Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua - Hutt City Council

Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH
58, Porirua
Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects
Prepared for Winstone Aggregates
21 November 2012

Document Quality Assurance
This report has been prepared in accordance with Boffa Miskell quality assurance procedures, and has
been reviewed and approved for release as set out below.
Bibliographic reference for citation:
Boffa Miskell, 2012. Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua: Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological
Effects. Report prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited for Winstone Aggregates, Wellington.
Prepared by: Matiu Park
Senior Ecologist
Boffa Miskell Limited
Peer reviewed by: Stephen Fuller
Technical Director, Ecologist
Boffa Miskell Limited
Status: DRAFT Revision / version: [5] Issue date: 21 November 2012
Template revision: 20121121 0000
© Boffa Miskell Limited 2012 (unless Boffa Miskell Limited has expressly agreed otherwise with the Client in writing).
This report has been prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited on the specific instructions of our Client. It is solely for our Client’s use for the purpose
for which it is intended in accordance with the agreed scope of work. Any use or reliance by any person contrary to the above, to which
Boffa Miskell Limited has not given its prior written consent, is at that person's own risk.
Cover photograph: View into lower section of proposed Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, Judgeford, © Matiu Park, 2012

CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 3
2.0 Methodology 3
2.1 Preliminary Assessment 3
2.2 Project Shaping 4
3.0 The Study Area 6
3.1 History and Site Context 6
3.2 Land Use and Statutory Context 7
3.3 Vegetation Description 8
3.4 Wildlife 9
3.5 Landform and soils 10
4.0 Assessment of Ecological Significance 12
4.1 Introduction 12
4.2 Assessment 12
4.3 Summary 13
5.0 Scope of Works 16
6.0 Assessment of Ecological Effects 16
6.1 Vegetation Clearance 16
6.2 Wildlife 17
6.3 Summary 17
7.0 Mitigation recommendations 18
7.1 Regenerating manuka and broadleaved forest 18
7.2 Seepage wetlands 19
7.3 Wildlife 19
7.4 Monitoring Recommendations 19
8.0 Conclusions 20
9.0 References 21
Appendices
Appendix 1 Botanical Species List ....................................................................... 22
Appendix 2 Site Photos .......................................................................................... 25

Figures
Figure 1 Site context .......................................................................................... 5
Figure 2 Vegetation Communities ................................................................ 11
Figure 3 LENZ ..................................................................................................... 15
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects

1.0 Introduction
Boffa Miskell has been engaged by Winstone Aggregates to prepare a terrestrial ecological
assessment for a proposed cleanfill. Resource consent is being sought for the deposition of
approximately 1.75 million m³ of clean fill at a new cleanfill site approximately 4 kilometres to the
northwest of the current Dry Creek site off State Highway 58 (SH58).
The cleanfill site is located on a farm property owned by Mr Malcolm Judd. This property is 336 ha
in area. The cleanfill footprint will be approximately 13.9 ha in area and will be focussed within
the lower sections of a large side gully of the property. The land will be leased to Winstone
Aggregates as required. Figure 1 illustrates the extent of the proposed works associated with this
application.
The cleanfill application will fill a large area of the lower portion of the main gully and most of the
smaller side gullies up to a finished contoured level, followed by formation of a new stream
channel on the western side of the completed surface as described in the proposed ESCP.
Following the completion of infilling, the finished surface will be re-vegetated as described in the
application documentation.
The proposed work includes removal of existing vegetation, topsoil stripping and bulk earthworks
involving engineered filling. Associated with this work is the culverting of the side gullies as they
are progressively filled.
The following is an ecological assessment of the effects of the proposed cleanfill on the terrestrial
ecology. The potential effects of this project on freshwater systems are the subject of a separate
ecological assessment.
2.0 Methodology
The assessment for this project was carried out in two stages. A preliminary assessment and
desktop study was carried out for a proposed cleanfill site. This assessment highlighted areas of
relatively high ecological value which was discussed with the applicant. The location of the
cleanfill was then revised with a view to avoiding or minimising effects on these areas. A
subsequent assessment was carried out of the new site layout which is the focus of this report.
2.1 Preliminary Assessment
An initial familiarisation visit of the application site was undertaken with Winstone Aggregates
staff, geotechnical engineering, landscape and visual and planning consultants on 24 November
2011. A more detailed site visit for this ecological assessment was undertaken on 24 February
2012. On this second visit the terrestrial ecology within and adjacent to the application site was
described, and plant communities mapped. Pat Enright prepared the more detailed botanical
species lists during the site visit (Appendix 1). The weather was fine and sunny on this site visit and
followed heavy rain and NW winds in the previous 24 hours.
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 3

During this site visit, the main gully system including and upstream of the proposed application
area were traversed, as were a number of smaller side gullies and faces to understand the
varying vegetation patterns of the main gully system. Particular attention was paid to outcrops,
wet areas and seepages, and gullies and faces with varying aspects. The main gully was viewed
from a number of raised areas for particular vegetation characteristics and evidence of primary
forest trees.
The Herpetofauna Database search was reviewed to determine which species occur in the wider
area, and to determine whether any species had previously been located onsite. The Database
was searched for all records within a 10 km radius of the works footprint.
The application site was flown by Precision Aerial Surveys to provide current aerial photographs of
the area. These high-resolution aerials were used to determine the extent of indigenous
vegetation and property boundaries. Google Earth, the Porirua City District Plan and Porirua City
Council’s ‘Inventory of Ecological Sites in Porirua City’ (prepared by Boffa Miskell) were used to
provide ecological context and other considerations.
2.2 Project Shaping
Following the February 2012 site visit the preliminary findings were discussed with Winstone
Aggregates, with particular attention to the ecological values of regenerating scrub and low
forest within the main gully system. Refinements were then made to the extent of the proposed
cleanfill to minimise indigenous vegetation removal in this gully. These changes led to a
substantial reduction in the scale of vegetation removal required and the associated potential
adverse effects on the terrestrial ecology of the site.
Once the final design was developed, a further site visit was undertaken on 14 June 2012 to
confirm the changes, and investigate and map all areas of terrestrial vegetation and habitat that
fell within the revised project.
In addition to vegetation mapping and description, manual searches were carried out for lizards
focused on terrestrial refugia (e.g. pieces of deadwood, stones etc) present on-site within the
main gully system and within a number of areas of potential habitat within the proposed cleanfill
footprint. Manual searches were undertaken during two of the site visits in February and June
2012. When the design was provided the manual searches were supplemented with the use of
40 artificial refuges (ARs), which were distributed in 4 groups of 10 across and beyond the
proposed site to help determine the probable distribution of herpetofauna communities within
and surrounding the proposed cleanfill site. ARs were located in a range of habitat types within
the pasture and rank grassland margins in and adjacent to the manuka dominated main gully
system. ARs were also located within a range of vegetation communities, including manuka
scrub and shrubland and the rank pasture mosaic. These ARs were left for 110 days (15 weeks)
and retrieved on 14 June 2012. The ARs were formed from Onduline roofing material
approximately 500 mm x 500 mm in size.
A number of photographs of the application site are attached as Appendix 2.
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 4

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Legend
Application Site
TA Boundaries
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
Regional_Parks
DRY CREEK REPLACEMENT
Figure 1: Site Context
| Date: 9 July 2012 | Revision: 0 |
Plan Prepared for Winstone Aggregates by Boffa Miskell Limited
file: W11091_Context_A4
www.boffamiskell.co.nz
0 500 m
1:20,000 @ A4
These plans and drawings have been produced as a result of information provided by the client and/or sourced by or provided to Boffa Miskell Limited by a third party for the purposes of providing the services. No responsibility is taken by
Boffa Miskell Limited for any liability or action arising from any incomplete or inaccurate information provided to Boffa Miskell Limited (whether from the client or a third party). These plans/drawings are provided to the client for the benefit
and use by the client and for the purpose for which it is intended. © Boffa Miskell Limited 2012
° N

3.0 The Study Area
3.1 History and Site Context
The application site is located within the Sounds-Wellington Ecological Region (39) and the
Wellington Ecological District (39.01). The Wellington Ecological District is characterised by steep,
strongly faulted hills and ranges, and the Wellington and Porirua Harbours. The ecological district
is windy with frequent NW gales, warm summers, and mild winters. Rainfall is typically between
900 and 1400 mm p.a. (McEwen, 1987).
The Wellington Ecological District was originally forested with fringes of salt marsh vegetation
around the harbours. Near the coast rimu-rata/kohekohe forest dominated; podocarp forests
(kahikatea, totara, matai) dominated on the river terraces and lower slopes; and miro-rimu/tawa
forest dominated at higher altitudes. The Porirua Basin was part of the Wellington beech gap.
What little beech was present (black beech and hard beech) was confined to stands which
extended over the ridgelines from the extensive beech forests of the Hutt Valley on the eastern
fringes of the ecological district.
At the application site, a podocarp/broadleaf forest would have dominated, with rimu and
northern rata emergent over a tawa dominated canopy (Boffa Miskell, 2001)1. Scattered
remnants of this original forest occur some distance to the south and south-east of the site in the
vicinity of the Haywards Hill Substation and on the fault escarpment above SH2. The habitat and
ecological corridor values of this fault escarpment and associated forest remnants have been
identified in Forest & Bird’s 1990 “Natural Wellington” report. Today this ecological district is
almost entirely modified by farming and urbanisation, with pasture, plantation pine, gorse and
regenerating shrublands throughout. Some small forest remnants occur.
At some time during settlement of the Porirua basin all original vegetation within the application
site was cleared and converted to pasture. Today the application site is still dominated by
improved pasture or a rank pasture mosaic. However, regeneration is occurring in a number of
areas, predominantly pioneer scrub and shrublands dominated by manuka, with small areas of
regenerating low forest where mahoe and/or kanuka is emergent.
A comparison of the 2011 aerial photograph with earlier images from 2005 and earlier illustrate
both the lack of older vegetation present and the rapid ecological succession of the main gully
system upstream of the application site - from pasture and gorse to scrub and low forest. On the
dryer north facing sites kanuka regeneration is more prevalent. Regenerating broadleaved forest
dominated by mahoe is more typical on the wetter south facing slopes and in sheltered gullies.
The regeneration of secondary native vegetation on the inland hills and basins of the Western
Hutt Hills / Belmont Hills and along the adjacent fault escarpment is part of a major landscape
transformation that is occurring throughout the Wellington Region. Regenerating scrub and low
forest now dominates what were steeper and less productive hillsides which were primarily
pasture and gorse-covered 20-30 years ago.
A Land Cover Environments of New Zealand (LENZ) analysis of the application site indicates that
the vegetated upper slopes of the application area have no threat classification, while the lower
areas of improved pasture within the application site are acutely threatened (LENZ Level 4). A
LENZ map of the study area is attached as Appendix 3. However, given the close linkages with
1 We note that the Porirua City Council’s inventory of ecological sites used a unique analysis tool for assessing significance.
Because so little original indigenous vegetation remains within the District, the value of the shrublands and scrub habitat and
refugia present is elevated.
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 6

the adjacent Belmont Regional Park, the regenerating vegetation present has a number of
ecological habitat and corridor values.
3.2 Land Use and Statutory Context
All the land that is the subject of this application is owned by Malcolm Judd and is zoned ‘Rural’
in the Porirua City District Plan. The surrounding land to the north, west, south and east is also
zoned Rural and comprises similar steep farmland with gullies largely dominated by regenerating
indigenous vegetation. There are a number of scattered lifestyle blocks and houses situated to
the east, some 350 – 600 m distant. Many of these adjacent lifestyle blocks are similarly
vegetated with a mix of pasture and regenerating indigenous vegetation, particularly within the
steeper gully systems.
Further to the south of the application site, beyond an adjacent property also owned by the
Judd Family, is the Belmont Regional Park.
Vegetation Clearance Rules
The Porirua City District Plan limits clearance of vegetation in association with permitted activities
in the Rural Zone. Removal of native vegetation is not permitted where:
a) The area of vegetation exceeds 1 hectare with an average height of 3 metres of more, or
b) The area of native vegetation is part of an area in one or more sites, which exceeds 1
hectare with an average height of 3 metres or more (Rural Zone Permitted Activity Standard
D4.2.1).
As part of the vegetation mapping undertaken, we have attempted to delineate areas and
types of vegetation with an average height of 3 m (refer Figure 2).
The vegetation removal associated with the original cleanfill proposal would have required the
removal of approximately 13.4 ha of indigenous vegetation with an average height of 3 metres
of more. The revised proposal which is assessed here will require the removal of approximately
0.7 ha of vegetation with an average height of 3 m or more from within a much larger gully
system of regenerating indigenous vegetation as well as a number of smaller, separate areas of
regenerating indigenous vegetation.
Significant Natural Areas Survey
Areas of regenerating shrubland similar to those within the application site occur in a number of
locations within the Porirua Basin. In the Porirua City Council’s ‘Inventory of Ecological Sites in
Porirua City’, large areas of manuka scrub in ‘unused reverting bush areas’ to the south and west
of the application site were identified as being ecologically significant. These sites are listed as
Eco sites PCC 217a and PCC 217d and consist of 45.153 ha of manuka scrub located in upper
Harris Road. They are ranked as SES4 and considered to be ‘highly ecologically significant, but
not rare or scarce in Porirua City’. There are 44 sites within the district that have an SES4 ranking.
The regenerating vegetation within the application site is not listed within the ecological sites
inventory.
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 7

3.3 Vegetation Description
The application site is primarily comprised of improved pasture (9.6 ha or 69%) with areas of the
upper gully and more north-facing spurs dominated by a rank pasture mosaic intermixing with
gorse, tauhinu and scattered manuka scrub and shrubland and kanuka (1.46 ha or 10.5%). A
small portion of the application site comprises manuka dominated low forest (0.49 ha or 3.5 %)
and manuka and broadleaved gully forest (0.21 ha or 1.5%) Beyond the application area, large
areas of pig fern occur, particularly on the south-facing slopes and upper gully heads.
Where pasture is reverting to native vegetation, manuka is the dominant species on the wetter
lower slopes, gully systems and south facing areas. On the upper slopes of the main gully system
some areas are undergoing a rapid transformation to kanuka and mixed broadleaf forest. Within
this upper gully species diversity is high, particularly with regard to fern species. However, with
the exception of a solitary regenerating totara and a solitary tawa tree in the lower portion of the
application site, there are no primary forest canopy species within the application site or
immediately adjacent. This absence may be due to a number of factors including the relatively
early successional age of the kanuka and mahoe forests, and/or a lack of seed carrying birds.
A number of seepage wetlands are located in the small gully systems across the application site
(0.16 ha of 1.2% of the site). The revised cleanfill location in the lower gully has avoided the
higher value seepage wetlands which contained a greater diversity of wetland plants (refer
botanical species list Appendix 1). All the seepage wetlands within the application site are
induced and are subject to ongoing browsing and pugging from stock and other ungulates.
Their vegetation is dominated by exotic wet pasture species and common native species.
The main gully system is relatively free of invasive weed species with the exception of localised
infestations of Himalayan honeysuckle, blackberry, heath, barberry, and Japanese honeysuckle.
None of the species found in these successions were considered to be rare or threatened.
Figure 2 illustrates the vegetation communities within and adjacent to the wider site in more
detail and photos are provided in Appendix 2. Table 1 summarises the vegetation found within
the project footprint. A detailed botanical species list (including common and scientific names)
that includes the vegetation within the upper gully system outside of the proposed cleanfill is
attached as Appendix 1.
Table 1: Vegetation Descriptions
MAIN HABITATS and FEATURES AREA (ha) &
1. Manuka forest: Advanced seral manuka forest 3 m or more in
height. Kanuka, putaputaweta, mahoe, hangehange, treefern and
climbers are occasionally present in the forest canopy, with
kanuka more dominant on the north-facing slopes. Understory
relatively open with scattered broadleaf seedlings and a range of
fern species, largely depending on aspect. Photos 1, 2 and 10.
% of site.
0.49
(3.5%)
1○native
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 8
2○native
Induced native
Exotic
Regen¹
NAT¹
Exotics¹
Trend²
M M L I

MAIN HABITATS and FEATURES AREA (ha) &
2. Manuka and broadleaved gully forest: Gully forest typically
on the wetter southern slopes and gullies. Dominated by older
manuka and emergent putaputaweta and mahoe with some
scattered emergent mamaku and kanuka. Also contains areas of
open fern-land dominated by bracken (Pteridium esculentum) and
matata (Paesia scaberula). Relative diverse understory
dominated by ferns, rangiora, hangehange and tätarämoa. A
variety of mosses and bryophytes. Average canopy height of 3 to
5 m. Photos 1, 2, 5 and 10.
3. Manuka scrub and shrubland: Typically a monoculture of
young, low stature manuka and kanuka. Some scattered
broadleaved species present in the understory, including
hangehange, rangiora, mahoe and ferns. Occasional gorse and
tauhinu present in canopy. Canopy height between 0.5 – 3 m.
Photos 1, 3, 9, 10 and 12.
4. Rank pasture mosaic: Large areas of rank pasture, typically
on north-facing dry spurs, with a mosaic of early regeneration
dominated by tauhinu, gorse, manuka, hangehange and rangiora.
Photos 1, 9 and 10.
5. Wet pasture with Juncus: Damp areas of improved pasture
with a large proportion of exotic Juncus (predominantly Juncus
effusus). Occasional Juncus pallidus and other wet pasture
species present. Photos 3, 4, 7 and 8.
6. Seepage wetlands: Typically induced, stock pugged wetlands
of colluvium formed at the ephemeral upper gully heads and
bases of smaller side gullies. Dominated by exotic Juncus,
Isolepis prolifer and wet pasture species with occasional Juncus
pallidus and native herbs present in varying densities. Photo 6.
7. Pine or macrocarpa
8. Improved pasture
% of site.
0.21
(1.5%)
1.29
(9.3%)
1.46
10.5%)
0.51
3.6%)
0.16
(1.2%)
0.12
(0.9%)
9.62
(69.5%)
TOTAL: 13.87
KEY to Table:
Regen / Nat / Exotics ¹ H = High, M = Medium, L = Low, A = Absent
Trend ² D = Deteriorating, S = Steady, I = Improving
3.4 Wildlife
1○native
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 9
2○native
Induced native
Exotic
Regen¹
NAT¹
Exotics¹
Trend²
H M L I
M M L S
L L H I
A L H S
A L M S
A A H N/A
A A H N/A
During the three site visits only limited birdlife was observed including black-billed gull, waxeye
and fantail. However, given the sites context it is likely that other native forest birds are present
either seasonally or from time to time including tui, grey warbler, kereru, kingfisher, and morepork.

The manual searches undertaken and the 40 artificial refuges deployed in a range of potential
habitat areas to survey for lizards established the presence of a solitary common skink, Oligosoma
polychroma, just outside the upper margins of the proposed clean fill extent. This species is not
threatened according to Hitchmough et al 2010. However, we note that the lizard survey was of
limited duration and did not extend to spotlighting for gecko species.
There was evidence of cattle, sheep, goat browsing and pig rooting within and upstream of the
application site in the main gully system. Ongoing possum control was evidenced by a number
of recently baited Timm’s Traps surrounding the site and control of possums will have contributed
to the high diversity within the kanuka and broadleaf forest in the upper gully system.
3.5 Landform and soils
In terms of landform and soils at the study area, the LUC classification is 6e6, which indicates the
study area is moderately steep, to steep (21° – 35°) inland greywacke hill country in areas of
moderate rainfall (1,140-1,270 mm p.a.) with seasonal soil moisture deficiencies.
Soils are Makara steepland soils and Korokoro Hill soils formed from shallow patchy loess over
slightly weathered greywacke and related slope deposits. Based on the LUC database, erosion
for this LUC area is negligible but with the potential for moderate soil slip, scree and sheet erosion
where forest cover is removed.
Pastures are prone to scrub reversion and maintenance of a complete vegetation cover is
necessary.
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 10

These plans and drawings have been produced as a result of information provided by the client and/or sourced by or provided to Boffa Miskell Limited by a third party for the purposes of providing the services. No responsibility is taken by
Boffa Miskell Limited for any liability or action arising from any incomplete or inaccurate information provided to Boffa Miskell Limited (whether from the client or a third party). These plans/drawings are provided to the client for the benefit
and use by the client and for the purpose for which it is intended. © Boffa Miskell Limited 2012
file: W11091_Vegetation_A4
Legend
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! !
Application Site
Regional_Parks
Vegetation Type
Manuka forest
Manuka and broadleaved gully forest
Manuka scrub
www.boffamiskell.co.nz
° N
Rank pasture with early successional regeneration
Wet pasture with Juncus
Seepage wetlands
Pine or macrocarpa
Improved pasture
0 100 m
1:3,500 @ A4
DRY CREEK REPLACEMENT
Figure 2: Landscape Community
| Date: 9 July 2012 | Revision: 0 |
Plan Prepared for Winstone Aggregates by Boffa Miskell Limited

4.0 Assessment of Ecological Significance
4.1 Introduction
There are a range of systems for assessing the ecological significance of natural systems, many
based upon work done by Norton and Roper-Lindsay in 1999 for the Ministry for the Environment 2 .
Generally the criteria use some or all of the four key criteria outlined in Table 2. For the purposes
of this assessment of significant indigenous ecosystems and habitat, this assessment has relied on
the criteria outlined in the proposed Regional Policy Statement for the Wellington Region (Policy
22).
Table 2: Criteria for Assessing significant indigenous ecosystems and habitat (from Policy 22
of the proposed RPS for the Wellington Region
Criteria Explanation
Representativeness
The ecosystems or habitats that are typical and characteristic examples of the full
range of the original or current natural diversity of ecosystem and habitat types in a
district or region, and:
(i) are no longer commonplace (less than about 30% remaining); or
(ii) are poorly represented in existing protected areas (less than about 20% legally
protected).
Rarity The ecosystem or habitat has biological or physical features that are scarce or
threatened in a local, regional or national context. This can include individual species,
rare and distinctive biological communities and physical features that are unusual or
rare.
Diversity The ecosystem or habitat has a natural diversity of ecological units, ecosystems,
species and physical features within an area.
Ecological Context
Tangata whenua
values
Ecological context of an area: the ecosystem or habitat:
(i) enhances connectivity or otherwise buffers representative, rare or diverse
indigenous ecosystems and habitats; or
(ii) provides seasonal or core habitat for protected or threatened indigenous
species.
The ecosystem or habitat contains characteristics of special spiritual, historical or
cultural significance to tangata whenua, identified in accordance with tikanga Maori.
Under Policy 22 of the proposed RPS, an ecosystem or area of indigenous habitat only has to
satisfy one or more of the criteria above to be considered to have significant biodiversity value.
4.2 Assessment
Table 3 provides an assessment of the plant communities with an indigenous component that lie
within the proposed cleanfill footprint using the assessment criteria discussed above. This
assessment of significance has also considered Policy 46 of the Wellington Regional Policy
2 Norton, D.; Roper-Lindsay, J. 1999. Criteria for assessing ecological significance under Section 6(c) of the Resource
Management Act 1991. Unpublished report prepared for Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, N.Z.
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 12

Statement which provides an interim assessment framework 3 to assist with the determination as
to whether an activity may affect indigenous ecosystems and habitats or areas with significant
indigenous biodiversity values.
Table 3: Significance Assessment
Site
Manuka/kanuka forest: Advanced regenerating manuka and
kanuka forest typically more than 3 m in height.
Manuka and broadleaved gully forest: Gully forest dominated
by older manuka and emergent putaputaweta and mahoe.
Manuka scrub and shrubland: Typically a monoculture of
young, low stature manuka and kanuka.
Rank pasture mosaic: Large areas of rank pasture on dry spurs
with early successional species.
Wet pasture with Juncus: Damp areas of pasture with a large
proportion of exotic Juncus (predominantly Juncus effusus).
Seepage wetlands: Typically small grazed induced wetlands of
colluvium formed in the ephemeral upper gully heads and bases
of the smaller side gullies.
Y = yes, meets criterion, N = no, does not meet criterion, NA = not assessed
4.3 Summary
Indigenous
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
Representativeness
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 13
Rarity
Diversity
Ecological Context
Y N Y Y
Y N Y Y
Y N Y Y
- - - -
- - - -
- - - -
Before assessing under the Policy 22 criteria, the first step is to determine whether or not the
vegetation or habitat is indigenous. Those sites which are predominantly exotic (non-indigenous)
fall outside the Policy 22 consideration outlined in Table 3 above and are therefore not habitats
of significant indigenous biodiversity value.
The next step in assessing significance is whether the indigenous habitat or vegetation triggers
any one or more of the five assessment criteria. In summary, every indigenous vegetation
community mapped falls on a Land Environment categorised by LENZ threat as being less than
30% remaining and therefore all vegetation communities trigger Policy 22 (a)(i) and under this
policy are considered to have significant indigenous biodiversity value.
Some of the vegetation communities also trigger diversity and ecological context criteria. We did
not carry out an assessment of tangata whenua values, which is one of the criteria of Policy 22,
as this is not a matter of ecological consideration and is outside of our area of ecological
expertise.
3 Policy 46 provides an interim assessment framework based on the criteria set out in Policy 22 of the RPS (refer section 4.1 of
this report). This is primarily to ensure a precautionary approach to potentially significant adverse effects on indigenous
vegetation is adopted until such time as local authorities have had the opportunity to specifically identify areas of
significance and incorporate those within the District Plan. Once these are identified within a District Plan, Policy 46 of the RPS
ceases to have any effect.
Tangata whenua
NA
NA
NA
-
-
-

The regenerating manuka scrub and shrubland that comprises 1.29 ha of the application area is
a pioneer community that has only recently regenerated within pasture. This vegetation
community lacks diversity, is a common plant community locally, does not contain rare plants or
habitat for significant fauna, and does not have special ecological characteristics. It is therefore
considered to be of only low ecological value. It is also not of sufficient stature to have any
protection in terms of the PCC District Plan.
The more advanced successional manuka forest and the mixed broadleaved gully forest
together comprise approximately 0.7 ha of the application area. This vegetation is well
advanced ecologically (perhaps 25 -35 years in age) and as a result of ongoing possum control
and reduced stock access associated with the relatively steep slopes they have relatively good
diversity. Successional species are appearing within the canopy and understorey of the manuka
forest and within the gully forest there is a high diversity of ferns and seedlings on the forest floor.
Both communities still lack potential forest canopy species (e.g. podocarps, rewarewa, tawa,
kohekohe, hinau) and do not contain rare plants.
While few native birds or lizards were recorded, these communities are sufficiently diverse and
have appropriate stature to provide improving habitat for common indigenous fauna. Overall
they are considered to have low to moderate ecological value with potential to improve. These
communities are also of an age and stature that, for permitted activities over larger areas, have
some protection in terms of the PCC District Plan.
The areas of Juncus in wet pasture are induced communities formed following land clearance.
The species and habitats present are predominantly exotic, tolerant of grazing, and adapted to
the high nutrient content of these cattle pugged soils. These communities persist through farming
activities and grazing and are not natural or representative. They lack diversity of indigenous
plant species, are common plant community locally, do not contain rare plants or habitat for
significant fauna, and do not have special ecological characteristics. These communities are
therefore considered to be of low to negligible ecological value.
Overall, only the older manuka/kanuka forest and broadleaved gully forest are considered to
have local ecological importance as advanced successional stages of natural regeneration,
and as habitat for plant and bird species.
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 14

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
DRY CREEK REPLACEMENT
Figure 3: Land Environments
| Date: 19 October 2012 | Revision: 0 |
Plan Prepared for Winstone Aggregates by Boffa Miskell Limited
file: W11091_LENZthreat_A4
www.boffamiskell.co.nz
0 100 m
1:3,500 @ A4
These plans and drawings have been produced as a result of information provided by the client and/or sourced by or provided to Boffa Miskell Limited by a third party for the purposes of providing the services. No responsibility is taken by
Boffa Miskell Limited for any liability or action arising from any incomplete or inaccurate information provided to Boffa Miskell Limited (whether from the client or a third party). These plans/drawings are provided to the client for the benefit
and use by the client and for the purpose for which it is intended. © Boffa Miskell Limited 2012
° N
and their Threat Classification (derived from LENZ)
Application Site
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
! ! ! ! ! !
Regional Park
All areas that meet
policy 22 (a)(i)

5.0 Scope of Works
The applicant, Winstone Aggregates, proposes to develop a cleanfill and associated
infrastructure, to be staged over a number of years. In summary construction activities will
include:
Establishment of an access road from SH 58 to the proposed cleanfill site.
A docket office and amenity building will be located at the entrance way to the site.
Parking for staff and occasional visitors to the site.
Vegetation Clearance
The filling of the gully system will occur as a continuous development, which has been
divided into a series of stages for ease of discussion ;
– Shear key and toe establishment including filling to RL 142. This is referred to as
Stages One and Two.
– Stage Three allows filling up to RL 158 and
– Stage Four allows fills to RL 200 with the establishment of a slightly sloping platform.
Formation of a new stream channel on the western side of the fill as the fill is progressed.
The final fill creating a contoured surface suitable for stock grazing and landscape and
visual screening.
6.0 Assessment of Ecological Effects
The principal ecological effects of the proposal for this assessment are the removal of indigenous
vegetation and the associated loss of habitat for wildlife.
6.1 Vegetation Clearance
Overall, we assess the ecological effects of vegetation clearance will be minor.
In the context of the wider ecological district the amount of vegetation that will be removed by
this proposal is very small. Although a rough tool for such estimates at this scale (noting that the
LCDB2 included the entire application site in the category of gorse), a Land Cover Database2
(LDCB2) analysis of the extent of manuka/kanuka forest in the Ecological District is 1,065 ha. The
loss of approximately 0.7 ha of manuka/kanuka forest from the application site is therefore in the
order of 0.01 percent of the wider Ecological District.
The only vegetation communities with moderate ecological value (as described in Section 4.3)
are the more advanced areas of manuka-kanuka and manuka-broadleaved gully forest which
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 16

combined have an area of 0.7 ha. The moderate diversity and connection to large areas of
regenerating vegetation of similar and more advanced successional state, lead to the
assessment that this vegetation has low to moderate ecological values and good potential for
improvement. We therefore recommend some mitigation for the loss of this vegetation.
The early successional manuka scrub and shrublands and the rank pasture mosaic with scattered
tauhinu, are considered to currently have low ecological value due to low diversity, low stature
and poor habitat values. This may change over time if these communities are allowed to
continue regenerating, however, they are still of sufficiently low stature that they may be cleared
as a permitted activity. The Porirua District Plan provisions recognise that management of the
regeneration of these pioneer scrub and shrubland communities within productive pasture is
considered a normal and necessary part of farm management. Overall, we assess that the effect
of removing these communities on the local ecology will be negligible with no mitigation required
for the loss of these communities.
While wetlands are much more reduced in extent in the ecological district and ecological region,
being originally rare or uncommon (Williams et al 2007), the small seepage wetlands and areas of
Juncus in wet pasture within the application site are induced communities with a significant
exotic component. The plant species present are a reflection of the prevailing land use,
common in similar farm seepages throughout the region. Overall we assess that the effect of
removing these communities on the local ecology will be negligible with no mitigation required
for the loss of these communities.
Two solitary totara and tawa trees are present and will be lost within the footprint. The loss of any
mature tree will have some adverse effect on the local ecology, particularly with regard to loss of
a seed source for ongoing regeneration of seral communities. Therefore, it is our
recommendation that any mitigation package would address this loss.
6.2 Wildlife
Given the application site’s location close to the forested Belmont Hills Regional Park and the
nearby vegetated fault escarpment, the site is likely to form part of a wider ecological corridor for
bird species.
However, given the early successional stage of most of the vegetation, and associated lack of
diversity, and also given the application site forms a very small portion of regenerating vegetation
within this wider area, it is not anticipated that the current proposal will result in a significant or
measurable adverse effect on birdlife due to loss of habitat.
The only herpetofauna species found was a solitary common skink, another indicator of the early
successional stage of the vegetation and of vegetation that has regenerated within pasture.
There will be loss of habitat and possibly loss of individuals during vegetation clearance. We have
therefore recommended the use of ARs prior to vegetation removal in the upper area of the
proposed cleanfill to capture and translocate any lizard species into the main gully system
upstream prior to vegetation clearance.
6.3 Summary
It is our overall assessment that the proposed clean fill will have minor adverse effects on the local
ecology, primarily through the loss of a small amount of advanced manuka and broadleaved
gully vegetation, the habitat these areas of vegetation provide and the loss of long term
potential for these successions. It is recommended that this vegetation removal be mitigated for
through an adequate and well thought out mitigation programme at the site.
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 17

7.0 Mitigation recommendations
7.1 Regenerating manuka and broadleaved forest
Despite the assessed minor adverse effect of the proposal on local ecological values, it is our
recommendation that the proposed clearance of approximately 0.7 ha of this vegetation (and
associated edge effects, localised desiccation and potential weed invasion) should be subject
to mitigation. As outlined above, because so little of the original indigenous vegetation remains
within the Porirua District, the value of these more advanced areas of regenerating forest and
scrub as habitat and refugia is elevated – particularly given the contiguous nature of the
application site and the adjacent forested areas of Belmont Regional Park. I have also
considered Policy 46 of the RPS in determining a recommendation of mitigation for this proposed
loss of regenerating indigenous vegetation. Policy 46 is an interim framework encouraging a
precautionary approach to the remediation or mitigation of adverse effects on indigenous
biodiversity values where avoiding adverse effects is not practicably achievable.
Any mitigation programme should take into account the relative youth and the low to moderate
ecological value of the vegetation and habitat, as well as the relative proportion of these
vegetation communities remaining in the ecological district. As part of determining mitigation
requirements, we would recommend the preferential selection of a mitigation area that has a
similar ecological potential to the area of vegetation being removed. Such an area would be
expected to have similar physical and habitat characteristics, as well as protection from ungulate
and browsing pests. We consider that similar areas with similar vegetation characteristics would
regenerate naturally to a similar ecological value within 15 – 25 years.
In considering the ecological context of this area with the terrestrial habitat loss proposed, we
consider and recommend that a suitable mitigation programme for terrestrial vegetation loss
could be undertaken through a combination of the following:
1. Specific restoration planting of manuka, kanuka and broadleaved species in conjunction
with / or as part of the permanent land retirement areas immediately adjacent to the
proposed freshwater mitigation sites ;
2. The 4,594 m2 of landscape and visual planting proposed on the batter slopes as part of
Stage 1 be carried out in such a way (comprising predominantly manuka, kanuka and
broadleaved species) that it provides ecological benefit; and
3. Permanent retirement of pasture and facilitation (e.g. enhancement planting of native
species) of natural regeneration of additional areas within the proposed freshwater
retirement areas proposed.
The restoration planting, permanent protection and associated plant and animal pest control will
enhance the natural regeneration and, will contribute to long-term ecological improvements
occurring in the wider area. Any area where mitigation is proposed should ideally be in close
proximity to the vegetation and habitat being lost.
As part of this assessment, we did not develop a mitigation package further than these
recommendations on the understanding that a detailed mitigation plan was being developed
by Tonkin and Taylor based on this assessment.
Finally, it is proposed that a condition of consent provide for an environmental management
plan to guide the protection and enhancement of both the freshwater and any potential
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 18

terrestrial mitigation sites. Consistent with the above terrestrial ecological mitigation
recommendations, this environmental management plan should include control of invasive pest
plants, and management of browsing animals through fencing and pest control mechanisms.
This environmental management plan should continue for the operational life of the cleanfill. This
plan should include identification of plant and animal pest species to be managed, the timing of
this management, and the tools to be used.
7.2 Seepage wetlands
As outlined above, these wetlands are considered to have been induced as a result of historical
vegetation clearance and ongoing grazing and they are highly modified from stock pugging
and constant browsing pressures. We have assessed that mitigation is not required for their loss.
However, the freshwater ecological assessment (MWH) requires mitigation for loss of intermittent
and perennial streams. The areas identified for this mitigation includes areas of wetland
seepages upstream of the project footprint which are greater in extent than those lost beneath
the project footprint. These wetland areas will therefore be included within the fenced area and
thus protected for as long as they are able to persist beneath a regenerating canopy.
7.3 Wildlife
Prior to vegetation removal associated with Stage 4 of the proposed cleanfill, we recommend
manual habitat searches and the deployment of a suitable number of ARs in the rank pasture
mosaic and young manuka scrub and shrubland in the upper area of the proposed cleanfill to
capture any lizard species that may inhabit this area into the main gully system upstream.
Any lizards caught should be identified and translocated into the main gully system a sufficient
distance upstream of the upper extent of the proposed cleanfill works. The proposed
translocation site will be determined as part of application to the Department of Conservation for
this transfer. We note that all native lizards are afforded absolute protection under the Wildlife
Act 1953 and a permit to trap and translocate lizards will be required from the Department of
Conservation.
7.4 Monitoring Recommendations
Without management the cleanfill proposal is likely to lead to an increase in the abundance and
distribution of exotic weed species, particularly on cleared faces, on exposed areas of cleanfill,
and as seed transported to site.
Any areas that may be re-vegetated and retired as mitigation for terrestrial habitat loss as part of
this proposal will require ongoing control of browsing mammals, both stock (fencing) and animal
pests such as goats and possums for the life of the clean fill operation. Without this control the
levels of mitigation benefit that are required, are unlikely to be achieved.
As part of the management plan, weed and animal monitoring should be undertaken to ensure
the mitigation mechanisms outlined above are maintained sufficient to ensure the mitigation
requirements envisaged are achieved. This should include aspects of invasive weed
establishment and control (during cleanfill staging), animal pest control, fence maintenance and
the establishment of enrichment plant species.
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 19

8.0 Conclusions
The proposed cleanfill will involve the loss of approximately 0.7 ha of advanced regenerating
indigenous vegetation, approximately 1.29 ha of young manuka scrub and shrubland, 1.46 ha of
rank pasture mosaic, 0.51 ha of wet pasture with Juncus and the 0.16 ha of induced seepage
wetlands. The new land surface will progressively be put into improved pasture and farmed,
except where amenity planting for landscape and visual mitigation is proposed.
With the exception of a remnant tawa tree and an established totara tree, the vegetation to be
removed is entirely regenerating forest and scrub with a small number of induced seepage
wetlands. While none of the plants or trees that will be removed are considered to have high
ecological value, the wider area of vegetation does have some value as habitat, particularly
given so little original indigenous vegetation remains in the Wellington Ecological District. The
native trees and shrubs that are proposed to be removed are considered common species and
there will be no significant adverse ecological effects due to their removal. Finally, the
application site is not known to provide core habitat for indigenous fauna, although common
native skink may inhabit the upper areas of the application site.
Given the large areas of regenerating vegetation close to or adjacent to the Belmont Regional
Park, the small loss of indigenous vegetation anticipated with this proposal is not expected to
have any adverse effects on the wider ecological district. Overall, the effects of this vegetation
removal will be localised and are assessed to be minor when one considers the large amount of
this vegetation type surrounding the site, within Belmont Regional Park and in the Wellington
Region.
For the approximately 0.7 ha of advanced regenerating indigenous vegetation that will be lost
within the cleanfill application area, a number of mitigation and rehabilitation measures are
recommended as part of a precautionary approach. Mitigation is not assessed as necessary for
the loss of early successional manuka scrub and shrublands, the rank pasture mosaic nor, for the
areas of wet pasture with Juncus and seepages within the application area.
In summary, we assess that the potential ecological effects associated with vegetation removal
for this proposed cleanfill are minor and can be fully mitigated by the proposed retirement and
enhancement of the areas proposed. When the terrestrial and freshwater mitigation areas are
considered in total we assess that there will be ecological benefits in the medium to long term.
Matiu Park
Senior Ecologist / Planner
Boffa Miskell Limited
21 November 2012
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 20

9.0 References
Boffa Miskell. 1998: A History of Wellington’s Vegetation. Report prepared for Wellington City
Council.
Boffa Miskell. June. 1999: Horokiwi Quarry Stream and Gully: Assessment of Ecological Effects of a
New Overburden Disposal Area. Report prepared for Horokiwi Quarries Ltd.
Boffa Miskell. 1999: Horokiwi Stream Diversion and Spillway: Ecological Assessment. Report
prepared for Horokiwi Quarries Ltd.
Boffa Miskell. 2001: Inventory of Ecological Sites in Porirua City. Report prepared for Porirua City
Council.
Boffa Miskell. 2011: Ecological Impact Assessment Report for Transmission Gully Motorway. Report
prepared by Stephen Fuller for the New Zealand Transport Agency.
de Lange, P. J., et.al. (2009). Threatened and uncommon plants of New Zealand (2008 revision).
New Zealand Journal of Botany 47: 61-96.
Forest and Bird. 1990 “Natural Wellington” report.
Hitchmough, R.A., Hoare, J.M., Jamieson, H., Newman, D., Tocher, M.D., Anderson, P.J., Lettink,
M., and Whitaker, A.H. 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2009. New Zealand
Journal of Zoology 37:3. P203-224.
McEwen, W. M. (1887). Ecological Regions and Districts of New Zealand. Third Revised edition in
Four 1:500 000 Maps. Report produced for Department of Conservation, Wellington.
MWH, 2012: Draft Freshwater Assessment for DCR Cleanfill. Report prepared for Winstone
Aggregates by David Cameron.
Norton, D.; Roper-Lindsay, J. (1999: Criteria for assessing ecological significance under Section
6(c) of the Resource Management Act 1991. Unpublished report prepared for Ministry for the
Environment, Wellington, N.Z.
Page, M. J. (1995). Land Use Capability Classification of the Wellington Region. Landcare
Research Science Series No.6.
Williams, P.A., Wiser, S., Clarkson, B., & Stanley, M.C. 2007. New Zealand’s historically rare terrestrial
ecosystems set in a physical and physiognomic framework. New Zealand Journal of Ecology
31(2):119-128.
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 21

Appendix 1 Botanical Species List
List of Vascular Pants on the Judd Property, State Highway 58, Porirua.
Centred on Topo 50 BP32 654 445
Pat Enright, Matiu Park 24/2/12 (5hrs). Up the main stream bed and up the slope on the true left
and then up the slope on the true right and down the pylon access track
unc = uncommon only 1 or 2 specimens seen.
Dicotyledonous trees and shrubs
Aristotelia serrata (unc seedling),
makomako, wineberry
Brachyglottis repanda rangiora
Carpodetus serratus putaputawëtä, marbleleaf
Coprosma grandifolia raurekau
Coprosma lucida karamu
Coprosma propinqua subsp. propinqua
Coprosma rhamnoides
Coprosma robusta karamu
Coprosma propinqua x C. robusta
Fuchsia excorticata kötukutuku
Geniostoma ligustrifolium var. ligustrifolium,
hangehange
Hedycarya arborea (unc juvenile)
porokaiwhiri, pigeonwood
Kunzea ericoides kanuka
Leptospermum scoparium manuka
Monocotyledonous lianes
Ripogonum scandens (unc)
kareao, supplejack
Dicotyledonous lianes and related trailing plants
Clematis paniculata (unc), puawänanga
Metrosideros diffusa akatea
Metrosideros perforate akatea
Muehlenbeckia australis pöhuehue
Ferns
Adiantum cunninghamii (unc), maidenhair fern
Asplenium appendiculatum subsp apendiculatum
(unc)
Leucopogon fasciculatus (unc)
mingimingi
Macropiper excelsum subsp. excelsum (unc),
kawakawa
Melicytus ramiflorus subsp. ramiflorus,
mähoe
Metrosideros robusta (unc 1 dying specimen)
rätä, northern rata
Olearia solandri
Ozothamnus leptophyllus tauhinu
Pseudopanax arboreus (unc juveniles),
whauwhaupaku, five finger
Pseudopanax crassifolius (unc juveniles),
horoeka, lancewood
Schefflera digitata (unc), patë
Urtica ferox, ongaonga tree nettle
Weinmannia racemosa (unc), kamahi
Parsonsia heterophylla (unc), kaihua
N.Z. jasmine
Rubus cissoids tätarämoa, bush lawyer
Asplenium flabellifolium necklace fern
Asplenium flaccidum makawe
hanging spleenwort
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 22

Asplenium hookerianum
Asplenium polyodon (unc), petako,
sickle spleenwort
Blechnum chambersii nini
Blechnum discolor piupiu, crown fern
Blechnum filiforme pänako, thread fern
Blechnum fluviatile kiwakiwa
Blechnum membranaceum (unc)
Blechnum minus swamp kiokio
Blechnum novae zelandiae kiokio
Ctenopteris heterophylla comb fern
Cyathea dealbata ponga, silver fern
Cyathea medullaris mamaku
Dicksonia squarrosa whekï
Hymenophyllum demissum irirangi, filmy fern
Hymenophyllum multifidum mauku
Hymenophyllum sanguinolentum
mauku
Hymenophyllum rarum
Orchids
Microtis unifolia onion leaved orchid
Orthoceras novae-zeelandiae
Grasses
Cortaderia fulvida (unc) toetoe
Dichelachne crinite plume grass
Microlaena stipoides meadow rice grass
Sedges
Carex flagellifera (unc)
Carex forsteri (unc)
Carex inversa
Carex secta
Carex virgata
Eleocharis acuta spike sedge
Rushes and allied plants
Juncus edgariae
Juncus planifolius
Remaining Monocotyledonous plants
Libertia grandifolia (in seed 24/2/12),
mïkoikoi
Hymenophyllum scabrum mauku
Hypolepis lactea
Hypolepis rufobarbata
Lastreopsis glabella
Microsorum pustulatum subsp. pustulatum
köwaowao,
hounds tongue
Paesia scaberula matata, scented fern
Pellaea rotundifolia tarawera, button fern
Pneumatopteris pennigera pakauroharoha,
gully fern
Polystichum neozelandicum subsp. zerophyllum
pikopiko
Polystichum silvaticum
Polystichum vestitum pünui, prickly shield fern
Pteridium esculentum rauaruhe, bracken
Pteris macilenta sweet fern
Pyrrosia eleagnifolia ota, leather-leaf fern
Thelymitra sps. (in seed)
maïkuku, sun orchid
Rytidosperma gracile
Rytidosperma unarede
Eleocharis gracilis spike sedge
Isolepis distigmatosa (unc)
Isolepis prolifer
Schoenus apogon (unc)
Schoenus maschalinus
Uncinia uncinata (unc), watu, hook grass
Juncus sarophorus
Triglochin striata (in seed 24/2/12)
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 23

Daisy-like herbs (Composites)
Euchiton audax cudweed
Euchiton collinus cudweed
Euchiton involucratus cudweed
Helichrysum filicaule
Dicotyledonous herbs other than Composites
Acaena anserinifolia bidibidi
Centella uniflora
Dichondra repens
Epilobium billardierianum (f 24/2/12)
Epilobium brunnescens
Epilobium pubens
Epilobium rotundifolium
Galium propinquum
Geranium aff. microphyllum (f 24/2/12)
Hydrocotyle heteromeria waxweed
Hydrocotyle moschata
Hypericum pusillum
Leptinella squalida subsp. squalid
(unc), button daisy
Raoulia glabra scabweed
Senecio minimus fireweed
Leptostigma setulosa
Lobelia anceps (f 24/2/12)
Nertera depressa (unc)
Oxalis exilis
Oxalis rubens
Ranunculus reflexus
Solanum nodiflorum (f 24/1/12)
small flowered nightshade
Stellaria parviflora chickweed
Urtica incise, nettle
Wahlenbergia rupestris white harebell
Wahlenbergia violacea blue harebell
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 24

Appendix 2 Site Photos
Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfill, SH 58, Porirua | Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Effects 25

Photo 1: Looking upslope towards extent of proposed cleanfi
ll, illustra ng nature of main vegeta on communi es within
the upper gully system. Red line indicates approximate
extent of Stage 4 of the proposed cleanfi ll.
Photo 3: Looking across lower gully and exis ng farm access
road within lower extent of proposed cleanfi ll. Improved
pasture with wet pasture with Juncus in foreground and
sca ered areas of manuka scrub to right of photo.
W11091_Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfi ll
Photo 5: Open grass, sca ered open manuka and fern species
typcial of the understorey of some of the steeper side gully
systems in the upper extent of the main gully.
Photo 2: Close-up illustra ng canopy height of manuka forest
both sides of main stream. Photo illustrates open pasture
surrounding the stream in the lower por on of the main gully
system.
Photo 4: Looking downstream towards base of proposed
cleanfi ll. Soliatary mahoe visible to right and areas of wet pasture
with Juncus visible in low-lying areas in foreground.
Photo 6: Typical induced seepage wetlands in pasture near
proposed cleanfi ll access road. Manuka scrub surrounding.
W11091_Dry_Creek_Replacement_Cleanfi ll_VEG_SitePhotos_A4.indd

Photo 7: Looking downstream of main gully system towards
base of proposed cleanfi ll, illustra ng extent of wet pasture
dominated by Juncus and areas of improved pasture.
Photo 9: Looking across lower gully within upper extent of
proposed cleanfi ll. Photo shows intermixing manuka scrub,
rank pasture with early successional regenera on and areas
of improved pasture.
W11091_Dry Creek Replacement Cleanfi ll
Photo 11: Exis ng access road with sca ered mahoe, manuka
and young Coprosma regenera ng.
Photo 8: Solitary remnant tawa within proposed cleanfi
ll applica on area. Wet pasture with Juncus and scattered
manuka and tauhinu shrubs visible in foreground.
Photo 10: Looking downstream towards proposed cleanfi ll
loca on showing mixture of vegeta on communi es present.
Photo 12: Looking north across a side gully of manuka scrub
and older pines within proposed cleanfi ll applica on area.
W11091_Dry_Creek_Replacement_Cleanfi ll_VEG_SitePhotos_A4.indd