CASE STUDIES

Loch Katrine/Lake Sumner - access and baches1

Key issue(s) Management of access to a remote and sensitive natural area.

Background The Lake Sumner Forest Park lies 100 km northwest of between conservation lands around the and Arthur’s Pass National Park. One of the main access routes to the Park is by travelling by road up the Hurunui River. The main road ends at Lake Taylor, but there is public access further on to Lake Sumner on a 4WD track past Loch Katrine. The Department of Conservation manages the Lake Sumner Forest Park, and has established a mainland island in the upper reaches of the Hurunui (above Lake Sumner) and towards the .

The 4WD road from Lake Taylor to Lake Sumner runs across leased pastoral farming land (Lake Taylor and Lake Sumner stations). It is used by deer stalkers, fishermen, trampers, mountain bikers and for access to Lock Katrine. With increasing use, and because there was not a single formed road, there has been significant physical damage to the area. In response to this increased use and the adverse effects observed, a Hurunui Lakes Working Party (the working party) was formed in early 1992. At the same time the area around Loch Katrine, situated between Lake Sumner and Lake Taylor, held potential for subdivision, which is expected to put even greater pressure on the tracks.

There are over 60 unlicensed baches or huts at Loch Katrine. These are all on Department of Conservation land, and under the current policy they are to be removed.

Stakeholders ! Department of Conservation ! Regional and district councils ! Fish and Game Managers ! Conservation Board ! Hut owners ! 4WD owners (and clubs) ! Visitors

Tools, models or approaches The area around Lakes Taylor, Sumner and Loch Katrine is a major natural recreational area with camping, boating, tramping, fishing and hunting. The Council (the Council) and the Department of Conservation recognise the need for sensitive management and control, and in the early 1990s were very concerned about the adverse effects on the environment caused by a free-for-all approach to access to Lake Sumner from Lake Taylor.

The Council initiated the formation of the working party and held a series of meetings with generally interested parties as a means of informing the District Plan (focus groups and workshops , participation models , RMA Framework ). The working party prepared a report published in October 1994. The Council adopted the recommendations of the working party and in 1997 developed the track between Lake Taylor and Loch Katrine (which runs over farmland) as a straight line, 4WD single track. However the Department of Conservation remained concerned that the second part of the HLWP recommendations was not being implemented, and the area beyond Loch Katrine (to Lake Sumner) was not being controlled. By this time No 1 Hut (at Lake Taylor) had been vandalised and No 2 Hut (Lake Sumner) had been burnt down.

1 This case study provides an example of the application of some individual tools to specific issues. The case studies are not of themselves examples of a fully integrated approach as they preceded the development of the kete. Links to the individual tools have been added to illustrate how agencies and groups facing similar issues might draw on available tools. Case study Prepared March 2003, updated December 2006.

1 CASE STUDIES Loch Katrine/Lake Sumner

A subcommittee of the working group was formed to develop a proposal for a gate for the 4WD track (conflict resolution ). This gate was agreed by the Conservancy and the Station owner/lessee. The Council did not want to block the legal road and it was decided that the solution would be a gate at the point where the track deviated from the legal road. It was initially assumed that this was the point where the track went uphill and over a small bluff area (towards Lake Sumner), and the legal road apparently went around the side of Loch Katrine. This was a logical and suitable place for a gate.

Subsequently it was established that the gate is on legal road. The Department of Conservation has offered to remove the gate, but the district council is opposed. The situation was reviewed at a public meeting (participation models ) one year after the gate was put in and there was a strong push from groups such as Fish and Game to get the gate moved to Home Bay (on Lake Sumner, where people launch boats), but the council decided to leave it where it is.

Once the gate was in place, the next step was to decide who to let through and this was agreed as ! Management (station and Department of Conservation) ! Search and Rescue ! 10 recreational vehicle movements per day

The limit to recreational vehicle movements is addressed by a booking system (LAC ). Bookings are made by phone through the Department and people are given the code for the gate, which is changed every 1-2 months. There is some abuse of the system (sometimes the gate is left open), but on the whole the number appears to be about right (integrated monitoring ). The area is closed entirely (to vehicles) from 1 July to 1 October.

Subsequently, the Department has made concessions to Fish and Game regarding the winter fishing season, which coincides with the closed period - Fish and Game license holders may apply for access. It is notable that there has been very limited take-up of this offer. 4WD Club trips are approved on a case-by-case basis.

Commentary The working party was successful in that it provided a report with a clear set of objectives and recommendations. While the primary purpose was to provide input to the District Plan preparation, the recommendations were valuable to all interested parties. A significant degree of understanding and consensus was reached despite a wide range of interests.

The rationing system is apparently working well. While the physical degradation of the area between Lake Taylor and Lake Sumner is still evident, there are also signs of repair. The gate does not affect people on foot, or bikes.

Towards an integrated Approach This case study demonstrates how participation tools, recognising and setting limits tools and planning tools can be used together to reach a solution for a particular area. Monitoring is an important aspect as well. User charges might be applied if the current situation is found not to be adequate to manage the adverse effects, but ownership issues would make this more difficult. Interpretation tools (signage) have not been used significantly (at last visit there was a small sign on the gate).

References Department of Conservation, Canterbury Conservation Management Strategy. http://www.doc.govt.nz/upload/documents/about-doc/role/policies-and-plans/cms1-4_2.pdf

2