High level Peer Review on the Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports (Oreti/Mararoa Route Options)

Transcription

1 High level Peer Review on the Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports (Oreti/Mararoa Route Options) Conducted for Marcus Roy Resource Management Planner, Southland District Council High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports, December

2 Information Document Reference Author Sign off High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports (on the Oreti/Mararoa Options) Gordon Cessford, Craig Jones, Version 1.2 Date 17 th December 2014 Disclaimer: Information, data and general assumptions used in the compilation of this report have been obtained from sources believed to be reliable. Visitor Solutions Ltd has used this information in good faith and makes no warranties or representations, express or implied, concerning the accuracy or completeness of this information. Interested parties should perform their own investigations, analysis and projections on all issues prior to acting in any way with regard to this project. Visitor Solutions High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports, December

3 Contents 1.0 Introduction Review Brief Key High Level Assumptions Use Level Assumptions Recreation Conflict Assumptions Economic Benefit Assumptions Conclusion High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports, December

4 1.0 Introduction Visitor Solutions Ltd was commissioned by Southland District Council to undertake a high level peer review of two selected reports; these are: 1. Around the Mountains Cycle Trail potential market demand. (Tourism Resource Consultants June 2014) cited as TRC Assessment of Economic Impacts of Around the Mountain Cycle Trail Route Options. (David Stimpson & Co Ltd - August 2014) cited as Stimpson The high level peer review includes reference to key background material as provided by the client, namely the 2009 Barnett feasibility study (Barnett 2009) and the Angus Associates/TRC New Zealand Cycle Trail Review (Angus 2013). Some reference is also made to three submissions subsequently made by angling interests, with particular attention to the recent extensive submission made by Fish & Game New Zealand Southland Region. Other material from submissions and resource consent applications with respect to the ATMCT proposal were not included in the review. 1.1 Review Brief This report represents the agreed deliverable of a simple 3-4 page report 2 outlining: 1. the main high level assumptions used and any issues identified with them; 2. any need for further information or clarification; 3. a summary conclusion about the reports and their key findings; As agreed this high level peer review does not specifically include comment on comparisons between the two proposed track options. It examines only the validity of the main assumptions and figures used by the reports to make their substantive conclusions. The substantive conclusions these reports made about the two track options are: TRC (2014) P3: The proposed Upper Oreti Route has the best prospect of delivering viable numbers for the ATMCT to be viable. Stimpson (2014) P16: 45. Table 16 shows the Oreti (Option B) is a preferred route by a significant margin in terms of net new addition to regional income and employment. 46. Even in a worst case scenario of angler impacts, cycling benefits significantly outweigh angler costs under Oreti (Option B) The main purpose of this high level review is to determine as best as is possible given base data and time constraints whether any issues around the key assumptions may cause these substantive conclusions to be revised differently. Therefore the review confines itself to only the high-level assumptions. These provide the basis for all other secondary flow-on 1 Other glossary notes: ATMCT = Around the Mountains Cycle Trail; OCRT Otago Central Rail Trail 2 Based on a project scope of 20 hours review time, focussed on the high-level assumptions only High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports, December

5 assumptions and analyses made about spending levels in different parts of the visit experience. Reviewing the many other flow-on assumptions - such as those incorporated into the Cash Flow Model derived by Barnett (2009; Section 7.2, p58) and cited in TRC (2014: p9), and the detailed spend tables in Stimpson (2014) - were beyond the scope of this review. 2.0 Key High Level Assumptions In the two reports and their key background source reports (Barnett 2009 and Angus 2013) there are three groups of key high level assumptions. These assumptions underpin all the subsequent calculations and conclusions made about the relative economic merits of the respective cycle track route options: 1. Use level assumptions, 2. Recreation conflict impact assumptions, 3. Economic benefit/user assumptions. 2.1 Use Level Assumptions There are a number of key use level assumptions made about both the current and projected use levels by cyclists and anglers. Those most relevant for this review are the projected overall cyclist numbers and the projected day use cyclist numbers 3. Projected overall cyclist numbers Original Feasibility Study (Barnett 2009) This projected 28,000 cyclists per year on the track by Year 5 of development. Numbers comprised 14,000 day-use cyclists and 14,000 full-track cyclists (multi-day). This projection was based on an assumption that full-track cyclist numbers would be similar to those of the OCRT (around 13,000), but with extra users due to the greater tourism numbers in Queenstown and the greater marketing and delivery support proposed from prominent tourism companies. Comparative day-use cyclist numbers for the OCRT were not specified here, although TRC (2014: p26) states that annual day-use cyclist numbers of the OCRT are around 48,000 (no source given). Review comment This projection was based solely on benchmarking with the OCRT and making associated assumptions that greater tourist numbers around Queenstown would translate into greater ATMCT use. An assumption about day use was made but no clear rationale was expressed. These assumptions preceded the later analysis of other rail trial performance undertaken by Angus (2014), and the accumulation of rail trail assessment knowledge noted in the TRC (2014) report. These later reports provide a more informed basis for full- 3 There are more use-level indicators available for current Angler numbers in the Oreti Catchment based on a series of use surveys (see Simpson 2014: Point 18, p7 and the Fish & Game Submission 2014: p5, Point 4.17), although these do not extend to projections of future use. The only assumptions made about future Angling use levels are made in the economic analysis report (Stimpson 2014). These propose no change in overall angling numbers/effort, although this incorporates changes in angler composition due to assumed recreation conflict effects (Stimpson 2014: Table 4, P8). High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports, December

6 track and day-use level assumptions. However, assumptions aside, the economic analysis process and economic indicators used in the original report (e.g. the Cash Flow model) appear robust given the generally acknowledged data and information constraints. The validity of the analysis is predominantly subject to the validity of the use-level assumptions. Those assumptions made in this original study have no direct bearing on the comparison between the two route options, other than through the extent to which they have informed the later studies. In that respect it appears that the original projections and estimates have been replaced by newer ones in the later reports. Market Demand Study (TRC 2014) The use level assumptions made in this report were based on a comparison of projected pessimistic and realistic use scenarios between the two route options, with different day-use and whole-track components (TRC (2014: P31 Table 10) and cited in Stimpson (2014: P6 Table 1). Additional assumptions were made about the effect of the different route options on potential user numbers (these are summarised below under Recreation Conflict Assumptions). Under the Oreti route (Option B) - between approximately 37,000 (pessimistic) and 62,000 (realistic) cyclist visits per year are projected by Year 5. Respectively these totals include 7,000 full-track / 30,000 day-use cyclists (pessimistic) and 12,000 full-track / 50,000 day use cyclists (realistic). Under the Mararoa route(option C) - between approximately 34,000 (pessimistic) and 47,000 (realistic) cyclist visits per year are projected by Year 5. Respectively these totals include 4,000 full-track / 30,000 day-use cyclists (pessimistic) and 7,000 full-track / 40,000 day use cyclists (realistic). Cyclist numbers projected on the Mararoa route (Option C) are lower (see Recreation Conflict assumptions). TRC (2014) acknowledge that estimating visitor use of proposed tourist attractions is challenging, and they note that their estimates are on the conservative side (p30). They also state that projected use levels, and in fact overall ATMCT trail success, is dependent on solving a current accommodation gap in the vicinity of the Upper Oreti Valley (p30). Review Comment These projections are made largely on the basis of the author s experience with other cycle trail and tourism developments (see Section 6.3 Table 4: p 18-19), and with some reference to figures from reports on the OCRT and from the review of four other trails (Angus 2014). This is a reasonable approach given the limited data available. The estimate of full-track cyclist numbers (up to 12,000) is very similar to that in the original feasibility study (around 14,000). Assumed numbers for whole-track use can be considered reasonable. The key question here is can the new ATMCT realistically achieve in 5 years what the OCRT took over 15 years to reach? It is noted that the major assumption differences from the original feasibility study is in the much higher projections for day-use cyclists. Assumptions about these, particularly in relation to Upper Mararoa/Oreti section of the ATMCT, are more questionable. And another overall use level feature of note is the assumed negative impact on overall user numbers of the Mararoa route (Option C). Both these day-use and use impact assumptions are discussed below. High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports, December

7 Projected Day Use Numbers Original Feasibility Study (Barnett 2009) 1. This projected 14,000 day-use cyclists per year on the track by Year 5 of the development. 2. No specific rationale for day use levels was given. Market Demand Study (TRC 2014) 1. This projected a range of 30,000 to 50,000 day-use cyclists per year on the track by Year 5 of the development. 2. Different use levels were projected based on pessimistic or realistic scenarios, and depending on which route in the upper Mararoa/Oreti Section was finally included in the ATMCT. 3. One reference was made to a comparative number of over 48,000 day-use cyclists per year on the OCRT (p26), but there was no indication of any source or other rationale for this figure. Contact with DOC recreation staff associated with track monitoring indicated that this figure would be considered a significant overestimate, and that whole-track use would be much higher than day-use on most track sections away from population centres No specific rationale for day-use levels on the ATMCT was given, apart from one note that day-use was high on some quality short (1-4hr) sections on other trails (p30). Review Comment As with projected overall cyclist numbers, these projections are made largely on the basis of the author s experience with other cycle trail and tourism developments (see Section 6.3 Table 4: p 18-19), and with some reference to figures from reports on the OCRT and from the review of four other trails (Angus 2014). Whatever the day use assumptions made, there appears to be no consideration of the actual day-use levels likely to be present in the specific section of the ATMCT under consideration. This upper Mararoa/Oreti section is effectively in the centre of the ATMCT circuit, the furthest distance from respective start and finish points, although accessible from the south off State Highway 94 (via Mavora Lakes and Centre Hill Roads). Day use penetration of this specific section from the Walter Peak/Mt Nicholas end of the ATMCT would be highly unlikely given the distance; the absence of any specific attraction destination there; or feasible day-use circuit options from there that include it. The Walter Peak/Mt Nicholas access point would have by far the greatest likelihood to introduce large numbers of day users to the ATMCT, but only to the immediate Walter Peak/Von River vicinity. Any feasible day use of the upper Mararoa/Oreti section will come from users entering it off Mavora Lakes/Mt Nicholas Road (or from Centre Hill Rd/Oreti Road). Again the lack of any specific attraction destination in the upper Mararoa/Oreti section or its surroundings (other than the nearby Mavora Lakes); the lack of any attractive day-use circuit 4 Fiona Hall, Technical Advisor (Recreation), Science & Technical Services, Department of Conservation (Dunedin) High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports, December

8 incorporating it 5 ; the absence of nearby population and tourism centres (Te Anau being closest at around 50km) and the much lower tourism profile of the local area all together suggest that overall day use is likely to be low. Campers at (or day visitors to) the Mavora Lakes would be the most likely source of any localised day use peaks at peak holiday periods. The TRC (2014) report mentions that day use is very high on some other cycle trails, especially the Queenstown Trails, Lake Taupo Trails, Otago Central Rail Trail. However these are all close to larger domestic populations and major tourism flows so would include considerable local, repeat and return trip counts. Day use on the OCRT is largely focussed on these more proximate cycle trail sections (e.g. Clyde to Alexandra) or on those most attractive and accessible (e.g. the Poolburn section of the OCRT 6 ). TRC (2014: p23) noted that day-users sometimes choose to drive further in order to use the more attractive sections. However it was not made clear in TRC (2014) that any Oreti section of the ATMCT may be considered such a feature section (although its scenic value was noted) 7. Away from such sections (e.g. Poolburn) the levels of OCRT day-use were very low. For example the OCRT user survey found that 92% of cyclists surveyed near the centre and summit of the trail at Wedderburn were doing the whole track 8. Overall it appears that potential cyclist day use levels associated with use of the upper Mararoa/Oreti section are likely to be significant over-estimates. Allowing for this would significantly reduce estimates of overall cyclist numbers using this section. The significance of reduced day use levels relates mostly to the potential they represent for recreation impacts on other users (see under Recreation Conflict Assumptions). Their levels have little impact on the financial conclusions as all reports exclude day users from their direct economic impact analyses (see under Economic Benefit Assumptions) 2.2. Recreation Conflict Assumptions As well as assumptions made about user numbers, there are also assumptions made about two potential visitor conflict situations: Angler displacement This is referring to an assumption that a portion of anglers will choose to avoid the upper Oreti River section due to the presence of cycle track facilities and users in a remote-experience angling setting (in the case that Option B proceeds). This issue was not addressed in either the original feasibility study (Barnett 2009) nor the Market Demand study (TRC 2014). However, it is incorporated into the Economic Impact Assessment (Stimpson 2014) and explored in more depth in the Fish and Game Submission (2014). Both these reports assume displacement will occur, with the primary effect being a change in the composition of the anglers using the section, rather than an overall use 5 TRC (2014: P30) mentions a few potential day trip opportunities for cycling or walking associated with the ATMCT, including the Upper Oreti River section. 6 Otago Central Rail Trail Long Term Plan 2011: p 21 (also cited in TRC (2014; p26, and by Fiona Hall, DOC) 7 We have been made aware some consideration of scenic values has been included in the main resource consent application but that material was not included in the scope of this peer review. 8 Otago Central rail Trail User Survey 2008/2009, Central Otago District Council 2009: Table 9, P15 High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports, December

9 decline. Higher spending international users in particular are assumed to decline 9. This assumption is based on an expectation that the presence of a high-quality cycle trail and the associated cyclist users will primarily compromise the acknowledged remote/wilderness component of the Upper Oreti angling experience. It is also assumed that improved access may encourage more local anglers, with less interest in the wilderness-component of angling experiences, to come to the area, potentially leading to a need for more management of angling use (e.g. booking systems, ballots etc). Such a change is viewed as representing a net loss in revenue from angling recreation. Stimpson (2014: Point 5, P4) refers to an original Option A for the proposed Oreti Section route that was located closer to the riverbank for longer sections, but which had been revised to a more physically separated current Option B. The Fish and Game submission (2014) acknowledges this proposed compromise, but still considers significant displacement effects would occur and advocates for the alternative Mararoa route (Option C) which avoids any significant angling disturbance. Review Comment Angler concern about the perceived remote experience/wilderness component of the upper Oreti angling experience is valid in principle, and this concern has already been acknowledged by the development of an Option B route for the proposed cycle track there. What is unclear is the extent to which the increased physical separation of the cycle track from the riverbank under Option B may sufficiently mediate the interaction between anglers and others. Any scenario under Option B will involve some compromise by anglers away from the current experience. It is not clear from the information available how much (if any) significant angler displacement may occur, and if the quality of the fishery will be strong enough to retain most if Option B proceeds, or if any other changes to Option B could provide more mediation of adverse effects. Overall it is reasonable to assume some displacement may occur, but the potential extent of this will remain anecdotal without more specific research. It is worth noting that cyclist use levels in the Upper Oreti are likely to actually be considerably lower than those being projected and discussed currently, due to an overestimation of likely day-use activity in the area (see Projected Day Use numbers above). It is noted in the Fish and Game submission (2014) that the projected 62,000 cyclists spread evenly over 200 days would represent 310 cyclists per day (Point 5.12: P12). Later it also refers to potentially up to 50,000 day users riding the Upper Oreti Valley, representing 250 day cyclists per day (Points 5.15 & 5.16, P14). If it were assumed day use levels were only equal to those of whole-track use levels, then only up to 12,000 day-use cyclists may be present. The number of cyclists per day under that assumption (around 24,000 in total) would be only up to 120. This is not a specific projection here, but an indication of how a reduced day use estimate reduces the scale of encounter potential. The suggestion here is that more specific estimates of probable day use overall, and in the Oreti River Section within that, would be worthwhile. 9 The Fish and Game Submission (2014: Point 4.18, P6) outlines survey evidence for a stronger orientation of international anglers towards remote-experience angling than resident anglers. High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports, December

10 Multi-day cyclist displacement This is referring to an assumption that a significant portion of multi-day cyclists will be deterred from the whole cycleway as a result of the proximity of the Upper Mararoa cycle route to a section of the Mavora Lakes Road (in the case that Option C proceeds). This potential displacement issue was not addressed in the original feasibility study (Barnett 2009) although the potential for unpleasant dust and traffic issues on Mavora Lakes Road were noted (p22). However this was a key assumption made in the Market Demand study (TRC 2014) and is incorporated into the Economic Impact Assessment (Stimpson 2014). Both these reports assume that the Mararoa route (Option C) will deter over 40% of projected whole-track cyclists compared to the Oreti route (Option B). Day-cyclist use is projected to be much less affected - by between 0 to 20 % (TRC 2014: p31; Stimpson 2014: Point 14, p6). The rationale given is that cycle trail sections along rural gravel roads are avoided where possible, especially if there are more than a few vehicles on the road, and that the current Mararoa route (Option C) is located alongside a seasonally busy (in holiday periods) rural road for around 14.5km (TRC 2014:Section 9.3, p29-30). No other specific rationale is offered. Review Comment Cyclist preference to avoid rural gravel roads or near-road track sections are understandable for safety, noise and comfort (e.g. dust) reasons. However, on a long track where there are other sections on or alongside rural roads the assumed significant level of displacement effect associated with the Mararoa route option alone appears to be excessive. The only difference between other road sections and that section adjacent to the Mararoa route appears to be that this section would likely have more traffic. It was also apparent that some routing away from the road had been included in the planned Mararoa route, and that other options for further re-routing were potentially available for consideration. Such re-routing was suggested in the Fish and Game Submission There is reference to some examples where the presence of 'unsuitable sections can depress of market demand, although further description or explanation is not provided (TRC 2014: p2). Overall, from the material viewed in this review, the assumption of a significant displacement effect from the Mararoa route option on whole-track cyclists from the ATMCT appears to be misplaced, as similar near-road sections apply elsewhere in the ATMCT. If more information is available supporting that assumption it needs to be demonstrated more specifically than is currently apparent. This is a critical assumption as the associated estimation of net economic loss associated with it is the key component of the Economic Impact Assessment, and probably the main factor currently leading to the conclusion that the Oreti route (Option B) is preferred. If other potential advantage factors make one route option more preferable such as significantly greater scenic experience value; greater attraction/marketing value; lower construction, maintenance and operational costs; better accommodation options; better servicing/support accessibility; easier cycling, or better weather conditions; then these sorts of factors need to be demonstrated and compared more specifically, High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports, December

11 especially where an existing use of acknowledged current value may be affected. It is currently unclear from a reviewer perspective on the reports available if any of these factors apply more favourably in either of the two main options, and if so the extent to which they may be critical components in the ATMCT s potential. 2.3 Economic Benefit Assumptions The key assumptions related to relative economic benefits from cycling and angling use come from their estimated spend levels, and how the assumed displacement effects may affect the overall economic benefit level derived from this spend. 10 Cyclist spend per day The assumption here is that daily whole-track cyclist spending is around $200 on average (Stimpson 2014: Point 28, p10), representing what they term a conservative average between Domestic ($191/day) and International ($241/day) cyclists. This $200/day average is still significantly higher than those found for whole-track cyclists on the Otago Central Rail Trail ($152) 11 ; and the four cycle trails reviewed in the Angus (2013: p53) report including the Motu Trail ($133); the Hauraki Rail Trail ($137); the Mountains to the Sea Trail ($169) and the Queenstown Trails ($176). Together the average spend across all of these other five cycle trails is around $153, or around 75% of the $200 projected for the ATMCT. The rationale presented for this difference is attributed to the higher quality track surface, gradient and routing being able to attract higher spending cyclists when compared to other NZ cycle trails, many of which are of a more mountain-bike compatible standard of surface and gradient (Stimpson 2014: Point 27, p9) The process and assumptions used in Stimpson (2014: Points 15 & 16;p7) for estimating the number of days spent in a region in relation to a cycle trip as an extrapolation of wider economic benefit appeared reasonable. Review comment The rationale for an assumed whole-track cyclist spend of $200/day, which is significantly in excess of the average whole-track cyclist spend recorded across the 5 other cycle trails, ($153) is not strong. If the ATMCT is capable of achieving such a significantly higher premium then that should be demonstrated more specifically. Otherwise a more conservative daily spend estimate would seem more appropriate given its comparative purpose and application in these reports in relation to angling spend. It is relevant to note here that much of the day-use cyclist spend was largely excluded from the economic benefit assessments made in Angus (2013: Section 5.10, p 50) and Stimpson (2014: Point 35, p10). The focus of these assessments - as described in both reports - was on the distinctive economic benefits to regions that could be clearly attributed to the rail trail's existence. In the case of day users it was assumed that most of their spend in the region for transport and accommodation would have been expended anyway as part of their wider recreation trips/holidays, and could not be clearly attributed as benefits of the cycle trail. 10 The more extensive breakdowns of estimated spend calculated in the Cash Flow Model in the Barnett (2009: P58) and in Stimpson (2014) appear reasonable, although these are at a level of flow-on detail that is not the subject of this review. 11 From the Otago Central Rail Trail Long Term Plan 2011 High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports, December

12 Angler spend per day Assumptions for Angler spend per day were only made in Stimpson (2014). Here a lack of robust survey data on angler spend was identified by the authors, with the exception of guided international anglers from a recent NZ Professional Fishing Guides Association Survey. The assumptions for angler spend were: $145/day for domestic local and non-local unguided anglers, $495/day for domestic guided anglers (rationale given for estimate), $164/day for unguided international anglers (rationale given for estimate), $1299/day for guided international anglers (from survey data). These assumptions are considered reasonable given the limited data sources, and do highlight that angling can be a higher value use in generating economic benefit. The process and assumptions used in Stimpson (2014: Points 17-21;p7-8) for estimating the number of days spent in a region in relation to an angling trip, angler effort, and determining likely angler types as an extrapolation of wider economic benefit appeared reasonable. Review comment The rationale for the assumptions made about angler spend appeared reasonable given the limited information sources available. It was noted that Stimpson (2014: P7, Point 18) appears to have estimated angler-days on a much shorter section of the Oreti river than was referred to in the summary of survey-based angler-day estimates in the Fish and Game Submission (2014: P5, Point 4.17) (i.e. above Lumsden). More in depth analysis would have been required to address these types of factors in more detail. Such a level of analysis was beyond the scope of this review. 3.0 Conclusion It must be stressed that the development of key assumptions in any new green fields tourism / recreation development is complicated. Researchers rarely have the level of data that they would desire when developing their research assumptions. This is almost certainly the case for the reports peer reviewed here. Processes such as peer review and stakeholder feedback on initial reports can often generate new information and insights that affect past assumptions. The overall purpose of this peer review was to determine if issues with any of the key assumptions made in the reviewed reports might require their major conclusions to be revisited. To recap, these key conclusions were: TRC (2014) P3: The proposed Upper Oreti Route has the best prospect of delivering viable numbers for the ACMCT to be viable. Stimpson (2014) P16: 45. Table 16 shows the Oreti (Option B) is a preferred route by a significant margin in terms of net new addition to regional income and employment. 46. Even in a worst case scenario of angler impacts, cycling benefits significantly outweigh angler costs under Oreti (Option B) Based on the material examined and within the terms of reference of this high level peer review, the author believes there is justification to revisit these conclusions (unless High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports, December

13 additional supporting data or interpretation exists which was not available during this high level peer review). The main issues identified with the key high-level assumptions used in the subject reports are summarised below: The author believes the overall number of cyclists actually likely to be using the Upper Mararoa or Oreti track sections in question will be considerably lower than the levels indicated in the reviewed reports. This is particularly due to an apparent over-estimation of the day-use levels, compounded by their assumed extrapolation to different parts of the ATMCT. Accounting for lower day use levels overall, adjusted to correspond with the realistic likelihood of their numbers in different parts of the ATMCT, would indicate there is a very much lower potential for adverse encounter levels with Oreti Valley anglers. The author believes the assumed significant displacement effects on multi-day cyclists under the Mararoa route (Option C) appear to be overestimated given the extent of similar track-road interactions elsewhere along the ATMCT. If the assumed displacement is more due to significant visitor experiences not being possible on the ATMCT from not using the Oreti route, then this or any related justification has not been clearly expressed in the material seen. The author believes the assumed significant displacement of many anglers (including international anglers in particular) by cyclists in the Oreti Valley is currently overestimated, being primarily based on anecdotal accounts (based on the information reviewed). Overall the basic economic assessment processes used in Stimpson (2014) appeared comprehensive, but were based on some of the key assumptions discussed above. Changes in these key assumptions may impact on the economic assessment findings. High level Peer Review, Around the Mountain Cycle Track Reports, December