2015-12-Nzca-Public-Paper

New Zealand Conservation Authority Te Pou Atawhai Taiao o Aotearoa

Meeting 30 November and 1 December 2015

Agenda and meeting papers

Photo: Canterbury knobbled weevil Photographer: Warren Chinn NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (NZCA) TE POU ATAWHAI TAIAO O AOTEAROA 30 November & 1 December 2015 One hundred and forty sixth 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 on 6 October D J 3-10 2015 4.2 – approve “in-committee” minutes for the meeting held on 6 October 2015 (expected to be taken “in-committee” D J 11-18 with public excluded) Status report – note progress in actioning resolutions 5 I J 19-26 from the meeting held on 6 October 2015 NZCA work programme 2015-2017 – summary of 6 I J 27-28 planned elements 7 Director-General’s report – Lou Sanson I E 29-46 8 Canterbury (Waitaha) CMS – Report on progress D A 47-50 9 Otago CMS – Report on progress D A 47-50 10 Southland Murihiku CMS – Report on progress D A 47-50 11 CMS monitoring paper – Marie Long I A/I 51-58 12 CMS Rapid Prototype and Paparoa NPMP – Marie Long A A/B 59-66 13 Management Planning update – Marie Long I A/B 67-76 Update on the proposed Conservation Law Reform – 14 Sarah Bagnall (expected to be taken “in-committee” with A A/B/E/I 77-82 public excluded) 15 Stewardship land reclassification: bi-monthly update I C 83-86 Stewardship land: finalising paper on net conservation 16 D C 87-94 benefits Science Board and Environment/Conservation 17 D E 95-128 Science Roadmap – Ken Hughey Think Piece: The Role of NZCA in the Post-Treaty 18 Claims Settlement Era – Finalising the Terms of D B/D 129-134 Reference 19 Freshwater fish conservation – Paula Warren I H 135-142 Report on the Tahr Management Plan 2014-15 – Neil 20 A F/I 143-180 Bolton Update on NZ marine reserves and the MPA 21 I G 181-188 programme – Sean Cooper Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management 22 D B 189-196 Plan partial review submission

DOCCM-2567914 Stretch goals – discussion paper on each stretch goal 23 A E - at each meeting – Lou Sanson Tourism research: response to question “does visiting 24 the DOC estate lead to increased interest in I I 197-202 conservation?” – Gavin Walker 25 Conservation board appointments 2016 D J 203-206 26 NZCA reviews 26.1 NZCA review of performance D J 207-214 26.2 Strategic Priorities review D J 215-220 26.3 Review policies approved by NZCA over the years D J 221-226 27 Code of Practice for NZCA D J 227-234 28 Members’ Environmental Scan I E - 29 Annual Report for 2014/2015 - confirmation D J 235-236 30 Representation and Liaison 30.1 Chair’s report I J 237-238 30.2 Conservation Board liaison reports I J - Correspondence – receive the inwards and approve the 31 D J 239-242 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 and strategic advice on public policy documents and legislation F Game Changers for Conservation: Pest control/biosecurity G Marine H Rivers and Freshwater I Effectiveness of the Department’s conservation management J NZCA’s performance

Meeting timetable

Monday 30 November Start: 10am Lunch: 12:30pm Afternoon tea: 3:15pm Dinner: 6:00pm

Tuesday 1 December Start: 8:30am Morning tea: 10:00am Close and lunch: 12:00pm

DOCCM-2567914 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.3 Meeting No. 146

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

For meeting on 30 November and 1 December 2015

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

DOCDM-352637 2

New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.4.1 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: October 2015 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) Approve the 6 October 2015 minutes as a true and accurate record.

Context The draft minutes from the NZCA meeting on 6 October 2015 were circulated to members by email on 19 October as a draft for comment. Once the minutes are approved they will be uploaded to the NZCA website www.conservationauthority.org.nz

DOCCM-2639479 3 4

New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) Te Pou Atawhai Taiao O Aotearoa 6 October 2015 meeting

145th meeting, held at 8:30am, in the Chamber Room, Gisborne District Council, 15 Fitzherbert St Gisborne

Unconfirmed minutes

Present: Warren Parker, Chairperson David Barnes Jo Breese Mick Clout Sandra Cook Waana Davis Judy Hellstrom Devon McLean Mike Simm

Apologies: Mark Christensen Rauru Kirikiri Gerry McSweeney Jan Riddell

In attendance: Rick McGovern-Wilson, Executive Officer, NZCA, Department of Conservation (DOC) Katrina Edwards, NZCA servicing staff, DOC Lou Sanson, Director-General, DOC Chris Berry, Planning Manager, DOC De-Arne Sutherland, Conservation Partnership Manager, DOC John Wauchop, Chair, East Coast/Hawke’s Bay Conservation Board Jo Blakeley, East Coast/Hawke’s Bay Conservation Board Jenny Mauger, East Coast/Hawke’s Bay Conservation Board Penny Shaw, East Coast/Hawke’s Bay Conservation Board Tui Warmenhoven, Te Runanga o Ngati Porou Board trustee

Karakia Gisborne District Council Mayor, Meng Foon, opened the meeting with a karakia and welcomed the Authority to Tairawhiti.

Agenda item 1: Welcome and Chairperson’s introduction The Chair, Warren Parker, formally thanked the Gisborne District Council and the local Department of Conservation staff, in particular De-Arne Sutherland, for the venue and meeting organisation. In his overview of the meeting, he identified the following key issues: progress reports on the three CMSs under consideration, development of advice on Stewardship Land for the Minister, and Section 4 responsibilities of both the Department and the Authority.

DOCCM-2614129 5

Agenda item 2: Apologies Apologies were received from Mark Christensen, Rauru Kirikiri, Gerry McSweeney and Jan Riddell.

Agenda item 3: Conflicts of interest Devon McLean identified that he is involved with judging the WWF Innovation awards.

Agenda item 4.1: Approve minutes for the meeting held on 3 & 4 August 2015 The Authority resolved to approve the minutes of the meeting held on 3 & 4 August 2015 as a true and accurate record, subject to an addition to Item 9 of reference to the Nature Heritage Fund assessment process as possible criteria for reclassification of Stewardship Land. Mick Clout/Judy Hellstrom/carried

Agenda item 5: Status report Rick McGovern-Wilson gave updates on the items in the status report. There was discussion on the timing of Conservation Management Strategies (CMSs) coming to the Authority for consideration and the pressure it puts on members when more than one CMS comes to the Authority at once. When there are three CMSs with the Authority at one time, members are limited in their capacity to mostly only contributing to the CMS that they are a Committee member for. Members of the East Coast/Hawke’s Bay Conservation Board, John Wauchop, Chairperson, Penny Shaw, Jo Blakeley and Jenny Mauger, arrived during the item. The Chair welcomed the members of the East Coast/Hawke’s Bay Conservation Board and formally thanked them for the fieldtrip the day before.

Agenda item 6: Authority work programme 2015-2017 The Authority discussed the work programme. The timetabling was discussed, with it being critical that the Tahr Management Plan report is delivered in time for the December meeting. It was decided that the February 2016 meeting would be in Wellington and the April 2016 meeting would be held in Nelson. Other items for the work programme were: • Final NZCA position on Stewardship Land (December 2015) • Cultural materials and section 4 discussion (February 2016) • Outside In project in respect to cultural materials (February 2016) • Role of NZCA in post-Treaty Settlement era and the potential changing shape of National Parks (Jo Breese, Waana Davis, Sandra Cook and Rau Kirikiri to draft a terms of reference sheet for the December 2015 meeting), with the Department delivering a substantive paper in April 2016 • Refresh of the NZCA strategic priorities (June 2016) • Conservation Board appointments discussion (February 2016) The NZCA resolved to go “into-committee” with the public excluded for agenda items 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14 and 15. Warren Parker/Devon McLean/carried

Agenda item 7. Director-General’s report The Director-General’s report was taken as read. Lou Sanson spoke to this item and there was additional discussion on items in the report, including: the Tane Mahuta

DOCCM-2614129 6

vandalism, landscape conifer control and the good neighbour rules, marine protection, Te Urewera secondments, and the growth in international tourism. It was requested that Section 4 responsibilities be reported on in the Director-General’s report. The Authority resolved to go “into-committee” with the public excluded. Warren Parker/Devon McLean/carried

The Authority resolved to come out of “committee” with the public excluded. Warren Parker/Judy Hellstrom/carried The meeting adjourned at 12:15pm and reconvened at 12:35pm.

Agenda item 18. Members’ Environmental Scan The recent announcement of a marine reserve around the Kermadec Islands was discussed with it decided that the Authority would write to the Prime Minister, copied to Nick Smith and Maggie Barry, acknowledging his leadership on this marine reserve. It was noted that a Marine Reserve Bill Committee, comprising Jo Breese (Convenor), Sandra Cook, Mark Christensen, and Judy Hellstrom, was already in existence and would be waiting for the opportunity to comment when a marine protection discussion paper is released. It is hoped that the draft legislation will be released for comment before Christmas. Tui Warmenhoven, Te Runanganui o Ngati Porou Board Trustee, addressed the Authority. Tui outlined the engagement Ngati Porou have and will have with the community regarding environmental issues and the Nga Whakahaere Takirua section of the East Coast/Hawke’s Bay CMS.

Agenda item 22.1 Chair’s report The Chair’s report was taken as read.

Agenda item 12. Management Planning update Christopher Berry spoke to this item. Authority members requested the tables, which previously accompanied this report, be reinstated for future reports. It was clarified that the Whanganui CMS covers Taranaki. In response to questioning about the timing of the Whangaui CMS, Chris said that there did not seem to be any hurdles for why the Whanganui CMS cannot be reviewed as a priority. Chris advised that the Department only has eight management planners and can only run seven processes at one time. Chris advised that one planner will be working for the next five years assisting with Stewardship Land work. He informed the Authority of work being undertaken that may result in a partial review of the Tongariro National Park to enable a cycleway to be created. Resourcing requirements of partial reviews was discussed, as undertaking a partial review, in the Authority’s experience, required almost the same workload as a full review. It was also raised that planned developments by sector groups should not be the driver for management planning prioritisation. Chris spoke about the Conservation Law Reform Bill; there are clauses being proposed in the Bill which will speed up the CMS process.

DOCCM-2614129 7

Agenda item 13. Criteria for prioritising management plan reviews Christopher Berry acknowledged that the Department has a poor track record for reviewing plans in a timely manner. Chris was seeking feedback on the criteria in the agenda paper for prioritising management plan reviews. Criteria that should be added were: • The ‘Is it fit for purpose’ criteria needs to be expounded • Is there going to be a conservation outcome as a result of the review? • Will a review help DOC meet its stretch goals? Points raised during discussion were: • It seems as though particular sector groups are pushing for partial reviews that are moved ‘up’ the priority, this is not a good use of management planning resources • If more flexibility is introduced into plans then they will get to ‘fit for purpose’ more quickly • If a plan is moved ‘up’ in priority then this results in a different plan being moved down It was asked what the weighting on the criteria would look like in reality and how decisions would be reached. Chris advised that decisions would be made after robust discussion by people. The Chair advised that members can provide feedback to Chris on the criteria outside of the meeting.

Agenda item 16. Stewardship land: discussion on net conservation benefits The Chairperson acknowledged the work of Mark Christensen on the agenda paper. He advised that the Authority would seek legal advice on paragraphs 15 and 23. There was discussion on: • the original intent of Stewardship Land (to allow DOC and adjoining landowners [farmers] to rationalise boundaries in a sensible manner) and this intent should not be abused • whether the legislation should be changed • putting the cost of ‘land swaps’ onto the applicant (not DOC) • setting the exchange bar high with achieving significant conservation gain rather than no net loss, ‘like for like’ must be for significant conservation gain • that the public should be able to have a say in what public conservation land gets disposed of and to whom • the criteria should provide confidence for the public in DOC especially, as the protected status of land can be revoked as seen in the Ruataniwha decision.

Agenda item 17. Reclassification of land including Stewardship Land – update The Chairperson thanked Gavin Rodley for providing the report and in the new format. The Authority requested whether it would be possible to add an estimate of the staff time costs to the ‘costs’ column (to give a true picture of the cost to the Department) and that the ‘Location’ and ‘Land area’ column be split into two separate columns so that the land area can be totalled.

Agenda item 19. Battle for our Birds The Authority was delighted with outcomes of the Battle for our Birds operation and encouraged the Department to do more.

DOCCM-2614129 8

Agenda item 21. NZCA Annual Report for 2014/2015 The Authority resolved to delegate the power to approve the Annual Report for 2014/2015 to the Chairperson, with a view to ratify the Annual Report at the December 2015 meeting. Devon McLean/Judy Hellstrom/carried

Agenda item 22.2 Conservation Board liaison reports The liaison reports were taken as read. Devon McLean raised the issue about the Auckland Board’s chair standing down in December, and the need for a sound succession plan. Jo Breese advised that Ann Brower had been elected as Chair of the NZ IUCN Committee.

Agenda item 20. Conservation Board Chairs’ meeting Devon McLean, Waana Davis and Jo Breese gave an overview of the Conservation Board Chairpersons’ meeting held on 24 September 2015. A record of which will be available in due course.

Agenda item 23. Correspondence The Authority resolved to receive the inwards and approve the outwards correspondence. Mick Clout/Jo Breese/carried

The meeting closed at 3:50pm

DOCCM-2614129 9 10

New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.4.2 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: “In-committee” October 2015 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 b) Resolve to go “into committee”, and a) Approve the 6 October 2015 “in-committee” minutes as a true and accurate record.

DOCCM-2639479 11

DOCCM-2639479 12 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.5 Meeting No. 146

NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (NZCA) Meeting on 30 November and 1 December 2015

Status Report as at 16 November 2015

RESPONSIBILITY TOPIC REQUIRED ACTION PROGRESS STATUS Actions arising from October 2015 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 Mokihinui River Authority resolved to proceed with the Letters have gone to 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 Kahurangi National Park Management Plan). 2. Chairperson Annual Report Delegate the power to approve the Annual report drafted Agenda item at Annual Report for 2014/2015 to the December meeting Chairperson, with a view to ratify the Annual Report at the December 2015 meeting. 3. Committee (Mark, Jan, Canterbury (Waitaha) Convenors to meet with conservation Committee to Agenda item at Rau, Gerry) and all Conservation board chair/conservation board provide written report December meeting NZCA members Management committee convenor, and the to NZCA at Strategy department planner, to let the December meeting. conservation board and DOC know 1

DOCCM-2614421

19 what action the NZCA is taking that affects all 3 CMSs – with a view that changes will be made by Christmas. 4. Committee (David, Otago Conservation Convenors to meet with conservation Committee to Agenda item at Devon, Jo, Waana) and Management board chair/conservation board provide written report December meeting all NZCA members Strategy committee convenor, and the to NZCA at department planner, to let the December meeting. 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. 5. Committee (Judy, Southland Murihiku Convenors to meet with conservation Committee to Agenda item at Sandra, Mick, Mike) and Conservation board chair/conservation board provide written report December meeting all NZCA members Management committee convenor, and the to NZCA at Strategy department planner, to let the December meeting. 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. Actions arising from August 2015 meeting. 6. NZCA Kahurangi National Recommend to Minister that the three Provided Mary-Anne Letter sent to Minister Park additions areas of land as per the agenda paper Baxter with letter to 01/10/2015 be added to the Kahurangi National give to MOC with the Park. DOC submission. Verbal update at Inform Conservation Board, iwi, and Yet to be informed December 2015 MBIE meeting 7. NZCA Tonga Island and Recommend to the Minister of Provided Katherine Completed Pinnacle Island Conservation that she recommend to Hughes the letter to specially protected the Governor-General that the Tonga give to MOC with the area and Pinnacle Islands be set apart as a DOC submission. specially protected area under section 12 of the National Parks Act 1980 – Letter sent to include to provide additional protection Minister 01/10/2015 for wildlife to restrict permits and other

DOCCM-2614421

20 benefit is to prevent ongoing incursions Minister made of rodents announcement 8 November 2015 Actions arising from June 2015 meeting. 8. NZCA Paparoa National Give further consideration to the At October meeting DOC and West coast Park addition of land areas D and E to the decided no further Tai Poutini Paparoa National Park. action would be Conservation Board taken at this time advised of decision - letter of 28 October 2015 Actions arising from April 2015 meeting. 9. Andy Roberts - Director Himalayan Tahr To report back to the NZCA in December 2015 Conservation Services Management December 2015 meeting 10. Mike Slater- Deputy Paparoa NP Reporting on the feasibility study for the Announcement No action required for Director-General Great Walk proposal by December made 15 November NZCA Operations 2015 2015 Actions arising from December 2014 meeting. 11. Conservation Board Associate Minister’s To be discussed at the Chairs’ meeting Discussed by Chairs’ Whitebait agenda item Chairs proposal for regional at conference - 24 at December 2015 whitebait fora September 2015 meeting

DOCCM-2614421

Other actions (not from resolutions) as at 19 August 2015

RESPONSIBILITY TOPIC REQUIRED ACTION PROGRESS STATUS

Action overdue Underway or ongoing Action completed October 2015 meeting 1. Gavin Rodley Stewardship land The NZCA requested that the DOC Agenda item at December report on the specific land 2015 meeting. reclassifications include an estimate of staff time costs (if possible) and having Standing item until advised Location and Land area in separate otherwise. columns 2. Jo Breese, Waana Role of NZCA in • Jo Breese, Waana Davis, Sandra Terms of Reference to be Davis, Sandra Cook and post-Treaty Cook and Rau Kirikiri to draft a discussed at December Rau Kirikiri; and then Settlement era and terms of reference sheet for the 2015 meeting DOC the potential December 2015 meeting changing shape of • with the Department delivering a National Parks substantive paper in April 2016 3. NZCA Kermadec Marine Write letter of acknowledgment to the Reserve Prime Minister, copied to the Minister of Conservation and Minister for the Environment 4. DOC Management Reinstate tables For December 2015 Planning Update meeting 5. Servicing staff Criteria for prioritising Provide Chris Berry with comments on Chris Berry provided with management plan the criteria from the minutes draft minutes by email of NZCA members reviews 21 October 2015 Members to provide comments individually 6. Rick McGovern-Wilson D-G’s report Ensure future reports have a more Refer to D-G’s report for clearly defined reference to s4 and H&S December 2015 meeting and how the Department is meeting/progressing its obligations

DOCCM-2614421

22 7. Rick McGovern-Wilson, Tourism and the Develop a think piece to lead a Task Assignment Warren Parker, Mike DOC estate discussion with DOC/TNZ/MBIE at the developed 15/10/15 Simm February meeting 8. Servicing Staff NPS on Pest Upload the document from MPI to Added 09/11/2015 Management Dropbox 9. Servicing Staff Press release Liaise with Penny Shaw (EC/HB CB) Rick spoke with Gisborne and local media with a story on the Herald on 8 October NZCA’s visit to Gisborne 10. Servicing Staff Conservation Law Provide an overview from Sarah Agenda item at December Reform Bagnall of the work being undertaken 2015 meeting on CLR August 2015 meeting 11. Servicing Staff Customary use Requested that • Link emailed to Any action to be • the Authority’s 1999 publication members 07/08/2015 discussed as Maori Customary Use of Native • Previously circulated part of Birds, Plants and Other Traditional December 2015 Materials and planning and • 2007 Giving effect to section 4 of review session the Conservation Act 1987 be circulated to members 12. DOC management Management Requested BOP CMS & Whanganui Marie Long to report on planning team planning CMS be scheduled for review prior to Paparoa National Park their 10 year timeframe lapsing. Management Plan at December 2015 meeting Strong preference for Paparoa National Park Management Plan be reviewed as a matter of priority, while also taking into account the impact this would have on the workload of the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board.

Report on: • the criteria for prioritising management planning reviews, • how it is working towards revoking 5

DOCCM-2614421

23 conservation management plans covered by new conservation management strategies, • the national park management plan template and the guidelines for exceptional circumstance with regard to concessions, and • mechanisms for quick reviews (whether there are ways a review can have a ‘light touch’ and still keep current). 13. Ken Hughey Science Committee Proposal to be brought back at Oct Emailed Ken 19/08/2015 meeting (after going through DOC’s requesting agenda paper SLT process). for Oct. To include draft TOR, info on how the SLT discussed 20 October science advisory role would take into and agreed to pursue – December 2015 account the distinctive roles of the Science Board proposal meeting Authority, DOC, & Minister and Science Road Map to relationships. Any Science committee be added to December would need some non-technical agenda representatives appointed to it in order to provide breadth and diversity of perspective. 14. Christeen Mackenzie Risk management The NZCA requested an update on risk Scheduled for 4 April 2016 framework management in 6 – 10 months time.

Circulate the DOC risk management

policy to members. 15. Mark Christensen, Net conservation Mark Christensen to work on draft, Letter to MOC informing of Warren Parker, Staff benefit circulate to members for comment, progress to be drafted Final draft for provide to DOC. Look for the DOC SOP December 2015 on exchanges and check the Crown Advise to MOC/PCE to be meeting Minerals Act mechanisms for drafted

compensation. Aim: have NZCA advice

DOCCM-2614421

24 ready for approval at Oct meeting. Let Minister know what the NZCA is doing. 16. Rick Pike River Write to Tricia Bennie asking for Rick spoke to Brian response on Pike River Anderton 18/08 17. DOC Windfall timber Requested DOC report back at an Emailed Tim Shaw appropriate time on the ‘learnings’ of 03/09/2015 the process and whether the exercise

was worthwhile in the short and long terms. 18. Allan Ross Island biosecurity The NZCA requested an annual update Emailed Allan Ross on island biosecurity from the 31/08/2015 to say this is on Department. NZCA agenda for August August 2016 2016.

Circulate the Strategy and presentation Possible media opportunity to the members. for NZCA 19. NZCA Wilding conifers NZCA keen to provide assistance to Emailed Allan Ross DOC in order to obtain a successful 31/08/2015 as a reminder

funding bid. NZCA is keen to assist 20. Staff NZCA policies Circulate all NZCA policies to members. Policies, video and presentation added to Dropbox. Also circulate the Our Nature video If you don’t have access to Dropbox please contact Rick. 21. Staff Conservation boards Some form of ‘loop-a-round’ was Can be part of December required back to the conservation review session. boards as a result of the liaison reports, so that they are informed that action is being taken on the issues that are

raised.

It was requested that the NZCA staff NZCA met with East provide information to the East Coast/Hawke’s Bay

DOCCM-2614421

25 Coast/Hawke’s Bay Conservation Conservation Board Board regarding support for the members in October 2015 conservation management strategy and CMS was discussed. review process. 22. Disposals Criteria for disposals – SOP, briefing? DOC Disposals SOP sent 2- 3 cases of what they have done? to Mark Christensen for Stewardship land/net conservation benefit paper June 2015 meeting. 23. 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. regarding funding PAPP research. PAPP is considered to have high PAPP letter drafted

promise for pest control, but it needs to get to a field ready stage. The NZCA acknowledges that there will be trade-offs in reprioritizing additional tools in the ‘battle’. 24. Executive Officer IO2 – Historic Rick to catch up with Gavin Walker

25. National Advisor CMSs/CMPs Lock in timetabling, advise staff/cb National Advisor position Management Planning chairs vacant 26. Executive Officer Pike River Phone those consulted Announcement made 15 November 2015 27. Executive Officer February meeting Invite Chair of Tourism for strategic Invited. discussion

DOCCM-2614421

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

Agenda paper type 30 November - 1 December 2015 1-2 February 2016 4-5 April 2016 7-8 June 2016 1-2 August 2016 3-4 October 2016 5-6 December 2016 Wellington Wellington Nelson Wellington Wellington Taranaki Strategic Report on the Tahr Management Plan Te Hauturu o Toi CMP - NZCA Role of NZCA in post-Treaty Wellington CMS eta mid-2016 Aoraki/Mount Cook for 2013-14 and 2014-15 cosulted at the pre-approval stage, Settlement era and the NPMP early 2016 potential changing shape of National Parks - Substantive paper from DOC Tourism research: response to question Cultural materials and section 4 Hawke's Bay CMS eta mid- Westland Tai Poutini - does visiting the DOC estate lead to discussion (and report on Outside In 2016 NPMP increased interest in conservation? Project from DOC in respect to culteral materials) CMS monitoring paper Conservation Board appointment East Coast CMS eta mid-2016, recommendations includes Ngati Porou (Nga Whakahaere Takiura) Final position on Stewardship land/net Tourism Think-piece: background Whanganui CMS eta mid-2016 conservation benefit paper from CPU and PHV Role of NZCA in post-Treaty Settlement Te Urewera Plan - NZCA era and the potential changing shape of consulted at the pre-approval National Parks - TOR state, mid 2016

Science Board and Science Road Map NZCA planning and review session Review/Approve Approve the Otago CMS Fiordland National Park additions Refresh the NZCA's Policies and Strategies Approve the Southland CMS Approve the Canterbury CMS

Approve the NZCA's Annual Report

Information D-G report and environmental scan D-G report and environmental scan DD-G S & I environmental scan DD-G S & I environmental scan Update on NZ marine reserves and Update on DOCs work with the MPA programme Historic Heritage Stretch goals - discussion paper on Stretch goals - discussion paper on Stretch goals - discussion Stretch goals - discussion Stretch goals - discussion Stretch goals - discussion Stretch goals - each stretch goal at each meeting each stretch goal at each meeting paper on each stretch goal paper on each stretch goal paper on each stretch goal paper on each stretch goal at discussion paper at each meeting at each meeting at each meeting each meeting on each stretch goal at each meeting Stakeholder Meet with Chair of the Game Animal Meet with Kevin Bowler, CE of Meet with Meet with CE of Forest and Engagement Council Tourism NZ Nelson/Marlborough Bird Conservation Board

Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer DOCDM-1570088 27 17/11/2015 28 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.7 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

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 October – November 2015 period. Topics discussed include: • War on Weeds • Healthy Nature Healthy People • Kauri dieback • Section 4 responsibilities • Health and Safety • Commercial partnerships • Threatened species • Community events • Beech mast 2015-16

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 29

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 30 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.7 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Lou Sanson (Director-General)

Subject: Director-General’s Report

War On Weeds The joint Depart of Conservation and Gisborne District Council display at the Gisborne A & P show (17-18 Oct) featured the War on Weeds and won Best Site 2015. In response to this success DOC has developed 12 responsible gardening messages to accompany the Dirty Dozen weeds, and used these in conjunction with 12 native plants (suitable for the northern North Island) to plant instead, to create a set of 12 A1 size posters. Conservation week features at least 3 War on Weeds events: 1. Poster display at Auckland Botanic Gardens 2. Weeding bee for climbing asparagus at Whitianga Rock 3. Tairawhiti Environment Hui (Gisborne) features War on Weeds DOC has improved the web links from its War on Weeds web pages to the Weedbusters web pages that provide key information on the Dirty Dozen (threats and how to control) and the 9 regional Plant Me Instead publications. Kiwicare (a wholesaler of herbicide products supplied to garden centres, hardware stores and supermarkets) has expressed an interest in being affiliated with DOC on the War on Weeds. They have highlighted the Dirty Dozen on their web site and provided links from there to DOC’s War on Weeds web pages. DOC and Kiwicare are exploring the idea of utilising Kiwicare capability and resources to create a War on Weeds campaign with greater impact through gardening and hardware outlets. DOC is reviewing its Weed Management Systems and Weed Training (both developed about 10 years ago) in light of structure changes, and has identified that there is work to do to make these applicable to the new structure and roles, as well as ensuring that DOC’s work is not only prioritised, planned and undertaken but also monitored and reviewed.

Healthy Nature The analysis undertaken in recent months to understand how the Department’s Healthy People current work aligns with the principles of HNHP indicates strong synergies with the approach. The alignment opportunities with further existing work will continue to be explored. The Department has been socialising the HNHP approach externally with numerous agencies and NGO’s, including Ministry of Health, Sport NZ, Office of Senior Citizens, New Zealand Recreation Association, Health Promotion Agency and the Mental Health Foundation. Opportunities to work together for shared gain are being worked through and the first of these to be formalised is with the Mental Health Foundation. Announced during Conservation Week, this MOU will see projects finalised in 2016 that engage people in the natural environment to improve their mental health and wellbeing. Projects will focus

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 31 on using the well known Five Ways to Wellbeing (connect, give, take notice, keep learning and be active). Malcolm Law (fundraiser and trail runner) recently ran 50 mountain marathons in NZ in 50 days (most of these on public conservation land) to raise funds for MHF. Malcolm has pledged some of those funds raised to kick start the partnership. The Ministry of Health’s Health Strategy is currently under review. The strategy All New Zealanders live well, stay well, get well, is now out for consultation. Given the contribution that national parks and protected natural areas make to improving health and wellbeing, and the Departments lead in HNHP, the Director General of Health has invited a submission from DOC. The Department has met with the Office of Senior Citizens to understand the breadth of the ‘Age-friendly cities’ initiative in NZ and potential linkages with HNHP. The Department has supported the submission and session proposal prepared 1 by Parks Victoria for HPHP Global for presentation at the IUCN World Conservation Congress in Hawaii in 2016. The Department will continue to support HPHP Global to grow the approach in Oceania. A workshop to develop the next steps in HNHP will be held 19th November. This workshop includes representation from both internal staff and external agencies. Meetings have recently been held with Sport New Zealand to understand its role in the recently-launched obesity package, and with the New Zealand Recreation Association to discuss alignment between HNHP and its recently-announced Recreation Manifesto. Both parties have been invited to attend the HNHP workshop on 19 November. Conservation Week was held on the 1-8 November 2015. This year’s theme was Healthy Nature Healthy People and the focus was on encouraging families with young children to connect with nature by introducing the link between a healthy natural environment and health and wellbeing. • The campaign was well supported by partners with over 130 events run around the country. These ranged from a guided snorkel day in the Whangarei Harbour Marine Reserve to kids Tri-training at Mountfort Park in Manurewa. Other events included the annual Pest Fest in Wellington; the Amazing Eco Race in Marlborough; Gecko hunting in Opunake; a community Rodent Hunt in Rotorua and a family picnic at Mt Thomas north west of Christchurch • This year DOC introduced a National Geocaching Challenge which involved staff placing caches containing prizes for families to discover while out exploring their local environment. Prizes were provided by Macpac and Air New Zealand who also promoted the competition through their channels. • The Genesis Energy sponsored ‘Find a Whio Competition’ was run for the second time and also proved popular. • 302 groups (around 10,000 primary aged children) participated in the Habitat Hero’s schools competition which encouraged students to go out, explore the health of their local environment and think about how they could make a difference. Three teaching and learning resources with curriculum links were created to guide teachers on simple scientific tests to assess the health of a local natural environment.

1 Healthy Parks Healthy People Global (HPHP Global) was created in October 2010 as a not for profit social enterprise that champions the benefits of contact with nature. It aims to be the foremost ‘enabler’ in the world of health programs in parks that enrich the health of individuals and communities – physically, mentally, socially and economically – while protecting biodiversity.

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 32 • An evaluation report is currently being prepared which will provide a more detailed summary of the campaign along with recommendations for future campaigns. Kauri Dieback Recreation Project Kauri dieback This is the main body of work the Department is undertaking to reduce the spread of kauri dieback by visitors to tracks on conservation lands. The business plan for the three year Project has recently been approved. The business case approval marks the start of delivery for the first year of track mitigations. It sets out the key Project milestones, timelines, resourcing, risks and benefits to measure against. 765km of DOC track has been surveyed for risk to kauri, by our qualified inspectors over the last 9 months. This baseline information on track condition, location of kauri stands, kauri root vulnerability has been mapped by track. This information enables us to estimate the work needed to mitigate tracks against spread of kauri dieback. Hygiene protocols and specifications, as well as standard engineering designs for track mitigation, have been developed by the Project team, to ensure track upgrades are implementing best practice to protect kauri. A contract has been awarded to Framegroup to undertake the significant bespoke track design and engineering works for the Project, as well as supervising the large amount of contractors we will have undertaking track work over the three years covering approx 250 DOC tracks. On the ground work for this year’s priority sites is proposed for the latter summer months to avoid muddy conditions. Work is well underway to re-design kauri dieback hygiene / cleaning stations. Prototypes for a suite of track situations and settings will be developed for evaluation by late December. Prototypes will then be tested on tracks to assess their effectiveness and uptake over summer. The current project manager is due to go on maternity leave in January. We have recently seconded 4 very capable staff members onto the Project (in the areas of communications, engagement, behaviour change and capital project management) to ensure we are well set up to deliver in the new year. Kauri dieback work generally Waipoua Forest continues to be a key focus for all. A joint DOC, Northland Regional Council and Te Roroa ‘Tactical Plan for Waipoua’ is in initial development, to address the multiple vectors for spreading the disease in this iconic forest. A DOC / Te Roroa ‘Tane Mahuta ambassador’ is proposed to be present at Tane Mahuta over the busy summer and shoulder seasons, to ensure visitors are adhering to kauri dieback protection measures. The ambassador will also provide cultural and ecological interpretation to enhance the unique visitor experience. DOC and the Kauri Dieback programme are also consolidating signage at Tane Mahuta to better educate about kauri dieback. The Department continues it’s ‘business as usual’ kauri dieback work, which includes sampling, input into the science and research priorities, pest and pig control, maintenance of tracks and kauri dieback infrastructure. Chris Jenkins, previous Operations Director for the Northern North Island is undertaking a body of work to ensure that the kauri dieback work of the Department and the MPI Programme, outside of the Kauri Dieback Recreation Project, is well planned and able to be reported on. A contingency response plan for iconic trees in development. This will include baseline tree health monitoring, as well as communications and contingency

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 33 options should trees show signs of infection. A review of the science of the joint agency Kauri Dieback Programme is underway, looking to assess the science and research work to date and ensure that the most critical science questions, in the right order, are addressed from here on. The MPI-led Kauri Dieback Programme has initiated a significant sampling and surveillance regime to build knowledge of where the disease is, in a more systematic way.

Section 4 The department has begun rolling out Te Pūkenga Atawhai training for staff, responsibilities Conservation Board members and some externals to build more capability around understanding what it is to work with whanau, hapu and iwi. Kahui Kaupapa Atawhai is working with Alan Maloney from Taribon to develop a Section 4 Audit process that will enable us to measure this work for the first time. Another initiative, developed by the Legal Team and KKA is a survey to assess how much support is needed to support Directors, their managers and staff to understand what this work will look like. The advancement of the DG’s DOC Story and our stretch goals has given rise to more people, internally and externally, wanting to understand what it is to give effect to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Supported by the work of Bronwyn Barnard and Crown Law, we have been able to provide staff with some clear guidelines that will be followed by engagement with whanau, hapu and iwi.

Health & Safety Organisations that have sound systems and practices under current legislation have little to be concerned about under the new HSW Act. DOC is in this category; however the new Act does give the opportunity for organisations like us to re-focus in terms of their systems, processes and practices. DOC does not need to make major changes but we have work to do (indeed already started) in the following areas: Due Diligence This is probably the most fundamentally driven change because of the risk of additional liability which, until now, has been difficult for WorkSafe to shed home. Most, if not all, of the DOC senior leadership team will be “officers” so have personal accountability under the Act. These include, amongst other things, to: • know about work health and safety matters and keep up-to-date • gain an understanding of the operations of the organisation and the hazards and risks generally associated with those operations • ensure that DOC has appropriate resources and processes to eliminate or minimise those risks • ensure that DOC has appropriate processes for receiving information about incidents, hazards and risks, and for responding to that information Education material has been sent to the team to ensure they are aware of their responsibilities and arranged an initial meeting between the DD-G Strategy and Innovation, Mervyn English (he has accountability for the health and safety system) and an external specialist to give an overview of the Act. I expect as a result of this SLT will receive a formal presentation from this expert. Also reporting has been updated so the SLT receive more focussed reports to enable to question aspects of it. Risk The legislation puts more of a focus on risk, rather than hazard. To address this, the Department has put together a Fatal Risk Action plan which amongst

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 34 other things identifies our fatal/critical risk areas and a plan to reduce exposure to these risks. It has recently been approved by the DD-G Strategy and Innovation, so the next step is to plan implementation. Risk reports based on the top eight fatal risk areas have been developed and are emailed to the senior leadership team each month for their review and feedback. PCBU DOC is a Person who Undertakes a Business or Undertaking. Primarily this means two things for DOC: 1. Employees of contractors are essentially seen as DOC workers also. Our duties are to “collaborate, cooperate and consult” with other PCBUs (i.e. contractors) to ensure the safety of workers and the public. In real terms this doesn’t change much for DOC as we have systems in place for this under current legislation; however we have almost completed the review of our contractor management manual to ensure there is clear understanding of the duties between PCBUs. 2. Volunteers will be considered workers. A Volunteers for Conservation SOP has been completed and work just commenced on a Community Groups SOP. The latter has a degree of complexity due to the nature of the relationships between DOC and the community groups, but at the end of the day this SOP will spell out how the relationships are to work, including responsibilities for health and safety. Worker Participation DOC has a very sound worker participation agreement between us and the two unions. I do not foresee significant change to this system however we held a National Health and Safety Forum meeting in mid-November where we discussed opportunities for greater worker participation in health and safety programmes and initiatives, which can only be positive. Particular Issues In regards to the Hopuruahine swingbridge failure, the investigation is complete and no organisational systemic causes were identified. All of the engineering inspections and tests were done to standard. As you may be aware the failure was a manufacturing fault in one of the chain links which is wrapped and basically underground. While it is believed that the other 111 similar swingbridges in DOC did not use the chain from the same batch, our engineers are still considering next steps in relation to other swing bridges in NZ. Quad bikes are being phased out by 31 Dec 2015, replaced by safer Light Utility Vehicles. I think this is a good example of the Department identifying fatal risk and asking the first fundamental question (“do we need to use these?”). When considering the number of quad incidents in DOC over recent years, many of them potentially fatal and only a matter of time before someone died, in my opinion, and the fact they are the highest killer in the farming industry, the answer was “no”.

Threatened Nicola Toki began her role as Threatened Species Ambassador at the end of Species August 2015. Since that time she has been involved in promoting the work of Ambassador DOC and threatened species through a wide range of public events, speeches, conferences and media opportunities. This includes speaking on behalf of the Minister as and when appropriate, or attending functions alongside the Minister. She has also spent a lot of time meeting with relevant DOC staff working on threatened species and other relevant streams of work to help develop her focus over the coming year. Nicola has already been working hard to build a profile for the role of threatened species ambassador and DOC’s work on threatened species through the media, which includes profiles on the DOC website; a weekly interview on National Radio; a monthly blog update on DOC’s conservation blog, a series of television interviews; and a social media

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 35 profile, including Facebook and Twitter. You can view her updated profile on DOC’s public website here. http://www.doc.govt.nz/our-work/threatened- species-ambassador/ What she’s been up to includes: • Opened the new Meet the Locals (NZ focused) section of Wellington Zoo with Wellington Mayor Celia Wade-Brown • Featured in the upcoming AirNZ advertisement focusing on its partnership with DOC. • Attended the release of 50 rowi kiwi chicks into the wild at Franz Josef • Attended the launch of the Endangered Species Foundation in Wellington • Gave the closing remarks of the plenary sessions of the New Zealand Ecological Society conference in Christchurch • Participated in a panel discussion chaired by RadioNZ’s Alison Ballance on significance of non-govt initiatives in conservation along with D-G Lou Sanson, Devon McLean, and Kevin Hackwell for the Ecological Society conference.

Potential beech The DOC/Landcare Research modelling (of seasonal temperature difference) mast summer shows that 2016 may have an exceptionally intensive seeding of beech trees 2015-16 (see attached map). The seed feeds rats and stoats, and unless controlled, there is clear evidence this pest plague results in local extinctions of some species. Observations of flowering and pollen clouds reinforce the likely scale of the mast event. It is estimated that 3 million of the 3.8 million ha of beech will be subject to a mast seeding event. In February the seedfall will be monitored and in April/May the response of rats in areas of most vulnerable species will be assessed as a final judge of the highest priority areas for control operations. The species at risk include mohua, whio, rock wren, robin, kakariki, rifleman, bellbird, kaka, kiwi, bats and land snails. Other species also benefit and other pests such as possums are reduced in the operations. It is considered that the Department’s maximum capacity to safely deliver a response is 800,000 ha, subject to funding being available. Lessons from the successful 2014 mast response are being adopted, for example in national project management, GIS mapping, procurement, and in refining the specifications for the helicopter pilots. Work is underway to determine sources of funding, opportunities for collaboration with TBFree’s program and coordinated project planning.

Rocket Lab Rocket Lab Site at Mahia Peninsula – effects on shore plover Rocket Lab is a New Zealand company that has developed engineering initiatives to cost-effectively launch rockets into commercial space. Rocket Lab has identified a viable site from which to launch rockets at the southern end of Mahia Peninsula. The owners of this site also own Waikawa Island, located 1km off the southern end of Mahia Peninsula and 2km from the proposed launch site. This island is home to one of two shore plover populations in New Zealand (total national population is 200, of which 45 are on Waikawa Island, with the remainder on the Chatham Islands). The conservation status of shore plover is ‘Nationally Critical’. There is also a population of New Zealand dotterel which are ‘Nationally Vulnerable’. Rocket Lab has applied for resource consents under the RMA from Wairoa District Council and Hawke’s Bay Regional Council. Consent to ‘develop and operate a rocket launch site and command and control centre’ has been issued

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 36 by Wairoa District Council. DOC was not deemed an affected party during this process. Rocket Lab is in discussions with the landowners to secure access to the launch site. The land is owned by a number of shareholders and they are generally favourable towards Rocket Lab’s proposal, but have some concerns for shore plover. DOC staff will continue to work with Rocket Lab and the landowners, advocating for shore plover (and other native species on Waikawa Island); in support of continued access to the island to undertake routine species management work; and to monitor the effects of the launch activity on shore plover with the aim of addressing any negative effects. Issues: The impacts of this activity on shore plover are not likely to be known for several years. If launches are found to be causing negative effects, DOC will need to consider establishing a new population of shore plover elsewhere. There are serious limitations to finding another suitable site due to high risk of predation. The Shore Plover Recovery Group has strongly recommended that DOC monitor the species to establish an understanding of their behaviour during and after rocket launches, especially in regards to vulnerable chicks and juvenile shore plover not yet well-established on the island. Each rocket launch requires a 5km Exclusion Zone for several hours during the launch activity. This will have implications for access to the island for species monitoring. There is no known precedent of this type of activity, especially in relation to shore plover.

NZ Sea lions Threat Management Plan (TMP) for NZ Sea lion – progress report NZ sea lions are endemic. There is a population of around 10,000 animals, but pup production at the subantarctic Auckland Islands, which is the main breeding area with 75% of the population, has declined by over 50% over the last 15 years. Multiple causes of the decline have been identified throughout the course of the TMP, and their relative level of effects is currently being quantified. Growing concerns for the species led to a commitment in 2014 by the then Minister of Conservation and Minister for Primary Industries to establish a TMP for the NZ sea lion by early 2016. DOC and MPI are scheduled to provide joint briefings to the Minister of Conservation and the Minister for Primary Industries: • Early October – this will provide an update on progress to develop the TMP. • Late November – to update them on possible management options and to seek your approval to undertake a public consultation over the sea lion TMP.

Flood Response The Whanganui office has made significant progress towards recovery from – Whanganui the Whanganui flood on 21 June 2015. The ‘Bridge to Nowhere’ track is the District first to be officially re-opened. We are confident that the Whanganui Journey Great Walk and Mountains to the sea (M2C) cycle trail will be open for the summer season and work is progressing well. We have recruited a new team of four to help with the bulk of this work – these workers are being subsidised through a WINZ scheme called Flexi-wage. Governance groups and tourism operators are very appreciative of our efforts

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 37 to have the tourism infrastructure operational as it has been a very stressful time for many of our smaller operators.

Threatened Dame Malvina Major – Patron on Kokako Recovery Group Species work Dame Malvina has indicated an interest in taking a more active role as patron of the Kokako Recovery Group. She has been a nominal patron in the past but has not been active recently. She intends to advocate for the protection and enhancement of kokako populations, with particular regard to their singing qualities. Details have yet to be determined but the Department will meet her to discuss some options and develop a plan. Dame Malvina will be attending and speaking at a community meeting on 31 October at Ngatira Marae, South Waikato. This meeting has a focus of the relatively unknown kokako population in the Mokaihaha Ecological Area, on the Mamaku Plateau, east of Tokoroa. Launch of Endangered Species Foundation of New Zealand The Minister launched the Endangered Species Foundation of New Zealand (ESFNZ) on Wednesday 28 October 2015, at Zealandia Sanctuary, Karori. The launch will be the official start of its fund-raising campaign. It is likely that the ESFNZ will announce that they have raised one million dollars to start this campaign. They have a $30 million target. A list of Ten Most Endangered Species was selected to profile at the launch. Kaki (black stilt) breeding season update 2015-16 The kaki recovery programme is forecasting a poor outcome from this breeding season. The current population estimate is 77 wild adults, from a low of 23 in the early 1980s. The wild population increase is constrained by high adult mortality (20-25%) and low recruitment rates (24-29%). The DOC recovery programme aims to release a minimum of at least 100 young birds into the wild population each year to prevent population decline. The 2015 breeding season has been poor with only 24 eggs collected, 16 from wild pairs and eight from captive breeding pairs. The first chicks are due to hatch in early November 2015. Factors: • Particularly heavy snowfall event in June 2015 had both record low temperatures (-20°C), with sub-zero daily maximums for several weeks. These conditions are a likely cause of the poor breeding season. • The snow also collapsed one of the aviaries at the captive breeding facility, and had significant damage to another. A third aviary was unaffected by the weather. Takahe release Further positive coverage of the Takahe Recovery Programme’s biggest ever bird release on 27 October is expected to occur during the weekend of 31 October/1 November. The release of 15 young birds into the wild received good coverage by Fairfax papers – The Press, DomPost and Southland Times (on 29 October). TVNZ also filmed the release on 27 October into the Murchison Mountains and has indicated the story about the release will run on One News this weekend (31 October/1 November). DOC is also working with The Herald on Sunday on further possible coverage

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 38 of the story.

Commercial DOC and Air New Zealand’s partnership extension Partnerships Air New Zealand Chief Executive, Christopher Luxon, announced on 16 September 2015 (at an event to launch Air New Zealand’s Sustainability Framework) that DOC and Air New Zealand have agreed to extend their partnership to 2020. Air New Zealand and DOC first joined forces in 2012 in a partnership to promote the Great Walks and invest in biodiversity projects along the tracks. In 2013, this agreement was extended to include investment in marine protection. They have now agreed to extend the partnership for a third time through to 2020. Air New Zealand and DOC are working closely in partnership with iwi, in particular with Tuhoe alongside the Lake Waikaremoana Great Walk and Ngai Tahu alongside the Rakiura, Routeburn and Milford Great Walks. Air New Zealand and DOC invest in biodiversity projects with both of these iwi. As well as the investment in biodiversity and marine protection, the partnership has also contributed to recreation outcomes for New Zealanders and international visitors through extensive destination marketing and promotion: • Since the partnership began, we have increased the number of people staying in overnight huts and campsites on the Great Walks by 31%. • Following on from Air New Zealand’s investment in marine protection and monitoring, the partnership has also developed a new tourism product called Coastal Gems to market 10 marine reserves as holiday destinations for New Zealanders. Currently, the Commercial Partnerships Unit and Air New Zealand are working together to write the new agreement to reflect this 2020 commitment. There may be opportunities for the Minister to be involved in the formalities around signing this agreement once it is complete. DOC and Air New Zealand win Tourism Award Air New Zealand and the Department of Conservation won the Industry Alignment Award at the 2015 Tourism Industry Awards in Auckland on 2 October. As part of a partnership with DOC, launched in April 2012, Air New Zealand has used its high profile communication and marketing channels to promote the nine Great Walks to its domestic and international customers. This has produced a 31% increase in the number of people staying overnight in huts and campsites on the Great Walks since the partnership began three years ago. An extra 24,736 people are now enjoying the Great Walks as a result of Air New Zealand promoting these iconic tracks in national parks managed by DOC. In addition Air New Zealand has funded programmes to control predators - such as stoats, rats and possums - in areas alongside four of the Great Walks. Judges comments included: • DOC/Air NZ alignment has resulted in a good increase in visitor numbers, with benefits for both partners and the environment. • A great joint venture that has enhanced both the Department of Conservation and Air New Zealand brands and increased visitor numbers on the Great Walks. • The campaign is an excellent example of government and the private

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 39 sector working effectively together to the benefit of both. • The increased focus over the past 15 months on restoring habitats on and around The Great Walks has resulted in enhanced outcomes for conservation and the visitor experience. NZ Sustainable Business Council / DOC Agreement The NZ Sustainable Business Council (SBC) and DOC signed a three-year agreement on 5 October 2015 to get more businesses to understand, manage and improve their impact on nature. DOC’s contribution is $15,000 per annum plus science and technical advice. The three-year action plan includes: • working with 50 key businesses and their sector associations to apply ecosystem and biodiversity improvement processes; • maintaining a dialogue with the Government’s natural resources sector; • further promotion of the Ecosystem Services Review toolbox; • applying the Natural Capital Declaration to the NZ banking sector; • promotion of ecosystems services/biodiversity best practice; • exploring market incentives for mitigation and rewarding good ecosystem stewardship; • engaging SBC members with government biodiversity policy initiatives. DOC/Transpower New Zealand Ltd partnership – Fiordland National Park The DOC/Transpower NZ Ltd partnership was signed on 17 September 2015. It is for five years, and worth $100,000 (total). The project site is the Borland/Grebe area of Fiordland National Park – a high value conservation site which currently has limited ecological management due to lack of resources. Transpower transmission lines bisect a portion of the Borland/Grebe area. The partnership will enable conservation delivery in the following areas: • five years of weed control in the Grebe Valley (to protect the area’s internationally significant wetlands) and Borland Road (reduce weed incursions from vehicles); • Year One biodiversity survey of Borland/Grebe area – possible remnant populations of mohua & bats; • Dependant on the outcome of the Year One survey, pest management/ecosystem protection will then be implemented from Year Two to preserve and restore native species. DOC will work with Transpower to develop an education/advocacy resource for visitors to the area, in particular school parties to Borland Lodge. Transpower staff will have the opportunity for hands-on involvement in all aspects of the work. Ngāi Tahu has been involved since the beginning.

Community Kids Greening Taupo Launch events On 24 September, more than 150 people attended the official launch of “Kids Greening Taupo” (KGT) - the new conservation education programme based on the southern “Kids Restore the Kepler” project. Nicola Toki, who represented you at the launch, said it was inspirational to see young kiwis stepping up to the conservation plate and taking the lead on how to protect nature in our own backyards. Kids Restore New Zealand board member and special guest, Ruud Kleinpaste, said he was privileged to plant a tree at the event to honour the late Caroline

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 40 Carter, the Te Anau ranger who passed away earlier this year, and whose passion for conservation education got Kids Restore the Kepler started. Joining the Kids Greening Taupo team for the launch were their collaborative conservation education ‘cousins’ from Kids Restore the Kepler, Project Janszoon, NEXT Foundation, Cape to City, Waikato University School of Education and DOC's Outreach and Education team. They took part in a community conservation education workshop in the afternoon. Conservation Volunteers (CVNZ) and DOC partnership to develop the ‘Wild Futures’ and ‘Nature Wise’ programmes in New Zealand Conservation Volunteers NZ and DOC have jointly applied to the Department of Internal Affairs Community Internship Programme. The internship would be for a DOC staff member to be located at CVNZ for six months in 2016. The purpose of the application is to specifically develop the ‘Wild Futures’ and ‘Nature Wise’ programmes for the New Zealand context. These programmes have both been delivered successfully across Australia over a number of years. ‘Wild Futures’ is a programme that provides support for threatened species protection by identifying areas where the 'community' can make a positive contribution. It also facilitates targeted funding of the programme by individuals and businesses. 'Nature Wise' is an award winning ecotourism programme that provides participants with the opportunity to both undertake valuable on the ground conservation work and enjoy unique interpretive experiences. Funding decisions are due in mid November.

Conservation Chief Science Advisors from the Department and Ministry for the Environment and have been working together with the Prime Minister’s Chief Science Advisor, Environment Sir Peter Gluckman, to develop a Conservation and Environment Science Science Roadmap. The purpose of the Roadmap is to set out strategic priorities for science investment in conservation and the environment across the New Roadmap Zealand science sector. At a Ministerial level, the Roadmap is jointly owned by the Minister of Conservation and Minister for the Environment, Minister Smith.

Kiwi initiatives Kiwi Citizen Science Initiative ─ Quest for Kiwi The Kiwi Recovery Group worked with DOC staff recently to update the national kiwi distribution maps. Several gap areas exist, where kiwi presence is unknown or our information is out of date. To address this, a citizen science project called the “Quest for Kiwi” was initiated. Quest for Kiwi uses NatureWatch NZ to encourage the NZ public and DOC staff to add kiwi observations which will improve our knowledge about kiwi distribution. NatureWatch NZ is the New Zealand branch of an international online citizen science database called iNaturalist which allows people to record their fauna and flora observations. Citizen science in this context includes the collection of kiwi data by members of the general public. Observations and evidence (photos and call recordings) can be uploaded on the website or through a cell phone app. See official website: http://naturewatch.org.nz/projects/quest-for-kiwi. The Quest for Kiwi project was used as the launch point for Save Kiwi Month (TV3, NZ Herald, and DOC intranet). After six months, the Kiwi Recovery Group will assess the success of the

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 41 project and determine if, and how, there is further potential to harness this type of citizen science to fill other national kiwi conservation needs. Operation Nest Egg – Major rowi kiwi release into Okarito Forest – 15 October 2015 As part of Operation Nest Egg a major rowi kiwi release will take place on the morning of 15 October. This is the largest rowi kiwi transfer to date and a critical milestone in their recovery. Rowi numbers were around 200 individuals in 1990s. This release will involve up to 50 captive kiwi, hatched from Motuara Island, and released into Okarito forest. The public event will be held at Te Waionui resort in Franz Josef. It will include a fundraiser auction, morning tea, public powhiri and blessing ceremony and a talk by invited speaker, Threatened Species Ambassador, Nicola Toki.

Mackenzie Sixteen of the original 22 proponents of the Mackenzie Agreement (the Shared Agreement Vision Forum) met in Twizel on 31 October to hear the Associate Minister, Hon Nicky Wagner’s, proposal for a way forward for the Agreement. Environment Canterbury and the Mackenzie District Council were in attendance. Ngai Tahu did not attend, but put in an apology. At the meeting, the Associate Minister of Conservation, Hon Nicky Wagner, explained the Government’s position on the recommendations proposed in the Agreement, and describing how a charitable trust could deliver on its objectives. Minister Wagner presented her proposal, namely: • A charitable trust to be established. • $200,000 for administration costs to be able to operate for two years. • Commitment to bring relevant ministers around the table to bring greater coordination to activity in the Mackenzie Basin. • Being open to further Crown funding and special legislation. The Associate Minister has committed that the trust, if established, will receive start-up funding for management and administrative expenses of $100,000 a year for the first two years. The Department’s contribution to this is $50,000 a year. We have the first $50,000 budgeted in the 15-16 business plan, and will be budgeting a further $50,000 next year. MfE were to provide the balance of funding, that being $50k in 15/16 and $50k in 16/17. We will seek confirmation of the funding, and advise you of the outcome. The Mackenzie Guardians and Forest & Bird (F&B) reps argued very strongly against agreeing to the proposal, essentially because, in their view, it was far short of what the Agreement originally sought. The Environmental Defence Society (EDS) rep expressed her position as qualified support for the proposal. F&B, the High Country Landscape Group and the Mackenzie Guardians eventually withdrew from the discussion, after which the remaining 13 representatives proceeded to form a working party to take the trust idea forward. DOC will support a working group, which is looking to have a draft trust deed agreed before Christmas. The Shared Vision Forum members who were present at the meeting, wrote to Minister Wagner, via the meeting facilitator, that they were disappointed that the full recommendations of the Agreement have not been supported but also expressing commitment to get a Trust set up.

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 42 A working group of six members of the Mackenzie Shared Vision Forum (SVF) met on 9 November to identify a preferred trust deed in response to the Associate Minister, Hon Nicky Wagner’s, proposal to set up a Trust as a way forward for the Mackenzie Agreement. Abel Tasman Green World Environmental Award for Project Janszoon, Abel Tasman National Park National Park Project Janszoon’s environmental work in the Abel Tasman National Park has been recognised at the international Green World Environment Awards on 19 October. Project Janszoon was named the worldwide Gold Winner in the Conservation, Habitat and Diversity section of the Green World Environment Awards. It also won the conservation section for New Zealand as part of the Green Apple Awards. Over 20 years, the Green World Awards and associated Green Apple Awards have become established as the UK’s major recognition for international environmental projects. Project Janszoon competed against more than 500 other nominations from countries as diverse as the United Kingdom, Poland, Malaysia and Korea. The Green World Awards are organised by The Green Organisation, an independent, non-political, non-activist, not-for-profit environment group dedicated to recognising, rewarding and promoting environmental best practice around the world. They are supported by the Environment Agency, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Chartered Institution for Wastes Management and other independent bodies. Project Janszoon is a privately-funded trust, which has a 30-year commitment to work with DOC, the Abel Tasman Birdsong Trust (ATBST), the community and iwi on restoring Abel Tasman National Park. The programme involves reducing predator numbers and weeds, restoring eco-systems, and re- introducing native birds, animals and plants to the National Park. The partnership between DOC, Project Janszoon and the ATBST is becoming increasingly effective, with each entity working to their strengths to see the overall success of the project. With the Abel Tasman also having record visitor numbers (more than 230,000 visitors per year), the park provides an excellent opportunity to raise greater awareness about the importance of this work.

Recreation Bustling opening weekend for newly-bookable huts in the Tararua Forest services Park Labour Day weekend marked the start of the seasonal online booking system for Powell, Jumbo and Atiwhakatu huts in the Tararua Forest Park. The first weekend on the booking system was a success with all three huts booked with high occupancy rates. Young people made up a fifth of all users across the weekend supporting the objective to cater to less experienced trampers and youth, who are known to prefer bookable facilities. The Federated Mountain Club has publicly acknowledged its appreciation of the approach DOC has taken, noting the efforts that were made to prevent displacement of users in its latest national newsletter (by allowing back-country hut passes, hut tickets and not charging penalties for un-booked users). The tramping community at large have accepted the changes without comment. DOC will continue to engage with local media on this issue to promote the use of the booking system and advocate for it as a tool assisting new and younger audiences to access New Zealand’s back country.

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 43 Pest operations Kia Wharite 1080 Operation (within Whanganui National Park) The 2015 Kia Wharite aerial pest operation was completed on 30 October with the aerial sowing of toxic bait over 30,575 hectares. The operation was carried out with no issues; flight lines from the pilots confirmed all bait was sown within the operational boundary. Risks were minimised through the planning and execution of the operation, and all best practice and legal requirements were adhered to. A particular success in the operation was the opportunity to partner with Nga Whenua Rahui and adjoining Maori landowners to include a 1000ha block of Maori-owned land in the treatment area. Over 60,000ha of conservation land is treated by aerial 1080 through the Kia Wharite biodiversity project. Two blocks have been treated on a three-yearly cycle in this way since 2008/09. Wilding conifer control in Mt Richmond Forest Park This item shows how wilding pines are being effectively managed in a discrete area of Mt Richmond Forest Park, which forms the main range of mountains between Nelson and Marlborough. The park has significant conservation values, including the nationally-ranked Red Hills and Dun Mountain ecological management units. We have run wilding conifer control operations for many years. The park is surrounded by commercial forestry plantations, and wilding conifers are the greatest threat to these values. The Crown planted the majority of these forests. Commercial forestry companies only took over management around 1990. In 2011, Nelson Forest Limited, the largest of the forestry companies adjoining the park, signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agreeing to play a role in wilding conifer control. Tasman Bay Forests Limited, the second largest company, has also agreed (in September this year) to play a role in this control. It has offered use of its silviculture crews to tackle an initial control area and has welcomed the opportunity to view operational plans indicating in which areas it could be responsible for controlling wilding conifers, once legacy plantings are removed. We are yet to develop a MOU with the company. If we can remove the wilding conifers that spread from the plantations before the private companies took over management of these areas (legacy plantings), then these two large companies would play a more active role in the management of wilding conifers from their plantations.

Community Renaming of the Community Conservation Partnerships Fund (CCPF) to funding the DOC Community Fund Our investment (over $16 million) in conservation through the CCPF has been widely reported throughout the country. However, often the connection between DOC and the CCPF has not always been obvious. To strengthen the connection, the CCPF has been renamed the DOC Community Fund. Both DOC staff and external stakeholders have been advised of the name change and have been asked to refer to the DOC Community Fund when publicising, promoting or talking about funded projects. We are in the process of updating our website and other external material as required to reflect the name change.

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 44

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 45

DOCCM-2633146 Lou Sanson, Director-General Conservation 18 November 2015 46 Agenda Item: 146.8 New Zealand Conservation Authority 146.9 Meeting No. 146 146.10

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Poma Palmer, Management Planner, DOC

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 from the Department on the Canterbury (Waitaha), Otago and Southland Murihiku draft conservation management strategies 2015 b) Note any further update provided at the meeting from the NZCA CMS Committees and take any action as appropriate

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, with the aim of being in a position to approve the conservation management strategies at its December 2015 meeting. As at the reporting date of 12 November 2015 the three conservation management strategies are not ready for approval.

DOCCM-2637539 Poma Palmer, Management Planner 18 November 2015 47

DOCCM-2637539 Poma Palmer, Management Planner 18 November 2015 48 Agenda Item: 146.8 New Zealand Conservation Authority 146.9 Meeting No. 146 146.10

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Poma Palmer, Management Planner, DOC

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

Background/Introduction 1. The Department and Conservation Boards received comments from the NZCA CMS Committees in September and October 2015, and have been working together to provide responses to the NZCA.

Details/Comment 2. As at 12 November 2015 all three CMSs have had the majority of the NZCA CMS Committees’ comments processed by the Department and the Conservation Boards.

3. In accordance with the NZCA requested action from the 6 October 2015 meeting, either face-to-face or teleconference meetings have been held for each CMS, between representatives of the relevant NZCA committees (except for Southland), conservation boards and DOC Operations - management planning.

4. Across the three CMSs, there were 115 NZCA comments (including tracked changes) for Canterbury (Waitaha), 118 for Otago, and 25 for Southland Murihiku. Added to these were additional items arising, such as from new legislation, additional ‘tenure review’ lands, text and map corrections, corrections to incorrect information, and matters raised in the Certificates of Compliance. Responses to these items are being provided by the Department and the conservation boards.

5. As at 12 November 2015 a small number (< 10) of responses have yet to be resolved and are either awaiting DOC management decisions, legal advice or Ngāi Tahu consultation.

6. Between 12 November 2015 and the NZCA meeting, some or all of these responses may be resolved and advice on this given by email to the three NZCA CMS Committee convenors.

7. Mapping updates (which are substantial) are underway, with a working deadline of 1 December 2015.

8. As soon as all responses are resolved between the Department and the Board, the tables of comments and responses, and the revised CMS texts, will be provided to the NZCA CMS Committees.

DOCCM-2637539 Poma Palmer, Management Planner 18 November 2015 49 Section 4 Conservation Act 9. The Department has had regard to section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, and more particularly the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998, when developing responses to the NZCA comments. Recognition of consultation undertaken previously with local rūnanga and Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu has also influenced the responses.

Conclusion 10. Most responses have been addressed. The Department and Conservation Boards will continue to work together to resolve the remaining outstanding matters as soon as possible.

DOCCM-2637539 Poma Palmer, Management Planner 18 November 2015 50 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.11 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: CMS monitoring

NZCA Strategic (A) Conservation Management Strategies Priority (I) Effectiveness of the Department’s conservation management

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Note the attached response from the Department to the Authority’s letter providing feedback on the CMS monitoring and reporting template

Context The Department reported to the Authority at the August 2015 meeting on the CMS monitoring and reporting template and sought its advice. The Authority’s advice was set out in its letter of 20 August 2015 (also attached). Subsequent to the Authority’s consideration of the framework, the monitoring framework also presented to the Conservation Board Chairs Conference in September, which was hosted by three members of the Authority. The Department has taken the Chairs’ feedback into account in its reply to the Authority. In the meantime the Department has been using the monitoring framework and reporting template since mid-year to report to the three northern Conservation Boards. Feedback from the three Boards in response to the first reports using the new template was very positive. The attached letter sets out the Department’s position on the three main points of feedback provided by the Authority. The feedback has been canvassed with Conservation Board Chairs.

DOCCM-2639901 51

DOCCM-2639901 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.12 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: CMS Rapid Prototype and Paparoa NPMP

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 attached reports from the Department, and b) Provide advice as necessary

Context At the Authority’s October 2015 the Authority and Director- General discussed some key aspects of conservation management strategies that need to be incorporated into the CMS reviews. Marie Long has accepted the attached Task Assignment to undertake this work. Hon Dr Nick Smith announced on 15 November the addition of lands to be added to the Paparoa National Park and ‘Pike29 Memorial Track’. As this proposed track is inconsistent with the Paparoa National Park Management Plan the Department will undertake a review of the Plan.

DOCCM-2640031 59

DOCCM-2640031 60 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.12 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Marie Long, Director, Planning, Permissions and Land, DOC

Subject: CMS Rapid Prototype

NZCA Strategic Realign CMSs so they are more strongly aligned to key corporate Priority and/or the drivers (eg Stretch Goals, SOI) and are focused on place based Relevant DOC SOI management. Goal NZCA Strategic Priority (A): Conservation Management Strategies

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required (a) Note the contents of the verbal briefing (b) Provide advice on how the NZCA wishes to be involved in the development of the CMS Rapid Prototype.

Context As a result of the last NZCA meeting the D-G tasked the department to redevelop CMSs with the purpose of developing a rapid prototype of a new CMS model using the East Coast/Hawke’s Bay CMS. This work is progressing with a draft model being prepared. The Department wishes to update the NZCA on its progress and seek advice on how they wish to be involved.

DOCCM-2640031 61 62

File Reference:

To: Marie Long

From: Lou Sanson

Date: 06 October 2015

Accountability for decision:

Task Assignment: CMS Rapid Improvement

Context The NZCA wants to use review of the Southland, Otago and Canterbury CMS processes to create a significant learning environment to improve our CMS 10 year planning processes.

Critical issues raised by NZCA include:

1. How to use CMS to get Stretch Goals alignment at place? 2. How to use CMS to clearly tell the DOC Story “Our Nature” at place? 3. How to get plans simpler for Managers at place? 4. How to ensure someone is accountable (and measured) on plan implementation? How to engage the community? 5. How to significantly improve our Sect 4 work with our Treaty Partners? 6. How to shift CMS on from recreational use documents to management of entire ecosystem for biodiversity (pests, weed control and framework)

There is a strong view of NZCA that the documents should be strongly owned by Managers and Directors and identify the top issues the Manager will implement at place and how they will align their work programmes to deliver on the 10 Year Plan through a series of 4 year plans.

Essentially they need to use documents to critically align resources for implementation of conservation outcomes at place and provide clear guidance for regions and drive prioritisation of resources at place with a realistic reality check on resources.

An opportunity exists to use the East Coast – Hawkes Bay CMS to do a rapid 90 day prototype of a new way of drafting a CMS.

Purpose To produce a rapid prototype of a new CMS Model

Quantity A draft plan outline to the NZCA Meeting on __/__/__

TA - CMS Rapid Improvement - Marie Long - DOC-2613674.docx 63

Quality • Plan outlines how to achieve ownership of Treaty Partner, community and DOC Managers at place • Plan outlines how we will measure implementation • Plan outlines how we tell the DOC Story at place and align resources to deliver our Stretch Goals • Plan identifies how we have Managers perspective integrated into the Plan.

Resources Chris, Reg, De-Arne, David, John, East Coast/HB Cons Board NZCA – Joe Landro?

TA - CMS Rapid Improvement - Marie Long - DOC-2613674.docx 64

New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.12 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Marie Long, Director, Planning, Permissions and Land, DOC

Subject: Paparoa National Park management plan review

NZCA Strategic Ministerial directive. Priority and/or the NZCA Strategic Priority (B): National Park Management Plans Relevant DOC SOI Goal

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required (a) Note the contents of the verbal briefing (b) Provide advice on how they wish to be involved in this process.

Context The Department has been instructed as part of the implementation of the Pike River mitigation package to review the entire Paparoa National Park Management Plan to help facilitate the development of a track and hut system in the national park. This will form part of a memorial to the people who died in the Pike mining disaster. The existing national park management plan is not enabling of huts and tracks in this place. Hence the need to review the plan. The Department has been given 1 year to have the plan developed and approved by the NZCA. This is quite a challenge for a full plan review (it has never been achieved before). To do this requires a significant change in approach as to how this plan will be developed. The Department wishes to discuss some ideas with the NZCA as to how this can be progressed with speed (no paper has been provided as this project is moving at a rapid pace and just started).

DOCCM-2640031 65 66 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.13 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Christopher Berry, Planning Manager, 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 progress on various plans and documents since the last NZCA meeting. The management planning unit is also responsible for formal investigations to extend or change protection regimes. For this reason an update on the south-east New Zealand Marine Protection Forum’s process has been included. The overview also updates progress on the development of guidance on exceptional circumstances as discussed by the NZCA at its last meeting.

DOC-2640907 Christopher Berry, Planning Manager 12 November 2015 67

DOC-2640907 Christopher Berry, Planning Manager 12 November 2015 68 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.13 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Christopher Berry, Planning Manager, DOC

Subject: Management Planning Update

Background/Introduction 1. The NZCA approves all national park management plans and conservation management strategies. 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.

Comments – summary of progress since the last update Second Generation Conservation Management Strategy (CMS) progress 2. The Canterbury, Otago, and Southland CMSs are currently with the NZCA for approval. 3. Work on the Wellington and East Coast Hawke’s Bay CMSs is ongoing. Ongoing discussions are occurring with Ngati Porou to clarify the process for developing the Ngati Porou part of the East Coast/Hawke’s Bay CMS. The East Coast/Hawke’s Bay CMS has recently been included as a potential working example for the CMS refresh project agreed between the NZCA and Lou Sanson at the October 2015 NZCA meeting. This potentially may delay the notification of this CMS. 4. Background work on the Nelson/Marlborough CMs began in July 2015. At present some technical issues related to iwi engagement are being discussed and once resolved the review will move into a more active phase. National park management plans 5. Aoraki/Mt Cook National Park Management Plan: Discussions have occurred with Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu to discuss the process for reviewing the plan. An issues paper and fact sheet are being drafted, however the public notification of the intention to review the plan has been delayed until March 2016. 6. Westland Tai Poutini National Park Management Plan: An issues paper and fact sheet are being drafted, and it is intended to publicly notify the intention to review the plan in March 2016. This date is a slight delay as the Department wishes to run the Westland and Aoraki/Mt Cook reviews as one process. 7. The Paparoa National Park Management Plan is a priority plan for reviewing. Due to concerns raised by both the West Coast Tai Poutini Conservation Board and the NZCA, combined with the current developments proposed for the Pike Mine area, the review of this plan will begin in November 2015. 8. The Department is assessing a proposal to build new recreation opportunity within the Tongariro National Park. If the proposal, when fully considered, is supported by the Department then a partial review of the Plan will be required. A decision on the Department support of the proposal is expected by December 2015. Conservation management plans 9. Discussions with Ngati Whare are continuing regarding the draft Whirinaki Conservation Park Conservation Management Plan and next steps. DOC-2640907 Christopher Berry, Planning Manager 12 November 2015 69 10. Work on the Te Hauturu-o-Toi/Little Barrier Island (Nature Reserve) Conservation Management Plan remains on hold until Feb 2016 in response to request from iwi. 11. Work on the Tamaki Makaurau Motu CMP has begun. This CMP covers the Motuihe, Motutapu, Rangitoto and Browns islands. Marine Protected Area Policy – South-East Marine Protection Forum 12. The South-East Marine Protection Forum is continuing its community engagement and is working towards submitting recommendations to Ministers in mid 2016.

Exceptional Circumstance Guidance / National Park management plan model update 13. The Department has prepared both the NPMP model and exceptional circumstance guidance. At the time of writing both pieces of work are still with the Departments legal team awaiting checks before being able to be progressed.

Management Planning Priorities 14. The Department appreciates the feedback received on the draft criteria proposed to assist in for determining the Departments work programme at the October 2015 NZCA meeting. 15. As a result of feedback, criteria reflecting ‘the Vision and stretch goals’ and ‘how would a review add conservation value’ are currently being developed. The approach and criteria will be signed off for use by early 2016.

Section 4 of the Conservation Act 16. All management planning processes include consultation with tangata whenua. Those plans prepared under Treaty settlement legislation are developed closely with the Post Settlement Governance Entity.

DOC-2640907 Christopher Berry, Planning Manager 12 November 2015 70 Progress report on status of CMS and management plans

There are only two updates to the December report (tracked).

1. Conservation Management Strategies Table One outlines when each conservation management strategy was approved and progress with their review.

Table One Timelines for review of Conservation Management Strategies

Conservation Date Action Expected Management approved date to NZCA Strategy Auckland CMS 9/10/2014 Operative as of 17/11/2014 Bay of Plenty CMS 4/12/1997 Scheduled to begin in 2016 April 2018 Canterbury CMS 14/06/2000 Referred to NZCA for approval August 2015 Chatham Islands 12/08/1999 Work will commence in 2017. May 2019 CMS East Coast CMS 14/10/1998 In first stage of review process. This is August 2017 being combined with Hawke’s Bay into an East Coast/Hawke’s Bay CMS. Hawke’s Bay CMS 19/10/1994 In first stage of review process. This is August 2017 being combined with East Coast as an East Coast/Hawke’s Bay CMS. Nelson/ 12/09/1996 Project planning for review begun. August 2017 Marlborough CMS Ngati Porou To be Treaty settlement requirement. August 2017 (Nga Whakahaere prepared To be prepared as part of the East Takirua: part of Coast/Hawke’s Bay CMS. Work has East commenced Coast/Hawke’s Bay CMS) Northland CMS 8/09/2014 Operative as of 29/09/2014 Otago CMS 15/08/1998 Referred to NZCA for approval August 2015 Southland/ West 10/07/1998 Referred to NZCA for approval August 2015 Otago CMS Stewart 9/02/2011 Operative. n/a Island/Rakiura CMS Subantarctic 16/07/1998 This is being combined with the Mainland Islands CMS Southland/West Otago CMS. Te Hiku CMS To be Treaty settlement requirement. tba prepared Scheduled to begin in early 2016 Tongariro-Taupo 30/05/2002 Review not currently scheduled within next tba CMS 5 years. . Waikato CMS 8/09/2014 Operative as of 29/09/2014 Wanganui CMS 9/04/1997 Part review (Rangitikei/Manawatu) has August 2017 commenced as part of the revised Wellington CMS. Review of the rest of the CMS not May 2020 currently scheduled within next 5 years Wellington CMS 13/03/1996 In first stage of review process. August 2017 West Coast CMS April 2010 Operative. tba Heli-hunting amendment not scheduled. Game Animal Council Act 2013 has relevance.

DOC-2640907 Christopher Berry, Planning Manager 12 November 2015 71 2. National Park Management Plans

Review timetable

Table Two outlines when each national park management plan is due for review. The only review currently scheduled is a whole review of the Aoraki Mount Cook National Park Management Plan.

Table Two Timelines for review of National Park Management plans

National Park Status Action Expected date to NZCA Abel Tasman National Approved 9 October Current. Park Management 2008. Due for review Plan 2008-2018 October 2018. Aoraki/Mount Cook Approved 12 August Review initiated May 2017 National Park 2004. Due for review Management Plan by August 2014. 2004-2014 Amendments approved by the NZCA at the June 2012 meeting. Arthur’s Pass National Approved 13 Current Park Management December 2007. Due Amendment approved Plan 2007-2017 for review by by the NZCA at the December 2017. June 2012 meeting. Egmont National Park Approved 14 February Due for review. On Management Plan 2002. Due for review hold until CMS reviews 2001-2011 by February 2012. completed. Treaty negotiations due to begin end 2013. Fiordland National Approved 21 June Current. Park Management 2007. Due for review Notified draft CMS Plan 2007-2017 June 2017. proposes some amendments to FNP objectives. Kahurangi National Approved 13 June Due for review. Park Management 2001. Partial review Plan 2001-2011 Due for review by approved by NZCA June 2011. December 2010. Full review on hold until CMS review completed. Mt Aspiring National Approved 23 June Current. Park Management 2011. Plan 2011-2021 Nelson Lakes National Approved 10 October Due for review. On Park Management 2002 as a 7-year plan hold until other current Plan 2003-2009 expired October 2009. planning processes completed. Paparoa National Park Approved 18 Due for review. September 2016 Management Plan November 1992. Due One third of park not 1992-2002 for review by covered by the Plan as November 2002. it was added subsequent to its approval.

DOC-2640907 Christopher Berry, Planning Manager 12 November 2015 72 National Park Status Action Expected date to NZCA Rakiura National Park Plan approved Current. n/a Management Plan 9 February 2011. 2011-2021 Te Urewera National Approved 13 February The national park The bed and Park Management 2003. Due for review management plan lakeshore of Lake Plan 2003-2013 by 2013. remains in force until it Waikaremoana are is replaced by a new excluded from the Act management plan to and decisions have yet the extent that it is not to be made about its inconsistent with future management sections 111 and 112 (currently managed of Te Urewera Act under a lease expiring 2014. 30 June 2017 as national park and covered by the NPMP). Tongariro National Approved 12 October Partial Review Park Management 2006. Due for review approved 13 October Plan 2006-2016 by October 2016. 2011. WT National Park report released November 2013. Westland Tai Poutini Approved 21 Being reviewed in May 2017 National Park December 2001. Due conjunction with Management Plan for review by Aoraki 2001-2011 December 2011. Amendments approved by the NZCA at the April 2014 meeting. Whanganui National Approved 9 August Current. n/a Park Management 2012. Plan 2012-2022

DOC-2640907 Christopher Berry, Planning Manager 12 November 2015 73 3. Conservation management plans (prepared under the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act)

Review timetable

Table Three outlines when each management plan is due for review and when the conservancy anticipates undertaking the review.

Table Three Timelines for review of Conservation management plans (prepared under the Conservation Act and the Reserves Act)

Conservation Status Comments Management plan Molesworth Recreation CMP approved by Current. Reserve Management Plan Nelson/Marlborough Conservation Board on (Required by lease) 9 October 2013. Replaced previous plan under Land Act. Abel Tasman Foreshore Approved by the Management Current. Scenic Reserve Plan Approval Committee on 25 (enables management of June 2012. commercial activities on foreshore below the National Park) Te Waihora Joint Approved 10 December 2005. Current. Management Plan Due for review by December In initial stages of review. 2015. Pukenui Forest Approved December 2006 by Current Management Plan 2006- Whangarei District Council and Charitable Trust formed and 2016 Northland Conservation Board. meeting monthly to develop Due for review by December website, promote hapu & 2016. community interest & source funding. North Head Historic Approved September 1999. Due Remains in force until replaced Reserve CMP 1999-2009 for review by September 2009. by Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau Collective Redress Act 2014 management plan for all the volcanic cones; to be prepared by the Auckland Council. Leigh Reserves Complex Approved June 2002. Due for Currently in revocation process. CMP 2002-2012 review by June 2012. ACB is decision-maker Coromandel Peninsula Approved 2002. Due for review Currently in revocation process. Conservation Land by 2012. WaiCB is decision-maker Management Plan See also Hauraki Collective AIP below. JM Barker (Hapupu) Approved in 1998. Due for Intention to revoke this plan once Historic Reserve 1998- review by 2008. Chatham Island CMS review 2008. completed. Kaimanawa Forest Park Approved 15 June 2007. Due for Current. 2007-2017 review by June 2017.

DOC-2640907 Christopher Berry, Planning Manager 12 November 2015 74 Conservation Status Comments Management plan Loch Katrine Recreation Approved September 1998. One- Provisions to be taken into the Reserve term plan, not to be reviewed. reviewed CMS, consistent with CMS national issues regarding private accommodation – intention is to revoke CMP once CMS operative. DGC is decision maker Various CMP’s for reserves These are the remaining CMPs All likely to be revoked once in Canterbury (4 Scientific; in Canterbury following a wider Canterbury CMS reviewed and 2 nature; 2 Historic; 1 revocation/withdrawal action in management issues covered Recreation) 2004. All approved in 1980’s where necessary by the CMS. and still operative in part. Minister is decision maker Ruahine Forest Park Approved in 1992. Due for Intention to revoke this plan once Conservation Management review by 2002. the Hawke’s Bay CMS review is Plan 1992-2002 completed. ECHBCB is decision-maker Farewell Spit NR/Puponga Approved in December 1990. Intention to revoke this plan once Recreation Reserve Due for review by 2000. Nelson/Marlborough CMS review completed. DGC is decision-maker Te Waikoropupu Springs Operative. Approved by Current. Management Plan Nelson/Marlborough Conservation Board in April 2009. Te Tapui Tokotoru Approved October 2008. Current Conservation Management Developed by the joint Plan. It includes management committee Moutohora Wildlife established under the Ngati Awa Management Reserve, Claims Settlement Act 2005. Ohope Scenic Reserve and Tauwhare Pa Scenic Reserve. Pukekura Reserves Operative. Approved April 2012 Current (Taiaroa Head) by Otago Conservation Board for Developed by the Korako Karetai Management Plan) Taiaroa Head Nature Reserve Trust, Te Rūnanga o Ōtākou, and Taiaroa Head Foreshore Department of Conservation and Wildlife Sanctuary. Approved the Dunedin City Council. May 2012 by Dunedin City Council in respect to the other reserves.

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 the Taiaroa Head Nature Reserve and Taiaroa Head Foreshore Wildlife Sanctuary. Te Hauturu o Toi Requirement of Ngati Manuhiri Currently underway Conservation Management Treaty Claims Settlement Act Plan 2012. Preliminary discussions with Ngati Manuhiri underway. DOC-2640907 Christopher Berry, Planning Manager 12 November 2015 75 Conservation Status Comments Management plan Whirinaki Te Pua Tāne Requirement of Ngati Whare Drafting at advanced stage. Conservation Management Treaty Claims Settlement Act Consultation with Ngati Whare Plan 2012. and BOPCB. NZCA is consulted at the pre-approval stage. Rangitoto, Motutapu, Requirement of Nga Mana Currently underway Motuihe, and Motukorea Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau Conservation Management Collective Redress Act 2014. Plan Wairau (Boulder Bank and Requirement of Ngāti Apa ki te Plan development at early Te Pokohiwi) Conservation Rā Tō, Ngāti Kuia, and stages. Management Plan Rangitāne o Wairau Claims Settlement Act 2014 Kapiti Island Conservation Requirement of Ngati Toa Not scheduled. Management Plan Rangatira Claims Settlement Act 2014. Coromandel (excl. Requirement of Hauraki Not scheduled. Moehau) Conservation Collective Treaty Settlement Management Plan (AIP). Moehau Conservation Requirement of Hauraki Not scheduled. Management Plan Collective Treaty Settlement (AIP). Nga Motu/Sugarloaf Requirement of Te Atiawa and Not scheduled. Islands Conservation Taranaki Treaty Settlements Management Plan (AIP). Urupukapuka and Approved 1984 Intention to revoke with approval Waewaetorea islands of revised Northland CMS Management Plan

4 Other

Te Urewera Plan Requirement of Tuhoe If requested by Te Urewera settlement. Board to prepare or contribute. NZCA is consulted at the pre- approval stage – mid 2016.

DOC-2640907 Christopher Berry, Planning Manager 12 November 2015 76 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.15 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

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

Subject: Stewardship Land reclassification: bi-monthly update

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

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 Authority has requested a standing agenda paper on the progress of reclassification of land work that the Department is currently working on. Please find the Department’s update for the 30 November / 1 December 2015 meeting attached.

DOCCM-2638392

83 84 Progress Report for NZ Conservation Authority on Reclassification of Conservation Land - Nature Heritage Fund (NHF) Purchase areas as at 13 November 2015

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 31 October 2015 $100 (gazettal Further correspondence has west Nelson approx. Kahurangi National National Parks Act (revised completion cost) been forwarded to iwi prior to Park date: 28 February the submission to Minister of 2016 – due to Conservation, together with further interaction letter to the Governor- required with iwi to General and Order in Council, maintain being finalised. relationships and meet the necessary administrative requirements) Harwood block purchase South of Kahurangi 68 hectares To be added to Section 7 of the 31 October 2015 $100 (gazettal Further correspondence has area Point – North-west approx. Kahurangi National National Parks Act (revised completion cost) been forwarded to iwi prior to Nelson Park date: 28 February the submission to Minister of 2016 – due to Conservation, together with further interaction letter to the Governor- required with iwi to General and Order in Council, maintain being finalised. relationships and meet the necessary administrative requirements) Kahurangi Holdings Limited Located between Big 330 hectares To be added to Section 7 of the 31 October 2015 $100 (gazettal Further correspondence has purchase area River and Kahurangi approx. Kahurangi National National Parks Act (revised completion cost) been forwarded to iwi prior to Point Park date: 28 February the submission to Minister of 2016 – due to Conservation, together with further interaction letter to the Governor- required with iwi to General and Order in Council, maintain being finalised. relationships and meet the necessary administrative requirements) King purchase area Borland Mire – 187 hectares To be added to Section 7 of the 30 June 2016 $100 (gazettal Consultation with iwi. Western Southland approx. Fiordland National National Parks Act cost) Park

O’Brien purchase area Westend Station, 401 hectares To be added to Section 7 of the 30 June 2016 $100 (gazettal Consultation with iwi. Borland Valley – approx. Fiordland National National Parks Act cost) Monowai Park

Wang (Johnstone)/Morgan Township of Cromarty 4047 square To be added to Section 7 of the 30 June 2016 $100 (gazettal Consultation with iwi. purchase area – Preservation Inlet metres Fiordland National National Parks Act cost) Park

85 Progress Report for NZ Conservation Authority on Reclassification of Conservation Land - Nature Heritage Fund (NHF) Purchase areas as at 13 November 2015

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

Conservation Park Additions Tarnbrae Mackenzie Basin – 2044 hectares To be added to Ahuriri Section 18 of the 31 March 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. Hakatere Station Canterbury 9791 hectares To be added to Section 18 of the 30 June 2016 $1000 (advertising Further research and analysis approx. Hakatere Conservation Act (includes public and gazettal costs) work being undertaken, Conservation Park consultation) Castle Hill, Craigieburn Canterbury 8467 hectares To be added to Section 18 of the 31 December 2016 $1000 (advertising Further research and analysis approx. Craigieburn and Conservation Act (includes public and gazettal costs) work being undertaken, Korowai Torlesse consultation) Tussocklands conservation parks

DOC-2593646

86 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.16 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November & 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, Executive Officer

Subject: Stewardship Land: discussion on net conservation benefit

NZCA Strategic (C) Land status change, and Priority (E) Strategic advice to the Minister of Conservation

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Provide feedback on the contents of the attached net conservation benefit paper in order to finalise it

Context The Minister of Conservation has sought the Authority’s advice on ‘net conservation benefit’ matters in relation to Stewardship Land, as recommended by the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment (PCE). At the August meeting the Authority discussed a draft paper with background discussion points on net conservation benefit drafted by Mark Christensen. A draft paper, based on the August discussion, is attached for your discussion and feedback. It is recommended that all comments on the net conservation benefit response to the Minister come to me in the first instance and I will work up the paper for circulation and sending to the Minister and PCE.

DOCCM-2605921 87

DOCCM-2605921 88

NZCA - Exchanges of Stewardship Land

1. There are two questions where guidance might usefully be provided:

(a) Should the proposed exchange be a public process?; and

(b) How is the Minister (and the applicant) to determine whether the legal test for an exchange in s16A of the Conservation Act is met?

Notification

2. I consider that the Minister will need to make a policy decision about whether or not some applications for exchange should be publicly notified. Similar policy considerations are likely to apply to this issue as applied to the public notification of some access arrangements under the Crown Minerals Act.1

3. If a policy decision is made to notify some applications, I suggest that the decision about notification follow the approach set out in the Crown Minerals Act where applications for access arrangements for 'significant mining activities' are publicly notified2, even though other access arrangement applications are not.

4. In terms of notification, I think the issue is solely about the values of the stewardship land involved, not the values of the other land to be exchanged. So, when an application is made, the Minister of Conservation is required to determine whether or not the proposed exchange is a 'significant exchange proposal' and, in doing so, should have regard to:

(a) The conservation values of the stewardship land concerned, including:

(i) What threat classification the land has;3

(ii) Whether the land contains any 'priority ecosystem units' under the NHMS;

(iii) Whether the land contains a significant population of any threatened species;4 and

(iv) Recreation values recognised in a relevant conservation management strategy or management plan.

1 See Cabinet Proposal 'Public Notification of applications for access to public conservation land to undertake "significant" mining activities' 30 August 2012. 2 Section 61C 3 The Landcare 2007 Threatened Environment Classifications:

Threatened Environment Classification Classification description

Acutely Threatened Less than 10% indigenous vegetation cover remaining

Chronically Threatened 10–20% indigenous vegetation cover remaining

At Risk 20–30% indigenous vegetation cover remaining

Critically Underprotected More than 30% indigenous vegetation cover remaining but less than 10% legally protected

Underprotected More than 30% indigenous vegetation cover remaining and more than 20% legally protected

Less Reduced and Better Protected More than 30% indigenous vegetation cover remaining

and 10–20% legally protected

4 According to national classification lists

89 MRC-279614-41-27-V3:r

(v) Historic heritage values recognised in a relevant conservation management strategy or management plan.

(b) Whether the proposed exchange involves a boundary adjustment to a single stewardship area5;

(c) The effects of the removal of the area proposed to be exchanged on the conservation values of the stewardship land concerned as a whole; and

(d) Whether there are any iwi specific issues.

5. If the Minister of Conservation determines the proposed exchange is a significant exchange proposal, the application should be publically notified and processed as if it were under section 49 of the Conservation Act 19876.

6. The public notification of an exchange proposal should be processed in conjunction with any related concession or access arrangement application which is publicly notified.

Determining the appropriateness of a proposed exchange

7. In determining the appropriateness of an exchange, the Minister (or her delegate) is required to apply section 16A of the Conservation Act which provides that:

"The Minister shall not authorise any such exchange unless the Minister is satisfied, after consultation with the local Conservation Board, that the exchange will enhance the conservation values of land managed by the Department and promote the purposes of [the Conservation] Act".

8. In addition, any exchange must be consistent with the Conservation General Policy 2005 which provides:

6 Changes to Public Conservation Lands

6 (a) Land acquisition or exchange (including boundary changes) may be undertaken to manage, for conservation purposes, natural resources or historical and cultural heritage; or for the benefit and enjoyment of the public, including public access, where the land has international, national or regional significance; or where land acquisition or exchange will either:

• improve representativeness of public conservation land; or • improve the natural functioning or integrity of places; or • improve the amenity or utility of places; or • prevent significant loss of natural resources or historical and cultural heritage; or • improve the natural linkages between places; or • secure practical walking access to public conservation lands and waters, rivers, lakes or the coast; or • achieve any other purpose allowed for under the relevant Acts.

9. In determining whether section 16A and Policy 6(a) are met, I propose that we suggest that the Minister (or her delegate) have regard to the following guidelines for both significant exchange proposals and other exchange proposals (insofar as they are relevant). The considerations relate to the values of the existing stewardship land, the values of the land proposed to be exchanged, and overall considerations.

5 For the reasons set out in Paula Warren's paper such exchanges are likely to be of less importance 6 Query whether this can be done without specific legislative mandate?

90 MRC-279614-41-27-V3:r Page 2 of 6

No presumption relating to values

10. There should be no presumption against approving an exchange where significant conservation values are involved. The relevant legal test is whether conservation values of land managed by the Department are enhanced overall.

11. Provided that this overall test is met, neither the Conservation Act, the Conservation General Policy, nor standard operating procedures prevent the exchange of a stewardship area with medium or high conservation values. In practical terms, however, where stewardship area is of high conservation value, it will be more difficult to satisfy the Minister that an exchange will meet the tests in section 16A.

12. The Minister retains a discretion not to accept an exchange proposal that meets the requirements of section 16A. In other words, even if a proposal meets the tests contained in section 16A, the Minister is not bound to authorise the exchange.

Stewardship land to be exchanged

13. The Minister should consider the values of the land concerned in terms of the matters set out in paragraph 3 above (the ones used to determine whether the exchange proposal is a significant exchange proposal).

14. In paragraph 15 of Ms Warren's report, she says:

• It is also important to fully assess the biodiversity It is also important to fully assess the biodiversity “cost”. The current values of the land are not the right measure of that cost. Loss of restoration potential is also important. For example an area of lowland river terrace in pasture may be the only opportunity within the network to re-create a missing ecosystem type. Also relevant will be the likelihood of future deterioration of the site under likely management scenarios. It will also be necessary to consider the effects of the change in ownership and use on values and management of the surrounding protected area network. For example a private land enclave may reduce the ability to manage pests (e.g. if the landowner does not wish to have traps on their land), restrict the use of aerial 1080 (given standard boundary setbacks), create new weed and pest problems, affect hydrology, etc.

• Costs and benefits to conservation will also include effects on other values, including recreation, soil and water protection, community participation, education, etc.

• There may also be past investment issues to be considered, including whether the land was donated for a particular purpose, and conservation work by communities.

15. I think the question of whether 'conservation cost' can be taken into account is primarily a legal one and we will need advice on it. However, in my view it is important that the values (including future opportunities and costs) need to be viewed even-handedly. In other words, if the concern is that by just looking at present condition of a piece of stewardship land the Minister may undervalue its future potential (presumably assuming the Department manages it differently and spends additional money or resources on it) the Minister needs to run the same ruler over the land being offered in exchange. Further, to the extent that one is trying to value a future state of land that requires action/investment to realise, I consider that that is too subjective and uncertain. Conservation priorities change over time, and the Department's level of resourcing is not within its control. If the land is of limited value today, but could be made better, that leads to the conclusion that the Department has chosen not to invest in it and has put effort in elsewhere. In fact, all conservation land which is other than pristine must fall into the category of 'being able to be improved' with enough resources. If this approach is taken, the logical conclusion is that all stewardship land should be assessed as if it were 'pristine'. That is clearly not a practical approach.

91 MRC-279614-41-27-V3:r Page 3 of 6

Other land to be exchanged for stewardship land

16. The matters set out in paragraphs 3 (a) and (d) above which are:

(a) The conservation values of the stewardship land concerned, including

(i) What threat classification the land has7

(ii) Whether the land contains any 'priority ecosystem units' under the NHMS

(iii) Whether the land contains any threatened species8;

(b) Whether there are any relevant iwi specific issues.

Representativeness9

17. The extent to which the area proposed to be exchanged is representative of the full range of vegetation variety that was originally present in the natural landscape, including:

(a) both commonplace and rare indigenous species, habitats, and communities;

(b) the ecological processes that link them; and

(c) the extent to which the ecosystems are already protected in the proportion they were originally present in the ecological district.

Sustainability

18. The extent to which the area proposed for exchange is likely to continue to be viable and evolve in a natural way in the long term, including the extent to which the area is:

(a) protected by its size and shape;

(b) buffered from the effects of adjoining land uses or activities;

(c) linked to or dependent on other protected areas (either physically or by ecological processes) for its continued viability;

(d) expected to maintain its ecological integrity through major natural disturbance events;

(e) vulnerable to the depredations of introduced species;

(f) able to be managed to protect its ecological values; and

(g) expected to contribute to sustaining existing protected areas, through additional scale, buffering, linkages or restoration.

Integrity

19. The extent to which the area proposed for exchange contributes to and maintains the original integrity of the landscape, including the extent to which it:

(a) protects the original character;

(b) protects the original context;

7 The Landcare 2007 classification 8 According to national classification lists 9 The criteria of representativeness, sustainability, integrity and amenity/utility are taken directly from the Nature Heritage Fund's criteria for assessing applications.

92 MRC-279614-41-27-V3:r Page 4 of 6

(d) maintains the natural nutrient cycles, energy flows, and hydrological regimes;

(e) maintains the functional coherence of the original and remaining natural landscape values;

(f) protects an uninterrupted ecological sequence; and

(g) eliminates unprotected enclaves in an otherwise protected landscape.

Amenity/utility

20. The extent to which the area proposed for exchange would contribute to the physical and spiritual welfare of the local people as well as ecosystem services, including its contribution to:

(a) carbon sequestering;

(b) protecting aesthetic coherence and pleasantness;

(d) maintaining water quality and yield;

(e) providing for recreation or tourism; and

(f) providing for physical, social, and spiritual renewal.

National priorities for protection of private land

21. Whether the land proposed for exchange contains any national priority ecosystems and habitats most in need of protection as follows10:

(a) National Priority 1: To protect indigenous vegetation associated with land environments, (defined by Land Environments of New Zealand at Level IV), that have 20% or less remaining in indigenous cover.

(b) National Priority 2: To protect indigenous vegetation associated with sand dunes and wetlands; ecosystem types that have become uncommon due to human activity.

(c) National Priority 3: To protect indigenous vegetation associated with ‘originally rare’ terrestrial ecosystem types not already covered by priorities 1 and 2.

(d) National Priority 4: To protect habitats of Acutely Threatened and Chronically Threatened indigenous species.11

22. Paula raises a point about the current legal protection of the land to be exchanged:

• The values of the land are irrelevant in determining a net conservation benefit – it is the increase in protection of those values that is the relevant “benefit” to be included in the calculation. It is therefore important to determine the degree to which legal protection by transfer into the protected area network will increase the protection of biodiversity in practice over the long term. For example the land may be adequately protected by district or regional plan provisions, or the values may be at risk from impacts that would not be managed by inclusion in the protected area network (e.g. drainage of land adjacent to a wetland).

10 Ministry for the Environment 2007 11 Applicable threat classifications from the latest system (Townsend et al. 2008) are Threatened and At Risk. See http://www.doc.govt.nz/publications/conservation/nz-threat-classification-system/nz-threat-classification-system-manual-2008/

93 MRC-279614-41-27-V3:r Page 5 of 6

23. I question whether this is in fact the correct test. S16A is not about the 'protection of biodiversity practice over the longer term.' Rather, it is about enhancing the conservation values of land managed by the Department. It seems to me that any 'threat' or otherwise to the land to be exchanged may be irrelevant. By adding that land to the PCL, the conservation values of land managed by the Department must necessarily be enhanced – simply because there is additional land with values to be managed. The question must be whether the conservation values overall of the land the Department manages would be enhanced (ie better or worse off) if the proposed exchange goes ahead. This is relevant to the Chrystal Basin exchange. I think there is likely to be some legal debate about this issue for which we will need some advice.

Overall Assessment

24. Where stewardship land has a Threat Classification of acutely threatened or chronically threatened, or where it contains a priority ecosystem unit, or contains [critical, endangered species?] it is expected that the land offered in exchange will need to be such that overall the conservation values of public conservation land is enhanced.

25. It is expected that the first consideration for land to be exchanged for stewardship land would be that it has similar conservation values to that stewardship land in terms of12:

(a) Vegetation types;

(b) Threatened species;

(d) Historic values.

26. However, exchanges of land where the values identified in paragraph 22 are different may also be considered appropriate where the relevant values of the land to be exchanged have higher threat classifications. In these circumstances, it is expected that the Minister will take a cautious approach.

27. The Minister has an overall discretion to approve an exchange and is not restricted to only approving an exchange that meets the NHS criteria.

28. Having regard to the criteria set out above in paragraphs 12-18 above it is expected that the Minister will take a cautious approach to ensure that there is an enhancement of the overall values of public conservation land and that the requirements of Policy 6(a) are met, particularly where the exchanges referred to in paragraph 23 are concerned.

12 This is in effect a 'like for like' approach. We need to be careful here that this doesn't become too detailed or it runs the risk of replicating the interminable biodiversity offset arguments between scientists. This is about the first consideration for an exchange being to look for a 'beech forest for a beech forest', a' tui for a tui', or a historic mining site for another historic mining site.

94 MRC-279614-41-27-V3:r Page 6 of 6 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.17 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Ken Hughey, Departmental Science Advisor

Subject: Science Advisory Board and Conservation and Environmental Science Research Roadmap

NZCA Strategic 1. DOC’s SLT approved the draft Plan for Science at its 20 Priority and/or the October meeting. One of the 8 implementation steps Relevant DOC SOI involves the establishment of a ‘Science Advisory Board’ Goal (SAB) and envisages the NZCA playing that role. Science is the basis for high quality informed management actions and given the NZCA’s interest in management direction it is considered the Authority could play a key role in guiding future science direction of the Department. 2. The Ministers of Conservation and Environment are jointly sponsoring development of a Conservation and Environmental Science Research Roadmap. Development of the Roadmap will have a direct influence on DOC’s own science directions and is thus complementary to design and implementation of the SAB.

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Note the contents of this paper (re SAB and Science Roadmap) b) Provide feedback on the contents of this paper, particularly in terms of the particular role(s) the Authority considers it could play in terms of a SAB c) Advise on how it wishes to progress development of the SAB.

Context The Department is establishing a Science Advisory Board as part of strengthening external input into its science priorities, and as part of implementing it’s just approved Plan for Science. The Plan for Science is about the ‘how’ our science is undertaken. In 2016 we plan to ‘revisit’ the priorities for our science investment for the next 4 or more years and will need external assistance with this process – the Board will be one conduit for that assistance. As part of thinking further ahead Cabinet has now approved development of a conservation and environmental research roadmap – a 20 year vision. That roadmap will be developed in 2016 and is jointly sponsored by the Ministers of Conservation and Environment, with a strategic advisory group chaired by the PM’s Chief Science Advisor Sir Peter Gluckman.

DOCCM-2634371 Ken Hughey 16 November 2015 95 These priority setting and roadmap processes are linking and again we will need assistance in making those links. In relation to all the above it is important that the SAB has an appropriate Terms of Reference (ToR) – these need to prove beneficial to the Department’s science work, and to be manageable and appropriate for the NZCA. The Department and NZCA need to negotiate these ToR.

DOCCM-2634371 Ken Hughey 16 November 2015 96 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.17 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November & 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Ken Hughey, Departmental Science Advisor

Subject: Science Advisory Board and Conservation and Environmental Science Research Roadmap

Background/Introduction 1. On 20th October 2015 DOC’s Senior Leadership Team approved the Plan for Science (see attached) – a document that is about ‘how’ the Department undertakes its science. The Plan incorporates a set of five science principles and eight sets of actions. Included in these action sets is one that envisages the establishment of an ‘external’ Science Advisory Board – the specifics of the role of that Board are not defined, but are envisaged to include: 2. Step 6: Establish an independent Science Advisory Board (preferably as a standing committee of the New Zealand Conservation Authority) to provide: a. Feedback on science results and contributions to DOC’s outcomes and goals b. Confirmation of science priorities for Science in Conservation, including gaps that need to be addressed c. Feedback on DOC’s partnership framework and associated plans d. Other strategic issues relevant to DOC’s science interests.

Details/Comment 3. Given the above the Department would like to engage with the Authority on how specifically to deliver on the above, e.g., in relation to each of the first two bullet points: a. The Department could report 6-monthly on results and implications and how these are being used or not by Operations b. The Authority could be a conduit to identifying priorities for the Department to consider for medium to longer term science planning

Section 4 Conservation Act 4. The Plan for Science has a strong underlying principle about Treaty relationships and research, i.e., “Treaty of Waitangi partnership commitment – DOC’s science activities will embrace kaitiakitanga and whanaungatanga – the commitment to look after, and be responsible for, our nature – through partnership (mutual good faith and reasonableness), informed decision-making, active protection, and redress and reconciliation, and thereby contributing to legislated commitments.” How exactly will it do this in its science activities and how could the Authority assist with exercising this principle? Partly that question will be addressed through close working relationship with the Iwi Leaders Group – Conservation, and through the development and implementation of well-designed MOUs with universities, CRIs, Museums and

DOCCM-2634371 Ken Hughey 16 November 2015 97 participating Iwi, but there are many aspects that will require further careful consideration. 5. The Research Roadmap design has already involved some consultation with Iwi, e.g., briefing of the Iwi Leaders Group – Conservation, Advisory Group in November. Further work is occurring around membership of advisory groups.

Conclusion 6. The Department wishes to have a strong strategic relationship with the Authority about its science priorities and the way it undertakes this science. The Plan for Science is the ‘how’, generally, but some of the ‘how’ requires more detail to make it operational. Having a Science Advisory Board will help facilitate the ‘how’ but will also help identify the ‘what’ we should be doing. 7. In terms of the ‘what’, development of the Conservation and Environmental Science Research Roadmap will help shape priorities for the Department and others. The SAB should be in a position to inform both processes.

DOCCM-2634371 Ken Hughey 16 November 2015 98 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.18 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Jo Breese, Waana Davis, Sandra Cook and Rau Kirikiri

Subject: Terms of Reference: Think Piece: The Role of NZCA in the Post- Treaty Claims Settlement Era

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

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required (a) Discuss and approve a Terms of Reference for a thinkpiece from the Department on the role of the NZCA in the Post-Treaty Claims Settlement Era

Context At its October 2015 meeting the Authority agreed that the role of the NZCA in the Post-Treaty Claims Settlement era should be discussed in depth. A working group was formed to draft a Terms of Reference for the Department. It was agreed the Terms of Reference would be discussed and approved at the December 2015, in order for the Department to provide a detailed report to the Authority at its April 2016 meeting. The working group is comprised of Jo Breese, Waana Davis, Sandra Cook and Rau Kirikiri. Attached is the Terms of Reference for discussion and approval.

DOCCM-2641382 129

DOCCM-2641382 130 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.18 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Jo Breese, Waana Davis, Sandra Cook and Rau Kirikiri

Subject: Terms of Reference: Think Piece: The Role of NZCA in the Post- Treaty Claims Settlement Era

Context The Treaty of Waitangi Claims Settlement process (which happen to include three North Island national parks) is nearing completion, and the Department of Conservation (DOC) faces some interesting challenges as the role that it plays in this process continues to grow. It is important that the gains from settlements are well managed and the opportunities are appropriately capitalised on. Treaty Settlements have produced a range of procedures for DOC and iwi to manage public conservation lands. These arrangements are, by their very nature, diverse and idiosyncratic reflecting the particular settlement. But they must be binding and enduring. The practicality of implementation and meeting iwi expectations remain perhaps the most defining challenges as, apart from the Te Urewera settlement perhaps, the Crown has struggled to adequately address iwi aspirations for the management and governance of, and access to, public conservation land resources. Arguably New Zealand leads the world in integrating indigenous knowledge and western systems of environmental management, but we still have a long way to go. NZCA, as the independent advisor to the Minister and the Director General of Conservation, plays a key role in the Crown’s s.4 responsibilities under the Conservation Act 1987, and it is this duty that will primarily define what the role of NZCA in a post-settlement Aotearoa might be.

Purpose To provide a substantive think piece to develop NZCA’s thinking about the role it could play in increasing the integration of a Māori world view in conservation beyond the current Section 4 in the Post-Settlement environment.

Considerations 1. Settlements offer opportunities for developing and strengthening meaningful relationships between DOC and iwi. 2. As settlements are implemented, iwi have a greater role and influence in the governance and management of public conservation land, creating new opportunities to enhance conservation. 3. A major impact of settlements for iwi is increased financial resource 4. Discussion of ongoing challenges and constraints include: a. practicality of implementing settlements b. iwi aspirations for management, governance, access to resources, etc

DOCCM-2641382 131 c. management/governance mechanisms being fit for purpose and cost-effective 5. Ensuring the commitments by DOC in settlements are met, consider: a. A stocktake of settlements, including an assessment of how well s.4 obligations are met b. DOCs approach to meeting these commitments: i. coordination or visibility ii. challenges and consequences iii. monitoring of the specific commitments iv. national overview c. Options adopted by other countries d. Other options? 6. Strengthening relationships with iwi who have settled a. Expanding engagement between DOC and iwi to maximise settlements – what role for NZCA? b. Resolve relationship issues – how could this be done effectively and efficiently – what role for NZCA? c. How is DOC’s progress in improving relationships monitored – what role for NZCA? d. The role, if any, NZCA has with the Post Treaty Settlement Commitments Unit, or any other part of the Office of Treaty Settlements – monitoring function for NZCA? e. The role of NZCA at the broader national scale e.g. Iwi Leaders Forum – through DOC? 7. Gamechangers – 3 big ideas? a. Assess achievability b. Assess any barriers 8. Additional information that is relevant to the relationship between NZCA and DOC

Scope The paper must be framed in the context of the existing legislative framework for NZCA. It must be forward looking and encourage fresh thinking about how s.4 is applied. Any constraints must be identified explicitly within the paper rather than assumed.

Timing To be prepared for April 2016 NZCA meeting.

References: http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/getting-involved/nz-conservation-authority-and- boards/nz-conservation-authority/factsheets/role-of-the-nzca.pdf http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/b/bim-2014/documents/attorney- general-2014 http://www.doc.govt.nz/bim-2014

DOCCM-2641382 132 NZCA papers (in NZCA Dropbox): • CB Fact Sheet 15 Section 4 Cons Act, 1987 • Mark Solomon Speech to NZCA, 7 April 2015 • NZCA Background Paper of National Parks and Treaty Settlements, Feb 2012 • NZCA briefing June 2012 – co-governance Treaty Settlement DOC • NZCA csa statutory obligations • NZCA engagement with tangata whenua, Dec 2014

14 November 2015

DOCCM-2641382 133 134 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

NZCA Strategic DOC: The diversity of natural heritage is maintained and Priority and/or the restored. Relevant DOC SOI NZCA: Strategic Priority (H) Rivers and Freshwater. Goal

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

Context The issue of whitebait and other galaxids was discussed at the most recent Board Chairs meeting. This paper is intended to provide a useful framework for considering freshwater fisheries conservation.

135

136 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: a. Harvest (commercial, recreational or customary), bycatch or deliberate killing of fish b. Killing of fish during stream works (e.g. drain clearing) c. Fish kills as a result of authorised or unauthorised discharges (e.g. accidental spills from vehicle crashes, illegal discharges) d. 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 e. 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) f. Loss of fish passage, due to physical barriers (dams, perched culverts, weirs) or excessive velocity within culverts and pipes g. 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 h. 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 i. 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) j. Loss of habitat quality due to reduced water quality (particularly sediment)

137 k. Loss of habitat quality due to reduced water quantity (including loss of flushing flows) l. Loss of habitat quality due to introduced species (e.g. didymo) m. 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. 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

138 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: a. Declaration of species as “unwanted”. This then makes their sale, propagation and release illegal. b. National pest management plans c. Regional pest management plans d. National pathway management plans e. Regional pathway management plans f. Powers for emergency control of new incursions

139 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. 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.

140 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: a. Riparian planting to provide shade, food, and eventually habitat complexity. b. Planting in inundation areas of larger rivers. Native vegetation in inundation areas is an important generator of fish food during floods. c. Creating new inundation areas when stop banks and other flood control systems are being modified. d. Exclusion of stock from waterbodies, including wetlands. e. 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. f. Creation of artificial refuges within natural or artificial banks. g. Restoration and protection of spawning sites. h. 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. i. 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). j. 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

141 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.

142 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.20 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November 2015 – 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Neil Bolton – Senior Ranger, Te Manahuna/Twizel

Subject: Himalayan Tahr Control Plan – Annual Report 2013/2014

NZCA Strategic (F) Game changers for conservation: pest control/biosecurity 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; and

b) Provide feedback on the contents of this paper.

Context The Himalayan Thar Control Plan requires the Department to report each year to the NZ Conservation Authority on activities undertaken to implement the Plan.

Delays were incurred with the provision to the NZCA of this attached 2013/14 Himalayan Thar Control Plan Annual Report due to circumstances arising from the 2013 Delivery Review.

By attaching the 3x Annual Operational Plans to the Annual Report we will now see a change to the format of the Reporting (compared with earlier years’ reports), however, I have included a section summarizing the “Key Points” of note arising from all 3x Operational Plans, and further detail(s) on these Key Points can be gleaned from within each Region’s Operational Plan (see attachments). This alteration to format will enable Authority members to glean additional detail and context from the Operational Plans, while at the same time removing duplication of Operational Plan detail from the Annual Report.

The 2014/15 Himalayan Thar Control Plan Annual Report will be provided separately (to this 13/14 report) for circulation to the NZCA at the scheduled Nov/Dec 2015 meeting.

DOCCM-2597804 143

DOCCM-2597804 144 Himalayan Thar Control Plan

Part A - Report on Management Unit activities – 2013-2014 year:

Part B – Operational Plans 2014-2015:

(Part A) Annual Report 2013-2014

1. Introduction The Himalayan Tahr Control Plan requires the department to report each year to the NZ Conservation Authority on activities undertaken to implement the Plan. The report is also made available to relevant Conservation Boards and stakeholder groups. This report is a collation of Management Unit information from 2013-14.

2. Period of Coverage This report covers the period 1 July 2013 to 30 June 2014 (referred to in report as 2013).

3. Highlights • 3556 tahr were reported killed over this period. Previous years culls were: o 2012 - 4759 o 2011 - 4143 o 2010 - 3183 o 2009 – 3237 o 2008 – 3286 o 2007 - 3684 • DOC aerial operations - 1148 tahr. Previous years culls were: o 2012 - 3254 o 2011 - 2280 o 2010 - 2115 o 2009 - 2535 o 2008 - 2498 o 2007 - 3210 • Organised recreational hunter group culls – 125 tahr. Previous years culls were: o 2012 - 512 o 2011 - 938 o 2010 - 263 o 2009 - 137 o 2008 - 145 o 2007 - 68 • Balloted hunters in West Coast Wilderness Areas – 420 tahr. Previous years culls were: o 2012 - 466 o 2011 - 451 o 2010 - 411 o 2009 – 552 o 2008 - 467 o 2007 - 406 DOCCM-2597804 145 • AATH – 1466 culls. Previous years culls were: o 2013 - 1466 o 2012 - 288 o 2011- 256 • AATH – 387 trophies taken o 2013 - 176 o 2012 - 160 o 2011 - 228 o 2010 - 138 • Other aerial commercial tahr recovery (carcasses, capes & live capture) o 2013 - 10

4. Assessment and Control of Tahr DOC aerial population assessment and control operations were undertaken in Otago, West Coast and Canterbury, albeit at a reduced level to previous years and killed 1094 tahr. This reduced tahr take is as result of various alternative non-DOC funded arrangements to cull tahr to levels required by the Himalayan Thar Control Plan.

DOC operations continue to focus on places where other control efforts are unable to hold tahr at appropriate densities. These areas include: • Risk Zones and other public conservation land outside of the tahr feral range; • The Northern and Southern Exclusion Zones; • Westland Tai Poutini and Aoraki-Mt Cook National Parks; • Localised sites within all other 7 Management Units where the density of tahr exceeds the thresholds in the Plan; MU’s 1 & 2, and Westland National Park were a particular focus for culls this year, this including the use of AATH offset culls. In MU7, sustained aerial operations aim to prevent southwards dispersal by holding tahr at very low levels.

The Tahr Interest Group (TIG) and other organised recreational hunter groups volunteer culling in areas where ground/air access is deemed a feasible option. In 2013/14 their focus was on culling activities in MU 3 and MU 4b in Canterbury and MU 6 on the West Coast.

Recreational hunters participating in the balloted landing opportunities in the Hooker- Landsborough and Adams Wilderness Areas reported killing 420 tahr both trophies and cull animals. This continues to be a significant control contribution in the localised areas they apply control to.

Few reports were received from other recreational hunters, however interest in tahr hunting remains high and from informal anecdotal reports we expect significant numbers of tahr are shot in areas that hunters can access.

No reports were received of recreational, professional hunting or commercial recovery on private or leasehold lands.

Aerial Assisted Trophy Hunting (AATH) In 2013/14, 12 permits were issued to undertake AATH between February and August. During this season 387 tahr were taken as trophies. The AATH permit requires a conservation offset of either the culling of 5 nannies and juveniles for every trophy (tahr and chamois) taken from public conservation land or a helicopter airtime offset contribution calculated on the number of trophies taken. Offset culls in 2014 from the 2014 trophy take contributed 1466 culls plus an additional 19 hours of helicopter services in both the Southern & Northern Exclusion Zones.

DOCCM-2597804 146 Northern Exclusion Zone (NEZ) Aerial control in the NEZ continues to be a mix of tracking 12 Judas tahr and searching likely tahr habitat, minimum of 4 runs per annum. In the NEZ and adjacent buffer areas in the Rakaia, Wilberforce and Whitcombe Valleys, a total of 40 tahr were shot, most from the buffer areas.

MU1 No official DOC control was programmed for MU1, while recreational hunting remains popular in this MU especially in the Rangitata Valley; however, no records are obtained from recreational hunters.

MU2 There were 682 tahr killed during the year: 504 by DOC aerial operations, and 178 shot by (balloted) recreational hunters in the Adams Wilderness Area.

MU3 There were no culling activities reported for MU 3. The unit is popular with recreational hunters and is currently the main form of control on tahr numbers.

MU4a (Westland Tai Poutini National Park) Tahr control within the National Park saw a shift in control focus to an increased proportion of tahr being shot by AATH offset culls under DOC’s direction (819 tahr) than that shot by DOC funded culls (383 tahr), resulting in a total tahr take of 1202 tahr shot from these two methods. The Callery and Karangarua catchments continue to hold the most tahr. Horace Walker and Christmas Flat with their approved landing sites remain popular places for recreational hunting.

MU4b (Aoraki-Mt Cook National Park and the adjacent Jollie-Cass area) There were 215 tahr culled during the year; 205 by DOC directed AATH offset culls and 10 by aerial commercial recovery for trophy capes. The eastern boundary of the park borders freehold land carrying high tahr numbers and the continued migration into the park across the Liebig Range is an ongoing issue.

MU5 There were 296 tahr reported killed during the year, all being AATH offset culls. Recreational hunting is popular throughout the Ben Ohau Range which is a mix of public conservation land and private land, however, no records are received for recreational hunter take.

MU6 There were 592 tahr culled during the year; 79 by DOC, 146 by AATH offset culls and 367 by recreational hunters (balloted landings & organised recreational culls). Again we see a move toward utilising alternative methods of control beyond that of DOC just undertaking aerial culls.

MU7 There were 60 tahr culled during the year by DOC over 3 operations. Aerial hunting by DOC is the primary form of intensive tahr control within this Management Unit. The Birchwood/Ben Avon area remains popular with local hunters as a place with easy access to tahr habitat; although tahr densities are considerably lower than further north in MU’s 5 & 3.

Southern Exclusion Zone (SEZ) Tahr control in the southern exclusion zone is managed from the Wanaka DOC office. There are 40 Judas tahr released in this Exclusion Zone, although transmitter problems encountered with 31 of the 40 collared tahr have severely hampered tahr control efforts. Judas tahr tracking

DOCCM-2597804 147 occurred four times last year, however, the search area has increased to >2600km² as Judas tahr roam away from their release sites.

Risk Areas DOC control efforts culled 82 tahr, and continued to target known localised groups of tahr in the Oteake Conservation Park, Upper Hakataramea Valley and Wakatipu Public Conservation Land areas. Aerial hunting by DOC south of Lake Wakatipu in the Thomson Mountains killed 14 tahr in both aerial and ground operations while DOC aerial operations killed 36 tahr in the Oteake Conservation Park and 32 tahr in the Upper Hakataramea Valley.

Commercial Recovery A small amount of commercial recovery was permitted this year for the live capture of male tahr for restocking private safari parks, and cape recovery for taxidermy purposes. No accurate returns have been available for these two activities (this issue has been flagged for addressing).

Table 1. Reported Tahr killed 2013-14: by Management Unit

MU Rec Ballot/ AATH TIG Comm. Pvte DOC Total Hunter Org Rec cull NEZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 40 1 No rtns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 No rtns 178 0 0 0 0 504 682 3 No rtns 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4a No rtns 0 819 0 0 0 383 1202 4b No rtns 0 205 0 10 0 0 215 5 No rtns 0 296 0 0 0 0 296 6 No rtns 242 146 125 0 0 79 592 7 No rtns 0 0 0 0 0 60 60 SEZ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Oteake CP 0 0 0 0 0 0 36 36 Upper 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 32 Hakataramea Wakatipu 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 14 AATH trophy 0 0 0 0 387 0 0 387 Total 420 1466 125 397 0 1148 3556

5. Status of Management Units

5.1 Tahr population estimates Each year a combination of observations made during control operations, aerial surveys (when undertaken), and anecdotal reports on tahr numbers are collated. These are sufficient to make localised estimates of tahr numbers adequate for assessing control or other management needs but are not sufficient to collate into population estimates at a management unit level or tahr range scale. Some general observations can however be reported.

Tahr numbers remain low and dispersed in both the Northern and Southern Exclusion Zones with few animals being located. The use of judas tahr has aided the detection of tahr in these Exclusion Zones which would otherwise not have been located. Natural drift northward appears to consist mainly of male tahr, while established “tahr hot spot” areas (both at NEZ & SEZ ends) have been identified with the use of judas tahr. In previous years it was the view that tahr numbers within the Exclusion Zones were not showing any apparent increase in numbers or extent and was viewed that the current level and methods of control are effective. Data

DOCCM-2597804 148 supporting this assumption is currently being reviewed by DOC staff to ensure that this view on tahr density and extent within the Exclusion Zones is still current.

Tahr, by their very nature are unevenly distributed across their range and continue to be easily located in sites of preferred habitat. On the West Coast the larger tahr groups tend to be found in areas of favoured habitat such as northern facing ranges with bluff systems above areas of alpine scrub or forest. Localised areas (ca. 400-800ha) still hold significant numbers of tahr and densities can occasionally reach 10+t/km² but are more typically at 4-6t/km². These localised areas represent the highest tahr density sites within western management units but the average tahr density over an entire management unit is expected to be significantly lower.

On the eastern side of the Main Divide tahr are more widespread and herd distribution is influenced by favoured habitat and hunting pressure. There are areas of freehold or leasehold land with high tahr numbers. In general herds are more evenly distributed and there is evidence that there is migration between catchments. In less favoured habitat tahr numbers may be very low or absent. In some management units herds are likely around the target density range of 1.5-2.5 tahr/km². At Aoraki-Mt Cook, approx 50% of the park was hunted in 2013 utilising Aerially Assisted Trophy Hunting offset contributions. The Liebig Range (Mt Cook-Aoraki NP) continues to be an area with persistent tahr migration from adjacent areas.

Tahr numbers in management unit 7 continue to remain low and scattered with only some localised concentrations in the Dingle/ Timaru Creek/Wills area.

5.2 Vegetation condition The condition of tussock grasslands, with particular focus on tahr palatable plants (Chionochloa sp), has been measured every 10 years on 117 permanent plots located across 8 management units since c. 1990. The plots are sited in areas spanning a range of tahr densities, from high to low, to provide a trend in the condition of vegetation relative to tahr pressure. The last re- measurement of this plot series began in February 2011 and in summer 2013 the final plots at Townsend, Carneys, Hooker and Fitzgerald were completed. Analysis of the data is currently underway and will be reported in 2014/15 Annual Report.

Analysis of this data set should provide a better understanding of vegetation condition trends relative to tahr density, provide direction for future tahr control and whether ongoing annual counts of tahr densities in these survey catchments is crucial?

6. Liaison with Contributors to the Plan

The department is transforming the way it works and how it undertakes conservation. The structural changes within the Department that commenced in 2013 will better enable the department to successfully deliver on its vision and strategic direction. For tahr management this means a greater level of collaboration between DOC Regions nationally, key partners, including sharing of knowledge and resources.

Improved environmental performance and net gains in biodiversity are integral in the outcomes for tahr management and begins with the realisation that economic and environmental sustainability go hand-in-hand. In 2013/14 the Department continued to actively pursue partnerships in order to enhance and increase conservation work in Canterbury as well as concerted action to control tahr.

DOCCM-2597804 149 In the interest of the hunting community and business sector to ensure tahr populations are kept within the parameters of the Himalayan Thar Control Plan, this will require collaboration between DOC and all hunter sectors.

Increasing the tahr control capacity within the hunting community and business sector will allow the department to reduce its time in the “shooter’s seat” of the helicopter and shift to a co-ordinator role, enabling reprioritising of its limited resources to tasks such as priority ecosystem sites, and feral range expansion.

In 2013/14 commercial tahr recovery activities, AATH environmental off-set contributions, TIG control operations, and organized recreational hunts lead to a substantial number of tahr culled when compared to official control operations. Nationally, this type of collaborative concerted action has the potential to replace a substantial portion of the department’s control work inside the Tahr Feral Range. The department in future years will be looking to work with these groups constructively to maintain and/or increase the level of hunter culling effort.

The combined hunting effort of recreational hunters, organised recreational hunter control, AATH, and other commercial opportunities provides DOC with a valuable control and conservation tool. This, however, shall not preclude the department as a land administrator from instigating additional official control where it finds breaches of the Himalayan Thar Control or where biodiversity values at sites of importance are at risk.

An annual Tahr Plan Implementation Liaison Group meeting continues to be held where DOC provides an overview of how the Thar Control Plan is being implemented and to receive feedback from the multiple stakeholder organisations represented, particularly in relation to the production of annual Operational Control Plans and out year control work. Eastern South Island Region DOC staff regularly meet with local hunting groups in Canterbury each year to provide regular tahr management updates and receive feedback from various interest groups.

The South Island Hunting Exposition (aka “The Tahr Show”) continues to be held annually in Christchurch and maintains a strong tahr hunting focus. DOC and other interest groups use this opportunity to engage with a wide range of hunters about tahr hunting, control work and related matters such as recreational access, tenure review land acquisitions, dogs on public conservation land, etc.

The DOC website continues to be used to communicate information about tahr hunting opportunities and DOC control work, the website contains copies of the annual Operational Plans for each of the 3 DOC Regions where tahr are managed, and a copy of the Himalayan Thar Control Plan – 1993.

The permits issued for AATH require detailed returns and observational reports to be submitted to DOC and this provides another source of information to help understand the nature of tahr populations, where they are concentrated and their impacts on habitat. The agreed environmental offset contribution of 5 culls (females and juveniles) for each trophy taken has increased the potential for tahr culls significantly. By DOC coordinating and overseeing these offset culls with DOC control work; it has demonstrated it is possible to increase tahr hunting pressure at critical sites.

DOCCM-2597804 150 7. Research updates

Data gathered during the most recent measurements of permanent grassland plots which are located at locations throughout the feral tahr range has been provided to Landcare Research who has been commissioned to produce an analysis of this data in relation to the “Impact of Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus) on snow tussocks in the Southern Alps, New Zealand”.

A summary of this vegetation monitoring report and any recommendations arising from the commissioned report will be discussed in the subsequent 2014/15 Himalayan Thar Control Plan Annual Report.

8. Meeting Objectives of the HTP

The Himalayan Thar Control Plan (1993) set out seven key objectives to be met; paraphrased as:

1. To determine, and review from time to time through monitoring, the population of tahr consistent with an ecologically acceptable vegetation and estate condition. The 117 permanent grassland plots established are a key indicator of ecological condition. These plots have now been measured three times over 20 years and will provide a basis for determining how tahr populations at various densities effect grassland ecosystems. Landcare Research has been commissioned to provide a report on the analysis of this data collected – “Impact of Himalayan tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus) on snow tussocks in the Southern Alps, New Zealand”.

2. To ensure the target level (intervention density) of that population for each area (management unit) is not exceeded. Given current density assessment techniques, an estimate of absolute tahr abundance at management unit scale is still not been possible to achieve. Tahr density at a small scale continues to be measureable and linked with observations made during DOC managed control activities is a key component when planning annual work programmes (refer to Annual Operational Plans).

3. To prevent northwards or southwards extension of the tahr breeding range. This objective has been a priority for the department with significant resources used to achieve and maintain it, this objective is now supported by the inclusion of AATH offset contributions as additional control assistance. While both male and female tahr are still located and killed within the Northern and Southern Exclusion Zones, indications are that these are transient animals and that new herds are not establishing in these areas.

4. To provide for commercial hunting. Commercial hunting is provided for in annual Operational Plans. Although harvesting tahr for human consumption has not attracted much commercial interest of recent times, there continues to be small markets for hides, capes and live capture.

5. To provide for recreational and tourist hunting. Both recreational and tourist hunters are well provided for. In areas with few access restrictions tahr hunting can be undertaken throughout the year by individuals or by ground/aerial based guided hunting under a concession. In areas where aircraft access is restricted, annual access for hunters is provided for under controlled use (i.e. Wilderness Areas, Natural Quiet Zones).

DOCCM-2597804 151 6. To facilitate control by the DOC where tahr are not being held at or below target levels. DOC has continued to apply tahr herd control in places where other forms of control have not met the Plan targets. DOC maintains a systematic process for assessing all public conservation over a 3-5 year timeframe located within the 7 Management Units identified within the tahr feral range habitat.

7. To allow the commercial use of tahr under captive conditions where this poses no risk of extending the breeding range of tahr. Holding tahr in captivity for farming or trophy hunting purposes is permitted within the feral range of the species. Although farming for meat or other products has not been developed but continues to be worked upon, trophy hunting of captive tahr has become popular and profitable for those landowners involved.

(Part B) Operational Plans 2014-2015

1. Summary of Key Points:

 Western South Island Region – DOC tahr control operations will remain focused on all Management Units, i.e. Risk Zones, NEZ, MU2, MU4a, MU6;

 Eastern South Island Region – DOC control effort will remain primarily focused on Risk Zones/areas outside of Feral Range and Aoraki/Mt Cook NP. Thar control in other MU’s will be maintained using the existing 4-5 year cycle, north to south rolling front assessment/control programme;

 Southern South Island Region – DOC tahr control operations will continue to remain focused on Risk Zones/areas outside Feral Range, SEZ and MU7 (as buffer to SEZ);

 AATH offset contribution (under DOC direction/management) playing an increasing role in successfully controlling tahr within MU’s at very minimal expense to DOC;

 Annual Operational Control Plans for Tahr Control to clearly identify priority sites where AATH offset contributions and DOC funded control will be undertaken;

 Where possible facilitate avenues/opportunities to assist organised recreational hunters in contributing to tahr herd suppression;

 Actively encourage recreational and commercial hunting (AATH, guiding, live capture, & carcass recovery) participation on public conservation land where they can realistically achieve the required goals and objectives of the Thar Control Plan;

 Promote/support research initiatives which build collaboration and capability across all hunting sectors to improve efficiency and effectiveness of tahr control;

 Where possible work collegially with adjacent land owners/occupiers to manage tahr impacts on land of all tenure;

DOCCM-2597804 152  Ensure the Department’s communication channels are effective in delivering relevant and up to date information about tahr management, Management Unit trends, required goals & objectives, and hunting opportunities;

 Accountability for tahr management across all public conservation land shall lie with Director – Conservation Services, Eastern South Island, while operational delivery lead and national co-ordinator for all tahr activities on public conservation land (including AATH and other tahr related commercial WARO activities) shall be managed from Te Manahuna/Twizel District Office;

2. Appendices:

 Appendix 1 – Operational Plan for Tahr Control in the Eastern South Island Region, 1st July 2014 to 30th June 2015; DOCDM-1453531

 Appendix 2 – Operational Plan for Tahr Control in Northern & West Coast, South Island Region, 1st July 2014 to 30th June 2015; DOCDM-1464091

 Appendix 3 – Operational Plan for Tahr Control in the Southern South Island Region, 1st July 2014 to 30th June 2015; DOCDM-1433887

DOCCM-2597804 153

DOCCM-2597804 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.21 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 31 November & 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Sean Cooper, Don Neale (Marine Ecosystems Team), DOC

Subject: New Zealand Marine Reserves - update

NZCA Strategic Statement of Intent, Intermediate outcome 1: The diversity Priority and/or the of our natural heritage is maintained and restored Relevant DOC SOI NZCA: (G) Marine Goal

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

Context NZCA requested an update on New Zealand marine reserves and the MPA programme. The last update was given in August 2014.

DOCDM-2633023 Sean Cooper, Manager, Marine Ecosystems 13 November 2015 181

DOCDM-2633023 Sean Cooper, Manager, Marine Ecosystems 13 November 2015 182

New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.21 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November & 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Don Neale, Technical Advisor (Marine Ecosystems)

Subject: New Zealand Marine Reserves - update

Background/Introduction 1. An update on marine reserves was provided to the NZCA in August 2014. This further update provides more recent information up to November 2015.

Details/Comment Background 2. Marine Reserves are established under the Marine Reserves Act 1971 (the Act), with a primary purpose to maintain the natural habitat of marine life for scientific study. To date, 44 marine reserves have been established (at November 2015). 3. The government’s Marine Protected Areas Policy & Implementation Plan 2005 (MPA Policy) aims to establish collaborative regional Marine Protection Planning Forums (supported by DOC and MPI) to make recommendations for new MPAs (including marine reserves) to the Ministers of Conservation and Primary Industries. The overall aim is to establish a network of representative MPAs around New Zealand. This non- statutory Policy encourages, but cannot compel, a broad participation by tangata whenua and the public in this regionally-based approach. 4. A 2011 gap analysis of marine protected areas (MPAs) showed that the extent of protection varies between bioregions and habitats around New Zealand. The habitats of some bioregions are thoroughly represented within marine reserves, while other bioregions remain unrepresented (see Table 1). Regional approaches to marine protected areas have been undertaken (but not all under the MPA Policy) in the Fiordland, Kermadec, Subantarctic Islands and West Coast South Island bioregions. Marine reserves in the other ten bioregions have mostly been established from a series of single ad hoc proposals, or are absent. The Act does not provide for the creation of marine reserves in the offshore environments of the EEZ. 5. The Government is carrying out a review of marine protected area legislation and is intending to release a discussion document for public comment in December 2015. The review is being led by the Ministry for the Environment. In the meantime the existing legislation and MPA policy applies. 6. The Department’s future work in marine protection is to be guided by a Marine Strategy that sets targets over the next 35 years. One of the Department’s ‘stretch goals’ is to establish a fully representative nationwide network of marine protected areas by 2025.

DOCDM-2633023 Sean Cooper, Manager, Marine Ecosystems 13 November 2015 183 7. No timeframe has been considered or agreed upon for the commencement of future bioregional collaborative MPA processes. The Department’s current focus is especially on: a. The management and monitoring of existing marine reserves, including an “Ecological Integrity” research programme that aims to assess and report on the health of marine ecosystems both within and outside of New Zealand’s marine reserves b. Sub-regional processes, for the South-East Marine Protection Planning Forum (Otago) and the ‘Sea Change’ Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Planning Forum c. Support for the establishment of the Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary (see Appendix 2) d. Involvement in the MPA legislation review e. The development and implementation of DOC’s Marine Strategy f. Scientific and policy support for the NZ-USA proposal for an MPA in Antarctica’s Ross Sea region. Extent of marine reserves and MPAs 8. Table 1 and the appended maps present the marine biogeographic regions in New Zealand (Appendix 1) and the extent of marine reserves (Appendix 2) as at November 2015. 9. Since the last update to the NZCA (August 2014), six more marine reserves have been established. These are the Hikurangi Marine Reserve (as part of a range of measures under the Kaikōura (Te Tai o Marokura) Marine Management Act 2014), and five marine reserves resulting from the West Coast Marine Protected Area Forum process: Kahurangi, Punakaiki, Waiau Glacier Coast, Tauparikaka and Hautai. 10. At November 2015, 17,700 square kilometres, or 9.8% of our Territorial Sea is in marine reserves. Marine reserves protect 47% of the territorial sea around New Zealand’s ecologically important offshore islands, compared with only 0.4% of the ‘mainland’ NZ territorial waters (around North, South and Stewart Islands). 11. At November 2015, 12.4% of our Territorial Sea is protected in marine protected areas (marine reserves plus other types of marine protected areas). Three new ‘Type 2’ MPAs were established in 2014 under fisheries regulations, establishing two no-trawl zones adjacent to the new Punakaiki Marine Reserve and one adjacent to Hautai Marine Reserve. 12. No marine protected areas exist beyond the Territorial Sea, in the EEZ. However, a fully protected Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary was announced by the Prime Minister in September 2015 and is expected to be established by October 2016, covering the whole of the Kermadec EEZ out to the 200 nautical mile limit. At 620,000 square kilometres, it will be one of the world’s largest and most significant fully protected areas. It will be 35 times larger than the combined area of New Zealand’s existing 44 marine reserves. The sanctuary will mean 15 percent of New Zealand’s ocean environment will be fully protected. 13. Eleven of NZ’s 14 marine biogeographic regions have at least one marine reserve. The full range of our marine habitats is not yet represented in marine reserves.

DOCDM-2633023 Sean Cooper, Manager, Marine Ecosystems 13 November 2015 184 Section 4 Conservation Act 14. The Department consults and involves Maori in the establishment and management of marine reserves. This includes representation on regional marine protection forums, and collaborative management and monitoring at some locations.

Conclusion 15. A total of 44 marine reserves cover 17,700 square kilometres (9.8%) of New Zealand’s territorial waters.

DOCDM-2633023 Sean Cooper, Manager, Marine Ecosystems 13 November 2015 185 Table 1: Percentage of each of New Zealand’s biogeographic regions that is protected within marine reserves.

This table uses the bioregions defined by the New Zealand Marine Protected Areas Classification, Protection Standard and Implementation Guidelines (2008). Figures are drawn from DOC’s current GIS data, which for a number of technical reasons may vary slightly from other information sources.

Biogeographic Region Area of Total area Percentage of biogeographic (legal area) biogeographic region (km2) of marine region in reserves marine (km2) reserves Kermadec Islands 7,675 7675 100.0 Three Kings 2,219 0 0.0 Northeastern 38,100 85 0.2 East Coast North Island 11,621 29 0.3 West Coast North Island 14,572 33 0.2 North Cook Strait 13,656 30 0.2 South Cook Strait 12,250 39 0.3 East Coast South Island 11,081 111 1.0 West Coast South Island 13,112 175 1.3 Fiordland 10,247 104 1.0 Southern South Island 20,964 11 0.1 Chatham Islands 12,125 0 0.0 Subantarctic Islands 11,924 9408 78.9 Snares Islands 2,142 0 0.0

DOCDM-2633023 Sean Cooper, Manager, Marine Ecosystems 13 November 2015 186 Appendix 1: Biogeographic regions of New Zealand

This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes.

DOCDM-2633023 Sean Cooper, Manager, Marine Ecosystems 13 November 2015 187 Appendix 2: New Zealand Marine Reserves

This product is for informational purposes and may not have been prepared for, or suitable for legal, engineering, or surveying purposes.

DOCDM-2633023 Sean Cooper, Manager, Marine Ecosystems 13 November 2015 188 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.22 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November 2015 and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Judy Hellstrom

Subject: Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management Plan partial review – NZCA submission

NZCA Strategic (B) National Park Management Plans Priority

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Ratify the attached submission on the Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management Plan partial review b) Note the verbal update from Judy Hellstrom

Context The Authority submitted and was heard on the partial review of the Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management Plan because it affects the management of the Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan.

DOCCM-2638118 Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer 11 November 2015 189

DOCCM-2638118 190 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.22 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November 2015 and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Judy Hellstrom

Subject: Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management Plan partial review – NZCA submission

Background/Introduction 1. The Abel Tasman National Park boundary on the seaward side is the Mean High Water Mark. 2. The land between the Mean High Water Mark and the Mean Low Water Springs is the Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve under the Reserves Act (gazetted as such in January 2007). 3. A large proportion of visitors to the Abel Tasman National Park enter via the Foreshore. 4. The Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan was approved by the Authority in 2008. The Management Plan acknowledges that since the 1990s there is a perception that the park is overcrowded and the Plan attempts to address this issue by providing for different types of visitor experience with the use of recreational zones. The Plan seeks to preserve the park in its natural state for future generations and to maintain what is distinctive about recreation in this park, as well as facilitating visitor benefit, use and enjoyment while respecting the rights of visitors to do the same.i 5. The National Park Management Plan cannot impose management conditions on the Foreshore, but it does make strong statements about how the Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve (the Foreshore) Management Plan should be integrated with the Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan. 6. The Foreshore Management Plan was approved in June 2012 by the Management Plan Approval Committee, which is a subcommittee of the Nelson/Marlborough Conservation Board. 7. The Authority made a submission on the draft Foreshore Management Plan (available at www.conservationauthority.org.nz). 8. The Authority was happy for the most part with the integration between the approved Foreshore Management Plan and the National Park Management Plan. 9. The Foreshore is administered and managed by an Administration Committee, which is comprised of the Chief Executive Officer of Tasman District Council, and the Director, Conservation Partnership, North and Western South Island Region of the Department of Conservation (subject to approval this will change to Director Operations, Northern South Island).

Details/Comment 10. A partial review of Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management Plan was notified on 20 August 2015 to:

DOCCM-2638118 191 • Enable mana whenua to access the reserve to undertake their kaitiaki responsibilities and carry out non-commercial cultural activities. • Provide for recreation concessions at Observation Beach bays instead of at Watering Cove (i.e. transferring an existing activity from one location to another nearby location within the Astrolabe Roadstead). • Allow Tonga Quarry to be used as a full Coastal Access Point for a trial period (i.e. until the next full plan review takes place). • Manage the movement of hire equipment (e.g. kayaks, paddleboards, tents) or other equipment within/across the reserve, by including plan provisions limiting drop off or retrieval of hire equipment to approved concessionaires only. 11. The Authority made a submission (attached) and Judy Hellstrom spoke on the Authority’s behalf at the hearing on 30 October 2015 in Motueka. 12. The Authority’s submission centred on provisions that affects the adjoining National Park and did not submit on provisions that affect adjoining private land. 13. The Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan and the Abel Tasman Foreshore Management Plan are due for review in full in 2018.

Section 4 Conservation Act 14. The Authority supported the proposed provision to enable mana whenua to access the reserve to undertake their kaitiaki responsibilities and carry out non-commercial cultural activities.

Conclusion 15. The Foreshore is a thin piece of land that serves as the ‘gateway’ to the National Park. The Authority approved a visitor management regime for the National Park (in the Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan) after wide consultation with the public and taking into account the diverse visitor experiences that are expected, while also protecting the park’s intrinsic worth. The proposed changes to the Foreshore Plan to do with concessions undermines the intent of the Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan regarding visitor experience and widens the gap in integrated management between both Plans. The most appropriate time for considering such amendments to the Foreshore Plan is when both plans are reviewed in 2018, which will allow for wide public consultation and the effects of changes to the Foreshore Plan on the management of the National Park to be considered in a ‘whole of park’ context.

i Access and use 5.1.1.1 background, Page 83, Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan 2008- 2018

DOCCM-2638118 192 Submission Form

Draft Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management Plan partial review

Once you have completed this form Send by post or drop off to: Tasman District Council, Abel Tasman Foreshore Plan partial review, 189 Queen Street, Private Bag 4, Richmond 7050 or email to: [email protected]

Submissions must be received no later than 4.00pm, Monday 12 October 2015 Anyone may make a submission, either as an individual or on behalf of an organisation. Please ensure all sections of this form are completed. You may either use this form or prepare your own, but if preparing your own please use the same headings as used in this form. A Word version of this form is available for download from these websites: www.doc.govt.nz and www.tasman.govt.nz

Submitter details:

Name of submitter Dr Warren Parker, Chairperson or contact person:

Organisation name: New Zealand Conservation Authority (if on behalf of an organisation)

Postal address: PO Box 10 420 Wellington 6143

Telephone number: 04 471 9378 (the best number to contact you on)

Email: [email protected]

I wish to be heard in support of my submission (this means you can speak at a hearing) I do not wish to be heard in support of my submission (tick one box)

Signature:

Your submission is submitted as part of a public process and once received by Tasman District Council (Council) and the Department of Conservation (DOC) on behalf of the Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management Plan Approval Committee (MPAC), it is subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1981. The Council or DOC may post your submission on their websites and also make it available to their staff; any consultant used; the Nelson Marlborough Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority. Your submission may be made available to any member of the public following a request made under the Official Information Act 1981.

193 Submission:

Section: Submission: Decision sought: Identify the section, Explain the nature of your submission State clearly the decision sought or objective, policy, stating whether you support or oppose changes you would like to see. Please method, table or the approach in the draft Plan. Please be as precise as possible. For example: map that your provide brief reasons. - if supporting: ‘retain Policy X’ submission relates - if opposing: ‘delete Policy X’ to. - if seeking changes ‘reword Policy X to read (give suggested wording)

194 The New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) is a national statutory body established under the Conservation Act 1987. It has a major governance function in that it approves national park management plans. The NZCA approved the current management plan for the Abel Tasman National Park in 2008. The NZCA opposes the addition of Tonga Quarry as a Coastal Access Point. The proposed addition of this Coastal Access Point is contrary to the Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan. Tonga Quarry is categorised by the ATNPMP as South Coast which “provides for walkers, kayakers and other visitors to use the park for picnics and smaller group camping, with toilets provided. This zone provides visitors 6.1.3.1 Coastal with a quieter, more natural‘ national NZCA opposes the addition of Tonga Access Points park’ experience, but with the Quarry as a Coastal Access Point. expectation of reasonably high levels of interaction with other visitors. These places have been chosen because they have the appropriate natural values for the intended visitor experience and the facilities to cope with visitor use.” Onetahuti already provides the Coastal Access Point in the Foreshore Plan in this area. The NZCA opposes the other campsite in the area, Tonga Quarry, becoming a Coastal Access Point, as this site provides for the South Coast experience, which the NZCA would not like to see lost as all experiences should be provided for in the National Park. The NZCA does not support the rationale for needing an additional Coastal Access Point in the area, as boats of an adequate size for water taxis can safely use Onetahuti.

195 ‘Other general characteristics of the Coastal Access Points’ and ‘Table 6’ state numbers of visitors. However because of the differing combinations of Coastal Access Points referred to When referring to combinations of in both sections, the actual maximum sites for visitor numbers always use number of visitors to the sites are the same combinations throughout unclear. Table 6 also seems to the Plan, to provide clear guidance 6.1.3.1 Coastal provide for much larger numbers of on maximum visitor numbers. Access Points visitors than the ‘other general Numbers of characteristics of the Coastal Access Or spell out the max number of visitors Points’ provides for as Table 6 has visitors for each site individually. 500 visitors for the water taxis alone Numbers are to be consistent with (and there are several other activity the Abel Tasman National Park types provided for) at the Onetahuti Management Plan. (and Tonga Quarry) site (compared with 700 max for the Onetahuti, Awaroa Beach and Sawpit Point combination in the ‘other general characteristics’ The NZCA supports the intent of the NZCA supports the proposal for inclusion of ‘Access for kaitiaki 2. Treaty of allowing mana whenua to carry out responsibilities and cultural activities’ Waitangi kaitiaki responsibilities and or non- and the associated Policy and other commercial cultural activities. associated changes. The Abel Tasman National Park The NZCA opposes the proposed Management Plan is due for review changes as they are inconsistent in 2018. At this time it would be 12.7.1 with the Abel Tasman National Park appropriate to look at this in the Management Plan. context of the wider National Park Management Plan/Foreshore Plan.

Please continue on a separate sheet if required. Remember – the more specific you can be, the easier it will be for the Management Plan Approval Committee to understand your concerns and take them into account. Further information can be appended to your submission. If you are sending this submission electronically we accept the following formats – Microsoft Word, Text, PDF and JPG. The file must not be more than 9MB.

196 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.24 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Mike Harbrow, Social Science Advisor (Recreation), DOC

Subject: Connection between visits to public conservation lands and waters and support for conservation

NZCA Strategic (I) Effectiveness of the Department’s conservation management Priority

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 has undertaken work to clarify the relationship between visits to public conservation lands and waters and support for conservation. This issue has been of interest to the Authority for some time and the Department wishes to provide an update on progress and seek feedback. A summary of the findings of a recent literature review and analysis of survey data is provided.

DOCCM-2639465 Mike Harbrow 13 November 2015 197

DOCCM-2639465 Mike Harbrow 13 November 2015 198

New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.24 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Michael Harbrow, Social Science Advisor (Recreation)

Subject: Connection between visits to public conservation lands and waters and support for conservation

Background/Introduction 1. The Department has often claimed that encouraging visits to public conservation lands and waters increases support for conservation and has used this rationale to support investment in recreation and tourism. The Department has not presented strong evidence to support this position to date. There is some risk that the Department will either make poor investment decisions based on an incomplete understanding of any link between participation and engagement, or that opportunities to grow conservation will be missed. 2. As many as 5 million visitors access public conservation lands and waters each year. There is potential for significant conservation gains if this interest can be converted into tangible support for conservation (e.g. donations, volunteering). To achieve this it is crucial to understand the factors that are likely to grow engagement with conservation among visitors. 3. The New Zealand Conservation Authority has had a long standing interest in this issue, discussing it at its August 2012 meeting and writing to then Director-General, Al Morrison in 2013. In April 2015 the Chair of the Waikato Conservation Board wrote to the Authority noting the lack of specific evidence to indicate whether visiting the DOC estate for the purposes of recreation and tourism leads to increased interest in conservation, and to request further research to clarify the situation. 4. Over this period the Department has undertaken work to clarify the relationship between outdoor recreation participation and environmental and conservation engagement (a slightly wider question than was initially asked by the Authority), and it is timely to update the Authority on progress and seek feedback.

Details/Comment 5. Since this issue was raised by the Authority, the Department has conducted an extensive review of international literature on links between outdoor recreation participation and environmental or conservation engagement. Data collected through the annual Survey of New Zealanders has also been analysed to examine links between participation and conservation attitudes and behaviours in a New Zealand context. The literature review is currently awaiting peer review and publication. It includes information on three topics 1. The extent of environmental and conservation engagement among New Zealanders and overseas visitors. 2. The influence of childhood contact with nature and the outdoors on environmental and conservation engagement.

DOCCM-2639465 Mike Harbrow 13 November 2015 199 3. The influence of outdoor recreation in adulthood on environmental and conservation engagement. Level of engagement among New Zealanders and overseas visitors 6. The review has found that very little is known about the views of international visitors, their existing attitudes and behaviour or their potential to support conservation. In relation to New Zealanders, several studies have shown that New Zealanders tend to hold eco- centric views and that the country ranks highly in international comparisons of citizens’ environmental attitudes. The 2015 Survey of New Zealanders found that more than 80% of New Zealanders stated that conservation is important to them personally, but this contrasts with the minority who are taking tangible actions to support conservation. Only 23% donated money to a conservation cause in 2014/15 and 12% spent time helping on a conservation project. Analysis of the Survey of New Zealanders shows that New Zealanders who had visited a DOC managed area in the previous 12 months had only a slightly higher likelihood of stating that conservation was important or of having contributed to a conservation project, suggesting that links between participation and conservation engagement are not strong. Influence of childhood contact with nature and the outdoors on engagement 7. There is an extensive body of research linking childhood time in nature and the outdoors with adult environmentalism, including support for conservation. A number of studies identify childhood time in nature and the outdoors as the single most important factor. It contributes alongside other influences including parents and family, formal education, work, friends, experience of environmental destruction, involvement in organisations, books and role models such as teachers. Where they are also well targeted and cost effective, this evidence supports DOC’s involvement in a range of child and family focussed interventions that can foster a connection to nature and lifelong engagement with parks. These include the provision of accessible family friendly recreation opportunities, interpretive nature programmes and involvement in outdoor and environmental education in schools. These interventions are also likely to provide health and wellbeing benefits and influence recreation participation in later life. Influence of adult outdoor recreation participation on engagement 8. The review found that the relationship between environmental and conservation engagement and outdoor recreation participation in adulthood is complex and much less clear than is the case for childhood participation. Correlations between participation and pro-environmental attitudes are generally weak or non-existent but stronger relationships have been found in relation to specific recreation activities and to aspects of the environment that directly support a visitor’s experience. The latter includes some aspects that are directly relevant to conservation. Most research assumes that participation directly influences attitudes, albeit weakly, but the possibility that people choose outdoor recreation activities as a result of their pro-environmental attitudes can’t be ruled out. 9. Recent research has tended to focus on pro-environmental behaviours. Pro- environmental attitudes are often poorly correlated with pro-environmental behaviours and by itself, changing attitudes is unlikely to make a significant difference to conservation. Links between outdoor recreation participation and pro-environmental behaviour have been shown to be consistently stronger than is the case for attitudes. The strength of the relationship varies by recreation activity and by the type of pro- environmental behaviour (e.g. lifestyle, consumer or activism behaviours). However, there is a high degree of inconsistency across studies. Consumptive (e.g. hunting, fishing) and other wildlife related activities (e.g. bird watching) are the activities that are most consistently associated with behaviours that may support conservation.

DOCCM-2639465 Mike Harbrow 13 November 2015 200 10. The review found that participation in outdoor recreation is likely to influence environmental and conservation engagement through four main pathways. These pathways have important implications for the kinds of issues and audiences where efforts to engage visitors in conservation are likely to be successful. The pathways are: 1. Direct experience of nature appears to increase the likelihood that individuals will act in a way that is consistent with their existing attitudes. 2. Spending time in the outdoors may allow people to build a general emotional connection with nature or draw on it as a source of identity. This makes it more likely that they will act to protect nature. 3. Ongoing participation in an outdoor activity leads to greater experience and specialisation in that activity. The activity becomes more central to an individual’s life and identity and may involve a greater investment of time and money. Experienced visitors have more to lose if a place or experience is degraded and are more likely to take action to protect them. 4. Repeated visits to a place may lead to place attachment, and an increased likelihood that people will act to protect locations that have personal meaning to them. 11. The review findings suggest that visits to public conservation lands and waters can lead to greater support for conservation, but this is by no means guaranteed. The pathways described above tend to rely on individuals developing a personal or emotional connection but this is less likely to occur given the way that public conservation lands and waters are typically used. These connections are most likely to occur through repeat visits to a site or through regular participation in an activity. However, international visitors may only make one-off or infrequent visits to New Zealand, while the Survey of New Zealanders shows that only a minority of New Zealanders are frequent users of public conservation lands and waters. Growing the number of one-off, infrequent or inexperienced visitors is unlikely to lead to a significant increase in support for conservation. Interventions targeted at encouraging frequent repeat visits to favourite places may be more successful. Visitors may however be less inclined to engage in conservation issues that do not have personal meaning or that do not relate to their chosen places or activities. 12. The review found that there has been very little relevant research carried out in New Zealand and instead much of the research on links between outdoor recreation participation and attitudes and behaviour has been carried out overseas. Findings from international studies can be applied here but it requires some consideration of the ways in which New Zealand differs. 1. New Zealanders generally have positive attitudes to the environment and the country generally ranks in the top third of countries in international comparisons, ahead of countries like the UK, US and Australia. 2. There is a strong connection between natural areas and New Zealanders’ personal, national and cultural identity. 3. Some recreation activities occur in a very different context. For example hunting and fishing target introduced rather than native species, and many hunters feel that they are contributing to conservation by reducing the numbers of their target species. It is important not to overstate these differences, however. There is little reason to believe that the four pathways identified in paragraph 10 above do not apply in New Zealand, and findings on the influences of childhood recreation have been shown to apply across different cultures. Furthermore data from the Survey of New Zealanders shows that the same pattern found overseas, of weak links between participation and

DOCCM-2639465 Mike Harbrow 13 November 2015 201 attitudes and stronger links between participation and behaviour, occurs in New Zealand also.

Section 4 Conservation Act 13. There are no specific Section 4 considerations. The review notes the strong connection that Māori have with the natural environmental and their tribal rohe and taonga, in particular. It is also notes that the research literature on outdoor recreation in a specific Māori context is comparatively thin.

Conclusion 14. There is an extensive international literature on links between outdoor recreation participation and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviour, including findings that are directly relevant to conservation. These studies can be applied to New Zealand with some consideration of the ways that New Zealand may differ from the locations where these studies have been carried out. 15. The review of literature suggests that visits to public conservation lands and waters can be a pathway to increasing conservation engagement. However this is unlikely to occur in many cases. Increasing the number of one-off, infrequent or inexperienced visitors is unlikely to lead to significant increases in support for conservation. 16. The review highlights three ways that the Department and its partners could increase engagement through visits to public conservation lands and waters or leverage off the support of existing visitors. 1. Increasing participation among children through interventions including provision of accessible family friendly recreation opportunities, interpretive nature programmes and involvement in outdoor and environmental education in schools. This is likely to be effective in growing future engagement as well as providing additional benefits in health and wellbeing and future participation. 2. Expanding opportunities, such as the DOC Community fund, that reduce barriers and encourage experienced users of the outdoors to contribute to conservation. 3. Providing opportunities for visitors to contribute to conservation at places with high levels of repeat visitation where visitors are likely to develop significant place attachment (e.g. popular coastal campgrounds). The most successful interventions are likely to be those that have few barriers to entry, where visitors spend significant time onsite and where programmes also contribute to the visitor experience.

DOCCM-2639465 Mike Harbrow 13 November 2015 202 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.25 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Conservation board appointments 2016

NZCA Strategic (J) NZCA’s performance Priority

Recommendation or It is recommended that Authority members: Action Required a) Speak with their respective Conservation Board Chairperson regarding identifying suitable candidates to submit a conservation board nomination.

Context Conservation boards should be concerned with succession planning and suitability of conservation board nominees (and therefore appointments). The quality of appointments can be improved by ensuring suitable candidates put their names forward. Authority members and Chairpersons can help with this by identifying suitable candidates to put in a nomination.

DOCCM-2638744 Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer 11 November 2015 203

DOCCM-2638744 Author: Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer Date: 11 November 2015 204 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.25 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Conservation board appointments 2016

Background/Introduction 1. The Minister of Conservation makes appointments to the 14 conservation boards annually for terms starting on 1 July. 2. Conservation board succession and suitability of conservation board nominees was discussed at the Conservation Board Chairpersons’ Conference. 3. Extract from the Conservation Board Chairpersons’ Conference on 24 September 2015 “Rick McGovern-Wilson advised that no background checks are carried out on conservation board nominees. He spoke about how a ‘balance’ of the requirements of conservation board membership is met. There was discussion about the role of Chairs in the annual appointment process, which appears to be very variable. They can also play a role in seeking nominations from capable members of the community. The risks to conservation boards of having members appointed who did not have the availability to be a contributing member was discussed. More needs to be done to ensure new members understand the commitment required. There is a workload issue when plans/strategies are reviewed, as this work is very intensive and most board members have day jobs.”

Details/Comment 4. The quality of appointments can be improved by ensuring suitable candidates put their names forward for appointment. 5. The Authority and Chairpersons’ of Conservation Boards can be proactive in this area by identifying suitable nominees, informing them of the work of the conservation boards (ensuring they know the time commitment required), and informing them of the nomination process. 6. The call for nominations is expected to be advertised late November, early December 2015 for the 2016 round of conservation board appointments. The NZCA servicing staff will inform Authority members when this occurs. 7. Note that the Authority has a statutory role in the appointments process by providing advice to the Minister of Conservation on its recommendations. 8. It is important that Conservation Boards are a true representative cross-section of society, so it is important to ensure they represent a range of ages, geographic distribution within the board’s area, ethnic groups (especially so in Auckland with its large Pacifika and Asian communities), and a better gender balance (up from the 36% women who are currently on the boards).

DOCCM-2638744 Author: Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer Date: 11 November 2015 205 Section 4 Conservation Act 9. Authority members and Chairpersons’ should ensure they give thought to tangata whenua representation. There are specific statutory positions on conservation boards for identified iwi as a result of Settlement Legislation. The Minister of Conservation consults with the Minister of Maori Development regarding appointments made representing the interests of tangata whenua.

Conclusion 10. Authority members should liaise with their Board Chairpersons about identifying and encouraging members of the community with a range of skills (e.g. sound conservation background, governance, financial, tourism and recreation) to consider nominating in the coming appointment round.

DOCCM-2638744 Author: Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer Date: 11 November 2015 206 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.26.1 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Authority’s self-review of performance since April 2014

NZCA Strategic (J) Authority’s performance Priority Effect continuous improvement in order to provide greater value

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Assess its performance for the previous 18 months and b) Identify improvements to performance for the coming year

Context The Authority undertakes a yearly self-review of its performance of its statutory functions and its Strategic Priorities. The Authority undertook its last self-review at the April 2014 meeting, where it reviewed its performance for the end of the 3- year term. This is the first self-review for the new 3-year term of the Authority and is for the second half of 2014 and the 2015 year.

DOCCM-2633874 Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer 4 November 2015 207

DOCCM-2633874 208 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.26.1 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, Executive Officer

Subject: Authority’s self-review of performance in 2015

Background/Introduction 1. The remainder of this paper is taken from a paper you considered in April 2014 (as part of the assessment at the end of the 3-year term) and sets out a structure for the self- review. Aspects of your performance that are not addressed in the following set of questions can be raised at the meeting.

Details/Comment including implications 2. The remainder of this paper is taken from a paper you considered in August 2013 (as part of the assessment at the end of the second year) and sets out a structure for the self-review. Aspects of your performance that are not addressed in the following set of questions can be raised at the meeting.

Effectiveness 1. Strategic priorities: The Authority to work through the Goals and Actions set out in Attachment C – Strategic Priorities for 2014. 2. ‘Big picture’ overview: a. Statutory roles (Strategic Priorities A-D): Are we efficiently and effectively fulfilling our roles? b. Strategic advice to Minister and DG (Strategic Priority E): Is our advice making a difference? c. Game changers: Pest Control/Biosecurity (Strategic Priority F) and Marine (Strategic Priority G): Are we adequately supporting initiatives? d. Active watching brief: Rivers and Feshwater (Strategic Priority H): Should we do more, and be braver? e. Monitoring and evaluation (Strategic Priorities I-J): Are we keeping DOC and ourselves on task? f. Enablers: Are we adequately considering section 4 and community(s) needs? 3. Statutory functions (see Attachment B): Are we remiss on any of our statutory role/s?

Culture & communication 4. Meeting culture: Is discussion respectful, and do members feel comfortable to raise matters openly and frankly? 5. Between meetings: Is there adequate interaction amongst members between meetings?

DOCCM-2633874 209 6. NZCA and Dept: Is communication between the Authority and the Department open and effective?

Process 7. Meetings: Are meetings scheduled and run efficiently and effectively? 8. Agendas, papers and other materials: Are they useful, pitched at the right level and presented appropriately? 9. Committees: Are we using committees appropriately?

Food for thought (with thanks to the Institute of Directors) Effective governance is characterised by debate, thoughtful challenge and dissent, commitment, candour and trust. Four pillars of good governance (Institute of Directors’ principles adapted by Kay): 1. Determining purpose – contributes to the Department’s development of purpose, goals and strategy. 2. Effective governance culture – acts as a high performing team which has effective relationships with management and stakeholders. 3. Holding to account – fulfils an oversight role. 4. Effective compliance – assists the Department to remain ‘safe’, both financially and more generally, by providing advice that includes risk assessment.

Section 4 Conservation Act 3. All members of the Authority have the responsibility for carrying out its Section 4 considerations. Additionally, Treaty of Waitangi is a specific Strategic Priority for the Authority.

DOCCM-2633874 210 4. Attachment A: Actions arising from the NZCA’s October 2012 self-review

Topic Action Progress

NZCA strategic Reprise strategic priorities. Set goals. Design Implemented. priorities work programme. Strategic advice Ensure greater focus on discussion amongst Adequately implemented? items members – engage with DG and staff after an NZCA view has been formed. Provide more structure to discussions: seek clearer outcomes with greater use of motions to facilitate follow up. Members’ Members to write topics on a white board Implemented but not assessed. environmental on arrival at meeting, or else email them to To consider as part of August scan Catherine or Katrina in advance. Trial this 2013 self-review. approach and revisit. DDG’s Retain existing oral report format: this is Implemented. environmental Doris’ scan item – significant items will be put scan on the agenda. Length of meetings Retain 1.5 day Authority meetings, reserving Implemented. the opportunity to use Thursday afternoons for Committee work. ‘Away’ meetings Retain 2 day format – i.e. 1 day meeting and Implemented 1 day field trip. Refine purpose and rationale for away meetings and site visits. Agenda papers Identify action required on main agenda Implemented. page. Provide more directive recommendations. Strategic alliances Invite PCE to discuss topics of mutual Implemented. interest. PCE attended Authority’s June 2012 meeting. Next self review Undertake in October 2013. Implemented. Moved to August because October is an ‘away’ meeting. Constant The Chair and servicing staff welcome Ongoing. improvement feedback at any time. Section 4 of the All members to think of Section 4 Ongoing. Conservation Act implications when items are discussed.

DOCCM-2633874 211 Attachment B: Extract from April 2014 following the self-review

The NZCA conducted a self review, and noted: • They are fulfilling their statutory roles effectively and efficiently and have made further amendments to the strategic priorities (9 April 2014). • They are supporting pest control initiatives as a primary driver of biodiversity protection and restoration to the best of their ability with discussion on what additional steps could be taken in this area at every meeting. • A greater focus is needed on freshwater systems. • They would like an update on Partnerships at DOC (which will be discussed at the June 2014 meeting by Kay Booth, Deputy Director-General Partnerships) including in light of the new expectations for the Conservation Boards. • They are adequately considering section 4 and community’s needs. • The culture of the meetings is respectful and members feel comfortable to raise matters openly and frankly. • There is adequate interaction amongst members between meetings with emails circulated when needed. • The communication between the Authority and Department is effective and open. • Weekly Friday emails from NZCA servicing staff are appreciated by members. • Meetings are run efficiently and effectively although there is scope to consider further improvements to the use of members’ time. • Agendas, papers and emails are pitched at the right level with the exception of minutes which can be more succinct. Also strategic and decision agenda items, whenever practical, should be put at the start of the meeting and information items should be put at the end. • Committees are used appropriately when needed. • The NZCA needs to be clear on what they want from DOC so that reports are relevant and result in an action that leads to an improvement in the area concerned.

DOCCM-2633874 212 Attachment C: Statutory functions and powers of the NZCA

Addressed in Act Statutory function past year? Statutory functions (Conservation Act 1987) 6B(a) N Advise on statements of general policy 6B(b) Y Approve CMSs & any amendments 6B(c) N Review & report on effectiveness of general policies 6B(d) Y Investigate matters of national importance 6B(e) N Consider & make proposals for change of land status of national & int’l importance 6B(g) Y Encourage & participate in educational & publicity activities 6B(h) Y Advise annually on priorities for expenditure 6B(i) Y Liaise with NZ Fish & Game Council 6B(j) N Exercise any other powers & functions delegated by Minister Statutory functions (National Parks Act 1980) 18(a) N Prepare & approve statements of general policy for NPs 18(b) N Approve NP management plans & any amendments 18(c) N Advise on priorities for expenditure for NPs 18(d) N Review effectiveness of general policies for NPs 18(e) Y Consider & make proposals for addition of lands to NPs & establishment of new NPs 18(g) Y Give advice on any other matter relating to any NP 4(2b) N Determinations re native plants & animals preserved - introduced plants & animals exterminated 5A(2a) N Minister shall consult NZCA on introduction of any biological control organism 12(1) Y Minister shall consult NZCA on Specially Protected Areas 14(1) N Recommend establishment or revocation of Wilderness Areas 15(1) N Recommend establishment or revocation of Amenities Areas 18A N Minister shall consult NZCA on access arrangements to a NP re s59 of Crown Minerals Act 1991 44(1) N Adopt or amend statements of General Policy Statutory powers (Conservation Act 1987) 6C(2)(a) Y Establish committees 6C(2)(b) Y Release for public info any recommendation, report or advice 6C(2)(c) Y Advocate at any public forum or in any stat planning process

DOCCM-2633874 213 214 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.26.2 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Review of Strategic Priorities

NZCA Strategic (J) NZCA’s performance Priority

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Review the Strategic Priorities, and b) Amend the Strategic Priorities according to the Authority’s priorities for the coming year, and c) Approve the Strategic Priorities subject to any amendments identified.

Context The Authority’s Strategic Priorities are attached. The Authority has already reviewed its performance against these strategic priorities as part of agenda item 26.1. This agenda item is to review the suitability of the Strategic Priorities for its work in 2016, and make changes if required.

DOCCM-2634857 Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer 13 November 2015 215

DOCCM-2634857 216 New Zealand Conservation Authority: Strategic Priorities for 2014

Revised following NZCA June 2014 meeting

STATUTORY ROLE FOR MANAGEMENT PLANNING AND LAND STATUS Strategic Conservation Management Strategies priority National Park Management Plans (A&B) NZCA role Approval. (A&B) Goals (A&B) 1. Approve strategy/plan at the third meeting after receipt. 2. Improve efficacy of approval processes. Actions 1. Follow NZCA approval processes (and seek opportunities to expedite (A&B) timelines, whilst holding or improving the quality of decisions). 2. Review NZCA approval processes and document enhancements after consideration of the Northland, Auckland and Waikato CMSs. Strategic Land status change e.g. stewardship land priority (C) NZCA role Recommendatory / statutory (for national parks) and advisory (for all (C) conservation lands). Goals (C) Conduct a credible and transparent investigation.

Actions (C) 1. Ensure the assessment criteria are clear (to assist efficiency and so that the information provided can be targeted). 2. Ensure advice is well-researched and that appropriate consultation with iwi has occurred. 3. Ensure the process and decision is credible and robust; and that this is apparent to all stakeholders. 4. Keep the relevant conservation board informed throughout the process. Strategic Treaty of Waitangi priority (D) NZCA role Meet requirements for NZCA as specified in settlement legislation; give on- (D) going effect to the principles of the Treaty; provide advice in response to requests from settlement negotiation parties. Goals (D) 1. Fulfil NZCA-related requirements in settlement legislation. 2. Ensure Conservation Act 1987 section 4 considerations are appropriately addressed. 3. Demonstrate openness and good faith when giving advice (if consulted). Actions (D) 1. Maintain open communication with Tuhoe, Ngati Porou, Ngai Tahu, and any other iwi with future settlements that require NZCA actions. 2. Implement NZCA’s section 4 template, and review it and the Authority’s performance in relation to this annually.

DOCDM-1390547

217

INFLUENCE AND ‘CHANGING THE GAME’ Strategic Strategic advice to the Minister and DG in the context of conservation in priority (E) today’s economy, and strategic advice on public policy documents and legislation NZCA role Advisory. (E) Goals (E) Perceived as a respected and influential source of strategic advice for conservation. Actions (E) 1. Give clear, considered and timely advice: • On all matters relevant to the NZCA effectively fulfilling its functions; and • Where this can be influential in achieving better conservation outcomes. 2. Maintain an active environmental scan to ensure the current and future operating context for conservation is well understood. 3. Maintain active links with conservation boards and the community. 4. Follow up on submissions and advice to gauge their influence and identify where improvements in this role can be made. Strategic Game changers for conservation: Pest control/biosecurity priority (F) NZCA role Provide leadership. (F) Goals (F) Contribute to the better protection, enhancement and appreciation of New Zealand’s native biodiversity. Actions (F) 1. Maintain focus on this topic when discharging our statutory functions, including strategic advice to the Director-General and the Minister. 2. Support those working towards a Predator Free New Zealand by way of advice, encouragement or active contribution, and communication of the benefits of conservation to the wider public. 3. Encourage the Department to undertake large-scale animal pest control (including the use of 1080), to actively manage kauri dieback (PTA) disease, and to take a strong stance on biosecurity in general. 4. Encourage the Department to develop a robust methodology for undertaking an analysis of net conservation benefits and incorporate this into a natural capital assessment with other primary sector stakeholders. Strategic Marine priority (G) NZCA role Advisory. (G) Goals (G) Contribute to the better protection of the marine environment. Actions(G) Provide advice on the Marine Reserves Bill.

DOCDM-1390547

218 ACTIVE WATCHING BRIEF Strategic Rivers and Freshwater priority (H) NZCA role Advisory. (H) Goals (H) Seek to achieve the recommendations in the NZCA’s Rivers report. Actions (H) 1. Follow-up on the report’s recommendations with the Minister and the Department. 2. Maintain active advocacy for the comprehensive protection of a representative range of rivers. 3. Participate in LAWF and/or its successors.

MONITORING AND EVALUATION Strategic Effectiveness of the Department’s conservation management priority (I) NZCA role Review and advice. (I) Goals (I) 1. Fulfil statutory function (CA 6B(c)) to review and report on the Department’s administration of General Policies. 2. Provide insightful evaluation and advice that contributes to improved conservation outcomes. 3. Provide a ‘check and balance’ on the Department’s strategic planning. Actions (I) 1. Ensure General Policies are implemented in CMSs and NPMPs (via approval role - see A&B). 2. Engage with the Department over strategic issues. 3. Provide advice on the Department’s Statement of Intent. 4. Provide advice on the Department’s expenditure priorities. 5. Provide advice to the Department on how business and communities can engage with them more easily in order to increase conservation outcomes. Strategic NZCA’s performance priority (J) NZCA role Self review. (J) Goals (J) Effect continuous improvement in order to provide greater value.

Actions (J) 1. Undertake annual self-review of performance and modus operandi. 2. Document NZCA processes, and enhancements to these.

DOCDM-1390547

219 220 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.26.3 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Review of NZCA policies and procedures

NZCA Strategic (J) NZCA’s performance Priority

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Review its approved policies and procedures to determine their appropriateness by assessing two or three policies or procedure in full at each future meeting, and b) Prioritise the order of review.

Context Since its establishment in 1990 the Authority has approved a variety of policies and procedures. The current servicing staff are aware of 18 approved policies. These are listed in the table attached and are available to members via Dropbox. Many are available to the public on the www.conservationauthority.or.nz website. One was approved via the NZCA endorsing the Department’s approach on a particular topic. It may be that there are other policies the servicing staff are unaware of due to this style of approval. The 18 approved policies do not include the General Policy for National Parks 2005 as this is considered out of scope for this exercise.

DOCCM-2633925 Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer 13 November 2015 221

DOCCM-2633925 Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer 13 November 2015 222 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.26.3 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, Executive Officer

Subject: Review of NZCA policies and procedures

Title of Date of Comment NZCA policy/procedure approval and/ prioritisation or amendment for review

Management Planning

NZCA criteria for Approved April NZCA last approved a National Park consideration of 2012 Management Plan in April 2014 national park (partial review of Westland Tai management Poutini National Park Management plans Plan)

NZCA standards Approved NZCA currently considering 3 CMSs for assessing October 2013 CMSs

NZCA planning Approved NZCA currently considering 3 CMSs process flowchart October 2013 2013

NZCA CMS Approved July NZCA currently considering 3 CMSs check sheet. 2009

Specific Conservation Issues

NZCA Walking Approved April Used as part of a submission to the Access Principles 2003 Walking Access Consultation Panel April 2006 June 2006 and submission on the Revised 15 Walking Access Bill May 2008 April 2006 The Authority has long been a champion of walking access, from its previous statutory function of advising the Minister and Director- General on any matters relating to Walkways under the NZ Walkways Act 1990. Walking access is a topic that the NZCA submitted on as part of the Proposed New Zealand Coastal

DOCCM-2633925 Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer 13 November 2015 223 Title of Date of Comment NZCA policy/procedure approval and/ prioritisation or amendment for review Policy Statement 2008 regarding walking access along the coast, and in April 2013 in its submission on the discussion document Improving our Resource Management System.

NZCA Freshwater Approved NZCA submitted on Freshwater Principles December 2008 Reforms/NPS/NES: • February 2014 • April 2013 • August 2008 • March 2005

NZCA coastal Approved NZCA submitted on the New Zealand principles December 2003 Coastal Policy Statement in: • November 2008 • May 2008

NZCA South Approved These principles are proposed as a Island high August 2007 tool to guide the New Zealand country principles Conservation Authority’s contribution 9 August 2007 and/or response to issues relating to the South Island high country. The tenure review process is still ongoing.

NZCA draft letter Approved as Vehicle use in sensitive ecological re advertisement action at areas has been an issue championed of off-road October 2003 by the NZCA since 2001. vehicles meeting NZCA was active in advocating its views to advertisers, Councils, Ministers and Ministries during 2003 and continued advocating its views to advertisers during 2004 and 2005. NZCA was successful in having some advertising showing inappropriate use of off-road vehicles pulled from NZ, and were integral to the ASA adopting a new Code for Advertising Vehicles at the end of 2004 which includes “Principle 3 – Advertisements portraying off-road driving should observe a due sense of responsibility to the environment. Guidelines

DOCCM-2633925 Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer 13 November 2015 224 Title of Date of Comment NZCA policy/procedure approval and/ prioritisation or amendment for review a. Advertisements should not encourage environmental damage to areas of significant conservation value. These may include beaches, dunes, riverbeds, wetlands, tussocklands, lake margins and estuaries.” NZCA had continued its interest in effects of vehicle use and vehicle access since then in a less sustained way, up until 2012.

NZCA - marine Approved NZCA submitted on Biofouling in principles December 2000 June 2010, Marine Protected Areas Revised June consultation in September 2007, 2006 Improving Regulation of Environmental Effects in NZ’s EEZ in September 2007, the Initial Position Paper: Altering the Fisheries (Cost Recovery) Rules 2001 With Respect to the Benthic Protected Areas Accord in May 2007.

Grass Carp Memo sent to Grass Carp Committee is an active process for Conservators NZCA committee. NZCA last consulting the September considered an application to release NZCA (s51A 2002 grass carp in April 2015. Reserves Act) - Unsure when criteria for assessment approved by NZCA

Criteria for Endorsed by This policy came to light at the prioritising NZCA in 1999 August 2015 meeting. Current proposals for land discussions on this issue and status change resulting advice to the Minister may supersede this endorsement.

NZCA processes

NZCA section 4 Approved template December 1999 Last revised June 2007

NZCA strategic Current Will be reviewed at priorities for 2014 strategic November/December 2015 meeting

DOCCM-2633925 Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer 13 November 2015 225 Title of Date of Comment NZCA policy/procedure approval and/ prioritisation or amendment for review revised April 2014 priorities as a separate agenda item. approved June 2014

NZCA procedure Approved NZCA last advised of NHF purchases after notification October 2010 December 2012. of Nature Heritage Fund acquisition of land for national park

NZCA conflict of Approved June Conflicts of interests is an agenda interest 2012 item at each meeting. procedure approved

NZCA - template Approved June NZCA currently has 5 Committees (3 on committee 2000 CMSs, Grass Carp, and Marine) structure

NZCA - Approved 1999 NZCA is active in making submissions submissions. process

DOCCM-2633925 Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer 13 November 2015 226 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.27 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Code of Practice

NZCA Strategic (J) NZCA’s performance Priority

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Amend the Code of Practice for Conservation Boards as appropriate for its own purposes, and b) Adopt the Code of Practice for the New Zealand Conservation Authority

Context A Code of Practice for Conservation Boards was a recommendation of the Conservation Board review 2013. The Code of Practice for Conservation Boards was approved in June 2015. The Authority was consulted on this Code of Practice. The Authority should consider amending and adopting this Code of Practice for its own purposes. The proposed NZCA Code of Practice is attached.

DOCCM-2638445 Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer 11 November 2015 227 228 Code of Practice for New Zealand Conservation Authority

Context

The New Zealand Conservation Authority is an independent body, established under the Conservation Act 1987. It has a major governance function in that it approves statements of general policy for national parks, conservation management strategies and national park management plans. It is also consulted by the Minister of Conservation and Director-General of Conservation and may advise the Minister on matters of national importance for conservation.

The New Zealand Conservation Authority has thirteen members appointed by the Minister of Conservation:

• two appointed after consultation with the Minister of Maori Affairs

• two appointed after consultation with the Minister of Tourism

• one appointed after consultation with the Minister of Local Government

• one appointed on the nomination of Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu

• one appointed on the recommendation of the Royal Society of New Zealand

• one appointed on the recommendation of Forest and Bird

• one appointed on the recommendation of the Federated Mountain Clubs

• four appointed from public nominations

Terms of appointment are usually for three years. Reappointment for a further term is subject to Ministerial approval. The Authority meets six times per year.

Purpose

This Code of Practice provides a framework for the successful operation of the New Zealand Conservation Authority, and includes:

• Roles of the New Zealand Conservation Authority; • Responsibilities of Authority members; and • Key legislative functions.

Role

The New Zealand Conservation Authority works within a partnership between the Department of Conservation, the Minister of Conservation and the public. As the public voice for community input into conservation, the Authority is independent, trusted advisors to the Department and the Minister of Conservation.

The New Zealand Conservation Authority helps to achieve conservation outcomes for New Zealand by:

229 • Contributing a strategic perspective to conservation planning, policy development and decision-making as a well-informed voice of the community; • Exercising powers of approval for statutory management planning documents; • Exercising powers of recommendation for change in land status; • Advising on conservation issues of national importance; and • Advocating for conservation outcomes, including in public forums and through statutory planning processes.

Responsibilities of Conservation Authority members

Members are expected to:

• Fulfil their role responsibly, and at all times act in good faith and in the best interest of the Authority and the community; • Conduct themselves in a professional, courteous and respectful manner, working as a team; • Be collaborative; share information which is relevant to the proper conduct and operation of the Authority’s business; • Participate fully, frankly and constructively in Authority discussions and bring the benefit of their particular knowledge, skills and abilities to the Authority table; • Listen carefully and show respect for the views of others; • Not bring the New Zealand Conservation Authority or the Department into disrepute; • Attend all Authority meetings, unless there is another unavoidable commitment, in which case apologies must be given to the Chair or servicing staff with as much notice as possible; • Prepare thoroughly for each meeting by reading all meeting materials and familiarising themselves with the content of all relevant correspondence received by the Authority; • Respect and adhere to all decisions reached by the Authority even if a minority of members disagree with the decision; and • Consider continuity and succession of the capabilities necessary for the Authority to perform its role proficiently and to a high standard.

Members will often have diverse connections with community groups, trusts and professional associations. It is expected that members will actively develop new and ongoing relationships with groups so they can contribute the perspectives and concerns sourced from those networks to the Authority table, along with their own knowledge and expertise.

However it is important that members do not fulfil their roles with only one interest group or sector in mind – all members should seek to use Authority diversity to achieve the best outcomes for conservation.

Increasing knowledge about conservation

New Zealand Conservation Authority members must have or seek to gain knowledge on relevant issues affecting conservation. All members should make independent attempts to be informed about matters that come before the Authority and contribute their perspectives, as all members have equal rights and responsibilities under the Conservation Act.

Engagement with community and Treaty partners

230 To exercise their role, the New Zealand Conservation Authority needs to build strong relationships with communities, seeking information from and feeding information back to communities of interest. To support individual members’ community links and networks, meetings should be held in different parts of New Zealand to enable community attendance.

Engagement with community and volunteer groups, iwi and manawhenua will enable the New Zealand Conservation Authority to:

• Provide advice to the Department and the Minister about the perspectives, opportunities and concerns raised; and • Raise the profile of the Authority and promote the role that the Authority plays in achieving enhanced conservation outcomes for the benefit of the New Zealand.

Relationships with the Department of Conservation

The skills and expertise of the Authority is a positive resource that can work hand in hand with the Department and the Minister in achieving greater conservation outcomes for New Zealand. Strong working relationships between Authority members, the Minister of Conservation and Associate Minister of Conservation, the Department’s senior managers and servicing officers are important to maximize the benefit of these skills. These relationships need to be based on honest and open dialogue, as well as trust and respect.

Authority members should use these relationships as a source of support for: increasing their knowledge of conservation; seeking views of communities, iwi and manawhenua; understanding procedures that apply to decision-making; and engaging with the media. The servicing officers are the first point of contact regarding health and safety implications of Authority activities.

Treaty of Waitangi relationships

The New Zealand Conservation Authority has a responsibility to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. All Authority members need to consider how they are contributing to this outcome. It is essential that Authority members are briefed and become knowledgeable about iwi and manawhenua as well as Treaty settlements that have implications for public conservation land. Further information can be found in the factsheet: Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987.

Financial responsibilities

Authority members must be conscious that Authority meetings and activities (including reasonable travel expenses) are taxpayer-funded. Members must take appropriate measures to ensure that the Authority uses resources economically, effectively and with prudence.

Role of Chair

The Chair of the New Zealand Conservation Authority is appointed by the Minister of Conservation. The Chair has a responsibility to provide effective leadership for the Authority, including through:

• Setting the agenda for all meetings, in consultation with members and servicing staff; • Presiding over the Meetings that s/he attends (or delegating this responsibility);

231 • Maintaining an impartial role and summing up the debate on any issue in a balanced way to reflect the views that have been expressed; • Encouraging participation by all members and working towards achieving a consensus; • Attempting to resolve any disputes relating to the operation of this Code, and • Being a public face of the Authority when engaging with the public or media.

Working with Conservation Boards

Conservation Boards should draw to the attention of the Authority matters which they believe may warrant consideration at a national level. The Authority will appoint one of its members to liaise with each Conservation Board and may consult some or all Boards from time to time on matters with national or regional application.

Procedures

Committees

Committees may be formed in order to facilitate efficient decision-making on matters that have come before the Authority. This Code of Practice will apply to those committees.

Confidentiality and record keeping

The proceedings and papers of the New Zealand Conservation Authority are subject to the provisions of the Official Information Act 1982 and the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987. The Authority must adhere to these Acts, and keep accurate meeting records. Further information about confidentiality can be found in the Factsheet: When should information be treated as confidential? or sought from the servicing officer.

Conflict of Interest

Authority members should declare any actual or potential conflicts of interest, and take appropriate steps with the guidance of the Conflict of Interest Procedure when the Authority is discussing matters in which members have an interest. Further information about conflicts of interest can be found in the Factsheet: Conflicts of Interest and in the Conflict of Interest Procedure.

Induction

All new Authority members are expected to complete an induction programme aimed at deepening their understanding of the roles of the Authority and the Department of Conservation. Material for Authority member inductions will include the NZCA/Conservation Board factsheets that have been developed by the Department as well as this Code of Practice.

Managing advocacy and speaking to the media

The Authority can only speak with one voice when advocating for conservation outcomes in public processes or speaking to the media. The Authority will need to determine who will speak on its behalf on a particular issue, if not the Chair. Any engagement with the media by Authority members should be with the full knowledge and approval of the Chair. The Authority should strive to reach a consensus on any messages that are released to the public.

232 Reporting framework

The New Zealand Conservation Authority reports annually to the Minister of Conservation about activities undertaken in the course of a financial year. The Authority’s annual report is a Parliamentary Paper.

The Conservation Boards report annually to the New Zealand Conservation Authority about their activities undertaken in the course of a financial year. The Boards receive annual Letters of Expectation from the Minister of Conservation, and submits a work programme to the Minister about how it intends to meet those expectations.

Review

This Code of Practice should be treated as a living document.

Legislative functions

Conservation Act 1987 (section 6M)

The functions of the Authority shall be—

(a) to advise the Minister on statements of general policy prepared under the Wildlife Act 1953, the Marine Reserves Act 1971, the Reserves Act 1977, the Wild Animal Control Act 1977, the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978, and this Act:

• (b) to approve conservation management strategies and conservation management plans, and review and amend such strategies and plans, as required under the Wildlife Act 1953, the Marine Reserves Act 1971, the Reserves Act 1977, the Wild Animal Control Act 1977, the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978, the National Parks Act 1980, and this Act:

• (c) to review and report to the Minister or the Director-General on the effectiveness of the Department's administration of general policies prepared under the Wildlife Act 1953, the Marine Reserves Act 1971, the Reserves Act 1977, the Wild Animal Control Act 1977, the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978, and this Act:

• (d) to investigate any nature conservation or other conservation matters the Authority considers are of national importance, and to advise the Minister or the Director-General, as appropriate, on such matters:

• (e) to consider and make proposals for the change of status or classification of areas of national and international importance:

• (f) [Repealed]

• (g) to encourage and participate in educational and publicity activities for the purposes of bringing about a better understanding of nature conservation in New Zealand:

• (h) to advise the Minister and the Director-General annually on priorities for the expenditure of money:

233 • (i) to liaise with the New Zealand Fish and Game Council:

• (j) to exercise such powers and functions as may be delegated to it by the Minister under this Act or any other Act.

(2) The Authority shall have such other functions as are conferred on it by or under this Act or any other Act.

National Parks Act 1980 (section 30)

In addition to the functions specified elsewhere in this Act or in any other Act, the functions of the Authority shall be—

• (a) to prepare and approve statements of general policy for national parks in accordance with section 44:

• (b) to approve management plans and amendments to and reviews of management plans for national parks in accordance with section 48:

• (c) to advise the Minister or the Director-General on the priorities for the expenditure of any money appropriated by Parliament for the purposes of this Act:

• (d) to review and report to the Minister or the Director-General on the effectiveness of the administration of the general policies for national parks:

• (e) to consider and make proposals for the addition of lands to national parks and the establishment of new national parks:

• (f) [Repealed]

• (g) to give advice to the Minister or the Director-General on any other matter relating to any national park

Note

This is not an exhaustive list of New Zealand Conservation Authority functions under the Conservation Act and National Parks Act. The New Zealand Conservation Authority also has functions under other Acts administered by the Department of Conservation as well as Treaty settlement legislation. Departmental staff will be able to advise the Authority about the functions that are relevant to the matters that the Authority is considering.

234 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.29 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Rick McGovern-Wilson, NZCA Executive Officer

Subject: Annual report confirmation

NZCA Strategic (J) NZCA’s performance Priority

Recommendation or It is recommended that the Authority: Action Required a) Ratify the NZCA annual report for 2014/2015

Context The Authority is required to report to the Minister of Conservation annually under Section 6E of the Conservation Act 1987. Its report is a parliamentary paper and is tabled in the House of Representatives (Parliament). At its October 2015 meeting the Authority resolved to delegate the power to approve the Annual Report for 2014/2015 to the Chairperson, with a view to ratify the Annual Report at the December 2015 meeting. Circulated separately for this purpose is the Annual Report text as approved by Warren Parker. The Department’s publications team will be utilised to do a final edit, layout the design and organise publishing of the annual report. It will then be tabled in the House of Representative, distributed to those with an interest, and added to the www.conservationauthority.org.nz webpages.

DOCCM-2638659 Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer 11 November 2015 235

236 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.30.1 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Warren Parker, NZCA Chair

Subject: Chair’s Report ______

1. I met with Sir Mark Solomon to discuss the work programme of the NZCA, the forthcoming discussion we will be having on Maori and conservation (and an updated view of Section 4 obligations), and aspects of the current South Island CMSs. As usual in meetings with Sir Mark, I came away enlightened but also was reminded of the importance of early and regular communication with Ngai Tahu. I will share more on our discussion at the meeting.

2. Thank you for your work in progressing the CMSs – as discussed in Gisborne it is essential we get the front end, in particular, of these strategies positioned correctly and the document content into a form that we can approve. Some planners appear reticent to take the advice of the NZCA on board – the CMSs will not be approved until we are satisfied the adjustments we have requested are made.

3. During this meeting we will have the opportunity to reflect on the NZCA strategy, how we are travelling and if any adjustment is required. I would appreciate your pre- meeting consideration of this matter.

4. DoC’s science is nested within a still emerging new national framework for science which includes the National Science Challenges, new MBIE contestable process (a single fund) and changes to Tertiary Education Commission investment into science conducted by the tertiary sector. This new framework has implications for the funding of science of interest to DoC. DoC-funded science should support the attainment of the 2025 strategy goals. Thus it is timely for us to have a further discussion with Ken Hughey concerning the 20 year roadmap for conservation science and to consider NZCA’s role in providing oversight and input to DoC’s science portfolio. Given the critical role of science in the Department achieving its mission, the Authority in my view should take a closer interest in this aspect of the Department’s work than in the past.

DOCCM-2637926 Warren Parker November 2015 237 238 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.31 Meeting No. 146

REPORT

Meeting Date: 30 November and 1 December 2015

Prepared By: Katrina Edwards, NZCA Servicing Officer

Subject: Correspondence

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) 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 239

DOCCM-2551407 240 New Zealand Conservation Authority Agenda Item: 146.31 Meeting No. 146

NEW ZEALAND CONSERVATION AUTHORITY (NZCA) MAIL LOG FOR PERIOD 19 SEPTEMBER TO 13 NOVEMBER 2015

INWARDS & OUTWARDS CORRESPONDENCE

INWARDS CORRESPONDENCE Date Received & From Topic Comment/Statu File Reference s 24 September 2015 Waikato Conservation Board Annual report for 2014/2015 FYI SBA-01-01-14 24 September 2015 Taranaki/Whanganui Annual report for 2014/2015 FYI SBA-01-01-14 Conservation Board 24 September 2015 West Coast Tai Poutini Change of meeting date for next FYI Conservation Board meeting, now Thursday 3 December, at Westport 25 September 2015 West Coast Tai Poutini Confirmed minutes of 31 July 2015 FYI Conservation Board meeting 28 September 2015 Northland Conservation Board Unconfirmed minutes of 28 August FYI 2015 meeting 1 October 2015 Nelson/Marlborough Conservation Agenda for 15 October 2015 meeting FYI Board 2 October 2015 Resource Management Law Advising of the election of Maree FYI Association Baker-Galloway (Partner, Anderson Lloyd, one of Mark’s colleagues) as President of the RMLA 6 October 2015 Marie Long, Director Planning Ruahine Forest Park – Change of FYI SBA-09-05-08 Permissions and Land, DOC status and land exchange 7 October 2015 Southland Conservation Board Agenda for 15 October 2015 meeting FYI 14 October 2014 Anna Gerraty, Tasman District Acknowledging submission on Draft FYI SBA-08-01 Council Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management Plan, hearing times to be scheduled shortly. 19 October 2015 Southland Conservation Board Confirmed minutes of 20 August FYI 2015 meeting 20 October 2015 Waikato Conservation Board Annual report for 2013/2014 FYI SBA-06-01-01-13 23 October 2015 NZ Fish and Game Council Unconfirmed Minutes from FYI September 2015 meeting, and the Operational Report 27 October 2015 ECOlink for Sept-Oct Publication/newsletter FYI 28 October 2015 Nelson/Marlborough Conservation Confirmed minutes of 6 August 2015 FYI Board meeting 28 October 2015 Southland Conservation Board Annual report for 2014/2015 FYI SBA-06-01-01-14 2 November 2015 Northland Conservation Board Agenda for 6 November 2015 FYI meeting 2 November 2015 Chas Tanner, to Department of Enquiring what guidance has been FYI SBA-09-04-02 Conservation cc’d to NZCA given to staff as a result of the Final Opinion of the Ombudsman on the Routeburn Track concession 6 November 2015 Southland Conservation Board Annual report for 2014/2015 FYI SBA-06-01-01-14 9 November 2015 Chatham Islands Conservation Annual report for 2013/2014 FYI SBA-06-01-01-13 Board

DOCCM-2321172 241

OUTWARDS CORRESPONDENCE Date Sent & File To Topic Comment Reference 23 September 2015 John Whitehead, Chairperson, NZCA comments on the Southland Copy to Mark SBA-08-18-01 Southland Conservation Board Murihiku CMS Christensen and Copied to Katherine Hughes David Barnes 2 October 2015 Pat Garden, Chairperson, Otago NZCA comments on the Otago CMS Copy to Mark SBA-08-17-01 Conservation Board Christensen and Copied to Robyn Roberts, DOC Judy Hellstrom 9 October 2015 Dr Mick Abbott, Chairperson, NZCA comments on the Canterbury Copy to David SBA-08-16-02 Canterbury Aoraki Conservation (Waitaha) CMS Barnes and Judy Board Hellstrom Copied to Poma Palmer, DOC 12 October 2015 Emailed to Submission on Draft Abel Tasman FYI SBA-08-01 [email protected] Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management Plan 19 October 2015 John Wauchop, Chairperson, Thank you letters for NZCA October Copy to Rau SBA-05-01 East Coast/Hawke’s Bay 2015 meeting Gisborne Kirikiri Conservation Board; De-Arne Sutherland, Conservation Partnerships Manager, DOC; Jamie Quirk, Biodiversity Ranger, DOC; Tui Warmenhoven, Te Runanganui o Ngati Porou Board; Mayor Meng Foon, Gisborne District Council; Nori Parata, Tolaga Bay Area School 28 October 2015 Dr Mike Legge, Chair, West Coast Proposed addition of land to Copied to Ron SBA-09-05-08 & Tai Poutini Conservation Board Kahurangi National Park under Hazeldine, SLM, SBA-13-08 Lou Sanson, Director-General, Section 7 of the National Parks Act DOC Hokitika, Department of Conservation and Gerry McSweeney 28 October 2015 Dr Mike Legge, Chair, West Coast Paparoa National Park proposed FYI SBA-09-05-08 & Tai Poutini Conservation Board additions SBA-13-06 28 October 2015 Lou Sanson, Director-General, Paparoa National Park proposed Copied to Marie SBA-09-05-08 Department of Conservation additions Long, PP&L, SBA-13-06 DOC 4 November 2015 NZCA’s Chair’s letter to October 2015 meeting Copy to Minister SBA-11-15 Chairpersons of the Conservation of Conservation Boards, sent by email and Associate Minister of Conservation 04/11/2015. Copy to NZCA members 06/11/2015 11 November 2015 Lou Sanson, Director General, Mokihinui River Catchment – request Copy to Gerry SBA-13-08 & Department of Conservation, for information McSweeney SBA-09-05-08 cc: Ron Hazeldine, SLM Hokitika

DOCCM-2321172 242