img656

February 2010

fiquatic andRiparian fccofogy

Newsletter Theme: Each edition of

Consulting Ecology will include acollection of articles on a similar topic,creating a newsletter theme.

The theme for August 2010 is

'HOLLOfWS. If you have knowledge and

expertise in this area we encourage you tocontribute to the next edition ofConsulting Ecology. The theme isintended to cover a range of topics, rangingfrom the effect of hollows on the health of atree, the process of hollow formation tofauna use of hollows.

Tides of Change: Factors toConsider in AssessingDevelopment or ActivityImpacts on Waterbirds andTheir Habitats

Dr Stephen AmbroseAmbrose Ecological Services Pty LtdEGA President

Dr Stephen Ambrose has over 30 years experienceas a professional ornithologist and is thePrincipal Ecologist of Ambrose EcologicalServices Pty Ltd. He was motivated to write thisarticle after encountering a significant number ofconsultancy reports which inadequately assessedthe impacts of proposed developments andactivities on the status of waterbirds and theirhabitats.

1. PREAMBLE

Ecological consultants are sometimes asked toassess the ecological values of wetlands andpredict the impacts of proposed activities or

developments on them. One of many measures ofthe conservation importance of a wetland is anassessment of its value as habitat for waterbirds,i.e. waterfowl (ducks and swans), gallinules(crakes, rails and bitterns), herons, egrets & allies,cormorants and pelicans, terns and gulls, andmigratory, nomadic and resident shorebirds.

Everyone knows that the use of wetlands bywaterbirds varies considerably throughout theyear and between years. For instance, mostmigratory shorebirds are usually present inAustralia from late August/early September tolate March/early April, with only some first-year(immature) birds over-wintering here. Moreover,some wetlands may be important refuges forwaterbirds in drought or flood years, but not atother times.

Ecological consultants seldom have the luxury ofbeing able to conduct seasonal and yearly surveysof wetlands when assessing potential impacts of adevelopment or activity on the status of waterbirdpopulations. Therefore, we rely on the results ofother studies (research projects, wildlifedatabases, reports of other consultants, first-handknowledge of the local community, etc.) and ourown knowledge of the habitat requirements ofeach species to determine the value of thewetlands as waterbird habitat. Sadly, this desk-top information is often not comprehensiveenough for consultants to conduct a waterbirdimpact assessment either confidently oraccurately.

14

If wetlands or nearby habitats are under theinfluence of a tidal cycle, then the abundances andtypes of waterbird species on the wetland will beinfluenced by that cycle. For instance, low tidesmay result in exposed mud- or sand-flats in thewetland or nearby areas, and thus attract largenumbers of shorebirds that forage on benthicinvertebrates. If some mud- or sand-flats are stillexposed at high tide, then shorebirds maycongregate there in denser numbers to roost, butwill disperse to other areas if all suitable roostingsites are inundated by the tidal waters. However,high tides may suit other species, e.g. divingducks, cormorants and pelicans which preferdeeper waters for foraging.

There may even be a 24hr (circadian) cycle ofabundance of waterbird populations on wetlandsthat are not under a tidal influence. For instance, awetland may not be particularly resourcefulforaging habitat for some waterfowl species, butprovides valuable roosting habitat at nightbecause of the protection it provides frompotential predators and other disturbances. In myexperience, this is seldom considered byecological consultants when evaluating the valueof wetlands as waterbird habitat.

2. CASE STUDY: THE WATERBIRD REFUGE,BICENTENNIAL PARK, HOMEBUSH BAY

2.1 BackgroundThe wetlands in Sydney Olympic andBicentennial Parks that are part of the HomebushBay Wetlands (Ermington Bay/Mudflats,Meadowbank Foreshore, Yarralla Bay, MajorsBay, Haslems Creek, Mason Park and LowerDuck River) are among some of the mostimportant coastal wetlands in NSW. Thesaltmarsh communities are the second largest inthe Sydney area, after Towra Point NatureReserve in Botany Bay and are important aswaterbird habitat. They are particularly importantas an essential link to remaining wetlands in theSydney area and as part of the NSW coastal

corridor used by waterbird species. Thesaltmarsh, intertidal wetlands and freshwaterswamps provide a unique combination of habitatswhich are of special significance to wader species,of which about two-thirds are migratoryshorebirds that are protected under internationalmigratory shorebird agreements and theEnvironment Protection and BiodiversityConservation Act, 1999 (EPBC Act).

The wetlands within the Newington NatureReserve and Bicentennial Park, the NorthernWater Feature and the tiny wetland at MasonPark (immediately south of Sydney OlympicPark) are linked by a wetland corridor of tidalmudflats (the Waterbird Refuge, Homebush Bayand nearby areas of Parramatta River) andmangrove forests (e.g. Badu Mangroves andHaslams Creek) to form a unique wetland systemthat is integral for the maintenance of shorebirdand waterbird populations in coastal NSW.

The Homebush Bay Wetlands are listed on theNSW Register of the National Estate as Wetlandsof National Importance. There are severalornithological reasons for this listing. Theremnant wetlands of the Upper Parramatta Riverprovide habitat for over 140 species of birds andhave been ranked sixth in importance for wadersin NSW. They are significant for migratoryshorebirds, providing habitat for at least 27nationally-listed bird species under the EPBC Act.This list includes bird species which are listedunder the Japan-Australia Migratory BirdAgreement, 1974 (JAMBA), China-AustraliaMigratory Bird Agreement, 1986 (CAMBA) and theRepublic of Korea-Australia Migratory BirdAgreement, 2007 (ROKAMBA). Two species whichoccur there, the Little Tern (Sterna albifrons) andBlack-tailed Godwit (Limosa limosa) are listed asthreatened under the schedules of the TSC Act.The remnant wetlands area also supports one ofthe two Sydney colonies of the White-frontedChat (Ephthianura albifrons) and provides habitat

15

or one of the largest populations of Chestnut Teal(Anas castanea) in NSW.

The V8 Telstra 500 Supercar Race Event was heldat Sydney Olympic Park from 4-6 December 2009(inclusive). Although the race event was notvisible from the Waterbird Refuge (the closestwetland of national importance to the racecircuit), it was nevertheless only 355 metres fromthe nearest part of the circuit. Therefore, there wasa need to monitor use of the Waterbird Refuge bywaterbirds before, during and after the race eventto determine if there were significant impactsfrom noise or other disturbances. It also providedan opportunity to demonstrate the importance ofthis wetland to waterbirds in relation to theParramatta River's tidal cycle and todiurnal/nocturnal cycles.

2.2 Survey MethodsA comprehensive dataset of bird abundance at theWaterbird Refuge and nearby wetlands has beenmaintained by the Sydney Olympic ParkAuthority for over 10 years. These data were usedto establish the long-term conservation value ofthe Waterbird Refuge as waterbird habitat.

In predicting potential impacts of the V8 raceevent, bird surveys were conducted at theWaterbird Refuge throughout the day and earlyevening on 11-13 December 2008 and during tworelatively noisy events: "The Big Day OutConcert" (23 January 2009) in the Urban Precinctof Sydney Olympic Park and the Australia DayPicnic Celebrations in Bicentennial Park (26January 2009). These events did not significantlyimpact on the use of the Waterbird Refuge bywaterbirds. Noise modelling conducted byReggies Acoustical Consultants Pty Ltd predictedthat the noise levels at the Waterbird Refugeproduced by V8 race event would not be higherthan those produced by the Big Day Out Concert,Australia Day Picnic Celebrations, backgroundtraffic on nearby busy roads, or the frequentaircraft that flew low over or near the Waterbird

Refuge. Therefore, it was concluded that the V8race event would not impact on the use of the

Waterbird Refuge by waterbirds. However, a birdmonitoring program was recommended at andaround the time of the event to test the accuracyof this prediction.

In testing the impact prediction, the abundancesand behaviours of waterbird populations weresurveyed at the Waterbird Refuge on 3 December2009 (the day before the start of the race event), 4-6 December 2009 (during the three-day raceevent) and on 7 December 2009 (the day after therace event) to determine if the race event causedsignificant disturbances to waterbird andpopulations. Ideally, there should have been threesurvey days in both the pre- and post-race periods(equalling the survey period during the raceevent), which would have provided a measure ofdaily variation in species richness and abundancefor those times, but the race organisers decided tolimit pre- and post-race surveys to single days tomaximise cost-effectiveness of the assessment ofimpacts.

Surveys of between 11 and 28 minutes(depending on the numbers of waterbirds on thewetland) were conducted at hourly intervalsbetween:

Q 0912-2010 hrs on 3 December 2009;a 0500-0627 hrs and 1107-2122 hrs on 4 December

2009;Q 0502-0523 hrs, 1007-2013 hrs and 2200-2221 hrs

on 5 December 2009;a 0500-0518 hrs, 0958-2016 hrs and 2300-2321 hrs

on 6 December 2009; andQ 0500-0518 hrs, 1000-2018 hrs on 7 December 2009

and 0000-0019 hrs on 8 December 2009.

Water levels at Homebush Bay are affected by thetidal cycle in Sydney Harbour. Although theWaterbird Refuge is land-locked, flood gates atthe entrance of a man-made channel directs waterfrom the Parramatta River into the wetland eachmorning in summer to prevent eutrophication.The numbers of shorebirds at the Waterbird

16

Refuge are highest after dark, when birds comeinto roost, and when the Parramatta Riverexperiences its high tide. The tidal cycle at SydneyHarbour during the survey period is shown inTable 1. The numbers of Chestnut and Grey Tealson the Waterbird Refuge are also highest at nightwhen these species come in to roost.

The bird surveys that were conducted each day atthe Waterbird Refuge included high tide timesafter dark, when daily maximum numbers ofwaterbirds and shorebirds occurred there, as wellas other times of the day and night that wereassociated with the changing tide cycle.

All surveys of waterbirds were conducted fromthe public bird hide at the Waterbird Refuge tominimise disturbances to the birds. Allobservations were made with a Kowa TSN-821Mscope with a 20-60X zoom lens and 8x30 mmLeica binoculars. Moonlight during the night-timesurveys was bright enough to identify most birdspecies from their silhouettes.

The abundance and general distribution of eachspecies on the wetland were recorded during eachcount. Obvious signs of disturbance to thebehaviour of birds (e.g. alarm displays,displacement of birds from their usual foragingand roosting habitats, flight responses) were alsorecorded during and (when possible) betweeneach count.

2.3 Richness and Abundance of BirdsThe richness and abundance of bird species at theWaterbird Refuge during each count before,during and after the race event are shown inTables 2, 3 to 5 and 6 (respectively).

Sixteen waterbird species were recorded on raceevent days, compared with 14 and 15 species inthe pre- and post-race survey periods. Therefore,the race event did not reduce the number ofwaterbird species occurring at the WaterbirdRefuge. The most abundant species recorded

during the surveys were Chestnut Teals, GreyTeals, Black-winged Stilts, Bar-tailed Godwits andSharp-tailed Sandpipers.

The pattern of abundance of waterbirds on thewetland during the race event was similar to theday beforehand, with numbers lowest in themiddle of the day and highest after dark whenbirds came in to roost (Figure 1). A similar patternwas also observed on the day after the event (7December), except early in the afternoon whenthere were significant increases in numbers ofChestnut and Grey Teals (Figure 2) and Black-winged Stilts (Figure 3). The mid-day increaseson the 7 December 2009 resulted from teals andstilts being flushed accidentally from nearbyTriangle Pond by two bird-watchers and themsettling subsequently at the Waterbird Refuge.

The total numbers of Chestnut and Grey Tealsrecorded roosting at the Waterbird Refuge atnight on 3 December (the night before the raceevent) (244 individuals) was substantially lowerthan the abundances on other nights: 366individuals (on 4 December) to 392 individuals (5December). Therefore, it is possible that someindividuals of these species used the WaterbirdRefuge in preference to other wetlands in SydneyOlympic Park on race days.

Bar-tailed Godwits arrived at the WaterbirdRefuge to roost each night after dark, about onehour before high tide (Figure 4). The numbers ofroosting Bar-tailed Godwits recorded at theWaterbird Refuge ranged from 200 individuals on3 December to 226 individuals on 5 December.Therefore, the race event did not significantlyimpact on the use of the Waterbird Refuge by Bar-tailed Godwits as a nocturnal roost site.

Sharp-tailed Sandpipers and Curlew Sandpipersalso arrived at the Waterbird Refuge to roost eachnight after dark, about one hour before high tide.These species often arrived together and withinminutes of the arrival times of the Bar-tailed

17

Godwits. There was no significant variation in themaximum numbers of Sharp-tailed/CurlewSandpipers recorded during the survey period (40on 7 December to 56 individuals on 6 December)

(Figure 5). Therefore, the race event did notsignificantly impact on the use of the WaterbirdRefuge by Sharp-tailed/Curlew Sandpipers as anocturnal roost site.

Table 1 TIDAL LEVELS FOR SYDNEY HARBOUR (FORT DENISON) FROM 2-7 DECEMBER 2009(Source: Australian Bureau of Meteorology)

Blue Font (2nd and 4th row): High tideRed Font (1st and 3rd row): Low tide

Wednesday2 December

Time

0107074014222017

Height(m)0.401.880.221.35

Thursday3 December

Time

0154082815112110

Height(m)0.391.940.171.35

Friday,4 December

Time

0243091716012202

Height(m)0.391.970.151.35

Saturday5 December

Time

0336100816552258

Height(m)0.411.950.171.34

Sunday6 December

Time

0431110017482354

Height(m)0.441.880.201.33

Monday7 December

Time

053111551843

Height(m)0.481.780.26

Figure 1 TOTAL NUMBERS OF BIRDS COUNTED AT THE WATERBIRD REFUGE ON EACHSURVEY DAY

•3-Dec

•4-Dec

•5-Dec

•6-Dec

7-Dec

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2

Hours Since the Start of Daily Counts

18

Figure 2 TOTAL NUMBERS OF TEAL COUNTED AT THE WATERBIRD REFUGE ON EACHSURVEY DAY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920


Figure 3 TOTAL NUMBERS OF BLACK-WINGED STILTS RECORDED AT THE WATERBIRDREFUGE ON EACH SURVEY DAY

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0 1 1 1 2


-3-Dec

4-Dec

-5-Dec

•6-Dec

7-Dec

19

Figure 4 TOTAL NUMBERS OF BAR-TAILED GODWITS RECORDED AT THE WATERBIRDREFUGE ON EACH SURVEY DAY

250

-3-Dec

4-Dec

•5-Dec

•6-Dec

7-Dec

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1011121314151617181920

Hours Since The Start of Daily Counts

Figure 5 MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SHARP-TAILED AND CURLEW SANDPIPERS ROOSTING ONTHE WATERBIRD REFUGE AT NIGHT

7-Dec

2.4 Behavioural DisturbancesNoise levels from the racing cars were barelyaudible from the bird hide at the WaterbirdRefuge. Whenever there were bursts of soundfrom the race event, the noise levels were nohigher than the usual background traffic noiseoriginating from Hill Road, Bennelong Parkway

and Homebush Bay Drive. The birds that use theWaterbird Refuge for foraging, roosting andshelter are habituated to these usual backgroundnoise levels. Therefore, there were no obviousdisturbances to bird behavior from the sound ofthe race event.

20

A police helicopter surveyed crowd behavior atthe race event by circling over a large area to thesouth-west and west of the Waterbird Refuge.While circling over this area, the helicopter wouldarc over the western bank of the WaterbirdRefuge or over the wetland's south-westerncorner. Main periods when this type of policesurveillance was observed were:

a 1510-1525 hrs on 4 December;a 1435-1605 hrs and 1618-1655 hrs on 5

December; anda 1030-1120 hrs, 1250-1305 hrs; 1405-1522 hrs

and 1537-1700 hrs.

Repeated police helicopter flights near or over thewestern part of the Waterbird Refuge was asignificant disturbance to birds using the wetland.Nearly all the Chestnut and Grey Teals left thewater and sought refuge on the eastern bank ofthe wetland. Black-winged Stilts and Bar-tailedGodwits huddled together in tight groups withconspecifics in shallow water near the easternbank, or crouched low among tussock grasses.Masked Lapwings also concealed themselvesamong grass tussocks. Australian Pelicanshuddled in tight groups in deep water near thecentre of the wetland. Although the usualbehaviours of each bird species were disturbedfor the duration of the police helicopter flights, thebirds dispersed over wider areas of the wetlandand resumed their foraging or day-time roostingbehaviours within 10 minutes of the helicopter'sdeparture from the general area.

Surveys of birds inhabiting much smallerwetlands that were nearer to the race circuit(ponds at the Northern Water Feature and TheBrickpit Area), conducted by Sydney OlympicPark ecologists, revealed that the race event didnot significantly impact on the abundance ortypes of birds using these areas (J. Harrington & J.O'Meara, Sydney Olympic Park Ecologists, pers.comm).

2.5 ConclusionThis case study demonstrates that the Telstra 500Supercar Race Event at Sydney Olympic Park didnot significantly impact on the abundance ortypes of waterbirds and migratory shorebirds thatused the Waterbird Refuge immediately prior,during and after the event. This is likely to be dueto the distance the wetland was from the racetrack and the noise dampening effect of the racetrack infrastructure (e.g. grandstands), stands ofmangroves and the direction of the prevailingwinds.

The police surveillance helicopter significantlydisturbed the behavior of birds on the wetland,but not their abundance, during repeated flightsover or near the wetland. However, birdsresumed their normal behaviours within a fewminutes of the helicopter's departure from thelocal area. Therefore, a recommendation wasmade to the race event organisers that helicopterflights, especially repeated flights, over oradjacent to the Waterbird Refuge be banned atfuture race events, if possible.

3. RECOMMENDED APPROACHES TOWATERBIRD SURVEYS AND IMPACTASSESSMENTS

The following recommended procedure will beobvious to most ecological consultants, but it issurprising the number of impact assessmentreports whose approaches are not socomprehensive:

a Identify clearly the nature of the developmentor activity proposal and how it is likely toaffect directly and indirectly the wetland andits avian inhabitants (e.g. noise, light andchemical pollution, soil erosion, siltation,increased human activity, reclamation,flooding or deepening of parts of the wetland,clearance or degradation of microhabitats,

21

introduction or increased abundance of pests,feral predators or competitors).

a Determine the geographical and ecologicalcontext of the wetland that is beinginvestigated. Is it an isolated wetland or partof a larger wetland ecosystem? Are theenvironmental values of the wetland or largerwetland ecosystem locally-, regionally-, state-,nationally- and/or globally-significant? If so,what are these values? How is the wetlandcurrently influenced by surrounding land-uses and activities, and how will the proposalcontribute to these influences?

a Conduct a literature and database search, andconsult with the local community, forinformation about what waterbird specieshave been recorded on wetlands within thelocality or region. Local sources of informationcan often be obtained from councils, local,state- or nationally-based bird groups ornatural history societies, local individuals, anduniversity researchers often have bird datarelevant to the wetland ecosystem underinvestigation. These local sources aresometimes gold-mines of information, e.g.long-term data-sets of temporal andgeographical patterns of abundance ofwaterbird species. In comparison, equallyuseful datasets from government wildlifedatabases often just provide species lists.

a During field surveys, identify and evaluatethe condition of avian microhabitats withinand around the wetland. How will thosemicrohabitats change if the proposal isapproved?

a Conduct your own surveys of waterbirds onthe wetland. What parts of the wetland areused by each species? How does theabundance of each species on the wetlandchange throughout the 24-hr cycle and whatare the environmental factors that influence

the circadian distribution and abundance ofwaterbirds in the wetland ecosystem?Although the case study described in thisarticle involved waterbird counts every hour,it is usually possible to conduct counts lessfrequently across a 24-hour period to establishthe circadian pattern of wetland use.

a If possible, conduct your waterbird counts atan appropriate time of the year. For instance,if the proposal is an activity that is limited to acertain time of the year (e.g. a racing carevent), then it makes sense to conduct birdsurveys at the time of the year when thatactivity is likely to take place. However, if theproposal is likely to have longer-term orpermanent impacts on the wetland and/or thesurrounding landscape, then ideally youshould be aiming to conduct seasonal surveys,or at least surveys when waterbird species arelikely to be present (e.g. australspring/summer for migratory shorebirds; mid-late summer if your wetland is a permanentwater body that waterbirds concentrate onwhen nearby ephemeral wetlands dry up;peak flood periods if your wetland system isinfluenced by flood cycles).

As we all know, it is not always possible toconduct these surveys in the right season or year,but the importance of doing this should beimpressed upon your clients. The limitations ofyour surveys should also be identified in yourassessment report. Reliance on informationgathered during your literature and databasesearch, and consultation with the localcommunity, becomes vital in the absence ofpersonal surveys during peak periods ofwaterbird activity.

Also record the proportion of time that selectedbird species, particularly listed threatened andmigratory bird species, are engaged in specificbehaviours (time-budgeting), e.g. roosting,foraging, loafing, responding to disturbances.

22

Time-budgets may be altered significantly by theproposed development or activity withoutaltering the abundance of a species on thewetland which, in turn, may affect thephysiological condition of individual birds.

a Identify or refine the list of potential impactsof the proposed development or activity onthe status of waterbird species and theirhabitats. Develop an ecological managementplan to mitigate or avoid these impacts.

It is essential that this process is conducted by asuitably qualified and experienced ecologist. Toooften, I have come across reports that have beencompiled by consultants who have an inadequateknowledge of the habitat requirements andecology of selected bird species. Consequently,impact predictions and subsequentmitigation/avoidance strategies are ofteninadequate.

a Test the accuracy of impact predictions bymonitoring and evaluating the effectiveness ofecological management plans that areimplemented as part of the approveddevelopment or activity.

The type of data you might consider collecting forcomparison with baseline data collected prior tothe development or activity includes:

(a) The availability and condition ofmicrohabitats at the time of the developmentor activity.

(b) The distribution and abundance of each birdspecies within the wetland system.

(c) Time-budgets of each waterbird species. Forinstance, the abundance of migratoryshorebirds on a wetland may not have beenchanged by the development or activity, butthe time they spend foraging or roosting maybe significantly reduced as a result of

disturbances. Migratory shorebirds undergoextensive feather moults during their stay inAustralia, which is an energy-intensiveprocess. Individual birds may not completetheir moult cycles and/or build up their bodyfat reserves on time for the return migrationto breeding grounds in the northernhemisphere if they are unable to spendsufficient time feeding or roosting. Ifsignificant disturbances to behaviours areoccurring as a result of the development oractivity, what are the sources of thesedisturbances, and can they be reduced oravoided?

(d) The distribution and abundance ofintroduced pests, predators and/orcompetitors that may occur in or around thewetland system as a result of thedevelopment or activity. What impacts arethese species having on the status of nativewaterbird species and their habitats?

(e) Do any waterbirds breed in the wetlandsystem? If so, are there any signs that thedevelopment or activity has impacted onbreeding success, as a result of changes in theavailability and quality of breeding habitats,increased disturbances and/or changes in theabundance of pests, predators orcompetitors?

a Do not be afraid to admit that some of yourimpact predictions were wrong! If thedevelopment is a permanent or long-termfixture, or if an activity is to be repeated, thenbe equally bold in modifying your ecologicalmanagement plan to mitigate impacts that youmay not had predicted earlier.

23

Table 2 WATERBIRD AND SHOREBIRD COUNTS AT THE WATERBIRD REFUGE, 3 DECEMBER 2009(THE DAY PRIOR TO THE V8 TELSTRA 500 EVENT)

* Bird count conducted when it was too dark to differentiate between Chestnut Teals and Grey Teals** Between 180 and 200 Bar-tailed Godwits and 78 Sharp-tailed/Curlew Sandpipers were counted on the wetland at

2100 hrs. It was too dark to estimate accurately the abundance of other bird species on the wetland.

Water Level in Wetland: Medium-Full (0912 hrs); Full (1405 hrs); Low-medium (1800 hrs); Low (2000 hrs)

Species

Australian PelicanLittle PiedCormorantChestnut TealGrey TealChestnut/GreyTeal *White-FacedHeronBar-tailed Godwit**

Sharp-tailedSandpiperCurlew SandpiperRuffMasked LapwingBlack-wingedStiltRed-neckedAvocetSilver GullAustralianMagpie-lark

TOTAL

No. Individuals & Survey Times (24-hr clock)

0912-0936

7

27379

12

27

2

86

11

12

507

1012-1028

101

6021

27

180

3

8

211

1107-1122

81

1718

29

154

10

8

146

1217-1230

51

1010

29

184

12

8

150

1305-1322

3

1017

1

9

55

12

3

110

1405-1415

2

2424

121

1

74

1505-1515

2

5733

1

2

11

1

107

1605-1615

11

7021

2

5

21

103

1705-1724

12461

17

2

204

1800-1815

2021 1 2

169

11

395

1900-1917

3

325

5

495

14

31

450

1952-2010

2

244

10

52

7

787

8

19

428

24

Table 3 WATERBIRD AND SHOREBIRD COUNTS AT THE WATERBIRD REFUGE, 4 DECEMBER 2009(DAY 1 OF THE V8 TELSTRA 500 EVENT)

* Bird count conducted when it was too dark to differentiate between Chestnut and Grey Teals and between Sharp-tailed and Curlew Sandpipers

** Teals and migratory shorebirds only were counted during these survey periods

Water Level in Wetland: Low over entire survey period.

Species

AustralianPelicanLittle PiedCormorantChestnut TealGrev TealChestnut/ GreyTeal*RoyalSpoonbillWhite-facedHeronAustralianWhite IbisBar-tailedGodwitSharp-tailedSandpiperCurlewSandpiperSharp-tailed/ CurlewSandpipers *MaskedLapwingBlack-wingedStiltRed-neckedAvocetSilver GullAustralianMagpie-lark

TOTAL


0500-0525

**

352

72

44

0605-0627

**

285

63

39

1102-1125

19

7752

1

28

2

4

89

6

17

295

1200-1217

22

9737

24

4

79

7

15

285

1300-1317

10

11811

1

41

2

100

6

7

296

1405-1420

10

10733

2

32

8

171

210

1500-1510

9

7314

3

31

1

3

134

1600-1610

7

1

14042

2

36

8

136

1700-1713

8

19284

2

32

6

324

1802-1817

9

26967

2

60

8

415

1900-1917

12

312

1

38

7

2

90

7

4

473

1954-2011

18

358

1

53

7

2

87

8

6

542

2100-2122

**

366

210

49

25


* Bird count conducted when it was too dark to differentiate between Chestnut and Grey Teals and between Sharp-tailed and Curlew Sandpipers

** Teals and migratory shorebirds only were counted during these survey periods

Water Level in Wetland: Low (0502 hrs); low-medium (1400 hrs onwards).

Species

AustralasianGrebeAustralianPelicanLittle PiedCormorantChestnut TealGrev TealChestnut/ GreyTeal *AustralianWhite IbisBar-tailedGod witSharp-tailed/CurlewSandpipers *MaskedLapwingBlack-wingedStiltRed-neckedAvocetSilver GullAustralianMagpie-lark

TOTAL


0502-0523

**

348

56

12

1007-1023

1

9

17841

35

8

95

6

4

377

1100-1117

1

12

11154

2

37

6

117

7

2

349

1200-1222

10

6511

33

2

101

8

5

255

1300-1310

8

168

36

4

103

8

19

202

1400-1412

10

508

30

4

85

6

5

198

1500-1512

5

529

1

64

8

1

142

1600-1612

1

1

1

8947

2

39

7

187

1700-1715

1

1

14463

2

26

2

1

240

1800-1812

26472

2

35

9

382

1900-1915

1

350

2

47

8

1

414

1952-2013

3

381

8

4

79

8

2

485

2200-2221

**

392

226

54

26


* Bird count conducted when it was too dark to differentiate between Chestnut and Grey Teals and between Sharp-tailed and Curlew Sandpipers.

** Teals and migratory shorebirds only were counted during these survey periods.

Water Level in Wetland: Low (0502 hrs); low-medium (1200 hrs); low (1800 hrs)

Species

AustralasianGrebeAustralianPelicanLittle PiedCormorantChestnut TealGrev TealChestnut/ GreyTeal*Great EgretWhite-facedHeronAustralianWhite IbisBar-tailedGod witSharp-tailed/ CurlewSandpipers *MaskedLapwingBlack-wingedStiltRed-neckedAvocetSilver Gull

TOTAL


0500-0518

**

299

45

4

0958-1015

6

15523

2

22

2

85

3

27

325

1100-1117

5

41118

1

38

3

116

2

12

336

1200-1217

6

8337

1

36

4

99

3

13

284

1300-1313

8

6611

1

36

4

98

3

24

251

1400-1415

9

505

2

34

3

115

2

14

234

1500-1513

3

5216

7

4

67

5

26

180

1600-1612

8129

5

43

3

15

176

1700-1720

1

10652

5

43

2

3

212

1800-1816

14080

1

2

47

1

1

272

1900-1913

353

3

71

3

430

2000-2016

380

4

83

3

470

2300-2321

**

382

215

56

27

Table 6 WATERBIRD AND SHOREBIRD COUNTS AT THE WATERBIRD REFUGE, 7 DECEMBER 2009(THE DAY AFTER THE V8 TELSTRA 500 EVENT)

* Bird count conducted when it was too dark to differentiate between Chestnut and Grey Teals and between Sharp-tailed and Curlew Sandpipers.

** Teals and migratory shorebirds only were counted during these survey periods.

Water Level in Wetland: Low (0502 hrs); low-medium (1200 hrs); low (1800 hrs)

Species

AustralasianGrebeAustralianPelicanLittle PiedCormorantChestnut TealGrev TealChestnut/ GreyTeal*Great EgretWhite-facedHeronAustralianWhite IbisBar-tailedGodwitSharp-tailedSandpiperSharp-tailed/ CurlewSandpipers *MaskedLapwingBlack-wingedStiltRed-neckedAvocet

Silver Gull

TOTAL


0500-0518

**

276

14

1000-1017

8

1

12252

18

2

82

2

15

302

1103-1115

4

6217

19

6

98

3

39

249

1200-1217

11

668

3

33

4

84

3

25

237

1300-1312

3

567

1

34

3

82

2

41

228

1400-1413

2

21623

1

42

1

4

89

3

31

412

1500-1513

1

18819

30

1

3

87

3

20

342

1600-1614

16728

27

4

93

1

10

344

1700-1713

4

15345

1

4

84

3

11

305

1800-1812

5

23476

7

64

3

3

392

1900-1910

4

378

5

65

2

5

459

2001-2018

4

397

62

2

4

469

2400-0019

**

384

C. 180

c. 40

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS/ thank V8 Supercars Ply Ltd for providing me with permission to reproduce the results of the Waterbird Refuge Waterbird Studyin this article. Kerry Dracovich, Judy Harrington and Jenny O'Meara (Sydney Olympic Park Authority) were extremely helpful

in providing bird data for Sydney Olympic and Bicentennial Parks during the impact assessment in the lead-up to, and during, theV8 Telstra 500 Supercar Race Event. They also provided delightful company at regular intervals in the bird hide during the race

event weekend. Thanks also go to Jon Irvine who assisted with waterbird counts at night on 3 December 2009 and for hisinvaluable insight into the birds of Sydney Olympic Park, and to the many bird-watchers who visited the bird hide throughout therace event weekend, particularly those who were searching for the elusive juvenile Wliite-Breasted Sea-Eagle and the two Ruffs.

28