Minutes of a meeting of the Canterbury Aoraki Conservation Board held on Friday 2 July 2010 in the Aoraki Room, Department of Conservation, 195 Hereford Street,

1. Karakia

Steve welcomed board members to the meeting.

2. Seminar – Work on the development of Canterbury Conservation Management Strategies – board responses to questions from Maree Long, Senior Planner, National Office – facilitated by Poma Palmer 10.15 a.m. – 12.15 a.m.

3. Present/apologies

Present

Board: Steve Lowndes (Chairman) Dr John Keoghan Joseph Hullen Jimmy Wallace Mal Clarbrough Jan Finlayson David Round

DOC: Cheryl Colley Mike Cuddihy (part)

Apologies: Wiki Baker Fiona Sloan Joseph Hullen (for the morning session) Mandy Waaka Home

DOC: Rob Young Kingsley Timpson George Hadler Bryan Jensen Richard McNamara

4. Declarations of conflicts of interest for recording

There were no declarations of conflict for recording.

5. Confirmation of minutes of Friday 23 April 2010

CHCCO-615768 1 Recommendation: That the board confirm the minutes of Friday 23 April are a true and accurate record of the previous meeting. Steve Lowndes Carried

6. Matters arising from previous minutes

There were no matters arising from the previous meeting.

7. Late agenda items and any matters to raise from the board’s informal meeting

No late agenda items were received

8. Section 4 Matters

No section 4 matters were raised.

9. CANTERBURY CONSERVATOR’S VERBAL REPORT AND UPDATE FROM AREA MANAGERS The Board received reports from Raukapuka, Mahaanui, Waimakariri and Aoraki Area Offices.

Mike reported that The Draft Recreation Plan will soon be completed and copies provided to board members.

David Round referred to the report from Raukapuka and asked what the taxonomic name of Canterbury pink broom was. It was subsequently confirmed as Carmichaelia torulosa, formerly called Notospartim torulosum.

Mike Cuddihy recently held a meeting with the Ngäi Tahu Property group on the issue of land exchanges. Land exchanges in Canterbury are relatively infrequent but are a sensitive issue because they are excluded from the ‘first right of refusal’ under the Ngäi Tahu Claims Settlement Act. That Act only applies to land that was under the department’s management prior to the date of the Settlement.

A recent example of such an exchange is Lords Bush and Porters Ski Area. The department has worked through the issues that arose from that process, most of which centred on communication and ensuring that Ngäi Tahu is aware early on that an exchange is proposed. This land was purchased after the Settlement so technically does not fall within the ambit of the exchange process.

CHCCO-615768 2 Porters Ski Area recently put forward another exchange proposal. The department has encouraged the applicant to enter into discussion with Ngäi Tahu so that all parties understand how the proposal fits within the Treaty Settlement framework.

The department did however fail to notify the local Runanaga at Tuahiwi about the Spittle Hill exchange and consequently didn’t arrange a site inspection of the land that was being exchanged. Even though it fell outside the technical requirements of the Claim, because the department was alienating it, an assessment should have been completed on that piece of land. Rachel Puentener brought that to the department’s attention and Mike has subsequently apologised to Ngäi Tahu for this oversight.

Heli-hunting An update on heli-hunting is available on the department’s website together with a copy of the second version of the draft concession document. The second version incorporates the changes made following discussions with the aircraft operators legal advisors.

Most heli-hunting business will finish at the end of July so a new version of the permit will not be operational in 2010.

The department is obliged to process the 16 applications for permits it has received. Those applications have been notified to conservation boards, conservancies and Runanga. The department will receive their comments in due course.

Operators are able to apply to operate within National Parks and within Wilderness Areas but the department needs to clarify whether any wish to do so. If any operators do wish to operate in a National Park or Wilderness Area their application/s will be referred back to Runanga and Boards for advice. They cannot be advertised until that process has been completed.

Advice from Runanga and Boards will then be integrated into an Officers Report. The applications will then be notified to the applicants and publicly notified. The department hopes to carry out the public notification process later this year. -

Applications for concessions must be considered under legislation as it is currently written. There are areas of legal debate around how heli-hunting fits into the legislation but it needs to be remembered that when the Wild Animal Control Act was developed in 1977 this activity didn’t exist. That is when the General Policies, the National Park Management Plans and the CMSs were all developed and no one raised this as an issue. Staff are therefore in the process of having to consider these applications through a statutory concessions process in the absence of clear legislation, general policies, CMSs and National Park Management Plans.

The first version of the new permits stated there was to be no shooting or herding of the animals from the air. It was subsequently identified that this prohibition has no sound legal basis. Wild animals are specifically excluded from animal welfare legislation and the Wild Animal Control Act specifically provides for the shooting of animals from helicopters. Staff must now consider these applications according to the legislation as it currently stands.

CHCCO-615768 3 David Round asked about the status of Wilderness Areas and whether or not helicopter activity could be prohibited within them.

Mike Cuddihy said this is one of the areas where there will be a lot of discussion and legal argument. The department currently permits the recovery of wild animals and the taking of animals for food processing out of Wilderness Areas and National Parks and late last year the department ran a process to renew National Wild Animal Recovery Permits. Wilderness Areas and National Parks are by and large open to game recovery for food processing and in fact the CMSs and the National Park Management Plans also provide for it in National Parks, Wilderness Areas and Conservation Act Wilderness Areas. The question then turns on what the nature of heli-hunting is and that is a debate on which there are various perspectives so it is not a blanket “no”, it is more subtle than that.

Many hunters coming to are members of Safari Club International and that club has developed a code of hunter ethics that includes a policy on the use of aircraft. In the United States the animals they are hunting are native animals in their native environment. Some states, such as Alaska, have quite specific laws about how hunting can be carried out. Alaska has a law where you can’t fly and hunt on the same day, so the aircraft can’t be used to support the hunting activity. Clearly that is not New Zealand’s culture. New Zealanders fly into the back country and go hunting as soon as they are dropped off. SCI has developed an aircraft policy that says that in terms of entering a trophy into the trophy book a helicopter cannot be used to herd or haze the animal and that their guides are not to undertake that activity either.

Mike passed around a recent copy of the June 2010 edition of the U.S Safari Times in which their chairman, Mike Christenson, refers to their policy and to conversations he had with Mike Cuddihy about it. The article states “SCI draws the line when animals are herded to a hunter, or hazed in some way. Our policy classifies this as unethical conduct whether or not the animal is put in the record book.”

The relevance of this is that although it is indirect this is an international hunting organisation, putting in place a code of ethics and aircraft rules that pertain to its members. One of SCI’s other codes is that members must obey the laws of the country in which they are hunting. Joseph said “so effectively the onus is on the Conservation Authority and conservation boards to write into CMSs and other documents legislation or rules that prevent this activity”. Mike said you can only put into a Policy, a CMS or a planning document provisions which are supported by legislation. When the concessions are advertised that will provide a basis for informed public debate but any decisions made through the concession process will have to fit the legislation as it currently exists.

One of the aims of the Wild Animal Control Act is to better facilitate the co-ordination of hunting effort on wild animals that prior to the Act were called noxious animals. The National Parks Act has strong provisions that support the removal of animals. The department is trying to maintain the natural state of wilderness areas so there are a number of contraindicating things that existed before anyone thought about heli-hunting.

Jimmy asked Mike if he would agree that a prudent thing for the department to do would be that if any permit were granted then it would be for quite a short period. Mike Cuddihy responded that under recent changes to the Conservation Act applicants are entitled to a maximum of 10 years. If the department decides not to grant a permit for

CHCCO-615768 4 10 years then there have to be reasons of sufficient merit that would lead to a shorter period.

Steve asked if the spider tracking system was working and whether flights were being monitored. Mike said that as far as he is aware it is working but tracking is still in a state of flux and it is his view that the two on board methods of recording will still be required. Operators are complying with that. Mike added that to date the department had not had to requested copies of tracks from anyone because there had been no need to.

Jimmy asked whether there was a tourism aspect to this that may appeal to the government of the day. Mike said it is a consideration as people come to New Zealand, and employ New Zealanders to undertake the activity. It is estimated that the activity brings around $30 million directly into the New Zealand economy. These animals, particularly Himalayan tahr, are being sold and hunted on Conservation land and the department believes some of the value of these animals should be returned to it. Any money earned could then be spent on helping to manage them. The department is currently spending around $200,000 a year on Himalayan tahr control. There are opportunities for an environmental mitigation offset or a trophy fee to play a part in the cost of controlling them.

John Keoghan asked about a recent instance when animals were moved out of the Two Thumb Range into a game park. He commented that this would require some important decision making in terms of how many animals were already in the game park relative to the impact of increased animals on some of these private areas. Mike Cuddihy said there is no reason why animals can’t be relocated to game estates within their feral range and that has been happening all this winter. Trophy bulls have been live captured and relocated to game estates where hunters shoot them. Joseph Hullen asked if the department achieved any gain other than having that animal removed from public conservation land. The department has signalled that costs will be applied from 2011. In early January 2010 Mike let the commercial operators know that they would be paying in some way or providing a mitigation in one way or another from 2011. Whoever commercially takes one of these animals from public land, where they were the property of the Crown until lawfully taken and sold for financial benefit, then part of that value will come back to the Crown and will be used to assist with the cost of managing these animals. This will not apply to recreational hunters.

There is still the potential that the solution to this is a policy one that Ministers decide to engage. If the public interest in this is such that there is a demonstrable need to change the legislation then that is what ministers in a democracy do – they deal with legislative issues.

Steve thanked Mike.

8.1 The new Conservation Vision (to be deferred until the 2 September meeting).

10. PUBLIC FORUM (1.30 P.M. – 2.00 P.M.)

11. PRESENTATIONS

11.1 Mike Clare – Tenure Review

CHCCO-615768 5 Mike Clare discussed the tenure review process with board members. He said thirty four properties have completed the Tenure Review process and that land, combined with the Nature Heritage Fund land, has provided the department with another 270,000 hectares of new public conservation land to administer and for the public to enjoy.

Steve asked the length of time it had taken for the 34 properties to emerge from Tenure Review. Mike said they date from the inception of tenure review. One property, Pukaki Downs went through pre 2000 and the remainder have emerged since 2000. In the last decade Tenure Review has been completed on 33 properties.

Within the 270,000 hectares are a number of properties with covenants that have been created for various reasons, be it historic or recreation activities or small bits of bush. There are three grazing concessions and four tourism concessions currently operating on the land for varying periods. Every one of those properties has 1 – 2 or 3 easements on them which allow the public to pass across the freehold land from the road onto conservation land. Those easements were created as right of ways but the reality is that they have turned out to be recreation opportunities in their own right.

An example of this is the Dusky Trail at Twizel where people are enjoying doing a complete circuit and it has turned into something that people didn’t necessarily envisage at the time. A number of conservation parks have also been created in Canterbury, Otago and Southland as well.

The department received an allocation of $4.4 million dollars which was set aside for high country land coming to the department from tenure review. Canterbury receives about 1.9 million dollars a year which the department uses to administer public conservation land. There is also a separate allocation for wilding pine control. The wilding pine control money is not sufficient but the department is making headway.

Currently there are a number of final proposals in the pipeline and they will probably add another 30,000 hectares to public conservation land. There are a number of other properties which have been publicly advertised and they have the potential to add another 104,000 hectares to public conservation land. The preliminary proposals that have been advertised may change substantially because there is a new climate out there that says covenants may be better than public conservation land.

The Tenure Review process was completed for Barossa last week and 4,800 hectares of land was transferred to the Department of Conservation. This land fits in with Clent Hills which the Nature Heritage Fund purchased, and provides a fantastic opportunity for public recreation and usage either from Lake Emily or Lake Heron and will potentially be one of the premier mountain bike rides in Canterbury.

Kaiwarua, Mount Cecil and Studholm on the Hunter Hills are in the final phase of being surveyed and having draft plans prepared, so there will be a substantial area there that becomes public conservation land. The public will be able to drive up to the top of Mt Studholm, access the land from there and walk along the tops. There are issues such as the high numbers of wallabies. The lessees have said “oh well the land is going to DOC so we won’t do any management of the land and might as well give up” so the wallaby numbers have built up. ECan served notice on the lessees some time ago and they have suddenly realised that if they don’t get on top of the wallaby problem LINZ won’t do anything about tenure review.

CHCCO-615768 6

Bendrose (next to Lake ) is nearing completion with a draft survey having been completed. This will allow the Ruataniwha Conservation Park to be completed. It will allow easements that Twizel has set up from the main highway at the canal to go over Flanagans Pass and back out to Lake Ohau and then back down the road which will be another great route, especially for mountain biking. It is about a 34 kilometre round trip and it is very nice.

Braemar, which is situated behind the Tekapo Army is in the throes of being finalised. Unfortunately, half that land will go to the New Zealand Defence Force which has caused the department some concerns. DOC has already been proactive; spending c.a. $80,000 in the last couple of months dealing with wilding pines. DOC is having an argument with the Defence Department about where the boundaries should be because as they currently stand good public access to Mount Stevenson will be cut off.

Hunter Hills, Glenrock, Manahune, Rollesby, Hollbrook and Mount Nimrod have all been publicly advertised and staff are waiting for submissions so the department can provide comment.

Statistics on the LINZ website state that 67 reviews have been completed, 34 of which are in Canterbury. Around one third of properties are still not in tenure review. Nelson Marlborough Conservancy has 270,000 hectares of new land on which it must control and manage broom, wilding pines, access and a number of other things.

There are a number of properties in the Mackenzie Basin that are currently in the Tenure Review process, five of which make up the proposed dryland park that the Board has already been briefed on. They are particularly contentious. Maryburn is now a deal that the department feels pretty comfortable about but earlier in the process the department did have to withdraw from that property because of the high wilding pine issue.

LINZ contractors have free reign to do what they like these days. The department is kept out of the loop until the last minute when LINZ approaches DOC and asks staff to prepare documents and give the Minister of Conservation’s consent.

John Keoghan asked Mike Clare to elaborate on covenants. Mike said that covenants have a number of flaws. They rely on goodwill and staff have found that when properties change hands that goodwill is often no longer there. The offence provisions are pretty lukewarm. In Otago where offences have occurred on covenants and the department has taken the landowner to Court, the maximum fine has been a few hundred dollars. The terms of the covenant can be changed without any negotiation or involvement of the public and the department overall has some real concerns about whether they fill the intention of what they were provided to do.

QEII Covenants are proposed for one particular property which is causing some concern for QEII because the establishment of covenants in the past has occurred between two willing parties but in Tenure Review, while the other party might be willing, it is a business transaction, so whether they are actually wedded to the intention of the Covenant or merely using it as a means to an end is a debate that is still to be had.

Covenants also take up a lot more staff time than public conservation land does because staff have to be proactive about checking them to see they are being maintained. There

CHCCO-615768 7 is no point realising two years later that what you were trying to protect is no longer there. The other thing that occurs is that when staff are busy covenants get put to one side and they tend to deal with day to day issues on public land. Steve Lowndes asked Mike if the department administers the covenants. Mike Clare said if it is a Conservation Act or Reserves Act covenant the department administers it. The department does pick up quite a bit of work from QEII covenants because it doesn’t want to see the values diminish. Theoretically QEII should be looking after them but they don’t have the field staff to do it.

Steve said the board had picked up on concerns about the process of tenure review and the way it is heading at the moment and had discussed calling for a moratorium on tenure review. He said that members feel this is a huge ask and would presumably invoke so much opposition from the many parties involved in the process that it might not be a realistic way to go. Board members also had concerns relating to the covenanting process. Steve asked Mike if the board was to voice the opinion that it thought that the covenanting process, as it currently stands, isn’t robust enough to protect the land did he think they would: (a) be on reasonable ground in doing so; and (b) are there achievable remedies to the dilemma?

Mike said that ultimately any advice or comment the board could provide the Minister on what it thinks about the use of covenants would echo what other organisations have been saying. He said the department had also provided advice on how it perceives covenants to be working or not working.

Jan asked what happened to submissions when they are made. She said the Board didn’t hear anything about the process or how their submissions have contributed to the outcome. Mike said that LINZ is conscious of this and has said they will revise their submission process and advise submitters what the outcome of their submission is. In terms of the way LINZ is analysing submissions now, if something has been dealt with in the consultation and negotiation process LINZ will often not accept that matter if it is raised by a submitter. Any submission point have to be new points that no one has talked about in terms of the consultation process.

Steve thanked Mike for his presentation.

11.2 The Mackenize Basin – Bruce Jeffries Bruce introduced himself to members of the Board. Bruce previously worked as a conservator in the East Coast Conservancy and then as a board member for the Tongariro Taupo Conservation Board. His background is in protected area management and he was a ranger and chief ranger for many years. More recently he has been working overseas on both long and short term assignments.

Bruce is the Deputy Vice Chair for Oceania realm of The IUCN World Commission on Protected Areas. The Vice Chair that works out of Australia and she has appointed deputies in each of the countries that make up the realm, Papua New Guinea, Australia, New Zealand, Pacific Islands. Their interest is looking at international perspectives on protected area management. Bruce brought material to the forum that he presented at a symposium at Otago University on protected areas and tourism. One person at that forum had a particular passion about the Mackenzie Basin so Bruce decided to apply a planning framework for the Mackenzie Basin that had been used in a number of areas

CHCCO-615768 8 such as Malaysia and Sarawak, Laos and more recently in Thailand and Timor Leste. Bruce ran a theoretical desk top exercise on the Mackenzie Basin and he said it seemed to work quite neatly conceptually.

A discussion document was then prepared (copies circulated to board members) that advocated a “lets get away from our thinking” of a drylands park, a world heritage dark park, and all the other things going on the Mackenzie Basin. The discussion document took a more contemporary approach that looked at conservation connectivity. The concept of connectivity relates to landscape scale and is about looking at big areas. It includes ecosystems, endangered species and human and cultural values as well so you end up with a matrix of human, social and economic values.

Grasslands have been identified as being of international importance and people such as Dr Alan Mark are working with the International Grasslands Strategy Conservation Initiative which has included, as part of its work, the ecosystems of Otago and Canterbury. These ecosystems are just begining to appear on the screen as being not only nationally significant but also internationally significant.

The Mountains Environment Committee of The World Commission on Protected Areas has drawn together working examples of all these places and produced a significant book on connectivity conservation and how to go about it. Case studies included in the book include the border of Nepal and India. Bruce said “if one considers the politics of the Mackenzie Basin are difficult, have a look at the politics between India and Nepal if you want a nightmare”. The book articulates a conceptual framework with the central pivot of major management of people as a way of bringing together a vision for a place and then the concept. You also need good leaders, visionaries, good planning approaches, and people on the ground to implement and evaluate. It is now at the stage where three levels of task are used to translate the conceptual framework into a planning framework which are called foundational tasks (what you need to deliver these things).

Bruce said he started by thinking of some of the words that have come out of DOC publications and the poets and the artists “vast clear open skies”, “golden brown tussock grasslands”. All these things have helped Bruce fit this into a planning framework. He started with the idea of conservation action planning (CAP) which is a planning framework that was developed by a consortium of NGOs and has been used internationally. You can visit the website at http://conserveonline.org/ to get an idea of the scale of the process. It is a repository of all the plans that have been created internationally using this framework.

Bruce posed several questions to the board in relation to the Mackenzie Basin: • Is a shared agenda and vision realistic? • Can you envisage a situation where all these players and many many more can co-operate or contribute to the idea. • Who is best placed to implement the idea? ECan, the District Council or an independent body such as Lincoln University. • Who would do the work,? • what sort of structure is needed, • who would own the outcome?

Bruce believes these questions are answerable if there is a collective will.

CHCCO-615768 9

Bruce has also been taken an interest in the process of setting up the New Zealand Game Council. From a WCPA perspective, IUCN is concerned with the precedent being set for this type of council in countries like New Zealand and whether that will affect the attitudes of the other IUCN members. During the mining debate the Director General of IUCN took the unprecedented step of writing to the Prime Minister to articulate his concern about what this does to New Zealand’s image and also what it does to the principles of protected areas in the world. Bruce said he has always been more worried about the establishment of the New Zealand Game Council in terms of biodiversity and ecosystems than he is about the mining issue. The mining issue was a far greater attack on a principle but, legitimising wild animals into New Zealand’s ecosystems is perverse and would right across the landscape from North Cape to Stewart Island.

Recommendations have gone to the Minister and are available on the web site. Bruce said there is an excellent press release from Forest and Bird on the web as well. The New Zealand Conservation Authority has written an excellent letter in its role advising the Minister of the implications of the proposal to establish the New Zealand Game Animal Council.

Bruce said he believes the philosophy and intent of New Zealand’s National Parks legislation is without any question, fundamentally opposed to the New Zealand Game Animal Council recommendations.

Bruce showed some of Dr Allan Mark’s photo points in Mt Aspiring National Park taken at random sites from 1970 to 1999 highlighting the difference over time. Science shows conclusively that New Zealand ecosystems are impacted by browsing animals as well as by mustelids and possums. IUCN is challenging the recommendations being made to the Minister of Conservation in relation to the establishment of a Game Animal Council and believes they threaten the leadership New Zealand has previously shown as a conservation nation.

The less political fuss the better chance there is of the Minister thinking that people don’t seem to mind. The fact that the Minister will have to change The Conservation Act, The Wildlife Management Act, The National Parks Act, every CMS, every National Park Management Plan, the General Policy for Parks and the Conservation General Policy should be Select Committee matters where people have their say, not where things should be signed off and the paper work done later, end of story.

The board thanked Bruce for his very interesting presentation.

11.3 Concessions Processing Update – Cheryl Colley

In 2009 the former Minister of Conservation, Tim Groser, asked the department to complete a review of its concessions processing. There were several reasons why he requested that to be done.

He wanted the department to find out whether concessions processes could be simplified, whether staff could make more timely decisions, whether decision making could be more transparent and if the documentation could be improved to reinforce decisions. He also wanted to find out whether the compliance costs of monitoring concessions could be reduced.

CHCCO-615768 10

He asked for the review as a priority within the government’s overall regulatory framework. It was also part of the fiscal challenges facing New Zealand at that time and it links in with the other work the department has been doing on what is called “Prioritising for the Future” which is a series of reviews being done within the department. The concessions review was one of that series of reviews and relates to the fact that the department has had $13 million stripped off its budgets for the next 4 years.

Another thing that is very important and is part of the rationale behind Minister Groser’s request for this review was that tourism had been identified by the government as an important area of the economy in which growth could occur and that is why he was anxious to ensure that the processes the department had in place relating to tourism were as good as they could be.

The review found that there was scope for improvement in the departments systems but concessions were found to be extremely important for managing tourism activities on public conservation land and enabling business opportunities balanced by delivering conservation outcomes and delivery to the public.

Steve asked how the process is expected to work in terms of delivering conservation outcomes. Cheryl said that is part of the new process but it is also included in the current processes for concessions because each concession is considered and analysed to ensure that any possible effects on public conservation land are remedied or mitigated so. In that way they are delivering conservation outcomes by protecting the conservation land those operations take place on.

Kate Wilkinson, the current Minister of Conservation wants changes to the department’s processes to happen quickly. Al Morrison, the Director General of Conservation has made a commitment to the Minister of Conservation that she will see improvements to the department’s processing by the end of the calendar year.

The department’s senior managers have been asked to lead a process to ensure that concessions work is appropriately valued and resourced and that it is widely recognised and treated as core business.

Over the last couple of weeks conservancies have undergone training on the new Standard Operating Procedure and templates. The changes were operative from yesterday and there are system wide changes mainly relating to time frames for processing concessions.

The review recommends that that processing time be reduced from 40 to 20 working days but that cannot occur without a change to part 3(b) of the Conservation Act. There are however, a number of things that can be changed without the need for law changes such as report writing and various other simplifications.

The shortened timeframes for processing long term applications will mean that it will be a case of first in and first served in terms of processing.

David Round asked if the sort of problems experienced under the Resource Management Act would be experienced with this process where you get an application but it is an incomplete application. Cheryl said that staff will not accept applications

CHCCO-615768 11 until they are deemed to be complete. The timeframes are mandatory and they can be extended only in specifically defined circumstances. This will impact on Conservation Boards and iwi. The report recommends that there be triggers for consultation with Conservation Boards. Triggers are already in place for the Canterbury Board but Cheryl would like to work with the Concessions Subcommittee of the Board to ground truth the current triggers and verify them. Currently the Concessions Committee of the board has 20 working days to provide comment to Canterbury Conservancy. That time frame will remain 20 working days. The same applies to Ngäi Tahu. Consultation on applications is done through the Roopu Kaitiaki meetings Areas hold. Cheryl will also ask Ngäi Tahu to verify whether or not they are happy with the current set of triggers.

If the department does not receive comments within the 20 working day time frame it will be noted in the Officers Report and staff will continue processing the concession. Staff will not wait for those comments to come back and that is a new step in the process. If staff don’t meet the timeframes for processing applications the department will be financially penalised at 1% of the processing fee per day over the set time frame will be returned to the applicant.

Canterbury Conservancy has already advised National Office management that heli hunting applications will have to be an exception because they are too complex to be processed in such a short time frame.

The new process will operate as follows: • Low impact will now be called non-notified • A run of the mill application will take 45 working days to completion • One offs, which previously took 5 working days to process will still be 5 working days • Re-issues, i.e. people asking for the same concession they are already operating under will take 20 working days to process, the same as previously. • Conforming tracks or other conforming applications will take 5 working days to process, the same as previously. • If further information is required, processing can take up to 55 working days and up to 75 days for an extension of time for iwi consultation. If staff believe further consultation is required processing could take up to 90 working days or longer if it is agreed with the applicant. Most applications, i.e. 80% will take around 45 days to process. Twenty per cent will run a bit longer. • The new Notified Consent will replace the previous high impact consents. If no submissions are received they will be processed in 130 working days. If submissions are received but hearings, are not required they will take 165 working days to process. If there is a hearing required, they will take 185 working days to process, possibly longer time frame if more information is required after a hearing process has taken place but again 185 would be the norm.

The greatest change is in the non-notified and high-impact permits. Cheryl said the excuse of staff availability or other work priorities to extend time frames can no longer be used. Valid reasons for extensions could be things such as the scale of the application. large applications like the gondola and access through into Milford Sound in Southland Conservancy and anything that could be a combined Resource Consent/Concession such as dams on public conservation land, novel activities or consultations required beyond the norm.

CHCCO-615768 12

What use to be called the “First Determination Report” will become an “Officers Report” and the amount of detail included in those reports will be reduced and much simpler. Nothing will be left out in terms of analysis but a lot of duplication that has been included in previous reports will be eliminated.

In the past the department has had to process a high number of Temporary Aircraft Landing Permits (TALPS), and filming permits, particularly in places like Aoraki Mount Cook. Korean filming companies often request a One Off Permit to undertake filming work. Typically they might come one month and request a one off permit and then two months down the track they want to do the same thing and again ask for a one off permit. They have done that in the past because it has been a lot cheaper to get a one off Permit instead of applying for a full concession. This practice is not going to be allowed to continue and applications will be once only, this way they can apply for them every three years.

Compliance and Monitoring is something that boards have always been interested in. Nationally the department doesn’t undertake a lot of compliance work, mainly because of resourcing but through the review identified the need for this to occur and conservancies will need to address this.

As a result of this review it became very clear that commercial operators want the department’s plans and strategies to give them clear direction about what activities they can do on which parts of public conservation land and they want that to be contained in the department’s plans and strategies. This can be included in “outcomes at place” which the board has been discussing for its review of the CMS.

The Board has provided the department with comments on the conforming tracks schedule. The intention of the conforming schedules is to simplify the process for applicants. That information is now available on the department’s website. If, for example, a concessionaire wishes to undertake guided walks he or she can access the information on the department’s website and download the names of all the conforming tracks. Analysis and discussion of impacts has already taken place for these tracks so the applicant knows that he or she will be granted a concession. Should they wish to apply to undertake guided walks on a track which isn’t on the conforming track schedule then applicants will have to undergo the slightly long non-notified process.

Applicants can ask the Minister to reconsider an application. Up until now some applicants who have requested reconsideration have felt the department was revisiting its own decisions and the process might not have looked particularly objective or impartial. The review panel has therefore suggested that an independent body be set up to ensure transparency of any reconsideration process. Details of that are not yet finalised but it has been suggested that conservation boards could be asked to provide at least one member for this body.

Jimmy asked if the department was going to increase its processing charges. Cheryl said that for the moment they will stay as they are but they will be revisited. The review of the fees will probably take place some time in 2011.

Steve requested a report on the spider tracking systems, its effectiveness and how many breaches of the system had occurred for the Board’s September meeting.

CHCCO-615768 13

12. LAND Members of the Board’s Land Committee are: • Dr John Keoghan • David Round • Jan Finlayson • Steve Lowndes

12.1 Board submission on proposals to mine conservation land

The board congratulated Jan on the submission. Joseph reported that he had recently attended a meeting at Te Runanga o Ngäi Tahu involving Jerry Brownlee, at which the proposal to mine the conservation estate was discussed. Mr Brownlee made the point that New Zealand needs to consider mining the Conservation Estate to achieve economic prosperity. He was quite adamant the Government would do whatever it thought would get the best financial gain for the country.

Joseph said that by the end of the meeting he had not seen anything that would convince him that a stock take of minerals in the National Parks was necessary.

13. RESOURCE CONSENTS Members of the Board’s Resource Consent Committee are: • Jimmy Wallace • David Round • Dr John Keoghan • Steve Lowndes

13.1 Main Power’s proposal to establish a wind farm on the Mt Cass ridgeline – report on progress regarding conditions - Jimmy Wallace

Jimmy reported that the application is proceeding with a mediation and court date some way off. MainPower has submitted an amended resource consent. The Hurunui DC has taken legal advice about the altered resource consents and whether they should count as new applications. It is what is called a direct referral and hasn’t gone through a public process but is stacked on the original notified application, even though it is a different piece of land from what was originally applied for. Submitters who had maintained their involvement still had the opportunity to comment.

The Mount Cass Protection Society held their AGM recently and a number of people from Waipara area attended to hear the presentation from Meridian.

Andrew Simpson gave a talk on Mount Cass and the people who attended were absolutely amazed that Mount Cass contained so many natural values. As a result, local people who attended the meeting and previously didn’t know anything about Mt Cass changed their view to the extent that they have now joined the Society.

CHCCO-615768 14

13.2 Resource Consent Application RM09044 – Forestry Block located within the Mackenzie Basin – Ben Ohau Station, State Highway 8, Twizel – S & P Cameron – report on the hearing held at the Twizel Events Centre on Thursday 10 June – Jimmy Wallace

The applicants for this Resource Consent were previously involved in wilding tree clearance at Ohau. The department’s South Island Wilding Conifer Strategy contains recognised policy that says you can protect yourself from wilding pines with the right topography, and by planting, particularly around the perimeter. Glider pilots say that when they are up in the air around Omarama they fly through seed. The seeds can travel for up to 40 kilometres. If you stand on this piece of land, just before you get to Twizel, and look north, you are looking at Pukaki Downs Station which is a “take off site”. The trees on Pukakai Downs Station were deliberately planted 40 – 50 years ago with species from America but they didn’t really know what they were doing. They proved to be the wrong species and as a result the nor-west wind has travelled down and the pines have infested this piece of land.

Unless these trees are cut right off at their base and all pine needles are removed it they grow back as bushes. It is just about impossible to stop their advance.

Jimmy said that Resource Consent Applications should include an Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE). In this case that was the single piece of paper put at the back of the application which was almost an apology for an AEE.

Jimmy said that landscape was never discussed. The issue of pests dominated the discussion.

The applicants wish to plant Douglas fir which are apparently very valuable but are an invasive species which have the ability to grow in the shade. Joseph said they outgrow beech forest and you can see this around Craigieburn.

Steve thanked Jimmy for his work.

14. VISITOR MANAGEMENT AND CONCESSIONS

Members of the Board’s Concessions Committee are: • Wiki Baker • Dr John Keoghan • Mal Clarbrough • Steve Lowndes

14.1 Concession Application – The Old Mountaineers Property Ltd – Charles Hobbs Director (referred to the board by Southland Conservancy) Board Paper 2010/041

This application was referred to the Canterbury Board through Southland Conservancy. It was a very poor and limited application. The documentation was very limited and the photocopy material was poor.

CHCCO-615768 15 The main problem was the addition to the old Mountaineer Restaurant of two accommodation units on either side of the building. One on the western side imposed on the view line from the new Aoraki Mount Cook Visitor Centre and would be an intrusion on the visual aspect of the Visitor Centre. There is also virtually no car parking available at this site. The applicant suggested that people using the accommodation block would park elsewhere and be ferried backward and forth by shuttle.

Information was also very limited for the health spa and the design didn’t show any real creativity and tended to reflect the buildings of the Hermitage. It appeared to be something like World War II barracks and would be the first building you would see as you drove into the Mt Cook Village.

It is a very limited application, that was poorly presented and the board could not support it.

14.2 Board comment on Concession Applications to undertake Heli-hunting; Mt Hutt Helicopters; Alpine Hunting Adventures Ltd and Snowline Safaris Limited.

The board had already responded to the initial group of applications for heli-hunting and the response to the three applications presented here was basically a copy of the Board’s previous response that it would not support heli-hunting in National Parks, Wilderness Areas or on any other conservation land.

14.3 Status of Concession Applications before the Board

The board received the concession application schedule.

15. PLANNING

Members of the Board’s Planning Committee are: • Jimmy Wallace • Mal Clarbrough • Dr John Keoghan • Steve Lowndes

15.1 CMS topics for reporting 2009/2010

The Board discussed this in its informal meeting and wishes this year’s report to be the same as last year with the inclusion of one more item, Conservation with Communities and they will endeavour to take something out next time.

1. Fresh water 2. Visitor asset management programme 3. Endangered species 4. Tenure Review 5. Concessions

CHCCO-615768 16 6. Conservation with Communities

16. WATER

Members of the Board’s Water Committee are: ƒ Joseph Hullen ƒ Jan Finlayson ƒ Mandy Waaka-Home ƒ Steve Lowndes

16.1 Central Plains Water – decision of Commissioners to grant the Resource Consent Applications

Board members noted the decision of the Commissioners

16.2 Canterbury Water Management Strategy – update from Poma Palmer The Hurunui Committee is the first of the Zone Committees to be established. The other Zone Committees will be established later on. Cheryl said the department wants to work with the Zone Committees and sees this as a very good way to disseminate information and assist the zone committees in their decision making. The department would like the Canterbury Water Management Strategy to work and believes it has the potential to work so the department will provide any information it holds to enable any decision making to be as good as it can be.

17. MATTERS OF GENERAL BUSINESS

17.1 Conservation Board chairpersons conference 21/22 May 2010 – report from Steve Lowndes

Board members received the reports provided by Steve from the Board Chairs Conference with the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Steve discussed the flow chart enclosed with the board papers to illustrate the way the department is currently thinking. He said it was very interesting especially to meet members of the Authority.

17.2 Loder Cup nomination [in committee]

The Board endorsed the application and Jan said it is a really good mix of support.

18. CORRESPONDENCE:

18.1 Inward Correspondence 18.2 Outward Correspondence

Board members received the records of inward and outward correspondence.

CHCCO-615768 17

19. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS

19.1 Financial Report

The board finished the financial year around $1800 under spent.

CHCCO-615768 18

Recommendation: That the Board endorse the actions of its Visitor Management and Concessions Committee as set out in board papers: 2010/041 and 2010/042

That the Board endorse the actions of its Planning and Land Committees, as set out in board papers 2010/038, and 2010/047

That the Board receive information, as set out in board papers2010/039, 2010/040, 2010/043, 2010/045, 2010/046, 2010/047, 2010/048, 2010/049, 2010/050, and 2010/051.

Steve Lowndes/David Round Carried

20. PUBLIC AWARENESS Board to identify items for media release

21. KARAKIA

Jospeh Hullen closed the meeting with a karakia.

CHCCO-615768 19