Before a Board of Inquiry

Under the Resource Management Act

In the matter of Notices of requirement for designation and resource consent applications by the Transport Agency for the Ara Tūhono Pūhoi to Wellsford Road of National Significance – Pūhoi to Warkworth Section

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN CHIEF OF ANTONY JULIAN BEACHAMP ON BEHALF OF THE DIRECTOR‐GENERAL OF CONSERVATION

Department of Conservation PO Box 10 420 WELLINGTON Counsel acting: Teall Crossen [email protected] telephone: 04 471 3056

Dated: 20 February 2014

Table of Contents

Introduction...... 1 Scope of evidence...... 2 Bats...... 3 Snails...... 3 ...... 4 Estuarine and marine birds...... 5 Fernbirds...... 6 Lizards...... 6 Immediate pre‐construction surveys...... 7 Kauri dieback...... 8 Mitigation...... 10 Conclusions...... 12

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE IN CHIEF OF ANTONY JULIAN BEAUCHAMP

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Qualifications and Experience

1.1 My name is Antony Julian Beauchamp. I hold the qualification of Ph.D in Zoology and a post graduate diploma in Environmental Health. I have been a member of the Ornithological Society of New Zealand for 32 years.

1.2 I have worked for the Department of Conservation (“Department”) in Northland since 2001, firstly as Conservancy Advisory Scientist until 2008, and then as the Technical Support Officer Ecology and Environment and latterly as a Technical Advisor Threats.

1.3 I have a wide range of experience in undertaking and contracting biological research in Northland. I have been a member of the Department’s , brown teal, , and native frog recovery groups. I have been involved in a number of translocations including reporting on Hochstetter’s frog translocations1. I have also published on the breeding areas for Hochstetter’s frog2.

1.4 I have surveyed banded rails in parts of Whangarei and other harbours3. I have studied and published five papers on the census methods and reasons for decline of the New Zealand pipit4. I have monitored kūkupa and some of their foraging trees on Kawau Island and Wenderholm Regional Park. I have also assessed the deaths of birds on Whangarei Roads, and assessed the reasons for some parts of roads having higher risk5.

1.5 I have sampled shellfish in most of Northland’s estuaries and harbours and carried out invertebrate work on the dune systems in Bream Bay and Mangawhai. I have provided logistic and data support for the New Zealand fairy tern programme since 2006. I have

1 Beauchamp, A.J.; Parrish, R.; Butchart, N. 2008 Trial transfer of Hochstetter’s Frog (Leiopelma hochstetteri) in the Brynderwyn Hills, Northland, New Zealand. Department of Conservation Unpublished report 19pp

2 Beauchamp, A.J; Lei, P.; Goodard, K. 2010. Hochstetter frog (Leiopelma hochstetteri) egg, mobile larvae and froglet development. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 37 (2): 1-8.

3 Beauchamp, A. J. (submitted) Banded rail (Gallirallus philippensis assimilis) occupancy and detection in saltmarsh mangrove systems at Onerahi, Whangarei Harbour. Notornis.

4 Beauchamp, A. J. 2013. New Zealand pipit (Anthus novaeseelandiae) presence and breeding status using car and walk surveys near Whangarei, New Zealand. Notornis. 60:, 125-133

5 Beauchamp, A. J. (2009). deaths on Riverside Drive between Whangarei and Onerahi, New Zealand.Notornis. 56: 95-97. 1

provided evidence in the review of the mangroves section of the Northland Regional Coastal Plan and the designation of marine 1 area in Whangarei Harbour. I have surveyed many of the Northland harbour’s for birds and also published material on the waders using Whangarei Harbour and Ruakaka Estuaries6.

1.6 I have been involved in Kauri dieback since 2006 before the problem was formally recognised. After Kauri dieback was officially declared as an unwanted organism in 2008 I was a member of the Ministry for Primary Industry’s Technical Advisory Group, and then from 2010 a member of the Panning and Intelligence group. I am involved in the development and the technical implementation of research to resolve issues of detection, vectoring and precautionary management. I have written 3 of the guideline documents for that programme, and carried out the analysis of the surveillance7.

1.7 I have read the technical reports for terrestrial, freshwater and marine ecology and the evidence of Mr Graham Don, Dr Sharon De Luca, Dr Wayne Donovan and Ms Karyn Sinclair, including the proposed resource consent and designation conditions. I carried out on the ground assessments of parts of the proposed route and the Pūhoi Harbour in February 2014.

1.8 I have read the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses, and I agree to comply with it as if this Inquiry were before the Environment Court. My qualifications as an expert are set out above. Other than those matters identified within my evidence as being from other experts, 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.

2.0 SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

2.1. My evidence is limited to:

2.1.1. The conditions that are required to protect the ecological wildlife values known and unknown in the proposed highway corridor;

2.1.2. Comments on the surveys undertaken along the proposed route; and the associated proposed designation and resource consent conditions;

6 Beauchamp, A.J.; Parrish, G.R. 2007. Wader () and royal spoonbill (Platalea regia) use of roosts in Whangarei Harbour and Ruakaka Estuary, Northland, 1973–2000. Notornis 54: 83–91.

7 Beauchamp, A.J. 2013. The relationships between symptomology, detection probability and the detection of Phytophthora Taxon Agathis in the second round of surveillance sampling. Report to the Kauri Dieback Joint Agency Response. www.kauridieback.co.nz. 2

2.1.3. Comments on the Terrestrial Ecology Assessment Report undertaken by Wedding and Shanks of August 2013 (“Terrestrial Report”), including how their suggested mitigation is represented in conditions;

2.1.4. Comments on mitigation; and

2.1.5. Evidence and conditions about wildlife and wildlife threats

3.0 BATS

3.1. The activity defined in condition 45 should take place without causing disturbance to the bats in the roost tree, as bats are protected under the Wildlife Act 1953. If the activity of clearing trees in the vicinity of the roost tree will disturb bats, permits under the Wildlife Act 1953 will be required.

3.2. I support proposed designation condition 46 to enhance bat roosting. I recommend that the condition is amended to require the structures under the viaducts to include places for bats to roost, as these will be areas that are difficult for predators to access.

4.0 SNAILS

4.1. Proposed designation condition 47 specifies that Ambrorhytida dunniae will be searched for and moved “if practicable” with their leaf litter. In my opinion, suitable sites need to be selected so that snails can be moved immediately if they are detected. The Terrestrial Report recommends that this should be to a predator controlled site, and that predator control should be undertaken before movement and then for 3 years post movement. In my opinion, such a site needs to be identified and predator control instigated before transfer.

4.2. Snails should not be moved directly into a site with kauri, if they are captured within an area that could have oospores of Phytophthora taxon ”Agathis” (kauri dieback or “PTA”). If this occurs the snails will need them to be held until they have deficated their previous meals and their shells have been washed. This should be part of the strategic considerations for the Kauri dieback strategy (Proposed designation condition 63).

3

5.0 BIRDS

5.1. There is a considerable lack of data provided by the Applicant in relation to birds. The only data that appears to have been gathered are anecdotal records on distribution (Terrestrial Report, Appendix D). Further information requested from Graham Don indicates that these records were only collected from 8 October to 8 December 2010 and 19 March – 19 April 2013. Some sites within the indicative designation corridor were only assessed during 1 ‐ 4 days and some areas were not covered8. The limited and restricted survey times, and the lack of the collection of any quantifiable data, means that the bird data cannot be relied upon to comment on use of the proposed road route by the rarer species; North Island kaka, red‐crowned parakeet and New Zealand pipit.

5.2. The Terrestrial Report consequently relies on literature and not field investigation for its conclusions. In my view, the literature review undertaken was insufficient to support the conclusions in the Terrestrial Report about the low possibility of finding pipit. There is no reason to preclude the use of this area for breeding by pipits or as flocking sites as much field work was not carried out in late summer 4. Pipits may be using rank pasture and wetlands margins as breeding sites, and short grazed pasture and bare ground for foraging.

5.3. Condition 48 in the proposed designation conditions indicates that the clearance of vegetation (excluding pasture) should take place outside the bird breeding season (September to December inclusive). I recommend that this condition is amended to also preclude the clearance of any wetland and rank grassland between August and February until that area is checked for pipit nesting and found to be clear of breeding by an ecologist.

5.4. The survey for spotless crakes (Porzana tabuensis plumbea – At risk relict) and marsh crakes (Porzana pusilla affinis – At risk data poor) was carried out in drought conditions and the wetlands that they occupy may have been temporarily vacated.

5.5. I have proposed new conditions 49, 50, and 54 to take account of the limited timing of surveys and the greater than 3 years between the baseline survey and construction. My proposed conditions are set out in the amendments to conditions in the evidence of Mr Scott.

8 Fig. 2 Terrestrial Ecological Assessment Report. 4

6.0 ESTUARINE AND MARINE BIRDS

6.1. The marine evidence of Dr De Luca indicates that she considered estuarine bird habitat alone, and that the “estuarine bird populations and communities are considered in the evidence of Mr Don”.9 There is no data presented on the impacts on estuarine or wading birds within the Pūhoi estuary, which would be the receiving waters for any sediment discharges up to Moirs Hill Road, or the Mahurangi Harbour, which would be the receiving environment for the area to the north. The sections about wetland birds and shorebirds in Mr Don’s evidence are also silent about methodology and coverage or any assessments and the impacts of sediment discharges into the marine environment.

6.2. The coastal modelling undertaken by Mr Fountain shows that there could be detrimental impacts on bird on the upper Mahurangi Habour after a 50 year rainfall event, and on the Pūhoi Estuary after a 10 year rainfall event. Such impacts include the deposition of sediment over much of the upper and mid estuary at Mahurangi and the entire length of the estuary at Pūhoi. Such depositions will have impacts on waders and seabirds that feed by sight (herons, terns and gulls) and potentially those that feed by touch (pied stilts, oystercatchers and godwits) and species like banded rails that make extensive use of use of mangroves. The impact of the sediment deposition could temporarily reduce food availability by either making food unavailable or reducing its density. Species that are potentially impacted by a 10 year or greater rainfall and sedimentation events at Pūhoi estuary include the Northern (Charadrius obscurus aquilonius ‐ Nationally vulnerable), Bar‐tailed Godwit (Limosa lapponica – migrant), Variable Oystercatcher (Haematopus unicolor ‐ recovering), and Pied Oystercatcher Haematopus finschi – declining). These species are now restricted to the outer harbour where modelling suggests there will be greater deposition.

6.3. The proposed condition for the resource consents, “Coastal Monitoring” condition 77 requires baseline surveys. In my opinion, this condition should specify what is to be monitored, and should include an assessment of shorebird species and use of each site. The surveys should cover the entire year to take account of changes in shorebird use of estuaries.

9 Evidence in Chief, De Luca, paragraph 20 5

7.0 FERNBIRDS

7.1. A number of species have had their niches reduced in New Zealand by introduced predation and grazing pressures. Fernbirds are only found in dense impenetrable vegetation and marginal wetland habitats on the mainland. The Terrestrial Report indicates that in 2010 fernbirds were in shrublands amongst pines at site 7.

7.2. The degree of impact on fernbird habitat is not assessed and the actual distribution and numbers are not presented. In addition, the surrounding habitats and the wider population are not mentioned, but it is concluded they could not have come from the nearby wetlands and could be site/habitat fixed.

7.3. Proposed designation condition 49 refers to fernbird capture in “the vicinity of Okanu Inlet” and their transfer to “suitably protected and pest‐controlled habitat agreed with the council”. There is no indication of the presence of such a site, or that the Applicant will establish such a site. The condition calls for fernbirds to be captured and moved no matter what the risk of the activity is to their short term or long term survival. It is unclear as to the need for any capture of any fernbirds in the Okahu Inlet or to move them.

7.4. In my view, the condition should be amended to make sure that capture occurs only where necessary, both at the Okahu site and at any other site where fernbirds may be found. If such action is needed then the timing and impact of removing any birds needs to be taken into account, as if sites are left vacant and unmodified they could attract birds from surrounding areas.

8.0 LIZARDS

8.1. The lizard surveys referenced in the Terrestrial Report appear to have had limited scope (11 sites) and are now 3 years old. Section 5.4.1 of the Terrestrial Report suggests that there will be potentially more species found (including Northland green gecko (Naultinus grayii – At risk declining), pacific gecko (Hoplodactylus pacificus – At risk relict) and the ornate skink (Oligosoma ornatum ‐ declining). Lizards, especially copper skinks, were reported by landowners to be widespread along the route10 and in dry conditions would have been in

10 (A. Townsend, pers. comm.), 6

cracks underground. It is very likely that lizards will be far more widespread within the proposed road alignment.

8.2. The Department of Conservation has not managed to detect substantial recovery of lizard populations in any of its long term mainland island sites. This highlights the need to look after the populations of lizards that remain and recover as many lizards as possible from the impacted route and transfer them to protected sites.

8.3. Proposed designation condition 50 does not include the recommended actions in the Terrestrial Report, which includes the use of an experienced herpetologist to search for and remove lizards, carry out searches during clearance of vegetation and avoid methods like mulching native vegetation on site. In my view, active searching will be needed, rather than the wording “checking”, along any approved route before construction. If this does not happen the impact on the lizard populations could be substantial.

8.4. In my opinion, lizards will need to be transferred to sites with adequate physical protection and predator control, including cat control. Without either of these measures the lizards will be vulnerable to predation as they explore and find new home ranges. Proposed designation condition 50 also requires the capture and transfer of copper skinks and forest geckos to a site agreed with council. The transfer of these species requires a translocation plan and permits from the Department of Conservation which will specify how and where lizards will be transferred to and how all stake holders will be consulted.

9.0 IMMEDIATE PRE‐CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS

9.1. Proposed designation conditions 43, 45, 47, 49 and 50 all require some form of pre‐survey for fauna that has been detected. The time frames for this work and the methods to be used are not included in conditions. In my opinion, the surveys undertaken on behalf of the Applicant to detect wildlife are limited in terms of the time of year covered (in most areas one of only 5 months) and in some cases the work was carried out in the midst of the most substantial drought in 40 years11.

9.2. Given the timing of the work, and its limited coverage I consider that pre‐construction surveys and translocation actions should be included as conditions for the designation. It is very likely that undiscovered threatened or at risk taxa, are present on the route as only

11 NIWA. Water and Atmosphere 8 September 2013. 7

small areas of potential lizard habitat has been assessed, Hochstetter’s frog habitats has not been adequately assessed in all weather conditions and the bird surveys were limited.

9.3. In my opinion, the timing of surveys is critical to their success. Consequently, I recommend that proposed designation condition 51 is amended to ensure the ecologist plans the surveys and translocations in consultation with the Department of Conservation. The aim of the translocation process is to ensure adequate consultation is undertaken, that translocations are undertaken for the right reasons, they avoid unintended consequences, and have the best chance of success. It is important that we learn from them to improve the chance of success of future translocations.

9.4. In my opinion, the Applicant will need to identify and pre‐prepare (predator control and fence) translocation sites within the corridor to take the existing fauna as part of any translocation process and need to discuss this with tangata whenua, City, neighbouring landowners and the Department of Conservation.

10.0 KAURI DIEBACK

10.1. It is my view that when the Applicant can avoid impacting kauri then it should do so as the risks associated with the transfer of kauri dieback disease cannot be fully mitigated. Any activity poses risk to the kauri stands via root damage, exposure and edge effects and the potential to introduce Phytophthora taxon “Agathis” (the organism responsible for Kauri dieback) (”PTA”).

10.2. I support the intent of the proposed designation condition 63 which indicates that an ecologist should prepare a strategy to meet Auckland City’s management protocols on Kauri dieback to avoid introduction and prevent the spread of kauri dieback. I support this as a mechanism because the guidelines that support the protocols for Kauri dieback are changing as we learn more about the disease.

10.3. PTA is affecting Kauri on many farm blocks, and appears to have been moved there by farming activities that have included undergrazing by stock. The only way that we have to retain kauri in the rural landscape is to look after the remaining uncontaminated stands.

8

10.4. The Terrestrial Report notes considerable pig damage within some of the pine forest areas. Pigs are considered to be a potential vector of PTA12. The development of the highway could provide ready access of feral pigs from the pine forest to other sites during construction or even operation.

10.5. In my view, conditions should be included requiring fencing during the pre‐construction and construction phases of the kauri stands that will remain post‐construction to prevent access by hoofed . This will provide greater assurance that the uncontaminated stands are protected, or that PTA is not transferred from contaminated sites to new areas. Consequently, in my view the provision of fencing as specified in proposed designation condition 53 should be extended to permanent fencing of all kauri stands within the corridor.

10.6. There are two conditions specified in these draft consent conditions that are likely to be in conflict with the protocols for Kauri Dieback or that are an unnecessary threat to existing trees. First proposed designation condition 52 indicates that a nurse crop of unspecified fast growing plants should be planted on the edge of the kauri stand at Lot 5 113847. This may not be appropriate at this site. In my view every care should be taken during felling and construction to retail as much of the root mass of the felled trees and the understory and this should make planting unnecessary. Secondly, the proposed designation condition 56 on the protection of the parasitic orchid Danhatchia australis is unnecessary and adds risk to a patch of bush that is outside the designated area. Temporary fencing placed here will potentially place more risk on the Taraire trees supporting the orchid than the fencing justifies. In my view, the vegetation management, including the restoration of the site are dependent on avoiding unnecessary damage, and should be part of an overall kauri dieback strategic decision‐making process.

10.7. The indicative alignment appears to be unable to avoid all Kauri in the vicinity of Lot 5 DP 113847 because at that site there is no alignment that does not impact on some kauri forest. The proposed Kauri “eco‐viaduct” will require access and destruction of part of a kauri stand which includes from what I can assess at least 80 kauri, rimu, rewarewa and tanakaha. These include kauri trees that are not included in the current delimitation mapping of kauri in Fig 6 of the Terrestrial Ecology Report. The impacts will include altering

12 Krull, C.R. et al 2012. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Feral pigs as vectors of soil-borne pathogens. Austral Ecology doi:10.1111/j.1442-9993.2012.02444.x 9

the hydrology of the edge of a sizable stand of forest. It is likely that all the trees near the viaduct will become more stressed.

10.8. I note however, that within the designation footprint on Lot 5 DP 113847, the highway could be brought further east, and area in viaduct increased to the south to reduce the impact on the forest margin and Mahurangi River east branch. In my opinion, the motorway alignment should be altered in this way to further reduce the impact on the kauri stand on Lot 5 DP 113847.

11.0 MITIGATION

11.1. In my view, mitigation should protect the remaining bio‐diversity within the corridor, followed by its enhancement though appropriate long term management.

11.2. In this regard, I consider the fencing of the remaining natural habitats including regenerating forest patches and wetlands within the corridor to be the most important activity in mitigation. The forested patches should then be subject to planting to reduce edge effects, and long‐term predator and herbivore control instigated.

11.3. The Terrestrial Report recommends predator control one year before and three years after the movement of any snails (section 6.2), and lizards (section 6.4). This predator control is essentially to allow time for translocated wildlife to adapt to new surroundings in ideal habitats. The Terrestrial Report also recommends some means of habitat enhancement and threat mitigation from edge effects and dust (section 6.3 and 6.4). These recommendations are not included in the proposed designation conditions or the proposed conditions for the resource consents. In my opinion, they need to be as there is no certainty that transferring lizards without short term predator control, careful site selection and monitoring will benefit the affected species.

11.4. In my view, the Applicant should consider using the motorway margins for habitat for wildlife and commit to providing habitats that will support wildlife. In this regard, I recommend that the habitat requirements for copper skinks and Northland green gecko be recreated within the designation footprint and that a herpetologist be employed to design the habitats required to be created to enable such populations to exist with minimal predator control.

10

11.5. Bringing plants/soil into areas with kauri poses a potential PTA risk. The nursery hygiene of any plants that are to be planted near kauri requires special consideration. In my opinion, it is more appropriate to allow natural regeneration of plants near current sites with kauri. If an appropriate nursery crop of native plants establishes near these sites then kauri will establish naturally. If kauri seedlings are to be planted then these should be used in fenced sites away from natural kauri stands.

11.6. In the Terrestrial Report (section 6.5.1) it is recommended that the species that could be planted should include food trees for kereru. I am not opposed to this as part of mitigation. However, research carried out on kereru in the Rodney district over the past 20 years has shown that kereru breeding success is enhanced by possum control13 and that the substantial fluctuations in kereru numbers are linked to fruit availability over a landscape scale14. It is far more important to kereru to have predator protected nesting sites and feeding areas, than regenerating food trees that due to a lack of possum and rat control do not provide fruit.

11.7. In the Terrestrial Report there is reference to replacing canopy trees with like in planting at a ratio based on actual assessment of what is lost, and placing these in a more intensive corridor or stepping stone between Pohuehue Scenic Reserve and Moirs Hill instead or developing ribbons of lesser quality early succession manuka/kanuka and flax plantings. I do not disagree with these recommendations, but consider that the restoration of summer food supplies for birds through the planting of a significant kahikatea forest associated with the roadside drainage may not be a better mitigation measure.

11.8. The Terrestrial Report recommends these plantings to be away from the highway to reduce bird strike. International research indicates that bird strike is more likely on elevated embankments15 and bridges/viaducts and planting should not encourage birds to these sites. Bird strike is likely to be higher at sites where existing bush patches will be bisected by the motorway at elevations at or just above canopy level, because of the tendency of birds to disperse at or just above these heights16. I note that in site 15a (Lot 5 DP 113847 ) that the highway could be moved east within the indicative alignment to reduce the area where canopies are present on both sides of the road. The risk of bird strike could be

13 James, R.E.; Clout, 1996. Nesting success of New Zealand pigeons (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) in response to rat (Rattus rattus) poisoning programme at Wenderholm Regional Park. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 20: 45-51. 14 Pierce, R.J; Graham, PJ 1995. Ecology and breeding or kukupa (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) in Northland. Science and Research Series 91, Wellington, Department of Conservation. 15 Erritzoe, J.; Mazgajski, T.D.; Rejt, L. 2003. Bird casualties on European roads: A review. Acta Ornithologica 38: 77-93. 16 Beauchamp, A. J., Hansen K., & Pilon G. (2009). Canopy and above canopy movements of birds on Whatupuke Island, New Zealand. Notornis. 56:, 213-216 11

further reduced by increasing the length of the viaduct to the south leaving an existing forest corridor and forest margin along that stream in place.

12.0 CONCLUSIONS

12.1. Permits are required to translocate species protected under the Wildlife Act, and for the accidental destruction of wildlife. Successful translocation will require establishing the sites, fencing, habitat and predator control. This should preferably be to sites within the designation footprint. All translocations should require monitoring as part of the translocation process.

12.2. The preliminary surveys carried out to assess the effects of the proposed road were insufficient for me to understand the impacts on terrestrial ecology. In my view, pre‐ construction surveying and translocation response should be incorporated into the construction process for the entire route.

12.3. All activity (pre‐construction, construction and post construction) should take account of kauri dieback protocols, and reduce the impact on kauri at all sites where they remain in the footprint. Important mitigation includes fencing from stock and pigs, and predator control to retain biological function.

12.4. Planting should mitigate the risk of transferring PTA to existing kauri stands. I support the planting of canopy trees and fruit bearing trees for kereru. However, I consider that planting kahikatea forests around restored and fenced wetlands is a more effective mitigation than the planting of marginal corridors of other canopy trees. Any planting should consider bird strike issues and bird movement, especially between forest patches over elevated embankments and bridges.

12.5. The impact of storm flow sediment depositions on estuaries could be significant. No assessment on shorebirds was carried out. Preliminary assessment at Pūhoi in February 2014 indicates that shorebirds should be monitored as part of baseline surveys.

12.6. In my opinion, the motorway alignment should be altered to further reduce the impact on the kauri stand on Lot 5 DP 113847. There is land on the eastern side of this stand within the proposed footprint that could be used reducing the impact on the stand. An increase in

12

the length of the viaduct to the south would further reduce the impact on the kauri forest and the Mahurangi River right branch. This movement could also reduce bird strike.

Antony Julian Beauchamp

20 February 2014

13