30 Boffa Miskell Ltd | Waihi North Project | Terrestrial Ecology Values and Effects of the WUG | 22 June 2022 frequently during surveys in Wharekirauponga (BML 2018, 2019). Both peripatus / Ngaokeoke, and wētā are described by DOC as ‘general indicators of forest health’14. 5.2.2 Ecological Values of Terrestrial Macroinvertebrate Communities Terrestrial invertebrate presence, diversity and abundance metrics have not been systematically surveyed in the course of this ecological assessment, due to the inherent challenges of sampling, identifying and interpreting invertebrate and community data. Instead, habitat condition is used as a proxy for biodiversity values present in terrestrial invertebrate communities. Where indigenous forest cover is largely continuous and intact, with well developed vegetation tiers, abundant leaf litter and minimal disturbance (e.g., due to stock intrusion etc), we consider that the invertebrate community is likely to contain a characteristic suite of native forest taxa. This assumption is borne out by our observations of forest interior species such as wētā, paua slugs and peripatus in forested sites. In contrast, the terrestrial invertebrate communities on Willows Road farm are expected to have Low ecological value as this habitat is unlikely to support a diverse native invertebrate community given the fragmented vegetation community, lack of groundcover and low vegetation tiers. 5.3 Ecological Values of Native Frogs 5.3.1 Desktop Analysis Based on our intensive Archey’s frog surveys undertaken at 121 potential exploration drill sites and vent sites (combined) within the Wharekirauponga catchment, we have found that Archey’s frogs are common throughout the surveyed area but are less prevalent in vegetation types associated with drier, more well drained soils (BML 2018, 2019a, 2021a). The vegetation structure does not appear to influence frog abundance; we found similar frog abundance in mature forest compared to early successional vegetation dominated by grasses. Archey’s frogs have been surveyed extensively within the Wharekirauponga catchment and the number of records in Wharekirauponga compared to other parts of the Coromandel is more likely to reflect survey effort than an actual difference in frog abundance between these areas (i.e. there is a reasonable likelihood that Archey’s frogs may be present in poorly surveyed areas; see Figure 915). We note that Wharekirauponga is thought to be near the southern distributional limit of the southern Coromandel Archey’s frog population16. A population model (Lloyd, 2022) used frog records from field surveys to estimate the likely population size for Archey’s frogs within the Coromandel (excluding the southern distribution gap, for which there are no Archey’s frog records; and within specific vegetation categories and 14 https://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved/run-a-project/restoration-advice/bush-restoration/understand-the-bush/whyinvertebrates/ 15 Frog records shown in Figure 9 reflect the high survey effort in the ‘Proposed Wharekirauponga Project Envelope’, including exploration drill site and vent raise surveys. These are also detailed in Appendix 3. 16 OceanaGold exploratory drilling in Archey’s frog habitat – Advice from the Native Frog Recovery Group. 31 May 2018.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3