Otago Conservation Board chairwoman Associate Prof Abigail Smith alerted the Southland Conservator to this concern in a recent letter, a copy of which was tabled at an Otago board meeting in Dunedin yesterday.
The letter highlighted "implications for Greenstone and Caples valleys" and asked the board's advice be given "serious consideration".
The board was concerned the granting of the proposed Riverstone Holdings Ltd Fiordland-related monorail concession would bring into effect clause 5.3.1 of the Ngai Tahu Deed of Settlement.
The board understood this clause "could require the minister to consent to a monorail or road up the Greenstone Valley or a gondola up the Caples valley", Prof Smith said.
Clause 5.3.1 in the deed of settlement states that if the minister permitted the undertaking of "any development of any form of road or railway" between Lake Wakatipu and the Milford road through the Snowdon conservation area, the minister would not withhold consent, under clause 5.1, for "any proposed development of the same kind or a similar kind" by "the landholder on the land".
This applied if the area affected by the first development had "ecological and recreational values of equal or greater significance" to the other development, and the landholder's proposed development had "no greater impact" on the environment than the permitted development.
Restrictions involving "ecological and recreational values of equal or greater significance" and having "no greater impact on the environment" were subjective and those "obstacles" might not apply, the letter suggested.
The board was concerned granting the concession and bringing into effect the clause could have "an adverse effect on public conservation land in Otago".
"What this means is that granting the Riverstone Holdings Ltd concession may have the effect of granting two concessions, about one of which no detail is available," Prof Smith said.
"If Riverstone's application were to be for two transport systems, about one of which no information was provided, it would undoubtedly be declined as incomplete.
"Yet that is essentially the situation that exists now, except that another entity may construct the second transport system.
"We recognise that it would be almost impossible for Riverstone Holdings Ltd to provide information about a project which the company does not control.
"We also acknowledge that Ngai Tahu may not currently have any intention to invoke clause 5.3.1. But the clause was not "time-limited".
"If the Riverstone concession is granted, there is nothing to stop Ngai Tahu from proceeding with a proposal in 10 years' time, or in 50 years' time."
The board advised the Riverstone application "should be declined", in the absence of "a firm Ngai Tahu proposal for a transport system in the Caples or Greenstone valleys".
This was, in other words, in the absence of information enabling the conservator to "consider the combined effect of the Riverstone monorail and a parallel Ngai Tahu operation".
Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu kaiwhakahaere Mark Solomon was overseas yesterday and could not be contacted for comment.
The May 16 letter, which has been copied to the Conservation Minister, Director-general of Conservation and Southland Conservation Board chairman, notes the period for submissions on the Fiordland monorail proposal by Riverstone Holdings Ltd has closed.
That application had not mentioned any area within the Otago board's jurisdiction. But the Greenstone and Caples were.
