26 July 2002
Mr Simon Johnson
44 Winchester Street
LYTTELTON
Thank you for your letter concerning the Department's processing of the "Routeburn Rage" mountain run concession. I appreciate you bringing these issues to my attention and apologise for the delay in bring this response to you. You have highlighted three main areas of concern which I will address below.
Some background first. As you know the application to stage this mountain run was for a one-off, one day event, since the event was held in May this year the concession has now expired and contains no rights of renewal. Also, this particular concession application was subjected to two concession application processes. The first time was a notified process for an event to be held in May 2001. This event was never held. The second application was for the very same activity in May 2002. This second application was processed as a non-notified application because the Department believed that the information gained from the first round of public notification was still current and relevant.
This concession, like all concessions of this type, was sent to both the Southland and the Otago Conservation Boards and the Department's area and technical support staff in both conservancies. Ngäi Tahu also had the opportunity to comment on the application. Because the application was effectively processed twice most of these parties had the opportunity to comment twice. During the first round of processing the application was also publicly notified for the mandatory 40 working days.
The combination of input from staff, the public, Iwi and public representatives of the respective conservation boards are all checks and balances incorporated into the concession process to gain representative views and ensure the level of subjectivity is reduced in the decision-making processes. These parties also help us to test the acceptance or otherwise of any potential adverse effects that may stem from a concession application. The Otago Conservation Board, Department's area and technical support staff in both conservancies and Iwi supported the granting of this concession.
2
In hindsight I agree with you that it would have been better to have had this information incorporated into the first determination report for this application. In the case of this event, the submissions and concerns raised by you and others prompted the Department to look more closely at the proposal. The introduction of this information was done in the interests of making an informed decision on this application.
Your concerns relate to the validity and representativeness of the postcard submissions lodged in support of the race. Form submissions are a technique that have been used by interest groups for many years. While these submissions were not likely to be representative of the broader public view, that does not lessen the requirement to consider them. What weight is attached to them is of course a matter for the decision-maker.
The question of whether the application should have been notified a second time was considered by my staff. Given that the change to the application was of a minor and technical nature (i.e. it was the same application with a different date) the Department was confident that the interests and views of the public had been ascertained and that a second round of advertising was not, therefore, necessary.
This is not the case. The Conservation Act 1987 requires applicants to describe any actions that will “avoid, remedy, or mitigate" any potential adverse effects. When designing and scoping the effects of any proposal, identifying alternative dates or locations is a legitimate way of reducing potential effects. This is common practice for guiding concessions which often have conditions limiting their activities during the peak season or during weekends.
3
Holding the event in May was always only one aspect of mitigating the potential effects of this activity and no measure should be viewed in isolation. The standard and special conditions of the concession represent other mitigation measures and I have attached examples of these for your information. You will see that these include conditions to notify the public of the event in the paper, at visitor centres and at each end of the track. I accept that these could have included a condition that requires the concessionaire to notify tramping clubs of the event and that a notice could also have been posted on the Department's web-site.When scoping the effects of this event the Department took the precautionary approach of advising the applicant to lodge an application for a single event only. This was done so that the Department could 'trial' the event and monitor the effects of the activity. Any proposal for another run will be subject to a fresh application for a concession. The application will be processed under Part IIB of the Conservation Act 1987.
When considering this application the Otago Conservation Board asked the Department to commission a survey to monitor the social effects of the event on other users. This was done at the applicant's expense and the results are now available. I thought that you would be interested in this work so I have attached a copy of the monitoring report for your information.
I agree with you that the Routeburn Track is a special place befitting of its national park status and as such we must all work to protect it and the experiences that it offers visitors. I am satisfied that the Department took the proper steps necessary to process and manage this concession.
Thank you again for your letter and the concerns you have expressed. I value these comments because they help the Department to continually improve the way in which it processes and manages concessions activities on public conservation lands.
Yours sincerely
Hugh Logan
Director-General