transcript of proceedings board of inquiry ......2013/11/26 · loretta lovell (board member) alec...

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

BOARD OF INQUIRY

Tukituki Catchment Proposal

HEARING at HAWKE’S BAY OPERA HOUSE

on 26 NOVEMBER 2013

BOARD OF INQUIRY:

Hon Lester Chisholm (Chairperson)

Russell Howie (Board Member)

Loretta Lovell (Board Member)

Alec Neill (Board Member)

Matthew Lawson (Board Member)

Hawke’s Bay Opera House 26.11.13

APPEARANCES


[9.29 am]

CHAIRPERSON: Good morning. Mr Williams.

MR WILLIAMS: Good morning, sir. Thank you. The applicants' next witness 5

will be Dr Stuart Parsons.

CHAIRPERSON: What volume?

MR WILLIAMS: It’s rebuttal volume 2, applicants rebuttal evidence volume 2 10

behind tab 29.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much.


MR WILLIAMS: Can you please wait for any questions?

CHAIRPERSON: Yes thanks, Mr Williams. Ms Gepp.


MS GEPP: How many are we talking about here?

DR PARSONS: One.

MS GEPP: Well I mean that species. 5

DR PARSONS: In my experience no but I wouldn’t count against it. It’s

entirely possible, but from my experience they do make echolocation

calls when they leave the roost.

10

MS GEPP: Have you carried out any research to confirm that.

DR PARSONS: Absolutely.

MS GEPP: That bats can make location calls when they leave roosts. 15

DR PARSONS: Absolutely.

MS GEPP: And you don’t refer to that research in your evidence do you?

20

DR PARSONS: No, it wasn’t relevant to what I wrote.

MS GEPP: Well isn’t it relevant to the assumption that automatic bat monitors

will detect bat passes?

25

DR PARSONS: Partly yes, but that’s one of a suite of protocols that are part

of the tree felling protocol. So even if bats did not echolocate when

they left the roost there are other aspects of that protocol that would

ensure that they were not in the tree when it was felled.

30

MS GEPP: And what are those aspects?

DR PARSONS: So the trees are – sorry, there’s a visual inspection of the trees

and trees are rated as being high risk or low risk. There’s a visual

inspection for cavities. They can be climbed by an arborist and 35

checked visually as well. And they’re also monitored for five days in

winter and three days in summer.

MS GEPP: Did the research that you refer to quantify the risk of bats being in

trees where no automatic bat monitoring detection – where there was 40

no detection through automatic bat monitoring?


[9.34 am]

DR PARSONS: So there were some trees associated with the Cambridge

bypass project that were classified as not being high risk but we still

requested that they be inspected after they were felled, and that was 5

done and there were no bats detected in those trees.

MS GEPP: Your opinion is that artificial bat roosts will offset any potential

short to medium term negative effects, is that correct?

10

DR PARSONS: They are one of the offsets, yes.

MS GEPP: And one of Dr Lloyd’s concerns is that artificial roost uptake may

take several years. Is that correct?

15

DR PARSONS: That is correct.

MS GEPP: And he says he knows of no published studies of the use of

artificial roosts in New Zealand?

20

DR PARSONS: None published in peer reviewed literature, no. The evidence

is from a Department of Conservation study that was carried out in

Canterbury and they supplied us many years ago with a spreadsheet

showing the results of their roost box monitoring scheme that showed

that regardless of the model of roost box that was used, bats were using 25

them.

MS GEPP: Did you go back to that information that supplied to you by DOC

when you were preparing your evidence?

30

DR PARSONS: No, I did not specifically refer to it but I have a very strong

memory of what is in that spreadsheet.

MS GEPP: And did you speak to anybody at the Department about that?

35

DR PARSONS: Originally when I was sent that spreadsheet, yes, I did, but

not specifically in relation to this project.

MS GEPP: So you haven’t spoken to anybody since you received that

information – sorry, when did you receive that information? 40

DR PARSONS: I think seven, eight years ago.

MS GEPP: And you confirm that there is no published study in relation to that

trial? 45


DR PARSONS: To that trial? None that I know of, no.

MS GEPP: Well I put it to you that while you are technically correct that long

tailed bats had no particular preference for the various bat box designs

that were trialled in that case, the lack of any pattern of selection is 5

potentially because bat densities using the boxes were so low.

DR PARSONS: Sorry, I don’t quite follow what you mean? If there’s a low

density of bats they will not be picky?

10

MS GEPP: No, what I mean is that if you have very few bats using a range of

four different types of bat roosts you are not going to be able to detect a

pattern of preference for one design over another.

DR PARSONS: I would argue exactly the opposite. I would argue that if 15

there is a low rate of use of each of them it shows that there is very

little competition and therefore they can choose what they want and

they are not being marginalised into less preferred boxes.

If there was a high density of bats and you found a large number in one 20

particular type and then a few stragglers in the others that would show

that they have a preference for one, and other bats may be marginalised

out into other ones. That low number across even ones to me shows

that there is no preference.

25

MS GEPP: Do you remember when the information – when you received this

information about the South Canterbury trial how far into the trial was

that?

DR PARSONS: Oh, five to six years I believe. 30

MS GEPP: Well, I put it to you that Dr Lloyd will say, by way of

supplementary evidence, that the boxes were used two or three times in

six years.

35

DR PARSONS: The rate of use of the boxes, in terms of the number of bats

that was in them, it was fairly low – there were two or three bats in

them, but then in that area there is a relatively low density of bats.

MS GEPP: So wouldn’t you agree that there is not much conclusion can be 40

drawn from the use by two or three bats over a six year period?

DR PARSONS: The conclusion I would draw is that if you put bat boxes out

bats will use them.

45


MS GEPP: Are you aware that the roosts have not been surveyed at all in the

last few years?

DR PARSONS: No, I am not aware of that.

5

MS GEPP: That will be relevant to your reliance on the South Canterbury

trial, as demonstrating the merits of artificial bat roosts?

DR PARSONS: I would want to know more information around why they

were not being used – were there enhancement mechanisms going on; 10

were there any other interventions that were going on within the

population; what was the level of the population; was it declining

because of predators and the like, but, yes.

You have to take all of that information into context when making a 15

decision about why the bat boxes may not be used anymore.

MS GEPP: And you have not taken any of that information into account in

relying on the South Canterbury trial, have you?

20

DR PARSONS: I was not – I mean, do you have information that says the bat

boxes are no longer being used?

MS GEPP: Well, Dr Lloyd will give evidence on that.

25

[9.39 am]

DR PARSONS: So he does? I am asking because I am not aware of that

information, so I am I guess trying to ascertain whether that is

speculation or whether there is actually data that. 30

MS GEPP: Okay. Now, you - - -

MR WILLIAMS: Sir, I am a little bit concerned about supplementary

evidence that has not been foreshadowed and put to this witness to give 35

him a chance to give helpful answers to the Board. Somewhat trial by

ambush, sir, so just signalling that concern.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

40

MR WILLIAMS: If there is a paper or something Dr Parsons could have.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, I can understand the difficulty, Mr Williams, and your

position is that that evidence from Dr Lloyd will come in in what way,

Ms Gepp? 45


MS GEPP: I intend to lead supplementary evidence on the point as

foreshadowed in the pre-hearing conference where we discussed the

fact that these witnesses were only called at the point of caucusing and

then rebuttal evidence.

5

CHAIRPERSON: Yes.

MS GEPP: So Dr Lloyd has not had an opportunity to respond to those points.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes. 10

MS GEPP: If necessary he can respond sooner than his evidence.

CHAIRPERSON: Well the important thing is that Dr Parsons has the

opportunity to respond under cross-examination to any additional 15

points that Dr Lloyd might raise in the – the issue that has cropped up

at the moment is whether there has been, as I understand it, monitoring

of the bat boxes over the last how many years we are talking about.

That needs to be put to Dr Parsons but I presume you haven’t got an 20

immediate way of checking that information.

MS GEPP: Well what I am putting to Dr Parsons at the moment, and my

intention is to give him the opportunity to respond, is information that

we received from the Department of Conservation on Friday night. 25

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well perhaps Dr Parsons, you can respond or give

your response, if any, to the possibility, as I understand it, that there has

been monitoring and bats haven’t been found in the boxes over the last

few years. While that might not be the ultimate evidence at least your 30

response to that possibility will be helpful.

DR PARSONS: Sure.

CHAIRPERSON: And it will also be important, without getting into 35

unnecessary detail, just to put any other broad propositions that are

likely to be significant to Dr Parsons as well – that is any broad

propositions that Dr Lloyd might be giving by way of supplementary

evidence.

40

MS GEPP: And this is absolutely my intention, sir, in raising this issue now.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay. No, that is fine. Right.

MS GEPP: So I didn’t have any further questions about the South Canterbury 45

trial, but did you want Dr Parsons to respond on the - - -


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, well I think we should have Dr Parsons response to

the possibility that monitoring has revealed that there are no bats.

MS GEPP: I am sorry, sir, the point that I put to the witness was that there has 5

been no monitoring over the past six years, rather than that there has

been monitoring over that period.

CHAIRPERSON: Oh, well, okay. Well I don’t know that that requires an

answer really, does it? 10

MS GEPP: No.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

15

MS GEPP: Thank you. So at the beginning of your evidence you have said

that you had not omitted to consider material facts known to you that

might alter or detract from the opinions that you express?

DR PARSONS: Mm’hm. 20

MS GEPP: Excuse me, if the witness could be shown the exhibit please.

DR PARSONS: Thank you.

25

MS GEPP: Are you able to confirm that this is a long tailed bat management

plan prepared by Kessels and Associates, and Walkingbats?

DR PARSONS: It appears to be, yes.

30

MS GEPP: And Walkingbats, that is your consultancy, is that correct?

DR PARSONS: It is.

MS GEPP: And it is from – turning over the page, it is dated 7 February 35

2012?

[9.44 am]

DR PARSONS: Yes, 7th February 2012. 40

MS GEPP: And it’s prepared by yourself, Gerry Kessels and Patrick Stuart

(ph 0.13).

DR PARSONS: That’s what it says, yes. 45


MS GEPP: And this is an excerpt from the whole bat monitoring plan isn’t it?

DR PARSONS: Medium term impacts 1 to 5 removal of shelter belts, yes.

Just from the page summary it appears to be just part of it.

5

MS GEPP: Yes, so can you confirm at the fifth bullet point under heading

3.2.1.2 it says, “it is estimated that roost boxes may take up to six years

to become occupied”.

DR PARSONS: Yes. 10

MS GEPP: So that was your opinion one year ago.

DR PARSONS: Yes.

15

MS GEPP: Wouldn’t that be relevant to your opinion now that Dr Lloyd’s

concerns about time taken to use bat roosts is unfounded?

DR PARSONS: Sorry, can you be more specific about what Dr Lloyd has

said. That he disagrees with my opinion about the timing? 20

MS GEPP: Yes.

DR PARSONS: That it would be six year or that it would be two to three

years? 25

MS GEPP: I’ll put the question differently I’m sorry.

DR PARSONS: Sorry, I’m confused.

30

MS GEPP: You have said that this is a short term – the artificial bat roosts

will offset the short term impacts of loss of bat roosts.

DR PARSONS: Short to medium term, yes.

35

MS GEPP: Yes.

DR PARSONS: But within that I would define what long-term is and within

long-term I would say for trees to be mature and be cavity forming so

I’m talking a long-term mitigation of perhaps 100 years because some 40

trees will take that long to form cavities, not all, but some. So six years

to me is short term.

MS GEPP: Okay.

45

DR PARSONS: It’s part of short to medium term.


MS GEPP: Thank you. I have no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Now are you intending to - - -

5

MS GEPP: Yes.

CHAIRPERSON: - - - put this in as an exhibit. I think it’s about - - -

MS GEPP: Are you able to produce this as an exhibit number? 10

CHAIRPERSON: Number 14.

MS GEPP: Number 14.

15

EXHIBIT #14 – LONG-TAILED BAT MANAGEMENT PLAN –

TITOKI SANDS LTD

CHAIRPERSON: Re-examination?

20


MR WILLIAMS: Have you got any other response you want to make on the

issues put to you about the degree of surveying, rate of uptake of the

boxes in the Canterbury study from the questions before that you didn’t

manage to communicate and would like to? This is your last chance to

talk about that issue. 5

DR PARSONS: No, I’m comfortable with that, yes.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir.

10

MR NEILL: Dr Parsons can we just go back to the South Canterbury issue. I

presume this is the Geraldine relocation where they set aside land under

QEII (ph 4.02) covenant?

DR PARSONS: I’m not sure if it’s associated with that. I know it was a 15

Department of Conservation initiative run by Colin O’Donnell and Jane

Sedgley (ph 4.09) and they put up – it was a trial to see if long-tailed

bats would go into roost boxes and if they had a preference for the

different style. Believe it or not there’s many different styles of

artificial roost boxes for bats. A far as I know that was the intention of 20

the study.

MR NEILL: Have you been involved as an expert in relocation of bats in a

situation similar to this?

25

DR PARSONS: I was involved in the Department of Conservation project to

translocate bats to Kapiti Island and I was heavily involved in that in

terms of their soft release on the island, artificial roost boxes were used

in that situation, but that’s a different species. I’ve not been involved

in any translocation of long-tailed bats. As far as I know none have 30

ever been translocated.

MR NEILL: And in your observations here in the area concerned, how many

bats are we talking about. I mean are you talking about hundreds, tens

or thousands? 35

[9.49 am]

DR PARSONS: It’s a very very difficult question to answer I’m afraid. When

we use the automatic bat monitoring boxes we get a relative level of 40

activity, but if we say pick up 50 bat passes on the monitoring box that

could be 50 bats flying past. It could be one or two bats that are

foraging and circling around the area. From the data we have from

ABMs we can’t tell that. As an example there’s a property associated

with the Cambridge bypass that had extremely high levels of bat 45

activity. Quite surprising levels. There was a line of oak trees which


the bats liked to roost in and that was of quite a bit of concern because

of the alignment of the road. When some ecologists went and watched

that area they noticed two to three bats flying up and down the road

over the space of half an hour. So while the activity looked very high it

was two to three. 5

In the case of the reservoir I did visual observations at one of the sites

of high activity and in that situation I observed groups of three or four

bats moving through the area. So with the bat monitoring boxes you

can have a couple of bats creating high activity. You can have four, 10

five, six, seven, eight bats coming through. So on its own just an ABM

monitor doesn’t really tell you how many you have.

MR NEILL: And in this area we’re solely talking about one species of bat as

opposed to the thousand that exist and that is the long-tailed bat? 15

DR PARSONS: Yes.

MR NEILL: Okay. And it was clearly indicated I presume that there is no

evidence that the short tailed bat is in existence in the area? 20

DR PARSONS: It is extremely difficult to prove (INDISTINCT 1.53) but I

am very very confident that they are not in the area. With the

monitoring boxes the two species of bat echolocate at different

frequencies but the monitoring boxes, there’s a small amount of 25

overlap between them so a long-tailed bat can be picked up by the

channel that is there to detect short tailed bats, and vice versa. And

every once in a while that will happen and the other type of call that

that produces.

30

So what we do is we listen to it as one pass so there may be seven or

eight calls – I think it was over 800 or more hours of monitoring, and

so we go back to that site and try and replicate it again and again and

again over hundreds of hours and we never did it. So I’m confident

that they’re not there. 35

MR NEILL: Now I appreciate that this has been your lifetime study, but for a

lay person like me tell me, using the Readers Digest version, what is

the difference between a long-tailed bat and a short-tailed bat? What

are we talking about here? 40

DR PARSONS: They’re really really different. They’re from different

families of bat. The simple way is to say they’re really really different.

One is an aerial insectivore solely. It’s reasonably adaptable to

changing habitats. That's long-tailed bats. Short-tailed bats tend to be 45

– they’re omnivorous which is very rare in a single species of bat and


they tend to be restricted to old growth native forest. And it’s believed

that there are far fewer than there are of long-tailed bats.

MR NEILL: Okay. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

5

MS LOVELL: Just one question. Dr Kessels in responding to Mr Neill in

terms of what was the thing that kept him up at night at 3.00 am said,

“bats”. Can’t say that would get me up but okay. Can you give me

your perspective based on the package you’ve seen? Is there anything

in addition that should be used in terms of mitigation to allow 10

Mr Kessels to sleep?

DR PARSONS: No. In fact I believe that if the project goes and the offset

and mitigation is put in place effectively then it will be a positive

outcome for the bats. The bats, it’s assumed from a study in Fiordland 15

that the long-tailed bats are undergoing about a 5 percent rate of decline

because of predators and the like. That’s probably accurate for what’s

going on here in this unmanaged situation, but predator control, the

planting of the riparian strips, all of these interventions that are

proposed could actually help to reverse that 5 percent rate of decline. 20

There will be perhaps short term effects but I think over the course of

the project and the mitigation and offset that it actually could be quite

positive for the bats because their habitat will be managed and the

threats to them will be moved.

25

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much Dr Parsons.


DR CRAIG: I have.

MR WILLIAMS: Are your qualifications and experience as set out in

paragraphs 2 to 9 of that statement? 5

DR CRAIG: They are.

MR WILLIAMS: Can you confirm the contents of that statement, including

the statements of fact and opinion, to be true and correct to the best of 10

your knowledge?

DR CRAIG: I can.

MR WILLIAMS: Dr Craig, arising out of questions through the course of the 15

hearing there are two or three issues I would like to get some

supplementary evidence from you about and I think you may be able to

help the Board with.

Yesterday it was put to Mr Kessels that he had not assessed the effects 20

on braided river birds of a, it was put to him from Dr Young’s

evidence, 50 percent reduction in food supply, nor considered how that

would sit alongside any benefits from predator control for those birds

proposed as part of the scheme. Can you comment on that issue?

25

DR CRAIG: Well I read Dr Young’s evidence and I have also spoken to Dr

Young about his evidence, and I think the wording was incorrect. He

does not state a 50 percent in the food, he states a 50 percent reduction

in habitat for the invertebrates and my understanding (which you can

clarify with him) is that the change in water level will expose areas 30

sometimes on a daily basis and so in my opinion this will actually

increase the amount of food for standard dotterels, rather than reduce it.

The other issue here is, which the context of this whole thing is, is there

any limitation on the food for these birds anyway? They are not 35

dependent on the invertebrates that you find in water.

My experience down south (I work in the Rangitata, a much larger

braided river where there are thousands of banded dotterels) we find

them nesting more than a kilometre away from the river, they are out 40

on stony paddocks and at times of flood they cannot feed anywhere

near water anyway, and immediately after flood they cannot feed near

water because of sediment. So they spend a lot of time feeding on flies

and spiders and other things, so I do not perceive that this will have any

negative effect and it has a potential of having a positive effect. 45


MR WILLIAMS: Thank you. Dr Craig, another question put to Mr Kessels

(and I think he deferred to you) was the question of the impact of

flushing flows in the autumn period, or late summer, on the breeding

season of the banded dotterel. Have you got any comment on that?

5

DR CRAIG: Yes. In terms of breeding of these birds they typically start –

potentially they can start in late August but more often in September,

and the situation down south is frequently they lose their first nest to a

flood and so then they have to re-nest, and this is what takes them

longer in the season, or predators take their nests and so they have to 10

re-nest, so that is what makes the season longer.

So if there is predator control and there is any control on flood flows

then the first nests are more likely to be successful, the breeding season

will be much shorter and these flushing flows will actually occur. They 15

should have no effect or a small effect on a minority of birds that have

got late second nests.

[9.59 am]

20

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you. Now, there were some questions yesterday

about the difference between mitigation and offsetting, and whether the

proposed weed controls in this case should count as offsetting when

they are a form of mitigation from encroachment of vegetation where

there is no, you know, very large floods. 25

Can you comment in your view as to whether the weed control you

have seen referenced in the offset report is, in the context of this

scheme, an offset or a mitigation, in your view, for banded dotterel

included? 30

DR CRAIG: Okay, for me mitigation and offsets are sort of a continuum but

they are – the distinction I would make is that mitigation is where you

are replacing something that you – an action that you are replacing

something that you are causing damage to. An offset is where you are 35

providing a new advantage which – well yes, it is a completely

different thing.

So in terms of weed control, the weeds are there, they have already

taken habitat from banded dotterel, so getting rid of the weeds is in 40

effect creating habitat for them or recreating habitat for them, and in

terms of whether the weeds are caused by floods, again my experience

from the South Island is that in spite of flood flows of a thousand

cumecs or more, which you don’t even see a tenth of that on this river,

lupins, broom and gorse can survive those massive floods and cause 45

channelling, or narrow channelling anyway.


So for me the weed control is an offset because it is creating new

habitat or recreating habitat for the birds.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Dr Craig. There were some questions asked of I 5

think again, Mr Kessels, and I suggest that you might be help the Board

more with reference to what I would like the witness to be shown,

Exhibits 11 and 12, of the extent to which the Makaroro River above

the confluence is in size and confined or conversely braided, and what

that might mean for its suitability for banded dotterel. 10

I have got a copy of those exhibits here and I am happy for those to be

supplied to the witness.

If you could just identify or satisfy yourself what you are looking at, Dr 15

Craig, and give a response about that.

DR CRAIG: Sorry, could you repeat what was the question, Mr - - -

MR WILLIAMS: Is that suitable looking standard dotterel habitat? 20

DR CRAIG: Well, I suggest where it is less constrained is much more – you

are likely to find a lot more birds than in the areas which are – where it

says it is constrained it looks like there are large cliffs, and having been

in that area I can imagine what it is like. 25

The birds like to have as much view as they can, they will nest in those

constrained areas but they will be of much lower density.

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you. Now finally, questions were put last week by 30

my learned friend to Mr Maxwell regarding the basis upon which for

the value of bird habitat and downstream of the Waipawa confluence

the Tukituki River system might be described as outstanding.

He gave an answer on page 165 of the transcript, line 20, that he was 35

not convinced but he would defer to the view of the other experts, the

terrestrial ecology experts.

You are the expert in bird species that inhabit this river, this section of

the river and in the conference statement were identified as 40

internationally important below that confluence. Have you got any

comment on this issue?


[10.04 am]

DR CRAIG: Well having read the transcript I assumed someone was going to

ask me this question. I have made some notes to make sure I cover

everything, because I think there is a lot of stuff built into this which 5

would help the board understand what is meant and why these terms

are used, and then what an earth they mean in terms of this particular

scheme and plan change.

So I thought I would start with why do we declare something that’s 10

significant, and I know this has come up yesterday as well. There

aren’t any clear rules, it is a very contested term amongst ecologists

and there are papers arguing one way or another, but there are also a

range of tools that are out there and international conventions and at the

caucusing we talked about the Ramsar Convention, and I put this in, I 15

think it is paragraph 33 or something of my evidence, that has criterion

2 and criterion 6.

Basically 6 says that if you have got more than one percent of a

threatened species present, then the area is significant, but if you look 20

at REBASS (ph 1.19), another model that I think Mr Maxwell was

talking about, then they use the criterion of greater than five percent, so

there you can see there is no sort of clear rules.

So if you look at banded dotterel which are the lowest of our threatened 25

categories, but it is a threatened species, and you take the estimates

from the TER and multiply that by the river length, then this gives you

a number of birds which is approximately one percent of the total

population.

30

So if you take the Parrish Report which is the SSWI report, then it is

somewhere between one and two percent but there has been ongoing

decline since that date. So by either of these, and for pied stilt, again, if

you take the Parish data then it is about three percent. Now these

figures are different from what Dr Lloyd uses but he doesn’t use the 35

most up to date figures on the banded dotterel population in New

Zealand.

So the thing is neither of these birds are totally river dependent, as I

mentioned before, banded dotterel will nest and feed in stony paddocks, 40

they’ll go away from rivers for quite some distance and certainly stilts

are found probably more commonly in muddy paddocks and ponds and

things on farms, than they are on rivers like this.

45


But if you take the Ramsar figure, then this makes it significant, or at

least approaching it because there is one percent of the New Zealand

population. Now banded dotterels are endemic to New Zealand, they

are not found anywhere else, so this is one percent of the world

population, so something which is nationally significant, by that 5

criterion, becomes internationally significant but it is a fairly trivial

difference if you can understand the distinction.

Pied stilt, a higher percentage of the New Zealand population, but they

are found in other countries so it can’t possibly be internationally 10

significant for them.

So that’s where significance comes from, but then again, if you use the

same criterion, and again I use this example in my rebuttal evidence,

you have only got to look at the tank farm at Marsden Point which is a 15

tiny industrial area full of machines and tanks and fences and things, it

holds one and a half percent of an even more endangered New Zealand

species, and so by those rules, you would declare it as internationally

significant, and I think that shows you the nonsense of using these sorts

of terminologies because I don’t think we want to put protection around 20

a tank farm and stop things happening there. It is only because the tank

farm is there, that this endangered species is there.

If you use section 6 of the RMA, then the presence of these threatened

species makes an area significant, so under those criteria, the river is 25

significant, under those criteria the roof of the defused abattoir at

Onehunga in Auckland is significant because it is used by a far larger

number of a rarer species.

My own garden and immediate surrounds of my house would be 30

significant under section 6C, but I don’t believe that that is the way the

law was written to be interpreted, so we have a term significant and

international significance comes from in terms of what was written in

the caucusing.

35

Now outstanding is another term and as far as I am aware, it only

comes about because of our national policy statement on freshwater,

and there sets a matter of protecting values and the sorts of values that

are listed in that policy statement include things like healthy ecosystem

processes functioning naturally or health ecosystems supporting the 40

diversity of indigenous species in sustainable populations.

CHAIRPERSON: If I could just pause you there. Can you refer us to the

national policy statement, we have got it - - -

45


MR WILLIAMS: I have got a copy right here, I don’t know whether it is in

the bundle or not.

CHAIRPERSON: It is referred to in various parts of the documentation we

have got, I was just wondering if - - - 5

MR WILLIAMS: Dr Lloyd’s refer to an implementation guide but not the

statement itself. I have a copy and I am happy for it to be provided to

the Board.

10

MS LOVELL: We have a copy on our iPad.

CHAIRPERSON: We have got it, good.

DISCUSSION 15

CHAIRPERSON: Well, we have got it now in front of us, thank you, on our

iPad.

MR WILLIAMS: So Dr Craig, you were saying, I think it was referring to the 20

healthy ecosystems, was there a part of the NPS you were referring to

there?

DR CRAIG: It’s on the list, do you want to know the page that I’m looking

at? 25

MR WILLIAMS: Yes, and then carry on with your answer.

DR CRAIG: It is page 4 within the policy statement.

30

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you.

DR CRAIG: If you look at the top, there is a range of values related to human

activities and then lower down, there are ones related to ecology, and if

you go to the fourth and fifth bullet points, they are the ones that I think 35

would apply here. Will I keep going, have you found those, keep going,

okay.

So I would suggest that neither of those actually would hold in the

situation of the Tukituki River, I don’t think that it is a naturally 40

functioning system because it has a universal presence of introduced

predators, I don’t think the populations are sustainable, they are

declared to be declining, that is why they are threatened or at risk, so I

don’t think they are sustainable, they are in decline.

45


However, Dr Lloyd makes a case in his evidence-in-chief using

Parrish’s SSWI data and also the MWH report, that the river is

outstanding.

Now, if you actually look at the SSWI categorisation, these are sites of 5

significant wildlife interest, they used four categories that they declared

their sites to be in, it was either low, moderate, high or outstanding, so

when they did this work in 1988, they declared the river to be

moderately high and the estuary to be high, so these are bird people

working in 1988 when the populations of birds were much higher, they 10

didn’t think it was outstanding at that point and I think, I certainly

would not have the temerity to suggest after the changes that it is

anywhere near outstanding.

[10.14 am] 15

So I think we have evidence to suggest that it isn’t outstanding, and the

MWH report repeats many times with more up-to-date data that both

the river and the estuary have degraded since the 1980s and they give

examples of species that have actually disappeared. So it wasn’t 20

outstanding in 1988, it’s lost a lot since then so I think you couldn’t

possibly declare it to be outstanding now and I certainly would not

consider it outstanding.

However, if you then go, “Well, so what”, what do you do with terms 25

like significance and outstanding and how do you protect the values

that you’re actually trying to look after? Which is the bird life and the

view of this discussion, and the threats to the bird life on the Tukituki

River are introduced predators and invasive weeds. And if you asked a

question - - - 30

CHAIRPERSON: It is difficult to concentrate I am afraid with talking in the

background. Thank you.

DR CRAIG: If you consider what are the effects of this scheme and plan 35

change 6 and my reading of all the evidence is that there is nothing

more than extremely minor effects on the bird life of the Tukituki River

from the scheme. And in terms of plan change 6 there are two

elements to that, one is the nutrient levels which I would suggest to

you, knowing the feeding habits of these birds, would have no effect on 40

them at all.

The other one is to guarantee increased minimum flows and, if

anything, that’s liable to have a positive effect on the birds. So if we

are trying to safeguard the values that make this river significant, then I 45

don’t think that there’s anything about the scheme which we could


argue is anything but a minor positive in relation to the birds. So I

would say it is not outstanding, going back to what was put to

Mr Maxwell, and that I personally think that the birds on the river have

nothing to do with the consents that are being applied with at the

moment. 5

MR WILLIAMS: Thank you, Dr Craig, wait for any questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Williams. Ms Gepp?

10


[10.19 am]

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: Can I take you to page 87 of that report? 5

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: This is headed “Risks to river bird populations from changes in

flow regime”. 10

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: And in the third paragraph, the second sentence – actually I will

read the whole paragraph. “To add to the river’s significance is the fact 15

that it holds species from all eight of the water bird guilds. Although

recent surveys of the riverbed have not been conducted the numbers of

riverbed birds are likely to be similar to those recorded in past

surveys.” That’s not consistent with your statement that the MWH

report says that bird populations have declined, is it? 20

DR CRAIG: I actually don’t see any conflict because it’s not the issue that

there’s been a major change in the number of birds, it’s that it has lost

some important species which are the most threatened ones which used

to be present. So they were only ever there in very small numbers but 25

now they are gone. And if we want to go through this report, do you

want me to find the bits that they say that there are declines?

MS GEPP: Are you referring to the black-billed gulls, is that what you had in

mind? 30

DR CRAIG: The blacked-bill gulls and the South Island pied oystercatchers,

yes.

MS GEPP: All right. So if we can just stick with this point for a moment 35

before we move onto black-billed gulls.

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: So you are not saying that this report says there has been a decline 40

for banded dotterel?

DR CRAIG: This is a bird which is nationally seen as in decline, it’s in decline

everywhere so, yes, I would say that it is in decline and it will have

declined on this river but they are a very tenacious species and they 45

will still - like when I have been there, yes, you can see them, yes, you


can find them but I would still suggest that the national decline of

perhaps 5 percent has happened on this river and it would be very

bizarre if it hadn’t.

MS GEPP: So your claim that birds have declined on this river is based only 5

on the fact that they are declining nationally, is that correct?

DR CRAIG: Yes, in my experience of what happens, yes.

MS GEPP: So you would agree that this report, which you refer to, doesn’t 10

say that banded dotterel have declined, in fact it says likely to be

similar to previous records?

DR CRAIG: That’s what it says, yes, for banded dotterel, I accept that, but it

also says that there’s 25,000 of them nationally. In actual fact there’s 15

50,000 of them nationally so there are inaccuracies in this report.

MS GEPP: Well, you said that the MWH report and – well, no, you said

Dr Lloyd doesn’t use the latest numbers for banded dotterel populations

nationally, what are you referring to in terms of the latest numbers? 20

DR CRAIG: 50,000 is the - - -

MS GEPP: But what is your source for that?

25

DR CRAIG: New Zealand Birds Online, which is the most up-to-date

information.

MS GEPP: So do you disagree with the report cited at 213 of this MWH

report, which refers to a 2009 Southey publication? 30

CHAIRPERSON: Which page is that?

MS GEPP: It’s the same page, it’s the fourth paragraph, footnote 213.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Okay.

DR CRAIG: You are asking do I disagree with Southey?

MS GEPP: Yes. 40

DR CRAIG: I would take a more up-to-date reference by another authority on

banded dotterels, yes, I don’t this Ian Southey is a specialist on banded

dotterels. He’s a very good wader person.

45


MS GEPP: The New Zealand Birds Online article that you referred to cites

three references, one is from 2005, one is from 1993, one is from 1999.

So would you agree that the New Zealand Birds Online article is

actually relying on reports that pre-date the 2009 Southey article?

5

[10.24 am]

DR CRAIG: As part of their information, yes, but it’s also relying on the

experience of the author.

10

MS GEPP: But we don’t know, do we, whether their number of 50,000 birds

comes from these older sources or from the more recent Southey

figures?

DR CRAIG: I would suggest they come from the experience of the author of 15

the article on Birds Online.

MS GEPP: But experience doesn’t tell you the national population of a

species, does it?

20

DR CRAIG: It gives you some clues as to where the person goes to find

information, yes, and there are annual counts by the Ornithological

Society which are available to all members of the Ornithological

Society. These are birds which honestly there is no accurate level so

50,000, it could honestly be 60,000, it could be 40,000 but 25,000 is an 25

underestimate in my view.

MS GEPP: Now, you referred to significance and your understanding of the

meaning of significance and you said that in caucusing you were

discussing significance in relation to the Ramsar criteria, is that 30

correct?

DR CRAIG: We did.

MS GEPP: Isn’t it correct that the Ramsar criteria were referred to only in 35

relation to when something might be internationally important and

were not used as significance criteria?

DR CRAIG: No, it was the only way you would get me to agree to

significance except under the trivial sense of section 6C. 40

MS GEPP: What do you mean “trivial sense of section 6C”?

DR CRAIG: Well, if you just take 6C and just the presence of threatened

species et cetera then, I am sorry, my house is a significant site. I have 45

much more threatened species than you can find on this river. And it’s


totally a constructed landscape and I don’t think the law means that my

house is significant nor do I believe that significance should apply to

the tank farm at Marsden Point.

This is where I had enormous difficulties with this caucusing about 5

finding a word to mean something. The issue is what are the values we

are trying to protect that go with these words and, to me, we never got

around to address those things. How do you save these birds, how do

we stop them declining is the issue that worries me.

10

MS GEPP: Where in section 6C does it say that presence of threatened

species equals significance?

DR CRAIG: It’s a habitat that is used by threatened species.

15

MS GEPP: But it has got to be significant habitat of indigenous species,

doesn’t it?

DR CRAIG: So what is that?

20

MS GEPP: Well, it’s not any habitat of a threatened species, is it, it’s the

habitat that must be significant rather than the species?

DR CRAIG: Well, okay, so I would suggest to you that the tank farm at

Marsden point is a very significant habitat for New Zealand dotterel 25

otherwise why would 1 and a half percent of New Zealand’s population

have moved in there? They have moved there because it is habitat that

allows them to breed and breed incredibly successfully every year

because it’s predator free. So that is significant habitat as far as the

birds are concerned but I don’t think it’s the way that potentially we 30

should be interpreting this law. That’s the point I’m trying to make.

MS GEPP: None of the other ecologists actually use the term significant to

mean somewhere where a threatened species is found with no further

considerations, do they? 35

DR CRAIG: You would hope they don’t, no, any of them because I don’t

either.

MS GEPP: So this is effectively a moot point, isn’t it, they don’t actually use 40

significance in the way that you are saying they do, do they?


DR CRAIG: I don’t think this is really the point at issue though. The point at

issue here is what are we trying to do by using this terminology and, to

me, we are trying to protect values and we are trying to protect

threatened species.

5

[10.29 am]

And so declaring something significant means we have got to deal with

the values and the threats to the things which would trigger a word

significant but somehow that’s been left out of the discussion. We just 10

can’t declare something as significant and then move on and say,

“Well, then we should deal with other issues that don’t relate to those

values” in my view. It’s the direct threats that are the problem.

MS GEPP: Nobody is suggesting here though, are they, that if something is 15

significant you should then – sorry, you said you shouldn’t declare

something significant and then look at – no, I am sorry, I am not sure

what you just said.

CHAIRPERSON: And “move on” I think he said. 20

MS GEPP: Thank you. You were asked about the term outstanding and you

started to give; your opinion on why we declare something significant

but you would agree that significance assessment under section 6C is a

separate question from whether something is outstanding in terms of 25

the way that word is used in the national policy statement?

DR CRAIG: The reason I put these two together was I was asked a question

about what had been put to Mr Maxwell, I think by you, which was if it

was declared internationally significant would this make it outstanding 30

so I put the term together because of your questioning, not because I

equate them. I don’t use the term outstanding.

MS GEPP: Well, I put it to you that my question was if something is

internationally important, because that was the phrase used at 35

caucusing, would that make it outstanding. If you now understand that

that was the question that I put to Mr Maxwell, do you still see the need

to conflate outstanding and significant?

DR CRAIG: No, I still don’t see that these automatically follow because what 40

are you going to do with the word, that’s the thing that is the important

thing.

MS GEPP: But you would agree that the “what are you going to do with it” is

the second step, isn’t it? 45


DR CRAIG: No, it’s not, they must be related surely. Otherwise you are

driven by words, surely we are driven by outcomes.

MS GEPP: Now, a change of tack. You say that you were involved in setting

sampling regimes in relation to birds and pest control at paragraph 11 5

of your evidence.

DR CRAIG: I was.

MS GEPP: When you say “sampling regimes in relation to birds and pest 10

control”, do you mean you were involved in setting sampling regimes

in relation to pest control or am I reading that sentence wrong?

DR CRAIG: No, I was not involved in sampling regimes for pest control. I

was involved in discussions about pest control and I was involved in 15

setting up the sampling regimes for the birds in the study.

MS GEPP: So no predator surveys were undertaken, were they?

DR CRAIG: No. 20

MS GEPP: No tracking tunnels or chew cards or any of those other methods

that can be used to detect predator abundance?

DR CRAIG: No. 25

MS GEPP: At paragraph 15 you say, “There is a general failure in Dr Lloyd’s

evidence to consider the issues he raises regarding birds in context” and

by context you are referring to the impact of predators, is that correct?

30

DR CRAIG: I am.

MS GEPP: And your opinion is that the greatest problem for New Zealand

species is no longer the loss of habitat but the presence of introduced

predators? 35

DR CRAIG: For birds, yes.

MS GEPP: And it is fair to say that that’s a theme of your evidence, isn’t it?

40

DR CRAIG: Absolutely.

MS GEPP: That’s a reasonably unorthodox view, isn’t it?

DR CRAIG: I would disagree totally. I think there is enormous evidence out 45

there, I refer to a few papers. There are a lot of papers which show that


the key issue for New Zealand species is the universal presence of

predators.

MS GEPP: You said you refer to several papers, the first two are papers that

you have co-written I assume, they have got your name on them? 5

DR CRAIG: I have, yes.

MS GEPP: And the third is the Green and Clarkson paper called, “Turning the

Tide: Review of the first five years of the biodiversity strategy”? 10

DR CRAIG: It is.

MS GEPP: And that doesn’t say that habitat loss is no longer a threat to native

birds, does it? 15

DR CRAIG: It doesn’t say it’s not a threat, no, but it also says that predators

are a major threat.

[10.34 am] 20

MS GEPP: But it doesn’t support your position that habitat loss or

modification is less of a threat than predators, does it?

DR CRAIG: It may not, no. 25

MS GEPP: And the last two papers that you cite concern the benefits of

predator proof fences?

DR CRAIG: That’s the theme of the paper but it is also compares what 30

happens where you have predator control or predator proof fences

versus where there is nothing, and where there is nothing it shows how

appalling the reproductive rate of all birds that they have sampled are.

MS GEPP: There is no predator proof fences proposed here, is there? 35

DR CRAIG: No, there’s not. However, you can gain many of the benefits by

straight predator control.

MS GEPP: Isn’t it also correct that some published research cites habitat loss 40

resulting from changes in the land use as the main cause of

deterioration for some bird species?

DR CRAIG: I would like you to give me who wrote those papers and let me

see them. 45


MS GEPP: Are you aware of the article “Conservation status of New Zealand

Birds 2008” written by Mr Miskelly, Department of Conservation and

other experts?

DR CRAIG: Yes. 5

MS GEPP: You would agree that this is the paper which publishes the threat

rankings for all the New Zealand bird species and addresses the causes

of decline?

10

DR CRAIG: Yes, it does.

MS GEPP: At paragraph 123 of this article it says that, “The main causes for

deterioration in conservation status were thought to be changes in land

use, particularly conversion of sheep farming to dairy farming 15

(New Zealand pied oystercatcher, pied stilt, banded dotterel)”.

DR CRAIG: Yes, it will say that, yes.

MS GEPP: And it goes onto say that for some species a combination of factors 20

is likely?

DR CRAIG: Well, I would suggest that they miss out predators and, yes, we

are losing things because of land conversion. However, my experience

of working on waders, which I have been down in the Rangitata, is that 25

the majority of nests fail because of predators.

MS GEPP: Yes, but would you agree that there is published research that

confirms that the main cause for deterioration for New Zealand banded

dotterel is changes in land use? 30

DR CRAIG: Can I ask you to confirm that’s a paper in the Notornis, I think

volume 55 or something like that?

MS GEPP: That’s right. 35

DR CRAIG: Are you also aware of a paper by Williams in the same year, the

same volume, which questions that paper and argues that the difficulty

with this paper is that it has not been peer reviewed and hence it is not a

standard scientific publication. And he challenged Notornis, “Why did 40

they publish it when it is not subject to peer review?” So I think there

are some questions about some of the viewpoints that are in that paper.

MS GEPP: Well, my question was some published research cites habitat loss

resulting from changes in land use is the main cause in deterioration for 45

some species, you would agree that that is correct?


DR CRAIG: Yes, I agree that there are a lot of papers that say this. However,

I think it’s important to put the context here, that we have a range of

ideologies about conservation in New Zealand and one of them is an

approach that doing nothing is the best way forward. Stopping change 5

is the best way forward. And there are a lot of papers that come from

that ideology and that reserving an area, so called protecting an area, is

a solution.

[10.39 am] 10

I think New Zealand’s results, we have one of the highest rates of at

risk and threatened birds in the world, suggests that this approach is

actually inadequate and we need a broader approach which actually

deals with the other problem. We have reserved an enormous amount 15

of land, and if you go to Clarkson and Green, that you refer to, they

point out, you know, we have got the most reserve land of almost any

country in the world and yet we have ongoing declines and we don’t

have money to actually manage that land and control predators which is

overwhelmingly a major cause of the loss of birds and many other 20

animals.

So yes, there are people who have different views, but the point is the

people who just have the view that habitat loss is the key issue, I think

have put us in the situation where we have these ongoing declines. We 25

need to attack all of the issues.

Like, one of the habitat loss issues here in the Tukituki Makaroro

et cetera, is the growth of weeds. Now this is taking habitat away from

these birds and this project actually plans to deal with some of these, so 30

yes, there is habitat loss in that sense in this area, so I partly agree with

you, but I also want a greater emphasis put on what we know is the

major cause of the loss of these birds and I personally believe if the

mitigation and offset package that’s been put in place, the birds will

gain more than not putting it in place. 35

MS GEPP: Mr Kessels’ view is that the scale of the area of indigenous forest,

scrub and shrub lands lost to the reservoir and infrastructure, may cause

a decline in breeding success of some species without replacement of

habitat even with sustained local pest control. Do you agree with that 40

view?

DR CRAIG: Not necessarily no, no. I think if you put in predator control, you

will reverse that very easily.

45


MS GEPP: You would agree with me that the national priorities for the

protection of rare and threatened indigenous biodiversity on private

land all relate to the protection of habitat?

DR CRAIG: Unfortunately, that is a focus, yes, but it hasn’t solved the 5

problem with our birds.

MS GEPP: Would it be more accurate for your evidence to say that both

habitat loss or modification and predators, are threats to New Zealand

bird species? 10

DR CRAIG: That would be fair and if you wanted me to put them in order of

which I think is more important, I would put predators ahead of habitat

loss, I think habitat loss was an issue and New Zealand made some

major gains through the seventies and eighties and with the Resource 15

Management Act and other legal changes, the habitat loss has declined

enormously, but we have done nothing about the predators.

MS GEPP: On what basis do you say habitat loss has declined enormously?

20

DR CRAIG: The enormous amounts of land that we have reserved in this

country.

MS GEPP: You say that Dr Lloyd has failed to acknowledge the threats of an

unmanaged approach at 18, you mean unmanaged for predators, is that 25

correct?

DR CRAIG: Just a minute. In that particular situation, yes.

MS GEPP: And you refer to his paragraph 90 which you quote as saying, “The 30

sustainability of the black beech forest and the oxbow lakes are not

under threat.” And you say, “The animal communities in these

vegetation types are under clear threat.” But you have partially quoted

Dr Lloyd there, haven’t you?

35

DR CRAIG: I am quite happy if you give me the full sentence.

MS GEPP: Dr Lloyd’s full sentence is, “The sustainability of the black beech

forest and the oxbow lakes are not under threat as vegetation types.”

40

DR CRAIG: That assumes that the animals that live in the vegetation types

have nothing to do with what vegetation is there. I’m sorry, they are

pollinators, they are seed dispersers, and in the case of beech, they are

not, but they are producing – helping to produce soil, they are an

integral part of this ecosystem and to pretend that they are not part of 45

what vegetation is produced, I think is somewhat one-eyed.


MS GEPP: So is your view that anywhere where there is any level of

predation at all, you can’t say that the vegetation is functional?

DR CRAIG: No, I think if you can lower the rate of predation, it makes an 5

enormous difference, it doesn’t have to disappear, that is a very hard

ask.

MS GEPP: You criticise Dr Lloyd’s statement that Mr Kessels has

inappropriately excluded consideration of indigenous vegetation that is 10

not intact and functional at paragraph 19, don’t you?

DR CRAIG: I do.

MS GEPP: But Dr Lloyd is just pointing out that Mr Kessels has inserted an 15

‘intact and functional’ filter into consideration of what meets district

and regional policy statement criteria where that filter is not present in

the plan, isn’t he?

DR CRAIG: He maybe, I don’t actually remember the details of what 20

Mr Kessels did there.

MS GEPP: If you had that filter in your plan or policy statement, then on your

definition, nothing outside a predator proof fence would be significant,

would it? 25

DR CRAIG: It has the potential to be significant. The issue is without

predator control, things are in decline, that is the issue I am trying to

make so in a short term, yes, it is significant but you are not going to

keep it that way unless you do predator control as well. 30

MS GEPP: But in any event, Mr Kessels now accepts that Dr Lloyd is right

and that the areas of vegetation that he had excluded are significant,

doesn’t he?

35

DR CRAIG: He does.

MS GEPP: And at 20 you say that Dr Lloyd argues that there will be a

permanent loss of North Island fern bird habitat but you would agree

that it was Mr Kessels who first identified loss of fern bird habitat as 40

one of the impacts of the reservoir?

DR CRAIG: Yes, he did, yes, the loss of that wetland, yes.

45


MS GEPP: And paragraph 21, you claim predators and weed growth are

primarily responsible for banded dotterel being in decline, but as I have

already discussed, the Miskelly (ph. 2.26) article cites land conversion

to dairy farming as the main cause of decline, doesn’t it?

5

DR CRAIG: In the area where Miskelly lives, yes.

MS GEPP: Are you saying that this paper only relates to the area where the

author lives?

10

DR CRAIG: No, I am suggesting that that is a key issue in certain places, it is

not a key issue everywhere.

MS GEPP: Because this is a national review, isn’t it, the Miskelly article is a

national review of conservation status? 15

DR CRAIG: It is.

MS GEPP: Dr Lloyd doesn’t say animals can only survive in the habitats in

which they are currently located, does he? 20

DR CRAIG: He doesn’t use those exact words, no.

MS GEPP: And he acknowledges in several places that predator control can

have positive effects on birds, doesn’t he? 25

DR CRAIG: He does.

MS GEPP: But his view in relation to fern birds is that the benefits of predator

control are not well established? 30

DR CRAIG: That is what he says.

MS GEPP: That is what he says, yes.

35

DR CRAIG: Well, that is his opinion, it is not my opinion.

MS GEPP: The terrestrial ecology report says that there is a great deal of

uncertainty about the level to which pests must be suppressed in order

to protect different biodiversity values, doesn’t it? 40

DR CRAIG: If you want to read those passages for me, then I could accept

that.

45


MS GEPP: The reference is attachment 5, appendix 25, but I do not appear to

have it with me. That statement would accord with Dr Lloyd’s view

that benefits for a particular species of predator control, levels of

predator control are not well established, would it not?

5

DR CRAIG: Technically I think your reading is correct, because the issue is

we don’t test different levels of predator control, we either have

predator control or we don’t have predator control is typically the

situation, so there are no levels that we work with.

10

[10.49 am]

MS GEPP: Now you criticise Dr Lloyd as using the terminology of significant

in ways that can’t assist decision-making and would you agree that that

criticism must also extend to Dr Keesing and Mr Kessels given that 15

they largely agree with Dr Lloyd as to which areas are significant?

DR CRAIG: No, I don’t think I would because the difference in approach is

that Mr Kessels and Dr Keesing have put together an avoidance,

mitigation and offset package whereas I only see Dr Lloyd as 20

criticising and putting up a word without a solution to go with the

word, that’s my point.

MS GEPP: Is it Dr Lloyd’s job to provide a solution?

25

DR CRAIG: Well it’s very easy in every situation in the world to criticise but

I think the only way we achieve an outcome is if you’ve got a

constructive way forward rather than just saying “no” which doesn’t

help.

30

MS GEPP: Dr Lloyd considers the benefits of the mitigation package doesn’t

he? He doesn’t only consider the effects of the dam.

DR CRAIG: Yes he does, but the mitigation package has been altered as a

result of his criticism. 35

MS GEPP: And he hasn’t had the opportunity to respond to the altered

package has he?

DR CRAIG: I don’t think so, no. 40

MS GEPP: At paragraph 30 you say that of the species listed in Dr Lloyd’s

paragraph 101 which includes banded dotterel and pied stilt only the

population of black billed (ph 2.24) gulls can be deemed significant.

Why do you say “only black backed gulls can be deemed significant”? 45


DR CRAIG: Can you just let me read what I’ve said? He calls it a “very

significant site”. That’s my take on his words. Pied stilts are an at-risk

species only, they’re not threatened. Banded dotterels are at-risk,

vulnerable. Black billed gulls are at-risk, they’re a higher status. So

for me we need to be looking after the rarest and they’ve gone. So yes 5

it’s significant in terms of section 6C and yes it’s significant in terms of

Ramsar the river. So what is your point again?

MS GEPP: Well I asked you why you say that only black billed gulls can be

deemed significant. You’re referring to your own view of the meaning 10

of “significant” is that correct?

DR CRAIG: That was the most significant species that was present yes in my

view.

15

MS GEPP: It’s the most significant but you’ve said it’s the only significant

species. Would you like to change that?

DR CRAIG: He’s talking about the lower reaches right? So under section 6C

then technically he’s correct. Under Ramsar if we’re only talking about 20

the lower reaches you wouldn’t reach 1 percent so it only would have

been the black billed gulls that would have triggered that so.

MS GEPP: Ramsar is not a significance criteria though is it?

25

DR CRAIG: It has criteria for listing significance.

MS GEPP: It has criteria for determining whether a wetland is internationally

important doesn’t it?

30

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: So it’s not significance criteria used by any of the ecologists in

this case to determine significance.

35

[10.54 am]

DR CRAIG: At the caucusing it was certainly what we talked about to allow

us to use that word, otherwise we were only in section 6C.

40

MS GEPP: Well I put it to you that it was used in relation to the line in

caucusing which says, “internationally important”. That’s what it was

used for. That’s the way it’s used in Dr Lloyd’s evidence isn’t it?

DR CRAIG: What is? 45


MS GEPP: The Ramsar criteria. It’s not used as significance criteria is it?

It’s used to determine international importance.

DR CRAIG: That’s not my understanding of what I read but I could go and

re-read Dr Lloyd’s evidence if. 5

MS GEPP: Now black billed gulls at the time you wrote your evidence were

nationally endangered. Is that correct?

DR CRAIG: I think so, yes. 10

MS GEPP: And they’re now nationally critical under the latest threat ranking.

DR CRAIG: Yes.

15

MS GEPP: So they’re one step away from extinction.

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: And you say that they have only been recorded breeding at sites 20

near the coast and in recent years not even there due to human

disturbance.

DR CRAIG: That’s the wording from the MWH report.

25

MS GEPP: That’s from the MWH report. That section of the report goes on

to say that they may be moving up the coast and this should be

investigated doesn’t it.

DR CRAIG: Yes and? 30

MS GEPP: Was it?

DR CRAIG: What. No it wasn’t – sorry but these investigations were about

the effects of this particular scheme which do not extend up the coast 35

so it couldn’t possibly come into this particular study.

MS GEPP: Well in supplementary evidence you started to give opinions

about the effects of plan change 6.

40

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: Did you consider whether the black billed gulls being present in or

near the estuary might be relevant to that?

45

DR CRAIG: Yes.


MS GEPP: But you don’t - - -

DR CRAIG: But they’re not, as far as I understand, they’ve stopped breeding

there. So. 5

MS GEPP: But the source that you rely on goes onto to say they may be

moving up the river and this should be investigated doesn’t it?

DR CRAIG: Up the river or up the coast? 10

MS GEPP: Up the river.

DR CRAIG: Up the river. They used - - -

15

MS GEPP: I can refer you to a page reference if you’d like me to.

DR CRAIG: - - - they used to be up the river.

MS GEPP: Well they used to be in the estuary, around the estuary didn’t 20

they?

DR CRAIG: Well they used to be up the river and then they were only at the

estuary is my understanding. And again my experience of this

particular species in braided river in the south is that it’s predators. 25

They take out the whole colony in the space of one night, one cat can

just destroy them all. So again I would suggest that predators are a key

issue for this species.

MS GEPP: In this report they say that human disturbance is the main reason 30

why black billed gulls are likely to not be nesting at the estuary any

more don’t they?

DR CRAIG: They suggest that for bittern definitely.

35

MS GEPP: And at page 81 it says, “it is possible that black billed gulls have

also taken to nesting further up the river away from such intense human

disturbance”. Would you take it from me that that’s what the report

says?

40

DR CRAIG: I will take it from you. I do have it here but, yes, all right 81 is

it?

MS GEPP: Yes, under the table.

45

DR CRAIG: Yes.


MS GEPP: And it goes on to say, “it would be worth investigating this”.

DR CRAIG: Yes, so it’s supposition on their part on their part.

5

MS GEPP: Yes and do you know whether – you’ve said you didn’t

investigate it. Do you know whether the Council has looked into this

as part of its plan change 6 assessments?

DR CRAIG: I don’t know why they would. 10

MS GEPP: Can I take you to appendix 3 of Dr Lloyd’s evidence. Sorry,

appendix 2 of Dr Lloyd’s evidence.

[10.59 am] 15

Now in terms of the estuary you say that the list of birds that Dr Lloyd

has compiled is unexceptional and that its significance needs to be kept

in context.

20

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: And this appendix shows that 10 threatened bird species have

been recorded at the estuary including the nationally critical black

billed gull and nine at-risk species. And 16 other species doesn’t it? 25

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: And these birds include deep water waders, shallow water waders,

open water divers, dabbling water fowl, aerial gulls and terns, swamp 30

specialists and riparian species. So seven of the eight guilds of

New Zealand water birds.

DR CRAIG: That’s in this one, yes. Other papers suggest there’s only six,

but that’s okay, yes. That’s what he says. 35

MS GEPP: And the assemblage also includes internationally migrating shore

birds.

DR CRAIG: It does. 40

MS GEPP: So it is clearly a very significant site for these birds isn’t it?

DR CRAIG: Well it’s one of an enormous number that’s the point I’m trying

to make in terms of if you want to rank estuaries around the country 45

this is not outstanding. There’s a paper by Dowding and Moore which


lists what they call the most significant estuaries around New Zealand.

They certainly don’t list this one so these are use of terminology which

is quite personal. That’s my point.

MS GEPP: And you say that the Ahuriri Estuary is more important? 5

DR CRAIG: There is evidence to suggest that it is, yes.

MS GEPP: That’s a much larger estuary than the Tukituki isn’t it?

10

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: And it’s a different type to the Tukituki which is essentially a river

mouth?

15

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: And the birds that are present at the Ahuriri but not at the Tukituki

are migratory shore birds that typically require large areas of mudflats?

20

DR CRAIG: (INDISTINCT 2.08) yes.

MS GEPP: And that’s a characteristic of the Ahuriri but not of the Tukituki

isn’t it?

25

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: So looking back up at the Makaroro you’ve said that the

ecologists determined that the habitat of principal importance to

wading birds was below the confluence. 30

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: But that relative determination isn’t in the joint witness statement

is it? It simply says that below the confluence it is internationally 35

outstanding and it’s silent above the confluence isn’t it?

DR CRAIG: Certainly doesn’t use the word “outstanding” in my view.

MS GEPP: I’m sorry, internationally important is the word used. 40

DR CRAIG: Right.

MS GEPP: And it’s silent on the area above the confluence isn’t it?

45

DR CRAIG: Yes.


MS GEPP: The - - -

CHAIRPERSON: Have you got far to go Ms Gepp?

5

MS GEPP: No sir. I’ve got about five minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: We’ll still take the adjournment. Thanks.

MS GEPP: Thank you, sir. 10

ADJOURNED [11.03 am]

RESUMED [11.22 am]

15

MS GEPP: Dr Craig, in supplementary evidence you were asked about Dr

Young’s evidence about loss of habitat for invertebrates and you said

that in your view this would be a minor effect. Is that correct?

DR CRAIG: No, I suggest that it could be a positive effect. This is Mr 20

Young’s evidence on the 50 percent, a maximum 50 percent reduction

in habitat of invertebrates, that is what you are referring to?

MS GEPP: Yes.

25

DR CRAIG: Yes. No, I suggested that having spoken to Dr Young that it

looks like it will increase the food supply for birds.

MS GEPP: So is that a change in Dr Young’s evidence or is that based on Dr

Young’s evidence? 30

DR CRAIG: No, it is based on Dr Young’s evidence. If you read it, it is about

50 percent habitat loss but he is talking about insects that are available

to trout, so that is in the water.

35

So if you think about something that is on the land, which gets lost to

the trout is actually made available to the birds, is my understanding,

but I think you should ask Dr Young.

MS GEPP: For these birds that are in the river it is the benthic invertebrates 40

that are the main food source, is that correct?

DR CRAIG: No, the benthic ones are at the bottom of the stream and they

don’t ever get to them. No, these birds actually feed on the insects that

are out on open ground or at the most, at the waters edge, although 45


banded dotterels are mainly not in the water, that is the sort of things

wrybills do. So, no, these guys are out on dry land more often.

MS GEPP: So it is not aquatic invertebrates that they are eating?

5

DR CRAIG: Oh, they do aquatic invertebrates that are made available to them

as a result of floods et cetera, and the evidence of Dr Young suggests

that yes, there will be more of them made available potentially.

[11.24 am] 10

MS GEPP: When you said that banded dotterel are used for forage for

invertebrates on land adjacent to the river, and you referred to open,

gravelly areas I think, this reach of the river down to the upper intake is

willow lined and in parts is fairly intensely developed, isn’t it? 15

DR CRAIG: Yes.

MS GEPP: So have you considered the suitability for banded dotterel

foraging? 20

DR CRAIG: Once the willows and the weeds are removed I think you will get

some banded dotterels using it, as long as there is predator control.

MS GEPP: And you agree that that effect had not been previously considered, 25

the effect on the invertebrates?

DR CRAIG: Hadn’t previously been considered by whom?

MS GEPP: By anybody who has given evidence prior to your discussion with 30

Dr Young last night.

DR CRAIG: No.

MS GEPP: Where is it assessed in the evidence? 35

DR CRAIG: I say it isn’t.

MS GEPP: Oh, I’m sorry, I thought you meant no, you don’t agree.

40

The flushing flows, you would agree also that the effect of flushing

flows on birds had not been considered?

DR CRAIG: No, it has always been part of the discussions that we have had.

45


MS GEPP: Where in the evidence does anybody refer to the effect of flushing

flows on water birds?

DR CRAIG: I don’t know of any but it has certainly been part of our

discussions. 5

MS GEPP: It is not referred to in the terrestrial ecology report either, is it?

DR CRAIG: No, as far as I know – no.

10

MS GEPP: Are you aware that the flushing flows are proposed to be released

to coincide with natural minor freshers?

DR CRAIG: It would seem sensible that that happens, yes.

15

MS GEPP: And that could increase their magnitude?

DR CRAIG: And?

MS GEPP: Do you think it would be useful for the ecologists to have had 20

input into conditions around the flushing flows?

DR CRAIG: I think the fresh water ecologists have had inputs, have they not?

MS GEPP: Do you think that it would have been useful for the terrestrial 25

ecologists to have input into the conditions around flushing flows?

DR CRAIG: I don’t think we have been excluded. We have been made aware

of them and I do not think that there is anything that we need to

comment at the moment. 30

MS GEPP: So even though there is no consideration in the evidence or the

terrestrial ecology report of the effects of flushing flows you consider

that they have been adequately addressed by the planners in the

conditions? 35

DR CRAIG: As far as I am aware, yes.

MS GEPP: So you do not see the loss of nests from flushing flows as an

adverse effect? 40

DR CRAIG: As I have said, these are going to be mainly down to the

confluence of potentially the Tukituki, but mainly to the Waipawa

where there is going to be predator control and weed control, so I

would believe these birds have largely finished nesting before any 45

flushing flows happen.


I believe the flushing flows will happen mainly outside of the breeding

season because that is when they will be needed.

MS GEPP: The flushing flows are going to go right down the river to the 5

coast, aren’t they?

DR CRAIG: They will, yes.

MS GEPP: So not just down to the confluence as you just said? 10

DR CRAIG: No. Well, no, but they will be far less I believe than other

freshers that will happen quite naturally, so - - -

MS GEPP: Do you still not think it would be useful for the timing of flushing 15

flows to take into account whether water birds are breeding in the areas

that are going to receive the flushing flows or do you consider that to

be unnecessary?

DR CRAIG: My believe is the flushing flows in terms of their effect on the 20

Tukituki River will be relatively minor so I don’t see there is a major

issue here. These birds do not nest immediately adjacent to water

channels; they nest out on areas that are free from small freshers that

happen down rivers.

25

MS GEPP: They would breed on small islands within the braided channels,

wouldn’t they?

DR CRAIG: Yes, but not vegetated islands. Yes.

30

MS GEPP: Well I didn’t say vegetated islands, did I?

DR CRAIG: No, but there are vegetated islands as well.

MS GEPP: And you would agree that you have not seen any – or have you 35

seen anything to show what level will be reached by the river when

flushing flows are coming down the river?

DR CRAIG: No, I would say I have not been given that detail. No.

40

[11.29 am]

MS GEPP: So the statement you just made about flushing flows not affecting

these areas where dotterel are actually nesting is not based on any

evidence, is it? 45


DR CRAIG: It is based on discussions only.

MS GEPP: Discussions with who?

DR CRAIG: The water people. 5

MS GEPP: Can you name them?

DR CRAIG: Dr Fisher is one of them. No, I cannot - - -

10

MS GEPP: Would you accept that the effects such as the flushing flow effect,

the effect of removal of invertebrate habitat, the further upstream

effects on geomorphology, are permanent effects, whereas the weeding

and predator control that is proposed is for 30 years?

15

DR CRAIG: It is proposed for 30 years, it does not mean it is going to stop at

30 years, does it?

MS GEPP: Are you suggesting that the Board can take into account predator

control beyond that 30 year period? 20

DR CRAIG: No, I am not. I am suggesting that somehow New Zealand has

to change its attitude to conservation and that community groups will

increase in numbers and size, and we will get them taking over predator

control in areas. They will not – the council or a local group will keep 25

it going.

MS GEPP: That is not a benefit that can be taken into account today though,

is it?

30

DR CRAIG: No, it is not.

MS GEPP: Thank you, sir. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Ms Gepp. Re-examination, Mr Williams? 35

Hawke’s Bay Opera

transcript of proceedings board of inquiry ......2013/11/26 · loretta lovell (board member) alec...

Documents