This page last modified 4 May 2002
Knobby Range
Otago Land District
Tenure review approved by Commissioner of Crown Lands xxx
CROWN PASTORAL LAND ACT 1998
KNOBBIES/CAIRNHILL TENURE REVIEW
NOTICE OF PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
Notice is given under Section 43 of the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 by the Commissioner of Crown Lands that he has put a preliminary proposal for tenure review to A R and K M McNeish and D J Harvey the holders of the Knobbies and Cairnhill Pastoral Leases.
Legal description of land concerned.
Pastoral lease land:
Run 810 Long Valley Survey District, Runs 262G and 262J Teviot Survey District, run 262E and Part Run 262C Cairnhill and Teviot Survey Districts being the land contained in Land Registry Folio Reference 386/24 (Otago Registry) comprising 4898.7197 hectares.
Part Run 570 Blocks XIII and XIV Cairnhill Survey District, Run 262F Blocks XIV and XV Cairnhill Survey District and Block VIII Teviot Survey District, Run 2621, Block XIV and XV Cairnhill Survey District and Blocks VIII and IX Teviot Survey District being the land contained in Land Registry Folio Reference 386/18 (Otago Registry) comprising 2919.0684 hectares.
General description of proposal:
(1) 1728.077 ha (approximately) to be designated as land to be restored to full Crown
ownership and control under Section 35 (2) (a) (i) of the Crown Pastoral Land Act.
(2) 6089.7804 ha (approximately) to be designated as land to be disposed of by freehold disposal to the holder under Section 35 (3) of the Crown Pastoral Land Act, subject to Part IVA of the Conservation Act 1987, and Section 11 of the Crown Minerals Act 1991.
Further information including a copy of the plan is available on request from the Commissioner's agent at the following address:
The Manager
Knight Frank (NZ) Limited
Land Resources Division
P O Box 27
ALEXANDRA
Phone (03) 448-6935
Fax (03) 448-9099
E-mail: ken.taylor@knighfrank.co.nz
Submissions:
Any person or organisation may send a written submission on the above proposal to the Commissioner of Crown Lands, C/- Knight Frank (NZ) Limited at the above address.
Closing cafe of submissions:
Written submissions must be received no later than 12 April 2002.
SUMMARY OF THE PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL FOR TENURE
REVIEW
OF THE KNOBBIES AND CAIRNHILL PASTORAL LEASES
UNDER THE CROWN PASTORAL LAND ACT 1998
INDEX:
(1) Details of land under consideration
(2) Proposal
(3) Description of proposed designations
Appendices:
Appendix 1: Plan
Po129/1 The Knobbies/Cairnhill Pastoral Leases, Preliminary Proposal for Tenure Review
(1) Details of land under consideration:
1.1 Pastoral lease:
Lease Name: Cairnhill
Lessee: A R & K M McNeish & D J Harvey
Location: Roxburgh
Land Registry Folio Ref 386118 (0tago Registry)
Legal Description: Part Run 570 Blocks VIII and IX Cairnhill
Survey
District, Run 262F Blocks XIV and XV Cairnhill
Survey District and Block VIII Teviot Survey
District, Run 2621 Block XIV and XV Cairnhill
Survey District and Blocks XIII and XIV Teviot
Survey District.
Area: 2919.0684 hectares
Local Authority: Central Otago District Council
Term of Lease: 33 years from 1 July 1989
1.2 Pastoral Lease:
Lease Name: The Knobbies
Lessee: A R & K M McNeish & D J Harvey
Location: Roxburgh
Land Registry Folio Ref: 386/24 (Otago Registry)
Legal Description: Run 810 Long Valley Survey
District, Runs 262G
and 262J Teviot Survey District, Run 262E and
Part Run 262C Cairnhill and Teviot Survey
Districts.
Area: 4898.7197 hectares
Local Authority: Central Otago District Council
Term of Lease: 33 years from 1 July 1988
(2) Proposal:
2.1 To be designated as land to be restored to full Crown ownership and control as conservation area under Section 35 (2) (a) Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998.
Area: 1728.0077 ha approximately (outlined green on diagram in Appendix 1).
2.2 To be designated as land to be disposed of by freehold disposal to A R & K M McNeish & D J Harvey under Section 35 (3) CPL Act:
Area: 6089.7804 ha (approximately) (outlined in pink on diagram in Appendix 1).
(3) Description of Proposed Designations:
3.1 Land to be designated as conservation area:
Total area: 1728.0077 ha (approximately).
The proposed conservation area consists of the entire Onslow Block of the Knobbies Pastoral Lease. This area is all of Run 810 and is located on the northern slopes of the Pinelheugh Range in the headwaters of the north branch of the Teviot River. The area is bounded to the west by the Manorburn Conservation Reserve and varies in altitude between 700 - 900 m.a.s.1. The area is composed of a broad rolling topography covered by a mosaic of undeveloped tussock grasslands, dominated by red tussock.
This block is a part of the recommended area for protection known as Manorburn 2. The retention of this area in Crown ownership goes some way towards protecting the range of features that are present in this RAP.
This block is described as being predominantly a red tussock/hard tussock community on broad rolling topography characteristic of the Manorburn Peneplain. The tussock mosaic reflects past management including fire with an overall trend of improving quality from east to west. Of note is the almost complete absence of tall shrub species. Exposed rock is also rare. Specific communities are identified including the following:
Dense red tussock grassland:
This occurs around many of the stream margins and drainage courses and in a patch fashion close to the Manorburn conservation area boundaries. These areas have escaped most recent fires and probably reflect a likely outcome for the remainder of the block if further fires are prevented. Tussocks are commonly 1 - 1.3 metres tall and form a dense canopy in some areas. Ground cover is principally sphagnum and other mosses with some exotic grasses.
Mixed red/hard tussock grassland:
This is the predominant vegetation type. It may also contain hybrids with narrow leaved snow tussock given the occurrence on adjacent lands. Red tussock-q are around 0.3 -0.4 metres tall and have resprouted from the margins of burnt bases. Hard tussock is scattered throughout with the greatest prevalence on sunny aspects. A diverse intertussock vegetation is present in this zone. Hieracium pilosella is locally abundant in the eastern parts of the block but its significance reduces greatly towards the west. Other exotic plants are generally of little significance.
Short tussock grasslands:
These have a patchy distribution on spur crests, sunny slopes and other sites of concentrated grazing. Inter-tussock species are similar to the above.
Sphagnum bog:
Small areas dominated by spaghnum moss occur on terrace depressions and alongside stream margins. Scattered red tussock-q are present and the dense ground cover is a diverse species mix.
Sedge/rush wetland:
This occupies stream margins and has a variable composition of native and introduced species reflecting hydrological and sub-strata differences. Taller plants include Juncus effusus, Carex coriacea and Festuca rubra sub species commutata. Ground cover is often dominated by sphagnum moss.
Ephemeral wetland:
An ephemeral tarn, approximately 20 metres in diameter exists at the northern end of the property. The fine silty sub-strata of this depression supports a vegetation type not seen elsewhere on the property. The generally sparse and prostrate vegetation is dominated by Plantago triandra sub species triandra, Gentiana grisebachii, Hypsela rivalis and Carex species.
Turf/heath pavement:
Scarp faces, of generally northern aspect with sparse tussock cover, have a predominance of low growing heaths and mat plants. Typical species include Raoulia subsericea, Gaultheria and Leucopogon species and Herpolirion novae-zealandia. Mouse eared hawkweed is dominant in the south-eastern end of this habitat but elsewhere is a minor component of the cover.
There is little information about the fauna of the site but a number of moth and beetle species were identified.
In summary the vegetation and fauna are representative of this portion of the Manorburn Ecological District.
3.2 Land to be designated as land to be disposed of by freehold disposal to A R & K M McNeish & D J Harvey:
Total area: 6089.7804 ha (approximately)
This land comprises the entire Cairnhill Pastoral Lease and the homestead block of the Knobbies Pastoral Lease. In combination this land ranges in altitude from the shores of Lake Roxburgh at approximately 130 m.a.s.1. to approximately 1004 metres on the crest of the Knobbie Range. A significant portion of this area was severely damaged by the wild fires in February 1999. An estimated 4080 ha of these leases has been oversown and topdressed or cultivated into improved pastures. The balance is unimproved tussock grassland largely in the headwaters of Mount Campbell and Speargrass Creeks. The main farm structures are contained within the proposed freehold area.
Within the developed area of the property there are no significant inherent values identified. Within the unimproved portion there are limited areas of mixed shrublands and Olearia shrublands. The principal species include Kanuka, Manuka, Olearia lineata plus a range of other shrub species and in areas that escaped the 1999 fires ground cover is dominated by ferns. There are limited Chionochloa rigida tussock grasslands in the vicinity of Gordon Peak with an under-storey dominated by mouse ear hawkweed. There are small areas of Chionochloa rubra tussock grasslands in the damper valley bottom of the Speargrass Creek and an area of approximately 50 ha in Mount Campbell Creek. The Mount Campbell area also includes a diverse range of intertussock species. Occasional native falcons have been identified in this area. There are a small number of tors on the eastern side of Mount Campbell Creek where a small number of native species persist in a fire refuge area.
Public access to and through the proposed freehold and to the conservation areas is well catered for by way of a network of public roads. In most cases these are formed to a basic level.
(4) The Proposal in relation to the Objects of Part 2 CPL Act:
The objects of Part 2 of the CPL Act are set out in Section 24 of the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 viz:
24. Objects of Part 2 - The objects of this part are:
(a) To:
(i) Promote the management of reviewable land in a way is that
is
ecologically sustainable:
(ii) Subject to subparagraph (i), enable reviewable land capable
of
economic use to be freed from the management constraints
(direct and indirect) resulting from its tenure under reviewable
instrument; and
(b) To enable the protection of significant inherent values of reviewable land:-
(i) By the creation of protective mechanisms; or (preferably)
(ii) By the restoration of land to full Crown ownership and control; and
(c) Subject to paragraphs (a) and (b), to make easier -
(i) The securing of public access to and enjoyment of reviewable land; and
(ii) The freehold disposal of reviewable land.
The proposal promotes the management of the land in a way that is ecologically sustainable. The proposed conservation area will lead to the removal of grazing from a vast area of tussock grassland and based on small refuge areas it is expected that this grassland will return to dominance in the absence of grazing animals. It is noted that the entire freehold area lies below an altitude of 1004 m.a.s.1. with very little of the land above 900 metres. This land is all suited to further farm development through oversowing and topdressing. The Land Use Capability indicates that some 1350 ha of Class VIIe and some 530 ha of Class VIIc. The limitations on this land are largely created through the harsh Central Otago climate. Recent oversowing has indicated that these lands can be successfully oversown and topdressed given favourable seasons for establishment. Freeing land capable of economic use from the management constraints of its current tenure will allow more ecologically sustainable mixes of land use to evolve.
It is noted that the Onslow Block is also capable of ecologically sustainable pastoral farm use. The protection of the significant inherent values has taken priority. In this case the significant inherent values have been protected by return to full Crown ownership and control. The very limited area of significant inherent values in the Mount Campbell Creek area have not been protected as tenure review is a negotiated process and this area was excluded from the proposed conservation area.
Public access is secured via existing legal roads.
APPENDIX 1:
Plan(s)
Onslow Block
DOC CONSERVATION RESOURCE REPORTS
Cairnhill Conservation Resources ( pdf 1.5 MB )
The Knobbies Conservation Resources (pdf 1.4 MB )
Landcare Research Report: Mount Campbell Creek: botanical and conservation assessment ( pdf 188k )
PANZ
Friday 12 April 2002
Knight Frank (NZ) Limited
P O Box 27
Alexandra
Submission on Preliminary Proposal Knobbies-Cairnhill Tenure Review
While PANZ welcomes the proposed public reservation of the isolated Onslow block, we believe that the failure to make provision for either Crown ownership or protective mechanisms over any of the approximately 6000 hectares of the main Knobbies Range to be unacceptable. We submit that this failure is contrary to the requirements of the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 and, unless rectified, tenure review should not proceed.
The matters requiring attention are
Recreational Overview
There is a history of relatively light recreational activity which
is confined to the Knobby Range crest, access to the Speargrass
Creek Dam, and along the Lake Roxburgh faces. Recreational use
of the Onslow block has been almost non-existent.
At the early warning meeting about this review we specifically
identified a need to maintain an open space/landscape corridor
along crest of Knobby Range, to protect the setting for recreational
activity along the linear through-accesses provided by legal roads.
The same consideration applies to the Lake Roxburgh faces, that
despite being unused directly for recreation, provides the crucial
setting for recreation on the lake.
We are most disappointed with the consideration given to public recreation in this review. This does not to recognise the full nature of recreational needs, as well established by DoC's adoption elsewhere in its functions of the recreational opportunity spectrum formula recreational experience = activity + setting. Recreation needs cannot be satisfied by access on roads alone; the settings for recreation are an integral part of the experience. There is opportunity under the CPLA to protect recreational settings in the absence of public reservations. In this case there should be extensive use of protective mechanisms, in additional to relatively limited retention of Crown ownership over remaining natural areas on the Knobby Range.
We note the CCL's advice to Knight Frank on 5 April 2000 concerning the Alphaburn tenure review that "the CPLA allows the Commissioner to address landscape issues in making decisions. This means that the Commissioner needs specific advice on this aspectand that advice must now be provided". That requirement wasn't fulfilled then and has not been fulfilled on Knobbies-Cairnhill.
Onslow Block, in relation to the rest
DoC states in their Knobbies Conservation Resources Report
(pg 8) that "from a conservation perspective the most significant
landscape on the property is the Onslow block that is essentially
an intact tall tussock grassland".
We agree that this block has the most intact tall tussock grassland, but cannot agree that this is "the most significant landscape on the property". Vegetation is but one component of landscape and is merely the current overlay of the landscape's original skeleton, which remains. The report acknowledges that this "skeleton" of craggy skylines and rocky outcrops is still intact. However, no provision has been made for the protection of this underlying landscape. This is the overwhelming character of the Knobby Range, which is aptly named.
The DoC view of "conservation" is not in accord with the definition of 'conservation' in the Conservation Act, which includes recreational values or perceptions of intrinsic landscape values in addition to a strictly ecological view. Their emphasis on "most" significant is telling. The notion that only "most significant" areas warrant protection, and lesser areas of significance (in DoC's view) don't deserve protection is erroneous and contrary to the CPLA's requirements. Section 24 (b) requires "the protection of the significant inherent values of reviewable land", not just "most significant" areas. There is ample documentation in DoC's reports, with one exception, to justify the areas we believe should be retained in Crown ownership, or with landscape protective mechanisms, in addition to the Onslow block. The exception is the Speargrass Creek escarpment, where DoC has failed to advise the CCL of obvious 'significant inherent values'.
We welcome the proposed reservation of the Onslow block however we believe that it has little recreational appeal compared to the Mount Campbell and Speargrass Creek catchments.
Our appended Photo 1 shows the Onslow block looking south towards its head. This is a relatively featureless landscape, with a pattern of small scale drainage's providing the only features. There is a uniformity of tussock cover with the only variation (not prominent) being red tussock along stream margins. There is no focus for recreational-visual attention unless botany is the primary attraction. I cannot imagine that, except for the latter activity, this area will attract many visitors. Compare this to the Mount Campbell Creek catchment (Photo 2) and Speargrass Creek (Photo 4). The Mount Campbell Creek catchment has clusters of rock outcrops on ridges and flanks and a sense of partial enclosure within the head basin. The massif of Gordon Peak provides a distinct geographical feature, that is prominent from throughout the Clutha and Manuherikia valleys, and dominates the basin. It is the most prominent crest on the Knobby Range. There is a greater diversity of vegetation patterns (Photo 3). In all, it is a more visually attractive area to visit and explore.
The same can be said for the Speargrass Creek catchment (Photo 5), with greater topographic relief, an interesting water feature outside of the properties under review but an attraction for recreational access through the properties. As well, a craggy escarpment that leads to the higher Mount Campbell Creek area dominates the catchment. In all there is far greater visual, vegetative and topographic diversity in the eastern extent of the Knobby sector of the two runs than the Onslow block. The latter is obviously important for nature conservation reasons. The former is important for both nature conservation and recreation. Both needs should be accommodated by this tenure review. Currently they are not.
There is more discussion of relative botanical values below.
Lake Roxburgh faces
Lake Roxburgh is a greatly under appreciated recreational resource,
largely due to boat access being necessary over much of it's length.
With greater awareness, this situation will change. The Knobbies-Cairnhill
faces are a rugged, arid landscape, that despite its almost complete
transformation from native vegetation to thyme, is undeveloped
(Photo 5). As the Knobbies Scoping Report acknowledges
(pg 2), these faces and the two most distant snow/red tussock
blocks around Gordon Peak are the only areas on main blocks of
the properties that remain undeveloped. Despite modification,
the Cairnhill Conservation Resource Report (pg 23) recommended
a landscape covenant along the river faces. Unfortunately this
has not been carried forward in the Preliminary Proposal.
The limited discussion on the future of these faces, in the official information supplied to us, stress that these faces are largely incapable of other uses than pastoralism; that, in the writers' view, they will largely look after themselves. No consideration is given to possible conversion to forestry or of the potential severe visual impacts of farm tracking or other earthworks. It is stretching credibility to also argue that freeholding of these faces is promoting the management of reviewable land in a way that is ecologically sustainable, as required by section 24(a). However, other than the provision of marginal strips we do not suggest that these faces require public reservation. This is because of the high degree of vegetative modification and that the face serves only as a backdrop for recreation on the lake and immediate shoreline. However this is a distinctive and classic Central Otago scene that unavoidably has significant inherent values warranting a degree of protection. Such a situation was anticipated by the CPLA under section 24(b) (i) "By the creation of protective mechanisms; or (preferably) (ii) By the restoration of the land concerned to full Crown ownership and control".
In this instance we believe that no preference requires to be given to Crown ownership. However there is an alternative obligation to create protective mechanisms. We recommend a landscape covenant under the Conservation Act with the objective of maintaining an undeveloped, open space environment. This would be implemented through prohibitions of tree planting, buildings, structures, and earthworks, and requirements for removal of wilding trees.
Knobby Range landscape protection
As raised earlier, the "skeleton" of craggy skylines
and rocky outcrops on this range is still intact. However, no
provision has been made for the protection of this.
The Knobbies Conservation Resource Report (p18), in
its discussion of recreation, states
"the legal road which dissects the property on the crest
of the Knobby Range is subject to frequent use by mountain bikers
who follow the route to Alexandra. 4WDs also use this route, although
the gate providing access is often locked. From the crest of the
Knobby Range magnificent views of the Old Man, Dunstan, Remarkables,
Hawkdun and St Bathans Ranges can be attained". This indicates
that that there is a significant level of public recreational
interest; that must have some attributes attractive to the public.
In fact this is the most frequently used part of the property.
Page 20 records NGO views that an open space/landscape corridor should be maintained along crest of Knobby Range. However on p24 this is rejected: "given that this is a modified semi cultural landscape without significant inherent natural values it is considered that its protection is a district planning issue".
Section 24(b) CPLA requires enabling the protection of the
significant inherent values of reviewable land---
(i) By the creation of protective mechanisms; or (preferably)
(ii) By the restoration of the land concerned to full Crown ownership
and control;
'Enable' means authorize, empower, supply the means to make possible (Concise Oxford). This is an active duty; not something confined to advocacy that another body fulfills this function. This is a duty of the CCL in this and every other tenure review, provided there are significant inherent values present. Therefore it is irrelevant to tenure review that DOC considers that protection is a district planning issue. It is equally irrelevant that it not current DOC policy to make provision for landscape protection on lands not under the department's control. It is the provisions of the CPLA that must prevail.
The determining question is, are there significant inherent values present?
Section 2 CPLA defines "inherent value"
"Inherent value", in relation to any land, means a value
arising from---
(a) A cultural, ecological, historical, recreational, or scientific
attribute or characteristic of a natural resource in, on, forming
part of, or existing by virtue of the conformation of, the land;
or
(b) A cultural, historical, recreational, or scientific attribute
or characteristic of a historic place on or forming part of the
land:
The range crest is modified from a vegetation point of view and to this extent it is "semi cultural" or "semi natural". It's predominant values are a grassland, being a craggy, rolling crest with "magnificent" views towards the Alexandra basin, the Old Man Range and more distant ranges (Photos 6, 7). Being a relatively low altitude this is accessible year round. Having an historic coach road over the northern part of the range, dating from the earliest gold rushes to Central Otago in 1862, is another distinctive and special attribute. This provides a dramatic and unforgettable approach to Alexandra. It made such an impression on Goldfields Commissioner Vincent Pike that he wrote about it in 1887, in his book 'A History of early Gold Discoveries in Otago". This was the only route from the Tuapeka to Dunstan Goldfield prior to the Dunstan Road being opened up. Illustrations of this route also feature in early publications about the Otago goldfields.
These attributes are cultural, historical, and recreational, which individually or collectively, qualify as 'inherent values', whether applied to a 'natural' or 'historic resource'. In this instance there is an overlap between a natural resource and historic place.
S 2, CPLA
"Natural resources" means---
(a) Plants and animals of all kinds; and
(b) The air, water, and soil in or on which any plant or animal
lives or may live; and
(c) Landscape and landform; and
(d) Geological features; and
(e) Ecosystems;---
and "natural resource" has a corresponding meaning:
The disdain for protection of this area is presumably founded on the high degree of modification of otherwise native grasslands. Snow tussock has been replaced by hard tussock and oversown exotic grasses, however the overall impression is still one of extensive tussock grasslands. It is understandable that DoC does not want to end up with responsibility for managing highly modified grasslands, but that is not necessarily a consequence of recognising the existence of inherent values of whatever attribute and enabling their protection. In any event the meaning of 'natural resources' includes "plants of all kinds", so DoC's advice that this is confined to significant inherent 'natural' values is not in accord with the requirements of the CPLA, or the Conservation Act 1987, where 'natural resources' are almost identically defined.
Given the strong historic attribute of the coach road and environs,
the area certainly qualifies as a historic place (s 2, CPLA)
"Historic place"---
(a) Means---
(i) Any land (including an archaeological site); or
(ii) Any building or structure (including part of a building or
structure); or
(ii) Any combination of land and a building or structure,---
that forms part of the historical and cultural heritage of New
Zealand; and
(b) Includes anything that is in or fixed to any such land:
The historic 'structure' of the coach road (not on the reviewable land) would be meaningless if its environs (on the reviewable land) were changed from an open landscape to an enclosed exotic forest and as a consequence numerous rocky crags and distant views became obscured. This is a combination of land and structure that forms part of the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand.
The final matter to be considered is, are the inherent values "significant" and therefore "deserving the protection of management" under the Reserves or Conservation Acts?
The Concise Oxford defines 'significant' as meaning "noteworthy, of considerable amount or effect or importance, not insignificant or negligible".
DoC describing the views ( a recreational attribute) to be obtained from the range crest as "magnificent", and the presence of a historic coach road associated with early goldfields history, at a minimum can be individually described as 'noteworthy', and cannot be dismissed as 'insignificant or negligible". Therefore the presence of these attributes, and the distinctive landscape and landform, qualify as 'significant inherent values' deserving protection under the auspices of the CPLA. This could apply to any one attribute alone, even if a narrow view were taken that the 'historic place' was on legal road (uncertain, due to uncertain alignment) and therefore not on the land subject to tenure review.
S 2, CPLA
"Significant inherent value", in relation to any land,
means inherent value of such importance, nature, quality, or rarity
that the land deserves the protection of management under the
Reserves Act 1977 or the Conservation Act 1987.
The final issue is the form of protection. There are two options under section 24(b), protective mechanisms or Crown ownership. In our view, the latter is unwarranted as it is merely a corridor of open space that needs protection, without any requirements for nature protection or public recreation within this corridor, outside of the legal road that traverses the range crest. A protective mechanism in the form of a covenant is all that is necessary. We would prefer a Section 27 Conservation Act covenant as this is more secure than other options. This is deemed to be an interest in the land that requires DoC to publicly notify and call for objections if this interest were proposed for disposal. We have little faith in the adequacy or security of QE II Trust covenants. A sustainable management covenant is our second preference, however we believe that the landscape protection we advocate is within the statutory functions of DoC and should be accepted by the department.
A landscape protection covenant should extend along the range between the southern and northern boundaries of the properties and extend down to approximately 650 metres on western faces and eastern faces/basins. If the areas we advocate for Crown ownership in the Speargrass and Mount Campbell Creeks are reserved then these can be excluded from the covenant area. Although the historic coach road only traverses the northern half of the properties, we strongly believe that the full extent of the range crest requires landscape protection. The craggy topography extends the full length of the range within the properties and 'magnificent' views are obtained throughout, all from public roads. In fact the southern sector of the range is more spectacular than the northern, especially on the climb/descent of the Speargrass escarpment (Photo 8). There is considerable potential for 4WD, foot, cycle or horse use of the southern range crest along legal roads, to the south and out to Gordon Peak all being very attractive for recreational use.
Stone Cairns and the Old Coach Road
A related matter is the presence of stone cairns marking the route
of the coach road. The Cairnhill Due Diligence Report (pg
2) states "one or two stone cairns alongside the Old Coach
Road, worthy of some form of protection, may be situated on the
lease".
The Cairnhill Scoping Report (pg 4) states "rock cairns marking the Old Coach Road will undoubtedly be subject to protection covenants' as a 'Potential Land Outcome': "historic stone cairns marking the Old Coach road from Roxburgh to Alexandra are expected to be preserved by a protection covenant" and "...agreement to covenants and easements should [be] relatively easily achieved" (pg 5).
The Cairnhill Conservation Resource Report states (pg 15) that the "coach road along the crest of the Knobby Range was the original route followed by horse-drawn coaches and bullock supply teams. Impressive stone cairns were built alongside the road to aid travelers in times of poor visibility; however none of these structures are present on Cairnhill pastoral lease". "The Knobby Coach Road is of historic significance. As the route is a legal road it is not part of the pastoral lease".
It is unclear what checking of survey plans and field inspections, if any, DoC undertook to provide the latter advice concerning the alignment of the road, and the location of the cairns. The due diligence process, which has a purpose of determining the likely position of leasehold boundaries, would be the more likely source of authoritative advice to the CCL, yet this report is uncertain as to the lease-road boundaries.
It is imperative that these boundaries are determined prior to tenure review proceeding. If portions of the road formation, or the cairns, are on leasehold then express action for their protection and public access must be made. There is an obligation to do so under section 24(b) CPLA.
Mount Campbell Creek
We are most disappointed that the headwaters of this catchment
are not proposed for public reservation in the Preliminary Proposal.
This is despite DoC identifying 'significant inherent values'
in their conservation resource reports, reinforced by independent
scientific opinion.
In the Knobbies Conservation Resource Report (pg 10)
the Chionochloa rubra tussocklands are described thus
"These are mostly restricted to small areas within the damp
valley bottom of Speargrass Creek and a more extensive area covering
approximately 50 ha comprising the head of Mount Campbell Creek
In Mount Campbell Creek the gently sloping valley floor, numerous
small gullies and flat poorly drained areas support a largely
intact red tussock cover. Some 40 native inter-species...are present".
The significance of botanical values was assessed (pg 14)
"although partially modified, Mount Campbell Creek comprises
a semi-intact red tussockland. This vegetation type which once
covered virtually the entire Manorburn plateau has mostly been
converted to a mix of short tussock/exotic grassland or degraded
Heiracium infested grasslands".
DoC recommended (pg 26)
" Campbell Creek Conservation Area (c 275 ha ex both leases)
Justification: "the headwaters of Mount Campbell Creek contain
features which sustain the special natural quality and integrity
of the high country landscape and therefore has significant inherent
values. These appear to meet criteria for protection as a priority
natural area. The head of Campbell Creek represents one of the
strongest red tussockland remnants on the Manorburn plateau".
On pg 27 these were ranked moderate to high, and low for size,
buffering.
"Given the paucity of protected red tussocklands, the area
merits protection on its representativeness alone".
These recommendations led to proposals for public reservation.
" the DGC Delegate...considers that the area should be returned
to the Crown to protect significant inherent values. The DGC delegate
considers ongoing grazing inappropriate as this will not benefit
the significant inherent values contained within the area".
CPL Preliminary Proposal Standard 8, pg 1.
"The head of Campbell Creek represents one of the strongest red tussockland remnants on the Manorburn plateau. The desirability of protecting remaining low-mid altitude red tussocklands has been well aired over recent years". CPL Preliminary Proposal Standard 8, pg 5.
However this proposal ( to reserve 275 hectares) was dropped
after objections from the lessee
"The lessee yielded to Onslow Block being fully retained
by the Crown under condition that the proposals for the Mt Campbell
Creek area be dropped". Report on Consultation, pg
3.
The lessee's reported grounds for objection were that there are "no additional values (limited conservation values) to Onslow Block and need to maintain summer grazing balance". Report on Consultation, pg 5. While the first matter is a matter of contention, the latter is not a relevant consideration under the CPLA.
DoC then commissioned an additional conservation assessment by Landcare Research scientist PN Johnson.
Johnson supported DoC's earlier moderate to high ranking, but differed with a higher ranking of "somewhere" above low for size and buffering.
Johnson's conclusions are reproduced in full below
Representativeness of proposed Conservation Area (pp 4-5)
"In the context of the Manorburn Ecological District, the
vegetation pattern and diversity in the head of Mt Campbell Creek
is, in broad terms, representative of the higher elevation character
of the District. From a vegetation and flora viewpoint the proposed
Conservation Area does not appear to contain anything unique or
rare. By comparison with the vegetation and habitats already protected
in the Manorburn Conservation Area it basically represents something
more of the same, which is not altogether a bad thing considering
(a) that it is some 13 km distant from Manorburn CA and represents
a more westerly portion of the Ecological District, and (b) that
conservation advantages could be argued for a further, discrete
conservation site ('more than one egg-in-the basket')".
"There is also a more local scale within which to consider the values and significance of this proposed Conservation Area, namely the context of the Knobby Range itself. In the absence of the upper Mt Campbell Creek Conservation Area, what other actual or potential sites for conservation protection are there anywhere near the range crest? On other, higher, Central Otago Ranges, land has been retired from pastoral use for several reasons, including for soil and water conservation purposes, and for protection of more alpine habitats, biota, and landscapes. The Knobby Range does not rise to a subalpine or alpine zone, and the range crests are at a level where pastoral farming remains an alternative or competing land use with biological conservation. But might there not be an argument also for ensuring that some portion, like the Mt Campbell Creek head, should be protected against further pastoral development, as a representation of the 'original' character of the range crest landscape and plant cover".
"Finally, the innate character of the head of Mt Campbell Creek is such that when one is there on the ground, there is no feeling of being merely within some pocket handkerchief of tussock country. Instead the uplifted viewpoint within a setting of broad headwater basin, with a skyscape and landscape that stretches to far-distant ranges, gives a scenic appeal to the place, to which the diversity of tussock and wetland add biological authenticity. In a nutshell: a place with high biological conservation, and charm to boot". Mt Campbell Creek: botanical and conservation assessment.
However, the proposal for a conservation area was dropped from the Preliminary Proposal on the basis of Knight Frank's advice to the CCL that, in reference to the Johnson report, there is "nothing unique or rare", and "more of the same" (compared to the Onslow block) in Mount Campbell Creek. CPL Preliminary Proposal Standard 8, pg 10. DoC and Landcare emphasis on 'representativeness', and 'uniqueness' has probably contributed to the KF advice, which is inconsistent with the provisions of the CPLA.
The primary consideration of section 24, when considering freeholding is the "promotion of the management of reviewable land in a way that is ecologically sustainable". It is only when it is reasonably anticipated, based on best present day knowledge, that existing or new unspecified land uses will be ecologically sustainable with the removal of its present tenure restaints, that freeholding can be justified.
There is no assurance contained in the advice to the CCL that this central requirement will be satisfied. Quite the reverse. DoC stated that "this vegetation type which once covered virtually the entire Manorburn plateau has mostly been converted to a mix of short tussock/exotic grassland or degraded Heiracium infested grasslands", Knobbies Conservation Resource Report, pg 14.
An immediately adjoining catchment of wall-to-wall heiracium provides a stark illustration of land degradation under past and existing pastoral use. The dominance of this invasive weed, to the exclusion of almost everything else, provides graphic evidence of ecological instability. Given that there is so little tall tussock left in the general locality, and conversely so much has been degraded, provides compelling evidence that the existing use is unsustainable. If the intensity of use were to increase through the removal of tenure restraints, the process of degradation can only be accelerated. A primary driver for enactment of the CPLA was realisation that exploitive pastoralism over 'unimproved' tussock grasslands in the SI high country is unsustainable. There is now increasing awareness that even with fertiliser and sowing inputs, including on better land such as Class VI lands with only moderate limitations to pastoral use, this use is unsustainable evidenced by falling production.
The land in question in Mount Campbell Creek is LUC Class VII. This has severe limitations to pastoral use.
Freeholding of these lands would be a failure to promote the management of this land in a way that is ecologically sustainable (section 24(a) ).
The co-objective of Part 2 of the CPLA is to enable the protection of the significant inherent values of reviewable land (section 24(b) ).
The advice contained in conservation resource reports clearly identifies such values. Aside from discussion of uniqueness and representativeness contained with this advice, other criteria to qualify as an area of land with 'significant inherent values' are met.
Cf. section 2 CPLA
"Inherent value", in relation to any land, means a value
arising from---
(i) A cultural, ecological, historical, recreational, or scientific
attribute or characteristic of a natural resource in, on, forming
part of, or existing by virtue of the conformation of, the land;
or
(ii) A cultural, historical, recreational, or scientific attribute
or characteristic of a historic place on or forming part of the
land:
"Significant inherent value", in relation to any land, means inherent value of such importance, nature, quality, or rarity that the land deserves the protection of management under the Reserves Act 1977 or the Conservation Act 1987:
"Natural resources" means---
(a) Plants and animals of all kinds; and
(b) The air, water, and soil in or on which any plant or animal
lives or may live; and
(c) Landscape and landform; and
(d) Geological features; and
(e) Ecosystems;---
and "natural resource'' has a corresponding meaning:
The dismissal by Knight Frank of this as a qualifying area for protection, on the basis that there is "nothing unique or rare" and "more of the same", is in error either in fact or in law.
An area of 'significant inherent value' requires sufficient importance, quality, OR rarity, to deserve protection. It doesn't require all these factors. The conservation resource reports, including the Johnson report, clearly document the importance and quality of the area. That quality of the area is, as stated
"The head of Campbell Creek represents one of the strongest red tussockland remnants on the Manorburn plateau. The desirability of protecting remaining low-mid altitude red tussocklands has been well aired over recent years". CPL Preliminary Proposal Standard 8, pg 5.
The importance derives from the paucity of comparable areas, which necessitates the desirability of protecting what remains. Therefore a "more of the same" argument is erroneous even if it were correct, which it is not. It is also made out of context.
Johnson's "more of the same" comment was contained
in
"By comparison with the vegetation and habitats already protected
in the Manorburn Conservation Area it basically represents something
more of the same, which is not altogether a bad thing considering
(a) that it is some 13 km distant from Manorburn CA and represents
a more westerly portion of the Ecological District, and (b) that
conservation advantages could be argued for a further, discrete
conservation site ('more than one egg-in-the basket')".
Besides, Johnson recorded significant vegetative differences with the Manorburn CA (immediately adjacent to the Onslow block) in his Table 1. There is 35% 'dense wetland red tussock' at Mt Campbell Creek compared to 11% at Manorburn, and other significant differences in the mixes between hard and tall tussock. These differences are visually obvious and the reason why I commented earlier that there is greater recreational appeal to the Mt Campbell Creek catchment, compared to Onslow. Additionally, the more featured relief, and rock outcrops (absent from Onslow), make Mt Campbell a place "with high biological conservation, and charm to boot". Visitors' perceptions of the area are an integral part of its recreational attributes, being another qualifier of 'significant inherent value'.
We submit that the 275 hectares earlier identified by DoC as deserving protection as a Crown area be so reserved, however this area should be extended to the summit of Gordon Peak to ensure protection of landscape values and availability for public recreation, for the whole 'visual' catchment.
Speargrass Creek and escarpment
Early on in the tenure review process this catchment was identified
as having some values that require protection
'Known Significant Inherent values/Public Use'
"Only the two undeveloped eastern blocks containing the headwaters
of Mount Campbell Creek and the faces above Speargrass Creek could
hold ecological values (red tussock/dome swamps) that may be subject
to some form of protection covenant". Cairnhill Scoping
Report, pg 4.
It is surprising that little official attention has been directed to this catchment, given the red tussock along the stream sides and the vigorous cover of snowgrass and native shrubs along its prominent eastern escarpment (Photo 9). An area in the upper catchment has been developed, but this is confined to one bank.
From a recreational perspective this is probably the most 'scenic' part of the properties. The Cairnhill Scoping Report (pg 4) states "the best (public) access to Speargrass dam involves a short section on the property and has been regularly used. It is anticipated that a public access covenant will be required". My knowledge is that this is frequently used by anglers for access to the dam.
It is obvious that there are significant inherent values present that have either been officially overlooked, or downplayed, to enhance acceptance of the Preliminary Proposal.
We submit that the undeveloped portions of the catchment be re-evaluated for possible retention in Crown ownership.
Speargrass public access easement
The Cairnhill Conservation Resource Report (pg 22) recommended
public access to the proposed Mount Campbell Conservation Area
via Speargrass Creek by foot, mountain bike, horse, with guns/dogs
subject to hunting permit.
"This route will provide the most practical access to the
proposed Mount Campbell Conservation Area. A legal road round
the head of Speargrass creek will provide an alternative but less
direct route. This legal road also provides a potential opportunity
for a round trip..."
CPL Preliminary Proposal Standard 8, stated (pg 1) that this "will enhance existing access to the proposed Mount Campbell conservation area in addition to the present legal road access", and it would provide public with a "round trip" opportunity" (pg 7).
Along with the proposed Mount Campbell Creek conservation area, this proposed easement was dropped from the Preliminary Proposal.
The rationale advanced for dropping this easement was that "enhancing access exceeds objects of securing public access".
Irrespective of the future prospects of a conservation area in Mount Campbell Creek we believe that it is desirable to have an easement at least as far as southern boundary of the properties at Speargrass Creek. This would allow a connection to (future) marginal strips on the adjoining Matangi pastoral lease and hence access to the dam.
If a conservation area is established in Mt Campbell Creek, we believe that it is highly desirable to utalise the proposed easement through Speargrass Creek for access. This route is only 4.5 km long of relatively easy going, compared to 8 km along range-crest legal roads. The latter involves a substantial climb up the eastern escarpment at its highest point.
We are unimpressed by the argument that "enhancing access exceeds objects of securing public access". Section 24 (c) (i) entails "the securing of public access to and enjoyment of reviewable land". There is no inherent exclusion of 'enhancement' while 'securing' access to a particular area. Besides, the duty is to secure access to and enjoyment of 'reviewable land', meaning all the land under review and not just those areas destined to be vested in DoC. As already noted we believe that an easement should be secured at least as far as Speargrass Creek.
Legal roads
There is a generic problem under current tenure review procedures
concerning public roads. This is well illustrated by the current
review.
The best the Cairnhill Due Diligence Report (pg 2) can state is that "five legal [formed] roads appear to follow legal alignments" (our emphasis).
It is crucial that, for assurance of public access to any lands reserved or for through passage along recreational attractions such as the Old Coach Road, that the alignments be determined and rectified as required. This should be a matter of priority for the Crown, given the duty to secure public access and recreational enjoyment under the CPLA. Public roads provide the greatest security of access of any mechanism available in New Zealand, far superior to easements currently the primary focus of official attention. To leave the status and alignment of an existing network of public roads uncertain, while creating new accessways such as easements is a misapplication of resources. Once tenure review is complete there will never be another comprehensive opportunity to rationalise existing roads for the benefit of local occupiers and visitors alike.
Lack of transparency on marginal strip requirements
There is another generic problem that must be addressed as a matter
of priority. This is the CCL's instruction of 17 November 1999
that all decisions relating to marginal strips are to made by
the DG Conservation's delegate for tenure review. Consequently,
with all marginal strip decisions internalised within DoC and
Chief Surveyors' offices, there is no public accountability for
official performance. This is despite marginal strips often being
intimately related to public access easements being proposed through
the advertised tenure review process, or reliant on connections
to existing public roads. It is a nonsense, when it is the disposition
of Crown land through tenure review that is the trigger for creating
marginal strips, that these actions are arbitrarily divorced from
the public arena.
It is not good enough for the Knobbies Due Diligence Report to state that Lake Roxburgh and the North Branch of the Teviot River are possibly the only margins requiring strips. There has to be certainty, with the extent of strips publicly identified so that easements or other mechanisms can rectify deficiencies in access. The public has a right to know, given that these strips are supposed to be for public benefit.
There is a popular myth that decisions relating to the creation of marginal strips are merely 'technical' in nature; that there is no room for discretion. After all, anyone can use a tape measure and read off 3 metres! Unfortunately the official information supplied to PANZ on tenure reviews so far conducted under the CPLA reveal a 'variable' bordering on appalling official performance. Rarely do any official comments on marginal strip requirements correctly cite the Conservation Act in this regard. Section 24 requires strips along any river or stream of an average width (bank crest to bank crest) of 3 metres or more. Invariable this requirement is corrupted into "3 metres or more", with it uncertain what the official doing a field inspection, if at all, is measuring beds from bank to bank, or the width of the wet watercourse? The result of this 'confusion' can be huge discrepancies in the reaches determined to require strips. It appears that normal practice is to extend strips only as far upstream to where it first narrows to 3 metres. Such a practice is of course not an average width. An average width would extend further upstream and include reaches narrower than 3 metres. There is a classic case that PANZ is shortly to comment on where a Chief Surveyor made a '3 metres or greater' decision, and now DoC has to rectify this error by extending the strip further upstream (essential for access to a proposed conservation area beyond). Conversely I believe that if such judgements are being left to DoC, that different officers with be making vastly different decisions. This is why these decisions must be made an integral part of the public tenure review process and open to submission.
Please note that on 23 March 2002 I made an official information request to LINZ for a copy of the CCL's instructions so that this information could be drawn upon for this submission. As I have yet to receive this, PANZ reserves the right to make further comment on this aspect on this and other tenure reviews.
Yours faithfully
Bruce Mason
Researcher & Co-Spokesman
Appendices
9 A4 colour photographs