avifauna risk assessment - gisborne district€¦ · avifauna risk assessment . march 2017 report...
TRANSCRIPT
Appendix 1
Avifaunal Risk Assessment
Avifauna Risk Assessment Gisborne Wastewater Wetlands Phase 2A
Prepared for Gisborne District Council
30 March 2017
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Scope 1
1.2 Background 1
2.0 Methodology 3
3.0 Current State of Environment 3
3.1 Bird habitats and communities 3
3.2 Bird-strike at Gisborne airport 6
3.3 Existing Mitigation 6
4.0 Avian Risk Assessment 7
4.1 Wetland Type 7
4.2 Wetland Location 8
5.0 Recommended Mitigation 10
6.0 Wetland Ecological Benefits and Design Considerations 11
7.0 Limitations, Assumptions and Knowledge gaps 12
8.0 Conclusions and reccomendations 12
AVIFAUNA RISK ASSESSMENT
March 2017 Report No. 1702004 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION This report1, prepared by Ecology New Zealand Limited (’ENZL’) and Morphum Environmental Limited
(Morphum) for Gisborne District Council (‘the client’), presents an Avifauna Risk Assessment (ARA) for a
proposed wastewater wetland that will potentially be located in close proximity to the Gisborne airport,
Awapuni, Gisborne (‘the site’). The findings of this assessment are intended to be used by the client in a
multivariate assessment on wastewater management options that include consideration of potential avifaunal
risks associated with Gisborne airport.
1.1 Scope
The specific scope of this report is to address the following project requirements:
Assessment of both existing and future habitats, bird communities, and risks to the airport;
Assessments of bird communities to consider presence/absence, abundance, behaviour, seasonal
migrations, and local movements; include reporting rates where available;
Review of flight paths, including approach distances, elevations, relative use, and relevance to potential
bird strikes;
Mitigation strategies; Assess risk before and after mitigation and identify residual impacts that will remain
after implementation of mitigation;
Potential ecological benefits of new wetlands, including brief description of wetland design measures to
maximise ecological gains;
Provide conclusions and maps on relative risk depending on site location; and
Identify any assumptions and limitations that have informed the study or gaps in knowledge that have
become apparent.
1.2 Background
In December 1964, an outfall pipe was installed to discharge Gisborne’s untreated wastewater 1.8 km out into
Poverty Bay, Te Moana o Turanganui a Kiwa (the Bay). This system of wastewater disposal continued until early
January 2011. In June 2009, a consent variation was granted and in December 2010 a new treatment plant
was commissioned at Banks Street. With this came a consent requirement for the phased introduction of
additional treatment and disinfection processes.
A further variation to the consent for the wastewater treatment plant was granted in 2014. The primary driver
for the variation was to allow a more effective, sustainable and affordable wastewater management system
to be further investigated, confirmed and implemented. Significant amounts of work have been undertaken in
this space, including Council approval to investigate a constructed wetland process as a means of secondary
treatment post the 2010 wastewater treatment plant. Alternative use and disposal methods are also a
fundamental focus of this investigation.
Numerous trials and desktop exercises have been carried out to query the feasibility of alternative systems,
processes and technologies. The project is now in Phase 2A, which requires further refinement of feasible
options, to enable community consultation after June 2017. A key component being considered for the
wastewater management system is a wastewater treatment wetland with associated habitat values being
incorporated where possible.
The scope of investigations has accordingly been broadened to include areas of land that could be suitable to
locate a treatment wetland. Ecological support services are required to support the decision making process to
select a fit-for-purpose implementable system.
1 This report is subject to the Report Limitations provided in Appendix A.
A
VIF
AU
NA
RIS
K A
SS
ES
SM
EN
T
Marc
h 2
017
R
ep
ort
No
. 1702004
2
AVIFAUNA RISK ASSESSMENT
March 2017 Report No. 1702004 3
2.0 METHODOLOGY A preliminary literature review and GIS investigations were carried out to compile relevant avian information
from existing ecological studies in the area. The results of these investigations were used to guide on-site
habitat assessments undertaken by two ENZL ecologists on –the 5th and 6th of March 2017. Habitat assessments
targeted areas directly surrounding the Gisborne airport and encompassed several proposed wetland sites
(Figure 1). These investigations were used in conjunction with discussions with airport management personnel
and local ornithological experts to assess the significance of the area’s birdlife values and to assess whether
the risk of increased bird-strike impacts may arise as a result of constructing the proposed wastewater wetland.
3.0 CURRENT STATE OF ENVIRONMENT
3.1 Bird habitats and communities
Five notable habitat types exist within the surrounds of the Gisborne airport and proposed wastewater wetland
areas. These habitats are described as agricultural farmland, urban, watercourses, shoreline and
wetland/open water areas (Figure 3). This mosaic of landcover provides suitable habitats for a range of native
and exotic bird species, however bird communities across these local areas are generally dominated by a
select number of bird species. Based on observations recorded by ENZL ecologists, together with information
provided by local experts, these species include masked lapwing (Vanellus miles novaehollandiae), Southern
black-backed gull (Larus dominicanus dominicanus), swamp harrier (Circus approximans), pukeko (Porphyrio
melanotus melanotus), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), paradise shellduck (Tadorna variegata), house sparrow
(Passer domesticus), Australian magpie (Gymnorhina tibicen), rock pigeon (Columba livia) and red-bill gull
(Larus novaehollandiae scopulinus).
With the exception of swamp harrier and Australian magpie, the above listed species are known to aggregate
in large numbers in areas of suitable feeding, roosting or breeding habitat. This was observed during the site
assessment where mallards were noted feeding in high numbers across large open water and watercourse
habitats. Notable local movements of congregating birds include nightly movements of pigeons into Gisborne
city2 and black backed gulls onto open farmland south of the Gisborne airport. Seasonality effects may also
act to influence these aggregations. For instance, during winter months and/or during high rainfall events, the
habitat provided by the paddocks along the eastern shoreline change as they become waterlogged. During
these times these areas have been known to attract species such as pied stilt (Himantopus himantopus) and
geese (Anser anser) which may locally increase in numbers and replace species such as masked lapwing
which require dryer habitats2.
A recent spike in black-backed gull abundance and activity around Gisborne Airport has been investigated
by Airport management and has been found to be associated with liquid vegetable waste being discarded
adjacent to the airport. The discharges are currently not occurring and as a result, the spike in gull abundance
has tapered off.
No migratory birds (namely shorebirds in large numbers) were discussed by airport management as currently
being a bird strike issue. Discussions with local bird experts reveal that migratory shorebirds do not actively use
the shoreline to the south of Gisborne airport which intensively used by beachgoers, vehicles and dogs2. The
closest habitat used by these migratory birds is located >6 km southwest of the Gisborne airport at Karaua
Stream Lagoon
2 Pers.Comm. Murry Cave (9 March 2017) and Sandy Bull (6 March 2017).
AVIFAUNA RISK ASSESSMENT
March 2017 Report No. 1702004 4
Figure 2: Flooded pasture along eastern shoreline following a summer rainfall event
A
VIF
AU
NA
RIS
K A
SS
ES
SM
EN
T
Marc
h 2
017
R
ep
ort
No
. 1702004
5
3
AVIFAUNA RISK ASSESSMENT
March 2017 Report No. 1702004
6
3.2 Bird-strike at Gisborne airport
On a descending scale of severity, very large bodied flocking species such as geese pose the greatest bird-
strike risk to airports whilst very small and solitary bird species pose the lowest (Table 1). Bird-strike rates at
Gisborne Airport have historically been among the highest in the country, with reported strike rates as high as
11.5 per 1000 flights3. Discussions with airport management revealed that the key bird species currently posing
risks to aircraft bird-strike are ‘masked lapwings’ and flocks of ‘small birds’. Documented bird-strike rates for
these bird groups between 2010 and 2016 where on average 3.4 masked lapwing strikes and 9.3 small bird
strikes per year4. Other bird species documented within Gisborne airports bird-strike data include swamp
harrier, ‘gulls’ (assumed to include both black-backed and red-billed gulls), pigeon, ‘duck’ and magpie. These
species posing bird-strike risks for the Gisborne airport are associated with using habitats on and nearby the
airport as well as intersecting with aircraft approach distances and elevations.
3.3 Existing Mitigation
In recent years, bird management under taken by airport management and contractors have enabled
Gisborne airport to more effectively manage bird-strike. The current mitigation strategies employed by
Gisborne airport include grass maintenance, driving at birds and shooting. Though a range of techniques have
been trailed including poisoning, gas scare guns and kites, these are not sustainable as birds quickly become
habituated to the interventions.
The maintenance of grass on the airport involves maintaining grass heights at approximately 150-180 mm3. This
height aims to reduce shorter grass habitats preferred by species such as masked lapwing which often
increase in numbers immediately following grass maintenance. A contractor is used to produce hay
approximately six times a year from grassed areas adjacent to the runways. The timing of grass maintenance is
scheduled to additionally commence before grass produces seed to avoid small birds from feeding in these
areas.
Shooting has proved to be one of the most effective means of controlling birds to mitigate the risk of bird strike
at Gisborne airport. Onsite airport shooting is currently undertaken by two airport staff members with pump
action shot guns on an as required basis. Gisborne airport have additionally contracted assistance from AgFirst
Consultants NZ Ltd who control birds outside of the airport with on average 518 birds shot a year between 2010
and 2016. This offsite shooting is undertaken in accordance with a permit from the Department of
Conservation and is primarily undertaken across land immediately south of the airport.
Table 1: Risk and severity of bird strike associated with species identified on site
Species Risk of bird strike34 Severity of bird strike5
Australian Magpie Medium Level 4
Black-backed gull Medium Level 2
Mallard Low Level 2
Paradise shellduck Low Level 2
Pukeko Medium Level 3
Red-billed gull Medium Level 3
Sparrow/Finch/Yellow hammer High Level 5
Sasked lapwing High Level 3
Swamp Harrier Medium Level 4
Starling Medium Level 4
Pigeon Medium Level 3
3 Murry Bell – Gisborne airport Manager, pers com. 6 March 2017
4 Bird-strike and mitigation information provided by provided by Gisborne airport Management
5 Sowden, Richard; Kelly, Terry; and Dudley, Stewart, "Airport Bird Hazard Risk Assessment Process" (2007). 2007 Bird Strike Committee USA/Canada, 9th Annual Meeting, Kingston, Ontario. Paper 8.
AVIFAUNA RISK ASSESSMENT
March 2017 Report No. 1702004
7
4.0 AVIAN RISK ASSESSMENT
4.1 Wetland Type
The selected wetland type for this project should act a means of passive mitigation which avoids creating
habitat types suited for high risk bird-strike species (Table 2). This would specifically mean aiming to reduce
open water habits for larger bodied flocking species such as geese and ducks. Additionally, larger and diverse
vegetation would provide more suitable roosting and nesting habitat for small to medium sized birds. The
avoidance of creating these habitats will be increasingly crucial the closer the wetland is located to the
Gisborne airport. The wetland types identified by GDC for consideration are listed below.
Dense Raupo / Schoenoplectus / Machaerina
Salt marsh
Diversity wetland (variable structure)
Kahikatea Swamp Forest / Manuka
A swamp wetland type, which results in the creation of open surface water, would provide suitable habitat for
larger bodied waterfowl which pose the greatest risk for airport bird-strike. The extent of open surface water
provided by the wetland would be the primary factor which would determine the number of waterfowl
supported by the wetland. Areas of pastural grass in close proximity to areas of open surface water would
further increase habitat suitability due to the provision of feeding areas.
A design incorporating larger and/or diverse vegetation could provide higher biodiversity values and habitat
complexity. Woody terrestrial vegetation would provide roosting, feeding and breeding habitat for a range of
smaller to medium bird species. Small and medium sized birds in flocks do pose a high risk to airport bird-strike.
Large numbers of sparrows and finches were noted in trees surrounding a wetland/pond area approximately
1.3 km east of the airport which provides evidence that this may occur with a design of this nature.
A saltmarsh wetland type would typically provide densely vegetated areas interspersed with areas of surface
water. This would provide an intermediate between a swamp forest and heavily vegetated sedge wetland.
The creation of a wetland type of this nature would be reliant on saltwater influence. Larger waterfowl could
be attracted to open surface water areas and additionally nest in any ‘dryer islands’ that may be formed by
vegetation.
A raupo and/or sedge dominated wetland would likely provide densely vegetated habitat which lacks areas
of open surface water. Raupo dieback occurs during winter. This is likely to result in the creation of open water
areas in locations dominated by raupo. Additionally, the annual deposition of large amounts of biomass
associated with raupo dieback provides additional pressure on the capacity and life expectancy of the
proposed treatment wetland. Therefore, its suitability should be deliberated. Birds which are likely to use this
habitat include pukeko, small birds during periods when sedges are seeding, and possibly cryptic native birds.
A sedge dominated wetland, with minimal open water, is the preferred wetland treatment option with respect
to reducing the potential to increase the risk of bird strike. Initial recommendations for the design and
operational maintenance of such a wetland are discussed in section 5 below.
AVIFAUNA RISK ASSESSMENT
March 2017 Report No. 1702004
8
Table 2: Relative increase in bird strike risk associated with the different wetland type proposed
Wetland type Relative risk of increased bird strike
Schoenoplectus / Machaerina reed sedgeland (designed and
maintained with recommendations outlined in section 5) Low
Dense Raupo / Schoenoplectus / Machaerina reed sedgeland Medium
Salt marsh Medium
Diversity wetland (variable structure) High
Kahikatea Swamp Forest / Manuka High
* Table 3 considers the location of wetland in isolation of the type and relative footprints
* Note the above considers relative risk, the overall risk of all options is considered low
4.2 Wetland Location
Aircraft flight paths at Gisborne airport are captured by the airport protection overlay area (APOA) within the
current Gisborne District Plan (Figure 1). Large aircraft are restricted to the main north-south runway whilst
smaller aircraft utilise smaller grassed runways (Figure 1).
Additionally, the GDC operative plan rules seek that no structure or activity in the APOA shall, singularly or
cumulatively attract birds onto Gisborne Airport or into the APOA that may compromise aircraft safety
(8.10.1c).
The three central proposed wetland locations are almost entirely within the airport protection overlay and
intersect aircraft runways (Figure 1). A wetland in any of these locations would require placement either
adjacent to a runway or would almost directly adjoin a flight path/s. It is without a doubt that the risk to bird-
strike will be positively correlated with decreasing distance to the Gisborne airport, therefore it is paramount
that the relative risk of creating any wetlands in these locations are reduced through design and size.
The creation of a wetland to the south of the airport is more likely to pose increased risk to bird-strike if it
provides open water feeding, roosting or nesting habitat for waterfowl and/or shorebird species.
AVIFAUNA RISK ASSESSMENT
March 2017 Report No. 1702004
9
Figure 4: Numbered wetland locations
Table 3: Relative increase in bird strike risk associated proposed wetland locations
Wetland locations Relative risk of increased bird strike
1 Low
2 High
3 High
4 High
5 Low
6 Medium – High
7 Medium - High
8 Low
9 Low
* Table 3 considers the location of wetland in isolation of the type and relative footprints
* Note the above considers relative risk, the overall risk of all options is considered low
1
2
3
4
5 6 7 8
9
AVIFAUNA RISK ASSESSMENT
March 2017 Report No. 1702004
10
5.0 RECOMMENDED MITIGATION Mitigation measures currently employed by Gisborne Airport management include grass management,
shooting and driving at birds. These have proven to be the most effective and sustainable methods for the
airport. At this point in time, no alternative methods of mitigation at the airport have been identified to
mitigate the risk of bird strike from the proposed wetland.
The amount and nature of mitigation techniques are dependent on the design and location of the proposed
wetland. These may include (but not be limited to) the following considerations for the design and operational
maintenance of the proposed wetland. Note, these recommendations do not constitute a full operations and
maintenance plan, and relate only to mitigation of the potential increase of bird strike:
Wetland design mitigation
Minimise open water areas. This option may be constrained by the following functional requirements.
Oxidation and sludge settling ponds, if required as part of the wastewater treatment process, would
create open water areas. These areas would have to be actively managed as 'bird-free' areas', with
proven robust and effective management measures.
Emergency forebay that can be maintained following accidental overflows of high sediment loads
from prior treatment processes should the process present this risk.
Consideration of discharge concentrations of E. coli, nitrogen and/or dissolved oxygen. Additional
treatment and remedial processes may be required post wetland treatment prior to discharge to the
receiving environment to ensure these parameters are within an acceptable range. This may include,
rock rip rap shutes and/or UV treatment.
Avoid using woody terrestrial vegetation in the wetland design. This may require consideration of any
requirement for landscape screen planting for any of the proposed wetland locations.
Permanent netting and/or deterrents to avoid access to required open water areas.
The wetland design should allow for each ‘cell’ of the wetland to be completely ‘drawn down’. This will
minimise the period that open water is present during operational maintenance involving plant
replacement. Incorporating a means to achieve intermittent draw down depths are also advised.
Water levels should be progressively raised as vegetation establishes at a rate that limits the amount of
visible open water bodies.
Woody terrestrial vegetation should not be planted on either external or internal bunds of the wetland. It
may be appropriate to plant the bunds in dense reeds and sedges that are tolerant of dryer soils.
Raupo (or other species with annual die back) should not be specified for planting within the wetland
Initial planting of the wetland should occur between November and December (early in the wetland
planting season) with a shallow water level (at or near (5 mm)) the wetland surface. This is to ensure rapid
vegetation growth in ideal warm summer conditions.
Larger grade (≥2 L) plants should be specified to provide more rapid establishment.
Damage and mortality to vegetation due to pukeko and other water fowl should be carefully managed
during the establishment period to ensure complete vegetation establishment and cover occurs. This
may require the use of:
Exclusion netting
AVIFAUNA RISK ASSESSMENT
March 2017 Report No. 1702004
11
Electric fences
Shooting
Replacing any significant areas of unsuccessful plantings
Operational maintenance
Proactive control and removal of areas of natural raupo colonisation. Follow up planting of rush and
sedgeland species specified in the design of the wetland immediately post raupo control and removal.
Should any bunds be designed to be grassed, maintenance of these grassed areas should involve
regular mowing or grazing to avoid grass seeding.
Over time vegetation may become ‘clumped’ and/or experience attrition resulting in preferential flow
paths and areas of open water. Small areas of open water should be infilled with additional planting
(especially within the first 5 years of operation). Older established reed and sedge wetland beds may
require complete removal and replanting to ensure proper functioning of the wetland treatment system.
This should be undertaken by first completely drawing down the wetland cell to be maintained and then
following the recommendations of pant establishment outlined above.
Cyclical maintenance of vegetation removal and replanting should be implemented to limit the areas of
open water that are available at any one period.
6.0 WETLAND ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS As discussed, a reed or sedgeland wetland type is preferred to reduce the potential increased risk of bird strike
as this type provides less favourable, and lower diversity of, habitat for avifauna. Recommendations regarding
design and maintenance are outlined in section 5. More diverse wetland types are not advised (both in terms
of vegetation assemblages and habitat diversity). The inclusion of woody terrestrial vegetation on any bunds is
also not advised. These considerations limit the potential ecological values of the proposed wetland in regards
to biodiversity, however, the proposed wetland will still provide ecosystem services and other ecological
benefits including:
Diversity of habitat on a landscape level
Creation of an (albeit artificial) nationally and regionally rare ecosystem type
Habitat for wetland macroinvertebrates and other fauna including, fish and bird species(mainly pukeko
and cryptic species such as fern bird)
Maintaining and buffering groundwater and surface water levels
Ecosystem services including:
Flood attenuation
Contaminant removal
Carbon sequestration
In addition to the above ecological values there are also cultural, social and economic values associated with
the creation of wetland areas.
AVIFAUNA RISK ASSESSMENT
March 2017 Report No. 1702004
12
7.0 LIMITATIONS, ASSUMPTIONS AND KNOWLEDGE GAPS
It is reasonable to assume that the Gisborne airport will not want to adopt or modify their current bird-
strike risk management at their cost.
Avian data for the proposed wetland areas and surrounds are based discussions with local experts,
general species ecology and behaviour, bird observations from online databases, and data provided by
GDC and Gisborne airport management. This data was verified over a two day site visit by ENZL and
Morphum in collaboration with GDC.
Although migratory birds do not seem to pose an issue to Gisborne airport, the actual flight paths these
birds may take was not determined.
The risk associated with each proposed wetland type is based on general characteristics of these
wetland systems.
Bird-strike elevation and location data is not currently recorded by Gisborne airport.
8.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECCOMENDATIONS The proposed wetland locations and wetland types have been ranked in regards to the relative potential
increase in risk of bird strike. However, it should be noted that the overall risk of all options is considered low.
As the proposed location of the wetland increases in relative risk category a greater effort to incorporate
mitigation to reduce the potential of bird strike into the design and operational maintained of the wetland is
required.
A reed or sedgeland wetland type (designed and maintained with recommendations outlined in section 5) is
the preferred wetland type with respect to reducing the potential increase risk of bird strike.
The maintenance of vegetation within the wetland requires careful consideration. The required periodic
replacement of reeds for example will result in the temporary creation of open surface water areas. Options
for mitigating this risk are provided in section 5 of this report.
AVIFAUNA RISK ASSESSMENT
March 2017 Report No. 1702004
Report limitations
AVIFAUNA RISK ASSESSMENT
March 2017 Report No. 1702004
Report Limitations This Report/Document has been provided by Ecology New Zealand Limited (ENZL) and Morphum
Environmental (Morphum) subject to the following limitations:
i) This Report/Document has been prepared for the particular purpose outlined in ENZL’s and
Morphum’s proposal and no responsibility is accepted for the use of this Report/Document, in
whole or in part, in other contexts or for any other purpose.
ii) The scope and the period of ENZL’s and Morphum’s services are as described in ENZL’s and
Morphum’s proposal, and are subject to restrictions and limitations. ENZL and Morphum did not
perform a complete assessment of all possible conditions or circumstances that may exist at the
site referenced in the Report/Document. If a service is not expressly indicated, do not assume it
has been provided. If a matter is not addressed, do not assume that any determination has been
made by ENZL or Morphum in regards to it.
iii) Conditions may exist which were undetectable given the limited nature of the enquiry ENZL and
Morphum was retained to undertake with respect to the site. Variations in conditions may occur
between investigatory locations, and there may be special conditions pertaining to the site which
have not been revealed by the investigation and which have not therefore been taken into
account in the Report/Document. Accordingly, if information in addition to that contained in this
report is sought, additional studies and actions may be required.
iv) The passage of time affects the information and assessment provided in this Report/Document.
ENZL’s and Morphum’s opinions are based upon information that existed at the time of the
production of the Report/Document. The Services provided allowed ENZL and Morphum to form
no more than an opinion of the actual conditions of the site at the time the site was visited and
cannot be used to assess the effect of any subsequent changes in the quality of the site, or its
surroundings, or any laws or regulations.
v) Any assessments, designs and advice made in this Report/Document are based on the conditions
indicated from published sources and the investigation described. No warranty is included, either
express or implied, that the actual conditions will conform exactly to the assessments contained in
this Report/Document.
vi) Where data supplied by the client or other external sources, including previous site investigation
data, have been used, it has been assumed that the information is correct unless otherwise
stated. No responsibility is accepted by ENZL and Morphum for incomplete or inaccurate data
supplied by others.
vii) The Client acknowledges that ENZL and Morphum may have retained subconsultants affiliated
with ENZL and Morphum to provide Services for the benefit of ENZL and Morphum. ENZL and
Morphum will be fully responsible to the Client for the Services and work done by all of its
subconsultants and subcontractors. The Client agrees that it will only assert claims against and
seek to recover losses, damages or other liabilities from ENZL and Morphum and not ENZL’s and
Morphum’s affiliated companies. To the maximum extent allowed by law, the Client
acknowledges and agrees it will not have any legal recourse, and waives any expense, loss,
claim, demand, or cause of action, against ENZL’s and Morphum’s affiliated companies, and their
employees, officers and directors.
viii) This Report/Document is provided for sole use by the Client and is confidential to it. No
responsibility whatsoever for the contents of this Report/Document will be accepted to any person
other than the Client. Any use which a third party makes of this Report/Document, or any reliance
on or decisions to be made based on it, is the responsibility of such third parties. ENZL and
Morphum accepts no responsibility for damages, if any, suffered by any third party as a result of
decisions made or actions based on this Report/Doc