Tony Lockwood :: Forest & Bird
Introduction
1. My name is Tony Lockwood. I am employed by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society Inc. (Forest and Bird) as a field officer for the northern South Island. My qualifications include a Bachelor of Resource Management degree and a Bachelor of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management degree. I have eight years professional experience working in conservation and resource management. This includes five years as a planner and more recently two years working in the field as a conservation ranger with the Department of Conservation in Fiordland.
2. This later work included a project to monitor the increased breeding success of kiwi in response to predator control trapping being undertaken in the Clinton Valley on the Milford track.
3. My evidence is on behalf of the central office of Forest and Bird and the Nelson/Tasman branch.
4. My evidence is based on
- The experience and expertise outlined above.
- A thorough analysis of the applicants Assessment of Environmental Effects and other background and supporting documents as well as the officers reports from both councils
- Two visits to the proposed mine site in March and April 2004
- A visit to the Mangatini Stream in March this year
5. Forest and Bird is strongly opposed to the granting of any resource consents associated with these applications
6. Forest and Birds concerns can be summarized as:
- The effect of granting these consents will impact on the whole of the Waimangaroa Valley, well beyond the boundaries of the current application, given Solid Energy’s intention to pursue mining opportunities further down the valley and the precedent setting nature of this application.
- The stated social and economic benefits of the application are not a relevant consideration, unless the adverse effects of the application can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. In any case these benefits are far outweighed by the adverse environmental effects.
- The adverse effects on water quality from acid mine drainage (AMD), increased sediment loads and increased concentrations of heavy metals will not be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated.
- The adverse effects on natural character, landscape, indigenous vegetation and wildlife, through the clearance of 190 hectares of vegetation and the creation of two huge pits and the associated highwall and overburden dumps will not be adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated.
Precedent Setting Application for Whole Valley
7. Solid Energy makes it clear that in a strategic sense the Cypress Mine proposal is only the first of many that will ultimately seek to extract the coal resources from the entire length of the Waimangaroa Valley. The coal resources of the valley are mapped in figures 1.7 and 1.8 of the AEE. The current proposal represents only about one fifth of the land area of the valley that may in the end be affected by mining. The entire valley is comprised of areas of outstanding natural character and landscape, significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna in terms of section 6 of the RMA.
8. The AEE states on p12,
Substantial coal resources are present (around 50 million tonnes in the whole mining permit area), allowing mining in the Buller to continue well into this century.
9. And on p16,
The development of the Upper Waimangaroa coalfield is of key importance to Solid Energy, to enable it to produce the coal blends required by the world market. Without the coal from Cypress Mine and associated areas in the Upper Waimangaroa the future of mining in the Buller is very limited.
10. It is important that this application is seen in the wider context of Solid Energy’s intention to mine the whole valley in the long term and the scale of the environmental effects that this future mining will entail. While it is accepted that consideration of this application must be restricted to the effects of the activities proposed by this application alone, it must also be recognized that one of those effects is the precedent setting nature of the application.
11. Any assessment of effects is a consideration of both the magnitude of the effect and the sensitivity of the receiving environment. While the whole valley currently remains intact and unmodified, and thus extremely sensitive to adverse effects it will be impossible to argue for the preservation of the natural character of rivers and their margins, and the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes and significant indigenous vegetation in future applications when these have already been degraded to a certain extent by the effects of this application. Indeed Solid Energy in this application has gone to some lengths to separate the “historic” effects of previous mining on water quality in the area from the effects of this application. We note however that many of these historic effects continue today.
12. In this way it will become easier with each successive application for the applicant to demonstrate that the effects on the receiving environment can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. This application is precedent setting. The hearing panel needs to be aware when considering this application that the context of it within Solid Energy’s longer term goals means that the panels decision now will undoubtedly have a bearing on the future of the whole valley.
Part II of the RMA – Section 5, Sustainable Management
Social and Economic Effects
13. The West Coast Regional Council Officer’s report (p54) states
“The Cypress Mine development has the potential to maintain and create additional employment and economic benefits for the local economy and the West Coast Region …. A large number of submitters cited employment as their reason for supporting the proposal.
The Hearing Commissioners’ role will therefore require some consideration of the positive economic effects of the proposal, bearing in mind the objective of sustainable management of resources to enable people and communities to provide for their social, economic and cultural wellbeing.”
14. In Solid Energy’s opening submissions (paras 24 and 30) the applicant has also repeatedly and incorrectly referred to striking a reasonable balance between the community benefits from resource extraction and the effects on the environment.
15. The Environment Court in Campbell v Southland District Council has made it clear that the purpose of sustainable management as defined in the Act is not about achieving a balance between benefits occurring from an activity and its adverse effects. The adverse effects of an activity must be avoided, remedied or mitigated irrespective of any benefits that may accrue.
16. The first statutory test then is whether the adverse effects of the application can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. The employment and other social and economic benefits of the application are an irrelevant consideration until the hearing panel is satisfied that this test has been met.
17. Forest and Bird’s view is that the application has failed to adequately demonstrate that the adverse effects of such a large scale opencast mining operation in an area of high natural values can be adequately managed. The rest of my evidence will demonstrate this with reference to the Section 6 and 7 matters set out in the Act.
Section 6 RMA – Matters of National Importance to be Recognised and Provided for
Section 6(a) The preservation of the natural character of lakes and rivers and their margins and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.
18. Coal mining has and continues to cause significant water pollution that harms aquatic species and the healthy functioning of aquatic ecosystems, and degrades natural character and amenity values. This includes acid mine drainage (AMD), elevated levels of suspended solids including coal fines and heavy metals and significant changes in water chemistry. The Cypress mine would create a significant and permanent additional source of water pollution and exacerbate existing problems. This is opposed, particularly when there have been no obvious practical or effective measures to clean up existing pollution sources (such as from Stockton mine). The AEE fails to address this adequately. It does not set standards for discharges sufficient to protect water quality and the life supporting capacity of streams.
19. Mr Goldstone in his evidence on behalf of the applicant has acknowledged that in many instances proposed discharge standards will exceed American, Canadian, Australian and New Zealand guidelines for ph, suspended solids and heavy metals. He defends this by arguing that the guidelines are unsuitable in this context and site-specific criteria should be developed. In our view this approach is completely inappropriate and is akin to a speeding driver arguing in his defence that the speed limit is too low. We note also that no criteria have been included in the application documents and that therefore the commissioners are being asked to disregard internationally recognised guidelines but have not been presented with alternatives.
20. In particular Mr Goldstone argues that because fish are naturally not present in many of the waterways of the plateau it is unreasonable to impose a standard that would protect them. Except in the areas where water quality has been compromised by existing mining activity, fish are not present because of natural barriers, not because of naturally poor water quality. In our view New Zealand communities expect that water quality, particularly in areas with high natural character, will be maintained, if not to drinking water standard, at least to a standard that will sustain fish populations. Perhaps more importantly this is what the law requires. Standards which do not “safeguard the life-supporting capacity of air, water, soil and ecosystems” are inconsistent with the purpose (sec 5(2)(b)) of the RMA.
21. Standard chemistry texts (Kotz and Purcell, 1991) give the range of ph at which most fish species die as between 4.5 and 5.0. Solid Energy are proposing a minimum ph of 4.5 in their discharge to St Pats stream. This is obviously too low to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the stream.
22. An estimated 50 % of the overburden produced is potentially acid forming. The composition of overburden rocks and the full extent of risk of acid mine drainage will not be known until mining starts. More acid generating overburden may occur than estimated. The upper Waimangaroa coal plateau gets over five metres of rain per year, with very high intensity storms, creating large volumes of polluted run-off where this comes into contact with such rock. There is no certainty that the water treatment system and measures proposed to control AMD and other pollution will be effective when they do not work elsewhere.
23. Forest and Bird notes that Tonkin and Taylor, in their audit of the applicants AEE commissioned by the West Coast Regional Council as a supporting document to their officer’s report, shares these same concerns. Their report states (p8), “the key question that remains unanswered is how will the design assumptions compare with as-built conditions.” Expanding on this point throughout the report they state (p7), “An area of concern is if the volume of potentially acid generating rock exceeds that which has been allowed for in design….” and regarding the areas heavy rainfall and the design capacity of the water management structures they state (p20) “we are not assured that the 10 year design storm is adequate for capacity design…, …as there may be significant implications for the risk of uncontrolled run-off and erosion and potential environmental effects.” Regarding how successful the St Pats dam will be at treating the mine water Tonkin and Taylor state (p21) “we are unable to assess whether this residence time will be sufficient to reduce suspended solids sufficiently nor what the predicted suspended solids content in the discharge will be.” Finally they note (p22) that Solid Energy themselves acknowledge “that there is some lack of certainty as to how the water treatment system will, in fact, perform.”
24. As part of this application Solid Energy intends to dispose of a large proportion of the potentially acid generating rock from the Cypress mine at the Stockton mine. This activity will move some of the effects of the application from the Cypress site to the Stockton site. It is therefore appropriate that the same water quality standards apply to limit the effects of AMD at Stockton as those proposed for Cypress. Simply exporting the material with the greatest potential to cause AMD to a site with a far less rigorous regime for environmental protection is not good practice.
25. In March of this year Solid Energy admitted publicly to a poor environmental record. Poor mine operations at their Strongman mine caused a major landslide in Ten Mile Creek with significant impacts on vegetation and closure of a walking track. Underground fires have contributed to instability and caused the loss of forest cover on the surface.
26. Conspicuously absent from the list of environmental disasters caused by the applicants mining operations was the fact that acid mine drainage from the Stockton mine along with coal fines and other sediments has made Mangatini Stream a dead waterway and has seriously polluted the lower Ngakawau River and other streams in the Ngakawau catchment. At Stockton, hundreds of hectares of rock dumps cover the plateau, generating acid mine drainage. Coal left in open air dumps weathers to a fine powder and after rain mixes with water to produce an oil-like liquor which gets into streams.
Mangatini Stream below the Stockton mine
27. In assessing the applicant’s ability to adequately avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of this application Forest and Bird considers that more weight should be given to how successful the company has been in managing similar effects in its existing operations rather than what it says it will achieve in the future. The former is a realistic indication of what to expect from the company in terms of environmental performance. As demonstrated by the analysis of the AEE presented above the latter contains a large number of uncertainties and assumptions, not least of which is the assumption that the company has the necessary commitment to environmental performance and will meet all the proposed conditions.
Section 6(b) The protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from inappropriate subdivision, use and development.
28. Mr Boffa gave evidence on behalf of the applicant that included an assessment of the landscape values of the site and surrounding area as “high” rather than “outstanding.” Forest and Bird disagrees strongly with this assessment. While I accept that I do not have the same level of expertise as Mr Boffa, I do suggest that while logical criteria and methods have been used and an appropriately qualified and experienced person has made the judgements, ultimately the landscape assessment remains the subjective evaluation of one individual. I put it to the commissioners for their consideration that if submitters had the same resources as the applicant it would not be difficult to provide expert evidence that the area does contain “outstanding natural features and landscapes”.
29. The upper Waimangaroa is a strikingly beautiful area with unique landforms and vegetation types. The area contains the best remaining examples nationally, of the coal plateau landscapes and the plant and animal communities that characterise these landscapes. Much of Buller is forested, but the coal plateau with its low stature vegetation and rocky areas is special for having vast open areas at relatively low altitudes. The coal plateaus form a dramatic landscape of broad gentle slopes, steeply incised rivers, and sharp fault lines cutting across the grain of the landscape. The extensive intact red tussock grasslands, stunted forests and shrublands, herbfields, diverse vegetation and rocky outcrops contribute to landscape values.
30. The Department of Conservation’s survey report for the Ngakawau Ecological District done as part of the Protected Natural Areas Programme recognises all these values as outstanding.
31. Mining would not recognise and protect outstanding natural features and landscapes, as section 6(b) requires.
32. Forest and Bird agrees with Mr Boffa (para 3.1)that;
“Given the nature of the proposed opencast mine and its location and setting, the projects physical impact on the Upper Waimangaroa will be significant.”
33. But Mr Boffa goes on to say,
“However, due to the isolation and the visual containment of the area, the visual effects are likely to be less significant than they would be in a more accessible location.”
34. This second statement in part appears to contradict the first. In our view it is precisely because of the location and isolation of the mine that the effects will be significant. Effects on landscape are social effects that relate to how people perceive their environment and what they expect to see in a particular location. In natural settings like the Upper Waimangaroa valley people expect to see the landscape dominated by natural features and vegetation. In developed or built environments the effects of development are diminished because people expect to see a cultural or human built landscape rather than a natural landscape. Thus in terms of a landscape assessment it is appropriate to build a high rise office building in a city centre but not in a national park (or even in the city suburbs in most cases).
Contrasting Landscapes – The Cypress mine site as it is now (top) and the Stockton mine (bottom) which gives an indication of how the Cypress site will look during mining. Is this protection of outstanding landscape?
Section 6(c) The protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna.
Protection of Significant Indigenous Vegetation
35. Granting the applications would not recognise and provide for the protection of significant indigenous vegetation and habitats as required by section 6(c) RMA.
36. As noted earlier the significance of effects is a function of both the magnitude of the effect itself, but also the values of the environment receiving the effect. Thus effects of exactly the same type and magnitude may be acceptable in a highly modified environment, but unacceptable in a largely pristine and natural environment such as the upper Waimangaroa.
37. The Department of Conservation’s survey report for the Ngakawau Ecological District highlights the site’s nationally important ecological values. The report was written and published in 1998 with external scientific advice from Dr David Norton of the University of Canterbury and Dr Peter Williams of Landcare Research. All the land this application relates to was included in the survey area.
38. The survey resulted in seven “Recommended Areas for Protection” or RAPs. RAP 1 (Upper Waimangaroa Valley – Mt William) included all the land that this application relates to. The report states,
Of any area on the Denniston and Stockton coal plateau, the Upper Waimangaroa – Mt William RAP has the greatest ecological diversity in the least modified condition, particularly of the endemic coal measure communities. It is an outstanding, and fragile, natural area (and landscape) and its values should be recognised in all future management.
39. The report also notes,
In accordance with the department’s arrangement with the Ministry of Commerce and Coal Corp (now Solid Energy) to seek representative protected natural areas away from known coal resources wherever possible, initially selected RAP boundaries were checked against information on coal deposits and development proposals … , … Particular attention was given to excluding areas adjoining the Waimangaroa River, which have the greatest coal resources, from the Upper Waimangaroa – Mt William RAP. This finally was not pursued because it would represent a substantial compromise of nature conservation values. It would split the RAP, exclude several key features and substantially reduce its representative value.
40. The effects would occur on a unique and pristine environment that is absent from New Zealand’s protected natural area network. This is contrary to the objectives and goals of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy that include increasing the protection of habitats and ecosystems that are under-represented in the network.
41. Few areas of coal measure vegetation on the West Coast and virtually none of the Buller coal plateau are protected as conservation land, despite their ecological importance and the recommendations of the ecological survey set out above. The vegetation patterns on the coal plateau are highly diverse with tussockland, shrubland, and heathland communities on gentler slopes, low forests of mountain beech, pink pine, yellow silver pine and southern rata and pygmy pine and areas of sparsely vegetated rock pavement.
42. The significance of the vegetation in terms of the criteria in the Buller District Plan appears to be widely accepted. Dr P A Williams of Landcare Research assessed the significance of the vegetation on behalf of the applicant. His 2003 report concluded, “Overall, the vegetation and flora of the Upper Waimangaroa in the vicinity of the proposed Cypress Mine are considered to be significant in terms of section 6(c) of the RMA.” Fred Overmars, in his report to council as a supporting document to the Buller district Council’s officers report, assessing the potential effects on biological diversity states that he agrees with the Williams conclusions and also notes that the Department of Conservation view is that “the proposed Cypress Mine site is significant in terms of section 6(c) of the RMA.” Finally the Buller District Councils officers report accepts all these conclusions.
43. The question for the panel to consider then is not whether the vegetation is significant or not, but rather the magnitude of the effects on the vegetation and whether or not the effects can be adequately mitigated.
44. The Cypress mine would destroy about 190 hectares of unique, pristine, indigenous vegetation. But what does 190 hectares actually mean. Is it a big or small area? It is equivalent to 380 rugby fields side by side totally stripped. Forest and Bird considers that this amount of impact cannot be considered as “protection of significant indigenous vegetation” which is council’s obligation under the Act.
45. The applicant argues that the mitigation measures proposed through the rehabilitation programmes will ensure that native vegetation will regenerate. However this is not the same as, and must not be interpreted as the “protection” of the original vegetation that the act requires. While it is likely that some native vegetation will eventually recolonise the disturbed area, it is also likely that weed species will be introduced and very likely that the new vegetation will have an entirely different species composition that no longer meets the criteria for significance under section 6(c).
46. The Department of Conservation has submitted that the timeframes and success of the proposed rehabilitation programmes in reproducing similar vegetation communities to those currently present are overly optimistic. Their submissions states;
It is accepted that some form of vegetation cover will form at the sites, however the stated time for vegetation to recover has been underestimated. As noted by P. Williams for Solid Energy in the vegetation report (July 2002) “recovery will not be rapid because the “topsoil” cannot be replaced exactly as it was removed and growth rates are naturally slow in this environment” (pg 12). It is more likely that the estimated time for vegetation to recover is 50-80 years for scrub or low forest cover, around 100 years for low forest to reach close to its maximum height, and in excess of 300 years for vegetation with similar structure to that currently present. The Department’s view that this time may exceed 300 years is based on estimated age of vegetation including pink pine and large diameter red beech.
47. In addition Dr David Norton from Canterbury University has noted,
“Restoration of coal measure ecosystems is hampered by the inhospitable environment, especially the high rainfall and limited sunshine hours, the very infertile, acid and often waterlogged soils, and the resulting slow plant growth rates.”
48. Forest and Bird concurs with these views. We also note the view expressed by Overmars that the proposed mitigation measures do not represent “full compensation for the impact to the vegetation of the proposed mine”.
49. The assessments of the proposed mitigation measures discussed above assume full compliance with the rehabilitation programmes outlined in the AEE and a substantial investment of resources by councils to ensure compliance. Once again however the past record of Solid Energy’s environmental performance suggests that this is a risky assumption to make.
Protection of Significant Habitats of Indigenous Fauna
50. The mine area contains at least five native bird species of conservation importance. These are the western weka, kaka, kakariki, fernbird and great spotted kiwi. Of these the western weka, kaka and great spotted kiwi are threatened. The fact that so many species of conservation significance remain here in relatively high abundance when compared to their densities throughout the rest of the country suggests there is something special about this habitat that enables the birds to survive better than elsewhere. High rainfall resulting in fewer rodents and their primary predator stoats, is one factor likely to be important. When so many of our native species are in rapid decline due to predation and habitat loss, it is inappropriate to remove areas that are known to be high quality habitat. While moving individual kiwi may save those birds, the mine would destroy valuable habitat that has enabled great spotted kiwi to survive where they have disappeared elsewhere.
51. Invertebrate surveys have indicated that the mine site potentially contains species which have a restricted distribution and which may be endemic to the area. This highlights the distinctiveness of the mine site area
52. The endangered Land snail Powelliphanta patrickensis, exists only on the coal plateau. The application would destroy part of its total range. Reduction of part of the habitat and population of an endangered species is unacceptable, especially one which is confined to such a limited area. No mitigation is proposed in the AEE, although I understand further evidence relating to this issue may have been presented at the hearing. If this is the case it is unfortunate that submitters have not had adequate opportunity to consider it.
53. Forest and Bird considers that the presence of these threatened and endangered indigenous species in relative abundance means the mine site must be viewed as significant habitat of indigenous fauna in terms of section 6(c) of the Act. Overmars supports this view in relation to the Powelliphanta species, while McLennan (2003) from Landcare Research who did the assessment of effects on kiwi for the applicant has noted that “the birds of the Mt William Range have a conservation significance that exceeds their numerical importance”. McLennan reached this conclusion because of the importance of the habitat in that location to the species as a whole.
54. Solid Energy has offered two types of mitigation to offset the effects of the project on kiwi.
- Moving those directly affected by the mine site to another area.
- Undertaking predator control in the surrounding area.
55. Forest and Bird has serious concerns about the effectiveness of both mitigation proposals. To capture and translocate kiwi requires consent from Director General of Conservation under section 53 of the Wildlife Act 1953. There must be serious doubts about whether the Director General would grant such consent given the concerns relating to kiwi contained in the department’s submission on this application.
56. Kiwi are extremely territorial and have strong social bonds and structures that relate to established territories. Pairs bond for life. Any translocation will undoubtedly affect these relationships. No mainland transfers to the wild have been successful to date. A transfer of South Island Brown Kiwi from the Murchison Mountains in Fiordland to the Doubtful Islands in Lake Te Anau resulted in the breaking up of established pairs and monitoring over the last two years has revealed that the birds have lost condition, have not formed any new pairs and as a consequence there has been no new breeding. The department has recently decided to return the birds to their original habitat. This evidence is supported by the Department of Conservations submission on this application that states that attempts to establish a kiwi population on little Barrier Island appear to have failed.
57. Solid Energy’s claim (p294 AEE) that “the ten or so individuals from the mine site comprise a significant conservation resource, with the potential to form the beginnings of a new and enduring population”, are simply not backed up by our scientific knowledge about kiwi behaviour and our experience of similar translocation attempts. All the evidence points to their existing habitat at the mine site being the only location where they will remain a “significant conservation resource.”
58. The applicant proposes to create a 1000ha “stoat free” zone through predator control on the eastern flanks of the Mt William Range as additional mitigation against the effects of the mine on great spotted kiwi. There are numerous inaccuracies in the information and calculations used on pages175 and 295 of the AEE that set out the how the predator control programme will work and the benefits it will provide. The likely benefits from the proposed programme are hugely overstated.
59. The use of terms such as “stoat free zones” and “the virtual absence of stoats” give a false impression of what can be achieved with current predator control technologies and best practice. The creation of a stoat free zone is in fact extremely unlikely. There is no doubt that intensive trapping of the type proposed will kill stoats and reduce their population densities to relatively low numbers, however it is also true that very low numbers of stoats can still have devastating effects on kiwi (and other bird) populations.
60. Similar predator control programmes undertaken to protect kiwi populations on the West Coast and in Fiordland have had nowhere near the likely success rate claimed for this programme. The following table sets out the results of the monitoring of the effects of predator control on kiwi chick mortality in the Clinton Valley in Fiordland.
Kiwi chick mortality resulting from predator control – Clinton Valley
2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 Total
Adults Monitored 9 13 19 41
Chicks Produced 5 10 10 25
Stoat Kills 3 5 7 15
Other death or Fate Unknown 1 4 2 7
Known Survivors 1 1 1 3
61. The table indicates that over three years, of a total of 25 kiwi chicks produced, only three are known to have survived, while 15 are known to have been killed by stoats. Of the remaining 7 it is known that 4 chicks died by drowning or other natural events. The final three chicks may all have survived, but given the ratios of known chick survival to stoat predation this is very unlikely.
62. Kiwi chick survival rates in the wild with no predator control are known to be about 5%. The final results from the Clinton Valley study indicate that with stoat trapping this can be increased to somewhere between 12% and 24% with the most likely figure being about 15%.
63. I have been advised by Department of Conservation staff that similar projects near Okarito and Haast on the Westcoast have had results that vary from as high as 40% chick survival to a low of 0% survival during last years stoat plague at Okarito.
64. On page 295 of the AEE the applicant claims that of a potential 18 chicks each year in the 1000ha treatment zone, “on average nine of these chicks should reach adulthood in the virtual absence of stoats”. The applicant goes on to argue that after subtracting the number of chicks required to replace natural adult mortality this leaves six juveniles for dispersal which over a 30 year period would result in 180 additional birds to contribute to the wider Mt William population as a result of the programme.
65. In terms of the evidence presented above this is a gross overestimation. Using the 15% survival figure a more realistic estimate is that only three chicks would reach adulthood. This is probably only enough to replace natural adult mortality resulting in a stable population. A best case scenario may see two additional chicks per year. This figure should be multiplied by the 20 years proposed for the control programme (not 30 as used in the AEE) resulting in a maximum of 40 additional birds, well short of the 180 claimed by the applicant.
66. Forest and Bird concludes that the mitigation measures proposed by Solid Energy to offset the effects of the mine on great spotted kiwis do not adequately compensate for the sizeable loss of proven high quality habitat. When combined with the effects on Powelliphanta patrickensis and other bird and invertebrate species and the fact that no mitigation is being proposed for the effects on these species the application does not do enough to ensure the protection of significant habitats of indigenous fauna.
67. We also note Overmar’s conclusions in this regard that “The mitigation proposed to date falls far short of that required to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the proposed mine on Powelliphanta patrickensis.”
Section 7 Matters
Section 7 (c),
68. This requires the Councils to have particular regard to the maintenance and enhancement of amenity values. A natural environment with a high degree of integrity, little human modification, natural quiet and a sense of remoteness are part of the current recreational experience and amenity values of the area. The mine would destroy this.
69. The mine pits and associated rock dumps, and operational areas would mean up to 256 ha of Crown land becoming off-limits to the public. Public access to waterways within the site would be prevented, contrary to section 6(d) of the RMA.
70. Large signs and fencing prevent access to the coal plateau at Stockton including areas not being actively mined and the same would occur at Cypress. The public will not be permitted access to haul roads. Hunters, trampers and other recreational users of Crown land will be unable to walk across the plateau from Denniston to Millerton or the Blackburn Pakihi, and the recreational use of the site would be significantly reduced.
71. No measures are proposed to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects on recreational amenity values.
Section 7 (d)
72. This requires the Councils to have particular regard to the intrinsic value of ecosystems. Intrinsic values include biological and genetic diversity and the form and functioning of ecosystems. The high intrinsic values of the Upper Waimangaroa coal plateau are discussed earlier in this submission.
Submissions on the Application
73. Forest and Bird notes from both the West Coast Regional Council and Buller District Council officers’ reports that 83% and 84% respectively of submitters in support of the application gave no reasons for supporting it. In our view little weight should be given to submissions that are unable to give any reason at all for offering support. Where a reason was given the vast majority of submitters quoted the economic and social benefits including employment and support for local businesses. As discussed earlier in my evidence these matters are only a relevant consideration if the adverse effects of the application can be avoided, remedied or mitigated. Very few submitters in support of the application have indicated a willingness to be heard in support of their submissions.
74. In contrast all submitters opposed to the application were able to articulate a wide range of reasons for their opposition and the majority of them wish to be heard. This gives an indication of a much higher level of understanding of the application and a stronger motivation for having meaningful input into the decision making.
Decision Sought
75. That the Commissioners decline all resource consent applications relating to the development of the Cypress mine by Solid Energy Limited, because of the unacceptable adverse effects on natural character, indigenous vegetation, wildlife, water quality, natural landscape, recreational amenity and other values. The applicant’s poor record at mitigating adverse effects at its other existing mining operations provides no confidence that measures to manage effects would be adequate, implemented or effective.
