12 Boffa Miskell Ltd | Waihi North Project | Terrestrial Ecology Values and Effects of the WUG | 22 June 2022 3.4 Wildlife Act and RMA Obligations with Respect to Fauna Protections Native animals including bats, birds, lizards, frogs and some invertebrate species are ‘absolutely protected’ under the Wildlife Act (1953, s63 (1) (c)), and their habitats are protected by the Resource Management Act (1991) and administered by the DOC and local authorities (WRC and Hauraki District Council, HDC), respectively. A Wildlife Act Authority (WAA permit) is required to handle, catch, release or kill native wildlife including lizards, birds, bats and frogs. Granting a WAA is at the discretion of the Department of Conservation and typically requires that conditions2 are met to ensure the safety of wildlife. These conditions may include limiting who may undertake the activity (e.g. experienced persons only), a maximum number of animals that can disturbed and the timing and quantity of surveys. A WAA will be sought for the WUG to allow for the survey and handling of native frogs and lizards within CFP vent raise sites. A separate WAA will be sought for the survey and handling of native lizards at Willows Road Farm and other WNP project areas. 4.0 Description of Methods 4.1 Survey Constraints Seasonal and weather constraints to animal activity (i.e. animals not able to be detected) prevented a comprehensive ecological survey (including native frogs, native lizards and native orchids in particular) of all of the potential vent raise sites from being undertaken for this assessment. Existing information about Wharekirauponga is described in Section 4.2. Full ecological surveys (as outlined below) will be undertaken in all areas where vegetation and habitat clearance is required as these are confirmed (including vent raise sites in CFP, and in the footprint of Willows Rock Stack at Willows Road Farm). Cryptic and rare species have poor survey detection rates and multiple surveys in suitable conditions are required to increase detectability3. We note that poor detectability is an inherent characteristic of many of these 2 Wildlife Act Authorisations are a separate process to resource consent and DOC may impose conditions to the authority in addition to those included in a resource consent. 3 Taxa specific constraints to fauna surveys include: Lizards: Lizard survey methods currently available have poor detection rates as a consequence of typically low population densities, species’ cryptic colouration, difficulty in surveying preferred habitats and behaviour/activity patterns. As such, even an intensive lizard survey will not detect all individuals in the population or, possibly all species present. Lizard survey methods are strongly weather dependent, and surveys will be carried out in fine weather when lizards are most likely to be active. The specific limitations associated with survey methods (as described in Department of Conservation Inventory and Monitoring Toolbox: Herpetofauna (Hare 2012; Lettink and Monks 2016)) are understood by the author. Frogs: Frog survey methods have many of the same limitations as lizard survey methods. Observer experience and undertaking surveys over multiple nights’ of suitable weather is very important in assessing frog presence. A description of specific limitations associated with survey methods (as described in Department of Conservation Inventory and Monitoring Toolbox: Herpetofauna (Hare 2012) are understood by the author. Bats: Bat activity is closely correlated with temperature and weather (O’Donnell, 2002) and multiple nights’ of survey are required to have confidence in bat use of an area. Identifying roost trees is difficult without knowing if the site is within a bat colony’s home range. The baseline survey is intended to assess whether the proposed vent raise sites form part of a short-tailed or long-tailed bat colony’s home range and, if so, contains roost trees. A description of the limitations associated with bat surveys is provided in (Sedgeley, n.d.).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3