Solid Energy and their Proposed Mitigation

Solid Energy New Zealand (SENZ) is a state owned enterprise. Originally called State Coal Mines, it became Coal Corporation NZ Ltd in 1987 and Solid Energy in 1997. It is responsible for more than three quarters of the Aotearoa New Zealand’s total coal production.

Apart from the proposed “Cypress” mine at Happy Valley, Solid Energy has also announced plans to apply for resource consents for a new coal-fired power station in the Buller region.

Solid Energy’s current annual production is 4.4 million tonnes, and Solid Energy management have stated a goal of increasing production to almost 7 million tonnes per annum within five years. This increase of more than 50% is appalling in the light of the cuts in greenhouse gas production needed.

Solid Energy’s Atrocious Environmental Record

Solid Energy’s environmental record is not good, to say the least. The worst of Solid Energy’s pollution comes from its Stockton mine, near the site of the proposed mine at Happy Valley.

The Greenpeace submission against the proposed Happy Valley mine stated, “Acid mine drainage, coal fines and other sediments from the Stockton mine have virtually destroyed the ecology of the Mangatini Stream and severely degraded the lower Ngakawau River. Seepage from a diversion channel from Mt Frederick Mine and from the nearby water treatment lake contains aluminium, cadmium, copper, iron, lead, nickel, iron and zinc.”

Acid mine drainage is a major environmental effect of mining. Mining exposes sulphides in the earth and allows their oxidation to create sulphuric acid. Water then transports this acid, becoming acid water, which in turn liberates toxic metals. High acidity levels and toxic heavy metals have a seriously damaging effect on aquatic ecosystems, as well as making the water unsafe for humans to drink.

As Pete Lusk of the Buller Conservation Group has stated, “So polluted is the Mangatini Stream, that it acts as a herbicide - the mist that rises from the Mangatini Falls kills the surrounding rainforest.”

In addition to the pollution coming down the streams and rivers from the Stockton mine itself, there have been continuing problems with the Ngakawau Coal Handling Facility, which deals with the coal from the Stockton mine and which is situated next to the mouth of the Ngakawau River. For a period of at least two years, the facility’s “clean water discharge” was illegally expelling a filthy oil-like substance into the Ngakawau River.

Further problems have been a dam that was created at Granity Creek which sprung a leak almost immediately, allowing filthy water to pour through it for days, and a large sediment dam near Mt Frederick which leaks continuously, allowing large volumes of heavily polluted water to contaminate the Upper Waimangaroa River. In addition, weeds have invaded the Upper Waimangaroa from Stockton – weeds which remain despite Solid Energy’s promise to remove them.

Solid Energy claims that its mistakes are in the past, but this is simply not the case, as anyone who lives near the Ngakawau River can attest. Solid Energy’s pollution of the environment is an ongoing reality.

As stated in the Buller Conservation Group resource consent submission, “Solid Energy has no credibility with our members. Its promises of a clean mine at Cypress are laughable given its record.”

Solid Energy’s Proposed Mitigation

Solid Energy claims that although the immediate impacts of loss of habitat may be high, they will be more than compensated for. Don Elder, Solid Energy CEO, has stated that “Solid Energy’s overall environmental policy is for the cumulative result of all the activities we undertake to have a net positive effect on the New Zealand environment” – a rather optimistic claim, to say the least.

Solid Energy’s main plan for mitigation is a predator control programme lasting for 30 years at the mine site, in a 1000 ha zone and a 20 ha predator exclusion zone, the last fenced to exclude possums and rats, the main threats to snails, but which will be designed to also exclude stoats. Solid Energy will also run a weed control programme until closure standards are reached.

Great Spotted Kiwi Mitigation Plan

The mitigation plan for great spotted kiwi also involves a plan to relocate the kiwi presently living in Happy Valley. This plan is fraught with difficulties and dangers, however.

As John McLennan has admitted, "Attempts to move adult brown kiwi from one mainland site to another have seldom succeeded”. One transfer of kiwi in Fiordland resulted in the splitting up of mated pairs, weight loss and the death of one bird, and the transfer was ultimately aborted.

Perhaps the most worrying example of kiwi transfer that relates to Happy Valley is the recent (2004) transfer of great spotted kiwi from the Gouland Downs area of Kahurangi National Park to Nelson Lakes Mainland Island.

Pete Lusk explains, “As a result of a design fault in a cage, one female roa has the end of her bill including one nostril broken off. Apparently there was blood everywhere when the cage was opened and this bird is now being cared for at Massey University.”

Another concern was the discovery of two dogs in the area, which is both a mainland island and a national park.

The Gouland Downs transfer is a situation where great spotted kiwi were taken from a secure area of prime habitat and taken to an insecure one of unknown quality, exactly as proposed with the kiwi in Happy Valley. Such an endangering of a threatened species of national significance is simply unjustified.

Why do the kiwi need to be moved? Solid Energy’s Kiwi Mitigation Plan argues based on an assumption of the mine going ahead, but no adequate reasons have been given to justify this mine, the dangerous relocation of kiwi or the destruction of valuable kiwi habitat.

Powelliphanta “patrickensis” Mitigation Plan

Solid Energy’s Powelliphanta “patrickensis” mitigation plan is even more inadequate than that offered for the great spotted kiwi. It’s response to the devastating effect of the proposed mine on 10% of this nationally endangered and absolutely protected species is to claim that proposed predator control will offset the losses created by the mine.

This ignores the fact that habitat loss is a by far greater threat than predators to the snails. The benefits of predator control would be minor compared to the loss of 10% of the population and habitat of the species, especially given that only the predator control in the 20 ha exclusion zone will be of any help to the snails, as the 1000 ha predator control area is outside of their habitat, and they will not be present on the mine site during the time of predator control.

As Dean van Mierlo stated in the Department of Conservation submission against the mine, “The proposed mitigation in respect of Powelliphanta patrickensis will not be effective. It does not address the real threat to this species, nor address the level of loss which would be sustained as a result of the proposed mine.”

“Maintenance for 30 years of a proposed predator-proof enclosure to enhance snail density would not solve the real issues of long-term habitat loss and fragmentation.” – Kath Walker

Solid Energy’s mine proposal completely fails to avoid, remedy or mitigate the significant adverse impacts that it will have on the Powelliphanta “patrickensis” snails, as it is required to do through the Resource Management Act (1991).

In addition, the mine proposal runs counter to the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy, Goal #3 of which requires actions to “halt the decline of New Zealand’s indigenous biodiversity”. It seems quite obvious that Solid Energy’s mine proposal will in fact hasten the decline of Powelliphanta “patrickensis”.