3 OGNZ WUG mine: assessment of potential ecological effects Project 2034 · The persistence of both Archey’s and Hochstetter’s frog populations in the immediate vicinity of the mining operations at Golden Cross suggests both species can tolerate vibration of 2–10 mm/s5 for Hochstetter’s frog (Attachment B) and 2 mm/s (maybe up to 4 mm/s) for Archey’s frog (although this data does not provide evidence of a vibration threshold). 2. Identification of potential adverse effects A master list of potential adverse effects was developed from literature and other reviews. Some of those potential effects relate to activities within the Wharekirauponga location that are either covered by the existing suite of resource consents or by existing Wildlife Act Authorities held by OGNZL. More importantly, there are a suite of potential adverse effects that we have been asked by OGNZL to treat as part of activities that OGNZL will apply for permission to undertake, prior to and separate from the overall WUG works. Table 1 provides a summary of the assumed activities that are permitted, or for which a separate suite of consents and Authorities (as necessary) will be sought. The activities outlined inTable 1 help describe the assumed ‘baseline state’ against which we have assessed additional activities associated with the WUG. We have assumed that the activities inTable 1, including the range of potential adverse effects on Archey’s and Hochstetter’s frogs, will be fully considered by OGNZL’s ecological advisors and by the relevant regulator as part of granting operating permissions. We have also assumed that, where appropriate, additional design requirements, operating constraints and mitigations or offset/ compensation may be required as part of granting those permissions. For the purposes of this assessment, we have considered the potential for cumulative effects resulting from the combination of activities listed inTables 1 and 2. 3. Assessment of potential adverse effects The ecological effects assessment relies upon several sources of information. These are: 1. An understanding of the construction footprint, the construction process, and the operation of the various aspects of the proposed mine, all in the context of the ‘baseline state’ (i.e. the existing environment). We have relied upon the Project Description provided by OGNZL (as included in the AEE) and subsequent discussions with Kerry Watson; and 2. A framework for synthesising the ecological values being considered and the magnitude, severity and persistence of an adverse effect. The tool that we have applied is the effects assessment matrix approach as described by the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ). This informs an assessment of the level of effect of the project on ecological values and from there allows consideration of how and what effects management tools may be applied to lessen or balance residual effects to an acceptable level. The EIANZ matrix approach, and the guidelines within which it is included, has been developed as a guide for ecologists undertaking effects assessments under the RMA (EIANZ, 2018). The EIANZ guidelines and the impact assessment matrix in particular, provides a robust, concise and consistent approach to effects assessment, whilst ensuring that individual expert evaluation and opinion is preserved. 5 Vibration magnitude distribution curves indicated that while Hochstetter’s frogs in one location may have experienced one blast that caused a vibration up to 10 mm/s, such magnitude of vibration was not typically generated. The vast majority of all blasts generated vibration no greater than about 4 mm/s.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3