infonews.co.nz
Login Sign up
ENVIRONMENT

DOC to appeal Mokihinui decision

Department of Conservation

Thursday 29 April 2010, 1:17PM

By Department of Conservation

1,062 views

WEST COAST

The Department of Conservation has today lodged papers with the Environment Court appealing the decision to grant resource consent for the Mokihinui Hydro Proposal on the West Coast.

Meridian Energy’s proposed 85 metre hydro dam will create a 14 kilometre lake, obstructing the Mokihinui River and inundating approximately 225 hectares of public conservation land in the Mokihinui Gorge.

DOC opposed the proposal during resource consent hearings arguing the hydro dam, the associated transmission line and other infrastructure would have significant environmental effects on the river, forests and threatened native wildlife.

DOC says the decision to grant resource consent does not adequately address the Department’s concerns and it is appropriate to take these issues to the Environment Court. 

Notice to Environment Court of appeal or inquiry on decision or recommendation on resource consent

Section 121 Resource Management Act 1991

To The Registrar 
Environment Court 
Christchurch

  1. I, Alistair Morrison, Director General of Conservation, appeal a decision on the following matter (the decision):

 

 
Applications for land use consents, water permits, discharge permits and all consequential permits and consents sought by Meridian Energy Limited to construct, operate and maintain an 85 m high and 300m wide hydroelectric dam, at the downstream entrance to the Mokihinui Gorge together with a powerhouse, a substation and associated facilities (“the proposal”). The proposal also includes a new 28 km transmission line that crosses the Ngakawau Gorge and the Stockton and Denniston Plateaux, and a substation located at Cedar Creek. A 337 ha reservoir would be created behind the dam and would extend around 14 km upstream through the gorge. The proposal is more fully described in the applications lodged with and recorded by the West Coast Regional Council and the Buller District Council. The consents sought which are the subject of this appeal are set out at para 39 of the decision.
  1. I made a submission on the applications. 
  1. I received notice of the decision on 9 April 2010. 
  1. The decision was made by a panel of three hearing commissioners on behalf of the West Coast Regional Council and the Buller District Council. Two of the Commissioners found in favour of granting the resource consents sought by the applicant, while the third Commissioner considered that the effects of the proposal on the environment of the Mokihinui were not only adverse but could not be adequately mitigated, and thus considered that the consents sought in relation to the damming of the Mokihinui River did not constitute sustainable management and should be declined.
  1. The decision I am appealing is:

 

 
The decision by the Commissioner panel for West Coast Regional Council and Buller District Council dated 31st March 2010 to grant consent to Meridian Energy Limited for the proposal (as described above).
 
  1. The resources affected are:

 

The Mokihinui River, and catchment, including the Mokihinui Gorge; the coastal marine area in the vicinity of the Mokihinui River mouth; and the proposed transmission line route from the Mokihinui river, across the Denniston and Stockton Plateaux. 

The Mokihinui Gorge is located approx 40km north of Westport on the West Coast of the South Island.  Much, but not all of the land affected is public conservation land administered by the Department of Conservation pursuant to the Conservation Act 1987.
  1. The reasons for the appeal are as follows:

 

 
The decision to grant consent for the proposal (including consent conditions) is contrary to Part 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (“the Act”), sections 104 and 104D and other relevant sections of the Act. In particular, but without limiting the generality of the above: 

The decision fails to promote the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources of the environment as required by Part 2 of the RMA and is contrary to sections 5, 6(a) – (f), 7(aa), (b), 7(c), 7(d), 7(f), 7(g) , 7(h) and 7(i) of the RMA.  

  • The Mokihinui River gorge (which includes the proposed construction and inundation areas) is a highly unmodified river gorge system of regional and national importance.  The transmission line route traverses areas containing nationally important biodiversity values and high scenic values.

 

  • The decision:
    1. Fails to sustain the potential of the natural and physical resources of the gorge and transmission line route to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations;
    2. Fails to safeguard the life-supporting capacity of the Mokihinui River catchment, including the gorge and the transmission line route; and
    3. Fails to adequately avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the proposal on aspects of the entire Mokihinui River catchment, and in particular, the gorge and transmission line route.
  • The proposal would exacerbate hazards, in particular coastal erosion, in the coastal environment in the vicinity of the Mokihinui River mouth, and would not promote sustainable management within this environment.
 
  • The decision fails to recognise and provide for matters of national importance contained in section 6 of the RMA, including in the following ways:
 
    1. The decision is inconsistent with preservation and protection of the very high natural character of the Mokihinui River gorge, its tributaries, and their margins, and the Mokihinui River downstream of the proposed dam. The Mokihinui River catchment has very high natural values, being largely unmodified, and contains a variety of indigenous vegetation types. The proposal would require the removal of relatively large areas of vegetation. The proposed dam would inundate relatively large areas of intact indigenous vegetation, and the proposed flow regime would result in significant and prominent adverse effects on the natural character of the river, its margins, and the surrounding area, and would be an inappropriate use and development of the Mokihinui River and gorge; and
    2. The decision is inconsistent with the preservation and protection of the natural character of the coastal environment, as the proposed dam would intercept the sediment supplied to the coastal environment by the Mokihinui River, thereby disrupting the natural coastal processes; and the altered flow regime would alter natural tidal hydraulics at the river mouth, exacerbating coastal erosion, and would be an inappropriate use and development of the coastal environment; and
    3. The decision is inconsistent with the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes, and the proposal would be an inappropriate use and development of the Mokihinui River and gorge; and
    4. The decision is inconsistent with the protection of areas of significant indigenous vegetation and significant habitats of indigenous fauna. The Mokihinui River catchment, and the proposed transmission line route are significant habitat for numerous indigenous species, some of which are considered to be threatened in accordance with the NZ Threat Classification System Manual (Townsend et al; 2008). Both the construction and operation of the proposed hydro scheme and transmission lines would result in considerable disturbances to these species through construction activities, altered and highly variable flow regimes, loss of connectivity within the catchment, and the permanent loss of habitat; and
    5. The construction and inundation areas within the Mokihinui River gorge include significant indigenous vegetation, and the transmission line route includes a range of significant indigenous vegetation sequences.  Construction and operation of the proposed hydro scheme and transmission lines would result in considerable disturbance or permanent loss of this significant indigenous vegetation; and
    6. The decision is inconsistent with the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the Mokihinui River gorge. Both the construction and operation of the proposal would have a significant impact on public access to and along the Mokihinui River, including recreational opportunities in and adjacent to the river; and
    7. The Mokihinui River is a river of significant cultural importance to Maori; and
    8. The decision is inconsistent with the protection of historic heritage.  The Mokihinui River catchment contains numerous historic heritage sites. The proposal would result in the loss or damage to some of those historic heritage sites. 
 
      • The proposal would not be in accordance with other relevant matters, to which particular regard must be had under section 7 of the RMA, including in the following ways:
 
        1. Much of the area affected by the application is administered under the stewardship of the Department of Conservation.  The decision is contrary to the Department’s stewardship of this land, its waters, and the natural resources present there.
        2. The development of a hydro scheme on the Mokihinui River and associated transmission lines is not supported by an adequate cost/benefit analysis and is not an efficient use and development of natural and physical resources; and
        3. The proposal and transmission lines would result in significant adverse effects on amenity values in the area, both during construction and in the long term as a result of the structures and associated activities. The 85-metre high and 300-metre wide dam and associated structures (including transmission lines) would be inconsistent with the remote natural scenic values of the gorge area and transmission line route; and
        4. The proposal would compromise the intrinsic values of the ecosystems at the sites where they would be located, and both upstream and downstream of the proposed dam; and
        5. The proposal would not maintain or enhance the quality of the environment at the sites where they would be located or where they would cause upstream or downstream adverse effects; and
        6. The proposal would result in the loss of finite natural and physical resources, namely a highly natural wild and scenic river gorge ecosystem; and
        7. The Mokihinui River is a significant trout fishery on the West Coast, and the proposal would adversely affect parts of this habitat; and
        8. The adverse effects of the proposal on coastal processes would be exacerbated by the effects of climate change.
  • The proposal is not in accordance with relevant national policy statements and NESs, in particular all relevant policies and objectives of the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (1994), the National Policy Statement on Electricity Transmission (2008), the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy (2000), the New Zealand Energy Efficiency and Conservation Strategy (2007), the West Coast Regional Policy Statement (2000), and the relevant regional and district plans.
  • The adverse effects of the proposal on the environment would be more than minor, and the proposal is contrary to the relevant plan and the relevant proposed plan.  As such, the proposal does not pass the “gateway” test for non-complying activities as set out in s 104D of the Act.
 
          • Many of the conditions of consent imposed by the majority decision are inappropriate because they are:
            1. Unworkable, or unenforceable; or
            2. Require the approval of the Director General or Minister of Conservation and such approval has not been obtained by the applicant; or
            3. Incorrectly apply the principles of adaptive management; or
            4. Unlawfully delegate determination of matters which ought to have been determined by the consent authority at the consent decision stage.
 
  1. I seek the following relief:

 

That the Commissioner panel’s decision to grant the applications by Meridian Energy Ltd to construct, operate and maintain the Mokihinui Hydro proposal be cancelled and the applications be declined.

 

I attach the following documents to this notice:

(a) a copy of my submission:

(b) a copy of the relevant decision:

 (c) a list of names and addresses of persons to be served with a copy of this notice. 

Signature of appellant 
 

Date

 

Address for service of appellant (or person seeking inquiry): Department of Conservation

Private Bag 701

Hokitika 7842
Telephone: 03 7569100
Fax/email: 03 7569188
Contact person: [name and designation, if applicable] Jo Stratford

 
 

 

Advice to recipients of copy of notice

How to become party to proceedings

You may be a party to the appeal if you lodge a notice of your wish to be a party to the proceedings (in Form 33) with the Environment Court within 30 working days after this notice was lodged with the Environment Court.

You may apply to the Environment Court under section 281 of the Resource Management Act 1991 for a waiver of the above timing requirements (see Form 38).

How to obtain copies of documents relating to appeal

The copy of this notice served on you does not attach a copy of the relevant submission and the relevant decision.  These documents may be obtained, on request, from the appellant.

Advice

If you have any questions about this notice, contact the Environment Court Unit of the Department of Courts in Auckland, Wellington, or Christchurch.