photo 1 view onto dutch creek surrounded by beech forest · photos of vegetation types present...

RUATANIWHA WATER STORAGE SCHEME – TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY – ASSESSMENT OF ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS

KESSELS & ASSOCIATES LTD MAY 2013 20

APPENDIX IV Photos of Vegetation Types present within the Proposed Reservoir Footprint

Photo 1 View onto Dutch Creek surrounded by Beech forest



Photo 2 Interior of the Beech forest near Recce plot 1

Photo 3 View onto young Podocarp-broadleaf forest canopy



Photo 4 Interior of the Podocarp-broadleaf forest (within Recce plot 3)

Photo 5 Black beech treeland on the true right of Makaroro River



Photo 6 Small-leaved-broadleaf shrubland along a tributary stream with Black beech treeland in the background

Photo 7 Freshwater wetland in the oxbow in Dutch Creek



Photo 8 Typical seepzone vegetation showing a matrix of indigenous species and exotic pasture grasses

Photo 9 Exotic forest (willow) on the left and Broadleaf-small-leaved-tussock shrubland on the cliff and to the right



Photo 10 Gravel riverbed showing multiple stream channels and island covered by lupin (Exotic scrub)

Photo 11 Makaroro landscape, showing areas of pasture and remaining Black beech treeland and shrubland communities on the higher slopes and patches of remnant forest along the river banks



APPENDIX V Maps of Vegetation Communities showing Detailed Classifications

Map 1



Map 2



Map 3



Map 4



Map 5



Map 6



Map 7



Map 8



Map 9



APPENDIX VI List of all Bird Species Observed on Site or Discussed within this Report

Common Name Scientific Name

Bellbird (mainland) Anthornis melanura melanura

Blackbird Turdus merula

Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs

Black-billed gull Larus bulleri

Cuckoo, Shining Chrysococcyx lucidus lucidus

Dotterel, Banded Charadrius bicinctus bicinctus

Dotterel, Black-fronted Charadrius melanops

Duck, Blue (Whio) Hymenolaimus malacorhynchos

Duck, Mallard Anas platyrhynchos

Falcon, NZ Falco novaeseelandiae

Fantail, Nth Is Rhipidura fuliginosa placabilis

Fernbird, Nth Is Bowdleria punctata vealeae

Goldfinch Carduelis carduelis

Greenfinch Carduelis chloris

Gull, Southern Black-backed Larus dominicanus dominicanus

Harrier, Australasian Circus approximans

Heron, White-faced Ardea novaehollandiae

Kaka, Nth Is Nestor meridionalis septentrionalis

Kingfisher, NZ Halcyon sancta vagans

Kiwi, Brown Apteryx australis

Magpie, Australian (magpie sp.) Gymnorhina tibicen (sp)

Morepork Ninox novaeseelandiae novaeseelandiae

Myna, Indian Acridotheres tristis

Parakeet, Red-crowned Cyanoramphus novaezelandiae novaezelandiae

Parakeet, Yellow-crowned Cyanoramphus auriceps auriceps

Pheasant Phasianus colchicus

Pigeon, NZ/Kereru/Kupapa Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae novaeseelandiae

Pipit, NZ Anthus novaeseelandiae novaeseelandiae

Plover, Spur-winged Vanellus miles novaehollandiae

Quail, California Callipepla californica

Redpoll Carduelis flammea

Rifleman, North Is Acanthisitta chloris granti

Robin, Nth Is Petroica australis longipes

Rosella, Eastern Platycercus eximius

Shag, Black Phalacrocorax carbo novaehollandiae

Shelduck, Paradise Tadorna variegata

Silvereye Zosterops lateralis lateralis

Skylark Alauda arvensis

Sparrow, House Passer domesticus

Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Stilt, Pied Himantopus himantopus



Swallow, Welcome Hirundo tahitica neoxena

Thrush, Song Turdus philomelos

Tomtit, Nth Is Petroica macrocephala toitoi

Tui Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae novaeseelandiae

Turkey Meleagris gallopavo

Warbler, Grey Gerygone igata

Whitehead Mohoua albicilla

White-fronted tern Sterna striata

Yellowhammer Emberiza citrinella



APPENDIX VII Sample Water Bird/Wader Walkthrough Field Data Sheet

Date Start End Banded dotterel data summary

22/12/2011 9.36 11.46 15 territories in 4.5 km of riverbed

Species Key: Probably 3.3 pair/km

BND = Banded Dotterel 8 other birds: 6 singles and one possible pair

SBBG = Black-Backed Gull Weather: Mild, mostly cloudy. River moderate

levels - rain event a week previous. PS = Pied Stilt

Waypoint Time Latitude Longitude Notes

12 22-DEC-11 9:43:10

-39.861986 176.4442 1 BND

13 22-DEC-11 9:52:12

-39.860669 176.44307 2 BND territorial dispute with birds from waypoint 14.

14 22-DEC-11 9:54:13

-39.860131 176.44241 2 BND. Rat run and dying display from one of these birds.

15 22-DEC-11 10:03:19

-39.859219 176.43989 4 BND about this waypoint.

16 22-DEC-11 10:07:41

-39.858773 176.43799 3 BND. Two with strong breeding plumage, 3rd very dull.

17 22-DEC-11 10:14:20

-39.858630 176.43531 3 BND. Initially two birds were observed to be in a territorial dispute, then a third appeared which appeared to be paired to the upriver bird.

18 22-DEC-11 10:27:48

-39.856478 176.43182 1 BND.

19 22-DEC-11 10:33:50

-39.854916 176.42765 1 BND. Territorial displays.

19a -39.854522 176.42493 2 BND. Not GPS'd – approx. 200 m downstream of waypoint 20. Grid references shown generated from topo map

20 22-DEC-11 10:44:54

-39.854079 176.42259 3 PS. 2 flew down river and the third upriver where an individual was subsequently observed but included in the PS total.

20 22-DEC-11 10:44:54

-39.854079 176.42259 58 Paradise ducks.

20 22-DEC-11 10:44:54

-39.854079 176.42259 Colony of approx. 100 SBBG. Ferret observed running down TR riverbank. Colony is probably 200m upriver.

20 22-DEC-11 10:44:54

-39.854079 176.42259 1 BND but suspect this was a bird from waypoint 19a.

21 22-DEC-11 11:01:16

-39.850708 176.41708 Colony of approx. 150 SBBG. 4 SBBG chicks observed running and swimming.

22 22-DEC-11 11:05:50

-39.849221 176.41422 19 PS in close proximity to the SBBG colony.

23 22-DEC-11 11:09:08

-39.849126 176.41308 6 BND about this waypoint. Appeared to be two pairs on either side of slack water with 2 singletons in attendance.

24 22-DEC-11 11:19:39

-39.847949 176.40941 4 BND. Appeared to be two pair on the boundary of territories.

25 22-DEC-11 11:22:45

-39.847188 176.40831 2 PS. Probably not from the group of 19 down river.

26 22-DEC-11 11:26:20

-39.846224 176.40723 2 BND. 1 White-faced heron.

27 22-DEC-11 11:32:18

-39.845299 176.40594 2 BND

28 22-DEC-11 11:34:31

-39.844912 176.40522 2 BND - on both banks of river.

29 22-DEC-11 11:41:33

-39.843492 176.40227 2 BND did not appear to be breeding.



APPENDIX VIII Bat Survey Data Summary

Repeat reservoir area hourly intervals of bat activity at each ABM station after sunset summary,

Makaroro, February 2 – 9 2012. The number of bat passes is shown on y axis and hours after sunset on x

axis.



APPENDIX IX Abundance Tables of Hymenoptera and Terrestrial Gastropod Species/RTUs

Table IX.1 Number of Hymenoptera RTUs and number of individuals collected in Malaise traps split by family and sample (M1 = indigenous forest, M2 = indigenous shrub)

Family M1 RTU# M2 RTU# TOTAL RTU#

M1 Abundance M2 Abundance Total Abundance

Aphelinidae 1 1 1 1

Apidae 1 1 1 1

Bethylidae 3 3 4 4

Braconidae 13 10 23 34 63 97

Ceraphromidae 3 3 3 3

Crabronidae 3 3 21 21

Cynipidae 2 2 5 5

Diapriidae 31 17 48 270 120 390

Encyrtidae 1 1 2 3 1 4

Eulophidae 2 2 30 30

Eupelmidae 1 1 2 1 1 2

Eurytomidae 1 1 2 35 28 63

Figitidae 2 2 24 24

Formicidae 1 1 2 4 2 6

Ichneumonidae 28 22 50 209 86 295

Megaspilidae 1 3 4 6 6 12

Mutillidae 1 1 5 5

Mymaridae 11 10 21 32 20 52

Platygastridae 6 13 19 107 89 196

Pompilidae 1 1 2 9 11 20

Proctotrupidae 3 1 4 7 1 8

Pteromalidae 7 7 34 34

Scelionidae 6 5 11 16 6 22

Torymidae 1 1 1 1

Trichogramidae 2 2 3 3



Table IX.2 Abundances of terrestrial gastropod species found in leaf litter samples (site L1); litter samples 6 and 7 (site L2) omitted because no gastropods were found within these samples

Family Species Authority Litter 1

Litter 2

Litter 3

Litter 4

Litter 5

Punctidae Punctum lateumbilicatum (Suter) 66 15 94 47

Punctidae Punctum ordinarium n.sp. 1

Punctidae Paralaoma arewa n.sp. 9 3 46 23 1

Punctidae Paralaoma microbrunnea n.sp. 6 1 1

Punctidae Paralaoma microdegenerata n.sp. 12

Punctidae Paralaoma serieata (Suter) 2 83 26 1

Punctidae Kokopapa unispathulata Climo & Mahlfeld 5 10 9

Punctidae "Serratopunctum" serratocostatum (Webster) 5 2 1

Punctidae Laoma s.s. nerissa (Hutton) 3

Charopidae Phenacharspa pseudarguicula (Iredale) 1

Charopidae Fectola trilamellata Climo 1

Charopidae Flammulina zebra (LeGuillou) 1

Charopidae Flammoconcha feredayi (Suter) 1 4 1 3

Charopidae Flammoconcha periglacialis n.sp. 3

Charopidae Phenacohelix pilula (Reeve) 1

Charopidae Granallodiscus granum (Pfeiffer) 12

Charopidae Cavellia anguicula (Reeve) 1 3

Charopidae Cavellia brouni (Suter) 1 7

Charopidae Cavellia buccinella (Reeve) 19 6 23 13

Charopidae Cavellia serpentinula (Suter) 2

Charopidae Huonodon microundulata (Suter) 1 189 25 2

Charopidae Mitodon wairarapa (Suter) 15

Charopidae "Nichirena" pseudoleioda (Suter) 3 1

Charopidae Discocharopa eta (Pfeiffer) 7 2

Charopidae Therasiella n.sp. aff. neozelanica Cumber 2 7 3

Table IX.3 Abundances of terrestrial invertebrate observations during searches

Family Species Authority Method Abundance Location

Charopidae Thalassohelix zelandiae (Gray) Vegetation beating 2 S2

Charopidae Allodiscus conopeus Marshall & Barker Night search 2 S2

Charopidae Thalassohelix zelandiae (Gray) Night search 2 S2

Helicidae Helix aspersa Müller Night search 10 various

Table IX.4 Casual observations of invertebrates at study site

Family Species

Anostostomatidae Hemiandrus sp.

Anostostomatidae Hemideina sp.

Blattidae Celatoblatta spp.

Geometridae Scopula sp.

Hepialidae Aenetus virescens

Lycaenidae Boldenaria boldenarum

Lycaenidae Lycaena salustius

Nymphalidae Vanessa gonerilla

Nymphalidae Vanessa itea

Petaluridae Urupetala carovei

Phasmatidae Clitarchus sp.

Pisauridae Dolomedes minor

Rhaphidophoridae Several unidentified cave weta species



Scolopendridae Cormocephalus sp.

Zoropsidae Miturga sp.

Table IX.5 Listing of invertebrate species for Tukituki catchment explicitly mentioned in Ward (2011).

Habitat Family Species Note

Tussock Noctuidae Tmetolophota hartii Previously known from very few specimens, but 35 were caught in this study. Usually flying late February to March. Life history unknown. Endemic to New Zealand.

Tussock Noctuidae Aletia longstaffi Very localised species, probably associated with fine-leaved Dracophyllum in open habitats.

Tussock Noctuidae Graphania olivea Rare species, restricted to central/southern North Island.

Tussock Noctuidae Proteuxoa sanguinipuncta Australian species, established in North Island since 2007, and especially known from Hawkes Bay. Larva on grasses.

Tussock Formicidae Monomorium antarcticum Native ant

Tussock Carabidae Cicindela tuberculata Endemic to New Zealand.

Pine forest Ichneumonidae Aucklandella sp. Parasitoid wasp.

Pine forest Pompilidae Sphictostethus sp. Spider hunting wasp.

Pine forest Tenebrionidae Kaszabadelium aucklandium Native beetle.

Native forest Formicidae Pachycondyla sp. Native ant.

Native forest Scarabaeidae Saphobius inflatipes Native beetle.

Native forest Carabidae Holcaspis sp. Native beetle.

Table IX.6 Listing of invertebrate species for Karamu catchment explicitly mentioned in Ward (2011).

Habitat Family Species Note

Pasture Pompilidae Priocnemis sp. Spider hunting wasp.

Pasture Formicidae Nylanderia sp. Ant.

Riparian planting

Carabidae Rhytisternus miser Adventive beetle.

Forest Formicidae Pacycondyla sp. Ant.

Forest Formicidae Prolasius advenus Ant.

Forest Cerylonidae Hypodacnella sp. Beetle.

Forest Pompilidae Sphictostethus sp. Spider hunting wasp.

Forest Carabidae Megadromus sp. Ground beetle.

Table IX.7 Invertebrates found to occupy weta boxes two months after installment (8 February 2012).

Box ID Family Species Count Note

L1WB1 Anostostomatidae Hemideina thoracica 1 Female

Table IX.8 Invertebrates found to occupy weta boxes 14 months after installment (2 February 2013).


B8WB - - - Empty

B8WC - - - Empty

B8WD Blattidae Celatoblatta sp. 2+ Unidentified

K9L2 Blattidae Celatoblatta sp. 2+ Unidentified

K9L5 Blattidae Celatoblatta sp. 2+ Unidentified

L1L4 Rhaphidophoridae Pachyrhamma sp. 2

L1L2 Rhaphidophoridae Neonetus sp. 2



L2WB1 Rhaphidophoridae Talitropsis sediloti 2

L2WB3 - - - Empty

B1WB4 Anostostomatidae Hemideina sp. 1 Juvenile

B1WB5 Anostostomatidae Hemideina trewicki 2 Plus one unidentified small cave weta juvenile. H. trewicki is listed as ‘At Risk’ (Sparse) in Hitchmough et al. (2007).

WB6 - - Empty

Table IX.9 Invertebrates found to occupy artificial cover objects on 2 February 2013.


L1L1 Rhytididae Schizoglossa novoseelandica

1 Maximum distance across shell = 15mm. The onduline was left in place.

L1L1 Carabidae Megadromus sp. 1

L2L4 Chordeumatida Schedotrigona sp. 1

L2L4 Geoplanidae Australopacifica sp. 1

B1L13 Carabidae 3 Unidentified

Short profile for Hemideina trewicki (Hawkes Bay tree weta) Hemideina trewicki (Anostostomatidae: Orthoptera) Authority: Morgan-Richards (1995)1 The Hawkes Bay tree weta (Hemideina trewicki) is one of three known tree weta species (the other two being H. crassidens and H. thoracica), which occur naturally on the North Island of New Zealand. Distribution: H. trewicki has initially been collected from five locations in the Hawkes Bay region. Morgan-Richards (1995)1 speculates that it may be found throughout the Hawkes Bay region, which is backed by survey results from Trewick and Morgan-Richards (1995)2 (Figure 1).

Figure 1 Grey filled area indicates known distribution range of H. trewicki, modified after Trewick and Morgan-Richards (1995)2 Conservation status: Hitchmough et al. (2007)3 lists H. trewicki as an ‘At Risk’ (Sparse) species. A recent revision of the conservation status of New Zealand’s Orthoptera by Trewick et al. (2012)4 classed H. trewicki as an ‘At Risk’ (Relict5) species.

1 Morgan-Richards, M. 1995. A new species of tree weta from the North Island of New Zealand (Hemideina: Stenopelmatidae:

Orthoptera). New Zealand Entomologist 18: 15 – 23. 2 Trewick, S. A. and Morgan-Richards, M. 1995. On the distribution of tree weta in the North Island, New Zealand, Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 25: 485 – 493. 3 Hitchmough, R.; Bull, L.; Cromarty, P. (comps.). 2007. New Zealand Threat Classification System lists 2005. Threatened species

occasional publication 23, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 4 Trewick, S.A.; Morris, S.J.; Johns, P. M.; Hitchmough, R. A.; Stringer, I. A. N. 2012. The conservation status of New Zealand Orthoptera.

New Zealand Entomologist 35: 131 – 136.



APPENDIX X Environmental Information on Invertebrate Sampling Sites

Table X.1 Canopy density and litter depth at Malaise trapping sites (M1 &2); litter depth is an

average of four measurements taken at each corner of the Malaise trap

Sampling site Canopy density (% sky visible at 1m above ground) Mean litter depth (mm)

M1 10 3

M2 60 4

Table X.2 Description of live vegetation present at different height tiers at sampling site M2;

X = live foliage present in height tier within a 20x20m square centered around Malaise trap

Species 0-0.3m 0.3-1m 1-2m 2-5m 5m+

Blechnum fluviatile X X

Blechnum novae-zelandiae X X X

Brachyglottis repanda X X X X

Buddleja davidii X X

Carex secta X X

Carpodetus serratus X X X

Coprosma robusta X

Coprosma tenuicaulis X X

Coriaria arborea X X X

Cytisus scoparius X X X

Exotic grass species X

Kunzea ericoides X X X X

Leptospermum scoparium X X X X

Lotus sp. X

Phormium tenax X X

Pittosporum eugenioides X X

Plagianthus regius X

Pseudopanax crassifolius X X

Pteridium sp. X X

Salix elaeagnos X

Salix cinerea X

Sophora microphylla X X

Table X.3 Description of leaf litter samples taken in black beech –

podocarp – broadleaf forest

Leaf litter sample Description

1 Collection of leaf litter from under Cyathea dealbata

2 Leaf litter taken from under Nothofagus solandri

3 Leaf litter taken from under Nothofagus solandri

4 Beard Moss taken and leaf litter

5 Mosses from fallen log and surrounding leaf litter

6 Mosses from limestone river bank

7 Mosses from limestone river bank

5 Taxa have undergone documented decline over the past 1000 years and now occupy less than 10% of their former range, and have

either A. a stable individual size of 5,000 – 20,000 mature individuals (+/-10%), or B. have a stable or increasing (>10%) individual size of more than 20,000 individuals.



APPENDIX XI Weed Species Recorded from within a 10 km Radius around the Scheme Area

(derived from BioWeb data)

Scientific name Common Name Observation Date

Acacia sp. undetermined wattle species 14/10/1998

Acer pseudoplatanus sycamore 1/06/2001

Achillea millefolium yarrow 22/10/1998

Arctium minus Burdock 1/01/1996

Arctium sp. undetermined burdock 14/12/1998

Berberis darwinii Darwin's barberry 26/01/2004

Berberis glaucocarpa barberry 1/01/1996

Buddleja davidii buddleia 1/01/1996

Carduus acanthoides Plumeless Thistle 14/10/1998

Carduus tenuiflorus Winged thistle 14/10/1998

Celastrus orbiculatus climbing spindleberry 28/05/2004

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana Lawson's cypress 1/06/2001

Chamaecytisus palmensis Tree lucerne 1/06/2001

Cirsium arvense Californian thistle 6/11/1998

Clematis flammula clematis 1/01/2000

Clematis vitalba Old man's beard 1/06/2001

Conium maculatum hemlock 14/10/1998

Convolvulus arvensis convolvulus 1/06/2001

Cotoneaster glaucophyllus cotoneaster 14/10/1998

Crataegus monogyna hawthorn 14/10/1998

Cupressus macrocarpa macrocarpa 14/10/1998

Cytisus scoparius wild broom 14/10/1998

Digitalis purpurea Foxglove 2/11/1998

Erica lusitanica Spanish heath 14/01/2004

Euphorbia cyparissias cypress spurge 14/10/1998

Galium aparine cleavers 14/12/1998

Hedera helix ivy 1/06/2001

Hypericum androsaemum tutsan 1/01/1996

Iris foetidissima stinking iris 1/06/2001

Iris spp. Unidentified iris 14/10/1998

Juglans regia common walnut 1/01/2000

Leycesteria formosa Himalayan honeysuckle 1/01/1996

Ligustrum ovalifolium privet 29/05/2001

Lonicera japonica Japanese honeysuckle 1/06/2001

Lotus pedunculatus lotus 1/01/1996

Lupinus arboreus tree lupin 14/10/1998

Mimulus guttatus monkey musk 1/01/1996

Onopordum acanthium cotton thistle 22/10/1998

Pinus radiata radiata pine 1/01/1996

Pinus spp. wilding pine 29/05/2001

Populus alba white poplar 14/10/1998

Populus spp. unidentified poplar 1/06/2001

Prunus x domestica plum 1/06/2001

Ranunculus repens buttercup 14/10/1998

Rosa rubiginosa briar 29/05/2001

Rubus fruticosus agg. blackberry 1/06/2001

Salix elaeagnos bitter willow 3/03/2004

Salix spp. Unidentified Willow 1/06/2001

Sambucus nigra elder 1/01/1996

Senecio jacobaea ragwort 14/10/1998

Senecio mikanioides German ivy 19/01/2004

Solanum nigrum Black nightshade 14/10/1998

Solanum pseudocapsicum Jerusalem cherry 1/06/2001

Taraxacum officinale agg. dandelion 22/10/1998

Teline monspessulana montpellier broom 1/06/2001

Thuja plicata western red cedar 1/01/2000

Tradescantia fluminensis wandering Jew 1/01/2000

Ulex europaeus gorse 7/06/2001

Ulmus x hollandica elm 1/06/2001

Urtica urens Nettle 14/10/1998

Vicia sativa vetch 2/11/1998



APPENDIX XII Section 3.4 of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Policy Statement

Scarcity of Indigenous Vegetation and Wetlands



APPENDIX XIII Central Hawke’s Bay District Plan Criteria for Determining ‘Areas of Significant Nature Conservation

Value’

Central Hawke’s Bay District Plan Section 4.9.13 - Areas of Significant Conservation Value:

There shall be no modification to any “Site of Significant Conservation Value”

For the purposes of this performance standard a “Site of Significant Conservation Value” is either:

i. identified in Appendix D, and on the Planning Maps, as being of significant conservation value; or,

ii. any area of woody indigenous vegetation containing naturally occurring tree species, which attain at least 30 centimetres diameter at breast height at maturity, and is either:

(a) over one hectare and with an average canopy height over 6 metres; or

(b) over five hectares of any height.

For the purposes of this performance standard “modification” is deemed to exclude minor work.

Minor work is defined as:

i. The disturbance or destruction of indigenous vegetation or habitat as a result of the maintenance or repair of existing roads, tracks, fences or drains.

ii. The disturbance or destruction of indigenous vegetation or habitat in gullies as a consequence of the harvesting of plantation forestry activities; where the harvesting involves:

The lifting and/or dragging of logs, and/or

The construction and maintenance of forestry roads into gullies and culverts across streams (providing that the above work does not occur in any block of indigenous vegetation that exceeds 5 hectares).



APPENDIX XIV Response Letter To Stakeholder Group Feedback

5 July 2012 Hawke’s Bay Regional Council Private Bay 6006 Napier

Attn: Graeme Hansen Dear Graeme

Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Response to Stakeholder group Feedback on the Draft Terrestrial Ecology Report

I have read the feedback from the Ruataniwha Water Storage Project Stakeholder Group as presented by John Cheyne in his email of 11 June 2012.

In the section below I have responded to each of the 18 points raised where appropriate. I have sought additional advice from Dr Stuart Parsons and Dr John Craig as well.

1. Overall a very good report which identifies the ecological impact of the dam and reservoir. 2. The extent and diversity of vegetation that would be inundated by the dam is significant and positively influences the diversity and abundance of birds. Probably needs to be more clearly expressed in the report. The 81 ha of mature indigenous forest and 23 ha secondary indigenous forest in this area, which would be flooded is essentially lowland forest, which is a scarce resource in Hawke’s Bay. This adds to its overall value. In some areas the number of epiphytes in the canopy are significant.

Response: There is no doubt that the current vegetation significantly influences the diversity and abundance of birds counted in the area, which will be inundated. The presence of a range of species will offer nectar and fruits for many months of the year in addition to a diversity of invertebrates. The size of some of the trees will mean that the food crop will be large in some seasons.

Unfortunately this is only one of the factors influencing the diversity and abundance of birds in the area. The other probably more influential factor is the unconstrained presence of introduced mammals. The presence of rats, especially ship rats, stoats and possums will greatly reduce the abundance of birds in the area. In addition, possum and rats are also direct competitors for the fruits and flowers. The browsing by possum will also greatly reduce the ability of the trees to produce both. The rats and mice are also likely the greatest consumers of the invertebrates.

While introduction of predator control without the loss of the trees to inundation could be considered the best outcome for the birds, this does not happen now and it is highly unlikely that funding could be achieved even for a short time. In contrast, the suggested mitigation for the proposed Ruataniwha dam includes control of these pests in the adjacent forest for an extended period (the life of the



dam). Given the results of pest control programs in other areas in New Zealand, this is likely to result in far higher abundance of birds in the area. In addition, other programs have often resulted in both an increase in overall diversity and an increase in the resident times for birds, which are currently highly seasonal residents.

The presence of a large body of water will also open the area to a new suite of birds that currently have little or no habitat in the area at the moment. The ephemeral nature of the water retention is also likely to enhance diversity.

3. The approximate age of the larger indigenous trees that would be flooded should be mentioned (c 200-300 yrs +)

Response: Agreed, the botanical section in the text has been altered to mention this fact.

4. It was unclear as to how rare/significant the different types of indigenous vegetation were in the Hawke’s Bay region context.

Response: There is not a great deal of data available to provide a quantitative analysis of the ecological significance of the various habitats in the context of the Region. However, Section 11 of the report provides a very detailed analysis of the ecological significance of the affected area from a district, catchment and national perspective. Section 11.3 of the report provides an analysis of the ecological significance of the area in relation to the relevant Regional Policy Statement criteria and provides a detailed account of which habitat types are significant from a regional perspective.

5. Timing of bird surveys (mainly summer) may have limited the species recorded.

Response: The limit of surveys to predominantly in early summer would influence birds recorded in the area, but only slightly. Putting more effort into generalised pre-consent surveys will be unlikely to alter the decision making process.

6. As previously agreed there is a need to include an expanded account of blue duck in the report because the Makaroro River population are part of a northern Ruahine blue duck population of about 50 birds. Blue duck use of Dutch Creek maybe confined to winter use by the occasional mobile juvenile bird. An expanded account of blue duck will also lead into some mitigation measures (mammalian predator trapping) in the upper Makaroro catchment proposed below.

Response: Early European accounts of blue duck along with recent outcomes from the release of captive bred birds suggest that this duck is also capable of spending considerable part of its lifecycle in still waters. Hence the proposed mitigation around the shores of the new lake has the potential to provide safer autumn and winter habitat for juveniles bred in the Upper Ruahine ranges. If these birds already make some use of Dutch Creek, then the potential benefits for the species should indeed be mentioned briefly in the report.

Using this occasional seasonal behaviour as a justification for markedly enhancing stoat trapping into the upper Makaroro river catchment may be requesting enhanced mitigation for effects unrelated to this proposal. Independent coordination of the different predator control programs is an excellent idea however.

Nonetheless, it is important that the presence or absence of blue duck within the inundation footprint – primarily Dutch Creek – is robustly assessed. To this end we agree that further bio-acoustic surveys in Dutch Creek during the winter would be beneficial and have altered the report to include this as a recommendation.



7. Pairs of falcon are scattered along the eastern Ruahine Forest Park boundary and therefore not uncommon.

Response: We agree. Our discussions with local landowners and surveys in other parts of the eastern Ruahine Ranges suggest that falcons are widespread and that suitable habitat is not a limiting factor for this species’ population.

8. Occasional grey duck also sighted in this area.

Response: Grey duck will most likely benefit from the water storage project, as new backwater and wetland habitat in quiet areas will suit this species.

9. Bat survey results excellent and provide more information than previously known. Further survey for possible short tailed next summer supported along with capturing and monitoring long tailed bats to identify current roost and maternity sites as they are likely to be one of the biggest casualties if the dam proceeds.

Response: We agree with the further surveys for bats. We have recommended a range of further bat surveys, which are detailed in Section 12.4 of the report.

10. Lizard sightings minimal but we agree that more probably occur in the area. Some further monitoring justified next summer in conjunction with bat surveys. Assistance from qualified herpetologist maybe worth considering if you didn’t already have one as part of your team. Use of a certified lizard detection dog and handler may assist.

Response: We would rather see effort and resources focus on a robust pre-flooding and translocation programme to enhanced habitats for lizards rather than additional surveys next summer.

Mitigation 11. Most mitigation measures are supported apart from the following suggested changes:

12. Consideration be given to supporting a predator (mainly stoat) trapping programme to the top of the Makaroro River catchment to assist blue duck to link up with current trapping programme operated by DOC and volunteers in the adjacent Ikawatea and Apias catchments. Other bird and lizard species also likely to benefit.

Response: We think this is a good idea but would be contingent on the results of the winter blue duck survey to some extent. However, the concept is a sound one and should be further investigated by the project team in consultation with the Stakeholder Group.

13. An integrated animal pest control plan should be prepared which clearly identifies the areas where the best sustainable ecological outcomes will be achieved. This will then lead to clear priorities being identified. Consideration should also be given to the entire suite of mammalian predators, which includes hedgehogs on the braided riverbed.

Response: We agree!

14. It will be very difficult to replace the ecological values of the vegetation covered by the reservoir. An integrated planting plan for the area around the reservoir should be prepared using the range of species proposed but consideration should also be given to using in appropriate areas flowering nectar producing exotic trees like E. leucoxylon rosea (flowering



gum) for tui and bellbird and possibly plum trees for pigeons. Exotic trees are not foreign in this area.

Response: We agree as exotics have the ability to provide replacement food sources for native fauna more rapidly than many native species. However, care will be required to ensure none of these species become weeds or suppress the regeneration of native plants. The landscape plan will need to be carefully planned to ensure that natives and exotics are planted in separate localities.

15. Identification of suitable areas of indigenous forest for fencing and predator control needs to be approached carefully to ensure the best outcomes are achieved. Some nearby areas in the Waipawa catchment may provide some additional opportunities.

Response: We agree and should be further investigated by the project team in consultation with the Stakeholder Group.

16. Donation to Wingspan Trust is not supported and is better directed to a local mitigation initiative.

Response: Point noted and we have deleted reference to Wingspan in the report.

17. Formation of a biodiversity technical group to advise on the preparation of planting and predator control mitigation plans should be considered.

Response: We agree. This concept will need to be incorporated into the Offset and Mitigation Costing Report.

18. Establishment of a mitigation trust fund, along with trustees, starting with a significant initial grant should be considered. This could be similar to that established for the Waikato River hydro-electric consents process. Funding for individual mitigation projects could then be funded from interest gained from investing the initial grant and could therefore provide an on- going source of funding.

Response: The concept is a sound one and should be further investigated by the project team in consultation with the Stakeholder Group.

Yours faithfully

Gerry Kessels

Senior Ecologist and Managing Director Kessels & Associates Ltd

photo 1 view onto dutch creek surrounded by beech forest · photos of vegetation types present...

Documents