As the Government body entrusted with "conserving New Zealand's natural and historic heritage for all to enjoy now and in the future" (1) I had thought that the Department of Conservation would have an effective process for managing the environmental and social effects of commercial development in national parks. This process is known as Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA). It is an institutional process to predict and mitigate effects on the environment of proposed developments (2). I would have thought that DOC's process would allow development of parks only as long as preservation of them is not compromised
However, this case study on Routeburn Walks Limited's Harris Saddle shelter proposal indicates that DOC's environmental impact assessment process for concessionaires (commercial operators in conservation areas) is soft. DOC managers are permitting development by concessionaires without ensuring that preservation goals in conservation management strategies are met.
In December 1999 the DOC Otago Conservancy renewed a concession for Routeburn Walks Ltd that includes permission to build an additional lunch shelter at Harris Saddle on the Routeburn Track (3). The private lunch shelter development will be an additional intrusive structure on the highest and most scenic point on the Routeburn Track linking Mount Aspiring and Fiordland National Parks. The shelter will piggy-back on DOC's Harris Saddle septic tank system. This has discharged unsettled effluent into the watershed of the Hollyford for at least 6 years in breach of its resource consent. I know this as I used to turn the valve that released the effluent.
Routeburn Walk Limited's (RWL) application for the renewal of its concession and permission to construct an additional private lunch shelter on Harris Saddle was submitted to DOC in February 1998. From December 1998 RWL sent copies to several South Island runanga. In June 1999 DOC notified the application in the three major South Island newspapers and called for public submissions as required under the Conservation Act 1987. Eleven people including myself filed submissions. Ten submissions were against granting approval for the shelter. A public hearing was held in October 1999 in Dunedin. Otago Conservancy Community Relations Manager Ian Whitwell was the public hearing commissioner and wrote the concession approval document (3). Otago Conservator Jeff Connell approved it.
Under the Conservation Act 1987 the decision to approve a concession application must meet a number of criteria.
I submitted in writing and at the public hearing that the concession should be renewed without approval for the development of the lunch shelter on Harris Saddle. My four concerns about the shelter development were; its inconsistency with conservation management strategies, the inadequacy of the assessment of environmental effects of the shelter, lack of relevant information provided to the public, and the faulty septic tank system at Harris Saddle. Under each of those headings I will summarise my submission, the reply from the DOC concession decision document, and then my final comments. I will also comment on the conservancy jurisdiction (Otago or Southland) after discussing the conservation management strategies..
I argued that the additional shelter development was inconsistent with conservation management strategies and plans (and the purpose for which the land was held). The Otago CMS (4) is bigger than a phone book so I summarised the many relevant sections (and those of the Mount Aspiring National Park management plan (5)) into principles. The key principle appears to me to be a hierarchy of preservation, recreation and commercial tourism and development in that order. That is to say, recreation and commercial development are to be allowed as long as preservation of the environment in its natural state is not compromised.
The decision document stated that the other submitters and I had an excessively narrow interpretation of the Otago CMS and legislation. The DOC decision document emphasises balancing preservation and development. Therefore the proposed shelter would be consistent with the CMS and the principles of the National Parks Act 1980.
I could discuss at length with examples why there is a hierachy with preservation the most important principle for conservation areas and why the decision document is incorrect. Instead I ask why are DOC managers interpreting conservation management strategies and plans and legislation in a way that does not make preservation the first priority? The strategies and plans are statutory documents prepared after much public consultation to guide the Department. DOC managers appear to regard maintaining relationships with concessionaires as more important than upholding conservation management strategies. Is this stated in their personal performance targets? If DOC is not setting preservation of conservation lands as its top priority, who will?
Harris Saddle is the boundary between Mount Aspiring National park within DOC's Otago conservancy and Fiordland National Park within Southland conservancy. The Harris Saddle Shelter is just on the Southland side. The shelter, toilet and septic tank are cleaned and maintained every two or three days by hut wardens. The nearest warden is the Otago Routeburn Falls Hut warden who probably does 70% of this maintenance. Southland owns the septic tank system and are responsible for removing the septage annually from the tank. Obviously the Routeburn Track and Routeburn Walks guiding concession cross the conservancy boundary.
Otago Community Relations Officer Richard Clarke informed me that Otago was the lead conservancy in terms of managing the concession relationship with Routeburn Walks Limited. Consequently Otago was managing the concession renewal. Therefore I assumed I would refer to the Otago CMS and the Mount Aspiring National Park plan. I specifically asked Richard Clarke if my submission would be undermined by referring to the Otago CMS when the shelter was in Southland. He replied that both conservancies strategies were equally relevant as it was a cross-conservancy concession renewal concerning a development on an unsurveyed boundary and that a submission based on one CMS would not be dismissed on that technicality.
The decision document states "Strictly speaking the citing of the Mount Aspiring National Park and the Otago CMS regarding the shelter is irrelevant" before relenting and admitting that the issue is a technicality (3). However Jeff Connell in his approval comments states that the decision document "gives too much weight to the Otago CMS" and that "greater weight should be given to material statements in the Fiordland National Park Management Plan." (3).
It appears to me that Otago Conservancy is invoking changes in conservancy jurisdiction to justify ignoring submitters during their poor decision-making process . Firstly, the lead conservancy is chosen on the grounds of convenience to the concessionaire. When submitters question the proposal on the grounds of that conservancy's conservation management strategy, they are told there are other more material statements elsewhere. I would like to know what statutory justification there is in the Conservation Act 1987 or the National Parks Act 1980 for this term 'material statement'. It appears to be used by DOC to negate any comment by a submitter. This reinforces the point about the importance of the availability of the approval in principle report for submitters.
I argued that the shelter development application should be declined as Routeburn Walk Limiteds assessment of environmental effects (AEE) was inadequate. The AEE was not satisfactory in comparison to benchmark guidelines published by the Ministry of the Environment (6) and the University of Otago (7). The assessment failed to refer to the relevant plans and strategies, failed to identify the effects of reduction in naturalness, and failed to identify social effects. There was no real evaluation of the significance of effects. Affected parties were not identified (trampers, the local community) Iwi appear to have only been consulted at the insistence of DOC.
The decision document stated that the AEE is provided for the benefit of the decision maker and it is for the decision maker to decide whether it is adequate. It also stated that "it is perhaps a moot point as to whether it is a relevant matter for a submission". The decision document concludes that it was not reasonable to expect the AEE prepared by law firm Anderson Lloyd in 1998 to comply with AEE guidelines published in 1999.
The adequacy of the AEE is an issue of legal interpretation. Under the Conservation Act 1987 the AEE is to be in the form of the Fourth Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991. The DOC decision document confuses case law and best practice with publication dates of information on those topics. The AEE must comply with the Act and relevant case law, which the 1999 Ministry for the Environment guideline summarises. The AEE should comply with best practice which the University of Otago guideline summarises. I am concerned that DOC managers appear to be reviewing AEEs for activities on conservation lands in a different way to local authorities acting under the Resource Management Act 1991.
I can find no statutory reason that makes the concessionaire's AEE off limits to submitters. I would have thought that DOC managers would have valued public input into the process as a means of creating partnerships with the community and ensuring validity and completeness of the environmental impact assessment process. Obviously that is not the case.
I commented that the approval in principle report (8) (DOC's analysis of the relevant conservation strategies and plans), was not provided automatically to people asking for the available information. I only found out of the existence of the report from an old university colleague who works for DOC. How could anyone prepare a submission that DOC would take seriously when they were not aware of DOC's analysis of the relevant sections of the CMS?
Even the process of informing submitters of the final decision was bureaucratic. The letter from DOC stated that the concession had been granted and contained two irrelevant pages of standard conditions that I had already seen in the approval in principle report. The decision document had to be specifically requested.
The decision document stated that DOC is not legally bound to supply the approval in principle report to submitters. Submitters are entitled to request other reports if they wish.
DOC's managers appear to believe that only the minimal effort required under statute is acceptable. This is because DOC managers were not interested in an informed public process as they had already made the decision. Otago Conservator Jeff Connell noted that by February 1998 "a lengthy dialogue involving site visits by the DOC Te Anau Area Manager had provisionally endorsed the further building attached to the present one" concept (3). The whole public process was a farce. The decision had already been made. There was no intention to even consider or present real alternatives to the public or iwi.
I questioned how well the septic tanks at Routeburn Walks Limited's lodges were operating. The DOC approval in principle report stated that there were no adverse environmental effects of either the lodge septic tanks or the Harris Saddle septic system that needed to be considered by DOC in renewing the concession as the septic tanks were covered by discharge permits issued by the Southland Regional Council.
I pointed out the false logic of that assertion. Having a permit is no guarantee of the correct functioning of a septic tank. For example the DOC Harris Saddle shelter septic tank was in breach of its discharge permit (conveniently attached by Routeburn Walks Limited's lawyers to the application) as effluent gushes out of a 40mm pipe into an ephemeral stream instead of percolating through a dispersal field.
I questioned how could DOC possibly approve an application to build an additional structure that relied on using a DOC sewerage system that was in breach of its discharge permit.
The decision document stated that submissions regarding sewage disposal are not relevant to the concession application as they are matters for the Southland Regional Council.
With respect, what credibility can DOC managers have in assessing the environmental effects of a concessionaire's proposal when they cannot even ensure that their own operations are having no adverse environmental effects on the national park they are charged with conserving?
No assurance has been provided to submitters or the public that Routeburn Walks Limited's septic tanks are free of adverse environmental effects. It is apparently none of our business. The decision document washes its hands of the sewerage issue. DOC is saying it is not our problem. As for Routeburn Walk Limited's use of the Harris Saddle shelter septic tank for its proposed shelter, there is a double standard. The approval in principle report gives Routeburn Walks AEE the 'green' light of no adverse effect by noting the photocopied discharge permit for DOC's septic tank system. When I pointed out that the system does have an adverse effect and is in breach of its permit, the decision document says that that is nothing to do with RWL or their AEE and the adverse effect is ignored.
National park plans and conservation management strategies have been questionably interpreted in favour of development over preservation. The question of which conservancy's plans and strategies were most relevant was interpreted for the concessionaires benefit and to justify ignoring submitters. Public criticism of the concessionaire's inadequate assessment of environmental effects was considered irrelevant as DOC considered the AEE was only prepared for DOC's benefit and not to contribute to a good decision. Public consultation (including with iwi) was done without presentation of any alternative options. Consultation was a farce as DOC managers had already made the decision beforehand. Evidence of an adverse effect on the environment from a faulty septic tank system was treated as irrelevant to the decision, instead of as useful information for the decision-maker.
DOC needs to rethink its environmental impact assessment process for concessionaires operating within conservation areas. After all this process covers 30 percent of New Zealand's land area and much of the marine environment.
DOC can improve the process by; initiating early and meaningful public and iwi involvement based on real alternatives. clarifying how DOC will interpret conservation management strategies and which strategies are most relevant. adopting a best legal practice approach to reviewing assessments of environmental effects. taking seriously public concern over significant effects such as the Harris Saddle sewerage discharge.
(1) DOC. (1998) Restoring the Dawn Chorus. Department of Conservation strategic business plan. Department of Conservation, Wellington.
(2) Sadler, B. and Bailey, J. (1997) Environmental impact assessment. In Brune, D., Chapman, D. V., Gwynne, M. D., and Pacyna, J. M. (eds) The Global Environment, Science, Technology and Management. Vol. 2. Scandinavian Science Publisher.
(3) DOC. (1999) Report to approve application for concession by Routeburn Walk Ltd. Department of Conservation, Otago Conservancy, Dunedin.
(4) DOC. (1998) The Otago Conservancy Conservation Management Strategy, (CMS) August 1998, Department of Conservation, Otago Conservancy, Dunedin.
(5) DOC. (1994) The Mount Aspiring National Park Management Plan. Department of Conservation, Otago Conservancy, Dunedin.
(6) Ministry for the Environment. (1999) A guide to preparing a basic AEE. Ministry for the Environment, Wellington.
(7) Morgan, R. K. (1999) A structured approach to reviewing AEEs in New Zealand. Centre for Impact Assessment Research and Training publication no. 3. Department of Geography, University of Otago, Dunedin.
(8) DOC. (1999) First determination report to the Area Manager Te Anau and Wakatipu (Approval in principle/decline) Application for concession by Routeburn Walk Ltd, Routeburn Track - Fiordland and Mount Aspiring National Parks. Department of Conservation, Otago and Southland Conservancy, Dunedin.