U:\2021\BM210482_IBo_Waihi_North_Project\Documents\WNP_Freshwater_Report_May_2022\FINAL_Freshwater_Report_FOR DELIVERY_June 2022\FINAL DELIVERED 17 JUNE 2022\WAI-985-000-REP-LC-0007_Rev0_Freshwater_20220621_FINAL.docx ecological feature or process is determined by the magnitude of the effect, the nature of the effects, and the ecological value of the site of component (EIANZ 2018). The EIANZ assessment method uses matrices to provide a basis for clear and comparative assessments of the magnitude of effects (Table 3) and the associated impact on ecological values (Table 4). These must be used in conjunction with a detailed explanation of how scores and evaluations have been derived. Assessment of the level of adverse effect excludes consideration of specific mitigation measures (i.e., it is a ‘raw’, unmitigated assessment), but does consider whether the effect could be potentially mitigated or remedied. ‘Effect magnitude’ scores were derived for each of the assessed ecological features based on the works proposed within the relative footprint, and ongoing effects associated with its functioning. Level of effect was assessed for each ecological feature and local fauna population using a matrix of ‘effect magnitude’ and ‘ecological value’ rankings. This matrix uses the ecological value assigned to each feature in combination with the magnitude of the effect of project activities on each feature to determine the overall level (i.e., seriousness) of the effect. Table 4 shows how the loss, change or deviation from the existing or baseline ecological quantity and quality conditions can be described in terms of the extent and duration of alteration to describe the magnitude of effect. A scale of very high to negligible is widely accepted. Note that ‘existing’ and ‘baseline’ conditions may be the same, but they may differ when the existing environment is expected to change before the activity causing an effect takes place. Table 3: EIANZ criteria for describing magnitude of effect (EIANZ 2018). Magnitude of effect in this table is considered without mitigation. Magnitude Description Very high • Total loss of, or very major alteration to, key elements/features/ of the existing baseline conditions, such that the post-development character, composition and/or attributes will fundamentally change and may be lost from the site altogether; and/or • Loss of a very high proportion of the known population or range of the element/feature High • Major loss or major alteration to key elements/features of the existing baseline conditions such that the post-development character, composition and/or attributes will be fundamentally changed; and/or • Loss of a high proportion of the known population or range of the element/feature Moderate • Loss or alteration to one or more key elements/features of the existing baseline conditions, such that the post-development character, composition and/or attributes will be partially changed; and/or • Loss of a moderate proportion of the known population or range of the element/feature Low • Minor shift away from existing baseline conditions. Change arising from the loss/alteration will be discernible, but underlying character, composition and/or attributes of the existing baseline condition will be similar to pre-development circumstances or patterns; and/or • Having a minor effect on the known population or range of the element/feature Negligible • Very slight change from the existing baseline condition. Change barely distinguishable, approximating to the ‘no change’ situation; and/or • Having negligible effect on the known population or range of the element/feature Notes: We note that where the level of effect is noted as moderate, high or very high, mitigation is usually required. Therefore, the effects would typically be considered significant under the RMA.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3