Appendix G. Ecology Assessment
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Notice of Requirement, Resource Consent Application and Assessment of Environmental Effects Appendix G. Ecology Assessment 7 Assessment of Ecological Effects: Tūhonohono ki Tai / Matakana Link Project October 2018 Assessment of Ecological Effects: Tūhonohono ki Tai / Matakana Link Project October 2018 DOCUMENT APPROVAL Assessment of Ecological Effects: Tūhonohono ki Tai / Matakana Link Document title: Project Prepared for: Auckland Transport Version: Draft 5 Date: 9 October 2018 Document name: 22074358_5.docx Mark Delaney M.Sc. (Hons) Authors: Senior Freshwater Sarah Killick M.Sc. (Hons) Botany Chris Wedding M.Sc. (Hons) Senior Terrestrial Graham Don M.Sc. (Hons) Reviewer: Senior Consulting Ecologist Chris Wedding M.Sc. (Hons) Approved for Release: Manager – Ecological Services/Business Unit REVISION HISTORY Rev. No. Date Description December 1 Draft 1 2017 December 2 Draft 2 2017 3 January 2018 Draft 3 02 March 4 Draft 4 2018 18 October 5 Draft 5 2018 Reference: Bioresearches (2018). Assessment of Ecological Effects: Tūhonohono ki Tai / Matakana Link Project. Report for Auckland Transport. pp 79 Cover Illustration: Canopy and sub canopy vegetation, 245 Matakana Road, Warkworth. Contents 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 4 Staged Approach ................................................................................................... 4 Project Area and Assessments .............................................................................. 4 2. Terrestrial Ecology ............................................................................................ 6 2.1 Assessment Methodology ......................................................................... 6 2.2 Existing Terrestrial Environment and Values .......................................... 11 2.3 Assessment of Effects ............................................................................. 21 2.4 Mitigation Measures ............................................................................... 26 3. Freshwater Ecology ......................................................................................... 29 3.1 Assessment Methodology ....................................................................... 29 3.2 Existing Freshwater Environments and Values ....................................... 32 3.3 Assessment of Effects ............................................................................. 50 3.4 Mitigation Measures and Recommendations ......................................... 53 4. Summary ......................................................................................................... 55 5. REFERENCES .................................................................................................... 58 6. APPENDICES .................................................................................................... 61 1. INTRODUCTION Auckland Transport (AT) has commissioned Bioresearches to prepare an assessment of ecological effects of the proposed alignment and designation for the staged construction, operation and maintenance of a new road known as the Tūhonohono ki Tai / the Matakana Link Road Project (the Project). The Project provides a Warkworth bypass for traffic between the State Highway 1 (SH1) motorway) and Matakana and beyond. Staged Approach AT are seeking a designation for the construction of the entire Project, which will occur in stages. Generally speaking, Stage 1 will provide two general traffic lanes and a shared path on one side of the road. Stage 1 is proposed to be implemented to align with the opening of NZTA’s P2Wk project. Stage 2 is currently anticipated to be implemented between 2036 and 2046, when traffic demand exceeds Stage 1’s capacity. This will involve the widening of the road to accommodate four general traffic lanes and upgrading the berm to separated walking and cycling facilities on both sides of the road. It is understood that the majority vegetation removal and earthworks, to accommodate Stage 2 would be undertaken in Stage 1. Project Area and Assessments 1.1.1 Previous assessments and Options analysis Previous assessments of eight long list and four short list route options favoured the proposed route from an ecological basis, considering both terrestrial and freshwater values. The proposed Project Area avoids kauri trees, as well as a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) and QEII covenant to the south. It also avoids a greater number of watercourse crossings to the north of the proposed construction boundary. 1.1.2 Proposed Project Area The Project area generally covers an area of managed pasture grass and a block of riparian vegetation associated with the main Mahurangi tributary to the north-east (Project Area, Figure 1). Freshwater and terrestrial ecological assessments were undertaken within the Project Area and these included complete, targeted surveys associated with terrestrial flora and fauna, as well as Stream Ecological Valuations (SEVs). Terrestrial ecology assessments generally focused on the riparian vegetation of the main Mahurangi tributary, where flora and fauna habitat values were considered to be greatest. Managed pasture may provide some terrestrial habitat values and entire site walkovers were undertaken over the course of the assessment to ensure a complete assessment of the Project Area. Figure 1. Overview of Project Area – Supplied by Jacobs. 2. TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY 2.1 Assessment Methodology 2.1.1 Vegetation A preliminary site assessment was undertaken on 26 April 2017 to provide an overview of the potential site options for the Project. Following this, a detailed vegetation assessment was conducted on 30 October 2017, to assess the vegetation present within the Project Area. Vegetation was inventoried using a qualitative walk-through (Rapid Assessment) method (Rose, 2012) and categorized by ecosystem type using the national (Singers & Rogers, 2014) and Auckland-specific (Singers et al., 2017) terrestrial classification systems. Canopy trees within the Project Area were measured at diameter at breast height (DBH). Where such trees had a DBH greater than 20 cm, these were recorded and georeferenced to assist with any mitigation calculations, where appropriate. 2.1.1.1 Kauri Dieback Species known to show potential susceptibility to kauri dieback (PTA) were checked for symptoms. Any symptomatic trees and all kauri (including non-symptomatic trees) present within the proposed area were sampled for PTA presence. Sampling used soil taken from 1m uphill of the tree trunk, as per the methods described by Singh et al. (2017) and tested by SCION laboratories using the baiting method. 2.1.2 Fauna Targeted fauna surveys were undertaken for indigenous lizards and long-tailed bats while opportunistic surveys were undertaken for native invertebrates and avifauna. Eight site visits were undertaken to service survey equipment and undertake fauna searches and observations. Specific survey methods are described in this section and mapped in Figure 2. All fauna surveys were undertaken over November-December, to coincide with the summer period within which lizards and bats are considered most conspicuous. Figure 2. Survey equipment and search areas within Tūhonohono ki Tai / the Matakana Link Project Area. 2.1.2.1 Invertebrates The site was visited on eight occasions by a terrestrial ecologist, during which time opportunistic habitat searches were undertaken for native invertebrates. Searches were undertaken within the main Mahurangi riparian vegetation (including two night-time visits) and involved lifting logs and leaf litter, where invertebrates are likely to be found. 2.1.2.2 Frogs Desktop investigations involved a review of the Department of Conservation’s Amphibian and Reptile Distribution Scheme (ARDS) database (accessed March 2017), and as well as an analysis of aerial and topographic imagery for the presence of first and second order streams, where potential habitat is most likely. Streams where potential habitat was potentially present were surveyed for frog presence. All frog habitat assessments and searches were undertaken by an experienced herpetologist (WA 37604-FAU). All footwear and equipment was sanitised using Trigene prior to survey. 2.1.2.3 Lizards Desktop investigations involved a review of the Department of Conservation’s ARDS database (accessed November 2016), as well as an analysis of aerial and topographic imagery for the presence of tracks and vegetation cover to plan survey design and spatial coverage. All vegetated areas that were identified as potentially supporting habitat for indigenous lizards were visited to undertake a qualitative habitat description. Where potential habitats supported logs or other debris that could be lifted, searches of these habitats were undertaken. Pitfall trap survey A survey was undertaken using twenty live-capture, baited pitfall traps, in accordance with the Department of Conservation best practice (Hare 2012). Pitfall traps are suitable for capturing terrestrial skinks, although are unlikely to detect the gecko species identified in Table 2. Traps were installed within native forest vegetation, its interfaces with scrub or open edges and baited with fish- based cat food to maximise encounter opportunities with skinks. All traps were furnished with native leaf litter, covered to provide shelter for any lizards confined during capture and checked daily. All traps were active over five consecutive days. Nocturnal Visual Encounter Surveys (VES) Nocturnal