S92 Request – Te Kuha 1

Memorandum

To: Martina Armstrong, Landpro

From: Gary Bramley and Robyn Simcock

Date: 20 January 2017

Re: Buller District Council s92 Request – Te Kuha

INTRODUCTION

What follows is our response to the request for further information from the Buller District Council in

relation to the Te Kuha coal mining application. This response is intended for circulation to the project

team and our client before formulation of the overall final response.

We have suggested herein ways in which the uncertainty identified by the terrestrial ecology reviewer

can be addressed (for example by way of proposed draft conditions) and our client will need to

consider whether these suggestions are workable given the constraints under which they will be

operating any future mine.

We have provided our response in two parts, firstly relating to Section B of the Section 92 request

(effects of rehabilitation on landscape and amenity, which has been informed by the peer review

report of Stephen Brown of Brown New Zealand Limited, and for which further input is required from

Peter Rough and Nikki Smetham), and secondly Section C (Terrestrial Ecology, informed by the peer

review of Dr Graham Ussher of RMA Ecology Limited). For ease of use we have tabulated our

response with the matter raised by the Buller District Council and the nature of the further information

requested in the left hand column and our response to that matter articulated in the right hand column.

LANDSCAPE AND AMENITY EFFECTS (SECTION B)

Reference Matter Raised Response

N/A The Rough & Milne photo-simulations portray the progressive visual effects of mining at intervals ending at 35+ years after mining has ceased. However, the Council landscape reviewer, in conjunction with the ecology reviewer (Dr Ussher), consider that the long term landscape effects are likely to be more significant than the Rough & Milne report suggests Dr Ussher is of the opinion that full

Discussion with Dr Ussher indicates that the Brown assessment includes ecological remediation and has placed a higher importance on the existing fine vegetation pattern (i.e. the highly heterogeneous mosaic of vegetation and rock colour and height) and pattern than the applicant’s experts. We accept that the post-mining mosaic will be coarser (effectively in perpetuity) than the existing mosaic and that a return to pre-mining vegetation height and structural complexity across large areas within the site will take many decades (the 50+ years envisaged by Dr Ussher). We note that ecological remediation also includes placement of salvaged coarse wood and boulders, development of vegetation structure (tree height, vegetation layers and ground cover), organic soil layers and return of fauna species (including soil fauna).

S92 Request – Te Kuha 2

remediation of the mine site and access road may well take 50 years or more and the access road has the potential to be a noticeable landscape feature for centuries due to the pattern of vegetation being less complex and diverse than that which occurs naturally. As a result both the mine and access road have the potential to have long term effects that are not acknowledged in the Rough & Milne assessment.

However, after discussion with Rough & Milne, we are of the opinion that vegetation height and structural complexity are not required to achieve a “natural” appearance given the distance of the views, and the shape of the proposed rehabilitated landform (particularly the proposal to avoid continuous and even contours). Having viewed simulations using different rehabilitation methods, plant species and time periods, we have agreed that vegetation colours and the contrast between vegetation and rocks/shadows are more important than vegetation height and pattern per se and as such that opinion has formed the basis for the proposed rehabilitation approach. At a landscape scale the proposal includes a combination of removing permanent highwalls, creating variable backfill topography, and establishing a cover which includes rocks and dominant green and grey-green coloured native plants (manuka (Leptospermum scoparium agg.), mountain flax (Phormium cookianum), hebes (Veronica spp.), Olearia spp., broadleaf (Griselinia littoralis), beech species (primarily mountain beech (Lophozonia cliffortioides, but also red beech (L. fusca) and silver beech (Fuscopora menziesii) where appropriate)), rather than seasonally or permanently light brown or fawn coloured vegetation (exotic grasses, native toetoe (Austroderia richardii) and some large tussocks (Chionochloa spp.)). Growth rates at Strongman, Stockton and elsewhere have shown that effective1 canopy closure is achievable within 10 years from initial revegetation if managed to achieve that outcome. This outcome (canopy closure with native vegetation) has been simulated by Rough and Milne in their assessment. That simulation shows a relatively fast moderation of landscape effect, despite ecological remediation (in relation to vegetation pattern, structure and function) taking much longer. We note two misinterpretations of the AEE which are evident in Dr Ussher’s review and may have affected Mr Brown’s assessment: 1) No high walls are proposed. The engineered land form

would abut the natural topography and result in a slightly lowered ridgeline overall.

2) There is no proposed void to be filled / remediated 10

years after mine closure is achieved elsewhere. Thus the rehabilitation schedule provided in the technical reports (which excludes the road) is correct for the current mine schedule and shows final revegetation on the mine site (excluding the road) at Year 19, with vegetation canopy achieving closure on the last-rehabilitated areas at Year 29. The rehabilitation schedule allows for 3 years to fill the final void, with an average of 1.3 M cubic metres p.a. as identified in the Palaris report (Appendix 15 of the AEE) and articulated below.

1 We have used the term “effective” canopy cover to indicate that from a visual perspective cover may be achieved at a range of vegetation densities.

S92 Request – Te Kuha 3

The following table is taken from the draft rehabilitation plan and identifies the area of initial revegetation treatment through the life of the mine. It is based on the Polaris report and only the mine site

S92 Request – Te Kuha 4

TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY (SECTION C)

Reference Matter Raised Response

Sections 8.4 & 8.5 of Appendix 10 – Mitchell Ecology Assessment

Biodiversity Offsets/Compensation

The Council reviewer is of the opinion that even with the best rehabilitation programme, there will still be substantial significant, residual adverse effects on ecological values that are not avoided, remedied or mitigated.

The Mitchell report suggests potential off-site mitigation for the adverse effects of habitat removal via two possible proposals: 1) Multi-species pest control over a large area of native habitat around the Te Kuha mine site; 2) Permanent protection of an area of coal measure ecosystem in the vicinity of the proposed mine site. However, no mention is made of these proposals in the AEE therefore it is unclear whether off-site mitigation forms part of the application.

Clarification is required as to whether off-sets form part of the application. If off-setting mitigation is proposed, the specific details being offered need to be clearly identified to enable consideration as part of the mitigation package.

Biodiversity offsetting does not form part of the application. The applicant agrees that, following the application by the applicant of an appropriate ‘mitigation hierarchy’ approach, there will be residual adverse effects on ecological values and proposes compensation for those ecological values which cannot be fully mitigated. Mitigation and compensation actions are proposed as follows: For those affected species, such as great spotted kiwi, and habitats, such as herbfields, where mitigation would be a relatively straight forward proposition the applicant proposes particular mitigation actions as follows: • Minimising the project footprint to the extent practicable. • Direct Transfer ("VDT") of 10 - 15% of the existing vegetation,

including "high value" habitats such as herbfields and yellow-silver pine – manuka shrubland where practicable. Conditions could be developed which specify a minimum area of DT for each of these two habitats (and/or a minimum overall area).

• Achieving a high standard of site rehabilitation post mining,

including the creation of tarns and well buffered riparian areas, based on topsoil cover of all areas. The adequacy of topsoil volume would be reported quarterly to inform the mine planning of soil shortages which need to be addressed so as to avoid failure to achieve mine closure as discussed below.

• Buffering VDT vegetation with dense plantings, except at

herbfields and tarns, which would have substantive rock cover placed in adjacent areas in order to assist in erosion control and suppress taller vegetation surrounding the low stature herbfields (and promote their persistence).

• Use of local species (from the same ecological district) and

prioritisation of locally significant species, including sourcing propagules for nursery plantings from the site itself, as well as avoiding the use of non-native species in plantings.

• Employing strategies to maintain suitable microclimates for

bryophytes and slugs along newly cut edges by minimising or preventing drying out of their habitats.

• Maintaining site biosecurity and weed control. • Provision of ecosystem management within the Orikaka

Ecological Area located north east of Te Kuha. The applicant considers that in addition to management of individuals affected by vegetation stripping (e.g. collection and relocation), 2,500 ha of ecosystem management outside the mine site for the duration of the consent would improve productivity and survival of native birds and reptiles sufficiently to replace the individuals affected by the mining activities and satisfactorily mitigate adverse effects on some species.

S92 Request – Te Kuha 5

The applicant proposes a further 2,500 ha of ecosystem management in addition to the area to be managed for mitigation as “environmental compensation”. This equates to a total of 5,000 ha of ecosystem management proposed as an overall ecological compensation and mitigation ‘package’ for the proposal. The location of this management was proposed by the Department of Conservation as part of access arrangements for the 12 ha of public conservation land affected by the proposal. The Department’s preferred location is in the vicinity of the Orikaka River, north of the access road which services the Burnetts Face to New Creek electricity transmission line. The exact location is still under discussion with Department staff, but would be governed by practical considerations such as ease of access, topography, existing mining permits and the range and abundance of resident flora and fauna. The proposed ecosystem management and mitigation activities would be guided by the preparation and implementation of specific management plans2 for roroa, lizards, bryophytes, forest ringlet butterfly, rehabilitation, predators/pests and weeds (including site biosecurity). These would be prescribed by the conditions of consent and developed in consultation with the Department of Conservation. The plans would include specific and measurable outcomes against which the success of the management can be gauged. The management plans would also include approaches intended to protect ecological values including monitoring, translocation or propagation of native species from the mine site, provision of habitats suitable for native species as part of rehabilitation and control of non-native species at the mine site throughout the mine life. In addition to the proposed ecosystem management, the applicant proposes positive conservation actions being the provision of interpretation and signage at the Charming Creek walkway and funding/participating in an annual “coal measures workshop” focussing on coal measures ecosystem rehabilitation and management (if there is an appetite for such a forum from other affected parties involved in rehabiliation (the Councils, DOC and other mining companies)).

Page 1 of Appendix 11 Mitchell Ecology Assessment & Page 55 of AEE - footprint Appendix 11

Differing figures are given for the loss of habitat associated with the mine footprint. The most recent Mitchell report is based on a footprint of 112 ha. Whilst the AEE project description states that: 'The current mine plan is based on a 109 ha

The mine footprint has changed over time so as to reduce effects on high value ecosystems, provide increased topsoil storage for rehabilitation, incorporate areas that would be affected, but not stripped for mining (e.g. the sump and water discharge areas), and to account for changes in the preferred access road route as the proposal has developed. Having taken account of the 116 ha mine footprint the total extent of the vegetation types affected (in hectares) is as follows: Manuka – Dracophyllum rockland: 3.4 Manuka Shrubland: 19.8

2 The management plans could be combined to reduce the number of plans required. For example, weeds and predators could be included in the Rehabilitation Management Plan, whilst the management plan for all targeted species found on site could also be combined.

S92 Request – Te Kuha 6

mine footprint, but that an alternative ELF area has been identified which may be incorporated into future detailed mine planning, hence the 116 ha potential disturbance area for the mine footprint' Clarification is required as to the total disturbance associated with the mine footprint. As regards the discrepancy of 4ha between the latest Mitchell report (112ha) and the mine footprint (116ha), please provide details on the habitat type covered by this 4 ha. How confident is the Applicant that the overall footprint proposed in the application will not increase significantly following detailed design?

Yellow-silver pine – manuka shrubland: 17.8 Herbfield: 0.07 Mountain beech – yellow-silver pine – pink pine forest: 82.1 Rimu/hard beech forest: 14.5 Rimu – silver beech – red beech forest: 0.4 Pond: 0.08 Slips/bare ground: 0.08 Regenerating shrubland: 4.93 ha Pasture: 0.9 ha This represents total disturbance, including the access road, of 144 ha, of which approximately 122 ha of which would be coal measures vegetation. The total area may be subject to change depending on final location of the coal loadout, but the area of coal measures affected is not expected to change. Certainty could be provided by imposing a maximum allowable disturbance or constrained boundary via the draft proposed conditions of consent.

Page 122, 125 & 126 of the AEE – Rehabilitation and Weed/Pest Management Plans

There are inconsistencies between the proposed concepts of rehabilitation in the Mitchell report and what appears to be committed to in the AEE. The Council reviewer considers that that an outline rehabilitation management plan would provide greater assurance as to what is being committed to. He also considers that an outline weed and pest animal management plan should be provided. Please provide an outline rehabilitation management plan that builds on the objectives presented in pages 125 & 126 of the AEE and includes minimum standards of operation

The draft rehabilitation management plan will be provided.

S92 Request – Te Kuha 7

in regard to DT, planting, material handling, road construction and mine scheduling. The Plan should also include measurable closure criteria.

Glenny Reports – Bryophytes and Lichens

Council has not been provided with the Dr Glenny's technical reports for bryophytes and lichens. The Council reviewer considers these reports may hold additional information regarding the contextual importance of species occurrence and rehabilitation potential that may further assist the assessment of effects. Please provide Dr Glenny's reports dated 2014 and 2016.

The 2014 report was based on work done by Dr Glenny and Dr Fife in 2001. This work was updated by additional field work undertaken by Dr Glenny in 2016. As such there was no 2014 report. Additional fieldwork in relation to bryophytes is being undertaken to: i) Confirm the location of forest boulder habitats in the southern part of the site with respect to pit edge; ii) Investigate rehabilitation outcomes for bryophytes at other sites; and iii) Provide additional context for the survey findings.

Mitchell Ecology Assessment – Lizards

The Council reviewer considers that a more comprehensive assessment of the lizard fauna at the site should be undertaken to provide assurance that the Te Kuha site does not include a high abundance of forest gecko, West Coast green gecko or the presence of other species. Please advise whether any further lizard surveys will be undertaken in line with the Council reviewer's recommendations? If not, how does the Applicant propose dealing with this information gap.

We do not consider that additional lizard survey is required. At Escarpment Mine, tracking and multiple translocations of resident lizards has informed a far more effective search method (based on developing a more appropriate and complete search image of preferred vegetation height, type, form and proximity to pavement) than previously used at mine sites on the West Coast. The proposed approach is to assume lizards are present and manage them according to a lizard management plan based on that implemented by Bathhurst Resources Limited at Escarpment Mine. This approach will provide data about lizard distribution and abundance at the site and will be informed by the most recent information in relation to lizard habitat preference at Denniston (collected by Bathurst Resources Limited who have agreed to share results and information). It will also provide for collection and relocation of lizards from the site.

Mitchell Ecology Assessment – Rhytida-like snail and leaf-veined slug

The Council reviewer considers that a more comprehensive assessment of the Rhytida-like snail and the un-described species of leaf-veined slug within and around

Genetic analysis of 12 similar snails, including four from Te Kuha and one from Mt William, has concluded that the Te Kuha snail belongs to an unnamed species of Rhytida, the known range of which extends from south of the Stockton Plateau to part way down the Paparoa Range and east as far as Murchison and Lewis Pass. The applicant considers that further investigation of the snail habitat at Te Kuha is unwarranted.

S92 Request – Te Kuha 8

the Te Kuha site is required, to establish whether the mine site and/or Te Kuha generally are the only place where these species exist. Please advise whether any further surveys for Rhytida-like snail and the leaf-veined slug will be undertaken in line with the Council reviewer's recommendations? If not, how does the Applicant propose dealing with this information gap?

Mitchell Ecology Assessment – Bryophytes

Along with the Mitchell specialists, the Council reviewer considers the bryophyte communities identified at the site to be a significant assemblage of species. The Applicant has not presented any evidence as to the distribution of similar communities of this nature outside of the project footprint. The Council reviewer considers this would assist in evaluating the local importance of the bryophyte communities. Please advise whether any further surveys and/or information on the bryophyte communities will be provided in line with the Council reviewer's recommendations? If not, how does the applicant propose dealing with this information gap?

Additional bryophyte surveys are being undertaken as described earlier.

AEE & Mitchell Ecology Assessments – ELF rehabilitation

The Council reviewer considers that issues around the ability of engineered landforms to support vegetation and blending of finished landforms with surrounding, unmodified, landforms have not been addressed.

As described in the Palaris report (Appendix 15 of the AEE) and outlined in Section 3.10 of the AEE the rehabilitated topography will comprise slope angles of up to 27 degrees and will not include highwalls. The edges of the engineered landform will meet natural ground as shown in Appendix 15 of the AEE and reproduced below.

S92 Request – Te Kuha 9

Please consider the reviewers comments in relation to rehabilitation of the ELFs. Provide information on how the ELFs will blend with the surrounding unmodified landforms and confirm the ability of the ELFS to support substrates suitable for the establishment of vegetation.

As described in the CRL report (Appendix 19 of the AEE) the engineered landform will be constructed in short lifts and include a minimum 2 m thick cap of NAF material with the underlying material having an expected permeability of 10-6 m/sec. Substrate acidity and soil availability will be monitored and managed according to management plans which will avoid excess acidity in the root zone for rehandled overburden rock and soils.

Soil volume yields, scheduling and storage requirements are described in the Palaris report. This information was used to estimate topsoil storage requirements over the scheduled mine life as shown below, extracted from the draft Rehabilitation Management Plan.

Soil “auditing” as part of the rehabilitation management plan would help ensure that topsoils are salvaged and stockpiled in a way that retains their growth-supporting capacity and accessibility for use in rehabilitation. Soil management could be addressed in conditions of consent e.g. providing for six monthly monitoring of:

i) Quantity and quality of topsoil stripped, stored and available;

ii) Quality and quantity of NAF material available for capping.

The draft rehabilitation management plan includes a section on soil auditing (yield, quality, storage, use), and the remediation options available should soil quality or volume be lower than required to achieve required growth rates/closure (i.e. increase

S92 Request – Te Kuha 10

plant density, add fertiliser to responsive species and/or amend suitable non-acidic overburdens). These interventions will be tested and informed by the c. 1 ha of planted area scheduled to be established as permanent rehabilitation in Year 2. This area will have developed for 14 years before the very large areas of planting occur in the last few years of mine life.

Page 81 of the AEE – Mine Rehabilitation

Table 17 sets out the rehabilitation areas post mining, which will comprise direct transfer, jumble dumping and planting based on a mine footprint of 109 hectares. The mine footprint is now proposed to be 116 hectares therefore this table is out-dated. The Council reviewer also commented that the jumble dumping treatment has not been detailed in the AEE or ecology reports. Please provide an updated rehabilitation table for the current proposed footprint of 116 hectares. Clarify what the jumble dumping rehabilitation technique will entail.

An updated table of stripping and rehabilitation is provided. The extent and timing of direct transfer has not been updated since it will be heavily dependent on the mine schedule, which will change according to economic and other conditions at the time of vegetation stripping.

The applicant proposes focussing on the high value ecosystems for direct transfer and the timing of stripping of those ecosystems would have implications for the potential for direct transfer and/or increased stockpiling. The applicant proposes to specify a minimum area of direct transfer which must be achieved. As part of that minimum areas of direct transfer of the highest value ecosystems could also be proposed as discussed above.

Jumble dumping is the salvage and re-use of mixed vegetation, topsoil, and forest duff in a way that conserves its potential for natural regeneration by reducing dilution with lower-quality subsoils during stripping and minimising structural breakdown, while allowing full utilisation of truck capacity (full loads) and achieving a minimum 100 mm depth of topsoil on rehabilitated surfaces. The procedure includes pre-stripping actions, i.e. identifying the area and depth of removal, any pre-treatments needed (e.g. individual plant salvage by hand or machine, defining areas with weed potential, or large tree removal) as well as the storage, use, and monitoring of salvaged materials.

Rehabilitation section of Mitchell Ecology Assessments – Planting Substrate

The planting programme assumes an availability of appropriate planting substrate. However, there is no evidence presented as to material volumes needed or available to support the planting programme.

Provide information on anticipated soil and/or substrate volumes available to support the planting programme.

Soil volume, yield, scheduling and storage, as well as variations in storage demand across time are provided in the Palaris report. The table below is from the draft Rehabilitation Management Plan.

S92 Request – Te Kuha 11

Rehabilitation section of Mitchell Ecology Assessments – Plant Species

The Council reviewer considers that several of the plant species that comprise important components of mine rehabilitation planting elsewhere will not be appropriate for use at Te Kuha. This raises concern in terms of the availability of plant species for the planting programme.

Provide information on whether a planting palate adequate to meet the plant diversity, survival and growth objectives of the rehabilitation programme can be developed in the absence of commonly used species elsewhere?

The plant species used extensively on parts of Stockton Mine, but not proposed to be used at Te Kuha are broadleaved Chionochloa spp (e.g. C. conspicua), toetoe and red tussock (Chionochloa rubra). These species are visually dominant at some, but not all, rehabilitated locations at Stockton. At Stockton the proportion of these species at planting is usually no greater than those of manuka, flax and hebe spp. but these large grasses can be visually dominant, in part because of their fawn – brown (rather than shades of green) colouring and in part due to their relatively quick growth and precocious seeding into areas nearby. Other plant species which have also been used successfully at Stockton would be included in the bulk of plantings at Te Kuha, including manuka, mountain flax, Olearia spp., Cassinia/tauhinu (Ozothamnus vauvilliersii), rata (Metrosideros umbellata), mountain beech and silver beech. Karamu (Coprosma robusta) and other Coprosma spp., broadleaf and hebes (Veronica spp.) may also be used at lower altitudes in small proportions given deer control is proposed for the life of the consents.

A Land Environments of New Zealand analysis indicates that Te Kuha site conditions are generally approximately midway between Stockton and Strongman mines. Climate at Stockton (Downers 815 m ASL) and at two altitudes representative of the Te Kuha site (620 and 735 m) shows both Te Kuha sites, particularly the lower altitude one, are likely to have more favourable growing conditions than those at Stockton. In particular mean annual and minimum winter temperatures at Te Kuha are slightly higher at Stockton.

Site Stockton A Te Kuha A

lower (Downers) lower higher

Elevation (m) 815 622 736

Deficit 0 0 0

Winter Solar Radiation 4.2 4.2 4.2

Mean Solar Radiation 13.3 13.3 13.3

Mean Temperature 8 9 8.4

Winter Temperature -1.2 -0.1 -0.7

R2 Potential ET 158 103 110

Slope 5 10 9

Vapour Pressure

Deficit 6 12 9

Drainage 4 4 4

At Strongman Mine, Chionochloa spp. have not been planted and toetoe formed only a small component of the plantings: the most common and successful nursery raised plant species at that site

S92 Request – Te Kuha 12

have been: manuka, karamu, mountain flax, koromiko, Olearia spp. and broadleaf.

Data from 100 m2 belt transects at Strongman Mine provided in Mitchell Partnerships Limited (2016) show the effectiveness of both colonisation of species such as ferns and kamahi from the wider environment and production of new seedlings from planted specimens of manuka, olearia, and at some locations koromiko (Veronica salicifolia) and karamu. Seventeen permanently marked transects were established in planted areas between April 2005 and 2009, and monitored until 2012 or 2015. Areas were planted at a mean density of 4,700/ha nursery-raised seedlings. By 2011 the average density of native seedlings greater than 10 cm height had increased to 11,400/ha, approximately doubling the number of plants without additional planting input. Similar regeneration is expected at Te Kuha.

Plots at Strongman Mine show an increase in new, unplanted seedlings (adventive plants) over time. An increase in adventive plants and good natural colonisation rates at that site are both due in part to minimal competition with introduced grasses, legumes and rushes which has allowed native seedlings to colonise and spread at Strongman Mine. Similar low weed competition is expected at Te Kuha given the unmodified nature of the surroundings and that establishment of legumes or a competitive grass sward is not proposed as part of rehabilitation.

Growth rates of nursery planted species at Stockton Mine are presented in the attached appendices. Nursery-raised plant growth rates vary at Stockton: at poorer fertility or more exposed sites, or with slower-growing species, canopy closure has not been achieved within 10 years – as shown in Plate 28 of Mitchell Partnerships Limited (2016). However, in areas with better substrate and/or shelter, growth rates have been higher and canopy closure has been achieved in 10 to 15 years. A higher planting density is anticipated at Te Kuha (12,000 to 15,000 plants/ha) than at Stockton, where planting density was typically 5,000 to 7,500 plants/ha and occasionally up to 10,000 plants/ha. The higher planting density will speed up the expansion of cover.

Comparison of growth rates within 10 by 10 m plots planted at 3,000, 5,000, 7,000, 9,000 and 11,000 plants/ha equivalent at Stockton in 2005-2006 and measured in 2010 showed the benefit of fertiliser with unfertilised plots at 7,000, 9,000 and 11,000 plants/ha increasing from <5% cover at planting to about 30% cover, whilst by 2010 cover in fertilised sub-plots exceeded 40% in the 9,000/ha and 11,000/ha treatments.

The rehabilitation chapter of the AEE lists important practices including monitoring and feedback actions which will reduce the risk of inadequate plant cover being achieved. These include:

• Plant density and soil amendment trials (c. 1 ha) established on the first area of permanent rehabilitation in Year 2. This will have been in place for 14 years the large areas of final revegetation start in year 16.

• An on-site source of planted material created on temporary rehabilitation, for reuse on final areas (particularly suited to manuka and flax).

• Provision for review of survival and post planting success of rarer plant species being salvaged at Escarpment Mine,

S92 Request – Te Kuha 13

particularly the rarer native species being used in an on-site propagation area there.3

Specific consent conditions would be developed in relation to achievement of a minimum density of long-lived, slow dispersing species (such as beech or some podocarps) to be established over areas of the landscape where such species would be expected to be present.

Page 79 of AEE – Rehabilitation of the Access Road

The AEE states that the haul road will only be partially rehabilitated. The Council reviewer considers that this will result in significant fragmentation of the natural ecosystems covering an adjoining ca.200 hectares and will present a fire, weed and pest animal risk to the surrounding area.

Please consider the reviewer's comments and advise whether any additional rehabilitation measures will be implemented to address the concerns raised.

The access road will be needed to allow access during the rehabilitation phase of the mine’s life. Once closure is achieved within the mine site, the road would be sequentially decommissioned and rehabilitated. The management of this process is provided for in the draft rehabilitation management plan.

CONCLUSION

The main theme of the peer review of the terrestrial ecological reports is a desire to reduce uncertainty

in relation to the rehabilitation outcomes and the mitigation and compensation actions proposed. This

theme was reinforced when we met with Dr Ussher in December. Provision of the draft management

plans and draft proposed conditions will go some way to addressing this uncertainty and we have also

suggested in our response above some specific ways which might also assist in reducing uncertainty

about the scale of effects. These include developing conditions of consent which constrain the

maximum footprint size and committing to minimum areas of direct transfer as part of rehabilitation.

Our intention was that our client consider the feasibility of these suggestions before the final response

is provided.

We trust this is sufficient to inform the overall response you are preparing, if not please feel free to

contact either one of us for clarification.

3 This is one example of an area where an annual discussion of effective rehabilitation strategies and knowledge sharing could be useful.