Levonne Scott
Ngāmotu/New Plymouth
Office
fyi-request-34474-
55A Rimu Street
[email address]
New Plymouth 4312
doc.govt.nz
Ref: OIAD-6242
6 May 2026
Tēnā koe Levonne
Thank you for your request to the Department of Conservation, received on 12 April 2026, in
which you asked for information regarding the aerial application of agrichemicals (including
glyphosate and associated surfactants) in the Te Henga / Bethel s Beach wetland area funded
or authorised by the Department of Conservation for the 2025/2026 season:
I also note your request to Auckland Council that was transferred to the Department of
Conservation on 13 April 2026 asking:
“Can they please give me their responsibilities for monitoring endangered species that
these chemicals affect in many ways and how they protected them during spraying over 28
hectares with over 6000 litres of chemicals over their habitat during nesting season. When
it’s il egal to disturb these birds that are protected under the nzcps as the zone is a coastal
zone with endangered species. What is docs responsibility here “
We have considered your request under the Official Information Act 1982.
On 1 May 2026, your request for information relating to an Assessment of Environmental effects
and monitoring of your request was transferred to Auckland Council.
Your questions and our responses are listed below:
1.
Wildlife Act Authorities: Copies of any authorities or permits granted under Section 53
or 54 of the Wildlife Act 1953 to the Department, its contractors, or partner organizations
(e.g., forest and bird, ) to incidentally disturb, catch, or kill absolutely protected
wildlife—specifically Australasian Bittern (Matuku-hūrepo) and Long-tailed bats
(Pekapeka-tou-roa)—during spraying operations.
There are no Wildlife Act authorities granted under Section 53 or 54 of the Wildlife Act 1953 to
the Department, its contractors, or partner organisations in relation to the spraying being
undertaken at Te Henga Wetland. Therefore, this aspect of your request is refused in
accordance with s18(e) of the Act as the information does not exist.
2.
Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE): Any internal reports, ecological
assessments, or advice held by DOC regarding the potential impact of aerial spraying
on the nesting cycles of the Matuku and the roosting/foraging behavior of the Long-
tailed bat in this specific Significant Ecological Area (SEA).
This aspect of your request was transferred to Auckland Council on 1 May 2026.
3.
Surfactant Toxicity Data: Any information held regarding the specific toxicity of the
surfactants being used (e.g., Aquakynde or similar) on the aquatic invertebrate food
chain that supports the Matuku and Pekapeka populations.
The Department does not hold information regarding the toxicity of surfactants such as
Aquakynde beyond the information provided by the manufacturers Safety Data Sheets. As this
information is already publicly available and the Department does not hold any further
information, your request is refused in accordance with s18(g) of the Act as the information is
not held.
4.
Monitoring Requirements: Details of any requirements for on-site ecological monitoring
during the spray to ensure no "take" or "disturbance" of protected wildlife occurs.
This aspect of your request was transferred to Auckland Council on 1 May 2026.
5.
Species-Specific Safety Evidence: Please provide any scientific reports, peer-reviewed
studies, or internal DOC technical advice held by the Department that specifically
assesses the toxicological effects of glyphosate and the surfactant [e.g.,
Aquakynde/Polaris] on:
•
The Australasian Bittern (Matuku-hūrepo), specifically regarding secondary
poisoning via their aquatic prey (fish/insects). Also disturbance due to aerial
spraying and loss of habitat.
•
The Long-tailed bat (Pekapeka-tou-roa), specifically regarding the ingestion of
insects that have been exposed to the spray or the inhalation of aerosolized
spray drift.
The Department does not hold any scientific reports, peer-reviewed studies, or internal DOC
technical advice held by the Department that specifically assesses the toxicological effects of
glyphosate or surfactants on the Australasian Bittern or the Long-tailed bat. Therefore, your
request is refused in accordance with s18(e) of the Act as the information does not exist, or
s18(g) of the Act as the information is not held.
6.
Expert Consultation: Please provide any internal correspondence or records of
consultation with Dr. Colin O’Donnell (or other DOC Principal Scientists) regarding the
potential risks of this specific aerial spray operation on the Te Henga bat and bittern
populations.
There have been no internal communications involving Dr. Colin O’Donnel , or other DOC
Principal Scientists, regarding the potential risks of this specific aerial spray operation on the
Te Henga bat and bittern populations. Therefore, your request is refused in accordance with
s18(e) of the Act as the information does not exist.
7.
Data Gaps: If no such evidence exists, please provide the Department’s rationale for
proceeding with the spray in a Significant Ecological Area (SEA) despite the lack of
baseline data on species-specific chemical sensitivity.
2
DOC is not proceeding with spraying in the Te Henga/Bethells area. The activity is being
undertaken by the Matuku Reserve Trust. As you have previously been advised, monitoring
and compliance, including compliance with Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act
1996 (HSNO) and the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA), is the responsibility of
Auckland Council.
As DOC is not undertaking this activity, your request is refused in accordance with s18(e) of
the Act as the information does not exist.
8.
Can they please give me their responsibilities for monitoring endangered species that
these chemicals affect in many ways and how they protected them during spraying over
28 hectares with over 6000 litres of chemicals over their habitat during nesting season.
When it’s illegal to disturb these birds that are protected under the nzcps as the zone is
a coastal zone with endangered species. What is docs responsibility here
DOC does not have a role in authorising, undertaking, or monitoring the spraying activity you
describe.
DOC’s statutory responsibilities are set out primarily under the Conservation Act 1987, Wildlife
Act 1953, and related legislation. In general terms, DOC’s role is to manage public
conservation land and advocate for the conservation of indigenous biodiversity within statutory
and planning processes. DOC does not oversee or monitor operational activities carried out by
other agencies or organisations on land outside DOC’s control unless a specific statutory
function applies.
The spraying activity referred to was not undertaken by DOC, nor was it carried out under a
DOC permit or approval. As a result, DOC did not have responsibility for designing,
implementing, or monitoring the activity, including decisions relating to timing, chemical use, or
mitigation measures. Therefore, this aspect of your request is refused in accordance with
s18(e) of the Act as the information does not exist.
As you have previously been advised, responsibility for ensuring compliance with relevant
environmental and wildlife protection requirements for spraying activities rests with the agency
or entity that authorised and undertook the work, and with the relevant regulatory authorities.
This includes compliance with legislation and instruments such as the Wildlife Act 1953, the
Resource Management Act 1991, and any applicable regional or district plans, including those
that give effect to the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement. Enforcement and monitoring of
those requirements sit with the responsible consent authority and/or regulator and in this case
Auckland Council is the responsible consent authority and regulator.
You are entitled to seek an investigation and review of my decision by writing to an Ombudsman
as provided by section 28(3) of the Official Information Act.
Please note that this letter (with your personal details removed) may be published on the
Department’s website.
3
Nāku noa, nā
Tim Bamford
Director Terrestrial Biodiversity
Department of Conservation
Te Papa Atawhai
4
