Site-specific Assessments of Environmental Effects

B-1 - Area 1, Coromandel Forest Park – Assessment of Environmental Effects 66 have been detected as far south as Golden Cross / Komata Reefs. Archey’s frogs also occupy a wide range of macrohabitats (forest types) provided there is sufficient groundcover and refuge habitat available. Work by Dr Lloyd for this project analysed measured Archey’s frog densities across different habitat types and elevations and from that analysis estimated the likely population size for Archey’s frogs in the Coromandel (not including a substantial area of the Coromandel for which information on Archey’s frog presence is unknown). Based on that work the best estimate for the total Coromandel Archey’s frog population is 54.8 million frogs. This is substantially greater than original assumptions of population size, of between 5,000 - 20,000 mature individuals for the national population. The work by Dr Lloyd for this project indicates that a conservative (high) estimate is that Archey’s frogs living within the potential disturbance area of the WUG comprise 0.53% to 0.58% of the total Coromandel population, and that the area of habitat involved is 0.54 % of the total area of Archey’s frog habitat available within areas where frogs are currently known on the Coromandel (this excludes a large area of the Coromandel potentially also occupied by Archey’s frogs but for which there are no records in the national database, and also excludes two other Archey’s frog populations from Whareorino and Pureora Forest Park). The ecologists identified a range of mitigation measures which will be implemented to avoid, remedy or mitigate the potential effects of the WNP on Archey’s frog which includes: Avoiding establishing vent shaft sites in locations occupied by multiple Archey’s frogs; Having ecologists supervise vent site clearance and relocate frogs found within the clearance footprint during vegetation clearance; Fitting the vent fan for each ventilation shaft to base of shaft to reduce noise experienced at the surface; Constructing vents from the bottom up to reduce disturbance to the forest, vent design to increase; and establish 6 m no-clearance buffer for Archey’s frog observations. However, even after implementing these measures the Archey’s Frog Assessments consider there is a low (but uncertain) risk for this project to generate residual adverse effects on Archey’s frogs within the 314 ha area exposed to vibrations greater than 2mm/s, or the area potentially exposed to vent pollutant discharges. The approach to managing the (low) potential for residual adverse effects on Archey’s frogs by OGNZL has three components.

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3