines.

Explanation and Reasons: The previous policy provides for managing the effects of mineral extraction by

performance standards. This policy provides for conflict prevention and management by keeping separated

activities that are inherently incompatible, for example, residential activities and mineral extraction. It is

recognised in this policy that mining must locate at the point that minerals occur, and therefore there is no

location flexibility. Competing land use activities can have the effect of making a mineral resource unattainable.

Policy 18.4.3

To rehabilitate sites used from mineral exploration and extraction.

Explanation and Reasons: Rehabilitation of a site following exploration and mining activity helps to minimise

potential adverse effects upon the environment (including ongoing visual effects) and to make the land available

for other uses. To be most effective, it should occur sequentially with the mining operations. Rehabilitation can

take numerous forms. The purpose is to restore the land to an alternative and useful purpose. For example, a

former quarry could become a farm plantation or a recreational lake or indigenous wetland.

PROPOSED RURAL PLAN CHANGES TO THE WHANGAREI DISTRICT PLAN / PROPOSED

PLAN CHANGE 102 – MINERALS (AS NOTIFIED ,2016)

MIN 1.2 Objective 1

Exploration, extraction and processing of minerals avoids, remedies or mitigates any adverse effects on the

environment and community.

MIN 1.2 Objective 2

Exploration, extraction and processing of minerals avoids, remedies or mitigates any adverse effects on the

relationship of tangata whenua with their ancestral lands, sites, water, waahi tapu and other taonga.

MIN 1.3 - Policy 1

To avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of exploration, extraction and processing of minerals on the

ecological, landscape, heritage and amenity values of surrounding areas and on the amenity values of existing

residential areas by applying Environment and district wide provisions.

MIN 1.3 - Policy 2

To avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of exploration, extraction and processing of minerals on the

relationship of tangata whenua with their ancestral lands, sites, water, waahi tapu and other taonga by requiring a

cultural impact assessment written by the relevant tangata whenua and kaitiaki for all resource consent

applications for mineral extraction.

MIN 1.3 - Policy 3

To avoid adverse effects on significant areas by avoiding mineral extraction within identified Sites of Significance

to Maori.

MIN 1.3 - Policy 4

To manage conflicts between the effects of mineral extraction activities and other land uses by ensuring that

activities that are incompatible with the effects of mineral extraction activities are not established close to existing

quarries or mines.

MIN 1.3 - Policy 5

To rehabilitate sites historically used for mineral exploration and extraction to enable the land to be used by other

activities.

MIN 1.3 - Policy 6

To identify and provide for nationally and regionally significant mineral resources (where extraction rates are

known) by mapping as Mineral Extraction Areas and applying provisions.

REGIONAL WATER AND SOIL PLAN FOR NORTHLAND

Section 6 Recognition of and Provision for Maori and their Culture and

Traditions

Objective 6.3.1 The management of the natural and physical resources within the Northland

region in a manner that recognises and provides for the traditional and

cultural relationships of tangata whenua with the land and water.

Policy 6.4.1 To recognise and, as far as practicable provide for the relationship of Maori

and their culture and traditions with respect to the use, development and

protection of natural and physical resources in the Northland region.

Policy 6.4.2 To gain an understanding, and as far as practicable, provide for the concerns

and cultural perspectives of tangata whenua in regard to the disposal of

waste into water.

Policy 6.4.3 To have particular regard for kaitiakitanga and consider options for the

involvement of tangata whenua in monitoring the use, development and

protection of resources within the Northland region.

Policy 6.4.4 To provide appropriate technical advice and information to assist iwi

authorities in the development of hapu/iwi management plans for natural

and physical resources within the area of their rohe.

Appendix 3: Formal Peer Reviews

1

SCIENCE SCHOOL OF ENVIRONMENT

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Human Sciences Building, Level 6, 201N, 10 Symonds St, Auckland, New Zealand T +64 9 923 8465 W www.env.auckland.ac.nz The University of Auckland Private Bag 92019 Auckland 1142 New Zealand ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

16 February 2018

Dear Marina

Re: Peer review of Tonkin & Taylor Geotechnical and Hydrological Assessment of Proposed Overburden Disposal Area

Please find appended my peer review of Tonkin & Taylor’s geotechnical and hydrological assessments of proposed Overburden Disposal Area (OBDA). The proposed OBDA is on the Pegram Block adjacent to the Otaika Quarry, 5 km south of Whangarei.

As you know, the key elements of the concept design of the OBDA include:

• Filling of a broad gully system, with construction of a shear key and toe bund to support the overburden fill material placed behind. The fill material comprises natural soils and rock unsuitable for sale, sourced from the adjacent quarry.

• Diversion of an unnamed tributary of Te Waiiti stream over a length of approximately 500 m.

• A fill thickness of approximately 30 m depending on position within the final OBDA footprint.

• The total footprint of the overburden disposal area is 16.7 hectares in area. The total of volume overburden disposal will be approximately 2.4 million m3 to be placed intermittently over a period of up to 35 years.

The purpose of this peer review was to focus on a series of geotechnical and hydrological assessments mainly prepared by Tonkin & Taylor, which underpin the above design. I also took a site visit on 16 February 2018 to the Pegram Block and looked at the geology and geomorphology. These documents (cited below) are part of a number of technical supporting documents to GBC Winstone’s application for resource consent.

In summary, having visited the site for a walkover, and read the documents provided to me, while I have reservations about the geophysical methods they used and lack of LiDAR, T&T have done a competent job of undertaking this ground investigation. Indeed, I do agree with their thoughts that the Whangarei Limestone does not extend under the OBDA, and is limited to the NW boundary of the Pegram Block.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide you with a peer review. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me – I am happy to expand or discuss further any of the points below.

Yours sincerely Dr Martin Brook BSc(Hons), MEng, PhD, FGS Senior Lecturer in Applied Geology

2

Otaika Quarry proposed overburden disposal area (OBDA) Geotechnical and Hydrological Assessment Peer Review

Dr Martin Brook, Senior Lecturer in Applied Geology, University of Auckland

1. Introduction

1.1 I am currently a Senior Lecturer in Applied Geology at the University of Auckland. I have a BSc(hons), a Master of Mining Engineering and a PhD. I have previously undertaken ground investigations on limestone terrain in New Zealand, Australia and the Middle East, using a range of invasive and non-invasive methods.

1.2 On 20 December 2017 I was approached by Mr Ian Wallace of GBC Winstone to undertake a peer review of Tonkin & Taylor’s geotechnical and hydrological assessments of the Otaika Quarry proposed overburden disposal area (OBDA). The proposed overburden disposal is in the Pegram Block area. The original disposal area outline was later modified to avoid the catchment of a small tomo (“sinkhole”) that had been identified by the ground investigation.

1.3 The documents I have reviewed include:

GBC Winstone Application for Land Use Consent and Assessment of Environmental Effects (1 June 2017), specifically:

Appendix 7, p10 of the Clough & Associates report (March 2017; Geology & Geomorphology) provides a basic interpretation, which coincides and is complementary to Appendix 9 & 10

Appendix 9-Surface Water and Hydrology Assessment (Tonkin & Taylor, May 2017)

Appendix 10-Preliminary Geotechnical Assessment (Tonkin & Taylor, March 2017)

Geotechnical Drilling Report and Memo (Tonkin & Taylor, 28 September 2017)

1.4 Below, I review information contained within the above documents and how this information relates to the geology and hydrogeological understanding of the proposed OBDA site. This brief peer review focuses on methods utilized, the conclusions that have been drawn, and any limitations. Of critical importance is the possible existence of Whangarei Limestone underlying the proposed OBDA, as karstic landforms (caves etc.) are known to form within this unit to the north-west. Of additional importance is the rock underlying the shear key area.

2. Methods of Ground Investigation

2.1 Tonkin & Taylor (T&T) used both direct testing (trial pits, boreholes, piezometers) and indirect testing (geophysics) to augment surface observations, and gleaned knowledge from the existing literature. This staged approach using different methods to develop a “ground model” is quite typical of ground investigations in New Zealand and overseas (desktop study>site walkover>trial pitting/boreholes/geophysics = “ground model”). An accurate ground model of the underlying geology is fundamentally important for any modeling, or site development12.

2.2 In terms of a “Desktop Study”, T & T have consulted the existing 1:250,000 scale geological

1 González de Vallejo L, Ferrer M. (2011). Geological Engineering. CRC Press, 678 pp. 2 Walton G, Allington R. (1994). Landform replication in quarrying. Transactions - Institution of Mining & Metallurgy, Section A, 103: A55-A66.

3

map and report by the Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences3. This provides a broad overview of the geology likely to be encountered at the site. T&T have also considered excerpts and implications of the report by Kermode (1965). No academic journal articles or university theses have been cited, or appear to have been considered.

2.3 Surface observations of geological (e.g. rock type) and geomorphological features (e.g. landforms) were made by a Senior Engineering Geologist at T&T at a series of outcrops to the northwest of the site and within stream channels across the proposed OBDA. Standard techniques were employed, including lithological descriptions and the dip angle and direction of the limestone sedimentary units that outcrop in the ridge at the northwest of the site. Application of dilute Hydrochloric Acid was used in the field to identify calcareous rocks. Accurate identification of the different rock units, the dip angle and direction, and their elevation means that structural contours can be developed. This is important for projecting and modeling the thickness and location of rock units under the proposed OBDA site. Hence, this methodology is appropriate. Observations included outcrops of the Whangarei Limestone and the underlying Ruatangata Sandstone, as well as Northland Allochthon rocks. Use of LiDAR data to produce a high-resolution digital elevation model (DEM) of the site may have been advantageous to the site walkover/mapping, and could have augmented the aerial imagery that was used. LiDAR can provide insights into the subtleties of the soil and rock surface, as the effects of vegetation can be stripped away, so that only landforms are shown.

2.4 Direct testing including trial pitting and boreholes was also undertaken across the Pegram Block, and occurred in two phases. The first phase (October 2016) included 12 trial pits (labelled TP1-TP12 in their report) to depths of 1.5-4.4 m below ground level (bgl). Again, trial pitting with an excavator/back hoe is a standard method both in New Zealand and globally. The trial pits were located at areas of interest developed from the earlier surface observations.

2.5 The second phase of direct testing occurred in September 2017, and was via three boreholes, to investigate the subsurface geology to greater depths (12 m in each case). The aim of this was to bring more certainty to the existing “ground model”, including the nature of the limestone contact within the Pegram Block. The core was removed and presumably logged on site, to what look like NZ Geotechnical Society Guidelines4. In addition, close to each of the three boreholes, shorter boreholes were drilled and piezometers were installed to measure groundwater fluctuations. These are standard techniques, and the photographs of the core and interpreted stratigraphic/geotechnical logs are provided by T&T in their Memo (28 September 2017), as is standard.

2.6 Geophysical techniques were applied at the site during November 2016, the month after the trial pitting. The field surveys were led by Matt Watson of ScanTec Ltd. ScanTec is a small, highly regarded geophysical consultancy that has been operating continuously for about 20 years. Two geophysical methods were applied, namely ground penetrating radar (GPR) and electromagnetic induction (EM). The aim was to, in part, identify cavities/tomos during a 1 day trial survey.

2.7 The GPR Survey is a technique often utilized in investigating subsurface voids, be it in karstic limestone, or abandoned mines. The GPR was used with an antenna frequency of 200 MHz. While this can be a very useful and highly effective technique, even in the best ground conditions (dry, lack of clays), it would be challenging to attain the depth of penetration

3 Edbrooke SW, Brook EJ (2009). Geology of the Whangarei area. 1:250,000 scale map. GNS, Lower Hutt. 4 Williams A. (2005). Field description of soil and rock. New Zealand Geotechnical Society.

4

sufficient to investigate any cavities in rock. The utility of the approach at this site is questionable, and is probably why it was considered as a trial survey.

2.8 The EM geophysical technique is often used in shallow surface hydrogeological and geological surveys, where sharp contrasts in electrical conductivity are anticipated. This is particularly useful in identifying areas of near surface groundwater, which may be a result of geological boundaries or structures. An EM-34 was utilized here in “horizontal dipole” mode. This provides a bulk conductivity value for the volume of soil/rock beneath the point of measurement. The claimed depth of investigation by ScanTec was 10 m, but this may be slightly optimistic. For the 10 m coil separation used, according to the manufacturer’s website (geonics.com), the depth of penetration would be c. 7.5 m. As acknowledged by ScanTec, the measurement intervals were very coarse, and it should be emphasized that this was a trial survey.

2.9 The Surface Water Hydrology Assessment (Appendix 9) developed a detailed series of models aimed at delineating the impacts and effects of the proposed stream diversion and fill thickness in the OBDA. The geomorphology is an important component of this, yet a 2 m digital elevation model (DEM) was used to model flow. Whether or not more accurate modeling could be undertaken by using a <0.5 m resolution DEM from LiDAR data, which would provide a more accurate surface model of the land surface, is unknown. However, the application of a higher resolution DEM can be offset by vastly increased computing time. In addition, no new dye tracing injection experiments were run in the field, but whether or not they would have added anything useful at all to the hydrogeological picture, is debatable.

3. Results and Interpretation

3.1 The site walkover and rudimentary desktop study by T&T has not encountered any evidence of Whangarei Limestone in the Pegram Block area, outside of the exposures on the north-west boundary, which is beyond the OBDA. The bedding of the limestone in those exposures is consistently dipping northwards, away from the OBDA footprint.

3.2 The trial pits and boreholes have proven very useful. Regionally, the (older) Ruatangata Sandstone underlies the (younger) Whangarei Limestone. Hence, if the Whangarei Limestone is only exposed in the northwest of the site at the highest point, and dips northwards, then it is unlikely to be found to the south underlying the lower topography of the Pegram Block. Indeed, while the Whangarei Limestone was not found in any trial pits or boreholes, the underlying Ruatangata Sandstone was. This is crucially important, and appears to confirm the hypothesis that the Whangarei Limestone is not underneath the OBDA area.

3.3 The origin of the tomo at the north-west of the site below the limestone outcrop is intriguing, and was investigated directly with a trial pit (TP1). The process-origins of tomos (“sinkholes”) are varied, and I have included a diagram below (Fig. 1) from Waltham5, which considers six different modes of tomo formation. From the geotechnical logs presented, photographs and site visits, it is impossible to verify exactly the mode of tomo formation at the TP1 site, and the possible hydrogeological implications. Nevertheless, from the karstic landforms (including caves) to the north-west on Ruarangi Block, Kermode6 identified that solution and collapse

5Waltham AC (2016). Sinkhole hazard case histories in karst terrains. Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology 41: 291-300. 6 Kermode LO (1965). Speleology - Ruarangi Block (excerpt).

5

of the limestone followed a basal glauconitic sandstone. It is likely that basal glauconitic sandstone is the Ruatangata Sandstone identified in the TPs and boreholes across the Pegram Block by T&T. The implication is that the tomo at TP1 is very close to the base of the Whangarei Limestone unit. As that unit is dipping north, away from the Pegram Block, it is highly unlikely to underlie the Pegram Block. Thus, there is minimal potential for voids in limestone in the vicinity of the OBDA footprint of the Pegram Block.

Figure 1: Subsidence sinkholes and collapse sinkholes within the classification of these karst features. Most sinkholes are 2–50 m wide and deep, although larger examples do occur (from Waltham, 2016).

3.4 T&T’s identification of Northland Allochthon rocks and derived soils, which can be highly problematic for construction at the site, is important. Indeed, the trial pits, boreholes and the geophysics (EM) confirm the regional geological map. This will have implications for both the design of the shear key, as well as the drainage design on and around the OBDA, as acknowledged by T&T.

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 In conclusion, the series of investigations carried out by T&T and their subcontractors appear to confirm that Whangarei Limestone is unlikely to be underlying the Pegram Block south of the ridgeline exposures seen at the north-west of the site. This is because the Whangarei Limestone is northwards -dipping.

4.2 While further ground investigations with more appropriate geophysical techniques (e.g. electrical resistivity tomography, shear wave velocity etc.) may be useful, it is unknown as to whether this would improve what is already known about the site. LiDAR may provide an enhanced understanding of the geomorphology, and could be useful for hydrological modeling, but whether or not this enhances what is already presented, is difficult to determine. Dye-tracing experiments could also be useful in constraining both the ground model and hydrological model, but again, whether or not this would enhance what is already presented is debatable.

6

4.3 My recommendation is that the T&T work is accepted as providing a reasonable summary of the geology and geomorphology of the Pegram Block site.

Memo

Otaika Quarry Peer Review of Air Quality Implications of the Development at Pegram Block

Auckland UniServices Limited

A wholly owned company of

The University of Auckland

Prepared for: Marina Fletcher, Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust.   Attn: Marina Fletcher cc: Ian Wallace

Prepared by:

Jennifer Salmond, PhD

Date: 17 February 2018

I was asked to review the material prepared by AECOM which assessed the air quality implications of developing a new site on Pegram Block (land adjacent to the Otaika Quarry) for disposing of overburden material from the quarry. AECOM provided a risk assessment in the original application and a detailed follow-up memo, plus a comprehensive dust management plan. The material documents field investigations into the existing meteorology and air quality both at the quarry and in the local region. It includes an assessment of the source materials and relevant activities which generate particle pollution, and identifies sensitive receptor areas. The reports all demonstrate a high level of knowledge and understanding of the consent issues, meteorology and atmospheric dispersion of particles and prevailing local conditions. They draw on the available data, show evidence of collection of additional data where necessary and apply appropriate analytical techniques to reach their conclusions. After careful review of the material that I have been provided with, and following a site visit, I concur with the conclusion that whilst the proposed development does have the potential to affect local air quality, there is “there is limited potential for adverse off-site effects of nuisance dust” providing the dust management plan is adhered to. It is very difficult to forecast the exact impact on air quality of the proposed activity in the Pegram Block area. Models have limited value due to the intermittent characteristics of the source term and complexity of processes operating in this region of undulating coastal terrain. The best indication of the impact of the proposed activity in this case is therefore is based on an analysis of the current impact of quarrying activities, recognising that these represent different source terms (most likely higher emissions and smaller particles due to mechanical processing as well as excavation activities) and that the source area is located further away from the receptor sites. A conservative approach is therefore required in using this data to foreshadow future impacts of the overburden site. This is the approach that AECOM has taken. The data chosen to evaluate the risk to the local area is the best that is available, and the recommendations of AECOM to move the meteorological mast and install a PM10 sensor are based on best practice. The report uses air pollution monitors located at a residential location (11 Grove Lane) on the boundary of the Pegram Block and examines the longer record of total suspended particulate (TSP) (larger particles) and shorter record of PM10 (smaller particles up to 10 microns in diameter). There are many reassuring aspects to this case. Although the TSP records show some incidence of high concentrations they are within the acceptable guidelines with the exception of one hour of data. Although analysis indicates that the quarry does contribute to the local TSP contribution it suggests that the peaks in concentration may due to construction adjacent to the property. The PM10 data show that the air quality adjacent to the quarry is consistently very good. The differences in the data sets may be partially explained by different monitoring periods examined and the length of the data records. However, they also likely reflect the probable larger size of the particles from the quarry. This is reassuring from a health perspective as particles larger than 10 microns in diameter are unlikely to enter the lungs. Such large particles also require strong winds for transportation and are typically deposited close to the source. It is important to note that the monitoring techniques used for TSP at the site are based on mass and are unable to detect whether high values result from a small number of very large particles or a large number of smaller particles. Analysis of the composition of the particles also is reassuring. Analysis for chemicals such as pesticides and biohazards associated with agricultural activity in the materials indicates there is little risk associated with these contaminants. The material being transported to the overburden area is not heavily processed (so the risk of shards and small particles is low) and the composition of the overburden material indicates it is not likely to have a high content of silicon dioxide (silica) which is one of the compounds of concern from a health perspective. Further, assessments of occupational exposure to silica by those working in very close proximity to source materials (which unlike the overburden material do contain a higher proportion of silica), and who are actively processing the rock (so at greatest risk from small particles and shards) show low levels of contamination. This suggests that any additional health risk beyond the site boundary from exposure to silica (resulting from the transportation and deposition of overburden material) is very small. From a health perspective, in my opinion, there is little evidence for concern either from the point of view of particle composition or particle mass concentration. Nuisance is a subjective term and covers a range of possible outcomes from aesthetic considerations to health related concerns. Different people will be affected in different ways and to different degrees. Due to the proximity of the site to the residences in Acacia Park, and the nature of the proposed activities which will generate particles, these properties most likely to be affected to some degree. The effects of the overburden material will be most significant for those residences where there is both close proximity to the activity and a direct line of sight between the activity and the property. Finer dusts are likely to travel towards these dwellings and may affect outdoor activities (gardening, fresh produce production, washing hanging on the

line). Should residents choose to change their behaviour by, for example, hanging their washing inside, there is a potential for health risks associated with increased damp in the house. Smaller particles may also penetrate into housing generating unwanted dust. It is very hard to predict the magnitude or significance of such impacts either qualitatively or quantitatively. However, again the monitoring of existing activities does not indicate that this is currently of major concern, and I have not been advised of any complaints from the neighbours. The proposed vegetation barrier will limit transport of dust (and mitigate noise pollution). Where possible dense foliage and trees which grow to the same height as the dwelling (limiting line of sight and providing a visual barrier) should be introduced (or maintained) as this will provide maximum mitigation of fugitive dust. If residents report concerns, or contractors identify areas of increased transport of dust during activities, I recommend that a network of low-cost sensors with real time alarms be installed at the residences. These are a cheap and effective way to provide indicative measurements of particle concentrations. The information from the network can be used to identify when and where particle transport is an issue and specific actions can be taken (including installation of a compliant monitor and/or changes to the management plan) to mitigate effects. A mobile anemometer and TSP sampler installed near the surface close to any activity as it is undertaken may provide further information as to whether conditions are likely to promote particle transport towards residential areas and aid decision making as to when it is necessary to modify or cease activities. Given that the management plan does not require change to activities under meteorological conditions which are likely to result in transport of particles towards the sports fields or sensitive environmental areas which are also in close proximity to the site (water bodies and native vegetation), I would recommend installing low-cost air quality monitors and routine visual and water quality checks of these areas. In summary, the report prepared by AECOM is comprehensive, based on the best available data, includes appropriate analyses and draws conclusions which are supported by the material in the report. I agree that there is limited potential for 'noxious or dangerous levels' of airborne material to be transported beyond the site boundary providing the management plan is adhered to. The issue of "offensive and objectionable" (nuisance) dust is a more likely to be a problem, but adherence to the plan and responsiveness to community complaints will limit the impact. Reports from Auckland UniServices Limited should only be used for the purposes for which they were commissioned. If it is proposed to use a report prepared by Auckland UniServices Limited for a different purpose or in a different context from that intended at the time of commissioning the work, then UniServices should be consulted to verify whether the report is being correctly interpreted. In particular it is requested that, where quoted, conclusions given in UniServices reports should be stated in full.

Appendix 4 : Suggested Consent Conditions

Suggested consent conditions for Land Use application to Whangarei District Council

Note: Conditions addressing the Trust highlighted in red. General conditions 1. The overburden disposal activity shall be carried out in accordance with the plans and all

information submitted with the application, detailed below, and all referenced by the Council as consent number(s) [insert council references]

• Application Form, Assessment of Effects and all supporting information prepared by GBC Winstones and Boffa Miskell Limited dated May 2017 for district land use consents sought from the Whangarei District Council [insert council references and list of all reports / information submitted to Council].

2. This consent shall lapse 10 years from the date of approval unless it has been surrendered or cancelled at an earlier date pursuant to the RMA.

Overburden Management Plan 3. Prior to the commencement of the enabling works, the consent holder shall prepare and submit

an Overburden Management Plan to the Whangarei District Council for certification.

The objective of the Overburden Management Plan shall be to set out the practises and procedures to be adopted by the consent holder to ensure compliance with the conditions of this consent number(s) [insert council references]. The Overburden Management Plan shall include the following information: • A plan showing the boundaries of the overburden placement area with the Mineral

Extraction Area (ME3 - Winstone Aggregates – Otaika Quarry and access way) and Countryside Living Zone as defined in the Operative District Plan, at the time of the approval of this land use consent;

• A plan showing topography, drainage, natural watercourses, existing vegetation cover and any other significant landforms or features within the Overburden Disposal Area;

• The anticipated life span of Overburden Disposal operation;

• The estimated volume of overburden material to be placed within the Overburden Disposal Area;

• The location and dimensions of the enabling works, including indicative haul roads and internal circulation routes, shear key and toe bunds, toe buttress and placement of any mattressed foundation material, filling of gully systems and watercourses and creation of new stream channels;

• The location, dimensions including the heights and volumes of overburden material to be placed in the general works phase, including details of overburden material into placed

within the Overburden Disposal Area, including any staging of the overburden disposal operation;

• Details of proposed setbacks of any enabling works and overburden disposal operations from site boundaries, and landscaping and screening measures;

• The number of people proposed to be employed, and parking spaces provided on-site;

• A description of the proposed methods of any enabling works or overburden disposal operations including stripping and placement of material;

• A description of the methods by which the environmental effects of the operation will be managed and controlled, to comply with the conditions of consent of this consent number(s) [insert council references];

• A description of any future proposed rehabilitation programme.

The Overburden Management Plan may also include the following specific management plans as required in the exercise of this consent number(s) [insert council references]: - Riparian Management Plan

- Landscape and rehabilitation plan including details of mitigation planting to occur over the life of the consent.

- Dust Management plan

At least 10 working days prior to commencement of any enabling works or overburden disposal, the certified Overburden Management Plan will, if required, be updated by the Consent Holder and the updated Overburden Management Plan provided to the Whangarei District Council.

Stabilisation 4. The site shall be progressively stabilised against erosion at the end of each season and shall be

sequenced to minimise discharges of nuisance dust.

Notification prior to the commencement of works 5. The Whangarei District Council shall be notified at least five (5) working days prior to

overburden placement activities commencing on the subject site.

Limitation on type of fill 6. Material imported onto the site shall be restricted to overburden material which has been

removed from the adjoining Otaika Quarry, except any topsoil that may be required for site rehabilitation purposes and be brought on to the site.

Riparian Management Plan 7. Prior to the commencement of any enabling works or an overburden campaign, the consent

holder shall prepare a Riparian Management Plan and submit this to the Whangarei District Council.

At least 30 working days prior to the commencement of any enabling works or an overburden campaign, the consent holder shall invite the Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust (trading as Te Parawhau Ki Tai) or their successors (‘the Trust’) to provide input into the development and implementation of the Riparian Management Plan. If, 30 working days has elapsed from the date which the consent holder invites the Trust to provide input in to this Management Plan, and no input has been provided by the Trust, it shall be considered that the Trust does not wish to provide any input, and the Riparian Management Plan can be submitted to the Whangarei District Council. The objective of the Riparian Management Plan shall be to ensure the riparian mitigation measures are implemented and maintained through the life of the consent.

The Riparian Management Plan required by this condition shall include: a. Details of riparian planting including location, species mix and plant densities.

b. Details showing a minimum of 10 metres riparian planting set back from the edge of the stream bank and / or the riparian wetlands.

c. Identification of areas where stock proof fencing will be erected to protect planting and details of such fencing.

d. Implementation timeframes for riparian mitigation measures.

e. A record of consultation undertaken by the consent holder with the Trust on the development and implementation of the Riparian Management Plan.

The Riparian Management plan shall be developed in general accordance with the recommendations in the Assessment of Ecological Effects Report by Boffa Miskell Limited submitted to the Council within the application and AEE –May 2017 (insert council reference). The consent holder shall implement the Riparian Management Plan required by this condition of consent.

Landscape rehabilitation plan 8. Prior to the commencement of any enabling works or an overburden campaign, the consent

holder shall prepare a finalised Landscape Rehabilitation Plan and submit this to the Whangarei District Council.

At least 30 working days prior to the commencement of any enabling works or an overburden campaign, the consent holder shall invite the Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust (trading as Te Parawhau Ki Tai) or their successors (‘the Trust’) to provide input into the development and implementation of the Landscape Rehabilitation Plan. If, 30 working days haselapsed from the date which the consent holder invites the Trust to provide input in to this Management Plan, and no input has been provided by the Trust, it shall be considered that the Trust does not wish to provide any input, and the Landscape

Rehabilitation Plan can be submitted to the Whangarei District Council. The Landscape Rehabilitation Plan shall detail:

a. Configuration of the Overburden Disposal Area footprint and its overall shape and form.

b. Tree planting along the boundary of the Pegram Block with Acacia Park to be undertaken at the outset and prior to the commencement of any earthworks.

c. The location of tree planting carried out on the overburden slopes commencing at the completion of the enabling works phase and continuing through the general works phase.

d. A record of consultation undertaken by the consent holder with the Trust on the development and implementation of the Landscape Rehabilitation Plan.

The Landscape Rehabilitation Plan shall be developed in general accordance with the recommendations in the Landscape and Visual Effects Assessment Report by Boffa Miskell Limited submitted to the Council within the application and AEE –May 2017 (insert council reference). The consent holder shall implement the Landscape Rehabilitation Plan required by this condition of consent.

Dust Management Plan 9. Prior to the commencement of any enabling works or an overburden campaign, the consent

holder shall prepare a Dust Management Plan and submit this Plan to the Whangarei District Council.

At least 30 working days prior to the commencement of any enabling works or an overburden campaign, the consent holder shall invite the Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust (trading as Te Parawhau Ki Tai) or their successors, (‘the Trust’) to provide input into the development and implementation of the Dust Management Plan. If, 30 working days has elapsed from the date which the consent holder invites the Trust to provide input in to this Management Plan, and no input has been provided by the Trust, it shall be considered that the Trust does not wish to provide any input, and the Landscape Rehabilitation Plan can be submitted to the Whangarei District Council. The objective of the Dust Management Plan shall be to manage the overburden placement activity so as to ensure there is no dust nuisance beyond the subject site.

The Dust Management Plan required by this condition shall include:

a. Description of the methods of mitigation and operating procedures including monitoring equipment and procedures;

b. Procedures for responding to accidental dust nuisance discharges;

c. Procedures for the use of water suppression to minimise dust emissions;

d. Procedures for the operation, maintenance and calibration of any meteorological monitor including any meteorological exceedance alert thresholds and contingency measures;

e. Procedures for the operation, maintenance and calibration of any Total Suspended Particulate (TSP) trigger levels including any TSP exceedance alert thresholds and contingency measures; and

f. Records of any complaints recorded and investigated during any previous overburden placement campaign.

g. A record of consultation undertaken by the consent holder with the Trust on the development and implementation of the Dust Management Plan.

The Dust Management Plan shall be developed in general accordance with the recommendations in the Air Quality Assessment Report by AECOM submitted to the Council within the application and AEE –May 2017 (insert council reference). The consent holder shall implement the Landscape Rehabilitation Plan required by this condition of consent.

Noise Management 10. The site shall only operate as follows:

a. Enabling Works: Monday – Friday 7.30 am – 6pm

Saturdays 7.30 am – 2.00 pm. No works Sundays and public holidays.

b. General Works: Monday – Friday 7.00 am – 6pm Saturdays 7.00 am – 2.30 pm. No works Sundays and public holidays.

11. Noise from Enabling Works on Pegram Block shall comply with noise limits provided in NZS6803:1999 for "long term" work.

Enabling works – 70dB LAeq and 85dB LAmax between 7.30am to 6pm Monday to Friday and 7.30am to 2.00 pm Saturday and measured and assessed in accordance with NZS6803:1999.

12. Noise from the General Works on Pegram Block shall comply with Whangarei District Plan noise limits (except at any properties that have given written approval to exceed those noise limits).

General Works within ME3 Overlay – 55dB LAeq between 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 7.00 am to 2.30pm Saturday and measured and assessed in accordance with NZS6801 and 6802:2008. General Works outside ME3 Overlay – 50dB LAeq between 7.00am to 6.00pm Monday to Friday and 7.00 am to 2.30pm Saturday and measured and assessed in accordance with NZS6801 and 6802:2008.

13. All vehicles including trucks operating within 200 metres of the site boundary adjoining properties in the Acacia Park, shall limit their speed to 20 km/hr or less.

14. Reversing alarms on all vehicles on Pegram Block shall be the broad band “hissing” type and not the high pitched pip unless the safety case precludes this substitution of devices.

15. All residents within 250 m of the Pegram Block shall be given notice at least 1 month prior to

works commencing and shall be provided with the following minimum details:

a. Start and completion dates of the works;

b. The nature of the works;

c. Contact name for any queries or concerns regarding operations. The contact details shall also include a phone number and email address.

16. That noise monitoring be undertaken by the consent holder at a time within the first 6 weeks of the commencement of the Enabling or the General Works phase, and then at 3 monthly intervals for the duration of the Enabling Works or for an overburden campaign in the General Works phase.

Stockpiles of material 17. All stockpiles of topsoil material shall not exceed 3 metres in height and shall be setback at least

5 metres from any side boundary and shall be set back at least 20 metres from any watercourse.

Pre-start meetings 18. Prior to the commencement of any enabling works or an overburden campaign, the consent

holder shall hold a pre-start meeting to facilitate the implementation of management plans. The meeting(s) shall:

a. Be located on the subject site;

b. Be scheduled not less than five working days before the anticipated commencement of any overburden placement works including any enabling works and stream works activity;

c. includes an invitation to Whangarei District Council officer[s];

d. includes representation from the contractors (if appropriate) who will undertake the works.

The meeting shall discuss measures and methodologies to be implemented to ensure compliance with the conditions of this consent and shall ensure all relevant parties are aware of and familiar with the necessary conditions of this consent. The following information shall be made available by the Consent Holder at the pre-start meeting, as appropriate:

- Timeframes for key stages of any enabling works or an overburden campaign authorised under this consent number(s) [insert council references;]

- Overburden Management Plan;

- Dust Management Plan;

- Riparian Management Plan;

- Landscape Rehabilitation Plan;

Authority under S. 44(a) of Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014

19. Prior to the commencement of the overburden disposal works (including any enabling works and general works) an Authority must be applied for under Section 44(a) of the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014 (‘HNZPTA’) and granted by Heritage NZ. The Authority should cover all proposed works in case additional unidentified subsurface remains are exposed during preparation works for overburden disposal works.

20. In the event of koiwi tangata (human remains) being uncovered, work shall cease immediately in

the vicinity of the remains and the Ruarangi Trust Board and the Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust (trading as Te Parawhau Ki Tai) or their successors, Heritage NZ and the NZ Police should be contacted so that appropriate arrangements can be made.

Accidental discovery protocol 21. If any urupa, traditional sites, taonga (significant artefacts), koiwi (human remains) or other

artefact material is discovered during vegetation clearance, overburden removal, or quarry activities, the consent holder shall adopt the following procedure:

a. work in the immediate vicinity of the sites that has been exposed shall cease;

b. the site supervisor shall immediately secure the site in a way that ensures that any remains or artefacts are untouched;

c. the site supervisor shall notify iwi representatives of the Ruarangi Trust Board and the Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust (trading as Te Parawhau Ki Tai) or their successors, Heritage New Zealand, Northland Regional Council and Whangarei District Council.

The notification in (c) above shall allow the notified persons a reasonable time to record and, if necessary, recover archaeological or cultural features discovered before excavation work may recommence at the exposed site.

Accidental discovery protocol briefing 22. Prior to disturbance of vegetation or soil disturbance in new areas, the consent holder shall

ensure that all site managers, operators, contractors and other relevant personnel receive a briefing and detailed explanation of the consent holder’s obligations under the Accidental Discovery Protocols referred to in condition 30.

Pre-works notification of Ruarangi Trust Board 23. Prior to disturbance of vegetation or soil disturbance in new areas, the consent holder will notify

iwi representatives of Ruarangi Trust Board of the plans to commence disturbance of vegetation or soil disturbance in previously undisturbed areas. Representatives will be invited to attend a

site walkover prior to these works commencing and will be provided with the opportunity to observe the removal of topsoil, prior to the placement of overburden material.

Pre-works notification of Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust 24. a) Prior to the disturbance of vegetation or soil disturbance as part of any enabling works

or in new areas of proposed overburden disposal on the site, the consent holder will notify the Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust (trading as Te Parawhau Ki Tai) or their successors, (‘the Trust’), of the plans to commence disturbance of vegetation or soil disturbance in previously undisturbed areas. b) Prior to the removal of any topsoil required for the placement of overburden material, representatives of the Trust acting as cultural monitors in accordance with mātauranga Maori, shall be provided with the opportunity to attend a walk over of the site , and shall be provided with access to the site in order to observe the removal of all topsoil in order to undertake cultural monitoring.

Engagement and commitments to the Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust 25. At least annually, the consent holder shall extend an invitation to the Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri

Kukupa Trust (trading as Te Parawhau Ki Tai) or their successors, (‘the Trust’) to meet to discuss the works and activities authorised by this consent. The consent holder shall extend an invitation to meet to the Trust, no less than 20 working days prior to the commencement of any intended commencement date of any enabling works or an overburden campaign authorised by this land use consent. When these meetings take place, the consent holder shall take minutes of each meeting and distribute these minutes to the meeting attendees within 10 working days of the meeting. These minutes should be provided to the Whangarei District Council, upon a request from the Council.

26. The consent holder shall invite the Te Pouwhenua o Tiakiriri Kukupa Trust (trading as Te Parawhau Ki Tai) or their successors, (‘the Trust’) , to engage on the development and implementation of a ‘monitoring programme based on mātauranga Maori.

The objective of the mātauranga Maori Monitoring programme is to provide for the monitoring of customary needs and values of the Trust, and shall as a minimum, seek to include:

(i) Identification of key matters that the monitoring programme shall address in terms of mātauranga

Maori;

(ii) Identification of the role of the Trust in the implementation of the monitoring programme;

(iii) The methodology, locations and frequency of the monitoring programme. The methodology may include the development of ‘cultural indictors’ and ‘cultural health indices’ for this monitoring programme;

(iv) Reporting requirements to the Trust.

The consent holder shall provide opportunities for representatives of the Trust to implement the mātauranga Maori Monitoring programme, including through the implementation of the Riparian Management Plan (required by Condition x above), the Landscape Rehabilitation Plan (required by Condition x above) and the Dust Management Plan (required by Condition x) above.

Complaints register

27. The consent holder shall maintain and keep a complaints register for complaints regarding all

aspects of the overburden disposal operations at the site related to the exercise of this consent received by the consent holder. The register shall record;

- The date time and duration of the event / incident that has resulted in a complaint; - The location of the complainant when the event/ incident was detected (if possible

specify the nature of the incident e.g. noise) - The possible cause of the event/incident - The weather conditions and wind direction at the site when the event/ incident

allegedly occurred - Any correction action undertaken by the consent holder in response to the complaint - Any other relevant information.

The register shall be available to Whangarei District Council at all reasonable times.

Appendix 5: Maps

A14078 OTAIKA

RUARANGI AND PEGRAM BLOCKS

Date: 8 December 2017 | Revision: 0

Plan prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited

Project Manager: Catherine.Clarke@boffamiskell.co.nz | Drawn: SGa | Checked: JMawww.boffamiskell.co.nz

File Ref: A14078_78_Ruarangi_pegram_NZAA_Sites.mxd

0 100200 m

1:24,000 @ A3

Projection: NZGD 2000 New Zealand Transverse Mercator

Data Sources: ESRI World Imagery, LINZ Cadastre, New

Zealand Archaeological Association Sites, Boffa Miskell

° Ruarangi Block

Pegram Block

Otaika Quarry

Te Waiiti Stream

This plan has been prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited on the

specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Clients use

in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or

reliance by a third party is at that partys own risk. Where

information has been supplied by the Client or obtained from

other external sources, it has been assumed that it is accurate.

No liability or responsibility is accepted by Boffa Miskell

Limited for any errors or omissions to the extent that they

arise from inaccurate information provided by the Client or

any external source.

Leg

en

d

PEGRAM BLOCKRUARANGI BLOCK

OTAIKA QUARRY

OTAIKA VALLEYSCENIC RESERVE

OTAIKA QUARRY

TE WAIITEFOREST

PEGRAM BLOCK

OTAIKA SPORTSGROUND

SH1

WHANGAREIHARBOUR

ACACIA PARK

RAUMANGAINDUSTRIAL AREA

SMEATONRESIDENTIAL AREA

A14078B OTAIKA QUARRY PROPOSED OVERBURDEN DISPOSAL AREA

Surrounding Features Map

Date: 11 April 2017 | Revision: 0

Plan prepared for GBC Winstone by Boffa Miskell Limited

Project Manager: Catherine.Clarke@boffamiskell.co.nz | Drawn: SGa | Checked: CCLwww.boffamiskell.co.nz

File Ref: A14078B_57_Otaika_Quarry_Surrounding_Features.mxd

0 200 400 m

1:12,000 @ A3

Projection: NZGD 2000 New Zealand Transverse Mercator

Data Sources: ESRI World Imagery, GBC Winstone, Boffa

Miskell

Pegram Block

State HighwayLeg

en

d

This

pla

n h

as b

een

pre

pa

red

by

Bof

fa M

iske

ll L

imit

ed o

n t

he

spec

ific

inst

ruct

ion

s o

f o

ur

Clie

nt.

It is

so

lely

fo

r o

ur

Clie

nts

use

in a

cco

rda

nce

wit

h t

he

agr

eed

sco

pe

of w

ork

. An

y u

se o

r re

lian

ce b

y a

thir

d p

art

y is

at

that

pa

rtys

ow

n r

isk.

Wh

ere

info

rmat

ion

ha

s b

een

su

pp

lied

by

the

Clie

nt

or

ob

tain

ed f

rom

oth

er e

xter

na

l so

urc

es,

it h

as b

een

ass

um

ed t

ha

t it

is a

ccu

rate

. No

liab

ility

or

resp

on

sib

ility

is a

cce

pte

d b

y B

off

a M

iske

llLi

mit

ed f

or

an

y e

rro

rs o

r o

mis

sion

s to

th

e ex

ten

t th

at t

hey

ari

se f

rom

inac

cura

te in

form

ati

on

pro

vid

ed b

y th

e C

lien

t o

r a

ny

exte

rnal

so

urc

e.

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

Pit/TerraceQ07/38

Pit/TerraceQ07/940

Midden/Oven Q07/1415

Midden/OvenQ07/913

Midden/OvenQ07/544

Pit/Terrace

Q07/1024

Agricultural/

pastoral Q07/1245

Burial/ cemetery

Q07/914

Midden/OvenQ07/1240

Midden/OvenQ07/1241

Pit/TerraceQ07/994

Pit/TerraceQ07/941

Pit/Terrace

Q07/936

Pit/TerraceQ07/937

Pit/Terrace

Q07/372

Pit/TerraceQ07/36

Pit/TerraceQ07/418

Pit/TerraceQ07/938

Pit/Terrace

Q07/371

Pit/Terrace

Q07/935

Pit/TerraceQ07/419

Maori horticultureQ07/424

Midden/Oven

Q07/420

Midden/OvenQ07/915

Midden/Oven

Q07/37

Pa Q07/411

Pa Q07/30

Botanicalevidence Q07/916

Botanicalevidence Q07/545

Burial/

cemetery Q07/39

Burial/ cemetery

Q07/344

Reeves Place Dakota Place

Campbell Place

Dallas Place

City

Vi

ewLane

Beau Lane

Bounty PlaceAwatea Street

Nell Place

Poynton Lane

Teal Lane

GroveLa

ne

SpringdaleLa ne

Ikatere Place

Blac

k Watt

le Lane

Ranger Place

Nihotetea Lane

Dye

r Stre

et

Purakau Road

Rewa Rewa Road

Belle Lane

Wattle Lane

Heritage Way

Fairb

urn

Str e

et

Hedl

eyPl

a c

e

Arc us Street

Tauroa Street

Smeaton Drive

Acacia Driv

e

Caitlins Lane

Gum

dig

gerPlace

Raumanga

Heights

Drive

South End Avenue

Tullamore

W

aipuna

Roa

d

O'Shea Road

Pom

pallier EstateD

r ive

Toetoe Road

Otaika

Road

Erskine

Road

SH 1

Maunu

EstateDrive

Quarry Road

Tributary of Te

Waiiti Stream

Te W

aiiti S

tream

A14078 OTAIKA

RUARANGI AND PEGRAM BLOCKS

Date: 8 December 2017 | Revision: 0

Plan prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited

Project Manager: Catherine.Clarke@boffamiskell.co.nz | Drawn: SGa | Checked: JMawww.boffamiskell.co.nz

File Ref: A14078_78_Ruarangi_pegram_NZAA_Sites.mxd

0 100 200 m

1:10,000 @ A3

Projection: NZGD 2000 New Zealand Transverse Mercator

Data Sources: ESRI World Imagery, LINZ Cadastre, New

Zealand Archaeological Association Sites, Boffa Miskell

° Ruarangi Block

Pegram Block

Otaika Quarry

!( Archaeological Sites (NZAA)

This plan has been prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited on the

specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Clients use

in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or

reliance by a third party is at that partys own risk. Where

information has been supplied by the Client or obtained from

other external sources, it has been assumed that it is accurate.

No liability or responsibility is accepted by Boffa Miskell

Limited for any errors or omissions to the extent that they

arise from inaccurate information provided by the Client or

any external source.

Leg

en

d

PEGRAM BLOCK

RUARANGI BLOCK

OTAIKA QUARRY