Statement of Evidence: Gavin Lister: Proposed Mokihinui Hydro Scheme

Home , Karamea, Mokihinui, Seddonville

BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT AT CHRISTCHURCH

ENV-2010-CHC-115, 123, 124 AND 135

IN THE MATTER of Appeals pursuant to Section 120 of the Resource Management Act 1991

BETWEEN WEST COAST ENT INC Appellant

AND ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INC Appellant

AND WHITE WATER NEW ZEALAND INC Appellant

AND DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CONSERVATION Appellant

AND WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL AND BULLER DISTRICT COUNCIL Respondents

....Continued over leaf

______

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF GAVIN CRAIG LISTER FOR DIRECTOR GENERAL OF CONSERVATION Dated: 15 May 2012 ______Department of Conservation, West Coast Tai o Poutini Conservancy Private Bag 701, Sewell Street HOKITIKA Ph 03 756 9100 Fax 03 756 9188 Counsel Acting: A Cameron, D van Mierlo

AND MERIDIAN ENERGY LIMITED Applicant

AND FRIDA INTA Section 274 Party

AND WHANAU PIHAWAI WEST – RICHARD WAYNE BARBER AND IRI MAY BARBER MILNER Section 274 Party

AND J MacTAGGART Section 274 Party

AND ORION ENERGY NZ LTD, ALPINE ENERGY LTD, MAIN POWER NZ LTD AND ELECTRICITY ASHBURTON LTD Section 274 Party

AND NZ RAFTING INC Section 274 Party

AND ANN SHERIDAN Section 274 Party

AND BULLER ELECTRICITY Section 274 Party

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE...... 5 2. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE...... 8 3. KEY FACTS AND OPINIONS...... 9 Delineation of Mokihinui Landscape...... 9 Description of Mokihinui Landscape...... 9 Natural Character of Mokihinui Landscape...... 10 Appraisal as an ONF/ONL ...... 10 Effects on the ONL and ONF...... 11 Effects on Natural Character of the River and its Margins...... 11 Effects on Landscape and Visual Amenity...... 12 Transmission Line...... 13 Response to matters raised by Mr Rough ...... 13 4. EXISTING LANDSCAPE...... 15 Delineation of the Mokihinui Landscape...... 15 Description of Mokihinui Landscape...... 16 Physical Aspects...... 16 Perceptual (or Aesthetic) Aspects...... 26 Associative Aspects ...... 29 Seddonville and the Lower Catchment ...... 32 Existing Natural Character...... 34 Appraisal as an Outstanding Natural Feature and/or Landscape ...... 36 Summary of values ...... 36 Landscape is more than the sum of its parts...... 37 Overall evaluation ...... 37 Mr Brown’s evidence on the ‘Tasman Mountains landscape unit’...... 38 5. EFFECTS OF THE MHP ...... 40 Summary of effects ...... 40 Effects on the Outstanding Natural Landscape and Feature...... 41

Effects on the values of the ONL and ONF...... 41 ‘Appropriateness’ of the MHP in the ONL...... 42 Response to Mr Rough’s evidence on ONL effects:...... 42 Response to landscape matters in Dr Mabin’s evidence ...... 44 Effects on Natural Character of the Mokihinui River...... 47 Reduction in degree of natural character...... 47 Aspects of natural character that would be lost ...... 47 Response to Mr Rough’s evidence on natural character...... 48 Biodiversity enhancement area offsets...... 48 Analogy with landslide lakes ...... 49 Margin of drowned trees...... 50 The nature of the reservoir margin...... 51 Natural character effects downstream of the dam...... 53 Effects on Amenity Values ...... 55 Effects on visual amenity ...... 55 Effects on recreational amenity ...... 56 6. TRANSMISSION LINE: DESCRIPTION OF CORRIDOR AND EFFECTS...... 58 Description of transmission corridor...... 58 Charming Creek Catchment ...... 58 Ngakawau River Catchment ...... 59 Stockton Plateau ...... 61 Transmission alignment and design...... 62 Landscape and visual effects of transmission line...... 63 Considerations of alternatives ...... 63 7. STATUTORY AND NON-STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO LANDSCAPE...... 64 8. CONCLUSIONS...... 66 APPENDIX 1...... 68 APPENDIX 2...... 69

1. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

1.1. My full name is Gavin Craig Lister.

1.2. I am a founding director of Isthmus, a New Zealand-wide practice specialising in landscape architecture and urban design. I have the following relevant qualifications and experience:

(a) Bachelor of Arts degree from the University of Auckland; a Post-Graduate Diploma in Landscape Architecture from the University of Canterbury (Lincoln College); and a Masters of Urban Design from the University of Sydney;

(b) I am a Fellow and registered member of the New Zealand Institute of Landscape Architects (NZILA). I have completed the ‘Making Good Decisions’ accreditation course, and regularly provide evidence to Council hearings, the Environment Court and Boards of Inquiry;

1.3. I have twenty-four years experience as a landscape architect during which I have been involved with a wide range of projects throughout New Zealand, including (i) landscape assessments for district plan provisions and structure plans, including identification of outstanding natural features and landscapes; (ii) parks and reserves planning and design; (iii) city and town centre public space and streetscape design projects, (iv) urban and rural land development projects; and (v) infrastructure projects.

6 1.4. My experience in infrastructure projects includes (i) the North Island Grid Upgrade Project, a 400kV capable transmission line between Whakamaru and Auckland for Transpower NZ, for which I was part of the route selection team, prepared the landscape and visual assessments, and provided evidence to the Board of Inquiry; (ii) Tauhara II and Poihipi Geothermal Power Projects; (iii) wind farm projects including the proposed Motorimu Wind Farm, Hauauru ma raki Wind Farm, Waitahora Wind Farm, and the three wind farm projects on the Maungaharuru-Te Waka Range; (iv) the Waitemata Second Harbour Crossing for which I carried out the landscape and urban design section of the 2008 Options Study; (iv) Roads of National Significance (RoNS) including the ‘Transmission Gully Project’ for which I provided evidence to the Board of Inquiry, the ‘Otaki to North of Levin Project’ for which I am currently involved in the route selection and assessment process, and the ‘Waterview Connection Project’ for which I prepared a peer review for the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA); (v) the Arnold River hydro-electric project near Greymouth for which I provided a peer review and evidence to the Joint Council hearing for Trustpower; and (vi) the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage project, for which I am currently part of the design and assessment team for the Hawkes Bay Regional Council.

1.5. I am familiar with the Mokihinui and Buller area. I have previously undertaken projects in the district: I was involved with the West Coast Coal Terminal proposal near Granity during the 1990s for which I provided evidence to the Environment Court on behalf of Solid Energy; I oversaw preparation of subdivision landscape guidelines for Buller District Council; and more recently I reviewed an application by Francis Mining for a small coal mine near

7 Inangahua. In relation to the Mokihinui Hydro Project (MHP) proposal I visited the Mokihinui on several occasions at different times of the year and in different weather conditions, rafted the gorge, walked through the gorge in both directions, walked the Charming Creek walkway and parts of the transmission line route at the Ngakawau Gorge, Mangatini Stream and ‘Happy Valley’ and made inspections by helicopter over the catchment. I also made specific inspections of the Buller Gorges and the lower section of the Karamea River gorge.

1.6. I have read the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses, and I agree to comply with it. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed. I have specified where my opinion is based on limited or partial information and identified any assumptions I have made in forming my opinions.

1.7. My opinions rely in part on the evidence presented by

(a) Professor Paul Williams and Dr Mark Mabin (geomorphology);

(b) Dr Kelvin Lloyd, Mr Willie Shaw, and Dr Norton (terrestrial ecology);

(d) Ms Cathryn Barr and Ms Katherine Watson (historical heritage)

(e) Mr Ian Wightwick and Mr Rob Greenaway (recreation)

2. SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

2.1. My evidence will deal with the following:

(a) Description and appraisal of the existing landscape including (i) delineation of the Mokihinui landscape; (ii) description of its biophysical, aesthetic and associative values; (iii) description of its natural character; and (iv) appraisal of its significance as an outstanding natural feature and/or landscape;

(b) Assessment of the landscape effects of the MHP including (i) effects on the values of the outstanding natural landscape, (ii) effects on the natural character of the Mokihinui River; and (iii) effects on amenity values.

(d) Commentary on statutory and non-statutory provisions relevant to landscape matters; and

(e) Conclusions.

(f) I will respond where relevant in my evidence to matters raised in evidence of Mr Rough and Mr Brown, and also overlapping landscape matters in the evidence of Dr Mabin and Mr Greenaway.

3. KEY FACTS AND OPINIONS

Delineation of Mokihinui Landscape

3.1. The relevant landscape is the Mokihinui catchment, and in particular the gorge and upper catchment. It is enclosed by mountains, is self contained visually, has coherent character, and it has internal logic in terms of natural processes.

Description of Mokihinui Landscape

3.2. The landscape has the following values:

(a) It has high biophysical value: It has a rich variety of landforms that are expressive of varied rock types and geomorphic processes. It has an intact and varied cover of natural vegetation in sequences from alpine tussock to lowland coastal forest. It has high values for ecology and intactness of natural processes;

(b) It has high aesthetic or perceptual value: It has bold topography, dramatic natural features, and a wilderness character. The gorge, inland basin, encircling mountains and plateaus are memorable (vivid) features; and

(c) It has moderate-high associative values: The landscape is a high quality setting for wilderness type recreation because of its scale, aesthetic character, wilderness qualities, and variety. It also has some historical associations, the main feature of which is the

10 pack track which provides passage through the gorge to the inland basin.

Natural Character of Mokihinui Landscape

3.3. The gorge and upper catchment is close to the pristine end of the natural character continuum. The natural landforms are unmodified and strikingly dominant, the few marks of human presence are insignificant, the natural rivers have a powerful presence, and there is a virtually intact cover of natural vegetation.

Appraisal as an ONF/ONL

3.4. The aspects listed above reinforce each other so that the whole is more than the sum of the parts. Taken as a whole, the Mokihinui landscape is an outstanding natural landscape (ONL) because it is ‘eminent and excellent’ in qualitative terms and when considered at either a district or national level.

3.5. Mokihinui Gorge is a distinctive feature in the landscape. It has high biophysical, aesthetic and associative value in its own right. It is the strategic feature in the catchment. In my opinion it is an outstanding natural feature (ONF) within the broader ONL.

3.6. Seddonville valley, below Mokihinui Gorge, is too modified to be an ONL but it nevertheless has a framework of bush and regenerating vegetation that contributes to the natural character of the catchment as a whole.

11 Effects on the ONL and ONF

3.7. The MHP will fundamentally compromise the biophysical, aesthetic and associative values of the Mokihinui Gorge as follows:

(a) By drowning the existing features (rapids, pools, waterfalls, cascades, rock bluffs, benches, reefs, boulder fields, sandy beaches, driftwood), habitats and natural processes of the intact river and its margins;

(b) By the loss of the wild aesthetic character of the river; and

3.8. The MHP will also significantly diminish qualities of the broader ONL by reducing perceptions of the gorge and upper catchment as a wilderness (particularly given the gorge is the passage to the inland basin) and diminishing the extent to which the river is regarded as almost intact from the mountains to the sea.

Effects on Natural Character of the River and its Margins

3.9. While the proposed reservoir and its surroundings will still have natural character, the existing natural character will not be preserved, and the degree of natural character will be diminished. It will no longer be considered close to pristine. Both biophysical and perceptual aspects of the wild river will be lost.

12 Effects on Landscape and Visual Amenity

3.10. In this case amenity matters converge closely with ONL and natural character matters. While the reservoir will have reasonably high amenity, such amenity will not be as high as the wild river for the following reasons:

(a) The artificial reservoir will have inherently lower amenity compared to the natural wild river;

(b) There will be adverse amenity effects in the vicinity of the dam that visitors will need to pass to reach the reservoir;

(d) The narrowness of the gorge means much of the reservoir will resemble a narrow flooded river;

(e) There will be loss of recreation opportunities that engage with the wild river (rafting/kayaking/hiking) which will be only partly offset by the tamer opportunities of the reservoir; and

(f) The loss of the pack track as a coherent heritage feature will diminish the richness of the landscape.

13 Transmission Line

3.11. There will be some adverse effects from the transmission line but these are secondary to those of damming the Mokihinui River. I consider good practice has been followed within the constraints of the transmission corridor with regards to alignment, use of poles, use of over-height poles to reduce vegetation clearance, and restrictions on access tracks in some locations. Nevertheless the area traversed by the line at the Ngakawau Gorge ONL has high landscape value and there will be some adverse landscape effects in this area.

Response to matters raised by Mr Rough

3.12. I disagree with the following arguments made in Mr Rough’s evidence in chief:

(a) That the MHP will not diminish the integrity of the ‘Tasman Mountains’ as an ONL: The Tasman Mountains is not the most relevant context. To use such a context dilutes the potential effect over many landscapes stretching 100km north to south, rather than the most obvious context which is the Mokihinui landscape and in particular the Mokihinui Gorge.

(b) That the dam’s location on the edge of the ONL reduces its potential effect: The location is sensitive because it is in the entrance to the ONL.

14 as an ONL even if the MHP is built, it would not be as outstanding as the existing wild river. The qualities of the existing ONL would not be protected. It is one thing to accept an existing reservoir as part of an ONL, another to justify flooding a natural river because of such occasions;

(d) That the reservoir will appear consistent with a natural landslide-formed lake: In contrast with the abrupt and permanent wall of a dam, a landslide typically looks natural, its outflow usually has a natural morphology (with less interruption to ecological processes), and the natural geomorphic processes continue;

(e) That the retention of drowned trees will be consistent with a natural landslide-formed lake: People are likely to perceive the drowned tree trunks as unnatural when the obvious cause is an artificial dam. The adverse impression of such drowned trunks will be exacerbated by narrow width and 14km length of the reservoir; and

(f) That the reservoir margins will resemble parts of the existing river margins or natural lakes: The intricate pattern of features and vegetation on the existing river margins are a response to dynamic river scour (particularly flood flows), whereas the bare zone that will ring the reservoir will be a response to fluctuating inundation.

15 4. EXISTING LANDSCAPE

4.1. This section of my evidence describes the landscape in terms of three main aspects: (i) physical, (ii) perceptual (aesthetic) and (iii) associative. Such an approach is in line with practice recognised in recent decisions of the Environment Court and Boards of Inquiry. It encompasses the range of factors listed in the ‘modified Pigeon Bay factors’ and in the more recent ‘Lammermoor list’, and is in line with the NZILA Best Practice Note1 . The figures and photos referred to are contained in a separate A3 document accompanying my evidence.

Delineation of the Mokihinui Landscape

4.2. The relevant landscape context for the MHP is the Mokihinui Catchment and Mokihinui Gorge. The river system as a whole is obviously relevant in consideration of biophysical and natural character aspects. In particular the gorge and upper catchment constitute a distinct landscape that is physically enclosed by mountains, is visually self contained, and has a coherent wilderness character. The gorge is a distinctive and strategic feature within this

1 The NZILA Best Practice note uses the following definition: …‘Landscape is the cumulative expression of natural and cultural (human) features, patterns and processes in a geographical area, including human perceptions and associations’. In other words landscape includes its physical aspects, people’s perceptions of the landscape (including aesthetics), and other values or meanings associated with the landscape. Such an approach has been endorsed in a series of Environment Court decisions. A list of factors referred to as the ‘Pigeon Bay criteria’ have been widely used in the past. More recent decisions have criticised a formulaic application of the ‘criteria’ and note that professional practice has moved on to describing landscape under three main aspects as discussed above. (see Unison Networks Ltd v Hastings District Council, W11/2009, paragraphs 84, 94, 95; Upper Clutha Tracks Trust v D Thorn, NZRMA 432, paragraph 51, Mainpower NZ Limited v Hurunui District Council, Decision No. [2011] NZEnvC 384, paragraph 301.

16 landscape, and is clearly a key feature in the context of assessing the MHP.

Description of Mokihinui Landscape

Physical Aspects

4.3. A characteristic of the Mokihinui landscape is the variety of landforms, which are expressive of its varied geology and geomorphic processes;

(a) The central feature of the upper catchment is an inland basin enclosed by mountains, and focused on the Mokihinui Forks. The elongated basin is formed by tectonic movement along north-south fault lines. Mokihinui River South Branch and the lower Hemphill River are aligned along the basin. The lower reaches of these rivers meander across gravel and sand beds over a long alluvial flood plain valley2 . Mokihinui Gorge cuts through the mountain barrier on the seaward side of this inland basin.

See Photo 1: Inland basin at Mokihinui Forks at top of Mokihinui Gorge

See Photo 2: Mokihinui Gorge cuts through the Glasgow and Radiant Ranges

(b) The western side of the inland basin is lined by a series of triangular tilted limestone slabs (‘flat-irons’), which form a distinctive pattern of shark-tooth hills across the middle of the

2 The main wide part of the basin is approximately 14km long, the headwaters extending further in either direction

17 Mokihinui catchment. Rivers from the glacial valleys of the Glasgow Range pass through gaps between these hills to join the South Branch.

See Photo 3: Limestone peaks to west of lower Hemphill River

See Photo 4: Triangular limestone peak west of Mokihinui South Branch

(c) The Glasgow and Radiant mountain ranges rise up above the western side of the basin to around 1400m asl. They comprise ancient erosion-resistant granite and greywacke sculpted by former glaciations to create such features as faceted peaks, cirques with vertical rock walls and alpine tarns, and U shaped valleys characterised by their scale, straightness, steep sides and hanging valleys. Professor Williams describes these mountains as reminiscent of Fiordland.

See Photo 5: Mount Glasgow

See Photo 6: Hennessy Creek valley below Mount Glasgow

(d) By contrast, the mountains at the eastern headwaters of the Mokihinui are topped by striking alpine limestone plateaus3 such as the Thousand Acre and Hundred Acre Plateaus. They are mostly 1100m-1300m asl, clothed in

3 The plateaus are within Kahurangi National Park although they form part of the Mokihinui catchment. They comprise Tertiary sediments laid down on the sea floor 70‐ 20m yrs ago and are therefore much younger than the underlying granites and greywackes.

18 alpine tussock, and contain karst features such as lines of sink holes and tarns in the pockmarked surfaces. The plateaus are edged with dramatic ‘rim-rock’ cliffs above deeply entrenched river valleys.

See Photo 7: Thousand Acre Plateau karst surface

See Photo 8: Hundred Acre Plateau (Mount Misery) and Thousand Acre Plateau

(e) The eastern side of the basin comprises an extensive system of rivers also carved from granite, but in this case with younger sedimentary rocks perched above the granite resulting in such features as the crumbling peak of ‘The Haystack’ and the limestone plateaus. A transect down the Mokihinui River North Branch system illustrates the different landform types: (i) The upper catchments were formerly glaciated, and have such characteristics as grand U-shaped valleys with truncated spurs and hanging basins, and clothed with tussock grassland and alpine scrub on the upper slopes and beech forest on the valley floors4 . (ii) The middle sections, in contrast, are characterised by narrow V shaped valleys, and deeply incised meandering streams with interleaved spurs clothed in beech forest. (iii) The lower sections of the North Branch as it approaches Mokihinui Forks has a different character again, traversing an alluvial flood plain with an open

4 Examples include the Mokihinui River North Branch, Johnson River, Allan River North Branch, and the upper Hemphill River.

19 character, braided channels, and terraces clothed in podocarp (rimu, kahikatea) and beech forest.

See Photo 9: U-shaped valley upper reaches of Hemphill River, Mokihinui River North Branch system

See Photo 10: V-shaped valley middle reaches of Mokihinui River North Branch

See Photo 11: Flood plain braided river lower reaches of Mokihinui River North Branch

(f) The focal point of the basin is the Mokihinui Forks where the rivers converge before entering the Mokihinui Gorge (See Photo 11 above). This inland (or ‘inter-montane’) basin has an open character in contrast to the enclosed headwater valleys. I understand from Dr Mabin’s evidence6 that the current flood plain was inundated after the 1929 Murchison Earthquake when Lake Perrine extended 11km along the South Branch and 5km along the North Branch. It has been colonised by an exotic tussock (‘tall oatgrass’). There are recently exposed trunks in the river of a formerly buried forest. The basin has picturesque qualities with a foreground of the river and tussock floodplain, middle-ground comprising forested terraces, and a panoramic backdrop of mountains.

See Photo 12: Mokihinui River South Branch (looking south) from Mokihinui Forks

6 Dr Mabin, EIC, paragraph 6.45 and Figure 6

20 4.4. Mokihinui Gorge is a strategic feature. To illustrate its centrality, water falling on eastern side of Mount Glasgow 5km from gorge mouth flows a total distance of some 40km in order to exit the gorge. The extent of flood scouring within the gorge also highlights the extent to which the gorge is a bottle-neck.

4.5. Mokihinui Gorge is ‘antecedent’ as described in Professor Williams’ evidence: It is an ‘ancient river’ that preceded the mountain range and has managed to keep pace as the Glasgow/Radiant Range has risen around it. (See photo 2)

4.6. The gorge transects three main rock types (limestone, greywacke, granite) which is reflected in the variety of landscape features within the gorge:

(a) The limestone section at the head of the gorge is wider and characterised by more open margins and rapids across blocky limestone. There are also the traces of the former Lake Perrine which was dammed by a landslide at the top of the Mokihinui Gorge as a result of the 1929 Murchison Earthquake. The landslide barrier has been carried away by the river, but there are shoals and banks of white sand from the former lake floor.

See Photo 13: Top of Mokihinui Gorge and Lake Perrine

See Photo 14: Landslide rapids at Mokihinui Forks, top of Mokihinui Gorge

See Photo 15: Lake Perrine looking upstream to Mokihinui Forks

21 (b) By contrast, there is a sharp narrowing of the gorge at Specimen Creek where the river enters the harder greywacke and granite.

See Figure 16: Narrowing of Mokihinui Gorge at Specimen Creek

(c) There is a procession of rapids throughout the length of the Gorge interspersed with deep pools and slow moving sections. I am told the rapids change with different water levels, but on the occasion I rafted the river there were broad rapids over stone banks, chutes between rock outcrops and boulders, broken rapids through boulder fields, and some transparent standing waves.

(d) The river sides are characterised by a constantly changing procession of rocky bluffs, benches and reefs (particularly in the greywacke sections); small beaches of fine white sand; banks of stones; boulder fields; and occasional undercut stony terraces. There are cascades and waterfalls where smaller tributaries spill into the gorge. There is also driftwood, sometimes protecting small beaches and vegetation, sometimes lying within the water.

See Photo 17: Upper Mokihinui Gorge, river bank boulder field

See Photo 18: Mokihinui Gorge, pool flanked by rock bluff and perched forest

See Photo 19: Mokihinui Gorge, transition from turf zone to forest

22 See Photo 20: Mokihinui Gorge, flight of rapids through boulder fields

See Photo 21: Mokihinui Gorge, pronounced meander in vicinity of Jones Creek

See Photo 22: Mokihinui Gorge, river bank at Andersons Flat

See Photo 23: Mokihinui Gorge, downstream of Andersons Flat

See Photo 24: Mokihinui Gorge at confluence with Rough and Tumble Creek

See Photo 25: Mokihinui River North Branch

4.7. There is similarly a detailed pattern of vegetation along the river margins. Closest to the water there are mosses, grasses and herbs (‘turf zone’) that reflect patterns in the rock and exposure to flood scour. For instance there are mosses and grasses picking out the rock fractures, or highlighting the rocks’ lee side as a kind of shadow. I understand from Dr Lloyd’s evidence that the ‘turf zone’ is an expression of the interaction of flood scour and rock type, and that it is distinctive and significant in ecological terms. Above the turf zone there is typically a narrow band of shrubs and ferns merging with forest. In some locations tall forest perches on the edge of rock bluffs or undercut banks. (Photos 18 and 19 illustrate different extent and patterns of river edge vegetation, photo 22 illustrates contrast between inside and outside bend of river).

4.8. The gorge as a whole is clad in native forest which is described in Dr Lloyd’s evidence. From the viewpoints afforded by the pack track and a raft in the river, it

23 appeared the upstream end of the gorge and higher slopes are characterised by beech forest, while the lower slopes closest to the river and downstream parts of the gorge are increasingly characterised by podocarps (rimu, matai) and northern rata, with kamahi and other broadleaf trees and by such lush plants as the climbing kiekie, ferns, and occasional nikau which give a subtropical appearance. There are several recent slips with colonising vegetation, and close observation of the slopes reveals patterns of vegetation reflecting previous slips.

4.9. I understand that the Mokihinui catchment as a whole, and the gorge, has high natural science values:

(a) Professor William’s geomorphology evidence describes the catchment as a good example of each of the region’s main river types: It contains an ancient antecedent trunk river (Mokihinui Gorge), a more recent fault- controlled tributary river (Mokihinui River South Branch), and tributaries that follow the local tectonic slopes (e.g. those on the Glasgow Range). The catchment illustrates varied land forming processes including faulting and tectonic movement, karst, riverine, glacial and landslide processes. It also illustrates different landforms on a range of rocks including some of New Zealand’s oldest basement rocks (Greenland Group greywacke and the Karamea granite of the Glasgow-Radiant Ranges), Tertiary rocks (such as the Matiri limestone plateaus), and more recent Quaternary material (such as the river terraces and flood plain in the Mokihinui Forks).

24 (b) I understand from Mr W Shaw’s evidence that the catchment has high value in terms of vegetation. In addition to the variety of vegetation in response to the geomorphology10 , there are gradients from coastal to inland influences, elevation changes from sea level to alpine, and the influences of northern vegetation (such as the northern rata and nikau). In other words there are vegetation sequences from areas with an alpine appearance to sub-tropical coastal forest. The variety is indicated by the convergence of four ecological districts in the catchment11 .

10 i.e. different rock types, landforms and disturbance processes 11 The gorge and upper catchment are split between the Matiri ecological district in the east and the Wangapeka in west. Below the gorge the area is divided between the Karamea ecological district north of the Mokihinui River and the Ngakawau ecological district south of the river.

(c) I understand from Ms K Walker’s evidence that the gorge is a ‘hot spot’ of Powelliphanta speciation, which is an expression of the gorge’s warm moist climate, diverse geology, and the flood regimes.

(d) I understand from Dr Leathwick’s evidence that the Mokihinui River has high natural values in a national context. His evidence is that the Mokihinui ranks 14th for conservation value of New Zealand’s 77 large rivers (i.e. those with catchments over 50,000ha) and 3rd within a smaller group of closely related rivers. Likewise in terms of ‘integrity’ the Mokihinui ranks 8th of NZ’s large rivers, and 2nd amongst the group of closely related rivers.

26 Perceptual (or Aesthetic) Aspects

4.10. As described above, the Mokihinui landscape has bold relief. It is vividly expressive of the geomorphic processes, and contains a variety of memorable features.

4.11. The gorge and upper catchment landscape can be described in aesthetic concepts of ‘wilderness’14. It has a vast scale15 enclosed by mountains, is clothed in natural vegetation, contains wild rivers, and is subject entirely to the forces of nature. Human elements are insignificant16. It is a landscape setting in which one could experience an escape from the everyday world, contact with nature, solitude and physical challenge17.

14 For instance see J. Shultis, 2001, ‘The Duality of Wilderness: Comparing Popular and Political Conceptions of Wilderness in New Zealand’, in ‘The State of Wilderness in New Zealand’, ed. G.R. Cessfored, Wellington: DOC, 2001. Shultis undertook a survey of the New Zealand public which elicited descriptors of ‘wilderness’ as follows: ‘bush/native forest/native vegetation, peace/solitude/freedom, remote/isolated, primeval/original condition, native scenery/beauty, mountains/alpine, animals/birds/wildlife, rivers/waterfalls’. The reasons for visiting wilderness are to ‘enjoy nature, escape from everyday life (getting away from it all), for specific recreational activity/challenge, and solitude’. In other words popular concepts of ‘wilderness’ include both physical and experiential descriptors. There is a strong match between such descriptors and the Mokihinui gorge and upper catchment. 15 The gorge and upper catchment comprise approximately 685 km2. The vast scale wilderness extends beyond the catchment on almost all sides including the Kahurangi National Park. 16 Features are limited to the pack track, a few historic gold‐mining relics, and several back‐country huts. 17 I use the term ‘wilderness’ in its general sense rather than the more specific meaning of ‘wilderness areas’ that are gazetted in accordance with the National Wilderness Policy under the National Parks Act. Such areas must meet stringent requirements: They are required to be large and well buffered, to exclude nall huma features (such as tracks, signs, huts, bridges) and motorised access such as by helicopter is not permitted. The Mokihinui does not quite have those qualities. The Shultis survey cited above indicates

4.12. The landscape can also be described in terms of the aesthetic category of the ‘sublime’, a category of landscape aesthetics formulated during the eighteenth century which continues to underpin appreciation of wilderness-like landscapes. The concept is defined by the extent to which landscapes instill awe and a sense of human insignificance in the face of such characteristics as limitlessness, grandeur, precipitous topography, overwhelming natural forces, and a sense of physical trepidation. Such characteristics are reinforced throughout the Mokihinui, for instance in the grandeur of the glacial valleys and peaks; the steep valley sides, bluffs and rim-rock cliffs; the scale of the inter-montane basin and its backdrop mountains; the obvious power of the rivers; and the gorge’s ruggedness22. Even the decaying historic relics and the father-and-son memorial crosses23 reinforce the transitory nature and insignificance of human presence in the area.

that for most people the concept of wilderness is not undermined by such things as tracks, back country huts and signs. 22 I assume this is the meaning in which Mr Rough uses the word when he refers to the gorge’s “sublime ruggedness”, EIC, paragraph 10.86 23 The crosses are located approximately 1km upstream of the dam site and recognise a father and son (J and D Russell) who were caught by landslide on the pack track in the 1929 Murchison Earthquake

28 4.13. The gorge plays a particular gateway role in relation to the upper catchment. It is the passage through the mountain barrier between Seddonville’s settled landscape and the inland wilderness basin24. It helps buffer the remote character of the interior: The gorge is long and takes a day’s walk. At the same time it is an accessible wilderness. There is ready access at Seddonville and as soon as one enters the gorge one is within a wild landscape. There is also a contrast between the gorge and the inland basin which accentuates their complementary qualities: Within the gorge there is strong enclosure, the valley sides are steep, and amplified by the sometimes precipitous bluffs. The river twists within incised meanders so that views are confined and constantly unfolding. From the track there are the accompanying sounds of the main river, and the episodic sound of tributary cascades. By contrast, at the Mokihinui Forks the landscape is open, has long views to backdrop mountains, and there is a relative quietness and peacefulness.

Photo 26: Pack track, Mokihinui Gorge

Photo 27: Glimpsed view of river from pack track, Mokihinui Gorge

Photo 28: Tributary stream at pack track ford, Mokihinui Gorge

Photo 29: Inland basin at Mokihinui Forks, top of Mokihinui Gorge

4.14. An aesthetic impression from rafting the river is that the Mokihinui Gorge appears virtually pristine, has a relatively intimate scale25, and a constantly changing variety of picturesque detail in the river margins as described earlier

24 The only other ways of entering the basin are by means over passes over the enclosing the mountain. 25 In comparison, for instance, to the gorges on the Buller River, or the lower Karamea River.

29 in my evidence. A raft trip is punctuated by a regular procession of rapids, interspersed by quiet and often deep pools which allow for contemplation of the gorge. It is an impression not appreciated from the helicopter, and to some extent even from the pack track. The richest variety of detailed gorge features is within the immediate margins of the river (for instance up to 10m-20m above the river).

Associative Aspects

4.15. The main associative aspects relate to (i) historical gold mining in the gorge, (ii) recreational engagement with the landscape, and (iii) value to tangata whenua.

4.16. The principal landscape feature associated with the gold mining is the pack track benched along the south side of the gorge. I understand it was constructed in the 1870s/1880s in conjunction with quartz gold mining near Jones Creek, where a small settlement, ‘Seatonville’, was established, and continued to be used for this purpose until mining stopped about 194026 .

4.17. P. J. Mahoney describes pack tracks as a particular type of infrastructure used during New Zealand’s development from 1840 to about 192027 . Their design reflected the practicalities of managing teams of horses so that they typically comprised easy and constant grades, avoidance of sudden changes that might break momentum or unsettle the horses, and standard widths (clearances) to accommodate loads (the most common width being 6ft [1.8m]). They were typically benched, followed the contours in and out of

26 Cathryn Barr EIC, paragraph 4.15 27 Mahoney, P. J. (1991) ‘Graded Pack Tracks: an Unappreciated Historic Resource’, Australian Historical Archaeology, 9, 1991, pp.76‐78

30 tributary valleys, used benched fords across tributary streams, and avoided crossing main rivers wherever possible. Such features describe the Mokihinui pack track and are addressed in more detail in Ms Katharine Watson’s evidence. The pack track runs between the memorial crosses28 (approximately 1km upstream of the proposed dam site) and Specimen Creek where the track reverts to a ‘route’ across a flood plain and bed of the former Lake Perrine. While some sections have been destroyed by slips, most of the track is intact. It is mostly benched, in places cut into the rock around bluffs, with occasional short cuttings through spurs. Notably it maintains its grade around the pronounced meander at Jones Creek, almost looping back on itself. There are remnants of the girder bridge lying in the river at the confluence with Rough and Tumble Creek where there was an intersection with the pack track to Karamea. There are occasional items of mining equipment along the track, archaeological evidence of former buildings, and the memorial crosses mentioned earlier. Ms Cathryn Barr says in her evidence that the pack track and associated gold mining features collectively are a ‘heritage landscape’ of moderate to high value29 , while Ms Katharine Watson says they are of moderate archaeological value. (See photo 28)

4.18. In addition to heritage associations, the pack track is part of the landscape experience. Because it is benched on the gorge sides for most of its length it affords elevated views into the river. Mostly the views are through the trees, but

28 West (i.e. downstream) of the memorial crosses it appears the pack track was widened and modified, possibly in association with earlier hydro scheme investigations 29 Ms Cathryn Barr EIC, paragraph 4.36 31 A short benched section around a bluff that has fallen away. Its reputation is a little overstated.

31 there are clear views from places such as where the track negotiates bluffs. There are sections where one now has to scramble across or above slips, a rock bluff (‘Suicide Bluff’)31 that one needs to negotiate with the aid of a wire rope, and care is also required across several of the tributary streams. However, for most of its length the pack track provides a graded and relatively wide path compared to typical tramping routes. While it is a long walk, I found the track provided pleasant walking. Descriptions of its use being confined to the “more hardy and skilled outdoors person”32 , “in a state of considerable disrepair”33 and “all but impassable”34 do not accord with how I found it.

4.19. Recently work has also commenced to repair the track as part of the ‘Old Ghost Road’ project. This project intends to create a walking/mountain bike track to complete a link between the Mokihinui pack track and the Lyell dray road35 (another relic of the gold mining era)36 . The concept of the ‘Old Ghost Road’ is to highlight the route’s wilderness-like qualities and the historic associations37. The Trust characterised it as “like reading an historical novel but with more calories”38.

32 R. Greenaway, EIC, paragraph 4.2. 33 Peter Rough, EIC, paragraph 10.19 34 Barr, C. and M. Eaves, 2007, Archaeological Effects Assessment, Section 6.2, page 46 35 It would link Lyell on the Buller River with Seddonville, and continue south via the Charming Creek walkway 36 http://www.nzcycletrail.com/old‐ghost‐road, retrieved 6 January 2012 37 Mokihinui‐Lyell Backcountry Trust, 2008, ‘The Old Ghost Road, Project Overview ‘Revitalising an historic, unfinished, gold mining road as a premier tramping and mountain biking track for the northern West Coast’ 38 Mokihinui‐Lyell Backcountry Trust, 2008, ‘The Old Ghost Road, Project Overveiw ‘Revitalising an historic, unfinished, gold mining road as a premier tramping and mountain biking track for the northern West Coast’,

32 4.20. The broader Mokihinui landscape is a setting for a range of existing recreation activities as described by Mr Greenaway and Mr Wightwick, including tramping, hunting, wilderness fishing, white-water kayaking and rafting. Such activities rely to lesser or greater extent on the natural and aesthetic qualities of the landscape.

4.21. The Cultural Impact Assessment (CIA) prepared on behalf of Ngati Waewae states that the Mokihinui has high cultural significance for tangata whenua39 and points to the “strongly connected nature of the whenua, fauna, flora, landscape from the mountains to the sea and the mana mauri of this place.”40 However, I acknowledge that an agreement has been reached that satisfactorily addresses the iwi’s concerns regarding the MHP project41, and so I have not relied on tangata whenua values when making an overall appraisal of associative values.

Seddonville and the Lower Catchment

4.22. Seddonville valley is a farming enclave below the gorge in the shadow of the Glasgow and Radiant Ranges. There is an abrupt change42 where the Mokihinui River emerges from the gorge onto the open flood plain of the lower valley.

See Photo 30: Seddonville valley looking upstream to Mokihinui Gorge

39 Barber, R., 16 June 2008,Te Runanga o Ngati Waewae Land and Environment Unit, ‘Mokihinui Awa Proposed Hydro Power Scheme, Cultural Impact Assessment’, page 4, attached as Appendix 1 to the EIC of Mr François Tumahai 40 Ibid, page 5 41 François Tumahai, EIC, paragraph 7.1 42 Caused by the Glasgow Fault as pointed out by Professor Williams

33 4.23. Formerly a coal mining township, Seddonville has thinned out to a scattered rural settlement. The flood plain on the south bank is dairy pasture with the ‘humping and hollowing’ characteristic of the West Coast. The terraces and hills behind the settlement have been modified by historic coal mining and native logging and more recent attempts to grow exotic plantation forestry43 , but are now in various states of regenerating vegetation. There is an enclosing framework of native bush on the Glasgow / Radiant Ranges and the north side of the Mokihinui River. Within the Seddonville valley the Mokihinui River (in contrast to its character in the gorge) normally has a relatively placid character with the channel meandering over the alluvial flood plain between sand and gravel beaches and across a series of riffles and runs.

See Photo 31: Seddonville valley looking downstream toward Tasman Sea

4.24. At Chasm Creek downstream of Seddonville the river slips between limestone bluffs and two distinctive river islands. Chasm Creek joins the river at this point through a tributary limestone ‘chasm’. The road and former railway (now a walkway including a rough hewn tunnel that passes through the bluff beneath the road) are also shoehorned into this area. This location is a picturesque and exquisitely detailed natural and human landscape feature.

See Photo 34: Mokihinui River at Chasm Creek

See Photo 33: Mokihinui River from Chasm Creek walkway

4.25. Near its mouth the Mokihinui River passes through the coastal hills by way of a further short gorge. The river in the lower gorge is tidal and during the whitebaiting season

43 Most of the 570ha pine plantation was destroyed in a storm in July 2008

34 is lined with whitebait stands. The final section of the river across the narrow coastal strip comprises an estuary and bar. Mokihinui bach settlement is huddled on the shingle spit between the estuary and the Tasman Sea.

See Photo 34: Mokihinui River mouth

Existing Natural Character

4.26. The aspects of Mokihinui’s natural character are described in the preceding sections of my evidence. To summarise against the criteria listed in the ‘Long Bay decision’44 they include:

(a) The dominant unmodified landforms, with their bold relief and vivid legibility, including in particular the gorge carved through the mountain range, and the detailed river margin features;

(b) The relative insignificance of human structures and influence;

(d) The dominant presence and almost intact cover of natural vegetation, including sequences from alpine snow-grass to beech forest to coastal podocarp-broadleaf forest.

4.27. It is widely accepted that natural character exists on a continuum from, for instance, “pristine landscape which is

44 Long Bay ‐ Okura Great Park Society Inc et al v North Shore City Council, Decision A078/2008, paragraph 135

35 understood as having no human impact to a landscape which might be an intensively developed inner city landscape”45. The Mokihinui gorge and upper catchment is almost as near the pristine end of the continuum as it is possible to get on mainland New Zealand: There are of course introduced pests (as there are throughout mainland New Zealand), and some discrete areas of human-induced vegetation modification46 that are now regenerating. There are also some historic relics, the most prominent of which is the pack track, and several backcountry huts47 . But to most intents and purposes the gorge and upper catchment is a natural wilderness. For these reasons I agree with Mr Rough’s assessment that the degree of natural character is very high and close to pristine48, and with Mr Brown’s assessment that it is high (‘high’ being the top category in Mr Brown’s scale). Such natural character applies not just to the Mokihinui River and its main branches, but to all the tributary rivers, streams, watercourses, lakes, wetlands and tarns49.

45 Mainpower New Zealand Ltd and Hurunui District Council, Decision [2011] NZEnvC 384, paragraph 336 46 Mr Rough says the area above Mohkihinui Forks “…continues to have the appearance of farmland” (paragraph 10.6). In my view this paints an incorrect impression. While the exotic ‘tall oat grass’ on the river flats was likely introduced through grazing it has a tussock‐like appearance rather than that of pasture. It also has a naturalistic distribution along the river flats, apparently colonising the former silt covered bed of Lake Perrine as it subsided following the 1929 earthquake (See Dr Mabin’s evidence paragraph 6.45 and Figure 6 referred to above). There is no evidence of the things one would normally find with a farm such as fences, yards, farm tracks, farm house and buildings 47 There are four small old Forest Service type huts, and three new huts being built as part of the Old Ghost Road project. To quantify matters, these structures are spread over a catchment of approximately 685 km2. 48 P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 10.51 49 While Mr Brown restricts his mapping to the main trunk and north and south branches it is worth noting that the whole upper catchment has the same degree of almost pristine

36 4.28. While the Seddonville valley below the gorge is modified, there is still a framework of natural vegetation (either old- growth, cut-over forest or regenerating scrub) on the surrounding mountains and hills which contributes to the overall natural character of the catchment. In particular there is a high degree of naturalness on the north bank of the Mokihinui River which merges with the Karamea Bluff Ecological Area and extends to the Tasman Sea. My own estimate using measurements from aerial photos is that approximately 98% of the overall catchment has a natural vegetation cover (including regenerating vegetation and the naturalised exotic tussock grassland at Mokihinui Forks). As discussed above, Dr Leathwick’s evidence is that the Mokihinui River ranks highly for ‘integrity’ when compared with New Zealand’s large rivers.

Appraisal as an Outstanding Natural Feature and/or Landscape

Summary of values

4.29. As described in my evidence above, the Mokihinui landscape has high value for its biophysical, perceptual and associative aspects:

(a) It has high biophysical (or natural science) values including (i) the relative intactness of the natural catchment; (ii) the variety of topographic features and geomorphic processes; (iii) the variety of vegetation types and associated ecological values;

natural character including all the tributary rivers, streams and other water bodies, all of which fall to consideration under s6(a) of the RMA. 51 Wakatipu Environmental Society Inc at el v Queenstown‐Lakes District Council, Decision C180/99, paragraph 82

37 (b) It has high aesthetic (or perceptual) values including (i) the boldness and striking appearance of features, (ii) the contrasting variety of features, and legibility, (iii) its coherent natural ‘wilderness character’, and (iv) Its ‘sublime’ aesthetic qualities such as its scale, ruggedness, bold relief and dominant natural forces; and

(c) It has moderate-high associative values including (i) its qualities as a setting for recreation, and (ii) its historical associations.

Landscape is more than the sum of its parts

4.30. While it is common to reduce landscape to its components for the sake of analysis, landscape is experienced as a whole. For example, while one might initially have an aesthetic response to the bold landforms, an understanding of their geomorphology helps further bring the landscape to life visually, strengthens one’s mental map (or mind’s eye view), and provides the pleasure of intellectual understanding. Contemplation of the geological forces and timescales also reinforces the aesthetic sense of the ‘sublime’, being beyond normal human references.

Overall evaluation

4.31. Taken as a whole, the gorge and upper catchment, in my view, is clearly an outstanding natural landscape (ONL). It is obviously sufficiently natural. It is ‘outstanding’ because it has ‘eminent’ and ‘excellent’51 qualities whether considered nationally or at a district level. Within this landscape the Mokihinui Gorge is a distinctive feature. It has its own striking natural, aesthetic and associative qualities, and is strategic in the landscape. In my view it is

38 an outstanding natural feature (ONF)52 within the ONL. I would expect an informed lay-person familiar with the Mokihinui landscape to come to similar conclusions.

4.32. Seddonville valley is too modified to qualify as an ONL, but nevertheless its landscape values, in particular the framing bush clad mountains and hills and integrity of the river, contribute to the catchment as a whole. In fact, Mr Brown includes the bush-clad north side of the Seddonville valley as part of the ‘Karamea Bluff ONL’.

Mr Brown’s evidence on the ‘Tasman Mountains landscape unit’

4.33. Mr Brown says that he assessed the Buller District landscapes using a method agreed to in caucusing53 . For the record I wish to note that, while we agreed the aspects listed in the caucus statement54, we did not agree an overall methodology (see Appendix 2: Joint witness statement). One of my concerns, set out in a report prior to caucusing,

52 I accept one could argue whether it was a feature or a landscape. In my view it is the former because it is a distinctive, strategic and integral part of a larger landscape: The gorge and upper catchment are parts of a single landscape rather than two separate landscapes because they are visually and topographically enclosed, have a coherent character, and integrated natural processes 53 Stephen Brown, EIC, paragraph 4.25 54 The aspects of Mr Brown’s methodology we agreed were: That the factors needed to be drawn together into an overall assessment of whether a landscape / feature was outstanding; that while a five point scale was appropriate to rank individual factors, an overall assessment is still required, and; that natural character should address both biophysical and perceptual aspects. Mr Rough did not present a methodology, instead alluding to the approach taken in his earlier evidence to the Council hearing. However, we agreed that he would cover s6a, s6b, s7c (and possibly s7f) matters; that he would include biophysical and perceptual aspects, and that his assessment would take account of both the gorge and wider river system. We also agreed that some human modifications such as tracks and the remnants of the historical bridge could add to landscape character while detracting from naturalness.

39 was the delineation of landscapes which is relevant to the following section of my evidence.

4.34. Mr Brown lumps the Mokihinui Gorge and the rest of the Mokihinui upper catchment within the ‘Tasman Mountains Landscape Unit’ which he appraised as an ONL. While smaller landscapes often nest within larger ones, Mr Brown’s ‘Tasman Mountains Landscape Unit’ is very large (it stretches some 100km north to south and would extend even further but for the artificial boundary of Buller District) and contains a number of large landscapes. I do not question that they are outstanding natural landscapes (in fact most of it falls within a national park and an area included on a list of New Zealand’s ‘tentative’ World Heritage Areas). I also think the contiguous wilderness-like nature contributes to the collective value of its component landscapes. However the most relevant landscape, in the context of assessing the MHP, is the Mokihinui landscape for reasons given earlier: Namely its clear topographic boundaries, visual self containment, internally coherent character, and internally focused natural processes55. At 685 km2 the gorge and upper catchment is already a large landscape.

4.35. Having said that, I agree with Mr Brown’s conclusion that the Mokihinui gorge and the upper catchment have outstanding natural landscape qualities, and I agree with his statement that the gorge is “inextricably linked to the North and South Branches, and their higher water catchments, extending into the Allen and Matiri Ranges on the edge of Kahurangi National Park. That physical contiguity is

55 I acknowledge that aggregating such areas is a practical approach when faced with assessing such remote areas over a whole district. However a more context based assessment is needed in response to a specific project such the MHP.

40 matched by a sense of visual/perceptual connection that is both self-evident and unbroken”56.

5. EFFECTS OF THE MHP

Summary of effects

5.1. The proposed MHP will have the following landscape effects:

(a) The dam will block the downstream entrance to the gorge and disturb its surroundings;

(b) The dam will flood most57 of the length of the gorge, eliminating the natural river and its processes, along with its riparian features and habitats. It will drown the native forest within the maximum operating level of the reservoir (100m asl) plus 2.5m or so58 above that level;

(c) It will reverse the geomorphic process by which the river has created the gorge, so that the gorge will be progressively filled in behind the dam. The natural flows, sediment load and river bed will be altered below the dam;

(d) Aesthetic and experiential aspects of the wild river will be lost, including its natural sounds, and the ability to experience its white water

56 S. Brown, EIC, paragraph 7.9.a 57 Approximately 7/8ths the length of the gorge 58 Mr Rough says possibly up to 5m above maximum operating level, EIC, paragraph 10.41

41 features – to be replaced with a flat-water reservoir; and

(e) It will inundate most of the historic pack track59 and associated features, requiring construction of a new track through the gorge.

5.2. The following sections of my evidence consider such effects in terms of ‘outstanding natural features and landscapes’, ‘natural character of rivers and their margins’ and ‘amenity values’.

Effects on the Outstanding Natural Landscape and Feature

Effects on the values of the ONL and ONF

5.3. The MHP will fundamentally compromise the biophysical, aesthetic and associative values of the gorge by (i) drowning the natural features and process of the river described earlier in my evidence, (ii) eliminating the wild and ‘sublime’ aesthetic character of the river, and (iii) eliminating the opportunity to experience the river by rafting with its sights and sounds, and diminishing the historical associations with the pack track.

5.4. The MHP will also diminish the values of the broader ONL by (i) reducing perceptions of the gorge and upper catchment as a wilderness, bearing in mind that the gorge is

59 It is unclear exactly how much of the pack track would be inundated and whether any coherent section would remain. Ms Barr in her evidence (paragraph 5.1c) says “over 60% of the pack track from the dam site to Mokihinui Forks will be inundated”. However, the formed historic pack track finishes at Specimen Creek beyond which it reverts to a marked route across the terraces and bed of the former Lake Perrine (a fact recognised in the CMS, DoC, 2010). From topographic map information my estimate is that approximately 80% of the pack track would be inundated, however such topo map information is inaccurate at such a scale.

42 the passage to the inland basin; and (ii) diminishing the extent to which the river could be regarded as almost intact from the mountains to the sea.

‘Appropriateness’ of the MHP in the ONL

5.5. I acknowledge that other matters, such as the benefits of renewable electricity, are to be taken into account in reaching a decision on ‘appropriateness’ under s6(b) of the RMA. However, as far as landscape matters go, I consider the MHP to be inappropriate because:

(a) The value of the Mokihinui gorge as an outstanding natural feature is based primarily on its wild river qualities which would be fundamentally compromised by the MHP;

(b) The strategic location of the gorge (in terms of natural processes and human experience) means the values (biophysical, perceptual and associative) of the broader Mokihinui landscape as an ONL would also be diminished; and

Response to Mr Rough’s evidence on ONL effects:

5.6. Mr Rough’s evidence assesses the dam and reservoir effects separately60. With regards the reservoir he mostly describes the qualities of the proposed new landscape rather than what will be lost. His evidence on effects is also predicated on the expansiveness of Mr Brown’s ‘Tasman

60 P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 10.67

43 Mountains landscape unit’. Mr Rough concludes that “given the scale of the Tasman Mountains ONL a lake in the Mokihinui Gorge will not diminish the integrity of that ONL as a landscape unit”61 .

5.7. Similarly, although he acknowledges the dam will have a “major effect on the western end of the Mokihinui Gorge”62, Mr Rough concludes it will have only a “negligible” effect on the ‘Tasman Mountains landscape unit ONL’63 and that “the dam itself will have a negligible effect on the integrity of the Mokihinui Gorge sub-unit of the Tasman Ranges ONL” 64 (emphasis added).

5.8. I disagree with these arguments for the following reasons:

(a) The effects of the dam and reservoir need to be considered together. It is too reductive to treat them as isolated things in this way. The dam will block and flood the gorge. Its effects on the integrity of the Mokihinui Gorge (‘sub- unit’) will self-evidently be ‘major’;

(b) It is also not meaningful to dilute the effects over an area as large as the Tasman Mountains ‘landscape unit’ for reasons discussed above. The relevant context for assessing the MHP is the Mokihinui landscape65 and specifically the Mokihinui Gorge; and

61 P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 16.5 62 P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 10.23 63 P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 11.29 64 P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 11.29 65 i.e. the gorge and upper catchment as delineated earlier in my evidence.

44 (c) Although on the margins of the ONL, the dam location is the entrance to the gorge. It is the ‘doorway’ by which one enters a wilderness- like landscape. Visitors will pass through the dam area which is likely to colour perceptions of the reservoir.

5.9. Mr Rough points to examples to support his contention that reservoirs or manipulated natural lakes are not fatal to an ONL66. I accept that point and the proposition that the Mokihinui Gorge and upper catchment might still potentially come to be regarded as an ONL even with the MHP. However such an ONL would be less outstanding than it is with the gorge in its current wild nature state. The landscape qualities of the existing ONF/ONL would not be protected.

5.10. It is also one thing to accept an artificial reservoir as part of an ONL when the reservoir already exists, another to justify loss of a natural river because of such occasions.

Response to landscape matters in Dr Mabin’s evidence

5.11. Dr Mabin refers to geomorphology as ‘the science of scenery’ that provides a link to landscape and visual assessment67. While Professor Williams responds to Dr Mabin’s geomorphology evidence, I wish to address aspects of Dr Mabin’s evidence that touch on landscape matters.

66 P. Rough, EIC, paragraphs 10.70 – 10.80 67 Dr Mabin, EIC, paragraph 4.13. “Geomorphology may be thought of as the ‘science of scenery’ and as such it provides a link to the broader context of landscape and visual assessment that adds layers of human perception, meaning and cultural value to an interpretation of the natural landscape.”

45 5.12. Dr Mabin claims the effects of the MHP will be minor because (i) the Mokihinui Gorge is typical and well represented in the ‘Buller-Karamea Region’, (ii) the MHP footprint will only occupy a small proportion of the Mokihinui catchment, (iii) the inundation will only occupy a small proportion of the steep side-slopes of the Mokihinui Gorge itself, and (iv) the reservoir will resemble a natural landslide lake. I do not agree with these arguments in landscape terms for the following reasons:

(a) While the Mokihinui catchment may be typical of the Buller-Karamea region in a general sense, and gorges may be well represented, this is part of what is special about the region’s landscape68 . An analogy is that fiords are typical and well represented in Fiordland;

(b) Even taking such a reductive approach, according to Dr Mabin’s figures the Mokihinui Gorge makes up approximately 10% of the length of such types of gorge in the ‘Westport-Karamea region’ so its loss would be of some significance on such figures alone. More relevant in landscape terms is that of such gorges the Mokihinui Gorge is noteworthy because (i) it is long, (ii) it is highly natural, (iii) it has high aesthetic (or ‘scenic’) qualities, and (iv) it has an intact large natural catchment with a particularly varied collection of landforms and vegetation.

68 In other words the characteristics that make Mokihinui emblematic of the region, contribute to its value and distinctiveness in a national context.

46 (c) Measuring the footprint of the reservoir as a proportion (0.5%) of the catchment69 (paragraph 7.13) is not a useful measure of landscape effect in this context. The gorge river is a particular and strategic feature. An analogy would be to accept destruction of (say) an outstanding waterfall because it occupies only a tiny proportion of the river; and

(d) Similarly, measuring effects as the proportion (11.3%) of the gorge slopes inundated is overly reductive in landscape terms. The river is the most critical element within the gorge (it is creating the gorge in fact), and the river margins contain the greatest variety of distinctive features.

5.13. Dr Mabin (paragraph 7.4) sets out three issues for assessing geomorphic effects: (i) ‘does the footprint of the activity significantly alter or perhaps destroy a landform’, (ii) ‘are new landforms created that may be considered inappropriate in the landscape setting’, and (iii) ‘does the new activity alter natural geomorphic processes in a meaningful way’. In landscape terms the adverse effects of the MHP are significant in at least two of the three issues as follows:

(a) The MHP will significantly alter the Mokihinui Gorge as a landform feature, destroying the gorge river and its rich variety of margin features;

69 Dr Mabin’s term ‘Mokihinui region’ refers to the Mokihinui catchment. See Dr Mabin, EIC, paragraph 4.9

47 (b) The natural land forming processes within the gorge will be altered in a meaningful way. In fact they will be reversed as Professor Williams points out. The river will cease its creation (down-cutting) of the gorge, instead it will commence filling the gorge in with sediment; and

(c) In terms of the third issue, while the reservoir will have some aspects similar to lakes formed by landslide, there will nevertheless be differences compared with a natural lake which I discuss below in response to Mr Rough’s evidence.

Effects on Natural Character of the Mokihinui River

Reduction in degree of natural character

5.14. As discussed earlier, natural character exists on a continuum. I accept Mr Rough’s view that the proposed reservoir and its bush clad surroundings will still have natural character: It will still comprise natural elements (water and bush) and have a naturalistic appearance when out-of-sight of the dam. However its existing natural character (in fact and appearance) will be diminished. The reservoir will lie on the ‘modified but appears natural’ part of the continuum in contrast to the existing river’s ‘highly natural’ character.

Aspects of natural character that would be lost

5.15. Natural character is also more than merely an abstract point on a continuum: It entails the actual features and processes. Aspects that will be lost include:

48 a. biophysical aspects: the river and margin features and natural processes within the gorge, and the integrity of the wider catchment as an almost intact catchment, and

b. perceptual aspects: including the sights and sounds of the wild gorge river, and the awareness that it is in fact natural.

5.16. I agree with Mr Rough that the natural character of the gorge river and its margins will not be preserved70, and I also consider that the natural character of the wider catchment will be diminished.

Response to Mr Rough’s evidence on natural character

5.17. The following section of my evidence responds to matters raised by Mr Rough in relation to natural character effects.

Biodiversity enhancement area offsets

5.18. Mr Rough claims the proposed ‘Biodiversity Enhancement Area’ in the South Branch will enhance natural character of the upper catchment on the basis that ecological factors are an aspect of landscape71. I agree to a point. However, the purpose of the measures is to offset ecological losses elsewhere in the catchment. More importantly from a landscape perspective, such measures cannot offset the fundamental loss of the wild river. By damming the river the MHP will reduce the natural character of the whole river system including the upper catchment. Such management measures also depend on on-going human

70 P. Rough, EIC. paragraph 10.56. 71 P. Rough, EIC, paragraphs 6.2, 10.8 and 10.93

49 intervention whereas the loss of the gorge river would be permanent72.

Analogy with landslide lakes

5.19. Mr Rough argues that the reservoir will appear consistent with natural landslide-formed lakes73. He refers to Lakes Dora, Phyllis and Marina as examples in the Mokihinui catchment and a recently formed74 landslide lake that he visited in the Young River North Branch in Mt Aspiring National Park. In my view the analogy is over-stated for the following reasons:

(a) Unlike dams, which are abrupt structures, landslides appear natural: They typically have a long profile (i.e. perpendicular to the river) and usually become re-colonised by vegetation;

(b) Outflows from landslide lakes typically have natural characteristics. For instance the outflow from the lake in the Young River North Branch descends the 70m high landslide over a distance of more than 1km and from the aerial photo it can be seen to have a natural morphology of channels, rapids and pools. I

72 I accept Dr Mabin’s evidence (paragraph 7.26) that the effects are temporary in a geological sense, as are all human activities. In time the reservoir will fill with sediment, river environments will reform on the in‐filled surface, and the dam itself would be eroded in geological time. 73 P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 10.68 74 It was formed in August 2007 by a landslide which is approximately 70m high at the lake.

50 understand such characteristics also cause less interruption to ecological processes;

See Photo 35: Un-named landslide lake in the Matiri River (see also Photo 9)

(c) Geomorphic processes continue to operate on natural landslides. The outflow typically begins to erode and remove the landslide. This can be quite rapid in such high energy locations as the Mokihinui Gorge: For example, there are now only the traces of the former Lake Perrine which existed for less than 40 years following the 1929 Murchison Earthquake76. While Lakes Phyllis and Marina have persisted longer, they are near the head of a catchment in a formerly glaciated valley. (See Photo 9)

Margin of drowned trees

5.20. Meridian proposes to leave forest trees standing when the reservoir is flooded, with the exception of selected locations where they are to be removed for recreation and visual amenity reasons. I understand the dead tree trunks are likely to protrude from the water along the margins for one hundred years or more77. Mr Rough argues that this

76 Dr Mabin, EIC, paragraph 6.45. One of the two landslides in fact gave way just 17 days after the 1929 earthquake, flooding Seddonville township. Dr Mabin’s evidence is that the remaining lake had disappeared by the time of the first aerial photo 38 years later in 1967. 77 Dr Mabin’s evidence (paragraph 6.50) is that trunks might be expected to remain above the water for 100 yrs or more before rotting away, while below the waterline they may remain for over 1000 yrs.

51 will be consistent with the appearance of lakes formed by natural landslides78 and refers by way of example to the lake in the Young River North Branch where he says the drowned trees “had a certain ethereal beauty”79. I appreciate Mr Rough’s impressions (I expect I would have a similar response), but the situation will be different with the MHP for the following reasons:

(a) People are likely to perceive drowned tree trunks differently where the cause is obviously human-induced80;

(b) The 14km of drowned trees through the length of the gorge and the narrowness of much of the reservoir will accentuate their prominence. The scale of such dead trunks is likely to be overwhelming; and

(c) The proposition that the dead trunks will add to the natural aesthetic qualities of the reservoir is at odds with Meridian’s plan to remove the trunks from selected locations for visual amenity reasons.

The nature of the reservoir margin

5.21. Mr Rough’s evidence is that there would be a barren zone around the lake within its normal 3m operating water levels81, and above this zone the existing vegetation is also likely to be drowned within 2.5m (and possibly up to 5m)

78 P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 10.57 79 P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 10.69 80 P. Rough accepts later in his evidence (paragraph 10.92) that not all people will find drowned trees attractive in amenity terms, especially if they are aware it is human induced. 81 P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 10.41

52 above maximum operating level because of root inundation82. Mr Rough maintains (and I agree) that it ‘is probable’ that riparian vegetation will re-establish in the 5m zone above the lake’s maximum operating level where soil is retained. Dr Mabin’s evidence is that a 2m zone above the maximum operating level will be mostly bare rock and boulder beaches83.

5.22. Mr Rough says such vegetation re-colonising the zone above maximum operating level will resemble parts of the existing river84. However, vegetation will respond primarily to the horizontal inundation ‘tide marks’ around the reservoir rather than the dynamic flood-induced pattern of rock and vegetation that characterises the existing river margins.

5.23. Mr Rough also includes a photo of Lake Hanlon (photo 9) to illustrate what he suggests the margin of the reservoir might appear like above the maximum operating level85. The photo echoes Mr Brown’s description: “Lake Hanlon laps against tree trunks and flax margins to create the feeling of a large reflective pool that merges with the surrounding forest”86. However, the MHP will not appear like this. While Lake Hanlon’s fringing vegetation has developed in response to relatively stable water levels and different types of margin, the MHP reservoir will have a frequently fluctuating water level, a 3m bare zone and a rocky margin.

82 P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 10.41 84 P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 10.57 85 P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 10.41 86 S. Brown, EIC, paragraph 6.47

53 Natural character effects downstream of the dam

5.24. Mr Rough’s evidence is that there will typically be a twice daily discharge to the river below the dam (except during the whitebaiting season) coinciding with morning and evening electricity peak demand; the water level will ramp up over a period of 45 to 75 minutes; the peak fluctuation would be from 16 to 126 cumecs (although at other times the fluctuation will be less); and the effect of the maximum fluctuation would be to raise the water level typically between 800mm to 1.1m depending on location87. Mr Rough assesses effects of the discharges on natural character by assessing the visual effects of changing water flow from representative viewpoints. He maintains that the increases in water level may not be particularly noticeable in some places because of the lack of reference features in the river bed88, and that even where changes are noticeable they will not detract from visual amenity89.

5.25. However, from my observations there is an almost unbroken sequence of features (beaches, shoals and riffles) on the Mokihinui River below the dam site. Also, the change in water volume and behaviour would in itself be apparent. A five to eight-fold increase in water volume, say90, over a short period would be obvious, and might be characterised as the difference between a quiet flow and what in ordinary terms might be called a ‘fresh’. The discharges will be frequent, punctual, and unrelated to

87 P. Rough, EIC, paragraphs 11.52, 11.56, 11.57 and 11.61‐11.72 88 For instance P. Rough, EIC, paragraphs 11.67, 11.69, 11.72 89 For instance, P. Rough, EIC, paragraph 11.62, 11.64 90 The maximum fluctuation from 16 to 126 cumecs is roughly an eight‐fold increase

54 weather conditions91. Any hazard signs92 would reinforce perceptions that the river is manipulated.

5.26. Natural character also entails biophysical (as well as visual) aspects, and applies all along the river (not just from representative viewpoints). I understand there would be effects on biophysical aspects of natural character below the dam as a result of the discharge regime and the starving of sediment: Professor William’s evidence is that finer material is likely to be lost from the lower river and replaced with a stonier substrate, and the loss of sediment is likely to affect the river mouth and coastline. I understand from Dr Kelly’s evidence that such changes are likely to affect habitats and ecology in the lower river, and that the dam and reservoir will affect habitats and ecology in the rest of the catchment.

5.27. There will therefore be some perceptual and biophysical effects on natural character below the dam, which will be part of the reduction of natural character of the river catchment as a whole94.

91 Mr P Rough acknowledges that the flows will appear unnatural if people can appreciate their frequency and regularity, and when not linked to natural weather causes. 92 I followed a track from the Chasm Creek walkway to what appeared to be a swimming hole ‐I imagine warning signs might be required at such a place. See Mr R. Greenaway, EIC, paragraph 5.52. 94 While it is useful to reduce the catchment to its parts for the sake of analysis, the effects will be collective over the whole catchment. There is a risk of losing sight of the forest for the trees.

55 Effects on Amenity Values

5.28. There is considerable convergence between ‘natural character’, ‘outstanding natural feature/landscape’, and ‘amenity value’ in this case. I don’t wish to repeat material covered under previous headings but make the following points in relation to amenity:

Effects on visual amenity

5.29. I acknowledge that the reservoir (in time) will have quite high amenity values which will be different from those of the natural river. But I disagree with Mr Rough that its amenity will be as high as the existing river for the following reasons:

(a) While the reservoir will be ‘picturesque’ because of its serpentine shape and forested slopes, it will not be have the same ‘sublime’ qualities as the wild river. In my opinion the wild river is in a different league;

(b) As discussed above, while the reservoir will appear naturalistic, visitors will understand that it is artificial because they will pass the dam;

(c) There will be adverse visual amenity effects surrounding the dam which Mr Rough acknowledges will be ‘major’. The dam surrounds will be disturbed by such things as the construction roads and excavations to the gorge, 20ha construction yard, permanent road benched to the top of the dam, boat ramp and parking areas, tail race, power house and substation. These may individually be

56 secondary visual elements to the dam, but they will collectively contribute to the visual disturbance;

(d) While the 3m reservoir operating range is relatively modest compared to many hydro schemes, the fringing bare zone will still have some effect on amenity; and

(e) The reservoir’s potential amenity will be limited to some extent by its narrowness. While the middle section of the lake (i.e. over Andersons Flat) will be relatively wide and picturesque, much of the reservoir, in particular the part above Jones Creek, will be narrow and will feel like a narrow drowned river gorge. The narrowness will be exacerbated by the fringing margin of dead trunks.

Effects on recreational amenity

5.30. The reservoir will provide a setting for new recreational activities (for instance motor boating, water skiing, flat water canoeing) but will eliminate the activities that directly engage with the wild river (rafting, kayaking).

5.31. Mr Greenaway acknowledges some loss of heritage value through inundation of the pack track but says the replacement track will improve access95 and heritage interpretation will be improved96. However:

95 R. Greenaway, EIC, paragraph 5.7 96 R. Greenaway, EIC, paragraph 5.12

57 (a) The pack track already provides an even- graded, benched track97, and the repairs being carried out as part of the ‘Old Ghost Road’ project will restore those places where it has been eroded; and

(b) Interpretation of the pack track and associated landscape features would have more value if they remained. Interpretation would only partly compensate their destruction.

5.32. Constructing a new benched track on the steep slopes of the Gorge would likely have some adverse effects on landscape amenity (particularly for a period following construction), taking into account the steep slopes and bush cover. Such effects are not addressed in Meridian’s evidence.

5.33. Inundation of the pack track will diminish the concept of the ‘Old Ghost Road’ to link the historic mining tracks. Although a new track would be built, one of the two historic pack tracks anchoring the concept98 will be lost.

97 Benched and graded pack tracks are the basis of some well known recreational tracks, including the Heaphy, Able Tasman, Copeland, Wangapeka and Milford Tracks. See P. J. Mahoney cited above. 98 And one of the four ‘ghost towns’ (Seatonville) mentioned in The Old Ghost Road, Project Overview’ cited above.

6. TRANSMISSION LINE: DESCRIPTION OF CORRIDOR AND EFFECTS

6.1. In my view the damming of the Mokihinui River is the fundamental landscape issue in this case. The following section of my evidence addresses what I consider to be secondary issues relating to the transmission line.

Description of transmission corridor

6.2. The corridor crosses a plateau inland of the coastal range of hills. The plateau comprises ‘Tertiary’ sedimentary rocks referred to as the ‘Brunner Coal Measures’ which contain sandstone, conglomerate, shale and coal seams. It is underlain with granite which is exposed in the gorges of the Ngakawau River. The plateau is tilted with the lower areas (Charming Creek) to the north and the higher areas (Stockton Plateau) to the south. The parts of the plateau crossed by the transmission corridor can be divided into three areas as described by Mr Rough (i) the Charming Creek catchment, (ii) the Ngakawau River catchment, and (ii) the Stockton Plateau.

Charming Creek Catchment

6.3. This area at the northern-most and lowest part of the plateau was heavily modified by historical coal mining and timber milling, and more recently plantation forestry, although it is now mostly in stages of regeneration. Key landscape features include Charming Creek itself which is followed by the Charming Creek Walkway along the formation of the historic railway. The transmission line crosses and roughly follows the walkway, but will be mostly screened by vegetation. There are relatively few issues with this area from a landscape perspective.

59 See Photo 36: Charming Creek from Charming Creek Walkway

Ngakawau River Catchment

6.4. This part of the corridor has high natural character, high ecological value, the dramatic landscape features of upper and lower gorges of the Ngakawau River and the Mangatini Falls, along with the historic feature of the Charming Creek railway.

(a) The lower Ngakawau gorge is antecedent and cut through the coastal hills. The steep walls of the gorge are characterised by granite bluffs and native forest, and the river by granite boulder fields, rapids and pools. The pictureseque historic railway, now the route of the ‘Charming Creek Walkway’, was benched into the side of the gorge and includes several tunnels, an incline, and a bridge over the river. The walkway continues beyond the gorge into the Charming Creek area discussed above, eventually linking with Seddonville;

(b) The upper Ngakawau gorge is a steep-sided slot cut through the inland plateau. It is a particularly dramatic feature, although it is comparatively inaccessible and difficult to view apart from the air;

See Photo 37: Upper Ngakawau Gorge looking east (upstream)

(c) The Mangatini Stream rises on top of the plateau, which it descends in a series of small steps before falling into the lower Ngakawau gorge at the Mangatini Falls. The plateau has a mixture of heath-like vegetation and stands

60 of podocarp / beech forest. I understand it is a distinctive ecosystem with high ecological value as described in the evidence of Dr Lloyd and Dr Norton.

See Photo 38: Plateau with Ngakawau Gorge, Mangatini Stream and Falls

See Photo 39: Mangatini Falls

See Photo 40: Mangatini Stream

6.5. Mr Brown has mapped the lower and upper gorges and part of the coastal hills as an ONL. I agree: It has high biophysical, aesthetic and associative values. However I consider the boundaries should be revised to include the domed plateau either side of the upper Ngakawau gorge100 for the following reasons:

100 For instance in the south extending the boundary from St Patrick Stream to the high point 723, then enclosing the main stem of the Mangatini Stream to the high point 423, then following the Rome Ridge. In the north extending the boundary from St Andrew Stream to follow Watson Stream (or alternatively to the high point NE of 398 and then along the ridge SW of the Charming Creek Mine site). Adjusting the boundaries in this way would define a landscape that was more regular, it would define a ‘landscape’ rather than a ‘feature’, would encompass the domed plateau along withe th main stem of the Mangatini Stream catchment and the significant forest stands, and would follow closer to the boundaries of this part of the Ngakawau Ecological Area.

61 (a) The Ngakawau gorge is an antecedent feature, and therefore the domed plateau either side of the gorge is an important part of its context;

(b) The adjacent vegetation (which forms part of the Ngakawau Ecological Area) has high value as an example of ‘coal measures’ associations;

(c) The Mangatini Stream is a picturesque feature (despite being discoloured by coal mining discharge), that descends the plateau in a series of low waterfalls, slides across the bedding planes of underlying sedimentary rock, and plunges over the Mangatini Falls into the lower gorge. These upper sections of the stream are part of the context of the Mangatini Falls101; and

(d) The domed plateau either side of the gorge has high naturalness. It is relatively remote and mostly screened from the coal mining on the Stockton Plateau further to the south-west.

Stockton Plateau

6.6. The southern part of the corridor traverses the Stockton Plateau which is more elevated and modified by current open-cast coal-mining. Despite the modifications, parts of the plateau retain a natural character with striking sandstone pavements, rock features and gorges that follow a strong jointing pattern. I am not aware of a similar

101 Mr Brown’s assumption that the Mangatini Falls were on the Ngakawau River may explain why he has overlooked the stream. The ONL boundary follows other tributaries of the Ngakawau River at the head of the gorge so it would be in keeping to also include the Mangatini Stream

62 landscape elsewhere in New Zealand. However the alignment skirts the edges of this area: It is higher on the plateau and near the edge of the mining area. I understand from the evidence of Dr Lloyd, Dr Gruner and Ms Walker that this area has high ecological significance.

See Photo 41: Stockton Plateau below mining area and proposed transmission line

See Photo 42: Stockton Plateau mining operation in vicinity of proposed transmission line

See Photo 43: Cedar Creek area in vicinity of proposed substation

Transmission alignment and design

6.7. Given the selected corridor, I consider that good practice has been followed in the transmission alignment and design for the following reasons:

(a) The use of poles102 will reduce visual effects;

(b) The use of ‘over-height’ poles to reduce the need for clearance under the lines is an appropriate technique;

(c) The line is aligned to minimise views from Charming Creek walkway. The main location on the walkway from where towers will be visible are towers 66 and 67 where the line crosses the upper Ngakawau Gorge;

(d) The location where the line crosses the upper Ngakawau Gorge is an area of lower vegetation, and is lower in elevation that the more prominent crest of the domed plateau bisected by the gorge; and

102 For a 110kV line in this type of setting

63 (e) On the Stockton Plateau part of the route the alignment follows the edge of areas modified by mining.

Landscape and visual effects of transmission line

6.8. However, parts of the landscape traversed have high landscape values which will be adversely affected by the line both visually and biophysically. While the crossing point has been well chosen within the constraints of the corridor, the Ngakawau Gorge is nevertheless an outstanding natural landscape (or feature), and the line will cross an area which currently has high natural character. The line will be the most prominent human structure through this area. I agree with Mr Rough that there will be some adverse effects on its landscape values.

Considerations of alternatives

6.9. Given that (i) the transmission line is a ‘green-fields’ route across an ONL, (ii) Mr Rough’s acceptance that there will be adverse landscape effects, and (iii) Dr Norton’s preference to avoid this area for ecological reasons103 (and the ecological values identified by other witnesses as discussed), it would have been better practice to have considered alternative corridors (for instance further to the east or along the coast) that might avoid this area.

103 Dr Norton, EIC, paragraph 6.21

7. STATUTORY AND NON-STATUTORY PROVISIONS RELEVANT TO LANDSCAPE

7.1. I am not providing planning evidence but wish to provide landscape evidence on some of the provisions relevant to landscape matters.

7.2. I note that the objectives and policies of the West Coast Regional Policy Statement most relevant to landscape are Objective 9.2, 9.3 and Policy 9.1, which repeat, more or less, sections 6(a) and 6(b) of the RMA.

7.3. The thrust of the objectives and policies in the Buller District Plan, insofar as they relate to landscape matters, is to preserve outstanding natural features and landscapes, and preserve areas of significant natural character including rivers and their margins.

7.4. The most relevant provisions for outstanding natural features and landscapes are as follows:

(a) Issue 4.9.1.1 “Protection of the outstanding landscape values and natural features of Buller District from the adverse effects of inappropriate subdivision, use and development.”

(b) Objective 4.9.3.1 “To protect the distinctive character and unique values of outstanding landscapes104 and natural features”.

104 The objective refers to ‘outstanding landscapes’ rather than ‘outstanding natural landscapes’. It is now accepted that s6(b) refers to outstanding natural features and outstanding natural landscapes. In this case it makes little difference because the outstanding landscapes are also natural.

65 (c) Policy 4.9.4.1 “To discourage activities which would significantly alter the character of outstanding landscapes”.

7.5. I understand the MHP is a non-complying activity under the Buller District Plan and therefore subject to the ‘gateway tests’ under s104D. I make the following comments in terms of landscape matters:

(a) The landscape effects of the MHP will obviously be more than minor. It is difficult to conceive of inundation of 14km of a wilderness river with an 85m high dam having anything other than significant adverse landscape effects; and

(b) The MHP would, on the face of it, also be contrary to those objectives and policies relevant to landscape matters. It would not protect the existing ‘distinctive character and unique values’ of Mokihinui gorge or the wider landscape. Similarly the dam and reservoir would significantly alter the gorge’s existing wild river character.

7.6. In reaching its decision that the MHP was not contrary to objective 4.9.3.1 the majority Commissioners worked on the presumption the gorge is an ONF/ONL (paragraph 1234), but determined the features that would be most affected (the wild river and native bush) were neither distinctive nor unique (paragraph 1235). In my opinion this is a misinterpretation for the following reasons:

(a) The ‘distinctive character and unique values’ of the Mokihinui gorge cannot be reduced to

66 (i) a wild river and (ii) native forest. The ‘distinctive character and unique values’ are the particular combination of all the aspects described earlier in my evidence.

(b) Objective 4.9.3.1 is to protect the distinctive character and unique values of ONF/ONLs, rather than to protect only those parts of them which are distinctive or unique. This is reinforced by reading the issue, objective and policy together.

8. CONCLUSIONS

8.1. The Mokihinui gorge and upper catchment is clearly an ONL. It is a natural wilderness with high aesthetic qualities. The gorge itself is a distinctive and strategic feature of the landscape and is an ONF within the ONL.

8.2. The MHP proposal will fundamentally compromise the existing landscape values of the gorge: It will drown the processes and margin features of the river, eliminate its wild river aesthetic qualities and eliminate recreation associated with such qualities. It will also diminish the landscape values of the broader ONL as an intact ‘wilderness’.

8.3. The Mokihinui gorge and upper catchment are nearly as close to the natural end of the natural character continuum as it is possible to get in mainland New Zealand. The MHP will significantly compromise existing natural character in the gorge, having actual effects on both biophysical and perceptual aspects of natural character. While the reservoir

67 will appear ‘naturalistic’, it will be ‘modified but seems natural’ rather than ‘highly natural’ as it is at present.

8.4. Amenity effects largely converge with those relating to ‘outstanding natural landscape’ values ‘natural character’. While the proposed reservoir will have quite high amenity value, it will not have anywhere near as high amenity as the existing wild river and gorge.

68 APPENDIX 1

FIGURES AND IMAGES TO ACCOMPANY EVIDENCE OF GAVIN CRAIG LISTER (A3 DOCUMENT)

APPENDIX 2 JOINT WITNESS STATEMENT