|
SUBMISSION ON PUBLICLY NOTIFIED APPLICATION CONCERNING RESOURCE CONSENT
(RMA FORM 13)
Sections 96 and 127(3) Resource Management Act 1991
To: The Chief Executive
Central Otago District Council
PO Box 122
ALEXANDRA
I, We Central Otago Environmental Society Inc.
(Name of Submitter)
This is a submission on the following resource consent application: RC No: 100091
Applicant: Golden Bush Mining Limited
Valuation No: 2844113901
Location of Site: NEVIS RD
Brief Description of Application: Land use consent to carry out alluvial mining within an Outstanding Landscape Area
The specific parts of the application that my submission relates to are:
[give details, attach on separate page if necessary]
1) The proposed mining area lies within an “Outstanding Landscape” (as identified in the landscape assessment maps; Plan Change 5R). The changes to the landscape will be very intrusive and highly visible due to a sloping foreground backed by mountains.
2) The mining claim has not been surveyed or professionally assessed for sites of significant heritage value, including sites holding Maori artefacts.
3) The application covers the whole of the 785.81 ha claim. It is unclear which areas of that claim will be affected by mining and mining related activities.
4) Threatened plant species occur within the mining claim which could be destroyed by the applicant’s activities.
5) The application has failed to properly assess the occurrence of endangered native fauna at the mining site.
6) Noise pollution has not been sufficiently addressed by the applicant.
7) The proposed operating times have not been addressed by the applicant.
8) The applicant does not address the threat of accidental introduction of obnoxious weeds (e.g. gorse and broom).
9) The very real danger to fauna and flora due to possible oil and diesel spills and expected storage of same, has not been addressed by the applicant.
10) The applicant has not applied for a “discharge to air” permit for the dust generated by his activities.
This submission is: [attach on separate page if necessary]
Include:
· whether you support or oppose the specific parts of the application or wish to have them amended; and
· the reasons for your views.
We oppose the application in its entirety. The main reasons are outlined above, a more detailed discussion follows below.
1) The whole mining claim lies within an area classified as an Outstanding Landscape; such landscapes enjoy special consideration and protection. In our view only projects which are unquestionably needed, and cannot be provided for elsewhere, should be considered for resource consent in these areas. The landscape classifications were established after considerable public input; they reflect what the people of Central Otago wish to protect. Those wishes must be heeded and not over-ridden. Short-term financial gain has to take second place to long-term, wider benefits and values which must underpin and lie at the heart of the District Plan.
2) The application indicates that many century old remains are visible even to laymen (pre 1900 diggings are mentioned in the botanists’ report). For example the mining claim contained the old Schoolhouse which was sited between the Crossing and Lower Nevis. The mining area is further dotted with old mine sites; water races (also mentioned in the botanist’s report as traversing the site), tail races and other mining evidence remain in many places. The claim also contains coal mining and coal processing sites. Furthermore, the mining area includes or is very close to the historic Nevis cemetery, which could be jeopardised by heavy machinery, ground vibrations and changes in ground water-levels.
Maori artefacts are also known from within the claim (referred to in the application as “a moa processing site beside trig Y at the lower margin”), however no further search for such artefacts has been carried out. The proposed measures to protect this site (p8: “no mining or tracking is to occur near this site”) are very ambiguous and lack all detail.
The mining claim contains many significant heritage sites, including Maori artefacts. It is therefore imperative that a full archaeological investigation is carried out before this application can be considered for consent. A best practice model, should historical artefacts be encountered, also needs to be part of any consent application.
3) The application is for a resource consent to mine 785.81 hectares, however the applicant indicates that he does not intend to mine the whole claim. This application, if granted, could give the impression that all the area covered by the application can be mined. This concern seems to be supported by the permission sought to mine for up to 7 years, which to us indicates that the applicant might well be planning to significantly increase the area of active mining. The applicant provides a map (fig. 2) which roughly shows three strips of land where mining will occur. No information is provided on how wide these strips are going to be and how many hectares they might occupy. With a proposed year round working for 7 years, one would expect a total of many hundreds of hectares to be strip mined.
This resource consent application needs to be declined because no accurate plan is provided to show what areas within the 785ha are potentially affected by the mining proposal. The potential of extended mining over most of the 785ha in a step by step fashion exists because of the ambiguous nature of the application.
Another example of the unclear nature of the application is the proposed mining along Schoolhouse creek. Simpson states on p1 of his botanical report that it is his understanding that “it is not intended to mine the old tailings along Schoolhouse creek”. Fig 2 of the application however indicates that mining is to be carried out right alongside Schoolhouse creek albeit separated by a 5 m buffer zone. This 5 m buffer zone along Schoolhouse creek appears to be taken from the water’s edge, not from the margin of the creek channel or the edge of the old tailings.
A further statement to which we want to draw the Council’s attention relates to the proposed mining of a “slither of land” on the North side of Schoolhouse creek. As the North side of the creek is bordered by a high gravel cliff, the only mining possible will be within the creek bed and possibly inside the creek itself. Considering that the mining pond alone will be 1000m sq in size we simply can not see how the applicant intends to mine the North side of the creek without having to rework (i.e. demolish) historical tailings and release large amounts of sediment into the creek. Additionally, the exact mining site on the Northern side of the creek has not been identified in the application, despite the presence of endangered and protected plant species along the creek. The applicant also mentions (p.6) “..a pulse of sediment to the water column..” due to crossing the creek with all equipment. We consider this to be misleading as no mention has been made of the many daily crossings which will happen as a matter of fact, as access is from the South only. Also the necessity of bringing a fuel tanker across the creek to refuel the screening plant and the diggers has not been addressed.
Again, the application does not do justice to the likely and possible destruction envisaged, esp. considering historical artefacts and protected plants.
To prove a point, we want to draw the Council’s attention to the southernmost proposed mining stip. This strip (identified in red on the application) covers the historic Nevis cemetery! This is (so we hope) due to the sloppy approach which underlies the whole application. Additionally the botanical report refers to a small steam near the Nevis cemetery which is otherwise ignored in the application. This small stream deserves special consideration because it drains the water away from a SE-NW fault line and will thus act as a natural drainage channel for any mining operation uphill of it. We fear that the fate of this stream might well be that of a silt or mud channel for the expected overflow from a mining pond uphill.
It does also not surprise that the applicant has failed to address any infrastructure details (size and location of storage sheds, toilets, fuel storage, shelters/accommodation) and the accompanying track network.
It is our opinion that the general lack of accuracy and detail of this mining application makes a granting of consent impossible.
4) We estimate that the botanist employed by the applicant spent his 6 hrs to investigate between 80ha and 200ha. However, we can’t be sure as to the exact extent of this survey as the map provided with the application is unreadable. What is clear however is that the survey did not encompass the full 785 ha covered by the consent application. Considering that two threatened plant species were found by Simpson within the mining strips, we are concerned how many other locations on the alluvial fan may also hold these (or other!) threatened plants. As the applicant will have to bulldoze tracks, move diggers, bring in tankers, build sheds, store petrol, diesel and lubricants on site, have a toilet and quite possibly dig settling ponds to collect any mining-water overflow from his mining claim, it is very unclear which areas of the claim will be affected by his proposed mining activities.
Simpson identified Coprosma intertexta on the true right side of Schoolhouse creek where a mining strip is proposed. This is the only reference of this threatened plant in the Nevis valley, and as such it deserves to be fully protected, which is impossible with a large mining operation within spitting distance and no protective measures offered by the applicant.
Simpson further identified the endangered plant Euchiton paludosus near the right side bank of Schoolhouse creek. This plant is similarly threatened by the proposed mining activities.
According to appendix 2 of the application, the seriously threatened plant species Myosotis pygmae var. glaucans is now only known from 4 sites in the Nevis Valley (down from 11 sites). One of those sites is on the Schoolhouse creek alluvial fan well within the 785ha claim, but outside the primary mining strips as indicated by the applicant. Simpson, in his evidence at the Kawarau Conservation Order hearing, indicated a cluster of Myosotis pygmae var. glaucans plants on the Schoolhouse terrace and Schoolhouse ponds; an important survival population. As the resource consent application covers the whole of the 785 ha, and leaves many serious doubts as to the affects of the applicant’s activities on the whole claim, a resource consent should not be given as it could put threatened plant species at risk.
An additional six threatened plant species (Leptinella conjuncta, Myosurus minimus, Carex muelleri, Gallium spp, Leptinella spp) are listed in appendix 2 of the application as occurring on the Schoolhouse creek flats. All these plants are quoted as being present only outside the “proposed mining area”. Simpson further mentions Olearia spp (tree daisies) which are “probably outside the mining area”, as an important invertebrate habitat. As the exact area occupied by mining operations (including auxiliary operations) has not been identified, it is impossible to tell (even for Mr Simpson who visited the site with the applicant!) where mining and mining related activities will occur. Because the application does not define which part of the mining claim is covered by the “proposed mining area”, a threat to these plant species can not be ruled out. A resource consent should therefore be declined.
The recent removal of copper tussock, after Mr Simpson identified these plant communities as desirable and probably containing a rare and endangered Ranunculus species, but before this application was lodged, rings alarm bells. These copper tussock plants were growing on a proposed mining strip. According to the applicant these plants were dug up with a digger and removed by “a third party” in the small time slot between Mr Simpson visiting the site with the applicant, and the applicant lodging his application. If this recent history of the demise of native plants is anything to go by, we fear the worst for other threatened plant locations identified by Mr Simpson.
The applicant has made the following statement while referring to native plants (p14): “Simpson suggests new tailings would create habitat and potentially reduce competition”. This statement can not be found in Simpson’s own evidence. The applicant further summarizes ‘Simpson’s suggestion’ on p15 para8, like this: “Mining creates habitat for these indigenous species to colonize without competitive pressures”. We regard these statements as highly misleading because:
a) historic (over 100year old) tailings which today contain native plants had a chance to get reseeded by, in those days still existing, native plants nearby.
b) The change in plant assemblages over large areas of NZ due to introduced pest plants has increased competition with native plants during re-colonisation of barren areas.
c) A change in climate has led introduced pest plants to become more virulent and more able to take over land that was previously occupied by native plants. An example is Hieracium which has taken over large tracts of land in the proposed mining site.
d) The proposed large scale modern mining operation will produce completely different plant habitats than piecemeal manual mining activities from 100 years ago. Because the two processes differ very significantly in scale and method one can not deduce a similar outcome from one mining style to another.
e) We could not find a single reference in NZ literature which would support the applicant’s claim, nor could we get confirmation from Mr Simpson that he ever made a suggestion as quoted by the applicant.
It is obvious that it is very dangerous to assume that the conditions which existed 100 years or even 50 years ago still exist today. The claim that the planned mining operations could provide a positive outcome for native flora is at the very least unrealistic.
Mr Simpson suggests in his report that areas of botanical interest (containing rare and endangered plants) be clearly identified (ringed with tape and retained with a buffer of several meters around it). This suggestion has not been picked up by the applicant, and there are indeed no references in the application as to the exact location, type and extent of any markings of any buffer zones, be it for botanical, historical, zoological, hydrological or other reasons. No protective measures to ensure the survival of identified endangered plant species have been offered by the applicant. Furthermore, the retention of drainage channels to safeguard the survival of some native plants as suggested by Simpson, has not been addressed by the applicant.
It is a completely unrealistic idea to mine a site on a large scale and retain little islands with endangered plants. The dust, change in drainage pattern, compaction of ground, change of groundwater level, vibration and “accidental bulldozing” are a sure means to destroy these ‘protected islands’. In addition to that the applicant will have to bulldoze tracks, move diggers, bring in petrol trucks, build sheds, store petrol, diesel and lubricants on site, have a toilet and quite possibly dig settling ponds to collect any mining-water overflow. These auxiliary mining activities will have a negative impact on plants over an even larger area. A resource consent should therefore not be granted for botanical concerns alone.
5) The only minor references on the occurrence of native fauna on the mining claim are found in appendix 2 and appendix 1 (Mr Simpson’s report on flora). In appendix 2 the nationally endangered butterfly Orocrambus sophistes is listed as occurring in the mining area, and Mecodema chiltoni, an endangered beetle, is listed as not having been found in the Schoolhouse creek area since 1993. The beetle remark can be traced to a Ms Barratt who gave the following evidence at the Kawarau Conservation Order hearing (on which appendix 2 is based): “I acknowledge that from the results of my recent survey it is not possible to categorically state that M. chiltoni is not present...”. She goes further than that in her evidence, suggesting that she is certain that Mecodema chiltoni is present, but that the number of surviving specimens is so low that her survey methods did not detect them.
The occurrence of endangered and protected native lizards is dealt with the following sentence in appendix 2 of the application: “No lizard species were considered to occupy the areas within the proposed mining area that are considered threatened”. Appendix 2 is according to the applicant a summary of the expert witness accounts from the Kawarau Conservation Order hearing earlier this year. I have compared appendix 2 with the original documents and discovered that in reality the herpetologist at the Kawarau Conservation Order hearing distinctly identified Oligosoma sp. (the Nevis Skink) as being present on the mining claim: “Nevis skinks on....part of old stone wall up on Schoolhouse Flat, 700m west of Nevis River”. The Nevis Skink is an endemic species, only known from the Nevis Valley. It has only recently been recognized as a distinct species and has not even been assessed for the threatened species list. This example of misrepresentation by the applicant raises at least serious doubts about the reliability of the information supplied in appendix 2. An expert, up to date fauna survey needs to be done over the whole claim area which might be subjected to mining and mining related activities. Even the botanist employed by the applicant commented that present Olearia spp (tree daisies) provide “important invertebrate habitats”. Despite this no attempt has been made by the applicant to have the fauna surveyed. He merely states on p10: “...the site contains rare and threatened animal and plant species”. We fully expect Council to decline this resource consent application due to the lack of knowledge about native fauna.
6) The expected noise from screening plant, diggers, generators, trucks and cars has not been addressed by the applicant. The impact of this noise on the high recreational values of the Nevis needs to be assessed. The Nevis is a quiet back country area which has, as the applicant correctly notes on p10: “conclusion:.. The area has high recreation and landscape values..”.
7) The operating hours and days of work have not been sufficiently addressed by the applicant. The proposed 6 day a week routine (apart from Christmas Day) ignores all other public holidays and is not acceptable. The applicant has further not indicated whether lights will be used, and how many hours a day mining will occur. This information needs to be provided to evaluate the impact on recreational values, the public in general, and on animal life.
8) Because it is very common for gorse and broom to be introduced to a site via heavy machinery, we stipulate that monitoring for these and other obnoxious weeds should be included in the application. The monitoring needs to extend some years after mining has ceased and include a plan of how to eradicate introduced pest plants. It might also be appropriate for the applicant to lodge a bond with Council to ensure any costs, which could occur after mining ceases, can be met.
9) We further strongly urge the Council to demand that minimum standards are in place to protect the environment from oil and diesel spills. This is especially important in this case as groundwater will be exposed and work is proposed within ponds, drainage channels, settling ponds and in close proximity to creeks. The areas to be worked (especially along the fault line and along the creek) are wet and have full drainage into the Nevis.
10) It is further important to evaluate the possible and very likely occurrence of dust from the proposed mining operation. The 781 ha claim is situated at the eastern foot of reasonably high mountains and can thus experience strong fall-winds. The proposed mining operation will create many, many hectares of barren land (at the best covered with a thin layer of soil) which will be very prone to wind-erosion and can thus generate a lot of dust.
You must serve a copy of your submission on Golden Bush Mining Limited (the applicant), whose address for service is C/- Mark Skinner, 8 Craddock Place, Waldronville, Dunedin 9018
I/We seek the following decision from the consent authority:
[give precise details, including the general nature of any conditions sought]
Fully decline application in its present form.
I/We oppose the application
I/We wish to be heard in support of this submission.
* If others make a similar submission, I/We will consider presenting a joint case with them at a hearing.
Signature ________________________________
(To be signed by submitter or person
authorised to sign on behalf of submitter)
Date ____________________________________
Address for service of submitter:
(your postal address)
COES c/o R. Kohler, 135 McIntosh Rd, RD2 Oturehua, Central Otago
Telephone No: 4474048 (hm) Email:
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
|
