2 OGNZ WUG mine: assessment of potential ecological effects Project 2034 1. Approach The process applied by the assessment team has been as follows: 1. Literature search, information review, experience collation, and personal communications with experts elsewhere regarding the range of potential adverse effects that mining or similar activities may have on Archey’s and Hochstetter’s frogs, New Zealand frogs, or any frogs elsewhere where results may be transferable to this Project. The context for this review was the Project Description (as included in the AEE) provided by OGNZL for the WUG component of the Project3, and the existing knowledge of the project held by Katherine Muchna and Kerry Watson; 2. Weekly meetings to develop, review and test a risk assessment matrix which brings together the identified potential adverse effects and provides an assessment in terms of likelihood of effect, status of qualifying information, and potential magnitude and significance of potential effects; 3. Identification of information weak links or missing links to OGNZL along with (where possible) means of addressing specific information deficiencies, so that the OGNZL team or other appropriate experts can action these; 4. Application of the risk assessment matrix to this report, including an evaluation of other specialist technical assessments for construction and operational aspects of the WUG4 against the adopted engineering design to confirm (as far as we are able to as non-experts in those matters) that our assumptions around project design match with our assumptions around avoidance, remedy or mitigation of potential adverse effects on Archey’s and Hochstetter’s frogs; and 5. Identification of potential adverse effects on Archey’s and Hochstetter’s frogs after good design practice and after the range of proposed mitigations have been adopted by OGNZL. A framework for responding to a spectrum of potential adverse effects by way of enhancements and protections through biodiversity offsetting and ecological compensation for Archey’s frogs is proposed. We understand that it is OGNZL’s intention that this report and, in particular, the framework for offsetting and compensation, will be socialised with other experts representing Hauraki District Council (Council) and the Department of Conservation (DOC). The purpose of doing so is to seek agreement on the matters relating to Archey’s frogs that are of interest to Council and DOC, and to discuss appropriate management responses where potential adverse effects (impacts) are not able to be avoided. Archey’s frog is a focus of this assessment due to presence of the species within terrestrial habitats across the land environment above the proposed underground mine. Hochstetter’s frog is also present within parts of the site within stream and river margins. The analysis presented in this assessment is equally relevant to Hochstetter’s frog as it is to Archey’s frog, for the reasons laid out in the analysis by Bioresearches 2022, which are: · Data from the long-term study on Hochstetter’s frog at Golden Cross mine and the confirmed presence of both Hochstetter’s and Archey’s frog at the Golden Cross mine site (same locations) post-mine closure, suggests that both species of frogs did persist during mining and did not appear to disperse away or perish from areas subject to mining vibration (2–4 mm/s) stimuli; · Hochstetter’s frog monitoring data at Golden Cross mine provided no evidence for even temporal effects (e.g., local population declines, avoidance, or dispersal behaviours) on frog populations in the immediate vicinity of the mining operations; and 3 Mitchell Daysh Limited, Waihi North Project – Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects, dated June 2022. 4 SeeAttachment A for a list of the OGNZ-generated reports reviewed to inform this assessment.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3