The mine and the mudfish

A mining company’s been allowed to buy land home to some of our most threatened fish. New documents show DOC feared more risk to the species. Charlie Mitchell reports.

Officials were told approving a land sale to a mining company could ‘‘very likely’’ cause further losses to a native species already on the brink of extinction, documents show.

Although the company was being prosecuted for issues related to a stream the species lives in, the sale was approved anyway, overriding objections by the Department of Conservation (DOC).

In August, the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) allowed a

31 hectare plot near Glentunnel, west of Christchurch, to be sold to mine company Bathurst Resources, which is based in Wellington but majority owned by Singaporean interests.

The land is currently a lifestyle block owned by a retired couple. The sale would be worth

$680,000; Usually, two ministers would decide on an application, but because it was worth less than $2m, the decision was delegated to staff.

The company wants to mine the land, which is several kilometres from its existing opencast coal mine. Doing so would extend the mine’s life by more than a decade, the company says, and increase its coal production by around 30,000t.

The mine primarily supplies dairy processors Fonterra and Synlait, which use industrial boilers that run on coal.

When the decision was announced, there were concerns about the potential effect on the Canterbury mudfish, one of New Zealand’s most endangered native species, which is restricted to a small number of streams in Canterbury. Among them is Bush Gully stream, which flows directly through the land to be sold.

A 2018 report on New Zealand’s native fish said ‘‘urgent action to protect Canterbury mudfish habitat is needed to avert its extinction’’ and noted its ‘‘persistence is now tenuous’’.

As part of the decision process, the OIO sought advice from DOC.

That advice, obtained by Stuff, shows a DOC official warned the agency that approving the sale could damage the already small mudfish population, and said the application may not meet conditions under the law requiring the protection of indigenous fauna.

A major concern for DOC, the advice shows, were several recent incidents related to Bathurst’s existing mine nearby.

In 2017, Bathurst was served 14 infringement notices by Environment Canterbury (ECan) for letting sediment get into the Bush Gully stream after heavy rain. Just months later, it was fined a further 13 times for the same issue.

In 2018, ECan filed charges relating to another run-off incident, resulting in an alternative justice process in which Bathurst

The highly endangered Canterbury mudfish is only found in 16 locations, all within Canterbury. paid for weed control, planting and fencing along the stream. ECan attempted to withdraw the charges but was denied by the court, and the prosecution remains active.

In none of these incidents was there evidence mudfish had been affected. The issue causing the discharges had been addressed, the company’s chief executive, Richard Tacon, said.

The OIO considered these issues under the ‘‘good character’’ requirement, but decided they did not rise to the level of rejecting the application.

THE ADVICE

In its first correspondence with the OIO, a DOC official, whose name is redacted, raised immediate concerns about what the sale would mean for the endangered mudfish. ‘‘The major concern is around how Bathurst Resources intend to use the land and what the possible impacts on the mudfish might be,’’ the official wrote.

‘‘Based on the possible impacts from mining uses and the track record of this company, it is very likely that the sale of this land could result in the further loss of a nationally critical fish species.’’

Further advice provided by DOC, dated one month before the application was approved, said the stream was a nationally significant habitat for the mudfish. It ‘‘constitutes a high proportion of Canterbury mudfish habitat’’, a DOC science advisor wrote, adding that ‘‘further loss of Canterbury mudfish habitat is unacceptable’’.

They said it was not possible to fully understand the effect of mining operations on the species as an ‘‘integrated assessment’’ had not been provided. A concern was the mine company’s plan to install a treatment pond near the stream, from which it would discharge treated mining waste.

DOC also provided a list of conditions to include should the application be approved.

The decision documents state that Bathurst, however, ‘‘did not wish to commit to implementing DOC’s recommendations for protecting the mudfish habitats in the stream’’. The final conditions show several of those recommended by DOC were not included.

While not all of DOC’s advice was taken on board, the conditions require Bathurst to do some work to protect the stream; namely, it must put up fences, move a culvert, and conduct regular water quality testing.

Tacon, said yesterday those conditions would deliver ‘‘immediate improvements’’ to the mudfish habitat.

‘‘On completing purchase of the [land], Bathurst will immediately undertake riparian fencing, weed control, and culvert realignment along Bush Gully Stream, which passes through the property,’’ he said.

‘‘We have also committed to covenanting a corridor of 20 metres from the midpoint of Bush Gully stream to contribute to the conservation of mudfish habitat, and we have also undertaken not to mine within that area.’’

He said the company had surveyed the effects of mine discharges on the mudfish habitat, and was discussing the results with ECan, which may result in changes to the existing mine’s consents.

The company was ‘‘interested in working constructively with ECan on better protections for the Canterbury mudfish,’’ he added.

BENEFITS, NOT NEGATIVES

It has highlighted the limited scope with which the OIO can make decisions.

Under the Overseas Investment Act, the OIO can only consider the benefits of an application and not any potential negative impact. The decision documents show the factor given the highest weighting in approving the deal was ‘‘job opportunities’’.

The decision summary released in August only mentioned ‘‘some new jobs’’ that would be created. The full documents confirm the number of those new jobs is five, but the OIO’s conditions only require three.

A key issue appears to be the retention of jobs at the existing mine. During peak periods, it employs around 50 people; if the mine could not expand, it would start closing down from 2023, likely leading to many of those jobs being lost, the company’s application said.

The OIO said, however, it could not confirm whether the jobs could be moved to the company’s other mines. Any mining activity would need consents from various local authorities, which would need to take into account environmental issues.