2 Boffa Miskell Ltd | Pest Animal Management Plan | Wharekirauponga Compensation Package | 30 May 2022 Wharekirauponga Animal Pest Management Area (WAPMP) area. Overall potential residual effects after the proposed management is applied were identified as 1) a result of discharges to air from ventilation raise for fauna in Coromandel Park, and 2) episodic vibration from underground blasting for invertebrates and frogs in the Coromandel Park (both assessed as low effect with residual risk). Notably, potential residual adverse effects may occur under a worse-case scenario (after the proposed mitigation measures have been applied) which may result in direct or indirect impacts for Archey’s frogs (Leiopelma archeyi) , or other species, within the Wharekirauponga project area. The ecological value of Archey’s frog was scored as ‘High’, as per the criteria listed by the Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand (EIANZ) when considering species with an ‘At Risk – Declining’ threat classification (Ussher, 2022). Residual effects from the project on resident frog populations may arise from vibration, discharge of air pollutants via the vent shaft, and failure of the proposed mitigation measures (as described in Usher, 2022). The impacts of these effects may include reduction of fecundity, movement of frogs out of the affected area, and / or lowered population viability or extinction of the local Wharekirauponga population of Archey’s frogs. The impacts of likelihood of these potential effects are summarised in Table 1. Large-scale habitat loss was ruled out given there is no earthwork or groundwater effects. Table 1. Likelihood of occurrence and potential effects on frogs and frog habitat of potential adverse effects that may be associated with the WUG project. Estimates of loss are independent between rows (i.e. not cumulative). Summarised from Ussher (2022). Potential effect Likelihood of occurrence Likelihood of loss of potential frog habitat Potential loss of frogs if low likelihood assessment is incorrect Vibration (episodic) – at ground level leading to loss of breeding success/ frog movement away Low Nil Some number less than the estimated population within the potential effects footprint (estimated at around 290,000 Archey’s frogs). Vent shaft – discharge of air pollutants, leading to localised pollutant effects on frogs Low Nil Several thousands frogs may be in the vicinity of vent stacks and exposed to elevated levels of air emissions compared to the current background state (although less than levels that roadside Archey’s frogs are currently exposed to). Failure of proposed mitigation measures Very low Low (less than 1 ha; i.e. less than 0.3 % of the local WUP area occupied by Archey’s frogs, and far less than 1% of known occupied habitat by Archey’s frogs on the Coromandel Peninsula) Some number less than the estimated population within the potential effects footprint (estimated at around 290,000 Archey’s frogs).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3