Submission Form DraftAoraki/Mount Cook National Park Management Plan

Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc.govt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-plan-review

Submitter details:

Paul Agnew Name of submitter or contact person:

Organisation name: (if on behalf of an organisation)

Postal address:

lnvercargill

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Erl: 0 I wish to be heard in support of my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) D I do not wish to be heard in support of my submission (tick one box)

Signature:

Your submission is submitted as part of a public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

Department of Conservation Tr� PanaAtawhai Submission: 1

Section: Submission: Decision sought: Identify the section, Explain the nature of your submission State clearly the decision sought or objective, outcome, stating whether you support or oppose changes you would like to see. Please policy, milestone, the approach in the draft Plan. Please be as precise as possible. For example: table or map that provide briefreasons. - if supporting: 'retain Policy X' your submission - if opposing: 'delete Policy X' relates to. - if seeking changes 'reword Policy X to read (givesuggested wording) 1.2.3 Support - Includes for recreational Retain Recreational Values as they boating are as they provides for the Recreational opportunity and to experience all Values types of recreational boating within the park 1.3.1 General Oppose - It is contrary to the Delete Bylaw 31 (ii) Management recreational values of the plan which supports recreational boating. Use Bylaws of powered watercraft is consistent 31 (ii) with the outcomes planned for the Godley and Tasman rivers i.e Haupapa Place and Pae Tawhiti Place, and the proposed Park Additions .. 1.3.2 Oppose - Currently under the Delete Policy 2 (a) Mackenzie District Council District Additions to Plan and under the RMA which as a National Parks matter of NATIONAL IMPORTANCE Policies provides for under Section 6 (d) the maintenance and enhancement of 2 (a) public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers:

Please continue on a separate sheet if required.

1 Further nformation can be appended to your submission. If you are sending this submission electronically we accept the following formats - Microsoft Word, Text, PDF and JPG. The file must not be more than 30 MB - please send large attachments separately or contact [email protected] to arrange for delivery of large electronic files. Doug Patterson Wanaka

23/01/2019 Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions Department of Conservation [email protected]

Dear Sir or Madam Submission on the Draft Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park Management Plan Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the Draft National Park Management Plan for Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park (Draft Plan). I do not wish to be heard in support of this submission. Submission I wish to support, in full, the submission by the New Zealand Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (NZHGPA) on the Draft Plan. In summary, I support the following four submission points made by NZHGPA: 1.NZHGPA intends to apply for a global concession, with the assistance of the Federated Mountain Clubs of NZ (FMC), for NZHGPA pilots to take off and land on all public conservation land. The new requirement in the Draft Plan to obtain a concession to launch from or land in Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park is a significant change, as the current Plan does not require hang gliders or paragliders to obtain a concession. We assume this change in policy is based on section 17ZF of the Conservation Act 1987. Although hang gliders have been flying in the park since 1970, hang gliders and paragliders were still relatively uncommon when the Act was passed. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that this requirement to gain a concession was ever intended to apply to recreational hang gliders and paragliders. A global concession will ensure that hang gliding and paragliding pilots may continue to experience the joy of recreational flying in Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park and other conservation areas. This is a pragmatic solution to properly legitimise a situation which has gone on without scrutiny or opposition from the Department of Conservation for nearly 40 years.

2.NZHGPA opposes the requirement to notify the Southern Alps MBZ Air User Group prior to flight. The safe use of airspace within Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park is imperative. However, this requirement should be removed from the proposed Plan as: ●sufficient safeguards have been put in place by the Civil Aviation Authority ●the requirement serves no useful purpose given that it is impossible for hang gliding and paragliding pilots to know the exact location, date and time of a flight in advance, and ●the User Group has confirmed such notification would not be useful.

3.NZHGPA opposes the restriction on hang glider and paraglider landing within the Haupapa/Tasman Glacier Landing Zone. Again, the safe use of airspace within Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park is imperative. However, this requirement should be removed from the proposed Plan as: ●the Civil Aviation Authority has put in place sufficient protocols to provide for the safety of all air space users ●civil aviation law permits hang gliding and paragliding pilots to fly in this airspace, and they are therefore legitimate users of this airspace, and ●pilots on climbing, trekking or cross-country trips need to be able to land in this zone for safety reasons.

4.NZHGPA seeks an exemption to the one nautical mile no-fly zone around the summit of Aoraki/Mt Cook.

The great social and cultural significance of this mountain is acknowledged. Hang gliding and paragliding pilots treasure the ability to fly here and use their own personal skills to soar non-motorised aircraft on the rising air currents created by the mountain. I have attached NZHGPA’s submission below for ease of reference. In accordance with the submission guidelines provided by the Department of Conservation, the NZHGPA submission: ●outlines each of the changes sought ●details the full rationale for seeking these changes ●identifies the relevant sections of the Draft Plan ●outlines the proposed wording changes which would give effect to the changes sought. Yours sincerely

Douglas Patterson Ian Gardiner Christchurch

Email: 28 January 2019 Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions Department of Conservation [email protected] Dear Sir or Madam Submission on the Draft Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park Management Plan Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the Draft National Park Management Plan for Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park (Draft Plan). I do not wish to be heard in support of this submission. Submission I wish to support, in full, the submission by the Canterbury Mountaineering Club (CMC) on the Draft Plan. In summary, I support the following four submission points made by the CMC: 1. Management of the CMC Wyn Irwin Lodge I support the CMC’s submission regarding the retention of Wyn Irwin Lodge in its current location, form, and management. In addition, I support the CMC’s submission regarding the use of Wyn Irwin being available for Club members and for non-members where practicable, when not in use by club members and consistent with the purpose of the lodge. Furthermore, I would like to see the incorrect statements removed regarding the siting of Wyn Irwin Lodge that have been included in the Draft Plan. These are identified in the CMC submission. I would like to see clarification regarding what ‘formal authorisations’ are/is, and what ‘departmental standards’ are, as requested by the CMC’s submission. 2. Vehicle access in the Park I support the CMC’s submission regarding proposed solutions to manage traffic congestion within Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park. The Park and Ride concept may help to mitigate traffic congestion, but it cannot be at the expense of other user groups of Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park who will exit and arrive at the Park at hours outside of the operating hours of proposed Park and Ride. Vehicle access should be maintained for those intending to access Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park overnight and longer. Back country adventurers, particularly mountaineers, climbers, back country walkers, and skiers/snowboarders by the nature of their activity need to be able to start (and finish) trips within the Park at hours that would fall outside any operating hours of the proposed Park and Ride system. If the long and proud tradition of mountaineering in Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park (for which it is internationally famous for) is to be maintained, it is important that this core tenement remains. There are a number of alternative mechanisms outlined in the CMC submission that DOC should consider to help mitigate traffic congestion and allow freedom of movement for mountaineers, climbers, backcountry walkers, skiers/snowboarders and other similar user groups. I support these proposals put forward in the CMC submission. 3. Aircraft access within the Park I support the CMC’s submission which opposes the proposal in the Draft Plan to increase aircraft traffic and landing zones within Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park. Increasing use of aircraft within Aoraki Mount Cook National Park will degrade the experience of many user groups within the Park and reduce tranquillity values within the Park. With heightened awareness regarding climate change and anthropogenic impacts on the environment, allowing an increase in aircraft traffic and aircraft access to areas of the Park which previously excluded aircraft (i.e. previously designated high tranquillity, remote areas), is not appropriate or consistent with New Zealand’s climate change targets and commitments. I support the CMC’s submission on Hooker Valley remaining aircraft-free, except in case of emergencies requiring evacuation, predator control and scientific research. In addition, the Plan should reflect a stronger focus on preserving foot access to places within the Park outside the front country area. This will benefit the Park as a whole by encouraging more people to venture further into the Park, relieving pressure on front country resources while allowing more people to access the special, high tranquillity areas of the Park like the Hooker Valley. I support the CMC’s submission for the installation of a mid-valley hut (i.e. a replacement for Gardiner Hut) to make access to the head of the valley easier and safer as well as the ongoing maintenance of the Pudding Rock cables. 4. Other Matters I support the CMC’s submission regarding the proposed addition of the Liebig Range and the Godley Valleys to the Park and the World Heritage Area, provided that the Department of Conservation has the sufficient resources to administer these areas. I also support the CMC’s submission advocating for the existing use and access of the Liebig Range (i.e. Cass Valley) and the Godley Valley to allow for 4WD access along the established, unformed legal roads to these areas. I would like to see that these roads are formally identified and maintained to provide safer access to and from these areas, as well to reduce adverse impacts from vehicles in these areas. 4WD access is required in these areas not only to provide access, but also for the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association and the New Zealand Alpine Club as well as other groups, to administer their huts in these areas. I have attached the CMC’s submission with my submission for ease of reference. In accordance with the submission guidelines provided by the Department of Conservation, the CMC submission:  outlines each of the changes sought  details the full rationale for seeking these changes  identifies the relevant sections of the Draft Plan  outlines the proposed wording changes which would give effect to the changes sought. Yours sincerely Ian Gardiner

2 SUBMISSION ON THE AORAKI MOUNT COOK MANAGEMENT PLAN 2018

SECTION: PAGE 7 THE JOURNEY

I note the signatories on the Management Plan and respect that there are representatives for three separate Te Runanga, as well as Andy Roberts of DOC and Sam Newton, the Chair of the Conservation Board.

There are no signatories on behalf of anyone who lives at Aoraki Mount Cook and has made it their home, or anyone who has investment in the village and has made their life’s work here.

SUBMISSION

I oppose this imbalance.

DECISION SOUGHT

The management plan to include a representative of permanent residents and also of concessionaires of the Aoraki Mount Cook National Park, acknowledging that this village is their home and what is decided in such management plans has a material effect on those of us who live here and who own businesses in the national park.

PAGE 14

It states the aspirations, “requires the Department to build empathy, trust and understanding…”

SUBMISSION The Department is at odds with this worthy aspiration by recent actions, some examples of which are: 1. Trying to disrupt the lives of hard-working New Zealanders by attempting to increase the bare ground rentals of staff accommodation sites (without buildings) by 435%, making it tantamount to unaffordable to some businesses due to the rentals they would be forced to charge their staff and attempting to

1 charge combined staff rates and ground rental well in excess of reasonable charges for ground rentals for land that has substantial restrictions and thus cannot be termed as “commercial” or “market rates”, as market rates cannot apply to areas that are unable to be on the market due to the DOC restrictions placed on staff accommodation leases. 2. Creating obstructions on a leased site DOC alleged had water leaks on, or in the vicinity of but which they could not locate, creating difficulty in proceeding with building on as no-one can build over unresolved water leaks in the vicinity, and then attempting to end the concession as the concessionaire had not yet built due to uncertainty of where the water leaks were in the vicinity and if it would undermine building foundations. 3. Applying different concession processes to smaller operators and charging excessive and different fees outside the normal charges, while citing management plan restrictions to some but not others. Example can be provided. We object to DOC applying different rules, different prices, and different processes, and selectively quoting a management plan that should apply to all. 4. Another concessionaire was approved to extend his staff accommodation through an application which went public. There were no objections. After about 9 months at the end of this process, for which the concessionaire had put in a lot of work and money, it was declined by the local DOC office because of a matagouri bush, which DOC could have advised the concessionaire of before the costly process. DOC then invited him to reapply.

There are other examples but it looks like a money-making drive by DOC on concessionaires of goodwill. We all work hard to make a living. The point is that if DOC talk about “empathy, trust, and understanding” then DOC actions need to genuinely back up these words by working with good will rather than by trickery, as in the case of not liaising with concessionaires under the terms of goodwill and decent and honest communication. (Specific examples can be supplied).

DECISION SOUGHT

That the Department back their words of “empathy, trust and understanding” with actions that illustrate this and that when they don’t and this is pointed out, that they

2 honestly try to resolve situations to retain good working relationships with concessionaires, in this Park, whether small or large. That the Department note in the management plan that their aspirations are intended to be affordable to those who overcome the barriers of severe climate and distance to live and work here and provide valuable services for visitors.

PAGE 16

The goal is to ensure the diversity of our natural heritage is maintained and restored. This is a highly desirable goal and priority, depending on the methods employed. Aerial spraying of a poison on this planet that is so toxic it is banned in almost every country is not the way to maintain and restore our natural heritage.

SUBMISSION It is stated that the goal is also to be predator free by 2050 but it does not make it clear how this goal is to be achieved.

If that goal is to continue to carpet-bomb the environment with toxic poisons such as 1080 that do great harm, because “there is no better solution”, then the cost is too high. The World Health Organisation has deemed 1080 as Class 1a, Extremely Hazardous. The Food and Drug Administration of the UN is also seeking a global phase-out of this poison. Yet, New Zealand, as it did for DDT, and as it does for other toxic chemicals, still allows it to be spread ad infinitum, while advertising itself as “clean and green” It is of serious concern that the MSDS safety sheet regulations for both NZ and the USA are not being adhered to in the aerial drops of 1080, and it is being dumped into all water. 1080 is one of the three most feared poisons of governments of the world today due to the fact that it is tasteless and invisible in water. This gives no one any idea it is there. It is understood that the government has done testing of water after 1080 drops but this gives no confidence when taking into account the testing undertaken too long after a 1080 drop and chronic effects of released fluoride ions from the 1080 have not been taken into account. We are ethically bound to look at the potential consequences of spreading this poison everywhere. Those releasing rats, possums, stoats, and weasels in this country had no idea of the consequences of their actions. We must stop this cavalier attitude toward poison and spreading it all over the land without first

3 checking the long-term consequences to human health and animal health and health of our land and water.

Scientists have stated 1080 is “safe”. In the 1950s, scientists stated that DDT was safe and scientists and doctors considered thalidomide was “safe”. There are highly respected scientists who state that 1080 is extremely unsafe, too. Dr Whiting-O’Keefe and his wife, also a scientist, are appalled by the lack of science employed by DOC and ERMA in regard to 1080. A scientist at Victoria University also states the “science” the government quotes in favour of 1080 is so appalling he wouldn’t accept it as the work of an under-graduate. NZ is one of the only countries in the world that continues to persist in using 1080. REF: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQRuOj96CRs The world has largely banned it. There will otherwise be an inevitable international tsunami that will tragically crash our tourism and export industries, and flatten New Zealand, and all we stand for, as the international view of 1080 is made clear to New Zealanders who think they can poison their way to a “pure NZ". Already exports are being turned back and we have tourists who admire our scenery, while saying “At least we can drink our water, you cannot.” With 1080 about to be poured into the catchment areas and rivers of NZ, despite US manufacturers warnings not to, we must use safe alternatives. Ultimately this will threaten our tourism export industries, due to perceived dangers of drinking water on track walks and residues of 1080 infiltrating the food chain, with additional pollution in our catchment areas and rivers, despite regulations against it being poured over water. Water is not tested. Exports are not tested. It is inevitable that this will eventually be done by countries more concerned about NZ than the NZ government as they won’t want to take the risk of receiving our exports or visiting our country.

1080 is no longer produced in the US but NZ. And NZ uses enough to kill 50 million people. To spread this much poison on our land is not sensible, particularly where there is an alternative. New Zealand will never be considered “the greatest living space on Earth” as DOC suggests in this management plan, while it persists in dowsing the environment and people with toxic poisons in an effort to bring back the birds. It is also understood that the rat population explodes after 1080 drops, and nor do mice eat it. As a consequence, it is harder on our native birds. The end does not justify the means.

4 For 50 years, this poison has been used in NZ and we have more of a problem than ever before. It was Einstein who said that the definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing while expecting a different result. And this is the case in regard to aerially spraying this toxic poison. A better way has been found, and, according to Department documents, is successful. Apparently, there is now a trap on the market that does not use toxic poison, utilises bait that lures pests from far and wide with a scent particularly alluring to these pests, and clears complete areas of pests. DOC has tested it and acknowledged and documented it a success. Even more successful than they had hoped. (Ref: DOC 3154333, DOC 2562032, DOC 2562029 – attached. DOC also has one on possums). If it is as successful as these DOC reports say, we should use this option. As mentioned, if NZ depends on international markets who have banned 1080, they will not tolerate traces of it in NZ produce and will not visit if water is polluted with it. Those of us who consider this area, and New Zealand, to be a sacred and spiritual land, Maori and non-Maori, do not find that this type of action works alongside that view. We are guardians of the most beautiful country. We must honour that duty by doing no harm. We cannot poison the land, the people, and the environment in our quest to be predator-free while speaking also about the spirituality of Aoraki and how it is a taonga. Those sentiments do not walk hand-in-hand.

The way forward is for us to innovate. If we genuinely want the goal to be a NZ which is “the greatest living space on Earth” then instead of using roundup, 1080, fluoride, chlorine, glyphosate and all other manner of toxins, we should make our national parks, and our country, organic.

I understand DOC has also created a toxic poisonous chemical mixture dubbed “Armageddon” to kill wilding pines. It leaves areas where it has been sprayed, the ear, and the trees dead, creating appalling fire risks. It is so toxic that when members of the public ask what is in it some have been denied the information by LINZ or SCION, yet ordered to use it by these government departments. It defoliates, like Agent Orange, and poisons people and the earth. This does not fit with “New Zealand is the greatest living space on earth”. The lofty goals in the MCNPMP need to be backed up with effective, non-toxic solutions that do no harm to the earth or the people, in order for them to have any meaning.

5 We should internationally extend invitations to innovators and ecologists, offering substantial rewards or grants to those able to come up with non-toxic alternatives that work (in addition to trapping with the new traps) and prohibit poison from the national parks, as a start and move from that to prohibiting toxic poisons in the country.

The solution for removing pests must fit in with the Department’s national long-term vision “New Zealand is the greatest living space on Earth”. A key part of this is protecting the land and water from toxic chemicals.

DECISION SOUGHT The lofty goals in the MCNPMP need to be backed up with effective, non-toxic solutions that do no harm to the earth or the people and that include the intention to find additional non-toxic solutions that don’t bring further harm to the earth, the people, all living things, and the water. Put in a trial programme at Aoraki of exclusive trapping in this region with digitally monitored Goodnature traps. Send out with SAR teams when they are not doing SAR work, also with employed trappers, using the money that would otherwise have been spent on blitzing the area with the toxic 1080. Build a sanctuary here using geographical areas to keep pests out. Gradually we could trap these key areas and remove pests from them. Put in Goodnature rat traps and mice traps as well, as this disposes of other pests in humane ways. Immediately place trap-lines of the non-toxic traps that, according to DOC literature, are successful. Get these into the park with the GPS and digital backup they now have, luring all pests to the trap areas, thus clearing them. (There is room for a substantial export industry with these traps being exported to other countries with similar pest problems. Already 19 other countries are successfully using these traps, a NZ product.) References: Poisoning Paradise documentary. Winner of 4 international environmental awards and given wide coverage internationally. W F Benfield The War on Nature The Third Wave

6 Water Quality and Ownership The Quiet Forest M.F. McQueen The Killing Nation – New Zealand’s addiction to Poison 1080. Reihana Robinson

PAGE 16 NEW ZEALANDERS AND OUR VISITORS ENRICHED BY OUTDOOR EXPERIENCES

I agree with this and see that this is where concession management is included. Currently small operators provide much in the way of “history brought to life”, which is another DOC goal on this page, by direct interaction with New Zealanders and visitors as they help them experience the outstanding nature of the MCNP. These operators will not be able to continue under suppressive government influences that attempt to raise ground rentals by 435% or more for staff accommodation that cannot be used in other ways in the very quiet seasons, (rental, air BnB etc) while DOC pave the way for government-favoured corporations to obtain increased development, sweeping away any policy impediments, while tying smaller operators up in knots, making it near impossible to expand. (Specific examples can be provided).

DECISION SOUGHT Include on page 16 under “concession management” the following: Concession management executed reasonably and fairly to all NZ concessionaires regardless of size of operation, Maori or non-Maori.

PAGE 19/20 Here it is mentioned that there will be “shared consideration of authorisation applications [with Ngai Tahu] before a decision is made by the Minister” which appears to put Ngai Tahu in a position of power over other concessionaires. In so doing, this raises one group to the level of government in a democracy without them being voted into power by the people. Also, Ngai Tahu has commercial interests of their own they wish to pursue in the Park and so they could be seen to have a vested interest that is detrimental to other applicants who do not have the same advantages.

DECISION SOUGHT

7 I submit that in all evaluations of authorisations that applicants are treated fairly and on a level playing field. Delete Milestone 1, as “shared decision-making” with the Department and Kai Tahu and replace with: “Developed mechanisms to consult in liaison with Kai Tahu, while ensuring such consultation is transparent and fair to all.” Adjust #5 to align.

PAGE 20 It mentions early Kai Tahu guides on this page. During historical research for my new book, Aoraki, the mountain and the people, I found that although Maori travelled over high alpine passes across the Main Divide, there are none recorded as having done this in the 1800s in the MCNP area, on the east of the Divide in this extremely mountainous area. My research may be lacking, but the first Maori guide I could find in this specific region was Butler Te Koeti, in 1905. The draft plan appears to concur. He later brought his nephew, George Bannister, to also work at the Hermitage as a guide and it was George who became the first Maori to summit Aoraki in 1912, at the age of 18, in the company of Samuel Turner and veteran guide Darby Thomson. While it is notable to mention Sir Edmund Hillary, our good friend Ed would have been the first to tell you he didn’t spend a great deal of time at Aoraki and would have pleaded for you to mention the guides in this area whom he held great respect for instead. In regard to early Kai Tahu guides (not sure if Butler and George were Kai Tahu?) there is no objection to mentioning them but they should be placed in their correct area of history, and if you’re talking about the early history of mountain guiding then mention should be made of the earliest New Zealand born mountain guide of this area, Jack Adamson, of the 1800s, who played a key part in assisting the first climbers to summit Aoraki. (Ref: Jack Adamson – The Spirit of Mountaineering, 2007) Those who first summited also deserve a mention, which keeps it balanced as it looks, from the way this page is written, that there were only Kai Tahu guides here in the early days which is incorrect, as there were no Kai Tahu guides on the east side of Aoraki in the 1800s and they were not on this side until 1905. There are no reports of Maori guides here in the 1800s when the first settlers arrived in the 1850s and it was the first settlers who assisted early explorers in the region, from both the west and east sides of Lake Pukaki.

8 DECISION SOUGHT Be honest with the history. It is disrespectful to all to make it up. Mention mountain guides and early mountain guides and name Jack Adamson as the first New Zealand born mountain guide of this area, as well as the first summiters of Aoraki on this page 21, Jack Clarke, Tom Fyfe and George Graham.

PAGE 22

This page makes no mention of mountain and ski guides, the men and women and their families, who spend their lives in these mountains and have a very close relationship with them spiritually, mentally, and physically. Respect should also be given to the mountain guiding whanau, which appears to be lacking on this page.

DECISION SOUGHT Mention the mountain guiding whanau that have built their skills in this most challenging of mountain environments, to become among the best in the world.

PAGE 24 It states, after mentioning the Alpine Fault, that “new facilities and activities” alongside Aoraki will have to take place in the “context of this longer-term view of change”. Is this why DOC are planning a base at Birch Hill? Or is it because the current Minister wants buildings out of the National Park? If so, this needs to be made clear to current concessionaires who should be given the opportunity to be allotted space in this new area and this new area must be declared safe from rockfall and landslide, otherwise the purpose for moving would be redundant.

DECISION SOUGHT Be clear and honest about the reason for the relocation of services and facilities so people can plan accordingly. Include in this plan the statement that land will first be offered to current concessionaires to be able to move if they wish. Confirm that any site chosen is safe from future potential rockfall or landslides in the event of an earthquake.

9 PAGES 30/31

“Enhancing the protection of these threatened species will be a priority for the Department to improve the long-term health of all threatened species.” Refer to earlier pages in regard to this issue.

DECISION SOUGHT Please add: “Enhancing the protection of these threatened species, through non-toxic means, using methods that cause no harm, will be a priority for the Department to improve the long-term health of all threatened species.”

PAGE 33/34 These pages deal with pest control and includes keeping the waters pure in this area. It also mentions working with the Runanga and Conservation Board to achieve this. People who have their home at Aoraki should also be consulted on any form of pest control. No mention is made of keeping chlorine and fluoride (two toxic chemicals) from the water, which this small village has laudably been able to do through a very successful UV system. 1080 though, if permitted in the park with aerial spray, would be catastrophic for the tourism industry here, for DOC has no reliable scientific tests that satisfy scientific criteria that demonstrate and prove that 1080 is safe in water. Safety precautions of this product expressly prohibit it from being dropped in water. And yet that is the situation today. No aerial 1080 should be permitted in this park. Trapping can be done with the upgraded traps very successfully. Aside from this, it is very important to ensure that, in order to protect native species, and to protect what is downstream, then protection of the current water treatment through the successful UV should be mentioned. Organic methods should be used wherever possible. Roundup should be banned. Hunters should be used instead of 1080. Traps that DOC has already declared successful should be used. 1080 must be banned from this area. This is a National

10 Park. Under NO circumstances can 1080 be dropped into our catchment area and waterways. The USA precautions prohibit this for good reason. Meat procured from culls could be flown out and used to help feed New Zealanders living on the breadline. Possums could be trapped and their fur used for eco-friendly clothing. We should start looking at ways to creatively innovate from these perceived pests, so that we are respecting all of nature and honouring their existence by utilising their furs, their meat (tahr) and distributing and/or selling these. In this way the burden of pest eradication would be lightened; people would benefit; carcasses wouldn’t be left to rot in the hills attracting rodents and vermin that would multiply; hungry people could be fed; new industries could grow up around the pest eradication or incorporated into current businesses and this burdensome costly job could be turned into a positive. Most importantly, we would not be poisoning our sacred land, but respecting it in one of the most important ways possible. It was Hippocrates, the father of medicine who said, “First, do no harm”. His words hold true today It is in this way we can help preserve indigenous fish and plants and animals and rare species would not die. Aoraki could become a fine example of respecting the land by ensuring nothing that was poisonous would be used in this vicinity, setting a benchmark for the rest of the world to follow. Instead of following failed toxic measures of other countries who have now phased 1080 out, we must be leaders in this area of pest control through non-invasive and non-toxic solutions that the world can follow. This shows true respect for our land and our people. This is true guardianship. This means our words are not empty when we talk of our love for our land and respect for this sacred area. . .

DECISION SOUGHT

Include in this section of the plan: 1. Consultation with local residents who have their home at Aoraki in regard to any form of pest control. 2. Immediately employ trappers at MCNP, with the new digitally monitored traps, to eradicate pests from this area. 3. An intention to form a group of entrepreneurs who could assist the department and the Runanga in brainstorming any additional non-toxic ways pests could be brought under control to protect the native flora and fauna

11 without poisoning this sacred environment and also helping New Zealanders in such a goal.

4. Keep the water free of added poisons.

PAGE 36 PEST MANAGEMENT Include in pest control the intention to keep the area free of poisons and to seek better ways of pest control that do not involve poisoning our land and to employ non- toxic means, such as the Good Nature traps, already acknowledged by DOC as successful.

DECISION SOUGHT #4 ADD “through non-toxic means”

#5 ADD “investigating the possibility of using some of this cull for food for those in need, and creating products from the cull that will be able to be sold commercially, thereby reducing the expense and removing the need for using poisons.”

ADD #12. Protecting the purity of the water by continuing the UV treatment and not allowing poisons to be added to water in this sacred area. #13. Develop policy that leans towards non-toxic solutions for pest control which will enable the Park to become organic.

PAGE 37

1.2.2 HISTORIC AND CULTURAL HERITAGE

This page omits the rich history of traditional mountain guiding here in the AMCNP in the 1800s, starting with Jack Adamson. It is mentioned that early Europeans were “supported by Kai Tahu guides who had traversed the trails and passes for generations and were well known as the alpine guides of choice around Aoraki”.

12 This is inaccurate. There were certainly Maori guides on the West Coast1 and across passes in Canterbury to the West Coast but that information applies to other management plans, not the Aoraki Mount Cook National Park Plan. There were no Kai Tahu guides at Aoraki in the 1800s. I have written one book on the first New Zealand-born mountain guide at Aoraki2 and two books3 on the early European history of the stations surrounding Pukaki and Tekapo and during my extensive research I could find no mention of Maori guides at Aoraki during that time. There were no reports of Maori guides at Aoraki in the 1850s and 1860s when the first non-Maori high country farmers arrived to settle here. Mr Burnett of Mt Cook Station assisted mountaineers and explorers across the treacherous Tasman river and guided them away from quicksands.4 George Sutherland, the manager of Birch Hill Station also assisted mountaineers across the Hooker and Tasman. Big Mick Radove (Birch Hill Station) was also here and met with von Haast in the 1860s when he ventured to the area of Aoraki. There is no mention of any of these people being assisted by Maori guides at Aoraki. Early mountain guides have been completely omitted from this historic and cultural heritage page including the first New Zealand born mountain guide, Jack Adamson, in the early 1890s. Nor is there any mention of the first men to ascend Aoraki. It wasn’t until 1905 that a Maori guide (John Butler Te Koeti) came to Aoraki from the West Coast at the request of his friend, Peter Graham, and he worked under Peter at the Hermitage and was employed by the Hermitage. By that time guiding had been here since Jack Adamson in the 1890s. There were a number of New Zealand guides here by that time. Names can be supplied. Other Kiwis were here earlier attempting to climb Aoraki.

1 Harper and Douglas were assisted by a Maori guide (Ruera Te Nahui) on the West Coast, Kere Tutoko helped guide Herr Mueller in 1865 on the West Coast and in 1895 Dan Te Koeti assisted Fitzgerald and Zurbriggen on the West Coast. There is a report that Kere Tutoko crossed Harper Saddle in 1835, but I have been unable to find written information on this crossing or whether he came to the other side of the Main Divide.

2 The Spirit of Mountaineering – Jack Adamson, the first New Zealand-born mountain guide. 3 High Country Stations of the Mackenzie, Mary Hobbs, Potton and Burton 2015 High Country Stations of Lake Tekapo, Mary Hobbs, Potton and Burton, 2017

4 High Country Stations of the Mackenzie, Mary Hobbs, Potton and Burton 2015

13 In 1910 Butler Te Koeti brought a relation, George Bannister, to Aoraki. George worked for the Hermitage as a porter and he trained to become a guide and summited Aoraki in 1912 with veteran guide Darby Thomson and Darby’s client, Samuel Turner. It is disrespectful to the rich guiding history of this country that there is no mention of the fine earliest mountain guides we had in the area of Aoraki from the 1890s through to the present day and that there is no mention of the assistance given by early settlers to mountaineers.

DECISIONS SOUGHT

1. Correct this part of the MCNP plan with the accurate information as outlined above. I am willing to supply more detail. 2. Ensure that the earliest guides of the 1800s that were on this side of the Main Divide are mentioned in this part of the plan, which began with Jack Adamson. 3. Mention should also be made of the rich history of mountain guiding that began at Aoraki in the 1890s and from which New Zealand men and women mountain guides have become known as some of the most respected guides in the world. Before that there were mountaineers seeking to climb Aoraki and before that there were early settlers in this area, since the 1850s. 4. Cover the history in at least a few paragraphs of the outstanding guiding history that developed from the 1890s through to the present day. Names can be supplied. 5. Note that homesteads were in the vicinity of Aoraki since 1856 (John and Mary McHutcheson)5 and not just “since the Park’s new-found fame as the premier climbing destination in NZ”, which is the 1950s. The 1880s cannot be classified as “new-found.” 6. Name each of the historic trails in this area. 7. Name any of the historic buildings as such including: a. Copland Shelter b. Sefton Bivy c. The original Ball Hut area as an historic site

5 High Country Stations of the Mackenzie | Mary Hobbs| Potton and Burton | 2015.

14 d. Green’s camps (5) e. Mick Bowie’s old home (even though it is in the vicinity of the Hermitage it should be registered as historic so it is preserved. f. Other Hermitage buildings that should be registered and preserved. g. Hooker hut site. h. Memorial Hut/Haast hut. 8. The Waitaha Nation were also active in the Mackenzie and it seems right that the name Waitaha should be included on this page, as the Waitaha were a Nation of people. 9. It was my understanding that the Kai Tahu went from East to West further north across Browning Pass (Greenstone Trails) and other passes in the North, not at Aoraki, which was heavily glaciated. This should be corrected if it is inaccurate. 10. Delete “Due to the Park’s new-found fame as the premier climbing destination in NZ”. This is incorrect. It’s fame as a premier climbing destination has been in existence since the 1880s. 11. Delete: “. . . many more permanent structures were erected around Aoraki from the 1950s onwards”. This makes it look as though European settlement wasn’t here until then which is inaccurate “Structures” (they were homes, not “structures”) have been built in the area since the 1850s/1860s. In the 1800s the following homesteads were here: Birch Hill, Mt Cook Station, Glentanner, The Mistake station homestead, Lilybank homestead, the Hermitage hotel, Ball hut and Malte Brun hut. The Hermitage was here in the late 1800s. 12. Add in the historic trails which have a charm of their own including: Wakefield track, the old Ball hut track from the Hooker bridge, Kea Point, Mueller track, Red Tarns track, the Hooker track and the trail to the waterfall on the old Ball hut track, as well as Green’s historic 5 campsites. 13. The alpine memorial is a sacred site and should be noted as this as well as its registration as an historic place. There is a note of a revered mountain guide whose remains were laid in the vicinity of this memorial. It is a taonga of the mountain guiding whanau and should be noted as such. 14. Add to “additional archaeological sites in AMCNP: The grave of the Glentanner shepherd, John Brown (High Country Stations of the Mackenzie Country), Glentanner chapter, photo of gravestone, 1870)

15 PAGE 40

Objective 1: History brought to life and protected: It mentions the relationship between Kai Tahu whanui and the land, waters and resources in the Park but it omits other New Zealanders who call this place home.

It mentions DOC working with Heritage NZ to identify historic places, but not local historians who have done extensive research and know many of the historical stories through such research.

It mentions marking historic sites. Please could these be put in an unobtrusive place as large signs in the beautiful park do detract (Such as the one in front of the tarns at Red Tarns, which is a blight on the view.)

DECISION SOUGHT In a separate number acknowledge the relationship New Zealanders who call this place home also have with the land and waters and mountains in the Park.

Add in #2 “Work with local historians/published authors and Heritage NZ…”

Add in #4 that the signs on site be placed in an unobtrusive part of the area so marked. Add in #7 to also consult with permanent residents. Add in #9: Retrieving deceased persons (usually climbers) should always include consultation of the family but it only talks here about consulting with the Runanga.

Add in #9: In the event that ancient skeletons found in this Park that the Runanga do not acknowledge as their own, that these remains be dated and this information is made known and the remains are treated with the greatest dignity and respect.

Add in #10: Agree, although please add: In partnership with local historians, establish a cultural interpretation programme to also enhance early New Zealander’s presence and visibility within the Park so this history is not lost.

16 PAGE 41 Applications to erect or retain structures including plaques, utilities and facilities and under the points to consider in (f) it states the structure “represents or communicates kaitiaki runaka history or values”. This is totally understandable and appropriate for an area of runaka history but inappropriate if it is to do with non-Maori structures. This is an alpine environment and structures should reflect alpine design. To enforce all structures to copy each other does not seem appropriate.

DECISION SOUGHT Modify (f) accordingly.

13. DOC should also be working in liaison with local historians for other history of the area.

DECISION SOUGHT Modify 13 accordingly.

PAGE 48 Regarding d). I agree with this point but it should not exclude other New Zealanders to whom this area is most sacred and significant.

DECISION SOUGHT

To d), add: “and other New Zealanders who consider the mountains sacred. Policy should be inclusive.

DECISION SOUGHT 3.b) To the end of the sentence add: “and other New Zealanders who consider this area significant and sacred.”

PAGE 49 5) In the past DOC has shown it works well with major corporations which is fine, but all concessionaires should be treated fairly and are entitled to concession processes that do not differ due to culture, size or money. All New Zealanders should be treated in an even-handed manner. Nor should DOC allow applicants to

17 go through a long drawn-out application process leading the applicants to believe all is well, then to charge them at the end of this process for a negative answer from the department and invite them to “apply again”. If there is a reason DOC would say no, this needs to be divulged at the beginning of any process, so that discussions can resolve it at that point rather than needlessly wasting time and money for the applicant.

DECISION SOUGHT Add in 5, DOC will endeavour at all times to comply with the NPA 1980 where all concessionaires are treated fairly, on an even-handed basis and work constructively with concessionaires and alert them to any reasons they are aware of that the concession may be declined before the process starts.

PAGE 49 8) This must include local concessionaires and residents, especially where public access may be affected. This is also important, in order to be even-handed, as Ngai Tahu are planning to compete with local operators in the Park on a commercial basis. One competitor, commercially, should not be given an advantage over another. DECISION SOUGHT Please modify 8) to include local concessionaires and residents, especially where public access may be affected.

ENGAGEMENT VALUES 1.2.4 PAGE 50/51 This page discusses safety and also pest control.

DECISION SOUGHT

ADD to “Policies” on page 52 under 10): For any and all pest control non-toxic forms of pest control to be used so there is less danger to visitors and New Zealanders. No toxic pest control to be used near any water within the NP, as all water is sacred. No 1080 drops in the NP, but trapping instead. Tahr culls should be undertaken near no water source. The meat should be saved to feed those who cannot afford meat in NZ, or it should be made available to

18 industry involved in meat processing, after testing for any previous 1080, rather than left to rot in a sacred area where it attracts and feeds vermin, exploding their populations. No toxic sprays to be used in this sacred area, particularly aerial drops, 1080, or “Armageddon” where it has not been publicly disclosed what is in this poisonous potion.

PAGE 51 MILESTONES #1 and #6 Is Ngai Tahu managing the Park? If so, how does this work with their commercial interests? Is DOC not the democratically elected arm of government? Not sure of the ramifications of #1 as written. DECISION SOUGHT This document should clearly define DOC’s role and the Ngai Tahu role when it talks about identifying opportunities for Ngai Tahu to engagae in management of the Park.

P 54 GENERAL MANAGEMENT 1.3.1 POLICIES 1 A AND 1B “Restrict or close access to AMCNP or any part of the park for: a: “preservation of native plants and animals; b: “welfare in general of the Park” d: “cultural safety”

DECISION SOUGHT Further explanation as to what this encompasses as this gives little in the way of understanding or certainty to those who live here and have their businesses here with legitimate expectations that the area in which they operate will not be closed off. The NZ public, who own these Parks, are also entitled under the NPA, to have free access to this Park.

P54 POLICIES 3 B ‘stopping or resuming these roads’

DECISION SOUGHT Please explain as this could have a material effect on local companies. Add: consult with local companies as well as permanent residents and seek their agreement or compensate fairly, for any time business is closed off.

19 P55 Exploring options to minimise risk of water contamination should also include ensuring no rotting carcasses from deer culling are permitted near waterways – i.e. no shooting of animals anywhere near water. It should also include, “no spraying near waterways” and “no poison 1080, or other, near waterways, leaving a 500m clear-space at least. It is impossible to retain pure water if poisons are sprayed, dropped, or animals shot near the water. DECISION SOUGHT Modify 5 to include these requirements. P55 NATURAL HAZARDS #9 “Removing or relocating existing facilities where the threat from natural hazards cannot be safely remedied or mitigated” is a very loose statement in an area that has a front row seat to the Alpine Fault. In theory, DOC could require all facilities, including the hotel and airport, to be removed or relocated now. This needs perimeters and explanation, particularly with substantial new builds happening or about to happen.

DECISION SOUGHT Additional clarity on the above and #10, which begs the question, how does DOC allow or not allow “the natural processes of avalanche….” Etc. Nature has its way of just doing the activities whether DOC “allows” or not. Clarity on what is meant in this phrase is required.

PAGE 56 1.3.1 12 B I oppose. DOC cannot set itself up to restrict accommodation and patronage of facilities for the public in the NP. This clashes with the NP Act and the purpose of keeping it open for the public. At best, this clause requires rewording so it does not affect accommodation providers. DECISION SOUGHT Reword to include: Commercial accommodation and café and activity leases are exempt. PAGE 56 1.3.1 12 D

20 I oppose. This is tantamount to DOC destroying patronage of such businesses as stand-alone cafes in the NP and it also restricts access to the public which goes against the NP Act and would require a change of law – a law that is sacrosanct to the majority of Kiwis.

DECISION SOUGHT Concessionaires exempt.

I oppose. DOC cannot be given the power to “remove or close facilities to encourage the use of alternatives” DECISION SOUGHT Delete 1.3.1.e

1.3.1. F This is vague. Please explain. It reads as though DOC may turn away day visitors, one of a stand-alone café’s main source of revenue and a substantial source of revenue for the Hermitage. All businesses have the legitimate expectation that DOC will allow free access to the public. This clause needs rewording.

DECISION SOUGHT

Clarification on when DOC would tell people to go to other places rather than Aoraki. Free access should always be available for the NZ public. This cuts across that and so this clause requires modification to ensure it doesn’t.

1.3.1G “Reviewing conditions of concessions, at time of review, to manage demand.”

DECISION SOUGHT Clarification on exactly what this means, including DOC’s intentions. 1.3.1 13 iv “Consolidation of existing backcountry facilities” What is meant by this? Huts established in the backcountry are vitally important for all the reasons a NP is here – to allow New Zealanders to enjoy the great outdoors.

21 Decision sought is to “maintain existing huts and replace existing huts as necessary, due to wear and tear.” P56 1.3.1 13 B DECISION SOUGHT Concessionaires and permanent residents should be added to the consultation list.

PAGE 57 14D The public should not have rights to be accommodated in a club hut regardless of the club members wishes. To my knowledge there are only 3 of these huts, which include the Canterbury Mountaineering Hut, the Deerstalkers/Hunters Hut, and the NZAC Unwin Lodge. They have historic places here in the Park and club members are responsible for their upkeep and have paid for them with no financial support from DOC or any other part of government. To enforce these club members to accommodate the public is a form of communistic takeover and should not be permitted.

DECISION SOUGHT Delete 1.3.1 D

PAGE 57 Clause 15. DECISION SOUGHT New Zealanders to be given booking priority. (This enables Kiwis access to the parks they pay for and have paid for since they came into being. The influx of o/seas tourists has made it a challenge for Kiwis to access these huts they have paid for through taxes.)

PAGE 57 19 a and 19d. Day parking should not be removed from White Horse Hill. The day walk of the Hooker needs car access due to inclement and fast-changing weather patterns in this part of the country. For safety reasons, there should be car access to this area. It also makes the track accessible for Kiwis, who pay for it. Those with limited walking ability, or the elderly would be prohibited access through such a rule. 19d It is reasonable to think campervans could be relocated as they “have a toilet onboard.” This is fraught with conflict as although many have toilets onboard they

22 are most likely not to use them as they are offered hefty discounts to return the campervan with an ultra-clean toilet. To do this they don’t use the toilet and instead they use the outdoors, defecating in abandon, especially near rivers, which is abhorrent. Statistics show that campervan areas must have a toilet block such as exists at White Horse Hill, to help keep the environment clean and protect our waterways within the Park. DECISION SOUGHT Delete 19a. 19c: Add: Toilet blocks in these areas available. 19d: Add: Toilet blocks in these areas available.

P58 23A Granting of concessions should be made available through a public process open to all as available. It is unclear what is meant by developing the granting of concessions “in consultation” with Ngai Tahu who are commercial operators and concession holders. This could be seen as competitive advantage.

DECISION SOUGHT. Clarification is sought on this point with rewording to ensure that the granting of concessions if fair to all applicants.

P58 23

It has become apparent that the department has, on occasion, rushed through some concession applications while delaying other applicant’s concessions unreasonably and charging excessive fees to smaller applicants while waiving obstacles and charging normal fees to other larger corporations and acting unreasonably, which violates the NP Act. (Specific examples can be given as recently as 2018.)

DECISION SOUGHT Add viii The Department will act at all times in a fair and reasonable manner with all concessionaires.

PAGE 56 1.3.1 12B

23 Oppose: Any accommodation authorisation should have no restrictions for filling rooms. This is anti-competitive and would come to the attention of the Commerce Commission. DOC cannot be permitted to have a control over the financial viability of accommodation businesses.

DECISION SOUGHT

Delete policy

PAGE 56 1.3.1 POLICY 13 IV I oppose: a focus on managing use and demand in the front country and the consolidation of existing backcountry facilities;’

DECISION SOUGHT

Reword policy 1.3.1. 13 iv) to replace the word `consolidation’ with the words `ongoing maintenance and improvement’

P58 1.3.1 23v: AVOIDING THE CREATION OF MONOPOLY SITUATIONS

I oppose the current situation where there is a monopoly at the airport. There are no policies that open the airport area up to other aircraft users.

DECISION SOUGHT:

Reword policy in the plan to state: Other land around the current airport lease will be made available to other concessionaires.

PAGE 56 #14 CLUB LODGES These club lodges (Unwin Hut, Wynn Irwin, and Tahr) are historic and should be protected by the department. Club members have consistently paid for their upkeep and protection from the elements and should not be forced to open them to the public but to keep them for their members who have been paying for them for many decades. Sadly, this management plan appears to have brushed aside the fine alpine history of Aoraki Mount Cook, which is not acceptable given the stellar reputation professional New Zealand mountain and ski guides and mountaineers have gained throughout the world.

24 DECISION SOUGHT P56 14 D: “the lodge being available for use by the public at the discretion of club members.”

PAGE 58 #25 (C) DECISION SOUGHT Please clarify 25c

PAGE 58: #26 DECISION SOUGHT While 26a, b and c is understood and agreed with it is unclear what the first paragraph entails? Please clarify.

PAGE 59 1.3.1 31. B ii and iii Unless for safety rescue and except for the existing concessionaire, no powered watercraft is permitted on the Mueller Glacier lake as it is a quiet zone.

DECISION SOUGHT Amend 31.b.ii, iii, to reflect the Quiet Zone and it being only for safety rescue and for the kayak company currently operating on Mueller lake.

PAGE 59 31 d DECISION SOUGHT Please clarify what is meant by “changing charges and fees from time to time”. Is this to public or concessionaires? Please provide more clarity in the document.

PAGE 59 BYLAWS 31 E SUPPORT

PAGE 62 1.3.3 GREEN ZONES Clarification required in regard to FN 11:

“FN: 11) For Aoraki Mount Cook Airport, landings are allowed under the lease and so concessions to land are not required.”

25 Does this mean that anyone can land here to do business?

PAGE 67 ANIMALS Agree, would appreciate clarification on policy 3 1.3.4 ? (Would have liked horses being permitted, due to historic reasons.)

PAGE 69 PHOTOGRAPHY No mention of drones, which I feel should be prohibited from the NP for safety reasons (aircraft) and also for natural quiet reasons and intrusion of privacy and enjoying the natural surroundings “away from it all”. Not possible with drones hovering above. DECISION SOUGHT Ban drones from the national park.

PAGE 69 1.3.6 COMMERCIAL FILMING AND PHOTOGRAPHY AND COMPETITIVE SPORTING EVENTS I oppose: Policy should include a statement on Qualified Safety Services (mountain, water, or otherwise) being required as part of the consent process. This requirement is not included in the Code of Practice: Filming on Public Conservation Lands

DECISION SOUGHT Reword with something that will include requirement for Safety Pan and Qualified Safety Services in 1.3.6

PAGE 71 1.3.10 GUIDING ACTIVITIES 1C I oppose. This is not practical and no guiding company could survive on one guided trip per day. Is this a typo? DECISION SOUGHT Delete 1c.

PAGE 71 1.3.11 MINING ETC

26 I support this section of the AMCMP.

PAGE 72

Private accommodation is permitted with some concessions and this should be retained. This clause may concur but would appreciate clarity to reflect this.

Unwin Lodge, Wyn Irwin Lodge and Tahr Lodge are historic huts, have been paid for by club members and should be able to retain their historic rights of occupation. They are not hurting anyone; they are historic and a substantial amount of money has been spent on their maintenance.

DECISION SOUGHT Clarification sought Add: “and according to concessions, leases and/or authorisation approval”. (Or words to that effect)

This clause should make provision for the protection of the above three historic huts and any authorisation for these huts should not subject the custodians of these historic huts to be in fear of removal.

PAGE 74 1.3.14: POLICY 3 & 4 Please clarify. #3 Does this mean “facility” buildings are permitted at the airport? #4 Does this mean all structures in the village are to be removed? (4) DECISION SOUGHT Clarification of the above.

PAGE 77 1.3.16 WATERCRAFT

#3 and #4 Is this a typo? There is a 30-year concession to operate on the Mueller Lake and Tasman Lakes that we hold.

27 DECISION SOUGHT #3. ADD, Other than Tasman Lake and Mueller Lake. #4. Add, providing these are not commercial enterprises which affect the natural quiet of the Mueller area.

PAGE 78 #4

DECISION SOUGHT Add: c) At all times hunters are prohibited from shooting wild animals near water ways.

PAGE 84

2.1 This should also include the Waitaha Nation, who were also food hunters and gatherers in the wider environment. Aoraki Mount Cook Village has become home to a small number who permanently live here and have made it their home. This should be acknowledged in this paragraph. DECISION SOUGHT Adjust to include.

PAGE 86 Cultural values: The way Manaakitaka and ahi ka are described is very special and respected. Also, Kai Tahu inspired urban design and landscape elements on Kai Tahu buildings and areas around them sounds very appropriate for Kai Tahu buildings, but this is also an alpine environment that is spiritual to mountaineers, guides and their families and alpine design is also appropriate in this region and should be included.

Kai Tahu inspired design is totally appropriate on Kai Tahu buildings but those with a mountaineering/guiding history should also be free to reflect the New Zealand alpine and high country design as these were the first historical buildings at Aoraki Mount Cook. There is a fine history of alpine guiding at Aoraki Mount Cook and the first building (the first Hermitage) to ever be erected here that was closest to these stunning mountains was for climbers and visitors to the alpine

28 regions and from that New Zealand guides, self-taught, became so adept at guiding that they gained a world-wide reputation through the generations as elite. Sadly, this is brushed over in the current plan as though of no consequence which is offensive and does need to be corrected.

Two main cultures regard this powerfully spiritual area as sacred and both should be granted their space. Over the many years we have called Aoraki Mount Cook village home, we have seen people use the village as an amenities area, although notice a large number treat the village as a destination. Those who have lost loved ones come to the village and often just take a village walk – content to be near where their loved ones were. There are old climbers and guides, too old to climb now, who come to reminisce in the village, to gaze with wonder at the mountains before them; there are couples who perhaps married and spent their honeymoon enjoyed childhood holidays here perhaps skiing on the Ball Glacier or whose relations were esteemed guides, or past employees or DOC or SAR employees, use the village as a destination in their twilight years. Children who grew up in the village frequently visit. Elderly people consider arriving at the village a great adventure in itself – and just to breathe the air and to rest a while in the space of the alpine grandeur is the most they can manage, and they are content with this. It is so special; sacred, to these people. This village should also be acknowledged as both an amenities area and a destination for those who simply want to be in the space of these spiritual mountains.

DECISION SOUGHT 1. Include alpine design as well, appropriate to the NZ alpine region of AMCNP. 2. Delete the requirement that all buildings are required to have a Kai tahu design. There are two cultures here. This is the home of the alpine and Mountain guiding whanau and alpine architecture should be reflected in the design for alpine buildings of this culture. 3. Include those who do come to the village as a destination as it is important for these New Zealanders, too and many do not have the ability to access the back country as they once used to do.

PAGE 87 HISTORIC VALUES There are additional historic places not named here including: Mt Cook Station homestead buildings

29 Copland Shelter Haast Hut Malte Brun hut site Old Ball hut site Alpine Memorial John Brown’s headstone and grave. Unwin Hut Wyn Urwin Hut Tahr Lodge

DECISION SOUGHT Include the above if not already included elsewhere.

P90 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS

Paragraph 2 The Department must represent all New Zealanders. The incorporation of Kai Tahu cultural values in design is entirely appropriate for Kai Tahu buildings. The incorporation of alpine cultural values in design is entirely appropriate for the cultural values of mountain guides, mountaineers, and their whanau and should be acceptable in buildings that reflect these cultural values too. They should not be excluded and alpine design is also attractive and functional.

DECISION SOUGHT Alpine cultural values to be included in this section.

P 90 ROADS AND ROAD ENDS

Paragraph5 It is entirely unworkable to stop visitors to the national park 22km return from the amenities area in peak season for the following reasons listed out under “Page 94” DECISION SOUGHT Modify this paragraph to reflect the decisions sought on page 94 to this topic.

Paragraph 8

30 Establishing cycleways within roading corridors is a nice idea but impractical as a “safe alternative form of access around the front country to reduce the use of motor vehicles.” This is an alpine environment and the weather is inclement and changes rapidly. It is impractical to think that visitors would gaily hire a bike, 22km return journey from the village and another 22km return to Tasman Valley and another 20km return to the Hooker track. This is not an urban environment. A NZ family of five arrive in the Park. They will want to take their cars to the start of a track and they should have every right to do so. They will not want to hop on a bike and do it that way. You can build all of these cycleways but they will very rarely used in the way that is envisaged here. The distances within the Park are not short when on a pushbike in a howling NW, or when a thunderstorm (often in January) or unseasonal weather change occurs. We must be practical. Ask those who have lived here for decades what it is like before placing such suggestions on a drawing board. I realize that Agenda 21 or 35 or whatever it is now advocates cycle-ways for the countries that have signed up to this plan and that NZ is one, but it has to be workable in the specific country and climate concerned.

DECISION SOUGHT Add to paragraph 8 “where appropriate, but this is not considered as a viable alternative to motor transport due to the changeable weather conditions.”

PAGE 91 WHITE HORSE HILL CAMPGROUND

Club lodges in this area are historic. It is disingenuous to infer that club lodges are not used much in winter months. No buildings are used much at Aoraki in the coldest parts of the winter. The Hermitage has many rooms free, as do other commercial businesses. It is not the department’s concern if these lodges are difficult to keep warm in winter. These two clubs are for hardy climbers and hunters. They don’t need nannying. All of the mountain huts are positively freezing in winter and water and sewerage facilities are challenges there too but it doesn’t mean they will all have to be removed. During the many times I’ve been around this carpark, there has been little problem with parking and the lodges except for a few weeks in high summer. It appears DOC is trying to get rid of these historic buildings, which is not appropriate as these huts were here before DOC and the NP.

31 DECISION SOUGHT

Delete “Review” of lodges. Replace with: “Protect historic nature of the club lodges in this area.” Delete last paragraph on page 91. Replace with “DOC requires both huts in this area to be in a tidy condition on the exterior.”

PAGE 92 1. “Reviewing the zoning of facilities within the village” DECISION SOUGHT

Add: “in alignment with already existing concessions” (Those with authorisations and concessions should be confident there will be no change in their zoning.) PAGE 92 #2. DELETE “creating a one-way system for vehicle traffic.” Why? 1. Because it confuses people. There is a “one-way-system in the village centre near the VC. It is never used. People ignore it, particularly visitors. 2. It is not necessary. There is never that much traffic that it requires a one- way system. 3. Trucks have two alternative routes on the ring road, as do cars. This eases congestion. Some visitors travel at 5km per hour around the village. Congestion would be created by having to follow these people. 4. In such a small area as the village it would be unsafe to have a one-way system. Visitors from overseas already have challenges remembering what side of the road they should be on. A one-way road in the village would further confuse and lead to more accidents, particularly when they turn back onto SH 80. I saw one person turn there the other day and proceed down the RHS of the road.

DECISION SOUGHT

Delete “Creating a one-way system for vehicle traffic. Add: If necessary, create a carpark at the south side entrance to the village at the end of SH80 for overflow of vehicles in summer months in lieu of a “park and ride”.

32 This allows all visitors just a short walk to the village amenities, they are within easy reach of their vehicles in inclement weather and they can access tracks easily without worrying about timetables. Further, this area of the Park does not contain matagouri and would allow for a generous number of carparks. It does not impede views to the mountains as it is behind and to the south, rather than to the north. It avoids DOC getting into legal issues with concessionaires who have substantially invested in AMC village with the legitimate understanding that the NP allows free access to all.

PAGE 93 #5 There is no mention of highlighting the historic cultural significance of the New Zealand mountain climbers and guiding fraternity.

DECISION SOUGHT Add: Highlight also the historic culture of mountain guiding and climbing of New Zealand that was born in this area of the High Alps of New Zealand

PAGE 93 #5 “Limiting further development of services and facilities within the Park where these can be located/provided outside the Park.” Concessionaires and holders of authorisations require staff accommodation in the village because it is impractical for those on split shifts to travel 100km to work and back each day twice a day. These considerations must be taken into account by the department. DECISION SOUGHT Add: “where practicable and in liaison with concessionaires and holders of authorisations.”

PARK AND RIDE P 94 AND THE DEPARTMENT’S INVITATION IN REGARD TO IDEAS ON PAGE 97

(Most comments on this proposal are also applicable to Page 105 Policies 10 & 11 and page 97.)

PARK AND RIDE PROPOSAL

33 A ‘park-and-ride’ option may look good on paper and appear to solve a perceived problem of over-crowding, in the (only) three to four weeks of the year the Park is packed, yet the consequences of this option for New Zealanders, recreationalists, and those with an investment in the park make this option unworkable.

The reasons this option won’t function well are:

1. Either the proposed shuttle would be run by a private company who charge for the service, meaning a company, or the government, will do this and try to charge concessionaires in the village who would already be losing most of their summer business from any form of shuttle, as free independent travellers will put travel to the village into the “too hard” basket and give it a miss. It is worthy of note to state that DOC would be hard-put to find a commercial operator to run this shuttle due to the 24 hours it would have to run, 7 days per week, for only a few weeks and that it may be alleged to be required. 2. New Zealanders, through an act of law, have the right to free access to their national parks. If DOC shut off their entry, and perhaps also make them pay for a shuttle, this means the public pay to enter the park and it will shut out those for whom the parks are intended. That is, young families and most Kiwi families who are on a budget and may not otherwise be able to afford a holiday. This violates the purpose of the NPA. 3. The village centre and the Hermitage will become a ghost town as visitors put it into the “too hard” basket, so won’t come in for refreshments and amenities – the purpose of the village. They may well put driving 55km down the road in the “too hard” basket as well. If they do make the drive in they will most likely go straight to a walking track, thereby cutting off the village, particularly if DOC plans to provide services at Birch Hill. If DOC were charged with working out a plan to dry up all business in the village, this would be the kind of plan employed. However, it breaches the legitimate expectation of concessionaires that the public has free access to the Park and are not stopped from entering it, or forced to leave their cars 22km distant, thus inhibiting free access. 4. Shuttles would create congestion. People would be dropped off at the Hooker track (as an example) at the same time, creating mass groups of people simultaneously walking on the track, thereby further reducing the quality of the experience. This conflicts with the Visitor Management Zone (P176) that, quite rightly, has the intention to spread groups out.

34 5. Shuttles would affect the enjoyment of the park with visitors stressed about schedules. They could injure themselves on the track or become tired, but have to wait for a shuttle to arrive to take them back to their car. A person in a group may be missing at pickup and the shuttle may have to wait for them to be found before carrying on. This can bank up visitors waiting for a shuttle elsewhere. 6. Weather could close in. Children could get tired and hungry. The list is endless. We are not in an urban environment, our walks are substantial distances from each other, and we do not have cable cars dropping off and picking up within minutes. 7. It creates a safety hazard. Tourists flock to the walks at all times of the day and night; some don’t come out until long after a shuttle may have stopped for the night. This means people may be stranded at the end of the track with no way to get to their car. 8. Weather changes rapidly here. Visitors could be stranded in pouring rain with gale-force NW winds while waiting for a shuttle. This could create all types of problems, not least of which is hypothermia and exhaustion. 9. Climbers take their own transport up to Husky flat and walk in from there. They also come out at random times, often in bad weather. So, with their transport about 17km distant this presents substantial difficulty and, in some cases, it can be the difference between hypothermia and exhaustion at the end of a long climb. 10. It will halt the concept of Kiwis camping in the park which conflicts with the intentions of the National Parks Act for New Zealanders. 11. Visitors will have to wait for a shuttle to the Hooker track, wait again for another one to Tasman Valley and wait again to be taken into the village. Most won’t do that. Therefore, this policy is one where DOC could be perceived as actively attempting to siphon off business to concessionaires who have made substantial investment in the village. This means DOC makes less money as the less the concessionaires make, the less DOC makes. Add to this, the DOC intention to then add new services, sewerage, water, sites, carparks, and other amenities in an area 22km distant and it makes zero commercial sense for DOC to suggest this as an option. 12. Guides with clients will find this impossible as there are set times their aircraft leave. If the day client is late or has met with some difficulty and they are stopped 12km from their destination to wait for a shuttle, then they may miss

35 their trip, disrupting the guide’s concession. Clients have to meet in the village It is difficult enough with the inclement and changeable weather in this park without adding another layer of difficulty into being able to provide a good service for a client. 13. Shuttles can be late, they can deviate, dropping visitors at tracks and making the guide’s clients late. It’s impossible to operate in such an environment. We do not have cable-cars into the mountains for guides and clients, as in Zermatt. 14. Kiwis with young families will probably pass on any walk where they are unable to have their car at the end of the track for supplies for their children and to measure their timing in and out, according to the needs of their family. The shuttle idea creates an unknown factor, no matter what the “schedule” due to distances to each track, weather, and what shuttle drivers encounter. 15. Overseas visitors are often inappropriately dressed, but cannot return to their cars for an extra jacket or clothing, at the end of the track. This would be unworkable. 16. Birch Hill is around 22km return from the village. DOC suggests providing accommodation options there, along with “visitor interpretation” and car- parking. This simply duplicates functions already provided by concessionaires, through substantial investment, in the village. Basically, this appears to be a thinly-veiled attempt to create another village where taxpayers already have a village here and where the VC has been updated and revamped at substantial expense for the benefit of the visitor. The carpark has also been completely redesigned in 2007, with DOC’s confirmation again, that the centre of the village would remain in this place. 17. Concessionaires have built up their concessions based on this premise. There is a legitimate expectation that the village centre remains exactly where DOC promised, without chopping into land 22km return from the village and duplicating the 2 million-dollar (plus) investment they already have placed at the current village centre along with the multi-millions spent on infrastructure by private concessionaires in the current village. 18. It is of exorbitant and unnecessary cost to the taxpayer to duplicate the village. 19. Who protects the cars from break-ins at Birch Hill? 20. What about access for residents, staff, delivery vans, trucks with supplies? Is this designed as a roadblock?

36 21. It is difficult for the elderly and the disabled. It virtually shuts them out of their park. 22. Distances involved are too great for a “park and ride”. Examples: a. Birch Hill to the village: 22km return b. Birch Hill to Hooker track: 36km return c. Birch Hill to Tasman Valley 16km 32 km return 23. These distances interfere with the enjoyment of the park if relying on shuttles. It is different if a shuttle can take visitors to the village centre where the VC is and they pick up a monorail or cable-car that travels every few minutes to the different destinations from around 6am through to 12 midnight. New Zealand is not there yet. 24. It is illegal to block off a highway. SH 80 is a public road. New Zealanders have a right to direct access to their national park. 25. No concessionaire should have any advantage over another by allowing for the patrons of some direct access, but not allowing patrons of other concessionaire’s direct access, particularly FITs who come for food and beverages. 26. Accommodation providers have already been made to supply carparks on their leased land, which means they now have carparks where they could have had more guest accommodation. All concessionaire’s clientele must be permitted to enter the village. 27. This proposal would choke off patrons for The Old Mountaineers Café, bar and Historic Gallery in summer, as well as the Hermitage, and both would lose substantial business in the months it makes enough to carry it throughout the rest of the year. 28. Costs of doing business have escalated far beyond the CPI, so it is already a challenge for a small stand-alone café. DOC would effectively be shutting down the singular day business in the park, which provides education, history, refreshments, and Kiwi soul, a quintessential Kiwi experience in the park that is loved by thousands. The value of the Old Mountaineer’s concession would be destroyed through the introduction of a park and ride. 29. The Hermitage also relies on FITs and it would substantially reduce their business in months where it is possible to pay for the expenses involved in carrying seasonal business through the year. 30. The Old Mountaineers’ Café was assured the village centre would remain where it currently is, as have other concessionaires. We have poured a lifetime

37 of investment into this business based on that premise, and have a legitimate expectation that DOC will not destroy the value of our concessions. 31. It will choke off walk-in traffic for the airport who will lose much of its business in the months it is able to carry its functions throughout the year. 32. Those on sight-seeing trips may miss them if they have to catch a shuttle. Then they may have to wait for long periods of time to catch another shuttle back. Again, it’s going to be put into the “too-hard” basket. 33. Day visitors want and need easy access to a variety of tracks without having to wait an indeterminate time for a shuttle. 34. For a shuttle to service the public it would take about 6 shuttles, 2 for each of the main tracks and 2 for the village, rotating constantly. They would need to operate on a 24-hour basis if the department are requiring the public to abandon their cars 22km return from the village or tracks. It would require staff to take the money and a building to staff it. This means a lot of staff required on a daily basis with others to fill in for days off, sick days, holidays, etc, of the initial six staff. They would need housing but there is insufficient housing available in the village, so that creates another problem.

DECISION SOUGHT/ SOLUTION

1. Expand car-parking adjacent to the village. (MAP ATTACHED) There is room on the south side of SH80 at the entrance to the village that is clear land, does not interfere with views or the entrance to the park with view-shafts to the mountains, as it is on the south side. It could be planted out in a similar way to the current village centre carpark. When village parking is full, visitors can drop off their family and park the car within a simple walk to the village. Car parking at the entrance to the village is more viable from a visual and statistical viewpoint; it is easier for the public to access the village by foot and drop those with them who are less able to walk and then move on to park. It is also far more cost effective for a shuttle service to operate, if required, from this area to the Hooker and Tasman if required. See attached map. 2. Expand car parking at the current White Horse Hill campground and divide areas into parking for day visitors, campervans, caravans and others. This avoids duplicating the facilities already available here and keeps parking in one area. When it is full it is full, and the overflow visitors can use the

38 additional carpark adjacent to the village and walk to the track from there or access village walks. 3. Expand car-parking near Tasman lake. 4. Permit residents, climbers and guides and staff in the village access at all times. 5. Time limits on parking in the village with a payment system can be added. 6. Consult with local concessionaires and business owners and ensure also that their legitimate expectations are not breached by this concept, as, in good faith, concessionaires have invested heavily in their position in the park with the legitimate expectation that DOC would not remove the public from their doors.

ADVANTAGES TO DECISION SOUGHT:

1. People can drop off family, the elderly and children or day visitors and are able to plan their trip with prediction, rather than rely on the vagaries of a shuttle service that may face varying delays. They are not relying on enforced transport in weather that can be inclement. 2. Visitors can easily access the tracks and businesses in the village that provide amenities (refreshments, cultural experiences, museums, historic photo galleries, hire gear, sunscreen, raincoats, hire boots etc.) 3. Visitors are not controlled by schedules and worries about pickup and drop off times, which means their enjoyment to the park is enhanced and they know they have a base at the end of the track or adjacent to the village. 4. Clients and guides can meet on time with prediction. 5. Visitors will be able to access the village, Tasman Glacier, Kea Point and other walks in one day. 6. The expansion of car-parking where there is already parking makes sense as it doesn’t duplicate the function 22km distant at exorbitant expense. 7. This aligns with the National Parks Act where Kiwis should have free access to their Parks and SH80. 8. This makes it safer with the visitor’s own transport at the end of a track so they are not caught in inclement weather, or if they are, they don’t need to wait an indeterminate time for a shuttle that may be delayed, late, or not functioning.

39 9. It substantially reduces the risks of unforeseen medical events as a result of not having access to personal transport. 10. This doesn’t put the elderly or infirm at a disadvantage and guarantees them access to the Park without the inconvenience of a 22km return bus journey. 11. Another expanded carpark should also be placed at the beginning of the Ball hut track. 12. Makes the system fair to all concessionaires.

PAGE 96 3. WHITE HORSE HILL CAMPGROUND/WASHING FACILITIES Paragraph 2: I agree that people washing in streams here is inappropriate and offensive and may impact on waterways in the park. It suggests creating additional overnight parking for campervans and in areas such as the Wakefield Falls. I agree to additional overnight parking but not at the beautiful Wakefield Falls, as people would wash and try to use the area as a toilet as it is not so easily seen. DECISION SOUGHT 1. Please do not put a camping area at Wakefield Falls as this area is also sacred to many. 2. Place additional camping parks in areas more easily seen, but only if toilet facilities and washing facilities are available, to avoid unsanitary practices near streams and in the Park. 3. Do not remove all day visitor parking from White Horse Hill in peak seasons. (See above). Establish a parking facility adjacent to the village on the south side of SH80 near the T junction to the village. (See above.)

PAGE 97 IDEAS FOR FUTURE MANAGEMENT OF THE PARK

Thank you for inviting ideas. This is appreciated. It will be great to see DOC take on these ideas so the public have confidence in this system of consultation been able to be seen to work. In addition to the ideas communicated under “page 94” above, in order to address the increasing numbers of visitors to the front country parts of the Park, I would like to suggest the following:

40 1. Remove the concept of the “park and ride” system, for reasons mentioned. Instead, build a substantial carpark adjacent to the village on the south side of SH 80. This leaves views unimpeded as it is on the south side and the mountains are to the north. There is approximately 4 to 5 acres here that could be made into a carpark giving day visitors access to the village. If the village is full then the visitors can drop off family and then return to this area to park the car, still within easy reach and with no need to duplicate functions elsewhere. This carpark should be landscaped in a similar way to the village car park which makes the parking of cars unobtrusive. Fees can be charged for parking. 2. Expand campsite parking and day visitor parking at White Horse Hill. Make this the only campsite and campervan site in the park and make it top-class. 3. Separate camping tent areas from campervans and also from day visitors. Designate specific areas, with day visitor parking located closer to the start of the tracks. 4. Ensure there are sufficient washing and ablution blocks in these areas and fine anyone washing in the stream in this area. 5. Put in a booking system in high season only, with New Zealanders being able to access their parks through this system first. When the area is booked out it is booked out. 6. Allow day visitors to access the park throughout the year. Not doing so blocks free access to the park for New Zealanders, which is a requirement of the NP Act. 7. Expand car parking at the Blue Lakes carpark for day visitors. Provide additional toilets in this area to avoid people defecating along the trail, which has been observed sometimes and is extremely offensive. 8. Have the VC advise all visitors there is a $1000 fine for any defecation in the park. Use toilet facilities available before going on walks. 9. Place DOC wardens on duty in these car-parking areas and the adjacent tracks, although White Horse could be run by a concessionaire. 10. When these areas are all completely full, then the village is full. It is necessary to acknowledge that we should focus on providing a quality experience rather than cramming millions of people in here all at the same time. 11. On the spatial plan a knife and fork indicating eating facilities are available should be added to the village area.

41 12. On the spatial plan, it looks as though camping is permitted beyond White Horse Hill, or is that just the icon for White Horse Hill campground? (Hopefully this is the case.) 13. I do not agree with the park and ride and Birch Hill proposal for the reasons above although I have suggested positive alternatives as outlined above, and, in the process, it will save DOC millions.

PAGE 98 AND 99 I oppose the exclusion of our authorisation projects in the planning especially beside the Café site for the Inn and Office project.

DECISION SOUGHT

Reword and redraw map and plan to include approved building projects.

PAGE 98 VILLAGE ZONING PLAN

There are a few anomalies on this zoning plan as follows: 1. Visitor accommodation area is beside our café with the Old Mountaineers’ Inn. This should be highlighted in the deeper rose shade. It appears Tony Delaney’s lodge is also missing this rose shade denoting visitor accommodation. 2. The bush in front of the café has been designated protected although 3 or 4 car-parks are permitted here according to the OM Inn concession. This requires adjustment. 3. In the DOC housing area there is a section that has been designated for our staff accommodation. It is at the back, adjacent to Sebastopol Drive and behind the last (DOC) house shown on this zoning plan. That area needs to become light yellow. 4. Our office and gear building next to the current Alpine Guides building, is designated commercial and needs to be shown as such. It is in the area highlighted as overnight accommodation excluded. We are building on that very shortly.

DECISION SOUGHT We ask that the above errors please be corrected.

42 PAGE 99 ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE VILLAGE The MDC doesn’t include rules because these buildings are in the NP and historically there has always been architect’s panels and landscape architects employed by the Department to help make decisions. I agree that the overall village as a whole has not been taken into account. The village should reflect the nature of a New Zealand alpine environment. ZONING PLAN While it is acknowledged that there is no harm in a design document there should be a definite requirement for the buildings to be alpine in nature. While the Park is significant to Kai Tahu, it is also significant to alpinists and climbers, most of whom also regard, with their whanau, this area to be spiritual to them as well. It would be entirely appropriate for Kai Tahu structures to reflect their architecture, but not for every building in the alpine village, otherwise it is in danger of looking staged, which it would be. It would also look like a takeover from one culture and this Park and village is for all New Zealanders.

DECISION SOUGHT Add: Alpine elements in design are also required. VILLAGE LANDSCAPE PLAN P 100 Having called AMC village home for decades, we are familiar with the phrase “no clear village centre”. This was addressed before our restaurant was built and it was then decided the village centre would be where the VC was located – hence the expensive investment with tax-payer’s money to the old VC. Then this was addressed again in 2006 and the village centre was again specifically designated as the area of the Visitor Centre and carpark. It was an easy walk from the VC to the Hermitage and also down to the Old Mountaineers’ Café, Restaurant and Historic Photographic Gallery. The carpark was landscaped extensively to befit that of a village centre. The roads were remade at great expense and the VC was refurbished at substantial expense as well. It was defined as the village centre. Concessionaires based their plans and investment around this being the village centre. They have a legitimate expectation this will remain the village centre. There is no problem in regard to connecting the different parts of the village by paths but additional roads are not required.

43 The landscaping is simple in the village and does not require a substantial revamp except perhaps on the perimeter of the old motels and the new motels. DOC does an outstanding job with the landscaping under Buzzy. A design assessment panel is fine and there isn’t a problem with a Kai Tahu representative as long as they are qualified in architecture and/or landscaping and as long as their specific interpretation is part of a whole rather than a commercial takeover where no alpine culture has any input. Collaborative and cohesive would be the desired outcome. DECISION SOUGHT Zoning errors be corrected as outlined above. Public input and local residents and business owners should be consulted for any design and standard and guidelines in architecture and landscaping and no one commercial body or culture should have an advantage over any other by having an exclusive representative on the assessment panel. Alpine architecture should be a key component of design and landscaping as it is a historical and current NZ alpine environment.

LIMITED CAPACITY FOR DEVELOPMENT IN THE VILLAGE. P 100. While it is agreed that there is limited capacity, I disagree that any staff on shift work should have to commute 100km per day from Twizel, particularly with the weather conditions in this area and access to work is sometimes impossible during times of wild weather and in winter. Staff on 9 to 5 jobs are in a different position, as are pilots who don’t come to work in bad weather. Staff on shift work need to be close to their place of work and they are often on split shifts as well, making it necessary for them to live in the village. On page 101 there is a section of matagouri protected in the residential section by the AGL flats. This could be freed up, as DOC did when removing natives to make way for their VC garden, and it has been in the designated DOC residential area. This would allow for more accommodation. On page 101 cultural activities appears in place of the DOC admin building but there has been no process for this and it should be open for application and go through the proper procedures.

44 DECISION SOUGHT The DOC admin area should not be given away to a commercial entity over others. If DOC is giving away its building it should be required to be fair and open the process to all commercial interests. Remove the small area of protected matagouri from the AGL accommodation to allow accommodation in this area. Ensure that staff on shift work are not put in danger by preventing them from having to commute long distances.

P 102 PLACE OUTCOMES No one culture should overpower the other in this alpine environment. No park and ride as outlined. (See above.) I agree that the campground area should have designated parks for camping and campervans and day visitors. DECISION SOUGHT 1. Add: The village also has a long historical association with alpinists and mountain guides and is the most significant of New Zealand’s alpine environments. This is also how the village first came about. As such it should reflect the alpine nature of the environment through its architecture and this to be acknowledged, recognised and respected by visitors and locals as it will illustrate balance in harmony between the historic alpine historical presence and the Kai Tahu presence. 2. Delete “park and ride” and public transport being the “main means of visitor movement”. This is unworkable. 3. Delete club lodges being used for the public unless they desire it. 4. Add: establish a carpark on the south side of SH80 in the area where it does not interrupt views and is landscaped aesthetically from the road and offers approximately 4 to 5 acres of parking area. 5. Add Expand Tasman Valley carpark area.

PAGE 103 VILLAGE OUTCOMES There is no disagreement that the Kai Tahu relationship with the sacred mountains here should not be communicated but it is important that this village is not turned into a predominantly Kai Tahu village with the historical alpine environmental nature of the Park being squeezed out to the extent that it feels like it has been taken over. That does not represent all New Zealanders and although that may not

45 be the intention in this plan, the way it is written leaves it open to that. All New Zealanders should feel at home living and visiting their village here at Aoraki, which has its roots in alpine history. New Zealanders should not be made to feel like outsiders.

DECISION SOUGHT Add: Kai Tahu shares a strong visible presence in the Village in liaison with the historical alpinist history of New Zealanders from which this village was first established. The spiritual nature with which the mountaineering community regards this area is also acknowledged. ADD: The village gives visitors a substantial understanding of the historical nature of this traditional alpine environment and the early climbers and guides up to the present day. ADD: The village centre remains where it is in the village in the area of the VC and car park. ADD: if there is, in the future, any type of park and ride, it will stop and drop off at all concessionaire businesses, although this is not anticipated for many years and voted on by concessionaires and residents within the village. ADD: While lighting should be down-lighting outside businesses in the Park, there will be no restriction on lighting within concessionaire’s buildings for their respective businesses. PAGE 104 NATURAL HERITAGE A to C: No problem. Agree. D: Dealing with pests in the village and near the village waterways should be without poisons and without any aerial drops of 1080 or roundup or other poisons and absolutely forbidden entering water, or being sprayed overhead in the village and without rotting carcasses from culling being near water. Any loading of any type of poison must be done completely out of the village. E. Agree with these points although concessionaires cannot be prohibited from operating in the evenings due to “night sky” as there is a huge acreage of land available in the vicinity to see the night skies from.

SPATIAL PLAN PAGE 104 2.The management decision-making within the village should also include other concessionaires in addition to Ngai Tahu who will be a commercial concessionaire

46 within the village. All New Zealanders should be represented otherwise it looks like a takeover of the village and national park. Our varying cultures and regard for the sacredness of the mountains is expressed differently in our cultures and both have their place and can live in harmony, one with the other. This should be reflected in this statement here. #2b. This needs further explanation. From my understanding, “Mātauranga Māori is defined as 'the knowledge, comprehension, or understanding of everything visible and invisible existing in the universe', and is often used synonymously with wisdom”. This is beautiful but it is unclear how this is translated into all aspects of management decision making and this should be made clear as the village and the National Park are a place for all New Zealanders and, that being the case, should also embrace the alpine culture and nature of the mountains and the village and be a place where all New Zealanders feel it is part of their home. #2c Advertising should not be a departmental requirement for one commercial business over others. #3. Agree. #6. Requires explanation. It is not the job of DOC to “integrate” the AMCNP with other commercial arms outside of the Park.

DECISION SOUGHT #2. Incorporate wording to include New Zealand alpine culture in harmony with Te Rununanga Ngai Tahu culture with cultures working in harmony. #2b. Further specific explanation is sought here as outlined above and to add that ultimately decision making represents all New Zealanders. #2c. Signage for businesses is even-handed and advertising of businesses, cultural or otherwise, is the responsibility of each of the commercial enterprises. #2 d. Add: and historical alpine stories. #2e. The business of concessionaires should not be disrupted at night time but downlights outside should be used. #2f & g: Agree. PAGE 104 #6. Please clarify. It is difficult to know what is meant by this.

47 PAGES 105 TO 106.

ROADS AND TRAFFIC PAGE 105 PLEASE ALSO REFER TO MY COMMENTS ON THIS OUTLINED ABOVE ON PAGE 41/42 OF THIS SUBMISSION AND UNDER THE MANAGEMENT PLAN PAGE 96/ 97.

#8. SH80 should remain out of the National Park, so New Zealanders have the ability to access their park as provided for in the NP Act. #9. This park and ride cuts New Zealanders off from direct access to their park and will make it impossible for some to enjoy it; particularly the elderly, the young and the handicapped. It also results in DOC cutting business to concessionaires who rely on high summer volumes of people in order to be able to support their business through lower seasonal fluctuations. Please refer to reasons outlined earlier on this subject, (Ref: AMCMP page 97 – comments). #10. Cuts off the majority of clients to day facilities and concessionaires in the village. Gives some an advantage over those who rely on day visitors. Day visitors will bypass the village in these circumstances and opt to get dropped off at tracks instead. This contravenes the Commerce Act with DOC inhibiting the businesses of concessionaires by introducing new ways of stopping the flow of customers to established concessionaires who have a legitimate expectation that Free Independent Travellers are able to freely enter the village. If DOC persists in this plan then it would be incumbent upon DOC to agree to re-negotiate the leases of all concessionaires reliant on day traffic, so their lease arrangements were more favourable and affordable. DOC cannot expect to charge concessionaires at the same time as creating an alternative village elsewhere and inhibiting free access to the village through a park-and-ride system. #11. This arrangement controls visitor movement and does not delineate where the visitors will be dropped off which could favour one concessionaire over others. Refer to report above.

DECISION SOUGHT #8 Delete. #9. Delete #10 and #11 Delete. Add Parking made available (and landscaped) adjacent to the village, on the south side so it does not impede views, of SH 80. (See above on my response to page 97 of the plan). I disagree with the park entrance and parking at

48 Birch Hill. Car parking at Birch is more viable from a visual and statistical viewpoint. Delete or reword to: Car park at entrance to village. Cars can drop off passengers in the village then go to car park when the village is full. #13. Reword to include consultation with permanent residents, local concessionaires and business owners. #13 vi: DELETE

PAGE 106 CAMPGROUND 15.Disagree. No need to book except in high season and New Zealanders particularly should not be limited to a four-night camping stay in their national park. For some, this is the only holiday they may be able to afford in a year. DECISION SOUGHT Change wording to specify booked camping in high season and to allow Kiwis to camp without a limit. 15 a to d. Agree. 15 e: Add “with toilet and washing facilities” to ensure area is kept clean. 15f: Disagree. Delete. Not practical for climbers in the mountains or those returning late. 15g and h: Agree.

16: These clubs were here before the National Park and have historic status not requiring authorisations. DECISION SOUGHT: Acknowledgement of this.

P 106: 17: Agree except regarding c). Please refer to comments on page 74.

P 107: POLICIES CONTINUED #18 in accordance with Map 12 Village Zoning Plan:

Please refer to suggested changes in this submission to correction of the errors on the Village Zoning Plan which appears on the Management Plan on Page 98.

DECISION SOUGHT Errors on zoning plan corrected including the site of the spa and the Glencoe which should both be in a designated commercial zone. They have always been commercial sites, hence their buildings there in those areas.

49 Alternatively, add to this section that existing leases and authorisations have the right to have the public patronize their restaurants, cafes and facilities, as their leases have already permitted.

P 107: 18 ii. Clarification required please. 18iii: This is inappropriate for some types of accommodation as outlined in their authorisations or leases but the way it is written acknowledges that this clause refers to new concessions or authorisations yet to be granted.

DECISION SOUGHT:

Delete “maintaining a range of visitor accommodation types” if you’re also intending to refer to existing authorisations. 18b: This appears as though the Department is constricting activities already approved in the leases of the Spa (and also the Glencoe), so will need to be readjusted to be able to coordinate with the leases that already exist.

P107 18b v: This clause attempts to constrict operating valid leases (such as the spa and Glencoe) which have, as part of their business models, and as part of their leases/authorisations, permission to cater to visiting public. This cannot be changed without the agreement of the interested parties. The Department appears to be attempting to constrict these businesses in a way which would raise the ire of the Commerce Commission, particularly as these authorisations/leases already exist. Yet, conversely, the Kai Tahu area, although surrounded by the new proposed “quiet area for accommodation” and which looking at the management plan, should also be incorporated into this “quiet area of accommodation” is permitted to have a café, takeaway food outlet, general store, guide base, equipment hire AND visitor accommodation. This conflicts with the designated areas DOC has proposed and some of these activities cannot be defined as cultural activities.

DECISION SOUGHT PAGE 107 18bv: CHANGE 18bv to add:

50 EXCEPT for existing leases already granted by the Department to the Aoraki Mount Cook Spa and Glencoe, where they remain free to operate all facilities as listed in their authorisations/concessions, and offer these to visiting public and residents, without constriction.

P 107: 18c: Recently DOC has appeared to view the ground rental as commercial market-value areas on a par with any property in NZ, which is not the case, as staff accommodation cannot be freely traded on the open market, cannot be sub-let, except on a limited basis to other concessionaires, and cannot be rented out to the public as optional accommodation when it lies idle in the low tourism season. To have DOC attempt to charge rates on the GROUND rental alone, that would be akin to the centre of a main city is unreasonable and without merit for staff accommodation. In 2018, as an example, DOC attempted to increase the ground rental of staff accommodation in the village by 435%, which is both unreasonable and unrealistic.

DECISION SOUGHT P 107 ADD: 18C iii: DOC acknowledges that this area of staff accommodation is not a commercial endeavour due to DOC restrictions, but simply a convenience for staff, as it would be impossible to employ them without staff accommodation in the village. As such, DOC agrees ground rental on staff accommodation areas is only reviewed and increased according to CPI figures and in modest amounts or to lift the amount of restrictions on the concessionaire so they may be rented out to public in the low season.

P107 Tennis Courts If DOC wish the tennis courts to be removed this should not be at the expense of concessionaires who are quite happy to have them remain where they are. DOC should consult and seek a 100% consensus vote from the current concessionaires at a Local Body meeting, if they plan to pass these costs on to them, as they cannot be expected to pay for moving such commodities as tennis courts to other areas on the whim of the department deciding to re-designate facilities to different locations. This is unfair to concessionaires. DECISION SOUGHT

51 Any transfer of community facilities, such as the tennis court, will be at the expense of the Department or only passed on to Local Body if all in Local Body agree.

P108 POLICIES H III Oppose as this gives a competitive advantage to a commercial competitor in competition to others without due process. This should go through a concession process as required by everyone else.

DECISION SOUGHT DELETE POLICY DOC policies to be applied for concession applications, ensuring the same rules for all concessionaires. PAGE 109 #25 c This mentions intensification of housing in the Residential zone but does not refer to the Natural Quiet that every resident has a right to. The village is a permanent home to some and if there is thoughtless intensification with view shafts to the mountains blocked and people crammed in on top of each other, this does not allow for the Natural Quiet residents are entitled to. It must be well-spaced housing and acknowledged as being in a quiet zone. DECISION SOUGHT Add to 25c: tasteful housing and intensification in the residential zone in harmony with ensuring all residents are able to enjoy the natural quiet. No tenements.

PAGE 109 #26 Design guidelines should be in harmony with the alpine environment. DECISION SOUGHT Add the above sentence.

PAGE 110 27B Facilities for day visitors should not be in the “amenity open space zone”. This is at the back of the village and could encourage day visitors to wander into the DOC

52 area when a rescue is on, when emergency facilities are called out and also into residential areas which are private. The public has a National Park to the north of thousands of acres and it is unnecessary and unsafe to try to put day visitors in this little area with facilities. It also puts Black Birch Stream in danger of being polluted by many visitors wandering up and down here, as evidenced by defecation on a more regular basis on the Red Tarns track.

DECISIONS SOUGHT Delete 27b 27 c: Agree 28: Agree but also residents should be included as well as concessionaires in this clause. 30: Fine on Kai Tahu being consulted and concessionaires, but find it sets up two quasi governments to have Kai Tahu on the panel when they have commercial interests in the Park, one of which is not democratically elected and will have vested commercial interests in the Park. If this remains, there should also be a person representing concessionaires appointed. PAGE 111 #30: DECISION SOUGHT Delete “inclusions of Kai Tahu design elements” This should not be mandatory in all buildings as this is an alpine village too. If this is insisted upon then DOC will have a fake village here that visitors will instantly perceive as such. Alpine buildings and Kai Tahu elements on Kai Tahu buildings can exist in harmony but not one to the exclusion of the other and the village is a village for all New Zealanders. This is not the Rotorua of the south. It stands alone as an alpine village of the South Island beneath Aoraki and the surrounding mountains which are sacred to many New Zealanders. PAGE 111 #34 Add: No charge for residents or workers within the village. P111 Cultural Values DECISION SOUGHT ADD: 4. “Visitors have an appreciation of the cultural heritage of New Zealand climbers, guides and early pioneers.” (This is important too.) Page 112 #9, #10, #11#13, #15#16#18: Delete

53 P116 Historic values The early European climbers and New Zealanders on this side of the Main Divide had no guides. They came to try to climb Aoraki. In 1882, the Rev Green, with Emil Boss and Ulrich Kaufman, almost made it to the summit. They had no guide although Mr Burnett assisted them across the Tasman River. Other New Zealanders tried to summit Aoraki, including many attempts by Mannering and Dixon. The first New Zealand-born mountain guide on this side of the Main Divide was Jack Adamson who was also a manager of the first Hermitage in the 1800s. It was Jack who helped Tom Fyfe recce the route, after which Tom Fyfe, Jack Clarke and George Graham became the first to summit this sacred mountain, on 25 December 1894. They had no Maori or NZ guide other than Jack who assisted them on the initial reconnaissance. Fitzgerald and Zurbriggen arrived too late to be the first to summit but they did climb peaks in this area. No Maori or NZ guide, other than Jack Adamson again who assisted Zurbriggen and climbed with him to over 10,000 feet on Zurbriggen Ridge. (Ref: The Spirit of Mountaineering – Jack Adamson, the first New Zealand born mountain guide.) Later, Tom Fyfe and Jack Clarke became guides for the Hermitage, followed by Peter Graham and several other outstanding New Zealand guides, who all worked from the first Hermitage. There were Maori guides on the West side of the Main Divide and Zurbriggen and Fitzgerald employed one to help them through the bush on the West Coast, as did Harper and Douglas who had a Maori guide on the West Coast side of the Main Divide, but those stories are for the Westland Management Plan not this one. There were no Maori guides on this side of the Main Divide until the arrival of Butler Te Koeti in 1905. Peter Graham, originally from the West Coast, invited Butler Te Koeti to join him and help guide on the Eastern side of the Main Divide in this year. In 1910, Te Koeti invited his nephew, George Bannister to join them and the men both guided here with George being the first Maori to summit Aoraki, but not until 1910 or 1912. Later, Joe Fluerty was also a guide in this area but started his guiding on the West Coast in the 1920s. All three worked as Hermitage guides and arrived later than other New Zealand guides. The high-country farmers from Mt Cook Station and Birch Hill helped early travellers to this area, offering them food and shelter and helping them across the Hooker and Tasman rivers in order to avoid being caught in quicksand. (Ref: High Country Stations of the Mackenzie, Mary Hobbs, Potton and Burton publishers. The Spirit of Mountaineering, Mary Hobbs.

54 This section of the AMCMP is misleading, leading readers to believe that Maori guides were already here and guided all early pioneering climbers up the mountains. This is untrue. History should not be rewritten. It stands on its own and to try through innuendo and other means to caste a different light on the history does all who lived and worked here a disservice. References can be provided for all of the above information if required, dating back to the 1850s.

DECISION SOUGHT This section of the plan to be corrected and rewritten, reflecting the true history of this area and to include Jack Adamson, the first New Zealand-born mountain guide to live and work here and the fine and now world-renowned guiding tradition that began in New Zealand at Mount Cook. P117 Hooker Hut Hooker hut was a hut always for guides going over the Copland Pass. It should not be brought down the valley once it comes out of storage but be available to climbers in the Hooker area rather than a hut for day walkers as is possibly envisaged. Climbers have had several huts removed from the high mountains with no replacements and it is important that this hut be returned to climbers that climb more remotely. HOOKER HUT DECISION SOUGHT Hooker hut be placed in an area of the Park and in the Hooker that assists and provides shelter for climbers and guides. It is a taonga of the climbers and guides of this region and it is said that the ghost of a revered mountain guide has settled at this special hut. The Copland Shelter is also an historic climber’s building. It should be recorded as an historic site. DECISION SOUGHT That the original site of Ball Hut be made an official historic site as well as Green’s five camps.

PAGE 118 2.2.2 NATURAL VALUES: “Desire to remove all tahr..” DECISION SOUGHT

55 Taking care not to leave rotting carcasses near waterways, so pollution of the water can be prevented. ADD DECISION SOUGHT: (P 118 paragraph3) ADD: If poisons have to be used, then to only use them 500m from waterways, to keep the water pure. Animals preferably culled through hunting only. Non-toxic means of killing weeds to be looked into and trialled. Make AMCNP an organic place. This is true respect for the environment. Keep all poisons out of water due to the spiritual nature of the environment and due to the health hazards involved with poisons in the water to animals and humans. P118 Natural Quiet: DECISION SOUGHT Ban drones. Keep the area of the village and the Hooker free of aircraft of any type. P119 Allow landing at Gardiner hut site but flight path to cause least amount of noise to Ball Pass and the Quiet Zone area of the village and the Hooker valley. Waste Management DECISION SOUGHT Waste receptacles to be available at all huts to keep the area clean.

PAGE 121 DECISIONS SOUGHT NATURAL VALUES P 121 No poison (includes roundup and 1080) used near water, so health of people and animals and birds and the sacred nature of the water is protected. Poverty is increasing in NZ. If culling tahr then the following should be observed: 1. Only shoot away from water, so carcasses don’t pollute the water. 2. Skin the animals. Sell the skin so funds from it can go back into DOC to further protect our sacred areas. 3. Save the meat. This should be set up to be processed to help those in poverty who cannot afford meat, or it can be sold to commercial contractors and the meat can be sold this way with funds going back to DOC for protection of the environment using non-toxic methods.

56 4. Pay private hunters to cull tahr and also trap possums, setting traps with lures that attract the pests from long distances and can be digitally reset. These traps are on the market now. Possum fur can also be sold with funds going back to DOC. The best outcome from this culling is to use the tahr meat, skins and the fur from possums, and sell this so the industry of culling is able to sustain itself rather than be a continual drain on DOC funds. No poison should be used in culling pests unless in small traps birds cannot enter. To carpet-bomb with poison is disrespectful and it endangers the health of all people in the bush, including trampers on tracks in national parks and all hunters who eat the meat. The goal should be organic parks in NZ. Add the above to this page. CULTURAL VALUES This area and these mountains are sacred to most alpinists. There is an alpine history and culture here that should be included and not pushed aside in favour of only one culture. All New Zealanders should feel this is part of their culture as well. This should be reflected in this section and should be added to this section.

RECREATIONAL VALUES DECISION SOUGHT Change sentence of Hooker hut to: The Hooker hut has been returned to the climbers deep in the Hooker valley in a safe space. The hut is for climbers.

PAGE 122 OVERNIGHT USE OF HUTS: DECISION SOUGHT New Zealanders should have priority access to their huts and any booking system should reserve a certain number of spaces each night for them. If not taken up then they can be booked by overseas visitors.

PAGE 122 DECISION SOUGHT Add to 1a: “within the Hooker valley and the village.”

PAGE 123 WATERCRAFT #5: Agreed

57 2.3.3 page 123

GRAND PLATEAU

Oppose: The Grand Plateau landing site requires more than 10 landings per day. Guided and non-guided parties need to access and egress the hut on fine weather periods and this requires more landings.

DECISION SOUGHT Reword: 50 landings per day.

PAGE 124 P124 12 c: Oppose. DECISION SOUGHT Add to this clause “in peak seasons”

P124 bylaws 12h Oppose. Our 30-year concession allows for us to use a motor on the guides kayaks Reword: except on existing watercraft concession.

13 A. DECISION SOUGHT ADD local concessionaires and residents exempt from parking fees. (They should not be subjected to visitor parking fees when having to get to work in inclement weather and conditions as this is a safety issue for them.)

Page 124 Policies Bylaws 13b This does not work with mountain instruction courses or with climbing requirements. DECISION SOUGHT Delete 13b P124 13a: This should be deleted as it doesn’t work at all for staff who are on split shifts in inclement weather, nor does it work for climbers who park out of the way not harming anyone or adding to any congestion on Ball hut. P124 13a Delete

58 P124 13B I oppose. Should only be required for Hooker hut and Mueller hut in season. Bookings for Plateau hut and high alpine climbing huts is impractical due to nature of climbing in the high alps. DECISION SOUGHT Reword: Bookings required for Hooker and Mueller huts with preference first to New Zealanders. PAGE 128 BALL HUT ROAD HISTORIC VALUES DECISION SOUGHT Please modify this section. The road may have started in 1915 but there has been a track up to the Ball hut site since 1891. It was the Ball Hut track and early climbers used to use this track and either walk it or go by horseback to the Ball hut (the old Ball hut) in these days. Photographic evidence is available.

P131 Management Considerations New mid Tasman Hut Support. Also support more than one possible location for other huts of this nature. DECISION SOUGHT Look at future locations for further back country hut sites.

P134 WATERCRAFT 3 4, and 5 There is no room for more concessionaires on the Tasman Lake than are already there due to the small amount of land to store gear, maintenance equipment and access to the lake for clients which is safe.

DECISION SOUGHT Modify to no more than 2 separate concessionaires in the current area (one powered and one non-powered), as exists at present.

PAGE 134 WATERCRAFT 3A I oppose. Should allow 10 non-powered water-craft per guided group, as current concession allows. DECISION SOUGHT: Reword to align with concession.

Page 134

59 P134 CAMPING NEAR BALL HUT

DECISION SOUGHT Provide for camping next to hut when an extra toilet is put in.

AIRCRAFT Page 134 7b Oppose. The Haupapa Place Landing Zone is too vast. Keep the area within the Tasman Glacier area itself below 2200m with a definite boundary on the glacier. There is no need for aircraft to land everywhere on the Malte Range and along the flanks of the Malte Range, up the Darwin Glacier and way up the Beetham stream. DECISION SOUGHT 1. Specific places for landings where huts are located or will be placed 2. On the Tasman Glacier, only below the 2200m elevation from the cornice Wall and Tasman Saddle strip down the glacier, through existing landing zones too the Murchison corner. 3. Landings only permitted in the designated areas as marked on the map.

(If this is not done we will have helicopters and planes dotted all over the glacier, and landing in areas that are inappropriate and most definitely unsafe. It will also defeat the purpose for going into the hills and enjoying the natural quiet of this magnificent area. It will ruin the experience for visitors.

Ref: Map 1 attached.

PAGE 134 7B ii I oppose. Should be shut down in the Tasman Landing Zone if the pilot leaves the aircraft and not just the upper neve if the pilot leaves the aircraft. Reword policy: if the pilot leaves the aircraft within the Tasman Glacier Landing Zone (not just the Upper Neve)

PAGE 134 7C: Oppose. There should be no landing zone at Tasman Lake as it spoils the experience of all in the area and it is too close to the front country area.

60 DECISION SOUGHT Delete this clause.

PAGE 134 AIRCRAFT: REQUEST TO ADD CLAUSE: SUGGEST A 7D A policy needs to be added for concessionaire work utilising aircraft assistance at the lake. Boats and shed maintenance and replacing such which needs helicopter assistance.

SUGGEST CLAUSE 7D:

Shall allow approved aircraft landings for watercraft concessionaire operations at the Tasman Lake for concessions equipment repositioning and maintenance.

P134 Aircraft 8a The wording is misleading. It should clearly say only one Heli-ski operator per Heli- ski block as per CMS policies. Agree that it should be one concessionaire per landing zone if the term landing zone refers to each Heli Ski Block as per the CMS. If it doesn’t mean this, then it needs to be reworded to coincide with the CMS policy.

Reword to say: One concessionaire per Heli-ski block as per the current CMS.

P134 Vehicle use 10a, b, c. 10a: I oppose. This should also include ATV vehicle and also 4WD vehicle that can tow a trailer or fuel tanker and also covered in vehicle to protect workers checking the site during severe storms etc. A refuelling 4WD vehicle or tractor is also necessary. DECISION SOUGHT

1. Reword policy: Change 4WD motor bike to vehicle, as maintenance is required on gear at the jetty and it is not possible to do this with a motorbike going down this track in inclement weather in a storm, which is often the case. 2. Concessionaire to use the appropriate vehicles as per their safety plan and OSH policies for the specific equipment and maintenance requirements.

61 Page 134 10c

I oppose. Not operating vehicles between 5pm and 9am is not practical. Early and late times are more practical for maintenance access because of less people traffic on the track. Also, guides are required to carry out storm checks and boat repairs and maintenance before 9am and after 5pm in many circumstances.

DECISION SOUGHT

Reword policy: The vehicle does not operate between the hours of 9pm and 6am if possible except in an emergency and also when priority maintenance is required and during storm cycles when close monitoring of lake levels is required.

No more than 2 trips per day is unworkable. Delete this clause.

PAGE 138 HISTORIC VALUES

DECISION SOUGHT Murchison hut is in this vicinity and is an historic hut. Please change wording to include this. PAGE 141 NATURAL VALUES AND RECREATIONAL VALUES 2.4.2

Unless I’ve misunderstood the maps (?), it is difficult to see how sensitive areas and tranquillity zones can be protected with such huge landing zones allowed for aircraft, as illustrated on Map 19, page 140 and Map 7 page 63. DECISION SOUGHT Ensure that a specific area be designated for landing aircraft rather than having a zone that covers all of the Murchison and Tasman right up the sides of mountains. (Heli-ski permits excluded as covered in respective concessions.)

WASTE MANAGEMENT It is difficult to see how this can be controlled in wilderness areas when many international visitors are relieving themselves in the Hooker and along the Tasman Lake walk, which is unsanitary and offensive.

DECISION SOUGHT

62 This is possibly the wrong area of the plan to suggest it but the decision sought is that DOC be permitted to fine visitors $500 or more with an on-the-spot fine for anyone relieving themselves along any of these walking tracks in the MCNP, and also in the vicinity of Lake Pukaki.

2.4.2 PAGE 141 RECREATIONAL VALUES Support: The re-establishment of a hut in the Murchison Glacier Area. DECISION SOUGHT Reword: Include a policy stating Murchison hut may be replaced in a safe location.

TASMAN VALLEY

2.4.3 P142 GUIDING 1A Limiting party number to two guided parties is too few. As it is, more parties than that use the area at times and guided parties are generally the only parties in the region. If a new hut is placed in the Murchison this will limit the scope for guiding opportunities.

DECISION SOUGHT

Remove policy 2.4.2.1.a)

2.4.3 PAGE 142 GUIDING POLICY 1B

I oppose: 2 parties with 40 clients. This policy is just considering winter heli-skiing or summer heli-hiking and forgetting summer guiding or ski touring activities with smaller groups?

DECISION SOUGHT

Remove policy 2.4.2.1.b) or alter to allow other guided activities.

Reword: No more than 40 heli hiking clients per day per concessionaire.

Other guiding activities per the VMZ appendix 2

63 PAGE 131 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS NEW MID TASMAN HUT

Support. We also support more than one possible location for other huts of this nature.

DECISION SOUGHT

Reword: Look at additional locations for further back country hut sites and plan to include more huts in these areas to make up for those we have lost.

PAGE 143 AIRCRAFT

DECISION SOUGHT Review “landing zones” in the Tasman and Murchison glacier areas with a view to replacing it with designated locations within this area so aircraft don’t land willy- nilly anywhere within this vast area thus spoiling the tranquillity and sensitive plants.

PAGE 146 HISTORIC VALUES IN THE GODLEY There are historic values in the Godley. Please refer to High Country Stations of Lake Tekapo, Mary Hobbs, Potton and Burton 2017.

DECISION SOUGHT Adjust accordingly.

TAHR CULLING

Work in liaison with hunters to cull tahr, keeping in mind there are livelihoods that depend on hunting as well, both for food and as part of the tourism industry. It would seem a huge waste to slaughter the tahr and leave their rotting carcasses just lying all over this area for pests to multiply from.

DECISION SOUGHT Prohibit the use of 1080 and other toxic poisons in the national park.

64 Cull tahr, working with hunters to get this job done. Set up, or invite the setup of industry to process the meat and skins and antlers obtained for commercial products. If the meat is clean and tested as free of 1080, then sell commercially and also utilise for those New Zealanders who are struggling to feed their families. Bones could potentially be used as part of an eco-industry, for carving. In this way, there is little in the way of waste and new industries spring up, allowing culling to continue where necessary without polluting the country with toxic poison that endangers life of all kinds.

This country is sacred and spiritual. Let us keep it so, by prohibiting the use of toxic poisons, and encouraging organic methods of pest control. We are a nation of innovators. Let us innovate then, in the form of new methods that are non-toxic, that don’t carpet-bomb our rivers and land with toxic 1080 which obliterates life and endangers our tourists and our people. WE can innovate new ways that don’t destroy all we hold dear and which we can then successfully promote, export and sell to the world.

Let us be true to the name of worthy guardians of the earth of the air of the water and of this, our beloved Land.

25 Jan 2019. 20,482 words

65 Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc.govt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-plan-revi.@�

Submitter details:

Name of submitter or contact person: Organisation name: (if on behalf of an organisation) Postal address: ¼Ort

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Email:

D I wish to be heard in supportof my submksion (this means you can speak at a hearing) � I do not wish to be heard in support of my submission (tick one box)

Signature:

Your submission is submitte as art fa public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy t 99 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and a o make it available·to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

New Zealand Government Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai

Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Westland/Tai Poutini NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc.govt.nz/westland-review

Submitter details:

Name of submitter or contact person: Organisation name: (if on behalf of an organisation) Postal address:

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Email:

D I wish to be heard in support of my suifu{ission (this means you can speak at a hearing) litI do not wish to be heard in support of my submission (tick one box)

Signature: � Your submission is submitted a p-�� of� public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Priva y t 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website a also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

New Zealand Government Departtnent of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai

Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc.govt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-plan-review

Submitter details:

Name of submitter or contact person: Organisation name: (ifon behalf of an organisation) Postal address:

Y e QA\ () "1..(:_l

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Email:

D I wish to be heard in support of my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) C:rido not wish to be heard in support of my submission (tick one box)

Signature:

Your submission is submitted as part of a public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

New Zealand Government Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawbai

Submission Form Draft Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park

Management Plan

Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department’s website: www.doc.govt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-plan-review

Submitter details:

Warren McGregor Name of submitter or contact person:

Organisation name: JetBoating New Zealand (if on behalf of an organisation)

Postal address:

Christchurch, New Zealand

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Email:

I wish to be heard in support of my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) I do not wish to be heard in support of my submission (tick one box)

Signature:

Your submission is submitted as part of a public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981. Submission:1

Section: Submission: Decision sought: Identify the section, Explain the nature of your submission State clearly the decision sought or objective, outcome, stating whether you support or oppose changes you would like to see. Please policy, milestone, the approach in the draft Plan. Please be as precise as possible. For example: table or map that provide brief reasons. - if supporting: ‘retain Policy X’ your submission - if opposing: ‘delete Policy X’ relates to. - if seeking changes ‘reword Policy X to read (give suggested wording) 1.2.3 SUPPORT – Includes recreational RETAIN - Recreational Values as boating they are, because they provide for Recreational the opportunity to experience all Values types of recreational boating within (page 42) the park

1.3.1 General OPPOSE – because it doesn’t allow DELETE - Bylaw 31 (ii) Management for recreational boating, which is contrary to the recreational values of Bylaws the plan. 31 (ii) Use of powered watercraft (jet boats) (page 59) for the Godley and Tasman rivers i.e Haupapa Place and Pae Tawhiti Place and any proposed Park Additions is consistent with 1.2.3 (Recreational Values)

1.3.2 OPPOSE – Currently these rivers are DELETE Policy 2 (a) all managed by the Mackenzie Additions to District Plan, (as a delegated National Parks authority of Maritime NZ), which is an Policies appropriate mechanism for river 2 (a) control and falls under the RMA (Resource Management Act) which (page 60) as a matter of NATIONAL IMPORTANCE provides for (under Section 6d) the maintenance and enhancement of public access to, and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers:

Please continue on a separate sheet if required.

1 Further information can be appended to your submission. If you are sending this submission electronically we accept the following formats – Microsoft Word, Text, PDF and JPG. The file must not be more than 30 MB – please send large attachments separately or contact [email protected] to arrange for delivery of large electronic files. Submission Form Draft Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park Management Plan

Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4 715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc.govt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-plan-review

Submitter details:

Patrick Griffin Name of submitter or contact person:

Organisation name: NZHGPA (if on behalf of an organisation)

Postal address: Dunedin

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Email:

D I wish to be heard in support of my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) IZl I do not wish to be heard in support of my submission (tick one box)

Signature:

Your submission is submit ed as part of a public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

New Zealand Government Department of Conservation TP Pnhn Atrnl'hni Patrick Griffin

Dunedin

28/01/19

Mount Cook NPMP Submissions Department of Conservation [email protected]

Dear Sir or Madam

Submission on the Draft Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park Management Plan

Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the Draft National Park Management Plan for Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park (Draft Plan).

I do not wish to be heard in support of this submission.

Submission

I wish to support, in full, the submission by the New Zealand Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (NZHGPA) on the Draft Plan.

In summary, I support the following four submission points made by NZHGPA:

1. NZHGPA intends to apply for a global concession, with the assistance of the Federated Mountain Clubs of NZ (FMC), for NZHGPA pilots to take off and land on all public conservation land.

The new requirement in the Draft Plan to obtain a concession to launch from or land in Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park is a significant change, as the current Plan does not require hang gliders or paragliders to obtain a concession. We assume this change in policy is based on section 17ZF of the Conservation Act 1987. Although hang gliders have been flying in the park since 1970, hang gliders and paragliders were still relatively uncommon when the Act was passed. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that this requirement to gain a concession was ever intended to apply to recreational hang gliders and paragliders.

A global concession will ensure that hang gliding and paragliding pilots may continue to experience the joy of recreational flying in Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park and other conservation areas. This is a pragmatic solution to properly legitimise a situation which has gone on without scrutiny or opposition from the Department of Conservation for nearly 40 years.

2. NZHGPA opposes the requirement to notify the Southern Alps MBZ Air User Group prior to flight. The safe use of airspace within Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park is imperative. However, this requirement should be removed from the proposed Plan as: • sufficient safeguards have been put in place by the Civil Aviation Authority • the requirement serves no useful purpose given that it is impossible for hang gliding and paragliding pilots to know the exact location, date and time of a flight in advance, and • the User Group has confirmed such notification would not be useful.

3. NZHGPA opposes the restriction on hang glider and paraglider landing within the Haupapa/Tasman Glacier Landing Zone.

Again, the safe use of airspace within Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park is imperative. However, this requirement should be removed from the proposed Plan as: • the Civil Aviation Authority has put in place sufficient protocols to provide for the safety of all air space users • civil aviation law permits hang gliding and paragliding pilots to fly in this airspace, and they are therefore legitimate users of this airspace, and • pilots on climbing, trekking or cross-country trips need to be able to land in this zone for safety reasons.

4. NZHGPA seeks an exemption to the one nautical mile no-fly zone around the summit of Aoraki/Mt Cook.

The great social and cultural significance of this mountain is acknowledged. Hang gliding and paragliding pilots treasure the ability to fly here and use their own personal skills to soar non-motorised aircraft on the rising air currents created by the mountain.

In accordance with the submission guidelines provided by the Department of Conservation, the NZHGPA submission: • outlines each of the changes sought • details the full rationale for seeking these changes • identifies the relevant sections of the Draft Plan • outlines the proposed wording changes which would give effect to the changes sought.

Patrick Griffin

2 Tyrone Low Christchurch

28 January 2019 Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions Department of Conservation [email protected]

Dear Sir or Madam Submission on the Draft Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park Management Plan Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the Draft National Park Management Plan for Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park (Draft Plan). I do not wish to be heard in support of this submission. Submission I wish to support, in full, the submission by the Canterbury Mountaineering Club (CMC) on the Draft Plan. In summary, I support the following four submission points made by the CMC:

1. Management of the CMC Wyn Irwin Lodge I support the CMC’s submission regarding the retention of Wyn Irwin Lodge in its current location, form, and management. In addition, I support the CMC’s submission regarding the use of Wyn Irwin being available for Club members and for non-members where practicable, when not in use by club members and consistent with the purpose of the lodge. Furthermore, I would like to see the incorrect statements removed regarding the siting of Wyn Irwin Lodge that have been included in the Draft Plan. These are identified in the CMC submission. I would like to see clarification regarding what ‘formal authorisations’ are/is, and what ‘departmental standards’ are, as requested by the CMC’s submission. 2. Vehicle access in the Park I support the CMC’s submission regarding proposed solutions to manage traffic congestion within Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park. The Park and Ride concept may help to mitigate traffic congestion, but it cannot be at the expense of other user groups of Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park who will exit and arrive at the Park at hours outside of the operating hours of proposed Park and Ride. Vehicle access should be maintained for those intending to access Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park overnight and longer. Back country adventurers, particularly mountaineers, climbers, back country walkers, and skiers/snowboarders by the nature of their activity need to be able to start (and finish) trips within the Park at hours that would fall outside any operating hours of the proposed Park and Ride system. If the long and proud tradition of mountaineering in Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park (for which it is internationally famous for) is to be maintained, it is important that this core tenement remains. There are a number of alternative mechanisms outlined in the CMC submission that DOC should consider to help mitigate traffic congestion and allow freedom of movement for mountaineers, climbers, backcountry walkers, skiers/snowboarders and other similar user groups. I support these proposals put forward in the CMC submission. 3. Aircraft access within the Park I support the CMC’s submission which opposes the proposal in the Draft Plan to increase aircraft traffic and landing zones within Aoraki / Mount Cook National Park. Increasing use of aircraft within Aoraki Mount Cook National Park will degrade the experience of many user groups within the Park and reduce tranquillity values within the Park. With heightened awareness regarding climate change and anthropogenic impacts on the environment, allowing an increase in aircraft traffic and aircraft access to areas of the Park which previously excluded aircraft (i.e. previously designated high tranquillity, remote areas), is not appropriate or consistent with New Zealand’s climate change targets and commitments. I support the CMC’s submission on Hooker Valley remaining aircraft-free, except in case of emergencies requiring evacuation, predator control and scientific research. In addition, the Plan should reflect a stronger focus on preserving foot access to places within the Park outside the front country area. This will benefit the Park as a whole by encouraging more people to venture further into the Park, relieving pressure on front country resources while allowing more people to access the special, high tranquillity areas of the Park like the Hooker Valley. I support the CMC’s submission for the installation of a mid-valley hut (i.e. a replacement for Gardiner Hut) to make access to the head of the valley easier and safer as well as the ongoing maintenance of the Pudding Rock cables. 4. Other Matters I support the CMC’s submission regarding the proposed addition of the Liebig Range and the Godley Valleys to the Park and the World Heritage Area, provided that the Department of Conservation has the sufficient resources to administer these areas. I also support the CMC’s submission advocating for the existing use and access of the Liebig Range (i.e. Cass Valley) and the Godley Valley to allow for 4WD access along the established, unformed legal roads to these areas. I would like to see that these roads are formally identified and maintained to provide safer access to and from these areas, as well to reduce adverse impacts from vehicles in these areas. 4WD access is required in these areas not only to provide access, but also for the New Zealand Deerstalkers Association and the New Zealand Alpine Club as well as other groups, to administer their huts in these areas. I have attached the CMC’s submission with my submission for ease of reference. In accordance with the submission guidelines provided by the Department of Conservation, the CMC submission: • outlines each of the changes sought • details the full rationale for seeking these changes • identifies the relevant sections of the Draft Plan • outlines the proposed wording changes which would give effect to the changes sought.

Yours sincerely, Tyrone Low

2 Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc.govt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-plan-review

Submitter details:

Na:me of submitter or contact person:

Organisation name: (if on behalf of an organisation)

Postal address:

c/rtJv�d Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Email:

D I wish to be heard in support of my submission (this means you ca�peak at a hearing) [Y(do not wish to be heard in support of my submission (tick one box)

Signature:

Your submi ,on is submitted as part of a public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

New Zealand Government Department of Conservation Te Pana Atawhai

Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc.govt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-plan-review

Submitter details: Geoff McPhee Name of submitter or contact person: Organisation name: NZJBA (if on behalf of an organisation) Postal address: Cromwell

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Email:

O I wish to be heard in support of my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) 01 do not wish to be heard in sYfportof my submission (tick one box) �1//"}J

Signature:

Your submission is sub� ed as part of a public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

New Zealand Government Department of Conservation 'J,, Tr> Paha Atawhai Submission:'

Section: Submission: Decision sought: Identifythe section, Explain the nature of your submission State clearly the decisionsought or objective, outcome, stating whether you supportor oppose changes you would like to see. Please policy, milestone, the approach inthe draft Plan. Please be as preciseas possible. For example: table or map that provide briefreasons. if supporting: 'retain PolicyX' your submission if opposing: 'delete Policy X' relates to. - if seeking changes 'rewordPolicy X to read (givesuggested wording) 1.2.3 Support - Includes for recreational Retain Recreational Values as they boating are as they provides for the Recreational opportunity and to experience all Values types of recreational boating within the park 1.3.1 General Oppose - It is contrary to the Delete Bylaw 31 (ii) Management recreational values of the plan which supports recreational boating. Use Bylaws of powered watercraft is consistent 31 (ii) with the outcomes planned for the Godley and Tasman rivers i.e Haupapa Place and Pae Tawhiti Place, and the proposed Park Additions .. 1.3.2 Oppose - Currently under the Delete Policy 2 (a) Mackenzie District Council District Additions to Plan and under the RMA which as a National Parks matter of NATIONAL IMPORTANCE Policies provides for under Section 6 ( d) the 2 (a) maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers:

Please continue on a separate sheet if required.

1 Further information can be appended to your submission. If you are sending this submission electronically we accept the following formats - Microsoft Word, Text, PDF and JPG. The file must not be more than 30 MB - please send large attachments separately or contact [email protected] to arrange fordelivery of large electronic files. Submission Form .., Draft Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park Management Plan

Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc.govt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-plan-review

Submitter details:

Brent Webster Name of submitter or contact person:

Organisation name: (if on behalf of an organisation)

Postal address:

lnvercargill

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Email:

D I wish to be heard in support of my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) d I do not wish to be heard in support of my submission (tick one box)

Signature:

Your submission is submitted as part of a public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

Department of Conservation n� Paha Atawhai

·.· :,�f ·.i -�:;1:; ?.•·.:·:·(�._'c;·.;l:.Jf..,�'. f �!.f1�Ubmission Form ]'i!�\i�ftWestland Tai Poutini National Park ,-�jit:l"{{l�nagement Plan .. i ,�l':(.}t ii .Jfi.,,-'-.1,-:·r__ _-. .:JL_ij 1 ·

Once you have completed this form Send by post to: WestlandfTaiPoutini NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all · sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc.govt.nz/westland-review ------.....-...... 1- ��·•

Name of submitter or contact person:

�/(/� Postal address: /Iawe rt?f

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Email:

D J),'flsh to be heard in supportof my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) 53"1 do not wish to be heard in supportof my submission (tick one box)

Signature:

Your submission is submitted as part of a public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai

Once you hav� completed this form Send by post to; �oraj(i/MountCook NF.>MP Submissions, Department 0f Conservation, Rrivate Bag 4715, Christchurch MaffCentre, Christcflurch 8140 or email t0: aorak�np@doc,gov1.nz . . .

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc.qovt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-plan-review ------!TN.W,,i__ ___ Submitter details: /l1/J£77tX/ LfeK'AIY /},/✓de

. � Email:

0 _],.Wishto be heard in supportof my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) 8'1 do not wish to be heard in supportof my submission (tick one box)

Signature:

Your submission is submitted as part of a lie process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai

Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc.govt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-plan-review

Submitter details: JOSH CAIRNS Name of submitter or contact person:

Organisation name: N/A (if on behalf of an organisation) Postal address: GORE

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Email: c:y1wish to be heard in support of my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) ,{] I do not wish to be heard in support of my submission (tic!

Signature:

Your submiss the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

Departtnent of Conservation TP. Paha Atawhai Submission:

Section: Submission: Decision sought: Identify the section, Explain the nature of your submission State clearly the decision sought or objective, outcome, stating whether you support or oppose changes you would like to see. Please policy, milestone, the approach in the draft Plan. Please be as precise as possible. For example: table or map that provide brief reasons. if supporting: 'retain Policy X' your submission if opposing: 'delete Policy X' relates to. if seeking changes 'reward Policy X to read (give suggested wording)

1.2.3 SUPPORT - Includes recreational RETAIN - Recreational Values as boating they are, because they provide for Recreational the opportunity to experience all Values types of recreational boating within (page 42) the park

1.3.1 General OPPOSE - because it doesn't allow DELETE-Bylaw 31 (ii) Management for recreational boating, which is contrary to the recreational values of Bylaws the plan. 31 (ii) Use of powered watercraft (jet boats) for the Godley and Tasman rivers i.e (page 59) Haupapa Place and Pae Tawhiti Place and any proposed Park Additions is consistent with 1.2.3 (Recreational Values)

1.3.2 OPPOSE - Currently these rivers are DELETE Policy 2 (a) all managed by the Mackenzie Additions to District Plan, (as a delegated National Parks authority of Maritime NZ), which is an Policies appropriate mechanism for river 2 (a) control and falls under the RMA (Resource Management Act) which (page 60) as a matter of NATIONAL IMPORTANCE provides for (under Section 6d) the maintenance and enhancement of public access to, and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers:

Please continue on a separate sheet if required.

1 Further information can be appended to your submission. If you are sending this submission electronically we accept the following formats - Microsoft Word, Text, PDF and JPG, The file must not be more than 30 MB - please send large attachments separately or contact aorakinp(%doc.qovt.nz to arrange for delivery of large electronic files. Submission Eorm.:�tk.,�'�f'i;�'.·-., Draft Aoraki/Mount Cook Natio�al p;rk . <';§(i\[l[f;,j"�'�Pt Management Plan , ··

Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc.govt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-plan-review

Submitter details:

Tony Hardie Name of submitter or contact person:

Organisation name: (if on --behalf-- of an organisation)--- Postal address: Palmerston North

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Email:

D I wish to be heard in support of my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) � do not wish to be heard in support of my submission (tick one box)

Signature:

Your submission is submitted as part of a public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

/New Zealand Government Departn1ent of Conservation TP Paha Ata·whai Submission: 1

Section: Submission: Decision sought: Identify the section, Explain the nature of your submission State clearly the decision sought or objective, outcome, statingwhether you support or oppose changes you would like to see. Please policy, milestone, the approach in the draft Plan. Please be as precise as possible. For example: table or map that provide brief reasons. - if supporting: 'retain Policy X' your submission - if opposing: 'delete Policy X' relates to. - if seeking changes 'reword Policy X to read (give suggested wording) 1.2.3 Support - Includes for recreational Retain Recreational Values as they boating are as they provides for the Recreational opportunity and to experience all Values types of recreational boating within the park 1.3.1 General Oppose - It is contrary to the Delete Bylaw 31 (ii) Management recreational values of the plan which supports recreational boating. Use Bylaws of powered watercraft is consistent 31 (ii) with the outcomes planned for the Godley and Tasman rivers i.e Haupapa Place and Pae Tawhiti Place, and the proposed Park Additions .. 1.3.2 Oppose - Currently under the Delete Policy 2 (a) Mackenzie District Council District Additions to Plan and under the RMA which as a National Parks matter of NATIONAL IMPORTANCE Policies provides for under Section 6 (d) the maintenance and enhancement of 2 (a) public access to and along the coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers:

Please continue on a separate sheet if required.

1 Further information can be appended to your submission. If you are sending this submission electronically we accept the following formats - Microsoft Word, Text, PDF and JPG. The file must not be more than 30 MB - please send large attachments separately or contact [email protected] to arrange for delivery of large electronic files. Jim lapsley

Christchurch, Phone Email;

SUBMISSION, Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park Management Plan.

ReferenceSection; Bylaws, clause 31 (b) (iii)

I am OPPOSED to the above Bylaw Clause in the DraftA oraki/Mt Cook National Park . This clause applies to all jet boats that regularly boat these rivers. Jet boats have a minimal environmental footprint when boating rivers. Jet Boats operate on the water where birds do not nest. Birds generally nest some distance from the high water level of the river so their nests survive any floodconditions. So Jet boats cannot squash nesting birds eggs by tramping on them or driving over them. Hikers and 4WD vehicles can squash eggs but are both permitted activities. Hikers can inadverdantly stand on very well camoflaged birds nests, such as Black Stilts, or because they walk slowly through an area can chase away the nesting parent birds fromthe nest leaving the eggs exposed to predators formuch longer than a Jet Boat. Jet Boats generally have muffled exhaust pipes so any disturbance to the quiet ambiance of the park is minimal. Aircrafthave no mufflers but they are pennitted to operate in the park. Jet boats running a river generally do so at around 30 to 35KPH. This is normal operating speed on official Jet BoatingNew Zealand club runs. Checked with GPS. So Jet Boats have no issue with bird strike unlike aircraft, operating at 200kph, that are permitted to operate. Jet Boats when running a river generally travel up the deeper channels so as not to run the boat aground or to suck stones and damage the jet drive. So Jet Boat do not affect the small native fish species as they stay in the shallows away from the predator birds. Jet boats have 60 years of existing use rights under the RMA in these rivers. Boats are a permitted activity in the park as evidenced by the consessions forboats to operate on the Glacier Lakes.

DECISION SOUGHT; I would like the above clause deleted completely fromthe plan. As per my submission above, Jet Boats have a lesser environmental effect on the park than Hikers, 4WD 1s and Aircraftand yet Hikers, 4 WD's and Aircraftare all permitted activities. I believe Jet Boating New Zealand has initiated a full scientificstudy on the enviromental effectsof jet Boating on the enviromnent. If there any concernsthat DOC have about Jet Boats in the Park then DOC and Jet Boating New Zealand should meet and negotiate any conditions forthe mutual benefit of both organisations. Conditions such as for example, boat/trailer identificationor decibel limits could be negotiated.

I wish to be heard on m submission.

Yours Sincerely JH (Jim) La sley Cathie Brumley

From: Jim Lapsley Sent: Monday, 28 January 2019 2:13 p.m. To: aorakinp Subject: Re: Submission

Hello, I'm sorry I have just seen a typo in my submission on the Draft Aoraki/Mt Cook National park management plan. The submission is meant to refer to Bylaw 31,clause B, (ii) in the plan, not clause (iii). Please change my submission. Kind regards. Jim (JH) Lapsley

On Mon, Jan 28, 2019 at 1:56 PM Jim Lapsley Hello, Please find attached my submission on the draft Aoraki/Mt Cook National park Management Plan. Kind regards. Jim lapsley

RECEIVED 2 8 JAN 2019

Canterbury Conservancy

1 j

1 Subm,ssion For1'·��, changes you would like to see. Please policy, milestone, the approach in the draftPlan. Please be as preciseas possible. For example: table or map that provide brief reasons. - if supporting: 'retain Policy X' your submission if opposing: 'delete Policy X' relates to. if seeking changes 'reword PolicyX to read (give suggested wording) Once you have completed this form e 1•2, /. S'-'f;f"'_,,_,'A-u--� � .di Send by post to: Aoraki/MountCool< NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation,Private Bag 4715, nt.. --=Se,:::,rz� (. ::z. ·I � Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to:aoralv�· -e,.s-17-� z;,-f-,=,r-e_d r --e...s Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 / !, 3, 3- A ,r� !l.nyone may ma e a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all ,v-�� /. 3. sections o this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your ,A c.-/.,v� rnc.-.te., +--=-� r-.--.J,-.--l:,���½ 1/�<:,�ts / � , ��"-7 ::s own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Departmentswebsite: wv.-w.doc.govt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-plan-review "°'�er r2."~ ",?,,!I�- "':] = .le., -c/- ec,..J_�cc ls, / � -::J I}(:/'¾ "'�0

/'Je_""?

, /\1-e ?'°__J__,c./q_-s- N��d -S,..f" ,-0�

<--C:,. ----o...J (7 tr--1" A. �/o.-d....0 0 /\1�I- 'L.. N�

s,," , • to our :,ubmts.ion s subm1t1eOas part 01 a public process and once received by the Department ti is subJect the pro o�s oi · e Po ,-aci·Ao. , &93 and the O11,oal Information Act 1981 The Department may post your any consultant used, the relevant subm1&son on ,, e � :e ano a so make ,ta a1lable 10 departmental staff, Please continue on a separate sheet if required. Con e ,, on Bo ro ane1 J�ev- Zea and Conservation Authority Your submission may be made available r of pub c 10 cN, !i9 r est mace uncer the Official Information Act 1981. Submission: Aoraki/Mt Cook & Westland/Tai Poutini National Parks

1. Aim for complete eradication of exotic pest species, especially thar.

I support the concept that National Parks should preserve the natural ecosystems as much as possible. All possible methods should be used to removed introduced flora & fauna. Strongly support the objectives that diversity of our natural heritage be maintained and restored, as described in the Management plan

“The diversity and integrity of natural values in Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park is preserved as far as possible, including: a) preserving and protecting the full range of indigenous species, habitats and ecosystems in a healthy functioning state; b) protecting and enhancing populations of threatened and at-risk species within the Park to contribute to their overall persistence4; c) eradicating, as far as possible, all introduced pest plants and animals, and wild animals; d) preserving and protecting significant geological features, landforms and landscapes, including temporal and seasonal landscapes, and cultural landscapes, which contribute to the exceptional, cultural significance, beauty and scientific importance of the Park; and e) supporting others to contribute to the conservation of these values.”

2. Limitations to Aircraft numbers/flights rather than landings.

All aircraft flights detrimentally & negatively affect the Tranquillity in National Parks. Personally, I feeling that while landings are extremely obtrusive, so are all flights in a region. I propose that there should be at least 3 classifications of regions of all National Parks in New Zealand (i) Wilderness Areas; where aircraft activity be limited to Search & Rescue and pest control. Beyond that aircraft flights should be prohibited. (ii) Limited aircraft activities, where there should be a cap on the numbers of flights over this region, with a time period of no flights. (iii) Less Restrictive; where a greater number of flights be permitted, but also within limited time periods, eg 9am -16:00. This would ensure periods of tranquillity even in areas of popular tourist activity

3. Park & Ride concept should be limited to visitors who are intending to stay for less than an entire day.

Visitors to the park who wish to stay overnight should be permitted to park at the road end, thus facilitating their departure from the park, at the completion of their visit.

4. That No Gondola be permitted in either National Park National parks are primarily for preservation of the natural environment, & a gondola with mass tourist movements is in direct conflict with this ideal Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or emailto:aorakino@1do_c govt.n�

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: ·,w<1vv.doc.qovt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-olan-review

Submitter details:

Name of submitter or contact person: Organisation name: (ifon behalf of an organisation)

Postal address: c�l �,c.t:t\-Jt'lu r

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on) Email: D I wish to be heard in support of my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) g,i'donot wish to be heard in supportof my submission

(tickone box)

Signature:

Your submission is submitted as part of a public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

New Zealand Government Depart1nentof Conservation TePaDa Atawhai

Submission Form Draft Aoraki/Mount Cook National Park Management Plan

Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc.govt.nz/aoraki-mt-cook-plan-review

Submitter details:

Name of submitter or contact person: Alpine Recreation Canterbury Ltd

Organisation name: (if on behalf of an organisation) Alpine Recreation Postal address: Lake Tekapo

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Email:

� I wish to be heard in support of my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) D I do not wish to be heard in support of my submission (tick one box)

Alpine Recreation il1 HEK · CLIMB s K I Signature: • Alpine Recreation

Your submission is submitted as part of a public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmental staff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

Department of Conservation Tt> Pnhn A fn111hni

Once you have completed this form Send by post to: Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Submissions, Department of Conservation, Private Bag 4715, Christchurch Mail Centre, Christchurch 8140 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00 pm, Monday 4th February 2019 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available on the Department's website: www.doc. govt.nzlaoraki-mt-cook-plan-review

Submitterdetails:

Name of submitter Matthew Whitaker or contact person: Organisation name: (ifon behalfof an organisation) Postal address: Christchurch

Telephone number: (the best number to contact you on)

Email:

�ish to be heard in supportof my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) 1 not wish to be heard in support of my submission � ,,�� (tick one box)

Signature:

Your submission is submitted as part of a public process and once received by the Department it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Department may post your submission on its website and also make it available to departmentalstaff, any consultant used, the relevant Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

Departn1cnt of Conservation Te Papa Alau·/.wi

Cathie Brumley

From: Anne Braun-Elwert Sent: Monday, 28 January 2019 5:02 p.m. To: aorakinp Subject: Aoraki Mt Cook Draft Management Plan - Submission Attachments: Covering letter AMCNP.doc; Caroline Hut Case.docx; Anne's Submissionl.xlsx

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: Yellow Category

Dear Planning Team,

Please find attached my personal submission for the Aoraki Mt Cook National Park Management Plan.

YES I wish to be heard in support of my submission.

Thank you for the invitation to be involved.

Kind regards,

Anne Braun-Elwert

Anne Braun-Elwert

Lake Tekapo New Zealand

Ph: Mobile:

1

landings, that is certainly not the case.

Thank you for the opportunity for input into this plan.

Anne Braun-Elwert

P. 0. Box 75 Phone: 0064-3-680 6736 Lake T ekapo 7945 0800 006 096 New Zealand [email protected] Founded in 1981 by Gottlieb & Anne Braun-Elwert www.alpinerecreation.com