MT BURKE AND GLEN DENE PASTORAL LEASE TENURE REVIEW
A Review of How Tenure Review has
Enabled the Protection of Significant Inherent Landscape Values
8.1 Final Outcome for Glen Dene
A number of the points raised were taken into consideration and addressed by the DOC
(through the DGC delegate), LINZ and the holder. The final outcome is an improvement on the preliminary proposal.
There has been a slight increase in the extent of landscape protected by retention of land in
Crown ownership as conservation area, with the total freehold area decreasing by 301ha from 5902ha to 5601ha. Over 70% of the lease has been privatised however. More of this land has been covenanted however.
Wanaka Faces
The future of the SIVs on the Wanaka faces is slightly brighter now. The proposed narrow strip of covenanted freehold land along the Lake Wanaka shore line will be retained by the
Crown as conservation land, thus increasing the CA3 area by 103ha. The shore line strip has also been enlarged by extending it up to the 500m contour and pulling it northward by
2.5km. The faces between this strip and the crest remain freehold but with a covenant to protect landscape values.
The northernmost 4km of the Wanaka faces is omitted from the protected areas. The reasoning for this is not given.
The omission of the northern 4km of lake faces (see photo left) is not a good outcome. The faces should be protected as a whole, to protect the integrity of landscape. The areas closest to the Neck are most visible from the highway. They are part of the setting for the wetlands. The omitted area comprises two large rugged catchments with remnants of beech forest in them.
They are not different from the rest of the area, in fact the two catchments are amongst the largest and most rugged, with most of the remnant beech forest.
The 500m contour is an undesirable arbitrary line. An unnatural visual change is likely, with burnt, topdressed and grazed land above and regenerating shrubland in bracken below. The proposed strip of conservation land is wider, but, in the bigger ecosystem picture, its long narrow shape makes it vulnerable. Woody cover would extend higher in places than 500m given the opportunity. No buffer zone is proposed within the covenanted area adjacent.
Burning could occur right up to the edges of the conservation area.
Extension of the conservation area all the way to the Neck would allow for easier public access, as restriction to access along the marginal strip would be difficult according to the
DOC.
The details of the proposed covenant are of concern. The schedule for this covenant area
1

contains an incomplete and inadequate description of values, limited to a paragraph of five lines on landscape values and no description at all of the ecological and recreational values present (both existing and potential). There are no objectives set for the area which makes it very difficult to determine in a systematic and objective way if on-going farming use is contributing towards or is detracting from the existing values, or to the achievement of enhanced values.
This covenant area does not even have the clause included that applies to CC1, that “the
Owner will take all reasonable steps to reverse any negative trends in the conditions of the values revealed by the monitoring programme which can be reasonably attributed to his/her use of the land”, 1 ; nor is any monitoring proposed. The Owner (the current lessee) is permitted to keep grazing the area with sheep and cattle, and is permitted to keep burning, spraying and AOSTD to the crest over 1300m altitude. The outcome will be a conversion of bracken and short and tall tussock to exotic pasture with associated loss of visual coherence and naturalness and an overall reduction in landscape and ecological value.
There is no buffer zone on the top side of the conservation strip CA3, to protect from spray drift or burning. There is no fencing proposed to prevent stock entering the conservation area although a fence line is undesirable as a potentially intrusive visual line. The altitudinal sequence of indigenous vegetation will be rendered more incomplete. If there was no further burning and spraying a more intact altitudinal sequence could potentially be attained.
This outcome is not preferable to allowing regeneration of indigenous communities over these steep dramatic faces, the top third of which is over 1000m raising the issue of ecologically sustainable management. This aspect has not been addressed in the final proposal.
Without prevention of burning and spraying over these faces, a covenant is of little additional benefit compared to unencumbered freehold.
There are also still no provisions for public access over any part of the Wanaka faces apart from the CA3 strip along the bottom (which stops short of the right side of the photo above and is thus discontinuous to the Neck area, which is not far to the left of the photo).
CC1
The Craig Burn to Halls Creek area is still proposed for freehold disposal subject to a protective covenant, which does preclude burning and spraying, etc. Two small extensions to the area have improved it slightly.
Submitters had sought Crown ownership however which would have allowed public access and enjoyment of the area as well as better protecting the values present. This was rejected because, it was stated, the area does not extend to from lake to lake and is not adjacent to any other large conservation area. The area itself is of the same scale as the proposed CA3 conservation area, and includes whole catchments. It could easily extend lake to lake if the
Wanaka faces were put into conservation area and if the enclave between Stewarts and
Halls Creek were included. Connectivity to CA3 would be easily achieved if all land over
1000m were protected as conservation area.
This reason is not acceptable and lacks foundation. Crown ownership as conservation area is the preferable outcome for this area, particularly as public access and enjoyment of this rugged and interesting area would be possible.
The covenant instrument has been reviewed by LINZ subsequent to submissions. The LINZ final analysis report states that “following further consultation with DGC's delegate and the holder some aspects of the photo monitoring and also the values to be protected have been clarified further”.
There has been an effort to set out the relevant values of the area in a more comprehensive way, with three lines about landscape values added (not explicit enough to be useful). As with CC2 there are no objectives set for the area against which to measure monitoring. With
1 Clause 10 in Schedule 2 of the Conservation Covenant Agreement for CC1
2

an absence of objectives set out for the area concerned, there is nothing to check the effect of on-going farming activities against. Example objectives might be like: an increase in the number of species present; an increase in the area of cover where more than 80% of the cover per ha is indigenous; presence of a set percentage of juvenile plants. The on-going farming use has to be able to demonstrate that it is compatible with and supports steadily increasing ecological (and thus landscape) values. Merely sustaining the status quo is not enough. It is doubtful a monitoring programme based on a few photo points is enough to comprehensively determine the effect of on-going grazing and AOSTD. Sampling and observation on foot should also be part of the monitoring.
The issue of absence of provision for any public access to enable the enjoyment of and exploration of the area (beyond just looking at it) remains.
Mt Burke Creek CA3 area
The submitters called for widening of the outlet of the area in Mt Burke Creek. The widening point was not accepted, however the area has been extended down the Craig Burn to SH6 and public access is now entirely within the conservation area traversing the true left of the
Craig Burn. This area also includes riparian shrublands connecting to shore line shrublands.
This is a positive outcome. This proposal allows now a lake to lake transect across the whole range.
Long Valley Creek
There is no proposal to change the freehold disposal of this area, despite the fact much of the headwater basin is over 1000m altitude and it separates the CA3 area from the CC1 area. The analysis report states that the valley has no SIVs, however DOC did recommend that the upper valley be retained as crown land, as conservation area.
Lakeside Landscapes
The conservation area CA2 between the highway and Lake Hawea – a narrow strip of land covered mostly in regenerating shrubland – has been extended to around twice its length with an increase in area from 6ha to 10ha.
The Crown has since acquired some areas, eg, around the “diversion “and in the area by the Neck, so these areas are now publicly accessible.
The Neck Wetland
This proposal has been amended positively. The Neck wetland area has been enlarged from 6ha to almost 50ha including a connection to the lake. There is some concern however that the fence line indicated is still very close to the edge of the actual wetlands and therefore may not include the whole catchment area or perhaps an adequate area of landscape context given the land over the fence on the newly acquired freehold will be burnt and grazed heavily to convert to exotic higher producing pasture to support deer, sheep and cattle. There is also no buffer zone proposed here, between the freehold and the conservation area. Fire in the recent past has already got out of control and burnt right to the edge of the wetlands (see photo below).
3

The Neck Wetland Area after uncontrolled burning (Dec 2005)
Access Points and Routes

Access has been provided between the highway and Bum Bay, however the submission that a recreation reserve be established here has been rejected. This is because the area was not identified in DOC's recommendations as having value and it is developed farm land (notwithstanding it has value as a lake side area, is seminatural in character and would re-generate into shrubland if left undisturbed). LINZ also stated it was thought there was enough land outside the lease for recreational use in the bay.

The route up Stewarts Creek was reviewed. DOC considers that a formed track suitable for mountain bikes will be possible, and the lessee is adamant there be no public access up the 4WD track. Without being able to inspect the area, it is not possible to say whether this is a good decision or not. It must be noted that the 4WD track is not on the legal road alignment.

The submission point regarding foot access from the Neck to Isthmus Peak was reviewed. This proposal was rejected, as the lessee felt there were too many points of public access and that it would interfere with farming. DOC considered it would be too expensive and difficult to put a track up this route (although a poled route was not considered). Similarly provision of foot access along the Lake Wanaka shoreline was rejected. With the extension of the wetland conservation area at the Neck to the lake, public access to and along the shore (within the marginal strip) will be possible.
The provision of access along a track from the Neck to the new conservation area would have secured easier access however.
The closure period point was also re-visited but no change is proposed. The easements giving access to the summit ridge will remain closed through October and November for fawning and lambing. This is unfortunate, preventing access in a key tramping period.
Access will be possible to the summit ridge up the Mt Burke Creek but there will be no access from the CA3 area to Isthmus Peak over these two months.
9 CONCLUSION
4

This audit report set out to analyse how well and to what extent the tenure review process recognised and provided for the protection of significant inherent values on Mt Burke and
Glen Dene pastoral leases.
The final outcome for Mt Burke pastoral lease is still unknown; however the preceding reports give a good idea of how the outcome is shaping up.
It is clear in the Glen Dene case that public submissions have made a difference, and the final proposal is an improvement on the advertised proposal. A number of the points raised by submitters have not been addressed in a positive way however, for example, no protection of the faces below Isthmus Peak and inadequacy of the covenant agreements.
With respect to both properties, whilst there are some very good outcomes, on the whole they remain far from satisfactory and continue to illustrate that tenure review is falling short of its objectives. There is a failure to enable protection of identified significant inherent values on both leases. This is reflected in the number, tenor and depth of the submissions.
Most significant failures have been;

the failure to recognise and provide for the values and mainland island potential of
The Peninsula, a highly significant natural landscape feature

the failure generally to recognise potential for enhancement of landscape and ecological values

the proposal to allow freeholding of the East Wanaka Creek catchment rather than secure Crown ownership

the poor recreation reserve alternative to the Flax Paddock

the proposed freeholding of all the eastern faces and southern end of the Maude
Ridge

the freeholding of the main summit ridge and the Wanaka Faces, with an ineffective covenant over the Faces

failure to recognise the vulnerability of lake side areas and ensure their protection from subdivision and development

absence of any form of protection over the Isthmus Peak Faces

no public access to the main summit ridge and basins aside from a narrow easement

no access permitted to the main ridge for two months in spring

inadequate conservation covenants
A major shift in the proposal for Mt Burke and amendments to the Glen Dene final proposal would be required to bring them to a state that meets the objectives of the CPLA and adequately recognises and provides for the public interest; and is consistent and conforming with other Government objectives (Government Objectives for the High Country 2003 and the NZ Biodiversity Strategy). This shift would also be required if DOC is to meet its objectives for the Wanaka Special Place set out in the Otago Conservation Management
Strategy, namely, through tenure review, to identify and negotiate protection for areas of significant indigenous vegetation and fauna and outstanding landscape, and to secure greater public access.
5