15 OGNZ WUG mine: assessment of potential ecological effects Project 2034 outcomes, under the concept of ‘protective benefit’10 as a requirement of Wildlife Act Authorities that are issued where unavoidable or unintended losses to herpetofauna may result. 5. Net gain Net-gain (‘net positive benefit’) is a management tool to address unavoidable losses of biodiversity after actions to avoid, remedy, and mitigate have been sequentially applied, and residual adverse effects still remain. Net-gain extends further than no-net-loss to provide an unequivocal benefit over and above equivalent redress for the risk of losses at an impact site. In the context of WUG, an unequivocal net-gain would need to include programmes that result in demonstrated benefits for Archey’s frogs (and Hochstetter’s frogs if necessary) and which are generally agreed by stakeholders and regulators – whether those gains are realised on the ground as active management or through ‘indirect’ conservation through advocacy, research, or education. In most situations the risk around an adverse effect occurring, that cannot be avoided, remedied or mitigated, is certain or almost-certain and an assessment of overall net-loss:gain relies upon enhancement works delivering benefit with certainty. In the case of WUG, the risk of an adverse effect occurring is low or very low and applying a standard effects management framework (EIANZ) results in no need for further mitigation, offset or compensation beyond that already included as part of the mine design. However, as previously discussed, OGNZL wishes to deliver certainty of a net-gain outcome through extensive positive environmental enhancements as part of its agreed overall design package for the WUG project, and to ensure certainty of benefits for Archey’s frogs (and for Hochstetter’s frogs). OGNZL has previously sought comment from DOC regarding beneficial works that it could contribute to as part of a net-benefit programme11. Those initiatives are listed below inTable 4, with an explanation of what these could include. Table 4. Initiatives that could assist with providing benefits for Archey’s and Hochstetter’s frogs. Conservation initiative Description and example 1. Predator control area around WUG area Intensive, long-term pest animal control at Otahu Ecological Area (or other areas where Archey’s and Hochstetter’s frogs are present), with a core area under more intensive (e.g. mouse) management. 2. Distribution surveys to better assess population status for Archey’s frogs Fund distributional surveys to assess population extent and revisit long-term monitoring sites for Archey’s frogs. 3. Fund research programmes Targeted funding for graduate, PhD or post-doctoral research programmes on approved topics relating to Archey’s frog conservation. Priorities for research would be informed by the DOC Frog Recovery Group or the Frog Recovery Plan (or both). 4. Investigate translocation and population establishment Develop and implement a programme of assessing translocation potential and trial re-establishment of Archey’s frog in new location(s). Investigate or trial potential candidate sites such as Great Barrier Island, Little Barrier Island, Maungatautari Mainland Sanctuary, and other mainland sites. 10 As recently adopted by DOC following the PauaMAC5 Court of Appeal and Supreme Court cases in 2018 and 2019 (otherwise known as the “shark cage diving” cases) which reinforced that authorised activities must fall within the purpose of the Act which is “for the protection and control of wildlife”, or protective benefit. 11 DOC’s response is covered in its letter dated 31 May 2018 (DOCCM-5483966) in which it concluded that there is insufficient information known about the success of any actions to benefit Archey’s frogs such that the Recovery Group recommends that avoidance of further potential adverse effects is the preferred option.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3