Before a Special Tribunal UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 AND IN THE MATTER of an Application for a Water Conservation Order in respect of Te Waikoropupū Springs and associated water bodies (including the aquifers, Takaka River, and tributaries) STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DEBORAH JANE MARTIN ON BEHALF OF THE ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED 4 April 2018 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc PO Box 266 Nelson 7040 Phone: 027 684 0599 Debs Martin 1. My name is Deborah Jane Martin. I am employed by the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc as Regional Manager for the Top of the South. The area covers all of the Tasman, Nelson, Marlborough and Kaikōura districts, and I also share responsibility for the Buller District. 2. I have a Masters degree in Geography from the University of Canterbury. 3. I have had nearly 15 years experience in working as the Regional Manager, including previously appearing before hearings on various Water Conservation Orders including the variation to the Buller Water Conservation Order. 4. I have personally visited Te Waikoropupū Springs on numerous occasions since first visiting the region over 35 years ago. I am also very familiar with the Takaka catchment and various landscapes of Golden Bay. 5. I am presenting evidence on behalf of the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc (Forest & Bird) on the following topic: a. Our submission point 3 – proposal to preserve different features and qualities of the water body. 6. The matters that I will cover are: a. Outline of the water bodies we are seeking to protect in their natural state b. Outline of my involvement in the Golden Bay Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes process 7. The purpose of this evidence is to show that the areas we have proposed be included as outstanding water bodies in their natural state, are part of the outstanding natural landscapes identified in a number of landscape reports commissioned by Tasman District Council. Outline of Water Bodies Sought to be Preserved, as far as possible, in their Natural State 8. In our original submission we sought the following (para 5 of additional pages): “Forest & Bird considers that the following water bodies identified below are outstanding as defined by s199(1)(a) and ask that they be preserved, as far as possible, in their natural state according to s199(2)(a). 1. Takaka River and tributaries above the confluence with the Cobb River; 2. Tributaries of the Takaka River upstream of map reference 41.031356; 172.790784; 3. Cobb River and tributaries above the Cobb Reservoir; 4. Waingaro River and tributaries; 5. Anatoki River and tributaries; 6. Waikoropupū River and tributaries above the Pupu Hydro weir intake; 7. All of the lakes, rivers and wetlands and their tributaries that flow into the aforementioned rivers; Where these waterbodies are within or bordering public conservation land.” 1 9. In submissions, I will outline the regulatory rationale for including these additional preservation measures in the Water Conservation Order. This statement of evidence is to present factual information, rather than legal arguments, before the Tribunal. 10. It is the intention that all of these areas are within or bordering public conservation land, and have been identified as within areas of outstanding landscapes (notwithstanding they have not yet been incorporated through a plan change). 11. Forest & Bird sought information on the location, amount allocated, and actual amounts taken of consents for water within the Takaka catchment, but had not received it at the time submissions closed. Some of the information was subsequently received under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act on 21st March 2018, namely the location and allocation amounts1. The information is attached as Appendix One. 12. That information reveals (as much as I can understand) that there is an allocation of 1.4 litres per second at the very lower part of Sam’s Creek (although the map doesn’t appear to show it as such), a tributary of the Takaka River upstream of the map reference referred to in our submission. 13. As far as we can ascertain, given a search on the Tasman District Council website, the water take is Consent Number RM080318, due to expire on 25/06/2018. 14. Appendix Two to this evidence is a map image (using NZTopo on line) showing the location of the map reference point. It is intended that the tributary, Rheumatic Creek, is included as a water body in its “natural state”, and that it is only tributaries upstream of and including Rheumatic Creek, within public conservation land, that are included. Outline of my involvement with the Golden Bay Outstanding Natural Landscapes and Features process 15. Since the 1990s there has been an ongoing process to determine outstanding landscapes and features in Golden Bay, and the wider Tasman District. That process has still to reach a conclusion. 16. In December 2010 Tasman District Council convened a meeting of 70 people at Kahurangi Estate, Golden Bay, comprising representatives of the community who had an interest in the identification of the outstanding natural landscapes and features of Golden Bay and in the policies and rules that protect them. The meeting received presentations from landscape architect Frank Boffa from Boffa Miskell, who proposed a number of scenarios for the identification of outstanding natural landscapes. One proposal was to identify the whole of Golden Bay, both land and sea as an outstanding natural landscape. Another scenario was to identify all land 1 Forest & Bird also sought information on the actual amount of water taken, as compared with what is allocated. That information was not provided in the response of 21st March 2018. Subsequently I have spoken with Council staff (5th April 2018) and have been advised that some information is held by Council (and not yet available), but only for some of the allocated water takes, and then using different metering methodologies. That information has not been compiled, but may be available for the Special Tribunal in time for the hearing. 2 above a certain altitude as an outstanding natural landscape. In the end these weren’t progressed for reasons that I am unaware of. 17. More meetings were called with a broad working group of about 30 who met an additional three times during 2011 and 2012. Further technical work undertaken by landscape architect Andrew Craig to more precisely delineate the landscapes was made available to the group as a draft report. This substantive report (144 pages) was presented to the larger working group in May 2012 and revised in August 20122. Key aspects of the Craig draft report were: a. In the first section he identified the statutory background and purpose of the report; included the scope of study, and outlined the assessment method – which included the Pigeon Bay factors. b. In part 2 he divided Golden Bay into Landscape Character Areas, and then further divided into the smallest parts – the Landscape Units. Not all Landscape Character Areas were divided into smaller units if they provided a cogent whole, e.g. “Evaluation of the Aorere Valley has been divided in two, one being the Upper Aorere Valley landscape unit and the other the mid and lower Aorere Valley Landscape units. The reason for this is that in applying the inductive method of assessment it is immediately apparent that the Upper Aorere Valley is quite different to the mid and lower units and that it appeared a likely ONL candidate.” (p62). c. For each Character Area he provided a general landscape description, identified particular landscape features and the contributing factors, and then provided a landscape evaluation using the Pigeon Bay factors as the structure. In some of those instances he also identified outstanding natural features where they appeared. Where the evaluation overall ranked as a high or very high, the feature or landscape was designated as outstanding. d. Where features were delineated within a proposed ONL, the features were not mapped additionally in the report. When outstanding natural features were identified outside of an ONL, they had their own feature description and evaluation. 18. With respect to the Parapara/Kahurangi Ranges Landscape Character Area (pp 84 – 90), the Craig report identified it as an Outstanding Natural Landscape in its entirety, with an overall ranking of Very High. a. Some relevant excerpts from his assessment include: “The mountainous landscape is highly dissected by numerous water courses, all of which converge into either the Takaka or Aorere rivers.” (p85) 2 The Andrew Craig report can be found on Tasman District Council website on the page relating to Golden Bay Outstanding Landscapes and Natural Features: http://www.tasman.govt.nz/tasman/projects/environmental-projects/golden-bay-landscape- project/ 3 “The very wide range of landscape features, land forms and land cover spanning considerable elevation results in a very diverse landscape that nonetheless appears as a complete entity.” (p86) b. He also specifically identifies a number of lakes within the area, including Lake Stanley and Lake Sylvester, as well as the Cobb Valley, as natural features of outstanding quality. (p86) 19. With respect to the Takaka Valley Landscape Character Area (pp 91 – 136), the Craig report divided it into two Landscape Units, and rated the Upper Takaka Valley Landscape Unit as being an outstanding natural landscape in areas adjoining Kahurangi and Abel Tasman National Parks (p97). a. Some relevant excerpts from this assessment include: i. “… the upper valley accommodates a relatively wide range of natural features all closely interlinked. They range from the macro-scale – the entire Takaka Hill and surrounding mountain ranges – to the micro – the individual rock outcrops, sinkholes (dolines), rivers, streams, gorges, and native forest remnants.” (p93) 20.