I

SIIGIHiT
C O N S U L T I N C

Appendix E
Cooks Beach Erosion and Mitigation Ecological Report 2019

1
 IRM,Ill\l
C
11 O N S U L T I N C

Cooks Beach Erosion Mitigation

THAMES Ecological Report 2019
COROMANDEL
DISTRICT COUNCIL
Prepared for Thames Coromandel District
Council

May 2019
REPORT INFORMATION AND QUALITY CONTROL

Thames Coromandel District Council

Oliver Bone

Ecology Consultant

Mark Poynter -

Principal Ecology Consultant ..77&z'....

Michael Lindgreen

Director -

TCDC_Cooks Beach Erosion Mitigation - Ecological Report_2019.05.06_vl2_clean

VOl 03 April 2019

Vl.D 12 April 2019

V1.2 24 May 2019

Ir.I

SITE SAFE
Ilf!d
M E M B E R Tharc
organ!saI!on
0-Base
CDde
 ii
$tI©I!=UT
C O N S U L T I NC

H Page

INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................3
2 METHODS .................................................................................................................................................3
2.1 Survey Rationale ..................................................................................................................................3
2.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling ..................................................................................................4
2.3 Visual Surveys.......................................................................................................................................5
3 RESULTS....................................................................................................................................................6
3.1 Macroinvertebrates .............................................................................................................................6
3.1.1 Cooks Beach sub-channel .....................................................................................................................6
3.1.2 Cooks Beach delta l o w intertidal area..................................................................................................7
3.1.3 Estuary mid-Intertidal area ..................................................................................................................7
3.1.4 Estuary l o w Intertidal area ...................................................................................................................8
3.2 Visual Surveys.......................................................................................................................................9
3.2.1 Estuary sub-tidal channel .....................................................................................................................9
3.2.2 Estuary high intertidal sandflats ..........................................................................................................9
3.2.3 Extraction area t w o - bank vegetation ...............................................................................................10
3.2.4 Delta intertidal sandflats ....................................................................................................................11
3.2.5 Cooks Beach sand deposition area and sand dune vegetation ..........................................................12
3.2.6 Birdlife ................................................................................................................................................12
4 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED SAND MANAGEMENT...................................................................13
4.1 Estuary Sub-tidal Channel ..................................................................................................................13
4.2 Intertidal Areas...................................................................................................................................13
4.2.1 Cooks Beach sub-channel ...................................................................................................................13
4.2.2 Delta mid intertidal and estuary high intertidal sandflats .................................................................14
4.2.3 Delta low intertidal and Estuary m i d - l o w intertidal area ...................................................................14
4.2.4 Estuary banks adjacent t o extraction area two..................................................................................14
4.2.5 High shore deposit area and existing 'dunes' ....................................................................................14
4.2.6 Beach and Estuary Access ..................................................................................................................15
4.2.7 Birdlife ................................................................................................................................................15
5 RECOMMENDATIONS .............................................................................................................................15
6 OVERALL CONCLUSION ...........................................................................................................................16
7 REFERENCES............................................................................................................................................16

List of Figures
Figure 1: Plan o f sand extraction and deposition areas ...........................................................................................4
Figure 2: Plan o f survey area showing 50m infauna transects (red)........................................................................5
Figure 3:General plan o f survey areas discussed in this report ...............................................................................6
Figure 4: Size frequency distribution o f tuatua sampled a t t h e Cooks Beach sub-channel site ..............................7
Figure 5: Size frequency distribution o f pipi sampled at t h e estuary delta site ......................................................7
Figure 6:Size frequency distribution o f pipi sampled a t t h e estuary mid intertidal site ..........................................8
Figure 7: Size frequency distribution o f pipi sampled a t t h e estuary l o w intertidal site .........................................8
Figure 8: Section o f Purangi river estuary showing a portion o f the subtidal estuary channel bordered by mixed
coastal broad leaf/pOhutukawa forest in t h e background 9
. ............................................................................
Figure 9: High intertidal sandflat on t h e t r u e left bank o f Purangi river estuary. Looking upstream 10
. ...................
Figure 10: Typical vegetation occurring on t h e banks o f t h e Purangi river estuary behind t h e proposed sand
extractionarea t w o 11
. .....................................................................................................................................
Figure 11: Cooks Beach sand deposition and dune erosion area ..........................................................................12

AA4637_TCDC_Cooks Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecological Report_VL2

-
 ii
$tI©I!=UT
C O N S U L T I NC

List of Appendices
Appendix A: Location o f 50m transect core samples
Appendix B: 50m transect survey site way-points
Appendix C: Tuatua and Pipi Size Frequency Data
Appendix D: DWG.AA4637.5h1234

AA4637_TCDC_Cooks Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecoiogical Report_VL2

-
1 INTRODUCTION
The Purangi river estuary at t h e southern end o f Cooks Beach is a small estuary w i t h significant areas o f intertidal
habitat, mangrove and saltmarsh.

The Thames Coromandel District Council (TCDC) is applying f o r resource consent t o extract sand f r o m an intertidal
sand flat w i t h i n t h e estuary near its m o u t h and also f r o m an intertidal delta just outside its mouth. The sand is t o be
used t o nourish an area o f eroding beach and dune at t h e southern end o f Cooks Beach. This is intended t o reduce
risk t o public infrastructure and private property and rebuild a functional forectune system t o provide buffering against
potential f u t u r e erosion.

4Sight Consulting Ltd (4Sight) have been contracted by TCDC t o carry o u t an ecological survey t o d o c u m e n t t h e current
ecological values o f t h e proposed b o r r o w and deposit sites and t o identify t h e potential ecological sensitivity o f the
adjacent habitat. Conclusions are drawn as t o t h e potential ecological effects o f t h e proposed sand management.

This report presents t h e results f r o m an ecological survey o f t h e macroinvertebrate communities a t t h e sites of

interest conducted by 4Sight on t h e 5 " & 6 " March 2019.

2 METHODS

2.1 Survey Rationale

The proposed locations f o r sand removal and deposition (Figure 1) were predetermined by a 4Sight coastal processes
scientist in consultation w i t h an experienced 4Sight marine scientist. A t t h e outset i t was determined that, apart from
a small sub channel (secondary blind channel) o f t h e seaward delta, sand would only be removed f r o m , and relocated
to, mid t o high shore zones. It is anticipated this approach would minimize, and probably avoid, risk t o t h e more
biodiverse areas o f benthic macroinvertebrates including edible shellfish species, t h a t are typically more prevalent in
t h e mid t o l o w shore.

Therefore, and t o verify t h e appropriateness o f t h e above approach, ecological sampling was mostly focussed on these
lower shore areas and t h e adjacent shallow subtidal habitat.

Comprehensive macroinvertebrate sampling was undertaken and these samples have been archived should a more
detailed analysis o f invertebrate communities be required a t some point in the future.

Proposed b o r r o w areas were assessed visually and by limited sampling t o confirm t h e expected broad ecological and
habitat values.

A A 4 6 3 7 T C D C _ C o o k s Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecological Report_VI.2

-
 —C-- '

I!-
Ø
IL
I-'
L 'C

:•
' .

L$t'. '
f l s c i t
a

_ _ _ _ _ J s e a w a I I I i n m e I _ _ n r e d P I W I be

r o groundonditions at
Srunue

Proposed
M I : = ; : P laIn

\13 \ ; . 1' h I t r : t '

y~-:'
M,rnimumnenrhofo.Gm

.
1

•%'\4 )at-->..
_E
=
a
rtco
rtn ar I\I
eA
;nrnaDe;o:,00Area

i t r
SecorsdarpDeposge~ssonAr
e
ilc
a
s
A j - k e
•
I

$-
¶ H I

o;w ae
II
Irdicatwe Dune Access

Fgure 1: Han of sand extraction and deposition areas

2.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Sampling

Invertebrates were sampled f r o m along each o f t h e 50m transects, as identified in Figure 2. A 15cm wide x 15cm deep
PVC core (volume 0.265 m2) was used t o collect benthic samples at six randomly selected distances along each transect
(See Appendix A: f o r sample locations). All invertebrates w i t h i n each core sample were retained t o a sieve size of
5 0 1 (and as noted were archived).
Edible bivalve shellfish species, in particular pipi (Paphies australis) and cockles (Austrovenus stutchburyi) both of
which inhabit estuarine environments, and tuatua (Paphies subtriangulata) which inhabit more open coastal
environments, were assessed as t o their density and size frequency. These are t h e species most likely o f interest to
stakeholders in a project o f this nature.

Sampling sites are recorded as:

• Cooks Beach sub-channel: Sub-channel cores 1-6;

• Delta l o w intertidal: Delta cores 1-6;

• Estuary low intertidal: Estuary low cores 1-6; and

• Estuary mid intertidal: Estuary mid cores 1-6.

The beginning o f each transect was fixed w i t h a GIPS point. These coordinates are presented in Appendix B: The
location o f each transect is shown in Figure 2.
A t t h e sub-channel and delta sites, twelve t o fifteen additional cores (' 15cm W x 15cm L x 15cm 0; volume o f 0.338
m2) were collected using a spade t o collect enough shellfish t o allow estimation o f t h e population size frequency
distribution.
All cores were visually assessed as t o their relative biomass, abundance and diversity o f invertebates. All samples have
been archived should f u r t h e r analysis be required.

A A 4 6 3 7 _ T c D c _ c o o k s Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecological Report _V1.2 4

-
 • ' :.i it
Delta •

- f- - Sub Channel

%A
Estuary#11111111
W
L'... S 13
MidL

IPIP 514.
Low

Figure z: H a r sflowftlg approxi mate location cit survey transects With ... .

2.3 Visual Surveys

Visual inspections w e r e undertaken of:

• estuary sub-tidal channels;

• estuary high intertidal sand f l a t (sand extraction area two, Figure 1);

• mid intertidal flats o f t h e delta (sand extraction site 1, Figure 1); and,

• t h e high shore area on Cooks Beach comprising a portion o f t h e sand deposition site and t h e adjacent eroded
sand dunes.

A general plan o f t h e survey areas is provided in Figure 3.

AA4637_TCDC_Cooks Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecological Report_V1.2 5

-
 ii
IIIT
CONSULTING

3 RESULTS

3.1 Macroinvertebrates

3.1.1 Cooks Beach sub-channel

A total o f 63 tuatua a t an estimated density o f 15.6/m2 w e r e sampled f r o m within t h e Cooks Beach sub-channel. The
average shellfish size was 22.97 ± 1.07 m m (SEM). Tuatua between 15-20 m m in size were t h e most f r e q u e n t size class
sampled. No individuals larger than 50 m m in size w e r e recorded (Figure 4). The tuatua population consisted o f small
individuals at a l o w density. Near MLWS at t h e western (seaward) end o f t h e channel, tuatua density increases and
larger shellfish ( > 4 0 m m ) occur.
 40
Sub-channel Tuatua

0 F
L f l C
Lfl C
Lfl 0 Lfl 0 Lf) 0 Ui 0

un C Lt1 C
Lfl 0
Lt) C
Lt) 0 Lfl

Size class (mm)

Inspection o f t h e cores indicated t h a t t h e there is limited other macroinvertebrate infauna.

3.1.2 Cooks Beach delta l o w intertidal area

Pipi, were recorded a t this site, reflecting its still sheltered and predominantly estuarine aspect. Tuatua were n o t found
a t this location. 23 pipi a t an estimated density o f 5.7/m2 were recorded f r o m t h e delta transect. The average shellfish
size was 44.41 ± 1.96 m m (SEM). Pipi between 50-55 m m in size were t h e most f r e q u e n t size class sampled. No
individuals larger than 60 m m in size w e r e recorded (Figure 5).

20
Delta Pipi
U
15
C

10
ro -

0
L f l 0
Lt) C Ui 0 Lfl C
Lfl C
Lfl C
- - N N ( V ) m Lf1 L r ) co

- - N r m enZT ZTLr) tn

Size class (mm)

Inspection o f these cores indicated t h a t t h e o t h e r macroinvertebrate infauna a t the delta site was also limited.

3.1.3 Estuary mid-Intertidal area

A total o f 44 pipi a t an estimated density o f 165.9/m2 w e r e sampled along t h e estuary mid intertidal transect. The
average shellfish size was 32.25 ± 0.84 m m (SEM). Pipi between 30-35 m m in size w e r e the most f r e q u e n t size class
sampled. No individuals larger than 50 m m in size w e r e recorded (Figure 5).

AA4637_1-CDC_Cooks Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecological R e p o r t _ V I . 2 7

-
 Estuary Mid Intertidal Pipi
20
-

>15
ho

U
0 0'

Lu 0
Lfl 0
Lfl 0
Lfl 0
Lfl 0 Lfl

- - N N m Ni L f l Lfl

Size class (mm)

Three o t h e r bivalve species were also present b u t in l o w abundance, including wedge shell (Macomona illiana), cockle
(Austrovenus stutchburyi) and n u t shell (Nucula hartvigiana). The mudflat topshell (Dfloma subrostrata) and t h e native
predatory whelk (Caminella glandifarmis) were also recorded.

3.1.4 Estuary l o w Intertidal area

A total o f 28 pipi a t an estimated density o f 105.6/rn2 were sampled along the estuary l o w intertidal transect. The
average shellfish size was 37.8 ± 1.43 m m (SEM). Pipi between 35-40 m m in size were the most f r e q u e n t size class
sampled. No individuals larger than 55 m m in size w e r e recorded (Figure 7).

Estuary Low Intertidal

20
1 Pipi

0 - - -

L f l
0 Lfl 0 Lfl 0
L1) 0
Lfl 0
L1) 0
6 2 2 1 7 L 2 L i ? L?

0 L f l 0
L1) Lfl 0 Ui 0 Lfl 0 Lfl

- - N N Ni Ni L1) Lfl

Size class (mm)

Other bivalves again included n u t shell and a single rock oyster (Saccostrea glomerata). The rnudflat topshell and one
whelk (Cominella adspersa) w e r e also recorded. No cockles were found in this low shore area.

AA4637_TCDC_Cooks Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecological R e p o r t _ V I . 2 8

-
3.2 Visual Surveys

3.2.1 Estuary sub-tidal channel

The sub-tidal estuary channel comprised a predominantly sand and shell hash substrate w i t h a f e w small discrete
patches o f rocky reef along t h e t r u e right bank. Fish w e r e observed in t h e channels and dense stands o f native
macroalgae inhabited t h e rocky reefs.

Vegetation on t h e t r u e right bank o f t h e estuary was predominantly mixed coastal broad leaf/poh utu kawa forest
(Figure 8).

- : 'tn

-,

EA

.7 1
F - . • - - .. . -- -
- . - . . - -
- C . .I•

Figure 8: Section of Purangi river estuary showing a portion of the subtidal estuary channel bordered by mixed coastal
F I

3.2.2 Estuary high intertidal sandflats

The intertidal sandflat comprising sand extraction area t w o (Figure 1), is an elevated platform approximately 1 - 2 m
above t h e tidal channel bed (Figure 9).

Brief visual inspections confirmed there is little biota in these zones. There is likely t o be small crustacea such
amphipods and isopods.

The sand w i t h i n such higher shore areas is exposed f o r an extended period between tides. Relative t o lower shore and
subtidal zones, this limits opportunities f o r colonisation and use o f t h e higher shore areas by biota. Typically,

AA4537_1-CDC_Cooks Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecological R e p o r t _ V I . 2 9

-
biodiversity and density are lower f u r t h e r up t h e shore and shellfish, if present a t all, are o f a smaller size. This t o o is
t h e case a t this site.

Figure 9: High intertidal sandflat on the true left bank of Purangi river estuary. Looking upstream.

3.2.3 Extraction area t w o - bank vegetation

The vegetation on t h e t r u e left bank o f t h e estuary, approximately t w o metres behind t h e proposed extraction area
two, comprised a mixed native/exotic floral community. Wiwi, knobbly club rush (F/cm/a nodosa) and pohuehue
(Muehienbeckia complexa var. complexa) formed t h e d o m i n a n t vegetation cover w i t h rauparaha, shore bindweed
(Calystegia so/done/la) and pohutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa) also present. A more degraded floral community
occurred in several areas, w i t h blackberry (Rubus sp.), kikuyu (Cenchrus clandestinus) and montbretia (Crocosmio x
crocosm/iflora) being t h e d o m i n a n t species present (Figure 10).

AA4637_1-CDC_Cooks Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecoiogicai R e p o r t _ V I . 2 10

-
 * 1
.

cti

' V r'
I
' .41. 1:L&y.1 •vI p ,

r e
. Y , S t ?*.
•
a
.s P,j, ) f • '
*..'rA

j:,j3 fZ4'
c i .

•, LIt!iqj.'
A t -

Figure 10: Typical

3.2.4 Delta intertidal sandflats

The delta sand extraction area one (Figure 1) is unconsolidated sand which is probably highly mobile. Other than
around the l o w intertidal edges, t h e delta does n o t support an obvious benthic infaunal or epifaunal community. As
f o r t h e estuary high shore areas, i t is likely t h a t a range o f small crustacea and bivalves occur.

AA4637_1-CDC_Cooks Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n S Ecoiogicai R e p o r t _ V I . 2 ±1

3.2.5 Cooks Beach sand deposition area and sand d u n e vegetation

The proposed sand deposition area comprises t h e majority o f t h e Cooks Beach sub-channel and t h e beach above this,
extending inland t o t h e eroded sand dunes bordering Captain Cook Rd (Figure 1). As noted, o t h e r than small crustacea,
t h e beach area (Figure h A ) supports limited infauna.

Beyond t h e beach, t h e face o f t h e eroded portion o f dunes forms a vertical scarp predominantly devoid o f vegetation.
Behind this, on t h e more stable area above, a mixture o f exotic herbaceous weeds and grasses are t h e only vegetation
present (Figure 11B). To t h e south o f the main erosion area a pine glade occupies t h e upper dune area. To t h e north
o f t h e main erosion area, prior t o the private seawall, is a small portion o f sand dune ( 1 0 0 m 2 ) inhabited by native
dune vegetation, including sand-binding species pingao (Ficinia spiralis) and spinifex (Spinsfex sericeus) and pohuehue
(M. complexa var. complexa) (Figure 11C).

A B

lie

.# I
dL

4 : 4 W -MIMWIM~W

' . . .

u
................

--s:-
..',i.
-

H H I ibeach sand deposition and dune erosion arc

3.2.6 Birdlife

The presence o f coastal and wading birds and their use o f sandy estuarine shores can be an i m p o r t a n t consideration
in projects o f this nature. This is particularly so i f there are high tide roost sites o r l o w shore feeding areas w i t h i n or
adjacent t o t h e works area.

The lower areas o f the estuarine sandflat w e r e observed being utilised by a number o f native bird species a t the
t i m e o f survey. Variable oystercatchers (Haematopus unicolor), red-billed gull (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae)
and southern black-back gulls (Larus dominicanus) w e r e observed a t t h e lower intertidal areas and channel edge.

AA4637_1-CDC_Cooks Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecoogicai R e p o r t _ V L 2 ±2

-
A t t h e l o w tidal zones o f t h e delta, variable oystercatchers (H. unicolor) and red-billed gull (C. novaehollandiae) were
observed foraging (Figures 11 a and d). Variable oystercatcher (H. unicolor) and white-fronted tern (Sterna striata)
were also observed roosting/resting on t h e mid intertidal sandflats w i t h i n sand extraction area one over t h e l o w tide
period.

No discrete high shore roosting sites were observed b u t i t is likely t h a t birds utilise t h e elevated sand/shell banks and
upper shoreline t o roost and rest at times.

4 EFFECTS ASSESSMENT OF PROPOSED SAND MANAGEMENT

4.1 Estuary Sub-tidal Channel

Shallow estuary sub-tidal channels, being typically o f higher ecological value, are potentially at risk as a result of
physical works o f this nature i f t h e y are directly affected by activity such as machinery m o v e m e n t o r excavation. They
can also be affected by subsequent shifts in estuarine substrates due t o changed morphodynamics. Channel biota may
also be affected by increased turbidity associated w i t h losses o f finer sediment fractions f r o m disturbed material and
t h e exposure o f new (deeper) horizons o f potentially finer substrate in areas o f excavation. Other effects can include
localised reduction in w a t e r column oxygen i f anaerobic sediments are exposed in t h e nearby sediments during
excavation.

In t h e case o f t h e proposed works, such direct physical effects can be avoided by separation o f t h e works area from
t h e low shore and subtidal channels.

The site survey indicated t h a t t h e sediments t o be removed are clean sands. The coastal process assessment indicates
t h a t newly exposed substrates will also be sandy. Therefore, adverse w a t e r quality effects such as increased turbidity
o r reduced oxygen are most unlikely.

Avoidance o f such potentially adverse effects has been achieved in similar projects (4Sight Consulting Ltd 2017), and
particularly by ensuring t h e sand extraction does n o t remove sand t o a vertical level t h a t w o u l d compromise the
location o r structure o f t h e sub-tidal channels.

Juvenile eels and w h i t e b a i t can migrate into freshwater environments, f r o m t h e sea, f r o m late w i n t e r t o early summer
and will pass through the lower estuary at some point. Increased t u r b i d i t y is known t o affect banded kokopu (one of
t h e w h i t e b a i t species) migratory behaviour (Richardson e t al. 2001), however it has little effect on o t h e r migratory
species.

Given t h e short-term nature o f the works and t h e fact t h a t any localised t u r b i d i t y will be rapidly diluted and likely to
dissipate t o normal background levels w i t h i n one o r t w o tidal cycles, any turbidity related effects on migratory native
fish species are most unlikely. Relative t o t h e likely catchment scale effects on t u r b i d i t y generated in estuary waters
following significant rainfall events, such small-scale i n t e r m i t t e n t turbidity, i f i t occurs, is likely t o be insignificant from
an ecological perspective.

4.2 Intertidal Areas

4.2.1 Cooks Beach sub-channel

The limited biota w i t h i n t h e Cooks Beach sub-channel t h a t will be covered by sand due t o t h e replenishment in this
zone, will be lost.

This is a m i n o r effect given t h e l o w diversity, abundance and biomass o f the benthic c o m m u n i t y in the sub channel.

A higher density o f tuatua and larger individuals, were recorded only a t t h e western (seaward) end o f t h e sub channel
near low water. This area, which is likely t o host a more stable bed o f tuatua, is outside t h e f o o t p r i n t o f t h e deposition
zone and should n o t be affected.

AA4637_TCDC_Cooks Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecological Report_V1.2 13

-
4.2.2 Delta mid intertidal and estuary high intertidal sandflats

Excavation o f these substrates will remove t h e limited biota in t h e short term.

Post excavation, these zones will be a t a lower tidal elevation, and they should be rapidly recolonised by a t least the
same or similar species o r phylogenetic groups. Any subsequent ecological values will be no less than t h e current
state.

M o r e likely, this recolonization o f t h e lowered sandflat should result in a benthic macroinvertebrate c o m m u n i t y of

greater diversity and biomass than presently exists. As noted previously in this report, substrates lower on t h e shore
usually contain more biota because t h e y inundated f o r a longer period relative t o upper shore zones.

It is n o t anticipated there w o u l d be issues w i t h o d o u r either due t o exposing t h e n e w intertidal substrate, or f r o m the

decay o f organisms. There is insufficient biomass in t h e existing biota f o r there t o be any concern over odour. Also,
t h e sand t o be recovered is clean and there is n o t expected t o be significant anaerobic sediment exposed by the
excavation. Any o d o u r post sand extraction should be o f a ' l o w level' and dissipate over a f e w tidal cycles.

4.2.3 Delta l o w intertidal and Estuary m i d - l o w intertidal area

As noted, these zones have elevated ecological values compared t o higher shore areas due t o greater biomass,
diversity and abundance o f t h e benthic community. Edible-sized shellfish are confined t o these lower parts o f the
shore.

Provided t h e works f o o t p r i n t avoids t h e mid t o l o w shore there should be n o t be o t h e r t h a n m i n o r adverse ecological

effects, i f any, on these adjacent zones.

4.2.4 Estuary banks adjacent to extraction area two

The banks o f t h e estuary adjacent t o sand extraction area t w o are inhabited by a mixed native/exotic floral community.
A native w i w i / p o h u e h u e stand forms t h e d o m i n a n t vegetation over most o f t h e site. Several pahutukawa (Threatened,
Nationally Vulnerable) are also present. The vegetation may also provide habitat f o r native birds, lizards and other
biota. Considering both t h e floral and habitat values o f this site, i t is regarded as having moderate t o high ecological
value.

No works are proposed w i t h i n this vegetation. Care should be taken t o ensure t h a t sand extraction does n o t alter the
physical characteristics o f t h e bank margin, f o r example by increased risk o f f u t u r e undercutting o f t h e bank. This will
require an adequate buffer between t h e excavation margin and t h e bank and remaining beyond t h e dripline o f any
pOhutukawa t o avoid potential root damage.

Provided there is adequate buffer, and a stable beach slope on this zone, there should be no adverse effects on the
identified ecological values o f this part o f t h e site.

4.2.5 High shore deposit area and existing 'dunes'

The high shore area on Cooks Beach t h a t is t o receive t h e excavated sand f r o m t h e estuary and delta is likely t o host
a sparse c o m m u n i t y o f small arthropods, such as sand hoppers. This biota lives in a highly dynamic habitat. Any short-
t e r m losses t o t h a t c o m m u n i t y are expected t o be quickly restored once t h e project is completed.

The existing 'dunes' are predominantly vegetated by exotic herbaceous weeds and grasses and pine trees. Any loss of
this vegetation is n o t i m p o r t a n t from an ecological perspective.

A t t h e northern end o f t h e eroding dunes is a small area o f native dune vegetation including pingao (At Risk -
Declining). Care should be taken t o avoid impacts on t h e native vegetation in this area. This can primarily be achieved
by excluding machinery f r o m t h e area and ensuring any sand 'overspill' o n t o t h e plants is kept t o a m i n i m u m (i.e. less
than 20 cm t o t a l depth). If this is n o t achievable, any losses should be remediated by planting o f equivalent vegetation
t o adequately offset t h e losses incurred, as determined by a suitably qualified ecologist.

On this basis effects on t h e ecological values o f this part o f t h e site should be minor.

AA4637_1-CDC_Cooks Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecological R e p o r t _ V I . 2 14

-
4.2.6 Beach and Estuary Access

Provided transporting and relocating sand t o t h e sand deposition zone is done w i t h due care in terms o f creating the
access o n t o t h e open beach, and there is remediation o f impacts on existing dune binding vegetation where
disturbance is unavoidable, t h e n any effects should be minor.

4.2.7 Birdlife

Birdlife may be temporarily disturbed during t h e t e r m o f t h e works. Such effects should be m i n o r as the machinery
activity will be restricted t o small areas a t any particular t i m e and there will in any event be separation distance
between t h e works f o o t p r i n t and the mid t o l o w shore zones where bird feeding is most concentrated.

There does n o t appear t o be any high shore roosting o r resting site or habitat t h a t will be adversely affected by the
works.

Provided adequate separation distances are maintained between t h e works and t h e l o w shore areas, and a buffer is
maintained between t h e bank vegetation and excavation area t w o , any effects on bird life should be temporary and
minor.

'Restoration' o f w h a t are currently more elevated sandy intertidal areas t o a lower shoreline profile as a consequence
o f excavation, should in a short period provide more rather than less feeding opportunities f o r birdlife once those
zones are recolonised by marine invertebrates.

5 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made:

i. Machinery is excluded f r o m t h e low shore margins and adjacent tidal channel.

H. In both sand extraction area one and two, sand is extracted f r o m j u s t below t h e MHWS mark t o a maximum
depth o f 0.6m, as referenced in DWG.AA4637.5h1234 (Appendix 0:).

iii. Sand extraction should be managed t o ensure there is no change t o t h e structure or location o f t h e sub-tidal
channels.

iv. There is a 'buffer' maintained (and potentially enhanced) adjacent t h e estuarine bank vegetation at
extraction area t w o . This could be achieved by maintaining t h e slope o f the existing n a r r o w beach and
potentially also adding sand t o this upper shore zone t o w i d e n and elevate t h e existing beach.

V. Exclude machinery f r o m t h e vegetated dune area and limit sand overspill o n t o existing plants t o a target of
less t h a n 20 cm depth.

vi. Remediate any areas containing dune plants t h a t are affected by machinery access t o t h e beach and replant
such areas i f necessary.

vii. If deposition is t o occur during t h e peak bird nesting season (September t o February), t h e n t h e beach should
be checked by a suitably qualified ecologist f o r active bird nests prior t o depositing sand. If active nest sites
are identified, a management plan t o minimise disturbance t o nesting birds should be designed and
implemented.

viii. The extent o f t h e allowable works zone is clearly identified on a plan prior t o w o r k starting and is marked out
by flags and if possible programmed into machinery (via GPS). This should be done on a current high-
resolution aerial photograph (if available) o r as a j o i n t inspection at the site involving a t least t h e contractor,
t h e ecologist and t h e coastal scientist.

AA4637_TcDc_cooks Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecological Report _V1.2

- 15
6 OVERALL CONCLUSION
It is concluded t h a t the proposed sand management should n o t result in adverse effects on the identified ecological
values o f t h e estuary, beach o r dunes, provided t h e recommendations proposed in this report are adopted.

Ecological values in t h e proposed sand extraction areas are limited. These areas should naturally remediate t o a similar
o r greater ecological value in terms o f habitat, biodiversity and biomass.

No significant habitat o r populations o f edible shellfish will be adversely affected.

The loss o f t h e Cooks Beach sub-channel represents a m i n o r adverse ecological effect. This is a dynamic environment
and t h e current ecological values o f t h e site likely represent a transient state. The proposed works will return t h e area
t o a state similar t o its recent historical condition.

Ecological effects on t h e high shore o f Cooks Beach and adjacent dune vegetation due t o t h e proposed sand deposition
will be m i n o r b u t some localised remediation o f disturbed indigenous dune plants may be required.

Overall, it is concluded t h a t provided t h e above recommendations are p u t in place, any adverse ecological effects
should be minor, and f o r most part limited t o t h e duration o f t h e works programme.

7 REFERENCES
4Sight Consulting Ltd. 2017. Matapouri Sand Management Ecological Report.

Richardson, J., D. K. Rowe, and J. P. Smith. 2001. Effects o f turbidity on t h e migration o f juvenile banded kokopu
(Galaxias fasciatus) in a natural stream. N e w Zealand Journal o f Marine and Freshwater Research 35:191-196.

AA4637_1-CDC_Cooks Beach Erosion M i t i g a t i o n Ecoiogicai R e p o r t _ V I . 2 16

-
 Appendix A:

Location o f 50m transect core samples

.1/
Transect M e t r e s f r o m start

Cooks Beach sub-channel (cores 1-6) 5, 7, 18, 19, 35, 41

Delta (cores 1-6) 2, 4, 21, 25, 36, 37

Estuary low intertidal (cores 1-6) 2, 4, 19, 23, 40, 41

Estuary mid intertidal (cores 1-6) 6, 8, 18, 23, 37, 42

18
 Appendix B:

50m transect survey site way-points

Waypoint Description Latitude (WGS84) Longitude (W6584)

Start o f Cooks Beach sub-

WP1 channel transect 36.8360710 175.7561080

WP2 Start o f delta transect -36.8339670 175.7568420

Start o f estuary low tide

WP3 transect -36.8372370 175.7604670

Start o f estuary mid tide

WP4 transect -36.8373730 175.7602750
 Appendix C:

Tuatua and Pipi Size Frequency Data

Cooks Beach sub-channel tuatua size frequency data

Size class Frequency

(mm)

0-5 0
5-10 0
10-15 1
15-20 35
20-25 14
25-30 2
30-35 3
35-40 2
40-45 5
45-50 1
50-55 0
55-60 0
Delta - Pipi size frequency data

Size class Frequency

(mm)

0-5 0
5-10 0
10-15 0
15-20 0
20-25 0
25-30 0
30-35 6
35-40 4
40-45 1
45-50 2
50-55 9
55-60 1
Estuary low intertidal - pipi size frequency data

Size class Frequency

(mm)

0-5 0
5-10 0
10-15 0
15-20 0
20-25 0
25-30 4
30-35 7
35-40 9
40-45 2
45-50 4
50-55 2
55-60 0
Estuary mid intertidal - pipi size frequency data

Size class Frequency

(mm)

0-5 0
5-10 0
10-15 0
15-20 1
20-25 3
25-30 12
30-35 19
35-40 6
40-45 2
45-50 1
50-55 0
55-60 0
 A p p e n d i x D:

DWG.AA4637.Sh 1234