Appendix I Ecology Company Assessment of Effects on Presence of Birds in Picton Harbour(PDF, 1

Home , Grey warbler, Little penguin, New Zealand dotterel, New Zealand grebe, New Zealand king shag, Spotted shag

Presence of Birds in Picton Harbour and Implications for the Proposed Waitohi Picton Ferry Terminal Precinct Redevelopment.

PREPARED FOR:

Port Marlborough New Zealand Limited and KiwiRail Holdings Limited 30 November 2020

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTIONS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 3

1. INTRODUCTION ...... 4 1.1 BACKGROUND ...... 4 1.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES ...... 4 1.3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT...... 6

2. METHODS ...... 7 2.1 DATABASE SEARCH AND DATA SUMMARY ...... 7 2.2 SITE VISIT ...... 8 2.3 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS METHODOLOGY ...... 9

3. RESULTS ...... 11 3.1 EBIRD RECORDS ...... 11 3.1.1 Within 10km of Picton ...... 11 3.1.2 Within Picton Harbour ...... 11 3.2 SITE VISIT ...... 13 3.3 CONSERVATION STATUS ...... 14 3.4 BIRDS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED...... 15 3.4.1 Introduction ...... 15 3.4.2 Petrels, Shearwaters and Prions (Family Procellariidae) ...... 15 3.4.3 Gulls, Terns and Skuas (Family Laridae) ...... 16 3.4.4 Shags and Gannets (Families Phalacrocoracidae and Sulidae) ...... 17 3.4.5 Godwits, Oystercatchers, Stilts and Dotterels (Families Scolopacidae, Recurvirostridae, Haematopodidae and Charadriidae) ...... 18 3.4.6 Penguins (Order Sphenisciformes) ...... 19 3.4.7 Summary of Birds likely to be Affected ...... 20

4. PLANNING MATTERS ...... 21 4.1 NEW ZEALAND COASTAL POLICY STATEMENT ...... 21 4.2 MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 22 4.3 MARLBOROUGH ENVIRONMENT PLAN ...... 22

5. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ...... 24 5.1 TYPES OF EFFECTS ANTICIPATED ...... 24 5.2 EFFECTS ON SPECIES ...... 25

6. MITIGATION ...... 26 6.1 TYPES OF MITIGATION ...... 26

6.1.1 Introduction ...... 26 6.1.2 Caspian Tern ...... 26 6.1.3 Variable Oystercatcher ...... 26 6.1.4 Kororā (Little blue penguin) ...... 27 6.2 RECOMMENDED MITIGATIONS ...... 27 6.3 MITIGATED EFFECTS ON SPECIES ...... 30

7. CONCLUSIONS ...... 31

8. REFERENCES ...... 32

APPENDICES:

Appendix 1: Birds Recorded within 10km of Picton

Appendix 2: Birds Recorded During the Site Visit

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Port Marlborough New Zealand Limited and KiwiRail Holdings Limited propose to redevelop the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct by replacing the three existing jetties with one larger one, replacing the existing terminal building, replacing the existing No. 1 wharf, dredging parts of the harbour, realigning the existing road and railway connections and relocating electricity and communication services. Port Marlborough New Zealand and KiwiRail also propose installation of scour protection and construction of a seawall. The proposed works would be staged over approximately four years.

The Ecology Company was retained to assess the effects of the proposal on seabirds. This involved an interrogation of the eBirds database combined with a site visit to identify the species of bird likely to be present in the area affected by the redevelopment, and of those, which species were of conservation concern and had a distribution, breeding habits or other life history traits which meant that they should be investigated further to determine the likelihood of any effects. This report also describes what those effects might be and how they could be avoided, remedied or mitigated.

Two searches of the eBird database were conducted, one limited to the area within 10km of Picton and the second restricted to Picton Harbour. The data obtained was sorted to remove land birds and grouped by taxa and then the Picton Harbour data was used to inform which species might be most at risk.

Thirty-one species of seabird were recorded within Picton Harbour including three species which are considered to be at risk of experiencing adverse effects due to the proposal. These three species were Caspian tern, variable oystercatcher and little blue penguin.

A site visit was undertaken between 31 August and 3 September 2020. Thirty-five species of bird (including land birds) were recorded. Caspian tern, variable oystercatcher and little blue penguin were confirmed as present within the affected area, although only one pair of variable oystercatcher and a small number of little blue penguins are considered likely to be affected by the proposed works. In addition, a pair of banded rail were seen in the saltmarsh wetland adjoining Shakespeare Bay.

The magnitude of unmitigated effects on variable oystercatcher and little blue penguin is conservatively assessed as negligible and low, resulting in an overall level of effect which is very low and low for these species in Picton Harbour respectively. Provided the saltmarsh wetland is protected from sedimentation, the banded rail are unlikely to be affected. Additional field survey (perhaps using a conservation dog specifically trained to detect penguin) is required to locate the species in the vicinity of the project immediately prior to works commencing and inform decisions about their fate. The mitigations proposed for penguin and variable oystercatcher are species specific and include pest control, provision of nest boxes and possibly relocation and would be best implemented in accordance with a management plan for the purpose of avoiding, remedying and mitigating effects on those species.

Implementation of the recommended mitigation actions (i.e. survey to confirm affected numbers and preparation and effective implementation of a management plan for the affected species) would be sufficient to avoid effects on these species due to reduced breeding success for the four years of the project and reduced survival of adults due to human disturbance or potential translocation.

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 BACKGROUND

Port Marlborough New Zealand Limited (‘PMNZL’) and KiwiRail Holdings Limited (“KR”) propose to redevelop the Waitohi Picton Ferry Terminal Precinct to provide for cruise ships and KR’s proposed introduction of two larger road/rail capable vessels to replace the three existing interisland ferries. The terminal redevelopment would involve (in no particular order): replacement of three jetties with one jetty, demolition of the existing terminal building, replacement of the existing No. 1 wharf, dredging of parts of the harbour, pile driving, road and railway realignment, relocation of services (electricity, communication), installation of scour protection, seawall construction and construction of new terminal buildings. The proposed works would be staged over approximately four years and the project footprint is shown in Figure 1. The redevelopment would involve works in the coastal marine area (‘CMA’) as well as on land, requiring resource consents from the Marlborough District Council (‘MDC’) under the Resource Management Act 1991.

Initial consultation with Te Ātiawa and the Department of Conservation indicated that they consider an assessment of effects of the proposal on seabirds would be relevant.

1.2 SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES

Ideally seasonal field survey to confirm the presence or absence of potentially affected species throughout the year would be undertaken, but repeated survey was not possible for this proposal.

In the absence of seasonal surveys of the use of the area by birds to inform the degree to which resident birds might be affected by the proposed activities, it was agreed that a review of eBird data to inform which species of seabirds have occurred in the area historically would inform a high level analysis of which species would be most likely to be affected and inform appropriate mitigation planning. Once the species present are identified via interrogation of the eBird database, and a field trip early in the breeding season, then effects can be assessed based on a knowledge of the species present and their life history, ecology and likely behaviours.

PMNZL and KR retained The Ecology Company to undertake this review and site visit to identify which species are most likely to be affected, at what stage of their lifecycle any effects would occur and what the type and magnitude of any adverse effects might be. We were also asked to outline steps to manage any effects during construction as well as identifying opportunities for positive outcomes to inform a site or species management plan for the site to be implemented as part of the works.

Figure 1: Development Footprint for the proposed Waiohi Picton Ferry Precinct Redevelopment (note does not include Waitohi Reserve laydown areas).

The objectives of this report are to:

1. Identify the species of bird which are known to use the area from records in the eBird database (Section 3.1) and one visit to the area (Section 3.2);

2. Having considered species attributes such as life history, distribution, conservation status and local abundance (based on historical survey data), identify which species would be most likely to be affected by the proposed redevelopment (Section 3.4);

3. Describe the potential effects on seabirds arising from the redevelopment project (Section 5);

4. Recommend measures as appropriate to avoid, remedy or mitigate potential effects on the birds considered most at risk (including any proposed conditions/management plan required) (Section 6); and

5. Present an overall conclusion of the level of potential effects of the project after recommended measures are implemented (Section 7).

1.3 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

Picton Harbour generally, and the ferry terminal site specifically, cannot be considered an undisturbed habitat for birds. There is evidence that the physical and biological conditions in the harbour are substantially different from what they were prior to human arrival (Sneddon et al. 2020) and the amount of background human activity and noise is certainly higher than that found in undisturbed habitats. The main shipping channel (including the eastern head and all of the harbour) experiences high levels of traffic throughout the year by a variety of commercial and recreational vessels. Shakespeare Bay, separated from Picton Harbour by the Kaipupu Point peninsula, also serves as a commercial port area for export cargoes (primarily logs). Port, inter-island ferries, marina and other activities within the wider Picton Bays area (including Picton Harbour, Shakespeare Bay and Waikawa Bay) have been ongoing for many decades. In this regard, inner Picton Harbour waters represents a small (and typically highly disturbed) part of the habitats available to support birds in the wider Marlborough Sounds area.

The area is within the coastal environment and Port Zone defined by the Marlborough Environment Plan.

2. METHODS

2.1 DATABASE SEARCH AND DATA SUMMARY

Two searches of historic records available at eBird.org were undertaken on 3 March 2020. EBird.org is a free, open source database maintained by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology which stores observations, photos and recordings of birds from anywhere in the world. Anyone with a user account can enter an observation in the eBird database electronically, but any unusual observations, such as rare species or unusually high numbers of birds, are automatically flagged and reviewed by knowledgeable local volunteers before being made publicly available. Some historical data have been added. Users include amateur ornithologists and professional researchers. Users can request data relating to species or locations and this is typically used for research, management and conservation purposes. This format has been adopted by Birds New Zealand for collection of data to inform the development of the third New Zealand Bird Atlas (2019 – 2024), superseding the more manual methods used in the previous two atlases (1969 - 1979 and 1999 – 2004).

The first database search was limited to records within 10km of Picton (to provide context) and the second limited to Picton Harbour as shown in Figure 2. The resulting spreadsheets were sorted to remove all land birds and the remaining records were then sorted into natural taxonomic groupings for further analysis. The taxonomic groups used were:

• Petrels, shearwaters and prions (Family Procellariidae)

• Gulls, terns and skuas (Family Laridae)

• Godwits, oystercatchers, stilts and dotterels (Families Scolopacidae, Recurvirostridae, Haematopodidae and Charadriidae)

• Shags and gannets (Families Phalacrocoracidae and Sulidae)

• Ducks, swans and grebes (Families Anatidae and Podicepididae)

• Herons (Family Ardeidae)

• Albatrosses (Family Diomedeidae)

• Penguins (Order Sphenisciformes)

• Rails (Family Rallidae)

The number of records for each species was added to others within its taxonomic group and those results are presented here.

Note that for simplicity the scientific name used in the eBird records has been adopted here.

Figure 2: Boundaries for eBird database searches.

2.2 SITE VISIT

The area was visited between 31 August and 3 September 2020. During the site visit the landward edge of approximately the southern half of Picton Harbour, approximately the southern half of Shakespeare Bay and Kaipupu Point (the loop track) were explored on foot at different times during the day from 0600hrs to 1930hrs as follows:

• 31 August 2020. 1130hrs – 1400hrs. Picton Harbour foreshore and marina.

• 31 August 2020. 1730hrs – 1900hrs. Picton Harbour foreshore and marina.

• 1 September 2020. 0600hrs – 1200hrs. Picton Harbour foreshore, Spoil storage areas, Shakespeare Bay foreshore.

• 2 September 2020. 0600hrs – 0830hrs. Shakespeare Bay foreshore, Picton Harbour foreshore and marina.

• 2 September 2020. 1000hrs – 1530hrs. Picton Harbour (track to Bob’s Bay, water taxi, Kaipupu Point Wildlife Sanctuary).

• 2 September 2020. 1830hrs – 1930hrs. Picton Harbour foreshore.

• 3 September 2020. 0600hrs – 0830hrs, Shakespeare Bay foreshore and Picton Harbour foreshore and marina.

Methods used to detect birds included visual scanning, scanning with binoculars and listening for calls. As well as walking through the area, at some locations the observer paused for up to 15 minutes to

observe bird behaviour or to see what birds appeared. As well as recording birds seen and heard, other bird sign such as footprints and tracks were also recorded.

2.3 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS METHODOLOGY

To the extent possible, this assessment of ecological effects was conducted in accordance with the methods outlined in the second edition of the Ecological Impact Assessment (‘EcIA’) guidelines produced by the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (Roper Lindsay et al. 2018).

The EcIA guidelines consider the factors set out in Table 1 when assigning value to species.

Table 1: Assigning value to species according to the EcIA guidelines.

Determining Factors Value Ascribed

Nationally threatened species found within the Very high project’s zone of influence, either permanently or seasonally

Species listed as threatened or at risk (declining) High found within the project’s zone of influence, either permanently or seasonally

Species listed as any other category of “at risk” Moderate found in the project’s zone of influence either permanently or seasonally

Locally uncommon (within the ecological district) Moderate or distinctive species present

Nationally and locally common indigenous Low species present

Exotic species, including pest species present, Negligible having recreational value

The EcIA criteria for describing the magnitude of effect are set out in Table 2.

Table 2: Descriptors for the magnitude of ecological effects according to EcIA guidelines.

Magnitude Description

Very high Total loss of, or very major alteration to, key elements or features of the existing baseline conditions, such that the post-development character, composition and/or attributes will be fundamentally changed and may be lost from the site altogether; and/or

Loss of a very high proportion of the known population or range of the element/feature

High Major loss or major alteration to key elements/features of the existing baseline conditions such that the post-development character, composition and/or attributes will be fundamentally changed; and/or

Loss of a high proportion of the known population or range of the element/feature

Moderate Loss or alteration to one or more key elements/features of the existing baseline conditions, such that the post-development character, composition and/or attributes will be partially changed; and/or

Loss of a moderate proportion of the known population or range of the element or feature

Low Minor shift away from existing baseline conditions. Change arising from the loss/alteration will be discernible, but underlying character, composition and/or attributes will be similar to pre-development circumstances or patterns; and/or

Having a minor effect on the known population or range of the element/feature

Negligible Very slight change from the existing baseline condition. Change barely distinguishable, approximating to the ‘no change’ situation; and/or

Having negligible effect on the known population or range of the element/feature

The EcIA criteria for describing the overall level of ecological effects is set out in Table 3.

Table 3: EcIA criteria for describing the overall level of ecological effects.

Ecological value Very High High Moderate Low Negligible

Magnitude

Very High Very high Very high High Moderate Low

High Very high Very high Moderate Low Very low

Moderate High High Moderate Low Very low

Low Moderate Low Low Very low Very low

Negligible Low Very low Very low Very low Very low

Positive Net gain Net gain Net gain Net gain Net gain

Once the overall level of ecological effects is determined the requirement and types of mitigation can be considered.

3. RESULTS

3.1 EBIRD RECORDS

3.1.1 Within 10km of Picton

The database search returned 6,800 individual records within 10km of Picton. These records dated from 1 February 1930 until 31 May 2018 and comprised 97 species (74 native and 23 introduced species) as shown in Appendix 1. As well as twenty-five species of native land birds, the native bird fauna comprised the following species:

• Petrels, shearwaters and prions (nine species)

• Gulls, terns and skuas (eight species)

• Godwits, oystercatchers and stilts (eight species)

• Shags and gannets (seven species)

• Ducks, swans and grebes (six species)

• Herons (six species)

• Albatrosses (three species)

• Penguins (one species)

• Aquatic rails (one species)

3.1.2 Within Picton Harbour

The database search returned 1,879 records within Picton Harbour dating from 1 February 1930 until 20 May 2018 and comprising 83 species (63 native and 20 introduced species). As well as 22 species of land birds, the native bird fauna comprised the following bird species:

• Petrels, shearwaters and prions (six species)

• Gulls, terns and skuas (eight species)

• Godwits, oystercatchers and stilts (seven species)

• Shags and gannets (seven species)

• Herons (six species)

• Ducks, swans and grebes (six species)

• Penguins (one species)

There were no species of albatross and no aquatic rails recorded within Picton Harbour.

Of these species, none of the ducks, swans and grebes and only one of the herons (Pacific reef heron, Egretta sacra) are likely to be reliant on the coastal areas as habitat. When these records are removed there are 739 records of 31 species of sea birds recorded from Picton Harbour as shown in Table 4.

Table 4: Seabirds recorded in Picton Harbour available on eBird.org

Scientific Name Common Name Number of Records Maximum number (Percentage) of individuals recorded

Ardenna bullerii rako, Buller’s 1 (0.1) 3 shearwater

Ardenna grisea tītī, sooty shearwater 5 (0.7) 6

Ardenna tenuirostris short-tailed shearwater 2 (0.3) 1

Calidris acuminata sharp-tailed sandpiper 2 (0.3) 1

Calidris ruficollis red necked stint 2 (0.3) 1

Charadrius bicinctus tūturiwhatu, banded 4 (0.5) 2 dotterel

Chlidonias albostriatus Tarapirohe, black 8 (1.1) 4 fronted tern

Chroicocephalus bullerii Tarāpuka, black-billed 56 (7.6) 58 gull

Chroicocephalus scopulinus tarapunga, red-billed 119 (16.1) 82 gull

Egretta sacra matuku moana, Pacific 8 (1.1) 2 reef heron

Elseyornis melanops Black fronted dotterel 2 (0.3) 2

Eudyptula minor kororā, little blue 11 (1.5) 10 penguin

Haematopus finschii tōrea, South Island 20 (2.7) 22 oystercatcher, SIPO

Haematopus unicolor tōrea tai, variable 35 (4.7) 23 oystercatcher

Himantopus leucocephalus poaka, pied stilt 3 (0.4) 5

Hydroprogne caspia taranui, Caspian tern 41 (5.5) 7

Larus dominicanus karoro, kelp gull, black 122 (16.5) 66 backed gull

Microcarbo melanoleucus Little pied shag 29 (3.9) 5

Morus serrator tākapu, Australasian 46 (6.2) 50 gannet

Pachyptila vittata pararā, broad-billed 1 (0.1) 1 prion

Pelecanoides urinatrix common diving petrel 2 (0.3) 10

Phalacrocorax carbo kawau, black shag, 7 (1.0) 2 great cormorant

Phalacrocorax carunculatus kawau, king shag 16 (2.2) 91

Phalacrocorax punctatus kawau tikitiki, spotted 59 (8.0) 100 shag

Phalacrocorax sulcirostris kawau tūi, little black 11 (1.5) 33 shag

Phalacrocorax varius kāruhiruhi, pied shag 61 (8.3) 20

Puffinus gavia fluttering shearwater 21 (2.8) 100

Puffinus huttonii Hutton’s shearwater 1 (0.1) 2

Stercorarius antarcticus brown skua 1 (0.1) 1

Stercorarius parasiticus Arctic skua, parasitic 4 (0.5) 1 jaeger

Sterna striata White fronted tern 39 (5.3) 120

Total 31 739 (100)

3.2 SITE VISIT

Thirty-five species of birds (including land birds) were recorded during the site visit. The species detected and the location where they were recorded are listed in Appendix 2. Bird species of note recorded were:

• Taranui (Caspian tern, two individuals in Shakespeare Bay). • Tōrea tai (variable oystercatcher, one pair in Shakespeare Bay and one pair in Picton Harbour). • Kororā (little blue penguin, at least two pairs in Picton Harbour, one pair in Shakespeare Bay and one pair at Kaipupu Point). • Mioweka (banded rail, one pair in the saltmarsh wetland adjoining Shakespeare Bay).

Although mioweka are not seabirds, and were not recorded in the eBird database, their conservation status of “at risk – declining” and their historical decline in the northern South Island and currently restricted distribution and limited numbers in Nelson – Marlborough make them noteworthy.

3.3 CONSERVATION STATUS

Of the 31 species recorded within Picton Harbour and listed in Table 4, Robertson et al. (2017) considers that:

• Seven (22%) are “threatened”;

• 14 (45%) are “at risk”;

• Four (13%) are non-resident “migrant”; and

• Six (19%) are “not threatened”.

The conservation status of each species is shown in Table 5. As noted above, mioweka (banded rail) are also regarded as “at risk” (Robertson et al. 2017).

Table 5: Conservation status of seabirds recorded in Picton Harbour.

Conservation Status Species

Threatened Categories

Nationally Critical black-billed gull

Nationally Endangered black-fronted tern, King shag, Pacific reef heron

Nationally Vulnerable Hutton’s shearwater, Caspian tern, banded dotterel

At Risk Categories

Declining sooty shearwater, red-billed gull, white-fronted tern, pied oystercatcher, little blue penguin

Recovering pied shag, variable oystercatcher

Relict fluttering shearwater, broad-billed prion

Naturally Uncommon Buller’s shearwater, brown skua, black shag, black-fronted dotterel, little black shag

Non-Resident Native Categories

Migrant short-tailed shearwater, Arctic skua, red necked stint, sharp-tailed sandpiper

Not Threatened diving petrel, black-backed gull, gannet, spotted shag, little pied shag, pied stilt

3.4 BIRDS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED

3.4.1 Introduction

Of the birds listed in Table 4 most are unlikely to be noticeably affected by the proposal because their distribution, habits or frequency of visitation (inferred from Table 4) make it unlikely that they would spend a significant amount of time in the redevelopment area or be dependent upon resources found there. For most of the species recorded it is unlikely that individuals would be resident either permanently or seasonally within the operational port area or surrounds. Rather, birds such as gulls would visit the area to scavenge food whilst other species such as shags or terns may use infrastructure within the construction area for loafing or roosting between foraging trips at sea. Coastal species, such as oystercatchers, would be unlikely to reside within the construction zone, but could be resident at the harbour edge nearby (within 200m or less) and on that basis could be affected if the activities were sufficient to disturb them. The specific likelihood of each of the species recorded making use of the port area and being affected by the redevelopment is considered in more detail below.

3.4.2 Petrels, Shearwaters and Prions (Family Procellariidae)

Nine species from the family Procellariidae were recorded within 10km of Picton, but only six of those were recorded within Picton Harbour as follows: i. Rako or Buller’s shearwater (Ardenna bullerii); ii. Tītī or sooty shearwater (Ardenna grisea);

iii. Short-tailed shearwater (Ardenna tenuirostris); iv. Kuaka or diving petrel (Pelecanoides urinatrix); v. Fluttering shearwater (Puffinus gavia); and vi. Hutton’s shearwater (Puffinus huttonii)).

Of the remaining three species Northern giant petrel (Macronectes hallii) and broad-billed prion (Pachyptila vittata) are pelagic (live at sea) and do not typically enter coastal waters. Cape petrel (Daption capense) occur around New Zealand and often follow vessels at sea, but are most common between Cook Strait and the Chatham Islands.

Members of the family Procellariidae were recorded only 32 times within Picton Harbour (4.3% of all records), and most (21) of those records were of fluttering shearwaters, which were also the largest number of individuals recorded (100).

Buller’s shearwaters, sooty shearwaters and short-tailed shearwaters all breed in areas outside Marlborough and disperse more widely outside the breeding season.

Hutton’s shearwater breed in the Seaward Kaikoura ranges and are most commonly encountered between Cape Campbell (east of Lake Grassmere) and Banks Peninsula during breeding.

Diving petrel and fluttering shearwaters are known to breed within the Marlborough Sounds. Diving petrel have a large colony on Trio Islands (located approximately 47km due north of Picton (east of D’Urville Island), but only rarely enter sheltered coastal waters so would be unlikely to be affected by the precinct redevelopment.

Fluttering shearwaters also have a breeding colony at Trio Islands as well as a colony at Long Island (approximately 36km northeast of Picton near the entrance to Queen Charlotte Sound). Fluttering shearwater occur commonly in inshore areas throughout the winter months and have a conservation ranking of “at risk (relict)”. They are often seen in flocks, sometimes numbering thousands of birds, moving rapidly across the water while foraging (hence the name ‘fluttering’), but little is known about their ecology. Fluttering shearwaters feed in groups associated with schools of fish (e.g. kahawai, trevally) or crustaceans at the surface. At times they rest in large, dense rafts (Gaskin 2013). Fluttering shearwaters breed between August and January, including at Maud Island in the Marlborough Sounds, but are unlikely to make extensive use of the project area except for resting. They are known to be recolonising islands where rats have been removed (e.g. Hauturu (Little Barrier), Gaskin 2013). They are comparatively abundant (Robertson et al. 2017) and would be capable of moving away to other sites if disturbed.

None of these species are likely to be affected by the proposed redevelopment.

3.4.3 Gulls, Terns and Skuas (Family Laridae)

Members of this family are the most commonly encountered birds around New Zealand’s coastline. Eight species were recorded within 10km of Picton and all eight were also recorded within the harbour as follows:

i. Tarāpuka, black-billed gull (Chroicocephalus bullerii);

ii. Tarapunga, red-billed gull (Chroicocephalus scopulinus);

iii. Tarapirohe, black-fronted tern (Chlidonias albostriatus);

iv. Taranui, Caspian tern (Hydroprogne caspia);

v. Karoro, Southern black-backed gull or kelp gull (Larus dominicanus);

vi. Hākoakoa, Brown (or Antarctic) skua (Stercorarius antarcticus);

vii. Arctic skua, parasitic jaeger (Stercorarius parasiticus); and

viii. Tara, white fronted tern (Sterna striata).

Members of the family Laridae comprised 390 (52.8%) of all records and the maximum number seen was 82 red-billed gulls.

Both the skua species breed away from the New Zealand mainland and are pelagic feeders. Brown skuas in particular are not commonly seen from the mainland. Black-backed gulls are (one of only two native bird species) not protected by the Wildlife Act (1953). Black-billed gulls and black-fronted terns breed at braided rivers and disperse to the coast after the breeding season finishes. White-fronted terns often nest with gulls in rivers and also nest in estuaries. Red-billed gulls nest near the coast, but the main colonies are not in Marlborough. Caspian terns do breed near the coast and occasionally at inland sites.

Gulls and terns are commonly encountered on wharves and manmade structures and gulls are noisy scavengers of human food where it is available to them. Gulls in particular adapt to human disturbance comparatively easily. Increased turbidity would reduce the foraging success of gulls feeding at sea within the affected area, but they would likely disperse to locations where they are more successful. Since they do not breed near the redevelopment site, and are highly mobile, opportunistic foragers they would be unlikely to be affected.

Red-billed gulls, black-billed gulls and Southern black-backed gulls were all recorded in both Picton Harbour and Shakespeare Bay during the site visit. In total approximately 100 red-billed and black-billed gulls (in a ratio of c. 9:1) and approximately 10 black-backed gulls were seen at any one time and all were highly mobile. These numbers are likely to vary considerably seasonally. Two Caspian tern were seen in Shakespeare Bay where they were observed flying over the inlet and landing on the northern part of the western beach. One individual tern was observed bathing in the southern part of Shakespeare Bay on the 3 September 2020.

Of the gulls, terns and skuas the only species which might be affected by the proposal is the Caspian tern.

Caspian terns breed between September and January and mostly use open coastal shell banks and sandspits, but do occasionally nest in other coastal locations. There are no shell banks or sandspits within Picton Harbour or near the redevelopment site. The Caspian terns present may use the sandy beach in Shakespeare Bay for nesting although there was no indication of nesting behaviour during the site visit. Two birds were seen in Shakespeare Bay over two consecutive days, whilst on the third day only one bird was recorded there. No Caspian tern were recorded within Picton Harbour.

The activities proposed for Shakespeare Bay include storage of spoil and lay down storage on the farmland on the southwestern side of the bay as well as spoil drying and pre-assembly of materials in the north eastern part of the bay (south of the log storage area). Caspian tern do not use farmland habitat and the risk to terns using the beach area nearby would be very low. Even if there were terns nesting there, the nature of the works in Shakespeare Bay (deposition of spoil, vehicle movements, machinery use) is not unusual in that setting (adjacent to Waimahara wharf). The works would also most likely be separated from the terns by some distance. It is probable that any terns prospecting for nest sites early in the season would be discouraged from settling immediately nearby by the construction activities, but any which did establish nests would be well acclimatised to these types of disturbance. On that basis overall effects on Caspian terns would be negligible or very low.

3.4.4 Shags and Gannets (Families Phalacrocoracidae and Sulidae)

Seven species of shags and gannets were recorded within 10km of Picton and were also recorded within the harbour as follows:

i. Tākapu, Australasian gannet (Morus serrator);

ii. Kawau, black shag or great cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo);

iii. Kawau, New Zealand king shag (Phalacrocorax carunculatus);

iv. Kawau tikitiki, spotted shag (Phalacrocorax punctatus);

v. Kawau tūi, little black shag (Phalacrocorax sulcirostris);

vi. Kāruhiruhi, pied shag (Phalacrocorax varius); and

vii. Little pied shag (Microcarbo melanoleucus).

Shags and gannets comprised 229 (31%) of all records within the harbour, with little pied shags being the most commonly encountered (61 records), closely followed by spotted shags (59 records). Spotted shags had the largest count of individuals (100).

Little black shags, little shags and one spotted shag were recorded during the site visit, with birds flying overhead or, in the case of little shags, roosting near Kaipupu Point.

Little shags are regarded as “not threatened” and increasing in New Zealand (Robertson et al. 2017).

The most threatened species of shag is New Zealand King shag which is endemic to the Marlborough Sounds and restricted to that area. The breeding sites for New Zealand king shag are islands in the outer Marlborough Sounds and their principal feeding areas are usually within 25km of the colony. Picton is outside that range.

Most shags nest in trees overhanging water or on rock stacks or cliffs, but they readily use man-made structures for resting and preening. The construction activities would likely deter shags from settling nearby when activities are at their peak, or cause them to move if activities changed unexpectedly, but these behavioural changes would be unlikely to significantly reduce the ability of shags to feed or rest elsewhere beyond the project’s influence. Increased sedimentation might reduce local feeding success of shags within the affected area, but they are highly mobile and would most likely disperse to better sites. The only possible breeding colony near the redevelopment site is on the northern side of Kaipupu Point and would be well outside the zone of influence for the project.

The closest gannet breeding colony is Farewell Spit. Gannets are commonly encountered around the coast of New Zealand and are also highly mobile. Shag and gannet populations are unlikely to be affected by the proposal.

3.4.5 Godwits, Oystercatchers, Stilts and Dotterels (Families Scolopacidae, Recurvirostridae, Haematopodidae and Charadriidae)

Eight species of godwit, oystercatchers and stilts were recorded within 10km of Picton. Seven of them were recorded within Picton Harbour including:

i. Tūturiwhatu, banded dotterel (Charadrius bicinctus);

ii. Red necked stint (Calidris ruficollis);

iii. Sharp tailed sandpiper (Calidris acuminata);

iv. Black-fronted dotterel (Elseyornis melanops);

v. Tōrea, pied oystercatcher, SIPO (Haematopus finschii);

vi. Tōrea tai, variable oystercatcher (Haematopus unicolor); and

vii. Poaka, pied stilt (Himantopus leucocephalus).

Kuaka (Bar-tailed godwit (Limosa lapponica)) were recorded within 10km of Picton, but not within Picton Harbour, probably reflecting the lack of intertidal mudflat habitat where godwits feed. Oystercatchers, stilts and related species comprised 68 (9.2%) of all records. The largest number of birds recorded were variable oystercatchers (23). Pied oystercatchers (22) and pied stilts (5) were the only other species where more than two individuals were observed.

Of these species the banded dotterel normally breeds on riverbeds, sandy beaches and farmland. Banded dotterel are regarded as “nationally vulnerable”. Dotterel are usually encountered alone or in pairs (when nesting) and are vulnerable to introduced predators. Nesting dotterel are also prone to disturbance, but Picton Harbour does not provide good nesting habitat for banded dotterel.

Red-necked stint and sandpiper are northern hemisphere migrants most commonly found in New Zealand on mudflats where they feed. There are no substantial areas of intertidal mudflat within Picton Harbour.

Black-fronted dotterel colonised New Zealand naturally (from Australia) in the 1950s and are only rarely coastal, instead preferring rivers, wetlands and river mouths.

Pied oystercatcher and pied stilt both migrate inland to breed near rivers and farmland and disperse to the coast post-breeding.

At least two pair of tōrea tai (variable oystercatcher) were recorded during the site visit, one pair within Shakespeare Bay and the second pair in the vicinity of Westshore Marina. A pair were also recorded on the Picton town foreshore, but these are presumably the same birds recorded near Westshore Marina since they were seen flying in from that direction. Tōrea tai (variable oystercatcher) breed on the coast, most commonly at sandy locations, but they will use a variety of coastal settings. They are monogamous and site attached and actively defend territories from neighbours. Parents will also aggressively defend nests and chicks from humans and other disturbances. Variable oystercatchers are regarded as “recovering” with a population estimated to be between 1,000 and 5,000 mature individuals and an ongoing or expected increase exceeding 10% over the next 10 years or three generations (whichever is the shorter).

The variable oystercatchers resident in Shakespeare Bay would be unlikely to be affected by the proposed development because the activities there do not extend to the shoreline and would not be as noisy or prolonged as those in Picton Harbour. For the pair of birds resident in Picton Harbour their breeding success would be reduced for at least one year and more likely up to four years. The magnitude of this effect at a population level would be very low because there is only one pair of resident birds. For that pair of birds, the effects would be significant and ongoing, but can be mitigated at the population level as discussed in Section 6 below. Even assuming a worst-case scenario, at the population level the overall level of unmitigated effects on variable oystercatcher would be very low. None of the other oystercatcher, dotterel or stilt species is likely to be affected.

3.4.6 Penguins (Order Sphenisciformes)

The only penguin recorded within 10km of Picton was the kororā (little penguin, little blue penguin, Eudyptula minor). Kororā were also recorded within Picton Harbour and comprised 1.5% (11 records) of all records. The maximum number of individuals recorded was 10. Kororā were seen during the site visit, as well as signs of penguin activity in Shakespeare Bay, Picton Harbour and Kaipupu Point.

Kororā are widespread around the New Zealand coastline, breeding in colonies or sometimes singly. Colonies are generally small (i.e. number only a few pairs), but can comprise more than 1,000 individuals (e.g. at Oamaru, Flemming 2013). Birds can be found nesting some distance inland, and in virtually any habitat, including coastal dunes, scrub and forest, farmland, and residential areas (Marchant and Higgins 1990, Wilson and Mattern 2019). Kororā are monogamous and nest near the coast in cavities (burrows, caves, crevices, under logs or buildings, in purpose-built nest boxes, pipes and like). The Marlborough Sounds is recognised as one of the main breeding sites of little blue penguin (Flemming 2013). Breeding is typically between July and February and some pairs reuse nest sites. Kororā are regarded as “declining” (Robertson et al. 2017).

No kororā were seen nesting near the wharf, but penguins appear to make use of the foreshore area and areas upslope from the coast around the Queen Charlotte Yacht Club building at Shelley Beach and areas of shrubland upslope of Shakespeare Bay. Again, the birds within Shakespeare Bay would be unlikely to be disturbed because of the limited range of activities to be undertaken there. Within Picton Harbour the limit for disturbance is likely to be within a few hundred metres of the construction activities, but it depends on individual sensitivity to disturbance and the frequency and magnitude of the disturbance activities. The construction activities might disrupt nesting behaviour and also influence foraging and feeding of chicks if activities reduce the ability of birds to return to their nests to feed young. Based on the field work it seems likely that at least two pairs of little blue penguin nest in the vicinity of the proposed works (within hundreds of metres) and any nesting birds could have their nesting success reduced for up to four years in the worst-case scenario. The significance of this effect depends on the number of resident birds affected. This would most likely be low (up to a few pairs), but would require further field survey immediately prior to works commencing in order to confirm the location of any pairs. Kaipupu Point Sanctuary proposed to undertake a survey for nesting blue penguins in Picton Harbour and surrounds during September/October this year (R. Russell, project coordinator, pers. comm. 1 September 2020) and this could inform mitigation planning for the proposal. In the event that this survey does not cover the relevant areas or is inconclusive, use of a conservation dog trained to detect penguin could assist in locating affected individuals. The overall level of unmitigated effects on kororā is considered to be low and is able to be mitigated as discussed in Section 6 below.

3.4.7 Summary of Birds likely to be Affected

Based on historical survey data there is no reason to believe that the habitats or communities lost or displaced by the proposed construction activities are more important for seabirds than other parts of the Marlborough Sounds or that any of the seabirds affected are substantially limited in their distribution to the affected area. On that basis, effects are most likely to be disturbance related, particularly during the breeding season for some species.

Of the 31 seabirds recorded within Picton Harbour only three have a real risk of potentially being affected by the proposal – Caspian tern, tōrea tai (variable oystercatcher) and kororā (little blue penguin). These species are exposed to risk in part because of their (at least seasonal) site fidelity and the possibility that they breed in, or more likely near (within hundreds of metres of), the project’s footprint and zone of influence. The degree of risk to each species varies, with any resident kororā almost certain to be affected because they use the type of habitats present (including for breeding), and are expected to be moving across the area between their nest and the sea. They also have a degree of nest site fidelity between years. Tōrea tai have a low risk of being affected, depending on the proximity and tolerance of residents to the activities, but are highly site attached and any residents cannot be expected to move very far from any disturbance, so would not be able to avoid it. Caspian tern have a very low risk of being affected since they are only site limited whilst breeding, are mobile and are likely to be disturbed when prospecting for nests and choose to settle elsewhere.

The location of the Waitohi Picton ferry precinct is unique in that it is immediately adjacent to Kaipupu Wildlife Sanctuary (an area of approximately 40ha which is fenced to exclude predators) and included within a much bigger area of pest control undertaken under the auspices of Picton Dawn Chorus (within the Victoria Domain and the Wedge, along with trapping undertaken within Picton and Waikawa by individual land owners). This predator control will be of benefit to bird populations, including kororā and variable oystercatcher, meaning that the background bird populations are healthier than at most mainland locations and will have higher reproductive success. This reproductive success will mitigate the effects of the proposed works to some degree by unaffected birds producing surplus young which are available to fill vacant habitat. The loss of reproductive output from one or a few pairs of birds due to the proposed construction activities is therefore negligible at the population level.

Relocating affected individuals could be contemplated, but the likelihood of success is unknown and likely to be variable since kororā in particular are highly philopatric (attached to the area where they were raised) so generally keep returning to the same location even when translocated. The chances of success could be increased by careful management (e.g. blocking or removing nest sites when penguins are moved or moving oystercatchers with their nests).

4. PLANNING MATTERS

4.1 NEW ZEALAND COASTAL POLICY STATEMENT

The purpose of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (‘NZCPS’) is to state policies in order to achieve the purpose of the Resource Management Act 1991 in relation to the coastal environment of New Zealand. Policy 11 of the NZCPS relates to indigenous biodiversity as follows:

11 To protect indigenous biological diversity in the coastal environment:

a) avoid adverse effects of activities on:

i. indigenous taxa that are listed as threatened or at risk in the New Zealand Threat Classification System lists;

ii. taxa that are listed by the International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources as threatened;

iii. indigenous ecosystems and vegetation types that are threatened in the coastal environment, or are naturally rare;

iv. habitats of indigenous species where the species are at the limit of their natural range, or are naturally rare;

v. areas containing nationally significant examples of indigenous community types; and

vi. areas set aside for full or partial protection of indigenous biological diversity under other legislation; and

b) avoid significant adverse effects and avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects of activities on:

i. areas of predominantly indigenous vegetation in the coastal environment;

ii. habitats in the coastal environment that are important during the vulnerable life stages of indigenous species;

iii. indigenous ecosystems and habitats that are only found in the coastal environment and are particularly vulnerable to modification, including estuaries, lagoons, coastal wetlands, dunelands, intertidal zones, rocky reef systems, eelgrass and saltmarsh;

iv. habitats of indigenous species in the coastal environment that are important for recreational, commercial, traditional or cultural purposes;

v. habitats, including areas and routes, important to migratory species; and ecological corridors, and areas important for linking or maintaining biological values identified under this policy.

With respect to the proposed ferry precinct redevelopment, Policy 11(a) would be relevant, i.e. to avoid adverse effects on taxa that are listed as threatened or at risk in the New Zealand Threat Classification System (i.e. Caspian tern, kororā and variable oystercatcher).

4.2 MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

As a Unitary Authority the Marlborough District Council has the powers, functions and responsibilities of both a regional and district council and has an obligation to prepare a Regional Policy Statement, a Coastal Plan, a District Plan and such other Regional Plans as are deemed necessary. Marlborough District Council combined the Regional, District and Coastal Plans into a single document known as the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan (‘the MSRMP’) which became fully operative on 25 August 2011.

Chapter Four of Volume One the MSRMP sets out the issues, objectives and policies with respect to indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna. The sole objective of Chapter Four is the protection of significant indigenous flora and fauna (and trout and salmon) and their habitats from the adverse effects of use and development. This objective is supported by six policies. The policies rely on identifying areas of significant ecological value (Policy 4.3.1.1). The areas containing significant ecological values are indicated on the planning maps in Appendix B of Volume Two of the MSRMP. The Waitohi Picton Ferry Terminal Precinct is not included in Appendix B.

Chapter Nine of Volume One of the MRSRMP sets out the issues, objectives and policies relating to the Coastal Marine Area. The sole objective of Chapter Nine is the accommodation of appropriate activities in the coastal marine area whilst avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of those activities, including on conservation and ecological values.

4.3 MARLBOROUGH ENVIRONMENT PLAN

The Marlborough District Council is in the process of combining the Marlborough Regional Policy Statement, the MSRMP and the Wairau/Awatere Resource Management Plan to create a single resource management document for the Marlborough District known as the Proposed Marlborough Environment Plan (‘the PMEP’). The MEP Hearing Panel has released its decisions on the PMEP and the decisions version is reflected here. All provisions referred to in the report have been appealed.

Volume 1, Chapter 13 of the PMEP provides for use of the coastal environment. The relevant policies are outlined below.

Policy 13.1.1 – Protect against inappropriate subdivision, use and development activities on the characteristics and values of areas identified by avoiding:

(a) adverse effects on areas of outstanding natural character;

(b) adverse effects on areas of outstanding natural features and/or outstanding natural landscapes;

(c) adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity values set out in Policy 11(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010;

(d) significant adverse effects on indigenous biodiversity values set out in Policy 11(b) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010; and

(e) sites and places of significance to Marlborough’s tangata whenua iwi.

Policy 13.2.5 – Amenity values of the coastal environment can be maintained and enhanced by:

Chapter 8 of the PMEP relates to indigenous biodiversity. Policy 8.1.1 sets out criteria to be used when assessing the significance of indigenous biodiversity. Other relevant policies are set out below.

Policy 8.2.10 – Promote the maintenance, enhancement or restoration of ecosystems, habitats and areas of indigenous biodiversity even where these are not identified as significant in terms of the criteria in Policy 8.1.1, but are important for:

(a) the continued functioning of ecological processes;

(b) providing connections within or corridors between habitats of indigenous flora and fauna;

(e) botanical, wildlife, fishery and amenity values;

(f) biological and genetic diversity;

Policy 8.3.1 – Manage the effects of subdivision, use or development in the coastal environment by:

(a) avoiding adverse effects where the areas, habitats or ecosystems are those set out in Policy 11(a) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010;

(b) avoiding adverse effects where the areas, habitats or ecosystems are mapped as significant wetlands or ecologically significant marine sites in the Marlborough Environment Plan; or

(c) avoiding significant adverse effects and avoiding, remedying or mitigating other adverse effects where the areas, habitats or ecosystems are those set out in Policy 11(b) of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010.

(d) creating a buffer to manage activities in proximity to an Ecologically Significant Marine site in order to avoid adverse effects on Ecologically Significant Marine Site.

Policy 8.3.4 – In the context of Policy 8.3.1 and Policy 8.3.2, adverse effects to be avoided or otherwise remedied or mitigated may include:

(b) fragmentation or disruption of connections or buffer zones between and around ecosystems or habitats;

(d) the loss of a rare or threatened species or its habitat;

(g) impacts on habitats important as breeding, nursery or feeding areas, including for birds;

(j) a reduction in the abundance or natural diversity of indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna;

(k) loss of ecosystem services;

(l) effects that contribute to a cumulative loss or degradation of habitats and ecosystems;

(m) loss of or damage to ecological mosaics, sequences, processes or integrity;

(q) a modification of the viability or value of indigenous vegetation and habitats of indigenous fauna as a result of the use or development of other land, freshwater or coastal resources;

Policy 8.3.6 provides for the use of biodiversity offsets to mitigate residual adverse effects under certain circumstances, including in areas where indigenous biodiversity values are not significant.

These matters have been considered in the assessment of effects provided here.

5. ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS

5.1 TYPES OF EFFECTS ANTICIPATED

In the absence of efforts to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse ecological effects, the potential effects on seabird ecological values would come from direct and indirect, short-term effects during construction. After construction is completed the effects would be expected to be similar to those already operating (albeit with an incremental expansion of existing activities).

The redevelopment would involve reclamation, demolition of existing structures, pile driving, dredging and construction of new infrastructure. In Picton Harbour these activities would create increased human and mechanical activity, general construction noise, increased vehicle movements, dredging noise and noise due to pile driving (the scale and type of which would be dependent on the method used (i.e. vibro-hammer (continuous noise production), traditional hammer (impulsive noise), bore piling and screw piling) and the location (i.e. wharf, seawall, onshore). The dredging would also create an area of decreased water clarity due to dispersal of sediment with the sediment plume expected to extend less than 200m from the dredging (Sneddon et al 2020).

Within Shakespeare Bay the activities would create increased human and mechanical activity, increased vehicle movements and increased noise associated with depositing and moving spoil and assembling materials for transport to the ferry precinct.

The main effects expected on seabirds would be disturbance due to the increase in activity and the increase in amount of ambient noise (both airborne and underwater) within Picton Harbour, as well as increased turbidity in parts of the harbour due to the proposed dredging. Effects within Shakespeare Bay would be less as discussed in Section 3.4.3 above. For site attached species that seek to move away from any disturbance they could encounter resistance from neighbours resulting in increased stress and perhaps physical injury. These direct and indirect effects would generally be temporary (although possibly prolonged over up to four years) in nature. Most birds are highly mobile species and those which are not site attached would simply relocate if disturbed by noise, human activity or reduced foraging success. Birds also acclimatise to regular or predictable disturbances as time passes and this can reduce the scale of effects over time. Acclimatisation to a particular stimulus varies with the affected individual and cannot reliably be predicted, but some species (such as gulls) could be expected to acclimatise to any additional disturbance relatively rapidly in the context of the already highly disturbed situation of the redevelopment site.

For species which use the ground and cross roads (e.g. little blue penguins accessing nest sites), increased vehicle movements may also increase the risk of road strike, depending on the timing and location of activities. The magnitude of this effect depends on the specific location of nesting pairs in relation to the works and could be managed by relocation of affected pairs (noting that this may not be successful).

For seabirds generally there is also the risk of entanglement in ropes, plastics or other materials either in use as part of the works or inappropriately discarded when they are no longer required, as well as the risk of a spill of chemicals or other contaminants. Should a contaminant spill occur in such significant amounts as to reach the marine environment, a spill of any oil-based material would have the potential to affect birds more than other taxa due to the surface nature of an oil spill. However, the potential for such large amounts of oil (or other construction contaminants) used on the site to reach the marine environment is limited to the duration of construction. Both of these risks are very low and can be managed via appropriate management plan requirements to prevent and contain spills and maintain a tidy work site.

Reduced water clarity could potentially reduce foraging success for birds that remain in the area. Sneddon et al (2020) have considered the potential effects of habitat alteration (including increased turbidity) on the existing marine biota and concluded that the combined effects would be less than minor and the redevelopment is not expected to result in significant impacts on the local fisheries

resources, or those of the wider area and any effects would not persist long-term. Clement (2020), having reviewed Sneddon et al. (2020), based their conclusion with respect to effects on marine mammals on the following factors which are also relevant to a consideration of effects on birds:

• A relatively small proportion of habitat loss within the Port area which is expected to recover relatively rapidly after construction concludes.

• Turbidity effects are expected to be constrained to within 100 – 200m of dredging activity.

• The area is already highly modified and subject to a high level of disturbance.

• The construction is expected to result in only short-term displacement of individual fish species with no effect on population dynamics.

• Home ranges are generally large and birds make use of other parts of the harbour and the wider Marlborough Sounds. This factor is much less true for site attached species, which are identified in Section 3.3.

• The intertidal shoreline and subtidal benthic habitats of Picton Harbour are generally typical of those found in the inner Marlborough Sounds and similar habitats exist beyond the zone of influence of the project.

Of the proposed construction activities, dredging has the largest direct disturbance footprint (2.4 ha to accommodate cruise ships plus the extent of the sediment plume at any one time). There will be a significant spatial overlap between the dredging footprint and other major construction components such as seawall, revetment, scour protection, and the new wharf structures.

With respect to banded rail, they are a secretive species which are unlikely to venture far beyond the saltmarsh vegetation, except at night. Construction of spoil dumps on the farmland nearby is unlikely to seriously disturb them since the increase in activity and noise would be located at some distance from the birds and would not be continuous. Deposition of sediment in the wetland could adversely affect their feeding and habitat and we recommend best practice erosion and sediment control management designed to protect the wetland from sediment input to avoid adverse effects on banded rail.

5.2 EFFECTS ON SPECIES

The overall magnitude of unmitigated local effects on the four species which occur within the construction site area is set out in Table 6.

Table 6: Unmitigated effects on birds of the proposed redevelopment.

Species Ecological Value Level of effect Overall magnitude of effect

Caspian Tern Very high Negligible Low

Variable oystercatcher Moderate Negligible Very low

Kororā (little blue High Low Low penguin)

Mioweka (Banded rail) High Low Low

6. MITIGATION

6.1 TYPES OF MITIGATION

6.1.1 Introduction

Before mitigation actions are confirmed, we recommend additional field surveys to confirm the location of the identified species, particularly little blue penguin within the coastal marine area where construction works are being undertaken as well as the area immediately landward of the coastal margin. These surveys would be undertaken in the breeding season (late winter – early spring) and involve regular, frequent reconnaissance of the site and surroundings to record the presence, location and if possible, breeding status of the three species identified (kororā, tōrea tai and Caspian tern). In addition, a conservation dog trained to detect penguins could be used. This should be undertaken throughout the day, but include pre-dawn and post-dusk observations, when penguins are most likely to be detectable. For little blue penguin in particular, the nest sites identified during this survey would most likely be the location of future nesting attempts for those individuals. The easiest and most effective way to stop penguins using these nesting areas would be to remove the nest sites (if feasible) or block penguin entry once the breeding season is finished. Providing alternative locations in the form of nest boxes at suitable sites outside the affected area for future use would encourage resident penguins to attempt nesting elsewhere.

Individual and nest relocation are commonly undertaken for some bird species in a resource management setting, and have been attempted for little blue penguin and variable oystercatcher where they occur (e.g. for variable oystercatcher near the Kaikoura Highway during its rebuild and for little blue penguin in the Wellington region). We have not recommended this approach here because the outcome is highly variable and many birds return to their original location. We consider that in general it is more effective to encourage birds to move before they commence nesting (by disturbing prospecting birds or blocking nests) and focus on increasing the breeding success of birds outside the affected area to account for any decrease in productivity or survival. However, there may be some individuals which would be killed if they remained at a particular site, and it may be necessary to attempt to relocate those birds outside the works area for their own welfare.

The mitigations proposed here are species specific (because the effects vary with species).

6.1.2 Caspian Tern

Since Caspian tern do not appear to be resident within Picton Harbour itself, but are present in Shakespeare Bay, no particular mitigation actions are recommended since effects on Caspian tern would be negligible to non-existent. In the event that Caspian tern take up residence in Picton Harbour or near the spoil storage areas we recommend discouraging them to settle.

6.1.3 Variable Oystercatcher

At least one pair of variable oyster catcher is resident in the area affected by the redevelopment. Like many ground nesting birds the main causes of nest failure for variable oystercatchers are predation of eggs or chicks (and occasionally adults) by a range of introduced mammalian and native and exotic avian predators and disturbance resulting from human recreational use of the coast. Suitable mitigation for variable oystercatchers should include the following:

i) Undertaking predator control at another nesting location nearby to assist in production of young birds for recruitment into the local population. The size of the predator control area would be determined by the number of birds known or estimated to be affected by the site redevelopment based on the outcome of field surveys. An attempt could be made to move the resident birds to the predator control area, noting that this may not be successful; and

ii) Protecting nests at another location from disturbance due to humans, vehicles and dogs.

6.1.4 Kororā (Little blue penguin)

Little blue penguin are known to use the area immediately surrounding the proposed works for nesting. The main threats to little blue penguin colonies are introduced predators such as cats, dogs and ferrets as well as conflict with humans. Adult penguins have also been killed by cars crossing roads between breeding areas and the sea. Since vehicle movements related to the works would only occur during the day, they do not pose a risk to penguins crossing the work sites. The location of any new nesting sites for the penguins should not be in close proximity to public roads. Suitable mitigations could include undertaking one or more of the following actions:

i. Provision of nesting boxes at safe sites around Picton Harbour (i.e. away from roads and ideally receiving predator control). The number and location of nest boxes provided would be informed by the number of penguins affected by the redevelopment and the distribution of birds in the wider Picton Harbour (to be informed by field survey, perhaps using a conservation dog). Birds residing within the project area could be physically relocated to nest boxes elsewhere, but as discussed above, the success of this is likely to be variable and this approach is not recommended.

ii. Carrying out seasonal pest control at a nesting site nearby to protect nesting penguins and increase recruitment into the local population. The size of the predator control area would be determined by the number of birds known or estimated to be affected by the site redevelopment based on the outcome of field surveys.

For both species which might be affected by the site redevelopment, provided that mitigation actions are informed by field survey and scaled to be commensurate with the expected level of effects, the above mitigation actions would reduce the magnitude of effects to zero or perhaps a net gain. As mentioned in Section 5.1 above, inclusion of actions to limit chemical spills and remove waste materials from the site would also reduce the potential for adverse effects on seabirds and best practice erosion and sediment control at the spoil storage site in Shakespeare Bay would prevent adverse effects on the habitat of banded rail.

6.2 RECOMMENDED MITIGATIONS

Since the construction will be ongoing for at least four years, management of the affected species within the construction area and at other sites nearby (e.g. where nest boxes are located) will be required for the duration of the works. This would be most effectively achieved via implementation of a management plan for the purpose of avoiding adverse effects on the affected species.

After discussion of proposed conditions with the Department of Conservation and the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society, the following condition is recommended to address effects on seabirds as required.

1.5 Avian Management Plan

(a) The consent holder shall, with advice from a suitably qualified expert prepare an Avian Management Plan. Details and outcomes of consultation with the Department of Conservation and Te Ātiawa on the development of the Management Plan shall be provided to the Compliance Manager, Marlborough District Council when the Plan is provided for certification in accordance with conditions 2.2, 2.3 and 2.4.

(b) The purpose of the Avian Management Plan is to ensure the project construction activities avoid adverse effects (other than minor or transitory

adverse effects) on kororā (little blue penguin), Caspian tern, and torea tai (variable oystercatcher) from project construction works.

1.5.1 The Avian Management Plan shall include the following:

(a) Measures to manage adverse effects on Caspian tern, torea tai and kororā populations during construction.

(b) Required training of project staff and/or contractors.

(d) A description of the methodology for monitoring the success of any deterrence, relocation and/or pest control activities required by the Avian Management Plan. The methodology shall include actions to be taken should any of these measures not be successful.

1.5.2 As a minimum, the Avian Management Plan shall include the following steps: Site Inspection

(a) Prior to the commencement of any construction works in, or within 15m of, the coastal marine area which are scheduled to occur during the kororā breeding season from August and February of any year in which the construction is undertaken, the consent holder shall arrange for a site inspection to be undertaken by a suitably qualified expert. The inspection should be timed for June-July prior to breeding commencing. For kororā this inspection shall include the use of a trained and certified seabird detecting dog to locate underground nests.

(b) The purpose of the site inspection in condition 1.5.2(a) is to determine if kororā (little blue penguin), Caspian tern, and/or torea tai (variable oystercatcher) are resident in the coastal marine area within 200m of the construction works.

(d) In the event that kororā are found during a site inspection in accordance with condition 1.5.2(a) to be resident in the coastal marine area within 200m of the construction works then: i. The consent holder shall engage a suitably qualified expert to estimate the total number of pairs of kororā which are resident within 200m of the proposed construction works using walk through surveys and nest location using a suitably certified seabird detecting dog.

ii. If the expert considers that the proposed construction works will cause harm to the birds when nesting, the consent holder shall cover the potential nesting habitat in the area with plastic mesh netting to prevent the birds using the site for breeding. iii. The expert shall consider, in conjunction with a seabird specialist from the Department of Conservation, whether the relocation of the pair to new nesting sites would be feasible, taking into account the location of the nest and the traits and habits of the species. If the suitably qualified expert and the seabird specialist from the Department of Conservation agree that relocation is necessary and feasible, and a permit under the Wildlife Act 1953 is granted for that relocation (should such a permit be required), then the disturbed pair shall be relocated by the expert. The consent holder shall meet the reasonable costs of that relocation. Relocation should be to a penguin nest box in safe habitat as close as possible to the original site. iv. Te Ātiawa shall be advised of any relocations.

Caspian tern and Torea Tai

(e) In the event that a pair of Caspian tern or torea tai is found to be resident in the coastal marine area within 200m of the construction works in accordance with condition 1.5.2(a) above then: i. The consent holder shall engage a suitably qualified expert to train at least one representative of the consent holder in: a. how to sight the identified resident species; b. how to recognise the resident species nest prospecting behaviours; c. how to recognise when the resident species are preparing to nest or have begun nesting; and d. the deterrence methods set out in the Avian Management Plan, including those listed in Condition 1.5.2(e)(ii) below. ii. From July until October in each year during which construction is proposed within 200m of the coastal marine area, a representative of the consent holder trained in accordance with condition 1.5.2(e)(i) shall undertake daily sightings for the resident species within 200m of the proposed construction. Such sightings shall be recorded in a daily log, and any Caspian tern or torea tai sighted shall be deterred from prospecting for nests by methods set out in the Avian Management Plan which may include:

a. Walking a dog on a leash through the area at varying times throughout the day for up to seven days after a sighting to disturb adult Caspian terns or torea tai; and/or

b. Parking large vehicles close to where Caspian tern or torea tai are showing an interest. The vehicles shall be started and/or moved from time to time throughout the day for seven days after a sighting; and/or

c. Laying plastic mesh just above the ground in areas chosen for nesting which will discourage the birds from settling; and/or

d. Tie large colourful ribbons and streamers tied between posts to discourage birds trying to nest.

iii. Seven days after a sighting, a representative of the consent holder trained in accordance with condition 1.5.2(e)(i) shall report to the suitably qualified expert engaged per condition 1.5.2(e)(i) as to whether he or she considers that the Caspian tern/torea tai has been deterred from nesting, or whether nesting may have begun. If the expert considers, based on the report, that nesting may have begun, then the expert shall visit the site to verify this. iv. If the suitably qualified expert verifies that nesting has begun, steps shall be put in place to determine whether the nesting birds should be allowed to continue nesting, and if this is not practicable, what steps should be taken to suitability manage the nesting birds. Note: Removal/destruction of eggs will require a permit from Department of Conservation and should only be used as a last resort if prior efforts to deter birds have failed.

Advice notes:

For the purposes of this consent “resident” means birds that are permanently site attached i.e. birds that carry out the majority of their life at the same location and could not realistically be expected to permanently or temporarily abandon their home range as a result of disruption caused by construction activities. For the purposes of this condition 1.5, a ‘suitably qualified expert’ means an ecologist with a specialisation in seabirds, a post-graduate university degree and at least 5 years’ experience.

6.3 MITIGATED EFFECTS ON SPECIES

The overall magnitude of successfully mitigated local effects on the four species which occur within the construction site area is set out in Table 7.

Table 7: Mitigated effects on birds of the proposed redevelopment.

Species Ecological Value Level of effect Overall magnitude of effect

Caspian Tern Very high None None

Variable oystercatcher Moderate None None

Kororā (little blue High None None penguin)

Mioweka (Banded rail) High None None

7. CONCLUSIONS

Marlborough Sounds is home to a wide range of seabirds, many of which are relatively common there. Ebird.org recorded 31 species of seabird within Picton Harbour, and a site visit confirmed the presence of at least 35 species of birds including land birds. Having considered their life history, behavioural habits, ecology and distribution, only three seabird species are likely to be at risk of experiencing adverse effects due to the proposed redevelopment of the Waitohi Picton Ferry Precinct – variable oystercatcher, little blue penguin and Caspian tern. One species of landbird, the banded rail, is also present within a wetland in Shakespeare Bay and might also be affected.

The types of effects expected from the redevelopment works are an increase in noise, human and mechanical activity and locally increased turbidity within part of the harbour. The risk for chemical spills and entanglement of birds is also increased. With respect to banded rail the main effect would arise as a result of sedimentation of the wetland where they live, which could affect their feeding.

Little blue penguin are at the highest risk because they do not fly and, depending on nest location, may be required to cross the works when travelling from their nest to feeding sites. Variable oystercatchers are territorial throughout the year and where present in the vicinity of the works in Picton Harbour would also experience increased disturbance and could experience reduced productivity as a result. Caspian terns are at least risk because the habitats are not ideal for breeding and numbers recorded are low and restricted to Shakespeare Bay where effects would be separated from their habitats, including potential nesting habitat. Overall, the level of unmitigated effects for all three species is assessed as low or very low at the local (Picton Harbour) scale.

Policy 11(a) of the NZCPS is to avoid effects on coastal species which have a threat ranking within the New Zealand Threat Classification System. All three species meet this criterion with Caspian tern being “threatened” and both little blue penguin and variable oystercatcher being “at risk” (declining and recovering respectively). Banded rail also meets this criterion (“at risk, declining”), but provided their wetland habitat is protected they would not be affected. Using the EcIA assessment we have assessed the level of unmitigated effect as low or very low on the basis of the small number of individuals affected and the transitory (albeit prolonged) nature of the effects. Implementation of the recommended mitigation actions (i.e. survey to confirm affected numbers and management of the affected individuals in accordance with a management plan) would be sufficient to avoid effects on these species due to reduced breeding success for the four years of the project as well as reduced survival of adults due to human disturbance or potential translocation.

We recommend field survey prior to undertaking any mitigation actions so as to confirm the presence and precise location of variable oystercatcher and little blue penguin and confirm numbers for management. Effective mitigation would involve discouragement to settle (in the case of Caspian terns) and removal or blocking of nests in affected areas in conjunction with provision of nest boxes (for little blue penguins), whilst for all three species predator control and protection from human and other disturbance would improve local productivity such that the overall very low level of effects would be offset. The proposed management could result in a net positive effect in terms of bird numbers, depending on the temporal and spatial scale at which the mitigations are implemented.

8. REFERENCES

Clement D 2019. Port Marlborough Picton Ferry Precinct Development: Assessment of Effects on Marine Mammals. Prepared for Port Marlborough. Cawthron Report No. 3450. January 2020. 37 pp + appendices.

Flemming, S.A. 2013. Little penguin. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online. www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Gaskin, C.P. 2013. Fluttering shearwater. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online. www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Marchant S. and Higgins P.J. 1990: Handbook of Australian, New Zealand & Antarctic birds. Vol. 1, Ratites to ducks, P. AB. Oxford University Press.

Robertson, H.A., Baird, K., Dowding, J.E., Elliott, G.P., Hitchmough, R.A., Miskelly, C.M., McArthur, N., O’Donnell, C.F.J., Sagar, P.M., Scofield, R.P., Taylor, G.A. 2017: Conservation status of New Zealand birds, 2016. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 19. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 23 p.

Roper-Lindsay, J., Fuller S.A., Hooson, S., Sanders, M.D., Ussher, G.T. 2018. Ecological impact assessment. EIANZ guidelines for use in New Zealand: terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. 2nd edition. Published by Environmental Institute of Australia and New Zealand, Melbourne. 133 pp.

Sneddon R., Morrisey, D., Shearer K. 2019. Port Marlborough Picton wharves redevelopment: Assessment of effects on benthic ecology. Draft 2 prepared for Port Marlborough NZ Ltd. Cawthron Report No. 3440. 57 p.

Wilson, K-J. and Mattern, T. 2019. Little blue penguin / korora. Available at https://www.stateofpenguins.nz/little-penguin. Accessed 4 September 2020.

APPENDIX 1 – Bird Records within 10km of Picton

Scientific Name Common Name

Acanthis flammea* redpoll

Acanthisitta chloris tītipounamu, rifleman

Alauda arvensis* Eurasian skylark, kaireka

Anas gracilis tētē moroiti, grey teal

Anas platyrhynchos* mallard

Anas platyrhynchos x superciliosa mallard – grey duck hybrid

Anthornis melanura korimako, bellbird

Anthus novaeseelandiae pīhoihoi, New Zealand pipit

Apteryx rowi rowi, Okarito brown kiwi

Ardea alba kōtuku, great egret

Ardenna bulleri rako, Buller’s shearwater

Ardenna grisea tītī, sooty shearwater

Ardenna tenuirostris short-tailed shearwater

Athene noctua* little owl

Aythya novaeseelandiae pā pango, New Zealand scaup

Branta canadensis* Canada goose

Bubulcus ibis cattle egret

Cairina moschata* Muscovy duck

Calidis acuminata sharp-tailed sandpiper

Calidis ruficollis red-necked stint

Callipepla californica* California quail

Carduelis carduelis* European goldfinch

Charadrius bicinctus tūturiwhatu, New Zealand dotterel

Chlidonias albostriatus tarapirohe, black fronted tern

Chloris chloris* greenfinch

Chroicocephalus bulleri tarāpuka, black-billed gull

Chroicocephalus scopulinus tarapunga, red-billed gull

Chrysococcyx lucidus pīpīwharauroa, shining cuckoo

Circus approximans kāhu, swamp harrier

Columba livia* rock pigeon

Cyanramphus auriceps kākāriki, yellow-crowned kakariki

Cygnus attratus* kakīānau, black swan

Daption capense Cape petrel

Diomedea epomorphora toroa, Royal albatross

Egretta novae-hollandiae white-faced heron

Egretta sacra matuku moana, Pacific reef heron

Elseyornis melanops black-fronted dotterel

Emberiza cirlus* cirl bunting

Emberiza citrinella* yellowhammer

Eudyptula minor kororā, little penguin, blue penguin

Falco novaeseelandiae kārearea, New Zealand falcon

Fringilla coelobs* pahirini, chaffinch

Fulica attra Eurasian coot

Gallirallus australis Western weka

Gallus gallus* Red jungle fowl

Gerygone igata riroriro, grey warbler

Gymnorhina tibicen* Australian magpie

Haematopus finschi tōrea, SIPO, South Island Pied Oystercatcher

Haematopus unicolor tōrea tai, variable oystercatcher

Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae kererū, New Zealand pigeon

Himantopus leucocephalus poaka, pied stilt

Hirundo neoxena warou, welcome swallow

Hydroprogne caspia taranui, Caspian tern

Larus dominicanus karoro, black-backed gull

Limosa lapponica kuaka, bar-tailed godwit

Macronectes hallii pāngurunguru, Northern giant petrel

Microcarbo melanoleucus kawau paka, little shag

Mohoua novaeseelandiae pipipi, brown creeper

Mohoua ochrocephala mohua, yellowhead

Morus serrator tākapu, Australasian gannet

Ninox novaeseelandiae ruru, morepork

Pachyphila vittata pararā, broad-billed prion

Passer domesticus* tiu, house sparrow

Pavo cristatus* Indian peafowl

Pelecanoides urinatrix kuaka, common diving petrel

Petroica australis toutouwai, New Zealand robin

Petroica macrocephala miromiro, tomtit

Phalacrocorax carbo kawau, black shag

Phalacrocorax carunculatus kawau, New Zealand king shag

Phalacrocorax punctatus kawau tikitiki, spotted shag

Phalacrocorax sulcirostris kawau tūi, little black shag

Phalacrocorax varius kāruhiruhi, pied shag

Philesturnus carunculatus South Island saddleback

Platalea regia tīeke, royal spoonbill

Plegadis falcinellus glossy ibis

Poliocephalus rufopectus kōtuku ngutupapa, New Zealand grebe

Porphyrio melanotus Pūkeko

Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae tūi

Prunella modularis* dunnock

Puffinus gavia pakahā, fluttering shearwater

Puffinus huttonii Hutton’s shearwater

Rhipidura fuliginosa pīwakawaka, fantail

Spatula rhyncotis kuruwhengi, Australian shoveler

Stercorarius antarcticus hākoakoa, brown skua

Stercorarius parasiticus parasitic jaeger, arctic skua

Sterna striata tara, white-fronted tern

Streptopelia roseogrisea* African collared dove

Sturnus vulgaris* starling

Tadorna variegata pūtangitangi, paradise shelduck

Todiramphus sanctus kōtare, sacred kingfisher

Thallassarche cauta toroa, white capped albatross

Thallassarche melanophis toroa, black browed albatross

Turdus merula* manu pango, blackbird

Turdus philomelos* song thrush

Urodynamis taitensis koekoeā, long-tailed cuckoo

Vanellus miles masked lapwing

Zosterops lateralis tauhou, silvereye, waxeye

*denotes introduced and naturalised species

APPENDIX 2 – Birds Recorded During the Site Visit

Scientific Name Common Name Location

Anas gracilis tētē moroiti, grey teal Shakespeare Bay

Anas platyrhynchos* mallard widespread

Anas platyrhynchos x superciliosa mallard – grey duck hybrid Shakespeare Bay

Anthornis melanura korimako, bellbird Shrubland

Callipepla californica* California quail Shakespeare Bay

Carduelis carduelis* European goldfinch widespread

Chloris chloris* greenfinch widespread

Chroicocephalus bulleri tarāpuka, black-billed gull widespread

Chroicocephalus scopulinus tarapunga, red-billed gull widespread

Columba livia* rock pigeon Picton Harbour

Emberiza citrinella* yellowhammer widespread

Eudyptula minor kororā, little penguin, blue Foreshore, widespread penguin

Falco novaeseelandiae kārearea, New Zealand falcon Picton Harbour

Fringilla coelobs* pahirini, chaffinch widespread

Gallirallus australis Western weka widespread

Gallirallus phillipensis mioweka, banded rail Shakespeare Bay saltmarsh

Gerygone igata riroriro, grey warbler widespread

Haematopus unicolor tōrea tai, variable oystercatcher Picton Harbour, Shakespeare Bay

Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae kererū, New Zealand pigeon Shrubland and forest

Hirundo neoxena warou, welcome swallow widespread

Hydroprogne caspia taranui, Caspian tern Shakespeare Bay

Larus dominicanus karoro, black-backed gull widespread

Microcarbo melanoleucus kawau paka, little shag Kaipupu Point

Passer domesticus* tiu, house sparrow widespread

Phalacrocorax punctatus kawau tikitiki, spotted shag Picton Harbour

Phalacrocorax sulcirostris kawau tūi, little black shag Picton Harbour

Porphyrio melanotus Pūkeko Shakespeare Bay

Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae tūi widespread

Rhipidura fuliginosa pīwakawaka, fantail widespread

Sturnus vulgaris* starling widespread

Tadorna variegata pūtangitangi, paradise shelduck Shakespeare Bay

Todiramphus sanctus kōtare, sacred kingfisher widespread

Turdus merula* manu pango, blackbird widespread

Vanellus miles masked lapwing Shakespeare Bay

Zosterops lateralis tauhou, silvereye, waxeye widespread

*denotes introduced and naturalised species. Note that location does not imply that the species referred to does not occur elsewhere.

Document Reference : c:\PMNZL\3578 Picton Ferry Terminal Redevelopment\Reports 2020

Report Revision : 5

Report Status : Final Revised

Prepared by : Dr Gary Bramley

Reviewed by :

Approved by : Dr Gary Bramley

Date Created : 3 March 2020

Date Issued : Draft 1: 15 April 2020; Draft 2: 25 May 2020; Draft 3: 8 September 2020 Final: 10 November 2020 Final Revised: 30 November 2020

AUTHOR:

Dr Gary Bramley – Ecologist

Dr Gary Bramley has a BSc (Zoology) and MSc (First Class Honours in Ecology) from Massey University and a PhD (Ecology) from the University of Waikato. He has worked as an ecological consultant since 2000. Prior to that he lectured at the University of Waikato and Waikato Polytechnic. He is a member of the Ecological Society of New Zealand, the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand Incorporated, Birds New Zealand and the New Zealand Plant Conservation Network. He is also a qualified Independent Hearing Commissioner under the Resource Management Act (1991). Gary has a generalist ecological background with extensive experience in vegetation, birds, pest mammals, invertebrates, lizards and bats throughout New Zealand, from Ngataki in the north to Te Anau in the south. His work has included assessments of effects and development, implementation and monitoring of consent conditions, preparation of restoration plans, management plans (including iwi and hapū management plans) and peer review. He has published ten peer reviewed papers and more than 250 unpublished reports for clients. Previous clients have included central government (including the Environmental Protection Agency and Ministry for Business Innovation and Employment), iwi and hapū groups, local government, energy generators, mining and quarrying companies, infrastructure developers, landowners, land developers, marine farmers, forestry companies, farmers and non- government conservation organizations. Gary has been at the forefront of some of the nationally significant projects with respect to terrestrial ecology and has long standing experience carrying out projects involving ecological restoration, biodiversity offsetting and ecological mitigation throughout New Zealand.

DISCLAIMER:

The Ecology Company Limited (The Ecology Company) has prepared this report for the exclusive use of Port Marlborough New Zealand Limited and KiwiRail in accordance with the usual care and thoroughness of the consulting profession and in accordance with the standards of the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of The Ecology Company. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of The Ecology Company constitutes an infringement of copyright.

This report was prepared in accordance with the scope of work and for the purpose outlined in Section 1.2 above. This report was prepared between 3 March 2020 and 8 September 2020 and is based on the information obtained and conditions encountered at that time. The Ecology Company disclaims responsibility for any changes that may have occurred after this time. This report should be read in full. No responsibility is accepted for use of any part of this report in any other context or for any other purpose or by third parties. This report does not purport to give legal advice.