Boffa Miskell Ltd | Waihi North Project | Terrestrial Ecology Values and Effects of the WUG | 22 June 2022 71 Current management practice operates on the basis that PA may be present but undetected within the Project Site, and assumes that the greatest risk is in close proximity to kauri where the pathogen load is likely to be high. The likelihood of contacting and spreading PA in the course of works is minimised through avoidance of all kauri, or application of stringent hygiene protocols in the vicinity of kauri where trees are not avoidable. Current management includes avoiding movement and soil disturbance in areas within three times the radius of the canopy dripline of any kauri tree; regular cleaning stations on established routes (i.e. between drill site, helipad and camp); mapping kauri on walking tracks and monitoring their health; equipping staff with boot / gear cleaning materials; and training staff and contractors in surveillance. Current monitoring entails survey and mapping of all kauri trees in the vicinity of all access tracks and work sites, and canopy health assessments of kauri trees to identify any potential symptom of kauri dieback. Kauri tree health assessments are repeated annually to assess any changes in health status. Effects management None of the sites proposed for vegetation clearance or soil disturbance contain any kauri, however survey and pest control work will require movement of people through forest areas that contain kauri. We note that reliable PCR-based methods for detecting PA and other Phytophthora pathogens associated with kauri dieback have recently been developed (Winkworth et al 2020; Biosense, 2020) that makes surveillance for PA in soil and watercourses feasible and practical as a component of kauri dieback management. Proposed management actions for kauri dieback within future work areas includes: • Preparation of a site / activity specific kauri dieback plan (CFP KDMP) that describes identification of kauri contamination zones, avoidance measures, personnel / equipment cleaning procedures and kauri health monitoring methods; • Development and implementation of a PCR-based disease surveillance programme for PA in soil and water samples to inform the risk assessment associated with work activities within the site footprint and the wider catchment prior to operations. • Training all staff and contractors on kauri dieback hygiene protocols. We note that these hygiene protocols have been successfully applied at Wharekirauponga and trees showing any signs of kauri dieback have been assessed quickly (kauri dieback has not been confirmed in any of the symptomatic trees). Effective disease risk management relies on an ongoing, high level of compliance with kauri dieback protocols and a high level of efficacy for those protocols. Both of these have been difficult to monitor directly, but the recent introducing of surveillance methods using PCR will give a higher degree of certainty that management protocols are effective.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3