New Zealand Conservation Authority Te Pou Atawhai Taiao O Aotearoa

New Zealand Conservation Authority Te Pou Atawhai Taiao o Aotearoa

Meeting 2 & 3 October 2017

Agenda and meeting papers Photo: Geothermal activity, Lake Rotomahana, Waimangu Scenic Reserve Photographer: Photo by DOC NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (NZCA) TE POU ATAWHAI TAIAO O AOTEAROA 2 and 3 October 2017 One hundred and fifty seventh meeting, to be held at Tuscany Villas, Fenton Street, Rotorua, starting at 8.30am

# D means Decision required, A means Advice required, I means Information only

AGENDA Item # Priority Pages 1 Welcome and Chairperson’s Introduction I - - 2 Apologies – receive A - - 3 Conflicts of Interest for the Meeting – identify A - 1-2 4 Minutes - - - 4.1 – approve minutes for the meeting held in August 2017 D K 3-16 4.2 – approve “in-committee” minutes for the meeting held in August 2017 (expected to be taken “in-committee” with D K 17-24 public excluded) NZCA work programme and priorities Status report – note progress in actioning resolutions 5 I K 25-30 from the meeting held in August 2017 NZCA work programme 2017-2018 – summary of 6 I K 31-32 planned elements, agree on meeting dates going forward 6.1 Confirmation of meeting dates for 2018 I K 33-34 6.2 Confirmation of NZCA Committees I K 35-38 NZCA strategic priorities – follow-up from August 7 I K 39-44 meeting General Policy for National Parks – establish the Terms 8 D D/J 45-48 of Reference and programme of work 9 NZCA Annual Report 2016-17 D K 49-50 Strategic topics/themes/influence Director-General’s report – Lou Sanson (expected to be 10 I E 51-64 taken “in-committee” with public excluded) 10.1 Members’ Environmental Scan I E - 10.2 Summary outcomes of the Conservation Board I J 65-74 Chairs’ Conference Strategic discussion on Land Issues – Lou Sanson and 11 Mike Slater (expected to be taken “in-committee” with A E/J 75-78 public excluded) Tourism policy discussion (expected to be taken “in- 12 A E/J 79-88 committee” with public excluded) Briefing for the Incoming Minister (expected to be taken 13 D K 89-96 “in-committee” with public excluded) Conservation planning & management 14 Management Planning Update I A/B/D 97-110 14.1 ‘Issues’ papers in management planning I A/B 111-116 15 Reclassification of Conservation land – SLM update A C 117-126 15.1 Land Disposal Strategy A C 127-130

DOC-3152388 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial 16 review – presentation by the Conservation Board Chair A B 131-254 and Ngati Rangi Stakeholder engagement Bay of Plenty Conservation Board – joining the Authority 17 - - - on the fieldtrip and dinner on Monday Liaison & correspondence 18 Representation and Liaison - - - 18.1 Chair’s report I K 255-256 18.2 Conservation Board liaison reports I K 257-258 Correspondence – receive the inwards and approve the 19 D K 259-264 outwards correspondence Meeting close - - -

Strategic Priorities A Conservation Management Strategies B National Park Management Plans C Land status recategorisation e.g. stewardship land D Treaty of Waitangi and post-Treaty settlement conservation management Strategic advice to the Minister and DG in the context of conservation in today’s E economy, the governance requirements, and strategic advice on public policy documents and legislation F Opportunities for step change in conservation: pests/weeds/biosecurity G Marine ecosystems and protected areas H Climate change adaptation and mitigation I Rivers and freshwater ecosystems J Effectiveness and efficiency of the Department’s conservation management K NZCA’s performance

Meeting timetable

Monday 2 October Tuesday 3 October

Fieldtrip 8.30am Start: 8.30am Return to hotel 5.30pm Morning tea: 10.30am Dinner 6.30pm Lunch: 12.30pm Afternoon tea 3.00pm Close 4.30pm

DOC-3152388 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.3 Meeting No. 157

NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY REGISTER OF INTERESTS and IDENTIFICATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

For meeting on 2 and 3 October 2017

Please use this form to update your register of interests and to note any actual or perceived Conflict of Interest with regard to any agenda item for this meeting

Name

…………………………………………………………………

………………………………………………………………… Identification of any actual or perceived ………………………………………………………………… conflict of interest with regard to any ………………………………………………………………… agenda item …………………………………………………………………

…………………………………………………………………

Signed (NZCA member)

Date

DOCDM-352637 1 2 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.4.1 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: 7 and 8 August 2017 meeting minutes

NZCA Strategic NZCA’s performance (Priority K) Priority and/or the Relevant DOC SOI Goal

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Approve the 7 and 8 August 2017 minutes as a true and accurate record.

Context The draft minutes from the Authority meeting on 7 and 8 August June 2017 were circulated to members by email on 1 September 2017 for comment. Once the minutes are approved they will be uploaded to the NZCA website www.conservationauthority.org.nz

DOC-2639479 3 4 New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) Te Pou Atawhai Taiao O Aotearoa 7 and 8 August 2017 meeting

156th meeting, held at 10.00am and 8.30am, Kaupapa Atawhai / Conservation House, 18-32 Manners Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 Unconfirmed minutes Present: Warren Parker, Chairperson David Barnes Gerry McSweeney Jan Riddell Mark Brough Mick Clout Mita Harris Rauru Kirikiri Robyn Jebson Sandra Cook

Apologies: Mark Christensen Tony Lepper

In attendance: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer, DOC Ann McCrone, NZCA servicing staff, DOC Lou Sanson, Director General, DOC agenda items 13 & 14 Marin Rodd, Director, Partnerships, DOC agenda item 13 Mervyn English, Deputy Director-General, Strategy and People, DOC agenda item 14 Bruce Parkes, Deputy Director-General Policy and Visitors, DOC agenda item 14 Peter Brunt (Director, Policy, DOC agenda item 14 Jennie Marks, Strategic Policy Manager (Acting) & Tourism and Economic Development Policy Manager, DOC agenda item 14 Carl McGuinness, Director, Operations Planning, DOC agenda item 14 Gavin Walker, Director, Recreation, Tourism and Heritage, DOC agenda item 14 Marie Long, Director, Planning, Permissions and Land, DOC agenda items 16 – 18 Nicole Mistral, Management Planning National Advisor, DOC agenda items 16 – 18 Sheryll Johnson, National Advisor – SLM, DOC agenda items 16 – 18 Jane Roberts, Technical Advisor – Recreation, DOC agenda items 16 – 18 Norm Kelly, Project Manager, Threatened Species Strategy, DOC agenda item 19 Lisa Barrett, CE Overseas Investment Office (OIO) agenda item 20 Andrew Morris, Acting Manager Applications, OIO agenda item 20 Jerome Sheppard, DCE Crown Property, LINZ agenda item 20 John Hook, Grp Manager Crown Property, LINZ agenda item 20 Don Hammond, Chair, Game Animal Council (GAC) agenda item 21 Jamie Tuuta, Lead Negotiator, Ngā Iwi o Taranaki agenda item 22 Hemi Sundgren, Ngā Iwi o Taranaki agenda item 22 Liana Poutu, Ngā Iwi o Taranaki agenda item 22

DOC-3141097 5 Katherine Gordon, Chief Crown Negotiator, Egmont National Park agenda item 22 John Wood, Chief Crown Negotiator, Tongariro National Park agenda item 22 Benesia Smith, Negotiation Manager, Office of Treaty Settlements agenda item 22 Thomas Bisley, Analyst, Office of Treaty Settlements agenda item 22 Richard Towers, Senior Advisor, Treaty Negotiations Unit, DOC agenda item 22 Dr Ronnie Cooper, Principal Manager Policy, Strategy & Influence, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, public. Mon 10am -2pm John Nankervis, public Mon 2.40pm – 5pm, Tues 10.30-12.40pm Karakia Rau Kirikiri performed a karakia welcoming new and returning Authority members to the meeting. Agenda item 1: Welcome and Chairperson’s introduction The Chair, Warren Parker, opened the meeting and congratulated members on being appointed, and welcomed both new and returning members to the ‘new’ NZCA. The Authority congratulated Jan Riddell on her appointment as Chair of the Natural Heritage Fund (NHF), and Gerry McSweeney for reappointment to the NHF. Warren welcomed Dr Ronnie Cooper (Principal Manager Policy Strategy & Influence, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu). Dr Cooper introduced herself and explained she was sitting in to the observe the meeting and gain a greater understanding of the current NZCA activities and processes, with a view to deepening relationships with the Authority and looking for opportunities for further co-operation. The Chair outlined the significant items that would be addressed over the course of the meeting: • Induction for new members, including an overview of the roles and responsibilities of members • Review and confirmation of sub-Committees and representations membership. • Scoping a project to review the General Policy for National Parks. • Reviewing the next 3-year term strategic focus for the Authority - scene setting for the next three years and confirming the workplan for the next 12 months. • Strategising the key issues/signals the Authority should focus on in the Briefing to the incoming Minister (BIM). • Strategic discussion on tourism and plans for infrastructure investment on conservation land from the $78m new funding provided for in Budget 2017. • An update on the use of electric bikes (e-bikes) on Public Conservation Land (PCL). • An update on the draft Threatened Species Strategy. • A presentation from Don Hammond, Game Animal Council (GAC) Chair, to discuss the structure and roles of GAC, in accordance with the Authority’s strategic goal to increase engagement and promote collaboration with key stakeholders. • An overview of the roles and responsibilities of both Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) and the Overseas Investment Office (OIO) and how these agencies interface with the Department and the Authority. • Discussion with Ngā Iwi o Taranaki representatives and members of the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS). It was noted that these topics allow for in-depth strategic review, robust conversations to test ideas and develop better pathways forward for the Department, and deepen Authority relationships with other key statutory bodies and groups. No additional agenda items were identified.

DOC-3141097 6

The Authority resolved to move “into-committee” for agenda items 5.2, 13, and 14. Sandra Cook/ Rauru Kirikiri/carried Agenda item 2: Apologies Apologies were received from Mark Christensen and Tony Lepper. The Authority resolved to receive the above apologies for the meeting Mick Clout/David Barnes/carried Agenda item 3: Introductions for new Authority members Authority members introduced themselves and gave a brief biography of their careers and interests. Rick McGovern-Wilson updated Authority members on the status of the last Authority appointment, advising that the final nominated member had been selected and the appointment was being processed through Cabinet in the coming week. Agenda item 4: Conflicts of interest None were declared. Mark Brough advised of his previous involvement with the Game Animal Council (GAC), which was considered by the Authority not to be a conflict of interest. Agenda item 5.1: Approve minutes for the meeting held on 6 and 7 June 2017 No amendments to the minutes were made.

The Authority resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 6 and 7 June 2017 as a true and accurate record. Jan Riddell/David Barnes/carried Agenda item 5.2: Approve “in-committee” minutes for the meeting held on 3 April 2017 The Authority resolved to move “into-committee” for agenda item 5.2. Mick Clout/Jan Riddell/carried

The Authority resolved to move out of “committee”. Mick Clout/Jan Riddell/carried Agenda item 6: Induction support and materials The Chair presented an overview of the Authority’s role, responsibilities, functions and operations; General Policies and Statutory Plans; Section 4 of the Conservation Act and Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities and expectations; and the interface with Conservation Boards. The Chair noted that the Authority needed to ensure that its functioning remained principled and its decision-making processes were rigorous and robust. It was noted that the use of “in committee” agenda items should be used judiciously; regular review and update the NZCA policies are undertaken, and that these should be considered for review as policy settings change; and the importance of understanding Section 4 is gaining more significance as Treaty Settlements progress. Members noted that the level of engagement is continuing to develop, and that the new era of post-Treaty Settlements provides a platform to advance novel planning and management processes, strengthen mutual relationships, and identify beneficial opportunities whilst being mindful of the Authority’s obligations and ensuring that the Authority makes consistent and principled

DOC-3141097 7

statutory decisions. Members were reminded to update their register of interests at each meeting. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to upload the NZCA Induction presentation to Dropbox. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to contact Christeen Mackenzie for a report on annual expenditure priorities for the October meeting. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to discuss with Mark Christensen re reviewing the Net Conservation Benefit paper with respect to the Supreme Court decision on the proposed land-swap for the Ruataniwha Dam. Agenda item 7: Committee structures Authority members discussed and agreed on changes to NZCA Committees and new Conservation Board Liaisons and Representations. New sub-committees include: • General Policy for National Parks review • Review of the Net Conservation Benefit Assessments in Land Exchanges paper The Marine Reserves Bill committee was put into abeyance until further notice. It was considered that representation on Predator Free NZ was not required as there was direct connection to the Trust through the Chair. The utility of representation on the Land and Water Forum will be determined subsequent to Mark Brough’s feedback. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to upload the revised NZCA committee structure to Dropbox. Agenda item 8: NZCA Strategy and priorities The paper was taken as read. The Chair advised that this item enabled the Authority to provide input into scene setting for the next three years and underpins the workplan for the next 12 months. The Authority discussed the strategic priorities and goals for the Authority’s next three-year term, and reviewed the New Zealand Conservation Authority Strategic Priorities for 2016 to identify what, if any, changes should be made. The discussion also offered the opportunity for members to reflect on NZCA performance, how procedures and meetings are working, and consider if changes need to be made. Priorities included: • Reviewing the Conservation General Policy (CGP) and the General Policy for National Parks (GPNP) to ensure they are still appropriate and fit for purpose, given changing pressures, new technology, climate change and increasingly complex tourism challenges. • Growing the voice of youth and developing tomorrow’s generation. • Promoting greater community involvement in conservation from non-traditional partners and e-NGOs to encourage ethnic diversity and a wider variety of private and commercial sectors. • Continuing to provide high quality strategic advice to the Minister and Department, and engage early in the development of Departmental policy and strategies. • Supporting Conservation Boards to fulfil their potential, and increase the interface between the community and iwi.

DOC-3141097 8

• Continuing to understand and grow the partnership between iwi and conservation, considering the changing paradigm around Section 4 and post- Treaty Settlement arrangements. • Developing the Authority's role as National Park governance evolves. • Continuing to strengthen the relationship between iwi and DOC. • Increase engagement with key stakeholders and schedule interactions in the work programme. • Continuing to strengthen partnerships and engagement between businesses and the Department of Conservation. • The recategorisation of stewardship land. • Promoting the continuation of pest management efforts and options, including advocacy and support around socialising innovative and potentially controversial pest control tools. Specifically advocating for systematic broad-scale pest control, greater biosecurity and landscape scale pest control programmes. • Continuing work on whitebait protections, and freshwater conservation. • Increase focus on marine species protection, fisheries by-catch issues and implementing New Zealand’s commitment to area based marine protection. Members agreed: • The strategic priorities under the Statutory Role for Management Planning and Land Status section include reference to the Departmental Stretch Goals in the CMSs and NPMPs. • Under Influence and ‘Changing the Game’ – Marine it was considered that the impact of marine farming should be added as this activity is growing and is likely to have an impact of the New Zealand coastal environment. • Under Monitoring and Evaluation, to add reporting against Departmental Stretch Goals and Milestones. • It was considered important to link Climate Change to other related goals and activities. Action: Warren Parker and Rick McGovern-Wilson to incorporate the suggestions and work on a draft New Zealand Conservation Authority: Strategic Priorities for 2017 in preparation for the October 2017 meeting. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to email the members of the GPNP Committee and work out how to proceed. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to follow-up with Minister’s office over overdue responses to NZCA letters, viz Yorke Creek addition to Paparoa National Park, and a proposed border levy. Agenda item 9: Status Report The paper was taken as read. The Executive Officer provided an overview to new members about the use of the Status Report. Ways to progress several items on the status report were discussed. In particular, items 23 and 24 which are papers around Maori customary rights and giving effect to Treaty principles. Action: Warren Parker, Rauru Kirikiri and Rick McGovern-Wilson to review these items and revise the NZCA Treaty Principles policy for the October 2017 meeting.

DOC-3141097 9

Agenda item 10: NZCA Work Programme 2017-2018 The Authority’s work plan to June 2018 was noted and taken as read. This gives effect to the NZCA strategic priorities and is used to shape meeting agendas. Scheduled speakers provide important opportunities to enhance knowledge around issues and relevant topics, generate new connections, deepen relationships, raise awareness, and allow the Authority to provide direct advice. Requests were made to add in a presentation from a youth representative or organisation, and the Tourism sector (e.g. the New Zealand Tourism Association). It was suggested that the Authority add in a meeting with Northland/Te Hiku to the field visit schedule. These are organised with the support of the relevant NZCA Conservation Board liaison member. Authority members discussed meeting days and times for 2018. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to work with Mita Harris to confirm an appropriate youth presentation and schedule it into the 2017-2018 NZCA Work Programme. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to confirm an appropriate organisation to brief the Authority on commercial tourism and schedule it into the 2017-2018 NZCA Work Programme. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to schedule in a meeting in Northland/Te Hiku for next year. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to review current meeting dates and work with Authority members to develop suitable dates for future meetings. Agenda item 11: Conservation Board Chairs’ Conference The paper was taken as read. It was noted that Associate Minister of Conservation, Hon Nicky Wagner, would be attending the Conservation Board Chairs’ conference. Warren Parker, Rauru Kirikiri and Mark Brough would be representing the Authority and facilitating different sessions. Agenda item 12: October 2017 meeting The paper was taken as read. The Chair noted that the next meeting of the Authority will be 2 – 3 October 2017 in Rotorua. On the fieldtrip, the Authority will be joined by members of the Bay of Plenty Conservation Board and Department staff to discuss topics such as: geothermal tourism; conservation issues relating to distinct biodiversity associated with geothermal fields; the Whirinaki Conservation Management Plan; and, progress on development of the Bay of Plenty Conservation Management Strategy. The overall meeting agenda and preliminary itinerary for the October meeting in Rotorua was discussed. Action: Authority members to provide the Statutory Bodies Advisor with their preferred travel option as soon as possible. The Authority resolved to move “into-committee” for agenda items 13 and 14 Sandra Cook/ Rauru Kirikiri/carried

The Authority resolved to move out of “committee”. Gerry McSweeney/David Barnes/carried Agenda item 15: Briefing for the Incoming Minister The paper was taken as read. The briefing to the incoming Minister (BIM) was discussed to determine content, and so that it could incorporate the outcomes from the strategic

DOC-3141097 10

focus session (Agenda Item 8). The BIM will focus on the key matters/signals the Authority believes will make the greatest impact on conservation in New Zealand. The briefing is to be drafted by the Executive Officer, in conjunction with the Chair, and circulated to all members for input before being finalised and presented to the Minister of Conservation. Action: Warren Parker and Rick McGovern-Wilson to draft a Briefing to the Incoming Minister for 2017, in light of the discussions, and re-circulate it again to members for their input and final approval at the October 2017 meeting. Agenda item 16: Management Planning Update The paper was taken as read. Marie Long presented the material provided. There was discussion around resourcing, timetabling and timeframes for processing strategies, policies and plans that require NZCA review and approval, as the delays to a number of plans continues to be a serious concern to the Authority. Marie advised that DOC has the expertise, however, the complexity of issues and delays in consultation, outside the control of DOC, is the main reason why processes are taking longer than anticipated. The Authority explored if topic papers being prepared to support key policy direction for the development of National Park plans were building on previous knowledge and policy already developed, and if they are generic and can be applied across National Parks. The Authority discussed the notion that plans may need to be more agile and adaptive as new challenges are likely and issues are emerging more rapidly, such that there is a need to be mindful about how prescriptive plans need to be. Action: Marie Long to provide the Authority with a list of the topic papers and timeframe for completion for October 2017. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to provide the new list of NZCA relevant committees to the DOC Planning, Permissions and Land team. Agenda item 17: Recategorisation of Conservation land – SLM update The paper was taken as read. Marie Long presented the material provided. The Authority expressed concern at continuing delays, and changes in the rating of progress of some NHF Reclassifications. Some delays are due to Treaty settlement processes and working through iwi policy positions. The changed status was made to reflect more accurate timeframes. The time to prioritise and timetable the recategorisation of stewardship land identified by Conservation Boards is also slower than desirable. It was noted that Stewardship land and land recategorisations would form part of the strategic discussion topic with the Department’s D-G and DD-G at the October 2017 meeting. The Authority requested a timetable of programmed work and costings be provided. Action: Marie Long to provide the Authority with a table of costed and programmed work for October 2017 meeting. Action: Warren Parker and Sandra Cook to consider engaging with Aparima runaka to resolve the additions to Fiordland National Park. Agenda item 18: Review of e-bike guidelines The paper was taken as read. Marie Long and Gavin Walker presented the material for comment. The Authority discussed whether the current e-bike guidelines, developed to support statutory management planning processes, provide a consistent approach to e- bike opportunities and use across PCL and, where possible, with neighbouring private landownership. Currently shared-use tracks cross different categories of conservation land and the use of e-bikes in national parks is not permitted. The Authority would like to ensure the e-bike guidelines provide a nationally consistent policy for e-bikes being

DOC-3141097 11

allowed on all trails open to cycling and mountain biking at grade 1-2. Gavin noted that restricting the use of e-bikes to grade 1-2 may not be helpful, as this may preclude groups using both e-bike and mountain bikes; the definition of e-bikes in the guidelines was set to ensure they do not pose any greater impact then mountain bikes, and, that grade 3-4 may be self-limiting as the public would likely adjust their usage of these tracks to their level of competency. There was discussion around the definition of e-bikes. The Department uses the same definition of an e-bike as the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) as this provides e- bike users across the country with consistent regulations (e.g. watts). The GPNP and CGP have different policy wording about e-bikes, which are considered separate from mountain bikes and bicycles in these policies, and are different from the definitions in the e-bike guideline and NZTA. There is opportunity to improve the standardisation and consistency of policies when the NZCA undertakes its review of the General Policy for National Parks (GPNP) and the Conservation General Policy (CGP). Action: Gavin Walker to provide the Authority with a timetable for review of the e-bike guidelines in preparation for the Authority input by December 2017 meeting. Agenda item 19: Update on the Threatened Species Strategy The paper was taken as read. Norm Kelly summarised the material provided and advised that the Minister of Conservation had agreed to delay the release of the Threatened Species Strategy (TSS) until late 2017, as the work involved to analyse submissions had increased with the higher than expected level of interest. More than 190 submissions were received. This will provide opportunity for further engagement with iwi, greater time to fully consult other groups and agencies, integrate the PCE report, and re-run the model that was developed to identify priority species for enhancement. Overall, the quality of information provided by submitters was high. Some themes arising from submissions that were further discussed included: the need for more detail on how the strategy will be funded and implemented, and what are the timeframes for delivery were; the need for more consideration of monitoring and reporting analyses to improve, or generate data (especially for data deficient species); the use of different pest control tools (1080 was still a concern for some submitters with about 15% of submissions focused on the use of 1080); concern around the number and types of priority species identified (Norm advised that the Department is reviewing the source data for the species included in the candidate list for the selection algorithm to re- model the species ranking); aligning with the PCE report recommendations; issues with the goals and use of terms which may have different legal or cultural meanings (e.g. ‘Protection’ is a word with a specific use in legislation, therefore this may cause confusion, especially for species such as freshwater fish that are not covered by the Wildlife Act 1953); and, concern around the classification system used. The Department created and uses the DOC Threatened Species Classification to determine threatened status, as the IUCN Red List criteria was not sufficient to reflect New Zealand’s unique situation. The Authority wants to continue its involvement in the development of the TSS and looked forward to receiving the revised Strategy to comment on. Action: The Department to provide the Authority with the revised Threatened Species Strategy for comment. Rick McGovern-Wilson to keep in contact with Norm Kelly about progress.

DOC-3141097 12

Agenda item 20: Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) and Overseas Investment Office (OIO) Lisa Barrett (CE OIO), supported by Andrew Morris (Acting Mgr Applications, OIO), Jerome Sheppard (DCE Crown Property, LINZ) and John Hook (Grp Mgr Crown Property, LINZ) provided an overview of the roles & responsibilities of the OIO and LINZ. Jerome gave an overview of the work LINZ is doing on tenure review and rivers. There was discussion around how the management of river beds across public conservation land can be adjusted when a transaction of land reclassification occurs. He advised that this would be a fairly straightforward process and that the Department can request the transfer of river bed ownership from LINZ, and that in some circumstances a detailed survey would not be required. Further discussion centred around the potential of developing a national strategic approach to determining remaining high-country land areas that may be priority for tenure review and how to include catchment scale consideration into decision making. A question was raised regarding the criteria used to assess Overseas Investment Applications, and was there active encouragement of foreign investment into New Zealand for biodiversity protection. The Authority discussed whether there was an opportunity to include in the assessment criteria measuring net benefit to conservation. The Authority also raised a question regarding to what extent iwi and local community social, economic development factors, and conservation activities can be considered in decision-making about the allocation of overseas investment. The Authority encouraged the OIO to actively target engagement with iwi and key stakeholders to illicit from these groups how overseas investors could advance benefits to local communities and conservation efforts which could support the potential investors applications. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to draft a letter of thanks to LINZ and OIO. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to draft a letter to DOC regarding the process for LINZ to transfer river beds to DOC upon request. Agenda item 21: Animal Game Council (GAC) Don Hammond, Chair of the Game Animal Council (GAC), presented an overview of GAC - its goals, role and obligations. GAC represent the interests of all sectors of game animal management – trophy and recreational hunters, commercial recovery operators, and the habitat the animals occupy. Don advised that the council was still in the initial phases of development and is building its profile and work programme as funding allowed. The Game Trophy Export Levy is yet to be implemented. Opportunities for the Authority, DOC and GAC were identified to increase conservation gains and cost savings. For example, using recreational hunters to support pest management, such as feral cat control, or monitor for the impact of toxins on herds while in remote back country areas, acting as ‘eyes’ for the Department, and conducting monitoring activities. There was discussion around the need for information on determining acceptable game animal population levels, since some game species populations are currently above the set maximum target levels. Increasing numbers of some game animal populations continues to concern the Authority. It was noted that there will be tension between commercial and recreational hunters, and non-hunter groups, differing views of game species as a resource or pest, the need to determine the balance between protection and sustainable management and that early consultation is essential, including with iwi. The Authority indicated its interest in having input into Herd Management Plans. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to draft a letter of thanks to Don Hammond, Game Animal Council Chair.

DOC-3141097 13

Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to upload Don Hammond’s presentation to Dropbox. Agenda item 22: Ngā Iwi o Taranaki and Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) Jamie Tuuta (Lead Negotiator, Ngā Iwi o Taranaki) and Katherine Gordon (Chief Crown Negotiator Egmont National Park) outlined the Treaty settlement process being undertaken in the Taranaki region. This follow-up meeting with the Authority, following an earlier one at OTS, is part of the agreed stakeholder engagement process that will run throughout the course of Treaty negations affecting Egmont National Park. They were supported by Hemi Sundgren and Liana Poutu (Ngā Iwi o Taranaki), John Wood (Chief Crown Negotiator, Tongariro National Park), Benesia Smith (Negotiation Manager, Office of Treaty Settlements), Thomas Bisley (Analyst, Office of Treaty Settlements) and Richard Towers (Senior Advisor, Treaty Negotiations Unit, DOC). The paper was taken as read. Jamie and Katherine provided a background and overview the process and iwi aspirations: • The collective of tribes known as ‘Ngā iwi o Taranaki’, which includes Ngāti Tama, Ngāti Mutunga, Ngāti Maru, Te Ātiawa, Taranaki, Ngā Ruahine, Ngā Ruanui and Ngā Rauru, are now on the pathway to achieving meaningful redress that meets individual and collective iwi aspirations; and that enables whānau, hapū and iwi to strengthen their connection with the tupuna maunga. • The Treaty settlement claims of the eight iwi of Taranaki are the most severe in the country, reflecting wholesale confiscation of their lands. And, at the heart of grievances, is their tupuna maunga Taranaki. • The Waitangi Tribunal's Taranaki Report, released in 1996, said the mountain had "extraordinary significance" to Maori. Under the Mount Egmont Vesting Act 1978, the mountain was returned to the region by vesting it in the Taranaki Maori Trust Board. It was then immediately passed back to the Government by the board as a "gift” to the nation. However, the tribunal said there had been little evidence provided to it which verified there was agreement from Taranaki hapu to do this. The Tribunal ruled that there had also been no valid basis for Mt Taranaki's confiscation from Maori in the first place. • This negotiation is fast tracked for settlement. The Taranaki Maunga negotiation team and the Crown are working towards reaching an agreement in principle by late August 2017. • The goals of the settlement include the recognition of the mountain as an ancestor, the development of a governance and management approach which involves iwi, government and the community along with establishing a 'whole of mountain' strategy, with regards to all activity on Mt Taranaki and the surrounding region • Cultural redress and an apology are being sought, but the claim does not provide for any financial or commercial compensation. • A key focus is to create opportunities for iwi across Taranaki to strengthen their ties with the mountain which is viewed by Maori as a tupuna or ancestor, enable cultural practices, and improve their economic welfare. • Tittle is important to iwi as land ownership is viewed differently. • Ngā iwi o Taranaki are seeking to ensure arrangements include flexibility in the future to adapt management or change National Park management. It was noted that Treaty settlements present change and have challenges and tension points, but also provide opportunities. The Authority noted that it was required to advise and make decisions that are guided by and consistent with the Conservation Act and National Park Policy. It was also noted that Conservation Boards have a statutory role (including advocacy and advice, management, monitoring, reporting and concessions)

DOC-3141097 14 that covers the management options described by Ngā iwi o Taranaki which already relate to the whole region out to the Territorial Sea limit. This may be an appropriate way to manage the area without a need to set up a separate bespoke management board. The Authority has demonstrated that it is flexible in its thinking to support iwi and advised its intention to review the General Policy for National Parks. The main focus is that the agreed system of management needs to ensure that the natural, historic and cultural values are protected. Ngā iwi o Taranaki thanked the Authority for the opportunity to meet with it and wished to build the relationship and advocacy for their vision. Jamie advised that they will continue to engage with the Authority. Rauru Kirikiri thanked the Ngā iwi o Taranaki representatives. Action: Warren Parker and Rick McGovern-Wilson to draft up feedback to Ngā iwi o Taranaki. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to send a letter of thanks with the feedback to Ngā iwi o Taranaki and the Office of Treaty Settlements. Agenda item 23.1: Chairs report Warren Parker, NZCA Chair, took his report as read. Agenda item 23.2: Conservation Board liaison reports The papers were taken as read. Judy Hellstrom’s (Nelson Marlborough Conservation Board Liaison) report, her last as a member of the Authority, recorded her appraisal of the Nelson Marlborough Conservation Board meeting held in Motueka on 16 June 2017. Her report noted that the meeting was the last meeting for a number of Board members, including the Chair, Bob Dickinson. Topics of discussion included Myrtle Rust incursion preparedness; the King salmon farm relocation proposal; and 1080 operations in Abel Tasman NP in partnership with ZIP. The report noted that the Board continues to be concerned that the Department is not actively engaging in major Environment Court hearings. Reports were tabled by Rauru Kirikiri (East Coast Hawke’s Bay) and Jan Riddell (Southland). Agenda item 24 Correspondence The correspondence log was taken as read. The Authority resolved to receive the inwards correspondence and approve the outwards correspondence. Mick Clout/Gerry McSweeney/carried Agenda item 24.1 Correspondence Draft response to South Island Wild Animal Recovery Operators Association. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to finalise the Authority’s response to the South Island Wild Animal Recovery Operators Association requests. Meeting Close Warren closed the meeting at 12.40 pm and thanked everyone for their constructive contributions.

Meeting Closed: 12.40pm

DOC-3141097 15 16 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.4.2 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: “In-committee” 7 and 8 August 2017 meeting minutes

NZCA Strategic NZCA’s performance (Priority J) Priority and/or the Relevant DOC SOI Goal

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Resolve to go “into committee”, and b) Approve 7 and 8 August 2017 “In-committee” minutes as a true and accurate record.

Context The draft minutes from the Authority meeting on 7 and 8 August 2017 were circulated to members by email on 1 September 2017 for comment.

DOC-2639479 17

18 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.5 Meeting No. 157

NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (NZCA) Meeting on 2 and 3 October 2017

Status Report as at 20 September 2017

RESPONSIBILITY TOPIC REQUIRED ACTION PROGRESS STATUS Actions arising from June 2017 meeting. Previous actions which follow from resolutions taken at previous meetings on the same issue are retained and reported on under the meeting at which the issue first arose. e.g. Strategic advice on management planning; Kauri National Park proposal. Actions arising from August 2016 meeting. 1. NZCA Additions to The Authority resolved to delay making Write a letter to the June 2017: DOC still Fiordland National a recommendation at this stage Department to seek to consult, completion Park pending further discussion between the confirmation that date now 30 June Department and the runanga in light of consultation has 2018 the issues being resolved through the been undertaken. Paparoa National Park Management NZCA to challenge the Plan being resolved; and report back at 12-month delay the February meeting. August 2017: Warren Parker and Sandra Cook to consider engaging with Aparima runaka to resolve the additions to Fiordland National Park Actions arising from October 2015 meeting. 2. NZCA Mokihinui River Authority resolved to proceed with the Letter sent to Hon Letter referred from additions of the areas outlined in the Maggie Barry, cc: MOC to Department to agenda paper to the Kahurangi National Lou Sanson, DOC, & action. Park under Section 7 of the National Mike Legge, Parks Act 1980, having first ensured WCTPCB 28 June Chair/EO met with that the Authority’s report also covers 2017 with the TRONT 4 July 2017 to

DOC-3140131

25 the four points raised during the recommendation to discuss Mokihinui discussion (iwi views to be stated, add Mokihinui River decision within wider biodiversity values to be reported on, catchment to discussion of land budget implications of change in land Kahurangi National additions status, and appropriateness of current Park pursuant to Kahurangi National Park Management section 7 National Other steps to Plan). Parks Act 1980. progress OIC now being actioned

DOC-3140131

26 Other actions (not from resolutions)

RESPONSIBILITY TOPIC REQUIRED ACTION PROGRESS STATUS

N/S Not started Action overdue Underway or ongoing Action completed August 2017 1. NZCA staff Induction PPT EO to upload the Induction Presentation Uploaded 10 August 2017 to Dropbox 2. NZCA staff Net Conservation EO to discuss with Mark Christensen re If change is needed, benefit reviewing the Net Conservation Benefit circulate before the paper with respect to the Supreme December meeting so it Court decision on the proposed land- can be ratified at the swap for the Ruataniwha Dam meeting 3. NZCA staff Committee structure EO to upload the revised NZCA Uploaded 31 August 2017 committee structure to Dropbox 4. NZCA Chair and staff Strategic Priorities Chair and EO to incorporate the Prepare for the October suggestions and changes for a draft 2017 meeting New Zealand Conservation Authority: Strategic Priorities for 2017 5. NZCA staff General Policy for EO to email the members of the GPNP Prepare these for National Parks Committee and develop the TOR and discussion at the October timeline 2017 meeting 6. NZCA staff Overdue letters EO to follow-up with Minister’s office Yorke Creek letter received over overdue responses to NZCA 28 August; other letter sent letters, viz Yorke Creek addition to to MOC office 3 August Paparoa National Park, and a proposed 2017, still to be signed out border levy 7. NZCA staff Work programme EO to work with Mita Harris to confirm Incorporate with Work an appropriate youth presentation and Programme update schedule it into the 2017-2018 NZCA N/S Work Programme 8. NZCA staff Work programme EO to confirm an appropriate EO to confirm with Chair organisation to brief the Authority on and schedule into Work commercial tourism and schedule it into Programme N/S the 2017-2018 NZCA Work Programme

DOC-3140131

27 9. NZCA staff Work programme EO to schedule in a meeting in Potentially aim for the June Northland/Te Hiku for next year 2018 meeting N/S 10. NZCA staff Meeting dates EO to review current meeting dates and Further discussion to occur work with Authority members to develop at October 2017 meeting suitable dates for future meetings 11. NZCA staff October meeting Authority members to provide the As soon as possible to Statutory Bodies Advisor with their enable bookings to be preferred travel option made 12. Director-General Statutory planning EO to liaise with D-G over a report back Raised it wat meeting with on delays in the statutory planning D-G 13 September 2017, processes D-G will respond at October meeting 13. NZCA staff Collaborative EO to upload the Collaborative Uploaded 10 August 2017 Landscape Landscape Conservation presentation Conservation to Dropbox 14. NZCA staff Tourism and EO to upload the Tourism and Uploaded 10 August 2017 Recreation strategy Recreation presentation to Dropbox 15. NZCA Chair and staff Minister’s BIM Chair and EO to draft a Briefing to the Final approval at the Incoming Minister for 2017, in light of October 2017 meeting the discussions, and re-circulate it again to members for their input 16. Marie Long National Park plan Marie Long to provide the Authority with For the October 2017 reviews a list of the Aoraki Mt Cook and meeting Westland NPMP topic papers and timeframe for completion 17. NZCA staff NZCA Committees EO to provide the new list of NZCA List sent 14 August 2017 relevant committees to the DOC Planning, Permissions and Land team 18. Marie Long Land Marie Long to provide the Authority with Requested for the October recategorisations a table of already costed and 2017 meeting programmed work 19. Gavin Walker E-bikes EO to talk to Gavin Walker re providing In preparation for the the Authority with a timetable for review Authority input by N/S of the e-bike guidelines December 2017 meeting 20. NZCA staff Threatened Species The Department to provide the Seek to circulate the latest Strategy Authority with the revised Threatened version before the N/S Species Strategy for comment. EO to December 2017 meeting

DOC-3140131

28 keep in contact with Norm Kelly about progress 21. NZCA staff LINZ/OIO EO to draft a letter of thanks to LINZ Letter sent 17 August 2017 and OIO for attending August meeting 22. NZCA staff River beds EO to draft a letter to DOC regarding Letter sent 11 September the process for LINZ to transfer river 2017 beds to DOC upon request 23. NZCA staff Game Animal 1. EO to draft a letter of thanks to Don Letter sent 16 August Council Hammond, Game Animal Council 2017, presentation Chair uploaded 10 August 2017 2. EO to upload Don Hammond’s presentation to Dropbox 24. NZCA Chair and staff Taranaki maunga Chair and EO to draft up feedback and Letter sent 31 August 2017 letter of thanks to Ngā iwi o Taranaki for attending August meeting 25. NZCA staff Taranaki maunga EO to send letter of thanks to the Office Letter sent 16 August 2017 of Treaty Settlements for attending August meeting 26. NZCA staff Correspondence EO to finalise the Authority’s response Letter sent 11 September to the South Island Wild Animal 2017 Recovery Operators Association requests June 2017 27. NZCA staff Threatened Species 1. EO to request a report overview to 1. EO met with Julie Strategy (TSS)/ PCE be presented at the October Knauf, Director TEU, report on native birds meeting, examining the relationship 20 June 2017 – report between the TSS and PCE report. being developed 2. EO to request DOC provide a copy 2. Final version confirmed of the DOC Threatened Species before the Aug Strategy (TSS) to NZCA for meeting, so will be comment on before it is finalised. circulated via Friday 3. DD-G Biodiversity to provide a email report back to the NZCA on the 3. December meeting interface between the PCE report/TSS and DOCs Stretch Goals.

DOC-3140131

29 28. DOC staff Marine Protected Sean Cooper to advise the NZCA on Update to come for Areas update the development of the MPA Strategy to December 2017 meeting enable NZCA input and feedback on N/S the Strategy. February 2017 29. NZCA staff Treaty issues EO to source the Iwi Rights and Issues The paper is still being paper for the NZCA members completed by DOC Policy team October 2016 30. NZCA and NZCA staff Treaty Principles and 1. Requested that 1. Papers sent to Chair Customary use • the Authority’s 1997 publication 15 March 2017 to Maori Customary Use of Native assess the need for Birds, Plants and Other Traditional updating Materials and 2. S4 Principles sent to • 2007 Giving effect to section 4 of committee 15 March the Conservation Act 1987 2017 be circulated to members 3. Chair, Rau Kirikiri and 2. Agree on who will revise the Treaty EO to revise Treaty Principles at the December meeting. Principles policy for October 2017 meeting August 2016 31. NZCA staff Submissions on Do an analysis of Treaty negotiations Update for December Treaty settlements currently underway and see what meeting with latest implications they may have on the settlements from 2015-17 Authority.

DOC-3140131

30 NZCA Work Programme 2017-2018 Rolling 1 year work programme

Agenda paper type 2-3 October 2017 4-5 December 2017 5-6 February 2018 - TBC 2-3 April 2018 - TBC 5-6 June 2018 - TBC 6-7 August 2018 - TBC 1-2 October 2018 - TBC Rotorua Wellington Palmerston North Wellington Auckland ? Wellington Otago NZCA influence and Confirm the BIM (Briefing to the Review the 5-Year Plan for Follow up discussion on Climate advocacy Incoming Minister) Stewardship Land recategorisations Change and the implications for DOC infrastructure

Identify potential submissions for the Identify potential submissions for the Identify potential submissions for the Identify potential submissions for the Identify potential submissions for the Identify potential submissions for the Identify potential submissions for the NZCA to lodge NZCA to lodge NZCA to lodge NZCA to lodge NZCA to lodge NZCA to lodge NZCA to lodge

Initiate a review of the General Policy Discussion on expenditure priorities for National Parks and business planning (Christeen Mackenzie)

Further strategic discussion on the Ratify the Annual Report Department's Tourism Strategy

DG/DD-G strategic Land issues - stewardship land, land Predator Free 2050 (Martin Kessick) Science Strategy (Ken Hughey) Legislation - is it fit for purpose? discussion topics reclassifications (Mike Slater) (Jonty Somers/ Christeen Mackenzie)

DG Reports & D-G report and environmental scan D-G report and environmental scan D-G report and environmental scan D-G report and environmental scan D-G report and environmental scan D-G report and environmental scan D-G report and environmental scan Department Updates Presentation from Mervyn English on Marine sanctaries-reserves update Update on DOC's work with Historic HP and OD work Heritage

Conservation Plans for Receive Wellington CMS Approve Wellington CMS Receive Westland Tai Poutini NPMP Approve Westland Tai Poutini NPMP Receive East Coast Hawke's Bay CMS Approve East Coast Hawke's Bay CMS Review/Approval Receive Tongaririo NPMP partial Approve Tongariro NPMP partial Receive Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Approve Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP review review Stakeholder Meet Bay of Plenty Conservation Meet with new CEO of WWF NZ Meet with CE of Forest and Bird Meet new President of Federated Meet Auckland Conservation Board Meet Otago Conservation Board Engagement Board Farmers and CEO Simon Upton (new PCE) - tbc Meet Wellington Conservation Board Meet CE of Tourism Industry Aotearoa (TIA) Ed Chignall (CEO, PF2050 Ltd) NZCA Operations & Review of NZCA Performance Performance NZCA Policy & Review NZCA policy (s4 Review NZCA policy (insert name) Review NZCA policy (insert name) Review NZCA policy (insert name) Review NZCA policy (insert name) Review NZCA policy (insert name) Review NZCA policy (insert name) Principles commitments) Field Visits Bay of Plenty (via Rotorua) Wellington (via Palm North) Auckland or lower Northland Central Otgao

Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer DOCDM-1570088 31 18/09/2017 32 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.6.1 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Meeting dates for NZCA

NZCA Strategic NZCA Priority K: NZCA’s performance Priority and/or the Relevant DOC SOI Goal

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Note the contents of this paper b) Agree on the dates for NZCA meetings going forward

Context Meeting dates In 2014 the NZCA members agreed that meetings would be held on the Monday and Tuesday of the first week of every second month. Where the Monday was a public holiday (e.g. Waitangi Day or Queen’s Birthday) the meeting would be held on the first Tuesday and Wednesday. It is proposed that you retain those dates for the remainder of 2017 as these are listed on the DOC web site, and members’ expectations are built around them. At the August meeting, there was a discussion as to whether the meeting dates/days should be changed going forward into 2018. The consensus was around reached over keeping them as the first Monday/Tuesday of every second month. Three of the members, however, were not party to that discussion, and this creates significant difficulties for one. Noting also that in 2018 February, April and June all have a public holiday on the first Monday of the month, which would require shifting the meetings, and taking into account Kerry’s diary, it is proposed that the meetings move to the last Monday/Tuesday, as follows: February – 26 and 27 April – 23 and 24 June – 25 and 26 August – 27 and 28 October – 29 and 30

DOC-3165771 Rick McGovern-Wilson 14 September 2017 33 December – suggest 10 and 11

Out of Wellington meetings Traditionally two meetings per year (of the six) have been held out of Wellington, as a means of meeting conservation boards and DOC staff, and coming to understand some of the issues that those boards are facing. For 2018, it is agreed that the meetings be held, as follows: February – Palmerston North, with the Wellington Conservation Board, looking at issues in the Lower North island region October – Otago, possibly flying into either Dunedin or Queenstown, but based in Cromwell.

DOC-3165771 Rick McGovern-Wilson 14 September 2017 34 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.6.2 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson

Subject: Committee structures and NZCA representations

NZCA Strategic NZCA’s performance (Priority K) – Goal K Priority Effect continuous improvement in order to provide greater value and impact

Recommendation It is recommended that the Authority: a) Confirm the make-up of committees and NZCA representations

Context At the August meeting, a discussion was held regarding the membership of NZCA Committees, and liaison roles with Conservation Boards, to reflect the changes on the Authority. The attached tables are a clean copy of the discussed membership, for your approval. It is important to understand the role of the conservation board liaison. NZCA members may attend as many meetings as they are able (but are not required to attend all) in order to provide a connection between a board and the Authority. You are expected to provide a 1-2 page report on board discussions, including bringing to the attention of the fuller Authority any pressing issues. You can also provide assistance to the Chair on appointments and succession planning, and the joint board and Authority fieldtrip during the Authority’s out of Wellington meetings.

DOC-3165741 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 35 DOC-3165741 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 36 NZCA Committees, Representations and Conservation Board liaison

NZCA Committees

Conservation Management Strategies

Wellington Conservation Management Strategy Committee Current action David Barnes (convenor) Est: February 2017. Kerry Prendergast Work with the Rauru Kirikiri Department on the current reviews.

National Park Management Plans

Aoraki Mount Cook National Park Management Plan review Current action Committee Rau Kirikiri (convenor) Est: June 2016. Jan Riddell Work with the Mark Christensen Department on the current reviews.

Fiordland National Park Management Plan review Current action Committee Jan Riddell (convenor) Est: February 2017. Sandra Cook Work with the Mick Clout Department on the current reviews.

Mt Aspiring National Park Management Plan review Current action Committee David Barnes (convenor) Est: February 2017. Gerry McSweeney Work with the Robyn Jebson Department on the current reviews.

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review Current action Committee David Barnes Est: December 2016. Rauru Kirikiri Work with the Mark Brough Department on the current reviews.

Westland Tai Poutini National Park Management Plan Current action Committee Robyn Jebson Est: June 2016. Warren Parker Work with the Mark Christensen?? Department on the current reviews

DOC-3165741 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 37 Policy

Grass Carp Committee Current action Mick Clout Est: June 2007. Mark Brough Recently advised the Minister on a proposal to release grass carp into Lakes Tutira,

Waikopiro and Opouahi.

General Policy for National Parks review committee Current action

Mark Christensen (convenor) Est: 7 August 2017. David Barnes To lead the review of Mita Harris the GPNP, published Sandra Cook in 2005, to ensure it remains fit for purpose.

Representations

NZCA representatives J D Stout Trust Rauru Kirikiri NZ Committee of IUCN Mark Christensen Land and Water Forum Mark Brough

Conservation Board liaison Te Hiku Conservation Board Mita Harris Northland Conservation Board Mita Harris Auckland Conservation Board Mark Brough Waikato Conservation Board Mick Clout Bay of Plenty Conservation Board Warren Parker East Coast/Hawke’s Bay Conservation Board Rauru Kirikiri Tongariro/Taupo Conservation Board Kerry Prendergast Taranaki/Whanganui Conservation Board Mark Brough Wellington Conservation Board David Barnes Chatham Islands Conservation Board Warren Parker Nelson/Marlborough Conservation Board Robyn Jebson West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board Gerry McSweeney Canterbury Aoraki Conservation Board Mark Christensen Otago Conservation Board Tony Lepper Southland Conservation Board Jan Riddell

DOC-3165741 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 38 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.7 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: NZCA Strategic Priorities 2017-18

NZCA Strategic NZCA’s performance (Priority K) – Goal K Priority Effect continuous improvement in order to provide greater value and impact

Recommendation It is recommended that the Authority: a) Adopt the Strategic Priorities for 2017-18

Context The Authority undertakes a yearly self-review of its performance of its statutory functions and its Strategic Priorities. At the August 2017 meeting, Authority members discussed the Strategic Priorities, and identified changes to update them. Members’ comments have been collated, and the new Strategic Priorities for 2017-18 are attached for adoption.

DOC-3157979 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 7 September 2017 39

DOC-3157979 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 7 September 2017 40 New Zealand Conservation Authority: Strategic Priorities for 2017-18 Revised following NZCA August 2017 meeting

STATUTORY ROLE FOR MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND LAND STATUS Strategic Conservation Management Strategies (A) and priority National Park Management Plans (B) (A&B) NZCA role Review and approve. Advice on the development and shaping. (A&B) Goals 1. Approve strategy/plan at the third meeting after receipt. (A&B) 2. Improve efficacy of approval processes. Actions 1. Follow NZCA approval processes (and seek opportunities to expedite timelines, (A&B) whilst holding or improving the quality of decisions). 2. Push for better, more dynamic and responsive plans, and smarter planning processes. 3. Ensure CMSs and NPMPs align with the Department’s Intermediate Outcomes and 2025 Stretch Goals 4. Build relationship with Tuhoe regarding the finalisation and implementation of their Te Kawa o Te Urewera Management Plan. Strategic Land status recategorisation e.g. stewardship land priority (C) NZCA role Recommendatory / statutory (for national parks) and advisory (for all conservation (C) lands). Goals (C) Conduct a credible and transparent investigation and provide a report with clear recommendations for action. Actions (C) 1. Update the NZCA’s document “Stewardship Land: Net Conservation Benefit Assessments in Land Exchanges” and ensure the assessment criteria are clear (to assist efficiency and so that the information provided can be targeted). 2. Ensure the process and decision for land recategorisation is credible and robust; and that this is apparent to all stakeholders, including consultation with iwi at the inception of the process. 3. Support the relevant conservation board on specific land recategorisation matters. 4. Provide advice on future tenure reviews under the Land Act and Overseas Investment Act/Office processes. 5. Advise on a strategy/programme for prioritising stewardship land reclassifications. Strategic Treaty of Waitangi and Post-Treaty Settlement Conservation Management priority (D) NZCA role Meet requirements for NZCA as specified in settlement legislation; give on-going effect (D) to the principles of the Treaty (per Section 4 and General Policies); provide advice in response to requests from settlement negotiation parties; evaluate and provide feedback on novel post-Treaty settlement approaches to achieving conservation outcomes. Goals (D) 1. Ensure Conservation Act 1987 section 4 considerations are appropriately addressed in the updated General Policy for National Parks and that the procedures for this are updated with learnings from Treaty settlements. 2. Demonstrate openness and good faith when giving advice (if consulted) on alternative models for conservation oversight and management.

DOC-3157979 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 7 September 2017 41 Actions (D) 1. Review General Policy for National Parks (see also Goal J). 2. Maintain open communication with iwi leaders. 3. Implement NZCA’s section 4 template (including revisions), and review the Authority’s performance in relation to this annually. 4. Review and approve Te Hiku CMS.

INFLUENCE AND ‘STEP CHANGE’ OPPORTUNITIES Strategic Strategic advice to the Minister and DG in the context of conservation in today’s priority (E) economy, the governance requirements, and strategic advice on public policy documents and legislation NZCA role Advisory. (E) Goals (E) Perceived as a respected and influential source of strategic advice for conservation. Actions (E) 1. Give clear, considered and timely advice: • On all matters, relevant to the NZCA effectively fulfilling its functions; and • Where this can be influential in achieving better conservation outcomes. 2. Maintain an active environmental scan to ensure the current and future operating context for conservation is well understood. 3. Maintain active links with conservation boards and the community, actively seek improved quality of conservation board nominees. 4. Follow up on submissions and advice to gauge their influence and identify where improvements in this role can be made. 5. Science plan – provide advice at a strategic level on the direction of science undertaken within the Department and its alignment with the attainment of the 2025 Stretch Goals. 6. Give advice on public conservation engagement and pre-tertiary education. 7. Provide regular monitoring of and advice to achieve the Stretch Goals and the Intermediate Outcomes objectives. Strategic Opportunities for step change in conservation: Pests/weeds/biosecurity priority (F) NZCA role Provide thought leadership on approaches and applications of new techniques and the (F) social licence to apply these. Goals (F) Better protect, enhance and appreciate New Zealand’s native biodiversity. Actions (F) 1. Provide strategic advice to the Director-General and the Minister. 2. Support the evaluation and, where appropriate field assessment, of gene drive and other novel technologies that could help New Zealand become predator free by 2050. 3. Provide advice on securing and/or sustaining a social licence to responsibly use efficient pest and weed control technologies 4. Encourage the Department to undertake and sustain large-scale animal pest control (including the use of 1080), especially via the Battle for our Birds. 5. Encourage the Department to actively manage threats to native biodiversity such kauri dieback (PTA) disease and myrtle rust, and to take a strong stance on biosecurity in general. 6. Encourage the Department to apply robust methodology for analysing net conservation benefit, including natural capital assessment and integrations of these approaches with other primary sector stakeholders. 7. Support the War on Weeds and wilding pines eradication campaigns/programmes.

DOC-3157979 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 7 September 2017 42 Strategic Marine Ecosystems and Protected Areas priority (G) NZCA role Advisory and advocacy. (G) Goals (G) Contribute to the better protection of the marine environment and biodiversity. Actions(G) 1. Actively engage with DOC on Marine Protected Areas and how to protect a representative range of habitats and species cost effectively. 2. Investigate Snares, Three Kings and Chathams for marine protection and implement follow-up steps from this. 3. Maintain a watching brief on the growing/expanding marine aquaculture industry and monitor development and its impacts on marine ecosystems.

ADVOCACY ON NATIONALLY SIGNIFICANT ISSUES FOR CONSERVATION Strategic Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation priority (H) NZCA role Advisory and advocacy. (H) Goals (H) Assess the implications of, and opportunities arising from, climate change and ensure conservation planning and expenditure priorities. Actions (H) 1. Highlight the role of conservation in mitigating and adapting to climate change; and the means to reduce the risks of climate change to biodiversity and the Department’s infrastructure and management of capital assets. 2. Show leadership with respect to landscape scale pest control and its contribution as a mitigating factor – improving ecosystem health/ resilience. Strategic Rivers and Freshwater Ecosystems priority (I) NZCA role Advisory and advocacy. (I) Goals (I) Seek to achieve the recommendations in the NZCA’s Rivers report and the role of conservation lands in achieving the National Framework for Freshwater outcomes. Actions (I) 1. Maintain active advocacy for the comprehensive protection of a representative range of rivers. 2. Participate in LAWF and/or its successors. 3. Schedule time on agendas for discussions with DOC staff on protecting waterways and wetlands, and improving water quality and freshwater habitats. 4. Provide strategic advice on the management of whitebait and other endangered freshwater species such as the longfin eel.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION Strategic Effectiveness and efficiency of the Department’s conservation management priority (J) NZCA role Review and advise. (J) Goals (J) 1. Fulfil statutory function (CA 6B(c)) to review and report on the Department’s administration of General Policies. 2. Provide insightful evaluation and advice that contributes to improved conservation outcomes. 3. Provide a ‘check and balance’ on the Department’s strategic planning.

DOC-3157979 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 7 September 2017 43 Actions (J) 1. Review the 2005 General; Policy for National Parks. 2. Ensure General Policies are implemented in CMSs and NPMPs (via approval role - see A&B), and Milestone reporting is undertaken. 3. Provide advice on the Department’s Statement of Intent. 4. Provide advice on the Department’s expenditure priorities. 5. Provide advice to the Department on how business, volunteer groups, and communities can engage with them more easily in order to increase conservation outcomes. Strategic NZCA’s performance priority (K) NZCA role Self review. (K) Goals (K) Effect continuous improvement to achieve greater value and impact. Actions (K) 1. Undertake annual self-review of performance and modus operandi. 2. Document and enhance NZCA processes and guidance policies and principles.

DOC-3157979 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 7 September 2017 44 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.8 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Review of the General Policy for National Parks

NZCA Strategic NZCA Strategic Priorities: Priority and/or the D: Treaty of Waitangi and Post-Treaty settlement conservation Relevant DOC SOI management Goal J: Effectiveness and efficiency of the Department’s conservation management

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Provide feedback to enhance the Terms of Reference b) Adopt the finally agreed Terms of Reference; and c) Note resourcing and other project requirements will be confirmed at the December meeting when the Committee reports back with a workplan outline and budget.

Context At the August 2017 meeting, the Authority agreed that it would initiate a review of the General Policy for National Parks (2005). A committee was established to lead the review, comprising Mark Christensen (convenor), David Barnes, Mita Harris and Sandra Cook. Mark Christensen will lead a discussion on the development of the Terms of Reference, timelines and work programme. Issues that need to be addressed include: • What is the extent for change – should this be a revamp, or back to first principles? • What is the future operating context in which the GPNP will be applied; and how can this be accommodated whilst meeting legislated requirements? • Can the post-Treaty settlement context for Maori be more effectively reflected in the GPNP? • Who “owns” the GPNP under the National Parks Act 1980 (NPA), as this identifies the role of the Authority, and how they might access resourcing for the review. The proposed Terms of Reference are outlined in the attached paper, and seek members’ input.

DOC-3168813 19 September 2017 45

DOC-3168813 19 September 2017 46 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.8 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Review of the General Policy for National Parks

Background/Introduction 1. The NZCA Chair Kerry Marshall’s forward to the 2005 edition of the GPNP succinctly encapsulates its purpose: General Policy for National Parks provides guidance for managing national parks – the jewels of New Zealand’s public conservation lands. They are places that have been set aside for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use and enjoyment of the public. Each national park requires a management plan which is developed in consultation with the public. The New Zealand Conservation Authority’s role is to adopt statements of general policy to guide the preparation of such plans. This General Policy replaces the 1983 policy which has served national parks well and the essence of the old policy has been retained. An important consideration in this 2005 General Policy was to provide for more appropriate recognition of the interests of tangata whenua in national parks. The policies in this document ensure that consideration will always be given to the appropriate balance between the preservation of native plants and animals, the welfare in general of the parks, and the rights of the public to access and enjoy these special places. Each park has its own unique characteristics which affect where public use will be encouraged and where it will be controlled – amenities areas on the one hand and wilderness and specially protected areas on the other are the extreme ends of the spectrum. The bottom line, of course, is that national parks are preserved and maintained in perpetuity. We must be ever vigilant to ensure that this basic tenet is not massaged or eroded. The policies set out in this General Policy are directed to the attainment of that objective. Except for an amendment in 2007 (to further better reflect considerations of tangata whenua) more than a decade has passed since the last review. The “world” for conservation management has changed significantly since then: for example, Treaty settlements are largely completed; rapid growth in tourist numbers; partnerships with business and philanthropy to attract new investment for conservation; Internet enabled technology to support improved visitor awareness and experience; and, new legislation and heightened accountability for health and safety. As well, the NZCA’s input to the Paparoa NPMP (approved December 2016), work in progress for the Westland and Mt Aoraki NPMP updates, and discussions with Ngai Tahu and other iwi, suggest it is time to relook at the GPNP. And, in recommending the addition of the Mokihinui area to the Kahurangi National Park, the Authority resolved under part 6:

DOC-3168813 19 September 2017 47 Recommends the incoming NZCA (from 1 July 2017) prioritise a review of the General Policy for National Parks (prepared in 2005 and not since reviewed); This resolution was addressed at the August meeting of the new Authority with the establishment of a Committee to undertake this work.

Details 2. The Committee is likely to require resources to support external legal review, travel for meetings with Maori and other key stakeholders; project management support such as document discovery and preparation. 3. It is proposed the Committee reports back to the December 2017 Authority meeting with a reasonably detailed workplan and budget for approval. In the meantime, the Chair and Executive Officer will brief the D-G on these pending requirements.

Terms of Reference 4. Draft terms are as follows: a) Undertake a global scan of developments in National Park policy and management to identify innovations and approaches that might usefully be applied in the New Zealand context; b) Consult with stakeholders of National Parks plans to identify current policy limitations (if any) and possible remedies to these; c) Meet with iwi representatives to understand their perspectives on national parks and the general policy in a post-Treaty settlement context; d) Meet with the Minister of Conservation to obtain her/his views on the general policy and longer-term outlook for its application; e) Engage with Department D-G, DD-Gs and policy and planning staff to understand the “practical realities’ of planning under the current general policy and where they believe improvements could be made; f) Review examples of best practice management of commercial activities in national parks and their applicability to New Zealand, and obtain such external legal and policy advice as necessary; g) Review and amend the GPNP considering findings from (a) to (f), and a relook at the relevant legislation and the interface with Conservation General Policy (and any other policies that are contingent or impacted by the GPNP). Document proposed amendments and the rationale for this; h) Seek independent legal, research and other perspectives on the amendments (and any other enhancements they might proposed) to finalise a draft amended GPNP for NZCA review; i) Publicly notified to provide opportunity for stakeholder and Maori review of and submissions on the amended policy, as per s44 of the NPA; j) Propose a final revised GPNP to the NZCA for adoption. The aim is to complete this work within a 12-month timeframe. The Committee should provide a brief report on progress at each NZCA meeting during this time frame and bring any contentious issues to the Authority’s attention for advice.

Conclusion 5. The GPNP is a key document ensuring effective plans for managing New Zealand’s national parks. Maintaining the balance of what is ‘sacrosanct’ about National Parks whilst also moving with the times and expectations of today’s (and future) society will be a challenge for the Committee.

DOC-3168813 19 September 2017 48 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.9 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2016

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Annual Report

NZCA Strategic (J) NZCA’s performance Priority

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Approve the process set out below for completing the NZCA Annual Report for 2016-2017. b) Delegate authority to the Chair to sign off the final version so it can be tabled in the House, if that needs to occur prior to the December meeting.

Context The Authority is required to report to the Minister of Conservation annually under Section 6E of the Conservation Act 1987. Its report is a parliamentary paper and is tabled in the House of Representatives (Parliament). The draft Annual Report 2016-2017 is still being completed. It is proposed that 2-3 members of the former Authority work with the Executive Officer to complete a draft by the end of October. This will then be circulated to the full Authority for comment, and approval. The Department’s publications team will be utilised to do a final edit, layout the design and organise publishing of the Annual Report. It will then be tabled in the House of Representatives, once a Government is formed, distributed to those with an interest (e.g. Conservation Boards and NGOs), and added to the www.conservationauthority.org.nz webpages. It will then be ratified by the full Authority at the December meeting, if it needs to be tabled before that meeting.

DOC-3169738 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 20 September 2017 49

50 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.10 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Lou Sanson (Director-General)

Subject: Director-General’s Report

NZCA Strategic (E) Strategic advice to the Minister and DG in the context of Priority conservation in today’s economy, and strategic advice on public policy documents and legislation

Recommendation It is recommended that the Authority: a) Note this report by the Director-General

Context This report by the Director-General brings to the Authority’s attention a range of operational matters that have occurred in the June –July 2017 period. Topics discussed include: • Battle for our Birds • Myrtle Rust • Threatened Species Strategy • Predator Free 2050 • Island Invasives 2017 • NZ Fish and Game • Willis Report on Biodiversity • Paparoa Track • EPA Decision on TTR Sand Mining Application • Commercial Partners Hui • Kea Safety • Fire at Pureora Base

DOC-3164904 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 15 September 2017 51

DOC-3164904 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 15 September 2017 52 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.10.2 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Conservation Board Chairpersons’ Conference

NZCA Strategic NZCA Priority (K): NZCA’s performance Priority and/or the Relevant DOC SOI Goal

Recommendation It is recommended that the Authority: a) Note the outcomes from the Conservation Board Chairpersons’ Conference

Context The NZCA hosted a conservation board chairpersons’ conference on 8 and 9 August 2017 at Conservation House in Wellington. This report provides a summary on the conference. Attached is the chairpersons’ conference notes, approved by Warren Parker and circulated to the chairs for comment.

DOC-3153029 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 65

DOC-3153029 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 66 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.10.2 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Conservation Board Chairpersons’ Conference

Background/Introduction 1. The NZCA hosted the conservation board chairpersons’ conference on 8 and 9 August 2017 at Conservation House in Wellington.

Details/Comments 2. Eleven chairpersons, two deputy-chairpersons, and one member attended the conference on behalf of their board. Warren Parker chaired the conference and Rau Kirikiri and Mark Brough chaired sessions. 3. The chairs had an “in-committee” around the table session, with NZCA members excluded, on 8 August 2017. The Director-General joined the Chairs following the “in-committee” session to discuss recent Departmental activities and address the effectiveness of the working relationship between DOC, NCZA and Boards. 4. That evening the chairs were joined by the Nature Heritage Fund Committee, also in town for the first meeting of their new committee, NZCA members, the D-G and Martin Kessick, and both the Minister and Associate Minister. 5. The Associate Minister of Conservation, Hon Nicky Wagner, attended the conference and led a discussion on the Conservation Board Letters of Expectation, work programmes, annual reporting and options for maintaining board membership without requiring the full appointment process. 6. Martin Kessick, Deputy Director-General Biodiversity, provided an update on the Department’s strategic and operational work and the Department’s major biodiversity initiatives – such as Predator Free 2050, the Threatened Species Strategy(TSS) and the relationship of the TSS to the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) report Taonga of an island nation: Saving New Zealand's birds. Martin also advised that the Department has released a National Compliance Strategy 2017–2020 which sets out DOCs approach to its compliance and law enforcement functions. 7. Other topics discussed during the meeting included: working with iwi and the role that Conservation Boards play in Treaty negotiations and partnering with Māori in conservation management; servicing of Conservation Boards; an update on whitebait management; Conservation Management Strategies (CMSs); National Park Management Plans (NPMPs) and an update on the 5-Year Stewardship Land re-categorisation and the 2016-2017 CMS schedule. 8. Feedback from the board chairs was very positive and the chairpersons noted the value in attending the annual Chairpersons’ Conference. 9. A draft set of meeting notes from the conference is attached. These have been forwarded to the Chairs for their comment/input.

DOC-3153029 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 67 Conservation Board Chairpersons’ Conference

7 & 8 August 2017 meeting

Held at 4.30pm and 8.30am, Kaupapa Atawhai / Conservation House, 18-32 Manners Street, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 Draft meeting notes

Present: Rangitane Marsden, Co-Chair, Te Hiku o Te Ika Willie Wright, Northland Lyn Mayes, Auckland Kevin Robinson, Waikato Anne Mackersey, Bay of Plenty Penny Shaw, East Coast Hawke’s Bay Mike Britton, Tongariro Taupo Tiwha Puketapu, Taranaki Whanganui Barry Wards, Wellington Bev Doole, Nelson Marlborough Mike Legge, West Coast Tai Poutini Mick Abbott, Canterbury Aoraki Pat Garden, Otago John Whitehead, Southland Warren Parker, Chairperson, NZCA Mark Brough, NZCA Rauru Kirikiri, NZCA

Apologies: Ken Raureti, Bay of Plenty John Bishara, Tongariro Taupo Jenny Rowan, Wellington Gina Solomon, Deputy Chair Nelson Marlborough Diane Fleming, Chatham Islands

In attendance: Rick McGovern-Wilson, Executive Officer, NZCA, Department of Conservation (DOC) Ann McCrone, NZCA servicing staff, DOC Hon Nicky Wagner, Associate Minister of Conservation (agenda item 4) Stacey Perkins, Private Secretary to Hon Nicky Wagner (agenda item 4) Martin Kessick, Deputy Director-General Biodiversity, DOC (agenda item 5)

Tuesday 7 August The meeting started with an hour of “Chairs’ only” time, in order for the Chairs present to have a discussion without DOC staff or management present. This was followed by a session with the Director-General.

DOC-3153029 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 68 Wednesday 8 August Agenda item 1: Welcome and scene setting Rauru Kirikiri opened the meeting with a karakia. Warren Parker assumed the chair and outlined the timetable and objectives for the conference. The members welcomed Anne Mackersey (Bay of Plenty CB Deputy Chair); Mike Britton representing Tongariro Taupo, Barry Wards representing Wellington; Tiwha Puketapu representing Taranaki Whanganui and Bev Doole representing Nelson Marlborough. Warren noted that the overall purpose of these meetings is to bring the 14 Conservation Board chairs together to discuss matters of mutual interest, to continue their engagement with one another, and to discuss priorities for Conservation Boards. Warren provided an overview of the recent NZCA meetings and summarised the Authority’s major priorities for the next three years, which include: reviewing improved methods for improving Conservation Management Strategy (CMS) and National Park Management Plan (NPMP) processing; review of DOC e-bike guidelines; land recategorisation; reviewing the Conservation General Policy (CGP) and the General Policy for National Parks (GPNP); reviewing NZCA principals and policies; strategic engagement with the Department’s development of significant work areas; landscape pest control and tool development, including genetic engineering; whitebait fisheries management and the protection of whitebait habitat; marine species protection; continuing liaison and education with a view to increase younger generation in conservation activities. Warren outlined the Authority’s out of Wellington meeting schedule – Bay of Plenty in October 2017, Wellington/Palmerston North in February 2018 and Otago in October 2018. A request was made to include another field trip as these meetings are considered to be very effective for drilling deeper into regional issues and building relations between Conservation Boards and the NZCA. Auckland was suggested as there is a lot of conservation activity going on and the area plays a significant role. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to circulate the presentation by Dr Andrea Byron (Director, New Zealand's Biological Heritage National Science Challenge) to Conservation Boards. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to investigate the option to include a third out of Wellington meeting into the Authority’s meeting schedule for 2018. Agenda item 2: Review of Servicing Conservation Boards Mark Brough (NZCA member) chaired this item which focused on the extent and type of support Conservation Boards require. Attendees discussed the servicing provisions and requirements for Conservation Boards. Inconsistencies in the servicing of boards was identified as a continuing issue for some Conservation Boards. There was varying level of servicing and skills across the country, and it was noted that the new Department reporting structure made relationships between the Board with Board Support Officers (BSOs) and Statutory Managers problematic at times. Rick McGovern- Wilson clarified the relationships within the new Department reporting model. It was suggested that appropriate skill level and requirements for BSOs be adopted and included in role descriptions. Chairs requested a commitment that BSOs will be available to the Board and to what degree. Some members agreed that limited funds are making it hard for conservation boards to take up their advocacy role in the community and to fulfil the increasing demands of statutory planning processes. Budgets are not enough to carry out their functions properly. It was noted that Boards need to make applications for increased funds during annual work and budget planning, as the costs and time involved in statutory processes is increasing. This request can then be made to the Department to ensure Board activities are funded adequately. Attendees were generally happy with their Board’s induction, although this was not yet consistent across the country. Board members being co-opted, and finishing and starting their terms at different times this year, impacted on the induction process and the smoothness of Board functioning. Most chairs were aware that induction material including factsheets, general policy and annual reports were sent to new members. It was suggested that the time commitment expectations on boards needs to be clearly advertised during the board appointment process, as a

DOC-3153029 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 69 lot of them were unaware when they started just how much time needs to be dedicated to serving on the boards. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to obtain a copy of the BSO job description for the NZCA to review. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to highlight the Conservation Board servicing issues with Mike Slater (Deputy Director-General Operations) to seek a solution to the reporting disconnect to determine if this can be improved. Agenda item 3: Working with iwi / The role that CBs play in Treaty negotiations Rauru Kirikiri (NZCA member) chaired this item. Last year’s session focused on iwi representation, and addressing iwi concerns. This year the round-table discussion focused on individual Board’s reflections on Treaty Settlements and partnering with Māori in conservation management. There were discussions around iwi representations on the Boards, encouraging youth, working alongside Treaty partners and communities to achieve conservation goals, statutory representatives, post- Treaty Settlement management arrangements, and the need to include a Māori world-view in the Board discussions. Boards noted that they were all at different stages with Treaty Settlement negotiations, post- Settlements, CMS and NPMP planning, and that these processes overall were progressing well, although there were noted delays and resources concerns. It was noted that the importance of engaging with iwi early, and building relationships and maintaining trust, was essential. Boards are continuing to deepen their understanding and are growing the partnership between iwi and conservation as the changing paradigm around Section 4 and post-Treaty Settlement arrangements progresses. Boards are responding to new and different relationships with iwi, as they learn how to work best together. Many Boards thought they had good iwi representation, and that having more Māori members was very beneficial and spread the workload better. However, there were issues with some Boards finding it hard to encourage enough Māori onto Boards. It was also noted that Māori members could be subject to greater tensions between representing iwi aspirations, views and relationships between commercial arms of iwi and the local runanga, and Board statutory obligations. Boundary issues can be challenging (both within, due to Treaty Settlement arrangements, and between, due to Departmental and local authority boundaries differing from Boards boundaries), while on the other hand encouraged collaboration between Boards. Some boards commented that they are well-served by experienced Pou Tairangahau (DOC cultural advisors) that can attend board meetings. The Wellington Conservation Board noted that it is useful to have Departmental staff that are iwi representatives. Rauru thanked everyone for their candid and constructive observations. Agenda item 4: Letters of Expectation and Work Programmes Hon Nicky Wagner, Associate Minister of Conservation, outlined the main focus for the session which was to discuss the effectiveness of the Letters of Expectation (LoE) after three years of operation, review the development of the Conservation Board annual work programmes, and how to work to, and report against, the LoE to provide for improved consistency in annual reports. And lastly, to look at options for maintaining membership without requiring the full appointment process. Minister Wagner said that she had been hearing more about the conservation boards and congratulated the boards on raising their profiles and delivering more connections in their communities. 1. Letters of Expectation – There have been three LoE completed since Hon Nicky Wagner has been Associate Minister of Conservation, and she felt that it is a good time to evaluate and re-visit these prior to the next round, and to look at options to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the process. Attendees agreed that the process should line up with the financial year, so that budgets and work programmes can be set appropriately. The intention next year, will to ensure the final LoEs are sent to Conservation Boards by 1 July 2016. This revised date for finalising the LoEs will be beneficial, because it will mean that the DOC-3153029 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 70 preparation of the Board’s work programme for the year, and the timing of the Board receiving the LoE, will be brought into alignment with the reporting period for each Board’s Annual Report to NZCA, and budgeting. 2. Work Programmes – Hon Nicky Wagner said that the work programmes translate how the LoE work within their community. The template is not ‘set in stone’ and can be improved. The work programmes also connect the boards together and provide an opportunity for the boards to see what everyone is doing. Chairs agreed that most work programmes would generally not vary significantly between years, which should make developing LoEs less time consuming. 3. Annual Report – The work programme feeds into the annual report and provides an opportunity to document all the activities during the year. A draft annual report template was circulated to prompt discussion and is intended to help Boards prepare their annual reports more efficiently and provide for improved consistency across annual reports. The template was intended to support: • Enhanced standardisation on how Conservation Board priorities contribute to delivering on the department’s stretch goals or Board’s statutory functions. • Building a national picture of the programme of work to be led by Conservation Boards. • Increased strategic (rather than transactional or delivery) advice to DOC in the regions. • Enhanced monitoring and reporting on the implementation of CMS and NPMP in their regions (as opposed to the clear priority the Boards had placed on supporting the progression and development of those management planning documents). It was agreed that consistency would be helpful, but that Boards required flexibility to reflect their communities and provide individualised reporting on their activities and story. Conservation Boards would review the template 4. Co-option – The Associate Minister discussed options for maintianing Conservation Board membership without requiring going through the full Ministerial appointment process mid- term of Boards. It was noted that appointments need to be made with due consideration to ensure a good fit and that this method was a helpful means to bring needed skills onto a Board. The Associate Minister encouraged Boards to consider this option for interim appointments between annual rounds of appointments. The following topics were also discussed: • The Minister sought feedback and advice on how the effectiveness of Conservation Boards could be enhanced. • Conservation Boards role in reaching out to, reflecting, and trying to balance the diverse views of the community. Public engagement and consultation is a critical part of all statutory management planning process. The Associate Minister encouraged Boards to proactively engage and explore different approaches to tapping into this diversity and to provide for Conservation Board membership succession (e.g. using co-option, linking with leaders in the sectors of the community). It was considered that the more diverse the engagement, the greater the credibility and legitimacy Boards gain. • Conservation Boards public profile – media, marketing, communications and community outreach. Potential to attend other community events to increase public profile. • CMS delays and Department resourcing • Encouraging younger people to become more actively engaged in conservation and onto Conservation Boards. The Associate Minister encouraged Boards to think of new and innovative ways to connect with this section of the community. Attendees provided positive feedback regarding how the Associate Minister, NZCA, and Conservation Board relationship was working, and that Conservation Boards feel they are being listened to.

DOC-3153029 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 71 At the end of the session, Hon Nicky Wagner gave copies and a summary of the recently launched Environmental Education for Sustainability strategy and action plan. She also noted the concerns of Northland and Auckland regarding the potential for a significant oil leak from the RMS Niagara, lying 120m under water near the mouth of the Hauraki Gulf. The environmental consequences of a Niagara bulkhead breakdown could be catastrophic. Hon Nicky Wagner noted the concerns and undertook to follow the matter up with the appropriate Minister/s. Willie Wright closed the session on behalf of the Chairs, thanking Hon Nicky Wagner for her continued support and in-depth knowledge and understanding of Conservation Boards. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to investigate a process that DOC could regularly advise Conservation Boards of community events at which board members could attend to increase outreach and public profile. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to investigate the potential to obtain a national resource to support Conservation Boards with media and communications. Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to send Factsheet 10 (Co-opting) to the Chairs. Agenda item 5: Department update Rauru Kirikiri (NZCA member) chaired this item. Martin Kessick, Deputy Director-General Biodiversity, introduced himself and the new position, and noted that Lou Sanson (Director General of Conservation) had provided a lot of the update during the session the previous night. Martin reported on the Department’s strategic and operational work and the Department’s biodiversity work. He considered that his position will strengthen science support and improve the effectiveness of the conservation management of the Department, Boards and Authority. Topics discussed in the session included: • Update on the status of Predator Free 2050 and the Threatened Species Strategy (TSS). Release of the TSS has been postponed until late 2017 due to the work involved with analysing a higher than expected number of submissions, with more than 190 received, and a number of well thought out and detailed submissions received. The recommendations and challenges posed by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE) report Taonga of an island nation: Saving New Zealand's birds were being reviewed for incorporation into the TSS. Attendees suggested reviewing the language used to make better use of terms and themes that work for communities and iwi in a marketing sense. In addition, Martin advised that the Department has Predator Free Rangers (a team of rangers to support communities with advice on tools, best practice, and safety etc) that Boards could make use of and have them come to speak at Board meetings. http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/pests-and-threats/predator-free-2050/predator-free-rangers/ • Whitebait - Martin advised that the Department was not changing its position on whitebait management for now but would be looking further at this matter as other priorities were addressed and resources became available. It was noted that whitebait management remains a concern to Boards and the Authority. • Compliance – Martin advised that the Department has released a National Compliance Strategy 2017–2020. This Strategy sets out DOC’s approach to its compliance and law enforcement function. This function occurs in coordination with the Department’s efforts to educate, work and engage with the public and our stakeholders. DOC staff are tasked with undertaking planned and proactive monitoring of the following main categories of activities: whitebait compliance patrols; concessionaire inspections; marine reserve compliance; protection of wildlife, flora and fauna; and other terrestrial type compliance activities, such as deliberate vandalism of infrastructure. Conservation Boards can ask their DOC Directors to resource compliance activities and monitor against planned actions. http://www.doc.govt.nz/national-compliance-strategy Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to circulate the recent NZCA correspondence regarding whitebait to Conservation Boards.

DOC-3153029 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 72 Agenda item 6: Issues update Mark Brough (NZCA member) chaired this item. Mark advised that Conservation Boards could request Marie Long (Director, Planning, Permissions and Land, DOC) to update and help up-skill new members on Conservation Management Strategies (CMSs), National Park Management Plans (NPMPs), the "rapid" prototypes of CMSs/NPMPs; and the 5-Year Stewardship Land recategorisation prioritisation. This would also help Conservation Boards to determine milestones, and link required resources to budgets. Most of the matters were covered in previous sessions. It was noted that 130 parcels of Stewardship Land had been identified for recategorisation and that these should be out for review by Boards soon, and, once priorities are confirmed, the Department will cost and programme work. There was further discussion around how Boards communicate with their communities and raise their profiles externally. Communications within the Board structure are also important. Wrap up Warren Parker (NZCA chairperson) wrapped up the meeting and gave everyone an opportunity to make some final conclusions. Chairpersons noted the value in attending the Chairpersons’ Conference and want this to continue. Attendees agreed that these meetings help lift thinking to a higher level, supported sharing best practice to help lift performance, and identified issues in common so boards do not feel isolated or think issues are unique. Common interests had been canvassed and different perspectives and approaches identified in an open and frank manner. This forum is a great way for chairs to get an overview of the conservation boards’ work nationally and discuss shared experiences and issues. Inconsistencies in the servicing of boards was identified as a continuing issue for some Conservation Boards. This and funding for Boards remains of concern. Investigating the opportunity to appoint a single point of contact media and communications role providing service to all Boards was considered worthwhile. Warren noted that the Hon Nicky Wagner, Associate Minister of Conservation, was highly engaged with Conservation Boards which was a great asset and testimony to the relevance and work of Conservation Boards. Warren noted that it was important to continue dialogue between Boards and the Authority, and thanked everyone for their contributions and on-going work on Boards.

Action: Rick McGovern-Wilson to update the Conservation Board email and contact list.

Action list of matters agreed for follow-up so we can revisit progress on these at the next meeting: • Annual report, including reporting on the Work Programme • Communications support generally • Letters of Expectation and lining up budget so get started 1 July • BSO support

The conference closed at 4.30pm with a karakia by Rauru Kirikiri.

DOC-3153029 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 73

DOC-3153029 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 14 September 2017 74 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.11 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Astrid Nunns, National Support and Advice Manager

Subject: Land management strategic challenges facing DOC

NZCA Strategic NZCA Strategic Priorities: Priority and/or the (E) Strategic advice to the Minister and DG in the context of Relevant DOC SOI conservation in today’s economy, the governance Goal requirements, and strategic advice on public policy documents and legislation (J) Effectiveness and efficiency of the Department’s conservation management.

Recommendation or It is recommended that the NZ Conservation Authority (NZCA): Action Required a) Note the contents of this paper.

Context A recent conversation between NZCA members and Mike Slater, Deputy Director-General explored how best to collaboratively approach the strategic issues facing DOC. The NZCA invited a discussion at their next meeting. This paper serves as background for this agenda item.

DOCCM-3166677 75

DOCCM-3166677 76 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.12 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Jennie Marks, Acting Director Policy

Subject: DOC Visitor Strategy framework

• (E): Strategic advice to the Minister and DG in the context of NZCA Strategic conservation in today’s economy, the governance Priorities requirements, and strategic advice on public policy documents and legislation

• (J): Effectiveness and efficiency of the Department’s conservation management Action Required It is recommended that the Authority: a) Provide feedback on the draft visitor strategy framework

Context Recent increases in both international and domestic visitor numbers are creating pressures for DOC. DOC was granted extra funding in Budget 2017 to help address immediate visitor- related pressures. This extra funding is contingent on the delivery of a DOC tourism strategy to the Ministers of Finance and Conservation by the end of the year. On 7 August, you provided feedback on a high-level diagram setting out DOC’s initial thinking on a visitor strategy. We have now developed our thinking further into a draft visitor strategy framework and are now seeking your feedback on this framework. We would appreciate it if this framework was not yet circulated publicly as we have not yet sought feedback from key stakeholder groups.

DOCCM-3167095 Author Elisa Eckford Date 18 September 2017 79

DOCCM-3167095 Author Elisa Eckford Date 18 September 2017 80 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.13 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Warren Parker, NZCA Chairperson

Subject: Briefing to the Incoming Minister

NZCA Strategic NZCA Strategic Priority K: NZCA’s performance Priority and/or the Relevant DOC SOI Goal

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Advise what important information it recommends being included in the briefing to the incoming Minister for 2017

Context This paper is seeking advice from the Authority on the preparation of the “Briefing to the Incoming Minister” post the 2017 General Election. This is an opportunity for the Authority to (re-)establish its relationship with the Minister, identify its role, its Strategic Priorities and work that it is proposing to undertake during its current term. It should also extend an invitation to the Minister to meet with the Authority at his/her earliest convenience.

DOC-3162615 Warren Parker, Chairperson 15 September 2017 89

DOC-3162615 Warren Parker, Chairperson 15 September 2017 90 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.14 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared by: Nicole Mistal, Management Planning National Advisor, Wellington

Subject: Management Planning Update

NZCA Strategic (A) Conservation Management Strategies Priority (B) National Park Management Plans (D) Treaty of Waitangi

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Note the contents of this report.

Context The purpose of this paper is to keep the NZCA informed of progress with management planning processes being undertaken by the Department. The paper provides an overview of the management plan and strategy reviews, and other key statutory planning processes currently underway. The appendix contains information showing the status of all management plans and strategies.

DOCCM-2640907 97 15 September 2017

DOCCM-2640907 98 15 September 2017 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.14 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared by: Nicole Mistal, Management Planning National Advisor, Wellington

Subject: Management Planning Update

Background 1. The NZCA approves all conservation management strategies (CMS) and national park management plans (NPMP). Conservation management plans (CMP) are approved by conservation boards alone, or jointly with a Post Settlement Governance Entity for a CMP which is required in Treaty settlement legislation.

Summary of progress since the last update (August 2017) Conservation Management Strategies 2. The Wellington Conservation Board and the Kāpiti Island Strategic Advisory Committee (KISAC) received the revised draft Wellington CMS, the summary of submissions and accompanying documents on 14 August. The Department is working closely with both the Board and KISAC to support them in this stage of the process with workshops organised for September and October. 3. After conversations with iwi partners, the Department expects that the East Coast Hawkes Bay CMS, including the Nga Whakahaere Takirua CMS, will be notified together around June 2018. No drafting will occur between September 2017 and January 2018, to allow the Nga Whakahaere Takirua to reach a comparable stage. In the meantime, engagement with local iwi to seek feedback on the draft shared with them in June 2017 will continue. 4. A meeting between Ngati Porou’s Nga Whakahaere Takirua Committee and DOC Operations Staff (local team and management planners) to agree process and timeframes for the Nga Whakahaere Takirua occurred on 1 September 2017. Roles, deliverables and milestones agreed through to December 2017, with acknowledgement of the agreement that the Nga Whakahaere Takirua will be notified with the East Coast/Hawke’s Bay CMS around June 2018. 5. The review of the Bay of Plenty CMS is underway. Local Operations staff are consulting with iwi and key stakeholders. Conversations have commenced with the Conservation Board on Places. 6. Initial planning for the Nelson Marlborough CMS is underway, with a Departmental meeting held on 13 September. National Park Management Plans 7. Westland/Tai Poutini and Aoraki/Mount Cook National Parks – The plan review processes for these two parks continue. The current focus is to finalise topic papers covering key matters requiring specific policy direction, and to start formatting the draft plans.

DOCCM-2640907 99 15 September 2017 8. The Department is continuing to work closely with Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, the local rūnanga, the two Conservation Boards and other key stakeholders. The draft plans are scheduled for notification in early 2018. 9. Kahurangi National Park Management Plan – The Minister agreed in principle to the Kahurangi National Park Bylaws 2009 amendment, which has been sent to Parliamentary Counsel. Once a final version has been drafted the Minister will then need to approve the bylaws. The amended plan is being finalised for publication and the Department’s website has been updated. 10. Tongariro National Park Management Plan – The Department, along with the Conservation Board, will be presenting the proposed partial review to the Authority at the October meeting for a decision. 11. Initial planning for Mount Aspiring and Fiordland National Park Management Plans is underway, with introductory meetings with Otago and Southland Conservation Boards and Ōtākou and Murihiku kaitiaki roopu being held in September. Conservation Management Plans 12. The Whirinaki Te Pua-a-Tāne Conservation Management Plan will become operative on 9 October 2017 and a formal launch is being hosted by Ngāti Whare on 21 October. 13. The Auckland Conservation Board and Ngati Manuhiri have approved Te Hauturu-o- Toi/Little Barrier Island (Nature Reserve) Conservation Management Plan and it will become operative on 2 October 2017. 14. The Tamaki Makaurau Motu Conservation Management Plan covers the Motuihe, Motutapu, and Rangitoto islands. At the request of the Tūpuna Taonga o Tamaki Makaurau, this process remains on hold. The Department will continue to keep the NZCA and Auckland Conservation Board updated. Marine Protected Areas 15. The South-East Marine Protection Forum deliberations are underway with support provided by the Department and the Ministry for Primary Industries project team. The Forum is continuing to review submissions, and additional information provided during the public consultation period and information gathering phase. This information will be influential in shaping the Forum’s final recommendations to Government. 16. The Minister of Conservation and Minister for Primary Industries have approved an extension to the Forum timeline. Final recommendations to Ministers are expected by the end of 2017. 17. The Department has commenced the process for commissioning an independent review of the Moutere Ihupuku / Campbell Island Marine Reserve. Under the Subantarctic Island Marine Reserves Act 2014, a review is required to consider whether an additional 1767km2 area should be included in the reserve. 18. The reviewer will consult with all relevant stakeholders before providing a recommendation report to the Minister of Conservation by 2 March 2019.

DOCCM-2640907 100 15 September 2017 Appendix 1: Status of Conservation Management Strategies

Conservation Date approved Status Comments Expected date to management strategy NZCA for: Auckland October 2014 Current NA Bay of Plenty December 1997 Under review Initial investigation is underway. Approval late 2019 Canterbury (Waitaha) September 2016 Current NA Chatham Islands August 1999 Due for review To be confirmed East Coast/Hawke’s Bay October 1998 (EC) Under review The new CMS will replace both the East Approval early to and Nga Whakahaere October 1994 (HB) Coast and Hawke’s Bay CMS. mid-2019 Takirua The Ngati Porou Claims Settlement Act 2012 requires the preparation of Nga Whakahaere Takirua as a separate part of the East Coast/Hawke’s Bay CMS. The Nga Whakahaere Takirua applies to 22 pieces of Conservation land in the East Coast. Nelson/ Marlborough September 1996 Review initiated Initial planning meeting 13 September To be confirmed 2017. Northland September 2014 Current NA Otago September 2016 Current NA Southland Murihiku September 2016 Current NA (including the Subantarctic Islands) Stewart Island/Rakiura February 2011 Current NA Te Hiku No current CMS To be prepared A requirement of the Ngāi Takoto/Ngāti Approval late 2019 Kuri/Te Aupouri/Te Rarawa Claims Settlement Acts 2015. Tongariro-Taupo May 2002 Due for review To be confirmed

DOCCM-2640907 101 15 September 2017 Conservation Date approved Status Comments Expected date to management strategy NZCA for: Waikato September 2014 Current NA Wanganui April 1997 Due for review Part of the existing CMS is being To be confirmed incorporated into the Wellington CMS. Taranaki is part of the Wanganui CMS. Wellington (includes March 1996 Under review The revised draft Wellington CMS, Approval February Rangitikei/Manawatu that summary of submissions and 2018 was formally part of accompanying documents were sent to Wanganui) the Wellington Conservation Board and the Kāpiti Island Strategic Advisory Committee on 14 August. West Coast April 2010 Current A partial review of the West Coast CMS NA will be required as a result of the Paparoa and Westland NPMP reviews. This will commence on the completion of the Westland NPMP review.

DOCCM-2640907 102 15 September 2017 Appendix 2: Status of National Park Management Plans

National Park Date approved Status Comments Expected date to Management Plan NZCA for: Abel Tasman October 2008 Current NA Aoraki/Mount Cook 12 August 2004 Under review Drafting currently underway, draft Approval in late Amendments notification anticipated early 2018. 2018 approved June 2012. Arthur’s Pass 13 December Current NA 2007 Egmont 14 February 2002 Due for review On hold until CMS review completed. To be confirmed Fiordland 21 June 2007 Current Initial investigation into the review NA commenced. Kahurangi 13 June 2001. Current (due for review) Amended Kahurangi National Park NA Partial review Management Plan being finalised for approved 8 publication. Bylaws being prepared for December 2010. Minister’s approval. Amendment approved 3 April 2017. Mount Aspiring 23 June 2011 Current Initial investigation into the review NA commenced. Nelson Lakes 10 October 2002 Due for review To be confirmed as a 7-year plan Paparoa 1 February 2017 Current NA Rakiura 9 February 2011 Current NA

DOCCM-2640907 103 15 September 2017 National Park Date approved Status Comments Expected date to Management Plan NZCA for: Te Urewera 13 February 2003 Current The NPMP remains in force until it is NA replaced by a new management plan to the extent that it is not inconsistent with sections 111 and 112 of Te Urewera Act 2014. The Board has notified Te Kawa o Te Urewera for public submissions (closing 20 July 2017). Tongariro 12 October 2006 Current Partial review commenced. Approval October Amendments 2017 approved in 2013. Westland/Tai Poutini 21 December Under review Drafting currently underway, draft Approval late 2018 2001 notification anticipated for early 2018. Amendments approved April 2014. Whanganui 9 August 2012. Current NA

DOCCM-2640907 104 15 September 2017 Appendix 3: Status of Conservation Management Plans

Conservation Date approved Status Comments Decision maker Expected management plan date to NZCA for: Abel Tasman Foreshore June 2012 Current Enables management of commercial Management Plan NA Scenic Reserve 6-year term to activities on foreshore adjacent to Approval Committee coincide with the National Park. review of Abel Tasman NPMP Coromandel Peninsula 2002 To be revoked Revocation process on hold Waikato To be Conservation Land Conservation Board confirmed Coromandel (excl. To be prepared Requirement of Hauraki Collective To be Moehau) Treaty Settlement (AIP). At this confirmed stage, this process is on-hold until the legislation is enacted. Farewell Spit Nature December 1990 To be revoked To be covered by new Nelson Director-General To be Reserve and Puponga Marlborough CMS. Conservation confirmed Farm Park Hauraki Gulf Maritime 1982 To be revoked To be Park Management Plan confirmed JM Barker (Hapupu) 1998 Current NA National Historic Reserve Kaimanawa Forest Park June 2007 Current NA Kaiteriteri Recreation December 2015 Current Reserves controlled and managed, Minister of NA Reserve and Kaka Point and plan prepared, by Kaiteriteri Conservation Historic Reserve Recreation Reserve Board

DOCCM-2640907 105 15 September 2017 Conservation Date approved Status Comments Decision maker Expected management plan date to NZCA for: Kapiti Island To be prepared Requirement of Ngāti Toa Rangatira Wellington To be Claims Settlement Act 2014. Conservation Board confirmed and the Strategic Advisory Committee Kaweka Forest Park June 1991 To be revoked To be covered by new East To be Coast/Hawke’s Bay CMS confirmed Loch Katrine Recreation September 1998 To be revoked Covered by new Canterbury Director-General To be Reserve (Waitaha) CMS. Conservation confirmed Moehau To be prepared Requirement of Hauraki Collective To be Treaty Settlement. At this stage, this confirmed process is on-hold until the legislation is enacted. Molesworth October 2013 Current Required by lease. Nelson Marlborough NA Conservation Board Pukekura (Taiaroa Head) March 2013 Current Otago Conservation NA Reserves Board for Taiaroa Head Nature Reserve and Taiaroa Head Foreshore Wildlife Sanctuary, Dunedin City Council in respect to the other reserve Pukenui Forest – Ngahere December 2009 Current Whangarei District NA o Pukenui Council and Northland Conservation Board.

DOCCM-2640907 106 15 September 2017 Conservation Date approved Status Comments Decision maker Expected management plan date to NZCA for: Rodney Reserves 1983 To be revoked To be confirmed Ruahine Forest Park 1992 To be revoked This land now sits under the Wellington To be Wellington Conservation Board and Conservation Board confirmed is therefore part of the Wellington CMS. It will be formally revoked once the CMS has been made operative. Tamaki Makaurau Motu Under Requirement of Nga Mana Whenua Auckland To be development o Tamaki Makaurau Collective Conservation Board confirmed Redress Act 2014. At the request of and the Trust the Tūpuna Taonga o Tamaki Makaurau, this process remains on hold. Te Pokohiwi and Boulder To be prepared Requirement of Ngāti Apa ki te Rā Rangitāne o Wairau To be Bank Historic Reserves Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Rangitāne o Settlement Trust and confirmed Wairau Claims Settlement Act 2014. Nelson Marlborough Ongoing conversations are occurring Conservation Board with Rangitane regarding resourcing requirements. Initial conversations have been held with a planning consultant and timeframes against milestones are currently being prepared to discuss with Rangitane.

DOCCM-2640907 107 15 September 2017 Conservation Date approved Status Comments Decision maker Expected management plan date to NZCA for: Te Hauturu-o-Toi Under The Auckland Conservation Board Auckland NA development and Ngati Manuhiri have approved Conservation Board and it will become operative on 2 and Ngāti Manuhiri October 2017 Settlement Trust Te Tāpui Tokotoru October 2008 Current Includes Moutohorā (Whale Island) Joint management NA Wildlife Management Reserve, committee Ōhope Scenic Reserve and established under the Tauwhare Pā Scenic Reserve. Ngāti Awa Claims Settlement Act 2005. Te Waihora Joint December 2005 Needs review On hold in response to a request Te Rūnanga o Ngāi To be from Ngāi Tahu. However very early Tahu and Minister of confirmed conversations have started with Te Conservation Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu and their aspirations. Te Waikoropupū Springs April 2009 Current Registered wāhi tapu and site of Nelson Marlborough NA significance to Manawhenua ki Conservation Board Mohua. Subject to Water Conservation Order application. Urupukapuka and 1984 To be revoked Covered by Northland CMS Northland To be Waewaetorea Islands Conservation Board confirmed Various CMP’s in 1970’s to 1990’s To be revoked Covered by new Canterbury Minister of To be Canterbury or withdrawn (Waitaha) CMS Conservation confirmed Whirinaki Te Pua-a-Tāne Under The Whirinaki Te Pua-a-Tāne Ngāti Whare and Bay NA development Conservation Management Plan will of Plenty become operative on 9 October Conservation Board 2017.

DOCCM-2640907 108 15 September 2017 Conservation Date approved Status Comments Decision maker Expected management plan date to NZCA for: Various CMP’s in Otago 1980’s to 1990’s To be revoked Covered by new Otago CMS Minister of To be or withdrawn Conservation confirmed Various CMP’s in West 1980’s To be revoked Covered by new West Coast Te Tai Minister of To be Coast Te Tai o Poutini or withdrawn o Poutini CMS Conservation confirmed Southland, including 1980’s to 1990’s To be revoked Covered by new Southland, Minister of To be Rakiura/Stewart Island or withdrawn including Rakiura/Stewart Island Conservation confirmed CMS

DOCCM-2640907 109 15 September 2017 110 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.14.1 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Cathie Brumley, Management Planner

Subject: DOC’s use of topic papers in Management Planning

NZCA Strategic NZCA Strategic Priorities: Priority and/or the (A) Conservation Management Strategies Relevant DOC SOI Goal (B) National Park Management Plans (J) Effectiveness and efficiency of the Department’s conservation management

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Note the contents of this paper

Context At the August NZCA meeting (7 and 8 August), the Authority members questioned the practice of using topic papers for the development/review of management plans. In particular, the timeframe for completion of topic papers for Aoraki/Mount Cook and Westland/Tai Poutini national park management plan (NPMP) reviews. This paper discusses the use of topic papers for the Aoraki/Mount Cook and Westland/Tai Poutini National Park Management Plan review process.

DOC-3153770 Author: Cathie Brumley Date: 15 September 2017 111

DOC-3153770 Author: Cathie Brumley Date: 15 September 2017 112

New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.14.1 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Cathie Brumley, Management Planner

Subject: DOC’s use of topic papers in Management Planning

Purpose 1. The purpose of this paper is to answer the concerns raised by the Authority and to demonstrate the value of using topic papers to inform the review of the Aoraki/Mount Cook and Westland/Tai Poutini National Park Management Plans (NPMPs). Discussion 2. Discussion papers (including topic papers, issues papers, and common issues reports) have been used previously to assist the review of statutory management plans. 3. The topic papers are a tool to document the thinking and rationale underpinning the policy approach for the draft plans. It is important to note that this thinking and discussion is undertaken as part of every statutory review, however it has not always been recorded and captured in a formal way. 4. What topic papers cover and why we have used them The review of the Aoraki/Mount Cook and Westland/Tai Poutini NPMPs presented some significant reasons for developing topic papers: • Working across two adjacent high-alpine national parks that share similarities in environmental restraints and visitor demands. Providing for consistency of management across the parks, or recognising where the unique values of each park require a deliberately inconsistent approach to be taken to common management issues. • Addressing complex issues that require an understanding of highly technical concepts. • Working in a highly dynamic environment, both in terms of the physical environment and the context for visitor demand, that presents a level of unpredictability for decision- making. • Delivering a change in policy approach to meet future management need from an existing prescriptive approach to one of greater flexibility guided by criteria and standards. 5. Topic papers are not developed in isolation. They build on the existing knowledge and guidance developed across previous plans and processes. They recognise also that each national park has unique issues to address with respect to the thresholds set by the environment, visitor demands and the specific values to be protected. The nature of these issues may require new approaches to be taken. 6. Documenting the rationale for decisions from the outset of the plan review provides a robustness to the process. This will be important to avoid re-litigation of issues later in the review and to inform other parties who have decision-making roles. This meets the desire expressed by the NZCA for planners to demonstrate evidence-based planning decisions.

DOC-3153770 Author: Cathie Brumley Date: 15 September 2017 113 7. How DOC uses topic papers to guide the review • To provide the context to key issues, including current environmental and technical understanding, best practice and national guidance (noting also where General Policy for National Parks 2005 is silent on guidance); • To demonstrate where lessons from past plans and processes are relevant to this review; • To assess effectiveness of the current management approach to meet changing demands for management; • To identify conflicts or information gaps, and seek feedback for their resolution; • To demonstrate the alignment of policy with high-level Departmental strategic direction (including Intermediate outcomes and stretch goals); • To document the rationale for the policy approach taken; and • To show evidence that comments raised through internal and public consultation have been considered. 8. Who is involved in the development of topic papers? • Management planners – take the lead role for topic paper development by working collaboratively with all others involved. • Treaty Partners – work closely with management planners to identify issues, and create planning documents where cultural values are embedded into the policy approach and the plan format. • District staff, technical experts, legal and permissions staff – as users of the plans provide advice and feedback on practicality, legality and effectiveness of policy approach. • Stakeholders – as users of the parks provide pre-draft comments and submissions on their future visions for the parks. • Conservation Boards – as future owners of the plans have provided comment and feedback on the papers. • NZCA – as future owners of the plans are kept informed of the developing policy approach. 9. Producing a document suitable for a range of audiences poses a challenge to decide the focus and level of detail required for each topic paper. The value of topic papers to encourage and collate feedback from a diverse group of people has been demonstrated through the current review process. It is acknowledged that Ngāi Tahu and internal staff may not have the resources to provide input to plan review processes within short timeframes. Topic papers are a tool to focus this input on critical issues where it is of most benefit. 10. It is expected that time spent preparing topic papers at the beginning of the review will result in efficiencies for the draft plan preparation and later stages of the review. 11. The value of topic papers for the preparation of other management plans may be influenced by factors such as the complexity of issues being addressed and the need to document the decision trail through the plan development. A matter of taking a “horse for courses” approach. 12. Timeframe for completion of topic papers The list of topic papers prepared for the Aoraki/Mount Cook and Westland/Tai Poutini NPMPs has been attached as Appendix 1. With the exception of the Aircraft topic paper, all topic papers will be completed by mid-September 2017.

DOC-3153770 Author: Cathie Brumley Date: 15 September 2017 114 13. The topic papers will be updated during refining of the draft plans to reflect any adjustments to the policies. It is proposed to make some topic papers publicly available once the draft plan is notified.

Appendix 1 – List of topic papers for Aoraki/Mount Cook and Westland/Tai Poutini NPMP reviews

Topic Papers

1 Identification of Places

2 Natural heritage

3 Recreation - Whole of Park Objectives and Policies

4 Recreation - Visitor management zones

5 Recreation - Alpine and glacier recreation

6 Recreation - Vehicles (excluding aircraft)

7 Recreation - Recreation facilities

8 Natural hazards & climate change

9 Recreational and commercial hunting

10 Aoraki/Mount Cook village

10 Amenities area (Westland only)

11 Private Accommodation

12 Roading, utilities and mineral extractions

13 Historic and cultural heritage

14 Dogs, horses and other animals

15 Treaty partner- A Living Treaty partnership • WTPNP • AMCNP

16 Aircraft – not drafted yet (waiting for development of the soundscape tool)

DOC-3153770 Author: Cathie Brumley Date: 15 September 2017 115 116 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.15 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Sheryll Johnson, National Advisor – SLM

Subject: Reclassification of conservation land (including stewardship land)

NZCA Strategic NZCA Priority C: Land Status Change Priority and/or the Stewardship land reclassification is a priority for the Relevant DOC SOI Department of Conservation (DOC) Goal

Recommendation or It is recommended that the NZ Conservation Authority (NZCA): Action Required a) Note the contents of this paper.

Context The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment‘s (PCE’s) report highlighted stewardship land as being in need of reviewing and reclassifying, particularly land containing high conservation values. This report provides an update on progress with respect to the reclassification work. It follows on from the last report prepared for the NZCA meeting in August 2017.

DOCCM-3161472 September 2017 117

DOCCM-3161472 September 2017 118 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.15 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Sheryll Johnson, National Advisor – SLM

Subject: Reclassification of conservation land (including stewardship land)

Background 1. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment in her report entitled “Investigating the future of conservation; The case of Stewardship land” (PCE Report), recommended as a priority, that the Minister of Conservation instruct the Department to identify areas of stewardship land with significant conservation value for reclassification. The Minister took on board this recommendation. 2. In reviewing the PCE Report the Department noted that, although it had continual reclassification processes as part of its core statutory work, there was an opportunity to take a more systematic approach to stewardship land reclassification. A plan is being developed to progress this recommendation. 3. The Department is developing a framework for reclassification, initially over a five-year timeframe, focusing on three identified areas: i) Significant proposals, as identified below, ii) NHF Acquisitions iii) Remaining Stewardship land In addition to: iv) Ongoing reclassification processes. Summary of progress since last update (September 2017) Significant proposals 4. The three significant proposals identified were:

St James-Poplars Preliminary consultation was completed in late August. Feedback from the two public meetings, stakeholder meetings and in the 22 written comments received, support the reclassification of the proposed five areas of public conservation land (St James, The Poplars, Woodbank, Hanmer Forest Park and Lake Sumner Forest Park – to the east of SH7). A higher protection status for the stewardship land was sought in the comments, as well as recognition of the range of conservation values present including significant natural values in some areas and the range of recreation activities being undertaken throughout the areas. At a hui in late August with Te Rūnanga o Kaikōura and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu it was agreed that a cultural assessment of the proposed areas for reclassification would be commissioned. There is also work underway to produce reports on the range of conservation values present. The DOCCM-3161472 119 September 2017 project’s timeline has been adjusted to provide time for these assessments and reports to be completed and for the subsequent work with Ngāi Tahu initially and then others, including the Conservation Board, to develop a draft reclassification proposal. The timeline for the project has been extended for 2 months. Notification of a draft proposal is now scheduled for 20 January 2018, with submissions being received until 19 March 2018. This timeline avoids the undesirable situation of notification extending either side of the Christmas break. A further update on the project will be provided to the Authority’s December meeting. David Barnes, the Authority’s representative for this project will be involved and kept informed as the project progresses.

Mokihinui Catchment The Department has commissioned a legalisation survey of (part 1) the land being added to the Park. It is expected to be completed within a 3 or 4-month timeframe, depending on Land Information New Zealand’s survey requirements. The Minister’s approval to add the area to the Kahurangi National Park has been sought. On receipt of this and completion of the survey an Order in Council will be forwarded to the Governor-General for signature.

Mokihinui Riverbed A Gazette notice declaring the land to be held for (part 2) conservation purposes was published on 6 July 2017, after due consideration of the land being transferred to the Department for addition to the Kahurangi National Park. The process for adding this land to the Kahurangi National Park is now being considered and consultation with relevant parties has been initiated. Buller District Council supports the proposal. The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment have been contacted but no response received at the time of drafting this report. Feedback from the local office is that iwi are not supportive of the proposal. The approach taken for the Mokihinui Catchment area has made further consultation “sensitive”, and their advice is to hold additions to parks until further progress is made. Note: this impacts on the Department’s relationship with iwi, not just on a process. Consultation will be initiated with the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board.

Te Waahipounamu – Te Waahipounamu – South West New Zealand World South West New Heritage Area will be assessed after the completion of St Zealand World James and Mokihinui processes. Heritage Area.

DOCCM-3161472 120 September 2017 NHF Reclassifications 5. Progress of the following NHF purchased locations are noted below. Timeframes for completion of works are dependent on several steps in the process, particularly consultation and public notification requirements. 6. For those marked as orange, some dates may need to be extended further. For example: assuming agreement (if required) is in place by Xmas, then the following further steps and timeframes would still be required to complete the re-classification process: • 40+ working days for consultation processes (iwi and Conservation Boards, etc), • 40+ working days for public notification (longer if any submissions received), • 20+ working days for paperwork to be completed and forwarded for the Minister’s consent.

Additions to … Progress Update Target Date Fiordland National Three areas to be added to the Park: 30 June 2018 Park - King, - O’Brien and - Wang (Johnstone)/Morgan Additions of land to National Parks is an area currently under discussion with iwi. Until discussions with Ngai Tahu and local Runanga have progressed regarding their concerns this work will be on hold.

Abel Tasman Canaan Downs Farm: National Park To be reviewed when current gazing licence and / or management plan are up for renewal.

Ahuriri Tarnbrae: 30 Dec 2017 Conservation Park Minister of Conservation to sign-off, then gazette to be published.

Hakatere Hakatere Station: June 2018 Conservation Park The NHF parcel has been grouped with several other areas for addition to the Conservation Park. Since the last update, there has been agreement with most of the third parties involved, with only a couple of agreements around easements are to be finalised. Once agreements are all in place then the formal process will be undertaken, i.e.: consultation with iwi and conservation boards, followed by Public Notification.

Craigieburn and Castle Hill, Craigieburn June 2018 Korowai Torlesse Tussocklands The purchased area will be split into two segments, Craigieburn and Korowai.

DOCCM-3161472 121 September 2017 Conservation Craigieburn – part of the area purchased by Parks the NHF is included in an exchange process. The exchange process is waiting for

completion of survey requirements, which are still to be finalised. Korowai – Iwi input has been sought, but no response to date. Now undertaking Conservation Board consultation to be followed by Public Notification.

Other ongoing NHF processes 7. Subsequent to the last NZCA meeting, Lou Sanson had received a letter from Dr Parker (Chairman, NZCA) noting the Authority’s concern with respect to the Department’s coordination with NHF on acquisitions and land categorisation. 8. A response has been forwarded to Dr Parker, however we would like to acknowledge and note our appreciation, of your concerns and your support to the NHF. We had indicated in our response that we would provide a summary of any outstanding NHF actions for this meeting. Noted below is a summary of NHF work that is in progress (in addition to the above). See Appendix 1 attached for detail. 9. In total there are 17 projects outstanding, two in the North Island and the balance in the South Island. One is to be classified as a Scientific Reserve and the remaining will be Scenic Reserves. Four of the Scenic Reserves have also been identified with a secondary recommendation as for addition to a National Park. Stewardship Areas 10. Work is in progress to develop a five year plan, to be completed by December 2017. As part of the plan’s development, the Department is looking at how it can best develop a co-ordinated approach to the reclassification of stewardship areas. 11. As a starting point, the five year plan will focus on the areas identified by Conservation Boards, developing a framework for assessment and reclassification. The plan will look at the most effective way to plan and manage stewardship land reclassification across and within each region, taking into account processes and consultation requirements. Ongoing Reclassification Processes 12. At the meeting held in August 2017, you had requested that a table of programmed land reclassification work be provided. 13. A summary of land reclassification work in progress (as of September 2017) is attached as Appendix 2 (see below). 14. The Table has been split into two categories; workstreams that involve reclassification work and workstreams that may include a reclassification process.

DOCCM-3161472 122 September 2017 APPENDIX 1 – Other ongoing NHF processes

Location Area AMOC approved Date Progress report (ha) protection type approved (AMOC) Contact 149.07 Scientific Scientific Reserve has been Energy (Ex) Reserve (1) done Scenic Reserve Scenic Reserves in progress (6) Fantail Rise, 32 Scenic Reserve SLM - noted this reserve bnear Waituna adjoins the Toetoes Lagoon, Bluff Conservation Area. A wider re-categorisation project is being considered for PCL in this area to form part of Conservation Park / National Reserve. There are also conservation covenant and easements to be agreed. Waghorn, 312.18 Scientific 2003 It was advised to hold off on Waituna, Reserve classifying this land until a Southland review of other similar blocks in the area so that classification as a group could be considered. Waipuna 76.41 Scenic Reserve 2003 To be classified Saddle Ludlam, Little River, Banks Peninsula, Canterbury McLoud Block 108 Scenic Reserve 2004 SLM advised - it was of the (Toetoes view of the former Funds Scenic Manager (Allan McKenzie) Reserve), that the reserve didn't need Southwood, to be classified as it was Kapuka South, property of the crown and Southland therefore protected; therefore, it was not pursued. To be classified, being included as part of the Toetoes Conservation Area to be reviewed. Motu Bush NZ 135.76 Scenic Reserve 2004 To be classified Deer Farms, Tuatapere, Southland Stronach 70.27 Scenic Reserve 2005 To be classified Block, Mt Sinclair Extension, DOCCM-3161472 123 September 2017 Banks Peninsula

McKenzie, 43 Scenic Reserve 2005 Naming consultation in Pati Tapa progress. Bush, Ekatahuna, Wairarapa Saddle Hill, 145.19 Scenic Reserve 2011 Currently being classified. Reynolds Gazette due to be published Valley, Banks 07.09.17 Peninsula Earthquakes, 25 Scientific 2013 Currently working with local Duntroon, Reserve Runanga around the name North Otago for the reserve, prior to public consultation. Hamilton, 97.52 Scenic Reserve 2013 Purchased as extension to Akaroa Palm Gully. Currently being Heads, classified, gazette due to be Canterbury published 07.09.17. Aradia, 129.9 Scenic Reserve 2016 28.08.17 Survey yet to be Hauraki undertaken. At point of signing the S&P Agreement. Lyndsay Block 123.43 Scenic Reserve 2015 Classified as Scenic Reserve Sept 2015. MBIE approval for park To then add to addition May 2016. Abel Tasman On hold at present to National Park maximise efficiencies in adding with the three recent purchases noted as additions to Abel Tasman NP eg; Rosser blocks Nell Reed 54.7 Scenic Reserve 2016 MBIE Approval for reserve Block, classification and park Otuwhero, addition Feb 2017. To then add to Abel Tasman, Abel Tasman Nelson On hold at present to National Park maximise efficiencies in adding with the three recent purchases noted as additions to Abel Tasman NP e.g.; Rosser blocks Upper Rosser 169.56 Scenic Reserve 2016 MBIE approval for reserve Block classification in progress. Looking to add to Abel To then add to Tasman with other additions, Abel Tasman e.g. Lyndsay Blk, Lower National Park Rosser Blk Lower Rosser 43 Scenic Reserve 2016 Survey work required as Block initial step. Agreement only recently signed - 2017

DOCCM-3161472 124 September 2017 To then add to Abel Tasman National Park Castledowns, 539.63 Scenic Reserve 2017 NHF approved partial near Lumsden funding for purchase. Waiting for confirmation of LAF funding for balance.

APPENDIX 2 – Ongoing Reclassification Processes

Workstreams that directly relate to No. of reclassification Projects Overview Not all are acquisitions, includes covenants, proposals etc Acquisitions include some NHF Acquisition and Protection 100 purchases. Includes classifying land from exchange processes, reclassifications, NHF Classification and naming 66 classifications, LAF, local office reviews Exchanges 59 includes classifying land received Includes exchange, NHF purchase Make changes to a National Park reclassifications, additions to and (including creation of or addition to) 7 revocations of Total No. of Projects 232

Workstreams that may involve No. of reclassification Projects Overview Disposal of DOC administered land 48 Process requires revocation of status Process may require a revocation of status to be undertaken but this is not Disposal of surplus Crown property 37 common Process may require some High country tenure review 11 classification work to be done. May include some classification, generally revocations, vesting or Reserve administering bodies 25 Control and Management May include some reclassification, Reserves Act and Public Works Act generally revocations, road legalisation, consents 70 Council requests re land management May include some reclassification work, as after advice given request to action may have been received and not Support and advice 174 entered as new request. Total No. of Projects 365

DOCCM-3161472 125 September 2017 126 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.15.1 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Wendy Evans, Planning Permissions and Land

Subject: Land Disposal Strategy project

NZCA Strategic SOI 2016-2020 Intermediate Outcome 1 The natural heritage is Priority and/or the maintained and restored: Lands, waters and species held Relevant DOC SOI Goal

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Note the contents of this paper b) Contribute thoughts on possible strategic principles to be applied to land disposal

Context The previous Minister of Finance (now Prime Minister) asked all government departments to look closely at whether or not they had land that could be disposed of. The department is now starting a six-month project to create a strategic approach to the disposal of low value low use public conservation land. A set of strategic principles will be developed by 31 October 2017 and then used to generate a draft list of sites for disposal. The draft list will be checked by Regional Operations for local factors during December 2017 to February 2018 and a final list created. The final Land Disposal Strategy, including the list of sites is scheduled to be approved by 31 March 2018. The department is seeking contributions from the NZCA of possible strategic principles for the Land Disposal Strategy by 25 October 2017.

DOC-3159282 127

DOC-3159282 128 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.15.1 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Wendy Evans, Business Support Manager, Planning Permissions and Land

Subject: Land Disposal Strategy project

Introduction 1. The previous Minister of Finance (now Prime Minister) asked all government departments to look closely at whether or not they had land that could be disposed of. 2. The department’s first approach to this request has been to look at Property Assets (Departmental land and buildings) the department holds and dispose of those not required. This project is part way through. 3. Conservation General Policy enables disposal of land with no or low conservation values. 4. The department is now starting a six-month project to create a strategic approach to the disposal of low value low use public conservation land. 5. The department is seeking contributions from the NZCA of possible strategic principles for the Land Disposal Strategy Drivers and processes for land disposal 6. In addition to the previous Minister of Finance’s request that government departments look at land that could be disposed of, the department receives several requests a year from individuals seeking to purchase land. There are approximately fifty requests currently in different stages of being assessed and processed. 7. Sites on public conservation land of importance to iwi are frequently transferred to iwi ownership as part of the Treaty settlement process. While some of these sites have low conservation value, many have biodiversity, landscape and/or recreation values which are usually protected as part of the Treaty settlement process. 8. The department’s land disposal process includes detailed robust assessment of values for each potential disposal site, public notification, possible offer back to previous owners if the land was acquired by the Crown under the Public Works Act, and Treaty Settlement Rights of First Refusal. The outcome, namely a site for sale on the open market, is not guaranteed. 9. Costs of readying a site for sale can include survey, public notification and upgrade/removal of any buildings. These costs are recovered from the sale price. Staff time is usually not recovered. 10. Net proceeds from the sale of conservation areas go to the Crown Consolidated Account, and from reserves into the Land Acquisition Fund. For Treaty settlements the disposal is a book transfer only. 11. There is ongoing pressure on the department’s budget. Land rationalisation can potentially reduce the burden on the department’s budget.

DOC-3159282 129 12. Previous regional/national pro-active land disposal exercises have been difficult to implement due to the time and cost required to solve complex issues prior to the sale of sites, and low net returns. Land Disposal Strategy project 13. The project is focussed on developing a national strategic approach to land disposal, including identifying a list of possible sites in line with the strategic approach. 14. The current process for land disposal, including meeting legal requirements, is expected to remain unchanged. The detailed robust assessment of values for each potential disposal site listed in the Strategy will occur as part of the usual process, not as part of the project. 15. Steps and timing: 15.1. A set of strategic principles will be developed by 31 October 2017 and then mapped by GIS staff using relevant data layers, such as excluding Ecological Management Units, to create a draft list of sites for disposal. 15.2. The list will be checked by Operations for local factors during December 2017 to February 2018 and a final list created. 15.3. The final Land Disposal Strategy, including the list of sites is scheduled to be approved by 31 March 2018. 16. The following current land disposal and rationalisation exercises are excluded from the scope of the Land Disposal Strategy project: 16.1. 2014/15 Review of Property Assets and the subsequent programme to dispose of 30 sites and associated buildings; 16.2. The 2016 rationalisation of historic properties between the department, Heritage New Zealand and councils; 16.3. 2017 West Coast Regional Growth Strategy action plan: assessment of all stewardship land on the West Coast for possible disposal or exchange for economic use. Section 4 Conservation Act 17. The land disposal process for individual sites includes a check of any relevant Treaty settlements which might contain a Right of First Refusal over the sites. Consultation with relevant iwi occurs if no Right of First Refusal applies to the site or if an iwi with an RFR indicates they have no interest in purchasing the site. Conclusion 18. The department is seeking contributions from the NZCA of possible strategic principles for the Land Disposal Strategy by 25 October 2017.

DOC-3159282 130 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.16 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017 Prepared By: Deidre Ewart, Business Support Manager

Subject: Tongariro National Park Management Plan amendment

NZCA Strategic Strategic Priority (B) National Park Management Plans Priority and/or the Stretch Goals 1 and 7 Relevant DOC SOI Goal

Recommendation or It is recommended the Authority: Action Required a) Consider the amendment to the Tongariro National Park Management Plan

Context An amendment to the Tongariro National Park Management Plan was carried out to provide for three new shared walking/ cycling tracks and provide for the use of mountain bikes and E bikes on those tracks. The Tongariro Taupo Conservation Board recommend the NZCA approve the amendment.

DOCCM-3166537 Deidre Ewart, Business Support Manager 15 September 2017 131

DOCCM-3166537 Deidre Ewart, Business Support Manager 15 September 2017 132 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.16 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017 Prepared By: Deidre Ewart, Business Support Manager

Subject: Tongariro National Park Management Plan amendment

Background 1. An amendment to the Tongariro National Park Management Plan was proposed in 2016 to provide for three new shared walking/ cycling tracks and to provide for the use of mountain bikes and e-bikes on those tracks, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the National Parks Act 1980 (NPA80). 2. Following submissions and hearings, the Director-General of Conservation modified the proposed amendment to include a staggered approach to track construction. The Tongariro Taupo Conservation Board (TTCB) agreed with this recommendation, along with some other related changes and actions. 3. The amendment process is now at the stage where the TTCB is sending the revised draft amendment to you for your approval.

Comment 4. The information being provided to the Authority includes: • a Certificate of Compliance from the TTCB, with information on compliance with the relevant statutory provisions; • a submissions response report; • a planner’s report; and • the revised draft Plan amendment, with and without tracked changes. 5. In accordance with section 48 of the NPA80, you are required to: • consider the revised draft Plan amendment and the accompanying information; • modify the Plan if you think fit and refer it to the Minister of Conservation; • have regard to the Minister’s views; and • approve the Plan amendment.

Section 4 Conservation Act 6. Please refer to page 6 of the Certificate of Compliance.

Conclusion 7. Carry out the actions required by section 48 of the NPA80 and approve the revised amendment to the TNPMP.

DOCCM-3166537 Deidre Ewart, Business Support Manager 15 September 2017 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 EVALUATION OF THE ENAGEMENT AND COMMUNICATIONS PLAN FOR THE TONGARIRO NATIONAL PARK PARTIAL PLAN REVIEW 2017 Consultation summary

Abstract A nationally significant partial plan change seeking to gather public opinion, whether providing for the establishment of additional walking and cycling opportunities, within specified tracks, is considered compatible with peoples’ aspiration for the future of Tongariro National Park and dual World Heritage Area. RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT

Stacey Faire, Senior Community Relations Ranger, Tongariro District [email protected]

143 Engagement Approach The engagement and communications plan outlined why we should engage with stakeholders, who we should engage with, and identified the appropriate engagement methods and communication tools to do this effectively. The design of the engagement and communication plan works through each component of The IPA2 Engagement design, plan and manage model (IAP2 Australasia (2016)). This process ensures that the design platform includes the:

• context;

• scope;

• understanding those who we wish to engage with, and why;

• roles of stakeholders in the project (inform, consult, involve, collaborate, empower);

• goals of the engagement;

• schedule of engagement activities; and,

• an evaluation plan.

The engagement purpose of this project is to:

- gather public opinion, whether providing for the establishment of additional walking and cycling opportunities, within specified tracks, is considered compatible with peoples’ aspiration for the future of Tongariro National Park and dual World Heritage Area.

The engagement plan identified that Tongariro National Park has been a place for visitors and local to enjoy and recreate, for this project it is important to engage with these stakeholders for the following reasons:

• inform and collect opinions;

• statutory requirements;

• strengthen existing relationships with partners and stakeholders;

• create understanding of an emerging or existing problem(s);

• communicate the next stages of the process;

• provide transparent decision making; and

• maintain effective long term relationships.

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT

1 | Page

144 The engagement goals are to:

• give stakeholders clear and concise information about how to participate;

• select engagement methods that build a collective understanding and willingness in stakeholders to participate in the review process, and

• ensure all consultation results are respectfully considered, response rates and summary of feedback is shared to build a collective understanding and ensure meaningful consultation is achieved. Methods The selection of engagement methods is based around a clear understanding of the stakeholders, the scale and duration of the engagement and the role of participants in influencing the end outcomes. The engagement plan identified four engagement phases and methods:

• Phase 1: pre-drafting consultation: if possible advance emails (partners) and iwi; attendance at existing forums; newspaper; public notification, face to face meeting with iwi;

• Phase 2: summary of responses; websites, emails, notification of the partial plan review and submission: newspapers; media stories; evening drop in sessions; site tours/viewing of identified areas.; simple feedback back forms, and

• Phase 4: Hearings; emails; telephone calls.

The initial engagement plan discounted social media as a tool as resources did not provide for making and editing video content. However, as the project developed additional resources where provided and a social media strategy was included as a tool for reaching out to stakeholders.

Pre-consultation Initial discussion about the proposed shared walking and cycling track occur in 2014 with the first presentation to the Tongariro Taupo Conservation Board in December of that year. In early 2015 further presentations to the board where then followed by the first advisory boarding in March. The group included both Ngati Rangi and Uenuku, southern iwi, local businesses, Ruapehu District Council and the Department. The focus of the group was considering the alterative off road access down the Ohakune Mountain Road.

The advisory group expanded their structure and worked on a governance model. This ensured that both local iwi had a permanent place at the table for future decision making. On April 12 2015 the site was blessed by Ngati Rangi and Uenuku with a karakia. Over the course of 2015 the advisory group meet with key stakeholders to share their aspirations and to listen to feedback. Stakeholders included: Forest and Bird, Wellington/Taupo, NZ Cycle Trails, Federated Mountain Clubs, Ruapehu Cycle Tourism Summit, Project Tongariro, Ohakune Property Developers, workshop with local RELEASEDbusinesses (16 businesses UNDER attended), THE Massey University OFFICIAL Alpine Club, INFORMATION Ruapehu Mountain Bike Club ACT and the Horopito Residents and Rate Payers Association.

In 2016 the intention to notify was advertised and requests were sought on the scope of the partial plan change. This process assisted with focusing the partial plan change to specific trails on the

2 | Page

145 Southern Side of the mountain. The additional issues raised in scoping submissions will be address when the full review is planned, when co-management with iwi is in place. Summary of engagement activities Table 1 provides a list of activities that have been used to schedule engagement with stakeholders. A list of key stakeholders is included in the appendix.

TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF ENGAGEMENT OF ACTIVITIES

Year Engagement Activity

2014 - Initial discussions occurred and the first presentation to the conservation board was given in December

2015 - Advisory group activated, governance roles established and scoping out options. - On April 12 2015 the site was blessed by Ngati Rangi and Uenuku with a karakia. - Pre-consultation process began with stakeholder meetings throughout the year (30 meetings held in 2015)

2016 - Further pre-consultation meetings occurred with seven run by the advisory group members. - Intention to notify the scoping of the partial plan review limited to tracks on the Southern Side of the Mountain started in November 2016 with the public submission process closing prior to Christmas

Feb - Updates sent to key stakeholders and treaty partners

March - Advanced notice to stakeholders about process about the notification process

- Notification March 13th 2017

- Stakeholder notification via email

- Attend meetings; display in the VC and local libraries’ and i-site centre

- Newspapers, media release and response to radio NZ and wilderness magazine.

April/ - Used social media to inform and activate members of the public May

May - Members of the Advisory group presented at Sustainable Tracks in Australia.

- DOC ran two open events to visit the site days to walk the track, engage shuttle companies to help.

- Reminder to stakeholders to respond was emailed out to those who had not submitted.

RELEASEDJune - Publicly UNDER notify hearings THE to community OFFICIAL. INFORMATION ACT

- Provide response to media about the hearings process.

3 | Page

146 Stakeholder Engagement The Department reached out directly to stakeholders through a direct email to inform and activate their interest. The first email was send on the 26th of March 2017 and those who did not submit received a reminder email a week before submissions closed (refer to the Appendix for Stakeholder Letters and Emails). Although the reminder is not a standard practice, for the Department, it is seen to be an effective method to ensure that stakeholders are heard as part of the process and that the original invitation to participate is not lost.

Newspapers and media Methods to engage with the general public included advertising in national and local papers about the partial review process. The Department also issued a media release about the review and directed public to the DOC website for further information (Figure 1).

http://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved/have-your-say/all-consultations/2017/tongariro-national- park-management-plan-partial-review/

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT FIGURE 1 - SCREEN SHOT OF DOC WEBSITE Media picked up the story and provided several articles about the review process as e-bikes were included in the policy framework. The links below are examples of how the story ran in local and national papers:

4 | Page

147 http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11870640

http://community.scoop.co.nz/2017/03/partial-plan-change-for-tongariro-national-park-is-notified/

http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/5/286117

https://can.org.nz/category/document-type/submissions

http://coranz.org.nz/news-feeds/department-of-conservation/

https://www.odt.co.nz/news/national/concerns-over-proposed-ruapehu-track

The discussion of e-bikes generated interest from wilderness magazine and radio NZ. All of these channels provided and created opportunities to increase the awareness of the review process and encouraged the public to participate in the process.

https://www.wildernessmag.co.nz/3-new-tracks-proposed-tongariro-np/

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/afternoons/audio/201838271/electric-bikes-could- be-allowed-in-tongariro-national-park

Information Displays A physical display, at the Ohakune Library foyer, provided a visual description of the proposed plan change and handouts for the public to read, take home and get involved (Figure 1).

FIGURE 2 - VIDEO DISPLAY OF HOW TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE PARTIAL REVIEW AT THE OHAKUNE LIBRARY The Librarians commented that the display was popular, in that people stopped and watched the video and the information handouts were also taken by visitors. The Ohakune library is popular with local community members and with tourists has it has computers that people use to access information.

Information handouts were also distributed for the public at the:

• Raetihi library; • Ohakune I-site; • Whakapapa Visitor Centre and i-site, and RELEASED• At two local UNDER bike shops in Ohakune THE and OFFICIAL one in National Park INFORMATION Village. ACT

The visual display also included footage of key stakeholders supporting the community to get involved with the engagement process – to have their say.

5 | Page

148 Community Open Days The Department hosted two open events, a morning tea for the submitters and open day for visitors (Figure 3) and (Appendix 3) and also attended meetings when invited, one to the local community in Ohakune and one to the business association in National Park. All engagement activities provided an opportunity to discuss the process, ask questions and clarify how to get involved. One group requested a face to face meeting in Taupo and DOC meet with them to talk through their concerns.

FIGURE 3 – OPEN DAY - DISCUSSING THE PARTIAL REVIEW PROCESS AT AN OPEN DAY

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT

6 | Page

149 Social media engagement The first phase of the social media engagement strategy was to inform and activate the local community to get involved with the plan review process. Social media is a useful messaging tool for rural communities who may not have computers but have phones with social media applications installed on their phones. For the partial review engagement the platform used to share the message, was the DOC Tongariro Facebook Page https://www.facebook.com/DOCTongariro/.

Facebook (FB) as a social media is a useful tool for engaging with stakeholders who have a connection with the Tongariro National Park but live elsewhere. The Tongariro FB site has both national and international connections with 45 different countries connecting with the site and with the highest number of connections from New Zealand. The top three regions in New Zealand who connect the most to the Tongariro Park via the Facebook site are Waikato 22% (includes Taumarunui and Turangi), Auckland 20% and Wellington 17%.

Regions that connect with TNP via Facebook

Wellington Auckland Region 17% 20%

Ba y of Pl enty Region 9% Waikato 22%

Canterbury 8%

Hawke's Bay 3% Nelson Province Manawatu-Wanganui 2% 13% Auckland Region Bay of Plenty Region Canterbury Hawke's Bay Manawatu-Wanganui Nelson Province Northland Otago Southland Taranaki Waikato Wellington

FIGURE 3 REGIONAL CONNECTIONS WITH TONGARIRO NATIONAL PARK Social media engagement is measured by gathering data and statistics, or in social media terms, metrics. For the purposes of this report, engagement is the total number of Likes, Comments, Shares, Link clicks, Video play clicks, and other clicks. Facebook can provide statistics of “Total reach”, which is the number of people who were served any activity from the page including, posts, posts to your page by other people, mentions and checkins. While “Total reach” in itself is a useful metric, this can in short be paid for with sponsored Posts (i.e. pay FB to place it in the newsfeeds of users) so needs to be considered along with engagement. To explain, sharing a post is easy but sharing a post that people actually engage with in some way is integral for measuring any social media success.

To explain the level of engagement on social media, for the partial review, it is useful context to RELEASEDcompare the previous UNDER engagement ofTHE other social OFFICIAL media messages. INFORMATION For example, since 2014 there ACT have been 681 posts made, on the DOC page, and the highest performing posts by total reach is aerial images of Te-wai-a-moe made (8/16/16 4:07 PM) which organically (unpaid) hit 50379 FB users news feeds and had 7% engagement. In comparison, a rock fall warning for Mt Ngauruhoe had 17827 Total

7 | Page

150 Reach, and 5% engagement (1/23/17 3:20 PM). International social media expert, Michael Leander1, considers that engagement over 1% is good and 0.5-0.99% is average and any engagement rate over 5% is very effective. In comparison the Total reach rate of the TNP partial plan change campaign of nine posts, all were in the top 48 overall (rank: 2, 4, 16, 22, 25, 26, 36, 39, and 48 respectively). The TNP General Intro, 19300 (Figure 7), and Dean Sherrit, a key community stakeholder (Figure 8), 14187, placed them into the top four.

The TNP General Intro resulted in a 9.5% engagement rate (Figure 7), the transcript for the video is included in appendix 1. A second series of videos interviewed community six members who have been involved with the project since its inception. The videos included Dean Sherrit, a community member from Ohakune, who spoke about the historic stories about the track that were discovered during the surveying and researching of the off road alterative (engagement rate of 12%).

FIGURE 4 - SCREEN SHOT OF ENGAGEMENT PHASE 1 - 9.5% RATE Of the top three posts, 7-10% of total viewers watched to the end and as expected, roughly 28% made it to the 15-20 second mark. During this time frame there was an additional 98 Likes of the page (3.9% increase) up to 2,569 showing good growth.

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT

1 http://www.michaelleander.me/

8 | Page

151

FIGURE 5 – SCREEN SHOT OF COMMUNITY MEMBER, DEAN SHERRIT, SHARING THEIR STORY ABOUT THE PROJECT

Ben Wiggins, an owner of a local mountain biking company and a member of the local community interested in developing the walking and cycle track, spoke about his involvement in the Ohakune Old Coach Road and how this shared use track has developed into a regionally significant and nationally recognised heritage icon (engagement rate of 9.5%).

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT

FIGURE 6 - SCREEN SHOT OF COMMUNITY MEMBER, BEN WIGGINS, SHARING THEIR STORY ABOUT THE PROJECT Overall, the use social media, using a general introduction video and six community members provided a total reach of 54,810, with 17,319 viewing the videos and 198 clicking through to

9 | Page

152 the DOC website (Table 1). The click through to the website would have provided people with further information to participate in the in submission process. The total submissions were 31, which could be considered a low number. The standard of submission was high, individual and group submissions and did not generate mass reproduced generic submissions. The submissions also included a wide range of stakeholders from local businesses to Forest and Bird New Zealand. The public hearing process provide the opportunity for submitters to talk to their submission and the panel, several submitters where able to teleconference into the hearing to speak to the panel.

TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF ENGAGEMENT FOR THE PARTIAL PLAN REVIEW Video Total Reach Engagement Video Percentage Link to DOC viewed engaged website TNP General 19300 1834 7758 9.5% 85 Intro Dean Sherrit 14187 1704 5728 12.0% 67

Comm Day 4235 116 2.7% 0 invite Murray 3583 323 1237 9% 12 Wilson Warren 3525 94 509 2.9% 4 Furner Ben Wiggins 3211 305 944 9.5% 21

Closing 2507 61 491 2.4% 3 reminder Dave Scott 2427 59 340 2.4% 5

Darren 2135 44 312 2.6% 1 Gamble Totals 54,810 4,540 17,319 198

Summary of engagement

Information about the partial plan review was provided in national newspapers, directly emailed to stakeholders, on DOC website and on Facebook. DOC also provided for face to face opportunities by advertising community days and attending local meetings. In RELEASEDcomparison to the UNDER 1% international THE standards OFFICIAL for the use of social INFORMATION media to engage the public, ACT the DOC engagement strategy to inform and active the public about the partial plan review was effective with a response rate of 12% and a total reach of 54, 810. The awareness of the partial plan review was high and resulted in quality submissions to the hearing panel.

10 | Page

153

Appendix: Open Day Flyer

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT

11 | Page

154 Appendix: Transcript - FINAL - Script for partial review of the Tongariro National Park Management Plan Community Consultation video – 1 May, 2017

Kia ora from Mount Ruapehu!

Did you know that DOC are considering a couple of changes to the Tongariro National Park Management Plan?

This is so we can continue working alongside the Ruapehu community and create three new shared- use tracks.

How can I get involved?

You can join us on this journey and have your say.

Whether for or against, it’s easy!

Simply download a Submission Form from doc.govt.nz, put pen to paper and send your thoughts through to Department by the 29th of May.

So where are the tracks going to be?

Running from Tūroa ski field to The Junction in Ohakune, 22-kilometres could be added to the Mountains to Sea leg of the great New Zealand cycle trail.

The second is an additional 11-kilometre track creating a loop-back option for the Old Coach Road.

Affectionately known as the ‘Missing Link’, the third is a 600-metre stretch around the Maungaturuturu viaduct to connect to the Marton Sash and Door track from National Park.

Where can I find out more information?

If you’re in the Ruapehu bike down to the visitor information centres at Whakapapa or Ohakune.

If you’re not? Jump onto the DOC website and all the documents are available for download including a submission form.

This journey was started by the local community and to move forward to through the next phase DOC really need to hear your views!

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT

12 | Page

155 Key Stakeholders

UNSECO Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of NZ MBIE RMCA NZTA Auckland Tramping Club NZ Cycle Trails Mountain Bike NZ Walking access commission Auckland MTB Club Heritage NZ Trail Fund Ruapehu District Council Tourism Industry Assn NZ Environment Waikato Deerstalkers Association Horizons Regional Council NZ pig hunting Association Chair of Advisory Group and Game and Forest Foundation Ohakune 2000 Rep Forest and Bird (CEO) Ruapehu Alpine Lifts (RAL) Forest and Bird - Taupo Branch Station Lodge Aotearoa NZ National Park Village Business Walking Access Commission Association Heritage New Zealand Horopito Resident and Ratepayers Horopito Ratepayers and residents association & Association; Taylor Memorial Lodge Neighbour Ohakune 2000 Progressive Association (National Park) Police Project Tongariro Turoa Cycle Boarding (TBC) Massey University Alpine Club Visit Ohakune Ruapehu Mountain Bike Club NZ Recreation Association Raetihi-Ohakune Rotary Club Public Access NZ Bike Taupo Outdoors NZ Perception Planning Federated Mountain Clubs New World - Ohakune

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT

13 | Page

156 Stakeholder letter

https://doccm.doc.govt.nz/wcc/faces/wccdoc?dDocName=DOC-3000807

27 March 2017

Dear stakeholder,

I am writing to formally let you know that the notification process for the Partial Plan Change has started today. The Departments website includes the link to the draft policies that are proposed. As we have explained previously, the policy changes are limited to the three-shared walking and cycling tracks. The only additional proposed policy is around the use of e-bikes.

As we have an open-door policy with our stakeholders we will be hosting an open day to discuss any issues and to offer any assistance we can to help mitigate these issues. We are planning on hosting an open day that will include travelling to view three key locations. If you are interested in attending the open day please email [email protected].

If you would like to have your say, then please click on the click below to read the proposed policies and how to submit.

http://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved/have-your-say/all-consultations/2016/tongariro-national- park-management-plan-partial-review/

Comments need to be sent to us by 4 pm on Monday 29 May 2017.

Submissions must be made in writing and should be either be

emailed to: [email protected]

Or write to us at: Tongariro NPMP partial review Department of Conservation Private Bag 3072 Hamilton 3240

We look forward to hearing from you as we value your input into these processes.

Yours sincerely

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT

Bhrent Guy

Operations Manager, Tongariro District

14 | Page

157 Stakeholder Email

Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017 1:33 p.m. To: TNPMPpartialreview Subject: Notification of the Partial Plan Change - Tongariro National Park

Kia Ora Submitters,

Attached is a letter notifying you about the partial plan that has been advertised in the paper. The letter includes a link with the draft policies for your review and how to get involved with this process. We are also taking this opportunity to invite you to a morning tea in Ohakune to discuss the plan change and talk about your views with the Operations Manager, Mr Bhrent Guy. The details are included in the letter. Please rsvp if you can attend.

We do your input into this process and we look forward to working with you to ensure that sound decision is made around the future use of the World Heritage Park.

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT

15 | Page

158

Stakeholder letter to RAL

https://doccm.doc.govt.nz/wcc/faces/wccdoc?dDocName=DOC-3003524

28 March 2017

Tena koe Ross,

The purpose of my email is to advise that the Department of Conservation has commenced a partial review of the Tongariro National Park Management Plan. The proposed amendments would provide for three additional tracks for shared walking and cycling as well as the use of E bikes on those tracks and other tracks where bikes can be used within the Park. The proposed amendments support both community aspirations for recreational opportunities, community concern around safety on the Ohakune Mountain Road and the Accelerate 2025 regional growth strategy.

The Department would like to discuss these draft policies with RAL specifically as there will be an overlap, if approved, within the current Amenity Area of Turoa ski field.

The proposed amendments were publicly notified on Friday 24th of March 2017 and today we have sent out emails to interested parties and wider stakeholders to seek their input. For your information, we have offered to meet with submitters, who provided comments on the scoping process, for a morning tea and we are aiming to have an open day for wider stakeholders.

Should you wish to lodge a submission, please note that these close on the 29th of May. Further detail about the process can be found here http://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved/have-your-say/all- consultations/2017/tongariro-national-park-management-plan-partial-review/

We look forward to arranging a meeting with you to talk about this partial plan change.

Yours sincerely

Bhrent Guy RELEASEDOperations Manager, UNDER Tongariro District THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT

Stakeholder email reminder (submitters)

16 | Page

159 Sent: Wednesday, 26 April 2017 4:16 p.m. To: TNPMPpartialreview Subject: FW: Notification of the Partial Plan Review - Tongariro National Park - MORNING TEA next Thursday

Hello All,

Just a gentle reminder about morning tea next week. We hope you can make it.

Please note that submissions close on the 31st of May 2017 and although you submitted before this is a new process and we need your input to make sound decisions.

Stakeholder email reminder to engage

Sent: Friday, 26 May 2017 3:11 p.m. To: TNPMPpartialreview Subject: Partial Review - Tongariro National Park Management Plan

Good Afternoon,

For those of you have not yet submitted this is a general reminder that submissions close on Monday afternoon for the partial review of the Tongariro National Park Management Plan.

Please take this opportunity to have your say.

For the policies click through to the link below. The submission form is attached.

http://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved/have-your-say/all-consultations/2017/tongariro-national- park-management-plan-partial-review/

RELEASED UNDER THE OFFICIAL INFORMATION ACT

17 | Page

160 Summary of Submissions Tongariro National Park Management Plan 2006-2016 Partial Review

Submissions Overview Total number of 53 20 submissions from organisations submissions received: 33 from individuals 3 submissions received were identical Total number of submission 176 Of the total, 18 submission points related to grammatical changes and 15 points submitted on the supplementary information provided in support of the review documentation.

Opposing Submissions Total submissions opposed 12 Total number opposed to 3 Specific submission points related to: the review in its entirety • opposing e-bikes in the national park (3); • opposed to mountain biking in a dual world heritage site (1); • Destruction of indigenous wildlife/vegetation (3); • Shared use tracks would detract from other users experiences (2); • Safety risks (1); • Funding issues (2); • Failure to fulfil statutory obligations (1) Total number opposed to a 9 Specific submission points related to: specific part or policy in the • Opposing to e-bike provisions on the grounds that they may be review dangerous to other users safety, would destroy tracks, and reduce other users experiences through shared use tracks (8); • E-bike provisions should be deferred for 5 years and/or trialled on tracks outside of the park first (4); • Concern over destruction of indigenous vegetation/wildlife (3); • Concern about funding of either limited DOC budget or lack of certainty over the ongoing maintenance (3); • Opposing to any type of vehicle in a national park (including mountain bikes) (4).

Supporting Submissions Total submissions 10 Specific submission points related to: supporting the review in its • Support of e-bikes (7); entirety: • Tracks would improve/not deter from TNP values (world heritage, amenity, landscape, etc) (6); • Economic benefits (4); • Support of more mountain biking opportunities in the park (2); • Relief of some of the pressure on the Tongariro Crossing (1); • Should be a cost (1)

161 Supporting Submissions Submissions supporting a 31 Specific submission points related to: specific part of the review: • Support of e-bikes (20); • Opposed to e-bikes but supported other parts of the review (7); • Should be no distinction between e-bikes and mountain-bikes (6); • Supported all new tracks (10); • Supported the tracks but not T2O track (upper section) (4); • Supported tracks, but not as shared use (4); • Economic benefits (17); • Monitoring would be too hard, so e-bikes should be allowed (4); • Some submissions had funding concerns (3); • It should be clearer that the national park is free for all individual users (1); • Some felt that mountain bikers and e-bikers should pay a concession to use the track (2); • Supported the grades of proposed tracks (2); • Events should be allowed on tracks (2).

162 Submitter DOCCM reference Submitter Submitter Type Heard? Position Reason Relevant Policy Indentified Changes Suggested Decision Recommendations number Ebikes MR2H H2NP T2O Comment 1 DOC-3006254 Graham McCready Individual yes Support in part Support Supports the use of electric bikes in the None None Accept Park because they assist users with injuries or diasbilities to access the park who would not otherwise be able to mountain bike or tramp. 2 DOC-3006256 Terry O'Connor Individual No Support in part Support Support Oppose Mountain Road to Horopito and Horopito No access for mountain bikes. Reject in part to National Park Supports the new tracks, but not as dual Dual tracks should have a minimum width of 4 use. Would prefer to see separate metres dedicated mountain biking tracks to avoid disturbance to walkers and trampers

Support in part Turoa to Ohakune Reject Opposed to cyclist access. Cyclists are too fast and disturb other users (walkers/trampers)

3 DOC-3006257 DOC-3038248 Blair George Individual no Support in part Support E-bikes should be treated in the same way 4.3.2.12A Ammend policy to allow e-bikes on all trails Accept as mountain bikes. where mountain bikes are allowed

E-bike riders are as capable as non-electric bike riders at using higher grade trails - proposed policy 'pidgeon holes' all e-bike riders as less-abled.

Distinction between mountain bikes and e- bikes is not required -

Support Glossary Ammend definitions to remove distinction Reject between e-bikes and mountain bikes 4 DOC-3010930 Richard Everitt Individual no Support Support Support Support Support In support of additional tracks as it will 4.3.2.4 Accept in part allow for a more diverse range of visitors

Support Supports electric bikes on grade 1 and 2 Reject in part tracks only because e-bike riders are likely to be less experienced/fit, and there is a higher risk of damage to trails from inexperienced riders. 5 DOC-3034016 Accelerate 25 Organisation Yes Fully Support Strongly supports proposed changes None Submissions noted

Notes the value to the district and regional economy, particluarly for employment outcomes, from the the growth of mountain biking

Notes the need for development to align with the cultural and spiritual values of the mountain

Notes the opportunity for alignment with options being considered by the Crown and Iwi for an entrance way to the National Park

6 DOC-3034007 David Van Schaardenburg Individual no Support in part Opposed Support Support Support Generally supports review to increase Submissions noted diverse access to alpine bush for walkers and mountain bikers.

Does not support the use of e-bikes as they 5.4.3.2.12A Delete policy 5.4.3.2.12A Reject are hard-wearing on trails and and opens opportunity for all, risking overuse 7 DOC-3034034 Rhonda and John Crowley Individual yes Support Support Supports the use of electric bikes in the Accept Park because they assist users with injuries or diasbilities to access the park who would not otherwise be able to mountain bike or tramp. 8 DOC-3036989 David Brinson Individual no Oppose Oppose Does not support the use of any motorised Reject vehicle, in particular e-bikes, within national parks. Considers e-bikes as motorbikes 9 DOC-3037067 Tony and Sandra Gavin Individual no Support Support Supports the use of e-bikes in the Park to Accept allow access to the park for older riders

163 Support Should be no distinction between e-bikes Ammend definitions to remove distinction Reject and mountain bikes between e-bikes and mountain bikes 10 DOC-3037270 DOC-3037269 Sean Linton Individual no Support Support Supports the use of e-bikes in the park to Policy 1, Section 5.3 Accept allow access to the park for less able cyclists 11 DOC-3037276 Stu Burrows Individual no Support Support Supports e-bike use in the Park Accept 12 DOC-3038181 Graeme Leo Individual no Oppose Oppose Does not support the use of e-bikes within Changes to the draft review Reword to read: Submission point noted but national parks. Proposals for the use of e- document, introduction a) a. Provide for new sustainably designed not within plan change bikes in national parks should be deferred shared-use tracks in three locations document for 5 years until more is known about their effects Oppose Changes to the draft review Delete and replace with: Submission point noted but document, Introduction d) d. Prior to contruction, any proposed track not within plan change design be subject to professional peer document review to ensure it meets the criteria for sustainable design Oppose Changes to the draft review New clause: Reject document, Electric power-assisted As a nacent activiity it is too early to cycle (e-bikes) determine whether e-biking is an appropriate activity or not within Tongariro National Park. This will be reviewed in not less than five years time as experience is gained through trials in other parts of the Conservation Estate; research material becomes available; technological developments in e-Bikes are understood; and DOC has developed effective management tools that limit trail access to , pedal assist 250 watt 25kph cut-out eBikes where that is specified to be the maximum output Oppose Changes to the draft review Delete refence to e-bikes Submission point noted but document, Table 1: Management not within plan change issues and measures for mountain document biking and use of e-bikes Oppose Changes to the draft review Reword: Submission point noted but document, Table 1: Track Tracks are to be developed and maintained to not within plan change damage/Track standard meet Departmental standards (section 4.3.2.4, document policies 4 and 11) and prior to construction, proposed track designs are subject to professional peer review to ensure acknowledged criteria for sustainable design are met. Oppose 5.2 Section 4.3.2.4 Policy 10 Reword: Accept in part - Decision May allow the tracks identified in policy 4 text reflects submission above to be constructed, owned, maintained, point and managed under a concession or management agreement provided independent mountain biking is allowed free of charge. Prior to any construction, proposed track designs are subject to professional peer review to ensure acknowledged criteria for sustainable design are met. Oppose 5.4 New section - Electric power- Delete entire section Reject assisted cycles 13 DOC-3043968 Bike Taupo Organisation yes Fully Support Support Support Support Support Supports shared use trails, trail grades and Accept ebikes in the park 14 DOC-3044342 Jude Eades Individual no Fully Support Support Support Support Agrees with more mountain biking trails in Accept the TNP 15 DOC-3048562 Anna Ingham Individual no Oppose Oppose Opposed to the use of ebikes in TNP until Changes to the draft review Reword to read: Submission point noted but further consultation is undertaken - defer 5 document, introduction a) a. Provide for new sustainably designed not within plan change years shared-use tracks in three locations document Oppose Changes to the draft review Delete and replace with: Submission point noted but document, Introduction d) d. Prior to contruction, any proposed track not within plan change design be subject to professional peer review document to ensure it meets the criteria for sustainable design Oppose Changes to the draft review new clause: Submission point noted but document, electric power-assisted As a nacent activiity it is too early to not within plan change cycle (e-bikes) determine whether e-biking is an appropriate document activity or not within Tongariro National Park. This will be reviewed in not less than five years time as experience is gained through trials in other parts Oppose Changes to the draft review Delete refence to e-bikes: Submission point noted but document, Table 1: Management Management issues and measures for not within plan change issues and measures for mountain mountainn biking document biking and use of e-bikes

164 Oppose Changes to the draft review Reword: Submission point noted but document, Table 1: Track Tracks are to be developed and maintained to not within plan change damage/Track standard meet Departmental standards (section 4.3.2.4, document policies 4 and 11) and prior to construction, proposed track designs are subject to professional peer review to ensure acknowledged criteria for sustainable design are met.

Policies in section 4.1.16 outline a number of considerations relating to development proposals and are required to be considered be section 4.3.2.1, policy Oppose 5.2 Section 4.3.2.4 Policy 10 Reword: Accept in part - Decision May allow the tracks identified in policy 4 text reflects submission above to be constructed, owned, point maintained, and managed under a concession or management agreement provided independent mountain biking is allowed free of charge. Prior to any construction, proposed track designs are subject to professional peer review to ensure acknowledged criteria for sustainable design are met. Oppose 5.4 New section - Electric power- Delete entire section Reject assisted cycles 16 DOC-3049600 Helen Peek Individual no Oppose Oppose Does not support mountain-biking in Reject general, or e-bikes in the park 17 DOC-3049781 TCB Ski & Board Hire Organisation yes Fully Support Support Support Support Support Completes "missing link" in mountain to 4.3.2.4 policy 10 and 4.3.2.12 policy 12 Ammend to charge for use of park for Submission points noted. sea trail, Will be good test case for mountain biking. Reject in part walker/biker relations, Ebikes will allow people who are not as fit to enjoy tracks, despite unkown risk of damage, New visitors will generate economic benefits 18 DOC-3052919 Roger Coles Individual no Support Support Supports the use of e-bikes in the park to 5.4 E-bikes Accept allow access to the park for less able cyclists 19 DOC-3052925 Waikato Tramping Club Organisation yes Support in part Support Support Oppose Mountain Road to Horopito and Horopito Accept to National Park Support due to minimal impact on the park and links for mountain biking and walking

Support in part Turoa to Ohakune Track Reject in part Cyclists will cause too much distruption to walkers Cost should not be bourne by RDC or DOC Support in part Track development and management Reject in part policy 20 DOC-3053214 Wanganui Tramping Club Organisation no Support Support Support Support Support Supports shared use trails 5.2 Section 4.3.2.4 Tracks Accept Support Agree trial period for shared use tracks as 5.3 Section 4.3.2.12 Mountain biking Accept proposed. Support monitoring programme as proposed to assess effects. Supports mountain biking activities

Support Supports ebikes where mountain bikes are 5.4 E-bikes Accept allowed, but in a trial area first Support Support ebike use, but wonder how 5.7 Glossary, E-bikes Submission point noted and enforcement of maximum wattage will be reflected in decision text managed 21 DOC-3053215 Peter Ayson Individual no Oppose Oppose Ebikes should not be allowed in national 4.3.2.12A Delete section Reject parks 22 DOC-3053220 Skotel Alpine Resort Organisation no Fully Support Support Support Support Support tracks will not adversely affect World 4.5 Submission points noted Heritage values, natural park values and will provide benefits, use and enjoyment for the public and supports e-bike provisions

165 23 DOC-3054388 Forest & Bird Organisation yes Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose allowing further mountain biking Submission points noted. in the park, department has failed to fulfil Reject its statutory obligations to fully consider alternative mountain biking opportunities outside the Park, The Departmet should withdraw proposed review until it can demonstrate why the existing mountain biking opportunities on land adjacent to Park are inadequate, Department has failed to provide adequate justification for why the three proposed trails should be developed in the dual world heritage site, Trails should be outside the national park to avoid user conflict and protect historic and environmental values

24 DOC-3054405 Chris Berry Individual no Support in part Oppose Support Support Support Supports shared use tracks Section 4.3.2.4c Reject in part Support in part More extreme mountain biking will 4.3.2.12 added policies 16 & 17 Reject in part encourage negative impacts in shared use tracks Support in part Opposes e-bikes in national parks 5.4 E-bikes Delete Reject 25 DOC-3054401 Chris Horne Individual no Oppose detract from walker/tramper/runner Reject amenity values, reduce safety to above users, tracks will become mini roads through indigenous ecosystems, will lead to demands for smoother wider surfaces, resulting in losses of indigenous plant communities and soils, ebikes will damage tracks , will impose increased demands to Departments funds

26 DOC-3054408 Alexander Davies Individual no Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Oppose Section 4.1 Background Recognise and incorporate concept that Reject national park is not primarily a playground - concervation over cycling Oppose E bikes should be trialed elsewhere first Sections 4.4 and 5.4 Reject Oppose Mountain bikes will increase use of the Section 4.4 No not compare Heaphy Track and Old Ghost Reject tracks and will no longer be considered as Road to TNP an isolated location Oppose Mountain biking use is likely to increase Section 4.3.2.12 Reject over the next 10 years. Prevent it now before its too late 27 DOC-3054414 Hugo Verhagen Individual no Support Support Support Support Support Supports all 3 tracks but has concerns over 4.2 Consider alternate route following ridge to Accept Upper Turoa to Waitonga the south-east of the Mangawhero river between Turoa and Waitonga Support Supports e-bikes because excluding them 4.4 Accept would be impractical in terms of compliance monitoring, and including them alows less able-bodied riders access to tracks 28 DOC-3054469 Tongariro Tramping Club Organisation no Support in part Oppose Support Support Oppose Supports tracks but oppose dual use track Section 4.3.2.4 - Tracks Delete the following wording in paragraoh 5... Accept between Turoa and Ohakune "...Turoa and Ohuakune..." The tracks would in part follow the "Blyth Track" Support in part Section 4.3.2.12 - mountain biking Delete all references to between "Turoa and Reject Ohakune" Support in part Reword - New Policy after policy 3 Reject 4a) "preserve as far as possible" - strongly oppose this wording as it removes accountability on DOC Support in part Update all references of "Historic Places Accept Trust" to "Heritage New Zealand Support in part 5.4 E-bikes Delete all references to between "Turoa and Reject Difficult for DOC to enforce or determine Ohakune" power of e-bike. Better to wait and see what happens in other parts of the country first 29 DOC-3054559 Paul Carrad Individual no Support Support Support the use of e-bikes Accept 30 DOC-3054560 Brent & Noeline Bishop Individual yes Support Support Support Support Support Consider re-routing the track from Lahar Accept farm (where there is an easement) and divert onto public land and consider creating the lower part of the T2O track before the upper section 31 DOC-3054574 Guy Wynn-Williams Individual yes Oppose Oppose Opposed to the use of E-bikes in TNP until Changes to the draft review Reword to read: Submission point noted but more is known of their impacts document, introduction a) a. Provide for new sustainably designed not within plan change shared-use tracks in three locations document Oppose Changes to the draft review Delete and replace with: Submission point noted but document, Introduction d) d. Prior to contruction, any proposed track not within plan change design be subject to professional peer review document to ensure it meets the criteria for sustainable design

166 Oppose Changes to the draft review new clause: Reject document, electric power-assisted As a nacent activiity it is too early to cycle (e-bikes) determine whether e-biking is an appropriate activity or not within Tongariro National Park. This will be reviewed in not less than five years time as experience is gained through trials in other parts Oppose Changes to the draft review Delete refence to e-bikes: Submission point noted but document, Table 1: Management Management issues and measures for not within plan change issues and measures for mountain mountainn biking document biking and use of e-bikes Oppose Changes to the draft review Reword: Submission point noted but document, Table 1: Track Tracks are to be developed and maintained to not within plan change damage/Track standard meet Departmental standards (section 4.3.2.4, document policies 4 and 11) and prior to construction, proposed track designs are subject to professional peer review to ensure acknowledged criteria for sustainable design are met.

Policies in section 4.1.16 outline a number of considerations relating to development proposals and are required to be considered be section 4.3.2.1, policy Oppose 5.2 Section 4.3.2.4 Reword: Accept in part - Decision May allow the tracks identified in policy 4 text reflects submission above to be constructed, owned, point maintained, and managed under a concession or management agreement provided independent mountain biking is allowed free of charge. Prior to any construction, proposed track designs are subject to professional peer review to ensure acknowledged criteria for sustainable design are met. Oppose 5.4 New section - Electric power- Delete entire section Reject assisted cycles 32 DOC-3054591 Katherine Hay Individual no Support Support Support Support Support Supports the addition of the three 4.3.2.4 Submissions noted proposed new shared tracks Support Support the new tracks being family Section 4.3.2.4 new objective c Submissions noted friendly and eas-moderate difficulty Support Support retaining park cultural values, Section 4.3.2.4 new Policy 4 Submissions noted being family friendly and safe Support Supports additions to preamble and 5.3 Section 4.3.2.12 Mountain biking Submissions noted policies regading new tracks. Supports preamble and policies after 9 (12-21) limiting the events that are held on tracks Support Support allowing e-bikes to allow less 5.4 New section - Electric power- Submissions noted abled riders access to tracks assisted cycles 33 DOC-3054844 National Park Village Association Inc Organisation yes Fully Support Support Support Support Support Increases visitors, safety improvements, Submissions noted amenity value 34 DOC-3054849 Joy Burt Individual no Support Support Supports the inclusion of e-bike provisions Accept 35 DOC-3054854 Te Ara Mangawhero Trail Advisory Group Organisation yes Support Support Support Support Partial Support Ammendments correctly identify general Map 10 Access and Facilities Submissions noted alignments of proposed shared use track. Protection of sites of cultural significance to iwi, environmental, landscape, and historic heritage will need to be considered at time of construction Support Support ammendments to preamble and Section 4.3.2.4, Policy 11 Support new objective and policies but with Reject in part policy 4. ammendments to policy 11 or addition of new policy to provide for the following:

It is imortant the the manager of tracks has the ability to be included in decision making proess as to the approriateness of any event of as to the conditions that should be applied to mitigate adverse effects on track or related infrustructure. Manager should be able to seek track maintenance or repair costs from any entitiy seeking commercial use

E-bikes should be provided for on a permit system

Support Preamble to section 4.3.2.12 and Paragraph 5 needs to reflect the current all Accept policies year-round use - not limited to summer.

167 Support Paragraph 9 - Ammend framework for conflict. Accept Best way to deal with is on a case by case basis, controlled by consession process. Wording relating to restrictions in preamble and policy 17 and 18 should be removed and reference made to Section 4.4.2.4.

Support Policies 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20,21 Accept Support 4.3.2.12A Ammend so that e-bikes are not permitted on Reject upper section of the Turoa to Ohakune Track

Support Section 4.4.2.1 Accept Support Appendix 7 ammend: Reject Turoa to Ohakune Track, excluding between Turoa and the intersection of the track between Mountain Road and Horopito

Support Glossary Accept 36 DOC-3054859 Allan Whale Individual yes Fully Support Submission points noted 37 DOC-3054862 Peter Otway Individual no Support Support E-bikes should be allowed same use as Accept mountain bikes 38 DOC-3054865 Jenny Davies Individual no Oppose Oppose Opposed to the use of E-bikes. Dual tracks Reject should be atleast 4m wide. Safety issuesNational parks should not be treated as playgrounds. Concerned about how new tracks will be funded 39 DOC-3054964 New Zealand Recreation Association Organisation yes Support Support Support Support Support 4.1 Submission points noted Support 4.4 Needs greater degree of monitoring, Submission points noted compliance and enforcement with regard to shared use. Support Needs greater degree of monitoring, 4.4 New section - Electric power- Submission points noted research and study. Support the 300 watt assisted cycles limit Support 4.5 Submission points noted 40 DOC-3054922 DOC-3054921 New Plymouth Mountain Bikes Organisation no Support in part Oppose Support Support, but should be constructed by Section 4.3.2.4 Policy 4 Ammend to include: Reject those with experience in NZCT d) Meet the special needs of the Turoa to construction Ohakune shared path by using the services of recognised mountain bike track designers and builders e) Allow for an independend peer review of the proposed design of the Turoa to Ohakune shared path by an overseas expert in high altitude trail design Support in part Section 5.4 E-bikes Reject 41 DOC-3054929 Ruapehu District Council Organisation no Fully Support Support Support Support Support Aligns with Accelerate 25, supports e-bike Submission points noted use, notes effort by DOC in environmental stewardship 42 DOC-3054965 Linda Conning Individual yes Oppose Oppose In particular, opposes Turoa to Ohakune Reject because of distruction of indigenous vegeation and wildlife, excessive vegetation clearance, shared use will be dangerous, motivation for change for commercia reasons, allowing ebikes would increase pressure for more and more tracks 43 DOC-3055041 Cycling Action Network Organisation yes Fully Support Support Support Support Support Additional activities in park could relieve Submission points noted pressure on the crossing, use of e-bikes could reduce vehicle use on mountain, tracks shoul dbe designed to limit downhill speed, provides alternate access, will not affect areas that are 'true wilderness', limited evidence that e-bikes cause excessive damage

44 DOC-3055090 Grant Eccles Individual yes Fully Support Support Support Support Support Tracks will not detract from landscape Section 4.3.2.4 Proposed Policy 10 Submission points noted. values within park, a ban on ebikes would The department May allow the tracks Gramatiical changes be difficult to enforce, supports identified in policy 4 above to be constructed, rejected preventing/limiting use of tracks for events owned, maintained, and managed under a concession or management agreement provided independent mountain biking is allowed free of charge. Fully Support Section 4.3.2.4 Proposed Policy 11 The department will Should require any Submission points noted. concessionaire or manager carrying out Gramatiical changes activities on the tracks identified in policy 4 rejected above to adopt measures to: Fully Support Section 4.3.2.4 Proposed Policy 12 The department will Should, where an Submission points noted. application for a concession is received or Gramatiical changes the department proposes to enter into a rejected management agreement, as described in policy 10 above:

168 Fully Support Section 4.3.2.12 Proposed Policy 12 Allow independent mountain biking, and Submission points noted. may grant concessions where appropriate Gramatiical changes for guided mountain rejected biking on the following tracks and as identified in Map 10 Access and Facilities:

Fully Support Section 4.3.2.12 Proposed Policy 15 May The department will, if monitoring Submission points noted. indicates environmental or social effects, Gramatiical changes including cumulative effects, of mountain rejected biking on the tracks identified in policy 12 are unacceptable: Fully Support Section 4.3.2.12 Proposed Policy 16 The department will Should not provide for Submission points noted. mountain biking activities such as downhill, Gramatiical changes freestyle and dirt jumping on the tracks rejected identified in policy 12 above. Fully Support Section 4.3.2.12 Proposed Policy 17 The department will Should not allow Submission points noted. mountain bike events to occur on the Turoa to Gramatiical changes Ohakune Track between Turoa and the rejected intersection of the track between Mountain Road and Horopito to protect the safety and experience of day walkers, trampers and independent mountain bikers. Fully Support Section 4.3.2.12 Proposed Policy 18 The department will Should allow mountain Submission points noted. bike events only on the Mountain Road to Gramatiical changes Horopito and Horopito to National Park tracks rejected where the number of events does not exceed four or the number of participants does not exceed 500 in any one calendar year, whichever comes first. Fully Support Section 4.3.2.12 Proposed Policy 19 The department will Seek an amendment to Submission points noted. the Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981 to Gramatiical changes allow mountain biking on the tracks identified rejected in policy 12 prior to these tracks being made available for mountain bike use. 45 DOC-3055093 Top Gear Cycles Organisation yes Support in part Support Support Support Support Opposes the section that does not allow Section 4.3.2.4 Accept in part - Decision for mountain biking events text reflects submission point Support in part Section 4.3.2.12 Reword to allow for MTB events that can Accept in part - Decision mitigate the prolonged downhill by trail text reflects submission design, safety and signage. point Support in part 5.4 New section - Electric power- Accept assisted cycles 46 DOC-3055098 Steve Ferriss Individual no Oppose Oppose Not suitable or approriate for shared use Reject track. Will interfere with "quiet enjoyment" of TNP 47 DOC-3055103 Ruapehu Alpine Lifts Organisation yes Support Support Support Support Support Preamble to 4.3.2.4 change: Reject "The department may from time to time enter into joint management/development programmes with public groups other parties to implement such proposals"

Support 4.3.2.4 Objective c Accept

Support 4.3.2.4 policy 4 Accept

Support Proposed policy 5 prohibits other new 4.3.2.4 Policy 5 With the exception of 3.4 abve and 6.7 Reject tracks within TNP. If a new track is below no new tracks will be provided in the proposed in the future which has public Park Any proposal for a new track(s) shall support, provides public benefit and be considered through a works approval avoids, remedies or mitigates any adverse process and all effects assessed in effects then it require another TNPMP accordance with 4.1.16 Partial Review, a concession and/or work approval application - all unneccesary and an inefficient process

Support The general intent is supported, but bylaw 4.3.2.12 - Mountain Biking Policy 2 Reject covers this policy - no reason to duplicate With the exception of 1 above and 5 and 12 below, mountain bikes are not permitted in the park, in accordance with the Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981.

169 Support Policy is supported but not necessary to 4.3.2.12 - Mountain Biking Policy 13 Ammend to: Reject restrict it to only the tracks identified in Before mountain biking is permitted on any policy 12 section or track indentified in policy 12, carry out monitoring to establish baseline environmental and social conditions, including track surface Support These policies are opposed, there is no 4.3.2.12 - Mountain biking policy 16 Delete Accept need for the TNPMP to prohibit the above activities. If proposed, such activities will have to be considered through a concession and/or works approval application and may be suitable for approval in some instances, Each proposal should be assessed on its merits. The overly prescriptive and prohibitive nature of the above policies is not necessary to protect and manage the values of the TNP

Support These policies are opposed, there is no 4.3.2.12 - Mountain biking policy 17 Delete Accept need for the TNPMP to prohibit the above activities. If proposed, such activities will have to be considered through a concession and/or works approval application and may be suitable for approval in some instances, Each proposal should be assessed on its merits. The overly prescriptive and prohibitive nature of the above policies is not necessary to protect and manage the values of the TNP

Support These policies are opposed, there is no 4.3.2.12 - Mountain biking policy 18 Delete Accept need for the TNPMP to prohibit the above activities. If proposed, such activities will have to be considered through a concession and/or works approval application and may be suitable for approval in some instances, Each proposal should be assessed on its merits. The overly prescriptive and prohibitive nature of the above policies is not necessary to protect and manage the values of the TNP

Support Policy 19 to change the bylaw is supported 4.3.2.12 - Mountain Biking Policy 19 Ammend to: Reject but bylaw could be changed to allow DOC Seek an ammendment to the Tongariro to consider and approve tracks for National Park Bylaws 1981 to allow mountain mountain bike use biking on approved tracks or areas identified in policy 12 prior to these tracks being made available for mountain bike use

Support 4.3.2.12A Keep Accept

Support Similar to comments regarding policy 19 - Appendix 7 - Bylaws sought during the Ammend appenix 7 as follows: Reject text can provide for any other approved life of this Plan tracks or areas. Also there is no need to Add the following points to 4.3.2.12: prevent cycles within the Ski Areas over - And any other tracks or areas specifically snow as this avoids ecological effects and approved for bike use by DOC through a potential conflict with other users can be concession or works approval managed by the concessionaire - Over snow within ski areas

Add the following point to 4.3.2.12A: - And any other tracks or areas specifically approved for bike use by DOC through a concession or works approval

170 48 DOC-3055109 Ngati Rangi Trust Organisation yes Support in part Support Changes to account for users other than Section 4.3.2.4 Preamble Reword some parts: Accept in part - revised text mountain bikers, ie walkers "It is anticipated that the tracks would be reflects submission point consistent with the New Zealand Cycle Trail Design Guide for Grade 2 and 3 trails, provided the allow for the safe and comfortable use of the shared-use trails by all types of users, and would provide family friendly recreation opportunities"

"Independent (i.e.non-guided) mountain biking use of the shared-use tracks would be permitted on the tracks free of charge"

Support in part Policy describes the same values that are Section 4.3.2.4 Policy 4 a Accept in part - revised text paramount to Ngati Rangi reflects submission point Support in part Visitor safety is vital Section 4.3.2.4 Policy 4 b Accept in part Support in part Changes to account for users other than Section 4.3.2.4 Policy 4 c Reword to read: Accept in part - revised text mountain bikers, ie walkers "meet departmental standards for Grade 2 reflects submission point (easy) and 3 (intermediate) cycle trails or equivalents, provided they allow for the safe and comfortable use of the shared- use trails by all types of users." Support in part Shared-use tracks should be free of charge Section 4.3.2.4 Policy 10 Reword to read: Accept in part - revised text for all independent users "May allow the tracks identified in policy 4 reflects submission point above to be constructed, owned, maintained, and managed under a concession or management agreement provided independent mountain biking use of the shared-use tracks is allowed free of charge." Support in part Ngati Rangi are of the stance that all Ngati Section 4.3.2.4 Policy 11 b Reword to read: Reject Rangi related koreo and historical stories "promote awarenesss of park values relating to Ngati Rangi and their maunga including values of significance to tangata should only be shared by Ngati Rangi. whenua (if supported by iwi with mana They should be the only provider of all whenua over the land) and how to avoid interpretation surrounding iwi korero adverse effects on these;" relating to their rohe and people. Anything else would have a direct impact on Ngati Rangi, their rights to protecting intellectual property, and ability of the iwi to provide their own korero and cultural knowledge for activities that occur in their area

Support in part Changes to account for users other than Section 4.3.2.4 Policy 11 d Reword to read: Accept in part - revised text mountain bikers, ie walkers "meet departmental standards for Grade 2 reflects submission point (easy) and 3 (intermediate) cycle trails or equivalents, provided they allow for the safe and comfortable use of the shared- use trails by all types of users." Support in part From a cultural perspective what is Policy 4.3.2.4 Policy 13 Reword to read: Accept in part - revised text deemed minor works by departmental "Following the grant of any concession or reflects submission point standards may in fact be viewed as major the entering into of any management works by tangata whenua. All works agreement for an activity provided for in beyond basic maintenance should be policy 10 above, the works approval subject to the works approval process. To process for a major work set out in 4.1.16 ensure transparency and opportunity for Works Approvals shall apply, with the exception of policies 5, 8 and 9." consultation with other concessionaires, any applications for major development proposals should be subject to public notification process. Support in part Use of all tracks by all independent users Section 4.3.2.4 Policy 14 a Reword to read: Accept in part - revised text should be allowed free of charge "address who owns the tracks for the reflects submission point duration of the concession or agreement and, if a third party is to own them, note that this does not affect free of change public use of the tracks or the underlying ownership of the park;" Support in part Use of all tracks by all independent users Section 4.3.2.12 Policy 12 Reword to read: Accept in part - revised text should be allowed free of charge "Allow free of charge independent reflects submission point mountain biking, and may grant concessions for guided mountain biking on the following tracks as identified in Map 10 Access and Facilities:" Support in part Policy describes the same values that are Section 4.3.2.12 Policy 13 Accept paramount to Ngati Rangi Support in part Paramount that independent and Section 4.3.2.12 Policy 15 b Reword to read: Accept in part - revised text concessioned use is managed fairly "apply further restrictions, including reflects submission point temporary restrictions or track closures, on independent and concessioned mountain bike use to minimise adverse effects"

171 Support in part Paramount that independent and Section 4.3.2.12 Policy 15 e "seek the exclusion of independent and Accept in part - revised text concessioned use is managed fairly concessioned mountain biking from any reflects submission point one, combination of, or all of the tracks." Support in part This change will allow time for monitoring Section 4.3.2.12 Include a new policy: Accept in part with changes to show any unacceptable adverse effects on environmental or social conditions - "Any mountain biking concession issued also takes into account that a full review for tracks identified in Policy 12 above will will be undertaken following TNP treaty be issued for no longer than 5 year." settlement. Support in part Lack of information, may increase traffic in Section 4.3.2.12A Reject in part the park, safety risk to other users, difficult to monitor, trils should be undertaken outside of the park Support in part Opposed to use of e-bikes in the park, but Section 4.3.2.12A Preamble Opposed to policy, but if the section is Acknowledge submission if adopted would prefer to see trials adopted, then the following changes are point but identify that happen outside of the park first proposed: proposed wording of In preamble: decision reflects their "Electric power-assisted pedal cycles (e- submission point. bikes) are classifed as 'power vehicles' by the General Policy for National Parks 2005,"

Support in part Opposed to section, but if adopted then Acknowledge submission the following changes are proposed: point but identify that "As knowledge of demand and of actual proposed wording of pontential effects is still developing, e- decision reflects their bikes are being may be allowed on all submission point. tracks in the park where mountain-biking is allowed on a trial basis provided that trials are undertaken outside of the park first." Support in part Section 4.3.2.12A Objective a Opposed to section, but if adopted then the Acknowledge submission following changes are proposed: point but identify that "To provide for electric power-assisted proposed wording of pedal cycles to be used in the park on a decision reflects their trial basis where tracks are suitable, submission point. adverse effects on national park values can be minimised, and other visitors' benefit, use, and enjoyment of the park can be protected." Support in part Section 4.3.2.12A Policy 1 Opposed to section, but if adopted then the Acknowledge submission following changes are proposed: point but identify that "May trial free of charge independent proposed wording of electric power assisted pedal cycles (e- decision reflects their bikes) and grant concessions for guided submission point. electric power-assisted pedal cycles, only on:" Support in part Section 4.3.2.12A Policy 1 b Opposed to section, but if adopted then the Acknowledge submission following changes are proposed: point but identify that "Mountain biking tracks identified in proposed wording of 4.3.2.12 Mountain Biking policies 4, 5 and decision reflects their 12." submission point. Support in part Section 4.3.2.12A Policy 3 Opposed to section, but if adopted then the Acknowledge submission following changes are proposed: point but identify that "Monitor Establish and implement a proposed wording of monitoring programme for the use of decision reflects their electric power-assisted pedal cycles (e- submission point. bikes) on tracks identified in policy 1 above and report to the Tongariroo/Taupo Concervation Board annually on the following: a) numbers of visitors on the approved tracks and their experiences; b) absence or presence of electric power- assisted pedal cycle activity off or beyond the approved track; c) impacts on the track surface due to electric power-assisted pedal cycle activity; d) any enforcement incidents and their outcomes; nature and level of conflict between walkers, mountain bikers and electric power-assisted pedal cyclists, including feedback from visitors; native fauna and flora injury or mortality, and disturbance to habitat due to electric power-assisted pedal cycle activity, and

172 Support in part Should be consistent with management Section 4.3.2.12A Policy 4 Opposed to section, but if adopted then the Acknowledge submission techniques for mountain biking following changes are proposed: point but identify that "May, if monitoring indicates that proposed wording of environmental or social effects, including decision reflects their cumulative effects, of the use of electric submission point. power-assisted pedal cycles (e-bikes) on the tracks identified in policy 1 above are unacceptable: a) reconsider the development of any tracks yet to be developed; b) apply further restrictions, including temporary restrictions or track closures, on independent and concessioned use to minimise adverse effects; c) use review conditions on concessions or management agreements to change conditions of use; d) decline further concessions and desist entering into further managmenet agreements; and/or e) seek the exclusion of independent and concessioned use of electric power- assisted pedal cycles from any one, combination of, or all of the tracks."

Support in part Section 4.3.2.12A Opposed to section, but if adopted then the Acknowledge submission following new policy is proposed: point but identify that "Before electric power-assisted pedal proposed wording of cycles (e-bikes) are permitted on any decision reflects their section or track identified in policy 1, carry submission point. out monitoring to establish baseline environmental and social conditions including track surface." Support in part Consistent with submitters suggested Section 4.3.2.12A Opposed to section, but if adopted then the Reject changes for mountain bikes following new policy is proposed: "Any electric power-assisted pedal cycles (e-bikes) concession issued for tracks identified in policy 1 above will be issued for no longer than 5 years." Support in part Opposed to section, but if adopted then the Acknowledge submission following changes are proposed: point but identify that "Mountain biking and the use of electric proposed wording of power-assisted pedal cycles;" decision reflects their submission point. Support in part Consistency Bylaws Bullet Point 1 Reword to read: Accept in part - revised text "4.3.2.12 Mountain Biking policies 4, 5 and 12 - reflects submission point amend Bylaw 10 Vehicles to allow the use of non-powered vehicles (specifically mountain bikes) on: Support in part Consistency Bylaws Bullet Point 2 Reword to read: Accept in part - revised text "4.3.2.12A Electric power-assisted pedal reflects submission point cycles policy 1 - amend Bylaw 10 Vehicles to allow the use of power assisted pedal cycles) on: 49 DOC-3055528 Trail Fund NZ Organisation no Support in part Oppose Support Support Partial Support Opposed to the use of E-bikes in TNP until introduction a) Reword to read: Submission point noted but more is known of their impacts a. Provide for new sustainably designed not within plan change shared-use tracks in three locations document Cautious approach should be taken with upper section of T2O Support in part Introduction d) Delete and replace with: Submission point noted but d. Prior to contruction, any proposed track not within plan change design be subject to professional peer review document to ensure it meets the criteria for sustainable design Support in part electric power-assisted cycle (e-bikes) new clause: Reject As a nacent activiity it is too early to determine whether e-biking is an appropriate activity or not within Tongariro National Park. This will be reviewed in not less than five years time as experience is gained through trials in other parts Support in part Table 1: Management issues and Delete refence to e-bikes: Submission point noted but measures for mountain biking and use Management issues and measures for not within plan change of e-bikes mountainn biking document

173 Support in part Table 1: Track damage/Track standard Reword: Submission point noted but Tracks are to be developed and maintained to not within plan change meet Departmental standards (section 4.3.2.4, document policies 4 and 11) and prior to construction, proposed track designs are subject to professional peer review to ensure acknowledged criteria for sustainable design are met.

Policies in section 4.1.16 outline a number of considerations relating to development proposals and are required to be considered be section 4.3.2.1, policy Support in part 5.2 Section 4.3.2.4 Reword: Accept in part - Decision 10 May allow the tracks identified in policy 4 text reflects submission above to be constructed, owned, maintained, point and managed under a concession or management agreement provided independent mountain biking is allowed free of charge. Prior to any construction, proposed t

Support in part 5.4 New section - Electric power- Delete entire section Reject assisted cycles 50 DOC-3055526 Federated Mountain Club of NZ Organisation yes Support in part Oppose Support Support Oppose Opposes T2O track - will not address saefty 5.2 Preamble to section 4.3.2.4 Delete refences to "Turoa and Ohakune" on Reject in part concerns on Mountain Road, will not page 14, from new objective c and new policy address capacity issues on the Crossing, 4 will be expensive with no business model for maintenance, Support in part 5.3 Preamble to Section 4.3.2.12 Delete the reference to "Turoa and Ohakune" Reject in part

Support in part 5.3 Policies for mountain bikes Delete 12(a) Reject Support in part Consequence: 17 is not needed Reject Support in part 5.4 New section - Electric power- Delete this section Reject assisted cycles Support in part 5.5 - Section 4.4.2.1 In the addition, delete reference to "and the Reject use of electric-power assisted cycles" Support in part 5.6 Appendix 7 delete "Turoa to Ohakune Road" Reject Make no amendment to 4.3.2.1.2A Support in part 5.7 Glossary delete reference to e-bikes Reject 51 DOC-3061695 Dave Scott Individual no Support Support Support Support Supports all new tracks. Makes areas Accept available to all to enjoy, will provide future employment 52 DOC-3061997 World Commission on Protected Areas Organisation no Support in part Support Support Oppose Indigenous biodiveristy values and MR2H track Accept in part International Union for the Conservation of Nature endangered species within park need to be protected Support in part T2O track Delete Reject in part 53 DOC-3061998 Jim Mackereth Individual yes Support in part Sections or parts that submitter has Section 4.3.2.4 Preamble It is most likely that the new shared-use Reject in part highlighted to be deleted would have long tracks would be developed, owned, term negative effects environmentally managed, and maintained by a local sustainable impact on the long term future community group under a concession or of the track development management agreement. Such an arrangement would not mean that the group would own the underlying land. This would remain part of the park. Independent (i.e. non-guided) mountain biking would be permitted on the tracks free of charge. Support in part Section 4.3.2.4 Policy 10 May allow the tracks identified in policy 4 Reject in part above to be constructed, owned, maintained, and managed under a concession or management agreement provided independent mountain biking is allowed free of charge.

174 Support in part Section 4.3.2.12 Preamble The upper section from Turoa to Waitonga Accept in part - Decision Falls includes part of the Round the Mountain text reflects submission Track and the Blyth Track which are currently point used by both day visitors and trampers. The Blyth Track was the main bridle track up the mountain prior to the construction of the Ohakune Mountain Road (see 4.1.9 Historic Resources). When the new tracks are formed, monitoring can establish baseline environmental and social conditions to enable the effects of mountain biking to be assessed. This includes user’s benefits, use and enjoyment, as well as management actions to be taken, if necessary. Mountain biking events are not permitted on these portions of the proposed tracks, because the prolonged downhill provides the opportunity for greater speed. This could create conflict with other users and adversely affect their safety and enjoyment. Support in part Section 4.3.2.12 Proposed Policy 17 Should not allow mountain bike events to Accept in part - Decision occur on the Turoa to Ohakune Track text reflects submission between Turoa and the intersection of the point track between Mountain Road and Horopito to protect the safety and experience of day walkers, trampers and independent mountain bikers. Support in part Section 4.3.2.12 Policy 18 Not clear what is to be deleted here Accept in part - Decision text reflects submission Should allow mountain bike events only on point the Mountain Road to Horopito and Horopito to National Park tracks where the number of events does not exceed four or the number of participants does not exceed 500 in any one calendar year, whichever comes first.

Support in part 4.3.2.12A Policy 1 May trial allow independent electric power- Accept assisted pedal cycles (e-bikes) and grant concessions for guided electric power-assisted pedal cycles, only on: Support in part 4.3.2.12A Policy 2 The trial referred to in policy 1 above may Accept continue for the life of this plan if monitoring indicates that the environmental and social impacts of electric powerassisted pedal cycles are acceptable. Support in part 4.3.2.12A Policy 4 Accept May, if monitoring indicates that environmental or social effects, including cumulative effects, of the use of electric power-assisted pedal cycles (e-bikes) on the tracks identified in policy 1 above are unacceptable: a) apply further restrictions, including temporary restrictions or track closures, on independent use to minimise adverse effects; b) decline further concessions and desist entering into further management agreements; and/or c) seek the exclusion of electric power- assisted pedal cycles from any one, combination of, or all of the tracks.

175 176

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 1 177

Cover: Walkers and riders in Tongariro National Park. Photo: Robert Milne, Ruapehu Bulletin.

March 2017, New Zealand Department of Conservation

2 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 178 5 Draft changes Below are extracts from the Tongariro National Park Management Plan (incorporating 2010 partial review) showing the proposed changes as underlining for new text and strike through for text to be removed. Unchanged text is shown in normal font for context purposes only. The full Tongariro National Park Management Plan can be viewed on the Department’s website at www.doc.govt.nz/tongariro-management-plan. 5.1 Map 10 Access and facilities Amend Map 10 (p. 139) to identify the following proposed shared-use tracks: • Mountain Road to Horopito • Turoa to Ohakune • Horopito to National Park. • Old Coach Road Loop track; • Turoa-Waitonga Falls track (note this track requires further detailed consideration prior to being authorised for establishment); • Waitonga Falls-Blyth track; and • Maungaturuturu Link track.

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 3 179

DELETE

4 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 180

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 5 181 5.2 Section 4.3.2.4 – Tracks Amend the preamble to section 4.3.2.4 (p. 143) as follows: The extent to which tracks are developed depends on the type of experience being catered for, the level of use received, and the potential for visitor use impact on the environment. Greatest interest for tramping within the park is focused on the Tongariro Crossing as a one-day tramp, and the Tongariro Northern Circuit and Round the Mountain Track as multi-day tramps. Their locations are shown on Map 10 Access and Facilities. The existing level of track development is regarded by the department as adequate and no Several extensions are were proposed other than changes adopted as part of the Ddepartment’s national Recreation Opportunities Review 2004. These changes included new tracks to Mount Tihia, the Old Coach Road, and the Hapuawhenua Railway Viaduct. Other tracks may be upgraded, including possible realignment, as resources permit, including the Rotopounamu, Waihohonu, Taranaki Falls, and Tama Lakes tracks, and the Tongariro Crossing. Both the new tracks and the track upgrades were supported by the public during consultation carried out in 2004. The development of any further new tracks, or the upgrading of routes to track status, will require clear evidence of Ddepartmental and public support and the availability of resources. The Ddepartment may from time to time enter into arrangements joint management/development programmes with public groups to implement such proposals. Importantly, mountain biking opportunities and the development of associated tracks, will only be provided for within the National Park where they are compatible with the protection of cultural and natural values and are not able to be more appropriately located outside of the National Park. The main development work is in high use areas where the existing tracks and associated areas of the park and facilities require constant maintenance. The volcanic ash and pumice soils are highly susceptible to erosion on some tracks, especially in the northern and eastern parts of the park, where track erosion is very serious. New shared-use tracks are proposed between Turoa and Ohakune; Mountain Road and Horopito; and Horopito and National Park (see Map 10 Access and Facilities). The tracks would in part follow the existing Blyth Track and routes of the historic Cowern’s and Bennett and Punch Tramways. It is anticipated that the tracks would be consistent with the New Zealand Cycle Trail Design Guide for Grade 2 and 3 trails and would provide family-friendly recreation opportunities. Grade 2 trails are described as easy and suitable for beginners, occasional cyclists and families who have limited cycling experience. Grade 3 trails are described as intermediate and suitable for regular, experienced cyclists with a good level of fitness and over 12 years of age. The portion of the track from Turoa to Ohakune would provide an extension link to the Mountains to Sea, part of Nga Haerenga – the New Zealand Cycle Trail. It is most likely that the new shared-use tracks would be developed, owned, managed, and maintained by a local community group under a concession or management agreement. Such an arrangement would not mean that the group would own the underlying land, which . This would remain part of the Ppark. Independent (i.e. non- guided) mountain biking would be permitted on all mountain bike the tracks free of charge. In the event that the group could no longer manage or maintain the tracks, the Ddepartment should determine could consider future options for the tracks including:

6 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 182 requiring the group to remove the tracks and restore the sites; finding another group to manage or maintain the tracks; ceasing to maintain the tracks; or the Ddepartment maintaining them. During the life of this plan, the Ddepartment will prepare a recreation strategy which provides for a range of recreational opportunities within the Tongariro/Taupo Conservancy. Recreational opportunities within the park will complement those available throughout the rest of the conservancy.

Add a new objectives (p. 143) as follows: c To enable family-friendly mountain bike recreation opportunities, where they cannot be more appropriately located outside of the National Park and are compatible with the protection of the cultural and natural values of the Park and enjoyment of it by other recreation users. the development and maintenance of shared-use tracks between Turoa and Ohakune, Mountain Road and Horopito, and Horopito and National Park that provide safe, family-friendly recreation opportunities. d To enhance the Round the Mountain walking opportunity.

Add a new policiesy after Policy 3 (p. 144) as follows: 4 Allow for the development and operation of shared-use of the Waitonga Falls- Blyth track, Old Coach Road Loop track, and Maungaturuturu Link track,between Turoa and Ohakune; Mountain Road and Horopito; and Horopito and National Park where: a) The protection of visitor safety and enjoyment is provided for; b) Departmental standards for Grade 2 (easy) cycle trails or equivalents are met, and c) The Department has sought advice from the Tongariro Taupo Conservation Board, with respect to route selection, track development and environmental impact assessment a) preserve as far as possible, national park values, including natural, historic and cultural values, and the values for which the park was ascribed World Heritage Site status; b) ensure the protection of visitor safety and enjoyment; and d) meet departmental standards for Grade 2 (easy) and 3 (intermediate) cycle trails or equivalents. 5 Consider the development and operation of a walking track from the northern side of the Round the Mountain track to the Turoa car-park, and the development of a shared-use cycling and walking track from the Turoa car-park to Waitonga Falls where: a) Use of the Waitonga Falls-Blyth track, Old Coach Road Loop track, and Mangaturuturu Link track can demonstrate: i. Impacts on landscape and ecological values are avoided ii. The visitor experience is maximised to allow visitors to engage with and appreciate the values of Tongariro National Park iii. The development is compatible with the recreation opportunity spectrum determined for Tongariro National Park at the time a decision is being made iv. Mixed use of the tracks is acceptable to the spectrum of users v. Separation of vehicle and mountain- and e-bike usage generates a positive safety outcome

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 7 183 a)b)The Department has sought advice from the Tongariro Taupo Conservation Board, with respect to route selection, track development and environmental impact assessment. 6 Where a decision is made to develop the tracks identified at 5, the requirements identified at 4(a)-(b) should be complied with.

Amend and renumber Policy 4 (p. 144) as follows: 4 75 With the exception of 3, 4 and 5 above and 6 7 below no new tracks will be provided in the Ppark.

Add foursix new policies after Policy 9 (p. 144) as follows: 10 Will consider opportunities for parties, other than the Department, to develop May allow the tracks identified in policiesy 4 and 5 above to be constructed, owned, maintained, and managed under a concession or management agreement provided. 11 Independent mountain biking and e-biking is allowed free of charge 121 Any party developing Should require any concessionaire or manager carrying out activities on the tracks identified in policiesy 4 and 5 above should to adopt measures to: a) ensure the protection of visitor safety and enjoyment; b) promote awareness of Ppark values including values of significance to tangata whenua and how to avoid adverse effects on these; c) promote awareness of desired behaviours when using a shared-use track to protect the experiences of, and avoid creating hazards for, others; and d) meet Ddepartmental standards for Grade 2 (easy) and Grade 3 (intermediate) cycle trails or equivalents; and e) address the transfer of infrastructure assets, restoration of developed sites to original state, or reassignment of management functions upon expiry of the concession or management agreement. 132 Should, wWhere an application for a concession is received, or the Ddepartment proposes to enter into a management agreement, as described in policy 10 above, the Department should: a) require consideration of the policies in Section 4.4.1 Concessions General; b) seek advice consult with from the Tongariro/Taupo Conservation Board and seek their recommendations, and; c) require a full environmental impact assessment undertaken by appropriately qualified specialists; a)d) determine whether construction and mountain biking should be undertaken or introduced in a staged process. 14 Development of tracks should be undertaken on a staged basis as follows: (1) Old Coach Road Loop track, (2) Maungaturuturu Link track, (3) Waitonga Falls-Blyth track and (4) Turoa-Waitonga Falls track. Following the grant of any concession or the entering into of any management agreement for an activity provided for in policy 10 above, the works approval process for a major work set out in 4.1.16 Works Approvals shall apply, with the exception of policies 5, 8 and 9. 14 Any concession or management agreement should include conditions that: a) address who owns the tracks for the duration of the concession or agreement and, if a third party is to own them, note that this does not affect the underlying ownership of the park; b) address who owns the tracks at the end of the concession or agreement;

8 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 184 c) state that at the end of the agreement, or if the third party wishes to stop the activity, the department may, at its discretion, require the party to remove the tracks and restore the areas. 15 At the end of any concession or management agreement providing for the ownership, maintenance or management of the tracks identified in policy 4 above, or if the concessionaire or manager wishes to stop the activity, the department may: a) require the concessionaire or manager to remove the tracks and associated infrastructure and restore the site(s) to an agreed and acceptable standard; b) seek to identify another group to take over the ownership, maintenance, and management of the tracks; c) review the standard to which they are managed; d) review the activities provided for on the tracks and close the tracks in full or part; and/or e) take over the management of the tracks.

Undertake consequential renumbering of existing Policies 4 to 9.

5.3 Section 4.3.2.12 – Mountain biking Amend the preamble to Section 4.3.2.12 (pp. 153–154) as follows: All non-motorised cycles and mountain bikes are classed as ‘non-powered vehicles’ by the General Policy for National Parks 2005. For the purposes of this plan, mountain biking has the same meaning as non-powered vehicles under the General Policy for National Parks 2005. The General Policy for National Parks 2005 permits mountain bikes on formed and maintained roads, which in Tongariro National Park include the Tukino Mountain Road, Ohakune Mountain Road, State Highway 48, Bruce Road, Mangatepopo Road, Ketetahi Road and short feeder roads that access parking, picnic, tramping, and camping areas. The General Policy for National Parks 2005 also establishes the opportunity to allow mountain bike use in national parks, where national park management plans identify the specific routes on which mountain bikes are permitted. Opportunities for mountain biking off formed and maintained roads are limited by a range of factors including terrain, erosion-prone soils, environmental impacts, and possible impacts on other park visitors. For this reason, mountain biking is currently providedproposed for on only two tracks: the Old Coach Road and the track that provides access to the western bank of the Tongariro River near the Pillars of Hercules (refer to Map 10 Access and Facilities for their location). The development of proposed shared-use walking and mountain biking tracks between Turoa and Ohakune, Mountain Road Ohakune and Horopito, and Horopito and National Park provides additional options for family-friendly mountain biking and enhanced walking opportunities (refer to 5.3.2.4 Tracks, Policy 4 and Map 10 Access and Facilities). Mountain biking may result in adverse effects on these tracks, and people’s benefit, use and enjoyment of the park. The track to the Pillars of Hercules has been used as a road in the past and it is unlikely mountain biking will have an adverse environmental effect on the track. The main visitors to this track are likely to be mountain bikers. The Old Coach Road was also used as a road in the past. However, it has significant historic values and mountain biking must not damage the fabric of the underlying cobble-road

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 9 185 (see 4.1.9 Historic Resources). For this reason, mountain biking on this track will be subject to approval by the Historic Places Trust and limited to the summer period. The department has a management agreement with a community group, Ohakune 2000, relating to the restoration of the Old Coach Road. Consultation with this group will also occur prior to a final decision being made on whether to progress the proposal to permit mountain biking on this track. On both the Old Coach Road and Pillars of Hercules tracks, mountain biking will be allowed for an initial three-year trial period. Shared care signs detailing ways that walkers and cyclists can safely use the tracks will be placed at track-ends to minimise adverse social impacts. Baseline information will be gathered prior to mountain biking commencing on the Desert Road–Pillars of Hercules Track and prior to any future mountain biking use of the Old Coach Road. In the event that mountain biking use is permitted, monitoring of environmental and social impacts will be undertaken during the three-year trial period. If monitoring indicates that mountain biking is causing significant adverse effects on the Old Coach Road or the Desert Road–Pillars of Hercules Track, mountain biking on that track will be discontinued. Before If the proposed shared-use walking and mountain biking tracks between Turoa and Ohakune, Mountain Road and Horopito, and Horopito and National Park are established, the concession and works approval processes (see 4.1.16 Works Approvals and 4.4 Concessions) need to be followed. The policies below set out the requirements for monitoring and management of the impacts of mountain biking once the tracks are established. There is a clear requirement to ensure that environmental effects generated by the development of new tracks are avoided. A concessionaire operating within a community trust framework (or similar), allows the Department to efficiently set standards for track development and operation. The Concessionaire will be building the tracks and the cost of doing so will be recovered via community and agency funding along with user charges for guided groups and voluntary donations. The conservation goals of avoiding effects on park values and maximising the visitor experience may be best met through a sole concession or management agreement. The upper section from Turoa to Waitonga Falls includes part of the Round the Mountain Track and the Blyth Track which are currently used by both day visitors and trampers. The Blyth Track was the main bridle track up the mountain prior to the construction of the Ohakune Mountain Road (see 4.1.9 Historic Resources). When the new tracks are formed, monitoring can will establish baseline environmental and social conditions to enable the effects of mountain biking to be assessed. This includes user’s benefits, use and enjoyment, as well as management actions to be taken, if necessary. Mountain biking events are not permitted on these portions of the proposed tracks, because the prolonged downhill provides the opportunity for greater speed. This could create conflict with other users and adversely affect their safety and enjoyment. Most of the other sections of the proposed tracks are to be formed along the routes of historic tramways, which are not currently used by the public. As such the initial emphasis is on environmental monitoring. If significant adverse effects on the environment, these historic tracks or other users are identified, the management approach may be reconsidered. A trial period has not been proposed on the shared-use walking and mountain biking tracks between Turoa and Ohakune, Mountain RoadOhakune and Horopito, and

10 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 186 Horopito and National Park as this is impracticable given the significant upgrades required to existing tracks and the issue that the remainder is essentially a new track. Additional conditions, such as those related to one-way travel, group size, time of day, and season, could be implemented consistent with the General Policy for National Parks 2005 if monitoring indicates these as being necessary. The behaviour of track users can greatly influence the enjoyment derived by other users and the level and nature of effects on national Ppark values. The provision of information using mechanisms such as signage, pamphlets and websites by the Ddepartment and partners can increase awareness of appropriate behaviours and what users can do to minimise their impacts. Adherence to nationally developed codes such as Leave No Trace and the Mountain Bikers’ Code can assist in achieving these outcomes. The Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981 prohibit mountain bikes (classed as non- powered vehicles by the General Policy for National Parks 2005, see paragraph 1 above) off formed and maintained roads. A change to the bylaws will be needed to allow mountain biking on the tracks listed above. The Ddepartment has provided for mountain biking opportunities on land adjacent to the park, including Rangataua, Erua, and Tongariro forests. Resources include publications, extensive track networks, and support for a number of mountain biking initiatives. Add new policies and amend the mountain biking policies (pp. 154–155) as follows: 1 Mountain bikes are permitted on formed and maintained roads, in accordance with the Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981.

2 Independent mountain biking is permitted on the following formed tracks (Map 10 Access and Facilities): a) Old Coach Road b) Track from the Desert Road to the western bank of the Tongariro River at Pillars of Hercules

3 Independent mountain biking will be permitted on the following tracks where they are constructed (Map 10 Access and Facilities): a) the Old Coach Road Loop track; b) Turoa-Waitonga Falls track (note this track requires further detailed consideration prior to being authorised for establishment) c) Waitonga Falls-Blyth track d) Maungaturuturu Link track

14 With the exception of policies 1, 2 and 3 above and 5 and 12 below, mountain bikes are not permitted in the park, in accordance with the Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981.

2 The approval of the Historic Places Trust will be sought prior to allowing mountain biking on the Old Coach Road.

3 The department will consult with any community groups involved in restoration of the Old Coach Road prior to permitting mountain biking on that track.

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 11 187 4 Within one year of this plan becoming operative, and subject to policies 3 and 4 above, the department will seek an amendment to the Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981 to allow mountain biking on the following tracks: • Old Coach Road • Track from the Desert Road to the western bank of the Tongariro River at Pillars of Hercules.

5 Baseline monitoring of the environmental condition of the Old Coach Road and Desert Road–Pillars of Hercules Track, and the historical fabric of the Old Coach Road, will be carried out prior to mountain biking being permitted on these tracks.

6 Subject to policies 5 and 6 above, biking on Old Coach Road and Desert Road– Pillars of Hercules Track will be allowed for an initial three-year period. Monitoring of social and environmental impacts will occur during that time.

7 If monitoring indicates that the environmental or social impacts of mountain biking on either the Old Coach Road or the Desert Road–Pillars of Hercules Track are unacceptable, the department will seek the exclusion of mountain biking from that/those tracks.

8 If monitoring indicates that the environmental and social impacts of mountain biking on the Old Coach Road and the Desert Road Pillars of Hercules Track are minimal, then mountain biking may be continued on those tracks for the life of this plan. Ongoing monitoring may be carried out if considered necessary.

9 [policy deleted through 2011 partial review]

10 [policy deleted through 2011 partial review]

11 The Department Allow independent mountain biking, and shouldmay grant a sole concessions for guided mountain biking on the following tracks and as identified in (Map 10 Access and Facilities): a) the Old Coach Road Loop track; b) Turoa-Waitonga Falls track (note this track requires further detailed consideration prior to being authorised for establishment) c) Waitonga Falls-Blyth track a) Turoa to Ohakune; b) Mountain Road to Horopito; and Horopito to National Park.

12 Existing concession holders for mountain biking on the Old Coach Road (part of the Old Coach Road Loop track) will maintain their current rights through to the expiry of their permit.

13 In addition to the Department’s standard considerations for determining concessions the applicant will need to demonstrate the following: a) It is representing community stakeholders b) Community support for the proposal c) Consistency with Treaty of Waitangi Deed of Settlements for the Park, and d) A programme to connect track users with Park values

12 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 188

12 Before mountain biking is permitted on any section or track identified in policy 12, carry out monitoring to establish baseline environmental and social conditions, including the track surface.

1314 The Department should eEstablish and implement a monitoring programme for the tracks identified in policy 312 and report to the Tongariro/Taupo Conservation Board annually on the following: a) numbers of visitors on the approved tracks and their experiences; b) absence or presence of mountain bike activity off or beyond the approved tracks; c) impacts on the track surface due to mountain bike activity; d) any enforcement incidents and their outcomes; e) nature and level of conflict between walkers and mountain bikers, including feedback from visitors; and f) impacts on native fauna and flora due to user activity.; and g) impacts on World Heritage values.

15 Where May, if monitoring indicates environmental or social effects, including cumulative effects, of mountain biking on the tracks identified in policy 12 3 are unacceptable the Department should: a) Cease reconsideration to the development of any tracks yet to be developed; b) apply further restrictions, including temporary restrictions or track closures, on independent mountain bike use to minimise adverse effects; b) Uuse review conditions on mountain biking concessions or management agreements to change conditions of use; and/or c) Implement controls on independent mountain bike use, user flow or other methods to manage impacts d) decline further concessions and desist entering into further management agreements; and/or e) seek the exclusion of independent mountain biking from any one, combination of, or all of the tracks.

The Department will seek the advice of the Tongariro/Taupo Conservation Board prior to making a determination in respect of the above matters.

14 Should not provide for mountain biking activities such as downhill, freestyle and dirt jumping on the tracks identified in policy 12 above.

15 Should not allow mountain bike events to occur on the Turoa to Ohakune Track between Turoa and the intersection of the track between Mountain Road and Horopito to protect the safety and experience of day walkers, trampers and independent mountain bikers.

18 Should allow mountain bike events only on the Mountain Road to Horopito and Horopito to National Park tracks where the number of events does not exceed four or the number of participants does not exceed 500 in any one calendar year, whichever comes first.

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 13 189 16 The Department will sSeek an amendment to the Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981 to allow mountain biking on the tracks identified in policies 2 and 3y 12 2 and 3 prior to these tracks being made available for mountain bike use.

17 Information will be provided to the public on ways in which mountain bikers and walkers can minimise any potential conflict on shared tracks via signs placed at Old Coach Road and Desert Road–Pillars of Hercules Track and entry points to the tracks identified in policy 12.

17 The Department should pProvide information via mechanisms such as signage, pamphlets and websites advising the public about on how to: a) minimise potential conflicts with other track users; b) avoid adverse effects on national Ppark values; and a)c) comply with the Park bylaws for the Park.

5.4 New section – Electric power-assisted cycles (e- bikes) Insert a new section 4.3.2.12A after section 4.3.2.12 Mountain biking as follows: Electric power-assisted cycles (e-bikes) are classified as ‘powered vehicles’ by the General Policy for National Parks 2005. The General Policy for National Parks 2005 only allows vehicles on identified roads, tracks, and designated parking areas. It also establishes the opportunity to allow vehicles off- road where these specific routes are identified in Nnational park management plans. The use of e-bikes is an increasingly popular recreational activity in New Zealand and may enable people with lesser riding experience and fitness to explore and enjoy public conservation lands, including Nnational Pparks. The use of e-bikes within National Parks is directed by the guidance for e-bikes adopted by the New Zealand Conservation Authority. It is appropriate that e-bikes be permitted on all tracks for which mountain bikes are permitted (refer Map 10 Access and Facilities), on the basis effects on other users, Park values and the environment are negligible. As knowledge of demand and of actual potential effects is still developing, e-bikes are being allowed on all tracks in the park where mountain-biking is allowed on a trial basis. These tracks include: the Old Coach Road; tracks that provide access to the western bank of the Tongariro River near the Pillars of Hercules; Turoa to Ohakune Track; Mountain Road to Horopito Track; and Horopito to National Park Track as identified on Map 10 Access and Facilities. E-bike use will be monitored and managed, and ongoing use considered at the next full review of this plan.

Objective a. To provide for e-bikes to be used in the Park where mountain bikes are permitted, adverse effects on Park values are avoided, and other visitors’ benefit, use, and enjoyment of the Park is protected.

Policies

14 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 190 1 The Department will allow independent e-biking and may grant concessions for guided e-bike use on:May trial independent electric power-assisted pedal cycles (e- bikes) and grant concessions for guided electric power-assisted pedal cycles, only on: a) formed and maintained roads: b) mountain biking tracks identified at in 4.3.2.12 Mountain Biking policies 2 and 34 and 12.

The trial referred to in policy 1 above may continue for the life of this plan if monitoring indicates that the environmental and social impacts of electric power- assisted pedal cycles are acceptable. 2 The Department should mMonitor the use of e-bikes electric power-assisted pedal cycles (e-bikes) on the tracks identified in 4.3.2.12 Mountain Biking policies 2 and 3 and policy 1 above and report to the Tongariro/Taupo Conservation Board annually consistent with 4.3.2.12 Mountain Biking policies 10. 3 Where monitoring indicates environmental or social effects, including cumulative effects, from e-bike use are unacceptable, the Department should: a) Use review conditions on concessions or management agreements to change conditions of use; and/or b) Implement controls on independent e-bike use, user flow or other methods to manage impacts May, if monitoring indicates that environmental or social effects, including cumulative effects, of the use of electric power-assisted pedal cycles (e-bikes) on the tracks identified in policy 1 above are unacceptable: a) apply further restrictions, including temporary restrictions or track closures, on independent use to minimise adverse effects; b) decline further concessions and desist entering into further management agreements; and/or c) seekConsider the exclusion of e-bikes lectric power-assisted pedal cycles from any one, combination of, or all of the tracks.

5.5 Section 4.4.2.1 – Guiding Amend Policy 1 (p. 169) as follows: 1 Concessions may be granted in terms of Part IIIB of the Conservation Act 1987 and section 49 of the National Parks Act 1980 by the Minister for the carrying on of a guiding service where the public need for the additional guiding concession has been demonstrated. Guiding may be for any or all of the following purposes: • climbing abseiling or climbing instruction; • ski mountaineering or ski-touring; • hunting other than helicopter hunting; • tramping, walking or nature study; • mountain biking and the use of e-bikeselectric-power assisted cycles; • instruction or examination of guides so that they may obtain guiding qualifications;

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 15 191 • in support of other activities requiring approval under other provisions of this plan – for example, commercial filming.

5.6 Appendix 7 – Bylaws sought during the life of this Plan Amend the descriptive text (p. 291) as follows: • 4.3.2.12 Mountain biking policies 4 and 12 – amend Bylaw 10 Vehicles to allow the use of non-powered vehicles (specifically mountain bikes) on: – the Old Coach Road Loop track; – tracks that provide access to the western bank of the Tongariro River near the Pillars of Hercules; – Turoa-Waitonga Falls track (note this track requires further detailed consideration prior to being authorised for establishment); – Waitonga Falls-Blyth track; and – Turoa to Ohakune TrackMaungaturuturu Link track.; – Mountain Road to Horopito Track; and – Horopito to National Park Track. • 4.3.2.12A E-bikes lectric power-assisted cycles policy 1 – amend Bylaw 10 Vehicles to allow the use of powered vehicles (specifically electric power-assisted cycles) on: – the Old Coach Road Loop track; – tracks that provide access to the western bank of the Tongariro River near the Pillars of Hercules; – Turoa-Waitonga Falls track (note this track requires further detailed consideration prior to being authorised for establishment); – Waitonga Falls-Blyth track; and – Maungaturuturu Link track. tracks that provide access to the western bank of the Tongariro River near the Pillars of Hercules; Turoa to Ohakune Track; Mountain Road to Horopito Track; and – Horopito to National Park Track.

5.7 Glossary Insert new definitions for ‘mountain bike’ and ‘electric power-assisted pedal cycle’ as follows: Electric power-assisted pedal cycle (e-bike) A pedal cycle to which is attached one or more auxiliary electric propulsion motors having a combined maximum power output not exceeding 300 watts. Mountain bike A non-powered bicycle that can be used off formed roads.

16 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 192

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 1 193

Cover: Walkers and riders in Tongariro National Park. Photo: Robert Milne, Ruapehu Bulletin.

March 2017, New Zealand Department of Conservation

2 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 194 5 Draft changes Below are extracts from the Tongariro National Park Management Plan (incorporating 2010 partial review) showing the proposed changes as underlining for new text and strike through for text to be removed. Unchanged text is shown in normal font for context purposes only. The full Tongariro National Park Management Plan can be viewed on the Department’s website at www.doc.govt.nz/tongariro-management-plan. 5.1 Map 10 Access and facilities Amend Map 10 (p. 139) to identify the following proposed shared-use tracks: • Old Coach Road Loop track; • Turoa-Waitonga Falls track (note this track requires further detailed consideration prior to being authorised for establishment); • Waitonga Falls-Blyth track; and • Maungaturuturu Link track.

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 3 195

4 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 196 5.2 Section 4.3.2.4 – Tracks Amend the preamble to section 4.3.2.4 (p. 143) as follows: The extent to which tracks are developed depends on the type of experience being catered for, the level of use received, and the potential for visitor use impact on the environment. Greatest interest for tramping within the park is focused on the Tongariro Crossing as a one-day tramp, and the Tongariro Northern Circuit and Round the Mountain Track as multi-day tramps. Their locations are shown on Map 10 Access and Facilities. Several extensions were adopted as part of the Department’s national Recreation Opportunities Review 2004. These changes included new tracks to Mount Tihia, the Old Coach Road, and the Hapuawhenua Railway Viaduct. Other tracks may be upgraded, including possible realignment, as resources permit, including the Rotopounamu, Waihohonu, Taranaki Falls, and Tama Lakes tracks, and the Tongariro Crossing. Both the new tracks and the track upgrades were supported by the public during consultation carried out in 2004. The development of new tracks, or the upgrading of routes to track status, will require clear evidence of Departmental and public support and the availability of resources. The Department may from time to time enter into arrangements with groups to implement such proposals. Importantly, mountain biking opportunities and the development of associated tracks, will only be provided for within the National Park where they are compatible with the protection of cultural and natural values and are not able to be more appropriately located outside of the National Park. The main development work is in high use areas where the existing tracks and associated areas of the park and facilities require constant maintenance. The volcanic ash and pumice soils are highly susceptible to erosion on some tracks, especially in the northern and eastern parts of the park, where track erosion is very serious. New shared-use tracks are proposed between Turoa and Ohakune; Mountain Road and Horopito; and Horopito and National Park (see Map 10 Access and Facilities). The tracks would in part follow the existing Blyth Track and routes of the historic Cowern’s and Bennett and Punch Tramways. It is anticipated that the tracks would be consistent with the New Zealand Cycle Trail Design Guide for Grade 2 trails and would provide family-friendly recreation opportunities. Grade 2 trails are described as easy and suitable for beginners, occasional cyclists and families who have limited cycling experience. The portion of the track from Turoa to Ohakune would provide an extension to the Mountains to Sea, part of Nga Haerenga – the New Zealand Cycle Trail. It is most likely that the new shared-use tracks would be developed, managed, and maintained by a local community group under a concession or management agreement. Such an arrangement would not mean the group would own the underlying land, which would remain part of the Park. Independent (i.e. non-guided) mountain biking would be permitted on all mountain bike tracks free of charge. In the event the group could no longer manage or maintain the tracks, the Department should determine future options for the tracks including: requiring the group to remove the tracks and restore the sites; finding another group to manage or maintain the tracks; ceasing to maintain the tracks; or the Department maintaining them. During the life of this plan, the Department will prepare a recreation strategy which provides for a range of recreational opportunities within the Tongariro/Taupo

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 5 197 Conservancy. Recreational opportunities within the park will complement those available throughout the rest of the conservancy.

Add new objectives (p. 143) as follows: c To enable family-friendly mountain bike recreation opportunities, where they cannot be more appropriately located outside of the National Park and are compatible with the protection of the cultural and natural values of the Park and enjoyment of it by other recreation users. d To enhance the Round the Mountain walking opportunity.

Add new policies after Policy 3 (p. 144) as follows: 4 Allow for the development and operation of shared-use of the Waitonga Falls- Blyth track, Old Coach Road Loop track, and Maungaturuturu Link track, where: a) The protection of visitor safety and enjoyment is provided for; b) Departmental standards for Grade 2 (easy) cycle trails or equivalents are met, and c) The Department has sought advice from the Tongariro Taupo Conservation Board, with respect to route selection, track development and environmental impact assessment 5 Consider the development and operation of a walking track from the northern side of the Round the Mountain track to the Turoa car-park, and the development of a shared-use cycling and walking track from the Turoa car-park to Waitonga Falls where: a) Use of the Waitonga Falls-Blyth track, Old Coach Road Loop track, and Mangaturuturu Link track can demonstrate: i. Impacts on landscape and ecological values are avoided ii. The visitor experience is maximised to allow visitors to engage with and appreciate the values of Tongariro National Park iii. The development is compatible with the recreation opportunity spectrum determined for Tongariro National Park at the time a decision is being made iv. Mixed use of the tracks is acceptable to the spectrum of users v. Separation of vehicle and mountain- and e-bike usage generates a positive safety outcome b) The Department has sought advice from the Tongariro Taupo Conservation Board, with respect to route selection, track development and environmental impact assessment. 6 Where a decision is made to develop the tracks identified at 5, the requirements identified at 4(a)-(b) should be complied with.

Amend and renumber Policy 4 (p. 144) as follows: 7 With the exception of 3, 4 and 5 above no new tracks will be provided in the Park.

Add four new policies after Policy 9 (p. 144) as follows: 10 Will consider opportunities for parties, other than the Department, to develop the tracks identified in policies 4 and 5 above to be constructed, maintained, and managed under a concession or management agreement . 11 Independent mountain biking and e-biking is allowed free of charge

6 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 198 12 Any party developing the tracks identified in policies 4 and 5 should adopt measures to: a) ensure the protection of visitor safety and enjoyment; b) promote awareness of Park values including values of significance to tangata whenua and how to avoid adverse effects on these; c) promote awareness of desired behaviours when using a shared-use track to protect the experiences of, and avoid creating hazards for, others; d) meet Departmental standards for Grade 2 (easy) cycle trails or equivalents; and e) address the transfer of infrastructure assets, restoration of developed sites to original state, or reassignment of management functions upon expiry of the concession or management agreement. 13 Where an application for a concession is received, or the Department proposes to enter into a management agreement, as described in policy 10 above, the Department should: a) require consideration of the policies in Section 4.4.1 Concessions General; b) seek advice from the Tongariro/Taupo Conservation Board, and c) require a full environmental impact assessment undertaken by appropriately qualified specialists;

14 Development of tracks should be undertaken on a staged basis as follows: (1) Old Coach Road Loop track, (2) Maungaturuturu Link track, (3) Waitonga Falls-Blyth track and (4) Turoa-Waitonga Falls track.

Undertake consequential renumbering of existing Policies 4 to 9.

5.3 Section 4.3.2.12 – Mountain biking Amend the preamble to Section 4.3.2.12 (pp. 153–154) as follows: All non-motorised cycles and mountain bikes are classed as ‘non-powered vehicles’ by the General Policy for National Parks 2005. For the purposes of this plan, mountain biking has the same meaning as non-powered vehicles under the General Policy for National Parks 2005. The General Policy for National Parks 2005 permits mountain bikes on formed and maintained roads, which in Tongariro National Park include the Tukino Mountain Road, Ohakune Mountain Road, State Highway 48, Bruce Road, Mangatepopo Road, Ketetahi Road and short feeder roads that access parking, picnic, tramping, and camping areas. The General Policy for National Parks 2005 also establishes the opportunity to allow mountain bike use in national parks, where national park management plans identify the specific routes on which mountain bikes are permitted. Opportunities for mountain biking off formed and maintained roads are limited by a range of factors including terrain, erosion-prone soils, environmental impacts, and possible impacts on other park visitors. For this reason, mountain biking is currently provided for on only two tracks: the Old Coach Road and the track that provides access to the western bank of the Tongariro River near the Pillars of Hercules (refer to Map 10 Access and Facilities for their location). The development of proposed shared- use walking and mountain biking tracks between Turoa and Ohakune, Ohakune and Horopito, and Horopito and National Park provides additional options for family-

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 7 199 friendly mountain biking and enhanced walking opportunities (refer to 5.3.2.4 Tracks, Policy 4 and Map 10 Access and Facilities). If the proposed shared-use walking and mountain biking tracks between Turoa and Ohakune, Mountain Road and Horopito, and Horopito and National Park are established, the concession and works approval processes (see 4.1.16 Works Approvals and 4.4 Concessions) need to be followed. The policies below set out the requirements for monitoring and management of the impacts of mountain biking once the tracks are established. There is a clear requirement to ensure that environmental effects generated by the development of new tracks are avoided. A concessionaire operating within a community trust framework (or similar), allows the Department to efficiently set standards for track development and operation. The Concessionaire will be building the tracks and the cost of doing so will be recovered via community and agency funding along with user charges for guided groups and voluntary donations. The conservation goals of avoiding effects on park values and maximising the visitor experience may be best met through a sole concession or management agreement. The upper section from Turoa to Waitonga Falls includes part of the Round the Mountain Track and the Blyth Track which are currently used by both day visitors and trampers. The Blyth Track was the main bridle track up the mountain prior to the construction of the Ohakune Mountain Road (see 4.1.9 Historic Resources). When the new tracks are formed, monitoring will establish baseline environmental and social conditions to enable the effects of mountain biking to be assessed. This includes user’s benefits, use and enjoyment, as well as management actions to be taken, if necessary. Most of the other sections of the proposed tracks are to be formed along the routes of historic tramways, which are not currently used by the public. As such the initial emphasis is on environmental monitoring. If significant adverse effects on the environment, these historic tracks or other users are identified, the management approach may be reconsidered. A trial period has not been proposed on the shared-use walking and mountain biking tracks between Turoa and Ohakune, Ohakune and Horopito, and Horopito and National Park as this is impracticable given the significant upgrades required to existing tracks and the issue that the remainder is essentially a new track. Additional conditions, such as those related to one-way travel, group size, time of day, and season, could be implemented consistent with the General Policy for National Parks 2005 if monitoring indicates these as being necessary. The behaviour of track users can greatly influence the enjoyment derived by other users and the level and nature of effects on Park values. The provision of information using mechanisms such as signage, pamphlets and websites by the Department and partners can increase awareness of appropriate behaviours and what users can do to minimise their impacts. Adherence to nationally developed codes such as Leave No Trace and the Mountain Bikers’ Code can assist in achieving these outcomes. The Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981 prohibit mountain bikes (classed as non- powered vehicles by the General Policy for National Parks 2005, see paragraph 1 above) off formed and maintained roads. A change to the bylaws will be needed to allow mountain biking on the tracks listed above. The Department has provided for mountain biking opportunities on land adjacent to the park, including Rangataua, Erua, and Tongariro forests. Resources include

8 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 200 publications, extensive track networks, and support for a number of mountain biking initiatives. Add new policies and amend the mountain biking policies (pp. 154–155) as follows: 1 Mountain bikes are permitted on formed and maintained roads, in accordance with the Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981.

4 With the exception of policies 1, 2 and 3 above, mountain bikes are not permitted in the park, in accordance with the Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981.

9 [policy deleted through 2011 partial review]

10 [policy deleted through 2011 partial review]

11 The Department may grant a sole concession for guided mountain biking on the following tracks (Map 10 Access and Facilities): a) the Old Coach Road Loop track; b) Turoa-Waitonga Falls track (note this track requires further detailed consideration prior to being authorised for establishment); and c) Waitonga Falls-Blyth track.

12 Existing concession holders for mountain biking on the Old Coach Road (part of the Old Coach Road Loop track) will maintain their current rights through to the expiry of their permit.

14 The Department should establish and implement a monitoring programme for the tracks identified in policy 3 and report to the Tongariro/Taupo Conservation Board annually on the following: a) numbers of visitors on the approved tracks and their experiences;

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 9 201 b) absence or presence of mountain bike activity off or beyond the approved tracks; c) impacts on the track surface due to mountain bike activity; d) any enforcement incidents and their outcomes; e) nature and level of conflict between walkers and mountain bikers, including feedback from visitors; and f) impacts on native fauna and flora due to user activity.

15 Where monitoring indicates environmental or social effects, including cumulative effects, of mountain biking on the tracks identified in policy 3 are unacceptable the Department should: a) Cease consideration to develop any tracks yet to be developed; b) Use review conditions on mountain biking concessions or management agreements to change conditions of use; and/or c) Implement controls on independent mountain bike use, user flow or other methods to manage impacts

The Department will seek the advice of the Tongariro/Taupo Conservation Board prior to making a determination in respect of the above matters.

16 The Department will seek an amendment to the Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981 to allow mountain biking on the tracks identified in policies 2 and 3 prior to these tracks being made available for mountain bike use.

17 The Department should provide information via signage, pamphlets and websites advising the public on how to: a) minimise potential conflicts with other track users; b) avoid adverse effects on Park values; and c) comply with the Park bylaws.

5.4 New section – Electric power-assisted cycles (e- bikes) Insert a new section 4.3.2.12A after section 4.3.2.12 Mountain biking as follows: Electric power-assisted cycles (e-bikes) are classified as ‘powered vehicles’ by the General Policy for National Parks 2005. The General Policy for National Parks 2005 only allows vehicles on identified roads, tracks, and designated parking areas. It also establishes the opportunity to allow vehicles off- road where these specific routes are identified in National park management plans. The use of e-bikes is an increasingly popular recreational activity in New Zealand and may enable people with lesser riding experience and fitness to explore and enjoy public conservation lands, including National Parks. The use of e-bikes within National Parks is directed by the guidance for e-bikes adopted by the New Zealand Conservation Authority. It is appropriate that e-bikes be permitted on all tracks for which mountain bikes are permitted (refer Map 10 Access and Facilities), on the basis effects on other users, Park values and the environment are negligible. E-bike use will be monitored and managed, and ongoing use considered at the next full review of this plan.

10 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 202

Policies 1 The Department will allow independent e-biking and may grant concessions for guided e-bike use on: a) formed and maintained roads: b) mountain biking tracks identified at 4.3.2.12 Mountain Biking policies 2 and 3. 2 The Department should monitor the use of e-bikes on the tracks identified in 4.3.2.12 Mountain Biking policies 2 and 3 and report to the Tongariro/Taupo Conservation Board annually consistent with 4.3.2.12 Mountain Biking policies 10. 3 Where monitoring indicates environmental or social effects, including cumulative effects, from e-bike use are unacceptable, the Department should: a) Use review conditions on concessions or management agreements to change conditions of use; and/or b) Implement controls on independent e-bike use, user flow or other methods to manage impacts c) Consider the exclusion of e-bikes from any one, combination of, or all of the tracks.

5.5 Section 4.4.2.1 – Guiding Amend Policy 1 (p. 169) as follows: 1 Concessions may be granted in terms of Part IIIB of the Conservation Act 1987 and section 49 of the National Parks Act 1980 by the Minister for the carrying on of a guiding service where the public need for the additional guiding concession has been demonstrated. Guiding may be for any or all of the following purposes: • climbing abseiling or climbing instruction; • ski mountaineering or ski-touring; • hunting other than helicopter hunting; • tramping, walking or nature study; • mountain biking and the use of e-bikes; • instruction or examination of guides so that they may obtain guiding qualifications; • in support of other activities requiring approval under other provisions of this plan – for example, commercial filming.

Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 11 203 5.6 Appendix 7 – Bylaws sought during the life of this Plan Amend the descriptive text (p. 291) as follows: • 4.3.2.12 Mountain biking policies 4 and 12 – amend Bylaw 10 Vehicles to allow the use of non-powered vehicles (specifically mountain bikes) on: – the Old Coach Road Loop track; – tracks that provide access to the western bank of the Tongariro River near the Pillars of Hercules; – Turoa-Waitonga Falls track (note this track requires further detailed consideration prior to being authorised for establishment); – Waitonga Falls-Blyth track; and – Maungaturuturu Link track.

• 4.3.2.12A E-bikes policy 1 – amend Bylaw 10 Vehicles to allow the use of powered vehicles (specifically electric power-assisted cycles) on: – the Old Coach Road Loop track; – tracks that provide access to the western bank of the Tongariro River near the Pillars of Hercules; – Turoa-Waitonga Falls track (note this track requires further detailed consideration prior to being authorised for establishment); – Waitonga Falls-Blyth track; and – Maungaturuturu Link track.

12 Tongariro National Park Management Plan partial review 204

From: Mike Britton [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 7 September 2017 4:53 a.m. To: Deidre Ewart ; [email protected]; Helen Neale Cc: John Bishara ; Tracy Puklowski ; Annaka Davis ; Amber Aramoana ; Laurie Burdett ; Peter Zimmer ; Te Ngaehe Wanikau ; [email protected] Subject: Partial review of the Tongariro National Park Management Plan

Kai ora

I can advise that I have now heard from the majority of members and they have agreed with the following resolution

That having gone through an extensive public process, and noting the support of Iwi, the TTCB approve the draft amendments to the TNPMP allowing for the construction of three new dual bike/walking tracks, subject to meeting the conditions contained in the draft policies as presented to the board by email on Tuesday 5 September, for submission to the NZCA for its consideration.

Nga mihi

Mike Britton Tongariro Taupo Conservation Board Sub-committee convenor

205 206

RECORD OF ENGAGEMENT WITH MANA WHENUA FOR THE TONGARIRO PARTIAL PLAN CHANGE 2017 Consultation Record

Bhrent Guy, Operations Manager, Tongariro District [email protected]

207 Engagement Approach

The engagement purpose of this project is to:

- gather opinion, from mana whenua, whether providing for the establishment of additional walking and cycling opportunities, within specified tracks, is considered compatible with their aspirations for the future of Tongariro National Park and dual World Heritage Area.

Engagement with mana whenua in the Tongariro District is long term and based on enduring relationships. Meaningful connection is essential for the following reasons:

• to inform and collect opinions;

• statutory requirements;

• strengthen existing relationships;

• create understanding of an emerging or existing problem(s);

• communicate the various stages of the process;

• provide transparent decision making; and

• maintain effective long-term relationships.

The engagement goals are to:

1. give mana whenua clear and concise information about how to participate;

2. select engagement methods that build a collective understanding and willingness in mana whenua to participate in the review process;

3. ensure all consultation results are respectfully considered, response rates and summary of feedback is shared to build a collective understanding and ensure meaningful consultation is achieved, and

4. to recognise that mana whenua is in the process of Treaty negotiations and that future management of the TNP will be a collective process.

208 Iwi Engagement This report provides an overview of the engagement with mana whenua, in relation to the Partial Plan Change for the Tongariro Management Plan. The Department, at the operations level, has long-standing relationships with the mana whenua in the District and engaged with the following iwi about the scoping and the notification of the partial plan review:

• Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tuwharetoa / Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum; • Ngāti Rangi Trust; • Uenuku Charitable Trust, and • Ngāti Haua Trust.

Engagement Methods Face to face hui is the most effective engagement with mana whenua. It provides the opportunity to check the context with questions and to build and support existing relationships. The partial plan process includes some specific statutory processes and with that in mind the methods of engagement included:

• advance emails;

• face to face meetings;

• sharing and involving mana whenua with messages to share with the general public and key stakeholders;

• sharing and informing mana whenua of updates and information websites, newspapers and on social media;

• open door policy to discuss the partial plan review at any stage of the process;

• encouraging mana whenua to participate in the open day events and site visits;

• supporting mana whenua to participate in the hearings processes; and

• continuing the conversation post hearing to avoid, reduce or mitigate any adverse cultural effects.

209

Engagement activities Since 2014 the Department have been seeking input from the community and mana whenua on the communities’ aspirations to consider a share walking and biking track on the southern side of Tongariro National Park. Presentations were provided to the Tongariro Conservation Board and an Governance/advisory board started meeting in March 2015. Ngāti Rangi and Uenuku have been part of the governance group since 2015. On the 12 April 2015, the site was blessed with a karakia by Hune Rapana (Ngāti Rangi kaumatua) and Aiden Gilbert (Uenuku). Ngāti Rangi Trust and Uenuku have been invited to and actively involved with the advisory group meetings (regular meetings since 5/10/2015, 24 meetings thus far).

The scoping of the partial plan change started in 2016 with the notification send to local iwi from the Director of Operations for Central Northland. This invitation welcomed an open- door process with our Treaty Partners. The scoping process identified issues that the Department considered needed to be set aside until the next review when co-management with mana whenua would be in place.

The Department activated a plan to inform the general public and about the Partial plan change process. Southern mana whenua, Ngāti Rangi Trust and Uenuku Trust have supported and helped the general public notification process with the general public by supporting social media videos, attending meetings and welcoming open days. Meetings Operations Manager has direct relationships with Iwi and since the notification of the partial plan change has meet regularly on the topic.

Key themes raised in the meetings included:

• developing more recreation opportunities in TNP when there may be equally suitable opportunities elsewhere; • encouraging further tourism growth in a Dual World Heritage Area is questioned; • more commercialisation of the maunga is not seen as the most desirable use; • cultural impact assessment work needs to be completed for good decision making; • limiting mountain biking to the specific tracks and not opening up mountain biking in other locations in the park; • e-bikes are an unknown and trials should be held outside TNP to determine their impact; and • delay for any plan changes should wait until after settlement of Tongariro National Park.

210

General participation information - displays A physical display, at the Ohakune Library foyer, provided a visual description of the proposed plan change and handouts for the public to read, take home and get involved (Figure 1).

FIGURE 1 - VIDEO DISPLAY OF HOW TO GET INVOLVED WITH THE PARTIAL REVIEW AT THE OHAKUNE LIBRARY The Librarians commented that the display was popular, in that people stopped and watched the video and the information handouts were also taken by visitors. The Ohakune library is popular with local community members and with tourists has it has computers that people use to access information.

Information handouts were also distributed for the public at the:

• Raetihi library; • Ohakune I-site; • Whakapapa Visitor Centre and i-site, and • At two local bike shops in Ohakune and one in National Park Village.

The visual display also included footage of key stakeholders supporting the community to get involved with the engagement process – to have their say.

211 Community Open Days Ngāti Rangi Trust supported both the morning tea for sumbitters and the community open day by welcoming visitors and blesssing the days work (Figure 2). This provided the face to face contact for the community to discuss any questions or concerns directly with Ngāti Rangi Trust.

FIGURE 2 – OPEN DAY – NGĀTI RANGI TRUST SUPPORTING COMMUNITY OPEN DAY

212 Social media engagement A full evaluation of the social media use is included in the general stakeholder engagemnt report. Regarding social media engagement the Department requested input from local iwi with the videos for the social media awareness plan (24th of April 2017). Ngāti Rangi Trust and Uenuku Charitable Trust provided representatives for the videos. Their involvement was helpful and welcomed community members to get involved, to be heard. Examples are included below (Figure 2) from the sharing of the video demonstrate that local Marae and Iwi Trust shared the message to their whanau and hapu to activate participation in the process (Figure 3).

Local mana whenua recognise and acknowledge that social media, in particular Facebook is the most effective method to reach out to their trust members.

“Facebook” - This is our best, fastest, easiest and most economical way of keeping whānau informed, involved and connected, so please SHARE the link, LIKE & FOLLOW, click on the SIGN UP button if you're a descendant and not already registered, make sure all your whānau are connected too, and help us to grow our reach. Ngā mihi, koutou (August 4th, 2017).

FIGURE 2 EXAMPLES OF SHARING FROM IWI TRUSTS AND HAPU TO MEMBERS Although the engagement benefit cannot be quantified specifically for mana whenua, sharing the posts can attribute to increasing the awareness amongst whanau and hapu at a direct personal level that traditional methods of advertisements in newspapers would have not achieved.

213

Submissions and Hearings The Department received two submissions and one letter of correspondence about the Partial Plan Change process.

• Ngāti Rangi Trust spoke to their submission and asked and answered questions by the panel. Ngāti Rangi are in the process of working with Uenuku to finalise a cultural impact assessment (CIA) to support mitigating adverse effects on cultural values.

• Ngāti Haua submission was received and reviewed. • Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tuwharetoa / Tuwharetoa Hapu Form, due to timing of treaty settlement, had limited time resources to respond on this partial plan change. However, at the Conservation Board they deferred their response to Ngāti Rangi lead on this matter. Continued Conversations In August, the Department meet with Ngāti Rangi Trust to provide an update proceeding the hearings. The Department shared and sought opinion from Ngāti Rangi Trust regarding the updated policies and worked through their submission to ensure that any issues were mitigated. Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tuwharetoa / Tuwharetoa Hapu Form confirmed that they could not meet to discuss the hearings due timing. They would continue to keep in touch later in August.

Summary of Engagement activities with mana whenua 2014 – 2017 Mana whenua Engagement activities Ngāti Rangi - David Milner part of Governance/ Advisory group since 2015. Meetings with Ngāti Rangi 18 May 2016 and 21 December 2016 included the discussion of the scoping and notification phase of the partial review. - Meeting with Kemp Dryden and Karen Mitchell 17 February 2017 to discuss range of matters including partial plan review - offer of support made in relation to information provision and any other support. - Ngāti Rangi spoke to their submission at the hearings - Update meeting August 4th 2017 - Response provided August 14th 2017 Uenuku - Aiden Gilbert part of Governance group for trail - meetings held 18 May and 21 December 2016 - Submission received as part of scoping progress - Meeting with Aiden March 2017 – offered support in relation to response to partial review and submission, no further response submitted. - Meeting with Aiden 11 July 2017 update on the process. Tuwharetoa - Engaged with the scoping progresses and provided feedback Dec 2016 - Requested an update on the process Feb 2017 - Letter inviting comments March 27th 2017 - Reminder sent May 26th 2017, June 1st reminder and response.

214 - Requested a meeting July 24th 2001. Response August 1 2017 at capacity for meetings. - Recent conservation board meeting they would be guided by Ngāti Rangi regarding the partial plan review

Ngāti Haua - advised by letter of partial plan review November 2016. - Requests sent through April 6 2017 no reply - meeting May 11 2017 with Eugene Topine regarding operational issues and partial plan review and agreed to resend previously sent material on plan review due to new secretary now in place (25th and 26th May 2017) - Requested further time June 7th 2017 - letter of response received June 28th 2017

Summary of engagement

Specific engagement with iwi occurred at the relationship level with face to face meetings. These discussions were supported with formal letters and emails direct to each individual Iwi group, general information from newspapers and social media reinforced the process and social media provide a channel to share directly from Trust level to hapu and whanau.

The Southern mana whenua; Ngāti Rangi Trust and Uenuku Charitable Trust provided a continuous high level of engagement and involvement in the process and prior to the scoping and notification process, with their involvement in the governance/ advisory board. Their support and blessing to encourage the wider community to participate in the process has also been collaborative. Ngāti Rangi Trust have actively worked with the other members of the community board to ensure that cultural values can be mitigated through working through location issues. The Department have acknowledged their submission points and accordingly amended draft policies and text. The Department continues to work closely with local Iwi to ensure that their aspirations are reflected in the final policies presented to the New Zealand Conservation Authority.

215

Appendix

Email correspondence with Iwi

Ngāti Rangi email correspondence Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017 12:40 p.m. To: Kemp@ Ngāti rangi.com Cc: 'david@ Ngāti rangi.com' ; Bhrent Guy Subject: Notification process for the Partial Plan Change

Kia Ora Kemp and Dave,

Attached is a letter inviting Ngāti Rangi input into the partial plan change. Bhrent Guy will be in touch to discuss the process and potential open days.

216

217 Email correspondence Uenuku Trust Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017 1:57 p.m. To: [email protected] Subject: FW: Notification of the Partial Plan Change

Kia Ora Aiden,

Bhrent has asked me to send you this letter about the notification of the Partial Plan Change. He is more than happy to catch up with you about the process when you meet with him next.

27 March 2017

Mr Aiden Gilbert Chairperson Uenuku Charitable Trust

Dear Aiden,

Tena koe e te Rangatira,

http://www.doc.govt.nz/get-involved/have-your-say/all-consultations/2016/tongariro- national-park-management-plan-partial-review/

Comments need to be sent to us by 4 pm on Monday 29 May 2017.

Submissions must be made in writing and should be either be

emailed to: [email protected]

Or write to us at: Tongariro NPMP partial review Department of Conservation Private Bag 3072 Hamilton 3240

We look forward to hearing from you as we value your input into these processes. As we have an open-door policy with our Treaty Partners we would be available to meet with you to discuss any issues and to offer any assistance we can in helping to mitigate these.

218 Yours sincerely

Bhrent Guy Operations Manager Tongariro District

From: Stacey Faire Sent: Friday, 26 May 2017 8:49 a.m. To: 'Aiden Gilbert' Subject: FW: Update Partial Plan Process - Tongariro National Park Plan - gentle reminder about closing date

Kia Ora Aiden,

Just a gentle reminder that the submission process will close on Monday. It would be most helpful to formally hear your thoughts on the proposed amendments.

Regards Stacey

From: Stacey Faire Sent: Monday, 24 July 2017 2:47 p.m. To: 'Aiden Gilbert' Subject: Meeting - continuing the conversation about partial plan change progress

Kia Ora Aidan,

Bhrent Guy has asked me to arrange a meeting to continue to the conversation about the Partial Plan Change process. Do you have capacity to meet up next week Friday 4th Augustt?

Ngā mihi

219

Email correspondence Ngāti Haua Iwi Trust Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2017 11:28 a.m. To: '[email protected]' ; 'Teresa hall' ; 'Iulia Leilua' Subject: Tongariro National Park Management Plan Partial Plan Review process

Kia Ora Eugene, Teresa and Iulia, Please see the letter attached about the Plan review process. We are looking forward to hearing from you on this matter.

220

Sent: Friday, 26 May 2017 8:43 a.m. To: Ngāti Haua Iwi Trust Subject: FW: Tongariro National Park Management Plan Partial Plan Review process

Kia Ora Louise,

This was the letter sent through. Please call me if you need any further discussion on the submission process.

Sent: On 01 June 2017 at 11:41 Stacey Faire wrote:

Kia ora Louise,

Did you get my emails last week? We are just sorting out submissions and have noted that we have not yet received one from you. We are more than happy to receive a late submission if you are still organising a response? I can just let the Director know. Just keen to make sure that you are heard in relation to this process.

Let me know if we can help in any way.

Nga mihi

Stacey

From: Ngati Haua Iwi Trust [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2017 12:47 p.m. To: Stacey Faire Cc: Eugene Topine Subject: Re: Tongariro National Park Management Plan Partial Plan Review process

Tēnā Koe Stacey

Sorry for the delay in response, the Ngāti Hāua Iwi Trust met last night and would like to request an extension until the 13 June 2017.

Please let us know if you have any queries and thank you for your email and assistance.

Nga mihinui

Mitch Roderick-Hall

Sent: Wednesday, 7 June 2017 1:52 p.m. To: 'Ngati Haua Iwi Trust' Cc: Eugene Topine Subject: RE: Tongariro National Park Management Plan Partial Plan Review process

Tēnā Koe Mitch

221 I have checked with the Project Manager and as Treaty Partners we welcome your feedback at any stage. We look forward to hearing from you next week.

Nga mihi

Stacey

Email correspondence TUWHARETOA HAPU FORUM / TE KOTAHITANGA O NGĀTI TUWHARETOA Sent: Monday, 27 March 2017 12:48 p.m. To: Hinemoa Cc: Bhrent Guy Subject: Notification of Partial Plan Change

Kia Ora Hinemoa,

222 Attached is a letter for Te Ngaehe to share with you all. Bhrent is more than happy to talk through the notification process next time he is in the office.

Date: Friday, 26 May 2017 8:53 am To: Te Kotahitanga Subject: RE: Update on the partial plan change - process

Kia Ora Hinemoa,

Just a gentle reminder that the submission process closes on Monday, for the partial review of the plan. It would be helpful to hear from you regarding the proposed amendments.

223 Kind Regards Stacey

From: Hinemoa [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, 27 May 2017 8:14 p.m. To: Stacey Faire Subject: Re: Update on the partial plan change - process

Kia ora Stacey

Thank you for your reminder email; greatly appreciated.

I have forwarded on an email reminder also.

Nga mihi

Hinemoa

Sent: Thursday, 1 June 2017 11:32 a.m. To: Hinemoa Subject: RE: Update on the partial plan change - process

Kia ora Hinemoa,

Thanks for your email. We are just sorting out submissions and have noted that we have not yet received one from you. We are more than happy to receive a late submission if you are still organising a response? I can just let the Director know. Just keen to make sure that you are heard in relation to this process.

Let me know if we can help in any way.

Nga mihi

From: Stacey Faire Sent: Thursday, 1 June 2017 12:42 p.m. To: Hinemoa Subject: RE: Update on the partial plan change - process

Kia ora Hinemoa

Thank you for the quick response. I will bring this to the attention of the project manager and the Director today.

Nga mihi

Stacey

From: Hinemoa [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Thursday, 1 June 2017 12:38 p.m. To: Stacey Faire Subject: Re: Update on the partial plan change - process Importance: High

Kia ora Stacey

I have received a response from Te Ngaehe on behalf of Te Kotahitanga o Ngāti Tuwharetoa / Tuwharetoa Hapu Form. Te Ngaehe has confirmed that no submission can be made until after the settlement process has been completed.

224 Nga mihi

Hinemoa

TUWHARETOA HAPU FORUM

From: Stacey Faire Date: Monday, 24 July 2017 2:25 pm To: Te Kotahitanga Subject: RE: Update on the partial plan change - process

Kia ora Hinemoa,

Bhrent has asked me to email you to arrange a meeting to continue our conversations about the partial plan change progress. Do you have any capacity to meet up next week? Thursday afternoon? The 3rd of August or Friday the 5th of August?

Let me know if that can work or if we can find another date?

From: Hinemoa [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, 1 August 2017 6:07 p.m. To: Stacey Faire Subject: Re: Update on the partial plan change - process

Kia ora Stacey

Thank you for your email and many apologies for the delay in responding.

To confirm, unfortunately this week is not good timing for either Te Ngaehe and/or other members of Te Kotahitanga Negotiation Team.

I have however forwarded the request to the Negotiation Team and they will respond with prospective dates.

Nga mihi

Hinemoa

TE KOTAHITANGA O NGĀTI TUWHARETOA

225 Emailing requesting support for social media videos

From: Stacey Faire Sent: Monday, 24 April 2017 11:23 a.m. To: [email protected]; 'Aiden Gilbert' ; David Milner ([email protected]) ; Liz Brooker Subject: Short engagement video about the partial plan review

Tena koutou whanau,

As you know we are in the process of the partial plan review and we are seeking your comments and the wider public. One method, to get a good balance of opinions, is to complete a short video message. The Department has engaged Liz Brooker to complete this bit of mahi for us.

We are excited about working on this and would love your support to either be in the video or to nominate someone else to help out. I know that this is a different approach for DOC but we think we need to ensure that everyone gets a chance to comment and this will help reach out to a wider audience.

So if you get a phone call from Liz you will know the context. Thanks again for your time.

No reira, noho ora mai

Stacey

226

Partial Review of the Tongariro National Park Management Plan

Planning Assessment

Greg Carlyon

August 2017

Report number: 2017/107

227

Table of Contents

1 Introduction ...... 1 2 Summary ...... 2 3 Project Context ...... 3 4 Assessment of Alternatives ...... 5 5 National Park Management Plan Review Process...... 5 6 Bylaw Amendment Process ...... 6 7 Timelines ...... 6 8 Planning Context ...... 7 8.1 Overarching Purposes and Principles of National Parks ...... 7 8.2 World Heritage Site Status ...... 7 8.3 Key Management Policies from the Tongariro Taupo CMS and Tongariro National Park Management Plan ...... 8 8.4 Key Management Philosophies for Tongariro National Park ...... 8 9 Key Planning Issues ...... 9 9.1 Conservation Values ...... 9 Natural Heritage: indigenous plants and animals/ biodiversity values ...... 9 Historic and Cultural Heritage ...... 10 Geological, Landform and Landscape Features ...... 10 Natural Hazards ...... 11 Introduced Plants and Animals ...... 11 Construction and Maintenance ...... 12 9.2 Recreation and Use ...... 12 Benefit, Use and Enjoyment of the Public ...... 13 Visitor Facilities ...... 13 Tracks ...... 14 Day Visitors ...... 14 Concessions ...... 15 Roads ...... 15 9.3 Mountain Biking ...... 16 National Parks Act, Park Bylaws, NPGP ...... 16 CMS ...... 16 NPMP ...... 17 10 Project Programme to Date ...... 17 11 Matters Raised During the Assessment Process ...... 18 11.1 Addressing the Opportunity for Mountain Biking – Monitoring and Reporting ...... 18 11.2 Engagement with Tangata Whenua ...... 19 11.3 Assessments Required for a Full Determination by Decision Makers ...... 20 11.4 Feasibility Assessments, Funding and Sustainability of the Project ...... 20 11.5 Is Road Safety the Driver for the Mountain Bike Track? ...... 21 11.6 What is the Place of E-Bikes within Tongariro National Park? ...... 22 11.7 Staging the Track Development Programme ...... 23 12 Conclusions ...... 24

Planning Assessment 228 Partial Review - TNPMP

Annexes Annex 1: Submissions to non-statutory consultation process Annex 2: Submissions to formal partial plan review process Annex 3: Summary of submissions Annex 4: Summary of further feedback Annex 5: Amendments to partial plan proposal

Planning Assessment 229 Partial Review - TNPMP

1 Introduction

My name is Greg John Carlyon. I have been retained by the Department of Conservation (DOC) to provide planning advice and support to the current proposal to undertake a partial review of the Tongariro National Park Management Plan 2006-2016. The proposal is intended to provide for dual walking and mountain biking opportunities from Turoa Ski Field to Ohakune Village, completion of the Old Coach Road loop track and development of a cycle track from Horopito settlement to National Park township.

I am the Practice Leader – Planning and director of The Catalyst Group, a multidisciplinary planning and science consultancy operating nationally. I have been involved in resource management and parks planning since the early 1990’s with a particular focus on the volcanic plateau region. I worked for DOC from 1991-2003 and during that time authored the operative Tongariro National Park Management Plan and Tongariro Taupo Conservation Management Strategy. I have been extensively involved in natural resource management issues within Tongariro National Park and other public conservation land through to the current time. I am responsible for leading the development of the current operative suite of statutory plans for the Manawatu-Wanganui region (Horizons), and am familiar with iwi strategies, plans and economic initiatives relevant to this proposal.

I have reviewed the following material in developing the recommendations contained in my report:

• National Parks Act 1980 (the Act); • Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981; • General Policy for National Parks 2005; • Tongariro Taupo National Parks Strategy 2002-2012 (CMS); • Tongariro National Parks Management Plan 2006-2016 (Plan); I note that the CMS and Management Plan are due for review. In my opinion, these documents are entirely relevant and the policies, objectives and methods contained in them are pertinent to any decision making.

• World Heritage inscription and supporting documentation, Tongariro National Park; • Planning advice to DOC from staff, including Rod Witte and Sarah Smylie; • Ohakune Mountain Road Trail – Feasibility Assessment (Perception Planning); • Ohakune Mountain Road Trail – Review of Feasibility (Jonathan Kennett; Peter Masters); • Ohakune Mountain Road Trail – Detailed Business Case ;

• Assessment against Outstanding Universal Value Criteria – TNP World Heritage Area (Framework); • Preliminary Ecological Impact Assessment 2015 (Scrimgeor et al) and addendum 2017;

• Electric Bikes on Public Conservation Land, 1 October 2015; • Proposed Mountain Bike Track Construction, Southern Ruapehu: Ecological Survey and Impact Assessment, Nicholas Singers Ecological Solutions, September 2017; • Tongariro National Park Proposed Ohakune Trails Landscape, Richard Hart, August 2017; • Submissions of parties to the notified partial plan review. I also attended the formal hearings to hear submitters.

Planning Assessment page230 1 Partial Review - TNPMP

I have visited the proposed track and am familiar with the physical context of the proposal and the concept being advanced through the plan review. I have assisted the ecologist and landscape architect with preparing briefs for the further work being undertaken as part of the project. I have also spoken with the key project team participants and taken part in various workshops with staff and conservation board members.

2 Summary

The Te Ara Mangawhero Advisory Group in Ohakune is promulgating a series of track developments from the summit of the Ohakune Mountain Road to Ohakune. The track upgrades will allow the completion of the Old Coach Road loop, providing for a day return opportunity to Ohakune and the link from Ohakune through to National Park by generating a section of track in the vicinity of the Mangaturuturu Viaduct. The tracks are envisaged as shared use and in places will allow for a significant improvement in the existing walking experience.

The tracks are intended to provide for a grade 2 mountain bike experience. This is qualified as “family friendly” against national mountain biking guidelines.

DOC has taken on the role of facilitator for the partial plan review on behalf of a broad constituency seeking approval for the project. This review is occurring against the backdrop of a highly motivated community, a substantial commitment of funding from MIBE and further contributions from the roading authority managing the Ohakune Mountain Road.

The track development is principally occurring within Tongariro National Park, with a large proportion occurring on existing track alignments, or previously disturbed areas, which were harvested and clear felled. There has been no human-induced disturbance or development of infrastructure on these sites for approximately 80 years.

The site proposed for the Turoa to Ohakune track is progressively more sensitive to construction and use impacts as elevation is gained. The track proposed for the section from Turoa skifield to Waitonga Falls is described as one of the highest ecological condition areas in New Zealand (Ecological Assessment and Survey, Nicholas Singers, p. 23), is relatively undisturbed and is extremely exposed to impacts from development and use.

The rationale for developing the track network is to provide for appreciation of the park values (both cultural and physical), by mountain bike and foot. DOC has allowed mountain bikes at a number of sites within Tongariro National Park. Where monitoring has been undertaken, there is little sign of adverse impact on other users or on the environment. However, with the limited research material available to DOC, on the impact of mountain biking in sensitive sites, impact on users and the emergence of new technologies in mountain biking (e-bikes), there is good cause to take a conservative and cautious approach to this project.

With that position in mind, and the absolute requirement to provide for the directions contained within the National Parks Act and Conservation Act, it is my view that DOC should provide for a staged

Planning Assessment page231 2 Partial Review - TNPMP

development of tracks on existing disturbed sites, and a trial of e-bike technology at sites where impacts are forecast to be lower (and public support is present). With regards to development of tracks higher on the mountain, within the alpine zone, in my view DOC should maintain the opportunity for a mixed use track and use the time available, as the other parts of the track network are developed, in order that it can undertake a detailed assessment of ecological and recreational impacts, trial e-bikes, and work with tangata whenua to develop an agreed framework for next stage decision-making.

It is important that a precautionary approach to decision making be applied with a focus on managing and maintaining extremely high natural and cultural values. Addressing outstanding matters prior to making any operational decisions or undertaking physical works is imperative in order to achieve the explicit policy outcome to avoid impacts on park values of significance.

Based on the issues I have highlighted in my summary, and the amendments proposed in the partial plan change document, I believe it is appropriate to advance the proposed programme of track development.

I have attached proposed amendments to the partial plan change (Annex 5).

3 Project Context

The Mountains to Sea cycleway is a conceptual notion to take riders from the summit of Mt Ruapehu to the ocean west of Whanganui. Within the cycleway, there are a number of opportunities to obtain mountain biking experiences on tracks graded 1-4, following a variety of routes. I am advised that cyclists currently do key parts of the network, with a particular focus on the Old Coach Road and Mangapurua Valley. The proposal advanced by DOC considers two further elements beyond the Ohakune Mountain Road trail.

The first is an 11 kilometre link to Horopito township, which will enable a loop track connection to Old Coach Road. This section complements the work undertaken in the period through to 2006 where a partnership between DOC and Ohakune 2000 restored the Coach Road as a key cycling and walking route. It subsequently became part of the Mountain to Sea cycle trail in 2010.

The second section of track to be formed involves the development of a cycle route in the vicinity of the Mangaturuturu Viaduct which provides for safe cyclist access on a cycle network through to National Park township.

The total cost of constructing the proposed track (i.e. tracking, board-walking, bridges), consents, story- telling and signage, and associated infrastructure (i.e. toilets) is estimated at $4.9M, with an estimated maintenance cost of $20-25,000 per annum (as per the 2016 feasibility assessment).

The 2016 feasibility assessment indicated the proposed tracks could increase domestic and international tourism activity in the area, with substantial economic benefits. The addition of proposed cycle tracks could lengthen the tourist season, potentially making the local area an all-year tourist destination, rather than one focussed largely on the winter ski season. Were this to eventuate, the estimated direct financial benefits to the local economy range between $2.83M (low visitor scenario) and $5.79M annually.

Planning Assessment page232 3 Partial Review - TNPMP

In a number of forums, DOC has identified that the primary consideration for development of a dual mountain biking walking trail are safety concerns related to shared vehicle/bike/walking use of the Ohakune Mountain Road.

Ruapehu District Council (RDC), on behalf of the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA), is currently upgrading the Ohakune Mountain Road. It has the highest number of road users per day of any state highway in the Ruapehu District (4000 vehicles/day at peak). The road was largely constructed in the 1960/70s and is now subject to significant pavement failure. Along with vehicle use, there is an unquantified but increasing number of non-vehicular usage of the road. This includes, pedestrian use as part of the Round the Mountain Track and Mangawhero Forest Loop field centre area, and mountain- bikers and cycle tourists.

The road is managed as if it were part of the National Park. While safety is a paramount consideration of design, RDC has been very careful to redevelop the road corridor to minimise impacts on the adjacent National Park/road corridor values. This has led to a reduction in the standard design width for the road corridor from 15.5m to 11.0m. There is no design capacity for safe cycle requirements within this reduced- width corridor. This has led to an offer from NZTA for funding support of a separated cycleway for the length of the Ohakune Mountain Road.

DOC has identified a significant opportunity to improve visitor experience with a properly formed and maintained track located within proximity of the existing Mountain Road, but largely out of sight of the road. Alongside the enhanced walking opportunity, DOC envisaged the ability to develop appropriate road-end car parking, public facilities and appropriate nodes for staged use of the Round the Mountain Track in light of increased use of Tongariro National Park.

There is no evidence of traffic incidents involving vehicles and cyclists/walkers using the Ohakune Mountain Road to support a track development project, entirely premised on cyclist/walker safety concerns. However, the approach being adopted by NZTA and RDC is responsible in the context of maintaining park values, maximising the visitor experience, and managing for the best practicable safety option. In the event that a separated shared-use track is built, these facilities will clearly complement one another. I am advised that in the event the track is not built adjacent to Ohakune Mountain Road NZTA will not be building a cycleway within the road corridor.

The Ohakune community, via the Ohakune 2000 Trust and more recent trust entities, have strongly advocated for the development of the track network described above. They have proposed the formation of a not-for-profit entity to develop the tracks, and will seek a sole right to administer and generate revenue from the track. This occurs against the clear context that free unencumbered public access was central to the legislative and management frameworks overarching the park. The group, supported by the very successful “Bike Taupo” team has advocated the recreation and economic benefits that would accrue from the project. Bike Taupo is a successful community operated trust that have developed a mountain bike park and extensive trail network on the western shores of Lake Taupo. The position advanced by Ohakune promotion groups and the mountain biking fraternity is supported by broader economic development work undertaken within the region since 2015. The Manawatu-Whanganui regional growth strategy prepared in 2015 recommended the development of further cycle trail initiatives as one of its eight opportunities for economic and social growth. Consequently, this project received a commitment of $2 million from MBIE in recognition of the consistent position adopted for economic

Planning Assessment page233 4 Partial Review - TNPMP

initiatives at the regional level and in recognition of the way in which parts of the project further reinforced the Mountains to Sea cycleway concept.

4 Assessment of Alternatives

The project focus from the outset has been maximising the extent of the Mountains to Sea trail network, providing for mountain biking opportunities within and on the margins of Tongariro National Park adjacent to Ohakune township, completing the link between Ohakune and National Park and utilising the opportunity presented by the old tramline network to establish a loop track network in the vicinity of the Old Coach Road.

There are a number of mountain biking opportunities in proximity to Tongariro National Park. These include the track networks in Tongariro, Erua and Rangataua Forests. Within these sites a number of tracks could be considered nationally significant (e.g. 42 Traverse). There are a large number of second tier tracks providing touring and adventure mountain biking opportunities, including the Tree Truck Gorge, Pillars of Hercules and extensive logging road networks within the forest.

In addition to these opportunities, the last decade has seen the establishment of world class mountain bike trails including the Timber Trail, Great Lake and Mangapurua Tracks. There are a number of these tracks that offer a similar visitor experience to the proposed Old Coach Road loop track and lower sections of the Ohakune Mountain Road Trail. However, the sections of track proposed from the Turoa Skifield carpark down through the Blyth Track passes through a number of forest types, ecosystems and landscapes that are not found in any other existing mountain biking opportunity. The focus of the project on family-friendly track networks will maximise the engagement mountain bikers and walkers will have with these park values. This view was confirmed in the opportunities assessment undertaken by Mr Ian Wightwick for the Department.

From a walking perspective, the proposed track development provides an outstanding opportunity to realign the northern section of the Round the Mountain Track onto an alignment that is both environmentally sustainable and improves the visitor experience. The existing track that exits to the Ohakune Mountain Road is on a steep, unstable alignment. The walking opportunity provided from the Turoa carpark down to the Round the Mountain Track in the vicinity of the existing Blyth Track, will provide a visitor experience far superior to the existing road alignment. The track essentially follows the Mangawhero Stream through a series of habitat types and will expose visitors to views and landscape features not available anywhere else within Tongariro National Park. In addition, the track will provide an easy walking grade providing an outstanding day walking opportunity from Turoa Skifield carpark to Ohakune. While the distance is in excess of 20 kilometres, the grade and track quality (along with a number of entry and exit points) makes the recreational opportunity suited to family and easy-walk markets.

5 National Park Management Plan Review Process

Section 46(1) of the Act provides for partial reviews of national park management plans to be undertaken to ensure the plan takes into account either “increased knowledge” or “changing circumstances”.

Planning Assessment page234 5 Partial Review - TNPMP

Where it has been established that a proposal meets the criteria for a partial review of a national park management plan, the Act specifies the process to be followed to undertake a partial review. The process is essentially the same as that required for a full review except DOC and Conservation Board can elect not to undertake the ‘intention to prepare’ phase if it is considered this will not materially affect the objectives or policies in the plan or public interest in the area concerned. The current operational Plan was due for review in 2016.

DOC notified a partial review in late 2016, following an informal engagement process to solicit community opinion in accordance with section 47(1) of the Act. The notified partial review was processed in accordance with section 47. DOC has received submissions, heard oral submissions and undertook a series of workshops with the Tongariro Taupo Conservation Board. The amended proposal considered by the Conservation Board at its August 2017 meeting. On the basis that there is no outstanding disagreement between the Board and the Department, the proposed document is recommended to the New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) for its consideration. The NZCA must then seek the opinion of the Minister of Conservation on the proposal, and following that, make a determination to approve the partial review.

6 Bylaw Amendment Process

The proposal is also subject to the Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981, which amongst other things restricts vehicle use (including mountain bikes) to formed park roads, camping sites and parking places. Accordingly, an amendment to these bylaws would be required in order for the proposed trails network to be lawfully used by mountain bikes. For any of the Old Coach Road located within the National Park, the bylaw amendment will also need to legalise mountain bike use.

The bylaw amendment process will be a consequential response to the partial review process. The amendments to the plan have been clearly articulated along with the requirements for bylaw reviews, in the public domain.

The bylaw amendment process is subject to Crown oversight and Ministerial approval.

7 Timelines

Past DOC experiences, with respect to plan and partial plan reviews nationally, do not provide particular clarity regarding timeframes for project completion.

Recent amendment processes with respect to mountain biking on the Heaphy Track, Flora Saddle, and Arthurs Pass, indicate timeframes to completion of similar processes to the one being considered, of between 12 and 36 months. The narrower the scope of matters for consideration and the higher the degree of resolution, the greater the expectation of consideration by the Conservation Authority in line with the current forecast project timeframes, which will see an amended plan adopted late 2017.

I also note there are a number of potential barriers to implementation of the project. In the event the partial review is endorsed by the Conservation Authority and minister, DOC will need to secure funding

Planning Assessment page235 6 Partial Review - TNPMP

and commitment to its track development for walkers, and a robust framework and arrangement will have to be established for the track builder and operator. The builder/operator entity will also need to secure funding in the vicinity of $2M plus, along with substantial annual operating funds, in order to initiate work. This is a challenging scenario, but in my experience feasible.

The amended proposals attached to this report address the feasibility issues associated with the project. The security of funding, project oversight, formal engagement with track developers and operators and DOC oversight should provide confidence to decision makers.

8 Planning Context

The purpose and principles of the Act, and management philosophies articulated in the CMS and Tongariro NPMP, illustrate the wider context in which decisions relating to the Tongariro NPMP and bylaws are to be made and are summarised below.

8.1 Overarching Purposes and Principles of National Parks

The purposes of national parks, as set out at section 4 of the Act, are the preservation in perpetuity for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use and enjoyment of the public areas of New Zealand that contain scenery of such distinctive quality, ecological system, or natural features so beautiful, unique or scientifically important that their preservation is in the national interest1.

The principles for national park management are set out in sections 4, 5 and 5A of the Act and section 6 of the Conservation Act 1987. There is a clear hierarchy of considerations for decision makers, with the primary focus of the legislation being preservation and protection of natural and historic values in their natural state: while providing for, or fostering, recreation and public access for the benefit of users, from their interaction with the underlying natural resources. This schema is not dissimilar to the framework of section 5 of the Resource Management Act 1991, with the clear difference being the focus on preservation and protection, in lieu of sustainable management.

8.2 World Heritage Site Status

Tongariro National Park is one of only 29 sites in the world with dual World Heritage Site status. As the plan identifies, this places Tongariro National Park alongside other great natural and man-made monuments around the world including Stonehenge, the Great Wall of China, and the Grand Canyon. In 1990 it received World Heritage Site status for its natural landscape values and in 1993, under a criteria change, the special significance of the park’s mountains and cultural landscape to the Tuwharetoa and Whanganui people was recognised.

In the global context, the criteria applied by UNESCO for the purposes of assessing natural and cultural heritage, require that: • it contains superlative natural phenomena and exceptional natural beauty;

1 Derived from section 4(1) National Parks Act 1980

Planning Assessment page236 7 Partial Review - TNPMP

• it represents significant ongoing geological processes and geomorphic features; • it contains values of outstanding universal significance from the point of view of science and conservation; • it is directly and tangibly associated with events, living traditions, ideas and beliefs of universal significance; • it is representative of the culture of Ngāti Tūwharetoa; • it is vulnerable to impacts and irreversible change; and • it represents an interchange of human values and cultural ideas over time. The proposal for a partial plan change has been assessed in the light of these values, and will ultimately be advanced to UNESCO through normal reporting channels.

8.3 Key Management Policies from the Tongariro Taupo CMS and Tongariro National Park Management Plan

The CMS (section 2.1.2) identifies six principles as follows: • Protection and enhancement of the natural environment; • Protection of historic resources managed by the Department; • Development of an effective conservation partnership with tangata whenua; • Fostering recreation use of public conservation land [emphasis added]; • Limiting non-recreation commercial use of public conservation land; and • Enhancing advocacy outcomes and community relations.

The Plan (section 3.1) identifies eleven principles that reflect the core values of the park as follows: • To protect Tongariro National Park in its natural state in perpetuity; • To manage Tongariro National Park consistent with conservation legislation and General Policy; • To protect the taonga – the peaks of Tongariro National Park; • To ensure World Heritage obligations are met and given effect to; • To give effects to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi; • To protect the ancestral, historical, archaeological and cultural heritage landscape of Tongariro National Park; • To reflect the values of the park partners in management; • To minimise infrastructure to that essential to provide for visitors’ benefit, use and enjoyment of the park [emphasis added]; and • To honour existing legal agreements.

The key management policies and philosophies highlighted within the CMS and Plan are hierarchical in nature. They give effect to the requirements of the Conservation and National Parks Acts. The protection ethic inherent in the CMS and Plan principles cannot be derogated from in decision making. While both documents highlight fostering recreation and essential infrastructure for visitor use and enjoyment, these things occur in the context of the overarching protection requirement.

Planning Assessment page237 8 Partial Review - TNPMP

The project proposal is considered consistent with this framework on the basis the activity of mountain biking is considered part of the valid recreation opportunity spectrum within the National Park, and the infrastructure development associated with it maintains or enhances park values. The policy approach taken ensures a precautionary, staged approach to track development, disciplined monitoring and review of development and use, and formalised reporting and feedback to the governance entity for Tongariro National Park. The cultural values of Tongariro National Park will be sustained through the specific engagement of Ngati Rangi and Ngati Uenuku in the governance and implementation project team and in the event Treaty settlement will allow for a greater degree of influence from tangata whenua in decision making. Submissions to the Partial Plan Review were analysed and a summary is provided at Annex 3 to this document. There is a diverse range of views, as would be expected. Project proponents seek to maximise opportunities, while a number of park partners express the view that caution is required, or that mountain biking on some elements of the proposed track network is unsuitable.

In my view, the amended policy framework for the Plan and disciplines applied to the approval and implementation of the track proposal are consistent with the principles advanced within the CMS and Plan. With the protection of park values being paramount, it is my view that sufficient opportunities exist to enhance, restore or offset values in order to achieve the positions set out in those guiding documents.

9 Key Planning Issues

9.1 Conservation Values

Natural Heritage: indigenous plants and animals/ biodiversity values

The Act emphasises the preservation of native plants and animals and ecological systems and makes it an offense to introduce plants, animals or other biological organisms without explicit approval. This approach is reflected in section 4.1 of the GPNP which provides additional management direction and specifies matters for national park management plans to address. The GPNP also provides direction with respect to restoration programmes.

Section 4.5.5 of the CMS identifies a number of plants, plant communities, and fauna as priority species for protection within the Tongariro-Ruapehu Place and emphasises preventing disturbance to the natural environment so that restoration is not necessary.

Policy 4.1.7.1.5 of the Tongariro NPMP specifically requires an environmental impact assessment, including full assessments of alternatives where trimming or cutting of indigenous plants is undertaken National Parks Act: s 4(2)(a),(b); s5 GPNP: s 4.1 CMS: ss 3.1.6; 4.5.5

Recommended Management Response: The ecological and landscape assessments, along with values held by tangata whenua, are provided for by the proposed amendments to the Tongariro National Park Management Plan. The proposed tracks for Mangaturuturu, Old Coach Road loop track, and lower section of the Ohakune Mountain Road, provide

Planning Assessment page238 9 Partial Review - TNPMP

an opportunity to enhance visitor experience without compromising park values. Where those values are potentially at risk, higher on the Ohakune Mountain Road, they are addressed through careful site selection, staging of the project and further consideration by the Conservation Board if DOC is making a decision to allow development. Baseline monitoring, project supervision, intensive pest control and management of visitor experience is specifically provided for by the amendments. DOC will ensure it has the resources to undertake its commitments in respect of the project, and equally must have confidence that any potential developer or operator has the capacity, capability and resourcing to manage the infrastructure over the long term.

Historic and Cultural Heritage

The Act provides that sites and objects of archaeological and historic interest shall as far as possible be preserved and makes it an offence to interfere with or damage the historic features of any national park. Sites along the route of the track will need to be identified and any potential impacts on them assessed.

Any assessment of effects on historic and cultural heritage values will also need to consider intangible impacts on the cultural landscape including the cultural, spiritual, historical and traditional associations of tangata whenua with their wāhi tapu, wāhi taonga and other places of significance. National Parks Act: ss 4(2)(c) and 60(1)(k) CMS: s 3.1.2 NPMP: s 4.1.9

Recommended Management Response: The cultural values of tangata whenua are protected by virtue of the right of veto inherent in Ngati Rangi and Ngati Uenuku’s involvement in the governance entity for the project. DOC has engaged closely with iwi on this project and the feedback I have sited indicates support for the project, nothwithstanding the strategic concerns expressed.

The historic and cultural values associated with the proposed track network are high. DOC’s independent reporting on the values present on track alignments (generally tramlines and tracks, along with abandoned logging infrastructure), highlights the value that will be obtained from relocating, restoring and documenting historic resources. The mitigation techniques identified in the reporting for heritage resources should be adopted into any track proposal.

Geological, Landform and Landscape Features

The geological, landform and landscape features of Tongariro National Park are of international significance as evidenced by its World Heritage Site status. The legislative and policy framework places a strong emphasis on avoiding activities that may diminish these values.

Planning Assessment page239 10 Partial Review - TNPMP

Among other objectives the Tongariro NPMP seeks to retain the natural landscape and ensure that infrastructure is designed and located to avoid impacts on landscape values. Policies also require any earthworks carried out not to exacerbate natural erosive processes or have adverse impacts on watercourses. National Parks Act: s 4(2)(d) GPNP: s 4.5(d) CMS: ss 3.1.8; 4.5.5, Map p. 210 NPMP: s 4.1.3

Recommended Management Response: The landscape values for the tracks proposed on the lower slopes of the Ohakune Mountain Road and Old Coach Road loop track are not threatened. This is a consequence of the previous high levels of modification, as a consequence of logging activity. There is also bush canopy cover for a significant portion of the track. With respect to the upper part of the Ohakune Mountain Road, the risks to geopreservation values and visitor impression of landscape is high as a consequence of the development of a track within a sensitive landscape where there is little existing infrastructure. Any track development in this zone requires full assessment at a detailed level, further consideration following the experience that will be gained from the first stages of the development and the application of the highest standard of track development. Advice received confirms that hard surfaced or board-walked tracks will be required for a long term sustainable surface. This work must be undertaken in a way that avoids impacts on landscape from a medium or distant perspective, and minimises it for all track users and visitors within the project area.

Natural Hazards

The GPNP requires natural hazard risk assessments to be a key component of national park planning, including for the location and construction of all facilities (facilities are defined in the Conservation General Policy 2005 to include tracks, walkways and bridges).

The emphasis is on minimising damage to infrastructure and public risks by locating infrastructure away from known hazard zones.

Although not located within any volcanic hazard zone, the nature of volcanic soils make them prone to erosion, especially along tracks, and high use and insensitive development can exacerbate this.

Objectives and policies in section 4.1.14.2 of the Tongariro NPMP require park management action to be cognisant of this and for the risk of damage or loss (including risks to public safety) to be considered. GPNP: s 7(e) NPMP: s 4.14.2

Recommended Management Response: The site for the track is not associated with any known historic lahar paths. As such, the probability of a lahar is low, but the consequences may be high. Therefore DOC must manage risks to visitors using the same methodologies applied to the many tracks located elsewhere on the volcanic plateau.

Planning Assessment page240 11 Partial Review - TNPMP

Introduced Plants and Animals

Track development and the introduction of new uses may result in the introduction of plants and animals and could pose a threat to the survival of indigenous species and functioning of ecosystems. National parks are places where special emphasis is given to the preservation of indigenous species thus the legislative and policy emphasis is on preventing incursions. The biosecurity risks from the development of new, and alteration of existing, tracks together with the introduction of mountain biking as an activity needs to be evaluated. National Parks Act: ss 4; 5 GPNP: s 4.3(d) CMS: NPMP: ss 4.1.5; 4.1.7.2

Recommended Management Response: The risks to the above values occur in two ways. The first is through the importation of plant pests during construction processes, either in machinery or imported materials. The DOC’s methodologies for construction in sensitive areas should be applied, including the ability to isolate and monitor machinery access and obtain absolute assurance that imported materials e.g. gravels, are weed free. The development of the track itself also provides a vector for plant and animal pests. DOC will need to ensure that controls for animal pests are in place (the track operator will need to develop and maintain a substantial animal pest control network over the length of the new track system), and that a zero tolerance programme for introduced plant pests is documented and operated.

The second risk to the above values is through the potential for the importation of plant pests with track users is already present throughout Tongariro National Park by way of walkers, cyclists and vehicle users. DOC must rely on ongoing education and engagement with park users to avoid weed pest incursions.

Construction and Maintenance

Importing foreign material such as gravel can lead to the introduction of pest plants and change the character of areas. Section 4.1.15 of the Tongariro NPMP requires consideration of this with respect to construction projects. Section 4.1.17 of the Tongariro NPMP also provides guidance with respect to minimising effects on water quality, noise levels and impacts on the visual environment.

The ongoing effects from the maintenance of infrastructure assets on park values also require consideration. NPMP: ss 4.1.15; 4.1.17

Recommended Management Response: The impacts of construction and maintenance are addressed elsewhere in these recommendations. Full compliance with the requirements of the Tongariro National Park Management Plan regarding works within the park, detailed documentation, design and oversight is critical to the project’s success.

Planning Assessment page241 12 Partial Review - TNPMP

9.2 Recreation and Use

Benefit, Use and Enjoyment of the Public

While national parks are areas preserved for their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, use and enjoyment of the public, activities undertaken by people can impact on the natural and other qualities that attract people to a park. Activities can also affect the enjoyment of others or create conflicts. Finding an appropriate balance is a challenge for DOC. The legislative and policy framework identifies a number of factors to be considered when determining an appropriate outcome. These include the need to: • preserve natural park values, including natural quiet as far as possible; • minimise adverse effects, including cumulative effects on park values; • provide a range of visitor experiences; • consider potential conflicts between different recreational activities; • manage recreational activities that may create hazards to other people; • consider the contribution to, and compatibility with, the wider network of recreational opportunities in the area; and • ensure that facilities donated by people and organisations which are sited on national parks be managed to DOC standards and be consistent with the outcomes sought for the place.

National Parks Act: ss 4(1), 4(2)(e) GPNP: ss 8.1, 8.3

Recommended Management Response: The management of conflict between users on the shared use track is critical. While the current research indicates little conflict on the Old Coach Road, the potential for conflict on the Ohakune Mountain Road sections is present as a consequence of potential numbers of users, modes of transport and direction of flow. The plan provisions allow control of user numbers and management of conflicts by way of determination on user type and concessionaire activity. Ohakune Mountain Road section of track lends itself to downhill flow of traffic. It is improbable that DOC can regulate for direction of travel and must rely on an active programme of education and advice to users to manage conflict between user types and within user groups. The maintenance of a family-friendly mountain biking opportunity, alongside walker use, is critical for the success of the track development, and all track use must be measured against this outcome.

Visitor Facilities

The CMS requires the following factors to be taken into account in determining the provision of recreation facilities: • the natural and cultural values of the area; • the potential impacts of recreation use on these values; • the potential impact of recreation facilities and their use on existing visitors to the area; • the availability of recreation opportunities in other areas of the conservancy and in adjacent conservancies; • demand;

Planning Assessment page242 13 Partial Review - TNPMP

• public safety; • benefits gained by the Department; • the opportunity to advocate conservation to visitors; and • the findings of any visitor research undertaken by the Department, on its behalf or independently of it.

The CMS also requires environmental impact assessments to be carried out prior to facility upgrading or development: CMS: s 3.5.3 Recommended Management Response: The proposal utilises existing roading nodes and does not require extensive development of facilities, other than the track itself. There is a significant positive consequence of the realignment of the walking track and development of a mountain bike track at the summit of the Ohakune Mountain Road. The use of the existing infrastructure and potential for a fully managed site for track users and visitors alike, is present for the benefit of park users generally and the existing concessionaire at the site. DOC will need to ensure that sanitary services are developed at appropriate entry/exit points to the tracks, sufficient to exceed any growth in use on the track.

Tracks

Policy 4.3.2.4.4 of the Tongariro NPMP states that no new tracks (except for named exceptions) will be provided in the Tongariro National Park.

The Tongariro NPMP also notes that the development of new tracks or the upgrading of routes to track status, will require clear evidence of departmental and public support and the availability of resources. NPMP: s 4.3.2.4.4

Recommended Management Response: The focus of the partial plan review is a demonstration of the evidence required to develop new tracks within Tongariro National Park. The submissions represent a strong community view in this regard (not withstanding a range of concerns in terms of impact of use, requirement for new tracks and ability to sustain them). The policy hurdle with regards to new tracks is addressed with the recommendations attached to this report.

Day Visitors

Policy 4.3.2.8.6 of the Tongariro NPMP states that “the response to increased day visitor numbers will not generally be to provide further opportunities and facilities”. NPMP: 4.3.2.8.6

Recommended Management Response: The process of the partial plan review has assessed the opportunity and demand for a shared use track adjacent to the Ohakune Mountain Road and broader mountain biking opportunities linked to existing use. It also addresses the link track between Ohakune and National Park township. The forecasting undertaken as part of the track assessment and the monitoring undertaken with respect to the Old Coach Road, demonstrates a current stable and marginally increasing demand for mountain biking and

Planning Assessment page243 14 Partial Review - TNPMP

interpreted visitor experiences on the Ohakune side of Mount Ruapehu. Overall, day visitor and off- shoulder season use of short walk tracks in Ohakune has increased substantially over the past decade. The opportunities provided by the track proposal are all day visitor experiences.

Concessions

Legislation and policy set out a number of considerations in relation to concessionaire management, including guiding, events and transport and would need to be examined if this were to form part of the proposal: National Parks Act: s 49 Conservation Act 1987: Part 3b NPGP: s 10 CMS: s 3.8 NPMP: s 4.4

Recommended Management Response: The policy response recommended in this report is an appropriate way to manage concession use. The concession is simply a means to manage and provide for enhanced visitor experiences within the park. It is not possible to develop the track network and operate it with multiple concessionaires and the policy framework avoids that approach. This allows for park values, including environmental, landscape and tangata whenua values to be provided for. DOC should not enter into a concession arrangement until it has confidence that the capability, capacity and resources are present (or underwritten), in order to provide confidence over the long term. In my view, it is unrealistic to assume the winding up and removal of infrastructure, if a concessionaire failed in its duties.

Roads

The background material in relation to the proposal identified an option to widen the Ohakune Mountain Road within the road reserve. Technically this could be done within the current management plan since the road does not form part of the national park (section 55 (1) National Parks Act): National Parks Act: s 55(1)

Recommended Management Response: This issue has been extensively canvassed in this report. While the road does not form part of the National Park, it is managed by the authorities as if it were. The roading authority (RDC) and DOC have a strong relationship to ensure minimum impact of the roading corridor, while ensuring access to park values and safety of users. The roading authority has made a determination that the impact of maintaining a roading corridor wide enough to accommodate walkers and cyclists safely is inappropriate from an economic and environmental stand point. It has committed substantial funding to the project in order to provide for a separated cycleway/walkway. While the NZCA may discount the relevance of the roading matters in a determination, with respect to maintenance of park values, any assessment that ignores the context of the road in the park is unwise.

Planning Assessment page244 15 Partial Review - TNPMP

9.3 Mountain Biking

National Parks Act, Park Bylaws, NPGP

The general presumption is that it is an offense to ride or otherwise use non-powered vehicles (including but not limited to, all non-motorised cycles and mountain bikes) in a national park except on formed and maintained roads or routes specifically approved for that use in a conservation management strategy/ national park management plan and in park bylaws. Routes may be approved only where: • adverse effects on national park values can be minimised; • the track standard is suitable; and • the benefit, use and enjoyment of other people can be protected (this includes managing conflicts with other uses).

National park management plans can also include measures to manage adverse effects, protect the experiences of others, and avoid creating hazards for others. These can include, but are not limited to: trial periods, restricted seasons, limits on numbers, one-way flow and adherence to user codes. National Park management plans should also identify monitoring requirements. Other partial reviews of national park management plans to allow mountain biking have explicitly considered such mechanisms (refer GPNP s 8.6 (i) 7 (j) in particular) and it is expected that the NZCA would expect explicit consideration of these matters in relation to this proposal.

The existing bylaws currently only provide for vehicles to be used on formed park roads, camping sites and approved parking places.

Potential conflict between existing track users and mountain bikers needs careful assessment and this would also need to consider whether introducing mountain bikes on a very limited number of tracks currently used by walkers would create a new conflict. For the Heaphy Track this conflict was managed by mountain biking only being allowed in the off peak season. National Parks Act: s 60(2)(b) Tongariro National Park Bylaws 1981: s 10 GPNP: s 8.6

CMS

The CMS explicitly states that mountain bike use will not be permitted off formed and maintained roads and other tracks, unless specified in the Tongariro NPMP. It requires monitoring of impacts on the physical environment and visitor experience and consideration of DOC guidelines when a demand for mountain bike access becomes apparent and a decision to authorise or not authorise such use is required. CMS: s 3.5.2.4

Planning Assessment page245 16 Partial Review - TNPMP

NPMP

Section 4.3.2.12 sets out the current policy with respect to mountain biking. In summary it provides for: • mountain bike use on formed and maintained road only, with the exception of a trial on the Old Coach Road and nominated tracks from the Desert Road. • with respect to the tracks where mountain biking is permitted, baseline and ongoing monitoring is required • the plan also included a commitment to amend the park bylaws to legitimise the above uses

It is noted that the bylaws have not been amended. NPMP: s 4.3.2.12

The policy challenges raised within the above CMS, management plans and park bylaws, with respect to providing for mountain biking, are fully addressed by the amendments in the partial plan review.

10 Project Programme to Date

DOC has facilitated the development of a project scope and the process for consideration of a partial plan change. This exercise was initiated in early 2016. The process aligned with the economic development priorities identified in the Regional Economic Development Strategy, a funding commitment from MBIE and ongoing passionate advocacy from the Ohakune community (first initiated through the Ohakune 2000 project).

The partial plan change review involved DOC’s notification of an intention to review in the latter part of 2016, with submissions ultimately being sought for a formal partial review process in late March 2017. The submissions to the non-statutory consultation and formal review process are attached respectively at Annex 1 and 2.

The Catalyst Group prepared a summary of submissions for consideration by decision makers during the hearing process Annex 3, and a summary of further feedback to the oral hearings is attached at Annex 4. The formal hearings concluded in June 2017 and DOC has completed its engagement with the Conservation Board. The recommendation document has now been referred to the NZCA for consideration.

In tandem with the processes outlined above, DOC has had an ongoing dialogue with Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Uenuku and has continued to advise Ngāti Tūwharetoa of the process being run.

DOC also continues the process of informing final decisions to be made by the board and authority, with more recently commissioned work assessing the ecological impacts of the proposed development and an independent landscape assessment. It is expected this work will be completed for the planning report and ultimate decision recommendation to the Conservation Board.

Planning Assessment page246 17 Partial Review - TNPMP

The Department has completed it engagement Ngāti Rangi and Ngāti Uenuku for this stage of the proposal. The Department will continue working with these iwi, as this respects the critical relationship with the Treaty partner, tangata whenua and those with mana for the maunga, Ruapehu.

DOC has identified it may also undertake further consultation with key stakeholders in areas where new information or approaches have come to light as a consequence of further research, the public hearings, or clarification of positions that have been developed, in respect of the project.

11 Matters Raised During the Assessment Process

11.1 Addressing the Opportunity for Mountain Biking - Monitoring and Reporting

DOC staff (Tongariro District) have produced an excellent summary on the use and development on mountain biking on the Ohakune Old Coach Road. This piece of research is the only material made available to the current project, specifically addressing the emergence of mountain biking within Tongariro National Park.

During the development of policies to provide for mountain bike use, DOC was acutely aware of the potential visitor impact, change in cultural use of conservation lands, and the value of careful monitoring and reporting to future decision making.

The work undertaken by the Tongariroro District team included material drawn from archaeological assessments, compliance and event monitoring, historic conservation work, operations activities, and visitor use surveys. This work has allowed for comprehensive evaluation of the partial plan review, as the Old Coach Road provides an excellent proxy for the additional tracks being proposed.

DOC’s reporting drew on 12 events through the period 2005-2017. The majority of these relate to historic resources, but a number address impact of use for the period. This research sits alongside social monitoring through nine discreet projects for the same period. In particular, I note the figures identify stable average use in the vicinity of 16,000 users per annum. For the 2017 period, there is a potential trend emerging in respect of significantly increased numbers on a per month basis.

I also note DOC has undertaken useful work which monitors user interaction with the track and interpretative features on it. The work indicates a very high correlation with the desire of users to interact with and understand the natural and historic values present on the Old Coach Road.

I also highlight the general findings of the report, with respect to other users on the Round the Mountain Track, with an annual average total of approximately 1000 people, and approximately 4,000 people per annum on any other single element of the Round the Mountain Track.

There is an absence of monitoring data, with respect to mountain bike use, or mountain bike use effects on the environment, or conflict with other users. This is particularly the case with respect to the Tree Trunk Gorge and Pillars of Hercules tracks, for which previous commitments were made to undertake this work in order to confirm pre-approval observations, or assist with future decision making in relation to mountain biking at other sites within the region.

Planning Assessment page247 18 Partial Review - TNPMP

The Volcanic Plateau provides significant opportunities for mountain biking, and was an early adopter of mountain biking, for a number of reasons. In particular, the roads, tracks and trails generated by logging or hydro activity, along with the mountain biking “explorer” fraternity in the 1990s, led to very high use on a number of tracks, along with a significant published record and guiding resource for mountain bike use on the plateau.

This context is relevant when assessing the proposal against the principles contained in statute, directions contained within plans, and the framework for the development of new mountain biking infrastructure.

I previously addressed the conceptual idea of the Mountains to Sea Trail. The proposal for three new mountain biking opportunities within Tongariro National Park need to be carefully considered in light of that framework, and for each case, in and of themselves as a discreet mountain biking opportunity.

11.2 Engagement with Tangata Whenua

DOC is promulgating a partial plan change to the Plan, with the settlement of the TNP Treaty claim understood to be imminent. It is reasonable to assess a project of this nature (requiring a change to the operative Plan), to:

• determine the degree to which the proposal may prejudice the settlement process, or • the potential to create a grievance, requiring further attention at a later date.

I am also mindful of the fact that the Plan is due for a full review.

It is clear DOC has taken every opportunity to engage with and obtain feedback from those iwi with an interest in the specific proposal for this site and the overarching environment in which the proposal occurs – being Tongariro National Park World Heritage Area. DOC has carefully engaged with Ngāti Rangi, Ngāti Uenuku and Ngāti Haua. Ngāti Tuwharetoa has been briefed on progress with the review process, and has been provided with an open-ended opportunity to engage with the project. It is understood that Ngāti Tuwharetoa is currently involved with Treaty settlement processes, which take precedence. I also understand Ngāti Rangi and Ngāti Uenuku have mana whenua over the project site. Ngāti Rangi in particular have taken an active interest in the review process.

While there appears to be a close working relationship between the teams, Ngāti Rangi still took the opportunity to ensure the issues of focus for them were brought before the hearing committee for the partial plan change. This included a requirement for a thorough cultural impact assessment to be prepared, strong reservations about e-bikes within the Park, that the development is respectful of Ngāti Rangi’s cultural and environmental values for the Park, that the development and its maintenance are sustainable, and that comprehensive monitoring and oversight are in place.

Further, Ngāti Rangi expressed concerns in relation to DOC’s resourcing of recreation infrastructure from a user and environmental perspective. The iwi reinforced concerns about the partial review not being the thin end of the wedge for further development within the Park. While Ngati Rangi has formally acknowledged their role in the project, design and governance, the iwi has still reflected on a number of unresolved concerns. The concerns included unmanaged growth, the opportunities sought by other

Planning Assessment page248 19 Partial Review - TNPMP

concessionaires using this proposal as a lever, unsustainable tourism growth, and the need for a sustainable model to fund and operate the tracks.

I understand the full plan review has been delayed, in order it can be completed post-settlement. It is anticipated that the post-settlement involvement of tangata whenua in park planning will provide a sound context for the Plan to reflect a Te Ao Maori view. DOC has worked to ensure that future decisions are not undermined by this project. Ngāti Rangi has affirmed most recently to the Tongariro Taupo Conservation Board, at its July meeting, that the project has their support and they are an active participant in the project management entity.

11.3 Assessments Required for a Full Determination by Decision Makers

DOC initiated the partial Plan review in order to support local community and central government aspirations for the Mountains to Sea trail network. The total project has been time bound, necessitating the partial plan review process to be undertaken, with key elements of the information collection process occurring in tandem with the publicly notified process.

The project team has run an open, engaging process and has taken every reasonable step to keep key stakeholders informed. Where advised, DOC has commissioned additional work to address outstanding matters in relation to ecology and landscape.

DOC’s initial assessment for the plan review involved receipt of advice from key technical staff on an informal basis. This sits alongside the feasibility assessment undertaken by Perception Planning. In my view, the requirement for a Cultural Impact Assessment is imperative for the purposes of informing decision makers. I understand DOC is engaging further with Ngāti Rangi on this matter to ensure an appropriate contribution is made by tangata whenua, in a way that informs the development project prior to project commissioning.

The landscape assessment undertaken by Mr Hart and ecological assessment by Mr Singers assist decision makers with the clarity of their recommendations. Both independent experts recommended the development of the link and loop tracks on the basis that park values could be sustained. Both authors identified concerns with development of the track network from Turoa through to the steep section of Blyth Track. The impacts on geology, flora and fauna are well described in their reports. Mr Singers expressed particular concern about the Turoa to Waitonga Falls section and similarly for the current route through the steeper parts of Blyth Track. I note that he has recommended that the proposal be declined for these sections. It is my view that the amended policy provides for the concerns raised by Mr Singers and Mr Hart. A precautionary, avoidance based approach must be maintained for sites described as containing superlative natural phenomena, exceptional natural beauty and values of outstanding universal significance.

11.4 Feasibility Assessments, Funding and Sustainability of the Project

There is a growing body of skills, expertise and resourcing within the broader community to undertake recreation projects of the type described in this report. Many of the submitters, including NGOs and community groups, are heavily involved in projects of this type. That experience and involvement is

Planning Assessment page249 20 Partial Review - TNPMP

reflected in much of the sentiment expressed in submissions. In particular, the issues raised by submitters include:

• the structure, make up and operation of the community entity; • the skills and critical mass of participants within the entity, to build and operate the track;

• the ability of the entity to secure funding in the many tens if not low hundreds of thousands of dollars for annual maintenance (it is recognised that much of that contribution will come from in- kind and sweat equity);

• the ability of the entity to control mountain bike use, and in particular e-bike use on the trail network;

• the ability of the entity to maintain an assurance of public access to the track network, free of charge.

DOC is supportive of the track development project and is facilitating the plan change process as its current contribution. Operational staff have provided limited project oversight and expert advice to the project. In the event the project is undertaken by a suitably qualified external party, DOC will have a close relationship to ensure the highest standard of development and operation. The existing policies of the Plan with respect to physical works will help in this regard.

DOC does not currently intend to be a funder for the project and has set no conservation funding targets. However, the Crown via MBIE has made a substantial commitment in excess of $2 million to assist with track development. DOC’s resources are fully committed to the maintenance, operation, and restoration of existing infrastructure within Tongariro National Park.

The current entity for the project is the Te Ara Mangawhero Advisory Group, which operates under the umbrella of Ohakune 2000 Incorporated. This parent group provided much of the momentum, drive, energy and resource for the development of the Old Coach Road, as it is experienced by visitors today. Both by way of submission, participation in the advisory group for the project, and contributions to oral hearings, it is clear there is a strong core group motivated to develop the track network on the southwestern flanks of Mt Ruapehu. It is not yet possible to determine the resourcing available to this group. That is understandable, given the stage the project is currently at. I note the support of the successful Bike Taupo, RDC, and broader regional economic development organisations to the project.

The amended policy framework provides for the confidence required to support this project. In particular, the requirement for baseline ecological assessment, DOC oversight, formalised structures and concession arrangements with an appropriately qualitied provider, and security for Park users should give decision makers confidence to make a determination the project can be developed on a staged basis.

11.5 Is Road Safety the Driver for the Mountain Bike Track?

It is clear that road safety is not the primary driver for the proposal to develop the track network envisaged by the partial plan review – in particular the Ohakune Mountain Road section. Until recently, this has been the contention of the project parties. I understand there is now broad acceptance this is now not the case.

Planning Assessment page250 21 Partial Review - TNPMP

The material provided by RDC and road crash statistics for the Ohakune Mountain Road do not indicate a problem with pedestrian vs car, or cyclist vs car. Equally there is no other available record of an emerging trend or pattern over time, with respect to either pedestrian or cyclist use of the road.

There has been an over-reliance on this element of the project to mitigate potential impacts of the track development itself.

It is entirely understandable the road management authority sees significant benefit in separating walkers and cyclists from the Ohakune Mountain Road. NZTA has offered a significant contribution to track construction with this outcome in mind. As I identified earlier in my report, there is a complementary relationship between the upgrading work being undertaken on the mountain road, and the concept for a separate, shared-use track.

11.6 What is the Place of E-Bikes within Tongariro National Park?

The question of providing for e-bikes within Tongaririo National Park is a core matter being addressed by the Partial Plan Review. Consideration of e-bikes occurs in a climate where the community at large is only just coming to terms with use of mountain bikes on formed and maintained tracks within National Parks. For example, the Heaphy Track has taken in excess of 20 years to authorise mountain bike use and legitimise for a big portion of the stakeholders with an interest in National Park management and use.

DOC has developed e-bike guidelines along with an interpretation of those guidelines for public conservation land. The NZCA is currently confirming its position with respect to e-bikes and it is understood that without the support of the Authority the proposal cannot be sustained. In my view, it is important that the NZCA’s position is nationally consistent and that the Department avoids site by site analysis in the absence of general policy.

It is inappropriate to expect DOC to develop a position with respect to e-bikes site by site until a clear framework for decision making is in place. As I have highlighted in the report, there is no evidence that asserts the impact on the environment as a consequence of the use of e-bikes is greater or lesser than mountain bikes. DOC does not have a monitoring or compliance framework sufficiently robust to assess those impacts.

E-bikes are being successfully used on a large number of mountain bike tracks and trails within New Zealand, and add enormously to the experience and opportunity available to a particular set of users. Submitters to the review process have provided a diverse range of views, as can be expected. I am particularly mindful of the feedback from user groups and mountain bike advocacy organisations, who are strong in their caution on this issue. It is important to note the almost universal support for e-bikes on the lower trail network (below Waitonga Falls) and recognise it is likely that ebikes are already being used within the National Park.

In the event the plan is amended to allow e-bikes, they will have significant utility value for the Old Coach Road and National Park trail network, but are unlikely to have any particular value for the Turoa ski field to Ohakune Track, on the following basis:

Planning Assessment page251 22 Partial Review - TNPMP

1. Existing e-bike technology will not presently provide for the uphill ride distance to the Turoa Skifield carpark. 2. The significant majority of track users will be shuttled to the Turoa carpark for their journey downhill to Ohakune. 3. On the basis of a moderate grade (3-5%) track, the benefits of an e-bike for the top track are difficult to quantify. 4. The impacts of an e-bike are unlikely to be more or less significant than mountain bike use.

It is likely that even with the limitations of use for parts of the proposed track network that a number of riders will utilise e-bike technology as part of their overall cycle touring plans or in their use of the Mountains to Sea Track experience.

In my opinion, the present design and use of e-bikes poses no greater or lesser environmental/social impact than mountain bikes. However, the broader philosophical issues surrounding use of e-bikes in National Parks, and responses to future e-bike technology advances, will remain challenges for the Department.

11.7 Staging the Track Development Programme

It is clear from the feasibility work and submissions from the track entity, that development will need to be staged. There is significant benefit in approaching the project on this basis. In particular, the benefits from the Old Coach Road, Mangawhero Campsite and tramline network, can be fully realised by users. These track sections are likely to have the lowest impact (in terms of construction and development) and the lowest cost.

The section of track from the Waitonga Falls through to the junction of Blyth Track with the Old Coach Road loop is slightly more problematic. While the bulk of the track sits under forest canopy, and much of the lower two thirds of this section is on existing track, or disused tram lines, there is a highly sensitive portion of track to be built through the steep part of Blyth Track. It is clear that restoration and rehabilitation of existing, (and potentially unused infrastructure), should take place at the same time the track is being developed. This section constitutes a logical, second stage development. The policy proposal addresses the issues raised with respect to section 2. In particular, the requirement to preserve existing values, develop the track for shared use at a grade 2 standard, provide for a concessionaire regime to build and operate, undertake full environmental impact assessments, and develop the track network on a prioritised basis will ensure park values are provided for and visitor experiences are maximised. The concerns and recommendations identified in Singers report must be addressed prior to any track development. The conclusions he draws in terms of sensitivity of the environment associated with changing altitude, cover and geology are provided for in the policy framework and knowledge that will be generated for consideration of the track from Turoa to Blyth Track. The development and operation of the track also occurs within the broader framework of the plan with the oversight and consistent interaction with DOC staff in close proximity.

The final stage, described in the feasibility assessment, runs from the Turoa carpark to approximately Waitonga Falls. I include the section of the Round the Mountain Track, which would be diverted to the Turoa carpark, as part of this stage. The key reason for this addition is the significant walking opportunity and improvement in the visitor experience generated by the diverted Round the Mountain walking track

Planning Assessment page252 23 Partial Review - TNPMP

and redeveloped shared-use track from the Turoa carpark. There are approximately 4000 visitors per annum walking the Round the Mountain Track. In order to complete the journey, walkers are required to exit the track onto the Ohakune Mountain Road from the north or south and walk on the road alignment for approximately three kilometres. This experience is out of context with the four to five day journey around Mt Ruapehu, which for the large part of the trip is remote, secluded and remote from built infrastructure.

In the event the walking track from the north is diverted from its current alignment to terminate at the base area of Turoa Skifield, a significant opportunity is present to develop a visitor node. The current infrastructure facilities, carparking and a logical staging point are all provided at this site. In addition, the first 750 metres of any future shared use track to the south will be located on existing highly modified environments (roading, carparking, ski area).

There are substantial challenges identified in developing the shared-use track through this alpine environment. The advice of the track building experts consulted is that the track would have to be fully hardened over the entire length of this section, to avoid challenges associated with frost heave and water management. The impacts on landscape and ecology for construction and operation of a track through this section are high and are currently identified as unacceptable from an ecological perspective. The policy framework in the partial review addresses this outcome with the requirement for substantial further work, assessment of values, site-specific design and a staged approach for construction. Further, the development of this stage is unlikely to occur prior to a full review of the management plan at which time further community input involvement of a new governance entity and learnings from the first stage projects must be taken into account.

12 Conclusions

1. The partial review of the Tongariro National Park Management Plan is warranted in the light of the very high level of public support, the opportunities presented by the shared use track proposal and the opportunity for funding that may allow development to occur on a sustainable basis.

2. The opinions formed in this report are a consequence of engagement with DOC staff, industry experts, observation of the opinions expressed by submitters and my experience in parks management over a long period.

3. The framework of the National Parks Act, Conservation Act, CMS and Plan provide a particularly high threshold for development activity within TNP. The legislative and plan principals are well aligned to ensure there is no loss of natural values, and that visitor use is consistent for the purpose for which the park is set aside.

4. The focus of recent work for this project with respect to planning, ecological assessment and landscape review has addressed potential challenges posed by the project.

5. While DOC has obtained the best monitoring data available to inform this project, the amended policy framework directs baseline construction and operational monitoring. This work should be done in order to allow the staged development of the track network and consideration of the Turoa to Waitonga Falls and Waitonga Falls to Blyth Track sections.

Planning Assessment page253 24 Partial Review - TNPMP

6. With the recommended staged development of the project, substantial risks are removed with regards to impact on park values. The work proposed will be commenced on previously disturbed sites where existing visitor opportunities will be directly enhanced.

7. Public access to the track network should be maintained, free of charge.

8. It is important that in the event the NZCA makes a change to allow for mountain biking and e-bikes, that the group charged with developing the track network can demonstrate a sustainable model for the track operation and its funding. The entity must be set up for success, as the consequences of failure could be significant. This may include loss of park values in the short, medium and long- term, impacts on visitor experience, and adverse financial impacts on DOC to manage the facility.

9. With respect to tangata whenua interests, the Crown has a clear obligation to engage with iwi. It has done so to date in good faith and should engage with tangata whenua as a Treaty partner prior to a determination being made.

10. With respect to road safety, there may be significant safety benefits that accrue into the future as a consequence of the current road upgrade programme and a separated cycle/walking track. Those benefits have not been thoroughly assessed. In my view, it cannot be considered the primary driver for the track. The proposal must stand on the basis that it provides an experience consistent with park values.

11. With the amendments proposed at Annex 5, the plan will provide for tightly constrained mountain biking on named tracks and will require further work to be undertaken before a track is established or e-biking is provided for on the Turoa to Waitonga Falls and Waitonga Falls to Blyth Track sections.

12. With respect to e-bikes, this assessment and the conclusions drawn have relied upon the Department’s e-bike guidelines, and analysis of submissions within the hearing process.

13. A set of detailed recommendations and requirements for any agreement between a community entity and DOC for the operation of the track, are to be developed within a formalised concession agreement or other such authorisation, and implemented through formal works approval processes.

Planning Assessment page254 25 Partial Review - TNPMP New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.18.1 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Warren Parker, NZCA Chair

Subject: Chair’s Report ______

1. I had the pleasure of representing the NZCA at the launch of Te Kawa o Te Urewera on 14 September at Tuhoe’s headquarters in Taneatua. The official launch was preceded by a 45-minute helicopter flight up the Waimana Valley to Maungapōhatu and returning via Ruatahuna and the Ruatoki Valley. Magnificent scenery and a reminder of the very rugged terrain and challenge facing Te Urewera Board and management in addressing predators and weeds. Evidence of the March and April floods was on full display with huge volumes of sediment along the valley floors, large slips and eroded river banks (another reminder of the impending difficulties for the Department and others in managing the effects of climate change). Minister Finlayson launched Te Kawa noting his work with the Tuhoe settlement and the culmination of this document was the highpoint thus far in his 12-year political career. Rt Hon Jim Bolger and Tamati Kruger spoke on behalf of the Te Urewera Board. As members recall, Te Kawa breaks new ground in that it is “about the management of people for the benefit of the land – it is not a land management plan”. Rick and I had the opportunity to review the near final version and assess the adjustments in response to the NZCA’s feedback and comply with the National Park’s Act. I will provide a verbal update on our email response to the CEO, Kirsti Luke. We wish Tuhoe well with Te Kawa and the development of annual operating plans that will support the achievement of the tribe’s aspirations for Te Urewera. 2. Final interviews for the Assistant to the Executive Officer were held on 19 September in Wellington. I assisted Rick with these – by the time of the October meeting the appointed candidate will be known. 3. The new Government may be confirmed by the time of the October meeting. We will be finalising the draft NZCA’s Briefing for Incoming Ministers (BIM) at the meeting – please give some further thought to the advice we provide. 4. The October meeting will be held in Rotorua with a field trip to Minginui and stop points along the way highlighting features of conservation management and geothermal tourism. The meeting agenda will include a further update on the tourism strategy and a strategic discussion with DD-G Mike Slater on land management. The latter provides us the opportunity to stand back and reflect on the Department’s overall portfolio, what it might ideally look like in say 2030 and the actions necessary to get there. The review of the General Policy for National Parks, which we will be kicking off at this meeting under Mark’s oversight, will be an important element in shaping this future for lands in National Parks.

DOC-3168246 Warren Parker October 2017 255

DOC-3168246 Warren Parker October 2017 256 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.18.2a Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Mick Clout

Subject: Waikato Conservation Board liaison report

Background/Introduction I attended the August meeting of the Waikato Conservation Board, held at the DOC office in Hamilton on 23 August 2017.

Details/Comment Items on the agenda included: • Election of new Chairperson • Operations Director’s report • Briefing from Walking Access Commission • Maungatautari briefing • Briefing from the QE 11 National Trust • Predator Free 2050 Following the appointment of Mark Brough (previous WCB Chair) to the NZCA, an election was held for a new WCB Chair. The person appointed as Chair was Kevin Robinson, who has served two terms on the WCB. David Spiers (Operations Director) reported on freshwater conservation, including approval of funding for Lake Whangape restoration and issues associated with sediment flowing from Lake Waikare to Whangamarino. He also noted that compliance enforcement associated with whitebait harvesting is a major part of overall DOC compliance costs. Support for the use of 1080 in pest control in the WCB region is generally high, including in relation to two planned airdrops on the Coromandel peninsula, where 80% of adjacent landowners have apparently requested extension onto their land. In the Kauaeranga Valley there may be permanent road closure due to slips, affecting access to Pinnacles Hut etc. The WCB received a briefing from Felicity Brough (Walking Access Commission), who explained the walking access mapping system. Melissa Sinton spoke about developments and challenges in running the Maungataurari Sanctuary, which has a 47km fence costing c. $500k/annum to maintain. Melissa Sinton (Waitomo/Otararahanga regional representative for the QE 11 Trust) also gave a presentation about the role of the QE 11 Trust, and the process for establishing covenants for perpetual protection of valuable habitats on private land.

257 A ‘Predator Free 2050’ event was held at the University of Waikato on the evening preceding the WCB meeting. The Minister of Conservation (Maggie Barry) spoke at this event, which was attended by several WCB members. There was also discussion of Predator Free 2050 at the WCB meeting itself. The topic of Waikato Conservation Board annual reports to the NZCA was briefly discussed. Assurance was given by DOC management that the 2015/2016 report will be submitted shortly. A group of WCB members has been chosen to help finalise the 2016/2017 report by 30 September. From now on, the annual WCB report will be a standard agenda item. The next Waikato Conservation Board meeting is scheduled for 27/28 November at Coromandel.

258 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 157.19 Meeting No. 157

REPORT

Meeting Date: 2 and 3 October 2017

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Correspondence

NZCA Strategic (K) NZCA’s performance Priority and/or the Relevant DOC SOI Goal

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Receive the inwards correspondence, and b) Approve the outwards correspondence

Context Attached is the correspondence schedule for the Authority’s inwards and outwards mail since the last meeting. The mail log is emailed weekly to members, giving members the opportunity to request copies of correspondence. The correspondence is available for inspection at each Authority meeting.

DOCCM-2551407 259

DOCCM-2551407 260 NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (NZCA) MAIL LOG FOR PERIOD 22 JULY TO 15 SEPTEMBER 2017

INWARDS & OUTWARDS CORRESPONDENCE

INWARDS CORRESPONDENCE Date Received From Topic Comment/Status 27 July 2017 Mook Hohneck, CEO Thanking NZCA for their FYI Ngati Manuhiri comments on the Te Hauturu o Settlement Trust, and Toi Nature Reserve Lyn Mayes, Chair Conservation Management Auckland Conservation Plan Board 4 August 2017 Hon Maggie Barry, Cc of letter to Bob Dickinson, FYI Minister of Conservation Chair of NMCB, replying to the issues they raised re the relocation of salmon farms in the Marlborough Sounds 8 August 2017 Canterbury Aoraki Agenda for 16 August 2017 FYI Conservation Board meeting 11 August 2017 Wellington Conservation Agenda for 18 and 19 August FYI Board 2017 meeting 11 August 2017 Hon Maggie Barry, Reply to NZCA letter of 19 July FYI Minister of Conservation re the Remarkables National Park proposal 14 August 2017 John White, Client Re the new NZCA FYI, letter forwarded to Manager, Perpetual representative on the Stout Chair for a response Guardians Trust Advisory Board, and advising of next meeting date for the Board 15 August 2017 Tom Crick, Comms Reply to NZCA letters of 21 and FYI Advisor, PCE’s Office 27 July 2017 15 August 2017 Chris Horne and others Cc of letter to Mike Tana, FYI Mayor of Porirua, and Councillors – complaining about works in Porirua Scenic Reserve 16 August 2017 Carl McGuiness, Acting Reply to NZCA letter of 27 July FYI DD-G Operations, DOC seeking a review of the West Coast whitebait regulations 18 August 2017 Lyn Mayes, Chair, Cc of letter to Stephen Town, FYI, forwarded to Chair Auckland Conservation CE Auckland Council, Board supporting their kauri dieback programme 28 August 2018 Southland Conservation Agenda for 6 September 2017 FYI Board meeting 28 August 2017 Canterbury Aoraki Confirmed Minutes of 14 June FYI Conservation Board 2017 meeting 28 August 2017 Hon Maggie Barry, Acknowledging NZCA letter FYI Minister of Conservation recommending addition of Yorke Creek to Paparoa NP 1 September 2017 Taranaki-Whanganui Cc of letter to Hon Nicky FYI Conservation Board Wagner with their appeal against the EPA decision on the TTR seabed mining 4 September 2017 Tamati Kruger, Chair Te Reply to the NZCA letter of 6 FYI – forwarded to Urewera Board July 2017 with submission on Chair Te Kawa

DOCCM-2551407 261 8 September 2017 Kirsti Luke, CE of Te Uru Inviting final comments on Te Sent to Chair directly – Taumatua Kawa o Te Urewera, as FYI approved by the Board on 6 September 11 September 2017 Mike Slater, DD-G Reply to NZCA letter of 21 July FYI – forwarded to Operations, DOC 2017 re improved coordination Chair, Jan Riddell and of NHF acquisitions and land Gerry McSweeney categorisation by DOC 13 September 2017 West Coast Tai Poutini Agenda for 22 September 2017 FYI Conservation Board meeting 15 September 2017 Katherine Gordon, OTS, Follow-up to their meeting with FYI – forwarded to and Jamie Tuuta, Nga Iwi NZCA on 8 August 2017 Chair o Taranaki

OUTWARDS CORRESPONDENCE Date Sent To Topic Comment 27 July 2017 Lou Sanson, D-G DOC Seeking a review of the West FYI Coast Whitebait Fishing Regulations 27 July 2017 Dr Jan Wright, PCE Requesting the issue of FYI whitebait protection and management be added to list of priorities for the new PCE 8 August 2017 Ministry for Primary NZCA submission on the FYI Industries Proposed NES for Marine Aquaculture 16 August 2017 John White, Client Advising that Rau Kirikiri is the FYI Manager, Perpetual new NZCA representative for Guardians the Stout Trust 16 August 2017 Don Hammond, Chair, Thanking him for attending the FYI Game Animal Council August NZCA meeting 16 August 2017 Dr Mike Legge, Chair Acknowledging receipt of the FYI WCTP Conservation 206-17 Annual Report Board 16 August 2017 Katherine Gordon and Thanking them for attending the FYI John Wood, OTS August NZCA meeting 17 August 2017 Lisa Barrett, CE OIO, and Thanking them for attending the FYI Jerome Sheppard, DCE August NZCA meeting LINZ 24 August 2017 Environmental Protection Submission on the Water FYI Agency Conservation Order for the Ngaruroro ad Clive Rivers 24 August 2017 Maree Baker-Galloway, Cc of the NZCA submission on FYI Anderson Lloyd the Water Conservation Order for the Ngaruroro ad Clive Rivers 31 August 2017 Jamie Tuuta, Nga Iwi o Thanking them for attending the FYI Taranaki August NZCA meeting 5 September 2017 Laura Mills, Chief Reply to her OIA request for FYI – sent via email Reporter, Greymouth material relating to consultation Star over the Paparoa Track 11 September 2017 Lou Sanson, D-G DOC Advising of LINZ offer regarding FYI transfer of riverbeds to DOC 11 September 2017 Doug Maxwell, Chair of Reply to his letter of 17 July re FYI the South Island WARO issues they have with DOC and Association GAC

DOCCM-2551407 262 263 264