New Zealand Conservation Authority Te Pou Atawhai Taiao O Aotearoa

New Zealand Conservation Authority Te Pou Atawhai Taiao o Aotearoa

Meeting 7 and 8 June 2016

Agenda and meeting papers

Photo: Blue Range Hut, Tararua Forest Park Photographer: Beverley Bacon, Department of Conservation

NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (NZCA) TE POU ATAWHAI TAIAO O AOTEAROA 7 & 8 June 2016 One hundred and forty ninth meeting, to be held at Conservation House, 18 -32 Manners St, Wellington, starting at 10.00am.

# 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 April 2016 D K 3-12 4.2 – approve “in-committee” minutes for the meeting held in April 2016 (expected to be taken “in-committee” with D K 13-18 public excluded) Status report – note progress in actioning resolutions 5 I K 19-28 from the meeting held on April 2016 NZCA work programme 2016-2017 – summary of 6 I K 29-30 planned elements Director-General’s report – Lou Sanson (expected to be 7 I E 31-50 taken “in-committee” with public excluded) 8 Canterbury (Waitaha) CMS – Approve D A 51-52 9 Otago CMS – Approve D A 51-52 10 Southland Murihiku CMS – Approve D A 51-52 11 Management Planning Update I A/B 53-68 Paparoa National Park Management Plan (approval 12 A B 69-74 process) Kahurangi National Park Management Plan 13 A B 75-96 amendment 14 CMS Rapid Prototype template update – Marie Long A A 97-98 15 Stewardship land: Bi-Monthly Update I C 99-104 Conservation Law Reform update – Sarah Bagnall 16 I J 105-116 (expected to be taken “in-committee” with public excluded) DOC’s Risk Management Framework – update 17 I E 117-122 Christeen Mackenzie 18 S4/Maori session follow-up I D 123-124 19 Whitebait – clearly establish NZCA’s next steps I B/D 125-132 20 Policy review A K 133-136 DOC science Strategy and Science Roadmap – Ken 21 I E 137-140 Hughey 22 Submissions to ratify D F/I 141-232 23 Papers for noting – Paula Warren I E/I 233-236 23.1 Plant Protection Legislation - - - 23.2 Review of Freshwater Fisheries Legislations 1983 - - - 24 Members’ Environmental Scan I E -

DOCCM-2720698 25 Representation and Liaison - - - 25.1 Chair’s report I K 237-238 25.2 Conservation Board liaison reports I K 239-246 26 Conservation Board Chairs’ conference A J 247-248 Conservation board letters of expectation (Martin 27 A J 249-250 Kessick) Statutory Managers – update on their role with 28 A J 251-252 Conservation Boards and relationship with NZCA Correspondence – receive the inwards and approve the 29 D K 253-256 outwards correspondence Meeting close

Strategic Priorities A Conservation Management Strategies B National Park Management Plans C Land Status change e.g. Stewardship land D Treaty of Waitangi 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 Game Changers for Conservation: Pests/weeds/biosecurity G Marine H Climate Change I Rivers and Freshwater J Effectiveness and efficiency of the Department’s conservation management K NZCA’s performance

Meeting timetable

Tuesday 7 June Wednesday 8 June Start: 10am Start: 8:30am Lunch: 12:30pm Morning tea: 10:00am Afternoon tea: 3:15pm Close and lunch: 12:00pm Dinner: 5.30pm, Green Ribbon Awards

DOCCM-2720698 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.3 Meeting No. 149

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

For meeting on 7 and 8 June 2016

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

New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.4.1 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016 meeting

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: 4 and 5 April 2016 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 4 and 5 April 2016 minutes as a true and accurate record.

Context The draft minutes from the Authority meeting on 4 and 5 April 2016 were circulated to members by email on 20 April for comment. Once the minutes are approved they will be uploaded to the NZCA website www.conservationauthority.org.nz

DOCCM-2639479 3

New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) Te Pou Atawhai Taiao O Aotearoa 4 April 2016 meeting

148th meeting, held at 10:00am, The Granary, Founders Heritage Park, Nelson

Unconfirmed minutes

Present: Warren Parker, Chairperson David Barnes Jo Breese Mark Christensen Mick Clout Waana Davis Judy Hellstrom Rau Kirikiri Devon McLean Gerry McSweeney Jan Riddell Mike Simm

Apologies: Sandra Cook

In attendance: Rick McGovern-Wilson, Executive Officer, NZCA, Department of Conservation (DOC) Katrina Edwards, NZCA servicing staff, DOC Lou Sanson, Director-General, DOC, for part of the meeting Tata Lawton, Deputy-Director General, Kaupapa Atawhai, DOC, for part of the meeting Ken Hughey, Chief Science Advisor, DOC, for part of the meeting Katherine Hughes, Management Planner, DOC, for part of the meeting Helen Chapman, National Advisor Management Planning, DOC, for part of the meeting Anna Cameron, Planning Manager, Christchurch, DOC, for part of the meeting

Rau Kirikiri opened the meeting with a karakia at 10am.

Agenda item 1: Welcome and Chairperson’s introduction The Chair welcomed the DOC staff who were in attendance and overviewed the meeting, with key issues being: understanding the local Nelson Marlborough setting for conservation issues, the three South Island conservation management strategies, and the strategy discussion on the role of the Authority in the post-Treaty settlement era.

Agenda item 2: Apologies Apologies for the meeting were received from Sandra Cook.

DOC-2753217 5

Agenda item 3: Conflicts of interest for the meeting Jo Breese declared a conflict of interest for agenda item 11 “Southland Murihiku Conservation Management Strategy (CMS)”. Jo was engaged to provide independent advice to a client on the Southland Murihiku CMS during the initial preparation of a draft. David Barnes, Jo Breese, Mick Clout, and Judy Hellstrom declared a conflict of interest for agenda item 12 “Addition to Abel Tasman National Park”, as they had contributed to the Give-A-Little fundraising campaign that helped to purchase the land at Awaroa spit. It was discussed how to manage the conflicts of interest and it was decided that these members could participate in discussions for the respective items, but not vote.

The Authority resolved to move “into-committee” for agenda items 4.2, 7, 12 and 15. Devon McLean/Judy Hellstrom/carried

Agenda item 4.1: approve minutes for the meeting held on 1 & 2 February 2016 The Authority resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 1 & 2 February 2016 as a true and accurate record, subject to a correction under item 28, to include the missing words regarding the topic of the letter. Devon McLean/David Barnes/carried

The Authority resolved to move “into-committee” for agenda item 4.2. Judy Hellstrom/Mick Clout/carried

The Authority resolved to move out of “committee”. Judy Hellstrom/Mick Clout/carried

Agenda item 5: Status report The Status report was discussed. It was agreed to authorise the Chair to approve the Code of Practice once it was completed. For completeness, members requested the inclusion of a disciplinary mechanism if a situation arose where there were concerns regarding the performance of the Chairperson. Other items were discussed from the Status Report. Deputy Director-General Operations (Mike Slater) will attend future Authority meetings for the Director-General’s item, so that he can speak to operational items. Noting the concerns expressed by several Conservation Boards, whitebait will be kept on the Authority’s agenda, to establish whether there are additional steps that it can take.

Agenda item 6: NZCA work programme 2016-2017 Rick McGovern-Wilson spoke to the work programme and provided updates that will be included in the workplan at the June meeting. The Authority identified that the conservation boards’ Letters of Expectation should be sent to the conservation boards for 1 July and ideally should be discussed at the Authority’s June meeting. Preparation for the Authority’s meeting in Taranaki was discussed including issues of current interest to the Taranaki/Whanganui Conservation Board such as beehives,

DOC-2753217 6

whitebait, the Pouakai Crossing, preparation of the conservation management strategy and implications of Treaty Settlements. Action: Jo Breese will work with the Taranaki/Whanganui Conservation Board to confirm topics that the Authority and the Board can focus on during the Authority’s visit.

Agenda item 7: Director-General’s report The Authority resolved to move “into-committee” for agenda item 7 and agenda item 12. David Barnes/Jan Riddell/carried Authority resolved to move out of “committee”. Judy Hellstrom/Mick Clout/carried

Agenda item 9: Canterbury (Waitaha) CMS, agenda item 10: Otago CMS, and agenda item 11: Southland Murihiku CMS The revised wording for the Canterbury (Waitaha), Otago and Southland Murihiku Conservation Management Strategies, regarding the relationship between the Department and Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu, had been received three working days prior to the meeting. It was agreed that the respective conservation boards must be provided with adequate opportunity to review the revised wording. The Authority resolved that a) opportunity be provided to the Canterbury Aoraki, Otago, and Southland conservation boards to review and provide feedback to the Authority on the revised Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu wording for the respective conservation management strategies b) the Authority will consider this feedback and will seek the advice of its Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu member (Sandra Cook) c) the Authority will review the final proposed wording for clarity and unintended consequences (Rau Kirikiri and Rick McGovern-Wilson) and discuss the final proposed wording with the Department, with the final wording going to the whole Authority d) the Authority will provide the final wording to the Minister Judy Hellstrom/David Barnes/carried Southland Murihiku CMS Chair of the NZCA Southland CMS Committee, Judy Hellstrom advised that, aside from the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu wording, the snipe ‘flushing’ is the only ongoing issue. However concerns regarding this seem to be based on a misunderstanding. The Committee is opposed to allowing a concession for snipe ‘flushing’, which is deliberately disturbing wildlife and under the Wildlife Act is illegal. The Committee is not against viewing snipe from the boardwalk. If snipe flushing was allowed, it would set a precedent for concessions for disturbance of wildlife. The Chair of the Southland Conservation Board, has investigated the existing concession thoroughly with Department staff (including documentation for it), which was first issued in 2008 (for the snipe flushing). The Authority agreed with the Committee that, consistent with the Wildlife Act, snipe flushing should not be allowed, and that the wording of the draft CMS be changed so as to not affect the viewing of snipe (without the deliberate disturbance by flushing).

DOC-2753217 7

Otago CMS Chair of the NZCA Otago CMS Committee, David Barnes advised that there were four issues outstanding and that a satisfactory resolution to each of these should be possible to work through with the Conservation Board. Canterbury (Waitaha) CMS Chair of the NZCA Canterbury CMS Committee, Mark Christensen advised that other than the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu wording, there are no outstanding issues for the Canterbury (Waitaha) CMS. The Authority resolved to thank everyone involved in the CMS process and to delegate the approval of the three South Island CMSs to the Authority between meetings via email, subject to the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu wording being finalised by the process already set out and the outstanding issues for the individual CMSs as described above being resolved. Judy Hellstrom/David Barnes/carried The meeting adjourned at 12:25pm for lunch and reconvened at 12:55pm.

Agenda item 13: Management planning update The new National Advisor Management Planning, Helen Chapman, introduced herself. The Chair introduced the item by highlighting to Helen how important her report is to the Authority. The Authority requested scheduled plan due dates to be given, even if they are subject to change. There was discussion on the Rapid CMS Prototype which had delayed the East Coast Hawke’s Bay and Wellington Conservation Management Strategies. Members acknowledged that aspects of the rapid prototype were still under development and reiterated what the Authority was expecting to see from this process; namely, • Alignment with the DOC Strategy, stretch goals etc • Incorporation of national issues, with the local context of how these will be implemented (e.g. Battle for our Birds, War on Weeds, and especially wilding conifers) • The need for clear milestones, with measurable targets • Ensure the appropriate test is applied with respect to revocation and rationalisation of conservation management plans that would be replaced by the CMS • They must be operationally useful for Department staff, and have effective reporting mechanisms in place so that progress can be monitored. The Authority wanted assurance that the Canterbury Aoraki Conservation Board and Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu would be represented on the Aoraki Mount Cook and Westland Tai Poutini National Park Management Plan review governance groups. Helen agreed, and also advised that the rapid prototype developed for the Paparoa National Park Management Plan review would be applied to Aoraki Mount Cook and Westland Tai Poutini as well. Helen advised that there is work being undertaken regarding the conflict of interest the commercial arms of iwi organisations have when the Department consults with them. Plan changes via partial reviews were discussed, as were the revocation of management plans versus establishment of management plans in Treaty Settlement processes.

DOC-2753217 8

Agenda item 14: Tahr Management Plan DOC Departmental Science Advisor Ken Hughey spoke to this item, which was in response to the Authority’s letter querying the ongoing cost and need for the Tahr Management Plan in its present form. The Department is concerned to ensure the Tahr Management Plan is being implemented with an adaptive management approach as originally intended. Elaine Wright will be leading the work to monitor the conservation estate (the impacts of Tahr) and the Tahr themselves. The Department will approach the Game Animal Council to support some of this work. The Authority resolved to move “into-committee” for agenda item 15. Judy Hellstrom/Mick Clout/carried

The Authority resolved to move out of committee. Judy Hellstrom/Mick Clout/carried

Agenda item 19: Climate change DOC Departmental Science Advisor Ken Hughey spoke to this item. He agreed with the Authority’s concerns on the need for a more joined-up, whole of Department approach to the challenges and opportunities posed by Climate Change. While there was a lot of good work happening around the Department on climate change, there was an opportunity now to bring all of it together and specifically aligned under one Deputy- Director General.

Agenda item 18: Science roadmap DOC Departmental Science Advisor Ken Hughey spoke to this item and advised of the timeframes for public comment and reporting to Ministers. It was agreed that the Authority would comment by email between meetings. Iwi consultation was discussed, and this is yet to occur. The distinct role and purpose of the science roadmap was queried compared with other science strategies for the Department and the agriculture roadmap. The science roadmap would give the Department the long term view, and the Department’s 4 year Science strategy would feed off some of the ideas of the roadmap, as well as the stretch goals.

Agenda item 17. Role of NZCA in the Post-Treaty Claims Settlement Era Deputy Director-General Kaupapa Atawhai Tumuaki, Tata Lawton spoke to this item. There was extensive discussion. Some of the topics raised and points made were: • The post-Treaty landscape is going to get more complex in the future. • This requires fresh strategic thinking about the role of the Authority – with Māori and with the Department - in the context of iwi’s aspirations for a global future? • The Authority needs to be able to tell its ‘story’ in this new context and ideally this should mirror developments in the Department. • The Authority needs to identify which key relationships it need to be establish and the individuals within groups to talk to, to identify emerging issues and opportunities. • How does the Authority/Department know when it has done a proper consultative process e.g. manuka/bees – the signs for this emergent issue were there 10 years ago. • There are opportunities to try things that haven’t been tried before. • Does the Department have the right capability in the right places to implement Treaty relationships?

DOC-2753217 9

• How will Treaty Settlements fit in with the Department’s stretch goals? • How are Treaty Settlements manifested in conservation management strategies and conservation boards? And if these are mechanism used in Settlements there is a need for a national strategy which is considered and consistent • The Department is concerned to ensure more effective monitoring of Treaty implementation and compliance with obligations

The Authority identified from the discussion some areas for further work where practical and worthwhile gains could be made relatively quickly such as: • The role of iwi nominees onto Conservation boards – some are defined by statue; others are not. Ideally should seek to avoid parallel structures that may duplicate and potentially be at odds with each other; • Strengthening the link with the Department’s Pou Tairangahau network and putting this on a more strategic footing; • Identify key iwi leaders – current and emerging – in conservation and foster relationships with these individuals. Include iwi engagement to develop such relationships as a specific part of the regional visit schedule; • Engaging with the Treaty Settlement Office • Ensuring Authority guidelines on matters important to iwi such as those for customary rights are kept up-to-date and documenting some case studies which exemplify ‘best practice’ in partnering and working with iwi on conservation matters. The meeting adjourned at 3:15pm and reconvened at 3:25pm.

Agenda item 16.2: Stewardship land Five Year Plan and agenda item 16.1: Stewardship land bi-monthly update It was asked what happens when the Department completes the work identified in the report for agenda item 16.1. Rick McGovern-Wilson advised on the Department’s process with the conservation boards where the boards are currently identifying priority areas for reclassification. The Authority’s advice to the Minister should be distributed to conservation boards for their consideration during this process. Action: Authority staff to seek update on a response from the Minister to the Authority on its Stewardship land: net conservation benefit advice and ask the Minister if the advice can be released to the conservation boards.

Agenda item 21: Freshwater submission Jan Riddell led the discussion on the Next Steps for Freshwater to gauge how the Authority felt about the proposed changes to Water Conservation Orders in particular, and other aspects of the proposed submission. The Authority set up a working group comprised of Jan Riddell, Mark Christensen and Judy Hellstrom, with assistance from Jo Breese and Devon McLean. Action: Freshwater working group to prepare a submission and circulate to all members by 15 April, for comment and feedback from members by 19 April (submission due 5pm, 22 April).

Agenda item 22: Loder cup nomination Rick McGovern-Wilson gave an update on the Loder cup nomination process.

DOC-2753217 10

Agenda item 23: Policy review The NZCA Freshwater Principles (2008) were discussed. It was agreed that the Freshwater working group will update this policy after the Authority’s submission on Next Steps for Freshwater had been finalised so that the submission, the Authority’s publication Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers, and responsibilities for freshwater under legislation can form the basis of the updated principles. The Criteria for prioritising proposals for land status change, which was endorsed by the Authority in 1999, was discussed. Action: The Authority agreed to write to the Department to request that these guidelines be updated to reflect the Authority’s advice on Stewardship land and assessing net conservation benefit (February 2016), and that the revised guidelines be provided to the Authority to endorse at its August 2016 meeting. The revised Committee Policy was discussed and an amendment agreed in the introductory paragraph. The sentence starting “This Policy” is to read “This Policy sets out guidelines on the ….”. It was agreed that the review date would be June 2018. The Authority resolved to approve the revised Committee Policy subject to the amendment described above. Warren Parker/Mick Clout/carried The Process for Preparation of Submissions was discussed. It was agreed that the review date would be June 2018. The tense in paragraph 7 needed amending. The Authority resolved to approve the revised Process for Preparation of Submissions subject to the amendment described above. Warren Parker/Mick Clout/carried

Agenda item 24: Marine protected area reforms The Authority resolved to ratify its submission on the Government’s proposed Marine Protected Areas reform. Mick Clout/David Barnes/carried The Chair acknowledged the work of Jo Breese, Sandra Cook, Mark Christensen and Judy Hellstrom on this submission.

Agenda item 25: Tradescantia beetle release The Authority resolved to ratify its letter dated 18 February 2016 to the Minister of Conservation regarding the release of the tradescantia beetle into Wairua River Government Purpose Wildlife Management Reserve, Northland, for tradescantia control purposes. Warren Parker/Waana Davis/carried The Chair thanked Mick Clout, Waana Davis, and Judy Hellstrom for their work on this.

Agenda item 27.1 Chair’s report The Chair’s report was taken as read.

Agenda item 27.2: Conservation board liaison reports The conservation board liaison reports and the NZIUCN Committee report were taken as read.

DOC-2753217 11

Mike Simm raised that at the Northland Conservation Board meeting he attended DOC staff only attended for an hour of the full day meeting. Other members advised of good attendance of conservation boards meetings by DOC staff. The two NZCA members who are also on the Nature Heritage Fund advised that the March 13 2016 Underwood Purchase 5km out of Dargaville of 342 ha of nationally rare mixed kahikatea forest and flax wetland is an outstanding example of conservation altruism by the generous elderly vendors as well as a model of partnership between Northland Fish and Game and DOC. The purchase was mentioned in Mike Simm’s Northland Conservation Board Liaison report. There was discussion on other additional points for the liaison reports, with Jo Breese advising that there is a NZ IUCN Symposium at Lincoln University on 14 April 2016 on conservation on private land. Jo also reminded members about the upcoming World Conservation Congress. Action: Authority attendance at IUCN World Conservation Congress 2016 to be added to June agenda. Action: The Authority to write a brief summary of the conservation board liaison feedback to Lou Sanson copied to Mervyn English. There was a brief discussion on the potential value of foreign direct investment for enhancing conservation in New Zealand. In this context conditions for land purchases with conservation values that go through the Overseas Investment Office process, should ideally have conditions of sale that are consistent with the Department’s stretch goals for biodiversity protection and enhancement. It was agreed a meeting with the Overseas Investment Office should be arranged to gain an understanding of present criteria. Action: The Authority to invite the head of the Overseas Investment Office to an Authority meeting.

Agenda item 28: Correspondence

The Authority resolved to receive the inwards and approve the outwards correspondence. Devon McLean/Jo Breese/carried

Agenda item 26: Members’ environmental scan No additional topics to the meeting’s agenda were raised.

Agenda item 20: Tourism Update paper expected for June meeting.

The meeting closed at 5:10pm.

DOC-2753217 12

New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.4.2 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016 meeting

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: “In-committee” 4 and 5 April 2016 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 4 and 5 April 2016 “In-committee” minutes as a true and accurate record.

DOCCM-2639479 13

14 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.5 Meeting No. 149

NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (NZCA) Meeting on 7 & 8 June 2016

Status Report as at 20 May 2016

RESPONSIBILITY TOPIC REQUIRED ACTION PROGRESS STATUS Actions arising from April 2016 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. 1. NZCA Addition to Abel To recommend acceptance of land gift Letter sent 6 April Complete Tasman National and addition to Abel Tasman National 2016 Park Park to the Minister of Conservation. 2. CMS Committees 3 South Island CMSs a) opportunity be provided to the a) Complete June 2016 agenda Canterbury Aoraki, Otago, and b) Complete item Southland conservation boards to c) Underway review and provide feedback to the d) To be actioned Authority on the revised Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu wording for the respective conservation management strategies b) the Authority will consider this feedback and will seek the advice of its Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu member (Sandra Cook) c) the Authority will review the final proposed wording for clarity and unintended consequences (Rau Kirikiri and Rick McGovern-Wilson) and discuss the final proposed wording with the Department, with the final wording going to the whole Authority

DOCCM-2766587

19 d) the Authority will provide the final wording to the Minister

• delegate the approval of the three South Island CMSs to the Authority between meetings via email, subject to the Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu wording being finalised by the process already set out and the outstanding issues for the individual CMSs as described above being resolved. 3. NZCA staff Committee Policy Revised Committee Policy approved subject to the amendment described in the minutes 4. NZCA staff Process for Revised Process for preparation of preparation of submissions approved subject to the submissions amendment described in the minutes Actions arising from February 2016 meeting. 5. NZCA staff/Devon Code of Practice Code of Practice approved subject to a Disciplinary section Been advised that McLean disciplinary mechanism being included. added. Advice NZCA/Chair does not received that have any powers to whether NZCA/Chair suspend members cannot suspend a member for a period. Final version approved Chair authorised to approve the code of practice.

For completeness, members requested the inclusion of a disciplinary mechanism if a situation arose

DOCCM-2766587

20 where there were concerns regarding the performance of the Chairperson. Actions arising from October 2015 meeting. 6. NZCA Mokihinui River Authority resolved to proceed with the Letters have gone to Awaiting response additions of the areas outlined in the DOC and West agenda paper to the Kahurangi National Coast Tai Poutini Park under Section 7 of the National Board advising of Parks Act 1980, having first ensured Oct decision, and that the Authority’s report also covers seeking more the four points raised during the information from the discussion (iwi views to be stated, Department on the biodiversity values to be reported on, four points. budget implications of change in land status, and appropriateness of current Assyst request Kahurangi National Park Management R92252 Plan). 7. Committee (Mark, Jan, Canterbury (Waitaha) Convenors to meet with conservation Committee to Agenda item at June Rau, Gerry) and all Conservation board chair/conservation board provide written report meeting NZCA members Management committee convenor, and the to NZCA at Strategy department planner, to let the meetings. conservation board and DOC know what action the NZCA is taking that affects all 3 CMSs – with a view that changes will be made by Christmas. 8. Committee (David, Otago Conservation Convenors to meet with conservation Committee to Agenda item at June Devon, Jo, Waana) and Management board chair/conservation board provide written report meeting all NZCA members Strategy committee convenor, and the to NZCA at department planner, to let the meetings. conservation board and DOC know what action the NZCA is taking that affects all 3 CMSs – with a view that changes will be made by Christmas. 9. Committee (Judy, Southland Murihiku Convenors to meet with conservation Committee to Agenda item at June Sandra, Mick, Mike) and Conservation board chair/conservation board provide written report meeting

DOCCM-2766587

21 all NZCA members Management committee convenor, and the to NZCA at Strategy department planner, to let the meetings. conservation board and DOC know what action the NZCA is taking that affects all 3 CMSs – with a view that changes will be made by Christmas.

DOCCM-2766587

Other actions (not from resolutions)

RESPONSIBILITY TOPIC REQUIRED ACTION PROGRESS STATUS

Action not started or overdue Underway or ongoing Action completed April 2016 meeting 1. NZCA Whitebait Noting the concerns expressed by June 2016 agenda item several Conversation Boards, whitebait will be kept on the Authority’s agenda, to establish whether there are additional steps that it can take. 2. NZCA Conservation Board Should be sent to the conservation June 2016 agenda item Letters of boards for 1 July and ideally should be Expectation discussed at the Authority’s June meeting. 3. Jo Breese and NZCA Taranaki/Whanganui Jo Breese will work with the Meeting organisation staff October meeting Taranaki/Whanganui Conservation ongoing prep Board to confirm topics that the Authority and the Board can focus on during the Authority’s visit. 4. DOC The role of the NZCA The Authority identified from the June 2016 agenda item in the post-Treaty discussion some areas for further work settlement era where practical and worthwhile gains could be made relatively quickly such as: • The role of iwi nominees onto Conservation boards – some are defined by statue; others are not. Ideally should seek to avoid parallel structures that may duplicate and potentially be at odds with each other; • Strengthening the link with the Department’s Pou Tairangahau

DOCCM-2766587

23 network and putting this on a more strategic footing; • Identify key iwi leaders – current and emerging – in conservation and foster relationships with these individuals. Include iwi engagement to develop such relationships as a specific part of the regional visit schedule; • Engaging with the Treaty Settlement Office • Ensuring Authority guidelines on matters important to iwi such as those for customary rights are kept up-to-date and documenting some case studies which exemplify ‘best practice’ in partnering and working with iwi on conservation matters. 5. NZCA staff Stewardship land: Seek update on a response from the Letter sent 15 April 2016 Reply received net conservation Minister to the Authority on its from MOC 23 benefit advice Stewardship land: net conservation NZCA advice given to May 2016 benefit advice, and ask the Minister if conservation boards the advice can be released. confidentially with February 2016 Chair’s letter 6. Freshwater working Next steps for Freshwater working group to prepare a Submission lodged 22 April group (Jan Riddell, Mark freshwater submission and circulate to all 2016 Christensen and Judy consultation members by 15 April, for comment and Hellstrom, with document feedback from members by 19 April assistance from Jo (submission due 5pm, 22 April). Breese and Devon McLean) 7. Freshwater working NZCA Freshwater Freshwater working group will update group (Jan Riddell, Mark Principles (2008) this policy after the submission on Next

Christensen and Judy Steps for Freshwater had been finalised Hellstrom, with so that the submission, the Authority’s

DOCCM-2766587

24 assistance from Jo publication Protecting New Zealand’s Breese and Devon Rivers, and responsibilities for McLean) freshwater under legislation can form the basis of the updated principles. 8. DOC Criteria for prioritising Write to DOC to request that these Assyst request R92259 proposals for land guidelines be updated to reflect the status change NZCA’s advice on Stewardship land and assessing net conservation benefit (February 2016), and that the revised guidelines be provided to the Authority to endorse at its August 2016 meeting. 9. NZCA Action: Authority attendance at IUCN World Conservation Congress 2016 to be added to June agenda. 10. Action: The Authority to write a brief summary of the conservation board

liaison feedback to Lou Sanson copied to Mervyn English. 11. Action: The Authority to invite the head of the Overseas Investment Office to an Authority meeting. 12. Helen Chapman Management Clarify where we are at with the Assyst request R92255 Planning Update Hawke's Bay and Wellington CMS June meeting Presentation on rapid prototyping

Aoraki/Westland NPMPs: Ensure Chair of Conservation Board (and Ngai Tahu) is involved in the Governance group, seek NZCA advice on how NZCA best wants to be kept informed of contentious issues.

Provide clarity about the role of iwi in drafting plans (commercial versus governance arms).

DOCCM-2766587

25 February 2016 meeting 13. NZCA Pike29 Track Authority to write to the Director- June 2016 agenda item General, DOC, copied to the Minister of Conservation and Acting Minister of Conservation regarding process. 14. NZCA staff Work programme Update work programme and add strategic priority work. 15. NZCA staff 3 South Island CMSs Rick to draft the Foreword for the three CMSs on behalf of the Chair 16. Ken Hughey, DOC DOC science work Ken Hughey to provide a written report Emailed request for the April meeting, with this topic also 23/02/2016 to be discussed more substantively at the June 2016 meeting (as the April Bruce Parkes (DD-G S&P) 2016 agenda is already full). has deferred the response 17. NZCA staff Climate change • Rick to look at the ETS material on the MfE website, with a view to making a submission. • Put the IPCC5 Report into Dropbox. 18. DOC Tourism The Department (through Bruce Parkes Emailed request and Gavin Walker) to provide the 23/02/2016 Authority with a report on the work DOC Paper to be presented at is undertaking on the issues discussed August 2016 meeting during the Tourism item December 2015 meeting 19. NZCA Creation of new The Authority agreed that it would write Letter sent 26 May 2016 conservation boards to Hon Nicky Wagner and the Minister from Treaty for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations settlement process regarding this topic. 20. Warren Parker, Mike CMS monitoring Warren Parker, Mike Simm and Rick Letter to be drafted Simm and Rick McGovern-Wilson are to draft a letter to McGovern-Wilson Mike Slater regarding ensuring implementation of CMSs is resourced. 21. DOC DOC science The Authority requested a paper Requested 05/01/2016 for outlining the science work DOC is April 2016 meeting undertaking, what is externally Resent 23/02/2016 with

DOCCM-2766587

26 procured, and DOC’s relationship to the requests from Feb 2016 National Science Challenges. meeting 22. NZCA Findings of literature The Authority agreed to write to DOC June 2016 agenda item review of question regarding taking the findings of this “does visiting the research into account when setting DOC estate lead to strategy and investment priorities. increased interest in conservation?” 23. DOC Marine Update on marine protection and the Next update December strategy for achieving 2016. representativeness every 12 months, or sooner if an immediate issue.

August 2015 meeting 24. Servicing Staff Customary use Requested that • Link emailed to • the Authority’s 1999 publication members 07/08/2015 Maori Customary Use of Native • Previously circulated Birds, Plants and Other Traditional • To be updated as part Materials and of NZCA Policy • 2007 Giving effect to section 4 of updates the Conservation Act 1987 be circulated to members 25. Christeen Mackenzie Risk management The NZCA requested an update on risk June 2016 agenda item framework management in 6 – 10 months time. 26. Allan Ross Island biosecurity The NZCA requested an annual update Possible media opportunity on island biosecurity from the for NZCA Department. Next update August 2016 Circulate the Strategy and presentation to the members. June 2015 meeting. 27. Gerry McSweeney, Battle for our Birds • A press release about the positive In context of El Niño, Chair and EO outcomes of Battle for our Birds and bigger mast for 2016, and 1080 Northland Forests drone • Writing to the Director-General footage.

DOCCM-2766587

27 regarding funding PAPP research. PAPP is considered to have high PAPP letter sent promise for pest control, but it 20/11/2015 needs to get to a field ready stage. The NZCA acknowledges that there will be trade-offs in reprioritising additional tools in the ‘battle’.

DOCCM-2766587

28 NZCA Work Programme 2015-2017 Rolling 1 year work programme

Agenda paper type 7-8 June 2016 1-2 August 2016 3-4 October 2016 5-6 December 2016 7-8 February 2017 Wellington Wellington Taranaki Christchurch Strategic Te Urewera Plan - NZCA consulted Te Hauturu o Toi CMP - NZCA Follow up discussion on Aoraki/Mount Cook NPMP Te Hauturu o Toi CMP - NZCA at the pre-approval state, mid 2016 consulted at the pre-approval Climate Change and the comment to be sought stage, early 2016 implications for DOC infrstructure NZCA planning and review session Cultural materials and section 4 Presentation on the draft SOI Westland Tai Poutini NPMP discussion (and report on and 4-Year Plan Outside In Project from DOC in respect to culteral materials)

Update on the Environment and Role of NZCA in post-Treaty Report on DOC's Science Update on marine protection and Conservation Scvience Roadmap Settlement era and the Stocktake - Bruce Parkes the strategy for achieving potential changing shape of representativeness every 12 National Parks - follow up from months, or sooner if an immediate April issue.

Update on the Department's Risk Follow up on the work DOC is Management Framework already undertaking in the tourism space

Review/Approve Approve the Canterbury CMS DOC Science Strategy Approve Paparoa National Park Approve Aoraki/Mount Cook NMP Management Plan Approve the Otago CMS Kahurangi National Park Approve Westland Tai Poutini NPMP Management Plan review Approve the Southland CMS review NZCA policy (insert name) review NZCA policy (insert review NZCA policy (insert review NZCA policy (insert name) review NZCA policy (insert name) name) name) Information D-G report and environmental scan D-G report and environmental D-G report and environmental D-G report and environmental D-G report and environmental scan scan scan scan Update on DOCs work with Meet with NEXT Foundation re Update on NZ marine reserves and Historic Heritage their maunga project the MPA programme and further 5% to get representativeness

Stakeholder Meet with CE of Forest and Bird Meet with CE of NZ F&G Council Meet with Meet with Canterbury Aoraki Engagement Taranaki/Whanganui Conservation Board Conservation Board Meet with Chair of the Game Animal Council

Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer DOCDM-1570088 29 24/05/2016 30 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.7 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Lou Sanson (Director-General)

Subject: Director-General’s Report

NZCA Strategic Priority (E) Strategic advice to the Minister and DG in the context of 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 April – May 2016 period. Topics discussed include: • Managing compliance with concessionaires • Tourism fees • National parks centenary • DOC – Corrections partnership • Health and Safety • Pest management • Threatened species • Awaroa Beach • War on Weeds update • Glacier landings • BOP biodiversity project • Battle For Our Birds 2016

DOCCM-2783319 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 20 May 2016 31

DOCCM-2783319 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 20 May 2016 32 Agenda Item: 149.8 New Zealand Conservation Authority 149.9 Meeting No. 149 149.10

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 April 2016

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Canterbury (Waitaha), Otago and Southland Murihiku draft conservation management strategies 2015

NZCA Strategic (A) Conservation Management Strategies Priority

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Note the following update on the Canterbury (Waitaha), Otago and Southland Murihiku draft conservation management strategies 2015 b) Approve the Canterbury (Waitaha), Otago and Southland Murihiku Conservation Management Strategies, pursuant to s17F(p)(i) of the Conservation Act 1987, and with an operative date of 1 September 2016 c) Dissolve the Canterbury, Otago and Southland CMS Committees

Context The Authority received the Canterbury (Waitaha), Otago and Southland Murihiku draft conservation management strategies at its August 2015 meeting. The Authority has been reviewing these draft conservation management strategies and working with the respective Conservation Boards and Department. In October 2015, the Authority sought changes and additional material for the three CMSs, the last of which, a better recognition (in Part 1 of the documents) of the relationship between DOC and Ngai Tahu, was delivered shortly before the April meeting. Other sssues that had previously been identified by the CMS Committees have now been satisfactorily resolved. At the April meeting the Authority resolved that opportunity would be provided to the Canterbury Aoraki, Otago, and Southland conservation boards to review and provide feedback to the Authority on the revised Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu wording for the respective conservation management strategies.

DOCCM-2787369 51 The Authority was to consider this feedback and seek the advice of its Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu member (Sandra Cook). The Authority would then review the final proposed wording for clarity and unintended consequences (Rau Kirikiri and Rick McGovern-Wilson) and discuss the final proposed wording with the Department. Some proposed minor changes to the “Ngai Tahu wording” were identified that would improve clarity and language, and these have been communicated back to the Department. Provided there are no problems arising from these changes, the Authority should be in a position to approve the CMSs at this meeting.

DOCCM-2787369 52 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.11 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Helen Chapman, National Advisor Management Planning DOC

Subject: Management Planning Update

NZCA Strategic (A) Conservation Management Strategies Priority (B) National Park Management Plans

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 first page of the paper contains an overview of the reviews of management plans and strategies and other key statutory planning processes.

Appendices contain tables showing the status of management plans and strategies.

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 53 23 May 2016

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 54 23 May 2016

New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.11 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Helen Chapman, National Advisor Management Planning, DOC

Subject: Management Planning Update

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

Summary of progress since the last update in April 2016 Progress on Second Generation CMS 2. The Canterbury (Waitaha), Otago, and Southland Murihiku CMSs are with the NZCA for approval. The NZCA indicated that they intended to approve these by June. 3. Work on the Wellington and East Coast Hawke’s Bay CMSs is ongoing. Notification of these CMSs was delayed to enable the notification to occur as a rapid prototype of the new approach to CMSs as agreed between the Director General and the NZCA last year. At present notification is anticipated to occur mid-2016. Due to the new format longer timeframes for publication and legal checking may cause this timeframe to be pushed out. 4. As requested, there will be a presentation at this meeting on the changes to the CMS template that were developed as part of the rapid prototyping work. 5. The Nelson/Marlborough CMS remains at an early stage with issues around iwi engagement, resourcing and project management needing to be finalised. National Park Management Plans 6. It is intended that the intention to notify the Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park Management Plan will occur early June. This did not occur at the same time as Westland Tai Poutini National Park Management Plan because it was requested by Ngai Tahu to stagger the review process for the two Plans. However it is considered that even though the plans are being staggered there will be sufficient overlap to allow for adjoining issues to be addressed consistently, and at times together. The Department is working together with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (TRONT) and the principal runanga of Arowhenua, Waihao and Moeraki. The CAB Conservation Board has set up a committee for Aoraki (four members). 7. The intention to review the Westland Tai Poutini National Park Management Plan was publicly notified in national papers 30 April and in the West Coast papers on 4 May. The public consultation phase will be for June/July. We intend to have a draft plan for public notification early 2017, with approval in November/December 2017. With regard

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 55 23 May 2016 to Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park Management Plan these same dates apply however with a one to two month delay to address Ngai Tahu’s request. 8. The Department is working together with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu (TRONT) and Te Runanga Makaawhio. The West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board has set up a subcommittee for Westland (three members). 9. The Paparoa National Park Management Plan review is proceeding quickly. It is being used to test the Department’s thinking towards consultation with stakeholders as part of the CMS Rapid Prototype Review. A separate paper has been provided. 10. The Kahurangi National Park Management Plan amendment was notified on 11 May, with submissions closing in July. The aim is for this to go to the October NZCA meeting for approval, but this timeframe may slip depending on the complexity of the submissions received and number of submitters requesting hearings. A separate paper has been provided. 11. The Department is assessing a proposal to build a new recreation opportunity within the Tongariro National Park. If the proposal is supported by the Department then a partial review of the Plan will be required. A decision on the Department’s support of the proposal is expected by mid-June 2016. 12. It is intended to commence full reviews of the Fiordland and Mt Aspiring National Park Management Plans. The work will begin in December 2016 or January 2017 (six months earlier than planned) with the reviews occurring alongside each other. Timeframes are still to be determined for this work. 13. Initial discussions have begun with the Otago Conservation Board to address a possible partial review around snow and glacier landings in the Mt Aspiring National Park Management Plan. This will be modelled on a rapid process as is being tested in other work such as the Paparoa National Park Management Plan Review. Conservation Management Plans 14. The intention is to notify the draft Whirinaki Conservation Forest Park Conservation Management Plan in May/June 2016 and the plan is expected to go the NZCA for comment in June 2017. 15. The Te Hauturu-o-Toi/Little Barrier Island (Nature Reserve) Conservation Management Plan is expected to be notified in June 2016 and to go to NZCA for comment in February 2017. 16. Work on the Tamaki Makaurau Motu Conservation Management Plan is underway. This CMP covers the Motuihe, Motutapu, Rangitoto and Browns islands. 17. Work on the Te Waihora Joint Management Plan is on hold until July 2016 in response to request from Ngai Tahu. Marine Protected Area Policy – South-East Marine Protection Forum 18. The South-East Marine Protection Forum is continuing its community engagement and is expected to go out for public consultation of the proposed marine protected areas in October 2016. Other statutory planning processes 19. Work is currently underway to re-establish a Moratorium on the issuing of marine mammal permits for view and swimming with Hectors dolphins at Akaroa under the Marine Mammals Protection Regulations 1992. Letters were sent to stakeholders in May outlining the proposal and seeking their comment. This is anticipated to be completed within the 2016 calendar year.

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 56 23 May 2016 Update on Exceptional Circumstance Guidance for Staff 20. Consultation with iwi on the draft staff guidance has been completed. Feedback has been received from Ngai Tahu only. 21. The key feedback from Ngai Tahu was to ensure that the language used in the guidance is as clear as possible, and to reinforce that consultation should occur with all relevant iwi when exceptional circumstances are deemed to exist. 22. Changes have been made to the guidance to incorporate Ngai Tahu’s feedback. The guidance now requires final approval and will then be incorporated into wider guidance for staff related to interpreting and applying CMS and management plans. The final guidance will be publicly available via the DOC website. 23. The Ombudsman has been kept informed of the progress on this work.

Update on National Park Management Plan Model 24. The National Park Management Plan model is on hold while the CMS Rapid Prototype project and Paparoa National Park Management Plan are progressed.

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 57 23 May 2016 Progress report on CMS and management plans

Table one: Conservation Management Strategies

Conservation Date approved Status Comments Expected date to Management Strategy NZCA for approval Auckland CMS October 2014 Current Bay of Plenty CMS December 1997 Due for Review Review intended to begin in 2016 TBC Canterbury (Waitaha) CMS Current Chatham Islands CMS August 1999 Due for Review Review intended to begin in 2017. TBC East Coast/Hawke’s Bay October 1998 (EC) Under review Under review. Has being combined into an August 2017 CMS October 1994 (HB) East Coast/Hawke’s Bay CMS. It is intended to notify this as a rapid prototype in 2016 As part of a Treaty Settlement Ngati Porou will be developing Nga Whakahaere Takirua as part of the East Coast/Hawke’s Bay CMS Nelson/ Marlborough CMS September 1996 Due for Review Project planning and iwi engagement to be TBC finalised before starting review. Northland CMS September 2014 Current Otago CMS Current Southland/Murihiku CMS Current (including the Subantarctic Islands) Stewart Island/Rakiura February 2011 Current CMS Te Hiku CMS No current plan To be prepared Treaty settlement requirement. TBC Scheduled to begin in 2016

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 58 23 May 2016 Conservation Date approved Status Comments Expected date to Management Strategy NZCA for approval Tongariro-Taupo CMS May 2002 Due for Review Review not currently scheduled within next TBC 5 years. Waikato CMS September 2014 Current Wanganui CMS April 1997 Due for Review Part of existing CMS is now incorporated into the Wellington CMS. Review of the rest of the CMS should be scheduled within next 3 years Wellington CMS (includes March 1996 Under Review In first stage of review process. Intention to August 2017 Rangitikei/Manawatu that notify using rapid prototype in 2016 was formally part of Wanganui) West Coast CMS April 2010 Current Investigation into the need for a part review as a result of the Pike Mine development proposal.

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 59 23 May 2016 Table Two National Park Management Plans

National Park Date approved Status Comments Expected date to NZCA for approval Abel Tasman National Park October 2008. Current Management Plan 2008- 2018 Aoraki/Mount Cook National 12 August 2004 Under Review Review initiated internally, but not yet Late 2017/early 2018 Park Management Plan Amendments notified intent. 2004-2014 approved by the NZCA at the June 2012 meeting. Arthur’s Pass National Park 13 December Current Amendment approved by the NZCA June Management Plan 2007- 2007. 2012 2017 Egmont National Park 14 February 2002. Due for review On hold until CMS reviews completed. Management Plan 2001- 2011 Fiordland National Park 21 June 2007. Current Some amendments may be required to give Management Plan 2007- effect to Southland new CMS 2017 Kahurangi National Park 13 June 2001. Due for Review Amendment notified in May 2016. October 2016 Management Plan 2001- Full review on hold until CMS review 2011 completed. Mt Aspiring National Park 23 June 2011. Current Management Plan 2011- 2021

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 60 23 May 2016 National Park Date approved Status Comments Expected date to NZCA for approval Nelson Lakes National Park 10 October 2002 Due for review Due for review. On hold until other current Management Plan 2003- as a 7-year plan planning processes completed. 2009 expired October 2009. Paparoa National Park 18 November Under review Review currently underway. September 2016 Management Plan 1992- 1992. One third of park not covered by the Plan as 2002 it was added subsequent to its approval. Rakiura National Park 9 February 2011. Current Management Plan 2011- 2021 Te Urewera National Park 13 February 2003. Remains in force The national park management plan Management Plan 2003- remains in force until it is replaced by a new 2013 management plan to the extent that it is not inconsistent with sections 111 and 112 of Te Urewera Act 2014. DOC and the Management Board are working through how to proceed. Tongariro National Park 12 October 2006. Current Partial Review approved 13 October 2011. Management Plan 2006- WT National Park report released 2016 November 2013. Westland Tai Poutini 21 December Under Review November/December The intent to review was notified on 30 April National Park Management 2001. 2017 2016 and on 4 May. Plan 2001-2011 Amendments approved by the NZCA at the April 2014 meeting.

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 61 23 May 2016 National Park Date approved Status Comments Expected date to NZCA for approval Whanganui National Park 9 August 2012. Current Management Plan 2012-2022

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 62 23 May 2016 Table three Conservation management plans (prepared under the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act)

Conservation Date approved by Status Comments Decision maker Expected Management plan date of decision Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve 2012 (enables management of Partial review of plan commercial activities on approved by Management Management Plan foreshore below the Plan Approval Committee Approval National Park) June 2012 Current on November 2015. Committee Coromandel Peninsula Conservation Land Waikato Management Plan 2002 Under revocation Conservation Board Coromandel (excl. Requirement of Hauraki Moehau) Conservation Collective Treaty Management Plan To be prepared Settlement (AIP). Farewell Spit Nature Intention to revoke this plan Reserve/ Puponga once Nelson/Marlborough Director-General Recreation Reserve 1990 December 1990. To be revocation CMS review completed. Conservation JM Barker (Hapupu) Historic Reserve 1998- 2008. 1998 Current Kaimanawa Forest Park 2007-2017 June 2007 Current Requirement of Ngati Toa Kapiti Island Conservation Rangatira Claims Management Plan To be prepared Settlement Act 2014. Leigh Reserves Complex Auckland CMP 2002-2012 June 2002 Under revocation Conservation Board

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 63 23 May 2016 Conservation Date approved by Status Comments Decision maker Expected Management plan date of decision Loch Katrine Recreation September 1998 Current One-term plan, not to be Director-General Reserve reviewed. Provisions to be Conservation taken into the reviewed Canterbury CMS, consistent with CMS national issues regarding private accommodation – intention is to revoke CMP once CMS operative. Requirement of Hauraki Moehau Conservation Collective Treaty Management Plan To be prepared Settlement (AIP). Molesworth Recreation Reserve Management Plan 2013 (Required by Replaced previous plan Nelson/Marlborough lease) October 2013 Current under Land Act. Conservation Board Remains in force until replaced by Tamaki Makaurau Motu Conservation Management Plan for all the volcanic North Head Historic cones; to be prepared by Auckland Reserve CMP 1999-2009 September 1999 Requires revocation the Auckland Council. Conservation Board

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 64 23 May 2016 Conservation Date approved by Status Comments Decision maker Expected Management plan date of decision Otago Conservation Board has a statutory role in the approval of the draft plan pursuant to Sections 6M(b) and 17G(1)–(3) of the Conservation Act 1987, as a result of the inclusion of Otago Conservation the Taiaroa Head Nature Board for Taiaroa Reserve and Taiaroa Head Head Nature Foreshore Wildlife Reserve and Sanctuary. Taiaroa Head Developed by the Korako Foreshore Wildlife Karetai Trust, Te Rūnanga Sanctuary Pukekura Reserves o Ōtākou, Department of Dunedin City (Taiaroa Head) Conservation and the Council in respect Management Plan) April/May 2012 Current Dunedin City Council. to the other reserve Whangarei District Council and Pukenui Forest Northland Management Plan 2006- Conservation 2016 December 2006 Current Board. Ruahine Forest Park Conservation Intention to revoke this plan East Coast/Hawke's Management Plan 1992- once the Hawke’s Bay CMS Bay Conservation 2002 1992 Requires revocation review is completed. Board

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 65 23 May 2016 Conservation Date approved by Status Comments Decision maker Expected Management plan date of decision Requirement of Nga Mana Tamaki Makaurau Motu Whenua o Tamaki Conservation Makaurau Collective Management Plan Under development Redress Act 2014. Te Hauturu o Toi Preliminary discussions Conservation with Ngati Manuhiri Management Plan Under development underway. Te Tapui Tokotoru Conservation Management Plan. It joint management includes Moutohora committee Wildlife Management established under Reserve, Ohope Scenic the Ngati Awa Reserve and Tauwhare Pa Claims Settlement Scenic Reserve. October 2008 Current Act 2005. Te Waihora Joint Management Plan December 2005. Te Waikoropupu Springs Nelson/Marlborough Management Plan 2009 April 2009 Current Conservation Board Urupukapuka and Intention to revoke with Waewaetorea islands approval of revised Northland Management Plan Approved 1984 Requires revocation Northland CMS Conservation Board

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 66 23 May 2016 Conservation Date approved by Status Comments Decision maker Expected Management plan date of decision These are the remaining CMPs in Canterbury following a wider revocation/withdrawal action in 2004. All approved in 1980’s and still operative in part. All likely to be revoked once Various CMP’s for Canterbury CMS reviewed reserves in Canterbury (4 and management issues Scientific; 2 nature; 2 covered where necessary Historic; 1 Recreation) 1980’s Requires revocation by the CMS Minister Wairau (Boulder Bank and Requirement of Ngāti Apa Te Pokohiwi) ki te Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and Conservation Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Management Plan Under development Settlement Act 2014 Requirement of Ngati Whare Treaty Claims Whirinaki Te Pua Tāne Settlement Act 2012. Conservation Due to be notified in June Ngati Whare and Management Plan Under development 2016 BOPCB

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 67 23 May 2016

DOCCM-2640907 Helen Chapman 68 23 May 2016 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.12 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Sarah Wilson on behalf of Marie Long, Director, Planning, Permissions and Land, DOC

Subject: Paparoa National Park Management Plan review

NZCA Strategic (B) National Park Management Plans Priority

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Note progress to date with the review of the Paparoa National Park Management Plan; and b) Appoint at least two members to liaise with the Department and the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board committee tasked with the Review; and c) Agree to further work being done on the “Approval Day” proposal including legal advice and clarifying the approach with the Minister of Conservation

Context The Paparoa National Park Management Plan is being reviewed in full following the Pike addition and to provide public input on the proposed Pike29 Memorial Track along with other key issues for the Park. Ministers have requested that the Plan process be completed by November 2016. This will require the department, Board and Authority to take an ‘agile’ approach. Innovation and new ways of doing things will be necessary to meet this target.

DOCCM-2781543 Sarah Wilson May 2016 69

DOCCM-2781543 Sarah Wilson May 2016 70 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.12 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Sarah Wilson on behalf of Marie Long, Director, Planning, Permissions and Land, DOC

Subject: Paparoa National Park Management Plan Review

Background/Introduction 1. The Paparoa National Park Management Plan (PNPMP) review commenced in November 2015. The current plan is 24 years old and a review was requested by the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board. In addition, a review has become a priority following the Pike River addition to Paparoa National Park and the proposal to build the Pike29 Memorial Track. 2. As discussed at your December 2015 and February 2016 meetings, the intention is to undertake a complete review of the Plan in 2016. 3. The intention is to complete the review by November 2016. This will enable summer work on the Pike 29 track and huts to start in December 2016. For such an agile process to be completed within this time frame the following elements are critical: a) Treaty partners are engaged fully; b) Affected communities and key stakeholders are informed of the process and given opportunities to engage; c) The Board are involved from the outset and well informed throughout the process. d) The NZCA is well informed on the process and confident of the quality of the outcomes. 4. In particular, this paper focuses on the NZCA’s role in approving the Plan. Progress to Date 5. Iwi partners Ngāti Waewae (the local runanga for the Paparoa Park) and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, along with the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board have been involved from the outset to design the process. 6. We talked to people first: During February and March 2016 the DOC team engaged with iwi, communities, Pike families and key stakeholders before putting pen to paper. A vintage caravan (pictured at Punakaiki) toured the region talking with locals and organisations and public meetings were held. A series of hui were run in parallel with Ngai Tahu and Ngati Waewae. An online survey provided comments from 206 individuals and groups.

DOCCM-2781543 Sarah Wilson May 2016 71 7. Key issues from consultation and that will be further tested in the Draft Plan include: a) General support for the proposed new Great Walk in the Park that includes walkers, bikers and other users, and provides opportunities for the Coast. b) The importance of iwi involvement in the Park and designing new ways for manawhenua to engage with the Park c) Aircraft access to the new Great Walk whilst retaining the wilderness character of the northern ‘heart’ of the Park d) Planning for the future of Punakaiki (which is outside the Park but surrounded by the Park), including increased tourism due to the Great Walk. e) Developing new ways for climbers to engage with iwi and the department with regard to bolted climbs. 8. An interactive drafting approach: Drafting has involved direct input and review from iwi, the Board committee and key stakeholders. 9. The draft Plan will be notified in early June and call for submissions by 5 August 2016. 10. This will be followed by hearings and revision of the document in August 2016. The Conservation Board will review the document in September before presenting it to the Authority in October 2016. NZCA involvement prior to Approval 11. If the revised Park Plan is to be approved by November 2016 the Authority may wish to have an understanding of the issues arising during the review process whilst maintaining the integrity of its decision making role. 12. The Department suggests that the Authority appoint at least two members to liaise with the Department and the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board regarding the process; if desirable. NZCA process during Approval 13. It is important at this early stage to clarify the final approval process so clarity around timeframes is assured. 14. In order to expedite the process in a way that delivers a high quality plan it is proposed to hold a day where all the relevant parties are represented and are empowered to make decisions. This would include: a) NZCA members (or a sub-group with delegated power) b) Members of the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board including the Chair (representation to be agreed by the Board) c) Ngai Tahu or Ngati Waewae representatives (which also may include the NZCA member) d) Senior Departmental staff e) Departmental advisors including the Management Planner familiar with the Plan (available to answer questions) f) Legal advisors from the Department g) A representative of the Minister of Conservation (to provide Ministerial representation and expedite the Minister’s process in approving the Plan). 15. This intensive day would provide the opportunity to: a) ask questions and have them answered

DOCCM-2781543 Sarah Wilson May 2016 72 b) seek legal guidance and c) provide ministerial input. 16. The facilitated day could also provide opportunities for breakout sessions where specific groups would have time to caucus and then return to the larger group with recommendations or conclusions. The outcome of the day would be to have an agreed Plan that can be approved at the next full meeting of the NZCA. 17. Such an approach is not new within the planning profession and mirrors the caucusing approach that Councils and commissioners use during planning and hearings processes. In particular, the process is not just about saving time. Rather, it provides an interactive opportunity with direct communication between decision makers and advisors that can improve the quality of the Plan. 18. Given that the Paparoa National Park Plan is the first of a number of upcoming National Park Plans to be reviewed, the Department welcomes other suggestions from the NZCA for ways to improve the approval process for National Park Plans. The Minister of Conservation’s views will also be sought following the NZCA’s considerations.

Section 4 Conservation Act 19. Treaty partners Ngai Tahu and Ngati Waewae are fully involved in the design of the process. They have been involved in strategic direction and have assisted with reviewing draft material. Principles for engagement have been established based on Treaty Principles.

Conclusion 20. We recommend that the Authority: a) Note the agile review process proposed for the review of the Paparoa National Park Management Plan; and b) Appoint at least two members to liaise with the Department and the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board committee tasked with the Review; and c) Agree to further work being done on the “Approval Day” proposal including legal advice and clarifying the approach with the Minister of Conservation.

DOCCM-2781543 Sarah Wilson May 2016 73

DOCCM-2781543 Sarah Wilson May 2016 74

New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.13 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Poma Palmer on behalf of Marie Long, Director, Planning, Permissions and Land, DOC

Subject: Kahurangi National Park Management Plan amendment – Heaphy Track mountain biking season extension

NZCA Strategic (B) National Park Management Plans Priority

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Note progress to date with the amendment of the Kahurangi National Park Management Plan; and b) Appoint a liaison committee to work with the Department and the Nelson Marlborough Conservation Board.

Context The Kahurangi National Park Management Plan draft amendment is to provide for a longer mountain biking season for the Heaphy Track. The DD-G Operations had requested that the Plan process be completed by end September 2016. It is now considered that this timeline is not possible, but that if the Department, Board and Authority take an ‘agile’ approach, a December 2016 target is possible.

DOCCM-2783327 Poma Palmer 23 May 2016 75

DOCCM-2783327 Poma Palmer 23 May 2016 76

New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.13 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Poma Palmer on behalf of Marie Long, Director, Planning, Permissions and Land, DOC

Subject: Kahurangi National Park Management Plan amendment – Heaphy Track mountain biking season extension

Background/Introduction 1. The Kahurangi National Park Management Plan amendment process commenced in March 2016. 2. The amendment follows from a recommendation in the 2013 report on the Heaphy Track mountain biking trial over 2011-2013. 3. In particular, this paper covers the NZCA’s role in approving the Plan amendment. Progress to Date: 4. Northern South Island iwi and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu / Te Rūnanga o Ngati Waewae, along with the Nelson Marlborough Conservation Board, have been consulted to gain support for the amendment process. 5. Public notification of the draft amendment occurred on 11 May 2016 in main daily newspapers and soon after for local newspapers; also on the DOC website and by email and post to several hundred contacts. 6. The draft amendment and accompanying explanatory information, as well as a recreation analysis report are attached. Additional reports on the 2011 to 2013 mountain bike trial in Kahurangi National Park are on the DOC website. 7. As at 18 May, 61 submissions have been received and this high early number indicates a probable large final number of submissions. 8. Submissions close 12 July 2016; processing these and hearings and preparation of a common submissions response report could extend into September/October. 9. The Conservation Board will review the report in October before presenting it to the Authority as soon as possible thereafter, possibly October/November. NZCA involvement prior to and during Approval 10. If the revised Park Plan is to be approved in December 2016 the Authority may wish to have an understanding of the issues arising during the amendment process whilst maintaining the integrity of its decision making role. 11. The Department suggests that the Authority appoint a committee to liaise with the Department and the Nelson Marlborough Conservation Board regarding the process; if desirable.

DOCCM-2783327 Poma Palmer 23 May 2016 77 12. Given the limited scope of the amendment the Department suggests that the Authority seek to identify an ‘agile’ process for its consideration and approval of the amendment.

Section 4 Conservation Act 13. Treaty partners have been consulted and are aware of the Plan amendment process.

Conclusion 14. We recommend that the Authority: a) Note the progress on the draft amendment of the Kahurangi National Park Management Plan; and b) Appoint a committee to liaise with the Department and the Nelson Marlborough Conservation Board tasked with the amendment.

Attachments 15. Kahurangi National Park Management Plan draft amendment – extending the season for mountain bikes on the Heaphy Track

16. Recreation analysis: Heaphy Track mountain bike season extension

DOCCM-2783327 Poma Palmer 23 May 2016 78 Kahurangi National Park Management Plan draft amendment - extending the season for mountain

bikes on the Heaphy Track

Introduction

This information sheet covers the draft amendment to the Kahurangi National Park Management Plan 2010 (the Kahurangi Plan).

The Kahurangi Plan can be viewed on the Department’s website at: http://www.doc.govt.nz/knpmp. This information sheet and background reports can be viewed at: www.doc.govt.nz/kahurangiamendment

The Department proposes to amend the Kahurangi Plan to: • Extend the mountain bike season on the Heaphy Track to 1 April to 30 November, excluding Easter. • Update the plan to reflect the outcomes of the 2011-2013 mountain biking trial and factual information relevant to mountain biking.

If the amendment is adopted, the Kahurangi National Park Bylaws 2009 will be amended to give effect to the changes.

Details of the draft amendment are found below. Making a submission

Persons and organisations are invited to make submissions on the Kahurangi Plan amendment.

Submissions must be made in writing by 4.00pm Tuesday 12 July 2016.

Submissions may be made by post or email to:

Kahurangi Plan amendment or Email [email protected] Department of Conservation Private Bag 4715 CHRISTCHURCH 8140

1 79 A submission form can be found at www.doc.govt.nz/kahurangiamendment and while we prefer you to use this, other formats that include all information on the form will also be accepted.

If you wish to be heard in support of your submission you need to state this on your submission form. Please also include your contact information so we can contact you to arrange a suitable time for you to attend the hearings.

Submissions may be made only on the draft amendments. No other parts of the Kahurangi Plan are being changed. Proposed amendment

The draft amendment proposes extending the current mountain bike season for the Heaphy Track of between 01 May and 30 September, to 01 April to 30 November, excluding Easter (i.e. Good Friday to Easter Monday) when it falls within April. That is, to extend the season from five to eight months.

The Heaphy Track is a moderately used Great Walk but has capacity to accommodate more visitors. Extending the mountain biking season would provide a further opportunity to mountain bike in autumn and spring.

Walker numbers are highest over December and January, then relatively constant over February to April. The proposed amendment retains a walkers-only season during December to March, and Easter, which usually falls within April.

An amendment process is being undertaken as a full review of the Kahurangi Plan may be some years away. Background to proposed amendment

The 2010 partial review and 2011-2013 trial In 2010 a partial review of the Kahurangi Plan was approved. It included provisions for mountain biking on the Heaphy Track under a three-year trial from 2011 to 2013.

Following the trial, monitoring and other data was analysed1 and the trial outcomes reported2 (refer www.doc.govt.nz/kahurangiamendment). Outcomes of the trial The report generally found the mountain bike trial seasons to be successful and made the following recommendations in relation to the Heaphy Track:

1. Allow mountain biking to continue on the Heaphy Track. 2. Extend the mountain biking season to 1 March to 30 November excluding the four days of the Easter holiday weekend. 3. If the season is extended then social monitoring should continue to assess whether there is any conflict between mountain bikers and walkers as a result of the change.

1 Roberts, J. De Boer, E. & Wightwick, I. 2013a. Kahurangi National Park Mountain bike trial 2011- 2013.: Resource Document 2 Roberts, J. De Boer, E. & Wightwick, I. 2013b. Heaphy Track Mountain Bike Trial 2011-2013.

2 80 4. There has been sufficient physical monitoring and to conclude that no further physical impact monitoring is necessary. 5. The monitoring of Powelliphanta land snail should continue and the Department will highlight the importance of Powelliphanta to visitors and reinforce that riding on the track at night is not permitted. 6. All other previous conditions for mountain bike trial should be maintained.

Following the trial the Department and the Nelson/Marlborough Conservation Board approved continued mountain bike use, subject to maintaining the conditions of use in the Kahurangi National Park Bylaws 2009. Further monitoring of Powelliphanta land snails was carried out, as was continued highlighting of the importance of Powelliphanta to visitors and why riding on the track at night is not permitted. Track operation 2013-2016 Since 2013, track and bridge upgrading to Great Walk standard has occurred for almost the entire track length, and three huts (Perry Saddle, Mackay and Heaphy) have been renewed, providing increased communal space and bed capacity.

Further monitoring of Powelliphanta land snails has been undertaken and a more in- depth report3 concluded “The impacts of mountain bikers and other track users on Powelliphanta snails are considered to be minimal and of no concern for the conservation management of the Powelliphanta species.”

Management issues

Management issues associated with shared walking and mountain biking tracks are generally centred on physical, ecological and social impacts. These impacts were monitored on the Heaphy Track (the Track) during the 2011-2013 mountain biking trial seasons.

Physical Track and bridge upgrading increased the resilience of infrastructure to use. Monitoring has showed the Track, huts and other infrastructure are able to accommodate current and predicted levels of use by walkers and bikers. There were no reports of people riding off the Track or reports of damage to historical features or signs on the Track.

Ecological Monitoring during the trial largely confirmed any effects on flora and fauna were minimal and that potential adverse effects had been largely addressed via conditions of use and visitor information. Additional monitoring was carried out on the impacts of mountain biking on Powelliphanta snails on the Track over the 2015 mountain biking season. This monitoring concluded there were no unmanageable issues with mountain bike impacts on the wider environment or on the snails.

Social Social impacts include whether visitors’ experiences meet their expectations and concerns around safety and appropriate user behaviour. Management measures put in

3 McArthur, S. & Gruner, I. 2014. Impacts of mountain bikers on Powelliphanta snails along the Heaphy Track, Kahurangi National Park – Season 2014 (refer www.doc.govt.nz/kahurangiamendment).

3 81 place during the trial to address social impacts included: restricting the mountain biking season from 1 May to 30 September; limiting group sizes for mountain bikers; providing clear information to improve visitor awareness, satisfaction and safety; and signage to identify appropriate visitor behaviour. The ‘Mountain Bikers Code’ is clearly displayed at Track ends, in huts, on websites and in visitor information.

Feedback from Heaphy Track users during the three year trial suggested social impacts were minimal. There were 144 comments received; the majority were positive and six were negative. It was difficult, however, to fully gauge the effect of mountain bikers on walkers due to the fact that there were a limited number of walkers on the Track between 1 May and 30 September.

Comments received during the trial suggest that overall compliance of mountain bikers adhering to the Mountain Bikers Code has been high. The limited number of instances of conflict reflects that both mountain bikers and walkers are sharing the track with consideration for each other.

Overall, it appears that the measures put in place through the Kahurangi Plan to manage the physical, ecological and social impacts of mountain biking have been successful. If an extended season for mountain biking is approved, ongoing monitoring of social impacts will be carried out.

4 82 Kahurangi National Park Management Plan draft amendment

Below are extracts from the Kahurangi National Park Management Plan (Incorporating 2009/2010 Partial Review) 2010, showing the draft amendment.

The only text being amended at this time is: • text specifically relevant to the season dates for mountain biking on the Heaphy Track; • the updating of factual information relevant to the mountain biking season; and • the updating of 2010 pre-mountain biking trial text to the post-trial situation where needed to provide current context for the proposed amendment.

The draft amendments are shown with underlining for new text and with strike-through for text proposed to be removed. Text that is not part of the amendment is shown in black for context purposes only.

The full Kahurangi National Park Management Plan can be viewed on the Department’s website at: http://www.doc.govt.nz/knpmp

5 83

1.6 HEAPHY TRACK CORRIDOR PLACE

1.6.4 Values of the Heaphy Track Corridor Recreational values (page 46) (Amend last paragraph)

Mountain biking use occurred prior to Kahurangi National Park being formed in 1996. This plan provides access for mountain bikers on a seasonal basis over the winter months from 1 May April to 30 September November, excluding the Easter holiday weekend, when walker numbers are lower (see Section 4.1.1 Mountain biking).

4.1 VISITOR SERVICES AND MANAGEMENT

The Heaphy Track Corridor (page 73) (Amend last paragraph)

This plan provides for mountain biking on the Heaphy Track on a seasonal basis from 1 May April to 30 September November, excluding the Easter holiday weekend. which has traditionally been a period of low use (see Section 4.1.1 Mountain biking).

Mountain bikes (page 78) (Amend first paragraph)

In accordance with General Policy for National Parks 2005 mountain biking is considered appropriate on a trial basis the following routes in the Park: Heaphy Track, Flora to Barron Flat and Kill Devil. Seasonal biking is proposed allowed on the Heaphy Track from 1 May April to 30 September November each year, excluding the Easter holiday weekend, and year round on the Flora to Barron Flat and Kill Devil routes (see Section 4.1.1 Mountain biking).

I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S (ALSO SEE SECTION 4.1.3) (pages 79- 81)

9. Continue to manage the Heaphy Track as a Great Walk with the provision for controlled seasonal use (from 1 May April to 30 September November each year, excluding the Easter holiday weekend from Good Friday to Easter Monday), as a trial, for mountain biking.

33.Amend Retain the existing bylaws to allowing a mountain biking trial on the specifically approved routes of the Heaphy Track, Florato Barron Flat Track, and Kill Devil Track subject to the measures set out in Section 4.1.1 Mountain biking, including the Implementations.

4.1.1 Mountain biking

4.1.1.1 Policy (page 82)

To provide opportunities for a range of mountain biking experiences on specific routes on a trial basis in Kahurangi National Park while

6 84 minimising adverse effects on national park values and protecting the experiences of others.

4.1.1.2 Background (page 85) (Amend last paragraph and add an additional paragraph)

The three identified routes also provide a range of mountain bike experiences in the Park. The Heaphy Track is a multi day ride which requires a good level of fitness, an intermediate advanced to expert level of skills to ride in a backcountry environment across a variety of landscapes and a moderate degree of self reliance. The Flora Saddle to Gridiron Junction section of the Flora to Barron Flat Track provides an entry level ride on a fairly flat, smooth, wide 4WD track suitable for families and beginners. The remainder of the Flora Saddle to Barron Flat Track and the Kill Devil Track are one day rides for advanced and expert riders. They are technically challenging, on rough, remote terrain which require the rider to walk or carry their bikes at various points.

The mountain biking trial concluded successfully in 2013 and mountain biking was allowed to continue under the same conditions of use.

MAP B: Specified mountain bike routes (No change)

4.1.1.3 Issues associated with mountain biking (No change)

4.1.1.4 General management measures and considerations (pages 86-88)

General Policy for National Parks 2005 policy 8.6(i) requires the identification of measures to manage mountain bikes in national parks to minimise adverse effects. The following measures have been identified for all three routes where mountain biking is allowed. Additional management measures which apply to individual tracks have been identified in Sections 4.1.1.5 – 4.1.1.10.

(a) Mountain biking for a trial period

Mountain biking on the selected routes was initially trialed between 2010 and 2013, but no further trial periods are in place.

Mountain biking will be allowed on the selected routes for a trial, which will be assessed when the plan is reviewed in full, or by 31 December 2013, whichever occurs first. This should allow for three full seasons of mountain biking on the Heaphy Track, by which time levels of use should have stabilised and there will be comprehensive monitoring data to assess effects.

Management and monitoring will aim to ensure that potential user conflicts, safety issues, impacts and adverse effects on the Park values and visitor experience can be minimised. Table A details

7 85 more comprehensive information on potential issues and proposed mitigation methods. If monitoring shows that the social, physical or ecological impacts of mountain biking on any of the selected routes are significant and/or unacceptable then the activity may be discontinued at any stage of the trial.

Otherwise mountain biking may continue until the trial has been assessed or this plan has been through a full review process, whichever occurs first. At that time, the Department and the Nelson/ Marlborough Conservation Board will assess the monitoring data and determine whether mountain biking on all or some of the identified routes may be allowed to continue.

(b) Restricted seasons

On higher use tracks, providing a restricted season is an effective tool for managing user conflicts and potential safety issues by identifying specific times of the year when the activity can occur. The Heaphy Track has a restricted season for mountain biking from 1 May April to 30 September November excluding the Easter holiday weekend. This has been used as a management measure on the Queen Charlotte Track and is working successfully.

(d) Adherence to a nationally recognised user code of conduct (No change)

(e) Mountain bike track grading system (No change)

(f) Concessions and organised events

Concessions for commercially guided mountain bike operations can be considered on the routes identified for mountain bike use. Any concessions that are granted should initially have an expiry date of 31 December 2013. The assessment of whether concessions for mountain biking should be allowed to continue will be carried out when the whole trial is assessed (see Section 4.1.1.4(a) above).

(No other amendments)

(g) Provision of information (No change)

(h) Monitoring

Monitoring of mountain biking activity and effects occurs as part of national visitor and biodiversity monitoring, with more specific programmes if required.

8 86

Monitoring of all management measures will be carried out prior to and during the trial to gather base line physical information, as well as measure visitor satisfaction and experiences throughout the trial period and compliance with bylaws (see Section 4.1.1.11 Monitoring and trial evaluation).

TABLE A: MANAGEMENT ISSUES AND MEASURES FOR MOUNTAIN BIKING (pages 88-89)

Delete all references to a trial or trial period.

“ISSUE”, “User conflict and experience”, delete the following: A trial period (until the plan is reviewed in full, or by 31 December experience 2013, whichever occurs first) for all three identified routes to assess the effects of mountain biking on each track.

“ISSUE”, “Seasonal access (Heaphy Track)”, amend as follows: “Access to the Heaphy Track restricted to 1 May April until 30 September November”.

4.1.1.5 Heaphy Track (page 90)

The Heaphy Track (see Map C) is currently a multi day tramping and mountain biking track and is managed as a Great Walk. Use of the Heaphy Track by walkers is highly seasonal. On average approximately over 4500 5000 people walk this track each year with use concentrated over the summer months.

Records of hut and campsite use via the Department’s booking system indicate that 81% about 80% of those who walk the track each year do so between the months of November to April, peaking in January, with 24% of April use occurring over Easter, when it is in April. During the winter months visitor numbers decline sharply.

The majority of the Heaphy Track is a robust, well formed, hard surfaced track maintained to the Great Walk standard. Upgrades of the non-standard sections are scheduled over the next few years being undertaken. At present iIt is capable of withstanding use by mountain bikes. The Department uses quad bikes small vehicles on parts of the track for efficiency of management.

As the track was built prior to 1900 it is subject to the Historic Places Act 1993 Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act 2014. The West Coast Tai Poutini section of the track is actively managed to protect its historical and cultural heritage. Parts of the track on the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservancy side are less robust and more vulnerable to damage such as rutting and erosion. Upgrades to these sections are planned in the near future. It is important that visitor behaviour is managed so that degradation of historic values does not occur.

For most mountain bikers the track would be is a multi day ride although some day use “in and out” at Karamea and the Aorere Valley ends is anticipated occurs. This includes downhill use from Perry Saddle Hut for day return or overnight trips.

9 87 The track is promoted as being suited to riders with advanced skills (Grade 4) and can increase to expert (Grade 5) when factoring in distance, remoteness, and the technical skills riders require in wet and/or cold weather, although track upgrades may bring it more in line with Grade 4.

According to the Mountain Bike New Zealand grading system the track is considered to be Intermediate, Grade 3+ with some steep slopes and avoidable obstacles. However this would probably increase to a Grade 4 in wet and/or cold weather when factoring in distance and remoteness. Total ride time is estimated at 10-20 hours depending on experience, fitness and track conditions at the time.

4.1.1.6 Management of mountain biking on the Heaphy Track (page 90)

Mountain biking on the Heaphy Track will be is from 1 May April to 30 September November, excluding Easter. During this time user records indicate there are considerably fewer people walking the track therefore the potential for user conflicts and demand on facilities is reduced.

Given that the track is not a circuit and track users need to arrange transport to and from both ends, the Heaphy Track route will be has dual directional flow, allowing for members of groups to start at either end. This will aids in the transport logistics, allows leaders in a group to go back to find slower members, and it also means that bikers will be are able to cycle part of the track as a day trip or overnight and then return the way they came.

MAP C: Heaphy Track: specified mountain bike route (No changes to map)

To manage this situation and to assist in visitor safety for all users of the track, bikers will be are expected to adhere to the “Mountain Bikers Code” at all times (see Appendix A). This has proved to be effective for the Poulter mountain bike trial that the Department is carrying out in the Arthurs Pass National Park.

Another measure that will assists in visitor safety and to maintains visitor experiences for all recreation users is limiting group numbers to no more than six. A limitation on mountain bike group size will assists in limiting pressure on facilities and reduces the potential to adversely affect the experiences of walkers.

The Powelliphanta land snail, roa (great spotted kiwi) and whio (blue duck) are species which occur within the Heaphy Track Corridor. The former is under serious threat and the protection of their habitat is critical. Whilst the kiwi populations are stable in this area it is still vital that habitat and individuals are protected as much as possible. Being nocturnal, kiwi and Powelliphanta land snail activity occurs from dusk to dawn. Therefore riders should cannot ride the track during the hours of darkness, as set out in the Kahurangi National Park bylaws stipulating that there will be no riding during the hours of darkness.

10 88

Bikers will also are required to remain on the track at all times and to respect huts and other track facilities. Guidelines apply for the appropriate use, storage and maintenance of bikes while in and around the huts will be developed and the Kahurangi National Park bylaws will be amended to prohibit bikes from being taken into a hut and onto or under hut steps, verandas or porches. This is to ensure adequate space for other users and to maintain hut and veranda cleanliness. The Department may consider the installation of temporary shelters, at selected huts on the Heaphy Track during the course of the trial, for overnight storage and maintenance of bikes. Mountain bikers should be self reliant and carry a groundsheet or fly if they wish to carry out repairs, maintenance or store their bike under cover.

All promotional material, signage and other media will details these measures and monitoring will be is carried out to ensure compliance. Adherence to these conditions will be key indicators when assessing the overall success of the trial.

The track may be closed to mountain bike use after storms, heavy rain or snow or high tide events which may affect the integrity of the track particularly on the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservancy side. Mountain bike use will be monitored and recorded.

4.1.1.11 Monitoring and trial evaluation (page 98)

Monitoring the social, physical and ecological effects of mountain biking is key to determining whether this activity is acceptable in the Park and whether it should continue beyond the trial period. important for the extended mountain biking season on the Heaphy Track. While it is necessary to monitor all the specified routes it is particularly important for the Heaphy Track given its significance as a Great Walk.

Pre-trial physical monitoring of the tracks will be carried out according to the Department’s Standard Operating Procedure for all tracks. Regular and recorded monitoring of tracks will occur during the trial and will be detailed in a monitoring programme.

Hut book analysis and feedback through the Department’s website will be used to record visitor experiences and inform social monitoring. There is also the potential for Oonline surveys to will be carried out in the future through the development of the Department’s national online booking system for huts and Park facilities. Other mechanisms which will be used to measure the effects of mountain biking on the Park values include:

(i) Compliance with the bylaws, (ii) Compliance with the “Mountain Bikers Code” (Appendix A), (iii) Recording of all enforcement incidents and outcomes, (iv) Keeping a register for departmental staff to record field observations regarding mountain bike activity, and (v) Recording feedback from all user groups, and (vi)Monitoring walker and mountain biker interactions.

11 89

4.1.1.12 I M P L E M E N T A T I O N S (pages 101-103)

1. Provide for mountain biking, as a trial, on three routes: the Heaphy Track, the Flora to Barron Flat Track, and the Kill Devil Track (as identified on Maps B, C, D and E).

2. Assess the mountain biking trial, on all three routes, when the plan is reviewed in full, or by 31 December 2013, whichever occurs first.

3. Amend the existing bylaws to allow the use of mountain bikes on the Heaphy Track (as identified on Map C) from 1 May April to 30 September November, excluding the Easter holiday weekend from Good Friday to Easter Monday, with a maximum of 6 riders per group.

4. to 9. (No change)

10. Amend Retain the existing bylaws to: (a) prohibit the use of mountain bikes on the Heaphy Track and the Flora to Barron Flat Track during the hours of darkness; and (b) provide for the temporary closure of the approved mountain biking routes at any time if unfavourable weather, track conditions or other management issues arise; and (c) prohibit the taking of mountain bikes into a hut and onto or under hut steps, verandas or porches; and (d) require mountain bikes that are used on the approved mountain biking routes to remain on the formed track.

11. (No change)

12. Applications for concessions for commercial mountain bike operations may be considered on the routes identified for mountain bike use, in accordance with the following: (a) each trip should be limited to a maximum of five clients and one guide; (b) all concessions should initially have an expiry date of 31 December 2013; (c) concessions may have further restrictions placed on them, or be terminated, if monitoring shows that the impacts of mountain biking on any of the approved routes are significant and/or unacceptable.

13. (No change)

14. Carry out baseline monitoring of the identified routes prior to the commencement of the mountain bike trial.

12 90 15. Establish and implement a mountain biking monitoring programme to record and report on the following: (a) Numbers of walking and mountain biking visitors on the Heaphy Track all approved mountain bike routes and their experiences (b) Absence or presence of mountain bike activity off or beyond the allowed route (i.e. off track) (c) Impacts on the track surface due to mountain bike activity (d) Any enforcement incidents and their outcomes (e) Any damage to or removal of signs (f) Nature and level of conflict, if any, between walkers and mountain bikers, including feedback from visitors (g) Impacts on Nnative fauna and flora injury or mortality, and disturbance to habitat due to mountain bike activity (h) Compliance with the “Mountain Bikers Code” and the bylaws (i) Damage to historical and cultural heritage features due to mountain bike activity (j) Use of helicopters on the Kill Devil Track.

16. If monitoring shows that the impacts of mountain biking on any of the approved routes are significant and/or unacceptable, then: (a) further restrictions may be placed on the activity in order to manage these adverse effects.; or (b) the activity may be discontinued at any stage or the trail. Relevant bylaws will be amended accordingly.

17. Mountain biking may continue until such time as an assessment of the trial has been carried out: (a) when this plan is reviewed in full, or by 31 December 2013, whichever occurs first; and (b) a decision has been made as to whether to allow mountain biking to continue; and (c) subject to any necessary controls.

13 91 -Recreation analysis:

Heaphy Track mountain

bike season extension

Information provided by the Department of Conservation, Science and Policy, Partnerships Historic and Visitor - 3 May 2015

Background The Heaphy Track is managed as a Great Walk and is valued as an important recreation and tourism destination in the Buller and Nelson regions. The Heaphy Track provides a backcountry experience suitable for a wide range of people and an opportunity to learn about our history and conservation through multi-day tramping and mountain biking.

In December 2010 the Department of Conservation carried out a partial review of the Kahurangi National Park Management Plan to allow for a three year trial of mountain biking on the Heaphy Track (on a seasonal basis between 1 May and 30 September). During the trial, social impact, physical impact and ecological monitoring was carried out. In September 2013, mountain bike use of the Heaphy Track was reviewed and a report1 concluded that conflict between walkers and mountain bikers was minimal. There were no reports of people riding off the track or reports of damage to historical features or signs on the track. Mountain bike use appeared to have no significant impact on sections of the track that were well formed and constructed and have the ability to drain freely. The Heaphy Track is a well defined track corridor and there was no evidence of damage to track side vegetation. There were no reports of adverse effects on kiwi. Predation of Powelliphanta is the most significant impact on the species. A report2 completed in November 2015, concluded that after three seasons of monitoring, the impacts of mountain bikers and other track users on Powelliphanta snails can be considered to be minimal and of no concern for the conservation management of the species. Overall, the 2013 report recommended that mountain biking be allowed to continue on the Heaphy Track. The Heaphy Track huts and campsites, however, have significant capacity to cater for greater numbers of both trampers and mountain bikers. Extending the mountain bike season from 1 May to 30 September to 1 April to 30 November, excluding the four days of Easter has the potential to increase use of the Heaphy Track outside of the months when the numbers of walkers on the track are at their highest. What do we know about visitors to the Heaphy Track? In 2009, 4992 people tramped the Heaphy Track. Since 2009, annual visitor numbers have increased by 37.5% to 68573. The average length of stay is 2.8 nights. Mountain biking on the track was introduced in 2011, since then annual visitor number have increased from 5193 or 32%. Prior to the mountain bike season being introduced, 581 people walked the Heaphy Track between the

1 Kahurangi National Park Mountain Bike Trial 2011-2013 Resource Document 2 Impacts of mountain bikers on Powelliphanta snails along the Heaphy track, Kahurangi National Park – Season 2015 3 Annual Great Walk visitor numbers for the Heaphy Track 1 July 2014 – 30 June 2015 1 92 months 1 May to 30 September 2010. By the end of the third year of the mountain bike trial, visitor use peaked over the five month mountain bike season, with 2,2634 people either walking or biking the Heaphy Track during this five month period. The length of stay in year one of the mountain bike trial was 1.8 nights and this increased to an average of 2.2 nights by year three of the trial. The Heaphy Track is popular with all ages: 9% of visitors are 0–17 years old; 39% of visitors are 18–35 years old; 24% are 36–50 years old; and 28% are more than 50 years old. The Heaphy Track is more popular with New Zealanders (64.7%) than international visitors (35.3%). Since the Department partnered with Air New Zealand to promote our Great Walks the gap has narrowed, with international visitors growing by 11.9%. Unlike some of the other Great Walks the track can be used all year round. The track is most popular between the warmer months of November to April with use peaking in January. Compared to use of the other Great Walks, the Heaphy Track remains one of the least used Great Walks5 and has significant capacity to cater for increased use, particularly in the warmer months of October and November (refer Figure 1, below).

Figure 1 Heaphy Track visitor use by month/year showing an increase in use over the winter months since the mountain biking season was introduced in 2011. Note the use sharply declines at the end of the mountain bike season on 30 September and increases again in November.

When mountain biking was introduced, Mountain Bike New Zealand anticipated that up to 3000 people would ride the track each year. Allowing for mountain bike use of the Heaphy Track between 1 May and 30 September annually has led to an increase in use over the winter months. In 2013, use peaked over the mountain biking season at 2263. At present booking data does not identify whether people are tramping or mountain biking, however based on use that occurred over the months 1 May to 30 September prior to 20116 an estimated 75% or approximately 1650 people are mountain biking the track during the mountain-biking season. Local observations would suggest that some people who have walked the track in the past are now biking the track.

4 Note the Heaphy Track Mountain Bike Trial 2011 – 2013 states visitor use of 2223 for the 2012/13 season. The data for this report was collected during the last days of September and actual use for this month is 40 visitors higher, increasing the season total use to 2263. (reference Great Walk booking data) 5 Annual Great Walk visitor numbers for 2014/15 Rakiura 5105, Routeburn 14227, Milford, 7107, Kepler, 11936, Waikaremoana 6773, Tongariro Northern Circuit 8000, and Abel Tasman 36401. 6 In 2010 visitor use between May and September was 581, by the end of the three year trial (2013/14), use during this period peaked at 2263. 2 93 There are three new huts, Perry Saddle, James Mackay and Heaphy Hut on the Heaphy Track which can accommodate 2640 people per month. Five huts on the Heaphy Track7 can accommodate 3720 people per month. On average the huts have occupancy at 25.4%. Users are required to book to stay overnight in these huts. Camp sites have capacity to cater for 5160 people per month and have an average occupancy of 5.4%. Camping is clearly less popular than staying in huts (campsites are unlikely to be used by mountain bikers due to the additional weight of camping equipment and stoves). Walkers choosing to camp will also carry additional weight, however, campsites provide people an alternative to staying huts. In conclusion, both the huts and campsites on the Heaphy Track have significant capacity to cater for increased use. Social impacts Over the three-year trial of mountain biking on the Heaphy Track (from 2011 to 2013), visitors (walkers and mountain bikers) were invited to give feedback to the Department regarding their experiences, and to provide suggestions or general comments on the trial. Feedback received during the trial showed that conflict between walkers and mountain bikers was minimal. The Department received 144 responses: only 6 were negative while 31 comments were positive. One person commented that “it was great to see the all the users, walkers and mountain bikers, sharing the track and enjoying the experience together. It was a very social occasion”. Research carried out on conflict between trampers and mountain bikers has found that overall, walkers dislike meeting mountain bikers much more than mountain bikers disliked meeting walkers. The main perception of walkers was that mountain bikers damage the tracks and/ or the environment and there were concerns about personal safety8. These perceptions and concerns were raised during feedback on the Heaphy Track mountain bike trial. The main theme of negative feedback was that mountain bikers were not slowing down enough when approaching blind corners and were surprising walkers. The Department, Mountain Bike New Zealand and stakeholders developed and promote a Mountain Biker Code on the DOC website providing information on riding the Heaphy Track and on signs at entrances to the Heaphy Track with three key messages: • Respect others • Respect the rules • Respect the track.

In regard to minimising conflict with other users, mountain bikers are asked to: • Stay in control, so you can safely avoid others and keep yourself intact. • Give way to others. • Use a bell or greeting when approaching others.

7 Perry Saddle 28 bunks, Saxon 16 bunks, James Mackay 28 bunks, Lewis Hut 20 bunks and Heaphy Hut 32 bunks have gas cooking and wood stoves (these hut meet Great Walk Service Standard). Gouland Downs hut 8 bunks and Brown hut at the start of Heaphy Track have no gas cooking and do not meet Great Walk Service Standard. 8 Conflict in recreation: the case of mountain-bikers and trampers, Horn, Chrys, Lincoln University 1994 3 94 • Ride shared use tracks in small groups. A bike train with a dozen riders displaces other users. Concessionaires who used the Heaphy Track during the three-year mountain biking trial, were also asked whether they considered that mountain bikers had complied with the Mountain Biker Code and if they identified any conflict between walkers and mountain bikers and if so how often. The responses were that there were no reports of conflict. Comments from concessionaires and/or guides included: “I walked through the Heaphy about 20 times and always found mountain bikers to be courteous and considerate.” ‘There was no conflict, none at all that I am aware of, in fact all I saw and experienced was happy and respectful interactions and this included fantastic up-beat evening conversations in the huts.” “We did not get negative feedback from either parties” (mountain bikers or trampers). Overall, these comments suggested that compliance of mountain bikers adhering to the mountain bikers code has been high. It is difficult to fully gauge the effect of mountain bikers upon walkers due to the fact that there were few walkers on the track during the mountain biking trial, however, the limited number of instances of conflict reflects that both the mountain bikers and walkers are sharing the track with consideration for each other9. The Old Ghost Road10 is also a Grade 4 multi day mountain biking similar in nature to the Heaphy Track that was fully opened in December 2015. This track is open to biking and trampers all year round and to date there have been no reports that conflict is an issue between trampers and bikers on this track. However, trampers on this track do anticipate coming into contact with bikers. There is little or no research identified on the displacement of walkers by bikers that is applicable to the Heaphy Track. Feedback from people using the Heaphy Track over the mountain bike trial would suggest that the conflict between bikers and walkers is minimal. However, mountain bikers outnumbered walkers during the mountain biking season and extending the mountain biking season into the warmer months may increase the number of encounters between walkers and bikers. How many people participate in mountain biking? Estimates for levels of participation in mountain biking and overnight / multi day tramping among New Zealanders vary and studies do not demonstrate that one is more popular than the other.11,12,13 In 2015 the Department’s Survey of New Zealanders showed that participation in overnight/multiday tramping and mountain biking/cycling on pubic conservation lands were equal in popularity14. There is no specific information on the popularity of overnight / multiday mountain bike trips. Likewise, surveys do not break down participation by the grade of the track, therefore it is not possible to determine the size of the market segment participating in Grade 4 mountain biking. The Department manages approximately 12,000 km of multi day tramping tracks15 however, the majority of these tracks are not suitable or used for mountain biking. The introduction and

9 Kahurangi National Park Mountain Bike Trial 2011-2013 Resource Document 10 http://www.oldghostroad.org.nz/ 11 https://www.walkingaccess.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/2015-07-06-Colmar-Brunton-Walking-Access-Survey- 2015-HIGHLIGHTS.pdf 12http://nzsar.org.nz/Portals/4/Publications/Research/OUTDOOR%20Attitudes%20_%20Knowledge%20Resear ch%20Report%20Aug%202015.pdf 13 New Zealand natural outdoors participation and expenditure, Horizons Research, March 2013. 14 http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/visitor-research/survey-of-new-zealanders-2015.pdf 15 As at 6 April 2016 869 km of Easy Tramping Tracks, 395 km of Great Walks, 8927 km of Tramping Tracks 1738 km of Routes 4 95 construction of 23 New Zealand Cycle Trail Great Rides 16 has most likely contributed to an increase in participation. The Heaphy Track is not promoted as a Great Ride, however, the Old Ghost Road is, and this track provides a similar but perhaps more challenging Grade 4 multi day ride in the Buller District. The feasibility study for this track estimated that the Old Ghost Road would receive 2200 overnight users in year one increasing to 2800 by year five. Since being completed in December 2015 reported levels of use17 on this track suggest these figures are realistic. It is considered that the Old Ghost Road is likely to complement rather than compete with the Heaphy Track. It is estimated that potentially 2200 – 3000 people per annum could ride the Heaphy Track and extending the mountain bike season could be one way to increase use of the Heaphy Track. Discussion Concerns about an increase in environmental damage and issues with visitor safety/conflict that were raised prior to the trial of mountain bikes on the Heaphy Track were not reflected in the feedback received during the three year mountain bike trial. It is difficult to fully gauge the effect of mountain bikers upon walkers due to the fact that there were few walkers on the track during the mountain biking trial compared to the number of bikers, however, the limited number of instances of reported conflict reflects that both the mountain bikers and walkers who were sharing the track were doing so with consideration for each other. This would suggest that while some people may have the perception that conflict will occur between walkers and bikers, actual conflict on the Heaphy Track has been minimised by describing in pre-visit information that the Heaphy Track has a dual use walking and mountain biking season, the nature and grade of the track is a challenging, multi-day Grade 4 ride and mountain bikers are following the Mountain Bikers Code of Conduct. It is considered that the level of conflict reported between walkers and mountain bikers is acceptable. The Heaphy Track has significant capacity to cater for increased use. Anticipated use of the Old Ghost Road and actual use/ forecast use of the Heaphy Track suggest that between 2200 and up to 3000 mountain bikers per year could use the Heaphy Track. Extending the mountain bike season into warmer months may be one way of increasing use of the Heaphy Track. To determine the number of people mountain biking on the track it is recommended that the hut booking system for the Heaphy Track require people to identify whether they are tramping or mountain biking the track. It is also recommended that the link on the Department’s web site allowing visitor comments on our facilities is retained as a way of monitoring potential conflict and allowing people to provide feedback on their experience of the Heaphy Track. A survey of visitors to Heaphy Track could also be carried out.

16 http://nzcycletrail.com/ 17 Mokihinui Track OGR bike counter recorded 1612 cyclists between September 2015 and February 2016 5 96 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.14 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 April 2016

Prepared By: Marie Long, Director Planning Permissions and Land

Subject: Conservation Management Strategies – rapid prototype review

NZCA Strategic (A) Conservation Management Strategies Priority and/or the Relevant DOC SOI Goal

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

Context Marie will provide a verbal update on the Conservation Management Strategy – Rapid Prototyping Review, first presented to the NZCA as a verbal item at its meeting in December 2105 (agenda item 146.12) and in a paper to the February 2016 meeting (agenda item 147.11).

DOCCM-2787140 Rick McGovern-Wilson, EO 97 24 May 2016

DOCCM-2787140 Rick McGovern-Wilson, EO 98 24 May 2016 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.15 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Gavin Rodley, Senior Advisor, Statutory Land Management, DOC

Subject: Progress report: Reclassification of Conservation Land – Nature Heritage Fund (NHF) Purchase areas

NZCA Strategic NZCA Strategic Priority (C): Land Status Change 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

Context The Authority has requested a standing agenda paper on the progress of reclassification work that the Department is currently working on. Please find attached the Department’s update for the NZCA meeting on 7 & 8 June 2016.

DOCCM-2638425 Gavin Rodley, Senior SLM Advisor 20 May 2016 99

100 Progress Report for NZ Conservation Authority on Reclassification of Conservation Land - Nature Heritage Fund (NHF) Purchase areas as at 20 May 2016

Site name Location Land area Outcome Mechanism Target completion Status Estimated direct Progress report date costs (please note Off target that staff costs dates are calculated on completion) On target dates National Park Additions Gavin purchase area Westhaven – North- 204 hectares To be added to Section 7 of the 30 April 2016 $100 (gazettal A consolidated submission west Nelson approx. Kahurangi National National Parks Act cost) (including the addition of the Park Although the West Burnett and Steatite deadline has not blocks) is currently under been met due to the consideration by the Minister. Minister’s office wishing to add the West Burnett and Steatite blocks to the Park at the same time, it is hoped that these areas will be formally added to Kahurangi National Park by the end of June 2016. Harwood block purchase South of Kahurangi 68 hectares To be added to Section 7 of the 30 April 2016 $100 (gazettal A consolidated submission area Point – North-west approx. Kahurangi National National Parks Act cost) (including the addition of the Nelson Park Although the West Burnett and Steatite deadline has not blocks) is currently under been met due to the consideration by the Minister. Minister’s office wishing to add the West Burnett and Steatite blocks to the Park at the same time, it is hoped that these areas will be formally added to Kahurangi National Park by the end of June 2016. Kahurangi Holdings Limited Located between Big 330 hectares To be added to Section 7 of the 30 April 2016 $100 (gazettal A consolidated submission purchase area River and Kahurangi approx. Kahurangi National National Parks Act cost) (including the addition of the Point Park Although the West Burnett and Steatite deadline has not blocks) is currently under been met due to the consideration by the Minister. Minister’s office wishing to add the West Burnett and Steatite blocks to the Park at the

101 Progress Report for NZ Conservation Authority on Reclassification of Conservation Land - Nature Heritage Fund (NHF) Purchase areas as at 20 May 2016

same time, it is hoped that these areas will be formally added to Kahurangi National Park by the end of June 2016. King purchase area Borland Mire – 187 hectares To be added to Section 7 of the 30 June 2016 $100 (gazettal Consultation with iwi – on the Western Southland approx. Fiordland National National Parks Act cost) agenda for DOC’s next Park meeting with Kaitiaki Roopu (a body made up of representatives of Southland’s four Ngāi Tahu rūnanga which acts as a liaison group between Southland iwi and DOC) on 8 June 2016. O’Brien purchase area Westend Station, 401 hectares To be added to Section 7 of the 30 June 2016 $100 (gazettal Consultation with iwi – on the Borland Valley – approx. Fiordland National National Parks Act cost) agenda for DOC’s next Monowai Park meeting with Kaitiaki Roopu (a body made up of representatives of Southland’s four Ngāi Tahu rūnanga which acts as a liaison group between Southland iwi and DOC) on 8 June 2016. Wang (Johnstone)/Morgan Township of Cromarty 4047 square To be added to Section 7 of the 30 June 2016 $100 (gazettal Consultation with iwi – on the purchase area – Preservation Inlet metres Fiordland National National Parks Act cost) agenda for DOC’s next Park meeting with Kaitiaki Roopu (a body made up of representatives of Southland’s four Ngāi Tahu rūnanga which acts as a liaison group between Southland iwi and DOC) on 8 June 2016. Canaan Downs Farm Takaka 758 hectares To be assessed as a Section 7 of the 31 March 2017 Not known The requirement for the purchase approx. possible addition to National Parks Act assessment has been noted. Abel Tasman National Park

102 Progress Report for NZ Conservation Authority on Reclassification of Conservation Land - Nature Heritage Fund (NHF) Purchase areas as at 20 May 2016

Conservation Park Additions

Tarnbrae Mackenzie Basin – 2044 hectares To be added to Ahuriri Section 18 of the 30 June 2016 $1000 (advertising Draft consultation documents Canterbury approx. Conservation Park Conservation Act (includes public and gazettal costs) being prepared for the public consultation) consultation stage. Extra time (i.e., 3 months) needed to complete this important step. Hakatere Station Canterbury 9791 hectares To be added to Section 18 of the 30 June 2016 $1000 (advertising Research and analysis work approx. Hakatere Conservation Act (includes public and gazettal costs) being undertaken prior to Conservation Park consultation) public consultation documents being prepared. Castle Hill, Craigieburn Canterbury 8467 hectares To be added to Section 18 of the 31 December 2016 $1000 (advertising Research and analysis work approx. Craigieburn and Conservation Act (includes public and gazettal costs) being undertaken prior to Korowai Torlesse consultation) public consultation Tussocklands documents being prepared. conservation parks DOC-2593646

103 104 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.16 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Sarah Bagnall, Senior Policy Advisor

Subject: Conservation Streamlining Bill

NZCA Strategic NZCA Strategic Priorities A&B, E and I Priority and/or the DOC SOI – natural heritage management goal Relevant DOC SOI Goal

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Note this update b) Provide further feedback the contents of this paper

Context At its December 2015 meeting, the NZCA considered changes to planning provisions as part of a broader Conservation Law Reform (CLR) process (agenda item 146.14 refers). This followed earlier workshops on conservation planning processes and a teleconference with the Chair. In late 2015 the Department recommended to the Minister that consultation with Conservation Boards, iwi and targeted stakeholders was required before policy proposals could progress through the legislative process. The Minister agreed to targeted consultation to inform her policy decisions. The Department is currently consulting with conservation boards, iwi and targeted stakeholders on the proposals. The Conservation Streamlining Bill has a place on the 2016 legislative agenda with the intention of being referred to Select Committee within the year. Report 146.14 tabled at the last meeting provides context for this agenda item. The attached memo and A3 diagram prepared for conservation board consultation outlines the current proposals for the Streamlining Bill. Please advise of any further NZCA comments on these proposals. It is requested that this paper is withheld from public circulation because the development of policy to inform legislation is a confidential matter and the consultation being undertaken is targeted.

DOCCM-2784809 Sarah Bagnall 20 May 2016 105

DOCCM-2784809 Sarah Bagnall 20 May 2016 106 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.17 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Graeme Ayres, Director Business Assurance

Subject: Department of Conservation Risk Leadership Framework

Relevant DOC SOI A Capable Department of Conservation (DOC): Goal • Objective; People – Building the capabilities needed to deliver our Stretch Goals.

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

Context The New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) has requested an update on the DOC Risk Leadership Framework.

DOCCM-2784138 Graeme. Ayres 20 May 2016 117

DOCCM-2784138 Graeme. Ayres 20 May 2016 118 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.17 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Graeme Ayres, Director Business Assurance

Subject: Department of Conservation Risk Leadership Framework

Introduction 1. The Department of Conservation (DOC) operates in a complex environment where change is consistent and there are always uncertainties. Future events are often unpredictable, giving rise to the need to constantly be on the alert and to adapt to changing circumstances. 2. To maximise the value DOC creates simply understanding and managing threats to objectives is not enough. DOC must also be capable of taking opportunities as they arise, even when this means accepting some level of risk. 3. Most traditional approaches to risk management deal with risks one at a time and seek to simplify, whereas new approaches are aimed at clarifying and understanding risks so that clear and focused responses can be developed. 4. DOC has been working with an Australian consultancy (RISKIQ) to develop a Risk Leadership Framework (Figure 1) which identifies key high level policy and governance requirements for success in uncertainty and shows how they can be documented and implemented. The Risk Leadership Framework also describes the work leaders and teams need to do in order to be effective when facing complexity, risk and opportunities.

Fig.1: DOC Awareness and Risk Management within DOC

Risk Policy and Direction

Education Purpose of the Tools Framework Templates Scope Library Principles Advice Non –Negotiables Assurance Key Accountabilities Audit/Review

Work of Role in Uncertainty Tailored Risk Management Processes

5. The approach DOC is taking is a way of thinking and operating rather than a risk management process or a risk management business system. Separate risk management processes are to be minimised and connected. The intent of the approach is to ensure that DOC’s business systems, and the ways in which people

DOCCM-2784138 Graeme. Ayres 20 May 2016 119 work combine to ensure effective decisions and outcomes in uncertainty, change and complexity.

Progress to Date 6. DOC’s Risk Management Policy was approved on the 22 July 2015 and contains five guiding principles for managing risk: i. Risk is best managed by building core business systems and processes that work well in and on uncertainty. ii. Risk management work at every level should be focused on maximising the outcomes for the whole business and over all timeframes. iii. Single point accountability through clear task assignment to individuals with requisite accountability lays the foundation for risk management. iv. Team Process to tap into appropriate expertise enables effective decision making in uncertainty. v. Disciplined analysis is essential when seeking to find hidden or counter-intuitive risks in complex situations. 7. The Risk Management Policy principles reinforce recent organisational change initiatives led by the Director General in relation to single point accountability, team process and task assignment. 8. A refreshed Risk and Assurance Committee consisting of external parties was appointed in August 2015. The Risk and Assurance Committee’s charter guides their purpose to : ‘Assist the Director General by providing clear and independent advice on the effectiveness in practice of the Department’s corporate operating structures, systems, processes and outcomes.’ 9. A Performance in Uncertainty1 survey was conducted in Nov/Dec 2015 to assess how capable the DOC is of achieving goals and maximising performance in an environment of complexity and uncertainty. The results of this survey have been used to support the implementation of the Risk Management Policy as a lever for a real lift in DOC’s ability to manage its risks. 10. The Risk Management Policy is now being refined and implemented through: i. Three workshops held for developing an effective approach for fully implementing the Risk Management Policy. ii. A Risk Leadership Library consisting of a range of tools and methods used to understand the nature of risks and opportunities e.g. risk mapping tools. iii. The development of an Executive Awareness and Strategic Risk Register. iv. A focus on connecting with other risk management processes e.g. Operating Reviews, Executive meetings, Portfolio management, Visitor management and Health and Safety initiatives. v. Champions and key colleague stakeholders such as Director Health and Safety, and Chief Legal Advisor.

1 Risk IQ- Applied systems thinking for the work of leaders.

DOCCM-2784138 Graeme. Ayres 20 May 2016 120 Conclusion 11. Emphasis is being placed on embedding the use of the Risk Leadership Framework and its tools into the way DOC personnel work. The measure of success will be evidenced by an improvement in the ways in which people work and combine with DOC’s business systems for effective decisions and outcomes in uncertainty, change and complexity. 12. Creating a culture that is risk aware and responsive will take time. The full implementation of the DOC Risk Management Policy remains as a work in progress.

DOCCM-2784138 Graeme. Ayres 20 May 2016 121

DOCCM-2784138 Graeme. Ayres 20 May 2016 122 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.18 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: The Role of the NZCA in the Post-Treaty Claims Settlement Era

NZCA Strategic NZCA Strategic Priority (D): Treaty of Waitangi 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) Provide feedback the contents of this paper

Context The New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) is required under s.4 of the Conservation Act 1987 to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. It does this by giving advice to the Minister of Conservation, and to the Department of Conservation (DOC), on conservation issues of national importance to Māori. The Treaty of Waitangi Claims Settlement process is a case in point. To date more than 40 Claims Settlement Acts have been passed giving effect to dozens of claims under the Treaty of Waitangi. Many of these have a direct reference to the NZCA, and thus place statutory obligations on the Authority, which must therefore be reflected in its work. At the April meeting Tata Lawton, DD-G Kahui Kaupapa Atawhai presented a paper in response to the Authority’s request for a “think piece”. The Minutes from that meeting are contained in these papers, and the question now, is “What Next”. This is an opportunity for the Authority to explore how they wish to proceed in this area.

DOCCM-2787717 Rick McGovern-Wilson, EO 25 May 2016 123

DOCCM-2787717 Rick McGovern-Wilson, EO 25 May 2016 124 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.19 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Freshwater fish conservation

NZCA Strategic NZCA: Strategic Priority (I) Rivers and Freshwater 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) Provide feedback on how the Authority should proceed on this issue

Context The Authority has been considering the issue of whitebait and other galaxids for some months, after a number of conservation boards (particularly Waikato) raised concerns around threats to the survival of the five species, trading online, and food safety concerns. At the Conservation Board Chairs’ Conference in September 2015, further discussion occurred – which identified a range of additional issues, including habitat threat as being the primary areas for further work. Paula Warren produced a paper for the Authority’s December meeting that summarized the issues. At the Authority’s April meeting, it was agreed that ‘whitebait’ would be kept on the agenda, to establish whether there are additional steps that can be taken. Paula’s December paper is attached here to assist the discussion. In addition, Waana Davis, Rau Kirikiri and the EO attended a Wellington Freshwater Restoration Hui on 11 May, which they can report back on.

DOCCM-2787643 125

DOCCM-2787643 126 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.19 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Paula Warren, Senior Policy Advisor, DOC

Subject: Freshwater fish conservation: mechanisms available for addressing threats

Background/Introduction 1. Whitebait fisheries management was a major topic at the most recent Board Chairs’ meeting. That discussion covered a range of threats to whitebait and to other threatened freshwater fish. 2. In the margins of the meeting, Waana Davis suggested that it would be useful to have a paper that clearly sets out the mechanisms available for addressing threats to freshwater fish, to inform board/NZCA/community discussions about how to address issues facing individual fish species or populations. This paper responds to that suggestion.

Threats to freshwater fish 3. The main threats to freshwater fish populations are: 1. Harvest (commercial, recreational or customary), bycatch or deliberate killing of fish 2. Killing of fish during stream works (e.g. drain clearing) 3. Fish kills as a result of authorised or unauthorised discharges (e.g. accidental spills from vehicle crashes, illegal discharges) 4. Fish kills as a result of low water events during major droughts, as a result of water takes, as a result of diversions, or as a result of drainage works. Death may be caused by insufficient water, or associated temperature/oxygen changes, or because the water depth makes it impossible for the fish to avoid predators or feed, or a combination of those effects 5. Predation by trout and salmon, particularly where habitat complexity has been lost so there are no refuges (e.g. the stream has no logs or tree roots along the banks) 6. Loss of fish passage, due to physical barriers (dams, perched culverts, weirs) or excessive velocity within culverts and pipes 7. Loss of fish passage due to water quality barriers (e.g. due to concentrations of chemicals within the “reasonable mixing” zone of a point discharge 8. Loss of fish passage due to chemicals in the water making it impossible for juvenile fish to smell adults upstream. Whitebait will only enter a stream if they can detect adults

DOCCM-2787643 127 9. Loss of spawning sites (e.g. because the vegetation is replaced by rock wrap or mown) or damage to eggs between spawning and hatching (e.g. due to poorly timed mowing) 10. Loss of habitat quality due to reduced water quality (particularly sediment) 11. Loss of habitat quality due to reduced water quantity (including loss of flushing flows) 12. Loss of habitat quality due to introduced species (e.g. didymo) 13. Disease outbreaks caused by introduced diseases or loss of immune resistance to natural diseases 4. For non-migratory galaxids that occupy very limited areas, the biggest threats would be habitat loss and trout invasion. 5. For lowland fish such as bullies, inanga and short fin eels, the biggest threat is habitat deterioration due to sediment inputs and catchment/development works (e.g. river straightening, bank hardening). 6. In urban streams, impervious surfaces/stormwater discharges, stream loss (piping), and new fish passage barriers are the key threats to fish populations, with recreational harvest also being a problem for short fin eels. 7. For whitebait species (migratory galaxids), loss of spawning sites is a major problem. 8. For all migratory species, fish passage barriers are a major problem. 9. For fish species that require clean, fast flowing, rock bottomed streams (e.g. torrent fish); stream deterioration due to surrounding land uses is a key issue.

Tools for addressing threats Harvest 10. Harvest of whitebait is controlled under the whitebait regulations administered by the Department of Conservation. The aim of those regulations is to ensure that a proportion of fish are able to swim up the river to their adult habitat. Compliance with the details of the regulation (e.g. relating to the proportion of the river that a net can block) is vital to that intent being achieved. 11. Areas may also be closed to fishing under the Conservation Act Section 26ZL and the Freshwater fisheries Regulations 1983, in specific circumstances. 12. Commercial fishing of eels is managed under the quota management system (Fisheries Act). MPI is currently reviewing some aspects of that system in light of the PCE report on longfin eels. 13. The landowner’s consent is generally needed before any fishing can occur, so fishing in protected areas can be managed regardless of whether a Fisheries Act permission is held by the fisher. 14. The Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983 contain a regulation allowing faunistic reserves to be created. These are a regulatory overlay that forbids all fishing except limited, authorised, take of fish for scientific purposes. DOC is currently reviewing the regulation, and intends to amend it to make it a more useful tool. 15. The Fisheries Act controls any fishing, but in general the taking of species other than whitebait or eels (and koura) is not restricted by MPI.

DOCCM-2787643 128 The Resource Management Act (RMA) 16. The RMA is the primary legislative tool for addressing threats to fish that arise from habitat deterioration or activities within waterbodies (i.e. most of the threats listed above). 17. Section 13 of the Act applies to most activities within the beds of a lake or river that might adversely affect fish (e.g. to disturb the bed, build a structure, carry out a reclamation). An activity covered by the section must be authorised through a regional plan or a consent issued by the regional council. See also the section on fish passage below. 18. Section 14 covers taking, damming and diversion of water, and section 15 covers discharges to land or water. Again, it is the regional council which is responsible for authorising activities that are subject to those sections. The council can also control landuse activities that would result in diffuse discharges of sediment or nutrients to the waterbody. Sediment is the contaminant which is causing most damage to fish populations in New Zealand. 19. The Act does not apply to water in artificial waterbodies. 20. The National Policy Statement on Freshwater Management (http://www.mfe.govt.nz/sites/default/files/media/Fresh%20water/nps-freshwater- management-jul-14.pdf) requires regional councils to have a regional plan that sets objectives for each waterbody, and limits to ensure those objectives will be met. Where a waterbody is over-allocated (i.e. is not delivering the desired objective fully), the plan must set a timeframe for addressing that problem. 21. So it is vital that communities that have a fish population or fishery that they wish to recover or maintain ensure that the objectives in the plan for that waterbody reflect that value. If the plan has appropriate objectives, then (in theory) the council will use rules and other methods to ensure that the objective is achieved. If the plan does not, there is a high risk of fish being adversely affected by activities. Protected area legislation 22. Legal protection of areas (through creation of a protected area, covenant or Maori reservation) can protect fish and their habitat from activities that the landowner can control. The landowner cannot control water takes, damming and diversion within the river unless that requires use of the landowner’s land. Similarly, discharges occurring at other locations cannot be directly controlled. So to be fully effective, a protected area must be paired with appropriate regional plan rules on discharges and water takes. 23. In the case of unallocated Crown riverbeds administered by Land Information NZ, communities may wish to seek an agreement with the relevant LINZ office, to ensure that their agents do not authorise activities that would adversely affect fish populations (e.g. alterations to riparian vegetation, feeding out pads on braided riverbeds, gravel extraction in spawning areas), and/or to ensure that management activities done by LINZ are fish friendly. 24. Unallocated Crown land can be transferred to the Conservation Act (under section 7 of that Act) or Reserves Act (under section 8 of the Conservation Act) by agreement between the Ministers of Land Information and Conservation. But that land must be defined, so the costs of making transfers may be prohibitive, even if Ministers agree. Biosecurity 25. The Biosecurity Act mechanisms can be used to control pests and pathways for movement of pests. The key mechanisms available are:

DOCCM-2787643 129 1. Declaration of species as “unwanted”. This then makes their sale, propagation and release illegal. 2. National pest management plans 3. Regional pest management plans 4. National pathway management plans 5. Regional pathway management plans 6. Powers for emergency control of new incursions 26. Pathway plans are new tool, which have not yet been used. They are intended for managing activities that can spread a range of freshwater pests – gravel extraction and use; movement of aquaculture and similar equipment used in freshwater; movement of freshwater recreational vessels; etc. 27. The Act is administered by the Ministry of Primary Industries, which is responsible for declaring organisms to be unwanted, and for overseeing national plans. Regional councils are responsible for regional plans. Other parties can become responsible for a plan (e.g. TbFree NZ for the bovine Tb plan). Conservation Act powers relating to movement of aquatic life 28. Section 26ZM of the Act prohibits movement of aquatic life between waterbodies without approval of either the Minister of Conservation or Minister of Fisheries. This provision allows control of movement of pest fish or fish that may be a problem in a new location, management of translocations, and management of fish movement where that might spread disease. 29. This issue is also addressed in Part 8 of the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983 (notably regulation 63). Protection of fish 30. The Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983 contain three provisions relating to indigenous fish protection (69-71). In effect, they fully protect grayling (which are extinct), and forbid the killing of fish (including by leaving them stranded on the bank of a stream) other than for scientific purposes or consumption. So malicious killing of fish in the water is illegal, as would be activities such as drain clearing that unintentionally extract fish if no effort was made to return those fish to the water before they die. 31. Freshwater fish are not and cannot be covered by the Wildlife Act (marine fish can be). Fish passage 32. The Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983, made under the Conservation Act, prohibits the creation of new fish passage barriers without the approval of the Minister of Conservation. They also require that existing structures approved under the regulations are maintained so they do not create an unauthorised level of barrier. “Fish passage barriers” includes all culverts and similar instream structures. 33. Structures that may pose a barrier to fish movement are also subject to RMA section 13 controls, so the RMA has become a key mechanism for managing those which are associated with larger developments (e.g. highway culverts). 34. A recent court decision confirmed that both sets of regulations apply, and approval under the RMA does not exempt the requirement to comply with the regulations (and vice versa). 35. The Department’s enforcement of the regulations has been limited by lack of resources, the difficulty of finding out that structures are being put in place, and the difficulty of proving whether a structure is pre- or post-1983.

DOCCM-2787643 130 36. A national programme to improve effort in this area has been initiated, including creation of an independent national fish passage advisory group. NZTA has also developed its own guidelines to reduce the risk that state highways will have structures that impede fish passage. 37. There has been considerable work done in recent years to develop ways to retrofit culverts to improve fish passage. Many of those methods can be implemented easily by community groups. For example perched culverts can be fixed by simply piling rocks at the downstream end to turn a waterfall into a rapid that a galaxid (but not a trout) could climb. 38. Preventing passage by trout is as important as allowing passage by migratory galaxids. The RMA is the appropriate mechanism for managing activities that may allow trout (and other introduced fish) to invade waterbodies that are currently inaccessible – dams that would flood existing natural barriers such as waterfalls and rapids; irrigation diversions that would connect currently unconnected waterbodies; removal of existing fish passage barriers such as weirs. Catchment works 39. Many of the activities occurring in waterbodies are undertaken by regional council catchment staff – drain clearing, stop bank construction, willow clearance, etc. Powers under the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act may be used to undertake those works on private land, but those powers do not remove the requirement to comply with the RMA. So the focus for communities concerned about such activities should be either working with catchment staff to develop fish friendly practices, and/or seeking effective provisions in the regional plan to control adverse effects on fish. Best practice 40. Many potentially damaging activities in waterbodies (e.g. drain clearing, building of culverts) can be effectively undertaken without significant effects on fish if best practice is used. There are often a limited number of people who do such work within a district (council staff and a small number of contractors). So work to get those individuals to adopt best practice is likely to be highly beneficial. Restoration 41. Freshwater restoration work is critical to increase the size and resilience of most populations. Key activities would include: 1. Riparian planting to provide shade, food, and eventually habitat complexity. 2. Planting in inundation areas of larger rivers. Native vegetation in inundation areas is an important generator of fish food during floods. 3. Creating new inundation areas when stop banks and other flood control systems are being modified. 4. Exclusion of stock from waterbodies, including wetlands. 5. Addition of logs (where they can be secured or are not a risk to structures downstream) to provide more complex habitats and refuges from trout. 6. Creation of artificial refuges within natural or artificial banks. 7. Restoration and protection of spawning sites. 8. Where the spawning site is in rock wrap, addition of hay bales or other materials at the appropriate time of the year as a substrate for eggs to be attached to. 9. Management of stormwater so water does not flow directly into urban streams, but rather enters through stormwater gardens or via inundation wetlands (to reduce pollutants and even out flows).

DOCCM-2787643 131 10. Restoration of wetlands. Science and citizen science 42. Knowledge of freshwater fish and their habitat is still limited. 43. A key step in protecting fish is to identify where they currently live, and any habitats that would be suitable but are not available to them. Identifying where inanga spawning sites are, working out what fish species are present (e.g. by spotlighting), and surveying habitat condition, and identifying fish passage barriers are all relatively simple tasks that community groups can undertake. Some more specialist activities (e.g. electric fishing) will need to be done by professionals. 44. DOC has developed the Freshwater Ecosystems of NZ database, which includes a predictive layer showing what fish would be expected to be in each waterbody. 45. Records of freshwater fish are held in a national database. Any new records created through surveys should be added to the database. 46. The Whitebait Connection (http://www.whitebaitconnection.co.nz/ ) provides support to schools for work on whitebait. Public education, signage, etc 47. Public knowledge of freshwater fish is very limited. Many people do not know that NZ has a large number of native fish species, or that trout are not native. Tame eel populations, signage at spawning sites, community restoration projects and school programmes can all help increase recognition of fish and the threats to them. 48. DOC has digital copies of a range of standard publications, posters and signs that could be used by groups.

DOCCM-2787643 132 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.20 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Review of NZCA policies: NZCA Marine Principles

NZCA Strategic (K) NZCA’s performance Priority

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Review the NZCA Marine Principles b) Receive an update on the proposal to review the NZCA Freshwater Principles, and c) Receive an update on the proposal to review the Criteria for Prioritising Proposals for Land Status Change

Context Since its establishment in 1990 the Authority has approved a variety of policies and procedures (~18). Some of these may no longer be relevant, or may need updating. At the December 2015 meeting the Authority agreed to review one (or more) of these policies and procedures at each future meeting, and reapprove, amend and approve, or cancel as appropriate. Attached for review at the June 2016 meeting is: • NZCA Marine Principles Other policies and procedures are available to members via Dropbox. Many are available to the public on the www.conservationauthority.or.nz website.

NZCA Marine Principles The NZCA Marine Principles were approved in 2000 and revised in 2006. With the Government’s planned reform of the Marine Protected Areas legislation, on which the Authority lodged a submission, it is considered timely for the Authority to review its Marine Principles. These are attached to this paper for discussion. Update of April decisions At the April 2016 meeting the Authority considered: • The NZCA Freshwater Principles (2008)

DOCCM-2787400 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 24 May 2016 133 • The criteria for Prioritising Proposals for Land Status Change 1999 The Minutes from that meeting record that: • The Freshwater working group will update this policy after the submission on Next Steps for Freshwater had been finalised so that the submission (lodged 22 April 2016), the Authority’s publication Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers, and responsibilities for freshwater under legislation can form the basis of the updated principles. • The Authority agreed to write to the Department to request that these guidelines be updated to reflect the Authority’s advice on Stewardship land and assessing net conservation benefit (February 2016), and that the revised guidelines be provided to the Authority to endorse at its August 2016 meeting.

DOCCM-2787400 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 24 May 2016 134 December 2000 - amended slightly June 2006 The New Zealand Conservation Authority Marine Principles

Governance 1. Protection of marine biodiversity and marine ecosystems and marine landforms unique to New Zealand is a national and international responsibility. 2. The marine environment will be governed for the benefit of all New Zealanders. 3. The marine environment is viewed as a taonga – there for everybody and upon which we rely, rather than as a resource base on which to create property rights. 4. Any allocation of rights to use marine resources will be based on robust and appropriate environmental research. 5. Decision-making will be informed by traditional knowledge of tangata whenua along with new sources of information and research. 6. Where there is insufficient information, the precautionary principle will apply. Preservation and Protection 7. Priority for protection will be afforded to our unique indigenous flora and fauna. 8. Responsibilities to future generations requires that non-extractive values of the marine environment, such as intrinsic values, wildness values, spiritual values and ecosystem services, 1 are protected. 9. A spectrum of protection mechanisms will be employed to enable communities to be involved in the protection and preservation as well as the rehabilitation and use of marine ecosystems (e.g. taiapure, mahinga mataitai, reserves). 10. Representative, rare, and special marine ecosystems will be preserved in perpetuity as “no take”2 areas within the limit of the EEZ. Sustainable Use 11. The marine environment will be sustainably managed in a way that maintains its potential for future generations. 12. The marine and terrestrial environments will be managed in an integrated way that recognises the complex inter-relationships of land, sea and atmosphere. 13. Rights to use the marine environment should be exercised in an ecologically sustainable manner. 14. Where finite resources are being used e.g. mining of finite resources, this is to be carried out in a manner that mitigates the adverse impacts of the activity on the marine environment.

1 Ecosystem services are the natural resources which underpin sustainability. These substantially add to the quality of life. Up till now no economic value has been put on them – i.e. natural resources such as clean water and air, or the ocean as a means of transport and waste disposal have been taken for granted. New economic models are being developed to put a dollar value on these services. 2 By “no take” the Authority means nothing to be taken in the column from sea surface to seabed.

DOCCM-2787400 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 24 May 2016 135

DOCCM-2787400 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 24 May 2016 136 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.21 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Ken Hughey, Departmental Science Advisor

Subject: Conservation and Environment Science Roadmap; and the DOC science strategy

NZCA Strategic Ministerial priority and agreed to keep NZCA involved. Priority and/or the NZCA Strategic Priority J: Effectiveness and efficiency of the Relevant DOC SOI Department’s conservation management Goal

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

Context The Department is helping the government prepare a 20yr conservation and environment science roadmap – this is a joined up whole of government exercise. We recently contacted around 250 organisations and called for science questions – we received about 150 questions from around 25 submissions. Officials have considered the questions and: 1. Identified 10 themes 2. Developed each of these 10 themes into the basis of a public discussion document that will soon go to Ministers for approval for public release. It is envisaged that in the 2nd half of 2016 there will be a more inclusive round of public consultation before a final report is presented to cabinet for approval.

DOCCM-2784533 Ken Hughey 19 May 2016 137

DOCCM-2784533 Ken Hughey 19 May 2016 138 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.21 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Ken Hughey, Departmental Science Advisor

Subject: Conservation and Environment Science Roadmap – 20 yr vision

Background/Introduction 1. As per cover page – the paper identifies the 10 key themes against which research questions are being developed

Details/Comment 2. The themes are: • Integrated Ecosystems and Processes • Land Ecosystems and Processes • Freshwater Ecosystems and Processes • Coastal-Marine Ecosystems and Processes • Populations and Species • Climate Change • Mātauranga Māori • Human Dimensions • Biosecurity • Informatics, Monitoring and Technology

3. It is noted that 2-4 of the themes are cross cutting and will be dealt with as their own entities but also in the other themes: Mātauranga Māori and Climate change are notable. 4. Officials are working on finalising the draft for Ministerial consideration in June. A strategic advisory group chaired by Sir Peter Gluckman and containing Warren Parker is assisting and are meeting us again on 31 May to discuss more detailed content matters. 5. Over time it is expected the Roadmap will provide further direction to research providers and to DOC’s own science strategy.

Section 4 Conservation Act 6. TPK and Iwi advisors from DOC and MfE are on the Officials Working Group and advising us on content and process matters.

Conclusion 7. The Roadmap is proceeding according to a demanding time schedule. Feedback to date has been very positive.

DOCCM-2784533 Ken Hughey 19 May 2016 139 140 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.22 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Ratify NZCA submissions

NZCA Strategic NZCA Priority (F): Game changers for conservation – pests/ Priority and/or the weeds/biosecurity Relevant DOC SOI NZCA Priority (I): Rivers and Freshwater Goal

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Ratify the submission of the Freshwater Committee, dated 22 April 2016, on the Ministry for the Environment’s document Next Steps for Fresh Water. b) Ratify the submission of the Pest Management Committee, dated 26 May 2016, on the Ministry for the Environment’s document Streamlining the regulatory regime for pest control.

Context Freshwater submission The latest step in the Ministry for the Environment’s work on freshwater management, which began with the release of the National Policy Statement For Freshwater Management 2014 was the discussion document Next Steps for Fresh Water. This document proposed potentially significant changes to the manner in which Water Conservation Orders are managed under the RMA. This runs contrary to the position the Authority adopted in its Rivers Report of 2011. At the April meeting, the Authority convened a committee to draft a submission on the discussion document. The Authority’s submission was lodged via the MfE website on 22 April 2016 (attached). This submission needs to be ratified at an Authority meeting to become its official advice. Pest Control submission On 9 May 2016, the Minister for the Environment released a discussion paper proposing regulations under the Resource Management Act be introduced to provide for a nationally consistent approach to pest control. As per your agreed Submissions Process an email was circulated seeking advice as to whether the Authority would lodge a submission. A majority of members agreed that it would

DOCCM-743964 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 22 May 2016 141 be appropriate for the Authority to lodge a submission, and Mick Clout, Devon McLean and Judy Hellstrom offered to work with the EO on producing a submission. The Authority’s submission was lodged via the MfE website on 26 May 2016 (attached). This submission needs to be ratified at an Authority meeting to become its official advice.

DOCCM-743964 Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer 22 May 2016 142

“Next steps for fresh water” Consultation Document SUBMISSION FROM THE NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY 22 April 2016 To: [email protected]

Contact Information

Name of New Zealand Conservation Authority organisation Contact person Dr Rick McGovern-Wilson, Executive Officer Postal Address PO Box 10420, Wellington 6143 Telephone 04 471 9378 Email Address [email protected] Submitter type Other: Statutory body

1. The Legislative Basis for the New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) submission.

The New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) was established under the Conservation Act 1987.

The NZCA has a range of powers and functions, under the Conservation Act 1987, as well as under other conservation related legislation. Under the Conservation Act, Section 6C (2) (c), the NZCA has the power to “advocate the interests of the Authority at any public forum or in any statutory planning process.”

The Act sets out the Functions of the Department of Conservation which include: “To preserve so far as is practicable all indigenous freshwater fisheries, and protect recreational freshwater fisheries and freshwater fish habitats”.

One of the functions of the NZCA is to investigate any nature conservation or other conservation matters it considers are of national importance and to advise the Minister or the Director- General of Conservation, as appropriate. The NZCA sees fresh water to be a conservation matter of national importance and has consistently identified fresh water management as one of its strategic priorities.

One of the NZCA’s statutory functions is to approve conservation management strategies and conservation management plans, and review and amend such strategies and plans. They constitute

143

the key management documents for directing conservation effort and resources in NZ. Many of these documents have objectives, policies and outcomes relating to fresh water habitats and fresh water fisheries.

The NZCA also has a function to investigate and advise the Minister or the Director-general on any conservation matter. Fresh water issues fall under ‘any conservation matter”.

Following the logic of the above powers and functions, the NZCA has decided to submit on the MFE Consultation Document – Next steps for fresh water.

2. NZCA Advocacy for fresh water. The NZCA has taken a close interest in fresh water matters in New Zealand over at least the last decade. In 2008 the NZCA adopted a policy entitled “NZCA Fresh Water Principles” (attached as Appendix One).

The NZCA’s current advocacy on water issues recognises and reflects the widespread public concern about water. The NZCA recognises the significance New Zealanders place on rivers, wetlands, lakes and estuaries; these places are an inherent part of being a New Zealander.

As indicated above, water bodies are a significant feature of Conservation Management Strategies. These documents have been developed and amended, based on submissions from a wide spectrum of the NZ community.

Media reports over the last two decades have to a large degree, concentrated on deterioration of water quality and water quantity issues in lowland water bodies, where intensification of land use has had the greatest impact. This is of concern from an environmental perspective. The NZCA prefers to take a wide conservation perspective on the fresh water issue.

The NZCA perspective on fresh water environments covers: - The requirement for a “headwaters to sea” integrated approach (including estuaries and immediately affected inshore marine environments). - Emphasis on the diverse range of freshwater ecosystem types (rivers, streams, lakes, hydrologically connected groundwater, spring- fed streams, wetlands, estuaries, coastal lakes). - Healthy freshwater ecosystems (maintaining the diversity of in-stream habitat types, riparian margins, natural flow regimes, a high standard of water quality). - Preservation of indigenous fish species. - Protection of indigenous aquatic flora and fauna (additional to fish species), as part of the food web. - Recognition of the ecosystem services public conservation land provides to fresh water ecosystems beyond the boundary of such lands. - Public accessibility of fresh water resources. - Public health issues associated with degraded water quality. - Permanent protection of fresh water bodies.

In relation to the last point – permanent protection of fresh water bodies - in 2011 the NZCA published its “Protecting New Zealand’s River” Report. Section 7 (Enhancing River Protection) summarises the 19 recommendations from the report. Although the recommendations are broader than proposals in this Consultation Document, recommendations 13 to 17 relate to Water Conservation Orders (WCO). The recommendations from that report are attached in Appendix Two of this submission, and we recommend chapters 4 and 5 in particular be read for context. A copy of

144

the full report is attached as part of this submission. Section 5a) of this submission expands on the proposed changes to the WCO section of the RMA.

3. Next Steps for freshwater Proposals - The NZCA position and suggestions: The following submissions are the NZCA’s main concerns about the proposals. The submissions follow the structure of the consultation document.

a). Freshwater and our environment proposals The development of new attributes, including sediment, toxic algae and wetlands is strongly supported. These are urgently needed, to ensure all effects on all aquatic ecosystems are addressed.

We note that standards are now urgently required for estuaries and coastal lakes and the NZCA supports the proposal to apply the Appendix 2 attributes table to these water bodies, noting that further research on estuaries and coastal lakes is necessary.

Both the development of the proposed new attributes and application of attributes to estuaries and coastal lakes will ensure cumulative effects are addressed and catchment management is integrated.

The NZCA considers some of the current water quality standards are inadequate. Standards should be ambitious and more aspirational, given the long term nature of improving water quality at some locations. The wadeable standard for human health in freshwater is a good example of the inadequacy of a standard and we note this standard has been much maligned by the general public and water quality experts. The standards should be more closely aligned with the well- researched ANZEEC guidelines (2000), which reflect human health, animal health, ecosystem health in terms of impacts of contaminants on ecosystem processes and aquatic species.

Inadequate standards may mean a longer time frame for improvement of degraded water quality. Some contaminant standards are set at such a level that greater degradation of aquatic ecosystems, will occur over the short to medium term. This may well prove fatal for some of the more sensitive aquatic species and those species with already limited habitat availability or habitat quality. b). Macro vertebrate MCI as an attribute and measure of ecosystem health. We strongly support this proposal, but for the reasons outlined earlier, the standards set should reflect and align with the ANZEEC guidelines for freshwater systems, to ensure ecosystem health is maintained and improved. c). Significant infrastructure and water quality. The NZCA acknowledges the importance of hydro- electricity generation and irrigation to NZ, and supports the proposal for further direction on evidence to define exceptions. The concept of “exception” requires careful thought and definition. Most hydro development and large scale irrigation infrastructure has resulted in significant, and often irreversible, adverse effects on freshwater ecosystems. The concept of exceptions could prove to be a disincentive to power generators and irrigators to even try to mitigate/ remediate adverse effects, on an ongoing basis.

Many mitigation/ remediation techniques exist and are practical. These include flushing flows to ensure periphyton biomass meets the appropriate standards for ecosystem health. Flushing of clean water can remove fine sediment from the interstices of rocks on river beds which degrade macroinvertebrate and small native fish habitat. Restoration of wetlands along the riparian margins of rivers affected by hydro development can add considerably to water quality and biodiversity.

145

It is unacceptable to enable exceptions where much can be done to improve water quality and habitats for fauna, as well as providing for infrastructure. Some mitigation and remediation activities can be out-of-stream.

We submit the following additions be made to the list of information needed to determine where exceptions should be considered: - Community concerns about adverse effects on their local community. (These are often neglected in the national interest). - The existing water permit conditions, including monitoring conditions. (These have often been negotiated and agreed with stakeholders. Conditions often require mitigation and remediation of adverse effects on an ongoing basis. It is important these matters are not neglected). - The need for adequate flow regimes for rivers affected by HEP development and water takes for irrigation. (This means not just minimum flows and the occasional flushing flow. Attention needs to be given to median and mean flows, the number of high flow events and other flow regime characteristics). - Evidence of the state of the affected water body ecosystem and trends over time. d). Stock exclusion from water bodies. The NZCA generally supports the “deadlines” proposal, but think the 2025 timeline should be the limit for having all stock types (as listed in the table) out of water bodies, if meaningful progress in improving water quality and ecosystem health is to be made.

We do not support the omitting of sheep from the proposed regulation. We consider that sheep should be excluded from lowland NZ waterbodies, particularly class 1 -4 land. Some parts of NZ are very intensively sheep farmed. Research highlights the presence of faecal matter from an ovine source, in surface water and in-stream sediments, in many lowland streams in Southland. A summary of this research is attached as Appendix Three. This information also refers to the research paper available on the Environment Southland website.

We note the Sustainable Dairying Water Accord standard of "streams > than 1m wide and > 30cm deep " as requiring to be fenced. This is inadequate for protecting small stream ecosystems. There are many small streams ecosystems in lowland areas that are permanently flowing and have smaller dimensions than the Accord definition. Many smaller streams provide habitat for long and short fin eel and a variety of non-migratory galaxiid species and bullies. These should not be ignored. All permanently flowing streams need to be fenced in lowland (class 1-4) land. A flexible approach to the Accord definition is required, to enable regional differences and to better protect small stream ecosystems and native fish populations.

4. Economic use of fresh water a). Technical efficiency standards. The NZCA is unclear how these will operate or how they will help address over-allocation and free- up water for new users. The concepts of "over-allocation" and "freeing- up water for new users" seem to be in conflict. An over-allocated surface water body often means the surface water ecosystem is under severe pressure at low flows. This can impact on habitat availability and native fish species. In such situations reducing the over- allocation as soon as possible, and giving the water body ecosystem a chance to recover, would be a more environmentally sustainable approach. We note there is further work to be done on allocation policy and we consider that policy needs to include the concept of restoring the ecosystems of over-allocated water bodies.

146

b). Good management practice standards. The NZCA supports the concept of good management practice standards, noting that they need to be the "norm" for all farming. If real progress is to be made in terms of maintaining and improving water quality, good management practices need to be implemented as soon as possible. As noted in 3d), re stock exclusion, timelines to achieve that particular GMP should be brought forward.

Managing diffuse N discharges is the biggest challenge. Being able to meet this challenge is not helped by the fact that the national bottom line for nitrate is not set at an ecologically realistic level. We consider this standard should be reviewed, to ensure a more realistic ecological measure. This will lower people’s expectations about how much they are allowed to pollute and this will force further lateral thinking about good management practices around nitrate leaching.

It needs to be acknowledged that implementing GMP’s may not be enough to achieve the improvements in water quality sought in some catchments, where water quality allocations are exceeded.

c). Transferring consents to more efficient, higher valued uses. The NZCA does not support the concept of transferring of consents for water takes and discharges of contaminants, unless the effects on the environment are reconsidered as part of the transfer process.

The problem with such a concept is that it fails to acknowledge that adverse effects of activities can be very site specific. The following example demonstrates this issue.

Water quantity: stream flow depletion effects of groundwater takes on surface water flows. These can vary considerably in a spatial sense. A ground water abstraction from one part of an aquifer affecting the flows in the lower reaches of a surface water course can be significantly different from the effects of the same take from the same aquifer on the upper parts of the stream system. For example a 100l/s take from groundwater with a 10% (10 l/s) depletion effect on a stream with a low flow of 200l/s in its lower reaches is very different from the upper reaches of the stream where the low flow is only 50 l/s. The adverse effects could be very significant on in-stream habitats and on fish species living in the upper reaches of the stream. Such effects must be considered under any transfer arrangements.

We consider that the concept of transferring discharge consents blurs the existing resource consent compliance processes. Transferring a discharge consent, with conditions setting nitrate leaching quantities, to another consent holder raises questions about responsibility for compliance with the consent conditions. Individual responsibility in terms of consents needs to be upheld.

The ability to transfer consents where nitrate leaching is below the consented level to another consent holder who wants to leach more nitrate represents a disincentive to “do better”. In the long term such a system would have a negative impact on maintaining and improving water quality and aquatic ecosystem health.

In New Zealand, a stage has been reached where under-allocated resources is a very good position to be in. Such a situation means there is time for natural ecosystems to recover and improve. It should not be the aim to use every last bit of “head room” in the name of maximising production.

147

5. Iwi rights and interests in freshwater a). Water Conservation Orders (WCO). The NZCA supports the proposal to include Iwi participation in WCO decision making. We understand this has been the case in more recent applications and hearing processes, e.g. the Oreti Conservation Order 2008.

The NZCA however, does not support other proposals under this heading. The key concern relates to the tying of WCO applications to regional planning processes. WCO, since being part of NZ’s environmental legislation, have come to be considered by some as the “national parks’ of NZ waterways. This concept comes from S 199 (2) of the RMA which has elements of “preservation” and “protection” of outstanding water bodies and outstanding characteristics of the water bodies.

The proposal to make WCO subservient to regional planning processes is a major backward step and is not supported by the NZCA. The proposal reverses the current legal hierarchy of the RMA, as at present WCO (S199, RMA) sit above Pt 2 of the Act. By nature WCO’s do not fit the regional planning 10 year timeframe, as they are a long term preservation and protection mechanism. It appears that this proposal would mean WCOs could be reviewed every 10 years, at the discretion of the elected members of a Regional Council. Currently WCO applications are reported on by a Special Tribunal, heard by the Environment Court, recommended by the Minister and signed off by the Governor General. The proposed new approach downgrades this high level process, which currently sits outside and above regional planning processes.

Fifteen (15) WCO are in place. It should be noted that Regional Councils around NZ have failed to support WCO applications. They have never applied for one. They have largely submitted in opposition to applications. They see them as a major impediment to their powers. Territorial Councils have also failed to support WCO applications, seeing them as an impediment to development. The NZCA is of the view that the state of New Zealand’s water bodies would be in a much worse state than they currently are, if the currently gazetted WCO were not in place.

The NZCA is of the view New Zealand rivers need greater protection than regional plans are likely to provide. We also submit, the post-Treaty landscape is likely to add another layer of complexity to the preservation and protection of lakes and rivers in the future. The recommendations from the NZCA Rivers report (Appendix Two) are a good summary of a number of mechanisms for achieving such protection, including improvements to the WCO process.

The NZCA has advocated for some time for greater protection of rivers and lakes. The 2011 Rivers report highlighted this. The proposals set out in the Next steps for fresh water consultation document do not fit with the greater preservation and protection the NZCA has been advocating.

The NZCA is mindful that WCO have been very hard and expensive to achieve. To achieve a WCO in a timely manner, often results in a few select values being promoted in order to make progress. Protection of rivers and lakes under WCO would be better served if all conservation values were considered as part of a WCO application process.

The NZCA would support a review of the WCO process, if it resulted in a more rigorous, all encompassing process that looked at a full range of fresh water and conservation values (including cultural values) of an outstanding waterbody. In this regard, the NZCA considers the “Next steps for fresh water” process is an opportunity to review the effectiveness of WCO and the WCO process. However the current legal status of existing WCO should be retained.

148

Background to the NZCA The New Zealand Conservation Authority is established by the Conservation Act 1987, with members appointed by the Minister of Conservation. It has a range of functions, but primarily acts as an independent conservation advisor to the Minister and the Director-General. The NZCA’s role has, in the past, been seen to be largely as a strategic advisor, but it has a growing role as an objective advocate on matters of national significance and interest in the conservation arena and, more recently, as a “board” to provide high quality independent advice to the Department of Conservation on its strategic direction and performance. Current membership of the New Zealand Conservation Authority In consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs: • Waana Davis of Lower Hutt • Rauru Kirikiri of Wellington In consultation with the Minister of Tourism: • Warren Parker of Rotorua • Mike Simm of Kerikeri In consultation with the Minister of Local Government: • Jan Riddell of Winton On the nomination of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu: • Sandra Cook of Otautau and Christchurch On the recommendation of Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand: • Gerry McSweeney of South Westland and Arthurs Pass On the recommendation of Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand: • David Barnes of Dunedin On the recommendation of the Royal Society of New Zealand: • Mick Clout of Auckland From public nominations: • Devon McLean of Nelson • Jo Breese of Wellington • Judy Hellstrom of the Marlborough Sounds • Mark Christensen of Christchurch

149

Appendix ONE: NZCA Freshwater principles (2008) New Zealand’s freshwater resources are approaching crisis point. These principles are a tool to guide the assessment of the New Zealand Conservation Authority’s role, its contribution to, and/or response to issues relating to freshwater management. These principles acknowledge the interaction of freshwater with the land from the mountains to the open sea and recognise that freshwater is essential to all life. It exists in various states, described by the hydrological cycle: in the atmosphere, as snow and ice, and as liquid water both above and below ground, some of which is geothermal in nature. Water is only in part a renewable resource. The NZCA believes that current and future generations of New Zealanders all have the right to enjoy the benefits of our common freshwater resources, so that we can all fully enjoy the environmental, social, cultural and economic benefits associated with freshwater. The NZCA is concerned that economic drivers are dominating the management of freshwater issues to the detriment of other values and believes freshwater management requires taking a long -term, holistic approach, to conserve and protect freshwater it for all its many uses and values. Governance 1. Freshwater is a taonga - a treasured and common resource vital to all our lives and must be respected and managed for the benefit of all the people and natural ecosystems of New Zealand. 2. Freshwater environments should be managed in an integrated, long-term, whole-of- catchment, way that recognises the complex inter-relationships of the various components and values. 3. Decisions about the allocation of water must be made in the context of the whole catchment, region and ecosystem, encompassing the range of environments, flow regimes, landforms and landscapes. 4. There should be clear national policy to address competing values and uses. 5. Decision-making should provide for public and tangata whenua participation at all levels form community to Government, and be informed by principles of Kaitiakitanga, stewardship and traditional knowledge as well as scientific understanding. 6. The quantity and quality of freshwater should be regularly monitored; new information and research results reviewed, and management continually adjusted to incorporate these. 7. Where there is insufficient information, or effects may be irreversible, the precautionary principle should apply. 8. Use of water for drinking (by humans and animals) has priority over other consumptive uses. 9. Any allocations granted should be based on evidence of environmental sustainability, fairness and equity, rather than greatest potential economic gain, and should preclude any possibility of on-selling or trade. Protection 10. Freshwater management should provide for the protection of all instream values especially the connectivity of water bodies, their riparian margins, and the protection of indigenous biodiversity, natural character, intrinsic, recreational and aesthetic values, wilderness values, historic and wahi tapu values and ecosystem services.

150

11. Priority should be given to New Zealand’s unique indigenous flora and fauna. 12. Indigenous aquatic species should be present in natural abundance and be able to, if their natural lifecycles require, freely migrate up- and downstream, to and from the sea, through river mouths and in and out of lakes. 13. The role of rivers, lakes and their outlets in provision of sediments for natural coastal processes should be recognised. 14. Freshwater management should provide for the rehabilitation of degraded waterbodies and their margins. 15. Freshwater management should include prevention of the establishment of new pests and provide for the containment/reduction/elimination of existing ones. 16. Freshwater management should provide for the provision of open space adjoining freshwater bodies and access to estuaries, lakes and waterways for the benefit, recreational use and enjoyment of the public. Sustainability 17. Freshwater management should ensure that any use of water resources, and the indigenous species therein, is ecologically sustainable and managed in a way that maintains its potential for future generations. 18. Water should be safe for both swimming and food harvesting. 19. Freshwater management must address the cumulative effects of both abstractive uses and discharges. 20. Reduction or elimination of water pollutants should occur at their source, rather than clean up and remediation after environmental damage has been done; land uses creating diffuse- source pollution must therefore be monitored as stringently as point-source discharges. 21. Environmental outcomes for freshwater should be based on the values and physical characteristics of the particular waterway. 22. Freshwater management regimes should acknowledge the changes brought about by natural processes including floods, droughts and climate change. Management 23. Authorised uses should generally be time-limited and reviewable and contain conditions specific to timing and quantity of abstraction. 24. New Zealand needs a national water quality- and quantity- monitoring network that provides comprehensive coverage of flowing waters, lakes and wetlands, capable of providing data that is compatible across regions. 25. Collected data should be used for research and modelling to connect precipitation and river flows enabling greater understanding and prediction of flows and river behaviour. 26. Resources are required to expand management capability and provide appropriate hydrological skills at regional level, and hydrological modelling skills at a national level.

Footnote: These principles should be read in conjunction with the other current NZCA principles and the template for section 4 of the Conservation Act (giving effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi).

151

Appendix TWO: 7: Enhancing River protection, from “Protection of New Zealand’s Rivers” (NZCA 2011)

NZCA RECOMMENDATIONS

Protect outstanding rivers 1. Government commitment is required to protect river systems and river reaches that remain in or are close to, their natural state and or have outstanding wild, scenic and amenity characteristics.

Many of our rivers are already highly altered from their natural state, especially in their lowland reaches. A commitment to protect those remaining outstanding or natural rivers would prevent any further loss of these high-value rivers. Once these values are lost it is expensive and almost impossible to return them to their previous state—a poor legacy for future generations.

Establish a network of protected rivers 2. A key objective of national water policy should be the establishment of a representative network of protected rivers, including rivers with outstanding ecological, landscape, scenic, recreational, amenity and cultural characteristics and values.

It is important to protect a fully representative range of the different freshwater ecosystems, habitats and biodiversity. While some upland rivers and mountain streams are included within our protected places, few middle and lower reaches are protected. Many highly significant waterways have no formal protection whatsoever. It is equally important that rivers with outstanding characteristics be protected, even if they are no longer in their natural state.

Once established, this network should be genuinely protected and not eroded by development proposals.

3. A stocktake of the extent of river protection in New Zealand is needed to provide baseline information, track progress towards the protection of a representative range of freshwater ecosystems and habitats, and determine where additional protection is needed.

This baseline information would ensure future policy is developed on a fully informed platform. The protection of rivers could be enhanced if a national inventory of outstanding rivers (and parts of rivers) were compiled to identify and prioritise candidate rivers. This would ensure rivers with the highest ranking values are targeted for protection.

4. Allocate a government or quasi-government agency specific responsibility for protecting rivers, including advancing water conservation orders (WCOs).

No government agency has a specific responsibility to preserve and protect rivers as an entity. Giving a single agency this responsibility could help promote a more strategic approach to river protection generally, and WCOs specifically so as to protect a representative range of rivers with outstanding values.

152

5. Regional councils could make greater use of prohibited activity status in regional plans to secure protection (from development and extractive uses) for remaining wild and natural rivers with outstanding values.

While non-complying activity status in a regional plan provides a signal to users as to what is considered an inappropriate activity due to the values of a specified location, it does not guarantee that development proposals that affect those values will be declined as evidenced by the 2010-approved hydro-electricity scheme for the Wairau River.

Ensure water management properly reflects the conservation status of conservation land and the rivers within it 6. RMA decision-makers should be required to have regard to the protected status of lands and waters managed by DOC if these are affected by a consent application, to properly reflect the protection component of sustainable management.

Each river is an ecological corridor from its source in mountains or hill country to its end at the sea, and is affected in different parts by the activities on or alongside the river. Although public conservation land has a protected status, and in a limited number of instances the water also, they can be negatively impacted by activities upstream, downstream and around them, as they are all parts of complicated interconnected ecosystems. It is therefore important that the impact of activities on conservation values are explicitly required to be considered in decision-making.

7. The RMA should be amended to include conservation management strategies and conservation and national park management plans by name in section 104(1)(b) or (c) as matters that consent authorities must have regard to.

While a consent authority has the discretion whether or not to consider them under section 104(1)(c) RMA (“any other matter the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application”), their specific inclusion would ensure that such strategies and plans are considered.

Such an amendment would be consistent with the approach taken in section 66(2)(c)(i) where regional plans must have regard for them.

8. Landowner permission should be obtained prior to lodging resource consent applications to modify or extract water from rivers in public conservation land.

Applicants for resource consents that will affect public conservation land currently do not need to first get landowner (i.e. DOC) permission under conservation legislation. This means that a full consent process can be completed only to have use of conservation land, where required, declined. 9. Rivers, including water, within national park boundaries should have national park status.

Owing to their large size and high level of protection, national parks are of particular importance for river protection. In most cases, national park status protects the beds of all water bodies within the park boundaries but in only some cases does it cover the water. Even then, the protection provided by national park status does not extend to river flows, nor does protection extend beyond national park boundaries. Therefore, even if a river is in part in a national park, it is not protected in its entirety.

Indigenous biodiversity 10. A Statement of National Priorities for Protecting Rare and Threatened Biodiversity in Freshwater Environments should be issued or the current proposed NPS for Indigenous

153

Biodiversity or the NPS Freshwater Management expanded to specifically include freshwater indigenous biodiversity.

New Zealand’s freshwater indigenous biodiversity is unique—92 per cent of our freshwater fish species are endemic because of our evolutionary history isolated from other land masses—and is in decline. Its protection needs to be made a priority in decision-making around land and water management for this decline to be halted and reversed. Whilst a draft NPS for Indigenous Biodiversity has been released, it only covers (a narrow range of) terrestrial species.

Protect Crown riverbeds 11. Crown riverbeds with conservation values should be managed for those values.

The Land Act 1948 should be amended to provide for the establishment of management objectives for Crown land including riverbeds and a public consultation process for the disposal or leasing of any interest in them. Extensive areas of riverbed are managed as Crown land. They provide critical habitat for braided river birds and riverbed plants. There is no requirement for them to have management objectives or for there to be public input into decisions about their use or management.

Mechanisms in conservation legislation 12. The opportunities available to enhance protection for rivers by applying faunistic reserve or watercourse area status should be explored by DOC.

The National Parks, Conservation, Wildlife and Reserves Acts, and the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983 enable varying levels of protection of freshwater habitats with significant conservation values through such instruments.

Retain WCOs and improve their use 13. WCOs should be retained to provide protection for rivers and other water bodies with outstanding values.

Regional planning has often lagged behind increasing demand for abstraction of surface water. WCOs have been valuable in augmenting regional water planning through setting flow and allocation regimes for particular rivers in the absence of regional or catchment plans.

WCOs are achieved through a transparent and robust process requiring a significant investment of time and expertise by applicants, user groups, and submitters, and careful consideration of technical and other evidence by Special Tribunals and testing of evidence by the Environment Court.

14. The RMA should be amended to enable a WCO to include provisions applying to land use that may impact on the effect of a WCO, and to require local authorities to have particular regard to the protection of outstanding values, as recognised by a WCO, in managing land use through plans and consent decisions in catchments where the river is subject to a WCO.

This would help implement the recommendation of the Land and Water Forum that the WCO provisions in the RMA be amended to enable them to achieve an integrated management approach.

154

15. The RMA should be amended so that WCOs can provide for enhancement of outstanding characteristics.

Case law indicates that enhancement of an outstanding characteristic (e.g. of a threatened species population through an improved flow regime) is beyond the scope of the legislation.

16. The two year restriction on applications to amend or revoke operative WCOs should be lengthened. Or alternatively, give WCOs greater permanency appropriate to the rigorous process for achieving a WCO.

17. Canterbury rivers should be considered under the standard RMA process after October 2013.

In Canterbury, the ECan Act means WCO applications are considered against different criteria with Environment Canterbury Commissioners rather than a Special Tribunal making recommendations to the Minister. The Environment Court now has no jurisdiction over WCOs in the Canterbury region.

The different statutory tests for a new WCO or applications to amend an existing WCO in Canterbury mean significantly less weight is given to the requirement to preserve and protect nationally outstanding water bodies, and greater weight is given to potential uses of water.

Improve river management under the RMA 18. A National Environmental Standard on Ecological Flows and Water Levels should be implemented.

Additional national standards and policy guidance for recognition of river values not covered by the proposed National Environmental Standard on Ecological Flows and Water Levels would help provide more comprehensive protection for river values. Establishing standards for water is both politically and technically difficult and expensive. If requirements in the NPS Freshwater Management to establish standards for all rivers in all regions are to be met in a nationally consistent and meaningful way, there needs to be national guidance on how to set these standards and what they must encompass. Without NESs setting flow and quality standards, litigation by vested interests will continue in each region.

The NES needs to include a tool that sets ‘hard limits’, i.e. takes beyond the limits set in plans are not allowed. Currently most plans allow consents to be applied for, and granted, beyond the allocation limit set in a plan.

19. The RMA should be amended to allow regional councils to use moratoria (similar to those in the ECan Act 2010) to pause consent applications while a river’s in-stream values are assessed, flow regimes developed, and plans amended.

Consents involve legal rights to use water. It can be legally difficult and prohibitively expensive to take back water that has been allocated if it is subsequently found that a river is over allocated and not able to sustain its in-stream values.

155 Learn more about the environment and find out what Environment Southland’s scientists are up to. Monitoring Faecal Contaminants in Southland’s Rivers & Streams A pilot study for a new faecal testing tool

Faecal contamination of Southland’s rivers and streams poses a health risk for livestock and people who come into contact with or collect kai (food) from contaminated water.

The term ‘faecal contamination’ refers to a range of disease-causing micro- organisms (called pathogens) such as viruses, bacteria and protozoa. It is too expensive and time consuming to test for all pathogens in our waterways. Instead we focus on testing for indicator bacteria, faecal coliforms and E.coli as part of our State of the Environment river monitoring and summer bathing monitoring programme.

Trialling a new faecal testing tool If unusually high levels of indicator bacteria are found there may be a need to identify the source of faecal contamination. Scientists use specific tests we call ‘Faecal Source Tracking’ (FST) tools to trace waste back to a specific source.

Until recently scientists could only test to see if contamination came from people, ruminants, wild fowl, or plant break down, which didn’t give us a complete ‘picture’. Previously, ruminants were classed together in our testing results, however we now have a new test that can identify ruminant sources specific to sheep (ovine) or cattle (bovine).

Where does faecal contamination come from? The main sources of faecal contamination in Southland’s waterways are agricultural runoff, residential, municipal (town and city), agricultural or industrial wastewater. However, in order to help make decisions about how to better look after our streams and rivers, Environment Southland needs to better understand where faecal contaminants are coming from. Then we can make decisions about the best way to minimise their impacts on our waterways. Ruminants Building a better picture for Southland Scientists wanted to test the new ‘sheep FST tool’ in Southland as a pilot study. We tested 11 rivers known to be contaminated by faecal waste, located in catchments with dairying, sheep farms and urban land use (see map). To get a better picture of what’s happening with faecal contamination in our waterways we also looked at:

• Sediment size in the river bed – for example, fine silt, sand or gravel. Sediments in streams and rivers ‘pick up’ contaminants as they move through the landscape. We wanted to find out if some sediment types ‘hold’ or store contaminants more than others.

• E.coli concentrations in water and sediment. E.coli is an ‘indicator’ bacteria. Although they may not make you sick themselves, these bacteria tend to indicate the presence of other disease-causing156 pathogens. What we found Tests showed that all 11 rivers sampled contained faecal contamination from sheep. One site also had human contamination and three also had contamination from cows.

Human faecal contamination and high concentrations of E.coli were found in the Otepuni Creek in Invercargill. This indicates that urban wastewater is entering the Otepuni.

Faecal contamination from cows was found in Waituna Creek, Tussock Creek and the Sandstone Stream. These catchments have a relatively high number of dairy farms. These sites also had E.coli levels that have often exceeded Regional Water Plan guidelines in the past.

All river samples tested positive for sheep faecal contamination. This indicates that sheep farming could be a major source of faecal pollution in many of Southland’s waterways. We found high levels of faecal contamination from sheep in Waituna Creek and the Waikawa River. The least was found in Tussock Creek and Otepuni Creek.

E. coli results in sediment The highest concentration of E.coli in sediment was found in the Waikawa River at Waikawa. Here the sediment is dominated by fine sand, which suggests that fine sediment washed down from the surrounding catchment may be a source of E.coli. Interestingly, E.coli levels in the river water at time of sampling were at an acceptable level for contact recreation. However, if sediment is disturbed by recreational use such as swimming, the E.coli stored in the sediment could be released into the water, elevating concentrations to a higher risk level. A pilot study is a small-scale research project that allows What does this mean for us? scientists to refine their Results from this study show that faecal contamination comes from a variety ideas and techniques before of land uses in Southland, from urban to agricultural. Results also suggest that committing to a full-scale good farm management practices are needed across all farm types to protect our study. They are often used rivers, e.g. protecting streams from stock access and implementing good riparian to validate methods, or used management. A well-managed riparian margin, including a strip of dense long for practical/cost reasons. grasses parallel to the river, can filter out contaminants such as animal waste and Results from a pilot study are sediment that are carried by overland flow. This helps to protect waterways from indicative only. faecal contamination – keeping them safe for us to enjoy.

What next? Improvements in Faecal Source Tracking techniques mean Environment Southland Environment Southland scientists are better able to understand where faecal contamination in our waterways is coming from. Using this information, Environment Southland can better target Cnr North Road & Price St Private Bag 90116, Invercargill information and management actions for good land management. Phone: 03 211-5115 0800 76 88 45 (Southland only Email: [email protected] For further information, or to read the Faecal Source Investigations in Selected Website: www.es.govt.nz Southland Waterways report, go to www.es.govt.nz. November 2014

157 The New Zealand Conservation Authority

November 2011 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers

158 2

This report may be cited as: New Zealand Conservation Authority. 2011: Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers. New Zealand Conservation Authority, Wellington. 68 Pages November 2011 ISBN: 978-0-478-14918-0

Photo: Tawhai Falls, Waikato River. Crown Copyright: Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai, Photographer: Helen Mitchell.

159 3

Foreword

Rivers have special intrinsic values This discussion paper is the NZCA’s that are being incrementally lost. advice to the Minister of Conservation The New Zealand Conservation and is designed to generate public Authority (NZCA) believes action discussion on the future of New should be taken to reverse this trend. Zealand’s rivers. Existing statutory agencies have a The NZCA can be contacted at range of tools available to better [email protected] or: protect rivers. Some of these tools New Zealand Conservation Authority would be more eﬀective if they were PO Box 10 420 reﬁned, and there was greater national Wellington 6143 direction for their implementation.

160 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 01

Foreword Contents Executive summary 03 - Context 03 - What is the problem? 03 - What is needed? 04

01 Introduction 05 02 State of our rivers 07 - Overview of New Zealand rivers 07 - DOC statutory advocacy 09 - River physical processes 10 and functioning - Water quantity (ﬂows) 11 - Water quality 11 - Indigenous freshwater 12 biodiversity - Societal values 13 - Māori values 13 - Recreation 14 - Hydro-electricity 14 generation and irrigation - History of river protection 15 - NZCA conclusions 15

03 Protecting rivers using 17 conservation legislation - Conservation legislation 17 - National Parks Act 1980 18 - Reserves Act 1977 18 - Conservation Act 1987 18 - Freshwater Fisheries 19 Regulations 1983 - River-speciﬁc legislation 19 - Protection and management 19 of Crown riverbeds - Protection of land 20 alongside rivers - NZCA conclusions 20

161 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 02

04 Water conservation 21 - National policy statements 37 Appendix 1: Freshwater 50 orders - Maintaining indigenous 37 management bodies and - History of WCOs 22 biodiversity their responsibilities - Purpose of WCOs 23 - National environmental 38 Appendix 2: Statutory 52 - “Natural state” 24 standards mechanisms for protecting rivers - “Outstanding” 24 - Regional plans as a 39 protection tool - Statutory effects of a WCO 25 Appendix 3: Water 58 - Protecting water quality 40 conservation orders: - Process for initiating a 25 relevant sections from WCO (outside Canterbury) - RMA co-ordination with 40 conservation legislation the Resource Management - Revocation of or 26 Act 1991 amendments to WCOs - Methods for assessing 40 (outside Canterbury) the values of rivers Appendix 4: process for 59 water conservation orders - WCOs in Canterbury 26 - Collaborative processes 41 (outside Canterbury) - NZCA conclusions 27 - NZCA conclusions 41 Appendix 5: Water 60 05 The use and 29 07 Enhancing river 43 conservation orders effectiveness of WCOs protection NZCA (as at April 2011) - Protection of representative 30 recommendations Appendix 6: New Zealand 66 habitats and ecosystems - Protect outstanding rivers 43 Conservation Authority - Past protection initiatives 30 - Establish a network of 43 freshwater principles - Identifying outstanding rivers 31 protected rivers - Enhancing regional planning 31 - Ensure water management 43 properly reflects the - Funding and cost of the 32 conservation status of application process conservation land and - Length and robustness 33 the rivers within it of process - Indigenous biodiversity 44 - Permanency of protection 33 - Protect Crown riverbeds 44 - Enhancement of outstanding 34 - Mechanisms in 44 characteristics cannot be conservation legislation considered - Retain WCOs and improve 45 - Land use and water quality 34 their use - NZCA conclusions 34 - Improve river management 45 under the RMA 06 Other RMA tools for 35 river protection and Glossary 47 their efficacy References 48 - Sustainable management 35 Appendices 50 includes “protection” of natural and physical resources

162 03

Context energy continues to grow, which means more rivers could be modified Executive New Zealand is strongly influenced to enable hydro-electricity, whether by rivers. They are central to the by damming or by diverting water identity of many New Zealanders and out of a river. The Government aims summary are highly valued for their scenic to have 90 per cent of our electricity and recreational qualities, as well generation sourced from renewable as their economic potential. sources by 2025. New Zealand has many rivers, great Water quality in major rivers has and small, and an apparent abundance declined since 1989, largely attributable of fresh water is conveyed by them to increased agricultural intensification, from the mountains to the sea. Our and the development of farming that is freshwater biodiversity is unique; dependent on a reliable supply of water 92 per cent of our freshwater fish in naturally dry areas. species are endemic to New Zealand. Declining flows and water quality Rivers are inherently difficult to can adversely affect river health manage owing to their dynamic and biodiversity values. Some rivers character, length, size of catchment and streams are now unsuitable and diversity of values, as well as for fishing and swimming, and as the many agencies involved in land, a source of mahinga kai (food). water and fisheries management. Important values and interests in The Resource Management Act fresh water are not being adequately 1991 (RMA) provides the primary protected in National Policy legislative mechanism for the Statements and regional plans, management of rivers and the water despite recent calls for this to happen; within them. Water conservation particularly from the Land and Water orders (WCOs) are the major RMA Forum (2010). Examples of these tool for river protection. values and interests are the natural Rivers within public conservation land character of rivers, recreational are perceived to be protected, but use and enjoyment, or the needs the water within them usually is not. of indigenous biodiversity and future generations. What is the problem? Retired Environment Court Judge All is not well with New Zealand’s David Sheppard summed up the rivers and there is increasing public situation as follows: concern about their state. “Freshwater is being managed National demand for fresh water in in many valuable ways to enable New Zealand almost doubled in the people and communities to provide decade between 2000 and 2010, for for their social, economic and uses such as irrigation, domestic water cultural wellbeing and for their supply and manufacturing. Demand for health and safety.

163 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 04

All is not well with New Zealand’s rivers and there is increasing public concern about their state.

“But there are important respects in rivers. The set of selected rivers should characteristics (including which the management of freshwater be genuinely protected in perpetuity biodiversity, landscape, cultural, is still not conforming to the elements in their natural state and should recreational, amenity) to identify of safeguarding the life-supporting include rivers with outstanding priorities for protection capacity of water and associated ecological, landscape, scenic, q More effort to ensure that management ecosystems; is still not safeguarding recreational, amenity and cultural mechanisms, including those under the potential of freshwater resources to characteristics and values. the RMA and protected area statutes, meet future needs; and is not avoiding, The NZCA does not seek to protect adequately provide for the protection remedying or significantly remedying all rivers everywhere. The challenge is of freshwater biodiversity from the adverse effects on the environment. to provide for all interests somewhere adverse effects of activities on “There are shortfalls in the imperatives and then to respect the decisions that land and in water 2 that are classified as having national have been made and not subsequently qAmendment to the RMA 1991 to importance; in particular those of seek to negate or modify those decisions by later relitigation. allow regional councils to use preserving the natural character of moratoria (similar to those in the water bodies; of protecting significant The NZCA specifically seeks: Environment Canterbury (Improved indigenous vegetation and significant q Government commitment to the Water Management and Temporary habitats of indigenous fauna; and of protection of rivers Commissioners) Act 2010) to pause providing for Māori traditional cultural consent applications while a river’s relationship with their ancestral q Specific responsibility and resourcing in-stream values are assessed, water and taonga (things or places for achieving such protection allocated flow regimes developed or reviewed, of great value). to one government agency and plans amended; and for water “Although there have been many q A comprehensive, national strategic allocation limits in plans to be fixed advances, after a couple of decades approach to secure protection of qExploration of opportunities to better the management of freshwater does both outstanding rivers in their natural state and a representative protect rivers within protected areas, not yet qualify as sustainable in some including giving national park status 1 range of rivers catchments and some respects.” to rivers including their water within q A stocktake of the extent of river national park boundaries What is needed? protection to provide baseline information, track progress towards q The management of Crown riverbeds The New Zealand Conservation the protection of a representative with conservation values to protect Authority (NZCA) considers that range of rivers, and determine where those values a suite of measures are needed additional protection is needed qEnhancement of the use, application to address the problem. q The preparation of a national and effectiveness of WCOs by The outcome sought is comprehensive inventory of outstanding rivers relatively small changes to protection for a representative range of and rivers with outstanding legislation and policy.

1 Sheppard David F (October 2010). 2 New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy Objective 2.1

164 01 05

Introduction SECTION SUMMARY

q5IF/FX;FBMBOE q5IFVTF EFWFMPQNFOU Conservation Authority and protection of rivers is (NZCA) can investigate governed by the Resource and report on any nature Management Act 1991. conservation matter of q3JWFST BOEUIFGSFTI national importance. water within them, have q3JWFSTBSFQPPSMZQSPUFDUFE multiple values and are in New Zealand. Even where coming under increasing they appear to be protected pressure for a wide range of because they are within uses, both extractive and land administered for non-extractive. How best conservation purposes, such to provide for the often as national parks, the water conﬂicting demands of itself is seldom protected. these values is challenging.

Background review of the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy New Zealand is a country strongly inﬂuenced by rivers: they are q Concern about delays in national signiﬁcant landscape features and guidance for the sustainable shape our environment. New Zealand’s management of rivers freshwater biodiversity is unique with q Legislative changes to the water a high number of endemic species. conservation order (WCO) regime Rivers generate much of our electricity in Canterbury and provide water for community purposes and irrigated agriculture. q The release of the 2010 Land They are highly valued for recreation and Water Forum report making and for their mauri (life force), and recommendations for freshwater also simply for their own sake. management The catalysts for this paper were: The use, development and protection of natural resources including rivers is Increasing public concern about q governed by the Resource Management water quality and the state of Act 1991 (RMA). Sustainable New Zealand’s rivers 3 management in terms of the RMA q A desire to see progress on the requires managing the use, development recommendations from the 2005 and protection of natural resources

3 Hughey et al. (2009).

165 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 06

New Zealand is a country strongly inﬂuenced by rivers: they are signiﬁcant landscape features and shape our environment.

including rivers. WCOs, the RMA’s major biodiversity, recreation, cultural, q “To encourage and participate in tool for protecting outstanding water and other conservation values, and educational and publicity activities bodies, cover only 13 rivers or parts of current demand pressures on rivers. for the purposes of bringing about rivers and two lakes. The NZCA is also aware of the a better understanding of nature 5 While headwater catchments and importance of public access to conservation in New Zealand”. mountain streams are well represented waterways and is familiar with the within public conservation land, public discussion that preceded the few middle and lower reaches are establishment of the Walking Access protected. New Zealand lacks a Commission and the Commission’s representative network of protected work to improve access. River rivers and freshwater biodiversity protection requires effective control continues to decline. of pest fish and aquatic weeds but biosecurity issues are beyond the The NZCA considers that rivers have scope of the paper. suffered from decision-makers putting greater emphasis on the use and development aspects of sustainable About the New Zealand management, with limited attention Conservation Authority to the protection aspect. The NZCA is a statutory body established by section 6A of the Purpose and scope Conservation Act 1987 with This paper’s purpose is to assist public responsibility to advise the Minister discussion and policy development of Conservation and Director-General around improved river management, of Conservation on conservation 4 by reviewing protection mechanisms matters. The NZCA has prepared this for rivers in their natural state that paper under its statutory functions: have outstanding amenity or intrinsic q “To investigate any nature values, and recommending ways these conservation or other conservation can be improved and strengthened. matters the NZCA considers are of The NZCA recognises the importance national importance, and to advise of lakes, wetlands and groundwater. the Minister or the Director-General, This paper restricts itself to a as appropriate, on such matters”; discussion of rivers because of their and

4 The Minister of Conservation appoints Authority members on the nomination or recommendation of four specified bodies (four members), after consultation with three specified Ministers of the Crown (five members) and after the receipt of public nominations (four members). This process ensures that a wide range of perspectives contribute to the advice provided and decisions made by the NZCA. 5 Conservation Act 1987 section 6B(1)(d)) and section 6B(1)(g).

166 02 07

State of SECTION SUMMARY

q5IJTTFDUJPOQSFTFOUTBO q5IFSFWJFXPGUIF our rivers overview of New Zealand New Zealand Biodiversity rivers, natural river Strategy noted a “serious processes and functioning, decline” in the quality of Māori and societal values, many freshwater systems. indigenous freshwater This decline is adversely biodiversity, public affecting biodiversity values perceptions and some of the and the full range of services use pressures. The protection that can be derived from of rivers is discussed in rivers. sections 3 to 6. q%FTQJUFBHFOFSBMSFEVDUJPO q3JWFSTBSFJOIFSFOUMZEJбDVMU in point-source discharges to manage, owing to their from sewage and industry dynamic character, length, over recent decades, water size of catchment area, and quality in major rivers diversity of values, as well has declined since 1989. as the many interest groups Increasing agricultural and agencies associated with intensification and diffuse land, water and fisheries (non-point) discharges and management. Some parts nutrients associated with of rivers or specific values increased stocking rates and (riverbeds, land adjoining fertiliser use are the main rivers, wildlife, fish) may be contributors to this decline. protected through statute, q/BUJPOBMBMMPDBUJPOPGGSFTI while other aspects of the water almost doubled in same river, such as flows, the decade between 2000 are not. and 2010, predominantly for increased irrigation.

Overview of New Zealand rivers mahinga kai (food) and their mauri (life force) is fundamental to Māori culture. Rivers have many values: in-stream Abstractive uses include community (includes ecological and intrinsic values); landscape, scenic and natural and stock water supply, and irrigation. characteristics; amenity, and recreation Rivers are also used to generate (such as swimming, angling, rafting and electricity, for which they are dammed kayaking). Rivers are a source of or have portions of their ﬂow diverted,

167 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 08

and for disposal of waste water. land status, but affected in different rivers are owned by the adjacent land parts by the activities permitted on owners to the centre line. The legal New Zealand has more than 70 major status of the beds of large rivers is river systems (30 in the North Island or alongside the river. complex. For rivers that meet the test and 40 in the South Island) and The quality and quantity of water of “navigable”, riverbeds are, for the numerous other streams and delivered to the coast by a river system most part, classified as unoccupied watercourses. Half of New Zealand’s directly influences coastal water quality Crown land nominally administered 425,000 kilometres of rivers and and sedimentation processes. by Land Information New Zealand streams are small headwater streams.6 (LINZ) but for flood and sediment New Zealand rivers have some unusual Management of rivers as drainage management purposes, are managed characteristics: they are short and systems is pervasive. Habitat by regional councils. Rivers are steep, and many carry large sediment destruction has resulted, and led to not managed for conservation loads. New Zealand rivers are highly wholesale change in lowland rivers. purposes even where they adjoin variable in flow, and have very large This practice remains ongoing today. public conservation land. floods in proportion to their catchment area owing to the country’s latitude, climate and mountainous relief. New Zealand also has a large proportion of The quality and quantity of the international stock of braided rivers; these contain specially adapted biota. water delivered to the coast The protection of our backcountry (originally for water and soil protection by a river system directly rather than for public use or biodiversity) means that high water influences coastal water quality quality is largely maintained there. This provides public benefit by supplying clean water and by diluting Few sizable freshwater catchments exist Management of rivers is shared amongst the much poorer water quality resulting entirely within public conservation land, several agencies. Protection requires from intensive land use on farms aside from some rivers on the South a level of co-ordination between them, and in cities further downstream. Island’s west coast. but this is apparently neither sought nor achieved. Of New Zealand’s total length of Fresh water is administered by regional rivers and streams, 51 per cent lie councils under the RMA. The water The Crown exercises its overall 8 in catchments with predominantly in most rivers running through public control of fresh water largely through the RMA, which delegates natural land cover, such as native conservation land is not protected by river management primarily to bush or alpine rock and tussock. conservation legislation, even though regional councils.9 The RMA is the main The remaining 49 per cent of river the public thinks it is. legislation for managing fresh water length is in catchments that have in New Zealand. Regional councils’ been modified by agriculture (43 per While some upland river and responsibilities for controlling the cent), plantation forestry (5 per cent) streambed areas are included within taking, use, damming, diversion and or urban settlement (1 per cent).7 protected areas, this is seldom the case in lowland areas, partly due to pollution of fresh water (RMA section Each river is an ecological corridor the paucity of protected areas there. 30 (1) (e) and (f)) include the power from its source in mountains or hill to set and decide on flow regimes country to the sea, transcending legal The beds of smaller (non-navigable) and to manage and allocate water

6 www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/freshwater/rivers (accessed 26 January 2011). RMA). Exceptions include taking for reasonable domestic needs, for stock water, fire fighting 7 www.mfe.govt.nz/environmental-reporting/freshwater/rivers (accessed 26 January 2011). and takes of geothermal water for use in accordance with tikanga Māori for communal benefit 8 The Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 (WSCA) vested the sole right to use or pollute of tangata whenua, uses lawfully established before the regional rule came into effect and natural water in the Crown. other established uses permitted by section 20A RMA. Similarly no one may discharge any 9 With limited exceptions, no one can take, use, dam or divert water or take heat or energy contaminant into water, or onto land in circumstances where it may enter water, without from water unless this is expressly allowed by a resource consent or a regional rule (section 14 authorisation by a plan rule or a specific resource consent.

168 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 09

and activities in riverbeds. Councils See Appendix 1 for a summary plan and consent processes. Similarly, exercise these powers through of agencies and their freshwater Fish and Game commonly provides preparing regional policy statements management responsibilities. expert evidence for sports fish and (required) and regional plans its habitat. In the absence of DOC In addition to its responsibility for (optional), and by their decisions or Fish and Game advocacy, consent indigenous species, DOC actively on resource consent applications. authorities may make decisions manages freshwater sites (rivers, Activities on the surface of waters without appropriate information, streams, lakes and wetlands) within can be regulated through district public conservation land and as they seldom commission their rules by territorial authorities. advocates protection for significant own evidence on these matters. National direction can be provided freshwater ecosystems outside public DOC has successfully advocated through national policy statements conservation land. These are part of for stronger provisions in plans and and national environmental DOC’s broad functions under section policy statements, and more stringent standards.10 The standards can 6 of the Conservation Act 1987, in consent conditions such as changes relate to water level, flow, quality particular section 6(a), (b) and (d). to minimum flows and mitigation or contaminants (RMA section 43). DOC also has a specific function, packages on consent applications. “to preserve as far as is practicable No government agency has an explicit Examples of negotiated mitigation all indigenous freshwater fisheries responsibility to preserve and protect packages include ongoing funding and protect recreational freshwater rivers as an entity. for Project River Recovery when fisheries and freshwater fish habitats” the Waitaki hydro scheme was Regional councils and territorial (section 6(ab)). The Conservation re-consented in the early 1990s, and authorities, Department of General Policy 2005 identifies the establishment of a blue duck/whio DOC’s priorities when discharging Conservation (DOC), and LINZ have recovery package when the Tongariro these functions. various responsibilities for managing Power Scheme was re-consented. the beds of rivers, commercial Project River Recovery has funded a activities on the surface of rivers, %0$TUBUVUPSZBEWPDBDZ breeding programme and predator and surrounding land areas. LINZ DOC’s RMA advocacy has been control for kakī/black stilt and administers large areas of riverbed, important for achieving the protection extensive riverbed willow and weed and these are not managed for of rivers per its functions under control in the Tekapo and Twizel conservation. DOC manages most section 6(ab), (b) and (d) of the Rivers. Genesis Energy helps fund the indigenous freshwater species Conservation Act. DOC does this Central North Island Blue Duck Trust including whitebait, as well as the through submissions on regional to enhance, protect and promote Taupo sports fishery. The Ministry of policy statements and plans, and blue duck/whio populations. Fisheries (MFish) manages indigenous on resource consent applications species for which there is commercial In recent years Government has for irrigation, hydro generation and take (e.g. eels). Fish and Game required departments to work together other development, and by providing Councils manage sports fish (other for a whole-of-Government approach evidence in WCO hearings. The than Taupo fishery) and game birds. to nationally significant resource Conservation General Policy identifies The Environment Minister and consent applications. The process DOC’s priorities for advocacy outside Ministry for the Environment (MfE) may of developing an integrated position public conservation land and waters. establish national policy and national by multiple agencies (MfE, MAF, the environmental standards affecting Consent authorities typically rely Ministry of Economic Development rivers, which lower levels of government on DOC for expert evidence on (MED), Te Puni Kokiri, and DOC) can have to variously give effect to, not be freshwater habitat values and result in conservation and biodiversity inconsistent with, or have regard to. ecosystem functioning, both for values being de-emphasised in the

10 Mulcahy K, Peart R and Garvan N (2010).

169 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 10

negotiated whole-of-Government morphology, sediment transport, on Southland’s Bluecliffs Beach was position. biological habitat, riparian conditions, observed between 1966 and 1972 and flow regime, and water quality. by 1987 the population was estimated The volume of large resource consent at only 0.9 per cent of the 1966 applications has stretched DOC’s Rivers are linear systems connecting population. The cause of the statutory advocacy capacity. It may headwater areas to the coast. This accelerated decline is believed to also divert scientists and technical connectivity allows the movement be erosion of the marine substrate. experts away from freshwater research of organisms, energy and matter This is linked to the reduced river and practical protection and throughout the catchment system. management actions. outflow, and therefore reduced Human activities can change and disrupt sediment load, from the Waiau River Advocacy for, and expert evidence this system and affect river functioning: into Te Waewae Bay. This occurred about, the protection of ecosystem when water from Lake Manapouri q Land disturbance in a catchment, such services and in-stream values of was diverted from the Waiau River as cultivation, vegetation removal, and regionally and locally significant rivers to Doubtful Sound, through West the introduction of browsing animals, is increasingly being led by Fish and Arm Power station, in 1969.11 Game, voluntary organisations such can accelerate soil erosion and increase as Whitewater New Zealand, Forest rivers’ sediment load. Water temperature is critical to freshwater life. A 10 degree increase and Bird, and interested citizens. Dams and increasing abstraction q in temperature doubles respiration The full load of advocacy work on of water reduce a river’s capacity rates for coldblooded organisms while behalf of the public is beyond the to mobilise sediment. capacity of these groups. reducing the proportion of oxygen in the water. Around 25oC seems to be a critically warm temperature for much No government agency has an freshwater life. Where surface water reaches 25oC for periods during explicit responsibility to preserve summer, several dramatic changes can occur, including accelerated and protect rivers as an entity. growth of algae. Such temperatures are lethal to the freshwater snail Potamopyrgus antipodarium, a significant algal grazer. In the snails’ The existence of DOC’s statutory q Flood control schemes have confined absence, algae grow unchecked.12 functions and priorities does not many kilometres of rivers to defined Some fish and invertebrates have a guarantee that it will advocate on channels, which can accelerate definite preference for water below 16 behalf of a river or its values, or sediment deposition. to 18oC, and are vulnerable if shading that resource or DOC consents q Changes in the delivery of sediment that impact on the river’s natural vegetation is lost from stream banks, to river mouths can affect sediment functioning will not be given. or if water is warmed because of very supply to the coastal environment and low flows, with natural variability have consequences for coastal erosion. River physical processes exacerbated by abstraction. and functioning Reduced outflow of both river water Climate change is likely to further and sediment into the sea may increase pressure on fresh water in Effective river management requires have, as yet poorly understood, most regions east of the main dividing a holistic view of the river system, consequences. A dramatic decline ranges, as these are predicted to including its geology, fluvial in the abundance of adult toheroa become drier with less rainfall overall,

11 Beentjes, M.P. (2010). 12 Savage, L (2005) at p 16.

170 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 11

or altered seasonal distribution of Irrigation (46 per cent) and hydro herd increased from 3.4 million to rainfall, and possibly more frequent generation (41 per cent) account for 5.9 million, significantly increasing and severe droughts. This may lead the majority of fresh water allocations, the sources of diffuse pollution. to reduced run off to rivers and with industry, drinking water supply Between 1990 and 2005 the use of decreased aquifer recharge. and stock water accounting for nitrogen fertiliser in New Zealand 6 per cent, 5 per cent and 2 per increased by more than 800 per cent Sea level rise as a result of climate cent, respectively.16 (the highest percentage increase change could increase the salinity in 29 OECD countries). Phosphate of the lower reaches of rivers and Water quality fertiliser use increased by more than aquifers as salt water intrudes 100 per cent (the second highest 13 increasingly further upstream. Water quality in New Zealand, while increase in the OECD).18 generally good by international Water quantity (flows) standards, is declining according to The national sheep flock has declined data from the National Rivers Water from 34.8 million in 1999 to 32.4 Water flow in many rivers is highly Quality Network (NRWQN).17 Trends million in 2009 (and is around half the variable owing to climate (except in NRWQN data between 1989 and all-time peak of 70.3 million in 1982). for lake-, spring- or resurgence-fed 2007 show an overall decline in Beef cattle numbers also have rivers). Many rivers have already water quality across the monitoring declined—from 4.6 million in 1999 to been modified or degraded to some network. In particular there is a 4.1 million in 2009. The number of degree, which means that they are significant increasing trend in nitrogen dairy cows has increased; the most not functioning in a wild state with (as nitrate and nitrite), dissolved dramatic increase has been in the natural water flows. reactive phosphorus and total South Island where the 2.1 million dairy phosphorus levels. cows in 2009 are around seven times For rivers to function in a manner that the number that existed 20 years ago.19 14 fulfils their ecosystem services role Numerous studies have demonstrated and sustain the species dependent the influence of land use on the quality The reduction in beef cattle and on them, they should be managed of fresh water. NRWQN and regional sheep numbers, and any positive consequences for water quality that so that their natural variability of state of environment reporting show this may have had, is outweighed by flow can occur. that diffuse pollution from agricultural the large increase in dairy cattle. In land use is the main cause of water Water allocation for uses such as particular, detrimental effects from quality degradation. Dissolved irrigation, domestic water supply dairy cattle relate to the different nitrogen, phosphorus, faecal and manufacturing nearly doubled behaviour displayed by dairy herds microbes and sediments are the key between 1999 and 2010, highlighting (e.g. twice daily walk to be milked, contaminants from diffuse sources. the increasing demand for water, 15 which may include river crossings) and Animal urine is a source of nitrogen and putting pressure on rivers. the associated intensification of land and agricultural fertilisers are a source use. Dairy cattle tend to be farmed on Surface water (rivers, streams, lakes of both nitrogen and phosphorus. and storage reservoirs) accounts for flat to easy country, and increasingly on Some contaminants associated with most of the fresh water allocated for irrigated, intensively fertilised pastures. point-source sewage and industrial Therefore the most intensive farming is human use in New Zealand. Eighty discharges have reduced over happening close to water sources, and per cent of the volume of fresh water recent decades. in areas of groundwater recharge. allocated by resource consent in 2010, and 32 per cent of consents, came Pastoral farming occupies 40 per cent Time lags in many groundwater from surface water sources (the of New Zealand’s land area. Between systems, where it can take decades remainder came from groundwater). 1990 and 2010 the national dairy cattle for water falling as rain to emerge as

13 Savage, L (2005) at p 7. 17 Davies-Colley R quoted in Proffit F. (undated). The NRWQN network is operated only on larger 14 Ecosystem services refer to a wide range of conditions and processes through which natural rivers. More rapid declines have been noted on smaller rivers in many regions, according to ecosystems, and the species that are part of them, sustain and fulfil life. For example data collected by regional councils. hydrological cycles sustain life and provide the basis of our economy (particularly for sectors 18 Land and Water Forum (September 2009) at p 15. such as agriculture, forestry, fishing and tourism). 19 www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/industry_sectors/agriculture-horticulture-forestry.aspx 15 www.mfe.govt.nz/freshwater. (accessed May 2011). 16 www.mfe.govt.nz/publications/water/water-allocation-2009-10/page1-html(accessed January 2010). 171 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 12

springs into surface waters, means Indigenous freshwater continued decline in their status.24 that recent monitoring results probably biodiversity Despite control measures, freshwater reflect the effects of farming practices weeds have spread in several regions, in the 1960s and 1970s in those New Zealand’s indigenous freshwater often linked to deterioration in water catchments. The full effects of biodiversity is unique: 92 per cent of quality. The review noted a “serious our native freshwater fish species are current land use may not be obvious decline in the quality of many endemic because of our evolutionary in spring-fed streams, lakes and freshwater systems, which is having history isolated from other land masses. wetlands for another 30–40 years.20 negative impacts on biodiversity The New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy values and ecosystem services”.25 Increasing diffuse source pollution (2000) included six objectives for the from intensive land use degrades Structures impeding flows such as management of fresh water, including: rivers’ recreational amenity as well as dams, culverts, fords and weirs can habitat values. During 2003–2009 the q Protect a full range of remaining impact on freshwater habitat, destroy proportion of freshwater sites in annual natural freshwater ecosystems and connectivity, limit access to critical surveys that did not meet the guidelines habitats to conserve indigenous habitats such as spawning areas, and for contact recreation such as swimming freshwater biodiversity, using a significantly affect fish passage. ranged from 40 to 60 per cent.21 range of appropriate mechanisms. Freshwater fish occupy complexes of connected habitats between or through Ensure that management mechanisms, River water quality also affects coastal q which they often need to pass at two including mechanisms under the water quality. The recently completed or more life history phases. Nearly half Resource Management Act and (2000–2010) Integrated Catchment of New Zealand’s native freshwater fish 22 protected area statutes, adequately Management Project , focusing on the are diadromous, spending part of their provide for the protection of Motueka River catchment, showed that life cycle at sea and part in freshwater.26 freshwater biodiversity from the ‘catchment’ effectively extends Studies of indigenous freshwater fish 2 adverse effects of activities on offshore, affecting more than 400 km of distributions in West Coast South Island land and in water. the marine environment of Tasman Bay. rivers and elsewhere show that where Nutrients and sediment originating in The 2005 review of the New Zealand migration is unimpeded, most species rivers can have a direct effect on marine Biodiversity Strategy showed that the have a more or less continuous species. Storm-generated sediment health of our indigenous species and distribution from the lower reaches originating from the upper catchment natural lands and waters continues to to the upstream limits of each species’ interfered with the feeding of scallops, decline. A quarter of New Zealand’s range. Where dams impede fish and appears to be a major contributor indigenous fish species are threatened passage, species richness is lower to the poor performance of the Tasman with extinction. Acutely and chronically above dams, even when effects of Bay scallop resource in recent years.23 threatened freshwater species show a elevation and distance from the sea

Water quality in New Zealand, while generally good by international standards, is declining according to data from the National Rivers Water Quality Network.

20 Proffit F (undated). risk. Endemic galaxiids (Galaxiidae) dominated this group. Four taxa were classified in the highest 21 Around 200 sites across New Zealand are sampled annually and the information collated by threat category, nationally critical, and a further 10 taxa were threatened (nationally endangered MfE. See www.MfE.govt.nz/publications/water/water-quality-trends-1989-2007/html/page4. or nationally vulnerable). Twenty taxa were ranked in the at-risk group with the majority ranked as html. declining. A large proportion of threatened species occur in the Canterbury and Otago regions where 22 Collaborators on this study were Landcare Research, Tasman District Council, Cawthron a suite of rare non-migratory galaxiids exist. See Allibone R, David B, Hitchmough R, Jellyman D, Ling Institute, SCION, NIWA, GNS, Fish and Game NZ and Otago University. N, Ravenscroft P, Waters J (2010). 23 Landcare Research (December 2010). 25 Green W and Clarkson B (November 2005) at p 21. 24 A 2009 study ranked 34 of 51 (or 67 per cent) of native freshwater fish taxa as threatened or at 26 McDowall R. M. (1992). 172 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 13

Public concern about water use and water quality has increased signiﬁcantly, especially in the last decade.

are considered. Only four27 lakes environmental issue facing New Māori values greater than 10 km2 in area in the Zealand.29 Thirty-two per cent of South Island have unimpeded fish respondents rated water as the top For Māori, water is the essence of all life, akin to the blood of Papatuanuuku passage from them to the sea, environmental issue (ahead of climate (Earth mother) who supports all due to the hydro network. change or biodiversity loss) compared people, plants and wildlife. Māori with just 7 per cent in the 2002 survey. Habitat fragmentation and changes assert their tribal identity in relation According to the 2008 survey, in land use can significantly affect to rivers and particular waterways public perception is that economic freshwater fish populations by both have a role in tribal creation stories. development and intensification of reducing total habitat area and changing Rivers are valued as a source of its configuration. Species that remain some activities, particularly farming mahinga kai, hāngi stones and cultural within habitat fragments are exposed and urban development, are increasing materials, as access routes and a to sub-optimal conditions. As a result pressures on the environment. means of travel, and for their proximity of disproportionate ‘edge effects’, fish Respondents were concerned whether to important wāhi tapu, settlements or habitat can be reduced over a much rivers can accommodate these other historic sites.32 Indicators of the greater distance than the length of pressures while providing for in-stream health of a river system (such as stream that has been directly affected needs such as healthy ecological uncontaminated water and species (by, for example, vegetation clearance).28 functioning, freshwater wildlife, gathered for food, continuity of flow This can cause a decline in adult stocks fishing, kayaking and other activities. from mountain source to the sea) and restrict fish distributions. can provide a tangible representation DOC’s annual surveys track public of its mauri. Societal values awareness and perceived value of conservation30. In the 2010 survey, The relationship between Māori, and Without water, no living thing, human, “preserving natural land and water their culture and traditions, and their plant, fish or animal can survive. habitats” was the third most important ancestral lands, water, sites, wāhi tapu (sacred place) and other taonga is a Public concern about water use conservation issue identified by those matter of national importance under and water quality has increased surveyed (35 per cent, up from 30 per RMA section 6(e), which decision- significantly, especially in the last cent in 2009). The issue rated the makers must recognise and provide decade. In Lincoln University’s 2008 highest in 2007 when the figure was for. Giving effect to the principles of biennial survey of people’s perceptions 37 per cent. The other conservation the Treaty of Waitangi is a requirement of the state of the environment, outcomes respondents valued most of the Conservation Act 1987.33 respondents identified freshwater- highly were “protecting national parks related issues (use, water quality, and reserves” and “protecting native Several notable Waitangi Tribunal water pollution) as the most important plants and animals.”31 claims, such as Whanganui and

27 Lakes Rotoroa (Nelson Lakes), McKerrow, Hauroko and Sumner. 31 Department of Conservation (September 2010) at pp 20–21. 28 Eikaas H S, Harding J S, Kliskey A D and McIntosh A R (2005). 32 Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu (undated) “Freshwater Policy” available on www.ngaitahu.iwi.nz. 29 Hughey K (2008). The survey seeks New Zealanders’ perceptions of all main resource areas 33 Section 4, Conservation Act 1987. and in 2008 included a more speciﬁc look at the freshwater environment. The 2008 survey 34 Unwin M (2009)—data relate to the 2007/08 ﬁshing season. sampled 2,000 people, randomly selected, and had a response rate of 40 per cent. 35 SPARC (2008). 30 Department of Conservation (September 2010).

173 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 14

Waikato, have sought redress for exist. Such opportunities may result demand for hydro in the North Island Treaty breaches in relation to rivers. from improvement to environmental include a new hydro scheme proposed The Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims factors (e.g. better water quality, a for the Motu River (which is currently (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 different flow regime or an improved protected by a WCO39) and Bay of Plenty provides redress through a new fishery), technological advances (e.g. Energy’s proposed hydro scheme for the co-governance entity to oversee river new boat designs that can navigate Kaituna River. In the South Island, new management and give effect to a vision previously inaccessible rivers), hydro generation proposals have been and strategy to protect the health and enhanced access (by foot, vehicle or consented by the Environment Court on wellbeing of the river for present and air), and improved management (e.g. the Wairau, the Arnold and the Waitaki future generations. provision of boat ramps or the removal North Bank, while the Mokihinui and of restrictions). The issue associated Nevis hydro proposals are under appeal Recreation with potential value is to avoid to the Environment Court. New irrigation precluding future opportunities. schemes (sometimes combined with Recreational use of rivers encompasses hydro generation) are proposed for Consent authorities have a statutory a wide range of activities, including Hurunui (resource consents lodged), role to consider recreation under both water-based recreation (‘wet’ Waiau (under investigation), section 7 of the RMA, where those activities) and land-based activities Waimakariri (appeal to Environment exercising the functions and powers (‘dry’ activities). Water-based Court), Rakaia rivers (Central Plains of the RMA must have particular recreation includes swimming, Water/Ashburton Community Water regard to (amongst other things) the boat-based activities (especially jet Trust take consented), Lake Coleridge/ boating, waka ama, kayaking and maintenance and enhancement of Rakaia (under investigation, which rafting), and biota-based recreation amenity values, and the maintenance would also require amendment to (fishing and whitebaiting). Land-based and enhancement of the quality of the Rakaia WCO), and Hunter Downs activities vary from passive recreation the environment.36 on the Waitaki (consented).40 to walking the dog and playing with children. The maintenance and Hydro-electricity generation Investment in large-scale irrigation schemes is being encouraged by enhancement of public access to and and irrigation along rivers is a matter of national Government. The 2011 Budget allocated importance under RMA section 6(d). Rivers have long been a resource used $35 million over five years for the Irrigation for both hydro-electricity generation Acceleration Fund to support the The use of rivers for recreation is difficult (since 1886)37 and irrigation. The development of irrigation infrastructure to quantify. A lack of data precludes Government has a target of 90 per proposals. Further investment statements about the number of visits cent of electricity generation needs from future Budgets was flagged. to rivers for recreation. The exception being met from renewable sources by is freshwater angling: an estimated As Environment Minister Nick Smith 2025. Hydro-electricity is classified as 727,400 angler-days per annum occur has noted: renewable energy. Currently renewable on New Zealand rivers .34 Recreation sources account for 70 per cent of “The expansion of irrigation in participation data suggest land-based electricity generation.38 New Zealand during the past couple activities, especially walking, may attract of decades has been huge in much larger numbers of people than Increased demand for electricity, international terms. Thirty-five per cent water-based activities35. land use intensification and water- of new irrigated land in OECD countries dependent farming development in The recreational value of rivers is not during the past two decades has been naturally dry areas has increased limited to existing use. Also relevant in New Zealand—and New Zealand the pressure on rivers. is the potential for future recreation makes up 1 per cent of the population opportunities that do not currently Recent examples of this increased of the OECD”.41

36 Section 2 of the Resource Management Act 1991 deﬁnes “Amenity values” as “those natural 37 Martin, J, (1991). or physical qualities and characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation 38 Ministry of Economic Development (July 2010). of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural and recreational attributes”. 39 Mercer, G (23 March 2008). “Environment includes— 40 Reasons for the large number of Canterbury proposals include: 70 per cent of New q B FDPTZTUFNTBOEUIFJSDPOTUJUVFOUQBSUT JODMVEJOHQFPQMFBOEDPNNVOJUJFTBOE Zealand’s irrigated land is in Canterbury, expansion of dairying, and irrigators have shifted q C BMMOBUVSBMBOEQIZTJDBMSFTPVSDFTBOE their attention to alpine rivers as a source of water given tighter regional controls on q D BNFOJUZWBMVFTBOE groundwater takes in aquifers at their allocation limit. q E UIFTPDJBM FDPOPNJD BFTUIFUJD BOEDVMUVSBMDPOEJUJPOTXIJDIBЮFDUUIFNBUUFSTTUBUFE 41 Quoted in Collett, G (23 April 2010). in paragraphs (a) to (c) or which are aﬀected by those matters”. 174 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 15

History of river protection 1970s campaign to save Lake to give rivers long-term protection. Manapouri from the impact of a major One government agency should be New Zealand’s mountainous hydro scheme is widely regarded given specific responsibility to facilitate environment, high rainfall, and many as a landmark in uniting many the integrated planning and management fast-flowing streams led to efforts New Zealanders in a commitment to of rivers for their protection and to protect steep uplands in river environmental protection.43 Other long-term sustainability. catchments as a way of preventing notable campaigns during the 1980s erosion as early as the late 19th A greater commitment by Government, sought to prevent the damming of government agencies and local century. In the years after the the Motu River, and the construction enactment of the Soil Conservation government is needed to safeguard of the Clyde Dam, which flooded remaining outstanding rivers. This and Rivers Control Act 1941, districts a significant length of the Clutha, is required because of mounting established their own catchment New Zealand’s largest volume river. scientific evidence about the decline boards supported by a central of indigenous freshwater biodiversity regulatory and research agency Government’s response to such public and the deteriorating health of rivers (National Water and Soil Conservation concern around flows in the 1980s and streams, the loss of wild rivers Authority) within the then Ministry of was legislative change through the and their recreational opportunities Works.42 Local body re-organisation Wild and Scenic Rivers Amendment to hydro-electricity generation and to the Water and Soil Conservation in the late 1980s saw regional councils irrigation, and anecdotal evidence Act 1967 (WSCA), to introduce a new (with wider functions) replace the that people can no longer fish or swim mechanism to protect wild and scenic catchment boards. in streams they enjoyed as children. rivers—the WCO (see sections 4 and 5 Protecting rivers has been a theme of of this paper). More attention and resources need conservation activism for more than to be directed to the protection 60 years, spurred on by a growing NZCA conclusions of rivers, including those with awareness of the environmental outstanding characteristics. Effective impacts of the large hydro-electric No government or quasi-government and timely river protection can provide generation schemes under agency has a specific responsibility certainty that the life-supporting construction at that time. In the 1960s to preserve and protect rivers as an capacity that rivers provide, and their people mobilised to try and save wild entity. This is a significant gap in intrinsic, mauri and in-stream values river landscapes, such as the Aratiatia the legislative fabric: the different (including recreation and amenity), rapids and other falls on the Waikato obligations of agencies such as are safeguarded for present and River, from hydro development. The regional councils and DOC are failing future generations.

42 Te Ara Encyclopaedia of New Zealand. See www.terara.govt.nz/rivers/conservingrivers. 43 Young, D (2004) at p 168.

175 16

For Māori, water is the essence of all life, akin to the blood of Papatuanuuku (Earth mother) who supports all people, plants and wildlife.

Photo: Mavora River, Southland. Crown Copyright: Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai (1989).

176 03 17

Protecting SECTION SUMMARY

q5IJTTFDUJPOEFTDSJCFTSJWFS q4UBUVUPSZNFDIBOJTNT rivers using protection tools available to protect rivers apply to under conservation specific parts or values of the conservation legislation (specifically the river ecosystem (riverbeds, National Parks Act 1980, adjoining land, wildlife, or Reserves Act 1977 and fish). No single mechanism legislation Conservation Act 1987) and offers complete protection. river-specific legislation. It Riverbeds and banks may considers the management be part of a protected area of Crown land in riverbeds NBOBHFECZ%0$CVUUIJT and how this could be does not protect the water. improved. Appendix 2 q8FIBWFZFUUPQSPUFDUB summarises information on representative range of the statutory mechanisms rivers. As noted in section for protecting rivers. 2, many highly significant q5IFQSJNBSZXBZBSJWFS waterways have no formal is protected under protection, and few conservation (non-RMA) lowland rivers and legislation is that it is streams are protected.44 located within a protected q&YUFOTJWFBSFBTPGSJWFSCFE area (for instance in a are managed as Crown land. national park or reserve). There is no requirement for A small number of individual them to have management rivers have specific objectives (e.g. for legislation applying to protection of natural or them but none of these give cultural values) or public overall protection: they input into decisions about are mostly associated with their use or management. hydro schemes.

Conservation legislation do supporting policy and plan documents (e.g. General Policy for The purpose and statutory criteria National Parks, Conservation General in conservation legislation (e.g. Policy, national park management Conservation Act 1987, National Parks plans, conservation management Act 1980) emphasise the preservation strategies). This emphasis is and protection of natural resources, as substantially diﬀerent from the RMA

44 DOC and MfE (2002) “New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy” Theme 2 Freshwater Biodiversity www.biodiversity.govt.nz/picture/doing/nzbs/part-three/.

177 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 18

approach of allowing use and provisions apply to aquatic as well as they provide as well as for their development provided effects are terrestrial values. The general purpose intrinsic values. avoided, remedied or mitigated. of national parks includes “…. ecological systems, or natural features Conservation legislation, taken Reserves Act 1977 so beautiful, unique, or scientifically together, protects a network of areas important that their preservation is The purpose of the Reserves Act for their natural and historical values. in the national interest”. Two of the 1977 includes ensuring the survival Effort has been made to extend this specific purposes of national parks or preservation of a representative network so that it is representative of are that native plants and animals range of all classes of natural terrestrial ecosystems and habitats. be preserved, and the park’s value as ecosystems and landscapes that Protection of a representative range “soil, water, and forest conservation originally gave New Zealand its of freshwater ecosystems and habitats areas [are] maintained”. These recognisable character. has received little, if any, attention descriptions can include rivers. and has not been achieved. The reference to preservation The protection provided by national of representative samples is a National Parks Act 1980 park status does not extend to the fundamental ecological concept widely water in rivers or to the river outside applied terrestrially, and is also the Owing to their large size and high level the boundary of the park/protected basis for our current marine protection of protection, national parks are of area, so does not protect the river in programme. It is an anomaly that it has particular importance for river its entirety. An example is the Waiau not been applied across river systems. protection. In most national parks River, which links Lakes Te Anau and (with the exception of the Whanganui Manapouri in Fiordland National Park Conservation Act 1987 River in Whanganui National Park and and flows from Lake Manapouri to the some rivers such as the Pororari in sea. Flows have been substantially The Conservation Act 1987 promotes Paparoa National Park) the declaration reduced by the diversion of water to the preservation of indigenous of land as national park includes the the Manapouri power scheme and freshwater fisheries and the habitats beds of all waterways within the park subsequently into Deep Cove. of freshwater fish species, but river boundaries.45 Where rivers are part of and stream protection specifically the national park, they have the same If waters within national parks and has generally not been highlighted level of protection as the surrounding public conservation land had the as a priority in the establishment land. Any application to take, use, same status as the land they adjoin, and management of protected areas. divert water from or dam a river at they would be better protected. a site within a national park would There is a popular view that national The Conservation and National be subject to the statutory tests and park status fully protects rivers within Park General Policies apply to the processes of the National Parks Act such boundaries. management of freshwater species, 1980 and concessions provisions habitats and ecosystems as much Most investigations for new national of conservation legislation as well as they apply to terrestrial species, parks have concentrated on terrestrial as those in the RMA. This includes habitats and ecosystems. There are values rather than aquatic values. applying the specific policy guidance in no specific policies for river protection, With greater recognition of human national park management plans and although there are specific policies reliance on ecosystem services, the General Policy for National Parks. relating to fishing for indigenous national park investigations could give species and the release of sportsfish. The National Parks Act does not greater focus to protect river systems make any specific provision for the and their catchments within the total Inclusion of rivers and their beds in protection of aquatic habitats and area proposed for national park status conservation land does not guarantee ecosystems; however, its general because of the ecosystem services46 their protection as evidenced by hydro

45 The bed of the Whanganui River was not included in the national park. Where the park adjoins the river the national park boundary is the riverbank. 46 Ecosystem services refer to a wide range of conditions and processes through which natural ecosystems, and the species that are part of them, sustain and fulﬁl life. For example hydrological cycles sustain life and provide the basis of our economy (particularly for sectors such as agriculture, forestry, ﬁshing and tourism).

178 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 19

generation in Kaituna Scenic Reserve, any freshwater fauna is prohibited in Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato approved in 2010, and by a Meridian faunistic reserves without the Director- River) Settlement Act 2010. It states Energy Limited’s proposal for a dam General of Conservation’s approval. in section 3 that “The overarching and power station on the Mokihinui Only three faunistic reserves exist: purpose of the settlement is to River. The proposed 85-metre high Lake Chalice, Lake Marion and restore and protect the health and dam on the Mokihinui River would Lake Christabel. wellbeing of the Waikato River for flood more than 14 kilometres of future generations”. The Regulations also give the Director- river gorge. General a decision-making role in The various statutes mentioned Applicants for resource consents relation to fish passage when facilities establish separate governance bodies associated with river uses within such as new or modified culverts, and, in some cases, set specific flow public conservation land do not need fords, dams, weirs and diversions regimes. While the establishment of to first get landholder (i.e. Minister on natural waterways are proposed. such bodies has the benefit of focusing of Conservation) permission under Many installers of fords and culverts attention on those particular water conservation legislation (where it in particular are unaware of this role. bodies, if there was to be further is required). This means that a full DOC uses RMA processes to comment river-specific legislation, there is a consent process could be completed on a wide range of impacts from risk that a proliferation of governance only to have access to conservation in-stream structures and activities. structures, management mechanisms land declined. Where it has been satisfied that a and regimes could give rise to Council has imposed appropriate For the proposed Ngakawau River fragmented decision-making. conditions for culverts and fords hydro scheme in the 1990s, Buller relating to fish passage, it has Electricity withdrew the proposal after Protection and management interpreted an Environment Court47 a High Court decision confirmed the of Crown riverbeds ruling as meaning additional Minister of Conservation’s decision permission under the Freshwater The riverbeds of navigable rivers are that granting access would be Fisheries Regulations is at its classified as Crown land administered inconsistent with the requirements of discretion. by Land Information New Zealand the Conservation Act. This occurred (LINZ). The Land Act 1948 provides before councils heard resource no guidance on management consent applications. In contrast, for River-specific legislation objectives for Crown riverbeds, nor the Mokihinui hydro proposal, Meridian As a result of public concern about any restrictions on uses; nor are there Energy Limited has indicated it will proposed hydro schemes, four lakes criteria to guide decisions on private seek access to conservation land and their associated rivers have use or privatisation of such riverbeds. and/or exchange or disposal of specific legislation establishing conservation land following the guardians to oversee their The riverbeds of non-navigable rivers appeal stage of the consents process. management; namely the Waiau and are part of the title of the adjoining Monowai rivers (Guardians of Lakes land to the mid-line of the river. Freshwater Fisheries Manapouri, Te Anau and Monowai Where a riverbed adjoins land Regulations 1983 under the Conservation Act 1987) managed for conservation purposes, and the Clutha and Cardrona rivers whether it is public conservation land Regulation 68 of the Freshwater (Guardians of Lake Wanaka under the or under private covenant, it has the Fisheries Regulations 1983 enables the Lake Wanaka Preservation Act 1973). same conservation designation. Minister of Conservation to declare any water to be a faunistic reserve through River-specific legislation has been Landowners with a title that identifies a Gazette notice. The introduction of enacted recently, as part of a Treaty a river as a boundary (known as a any plant and the taking or killing of of Waitangi settlement: the Waikato- moveable water boundary) have a

47 Transit NZ V Auckland Regional Council, A100/00 (5 NZED 814).

179 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 20

common law right to stable land that to river margins. Despite ordinances not been examined in the preparation has accreted slowly and imperceptibly from as early as 1841 providing for a of this paper but it might be fruitful due to the action of the river along public access land margin alongside to do so, so that the utility of the that boundary. This common law water, and the establishment of watercourse area can be assessed. right can be converted to legal title uniform policy for the reservation by application to LINZ. Conversely, of public land alongside water NZCA conclusions landowners with a moveable water boundaries in the Land Act 1892,49 boundary may lose land to erosion coverage for public access alongside A representative network of protected by a river. New Zealand rivers remains rivers should be established. incomplete. Accretion can result in areas perceived The beds and waters of rivers that ﬂow to be riverbed on braided rivers to be Part IV of the Conservation Act requires within national park boundaries should converted to pasture, exotic forestry a marginal strip 20 metres wide to be have national park status unless there or vineyards, thus reducing the natural reserved from sale upon disposal of is a compelling national interest reason character of a river and its margins. Crown land adjoining a stream more to exclude them. than three metres wide or a lake LINZ has published guidelines for Greater consideration should be over eight hectares in size. The considering both accretion claims given to rivers and their values purposes of marginal strips include and dry stream or riverbed claims48. when considering areas suitable the maintenance of water quality, The former do not require public for designation as a protected area. notice but the latter do. Both require protection of aquatic life, and natural a wide range of parties to be directly values of the riparian zone, and Landowner (i.e. Minister of advised of the application, including provision for public access and Conservation) consent should be DOC. Objections have to be based on recreation (section 24C). obtained prior to lodging resource material legal or evidential grounds The Conservation Act (section 23) consent applications to modify rivers and cannot be simply due to enables an overlying protective and lakes, or extract water from rivers disagreement on principle. status for land adjoining some rivers. or lakes, in public conservation land. Speciﬁc objectives and clear criteria A “watercourse area” may be declared Crown riverbeds with recognised for Crown riverbed management for public conservation land or private nature conservation values should 50 are desirable. This would require protected land having outstanding be managed for those values. amendments to the Land Act. wild, scenic or other natural or recreational characteristics where The Land Act 1948 should be amended Crown riverbeds with recognised it adjoins any river, lake or stream to provide for the establishment of nature conservation values (especially protected by a WCO, or otherwise management objectives for Crown braided rivers) should be managed protected. Every watercourse area riverbeds. for those values. must be managed to protect the wild, The opportunities available to enhance scenic or other natural or recreational river protection by applying faunistic characteristics it has when considered Protection of land alongside reserve or watercourse area status with the river, stream, or lake rivers should be explored by DOC. concerned. This is subject to the Crown protection of public rights to protective status that applies to access rivers extends back to Queen that particular land and the WCO Victoria’s 1840 instructions to Governor provisions. Hobson, colloquially known as the ‘Queen’s Chain’. These instructions There are no watercourse areas in were inconsistently applied with regard New Zealand. The reason for this has

48 LINZG20710 and LINZG20711 published 30 October 2007. 49 Hayes, B.E (2003) at p 3, 9 and 18–19. 50 For example Queen Elizabeth II National Trust covenant or protected private land agreement under the Reserves Act.

180 04 21

Water SECTION SUMMARY

q5IJTTFDUJPOPVUMJOFTUIF deemed worthy of protection; conservation history of water conservation however, these must be orders (WCOs) and how “outstanding”. Courts have orders they came to be the major interpreted this to mean tool for protecting rivers. “quite out of the ordinary 51 It describes how the courts on a national basis”. have interpreted key terms, q5IFFЮFDUPGB8$0JTFJUIFS the Iegal effect of a WCO, and to protect a water body in its the process for applying for a natural state or to restrict new WCO as well as the steps or prohibit abstraction or to amend an existing one. uses that affect water flow, q8$0TBSFUIFNBJOTUBUVUPSZ or quality, or the habitat instrument that specifically qualities of a water body in recognises and provides for order to protect/preserve the protection of in-stream its outstanding amenity or river values. intrinsic values. A WCO can prohibit or restrict a regional q"8$0QSPUFDUTXBUFS council from issuing new within a water body in water and discharge permits order to protect or preserve but cannot annul existing its identified outstanding permits. amenity or intrinsic values. These can include: the q6OEFSUIF&$BO"DU habitat of terrestrial or assessments of WCOs in freshwater species; fisheries Canterbury (c.f. other (e.g. whitebait, eels, trout parts of New Zealand) give or salmon); wild, scenic or less weight to preserving other natural characteristics; and protecting nationally outstanding water bodies and scientific and ecological greater weight to potential values; recreational, abstractive uses of water. historical, spiritual or However, the ability to cultural values; and impose moratoria on resource characteristics of outstanding consents for water and significance in accordance discharge permits created with tikanga Māori. by the Act provides a useful q3JWFSTUIBUIBWFCFFO mechanism to allow the modified may still possess planning regime to ‘catch up’ suites of these characteristics with demand.

51 See: An Application by the Minister of Conservation (Kawarau River) CO 33/96; The Inquiry the preservation and protection of the wild, scenic and other natural characteristics of rivers, into a Draft National Conservation (Mataura River) Order CO32/90; and the Mohaka River streams, and lakes.” Water conservation order WO 20/92. 53 For example the North Canterbury Catchment Board described its task as “multi-objective 52 The purpose of the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 was “to make better provisions planning for water and soil resources with an underlying philosophy of resolving any conflicts for the conservation, allocation, use and quality of natural water….. and for the promoting between present and potential users in an equitable manner and with any burden evenly and controlling multiple uses of natural water and the drainage of land, and for ensuring shared.” It had proposed an overall planning goal of “the wise management of water and soil that adequate account is taken of the needs of primary and secondary industry, community resources in a manner that yield balanced and sustainable benefits for present and future water supplies, all forms of water-based recreation, fisheries, and wildlife habitats, and181 of generations.” NAWSCO, (3 April 1984). Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 22

WCOs are the main statutory instrument that speciﬁcally recognises and provides for the protection of in-stream river values.

History of WCOs fishery and habitat preservation that there was “a need for a for the threatened blue duck/whio54. positive policy ensuring protection WCOs were first enabled by the Water The Tribunal noted the “great of rivers or sections of rivers that and Soil Conservation Amendment difficulty in making a value judgement have outstanding wild, scenic Act 1981 (WSC Amendment Act; also on behalf of the community without or other natural characteristics known as Wild and Scenic Rivers guidelines bearing upon those in their natural state”.58 Amendment). The WSC Amendment matters”55. In another case, the Planning Act was a response to the impacts The Ministry of Works and Tribunal held that the WSCA did not of increasing development pressures Development and the Minister contemplate water rights being granted and the shortcomings of the Water for the Environment subsequently for in-stream purposes such as the and Soil Conservation Act 1967 issued a wild and scenic rivers policy. use of water for fishery management (WSCA).52 Decision-makers under At the time, much public debate and fishery enhancement purposes.56 the former WSCA had the difficult was occurring over the Government’s task of “balancing” competing Such cases highlighted the plans for a second aluminium demands (such as to carry away inadequacies of the WSCA regime smelter at Aramoana in Otago waste and provide for recreational for those interested in in-stream Harbour, a proposal to dam New fishing) for a particular water body.53 values. Acclimatisation societies Zealand’s largest river (the Clutha), This ‘balancing’ favoured resource (subsequently Fish and Game and the ‘Think Big’ schemes. The development ahead of conservation Councils) together with Save the WSC Amendment Act 1981 was the because developmental uses could Rivers Campaign members and culmination of this policy effort. be more easily quantified in the then New Zealand Canoeing The WSC Amendment Act stated: economic terms than less tangible Federation57 argued that there should “The object of this Act is to recognise values associated with a natural be legal recourse to protect water, and sustain the amenity afforded ecosystem. As a result, river not just to exploit it. This argument by waters in their natural state” flows, water quality and healthy was proposed as a direct counter to (section 2). This signalled that the river functioning diminished. the then recently enacted National WSC Amendment Act was to be Development Act 1979 (repealed 1986). A notable example was the 1978 case administered with an emphasis on involving the damming and diversion In a 1978 discussion paper, the sustaining waters in their natural of the Rangitaiki and Wheao Rivers. Commission for the Environment state, i.e. conservation.59 Where there The Planning Tribunal decided that raised the concept of protection for were outstanding features worthy of electricity generation from a renewable wild and scenic rivers. In its review protection, the overriding objective of source outweighed both recreational of submissions on the discussion the legislation was to protect those and interests in an outstanding trout paper, the Commission concluded not to provide for competing uses.

54 Fish and Game New Zealand advocacy questions the soundness of regarding rivers or the 57 Subsequently renamed Whitewater New Zealand. water in them as a renewable resource. 58 Young D (2004) at p 196. 55 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society v Bay of Plenty Regional Water Board (1978) 6 NZTPA 59 Ashburton Acclimatisation Society v Federated Farmers of NZ Inc C.A. 204/86 at p21. 361 referred to in Nolan D (ed) (2005). 56 South Canterbury Acclimatisation Society v National Water and Soil Conservation Authority (Planning Tribunal C37/83 12 February 1983).

182 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 23

For the first time, legislation q The provisions of any relevant ensures that if a freshwater resource is specifically recognised and provided regional planning scheme recognised as outstanding, the objective for in-stream values of rivers. The and district scheme. of its management is preservation or instrument to achieve this was called protection, rather than the more ‘balance’ To the acclimatisation societies, the a water conservation order. WCOs oriented ‘sustainable management’ legislation was a step towards national could impose conditions, restrictions requirement of the rest of the RMA. water resource management policy. It and prohibitions on the powers of established a mechanism whereby a As the Environment Court has noted: regional water boards to grant water regional or national perspective was part rights over natural waters subject “Substantively and procedurally the of regional water board and National to a WCO. differences between the WSCA and Water and Soil Conservation Authority Part 9 of the RMA are so great that we As Sir Robin Cooke in the decisions, instead of their consideration consider it is not useful, and indeed is Court of Appeal noted: 61 being restricted to individual streams. probably misleading, to consider the “In particular cases the needs of former except as to some guide as to industry or other community needs or planning schemes may demonstrably outweigh the goal of conservation. A WCO can protect a water body But as a general working rule or guideline the preservation of the in its natural state or, where a natural state as fully as possible or to the extent of protection of waterway has been modified, protect outstanding characteristics or features is to be aimed at unless clear and its outstanding characteristics clearly sufficient reason is shown to the contrary. The ultimate criteria must and allow uses compatible with be the public interest. The presumption is in favour of conservation. A those characteristics. strong, really compelling case is needed to displace it.” 60 The broad principles of the WSC the interpretation of identical words Section 20B(6) of the WSC Amendment Amendment Act, to recognise and or phrases in the latter.” 62 Act set out the matters the National provide protection for outstanding 63 Water and Soil Conservation Authority waters, were carried over into the RMA Purpose of WCOs or regional water board had to take when it was introduced in 1991. Part 9 WCOs can be sought for rivers, into account when considering an RMA deals specifically with WCOs. Part 9 streams, lakes, ponds, wetlands, application for a WCO, namely: contains phrases identical to those in the aquifers, or geothermal waters All forms of water-based recreation, WSC Amendment Act and, like that Act, q that are not in the coastal marine fisheries and wildlife habitats; contains its own purpose and procedures for WCOs. However, legally there are area. A WCO can protect a water The wild, scenic or other q significant differences in both content body in its natural state or, where a natural characteristics of and procedure. Most importantly, Part waterway has been modified, protect the river, stream or lake; 9 of the RMA is only partially subject to its outstanding characteristics q The needs of primary and secondary Part 2 of the RMA. It has been described and allow uses compatible industry and of the community; and as a ‘code within a code’, which with those characteristics.

60 Ashburton Acclimatisation Society v. Federated Farmers of NZ Inc [1988] 1 NZLR 78 at 87-88. 63 The case summaries in Berry S in chapter 8 “Water” in Nolan D (ed) (2005) in at pp 509-526 61 New Zealand Acclimatisation Societies (June 1983) An application for a national water were particularly helpful in compiling the following three sections. conservation order for the Rakaia River and its tributaries. 64 Berry S in Nolan D (ed) 2005 at para 8.76 on p 516. 62 Rangitata South Irrigation Ltd v Fish and Game (Environment Court C109/2004 5 August 2004) at p 15.

183 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 24

Part 9 of the RMA, which deals q The maximum and minimum features, or contribute in some exclusively with WCOs, has its own levels or flow or range of levels significant way to outstanding specific purpose, giving primacy or flows, or the rate of change characteristics or features.69 to the conservation of outstanding of levels or flows to be sought or The test as to what is outstanding is scenic and amenity values (section permitted for the water body; and a “reasonably rigorous” one.70 Before 199). Without this provision, the q The maximum allocation for a feature or characteristic can qualify sustainable management purpose abstraction or maximum contaminant as outstanding, it needs to be quite of the RMA (Part 2), which applies to loading consistent with the out of the ordinary on a national all other allocation decisions under purposes of the WCO; and basis.71 “If one takes a national the RMA, may, in the context of comparative approach, the fact that WCO applications, have operated in The ranges of temperature and q the wider region is well endowed the same way as the balancing test pressure in a water body. with similar high-quality features under the WSCA64 and weakened the In considering a WCO application, the may well suggest that particular prospect of WCOs being gazetted. Special Tribunal (and the Environment waters do not stand out when The RMA contemplates “preservation Court in any subsequent inquiry) considered in a national context.” 72 orders” that provide for “the must have “particular regard” to the Special Tribunals and the Environment purpose of WCOs and other matters preservation as far as possible in its Court can determine that only some set out in section 199 (see Appendix 3). natural state of any water body that of the values for which a WCO is 65 is considered to be outstanding” sought are “outstanding” and/or that and “protection orders” to protect “Natural state” these only occur in specific reaches particular characteristics that a “Natural state” means “towards the of the river. In relation to Southland’s water body has, or contributes pristine end of the artificial/polluted Oreti River, for example, the Special to, which are considered to be 67 Tribunal considered the river supported 66 to pristine continuum.” outstanding. The characteristics an outstanding brown trout fishery, that can be protected include: The existence of resource consents particularly in its upper reaches above for abstraction does not necessarily q The habitat of terrestrial Rocky Point, and the upper reaches mean that waters are no longer in or freshwater species provided outstanding angling amenity their “natural state”. In the Rangitata and were of outstanding significance in Fisheries (indigenous, q WCO case, the Environment Court held accordance with tikanga Māori. Parts trout or salmon) that such takes were only authorised of the river also provided outstanding temporarily (under RMA section 124 q Wild, scenic or other habitat for the threatened endemic natural characteristics as existing permits had expired) and black-billed gull Larus bulleri. But the were not continual, (e.g. takes were Tribunal held that on the evidence the Scientific and ecological values q shut off during maintenance of intake river’s wild and scenic values and native q Recreational, historical, structures). The Court held that it fisheries were “significant” rather than spiritual or cultural values should consider the Rangitata flow “outstanding in a national context”, as if the takes were not occurring.68 though these could contribute to the q Characteristics of outstanding values considered to be outstanding. significance in accordance “Outstanding” with tikanga Māori. For wildlife habitat values to qualify To be included in a WCO, a water body as nationally outstanding (rather than A WCO can set conditions relating to: either has to be itself outstanding just significant), a river would have q The quantity, quality, rate of flow, in a national context, or contain to support at least 5 per cent of the or level of the water body; and outstanding characteristics or national population of a species.73

65 Section 199 (2)(a) RMA. 70 Re National Water Conservation (Mataura River) Order 1989 (Planning Tribunal C32/90 4 May 1990). 66 Section 199(2)(b) and section 199(2)(c) RMA. 71 Re National Water Conservation (Mohaka River) Order 1990 (Planning Tribunal W20/92 8 April 67 Rangitata South Irrigation Ltd v Fish and Game (Environment Court C109/2004 5 August 2004) 1992) p45. This was upheld in subsequent cases under the RMA such as Re National Water pp11-12. conservation order (Kawerau River) C33/1996 at p 5. 68 Rangitata South Irrigation Ltd v Fish and Game (Environment Court C109/2004 5 August 2004) 72 Rangitata South Irrigation Ltd v Fish and Game (Environment Court C109/2004 5 August 2004) p 10. pp11-12. 73 Rangitata South Irrigation Ltd v Fish and Game (Environment Court C109/2004 5 August 2004) 69 Re National Water Conservation (Buller River) Order 1989 (Planning Tribunal C28/93 7 May 1993 p p32. 7 at p 18. 184 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 25

In the Rangitata case, the Court noted also have the effect of controlling and if the application is accepted s/ it did not appear appropriate to activities on the beds of rivers he can appoint a Special Tribunal to identify characteristics of outstanding and lakes.77 Despite their gazettal invite and hear public submissions significance to Māori, because it “is under the old legislation, they are and then report on the application. not tika” to compare resources across still operative today and continue RMA section 207 requires the 74 iwi. Yet, in the Oreti application the unless they are changed through Special Tribunal to have particular Special Tribunal determined that the provisions in Part 9 of the RMA. regard to the purpose of a WCO and upper reaches of the Oreti were of Resource consents granted after a the other matters set out in RMA outstanding significance in accordance WCO is in place must not be contrary section 199, and to have regard to: with tikanga Māori because of to any restriction, prohibition or other the presence of taonga species q The needs of primary and secondary provision in the WCO. A WCO does not (both fish and wildlife), evidence industry and the community; and affect existing resource consents until of past occupation, and continuity these expire and replacement consents q The relevant provisions of of flow and high water quality are sought, nor existing lawful use national policy statements, contributing to a vibrant “mauri”.75 established before the WCO was New Zealand coastal policy A WCO may extend to an entire gazetted. For example, the flow regime statement, regional policy river system, including parts of the in the Rangitata River WCO enables statement, regional and district system that are not in themselves the Rangitata Diversion Race Limited plans and any proposed plan; and outstanding, but that contribute to continue to take a third of the river’s qThe submissions lodged with it. to the integrity of the system.76 mean flow for its irrigation scheme The Special Tribunal’s report will and hydro generation at Highbank. include either a draft WCO or a Statutory effects of a WCO Taking water for the reasonable recommendation that the application As a national instrument to protect domestic needs of an individual, be declined. In both cases it gives values deemed to be nationally or for the drinking needs of their the reasons for its decision. stock, are allowed by the RMA outstanding, WCO have a high place The applicant for the WCO and all and are not affected by a WCO. in the hierarchy of RMA regulation. submitters have the right to refer Gazetted by Order in Council, they the Special Tribunal’s report and are government regulations. Councils Process for initiating a WCO recommendations to the Environment must ensure that their regional (outside Canterbury) Court, as does anyone else to whom policy statements and regional or Any person, group or organisation the Court has given leave to do so. district plans are not inconsistent can apply to the Minister for the with the provisions of any WCO. The Environment Court’s function Environment for a WCO for a specified is to conduct an inquiry into, and A WCO acts in a similar way to water body, citing the reasons for report on, the Special Tribunal’s operative regional plan rules by the application (with reference to report, not conduct a de novo constraining the regional council’s RMA sections 199, 200 and 207), the hearing on the application. discretion in managing the water body. values for which protection is sought, In undertaking its inquiry, the It restricts regional council powers to the provisions sought in the WCO and Environment Court, like the Special the extent necessary to maintain the the effects these would have on the Tribunal, is required to have particular outstanding characteristics of a river water body. The application fee is regard to the purpose of a WCO and in their current quality or quantity. $1,000 (as at the date of this paper). the other matters set out in section WCOs that were gazetted under The Minister can request further 199 RMA. Under section 212 RMA, the WSC Amendment Act may information about an application, the Court must also have regard to:

74 Rangitata South Irrigation Ltd v Fish and Game (Environment Court C109/2004 5 August 2004) p 14. 76 Ashburton Acclimatisation Society v. Federated Farmers of NZ Inc [1988] 1 NZLR 78. 75 Special Tribunal (November 2007) Summary of the Report by a Special Tribunal Appointed by 77 The Rakaia WCO for example prohibits the granting of water permits that facilitate agricultural the Minister for the Environment to consider an Application for a Water conservation order for encroachment into the protected waters. the Oreti River, see www.MfE.govt.nz/.

185 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 26

A WCO acts in a similar way to operative regional plan rules by constraining the regional council’s discretion in managing the water body.

q The needs of primary and secondary Appendix 4 summarises the effect of Majac’s proposed changes industry and the community; and statutory process for a WCO to the outstanding rafting amenity application outside Canterbury. protected by the WCO. To date, this q The relevant provisions of every has been the only application seeking national policy statement, New to reduce the protection afforded Zealand coastal policy statement, Revocation of or by a WCO that has been heard. regional policy statement and amendments to WCOs regional and district plans and (outside Canterbury) Applications to restrict the scope of any proposed plan; and No applications can be made to a WCO preclude submissions in opposition that seek to expand the The report of the Special Tribunal revoke a WCO for the first two years q WCO (section 205(3) RMA). In the and any draft WCO; and after it has been gazetted. Only minor or technical changes enabling the Majac Trust case, the Court rejected q The application and all submissions WCO to better achieve its purpose a submission seeking recognition in lodged with the Court; and may be made (section 216 RMA). the WCO of additional characteristics, namely the kayaking and scenic and q Such other matters as Once two years have passed, any amenity values of the Matiri River the Court thinks fit. person can apply to revoke or below the lake. Submitters may The Court reports and makes a amend a WCO. An application to make a separate application to recommendation to the Minister for revoke or amend follows the same expand the scope of a WCO 78. the Environment on whether the draft process as the original application. WCO (that which was considered by the Applications to amend might be to WCOs in Canterbury Special Tribunal) should be rejected or extend or restrict the WCO’s impact. The Environment Canterbury (Ecan) accepted with or without modifications. In 2007 DOC, Fish and Game, Forest Act 2010 has created a separate The Minister considers the report from and Bird and the New Zealand regime for granting, amending or the Special Tribunal (or the Environment Recreational Canoeing Association revoking WCOs in Canterbury. Firstly, Court if an inquiry has been held) and (now Whitewater New Zealand) it changed the statutory test and decides whether or not to recommend and rafting parties opposed an removed the primary purpose of to the Executive Council that a WCO application by the Majac Trust to protection. It makes the assessment should be issued. The Minister must vary the Buller WCO to enable water of an application subject to the decide in accordance with the relevant take from the Gowan River. The Part 2 (sustainable management) report, or reject it and give reasons in amendment was declined owing to provisions of the RMA rather than a written statement to Parliament. If evidence from the opposing parties Part 9 (emphasis on the protection the Minister recommends the making about the importance of the Gowan of outstanding amenity and intrinsic of a WCO, it is gazetted by Order in and Lake Rotoroa to sustaining values). The decision-maker also has Council by the Governor General. the eel and trout fisheries, and the to have particular regard to the vision

78 Talley v Fowler CIV 2005-485-000117.

186 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 27

and principles of the Canterbury Water The provisions of the ECan Act may be (i) high or increasing demand or Management Strategy (CWMS) 2009. primarily used by hydro generation, to diminishing quality; or Although the CWMS was prepared irrigation and other development (ii) is fully allocated, nearing full through a collaborative process interests seeking to amend existing allocation, or over-allocated; and with public input through meetings, WCOs for Canterbury rivers, given submissions and hearings, it was not the weakened statutory tests, rather q Any other relevant matter. a statutory process incorporating than for new WCO applications. As The ‘pause’ created by a moratorium legal tests and appeal rights. Whitewater New Zealand president is useful because it potentially The different statutory tests in Polly Miller said when announcing enables the planning regime for a river the ECan Act for a new WCO or the withdrawal of its amended catchment to ‘catch up’ with increasing applications to amend an existing Hurunui WCO application: water demand. To date, moratoria have WCO in Canterbury mean “significantly “The primary reason for withdrawing been notified for the Hurunui and Waiau less weight”79 is given to the is that the ECan Act watered down the Rivers. They expired in October 2011 requirement to preserve and protect water conservation order law and before new regional plan provisions nationally outstanding water bodies, process to such an extent that we have and flow regimes were in place and greater weight is given to decided that our efforts to protect the (submissions close December 2011). potential abstractive uses of water. river are better directed toward other The ECan Act provides an opportunity Instead of a Special Tribunal processes. We are hopeful that to pursue restoration opportunities considering an application and making withdrawing from the WCO will create through a WCO, as seen for the recommendations to the Minister for a context where a collaborative solution Lake Ellesmere WCO84, whereas the Environment, the Government to conservation and recreation needs, the RMA (section 9) restricts appointed ECan Commissioners to do and environmentally responsible itself to the preservation and this at the Minister’s request. There is irrigation possibilities, may be found protection of existing conditions. no right of appeal to the Environment for the Hurunui/Waiau catchment Court on the Commissioners’ report within the framework of the Canterbury The ECan Act contains a ‘Henry VIII’ and recommendations. An ECan Water Management Strategy.” 82 provision (section 31), which gives the Minister for the Environment wide decision can be appealed to the The legislation also gave new power High Court only on points of law. powers to amend both the ECan Act to the ECan Commissioners to impose and the RMA through regulation by As a local authority, the council is not moratoria in relation to specified Order in Council, rather than through permitted to allow cross-examination resource consent applications Parliament. The Minister can amend in its hearings; nor did the ECan Act for water and discharge permits, the duration and extent of the ECan give it this power. The result is that or applications to amend their Commissioners’ powers as they apply, 83 technical and other expert evidence on conditions. The prior approval of for example, to WCOs, moratoria a river’s values and characteristics and the Minister for the Environment and plans. This has received wide relevant planning provisions will not be to such moratoria is required. comment and concern from legal tested through cross examination nor In issuing a moratorium, ECan and practitioners and academics. considered by a specialist court.80 the Minister must have regard to: MAF papers released under the Official NZCA Conclusions q The vision and principles Information Act indicate that facilitating of the CWMS; and Conclusions relating to WCOs are irrigation development in Canterbury by presented in section 5 of this paper. more easily enabling changes to WCO q The extent to which the fresh was one of the drivers for the ECan Act.81 water of that area is subject to:

79 Baker M, resource management lawyer (pers. comm., August 2010). previous Environment Ministers to help address the region’s “water goldrush, the avalanche of 80 Baker M, resource management lawyer (pers. comm., August 2010). resource consent applications to take water, and the shortcomings of a “first-in, first-served” 81 MAF Policy (21 December 2009) Briefing on Facilitating Irrigation Development in Canterbury. approach to water allocation when existing takes are approaching or exceed sustainability B09-429A. limits. 82 Whitewater NZ and Fish and Game New Zealand (20 December 2010) press statement. 84 Lake Ellesmere to get $11m clean-up http://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/5507280/Lake- 83 Environment Canterbury had previously requested a moratorium power from the Ministry and Ellesmere-to-get-11m-clean-up (accessed 2 September 2011).

187 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 28

Resource consents granted after a WCO is in place must not be contrary to any restriction, prohibition or other provision in the WCO.

Photo: Forest stream, Fiordland National Park. Crown Copyright: Department of Conservation Te Papa Atawhai (1996), Photographer: Chris Rance.

188 05 29

The use and SECTION SUMMARY

q5IJTTFDUJPOEJTDVTTFTIPX applicants, user groups, effectiveness WCOs have been used and and submitters, careful evaluates their effectiveness consideration of technical of WCOs as a tool for protecting and and other evidence by Special managing rivers. It considers Tribunals, and the testing of the robustness and length evidence by the Environment of the WCO process, and Court. Accordingly, they the relationship between deserve greater permanence. WCOs and regional plans. It highlights potential areas for q5IFFЮFDUJWFOFTTPG8$0T could be improved by improvement. requiring local authorities q8$0TIBWFCFFOQBSUJDVMBSMZ to have particular regard to valuable in augmenting the protection of outstanding regional water planning by values recognised by a WCO setting flow and allocation in managing land use in regimes for particular rivers catchments where a river is in the absence of regional or subject to a WCO. catchment plans. q3JWFSNBOBHFNFOU q8$0TBSFUIFPOMZ3." (particularly through regional mechanism used to effectively plans and greater use of protect outstanding rivers. WCOs) could be enhanced As at November 2011, there if a national inventory of were 15 WCOs—13 for named outstanding rivers (and rivers or reaches (including outstanding reaches of rivers) some of their tributaries and was compiled. This would associated lakes) and two for help identify rivers with the lakes. highest values nationally as q8$0TBSFBDIJFWFEUISPVHIB candidates for protection of robust process that requires their natural state through a significant investment strong plan rules or new WCO of time and expertise by applications.

189 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 30

Protection of representative Strategy.85 If WCOs are to assist in a proactive national strategy to habitats and ecosystems achieving such protection, a strategic identify a representative range of approach to applications is required. rivers deserving protection based Only a small number of New Zealand’s on their values. Available staff rivers are protected by WCOs. As Fish and Game councils, or their acclimatisation society predecessors, and funding resources have been at November 2011, there were 15 directed to defending rivers under WCOs—13 for named rivers or reaches have applied for the majority of WCOs and been at the forefront of their use immediate threat from large-scale (including some of their tributaries 86 for river protection. Fish and Game’s irrigation and hydro proposals. and associated lakes) and two for applications have, understandably, lakes (summarised in Appendix 5). focused on its statutory functions Past protection initiatives It seems likely that these rivers of managing and advocating for the WCOs have been used successfully protection of sports fisheries (trout represent only a small proportion to protect in-stream interests and and salmon) and game birds, and the of those potentially meeting the to safeguard flow regimes before recreational opportunities derived criteria in section 199 RMA as being resource consent applications have from them, rather than freshwater outstanding in their natural state and/ been lodged for hydro generation indigenous biodiversity or other values. or having outstanding characteristics. or irrigation proposals. The identification and protection of WCOs have primarily been used to protect For example, the Central South outstanding biodiversity characteristics rivers under threat. They have not been Island Fish & Game Council was has been incidental (although this used to protect a representative range prompted to lodge the application has been significantly assisted by of rivers or as a means to implement for a Rangitata WCO by proposals for Fish and Game consulting interested the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. several large new takes to irrigate WCOs have primarily been used to protect rivers under threat. They have not been used to protect a representative range of rivers

Priority action 2.1(c) of the New parties prior to lodging applications). land on the river’s south bank. One Zealand Biodiversity Strategy is to Advocacy for, and evidence on, third of the river’s mean annual flow progressively protect representative biodiversity and other values relies on was already diverted to one of the country’s largest irrigation schemes freshwater habitats and ecosystems. participation by DOC, conservation (Rangitata Diversion Race) to irrigate The 2005 five-year review of the groups such as Forest and Bird, land north of the river and generate Biodiversity Strategy assessed and recreational organisations power through the Highbank scheme. progress on implementing this like Whitewater New Zealand. With no environmental flow regime as “limited” relative to the size of The ‘water gold rush’ of the last 15 for the Rangitata, except the de the task. The review identified the years has given Fish and Game and facto one provided for in Rangitata action as having a “high” priority in other environmental and recreational Diversion Race’s consent conditions, the next phase of implementing the NGOs little opportunity to develop

85 Green W and Clarkson B (November 2005) at p 48. 86 Martin D, Forest and Bird ﬁeld oﬃcer (pers. comm., December 2010).

190 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 31

WCOs can therefore signiﬁcantly enhance the planning framework for rivers and in-stream values by establishing environmental ﬂow regimes

advocates for in-stream values Such a stocktake should map and Sustainable Water Programme would have had to contest each describe the rivers and river reaches of Action, but not progressed88). and every application for further already protected, the extent of Possible tools for assessing outstanding irrigation takes. The WCO application protected land in the catchment, rivers are discussed in section 6. was made before any new consent the river protection mechanisms applications were lodged. Once the utilised (e.g. WCO, regional rules Enhancing regional planning WCO was gazetted, the flow regime it prohibiting dams), the security of WCOs have often been sought for rivers established provided certainty for all any protection, and any management that lack a catchment or regional plan, parties. The flow regime developed threats and issues. It would help track in order to establish a flow regime and through the WCO process meant progress towards the protection of allocation limit. When acclimatisation that a subsequent resource consent a representative range of freshwater societies applied for a Rakaia WCO application by Rangitata South Limited ecosystems and habitats (see in June 1983, for example, there was to take water within the constraints section 3), and determine where no management plan that covered established by the WCO attracted additional protection is needed. few submissions (and no appeals). the river. The North Canterbury A national inventory of rivers with Catchment Board produced a draft This demonstrates that WCOs outstanding conservation values management plan for the river two are useful for all parties because meriting protection under a WCO could months after the WCO was made. they provide a clear, transparent be developed. Priorities for protection Once gazetted, WCOs can restrict mechanism that sets real limits, could be identified by overlaying new takes and diversions to those provides certainty, helps the the results of the stocktake of rivers consistent with the regime established planning process, lowers costs currently protected on the inventory of and makes effective use of in the WCO. For example, the Rangitata rivers with outstanding values. Public stakeholders’ time and resources. WCO prohibits damming, establishes consultation could then be undertaken a flow regime that allows the existing on the inventory and policy options Rangitata Diversion Race take, Identifying outstanding for progressing protection of these specifies 1:1 sharing between in-stream rivers rivers. The inventory would update and and abstraction for some flows, caps A stocktake of the extent of river extend work begun in 1984 to prepare abstraction at 33 cumecs (cubic protection in New Zealand would and publish an inventory of New metres per second), and provides provide baseline information to help Zealand’s nationally important wild and for additional takes but only when identify freshwater ecosystems and scenic rivers. It was never completed flows are above a certain threshold. habitats which are not represented nor given statutory recognition.87 in the existing protected areas (The inclusion of a schedule of waters WCOs can therefore significantly network, and elucidate the adequacy of national importance (WONI) in the enhance the planning framework of current protection tools. RMA was suggested as part of the for rivers and in-stream values by

87 National Water and Soil Conservation Authority (1984). The 1984 “National Inventory of Wild and 88 The work programme for the WONI project included producing a public discussion paper on the Scenic Rivers” initially used assessment criteria for scenic, recreational, wild, biological, scientiﬁc value of determining water bodies of national importance, the methods used and the initial list. and cultural values to rank water bodies into three groups in order of importance with ﬁsheries and This was intended as a basis for public consultation on methods and criteria used, alternative tourism values added subsequently. Initially the inventory’s purpose was simply to identify wild and approaches and options for managing nationally important water bodies. A technical report notes scenic rivers and lakes, not seek legislative protection. Government subsequently called for public that the results of consultation could have been developed into a Cabinet paper with a candidate submissions on a new schedule to the WSCA but this was never passed into law. list of nationally important water bodies and options for their appropriate management. The discussion paper was not published. MAF and MfE did not consult on any of the candidate lists for 191 rivers of national importance, or on policy options for progressing the project. Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 32

establishing environmental flow Regional councils have generally support of, or opposition to, regimes where none have previously opposed WCO applications, but this a WCO or its amendment. existed. In the absence of a plan opposition is not always strenuously The expense of obtaining expert or a WCO, the de facto flow regime pursued. In the WCO application evidence and legal representation for the Oreti River in Southland, is determined by how much water to establish the presence of the council chose not to call is left after individual consents outstanding values has limited the evidence to support its submission for water takes are granted. number of WCO applications and in opposition, and during the the scope of some to critical WCOs also achieve the Land and Hurunui WCO application, the reaches and tributaries less Water Forum’s objective to set regional council took a neutral attractive to development interests, rigorous standards and limits on position at the hearing. the use of water. These can be and therefore considered more inadequate or ineffective in regional The RMA promotes integration ‘winnable’ for the applicant plans even where plans exist. between WCOs and regional plans organisation and supporting parties. by requiring that a decision-maker For this reason, applications often WCOs are not processed by on a WCO application has regard do not include all of the river regional councils, but councils can to relevant plans, and by requiring reaches, tributaries and waterways (and should) participate in the WCO that district and regional plans that have outstanding values. process. WCOs take the planning not be inconsistent with a WCO.90 and water management initiative Fish and Game New Zealand For example, in developing its estimates it spent more than and decision-making powers away regional plan, Environment $3 million in the 10 years from from the regional council (except Canterbury noted that the WCO 2000 to 2010 on applications in Canterbury) and give it to the for the Rangitata River, gazetted and advocacy for WCOs. Minister on the recommendation part way through the planning Since its establishment in 1987, of a Special Tribunal and (and if process, was incorporated into DOC has only applied for one WCO appealed) the Environment Court. the Natural Resources Regional (Kawarau). DOC has had historical In a WCO application, the regional Plan without this causing any council is a submitter (albeit an significant complications.91 Other involvement in WCOs through influential one); not the decision- regional councils have successfully applications made by one of its maker. WCOs can limit the powers of incorporated WCO provisions into predecessors, the New Zealand regional councils in relation to their their regional planning documents Wildlife Service. DOC was a joint water management functions. Once (e.g. the Bay of Plenty Regional applicant with Ngāi Tahu for the gazetted, WCOs override regional Land and Water Plan includes a Te Waihora/Lake Ellesmere WCO plans. No resource consent can schedule with the provisions of amendment and has been a party to be granted that would be contrary the Motu WCO, and the Tasman some other applications (e.g. Buller). to the provisions of the WCO. Regional Plan includes schedules Frivolous applications are unlikely with the provisions from the No catchment boards, regional given the rigour and cost of the Buller and Motueka WCOs). councils or unitary authorities have WCO process. All applications to applied for or supported WCOs. date have been upheld in some WCOs were rarely mentioned as a Funding and cost of the form by Special Tribunals and the Environment Court, indicating river management tool in a recent application process diligent preparation of applications comprehensive review of regional Individual parties must fund the and supporting evidence. council practice in setting limits application, legal submissions for freshwater flows and quality.89 and evidence for their case in

89 SKM (16 April 2010) The survey included a lengthy questionnaire provided to planning staﬀ in 90 Baker, M (August 2010). all regional councils and unitary authorities with follow up interviews or meetings. None of the 91 Cowie B et al (28 October 2010). questions were speciﬁcally about WCOs.

192 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 33

Length and robustness proposed draft WCO because of The one completed application to of process evidence of inconsistencies with amend a WCO (on the Buller River) to national and international guidelines. reduce protection was unsuccessful, WCO applications under both partly because of the robustness of the For any future Canterbury WCOs the WSCA and RMA have proven original application process. The Court or amendments, the ECan Act to be lengthy processes. was unable to see any “materially promises a faster process but it As the Environment Court has noted: altered circumstances” from those dispenses with cross examination considered by the then Planning “There are at least two reasons and any opportunity to amend and Tribunal that recommended the WCO: why WCO applications are time improve a draft WCO by removing consuming. The first is that they the opportunity for the Environment “Having regard to the holistic analysis proceed by way of at least one but Court’s inquiry and scrutiny. of the river system undertaken by usually two inquiries and have to the Planning Tribunal at that time, take into account an enormous Permanency of protection this Court must be careful, when range of material. Second, if granted considering a variation, that it does they have severe implications as Anyone can apply to amend or not allow changes which might provide to the use of water. So they are of revoke a WCO two or more years for inconsistent administration of the themselves always of vital interest to after its gazettal (section 216 RMA). WCO or otherwise create scope for conservationists, recreational users Amending or revoking a WCO requires other or wider changes.”95 and last but not least, to those a recommendation from the Minister The length and thoroughness of an persons and organisations who for the Environment to the Executive initial application justifies protection wish to take or divert water.” 92 Council based on a recommendation from a Special Tribunal and/or being made more permanent. The The Environment Court has identified Environment Court (or in Canterbury, WCO process is arguably more rigorous the Special Tribunal’s report to from the ECan Commissioners). than a national park investigation by the Minister as having primacy. the NZCA under the National Parks The purpose of any subsequent In Opotiki District a proposal by Act, given it involves submissions to, Environment Court hearing is Horizon Energy to dam the Motu River and a hearing and decision report by, “to enable a secondary report to generate electricity and provide the Special Tribunal, and possible on matters of concern to further an investment vehicle for Māori has inquiry by the Environment Court. submitters who wish to challenge been discussed.94 This would require WCOs are frequently cited as the the findings in the Special Tribunal’s the rescinding of the Motu WCO. equivalent of ‘national parks for report by calling evidence and TrustPower Limited has applied to rivers’. Removing land from a national cross examining witnesses”.93 amend the Rakaia WCO to operate park requires an Act of Parliament. Lake Coleridge for irrigation as well Cross examination of witnesses is not Traditionally this has been seen as a as hydro-electricity generation. permitted before Special Tribunals, significant safeguard.96 Requiring an but is permitted in the Environment The comprehensive process that Act of Parliament to revoke a WCO Court, ensuring that expert evidence precedes the formal gazettal of a would align the status of these two is tested. Environment Court reports WCO outside of Canterbury suggests classifications. An alternative would and recommendations have contained that the Environment Court is be to extend the time period before detailed changes to the content of unlikely to recommend amendments an amendment or revocation could be WCOs recommended by Special to the Minister without strong considered under section 216 of the Tribunals. In the Rangitata South reason. To date, no existing WCOs RMA (other than an amendment of a case, for example, the Court changed have been revoked or amended minor or technical nature to enable the several clauses in the Special Tribunal’s to reduce their protection. WCO to better achieve its purpose).

92 Talley v Fowler CIV 2005-435-000117. 96 Though legislation can be passed through Parliament under urgency without public submissions, 93 Rangitata South Irrigation Ltd v Fish and Game (Environment Court C109/2004 5 August 2004) at p20. or referral to or scrutiny by a select committee. The ECan Act amending the regime for WCOs 94 Mercer, G (23 March 2008). in Canterbury was passed through all its stages within 48 hours without submissions or select 95 MJ Talley and others as trustees for MAJAC Trust v Fish and Game C102/2007 at para. 57. committee consideration.

193 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 34

Enhancement of outstanding The Land and Water Forum 2010 water quality. This last change would characteristics cannot be report recommended WCOs be help promote integrated land and considered made more effective with respect water management as recommended to water quality; it notes that by the Land and Water Forum. The WCO process centres upon WCOs are restricted to in-stream WCOs could be used more strategically the assessment and protection influences and are unable to take an to help protect a representative range of existing characteristics of the integrated approach in addressing of rivers with outstanding values. river—it is about maintaining their other influences such as land use. quality and quantity. The Act does It recommended that this change. Conducting a stocktake of the extent not provide for their enhancement. of river protection and compiling a A more integrated approach would 97 national inventory of outstanding rivers In the Rangitata South case , the also be assisted by requiring local and river reaches with outstanding Environment Court found that while authorities to have particular regard characteristics (including biodiversity, it could consider what was needed to WCO status when developing landscape, cultural, recreational, to halt the decline of an endangered plan provisions for the relevant amenity) would help identify priorities species, section 199(2) appeared river or lake catchment. to exclude any consideration of for additional protection. Secure a WCO being for the purposes of This is because while WCOs protect protection is needed for river systems enhancement, such as an increased the natural water in a river and and river reaches that remain in, minimum flow to improve the recognise the wild and scenic elements or are close to, their natural state, habitat of a threatened species to of the landscape, the Courts have and have outstanding wild, scenic help avoid extinction. This is not held that they do not, in themselves, and amenity characteristics. protect the landscape elements.98 sensible and the Act should be Canterbury rivers should once again amended to provide for this. NZCA Conclusions be covered by the WCO regime that applies to the rest of New Zealand Land use and water quality WCOs are the primary means (i.e. in accordance with Part 9 of Many WCOs include provisions that by which rivers have been the RMA) when the term of the set water quality standards for protected in New Zealand. They ECan Commissioners expires in 2013. are an effective mechanism for the protected waters and prohibit Allocating a government agency the protection of rivers, albeit that point source discharges that do specific responsibility for advancing some aspects could be improved. not comply with the standards WCOs could help improve their use outside a reasonable mixing zone. The use, application and effectiveness and effectiveness for river protection Despite being able to establish of WCOs could be enhanced by in New Zealand. This should be the maximum contaminant loading carefully considered changes same agency charged with overall limits (section 200(c) RMA), WCO to legislation and policy. This river protection (see section 2). applications have not been used includes, but is not restricted to: primarily to protect water quality lengthening the two year restriction except for the Buller River. This may on applications to amend or revoke be because safeguarding flows has WCOs; allowing WCOs to provide been the most pressing priority for for the enhancement of outstanding applicants. There is no ability for characteristics; and requiring local WCO provisions to control diffuse authorities to take account of WCO sources of sediment or contaminants status in land use planning including entering rivers as a result of land use. controlling land uses to safeguard

97 Rangitata South Irrigation Ltd v Fish and Game (Environment Court C109/2004 5 August 2004) 98 Under the former WSCA, the Planning Tribunal held that the WSCA did not authorise the making pp137 and 83. of an Order to protect landform values, although the contribution that the subject waters make to those values could be taken into account in deciding whether the waters should be subject to an Order. See Re National Water Conservation (Motu River) Order 1983 (1984) 10 NZTPA 7 at 12.

194 06 35

Other RMA SECTION SUMMARY

q5IJTTFDUJPOFYBNJOFT major hydro-electricity tools for river the statutory planning and irrigation proposals framework for river with potentially significant protection management under the RMA, adverse effects on river other than that for WCOs, health and in-stream values. and identifies opportunities q4USBUFHJDQMBOOJOH to enhance river protection. and their instruments, such as q%FDJTJPONBLJOHBCPVUVTF national policy statements and development proposals and national environmental efficacy has occurred at a faster rate standards, have been than the development of under-utilised as means a comprehensive planning to protect rivers.99 framework that includes q"/BUJPOBM1PMJDZ4UBUFNFOU effective provisions for (NPS) for Freshwater river protection. Management was released q5IFoVTFpBOEoEFWFMPQNFOUp in May 2011 and an NPS elements of sustainable for Renewable Electricity management in the RMA Generation was released in appear to be given greater April 2011. Both make regional attention and weight than planning compulsory with the the “protection” element. latter on a faster time track. Councils have consented Both affect rivers.

Sustainable management cultural wellbeing and for their health includes “protection” of and safety while— natural and physical (a) sustaining the potential of natural resources and physical resources (excluding The purpose of the RMA is to promote minerals) to meet the reasonably the sustainable management of natural foreseeable needs of future and physical resources. Sustainable generations; and management means managing the use, (b) safeguarding the life-supporting development, and protection [our capacity of air, water, soil, and emphasis] of natural and physical ecosystems; and resources in a way, or at a rate, that enables people and communities to (c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating provide for their social, economic, and any adverse eﬀects of activities on the

99 National policy statements state objectives and policies for matters of national signiﬁcance. National environmental standards are legally enforceable regulations that provide a standard to be enforced nationally.

195 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 36

Sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection [our emphasis] of natural and physical resources...

environment (section 5 RMA) instruments currently available in proposed abstraction, diversion, legislation (e.g. national policy or other interference... While sustainable management statements, national environmental includes the protection of natural and “Absence of evidence that proposed standards) have been under-utilised”.100 physical resources, application of the abstraction, diversion or other broad overall judgement approach has A result is that individual consent interference with natural levels seen “use and development” being decisions to take, dam, divert and or flows would be unsustainable favoured over “protection.” The RMA’s use water are made with little does not justify granting a permit. enabling thrust and effects-based consideration of their cumulative Rather, unless a consent authority regime means that regional councils effects over the whole catchment. is positively satisfied that exercise have more often sought to remedy Fish and Game has described this of the permit would be sustainable or mitigate effects, rather than approach as the “salami syndrome” management of the resource, it proactively protect water bodies by whereby river flows are sliced should refuse consent.”102 prohibiting takes, dams, diversions incrementally but repeatedly, Resource consent decisions for or other uses that degrade a river’s compromising a river’s healthy abstraction and diversion have been natural state. functioning, habitat values, and and are made on rivers for which there recreational and other amenity Policies and plans under the RMA is either no environmental flow and values. This has also been described have not kept pace with the speed allocation regime or an inadequate as “death by a thousand cuts” and of development. Hydro generation one (e.g. a minimum flow that does “a little bit more of a little bit less”101. and irrigation developments have not recognise the need to protect occurred at a faster rate than either The approach described by retired flow variability). Controls on land use the Ministry for the Environment (MfE) Environment Judge, David Sheppard, and intensification have been slow to has been able to formulate and achieve could be adopted more widely: develop and are rudimentary in areas operative national policies and such as the Mackenzie Basin where “A water body may be able to tolerate environmental standards, or regional water is vulnerable to developments some abstraction, diversion or councils have been able to finalise and such as intensive dairying. make regional plans operative. interference with the natural pattern of changes of levels and flows while Section 9 RMA (restrictions on land As MfE and the Ministry of Agriculture qualifying as sustainably managed. use) is enabling, meaning that any and Forestry noted in 2004: But the manner and rate of land use can occur unless a national “Existing frameworks and processes for interference with its natural regime environmental standard (NES) or resolving competing national interests that can be tolerated has to be district or regional plan rule provides and optimising complementary prudently considered in respect of otherwise. However, for water, this outcomes are poorly developed and each water body and catchment, and presumption is reversed, and water inadequately used. The national the conditions that would apply to the takes or discharges to water cannot

100 MfE & MAF (2004) identiﬁed by regional councils during the Sustainable Water Programme 101 McDowall, Robert M (attrib.) of Action. 102 Sheppard David F (October 2010).

196 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 37

occur unless expressly allowed by a regional councils to manage the effects of land use and development National Environment Standard (NES), catchments of outstanding rivers, to maintain indigenous biological a plan rule or a resource consent. an aspect that cannot be covered diversity. This should influence the If this latter presumption had applied by a WCO. preparation of second-generation to land uses affecting water quality The NPS for Renewable Electricity regional and district plans to better as well, these may have been a focus Generation 2011 requires councils to protect freshwater biodiversity. for action earlier. amend their existing and proposed MfE’s Quality Planning website104 The deficiencies in the current RMA policy statements and plans within has a substantial guidance note framework for water management 24 months to provide for renewable on indigenous biodiversity to were a stimulus for the Sustainable energy generation if the documents assist councils in implementing Programme of Action for Freshwater do not already do so. One policy these functions. However, specific 2003–2008 and the more recent promotes offsets or environmental references to freshwater biodiversity Fresh Start for Fresh Water. compensation where “residual are limited. environmental effects” cannot be National Policy Statements103 avoided, remedied, or mitigated. The New Zealand Biodiversity As hydro-electricity is considered Strategy (2000) noted the disparity The purpose of a national policy renewable, this NPS affects rivers. between achieving representative statement (NPS) is to state objectives It can be argued that although protected areas on land and in water, and policies for matters of national water is a renewable resource, and suggested “a special focus on significance relevant to achieving rivers are not. sympathetic management of fresh sustainable management under water and surrounding land areas”.105 the RMA. An NPS can direct a local Both the NPS for Freshwater authority to amend its regional policy Management and the NPS for When the Strategy was reviewed statement or district or regional plan Renewable Electricity Generation in 2005 the need to prioritise to include specific objectives and will therefore guide decision-makers protection and restoration of policies (without notification or public on resource consent applications freshwater ecosystems and hearings), or to amend these within affecting rivers. However there is biodiversity was again highlighted. no clear guidance on the integration a designated timeframe to give effect Neither the proposed NPS for of the two policy statements should to the NPS. Indigenous Biodiversity, nor the they be in conflict. The NPS for Freshwater Management NPS Freshwater Management include was gazetted on 12 May 2011. specific requirements relative to Maintaining indigenous indigenous freshwater biodiversity. Objective A2 of the NPS requires biodiversity protection of the quality of There is a need for either a Statement Under section 30 of the RMA, outstanding freshwater bodies. of National Priorities for Protecting regional councils have the function This may result in regional councils Rare and Threatened Biodiversity of controlling the use of land for identifying outstanding rivers within in Freshwater Environments or the the purpose of maintaining and their regions but applies only to water proposed NPS for Indigenous enhancing freshwater and coastal quality and gives no guidance as to Biodiversity or NPS Freshwater water ecosystems. They are also how this is to be achieved. Management to be expanded to responsible for objectives, policies include and provide guidance On the other hand, the direction and methods for maintaining specifically for the protection of given in the NPS for Freshwater indigenous biological diversity. freshwater indigenous biodiversity. Management to establish water Territorial authorities have had a quality limits gives a mandate to parallel responsibility to control the

103 Biodiversity and national policy statements are discussed in the next sub-section. 110 SKM (16 April 2010 at p24. 104 www.qualityplanning.org.nz. 111 Ministry for Environment (March 2008) defines environmental flow as “the flows and water 105 Department of Conservation and Ministry for the Environment (2000) at p49. levels required in a water body to provide for a given set of values which are established through 106 SKM (16 April 2010). a regional plan or other statutory process.” MfE defines ecological flows as “the flows and water 107 SKM (16 April 2010) See Table 3 at p100. levels required in a wate rbody to provide for the ecological integrity of the flora and fauna present 108 SKM (16 April 2010) See Table 4 at p 101. within water bodies and their margins.” 109 SKM (16 April 2010) at p25. 197 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 38

National environmental councils (Northland and West Coast) set Regional councils have used different standards minimum flows but have no allocation technical methods to assess ecological limits, while another four (Auckland, flows, the consequences of A 2010 survey and review undertaken Taranaki, Chatham Islands and Gisborne) abstraction, and flow options. They 106 for MfE of regional council practice have neither minimum flows nor have applied flow regimes at scales in setting and meeting RMA-based allocation regimes for surface water.108 varying from specific catchments to limits for freshwater flows and quality Gisborne and Hawke’s Bay use short- more generic (or default) regional shows inconsistent performance in term consents (5–10 years) to provide approaches. The lack of a consistent developing an integrated planning more control over consented takes.109 national method has made determining framework for rivers. flow regimes more difficult and has Activities that fall outside the set generated considerable debate over All 17 regional councils and unitary allocation or flow regime generally the appropriate methodology and the authorities in New Zealand have trigger a change in consent status impacts of different regimes on river objectives and policies in their regional (generally from permitted or controlled health and values.112 plans that address water quality and to discretionary as allocation increases). quantity for surface water. In relation Six councils use non-complying status The Land and Water Forum noted to water quality, 11 of 17 regional when some or all of the allocation the importance of NPS and NES in councils have operative or proposed regimes set in the plans are exceeded. establishing limits, standards and region-wide water quality limits, but These councils are: Horizons, Nelson, targets for water quality and flows. at present only six councils give these Tasman, Marlborough, Canterbury Finalising the proposed NES on limits regulatory status in plan rules.107 and Southland.110 Ecological Flows and Water Levels Case law has shown that for limits to is desirable to promote consistency Setting an environmental flow111 or be effective in constraining adverse in the selection and application of water level requires the regional effects, they have to include both technical methods. council to identify the natural and strong clear policies and specific rules. use values associated with the water MfE states the NES is intended to: Twelve councils have flow regimes and body, and the consequences for those “enable regional councils to avoid allocation limits for some or all of the values of changes in the quantity and over-allocation of the resource and surface waters in their region that have variability in flows and levels caused by should avoid the degradation of natural regulatory status in plan rules (eight of abstraction and diversion. Ecological values until a thorough assessment these are operative and four proposed). flows are a subset of an environmental of the potential impacts of water 113 Rules refer to the available level of flow regime and provide a base limit use has been undertaken.” allocation in the river or the compliance on the extent to which flows and water Assessing potential impacts of with a minimum flow. Two of these levels can be altered. abstractive use first requires an assessment of the river’s in-stream values and their significance relative to Finalising the proposed NES other rivers in the region and nationally. Enabling regional councils to impose on Ecological Flows and Water moratoria while they undertake values assessments, promote a collaborative Levels is desirable to promote process among stakeholders and amend their plans would help avoid consistency in the selection and over-allocation and ensure flow regimes were based on a better understanding application of technical methods of in-stream values. Without moratoria,

112 SKM (16 April 2010 at p18). MfE says other challenges councils identified in the timely q"IJTUPSJDBMGPDVTPONJOJNVNаPXTSBUIFSUIBOFOWJSPONFOUBMаPXT SFTVMUJOHJOVODFSUBJOUZ establishment of environmental flows and water levels included: that ecosystem function is safeguarded and limited protection for in-stream values when q$POUFOUJPVT MJUJHJPVTBOEBDDPSEJOHMZMFOHUIZEFDJTJPONBLJOHQSPDFTT demand increases. q/PDPOTJTUFOUBHSFFENFUIPEPMPHZGPSBTTFTTJOHSJWFSWBMVFTBOEFTUBCMJTIJOHаPXSFHJNFT q/PDPOTJTUFOUBHSFFENFUIPETUPSFTQPOEUPUIFQPUFOUJBMJNQBDUTPGGVUVSFDMJNBUFWBSJBCJMJUZ The selection, application and merits of different methodologies are contested by stakeholders or climate change on water availability. through the plan process, including at the Environment Court. q"MBDLPGаFYJCJMJUZJOQMBOOJOHJOTUSVNFOUTPCTUSVDUJOHBEBQUJWFBQQSPBDIFT4FF.JOJTUSZGPSUIF q%BUBDPMMFDUFEVTJOHCFTUQSBDUJDFBOEHPPETDJFODFCFJOHIFBWJMZDPOUFTUFEJO&OWJSPONFOU Environment (March 2008). Court hearings. 113 198 Ministry for the Environment (March 2008) at section 4.1. Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 39

applications for abstraction are likely Jackson noted that a regional plan In Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki to continue to outpace plan variations. prepared under section 65 of the RMA Inc. v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Moratoria powers in the ECan Act must gives greater flexibility to deal with Economic Development119 the Court of be directed at specific catchments and water allocation issues than does a Appeal upheld the use of district plan require prior approval of the Minister for WCO under Part 9.118 However WCOs rules to prohibit mining in part of the the Environment. Giving other regional are more robust than regional plans, Thames district, paving the way for councils a similar ability to implement and have afforded crucial protection wider use of prohibited-activity rules in moratoria would enable them to in the absence of regional plans, or plans. The Court identified prohibited enhance regional planning. catchment plans that set environmental status as potentially appropriate where flows and establish an annual a council had insufficient information Regional plans as a allocation limit for particular rivers. while developing a plan to determine protection tool Even where regional plans include an how an activity should be provided for; environmental flow regime (rather than where it sought to take a deliberate Regional plans have to promote the just a minimum flow), they often do not staged approach; and/or where it RMA’s purpose of sustainable provide secure protection for natural wanted to direct in a strategic way the management. Matters of national flow regimes because of the wide use of sustainable management of resources. importance in the RMA include the discretionary or non-complying status preservation of the natural character of Prohibited activity rules require rivers and their margins and protection for takes that breach the flow regimes. adequate scientific justification, strong of this from inappropriate subdivision, The case history of TrustPower Limited’s section 32 RMA benefit-cost analysis120 use and development114; the protection consented 73 MW hydro scheme on and policy support. Given the economic of outstanding natural features and Marlborough’s Wairau River illustrates value of water, they are likely to be landscapes from inappropriate that non-complying status does not strongly contested by user interests subdivision, use and development115; guarantee the protection of in-stream and must survive the plan submission, the maintenance and enhancement values, even though the granting of that hearing and appeal process to become of public access to and along lakes consent is in breach of the flow regime operative. Plan changes can also be and rivers 116; and the protection of for that river. initiated to try and rescind prohibited significant habitats of indigenous activity status. fauna117. However, they comprise only Often, robust scientific information In Canterbury, the Natural Resources some of the matters in Part 2 that must about the ecological and other Regional Plan notes the merit in to be considered when making an effects of decreasing river flows is “protecting some of the region’s rivers “overall broad judgement” of what not available. Councils have therefore and lakes in a relatively natural state”. constitutes sustainable management. been unable to quantify sustainable allocation limits. There has been It says, “In general the level of Regional plan objectives, policies reluctance to constrain resource use protection should be that activities and rules controlling the take, use, and economic development in the face affecting their natural character and and diversion of water can provide of opposition from abstraction and value should have no significant adverse 121 a measure of practical protection for generation interests, and councils have effect.” Flow and allocation regimes are generally seen as appropriate to rivers by prohibiting activities such as made little use of prohibited activity achieve this. The plan prohibits dams damming or large-scale abstraction rules. For example, the Wairau Awatere from specified rivers or reaches, on a small number of river reaches with Plan only prohibits abstraction from and applying non-complying activity high natural character. four small lakes (all within public status to activities that would breach conservation land) and an aquifer Greater use of prohibited status by environmental flow regimes. (if water is to be transferred out of councils would promote certainty, In the Rangitata South case, Judge the catchment). protect future options, help safeguard

114 Section 6(a) RMA. 119 Coromandel Watchdog of Hauraki Inc. v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Economic Development 115 Section 6(b) RMA. [2007] NZCA 473 285/05. 116 Section 6(d) RMA. 120 Section 32(4)(b) RMA requires this evaluation to take into account the risk of acting or not acting 117 Section 6(c) RMA. if there is uncertainty or insuﬃcient information about the issue addressed by policies or rules. 118 Jackson J in Rangitata South Irrigation Ltd v Fish and Game (Environment Court C109/2004 5 121 Natural Resource Regional Plan (as modiﬁed by Decisions), Chapter 5 Water Quantity, section August 2004) at p21. 5.4.1.1.

199 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 40

Progress in developing tools to assess and classify waterways on a national scale could improve protection of freshwater biodiversity and rivers.

biodiversity and ecosystem functioning Regional Plan identifies upper catchment The waters within public conservation and better provide for the “protection” reaches of a small number of rivers lands are generally of high value and element of sustainable management. within public conservation land as in a natural state. Development of “natural state” waterways for the them may be inconsistent with their Protecting water quality purposes of water quality classification, conservation and protection and but does not prohibit discharges or could also be inconsistent with The RMA provides for a system of takes. If a river has a “natural state” sustainable management of water. classifying water bodies through classification for water quality RMA section 104(1) sets out the regional rules (section 69). The water purposes, then another classification matters to which decision-makers on quality classes (RMA Third Schedule) for abstraction purposes and supporting resource consents must have regard. relate to the purposes for which water objectives, policies and rules would They do not include conservation is to be managed. Standards are set seem logical and reasonable. for waters that are to be managed for management strategies or national freshwater ecosystems, fisheries, fish The Environment Court, however, has park management plans. While a spawning, gathering or cultivation of discharged Trust Power on the Wairau consent authority has a discretion shellfish for human consumption, River from meeting water quality whether or not to consider them under water supply, contact recreation, standards. section RMA 104(1)(c) (“any other irrigation, industrial abstraction, matter the consent authority considers aesthetic and cultural purposes and RMA co-ordination with relevant and reasonably necessary water being managed in its natural conservation legislation to determine the application”), their state. Councils can set more stringent specific inclusion would ensure that The National Parks, Conservation, and specific standards than those they are indeed considered. Wildlife, and Reserves Acts and the in the Third Schedule but cannot Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983 set standards that would result in a Methods for assessing the enable protection of the land part reduction in water quality. The classes (riverbeds and banks) of freshwater values of rivers apply after reasonable mixing of any habitats with significant conservation Progress in developing tools to assess (authorised) contaminant discharged or species values. As flows and and classify waterways on a national into the receiving water. discharges are primarily administered scale could improve protection of The Bay of Plenty Regional Plan has by regional councils under the RMA, freshwater biodiversity and rivers. natural-state water quality standards however, complementary provisions These tools can identify rivers or for waterways in public conservation are needed in regional plans and sections of rivers that are land, but no similar recognition for policies to ensure that the quality of “outstanding” nationally and merit abstraction. Environment such protection is maintained in preservation and protection using Canterbury’s Natural Resources resource consent decision-making. WCOs, regional plan rules and/or

200 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 41

additions to public conservation land implementation of a National Land on Ecological Flows and Water Levels and waters. One such tool is the and Water Strategy. is desirable. Freshwater Ecosystems of New Zealand “National instruments should be Consideration should be given to amending (FENZ) geodatabase. FENZ includes developed to enable and give priority the RMA to allow regional councils to use rankings for biodiversity value that to large scale consents, regional moratoria (similar to those in the ECan indicate a minimum set of sites plans and water conservation Act 2010) to pause consent applications that would provide representative orders that have undertaken an while a river’s in-stream values are protection for a full range of freshwater initial collaborative approach over assessed, flow regimes developed ecosystems, while taking account of or reviewed, and plans amended. 122 proposals that have not undertaken human pressures and connectivity. 124 that approach. Regional plan objectives, policies and rules Rivers or river reaches with “We need to use the RMA and the tools controlling the take, use, and diversion of outstanding landscape, amenity, it provides to greatest effect, together water should be used to provide a measure recreational, cultural and other values with a national strategic approach, of practical protection for rivers by could be identified using the River and using collaborative approaches prohibiting activities such as damming Values Assessment System (RiVAS).123 to engage water and land users, and or large-scale abstraction, diversions It seeks to provide a standardised communities, including iwi, in the or other uses that degrade a river’s method for regional councils to management of our water resources.” 125 natural state. Non-complying activity assess the significance of both classification can also give some level in-stream and out-of-stream river of protection but cannot be relied upon. values. It can be used to generate NZCA conclusions Regional plans should recognise and lists of rivers graded by relative Greater emphasis needs to be placed on protect the natural state of rivers within importance for different uses. the protection of rivers as a means to public conservation land through plan achieve their sustainable management. objectives, policies and methods. Rules Collaborative processes The over-emphasis on use and prohibiting new takes, diversions and development requires correction. Non-statutory, multi-stakeholder discharges would provide secure collaborative processes for consenting A Statement of National Priorities protection for such rivers. abstractive river uses are increasingly for Protecting Rare and Threatened RMA decision-makers should be being explored in an attempt to reduce Biodiversity in Freshwater Environments required to have regard to the protected the adversarial and litigious nature of should be issued. NPSs should include status of public conservation land and subsequent RMA processes. They are specific policies on indigenous waters if a consent application affects hoped to result in better-formulated freshwater biodiversity. consent applications, encourage more conservation land or waters within it Appropriate guidance is needed efficient use of existing takes, and (reflecting the protection component to resolve conflicts between NPS therefore reduce demand for water. of sustainable management). Freshwater Management and NPS An amendment should be made to The Land and Water Forum (itself a Renewable Electricity Generation. RMA section 104(1) to include by name collaborative process) endorsed NESs would help improve water management plans and strategies further use of collaborative processes management and allocation, and issued under other legislation (e.g. and recommended: also achieve improvements in the conservation management strategies, “The establishment of a non-statutory slow and heavily contested process national park management plans, National Land and Water Commission of establishing environmental flows fisheries plans, iwi management plans) as a co-ordinating, leadership and and water levels in regional plans. as a mandatory consideration in collaborative body to oversee the Prompt gazettal of the proposed NES resource consent decision-making.

122 DOC through its Natural Heritage Management Strategy using scientific and technical expert teams 123 Hughey K, Booth K, Deans N and Baker MA (December 2009). has assessed representative ecosystems to prepare a draft list off sites requiring protection for 124 Land and Water Forum (September 2010) at p 43. their ecological values. These sites have been identified using a weighting of their relative value, 125 Land and Water Forum (September 2010) at p 18. the degree of threat, and the cost of protection and restoration. The list includes some rivers. Their value ratings have been derived from FENZ. The highest priority sites are being included in conservation management strategies.

201 42

Greater emphasis needs to be placed on the protection of rivers as a means to achieve their sustainable management.

Photo: Waipakihi River, Kaimanawa Ranges. Photographer: Brian Stephenson.

202 07 43

Enhancing river protection NZCA recommendations

Protect outstanding rivers middle and lower reaches are No government agency has a specific protected. Many highly significant responsibility to preserve and protect 1. Government commitment is required waterways have no formal rivers as an entity. Giving a single to protect river systems and river protection whatsoever. agency this responsibility could help reaches that remain in or are close promote a more strategic approach It is equally important that rivers to, their natural state and or have to river protection generally, and with outstanding characteristics be outstanding wild, scenic and amenity WCOs specifically, so as to protect protected, even if they are no longer characteristics. a representative range of rivers in their natural state. Many of our rivers are already highly with outstanding values. Once established, this network should altered from their natural state, 5. Regional councils could make be genuinely protected and not eroded especially in their lowland reaches. greater use of prohibited activity status by development proposals. A commitment to protect those in regional plans to secure protection remaining outstanding or natural rivers 3. A stocktake of the extent of river (from development and extractive would prevent any further loss of these protection in New Zealand is needed uses) for remaining wild and natural high-value rivers. Once these values to provide baseline information, rivers with outstanding values. are lost it is expensive and almost track progress towards the protection While non-complying activity status impossible to return them to their of a representative range of freshwater in a regional plan provides a signal previous state—a poor legacy for ecosystems and habitats, and future generations. to users as to what is considered determine where additional an inappropriate activity due to protection is needed. the values of a specified location, it Establish a network of does not guarantee that development protected rivers This baseline information would ensure future policy is developed on a fully proposals that affect those values 2. A key objective of national water informed platform. The protection of will be declined as evidenced by policy should be the establishment rivers could be enhanced if a national the 2010-approved hydro-electricity of a representative network of inventory of outstanding rivers (and scheme for the Wairau River. protected rivers, including rivers with parts of rivers) were compiled to outstanding ecological, landscape, identify and prioritise candidate rivers. Ensure water management scenic, recreational, amenity and This would ensure rivers with the properly reflects the cultural characteristics and values. highest ranking values are targeted conservation status of for protection. conservation land and It is important to protect a fully the rivers within it representative range of the different 4. Allocate a government or freshwater ecosystems, habitats and quasi-government agency specific 6. RMA decision-makers should biodiversity. While some upland rivers responsibility for protecting be required to have regard to the and mountain streams are included rivers, including advancing water protected status of lands and waters within our protected places, few conservation orders (WCOs). managed by DOC if these are affected

203 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 44

by a consent application, to properly extract water from rivers in public history isolated from other land reflect the protection component of conservation land. masses—and is in decline. Its sustainable management. protection needs to be made a priority Applicants for resource consents in decision-making around land and Each river is an ecological corridor from that will affect public conservation water management for this decline its source in mountains or hill country land currently do not need to first to be halted and reversed. Whilst a to its end at the sea, and is affected in get landowner (i.e. DOC) permission draft NPS for Indigenous Biodiversity different parts by the activities on or under conservation legislation. has been released, it only covers (a alongside the river. Although public This means that a full consent conservation land has a protected process can be completed only narrow range of) terrestrial species. status, and in a limited number of to have use of conservation land, instances the water also, they can where required, declined. Protect Crown riverbeds be negatively impacted by activities 9. Rivers, including water, within 11. Crown riverbeds with conservation upstream, downstream and around national park boundaries should values should be managed for those them, as they are all parts of have national park status. values. complicated interconnected ecosystems. It is therefore important that the impact Owing to their large size and high The Land Act 1948 should be amended of activities on conservation values level of protection, national parks to provide for the establishment of are explicitly required to be considered are of particular importance for river management objectives for Crown in decision-making. protection. In most cases, national land including riverbeds and a public park status protects the beds of all consultation process for the disposal 7. The RMA should be amended to water bodies within the park boundaries or leasing of any interest in them. include conservation management but in only some cases does it cover strategies and conservation and the water. Even then, the protection Extensive areas of riverbed are managed national park management plans provided by national park status does as Crown land. They provide critical by name in section 104(1)(b) or (c) not extend to river flows, nor does habitat for braided river birds and as matters that consent authorities protection extend beyond national riverbed plants. There is no requirement must have regard to. park boundaries. Therefore, even if for them to have management objectives or for there to be public input into While a consent authority has the a river is in part in a national park, decisions about their use or management. discretion whether or not to consider it is not protected in its entirety. them under section 104(1)(c) RMA (“any other matter the consent Indigenous biodiversity Mechanisms in conservation authority considers relevant and legislation 10. A Statement of National Priorities reasonably necessary to determine for Protecting Rare and Threatened 12. The opportunities available to the application”), their specific Biodiversity in Freshwater Environments enhance protection for rivers by applying inclusion would ensure that such should be issued or the current proposed faunistic reserve or watercourse area strategies and plans are considered. NPS for Indigenous Biodiversity or the status should be explored by DOC. Such an amendment would be NPS Freshwater Management expanded The National Parks, Conservation, consistent with the approach taken to specifically include freshwater Wildlife and Reserves Acts, and the in section 66(2)(c)(i) where regional indigenous biodiversity. Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983 plans must have regard for them. New Zealand’s freshwater indigenous enable varying levels of protection of 8. Landowner permission should be biodiversity is unique—92 per cent freshwater habitats with significant obtained prior to lodging resource of our freshwater fish species are conservation values through such consent applications to modify or endemic because of our evolutionary instruments.

204 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 45

Retain WCOs and improve Case law indicates that enhancement Ecological Flows and Water Levels their use of an outstanding characteristic (e.g. would help provide more comprehensive of a threatened species population protection for river values. 13. WCOs should be retained to through an improved flow regime) is Establishing standards for water is provide protection for rivers and other beyond the scope of the legislation. water bodies with outstanding values. both politically and technically difficult 16. The two year restriction on and expensive. If requirements in Regional planning has often lagged applications to amend or revoke the NPS Freshwater Management to behind increasing demand for operative WCOs should be lengthened. establish standards for all rivers in all abstraction of surface water. WCOs Or alternatively, give WCOs greater regions are to be met in a nationally have been valuable in augmenting permanency appropriate to the consistent and meaningful way, there regional water planning through rigorous process for achieving a WCO. needs to be national guidance on how setting flow and allocation regimes to set these standards and what they for particular rivers in the absence 17. Canterbury rivers should be must encompass. Without NESs setting of regional or catchment plans. considered under the standard flow and quality standards, litigation RMA process after October 2013. WCOs are achieved through a by vested interests will continue in transparent and robust process In Canterbury, the ECan Act means each region. requiring a significant investment WCO applications are considered The NES needs to include a tool that of time and expertise by applicants, against different criteria with sets ‘hard limits’, i.e. takes beyond user groups, and submitters, and Environment Canterbury the limits set in plans are not allowed. careful consideration of technical Commissioners rather than a Special Currently most plans allow consents and other evidence by Special Tribunal making recommendations to to be applied for, and granted, beyond Tribunals and testing of evidence the Minister. The Environment Court the allocation limit set in a plan. by the Environment Court. now has no jurisdiction over WCOs in the Canterbury region. 19. The RMA should be amended 14. The RMA should be amended to to allow regional councils to use enable a WCO to include provisions The different statutory tests for a new moratoria (similar to those in the applying to land use that may impact WCO or applications to amend an ECan Act 2010) to pause consent on the effect of a WCO, and to require existing WCO in Canterbury mean applications while a river’s in-stream local authorities to have particular significantly less weight is given to the values are assessed, flow regimes regard to the protection of outstanding requirement to preserve and protect developed, and plans amended. values, as recognised by a WCO, in nationally outstanding water bodies, managing land use through plans and greater weight is given to potential Consents involve legal rights to use and consent decisions in catchments uses of water. water. It can be legally difficult and where the river is subject to a WCO. prohibitively expensive to take back Improve river management water that has been allocated if it This would help implement the under the RMA is subsequently found that a river recommendation of the Land and is over allocated and not able to Water Forum that the WCO provisions 18. A National Environmental Standard sustain its in-stream values. in the RMA be amended to enable on Ecological Flows and Water Levels them to achieve an integrated should be implemented. management approach. Additional national standards and 15. The RMA should be amended so that policy guidance for recognition of river WCOs can provide for enhancement values not covered by the proposed of outstanding characteristics. National Environmental Standard on

205 46

Government commitment is required to protect river systems and river reaches that remain in or are close to, their natural state and or have outstanding wild, scenic and amenity characteristics.

Lower Moeraki River, South Westland. Photo: Wilderness Lodges NZ Ltd

206 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 47

Glossary

CWMS Canterbury Water Management Mātaitai seafood RiVAS River Values Assessment System Strategy 2009 Mātaitai reserve an identified RMA Resource Management Act (1991) DOC Department of Conservation traditional fishing ground established Rohe geographical territory of an iwi or ECan Environment Canterbury as a mātaitai reserve under the hapū Fisheries (South Island Customary ECan Act Environment Canterbury Fishing) Regulations 1999 SWPOA Sustainable Water Programme (Temporary Commissioners and of Action Mauri life force Improved Water Management) Act Tangata tiaki/kaitiaki guardians 2010 MfE Ministry for the Environment Tangata whenua indigenous people of MFish Ministry of Fisheries FENZ Freshwater Ecosystems of the land New Zealand NES National Environment Standard Taonga things or places of great value Fluvial morpohology the study of the NGO Non-governmental organisation Tauranga ika fishing ground processes and pressures operating on NHMS Natural Heritage Management Tika correct, proper river systems System Hāngi earth oven NPS National Policy Statement Tikanga Māori Māori customary values and practices Hapū kinship group, subtribe NRWQN National Rivers Water Quality Wāhi tapu sacred place Hydro hydro-electricity generation Network WONI Waterbodies of National Iwi extended kinship group, tribe NZCA New Zealand Conservation Authority Importance Kaitiaki guardian OECD Organisation for Economic WSCA Water and Soil Conservation Kaitiakitanga the exercise of Co-operation and Development Act 1967 guardianship Rāhui a restriction or control of WSC Amendment Act Water and Soil LINZ Land Information New Zealand specified activities put in place by the Conservation Amendment Act 1981; MAF Ministry of Agriculture and tangata whenua as kaitiaki to manage also known as Wild and Scenic Rivers Forestry an area in accordance with tikanga Amendment Mahinga kai food REC River Environment Classification WCO Water conservation order

207 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 48

References

Allibone R, David B, Hitchmough R., Department of Conservation and Hayes, B.E (2003) The Law of Public Jellyman D, Ling N, Ravenscroft D, Ministry for the Environment (2000) Access Along Water Margins ISBN Waters J (2010). Conservation status New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy. 0-478-07762-9. of New Zealand freshwater fish, 2009 www.biodiversity.govt.nz/picture/ Hughey K, Cullen R, Kerr G (March in New Zealand Journal of Marine doing/nzbs/ 2009) Public Perceptions of New and Freshwater Research, 1175-8805, Department of Conservation (August Zealand’s Environment: 2008, Volume 44 Issue 4, pp 271–287. 2010) Freshwater Ecosystems of Lincoln University. Baker, M (August 2010) A watershed New Zealand (FENZ) Geodatabase, Hughey K, Booth K, Deans N and Baker moment in Canterbury for water Unpublished DOC internal report. M-A. (December 2009) River Values management in New Zealand in Department of Conservation Assessment System (RiVAS) - Resource Management Journal (September 2010) Department of The Method. pp20-26. Resource Management Conservation Annual Report for the Law Association of NZ Inc. Kelly D (2008) Evidence for DOC, year ended 30 June 2010. Mokihinui River hydro application Booth K, England A, Rankin D, Eikaas, H.S., Harding, J.S., Kliskey, by Meridian Energy Limited at paras. Unwin M, Charles G, England, K, A.D. & McIntosh, A.R. (2005) The effect 9.3.–9.5 See www.wcrc.govt.nz/ Riley K, Ritchie D (21 February 2010) of terrestrial habitat fragmentation mokihinui. Whitewater kayaking in the West Coast on fish populations in small streams: Region: Application of the River Landcare Research (December 2010) A case study from New Zealand. Values Assessment System (RIVAS.) Discovery 10, Issue 32, Integrated Norsk Geografisk Tidsskrift–Norwegian Lindis Consulting. Catchment Management. ICM Journal of Geography Vol. 59: 1–8. Research. Beentjes, M.P. (2010) Toheroa survey Grainger, N (4 August 2010) What is of Bluecliffs Beach, 2009, and Review Land and Water Forum (September Freshwater Ecosystems of New Zealand of historical surveys. New Zealand 2010) Report of the Land and Water (FENZ)? DOC Intranet. See www.doc. Fisheries Assessment Report 2010/7. Forum: A Fresh Start for Freshwater, govt.nz/conservation/land-and- Land and Water Forum. Berry S and Matheson B (2005) Water freshwater/freshwater/freshwater- chapter in Nolan D (ed) (2005) Third ecosystems-of-new-zealand/. Leathwick JR, Gerbeaux P, Kelly D, edition Environmental and Resource Robertson H, Brown D, Chatterton L Green W and Clarkson B (November and Ausseil A-G (August 2010) Management Law. Lexis Nexis 2005) Turning the Tide? A Review of Freshwater Ecosystems of New Zealand Collet G (23 April 2010) Why we might the First Five Years of the New Zealand (FENZ) Geodatabase User Guide give a dam in The Nelson Mail. Biodiversity Strategy, The Synthesis Version 1, Department of Conservation. Report, Department of Conservation. Cowie B et al (28 October 2010) McDowall R M (1992) Particular Introduction to Decisions on the Harding J, Mosley P, Pearson C and problems for the conservation of (Canterbury) Natural Resources Sorrell B (eds) (2004) Freshwaters diadromous fish. Aquatic Regional Plan. See http://ecan.govt.nz/ of New Zealand, New Zealand Conservation: Marine and Freshwater publications/Plans/nrrp-variations-1-2- Hydrological Society and New Zealand Ecosystems, 2: 351–355. doi: 10.1002/ 4-14-introduction-decisions-231010.pdf Limnological Society. aqc.3270020405.

208 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 49

Martin J (1991) Power, politics and of Water, Information Sheet. Special Tribunal (November 2007) power stations: electric power Summary of the Report by a Special Mulcahy K, Peart R and Garvan N generation in New Zealand 1880–1990. (2010) Managing freshwater: An EDS Tribunal appointed by the Minister Wellington. Bridget Williams Books. Guide, Environmental Defence Society. for the Environment to consider an Mercer G (23 March 2011) Damming Application for a Water Conservation National Water and Soil Conservation the Motu River to generate income Order for the Oreti River see www.MfE. Authority (undated) National Inventory for Maori and improve the coast’s govt.nz/ of Wild and Scenic Rivers electricity supply is under Miscellaneous Publication No. 68. Statistics New Zealand. New Zealand consideration in Opotoki News. Agricultural Production Surveys 1999 NAWSCO, (3 April 1984) Report and Milne, P (February 2008) When is recommendations on Rakaia River to 2009. www.stats.govt.nz/browse_ Enough, Enough? Dealing with Water Conservation Order Application. for_stats/industry_sectors/agriculture- Cumulative Effects Under the Resource horticulture-forestry.aspx accessed Management Act. Simpson Grierson. New Zealand Acclimatisation Societies May 2011. (June 1983) An application for a Ministry of Agriculture Policy national water conservation order for Te Ara Encyclopaedia of New Zealand (21 December 2009) Briefing on the Rakaia River and its tributaries. www.terara.govt.nz/rivers/ Facilitating Irrigation Development conservingrivers. in Canterbury. B09-429A. Proffit F (undated). How clean are our rivers? in Water and Atmosphere on Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu (undated) Ministry of Economic Development www.niwa.co.nz/news-and- Freshwater Policy available on (July 2010) Draft New Zealand Energy publications/publications/all/water www.ngaitahu.iwi.nz Strategy Developing Our Energy Potential. Savage L (2005) An overview of climate Unwin, M, (2009) Angler usage of lake change and possible consequences and river fisheries managed by Fish Ministry for the Environment (2001) for Gisborne District. Gisborne Civil and Game New Zealand: results from Protection of Waterbodies of National Defence and Emergency Management the 2007/08 National Angling Survey. Importance: Issues and Options, Group. Unpublished MfE paper. NIWA client report CHC2009-046 Sheppard David F (October 2010) prepared for Fish and Game Ministry for the Environment Reaching Sustainable Management of New Zealand. (March 2008) Proposed National Fresh Water, Presentation to Resource Environmental Standard on Management Law Association Warren P (undated) Riverbed Ecological Flows and Levels, Conference 2010, Christchurch. Protection, Unpublished internal file Discussion Document. note, Department of Conservation. SKM (16 April 2010) Regional Council Ministry for the Environment and Practice for Setting and Meeting RMA Whitewater NZ and Fish and Game Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry Based Limits for Freshwater Flows and New Zealand (20 December 2010) (December 2004) Water Programme Quality, Report for Ministry for the Fish and Game and Whitewater NZ of Action – Potential Water Bodies of Environment. withdraw from the Hurunui Water National Importance, Technical SPARC (2008) Sport, Recreation and Conservation Order. Press statement. Working Paper Physical Activity Participation Among Young D (2004) Our Islands, Our Selves Ministry for the Environment and New Zealand Adults: Key Results of the – A History of Conservation in New Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry 2007/08 Active NZ Survey. Wellington, Zealand University of Otago Press. (October 2006) Water Programme of New Zealand, Sport and Recreation Action – New Zealand A Valuable Body New Zealand.

209 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 50

Appendices

Appendix 1: Freshwater management bodies and their responsibilities From: Mulcahy K, Peart R and Garvan N (2010) Managing freshwater: An EDS Guide, Environmental Defence Society at pp.154-155. Reproduced with kind permission of the authors and the Environmental Defence Society.

Management body Role in freshwater management Key legislation

- Minister for the Environment - Oversees freshwater management under the RMA - Environment Act 1986 - Recommends the issue of national policy statements - Resource Management 1991 on fresh water - Environment Canterbury - Recommends the making of national environmental (Temporary Commissioners and standards related to fresh water Improved Water Management) - Recommends the approving of requiring authorities Act 2010 for water infrastructure - Recommends the use of water conservation orders - Calls-in matters of national signiﬁcance related to fresh water - Oversees the Ministry for the Environment

- Ministry for the Environment - Provides policy advice to the Minister on freshwater - Environment Act 1986 management - Resource Management Act 1991 - Disseminates information on freshwater management Engages in collaborative eﬀorts to improve freshwater management

- Environmental Protection Authority - Processes freshwater management matters of national - Resource Management Act 1991 signiﬁcance that are ‘called-in’

- Minister of Conservation - Oversees coastal management under the RMA including - Conservation Act 1987 fresh water within the coastal environment - Resource Management Act 1991 - Recommends the issue of the New Zealand coastal policy statement - Calls-in matters of national signiﬁcance within the coastal environment - Oversees the Department of Conservation and Fish and Game Councils

- Department of Conservation - Manages the conservation estate - Conservation Act 1987 - Manages wildlife (especially section 6 and Part 5B) - Undertakes research into freshwater fisheries - Freshwater Fisheries - Advocates for the conservation of aquatic life and freshwater Regulations 1983 fisheries including involvement in RMA proceedings - Resource Management Act 1991 - Promotes the benefits of conservation and prepares and - Wildlife Act 1953 disseminates conservation materials - Manages the Taupo “sports” fishery and whitebait fisheries - Controls introduced species that cause damage to indigenous freshwater species and habitats

210 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 51

Management body Role in freshwater management Key legislation

- Minister of Fisheries - Manages freshwater ﬁsheries, excluding sports ﬁsh - Fisheries Act 1996 and whitebait

- Iwi and hapū - Exercise kaitiakitanga over freshwater bodies - Deeds of Settlement - Co-governance and co-management arrangements for - Rotorua and Taupo ﬁsheries speciﬁc water bodies regulations

- Fish and Game Councils - Manage freshwater sports ﬁsh and gamebirds - Conservation Act 1987 (Part 5A) (mainly waterfowl) - Wildlife Act 1953 (Part2) - Advocate for the interests of sports and game including - Resource Management Act 1991 involvement in RMA proceedings - Licence anglers and gamebird hunters - Undertake hatchery and breeding programmes for sports ﬁsh - Undertake research, information and education activities

- Regional councils - Control discharges aﬀecting freshwater bodies - Local Government Act 2002 - Control the taking, use, damming and diverting of fresh water - Resource Management Act 1991 - Allocate fresh water - Control the impact of land use on freshwater quality, quantity, ecosystems and natural hazards - Control the introduction of plants to the bed of freshwater bodies - Maintain indigenous freshwater biological diversity

- Territorial authorities - Control the impact of land use on fresh water - Local Government Act 2002 - Control activities on the surface of freshwater bodies - Resource Management Act 1991 - Provide water and wastewater services - Land Drainage Act 1908 - May control drainage

- Guardians - Make recommendations to the Ministers on management - Conservation Act 1987 of hydro lakes - Lake Wanaka Preservation Act 1973

211 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 52

Appendix 2: Statutory mechanisms for protecting rivers

Mechanisms to protect rivers occur in 17 separate statutes. Only three relate to the whole river—water conservation orders, the protection of rivers within protected areas and river specific statutes. All other tools relate to a specific component of the river ecosystem (riverbeds, adjoining land, wildlife, fish). The main river protection mechanisms described in the main text or summarised below include: q8BUFSDPOTFSWBUJPOPSEFSTVOEFSUIF3." q1SPUFDUJPOPGSJWFSTUIBUGBMMXJUIJOQSPUFDUFEBSFBT/BUJPOBM1BSLT"DU 3FTFSWFT"DUBOE$POTFSWBUJPO"DU q4UBUVUPSZBEWPDBDZCZUIF%FQBSUNFOUPG$POTFSWBUJPO %0$ q1SPUFDUJPOPGSJWFSCFETBOENBOBHFNFOUPG$SPXOMBOE q1SPUFDUJPOPGMBOEBMPOHTJEFSJWFSTNBSHJOBMTUSJQT XBUFSDPVSTFBSFBT q1SPUFDUJPOPGXJMEMJGF q1SPUFDUJPOPGGSFTIXBUFSЯTIBOENBOBHFNFOUPGЯTIJOH q3JWFSTQFDJЯD"DUT XIJDINBZFODPNQBTTBDPNQMFUFSJWFSTZTUFN Water Conservation Orders 1. See sections 4 and 5 and Appendices 3, 4 and 5. National Parks Act 1980 and Reserves Act 1977 2. See section 3. Conservation Act 1987 3. DOC’s broad functions under section 6 of the Conservation Act 1987 include: “to manage for conservation purposes, all land, and all other natural and historic resources” held under that Act. (section 6(a)). This includes managing the conservation estate, which includes rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands. 4. Advocacy for protection of freshwater ecosystems is part of DOC’s broad functions: “to advocate the conservation of natural and historic resources generally” (section 6(b)) and “to prepare, provide, disseminate, promote, and publicise educational and promotional material relating to conservation”.. (section 6(d)). 5. DOC has a specific function: “to preserve as far as is practicable all indigenous freshwater fisheries, and protect recreational freshwater fisheries and freshwater fish habitats.” (section 6(ab)). 6. DOC summarises its freshwater conservation management functions as: q1SPUFDUJOHGSFTIXBUFSOBUVSBMIFSJUBHF q1SPUFDUJOHOBUJPOBMMZJNQPSUBOUGSFTIXBUFSFDPTZTUFNTBOETJUFT q4BGFHVBSEJOHUIFOBUVSBMFDPMPHJDBMDIBSBDUFSPGGSFTIXBUFSFDPTZTUFNTBOEIBCJUBUT q1SPUFDUJOHGSFTIXBUFSTQFDJFTBOETUPDLT q.BOBHJOHBMJFOJOWBTJWFT q1SPWJEJOHGPSSFDSFBUJPOBMVTFPGGSFTIXBUFSFDPTZTUFNTBOETQFDJFT q1SPWJEJOHBDDFTTBOESFDSFBUJPOBMGBDJMJUJFT TVCKFDUUPQSPUFDUJPOPGGSFTIXBUFSWBMVFT q)BSWFTUJOHBOENBOBHJOHTUPDL

212 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 53

7. The Director-General of Conservation has a range of specific powers in relation to freshwater management (section 53(2) and (3)) including: q6OEFSUBLJOHSFTFBSDI TVSWFZT BOEJOWFTUJHBUJPOTJOUPGSFTIXBUFSЯTIFSJFT q*TTVJOHQMBOTBOEQVCMJDBUJPOTSFMBUJOHUPGSFTIXBUFSЯTI q"EWPDBUJOHGPSUIFDPOTFSWBUJPOPGBRVBUJDMJGFBOEGSFTIXBUFSЯTIFSJFTHFOFSBMMZ q.BOBHJOHUIF5BVQPTQPSUTЯTIFSZ q"DRVJSJOHBOEQSPUFDUJOHIBCJUBUT q$POUSPMMJOHBOZJOUSPEVDFETQFDJFTDBVTJOHEBNBHFUPBOZJOEJHFOPVTTQFDJFTPSIBCJUBU 8. The prior approval of the Minister of Conservation is required to introduce a freshwater species into waters where it does not already occur and for all releases into waters within lands administered by DOC (section 26ZM). Movement of aquatic life between sites where the species already occurs and between the islands of New Zealand requires the prior consent of the Minister of Fisheries (to address risks of disease transfer). 9. While the RMA contains the primary controls on contaminant discharges to water, the Conservation Act (section 39(4)– (7)) defines offences in relation to discharges that cause adverse effects on freshwater fish and their habitat in waters of any tenure. These provisions are rarely used by DOC. The Act also sets out defences.

Protection of riverbeds Crown ownership of riverbeds 10. The Crown owns riverbeds by one of three mechanisms: q5IFTUBUVUPSZUBLJOHPGOBWJHBCMFSJWFSCFETUISPVHIUIF$PBM.JOFT"NFOENFOU"DU XIJDIWFTUFEBMMOBWJHBCMFSJWFST in the Crown. By subsequent Acts and section 354(1) of the RMA, the beds of navigable rivers remain vested in the Crown. The Court of Appeal has held that for a river to be Crown land under that law it had to be navigable in 1903. In deciding whether a river is navigable, the river as a whole is to be considered even if there are barriers (e.g. waterfalls) on it . q&YJTUJOHUJUMFJGUIFSJWFSCFEJTJOBEFЯOFE$SPXOUJUMFGSPNQSFWJPVTBDRVJTJUJPOGSPN.ÜPSJPSTVCTFRVFOUPXOFSTPSUIF purchase of title to a riverbed. q5IFBDRVJTJUJPOPGBENFEJVNЯMVNBRVBFSJHIUT PXOFSTIJQSJHIUTPWFSSJWFSCFEUPUIFDFOUSFPGUIFSJWFSBTBSFTVMUPG acquisition of the adjoining land). 11. Whether the riverbed is still Crown land (even if it was navigable in 1903) is determined by examining whether there has been a subsequent grant of title to the bed. This could be through an explicit grant or through the grant of a land title where the surveyed boundary of the land title includes the riverbed. 12. Where land has a boundary that is a non-navigable stream or river, the certiﬁcate of title or computer register issued for that land does not usually include any part of the bed of the stream or stream, and the Registrar will decline to make any endorsement on the title as to whether or not the landowner has any rights to the stream or riverbed. Protecting riverbeds 13. Activities in riverbeds (such as earthworks, structures and planting) are controlled by regional councils under the RMA. 14. Riverbeds like any other piece of land can be legally protected through addition to public conservation land, a covenant or similar measure. For riverbeds that are Crown land, protection is generally achieved using the Conservation Act (section 7), which allows the Minister of Conservation to negotiate an agreement with the Minister responsible for the

213 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 54

MBOE HFOFSBMMZ.JOJTUFSPG-BOET UIBUJUCFDPNFTDPOTFSWBUJPOBSFB5IFSJWFSCFEPGUIF)VOUFS3JWFSBOE'SFTIXBUFS River on Rakiura/Stewart Island were recently protected using this process. 15. In some cases, riverbeds are mistakenly thought to be public conservation land because large areas of adjoining land are. The bed of the Porarari River in Paparoa National Park and the Whanganui River are not conservation land, nor are the beds of the upper Rakaia or Rangitata Rivers. For some rivers this is because the land allocation process of the late 1980s, when DOC was established, did not always speciﬁcally identify riverbed land as part of the land parcel allocated. 16. The New Zealand Conservation Authority is not aware of any schedule of the amount and type of riverbed land within the conservation estate and its biodiversity values. Riverbeds not in Crown ownership are privately owned by a variety of types of owner.

Protection Of Land Alongside Rivers

Marginal strips 17. Part IV of the Conservation Act requires a marginal strip 20 metres wide to be reserved from sale upon disposal of Crown land adjoining a stream more than three metres wide or a lake over eight hectares in size. The purposes of marginal strips include the maintenance of water quality, protection of aquatic life, and natural values of the riparian zone and providing for public access and recreation (section 24C). 18. Marginal strips are set oﬀ where high country pastoral lease land is freeholded through tenure review or when a pastoral lease is renewed. Since 1990, over two thirds of pastoral leases have been through a renewal process and marginal strips should have been set aside. 19. Marginal strips created since 1987 have been notated on the land title and move when the boundaries of the river move. Since 1987, all previous strips set aside under section 58 Land Act 1948 have been deemed to be marginal strips. They do not move, however, when rivers move and can often be within or well away from the actual river or stream margin.

Esplanade reserves and strips 20. Section 229 RMA sets out the purpose of esplanade reserves and strips. They help to protect conservation values by maintaining or enhancing the natural character of riparian and coastal margins, water quality, and aquatic habitats and help with flood protection. They also enable public access to and along rivers, lakes and the coast, including access to undertake customary activities (such as gathering of mahinga kai). 21. Esplanade reserves may be required when land is subdivided or developed or when a road is stopped. Section 230 RMA provides that a 20 metre wide esplanade reserve is created when land beside a river (with an average width of three metres) is subdivided into allotments of less than four hectares, unless a plan rule or resource consent waives or reduces this. 22. They can also be created voluntarily. Land ownership is transferred to a territorial authority and they are classified as reserves under the Reserves Act 1977. The landward boundary is fixed, so does not change as the river moves. 23. Esplanade strips may be required by a rule in a plan, when land is subdivided or developed or when a road is stopped. They can also be created voluntarily by agreement. Esplanade strips are a legal instrument created between a landowner and a territorial authority. Land in the strip remains owned by the landowner. 24. The creation of a strip, and any conditions relating to its use and management, are noted on the land title. These can include excluding public access during certain times. The conditions are binding on every party having an interest in the land. Strips do not need to be formally surveyed.

214 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 55

25. Unlike esplanade reserves, the landward boundary of an esplanade strip moves as a river moves (e.g. bank erosion) so that the width of the strip remains unchanged.

Access strips 26. Access strips can be used to enable public access to or along water bodies or public land. They can be established (and cancelled) at any time by agreement between the landowner and the territorial authority under section 237B of the RMA. Access strips are surveyed and ﬁxed. Ownership remains with the landowner.

Legal roads 27. In many cases when Crown land was subdivided in the 19th and 20th centuries, legal roads were set aside along rivers, lakes and the coast (as part of the Queen’s Chain). These can be identiﬁed on cadastral maps. Like section 58 Land Act strips, they do not move when rivers change their course. In themselves they do not provide protection but they do provide a buﬀer. Any land uses on legal road (other than the right of public passage) require consent from the territorial authority.

Watercourse areas adjoining rivers protected by water conservation orders (WCOs) 28. The Conservation Act (section 23) provides for an overlying protective status of “watercourse area” for conservation land or private protected land with outstanding wild, scenic or other natural or recreational characteristics that adjoins any river, lake or stream protected by a WCO. Every watercourse area must be managed to protect the wild, scenic or other natural or recreational characteristics it had when the associated waterway was considered for WCO status, subject to the protective status that applies to the land and the WCO provisions. Watercourse areas are established by Order in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Conservation. They require the landowner’s consent if established over protected private land.

Protection Of Wildlife

Wildlife Act 1953 29. The Act safeguards designated species of wildlife including waterbirds, some invertebrates and amphibians throughout New Zealand. The Act enables the establishment of wildlife refuge, wildlife sanctuary or wildlife management reserve status over water bodies to control some activities (e.g. motor boat use) aﬀecting wildlife.

Wildlife Regulations 1955 30. While the RMA contains the primary controls on contaminant discharges to water, Regulation 43A of the Wildlife Regulations provides for oﬀences in relation to discharges that cause adverse eﬀects on protected wildlife and their habitat in waters of any tenure. The regulations are rarely used by DOC. 31. DOC could more regularly use section 43A and section 39(4)–(7) Conservation Act to reinforce councils’ enforcement responsibilities under the RMA.

Stautory Acknowledgment Of Rivers

Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998

5IFTUBUVUPSZBDLOPXMFEHFNFOUJOTUSVNFOUJOUIF/HÜJ5BIV$MBJNT4FUUMFNFOU"DUSFDPHOJTFT/HÜJ5BIVnTQBSUJDVMBS cultural, spiritual historical and traditional associations with speciﬁed areas on Crown land and a number of rivers and

215 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 56

MBLFTTVDIBTUIF5VUBF1VUBQVUB$POXBZ )VSVOVJ 1BSJOHB$MVUIBBOE8BJUBLJ3JWFST4UBUVUPSZBDLOPXMFEHFNFOUT aim to improve the implementation of RMA processes, particularly decision-making in relation to notiﬁcation of resource consent applications. -PDBMBVUIPSJUJFTXJUIJOUIF/HÜJ5BIVSPIF HFPHSBQIJDBMUFSSJUPSZ NVTUSFDPSEBMMSFMFWBOUTUBUVUPSZBDLOPXMFEHFNFOUT in their plans and policy statements. Statutory acknowledgements empower the Crown agency responsible for the NBOBHFNFOUPGUIFBSFBUPFOUFSJOUPBEFFEPGSFDPHOJUJPOQSPWJEJOHGPSBHSFFEJOQVUCZ/HÜJ5BIVJOUPNBOBHFNFOU QSPDFTTFT5IJTIBTGBDJMJUBUFE/HÜJ5BIVJOQVUJOUPOBUJPOBMQBSLNBOBHFNFOUQMBOTBOEDPOTFSWBUJPONBOBHFNFOU strategies and the rivers covered by these.

Managing Freshwater Fishing

Whitebait Fishing Regulations 1994 34. DOC manages the whitebait fishery focused on the young of the inanga, kōaro and banded kōkopu. Fishing is controlled using the Whitebait Fishing regulations, which set the whitebait season in the North and South Island, hours of fishing, specifications for the nets, screens and other gear that can be used and how, and offences.

Whitebait Fishing (West Coast) Regulations 1994 35. In addition to the provisions noted above, a schedule to these regulations lists 22 areas where whitebait ﬁshing is prohibited on the West Coast to protect spawning areas and other key habitats. 36. DOC also seeks to protect whitebait habitat by encouraging landowners to fence oﬀ from stock riparian vegetation used for spawning.

Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983 37. These apply largely to sports fish but include provisions about freshwater conservation, including to protect fish passage and control liberations of introduced fish and weed species. 38. Regulation 43 requires mechanisms to allow fish passage to be provided when new culverts, fords, dams and diversions are constructed unless the Director-General gives written approval to do otherwise. 39. Regulation 65 controls freshwater fish species gazetted as “noxious” (e.g. rudd and koi carp) and sets out restrictions on their taking, possession and sale. 40. Regulation 68 enables the Minister of Conservation to establish faunistic reserves through a Gazette notice. The introduction of any plant and the taking or killing of any freshwater fauna is prohibited in faunistic reserves without the Director General’s approval.

Fisheries (South Island Customary Fishing) Regulations 1999 5IFSFHVMBUJPOTFOBCMFNÜUBJUBJSFTFSWFT BSFDPHOJTFEUSBEJUJPOBMЯTIJOHHSPVOEsTFFHMPTTBSZ UPCFFTUBCMJTIFEPWFS GSFTIXBUFSBTXFMMBTDPBTUBMXBUFSCVUBTUIFUJUMFJOEJDBUFT POMZJOUIF4PVUI*TMBOE.ÜUBJUBJSFTFSWFTBSFJNQPSUBOU traditional fishing areas or mahinga kai (food) with which tangata whenua (the indigenous people of an area) have a special relationship. Tangata tiaki/kaitiaki (guardians) chosen by the tangata whenua manage non-commercial fishing within the reserve by recommending bylaws to be approved by the Minister of Fisheries. Bylaws can restrict or prohibit the taking of fish or aquatic life (e.g. species, quantity, size, area) or the use of particular fishing methods. Bylaws can only apply to species managed under the Fisheries Act 1996, and not to species managed under the Conservation Act (e.g. trout). The Ministry of Fisheries consults on proposed bylaws before they are enacted.

216 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 57

5IFЯSTUGSFTIXBUFSNÜUBJUBJSFTFSWFXBTFTUBCMJTIFEJOPOBLJMPNFUSFSFBDIPG4PVUIMBOEnT.BUBVSB3JWFS #ZMBXTQSPIJCJUUIFUBLJOHPGUVOB FFMT BOELBOBLBOB MBNQSFZ BOEUIFVTFPGGZLFOFUTXJUIJOUIF.BUBVSBNÜUBJUBJ

Temporary closures under the Fisheries Act 1996 43. Sections 186A and 186B of the Fisheries Act 1996 allow the Ministry of Fisheries to temporarily close or temporarily restrict or prohibit a method of fishing in any area within New Zealand fisheries waters, including fresh water and tauranga ika (fishing grounds) for customary management purposes. Such closures can only last two years unless their objective is not achieved and tangata whenua apply for an extension. Their purpose is to improve the size and/or availability of depleted fish stocks, or to recognise and provide for the use and management practices of tangata XIFOVB5FNQPSBSZDMPTVSFTPSNFUIPESFTUSJDUJPOTNBZQSPWJEFMFHBMTVQQPSUGPSBSÜIVJ UFNQPSBSZSFTUSJDUJPOQVUJO place by tangata whenua). 44. Anybody can suggest to the Ministry of Fisheries that a temporary closure or method restriction should be implemented. The Chief Executive must be sure that it will meet the intended purpose so must provide for tangata whenua input and participation, and have regard for kaitiakitanga when assessing a proposal.

River-Speciﬁc Legislation

Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement Act 2010 45. The Act creates a new co-governance entity, the Waikato River Authority, to oversee river management. Waikato-Tainui are an equal partner with the Crown. The Authority is charged with giving eﬀect to Te Ture Whaimana (vision and strategy for the river) reviewing it, and undertaking monitoring and reporting. The Authority has powers to request call-ins under the RMA and appoint accredited iwi commissioners to resource consent hearings related to the river. Te Ture Whaimana inﬂuences RMA decisions by Environment Waikato because it is included in the Regional Policy Statement and prevails over any national policy statements or the NZ Coastal Policy Statement in relation to the Waikato River. The legislation also provides for the development of a cross agency integrated river management plan and joint management agreements.

Guardians of Lakes Manapouri, Te Anau and Monowai (section 6X Conservation Act 1987) 46. The Minister of Conservation appoints the Guardians under section 6X Conservation Act 1987. Their functions include advising the Minister on any matters arising from the environmental, ecological, and social effects of the Manapouri-Te Anau power scheme on the rivers flowing in and out of Lakes Manapouri and Te Anau. They have the same role in relation to the effects of the Monowai power scheme on rivers flowing into and out of Lake Monowai. The Act charges the Guardians with having particular regard to the effects on social values, conservation, recreation, tourism, and related activities and amenities. The Guardians prepare an annual report to the Minister. The major rivers affected are the Waiau and Monowai Rivers.

Lake Wanaka Preservation Act 1973 47. One of the four purposes of the Act is to prohibit any works (except in an emergency) that vary or control the flow of the Clutha River between the lake outlet (the source of the Clutha River) and the confluence of the Clutha and Cardrona Rivers. The Act establishes the Guardians of Lake Wanaka to advise the Minister of Conservation and the Otago Regional Council on lake levels and flows.

217 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 58

Appendix 3: Water conservation orders: relevant sections from the Resource Management Act 1991

Section 2 Interpretation amenity values means those natural or physical qualities or characteristics of an area that contribute to people’s appreciation of its pleasantness, aesthetic coherence, and cultural or recreational attributes: intrinsic values, in relation to ecosystems, means those aspects of ecosystems and their constituent parts that have value in their own right, including— B UIFJSCJPMPHJDBMBOEHFOFUJDEJWFSTJUZBOE b) their essential characteristics that determine an ecosystem’s integrity, form, functioning and resilience: When considering whether to recommend a water conservation order, the Special Tribunal and Environment Court, or Environment Canterbury Commissioners (for applications in Canterbury) must have “special regard” to the matters in section 199.

Section 199 Purpose of water conservation orders (1) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in Part 2, the purpose of a water conservation order is to recognise and sustain— (a) outstanding amenity or intrinsic values which are afforded by waters in their natural state: (b) where waters are no longer in their natural state, the amenity or intrinsic values of those waters which in themselves warrant protection because they are considered outstanding. (2) A water conservation order may provide for any of the following: (a) the preservation as far as possible in its natural state of any water body that is considered to be outstanding: (b) the protection of characteristics which any water body has or contributes to, and which are considered to be outstanding,— (i) as a habitat for terrestrial or aquatic organisms: (ii) as a fishery: (iii) for its wild, scenic, or other natural characteristics: (iv) for scientific and ecological values: (v) for recreational, historical, spiritual, or cultural purposes: (c) the protection of characteristics which any water body has or contributes to, and which are considered to be of PVUTUBOEJOHTJHOJЯDBODFJOBDDPSEBODFXJUIUJLBOHB.ÜPSJ

Section 200 Meaning of water conservation order In this Act, the term water conservation order means an Order made under section 214 for any of the purposes set out in section 199 and that imposes restrictions or prohibitions on the exercise of regional councils’ powers under paragraphs (e) and (f) of section 30(1) (as they relate to water) including, in particular, restrictions or prohibitions relating to— B UIFRVBOUJUZ RVBMJUZ SBUFPGаPX PSMFWFMPGUIFXBUFSCPEZBOE (b) the maximum and minimum levels or flow or range of levels or flows, or the rate of change of levels or flows to be sought PSQFSNJUUFEGPSUIFXBUFSCPEZBOE D UIFNBYJNVNBMMPDBUJPOGPSBCTUSBDUJPOPSNBYJNVNDPOUBNJOBOUMPBEJOHDPOTJTUFOUXJUIUIFQVSQPTFTPGUIF0SEFSBO (d) the ranges of temperature and pressure in a water body.

218 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 59

Appendix 4: Process for water conservation orders (outside Canterbury)

Source: Mulcahy K, Peart R and Garvan N (2010) Managing freshwater: An EDS Guide, Environmental Defence Society at p 198. Reproduced with kind permission of the authors and the Environmental Defence Society.

Application lodged with Minister

Minister requires further information (optional) Minister rejects application

Minister appoints Special Tribunal

Special Tribunal publicly notiﬁes application

Submissions received

Special Tribunal requires further information from Submitters (optional)

Hearing of application and submissions

Special Tribunal makes recommendation Submissions lodged with Environment Court

No submissions Environment Court holds inquiry

Minister’s consideration Environment Court makes recommendations

Minister recommends Order Minister declines Order

If Court recommended Order Minister lodges Governor General in Council makes Order written reasons before House of Representatives

219 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 60

Appendix 5: Water conservation orders (as at April 2011)

There are currently 16 water conservation orders (including one amendment) with applications to vary two existing orders under consideration.

Outstanding Water body (including %BUFPG Provisions and Protection characteristics Other considerations protected reaches) gazettal provided or features Pre RMA

Motu River 1984 Not stated in WCO. Permits maintenance of - River to be preserved From and including the Motu 4)JODMVEJOHCSJEHFT as far as possible in 'BMMTUPUIF4)CSJEHFBOEЯWF and for soil conservation its natural state. tributaries: Waitangirua Stream, and associated matters - Dams prohibited. Mangaotane Stream, Te Kahika permitted Stream, Mangatutara Stream and part of the Takaputahi River below its conﬂuence with Whitikau Stream.

Rakaia River 1988 - Outstanding natural - Dams prohibited. Mainstem and tributaries of characteristic in the - Order establishes a minimum flow at both the Rakaia and Wilber- form of a braided river. Rakaia Gorge (which varies monthly) force Rivers upstream of the - Outstanding wildlife and caps allocation for abstraction Rakaia /Wilberforce conflu- habitat above and downstream of this. FODF JODMVEJOHUIF)BSQFS below the Rakaia River - Retain in their natural state the 3JWFS -BLF)FSPOBOEJUT Gorge. quantity and rate of flow of all natural inflowing streams, and Lake - Outstanding fisheries, water in the Rakaia River upstream of Coleridge/Whakamatua and and outstanding its confluence with the Wilberforce its tributary streams. recreational, angling, River, the Wilberforce River, and all and jet boating tributaries of both the Rakaia and features. 8JMCFSGPSDF JODMVEJOHUIF)BSQFS River), the quantity and level of Lake )FSPO BOEUIFRVBOUJUZBOESBUFPG flow of natural water in the lake’s tributary streams. - Retain partially in their natural state (subject to replacement consents) the quantity and rate of flow of the wRakaia below its confluence with the Wilberforce River and Fighting )JMM 3BLBJB(PSHF - Retain in their existing state the quantity and level of natural water in Lake Coleridge, and the quantity and rate of flow in the lake’s tributary TUSFBNTBOEUIFаPXCFUXFFOPG 'JHIUJOH)JMMSFDPSEFS 3BLJB(PSHF and the sea - Sets water quality standards for receiving water and prohibits discharges which would breach these.

220 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 61

Outstanding Water body (including %BUFPG Provisions and Protection characteristics Other considerations protected reaches) gazettal provided or features Lake Wairarapa 1989 - Outstanding wildlife - Continued operation of - No right to divert water from lake habitat, partly created the barrage gates at the or to grant water rights which by natural ﬂuctuations lake outlet is permitted would “diminish signiﬁcantly” of water levels, the wildlife habitat. particularly over the eastern shoreline.

Manganuioteao River 1989 - Outstanding wild and - Dams prohibited Mainstem and tributaries scenic characteristics. - Retain in their natural state the of the Manganuioteao, the - An outstanding quantity and rate of flow of the Mangaturuturu and Makatote wildlife habitat for Manganuioteao River upstream Rivers, and the Waimarino the blue duck/whio of its confluence with Waimarino and Orautoha Streams. (Hymenolaimus 4USFBNUIF.BLBUPUFBOE malacorhynchos). Mangaturuturu Rivers. - An outstanding - No takes to reduce the natural recreational fishery. flow by more than 5 % or reduce the following reaches below the minimum flow for the Manganuioteao River downstream of its confluence with Waimarino Stream, Waimarino and Orautoha Streams. - Sets water quality parameters and prohibits discharges which would not comply.

Lake Ellesmere 1990 - Outstanding wildlife - Sets lake levels for artiﬁcial habitat. opening and closing. - Prohibits any damming, stopbanking, polderisation or drainage of any part of the lake that is inconsistent with the lake opening and closing regime established in the Order except for research purposes and replacement consents and maintenance of existing drains and stopbanks.

Ahuriri River 1990 - Outstanding wildlife - Allows consent - Prohibits dams in waters covered by Ahuriri River and mapped habitat applications for the Order. Any dam outside protected tributaries from its source to - Outstanding fisheries. maintenance of roads, waters must not affect flow regime its entry into Lake Benmore, - Outstanding angling bridges, pylons and for waters protected by the Order. associated ponds, tarns and amenity. public utilities, soil - Quantity and level of water in all lagoons part of Omarama conservation, flood lakes, ponds, tarns, lagoons and Stream protection and erosion streams (other than Omarama control work research Stream) to be retained in their and emergency sewage natural state. discharges. - Establishes a minimum flow regime for Ahuriri River and Omarama Stream and prohibits any takes that are inconsistent with this. - Establishes broad water quality standards and prohibits discharges that would breach these beyond the mixing zone.

221 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 62

Grey River 1991 - Incised Ahaura Gorge - Allows consent - The waters of Lake Christabel and Ahaura River downstream with its meandering applications for road, the Blue Grey River must be retained PG)BNFST'MBU pattern is an bridge and pylon in their natural state. Blue Grey River , its tributaries outstanding natural maintenance and soil - Prohibits any water permits for hydro and Lake Christabel characteristic. conservation and flood generation, any dam on the Ahaura - Outstanding scenic protection works. 3JWFSVQTUSFBNPG)BNFST'MBU BOE features, particularly any dam downstream of the Ahaura Ahaura Gorge and Gorge which would affect flows or Lake Christabel water levels in the Gorge. - Any water right granted for mining or other purposes in the Gorge must not detract from outstanding characteristics and features.

Under the RMA

Rangitikei River 1993 - Upper Rangitikei River - Allows granting of - Prohibits dams on the upper and - from its confluence with have outstanding consent applications middle river. Makahikatoa Stream to wild and scenic for road, bridge and - Establishes broad water quality .BOHBSFSF#SJEHF DIBSBDUFSJTUJDTBOE maintenance and soil standards which any discharges - the Whakaurekau River - outstanding recreational, conservation and flood must comply with after reasonable BOEJUTUSJCVUBSJFTBOEUIF fisheries, and wildlife protection works. mixing Kawhatau River and named habitat features. - Provides for existing use - Quantity and rate of flow in the tributaries - Middle Rangitikei River rights and replacement upper river must be retained in has outstanding scenic consents their natural state DIBSBDUFSJTUJDTBOE - Rate of flow of middle river must outstanding recreational not be reduced by more than 5 % and fisheries features. of natural flow

Kawarau River 1997 Outstanding amenity and - Allows granting of consent - Schedule 2 lists the specific - Schedule 1 lists waters intrinsic values meriting applications and regional prohibitions and restrictions on to be preserved in their preservation in natural rules for maintenance the exercise of regional council’s natural state and Schedule 2 state as contributing to: or protection of network powers in section 30 (1) RMA to protected waters, and their - people’s appreciation of utility operation, grant consents or make regional outstanding characteristics. pleasantness of waters. maintenance of soil rules for specific waters. - Schedule 1 includes: - aesthetic coherence conservation or river - Prohibits damming. protection works, roads, - Part Dart River mainstem and - cultural and recreational - Requires maintenance of fish - bridges and pylons, some of its tributaries, attributes passage, specified water quality - Route Burn and its tributaries, research into restoration classifications. - biological and genetic and enhancement, and - Part Rees River mainstem diversity of ecosystems - Requires braided character and some of its tributaries replacement consents for - essential characteristics of rivers such as the Dart and Greenstone River mainstem existing lawful uses. that determine the Rees to be maintained. including Lake McKellar and - Operation of Clyde power ecosystem’s integrity, station and changes )ZESPFMFDUSJDHFOFSBUJPO its tributaries. only allowed on Nevis River if form, functioning and in Lake Dunstan levels - Part Caples River mainstem, resilience restrictions complied with e.g. Lochnagar and Lake Creek. unaffected Outstanding any dam sustains flows which - Schedule 2 includes: characteristics as allow kayaking in Nevis Gorge. - Kawarau River to Lake Wakatipu control gates - habitat for terrestrial and aquatic organisms - Nevis River mainstem - Shotover River mainstem -as a fishery - Part Dart and Rees Rivers - for wild scenic, and - Lake Wakataipu natural characteristics - Lochy River - for scientific value - Von River - for recreational and - Diamond Lake and Reid Lake historical purposes - Nevis wetland on Roading - significant in acccordance Lion Creek XJUIUJLBOHB.ÜPSJ

222 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 63

Outstanding Water body (including %BUFPG Provisions and Protection characteristics Other considerations protected reaches) gazettal provided or features

Mataura River 1997 - Outstanding fisheries - Allows granting of - Establishes minimum flow - from source to sea and - Outstanding angling consent applications regimes for Mataura and tributaries upstream of amenity features and regional rules for Waikaia Rivers which must not be confluence with Otamita fisheries and wildlife breached. Stream habitat research, roads, - Prohibits granting of consent - Waikaia River and tributaries bridges, pylons and applications and regional rules other public utilities, - Otamita Stream which would contravene the soil conservation Order. - Mimihau Stream and and river protection Mokoreta River and their - Prohibits dams on the Mataura activities, and and Waikaia Rivers. tributaries stockwater reservoirs. - Sets water quality standards for protected waters and prohibits discharges which do not comply after reasonable mixing. Standards differ depending on the reach.

Buller River 2001 - Outstanding - Allows granting of - Quality, quantity, level and rate of - Schedule 1 lists waters to be (amended recreational consent applications flow of Schedule 1 waters are to maintained in their natural 2008) characteristics and regional rules for CFSFUBJOFEJOUIFJSOBUVSBMTUBUF state including Travers, - Outstanding wild and minor water uses by Schedule 2 waters to be protected Sabine and D’Urville Rivers, scenic characteristics DOC for conservation in accordance with conditions in Lakes Constance, Rotoiti - Outstanding fisheries or management. the Order. and Rotoroa and Daniells, wildlife habitat features - Allows granting of - Schedules 2 and 3 set out Deepdale, Ohikanui, - Outstanding scientific consents for fisheries restrictions and prohibitions Blackwater, Ohikati, Gowan values and wildlife habitat which apply to specific reaches and Mangles rivers and part research, hydrological and water bodies. Owen, Matakitaki, Glenroy, and water quality - Prohibits damming in specified Maruia rivers. investigations, roads, waters - Schedule 2 list protected bridges and network - Regional council cannot grant waters including Buller River utility operation and soil resource consents or make and Gowan, Mangles, Tutaki, conservation and river rules which would not maintain Owen and Fyfe rivers and protection works. the channel cross section, Mole Stream. - Allows replacement meandering pattern and braided - Schedule 3 – Lakes Rahui, consents for Maruia character. Maori and Matiri and Matiri Springs Thermal Resort - Limits alternations in natural flow River in Schedule 2 rivers to 5% - 15 %. - The schedules also identify - Establishes flow regime for relevant outstanding Gowan River. characteristics or features. - Requires resource consents and regional plans to maintain lake levels in Lakes Rahui, Maori and Matiri within their natural range. - Requires maintenance of fish passage. - Sets water quality standards including limits on turbidity/ suspended solids for Schedule 2 and 3 protected waters.

223 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 64

Motueka River 2004 - Outstanding - Allows applications - Quality, quantity, level and rate of - Schedule 1 lists waters to recreational for water permits flow of Schedule 1 waters are to be retained in their natural characteristics for management of CFSFUBJOFEJOUIFJSOBUVSBMTUBUF state eg North and South - Outstanding fisheries conservation land, Schedule 2 and 3 waters are to Branches of Wangapeka and wildlife habitat roads, bridges, pylons be protected in accordance with River, upper Motueka above features and other public utilities, provisions in the Order. Gorge) and Schedule 2 - Outstanding scientific soil conservation and - Prohibits dams, including waters to be protected and values river protection works, structures which prevent brown fisheries and wildlife their relevant outstanding - Outstanding wild and trout passage habitat research, characteristics or features. scenic characteristics - Establishes minimum flow regimes hydrological and water - Schedule 3 list waters (e.g Part of the Motueka and restrictions on alternations of quality investigations, to be protected for their and Wangapeka Rivers river flows and form for Schedule 2 and release of contribution to outstanding contain or contribute and 3 rivers water from water features. to an outstanding - Requirement to maintain fish augmentation brown trout habitat passage schemes in catchment and fishery, nationally - Sets water quality standards outstanding habitat including limits on turbidity/ for blue ducks/whio, suspended solids for protected waters in a karst system waters and prohibits discharges that demonstrate which do not comply after outstanding qualities, reasonable mixing. provide specific scientific and recreational values and have wild, scenic and recreational characteristics)

Mohaka River 2004 - Outstanding trout - Allows granting of - Prohibits dams unless less than 3 - Mohaka River and its ﬁshery in the upper water permits and m. high, on a tributary and they tributaries from headwaters river, Outstanding regional rules for do not detract from outstanding UP5F)PF(PSHF scenic characteristics gravel extraction, characteristics or features. JO.PLPOVJBOE5F)PF roads, bridges, river - Water permits and regional Gorges crossings, pylons and rules for other purposes must - Outstanding amenity for other public utilities, not detract from outstanding water based recreation and soil conservation characteristics and features. and river protection provided do not detract from outstanding characteristics

224 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 65

Outstanding Water body (including %BUFPG Provisions and Protection characteristics Other considerations protected reaches) gazettal provided or features

Rangitata River 2006 - Outstanding amenity and - Allows granting of - Prohibits damming in Schedule 1 - Schedule 1 lists waters to intrinsic values including consent applications and 2 waters. be retained in their natural outstanding salmon and regional rules for - Prohibits damming in Schedule state and their relevant fishery minor water uses by 3 waters which would materially outstanding characteristics - Outstanding recreational DOC for conservation alter sediment flow or reduce or features. It includes Clyde values – upper river for management. bird habitat. BOE)BWFMPDL3JWFSTBOE jet boating, rafting, and - Allows granting of - Establishes a detailed flow all their tributaries, and DBOPFJOHHPSHFBOE consent applications management regime which their relevant outstanding lower river – kayaking for fisheries and wildlife establishes minimum flows for characteristics or features. and rafting habitat research, the Sept/May and May/ - Schedule 2 lists waters to - Outstanding habitat for hydrological or water September, requires 1:1 sharing be protected in accordance terrestrial and aquatic quality investigations, between the river and water with provisions in the Order organisms including roads, bridges, pylons abstraction above an initial and their outstanding outstanding native bird and network utility allocation band, caps allocation. characteristics. It includes habitat in upper river operations, soil - Restricts takes from hydraulically the whole of Rangitata above gorge, outstanding conservation and river connected groundwater which mainstem below Clyde/ habitat for black fronted protection activities, would affect tributary flows in )BWFMPDLDPOаVFODF terns – lower river gravel extraction which lower river does not materially tributaries - Brabazon CFMPX"SVOEFMCSJEHF - Requires maintenance of fish alter channel cross Fan, Black Mountain outstanding habitat for passage and fish passage on section, meandering Stream , Deep Creek, Deep macro-invertebrates – any intakes Stream, Ealing Springs and whole river pattern or braided river - Restrictions to ensure the McKinnons Creek. characteristics. - Outstanding wild, maintenance of water quality. - Schedule 3 lists waters scenic and other natural - Allows granting of - Establishes water quality to be protected for their characteristics - upper replacement consents standards and for Schedule 2 contribution to outstanding river and gorge for Rangitata Diversion and 3 waters and prohibits features, and the features to Race. - Outstanding scientific granting of consents or regional be maintained – Rangitata and ecological values as rules which do not comply River and all its tributaries a braided river system after reasonable mixing. CFMPX$MZEF)BWFMPDL and confluence and hydraulically - Outstanding historical, connected groundwater in spiritual and cultural lower catchment characteristics - Outstanding significance in accordance with UJLBOHB.ÜPSJ

Oreti River 2008 - Outstanding habitat - Allows granting of - Prohibits dams on Oreti River, - Oreti mainstem for brown trout consent applications Weydon Burn and Windley - Weydon Burn and Windley - Outstanding angling for roads, bridges, River and tributaries River, and other tributaries amenity and network utility - Requires maintenance of fish VQTUSFBNPG-JODPMO)JMM - Outstanding habitat operations, soil passage conservation and river - Schedule 2 lists waters for black billed gulls - Prohibits discharges which protection works, to be protected for their - Outstanding reduce water quality outside fisheries and wildlife contribution to outstanding significance in a reasonable mixing zone. habitat research , features includes accordance with protection of human hydraulically connected UJLBOHB.ÜPSJ or animal health groundwater

225 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 66

Appendix 6: New Zealand Conservation Authority freshwater principles New Zealand’s freshwater resources are approaching crisis point. These principles are a tool to guide the assessment of the New Zealand Conservation Authority’s role, its contribution to, and/or response to issues relating to freshwater management. These principles acknowledge the interaction of freshwater with the land from the mountains to the open sea and recognise that freshwater is essential to all life. It exists in various states, described by the hydrological cycle: in the atmosphere, as snow and ice, and as liquid water both above and below ground, some of which is geothermal in nature. Water is only in part a renewable resource. The Authority believes that current and future generations of New Zealanders all have the right to enjoy the beneﬁts of our common freshwater resources, so that we can all fully enjoy the environmental, social, cultural and economic beneﬁts associated with freshwater. The Authority is concerned that economic drivers are dominating the management of freshwater issues to the detriment of other values and believes freshwater management requires taking a long -term, holistic approach, to conserve and protect freshwater it for all its many uses and values.

Governance 1. Freshwater is a taonga - a treasured and common resource vital to all our lives and must be respected and managed for the benefit of all the people and natural ecosystems of New Zealand. 2. Freshwater environments should be managed in an integrated, long-term, whole-of-catchment, way that recognises the complex inter-relationships of the various components and values. 3. Decisions about the allocation of water must be made in the context of the whole catchment, region and ecosystem, encompassing the range of environments, flow regimes, landforms and landscapes. 4. There should be clear national policy to address competing values and uses. 5. Decision-making should provide for public and tangata whenua participation at all levels form community to Government, and be informed by principles of Kaitiakitanga, stewardship and traditional knowledge as well as scientific understanding. 6. The quantity and quality of freshwater should be regularly monitored; new information and research results reviewed, and management continually adjusted to incorporate these. 7. Where there is insufficient information, or effects may be irreversible, the precautionary principle should apply. 8. Use of water for drinking (by humans and animals) has priority over other consumptive uses. 9. Any allocations granted should be based on evidence of environmental sustainability, fairness and equity, rather than greatest potential economic gain, and should preclude any possibility of on-selling or trade.

Protection 10. Freshwater management should provide for the protection of all instream values especially the connectivity of water bodies, their riparian margins, and the protection of indigenous biodiversity, natural character, intrinsic, recreational and aesthetic values, wilderness values, historic and wāhi tapu values and ecosystem services.

226 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 67

11. Priority should be given to New Zealand’s unique indigenous ﬂora and fauna. 12. Indigenous aquatic species should be present in natural abundance and be able to, if their natural lifecycles require, freely migrate up- and downstream, to and from the sea, through river mouths and in and out of lakes. 13. The role of rivers, lakes and their outlets in provision of sediments for natural coastal processes should be recognised. 14. Freshwater management should provide for the rehabilitation of degraded water bodies and their margins. 15. Freshwater management should include prevention of the establishment of new pests and provide for the containment/ reduction/elimination of existing ones. 16. Freshwater management should provide for the provision of open space adjoining freshwater bodies and access to estuaries, lakes and waterways for the beneﬁt, recreational use and enjoyment of the public.

Sustainability 17. Freshwater management should ensure that any use of water resources, and the indigenous species therein, is ecologically sustainable and managed in a way that maintains its potential for future generations. 18. Water should be safe for both swimming and food harvesting. 19. Freshwater management must address the cumulative effects of both abstractive uses and discharges. 20. Reduction or elimination of water pollutants should occur at their source, rather than clean up and remediation after environmental damage has been done; land uses creating diffuse-source pollution must therefore be monitored as stringently as point-source discharges. 21. Environmental outcomes for freshwater should be based on the values and physical characteristics of the particular waterway. 22. Freshwater management regimes should acknowledge the changes brought about by natural processes including floods, droughts and climate change.

Management 23. Authorised uses should generally be time-limited and reviewable and contain conditions specific to timing and quantity of abstraction. 24. New Zealand needs a national water quality- and quantity- monitoring network that provides comprehensive coverage of flowing waters, lakes and wetlands, capable of providing data that is compatible across regions. 25. Collected data should be used for research and modelling to connect precipitation and river flows enabling greater understanding and prediction of flows and river behaviour. 26. Resources are required to expand management capability and provide appropriate hydrological skills at regional level, and hydrological modelling skills at a national level.

Footnote: These principles should be read in conjunction with the other current NZCA principles and the template for section 4 of the Conservation Act (giving eﬀect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi).

227 Protecting New Zealand’s Rivers 68

228 New Zealand Conservation Authority PO Box 10 420 Wellington 6143 www.conservationauthority.org.nz [email protected] +64 4 471 3289 November 2011

229 230 Streamlining the Regulatory Regime for Pest Control SUBMISSION FROM THE NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY

Contact Information

New Zealand Conservation Authority (Contact: Dr Rick McGovern- Name Wilson) Postal Address PO Box 10420, Wellington 6143 Telephone 04 471 9378 Email Address [email protected]

The need for a new approach Overview The Department of Conservation (DOC) and other agencies, such as regional councils and OSPRI, are dependent upon a range of vertebrate toxic agents (VTAs) in their work to control mammal pests, including predators, which threaten our wildlife, and possums, which decimate our forests. The most important of those VTAs are currently 1080 and brodifacoum – but new tools are under development. The current complexity of the regulatory framework for pest control is an unneccessary barrier to the successful use of VTAs in operations by DOC and other key agencies. With another huge beech mast across many parts of the country, especially the north and west coast of the South Island, DOC are looking to apply 1080 across large areas of public conservation land in order to combat the expected explosion in numbers of mammalian predators. Many of these operations cross local government boundaries, so it is important that conditions are common on the various consents that they require.

The proposal: simplifying the regulatory controls The New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) strongly supports the proposal to use a section 360(1)(h) regulation to simplify the regulatory framework for pest control. We agree that it should include any VTA that has been through a either a full or rapid assessment under the HSNO Act 1996, subject to the requirements set out in the consultation document. One additional issue that we raise is the need to standardise the conditions/requirements of the Medical Officers of Health, to ensure that, where projects cross the boundaries of different District Health Boards, there is a corresponding similarity of conditions.

1 231 Background to the NZCA The New Zealand Conservation Authority is established by the Conservation Act 1987, with members appointed by the Minister of Conservation. It has a range of functions, but primarily acts as an independent conservation advisor to the Minister and the Director- General. The Authority’s role has, in the past, been seen to be largely as a strategic advisor, but it has a growing role as an objective advocate on matters of national significance and interest in the conservation arena and, more recently, as a “board” to provide high quality independent advice to the Department of Conservation on its strategic direction and performance. Current membership of the New Zealand Conservation Authority In consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs: • Waana Davis of Lower Hutt • Rauru Kirikiri of Wellington In consultation with the Minister of Tourism: • Warren Parker of Rotorua • Mike Simm of Kerikeri In consultation with the Minister of Local Government: • Jan Riddell of Winton On the nomination of Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu: • Sandra Cook of Otautau and Christchurch On the recommendation of Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand: • Gerry McSweeney of South Westland and Arthurs Pass On the recommendation of Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand: • David Barnes of Dunedin On the recommendation of the Royal Society of New Zealand: • Mick Clout of Auckland From public nominations: • Devon McLean of Nelson • Jo Breese of Wellington • Judy Hellstrom of the Marlborough Sounds • Mark Christensen of Christchurch

232 2 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.23.1 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Paula Warren, Senior Policy Advisor

Subject: Plant Protection Legislation

NZCA Strategic This will improve the legal tools available for species recovery for Priority and/or the plants and some other organisms (e.g. seaweeds and fungi). Relevant DOC SOI Goal

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

Context The Native Plants Protection Act 1934 is not an effective tool for plant protection. The Minister announced in 2015 her intention to create new plant conservation legislation, including controlling the export of plants. The Department has now completed the initial stages of the work, comprising: • Identifying the threats facing plants • Identifying the legal powers which might help with protection and recovery work • A legal gap analysis to identify those powers which are not available under other law Advice on what a new Act might include is now being prepared for consideration by the Minister. Once the scope is agreed, a discussion document would be released for public comment. It is hoped that this would occur in June or July.

DOCCM-2486885 Paula Warren 23 May 2016 233

DOCCM-2486885 Paula Warren 23 May 2016 234

New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.23.2 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Paula Warren, Senior Policy Advisor

Subject: Review of Freshwater Fisheries Regulation 1983

NZCA Strategic This will improve the tools available to manage freshwater Priority and/or the fisheries, and protect specific eel fisheries. Relevant DOC SOI Goal

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

Context The Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983 cover a range of matters related to indigenous fisheries, including controls on fish passage barriers, approval of electric fishing, noxious fish, movement of fish, and protection of fish. They do not cover fishing activities, which are addressed through the whitebait regulations and the Fisheries Act. As part of her response to the PCE report on longfin eels, the Minister proposes to use faunistic reserves to protect specific eel populations (e.g. tame eels). Unfortunately, the regulation that allows these to be established has features that make it difficult to use for that purpose. The Minister therefore agreed that the regulation should be reviewed. As there are known to be problems with other regulations, it was decided to review all those that relate to indigenous fisheries (but not those relating only to sports fish). A technical review has now been completed, which has identified problems with almost all regulations. That review had input from DOC experts, the Fish Passage Advisory Group, Ministry of Primary Industries and some external experts. The next stage of the work will be to release a discussion document to seek input on the issues analysis and options for reform from a wider group of experts and interested parties. It is hoped to release that in mid or late June.

DOCCM-2486885 Paula Warren 23 May 2016 235

DOCCM-2486885 Paula Warren 23 May 2016 236 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.25.1 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Warren Parker, NZCA Chair

Subject: Chair’s Report ______

1. It is pleasing to see the Budget 2016 success for the Department including the $20m of new investment for “Battle for the Birds”, and indication there may be some funding for the “War on Weeds (wildings)” programme. In times of continuing fiscal constraint this is a great credit to Lou, his Executive Team and the Minister. 2. The Ngai Tahu wording for the CMSs has been reviewed by each of the Conservation Boards and following modest edits by Rick and Rau to improve clarity and consistency, the CMSs are ready for approval. Thank you to all who have contributed to this drawn out process – a lot of learnings along the way that we will take into the rapid prototyping for the CMSs and National Park Plans. 3. Some 1,000 people attended the Tourism Trendz Conference in Rotorua in early May. Noteworthy was Air NZ’s CE Chris Luxton’s comment that foreign visitors should pay to visit National Parks and that Associate Minister of Tourism Paula Bennett indicated she is working with Minister Barry on this. Tourism numbers are going to continue to burgeon and pressure on the main routes will continue to grow. The NZCA will receive an update at the meeting from Lou and Bruce Parkes on tourism - we have a strong interest in ensuring payments from tourism generate net conservation gains as well as maintain and improve core infrastructure. This also includes ways to improve the concessions regime via pricing and compliance. Gains in revenue from these sources can help to alleviate the budget pressures I alluded to earlier. We should continue to provide strategic advice to the Department regarding this. 4. Minister Bennett has also signalled a change in approach by the Government concerning climate change. The Paris 21 Climate Agreement has binding commitments and most countries are signalling they will ratify this. The Department, with one third of NZ’s land area can be a supplier of land for afforestation for carbon storage. It is noteworthy that the carbon price is now circa $15 per NZU. Climate change remains one of the most profound influences on the future of conservation and biodiversity and is something the Authority should continue to take a close interest in and champion action on. 5. Today’s meeting has a full agenda – we will continue discussion on the post-Treaty settlement era, follow up on tourism actions and plan the Conservation Board Chairs’ meeting. We should also ensure we close the loop between the Conservation Board liaison reports and the Department.

DOCDM-2786716 Warren Parker May 2016 237 238 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.25.2 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 April 2016

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson

Subject: Conservation Board liaison reports

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

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Note the written and verbal conservation board liaison reports presented.

Context Authority members are encouraged to attend at least one conservation board meeting or field trip per annum. Authority members are required to provide written liaison reports to the NZCA no later than two weeks before the following NZCA meeting, when there are substantive matters to report. Late papers or a verbal report will be accepted only where there is a board meeting within two weeks prior to an NZCA meeting. They shall also be taken as read.

DOCCM-2605360 Rick McGovern-Wilson 23 May 2016 239

DOCCM-2605360 Rick McGovern-Wilson 23 May 2016 240 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.25.2a Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June April 2016

Prepared By: Mike Simm

Subject: Northland Conservation Board liaison report

Background/Introduction This report is from the Northland Conservation Board meeting held at the DOC office in Whangarei on 6 May 2016.

Details/Comment The May 6 meeting held in the DoC offices in Whangarei was attended by Sue Reed- Thomas, Director Operations, Northern North Island Region and Alex Hawke from the Auckland Conservation Board. Sue explained the new DoC structure and how Auckland was set up as a separate region given its importance as a gateway destination and the fact that there were over a million people living in the city. It was somewhat ironic that Alex Hawke was attending with the specific objective of ensuring that the two Boards were closely aligned on matters of common interest, and where there was crossover on Maori issues, and other programs such as Kauri dieback. He gave a written report on matters of interest to both Boards. Relations between the Boards are good, with Willie Wright reciprocating the approach by regularly attending the Auckland meetings. The Te Hiku o Te Ika Conservation Board appointees are now in place and their first meeting is planned for August 2016. The need for support from NCB during the establishment phase was highlighted. The two main topics for discussion were Kauri Dieback and Bluenose Dolphins. 1. The Kauri Dieback team reported on progress to date. There are 200 tracks needing upgrade as part of the 3 year programme. Tenders are to be let shortly. The programme is running behind time by about 6 months. The other key aspects are the programme to stop the spread of the disease through the use of cleaning stations and increased public awareness. The cleaning station designs were in the process of modification and recent improvements showed a far greater percentage involvement from visitors exposed to them. The best figures achieved from the station at Te Mahuta Ngaere where it is almost impossible to enter the area without passing through the boot wash. Public awareness of Kauri dieback was still mixed. Farmers, marae, and DoC offices were aware and heavily promoting the issue but tourist and public awareness, when sampled, were low. Ideas on how to improve this were discussed including working closely with Auckland Conservation Board, more visual aids, and more branding. A greater focus on the main tourist connection point, Tane Mahuta, was also suggested. 2. Ms Catherin Peters, a marine biologist currently undertaking doctoral research presented her report on Reponses of Bottlenose Dolphins to vessel activity in Northland, NZ. Her report showed a decline in the resident dolphin population of the Bay of Islands when compared with previous studies in 2002, and 2013, and a high calf mortality rate (75%).

DOCCM-2786654 241 The study concluded that vessels observing and hosting swim-with-dolphins activities are disturbing behaviours critical to dolphin survival such as resting and foraging. The recommendation was that there was a need for new and improved regulatory tools that were adaptive, extend beyond the current permit conditions and be supplemented with educational and enforcement programs to ensure compliance. Moreover the regulations must have significant authority and address un-permitted and private vessels. We were advised that permitted boats made up 33% of the vessel engagements, commercial non- permitted another 31%, and private vessels 36%. Rolien Elliot, Operations Manager Bay of Islands, advised that the permitted vessel concession fee income was approximately $60,000pa which was estimated to be about $2 per person from the 30,000 passengers they accounted for. Given that the size of the market was much larger than those covered by the concessioned operators and that the $2 fee was a minor aspect of the $117 tour price tag there appears to be an obvious case for greater concession income to be recovered to fund the researcher’s recommendations.

Mita Harris, the Chair, and other outgoing members were thanked for their past contributions.

Prepared by Mike Simm

DOCCM-2786654 242 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.25.2b Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Devon McLean

Subject: Auckland Conservation Board liaison report

Background/Introduction This report is from the Auckland Conservation Board meeting held at Orakei Marae in Auckland on 17 May 2016.

Details/Comment Meeting was chaired by Ross Aitken who will leave the Board in June. This was also the final meeting for Laurie Beamish the Deputy Chairman. The meeting was attended by Willie Wright the Deputy Chair of the Northland Conservation Board and another Northland Board member. Key issues 1. The transition of key personnel continues to impact the Board. A new support officer (the third in a little over 12 months), the shift of the DOC link from the Partnerships Director to the Operations Director combined with the loss of both the Chair and Deputy Chair will be challenging for a relatively new Board. 2. The close linkage between the Northland and Auckland Boards is a strength to both but it should be noted that the loss of Mita Harris from the Chair in Northland, the downsizing of this Board by two, to accommodate the new Far North Board which coupled with retirements will see three six year veterans depart the Board, and delays in agreeing the liaison person for the Northland Board, now in place as of this week, all impact the confidence and effectiveness of these Board’s. On the positive side the appointment of Chris Jenkins to the Far North Board was seen as a very positive development. 3. A discussion over progress on the Hauturu CMP noted that a draft is under discussion and they are on track for publication of a consultative document in July. A key issue is the need for a protocol which addresses the relationship with Manuhiri and recognises their mana as settled Iwi with ownership of a portion of the island and an essential interest in the future of the island as a whole. The question of protocol for “official” visitors to the island and the future of concession operations on the island are key matters to address. 4. The sorry saga of the Rangitoto baches was explained along with the current complexities of resolving the issue almost 100 years after the “illegal shacks” were first “discovered” by the Department of Lands and Survey. The passion for a place shown by these owners would put even the outpouring of enthusiasm for a beach at Awaroa in the shade! However the process and outcomes on Rangitoto will be of interest to many others in far flung corners of the conservation estate.

DOCCM-2786654 243 5. The most challenging statutory task facing the Board at this time is the preparation of the Tamaki Makaurau Motu CMP. At this stage no statutory timeframes have been triggered however there are clear expectations from the settlement processes. Thirteen Iwi are party to the process of which only four have received settlement at this time. The Tupuna Taonga Trust has been established to lead the process of negotiating a CMP with DOC however the delays in settlement mean that the Trust has not been resourced and will not be until all thirteen Iwi are settled. In the meantime the Trust is seeking to use some transitional funding, available through DOC as part of the settlement process, to prepare a business plan in anticipation of the settlements being completed. The Authority may need to consider its statutory position under the settlement agreements given the prospective delays. 6. During the meeting there were strong messages from two Iwi members that the mana of the Board was being undermined by the seemingly cavalier way in which the Department treated the Board with reference to unreasonably short notice of events the Board should be represented at, cited as a recent example. These members each saw the value in the work of the Board and were personally committed but believed the mana of their role in the Board as Iwi representatives was also demeaned by such incidents. 7. The Auckland Board faces some real challenges in the transition to the post settlement relationship with the Crown and DOC. None of the four Iwi affiliated Board members were willing to be nominated to the Deputy Chair roles citing potential conflicts of interest arising from the settlement process and related matters. 8. The Board held an election for the position of Chair which was won by Lyn Mayes. The Board also decided to appoint two Deputy Chairs and received two nominations to fill those roles, Michael Fitchett and Jane Jones The next meeting of the Auckland Board is scheduled for 15 June at North Head

Devon McLean NZCA Liaison member

DOCCM-2786654 244 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.25.2c Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Mick Clout

Subject: Waikato Conservation Board liaison report

Background/Introduction This report is from the Waikato Conservation Board meeting held at the DOC office in Hamilton on 17 May 2016.

Details/Comment Items discussed included: • The proposed “Conservation Streamlining’ bill • Ongoing concerns about the impacts of whitebait harvesting • Kauri dieback and its management • Beehives on the conservation estate • Tourism pressure on key sites in the Coromandel/Waikato region • Te Whanganui-a Hei Marine Reserve Committee establishment • Criteria for National Park establishment (noting that there are still none in the north) Following the formal meeting, the Board visited Lake Waikere. This is a large, shallow, eutrophic lake, adjacent to the Whangamarino wetland, and subject to many environmental pressures, including sedimentation, nutrient run-off, and invasive weeds and fish. The particular Impacts of invasive koi carp were discussed at this site, and a trap for capturing these fish (and converting them into fertiliser) was viewed. The Waikato Conservation Board (under the chairmanship of Mark Brough) continues to be a proactive and effective group. The next Board meeting is scheduled for 23/24 August.

Mick Clout (NZCA/WCB liaison)

DOCCM-2786654 245 246 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.26 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA EO

Subject: Conservation Board Chairs’ Conference 2016

NZCA Strategic NZCA Priority (J): Effectiveness and efficiency of the Priority and/or the Department’s conservation management Relevant DOC SOI Goal

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

Context The NZCA has previously hosted a biennial conference for the Conservation Board Chairs. Feedback following the 2014 conference from the Chairs suggested that they would prefer to meet for one day every year, rather than two days every second year. As a result, the Authority agreed to host an annual conference. The 2015 conference was held on 24 September, and was attended by all the Chairs (or their delegate), the Associate Minister of Conservation, three Authority members, the D-G and four of his DD-Gs. The conference was seen as a great success and the Chairs welcomed the opportunity to meet and share common knowledge and experiences. It is proposed that the 2016 conference will be held in August – at a date to be determined that suits the Associate Minister’s availability. Last year’s conference ran from 9.30am to 4.30pm, which many Chairs felt cut down the day by the time we allowed for travel to and from Wellington. It is proposed that this year, we invite Chairs to come to Wellington the afternoon before, so they have time to socialise over dinner and into the evening – and then start the meeting at 9.00am. Topics that could be covered this year, include: • Succession planning for Chairs and iwi representatives • National planning issues (CMSs, NPMPs) and managing the workload

DOCCM-2787669 Rick McGovern-Wilson, Executive Officer 25 May 2016 247 • Sustaining a vibrant board • Work programmes for 2016-17 in response to the Letters of Expectation • Overview of DOCs strategic issues from the D-G, e.g. Battle for our Birds 2016, Wilding Conifers, War on Weeds etc

DOCCM-2787669 Rick McGovern-Wilson, Executive Officer 25 May 2016 248 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.27 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Kelly Conway, Issues Manager, Operations

Subject: Suggested priorities from Conservation Boards for Letters of Expectations 2016

NZCA Strategic This item applies to all of the Department’s stretch goals and Priority and/or the government and ministerial priorities, as identified in its four-year Relevant DOC SOI plan. Goal

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Note the context for this agenda item

Context The Department has sought the views of each Conservation Board about its suggested priorities for its region. The deadline for Boards to provide suggested priorities is 27 May. The Boards’ views will help the Department and the Associate Minister of Conservation, Hon Nicky Wagner, determine the priorities for the 2016 Letters of Expectation for Boards (the intention this year is for the final letters to be sent to Boards by 1 July). This revised date for finalising the LoEs will be beneficial, because it will mean that the 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. Boards have been asked to provide information about how their suggested priorities will contribute to delivering on the department’s stretch goals or Board’s statutory functions. The department will present the suggested priorities to the NZCA at the meeting and seek its feedback on these items. This feedback will form part of the advice that will then be given to Minister Wagner.

DOCCM-2785229 Kelly Conway, Issues Manager 20 May 2016 249

DOCCM-2785229 Kelly Conway, Issues Manager 20 May 2016 250 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.28 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 8 June 2016

Prepared By: Gemma White – Statutory Manager (Hauraki-Waikato-Taranaki)

Subject: Conservation Boards and Statutory Managers

NZCA Strategic NZCA Strategic Priority E - Strategic advice to the Minister and Priority and/or the DG in the context of conservation in today’s economy, the Relevant DOC SOI governance requirements, and strategic advice on public policy Goal documents and legislation Goals (E) - Perceived as a respected and influential source of strategic advice for conservation. Actions (E) – 3. Maintain active links with conservation boards and the community, actively seek improved quality of conservation board nominees.

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Note the contents of this paper b) Provide feedback the contents of this paper during a discussion with Statutory Managers on 8 June 2016

Context In late 2013 a review of Conservation Boards was undertaken by the then Minister of Conservation, Hon Dr Nick Smith. The review had a number of findings including that ‘the potential contribution of boards has only been realised in part and the panel believes that it is timely for the original vision to be reinvigorated and for the true potential of conservation boards to be realised.’ A copy of the review can be found via the following web link: http://www.doc.govt.nz/about-us/statutory-and-advisory- bodies/conservation-boards/conservation-boards-review/ As part of the Department’s recent re-alignment within the Operations Group, the role of Statutory Managers has been created. Part of the Statutory Manager’s role is to lead and enhance interactions and relationships with Conservation Boards. There are eight Statutory Managers, one in each region, and as a network we are keen to discuss with the New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA), their perspective on how we can support Conservation Boards to fully realise their potential.

DOCCM-2786208 Author: Gemma White 20 May 2016 251

DOCCM-2786208 Author: Gemma White 20 May 2016 252 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.29 Meeting No. 149

REPORT

Meeting Date: 7 and 8 June 2016

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 253

DOCCM-2551407 254 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 149.29 Meeting No. 149

NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (NZCA) MAIL LOG FOR PERIOD 19 MARCH TO 20 MAY 2016

INWARDS & OUTWARDS CORRESPONDENCE

INWARDS CORRESPONDENCE Date Received & From Topic Comment/Status File Reference 27 March 2016 Pat Garden, Chair of Otago Response from the OCB to the Forwarded to the SBA-08-17-01 Conservation Board four issues raised by Otago CMS Otago CMS Committee Committee for consideration 30 March 2016 Northland Conservation Board Unconfirmed minutes of 19 FYI February 2016 meeting 31 March 2016 Mike Slater, DD-G Operations, Apology for the delayed response FYI SBA-08-16-02 DOC to the NZCA’s letter to MOC of 7 SBA-08-17-01 August 2015 SBA-08-18-01 1 April 2016 Hon Maggie Barry, Minister of Comments on the 3 South Island Forwarded to SBA-08-16-02 Conservation CMSs, and a comment on the members for SBA-08-17-01 Enderby Island snipe issue for the consideration on SBA-08-18-01 Southland CMS Committee Monday 6 April 2016 East Coast/Hawke’s Bay Agenda for Friday 15 April 2016 FYI Conservation Board meeting 6 April 2016 Canterbury Aoraki Conservation Agenda for Friday 15 April 2016 FYI Board meeting 11 April 2016 New Zealand Fish and Game Unconfirmed minutes of 18 and FYI SBA-10-02 Council 20 March 2016 meeting, and Chief Executive’s Operational Report 11 April 2016 Southland Conservation Board Agenda for 20 April 2016 meeting FYI 11 April 2016 Southland Conservation Board Unconfirmed minutes of 18 FYI February 2016 meeting 12 April 2016 Otago Conservation Board Agenda for 19 April 2016 meeting FYI 12 April 2016 Otago Conservation Board Unconfirmed minutes of 18 FYI February 2016 meeting 18 April 2016 Hon Maggie Barry Awaroa Beach addition to Abel Copy to members SBA-10-01 & Minister of Conservation Tasman National Park 22/04/2016 SBA-09-05-08 & SBA-13-05 20 April 2016 Canterbury Aoraki Conservation Confirmed minutes of 12 February FYI Board 2016 meeting 22 April 2016 West Coast Tai Poutini Agenda for 29 April 2016 meeting FYI Conservation Board 27 April 2016 Northland Conservation Board Agenda for 6 May 2016 meeting FYI 28 April 2016 Southland Conservation Board Unconfirmed minutes of 18 FYI February 2016 meeting 5 May 2016 West Coast Tai Poutini Confirmed minutes of the 18 FYI Conservation Board February 2016 meeting 5 May 2016 Mike Legge, Chair, West Coast Query re progress on the FYI SBA-13-08-03 Tai Poutini Conservation Board proposed Mokihinui addition to Kahurangi National Park 11 May 2016 Mike Legge, Chair, West Coast Planning workload for the Board Copy to Gerry SBA-11-11 & Tai Poutini Conservation Board and seeking consideration of McSweeney SBA-13 changes to processes to be more 13/05/2016 efficient and to minimise duplication of effort 13 May 2016 Landcare Research Manaaki Discovery Issue 41 May 2016 FYI Whenua DOCCM-2749557 255 16 May 2016 Peter Cropper Reply to letter of 29 April 2016 FYI SBA-13

OUTWARDS CORRESPONDENCE Date Sent & File To Topic Comment Reference 6 April 2016 Hon Maggie Barry, Minister of Recommendations re the Awaroa Copied to members SBA-09-05-08 Conservation Beach addition to Abel Tasman with Friday email SBA-13-05 National Park 15 April 2016 Hon Maggie Barry, Minister of Seeking approval to release its FYI SBA-09-05-08 * Conservation advice Stewardship land and SBA-10-01 assessing net conservation benefit 22 April 2016 [email protected] Submission on Next steps for Copy to members SBA-09-05-09 fresh water consultation 22/04/2016 document 28 April 2016 Honourable Maggie Barry, Southland Murihiku CMS FYI SBA-10-01 & Minister of Conservation SBA-08-18-01 29 April 2016 Peter Cropper, Auckland Reply to his letter regarding FYI revenue generation in NPs 29 April 2016 Tim de Castro, Auckland Reply to his letter regarding FYI revenue generation in NPs 6 May 2016 Bob Dickinson, Chairperson, Thank you letter for NZCA April Copy to Judy SBA-05-01 Nelson/Marlborough Conservation 2016 meeting Hellstrom Board 6 May 2016 Barney Thomas, Deputy Thank you letter for NZCA April Copy to Judy SBA-05-01 Chairperson, Te Āwhina Marae 2016 meeting Hellstrom 6 May 2016 Roy Grose, Kath Inwood, Jaine Thank you letter for NZCA April Copy to Judy SBA-05-01 Cronin, Susannah Peckham, 2016 meeting Hellstrom DOC 6 May 2016 Hudson Dodd, General Manager, Thank you letter for NZCA April Copy to Judy SBA-05-01 The Brook Waimarama Sanctuary 2016 meeting Hellstrom Trust 6 May 2016 Chairpersons of Conservation NZCA meeting April 2016 Copy to Ministers’ SBA-11-15 Boards Offices and NZCA members 13 May 2016 Mike Legge, Chair, West Coast Response to his letter re workload Copy to Gerry SBA-11-11 & Tai Poutini Conservation Board issues with forthcoming Plan McSweeney SBA-13 reviews 13/05/2016 16 May 2016 Mike Legge, Chair, West Coast Reply to letter of 5 May 2016 Copy to Gerry SBA-13-08-03 Tai Poutini Conservation Board regarding progress on the McSweeney SBA-11-11 Copied to DG, DOC proposed Mokihinui addition to 16/05/2016 Kahurangi National Park

DOCCM-2749557 256