IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON ... · IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND...

Barristers and Solicitors Wellington Solicitors Acting: David Randal / Thaddeus Ryan / Frances Wedde Email: [email protected] Tel 64-4-499 4242 Fax 64-4-499 4141 PO Box 2694 DX SP20201 Wellington 6140

IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY I MUA I TE KŌTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

ENV-2020-WLG-00014 UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 IN THE MATTER OF a notice of motion under section 87G of the Act

seeking the grant of resource consents to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency for Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū-Tararua Highway

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF JOSHUA MARKHAM ON BEHALF OF WAKA KOTAHI NZ TRANSPORT AGENCY

TERRESTRIAL OFFSET AND COMPENSATION

12 June 2020

BUDDLE FINDLAY .

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................... 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................ 4 WORK SINCE LODGEMENT ................................................................................. 7 COMMENTS ON SUBMISSIONS ......................................................................... 12 COMMENTS ON SECTION 87F REPORT ........................................................... 23 ATTACHMENT JM.1: BIODIVERSITY OFFSET AND COMPENSATION MODEL UPDATES ............................................................................................................. 26

INTRODUCTION

1. My full name is Joshua Andrew Markham.

2. I hold the position of Senior Ecologist at Tonkin & Taylor Limited ("T+T")

Environmental and Engineering Consultants.

3. I prepared Technical Assessment G – Terrestrial Offset and Compensation

("Technical Assessment G") as part of Volume V of the Assessment of

Environmental Effects ("AEE"), which accompanied the application for

resource consents lodged with Manawatū-Whanganui Regional Council

("Horizons") on 11 March 2020 in respect of Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū

Tararua Highway Project (the "Project").

4. My qualifications and experience are set out in paragraph 4 of Technical

Assessment G.

5. In preparing Technical Assessment G and my evidence I have:

(a) Provided advice on terrestrial ecology matters related to the Project to

the Alliance, and ultimately to Waka Kotahi NZ Transport Agency

("Transport Agency"), since January 2020.

(b) Participated in ongoing engagement with iwi Project partners, Horizons

Regional Council (“Horizons”), the Director-General of Conservation /

Department of Conservation (“DOC”), Queen Elizabeth II National Trust

(“QEII Trust”), and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of NZ

(“Forest and Bird”). I discuss below the engagement I have been

involved in since the consent applications were lodged.

(c) Undertaken site visits to the wetland and forest habitats within the

Project footprint and with the proposed offset and compensation sites,

including the proposed bush retirement, native revegetation sites and

the Northern Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve (“NMGSR”).

(d) I have assisted with the response to a series of further Section 92

information requests from Horizons related to Technical Assessment G.

Code of conduct

6. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses

contained in the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. This evidence has

been prepared in compliance with that Code. In particular, unless I state

otherwise, this assessment is within my area of expertise and I have not

omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract

from the opinions I express.

Purpose and scope of the evidence

7. Technical Assessment G explains the offset and compensation measures

that I consider appropriate for addressing the residual adverse effects

relating to terrestrial and wetland ecology (referred to generally in this

evidence as ‘terrestrial ecology’) resulting from the Project.

8. My evidence does not repeat in detail the technical matters set out in

Technical Assessment G. Rather, in this evidence I:

(a) present the key findings of Technical Assessment G, updated to take

into account information received more recently, and further

investigations, in an executive summary;

(b) comment on issues raised in submissions received in respect of the

Project; and

(c) comment on the section 87F report prepared by Horizons, and in

particular the report prepared by James Lambie in respect of terrestrial

ecology, which is Appendix 4 to the overall section 87F report

(“Terrestrial Ecology 87F Report”).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

9. As noted above, in this section of my evidence I summarise the key matters

addressed in my Technical Assessment G.

10. The Project comprises the construction, operation, use, maintenance and

improvement of approximately 11.5 km of state highway connecting Ashhurst

and Woodville, via a route over the Ruahine Range.

11. Construction and operational activities will result in residual adverse effects

on terrestrial biodiversity values that cannot be practicably avoided, remedied

or mitigated (at the point of impact). These residual effects include the loss

of 11.82 ha of native terrestrial habitats and the loss of 4.97 ha of wetland

habitats as well as associated actual or potential effects on a number of

nationally 'Threatened' or 'At Risk' flora and fauna.

12. These residual effects that cannot be practicably avoided will be addressed

through a range of offsetting and compensation measures, including:

(a) revegetation (with weed and mammalian pest control, stock exclusion

fencing and forest resource reuse (re use of forest material ) of:

(i) 45.6 ha of native terrestrial revegetation; and

(ii) 6.55 ha of native wetland revegetation;

(b) stock exclusion (with weed and mammalian pest control) within:

(i) 48.3 ha of existing bush retirement; and

(ii) 0.4 ha of existing wetland habitat; and

(c) Mammalian pest control within approximately 300 ha of old growth

forest (hill country) in and around the NMGSR (and within the 45.6 ha

of native terrestrial revegetation and 48.3 ha of stock exclusion sites).

Mammalian pest control is now proposed to include:

(i) Annual rat, mustelids and possum control for 10 years; and

(ii) Annual deer control for 35 years.

13. These measures are as proposed at the time of lodgment, except that the

pest control proposal has been updated to include additional target species,

is now proposed to be carried out annually (as opposed to every two years),

for ten years, and the 35 year annual deer control element has been added

following field investigations at the NMGSR.

14. The type and quantum of habitat restoration and enhancement actions

considered necessary to adequately address residual effects and achieve an

overall Net Gain outcome for the 12 affected habitat types was determined

with the assistance of:

(a) Biodiversity Offset Accounting Models ("BOAM") to offset or

compensate for habitat loss where quantifiable data was available; and

(b) Forest Biodiversity Compensation Models ("BCM") in instances where

quantitative data is not available and qualitative information (supported

by literature) was included in the data inputs.

15. Taken together, these models provide a transparent and systematic method

for assessing both the residual adverse effects on biodiversity values at

impact sites, and the equivalent biodiversity benefits associated with

offsetting or compensatory actions at the proposed offset or compensation

sites.

16. Based on the type and quantum of revegetation (and associated habitat

enhancement measures) proposed, the BOAM indicates that:

(a) Key attributes within seven habitat types can be offset to a 'verifiable'

Net Gain standard within 35 years; and

(b) Key attributes within five habitat types could be compensated to an

'expected' Net Gain standard within 35 years, with the notable

exception of tawa, which is expected to take 100 years to achieve a Net

Gain in basal area).

17. For the five habitats where the 'verifiable' Net Gain standard is not achieved

through the revegetation (and enhancement measures within the revegetated

areas), that is a consequence of the following factors:

(a) biodiversity values in these habitat types take too long to reinstate and

demonstrably offset (i.e., the three mature forest habitat types); or

(b) some values cannot be replaced (i.e., while wetland habitat types can

be compensated for by improving wetland habitat quality within

compensation wetlands, this does not constitute an offset because all

three wetland habitats affected by the Project would incur a Net Loss in

wetland area per se).

18. The BOAM indicates that the revegetation and associated habitat

enhancement measures would achieve a 'verifiable' or 'expected' Net Gain

within 35 years (with the exception of tawa). Nevertheless, taking a

conservative approach I consider that further compensation measures are

necessary to address short- to medium-term 'Net Loss' and the risk of 'false

positives', which relate to:

(a) the fact that not all biodiversity values are measured (and those that

are not measured may incur a 'Net Loss' outcome, which may result in

a 'Net Loss' outcome overall); and

(b) inaccurate data inputs or assumptions that may understate the effects

at the impact site(s) or overstate the benefits at the offset or

compensation site(s).

19. To this end, additional compensation is proposed in the form of stock

exclusion fencing (and associated habitat enhancement measures) and

mammalian pest control as described in paragraph 16 of Technical

Assessment G (and updated as summarised below).

20. In the absence of quantitative field data, a forest BCM for ecological value

was developed based on qualitative information. The BCM indicates that Net

Gain outcomes are expected after 10 years when the full suite of proposed

restoration and enhancement measures is included, i.e. revegetation, stock

exclusion fencing and mammalian pest control.

21. Importantly, for a number of biodiversity values, the expected Net Gain

outcome from the BCM can be verified as an offset once the offset

monitoring programme has been developed and implemented. This

programme will include monitoring of vegetation and avifauna at the offset or

compensation site(s) once the availability of these sites is confirmed.

22. In summary, I consider that residual effects have been addressed through

offsetting and compensation actions and in accordance with the key

biodiversity offsetting principles, which include No Net Loss and preferably

Net Gain outcomes; increased landscape ecological connectivity;

additionality; permanent protection of restored areas; and ecological

equivalence.

WORK SINCE LODGEMENT

23. Since the application was lodged, I have been involved in further work related

to terrestrial ecology as set out below.

Updated natural character assessment

24. Within the team assessing natural character, I provided terrestrial ecology

input, addressing Terrestrial Ecology attributes. The removal of stream

diversions and planting within the Te Āpiti Wind Farm (described in Ms

Quinn’s and Dr Baber’s evidence) results in changes to the post-

construction state of catchments 4 and 5, and the specific Crossing points

4D and 5B as identified below.

Table 1: Changes to the terrestrial ecology attribute to inform the natural character assessment.

Terr

est

rial

Eco

logy

(TE

)

Att

rib

ute

*

Pre

-de

velo

pm

en

t

Po

st-d

eve

lop

me

nt

(at

lod

gem

en

t)

Po

st-d

eve

lop

me

nt

(cu

rre

nt

sce

nar

io)

Comment justifying change in post-development ‘at lodgement’ and ‘current scenario’.

Catchment 4

Catchment 4

M ML ML Much of catchment remains the same, no change at catchment scale

Crossing Point 4D

M L VL Complete loss of riparian margin - no riparian planting proposed.

Catchment 5

Catchment 5

H MH M Loss of existing vegetation which is not being replaced by any riparian within Spoil Site 25 (~811 m). Some stream diversion riparian planting being retained.

Crossing Point 5B

M L VL Complete loss of riparian margin - no riparian planting proposed.

(*where natural character attributes are assessed as being very high (VH), high (H),

moderate-high (MH), moderate (M), moderate-low (ML), low (L) or very low (VL).

25. I have completed an updated assessment of the Terrestrial Ecology

attributes for the above changes, using the same approach as previously

described in Technical Assessment I. Commentary on these changes and

the overall natural character is provided within Mr Evans’ evidence.

Response to section 92 request for further information

26. I assisted with the response to the further information request from

Horizons, in particular the questions relating to Technical Assessment G

(Item 18). These questions related to certainty that offset or compensation

sites would be secured, and certainty that the offset and compensation

actions will be delivered.

Further survey work and refinement of the BOAM and BCM

27. The results of additional bat surveys, and some initial results from additional

invertebrate surveys (in particular in respect of the presence of the moth

species meterana grandiosa) have become available since lodgement, as

discussed in Dr Baber’s evidence. As explained by Dr Baber, m. grandiosa

host plants will specifically be planted as part of the proposed restoration

planting for the Project; the number of host plants to be planted will exceed

the number of plants lost to ensure there is a net habitat gain for the species

(a BOAM will be applied in this respect once the necessary field work is

complete).

28. The Project team and I undertook site visits from 11 May to 22 May 2020 to

obtain further information on the ecological characteristics, values and

condition of the impact sites, proposed retirement sites and the NMGSR, to

inform the offset and compensation models (the BOAM and BCM

respectively).

29. The BOAM and BCM have subsequently been updated following these

additional field surveys. The addendum report included as Attachment JM.1

of my evidence provides the refined BOAM and BCM to reflect and address:

(a) The current ecological characteristics and ecological condition of the

proposed bush retirement and NMGSR areas;

(b) The update of the old growth forest (alluvial) BCM to include actual

vegetation plot data;

(c) Inclusion of ‘Diameter at Breast Height’ measurements within the old

growth forest (hill country) into a BCM;

(d) The adequacy of the 10-year mammalian pest control programme, also

accounting for the now-proposed 35-year deer control programme, and

the expected Net Gain in biodiversity values in the longer term (at 35

years); and

(e) Matters raised in the DOC submission and Terrestrial Ecology 87F

Report (see below) regarding the offset and compensation models.

Engagement with stakeholders

30. I have also been involved in ongoing post-lodgment engagement with iwi

Project partners, Horizons, DOC and QEII Trust including:

(a) Regular ecology meetings with iwi Project partners;

(b) Meeting with representatives of DOC on 20 March and 14 May 2020 to

discuss submission points; and

(c) Meeting with representatives of QEII Trust on 15 May 2020 to discuss

submission points.

Updated Ecological Management Plan (EMP)

31. I have been involved in updating the version of the EMP that was lodged with

the consent application, to reflect further information obtained through field

investigations, responds to Horizons’ and submitters' comments, and

generally to further develop key sections of the EMP. Most notably I have

been involved in updates to the Residual Effects Management and

Monitoring Plan (“REMMP”) and in the preparation of the Pest Management

Plan (“PMP”) in the EMP, which I discuss below. Updates to all other

terrestrial ecology plans within the EMP are discussed in the evidence of Dr

Baber.1

Biodiversity Outcome Monitoring Programme

32. A draft Biodiversity Outcome Monitoring Programme (“BOMP”) has been

provided as part of the REMMP to verifiably demonstrate Net Gain outcomes

for a suite of biodiversity values impacted by the Project. By the way of a

summary, the BOMP provides:

(a) A methodology for selecting 80 randomised spatially stratified

monitoring plots within the NMGSR pest management area, bush

retirement, native revegetation and wetland areas;

(b) Standardised monitoring design and methodology for forest and

wetland biodiversity attributes, forest bird and reptile monitoring;

(c) Monitoring baseline and frequency of biodiversity attributes, forest bird

and reptile attributes at years 0, 1, 3, 5 and 10, terminating at the end

of the proposed mammalian pest control programme2; and

(d) Reporting at the end of each monitoring event which may include

adaptive management recommendations (if necessary) to ensure the

Net Gain outcomes are achieved. If a clear trajectory towards the

outcome state does not confirm a Net Gain at year 10 then further

adaptive management and monitoring recommendations will be

required in order to reach the desired Net Gain outcome.

Pest Management Plan

33. In drafting the PMP I have worked closely with my colleague Roger

MacGibbon, who has particular expertise in delivery of pest control and is the

primary author of the Pest Management Plan.

34. The PMP provides a detailed outline of the mammalian pest management

activities proposed as part of the offset and compensation package (including

pest control out in the approximately 300 ha area in and adjacent to the

1 Updates to freshwater elements of the EMP are discussed by Ms Quinn. 2 Noting that deer control will continue for a 35-year period.

NMGSR, and the revegetation and bush and wetland retirement areas). By

way of brief summary, the PMP provides:

(a) Identification of target species including rats, mustelids, possums, mice,

rabbit and hare (in revegetation areas only) and deer. The target

species list has been updated since Technical Assessment G was

prepared to include mustelids, mice and deer, due to the following:

(i) mustelid control is proposed as populations usually increase after

rat control is undertaken, and then they become the main

predator on bird, lizard and invertebrate populations;

(ii) mouse control is proposed at the lizard release site3 including a

100 m buffer zone if any lizards are released; and

(iii) deer control is proposed due to recent signs of deer impacts

being found in the NMGSR during a recent site visit.

(b) Details of the pest control programme include:

(i) ten years of rat, possum and mustelid control in the 300 ha

(approximately) area in and adjacent to the NMGSR.

(ii) 35 years of deer control in the 300 ha (approximately) area in and

adjacent to the NMGSR including the 48.3 ha bush retirement

area. that same area.

(iii) ten years of rat, possum and mustelid control in the 48.3 ha bush

retirement and 0.4 ha of existing wetland areas (and 35 years of

deer control in bush retirement areas).

(iv) ten years of rat, possum and mustelid control in the 45.6 ha

revegetation area and 6.6 ha wetland area plus 10 m buffer (and

35 years of deer control in revegetation areas).

(v) ten years of mouse control at the lizard release site including a

100 m buffer if any lizard relocation occurs.

(c) Performance standards4 including:

(i) rats – 5% or lower RTI (Residual Trapping Tunnel Index).

(ii) mustelids – low detection.

3 The lizard release site and specifications are described in section the Lizard Management Plan (section 6.5.2 of the EMP). 4 I note that no performance standards have been provided in the PMP for rabbits and hares in the revegetation areas as this is accounted for within plant establishment standards.

(iii) possums – 5% of lower RTC (Residual Trap Catch Index) or 5%

or lower CCI (Chew Card Index).

(iv) deer – low densities / no fresh sign.

(v) mice – 10% RTI (lizard release site only).

(d) Adaptive management and outcome monitoring as outlined within the

BOMP.

(e) A more detailed Pest Management Operational Plan, which is to be

produced by the lead pest control contractor prior to pest control being

undertaken, in consultation with Project iwi partners.

Update in respect of potential target sites for offset and compensation

35. The potential target sites for offset and compensation presented in Technical

Assessment G5 remain the same. Additional potential wetland compensation

sites have been identified at Beagley Farm and Tuapaka Farm with locations

presented in Attachment JQ.2 in the evidence of Ms Quinn.6

36. Currently more potential target sites have been identified than are needed,

and a refinement process is currently underway based on discussions with

landowners. The evidence of Mr Lonnie Dalzell provides an update in

respect of progress towards securing these sites for offset and compensation

actions.

COMMENTS ON SUBMISSIONS

37. I comment below on submissions related to Technical Assessment G, and in

particular the proposed offset and compensation actions for addressing

residual effects on terrestrial ecology and wetland ecology, as made by:

(a) the Director-General of Conservation;

(b) Forest and Bird; and

(c) QEII Trust.

38. Submitters' concerns regarding the assessment of terrestrial ecological

values, assessment of effects on those values and measures to further avoid,

remedy or mitigate effects are addressed in the evidence of Dr Baber. This

includes the appropriateness of offsetting effects based on the vulnerability,

irreplaceability or rarity of the biodiversity value being impacted.7 This matter

is addressed in the evidence of Dr Baber because it primarily concerns the

5 Technical Assessment G, Paragraph 105 and Table 5. 6 The wetland sites are shown in addition to the streams (for riparian planting) that Ms Quinn focusses on. 7 Terrestrial Ecology 87F Reportparagraph 50; Forest and Bird submission paragraph 36.

value of the relevant habitats, and the level of residual effects after measures

to avoid, remedy or mitigate for effects have been exhausted.

39. Additionally, responses relating to planning matters and the drafting of

terrestrial ecology conditions are addressed primarily in the evidence of Mr

Damien McGahan and Ms Ainsley McLeod. Mr Dalzell provides an update

on discussions to secure offset and compensation sites. Dr Baber and I have

had input in respect of those matters as appropriate. Freshwater ecology

matters are addressed in the evidence of Ms Quinn.

40. In light of the above, I understand that the concerns raised in the

submissions that relate to Technical Assessment G and which are not

addressed in the evidence of other experts relate to:

(a) the appropriateness of the BOAM and BCM and some of the model

inputs, information gaps and assumptions;

(b) the adequacy and appropriateness of the 10-year mammalian pest

control programme for addressing residual ecological effects; and

(c) the adequacy of biodiversity monitoring to verifiably demonstrate that

effects on biodiversity values have been offset.

41. I respond to these concerns in detail in the sections below, but in general

terms:

(a) I consider the use and application of the BOAM and BCM to constitute

best practice. These models have been further refined to reflect

relevant comments and recommendations made in the Terrestrial

Ecology 87F Report, and by submitters (including during engagement

meetings, which have been helpful and constructive).

(b) I consider the proposed pest control programme to be adequate on the

basis that:

(i) My assessment has not relied on the pest control programme to

ensure residual adverse effects are adequately addressed in the

long-term. Rather, pest control is being used to kick-start and

supplement the long-term gains associated with the native

revegetation and bush retirement measures.

(ii) To provide greater assurance that Net Gain outcomes will be

achieved in the long-term, in addition to running the ‘forest BCM8’

8 The forest BCM uses indigenous forest biodiversity with a biodiversity condition/health score to model the improvement of forest biodiversity as a result of the proposed pest control, bush retirement and revegetation areas.

at 10 years, I have also run the forest BCM at 35 years. This

BCM indicates that the bush retirement and native revegetation

will generate Net Gain outcomes, after accounting for the fact that

benefits associated with possum, mustelid and rat control will

diminish in the long-term. Notably, the model indicates that Net

Gain outcomes will be achieved at 35 years, assuming no

possum, mustelid and rat control is undertaken at all between

year 10 and year 35. Again, this reflects the fact that the pest

control programme is a ‘kick start’ for the gains that will be

achieved from the overall package of measures to address

residual effects, rather than being relied on to provide all gains for

the relevant habitat types for an extended period. Attachment

JM.1 details this model refinement including the updated BOAM

and forest BCM model inputs and outputs.

(iii) A 35-year deer control programme is now proposed in response

to field assessments within the NMGSR and bush retirement area

confirming that deer are present and having a notable impact

(refer to discussion in respect of the DOC submission below).

The deer control programme is in addition to the 10-year possum

and rat control programme originally proposed (which itself has

been supplemented, in particular by mustelid control).

Importantly, the impacts of deer on the NMGSR mean that the

benefits that will be delivered through the proposed pest control

programme, including through deer control, are considerably

higher than previously assumed.

(c) I agree that biodiversity monitoring is appropriate. However, I consider

that monitoring at years 0, 1, 3, 5 and 10 is appropriate to determine if

a clear trajectory towards the outcome state is achievable; therefore

such a monitoring programme is now proposed. This programme will

enable offsets to be demonstrably verified for a number of vegetation

and avifauna values that can feasibly be monitored. If a clear trajectory

towards the outcome state does not confirm a Net Gain at year 10 then

further adaptive management and monitoring recommendations will be

required in order to reach the desired Net Gain outcome.9 A summary

of the monitoring programme is provided below in response to the

Terrestrial Ecology 87F Report and details are provided in the

9 I understand this to be consistent with Mr Lambie’s recommendation in respect of Condition EC12, at page 109(s) of the Terrestrial Ecology 87F Report (this is provided for in new proposed Condition EC19).

monitoring section of the REMMP in the EMP with monitoring

standards detailed in proposed Consent Condition EC19.

Department of Conservation (Submission 19)

42. As noted above, I have been part of an ongoing engagement process

between the Transport Agency / Alliance and DOC, and have had various

discussions with Wildland Consultants ("Wildlands"; DOC's consultant

ecologists in respect of the Project). The constructive advice received from

Wildlands (on behalf of DOC) has been particularly helpful in refining my

overall assessment.

43. Importantly and broadly speaking, my understanding is that there is

agreement in principle on the overall approach to offsetting/compensation,

though there are some outstanding matters that need to be addressed or

clarified. These outstanding matters centre on:

(a) Disagreement with assumptions in the models, particularly where data

inputs on projected gains are considered inaccurate or where field data

had not yet been collected.10

(b) Concern surrounding the appropriateness of the proposed approach to

pest control and the likelihood of achieving Net Gain outcomes in the

long-term if pest control is undertaken for only 10 years11.

44. I address these matters in turn below.

Assumptions in the BOAM and BCM

45. In respect of DOC's recommendations regarding assumptions, data inputs or

deficiencies in the model, in most instances following discussions and careful

consideration I agree with recommendations and the models have now been

updated with real field data. Detail on these corrections and updates to the

models is provided in Attachment JM.1.

46. That said, I understand there are some relatively minor outstanding matters

of disagreement, which include:

(a) DOC considers that I have overstated benefits associated with native

revegetation. This is because the reference plantings12 on which I

based expectations were 20-25 old plantings subject to ongoing pest

10 DOC submission paragraphs 6, 16; Wildlands memorandum pages 3-4. 11 DOC submission paragraph 7, 12-14; Wildlands memorandum page 3. 12 Technical Report G – Appendix G1. Provides benchmark data for each biodiversity component and attribute used in the BOAM models.

control, whereas pest control in the native revegetation sites will be

discontinued after 10 years.13 However, the reference site included an

urban forest in which the potential for seed colonisation from the

surrounding landscape would be considerably lower than for the

proposed offset/compensation sites for this Project. As such, I do not

consider the reference plantings and sites I have considered are likely

to result in an overstatement of benefits.

(b) I do not agree with the comment that, after 15 years, there will be fewer

species within the proposed revegetation sites than are planted due to

species die-off. In fact, I consider my assumption that the same

number of species originally planted will be retained is a conservative

expectation. It is highly likely that more species will be present

because:

(i) infill and enrichment planting will be undertaken to offset mortality

and species die-offs14; and

(ii) additional plants will colonise from the surrounding landscape

through seed dispersal (e.g. from birds or wind).

Approach to pest control

47. DOC’s submission raises a concern about the duration of the proposed pest

control programme15. I agree that 10 years of pest control does not constitute

a ‘long-term pest control’ programme. I consider pest control in perpetuity to

be the only appropriate means of addressing permanent loss if pest control is

the only offsetting or compensation measure proposed.

48. However, the purpose of the proposed 10-year possum, rat and mustelid

control programme is to kick-start a Net Gain for some biodiversity values

almost instantly by conferring immediate benefits to a range of biodiversity

values on a large scale. In this regard, it is complementary and additional to

the 45.6 ha of native revegetation and 48.3 ha of bush retirement that in

combination are expected to achieve a Net Gain from 10 years, when the

benefits of pest control start to diminish.

49. I consider bush retirement to be particularly important because it will provide

relatively quick compensation for old growth forest values that cannot be

achieved through revegetation, i.e., the reinstatement of a shade-tolerant

understory, mid-story and subcanopy that would not be possible for many

13 Wildlands memorandum page 3 paragraph 4. 14 Planting Establishment Management Plan (PEMP), at section 4 of EMP. 15 DOC submission paragraphs 7, 12-14; Wildlands memorandum page 3, paragraphs 3-4

decades under a native revegetation scenario. Furthermore, and of key

importance in my view, the old growth forest (alluvial) habitat that will be

retired is in a state of decline and will eventually collapse as successional

processes have all but ceased. Therefore, the bush retirement proposed will

not only enhance the biodiversity value of old-growth forest and kick-start

successional processes and regeneration, but is also expected to avoid the

eventual loss of this forest through canopy collapse.

50. Since lodgement, site visits to the NMGSR indicated that deer were

impacting on forest regeneration through browsing of palatable plant species.

Browsing pressure from deer was highest on ridges, which in some places

were reduced to open treelands with a complete absence of palatable plants.

Mid-slopes included regeneration of unpalatable species with more palatable

species heavily browsed or absent. Regeneration of palatable plant species

was generally confined to gully areas where access for deer was difficult.

Overall, this means that the ecology within the NMGSR is in a more

degraded condition than I had previously assumed.

51. The presence of deer has required adjustment of the recommended

mammalian pest control programme to ensure that benefits from the 10-year

possum, rat and mustelid control programme are realised. Specifically, 35

years of deer control is now proposed to be added to this pest control

programme, the details of which are set out in the PMP. As with the possum,

rat and mustelid control programme, the deer control programme would

encompass an area of almost 400 ha including the NMGSR and surrounds

(300 ha), the bush retirement sites (48.3 ha) and the native revegetation sites

(45.6 ha).

52. This addition of deer control will confer considerable biodiversity benefits,

enabling a large proportion of highly palatable plant species to regenerate.

This regeneration would not occur without deer control as many benefits to

vegetation associated with possum, rat and mustelid control would be lost

through deer browsing.

53. The 35-year duration of the deer control programme is proposed to reflect the

fact that a number of palatable, slow-growing species such as tawa take a

long time to mature sufficiently to survive in the presence of deer; a 35-year

control programme allows for that process to occur.

54. To take account of the field surveys I have carried out since lodgement, the

addition of deer control to the pest control programme, and to address

concerns about the adequacy of the proposed forest offset and

compensation package beyond 10 years, I have re-run the BCM.

Specifically, the BCM has been re-run at 35 years to assess the likelihood

that a Net Gain will be achieved in the long-term based on predicted

biodiversity gains after 35 years of bush retirement, native revegetation and

deer control. For these models I have assumed that the benefits of the 10-

year possum, rat and mustelid control programme have declined to zero but

that the 35 years of deer control has resulted in a conservative 1% increase

in overall biodiversity.

55. As detailed in Attachment JM.1, the models indicate that significant Net

Gains will be achieved.

56. I note that Net Gain position would hold even if the benefits associated with

deer control were not included.

57. Additionally, it is now proposed to confirm through monitoring that these

predicted Net Gains are verifiably achieved (i.e. offset) for a number of

biodiversity values that can be feasibly quantified. This monitoring includes

vegetation characteristics and the relative abundance of indicator bird

species such as whitehead, kereru, bellbird, tui and north island robin.

Biodiversity outcome monitoring standards and specifications are provided in

the proposed consent conditions EC12 and EC19 (presented by Ms

McLeod) and the details of the programme are provided in the REMMP.

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc (Submission 15)

58. The Forest and Bird submission expresses general concerns or

disagreement regarding the offsetting or compensation approach.16 As I

understand from the submission the key concerns17 are:

(a) The offsets and compensation proposed to address residual effects do

not follow best practice and if effects cannot be avoided, remedied or

mitigated then they must be offset rather than compensated for.

(b) The pest control programme will not achieve the intended outcomes

because:

(i) the ten-year duration is too short and gains will diminish once the

pest control programme is discontinued, and the scope of pest

control is unclear.

16 See pages 3 -5; 7-9 and 10 – 12 17 Concerns regarding limits to offsetting as it relates to the assessment of environmental effects is addressed in the evidence of Dr Baber.

(ii) Site-specific challenges make it difficult to achieve intended

outcomes (e.g. steepness of terrain and re-invasion rates).

(c) Lack of certainty that offset and compensation measures will achieve

intended outcomes.

59. I disagree with Forest and Bird’s assertion that the approach to offsetting and

compensation does not follow best practice. In my view, the proposal

adheres to best practice for offsetting through the use of the BOAM (with the

BCM supplementing the BOAM) and alignment with key biodiversity

offsetting principles, including:

(a) Adherence to the effects management hierarchy; i.e. avoidance

followed by remediation, then mitigation, then offsetting and finally

compensation as a last resort. It is important to reiterate that I have

used the term ‘offset’ conservatively and only where I am confident that

an offset can technically be achieved for a given attribute. The term

'compensation' has been used otherwise, including in circumstances

where it is proposed to collect quantitative information on the impacts

and benefits on a particular biodiversity value. Correspondingly, this

form of compensation is virtually an offset and in my view constitutes

best practice compensation. It is my understanding that this is also the

view of Mr Lambie, as stated in the Terrestrial Ecology 87F Report.18

(b) Efforts to demonstrably offset residual effects to a Net Gain

standard where possible, noting that for many biodiversity values it is

not technically feasible, in advance of the monitoring now proposed to

verify gains, to demonstrably offset effects using quantitative data as

discussed in Technical Assessment G.

(c) Additionality, in that the proposed offset or compensation measures

would not have happened anyway.

(d) Landscape context, in that the proposed offset or compensation

measures are as close as practicable to the point of impact and aim to

create and enhance ecological connectivity and ecological sequencing

across the landscape.

(e) Long-term outcomes, in which the offset and compensation measures

will provide benefits in the long-term, with planting and retirement areas

in particular to be protected in perpetuity (including through title

instruments for land that will remain in private ownership). The

18 At paragraph 48,

Terrestrial Ecology 87F Report correctly records that vegetation

clearance cannot commence until offset and compensation sites are

secured.19

(f) Ecological equivalence, in which the focus of offset and

compensation measures is the provision of benefits to the same

biodiversity values that are affected by Project activities. The Project is

also expected to result in compensatory ‘trade-ups’ in which threatened

or 'At Risk' species not affected by the Project benefit from the

proposed restoration or habitat enhancement measures, e.g. flora or

fauna that may not be impacted by the Project but that may be present

and benefit from pest control in the NMGSR.

60. Further, I have used the BOAM, which is becoming standard practice for

offsetting, and I have used a best practice approach for addressing residual

effects through compensation for those residual effects that cannot at this

stage be demonstrably verified, e.g., for old growth forests or lizards.

61. Specifically, the use of the BCM for determining appropriate compensation

provides far greater transparency and rigour than the application of arbitrarily

applied 'multipliers' or 'ratios' typically used to determine compensation

requirements for such projects. Importantly, the BCM aligns directly with the

BOAM and also with the EcIAG (EIANZ 2018), both of which I consider to be

best practice approaches for offsetting and for ecological assessments.

62. In this regard, a BCM is differentiated from a BOAM only by the reliance on

qualitative information (e.g. expert opinion and/or literature) instead of

quantitative field data. Again, in many cases qualitative information can be

replaced with quantitative data once this has been collected as part of the

ongoing biodiversity monitoring programmes set out in the REMMP, i.e. an

expected gain through compensation can later be verified as an offset.

63. I disagree with the suggestion from Forest and Bird that an 'over

compensation' approach has been used to justify a lack of certainty and

detail. In particular:

(a) I consider there to be adequate certainty and detail in respect of values

and effects, as has been described in the evidence of Dr Baber. Where

there is uncertainty, a conservative approach to potential effects has

been adopted. I consider the approach to be entirely appropriate for

19 Terrestrial Ecology 87F Report at 99.

dealing with uncertainty, where the uncertainty is highly unlikely to lead

to significant adverse effects that are unable to be addressed.

(b) I can think of no instance in which I have used compensation when

offsetting was technically feasible (again noting that I have applied a

technical distinction between offsets and compensation). For example,

it is not possible verifiably to offset adverse effects on lizards or

invertebrates because:

(i) ‘encounter rates’ can be too low to draw inferences (i.e. there is

inadequate data); and/ or

(ii) the link between encounter rates and actual abundance is

unknown and is likely to vary significantly based on habitat type

and complexity; and/ or

(iii) the link between encounter rates and offsetting measures (cause

and effect) is unclear.

(c) There will be ongoing efforts to provide further information through

surveys and monitoring efforts at the impact and offset/compensation

sites, including the development and implementation of a long-term

biodiversity outcome monitoring programme20 that will be mandated

through proposed consent conditions and associated management

plans. This programme will enable many of the proposed

compensation measures to be verifiably offset.

(d) Forest and Bird’s submission point fails to acknowledge the

significance and importance of benefits to ecosystem function that are

not typically captured or addressed in ecological assessments or

biodiversity offset or compensation models, but that are nonetheless

critical to the ecological integrity of the landscape and beyond. This

includes but is not limited to carbon sequestration, pollination and seed

dispersal, water quality, air quality, ecological connectivity and

sequencing, and microclimate regulation.

64. I have addressed the submission points relating to the adequacy and scope

of the pest control programme in my response to DOC's submission points.21

20 Refer to EMP Residual Effects Management and Monitoring Plan section 12.7 and consent condition EC19 21 Refer also to Attachment JM.1, and the EMP including in particular the new draft Pest Management Plan.

Queen Elizabeth the Second National Trust (Submission 16)

65. The QEII Trust submission raises the following key concerns in respect of the

proposed measures to address residual effects:22

(a) Proposed restoration plantings are inadequate for addressing adverse

effects.23

(b) Long-term gains for birds and other biodiversity values will not be

achieved through the proposed pest control programme due to the

duration of the programme.24

(c) The quantum of effort and pest control targets fall short of best

practice.25

(d) Lack of certainty that offset and compensation measures will achieve

intended outcomes.26

66. The proposed restoration plantings will not, and are not intended to,

completely address adverse effects in and of themselves. The restoration

plantings are part of a suite of offsetting and compensation measures, which

also include bush retirement and pest control as described in detail above.

For the reasons explained above, and set out in Attachment JM.1 and in

Technical Assessment G, I consider that this suite of measures will address

adverse residual effects to a Net Gain standard (and this will be tested where

appropriate through the proposed monitoring programme).

67. As explained in my response to DOC’s submission, the pest control

programme is not designed to achieve long-term gains for birds and other

biodiversity values in its own right. The benefits of pest control will diminish

over time (noting that the benefits of the now-proposed control of deer will

significantly extend the period of time over which pest control will deliver

benefits). Permanent habitat restoration measures, i.e. native revegetation

and bush retirement, are primarily relied on to address residual effects. The

proposed pest control is intended to kick-start successional processes and

deliver a Net Gain for some biodiversity values almost instantly by conferring

immediate benefits to a range of biodiversity values on a large scale.

22 Noting again that ‘limits to offsetting’ is an issue addressed in the evidence of Dr Baber; Dr Baber addresses the QEII Trust submission points relating to the assessment of values and effects; and planning and condition matters are addressed by Mr McGahan and Ms McLeod. 23 QEII Trust submission paragraph 5d 24 QEII Trust submission paragraph 5 25 QEII Trust submission paragraphs 5 -6 26 QEII Trust submission paragraph 5k

68. As addressed in response to the DOC submission, adjustments have been

made to the pest control programme (including in particular moving to annual

control efforts) which I consider further strengthen the programme. The PMP

has now been drafted, providing more detail in respect of the pest control

activities.

69. Uncertainty around biodiversity outcomes is addressed through:

(a) The quantum of the proposed offset and compensation measures

relative to effects.

(b) The use of multiple restoration and habitat enhancement measures that

will collectively address or benefit a large suite of affected biodiversity

values (native revegetation, enrichment planting, bush retirement, weed

control, mammalian pest control and re-use of forest material such as

deployment of logs).

(c) The development and implementation of ongoing field monitoring

programmes that aim to quantify effects at impact sites and benefits at

offset/compensation sites for biodiversity values that can feasibly be

quantified, e.g. vegetation characteristics and the relative abundances

of indicator bird species. This approach will enable a representative

verification of whether the expected gains or benefits associated with

the proposed offset and compensation measures are being realised

and are verifiably achieved.

(d) Further and ongoing work to secure offset/compensation sites (in

perpetuity, in respect of planting and retirement sites) is as set out in

the evidence of Mr Dalzell. In brief, the sites have all been identified

and consultation with relevant landowners is being progressed. In

respect to planting areas, there is more area likely available than is

currently needed based on the BOAM and BCM outputs. This provides

a high degree confidence that the proposed offset and compensation

will be able to be realised. The proposed conditions require

authorisations and agreements necessary to secure the necessary to

deliver and secure offset and compensations to be in place before

clearance of vegetation associated with the Project commences.

COMMENTS ON SECTION 87F REPORT

70. It is my understanding that Mr Lambie generally supports the use and

application of biodiversity offset and compensation models to support the

proposed measures for addressing residual effects. That said, the Terrestrial

Ecology 87F Report expresses the following concerns relating directly to

offsetting and compensation measures set out in Technical Assessment G:27

(a) The proposed 10-year pest control programme will not address effects

in the long term, and is not adequate for achieving intended pest

reduction targets for possums and rats.

(b) A need for greater certainty and specifically for a monitoring

programme to provide greater assurance that expected Net Gain

outcomes will be verifiably achieved (i.e. offset) and to enable adaptive

management as required.

71. I have addressed the adequacy of the pest control programme in my

response to the DOC submission. I consider that the refined pest control

programme is appropriate and, in concert with proposed measures including

bush retirement and native revegetation, will ensure that residual adverse

effects associated with the Project are addressed to a Net Gain standard.

72. I agree that the proposed pest control programme should have a credible

element of measured biodiversity outcome28 and that the pre-existing

biodiversity value of recipient offset/compensation sites should be

measured.29 To this end, the monitoring of key vegetation and native bird

attributes set out in the BCM is proposed to provide increased assurance and

certainty that effects on biodiversity values have been addressed to a Net

Gain standard; where a clear trajectory towards the outcome state is

achievable and will be verified at year 10. This biodiversity outcome

monitoring will be undertaken not only in the NMGSR area, but also within

the native revegetation and bush retirement areas to collectively verify Net

Gain outcomes for all biodiversity values to the extent possible.

73. The REMMP within the updated version of the EMP provides the necessary

details of the proposed offset and compensation monitoring. The information

from monitoring will be fed back into the BOAM and BCM to verifiably

determine if intended Net Gain outcomes have been achieved, and will

enable adaptive management in the event that outcomes have not been

achieved. Broadly speaking, in the event that end targets and/or milestone

targets are not achieved (or on track to being achieved), an appropriate

course of action will be determined (based on expert recommendations) to

27 The concern raised by Mr Lambie regarding limits to offsetting has been addressed in the evidence of Dr Baber, since this is primarily considered an assessment of values and effects matter. 28 Terrestrial Ecology 87F Reportparagraph 95. 29 Terrestrial Ecology 87F Report paragraph 100.

ensure that ultimately a Net Gain standard is achieved.30 This approach,

intended to give additional comfort in respect of the anticipated Net Gain

outcome in respect of terrestrial and wetland ecology values.

Joshua Markham

12 June 2020

30 As per the now-proposed Condition EC19.

ATTACHMENT JM.1: BIODIVERSITY OFFSET AND COMPENSATION MODEL

UPDATES

[Overleaf]

Attachment JM.1 Biodiversity offset and compensation model updates

Error! Unknown document property name.

Appendix 1Introduction

Background

The type and quantum of habitat restoration and enhancement actions considered necessary to adequately address residual effects on terrestrial ecology for the Te Ahu a Turanga: Manawatū Tararua Highway Project was determined with the assistance of Biodiversity Offset Accounting Models ("BOAM") and Biodiversity Compensation Models ("BCM").

The approach, use and application of these models has been described in detail in Technical Assessment Report G. Based on the information available at the time of lodgement these models indicated that the type and quantum of restoration and habitat enhancement measures proposed would result in demonstrably verifiable Net Gains (i.e. offsets) or expected Net Benefits (compensation) for biodiversity values potentially affected by the project.

However, through discussions with Horizons and submitters, in particular DOC and DOC’s consultant ecologists (Wildland Consultants), a number of matters were raised with respect to model assumptions and information gaps. With a few exceptions (which are discussed in the Evidence of Mr Markham), it was agreed that the matters raised by Wildland Consultants were valid and updates required. Some of these updates included the need for additional field data to inform the models, which has now been collected (May 2020).

Purpose and scope

The purpose of this document is to provide detail on changes to the BOAM and BCM, which have now been updated to:

• Address submitters’ comments on the model assumptions that are supported by Mr Markham and Dr Baber

• Include additional field data collected in May 2020, most notably this includes;

− The inclusion of actual vegetation plot data from within the 0.1 ha of Old Growth Forest (Alluvial) habitat: vegetation plot data from the 0.85 ha of Old Growth Forest (Hill Country) had previously been used as a surrogate as landowner permission to access the site until recently;

− Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) measurements of all trees within the Old Growth Forest (Hill Country) habitat within the Project footprint to assist with determining if Net Gain could be achieved for canopy species; and

− An assessment of the characteristics and ecological condition of the bush retirement areas and the land in and around the Northern block of the Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve (NMGSR) to determine their existing condition and the likely benefits that would arise from proposed offset and compensation measures (i.e. stock exclusion and pest control).

Document structure

The document is divided into the following sections

• Section 2: Changes to the BOAM and BCM models based on

− Matters raised by Wildland Consultants

− Additional improvements as considered appropriate but not raised by Wildland Consultants

• Section 3: Summary of field data collected within in the Old Growth Forest (Alluvial) and Old Growth Forest (Hill Country) habitats within the Project

• Section 4: BOAM updates including:

− Detailed model inputs and justification tables

− Specific changes to data inputs and corresponding outputs in the BOAM models

− Summary of updated BOAM tables and verified or expected Net Gain outcomes

• Section 5: BCM updates including:

− Detailed BCM data inputs and justification

− Summary of BCM data inputs and outputs

• Appendix 1: Detailed BOAM impact and offset/compensation models and BCM impact and offset/compensation models

Appendix 2Changes and updates to data inputs

A number of changes and updates have been made to the models in response to recommendations in the DOC submission and accompanying Wildland Consultants memo. Additional changes and corresponding updates have also occurred based on further information collected during site visits in May 2020 as well as further improvements considered necessary by Mr Markham and Dr Baber. These changes are summarised in Table 2.1 below.

Table 2.1 Updates to Biodiversity Offset Accounting Models and Biodiversity Compensation Models in response to submissions and/or additional fieldwork and assessments.

Matters to be addressed Action

Matters raised in DOC submission and supporting Wildlands memo

As compensation sites have not been confirmed, extent of wetland

revegetation and retirement cannot be stated

Progress made on confirmation of wetland compensation sites and

vegetation plots undertaken and are now included in the models.

No Benchmark data for Old Growth Forests (alluvial) (DOC submission Item

15)

Benchmark data collected, including vegetation plots and DBH

measurements and data now included in the models

Information on planting schedules has not yet been supplied and this is a

critical driver of success of habitat restoration

Planting schedules are under active discussion with Wildland Consultants

and are yet to be confirmed but it is assumed that 20 species will be

planted and models have been updated accordingly

Achieving a verified Net Gain for old growth treelands (height and basal

area) in 20 years is overly optimistic (DOC submission Appendix A)

This attribute has been clarified to make clear that this is a Net Gain in

basal area, which is not the same as a Net Gain in old growth trees which

is not possible after 20 years.


Two canopy tree species are present within the old-growth treelands on site, kaikomako and māhoe. There are 23 individuals within the old-growth treeland impact area of 0.13 ha.

Literature suggests that māhoe reaches 1.6 m2/ha in mature tawa-podocarp forests (Smale et al., 1997). Māhoe was found at 4.5 m2/ha in the old-growth treelands presumably due to low competition from other trees, and abundant light and nutrient sources. Kaikomako was similarly found with relatively high basal area of 7.6 m2/ha. It is therefore assumed that this rate of growth and biomass is more than would naturally be found in a benchmark old growth ecosystem and so in offset models has been used as the benchmark basal area.

Additional compensation for slow growing pukatea, miro, matai, and

kahikatea (the main species in old growth forests) is proposed by means of

replacing basal area. Tawa is also a key component of these forests, is slow

growing, and should be included for this measure.

Tawa added to models

As the plantings for basal area are an additional measure (93 vii), the

Alliance needs to clearly demonstrate how they add to the quantum of

restoration proposed to address old growth forest loss. This appears to

conflict with Paragraph 94 that states these basal area plantings will be

undertaken by increasing the proportion of these species in the

compensation area, without an increase in compensation area.

Models have been updated to include projections of when all Old Growth

forest canopy species are expected achieve a Net Gain in basal area in

offset and compensation sites.


Para 94: The cross-sectional area of tawa within old growth forest also needs

to be verified and addressed to replace lost DBH by year 35.

Models have been updated to include projections of when the basal area

of Tawa is expected achieve a Net Gain in basal at offset and

compensation sites.

Table 6 (pg. 53): The Applicant states an impact value of 0 for loss of fruiting

trees per hectare in old growth treelands. If tawa, matai, miro, or kahikatea

are absent from these treelands, the list of fruiting trees in this habitat type

may need to be reconsidered to identify and address this loss (e.g. nikau,

kaikomako?).

Measurements of fruiting trees in treeland habitat has been undertaken

and the models have been updated.

Para 98(d): A performance standard is stated for four species of tree within

old growth forest. This standard should also include tawa, and also apply to

old growth treelands. The species to which it applies for old growth treelands

should be determined using data from this habitat type, and may include

additional species such as nikau and kaikomako.

Agreed

Table 6 (pg. 47): Measures after offset for old growth forests (i.e. 10 metres

canopy height at 20 years) are based on vegetation plots within restoration

plantings. This data is only relevant if the restoration plantings are of the

same or similar species to the type of forest being lost. For example,

revegetation plantings dominated by kanuka may reach 10 metres at 20

years, but this does not mean that the restoration plantings will result in a

Agreed, the over-estimate of canopy species and height for Old Growth

canopy species has been addressed by removing these calculations from

native revegetation areas and adding them to retirement areas and

compensation sites where these species are expected to regenerate

in/around NMGSR and or will be planted into Old Growth Forest (Alluvial)

habitat that is to be retired.


canopy of tawa 10 metres tall after 20 years. Some species such as tawa will

also not be able to be planted into pasture sites, until a canopy of pioneer

species has been established. Thus, some slow growing forest species are

likely to be only 10-15 years old within restoration plantings that are 20

years old. Similarly, it is not realistic that restoration plantings will reach 46

m2/hectare basal area at Year 35 if the plantings are of the same

composition as the forest type to be lost (tawa forest). The overestimation of

canopy height and basal area at 20- and 35-years post planting, respectively,

will have resulted in a smaller quantum of restoration area being calculated.

Forest understorey within restoration plantings is predicted to reach 40%

cover after 20 years. The reference data provided by the Applicant for

kanuka forests and kanuka-mānuka shrublands (key species in many

restoration plantings) predicted a low rate of understorey growth of 15%

after 20 years (page 68). This is a more realistic estimate for forest

understorey after 20 years.

Prediction has been reduced to 33% and to achieve this, thinning (to

create understory light gaps and opportunities for seed rain) coupled

with infill planting will be undertaken at 5 years and 10 years.

For old-growth forest plantings, the Applicant predicts 50 trees with epiphyte

clumps per hectare in plantings 35 years old, based on plots within kanuka

forest and broadleaved scrub forest at the site. There are likely to be

significant compositional differences between the epiphyte communities of

Epiphyte measurements will be removed from the models


old growth forests and kanuka or younger broadleaved forests, and the

Applicant needs to reconsider the relevance of this data.

For old-growth forest plantings, the Applicant predicts 400 cavities per

hectare in plantings 35 years old, based on plots within kanuka forest at the

site (20 years old and 1000 cavities per hectare). Whilst the early formation

of abundant but small cavities by kanuka is likely, the data is not relevant for

the larger cavities present in old-growth forest (which take much longer to

form). The Applicant needs to consider the lack of larger cavities that will be

present after 35 years, and address this in the effects package.

Cavities measurement will be removed from the models.

The Applicant estimates that the annual average height growth rate for

kahikatea will be 0.5 metres. This is overly optimistic; a mid-range for the

data provided by the Applicant would be 0.4 metres (midpoint of 0.1-0.7

metres), and a conservative estimate would be 0.3 metres. This mid-range or

conservative estimate would place the height of kahikatea at 20 years to be

8 metres, or 6 metres, respectively.

Growth rate for kahikatea has been reduced to 0.3 m per year.

The data for the reference site (plantings 20-25 years old with stock exclusion

and pest animal control) is only relevant for predicting restoration outcomes,

and the offsetting calculations, if the proposed management of the site

Agreed; I have increased the level of conservatism to reflect this.


includes pest control for 20-25 years. The proposed management regime is to

cease pest control at Year 10.

Additional updates and changes to models by Alliance ecologists

The forest Biodiversity Compensation model was run at 10 years only and

should be also run at 35 years to provide further assurance of an expected

Net Gain outcome in the long-term (and gains associated with rat and

possum control) have diminished.

A forest BCM at 35 years has been added to the forest BCM at 10 years.

DBH measurements for old growth forest (hill country) canopy species

should be undertaken to better quantify impacts on Old-growth forest and

necessary compensation requirements.

Key canopy species above 15 cm were measured and basal area

calculated. It is acknowledged that the basal area of trees below 15 cm

DBH has not be accounted for. Five percent was added to the total basal

area calculations to account for trees that did not meet the 15 cm DBH

threshold. Key canopy species measured and therefore impacted) were

tawa, kahikatea, pukatea, tōtara, tītoki, rewarewa, mataī and miro.

Impacted canopy trees > 15 cm DBH included Tawa, matai, miro and

pukatea.

Assessment of the condition of proposed retirement sites and the Northern

Block of the Manawatu Gorge Scenic Reserve (NMGSR) required to inform

offset and compensation models

Site visits undertaken and models updated to reflect the fact that the

retirement sites are severely impacted by livestock and the NMGSR is

impacted by deer with impacts ranging from low to high depending on

location and sub-habitat (gully, slope, ridge)


Additional changes in relation to the reference site BOAM and BCM data

inputs

The below changes have been made based on ongoing discussions

between Mr Markham, Dr Baber and Dr Martin.

Reference site tree species growth rates of 10 m after 20 years. This has

been reduced to 8 m for old growth forests revegetation sites, secondary

broadleaved forests and kānuka forest.

Forest litter depth was 30 mm at reference site. This has been reduced to

20 mm for old growth, secondary broadleaf forests, kānuka forests and

mānuka kānuka shrublands.

Flaky bark reference site was 2000 trees/ha. This has been reduced to

1500 trees/ha for secondary broadleaf forests, kānuka forest and

mānuka kānuka shrublands.

Tree basal area for reference site was 22 m2/ha. Reduced to 18 m2/ha for

kānuka forest and mānuka kānuka shrublands after 20 years.

Offset models did not include gain predictions for Old Growth Forest canopy

species in response to pest control within the NMGSR (i.e., 10 years of rat

and possum control and 35 years of deer control) or pest control and

enrichment plantings across the 48.3 ha of existing habitat subject to bush

retirement

To determine the required amount of offset for tawa in the Old Growth

Forest (Hill Country) the following methodology was applied:

• Estimate that 10 tawa would be released as a result of pest control

in the NMGSR per ha of pest control (300 ha of pest control);

• Estimate that after 100 years these 10 tawa/ha would achieve a

DBH of 20 cm (mean DBH growth rate of 2mm/year);


• Determine the total basal area (m2/ha) to be inputted into offset

model. This was estimated at 3.14 m2/ha.

A benchmark tawa podocarp forest has a total basal area/ha of

approximately 64 m2/ha (Smale et al. 1984). We have used the

proportion of each key canopy species’ basal area in the impact area to

determine their proportion of a benchmark tawa podocarp forest (i.e.

tawa comprised 78% of impacted canopy trees, therefore the basal area

benchmark for tawa has been estimated at 49.8 m2/ha (78% of 64)).

It has been conservatively assumed that there would be 5 individuals of

all other canopy species (excluding tawa) per ha which would grow to 10

cm DBH within 35 years as a result of pest control.

300 ha of pest control for tawa and other canopy trees respectively

results in positive Net Present Biodiversity Values for all species.

Furthermore retirement of 8.9 ha using the same input values results in a

net biodiversity gain on top of this of between 0.01 and 0.52 for key

canopy species.

Wetland canopy not an informative/useful offset attribute Wetland canopy attribute replaced with habitat diversity count attribute

that counts habitat diversity at impact and offset/compensation sites

with respect to the presence of the following habitat characteristics a)

open water habitat, wetland turf habitat, low stature vegetation habitat,


swamp forest habitat, wetland buffer habitat (adjoining native forest)

and stock free habitat.

Appendix 3Updated field data at Impact sites

This section provides summary information on data collected in May 2020 to address information gaps in the BOAM. This includes:

• Biodiversity attribute data within the 0.1 ha of Old Growth Forest (Alluvial) affected by the project (this information had not been collected at the time of lodgement due to site access challenges and surrogate data from Old Growth Forest (Hill Country) had been used instead (Table 3.1) and

• Diameter at Breast Height (DBH measurements) of all native trees > 15 cm (DBH) located within Old Growth Forest (Hill Country) habitat affected by the Project footprint, which had not been collected but was essential to verifying Net Gain outcomes for these species (Table 3.2).

Table 3.1 Old growth forest (Alluvial) updated with impact data.

Biodiversity component Biodiversity attribute Measure Prior to Impact (original) Measure Prior to Impact (updated)

Canopy Canopy cover 85 20

Height 18 6

Basal area 66.5 53.1

Diversity Diversity of native plants 52 7

Understorey Understorey cover 52.5 5

Fauna habitat and food Tawa fruit 587.5 0

Coarse Woody Debris 100 4

Flaky bark 37.5 100

Average litter depth 40 6

Table 3.2 Summary of native tree species > 15 cm Diameter at Breast Height (DBH) data occurring within Old Growth Forest (Hill Country) habitat affected by the Project footprint collected in May 2020

Species No of Trees > 15cm DBH Mean DBH (> 15cm) Maximum size

Titoki 4 23.9 30

Cor aus 1 N/A 78

Kahikatea 1 N/A 41

White maire 1 N/A 49

Matai 4 39.9 65

Whiteywood 8 27 40

Miro 4 31.8 42

Red Mapou 1 N/A 16

Ngaio (Tasmanian) 2 34.5 39

Kaikomako 16 28.3 49

Pukatea 2 32.5 57

Rewarewa 4 27.6 37.7

Tawa 142 41.3 100

Totara 3 128 160

Appendix 4Updated Biodiversity Accounting Offset Models (BOAM)

This section includes:

Section 4.1: Detail on the updated attributes and justifications for data inputs for all habitat types

Section 4.2: Specific changes to data inputs and corresponding outputs in the BOAMs

Section 4.3: Summary of updated BOAM results

Section 4.1: Detailed BOAM inputs and justification

This section details on the updated attributes and justification for data inputs for

• Old Growth Forest habitats (Table 4.1)

• Secondary Broadleaved Forests and Scrublands, Advanced Secondary Broadleaved Forest and Secondary Broadleaved Forests with Old-Growth Signatures (Table 4.2)

• kānuka forests and mānuka, kānuka shrublands (Table 4.3)

• Divaricating Shrublands (Table 4.4)

• The raupo wetlands (Table 4.5)

• Exotic and indigenous dominated seepage wetlands (4.6)

Table 4.1: Biodiversity component, attribute, benchmark, measure after offset, overall impact area and offset area values and justifications for offset models of Old-Growth Forests (Hill country, Alluvial, and Old-Growth Treelands). The discount rate for all values was set at 0.03 in the offset model.

•

Biodiversity Component

Biodiversity Attribute

Benchmark Benchmark justification

Measure after offset (time until

endpoint)

Measure after offset justification

Impact value

Management regime to achieve

measure after offset.

Overall Impact

Area/Offset Area (ha)

Reference

Canopy Percentage (%) cover indigenous

90 The benchmark 90% canopy cover considers best scenario conditions for remnant old-growth podocarp-broadleaf forests. 90% is cover is considered appropriate as natural gaps occur in forest canopy due to die back or fallen trees.

90 (10 years)

Plots in old growth forest (hill country) has a canopy cover of 85%, with reduced cover often due to large fallen trees causing canopy gaps.

Plantings after 10 years are not expected to have large canopy gaps formed by fallen trees therefore 90% is expected to be a realistic target.

Plantings will be established at typical spacings to ensure fast canopy closure. Plants

Overall the average canopy coverage was 85% across old growth forest (hill country) plots. Canopy gaps were formed from occasional fallen or senescing trees, and possible possum browse.

Old growth treelands had a

Restoration planting and fencing to exclude livestock.

Hill Country: 0.94/10

Alluvial: 0.06/0.9

Treeland: 0.15/0.6

Estimate based on plots undertaken on site and information from

Tane’s Tree Trust, (2011).





endpoint)


Impact value



Overall Impact


Reference

which do not survive will be replaced after each planting season.

Canopy closure typically occurs within 5 -10 years depending on species composition and spacing (Tane’s Tree Trust, 2011).

canopy cover of 25%, as vegetation in this ecosystem consists of sparely distributed, moderately-sized remnant trees.

Average height (m)

20 Literature suggests a New Zealand tawa forest is 18-21 m in height (Dawson & Sneddon, 1969).

Vegetation surveys in old-growth forests (hill country) on site returned an average canopy height of 18 m

8 (20 years)

Vegetation plots at the reference site determined the average height of restoration plantings after 20 years to be 10 m. Reduced to 8 m to be conservative given pest control will be undertaken for 10 years as opposed to 20 as

18 m for Old-Growth Forests (Hill Country). Canopy trees in Alluvial Forests on site are likely to be of a similar age and height as Old Growth


Estimate based on plots undertaken on site.

Reference site height.





endpoint)


Impact value



Overall Impact


Reference

with one plot with a canopy height of 20 m.

The plots on site are in good condition, therefore under the local environmental conditions, a 20 m benchmark value is considered justified.

at the reference site.

Forest (Hill Country).

Average tree height was

6 m for old-growth treelands.

Basal area (m2/ha)

69 The Old-Growth Forest (Hill Country and Alluvial) being impacted is dominated by tawa. Literature suggests a mean basal area for tawa forest of 69 (SD ± 23.5) (Richardson et

46 (35 years)

35 years is considered the time limit for which offsetting targets can reasonably be estimated. Tawa and other late-successional old-growth forest species are often slow-growing, and

66.5 for old growth forest (hill country)

18 for old-growth treelands.


To increase basal area growth rates, enhancement planting and

Richardson et al., (2014)





endpoint)


Impact value



Overall Impact


Reference

al., 2014). On site basal area for the in-tact tawa forests is 66.5 m2 ha, and therefore it is assumed that without pest animals, a benchmark for the forests on site would be slightly higher than this, and consistent with an average tawa forest in New Zealand.

Old-Growth Treelands consist of remnant trees which would have likely formed part of a tawa forest and therefore the

it is not expected that the benchmark can be reached in 35 years. Therefore, a basal area value below that of a typical mature tawa forest mean has been used, but which is within the Standard Deviation (SD) of tawa forest across New Zealand.

gap generation will be undertaken. This will ensure late-successional species such as tawa will be able to establish more quickly than through natural processes, and light gaps will facilitate basal area growth.





endpoint)


Impact value



Overall Impact


Reference

benchmark value is also deemed appropriate for this ecosystem type.

Diversity Diversity of native vascular plants (species richness)

52 Old-growth forest (hill country) impacted is dominated by tawa. Literature suggests a mean species richness for tawa forest of 51 (SD ± 10.8) (Richardson et al., 2014).

Native species richness across old-growth plots resulted in the identification of 52 native species, therefore this

40 (20 years)

Given the measure after offset timeframe is set at 20 years, a species richness value below that of a typical mature tawa forest mean has been used, but which is within the Standard Deviation (SD) of tawa forest across New Zealand.

28-37 species are to be planted as part of offsetting of Old-Growth Forests, and it is expected that a few additional

Total native species richness across all plots in Old-Growth Forest (Hill Country) is 52. 52 has also been used in the offset model for the Old-Growth Alluvial Forest as a conservative estimate, however it is likely to be lower than this, given


Enhancement planting of successional species.






endpoint)


Impact value



Overall Impact


Reference

higher number has been used.

Old-Growth Treelands consist of remnant trees which would have likely formed part of a tawa forest and therefore the benchmark value is also deemed appropriate for this ecosystem type.

species will establish within 20 years through natural processes. Therefore 40 species is considered achievable.

the Old—Growth Forest Alluvial area is unfenced resulting in degradation from stock.

13 native species were identified in Old-Growth Treelands. Old-Growth Treelands are severely degraded by stock.

Understorey Indigenous species cover below 1.35 m (%)

55 Average understorey cover observed in New Zealand hill country forest fragments is 40% (Smale et al., 2008).

33 (20 years)

Although the reference site returned a value of 15% after 20 years, this is an urban site with little opportunity for natural seed source

Understorey cover across all plots in old growth (hill country) is 52.5%.

Restoration planting and fencing to exclude livestock. Light gap creation and infill planting.

Smale et al., (2008)

Brockerhoff et al., (2003)





endpoint)


Impact value



Overall Impact


Reference

Understorey cover across plots Old Growth Forest (Hill Country) is 52.5%. Possum damage has likely degraded this value.

With pest mammal control and less possum browse, this value is expected to be improve, therefore a slightly higher value than the value found during surveys has been used.

Understorey cover is expected to be less than canopy

regeneration processes.

Undertaking active restoration management of light gap creation and infill planting will result in higher understorey cover estimated at approximately a third of the cover.

Old growth treelands has 1% understorey cover due to stock access.





endpoint)


Impact value



Overall Impact


Reference

cover as woody trunks, branches, shrubs and understorey gaps are frequent.

Emergent trees

Average height (m)

0 No emergent trees were recorded during surveys.

Number of trees (count/ha)


Fauna habitat and food provision

Epiphytes removed

Cavities removed

Fruiting trees

Fruiting tree abundance (no./ha) of tawa,

587.5 The average number of fruiting trees per ha found within Old Growth Forest (Hill

0 (35 years)

Tawa, matai, miro or kahikatea are not expected to be capable of fruiting after 35 years.

587.5 for old growth forest (hill country)


Enhancement plantings.

Bockett, (1998)

Estimate based on plots undertaken





endpoint)


Impact value



Overall Impact


Reference

matai, miro and or kahikatea

Country) plots on site.

This value is higher than has been found in other studies (e.g. Bockett, (1998) who found 200 tawa per ha in a study at Urewera National Park).

The benchmark is considered appropriate for Old Growth Forest (Alluvial) too, as the Alluvial Forest on site is dominated by a similar species mix to the Old Growth Forest (Hill Country) (e.g. tawa

0 for old growth treelands.

in relatively healthy Old Growth Forest (Hill Country) plots on site.





endpoint)


Impact value



Overall Impact


Reference

canopy dominant).

Coarse woody debris (CWD)

Volume of CWD (m3 per ha). Does not include dead standing trees.

100 Estimate derived from Richardson et al., (2009) ‘fallen deadwood volume’. This study analysed deadwood volume from a sample of 894 permanent plots in New Zealand old growth forest, and the mean of this value has been taken.

On site values are much lower than this mean, possibly due to the impacts of stock on deadwood retention.

30 (35 years)

Plots from the 20 year old restoration reference site returned a value of 22.13 CWD. Therefore it is predicted another 10 years of growth would provide an additional 10 m3 of CWD per ha.

Where the measure after offset is not being met, sites may be augmented with additional CWD from felled forests as part of the Project.

9.98 for old growth forest (hill country).

0.48 for old growth treeland.

Restoration planting and fencing to exclude stock.


CWD provision.


Reference site.





endpoint)


Impact value



Overall Impact


Reference

Flaky bark

Number of trees per plot with flaky bark (trees/ha)

37.5 Benchmark is the same as measured values on site.

600 (35 years)

After 35 years of restoration, the number of flaky bark trees is likely to be similar to that of the value determined from secondary broadleaf forests on site.

The number of flaky bark trees is expected to decline as the forest transitions into old growth (e.g. the number of kānuka and mānuka decreases).





Leaf litter (average litter depth per plot in mm, with five samples

40 Average litter depth in Old Growth Forest (Hill Country) plots on site was 39.3. These were fenced

20 (20 years)

Litter fall from a 20 year old forest (reference site) was found to be 30 mm. After 20 years, and with stock exclusion, it




Estimate based on plots undertaken in Old Growth Forest (Hill





endpoint)


Impact value



Overall Impact


Reference

taken in each plot)

with little stock access, and therefore this value is considered an appropriate benchmark for Old Growth Forests.

is reasonable to expect litter fall to be of a similar depth to the reference site. Have reduced to 20 mm as a conservative estimate, given pest control over 10 years as opposed to 20 as at the reference site.


Country) on site.

Reference site.

Table 4.2: Biodiversity attribute, benchmark, and expected biodiversity value of Secondary Broadleaved Forests and Scrublands, Advanced Secondary Broadleaved Forest and Secondary Broadleaved Forests with Old-Growth Signatures. The discount rate for all values was set at 0.03 in the offset model.





endpoint)

Measure after offset

justification

Impact value

Management regime to achieve measure

after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference


90 The benchmark 90% canopy cover considers best scenario conditions for secondary broadleaved forests.

Vegetation surveys in secondary forests on site returned variable canopy covers. The most intact forest received scores of between 90 and 100% canopy cover. Other areas had been impacted by

90 (10 years)


10 years is therefore considered an appropriate timeframe in which to achieve the target.

Secondary Broadleaved Forests and Scrublands: 79%

Advanced Secondary Broadleaved Forest: 90%

Secondary Broadleaved Forest with Old-Growth Signatures: 40% (low due to a canopy of exotic conifers).


Secondary broadleaved forest and scrublands: 6.72/24

Advanced secondary broadleaved forest: 0.09/0.5

Secondary broadleaved forest with old-growth signatures: 0.36/1.3

Estimate based on healthy advanced secondary broadleaved plots undertaken on site, and evidence from Tane’s Tree Trust (2011).





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

livestock and pests resulting in lower scores. 90% is considered an appropriate benchmark, as often, even in healthy forests, treefall and natural gaps result in some canopy gaps.

Average height (m)

10 (secondary broadleaf forest)

12 (advanced secondary broadleaf and secondary broadleaf with old growth signatures)

Literature suggests a New Zealand secondary forest is on average 9-12 m in height (Dawson & Sneddon, 1969).

Advanced secondary and secondary with old-growth

8 (20 years)

Measurement of trees in a 20 year planting at the reference site determined an average height of 10 m.

Native trees grow at various rates, but 20 years is sufficient time to reach 10 m

Secondary Broadleaved Forests and Scrublands: 4.9 m

Advanced Secondary Broadleaved Forest: 5 m

Secondary Broadleaved Forest with


Enhancement planting and gap creation will be undertaken in the advanced secondary broadleaf

Dawson & Sneddon, (1969).

Reference site

Tane’s Tree Trust (2020b)





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

signature forests have been given a slightly higher benchmark to reflect the older states of the forests.

tall for early successional plants (e.g. kānuka can grow up to 1 m per annum (Tane’s Tree Trust (2020)), so after 20 years should be at least 10 m in height).

Reduced to 8 m as a conservative estimate.

Old-Growth Signatures: 4.5 m

and secondary broadleaf forest with old-growth signatures to advance the growth of late-successional plantings.

Basal area (m2/ha)

50 Literature suggests New Zealand ‘tall shrubland’ has a mean basal area of 28, and a māhoe forest (18 m in height) mean basal area of

30 (35 years)

Literature suggests New Zealand ‘tall shrubland’ has a mean basal area of 28 (Allen et al., 2013).

Secondary Broadleaved Forests and Scrublands: 22.9

Advanced Secondary Broadleaved Forest: 16.4


Enhancement planting and gap creation will be

Allen et al., (2013)

Reference site






endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

65 (Allen et al., 2013).

It is considered that the basal area of a pristine secondary forest would likely be a value between a tall shrubland and māhoe forest, as a secondary broadleaf forest is considered to be more mature than a tall shrubland, but not as mature as an 18 m tall māhoe forest. For instance, secondary broadleaved

After 35 years, each of the secondary broadleaf forest types is expected to be a tall shrubland – kānuka is at least 10 m tall after 20 years (according to reference site and Tane’s Tree Trust (2020b)).

Therefore a basal area of 30 is deemed to be an appropriate target value for each ecosystem type.

Secondary Broadleaved Forest with Old-Growth Signatures: 11.5

undertaken in the Advanced Secondary Broadleaf and Secondary Broadleaf Forest with Old-Growth Signatures to advance the successional trajectory i9n these forest types.





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

forests on site averaged approximately 5 m in height.


55 Literature suggests an average of 50 native species in undisturbed mature māhoe forest Allen et al., (2013). 55 species were identified in secondary broadleaved forests on-site, therefore this higher number has been used as the benchmark.

34 (20 years)

A 20 year restored kānuka forest at the reference site resulted in the identification of 34 species. Considering the diverse range of plantings (e.g. 24 species) and good seed source availability in surrounding landscapes, 34 species is considered an achievable target after 20 years.

Secondary Broadleaved Forests and Scrublands: 55

Advanced Secondary Broadleaved Forest: 14

Secondary Broadleaved Forest with Old-Growth Signatures: 20



Reference site





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

Understorey Indigenous species cover below 1.35 m (%)

50 (Secondary broadleaf and advanced secondary broadleaf)

70 (Secondary broadleaf with old growth signatures)

Average understorey cover observed in New Zealand hill country forest fragments is 40% (Smale et al., 2008).

Understorey canopy cover from plots in secondary broadleaved forests on site were higher than literature values. These values are considered closer to a pristine state, and therefore appropriate for benchmarking. Understorey canopy cover is

33 (20 years)

Although the reference site returned a value of 15% after 20 years, this is an urban site with little opportunity for natural seed source regeneration processes.





Restoration planting and fencing to exclude livestock. Light gap creation and infill planting.


Reference site.





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

typically lower than canopy cover above 1.35 m in secondary broadleaved forests.

Emergent trees

Average height (m)





Epiphytes - removed


Cavities - removed

Fruiting trees

Fruiting tree abundance (no./ha) of

0 No fruiting trees were recorded during surveys.

0 (35 years)

Tawa, matai, miro or kahikatea are not expected

Secondary Broadleaved Forests and





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

tawa, matai, miro and or kahikatea

to be capable of fruiting after 35 years.

Scrublands: 0





22 Benchmark derived from 20 year old reference site, which had CWD at 22 m3/ha. Reference site is dominated by kānuka, and only partially reflects the community

22 (20 years)

Plots from 20 year old kānuka forest reference site returned a value of 22.13 CWD.

Where the measure after offset is not being met, sites may be



Secondary Broadleaved


CWD provision.

Reference site





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

composition of a secondary broadleaf forest. There is a paucity of literature on CWD values of secondary broadleaved forest.

augmented with additional CWD from felled forests as part of the Project.

CWD values in these forests on site have likely been reduced by stock access.

Forest with Old-Growth Signatures: 0

Flaky bark


2000 Benchmark derived from 20 year-old reference site. Reference site is dominated by kānuka, and only partially reflects the community composition of a secondary broadleaf forest. There is a paucity of

1500 (20 years)

Estimate derived from 20 year-old reference site and reduced in order to be conservative. Kānuka and mānuka are within the proposed species to be planted in secondary broadleaved



Secondary Broadleaved Forest with



Reference site





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

literature on flaky bark values of secondary broadleaved forest.

forests. These two species are particularly flaky, and are expected to form the majority of flaky bark trees.

Old-Growth Signatures: 200

Leaf litter (average litter depth per plot in mm, with five samples taken in each plot)

30 Litter depth estimate derived from plots undertaken in secondary broadleaved forest with old-growth signatures, which had the highest litter depth values.

20 (20 years)

Litter fall from a 20 year old reference site was 30 mm.

Reduced to 20 mm as a conservative estimate given pest control proposed for 10 years and not 20.



Secondary Broadleaved Forest with Old-growth








endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

Signatures: 29.4

Table 4.3: Biodiversity component, attribute, benchmark, measure after offset, overall impact area and offset area values and justifications for offset models of kānuka forests and mānuka, kānuka shrublands. The discount rate for all values was set at 0.03.





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference


90 The benchmark 90% canopy cover considers best scenario conditions for kānuka forests and mānuka, kānuka scrublands.

90 (10 years)

10 years is considered an appropriate time to establish a closed canopy.


Kānuka Forest: 52.5

Mānuka, Kānuka Shrublands: 45


Kānuka forest: 1.02/2.3

Mānuka, kānuka forest: 2.24/5.7


Tane’s Tree Trust, 2011

Average height (m)

12 (kānuka forest)

5 (mānuka, kānuka shrubland)

Literature suggests a New Zealand secondary forest is 9-12 m in height (Dawson & Sneddon, 1969).

10 (20 years)

4 (15 years)

Measurement of kānuka trees at 20 year old reference site determined an average height of 10 m. Reduced to 8 m




Dawson & Sneddon, (1969)

Esler & Astridge (1974)





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

Furthermore reference site results at a kānuka forest returned values of 8-12 m.

Mānuka, kānuka shrubland is characterised by a shorter stature than kānuka forest (Esler & Astridge, 1974).

as conservative estimate.

Literature suggests mānuka, kānuka shrubland can reach 4 m in 15 years (Esler & Astridge, 1974). Given kānuka can grow up to 1 m per annum, (Tane’s Tree Trust (2020b), a 4 m target is a conservative estimate.

Reference site


Basal area (m2/ha)

28 Literature suggests New Zealand ‘kānuka forest and tall shrubland’ has a mean basal area

22 (20 years)

Reference site returned a value of 22 m2/ha after 20 years.


Mānuka, Kānuka



Reference site





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

of 28 (Allen et al., 2013).

Shrublands: 15.3


44

Literature suggests a mean species richness in kānuka forest mānuka shrub as of 44 and 20 respectively. (Allen et al., 2013).

The higher species richness value has been used as proxy for a more pristine ecosystem, and also reflects the diversity of species found in kānuka forest and mānuka and

34 (20 years)

The 20 year old reference site resulted in the identification of 34 species during a short site walkover. 14 species are proposed as an initial starting crop for this ecosystem type. Furthermore, Manawatū Gorge Scenic Reserve is considered to likely provide a sufficient seed source for a variety of species to establish.

Kānuka Forest: 21



Light gaps and infill planting is proposed to reach the proposed species richness target. s


Sullivan et al.¸(2007)

Reference site





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

kānuka shrubland plots on site.

Average species richness was 31 at young kānuka plots in the Wellington region (Sullivan et al. 2007). These plots had kānuka 2-4 m tall. This study is evidence that a high number of species can establish in young kānuka plots.

The creation of light gaps and infill planting will increase the overall species richness of this ecosystem type.

Understorey Indigenous plant cover

40 Average understorey cover observed

33 (20 years)

Although the reference site returned a

Kānuka Forest: 2.5

Restoration planting and fencing to






endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

below 1.35 m (%)

in New Zealand hill country forest fragments is 40% (Smale et al., 2008).

value of 15% after 20 years, this is an urban site with little opportunity for natural seed source regeneration processes.


Mānuka, Kānuka Shrublands: 13.2

exclude livestock. Light gap creation and infill planting.

Reference site





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

Emergent trees (Mānuka, Kānuka Shrublands only)

Kānuka Forest plots were not found to have any emergent trees.


30 30 trees per ha is considered a conservative estimate.

20 (15 years)

20 trees at 4 m height in 15 years is considered a conservative estimate. There is a paucity of literature on emergent trees of mānuka, kānuka shrublands.

Data determined from plots on site.

20 Restoration planting and fencing to exclude livestock.

Estimate based on plots undertaken on site

Average height (m)

8 Height of typical woody shrubs observed in plots (such as lacebark) which may become emergent trees.

4 (15 years)

15 years is an appropriate length of time for trees to reach 4 m in a mānuka kānuka shrubland (Esler & Astridge, 1974).

1.5 m Restoration planting and fencing to exclude livestock.

Esler & Astridge (1974)

Fauna habitat and

Epiphytes removed





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

food provision

Cavities removed

Fruiting trees

Fruiting tree abundance (no./ha) of tawa, matai, miro and or kahikatea

0 No fruiting trees were recorded during surveys.

0 (35 years)

Tawa, matai, miro or kahikatea are not expected to be present in these ecosystem types.

Kānuka Forest: 0




22 Benchmark derived from 20 year-old reference site which returned a value of 22 m3/ha.

22 (20 years)

Estimate derived from reference site.

Where the measure after offset is not being met, sites may be augmented with additional CWD from felled forests as part of the Project.

Kānuka forest: 9.55



CWD provision.


Reference site

Flaky bark

Number of trees per

2000 Benchmark derived from 20

1500 (20 years)

Measure after offset derived from 20 year

Kānuka Forest: 1150

Restoration planting and fencing to

Reference site





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

plot with flaky bark (trees/ha)

year old reference site.

old reference site which was 2000. Reduced to 1500 as a conservative estimate.


exclude stock.



30 Approximate benchmark value determined from reference site.

20 (20 years)

Litter fall from the 20 year old reference site was 30 mm.

20 mm has been used as a conservative estimate as pest control is for 10 years as opposed to 20 years as at the reference site.

Kānuka Forest: 0.7





Table 4.4: Biodiversity component, attribute, benchmark, measure after offset, overall impact area and offset area values and justifications for offset models of Divaricating Shrublands. The discount rate for all values was set at 0.03 in the offset model.





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference


80 Estimate based on plots undertaken on site.

80 (10 years)

10 years is considered an appropriate time to establish a closed canopy.



0.15/0.4 Estimate based on plots undertaken on site in Divaricating Shrublands.

Tane’s Tree Trust (2011).

Average height (m)


1 (10 years)

Literature suggests mānuka, kānuka shrubland can reach 4 m in 15 years (Esler & Astridge, 1974).

0.8 Restoration planting and fencing to exclude livestock.

Estimate based on plots undertaken on site in Divaricating Shrublands.





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

Although the Divaricating Shrubland consists of small divaricating species such as Coprosma rhamnoides, as opposed to mānuka and kānuka, 1 m in 10 years is considered achievable and a conservative estimate for vegetative growth.

Grey literature suggests Coprosma rhamnoides can grow to 1.5 m height in 5 years (Southern Woods, 2020).

Esler and Astridge, (1974)

Southern Woods (2020)





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

Basal area (m2/ha)

0.5 Estimate based on plots undertaken on site.

0.32 (10 years)


10 years is considered sufficient time for sparsely distributed woody shrubs above 1.35 m to form.




27


27 (15 years)

A total of 27 species are to be planted.



Understorey Indigenous plant cover below 1.35 m (%)


Divaricating shrublands have

25 (15 years)

After 15 years it is assumed that planted divaricating shrublands will be in a similar condition to the







endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

a naturally sparse understorey.

impacted shrublands.

Emergent trees


0 No emergent trees identified during surveys.

Average height (m)

0 No emergent trees identified during surveys.


Epiphytes removed

Cavities removed

Fruiting trees

Fruiting tree abundance (no./ha) of tawa, matai, miro and or kahikatea

0 Fruiting trees were not present in divaricating shrublands on site

0 (35 years)

Tawa, matai, miro or kahikatea are not expected to be present in this ecosystem type.


Coarse woody

0 CWD was not present in divaricating

0 (35 years)

Estimate based on plots





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

debris (CWD)


shrublands on site.

undertaken on site in Divaricating Shrublands.

Flaky bark


0 Flaky bark was not present in divaricating shrublands on site.

0 (35 years)



0 The small leaves of divaricating shrublands do not provide available leaf litter.

0 (35 years)


Table 4.5: Biodiversity component, attribute, benchmark, measure after offset, overall impact area and offset area values and justifications for offset models of Indigenous Dominated Seepage Wetlands (High Value), henceforth named ‘Raupō Wetland’. The discount rate for all values was set at 0.03 in the offset model.





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference


100 Estimate based on plots undertaken on site. Raupō typically forms a dominant wetland canopy.

100 (7 years)

Seven years is considered an appropriate time to establish a closed canopy, as raupō is a fast-growing species (McK Pegman & Ogden, 2005).


0.14/0.35 Estimate based on plots undertaken on site

McK Pegman and Ogden (2005)

Average height (m)

2.5 Estimate based on plots undertaken on site.

2.5 (7 years)

Raupō is a fast-growing species (McK Pegman & Ogden, 2005). Seven years is considered a conservative amount of time for raupō to reach 2.5 m in height.







endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

Basal area (m2/ha)

0 No vegetation of appropriate size or of woody biomass was present within the plot.

0 0 Estimate based on plots undertaken on site


19

Estimate higher than species richness of raupō wetland on site (17 species). The raupō wetland on site has been affected by stock browse, especially at the edges. Fencing the wetland would likely result in more wetland species establishing, hence the benchmark of 19 species.

Raupō typically dominates as a

19 (4 years)

A total of 19 species are proposed to be planted.







endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

monoculture, and a pristine raupō wetland is not expected to be highly diverse.

Understorey Indigenous plant cover below 1.35 m (%)

100 Understorey at plots on site is dominated by raupō reeds.

100 (7 years)

Seven years is considered an appropriate time to establish a full understorey, as raupō is a fast-growing species.



Fauna resources

Complex habitat availability for nesting birds (%)

100 Raupō provides nesting habitat for wetland birds such as fernbirds, spotless crake, marsh crake and bittern. Pristine raupō habitats are generally dominated by a raupō monoculture.

100 (7 years)

Seven years is considered an appropriate time to establish a closed canopy, as raupō is a fast-growing species (McK Pegman and Ogden, 2005).



McK Pegman and Ogden (2005)





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

Estimate based on plot in raupō wetland undertaken on site.

Emergent trees (mānuka and kānuka shrubland only)


100 Mānuka and kānuka occasionally present within raupō wetland. Estimate based on plots undertaken on site.

100 (15 years)

15 years is an achievable timeframe for mānuka to emerge at a higher tier than raupō (Esler and Astridge 1974).

Mānuka to be planted at appropriate spacings to achieve 100 mānuka per ha.



Esler and Astridge (1974).

Average height (m)

4 Estimate based on plot undertaken in raupō wetland on site. Emergent

4 (15 years)

15 years is an appropriate timeframe for mānuka to grow up to 4 m (Esler


Esler and Astridge (1974).

Estimate based on





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

mānuka are typically 4 m tall.

and Astridge, 1974).

plots undertaken on site

Table 4.6: Biodiversity component, attribute, benchmark, measure after offset, overall impact area and offset area values and justifications for offset models of Exotic Dominated Wetlands (EW) and Indigenous Dominated Seepage Wetlands (moderate value; IW). The discount rate for all values was set at 0.03 in the offset model.





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

Canopy removed

Wetlands can have a high indigenous canopy cover while still representing highly degraded ecosystems (e.g. Juncus edgariae rushlands). This attribute is therefore no longer considered an accurate measure of the change in a wetland quality.

Average height (m)

30 Kahikatea can grow up to 55 m in the optimal conditions. However typical pristine

10 (20 years)

Kahikatea grows between 10-70 cm annually (Tane’s Tree Trust, 2020). Therefore 6 m of

EW: 0.9

IW: 0.45


Tane’s Tree Trust, (2020a)





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

kahikatea forest canopies are at approximately 30 m (Harris & Burns, 2000).

growth after 20 years is considered appropriate conservatively assuming growth rate of 0.3 m per year.

(Harris & Burns, 2000)

Basal area (m2/ha)

50 Basal area benchmark estimate based on a kahikatea forest remnant in Eastern Bay of Plenty (Smale, 1984).

20 (35 years)

It is considered that after 35 years

EW: 0.5

IW: 0


Smale (1984)


60 High value kahikatea wetlands have been shown to sustain up to 98 species (Smale et al., 2005).

There is generally a positive species-area

25 (10 years)

A total of 19 species are proposed for planting. It is considered reasonable to assume that an additional 6 species would self-propagate within a 10 year period, especially

EW: 16

IW: 4



Palmer and White (1994)

Miller (2004)





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

relationship found in the literature (e.g. as area sampled increases, so does the number of species; Palmer and White, 1994). As only a relatively small area of kahikatea restoration is being proposed, the benchmark has been set at a lower diversity than 98.

Furthermore Miller (2004) found 37 to 44 species per 500 m2 in floodplain forest plots in south Westland, New Zealand.

considering the close proximity of the offset sites to Manawatū Scenic Reserve.





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

Understorey removed

Wetlands can have a high indigenous understorey canopy cover while still representing highly degraded ecosystems (e.g. Juncus edgariae rushlands). This attribute is therefore no longer considered an accurate measure of the change in a wetland quality.

Fauna resources

Habitat richness and evenness.

6 Complex habitat availability has been changed to habitat richness and evenness.

The benchmark assumes a wetland with a

5 (20) It is assumed that wetland planting will result in 5 of the habitat richness categories. These are wetland turf habitat, low stature

1 (habitats on site represent a single tier of low stature vegetation habitat – Juncus

Planting a diverse mix of native wetland plants. Fencing to prevent stock access.





endpoint)


justification

Impact value


after offset.

Overall Impact


Reference

rich variety of habitats which include open water habitat, wetland turf habitat, low stature vegetation habitat, swamp forest habitat, wetland buffer habitat (adjoining native forest) and stock free habitat.

vegetation habitat, swamp forest habitat, wetland buffer habitat and stock free habitat. T

edgariae and Juncus effuses or Carex geminata).

Emergent trees


0 EW: 0

IW: 0


Average height (m)

0 EW: 0

IW: 0


Summary of specific updated data inputs and corresponding outputs

In Table 4.2.1, the exact changes to data inputs and corresponding outputs for each affected attribute. Attributes for which no changes were recommended

are not included in this Table.

Table 4.2.1 Changes between the original and updated BOAM data inputs and outputs

Ecosystem Biodiversity

Attribute


(Original)

Attribute Net

Present Biodiversity

Value (Original)

Memo recommendation Measure

after offset (updated)

Attribute Net Present

Biodiversity Value (updated)

Low value seepage wetland

Height 10 0.56 Height (m)

Conservative kahikatea growth rate reduced to 0.3 m per year (6 m after 20 years).

6 0.25

Moderate value seepage wetland

Height 10 0.16 6 0.08

Secondary broadleaf forest and shrublands

Understorey cover

50 1.62 Understorey cover (%)

Reduced understorey cover to more conservative value, but still higher than reference site due to light gap creation, infill planting and higher likelihood of seed colonisation from NMGSR. Expected understorey cover of 1/3 after 20 years.

33 0.62

Advanced secondary broadleaf forest

Understorey cover

50 0.01 33 0.01

Secondary broadleaf forest with old-growth signatures

Understorey cover

50 0.17 33 0.03


Attribute


(Original)

Attribute Net


Value (Original)





Old-growth forest (hill country)

Understorey cover

40 2.51 33 1.93

Old-growth forest (alluvial)

Understorey cover

40 0.2 33 0.24

Kānuka forest Understorey cover

15 0.31 33 0.79

Mānuka, kānuka shrublands

Understorey cover

15 0.28 33 1.45

Old growth treelands

Understorey cover

40 0.2 33 0.16


Flaky bark 2000 8.66 Flaky bark trees/ha

Flaky bark reduced from 2000 flaky bark trees/ha to 1500 to be more conservative regarding values derived from the reference site.

1500 5.92


Flaky bark 2000 0.08 1500 0.06

Secondary broadleaf forest

Flaky bark 2000 0.57 1500 0.42


Attribute


(Original)

Attribute Net


Value (Original)





with old-growth signatures


No change 600 600


Flaky bark 600 600

Kānuka forest Flaky bark 2000 0.30 1500 0.04


Flaky bark 2000 1.63 1500 0.98


No change in flaky bark

600 600


Height 10 7.67 Height (m)

Height reduced from 10 m to 8 m to be more conservative regarding values derived from the reference site.

8 5.48


Height 10 0.06 8 0.04


Attribute


(Original)

Attribute Net


Value (Original)






Height 10 0.39 8 0.29


Height 10 1.52 8 1.06


Height 10 0.22 8 0.53

Kānuka forest Height 10 0.39 8 0.21


No change as at 4 m

4 4


Height 10 0.10 8 0.07


Litter depth 30 7.54 Litter depth (mm)

20 3.89


Attribute


(Original)

Attribute Net


Value (Original)






Litter depth 30 0.06 Litter depth reduced from 30 mm to 20 mm to be more conservative regarding values derived from the reference site. Note that Old Growth Forest (Alluvial) had impact leaf litter data updated due to new information, hence the apparent increase in Net benefit.

20 0.04


Litter depth 30 0.35 20 0.15


Litter depth 30 1.74 20 0.88


Litter depth 30 0.13 20 0.14

Kānuka forest Litter depth 30 1.02 20 0.67


Litter depth 40 2.02 20 1.15


Litter depth 30 0.21 20 0.14

Kānuka forest Tree basal area (m2/ha)

22 -0.24 Tree basal area (m2/ha) 18 -0.39


Attribute


(Original)

Attribute Net


Value (Original)






Litter depth 22 0.89

Tree basal area for reference site was 22 m2/ha. Reduced to 18 m2 for kānuka forest and mānuka kānuka shrubland after 20 years as a more conservative estimate.

18 0.52

Summary of updated models

Below we set out the Summary of BOAM results for:

• Habitat types in which all measured attributes can be verifiably offset and for which we consider the habitat to be verifiably offset (Table 4.3.1)

• Habitat types in which all measured attributes can be verifiably offset but for which we consider the habitat to be compensated to an expected Net Gain standard (Table 4.3.2)

Table 4.3.1 Summary of the BOAM inputs and results for habitat types that can be verifiably offset.

Habitat

type

Impact to

be offset

(ha)

Required

offset (ha)

Biodiversity components (and

attributes)

Component

Net Present

Biodiversity

Value

(Original)

Net Gain

Outcome

Component Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value (Updated)

Net Gain Outcome

Old

growth

treelands

0.13 of

vegetation

loss

0.6 ha of

restoration

planting

Canopy

(cover, height, basal area) 0.19

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years

0.19 Verified Net Gain in 20 years

Diversity

0.18

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Understorey

0.20

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years

Verified Net Gain in 20 years

Fauna resources

(cavities, fruiting trees, canopy

epiphytes, flaky bark, CWD)

After – cavities and epiphytes removed.

0.11

Verified Net

Gain in 35

years


Habitat

type

Impact to

be offset

(ha)

Required

offset (ha)


attributes)

Component

Net Present

Biodiversity

Value

(Original)

Net Gain

Outcome

Component Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value (Updated)

Net Gain Outcome

Fauna resources

(leaf litter) 0.21

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Kānuka

forest

1.3 of

vegetation

loss

2.3 ha of

restoration

planting

Canopy

(cover, average height, basal area) 0.27

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Diversity

0.19

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Understorey

0.31

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Fauna resources



After – cavities and epiphytes removed

0.36

Verified Net

Gain in 35

years


Advanced

secondary

broadleav

ed forest

0.04 of

vegetation

loss

0.17 ha of

restoration

planting

Canopy


Verified Net

Gain in 35

years


Diversity

0.04

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Habitat

type

Impact to

be offset

(ha)

Required

offset (ha)


attributes)

Component

Net Present

Biodiversity

Value

(Original)

Net Gain

Outcome

Component Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value (Updated)

Net Gain Outcome

Understorey

0.01

Verified Net

Gain in 35

years


Fauna resources




0.06

Verified Net

Gain in 35

years


Fauna resources

(CWD) 0.08

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Secondary

broadleav

ed forest

and

scrubland

s

6.71 of

vegetation

loss

24 ha of

restoration

planting

Canopy


Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Diversity

0.07

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Understorey

1.62

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Emergent trees (number of

individuals/ha, average height) 8.22

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Habitat

type

Impact to

be offset

(ha)

Required

offset (ha)


attributes)

Component

Net Present

Biodiversity

Value

(Original)

Net Gain

Outcome

Component Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value (Updated)

Net Gain Outcome

Fauna resources




5.73

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years



(average leaf litter) 7.54

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Mānuka

and

kānuka

shrubland

s

2.11 of

vegetation

loss

5.7 ha of

restoration

planting

Canopy

(cover, average height, basal area) 1.16

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Diversity

0.14

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Understorey

0.28

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Emergent trees (number of

individuals/ha, average height) 0.86

Verified Net

Gain in 15

years


Fauna resources



1.18

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Habitat

type

Impact to

be offset

(ha)

Required

offset (ha)


attributes)

Component

Net Present

Biodiversity

Value

(Original)

Net Gain

Outcome

Component Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value (Updated)

Net Gain Outcome

After – cavities and epiphytes removed)

Divaricati

ng

shrubland

s

0.33

vegetation

loss

0.65 ha of

restoration

planting

Canopy


Verified Net

Gain in 10

years


Diversity

0.05

Verified Net

Gain in 15

years


Understorey

0.01

Verified Net

Gain in 15

years


Fauna resources




0.01

Verified Net

Gain in 15

years


Secondary

broadleav

ed forest

with old

growth

signatures

0.25 of

vegetation

loss

1.3 ha of

restoration

planting

Canopy


Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Diversity

0.28

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Habitat

type

Impact to

be offset

(ha)

Required

offset (ha)


attributes)

Component

Net Present

Biodiversity

Value

(Original)

Net Gain

Outcome

Component Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value (Updated)

Net Gain Outcome

Understorey

0.17

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Fauna resources




0.32

Verified Net

Gain in 35

years



(average litter depth) 0.35

Verified Net

Gain in 20

years


Table 4.3.2 Summary of the BOAM inputs and results for habitat types that cannot be verifiably offset but for which a Net Gain outcome is expected through compensation.

Habitat type

Impact to be

compensated

(ha)

Required

compensation

(ha)


attributes)

Component Net


Value (Original) Net Gain outcome

Component Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value

Net Gain

outcome

Old growth

forest

(alluvial)

0.10 of

vegetation loss

0.9 ha of

restoration

planting

Canopy 0.22 Expected Net Gain

in 35 years

0.25 Expected Net

Gain in 35 years

Diversity 0.22 0.30

Understorey 0.20 0.24

Fauna habitat and food

provision (CWD, flaky bark,

fruiting trees)

0.04 0.14


provision (leaf litter)

0.13 0.14

Old growth

forest (hill

country)

0.85 of

vegetation loss

10 ha of

restoration

planting


in 35 years

2.51 Expected Net

Gain in 35 years

Diversity 2.66 2.66



provision (CWD, flaky bark,

fruiting trees)

0.70 0.80


provision (leaf litter)

1.74 0.88

Habitat type

Impact to be

compensated

(ha)

Required

compensation

(ha)


attributes)

Component Net



Component Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value

Net Gain

outcome

0.85 of

vegetation loss

300 ha pest

control/8.9 ha

bush retirement

– in parentheses

is the

Biodiversity

Value at Offset

Site for the

retirement sites.

Tawa basal area New variable 12.52/0.02 (0.38) Expected Net

Gain in 100

years

Matai basal area New variable 1.7/-0.31 (0.06) Expected Net

Gain in 35 years

Miro basal area New variable 3.3/-0.25 (0.11)

Pukatea basal area New variable 3.98/-0.24 (0.13)

Kahikatea basal area New variable 8.9/-0.08 (0.27)

Totara basal area New variable 0.03/-0.35 (0.01)

Rewarewa basal area New variable 6.55/-0.15 (0.20)

Titoki basal area New variable 6.27/-0.17 (0.20)

Ngaio basal area New variable 17.21/0.14 (0.52)

Raupō

dominated

seepage

wetlands

0.11 of

vegetation loss

0.35 ha of

restoration

planting

including 10 m

buffer planting


in 15 years

0.12 Expected Net

Gain in 15 years

Diversity 0.13 0.13


Habitat type

Impact to be

compensated

(ha)

Required

compensation

(ha)


attributes)

Component Net



Component Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value

Net Gain

outcome


provision

0.12 0.12

Emergent 0.8 0.8

Indigenous

dominated

seepage

wetlands

0.44 of

vegetation loss

1.2 ha of

restoration

planting

including 10 m

buffer planting

Canopy (Canopy cover, height

and basal area)

0.06 Expected Net Gain

in 35 years

Canopy excluded:

0.11 (Beagley and

Massey farms)

Expected Net

Gain in 35 years

Diversity 0.22 0.27 (Beagley

farm)

0.22 (Massey

farm)

Understorey 0.24 Excluded


provision

0.01 Excluded

Habitat diversity and evenness New variable Expected Net Gain

in 35 years

0.29 (Beagley

farm)

0.20 (Massey

farm)

Exotic

wetlands

4.42 of

vegetation loss

5 ha of

restoration

planting

Canopy (Canopy cover, height

and basal area)

0.70 Expected Net Gain

in 35 years

Canopy excluded:

0.4 (Beagley and

Massey farms)

Expected Net

Gain in 35 years

Diversity 0.01 0.01 (Beagley

farm)

Habitat type

Impact to be

compensated

(ha)

Required

compensation

(ha)


attributes)

Component Net



Component Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value

Net Gain

outcome

including 10

buffer planting

0.24 (Massey

farm)

Understorey 2.48 Excluded


provision

1.65 Excluded

Habitat diversity and evenness New variable 0.41 (Beagley

farm)

0.79 (Massey

farm)

Appendix 5Updated Biodiversity Compensation Models

Overview

Broadly speaking, to address residual effects on forest habitats, we propose to undertake a combination of native revegetation, bush retirement and short-term mammalian pest control within these sites and within the adjoining NMGSR.

In combination, the type and quantum of these measures is expected to achieve a net benefit for forest biodiversity from 10 years onward and the ability to verifiably offset a number of these biodiversity values. We also expect a Net Gain for all biodiversity values within the long-term.

As illustrated in the biodiversity compensation models provided in Technical Assessment G, we expect a Net Benefit in the short term (within 10 years) following the loss of 11.82 ha of indigenous-dominated forest and shrublands on the basis of:

• A conservatively assumed 3% increase in overall forest biodiversity value across the 400 ha subject to pest control during the 10 years

• A conservatively assumed 10% increase in overall forest biodiversity value within the 48.3 ha of bush subject to retirement as the understory develops

• The forest biodiversity value within the revegetated habitats equates to 10 % of forest biodiversity loss associated with project effects

Furthermore, in response to Horizons and submitter concerns surrounding the adequacy of the duration of pest control, we have also run the BCM to determine if the proposed measures are also expected to achieve a Net Gain in forest biodiversity values in the longer term (i.e. at 35 years) on the basis that:

• The gains associated with pest control have dropped to 1% (noting that red deer control is for 35 years but possum, mustelid and rat control will be

discontinued at 10 years). This is a very conservative assumption as illustrated below

• A conservatively assumed 35% increase in overall forest biodiversity value within the 48.3 ha of bush subject to retirement in direct response to the

exclusion of stock as the understory matures and the mid-story develops

• The forest biodiversity value of the revegetated habitats equates to the average value of the forest biodiversity loss associated with project effects.

Updated forest BCM inputs and outputs

This section sets out the data inputs and outputs of the BCM at 10 years (Table 5.2.1) and 35 years (Table 5.2.2) after commencement of offset and compensation measures. The justification for data inputs into the BCM are provided in Table 5.2.3.

Forest BCM at 10 Years

Table 5.2.1 Summary of data inputs and outputs for the Biodiversity Compensation Model (BCM) at 10 years. A negative NPBV = Net Loss, a NPBV of 0 = No Net Loss and a positive NPB = Net Gain.

Model inputs

Model descriptor

Biodiversity type Indigenous forest biodiversity

Biodiversity component biodiversity

Biodiversity attribute Condition/health

Benchmark 5

Impact model

Impact area (ha) 11.82

Pre-impact value relative to benchmark 2

Post-impact value relative to benchmark 0

Pest control compensation model (10

years)

Compensation area (ha) 300

Pre-compensation value 3.5

Post-compensation value 3.605 (3 % improvement)

Offset end point (years) 10

Confidence in offset actions Confidence (50%-75%)

Compensation area (ha) 48.3

Model inputs

Forest retirement compensation model

(10 years)

Pre-compensation value 2




Forest revegetation compensation

model (10 years)



Post-compensation value 0.5



Model outputs

Impact model -4.73

Compensation model (pest control) +2.91

Compensation model (retirement) +1.19

Compensation model (revegetation) +2.80

Net Present Biodiversity Value (NPBV) after 10 years +2.17

•

Table 5.2.2. Summary of data inputs and outputs for the Biodiversity Compensation Model (BCM) at 35 years. A negative NPBV = Net Loss, a NPBV of 0 = No Net Loss and a positive NPB = Net Gain. A negative NPBV = Net Loss, a NPBV of 0 = No Net Loss and a positive NPB = Net Gain.

Model inputs

Model descriptor

Biodiversity type Native forest

Biodiversity component Ecological value

Biodiversity attribute Not applicable

Benchmark 5

Impact model

Impact area (ha) 11.82

Pre-impact value relative to benchmark 2

Post-impact value relative to benchmark 0

Forest red deer control compensation

model (35 years)

Compensation area (ha) 300 ha

Pre-compensation value 3.5




Forest retirement compensation model

(35 years)






Forest revegetation compensation

model (35 years)



Post-compensation value 1.5



Model outputs

Impact model -4.73

Compensation model (red-deer control) +0.62

Compensation model (retirement) +1.98

Compensation model (revegetation) +4.01

Net Present Biodiversity Value (NPBV) after 35 years +6.61

•

Table 5.2.3 Description of data inputs for the Biodiversity Compensation Model (BCM) (Impact Model)

Model inputs Ecological value impact model

Ecological Value

Ecological value relates to the representativeness, rarity and distinctiveness, diversity and pattern, and ecological context

associated with the habitats/vegetation types within a project footprint as assessed against the benchmark (refer to Section 5.2

and table 4 of the Ecological Impact Assessment Guidelines (EcIAG 2018)

Measurement Unit

The Ecological Value scale ranges from 0 – 5 in ascending order of ecological value (EcIAG 2018)

0 = No Value

1 = Negligible Value

2 = Low Value

3 = Moderate Value

4 = High Value

5 = Very High Value (equal to benchmark)

Area of Impact (ha) Area of impact based on calculations

Based on

Benchmark

The benchmark constitutes the NMGSR under a hypothetical but realistic future state in which:

• The reserve has been under a long-term pest management regime with pest numbers at or near zero density over an

extended period,

• The reserve includes forest structural/vertical tier diversity (i.e. from the ground tier through to the emergent canopy)

• All native species that are known to respond positively to pest control and are expected to be present have recovered to

carrying capacity

At present, the NMGSR is a relatively rare example of temperate lowland tawa podocarp forest, a habitat type that historically

harboured large and diverse communities of native and endemic plants and animals. The Reserve is predominately mature

secondary forest of approximately 150 - 200 years in age and is dominated by tawa, kamahi and rimu with other notable canopy

species including rata, nikau, matai, miro and totara. The forest also includes isolated remnant/relict trees and some areas of early

regenerating broadleaf and kanuka forest. Notable plant species include the ‘At Risk’ giant maidenhair fern and native verbena.

Model inputs Ecological value impact model

Several rare and threatened fauna species are also present including popokatea/whiteheads, tītipounamu/North Island rifleman,

karearea/New Zealand falcon, several geckos and a large terrestrial beetle.

Measure prior to

Impact

A numerical measure of 2 has been assigned relative to the Benchmark of 5 (hypothetical future state for the NMGSR . This

numerical measure of 2 was determined based on the following:

• The description and assignment of ecological value for each of the habitat types as set out in the evidence of Terrestrial

Ecology Report and associated updates set out in the evidence of Dr Baber.

• An assessment of these ecological values for each habitat type against the benchmark, (the hypothetical future state of the

Manawatu Gorge Scenic Reserve) to provide a numerical score for each habitat type. For example, the 0.85 ha of Old Growth

Forest (Hill Country) was assessed as being of ‘Very High’ ecological value and was assessed as having a numerical ecological

value of 3.5 against the benchmark.

• Weighting of the numerical ecological values to provide a combined score. For example, the Old Growth Forest (Hill Country)

numerical ecological value score of 3.5 against the benchmark was assigned a weighting of 7.2% on the basis that the loss of

0.85 ha constituted 7.2% of the 11.82 ha of forest habitat loss associated with the project.

Measure after

Impact Forest species diversity at the impact site is assumed to be 0 on the likely assumption that the ecological value would drop to zero.

Ecological value

score As per model calculation

•

Table 5.2.4 Description of data inputs for the Biodiversity Compensation Model (BCM) (Compensation Model)

Forest Ecological Value Compensation Model

Discount rate

I have used a discount rate of 3% to account for the inherent risk in the temporal-lag between the impact occurring (due to the

development) and the biodiversity gains being generated (due to the offset actions). The worked examples provided in the model User

Manual apply a discount rate of 3%, as informed by research conducted as part of the Department of Conservation’s research project on

biodiversity offsetting in New Zealand.

Pest control compensation at 10 years and at 35 years

Proposed

compensation

Actions (pest

control)

Mammalian pest control in old growth forest (hill country) within/adjacent to the NMGSR. Details of the proposed pest control programmes

are set out in the pest management plan but in brief pest control would target possums, rats, mustelids and red deer.

• Based on condition assessments of the NMGSR and knowledge of typical rat and possum densities and effects in unmanaged forest,

possums and rats were expected to have moderate to high impacts on indigenous biodiversity. Pest control for possums and rats

include would aim to reduce these pests to 5 - 10% Residual Trap Catch Indices for a period of 10 year through annual control between

July and December inclusive.

• Browsing pressure by red-deer was assessed as having Low-Moderate effects on the understory and subcanopy and high impacts on

forest successional process. With highly palatable species seemingly absent or uncommon and moderately palatable species showing

high levels of browse (e.g. nikau, hangehange, tawa, mahoe, large-leaved coprosma, ramarama and pigeonwood). Deer control would

centre on shooting operations to near zero densities and be undertaken for a period of 35 years to provide adequate time for the

understory and sub-canopy to regenerate and for surviving canopy species to persist in the long-term.

Pest control area

(ha) 300 ha (Total area is ca 400 ha as pest control is also proposed for the retirement and revegetation sites).

Confidence in pest

control

compensation

I have conservatively assumed with 50% - 75% confidence that the pest control operation will achieve the predicted:

• 3% increase in overall ecological value for the 10 year duration of pest control activities that includes possum, rat, mustelids and deer

control


• 1% increase in overall ecological value from 10 to 35 years, i.e. the duration of red-deer control.

Time period over

which to calculate

NPBV

The time period over which to calculate NPBV is 1 year for pest control offsets as most benefits will commence almost as soon as the target

pest species are knocked down to target levels

Measure prior to

Pest Control

I have assumed that the existing ecological value in the NMGSR equates to a 3.5 relative to the hypothetical future state benchmark. While it

is a large intact mature forest block, it is not primary/remnant forest. Rather the majority of the NMGSR is estimated at 150 – 200 years old

with the occasional relict tree present. A small proportion of the forest is younger and looks to have been retired from grazing around 20

years ago. Moreover, the forest is not under continuous and intensive management of mammalian pests and therefore species diversity for

vulnerable flora and fauna is undoubtedly compromised with many of those species below carry capacity.

Measure after Pest

Control

I have conservatively assumed a 3% increase in overall ecological value for the 10 year duration of the possum, rat and red deer control

operations and a 1% increase in value from 10 - 35 years due to the ongoing control of red-deer during this period.

This is based on a comprehensive literature survey on the effects of pest control on forest biodiversity values in New Zealand. It is key to

note that for some species or species assemblages, I expected a much higher increase. Importantly, based on literature, I would expect a

significant increase in biodiversity for a number of flora and fauna that would be affected by the Project activities. This includes:

• Whitehead and falcon (both nationally ‘At Risk’ species)

• kereru, tui, and bellbird. These are all important keystone species that are essential to the ecological integrity of forested habitat due to

the pollination and seed dispersal benefits they provide.

• North island robin a regionally rare species

• Specific plant species

The project is also expected or may benefit a number of other flora or fauna (e.g. lizards, large-bodied invertebrates and some plant species)

however, evidence is inconclusive or anecdotal.


It is acknowledged that pest control will have little or no benefits on a large number of forest species and that the benefits of pest control

will diminish once the pest control operation is terminated (assuming it is not picked up by another organisation). However, we expect for

some long-lived plants the benefits of pest control (particularly the 35 year deer control) is likely to remain for hundreds of years.

Retirement compensation at 10 years and at 35 years

Proposed

retirement

compensation

Livestock exclusion fencing coupled with:

• 10 years control for rats, mustelid and possums

• 35 years of control for deer

• Deployment of logs to provide additional habitat diversity for flora and fauna

• Enrichment or infill plantings as required at year 3. This includes infill plantings of shade tolerant canopy species such as tawa, matai,

miro and hinau to ensure that successional processes are re-engaged.

Retirement

compensation area

(ha)

48.7 ha

Confidence in

Actions

I have assumed a confidence of 75 - 90% that the proposed retirement compensation will achieve the predicted benefits to forest species

diversity

Time period over

which to calculate

NPBV

10 years (short term) and 35 years (long-term)

Measure prior to

Offset

I have assumed that the forest species diversity within the existing forest habitat types for which bush retirement is proposed equates to an

average of 2 relative to the benchmark. It is not higher because most of the habitat types have low forest biodiversity (i.e., of the 48.7 ha,

7.6 ha is exotic shrubland and 12.8 ha is kanuka and manuka shrubland and because while 8.9 ha is old growth is included this habitat

includes a depauperate understory and mid-tiers due to the long-term impacts of livestock).

Measure after the

Offset

I have assumed a 10% increase in overall forest species diversity after 10 years and a 35% increase after 35 years as a direct result of

retirement and associated habitat restoration measures.


These expectations are considered conservative based on a comprehensive literature review on the effects of pest control and livestock

exclusion on forest biodiversity values in New Zealand as set out in Appendix 2). For some flora or fauna, I expect a much higher increase

than this but this is balanced by the fact that there is no evidence of a positive response to bush retirement and associated measures for

other species (see pest control model above for further detail).

Moreover, while stock will be excluded indefinitely, it is fully acknowledged that the benefits of pest control for fauna will diminish once the

pest control operation is terminated (assuming it is not picked up by another organisation). However, for some long-lived plants the benefits

of pest control including the 35 years of red deer control are likely to remain for hundreds of years.

Revegetation compensation at 10 years and at 35 years

Proposed

revegetation

compensation

Revegetation of native terrestrial vegetation coupled with

• Stock exclusion fencing

• 10 years control for rats, mustelids and possums

• 35 years of control for red deer

• Deployment of logs to provide additional habitat diversity for flora and fauna

• Enrichment or infill plantings as required at year 3. This includes infill plantings of shade tolerant canopy species such as tawa, matai,

miro and hinau to ensure that successional processes are re-engaged.

Retirement

compensation area

(ha)

45.6 ha

Confidence in

Actions

I have assumed a confidence of 75 - 90% that the proposed revegetation compensation will achieve the predicted benefits to forest species

diversity

Time period over

which to calculate

NPBV

10 years (short term) and 35 years (long-term)


Measure prior to

Offset

I have assumed that the forest species diversity will equal 0 relative to the benchmark as the revegetation will be undertaken within exotic

pasture habitat.

Measure after the

Offset

I have assumed that after 10 years of growth the forest species diversity will equate to 0.5 relative to the benchmark or 10% of the

biodiversity value and that after 35 years of growth the forest species diversity will equate to 1.5 or 30% of the benchmark.

Appendix 6: BOAM and BCM raw models

Biodiversity Offset Accounting Models (BOAM) Raw models

Advanced Secondary Broadleaf Forest

Th is section captures wh ich elements of biod ivers ity are to

be accounted for, and the benchmark va lue for the These cells provide information about the proposed Offset Actions

Attribute. The information matches that in the Impact

Model

Biodiversity Biodiversity Measurement Confidence in

Component Attribute Unit Benchmark Proposed Offset Actions Offset area {ha)

Offset Actions

Confident 75-1.1 Cano py 1.1a Cover per-ce nt 90 Pla nt ing., weed control and fenc ing 0 .17

90%

Confide nt 75-1.lb He ight metre 12 Pla nt ing., w eed control and fenc ing 0.17

90%

1.lc Bas.a l area m2/ ha 50 Confident 75-

Pla nting., weed control and fenc ing 0 .17 90%

Pe rcentage Confid ent 75-

1.3 Unders.torey 1.3a cover of Percent 50 Plant ing., weed co ntrol and fenc ing 0 .17 90% .

Fauna Confident 75-1.5 1.Sa 0 0 0

resourc es. 90%

Confid ent 75-1.Sb 0 0 0

90%

Num De r of Confident 75-

1.Sc Taw a fruit fru it ing , , ooo ls a

0 Plant ing., weed co ntrol and fenc ing 0 .17 90%

Average litt er Confident 75-1.Sd Leaf l itter

-de pth (mm ) 30 Plant ing., weed co ntrol and fenc ing 0 .17

90%

Flaky bark Confident 75-1.Se Flaky bark

t rees/ ha 2000 Planting., weed control and fenc ing 0 .17

90%

Ca lc ulations can be made

for a fi nite end point, or at

five yea rly t ime-steps over

35 years. Ind icate

preference in Column I( and

Foll ow the instructions in

Column L

Fin ite end Cont inue to

J)Oint ColumnM


J)Oint ColumnM


J)Oint ColumnM

Fin ite en d Continue to

point Co lumn M

Fin ite em:I Cont inue to

point Column M

Fin ite en d Cont inue to

point Column M

Fin ite end Continu e to

point Column M

Fin ite en d Cont inue to

point Column M

Fin ite encl Cont inue to

point Column M

This section is where the margina l change in the measure of Biod ivers ity

Attribute due to the Offset Action is quantified. Inputs are derived from direct

measu re, existing data or models where ava il able, or expert estimated

pred ictions. Attribute Biod ivers ity Va lue at the Offset Site is compared to the

Attr ibute Biod ivers ity Va lue at the Impact Site to calcu late the Net Present o ; ·" ·~·· ,,.

nmetill Biodiversity Biodiversity Attr ibute Net

Measure .Q!!Q.L Measure after Present

!QOffset Ofuet endpoint Value at Offset Value at

Biodive rsity (years) Site Impact Site ..

0 90 10 0 .10 -0.04 0 .0 6

0 8 20 0 .0 5 -0.02 0 .04

0 30 35 0 .03 -0.01 0 .02

0 33 20 0 .0 5 -0.04 0 .01

Not 0 0

c alc"u lat e-d 0 .00 0 .00

Not 0 0

ca lcu lat e-cl 0 .00 0 .00

0 0 35 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00

0 20 20 0 .0 5 -0.0 1 0 .04

0 1500 20 0 .0 6 0 .00 0 .0 6

Th is is the average Net

Present Biodivers ity

Va lue for the

Biodivers ity

Component

Component Net Present

Biodiversity Value

0 .04

~ ~

Scondary broadleaf forest and shrubland

Thi s section capt ures whi ch elements of bi odiversity are t o

be accounted for, and the benchmark value for the These cells provide information about t he proposed Offset Actions


Model

Biodiversity Biodiversity M easurement Confidence in

Component Attribut e Unit Benchmark Proposed Offset Actions Offset area {hal

Ofhe-tActions

r 1.1 Canopy 1.1a Cover percent 90 Planting, weed control and fencin1 24 Confident 7S-

90S6

1.l b Height met re 10 Planting, w ee-cl control and fen-ci r11 24 Confident 75-

90S6

1.lc Basal area m2/ ha so Planting, weed control and fencirt1 24 Confident 75-

'°"

I Percen tage

Conf id ent 75-1.3 Understo rey 1..3a cove r of Percent 50 Planting, w eed cont ro l and fencing 24

90S6

r Fauna habit at

Conf id ent 7S-1.5 and food 1..Sa 0 0 0 Planting, wee-cl control and fencing 24

90S6

1.Sb 0 0 0 Plant ing, wee-cl control and fencing 24 Conf id ent 75-

90%

1.Sc Fruit ing

0 24 Conf id ent 75-

Fruit ing t rees t rees/ ha

Plant ing, weed control and fencing 90%

1,Sd CWD volume{m3)/h

32 24 Conf id ent 75-

a Plimt inc., we~ ,ontrol ilnd fe:m:in1

90%

1.Se Flaky bark

2000 24 Conf id ent 75-

Flaky bark t rees/ ha

Plant ing. weed control and fencing 90%

r Fauna habit at

Average leaf Confid ent 75-1.6 and food 1.6a

litter mm 30 Planting, w eed control and fencing 24

90'6

Calculations can be made

for a finite end point, or at

five yearly time-st eps over

35 years. Indicate

preference 'n Column K and

Follow the instructions in

Column L

Fini te end Cont inue t o

point Column M

Fini t e end Cont inue to

point ColumnM

Fini t e end Cont inue t o

point Column M

Finit e end Continue to

point Column M


point Column M


point ColumnM

Fini t e end Continue to

point Column M


point Column M


point Column M

Finit e end Continue t o

point Column M

This section 1s where the margina l change 1n the ~ asure ofB1od1\/ers1ty

Attribute due to the Offset Action 1s quantified. inputs are derived from dirl!ci:

measure, existing data or models where available, or expert estimated

predictions. Attribute Biodiversity Va lue at the Offset Site is compared t o the

Attribute Biodiversity Va lue at the Impact Site to calculate the Net Present .... fn, •~ ih,.+ ..

Time till Biodiwen ity Biodiwenity Attribute Net

MeiHUreR!!Q!. Me;uure~ec- Pr-• ,!20ffset Oft>et

endpoint Viiilue iiit CNbet Vilolueiiit

fye.sl Site bnpKt.Site Biodiwenity

0 90 20 10.96 -S.91 S.05

0 8 20 8.77 -3.29 S.48

0 30 20 6.SS -3.07 3.SO

0 33 20 7 .24 -6.62 0 .62

0 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00

0 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00

0 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00

0 22 20 7.54 -0.35 7.19

0 l SOO 20 8 .22 •2.30 5.92

0 20 20 7.31 -3.42 3.89

This ·s the a\/eraee Net

Present Biodi\/ersity

Value for the

Biodiversity

Component

Componeflt Net Preseflt

Biodivenity ViiiJue

4.68

0 .62

6.55

3.89

Secondary Broadleaf Forest with Old-Growth Signatures

This section captures which elements of biodiversity are to

be accounted for, and the benchmark value for the These eel Is provide information about the proposed Offset Actions


Model

Biodiversity Biodiversity Me~ement Confidence in

Component Attribute Unit -- Proposed Offset Actions Offset M ea {ha) Offset A ctK>nS

1.1 Canopy I.la C<we, percent 90 Planting, weed conuol and fencin& 1.3 Confident7S-

90S6

I .lb Height mEtre 12 1.3 Confidenc7S-

Planting. weed conuol and fencin& 9056

I .le 8..as at a rea m2/ha 50 1.3 Confident 75-

Plar!tinc. vi,eed conuol and fencin& 90S6

Perce ntage Conf ident 75-

1.3 Underst o rey 1.3a cover of Perc ent 70 Planting, w eed cont rol and f encing 1.3 9056

Fauna habi t at Confident 75-

1.5 and food 1.Sa 0 0 0 0 0 90%

1..Sb 0 0 0 0 0 Conf ident 75-

90%

Number of Conf ident 75-

1.Sc. Fruit ing t ree> fruit ing 0 Planting, w eed control and fencing 1.3 -volume(m3)/h

Low

1..Sd C\VD a

32 Planting, w eed control and fencing 1.3 conf idence ,,~ - ,~

number of Conf ident 75-

1.5e f laky bark flaky bark 2000 Planting, w eed control and fencing 1.3 90%

· '"

Fauna habi t at Average litter Confident 75-

1.6 and food ,. .. d epth

mm 30 Planting, w eed control and fencing 1.3 90%

Calculations can be made for a finite end point, or at

five yearly time-steps over

35 years. Indicate

preference in Column Kand


Column L


point Column M


point Column M

Finite end Cont inue to

point Column M


point ColumnM


point Column M


point Column M


point C.Olumn M


point Column M


point Column M


point Column M

This section is where the mar1inal change in the measure of Biodiversity

Attribute due to the Offset Action is quantified. Inputs a re derived from direct

measure, existine data or models where available, or expert estimated

predictions. Attribute Biodiversity Value at the Offset Site is compared to the

Attribute Biodiversity Value at the Impact Site to calculate the Net Present

-· Va l.,, fM ·I, ......... ,,, .. -

n metill Biodiveriity Biodiversity Attribute Net

Me..s;ure.Q!!QL M easure after Pre-sent

!QOffset Offset endpoint Value at Offset Value at

(years) Sit e lm~Sit e Biodiversi ty

" ·

0 90 20 0 .5'3 -0.11 OAS

0 • 20 0 .40 -0.10 0 .2.9

0 30 20 0 .36 -0.06 0 .30

0 33 20 0 .28 -0.25 0 .0 3

0 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00

0 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00

0 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00

0 22 20 0 .31 0 .00 0 .3 1

0 1500 20 0.45 -0.0 3 0 .4 2

0 20 20 0 .40 -0.25 0 .15

This is th~ a\ll!!rae:e Net

Pr~sent Biodiversity

Value for the

Biodiversity

Component


Biodiversity Value

0.36

~ ~

0 .15

Kānuka Forest

This sect i on captures which el ements of b iodiversity a re to

be accounted for, and the benchmark va l ue for the These cells provide i nformati on about the proposed Offset Actions

Attri bute. The i nformati on m atches that i n the Impact

Model


Component Attribute Unit Benchmark Proposed Offset Actions Offset area {hal

Offset Actions

1.1 Canopy 1,la Cover percert so Planting, weed contro l andfern:ing 2.3 Conf id ent 75-

SO%

1.lb Average

height metre 12 Planting, weed contro l and fern:ing 2.3

Confid ent 75-

SO%

1.l c Basal area m2/ ha 28 2.3 Conf id ent 75-

Planting, weed contro l and fen<:ing SO%

Puc1nt111 Conf idtnt 75~

1.3 Understorey 1.3a cover of Percent 40 Pl•ntlns. WH·d cont rol • nd fen<in1 2.3 SO%

; " ~ ; ~ ,." , .. ,,~

Fauna habitat Flaky bark Conf ident 75-

1.5 and food 1.Sa Flaky bark t rees/ ha

2000 Planting, w eed contro l and fencing 2.3 SO%

1.5b 0 0 0 0 0 Conf ident 75-

SO%

1.5c CWD m3/ ha 22 Planting, weed contro l and fen<:ing 2.3 Conf id ent 75-

SO%

1.Sd Leaf litter Average litter

30 2.3 Confid ent 75-

d epth (mm) Planting, weed control and fencing

SO%

1.5e 0 0 0 r 0 Conf ident 75-

SO%

Calcul ations can be m ade


five y early time-steps over

35 y ear s. Indi cate

prefer ence i n Col umn Kand

Follow the i nstructi ons i n

Col umn L

Fini te end Continue to

point Column M


point Column M


point Column M

Flnl t l I nd Cont lnu• to

point ColumnM


point Column M

Fini te end Cont inue to

point Column M

Finite end Continue to

point Column M


point Column M

Fini te end Cont inue to

point Column M

This secti on i s where the marg ina l ch ange i n the m easure of Bi odive r sity

Attri bute due to the Offset Acti on i s quantified. Inputs are Jerived from direct

measure, exi sting data or model s where available, or expert estima ted

pred i cti ons. Attri bute Biodiver sity Va l ue at the Offset Site i s compared to the

Attribute Biodiversity Va l ue at the Impact Site to calcul a:e the Net Present

i:i;,..,. ;.,,.r,.;+., v ;:i l11F fnr ,.,,.,.1-, l\f+ri l-.,, f-,.

Timetill Biodiversity Biodiversity Attribute Net

Measure.E!.!!QL M easure after Present !QOffset Offset

endpoint Value at Offset Value,1t Biodiversity

{years) Site lmpac1Site " ·

0 so 10 1 .41 -0.76 0 .65

0 8 20 0 .70 -0.49 0 .21

0 18 20 0 .68 -1.0 6 -0.39

0 33 20 0 .&7 .0.08 0 .79

0 1500 20 0.79 -0.75 0 .04

0 0 0 0.00 0 .00 0 .00

0 22 20 1.0 5 -0.56 0 .49

0 20 20 0.70 -0.0 3 0 .67

0 0 0 0.00 0 .00 0 .00

This i s the average Net

Present B iodiversity

Va l ue for the

Bi odiversity

Component


Biodiversity Value

0.16

Mānuka and kānuka forests

This section captures which elements of b1od1versity are to

be accounted for. and the benchmark va I ue for the These eel Is provide 1nformat1on about the proposed Offset Actions

Attribute The ,nformat,on matches that ,n the impact

Mod•I

Bfodiversity BIOdiversity Me~ement Confidence iin ~·· Attribute Unit Ben< ...... Proposed Offset Actions Offset MH (tyJ

Offset Actions

1.1 Canopy Lh ea.., percent 90 Planting. weed control and fencing S.7 Confident 75-

""" 1.lb

h e.rage s

Confident 7S-

height metre Plantin&, w eed control and fencinc S.7

""" 1.lc bu,lue• m2/h• 28 S .7

Confident 7S-Pl• ntin&, weed control •nd fencinc

""" Percentage

Conf id ent 75-1.3 Understorey 1.3a cover of Percent 40 Plantinc., weed control and fen-cine S.7

SOS< . ,. Fauna habit at

Flaky bark Confid ent 75-t .S and food 1.Sa Flaky bark

trees/ ha 2000 Planting, weed control and fencing S.7

SOS<

1.Sb 0 0 0 0 0 Conf ident 75-

SOS<

1.Sc CWD m3/ ha 250 S.7 Confident 75-

Planting, weed control and fen-cin1 SOS<

1.Sd 0 0 0 0 0 Conf ident 75-

SOS<

1.Se Leaf litter Average litter

30 S.7 Conf ident 75-

d epth (mm) Planting, weed control and fen-cin1

SOS<

Celculations can be made

for a f1n1te end point. or at

five yearly t1t'M--steps over

35 years Indicate

preference m Column Kand

Fol low the instructions n

Columnl

Finrte end Continue to

point ColumnM

Finite end Continue to point ColumnM


point ColumnM


l)Oint ColumnM

Finit e end Cc,ntinue to

J>Oint Colum n M


J>Oint Column M

Finite end Cont inue to

J>Oint Column M

Finite end Cc,ntinue to

l)Olnt Column M


l)Oint Column M

This section s where the mar11na1 chance 1n the measure of B1od1vers1ty

Attribute due to the Offset Action ,s quant1f1ed Inputs are derived from direct

measure. ex,st•nc data or models where available, or expert estimated

pred,ct,ons Attribute B1od1vers,tyValue at the Offset Site 1s compared to the

Attribute B1od1vers1tyValue at the Impact s,te to calculate the Net Present

JM ·-. Timetill BIOdwerstty Bfodffl!rwty

Attribute Net Me~e2!!2!. Meuure~e, Present

!9!0ftset Oft>et endpoint Vo1l1.te ilt Offset V~1.teo1t

fy,,nj Sit• lmpKtSite Biodiversity .,_, ___

0 90 lS 3.02 -1.06 1.96

0 • t s 2.41 -1.78 0.63

0 18 20 1.67 -1.15 0.52

0 33 20 2.15 -0.70 1.45

0 lSOO 20 1.95 -0.97 0 .98

0 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00

0 20 20 0 .21 -0.16 0 .0 5

0 0 0 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00

0 20 20 1.74 -0.58 1.15

This is the avera1e Net

Present B1od1versity

Vafue for the B1od1vers,ty

Component


BIOdiversity Villue

1.0<

~ ~

Canopy species in Old Growth Forest (Hill Country) – Manawatū Scenic Reserve North proposed pest control

This section is where the change in measure of each

This section captures which elements of biodiversity, and over Biodiversity Attribute due to the proposed Impact is

quantified, and Attribute Biodiversity Value calculated. what area, will be impacted by the proposal

Inputs are derived from direct measures, existing data or models where available. or expert estimated predictions

Biodiversity Biodiversity Attribute

Measurement Area of Impact Benchmark

Measure prior Measure after Biodiversity Component Unit (ha) to Impact Impact Value

1.1 Canopy trees 1.la Tawa Basal area

(m2/ha) 0.85 50 21.2 0 -0.36

1.lb Matai Basal area

0.85 1.7 0.74 0 -0.37 (m2/ha)

1.lc Miro Basal area

0.85 (m2/ha)

0.96 0.41 0 -0.36

1.ld Pukatea Basal area

0.85 0.81 0.35 0 -0.37 (m2/ha)

1.le Kahikatea Basal area

0.85 (m2/ha)

0.38 0.16 0 -0.36

1.2 Canopy trees 1.2a Totara Basal area

0.85 9.05 3.85 0 -0.36 (m2/ha)

1.2b Rewarewa Basal area

0.85 0.51 0.21 0 -0.35 (m2/ha)

1.2c Titoki Basal area

0.85 0.53 0.23 0 -0.37 (m2/ha)

1.2d Ngaio Basal area

0.85 0.2 0.09 0 -0.38 (m2/ha)

r 1

I 1.1

r 1.1

BIODIVERSITY

TYPE

Canopy t ree

renlacement

DISCOUNT

RATE

0 .0 3

::.,.,.. 0. n-UI..--Ull u" dl.t.U U lllll'5 ......... , ,u , t:dU I 0 11.IUlt't:1: ·, ,uu,uuu: .,.,...,,. ,1, ,.. ,uoe:. •nu ''5''~ U !UWU ...... ~

At column K choose method of accounting for time and follow instructions. If using a finite end point , continue Oil t his sheet. If calculating the offset as Kcrued over t ime use the Offset Model_s yearly wortsheet. Step 7: Repeat for additional Biodh1ersity Components (scrolling down the sheett Step a: Use a new worlbool: for each Biodiversity Type

This section captures which ele ments of biodivers ity a re to

be accounted for, and the benchma rk va lue for the These cells provide informa t ion a bout the proposed Offset Act ions

Attribute. The informa tion matches tha t in the Impact

Model

Biodiversi ty Biodiversity Measurement Confidence in

Component Attribute Unit Benchmark Proposed Offset Act ions Offset area (ha)

Offset Act ions

Canopy t rees 1.la Taw a Basal area

{m2/ ha) so Pest control 300

Confident 75-

90'6

1.1b Mat ai Basal area

1.7 Pest control 300 Confident 75-

{m2/ ha) 90'6

1.lc M iro Bas.al area

{m2/ha) 0 .96 Pest control 300

Confident 75-

90'6

1.ld Pukat ea Sas.al area

{m2/ha) 0 .81 Pest control 300

Confident 75-

90'6

1.le Kahikat ea Basal area

(m2/ha) 0 .38 Pest cont rol 300

Confident 75-

90'6

Cano py trees 1.2a Totara Sas.al area

{m2/ha) 9 .0 5 Pest control 300

Conf ident 75--

90%

1.2b Rew arew a Basal area

(m2/ ha) 0 .51 Pest control 300

Conf ident 75--

90'6


(m2/ ha) 0 .53 Pest cont rol 300

Conf ident 75-

90'6

1.2d Ngaio Sas.al area

(m2/ha) 0 .2 Pest <:ontrol 300

Confident 75-

90%

Calculat ions can be made


five yearly t i me-steps over

35 years. Indicate

prefe rence in Column Kand

Follow the instruct ions in

Column L


point ColumnM


point ColumnM


point ColumnM


point Column M


point ColumnM

Fin it e end Continue to

point Column M

Fin it e end Continue to

point Column M

Fin i te end Continue to

point Column M

Fin it e end Cont inue to

point Column M

This sect ion is where the ma rgina l change in the measure of Biodive rs ity

Attribute due to the Offset Act ion is quantified. Inputs a re derived from direct

measure, exis ting data or models where ava ila ble, or expert estimated

pred ict ions. Attribute Biodive rsity Va lue at the Offset Site is compa red to the

Attribute Biod iversity Va lue at the Impact Sit e to calcula te the Net Present "" Va lu, fn, ·~.


Measure~ Measure after Present

~Offset Offset endpoint Value at Offset Value at

{years) Site Impact Site Biodiversity

'" ' '""

0 94.2 100 12.88 --0.36 12.52

0 0 .04 35 2.0 7 --0.37 1.70

0 0 .04 35 3.66 --0.36 3.30

0 0 .04 35 4.34 --0.37 3.98

0 0 .04 35 9 .26 --0.36 8 .90

0 0 .04 35 0 .39 --0.36 0 .0 3

0 0 .04 35 6.90 --0.35 6.55

0 0 .04 35 6.64 --0.37 6.27

, Measure prior to Offset I 17.59 --0.38 17.21 Enter the Attribute measure

"'" . ~-.

This is the average Net


Va lue for t he

Biodiversity

Component


SiodiversityValue

6.08

7.51

Canopy species in Old Growth Forest (Hill Country) – Retirement areas




Inputs are derived from direct measures, existing data or

models where available. or expert estimated predictions




1.1 Canopy trees 1.la Tawa Basal area

(m2/ha) 0.85 50 21.2 0 -0.36

1.lb Matai Basal area

0.85 1.7 0.74 0 -0.37 (m2/ha)

1.lc Miro Basal area

0.85 (m2/ha)

0.96 0.41 0 -0.36

1.ld Pukatea Basal area

0.85 0.81 0.35 0 -0.37 (m2/ha)

1.le Kahikatea Basal area

0.85 (m2/ha)

0.38 0.16 0 -0.36

1.2 Canopy trees 1.2a Totara Basal area

0.85 9.05 3.85 0 -0.36 (m2/ha)

1,Zb Rewarewa Basal area

0.85 0.51 0.21 0 -0,35 (m2/ha)


0.85 0.53 0.23 0 -0.37 (m2/ha)

1.2d Ngaio Basal area

0.85 0.2 0.09 0 -0.38 (m2/ha)

I 1

r 1.1

I 1.2

BIODIVERSITY

TYPE

Canopy tree

renlac em ent

OISCOUNT

RAllS

0 .0 3

Step 6: Work through .accounting model for each Biodiversity Attr ibute entering values into light brown cells. At column K choose method of accounting for t ime and follow instructions. rf using a finite end point, continue on t his sheet. If calculating the offset as accrued O'Vt!r t ime use the Offset Mode-l_s yearly wortsheet .

Step 7: Repeat for additional Biodiversity Components (saolling down the sheet) step a: use a new wortbook for each Biodiversity Type

Th is sect i on captures whi ch elements of bi odiversity are to

be accounted for, and the benchmark val ue for the These cells provi de i nformat i on about the proposed Offset Act i ons

Attri bute. The informat i on matches that i n the Impact

M odel


Component Attribut e Unit Benc.hmark Proposed Offset Actions Offset area {ha)

Offset Actions

Cano py t rees l .l a Taw a Basal area

(m2/ ha) 50 Bush rat i ram ant 8 .9

Confid ent75--

9096

1.lb M at ai Basal area

1.7 Confid ent 75-

(m 2/ ha) Bush ret i rement 8 .9

9096

l .l c M iro Basal area

0 .96 Bush ret i rement 8 .9 Confid ent 75-

(m 2/ ha) 9096

1.ld Pukat ea Basal area

0 .81 Bush re Offset Area 8 .9 Confid ent 75-

(m 2/ ha) Enter the area {in 9096

Basal area hectares) over w hich

Confid ent75--1.l e Kahikat ea

(m 2/ ha) 0 .38 Bush re the Offset Actions 8 .9

9096 w ill be imolemented.

Canopy t rees 1.1a Totara Basal area

(m 2/ ha) 9 .0 5 Bush retireme nt 8 .9

Confident 75-

9096

1,1b Rew arew a Basal area

(m 2/ ha) 0 .51 Bush ret i reme nt 8 .9

Conf id ent 75-

9096

1.2cc Titoki Basal area

0 .53 Confid ent 75-

(m2/ ha ) Bush ret i rement 8 .9

9096

1.2d Basal area

0 .2 Bush ret i rement 8 .9 Confident 75-

Ngaio (m 2/ ha) 9096

Calcul at i ons can be made

for a f i nite end point, or at

f ive year ly t i me-st eps over

35 years. Indi cate

preference i n Column t:: and

Follow t he i nstruct i ons i n

Column L


point Column M


point Column M


point Column M


point Column M


point Column M


point Column M

Finit e end Cont inue t o

point Column M

Finit e end Cont inue to

point Column M


point Column M

Thi s secti on i s where the margi nal change i n the measure of Bi odiversity

Attribute due to the Offset Act i on i s quantif ied. Inputs are der ived from di rect

measure, exi sti ng dat a or model s where available, or expert esti mated

predi ct i ons. Attribute Bi odiversity Value at the Offset Site i s compared to the

Attri bute Bi odiversity Val ue at the Impact Site to calcul ate th e Net Present ,fnr ,.,,.,-h A++-, i h,,t-,.

Tim e t ill Biodiversity Biodiversity-Attribut e Net

Measure.E!!.!Q!'._ M ea.sureafter Present

!QOffset Offset e nd point Value at Offset Value at

{yearsl Sit e Impact Sit e Biodiversity

" ·'···

0 94.2 100 0 .38 -0.36 0 .0 2

0 0 .04 35 0 .0 6 -0.37 -0.31

0 0 .04 35 0 .11 -0.36 -0.15

0 0 .04 35 0 .13 -0.37 -0.14

0 0 .04 35 0 .27 -0.36 -0.08

0 0 .04 35 0 .0 1 -0.36 -0.3 5

0 0 .04 35 0 .20 -0.35 --0,15

0 0 .04 35 0 .20 -0.37 --0,17

0 0 .04 35 0 .52 -0.38 0 .1 4

Thi s i s the average Net


Value for the

Bi odiversity

Component


Biodiversity Value

-0.17

--0.13

Old Growth Forest (Hill Country)

This section captures which e lements of biodiversity a re to

be accounted for, and the benchmark va lue for the These cells provide information about the proposed Offset Actions


Model


Component Attribute Unit Benchmark Proposed Offset Actions Offset area {hal

Offset Actions

1.1 Canopy 1.1a Cover percent 90 10 Confid ent 75-

Plant ing. weed contro l andfencin1 90%

1.1b Height met re 20 Ph1nting. w eed contro l 11nclf encin1 10 Confid ent75-

90%

1.lc- Bas.al area m2/ ha 69 Plant ing. weed control anclfencin1 10 Confid ent75-

90%

·e,cem••• Confid ent75-

1.3 Und erstorey 1.3a cover of Percent 55 Plant ing. weed control anclfencin1 10 90%

" " Fauna habi t at

Average litter Low

1.6 and foocl 1.6a mm 4-0 Pl11nt ing. w eed control 11nclfencin1 10 co nf id ence d epth > ... ~<~ ... =

Calculations can be made


five yearly time-steps over

35 years. Indicate

preference in Column Kand


Column L


?Dint ColumnM


point ColumnM


point ColumnM


point Column M


point ColumnM

This section is where the margina l change in the measure of Biodiversity

Attribute due to the Offset Action is quantified. Inputs a re derived from d irect

measure, existing data or models where ava ilable, or expert estimated


Attribute Biodiversity Value at the Impact Site to calculate the Net Present n · Val,,, lo, --•" , ... ,c .. ,_


Measure l!lli!.[ Measure after Present

!Q.Offset Off~t endpoint Value at Offset Value at

{yearsl Site Impact Site Biodiversity .,

0 90 10 6.14 -0.80 5.34

0 8 20 1.83 -0.77 1.0 6

0 46 35 1.95 -0.82 1.14

0 33 20 2.74 -0.81 1.9 3

0 20 20 1.72 -0.8 4 0 .88

This is the average Net


Va lue for the

Biodiversity

Component


Biodiversity Value

2.51

1.9 3

0 .88

Old Growth Forest (Alluvial)





models where available. or exoert estimated oredictions




1.1 Canopy 1.la Cover percent 0.1 90 20 0 -0.02

1.lb Height metre 0.1 20 6 0 -0.03

1.lc Basa l area m2/ha 0.1 69 53.1 0 -0.08

1.2 Diversity 1.2a Diversity of native Species

vascu lar plants richness 0.1 52 7 0 -0.01

1.3 Understorey 1.3a P~ rt.:~ llli:::lg~ t.:UV~ I ur

Percent 0.1 55 5 0 -0.01 indigenous species

• ........ ,c:1 . ....... , .......

1.5 and food 1.Sa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00 ..

1.Sb 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.00

1.Sc Tawa fruit Kilos per

hectare 0.1 587.5 0 0 0.00

1.Sd CWD Volume

0.1 100 4 0 0.00 (m3)/ha

1.Se flaky bark Number of flaky

0.1 37.5 100 0 -0.10 bark trees/ha

Thi s section captures which e lements o f biodiver sity a r e t o

be accou nted for. a nd the ben chmark value for the These cells provide i nfor mati on about t he proposed Offs.et Actions.

Attri bute. The informa tion m atch es tha t in the Impact

Mode l

Biod.iversity Biodiftnity Me;asu,-ement Confidence in

Component Attribute Unit BenchmMk Prnposed Offset A ctions Offset ;M"H (~)

Offset Actions

t.l Canopy Lb eo.., percenl 90 Pl1ntinc, weed control 1nd fe11Cin1 0.9 Confide nt 7 5-

""" l.lb Hei&ht meu e 20 Pl1ntin1, wHd control 1nd fe11Cin1 0.9

Confide nt 7 5-

""" 1.lc Saini 1re1 m2Jh• 69 Pl1ntin1, wHd control 1nd f e11Cin1 0 .9

Confident 7 5-

""" Diversi ty of

Species Confid ent75-1.2 Diversitv 1.2a nat ive 52 Plantin,t weed control anclfencin_,: 0 .9 ....... ,_, r1cnness '°"

Percentage Conf ident 75-

1.3 Understo rey 1.3a cover of Percent 55 Plant ing, weed control and fencing 0 .9 905< ..

Fauna habit at Confid ent75-

1.5 and food 1 •. Sa 0 0 0 905<

1.Sb 0 0 0 Confident 754

905<

1.Sc Taw a frui t Kilo s p.er

58 7.5 0 .9 Confident 75-

hectare Plant inc, w eed control andfencinc:

90%

Volume low

1.5d CWD {m3)/ ha

100 Plant ing. weed control and fencing 0 .9 conf id ence ,.- ,,.~ Number of Low

1.5e f laky bark f laky bark 37.5 Planting, w eed control and fencing 0 .9 conf id ence

·-- '" -·~ ,,·~ ~auna nao1t at

Average litter LOW

1.6 and food 1.Ga mm 40 Plant ing, weed control and fencing 0 .9 co nfidence _____ ,_,_ d epth >"......., <,.,...,

Calculations. can be m a d e

for a finite end point. o r at

f ive yearly time-step s. over

35 yea r s.. Indicate

pr efer en ce in Column K and

Fo ow the ;nstructions in

Columnl

finite end Con, inue to

point Column M

Nnite end Concinue co

po<nt C:Olumn M

Finite end Cont inue co

po<nt Column M

Fini te end Continue to point COlumnM


point Column M


point Column M


point Column M


point Column M


point Column M


point Column M

Fin it ~ end I Continue to

point Column M

This. secti on i s. w h ere the margi n a l change i n t he measure of Biodiversity

Attribute due to the Offs.et Acti on is. qua nt i f ie d . I n puts a re derived from d i rect

measure, exi sting data or model s where availabl e, or e.xpert estimated

predictfons. Attribut e Bi odiver sity Val u e at the Offset Site i s compared to the

Attribute Bi odiver sity V a l ue at the Impact Site to calcu l ate t he Net Present ... '"' ·- .


Me~re~ Me;asureafter Pt-esent

!20fhet Othet endpoint Value at Offset Value at

(years) Site lmpKtSite Biodiversity ..

0 90 10 0 .55 -0.02 0. 53

0 8 20 0 .16 -0.0 3 0.13

0 .. 35 0 .1S -0.08 0.10

0 40 20 0 .32 -0.0 1 0 .30

0 33 20 0 .25 -0.0 1 0 .24

0 0 Not

calculat ed 0 .00 0 .00

0 0 Not

calculat ed 0 .00 0 .00

0 0 35 0 .00 0 .00 0 .00

0 22 20 0 .07 0 .00 0 .0 6

0 600 20 0 .31 -0.10 0 .21

0 20 20 0.15 I -0.02 I 0 .14 I

This. is. the a ver age Net

Present Biodiver s ity

Va lue for the

B iodiver sity

Component


BiodivflvtyV~ue

0 .25

B 1 0 .1. 1

0 .14

Exotic Dominated Wetlands (Low Value) – Beagley Farm

l ,l.

l ,J

1.S





models where available. or exoert estimated oredictions



Measure prior Measure after Biodiversity

Component Unit (ha) to Impact Impact Value

__ .,_ ., __ , .... , 1.5 and food 1.Sa Habitat richness Count 4.42 6 1 0

..

1h ,, ~ect,c , c,pt,. ·~ w , ,ch eh:mer:s :ofb cc:hwrs,:y , rt t:o :'I(' , r ··1uf'Vl'•r fnr ~"'tt rt~ t · r · 'l<n:)1'W: lur-fnrthr

/llJi:.wlo: . TI10: i1 I.II' ·1 , li1.··1 ·11«l1.I ::. U , l i1 . ·1..- l11t1,1c . l

Mod<I

T·1i:.:.:-•• lv1 b 111 : 10: U1,: 111c11:,i11cl ,. ' l<1tU:c i, h e ·110: , w 1:- 1.:l 8i,.•J iv,:•:.i . ,

Cch. Jlc liv11:. ,..,, L: ·1 ,,J,.. Attr,b,. -:e :lue to t H :Jffsc~ Act,~ , ,s qut ,:rfic :I. 1np,. ~ , re c.:m.;ed f -om c ,rect TO< :, hr ,-:i:c,d po, , t, or , t ,y-., -:. 1tr , t'xl~ 1.,,, 1:rt;: ,, rnr 1rl-: ,....,,,, ,r :w:-.11:'lhl• r 'N:J'IM" · ~1 ffl:)1' .. 1

fh,ryr-:i rly l"l,r r ~-·.v. w· • ~1...,J i1.li.ir1:.. />ll•i:. Jlo:8i1.•J ivo:r:.i.y '✓<th.: c . Un: OU:.o:lSix i:. • .1111J;c1...,J l1., h ,:

S! ,u ·:.. lt1,. i.,ilo: Attob.-:i: Jocc,~·iitf .:, rue e tilc 1mpe:~:,1tc to ctlc Jle t~ tie 'kt l' ·e:ieot

l----~---------------ll-----------------~---~ :M'derwcc ml'oh.1mr K:, id~------8!<"' ~-~-~•~"ll' -~-·~•~·•=··'~-~•=Ll.:ttlb!Jl.:... __ ~•-u~,.~.-~~•~•-l, l'n llno.Yli\r Int•• "tlnn<:: Ir TTICdll 81,"',ICfH 'O 81,"',1Cf$h'O

F,. . • i,,.1, ..,\

IIIOd1.,.cr ;;i:y

•' .mll>utC

l,l :. ( a..•: ·

l .Jo

l,l t !.: : :ti : -c:

.. , ..i Y.N 1.s .. H:ttllU t

r :nnc::,

me re

- ?,'·:

•;"..,, .. l (M C: :.

""''·

°' '-""'"•""'o::...:.4.\""'

Pl:ir:lnc.wcco :oner:, :inc 1cnc · :i:

,.,. .. ..... . .. . .... ..., .. ~, ., ,. .. ._ 1., ... A

C:,"111dcnt : 1n 00 . .... ,., .. , I « I Ofb:t lU-:IC>~ :Ut1.·1 ·1l

( ., .. r.11,. . 7S. Fi1ti1 ...... ._ ( ., .. \ ; ...... ..., C ,.. ..

( « .. r.,1 .. ? ~ Fi1ti1 ...... , ,.. .. ,:-. ........ .v.

,.,.,.; .. ., .. ,, ,;-,.,,..,,, .v,

r,, .. ,;,,.,,. .,.,

1:-.•.- -. , .. , ,. C011.•,- .-. ,.1

c-:,•,: · .•cto C011.•r ,-.1.1

1.1c:.:...:i:~Mc:.:.o:i:,11lU. ,

(OOfl:C( Oll:C't ;~-:;" ''- v. _... . 10 ' '...: ::-.::.: ,.~

0 .00 0 .00 0 .00

10 o.n 0 13

H 0 .59 001 O.S1

" u s :.H

1.14

-0.74

l h $ IS 1\eawre;:t Net

Prr<:('flfF;tntt1·; rr .. J tv

V«l.i: f"' J1..:,iodi·•ersitv

l"t 'Yl'l(!f\tn\'

t:ocrii>:-ncf!t l lct 1>tc: cnt

81°""'cu~v~ .. :

MO

Exotic Dominated Wetlands (Low Value) – Massey Farm




Inputs are derived from direct measures, existing data or models where available. or expert estimated predictions




' gu" g

1.5 and food 1.Sa Habitat richness Count 4.42 6 1 0 -0.74

l,l.

L>

..

1h ,s sect,~ , c,pt,. ·~ \v, ,ch ckll°cr ::i ,I b c:1:hv~r s, :y , re t>

x :tcount:c for nd tt : t :~ :'lmolrco.:: lucfor thc /llJ i:JUlo:. Tin: i1 h,x ·111li1.··1 lll<fl1.I ":':. l · , l i1 J1,i, l11t~c • •

Model

e10,:11,•c r jey

Amltlute

l,l.:. ( a..•: ·

l ,lo

l,l.( k:~1: -c:

= ·" ..

~nc toO<I LA ...

- ;,'· : S❖

T•,:-:,: u ll :.. :,r ._,,;J,.. inl,,· 111c.iv1 c:JVUl h o:, :.11 .1vv:.,:,J OU:.o:l .', • .iv,:.

c ,., ._,..1.,.iv, ,, u · :,n: •11,o1,J,:

fnr " f1r 1t1>Mtt r,t1,n t, M l'lt

fi•o: ,;c;:u'fytl'T : SXPSoY'tf

~: ,: c·:..r, . i,..:ilo:

J')l',.f,-·mrl" ,r 1:-,lu /l° r ,: 'Inti

Fcllow ttc i'l;.7_::fon i'l 0Jl.1·11nl

,- ,",1;,1,.., ; ;. F i i • ,..,,I ,-;,. .. ...... "

-,.,,i;,,,.,,.;-~ r -rt . .. ,,,1

, c,nt

9C!4 , cine

.,._ , ~,,, ·;._i,..,, F ,;,. ,.,,,J ) ' I('"' .,.,, ,,.

,"},, ... ,,,. .. ... , ;-, ... ,,,. .. ...

(.,.,,;.,., .. .... ,;-,,.,..,,, .Y,

T·1i:. ~,:,. .iv I~ A" I: ' ,: ll : 11 : ·~i , , 11.h ,u ,.,c i ·1 J1,:1111N1:.v10: JI 8 i .MJiftl :..ll v

Att-.bJ~ due tc : ,c c.:,fbet .Act1:,n ,s c , , nt,h«I. Ir >Jts e~ :lc ·,·,:ec f·c T :hre:t

'l'IC;)Sur: : xllt!nt d~) )t T :>dclS\'ltlet: .::·•: 11.::trc )t CXPC(t c--..tlrr: :td ~ · ,:,Ji. liv11:.. ,'lJi:,,..,hr 6 i.MJin 1~ilv \'d l.10: :1l U : Olb : . Silo: i:. ..vmu · o:,J I> J10:

t.tt ·, ~Jte U1:1:hw r s , :y ,~1~,e t: the 1ri- ,-,ct :if\:~ t> : , rcult :i: :he r..ei l'rts~ot

e1,:1 rvcn1:v-,'.II- · f:i, =~:'" ,'it bl-x

'Jolt, ..... oo ..... 'Jolt, ..... ..... , .....

,...,..., . .. o

• • • .... .... ... . .... ~ • .!S

• " ~.S9 . .... "

his IS tt ( t •.;en,a;,e 'kt

r,•.-;.u· =ur r tw•-:tt; 'lc luo: fv1 lho:

U.o:,w·s,: ,· ( .'lft'IJ'l( I' . ,,,.

Co1t100'>:,· 1 W.~tl'l ~ ~"ll

l lodl,•;m ltV'll lt.1•

❖ 1C

:.• ,,

<U 'J

Indigenous Dominated Seepage Wetlands (Moderate Value) – Beagley Farm

! . I

,.,

,.,





Biodiversity Biodiversity Attribute Measurement

Component Unit

- - 11g •• - - I U 3 \

1.5 and food 1.5a Habitat richness Count ..

T•o••• 'VI 1; I< 1 •II .,,,•, ,~1,; t ,<f.-,, , ., I , o ·1 1,; 1!li . 1•1, il1 , ,, .• I I , ... .. ,, ... ,, ... . .. , ..... 1,,,. , .... ., .,,.,,.,1,:,,.1, . 1,, ...

M,;,,,1.T,,. ;.,1, ,.,,.1,, ,, .. ,.i, 1,.,, r,,. ;, 11,,. r, .,,,.

. .... J , ... . :,

(-o-••···

~· .. ,,..,. J.! ,

l , 10

Mo, ..!

w , ..

;,, , .•....

1.1, n..u ••••

''""'""··· ,.,, . ,....,, l .l;s

.,,, .. ,"'.,.., H,>l •\. . ;, .... ..,

.. .... ,,,

.. ,."-• ~ :cc~ ;,1, ; :.<,

, .... , ...

I' ' ""' I.O,., ..... ...,, ·'"' '" ,..,, .. •o;

,., ... ., __ .... ~,.,,...,., .,.,..,.,, . ..: . ,, .. ,e,_, ....... ,. ...... ,. .. "=

s- ,. .... "= .,..,,,.,.,.,..,,,. •• ,.. •. •e

V

:.::

• >

"

models where available, or expert estimated predictions

Area of Impact Benchmark Measure prior Measure after Biodiversity

(ha) to Impact Impact Value

0.44 6

Ct l(J!t :l:,ni : t l ~ Y:><lt

k f' : llr lt: C'IC ,otr:, :,r ,t f!w y-:: :,ri·t t tmc =tc,,:; ~:r

3; ·;::•;, rr:t tc: t-: f\lT1'l'tr'lr · ,,,, :.rt 1mr 1 ,,,,,

r ,11 ..,, 11.,. ;, •J •.,, ; , ., .. ;.,

('),!,n •,

f ........... . ,~

, ., ''"°'"" l'ln M,t • • .,,, .,., ,., IMl'N,,,,. ,.,

, ,, '""°'"" ,-.,, .,.,_, ,: A., .,.,..,

C❖lH( :,n,S

1:m

c., ""·"' ;s H <i

fl• t : :no .~i•.

,., ... , .. . .,;,.

,, ........ , .. , .. Co ; m• N

<,,mtn1: :c, ,., .... .... ¢,.,\i .. , ·;11,

c .. .... /.I

1 0 -0.07

; .,,., ,., ; ,., ; . .. , . ., • .._," ,.,.,.,,., •• ,, ,.,. ,., .._, " ...... , , . ,,. •r, r ... • .;;iv :.J , ; ,,.,, ,., 1, • -•r.,n .. , :. 1;,,, ;, , .,,,, :1;, ,,1 ,,,,,,, , , ., .• ,,., ;,. .,, ,, , . ., 1, • . ., ,

.. _.,. •• , ... ;. ;,,,,, .,., .. .. ,., .. 1._ ......... .,,.a ,.11,, , •• ..,,1,..,1 .. , ; .. .. , .. ,

I ' "' ; , ; , ,,,, / , 1, ,1._,. 'I ', , fy,.•, .ily '/,.111,. .,11,,.. :"Ill, -It; ,. i,, , . ~,:,,. ,,.,I I , 1,.

:J 1 , :,1 1• " " " IY .. ._. y\'•!_,.,. lt• l .,,:1,.1 1 '1 1• 1 >1 • !o 1ol• l • lt1• fC,. ~~-.• ••

V

:.:ti

"

" "

"

~"" • • ,,.;11 ;;., , ... , .;ty ,,~.,., ,:o .... : v., .... ,

~,,..,.,,,, .. ,., p,., ....

tM•. ·

l hs IS :he ) \' er&.,: ti~:

Pru u: :ii,:IJ•~ rslt f

·,'a!\ c k-·:h ~!C<l- sl :-; : 0111i:,,'l('lt

\\,,,.,..,.,.,.""'"\" •''"'" l, >O<ll •,.,..,r,•:.,.,.

v :.1

Indigenous Dominated Seepage Wetlands (Moderate Value) – Massey Farm



what area, will be impacted by the proposal quantified, and Attribute Biodiversity Value calculated.


models where available, or expert estimated predictions




. --··- ··--·~-~ 1.5 and food 1.5a Habitat richness Count 0.44 6 1 0 -0.07

,.,

" , ..

..

i",. 1, ,1 ,.1; " .._, '""I".,,,., • ,, •• • r, • ., . .. ,, ",,.,. '",. 1,., .. , .... . ,, .... ... .. , .,,, .. ,

n ..... ,.11. , . ,.,;, .. ;.,1,., .. ,.,1;.,, ""'"· 1t . , , ,,., .... 1nu .... : , ,;,.,~

S)v.,.·.-.1·1sh. c .c

>----~-----~---~---• ------------~---~----l ~ ~ 11ct111...:C!ur, ll tr:l~------'-""' '-"''-"'"'""''">'''4"'_.."-'l!"l>"'"---e,,-.-"-•-•-,-•-1, I , l lo-,•, i'c '" : t•<,1cto~~ 11'1

c,;,!1.11nl

11-1s seo,i1 c"(JfU \,tu:I' eletr~ :i :,f t •x n·ers,:-.· e ·e t, bet:coo. ~ <I hr, , M tlC Xl( lmtrk\·, !~brlt-c

.6:t·lt •Jte , Tte I ifo·Yltt!cn ,i, 1:h s i'e:1, i'c IIY ,,~

Moul

1ru ~c:t,o , 1s !'I'- u-c nt·?itl :t , 11ac ,,. t~ r,~n ·e « J o,r~rutr 4:t ·1t ..r.i: :l~c ~ the '..lfist :Ac,,r , i c .1, rtif1cd. rr , ,m t ·e cen-.~d f ·,m <1 , ·e: t

n ct J:<,1~ ex!s ttr a <lt:t CC' r,o:lels ~~ , 11, l ltble,o· exurtc~ 'Ml>:< ,rd tctlc, s . ..n1nt>: ~!c<t~ · s t:-; \•tl.1<11 , tt~ )fis.:t ;bl: Ii :011nrec t:ilht h·lt•Jtl: Ol :idh ~rs!t ; ~·, !H tt 7.e • Y Hct Sit>: t:i <,Tcl h l>: t~ l(rtP·~c"Yt

n...,,,..,n, C~ni" : flc•l

, ... ¥,

.,...,.,.,.,., r.i::n ,,r.,:

l,U

1. 11,

,,.,, .. ·•,: ·:-:-: ... ; ..

l,h S.. •• " · "

C• • .,. -1'1>1 .,.,, a•\>,' 1.:.:. ... , .. ' ., __

, ... .... .. ,;1o, ... ,,...,,. , .... , ...... ...

Jn~

...... ~ ...

·~I,.,

~ ...... . ....... ,, , ... , ...

• l'I•·• •:. .... - ,..,..,, ..... ... ,. •• , .. "(

.. ,. .... ~ ...,. ,.,,,, . ..... ,., • .,,, . ,!:

.. ......... ... ; Ju, . ....... J ·.:, . ·~

., .. .............. ,w ....... .. ,., ....... l,o

·· •-..., ........ .., . .. ,.. . .... .,,,,. 1':

• ,.,.,.,.,.,n q ~i-,,~• •

-:Cr10<· tH Flnb:c· J ,-:~ ........

•~ • ; II, l H ,;,.;.,_" J :o.~ .... ....

"

" 0(· 11

r, ... .,., ,,, .~., ..... ....

C( •l t lU(W

•~ ••·111t l ' ,

C, ,•l " " lu

'-"".""._., f-:<Tt""" "' ( r, M <I M

( l,• ,•,• . , .. , ~

(,)lu- nl,1

"'

.,0<1 •.•ot-"ft . ,..., , ,_,...,..

v ................ , ~ ...... ~,

•

" ❖OC

w

"' !! :

..... ..-... ....... , .......

❖.U

V ',; f

(11'1

7.,; •• ; •• 1. ,,,,,.,, ... \O'I

r, • • ., ... 1 F.io I iy, ·• .i V

..... , ..... , .. ..... 1'<,1; , .. , ,.;1, O) , ~,:,o, _..

, .,.,..,. . ..... , ; ... ro. ......... t l(>.JIM:r:'t,'nJc

11 1·

......

Old Growth Treelands

Thi s sect i on captures which elements of bi odiversity are t o

be accounted for, and the benchmark val ue for the These cells provi de i nformati on about the proposed Offset Actions

Attri bute. The i nformat i on mat ches that i n the Impact

Model

Biodiversity Biodiversity Me.1Surement Confidence in Component Attribute Unit

Benc.hmark Proposed Offset Actio ns Offset area (ha) Off5et Act ions

,., Canopy 1.la Cover percent 90 Planting. weed control and fencing 0 .6 Confid ent 75--

1.lb Height met re 20 Planting. w • Rd control andfancing 0.6 Confid ent 75--

1.lc Bas.al area m2/ ha 66.4 Planting, weed contro l and fencing 0 .6 Confid ent 75--

Percentace Confident 7 5•

1.3 Understo rey t .3a cover of Pe rcent 55 Pl1ntln1, we.cl contro l and fencln1 0 .6 -1.5

Fauna 1.Sa Leaf litter 40 0 .6

Confident 75-

resources mm Planting. weed control and fencing -

Cal cul at i ons can be made

for a f i nit e end poi nt, or at

f ive year l y t i me-steps over

35 years. Indicat e

preferenc-e i n Column K and

Follow the i nstruct ions i n

Column L


point Column M


point Column M


point ColumnM

Finit e i nd Contlnu1 to

point Column M

Finit e end Continu e to

poi nt Column M

Thi s secti on is where the margi nal change i n the measure of Biod iversity

Attri bute due to the Offset Act io n i s q u antified. Inputs are der ived from direct

measure, ex i sting dat a or models where avai l able, o r expert estimated

predi ct i ons. Attri bute Bi odiversity Va lue at the Offset Site is compared to the

Attribute Biodiversity Val ue at the Impact Site to calculate the Net Present o ;-, · · ,.,,.,.h IIH-r i h , ,t-,.

Time t i l l Biodiversity Biodiversity Attribute Net

Measurefil!QL Measure .after P'resent !QOffset Off,et

endpoint Value at Offset Value at

(yearsl Sit e Impact Site B-iodiversity ... ,.

0 90 10 0 .37 -0.04 0 .33

0 • 20 0 .11 -0.04 0 .07

0 46 20 0 .19 -0.04 0.]5

0 33 20 0 .16 0.00 0 .16

0 20 20 0 .14 0 .00 0 .14

This is t he average Net


Value for t he

Biodiversity

Component

Component Net Present Biodiversity Va lue

0.19

~ ~

Biodiversity Compensation Model (BCM) (Raw Models)

Short term compensation models (10 years)

Pest Control

Bush retirement

Native revegetation

Biodiversity

Component

Measurement

UnitBenchmark Proposed Offset Actions

Offset area

(ha)

Confidence in

Offset Actions

Measure prior

to Offset

Measure after

Offset

Time till

endpoint

(years)

Biodiversity

Value at

Offset Site

Biodiversity

Value at

Impact Site

Attribute Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value

Ecological Value 0.1aEcological

ValueNumerical 5

Pest Control (rats, possums and

red deer)300

Low

confidence

>50% <75%

Finite end

point

Continue to

Column M3.5 3.605 10 2.91 -4.73 -1.82


be accounted for, and the benchmark value for the

Attribute. The information matches that in the Impact Model

Biodiversity

Attribute

Calculations can be made for

a finite end point, or at five

yearly time-steps over 35

years. Indicate preference in

Column K and Follow the

instructions in Column L

These cells provide information about the proposed

Offset Actions

This section is where the marginal change in the measure of Biodiversity





Biodiversity Value for each Attribute

Biodiversity

Component

Measurement


Offset area

(ha)

Confidence in

Offset Actions

Measure prior

to Offset

Measure after

Offset

Time till

endpoint

(years)

Biodiversity

Value at

Offset Site

Biodiversity

Value at

Impact Site

Attribute Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value


ValueNumerical 5

Stock Exclusion, pest control,

enrichment planting and log

deployment

48.3Confident 75-

90%

Finite end

point

Continue to

Column M2 2.2 10 1.19 -4.73 -3.54




Biodiversity

Attribute








Offset Actions







Biodiversity

Component

Measurement


Offset area

(ha)

Confidence in

Offset Actions

Measure prior

to Offset

Measure after

Offset

Time till

endpoint

(years)

Biodiversity

Value at

Offset Site

Biodiversity

Value at

Impact Site

Attribute Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value


ValueNumerical 5

Native revegetation, stock

exclusion, pest control and log

deployment

45.6Confident 75-

90%

Finite end

point

Continue to

Column M0 0.5 10 2.80 -4.73 -1.93




Biodiversity

Attribute








Offset Actions







- -

-

I I

- --

I I

- --

I I

Longer term compensation models (35 years – life of consent)

Pest control at 35 years

Native revegetation at 35 years

Bush retirement at 35 years.

Biodiversity

Component

Measurement


Offset area

(ha)

Confidence in

Offset Actions

Measure prior

to Offset

Measure after

Offset

Time till

endpoint

(years)

Biodiversity

Value at

Offset Site

Biodiversity

Value at

Impact Site

Attribute Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value


ValueNumerical 5 Pest Control (red deer) 300

Confident 75-

90%

Finite end

point

Continue to

Column M3.5 3.535 35 0.62 -4.73 -4.11




Biodiversity

Attribute








Offset Actions







Biodiversity

Component

Measurement


Offset area

(ha)

Confidence in

Offset Actions

Measure prior

to Offset

Measure after

Offset

Time till

endpoint

(years)

Biodiversity

Value at

Offset Site

Biodiversity

Value at

Impact Site

Attribute Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value


ValueNumerical 5

Native revegetation, stock

exclusion, pest control and log

deployment

45.6Confident 75-

90%

Finite end

point

Continue to

Column M0 1.5 35 4.01 -4.73 -0.72




Biodiversity

Attribute








Offset Actions







Biodiversity

Component

Measurement


Offset area

(ha)

Confidence in

Offset Actions

Measure prior

to Offset

Measure after

Offset

Time till

endpoint

(years)

Biodiversity

Value at

Offset Site

Biodiversity

Value at

Impact Site

Attribute Net

Present

Biodiversity

Value


ValueNumerical 5

Stock exclusion, pest control,

enrichment planting and log

deployment

48.3Confident 75-

90%

Finite end

point

Continue to

Column M2 2.7 35 1.98 -4.73 -2.75




Biodiversity

Attribute








Offset Actions







- --

I I

- --

I I

- --

I I

IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON ... · IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON ... · IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT OF NEW ZEALAND...