In the matter of the Resource Management Act 1991 MERIDIAN ENERGY LIMITED. Applicant. HURUNUI DISTRICT COUNCIL and CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Transcription

1 IN THE ENVIRONMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY In the matter of the Resource Management Act 1991 ENV-2011-CHC-090 Between MERIDIAN ENERGY LIMITED Applicant And HURUNUI DISTRICT COUNCIL and CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL Consent Authorities JOINT WITNESS STATEMENT OF MANDY DARLENE TOCHER AND SCOTT HOOSON RELATING TO TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY, LIZARDS DATED May 2012

2 Joint statement of Dr Mandy Darlene Tocher and Mr Scott Hooson on terrestrial ecology issues relating to herpetofauna The following experts contributed to the statement: Dr Mandy D Tocher (MT), Wildland Consultants Ltd for Hurunui District Council; and Mr Scott Hooson, Boffa Miskell for Meridian Energy Ltd. Caucusing held on 29 May 2012 at the offices of Buddle Findlay. We agree that: 1. Agreement: Following proposed avoidance, there will be residual effects on Canterbury gecko (and any other lizards present) that will need to be mitigated. 2. Agreement: The proposed wind farm effects on lizards would be additional to the current effects of farming practices. 3. Agreement: The new road surface may provide a barrier to lizard movement, although this effect cannot be quantified. 4. Disagreement on size of fragmentation effect. MT stated habitat fragmentation and clearance of habitat around avoided rock outcrop habitats will increase fragmentation. SH is of the opinion that this loss is minimal and is unlikely to have a big effect. 5. Agreement: The combination of 3 & 4 has the potential to have a long-term effect on lizard meta-populations. SH is of the opinion that this is unlikely to result in population level effects. 6. Disagreement on size of fragmentation effect: MT stated the effects of habitat fragmentation on lizards require mitigation. SH reserves his position, but notes that in his opinion, the potential effects of fragmentation are likely to be minimal but are difficult to quantify. 7. Agreement: Lizards will be injured, killed and maybe displaced by the following wind farm effects: CHCH_DOCS\570235\v1 Page 1

3 (a) (b) (c) rock outcrops destroyed/disturbed (SH is of the opinion that this effect is minor in the context of the wind farm site as a result of the level of avoidance achieved). rocky habitat other than embedded rock destroyed/disturbed if trap and transfer is attempted; and that these effects will require mitigation. 8. Agreement: On-going disturbance: new road is likely to be dustier than current farm tracks. 9. Agreement: On-going disturbance; vibration during construction may dislodge rocks. 10. Disagreement on size of on-going disturbance effect. SH stated ongoing disturbance of lizards is likely to be a minimal adverse effect that does not require mitigation. MT stated vibration and dust have adverse effects that require some level of mitigation; other disturbance effects (food, displacement) not important. 11. Agreement: On-going disturbance: SH and MT agree that any disturbance effects will be higher during construction. 12. Agreement: Within the site, a lot of rocky habitat provides habitat for Canterbury gecko and it makes sense to avoid it where possible. Both agree that the advice of a suitably qualified ecologist should be given consideration during detailed design of project (so as to avoid effects on rocky habitat as far as practical). 13. Agreement: A plan with objectives is appropriate for herpetofauna mitigation at the site and should be prepared by suitable qualified ecologist. 14. Disagreement on two proposed objectives in Herpetofauna management plan: SH stated the objectives to maintain Canterbury gecko populations and habitats at current post construction levels (5.10 (b) and (c) of MT s evidence in chief) is too onerous given other factors, for example farming practices, that could result in changes in gecko populations and gecko habitats. MT reserves her position. 15. Agreement: Other than this, both agree that proposed content and objectives of the proposed herpetofauna management plan (as per MT s CHCH_DOCS\570235\v1 Page 2

4 evidence in chief in section 5) are appropriate, however SH has concerns about the about the accuracy of monitoring and whether the resulting data could provide sufficient information to determine translocation success, population changes and the need to trigger contingencies. MT- an expert could prepare a monitoring strategy. 16. Agreement: Predator control is not an effective mitigation option to protect lizards at the site. 17. Agreement: Control of magpies would benefit lizard populations on site Agreement: Meta-populations of Canterbury gecko are likely to exist within the wind farm site. 19. Disagreement: MT is of the opinion that the loss of any unit of the metapopulation has an effect on the whole population. SH agrees with this statement, but is of the opinion that adverse effects at the meta-population level will only have a minor effect at the population level (see point 20). 20. Disagreement on size of population level effect: SH is of the opinion that the extent of population level effects are likely to be minor given the level of disturbance to lizard habitat in the context of the wind farm site. MT disagrees that effect would be minor. 21. Agreement: Restoration of matrix between rock tors could add value to a mitigation site with respect to benefits for lizards. 22. Agreement: Restoration of road margins to lessen barrier effect on lizards may benefit lizards but whether there would be any benefit, and the size of any potential benefit is uncertain. 23. Agreement: Restoration of matrix depends on habitat protection going ahead if habitat protection does not go ahead, matrix restoration may be required. 24. Agreement: Trap and transfer. It will be necessary to salvage lizards from disturbed sites. SH agrees with MT evidence in chief on Trap and Transfer methodology (except monitoring- see paragraphs 15 and 24). 25. Agreement: Contingency strategies to benefit lizards will be needed in the event that Trap and Transfer fails, but SH reiterates concerns on ability of 1 Explanatory note: This was not agreed as an alternative mitigation measure. CHCH_DOCS\570235\v1 Page 3

5 monitoring to provide sufficient information to determine translocation success or failure. 26. Agreement: Mitigation for Canterbury gecko would benefit any other lizards present. 27. Agreement: Targeted lizard surveys are required to determine whether other lizard species are present. 28. Disagreement on survey for habitat use: MT stated further survey is needed to better determine habitat usage of Canterbury gecko and thus help to assess effects. SH is of the opinion that further surveys of this species for this purpose are not required given the mitigation that is already proposed. 29. Agreement translocation site: it is important to identify an appropriate translocation site(s) for displaced Canterbury gecko. 30. Agreement: Ideally, the translocation site(s) would be legally protected. Signed by: Signed by: Dr Mandy Darlene Tocher Mr Scott Hooson Date 6 June 2012 Date 6 June 2012 CHCH_DOCS\570235\v1 Page 4