R

EL
EA
SE
D
U
N
D
ER
TH
E
O
FF
IC
IA
L
IN
FO
R
M
AT
IO
N
AC
T
 T
AC
N
O
I
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R

P.augusta task assignment February 2018 – doccm-5421808

 T
AC
N
O
I
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R

P.augusta task assignment February 2018 – doccm-5421808

 T
AC
N
O
I
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R

P.augusta task assignment February 2018 – doccm-5421808

 T
AC
N
IO
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R

P.augusta task assignment February 2018 – doccm-5421808

 Ref: DOC-5464952

Date: 1 May 2018

To: Mark Davies, Director, Western South Island Region

Cc: Julie Knauf, Director, Terrestrial Ecosystems

T
AC
From: Matt Barnett, Workflow Coordinator, Terrestrial Ecosystems

N
O
Subject: Future management of Powelliphanta augusta populations.

I
AT
M
1. Introduction

R
FO
This report responds to the Task Assignment DOC 5421808, assigned by Julie
Knauf to Matt Barnett. The purpose of the task is to provide an independent
assessment of:
IN
L
i. the approach of accelerated release of the snails back into the wild in
IA

2018 and “moth balling” the captive facility up to 2020 as insurance

IC

should monitoring show the snail population is failing;

FF

ii. the advice given as set out in Rodney Philips’ report [Out of scope]
iii. to recommend to the Director what action should be taken.
O
E

The report is to cover the above requirements and any additional information
TH

that the author feels is necessary to enable the Director to decide. The report
will cover the future of the P. augusta snails at a population level and discuss the
ER

southern and intermediate morphs

D

2. Methodology
N
U

[Out of scope]
D
SE
EA

I have also reviewed the documents containing advice, referred to in paragraph

EL

1, and several other documents and emails, including but not limited to:
- Rodney Philip’s report;
R

- [Out of scope]
- P. augusta Recovery Strategy 2015-2020;
- Carol West’s Options for Future Recovery, 2015 memo;
- Abundance and Survival Estimation of P. augusta: 2009-2016,
report by Darryl MacKenzie;
- Review of need for additional translocations, by Doug Armstrong,
Professor of Conservation Biology, Massey University;

Assessment of management options for Powelliphanta augusta for WSI Dir - DOC-5464952
 2

- Peer review of P. augusta Recovery Strategy 2015-2020, by

Warren Chinn

3. Background of P. augusta species

Powelliphanta augusta is a species of giant land snail endemic to New Zealand.

It is found on Stockton Plateau, near to Westport, on the West Coast of the
South Island. It was discovered in 2004 and found in habitat on Stockton

T
Plateau and Escarpment, part of which was to be removed as part of an open

AC
cast coal mine owned by Solid Energy New Zealand Limited (SENZ). The history
of the coal mine operation and the management of the species at the mine and

N
on the adjacent PCL can be found in the first P. augusta Conservation Strategy

IO
2007 – 2012 (docDM-190955). The species was described in 2008 (Walker et al.

AT
2008).

M
Recovery of snails and eggs from the mine site was undertaken between April

R
2006 and June 2007. A total of 6139 snails and 1173 eggs were collected and

FO
transferred to a captive facility with the Department. This facility was funded by
SENZ under the terms of the Wildlife Permit granted to the company. The SENZ
funding ended in 2016.
IN
L
IA

4000 of these snails were transferred to new habitats but as P.augusta had not
IC

previously lived in these sites and doubts about whether these sites could
support snails long-term, an “insurance population” of 2000 snails was kept in
FF

captivity.
O
E

P. augusta is now found in approximately 3ha of original habitat, in two

TH

translocated populations beyond its natural range (on the north-west corner of
Stockton Plateau and the Mt Rochfort area at the southern end of Denniston
ER

Plateau) and the balance of the population is held in captivity. It has the highest
threat ranking, being ‘Threatened: Nationally Critical’.
D
N

Since 2014, 3,440 snails and 2250 eggs have been released. The snails have bred
U

while in captivity and the total population of snails has increased.

D
SE

4. Summary
EA
EL

My analysis indicates that risk to the P. augusta species, if released before 2020
is significant. Possible extinction of a sub-species and loss of genetic diversity in
R

this Nationally-Critical species are considerable risks. I have reviewed and

considered several documents and opinions, detailed in the report below, and
weight of evidence does not support a view that an early release of snails
alongside a more rigorous monitoring regime would mitigate risk to the species,
even with a captive facility moth-balled for possible continued use.

2
 3

This is not to say that a suitable monitoring regime (following an early release)
couldn’t be developed, but I have not seen or been referred to one that has
been endorsed by Operations, TEU or another party. Notably, Mark Davies has
said that he has not yet seen monitoring options that he is “comfortable with.”
That is, options that clearly show practicality and cost-effectiveness. It appears,
therefore, that more work is required to provide the comfort and confidence
that Mark requires for his decision to deliver the best results for the species, and
this work should involve cross-functional process to explore and develop options

T
for future management, including suitable monitoring options.

AC
Taking into consideration the risks identified for this report, I consider the best

N
option is to retain the captive facility to 2020. [Out of scope]

I O
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
5. Analysis of the decision to accelerate the release of the snails into the wild
IA
IC

In March 2016, Mark Davies decided to accelerate the release of all snails from
the captive management facility to the wild. The captive facility would be
FF

temporarily closed pending results of an increased monitoring programme to

O

assess the ability of the species to establish self-sustaining populations in the

E

wild. Reasons behind this decision are not well-understood by several of my

TH

interviewees. To provide a clearer picture of Mark’s rationale and associated

issues I provide a summary of the events that led to the signing of the P. augusta
ER

Recovery Strategy 2015-2020; and perspectives that may have contributed to

the decision.
D
N

The P. augusta Recovery Strategy 2015-2020 provided for a continued

U

management approach adopted by the 2007-2012 Recovery Strategy, including

D

“not establishing additional translocated populations unless the current

SE

populations in the wild appeared to be failing.” The strategy also stipulated that
population trends would not be able to be assessed until 2020. Therefore,
EA

recommendations about how self-sustaining and secure populations were

EL

would not be able to be made until 2020 (P. augusta Recovery Strategy 2015-
2020, DOC-1499086, Part B). [Out of scope]
R

3
 4

Later, in December 2015, Carol West, Terrestrial Ecosystems Director, issued a

memo on management options to Mark Davies. This memo summarised that
release of all the P. augusta snails [is] not acceptable because of lack of site
security, and loss in genetic diversity, and very high risk of extinction of the
southern and intermediate morphs. A further meeting was held in January 2016

T
with Operations and Terrestrial Ecosystems to discuss funding strategy for the

AC
2015-2020 Recovery Strategy. In March 2016 Mark signed-off the strategy.

N
[Out of scope]

I O
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R

6. [Out of scope]

[Out of scope]

4
 R
EL
EA
SE
D
U

[Out of scope]
N

7. [Out of scope]
D
ER
TH
E
O

5
5

FF
IC
IA
L
IN
FO
R
M
AT
IO
N
AC
T
 6

T
AC
N
8. Analysis of Rodney Philips’ report (DOC-5423242)

I O
AT
After Helen had raised her critical issues Operations held a meeting to discuss
them. In attendance were Mark Davies, John Lyall (Regional Planning Manager),

M
Ian McClure (Operations Manager), Helen Otley (Biodiversity Planner), and

R
Rodney Philips (Biodiversity Ranger). Kath Walker was unable to attend. It has

FO
been acknowledged that the context for the meeting had changed because P.
augusta had been listed as a species to manage for enhancement in the draft
IN
Threatened Species Strategy (TSS). Consequently, two of the actions recorded
L
because of that meeting focussed on ‘enhancement’ versus ‘persistence’
IA

management and what bearing this might have on management options for P.
IC

augusta. However, the TSS is still in draft form, and both Mark Davies and Julie
Knauf, Terrestrial Ecosystems Director, agree that management options should
FF

focus on the current approach- management for persistence- (as per the P.
O

augusta strategy) as opposed to the draft TSS. The actions from the meeting are
E

still relevant, irrespective of the draft TSS, because the third action addressed a
TH

need for a new operational plan [for P. augusta] with “different costed delivery
& monitoring options.”
ER

[Out of scope]
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R

6
 7

T
AC
N
O
Rodney’s ‘Operational Plan’ was issued to Mark Davies in October 2017. It has

I
AT
since been referred to as his ‘report’. The report contains some high-level
statements about outcomes for snails, plans to release snails, and six monitoring

M
cost options. It does not, however, cover a range of operational delivery options.

R
FO
Rodney’s report has the following findings. It reiterates that “early release of all
snails would almost certainly mean extinction / swamping of the southern sub-
IN
species and loss of genetic diversity within the species.” The report also shows
L
monitoring options that could be enacted after a release of all snails. These
IA

options show different numbers of monitoring plots and nights monitored as

IC

part of a mark/re-capture regime. Costs for these options range from $27,750 to
$138, 750 per year. The accompanying dialogue to these options, in my opinion,
FF

is too brief. Rodney has since explained that he feels it could be an option to
O

employ one of the cheaper options, assess how well the monitoring is going, and
E

potentially move to a more expensive option depending on the results.

TH

However, he also points out that high quality monitoring would be required to
achieve certainty on post-release population status and that site selection and
ER

need for habitat assessment prior to a release is important. Carol West’s memo,
of 23rd December 2015 (DOC-2663031) states that monitoring required after an
D

early release of all snails would be equal to or greater than costs as per the P.
N

augusta strategy.
U
D

Rodney’s report does indicate that monitoring required following an early

SE

release would be expensive, (if done optimally), but evidence for this is not
conclusive. Ian McClure, Rodney’s manager, has acknowledged that Rodney’s
EA

report is “incomplete.” Mark Davies has stated that he is yet to see a monitoring
EL

plan he is “comfortable” with and that the costings he has seen seem very high.
This may be because a robust risk analysis of a range of monitoring options has
R

not been conducted. Carol West’s 2015 memo does present 10 management
options for the species, but it doesn’t provide details of relative monitoring
options (this was presumably not within the scope of her memo). The P. augusta
strategy describes rationale for a combination of night-time mark/recapture
monitoring and diurnal monitoring. However, this is not in line with the
monitoring options provided in Rodney’s report.

7
 8

[Out of scope]

T
AC
N
O
I
AT
9. [Out of scope]

M
R
[Out of scope]

FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R

8
 9

10. [Out of scope]

[Out of scope]

T
AC
N
IO
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R

11. Recommendations

9
 10

Summary

• The captive facility should be maintained, as is, until 2020 as per the current
P. augusta strategy, because risk to the species is too great if the snails are
released early.
• The report details how, on the evidence examined, the above
recommendation is the best course of action for species persistence.

T
• Further work would be needed to demonstrate how an early release of the

AC
snails would be beneficial and cost-effective.
[Out of scope]

N
O
Recommendation 1

I
AT
Retain the captive facility, as is, until 2020

M
• Evidence shows that an early release is not in the best interests of the

R
species. Extinction of the southern sub-species would be likely and a

FO
reduction in genetic diversity probable.

IN
• A scaled-back option is not advisable while snails in captivity are not yet able
to be rapidly expanded to increase survival chances on release.
L
•
IA
A viable monitoring regime to mitigate the above risks, if the snails are
IC

released early, has not been identified.

• Even with highly-rigorous monitoring, due to the small number of suitable
FF

sites and small populations, the species is vulnerable to stochastic (e.g.

O

climatic, or fire) and other unforeseen events.

E

• An early release could pose high reputational risk for the Department.
TH

Recommendation 2
ER

Enable cross-functional process to explore management options after 2020

D
N

• Ten options were issued by Carol West to Mark Davies in 2015, but these
U

were developed in isolation from Operations.

D

• A robust risk analysis of options, especially looking at the merits of

SE

monitoring versus captive management building on Rodney Phillip’s report,

would be beneficial.
EA

• Engagement in management options should include Treaty Partners,

EL

stakeholders and provide a clear role for the Powelliphanta Recovery Group.
•
R

The full value to the Department of maintaining the captive facility should be
explored, including holding of insurance populations, boosting numbers of
southern snails, developing husbandry skills, etc.
• Alternative options for a captive facility should also be further explored, for
example, scaling-back, a privately-run model, or sponsorship.
• Risks and benefits of the closure or mothballing of the captive facility should
be explored and communicated.

10
 11

Recommendation 3
Progress work to ensure release sites are viable ASAP

• It has been identified that a range of suitable habitats in the wild does not yet
exist but will exist by 2020.
• Areas of vegetation direct transfer (VDT sites) are not yet considered suitable
for release.

T
AC
[Out of scope]

N
I O
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N

Appendices
U
D

Appendix 1- [Out of scope]

SE
EA

Appendix 2- [Out of scope]

EL

Appendix 3- [Out of scope]

R

11
 File Ref: DOC-2663031

Date: 23 December 2015

To: Mark Davies, Director Operations, Western South Island

CC: Kath Walker, Rod Hitchmough, Jane Marshall, James Holborow, Lucy Bridgman,

T
Terrestrial Ecosystems Unit

AC
From: Carol West, Director Terrestrial Ecosystems

N
O
Subject: Options for future recovery of Powelliphanta augusta, particularly the

I
captive population

AT
M
R
Options for continuing recovery management for Powelliphanta augusta are given below.
Options are designed with the overall objective of fulfilling DoC’s Intermediate Outcome 1

FO
(The diversity of our natural heritage is maintained and restored) and Objective 2 (Nationally

IN
threatened species are conserved to ensure persistence). The accepted goal under
Objective 2 is 95% probability of persistence over the next 50 years. Please see
L
IA
Powelliphanta augusta recovery strategy 2015 (DOC-1499086) for more policy context.
IC

All options are presented, even those we consider unacceptable. In particular, we do not
FF

consider release of all captive snails acceptable because:

O

1) the existing remnant and translocated populations seriously lack security;

E
TH

2) if released now, the southern and central genetic groups would be very poorly
represented and at very high risk of extinction.
ER

The vegetation direct transfer areas offer hope for the future but are not suitable yet.
D

This memo summarises available information very briefly below, then analyses future
N
U

options. For more detail, refer to Powelliphanta augusta recovery strategy 2015 (DOC-
1499086). There are wild populations at six locations (map in Appendix 1):
D
SE

• Site A – A narrow (c. 3 ha.) band of original habitat. Northern section all wild snails,
except some captive-born eggs released in northern corner and some young snails
EA

into the central area; all northern morph. Southern section low density wild snails with
EL

small numbers of juvenile captive reared snails; all central morph.

R

• Mt Augustus VDT - Snail habitat above Site A that was mined and is partially
rehabilitated. Northern section has captive-reared eggs and juvenile snails
translocated there 2013 – 2015, fate unknown, all northern morph. Southern section
reserved for central-morph snails (limited VDT rehabilitation here so far, and no snail
releases as yet)

• A12 - Natural population on southern Augustus ridgeline only. Surveys to detect this
population indicate an extremely small, sparse population. No VDT rehabilitation and
 no snail releases. Southern morph. N.B. Extremely small site with extremely small
population – not discussed further.

• Site B - Translocated (2006) snail populations in small fragmented patches in a

narrow strip along western escarpment. Northern morph.

• R6 VDT – Original snail habitat with snails in situ, translocated by digger to new site
2006/07. Northern morph.

T
• Mt Rochfort Summit and Basin, Denniston Plateau – Two translocated (2007)

AC
snail populations. Northern morph.

N
There are three population groups which are distinguishable by both genetics and

O
appearance. The genetic distance between them is small, but important in terms of the

I
maintenance of diversity which aids a species long-term survival chances, as well as the

AT
retention of biodiversity for its own sake. These are referred to here as the northern, central

M
and southern groups. The status of these groups is:

R
• Northern: The northern end of Site A is occupied by northern-morph snails. They

FO
occupy the best remaining fragment of natural habitat, mined on 3 sides (NASA).

IN
The great majority of the snails which have been released are also from this northern
group: all snails in Mt Augustus VDT, Site B, R6 VDT, and Mt Rochfort are northern
L
group. There are about 500 northern snails in captivity; emphasis is on maintenance
IA

of current numbers, not increase.

IC
FF

• Central: A few wild snails remain and a few juveniles have been released in the
southernmost part of Site A; no other wild population. There are about 500 central
O

snails in captivity; emphasis is on maintenance of current numbers, not increase.

E

Part of the Mt Augustus VDT area has been reserved for central snails but no
TH

releases have happened yet, and the habitat is not yet suitable to receive snails.
ER

• Southern: A handful possibly remain in situ in a tiny fragment of original habitat at

D

Site A12, but only a freshly dead shell has been found there recently. There are
N

about 120 southern snails in captivity but less than 15 of these are adults; they are
U

being managed for maximum population increase to build up a sufficient population

to sustain a release when suitable habitat becomes available.
D
SE

The graph below presents the most recent population estimates, which also show what trend
information is available (see points under options below for interpretation). The graph is from
EA

a presentation by Mark Hamilton, MBC Environmental Solutions. This monitoring is over a

very short period considering the long life-span and generation time of the snails, and the
EL

degree of ongoing environmental change.

R

Our interpretation of these trends is:

• Site A – Population crash between 2009 and 2011, followed by partial recovery
2011-2013.

• Mt Augustus VDT – Not yet monitored.

 • Site B – Includes West 1, northeast and west 3. Possible slight, non-significant
increase, confounded by movement of translocated snails.

• R6 VDT – Possible slight, non-significant decline.

• Mt Rochfort Summit and Basin, Denniston Plateau – More or less stable, but
confounded by species identification issues: Powelliphanta patrickensis is naturally
present and northern morph P. augusta have been released there.

T
AC
N
I O
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R
The options below are presented in order of increasing preference, weighing the pros and
cons of each.

1) Close captive facility and release all snails into existing translocation sites at
Mount Rochfort

Advantages

T
Removes expense, space and staffing requirements of maintaining captive facility

AC
Disadvantages

N
• Very likely total loss of the southern and possible total loss of central genetically

O
& morphologically distinct groups, significantly reducing genetic variation and

I
AT
hence resilience in the species.
• Likely high mortality of released snails because of competition with existing

M
residents in an occupied site – both translocated P. augusta and resident P.

R
patrickensis

FO
• Exposure of more snails to possible long-term failure of the Mount Rochfort

IN
summit translocated population, as this site was already occupied by P.
patrickensis before the release of P. augusta. There is a significant risk of failure
L
due to hybridisation with or competitive exclusion by P. patrickensis. While the
IA

very limited monitoring that has been carried out shows Powelliphanta to still be
IC

present, distinguishing the two species in the field at night is difficult for non-
FF

specialists, and it is uncertain what proportion of the population belongs to each

species. Even short-term success of the original translocation is still uncertain for
O

this reason
E

• Exposure of more snails to likely long-term failure of the Mount Rochfort basin
TH

translocated population. Despite the translocation of many snails to the Mt

Rochfort Basin, P. augusta is now in very low numbers there as only tiny
ER

fragmented areas of good snail are available.

• The extent of available snail habitat on both the basin and summit of Mt Rochfort
D

is very limited, with no potential to expand.

N

•
U

The site is outside the natural range of P. augusta so is detrimentally affecting

wider biogeographic values. In addition, 5 years after the release of P. augusta
D

on Mt Rochfort, the status of and outlook for P. patrickensis declined significantly

SE

due to the granting of consents for open cast mining on Denniston Plateau.
EA

Expansion of the P. augusta colony on Mt Rochfort summit would be at the

expense of another highly threatened species
EL

• Without the security the captive population provides, more population monitoring
R

would be required with associated $ costs, increased habitat disturbance and

snail deaths due to trampling
• Closure of the breeding facility would mean no snails were available for re-
introductions to the original site still being rehabilitated. Harvesting snails later for
this purpose from Mt Rochfort is not practical due to the difficulties of
distinguishing live P. patrickensis from P. augusta, and much lower snail survival
in the wild, so few snails to harvest
 Relative cost

• Saving of cost of captive management (c. $51,000)

• Cost of closure of captive facility and release of captive snails (unknown –
suggest seeking advice from local office)
• Financial (at least $2160) and species costs (squashed snails) of further snail
monitoring

Recommendation

T
AC
Not an acceptable option

N
I O
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R
 2) Close captive facility and release all snails into another, as yet unidentified site
or sites distant from the Mt Augustus mine site

Advantages

• Removes expense, space and staffing requirements of maintaining captive facility

• Different genotypes could be released at different sites

Disadvantages

T
•

AC
Other options for release sites have been investigated extensively in the past,
and no suitable sites have been found. Except for the tiny remnants at Site A, all

N
habitat within the historic range has been destroyed by mining and not yet

O
rehabilitated to a state in which snails are considered likely to establish viable

I
populations. Other sites were excluded on the basis of being

AT
o occupied by other Powelliphanta species

M
o ecologically dissimilar to the historically occupied habitat of the species or

R
o too far removed geographically to be appropriate

FO
• Very likely total loss of the southern and central genetic groups, significantly
reducing genetic variation and resilience in the species
•
IN
Without the security the captive population provides, more population monitoring
would be required with associated $ costs, increased habitat disturbance and
L
IA
snail deaths due to trampling
•
IC

Closure of the breeding facility would mean no snails were available for re-
introductions to the original site still being rehabilitated. Harvesting snails later for
FF

this purpose from new as yet unidentified sites is a poor option as no information
O

is available on how snails would fare there

E
TH

Relative cost
• Saving of cost of captive management (c. $51,000)
• Cost of search for further possible translocation sites and of monitoring those
ER

sites to assess suitability

D

• Cost of closure of captive facility and release of captive snails (unknown –

N

suggest seeking advice from local office)

U

• Financial (at least $2160) and species costs (squashed snails) of further snail
D

survival monitoring
SE
EA

Recommendation
EL

• Not an acceptable option

R
 3) Close captive facility and release all snails into natural vegetation in existing
extended translocation site B

Advantages

• Removes expense, space and staffing requirements of maintaining captive facility

Disadvantages

• Very likely total loss of the southern and possible total loss of central genetically

T
AC
& morphologically distinct groups, significantly reducing genetic variation and
hence resilience in the species
•

N
If any southern and central snails survive, their genotype would be introduced

O
into a population which was previously genetically distinct (although not deeply

I
so) and would be effectively lost because of swamping by the much more

AT
numerous northern morph

M
• Likely high mortality of released and/or resident snails because of competition

R
with existing residents in an occupied site

FO
• The site is extremely small (c. 1-2 hectares total of reasonable habitat within an
area of ~7.6 hectares) and fragmented, and therefore has limited carrying

•
capacity
IN
Monitoring (graph at beginning of report) shows a trend (doesn’t appear to be
L
IA
statistically significant) of slight population increase at the three monitored sites in
IC

this area. However, at least some population increase at the site is because of
snails migrating into it from releases in nearby areas of lower habitat quality
FF

rather than because of breeding. This was shown by monitored movements of

O

transpondered released snails.

•
E

While translocated snail populations appear to have stabilized and may even be
TH

growing in some parts of site B, and some individual snails have grown well, this
site, despite being contiguous with natural viable populations and so accessible
ER

for natural colonisation, was not occupied by snails before the release. This
means that failure is likely to be due to extreme weather events (probably
D

droughts) which happen only occasionally. The original colony was at much
N

higher altitude and received annually over a metre of rain more than extended
U

Site B does, Short term persistence of released snails does not mean that the
D

population here will persist long-term.

SE

• Without the security the captive population provides, more population monitoring
would be required with associated $ costs, increased habitat disturbance and
EA

snail deaths due to trampling

•
EL

Closure of the breeding facility would mean no snails were available for re-
introductions to the original site still being rehabilitated. Harvesting snails later for
R

this purpose from extended Site B is a poor option as survival in the wild is much
lower than that in the captive facility so only small numbers would be available

Relative cost

• Saving of cost of captive management (c. $51,000)

• Cost of closure of captive facility and release of captive snails (unknown –
suggest seeking advice from local office)
 • Financial (at least $2160) and species costs (squashed snails) of further snail
monitoring

Recommendation

• Not an acceptable option

T
AC
N
I O
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R
 4) Close captive facility and release all snails into Site A (natural habitat remnant)

Advantages

• Removes expense, space and staffing requirements of maintaining captive facility

Disadvantages

• Very likely total loss of the southern and possible total loss of central genetic
groups (which are also distinctive in appearance), significantly reducing genetic

T
AC
variation and hence resilience in the species
• If any southern and central snails survive, their genotype would be introduced

N
into a population which was previously genetically distinct (although not deeply

O
so) and would be effectively lost because of swamping by the much more

I
numerous northern morph

AT
• The site has a natural snail population already at carrying capacity. Monitoring

M
shows a decline from c. 420 to c. 170 individuals between 2009 and 2011,

R
presumably because of habitat degradation, with limited recovery since then

FO
• Likely extremely high mortality of released and/or resident snails because of
competition in an already occupied, stressed site.

IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R

Top of NASA, the northern part of Site A, showing eroding and unstable sheer back wall
left by mining activity.

• Exposure of more snails to the deleterious effects of (a) collapse of NASA due to
undercutting and erosion of the sheer back wall where coal has been mined (see
photo above), (b) smothering of the snails’ litter habitat by coal fines, gravels and
 rocks falling downhill from the mining-disturbed land above. This material was
initially held back by massive wire and small silt fences but these have now gone
or have decayed. Maintenence of effective erosion trapping devices along the
whole escarpment and removal of accumulated silt is agreed to be SENZ’s
responsibility, but presents substantial practical difficulties (see photos below).

T
AC
N
I O
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA

Boulders and coal fines perched above the remaining natural snail habitat in the
EL

mid-section of Site A, held up for now by the green silt fence.

R

• The outcome of existing small-scale translocations into this site are unknown.
• Without the security the captive population provides, more population monitoring
would be required with associated $ costs, increased habitat disturbance and
snail deaths due to trampling
• Closure of the breeding facility would mean no snails were available for re-
introductions to those parts of the original site still being rehabilitated. Harvesting
snails later for this purpose from Site A is a poor option, as the population is small
 and survival in the wild is much lower than that in the captive facility, so there
would be few snails to transfer.

Relative cost

• Saving of cost of captive management (c. $51,000)

• Cost of closure of captive facility and release of captive snails (unknown –
suggest seeking advice from local office)
• Financial (at least $2160) and species costs (squashed snails) of further snail

T
monitoring

AC
Recommendation

N
•

O
Not an acceptable option

I
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R
 5) Close captive facility and release all snails into existing rehabilitated (VDT –
vegetation direct transfer) habitat at the Mount Augustus and R6 sites

Advantages

• Removes expense, space and staffing requirements of maintaining captive facility

• Some indications of initial survival of some snails transferred with vegetation in
R6
• Different genotypes could be released at different sites

T
AC
Disadvantages

N
Possible total loss of the southern and central genetic groups, significantly

O
reducing genetic variation in the species

I
• Possible high or total mortality of released snails because of unsuitable habitat

AT
with very incomplete vegetation cover or vegetation dominated by exotic weeds;

M
outcome of earlier releases into VDT areas is still unknown

R
• Longer term survival of snails transferred with vegetation in R6 requires

FO
confirmation; some indications of initial survival and establishment of snails
transferred with vegetation in some small pockets, but monitoring showed

•
indications of subsequent decline
IN
L
VDT areas always suffer substantial vegetation die-back after initially looking very
IA
promising, vegetation takes years (unknown period) to recover, and final state of
IC

vegetation of these areas is uncertain (see photo below)

FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R
 • VDT areas differ greatly in vegetation survival, habitat structure (e.g. crevices
between sods, pools of water in crevices which act as pitfall traps for snails),
weed invasion, and therefore suitability for snails
• Although 1.4 hectares of the site where VDT was planned remains un-vegetated,
few source areas of vegetation suitable for transfer remain
• Cyclone Ita had serious impacts on some existing transferred vegetation
• Granite capping has increased pH, which may have serious effects on survival of
these snails, which are adapted to highly acidic environments

T
• Without the security the captive population provides, more population monitoring

AC
would be required with associated $ costs, increased habitat disturbance and
snail deaths due to trampling

N
O
Relative cost

I
AT
• Saving of cost of captive management (c. $51,000)
• Cost of closure of captive facility and release of captive snails (unknown –

M
suggest seeking advice from local office)

R
•

FO
Financial (at least $2160) and species costs (squashed snails) of further snail
survival monitoring

Recommendation IN
L
IA

• Not an acceptable option now

IC

• Should become the favoured option after more time has been allowed for
FF

vegetation recovery, assisted by weed control

O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R
 6) Reduce capacity of captive facility to house southern and central genotype
snails only, and release all northern genotype snails

Advantages

• Removes much of the expense, space and staffing requirements of maintaining

captive facility
• Maintains a captive stock of southern and central genotype snails for breeding for
future release

T
AC
Disadvantages

N
Likely high mortality of released snails because of competition with existing

O
residents in occupied sites, or because of poor habitat quality in

I
rehabilitated/VDT sites as explained in options above

AT
• No northern snails available for future translocations when the area of Mt

M
Augustus rehabilitated by VDT finally settles down into a more stable

R
environment

FO
• Without the security the captive population provides, more population monitoring
would be required with associated $ costs, increased habitat disturbance and
snail deaths due to trampling
IN
L
Relative cost
IA
IC

• Reduction of cost of captive management to $34,000

FF

• Cost of release of captive snails

• Financial and species costs (squashed snails) of further snail survival monitoring
O
E

Recommendation
TH

• Very poor option – high risk of loss of the species with this combination of low
ER

security degraded wild sites and a very small captive population

D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R
 7) Reduce capacity of captive facility to house southern and reduced numbers of
central and northern genotype snails by releasing some central and northern
genotype snails

Advantages

• Removes some of the expense, space and staffing requirements of maintaining

captive facility

T
• Maintains a captive stock of all three genotypes of snails for breeding for future

AC
release

N
Disadvantages

O
•

I
Likely high mortality of released snails because of competition with existing

AT
residents in occupied sites, or because of poor habitat quality in

M
rehabilitated/VDT sites as explained in options above
•

R
Reduced security and genetic diversity of the captive populations of northern and

FO
central snails
• When numbers in captivity shrink too greatly, it is difficult to maintain sufficient

IN
representatives of all the age classes required to ensure a stable healthy captive
population, able to be rapidly expanded to produce the large numbers of snails
L
IA
needed for robust translocations once Mt Augustus rehabilitation is more
IC

advanced
FF

Relative cost
O

• Reduction of cost of captive management to $34,000

E

• Cost of release of captive snails

TH

• Financial and species costs (squashed snails) of further snail survival monitoring
ER

Recommendation
D

• Very poor option – high risk of loss of the species with this combination of low
N

security degraded wild sites and a very small captive population

U
D
SE
EA
EL
R
 8) Maintain but privatise captive management of P. augusta

Advantages

• Removes from DOC the expense, space and staffing requirements of maintaining
captive facility
• Enhanced engagement with partner
• Enhanced profile for snail conservation

T
• Possible partners include major zoos nationally, or local concessionaires

AC
• Maintains a captive stock of snails for breeding for future release and as an
insurance against failure of the wild and translocated populations

N
• Snails available for future translocations when the area of Mt Augustus

O
rehabilitated by VDT finally settles down into a more stable environment

I
AT
(unknown timeframe)
•

M
No need for additional monitoring associated with new releases from captivity

R
Disadvantages

FO
• Need for considerable investment in handover of snails, facilities, and

•
IN
management expertise, and in ongoing supervision of performance
L
Based on experience of other captive programmes, high risk of reduced standard
IA

of care after changes of staff

IC

• It seems unlikely that opening the facility to paying tourists would attract sufficient
FF

interest to deliver sufficient revenue to cover all costs of snail captive

management, so little interest anticipated in taking on this work
O

• Movement of snails outside the West Coast would raise iwi, community and
E

logistic issues
TH

Relative cost
ER

• Cost of ongoing liaison with and supervision of captive facility

•
D

Cost to species of possible lowered care standards

N

Recommendation
U
D

• Poor option – high risk of loss of the species with this combination of low security
SE

degraded wild sites and a very small captive population in untrained care of
uncertain longevity
EA
EL
R
 9) Maintain captive facility as at present, with emphasis on increasing numbers of
southern genotype and maintenance of numbers of northern and central
genotypes

Advantages

• Snails available for future translocations when the area of Mt Augustus

rehabilitated by VDT finally settles down into a more stable environment
(unknown timeframe)

T
• Insurance populations of all three genotypes are held until outcomes of previous

AC
translocations and effects of fragmentation of natural remnant populations are
clear

N
• Maintains a captive stock of southern genotype snails to allow breeding of

O
sufficient numbers for robust future release

I
AT
Disadvantages

M
•

R
Ongoing cost of maintaining captive facility

FO
Relative cost

•
IN
Ongoing costs of maintaining the captive facility (c. $51,000)
L
IA
Recommendation
IC

• One of two best options for species security

FF

• One of two options most compatible with Intermediate Outcome 1 (The diversity
O

of our natural heritage is maintained and restored), Objective 2 (Nationally

threatened species are conserved to ensure persistence)
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R
 10) Seek sponsorship and maintain captive facility as at present, with emphasis on
increasing numbers of southern genotype and maintenance of numbers of
northern and central genotypes

Advantages

• Positive exposure of invertebrate conservation issues

• Opportunities to expand interest in and knowledge of charismatic microfauna
• Ideal sponsorship project due to costs which are known, small, finite, with high

T
known value output (c.f. widespread ongoing pest control) and high profile

AC
subject (potential sponsors: the growing Crombie Lockwood partnership, maybe
housing development companies – given snails carry their home on their back,

N
need shelter and a home now…?; other energy companies)

O
• Snails available for future translocations when the area of Mt Augustus

I
AT
rehabilitated by VDT finally settles down into a more stable environment
(unknown timeframe)

M
• Insurance populations of all three genotypes are held until outcomes of previous

R
translocations and effects of fragmentation of natural remnant populations are

FO
clear

IN
• Maintains a captive stock of southern genotype snails to allow breeding of
sufficient numbers for robust future release
L
IA

Disadvantages
IC

• Costs of finding sponsors and maintaining a relationship with them

FF

• Potential conflicts of interest between the health of the snail population and
O

requirements of partners
E

Relative cost
TH

• Costs of seeking sponsorship

ER

Recommendation
D
N

• One of two best options for species security

U

• One of two options most compatible with Intermediate Outcome 1 (The diversity
D

of our natural heritage is maintained and restored), Objective 2 (Nationally

SE

threatened species are conserved to ensure persistence)

EA
EL
R
 Appendix 1:

Maps of the locations mentioned in the options paper

T
AC
N
IO
AT
M
R
FO
IN
L
IA
IC
FF
O
E
TH
ER
D
N
U
D
SE
EA
EL
R
R
EL
EA
SE
D
U
N
D
ER
TH
E
O
FF
IC
IA
L
IN
FO
R
M
AT
IO
N
AC
T