STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF Stuart PARSONS

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE BOARD OF INQUIRY IN THE MATTER of the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of the Tukituki Catchment Proposal STATEMENT OF REBUTTAL EVIDENCE OF Stuart PARSONS Sainsbury Logan & Williams Ref: Lara J Blomfield Solicitors Fax: Cnr Tennyson Street and Cathedral Lane Phone: PO Box 41 Napier

2 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION... 1 Purpose and Scope of Evidence... 2 Expert Code of Conduct... 3 Rebuttal of Kelvin Michael Lloyd... 3 Rebuttal of Marie Amanda Brown... 7

3 1 INTRODUCTION 1. My name is Dr Stuart Parsons. I am an Associate Professor in Biological Sciences at the University of Auckland and co-director of Walkingbats, an environmental consulting firm specialising in bats. 2. I have the following qualifications and experience relevant to the evidence I shall give: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) I hold a BSc (Hons) and a PhD in zoology from the University of Otago; My PhD research focused on the acoustic ecology of New Zealand bats. Following this I worked as a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Bristol (UK), again on the biology and bioacoustics of bats; I am an Associate Professor in Biological Sciences at the University of Auckland, a position I have held since I am also Deputy Head of School (Academic), with oversight of all undergraduate and postgraduate teaching programmes within the School. My duties at the University include teaching (undergraduate and postgraduate), conducting highquality original scientific research, and providing services to the University and community. My research focuses on the behaviour, ecology and bioacoustics of vertebrates and invertebrates, with a specific interest in bats; I have 21 years experience in studying bat biology; I have published 58 peer-reviewed scientific papers, edited two books and contributed chapters to a further nine; I am currently a member of the New Zealand Department of Conservation s Bat Recovery Group, the IUCN Species Survival Commission Chiroptera Specialist Group, the Australasian Society for the Study of Animal Behaviour, the New Zealand Ecological Society, and am an executive member of the Australasian Bat Society; My areas of research expertise include the ecology and behaviour of bats in New Zealand and overseas (including: South Africa, China, Thailand, USA, UK, Trinidad and Tobago, Croatia, and Japan); and

4 2 (h) My experience includes the assessment of effects and development of mitigation strategies for bats at projects including: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) quarries extensions near Puni (near Port Waikato), Ngaruawahia and Tauhei; the effects of a runway extension at Hamilton International Airport on the roosting site of Long-tailed bats; the Hauāuru mā Raki wind farm (HMR) project; the Ngaruawahia, Cambridge and Hamilton sections of the Waikato Expressway. 3. I was a member of the team that conducted field studies of bat activity for the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme, assisted with the analysis of this data, and co-authored the section of the AEE dealing with bats. In this capacity I visited the site in December I attended the Environmental Protection Authority caucusing event held in Napier on 17 October Purpose and Scope of Evidence 5. I have been asked by Hawke s Bay Regional Investment Company Ltd to provide expert rebuttal of the evidence of Kelvin Michael Lloyd and Marie Amanda Brown. 6. For the purpose of carrying out that work I have read and reviewed: (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) The Assessment of Ecological Effects for the Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme; The Evidence in Chief of Gerardus Henricus Anthonius Kessels, Marie Amanda Brown and Kelvin Michael Lloyd; The supplementary evidence of Marie Amanda Brown and Kelvin Michael Lloyd; The Ruataniwha Water Storage Scheme Proposed Conditions; The peer-reviewed literature on the biology of bats relevant to the Scheme;

5 3 Expert Code of Conduct 7. I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in section 5 of the Environment Court s Practice Note (2011). I agree to comply with that Code of Conduct. Except where I state that I am relying upon the specified evidence of another person, my evidence in this statement is within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions which I express. Rebuttal of Kelvin Michael Lloyd 8. Dr Lloyd implies (Lloyd Evidence in Chief paragraph 70) that insufficient survey effort was conducted to detect lesser short-tailed bats and that surveys were not conducted in the correct locations to detect this species (ie, forest interior rather than edges). 9. Based on the location and large number of survey hours undertaken for this project s assessment as well as studies of the habitat use by short-tailed bats in fragmented habitats, it is my opinion that it is extremely unlikely that short-tailed bats are present in the inundation area. Following the Expert Conferencing conducted on October 17, 2013 Dr Lloyd now concedes that Short-tailed bats are very unlikely to be present at the site (Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement - Terrestrial Ecology). 10. The study referred to by Dr Lloyd 1 as support for his opinions, conducted in continuous old-growth native forest in Fiordland, surveyed for 810 ABM hours. It detected 24 passes of lesser short-tailed bats (STB) in habitats similar to those surveyed by us for the Ruataniwha project (edges and open areas adjacent to native forest). We monitored for approximately three times longer (approximately 2,600 ABM hours) and only detected one potential short-tailed bat pass. 11. ABM studies in the Ohakune/ Rangataua area found STB activity around wetland/ pine forest margins. In addition, recent research 2 conducted on space use shows use by short-tailed bats in fragmented habitats more similar to Ruataniwha than the one referred to by Dr Lloyd. I therefore see no reason to 1 O Donnell, C.F.J., Christie J.E., and Simpson W. (2006): Habitat use and nocturnal activity of lesser short-tailed bats (Mystacina tuberculata) in comparison with long-tailed bats (Chalinolobus tuberculatus) in temperate rainforest. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 33: Toth, C.A., Cummings, G.T.R., Dennis, T.E., and Parsons, S. (in prep). Adoption of alternative foraging habitats by a threatened, obligate forest-dwelling bat in a fragmented landscape.

6 4 suspect that the extensive surveying undertaken might have missed short tail bat activity relative to type of habitat surveyed, as suggested by Dr Lloyd. 12. The statement by Dr Lloyd that our results do not confirm actual roosting sites is correct (Lloyd Evidence in Chief paragraph 71). Capture and radio-telemetry was considered too have a low probability of success and so acoustic sampling was favoured. Evidence to support our suggestion is indirect (based on the timing of first detection of bat passes 3 ), and when combined with our conservative approach in attempting to minimize impacts on bats, led us to conclude that bats are roosting in the inundation area. Our conclusion is clearly agreed with by Dr Lloyd (Lloyd Evidence in Chief paragraph 138). 13. Dr Lloyd however goes on to state inundation of the reservoir is likely to destroy female roost sites and reduce the number of potential bat roosts available in the local area. (Lloyd Evidence in Chief paragraph 138). 14. Dr Lloyd then questions whether alternative roosts for bats affected by the inundation will be available in the wider landscape, or will be occupied by other bats (Lloyd Evidence in Chief paragraph 139). 15. Mr Kessels evidence that bats will be able to find new roosts as the dam fills refers to the fact that trees will not be lost immediately / catastrophically, as would happen if they were simply felled at the outset. Specific conditions of consent are proposed to avoid that, to be implemented through the Reservoir Filling and Edge Rehabilitation Management Plan (RFERP) 4. The water level of the dam will rise over 7-12 months. Under the bat management procedures required by the RFERP, trees identified as containing active roosts would not be felled until bats naturally abandon them. The concern Dr Lloyd states (at paragraph 140) as to felling trees occupied by bats (with the potential to kill or injure them) is therefore unfounded, as I explain further below. 16. Dr Lloyd provides no evidence to support a case that potential roosts are limited in the wider landscape (including through presence of other social groups) or that loss of trees in the inundation area will affect bats ability to persist in the landscape. 3 Gillingham, N. J. (1996). The behaviour and ecology of long-tailed bats (Chalinolobus tuberculatus Gray) in the central North Island. Unpublished MSc thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand. 4 See conditions 28(b), 29(g) and (i) in particular.

7 5 17. Long-tailed bats have been shown to use a number of (solitary and communal) roosts within their home range. In the study cited by Dr Lloyd 5, members of each social group moved roost almost every day suggesting that multiple suitable (vacant) roosts exist in the landscape at any one time. In the highly modified landscape of South Canterbury, which is similar to that surrounding Ruataniwha, long-tailed bats moved roost every 1.6 days with 86.2% of roosts used only once 6 over a three year period. These data indicate that even in poorer quality habitat the bats are not roost-limited. Thus, should social groups exist within the Ruataniwha population it is likely that they are able to move to alternate known roosts following inundation. 18. Bats have been found in 26 plantation forests nationwide 7 and are known to have persisted in some for a number of years. For example, bats have been recorded in the vicinity of Kinleith forest for the past 30 years 8 despite regular clear-fell logging operations. Thus, the loss of some roosts during inundation is highly unlikely to put this population at risk. 19. Our survey results show that other bat populations exist in the wider landscape indicating suitable roosting locations, and I can see no reason (nor am I aware of any research that would suggest) bats in this case would be forced into unsuitable roosts. The statement (at paragraph 139) that following roost loss long-tailed bats tend to use fewer roosts and are restricted to smaller roosting areas and smaller colony sizes refers to work done in pine plantation forest, where roosts are severely limited. The landscape at Ruataniwha is more similar to that of South Canterbury (see above) and it is unlikely that bats are roostlimited to the same extent. 20. Dr Lloyd states that pest control that would benefit bats may not take place if blue duck and wading bird populations are absent or shown to be unimportant (Lloyd Evidence in Chief paragraph 176). 5 O Donnell C.F.J. 2000: Cryptic local populations in a temperate rainforest bat Chalinolobus tuberculatus in New Zealand. Animal Conservation 3: Sedgeley, J.A., O Donnell, C.F.J. (2004). Roost use by long-tailed bats in South Canterbury: examining predictions of roost-site selection in a highly fragmented landscape. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 28: Borkin, K.M., Parsons, S. (2010). The importance of exotic plantation forest for the New Zealand longtailed bats (Chalinolobus tuberculatus). New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 37: Daniel, M.J. (1981). First record of a colony of long-tailed bats in a Pinus radiata forest. New Zealand Journal of Forestry, 26:

8 6 21. I agree that pest control for one species should not be contingent on the presence of a second species. This was not the intent, and Mr Kessels explains a revised pest control emphasis now that is not contingent on blue duck. I also note pest management for the benefit of bats remains a specific component of Project C of the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach required by consent conditions. 22. Dr Lloyd expresses concern that replacement trees will take many years to become cavity bearing, and thus effective roosts, and that artificial roosts uptake may take several years, if used at all (Lloyd Evidence in Chief paragraph 177). 23. As stated above, it is my opinion that bats are unlikely to be significantly roost limited in the wider landscape, which contains existing habitat with mature (hence potential cavity bearing) vegetation. Mr Kessels has identified such vegetation in the immediate vicinity of the reservoir on land that will not be inundated, and that is a candidate site for protection (including pest control) under Project A of the Integrated Mitigation and Offset Approach. Artificial roost boxes (and pest control) will serve to offset any remaining potential short to medium-term negative effects. 24. The planting of future cavity-bearing trees and riparian zones represents medium- to long-term mitigation and enhancement of the site. 25. While it will take 7-12 months for the dam to fill, artificial roost boxes can be installed during dam construction allowing an additional months for the bats to become aware of their presence. 26. Bat boxes of several designs were trialled by the Department of Conservation in South Canterbury and long-tailed bats were shown to use them with no particular preference for design. 27. Dr Lloyd is concerned that artificial bat roosting boxes used to replace lost trees may not be suitable for long-tailed bats, and that he knows of no published studies of the use of artificial roosts in New Zealand (Lloyd Evidence in Chief paragraph 178). In response, I refer the reader to paragraph 26 above. 28. Dr Lloyds states that to his knowledge, tree-felling protocols are far from well proven in terms of demonstrating reduction in bat injury or death (Lloyd Evidence in Chief paragraph 179). He refers to only one large-scale project where he is aware that the protocols have been used.

9 7 29. Dr Lloyd is incorrect, and his knowledge of the use of the protocols incomplete. The tree removal protocols have been used successfully at a number of locations, for a number of projects (six that I am currently aware of). To date, no bats have been injured or killed when they have been used. 30. In his supplementary evidence, Dr Lloyd states that the views expressed in my evidence in chief remain unchanged following the expert conferencing I participated in on 17 October 2013, and the joint statement of experts on terrestrial ecology that was an outcome of this conferencing (Lloyd Supplementary Evidence paragraph 20). 31. This statement contradicts that in the Expert Conferencing Joint Witness Statement (Terrestrial Ecology; dated 17 October) where Dr Lloyd agrees Shorttailed bats are very unlikely to be present at the site. Rebuttal of Marie Amanda Brown 32. Dr Brown notes that some trees to be lost from the site are years old, and that a time-lag will exist before new plantings reach maturity, and that this will reduce available specialist habitat for bats (Brown Evidence in Chief paragraph 36b). 33. I agree with Dr Brown s statement regarding the existence of a time lag. However, Dr Brown does not acknowledge the existence of mitigation for this lag, and available mature vegetation in the vicinity and surrounding wider landscape unaffected (and potentially protected) by the Scheme. Artificial bat roosting boxes will be used to supply alternative roosting sites for the bats and pest control will increase adult and juvenile survival within the population, thus mitigating for any potential short- and medium-term negative effect. In addition, it my opinion that it is likely that other natural roost sites exist for the bats outside the inundation area. 34. Dr Brown suggests that the IMOA relies on unproven methodologies including the use of artificial roost boxes for bats (Brown Evidence in Chief paragraph 43). The statement that artificial roost boxes are an unproven methodology is incorrect. They are used world-wide to effectively supplement roosting sites for bats, and long-tailed bats have been shown to use them (see paragraph 26 above). Stuart Parsons - November 2013