Amelia McQueen: Special habitat may be lost in swap

Makaroro River valley - site of the proposed Ruataniwha Water Storage project.

There is more to the Department of Conservation (DoC)-Ruatanwhia "land swap" than meets the eye and it is timely that certain points are clarified, particularly in response to Talking Points posed by Messrs Krebs and Christie.

Late last year DoC called for submissions on, firstly, the revocation of Conservation land (in other words the demotion of Conservation land to the lower status of stewardship land) and, secondly, comments relating to the proposed land swap of 22ha of Conservation land for 146ha of hill country within the Public Trust, Smedley Farm Station.

First let us consider the revocation of Conservation land.

The revocation has been proposed to enable the land swap to go ahead. The Conservation Act doesn't provide for conservation park land to be swapped, so DoC is trying to get around the issue by revoking the land's conservation status (ie. specially protected).

Hey, presto: now its stewardship land and can be given away. This is a dangerous precedent and a concerning approach by DoC to the Conservation Act.

During the DoC hearing held this month it was suggested that the submitter give reasons why the Conversation land should not be revoked. Many reasons were given, some of which are:

-The Conservation land comprises of acutely and chronically threatened land environments. These are land environments where there is less than 10 per cent or only 10-20 per cent of these environments left within New Zealand and are top priority for protection.

-A range of threatened species are present within and or frequent the Conservation land. For example, New Zealand long-tailed bat, New Zealand falcon, North Island fernbird, red mistletoe and indigenous fish species. These species are also top priority for protection within the National Biodiversity Strategy.

-The Conservation land is an intact, diverse area of native vegetation which is continuous with Ruahine Conservation Park and is associated with major streams and rivers (ie. Dutch Creek and Makaroro River).

With these telling merits, it is hard to see how and why the Conservation land should be revoked.

Now, on to the proposed Conservation land/Smedley block land swap. At face value it would seem that DoC is indeed getting a bargain - gaining more land for less. However, looking at the detail, there is a major ecological flaw with the land swap.

It is common ecological practice when "swapping" land that a "like for like" principle is used. A bit like swapping apples with apples and in this case the analogy of swapping 22 diamonds for 146 glass gems comes to mind.

Again many examples of why the land swap is not equivalent can be given, some of which are:

-The Smedley block contains no acutely threatened land environments. So, if the land swap occurred there would be an automatic loss of land environments that are New Zealand's top priority for protection.

-The Smedley block comprises grazed uphill lands of pasture and forest (with minimal understory) whereas the Conservation land comprises of intact lowland habitats (eg. forest, shrublands, riparian areas and wetlands).

-The wetland areas within the Smedley block and the Conservation land differ significantly in type, hydrology and nutrient status.

-The Smedley block does not have the threatened species red mistletoe or North Island fernbird (based on surveys done by the dam applicant's ecologist).

Any Ruatanwhia Water Storage Scheme land swap should ensure that the "like for like" principle is met.

Possum control within the Smedley land-exchange area and the broader discussion of pest control have also been highlighted within Krebs' Talking Point article and, again, there is a need to look at these issues in slightly more detail.

Possum control has and does already occur within the Smedley Farm Station (including the area designated for the land swap) due to the landowner's own initiatives and as part of a broader possum control/TB programmes run by the Hawke's Bay Regional Council and Animal Health Board. Any mitigation measures (eg. pest control) offered by the dam applicants must be above and beyond what is already occurring.

Lastly, the dam applicants' ecologist stating that "pest control was a top priority" was one viewpoint voiced at the board of inquiry hearing. Others considered that habitat was as important if not more important than pest control.

Both arguments have merit but let us consider logically if habitats of threatened species were destroyed there would a rapid decline or local extinction of those species. So what is the point of pest control? There will be no threatened species for the pests to eat.

The conservation land at stake contains very important habitats for our threatened species. If these habitats go, so too goes our special biodiversity. The Department of Conservation has some hard decisions ahead of it.

-Dr Amelia McQueen is a Senior Lecturer, School of Applied Science, EIT and a member of the Te Taiao Hawke's Bay Environment Forum

-Business and civic leaders, organisers, experts in their field and interest groups can contribute opinions. The views expressed here are the writer's personal opinion, and not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz