EPA - Rebuttal evidence of Leigh Sandra Bull (marine avifauna) … · 2019. 4. 6. · 16 I assisted Dr De Luca in the preparation of the Marine Ecology Assessment in regards to the

Rebuttal evidence of Leigh Sandra Bull (marine avifauna) for the

New Zealand Transport Agency

Dated: 12 May 2014

Paula Brosnahan ([email protected])

Luke Hinchey ([email protected])

Before a Board of Inquiry

under: the Resource Management Act 1991

in the matter of: Notices of requirement for designation and resource consent

applications by the New Zealand Transport Agency for the

Ara Tūhono Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National

Significance – Pūhoi to Warkworth Section

applicant: New Zealand Transport Agency

Requiring Authority

3427977

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE 1

PROJECT ROLE 3

SUMMARY 4

POINTS OF CLARIFICATION / CONTEXT 4 Foraging behaviour and habitat 4 Diet 6

POTENTIAL INDIRECT EFFECT ON WADING BIRDS 7 Foraging habitat availability 7 Monitoring 8

CONCLUSIONS 10

1

3427977

STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF LEIGH BULL FOR THE

TRANSPORT AGENCY

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERTISE

1 My full name is Leigh Sandra Bull.

2 I am Principal and Senior Ecologist with Boffa Miskell Limited. I have

worked as a professional ecologist for 11 years. My area of specialisation

is ornithology, particularly seabirds and coastal avifauna.

3 I hold the qualifications of Bachelor of Science (Zoology), Masters of

Science with Honours (Ecology) and PhD (Ecology) from Victoria

University of Wellington. I am a Certified Environmental Practitioner with

the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand and am bound by

the Institute’s code of ethics.

4 After completing my PhD in 2003, I worked for the Department of

Conservation in the Biodiversity Recovery Unit as a Species Protection

Officer and later as a Senior Technical Support Officer in the Marine

Conservation Unit. Though now disbanded, the Biodiversity Recovery Unit

was a national unit that focused solely on the recovery of New Zealand’s

threatened species.

5 In 2005 I was awarded a French Ministry of Research post-doctorate

fellowship at the Université Paris Sud XI. After completing my post-

doctorate, I contracted to NIWA to undertake seabird field investigations

on Antipodes Island.

6 To date I have authored more than 20 international and national peer-

reviewed scientific publications and numerous technical reports relating to

a variety of ecological matters.

7 I joined Boffa Miskell in 2007, and have since worked on a variety of

small- and large-scale projects investigating the potential impact of

developments on avifauna, including coastal species.

8 I have significant experience conducting ecological surveys and monitoring

of a variety of fauna in New Zealand (mainland, offshore and sub-

Antarctic islands), New Caledonia, Tonga and France. I have conducted

numerous surveys for seabirds, cryptic marshbird species (eg North and

South Island fernbird, Australasian bittern, banded rail, spotless and

marsh crake), coastal and wading shorebirds.

9 I am currently the lead ecologist on a coastal development project

adjacent to the nationally significant Mangawhai Wildlife Refuge, the main

breeding ground for one of New Zealand’s rarest bird (the New Zealand

fairy tern). Other Threatened and At Risk species utilising the area (for

breeding, foraging or roosting) include northern New Zealand dotterel,

variable oystercatcher and Caspian tern. I have undertaken numerous

2

3427977

assessments at the site as part of the various resource consent

applications (for earthworks and watertake) and continue to monitor the

avifauna to ensure they are not adversely affected by the development.

Recently, as part of that project, I undertook a joint study with the

Ornithological Society and the Department of Conservation investigating

the foraging behaviour of the New Zealand fairy tern at the Te Arai stream

during the chick-rearing period.

10 I have appeared as an expert witness before council hearings, the

Environment Court and Boards of Inquiry in relation to consent

applications for national roading projects, landfill and Council plan changes

in terrestrial and coastal environments.

11 I undertook the avifauna field investigations and appeared as an expert

witness at the Boards of Inquiry for the New Zealand Transport Agency’s

(Transport Agency’s) Mackays to Peka Peka and Transmission Gully

expressway projects.

12 My professional memberships include:

12.1 The Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand; and

12.2 The New Zealand Ornithological Society.

13 This rebuttal evidence is given in support of the Transport Agency’s

notices of requirement and applications for resource consent for the

construction, operation and maintenance of the Ara Tūhono Pūhoi to

Wellsford Road of National Significance – Pūhoi to Warkworth Section

(Project).

14 The Project is a four-lane, motorway-standard alignment from State

Highway One (SH1) at the Johnstone’s Hill tunnels to SH1 just north of

Warkworth. The indicative alignment1 includes seven viaducts, five

bridges and 27 on-site stormwater treatment devices. A comprehensive

description of the Project is contained in Section 5 of the Assessment of

Environmental Effects.

15 I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses as contained in the

Environment Court’s Consolidated Practice Note (2011), and I agree to

comply with it as if this Inquiry were before the Environment Court. My

qualifications are set out above. I confirm that the issues addressed in

this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. I have not omitted

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

the opinions expressed.

1 A preliminary design alignment assessed by technical experts that may be refined on detailed design within the designation boundary.

3

3427977

PROJECT ROLE

16 I assisted Dr De Luca in the preparation of the Marine Ecology Assessment

in regards to the potential effects on coastal avifauna. I undertook a

literature search (including the New Zealand Ornithological Society Atlas)

to identify the bird species that have been recorded within or in the

vicinity of the Mahurangi and Puhoi estuaries.2

17 I also provided advice to Dr De Luca regarding the potential direct and

indirect effects of the Project on coastal and shorebird foraging and

potential breeding habitat. I acted as the internal peer reviewer for Dr De

Luca’s Marine Ecological Assessment. I have continued to provide advice

to Dr De Luca regarding the potential effects of the Project on coastal and

shorebirds through the stages of evidence preparation for this Board of

Inquiry hearing.

18 On 1 May 2014, Dr De Luca and I undertook a site visit to the Puhoi

Estuary. The timing of the site visit (between midday and 3:15pm)

coincided with the outgoing tide (low tide 2:45pm) to observe foraging

activity and locations. Prior to visiting the Puhoi Estuary proper, we

obtained an overview of the estuary from a vantage point off the Hibiscus

Coast Highway. This enabled the viewing (using binoculars) of birds

foraging in all areas of open mudflats. We then proceeded down to the

Wenderholm Regional Park car park and viewed the outer 300 m of the

estuary from the boat ramp. From here, we crossed through to the

coastal side, walking north along the coastline to view the coastal delta,

then along the true right of the stream mouth back to the boat ramp.

19 I have read:

19.1 the Director-General of Conservation’s submission received on this

Project as it relates to marine avifauna;

19.2 the marine avifauna aspects of the Section 42A Planning Report –

Stage 1;

19.3 the evidence of Dr Beauchamp dated 20 February 2014;

19.4 the evidence of Ms Hillock dated 27 February 2014;

19.5 the Marine Ecology Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Report dated

27 March 2014;

19.6 the additional evidence of Dr Beauchamp (dated 15 April 2014)

provided to the Board on 16 April 2014; and

2 Refer to Tables 9 and 13 of the Marine Ecology Assessment Report.

4

3427977

19.7 sections of the hearing transcript for Day 7 (16 April 2014) during

which Dr Beauchamp was questioned regarding the potential

impact of Project sedimentation on wading birds.

20 In this statement of evidence, I provide rebuttal to the evidence of

Dr Beauchamp dated 20 February 2014 and, in particular, the additional

evidence of Dr Beauchamp (dated 15 April 2014) provided on 16 April

2014 at the Board of Inquiry hearing.

SUMMARY

21 Based on the above sources, I understand that the key concerns of Dr

Beauchamp relate to:

21.1 The need to undertake pre-construction monitoring to determine

the use of the Puhoi Estuary by foraging wading birds; and

21.2 A perceived lack of a link between the Transport Agency’s

proposed marine invertebrate monitoring and the potential impact

of the Project on the wading birds.3

22 I consider that any potential effect on wading birds from the Project will

be indirect, through potential changes to the abundance or availability of

their food supply. Because of that, I consider pre-construction monitoring

should be aimed at the food supply, namely marine invertebrates. These

invertebrates are the only biota through which a direct impact of

sedimentation on ecological values will be able to be measured in a robust

manner.

23 There are numerous external factors, which I outline below, that make it

extremely difficult to attribute a single cause for observed differences in

wading bird foraging behaviour and abundance. It is for these reasons

that I disagree with Dr Beauchamp’s recommendation that monitoring of

the foraging patterns of wading birds in the outer Puhoi Estuary be

undertaken as part of the Project’s pre-construction monitoring.

POINTS OF CLARIFICATION / CONTEXT

Foraging behaviour and habitat

24 In his supplementary evidence, Dr Beauchamp discusses4 the foraging

behaviour of curlew (Numenius sp.), which defends its feeding area. The

Eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis), is an international migrant

that does not breed in New Zealand. In the order of 10 individuals of this

species visit this country each summer, with the majority occurring at

3 Paragraph 13 of Dr Beauchamp’s Supplementary Evidence dated 15 April 2014.


5

3427977

Farewell Spit and Manukau Harbour.5, 6 I consider that the likelihood of

Eastern curlew occurring within the Puhoi Estuary during a trigger rainfall

event to be extremely low, and as such the foraging behaviour of this

species is unlikely to be relevant to this Project.

25 Dr Beauchamp stated7 the population of northern New Zealand dotterel to

be approximately 860 birds. I consider this figure to be incorrect. 2175

northern New Zealand dotterels were counted in the 2011 breeding-

season census,8 which is an increase on the 2004 estimate of 1700

individuals9.

26 Dr Beauchamp discussed10 the territorial nature of northern New Zealand

dotterel and variable oystercatcher, and stated that he would expect these

birds to be present within the Puhoi Estuary throughout the year.

27 I note that both of these species form post-breeding flocks.11 For instance,

in late summer, northern New Zealand dotterel leave their breeding sites

and congregate in post-breeding flocks at favoured estuaries for the

autumn and early winter (gathering from January with numbers peaking

in March).12 Thus, northern New Zealand dotterel may not be present at

Puhoi Estuary during the time when post-breeding flocks are formed.

28 Even during the breeding season (July – January), northern New Zealand

dotterel will feed within 2 km of their territories.13 I note that the

Mahurangi and Waiwera estuaries to the immediate north and south of

the Puhoi Estuary are situated approximately 1.7 km and 1.9 km away

respectively. These two estuaries and beaches are therefore available

foraging habitat for northern New Zealand dotterel.

5 Riegen, A.C. 2013. Eastern curlew. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online (http://www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz/species/eastern-curlew).

6 Southey, I. 2009. Numbers of waders in New Zealand 1994-2003. DOC Research & Development Series 308. Department of Conservation.


8 Dowding, J.E. 2013. New Zealand dotterel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online (http://www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz/species/new-zealand-dotterel)

9 Dowding, J.E. & Davis, A.M. 2007. New Zealand dotterel (Charadrius obscurus) recovery plan, 2004-14. Threatened Species Recovery Plan 58. Department of Conservation.

10 Last paragraph on page 857 and page 858, Transcript of Proceedings for the Board of Inquiry Ara Tūhono - Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance: Pūhoi to Warkworth Section

Proposal.

11 Dowding, J.E. & Moore, S.J. 2006. Habitat networks of indigenous shorebirds in New Zealand.

Science for Conservation 261. Department of Conservation.

12 Department of Conservation New Zealand dotterel factsheet

http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/native-animals/birds/birds-a-z/nz-dotterel-tuturiwhatu/facts/

13 Dowding, J.E. & Chamberlin, S.P. 1991. Annual movement patterns and breeding-site fidelity of the New Zealand dotterel (Charadrius obscurus). Notornis 38: 89-102.

http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/native-animals/birds/birds-a-z/nz-dotterel-tuturiwhatu/facts/http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/native-animals/birds/birds-a-z/nz-dotterel-tuturiwhatu/facts/

6

3427977

29 Dr Beauchamp reported,14 based on the data he collected in February

2014, that four species of waders (northern New Zealand dotterel, South

Island pied oystercatcher, variable oystercatcher and bar-tailed godwit)

were restricted to the outer 300m of the Puhoi Estuary and its coastal

delta.

30 Dr Beauchamp goes on to state15 that any impact on their food supplies

above the current background levels of sedimentation could further

restrict the use of the estuary and confine activity to the coastal margin.

Though I do not know the exact location of the area that Dr Beauchamp

describes as the outer 300m, I note that as shown in the maps for

background and Project sediment deposition for the modelled scenarios

(Annexures A-D of Dr De Luca’s supplementary evidence), the Project

contributes only a very small proportion of additional >5mm sediment

above the background level. Furthermore, in the case of 50 year rainfall

events, the background sediment >5mm covers the vast majority of the

lower reach.

31 While I agree with Dr Beauchamp that the outer 300m of the Puhoi

Estuary does provide foraging habitat, during my visit to the Puhoi Estuary

on 1 May 2014 I observed South Island pied oystercatchers foraging

approximately 1 km upstream of the mouth of the Puhoi Estuary. Thus,

while some species may prefer to forage in the outer 300m of the estuary,

they are not restricted to that area. There are large areas of open

mudflat/sandflat upstream of 300m from the mouth of the Puhoi Estuary

available and used for foraging by wading birds. Figure 1 shows the

extent (shown as green cross-hatching) of the open mudflat/sandflat

habitat in the middle to lower reaches of the Puhoi Estuary, which I

believe, based on my above observations, is available foraging habitat for

wading birds. This area of intertidal open mudflat/sandflat, excluding the

low tide channel and the areas of saline vegetation (shown as red

hatching in Figure 1), is approximately 80.8 ha.

Diet

32 I note that the foraging habitat and diet of the northern New Zealand

dotterel is varied. Dowding16 describes New Zealand dotterel as

“opportunistic feeders, eating a wide variety of suitably-sized animals”.

Dowding8 writes “New Zealand dotterel consumes a wide range of

suitably-sized marine, littoral, and terrestrial invertebrates, and

occasionally small fish. Sandhoppers are a common prey item on

beaches, and small mussels are taken from rocks. Small crabs and

annelid worms are among prey on estuaries; on grass, crickets, flies,

beetles, and earthworms have been recorded. Most prey is live, but

recently-dead items are occasionally scavenged.”



16 Dowding, J. 1993. New Zealand Dotterel Recovery Plan (Charadrius obscurus). Threated Species Recover Plan Series 10. Department of Conservation.

7

3427977

33 Similarly, at the non-breeding grounds in New Zealand, bar-tailed godwit

mainly eat polychaetes (probably over 70% of their diet) but also small

bivalves and crustaceans, as well as foraging in wet pasture for terrestrial

invertebrates.17

34 In the case of the both South Island pied and variable oystercatchers,

these birds consume a wide range of marine invertebrates, including

molluscs, crustaceans, and annelids. On grass, these birds eat a range of

terrestrial invertebrates, including earthworms.18,19

35 As per the descriptions above, Dr Beauchamp criticised20 the diet

information provided in Table 10 of Dr De Luca’s Marine Ecology

Assessment Report for being very broad. However, I note that the

information was intended to provide a general dietary overview. More

information regarding the prey species consumed is available in the

literature.21,22

36 For example, prey species recorded21 for variable oystercatchers include

the following: Allolobophora caliginosa, Chiton pelliserpentis, Chiton

glaucus, Haliotis iris; Cellana denticulata, Cellana ornata, Cellana radians,

Cellana flava, Diloma aethiops, Cominella glandiformis, Cominella lucida;

Zeacumantus subcarinatus, Mytilidae green mussel, Mytilus edulis

aoteanus, Aulocomya maoriana, Modiolus neozelandicus, Perna

canaliculus, Xenostrobus pulex, Chione stutchburyi, Paphia austral, P.

subtriangulatum, Tellina liliana, Protothaca crassicosta, Dosinia anus, D.

subrosea, Dynamanella huttoni, sand hopper Talorchestia, Helice crasa

and Hemigrapsis edwardsii.

POTENTIAL INDIRECT EFFECT ON WADING BIRDS

Foraging habitat availability

37 In paragraph 6.2 of his evidence-in-chief, Dr Beauchamp acknowledges

that the effects of sedimentation on wading birds will be indirect in nature

through a potential temporary reduction in prey availability or a reduction

in prey density.

17 Woodley, K. 2013. Bar-tailed godwit in Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online. http://www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz/species/bar-tailed-godwit

18 Dowding, J.E. 2013. Variable oystercatcher. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online. http://www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz/species/variable-oystercatcher

19 Sagar, P.M. 2013. South Island pied oystercatcher in Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online. http://www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz/species/south-island-pied-oystercatcher

20 Page 856, Transcript of Proceedings for the Board of Inquiry Ara Tūhono - Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance: Pūhoi to Warkworth Section Proposal.

21 Marchant, S.; Higgins, P.J. (eds) 1993. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds. Vol. 2, raptors to lapwings. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

22 Higgins, P.J.; Davies, S.J.J.F. (eds.) 1996. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds. Vol. 3, snipe to pigeons. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

8

3427977

38 A comparison of the modelled sediment deposition for the background

and Project for certain rainfall events was provided in Annexures A-D of

Dr De Luca’s supplementary evidence (dated 14 April 2014). Using that

information, when the sediment deposition area >5mm is overlaid on the

80.8ha of intertidal open mudflat/sandflat foraging habitat in the middle to

lower reaches, the area of unaffected habitat can be determined for each

modelled scenario (both background and with Project). For example, the

table below shows that in a 50 year ENE event, 32 ha of intertidal habitat

remains unaffected after background sediment deposition >5mm.

39 In the same scenario with the Project, 29 ha of intertidal habitat remains

unaffected (ie, the Project contributes to an additional 3ha of affected

foraging habitat over and above the background sediment). Therefore,

even in the largest events (50 year) modelled, there is still approximately

36-43% of wading bird foraging habitat available.

Scenario

Area of open intertidal habitat unaffected (ha)

Background Background + Project

Puhoi calm 10 year 64 61

Puhoi ENE 10 year 64 63

Puhoi calm 50 year 37 35

Puhoi ENE 50 year 32 29

Monitoring

40 While I agree with Dr Beauchamp that there may be indirect impacts on

wading birds, I disagree that the monitoring of the activity of these birds

themselves is required.

41 Given there will be no direct effect on the birds, I support monitoring of

marine invertebrates (as one of their prey items) because it is these biota

that may be directly affected by a trigger rainfall event.

42 In terms of directly monitoring wading birds, Dr Beauchamp suggests23

what I consider to be a simplistic approach whereby focal foraging studies

could be undertaken over the tidal cycle, noting foraging areas and rates

of use and bird movements. He goes on to state that “such studies could

use activity and occupancy assessments at key sites … If there are no

impacts then the same species of birds will be doing the same activities

before, during and after events at the same sites where sediment is

deposited”.

43 I take this approach to focus on bird occupancy, rather than prey

availability for those birds.


9

3427977

44 In my opinion the preferred approach, as included in the Transport

Agency’s proposed resource consent conditions, is to monitor marine

invertebrates. This approach is more robust because of the numerous

external factors that may be operating which can influence occupancy

(both species and individuals). Some of these external factors were listed

in paragraphs 49.1-49.10 in Dr De Luca’s rebuttal evidence, dated 18

March 2014. In the following paragraphs I provide examples of situations

where I consider external factors that may be influencing the patterns of

foraging occupancy but for which the cause could not be determined

based on the proposed wading bird monitoring.

45 Under the monitoring scenario proposed by Dr Beauchamp, that is the

collection of pre-construction data of foraging patterns / areas of wading

birds in the Puhoi Estuary during summer and winter,24 there would be no

comparable data should a large rainfall event occur during spring or

autumn throughout construction. Different assemblages of birds may be

present (or absent) during these months. For instance, if a trigger rainfall

event occurred during early autumn, it is possible that any wading bird

monitoring following this may not record New Zealand dotterel and

variable oystercatchers at the estuary. However, at this time of the year

differences in the presence of certain species may be due to the birds

being at their post-breeding flocking sites rather than any effects of

sedimentation in the Puhoi foraging habitat.

46 Similarly, summer pre-construction data may record New Zealand dotterel

foraging in a particular area. However, if they are not recorded there in

subsequent summers following a trigger rainfall event then again based

on Dr Beauchamp’s rational, the absence of the birds would be due to the

impact of the Project sedimentation event on the foraging habitat. In my

opinion, another possible explanation could be that these birds have been

predated, which is in fact the main threat to this species.11

47 It is because of these numerous external factors (which cannot be

measured or monitored) that may be influencing wading bird foraging

behaviour, activity and location that I strongly disagree with Dr

Beauchamp’s proposal for requirement of wading bird monitoring.

48 I note that in the Board of Inquiry decision on Transmission Gully, the

Board agreed with the evidence I presented at that hearing and noted in

its Decision that “the wider monitoring of marine ecological values is an

adequate proxy for direct monitoring of effects on coastal birds

themselves”.25

24 Proposed changes to Conditions 77, 78, 13 and 14 as outlined on pages 7-9 of Dr Beauchamp’s supplementary evidence dated 15 April 2014.

25 Paragraph 544 page 131, Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Transmission Gully Proposal Volume 1 (June 2012).

10

3427977

49 Given the temporary nature of the potential impact of Project sediment on

the marine invertebrates, it is also important to note that if wading birds

are not utilising a particular foraging area, effects on wading birds do not

necessarily follow because:

49.1 The wading species present do not rely solely on marine

invertebrates for their diet. These species are capable of

temporarily foraging on other prey types.

49.2 The wading species present are not physically restricted to foraging

only in the Puhoi Estuary. These species are mobile and able to

utilise a habitat network over the wider area.

49.3 The wading species present are known to forage in other habitat

types. For instance, New Zealand dotterel feed not only on firm

exposed mudflats, but on sand or stones, in shallow water in

streams, rock pools, puddles or soaks, dry or wet grass land,

exposed seagrass flats and mussel-covered rock platforms.26 A

number of these habitat types are present within the Puhoi

estuary.

50 According to the optimal foraging theory, animals will decide where and

how to feed based on a trade-off between starvation and predation

risks.27 In terms of wading shorebirds, international studies have shown a

positive correlation between bird abundance and their invertebrate prey

availability.28,29,30,31

CONCLUSIONS

51 Given bird mobility, the exposure to external influencing factors (eg along

migration pathways, predation, post-breeding flocking etc), the current

levels of sediment discharge from other land uses and the low predicted

sediment from the Project relative to background sediment in large rainfall

events, it is not possible to directly attribute potential differences in

foraging habitat use to potential sedimentation effects from the Project.

26 Marchant, S.; Higgins, P.J. (eds) 1993. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic birds. Vol. 2, raptors to lapwings. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

27 Krebs, J.R. & Davis, N.B. (1987). An Introduction to Behavioural Ecology. Blackwell Science, Oxford.

28 Placyk Jr, J.S. & B.A. Harrington (2004). Prey abundance and habitat use by migratory

shorebirds at coastal stopover sites in Connecticut. Journal of Field Ornithology 75: 223-231.

29 Jing, K. et al. 2007. Foraging strategies involved in habitat use of shorebirds at the intertidal area of Chongming Dongtan, China. Ecological Research 22: 559-570.

30 Mercier, F. & R. McNeil (1994). Seasonal variations in intertidal density of invertebrate prey

in a tropical lagoon and effects of shorebird predation. Canadian Journal of Zoology 72: 1755-1763.

31 Finn et al. 2008. Prey versus substrate as determinants of habitat choice in a feeding shorebird. Estuarine, Coastal & Shelf Science 80: 381-390.

11

3427977

52 Thus, based on the wading species present, the available international

literature (in the absence of such studies in New Zealand) as well as basic

ecological principles, it is my opinion that the most robust and meaningful

way to measure the potential indirect effect of sediment discharge into the

Puhoi Estuary on foraging habitat is not through the survey of wading

species, but through the monitoring of marine invertebrate species that

form the diet of the wading birds. This approach is adopted in the

Transport Agency’s proposed resource consent conditions, which I

support.

53 In my opinion, the issue for consideration is not patterns of foraging

occupancy (which can be influenced by a number of external factors), but

rather the availability of food (eg marine invertebrates as a primary prey

type) for the birds to forage on should the birds choose to forage there.

_______________________

Dr Leigh Bull

12 May 2014

12

3427977

FIGURE 1: INTERTIDAL WADING BIRD FORAGING AREA

o

Data source: NA; Puhoi_LAT_1mBathy_Poly,Puhoi_Highwater_Spring_Poly, Puhoi_Deposistion_Results_Final, AquacultureManagementAerasExisting, T12167_MergedPoints_NZTMv2. ACC; Aerial Imagery (WMS) Created by:jwalden

DISCLAIMERThe information shown on this drawing issolely for the purposes of supporting RMAapplications for statutory approvals.Al information shown is subjectto review for compliance with approved consentsand the outcomes of final design. SCALE CONTRACT NoPA3748 DRAWING No AMDT1:10,000

FIGURE 1Intertidal Wading Bird Foraging AreaDRAWN DRAFTING CHECK REVIEWEDDISCIPLINE MANAGER APPROVED ALLIANCE MANAGER

PUHOI TO WARKWORTHARA TUHONO - PUHOI TO WELLSFORD

DESIGN REVIEWDESIGNEDGP

S:\Furth

er North

- PAA

\300 D

esign\

300.5 T

echnica

l\10 GI

S\MXD

\WATER

_QUA

LITY\H

ARBO

UR_M

ODEL\

SHAR

ON_RE

BUTTA

L\FIG1

_intert

idal_w

ading_

bird_fo

raging

_area.

mxd

Intertidal Wading Bird Foraging AreaAreas excluded from analysisLATMHWS

EPA - Rebuttal evidence of Leigh Sandra Bull (marine avifauna) … · 2019. 4. 6. · 16 I assisted Dr De Luca in the preparation of the Marine Ecology Assessment in regards to the

Documents