Summary of Submissions by Submitter - Acukland CMS · 2018-05-25 · 81 Kawau Island Advisory...

Auckland Conservation Management Strategy

Summary of Submissions by Submitter Auckland Conservation Management

Strategy

September 2013

Index: Sorted by Submitter

Submitter No

Submitter Page

1 Elizabeth Thomson 1 2 Bill Trusewich 1 3 Johnny Hopper 23 4 Steve Wright 23 5 Simon Murtagh 24 6 Chris Farmer 24 7 Andy Spierer 24 8 Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi Inc. 26 9 Daniel Mahon 34

10 Aviation Industry Association of New Zealand 35 11 M D Burke 36 12 Waikato District Council 36 13 Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable Trust 38 14 Auckland Associated Mountain Clubs 41 15 West Auckland District Tramping Club 42 16 Hayden Neeley 43 17 Manukau Tramping Club 44 18 Alex Daley 46 19 Andrew Marsh 46 20 David Kingston 47 21 Motuora Restoration Society (Inc) 47 22 Mr A. M. Seaman 50 23 South Kaipara Landcare 51 24 Andrew Stone 52 25 Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society – Hauraki Islands Branch 53 26 Snells Beach Residents and Ratepayers Association 53 27 Motuihe Trust 54

Submitter No

Submitter Page

28 Jim Morrow 64 29 Louis Wintle Charitable Trust & Mansion House Foundation 64 30 New Zealand Marine Sciences Society 67 31 Will Scarlett 74 32 Auckland/Waikato Fish and Game 75 33 New Zealand Hang Gliding & Paragliding Association 81 34 Great Barrier Local Board – Auckland Council 81 35 Maui & Hector Dolphin Education/Action Inc 85 36 Rangitoto Island Bach Community Association 88 37 Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand (Inc) 88 38 Mighty River Power Limited 96 39 Great Barrier Island Charitable Trust 97 40 Aquaculture New Zealand 100 41 Jude Smith 103 42 Simon Fordham 103 43 NZ Transport Agency 106 44 New Zealand Historic Places Trust 107 45 Total Sport Ltd 115 46 Auckland Four Wheel Drive Club Inc 116 47 Sandspit SoS Incorporated (SSOI) 118 48 Kyla MacDonald 120 49 Donald Smith 120 50 Te Arai Beach Preservation Society Inc. 120 51 Alwyn Rae 127 52 Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club 130 53 Malcolm Fisher 134 54 Cameron Kennedy 135 55 Motutapu Farms Limited 136 56 Adventure Capital 139

Submitter No

Submitter Page

57 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand 140 58 Pohutakawa Trust New Zealand 173 59 Scott Andrew Arrell 175 60 Keith Laurie 176 61 MetService 176 62 Adam Morrow 177 63 Alex Raymont 177 64 Hauraki Gulf Forum 177 65 Albert Eden and Whau Local Boards, Auckland Council 185 66 Brenden Duffy 186 67 Eva Walton-Keim 186 68 Morag Fordham 187 69 Rachael Roberts 189 70 The Motutapu Restoration Trust 191 71 Leslie Graham 197 72 Auckland Council 198 73 Reuben Muir 231 74 Film New Zealand 233 75 Richard Kemp 233 76 Jonathan Bielby 235 77 Little Barrier Island (Hauturu) Supporters Trust 236 78 New Zealand Wind Energy Association 239 79 New Zealand Deerstalker’s Association Incorporated 240 80 Wayne Rohrs 243 81 Kawau Island Advisory Committee 243 82 Auckland Sea Kayaks Ltd 245 83 Derek Nash 247 84 Te Araroa Trust 247 85 Lesley Leversha 247

Submitter No

Submitter Page

86 Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust 248 87 Michael John Heard 250 88 Marc Dumont de Chassart 250 89 Waikato Regional Council 251 90 Straterra Inc 260 91 Environmental & Conservation Organisations of New Zealand Inc (ECO) 262 92 Motutapu Outdoor Education Trust 263 93 Forest and Bird Motu Manawa Restoration Group 268 94 Goat Island Collective 272 95 Film Auckland 275 96 Eel Enhancement Co Ltd 275 97 Michael Lee 276 98 North Western Community Association 277 99 Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust 278

100 John Charteris 281 101 Mountain Bike New Zealand Inc (MTBNZ) 281 102 Thomas Land 282 103 Jeremy Watts 283 104 Ananda Krishnan Srinivasan 284 105 Auckland Mountain Bike Club 284 106 Simon Yates 286 107 Walking Access Commission 287 108 Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Maia Limited 290 109 Auckland Botanical Society 291 110 Devonport Scout Group 293 111 Peter Jenkins & Peter Wooderson 294

30-Sep-13Auckland CMS: Response to Submissions by Submitter Section and submission point

Submission summary Decision Sought Response

Submitter: Elizabeth ThomsonFully support mountain biking on both islands and approach taken in the CMS.

Retain mountain biking trial.2.11 MTB proposal - Q1 (allowed?)

AcceptThe mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.

1/1Don't see any need for seasonal restrictions except around lambing ewes in spring. Consider that putting a limit of 8 on group size may deter larger groups who wish to visit.

Apply restrictions on mountain biking be made around lambing ewes in spring.

2.11 MTB proposal - Q3 (restrictions & limits)

Accept in partThe mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.

1/2

This is a great idea and would be wonderful if more than two baches were available.

Amend Policy 2.11.11to allow for more than two baches to be available.

2.11.11 Policy RejectAs stated in last para on pg 85, the Department cannot propose a management strategy for the baches as they are subject to a High Court decision. The 4 baches managed by the Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation are outside the High Court decision.

1/3

Considers a camp site on each island would attract a lot of visitors. Note research shows people now want "not too basic".

Retain Policy 2.11.12.2.11.12 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.11.12 retained with minor changes for consistency with referencing in the descriptive text and outcome statement.

1/4

As New Zealanders we underestimate how important and precious rural experience is to international visitors and city dwellers. Rural experience to be developed and encouraged.

Inferred: Retain Policy 2.11.23 (c ).2.11.23 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.11.23 c) retained.1/5

Submitter: Bill TrusewichDo not consider any community demand for mountain biking on Rangitoto and Motutapu, other than through DUAL event.

Only a small sector of the population using Rangitoto will benefit to the disruption of walkers and the vehicle infrastructure of many conservation entities on the islands. Benefit does not outweigh cost.

Bikes have been trialled in past on Motutapu and failed with riders going consistently off-road. Can see biking being offered by MOEC as recreational activity under supervision. Also can see bikes being used by MRT out of Home Bay as one means of guiding groups to

Inferred: Submission opposes mountain biking trial and considers biking should only be allowed as a guided activity by MOEC or the MRT from Home Bay.

2.11 MTB proposal - General

RejectThe mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.2/1

Page 1 of 294Auckland CMS: Response to Submissions by Submitter

Section and submission point


educate them about their work. In both cases should be guiding only with no free riding available and it needs to be done with Outdoor Safety accreditation.It seems that Motuihe is wrongly visioned. The Motuihe Trust is one of the most progressive of the many groups working in the gulf and they have produced great results. The size and walking grade of the island makes it ideal for intensive day visiting buy schools, corporate, tourists etc and the island has a great mix of historic, cultural and ecological features which really are a microcosm of what is on offer in the rest of the gulf. below. A development of Rangitoto and Motuihe would offer greater gain than the Motutapu addition to Rangitoto.

Inferred: Submission requests that the Outcome for Motuihe Island Place be amended to provide for greater development/ use.

2.12 Motuihe Island Place - outcome

AcceptOver the term of the CMS, the Department intends to develop Motuihe Island as a gateway destination. This is stated in Section 1 (pg 25). The description and outcome of Section 2.12 have been amended to reflect that Motuihe has the potential to be a gateway destination.

2/2

Motutapu can be used for longer stays and for large community events like DUAL, the concert of a few summers ago, etc. MOEC should be supported. A marine reserve on the top of Rangitoto and Motutapu would change both islands and the Auckland economy at a larger scale than we have seen at Leigh. MOEC would be the entry point to this marine experience which includes hot biodiversity, underwater volcanic landscape and shipwrecks. A SCUBA business could benefit from being located on Motutapu. University of Auckland, AUT and Massey (possibly Unitec) could all run marine research out of the island and MOEC.

Inferred: Amend Section 2.11 (outcome) by:(1) Providing for longer stays and large community events;(2) Supporting MOEC; and(3) Establishing a marine reserve at the top of Rangitoto and Motutapu.

2.11 Motutapu and Rangitoto Islands Place - outcome

Accept in part(1) The outcome already provides for overnight stays on Motutapu (see last sentence of para 2 & 3 of Motutapu outcome). The description (bullet point 2, pg 87) states that special events will be one of the ways recreational use and enjoyment of particularly Motutapu could be increased. The Motutapu section of the outcome has been amended as follows to include special events:

"Picnicking, conservation volunteering, special events, exploration of historic sites and water-based recreation activities continue to be popular."

(2) Policy 2.11.19 already provides for the support of MOEC.

(3) The objectives in Section 1.5.1 and in particular Objective 1.5.1.5 relates to new marine reserves or marine protected areas.

2/3

Te Matuku Marine Reserve/ Otakawhe Bay Lodge - Lodge should be re-secured by DOC. Giving it away was wrong. The facility could become a serious marine education and research station and bring visitors to the reserve.

Inferred: Amend CMS by inserting a provision providing for Otakawhe Bay Lodge to be re-secured.

General RejectThe reserve is administered by the Auckland Outdoor Education Association under an appointment to control and manage. Therefore, the control of the reserve cannot be changed by the CMS.

2/4

The CMS lacks vision. There is a threat to some of the core historic military heritage tourism development as a

Amend Section 2.14 by:(1) Providing for the forts of Auckland to be promoted as

2.14 Coast Defence Historic Reserves Place

Accept in partThe Department acknowledges the submitter’s view




result. These are two overlapping dimensions, cultural and military and neither can be lost to the other. Consider that the HFA concept of promoting the forts of Auckland as one visitor experience, has huge potential. This includes assets managed by DOC (NH, FT, Rangitoto and Motutapu, Motuihe and Stony Batter), Council (Mt Vic) and Defence (Castor Bay). The awarding of the Officers’ Mess to a restaurant lease is questionable, unless it is directly linked to the heritage experience.

DOC needs to resolve problems at Stony Batter.

one visitor experience; and(2) Providing for resolution of issues at Stony Batter.

that there is a lack of vision in the outcome of Section 2.14. The outcome has been amended as follows to include the promotion of the forts of Auckland as one visitor experience:

"The nationally significant historic and cultural features of the coastal defence historic reserves are protected, conserved and highly valued by the community. The historic features of the coastal defence sites and their links to each other provide a unified visitor experience."

The description provides context to the problems at Stony Batter, and the outcome and Policy 2.14.10 provide a direction for the resolution of issues at Stony Batter.

2/5

A decision needs to be made on occupation of some Rangitoto baches outside of their caretaker agreements in order to manage risk.

Inferred: Add a policy to Section 2.11 regarding the occupation of Rangitoto baches.

2.11 Motutapu and Rangitoto Islands Place - policies - general

RejectAs stated in last para on pg 85 of the CMS, the Department cannot propose a management strategy for the baches as they are subject to a High Court decision.2/6

Maui's dolphin - CMS includes several references to this species. Object to Maui's being touted as a conservation mission in CMS unless the government is going to take measures to achieve this.

Inferred: Either(1) Take measures to save the Maui dolphin; or(2) Delete references in CMS to it.

General Accept(1) Insert a new policy in Section 2.7 to read: "Work with the Ministry of Primary Industries, local government, tangata whenua, shipping companies and others to implement the Maui’s Dolphin Threat Management Plan 2013"; and(2) Amend Objective 1.5.1.9 to read: "Work with the Ministry of Primary Industries, local government, tangata whenua and shipping companies...".

Maui’s dolphin is identified in Table A6.3 as having a threat status of Nationally Critical and its protection is referred to in the Long-Term Vision (p. 9), Section 1.3 (p. 13) with objectives and policies being included to ensure the persistence of these species (see e.g. Objectives 1.5.1.2, 1.5.1.9). Furthermore as the population is highest within the Kaipara Place (Section 2.7) which forms part of the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary gazetted to protect this species, this section includes some policies to give effect to this.

2/7




A threat management plan for the Maui's dolphin was prepared in 2007 and it is appropriate to include an additional policy in Section 2.7 and make consequential changes to Objective 1.5.1.9 to indicate the measures that the Department will be taking to achieve protection.

The writing style/ philosophical approaches appears to differ between the Warkworth and Auckland parts. The Warkworth Area parts tend to read better rightly attributes successes where they fall i.e. they name community trusts and show respect for community partnerships. Auckland sections underplay MRT and MOEC. This could cause offense to Auckland partners including Iwi. Some of writing shows poor command of style, grammar and readability.

Note that Auckland Council policy (in response to Iwi calls) is to refer term 'mana whenua' not 'tangata whenua'.

For a ten years vision, this CMS seems to be lacking any exciting breakthroughs and is actually too cautious in parts e.g. treating Motuihe and Miranda as quiet, untouchable places not clamouring for sustainable tourism development.

Seems like an ad for mountain biking in the long run.

Inferred: Amend CMS by:(1) Using a single editor to achieve consistency in style;(2) Reviewing partnership components for consistency; (3) Use term "mana whenua"; and(4) Adopting a less caution approach.

General Accept in partPartnership components in Parts One and Three have been amended to be consistent in response to specific submissions. Further editing will be undertaken before the CMS is approved/ adopted.

It is DOC's policy to refer to tangata whenua not mana whenua.

2/8

Suggest that DOC researches definition of "living space" used in DOC vision. Submitter included some definitions. Notes that definitions have references to Nazi ideology/ expansion. Use of term highly offensive to submitter.

Submission requests that term "living space" be removed from DOC vision.

1.2 Vision for Auckland - 2060

RejectThe DOC 100-year vision is included as background material only.2/9

Tamaki Makaurau is misspelled throughout document with incorrect Makarau being used. Show lack of respect for mana whenua.

Amend CMS to refer to "Tamaki Makaurau" rather than "Makarau".

General AcceptReferences will be corrected to refer to "Makaurau" as referenced in the Tamaki Makaurau Collective Deed of Settlement 2012.

There were a few instances where an incorrect spelling had been used.

2/10




Maui’s dolphin is likely being ignored by the current government and should not be used in the 50 year vision as they are likely to be gone by then.

The sentence in paragraph 4 of the vision which reads: ". . .on the west coast of Auckland and within the Exclusive Economic Zone . . ." makes no sense.

Motuihe is not included in the vision and seems to be short changed throughout the CMS.

Submission requests that Section 1.2 be amended by:(1) Deleting references to Maui's dolphin;(2) Redrafting the last sentence of paragraph 4 on the long term vision to increase clarity; and(3) Including reference to Motuihe in the vision.


Accept in part(1) Refer to submission 2/7.

(2) The intention in the last sentence in paragraph 4 was to convey the aspiration to have a range of marine reserves on the West Coast and to achieve full coverage of the Kermadec Island group (currently there are gaps in coverage of the marine reserve owing to the positioning of the exclusive economic zone). Redraft the last sentence of paragraph in the 'long term vision' to read: "A nationally representative range of marine ecosystems and habitats is protected on the west coast of Auckland Conservancy and a contiguous marine protected area encompasses all islands within the Kermadec Island group".

(3) Include reference to Motuihe in the last paragraph of the 'long term vision' after Rangitoto. The CMS identifies Motuihe as a potential gateway destination in Section 1.5.3 and Appendix 10 and it is appropriate to reflect this aspiration in the Vision.

2/11

"Hinterland" (paragraph 2) is an odd term. It is not common idiom. I’ve never heard anyone in the public using this word, which should be a gauge in a public document.

Para 2, p. 13 should read recovery, not protection in relation to Maui's dolphin. Maui’s is not a sub-species of Hector’s dolphin as stated. It is one of two subspecies, the other subspecies being Hector’s dolphin. Correct fewer than 100 individuals to 55 to reflect current science.

Amend marine environment section by:(1) Replacing the term "hinterland";(2) Correcting reference to Maui's dolphin being a sub-species;(3) Replacing "100" individuals of Maui's dolphin with "50";(4) Correct reference to "Te Matuku Marine Reserve" by deleting the word "Bay" (Para 3, p. 13); and(5) Including Tawharanui Marine Reserve on all maps;

1.3 Distinctive features, values and issues - Marine environment

Accept in part(1) Reword paragraph 2 to read: "..recognises that the natural and historic features of the Gulf are of national and international importance. It established the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park in order to integrate the management of the Gulf, its islands and catchments. The catchments of the Park encompass.."

The amendments to the discussion about the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act remove reference to 'hinterland' and replace it with text that more closely reflects the purpose of the Act.

(2) The text in sentence 1, para 2, pg 13 is correct so will remain unchanged. There are 2 subspecies of Hector's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus hectori hectori (common name Hector's dolphin) and Cephalorhynchus hectori maui (common name Maui's dolphin). The following further sentence has

2/12




been added to this paragraph to reflect that Hector's dolphin individuals have been found amongst the Maui's dolphin population, and the sentence following it amended to refer to the 2 subspecies:

"Hector’s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori hectori) individuals have also been found amongst the Maui’s dolphin population. Entanglement in set nets poses a major threat to both subspecies..."

(3) The population estimate of Maui's dolphin has been changed from "fewer than 100 individuals" to "around 55 individuals over the age of one year" to reflect the 2012 survey.

(4) The reference to the Te Matuku Marine Reserve in para 3 on pg 13 has been corrected to remove the word "Bay".

(5) Note that Tawharanui Marine Reserve is included on Maps 7.14 (Marine Reserves Place) and 8.15 (Public land inventory).

The DOC campaign is called Treasure Islands, not Treasured Islands. That brand is used by Samoa!

Para 6 (p. 14) is a good example of the attitudinal difference in the language of the CMS as it differs between Warkworth and Auckland speak. Warkworth tend to value their community partners by naming them and using language which acknowledges them. This para uses ‘community trusts and their volunteers "assist the Department" and ‘Through hands-on "learning experiences". These are very patronizing terms and should be changed to something like ‘partner with the department’ and ‘engagement’, respectively. The community own these places, not the department, so their work is not for the department, but for themselves and NZ.

Submission requests that Treasured Islands section be amended as follows:(1) Change title to "Treasure Islands";(2) Amend para. 6 to read: "Community trusts and their volunteers partner with the Department. Through engagement, people gain".

1.3 Distinctive features, values and issues - Treasured islands

Accept in part(1) The changes to Paragraph 6 reflect DOC's approach to partnering with others. The use of the term "treasured" islands is intended to convey that the islands are treasured by people. It is not intended to reflect a DOC campaign or brand.

(2) Amend the paragraph which commences with the words "A distinctive feature..' under "Treasured Islands" to read: "Community trusts and their volunteers partner with the Department through activities such as tree planting, weed control, restoration and conservation of historic structures and sites, maintenance of facilities, and awareness raising. Through engagement people gain.."

2/13

Para 3, - change working with ‘others’ to working ‘within the Hauraki Gulf Forum’

Submission requests that Gateway section be amended by amending the last sentence, para 3 to refer to "working within the Hauraki Gulf Forum"

1.3 Distinctive features, values and issues - Gateway

Accept in partAmend the paragraph which commences "While site based .." under "gateway" to read: "working with the Hauraki Gulf Forum and with community 2/14




conservation groups, commercial operators and non-governmental organisations."

The changes recognise the range of agencies and groups involved in promoting the Hauraki Gulf.

"Recognising" in para 2 is a poor term. Submission requests that Section 1.4 be amended as follows:(1) Replace the term "recognising" (para 2) with the term "acknowledging";(2) Amend para 4 to refer to "Ngati Whatua o Orakei" (lower case O);(3) Amend para 4 to refer to "Tamaki Makaurau";

1.4 Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities

Accept in part(1) Iwi had the opportunity to review the draft CMS prior to notification and again to submit on the notified draft. No comments/ submissions have been received from them regarding this wording, therefore no changes are recommended.

(2 and (3) Correct references to Ngati Whatua o Orakei and Tamaki Makaurau.

2/15

West Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary is not a "stronghold" for Maui’s dolphin. The sanctuaries, as the Minister has applied them, do little to protect the dolphins as they do not control fisheries, but can. They control seismic survey and sand mining and the current government has relaxed some of this control.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.1.5.1 The diversity of our natural heritage - objectives - general

Accept in partAmend the description of the West Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary to read: "This contains a small population of Maui's dolphin" to more accurately reflect the population.2/16

It is wrong to make Motuihe a second rank gateway. It needs to be lifted to sit with Motutapu. The effort expended by the Trust and the community on this island is insulted by this CMS!

Amend Section 1.5.3 to identify Motuihe as "gateway" destination.

1.5.3 More people participate

Accept in partMotuihe is not ‘second ranked’, it is just that DOC has to stage its resourcing of Gateway destinations and as identified in the CMS it is expected that Motuihe will be developed as a 'gateway' destination during the terms of the CMS, i.e. within the next ten years.

2/17

Milestone 3 refers to "doubling" the amount of ‘conservation’ achieved by key partners. What is ‘conservation’ in a quantitative sense here? This makes no sense.

Clarify the intention of the third milestone.1.5.4 More people engage - milestones - outputs

Accept(1) Replace the milestones under Year 5 and 10 with the following : "Report on outcomes from programmes aimed at increasing engagement in conservation in Auckland including for young people and Maori."; and(2) Include this milestone under Year 3 for consistency.

All partnerships (and programmes with partners) will have defined objectives and as a matter of good practice programmes should be assessed against programme objectives. Once this is done for all programmes it may be possible to draw wider

2/18




conclusions such as that inferred in the original milestone, however reporting against programmes is a pre-requisite to this.

First sentence of para 4 which refers to "navigators and harvesters of the sea" is poor English and clunky.

The last sentence para 4 which states is "considered of significant cultural and spiritual importance to tangata whenua". Is questionable. I know many Iwi who do not approve of marine reserves in principle and this assumption takes it way beyond what their view would be, given the first sentence of the para.

Para 5 also assumes that all those activities are taking place at the 5 marine reserves other than Kermadec. However they don’t really apply much outside of Leigh, and definitely not in Pollen Is or Te Matuku.

Questions whether marine pests are really being monitored (para 6) and whether any serious science is being done at TMMR or PIMR.

The document seems to lean heavily towards the current legislative take for marine reserves being basically for scientific study. You may want to expand this to actual use and community values, such as recreation.

Does DOC currently have active Honorary MR Rangers, officially?

In general, I would not speak for mana whenua on any aspect of marine reserves. I don’t believe their views are correctly stated anywhere in the document, not in Auckland Area Office sections at least.

Some key facilities not mentioned include the Leigh Marine Lab at CROP MR, MERC at Long Bay, and the Otakawhe Bay Lode in TMMR. All are potentially key features for a 10 year vision for the current marine reserves. There is no discussion on lack of access to either TMMR or Pollen Island, both very limited.

Amend Section 2.1 by:(1) Reviewing wording of para 4;(2) Reviewing wording of para 5;(3) Inferred: Clarifying what monitoring (para 6) is being undertaken;(4) Expanding references to marine reserves throughout document to refer to actual use and community values such as recreation;(5) Inserting references to Leigh Marine Lab at CROP MR, MERC at Long Bay, and the Otakawhe Bay Lode in TMMR;(6) Inserting references to lack/ limited of access to TMMR and Pollen Island;(7) Inserting reference in Kermadec subsection to proposed expansion of marine reserve;(8) Mention of Traherne Is as well as Pollen Is:(9) Mention F&B as the grandparents of these two marine reserves. Acknowledge conservation history where it is due and you will grow the relationships;(10) Insert into Te Matuku subsection reference to F&B as the grandparents and the F&B and DOC land and the Fenwick, Wright, Morton and any other family who has covenanted into the landward TMMR boundary. This is significant. Fenwick’s land is also now in the HGMP.

2.1 Marine Reserves Place

Accept in partThe descriptive paragraph commencing "recreational activities are popular" has been amended to reflect that there are different levels of recreational activity at different marine reserves.

The descriptive paragraph commencing "During the term ..r" has been amended to better describe how access to the Motu Manawa/Pollen Island Marine Reserve is limited.

The paragraph of the Motu Manawa/Pollen Island Marine Reserve commencing "During the term.." has been amended to better reflect the public conservation land within the marine reserve: a fuller description of the Motu Manawa Pollen Island Scientific Reserve has been added.

The purpose of the description in Section 2.1 is to provide enough context so the outcome and policies can be clearly understood. Listing all facilities at a site and detailing the history of a marine reserve application is not considered necessary to the understanding of the outcome and policies of this section.

The purpose of the CMS is not to detail what monitoring activities are undertaken in each marine reserve. Accordingly, para 6 (pg 37) will not be amended.

The Department acknowledges a reference to seeking further statutory protection for significant marine areas around the Kermadec Islands has been omitted in Section 2.1. The following sentence has therefore been added to paragraph starting "although access to.." in the Kermadec Islands Marine Reserve section (pg 38):

2/19




"The Department intends to work with others to investigate statutory protection measures for significant marine habitats and species in the EEZ adjacent to and between sections of the Kermadec Islands Marine Reserve."

There is no outcome statement for Cape Rodney-Okakari Point (CROP). Seems odd to later lump it into a reserve complex if this hasn’t been done with the other marine reserves all of which have other reserves in their complex (e.g. TMMR has all of the DOC land and covenanted land around it’s rim, PIMR has Pollen and Traherne Islands, Long Bay MR has the regional park, which is the real visitor attractor, Tawharanui has the regional park as well. Why is CROP a special case? It shows a divide between Warkworth and Auckland thinking which is evident throughout this document. In principle the concept of reserve complex is a good one, but Leigh is not really so special as to be singled out. If Te Matuku was properly promoted, it could be the equivalent, as could a MR to the northern cap of Rangitoto/Motutapu/MOEC. If this is a 10 year vision, look forward not back.

The statement (para 2) "Human activities … are not detrimental" is incorrect. Leigh is degraded structurally and behaviourally as far as the fish go. Anchorage damage is still also an issue everywhere. Again is marine biosecurity practice actually happening??

Tangata whenua and community actively involved in marine reserves (para 3). I don’t think this is a true statement to any great degree, bit overplayed.

Again don’t speak for TW with regard to Kaitiakitanga.

Access is a key problem for TMMR and Pollen Is and gets no real mention. Also sign based interpretation may not be appropriate in marine reserves. There are softer interpretation available.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.1 Marine Reserves Place - outcome

Accept in partIt is noted that a number of comments appear to be made on the basis that this section applies to the Cape Rodney-Okakari Point Marine Reserve. However, Cape Rodney-Okakari Point Marine Reserve is included in the Leigh Reserves Complex in Section 2.2. A number of changes have been made, including deleting Cape Rodney-Okakari Point Marine Reserve from the table, to clarify that Cape Rodney-Okakari Point Marine Reserve is not included in Section 2.1.

2/20

I agree Cape Rodney-Okakari Point Marine reserve (CROP) is overused and the hype about the experience is overtaken by the crowds. It’s also a health and safety

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.2.4 Policy NotedThe submitter’s view that other marine reserves should be developed as tourism attractions is noted.

2/21




risk as it makes students difficult to monitor when there are droves of kids everywhere in the water snorkelling. For this reason, in addition to limits and monitoring at CROP, the other marine reserves like TMMR and Tawharanui should be developed as tourism attractors.

This is addressed in Policy 2.2.5 and Section 2.1.

I agree Cape Rodney-Okakari Point Marine reserve (CROP) is overused and the hype about the experience is overtaken by the crowds. It’s also a health and safety risk as it makes students difficult to monitor when there are droves of kids everywhere in the water snorkelling. For this reason, in addition to limits and monitoring at CROP, the other marine reserves like TMMR and Tawharanui should be developed as tourism attractors.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.2.5 Policy NotedThe submitter’s view that other marine reserves should be developed as tourism attractions is noted. This is addressed in Policy 2.2.5 and Section 2.1.

2/22

I agree Cape Rodney-Okakari Point Marine reserve (CROP) is overused and the hype about the experience is overtaken by the crowds. It’s also a health and safety risk as it makes students difficult to monitor when there are droves of kids everywhere in the water snorkelling. For this reason, in addition to limits and monitoring at CROP, the other marine reserves like TMMR and Tawharanui should be developed as tourism attractors.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.2.6 Policy NotedThe submitter’s view that other marine reserves should be developed as tourism attractions is noted. This is addressed in Policy 2.2.5 and Section 2.1.

2/23

Para 5, p. 68 states that "Maui’s dolphin are frequently seen at the mouth of the Kaipara Harbour". I don’t believe they are!! Again this gives reference to the WCMMS as if it is a useful protection measure, which it isn’t.

Correct para 5, p. 68 with respect to Maui's dolphin.2.7 Kaipara Harbour Place

Accept in partAmend the descriptive paragraph which starts "Maui's dolphins are.." to refer to 'occasional' sightings rather than 'frequent' sightings.

While Maui's dolphin are known to use the Kaipara Harbour, sightings are infrequent. Thus rewording the sentence to delete references to them being seen frequently is appropriate.

2/24

Understands no baches on island "owned". Questions referencing to Devonport Scout Group "owning" one (para 4).

Para 6 - The term "original bach holder" for the RIBCA baches may still be wrong. Should be ‘original caretaker’. Check with legal on the term "holder".

Para 8 - (eight mammalian pests) - weren't removed, they were eradicated.

Amend Section 2.11 by:(1) Clarifying whether Devonport Scout Group "own" a bach;(2) Undertaking a legal check of para 6;(3) Substituting the word "eradicated" for the word "removed" in para 8;(4) Adding kiwi to the species translocated to Motutapu in para 8;(5) Inserting the names of the trusts/ community groups in para 10;(6) Rewording the 3rd sentence, para 8 to read: "..a three

2.11 Motutapu and Rangitoto Islands Place

Accept in partThe submitter's views regarding the legality of the wording used to describe bach owners/occupiers. The CMS will be subject to a full legal check prior to being sent to the Auckland Conservation Board.

The submitter's suggested changes to the wording of the description are noted. Changes have been made to include the word "eradicated", to replace the word "emblematic" with symbolic, regarding visitors with disabilities, regarding the outdoor education camp,

2/25




Para 8 - "..in 2011, it was confirmed" is poor English.

There are a "number of trusts and community groups" that presently undertake valuable conservation work on these islands. Name them, as has been done in the Warkworth sections. This generic lumping of these groups insults them.

The concept of promotion of agritourism to view a sustainable pest-free farm (the only on earth), should be explored. It sits well with New Zealand's brand of being a primary producer in agriculture and horticulture. Big opportunity being missed.

Several refs to bicycle. My view is that bikes do not have a place on Motutapu or Rangitoto, outside of the DUAL event. They have been trialled in past and people have gone off track. There are highly sensitive ecology on Rangitoto and archaeological sites all over Motutapu, both at risk. It seems that the personal agendas of DOC staff are being pushed through the CMS on the bike issue.

"Emblematic". Poor English. Not common idiom.

Para 14 - Reference to "disabled and less mobile visitors" is not in keeping with modern thinking about disabilities. No one IS or ARE disabled (i.e. it is not their identity and doesn’t define them), but rather they are people with or having disabilities (as a part of their lives). Check with HR on this principle or the Human Rights Commission.

There is a discrepancy between seeing Islington Bay as a Gateway and the Treaty settlement which includes bach 80 going to Iwi. In the past, application by Iwi of the use of this bach and surrounds was not for the general public. It’s prominence as a part of the gateway will need to be managed. Ideally this building would be best used as an information kiosk as would the "shop" at Rangitoto Wharf, currently sitting unused within the Fullers concession (acknowledged that a possible upgrade and functionisation is slated in the Rangitoto

year pest eradication programme realized the total removal of";(7) Making a commitment to explore the promotion of agritourism to view a sustainable pest-free farm;(8) Remove references to bicycles except when part of event;(9) Replace the term "emblematic" with one in more common use;(10) Rewording the last sentence of para 14 to read "Access and facilities suitable for less mobile visitors or those with disabilities";(11) Rewording the last sentence of para 17 to read: "the Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp has been providing an opportunity for schools and other groups to have authentic experience of nature while building other values such as leadership and confidence in young people, one of the last of these institutions remaining in Auckland region";(12) Rewording to recognise the lease of the Reid Homestead by MRT;(13) Rewording para 17 to recognise the wider role of MRT in terms of historic restoration, weedbusters, reforestation (not regenerating bush as is throughout the CMS (there is a planting plan over 50 years), DUAL, Volunteer Programme, Reid Homestead, Home Bay wharf restoration , Nursery, Schoolhouse;(14) Rewording first sentence of para 18 to refer to "4WD road train" or "tractor train";(15) Rewording para 18 to provide a vehicle service between Rangitoto Wharf-Islington Bay and Home Bay.

and the last para regarding the tractor-train.

The submitter is correct that kiwi have also been translocated to Motutapu, so kiwi have been added to the list of species translocated to Motutapu.

Concession applications for a vehicle service from Rangitoto Wharf to Islington Bay will be considered. This is already provided for in Policy 2.11.4. Agri-tourism tours of the farm are also an activity that could be considered under a concession. The Department also supports any alternative farming practices undertaken by the farm concessionaire if within the conditions of the concession.

It is appropriate that recognition should be given to the trusts/community groups that undertake restoration work on the island. The description has been expanded to include a reference to the three main groups.

Comments regarding mountain biking are addressed in the mountain biking section of the supplementary report.

Policies in Section 3.2 (pg 119-120) provide guidance for vehicle use on public conservation land. Policies 2.11.4 and 2.11.26 provide for concessions for vehicle services on Rangitoto and Motutapu Island. The route any vehicle service takes will be considered as part of the assessment of a concession application.




chapter.

Para 17 - The reference to MOEC as "an outdoor education camp" is so depersonalized as to be insulting to this trust and institution. There seems to be little connectivity between the writer and the many years of work and development which the AAO community and concession partners have done. MOEC have made great strides in developing curriculum around environmental education. Clients are annual and are slow to adopt change so that change may take several years. MOEC has a particularly good focus on marine recreation and marine environment. Depending on how the Marine Spatial Plan develops. a marine reserve covering the top of Rangitoto and Motutapu would approximate the success of CROP MR in terms of infrastructure. People could access the reserve via MOEC and can therefore recreate using snorkelling, kayaking, sailing, waka ama without having to bring their own gear. All in a ½ hour boat ride from the city. MOEC already have a "voluntary marine reserve" and all parties respect this and do not fish in Administration Bay. The provision of a kayak rustic campsite in Boulder Bay only adds to the MR concept and would discourage the current practice of fishing and lighting small cooking fires illegally on Rangitoto which jeopardizes the island. Fire is the main threat to these islands.

Para 18 - The Fullers’ Volcanic Explorer is more commonly called a ‘4WD road train’ or ‘tractor-train’, not ‘tractor trailer’ as currently appears.

Para 18 - The paragraph refers to bicycles and cyclists assumes they are a "priority". They are not and should not be entertained. What should be made available is a vehicle service between Rangitoto Wharf-Islington Bay and Home Bay to encourage visitors to Rangitoto to have the option to explore Motutapu. The maintenance of roads on both islands which are partial responsibility of the Fullers and MFL concession/management agreement, needs to be enforced.




Cycling should not be promoted as strongly as it has been in the CMS. Trials I the past have shown that cyclists on Motutapu did not keep to designated roads and did go off road (this is contrary to what is stated on p 89).

The arid conditions on Rangitoto present a health and safety risk to cyclists and pedestrians in the form of scoria dust air pollution. The number of service vehicles from MOEC, MRT, Fullers, DOC, concessionaires and those used for RIHCT and RIBCA on a single lane road does not mesh well with bikes. The conservation outcomes of all of these partners far outweighs the concept of a limited number of bikers. The real issue is the time it takes to walk from Rangitoto wharf, being the main tourism entry point, to Motutapu. Unless Fullers are willing to provide a service to Islington or Home Bay, a means is needed to move masses of people between the two islands in order to expand the use of places other than the Rangitoto Wharf area and the summit.

The Treaty settlement gives ownership of the summit to mana whenua and the provision of Bach 80 to mana whenua leaves the development of Islington Bay as a gateway in question. Bikes are not an answer to anything and will themselves be at conflict with both pedestrians and vehicles. They also pose additional risk to the threatened plants which grow on the road margins on Rangitoto. The significance of the highly successful DUAL event is that it provides a once-a-year opportunity for bike enthusiasts to enjoy the two islands. Open access will dilute this rich experience which provides direct conservation funding to MRT. The only place perhaps who should have bikes is via MOEC as they are a good outdoor safety provider of recreational experiences. I think they already allow Kings school to bring their bikes in the past, but this could have stopped as of the eradication. Forget Rangitoto roads. Forget unsupervised riding. The only option which simplifies risk is using MOEC to provide this opportunity.

Requests that bikes only be allowed in limited circumstances where associated with the DUAL or a concession.






Rangitoto has quite a few threatened plant species growing directly on the side of the road, which again would be further threatened by bikes and the Kidney Fern track should be off limits if it does happen. There is significant vehicle traffic on the lower Rangitoto Roads from DOC, MFL, MRT, MOEC, Fullers, MOEC customers who take their own vehicles on and potentially, in the future, RIHCT. This is a single vehicle road. There may be H&S issues both around the dust on the Rangitoto Road and evacuation planning in general. Yankee Bay still has a huge asbestos issue and should not be targeted as a destination. With Treaty Settlement coming down, it may be up to Iwi to choose to benefit from biking tours if it occurs. In summary I would limit the activity to Motutapu as another piece of critical mass towards getting regular ferry service to Home Bay and it should be confined to formed roads only if the risk from vehicles can be rationalized.There is very little in the way of fire policy here for Rangitoto, which can easily one day be lost to a fire. There has been talk of smoking ban on DOC islands, maybe it’s time for CMS' collectively to adopt this policy. Also the baches of Rangitoto have outdoor braziers and some have indoor fireplaces. The use of fire at the baches and at rustic campgrounds proposed for the northern side of Rangitoto need a good looking at.

Add a new policy in Section 2.11 regarding fire at Rangitoto.


Accept in partThe smoke-free campaign generally refers to making areas smoke-free for public health reasons. While it is acknowledged that the Auckland Council has resolved to do this progressively in terms of parks and reserves this was only done after extensive investigations and public consultation. If the Department were to do this would also need to undertake similar investigations and consultation not just at a local level but at a national level also. It is therefore inappropriate to amend the CMS as requested by the submitter.

It is noted however that provisions (description and a policy) have been inserted into Part Three in response to a submission by Forest and Bird (57/7) which address the effects on public conservation land from fire. This policy would apply to Rangitoto and Motutapu and are considered sufficient therefore it is considered unnecessary to insert a policy within Section 2.11 (Motutapu and Rangitoto Islands Place).

2/27

The honey production on Rangitoto is 6 Tonne per year, almost pure Pohutukawa honey. This agribusiness could be a popular tourism feature of the island. In past

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.11.16 to recognise the potential value of bees in terms of pollination and tourism.

2.11.16 Policy RejectPolicy 2.11.16 will remain in the CMS. The Department is concerned with competition between

2/28




a proposal for bioactive Manuka honey was pitched, proposing areas of Motutapu to be planted in Manuka instead of skipping to canopy trees. Again, the value of this tourism concept (increasingly aimed at health conscious Asian audiences (tourism) who highly value this honey) is huge. Yet this policy is narrow and focused on ecological finesse only. Pollination is pollination. Opposition to the aggressiveness of non-native honey bees, unless a firmly established hard science concept, should relax.

native pollinators and non-native bees. The effects are unknown and are currently being investigated. Should investigations reveal there is an adverse effect, the Department would like to retain the option to review apiary concessions on Rangitoto.

There is no policy for barged vehicles used to transport gear to MOEC.

Add a new policy in Section 2.11 regarding the use of barged vehicles used to transport gear to MOEC.


RejectThe transportation of gear by barge to MOEC is an operational matter and will not be addressed in the CMS.

2/29

Policy 2.11.24 should clearly provide opportunity for a café in Reid Homestead. This is a very mature concept.

Submission requests that Policy 2.11.24 be amended by substituting the word "may" for a stronger word which provides for a café.

2.11.24 Policy RejectThe word "may" is used consistently throughout the CMS when a new concession opportunity is being proposed to give discretion to the decision-maker when making a decision on a concession application. Policy 2.11.24 will therefore be retained with the existing wording.

2/30

Para 1 - Motuihe Project began in Feb 2005, not 2004. The Trust began in 2000, inspired by the vision of farming concessionaire Ronnie Harrison, who asked all visitors to spend some of their time on conservation.

Para 4 - Fullers have recently cut services to Motuihe.

Para 3 - Island was also a health camp. This is not mentioned.

The campground gets barely a mention, at a time when DOC is promoting campgrounds. Needs a bit of a beef up. The island has potable water.

Para 4 - The nature of Motuihe as a "boaties" island is not expressed well enough. Many visitors arrive in their own craft and many organized events are boat focused. The OBC have been a major background sponsor of the trust since the beginning. Fishing competitions and regatta race events are common. Anchorage is excellent.

Submission requests that Section 2.12 be amended by:(1) Correctly identifying 2005 as when the restoration project commenced in para 1;(2) Identifying that there is no longer a regular ferry service in para 4;(3) Identifying that island was also a health camp in para 3;(4) Providing greater emphasis in text to campground;(5) Providing greater emphasis in text to island as a "boaties island"; and(6) Inserting reference to information kiosk in text.

2.12 Motuihe Island Place

Accept in partThe Motuihe Restoration Plan was signed by the Motuihe Trust and DOC in 2005, but the restoration project began prior to that. The text in the last para has been amended to reflect that .

Fullers currently still runs a regular ferry service to Motuihe (it goes to the island the 1st, 3rd and 5th Sundays of the month during the winter months and more frequently during the summer period).

The submitter is correct that a children's health camp was run on Motuihe, and the Department agrees that this is an important part of the history of the island. The paragraph referring to this has been amended to include a reference to the health camp.

The Department agrees with the submitter that more emphasis needs to be placed on Motuihe's popularity with boaties and the island's campground. The

2/31




The information kiosk is not mentioned, it and the interpretation signage provide excellent service to visitors.

Para 5, second sentence - The view that Motuihe is a passive island and therefore this is the reason it is differentiated from Motutapu is a poor understanding of both Motuihe and of the Rangitoto/Motutapu/Motuihe dimension.

It was decided to combine Rangitoto and Motutapu into a single place purely due to proximity and management ease, not due to likeness of place and therefore a fair balance of how Motutapu and Motuihe are pushed. For Rangitoto and Motutapu, the reserve status differs, the ecological district differs, the geology differs, the community culture differs and access differs.

Whereas Motutapu and Motuihe are both recreation reserves, are in the same ecological district, have active ecological restoration programmes and in fact are naturally seeing species migrate between the two islands (as both have fresh water, which Rangitoto doesn’t), both have campgrounds. Access to both Home Bay and to Motuihe have always traditional been at risk and subject to the whim and economic realities of Fullers.

Of the two islands, Motuihe has a higher visitation rate and more concession and permit activities. The CMS is treating Motuihe poorly. All three islands have the same biosecurity issues, as does Rakino for that matter. Planning between Motutapu and Motuihe for synergies would be more effective that trying to force management of Rangitoto issues into Motutapu. All three islands are of such close proximity to the city as to demand equal billing and development. If people want a quiet rural setting the can go to GBI.

Motuihe, by its social and recreational nature should be developed as a people attractor. Its size offers an easy and diverse day visit and its history tells many

description has been amended to emphasise these points.

The purpose of the description in Part 2 of the CMS is to provide enough detail for the outcome and policies to be understood. Including information about the kiosk and signage on Motuihe is not considered necessary to the understanding of the outcome and policies in Section 2.12.

The submitter's views regarding the decision to include Rangitoto and Motutapu into one place, and not combine Rangitoto and Motuihe into a single place are noted. As referred to in the description, the Rangitoto and Motutapu are combined into a single place because, although geologically distinct and although they have different land status, they are linked by a causeway.




interesting stories, ripe for serious interp. The past dynamic Conservator Rob McCallum saw Motuihe for what it is and encouraged the Trust to aim for a massive visitor centre which could be multi-use.

Motutapu is very large and difficult to walk, making destination a challenge. MOEC benefit from the rural quiet nature of the island by offering schools a chance to get away from the city. The working MFL farm is not the equivalent of Ambury Park, which is a farm for people, not in spite of them. Motutapu’s size offers refuge for any threatened species put there, and this need not mean a chance for tourists to directly experience them. Motuihe is more intimate for this purpose and can be tailored to feature visible species.

I’m not suggesting locking Motutapu away, but developing Rangitoto and Motuihe as key visitor sites and retaining Motutapu as a vast natural area has its merit.The phrase "valued community treasure" (first sentence, para 1) is horrible. The reference to pastoral landscape is outdated. Other than headland and isthmus and ridgelines, most of Motuihe is and will be regenerated replanted bush, not "pastoral" which means livestock raising or shepherding.

Para 4 - Disagree with the statement "visitor facilities are sympathetic to the islands small size". Support Trusts vision of a large scale visitor centre. Large enough for conferences or corporate functions, a money spinner which can expose the business and overseas community to an easily walked diverse island and native wildlife, a showcase.

Last sentence, para 4 - "contrasting nocturnal sights and sounds of wildlife and quietness of the island" reads very poorly.

This does not ideally fit on Motutapu. The Reid Homestead is size limited. And the distances and terrain of Motutapu too long and hard for casual

Submission requests that outcome box (Section 2.12) be amended by:(1) Replacing the phrase "valued community treasure" in para 1;(2) Deleting references to "pastoral landscape";(3) Rewording Para 4 to provide for the development of a large scale visitor centre; and (4)improving readability of last sentence.


Accept in partThe submitter's views on the wording choice "valued community treasure" and reference to pastoral landscape are noted. The Department intends to manage historic sites on Motuihe Island under grass - this is a common way to manage historic sites.

The Department agrees that the outcome for Motuihe does not envisage encouraging visitors to the island. The Outcome has been amended to reflect that in the life of the CMS Motuihe will be developed as a gateway destination.

The last sentence of the outcome (pg 97) has been reworded to improve its readability.

2/32




viewing. Motuihe has regattas, 20 year histories of company picnics, fishing competitions, weddings, two annual heritage week offerings, and actually a very progressive, creative trust constantly at the cutting edge of new technologies, from my historical perspective of them. Some of the historic buildings lost on Motuihe could be reconstructed in time, allowing for diverse interp. A good example is the Quarantine theatre event which was on Somes and was coming to Motuihe. It would have been brilliant.Policy lacks specificity. Inferred: Amend Policy 2.12.2 to make it more specific.2.12.2 Policy Reject

The submitter's has not made it clear how Policy 2.12.2 could be made more specific.

2/33

Has been largely done by the Trust while DOC wasn't looking.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.12.4 Policy NotedThe submitter's view that visitor facilities have already been provided is noted.

2/34

The wording "should be discouraged" is weak. Helicopter over flight of bush should either be prohibited, or a height restriction established as a condition.

Amend Policy 2.12.5 to prohibit over flight of bush or to establish a height restriction.

2.12.5 Policy RejectConcessions are required to be obtained for all helicopter landings on Motuihe Island in terms of the Conservation Act and Conservation General Policy. The CMS zones the Island "orange" which recognises that there are complex issues to be managed relating to aircraft landings at Motuihe. The use of "should be discouraged" sends a very clear message as to expectations and will not preclude staff implementing height restrictions or other controls by way of a concession if this is warranted in relation to a specific proposal. It would not be appropriate to provide stronger direction within the context of the orange zoning that is being applied.

2/35

Policy should provide for the Trust to have the ability to build the visitor centre as a priority over commercial entities. The design of the VC is not to the north of the toilets, it overlays them. Conservation Trusts should have priority weighting as concession applicants over commercial entities.

Amend Policy 2.12.6 as follows:(1) Provide for the Trust to build the visitor centre; and(2) Correct the location for the proposed centre.

2.12.6 Policy RejectThe Department cannot specify a particular party to be awarded a particular concession, or give priority weighting to a conservation trust over other concession applicants. Any concession application the Department receives, including a limited opportunity concession, must be processed on its own merits according the provisions in Part 3B of the Conservation Act 1987. A particular design for the Visitors Centre may overlay the toilets. However,

2/36




after an assessment of effects, the best position for a visitor centre would be as listed in Policy 2.12.6. This policy has therefore not been amended.

Do not support grazing on Browns Island. Livestock means biosecurity risk, damaged archaeology and risk to native species like dotterel and euphoria.

Inferred: Delete Policy 2.13.2.2.13.2 Policy RejectThe submitter’s view on grazing on Browns Island is noted. Retaining low grass on Browns Island aids the recreational experience. In addition, grazing is a common way to manage historic sites. Even though there is currently no grazing on the island, the Department would like this option to be available in the future. Grazing on Browns Island would be carried out under a concession. The concessions process would include an assessment of the effects of the proposed grazing activity on the values of Browns Island.

2/37

There have always been helicopter landings on Browns, to pick up and drop off ad banners (the ones that trail out behind choppers, also for media and filmmakers and news crews). What is the problem with the summit? Granted during dotterel flocking this is a critical site where choppers need to be clear of the lowland.

Inferred: Delete Policy 2.13.4.2.13.4 Policy RejectBrowns Island is a popular kayaking destination and they represent a high proportion of visitors In keeping with the non-mechanised visits by kayaks, DOC is aiming to restrict non-mechanised approaches from the air. This creates a relatively rare opportunity for visitors to enjoy natural quiet in easy reach of the mainland whilst also protecting wildlife and the cultural values of the maunga. There are alternative sites in close proximity (both public and private land) where helicopters could pick up and drop off banners and these is no need for the Department to provide for this use at this location.

2/38

Questions why the term "Coastal Defence" has not been used. Term "coastal" is used in the vast majority of cases nationally. The real debate if I remember it right was is it Defence or Defences, not Coastal vs. Coast.

I must say that given the public asset of the summit barracks at North Head to Iwi seems tragic. This historic building is a heart of the tourism experience of the military history. I sympathise with the view that Maungauika is critical to Iwi as well, but was never really occupied. The stories of the Red Scares, WWI and WWII should not be lost to treaty settlement. Recently I visited Orakei to hear the thought that the gun emplacements may be made into an eel pond! The

Amend Section 2.14 to:(1) Refer to "Coastal Defence";(2) Refer to "NZ Sculpture OnShore", not "on the shore" in para 10;(3) Include references to full range of events undertaken at Fort Takapuna;(4) Refer to Rotary's role in Officer's Mess refurbishment;(5) Delete reference to North Head summit barracks being developed as an interpretation centre while it is being awarded to Iwi;(6) Provide for a new operative at North Head.


Accept in partThe submitter’s view regarding the vesting of the North Head Historic Reserve in iwi is noted. As the note at the start of Section 2.14 (pg 100) explains, until legislation is passed to allow North Head Historic Reserve to be vested in iwi, the reserve will continue to be administered by the Department.

The term "coast defence" has been amended to "coastal defence" throughout this section to reflect the correct terminology.

In the description , the name of the sculpture exhibition at Fort Takapuna has been amended to

2/39




two values systems need to be mutually respected. Respect for the war dead, many of whom were Maori takes priority over conversion for other use.

Para 10 - It’s "NZ Sculpture OnShore", not "on the shore".

Some events on FT site not mentioned -filming, Passchendaele, annual Bikes’ BBQ and the Blues, Ngati Paua cultural art show/Mataariki, Perils of the Deep Blue Sea, annual Oxfam fundraiser, Total Sport events for school running events at FT and NH (probably a concession now) and which have taken place for many years, HFA concession, largely underplayed.

The conversion of the Officer’s Mess into a restaurant is tragic and shows DOC’s poverty and need for any spare dollars it can eek from the public domain. This facility should have been used for the development of the tours of the fort and North Head and for adaptive use by the community ala Government House Wellington.

There should be mention of Devonport Rotary’s refurbishment of the Officer’s Mess.

The HFA was captured by Founder’s Syndrome just as Stony Batter was affected by the same phenomena. DOC need to be careful about partnership governance.

Page 102 still refers to the North Head summit barracks being developed as an interpretation centre while it is being awarded to Iwi in actuality.

Page 103 - Stony Batter is DOC Auckland’s biggest embarrassment. Despite years of dedicated presence, the key operative there should have been removed years ago. Many groups of earnest people have been driven off from sitting on waves of the SBPRS governance, people have received death threats for wanting to make change (fact), Chinese tourists have received point blanks racist diatribe which resulted in the Race

reflect its correct name, "Sculpture On Shore".

The purpose of the description in Part 2 of the CMS is to provide enough context for the outcome and policies to be understood. A detailed list of the full range of events at this place and the history of the refurbishment of Fort Takapuna is not considered necessary for the understanding of the outcome and policies.

The submitter’s views on the concession at the Officer’s Mess, the Historic Forts of Auckland and Stony Batter are noted.




Relations Conciliator becoming involved, people have been physically assaulted, DOC officers have been threatened, the historic structure massively altered without approval or building consent, health and safety breached repeatedly, the group stuck off the Societies Register , many complaints from a shocked public received, including prominent New Zealanders who have complained and major events being driven away forever (e.g. Story Festival, Walks on Waiheke). This was allowed to continue all due to cost implications of an alternative solution. Shocker and an indictment of management for allowing it to happen and continue. Is this "museum" to DOC standard, is the illegal signage? The low visitation is not due to distance as the CMS attests, it’s the social element which has prevented development. The first bullet point is a cop out of the above issue (p. 103). The third bullet point deserves a because (of the above issue). This CMS should fix this issue once and for all. The last two outcomes are not possible if it goes on. Change requires the entire Society relationship to end and a new provider cleanly coming in.Para 5 - Fort Takapuna - The concession at Officers Mess is not "providing a community purpose and benefit". It is merely letting DOC eek some money from a public asset.

Para 7 - North Head - North Head is not really a link to the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park. It is a link to historic military heritage.

Para 9 - Stony Batter - The independent tour option at SB still costs the visitor, so this implies incorrectly.

Inferred: Amend outcome as follows:(1) Revise the statement on para 5 about the Officers Mess providing community benefit;(2) Address cliff slumping issue;(3) Delete reference to North Head providing a link to the Hauraki Gulf in para 7;(4) Amend para 9 so that it does not imply that the independent tour is free;

2.14 Coast Defence Historic Reserves Place - outcome

Accept in partThe Department acknowledges that the concession at the Officer’s Mess may not be providing a community purpose. However, the adaptive reuse of this building is ensuring its retention, thus providing a community benefit. The word "purpose" has therefore been deleted from the outcome.

The submitter’s view that North Head is not really a link to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park is noted. However, it is the Department’s view that North Head links to the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, not only because part of the Park can be viewed from North Head, but also because North Head provides an accessible location to showcase the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

The Department has used the words "explored independently" in the outcome to refer to visitors being able to explore the tunnels at Stony Batter

2/40




without a guide. Whether there will be a cost to enter the tunnels will depend on the outcome of the Department working with the community to resolve the factors holding this place back from realising its potential.

Cliff slumping at Fort Takapuna is part of natural erosion of the cliffs. Some WWII structures may be at risk if cliff slumping continues, and the Department will deal with this as and when it happens. This issue will not be addressed through the CMS.

Parapenting is the wrong term. The concessionaire Wings and Waves offers paragliding!

Amend Policy 2.14.8 to refer to paragliding.2.14.8 Policy Accept in partParagliding is addressed in a supplementary report.2/41

I doubt the reserve can incorporate the foreshore as this is in the CMA and does not belong to the Crown under the MACA Act

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.14.9 Policy NotedThe submitter’s view on extending the North Head Historic Reserve to include the adjacent foreshore is noted. Section 10 of the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 provides for any defined area within the common marine and coastal area to acquire the status of a conservation area, national park or reserve.

2/42

Forget the "community" as being the tourism experience provider at Stony Batter. Get in a real concessionaire capable of showcasing this place properly.

Amend Policy 2.14.10 to provide for another concessionaire.

2.14.10 Policy NotedThe submitter’s view on getting a "real concessionaire" to showcase Stony Batter is noted. The outcome of working with the community may be to find a concessionaire to showcase Stony Batter.

2/43

Miranda Naturalists Trust also run diplomatic missions to countries where the migratory birds go while the NZ Government does nothing on this international relationship opportunity. This needs to be stated and funding to support these missions needs to be provided to the Trust.

Matter (2), p. 109 - Both DOC and MPI and mana whenua are also partners to the Marine Spatial Plan along with AC and WRC

Amend Section 2.15 to:(1) Recognise diplomatic missions by Trust and to provide support for these; and(2) Identify other partners to Marine Spatial Plan under (2).

2.15 Firth of Thames/ Tikapa Moana Wetlands Place

Accept in partThe description (para 3, pg 108) has been amended in order to recognise the work the Miranda Naturalist's Trust does internationally on migratory birds.

Changes have been made to the description to identify the correct partners involved in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan.

2/44

Quiet and peaceful rationale appears to say that tourism can't be developed. Have you never visited the albatross or penguin tourism in Dunedin? Let the market develop low impact tourism as it will assess the

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.15.10 by deleting reference to "peaceful, undeveloped nature" and let the market develop low impact tourism.

2.15.10 Policy RejectGuidance on the kind of experience a visitor may experience at this Place is important and is in keeping with the outcome.

2/45




applications on their merit rather than imposing 1970's mentality in the CMS.Quiet and peaceful rationale appears to say that tourism can't be developed. Have you never visited the albatross or penguin tourism in Dunedin? Let the market develop low impact tourism as it will assess the applications on their merit rather than imposing 1970's mentality in the CMS.

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.15.11 by deleting reference to "peaceful, undeveloped nature" and let the market develop low impact tourism.

2.15.11 Policy RejectGuidance on the kind of experience a visitor may experience at this Place is important and is in keeping with the outcome.

2/46

No mountain bikes on Rangitoto and on Motutapu only via MOEC or perhaps MRT and only as a guided experience. No free riding ever.

(1) Add a new policy be inserted which does not allow free riding (mountain bikes) on Rangitoto or Motutapu and mountain bikes on Motutapu only as a guided experience; and(2) Mountain biking not be promoted to the extent that is in the draft CMS.

Part Three - Mountain bikes (non-motorised)

RejectRefer supplementary report on mountain biking on Motutapu and Rangitoto.

2/47

A policy is needed to allow trusts to have first grab at concession opportunities to re-channel funding back into fund-slashed conservation, let the estate and the community self-fund conservation.

Add a new policy under "authorisations" to allow trusts to have first grab at concession opportunities to re-channel funding back into fund-slashed conservation, let the estate and the community self-fund conservation.

Part Three - Authorisations

RejectThe change to the policy requested by the submitter can not be implemented under the Conservation Act, it would be unlawful.

2/48

Submitter: Johnny HopperOppose the policy of disallowing non-motorised aircraft from using Fort Takapuna. Paragliding and hang-gliding has a positive effect on amenity value of the park area - other park users enjoy the presence of these aircraft from a spectators perspective.

Paragliders and hang-glider pilots have to be members of both Auckland and National gliding associations which insist on the highest level of safety.

Delete Policy 2.14.4.2.14.8 Policy Accept in partParagliding is addressed in a supplementary report.3/1

Oppose the use of the words "may allow". This implies that it "may not" be allowed. A change in the status quo.

Oppose the use of the criteria in Policy 3.4.2, Part Three in relation to paragliding activities. This criteria appears to have been designed to relate to powered aircraft. Applying this criteria would effectively ban paragliding at this world class site.

Amend Policy 2.14.8 as follows:(2) Rewording to read: "Allow the use of . .".; and(3) The deletion of the reference to Policy 3.4.2.

2.14.8 Policy Accept in partParagliding is addressed in a supplementary report.3/2

Submitter: Steve WrightI did not realise that there was some problem with flying paragliders at this site. We pilots would value

Amend Policy 2.14.4 to read "That the Department to communicate with the NZHGPA club representatives





all criticisms and communications and would voluntarily make all attempts to resolve issues even if it meant cessation of flying activities at certain times or conditions. Please understand that sites such as these are a rare commodity for our sport and as such extremely valuable to us. We are used to abiding by rules/ conditions where there are other affected users. We will also internally deal very sternly with any fringe element members who break the rules and put our access at risk.

directly with a view to resolving issues suitable for all parties".

Submitter: Simon MurtaghOppose policy as it is reducing paragliders rights. Inferred: Delete Policy 2.14.4.2.14.4 Policy Accept in part

Paragliding is addressed in a supplementary report.5/1Oppose policy as it is reducing paraglider's rights. Inferred: Delete Policy 2.14.8.2.14.8 Policy Accept in part

Paragliding is addressed in a supplementary report.5/2

Submitter: Chris FarmerOppose Policy 2.14.4.

Paragliders and hang-gliders flying activities pose no safety threat or negative impact to other users of the North head & Takapuna Fort and in fact enhance the visual and entertainment aspects of visitors to these sites.

On the website of the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) and the Tamaki Makaurau Collective Deed of Settlement there is a paragraph regards to the transfer of sites like North Head to the Collective Iwi and Hapu within the Auckland region " . . . For the common benefit of the iwi/hapu of the Tamaki Collective and all other people of Auckland. The maunga will vest as reserves and public access and existing third party interests will be protected".. To myself and many others this preserves the right of pilots to use these facilities for the future".


Submitter: Andy SpiererOppose proposed change. Existing access and usage rights need to be projected into the future and any issues or claims to valid reasons for change will need to be discussed.

Amend Policy 2.14.4 in order to reflect past, existing and future rights regards responsible paragliding at this site.





On the website of the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) and the Tamaki Makaurau Collective Deed of Settlement there is a paragraph regards to the transfer of sites like North Head to the Collective Iwi and Hapu within the Auckland region " . . . For the common benefit of the iwi/hapu of the Tamaki Collective and all other people of Auckland. The maunga will vest as reserves and public access and existing third party interests will be protected".. From my point of view this connects and reassures our past to future access and usage rights and responsibilities.Oppose proposed change. Existing access and usage rights need to be projected into the future and any issues or claims to valid reasons for change will need to be discussed.

On the website of the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) and the Tamaki Makaurau Collective Deed of Settlement there is a paragraph regards to the transfer of sites like North Head to the Collective Iwi and Hapu within the Auckland region " . . . For the common benefit of the iwi/hapu of the Tamaki Collective and all other people of Auckland. The maunga will vest as reserves and public access and existing third party interests will be protected".. From my point of view this connects and reassures our past to future access and usage rights and responsibilities.

Amend Policy 2.14.8 in order t reflect past, existing and future rights regards responsible paragliding at this site.


Oppose proposed change. Existing access and usage rights need to be projected into the future and any issues or claims to valid reasons for change will need to be discussed.

On the website of the Office of Treaty Settlements (OTS) and the Tamaki Makaurau Collective Deed of Settlement there is a paragraph regards to the transfer of sites like North Head to the Collective Iwi and Hapu within the Auckland region " . . . For the common benefit of the iwi/hapu of the Tamaki Collective and all other people of Auckland. The maunga will vest as reserves and public access and existing third party interests will be protected".. From my point of view this connects and reassures our past to future access

Amend Policy 3.4.2 in order to reflect past, existing and future rights regards responsible paragliding at this site. This included launching and landing within the proposed 50m exclusion zone.

3.4.2 Policy AcceptParagliding is addressed in a supplementary report.7/3




and usage rights and responsibilities. Submitter: Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi Inc.

We note the definition of ‘conservation’ given in Section 2 of the Conservation Act 1987 and the reference to ‘preservation and protection of natural and historic resources for the purpose of maintaining their intrinsic values, providing for their appreciation and recreational enjoyment by the public, and safeguarding the options of future generations’ (CMS, p.3).

These suggest that the essence of conservation is the ‘preservation and protection of natural and historic resources’, and the purposes of conservation are, to paraphrase, maintaining intrinsic values, providing for public appreciation and enjoyment, and safeguarding the choices of future generations.

In line with this definition, we would expect a ‘conservation management strategy’ to focus primarily on how conservation can be achieved. In other words, we would expect it to address how ‘natural and historic resources’ can best be preserved and protected. Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.2 of the CMS seem to suggest that this theme will be prominent, as indeed it is for some of the places featured in Part Two. However, the policies listed for Tiritiri Matangi, Motutapu and Rangitoto, and Motuihe (Te Motu-a-Ihenga) focus primarily on the provision for and management of visitors. In other words, they address, not how conservation might be achieved, but how one of its purposes might be achieved, namely the ‘appreciation and recreational enjoyment’ of natural and historic resources by the public. For these places, the document presents a strategy for tourism rather than a strategy for conservation.

Inferred: Submission requests that CMS be reviewed to focus primarily on how conservation is to be achieved.

Introduction - general

RejectThe CMS needs to be read as a whole. The objectives and policies in Part One indicate the Conservancy priorities for all public conservation land within Auckland. They include providing for the preservation and protection and protection of natural and historic resources and for public use. Places are included in Part Two where there are complex issues to be managed and the direction in Part One will not alone provide sufficient direction for these issues to be managed in an integrated manner.

In individual Places, policies are included where it is necessary to specifically constrain or enable an activity in order to achieve the Outcomes for that Place or where the Outcomes of that Place do not provide sufficient direction. As there are complex issues relating to visitor access and the potential impacts of visitor activities on Tiritiri Matangi, Motutapu and Rangitoto and to a lesser extent, Motuihe these Places need to have a number of policies to guide the management of visitors. Rather than representing a shift in emphasis away from the conservation, the presence of policies relating to visitor management are directed at constraining/ managing visitors, not promoting visitation.

8/1

Refer to Submission 8/1 regarding the focus of the CMS.

We are disappointed that not one of the nine policies (or their 25 sub-divisions) relating to Tiritiri Matangi addresses the need for managing and enhancing the Island’s flora, fauna and ecosystems or any of its

Inferred: Amend Section 2.10 by:(1) Including essence of recommendations contained in SoTM's recently prepared biodiversity plan; and(2) Refocusing the section to provide for conservation and lessen the focus on tourism;

2.10 Tiritiri Matangi Island Place

Accept in partThe outcome provides a descriptive vision for managing and enhancing the island's flora, fauna, ecosystems (and historic resources (para 6). Policies are only needed in addition to the outcome where they enable or constrain the outcome. In this case, as with other islands where restoration programmes are

8/2




historic resources. SoTM has recently prepared a new biodiversity plan for Tiritiri Matangi to guide the protection and enhancement of the Island’s ecosystems over the next ten years. This plan includes detailed recommendations for future planting and translocations of fauna. SoTM also has ambitious plans for the restoration and protection of the Island’s historic heritage. These plans effectively comprise a ‘conservation management strategy’ for Tiritiri Matangi.

One of the most important elements in a strategy for conservation should be a framework for managing biosecurity, and yet all the CMS says about this in relation to Tiritiri Matangi is that the Department will ‘work in partnership with the SoTM, concessionaires and commercial boat operators to manage biosecurity’ (policy 2.10.1). It seems inappropriate that this dimension, which is central to conservation (as defined in the Act), receives so little attention, while the management of tourism, which is relatively marginal, receives so much.

One reason why this focus on tourism is inappropriate is that there is now an increasing number of island reserves that attract visitors. One of the recognized successes of the Tiritiri Matangi project is how it has inspired so many similar projects. It has long been considered that, as the popularity of seeing native wildlife in a natural situation increases, the presence of additional projects to choose from would take the pressure off Tiritiri Matangi as a tourist destination, and enable it to develop its other roles, particularly as an important site for education and research. Rather than allowing this trend to proceed, the Department seems determined to increase the tourist pressure on the Island.

We are also concerned that the greater visitor numbers and more visitor days proposed in the CMS will place additional strain on the management of biosecurity and fire risks by the Island rangers. Before any increases have occurred it is already the case that the rangers do

well underway, it is not considered that policies detailing managing and enhancing biodiversity are needed. Including an essence of the recommendations contained in the draft Biodiversity Plan for Tiritiri Matangi is considered a too high level of detail for the CMS. However, para 3, pg 3 of the description has been amended as follows to reflect the intention of the Biodiversity Plan:

"In the future, SOTM considers that... while continuing to manage and enhance the island's biodiversity, and provide opportunities for research and volunteer activities."

The number of policies relating to a particular aspect e.g. visitor management, does not mean that this is this is the focus for the Department at particular place. The Conservation General Policy 2005 requires CMSs to provide a direction for decision makers regarding concessions. Policies 2.10.5 - 2.10.9 provide guidance about the management of visitors, in order to minimise the impact of concession activities on the visitor experience, research and translocations, and natural, historic and cultural values.




not meet visitors arriving by private boat, on either western or eastern bays, and no checks are made for unauthorised overnight camping.There is no guided walk on the Hobbs Track which runs from the west coast to the Ridge Track. This needs to be corrected.

This is broadly correct, but we take issue with the statement, ‘for the majority of the year, demand for overnight accommodation exceeds the space available in the 20-bed bunkhouse’ (p. 80). Occupancy rates for the past four years (data supplied by DOC) have been 57%, 68%, 64% and 65%. The peak month is January when occupancy ranged from 80 to 94% (but note that for two-thirds of January the bunkhouse is bulk-booked by the Supporters to ensure sufficient guides and other volunteers are available for the peak season).

Inferred: Amend the Description section (2.10) as follows:(1) Deleting reference to guided walks on the Hobbs Track in bullet one at the top of p. 80; and(2) That para 11 (p. 80) correctly reflect occupancy rates in the bunkhouse.


Accept in partAmend the description of overnight accommodation demand in the paragraph beginning "The need to protect.." to read as follows: "The demand for overnight accommodation is high throughout the year and the 20-bed bunkhouse is often full during the summer".

The changes reflect demand for overnight accommodation more accurately. The reference to tracks for guided walks is made in the context of the limited concession opportunity provided for in the CMS. In this respect it is describing a potential opportunity not an actual use and in this context it is considered appropriate to refer to the Hobbs Track.

8/3

Fully support and share the vision of the Island presented here, and are pleased that DOC’s aspirations are very much in accordance with our own. Given the content of the policies that follow, we particularly commend the statement, ‘Visitor numbers and activities, and commercial transport operator access are controlled and managed to minimise their impact on the island’s conservation values, protect natural quiet in restored forested areas, and maintain the quality of the visitor experience’ (p. 81). Our concerns are that specific policies, on which we comment below, would inhibit rather than enable this commendable outcome.

Inferred: (1) Retain Outcome statements; and(2) Amend policies to ensure they enable outcome to be achieved.

2.10 Tiritiri Matangi Island Place - outcome

RejectThe Outcome Statement remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

Policies are included where it is necessary to specifically constrain or enable an activity in order to achieve the Outcomes for that Place or where the Outcomes of that Place do not provide sufficient direction. As there are complex issues relating to visitor access and the potential impacts of visitor activities on Tiritiri Matangi the CMS needs to have a number of policies to guide decision-making and management direction for the Island. Rather than representing a shift in emphasis away from the conservation, the presence of policies relating to visitor management are directed at constraining/ managing visitors. The Description and Outcomes when read in conjunction with Part 1 are considered to provide sufficient direction in terms of biodiversity.

8/4

Seven day ferry service

Impact on scientific and conservation work: Tiritiri Matangi is a scientific reserve. According to the Reserves Act (21, 1), the purpose of scientific reserves

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.10.5 by:(1) Carefully assessing the implications of a seven day ferry service (2.10.5(a)(i)); (2) Adopting a less prescriptive management regime for daytime guided walk concessions ((2.10.5(b));

2.10.5 Policy Accept in part(1) The daily limit of 170 passengers per day to visit Tiritiri Matangi by ferry has been trialled over a two year period. Monitoring of the trial has not shown that this has significantly affected visitor experience,

8/5




is ‘protecting and preserving in perpetuity for scientific study, research, education and the benefit of the country, ecological associations, plant or animal communities, types of soil, geomorphological phenomena, and like matters of interest’. As the case of Tiritiri Matangi shows, the work of a scientific reserve can be compatible with high visitor numbers, but this is partly because large numbers of visitors are not present all the time. The two days per week when the ferry does not run provide an opportunity for scientific study and conservation work (such as monitoring and translocations) to be carried out without the imposition of large numbers of visitors. This is especially important when work is being done in public areas (such as along the main tracks) and when the work involves sound recording and the use of playback (when public noise would cause interference). Consequently, most translocation trips and some research trips are timed to start on Sundays, so that the first two days are more or less free of public visitors.

Impact on island management: The Island’s rangers and DOC volunteers also frequently take advantage of the two ferry-free days per week to carry out essential maintenance work, such as mowing, working on buildings, trimming vegetation along track sides, and so on. Noise from machinery such as mowers and chain saws, and from building repair work, is disturbing for visitors. Track maintenance could seriously inconvenience visitors’ movements around the Island. For these reasons, this kind of work is best done when there are very few visitors. On ferry-free days the rangers can work on maintenance and management tasks uninterrupted by the need to meet and farewell the ferry, and without the risk of being called to deal with some visitor-related incident.

The CMS appears to recognise some of the concerns addressed above in the statement, ‘With the move to a 7-day ferry service, wildlife and other management activities may require temporary restrictions to be placed on the use of some tracks and other visitor facilities’ (p. 80). But we question whether it is

(3) Correcting 2.10.5(a) so that it does not refer to guided walks on the Hobbs Track;(4) Correcting 2.10.5 (c) (ii); and(5) Retaining 2.10.5(b)(v)

wildlife or infrastructure. Respondents to a visitor satisfaction survey noted that group management (small group sizes, introductory talk, information provided by guides) and good facilities and diversity of tracks were the two things that contributed to a lack of negative impacts from interactions with other people. The approach of adopting visitor limits and mechanisms to control the dispersal of people from the ferry (by group management, diversity of tracks) is therefore considered to be consistent with enabling more people to experience the island and the Outcomes for the Place.

(2) The intention of Clause 2.10.5b) (1) and (ii) was twofold. Firstly it was to allow the 120 daily limit to be re-spread across a new track if constructed and secondly to convey that the limit may be increased, although any increase in the limit would be subject to the normal CMS review processes. It is acknowledged that the current wording could be enhanced to reflect this intent and thus it is recommended that clause (ii) be split into two and reworded to read as follows:

(ii) investigate, and build an additional track between the wharf and the lighthouse complex should investigations demonstrate that this would assist in managing visitor conflict and congestion; (X) if a new track is built under sub clause (ii) allow a portion of the limit imposed under subclause (i) to be applied to the new track and/or the limit in sub clause (i) to be increased.

The deletion of Clauses 2.10.5b) (iii), (iv) and (vi) allows controls to manage peak loadings via the concession. This allows a more flexible and responsive approach to be used to manage the visitor experience and effects on resources.

(3) 2.10.5(a) and associated descriptive text has been reworded to refer to the Hobbs Beach Track.

(4) 2.10.5(c)(ii) has been amended.




appropriate to reduce the quality of visitor experience in this way. Closing tracks where mowing or vegetation clearance were taking place would not prevent machinery noise from disturbing the peace of the Island, and rangers would still have their work interrupted by ferry duties and the need to deal with visitors.

SoTM, with its current resources, is able to provide high-quality visitor services (guided walks, shop, visitor centre) five days per week. If the ferry were to operate seven days per week, SoTM would have to consider whether it could provide these services for the extra two days. It could mean, for instance, employing additional full-time staff members, and could stretch SoTM’s volunteer and financial resources beyond their current capacity.

Management of guided walk concessions (2.10.5(b) (i) - (vi))

The guided walks are on the Kawerau and Wattle Tracks. There are not guided walks on the Hobbs Track. This needs to be corrected.The proposed limit of 120 per day to be guided on an introductory walk is already occasionally exceeded, as is the proposed maximum of 12 visitors per group. The proposed limit of five groups per route is frequently exceeded, especially when there are school parties on the Island. For the CMS to propose management at this detailed level is inappropriate in a strategic document. We appreciate the attempt to demonstrate how 120 guided visitors per day can be accommodated, but the suggestions are impractical. We know how to accommodate this number because we already do so on occasion. We do not wish to compromise the quality of visitor experience by denying guided walks to those who want them, nor by dictating which route they should take. The guiding manager and volunteer guides have a wealth of experience in managing large numbers of guided visitors, and what happens on any one day needs to be left in their expert hands.

(5) 2.10.5(b)(v) retained.




SoTM is considering creating a third route for guiding (alluded to in 2.10.5 b) (ii)). The purpose of this would be to ease the pressure on the two existing routes and to maximise the quality of experience for visitors who choose a guided walk. Our goal is not to accommodate higher visitor numbers, but to keep the size of groups at around 6 to 8, which provides a more enjoyable experience for all participants.

We agree that the management of guided visitors arriving by means other than the scheduled ferry is important to guarantee the quality of experience both for these visitors and for ferry passengers (2.10.5 b) (v))

Special eventsPolicy 2.10.5 c) (ii) includes the text ‘(excluding clients of staying in overnight accommodation)’, which requires correction.We are concerned that the proposal to increase the maximum number of overnight visitors from 20 to 50 risks placing undue pressure on the Island’s natural values and on visitor experience. We note the statement on p. 80, that this proposed increase, ‘takes into account current infrastructure constraints and ensures that the overnight visitor experience is maintained’. How does it take these things into account? How has it been determined that the current infrastructure can cope with this increase and that the quality of overnight visitor experience would not be reduced by it?

We would argue that the quality of visitor experience would be seriously compromised by having 50 overnight visitors. The ability to see wildlife at night specifically kiwi, tuatara and penguins depends a lot on luck but also on being able to move quietly and discreetly in small groups (ideally two or three people). Success is enabled partly by being able to spread out across the Island. With a maximum of 20 overnight visitors, there are rarely more than seven groups out at once. With a maximum of 50 visitors, there could be as many as 20 groups. Add to this the fact that, while kiwi can be seen almost anywhere on the Island, tuatara and

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.10.8 (e) by:(1) Restricting the proposed increased overnight capacity to that which can be justified in terms of potential impacts; and(2) Amending (f) to refer to Policy 3.8.5.

2.10.8 Policy Accept in partAmend Clause (f) to refer to Policy 3.8.5.

In considering proposals for new overnight accommodation the criteria in Policy 2.10.8 will need to be considered in conjunction with those in Policy 3.8.6 (not 3.8.6 as incorrectly referenced in the draft). Collectively these two policies provide considerable emphasis on ensuring that any new buildings and the uses associated with it are appropriate to the Place. While it is acknowledged that the limit of 50 could be arbitrary to a certain extent, any proposal would have to meet all other criteria as well as signified by the use of the word "and" in the policy. Thus simply staying below the limit of 50 would not be sufficient for a proposal to be approved. Any proposal would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and demonstrate compliance with all criteria including those in Policy 3.8.5 relating to the outcomes for the place and impacts on recreational values.

8/6




penguins tend to concentrate visitors in particular areas, and there is potential for serious congestion.

More important than this, in a scientific reserve, is the potential impact on wildlife. Penguins have favoured routes for reaching their nests when they come ashore at night the Wharf Road is probably the most familiar to visitors. They are easily disturbed by noise and their progress is often impeded by people walking towards them. This is not a problem as long as the numbers of visitors are small and people pass by quickly and quietly. Tuatara have their favourite haunts, a few of these being close to public tracks. These animals tend to get ‘visited’ repeatedly, and while we do not know what impact this has on their behaviour, we do not think they should be subjected to a significant increase in attention.

The disturbance to wildlife can be minimised by management of overnight visitors. At present, there is no formal management, but it often happens informally. Staff, volunteers and researchers staying on the Island can influence the behaviour of visitors by giving advice on how to observe nocturnal animals, by stressing the importance of keeping quiet and using red torches. They also sometimes give informal guided walks to small overnight groups. This is possible and effective with current numbers, but would become extremely difficult with, say, 40 or 45 overnight visitors. With such numbers, we believe more formal management would become necessary, which could only be achieved by an increase in resources.

SoTM is not against an increase in the number of overnight visitors. What we oppose is the size of the increase, from 20 to a maximum of 50, without any indication of how this figure has been reached, how it can be justified, and how the inevitable impacts on wildlife and visitor experience can be mitigated.

(f) refers to Policy 3.8.6 which does not exist. It should be 3.8.5.




Auckland Conservation Management Strategy 1995-2005, section 14.12.2, provided for helicopter landings ‘for limited scheduled visitor access up to a maximum of one day per week’ As far as we know, such scheduled access has never been permitted. Helicopter landings have been allowed only for emergencies, when essential for management activities (such as translocations, equipment transport and access to cliffs for weed control), for filming, and for visitors for whom security considerations are paramount (such as high-profile politicians). It is SoTM’s view that aircraft landings should be limited to these circumstances and should never be permitted for scheduled or casual visitor access.

Although policy 2.10.9 in the draft CMS (2014-2024) does not state explicitly that aircraft landings would be considered for this purpose, we are concerned that the reference to ‘no more than 2 days per week, and no more than two landings per day’ implies the possibility of a scheduled service. In our view, the noise and disturbance of helicopter landings is incompatible with the functioning of a scientific reserve and open sanctuary, in which conservation values (including ‘natural quiet’ – 3.4.2 d)), the quality of visitor experience, and the ability to conduct scientific research should be paramount. The helicopter landing area is both adjacent to the Visitor Centre and very close to the breeding territories of two of our four pairs of Takahe (our most endangered resident species). We ask that the Department reword this policy to eliminate any implication that aircraft landings might be permitted for casual or scheduled visitor access, and to specify only the exceptional circumstances in which they can be allowed (namely emergency, management, filming and security-sensitive visits). References to numbers of days per week and numbers of flights per day are inappropriate and should be removed.

In requesting this change, we wish to draw attention to the policies proposed for three other islands: Motuora (p. 78), Rangitoto (p. 93) and Browns Island (Motukorea) (p. 99). In each of these cases, aircraft

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.10.9 to:(1) Eliminate any implication that aircraft landings might be permitted for casual or scheduled visitor access;(2) To specify only the exceptional circumstances in which they can be allowed (namely emergency, management, filming and security-sensitive visits); and(3) Remove references to numbers of days per week and numbers of flights per day.

2.10.9 Policy Accept(1) Delete Policy 2.10.9 and replace with the following: "Should not allow aircraft landings on Tiritiri Matangi Island, to protect the visitor experience and avoid adverse effects on natural, historic, cultural and amenity values." ; (2) Change the aircraft zoning for Tiritiri to "red" on the aircraft access zone maps: and(3) Delete Policy 3.4.5(g).

Changing the aircraft zoning to red and making the changes to related policies will establish a regime where aircraft landings are only allowed for search and rescue, departmental management purposes, emergency situations, maritime navigational aid management or land survey work as noted in Part Three (p. 114).

Amending the aircraft zoning for Tiritiri to a red zoning will allow for helicopter landings in limited circumstances (departmental purposes, emergency situations and the like) and would reflect current practice although not current policy (the Current CMS states that they may be permitted but would be assessed on their individual merits and be considered in the context of other uses of area). Nonetheless, this approach is considered appropriate in the context of the protection of the natural values on the Island. The provision for departmental management purposes provides a degree of flexibility to provide for the range of purposes outlined in the submission.

8/7




landings are not to be permitted, in order ‘to protect visitor experience and avoid adverse effects on natural and amenity values’ (Motuora, p. 78 similar wording is used for the other islands). In addition, we note that occasional landings are to be considered on Motuihe (Te Motu-a-Ihenga), but not on public holidays and summer weekends (p. 97), presumably to protect visitor experience. We ask why the Department considers it so important to protect visitor experience and natural values on these other islands but not, apparently, on Tiritiri Matangi (the only one which is a scientific reserve), where there are more visitors and more wildlife to be adversely affected?Support monitoring. Presume that visitor experience will be monitored as it has in the past using visitor questionnaire. Would be interested to understand how the Department proposes to monitor the impact of visitor numbers on natural values, in particular the potential disturbance to wildlife and habitat".

Retain Policy 2.10.6.2.10.6 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.10.6 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

8/8

Little Spotted Kiwi has been omitted from Table A6.3. It should be added under threat status ‘At Risk, Recovering’

Submission requests that Table A6.1, Appendix 6 be amended by adding Little Spotted Kiwi with as an At Risk recovering species.

Appendix 6 - Flora and fauna

AcceptAmend Appendix 6 to include the Little spotted kiwi.

8/9

Submitter: Daniel MahonStrongly support the intention to incorporate all areas of public conservation land under a single classification.

Support reclassification as Conservation Park, and not as National Reserve. The differences in legal protection are not greatly significant (viz. the government’s 2010 proposal to remove areas of conservation land from Schedule 4 of the Crown Minerals Act even included areas of National Park). More importantly, the reclassification will lead to renaming. "Conservation Park" summarises everything that Great Barrier should be about: "Conservation," the protection and restoration of natural and historic heritage. And "Park," a place for use and enjoyment. "Reserve" implies withholding, or locking up. "Park" brings a feeling of inclusivity, "Reserve" brings a feeling of exclusivity.

The reclassification and renaming provide a significant

Amend Section 2.6 by rewording para 61 (second to bottom, p. 61) to read: "It is intended to incorporate all areas of public conservation land under a single classification, as conservation park in order to promote. . . "

2.6 Great Barrier Island Place

RejectConservation park or national reserve status are referred to as examples (‘such as’). Investigations will be required in order to determine appropriate status (refer Policy 2.6.12) and these investigations, and subsequent reclassification processes will involve public consultation.

9/1




opportunity in terms of recognising and promoting conservation land on Great Barrier, and the conservation and visitor value of Great Barrier Island as a whole. Reclassification can also be considered re-branding, and as a brand "Conservation Park" is far superior.The draft lists no outcome related to the reclassification of public conservation lands. The creation of Auckland’s first Conservation Park provides a significant opportunity for increased recognition of the island’s conservation value and it’s promotion as a destination. This outcome is significant and should be added to the Conservation Management Strategy

Add a new outcome to read: "Public conservation lands will be re-classified as Conservation Park to adequately recognise their natural and historic values and facilitate promotion of the island as a destination where these values can be enjoyed".

2.6 Great Barrier Island Place - outcome

Accept in partThe purpose of an outcome statement is to describe a future desired state at a place as it will be experienced by visitors in at least 10 years time. It is most unlikely that the status of the land in itself will form part of the visitor experience, although the level of protection a changed status may give may assist in achieving some of the stated outcomes. Given this it is inappropriate to amend the outcome as requested.

It is noted that Policy 2.6.12 is to be retained and thus reclassification as a means of achieving some of the outcomes is provided for within the CMS.

9/2

An investigation is a preliminary stepping stone towards implementing a change of classification. An investigation is not a policy in itself. The policy should be to reclassify the land.

Reference to "National Reserve" should be removed, for reasons previously discussed (Submission 9/1).

Reword Policy 2.6.12 to read: "Reclassify conservation lands on Aotea under the Conservation Act 1987, seeking conservation park status to better reflect their significant conservation values".

2.6.12 Policy RejectAn investigation is still required to determine which classification is more appropriate. Further consultation on which classification would be more appropriate will be undertaken at the time the proposal is advanced.

9/3

An output of completing the reclassification needs to be added. The draft output of "investigation" with no output related to any actual action towards reclassification, is entirely inadequate.

A five year timeframe (2019) should be adequate for completing the process, with investigation and consultation completed within three years (2017).It is understood that the Ngati Rehua/ Ngati Wai Treaty of Waitangi settlement and the Auckland Council land swap would probably need to be completed before the statutory process of reclassification could be commenced. However, the investigation and pre-statutory consultation could be commenced at any time.

Submission requests that the Great Barrier milestones section be amended by:(1) Inserting an additional 5 year milestone to read: "Reclassification of public conservation land on Aotea as a conservation park has been completed";(2) Changing the 5 year reclassification milestone to a 3 year timeframe (by 2017) and rewording it to read: "Investigation and consultation to re-classify public conservation land on Aotea as a conservation park has been completed'.

2.6 Great Barrier Island Place - milestones - outputs

AcceptIn order to address the submitter's concerns, the Year 5 milestone to complete the investigation to reclassify public conservation land on Great Barrier has been moved to Year 3 (and slightly reworded), and the following new milestone has been added in Year 5:

"Public conservation land on Aotea has been reclassified as appropriate."

9/4

Submitter: Aviation Industry Association of New Zealand




Support requirement in (f) for AIRCARE accreditation as this will lead to a sustainable aviation sector and better outcomes for DOC.

Retain Policy 3.4.2.3.4.2 Policy NotedSupport noted.10/1

Support requirement for AIRCARE accreditation as this will lead to a sustainable aviation sector and better outcomes for DOC.


Support requirement for AIRCARE accreditation as this will lead to a sustainable aviation sector and better outcomes for DOC.


Submitter: M D BurkeOppose. I have been recreational paragliding at North Head for 5 years. I am concerned that this right may be cancelled for no good reason.

Amend Policy 2.14.8 to read: "Shall allow the use or non-motorised aircraft limited to paragliding".


Submitter: Waikato District CouncilWDC generally supports the Draft CMS, and notes the challenges DOC faces in achieving biodiversity, heritage and recreation objectives within constrained budgets.

WDC supports the strategic and visionary nature of the Draft CMS.

WDC supports the direction set throughout the draft CMS for DOC to work in partnership with tangata whenua, local authorities and the community.

No relief sought.General NotedThe submitters support is noted.12/1

The Vision for Auckland - 2006 appears to be a generic nationwide vision. As such the heading of 1.2 should be amended to reflect this. The specific Auckland vision follows on p 9.

Supports the Long-term Vision for Auckland - 2060 and the recognition of the importance of partnerships in conservation.

The 20 year period referred to in the final paragraph (on p. 8) should be amended to reflect the commencement date proposed term of the CMS (i.e. 2014-2034).

Submission requests Section 1.2 be amended by:(1) Changing the title to Section 1.2 to reflect that it is a general DOC vision; and(2) Amending the last paragraph on page 8 to refer to the term of the strategy.


Accept(1) Change the title of 1.2 to reflect that it is a general DOC vision and creating a new section specific to Auckland.

(2) Amend the last paragraph to reflect the 10-year term of the strategy removes the confusion created by referring to a 20-year period.

12/2

WDC supports appendix in so far as it relates to land within the Waikato District. WDC supports the

Submission generally supports Appendix 1 as it relates to Waikato District and that it specifically requests that

Appendix 1 - RMA NotedSupport noted.12/3




provision that advice will be sought to determine whether a land use consent under the RMA is required and recommends that this be retained.

The listing of activities will allow for a clear assessment of s4(3)(a) in regards to what is in, and out of scope for exemption to the District Plan.Odd-site effects need to be fully considered for each activity and minimised to ensure that s4(3)(b) of the RMA is satisfied. WDC is particularly interested in the effects of new or upgraded visitor attractions on the road network and public facilities administered by WDC. For instance, a major new attraction at a remote site could result in traffic volumes exceeding the ability of the road to cope or necessitate extended car parking facilities.

advice will be sought to determine whether a land use consent under the RMA is required.

Council supports section. WDC, like DOC administer land within the Hauraki Gulf catchment and is represented on the Hauraki Gulf Forum. WDC supports recognition of the Forum, The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 and more importantly integrated management of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

Retain Section 1.6.1.6 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park - objectives - general

AcceptSection 1.6 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

12/4

It is unclear how "places" are categorised and prioritised into "local treasure", "gateway" and "icon". Appendix 10 or the body of the CMS should be amended to contain the criteria used to determine the categorisation and prioritisation of places including a description of background research, in particular the Destination Management Framework (DMF) which was not open for public comment.

At a minimum a description of the terms "local treasure", "gateway" and "icon" should be provided and the DMF appropriately referred to therein.

Amend Appendix 10 to include:(1) The criteria used to determine the categorisation including background research and the Destination Management Framework; and(2) A description of the terms "local treasure", "gateway" and "icon".

Appendix 10 - Key recreation destinations

Accept in part'Gateway visitor destination', 'Local treasure visitor destination' and 'Icon visitor destination' are all taken from the Destination Management Framework and are defined in the Glossary. They are also referred to section 1.3 "More than a gateway to New Zealand" and the relevant Part 2 places.

A note should be added to Appendix 10 to identify the different types of visitor destinations.

"The different types of visitor destination are defined individually in the Glossary and taken from the Department's "Destination Management Framework".

12/5

Maintaining or changing proposed limits and concessions requires consultations and discussion with Ngati Manuhiri.

Inferred: Submission requests that consultation be undertaken with Ngati Manuhiri before Policy 2.3.2 is finalised.

2.3.2 Policy Accept in partConsultation with Ngati Manuhiri about changes to the Te Hauturu-o-Toi/Little Barrier Island Place chapter is ongoing and Policy 2.3.2 will be finalised once discussions have been concluded.

12/6






2.3.3 Policy Accept in partConsultation with Ngati Manuhiri about changes to the Te Hauturu-o-Toi/Little Barrier Island Place chapter is ongoing and Policy 2.3.2 will be finalised once discussions have been concluded.

12/7

Submitter: Manuhiri Kaitiaki Charitable TrustAdd a further point. Amend Objective 1.5.4.5 by inserting the following: "d)

Increase cultural awareness in general and specific to location".

1.5.4.5 Objective RejectThis section applies to both DOC's management of public land and its role in advocating for conservation outcomes generally. While bi-cultural aspects of conservation would be part of education strategies etc, it is not DOC’s statutory role to educate on cultural awareness in general or specific to location unless that location was public conservation land. As Objective 1.5.4.5 applies to both DOC's management and advocacy roles, the amendments are not considered appropriate. However the submitter should note that Part Two-Places includes a number of actions regarding Place-specific education which would be applied in the context of the objectives and policies in Section 1.4 (Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities).

13/1

Request DOC support to initiate name change to walkway. Initial suggestions include Motu Hawere Walkway or Wakatuwhenua Walkway.

Inferred: Insert a new policy in Section 2.2 to rename the Goat Island Walkway to reflect other statutory or recognised cultural name changes in the vicinity with the name to be agreed by Ngati Manuhiri.

2.2 Leigh Reserves Complex Place

AcceptAll references to Goat Island, including the Goat Island Walkway, have been amended to Te Hāwere-a-Maki / Goat Island to reflect the name changes for Crown Protected Areas in Section 82 of the Ngāti Manuhiri Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Act 2012. The description (para 5, pg 44) has also been amended to avoid the duplication of the official name.

13/2

Ngati Manuhiri is highly likely to want to develop cultural tourism around and on Motu Hawere.

Amend Policy 2.2.11 by either:(1) Removing (e); or(2) Rewording (e) to reflect iwis potential to develop cultural tourism (any venture would include Iwi undertaking ongoing pest control and track maintenance).

2.2.11 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.2.11 e) provides a strong direction to decision makers to only allow concessions access to Te Hāwere-a-Maki/Goat Island Scientific Reserve above the rock platforms if the island’s values are protected.

Clause (e) has been amended to refer to adverse effects on natural and cultural and to not specify scientific study. Should a proposal not have these adverse effects then it may be considered. This would apply to iwi and non-iwi. The description

13/3




(para 5, pg 44) has been amended to better describe the fragile nature of this island. Policy 2.2.11 has also been amended to allow for activities other than scientific research to be considered.

Be more specific in wording of second to last para, p. 46.

Amend Description by rewording the second to last para, p. 49 to read: "researchers, volunteers, Iwi and other persons supporting".

2.3 Hauturu/Little Barrier Island Place

AcceptAmend Description to add iwi to the list of groups who will be granted permits on a case-by-case basis outside the cap of 600 visitors per day.

13/4

In terms of last paragraph e.g. "Visitor and others gain and " need to elaborate as to how DOC envisages outcome being achieved? Full consultation with Ngati Manuhiri required.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.3 Hauturu/Little Barrier Island Place - outcome

AcceptAdd a new policy to read "Work with Ngati Manuhiri and other iwi who have an affiliation with Te Hauturu/Little Barrier Island to ensure that visitors gain an understanding of the island's natural, historic and cultural values".

In terms of the structure of the CMS, policies are intended to describe those actions to be taken to achieve outcomes. The insertion of this policy provides further information as to the 'how' sought by the submitter.

13/5



2.3.2 Policy AcceptConsultation with Ngati Manuhiri about changes to the Te Hauturu-o-Toi/Little Barrier Island Place chapter is ongoing and Policy 2.3.2 will be finalised once discussions have been concluded.

13/6



2.3.3 Policy AcceptConsultation with Ngati Manuhiri about changes to the Te Hauturu-o-Toi/Little Barrier Island Place chapter is ongoing and Policy 2.3.2 will be finalised once discussions have been concluded.

13/7

The development of cultural or eco-tourism on Hauturu is vastly important to Ngati Manuhiri.

Inferred: Submission requests that Policy 2.3.4 be amended to ensure that consultation with Ngati Manuhiri is undertaken before any concession decisions made.

2.3.4 Policy Accept in partObjectives in Section 1.4 provide for DOC to build relationships with tangata whenua and to undertake active consultation. These objectives will guide all departmental decision-making including those related to concession applications. Implementation of this direction is an operational matter and outside the scope of the CMS however it is noted that the department's Standard Operation Procedures for concessions obligate local offices to inform/ consult with tangata whenua over applications of interest.

13/8




These areas of interest could be formalised through agreements and the like and are provided for in Objective 1.4.2 of the CMS.

The waters around Hauturu are traditional fishing grounds for Ngati Manuhiri and exclusion from them is not an option.

Amend Policy 2.3.7 to ensure that Ngati Manuhiri retains cultural fishing rights within the 0.5 nautical mile limit.

2.3.7 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.3.7 has been amended to reflect that, if monitoring shows it is necessary, the Department will consult with tangata whenua and the community over any options to prohibit the mooring and anchoring of boats.

The Department will consult with Ngati Manuhiri about any options to increase the protection of Te Hauturu-o-Toi/Little Barrier Island.

13/9

Omits mention of Joint management plan with Ngati Manuhiri.

Insert an additional three year milestone (by 2017) be added as follows: "Joint management plan with Ngati Manuhiri agreed and signed".

2.3 Hauturu/Little Barrier Island Place - milestones - outputs

Accept in partThe Ngati Manuhiri Settlement Act 2012 requires the joint management plan to commence in 2013 and it is expected that the process would be completed by 2017.

Amend the third three year milestone to read: "Joint conservation management plan with Ngati Manuhiri has been approved".

13/10

The waters around Mokohinau (Pokohinu) Islands are traditional fishing grounds for Ngati Manuhiri and exclusion from them is not an option. Ngati Rehua and others should similarly be granted these rights.

Amend Policy 2.5.9(b) to ensure that Ngati Manuhiri (and Ngati Rehua and others) retain cultural fishing rights within the 0.5 nautical mile limit.

2.5.9 Policy Accept in partThe description and Policy 2.5.9 have been amended to reflect that, if monitoring shows it is necessary, the Department will consult with tangata whenua and the community over any options to increase the level of protection to the Island.

13/11

Para 2, p. 74. There is considerable potential to develop additional interpretation specific to Maori History and traditions. Ngati Manuhiri wish to have input.

Amend para 2, p. 74 to recognise that there is considerable potential to work with Ngati Manuhiri to develop additional interpretation specifically Maori history/ traditions.

2.8 Kawau Island Place

AcceptAs stated in the 'Description' Kawau Island is of major significance to Maori. Furthermore Policy 2.8.6 includes a commitment to involve Ngati Manuhiri and tangata whenua generally with interpretation. Thus it is considered appropriate to include the additional clause in order to provide clarity.

Amend the 'Description', paragraph beginning "Interpretation is focused on.." to read ".. There is considerable potential to develop additional interpretation particularly relating to tangata whenua

13/12




history, values and associations."Refer to Submission 13/12 and provide for a milestone to reflect this (and Policy 2.8.6).

Add a new output in Section 2.8 to provide for additional interpretation specific to Maori history/ traditions to be developed with input from Ngati Manuhiri.

2.8 Kawau Island Place - milestones - outputs

Accept in partIt is considered that the 'Outcome', Policy 2.8.6 and changes made to the 'Description' in response to Submission 13/14 (made by Ngati Manuhiri also) provide sufficient direction for DOC and Tangata whenua to work together to develop implementation at a mutually agreeable time within the next 10 years. Inserting a outcome could constrain these discussions.

13/13

There is no mention of developing cultural tourism or Maori historical interpretation.

Inferred: Amend Outcome (in consultation with Ngati Manuhiri and others as appropriate) to mention developing cultural tourism or Maori historical interpretation.

2.8 Kawau Island Place - outcome

Accept in partIt is considered that the 'Outcome', Policy 2.8.6 and changes made to the 'Description' in response to Submission 13/12 (made by Ngati Manuhiri also) provide sufficient direction with respect to Maori historical interpretation. The policies would also enable cultural tourism to be considered provided other outcomes in the CMS are also met.

13/14

There is no mention of developing cultural tourism or Maori historical interpretation. There are no supporting policies or milestones.

Amend CMS to include policies and milestones to include interpretation of Maori history and cultural tourism on Motuora Island.

2.9 Motuora Island Place - outcome

AcceptIt is acknowledged that while there is a reference sites of significance to tangata whenua in the outcome, there is not supporting policy. A new policy regarding consulting with Ngati Manuhiri on interpretation has therefore been added.

13/15

Enhanced visibility of Maori cultural footprint on Island.

Add an additional milestone be added to Section 2.10 to read: "In collaboration with all interested Iwi, develop interpretation on site reflecting Maori history associated with island".

2.10 Tiritiri Matangi Island Place - milestones - outputs

Accept in partThe Outcome (p. 80) and objectives in Sections 1.4 and 1.5 enable interpretation to be developed to reflect the Maori history of the island. When and how this is done is an operational matter and not appropriately addressed in the CMS.

13/16

Support status quo of no authorisations for commercial eeling.

Retain Policies 3.11.1 and 1.11.2..Part Three - Commercial eeling

NotedThe support of the submitter is noted.

13/17

Submitter: Auckland Associated Mountain ClubsSupport suggestion of multiday walk on Motutapu and Rangitoto provided that the walk includes low cost camping or accommodation.

Amend Policy 2.11.5 to include low cost camping or accommodation.

2.11.5 Policy RejectThe submitter's request that a multi-day walk on Rangitoto and Motutapu includes low cost camping or accommodation is noted. Fees for DOC managed campgrounds and other accommodation are guided by a national fee schedule. This is an operational

14/1




issue and can not be addressed in the CMS.Reject the limited tramping opportunities on Island and submit the proposal of a multi day walk visiting a number of bays and beaches. This would include existing tracks and campsites and would lead to increased tourist numbers. Many young overseas visitors would be attracted to such a walk and while seeking to avoid expensive accommodation would be prepared to spend money on transport, food and drink. More expensive accommodation options could be privately provided.

Inferred: Insert new policy in Section 2.6 providing for the development of an multiday walk around the island visiting a number of bays and beaches.

2.6 Great Barrier Island Place - policies - general

Accept in partThe Department agrees with the submitter's request that an extension of the track network should include making tracks more accessible to the coast.

The paragraph starting "As a gateway destination" in the outcome has been amended to read:"The Department and Auckland Council work cooperatively to extend the track network to better connect recreation opportunities located in different parts of the island, including to popular anchorages."

14/2

Submitter: West Auckland District Tramping ClubAuckland Volcanic field: Although nominated on New Zealand's tentative list for World Heritage status there is no DOC initiative listed to protect the volcanic field as a whole. Instead the task is delegated to Auckland Council.

Mainland Islands:While DOC is involved in many of the island sanctuaries the initiation and support of mainland island projects is left to Auckland Council and volunteer groups.

Submission requests the addition of section/ policies regarding:(1) Recognition and protection of Auckland Volcanic field; and(2) The support and initiation of mainland islands in the Auckland conservancy.

1.5.1 The diversity of our natural heritage

Accept in part(1) The Auckland volcanic field is largely outside of public conservation land. Therefore, the action in objective 1.5.1.14 is appropriate, with DOC’s role advocating for the progression of the WHA and administrative in processing the WHA application.

(2) If the "mainland island projects" are associated with priority ecosystem sites and nationally threatened species then DOC will have a role stemming from 1.5.1.1 "Contribute to... or 1.5.1.7 "Advocate for...".

Otherwise, and to some extent even within these cases, the community (including Auckland Council) and volunteer groups will have a strong role.

15/1

At present only 0.163% of sea in Auckland Conservancy is protected (excluding the Kermadec Islands Marine Reserve). The CMS should plan for the addition of new or enlargement of existing marine reserves.

Insert a new policy to extend the area of sea subject to protection within a marine reserve.

2.1 Marine Reserves Place - policies - general

Accept in partSection 2.1 of the CMS relates to existing reserves. The objectives in Section 1.5.1 and in particular Objective 1.5.1.5 relates to new marine reserves or marine protected areas.

15/2

The daytime visitor experience to Tiritiri Matangi already feels crowded in popular areas on the island when the ferry is full. This is without additional daytime visitors not using the ferry or the proposed increase in people stating overnight. The current limit of 150 visitors on the ferry should not be increased.

Amend Policy 2.10.5 by:(1) Rewording (a) (ii) to "allow for a limit of up to 150 passengers per day on the scheduled ferry service"; and(2) Rewording (b) (v), if 60 is more than currently permitted to retain the current limit.

2.10.5 Policy RejectThe daily limit of 170 passengers per day to visit Tiritiri Matangi by ferry has been trialled over a two year period. Monitoring of the trial has not shown that this has significantly affected visitor experience, wildlife or infrastructure. Respondents to a visitor satisfaction survey noted that group management

15/3




It is not clear if 60 is the current limit of people accessing island other than by ferry. If 60 exceed the current number permitted then the increase will degrade the visitor experience for all.

(small group sizes, introductory talk, information provided by guides) and good facilities and diversity of tracks were the two things that contributed to a lack of negative impacts from interactions with other people. The approach of adopting visitor limits and mechanisms to control the dispersal of people from the ferry (by group management, diversity of tracks) is therefore considered to be consistent with enabling more people to experience the island and the Outcomes for the Place.

Allowing up to 60 guided people per day is the current practice. These guided groups are generally specialists tours and because they travel independently to the Island they generally time their visits so that they do not coincide with ferry visits therefore do not have any discernable impact with regards to crowding or other visitors experiences.

Mountain bike trial:

We recommend keeping mountain bikers on Motutapu Island. If bikers are allowed limited access to Motutapu it is easier for them to stray onto undesignated tracks. Bike hire should not be at Rangitoto Wharf- -perhaps Islington Bay Wharf could be used?

Amend Policy 2.11.7 to delete Rangitoto Wharf as a site bikes can be hired at with possible use of Islington Bay Wharf

2.11.7 Policy Accept in partThe mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.

15/4

Mountain bike trial:

We recommend keeping mountain bikers on Motutapu Island. If bikers are allowed limited access to Motutapu it is easier for them to stray onto undesignated tracks.

Amend Policy 2.11.8 by deleting Clause (a).2.11.8 Policy RejectThe mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.

15/5

Submitter: Hayden NeeleyOppose. Aircraft landings or take-offs of non-motorised aircraft should be allowed.

Amend Policy 2.14.4 by deleting the word "not".2.14.4 Policy Accept in partParagliding is addressed in a supplementary report.16/1

Oppose. Amend Policy 2.14.8 by replacing the word "may" with the word "will".


Oppose policy. Should advocate for the use of aircraft given the occasional nature of this activity and general good will of pilots. Provided signs are erected to inform users of any risk to bird life and ways to

Amend Policy 2.15.2 by replacing the word "prevention" with the word "use".

2.15.2 Policy RejectChanging the word "prevention" to "use" would change the intention of Policy 2.15.2 and the intended management direction.

16/3




mitigate the risk. Submitter: Manukau Tramping Club

The CMS generally reads extremely well as a high level document. However, like many of these documents ‘the devil is in the detail’. And unfortunately, that is sometimes lacking.

Examples include: the word ‘collaboratively’ is used throughout the document, but without definition. It is used in the Outcome Statement on the Firth of Thames (p 110) where it says that "5 groups work collaboratively to manage the pressures and threats". We suspect that if one were to talk to representatives of these 5 groups they would have widely differing views about how successful and embracing this ‘collaboration’ is.

Another example of the CMS leading to possible misinterpretation is in relation to the sand and shingle extraction which the report says ‘currently does not occur (p 117)’. We accept that that is a true statement about the ‘current’. But it begs the question as to whether any party currently holds approval to do the extraction -- they are just not doing it right now.

Specifically with respect to MTC, we have had a long involvement with Mataitai Forest, taking a leadership role in track formation and maintenance. There was active discussion with MTC in late 2011-12 regarding Mataitai and the kauri die-back problem. DOC took the lead and it was agreed ‘collaboratively’ (depending on individual’s definition of this term) that the forest area access should generally be closed off while the experts worked to find a solution to this problem. However, it is now approaching 12 months since there has been any communication. Collaboration is an on-going process, and some MTC members are now wondering what is happening. Generally we consider that an Outcome should include specific measurable results, not just high level aspirations.

This is just one example of where we find that the

Amend CMS to:(1) Increase specificity and reduce ambiguity; and(2) Increase specificity around the Outcome Statements.

General Accept in part(1) As with all policy documents, where a term is not defined, the normal dictionary definitions apply. This is the case with the word "collaborate". In order to provide clarity to the CMS it is recommended a definition be inserted. While this may provide a certain degree of certainty, what "collaboration" means in each circumstances will vary according to the objectives of each partner with respect to a particular project.

Insert the following definition of "Collaborate" into the Glossary: "Work jointly (Concise Oxford Dictionary"; and

(2) Outcome statements will be reviewed throughout the document with a view to making them more specific.

17/1




document is lacking in specificity thereby leading to possible ambiguity. The danger with this, is that superficially one group of readers of the documents could, on first reading, form one particular view – which is a subset of the wording, while another group could form a quite different view , which is another subset and also consistent with the wording. This is when problems can develop.CMS puts very high emphasis on the Hauraki Gulf and related islands. We would like to see an equivalent emphasis on the mainland based DOC areas. Many of the areas are mentioned, but with no specific plans e.g. Mataitai. It is these areas that are more easily accessed, and therefore more likely to come under pressure from high use.

Amend CMS to place equal emphasis on both the mainland DOC areas and marine and island areas.

General Accept in partThe submitter's view that more emphasis needs to be put on DOC mainland areas is noted. The majority of public conservation land lies on islands in the Auckland Conservancy, and it is on this land where the Department can have the greatest influence. In regard to the submitter's comment about Mataitai, an additional objective has been added to Section 1.5.1 to work with others in regard to the protection, enhancement and recreational use of the Hunua Ranges.

17/2

Successive governments have recognized the need for New Zealanders to improve their general levels of fitness and health. Failure to do this has personal costs (increased illness of various types e.g. diabetes) as well as major national costs (ballooning health budgets). So it is important to continue making it easier for New Zealanders to access and enjoy the outdoors.

Several ways to achieve this could include: having consistent and welcoming signage on main tracks and walkways; maintaining similar tracks (e.g. paths, wilderness tracks to the same standard and including recommendation about footwear on some of rougher tracks (from safety perspective).

Amend CMS by:(1) Improving the general information on track signage, including recommended minimum footwear, and consistency in estimated track completion times; and(2) Setting a suitable standard for the ‘degree of difficulty’' standard of a track and then ensure that standard is maintained. DOC may be able to seek help in this activity from tramping clubs and other interested groups.

General NotedThese are not matters which can be addressed within a CMS. They are operational matters. No change to the CMS is recommended. The submitters suggestions will be passed onto relevant staff.

17/3

DOC’s stated aim is to work collaboratively with major user/interest groups. As major users the MTC would like the opportunity to be more involved in the overall direction of our local outdoors. This is consistent with the MTC objectives.

DOC should develop a database (probably already has this in some cases) of interested users for its key sites and should communicate with these groups at a

Increase the frequency of communication with and between all (i.e. not just the Auckland Conservancy Board as stated on p.129) interested parties around DOC sites, and involve them in collaboratively working on key initiatives.

General NotedThe Department's intention in the future is to work more collaboratively with other groups with the aim of making conservation gains. A number of objectives in Part One of the Auckland CMS envisage this way of working. This is not a matter that can be otherwise addressed in the CMS. The submitter's concerns regarding frequency of communication between the Department and

17/4




minimum, by email, twice a year.

There may also be joint working groups set up to ‘manage collaboratively’ key initiatives. This could save DOC money (through volunteer labour), build on-going improved relations with interest groups, and achieve worthwhile results (e.g. track maintenance in Mataitai, bait programs in the Hunuas to improve bird numbers, including kokako). Achieving this will require much more communication, consultation, and collaboration. This will need to be initiated and maintained by DOC.

external groups will be passed on to DOC Partnerships Group.

Submitter: Alex DaleyOppose policy. Not allowing non-motorised aircraft to take off from Fort Takapuna is in opposition to current agreement between DOC and Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club (AHGPC). Paragliders when flown by trained and properly experienced personnel usually cause no damage to the environment and pose no threat to the public’s safety. The AHGPC governs their sites with rules about who can fly at each site given their experience level and the difficultly of that particular site. This system minimises the risk to public safety or of damage to the environment.


Oppose approach. There is already an agreement between the Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club and DOC for paragliders to be flown from North Head which has been in effect for many years with no problems. The flying of paragliders at North Head in fact, brings the public over to watch and take photographs. In the past, members of the public have approached me after safely landing to thank me simply for flying when they were walking past. As the current agreement is clearly working and beneficial to North Head, the policy should be deleted in favour of the current agreement .


Submitter: Andrew MarshOppose the restriction of paragliding activities at this site. There are few opportunities to enjoy the sport within the Auckland area and the public enjoy the spectacle. The sport is safe for bystanders.





Oppose that paragliding be subject to conditions and that it ‘may’ be acceptable at this site. The conditions are unclear in relation to paragliding and, for instance, landing within 50 m of tracks, huts or car parking may be unavoidable. There are few opportunities to enjoy the sport within the Auckland area and the public enjoy the spectacle. The sport is safe for bystanders.


Submitter: David KingstonThe submitter provided no reasons for the request. Submission requests that Table A5.1 be amended as

follows in relation to Wallabies:(1) Reword 'Management response' to read: "Prevention and eradication on sites managed by the Department";(2) Reword 'Priority places for action' to read as follows:

"(1) All sites except Kawau Island(2) On Kawau Island, containment in the short term with a view to eradication within the time frame of this strategy".

Appendix 5 - Pests RejectIt is the Department's intention to exclude wallabies from Mansion House Valley on Kawau Island and control wallabies on other public conservation land on Kawau. Making changes as requested by the submitter would change the intent of the management of wallabies on Kawau.

20/1

Submitter: Motuora Restoration Society (Inc)Para 2 - it cannot be said that diving petrels have been successfully established on Motuora.

Amend para 2 by deleting the words "kuaka/diving petrels (pelecanoides urinatics urinatrix)".

2.9 Motuora Island Place

AcceptThe reference to diving petrels in the paragraph beginning "the island is currently.." has been deleted as this species has not been successfully established on Motuora Island.

21/1

The proposal to reclassify Motuora as a Scenic Reserve would make it less likely that commercial activities that would be disruptive of the natural environment of the island would be allowed.

Retain Policy 2.9.1.2.9.1 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.9.1 retained.21/2

The policy should allow for the landing of helicopters in emergencies (as has been necessary in the past), given the relative remoteness of the island, and for facilitating conservation work, such as the translocation of native bird species.

Amend Policy 2.9.2 to read: "Should not allow aircraft landings on Motuora Island, other than in emergencies and to facilitate achieving conservation goals, to protect the . . ".

2.9.2 Policy RejectAs noted in Part 3 (p. 114) concessions are not required to land on public conservation land in emergency situations under the Conservation Act. This applies irrespective of the zoning (red, orange, yellow, green) applied in the CMS to a particular area. Thus it is unnecessary to amend Policy 2.9.2.

21/3

A policy should be included to recognise the exceptional qualities of the coast and sea around Motuora as documented by Prof John Morton and recognised by the Constitution of the Motuora Restoration Society, which specifically refers to "developing) Motuora Island and its marine environment as a publicly accessible sanctuary for New

Add a new policy in Section 2.9 to read: "the marine environment around Motuora should be given protection in some form".

2.9 Motuora Island Place - policies - general

RejectThe Marine Protected Areas Policy and implementation Plan (MPA Policy) has been developed to assist the government achieve the marine protection targets established in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and is intended to guide the development of a comprehensive network

21/4




Zealand flora and fauna". of marine protected areas representative of the full range of New Zealand’s marine habitats and ecosystems. DOC and the Ministry for Primary Industries are the lead government agencies responsible for implementing the MPA Policy.

The MPA Policy provides an integrated planning process for establishing marine protected areas, including marine reserves, in coastal and offshore waters. It includes a requirement that a marine reserve will be established to protect at least one example of each marine habitat and ecosystem type.

Within the Auckland region it is expected that the Hauraki Gulf marine spatial planning process, which has just commenced, will identify priority areas for marine protection (whether it be through marine reserves or other mechanisms) taking into account the marine ecosystems listed in Appendix 8 of the CMS. Once priority areas and the preferred management regimes for each have been identified the normal application processes would apply.

Existing provisions in the CMS (in particular to Objectives 1.5.1.5 and 1.6.3) reflect the intent of the MPA Policy and enable integrated marine protection planning. It would be inconsistent with the MPA Policy process to identify specific proposals for new, or extensions to existing marine reserves beyond those already included in the CMS until at least a prioritisation process has been undertaken.

The Island's accommodation and sewage treatment and disposal systems are well below an acceptable standard and it should be the Department's policy to upgrade them as a matter of urgency

Insert a new policy in Section 2.9 to read: "Upgrade the accommodation and sewage treatment and disposal systems to a satisfactory standard".

2.9 Motuora Island Place - policies - general

RejectThe submitter's comments regarding the state of infrastructure on the island is noted. One of the purposes of the CMS is to inform the Department’s capital works programme. If infrastructure on Motuora is failing to support the outcome, it will be prioritised for upgrading. However, this is an operational matter, so will not be specified in the CMS. This matter will be referred to operational staff.

21/5




The section should include milestones relating to the upgrading of the accommodation and sewage treatment and disposal systems to be completed well before 2015.

Add a milestone to Section 2.9 for completion by 2015 to read: "Upgrading of the Island's accommodation and sewage treatment and disposal systems".

2.9 Motuora Island Place - milestones - outputs

RejectThe submitter's comments regarding the state of infrastructure on the island is noted. One of the purposes of the CMS is to inform the Department’s capital works programme. If infrastructure on Motuora is failing to support the outcome, it will be prioritised for upgrading. However, this is an operational matter, so will not be specified in the CMS.

21/6

The reclassification to Scenic reserve should be advanced earlier - 3 or 5 years after CMS approval.

Amend the timing of the Milestone "Motuora Island has been reclassified as a scenic reserve" from 2024 to 2017 or 2019.


RejectMotuora is one of many sites which reclassification is being proposed. Other sites are considered to be of higher priority for reclassification so the timeframe of 2024 is appropriate.

21/7

The milestone for 2019 which reads: "A sequences introduction of threatened flora . ." needs amendment because:(1) The Society is unlikely to be able to complete the proposed introductions by 2017;(2) The Plan specifies that the species be introduced by 2017, so using the words "in accordance" would imply sticking with that date: and(3) The title for the document referred to uses the word "Restoration" not "Introduction"

Amend milestones as follows:(1) The existing 2019 bullet which reads: "A sequenced introduction . . " be deleted; and(2) Replaced with the following milestone for 2024: "A sequenced introduction and re-introduction of threatened fauna and flora, as schedules in the Motuora Native Species Restoration Plan, has been completed".


AcceptThe Department accepts the submitter’s view that the proposed species introductions will not be completed by 2017.

The milestone is therefore moved from Year 5 to Year 10 after CMS approval. The name of the plan has been amended to refer to the correct plan.

21/8

The milestone for 2024 reading "A self-sustaining ecosystem . . " needs amendment because:(1) While a self-sustaining ecosystem is a worthwhile goal it is most unlikely ever to be achieved because as the third milestone for 2024 acknowledges, pests are always likely to require control:(2) It has never been the intention to replant 90% of the Island. The figure for replanting has always been about 50 hectares, representing some 62% of the 80 hectare island. The remaining land is in naturally-regenerating bush remnants, mainly on cliffs and in the few hectares of open space. The achievement implied by this milestone has therefore already been accomplished, as further planting is expected to be in the form of enhancement planting in areas already planted The process may continue well past 2019 but probably not past 2024;(3) Including reference to the aim of enhancing species

The milestone which reads "A self-sustaining ecosystem . . " be deleted and replaced with the following:"the diversity of plant species within the replanted areas has been enhanced, and includes threatened species".


Accept in partThe Department accepts the submitter’s view that a self-sustaining ecosystem is unlikely to be achieved while there is a need to control pests. The first milestone in 'Completed by the end of Year 10 (2024)' beginning "A self sustaining.." has therefore been deleted. The Motuora Native Species Restoration Plan states that 75 of the island’s 80 hectares will be revegetated. However, it is not anticipated that this will be completed until 2040 (see pg 7 of the Motuora Native Species Restoration Plan). The following milestone has therefore been added to 'Completed by the end of Year 10 (2024)':

"The diversity of plant species within the replanted areas has been enhanced and includes threatened species."

21/9




in the replanted bush will be useful in supporting applications for acquiring seeds of missing plant species for establishing these plants on the Island.

Submitter: Mr A. M. SeamanOppose proposal to ban paragliding at this location on the basis of 'protecting amenity values and visitor safety'.

Paragliders have to be licensed and nature of sport dictates that their approach is mature and any risk to themselves/ others is checked. I have flown at this location since it first became available for public access and am not aware of any deterioration to amenities of actual or perceived risks to public safety as a result of paragliding. There are very few suitable locations in city.

The purpose of CMS is "preservations of .. Resources for ..recreational enjoyment of public" For me banning paragliding at this location reduces the options available for me to practice my recreation from weekday lunchtimes , evenings and weekends requiring much more travel, increased time and costs of fuel.

Amend Policy 2.14.4 to permit recreational paragliding at this location.


Oppose the proposal tat paragliding should be allowed by special dispensations rather than customary use of some 25+ years. Proposed wording implies that this dispensation could be withdrawn at any time. I have flown at this location for 17 year and am not aware of any adverse effects on safety or enjoyment of visitors or amenities. Feedback from spectators is usually favourable in that the sight of paragliders in flight enhances their experience.

There are very few suitable locations in city suitable to fly on the wind direction for North Head.

The purpose of CMS is "preservations of .. Resources for ..recreational enjoyment of public" For me banning paragliding at this location reduces the options available for me to practice my recreation from weekday lunchtimes , evenings and weekends requiring much more travel, increased time and costs of fuel.

Amend Policy 2.14.8 to make it clear that paragliding is a customary use and permitted at this location.





Submitter: South Kaipara LandcarePleased to see that DOC recognises the importance of Kaipara Harbour and surrounding DOC land areas.

Concerned to see that there is no reference to continuing presence of DOC rangers at Papakanui over spring and summer to continue protection of Fairy terns and other iconic NZ shorebirds through predator control, nest protection and educating recreational users of area.

Acknowledges the success of DOC in enabling community action to support DOC objectives. South Kaipara Landcare Group is willing and happy to continue to assist and support DOC objectives in South Kaipara Head. For this to continue and thrive we rely on continued support (funding, staff, advice, communication) from Warkworth office.

Inferred: Amend Section 2.7 to:(1) Provide for continuing presence of DOC rangers at Papakanui; and(2) Provide for continuing DOC support of South Kaipara Landcare Group.

2.7 Kaipara Harbour Place

NotedIn Objective 1.5.1.2 of the CMS the Departments commits to continuing efforts to ensure the persistence of nationally threatened species, including the fairy tern - this could be achieved by staff (ranger) resources or by working in partnership with community groups such as South Kaipara Landcare Group. The CMS also provides for ongoing partnerships with such groups over wider issues (see for example, Objectives 1.5.1.4, 1.5.1.11 and 1.5.1.12) and the South Kaipara Landcare group is specifically recognised in the Description. The level of support given to such groups in terms of funding, staff support, advice and communication are operational issues and it is not appropriate to address through the CMS, a strategic document.

23/1

Support that DOC recognises the importance of increasing public awareness regarding 4 wheel drive and off road vehicle use especially around fragile dunes and bird nesting areas.

Retain Policy 2.7.6.2.7.6 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.7.6 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

23/2

Support that DOC recognises the (1) importance of increasing public awareness regarding 4 wheel drive and off road vehicle use especially around fragile dunes and bird nesting areas and (2) the significance of the Papakanui Conservation Area and the need to increase the protection of this and surrounding areas.


23/3

Support that DOC recognises the importance of increasing public awareness regarding 4 wheel drive and off road vehicle use especially around fragile dunes and bird nesting areas.


23/4

Support that DOC recognises the need to control aquatic weeds and pests in freshwater lakes especially Rototoa.

Retain Policy 2.7.10.2.7.10 Policy Accept in partRetain Policy 2.7.5 while deleting Policy 2.7.10.

Policy 2.7.10 duplicates Policy 2.7.5.

23/5

Support that DOC recognises that any increase in commercialise should not adversely affect existing conservation values.

Retain Policy 2.7.10.2.7.10 Policy Accept in partRetain Policy 2.7.5 while deleting Policy 2.7.10.


23/6




Support that DOC recognises the: (1) importance of flora and fauna in the area especially Fairy Terns, NZ Dotterel, NI Fernbird, NZ Dabchick, fierce lancewood and other threatened plants and birds. Also that Kaipara Harbour is a significant site for migratory birds including Godwits, knots etc.(2) need to actively engage with tangata whenua, councils and other agencies. However we think the wording should be changed in line three.

Amend Policy 2.7.4 by replacing the words: "and encourage and support" in line three and replacing them with the words: "and support and enable".

2.7.4 Policy AcceptTangata whenua and community groups are often self-motivated and therefore require little encouragement. However often they need to be enabled, through the removal of barriers and the like to undertake activities.

Replace the words: "and encourage and support" in Policy 2.7.4 with the words: "and support and enable".

23/7

Support that DOC recognises the significance of the Papakanui Conservation Area and the need to increase the protection of this and surrounding areas.


23/8

Support that DOC recognises the significance of the Papakanui Conservation Area and the need to increase the protection of this and surrounding areas.


23/9

Concerned to see that DOC is moving away from leading and working with communities to care for public land and moving towards a reliance and expectation that communities can properly protect those areas of significance.

The decision requested by the submission is unclear.General NotedThe CMS indicates priorities for Auckland for the next ten years and developed a framework for joint initiatives to occur with community and other groups. The objective of the Department working with others in joint initiatives (as contained in Part One) is about getting more work done, which will deliver greater results for conservation. While, in many situations the Department will continue to lead work with communities, in other situations it will support others to put their own conservation projects in place. Details around delivery of CMS priorities are an operational issues and outside of the scope of the CMS.

23/10

Submitter: Andrew StoneOppose. All wallabies should be eradicated or properly contained by means of escape proof fences.

Inferred: Amend Section 2.8 by rewording the outcome, policies and milestones to provide for the eradication of wallabies in 10 years if possible.


RejectWhile it is appropriate for DOC to control/ manage wallabies on conservation land in order to protect natural, cultural and heritage values, DOC only manages 10% of the land area of the island and cannot prevent incursions from elsewhere on the island. Given this it is impractical for the Department to commit to total eradication. The Department will however co-operate with the Auckland Council and local community to

24/1




implement the direction of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy.

Submitter: Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society - Hauraki Islands BranchWe strongly support reclassification of all public conservation land under the single classification “Conservation Park” because this is the best way of recognising and promoting the island's conservation and visitor values.

Amend second to last para, p. 61 be amended to read: "It is intended to incorporate all areas of public conservation land under a single classification, as 'conservation park,' in order to promote the integrated management of the natural, historic cultural and recreational values of the island".



25/1

A reclassification (of conservation land) outcome needs to be added. See appropriate wording alongside

Amend Outcome by inserting the following: "Public conservation lands will be reclassified as 'Conservation Park' in order to recognise their natural and historic values and facilitate promotion of the island as a destination where these values can be enjoyed."


RejectThe purpose of an outcome statement is to describe a future desired state at a place as it will be experienced by visitors in at least 10 years time. It is most unlikely that the status of the land in itself will form part of the visitor experience, although the level of protection a changed status may give may assist in achieving some of the stated outcomes. Given this it is inappropriate to amend the outcome as requested.


25/2

The need is for implementation of a change in classification not just an investigation of such.

Amend Policy 2.6.12 to read: "Reclassify conservation lands on Aotea under the Conservation Act 1987, seeking conservation park status in order to better reflect their significant conservation values."

2.6.12 Policy RejectAn investigation is still required to determine which classification is more appropriate. Further consultation on which classification would be more appropriate will be undertaken at the time the proposal is advanced.

25/3

An output of completing 'reclassification' must be added. 'Investigation' is not sufficient on its own. The reclassification should be completed as soon as possible

Insert an additional milestone be added to read: "Completed by the end of Year 3 after CMS approval 2017. Investigation and consultation to reclassify public conservation land on Aotea as a conservation park has been completed."


AcceptIn order to address the submitter's concerns about the lack of a milestone about the completion of the reclassification process on Great Barrier, the Year 5 milestone to complete the investigation to reclassify public conservation land on Great Barrier has been moved to Year 3, and the following new milestone has been added in Year 5:

"Public conservation land on Aotea has been reclassified as appropriate".

25/4

Submitter: Snells Beach Residents and Ratepayers Association




Highlight the importance of and increase the protection of an area within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. To recognise Kawau Bay as a place of special recreational and intrinsic value within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.1.6 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park

RejectThe purpose of this section is to identify the key issues within the Hauraki Gulf, the administrative framework and key projects of the Forum. Recreation, ecosystem values of particular areas within the Conservancy are included in the Appendices. Given this, it is not appropriate to amend Section 1.6 to provide for the submitters concerns.

26/1

Highlight the importance of and increase the protection of an area within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. To recognise Kawau Bay as a place of special recreational and intrinsic value within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.Map 8.5 - Public conservation land inventory

NotedThe submitter's views on the special recreational and intrinsic value of Kawau Bay are noted.

26/2

Submitter: Motuihe TrustAgree that commercial ferry operators have a critical role in providing public access to the Gulf islands. However the Draft CMS does not recognise the commercial pressures which are forcing operators to restrict their services to destinations where consistently high patronages are assured, and which discourages them from developing new services. This is reducing the numbers of visitors to the islands.

Better coordination between agencies and parties would not only improve ferry services to the Gulf islands, but would provide more efficient use of shared resources e.g. transporting equipment, translocations, weed control etc.

Submission requests that two additional objectives be added to Section 1.5.1 to read:(1) "Facilitate cooperation between other agencies and parties to improve and extend ferry services to the Gulf islands"; (2) "Take the lead role in developing a model partnership arrangement between the Motuihe Trust, Auckland Zoo, Auckland Council and relevant Iwi to identify and capitalise on opportunities for improving efficiencies and cost management which can later be rolled out to embrace all the island Trusts and Iwi."


Accept in part(1) It is acknowledged that current ferry services to some islands is serving to restrict public access to some. Not only does this limit individuals choices as to where to go but it also means that the Department is less able to influence visitor loadings (and impacts) throughout islands in the Gulf. The issue has in part been recognised in Section 1.5.3 but it is considered appropriate to elaborate on it within the text by

(i) Amending the third bullet in paragraph in Section 1.5.3 regarding working with the Auckland Council to refer to "services" rather than networks;(ii) Inserting an additional objective to read: "Work with ferry and other transport operators, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and other agencies to enhance transport services to the Gulf Islands"

(2) Note that Sections 1.5.1 to 1.5.5 contain a variety of objectives to enhance partnerships with other agencies and groups. It is considered that these provide sufficient direction at a strategic level. Issues relating to the implementation of these is a matter of operation detail and need not be included in the CMS.

27/1




There is no specific mention of Motuihe Island, although it has a very interesting mix of European and pre-European history, including:* Large, reasonably well preserved pa site probably the closest one to downtown Auckland* Smaller reasonably well preserved pa site* Several Iwi living sites, some reasonably preserved.* Quarantine station* Internment/ prisoner of war camp* Health camp* Naval training facility

The large pa site and a couple of the living areas have the potential to be restored and become highly accessible places where people in the Auckland area can learn about and experience Maori history

Amend Section 1.5.2 by adding Motuihe Island as a place to focus effort as follows: "Motuihe Island (Te Motu- a Ihenga): As well as reasonably well preserved pa sites and Iwi living areas, the island has an interesting European history as a quarantine station, internment camp, health camp and naval training facility".

1.5.2 History is protected and brought to life

Accept in partThe list in Section 1.5.2 describes those places where the Department will focus its efforts. This is not to say that the Department will not actively manage other sites - in fact Appendix 12 I (referred to in the first paragraph of Section 1.5.2) identifies one site on Motuihe (Quarantine station) as a site that will be actively managed, nor that it will not support initiatives by community and other groups. The changes outlined below assist in clarifying this.

Insert the following paragraph after the bullet list in Section 1.5.2: "In other areas the Department will support community and other groups on local initiatives."

27/2

The first sentence `Unrivalled by other destinations, Rangitoto and Motutapu offer the closest, readily accessible opportunity to experience New Zealand’s wildlife in a natural environment and appreciate the multiple layers of history in the Gulf,’’ applies just as well to Motuihe Island. Motuihe island is equally as accessible by boat, its history of Maori and European occupation is as extensive as Motutapu/Rangitoto its replanting programme is much closer to completion than Motutapu’s and its compactness makes it more visitor friendly than the other islands

Delete sentence commencing "Unrivalled by other destinations" in para 1 of the Outcome.

2.11 Motutapu and Rangitoto Islands Place - outcome

AcceptThe Department acknowledges that Motuihe also offers visitors the opportunity to experience wildlife and appreciate multiple layers of history.

The words "unrivalled by other destinations" in para 1 of the outcome (pg 90) have therefore been deleted.

27/3

The CMS does not recognise:(1) That Motuihe Island is the island closest to Auckland City where visitors can experience high values in all four indicators used in the CMS assessment in a single day;(2) The importance of the foreshore and in-shore waters to the island’s environment and wildlife; and(3) The growing use of the island for educational and research purposes.

Submission requests that para 4 and 5 of the Description (Section 2.12) be replaced with the following:

"Motuihe Island is a microcosm of all that the Gulf Islands have to offer. Its sheltered sandy beaches and clear waters attract thousands of visitors every year. It is a popular boating anchorage particularly Wharf (Wai-hao-Rangatahi) and Takukairairoa Bays. The island can also be accessed by regular ferry services. The areas adjacent to the beaches are popular for picnicking, camping and special events. Extensive areas of the island are covered by native vegetation, some of which are the remains of the original pre-colonial cover, and the balance from the replanting programme undertaken by the Motuihe Trust. The translocation programmes are successfully returning


Accept in partOver the term of the CMS, the Department intends to develop Motuihe Island as a gateway destination. This is stated in Section 1 (pg 25). The description and outcome of Section 2.12 have been amended to reflect that Motuihe has the potential to be a gateway destination.

The submitter's comments about the importance of the foreshore and inshore waters to the environment's wildlife is noted. The second paragraph of the description has been amended to better describe the island's natural values in relation to the foreshore.

27/4




native wildlife species which have been absent from the island since colonial days, and their populations are increasing with the increase in food supplies and breeding habitats. The many archaeological sites and the relicts from European occupation give the island a high historic value. Motuihe Island is the island closest to Auckland City where visitors can experience high values in all four indicators used in the CMS assessment in a single day.

The conservation and educational value of the foreshore has received less attention than the island’s interior. The foreshore is a mixture of sandy beaches, rocky cliffs and flat reefs which are semi exposed during low tides. The beaches and cliffs are used as breeding sites for sea birds and the reefs and shallow in-shore waters are important feeding grounds. Greater protection is required from human predations.’

With its proximity to Auckland Motuihe Island (Motu-a-Ihenga) is ideally placed for the development of further visitor services. It is increasingly used by schools for practical ecology and conservation education, and there is growing interest in island for research purposes by universities and the Auckland Zoo. Opportunities exist for the development of a visitor centre, which would provide interpretation of the island’s ecology and histories and cultural site, guided tours, and for overnight accommodation,, which could be developed by the Department or by a concessionaire. The campground could be made more attractive to campers by planting shelter screens through its interior and improving the drainage. The length of the walk of approximately one kilometre between the wharf and the entry to the native vegetation is recognised as being too far for many visitors, and the future planting programme should include plantings to the west of the present bush margin to reduce the gap. The island could act as a test bed to develop a partnership between the Department, Iwi, Auckland council, the island Trust, the Auckland Zoo and universities to more efficiently and effectively complete the island’s restoration and develop it as a icon destination for educationalists, researchers and other visitors".

The Department acknowledges the submitter's comments about the use of the island for research and education purposes. The last para of the description has been amended to include a reference to education on the island.




Outcome to include:(1) Motuihe Island (te Motu-a-Ihenga) be recognised as a Gateway Destination(2) The island be promoted as a `One Stop Shop’ which possesses all four value indicators used in this Plan(3) Programmes to develop the island as a site for practical environmental and conservation education and research are actively supported(4) The island’s extensive history of human occupation is interpreted and promoted(5) Better protection is given to the foreshore and inshore waters.

Submission requests that Outcome (Section 2.12) be amended by:(1) Replace 1st sentence para 1 with: Motuihe island (Te Motu-a-Ihenga) is a Gateway Destination;(2) Add additional sentence to para 1 following the clause. the public have freedom of access to the island’ as follows,` The foreshore and inshore waters to a depth of 10m are given Reserve protection;(3) Revising para 2 to read,` Historic sites (including trees) that are associated with quarantine activities and World Wars I and II are preserved and interpreted. Places of significance to tangata whenua are protected, and the most significant sites interpreted. The connection of tangata whenua with Motuihe island (Motu-a-Ihenga) is strengthened through collaborative relationships, with particular focus on restoring one pa (e.g. at Pa Pt) to use as an active show case of traditional life on the island; and(4) Inserting a new para 3 to read: `The island’s role a site for practical environmental and conservation education and research is established and supported through strong partnerships with the Auckland Zoo and universities and research organisations. School groups of all ages regularly visit the island for education purposes, with some groups staying overnight (5) Revising Para 4 to read,` Visitor facilities are expanded to support the growth in visitor numbers but remain sympathetic to the island’s small size, and the dominance of the coastal and restored landscape remains largely intact. Campers using the campground are better protected from inclement weather by plantings of screening bushes across the campground. Eco tourists and school groups stay overnight in accommodation facilities. The less mobile visitors are conveyed to the start of the bush tracks by a vehicular shuttle (e.g. tractor drawn trailer) and guided walks are offered throughout the busier seasons


Accept in part(1) The Department agrees that the outcome needs amending to reflect Motuihe's potential as a gateway destination, as stated in Section 1.5. More visitors learning about conservation is one of the goals of a gateway destination, encompassing education and research activities. The last paragraph of the outcome has therefore been amended to reflect that Motuihe has the potential to be a gateway destination.

(2) The Marine Protected Areas Policy and implementation Plan (MPA Policy) has been developed to assist the government achieve the marine protection targets established in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and is intended to guide the development of a comprehensive network of marine protected areas representative of the full range of New Zealand’s marine habitats and ecosystems. DOC and the Ministry for Primary Industries are the lead government agencies responsible for implementing the MPA Policy.



Existing provisions in the CMS (in particular to Objectives 1.5.1.5 and 1.6.3) reflect the intent of the MPA Policy and enable integrated marine protection planning. It would be inconsistent with the MPA

27/5




Policy process to identify specific proposals for new, or extensions to existing marine reserves beyond those already included in the CMS until at least a prioritisation process has been undertaken.

(3) The Department follows the Historic Places Trust (HPT) and International Council of Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) guidelines in regard to managing heritage sites. The submitter's wish to restoring a pa on Motuihe is not in accordance with heritage best practice of either HPT or ICOMOS.

Modify/expand the existing list of policies to include:(1) Consideration be given to providing better protection of the foreshore and inshore waters to a depth of 10 m from degradation from visitors activities(2) Protection and interpretation of the sites of Maori occupation, and especially the reconstruction of one pa (3) Developing the island as an education and research base, including developing partnerships with the Auckland Zoo and research organisations and universities.(4) Upgrade the campground by planting shelter screens and improving the drainage(5) Providing overnight accommodation for up to 35 people(6) Providing guided night walks for up to 5 groups of 10 people(7) Providing a paid shuttle service between the wharf and the commencement of the walking tracks(8) Consideration of applying a levy on commercial transport operators to assist with covering costs of the restoration and maintenance programme. E.g. ferries, corporate functions etc.

Submission requests that Policy 2.12.1 be retained.2.12.1 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.12.1 retained.27/6

Modify/expand the existing list of policies to include:(1) Consideration be given to providing better protection of the foreshore and inshore waters to a depth of 10 m from degradation from visitors activities(2) Protection and interpretation of the sites of Maori occupation, and especially the reconstruction of one pa (3) Developing the island as an education and research base, including developing partnerships with the Auckland Zoo and research organisations and





universities.(4) Upgrade the campground by planting shelter screens and improving the drainage(5) Providing overnight accommodation for up to 35 people(6) Providing guided night walks for up to 5 groups of 10 people(7) Providing a paid shuttle service between the wharf and the commencement of the walking tracks(8) Consideration of applying a levy on commercial transport operators to assist with covering costs of the restoration and maintenance programme. E.g. ferries, corporate functions etc.Modify/expand the existing list of policies to include:(1) Consideration be given to providing better protection of the foreshore and inshore waters to a depth of 10 m from degradation from visitors activities(2) Protection and interpretation of the sites of Maori occupation, and especially the reconstruction of one pa (3) Developing the island as an education and research base, including developing partnerships with the Auckland Zoo and research organisations and universities.(4) Upgrade the campground by planting shelter screens and improving the drainage(5) Providing overnight accommodation for up to 35 people(6) Providing guided night walks for up to 5 groups of 10 people(7) Providing a paid shuttle service between the wharf and the commencement of the walking tracks(8) Consideration of applying a levy on commercial transport operators to assist with covering costs of the restoration and maintenance programme. E.g. ferries, corporate functions etc.

Retain Policy 2.12.3.2.12.3 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.12.3 has been retained.27/8

Modify/expand the existing list of policies to include:(1) Consideration be given to providing better protection of the foreshore and inshore waters to a depth of 10 m from degradation from visitors activities(2) Protection and interpretation of the sites of Maori occupation, and especially the reconstruction of one pa (3) Developing the island as an education and research

Submission requests that Policy 2.12.4 be amended to read:

"Provide facilities and services commensurate with the growth in visitor numbers that allow walking access to and enjoyment of the restored areas of the island and protect natural, historic and cultural values. Such facilities may include overnight accommodation for up to 35 people,

2.12.4 Policy Accept in partThe wording changes to Policy 2.12.4 sought by the submitter are considered too detailed for this policy. The outcome already provides guidance for overnight accommodation and guided night tours (see last para, pg 97), and Policy 2.12.7 provides further guidance on overnight accommodation.

27/9




base, including developing partnerships with the Auckland Zoo and research organisations and universities.(4) Upgrade the campground by planting shelter screens and improving the drainage(5) Providing overnight accommodation for up to 35 people(6) Providing guided night walks for up to 5 groups of 10 people(7) Providing a paid shuttle service between the wharf and the commencement of the walking tracks(8) Consideration of applying a levy on commercial transport operators to assist with covering costs of the restoration and maintenance programme. E.g. ferries, corporate functions etc.

upgrading the camp ground, a vehicular shuttle service from the wharf to the start of the bush walks and guided night tours."

Due to its high visitor numbers, the fact it is a long walk to the far end of the island, and that Motuihe is a potential Gateway destination, it is appropriate to consider a vehicular shuttle concession on the island. The following new policy has been added to provide for concession applications for a vehicular shuttle service to be considered on Motuihe Island:

"May allow concessions for on-island motorised transport or guided tours, in accordance with the criteria in Policy 3.2.5."


Retain Policy 2.12.5.2.12.5 Policy AcceptPolicy has been retained.27/10

Modify/expand the existing list of policies to include:(1) Consideration be given to providing better protection of the foreshore and inshore waters to a depth of 10 m from degradation from visitors activities(2) Protection and interpretation of the sites of Maori

Amend Policy 2.12.6 by changing to sentence beginning: "May allow a limited opportunity" to read "Allow a limited opportunity".

2.12.6 Policy RejectThe word "may" gives discretion to the decision-maker to either approve or decline a limited opportunity concession to establish a visitors centre after assessing the effects of such an application on

27/11




occupation, and especially the reconstruction of one pa (3) Developing the island as an education and research base, including developing partnerships with the Auckland Zoo and research organisations and universities.(4) Upgrade the campground by planting shelter screens and improving the drainage(5) Providing overnight accommodation for up to 35 people(6) Providing guided night walks for up to 5 groups of 10 people(7) Providing a paid shuttle service between the wharf and the commencement of the walking tracks(8) Consideration of applying a levy on commercial transport operators to assist with covering costs of the restoration and maintenance programme. E.g. ferries, corporate functions etc.

the criteria listed in Policy 3.8.5 (Note: Policy 2.12.6 refers to Policy 2.12.6, which doesn't exist). The policy has therefore not been re-worded.


Amend Policy 2.12.7 by deleting the word: "may".2.12.7 Policy RejectThe word "may" gives discretion to the decision-maker to either approve or decline a special event after assessing whether they detract from the historic or recreation values of the island. The policy has therefore not been re-worded.

27/12

Modify/expand the existing list of policies to include:(1) Consideration be given to providing better protection of the foreshore and inshore waters to a

Retain Policy 2.12.8.2.12.8 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.12. 8 retained.27/13




depth of 10 m from degradation from visitors activities(2) Protection and interpretation of the sites of Maori occupation, and especially the reconstruction of one pa (3) Developing the island as an education and research base, including developing partnerships with the Auckland Zoo and research organisations and universities.(4) Upgrade the campground by planting shelter screens and improving the drainage(5) Providing overnight accommodation for up to 35 people(6) Providing guided night walks for up to 5 groups of 10 people(7) Providing a paid shuttle service between the wharf and the commencement of the walking tracks(8) Consideration of applying a levy on commercial transport operators to assist with covering costs of the restoration and maintenance programme. E.g. ferries, corporate functions etc.Modify/expand the existing list of policies to include:(1) Consideration be given to providing better protection of the foreshore and inshore waters to a depth of 10 m from degradation from visitors activities(2) Protection and interpretation of the sites of Maori occupation, and especially the reconstruction of one pa (3) Developing the island as an education and research base, including developing partnerships with the Auckland Zoo and research organisations and universities.(4) Upgrade the campground by planting shelter screens and improving the drainage(5) Providing overnight accommodation for up to 35 people(6) Providing guided night walks for up to 5 groups of 10 people(7) Providing a paid shuttle service between the wharf and the commencement of the walking tracks(8) Consideration of applying a levy on commercial transport operators to assist with covering costs of the restoration and maintenance programme. E.g. ferries, corporate functions etc.

Submission requests that Section 2.12 be amended by inserting the following new policies:(1) 2.12.9 Give consideration be given to providing better protection of the foreshore and inshore waters to a depth of 10 m from degradation from visitors activities by giving the area Reserve status(2) 2.12.10 Extend the planting programme westwards towards the north-western headland to minimise the distance between the wharf and the commencement of the native bush, but commensurate with protecting the historic heritage values of the area.(3) 2.12.11 Support the development of Motuihe island (Motu-a Ihenga) as an education and research base, including developing partnerships with the Auckland Zoo and research organisations and universities.(4) 2.12.13 Give consideration of applying a levy on commercial transport operators to assist with covering costs of the restoration and maintenance programme. E.g. ferries, corporate functions etc".

2.12 Motuihe Island Place - policies - general

RejectThe Marine Protected Areas Policy and implementation Plan (MPA Policy) has been developed to assist the government achieve the marine protection targets established in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and is intended to guide the development of a comprehensive network of marine protected areas representative of the full range of New Zealand’s marine habitats and ecosystems. DOC and the Ministry for Primary Industries are the lead government agencies responsible for implementing the MPA Policy.


Within the Auckland region it is expected that the Hauraki Gulf marine spatial planning process, which has just commenced, will identify priority areas for

27/14




marine protection (whether it be through marine reserves or other mechanisms) taking into account the marine ecosystems listed in Appendix 8 of the CMS. Once priority areas and the preferred management regimes for each have been identified the normal application processes would apply.


The submitter's suggested policy regarding the planting programme is considered to be too detailed for the CMS. The continuation of the planting programme is already provided for by last sentence, para 1 of the outcome (pg 96). Policies are only needed in addition to the outcome to either enable or constrain an activity.

The submitter's suggested policy regarding the developing partnerships with specific parties is considered to be too detailed for the CMS. Policy 2.12.2 already provides for the education of visitors.

Applying a levy to commercial operators is an operational matter and will not be addressed through the CMS.

The information provided on Motuihe (Motu-a-Ihenga) in this appendix does not include all of its heritage topics, the pressures on them and destination access category, and nor does it recognise the poor condition of the historic wharf.

Amend Appendix 12 by: (1) Revising the heritage topics for Motuihe to read: "Maori occupation, European history, defending New Zealand’,, and change the associated destination management category to `Gateway'.";(2) Insert a new heritage topic as follows:

New heritage topic: Motuihe Island WharfPressure: deferred maintenance

Appendix 12 - Actively conserved historic places

RejectAppendix 12 only lists actively managed historic places in Auckland Conservancy. The only actively managed historic place on Motuihe Island is the Motuihe Island quarantine station/HMNZS Tamaki site. Heritage topics reflect themes in New Zealand history. The most appropriate one for this site is 'Defending New Zealand'.

27/15




Destination management: category: Gateway; accessible by ferry from Auckland or private boat".

The Motuihe Wharf is not an actively managed historic site so will not be included in the table in Appendix 12.

Submitter: Jim MorrowSupport the trial. Apply following restrictions (to trial):

(1) Restrict numbers in groups to 6 people; and(2) Restrict numbers of groups allowed in any one day.


Accept in partThe mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.28/1

In terms of (b) should authorise only North Junction to Billy Goat Point track. No other tracks to be available.

Amend Policy 2.11.7 (b) to authorise only North Junction to Billy Goat Point Track


28/2

Oppose any further campsite development. Campsite require water and toilet facilities and adequate monitoring.

Amend Policy 2.11.12 so that no campsites are provided at Boulder, McKenzie or Islington Bays.

2.11.12 Policy Accept in partThe submitter's view that no campsites be provided at Boulder, McKenzie or Islington Bays is noted. During the life of this CMS, the Department only intends to develop one small-scale campsite at either McKenzie Bay or Boulder as identified in the descriptive text and Outcome. It is acknowledged that Policy 2.11.12 may not reflect this as it refers to "McKenzie Bay or another suitable location". The location will be determined following investigations which will involve a leval of consultation with key stakeholders. In order to clarify this intention with respect to sites, changes are recommended to the descriptive text, outcome and policy so that they are aligned and do not create expectations as to alternative locations.

28/3

Oppose café type development. All public ferries now have cafes on board. Should cafes be allowed no alcohol licences should be allowed.

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.11.13 to delete reference to Café.2.11.13 Policy RejectPolicy 2.11.13 will remain in the CMS. Concerns regarding alcohol licences and other issues will be addressed through the concessions process should an application be received for a café. This process is likely to be a public process, and there will be an opportunity to comment on it.

28/4

Oppose café type development. All public ferries now have cafes on board. Should cafes be allowed no alcohol licences should be allowed.

Inferred: Delete Policy 2.11.24.2.11.24 Policy RejectThe submitter's opposition to a café is noted. However, this policy fits in with Home Bay being managed as a hub for this Gateway Destination, so Policy 2.11.24 will be retained.

28/5

Submitter: Louis Wintle Charitable Trust & Mansion House Foundation




Strongly support the vision of the Kawau Island historic reserves as a historic icon destination, and the general objectives 1.5.2.1-7. Mansion House and the remains of the copper mining industry make this one of New Zealand’s most historically significant areas

Retain Section 1.5.2 and associated objectives (1.5.2.1 to 1.5.2.7).


AcceptThe proposal to develop Kawau Island Reserve as a historic icon during the term of the CMS has been retained. The intent of Objectives 1.5.2..1 to 1.5.2.7 has been retained.

29/1

Support the identification of Kawau Island as a place for new business opportunities, provided that on the historic reserves they are restricted to businesses that are compatible with and enhance the historic values of the place

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.1.5.5 More business opportunities

AcceptSupport noted. Kawau Island Place has been reclassified as an historic icon destination in response to another submission made by the Trust (refer 29/1] and Section 2.8 (Kawau island Place) amended to ensure that management decisions take into account heritage values as detailed in conservation plans. This will ensure than any business opportunities identified are compatible with and enhance the historic values of the Place.

29/2

Support outcome. Retain Section 2.8 (Outcome).2.8 Kawau Island Place - outcome

NotedThe 'Outcome' text remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.29/3

It is unclear what ‘offer a limited opportunity for the use of Mansion House which complements its historic heritage significance and enhances] its protection’ would be, and we would oppose any reduction in public access or any impacts on the chattels. Note that the Wintle Trust is responsible for ensuring the protection of the chattels gifted by Louis Wintle and would feel obliged to remove the Wintle collection of furniture from Mansion House if inappropriate uses were permitted.

Amend Policy 2.8.1 as follows:(1) Reword (b) to make it clear that as much of Mansion House would be accessible to the public as it is at present ‘allowing continued public access to all parts of Mansion House that are currently or have previously been accessible’; (2) Reword (d) include reference to the chattels: ‘having activities that are not detrimental to the condition of the building’s structure, historic fabric or chattels.’

2.8.1 Policy Accept(1) Amend the 'Description' to refer to the four conservation plans which have been prepared for Mansion House (1992), the Mansion House interior (2006), gardens (1998) and wider Kawau Island historic landscape (2002);(2) Insert a new policy to read: Undertake partial reviews of the following conservation plans:a) Mansion House Conservation Plan (1992);b) Mansion House, Kawau Island: An Interiors Conservation Plan (2002);c) Mansion House Gardens Kawau Island: A Conservation Plan and Resource Document (1998);d) Kawau Island Historic Landscape: A Conservation Plan and Resource Document (2002);in conjunction with the NZ Historic Places Trust and other stakeholders and develop an implementation programme..(3) Amend Policy 2.8.1 so that it is subject to the outcomes of the partial reviews of the conservation plan for house and chattels;(4) Include a new Year 3 milestone to read: "Partial review of the conservation plans completed;

29/4




(5)Move the existing Year 3 milestone which reads" Options for the use of Mansion House have been identified and implemented" to Year 5.

Several conservation plans have been prepared for Mansion House and its wider historic setting and although considerable progress has been made in implementing these plans, it would be appropriate to review them to ascertain what actions should be prioritised over the next 10 years to maintain the house and its setting as well as the guidance provided in terms of future uses of the building. As the Mansion House is classified Category 1 by the Historic Places Trust and the use of it and its gardens is of interest to a number of community groups and trusts it is appropriate that this review be undertaken with their involvement. Some actions, particularly regarding the identification of future uses of Mansion House should be delayed until after the conservation plans are reviewed and an implementation programme developed and changes are made to Policy 2.8.1 and the phasing of outcomes to reflect this.

Due to the collections housed within Mansion House, it is appropriate to protect these collections. Policy 2.8.1 d) has therefore been amended to include the word "chattels".

"having activities that are not detrimental to the condition of the building's structure, chattels or historic fabric."

Strongly support the retention of the cafe, and consider the proviso ‘provided it does not detract from visitors’ enjoyment and use of the surrounding grounds’ to be unnecessary. Access to refreshments is essential to many visitors’ enjoyment of the reserve, as visitor surveys have demonstrated in the past.

Amend Policy 2.8.3 to read: "Allow a cafe to continue to operate within the existing kiosk in Mansion House Valley, as this contributes to visitors’ enjoyment of Mansion House and grounds".

2.8.3 Policy Accept in partNote that Policy 2.8.3 provides for a café. Provided any café contributes to visitors enjoyment, the current wording in the Policy will not preclude it from operating.

29/5

Support a concession for overnight accommodation at Sunny Bay provided that the existing buildings are used rather than new buildings constructed. The existing buildings have some heritage value.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.8.4 Policy NotedPolicy 2.8.4 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

29/6




Oppose a small scale camp-ground within the historic reserves as inappropriate to the purpose of the reserves, but would support one within a recreation reserve on Kawau.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.8.5 Policy RejectThe Department does not want to restrict the investigations for a campsite on Kawau Island to recreation reserves. There are a range of sites on both public and private land on Kawau where a campground may be appropriate. While the Reserves Act 1977 does not explicitly preclude campgrounds from historic reserves per see, the purposes of a historic reserve in the Reserves Act must be met for a campground to be established in a historic reserve, and the Reserves Act therefore provides enough guidance in this regard.

29/7

Submitter: New Zealand Marine Sciences SocietyReference to nationally representative range of marine ecosystems should be expanded to include the west coast as well as the east coast and the Exclusive Economic Zone.

Submission requests that Section 1.2 be amended by adding the following or equivalent policies:(1) "The naturalness of terrestrial and aquatic (freshwater and marine) ecosystems has been restored and protected across the diversity of Auckland terrestrial and aquatic environments";(2) The majority of terrestrial and aquatic threatened species known in 2013 are flourishing.


Accept in partRedraft the last sentence of paragraph in the 'long term vision' to read: "A nationally representative range of marine ecosystems and habitats is protected on the west coast of Auckland Conservancy and a contiguous marine protected area encompasses all islands within the Kermadec Island group";

The intention in the last sentence in paragraph 4 was to convey the aspiration to have a range of marine reserves on the West Coast and to achieve full coverage of the Kermadec Island group (currently there are gaps in coverage of the marine reserve owing to the positioning of the exclusive economic zone). The changes clarify this.

30/1

Support the significance and particular focus protection of Maui’s dolphins and Bryde’s whales from identified threats.

Support the aim to improve the number of marine protected areas in Auckland. While an inclusive and holistic approach is desirable, this must not be at the expense of actually improving the proportion of MPA to greater than 0.16% of the Auckland territorial sea. In addition, the focus should be on the implementation of no-take Marine Reserves rather than on other forms of MPA. DOC must show real leadership on this issue.

Submission requests that emphasis of Marine Environment section be retained particularly with respect to:(1) Maui’s dolphins and Bryde’s whales; and(2) Improving the number of protected areas but note that new approaches will not necessarily lead to more MPAs. This requires DOC to show considerable leadership noting that the implementation of Marine Reserves will not always be 100% supported by all sectors of the community.


NotedThe 'Marine Environment' section (Section 1.3) remains substantially the same as those notified in the draft CMS and includes reference to Maui's dolphins, Bryde's whales and protected areas.30/2




Milestone for Tangata Whenua should be after 3 years. Six years is too long a period to wait until assessing progress against this objective.

Submission requests that an additional three-year milestone be added to read:

"Report on the satisfaction of tangata whenua with the Department's activities to assist them to maintain their cultural relationships with taonga and to implement Treaty of Waitangi settlements".

1.4 Treaty of Waitangi - milestones - outputs

AcceptAdd the following milestone to Section 1.4: "Report on the satisfaction of tangata whenua with the Department's activities to assist them to maintain their cultural relationships with taonga and to implement Treaty of Waitangi settlements".

The milestone is already included as a Year 5 and Year 10 milestone and is equally relevant in the short term (Year 3).

30/3

The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park should be included in the list of key places. Also note that all the existing island sites on this list are dependent on the surrounding marine environment and that this should be reflected in the characteristic rather than just identifying them as special terrestrial environments.

Amend Section 1.5.1 by:(1) Adding Hauraki Gulf Marine Park as an area on the list of key places in Auckland;(2) Adding consideration of the importance of the surrounding marine environment to the descriptions of the terrestrial island sites in the lists.


Accept in partInsert the following paragraph into Section 1.5.1 after the list of key places: "A number of these places also form part of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park (refer to Section 1.6)."

The key places are not restricted to terrestrial areas (refer marine reserves and harbours and estuarine areas) so it is unnecessary to include consideration of the surrounding marine environments as they are already included in the key places listed. The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park covers a wide area and encompasses a number of the key places already identified thus it is more appropriate to recognise this by inserting descriptive text rather than listing this a key place.

30/4

Strongly support the inclusion of Objective 1.5.1.5 but the focus should be on no-take marine reserves within the broader MPA framework.

Amend Objective 1.5.1.5 to read: "Contribute to building a nationally representative network of marine protected areas, with a focus on no-take marine reserves, taking into account the marine ecosystems listed in Appendix 8".

1.5.1.5 Objective RejectThe joint DOC/ Ministry of Primary Industries Marine Protected Areas Programme acknowledges a range of protection mechanisms of which no-take marine reserves are but one method. The CMS needs to reflect this joint Government approach.

30/5

Strongly support. Retain Objective 1.5.1.9.1.5.1.9 Objective AcceptSupport noted.30/6

Support. Retain Objective 1.5.1.11.1.5.1.11 Objective AcceptSupport noted.30/7

These reporting milestones are too high level and insufficient to capture any real progress against the suite of objectives listed in this section. Noting that a work programme is underway is uninformative about what actual progress has been made as a programme

Add a new milestone be added to Section 1.5.1 to read:"Report on the number, coverage and representativeness of new and existing Marine Reserves and other MPAs against the marine ecosystems listed in Appendix 8".

1.5.1 The diversity of our natural heritage - milestones - outputs

AcceptAdd additional milestones for Years 5 and 10 in Section 1.5.1 to read: "Report on action on furthering marine protected areas within Auckland".

30/8




may be underway but nothing has happened or it has gone backwards. Develop more meaningful milestones that capture real progress against the milestone.

Currently there is no milestone associated with marine protected areas and it is appropriate to add one at Year 5 (by which time the Hauraki Gulf Spatial Plan will have most likely identified priorities) and the end of the CMS term.

While the focus of this section is on building and supplying public demand, there is no corresponding objective that states that increasing public participation in recreation should come with no or minimal impact to natural systems and in fact should allow natural systems to recover even though the preamble to this section talks about 'protecting and restoring natural values' and 'sustainable development'. This point is partly addressed in Objective 2.1.5 but should also be reflected under this section.

(3) Add a new objective in Section 1.5.3 to read: "Increase the coverage and representativeness of Marine Protected Areas, with a focus on no-take Marine Reserves, within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park to maximise the protection and recovery of marine ecosystems and also to promote recreational opportunities for the public".

1.5.3 More people participate - objectives - general

RejectThe 1.5 objectives need to be considered collectively, and management responses under Appendix 2 and referenced in 1.5.1.1 (also 2.1.5 for marine reserves) do cover management of recreational use. See response to 30/5 above; should further marine protected areas be created they would be managed in accord with both the 1.5.1 and 1.5.3 objectives.

30/9

Strong support Objective, especially with the focus on the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park and for developing support for and appreciation of marine and wetland protection.

Retain Objective 1.5.4.1.1.5.4.1 Objective AcceptSupport noted.30/10

Support objectives. The best way to achieve objective is through the designation of additional Marine Reserves and increasing the size of existing Reserves within the HGMP. Given the success of Goat Island Marine Reserve, this approach would be hugely beneficial.

Retain Objective 1.6.2.1.6.2 Objective Accept in partObjective 1.6.2 retained.

The Marine Protected Areas Policy and implementation Plan (MPA Policy) has been developed to assist the government achieve the marine protection targets established in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and is intended to guide the development of a comprehensive network of marine protected areas representative of the full range of New Zealand’s marine habitats and ecosystems. DOC and the Ministry for Primary Industries are the lead government agencies responsible for implementing the MPA Policy.


Within the Auckland region it is expected that the

30/11




Hauraki Gulf marine spatial planning process, which has just commenced, will identify priority areas for marine protection (whether it be through marine reserves or other mechanisms) taking into account the marine ecosystems listed in Appendix 8 of the CMS. Once priority areas and the preferred management regimes for each have been identified the normal application processes would apply.


Support objectives. The best way to achieve objective is through the designation of additional Marine Reserves and increasing the size of existing Reserves within the HGMP. Given the success of Goat Island Marine Reserve, this approach would be hugely beneficial.

Retain Objective 1.6.3.1.6.3 Objective NotedObjective 1.6.3 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS although it now reserves to the marine spatial plan also.

30/12

This section is good and the Outcome is positive. However, the fundamental flaw is that there is no objective to actually increase the number, coverage and representativeness of Marine Reserves within Auckland and there should be. For example over the last 18 years Auckland have only added two new Marine Reserves and these have covered less than 1,100 Ha. This is a sad indictment on the progress of marine protection within Auckland especially considering that only 0.16% of the territorial sea are marine reserves (excluding the Kermadecs). Given the importance of Goat Island Marine Reserve, and the public benefits of it, there should be a real push to increase protection.

Add a new policy into Section 2.1 to read: "Increase the coverage and representativeness of Marine Protected Areas to 5% of the area within the Auckland Marine Environment (excluding the Kermadecs), with a focus on no-take Marine Reserves, to maximise the protection and recovery of marine ecosystems and also to promote recreational opportunities for the public."


Accept in partSection 2.1 of the CMS relates to existing reserves. The objectives in Section 1.5.1 and in particular Objective 1.5.1.5 relates to new marine reserves or marine protected areas. The Marine Protected Areas Policy and Implementation Plan establishes government policy on marine reserves and aims to protect 10% of New Zealand's marine environment. In doing this it specifies minimum levels of habitat representation within no-take marine reserves and DOC will have cognisance to this when implementing Objective 1.5.1.5.

30/13

These are insufficient and are not informative about the state, nature or extent of marine reserves in the Auckland region. While compliance and enforcement are of course important, there are not measures of whether the biodiversity within the reserves is increasing, decreasing or stable. There must be some meaningful measures to (i) assess the biological state of

Insert a new milestone be added for 3, 5 and 10 years to read: "Report on the number, coverage and representativeness of new and existing Marine Reserves and other MPAs against (i) the marine ecosystems listed in Appendix 8 and (ii) the target for Marine Reserves in the Auckland CMS"

2.1 Marine Reserves Place - milestones - outputs

Accept in partAdd additional milestones for Years 5 and 10 in Section 1.5.1 to read: "Report on action on furthering marine protected areas within Auckland".

Section 2.1 of the CMS relates to existing reserves. The objectives in Section 1.5.1 and in particular

30/14




existing and any new marine reserves and (ii) report against progress on increasing the number, coverage and representativeness of Marine Reserves within Auckland.

Objective 1.5.1.5 relates to new marine reserves or marine protected areas. Currently there is no milestone associated with marine protected areas and it is appropriate to add one at Year 5 (by which time the Hauraki Gulf Spatial Plan will have most likely identified priorities) and the end of the CMS term.

Given the importance of this Complex, which relies on its natural character and marine environment, there must be a meaningful measure to assess the biological state of the marine reserve and any impacts upon it. This is consistent with policies 2.2.4(a), 2.2.6, and 2.2.11(a). The reason that this is important is that visitor satisfaction could improve or be stable even though the marine environment is deteriorating and so a biologically meaningful measure is essential as a milestone.

Amend Section 2.2 by inserting a new output for 3, 5 and 10 years to read: "Biological monitoring shows that the natural character, health and ecosystem functioning of the marine environment of the Leigh Reserves Complex has been maintained or improved".

2.2 Leigh Reserves Complex Place - milestones - outputs

Accept in partA new milestone referring to biological monitoring has been added to Year 5 and Year 10.

30/15

Submission made in respect to Policies 2.15.3 and 2.15.8. Given the importance of the protection of this habitat, both marine and terrestrial, it makes excellent sense to complement the proposed protection of the terrestrial component the area as a scientific reserve with corresponding protection for the marine environment. The Society recommends that a marine reserve be implemented to allow for full protection of this iconic habitat. This is consistent and is the nature extension of policies 2.15.3 and 2.15.8

Amend Section 2.5 by:(1) Inserting a new policy to read: "Secure additional legal protection in the form of a marine reserve for the marine and estuarine habitat adjacent to the wetland to protect habitat and entire ecosystem values".(2) Adding a milestone for 2017 to read: "Legal status of marine and estuarine habitat adjacent to the wetland has been reviewed and changed to a marine reserve".

2.5 Mokohinau Islands Place - policies - general



Within the Auckland region it is expected that the Hauraki Gulf marine spatial planning process, which has just commenced, will identify priority areas for marine protection (whether it be through marine reserves or other mechanisms) taking into account the marine ecosystems listed in Appendix 8 of the

30/16




CMS. Once priority areas and the preferred management regimes for each have been identified the normal application processes would apply.


Statements about Maui's dolphin distribution (p. 68) are incomplete.

Amend Description, p. 68 by adding the words "and are also known to use the harbour itself" at the end of the sentence "Maui’s dolphins are frequently seen at the mouth of the Kaipara Harbour, which is included in the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary".


Accept in partAmend the descriptive paragraph which starts "Maui's dolphins are.." to read: ".. Seen at the mouth of the Kaipara Harbour and known to use the harbour".

The changes make it clear that Maui's dolphin use the Kaipara Harbour.

30/17

Supports policy. Retain Policy 3.12.1.3.12.1 Policy NotedSupport of this policy by submitter is noted.30/18

Support policy. Retain Policy 3.12.2..3.12.2 Policy NotedSupport of this policy by submitter is noted.30/19

Support policy. Retain Policy 3.12.3.3.12.3 Policy NotedSupport of this policy by submitter is noted.30/20

Support policy. Retain Policy 3.12.4.3.12.4 Policy NotedSupport of this policy by submitter is noted.30/21

The Society supports the marine mammal tourism policies and urges DOC to add policies on other threats. Tourism is one of the least concerning threats on the west coast of the North Island. Fishing is recognised in the Maui’s dolphin Threat Management Plan as the number one threat.

Amend policy approach towards marine mammals by:(1) Adding policies on the management of fishing, marine mining, pollution and other impacts on marine mammals, with particular focus on Maui’s dolphin. For example "Support research into and monitoring of the impacts of fishing, mining and pollution on marine mammals", "Take a precautionary approach to the level of human impact on marine mammals, from activities such as fishing, marine mining and pollution", "Develop a management plan, with measurable management goals, for the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary to ensure human impacts are reduced to sustainable levels within 5 years";

Part Three - Marine mammal viewing

Accept in partThe matters raised by the submitter are outside of the Department's direct control. However, impacts on Maui's dolphin and the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary are important issues within the CMS. These are addressed in 1.5.1where there is a specific objective 1.5.1.9 to work with others to manage the threats to marine mammals, including Maui's dolphin to ensure their recovery and protection. Part 3 of the CMS also has a policy (3.12.1) supporting research and monitoring on marine mammals.

30/22




(2) Clarifying that the marine mammal sanctuary does not currently have a management plan, does not have measurable management goals, and manages some threats (incomplete protection from gillnet and trawl fisheries) but not other threats (e.g. marine mining and tidal energy generation). And INDICATE how these gaps will be addressed in the work under the CMS. As explained in our submission on the Maui’s Dolphin Threat Management Plan, protection for Maui’s dolphins needs to be extended to the 100m depth contour.

Appendix is incomplete and doesn't include all the existing Marine Reserves.

Amend Appendix 4 to include all 6 Marine Reserves in the Auckland Islands.

Appendix 4 - Priority ecosystem management sites

Accept in partThe priority ecosystem management units in the Auckland Conservancy have been identified through the Natural Heritage Management System (NHMS). The following note has been added above Appendix 4 to describe where the information has been taken from:

"This list has been taken from the Department's national list of 941 ecosystem management units, which represent the full range of New Zealand's terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems (except for sites on private land, which are not listed). Please note, the table does not necessarily list all nationally significant ecosystems present in Auckland Conservancy. The list is subject to change as priorities are refined and revised - new sites may be added and others removed."

The following footnotes have been added to the Motu Manawa-Pollen Island Marine Reserve and Te Matuku Bay entries in the table to clarify that these entries are referring to the terrestrial components of these areas, rather than the marine area:

"This ecosystem habitat type refers to the terrestrial component of the Motu Manawa-Pollen Island Marine Reserve."

"This ecosystem habitat type refers to the terrestrial component of Te Matuku Bay."

30/23




A description of all six marine reserves in the Auckland Conservancy is included in Appendix 8: Marine habitats and ecosystems.

Maui’s dolphin should be added to the list of icon species in Auckland as they are endemic to NZ and Critically Endangered.

Amend Appendix 7 to include Maui's dolphins.Appendix 7 - Icon species

Accept in partThe heading of Appendix 7 has been amended to "Nationally iconic species in Auckland".

The following explanation has also been added to Appendix 7 to describe how icon species where identified:

"These species were identified using a combination of web based and phone based public surveys in which those participating were asked what species they thought were quintessentially kiwi, contributing to their identity as New Zealanders."

Maui's dolphin was not identified in the public surveys.

30/24

Submitter: Will ScarlettSubmitter outlines a number of concerns/ opportunity in relation to DOC's management of Great Barrier. These include:- Concern with staffing levels, composition (managerial heavy), approach to contacting out and discontinuation of use of seasonal workers.- Concerned that infrastructure investment (houses, power, vehicles, boat, hut, tracks and bridges) has detracted from conservation activities.- Concerned with spread of pine trees.- Should adopt a project to enhance Bush's beach with Auckland Council involvement.- DOC jetty at Rarohara is in poor state of repair. Should be enhanced with walkway connections, slide and diving board.- Cats are of concern to wildlife in Island. Suggests DOC lobby for a bylaw putting curfew on domestic cats and control feral population.- Suggestion that DOC should look for sponsors to build a captive breeding site at Whangapoua estuary.- Considers that Rakitu should be made pest free.- Suggests that research should be undertaken on early

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.6 Great Barrier Island Place

Accept in partThe submitter's concerns on a wide range of issues on Great Barrier are noted. Many of these issues - staffing levels, management structure, contracting out work, infrastructure investment, sponsorship, and the improvement of the Department's community relations are operational matters and will not be addressed in the CMS.

Policy 2.6.2 addresses the submitter's concern regarding the spread of pine trees if the pines are within areas where they threaten the highest priority ecosystems, habitats and species.

The submitter's suggestion that Rakitu should be pest free is already included in the outcome. The following new clause and milestone have been added regarding a pest-free Rakitu:

Policy 2.6.2 c):

"eradicating rats from Rakitu Island."

31/1




ownership of Harataonga Scenic Reserve. Should it be named Overton Scenic reserve? How did it become crown owned? If it was a county council reserve it should belong to the community.- Support use of Forest Road for passive activities. Mountain bikes need to be restricted to this road or dedicated areas.- Questions where discussions are in terms of the cemetery proposed for Max Burrell's old lime dump above Okiwi.- Concerned with exclusive management arrangement for Kaikoura Island.- Note that Bradshaw House was build by Crawford family after the war and is build on top of the old barracks concrete slab.- Removal of wild cattle from te Paparahi has been costly and can't be allowed to happen again.- Rats should be eradicated without use of brodifacoum. It is too big a project for the community. DOC needs to support it and lobby strongly for research funding into pest control.- DOC's community relations need to be improved.- Concerned about lack of action with marine conservation.

Completed by the end of Year 3 after CMS approval (2017):

"Rats have been successfully eradicated from Rakitu Island."

Including policies or an outcome about some of the submitter's other concerns - enhancing Bush's beach, repairing the jetty at Rarohara, measures for managing cats, historic research, methods for eradicating rats - is considered to be too much detail for the CMS.

The Department does not manage Kaikoura Island, so its management cannot be discussed in the CMS.

Submitter: Auckland/Waikato Fish and GamePara 2, p. 69 - Woodhill have been popular pheasant and deer hunting area since 1920's. Several forestry blocks currently administered by Fish & Game Council affiliated groups in cooperation with forest administration. These groups undertake predator control, tree planting and wetland restoration in forest and wider area. Support statement that "it is highly desirable that public access to the forest be retained".

Retain recognition of public access to Woodhill in Section 2.7.


NotedNote that the statement that "it is highly desirable that public access to the forest be retained" remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

32/1

Note that policy duplicates Policy 2.7.10. Support any such initiative and insist on prior consultation as to how this might be achieved.

Inferred: Delete one or other of duplicate policies - 2.7.5 or 2.7.10.

2.7.5 Policy AcceptDelete Policy 2.7.10.


32/2

Note that policy duplicates Policy 2.7.5. Support any such initiative and insist on prior consultation as to how this might be achieved.

Inferred: Delete one or other of duplicate policies - 2.7.5 or 2.7.10.

2.7.10 Policy Accept in partRetain Policy 2.7.5 while deleting Policy 2.7.10.


32/3




Consider that additional policy necessary to achieve stated outcome (Page 70, para 1) regarding protection of dune lakes, freshwater, wetland and harbour habitats. The largest threat to dune lakes is drying out. Species depending on these lakes cannot wait 25 years for the pine forest cycle before they re-flood. A study needs to be undertaken to determine the extent to which pine forest transpiration is draining/ affecting lakes.

Inferred: Insert additional in Section 2.7 that:(1) Ensures stated outcome (Page 70, para 1) is achieved; and(2) Makes a commitment to a study to determine the extent to which pine forest transpiration is draining/ affecting lakes

2.7 Kaipara Harbour Place - policies - general

AcceptInsert a new policy to read: "Support research to determine the extent to which reduced water yield from catchments planted in pines is affecting lake levels".

Plantation forestry can affect water yields from catchments which in turn can affect lake levels and the ecosystems of which they are part. The Department could support research looking at the effects on pine plantations on dune lakes in the Kaipara Place.

32/4

Congratulate DOC on output "to replant with historically appropriate exotic trees". Sir George Grey imported many rare trees from every part of the world. It was from such experiments that radiata pine was imported into NZ, forming basis of forestry industry that is now significant income earner for country. Particular care should be taken not to cut down any old trees on the island unless they’re very well identified as they might well prove to be rare exotics that Sir George imported that are still today not found anywhere else in NZ. To replace these in a modern world risks importing plant diseases that could easily threaten our native flora, as opposed to simply and safely collecting propagating material "quarantined" for more than a century on Kawau.

Inferred: Retain Outcome.2.8 Kawau Island Place - outcome

NotedThe 'Outcome' text remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.32/5

If there is a problem with moulting paradise ducks on the farm at Motutapu, we ask to be consulted as game bird managers for this region, before any DOC authority is independently given to destroy these birds. The impacts of any control on Island on stocks of paradise ducks elsewhere in region needs to be understood before any decisions made about control.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.11 Motutapu and Rangitoto Islands Place

NotedThis matter is not addressed in the CMS. Neither Section 2.11 or Appendix (which identified pests present in the region) identify paradise ducks as a problem. The submitters concerns are noted.

32/6

We caution that the word "sanctuary" (like "refuge" and "closed game area"), has a specific legal meaning, as defined by Section 9 of the Wildlife Act, 1953. These specifically restrict the right of entry of any person. For this reason, all sanctuaries have generally been located off the NZ mainland. So, unless this is a special exception at Firth of Thames, it might pay to choose a better wording.

Amend Outcome (Section 2.15) by:(1) Replacing the word "sanctuary" in paragraph 1 with better wording.(2) Inferred: Rewording to ensure that hunting is not unnecessarily restricted near Miranda.

2.15 Firth of Thames/ Tikapa Moana Wetlands Place - outcome

AcceptThe word sanctuary has been deleted from paragraph 1 of the Outcome. Other changes have been made to the description (first, sentence, paragraph beginning "tidal flats..") and outcome (paragraph beginning "recreational opportunities..") to better describe and provide for game bird hunting in the area.

32/7




Firth of Thames is popular game hunting area. Fish and Game know of no conflicts arising to the wading bird habitats in this huge area. These waders seem to be completely indifferent to hunting for game species of waterfowl and there is no possibility of mistaking them for game bird status waterfowl. Fish & Game has, in fact, played a prominent role in negotiating with territorial authorities to retire large riparian rivers that feed the Firth of Thames, which were then extensively planted by those same hunters with all the silt-reducing benefits this entails, (consistent with the outcome expressed on the 4th paragraph on page 109 of the CMS). The activities of recreational hunters are usually in dedicated boats off the mangroves, or in maimais located on the 3 main rivers that feed the Firth of Thames from the Hauraki Plains, and so these hunters are well separated from the visitors at Miranda. Care should be taken not to arbitrarily include these areas referred to in any future controlled zones or local opposition will be very considerable.Fish and Game's sole income comes from licence sales for freshwater sports fish and recreational game birds. Concerned that initiative such as removing trout from waters on public conservation lands, as signalled on page 118 of the Auckland CMS, (which refers to certain circumstances (in which), they may be eradicated) would impact on income.

Note that rainbow trout are a sentinel species which, like canaries in coal mines, are among the first and most noticeable species to be adversely affected if environmental conditions deteriorate. Anglers can therefore play important monitoring role. Note that, there are, in fact, only a few locations in the Auckland CMS area where trout do exist and we are not aware of any specific adverse issues arising from these.

Lake Ototoa is mentioned in connection with removal of trout, yet trout have been legally introduced and have lived in that lake since at least the 1920’s. The rare native dwarf inanga, (Galaxias inanga), co-exists there

Amend the narrative on sports fish and game by:(1) Removing all mention of trout eradication;(2) Clarifying intention - If this section was intended to be actually about the adverse impacts of illegally introduced rudd and/or perch, then those sports fish species and their illegal spread should instead be mentioned directly, rather than confused with trout.

Part Three - Sports fish and game

Accept in partThere is a lot of discussion in the sports fish and game paragraph on page 118 regarding trout but there is no mention of "trout eradication". It instead refers to sport fish in general and states that they may be retained and that in certain circumstances they may be eradicated with the agreement of the relevant regional fish and game council. Rudd and perch (and tench) as well as trout are all identified as sports fish. However, it is agreed that it may just be a particular species which is causing a problem. Therefore, the wording of the paragraph should be amended to state: ..."particular species may be eradicated..."

32/8




and, in fact, does NOT naturally occur in this lake where it was only later introduced in 1986 by the Auckland Acclimatisation Society. Dwarf inanga exist in this lake, therefore, not in spite of these trout, but actually because of them. Dwarf inanga, while not a widely distributed species nationally, have paradoxically thrived in that Lake Ototoa trout fishing environment and this rare native species is much more secure as a result of that introduction. The good health of fish stocks in this lake have only changed recently, (around 2003), when someone acting illegally introduced perch into that lake. The impacts been devastating with a reduction of 99% of native bullies and 96% reduction of freshwater crayfish.

In addition to trout, in this region there are 3 other recognized sports fish species which are coarse fish species, meaning simply that, unlike trout, they have larger (coarser) scales. Some of these fish enjoy that sports fish status because it gives us more authority about their control, for instance in the case of perch or rudd; or because of their general lack of known adverse effects, in the case of tench. We have always worked closely with agencies who have been tasked with removing coarse fish, for instance, from Lake Waimanu near Auckland city. So we do not see sports fish status as an impediment to control whenever required.

We believe this well-intentioned but arguably inflammatory comment about trout on page 118 of the CMS would be much better received if it put the blame where it squarely belongs; at the irresponsible, illegal introduction of coarse fish into many local waterways by private individuals who do so with scarce regard to the natural values of these waterways.

We read in the introduction to the CMS that DOC needs to "significantly increase the amount of conservation work undertaken by Iwi, communities, businesses and others over the next 20 years". We see ourselves as already at the forefront of such initiative.




It is important that game bird hunters can use trained hunting dogs for a number of reasons, arguable the most important being conservation. Hunting dogs:- find game;- recover shoot game over dense cover/ water reducing wastage; and- have ability to find pests (e.g. possums, wild cats, stoats) to be shot.

Dogs are rarely allowed onto DOC land in region and this is short sighted as it means birds will be shot and cost, causing wastage. We take the view that unless there are native species significantly at risk that dogs under strict control should be allowed for game bird hunting in such areas generally.

Specific note is made of several examples of where refuge signs need replacing/ updating to ensure that people are aware of conditions that apply such as no dogs. We would suggest that, a policy of only issuing a warning should apply in all such circumstances, on a first offence, where no signage or fencing is present and people could not reasonably have know, without consulting a surveyor, that they were in fact on DOC land.

Inferred: Add a policy regarding signage/ enforcement regarding dogs.

Part Three - Dogs RejectThe decision requested by the submitter can not be implemented through the CMS, it is an operational matter.

The points made will be forwarded onto operational staff.

32/9

Many DOC administered areas, such as mangrove wetlands, are extensively grazed by domestic animals notwithstanding the many exclusion policies and strategies. This creates damage to mangroves and maimais. DOC needs to work with adjoining landowners to stop grazing and ensure stock-proof boundary fencing is in place.

DOC needs to be more proactive about development next to areas as this introduces roaming domestic cats and dogs owing to impacts on wildlife.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.Part Three - Animals NotedThe matters raised by the submitter are noted.

The CMS allows grazing to occur on public conservation land where a concession has been granted. How the stock are managed with regard to the effect they may have on conservation values is controlled by the terms of the concession. It is an operational matter and can not be controlled by the provisions of the CMS.

There are policies in Part 3 of the CMS regarding dogs. 3.5.4 relates to the education of the community about the threat of dogs to conservation values; and 3.5.5 relates to working with local authorities to ensure consistent dog control in areas containing protected wildlife and important habitats.

32/10




There are also other policies in Part 1 and 2 of the CMS promoting the Department working with communities and advocating for the protection of a range of conservation values.

The construction of recreational game bird hunters’ huts (maimais) is something that has been carefully considered in several other forums, and a comprehensive set of Regional Council guidelines exists for their construction and maintenance on public land in the Auckland region. The authorisation to claim a maimai is done according to the Wildlife Act 1955 and Wildlife Regulations 1955. These restrictions are overseen by the Minister of Conservation who annually publishes additional restrictions, maimai claiming dates, conditions and etc., in the NZ Gazette. Maimais are not exclusive and may be used by any member of the public for other purposes.

Maimai is a fairly loose term and many are not a structure at all, being merely a few tea tree sticks placed in the ground to make a rudimentary screen, or indeed, a simple pole, with no other supporting material and bearing a maimai "claim tag", (see Wildlife Act 1953 and Wildlife Regulations 1955, NZ Game Gazette). Even the most elaborate maimais in the Auckland CMS region are still relatively simple non-permanent structures being less than 10m2 in floor area. The adverse affects of a maimai built in accordance with these conditions is "no more than minor". In some cases, the vegetation protected by the fencing of such maimais is arguably a net benefit. There have even been cases where maimais have very probably saved people’s lives by providing them a safe raised platform in tidal areas.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.Part Three - Authorisations

NotedThe matters raised by the submitter are noted. However, it is unclear as to the decision being sought.32/11

The Auckland / Waikato Fish & Game Council will like-wise, work closely at all times with the Department on matters of common interest, particularly as regards the management of sports fisheries and game birds.

Retain Policy 3.13.1.3.13.1 Policy NotedThe submitters support of the policy is noted.32/12

Council also has a statutory function in relation to habitats in terms of Section 26(Q)(1)(e )(vii) of the

Amend definition of "Fish and Game Council" by inserting the words "and their habitats" after the word

Glossary AcceptThe definition of Fish and Game Council should be 32/13




Conservation Act 1987: "game bird". amended to correctly refer to its functions.

Amend the text by adding the words "and their habitats" after the word "game".

Question as to why Wildlife Refuges not defined. These form an important network of wildlife habitats across NZ.

Amend Glossary by inserting a definition "Wildlife Refuges".

Glossary Accept in partThe term "wildlife" is defined in the glossary. However, wildlife reserves, sanctuaries and refuges are not defined in the CMS. Whilst all these terms are used in the CMS, it does not seem appropriate to define just one of them. All of these terms are defined in the Wildlife Act 1953.

32/14

Submitter: New Zealand Hang Gliding & Paragliding AssociationOppose approach for following reasons:(1) They refer to safety without any reported incidents of public safety issues and without any understanding of paraglider safety. Paraglider pilots all undertake extensive training and pilot qualification is carried out to CAA approved standards and carefully monitored. Incidents are reported to Club Safety Officers, investigated and reported to CAA.(2) Reference to the proposed aircraft policy (3.4.2) being applied to paragliders flying at North Head, as per Policy 2.14.8 is misplaced. Policy 3.4.2 is only relevant to powered aircraft and is unworkable when applied to paragliders or hang gliders flown for recreation.


Oppose approach for following reasons:(1) They refer to safety without any reported incidents of public safety issues and without any understanding of paraglider safety. Paraglider pilots all undertake extensive training and pilot qualification is carried out to CAA approved standards and carefully monitored. Incidents are reported to Club Safety Officers, investigated and reported to CAA.(2) Reference to the proposed aircraft policy (3.4.2) being applied to paragliders flying at North Head, as per Policy 2.14.8 is misplaced. Policy 3.4.2 is only relevant to powered aircraft and is unworkable when applied to paragliders or hang gliders flown for recreation.

Amend Policy 2.14.8 by deleting the reference to Policy 3.4.2.


Submitter: Great Barrier Local Board - Auckland Council




(1) Important role of DOC on Great Barrier Owing to size of DOC estate on Great Barrier, the role that DOC and the CMS play is significant. So to, by implication, is the relationship between DOC, the Great Barrier Local Board (Board) and the island community.

The Board has produced a Local Board Plan which outlines the Boards aspirations for the community and the projects they propose to progress. A copy of this is appended to submission. Attention drawn to three elements relevant to CMS as follows: - Building economic prosperity and our population (pp 12/13). Enhancing the conservation estate, encouraging more visitors through track improvement, new huts and increased visitor experiences are all key elements of achieving this outcome.-Protect and enhance our environment and showcase our unique qualities (pp 18/19). The CMS and DOC estate have an obvious and key role to play in advancing this goal.- Provide quality local parks and facilities (pp. 22/23). This specifically refers to complementing the opportunities provided on public conservation land.


NotedThe submitter's comments regarding the alignment of the CMS with the Great Barrier Local Board Plan are noted.

34/1

The Great Barrier Local Board (Board) wishes to enhance its relationship with DOC and be more closely aligned in the practical outcomes signalled/ intended by the CMS. The Board would like to engage with officers and build an ongoing quality relationship and suggests Board's Environmental Strategy and Planning Committee as primary vehicle for relationship. Board believes that DOC must have a strong, local decision making presence on the island if it is to have any chance of delivering the CMS. A copy of a Board letter to the Minister of Conservation outlining needs/ concerns is appended to submission.

Requests that DOC staff engage with and attend meetings of Great Barrier Local Board's Environmental Strategy and Planning Committee


NotedThe Department notes the request of the Great Barrier Local Board to engage with DOC staff. However, staff meeting attendance is an operational issue and will not be addressed through the CMS.

34/2

Supports Outcome but has real concerns about its achievability. The Board sees the continued reduction in on-island resourcing of DOC as a major impediment to this and one which must be addressed if the CMS goals are not to be meaningless.

Inferred: Retain Outcome but address resourcing.2.6 Great Barrier Island Place - outcome

RejectThe submitter's support for the outcome is noted. However, resourcing is an operational matter, and will not be addressed in the CMS.34/3

The Board is supportive of pest-free aspiration in principle., provided it has strong and widespread

Inferred: (1) Amend Policy 2.6.1 to include engagement with the Great Barrier Local Board; and

2.6 Great Barrier Island Place -

AcceptThe Department acknowledges that some




community support. Board has been considering this issue for past 12 months and expects to begin community consultation on the development of an environmental visions for Island later this year. If CMS to deliver something practical and concrete on the ground, the community MUST be brought along and be an integral partner. The Board has resisted community pressure to date to make Island pest free because it needs to do its background work first.

Due to Board's advocacy in this area, its strong community connections it is in strong position to assist DOC in advancing pest free objective and wishes to work more closely with DOC on this matter.

Board is also supporting of efforts DOC and Ngati Rehua progressing in terms of intensive pest management in Te Paparahi conservation area. This area may well be seen as a trial or pilot for alternative pest management technologies.

(2) Retain Policy 2.6.2.policies - general stakeholders have not been included in Policy 2.6.1. Policy 2.6.1 has been amended as follows:

Policy 2.6.1:

"Actively engage with tangata whenua, Auckland Council, private landowners and the community..."

Policy 2.6.2 has been retained.

34/4

Milestones appear disconnected. Board considers that it is important that thread of escalating activity from investigation to action is evident across the three periods so that progress can be seen and measured.

Year 3:- Milestones too modest and do not reflect the importance that the CMS plays in Barriers future.- Milestones should be leading the conversation and driving resourcing needs.- Board considers that first three milestones could be achieved in months, not three years.

Reclassification:- Board considers that investigations into reclassification could be undertaken by year 3. Is important work and would benefit DOC resourcing. Investigation should include option of National Park given highest ranking in Table A9.2, p. 201 and natural heritage value p. 19. Current status as "stewardship area" (the lowest) is as odds with these rankings and must be elevated.

Amend CMS by:(1) Inserting investigation into reclassification as a Year 3 milestone;(2) Amend wording of 4th bullet under year 5 regarding reclassification to refer to "reclassification" (rather than just an investigation);(3) Reword Policy 2.6.12 to reflect (1) and (2) above;(4) Amend wording of 4th bullet under Year 3 regarding heritage assessments to apply all heritage sites not just those actively managed;(5) Insert additional Year 3 output to read: "decisions, agreed roles and responsibilities, key short term actions and longer term goals be agreed and that implementation of short term actions be completed for the Kaitoke fire site";(6) Amend CMS to include reference to airfield expansion at Claris as a strategic goal at an appropriate place in the CMS;(7) Include commitment in CMS to keep Forestry Road maintained as an alternative route if main road blocked for emergency purposes;(8) Include DOC/ Auckland Council land exchange


Accept in part(1) & (2) In order to address the submitter's concerns about the lack of a milestone about the completion of the reclassification process on Great Barrier, the Year 5 milestone to complete the investigation to reclassify public conservation land on Great Barrier has been moved to Year 3 (with a few minor wording changes), and the following new milestone has been added in Year 5:


(3) The word "investigate" is appropriate in Policy 2.6.12, as an decision has not yet been reached on which classification is appropriate and consultation will be required to inform this decision.

(4) The milestone regarding heritage assessments for actively managed historic sites aligns with the Department's Statement of Intent. It is therefore not considered necessary to extend this milestone to all

34/5




- Moving milestone for completion by Year 3 will enable action in year 10 to be "reclassify" and this should be included in modified Policy 2.6.1.

Heritage assessments- Board supports heritage assessments being completed for all actively managed sited (Year 3 milestone) but requests that this be expanded to include other sites, not actively managed.- Board aware that considerable history of settlement being lost as vegetation grows over ruins and structures are not recorded or actively managed.- Board suggests that DOC actively promote this issue and work with locals to agree appropriate action before any more areas are lost.

Kaitoke fire- Question of reinstatement has arisen at recent meeting where both immediate needs (re-growth of weeds, actions to reduce fire risk, return of pests and threat of erosion) and longer term opportunities/ aspirations (revegetation, removal of exotics, public use) were canvassed. Meeting agreed need a clear steer from DOC on this including DOC funding resource issue. Recently signed DOC/ Auckland Council MOU provides a ready vehicle for parties to work together.- Request inclusion of Year 3 output.- Board aware that airlines would like wider (and possibly longer) landing strip to undertake instrument landings.

Forestry Road- Board recognises the importance of road being maintained and kept open as a key alternative route if the main road is blocked for emergency purposes.- Board seeks a commitment from DOC.

Completion of land exchange programme- Board requests that DOC/ Auckland Council land exchange programme be included as a milestone.- A copy of Auckland City Council resolution on matter appended to submissions. This was subsequently approved by DOC but not progresses due to possible

programme be included as a milestone for completion by Year 3;

historic sites.

(5) The Kaitoke fire site and the expansion of the Claris Airfield are site specific issues that will have a statutory processes attached to them; they will not be addressed in the CMS review.

(6) It would be premature to include reference to an airfield expansion at this stage.

(7) Forest Road is designated as a dual use walking and mountain biking track. Maintaining Forest Road as an alternative vehicle access road is not consistent with the outcomes for this place or the visitor experience, nor is it the Department's role to provide alternative vehicle access.

(8) The reinstatement of the DOC/Auckland Council land exchange programme is dependent on when Treaty if Waitangi claims with Ngati Rehua and other iwi are settled.




impediment of Treaty of Waitangi negotiations.While the Board supports limiting aircraft landings in specified areas of high natural values (Policies 2.6.8 -10), it is aware of increasing unauthorised helicopter landings.

Inferred: (1) Retain Policies 2.6.8, 2.6.9 & 2.6.10; and(2) Include specific reference to helicopter landing matters in an appropriate place.


Accept(1) Policies 2.6.8, 2.6.9 and 2.6.10 are retained.

(2) The Department is also aware that unauthorised helicopter landings occur on public conservation land on Great Barrier Island. The descriptive paragraph which starts "Te Paparahi Conservation Area .." has been amended to describe the risks associated with unauthorised helicopter landings as follows:

"Some helicopter landings associated... but lie outside the boundaries of Te Paparahi. Helicopter landings in this area need to be authorised where possible to ensure they do not impact on natural quiet and remoteness, or pose a biosecurity risk by introducing unwanted pests."

34/6

The Board notes that it regularly hears calls for the establishment of a local tour-guiding group to take visitors to conservation lands. Such an enterprise would both encourage visitation and provide local employment. DOC is requested to consider the establishment of local tours to conservation land. The Board is prepared to help facilitate conversations with interested parties.

DOC is requested to consider the establishment of local tours to conservation land.


NotedThe submitter's request that the Department consider the establishment of local tours to conservation land on Great Barrier and the offer to help facilitate conversations is noted. The Department would support any group in applying for a concession to undertake tours on public conservation land on Great Barrier. The outcome provides for concessionaires contributing to the local economy and enhancing the visitor experience on Great Barrier.

34/7

Submitter: Maui & Hector Dolphin Education/Action IncSupport recognition of Maui's dolphins and their place in the Conservancy but consider that this could be stronger in the CMS.

Generally support Objective 1.5.1.9 but note that protection is required to allow the population to recover. Hector's dolphins are also found among the Maui's population and this should be included.

Amend Objective 1.5.1.9 to:(1) Include reference to Hector's dolphins; andInferred: (2) To reflect that protection is required to allow the population to recover.

1.5.1.9 Objective Accept in partThe latest research undertaken on Maui's dolphin has shown that a few individual Hector's dolphin are amongst the Maui's dolphin population on the west coast of the North Island. The para commencing "Particular focus.." which refers to the population in Section 1.3 has been amended by inserting the following sentence to reflect this:

"Hector’s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori hectori) individuals have also been found amongst the Maui’s dolphin population."

35/1




Policy 1.5.1.9 has also been amended as follows:

"Work with the Ministry of Primary Industries, local government, tangata whenua, shipping companies and others to manage threats to marine mammals, particularly Maui’s dolphin, Hector’s dolphin and Bryde’s whale, to ensure their recovery and protection."

Notes that CMS recognised the role of Marine Reserve "place" in ecosystem protection. However there should also be a section regarding Marine Mammal Sanctuaries. The level of protection currently provided to these is in adequate. DOC should emphasise the protection and recovery of Maui's (& Hectors) through active intervention.

Amend CMS by:(1) Inserting a separate section for Marine Mammal Sanctuaries; and(2) Include commentary and directions which seek strengthened protection for Marine Mammal Sanctuaries - against gill-netting, sea bed mining, seismic testing and other threats to dolphins.

General Accept in partThe West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary is currently the only marine mammal sanctuary in the Auckland region. A description of this marine mammal sanctuary is included in Section 2.7 Kaipara Harbour Place. The paragraph about Maui's dolphin of Section 2.7 has been amended as follows to better describe the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary:

"Maui’s dolphins are occasionally seen at the mouth of Kaipara Harbour and are known to use the harbour. The West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary, which extends from Manganui Bluff south and encompasses Kaipara harbour, was gazetted in 2008 to provide additional protection for this critically endangered species. Restrictions are applied within the sanctuary on seabed mining, acoustic seismic survey work and fishing."

Marine mammal sanctuaries are provided for in the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978. Section 22(3) of the Act allows the Minister of Conservation to specify activities that may or may not be allowed within a marine mammal sanctuary. The Maui's dolphin portion of the Hector's and Maui's Dolphin Threat Management Plan is currently being reviewed. Submissions have closed and the Ministers of Conservation and Primary Industries are now considering recommendations. Decisions these Ministers make on the Threat Management Plan may result in additional protection measures in the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary.

35/2




The Maui's dolphin portion of the Hector's and Maui's Dolphin Threat Management Plan is currently being reviewed. Submissions have closed and the Ministers of Conservation and Primary Industries are now considering recommendations. Decisions these ministers make on the Threat Management Plan may result in additional protection measures in the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary.

Section should include outcomes and policy statements to ensure the Kaipara Harbour is safe for Maui's dolphins.

Amend Section 2.7 by inserting outcomes and policy statements to ensure the Kaipara Harbour is safe for Maui's dolphins.


Accept(1) Amend the descriptive paragraph which starts "Maui's dolphins are.." to read: "The West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary, which extends from Manganui Bluff south and encompasses the Kaipara Harbour was gazetted in 2008 to provide additional protection for this critically endangered species. Restrictions are applied within the Sanctuary on seabed mining, acoustic seismic survey work and fishing";(2) Insert a new sentence in the Outcome to read: "The population of Maui's dolphin is recovering and is effectively protected"; and making consequential changes to the existing text; and(3) Inserting a new policy to read: "Work with the Ministry of Primary Industries, local government, tangata whenua and others to implement the Maui's Dolphin Threat Management Plan 2013"; and(4) Amending Objective 1.5.1.9 to read: "Work with the Ministry of Primary Industries, local government, tangata whenua and others to manage..".

The West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary was established Under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 to provide additional protection to the Maui's dolphin. It applies restrictions on seabed mining, acoustic seismic survey work and fishing. A threat management plan due to be released in August 2013 will provide further direction in terms of protection of Maui's dolphins and the recovery of the population. The changes to the Description and Outcome and insertion of a new policy are recommended to

35/3




capture more detail around the protection provided in the Sanctuary and the collaborative approach to be taken in implementing the Maui's Dolphin Threat Management Plan.

Submitter: Rangitoto Island Bach Community AssociationSupport proposal in principle. It would provide an opportunity for people to stay overnight on the Treasure Islands. A formal camp site such as proposed may eliminate current illegal camping by kayakers on Rangitoto Island (e.g.. at McKenzie Beach, and Handley’s Bay). Recommend some changes regarding sitting to mitigate fire risk, vandalism and interference to baches at Islington Bay and McKenzie Bay. Do not consider Boulder Bay suitable owing to access difficulties in case of fire. Suggest either Home Bay or Yankee Wharf as both sites have road access and subject to ranger patrols.

Amend Policy 2.11.12 to identify Home Bay or Yankee Wharf only as suitable sites

2.11.12 Policy RejectThe submitter's view that Home Bay or Yankee Wharf are the only suitable sites for a campground on Rangitoto is noted however the proposal is to create small-scale basis campsites. These only have very limited facilities with only basic toilets and water and thus campers need to be self sufficient. The campsite is intended to provide a different experience from other campsites on the Islands and road access is not a pre-requisite. Issues such as those raised by the submitter regarding fire, ranger patrols and vandalism will foem part of the investigations referred to in the policy.

36/1

Opposed to independent groups, as the proposed restrictions on certain tracks and roads would be unenforceable (see Waitakere Ranges experience) and cyclists would not be accountable. Rangers are rarely evident on Rangitoto, especially on weekends, therefore the chances of cyclists who stray from the designated routes being apprehended, would be slight. Cyclists are not identifiable and even if apprehended on unauthorised roads/tracks, they could return to the island with little risk of further action. Concerns also for safety of walkers, particularly on coastal.

Supports trial if restricted to guided groups only.2.11 MTB proposal - General


Submitter: Federated Mountain Clubs of New Zealand (Inc)Priority sites should consider diversity in management of different Islands. For example, Kawau has a history of experimental introduction of exotic species. there are not many places in NZ to see such animals and birds wild - and as a demonstration of the impact on the local biota, as a learning experience for visitors/schools etc. Likewise exotic plants around historic places including abandoned settlements.

Inferred: Amend Objective 1.5.1.1 to consider the historical, recreational, and educational value of diversity, including exotic species, where it can be managed without threat to general conservation.

1.5.1.1 Objective NotedThe intent of Objective 1.5.1.1 is to identify areas which need to be managed so as to prioritise ecosystem values. There are many areas within Auckland which are not included in Appendices 4 and 2 where other factors such as historical, recreational and educational values are given more weighting.

Note that Section 2.8 (Kawau Island Place) provides for the management of introduced (exotic) species as

37/1




a historic resource.Marine protected areas have been shown to significantly increase biodiversity and fish numbers in the surrounding areas.

Amend Objective 1.5.1.5 to support and campaign for additional Marine Protected areas particularly around the Mokohinau Islands, and the North end of Great Barrier and/or Rakitu Island. Study and consider Little Barrier.

1.5.1.5 Objective Accept in partThe Marine Protected Areas Policy and implementation Plan (MPA Policy) has been developed to assist the government achieve the marine protection targets established in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and is intended to guide the development of a comprehensive network of marine protected areas representative of the full range of New Zealand’s marine habitats and ecosystems. DOC and the Ministry for Primary Industries are the lead government agencies responsible for implementing the MPA Policy.




37/2

Maximise public access to foreshore areas wherever possible.

Retain Objective 1.5.1.16.1.5.1.16 Objective AcceptThe objective is about seeking better integrated management for values and activities that cross

37/3




between, or have effects that cross between, public conservation land and adjoining foreshore. Inclusion of foreshore within public conservation land may affect the forms of public access (e.g. vehicle use restrictions) and may require permit-only entry in a very few cases (e.g. adjoining nature reserves), but mostly public access would not be affected. Maximising public access may not always be desirable, e.g. if involving vehicle use in a bird colony area.

The major barrier to development of Great Barrier as a Gateway and use of the Aotea Walk, is the cost, frequency, and difficulty of transport, which even for Aucklanders is comparable to reaching popular South Island destinations.

Inferred: Amend Section 1.5.3 to include a policy which actively encourages cross-subsidisation of access with more heavily used, profitable routes, as an investment.


Accept in partInsert a new objective into Section 1.5.3 to read: "Work with ferry and other transport operators, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and other agencies to enhance transport services to the Gulf Islands".

It is acknowledged that transport services to Great Barrier Island can sometimes be costly and infrequent and that this can make this island inaccessible to some. Not only does this limit individuals choices as to where to go but it also means that the Department is less able to influence visitor loadings (and impacts) throughout islands in the Gulf. It is appropriate to insert an objective to work with agenise responsible for funding and delivering transport services to Great Barrier to explore options for enhancing the services.

37/4

Extreme care needs to be taken that any business partnerships with DOC enhance and do not compromise the environment and experience of wild places, especially where on-site facilities are planned.

Inferred: Submission requests that:(1) A clause be inserted providing for consultation with local community groups whenever any significant structure or change in use is planned: and(2) Wherever possible avoid compromise of natural peace and quiet, and wild scenery.

1.5.5 More business opportunities

Accept in part1.5.5 needs to be read alongside all other relevant provisions in the CMS (and legislation and general policy). Business partnerships, of which there are already many with DOC, are about delivering increased conservation gains, not overriding conservation values. The requested text insertions are already covered by other CMS provisions.

37/5

Extreme care needs to be taken that any business partnerships with DOC enhance and do not compromise the environment and experience of wild places, especially where on-site facilities are planned.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.1.5.5.10 Objective Accept in part1.5.5 needs to be read alongside all other relevant provisions in the CMS ( and legislation and general policy). Business partnerships, of which there are already many with DOC, are about delivering increased conservation gains, not overriding

37/6




conservation values.Generally support. Encourage access and care, particularly water quality issues, and riparian strip planting including on tributaries.

Retain Section 1.6.1.6 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park

AcceptSection 1.6 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.37/7

Generally support. Creates corridors for biodiversity. Retain Section 1.7.1.7 Waikato River - Te Awa o Waikato

NotedSection 1.7 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.37/8

With its proximity to large population, the Auckland area has been overfished both by commercial and recreational interests.Marine protected areas have been shown to significantly increase biodiversity and fish numbers in the surrounding areas.

Inferred: Insert policies relating to additional marine reserves.



37/9

Unless this is a proven threat (and it is noted that a number of Gulf Islands have remained pest free despite frequent visitors) - oppose. Include this clause only as a last resort, if actual incursions are occurring a result of anchoring/mooring.

Delete Policy 2.3.7.2.3.7 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.5.9 has been amended to reflect that, if monitoring shows it is necessary, the Department will consult with tangata whenua and the community over any options to increase protection to the Island or prohibit the mooring and anchoring of boats.

37/10

Support. Retain Policy 2.5.2.2.5.2 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.5.2 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

37/11

This is not practicable, as it would include all safe anchorages for this island group, in particular the usual and historic landing access to Burgess Island, and the sheltered cove on the North side of Hokoromea Island. These Islands are now becoming a fishing destination by fast power boats from the mainland, including Auckland. The Islands have exceptional marine biodiversity. Consider a Marine Reserve around all or part of the Islands

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.5.2 by:(1) Deleting provision restricting access; and(2) Promoting a marine reserve around all or part of the Islands.

2.5.9 Policy Accept in part(1) The description and Policy 2.5.9 have been amended to reflect that, if monitoring shows it is necessary, the Department will consult with tangata whenua and the community over any options to reclassify the island or prohibit the mooring and anchoring of boats.

(2) The Marine Protected Areas Policy and implementation Plan (MPA Policy) has been developed to assist the government achieve the marine protection targets established in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and is intended to guide the development of a comprehensive network of marine protected areas representative of the full range of New Zealand’s marine habitats and ecosystems. DOC and the Ministry for Primary Industries are the lead government agencies responsible for implementing the MPA Policy.

37/12







Great Barrier has historic and scenic values worthy of development as a tourist destination and Great Walk, but cost and convenience of access remains a problem. Any development needs to recognize the priorities and local culture of the residents, most of whom greatly value their isolation, privacy, and basic lifestyle. In times of adverse boating weather, walking on the island is becoming more popular with the sailing fraternity.

Support reclassification as a Conservation Park

Aotea Track - look for a coastal extension if possible.

Consider addition of land to the DOC estate on the South-western peninsula of Port Fitzroy around Redcliff Cove, Smokehouse Bay etc if/when available,


Accept in partThe appropriateness of national reserve or conservation park status for conservation land on Great Barrier has not yet been fully investigated. There does not appear to be any clear advantage in excluding one or the other classification through the CMS. Further consultation on which classification is more appropriate will be undertaken at the time the proposal is advanced.

The Department supports the submitter's request that an extension of the track network should include making tracks more accessible to the coast. The paragraph which starts "As a gateway destination.." in the Outcome to read:

37/13




due to its exceptional scenic values.

Consider creating more access points to the track system from various points where boats are likely to be moored in adverse weather.

"The Department and Auckland Council work cooperatively to extend the track network to better connect recreation opportunities located in different parts of the island, including to popular anchorages."

The submitter's views on the scenic values of land on the south-western peninsula of Port Fitzroy is noted. However, future land acquisition is not a matter that will be addressed through the CMS.

Generally support. Retain Policy 2.6.1.2.6.1 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.6.1 retained with amendments in response to other submissions.

37/14

Generally support. Retain Policy 2.6.2.2.6.2 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.6.2 retained.37/15








Generally support. Retain Policy 2.6.10.2.6.10 Policy Policy 2.6.10 retained.37/23



Encourage scientific research and follow-up of marine, bird, and residual flora and their contribution to the dynamics of the harbour environment.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.7.3 Policy NotedObjectives in Sections 1.5.1 and 1.5.4 support conservation outcomes directed at increasing

37/26




Facilitate public access points to the harbour, and riparian access and appropriate active planting.

understanding of flora, fauna and ecosystems and the integration between land and sea (marine and wetland protection, ecological corridors, community conservation initiatives).

Consider a suitable site for a replacement hut and also a campsite - perhaps Coppermine Bay. Add further land if/when available.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.8.5 Policy NotedNote support for Policy 2.8.5.

Policy 2.8.5 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS and will enable consideration being given to a campground at Coppermine Bay.

37/27

We feel it would be very unwise to undertake large scale removal of the existing forest at one time; this would result in destruction of the shelter for the Mansion House area, its gardens, and the adjacent harbour and create a wind tunnel for the prevailing South-westerly winds through Ladies Bay and the Mansion House valley. It would also create a perfect environment for weed growth, creating a maintenance problem and destroying the historic and scenic qualities of the Place. Any commercial/concession values would also be detrimentally affected.We would want to see carefully planned graduated removal and replacement of the forest sheltering Mansion House, in such a way as to maintain shelter and scenic values.Research and recreation of the historic gardens, flora and fauna, within reason.Retention of the wallabies, both for visitor interest and as an educational tool and contrast to Places in which pest removal has allowed recovery of original flora.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.8 Kawau Island Place

Accept in partInsert a new policy to read: "Remove exotic trees within the Kawau Island Historic Reserve to enhance public safety and ecological values where this is consistent with the restoration of the historic and cultural landscape".

While the 'Outcome' and 'Milestones' both refer to the removal of some trees neither section provides guidance as to the extent or circumstances of removal. As such it is considered appropriate to insert an additional policy to clarify this.

37/28

Despite the long period of occupation, Motuora has always been free of mammalian pests.This is despite long-time farming and uninterrupted boat access to the island, and shows that in the absence of a wharf the risk of introduction of pests from public boat access is low: Bear this in mind when considering the pro’s and con’s of public access to pest-free islands elsewhere.Note also that recovery of vegetation is slow on the windward SW exposed side where sheltering pines were removed early in the restoration project: Lessons

The decision requested by the submission is unclear.2.9 Motuora Island Place

NotedThe submitter’s views on the absence of mammalian pests and recovery of vegetation on Motuora are noted.

37/29




to be learned here.Support - Expanding the range of accommodation options, utilizing existing infrastructure as much as possible, to enable visitors to better explore both islands by foot, kayak, boat or bicycle.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.11 Motutapu and Rangitoto Islands Place

NotedThe submitter's views are noted.

37/30

Support mountain biking on a trial basis. We do not see the need to prohibit people from bringing their own bikes: bikes seem no more likely to introduce mammalian pests than backpacks or kayaks or boats; and as for weed seeds, Motutapu has a full complement of common weeds already. This appears to be a protection clause for a prospective concessionaire (see 2.11.7).

Continue with trial without controls on people bringing own bikes.

2.11 MTB proposal - Q3 (restrictions & limits)

Accept in partThe mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.

37/31

Support retention and restoration of any remaining baches, with the co-operation of owners and/or the Rangitoto Historic Conservation Trust.

Inferred: Retain Policy 2.11.11.2.11.11 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.11.11 retained.37/32

Support. Retain Policy 2.11.2.2.11.2 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.11.2 retained.37/33


Support. In particular, retain historic trees and open spaces at the NW end of the island. This area would lend itself to a restoration of the Victorian/Edwardian open park style historically planted there.


Support. Neighbouring islands are being restored to dense vegetation, which will eventually block views of the city and gulf; this Island can provide a contrast with an open pastoral walking environment and wonderful views for a short walk.


There is an omission in the Appendices relating to the future management of all tracks and huts in the Conservancy. We note a list of tracks appears in Appendix 1, but this list is for the purposes of the Resource Management Act only, and gives no indication of what work or future management is to be done in each case. Such information should be an integral part of the document as huts in particular, and some tracks and other facilities can have a lifespan of up to fifty years. As such, it is essential they be treated as strategic assets and subject to long-term planning

(1) Identify all tracks and huts in Appendices; and(2) Include a strategic plan for each hut/ track.

General RejectThe purpose of Appendix 1 is to identify which of the Department's works or activities are exempt from requiring a land use consent. It is not meant to be an exhaustive list of tracks and other assets in conservancy. Therefore, it is possible that some tracks will not be included in this appendix. A CMS is not meant to be an asset management plan. Consequently it does not require the level and type of information that the submitter is seeking to be included. The introductory text does explain that the

37/37




and, in some cases, public consultation which such assets demand.

table does not imply that the facilities included within it will be managed in perpetuity. No changes will be made to the document.

Submitter: Mighty River Power LimitedMighty River Power wishes to raise the following issues for the Department's consideration in preparing the CMS:(1) The establishment of a clear link between the Conservation Act 1987, the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘RMA’) and other conservation legislation through the use of appropriate policy criteria within the CMS.(2) Acknowledgment that while the CMS is prepared under the Conservation Act, there is a strong case for an integrated management approach that incorporates conservation with the sustainable management of resources and the use and development issues addressed through the RMA framework.(3) Ensure that CMS policies are appropriate and do not unnecessarily restrain existing electricity generation operations (both non renewable and future renewable) within the Auckland region.(4) Increase the transparency of the Department’s data collection and information to aid better policy decisions to be made.(5) Endorse better private/public partnerships to achieve conservation outcomes both on public and private land.(6) Recommend that the Department does not adopt a protection at all costs philosophy on privately owned land outside conservation lands as well as identifying the conservation values and strategies for the whole conservancy which, in turn, will identify important conservation values and aid future mitigation to occur - both on-site and offsite.(7) Ensure the CMS provides certainty for all land-owners within the conservancy as to what conservation values apply to their land. (8) Take a measured approach to environmental mitigation that recognises some level of effect is anticipated and acceptable in an RMA framework.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.General NotedThe introductory section of the Auckland CMS acknowledges that CMSs are part of a wider planning landscape and that in preparing CMSs, the Conservation General Policy requires that regard be had to local government planning documents. This would include plans and policy statements prepared under the RMA.

The priority values for the CMS are identified for the whole of the conservancy, regardless of whether they are located on or off public conservation land and waters.

Whilst the CMS include general policies, the current CMSs are “place based”. The CMS identifies specific geographic areas which require specific management for priority issues in those places. The CMS does not identify conservation values for all land across all of the conservancy. It focuses on priority sites.

The provision of electricity generation is not considered a priority issue within any of the identified places. Whilst there are also no general or specific place based policies which provide for existing electricity generation operations within the Auckland region, there are no policies which constrain those activities either.

In the absence of specific policies in a CMS, electricity generation operations which are located on public conservation land or waters would be subject to policy 11.3 Utilities of the General Conservation Policy: which state that utilities would require an authorisation and may be provided for on conservation land under certain circumstances outlined in the policy.

38/1




Note that it is important that the CMS acknowledges that infrastructure activities should be authorised in some instances as per Conservation General Policy 13.

The Department does not adopt a protection at all costs philosophy on privately owned land. For electricity generation operations which are not located on public conservation land or waters, the activities would be subject to the Resource Management Act, and the Department when considering whether to advocate for conservation in any RMA process their response would be guided by the significance of the natural values of the sites affected. This would be no different for any RMA matter they may consider being involved in.

However, the Department’s statutory authority for being involved in an RMA process is based on its functions outlined in the Conservation Act 1987, which seeks the protection of natural and historical resources, which is different from the purpose of the RMA, which is enabling. It is not appropriate to an enabling approach within a CMS.

Submitter: Great Barrier Island Charitable TrustThe Trust is aware of the recent severe government cut backs to DOC budgets and emphasise the excellent work being done by the small residual group of DOC staff on the Island. However given the national significance of the Island, and future plans for pest eradication and community involvement in conservation, the Trust wants more staff on the Island for the following reasons:(1) The Island is the single largest percentage of the land area of the Conservancy (42%)(2) DOC manages over 60% of land area of Island(3) The Island hosts the largest percentage of the Conservancies threatened species (100%)(4) The Island is vulnerable to threats - pests and fireThe Island appears in almost all of the "key ecosystems and habitats" (Appendix 2)

Provide more staff on Great Barrier Island.2.6 Great Barrier Island Place

RejectStaffing is an operational matter and will not be addressed through the CMS.39/1

Para 61, p. 6 - Support need for better protection. Recommend highest protection status available - e.g. national reserve status. Identify six places of special value:(1) Rakitu Island - (weka, potential for seabird

Inferred: (1) Retain proposal for increased protection; and(2) Purchase of Glenfern Sanctuary.


Accept in partThe proposal to reclassify conservation lands on Great Barrier to better reflect their conservation values is retained.

39/2




restoration)(2) Whangapoua Estuary & Okiwi spit (brown teal, NZ dotterel and migratory waders)(3) Hirakimata (relict conifer forest ecosystem, black petrel, kakariki and other rare bird species)(4) Kaitoke Swamp (refuge for bittern, fernbird, spotless crake and possible march crake, rare orchards)(5) Te Ahumata (historic heritage, rare plants)(6) Te Paparahi (last location of kokako, Ngati Rehua interest).

Would encourage purchase of Glenfern Sanctuary if it becomes available.

The submitter's request to purchase Glenfern Sanctuary is noted. However, future land acquisition is not a matter that will be addressed through the CMS.

Rakitu (p. 66)It is essential that best practice be used here to provide a 'model' for the community. The Trust recommends 'small wins quickly'. First step to form a approach to pest management with Ngati Rehua, local people, Trust and other interested parties. Rakitu provides opportunity to test community based model for determining future state of Great Barrier and to provide economic and educational benefits to the Island population which will in tern benefit conservation in the long run.

Black Petrel (p. 66)At current rates of decline the Black Petrel will be extinct as a species in 30 years. Protection of breeding population must be included in 3 year output. Submission recommends and outlines a number of specific methods to include.

Kokako (p. 66)Trust assumes that either a fence or island wide eradication will be in place by 2019 to achieve the milestone for year 5 regarding the return of Kokako. Interim goal is needed to outline how this to be achieved.

(1) Add a 3 year milestone as follows "Rakitu eradicated of pests by 2018 and restoration commenced;(2) Add a 3 year milestone to increase protection of the breeding population of Black Petrel;(3) Add a 3 year milestone specifically setting out how pest eradication at Te Paparahi will occur to read: "Report back on the technical feasibility of returning Kokako to the Island".


Accept in partThe submitter's views about approaching pest management on Rakitu are noted. The following new milestone has been added regarding eradicating rats from Rakitu Island:

Completed by the end of Year 3 after CMS approval (2017):


The following new milestone has also been added to Year 3 to gather the technical information needed to return kokako to Great Barrier Island:

"Report on the technical feasibility of returning kokako to Aotea has been completed."

A milestone regarding increasing the protection of the breeding population of black petrel on Great Barrier has not been added. The outcome and Policies 2.6.1 and 2.6.2 provide for the protection of black petrel.

39/3

Trust supports mountain bikes on formed roads but not in any of the Te Paparahi-Whangapoua Estuary-Hirakimata-Kaitoke Swamp area (Te Whenua o Rehua) tracks because of their high ecological values and the

Amend Policy 2.6.5 to exclude mountain bikes on the Paparahi-Whangapoua Estuary-Hirakimata-Kaitoke Swamp area (Te Whenua o Rehua) tracks

2.6.5 Policy RejectPolicy 2.6.5 will not be amended. Policy 2.6.5 refers to criteria listed in Policy 3.3.6. Policy 3.3.6 c) already provides criteria to exclude mountain biking

39/4




threat to the endangered biodiversity within. from areas of high ecological values.If the island is to be an attractive place to visitors (p61) and be one of the few places where visitors can enjoy a recreational experience in a backcountry setting that is distant from the influence of the city (p67) then aircraft landings need to be very limited rather than occasional.

Amend Policy 2.6.8 to refer to 'very limited landings'.2.6.8 Policy RejectPolicy 2.6.8 limits aircraft landings on Okiwi Recreation Reserve to those required for pasture management. Adding the words "very limited", as requested by the submitter, is not considered appropriate for Policy 2.6.8. "Very limited" is not a term used in the CMS to describe aircraft landings. The 4 terms used in the CMS to describe the frequency of aircraft encounters are "rare", "occasional", "regular" and "frequent". "Rare" describes an aircraft encounter on public conservation land as being 1% or less of the time, equating to 4 landings per year.

In some years, it may be necessary to allow more than 4 aircraft landings in order to manage the pasture on Okiwi Recreation Reserve. The wording of Policy 2.6.8 will therefore remain as it is.

39/5

If the island is to be an attractive place to visitors (p61) and be one of the few places where visitors can enjoy a recreational experience in a backcountry setting that is distant from the influence of the city (p67) then aircraft landings need to be very limited rather than occasional.

Amend Policy 2.6.9 to refer to 'very limited landings'.2.6.9 Policy RejectPolicy 2.6.9 provides for concessions for "occasional" aircraft landings to be considered on Rakitu Island Scenic Reserve and in open coastal areas of Harataonga Recreation Reserve, Overtons Beach Marginal Strip, Whakatautuna Point Marginal Strip and Harataonga Bay Marginal Strip. Landings are not generally allowed adjacent to Overtons Beach during peak visitor periods (from Boxing Day to Waitangi Day and during Easter).

In the amended aircraft section in Part 3 - Specific policy requirements for Auckland Conservancy, "occasional" is defined as visitors would be likely to encounter aircraft on average 5% of the time. This would equate to 20 landings per year.

"Very limited" as requested by the submitter is not a term used by the CMS. The term "rare" would be more stringent than "occasional". It would equate to 4 landings per annum. The public conservation land listed in Policy 2.6.9 is in the 'Backcountry' visitor management zone. The desired visitor experience in

39/6




this zone is that visitors are generally accepting of occasional intrusion of noise. It is therefore considered appropriate to retain the word "occasional" in Policy 2.6.9.

If the island is to be an attractive place to visitors (p61) and be one of the few places where visitors can enjoy a recreational experience in a backcountry setting that is distant from the influence of the city (p67) then aircraft landings need to be very limited rather than occasional.

Amend Policy 2.6.10 to refer to 'very limited landings'.2.6.10 Policy RejectPolicy 2.6.10 provides for concessions for "occasional" aircraft landings to be considered in open coastal areas of Te Paparahi Conservation Area, south of Miners Cove and south of Rangiwhakaea Bay only.

In the amended aircraft section in Part 3 - Specific policy requirements for Auckland Conservancy, "occasional" is defined as visitors would be likely to encounter aircraft on average 5% of the time. This would equate to 20 landings per year.

"Very limited" as requested by the submitter is not a term used by the CMS. The term "rare" would be more stringent than "occasional". It would equate to 4 landings per annum. The public conservation land listed in Policy 2.6.10 is in the 'Backcountry' visitor management zone. The desired visitor experience in this zone is that visitors are generally accepting of occasional intrusion of noise. It is therefore considered appropriate to retain the word "occasional" in Policy 2.6.10.

39/7

Submitter: Aquaculture New ZealandAn important part of DOC's role is to support the implementation of the NZCPS and thus the CMS should broadly uphold the provisions of the NZCPS. Aquaculture NZ notes that CMS does not necessarily do this particularly in respect to Policy 8 - Aquaculture. As it appears to give undue emphasis to the perceived threats relating to aquaculture without recognising its contribution.

Of significant concern is the specific inclusion of aquaculture as either a pressure/threat, particularly in policies which require significant monitoring to minimise effects within the CMS. We do recognise that, like all activities in the coastal marine area,

Amend CMS to:(1) Broadly uphold the provisions of the NZCPS particularly as they pertain to Policy 8 - Aquaculture; and(2) Apply careful application of consistency and evidence to the identification of threats and potential sources of conflict across the draft CMS.

General Accept in part(1) Noted: The NZCPS is intended to be read and implemented as a whole. (2) Accept in part: Where there is reference to aquaculture, it will not be singled out in isolation of other potential threats or pressures.

40/1




aquaculture needs to be well planned for, and carefully sited. However with strong regulation around setting up a new aquaculture activity and monitoring its effects, we do not think that the level of reference currently included in the CMS is justified. Nor will it assist aquaculture to contribute to the region’s economy as the Government intends. A further example of the inconsistent approach to ‘threats’ is that in some policies identified threats include ‘overfishing’ and ‘aquaculture’. This implies that some fishing is fine but that ‘overfishing’ is a threat (which makes sense) but that aquaculture, in any form, whether planned for carefully and monitored or not, is a threat by its very definition. This is unacceptable.

We are particularly concerned about the risks associated with the weight that may be given to the ‘pressures/threats’ that are specified in the CMS by a decision maker (e.g. regional council or Board of Inquiry) when there does not appear to have been a consistent approach toidentification of the pressures and threats in the CMS.Support vision particularly in relating to "healthy ecosystems. . . Prosperity". These principles align with ours.

Retain long term vision to 2060.1.2 Vision for Auckland - 2060

NotedThe Vision remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.40/2

Supports intention to "work with others to undertake strategic and integrated catchment management around harbours and estuaries". Growing water quality is paramount to aquaculture. Request to be included in any discussions.

Retain Section 1.5.1 with respect to integrated catchment management.


AcceptSupport noted for Objective 1.5.1.11.

40/3

Support comments that "developing collaborative partnerships with Iwi, business, local authorities and communities is essential" and notes that aquaculture also relies on natural resources and ecosystems.

Inferred: Retain 1.5.4 with respect to statement relating to collaborative partnerships.

1.5.4 More people engage

Support noted.

40/4

Supports (c ). Maintaining biodiversity in the coastal marine area is vital for the aquaculture industry. Aquaculture NZ has prepared a biodiversity policy and associated industry codes of practice to manage adverse impacts of pests/ pathogenic organisms. However

Inferred: Retain Objective 1.5.4.1(c ).1.5.4.1 Objective AcceptSupport noted.40/5




biosecurity relies on all vectors being managed and a collaborative approach both in terms of policy development and implementation.Aquaculture sector offers potential to create jobs, associated industries and inject export earnings into local communities. Within Auckland, regional economies in Kaipara Harbour, Great Barrier and Hauraki Gulf are supported by aquaculture activities. Auckland stands to gain significantly from the growth potential of aquaculture. Also opportunities for sector to explore opportunities with Maori. Aquaculture is efficient form of food production and is considered a sustainable solution to feeding the world.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.1.5.5 More business opportunities

NotedThe Aquaculture NZ stance is outside the brief of, and not challenged by, the CMS and it is hoped that New Zealand aquaculture interests can work well with DOC to the advantage of both conservation and aquaculture.

40/6

Aquaculture NZ recognises the international importance of the Firth of Thames/Tikapa Moana Wetland however we object to the comment that ‘aquaculture has the potential to threaten water quality and feeding habitats within the Wetland’. In actual fact a study ‘commissioned as a result of stakeholders’ concerns over possible effects of the proposed Western Firth aquaculture developments on the Ramsar wetland’ 3 found that ‘by far the greatest influence on the shorebird habitat appears to be from terrestrial drivers, including the generation and delivery of sediments, organic material and nutrients’. Accordingly, the potential influence of aquaculture is minor in comparison to i.e. wastewater discharges and furthermore, it would only be future aquaculture activities that may influence water quality in the wetland if not properly sited and managed. ‘Threaten’ is a more emotive term than ‘stressor’ and the text does not accuratelyrepresent the relative levels of risk. Indeed aquaculture industry members operating in the Hauraki Gulf have real concerns about,and direct experience relating to, the significant impacts on the Gulf water quality due to sedimentation and nutrients arising from land-based activities.

Amend wording on p. 108 Section 2.15 to more adequately represent that future aquaculture may potentially have a minor impact on water quality in the wetland.


AcceptThe last sentence of the description in the paragraph beginning 'the wetland and wider.." has been amended to reflect that aquaculture may only have a minor impact on the water quality of the wetland by changing to: Aquaculture also has the potential to impact water quality and feeding habitats within the Wetland where not appropriately managed

40/7

The terminology in the policies for 2.15 unfairly skews the relative impact of aquaculture with respect to other activities in the region. AQNZ notes that 2.15.3 pairs aquaculture with adverse impacts’ whereas in 2.15.1 no

Inferred: Amend policies in Section 2.15 to accurately reflect impacts of aquaculture on the Firth of Thames/ Tikapa Moana Wetland.

2.15 Firth of Thames/ Tikapa Moana Wetlands Place - policies -

AcceptThe wording in Policy 2.15.3 has been amended to reflect that fishing and aquaculture are not the only marine based activities which may adversely impact




particular industry is identified in relation to ‘catchment- wide impacts’ and in 2.15.4 activities such as freedom camping and litter and pollution management are only associated with ‘habitat and ecosystem values’.

general on the Wetland.40/8

Aquaculture NZ notes that the Northland CMS contains a policy to ‘advocate for responsible land-based rural activities that do not detrimentally affect naturalenvironments and ecosystems’. This is an issue of particular importance to aquaculture, as marine farms can be significantly affected by activities on the land without having any particular ability to mitigate them. Request policy also included in Auckland CMS.

Amend Part Two to include additional policy to read: advocate for responsible land-based rural activities that do not detrimentally affect natural environments and ecosystems’.

Part Two - Places - general

AcceptThe Department supports the submitter's view about the need to advocate for responsible land-based activities to minimise their impact on the marine environment. A similar policy to the one mentioned in the Northland CMS is contained in Section 2.15 - see Policy 2.15.1. A new policy regarding has been added to Section 2.7.

40/9

Submitter: Jude SmithAllowing non-motorised aircraft to use Fort Takapuna enhances amenity values for all. People love watching them. They do not detract from people's enjoyment or pose a hazard as implied in policy.

Amend Policy 2.14.4 to read: "Allow aircraft landings on or take-offs of non-motorised aircraft from Fort Takapuna Historic Reserve, subject to this activity avoiding any adverse effects on the safety and enjoyment of other visitors".


Paragliders have long used North Head as a launch and landing site. The use is restricted to a few at a time, which is made very clear by the Auckland club. The wording of the Policy 2.14.8 infers that permission for this use may be withdrawn without any discussion with the NZHGPA and also raises the possibility of not allowing top landings on the site with the reference to Policy 3.4.2 which covers landing by motorised aircraft, which a paraglider isn't, so the meaning is unclear. Pilots are well trained in safe flying techniques in order to qualify in the first place. Any possible future change in usage rights needs to be discussed first with the local NZHGPA representatives .Decision sought:Change the wording in Policy 2.14.8 from "may allow" to "allows" and delete the reference to Policy 3.4.2 which covers motorised aircraft.

Amend Policy 2.14.8 by:(1) Deleting the word "may"; and(2) Deleting the reference to Policy 3.4.2.


Submitter: Simon FordhamDespite being a Conservation Management Strategy, this document is heavily weighted towards the management of visitors to the Island.

Rewrite Section 2.10 in a balanced way that takes into account all of the aspects of conservation management.


NotedPolicies are included where it is necessary to specifically constrain or enable an activity in order to achieve the Outcomes for that Place or where the 42/1




Outcomes of that Place do not provide sufficient direction. As there are complex issues relating to visitor access and the potential impacts of visitor activities on Tiritiri Matangi the CMS needs to have a number of policies to guide decision-making and management direction for the Island. Rather than representing a shift in emphasis away from the conservation, the presence of policies relating to visitor management are directed at constraining/ managing visitors. The Description and Outcomes when read in conjunction with Part 1 are considered to provide sufficient direction in terms of biodiversity however it is considered that the readability/ structure of the document could be enhanced by including the following words in the description of policies (Introduction and Part Three): “policies are included where it is necessary to constrain or enable an activity in order to achieve an outcome for a Place”.

Clause (a) (i)- Oppose introduction of 7-day ferry service. Time out is needed for a number of activities, such as outward translocations, in the absence of visitors. Status quo (5 days per week) should be retained.

Clause (a) (v) - Oppose the introduction of additional guided persons. A full ferry (170) already places pressure on guiding opportunities on the Island.

Amend Policy 2.10.5 by:(1) Rewording Clause (a) (i) to refer to five day per week service only;(2) Rewording Clause (a) (v) to apply to all visitors, including guided; andInferred: (3) Delete Clause (a) (iii).

2.10.5 Policy Accept in part(1) A seven day a week service currently operates over the peak period and does not disrupt other activities. A additional policy has been added to allow DOC to set days aside to undertake translocations and the like which reads: "May set aside days when visitor access is limited to Tiritiri Matangi to provide for Department of Conservation management purposes or activities approved by the Department".

(2) Clause (a) (v) as worded applies to commercial vessels accessing the wharf, including water taxis, and over which we therefore have some control. We cannot extend this to apply to private vessels as we do not have the same level of control private vessels using our wharf are not required to obtain a wharf use permit, nor are their passengers required to obtain permits. We can note that if private vessels arrive at the same time as the ferry, then we would expect normal wharf etiquette to apply (i.e.. do not tie up and prevent access by the ferry etc).

42/2




(3) Clause (a) (iii) is intended to provide for additional numbers on the island if evening walks or special events are held. There has been a demand for such activities, which have been successful, and we are therefore providing for this in the CMS. Such activities will be carefully controlled and managed, by applying Policy 2.10.5 (c).

Clause (e) - Whilst I don’t oppose some increase in the number of overnight visitors, a 150% increase from the current 20 is excessive. It would place undue pressure on the infrastructure, reduce the enjoyment of other visitors and create unprecedented Health & Safety issues.

Amend Policy 2.10.8 (e) to limit overnight visitors to 30.2.10.8 Policy RejectIn considering proposals for new overnight accommodation the criteria in Policy 2.10.8 will need to be considered in conjunction with those in Policy 3.8.6 (not 3.8.6 as incorrectly referenced in the draft). Collectively these two policies provide considerable emphasis on ensuring that any new buildings and the uses associated with it are appropriate to the Place. While it is acknowledged that the limit of 50 could be arbitrary to a certain extent, any proposal would have to meet all other criteria as well as signified by the use of the word "and" in the policy. Thus simply staying below the limit of 50 would not be sufficient for a proposal to be approved. Any proposal would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and demonstrate compliance with all criteria including those in Policy 3.8.5 relating to the outcomes for the place and impacts on recreational values.

42/3

Strongly oppose helicopter visits for other than Island management purposes (e.g. translocations), visiting dignitaries or emergency situations. Such visits would impact on the visitor experience and is not appropriate to a wildlife sanctuary

Delete Policy 2.10.9.2.10.9 Policy Accept1) Delete Policy 2.10.9 and replace with the following: "Should not allow aircraft landings on Tiritiri Matangi Island, to protect the visitor experience and avoid adverse effects on natural, historic, cultural and amenity values." ; (2) Change the aircraft zoning for Tiritiri to "red" on the aircraft access zone maps: and(3) Delete Policy 3.4.5(g).

Changing the aircraft zoning to red and making the changes to related policies will establish a regime where aircraft landings are only allowed for search and rescue, departmental management purposes, emergency situations, maritime navigational aid management or land survey work as noted in Part

42/4




Three (p. 114).


Submitter: NZ Transport AgencyNote that DOC's Statement of Intent as expressed through CMS is generally aligned with NZ Transport Agency's (NZTA) key operating Policy for environmental and social responsibility.

Integration with other agencies:Consider that CMS needs to highlight alignment with other agencies that can support vision. In this respect the NZTA's role in supporting (funding) both state highway and local road development (those of territorial authorities) to provide access to place destinations should be identified. Key to achieving DOC's outcomes in terms of accessibility to the wider community is ensuring all road controlling authorities (which include DOC) work together to align funding and programmes.

Recognition of existing interactions:Currently the NZTA works with DOC at both national and local levels and is finalising a MOU with DOC with protocols for interaction in three areas:(1) Strategic issues - CMS, conservation and biodiversity policies(2) Planning - designing and building new roads (inside and outside DOC estate)(3) Maintenance of existing roads, in particular within

Amend CMS by:(1) Include Policy that seeks alignment with all other agencies that have a role in assisting achievement of outcomes sought within relevant sections; and(2) Providing recognition to three interactions identified in MOU between DOC and NZ Transport Agency together with examples.

General Accept(1) Add the following explanatory text to Section 1.5.4: "The Department works with a wide range of other statutory agencies to achieve common objectives and mutually agreed priorities. Examples are: ..NZ Transport Agency on transport services and funding..";(2) " Add a new policy to Section 1.5.3 to read: "Work with ferry and other transport operators, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and other agencies to enhance transport services to the Gulf Islands".

Within Auckland where the bulk of public conservation land is on the Gulf Islands, the main issue in terms of transport infrastructure relates to transport to and within the islands and the department needs to work with transport providers, planners and funders to enhance services to the islands. The changes reflect that this is the main way the Department and NZTA can work together to support the direction set out in the CMS. The changes to Section 1.5.4 are not limited to working towards increasing accessibility to the Gulf Islands however and the CMS does not preclude co-operation on other matters of mutual interest.

43/1




the DOC estate.CMS should explain these interactions and give examples of processes.

Providing further detail beyond the changes outlines above is inappropriate within the CMS.

Submitter: New Zealand Historic Places TrustAppendix 1 identifies the maintenance of historic places subject to ICOMOS and NZHPT standards and the stabilisation of historic assets as being exempt from requiring land use consents. The NZHPT supports acknowledgement of these standards but considers that they are important enough to be included in the main text. A requirement for consultation with NZHPT should also be included.

The ICOMOS standards should be correctly referred to as the "ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value (Revised 2010)."

Appendix 1 indicates that Historic Places Act 1993 applies, but this needs to be included in the Introduction section, with a statement that the Act (Sections 10 to 20A ) would apply to works on any archaeological site, or where there is reasonable cause to suspect a site may exist.

Amend CMS by:(1) Referencing compliance with NZHPT standards and guidelines and the ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value (Revised 2010) in main text; and(2) Including a paragraph under "Legislative Tools" along the following lines: "While certain activities may be exempt from resource consent under Section 4(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991, this does not preclude the requirement to abide by heritage best practice to assess effects on archaeological sites in regards avoidance in the first instance or to obtain consent under other relevant legislation such as the Historic Places Act 1993 - which may require an application for an Authority to destroy, damage or modify an archaeological site."

Legislative tools Accept in part(1) This specific section relates to where the Department has exemptions from the requirement to obtain a land use consent. This is not considered the correct place to have additional detail regarding compliance with NZHPT standards, guidelines and ICOMOS.

(2) The 'Legislative Tools' section has already been partially amended, following similar submissions from Auckland Council that sought further explanation, that while an exemption for a land use consent may apply to conservation activities, this did not preclude compliance with other regulatory requirements under the RMA and other legislation. This paragraph could be extended to note compliance with archaeological authority provisions under the Historic Places Act 1993.

44/1

Appendix 1 identifies the maintenance of historic places subject to ICOMOS and NZHPT standards and the stabilisation of historic assets as being exempt from requiring land use consents. The NZHPT supports acknowledgement of these standards but considers that they are important enough to be included in the main text. A requirement for consultation with NZHPT should also be included.

The ICOMOS standards should be correctly referred to as the "ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value (Revised 2010)."

Appendix 1 indicates that Historic Places Act 1993 applies, but this needs to be included in the Introduction section, with a statement that the Act (Sections 10 to 20A ) would apply to works on any

Amend Appendix 1 to include a general requirement for consultation with NZHPT prior to such archaeological works being carried out.

Appendix 1 - RMA Accept in part(1) Although not the specific purpose of the appendix, it is considered helpful to indicate consultation with NZHPT is required prior to archaeological works being carried out. The following text shall be added to the introductory section of Appendix 1:

"Where work affecting historic assets potentially exempt from resource consent is planned, consultation would generally be expected with NZ Historic Places Trust prior to such works being carried out".

(2) The full title of the ICOMOS standard has been referred to in the Appendix 1 table, with the following wording:

44/2




archaeological site, or where there is reasonable cause to suspect a site may exist.

The ICOMOS standard refers specifically to the "ICOMOS New Zealand Charter for the Conservation of Places of Cultural Heritage Value (Revised 2010)".

Section 6 of the Conservation Act 1987 outlines DOC's functions to manage historic resources. However, the Vision seems to be somewhat focused on "nature conservation", with not enough attention paid to the protection of historic resources. It is noted that DOC aims to increase the amount of conservation work being achieved by building relationships with other agencies, which include the NZHPT. The Trust has statutory roles in respect of built heritage, archaeological sites and wahi tapu.

Amend CMS by:(1) Including reference to heritage resources in the definition of "prosperity" and as a benefit from nature conservation; and(2) Explicitly recognising the role of NZHPT in supporting heritage conservation.


Accept in part(1) Amend paragraph 4 of Section 1.2 to read: " -with 'prosperity' defined in the broadest environmental, heritage, cultural, social and economic terms".(2) Insert the following paragraph after paragraph 4 of the long term vision for Auckland: "Historic and cultural heritage sites are protected and provide a tangible link to the past. People understand and appreciate these sites and are committed to ensuring that they remain as a legacy to future generations" and(3) Amend the first paragraph in Section 1.5.2 by inserting the following sentence: "In developing these programmes, the Department will work with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust which has a statutory role in identifying, protecting, preserving and conserving the historic and cultural heritage of New Zealand, as appropriate".

The 'Vision' is intended to be aspirational and encompassing. Historic and cultural heritage sites are one of the distinctive features of the Auckland region. It contributes to the regions 'prosperity' in the broadest sense, including in some less tangible ways. While the last paragraph in the 'Long-term Vision' recognises that some destinations provide an opportunity to experience and connect with Auckland's historic heritage, this paragraph implies that this connection is through actually visiting the sites. This may not always be possible and the additional paragraph is intended to capture some aspirations in relation to the protection of less tangible values.

As noted above the Vision is meant to be aspirational - it is not intended to recognise the means by which DOC will work with others,

44/3




including the Historic Places Trust to achieve this vision and thus is not an appropriate place to recognise the Trusts role. These changes are more appropriately made in Section 1.5.2.

It is appreciated Section (1.3) is about identifying key themes. However, reference to historic and cultural heritage is limited to managing island refuges. There is also mainland historic and cultural heritage that requires management.

Amend Section 1.3 to include a key theme that specifically addresses the protection of historic and cultural heritage.

Part One - general NotedHistoric and cultural heritage on the mainland is addressed under the heading 'A land loved by many people (Tamaki Makaurau)' which includes reference to; Polynesian migration, Maori settlement nation-building, historic sites on public conservation land, coastal defences/ World War II, threats to heritage values and opportunities for increased engagement with historic sites.

44/4

This submissions relates in particular to:- the identification of threats to historic heritage (page 15); and- the opportunities for direct contribution to these sites' values and fabric (page 16).

Additional threats to historic and cultural heritage include the lack of expertise in conservation techniques, lack of resources, the pressure for more active recreation activities, visitor experiences and commercial opportunities that have potential to impact on historic heritage.

The expertise offered by NZHPT should be referred to.

Amend section to acknowledge the potential role of NZHPT and to outline the additional threats above.

1.3 Distinctive features, values and issues - Land loved by many people

Accept in part(1) Amend the last paragraph to read: "The main threats to historic heritage are: incomplete information and knowledge, or a lack of recording of the location of archaeological sites; degradation from natural processes (e.g. sea level rise, coastal erosion), inappropriate use; and use of inappropriate conservation techniques .."; and(2) Note the changes made to Section 1.5.2 in response to Submission 44/3 made by the Trust.

44/5

There are issues that need clarity regarding World Heritage status for Auckland Volcanic Fields which would be useful to include in the CMS. These include:- The status would be accorded not just because of natural heritage - the volcanic fields have important cultural and heritage elements too;- The volcanic fields are in a wide range of ownerships which in itself will present challenges to their management.

The discussion on implications is both incomplete and not comfortably located within a section that purportedly deals with diversity of natural heritage.

Amend Section 1.5.1 to clarify the issues that will be involved in achieving World Heritage status and the potential role of DOC (particularly given that it isn't the only landowner), along with explicit recognition that this status would reflect not only natural heritage but also cultural and historic heritage.


Accept in part(1) Insert the following paragraph into the description of Section 1.5.2: "The Auckland volcanic field has been nominated on New Zealand’s tentative list for World Heritage status, forfor mixed cultural and natural heritage values."; and

(2) Insert a new objectives in Sections 1.5.2 to read: "Progress the nomination of volcanic field sites within Auckland for World Heritage Area status sites, through working with tangata whenua, Auckland Council, local communities and others"; and

The Auckland volcanic field is being considered for

44/6




World Heritage status for both its natural and cultural values and it is appropriate to include references to this (and a policy) in Section 1.5.2 also.

The issues involved in achieving WHA status do not need to be set out in the CMS. They are detail for the investigation and nomination process.

The development of historic icon destinations and actively conserved sites (Objective 1.5.2.6) needs to be in accordance with accepted conservation practice. This may require the adoption of improved standards of conservation management.

NZHPT has expertise that can be utilised by DOC. Relationship building with a wide range of stakeholders and experts will provide a more comprehensive process. The outcome would be an integrated and enhanced visitor experience consistent with DOC's vision for Auckland.

Milestone/outputs tend to focus on actively managed sites which are stable and not deteriorating. An appropriate milestone/output would also be the identification and remediation of actively managed sites that are deteriorating.

Amend Section 1.5.2 by:(1) Rewording Objective 1.5.2.6 to include reference to accepted conservation practice, and the adoption of improved standards of conservation management; and(2) Inserting a new objective which reads: "Consult and work with NZHPT (and other appropriate stakeholders) to utilise expertise to provide an integrated and enhanced visitor experience. "(3) The addition of a Milestone-Output requiring reporting on the number of actively managed sites that are deteriorating and how that deterioration may be reversed.


Accept(1) Amend Objective 1.5.2.6 to read: "Undertake conservation work (repair and maintenance) at actively conserved historic places (Appendix 12) having regard to conservation plans, national and international best practice and the ICOMOS NZ Charter.";(2) Insert a new objective in Section 1.5.2 to read: "Work with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, community heritage interest groups and others to protect historic and cultural heritage sites, and to utilise expertise to provide an integrated and enhanced visitor experience"; (3)Insert a new Year 3 milestone to read: "Report on the condition of the actively managed historic places listed in Appendix 12"; (4) Reword the Year 5 and Year 10 milestone to read: "Report on the condition of the actively managed historic places listed in Appendix 12" (4) Insert the following descriptive text in Section 1.5.4: The Department works with a wide range of other statutory agencies to achieve common objectives and mutually agreed priorities. Examples are ..NZ Historic Places Trust.."(1) Amend Objective 1.5.2.6 to read: "Undertake conservation work (repair and maintenance) at actively conserved historic places ( Appendix 12) having regard to conservation plans, national and international best practice and the ICOMOS NZ Charter.";(2) Insert a new objective in Section 1.5.2 to read: "Work with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, community heritage interest groups and others to protect historic and cultural heritage sites, and to utilise expertise to provide an integrated and

44/7




enhanced visitor experience"; (3)Insert a new Year 3 milestone to read: "Report on the condition of the actively managed historic places listed in Appendix 12"; (4) Reword the Year 5 and Year 10 milestone to read: "Report on the condition of the actively managed historic places listed in Appendix 12" (4) Insert the following descriptive text in Section 1.5.4: The Department works with a wide range of other statutory agencies to achieve common objectives and mutually agreed priorities. Examples are ..NZ Historic Places Trust.."(5) Insert the following milestones in 1.5.2: "Collaborative historic heritage restoration opportunities have been identified in conjuction with tangata whenua, New Zealand Historic Places Trust, the community and others. (Year 5); and"Report on the outcomes of collaborative historic heritage restoration projects. (Year 10)

Not only does the NZ Historic Places Trust have a statutory role in identifying, protecting, preserving and conserving the historical and cultural heritage of New Zealand but they and other groups can bring skills and knowledge which will assist in achieving positive heritage outcomes, thus the addition of an objective to work with them and other groups is appropriate. The changes to Objective 1.5.2.6 reflect good practice and the insertion of new milestones provide for reporting on sites that are deteriorating. One area in which DOC and The NZ Historic Trust can specifically work together is in increasing awareness of historic places and valuing these places and the changes to Section 1.5.4 make this more explicit.

Historic heritage is a powerful magnet for visitors and visitor opportunities and should be better recognised in this section. Objectives need to recognise about to ensure the attractions are not adversely affected.

Amend objectives in Section 1.5.5 to recognise the attraction to visitors of historic heritage, but noting the particular management issues that may be raised through increasing visitor numbers.

1.5.5 More business opportunities - objectives - general

AcceptAdd a new sentence at the end of the paragraph starting "The current Key internationally.." (in Section 1.5.) to read: "Historic heritage remains a powerful visitor attraction to conservation lands in Auckland."

44/8




Historic heritage is a significant attraction to visitors to public conservation in Auckland.

1.5.5 needs to be read alongside all other relevant provisions in the CMS (and legislation and general policy). Business partnerships, of which there are already many with DOC, are about delivering increased conservation gains, not overriding heritage values. The requested text insertions are already covered by other CMS provisions, most notably in Section 1.5.2 and the Part Two-Places.

The description notes that Mansion House does not meet a high standard of presentation. It requires a programme to address deferred maintenance. It needs to be more explicit with reference to a conservation plan that identifies issues and recommends upgrades. Policies regarding the Mansion House are extensive indicating its importance to the visitor strategy. There should be more commitment to sound heritage practice, as well as the need to consult with NZHPT regarding the building.

Amend Section 2.8 by:(1) Amend policies to commit to developing a conservation plan for the Mansion House that addresses the likely visitor requirements as well as properly maintaining heritage values;(2) Inserting a policy undertaking to consult with NZHPT in developing proposals for Mansion House.


Accept(1) Amend the 'Description' to refer to the four conservation plans which have been prepared for Mansion House (1992), the Mansion House interior (2006), gardens (1998) and wider Kawau Island historic landscape (2002);(2) Insert a new policy to read: Undertake partial reviews of the following conservation plans:a) Mansion House Conservation Plan (1992);b) Mansion House, Kawau Island: An Interiors Conservation Plan (2002);c) Mansion House Gardens Kawau Island: A Conservation Plan and Resource Document (1998);d) Kawau Island Historic Landscape: A Conservation Plan and Resource Document (2002);in conjunction with the NZ Historic Places Trust and other stakeholders and develop an implementation programme.(3) Amending Policy 2.8.1 so that it is subject to the outcomes of the partial reviews of the conservation plans for House and chattels;(4) Including a new Year 3 milestone to read: "Partial review of the conservation plans completed;(5)Moving the existing Year 3 milestone which reads" Options for the use of Mansion House have been identified and implemented" to Year 5.

Several conservation plans have been prepared for Mansion House and its wider historic setting and although considerable progress has been made in

44/9




implementing these plans, it would be appropriate to review them to ascertain what actions should be prioritised over the next 10 years to maintain the house and its setting as well as the guidance provided in terms of future uses of the building. As the Mansion House is classified Category 1 by the Historic Places Trust and the use of it and its gardens is of interest to a number of community groups and trusts it is appropriate that this review be undertaken with their involvement. Some actions, particularly regarding the identification of future uses of Mansion House should be delayed until after the conservation plans are reviewed and an implementation programme developed and changes are made to Policy 2.8.1 and the phasing of outcomes to reflect this.

The description makes no reference to the NZHPT registration of the lighthouse complex. Maritime NZ owns and operates the lighthouse and the proposed outcome for it is that the lighthouse complex is restored, protected and interpreted in conjunction with that body. NZHPT is a stakeholder in this.

Amend Section 2.10 to:(1) Refer to the NZHPT registration of the lighthouse complex; (2) Inserting new policy to recognise the NZHPT as a stakeholder in any proposals for the lighthouse complex and any such proposals will need to take account of heritage values; and(3) Consequential changes to outcomes to give effect to (2).


Accept(1) Insert the following text in the Description after the reference to the lighthouse:"The lighthouse which is managed by Maritime New Zealand is classified Category 1 by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust. Within the former light station complex which surrounds the lighthouse area are a number of structures managed by the Department with assistance from the Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi (SoTM). These include two former keepers houses, the former light station workshop and the compressed air foghorn, housed in a shed. A watchtower building established by the former Auckland Harbour Board is also located within this area. A conservation plan for the lighthouse complex was prepared in 1997. "

(2) Amend the reference to the lighthouse in the Outcome to read: "The historic Tiritiri Matangi lighthouse complex is restored, protected, maintained and interpreted .."

(3) Insert a new policy after 2.10.4 to read: "Work collaboratively with Maritime New Zealand, the Historic Places Trust, SoTM and others to ensure that structures within the lighthouse complex are

44/10




restored, protected, maintained and interpreted in a manner consistent with the Category 1 categorisation of the lighthouse".

The listing of Mansion House, Kawau Island (also category 1) is recognised in the CMS and it is appropriate to recognise the Tiritiri Lighthouse for consistency. The changes also recognise Conservation Plan which guides management of the area and the interests of Maritime NZ, the Historic Places Trust, SoTM and others in the management of the lighthouse and wider complex.

Section says little about Rangitoto baches, except the two restored by the Rangitoto Island Heritage Conservation Trust. The CMS should be pro-active in seeking the conservation of a greater number of these baches.

Amend Section 2.11 to include an outcome and associated policies in respect of the preservation of a significant number of the Rangitoto baches.


RejectAs stated in last para on pg 85, the Department cannot propose a management strategy for the baches as they are subject to a High Court decision.44/11

This section appears to be a good response to what is and will continue to be a very accessible and heavily used Place within the DOC estate. The heritage values are well recognised.

(1) Retain intent Section 2.14; and(2) Amend Section 2.14 to give more explicit recognition of the role of NZHPT in regard to the registration of places and management of archaeology.


Accept in partSection 2.14 retained.

Explicit recognition to the role of NZHPT has been included in Section 1.5.2 (pg 22-24). The following text has been added to para 1 of the description (pg 22):

"In developing these programmes, the Department will work with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust which has a statutory role in identifying, protecting, preserving and conserving the historic and cultural heritage of New Zealand, as appropriate."

The following objective has also been added:

"Work with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, community heritage interest groups and others to protect historic and cultural heritage sites, and utilise expertise to provide an integrated and enhanced visitor experience."

44/12

There should be a section included that discusses policy relating to reserve classification within DOC estate. In

Amend Part Three by inserting policies:(1) Regarding the appropriate classification under the

Part Three - Specific Policy - General

Accept in part(1) Amend Objective 1.5.2.1 to read: "Identify and




particular pros and cons of the classification of parts of the estate that contain a predominance of historic heritage as historic reserves should be included.

Where works are proposed that have potential to affect heritage sites, additional policy should be included, such as:- Compliance with ICOMOS- Preparation of heritage impact assessments and conservation plans- consultation with NZHPT.

Reserves Act 1977 where a DOC reserve contains a preponderance of heritage items; and(2) Relating to works that have the potential to affect historic heritage.

understand the location, nature and condition of historic places on public conservation land, and ensure that records of the location, nature and condition of these places are up to date"; (2) Note that changes have been made to Objective 1.5.2.6 in response to another NZ Historic Places Trust submission (44/7) to refer to the ICOMOS charter, conservation plans and best practice; and(3) Note that a new Objective has been added to Section 1.5.2 regarding working with the NZ Historic Places Trust in response to Submission 44/7.

The changes to Objective 1.5.2.1 reflect best practice as do the new objective and amendments to Objective 1.5.2.6.

Policy 3.1.2 already addresses reserve classification.

Section 1.5.2 (Part One) contains objectives which apply to historic places across all public conservation lands in the region.

44/13

Submitter: Total Sport LtdOppose mountain bike trail for following reasons:(1) The DUAL is presently only event of its type permitted on islands. It is an exceptionally technical and challenging event to produce with huge amount of infrastructure gear and equipment being barged to Rangitoto and then transported to event base at Motutapu. Also massive amount of work goes into managing complex health and safety aspects of event, in particular the safety of participants while on the course. In order to execute safe event, have the following resources in place on event day (a) 4 trained course managers who oversee the safety aspects on the course (b) Approx 100 course marshals © 2 x St Johns Ambulances with 4 support staff (c ) 1 x St Johns w wheel drive quad and (d) 1 x St John's Triage (medical base) at event base.(2) The DUAL is a once a year opportunity which has allowed thousands of people to experience Rangitoto and Motutapu in controlled participation event. Opening up islands to trial will severely affect the

Delete the mountain biking trial.2.11 MTB proposal - General





positioning and appeal of the DUAL event and decrease the funds raised of the Motutapu Restoration Trust. Without this funding the work of the Trust would be in jeopardy. DUAL sits alongside a handful of other "once a year" sell out events, none of which raise anywhere near same amount for charity.(3) Introducing mountain biking will quash largest off-road participation event in Auckland for mountain biking.(4) Roads on Islands are narrow, uneven and rough with lots of lose gravel, jutting rocks alongside many other potential hazards.(5) Question whether speed limits on Islands would apply to recreational cyclists. If so, road signage would be required and speeds monitored and enforced. If so, by whom and under what powers? DUAL event sees speed limits being exceeded but with road closures.(6) Safety issues - conflicting use of tracks by different users will result in significant safety considerations. There is no first aid station on island and evacuating injured persons in an emergency would be difficult. Poor mobile reception in case of needing to call for help.(7) Inability to control where cyclists go. Dual manages this issue with set course, marshals and the like.(8) There has been much hard work to get islands pest free. The introduction of more people riding mountain bikes will compromise biosecurity measures.

Submitter: Auckland Four Wheel Drive Club IncOppose section.

Draft identifies off-road vehicle use on South Kaipara as being a popular activity and suggests that Woodhill Forest accommodates them. This provides no surety. There are no alternative locations within 100km of Auckland City.

Section implies that 4WD destroy sand environment and bird life. Maintain that Aeolian influences greater on dunes than vehicles. Losses with nesting birds traditionally attributed to vehicles. These loses have greatly reduced since predator trapping despite

Amend 2.7 to allow managed use of sand areas.2.7 Kaipara Harbour Place

AcceptAmend the descriptive paragraph which begins "Unauthorised camping.." to read: "Inappropriate off-road vehicle use is also a significant threat to wildlife values..."

This change recognises that off road vehicle use may not in all circumstances pose a threat to values.

46/1




increased beach traffic.Oppose. Language is contradictory with points (b), (c), (d) all advocating restoration by intervention while (e) states allow natural processes to proceed largely without intervention.

Agree that weeds should be controlled - 4WD community could assist.

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.7.4 so not contradictory.2.7.4 Policy AcceptAmend Policy 2.7.4 so that a) to d) are all subject to e) and rewording clause e) to read "while allowing natural processes to proceed largely without intervention wherever possible".

The changes reflect that it is the Department's preference for initiatives in a) to d) to be undertaken in the context of allowing natural processes to proceed without intervention where possible and thus removes the apparent contradiction in the draft policy.

46/2

Oppose: Dunes are not fragile in nature, but are when modified in efforts to control them. In the area of the South Kaipara dunes the ‘other users’ are very rare, given the terrain and the distance to walk. It is an area that a suitable vehicle can allow appreciation of.

Amend Policy 2.7.6 to reflect reality.2.7.6 Policy RejectThe policy does not seek to prohibit vehicle use and other activities rather it seeks to manage these activities so that adverse effects are avoided. This approach is consistent with the Conservation Act and Conservation General Policy.

46/3

Oppose: Removing the use of public vehicles on Muriwai and Rangatira Beach marginal strips and Papakanui Conservation area is unreasonable and likely to invoke strong opposition by a variety of users to the proposal and to the DOC. Would result in loss of valuable skill base/ knowledge of driving on sand. Also cause loss of practical access to significant areas of coast and public land.

Delete Policy 2.7.7.2.7.7 Policy RejectIt has been identified for some time that inappropriate use of 4WDs on sand dunes and sensitive habitats do have the potential to adversely affect those types of ecosystems. It is therefore desirable to introduce measures allowing us to control this activity, and this needs to be achieved by way of regulations or bylaws so that policies can be enforceable.

�The submitter makes an assumption that the bylaws or regulations will seek to eliminate all such activity from these areas. What the bylaws or regulations will seek to achieve for the various parcels of public conservation land is a matter that will be worked through with the community and key stakeholders at the time that they are investigated and developed. Elimination of the activity is only one possible option.

Deleting this policy, as requested by the submitter, would mean that DOC would have the option of exploring what controls and measures might be

46/4




appropriate.Support: the impact of vehicles is overstated again, but the Auckland 4WD Club is willing to work with other organisations to further reduce impacts that may occur.

Inferred: Retain Policy 2.7.8.2.7.8 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.7.8 has been retained.46/5

In the past DOC successfully worked with 4WD clubs and Defence etc. to manage vehicle use of Papakanui/ Air Weapons Range. That programme addressed general safety, bird habitats, vegetation and other users coming off the beach. When permit scheme operated, there were no incidents related to the Defence use and casual use was reduced.

Amend Policy 2.7.9 to allow managed access to the open spaces of Papakanui by vehicles.

2.7.9 Policy Accept in partAmend Policy 2.7.9 to read:"...conservation values, and to explore opportunities to provide public access, including by off-road vehicles to this area."

The changes to Policy 2.7.9 provide for ongoing dialogue to occur regarding the possible use of Defence land by off-road vehicles. In the past there has been managed access to that part of the range within Papakanui Conservation Area, by a permit system. An MOU with Defence to formalise this system was ultimately not agreed due to concerns around health and safety liabilities and risks. If it was however possible to adequately address these concerns, then re-introducing managed access might again be a possibility, provided that any adverse effects on the environment were able to be addressed.

There is also a link to Policy 2.7.7, which seeks to introduce bylaws or regulations for the same areas of public conservation land that lie within the air weapons range. Issues around allowing managed access into these areas will need to be explored with all stakeholders as part of developing these bylaws or regulations. It is however too early to say that managed access will or will not be permitted

46/6

Submitter: Sandspit SoS Incorporated (SSOSI)Consider that attached quotes should be included as objectives and put into practice in all instances, especially when making submissions to proposed commercial developments at Matakana Estuary and Sandspit.

(1) A special place within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.(2) Sandspit residents value their environment and

Adopt the following future direction in regard to submissions made by DOC officers:(1) DOC needs to be independent of commercial interests or alliances;(2) DOC needs to set out the precise lowest number of each ‘Threatened’ shorebird species at which roosting habitat may be destroyed in favour of commercial interests;(3) DOC officers need to actively engage in professional development along with regular refreshment seminars in

Part One - general RejectPart One of the CMS is intended to set out a vision and objectives to guide the DOC's own management activities and its advocacy role in relation to land off the public conservation estate. How that advocacy role is implemented in terms of submissions on consents/ plans is a matter that is more appropriately addressed outside of the document itself.

47/1




consider it a special place. (3) We consider that staff in the local Warkworth Department of Conservation Office do not have a good knowledge of Sandspit and the Matakana estuary. The result is that due diligence was not carried out before writing their submission on an application for a proposed marina at Sandspit and other documentation obtained by our Society did not appear to be based on factual data or thorough knowledge of shorebird behaviour or biology. (4) Sandspit SOS Inc hopes that the Department will work closely with groups like ours to ensure that communication and partnerships to conserve special areas like Sandspit for the benefit of local communities occurs.

such matters as threat classification, data collection, species behaviour, understanding biodiversity, shorebird biology, the importance of flyway corridors and high-tide roosts before being directed to write submissions which may contribute to sealing the fate of a habitat;(4) DOC officers need professional development in such matters as the Wildlife Act, the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act and the Resource Management Act and to give adequate regard to the requirements of those Acts when writing submissions;(5) DOC policy needs to be aware of and act on the professed importance of smaller estuaries and that their roosts are an important part of shorebird biology and conservation of species. If DOC supports conservation of only predator free islands, mainland islands and large roosts then such sites effectively become restricted ‘zoos’ and species recovery plans will not be effective if smaller sites are allowed to be degraded by development; and(6) DOC needs to take note of local knowledge of local habitats (experts of place) and work co-operatively with communities to protect and restore those habitats where threatened species live, not restricted to DOC conservation estate.

Classify the following areas as local treasures:(1) The Matakana estuary - a biodiversity treasure with 23 species of water-reliant birds using its waters and shellfish beds as foraging habitat. The only natural high-tide roosts for wading birds in the estuary is at Sandspit alongside the Sandspit Reserve.(2) Deans Island - hub of banded rail population.(3) Snells Beach - Beach has a roosting bank at Whisper Cove which is at the northern end of the beach. Both species of oystercatcher and godwits use the beach’s one remaining roost and NZ dotterels have for at least 2 years attempted to nest on the shoreline. More protection for this site is necessary as subdivision without adequate protection from disturbance and predators for the threatened species’ habitat would further degrade valuable small roosting sites within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. DOC needs to be pro-active with Auckland Council to protect this site.

Inferred: Classify the Matakana Estuary, Deans Island and Snells Beach as local treasures.


RejectThe purpose of Part Two - Places is to address places that are identified for the purposes of integrated conservation management and which require some specific management direction. It is not intended that Part Two - Places identify local treasures.

Local Treasures are referred to in Appendix 10 however it is noted that these are identified in the context of recreation values, not biodiversity values as described by the submitter.

47/2




Submission include a number of photos to illustrate conservation values and identifies NZ Threat classification for Matakana Estuary shorebirds.

Submitter: Kyla MacDonaldOppose. Non-motorised aircraft taking off & landing here actually serve to enhance the recreation values, and are low risk to visitor safety.


Concerned that wording implies that DOC ‘may’ or ‘may not’ allow the use of non-motorised aircraft.

Amend Policy 2.14.8 to:(1) State ‘Allow the use of non-motorised aircraft....’ ; and (2) Remove reference to Policy 3.4.2.


Oppose (h). This would unnecessarily limit parapenting activity

Amend Policy 3.4.2 by deleting Clause (h).3.4.2 Policy AcceptParagliding is addressed in a supplementary report.

Policy 2.14.8 will be amended so that compliance with 3.4.2(h) is no longer required.

48/3

Submitter: Donald SmithOppose policy. As a paraglider pilot I enjoy flying at North Head and Fort Takapuna. Paragliding is a self regulated body with high qualification standard, with the Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club responsible for membership use of the sites. This has ensured responsible use of these sites and low impacts on sites, no negative interactions with other users. Do not see any need to change or restrict use of non-motorized aircraft.


Oppose policy. As a paraglider pilot I enjoy flying at North Head and Fort Takapuna. Paragliding is a self regulated body with high qualification standard, with the Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club responsible for membership use of the sites. This has ensured responsible use of these sites and low impacts on sites, no negative interactions with other users. Do not see any need to change or restrict use of non-motorized aircraft.

Amend policy 2.14.8 to read: "Allow the use of non-motorised aircraft, subject to this activity avoiding any adverse effects on thesafety and enjoyment of other visitors".


Submitter: Te Arai Beach Preservation Society Inc.Support. - particularly in relation to protection so coastal ecosystems including dunes.

Retain Long Term Vision (p.9).1.2 Vision for Auckland - 2060


Support in part. Amend last paragraph under "Biodiversity" to recognise the importance to Aucklanders' well-being of the natural,

1.3 Distinctive features, values and

Accept in partAmend the last paragraph under 'Biodiversity' to




Support identification of the protection and recovery of threatened ecosystems and species as a key challenge for the Department and agree with the characterisation of the region/Conservancy as biodiversity refuges. Te Arai our specific area of interest is one such biodiversity refuge.

In the final paragraph the statement is made that "With increasing urban intensification, public open space in Auckland will become very important to the well-being of Aucklanders and visitors to the city". We agree and while we appreciate that focus is on public open space we submit that this paragraph should be expanded to recognise the importance to Aucklanders' well-being of the natural, landscape, biodiversity and amenity values of those parts of Auckland’s coastline which are in an undeveloped and natural state such as the north east coast and much of the west coast. This is an increasingly scarce conservation resource and should be identified as such and advocacy and action for its protection included in the Department’s priorities.

landscape, biodiversity and amenity values of those parts of Auckland’s coastline which are in an undeveloped and natural state.

issues - Biodiversity refuges

read: "With increasing urban intensification and coastal development, undeveloped and natural areas in Auckland will become increasingly important to the well-being of Aucklanders and visitors to the city owing to their landscape, natural, biodiversity, amenity, recreation and other values".

The changes reflect that development places pressures on all natural areas and describe the values that these areas have.

50/2

Oppose section.

Section unbalanced in its description of the natural values of the Auckland region with focus on the Auckland West Coast and Manukau/Kaipara Harbours and migratory wading bird habitat. . The habitat values of the north-east coast of the Conservancy have been significantly under-represented in the description in this section given the importance of the Pakiri-Te Arai coastline as habitat for the NZ fairy tern and other threatened species. And as the longest section of undeveloped remote coastline in the east.

Amend Section 1.3 Marine Environment to include reference to the significance of the north-east coast of the Conservancy.


AcceptThe Department acknowledges that the north-east coast of the Auckland Conservancy is also significant for wading birds, particularly the threatened NZ fairy tern. The paragraph commencing with the words "Despite a high degree.." under 'A diverse and rich marine environment under pressure' section in Section 1.3 (pg 12) has had the following sentence added:

"The longest stretch of undeveloped coastline on the east coast runs between Pakiri and Te Arai in the north-east of Auckland Conservancy. This coastline is significant as one of two breeding sites of the taraiti/New Zealand fairy tern (Sterna nereis davisae) in the Auckland region, along with Papakanui on South Kaipara Head."

50/3

Support identification of Te Arai as regionally and locally important. Te Arai is listed as one of the least developed eastern coastal ecosystems of Auckland and as home to NZ fairy tern. We would like to note that

Retain general intent of 1.5.1 but amend to reflect the national and international significance of Te Arai for the diversity of Auckland’s natural heritage.


Accept in partAmend Section 2.7 (Kaipara Place) to include Te Arai.

50/4




Te Arai is also of national and international significance for its breeding populations of NZ fairy tern and Northern NZ Dotterel.

The inclusion of Te Arai as a Place within Section 2.7 recognise Te Arai as being of local and regional importance as identified by the submitter. The places listed in Section 1.5.1 are those key Places that the Department considers nationally important and Te Arai is habitat to a nationally critical species (fairy tern) this in itself is not considered sufficient to identify the place as being of national importance.

We would like the Te Arai dunelands included as a key place that the Department considers nationally important for natural heritage management in Auckland. For following reasons:

(1) DOC's Auckland Protection Strategy lists lava forest, freshwater wetlands and dunelands as the most depleted, and at risk ecosystems in the Auckland Conservancy. Dunelands as the interface between the sea and land are very dynamic in response to climatic conditions and it is important to conserve them on both east and west coasts, particularly when trying to maintain species on the verge of extinction such as NZ fairy tern which is found predominately on the east coast. Although the department only owns and manages at Te Arai, the 20m strip above high tide and along the stream banks, it is this strip that provides the habitat for all the threatened species.(2) The remote and undeveloped nature of the Te Arai dunelands means they are presently a hotspot of regionally and nationally threatened species. (3) The beach and dunes of Te Arai are part of the larger Mangawhai-Pakiri sand system, an embayment of approximately 30km length extending between the rocky headlands of Bream Tail and Cape Rodney. The sand system includes some 25km of sandy beaches backed by dune fields, extending up to 2km inland in the centre of the embayment (Hume et al. 1998a). It is the best example in the Auckland region and Rodney district, identified in the Rodney PNA report, of coastal pingao/spinifex sandfield on mobile sands (Mitchell et al 1992). (4) Te Arai serves as habitat for four nationally threatened plants, no other site in the Auckland region

(1) Retain Objective 1.5.1.1;(2) Amend CMS to include the Te Arai dunelands as a priority ecosystem site; and(3) Make consequential amendments to Appendices 2 and 4.

1.5.1.1 Objective Accept in partAmend Section 2.7 (Kaipara Place) to include Te Arai.

(1) Objective 1.5.1.1 retained.

(2) The inclusion of Te Arai as a Place within Section 2.7 recognise Te Arai as being of local and regional importance as identified by the submitter (refer submission 50/4) and is considered to provide sufficient recognition and management direction to this area.

(3) The list of sites with dune vegetation present in Appendix 2 has been amended to include Te Arai. The list of priority ecosystem management sites listed in Appendix 4 has been taken from the National Heritage Management System, which lists nationally important sites rather than regionally important sites. This list is continually under review, but was correct at February 2012. It will therefore not be amended.

50/5




has all these species remaining. The Te Arai fore dune is primarily native in character, being covered in the native sand binders spinifex (Spinifex sericeus) and pingao (Desmoschoenus spiralis). While the dune is far from pristine it is one of the least modified in the region. Pingao is a nationally threatened (Gradual Decline) sand binder (de Lange et al. 2004) and is now only sparsely found in the region. Katipo spiders prefer to live in pingao where they build their webs at the bases of the leaves (Patrick 2002). Te Arai has a healthy population of katipo. In surveys done in 2008 93 katipo were observed, consisting of 89 females and 4 males. Katipo were abundant along the foredune, particularly at the northern end of the site. (Boffa Miskell 2008).(5) Sand Tussock (Austrofestuca littoralis) is a nationally threatened (Gradual Decline) grass. The only other mainland population of sand tussock in the Auckland Region is a few plants at Pakiri Beach. It has disappeared from most former sites except this one and on the remote beaches of Great Barrier Island. (6) Sand Coprosma (Coprosma acerosa) is officially classified as threatened. It is a regionally threatened (Stanley et al 2005) dune shrub which occurs at Te Arai in the highest densities than at any other dune in the region (Stanley 2007).(7) Te Arai is one of a very few mainland sites left in the Auckland Conservancy to have Shore skinks. They were detected in all areas of sand dune sampled in 2008 (Boffa Miskell 2008). (8) The list of seventeen threatened fauna at Te Arai include pārera, grey duck ,Tara-it, tara teoteo, fairy tern, Matuku, Australasian bittern , Tara puka, black-billed gull , Tūturiwhatu, northern New Zealand dotterel , Taranui, Caspian tern, Kāruhiruhi, pied shag , Weweia, dabchick , Reef Heron , Mātātā, fernbird, Tōrea, pied oystercatcher, Poaka, pied stilt, Moko kākāriki, Auckland green gecko , Tara, white-fronted tern , Moho pererū, banded rail, Kawau, black shag, Kawau paka, little shag, Kawau tūī, little black shag.(9) Te Arai is very important for the NZ fairy tern both as a nesting site (2012) and as a post breeding flocking site. A pair of NZ fairy tern have been observed nest




prospecting at the site over the last three years and they nested this season at the Te Arai stream mouth producing two eggs. They defended their territory at the site all season and refused to let other NZ fairy tern forage in the stream during post breeding flocking. NZ fairy tern exhibit very strong site fidelity. Te Arai stream mouth has long been used as a post breeding flocking site with up to eleven adult and juveniles present this year. The birds from Waipu, Mangawhai and Pakiri breeding sites were recorded meeting and introducing their fledglings over a two week period.(10) Te Arai is also a regionally significant site for the Northern NZ dotterel. The beach and stream mouth had 9-10 breeding pairs of Northern New Zealand Dotterel nesting with approximately 18 chicks fledged this season . In recognition of its outstanding wildlife values the Te Arai Dotterel Care Group have been managing the nesting site at the stream mouth in conjunction with the department for the last five years. They maintain trap lines, erect barrier fencing and signs and undertake beach advocacy patrols.Support provided that it means that this objective will be adequately resourced and implemented, not left to the community.

Retain Objective 1.5.1.2 with clarification of resourcing.1.5.1.2 Objective RejectThe "Contribute to" is an explicit recognition that DOC does not undertake all threatened species work within Auckland, and a major focus of the CMS is that a wide-community effort will be needed to ensure threatened species survival. Resourcing and implementation of the CMS is an operational issue and outside the scope of the CMS.

50/6

Support. Retain Objective 1.5.1.7.1.5.1.7 Objective AcceptSupport noted.50/7

While it is agreed that there is a significant integration issue with regard to management of the Kaipara and Manukau Harbours, objective overlooks cross-boundary management of species programmes between the Te Arai dunelands in Auckland Conservancy and the Mangawhai Wildlife Refuge in Northland Conservancy. These two areas are a continuum of habitat for the NZ fairy tern and northern NZ dotterel and other bird species and should be managed consistently.

Amend Objective 1.5.1.13 to provide for the cross-boundary issues at Mangawhai Wildlife Refuge/Te Arai.

1.5.1.13 Objective AcceptAs noted above the CMS’s for Northland and Waikato were prepared at the same time as the Auckland CMS. Through this process particular attention was paid to ensuring that the direction for natural heritage/ Places that straddle conservancy boundaries was consistent. This particularly applied in terms of the management of the Firth of Thames, Waikato River catchment, Kaipara Harbour and Mangawhai/ te Arai coast. It is acknowledged that the CMS could be amended to make it clear that this

50/8




integrated approach will continue to be applied in terms of the implementation of the CMS’s and to this effect the following changes are recommended:

(i) Insert the following descriptive text in Section 1.5.1:

"A number of the nationally, regionally and locally important places above extend across administrative boundaries of the Department and other agencies. A coordinated and multi-agency approach to the management of the natural resources in these places is important in order to achieve integrated conservation management”

(ii) Inserting the following policies in Part Three:

“X Manage public conservation lands and waters to be consistent with the outcomes, objectives and policies of this strategy.X Adopt an integrated management approach (as defined in the Conservation general Policy 2006) to the application of this strategy and to ensure cross-boundary management of public conservation lands and waters”.(iii) Amend Objective 1.5.13 to read as follows:

X Advocate for integrated management between those agencies that have a statutory role in the management of land, water and resources within the area covered by this strategy including the Kaipara and Manukau Harbours and their catchments"

This map needs to be amended to show the Te Arai dunelands as a place and as a priority ecosystem priority as outlined in the submission above.

Amend Map 2 to include the Te Arai dunelands.Map 2 - Indicative ecosystem and destination priorities

RejectThe 'High priority' and 'Second priority' ecosystem priorities shown in Map 2: Indicative ecosystem and destination priorities reflect the list of priority ecosystem management sites on public conservation land in Appendix 4 in Volume I of the CMS. The list in Appendix 4 has been taken from the Department's national list of 941 ecosystem management units, which represent the full range of New Zealand's terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. However, the

50/9




table in Appendix 4 does not necessarily list all nationally significant ecosystems present in Auckland Conservancy. The list is subject to change as priorities are refined and revised - new sites may be added and others removed.

The zoning applied to the Mangawhai Marginal Strip which runs along the northern part of Te Arai Beach and along the Canal Stream is zoned a mix of "blue" and "tan" which we understand denotes rural and back country/remote zones respectively. We understand that the maps have been computer generated so may reflect road ends or in the case of the Canal Stream perhaps a farm track. We submit that the mix of zoning is inappropriate and Mangawhai Marginal Strip is more appropriately zoned back country/remote in its entirety as this better reflects the reality on the ground of a remote location with limited road access (in the case of Canal Stream no public road access). The significance of the area for its wildlife values, NZ fairy tern and northern NZ dotterel mean that minimising disturbance to the birds from people presence is a critical issue as is protection of the high natural values and non-built character of this area of coastline.

Amend Map 3 for Black Swamp Road to zone Mangawhai Marginal Strip back country/remote in its entirety.

Map 3 - Visitor management zones

RejectAll public conservation land has been categorised into one of six visitor management zones - urban, rural, frontcountry, backcountry, remote or wilderness. Appendix 11 in Volume I provides a definition and description of each of these visitor management zones. The Mangawhai Marginal Strip does not fit the definition of remote - "catchments beyond the backcountry, forming the wild lands in the interior of large protected areas..." and "typically 5 or more hours travel from front country". Rural is an appropriate definition for some areas of public conservation land in the Te Arai area as this land is set within areas dominated by farmland and plantation forest.

50/10

We are concerned that the range of Places in Part Two does not reflect a representative range of the most threatened ecosystems within the Auckland Conservancy. Management of mainland wetlands and east coast dunelands are not encompassed in any of the Places in Part Two.

Amend Part Two to reflect a representative range of ecosystems.


Accept in partThe Department agrees that Te Arai dunelands area meets the criteria for selection as a Place because of: its importance as a habitat for the nationally critical NZ fairy tern; conflicts between biodiversity outcomes, use of adjacent private land and public conservation land; and integrated management required for biodiversity, recreation and advocacy outcomes. Section 2.7 has been amended to include Te Arai and Pakiri in this place.

50/11

Mangawhai Marginal Strip is zoned green which we understand relates to areas where values are not affected by landings, where there are natural limits on sites where landings can occur and not much demand. Applications are likely to be approved if meets criteria in the policy in CMS and activity is consistent with the outcomes for the place. However the high ecological values of the Te Arai dunelands as habitat for endangered bird species such as the NZ fairy tern and

Amend criteria to include the avoidance of disturbance to the habitats of the N Z fairy tern and northern NZ dotterel.

Part Three - Aircraft Accept in partThe habitats of the NZ fairy tern and northern NZ dotterel are important conservation values requiring protection. The criteria in policy 3.4.2 outline the criteria considered for concession applications for the landing and taking off of aircraft. Policy 3.4.2 e) considers the effects on conservation values. This would adequately cover any disturbance of fairy tern or dotterel habitats. There is no need to be more

50/12




northern NZ dotterel mean that helicopter landings in particular is a real issue for disturbance of the birds. We submit that an additional criteria should be included concerning the avoidance of impacts on coastal ground nesting birds particularly during breeding season.

specific in the wording of the policy.

Submitter: Alwyn Rae - It is about restoring the physical separation of the two islands.- It is about re-establishing the integrity of the two islands.- It is about caring for the environment.- It is about restoring marine life, and shore birds (create ecological corridors Policy 1.5.4.1 d)- It is about acknowledging the early history of Oruawharo/ Islington Bay.- It is about recognising the different geology, ecology, and formation of the two islands.- It is about enabling visitors to better explore both islands by kayak and small boats.- It is about safety in small boats (when weather and conditions change).- Restoring the natural unimpeded tidal flow will reduce the silting up process at Islington Bay.- To provide deeper water to allow the bigger ferries to service Islington Bay.

Insert a new policy in Section 2.11 to read: "Restore the tidal flow between Motutapu and Rangitoto Islands at Islington Bay".


RejectThe Department does not intend to make changes to the causeway within the life of this CMS. The joining of the islands is of historic interest and has many benefits. Demolishing the causeway would have significant adverse effects on the Department's management of Rangitoto and Motutapu, visitor flows and the visitor experience.

51/1

Provide facilities and tracks to cater to wider groups.

Provide for the full enjoyment to cater for people of different abilities.

Amend Policy 2.11.3 to provide facilities and walks to cater to people’s different levels of abilities and fitness, which include back countrytracks and facilities for visitors with mobility difficulties.

2.11.3 Policy NotedThe submitter's wish to provide walks to cater to different levels of ability is noted. Tracks on Rangitoto and Motutapu range from 45 minutes to several hours. Most tracks are categorised 'Walking track', which encompasses easy to moderate walking, suitable for people with a low to medium level of fitness. The Motutapu Walkway is classified as a 'Route' and offers more challenging walking for people of moderate fitness and above. Policy 2.11.3 provides for additional facilities for people with mobility difficulties, thereby catering for a wide range of people on the islands.

51/2

-Promote freedom multi-day walks, which include backcountry tracks (as depicted on cover of the CMS Draft Plan December 2012.)

Amend Policy 2.11.5 to read: "Develop multi-day walks that cater for different abilities and different levels of fitness which include back country tracks. Overnight

2.11.5 Policy RejectThe Department has 6 categories of walking tracks to suit different people's skills and abilities. A multi-

51/3




- Back country tracks require less maintenance (and less quarried stones).- Increase walkers/trampers understanding and appreciation of natural historic and cultural heritage by different graded tracks.- Back country tracks enable visitors to experience the unique natural and geological values of the islands.- Back country tracks retain the essential character of the island experience.- Include abseil activity in one or more of the walks (as depicted on cover of the CMS Draft Plan December 2012.)- Proportionate distribution of overnight stays reinforces the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 of maintaining existing communities.

accommodation is proportionately distributed between the settlements".

day walk on Rangitoto and Motutapu is likely to encompass most of these categories. However, Rangitoto and Motutapu do not fit in with a 'Backcountry' visitor management zone (see Appendix 11 for a full description of 'Backcountry').

Policy 2.11.23 (pg 94) provides further direction for the spacing of accommodation regarding the multi-day walk.

The focus on providing revenue distracts from the core issue of conservation. Conservation is on-going, day in, day out.

Inferred. Delete Policy 2.11.6 and replace with following suggestions:(1) Cross credit from other Government Depts. e.g. promote physical outdoor activities and lessen the Government Health Bill;(2) Regular day conservation theme walks/observations e.g. follow ash flow from summit to sea, back country tracks, flora fantastic,midden treasures, ornithological study, tidal ecology;(3) Regular conservation weekends (staying in baches) e.g. weed busting, beach clean up, coastal clean up, removing mangroves(4) Use the internet to, promote conservation and encourage national and international volunteers.

2.11.6 Policy NotedThe submitter's views on promoting physical activities to lessen the cost of health to the Government, conservation theme walks, conservation weekends and using the internet to promote conservation are noted. Policy 2.11.6 provides for events such as conservation walks or weekends to raise awareness of the island's values. Listing these events in this policy is considered too much detail for the CMS.

The DOC website is already used widely to promote conservation and encourage volunteers.

51/4

Object to policy because:(1) The risk of fire is too great.(2) Campsite at Home Bay available.(3) Baches for rent eliminate the need for campsite on Rangitoto Island.(4) Another campsite adds pressure on DOC staff to maintain site.(5) Campsite was proposed and rejected in previous ten year plan.

Inferred: Delete Policy 2.11.12.2.11.12 Policy RejectThe intention of the CMS is to investigate a small-scale basic campsite at either McKenzie or Boulder Bay to form part of a Hauraki Gulf kayaking trail. Basic campsites only have very limited facilities with only basic toilets and water and thus campers need to be self sufficient. They therefore provide a different type of experience from those of the Home Bay campsite or baches and therefore complement the range of visitor/ accommodation experiences already provided to the public on Rangitoto/ Motutapu. Further only one site will be selected following further investigations and during these investigations

51/5




issues related to matters such as fire risk, maintenance and resourcing will be considered.

Oppose policy because:- Difficult for a profitable business due to short hours and ferry timetable.- Previous schemes have failed.- Staff related issues.

Delete Policy 2.11.13 and replace with:(1) Vending station;(2) Utilise existing visitor centre

2.11.13 Policy RejectPolicy 2.11.13 will remain in the CMS. Concerns regarding the difficulty of making a café a profitable business are noted. Any concerns will be addressed through the concessions process should an application be received for a café. This process is likely to be a public process, and there will be an opportunity to comment on it.

51/6

Oppose policy.- Reuse rocks that have already been displaced and used on the foreshore at Islington Bay for the ramp and road.- Reuse the rocks before they are buried in sand.- Removing the rocks from the shore will help to restore the tidal flow and marine life. (Policy 1.5.4.1d)- Reusing and recycling these rocks will reduce the impact and environmental effects on Rangitoto Island.- The recovered rocks eliminate the need for quarrying.

Delete Policy 2.11.14.2.11.14 Policy RejectThe submitter's view on quarrying is noted, as well as the suggestion to reuse recovered rocks on the island. Quarrying on Rangitoto is considered the most practical way to provide material to maintain the Department's visitor facilities and infrastructure however it is acknowledged that the policy as drafted could be interpreted to apply to quarrying undertaken by parties other than DOC. It is considered appropriate to amend the Policy 2.11.14 to make it clear that any quarrying is for departmental purposes. Policy 2.11.14 has therefore been amended as follows:

"Allow quarrying on Rangitoto Island at the existing site (northeast of the junction of Islington Bay Road and the road to Yankee Wharf), to provide material for the Department’s on-island visitor facilities and infrastructure."

51/7

Rangitoto Island has been devoid of trees for many decades. There has never been prolific bird life on Rangitoto Island. So can there be an adverse ecological effect?

Amend Policy 2.11.16 so if the apiary concessions are terminated, then the last concessionaire be given the first opportunity if and when newconcessions are reinstated (whether the concessions are for Pohutukawa, manuka, or any other type of flower).

2.11.16 Policy RejectThe Department cannot give preference to one future concessionaire over another. Policy 2.11.16 has therefore been retained in its current wording.

51/8

Object to only front country tracks on Rangitoto Island.

Need to provide a variety of backcountry and front country tracks. This will:- enhance visitors’ understanding and appreciation of natural, historic and cultural heritage, Policy 1.5.3.7- increase visitors’ awareness, understanding and

Amend Map 3 to include both front and back country tracks.


RejectIn Map 3 Rangitoto is zoned frontcountry, backcountry and remote. Appendix 11 in Volume I provides a definition and description of each of these visitor management zones. Each visitor management zone can contain a range of different tracks.

51/9




empathy for the natural environment. Policy 1.5.4.5- will cater for visitors’ different levels of fitness and abilities.

The Department has a range of track categories from 'Easy access walk', "Easy walking of up to an hour for people of all abilities, wheelchairs and children's buggies", to 'Route', "Challenging multi-day tramping on unformed tracks. Navigation and high level backcountry skills and fitness required". There are a range of track categories on Rangitoto Island.

Submitter: Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding ClubOppose policy for two main reasons.

(1) The AHGPC is on record with the Department of Conservation as an interested party in respect of Fort Takapuna and other flying sites used by hang glider and paraglider pilots in the Auckland Region, and has an interest in any issues affecting foot-launched aviation. We were not consulted or advised about the proposed strategy, and it was quite by chance that it was drawn to our attention. We are well known to the DOC Auckland Conservancy Office, as we made submissions regarding access for our members to fly at North Head in the last round of consultations in 2000. Prior to this we had been prohibited from flying at North Head, without reasonable justification, and we undertook considerable effort to re-establish access through negotiations with DOC. It is very disappointing to see a further attempt to prohibit foot-launched aviation from an existing, well-used site within the Auckland Conservancy without proper notification and on questionable grounds. Fort Takapuna is a very popular paragliding site for our members and has been used without incident for more than 20 years.As subdivision and land use has intensified over the last few years we have lost a number of sites, meaning that protection of existing sites and the recreational amenity they provide has become of prime importance to us. It is for that reason that the AHGPC also took the time to write to DOC (as well as the predecessors of the Auckland Council - ARC, ACC, NSCC, WCC, MCC and FDC) identifying our flying sites and asking to be kept informed of any proposal which might affect our use. It also needs to be understood that we can only use





sites, such as Fort Takapuna, when the weather conditions are favourable. We therefore use many sites sporadically, but each site is critical to maintain in order to give us options to fly in different wind directions. The proximity of Fort Takapuna to central Auckland makes it a prime site for pilots to be able to have a quick fly after work or on busy weekends, while its orientation means that it provides a valuable alternative to North Head in certain wind directions. We are extremely concerned that this proposal has been made, targeted specifically at paragliding, without the courtesy of the AHGPC being directly consulted.(2) The reasons given for introducing the prohibition for take-offs and landings is 'to protect its recreation and amenity values, and visitor safety'.First, paragliding (and hang gliding, for that matter) are themselves recreation activities. Aside from laying out a glider, and ultimately landing, there is no conflict with other recreational users. After take-off, we are governed by aviation law, and our own regulatory environment through the NZHGPA and the Civil Aviation Authority. Second, paragliding adds to the amenity value of this site. Every time we fly at Fort Takapuna we attract curious onlookers of all ages who gain considerable enjoyment from our use of the site. The smiles, waves and photos taken of us by people in the reserve itself and on Narrow Neck Beach below are testament to the benefit that others gain from watching us fly. Third, the issue of visitor safety is raised with no justification. In the 20 or so years since paragliding has been established in New Zealand, there is not a single incident reported of an observer being injured or put at risk from paragliding. This issue simply does not stand scrutiny.As paraglider pilots, we understand people’s innate concerns over safety and we are acutely conscious of avoiding any actual or perceived risk to members of the public from our activities.I should emphasise that both paragliding and hang gliding are highly regulated activities. In order to fly a paraglider or hang glider in New Zealand, the pilot must hold a rating (which cannot be obtained without extensive training, including a particular focus on




safety); the pilot must be a part of a Member Organisation, which carries with it membership of the NZHGPA; and they must abide by the Civil Aviation Rules applying to foot launched aviation.In the event there is a safety incident – injury to the pilot, damage to the glider, or injury to a member of the public – it must be reported and investigated. Serious incidents must be reported to CAA.I should add that the NZHGPA also carries third party insurance to cover any such eventuality.On that basis, we are very firmly of the view that continued paragliding at Fort Takapuna provides recreation without conflict to other users and adds to the amenity value of the area. Therefore there is no justifiable reason to exclude us based on either visitor safety or amenity values at this site.Decision sought:Delete Policy 2.14.4…………………………………………..Policy 2.14.8 (North Head)We oppose the strategy for non-motorised aviation (Policy 3.4.2) which is to apply to North Head (Policy 2.14.8). The aircraft policy reads:AIRCRAFT (CGP 9.5(b))3.4.2 Criteria for considering concession applications for the landing or taking off of aircraft may include (but not be limited to) the following:a) the outcome for the place (if the application is within a place);b) relevant aircraft zoning provisions;c) the purpose for which the land is held;d) effects on conservation values, including natural quiet;e) effects on other visitors (taking into account the size of zone and the proximity of other ground users);f) compliance with the NZ Aviation Industry Association’s AIRCARE Safety Programme, or equivalent, and the Fly Neighbourly protocol;g) the need for monitoring using new technologies; andh) landings should not occur within 50 m of tracks, huts or car parks unless otherwise specified in




We oppose the application of Policy 3.4.2 to North Head. We have three concerns as follows:

(1) We repeat our concerns over the fact that the AHGPC was not consulted about the proposed change (as per our submission above on Policy 2.14.4).We should have been consulted on the proposed change given the impact on our member’s recreational use of the site.

(2) Policy 2.14.8 appears to introduce discretionary approval ('may allow') for our use of the site. This was not in place previously, and it makes our recreational use subject to new criteria in Policy 3.4.2. Paragliding and hang gliding are regulated activities under Civil Aviation Rules. In order to fly a paraglider (or hang glider) in New Zealand, a pilot must hold the relevant rating (which requires training) and be a member of a Member Organisation (AHGPC) and be a member of the NZHGPA (which holds a Part 149 certificate from the Director of Civil Aviation under the Civil Aviation Act). The draft aircraft policy (Policy 3.4.2) covers aviation generally, but with a particular focus on powered flight.

Policy 3.4.2 raises a number of issues:(a) It introduces a requirement for all paraglider pilots to obtain a concession for landing and taking off aircraft. This is simply not feasible. North Head has been used without significant incident since it was re-established as a flying site in 2000 (and prior to the prohibition), without the requirement for a concession. There is no guidance as to who concessions would be granted to, under what criteria, and subject to what conditions. Typically, concessions are granted for commercial activity, for a term and subject to payment of a fee. We have no difficulty with a commercial operator applying for such a concession, but this is unnecessary for recreational flying.(b) Paragliding taking-off and landing is governed by the weather. We are happy to agree a take-off and landing zone, but paragraphs (a) to (c) are not relevant to what we do. As mentioned above, we are restricted in

Amend Policy 2.14.8 to read: "Allow the use of non-motorised aircraft, subject to this activity avoiding any adverse effects on the safety and enjoyment of other visitors" and note that should any concerns about adverse effects on other visitors be identified, the AHGPC would expect to be notified in the first instance and given the opportunity to rectify any issues using the range of options available to us.





what we do by CAA rules, and by airspace limitations which are already covered under our aviation rules and regulations.(c) The references to conservation values are already covered in the specific policy for North Head and Fort Takapuna, as are effects on other users. Natural quiet is also mentioned – as paragliding is non-motorised this is a non-issue.(d) The NZHGPA is not a member of the NZ Aviation Industry Association, and its AIRCARE Safety Programme and Fly Neighbourly protocol is not relevant to paragliding.(e) The use of new technologies in paragliding is a safety and equipment issue for the NZHGPA and CAA, not DOC as part of this policy. Paragliding is, by its nature, foot-launched and non-motorised.(f) The restriction on landing within 50 metres of tracks or car parks would severely restrict our paragliding activities at North Head, as the locations where we regularly undertake top-landings (landing at or near the launch areas) are adjoining tracks and car parks.Paragliders do not require runways to take-off and land. At most, the space required is to run a few steps, and to inflate or lay down a glider so there is no conflict between our activities and the use of the area by other members of the public.

(3) Policy 2.14.8 makes no mention of our members who fly hang gliders from North Head. Although this site is not nearly as well used by hang gliders as by paragliders, the proposed list of permitted non-motorised aircraft would exclude this form of foot-launched aviation with no apparent justification.

Submitter: Malcolm FisherIt is remarkable that Rangitoto Island nearly reached Motutapu Island at Islington Bay but bridge and causeway disguise this. Consider that the earthworks and rock placement of jetty and causeway be removed. Would enable small boats and kayaks through. A longer bridge would be needed and hopefully marine life would return to channel.

Inferred: Amend 2.11.1 to seeks removal of earthworks and rock placements between two islands.

2.11.1 Policy RejectThe Department does not intend to make changes to the causeway or jetty within the life of this CMS. The joining of the islands is of historic interest and has many benefits. Demolishing the causeway and jetty would have significant adverse effects on the Department's management of Rangitoto and

53/1




Motutapu, visitor flows and the visitor experience.Encourage regular boat service to Islington Bay and Home Bay so that the need for vehicle use to Rangitoto Wharf is much reduced.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.11.4 Policy AcceptThis issue of access applies to a number of Gulf Islands and changes have been made to Section 1.5.3 to descriptive text and the addition of a new policy which reads:

"Work with ferry and other transport operators, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and other agencies to enhance transport services to the Gulf Islands."

53/2

Map 3 shows all tracks on Rangitoto are classed as front country. These tracks are uneven. People venturing into outdoors used to be prepared for uneven tracks. Now public are being denied the opportunity to encounter more challenging terrain by the quest to make tracks as easy as possible. Flattening the tracks on Rangitoto doesn't provide an authentic volcanic experience and children will therefore miss out on an important educational experience. If a great walk means easy travel then I am opposed to it. The rudimentary tracks should be left as they are to provide visitors with a sense of adventure. A sign highlighting a tracks unevenness is all that is needed.

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.11.5 to ensure that some rudimentary track (surfaces) remain.

2.11.5 Policy Reject'Front country' is the visitor management zone Rangitoto and Motutapu are classified as. The Department classifies tracks under a different system. There are 6 categories of walking tracks to suit different people's skills and abilities. A multi-day walk on Rangitoto and Motutapu is likely to encompass most of these categories, which will therefore include some tracks/sections of track which are steep, rough or muddy.

53/3

Extend mountain biking opportunity to include McKenzie Bay and Summit Roads. Cyclists can then appreciate the uniqueness of Rangitoto Island and more readily reach the summit, doing the final climb by foot.

Amend Policy 2.11.7 to include McKenzie Bay and Summit Roads


53/4

Submitter: Cameron KennedyI oppose the new policies 2.14.4 and 2.14.8. I have been a PG2 certified paraglider pilot for a year and a half, and I have enjoyed flying at North Head and Fort Takapuna during that time. Paragliding is a self regulated body with high qualification standard, with the Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club responsible for membership use of the Auckland Area Flying Sites. This has ensured a long time track record of responsible use of these places. I believe that paragliding at these historic sites is the most low impact recreational use of the area. There are relatively few days that weather allows the activity. Visitors are





normally interested and enjoy taking pictures of the surroundings with a paraglider present. I have not seen any negative interaction with any other visitors to North Head or Fort Takapuna. I do not think that the land use policies for these places should be changed or restricted for the use of non-motorized aircraft.I oppose the new policies 2.14.4 and 2.14.8. I have been a PG2 certified paraglider pilot for a year and a half, and I have enjoyed flying at North Head and Fort Takapuna during that time. Paragliding is a self regulated body with high qualification standard, with the Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club responsible for membership use of the Auckland Area Flying Sites. This has ensured a long time track record of responsible use of these places. I believe that paragliding at these historic sites is the most low impact recreational use of the area. There are relatively few days that weather allows the activity. Visitors are normally interested and enjoy taking pictures of the surroundings with a paraglider present. I have not seen any negative interaction with any other visitors to North Head or Fort Takapuna. I do not think that the land use policies for these places should be changed or restricted for the use of non-motorized aircraft.

Amend Policy 2.14.8 to read: "Allow the use of non-motorised aircraft, subject to this activity avoiding any adverse effects on the safety and enjoyment of other visitors"


Submitter: Motutapu Farms LimitedSection lacks provisions for new marine reserves. A reserve contiguous with Motutapu and/or Rangitoto out to a depth of 30m would be beneficial to marine biodiversity of the Gulf and contribute to improving water quality.

Insert new policies in Section 2.1 to read:(1) "Investigate the establishment of a marine reserve contiguous with Motutapu and/or Rangitoto from MHWS to a depth that affords some protection to the water column and marine mammals including Bryde's whales";(2) Investigate the restoration of marine ecosystems with shellfish beds such as mussels and other bivalves, in previous shellfish sites between Rangitoto and Motutapu via a mechanism such as a marine reserve. The purpose being to protect and restore natural character and ecosystems and improved water quality".



The MPA Policy provides an integrated planning process for establishing marine protected areas, including marine reserves, in coastal and offshore waters. It includes a requirement that a marine

55/1




reserve will be established to protect at least one example of each marine habitat and ecosystem type.



Penultimate para, p. 87 - Trust undertakes considerably more activity than just operating interpretation centre. For clarity CMS should correctly state the level of contribution made by Trust in same manner as afforded to Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi in Section 2.10.

Last para, p. 87 - Motutapu Farms Ltd are not aware of any decision nor been consulted on statement that bicycle use will be given priority and vehicles will need to be carefully managed. This would have a significant influence on Farm's activities. Pedestrians have long had priority on roads and Farm considers this appropriate. Do not support bicycles on islands except for DUAL due to high speed and unpredictability of bicycles.

(1) Amend Penultimate para, p. 87 to reflect the contribution of the Motutapu Restoration Trust;(2) Modify last para, p. 87 by deleting the word "bicycle".


Accept in partThe Department agrees that recognition should be given to the trusts/community groups that undertake restoration work on the island. The description has been amended as follows to include a reference to the three main groups:

"There are a number of trusts and community groups that presently undertake valuable conservation work on these islands, including: - The Motutapu Restoration Trust, which formed in 1994. The Trust’s aim is to protect and restore the natural and cultural landscape of Motutapu. Significant volunteer effort and funding has been put into replanting, facilitating translocations and conserving historic features.- The Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp Trust, which operates the Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp. The camp provides an opportunity for young people to experience conservation and outdoor education.

55/2




- The Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust, which aims to conserve and interpret the historic bach communities on Rangitoto Island."

The mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.

Strongly oppose trial for following reasons:(1) Roads are narrow and rough with lots of loose gravel. Rangitoto unforgiving to the human body.(2) Would current speeds - 30km (Rangitoto) and 40km (Motutapu) apply to cyclists? If so, signage and enforcement would be required. Who would do this and under what powers? Cyclist in DUAL exceed these speeds however this is highly controlled event and roads are closed.(3) Will diminish impact and special nature of DUAL. Event is major fundraiser for Motutapu Restoration Trust. Uniqueness of event is crucial to achieving fundraising.(4) Safety issues - conflicting use of tracks by different users will result in safety considerations. No first aid station. Difficulty in evacuating people. Poor mobile reception.(5) Inability to control where cyclists go (i.e. paddocks, native forest sensitive archaeological sites).(6) Grazing on Motutapu acknowledged as only viable mechanism to protect archaeological features. Animal welfare issues will arise from mountain bike and livestock interactions. Tracks and roads are not fenced - could lead to surprise interactions with people and livestock being hurt. Farm use trucks to move livestock. When laden these trucks would be unable to stop in the sort of timeframe/ distance necessary to avoid a no attentive/ inexperienced or out of control cyclist. Holding DUAL requires months of planning with Total Sport. Farm plans to move stock two months in advance of event. It would not be possible to plan this way if mountain biking was a regular activity.(7) Biosecurity issues.(8) Walking (multi-day) is more appropriate family orientated activity to see and enjoy islands, respecting the "natural, cultural and historic values".

(1) Delete proposed mountain bike trial; and(2) Delete Policy 2.11.7.






The roads on Motutapu are narrow and have blind and tight corners. A near miss incident recently occurred between a vehicle and school group on bicycles. They were riding responsibly but couldn't be seen around the bend.

Delete Policy 2.11.8.2.11.8 Policy AcceptThe mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.

55/4

Under what Act would these be created? Bylaws put a long time to put in pace. The islands are too large to monitor fully. Adverse effects could occur in the meantime and safety of public is an risk. Bylaws and warrants need to be in place before mountain bike trial proceeds (on Rangitoto and Motutapu).

Amend Policy 3.3.3 to read: "All mountain biking related bylaws, regulations and legal warrants required to monitor and enforce such bylaws and regulations, including road traffic and speed related regulations, roads and tracks will be promulgated and issued before any mountain biking trial on Motutapu and Rangitoto is further considered for implementation".

3.3.3 Policy RejectBylaws or regulations are not required if the mountain biking trial is undertaken by concession, as per the amended wording in the CMS. Concession contract conditions are then able to be enforced. Bylaws or regulations are only required if there is no concession or other form of permit, and some ability to enforce policy is required e.g. if the public have freedom of access to mountain bike at a place, but where some controls are required that then require enforcement.

55/5

The CMS appears silent on the fire risk to public conservation land as a result of smoking and discarded, but still hot, cigarette buts. Consider that public conservation land should be smoke-free and that an appropriate policy be introduced.

Amend CMS by inserting a policy (possibly in Section 1.5) making public conservation land smoke-free.

General RejectThe smoke-free campaign generally refers to making areas smoke-free for public health reasons. While it is acknowledged that the Auckland Council has resolved to do this progressively in terms of parks and reserves this was only done after extensive investigations and public consultation. If DOC were to do this, the Department would also need to undertake similar investigations and consultation not just at a local level but at a national level also. It is therefore inappropriate to amend the CMS to provide for this as requested by the submitter.

It is noted however that provisions (description and a policy) have bee inserted into Part Three in response to a submission by Forest and Bird (57/7) which address the effects on public conservation land from fire.

55/6

Submitter: Adventure CapitalSupport the proposal to allow mountain biking on Motutapu and Rangitoto. Agree that allowing these activities in a strictly controlled manner to protect the environment and ensure the safety of visitors is paramount. Suggest that simple changes to the concession operating guidelines will ensure the venture is affordable, accessible, safe and enjoyable for ordinary

Reword Policy 2.11.7 to read: "Allow a limited concession opportunity to allow approved hire mountain bikes to land at Rangitoto Wharf or Home Bay amenity areas and operate guided mountain bike tours on Rangitoto and Motutapu and tracks on Motutapu subject to: a) a 5-year trial period from the date the concession is authorised;


56/1




New Zealanders as well as international travellers. b) track use on Rangitoto and Motutapu limited to authorised tracks only c) group size limitations to minimise disruption to other recreational users and land management activities d) no night time riding of mountain bikese) restrictions, limits and information that encourage responsible behaviour by mountain bike riders."

Support the proposal to allow mountain biking on Motutapu and Rangitoto. Agree that allowing these activities in a strictly controlled manner to protect the environment and ensure the safety of visitors is paramount. Suggest that simple changes to the concession operating guidelines will ensure the venture is affordable, accessible, safe and enjoyable for ordinary New Zealanders as well as international travellers.

Amend Policy 2.11.8 to read: "Subject to Policy 2.11.7, provide for independent mountain biking and guided mountain biking groups using bicycles hired for use on Rangitoto and Motutapu for a 5-year period on only the following roads . . ."

2.11.8 Policy RejectThe mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.

56/2

Support proposal to allow seasonal mountain biking on tracks and roads in Kawau Island Historic Reserve where terrain and track construction are suitable for this activity, potential conflict with walkers can be managed and historic sites are protected.

Retain Policy 2.8.2.2.8.2 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.8.2 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

56/3

Support the proposal to investigate sites for a small scale camping ground on Kawau Island in cooperation with Auckland Council and the community.

Retain Policy 2.8.5.2.8.5 Policy NotedNote support for Policy 2.8.5.

Policy 2.8.5 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

56/4

Support the proposal to trial and, if feasible, allow seasonal mountain biking on the Harataonga Coastal Walkway, provided that adverse effects on natural values can be avoided and potential conflict with walkers can be minimised.


Support the proposal to consider options to regulate or formalise camping if unacceptable impacts from informal camping are occurring within Te Paparahi Conservation Area.


We support the overall Policy, but question the need for Bylaws and Regulations to enable enforcement of the mountain biking provisions.

Amend Policy 3.3.3 to read: "Investigate alternative methods to ensure mountain biking provisions are adhered to".

3.3.3 Policy RejectIt is not considered appropriate to amend Policy 3.3.3 as requested by the submitter. Bylaws or regulations are required to enforce the code of conduct. Other options would not be enforceable.

56/7

Submitter: Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand




The CMS structure is hard to follow logic between issue-objective-policy and it becomes repetitive. Where the structure and policies in different CMS's are identical they should be numbered that way. Where a Conservancy has a specific appendix, these should follow the common appendices. Each section should also be numbered.

Amend CMS by enumerating all sections of document including achieving common numbers where possible between CMS for identical provisions.

General AcceptSections of the document will be enumerated before the document is published.

57/1

CMS contains no indexing, references or bibliography. This is serious omissions especially as issues are addressed in numerous Place sections, as well as general ones. The inclusion of national priority approaches without reference to any background papers is also disturbing.

Amend CMS to include:(1) An Index; and(2) References.

General Accept in part(1) An Index will be provided at the end of the process for the final approved document; and(2) Referencing will be improved.

The changes will improve the readability of the CMS.

57/2

Submission outlines definitions and functions of DOC under Conservation Act and Wildlife Act and notes that CMS do not meet some of these legislative and policy responsibilities. Some parts of CMS appear to have overlooked the primary purpose of DOC. Note that DOC's functions do not include promoting economic growth.

Inferred: Amend CMS to reflect DOC's legislative and policy responsibilities.

Purpose CMS Accept in partInsert the following paragraph under 'Purpose of Conservation management strategies': "The Department's functions are for the most part identified in Section 6 of the Act and in other Acts listed in the First Schedule of the Act".

It is considered that the existing wording of the draft CMS largely encapsulates DOC's legislative and policy responsibilities. However, text has been added to the section entitled 'Purpose of conservation management strategies' to reinforce that it is the Conservation Act 1987 and those Acts listed in its First Schedule, which identify the Department's functions.

57/3

Purpose of CMS to implement General Policies and achieve integrated management. Sections 13(a) and 17 of Conservation Act quoted with particular elements shown in bold or underlined for emphasis (need to refer).

There are many areas where the draft CMS does not comply with General Policy including statutory advocacy, fire, landscapes, ecosystem services, vehicles and many other areas. Of particular concern are:- 13(a) (iii) potential conflicts between outcomes at specific places and an explanation of how these will be resolved, especially in relation to disturbance of threatened shorebirds by people, vehicles and dogs.

Amend CMS by:(1) Reviewing for consistency with General Policy including in relation to statutory advocacy, fire, landscapes, ecosystem services and vehicles;(2) Ensuring CMS addresses concerns in relation to Sections 13(a) (iii) and (iv) of the General Policy; and(3) Include descriptors for the use of "will", "should" and "may" as defined in the Conservation General Policy, p. 14.

Purpose CMS Accept in part(1) Changes have been made to the CMS in responses to other submissions from Forest and Bird. Please refer to Submission 57/24 (advocacy), Submission 57/16 (fire), Submission 57/24 (landscapes), Submission 57/23 (ecosystem services) and Submission 57/28 (vehicles);

(2) Conflicts at Place and cumulative effects are addressed in a number of ways.

For a start, one of the criteria for identifying a Place was that conflict had been identified at the Place. Once identified as a Place, conflicts are identified in

57/4




- 13(a) (iv) adverse effects (including cumulative effects) of different uses and explanation of how these effects will be minimised, both of which are specific to Places but also applies particularly to aircraft.

Inclusion of the following descriptor of the words "will", "should" and "may”" found on p14 of the CGP, should be included in the CMS as otherwise the reasoning behind the choice of verb is likely to confuse.

the description and then actions identified within the policies to either constrain or enable an action with a view to resolving conflicts so that the outcomes for that Place could be achieved.

Adverse effects (including cumulative effects) are identified and discussed in descriptive text throughout the document (particularly in Sections 1.3, 1.5 and Part Two). Objectives then identify the outcomes sought and specific actions needed to achieve these outcomes. Part Four then sets out the approach will take in terms of monitoring whether adverse effects are occurring and the effectiveness of the CMS in managing these.

(3) Inserting the following policy at the start of Part Three:"X In interpreting the policies in this strategy the words ‘will’, ‘should’ and ‘may’ have the following meanings: a) Policies where legislation provides no discretion for decision-making or a deliberate decision has been made by the Minister to direct decision-makers, state that a particular action or actions ‘will’ be undertaken. b) Policies that carry with them a strong expectation of outcome without diminishing the constitutional role of the Minister and other decision-makers, state that a particular action or actions ‘should’ be undertaken. c) Policies intended to allow flexibility in decision-making, state that a particular action or actions ‘may’ be undertaken".

This section should make explicit the role of the:(1) Conservation Board and the New Zealand Conservation Authority in approving the draft CMS. (2) CMS in guiding management actions as well as decision-making.

Amend Purpose of CMS as follows:(1) Redraft the 4th bullet on p4 to read ‘Policies describe the course of action or guiding principles to be used for conservation management and decision-making; and(2) Insert a description of the role of Conservation Boards including monitoring of the CMS and the role of the New Zealand Conservation Authority as decision-maker in approving the CMS on p. 4 following the sentence "Each CMS is prepared".

Purpose CMS Accept(1) Amending the bullet describing policies and the corresponding statement in Part Three to read: "Policies describe the course of action or guiding principles to be used for conservation management and decision-making"; (2) Amending the fifth sentence of paragraph under 'Purpose' which starts "The second phase of.." to read: "The Auckland Conservation Board was

57/5




involved in the development of the strategy including through attendance..": and(3) Inserting an additional paragraph under 'Purpose' to read: "The draft was publicly notified on 5 December 2012 and hearings held in May 2013. The Strategy was amended by the Department and sent to the Auckland Conservation Board for consideration. The Board reviewed responses to submissions made then sent the revised draft to the New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) for approval. The Strategy was approved by the NZCA on XXX. Once approved the Board has an ongoing role in monitoring the Department's implementation of the strategy and providing advice of NZCA with respect to monitoring".

The changes make explicit the role of the CMS in guiding management and decision-making and the ongoing roles on the Auckland Conservation Board and New Zealand Conservation Authority.

CMS is closely shaped around the Statement of Intent 2012-17 (SOI). There are several problems with this:(1) The SOI has a 5 year life span and could very quickly become out of date (CMS lifespan is 10);(2) The SOI is politically driven. Not all of the SOI is supported in conservation legislation, specially the Intermediate Outcome:"More business opportunities delivering increased economic prosperity and conservation gain" has no mandate in legislation despite its political popularity; and(3)There is no mention of the link between the outcomes in Section 1.5 and the SOI.

No mandate for business and should focus on Section 6(e) of the Conservation Act.

Amend CMS by:(1) Delete the Intermediate Outcome which reads: "More business opportunities delivering increased economic prosperity and conservation gain";(2) Delete policies that relate to national departmental processes or revenue gathering such as Policy 1.5.5.6;(3) Reconfigure the section based on "More business opportunities delivering increased economic prosperity and conservation gain" which has no legislative mandate, to be oriented instead to implications of business activities on public conservation land such as ensuring positive conservation outcomes and appropriate activities consistent with General Policy; and(4) Remove excessive and irrelevant text relating to the regional economies (specific examples provided).

Relationship to other documents, tools and processes

Reject(1) The Office of Auditor General directed DOC to establish a clear link between statutory and business planning processes. This is the link.

(2) There is no reference to revenue gathering in Objective 1.5.5.6.

(3) The section is directed at establishing productive relationships with the business sector. This is more than just through the allocation of concessions.

57/6

Use of tools for closure of areas is supported. However for avoidance of doubt, the section on p6 should be cross-referenced to an operative provision which implements it.

Closure of areas by cross-referencing to Policy 3.1.4.Legislative tools AcceptClosures are addressed in Policy 3.1.4 in Part Three. It is however noted that there is some inconsistency in terms of when closures may occur between this text and Policy 3.1.4. In order to avoid this inconsistency it is recommended that the bullets in

57/7




this section be deleted. This will reduce any potential for confusion arising from inconsistent wording and will not change the effect of the CMS.

There should be an explanation either in this section or the relevant Place (2.15) of any international commitments including RAMSAR and how they are being met to achieve integrated management.

Amend Section or relevant Place as to how international commitments including RAMSAR being met.

Legislative tools Accept in partIt is considered that the 'Legislative tools' section provides sufficient recognition of RAMSAR at a general level. The only site within Auckland is within the Firth of Thames Place and changes are proposed to it and Part Three to ensure integrated management of the RAMSAR site occurs. The changes include:

Firth of Thames Place(i) Inserting specific reference to the Living waters initiative as a key programme to reduce nutrient inputs into the wetland.(ii) Inserting an appendix listing the RAMSAR criteria for the Firth of Thames.(iii) Amending Policy 2.15.6 to specifically refer to implementing the RAMSAR Convention.(iv) Amending Year 10 milestone to read: “three yearly report on progress and achievements to Ramsar Convention Secretariat has been completed and demonstrates the Wetland is well managed and continues to support a range of important species and functioning ecosystems”.

Part Three(v) Insert a new policy which reads: “Manage (including when considering concession applications), those parts of Auckland that are identified as wetlands of international importance under the Convention of Wetlands of International Importance 1971 (also referred to as the Ramsar Convention) in accordance with the criteria for which those wetland(s) of international importance were nominated and New Zealand’s obligations under the Convention”.

57/8

Some generic statements should be consistent e.g. for Auckland it is stated: "The Department will provide for Iwi involvement in Kaitiakitanga irrespective of whether they have settled their grievances or not". Such

Amend CMS by:(1) Standardise nationally the general text in Section 1.4;(2) Include an overview of the mechanisms that will be operating in the conservancy;


Accept in part(1) Text in Section 1.4 is standard for the first 3 paragraphs and then describes local treaty settlements.57/9




intentions should be nationally consistent.

Objective 1.4 Bullet 8 should be qualified similarly to 1.4 Bullets 4 and 6 i.e. consistent with legislation, purpose for which the land is held, General Policy and Treaty Settlements.

(3) Update the text prior to publication to include any settlement made in the intervening submissions and deliberation process; and(4) Amend 1.4 Bullet 8 to read"Work with tangata whenua to establish formal protocols to enable the customary use of traditional materials and indigenous species consistent with Kaitiakitanga, the relevant legislation including Treaty Settlements, regulations, general policies and the purposes for which the land is held".

(2) The CMS identifies the outcomes that the public can expect within Auckland at a strategic level. How it is implemented is an operational issues and outside the scope of the CMS.(3) The CMS will be updated to reflect all settlements prior to approval.(4) Amend Objective 1.4.8 (a) to read: "...and indigenous species, consistent with objective 1.4.4'.

The vague ‘Contribute to’ nature of these objectives is opposed. The CMS should say what the Department is going to do. Whilst it is acknowledged that the Department’s powers to protect features on private land is limited to advocacy, this should at least be stated in an objective.

It is also noted that the draft CMS contains additional objectives relating to integrated management, advocacy, maintaining the pest-free status of islands and to progress amendments to land classification.

Amend CMS by:(1) Removing the phrase ‘Contribute to’ from all objectives and rephrase to indicate Departmental action;(2) e.g. 1.5.1.1 Manage the priority ecosystems and sites in Appendices 2, 3 and 4 on public conservation land using an integrated conservation management approach and actively managing threats, to achieve a healthy functioning state.(3) e.g. 1.5.x.x Advocate for, and work with the land owners and community, to protect and restore the ecosystems listed in Appendix 2 which are not on public conservation land;(4) e.g. 1.5.1.2 As a priority, apply resources to the greatest extent possible to ensure the persistence of the threatened species listed in Appendix 6; and(5) Rewording Policy 1.5.1.5 "Seek a nationally representative network of marine protected areas, through the implementation of local or regional marine forums focussed on the marine ecosystems listed in Appendix 8". (see discussion below on marine reserves).(6) Include an objective to re classify any stewardship land where priority habitats or threatened species are found.(7) Include objectives for ecosystem services and freshwater, including advocacy.

1.5 Auckland Conservancy by 2024

Accept in part(1) Reject. "Contribute to" carefully selected to not mislead and raise false expectations. DOC’s work on ecosystems and species is only part of the national effort, both on and off public conservation land and water.

(2) Accept in part. Amend Objective 1.5.1.1. to refer to working with others in terms of ecosystems off public conservation land (Appendix 2).

(3) Amend Objective 1.5.1.7 to read "Advocate for and work with the Auckland Council, Waikato councils and the community (including landowners), to protect natural heritage off public conservation lands and waters within Auckland, such as priority ecosystem management units, threatened and at risk species and significant landscapes and landforms selected from Appendix 9 at risk of permanent degradation."

(4) Reject. Same response as (1) above.

(5) Accept in part. Amend Objective 1.5.1.5. to read: "Engage in collaborative processes with the Ministry of Primary industries, Hauraki Gulf Forum, Auckland Council, local communities and others to build a nationally representative network of marine reserves and other marine protected areas..." to recognise some of the key agencies DOC will be collaborating with.

57/10




(6) Reject. Objective 1.5.1.15 (& Policy 3.1.2) addresses the classification of all public conservation land to reflect the values of land and water; this would include priority habitats and threatened species. [No text change].

(7) Add a new objective in Section 1.5.1 to read: "Undertake or facilitate monitoring and research into, and advocate the values of, the ecosystem services and economic benefit provided by public conservation and other protected lands." Further changes have been made in response to another submission from Forest and Bird (57/17) in relation to freshwater fisheries.

Some of the Outcomes include material that is merely descriptive of values and repetitive of the introductory text. It is acknowledged that writing Outcomes is easier said than done but care should be taken to avoid describing threatened species as outcomes when the outcome is to reduce the level of threat.

Section 1.5 Auckland Conservancy by 2024 is an overall Outcome for the whole conservancy: ‘The key organisational outcomes to be delivered by management of conservation resources within the Auckland Conservancy over the next 10 years’ (p19).

Contrary to the first paragraph, the maps do not show “how Auckland Conservancy’s key conservation outcomes fit into the jigsaw of priority ecosystem and recreation outcomes’ (p21). What the maps show are the national priorities in the conservancy.

There needs to be some clarification as to whether Section 1.5. is about Outcomes, or Objectives, especially as Outcomes now has a particular statutory meaning in terms of CGP. Are the Outcomes referred to just the Intermediate Outcomes from the SOI? Or should the text beneath these, detail each outcome? As the distinctive features etc have already been set out in Section 1.3, the Society’s view is that Section 1.5. should be written as Outcomes.

Amend CMS:(1) Change heading of 1.5 to Auckland Conservancy Outcomes by 2014;(2) Clarify what is an Outcome for statutory purposes in Section 1.5 and rewrite all sub-sections in an outcome statement format; and(3) Amend the sentence beginning the maps in Volume II’ to state that it shows the national priorities in the conservancy.


AcceptAmend the introduction to Section 1.5 to read:

"This section outlines national conservation outcomes for natural heritage, history, recreation, public engagement and conservation gains from business partnerships to be delivered by management of conservation resources within the area covered by the strategy over the next 10 years (refer Introduction).

These national conservation outcomes are linked to the Department’s Outcome Statement and 100-year Vision as detailed in the Department’s Statement of Intent.

Map 2, demonstrates how the national ecosystem and destination priorities in the area covered by the strategy fit into the national jigsaw of national conservation outcomes identified by the Department".

The changes clarify the relationship between Sections 1.5.1 to 1.5.5 and the DOC Statement on Intent (i.e. Headings 1.5.1 to 1.5.5). The reference in the heading to 2024 as it signifies term of the Strategy (i.e. 10 years from CMS approval in 2014).

57/11




CGP Policy 13 (f) states that CMS' should include major milestones towards planned outcomes. Milestones should be specific, measureable, realistic and time-bound. Many of the milestones are vague and limited to merely reporting.

The Introduction to Part 2 states that "Milestones are special events that are measureable steps towards achieving the outcome statement" (p31). The word "special" (meaning unusual or better, held in esteem, reserved, reserved for a specific purpose, or not part of the usual programme/menu, or a reduced price) is not appropriate in this context.

A disturbing number of milestones are "Report on" such and such. The Society expects to see milestones that are actions contributing towards meeting the Objectives or Outcomes e.g. for Objective 1.4.8. an appropriate milestone would be ‘Protocols established with tangata whenua on customary use of materials’ etc.

Amend CMS by:(1) Reviewing all Milestones to ensure they are action- related;(2) Deleting the words "special events" from the Milestone descriptor in Part Two and rewording as:"Milestones are actions that are measureable steps towards achieving the outcome statement"; and (3) Including milestones for Objectives in Part One.

General Accept in part(1) Revise milestones throughout CMS to make them specific, measurable, realistic and time-bound; (2) Including milestones with particular reference to NHMS priority ecosystem actions; and(3) Rewording the Milestone descriptors in Parts One and Two to read as follows: "Milestones are specific actions that are measurable steps towards achieving outcome statements".

The submitters is correct in identifying that milestones could be improved and are number of changes are recommended to do this. Where objectives and policies have been amended in response to submissions, milestones have also been reviewed.

57/12

Policy 4.1(a) Conservation General Policy (CGP) requires CMSs to identify/ manage indigenous biodiversity. Appendix 6 partially fulfils this, although restricted to threatened species. However matters from 4.1(a)(ii) addressed only in limited way (a sentence on p.11, broad summary p. 13). CMS silent on CGP Policy 4.1(f) and (g).

Apart from Appendices 2 and 4, CMS contains little or no detail about objectives/ actions to address CGP Policy 4.1(b) matters. Threats to freshwater and terrestrial ecosystems are not identified and should be included. Threats include: Change in land use, poor land management practices (particularly the intensification of farming, quarry development and logging), sediment derived from accelerated erosion, drainage, water reticulation and supply, barriers to fish migration, pest plant encroachment (potential didymo invasion), pest fish (particularly koi carp, rudd, tench and catfish), grazing, development, predators and climate change.

Amend CMS to:(1) Include text identifying biodiversity threats;(2) Include management objectives and actions consistent with CGP Policy 4.1 (b). This should be by way of an amendment to the Draft CMS and re-notified to enable informed public submission;(3) Re-write the Objectives to clarify the Department’s actions e.g.1.5.1.1 To protect and restore indigenous ecosystems on public conservation lands and waters to a healthy functioning state, focusing on the priority ecosystem sites listed in Appendices 2, 3 and 4.1.5.1.2 To give priority to ensuring the persistence of nationally threatened species, as listed in Appendix 6.Include an objective To protect the marine species and populations for which the Department is responsible to achieve the recovery of those that are threatened of that have been depleted or other adversely affected by human activities and / or invasive species or pests.1.5.1.5 To seek a nationally representative network of terrestrial and marine protected areas, including marine reserves, taking into account the ecosystems listed in Appendix 2, 4 and 8, through implementation of regional


Accept in part(1) Section 1.3 already addresses a number of the key threats to biodiversity in Auckland. This section is meant to be specific to Auckland and is also not primarily focused on threats. Therefore, it is considered unnecessary to add the text proposed by the submitter.

(2) The matters identified in CGP 4.1(b) are implicit within several objectives in 1.5.1. Some new objectives proposed as a result of submission 57/14 will also address some of these matters. There is no need to re-notify these matters.

(3) The phrase "Contribute to" has been carefully selected to not mislead and raise false expectations. The Department's work on ecosystems and species is only part of the national effort, both on and off public conservation lands and waters

It is important that the Department's work in Auckland, whilst focused on priority ecosystems,

57/13




Objectives are phrased as "Contribute to" various outcomes without actually specifying what the department will do. Priority areas are often left to community initiatives and not DOC-lead. All priority areas (as identified in Appendices) should be DOC-led with local groups only relied upon to do lower priority projects.

Various Milestones refer to "Conservation actions have been initiated at priority ecosystem sites at XYZ". These conservation actions need to be made available (preferably included as appendices) and open to public scrutiny and submission.

The Society presumes that this detail must exist as part of the NHMS , but its exclusion from Conservation General Policy (CGP) the CMS means that the document lacks transparency and accountability.

Forest and Bird is currently identifying Important Bird Area sites for seabirds in NZ under the BirdLife International Global IBA programme (Forest and Bird is BirdLife’s NZ partner). The process is similar to Ramsar sites identification and uses internationally accepted criteria. In the northern NZ region a number of sites will be identified in the Kermadecs, Three Kings, the wider Hauraki Gulf region and on Auckland’s west coast. The CMS should at least recognise that this process is underway even though the IBA seabirds report will not be published until later in the year Attached is a list of sites for northern New Zealand. Marine areas will also be identified under this programme.

Note that the Hauraki Gulf Seabird Strategic Plan to be published soon by the Hauraki Gulf Forum is useful for CMS. It has a number of recommendations relating to islands/island groups.

marine forums. (4) Include a new objective: ‘To advocate, through statutory processes, for the legal protection of terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems, habitats and species both within and outside conservation land’ either here, or in a new Statutory Advocacy section;(5) Inferred: Include a new objective: To advocate the conservation of natural and historic resources generally;(6) Amend the CMS so that conservation actions for all priority sites are DOC-led;(7) Include text and policies on Important Bird Areas, either in Section 1.5.1 or in a Hauraki Gulf Place;(8) Include an Outcome that seabirds have better protection and become much more conspicuous because their breeding and feeding areas are better managed; and(9) Re-write the Milestones to be more action-specific.

must be done in such a way as to contribute to a national network of ecosystems.

It is considered appropriate that Objective 1.5.1.1 should relate to both Appendix 2 and 4. However, it is not considered necessary to refer to Appendix 3, as the islands would be appropriately covered by Appendices 2 and 4.

Amend Objective 1.5.1.1 to read: "Contribute to a national network of representative ecosystems conserved to a healthy functioning state, focussing on the ecosystems listed in Appendix 2 and the priority ecosystem management units listed in Appendix 4.

The wording in 1.5.1.5 is not too dissimilar from the wording that is already in the draft CMS as notified. Note that some changes have been made to this policy as a result of other submissions.

Note that changes have been made to Objective 1.5.1.7 in response to Submission 57/24 regarding the protection/ restoration of priority ecosystems.

Objective 1.5.1.9 already addresses the management of threats to Marine mammals, particularly the Maui's dolphin and Bryde's whale.

(4 & 5) Advocacy for freshwater and terrestrial issues have been addressed in a manner of ways through a range of objectives in this section, including 1.5.1.7, 1.5.1.11, 1.5.1.13 and some new objectives which are intended to be added as a result of other submissions.

(6) Simply because a site is identified as a priority site by the Department does not necessarily mean that it is appropriate that the Department should lead all actions. It may be more appropriate for another agency or organisation to take the lead. For example where it is a site which is of significance to a local community or tangata whenua. The Department




would however, continue to be involved where appropriate and contribute in a manner which is reflective of the priority of the site.

(7) It is agreed that the "IBA" programme contributes to an important issue for the Auckland conservancy and requires better acknowledgement in the text.

Add the following paragraph to the descriptive text in Section 1.5.1: "The Important Bird Area (IBA) programme uses a set of standard criteria for identifying sites based on the IUCN (International Union for Conservation of Nature) threat rankings of birds and a set of population parameters (numbers of birds present based on their threat status). The IBA sites are used to encourage protection of sites of importance to wildlife. A process is underway to list IBA sites in New Zealand. Sites in Auckland include: Kermadec Islands, Mokohinau (Pokohinu Island), Mangawhai, Moturoa, Pakiri Beach, Te Hauturu-o -Toi Little Barrier Island, North Auckland seabird flyway, Kaipara Harbour, Hirakimata Kotuku Peninsula (Aotea), Mahiku Island, Horuhoru Rock, Muriwai, Manukau Harbour, and Firth of Thames".

(8) Section 1.5.1 does not contain outcomes. However, the term seabirds has been added to the outcome in 2.15 Firth of Thames Place.

(9) Outcome statements will be reviewed throughout the document with a view to making them more specific. Noe that milestones are to be inserted for priority ecosystems in response to another submission by the submitter (57/12)

CMS lacks provisions to achieve requirements of Section 6 (ab) of Conservation Act and responsibilities under Freshwater Fisheries regulations 1983.

CMS doesn't seem to place much priority on freshwater conservation although some priority sites include wetlands and Appendix 2 p157 includes wetlands as a

Amend CMS:(1) Add to text: "Threats to freshwater / wetland ecosystems include poor water quality, change in land use, poor land management practises (particularly the intensification of farming), drainage, water reticulation and supply, pest plant encroachment, pest fish, grazing, development and predators".


Accept in part(1)Threats to freshwater/wetland ecosystems are identified in Section 1.3 ( for example, declining water quality, sedimentation, subdivision/development, nutrient and storm water runoff, wetland drainage. In addition, those further threats are identified in Places (Part Two) containing

57/14




Key ecosystem and habitat. Management response at these sites includes plant and animal pest control, biosecurity surveillance and management, and advocacy and consultation.

CMS has no general objectives or policies for freshwater except for 3.131 - working with Fish and Game.

(2) Insert more comprehensive provisions for freshwater conservation to implement s6 (ab) of the Conservation Act and the fish passage and other responsibilities under the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983, including more information and policy direction for the management of whitebait species e.g. Will work with other organisations and landowners to protect the pathways of indigenous migratory freshwater fish (primarily whitebait and eels) species and ensure sports fishing doesn’t adversely impact these species; and(3) Include an Action Plan as a milestone by Year 3 to implement these provisions.(4) Include Waikato Policy 2.2.2 (d) in the Auckland CMS.

freshwater/ wetland ecosystems (e.g. Great Barrier, Kaipara).

(2) Objectives in Section 1.5.1 and Appendix 2 identify key freshwater/ wetland ecosystems and how they will be managed on both public and private land. As noted above, the main sites on public conservation land are at Great Barrier and Kaipara containing freshwater/wetland ecosystems and policies within these places show how DOC will manage freshwater fisheries/ habitats within these places. It is acknowledged that the CMS does not include provisions relating to DOC's advocacy role in relation to managing these resources, including fisheries and the following policies have been inserted into Section 1.5.1 to rectify this.

" X Work with landowners, Auckland Council and Waikato councils, and advocate, for the protection of freshwater fish habitat and fish passage, particularly to maintain habitat connectivity and water quality from the headwaters of waterways to the coast that support threatened and at risk species.

X Contribute to multi-agency management of freshwater ecosystems and habitats, including catchment and river management programmes, wetland accords and associated programmes, and conservation accords with tangata whenua."

(3) Milestones have been reviewed in response to Submission 57/12 by Forest and Bird.

(4) The essence of Policy 2.2.2(d) from the Waikato CMS is included in the policies inserted above.

CGP Policy 4.2 requires the identification and prioritisation of threats posed by pests. This seems to take the form of Appendix 5 only. CMS does not seem to have an equivalent objective to Northland (1.5.1.7 Collaborate with agencies and communities to prevent the establishment and spread of the plant, animal and invertebrate pests listed in Appendix 5) or Waikato

Amend CMS to:(1) Ensure the Appendix of Pests is linked to an effective provision using Objective 1.5.1.11 in the Draft Waikato CMS as a model; and(2) Provide more detail in the Place section on pest actions.


Accept(1) Add a new objective to Section 1.5.1 to read: "Collaborate with agencies and communities to prevent the establishment and spread of the plant, animal and invertebrate pests listed in Appendix 5 in Auckland"; and(2) Making changes to Part 2- Places to provide more

57/15




(Objective 1.5.1.11). There is little detail of what the Department will do.

detail on pest actions in response to specific issues raised in submissions.

The changes provide more detail as to what actions DOC will be taking to manage plant and animal pests.

Fire is an issue that should be addressed in the CMS, preferably in Part 3.

Either include a policy similar to 2.2.10 in the Ahipara Place in Northland, "2.2.10 Continue to actively engage with the community to reduce local fire risk and implement reduction measures wherever necessary, particularly a... " or otherwise include as a general policy in Part 3.


Accept in part(1)Insert a new fire section in Part Three to read:

"Fire management

Under the Forest and Rural Fires Act 1977, the Minister of Conservation is a rural fire authority for all state areas, which generally include all public conservation lands, and a 1-kilometre safety margin around some state areas. Some Crown and public conservation lands have been included within enlarged Rural Fire Districts, bringing them under the jurisdiction of Rural Fire District Committees rather that the Department, as the rural fire authority. This occurred to establish a more effective and efficient fire management structure. Such an enlarged Rural Fire District has been created for the area lying within Auckland Council boundaries".

(2) Insert the following policy in Part Three:

X�Work co-operatively with the National Rural Fire Authority, the New Zealand Fire Service, landowners and the community to increase awareness of rural fire risks and mitigate them.

Fire is a threat to natural, cultural, historic and recreational values. Fire fuel reduction can be a preventative measure to reduce fire threat.

57/16

DOC should have a plan (and implement it) to minimise the threat of PTA (kauri dieback disease). All forests on public conservation land where kauri is present, especially close to tracks, should have signs and footwear cleanser at track entrances. Some tracks may need to be closed, subject to monitoring. Note

Amend CMS by inserting a new policy to read: "Implement and update as required a biosecurity plan to minimise the threat of PTA (kauri dieback disease) to forests where kauri is present with priority given to areas with public tracks. Measure to include provision of sanitizer and track closure where necessary".


Accept(1) Delete all the text in the descriptive paragraph in Section 1.3.1 following the words "(or PTA)".

(2) Insert the following descriptive text into Section 1.5.1:

57/17




'promotion' (cf. Northland Policy 2.1.13) not enough. "A current threat to kauri forests is kauri dieback disease (Phytophthora taxon Agathis or PTA), a soil-borne fungus-like organism that kills kauri trees, is a significant risk to the health and functioning of kauri forest ecosystems, and can be spread by human activity as well as by animals. At the time of writing this strategy PTA had been confirmed at several sites on Great Barrier and the former Rodney District. Important areas for kauri dieback prevention in Auckland are Hauturu- Little Barrier Island Place and Mataitai Forest, Kohukonui and Mangatawhiri-Vinings in the Hunuas (see Map 2). Since 2008 when PTA was declared an unwanted organism, the Department has been working with Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council the Ministry of Primary Industries, iwi and others on a Kauri Dieback Joint Agency Response (KDJAR). The KDJAR has formulated a number of measures (refer Part 3) as part of a long term management programme which the Department will implement".

(3) Insert the following new Objective in Section 1.5.1:"X Work with the Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council and the Ministry of Primary Industries to manage the spread and effects of kauri dieback disease and increase community understanding of the disease and recommended measures for disease prevention".

(4) Amending the description in Part Two, Section 2.3 (Hauturu) by inserting the following: "including kauri dieback disease which has not yet been detected".

(5) Insert the following policy into Part Two, Section 2.3 (Hauturu):"Maintain strict biosecurity measures to prevent the introduction of diseases, and pest plants and animals that would adversely affect the island’s ecological values including undertaking actions to prevent the establishment of kauri dieback disease in accordance with policies XXX in Part Three".




(6) Insert the following descriptive text in Part Three:"Kauri dieback diseaseAs identified in Part One, kauri dieback disease is a threat to kauri forests in Auckland and the Department is working with the Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, the Ministry of Primary Industries, iwi and others on a joint response to manage the disease. The key elements of the Department’s programme identified in Policy XX will be implemented throughout Auckland. In addition specific preventative measures will be implemented at Hauturu/ Little Barrier Place and these are found in Part Two-Places."

(7) Insert the following Policy in Part Three:"Develop and implement programmes to address and manage new occurrences of kauri dieback disease and contain it within sites where it has been confirmed using best practice techniques based on current knowledge, which may include, but not be limited to the following:a)Public awareness campaigns with a focus on behavioural changeb)Working with infrastructure companies, concessionaires, contractors, hunters and others to raise awareness of best practice and the need to adopt disease hygiene standards for their people, machinery, equipment and activitiesc)Introducing and maintaining disease hygiene measures for visitors at key forest entry points, and include information about these at relevant visitor information centresd)Research, surveillance and monitoringe)Changes to facilities and infrastructure such as the realignment of tracks, development of boardwalks, barriers or other structuresf)Temporary or long term track closuresg)Temporary or long term quarantining or closures of areas of public conservation land".

While the Draft CMS acknowledged the effects of kauri dieback disease on kauri forests and ecosystems




and the need to take some preventative measures to contain the disease, this threat/ issue was not followed through into objectives or policies. While the submitter has only sought changes in Section 1.5.1 a more integrated management approach, involving changes outside of Section 1.5.1 including policies (as requested by the submitter) is considered to be appropriate to address this issue.

CMS makes limited reference to climate change and there is no policy. Climate change a fundamental threat to be considered under Conservation General Policy 4.1(a) and (b).

Amend CMS to:(1) Include a discussion of climate change and its effects on indigenous biodiversity as below:

"Likely climate change impacts as pertaining to Public Conservation Land Climate change represents the single biggest threat to the survival of New Zealand’s indigenous flora and fauna. There are six key aspects to this. 1.Changing conditions in habitats that host flora and fauna that are unique to those areas, making them inhospitable to their endemic dependents. 2 Increased populations of existing introduced predator and pest species. 3.New species of introduced pest species being able to establish because of changed climatic conditions4.The direct effects of extreme weather.5.Sea level rise.6.The role the conservation estate can play in carbon sequestration

As New Zealand’s temperatures rise and climatic patterns around the country change, the nature of our plant and animal habitats is changing. Alpine areas are becoming more akin to lower altitude environments; conditions in southern areas are starting to become more like those in the north; and many lowland areas are becoming drier than they have ever been before.

For those native plants and animals that exist only in small, specific parts of the country (whether that be because they have evolved according to the unique conditions found there, or because much of their preferred habitat has been lost to development), these changes are


Accept in partThe intention is for conservation management strategies to be region-specific so references to climate change should be specific rather than generic statements that could relate to anywhere in the country. For example, climate change references could relate to particular threats to a particular historic structure owing to sea level rise. While general issues such arising from climate change, such as sea level rise may have implications within Auckland, it is not considered that there are any threats requiring management within the term of the CMS. Therefore it is considered unnecessary to provide any further policy direction than that provided in the Conservation General Policy.

57/18




likely to result in extinction, particularly if those habitats are cut off from any similar areas by human activity.

Warmer temperatures are likely to upset the breeding cycles of other endangered animals, such as tuatara - the gender of tuatara hatchlings is determined by the average soil temperature that the eggs experience while they develop. The higher that average temperature the less females that hatch.

Changing weather patterns can be expected to further disrupt the already heavily-modified ecosystems that exist in the public conservation estate. For example, increased summer/autumn temperatures are causing beech forests to seed more and more often. This allows the populations of seed-eating predators to more regularly burgeon, which then in turn will have major consequences for native trees, birds and insects.

Greater use of effective, integrated pest control over large parts of the conservation estate not only protects vulnerable species against introduced predator plagues, but also allows the vegetation in the conservation estate to sequester greater quantities of carbon. DOC should considerably increase the resources it puts into the Predator-Free New Zealand concept. Animals such as possums, deer and goats eat their way though huge amounts of carbon sink-forest every year; reducing this toll would also make an important contribution towards this country’s part in fighting climate change.

The extreme weather events that are becoming increasingly common in New Zealand are likely to threaten the survival of many of our indigenous plants and animals. This threat is only likely to grow, as the extreme weather events continue to become more common. For example prolonged dry spells and associated low freshwater levels can deprive endangered species of food, and habitat. Prolonged dry conditions are known to make it impossible for kiwi to drive their beaks into the soil as they hunt. Unseasonal high rainfall and resulting floods can destroy the river bed habitat used by species such as wrybill to nest on.




The continued acidification of oceans will alter the characteristics of the food chain, particularly for those organisms that produce calcium based shells or skeletons with unknown consequences for the many animals that rely on those organisms, for food. The rapid (in geological terms) rise of sea levels will likely see the reduction, modification or elimination of many intertidal habitats.

These threats should be identified, monitored for, and addressed where necessary.Provisions for migration of ecosystems (especially coastal and marine mammals) should be considered in reserve design and acquisition and advocacy for a precautionary approach and mitigation";

(2) Identify the threats for the conservancy and monitoring that is required; and(3) Advocate for a precautionary approach and mitigation where relevant.

Conservation General Policy 4.4 (c ), (d) and (e) refer to establishment, maintenance and promotion of marine reserves.

Policy 1.5.1.5 is very broad and doesn't say what DOC will do.

The Society understands that the stock-take and gap analysis of the North-eastern Marine Biogeographic region has been completed. Therefore the objective should incorporate initiating regional marine forums. It is not acceptable that such an important conservation function not be planned for in the next 10 years. All of the coastal Places should have marine forums established with associated milestones.

The Outcomes for existing marine reserves should include the words from CGP "maintained or restored to a natural state as far as possible".

Amend CMS by:(1) Rewording Policy 1.5.1.5 to read: "Seek a nationally representative network of marine protected areas, through the implementation of local or regional marine forums focussed on the marine ecosystems listed in Appendix 8"; (2)Inserting milestones relating to the marine forums (by Year 3) and the achievement of marine protected areas (by Year 5);(3) Including the words from CGP "maintained or restored to a natural state as far as possible in all Outcomes for existing marine reserves"; and(4) Amending aircraft policies to the effects that there should generally be no aircraft landings in or adjacent to marine reserves except for management or research purposes.

Part One - general Accept in part(1) Amend Policy 1.5.1.5 to read as follows: "Engage in collaborative processes with the Ministry of Primary Industries, Hauraki Gulf Forum, Auckland Council, local communities and others to build a nationally representative network of marine reserves and marine protected areas.."; and(2) Insert the following as a Year 5 and Year 10 milestone in Section 1.5.1: "Report on action on furthering marine protected areas within Auckland.".

The changes above cover those matters raised by Forest & Bird under (1) and (2) in the decision sought.

The words from the CGP have not been added to the Outcomes in sections dealing with existing marine reserves (Sections 2.1 and 2.2) as the Department is satisfied that these Outcomes are not inconsistent with the CGP rather they define what the maintenance or restoration means within these Places.

57/19




Are 4 general policies in CMS - 3.12.1 to 3.12.4. Policy 3.12.1 should require monitoring, not just support it.

DOC should consider establishing a cost recovery system associated with the management and protection of marine mammals within the Auckland Conservancy. Such a system is "best practice" in terms of contemporary eco-tourism.

Maui's dolphin is facing a real threat of extinction unless there is immediate action to remove all threats from their natural range. Section 17D Conservation Act, Section 3A Marine Mammals Protection Act and Conservation General Policy - Policy 4.4(f) provide imperative for protection in CMS.

To achieve CGP 4 (f) the Minister should be:(1) addressing both fishing and non-fishing threats. There should be a total ban on the key threats - all gill nets, trawling, seismic surveys and all forms of marine mining.(2) extending the existing sanctuary to include all dolphin habitat, i.e. 'natural range', which science tells us is waters out to the 100m depth, or at a minimum to the 12nm boundary, and including harbours.

Amend CMS by:Inferred: (1) Amending Policy 3.12.1 to read: "Support research into and monitoring of the impacts of human interactions with marine mammals"; (2) Consider establishing a cost recovery system associated with the management and protection of marine mammals within the Auckland Conservancy with a Year 3 milestone; (3) Include more factual information about threats facing Maui’s dolphin and the existing Marine Mammal Sanctuary;(4) Insert a new policy to review the Threat Management Plan to:- address both fishing and non-fishing threats. There should be a total ban on the key threats (all gill nets, trawling, seismic surveys and all forms of marine mining.)- extend the existing sanctuary to include all dolphin habitat, i.e. 'natural range', which science tells us is waters out to the 100m depth, or at a minimum to the 12nm boundary, and including harbours. These actions to be completed as soon as possible.

Part Three - Marine mammal viewing

Accept in part(1) The submitters concerns about the need to carry out research and monitoring of the impacts on marine mammals are noted. However, this is carried out by more agencies than just the Department. Therefore, a wording change to require research and monitoring is not supported.

(2) establishing a cost recovery system is an operational matter which can not be implemented within the text of the CMS.

(3) Some changes have been made regarding the information in the CMS regarding Maui's dolphin, as a result of other submissions made on the CMS.

(4) A consultation document was jointly released by the Ministry of Primary Industries and DOC in September 2012 regarding the Maui's Dolphin section of the Hector and Maui's Dolphin Threat Management Plan. However, no decision has been made whether to conduct a review of the Threat Management Plan.

57/20

CMS does not address marine farming.

There is extensive marine aquaculture within the Auckland Conservancy which has the potential to have effects on both seabirds and marine mammals. Associated structures may also be vectors for the introduction of invasive marine species.

There is also no subsection on marine threats such as climate change, sedimentation from adjacent land, invasive marine species or pollution.

Amend CMS to:(1) Include a policy to advocate for sustainable use of the coastal marine area focussed on threats such as climate change, sedimentation, invasive marine species or pollution; and(2) Include a policy to raise awareness about the values of the marine environment through education programmes and the media.


RejectThe CMS addresses coastal marine area and coastal environment strategic priorities (including advocacy) in several Section 1.5 objectives, in Section 1.6, in 14 of the 15 Places, and with reference to Appendix 8. This will not address all marine & coastal issues - these fall within the ambit of RMA 1991 processes, including (separate from Conservation Act processes) the Minister’s role with the NZCPS and regional coastal plans.

Relationship building to support priority outcomes including support and appreciation of marine protection is included in Section 1.5.4.1.

57/21

Because Part 1 is structured around the SOI and Part 3 is minimalist, some generic issues have been

Amend CMS by:(1) Linking Appendix 9 to a policy in Part 3 to protect

Part Three - Specific Policy -

Accept in partObjective 1.5.1.7 has been amended to refer to




overlooked including protection of landscapes on conservation land.

There is no policy linked to Appendix 9 and more context is required to fully implement CGP, include Policy 4.5 (b). E.g. ‘Auckland has many significant geological features and landscapes. Refer to Appendix 9 for details’ and 'Activities which reduce the intrinsic values of landscape, landform and geological features on public conservation lands and waters should be located and managed so that their adverse effects are avoided or otherwise minimised.

Waikato CMS has a policy in the Pureora Place that structures should be erected on the skyline. This sort of policy could be generic.

landscapes and geopreservation sites on public conservation land and advocate for their protection elsewhere e.g. "Will advocate for the preservation of the outstanding natural character and landscapes of the coastal environment to central government agencies, local authorities, tangata whenua and the community"; (2) Inserting CGP Policy 4.5(b) in the CMS; and(3) Inserting a new policy to avoid structures on skylines or prominent features on public conservation land.

General Appendix 9 (refer Submission 57/24).

There is no need to duplicate CGP Policy 4.5(b) as the CGP continue to apply.

The Waikato policy to protect skylines is specific to Pureora Place. The Department is satisfied that the direction provided in part Two is sufficient to protect skylines within Places within Auckland. No policies in Part Three are required.

57/22

Policy 1.5.5.2 is the only provision where ecosystem services are alluded to in CMS.

Considering the significant role of ecosystem services provided by public conservation land, it is surprising that there is little or no explanatory text or more effective policies promoting it, including consideration of both management activity and authorisations. This should be located in the section 1.5.1 or Part 3.

Amend CMS by:(1) Include a more fulsome discussion of ecosystem services (in Section 1.5.1 or Part 3); and(2) Include Policy 4.6(a) of the Conservation General Policy.

General Accept in part(1) Move Objective 1.5.5.2 to Section 1.5.4; and(2) Insert a new objective in Section 1.5.1 to read: "Advocate the values of ecosystem services and support research into ecosystem services provided by public conservation lands". Ecosystem services are defined in the Glossary. Management to improve the health of ecosystems, especially priority ecosystem management units, and visitor facilities through destination management achieves implementation of GCP 4.6(a). Policies directed at protecting the ecosystem services are included in Part Two.

57/23

Section 7 of Conservation General Policy (CGP) states that DOC should undertake statutory advocacy.

Current references to advocacy in CMS limited to:(1) Working with tangata whenua (p. 21); (2) Appendix 2 includes advocacy and consultation for most ecosystem types;(3) Advocacy in relation to natural heritage - Objectives 1.5.1.7 & 1.5.1.13;(4) Advocacy in relation to Firth of Thames - Policies 2.15.1 to 2.15.3.

Amend CMS to:(1) Include a more comprehensive and consistent approach to advocacy is required and should be set out in Part 3 of the CMS;(2) Make it clear that the advocacy actions specified in the Places are additional areas of advocacy to those in CGP.

General Accept in part(1) Amend explanatory text at start of Section 1.1 to refer to Part Two as a guide for advocacy.

(2) Amend Objective 1.5.1.7 to refer to advocacy in relation to ecosystem management units, threatened and at risk species, significant geological features, landforms and landscapes.

Advocacy for conservation on lands outside public conservation lands and water is a function of DOC and relates to the values present. The advocacy

57/24




While worthy these references/ policies do not implement Policies 7(c ) and (d) of the CGP.

objective (1.5.1.7) does not reflect the full range of matters covered in the CGP and it is appropriate to amend it so that it does. Other advocacy priorities related to specific Places are identified in Part Two. Notwithstanding the above, Section 7 of the CGP continues to apply as noted in the Introduction.

Advocacy actions specified in Places do contribute to the achievement of Place outcomes and the overall direction of the strategy, and so directly and indirectly support implementation of CGP7. Collaborating, establishing partnerships, working with others, and contributing to efforts are other ways in which conservation outcomes are advanced and these may also include elements of advocacy.

Section 6(e) of Conservation Act provides a clear hierarchy to DOC's functions and responsibilities with the protection and preservation of natural and historic resources having priority over recreational enjoyment to the extent that recreation must not be "inconsistent' with protection and preservation of natural and historical resources, and similarly, recreation has priority over the provision of tourism. DOC's hierarchy of responsibility is, therefore, to preserve and protect natural and historical resources, followed by fostering recreational enjoyment followed by allowing tourism, as long as the prime responsibility is not compromised in each case.

This hierarchy has been compromised in CMS. Nowhere in the text is there any mention of the fact that not all recreation and tourism activities are appropriate on public conservation land. Many of objectives and policies in CMS reflect an approach which is generally inconsistent with intent of Act. This is particularly the case with Objectives 1.5.3.1 and 1.5.3.5.

The problem with a demand-driven approach is that this does not necessarily equate with what is appropriate on protected lands.

Amend CMS by:(1) Adding the following after the last sentence of the introductory text in 1.5.3: "However not all recreation and tourism activities are appropriate on public conservation land";(2) Amending Objective 1.5.3.1 to read: "Understand and consider the demand for particular types of recreation and other forms of participation when providing facilities and services where consistent with the status of the land";(3) Amending Objective 1.5.3.2 to read "Prioritise the sites listed in Appendix 10 for provision and management of visitor services";(4) Deleting Objective 1.5.3.3; (5) Amending Objective 1.5.3.5 to read: "To provide and manage a range of recreation opportunities on public conservation lands and waters in a way that facilitates public use, education and enjoyment and is not inconsistent with the conservation and protection of natural, historical, cultural or recreational values, including natural quiet and remoteness"; (6) Inserting a new objective to read: "The Department will monitor the quality of the visitor experience and effects of visitor activity for consistency with the conservation and protection of natural, historical, cultural or recreational values, including natural quiet and remoteness"; and(7) Inserting a new objective to read: "Avoid, minimise


Accept in part(1) It is not intended for all activities to be provided in all places thus it is appropriate to insert the following sentence to the descriptive text in Section 1.5.3: "However it also recognises that not all recreation and tourism activities are appropriate in all locations and that the range of opportunities provided in a location must be consistent with the values of the location and purpose for which the land is held".

(2) Amend Objective 1.5.3.1 to read: "Understand demand for recreation and provide recreation opportunities where demand is evident and expected to be sustained, and is consistent with the protection of indigenous natural resources and historic and cultural heritage and the purposes for which the land is held."

(3) The intention of Objective 1.5.3.2 is two-fold – in that it refers to promoting and developing icon and gateway destination. This approach is not necessarily appropriate in terms of local treasures which provide recreation opportunities for nearby communities. Amending the Objective to refer to local treasures also as requested by the submitter is not considered to be appropriate.

57/25




Objective 1.5.3.6 relates to conflicting uses. Such a provision is necessary to begin to meet CGP 13(a) (iii) potential conflicts between outcomes at specific places and an explanation of how these will be resolved, although this is not followed through in other sections.

As discussed elsewhere the expectations that visitors will "accept" aircraft noise is not acceptable and visitors to public conservation lands, part from tourist spots, should be able to enjoy natural quiet.

and otherwise manage conflicts between different users, including people undertaking different types of activities in the same location, in particular by: a) providing guidance on appropriate shared-use etiquette; b) using one-way direction of travel or specified single-use tracks; and c) placing seasonal restrictions on some activities".

(4) Delete Objective 1.5.3.3.

(5) The essence of this requests is addressed through changes to Objective 1.5.3.3.

(6) Monitoring of visitor impacts on resources is central to determining whether the desired balance between conservation v use is being achieved. It is considered appropriate to insert a new objective in Section 1.5.3 to read: "Monitor the quality of visitor experience and the effects of visitor activity on natural resources, historic and cultural resources and other values".

(7) Conflict or perceived conflicts between users can significantly affect visitor experience, thus the insertion of an objective in Section 1.5.3. (which applies to all public conservation land – both in and outside of places) is considered appropriate. The objective to read:

"X Avoid, minimise and otherwise manage conflicts between different users, including people undertaking different types of activities in the same location, in particular by:a) providing guidance on appropriate shared-use etiquette;b) using one-way direction of travel or specified single-use tracks;c) placing seasonal restrictions on some activities."

Visitor Management Zone Maps:These are very small scale and difficult to interpret, precluding the ability to make a coherent submission on detail, especially the boundary between front and back country and how the Destination Management Framework is integrated with ROS. (There is a similar problem with the Aircraft Access Zones). Inadequate maps mean that zone boundaries cannot be identified for purposes of submission or decision-making (legally the published maps are the basis for decisions). These should be re-notified to allow for informed submissions.

Amend CMS:(1) Re-notify Visitor Management Zone maps for public submission;(2) Amend second bullet in Backcountry/ Accessibility to clarify that ‘Back Country Accessible’ applies to areas reached by existing authorised gravel or 4WD roads, by boat or via designated aircraft landing sites;(3) Amend third bullet in Backcountry/ Accessibility by deleting the word "generally" to read "motorised ground access restricted to designated tracks";(4) Amend Backcountry/ Desired Visitor Experience to

Appendix 11 - Visitor management zones

Accept in part(1) Detailed Maps of these were provided on the DOC website at the time of public notification. A footer at the bottom of Map 3 Visitor management zones stated that further detail was available at www.doc.govt.nz or contact the relevant conservancy. These detailed maps will be available again once the CMS has been revised.

(2) and (3) Changes have been made to the 'Backcountry - accessible and walk-in' column of the

57/26




Visitor Management Zones:There are two problems with Back Country descriptions:(1) The way the Accessibility by vehicle, boat or aircraft is expressed is somewhat confusing.(2) The Desired Visitor Experience states that the Back Country visitor is "generally accepting of occasional intrusion of noise". This is not accepted. Note that even the SOI states "people seeking to hunt, tramp and wander on public conservation lands even where there are few or no facilities. People seeking challenge and adventure in the backcountry-‘nature on nature’s terms’".

The Prescription for management of effects of concessions in Front Country excludes the requirement to “remedy” as in avoid, remedy or mitigate”. This is inappropriate in a conservation setting and the full range of management options should be available.

Confirming activities:DOC has schedules of ‘conforming’ recreational concessions i.e. lists of tracks and party size. Applications for concessions for these activities are fast-tracked. There is no reference to these in the CMS and there should be.

read: "Absence of built environment and commercial enterprises (e.g. shops, cafes etc) apart from basic facilities (toilets, shelters). Sounds of nature predominate";(5) Amend Front Country Prescription for management to include "avoid, remedy or mitigate"; and(6) Include reference to ‘Conforming’ activities and include as schedules.

table in Appendix 11 to better describe how these areas are accessed.

(4) The changes requested by the submitter are not considered appropriate. Adding the suggested wording regarding basic facilities would preclude the building of structures such as huts, which are appropriate in backcountry visitor management zones. The desired visitor experience for backcountry visitor management zones of "occasional intrusion of noise" still allows the sounds of nature to predominate.

(5) This is the standard approach used in all CMS where front country has been consciously been treated differently to other zones.

(6) The information about concessions in the table in Appendix 11 relates to all types of concessions - conforming, one-off, notified etc. Conforming concession schedules are updated yearly. Including them as an Appendix to the CMS, a 10 year document, is not appropriate as they would quickly become out of date.

Many of these places are on main roads and are destinations for visitors or of national significance e.g. Miranda wildlife viewpoint, Tiritiri. One is just a car park (Mt Auckland).

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.Appendix 10 - Key recreation destinations

NotedThe submitter's view on the location of some of the recreation destinations is noted.

57/27

Vehicles and transport systems can affect natural quiet, enjoyment of other users; have direct impacts on ecosystems and wildlife, and can be a vector to spread weeds or pests e.g. Didymo. There is no obligation to allow vehicle use but it may be provided to foster recreation subject to protecting conservation values (and the costs of maintenance being achievable). The CMS should include policies for advocacy for protection of areas outside public conservation land.

Policies 9.5(a) & (b) requires vehicles and transport use to be compatible with the statutory purposes for which

Amend CMS By:(1) Include a table or map listing roads, tracks or routes open to use and any restrictions specified e.g. 4WD only, time of year etc;(2) Delete the word "generally" used in the Introductory text (p. 113);(3) Insert new policy to read: "Identify any legal roads running through conservation land that should be stopped and added to public conservation land";(4) Amend the definition of mountain bike to exclude any power-assisted bikes; and(5) Amend the text relating to mountain biking on pg 113

Part Three - Vehicles

Accept in part(1) Policy 3.2.1 provides the overall policy on how vehicles are to be controlled across the conservancy. Further controls are then provided by Place specific policies, such as those in Kaipara and Motutapu/Rangitoto. Because of the nature of these places it is not considered necessary to provide detailed maps or lists specifying vehicle use.

(2) The word "generally" should remain in the introductory text. Whilst the intention of the Department is to restrict vehicles travelling off road,

57/28




the place is held, or be necessary to enable the Department to perform its functions. CMSs have to identify where the use of specified types of vehicles and other forms of transport may be allowed and establish any conditions for use (emphasis added - refer to submission).

A table or map listing roads, tracks or routes open to use should be included and any restrictions specified e.g. 4WD only, time of year etc.

The use of the word "generally" in the first sentence, paragraph 2 on p113, is misleading.

Paper roadsThere is no discussion as to whether there are any unformed legal roads that should be closed. Policy may be required.

Mountain bikingThe Mountain Bike Definition p139 should be amended to also exclude power-assisted bikes, as the potential speed of these vehicles will be a safety issue for other users. Note that the definition of Power Assisted Cycle (up to 300 watts) is not used in the document. The capability of power-assisted bikes is expected to increase significantly in the next decade. It is not clear whether a battery powered bike is considered to be "motorised".

to read: "Mountain biking has become an established recreational activity on public conservation lands. Improved track designs, management techniques, user education and signage have reduced some of the early concerns".

there will be situations for practicality that this must be allowed, such when a vehicles are used for managing stock or maintaining utilities.

(3) Place based policies, in 2.15 Firth of Thames/Tikapa Moana Wetland Place provide for road closure in the Miranda Taramaire Government Wildlife Reserve. There is considered no need to have a broader policy for this matter in Part 3 of the CMS.

(4) The definition already refers to a mountain bike as an non-motorised bicycle, which would therefore exclude power-assisted bikes, as requested.

(5) Mountain biking occurs both on and off public conservation land. It is not necessary to restrict the reference to mountain biking to just that occurring on PCL.

Inadequate maps mean that zone boundaries cannot be identified for purposes of submission or decision-making (legally the published maps are the basis for decisions). If zones are to be used, maps should be re-notified for informed submission.

Aircraft comes under CGP 9.5 (b) which says that the CMS will identify where the use of specified types of vehicles and other forms of transport may be allowed and will establish any conditions for their use. Technically the maps show the frequency of where aircraft are allowed but there are few other conditions specified. The approach used is far too permissive,

Amend CMS by:(1) Re-notifying Aircraft zone maps for informed public submission;(2) Add new objective to read: "avoid or otherwise minimise adverse effects on the qualities of peace and natural quiet, solitude, remoteness and wilderness";(3) Re-visiting the entire approach to aircraft zoning and use and base the management approach on a presumption against an increase in aircraft use (by using the words ‘may’ or ‘should not’) to reflect the natural, and in many cases, remote character of public conservation lands, and this should be included in all the Outcomes. The Yellow and Green Zones should be deleted and CMSs should

Part Three - Aircraft Accept in part(1) Maps of an appropriate scale were provided on the DOC website at the time that the Draft Auckland CMS was notified. It is intended that the Revised Auckland CMS will be released with appropriate scale maps.

(2),(3) &(4): The aircraft zone framework has been reassessed, the criteria for the yellow and Green Zones has been retained. However, additional explanatory text has been added regarding the air access zones, and the policies that have been amended.

57/29




specifically the yellow and green zones, and encourages an increase in aircraft use on public conservation land, facilitating both positioning of recreationalists and for purely social uses. The approach of little or no control unless problems arise is short sighted as history shows that efforts to wind back use once established is very difficult if not impossible. It also reflects a naivety about future growth and the exploitation of loopholes.

The issue is what recreational use of aircraft is justified, and if so where and how often (limited or regular use). Even 5% encounter rate is high on public conservation land in a remote or back country zone.

The use of standard zones in each conservancy is flawed, as there is no consistency in how the zones are applied in the first place. About half of public conservation land in Northland is Green zone, whereas Waikato and Auckland have more specific provisions in several Places.

The Yellow Zone is flawed because the argument that there is a low aircraft use, is not a reason to increase it! The presumption for approval is mistaken. In addition, the national conditions of two landings per operator per day at any one site (defined as within a 1-km radius) and a maximum of 20 landings per site per operator per year does not take into account the total number of operators. Motutapu Island appears to be largely zoned yellow.It should have its own specific aircraft limits.

The Green Zone is flawed because it assumes there are places where values are not affected. The Society is hard-pressed to think of any places on public conservation land where this would be the case. It is also considered that the "natural limits" and "unlikely demand" scenarios are not plausible. There are always those who seek to push the limits, whatever they are. Again, the presumption to approve is contrary to the traditional kiwi back country experience.

The Prescriptions for Management of Aircraft Zones

include strict limits outside existing use, including landing sites, flight paths and frequency, duration, time of year. At the very minimum delete the words "should be" from the Green Zone in Appendix 13 and replace with ‘may’ and change the words "should allow" in policy 3.4.1 to "consider"; and(4) Amend Policy 3.4.10 "Aircraft landings and take-offs on public conservation lands for the construction and/or maintenance of utilities authorised by concession should be consistent with the recreational zoning and included in overall limits for aircraft use".




(Appendix 13) includes an average percentage of time that aircraft are likely to be encountered: Remote 1% or less, Back Country Occasional 5% or Regular 25% and Front Country Frequent 50% or more. The combined effect of this and the zoning prescriptions is that there is likely to be a considerable increase in aircraft use in response to pressure for access to picnic spots, for weddings in the back country, heli-walking, biking and hunting etc.

Problems with this approach:(1) Aligning aircraft use with natural quiet (noise) parameters of the Visitor Settings might appear logical but busy Front Country areas could be most inappropriate places to have aircraft operating. People noise does not equate to motorised noise, especially aircraft noise.(2) There would be very few places where visitor values are not affected by landings.(3) Back country visitors should not have to accept noise for 25% of their visit and 50% for front country only - Milford and the glaciers would probably have this level of use.(4) Basing policy on the assumption there is no demand is short sighted - canny operators are likely to take advantage of this.(5) Limits on landings per operator do not include limits on the number of operators.(6) There is an assumption that aircraft use is normal on public conservation land and entrenches it across public conservation land except for remote and wilderness areas indicated by the use of the word "should" rather than "may" for the Green zone. This is contrary to the notion of people seeking experiences on conservation land to get away from developed environments of the rest of New Zealand. The more encounters people have both with aircraft (by way of noise) and more encounters with other people, remote and back country areas will become less remote the more people are present and the easier it is to access a place. Essentially the aircraft policies allow a re-zoning by concession. (7)There is always going to be some aircraft use




everywhere for management purposes.

In practice, there appears to be a conflict between this approach and some of the Place policies, Map 4 and Appendix 11.The permissive approach continues with concessions where aircraft use is generally permitted for concessions. Policy 3.4.10 states that DOC “should permit aircraft landings and take-offs on public conservation lands for the construction and/or maintenance of utilities authorised by concession”. This means that a concession can effectively change a recreation or aircraft zoning, when the converse should apply – concession use of aircraft should reflect the zoning for the area.There are no general hunting policies for Auckland. However pig hunting is widespread and should be addressed. CMS should explain the Wild Animal Control Act and the deer-free areas to achieve the integrated management required under s 17D.

Feral pigs are a pest in Auckland forests - their foraging habit destroys ground cover and prevents re-growth of forest canopy and understory, and is a threat to kiwi nests. The CMS should provide for departmental control where recreational hunting is not effective in keeping damage to biodiversity to minimal levels. This may include use of traps and organised club events focussed on a particular area. Management of feral pigs by hunting organisations should not be allowed.

Amend CMS to include policies on hunting to:(1) Require avian aversion training for dogs in all areas with ground nesting birds;(2) DOC intervention where feral pigs are impacting on biodiversity values; and(3) Not allow management of feral pigs by hunters.

Part Three - Animals Reject(1) Policy 3.5.6 requires that dogs accessing public conservation land are required to have undergone avian aversion training.(2 & 3) The Department is responsible for managing a wide range of mammalian pests which have a wide range of effects in the areas they are located. Consequently the priorities for each of the pest species and the control method used is different. In the current context, management of feral pig populations by hunters is considered the most appropriate method.

57/30

For a comprehensive, educational and user-friendly approach, the lists of Open and Closed Dog areas should be included as an appendix in the CMS.

Amend CMS by including either:(1) The Gazette notice for Controlled and Open Dog Areas; or(2) A schedule as appropriate, in an Appendix.

Part Three - Dogs RejectInformation regarding where a person can take their dog on Public Conservation Land is already provided in publications provided by the Department. There is a separate publication provided for the Auckland conservancy area. It would not be appropriate to place this information in the CMS which is a document which is only reviewed every 10 years.

57/31

There is no conservation reason for allowing other animals on public conservation land.

Amend CMS by:(1) Rewording title (on p. 124) to read: "Other animals (including pets)";

Part Three - Animals (1) Pets are already specifically referred to in the text of the policy. It is not considered necessary to refer to pets in the title.

57/32




Policy 3.6.3 is worded in a way that may preclude some options.

(2) Rewording Policy 3.7.2 to read: "Will not permit any other types of animals...etc"; and(3) Rewording Policy 3.6.3 to read: "will consider reviewing horse riding".

(2) "Will" is not the appropriate term to use in this circumstance. This would remove the discretion that the Minister and other decision makers are provided with regard to this matter under the law. The Conservation General Policy states that "Policies that carry with them a strong expectation of outcome without diminishing the constitutional role of the Minister and other decision-makers, state that a particular action or actions ‘should’ be undertaken." Therefore, it is the appropriate to continue using the term "Should".(3) There is no need to amend the wording as requested, as it does not change the meaning of the sentence.

Policy 3.13.1 is minimalist in the extreme and does not satisfy CGP 9.4. (Note referencing error in the notified draft). The introductory text includes policy in the last paragraph which should be included.

Amend Policy 3.13.1 to read: "Will work with the Northland and Auckland/Waikato Fish and Game Councils to provide for sports fishing and game bird hunting, while ensuring there are no adverse impacts on the indigenous species and their habitats, and is consistent with the purposes for which the land is held".

3.13.1 Policy Accept in partIt is agreed that policy 3.13.1 does not adequately provide for the requirements of the Conservation General Policy. The wording of the policy should be amended as follows:

"Work with the Northland and Auckland/Waikato Fish and game Councils to preserve indigenous freshwater fisheries, to protect recreational freshwater fisheries and freshwater fish habitats at risk of loss or decline and to facilitate access to sports fishing and game bird hunting on public conservation lands."

57/33

The 3rd sentence of the text (p. 116) which reads: "the departments aims to allow . . . specific places" contains an element of predetermination.

Amend 3rd sentence, first para of Authorisations to use the word "may" instead of "aim".


RejectThe granting of Authorisations and any activity which is a result of them is legitimate under the Conservation Act. The text provided in this section provides a broad explanation of how authorisations will be managed, it is not considered to be predeterminative. As stated in this section, Authorisations can add value to a visitor's experience by connecting them more closely with the values of a particular place.

57/34

Policy is inconsistent with Conservation General Policy 10(h).

Amend Policy 3.9.2 by replacing the word "should" with "will".

3.9.2 Policy RejectLegal advice obtained is that the Conservation General Policy (s 10(h)) incorrectly uses the word 'will' as this fetters the Minister's discretion. The

57/35




position expressed in Policy 3.9.2 is therefore correct.Policy is inconsistent with Conservation General Policy 10(h).

Amend Policy 3.9.3 by replacing the word "should" with "will".

3.9.3 Policy The CGP clearly states that the Conservation Board should be consulted. In this circumstance the discretion of the MOC can not be removed and the term used in the CMS policy has to remain as "should", not "will".

57/36

Conservation General Policy 11.4 (c) states that CMSs will identify where material can be removed.

Amend Policy 3.10.1 to read: "Will only authorise sand and/or shingle extraction from public conservation lands and waters where adverse effects can be avoided, remedied or mitigated and the resource cannot be practically be accessed elsewhere".

3.10.1 Policy RejectSand or shingle is extracted for two purposes: either simply for resource extraction and/or for flood prevention works. There will be situations where sand or shingle will need to be removed from public conservation land or waters to reduce flood risk. The decision sought by the submitter may result in flood works being unable to be undertaken on public conservation land and waters, which may in itself have adverse effects. All of these matters, the need to reduce flood risk and the likely adverse effects of the extraction on public conservation land and waters must be all considered together.

57/37

For completeness the text in the Waikato draft is recommended.

Amend Collection of Material to include the following text: "Applications for the collection of material for research and information needs are addressed in, and must be consistent with, the Conservation General Policy 2005 (section 12: Research and information needs). The collection of material from public conservation lands and water also includes customary activities of significance to tangata whenua (refer section 1.4: Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities). Treaty settlement legislation also recognises the significance of customary activities to tangata whenua and in many instances specifies processes for customary use of materials managed under conservation legalisation, e.g. the Reserves Act 1977".

Part Three - Collection of material

AcceptAmend the text in Part Three regarding the collection of material to read:

"Should only allow for the collection of material from public conservation lands or waters in accordance with the criteria listed within the Conservation General Policy 2005, section 12(d). The collection of material from public conservation lands and waters also includes customary activities of significance to tangata whenua (refer Objective 1.4.8: Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities). In many instances treaty settlement legislation specifies processes for customary use of materials managed under conservation legislation."

57/38

CMS should consider should consider effects of "film tourism" where relevant i.e. where use of a conservation area as a location for films is likely to generate visitors to see that site.

Amend Policy 3.14.1 by adding the words: "effects of any subsequent increased visitor use of area as a result of filming activity’ to 3.14.1".

3.14.1 Policy RejectIt is not considered appropriate to require consideration of something which is so uncertain.

57/39

Activity scope/ Recreational tracks (Point 3)There is no indication as what consultation might be. It should be clarified and cross-referenced to a policy.

Amend CMS to:(1) Clarify what consultation may be: and(2) Cross reference Appendix 1 to a policy.

Appendix 1 - RMA RejectThe changes sought by the submitter are not necessary. The purpose of this section is to identify

57/40




which operational activities the Department undertakes that may be exempt from requiring and land use consent (such as recreational tracks). The reference to consultation is purely descriptive and probably unnecessary in the context of the purpose for Appendix 1.

This is over-summarised. It implies the named areas are the only places with significant values, which is not the case. The ones named are the outstanding areas. Similarly the Administrative status is too general - it does not indicate scientific or scenic reserve etc.

Dune lakes have been omitted and there is no data at all about rivers.

Inferred: Amend Appendix 2 by:(1) Provide more fuller descriptions of areas;(2) Indicate administrative status in more detail; and(3) Include dune lakes and rivers.

Appendix 2 - Key ecosystems and habitats

Accept in partThe ecosystem/habitat types listed in the table in Appendix 2 have been taken from the National Heritage Management System (NHMS). The list in the table is a general description of the important ecosystem/habitat types found in Auckland Conservancy. The table does not reflect all ecosystem/habitat types in the Auckland Conservancy.

The administrative status of these areas is usually a mixture of land held under the Conservation Act 1987 and Reserves Act 1977. Sites are often disparate and scattered across the Auckland Conservancy. More detailed information about each conservation unit can be found in the Land Inventory in Volume 2 of the CMS.

The 'Lakes' section of the table in Appendix 2 has been amended to include dune lakes.

57/41

The heading of the 3rd column 'Desired Island Classification’ needs further explanation and a policy to link it to. The issues should be addressed in the Places but are not.

Inferred: Amend CMS:(1) provide further explanation of 'Desired Island Classification' in Appendix 3;(2) Link 'Desired Island Classification' to a policy; and(3) Address issues identified in Appendix within Places (Part Two).

Appendix 3 - Islands Accept in part(1) & (2) The "Desired Island Classification" refers to the classifications in "The Island Strategy: Guidelines for managing islands administered by the Department of Conservation", November 2010. They are not reserve classifications which the Part 2 Places policies refer to.

The note under the heading has been amended in the following manner: *"The island classification is aligned with the 10-year term of this CMS and represents the desired future state of the island (Department of Conservation 2010: The island strategy: guidelines for managing islands administered by the Department of Conservation). The island classification is intended for guidance

57/42




only, and needs to be read in conjunction with the outcome and policies for Places in Part Two of this CMS.

(2 & 3) The issues listed in Appendix 3 have been addressed through the outcomes and policies for Places included in Part 2. For islands not included in Part 2: Places, the objectives in Part 1 provide management direction for the issues listed.

No reasons provided. Amend Appendix 5 By:(1) Swapping Pages 171 & 172 around;(2) For Hedgehog including sites where integrated pest control is being undertaken as a priority place for action; and(3) For Rainbow skink- action should be taken to prevent further expansion.

Appendix 5 - Pests Accept in partAn error has been made in the list of Animal pests in Table A 5.1. Pig, rabbit, rat, stoat, wallaby and weasel (pg 171) are listed in the 'Invertebrates' section. These animals will be moved to 'Mammalian pests' section on pg 172.

It is the Department's intention to prevent the further expansion of rainbow skinks on islands currently free of these pests. The word "prevention" in the 'Management response' column in Appendix 5 already conveys this.

The submitter's request for the words "where integrated pest control is being undertaken" to be added to the 'Priority places for action' column for hedgehog is too broad. Hedgehog control will be considered under an integrated pest management strategy for specific sites. However, mammalian pest-free islands and Aotea/Great Barrier Island remain the Department's priority places for action for the eradication of hedgehogs.

57/43

The difference between High and Second Priority ecosystems is difficult, if not impossible, to distinguish on the printed maps.

Amend maps by:(1) Deleting Visitor Management Zones on non-public conservation land;(2) Clarifying difference between High and Second Priority ecosystems on maps; and(3) Show the Visitor Management Zone legend on Map 3.

Maps legend NotedMaps of an appropriate scale were provided on the DOC website at the time that the Draft Auckland CMS was notified. It is intended that the revised Auckland CMS will be released with appropriate scale maps, and with colours that are easy to distinguish between.

It is appropriate to include Visitor Management Zones on non-public conservation land on Map 3: Visitor Management Zones as the Department works

57/44




closely with the Auckland Council to provide a range of complementary recreational activities across the Auckland region. The 'More than a gateway to New Zealand' section in Section 1.3 and Section 1.5.3 provide information on the recreation. The Department understands the difficulty in reading maps with the legend being on a separate page. It is intended that the revised Auckland CMS will be released with the appropriate legends.

Map is of too small a scale to understand the application of policies. Maps should be provided for each Place.

Amend Map 3 by:(1) Improving scale;(2) Providing maps for each Place; and(3) Re-notify maps for public submission.

(NB: Refer to Sub Point 57/26)


NotedMaps of an appropriate scale were provided on the DOC website at the time that the Draft Auckland CMS was notified. It is intended that the revised Auckland CMS will be released with appropriate scale maps. Volume II of the CMS already contains 20 maps which clearly show each of the Places in Part 2 of Volume I of the CMS.

57/45

Map is of too small a scale to understand the application of policies. Maps should be provided for each Place.

Amend Map 4 by:(1) Improving scale;(2) Providing maps for each Place; and(3) Re-notify maps for public submission.

(NB: Refer to Sub Point 57/29)

Map 4 - Aircraft access

NotedMaps of an appropriate scale were provided on the DOC website at the time that the Draft Auckland CMS was notified. It is intended that the revised Auckland CMS will be released with appropriate scale maps.

57/46

No reasons provided. Amend Section 2.1 by:Inferred: (1) Rewriting Para 1 under Motu Manawa- Pollen Island (p. 39) to include the fact that the reserve land is a breeding area for three threatened/at risk bird taxa: northern NZ dotterel (nationally vulnerable), fernbird (declining) and banded rail (naturally uncommon) and that it is habitat for the Bactra sp. Moth;(2) Amend the outcome so that it includes the breeding area for northern NZ dotterel, fernbird and banded rail and includes the habitat for the Bactra sp. Moth;(3) Inserting a new policy addressing the need for predator control, especially during the bird breeding season; andInferred: (4) Inserting a new milestone to read: "Predator numbers less than 5% within 3 years".


Accept in partThe Department acknowledges that the Motu Manawa/Pollen Island Marine Reserve provides a breeding ground for threatened/at risk birds. The description (para 4, pg 39) and outcome (para 6 ,pg 41) have been amended to include a reference to the marine reserve as a breeding area. The NZ dotterel, a threatened species, has been added to the list of species in the description on pg 39. A reference to the Bactra species moth has been added to para 3 of the Motu Manawa-Pollen Island Marine Reserve (pg 39).

The Department agrees that both birds and reptiles in the Motu Manawa/Pollen Island are would benefit from predator control. Therefore, a new policy has been added to enable threats to native species on the coastal margins of the marine reserve and associated islands to be managed.

57/47




Need to insert a new place - Te Arai canal and estuary to Pakiri Coast Place (extension of the Northland CMS Whangaruru-Mangawhai Coast Place).

The status of the NZ fairy tern is critical and with the current decline in already low numbers every effort needs to be made to prevent its extinction. The major causes are predation and disturbance but there is also a shortage of suitable nesting sites and territories.

Amend Part Two by inserting a new place - Te Arai canal and estuary to Pakiri Coast Place and:(1) Include and outcome and policies to upgrade the status of land to give the highest protection to fairy tern breeding, foraging and roosting areas including extending protection to mean low water, and to maintain intensive and comprehensive pest control for these habitats, year-round if necessary; and(2) Include complimentary policies to those in section 2.9 (Whangaruru-Mangawhai Coast Place) of the Draft Northland CMS. This is a continuous habitat area for NZ fairy tern and NZ dotterel, with birds moving between all of these places.


Accept in partThe Department agrees that Te Arai dunelands area meets the criteria for selection as a Place because of: its importance as a habitat for the nationally critical NZ fairy tern; conflicts between biodiversity outcomes, use of adjacent private land and public conservation land; and integrated management required for biodiversity, recreation and advocacy outcomes. Section 2.7 has been amended to include Te Arai and Pakiri in this place and provisions consistent with the Whangaruru-Mangawhai Coast Place (Section 2.9 of Northland CMS) have been reflected in the CMS as applicable to achieve consistent management across the administrative boundaries.

57/48

The New Zealand storm petrel was thought to be extinct until its rediscovery in 2003. However its breeding site was unknown until it was recently discovered on Hauturu.

Amend Outcome so that it includes mention of the recent rediscovery of the breeding site for NZ storm petrel.

2.3 Hauturu/Little Barrier Island Place - outcome

Accept in partAmend Description to refer to " the recently rediscovered storm petrel".

The changes update the Description.57/49

The Kaipara Harbour is the winter feeding ground for fairy tern and they nest at South Head/Papakanui. A new nesting area is proposed at Bird Island, Taporapora, and if successful the adjacent Manukapua Id may also be suitable. These will require protection from people, vehicle and dog disturbance and predators, as part of an on-going programme to increase the nesting sites for this taxon.

The land status of these sites should be addressed so that they are made into Wildlife Management Reserves to Mean Low Water to enable control of people, dogs and vehicles.

The status of the Okahukura Conservation Area should also be changed.

Amend Section 2.7 By:(1) Rewording the outcome to include new fairy tern breeding sites established at Bird Island and Manukapua and numbers have reached 100 birds;(2) Inserting a new policy addressing the establishment of new fairy tern breeding sites at Bird Island and Manukapua including appropriate land classification to minimise disturbance from people, dogs and vehicles;(3) Inserting a new policy addressing the need for comprehensive predator control, especially during the fairy tern breeding season;(4) Inserting a new 3 year milestone to read: "NZ fairy tern population stabilised by 2017 (3 years out); breeding pairs doubled in 5 years and population of over 100 individuals in 10 years"; and(5) Inserting new 3 year milestones for the implementation of Policy 2.7.17 (a) & (b).


RejectThe outcome (second sentence, para 1, pg 70) already provides for the increase in numbers of fairy tern. It is not appropriate to include details of how this may be achieved in the outcome. It is not considered necessary to include a policy for predator control, as this is already covered by Policy 2.7.4. Policy 2.7.4 also provides for the Department to work together with Forest and Bird in their endeavours to establish new fairy tern breeding sites at Bird Island and Manukapua. Adding a new policy relating to new fairy tern breeding sites at Bird Island and Manukapua is considered too much detail for the CMS.

A new milestone has been added to Year 10 after CMS approval:

"Taraiti/New Zealand fairy tern numbers have increased to 100 by 2021 maintaining protection at key coastal sites through active community support.."

57/50




The milestone in Year 5 relating to the reclassification of the Okahukura Conservation Area and Papakanui Conservation Area, Papakanui Spit Conservation Area and adjacent foreshore areas as an ecological area (Policy 2.17.7) will be retained. It is not considered appropriate to move this milestone to Year 3 as there are other reclassification proposals that are of higher priority than this one.

No reasons provided. Amend Section 2.8 by:(1) Rewording para 7, p. 73 to refer to pests such as wallabies, possums and lilly pilly and other plant pests;(2) Revising the outcome to include the eradication of wallabies and pest trees;(3) Inserting a new policy requiring a pest eradication plan for wallabies and pest trees, including lilly pilly (Syzygium australe, S. smithii); and(4) Inserting a new milestone to read: "Implementation to be completed by 2017".


Accept in part(1) Note that the 'Description' and Appendix 5 recognise the devastating effects that wallabies and possums have; and(2) Insert a new policy to read: "Remove exotic trees within the Kawau Island Historic Reserve to enhance public safety and ecological values where this is consistent with the restoration of the historic and cultural landscape";(3) Insert a new policy to read: "Work collaboratively with the Auckland Council and Kawau Island community with the objective of protecting the natural, cultural and heritage values on conservation land from the effects of wallabies."

Kawau Island Place (and more specifically the historic reserve area) have a number of values - both natural and cultural/ heritage. Some of the introduced plant species are part of the historic/ cultural setting and therefore it is not necessarily appropriate to remove all. The new policy recognises that some removal may be appropriate.

The ‘Description’ and Appendix 5 already reflect the damage that wallabies and possums can cause. With respect to wallabies while it is appropriate for DOC to control/ manage wallabies on conservation land in order to protect natural, cultural and heritage values, DOC only manages 10% of the land area of the island and cannot prevent incursions from elsewhere on the island. Given this it is impractical for the Department to commit to total eradication. The Department will however co-operate with the Auckland Council and local community to

57/51




implement the direction of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy. The insertion of this policy will clarify this management approach and add certainty to the CMS.

Amend to include climate change, biosecurity and indigenous biodiversity.

Amend this section to include some Year 3 and 5 milestones e.g. marine mammal tourism site plans.

Amend Part Three to include:(1) Policy addressing the threat of climate change in terms of the impact of both rising temperatures and sea levels;(2) Policy addressing the threat posed by introduced weeds and animal pests, including PTA (kauri dieback disease). Add a policy addressing the protection of indigenous biodiversity, particularly NZ fairy tern, Maui’s dolphin (including the West Coast Marine Mammal Sanctuary), black petrel, brown teal, chevron skink, Great Barrier Island kanuka and other threatened flora and fauna; and(3) A milestone to review mountain biking to after 5 years.


Accept in partThe CMS is meant to be read as a whole and a number of these issues have been addressed in response to other submissions points made by Forest and Bird as follows: Climate change (Submission 57/18), Introduced weeds and pests (57/15), PTA (67/17), biodiversity (57/13, 57/4, 57/50), and marine mammals (57/19, 57/13). It is considered that further changes to Part Three are unnecessary.

57/52

No reasons provided. Amend Appendix 7 to include:(1) Flora: kakabeak (Kaipara), Waitakere rock koromiko, Great Barrier Island kanuka, West Coast kowhai; and(2) Fauna: Maui’s dolphin, NZ fairy tern, kokako, black petrel (LBI & GBI), NZ storm petrel, chevron skink (GBI), hihi.

Appendix 7 - Icon species

Accept in partThe heading of Appendix 7 has been amended to "Nationally iconic species in Auckland" .



The species listed by the submitter were not identified in the public surveys.

57/53

No reason provided. Amend Map 7.7 to include Bird Island.Map 7.7 - Kaipara Harbour Place

RejectThe area known as Bird Island is not public conservation land. As far as the Department can determine, Bird Island is on accretion land and falls under the jurisdiction of the Auckland Council. It is therefore not appropriate to include Bird Island on Map 7.7.

57/54

Submitter: Pohutukawa Trust New Zealand




Trusts objective is to "Rehabilitate the native flora and fauna on Kawau Island". Trust notes that these have been difficulties in implementing current CMS and wants to ensure that these do not occur in future so Trust can achieve its objectives while Kawau can simultaneously prosper under DOC's administration. Submission provides information about history of Pohutukawa Trust NZ and its activities including research.

DOC's approach concerning wallabies has in past constrained Trust in achieving its objectives. Wallabies need to be either securely contains within, or more preferably eradicated from Kawau and a firm timeline to reach this without delay is needed. In 2001 the Trust promoted a practical target of 2005 for eradication of feral wallabies. Significant steps have been undertaken to achieve this with support of landowners, local community and Auckland Council. These actions are detailed in submission. Until eradication of wallabies is undertaken, Trust cannot get on with next phase of assisted regeneration of native planted species and a prioritised and staged eradication or control of other pest animal and pest plant species.

Note that section recognises that Kawau is important historically rather than botanically, a position in strong contrast to Trust's main objective, the progress already made, and the long term vision for the Island.

Presence of the threatened plant Centipeda minims subsp. Minima needs to be addressed. Plant does not tolerate competition and it is likely that the Island is a stronghold of the species due to wallaby browsing presently removing competitive vegetation. This species is present elsewhere in Hauraki Gulf and easily cultivated so presence should not be allowed to create confusion and opposition to wallaby eradication.

Landowners currently have opportunity to apply for consent to establish camping ground. Trust supports initiatives that can increase visitor numbers to the land managed by DOC (Policy 2.8.5).

Amend CMS by:(1) Rewording 'Management Response' for wallaby (Table A5.1, Appendix 5) to read: "prevention and eradication of any incursion on sites managed by the Department";(2) Rewording 'Priority places for action' for wallaby (Table A5.1, Appendix 5) to read: "All sites except Kawau Island. On Kawau Island, effective containment as a minimum, followed by eradication within the 10 year timeframe of this strategy on land managed by the Department";(3) Rewording penultimate paragraph, p. 73 in Section 2.8 to read:"Possums and wallabies, which were introduced by Sir George Grey in about 1869 and are still present today, demonstrate the devastating effect that these introduced grazers and browsers have on indigenous plant species. Possum browsing threatens the Pohutukawa canopy, many stands of which were destroyed. They also destroy other species including seedlings, and being omnivores also destroy bird eggs. Wallaby grazing eliminates seedlings of almost all indigenous species, resulting in no significant regeneration.

Of the five species of wallaby introduced by Grey four were still present until recently. One, the black-striped wallaby (Macropus dorsalis) dies out about 1965, probably due to insufficient nutrition in dry years. Another, the brush-tail rock wallaby (Petrogale penicillata penicillata) was only surviving in small isolated colonies. All four of the wallaby species that remained on Kawau have declined markedly in the wild in Australia with some being threatened species, and the Department consulted with counterparts in Australia concerning possible repatriation prior to eradication from Kawau. The Australian government responded with a desire to live captures dama/tammar (Macropus eugenii) wallabies only and a private conservation group (Waterfall Springs) wanted brush-tail rock wallabies for a captive breeding programme. Both repatriation needs have been fully satisfied in a cooperative effort. The brush-tailed rocks wallaby is not believed to have been eradicated after Waterfall Springs repatriated all of this species and could economically be captured. Three species remain on the


Accept in partAmend the 'Description' relating to possums and wallabies to read:

"Possums and wallabies, which were introduced by Sir George Grey in about 1869 and are still present today, demonstrate the devastating effect that these introduced herbivores grazers and browsers have on indigenous plant species. Possum browsing threatens the pōhutukawa canopy, many stands of which have now been destroyed. They also destroy other species including seedlings, and being omnivores also destroy bird eggs. Wallaby browsing grazing eliminates seedlings of almost all indigenous species, resulting in no significant regeneration.

Of the five species of wallaby introduced by Grey four are still present. One, the black-striped wallaby (Macropus dorsalis) died out about 1965. Two of the four species of wallaby on the island, dama/tammar (Macropus eugenii) and brush-tailed rock (Petrogale penicillata penicillata) are threatened species in Australia".

(2) Inserting a new policy to read: "Work collaboratively with the Auckland Council and Kawau Island community with the objective of protecting the natural, cultural and heritage values on conservation land from the effects of wallabies".

While it is appropriate for DOC to control/ manage wallabies on conservation land in order to protect natural, cultural and heritage values, DOC only manages 10% of the land area of the island and cannot prevent incursions from elsewhere on the island. Given this it is impractical for the Department to commit to total eradication. The Department will however co-operate with the Auckland Council and local community to implement the direction of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy. The insertion of this policy will clarify this management approach and add certainty to the CMS.

58/1




Policy 2.8.6. Kawau is unique in that has seamless history of human occupation with full and amicable=cable agreement between Maori and European occupiers. Policy needs to include consultation with community.

Island today, the dama/tammar (Macropus eugenii), parma (Macropus parma) and swamp wallaby (wallabia bicolour). are threatened species in Australia";(4) Amend the second sentence, paragraph 2 of the Outcome, p 74 to read:"Wallabies are initially excluded from Mansion House valley and controlled and effectively contained elsewhere within the Kawau Island Historic Reserve and adjacent reserves as a transitional measure, and eradicated from these reserves within the 10 year term of the CMS";(5) Amend Policy 2.8.5 to read: "Investigate sites within the Kawau Island Historic Reserve and adjacent reserves managed by the Department for a small-scale camping ground on Kawau Island in cooperation with Auckland Council and the community"; and(6) Amend Policy 2.8.6 to read: Consult with Ngati Manuhiri, Kawau land occupiers, and tangata whenua generally to ensure that a multi-culturally appropriate interpretation is presented about the history of Kawau Island".

Submitter: Scott Andrew ArrellOppose policy. Paragliding adds to diverse range of recreational activities in and around the harbour area. It enhances the location as a place to visit. Visitors to North Head enjoy the sight of paragliders when they fly and regularly stop to take in the experience of witnessing our sport, often taking home the memory with photographs and stories with friends. Paragliding is a self-regulated recreation activity with very high qualification standards. All paragliders are club and association members ensuring safety is taught and practiced. This has ensured a long time track record of responsible use of flying sites including North Head.


Oppose policy. Paragliding adds to diverse range of recreational activities in and around the harbour area. It enhances the location as a place to visit. Visitors to North Head enjoy the sight of paragliders when they fly and regularly stop to take in the experience of witnessing our sport, often taking home the memory with photographs and stories with friends. Paragliding is a self-regulated recreation activity with very high qualification standards. All paragliders are club and

Amend Policy 2.14.8 to read: "Allow the use of non-motorised aircraft, subject to this activity avoiding any adverse effects on the safety and enjoyment of other visitors".





association members ensuring safety is taught and practiced. This has ensured a long time track record of responsible use of flying sites including North Head.

Submitter: Keith LaurieOppose policy. Consider changes to be arbitrary.

I am a PG2 rated paraglider having undertaken an extensive and strict period of training and instruction. Utmost in our training is the overriding safety of ourselves and those around us. We do not fly when it is unsafe, we plan ahead for possible eventualities, and we respect the rights of others to share and enjoy the areas we fly at.

Having flown from numerous sites throughout New Zealand and internationally, I contest that the presence of Paragliders actually increases the amenity value of any site we fly at, providing non obtrusive entertainment and visual pleasure to those on the ground observing. I have never had anyone respond negatively to my presence while flying.

Delete Policy 2.14.4. and retain status quo.2.14.4 Policy Accept in partParagliding is addressed in a supplementary report.60/1

Oppose policy. Consider changes to be arbitrary.

I am a PG2 rated paraglider having undertaken an extensive and strict period of training and instruction. Utmost in our training is the overriding safety of ourselves and those around us. We do not fly when it is unsafe, we plan ahead for possible eventualities, and we respect the rights of others to share and enjoy the areas we fly at.

Having flown from numerous sites throughout New Zealand and internationally, I contest that the presence of Paragliders actually increases the amenity value of any site we fly at, providing non obtrusive entertainment and visual pleasure to those on the ground observing. I have never had anyone respond negatively to my presence while flying.

Delete Policy 2.14.8 and retain status quo.2.14.8 Policy RejectParagliding is addressed in a supplementary report.60/2

Submitter: MetService




Section does not acknowledge meteorological operations (automatic weather station) on Burgess Island. This is maintained using helicopter transport.

Amend Section 2.5 to:(1) Acknowledge meteorological operations on Burgess Island; and(2) Need to use helicopter transport to maintain the station.

2.5 Mokohinau Islands Place

AcceptAmend the descriptive paragraph which starts "A lighthouse, now.." to reflect that the Met Service also uses the helicopter landing pad on Burgess Island. As the Met Service is not hovering over public conservation land but coming in directly to land, there is no need to amend Policy 2.5.3.

61/1

Submitter: Adam MorrowOppose policy. Paragliding is an activity that does not have any negative impacts on the sites used for takeoff and landing. Paragliding at these historic sites is the most low impact recreational use of the area. There are relatively few days that weather allows the activity. Other users of area interested by paragliding.


Oppose policy. Paragliding is an activity that does not have any negative impacts on the sites used for takeoff and landing. Paragliding at these historic sites is the most low impact recreational use of the area. There are relatively few days that weather allows the activity. Other users of area interested by paragliding.



Submitter: Alex RaymontAs a regular visitor to NZ I enjoy the kiwi can do activity and the paragliding activities available on the North Shore. The local club help defines the proper use of this area. They have as much, if not more, interest in safe flying than anyone. Please allow activity to continue.

Inferred: Delete Policy 2.14.4.2.14.4 Policy Accept in partParagliding is addressed in a supplementary report.63/1

Submitter: Hauraki Gulf ForumThis vision, expressed in the CMS, of the Hauraki Gulf being a lived-in ‘national park of the sea’ reflects the focus of the Hauraki Gulf Maritime Park Act (HGMPA).

The references to "renewed health of our ecosystems" "lasting protection for indigenous and migratory birdlife and marine mammals", "a mosaic of restored islands, where indigenous wildlife thrives", and a "network of marine protected areas created across the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park" are consistent with the HGMPA. These also match one of the priority areas adopted by the Hauraki Gulf Forum which is the

Inferred: Amend CMS by:(1) Including a strategy for extending conservation into new areas:(2) Addressing risks to Bryde's whale;(3) Integrating the marine spatial planning process for Hauraki Gulf, including a commitment for DOC to participate; and(4) Reviewing Milestones/ outputs so that they are expressed in form of targets which can be measured and tracked over time.


Accept in part(1) The Marine Protected Areas Policy and implementation Plan (MPA Policy) has been developed to assist the government achieve the marine protection targets established in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and is intended to guide the development of a comprehensive network of marine protected areas representative of the full range of New Zealand’s marine habitats and ecosystems. DOC and the Ministry for Primary Industries are the lead government agencies responsible for implementing the MPA Policy.

64/1




development of a flourishing "green-blue network" of restored island sanctuaries and protected regenerating areas with the Hauraki Gulf’s marine area. However CMS needs to identify steps to achieve this vision.

The CMS addresses the management of existing conservation areas but does not set out a strategy for extending conservation into new areas. This gap in the document should be rectified. The document also doesn’t address the current risk to the critically threatened Bryde’s whale.

There is only one mention to the Hauraki Gulf marine spatial planning process which will begin shortly in relation to the management of the Firth of Thames/Tikapa Moana Wetland Place (on page 109). It is suggested that the marine spatial planning process needs to be integrated into the activities set out in the Auckland CMS, and the Department of Conservation should indicate in the document its commitment to participating fully in the project.

The milestones-outputs identified as measurements of progress towards reaching the vision contain few tangible and quantifiable achievements. It is suggested that the CMS needs to contain tangible targets by DOC to improving conservation outcomes in the Hauraki Gulf and broader Auckland region. These should be able to be measured and tracked over time.




(2) The risk of ship strike to Bryde's whale is described on pg 13 of Section 1.3. Policy 1.5.1.9 (pg 21) directs the Department to work with others to manage the threats to Bryde's whale.

(3) The description in Section 1.6 has been amended to refer to the marine spatial plan as has Objective 1.6.3.

(4) Outcome statements will be reviewed throughout the CMS to increase specificity.

The description of the importance of the marine environment on page 12, particularly the statement that "The connection between land and sea is a defining feature of Auckland Conservancy" and that "The islands of the Gulf are its centrepiece" is consistent

Inferred: Retain Section 1.3 with respect to Marine Environment.


NotedThe 'Marine Environment' section (Section 1.3) remains substantially the same as those notified in the draft CMS.

64/2




with the HGMPA.

It is appropriate that the Department is indicating a focus on reducing collisions between vessels and Bryde’s whales in the Gulf on page 13. Also, that the Department has recognised that a "more inclusive and holistic approach to marine protection is required".

The document’s reference to the "Islands as significant for their high natural values, as sites for ecological restoration programmes, as sources for the translocation of species to other places, as places where restoration methods can be tested" (page 13) is consistent with the objectives of the HGMPA.

DOC's efforts "to raise the profile of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, and to pitch it as a destination to the tourism sector and operators" as described on page 16 is appropriate. It is through encouraging people to visit, experience and enjoy the Park that support will increase for its ongoing protection.The places that the Department has indicated are nationally important for natural heritage management in Auckland (on pages 19 to 20), in particular Great Barrier Island (Aotea Island), Hauturu/Little Barrier Island, Mokohinau (Pokohinu) Islands, inshore islands of the Gulf, Rangitoto Island Scenic Reserve, harbours and estuarine areas and marine reserves are appropriate. However, apart from existing marine reserves and harbour and estuarine areas, no other marine areas within the Gulf are identified as being nationally important for natural heritage management. This suggests that the large bulk of the Hauraki Gulf marine area lacks nationally important heritage values. It is suggested that marine areas of the Gulf with high marine biodiversity also be identified (and there is now a wealth of research available to enable these areas to be identified), as well the habitat of the critically endangered Bryde’s whale.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.1.5.1 The diversity of our natural heritage

Accept in partInsert the following paragraph into Section 1.5.1 after the list of key places: "A number of these places also form part of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park (refer to Section 1.6)."

The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park covers a wide area and encompasses a number of the key places identified thus it is more appropriate to recognise this by inserting descriptive text which cross -references to Section 1.6 which already recognises the national importance of this area as a whole.

64/3

Objective refers to restoration of nationally iconic species listed in Appendix 7 that occur locally. It is suggested that marine species such as Bryde's whale,

Inferred: Amend Appendix 7 to include marine species such as Bryde's whale, orca, common dolphins and bottlenose dolphins.

1.5.1.3 Objective RejectNationally iconic species were identified through a national public survey in 2011and it is inappropriate

64/4




orca, common dolphins and bottlenose dolphins also be identified.

to add to this list. Threatened/ at risk species such as the Bryde's whale and Maui's dolphin are identified in Appendix and managed through other policies in Section 1.5.1. Specific local responses within Places are also identified in Part Two.

Appendix 8 lists the different types of marine ecosystems within the region, but does not provide indication of priority areas. This is in contrast to the comparable Objective 1.5.1.1 which largely relates to land-based ecosystems (but which includes some inter-tidal zones) and which identifies priority ecosystem sites. It would be useful to also identify priority areas for the marine area

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.1.5.1.5 Objective Accept in partAgree but the methodology to identify priority marine ecosystems for protection is still under development.

Within the Auckland region it is expected that the Hauraki Gulf marine spatial planning process, which has just commenced, will identify priority areas for marine protection (whether it be through marine reserves or other mechanisms) taking into account the marine ecosystems listed in Appendix 8 of the CMS. Until priority areas and the preferred management regimes for each have been identified through this integrated process it would be premature to identify priorities within the CMS.

64/5

Priority sites referred to should be specified. Inferred: Amend Objective 1.5.1.7 to identify priority sites.1.5.1.7 Objective RejectThe identification within a statutory document such as CMS of priority ecosystem sites should only occur if there has been consultation with affected landowners, which is a process that may occur in the future in conjunction with such as Auckland Council RMA processes.

64/6

As the Department of Conservation is the agency tasked with protecting threatened marine mammals it would be appropriate to indicate more substantive actions in addition to working with others. It is suggested this should include investigating the establishment of a marine mammal sanctuary to protect the Bryde’s whale.

Inferred: Amend Objective 1.5.1.9 to:(1) Indicate more substantiative actions; and(2) Include investigating the establishment of a marine mammal sanctuary to protect the Bryde’s whale.

1.5.1.9 Objective Accept in partAmend Objective 1.5.1.9 to refer to other agencies and groups who DOC may work with.

While DOC administers the Marine Mammals Act, the establishment of a marine mammal sanctuary would occur under the marine protected areas programme and this is provided for in Objective 1.5.1.9 however until specific areas are identified and prioritised through a collaborative process it would be inappropriate to identify a reserve for the purpose of protecting the Bryde's whale.

DOC is currently involved in a number of initiatives with the University of Auckland, Auckland Council

64/7




(harbour master) and shipping companies seeking changes to shipping lanes and vessel speeds through Bryde's habitat directed at protecting the species. This is the sort of action provided for by Objective 1.5.1.9 and it would be appropriate to amend the objective to refer more explicitly toy other agencies who may be involved.

This objective is welcome but it needs to indicate priority locations for the establishment of additional pest-free islands, such as Great Barrier Island, Waiheke and Kawau Island.

Amend Objective 1.5.1.10 to indicate priority locations for the establishment of additional pest-free islands, such as Great Barrier Island, Waiheke and Kawau Island.

1.5.1.10 Objective RejectThe objective provides the strategic CMS area direction re mammalian pest-free islands. Where there are public conservation lands and/or priority ecosystem sites, and community actions are already underway these islands are mentioned in the Place sections (e.g. Great Barrier & Kawau) and are DOC’s priorities. For other islands, the objective allows for pest-free ‘encouragement’ but would be a community initiated priority.

64/8

This objective should refer to the marine spatial planning exercise for the Hauraki Gulf which is designed to provide a strategic and integrated framework to achieve this.

Amend Objective 1.5.11 to refer to marine spatial planning exercise for the Hauraki Gulf.

1.5.1.11 Objective Accept in part(1) Amend the description in Section 1.6 to refer to the spatial plan; and(2) Amend Objective 1.6.3 to refer to the marine spatial plan.

The CMS should be read as a whole. Section 1.6 provides detail about the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. The amendments above provide explicit recognition of the marine spatial plan.

64/9

Six out of the 7 Milestones-Outputs on page 22 consist of the Department reporting. In general terms, reporting is a way of monitoring progress, not a milestone in itself. It is suggested that the milestones be rewritten to reflect tangible outcomes which can be reported on.

Rewrite Milestones-Outputs reflect tangible outcomes which can be reported on.


Accept in partAmend milestones throughout the CMS to be more measurable.

The intent is for progress in achieving milestones to be reported to the Conservation Board/ NZ Conservation Authority on a regular basis (refer part Four, Objective 4.1.1). Given this approach it is unnecessary/ inappropriate for milestones to refer to 'reporting'. The milestones should be rewritten to reflect tangible/ measurable outcomes, where possible.

64/10

The statement on page 27 that the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park will be one of the four priority programmes in the





Auckland region and objective 1.5.4.1(a) which focuses on relationship building to enhanceIt is appropriate that the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park has been given a dedicated section in the Auckland CMS (section 1.6). The section includes 7 objectives on page 32 but some objectives could be more prescriptive. In particular:(1) Objective 1.6.1 refers to implementing sections 7 and 8 of the HGMPA but does not set out how this is to occur.(2) Objective 1.6.2 refers to the need to “Enhance conservation values and visitor opportunities within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park,” but does not state how this will be achieved.

Rewrite Objectives in Section 1.6 so they clearly set out what the Department of Conservation is proposing to do over the next ten years in order to reach the long-term vision for the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park expressed earlier in the document.

1.6 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park - objectives - general

Accept in part(1) Amend the description in Section 1.6 to refer to the state of the Gulf monitoring and spatial plan;(2) Amend Objective 1.6.3 to refer to the marine spatial plan; and(3) Amend Objective 1.6.6 to refer to Part One of the CMS.

Changes have been made to the description and Objective 1.6.3 which provide explicit recognition of two of the key programmes of the Forum - the state of the environment monitoring and spatial plan.

The purpose of Section 1.6 is to identify the key issues within the Hauraki Gulf, the administrative framework and key projects of the Forum. It is intended to be read in conjunction with the rest of the CMS, most notably Parts One and Two which provide greater details as to how the Department is managing natural, historic and other resources generally (Part One) and Places within the Gulf (Part Two) in order to achieve the long-term vision for the Conservancy (Section 1.2). This structural relationship is partially recognised by Objective 1.6.6 which refers to Part Two but this would be further clarified by amending the objective to refer to Part One also.

64/12

This section focuses on the management of existing marine reserves within the Auckland Conservancy and the intention to manage impacts on these reserves. There is also reference in Policy 2.1.7 to the Department of Conservation working with others to achieve statutory protection in the exclusive Economic Zone adjacent to the Kermadec Islands Marine Reserve. However the section does not identify any future opportunities for marine reserve creation in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park. These opportunities should be clearly defined.

Inferred: Amend Section 2.1 to identify future opportunities for marine reserves in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.



64/13

The section (on page 61) refers to the community’s long-term aspiration to remove animal pests from

Inferred: Insert additional policy in Section 2.6 regarding making Great Barrier pest free.

2.6 Great Barrier Island Place -

RejectSection 2.6 already includes two policies (Policies




Aotea. The outcome expressed on page 63 that the "island community has begun the path towards becoming free of animal pests" with the Department and others "working cooperatively to eradicate Argentine ants, rats and feral cats from Aotea" is welcome. The Year 5 output described on page 66 of the North Island kōkako having been returned to Te Paparahi Conservation Area is important. However, it would be useful to include a specific policy on page 65 which reflects this vision and desired outcome.

policies - general 2.6.1 and 2.6.2) relevant to the pest-free vision. Additional policies are not required.64/14

The outcome expressed on page 74 that "Initiatives to control or eradicate mammalian pests on Kawau Island are progressed through working collaboratively with others" is appropriate. It is suggested that DOC seeks eradication in the long term rather than control. There needs to be a policy on page 75 to support this outcome and a relevant output on page 76 so that progress in this area can be measured.

Insert new policy in Section 2.8 regarding the eradication of mammalian pests.

2.8 Kawau Island Place - policies - general

AcceptInsert a new policy to read: "Work collaboratively with the Auckland Council and Kawau Island community with the objective of protecting the natural, cultural and heritage values on conservation land from the effects of wallabies".

While it is appropriate for DOC to control/ manage wallabies on conservation land in order to protect natural, cultural and heritage values, DOC only manages 10% of the land area of the island and cannot prevent incursions from elsewhere on the island. Given this it is impractical for the Department to commit to total eradication. The Department will however co-operate with the Auckland Council and local community to implement the direction of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy. The insertion of this policy will clarify this management approach and add certainty to the CMS.

64/15

The Auckland CMS rightly emphasises the importance of this area as being one of the four coastal wetlands of international importance in New Zealand. The reference to marine spatial planning for the Hauraki Gulf as one of the three programmes critical to the long-term preservation of the area on page 109 is noted. However this project will apply to the entire Hauraki Gulf Marine Park and associated catchments and should similarly be referenced and emphasised elsewhere.

Support policies in Section. In particular:

Inferred:(1) Amend Policy 2.15.3 to make it clear that statutory protection, such as in the form of a marine reserve, is what the Department will seek; and(2) Include measurable outputs which relate to achieving these Policies 2.15.1 and 2.15.3.

2.15 Firth of Thames/ Tikapa Moana Wetlands Place - policies - general


64/16




(1) Policy 2.15.1- The impacts need to be reduced if the health of the wetland and the wider marine area in the Firth of Thames is to be maintained and restored.(2) Policy 2.15.3 - collaboration is required to protect it from the impacts of fishing and aquaculture. The policy should make it clear that statutory protection, such as in the form of a marine reserve, is what the Department will seek.

Measurable outputs which relate to achieving these two policies need to be included in the Milestones-Outputs on page 112.




This Appendix needs to include key ecosystems and habitats in the marine area as well as on land and inter-tidal areas to ensure that these are also a focus on management attention.

Amend Appendix 2 to include key ecosystems in marine and intertidal areas.


RejectThe ecosystem/habitat types listed in the table in Appendix 2 have been taken from the National Heritage Management System (NHMS), which lists terrestrial and freshwater ecosystem/habitat types. Appendix 8 contains a list of marine and intertidal habitats and ecosystems in Auckland Conservancy.

64/17

This Appendix needs to include priority ecosystems and habitats in the marine area as well as on land and in inter-tidal areas to ensure that these are also a focus on management attention.

Amend Appendix 4 to include key ecosystems in marine and intertidal areas.


Accept in partThe priority ecosystem management units in the Auckland Conservancy have been identified through the Natural Heritage Management System (NHMS). The following note has been added below the title of Appendix 4 to describe where the information has been taken from:

"This list has been taken from the Department's

64/18




national list of 941 ecosystem management units, which represent the full range of New Zealand's terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems (except for sites on private land, which are not listed). Please note, the table does not necessarily list all nationally significant ecosystems present in Auckland Conservancy. The list is subject to change as priorities are refined and revised - new sites may be added and others removed."

The following footnotes have been added to the Motu Manawa-Pollen Island Marine Reserve and Te Matuku Bay entries in the table to clarify that these entries are referring to the terrestrial components of these areas, rather than the marine area:

"This ecosystem habitat type refers to the terrestrial component of the Motu Manawa-Pollen Island Marine Reserve."

"This ecosystem habitat type refers to the terrestrial component of Te Matuku Bay."

A description of all six marine reserves in the Auckland Conservancy is included in Appendix 8: Marine habitats and ecosystems.

Submitter: Albert Eden and Whau Local Boards, Auckland CouncilMotu Manawa Marine reserve is only Auckland marine reserve situation in a densely populated area and accessible by public transport.

The CMS identifies the potential to increase public access to and appreciation of Reserve and Albert-Eden and Whau Local Boards strongly support this for the following reasons:(1) The Reserve is not widely known.(2) Improved assess to experience area will increase public appreciation and understanding of the role and ecology of mangrove forests and its biodiversity.(3) Consultation on the Waterview Precinct Plan in late 2012 revealed strong public interest in gaining better access to reserve (walkway or boardwalk) for

Retain Section 2.1 with respect to Motu Manawa Marine Reserve.

2.1 Marine Reserves Place - outcome

AcceptThe Motu Manawa-Pollen Island part of Section 2.1 has been retained.65/1




educational purposes.(4) An educational walkway offers the opportunity to provide and manager public interface with reserve.(5) A boardwalk with connections to existing parks would facilitate enhanced experience of marine reserve. Most of eastern coastline is in private ownership with riparian rights.(6) Rosebank Peninsula to west has many esplanade reserves but these are being commercial blocks and not readily accessible.

The Albert-Eden and Whau Local Boards are jointly investigating a proposal for a coastal walkway around the perimeter of Motu Manawa. Long term vision is for construction of low-impact boardwalk along Waterview Coast from Howlett Esplanade to Heron park with interpretative signage.

Submitter: Brenden DuffyOpposes policy and the restriction on the take-off and landing of non-motorised aircraft from Fort Takapuna Historic Reserve. The submitter is a experienced and qualified paraglider and considers the sport has a good record of responsible use and low impact on recreational values. The submitter wants to provide for paragliding at this location.

Delete Policy 2.14.42.14.4 Policy Accept in partParagliding is addressed in a supplementary report.66/1

Opposes policy. The submitter is an experienced qualified paraglider who considers the sport is well regulated and has a record of responsible use and low impact on recreational values. The submitter wants the policy to provide for all types of non-motorised aircraft, which would include paragliding.



Submitter: Eva Walton-KeimSubmitter opposes policy in relation to paragliding at Fort Takapuna. The policy change in the CMS is considered contrary to historic and current agreements paragliders have with DOC. The submitter considers there have been no safety incidents with paragliding, that it has a positive affect on recreational amenity values and has minimal impact.

Amend CMS to provide for paragliding as a permitted activity at Fort Takapuna.


Opposes policy with regard to paragliding at North Head. Considers the policy change in the CMS is

Amend Policy 2.14.8 to provide for paragliding as a permitted activity at North Head.





contrary to historic and current agreements paragliders have with DOC. Considers that there have been no reported safety incidents, that it has a positive effect on recreational amenity values and minimal impact.

Submitter: Morag FordhamDespite being a Conservation Management Strategy, this document is heavily weighted towards the management of visitors to the Island.

Rewrite Section 2.10 in a balanced way that takes into account all of the aspects of conservation management.


NotedPolicies are included where it is necessary to specifically constrain or enable an activity in order to achieve the Outcomes for that Place or where the Outcomes of that Place do not provide sufficient direction. As there are complex issues relating to visitor access and the potential impacts of visitor activities on Tiritiri Matangi the CMS needs to have a number of policies to guide decision-making and management direction for the Island. Rather than representing a shift in emphasis away from the conservation, the presence of policies relating to visitor management are directed at constraining/ managing visitors. The Description and Outcomes when read in conjunction with Part 1 are considered to provide sufficient direction in terms of biodiversity however it is considered that the readability/ structure of the document could be enhanced by including the following words in the description of policies (Introduction and Part Three): “policies are included where it is necessary to constrain or enable an activity in order to achieve an outcome for a Place”.

68/1

Clause (a) (i) - oppose the introduction of a 7-day ferry service. Time out is needed for a number of activities, such as outward translocations, in the absence of visitors.

Clause (a) (v) - oppose the introduction of additional guided persons. A full ferry (170) already places pressure on guiding opportunities on the Island.

Amend Policy 2.10.5 as follows:(1) That status quo of 5 days per week be retained in Clause (a) (i); and(2) That a 170 daily limit be adopted in Clause (a) (i).

2.10.5 Policy Accept in partInsert a new policy to read: "May set aside days when no visitor access is limited to Tiritiri Matangi to provide for Department of Conservation management purposes or activities approved by the Department".

A seven day a week service currently operates from Boxing Day to the third Sunday in January. While it may be operationally desirable to restrict access in order to carry out activities such as translocations and track maintenance, these activities can in most part still be undertaken with visitors present. Furthermore the islands status as an open sanctuary

68/2




clearly emphasises the need to provide for visitor access. Having said that there may be occasional circumstances where limiting visitor access to the whole or part of the island is desirable and the recommended policy provides for this to occur.

The daily limit of 170 passengers per day to visit Tiritiri Matangi by ferry has been trialled over a two year period. Monitoring of the trial has not shown that this has significantly affected visitor experience, wildlife or infrastructure. Respondents to a visitor satisfaction survey noted that group management (small group sizes, introductory talk, information provided by guides) and good facilities and diversity of tracks were the two things that contributed to a lack of negative impacts from interactions with other people. The approach of adopting visitor limits and mechanisms to control the dispersal of people from the ferry (by group management, diversity of tracks) is therefore considered to be consistent with enabling more people to experience the island and the Outcomes for the Place.

Clause (e) - Whilst don’t oppose some increase in the number of overnight visitors, a 150% increase from the current 20 is excessive. It would place undue pressure on the infrastructure, reduce the enjoyment of other visitors and create unprecedented Health & Safety issues

Amend Policy 2.10.8(e) to limit the maximum number of overnight visitors to 30.

2.10.8 Policy RejectIn considering proposals for new overnight accommodation the criteria in Policy 2.10.8 will need to be considered in conjunction with those in Policy 3.8.6 (not 3.8.6 as incorrectly referenced in the draft). Collectively these two policies provide considerable emphasis on ensuring that any new buildings and the uses associated with it are appropriate to the Place. While it is acknowledged that the limit of 50 could be arbitrary to a certain extent, any proposal would have to meet all other criteria as well as signified by the use of the word "and" in the policy. Thus simply staying below the limit of 50 would not be sufficient for a proposal to be approved. Any proposal would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and demonstrate compliance with all criteria including those in Policy 3.8.5 relating to the outcomes for the place and impacts on recreational values.

68/3




Strongly oppose helicopter visits for other than Island management purposes (e.g. translocations), visiting dignitaries or emergency situations. Such visits would impact on the visitor experience and is not appropriate to a wildlife sanctuary

Delete Policy 2.10.9.2.10.9 Policy Accept1) Delete Policy 2.10.9 and replace with the following: "Should not allow aircraft landings on Tiritiri Matangi Island, to protect the visitor experience and avoid adverse effects on natural, historic, cultural and amenity values." ; (2) Change the aircraft zoning for Tiritiri to "red" on the aircraft access zone maps: and(3) Delete Policy 3.4.5(g).

Changing the aircraft zoning to red and making the changes to related policies will establish a regime where aircraft landings are only allowed for search and rescue, departmental management purposes, emergency situations, maritime navigational aid management or land survey work as noted in Part Three (p. 114).


68/4

Submitter: Rachael RobertsOppose policy. CMS places an unreasonable and unfair burden upon paraglider pilots who have a legitimate interest in the recreational use of the land. Paragliding is a low impact activity, and as such is a reasonable use of the land, with no significant actual or potential effects on any aspect of the environment.Paragliding is not inconsistent with the aim of the proposed policy to ensure protection of recreation, amenity values and visitor safety. Rather to unreasonably and unnecessarily disallow paragliding at





these two sites is contrary to the policy aims as it would be detrimental to the recreation and amenity value by preventing the reasonable recreational and low impact use of the historic reserves by paragliders. Visitor safety is also not threatened by the activity of paragliding from these sites, as paragliding is a self regulating body with a high standard of qualification, ensuring only skilful and experienced pilots may fly from these two sites. Responsible use of local sites is governed by the Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club, for which membership is mandatory.I do not think paragliding should be excluded as a legitimate activity at these two sites under the land use policies, for to do so would be directly contrary to the purposes of the policy to protect the recreation, amenity value of these sites. Nor is visitor safety threatened by paragliding.Oppose policy. CMS places an unreasonable and unfair burden upon paraglider pilots who have a legitimate interest in the recreational use of the land. Paragliding is a low impact activity, and as such is a reasonable use of the land, with no significant actual or potential effects on any aspect of the environment.Paragliding is not inconsistent with the aim of the proposed policy to ensure protection of recreation, amenity values and visitor safety. Rather to unreasonably and unnecessarily disallow paragliding at these two sites is contrary to the policy aims as it would be detrimental to the recreation and amenity value by preventing the reasonable recreational and low impact use of the historic reserves by paragliders. Visitor safety is also not threatened by the activity of paragliding from these sites, as paragliding is a self regulating body with a high standard of qualification, ensuring only skilful and experienced pilots may fly from these two sites. Responsible use of local sites is governed by the Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club, for which membership is mandatory.I do not think paragliding should be excluded as a legitimate activity at these two sites under the land use policies, for to do so would be directly contrary to the purposes of the policy to protect the recreation, amenity

Amend Policy 2.14.8 to read: "Allow the use of non-motorised aircraft, subject to this activity avoiding any adverse effects on the safety and enjoyment of other visitors"





value of these sites. Nor is visitor safety threatened by paragliding.

Submitter: The Motutapu Restoration TrustObjective acknowledges that to achieve the best mix of visitor opportunities, these opportunities does not need to be offered only on public conservation land

Amend Objective 1.5.3.2 to read: "Contribute to a national network of visitor opportunities by promoting and developing the icon and gateway destinations listed in Appendix 10 as the key attractions with a network of opportunities on public conservation land offered in the Conservancy where these visitor opportunities are not offered on private land in the Conservancy or within easy reach".

1.5.3.2 Objective Accept in partAmend Objective 1.5.3.2 to read: "..offered on public conservation land in Auckland."

Within Auckland a range of recreation opportunities are provided by Auckland Council, DOC and on private land. As most (approximately 90%) of the land managed by DOC is on the Gulf Islands this is where the Department will focus on managing recreation opportunities. Amending Objective 1.5.3.2 to reinforce the focus on public conservation lands will provide clarity. Most Gulf Islands are included in Part Two-Places and these sections provide further definition as to what opportunities are available/ appropriate within each island.

70/1

No reason provided. Amend Objective 1.5.3.8 to read: Work with Auckland Council, tangata whenua, existing site-based community Trusts and others to position Auckland as a world-class visitor destination".

1.5.3.8 Objective RejectMentioning within the objectives all the various types of ‘others’ working for conservation could get excessive, but in the Place sections it is appropriate to do so, and this is done.

70/2

( c) is strongly supported. Retain Objective 1.5.4.1(c )1.5.4.1 Objective AcceptSupport noted.70/3

Intent supported in part. Introductory narrative does not provide sufficient guidance on the need to ensure the desired increase in business opportunities in conservation will be conservatively balanced against, and take into account, the existing investment and commercial and business commitments of existing site-based community Trusts. It must be clearly articulated that intent of this section will not be at the expense of existing of site-based community Trusts activities and the relationships they have with businesses.

Amend Introductory text to Section with statement to the effect that intent of this section will not be at the expense of existing of site-based community Trusts activities and the relationships they have with businesses.

1.5.5 More business opportunities

Accept in partThis concern is a valid one, albeit that it would make little sense for DOC to jeopardise a community trust partnership just to establish a new business opportunity; the intention being that DOC, community and business work together to further conservation. Given that the CMS must be read as a whole, the submitter’s concern is met by the 1.5.4 objectives.

70/4

Note that objectives and policies to increase conservation activity are inextricably linked to community based Trusts. It is critical that these Trusts benefit from funding increases. We highlight that Part 4 of the Reserves Act, 1977, currently provides a suitable mechanism.

Amend Objective 1.5.5.10 to read: "Increase net revenue flows available for achieving conservation by enabling all mechanisms in Part 4, Reserves Act, 1977".

1.5.5.10 Objective RejectObjective 1.5.5.10 is about increasing net revenue flows across the board, not just DOC's revenue flows, some of which may be subject to Reserves Act mechanisms. Community trusts could benefit just as much from increased revenue flows as DOC could.

70/5




Objective implies a hierarchy where conservation values are enhanced, followed by the enhancement of visitor opportunities. The Trust supports this hierarchy but is concerned that such a hierarchy may be merely of a coincidental typographical nature rather then intended Noting that Motutapu and Rangitoto are Gateway sites, we also note that your definition, as per Glossary, that a Gateway destination is ‘a destination that helps to introduce New Zealanders to the outdoors and allows them to learn about conservation. These destinations may provide for a diverse range of activities but include many traditional camping and tramping destinations.’ This definition reinforces the hierarchy supported by the Trust.

Amend Objective 1.6.2 to read: "Enhance conservation values and visitor opportunities within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park, where visitor opportunities are not inconsistent with conservation values".

1.6.2 Objective RejectThe purpose of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Part Act 2000 as set out in section 3 is primarily about achieving integrated management. It does not imply a hierarchy although recommendations included in the upcoming non-statutory marine spatial plan may identify areas where the enhancement of conservation and/ or visitor opportunities should be given greater/ lesser emphasis. Objective 1.6.2 therefore needs to be read in conjunction with the Vision, Objectives and Policies for Places such as Motutapu and Rangitoto which describe the balance to be given to conservation v use consistent with the values of that place and the statutory purpose for which the land is held.

70/6

Section lacks provision for the establishment of new marine reserve/s. We submit that a marine reserve contiguous with Motutapu and/or Rangitoto, out to a depth of 30m, would be beneficial to marine biodiversity in the Gulf including marine mammals such as Bryde's whales, and contribute to improving the Gulf’s water quality.

Insert new policies in Section 2.1 to read:(1) Investigate the establishment of a marine reserve contiguous with Motutapu and/or Rangitoto from MHWS to a depth that affords some protection to the water column and marine mammals including Bryde's whales"; and(2) "Investigate the restoration of marine ecosystems with shellfish beds such as mussels and other bivalves, in previous shellfish sites between Rangitoto and Motutapu via a mechanism such as a marine reserve. The purpose being to protect and restore natural character and ecosystems and improved marine water quality".




Within the Auckland region it is expected that the Hauraki Gulf marine spatial planning process, which has just commenced, will identify priority areas for marine protection (whether it be through marine reserves or other mechanisms) taking into account the marine ecosystems listed in Appendix 8 of the CMS. Once priority areas and the preferred

70/7




management regimes for each have been identified the normal application processes would apply.


Penultimate paragraph, p. 87 - The Trust undertakes considerably more activity to provide considerable value and benefit to Motutapu, specifically, and Rangitoto, generally. The Trust considers it appropriate to correctly state the level of contribution it has made, in the same manner as afforded the Supporters of Tiritiri Matangi in the Tiritiri Matangi Island Place.

Last paragraph, p. 87 - 12 - Includes a statement exists that priority will be given to bicycle use of the roads and that vehicle use will need to be carefully managed. The Trust is not aware of any decision, nor has it been consulted on such decision. Such a fundamental statement has significant influence on the Trusts activities, as it does on the Department’s activities. Pedestrians have long held priority on roads and the Trusts submits that this is appropriate. However, due to the high speed and unpredictability of bicycles, the Trust does not support bicycles on the islands except during the Trusts fundraising event known as the Dual Motutapu Rangitoto Traverse.

(1) Reword penultimate paragraph, p. 87 to adequately reflect the contribution of the Trust; and(2) Reword last paragraph, p. 87 by deleting the word "bicycle"


Accept in partThe Department agrees that recognition should be given to the trusts/community groups that undertake restoration work on the island. The description has been amended as follows to include a reference to the three main groups:

"There are a number of trusts and community groups that presently undertake valuable conservation work on these islands, including: - The Motutapu Restoration Trust, which formed in 1994. The Trust’s aim is to protect and restore the natural and cultural landscape of Motutapu. Significant volunteer effort and funding has been put into replanting, facilitating translocations and conserving historic features.- The Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp Trust, which operates the Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp. The camp provides an opportunity for young people to experience conservation and outdoor education.- The Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust, which aims to conserve and interpret the historic bach communities on Rangitoto Island."

Comments regarding mountain biking are addressed in a supplementary report.

70/8

Strongly oppose trial for following reasons:(1) Roads are narrow and rough with lots of loose gravel. Rangitoto unforgiving to the human body.(2) Would current speeds - 30km (Rangitoto) and 40km

Delete mountain biking trial.2.11 MTB proposal - General





(Motutapu) apply to cyclists? If so, signage and enforcement would be required. Who would do this and under what powers? Cyclist in DUAL exceed these speeds however this is highly controlled event and roads are closed.(3) Will diminish impact and special nature of DUAL. Event is major fundraiser for Motutapu Restoration Trust. Uniqueness of event is crucial to achieving fundraising.(4) Safety issues - conflicting use of tracks by different users will result in safety considerations. No first aid station. Difficulty in evacuating people. Poor mobile reception.(5) Inability to control where cyclists go (i.e. paddocks, native forest sensitive archaeological sites).(6) Grazing on Motutapu acknowledged as only viable mechanism to protect archaeological features. Animal welfare issues will arise from mountain bike and livestock interactions. Tracks and roads are not fenced - could lead to surprise interactions with people and livestock being hurt. Farm use trucks to move livestock. When laden these trucks would be unable to stop in the sort of timeframe/ distance necessary to avoid a no attentive/ inexperienced or out of control cyclist. Holding DUAL requires months of planning with Total Sport. Farm plans to move stock two months in advance of event. It would not be possible to plan this way if mountain biking was a regular activity.(7) Biosecurity issues.(8) Would the Department consider mountain biking on Tiritiri Matangi? The same rationale should be applied to Motutapu in determining the answer to this question.(9) The public has no expectation that the Department will provide all visitor facilities and experiences at all sites it administers. Equally, the Trust is not aware of any mandate requiring the Department to meet such expectation.

Trust submits that walking is more appropriate family orientated activity for visitors to explore, see and enjoy both islands, respecting the "natural, cultural and historic values" of the islands and this is supported by other stakeholders, tangata whenua and others




involved in the development of the Great Walk-style, multi-day walking opportunity.Strongly supported. Retain Policy 2.11.5.2.11.5 Policy Accept

Policy 2.11.5 retained.70/10

Strongly supported. Retain Policy 2.11.6.2.11.6 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.11.6 retained.70/11

Policy strongly opposed. Delete Policy 2.11.7.2.11.7 Policy RejectThe mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.

70/12

The roads on Motutapu are narrow and have blind and tight corners. A near miss incident recently occurred between a vehicle and school group on bicycles. They were riding responsibly but couldn't be seen around the bend.

Delete Policy 2.11.8.2.11.8 Policy AcceptThe mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.

70/13

Strongly support. Retain Policy 2.11.14.2.11.14 Policy Policy 2.11.14 retained.70/14

Strongly support. Retain Policy 2.11.17.2.11.17 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.11.17 retained.70/15

Policy supported on the basis that the Trust benefits from the financial activity of such concessions on the basis that any new commercial activity is attractive largely due to the previous investment and effort of the Trust.

Amend Policy 2.11.22 to read: "Allow a single Limited Supply Concession to build permanent or semi-permanent overnight visitor accommodation at Home Bay, subject to an assessment against criteria in Policy 3.8.6 in Part Three and giving due regard to existing concessionaires providing activities at Home Bay".

2.11.22 Policy RejectPolicy 2.11.22 requires any overnight visitor accommodation to be assessed against Policy 3.8.6 (which has been corrected to read 3.8.5). 3.8.5 a) relates to the outcome and policies for a Place. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the outcome for Motutapu refer to the current activities provided by concessionaires at Home Bay e.g. the Reid Homestead interpretation centre, conservation volunteering etc. Any new overnight visitor accommodation would only be approved if it was consistent with this outcome.

70/16

Policy supported on the basis that the Trust benefits from the financial activity of such concessions on the basis that any new commercial activity is attractive largely due to the previous investment and effort of the Trust.

Amend Policy 2.11.23 by adding new sub-clause to read: "A percentage of any revenue, at a level agreed by the concessionaire and the Motutapu Restoration Trust, derived from commercial activities on Motutapu Island is directed to the Motutapu Restoration Trust for further its ecological, cultural and heritage landscape restoration programme".

2.11.23 Policy RejectRevenue and its distribution is an operational matter and will not be addressed through the CMS.

70/17

Supported on the basis that such activity is operated by the existing concessionaire, subject to any concession





conditions agreed.Under what Act would these be created? Bylaws put a long time to put in pace. The islands are too large to monitor fully. Adverse effects could occur in the meantime and safety of public is an risk. Bylaws and warrants need to be in place before mountain bike trial proceeds (on Rangitoto and Motutapu).

Amend Policy 3.3.3 to read: "All mountain biking related bylaws, regulations and legal warrants required to monitor and enforce such bylaws and regulations, including road traffic and speed related regulations, roads and tracks will be promulgated and issued before any mountain biking trial on Motutapu and Rangitoto is further considered for implementation".

3.3.3 Policy RejectBylaws or regulations are not required if the mountain biking trial is undertaken by concession, as per the amended wording in the CMS. Concession contract conditions are then able to be enforced. Bylaws or regulations are only required if there is no concession or other form of permit, and some ability to enforce policy is required e.g. if the public have freedom of access to mountain bike at a place, but where some controls are required that then require enforcement.

70/19

Support. Retain Policy 3.5.1.3.5.1 Policy NotedThe submitters support for this policy is noted.70/20






Generally, the strategy lacks consistency in the naming of reserves and sites. For example, the strategy refers to Motutapu and Motutapu Island. While both terms may be socially acceptable, the Trust suggests that consistency is required so that the correct name for the reserve or site is reinforced.

The CMS appears silent on the fire risks to public conservation land as a result of smoking and discarded, but still hot, cigarette butts. As a result of these risks, the Trust considers that public conservation land should be smoke free and submits that an appropriate policy be introduced to the document, possibly in Section 1.5.

Amend CMS to:(1) Achieve consistency in naming of reserves and sites; and(2) Insert a policy on smoke free conservation lands.

General Accept in partAmend the CMS so that:(1) Where a Place (as defined in Part Two) is referred to, the full place name is used; and(2) Where a geographical feature is referred to, for example Rangitoto Island, that the naming in that context reflects common English usage and makes sense.

The document will be reviewed and edited before publishing to ensure that references to Places and geographical features are appropriate and consistent.

The smoke-free campaign generally refers to making areas smoke-free for public health reasons. While it

70/26




is acknowledged that the Auckland Council has resolved to do this progressively in terms of parks and reserves this was only done after extensive investigations and public consultation. It DOC were to do this, the Department would also need to undertake similar investigations and consultation not just at a local level but at a national level also. It is therefore inappropriate to amend the CMS to provide for this as requested by the submitter.

It is noted however that provisions (description and a policy) have been inserted into Part Three in response to a submission by Forest and Bird (57/7) which address the effects on public conservation land from fire.

Submitter: Leslie GrahamOppose policy.

I have been a hang glider pilot for 29 years and I have enjoyed being part of flying activities at North Head and Fort Takapuna during that time.Hang/paragliding is a self regulated body with high qualification standard, with the Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club responsible for membership use of the Auckland Area Flying Sites. This has ensured a long time track record of responsible use of these places. I believe that hang gliding at these historic sites is the most low impact recreational use of the area. There are relatively few days that weather allows the activity. Visitors are normally interested and enjoy taking pictures of the surroundings with a hang/paraglider present. I have not seen any negative interaction with any other visitors to North Head or Fort Takapuna. I do not think that the land use policies for these places should be changed or restricted for the use of non-motorized aircraft.


Oppose policy.

I have been a hang glider pilot for 29 years and I have enjoyed being part of flying activities at North Head and Fort Takapuna during that time.Hang/paragliding is a self regulated body with high

Amend Policy 2.14.8 to read: "Allow the use of non-motorised aircraft, subject to this activity avoiding any adverse effects on thesafety and enjoyment of other visitors".





qualification standard, with the Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club responsible for membership use of the Auckland Area Flying Sites. This has ensured a long time track record of responsible use of these places. I believe that hang gliding at these historic sites is the most low impact recreational use of the area. There are relatively few days that weather allows the activity. Visitors are normally interested and enjoy taking pictures of the surroundings with a hang/paraglider present. I have not seen any negative interaction with any other visitors to North Head or Fort Takapuna. I do not think that the land use policies for these places should be changed or restricted for the use of non-motorized aircraft.

Submitter: Auckland CouncilThe Council understands the exemptions provided under Section 4(3) of the RMA however considers CMS that regard also given to local government planning documents (as required by MOU and DOC General Policy). Note that the activities outlined in Appendix 1, are also subject to Sections 9(2), 13, 14 and 15 of the Act which apply to rules contained in the Council's regional plans and may still require consent. CMS should include a statement noted that not all activities are covered by district plan exemption. Note also that Auckland Council legacy plans will be replaced by Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan to be notified in 2013.

Amend Legislative Tools reference to Exemptions from land use consents by inserting the following text after the end of the second sentence and before the third and final sentence in the paragraph entitled "Exemption from land use consents":

"However the works and activities listed in Appendix 1 are not exempt from Sections 9(2), 12, 13,14 and 15 of the RMA. DOC will comply with the relevant sections of the RMA and Council plans or obtain the necessary resource consents. Where necessary, advice on the statutory plan requirements will be sought from the relevant local authority before planning any facilities and activities.

Legislative tools Accept in partIt is correct that while some activities on public conservation land may be exempt from requiring a land-use consent, this does not preclude compliance with other requirements of the RMA or other legislation. It is considered that the section 'Exemption from land use consents' should be amended by adding the following text:

"Further, while certain activities may be exempt from land use consent, this does not remove the need to comply with other regulatory requirements of the RMA and other legislation."

72/1

The Council agrees with the need for area closures, especially for pest control using aerial bait operations. The Council expects to be involved in the planning for any pest control programmes where there is the possibility of impacts on Council or private land. The Council has responsibilities relating to the use of toxic bait, including for the Coastal Marine Area (CMA). CMS needs to reference Biosecurity Act 1993.

Amend Legislative Tools section to:Inferred: (1) Recognise Auckland Council responsibilities relating to the use of toxic bait; and(2) Refer to the Biosecurity Act 1993, with particular reference to the aims of the Regional Pest Management Strategy.

Legislative tools Accept in partA new section has been added to the Introduction which describes the relationship to other planning processes. It specifically refer to regional council responsibilities under the Biosecurity Act as follows: “Under the Biosecurity Act 1993, regional councils are responsible for preparing regional pest management strategies and pathway plans to ensure that a coordinated approach to pest control is taken”. The CMS is a strategic document and it is unnecessary to refer to functions in relation to aerial bait operations.

72/2




The Council have indicated that it would like to provide input to these objectives for biodiversity that moves between public conservation land and Council owned land.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.Legislative tools NotedThe Auckland Council's to seek input into the development of biodiversity objectives for conservation management plans in the Auckland region is noted.

72/3

The Council supports DOC's obligations as a signatory to international agreements. The Council adheres to the principles of these agreements.

Inferred: Retain section.International obligations

AcceptThe Council's support for the Department's obligations to international agreements in the Auckland region is noted. This section will be retained.

72/4

The Auckland Council would like to see definite percentage goals set for DOC's long-term vision. Auckland Council suggests altering "nationally representative range of marine ecosystems and habitats" to a numeric percentage e.g. "a minimum of 20% of Auckland's coastal marine area. This way Auckland has its own goal and its marine conservation won't depend on the rest of the country.

DOC needs to be realistic when projecting what species will exist in 2060. Unless there is an immediate and concerted effort the Maui's dolphin will be extinct long before 2060. It is highly unlikely due to introduced pests that Kokako and Kakariki will be widely distributed in 2060. The Council draws attention to critically threatened species such as the Chevron Skink, Fairy Tern, and the NZ Storm Petrel. The Council stresses the importance of protecting the breeding area of the NZ Storm Petrel on Hauturu. The site is in a fragile state in establishing the breeding colony.

The second to last paragraph of the Long term vision for Auckland - 2060 is confusing. It states "on the west coast of Auckland Conservancy and within the EEZ, linking the different parts of the Kermadec Islands Marine Reserve." The reference to the Kermadec Islands and their connection to the west coast of Auckland need clarification.

Amend Long-Term Vision to:(1) Include percentage goals; and(2) Reword second to last paragraph so it makes sense.


Accept in part(1) The vision is meant to describe what the department would like to achieve within the next 50 years. The implementation of the Marine Protected Areas Programme requires the collaborative efforts of agencies, tangata whenua and the community to prioritise areas for marine protection and then to ensure statutory protection is in place. As only one partner in this process, it would be inappropriate for DOC to identify percentage goals at this stage in the vision or elsewhere within the CMS.

(2) Reword the last sentence of paragraph 4 in the 'long term vision' to read: "A nationally representative range of marine ecosystems and habitats is protected on the west coast of Auckland Conservancy and a contiguous marine protected area encompasses all islands within the Kermadec Island group".

The intention in the last sentence in paragraph 4 was to convey the aspiration to have a range of marine reserves on the West Coast and to achieve full coverage of the Kermadec Island group (currently there are gaps in coverage of the marine reserve owing to the positioning of the exclusive economic zone). The changes clarify this. The vision is intended to be aspirational, setting out a 50-year vision for the Conservancy. Specific goals and milestones to be achieved over the 10year life of the CMS towards achieving this vision are included within appropriate sections of the CMS.

72/5




Auckland Council agrees with the statement "the connections between land and seas is a defining feature of Auckland Conservancy, shaping the way settlements have developed."

The Council also agrees that the pressure of growth from Auckland city is placing the marine environment under pressure.

The Council alerts DOC and the CMS to the strategic issues identified by the Hauraki Gulf Forum State of our Gulf report (Higham 2011).

The use of the word hinterland in this section (page 12) and throughout the CMS is considered inappropriate.

The submission relates to page 13 of the CMS and text about the Maui's Dolphin. The reference to Maui's dolphin should read recovery, not protection. Also Maui's dolphin is not a sub-species of Hector's dolphins. It is one of two subspecies, the other being Hector's dolphins. The wording of the CMS needs to accurately refer to the number of remaining Maui's dolphins, which is 55 as recorded from recent surveys.

Inferred: (1) Delete word "hinterland" from CMS; (2) Amend references in CMS to refer to "recovery" not "protection";(3) Amend CMS to refer correctly to Maui's being one of two subspecies; and(4) Amend Section 1.3 to correctly refer to 55 individual Maui's Dolphins.


Accept in part(1) Reword the paragraph commencing "the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act" to read: "..recognises that the natural and historic features of the Gulf are of national and international importance. It established the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park in order to integrate the management of the Gulf, its islands and catchments. The catchments of the Park encompass.."

The amendments to the discussion about the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act remove reference to 'hinterland' and replace it with text that more closely reflects the purpose of the Act.

(2) The first sentence regarding Maui's dolphin has been amended to read:

"Particular focus is placed on the recovery of the threatened Maui's dolphin..."

(3) The text in is correct so will remain unchanged. There are 2 subspecies of Hector's dolphin, Cephalorhynchus hectori hectori (common name Hector's dolphin) and Cephalorhynchus hectori maui (common name Maui's dolphin). The following further sentence has been added to this paragraph to reflect that Hector's dolphin individuals have been found amongst the Maui's dolphin population, and the sentence following it amended to refer to the 2 subspecies:

"Hector’s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori hectori) individuals have also been found amongst the Maui’s dolphin population. Entanglement in set nets poses a major threat to both subspecies..."

(4) The population estimate of Maui's dolphin has been changed from "fewer than 100 individuals" to "around 55 individuals over the age of one year" to reflect the 2012 survey.

72/6




Council contends that based on current scientific evidence New Zealand was settled no earlier than the 13th century.

In the fifth paragraph on page 16, it is recommended to change working with "others" to working "within the Hauraki Gulf Forum and with community conservation groups, commercial operators and non-governmental organisations."

Amend Section by:Inferred: (1) Revising settlement date as per submission; and(2) Revising the fifth paragraph on page 16, it is recommended to change working with "others" to working "within the Hauraki Gulf Forum and with community conservation groups, commercial operators and non-governmental organisations."

1.3 Distinctive features, values and issues - Land loved by many people

Accept in partAmend the paragraph which commences "While site based .." under 'Gateway' to read: "working with the Hauraki Gulf Forum and with community conservation groups, commercial operators and non-governmental organisations."

The changes recognise the range of agencies and groups involved in promoting the Hauraki Gulf.

72/7

Both DOC and the Council are promoting Auckland as a destination for international visitors. The CMS identifies that there is the potential to increase visitor numbers to experience places such as the island reserves and sanctuaries such as Rangitoto and Tiritiri Matangi. The Council agrees there is potential to increase numbers in some parts of the DOC estate, but does not support increased visitor numbers and facilities in relation to Rangitoto and Tiritiri Matangi.

[NB: Refer to specific submission points in relation to Rangitoto and Tiritiri Matangi]

No decision sought by the submission is unclear.1.3 Distinctive features, values and issues - Gateway

NotedNo changes to Section 1.3 were sought by the submitter. The "Gateway' section remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

72/8

The Council generally supports DOC's objectives to manage sites of national heritage but makes following points:

Aotea Great Barrier Island:The efforts of the Great Barrier Island Local Board and the Auckland Council Biosecurity Team have ensured that the island is free of possum and mustelids. The Council fully supports DOC's role in managing island biodiversity which is mainly vested in public conservation land. The Council requests a greater focus on preventing Kauri dieback disease, Phytophthora taxon Agathis (PTA).

Hauturu Little Barrier Island:The Council supports DOC's objective to keep Hauturu as a wildlife reserve. The island is noted as critical as a source of founder populations of species to use for translocations. The Council calls for increased vigilance of the recently established Hauturu breeding colony of the New Zealand storm petrel.

Amend Section 1.5.1 by:(1) Providing a greater focus for preventing Kauri dieback disease on Aotea Great Barrier Island;Inferred; and(2) Increasing vigilance of the recently established Hauturu breeding colony of the New Zealand storm petrel;


Accept in part(1) Delete all the text in the descriptive paragraph in Section 1.3.1 following the words "(or PTA)".

(2) Insert the following descriptive text into Section 1.5.1:"A current threat to kauri forests is kauri dieback disease (Phytophthora taxon Agathis or PTA), a soil-borne fungus-like organism that kills kauri trees, is a significant risk to the health and functioning of kauri forest ecosystems, and can be spread by human activity as well as by animals. At the time of writing this strategy PTA had been confirmed at several sites on Great Barrier and the former Rodney District. Important areas for kauri dieback prevention in Auckland are Hauturu- Little Barrier Island Place and Mataitai Forest, Kohukonui and Mangatawhiri-Vinings in the Hunuas (see Map 2). Since 2008 when PTA was declared an unwanted organism, the Department has been working with Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council the Ministry of

72/9




Kermadec Islands:The Council supports DOC's efforts to gain World Heritage Status for the Kermadec Islands and supports in principle the creation of a fully protected marine reserve around the Kermadec Islands.

West Coast marine mammal sanctuary:This is stronghold for Maui's dolphin. Auckland Council has lodged a submission on the Review of the Maui's Dolphin Threat Management Plan (TMP) Consultation Paper. The Council supports DOC's objective of an established stronghold for Maui's dolphin.

Primary Industries, iwi and others on a Kauri Dieback Joint Agency Response (KDJAR). The KDJAR has formulated a number of measures (refer Part 3) as part of a long term management programme which the Department will give implement".

(3) Insert the following new Objective in Section 1.5.1:"X Work with the Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council and the Ministry of Primary Industries to manage the spread and effects of kauri dieback disease and increase community understanding of the disease and recommended measures for disease prevention".

(4) Amending the description in Part Two, Section 2.3 (Hauturu) by inserting the following: "including kauri dieback disease which has not yet been detected".

(5) Insert the following policy into Part Two, Section 2.3 (Hauturu):"Maintain strict biosecurity measures to prevent the introduction of diseases, and pest plants and animals that would adversely affect the island’s ecological values including undertaking actions to prevent the establishment of kauri dieback disease in accordance with policies XXX in Part Three".

(6) Insert the following descriptive text in Part Three:"Kauri dieback diseaseAs identified in Part One, kauri dieback disease is a threat to kauri forests in Auckland and the Department is working with the Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, the Ministry of Primary Industries, iwi and others on a joint response to manage the disease. The key elements of the Department’s programme identified in Policy XX will be implemented throughout Auckland. In addition specific preventative measures will be implemented at Hauturu/ Little Barrier Place and these are found in Part Two-Places."




(7) Insert the following Policy in Part Three:"Develop and implement programmes to address and manage new occurrences of kauri dieback disease and contain it within sites where it has been confirmed using best practice techniques based on current knowledge, which may include, but not be limited to the following:a) Public awareness campaigns with a focus on behavioural changeb) Working with infrastructure companies, concessionaires, contractors, hunters and others to raise awareness of best practice and the need to adopt disease hygiene standards for their people, machinery, equipment and activitiesc) Introducing and maintaining disease hygiene measures for visitors at key forest entry points, and include information about these at relevant visitor information centresd) Research, surveillance and monitoringe) Changes to facilities and infrastructure such as the realignment of tracks, development of boardwalks, barriers or other structuresf) Temporary or long term track closuresg) Temporary or long term quarantining or closures of areas of public conservation land".

While the Draft CMS acknowledged the effects of kauri dieback disease on kauri forests and ecosystems and the need to take some preventative measures to contain the disease, this threat/ issue was not followed through into objectives or policies. While the submitter has only sought changes in Section 1.5.1 relating to Great Barrier a more integrated management approach, involving changes outside of Section 1.5.1 including policies is considered to be appropriate to address this issue as the need to manage the effects of kauri dieback disease apply throughout the region.

DOC is satisfied that the CMS provides appropriate direction towards the management of the Hauturu colony of NZ storm petrel. The level of vigilance is




an operational matter and beyond the scope of the CMS.

The Council generally supports objective, but with some amendments to reflect that it is critical to maintain a network of representative ecosystems across the entire Auckland conservancy that encompasses the integration and connection of biota in all environments.

Inferred: Amend Objective 1.5.1.1 to give effect to the submission.

1.5.1.1 Objective AcceptWhile Objective 1.5.1.1 has been amended in response to other submissions, it retains reference to representative ecosystems.

72/10

The Council generally supports objective, but with some amendments to reflect that the Council and DOC will work collaboratively to ensure the persistence of a representative range of regionally and nationally threatened species.


1.5.1.2 Objective Accept in partAmend 1.5.1.4 to read "Build partnerships with others, including Auckland Council, to maintain...".

The "Contribute to" objectives imply a collective DOC, iwi and community effort for the stated priority ecosystems and nationally threatened species; Objective 1.5.1.4 addresses partnerships for locally (which would include regionally) treasured natural heritage. Specific recognition of Auckland Council which undertakes considerable work in this area is appropriate.

72/11

The Council generally supports the objective, but with some amendments that reflect that: In support of this objective, DOC and the Auckland Council have established a Memorandum of Understanding to ensure the long-term conservation of these heritage assets.


1.5.1.4 Objective Accept in partAmend 1.5.1.4 to read "Build partnerships with others, including Auckland Council, to maintain...".

Objective 1.5.1.4 addresses partnerships for locally treasured natural heritage. Specific recognition of Auckland Council which undertakes considerable work in this area is appropriate.

72/12

The Council generally supports the objective, but with some amendments to reflect that: In collaboration with DOC and all marine stakeholders, the Auckland Council is developing a programme to identify all appropriate areas that could possibly become marine protected areas.


1.5.1.5 Objective Accept in part Amend Objective 1.5.1.5. to read: "Engage in collaborative processes with the Ministry of Primary industries, Hauraki Gulf Forum, Auckland Council, local communities and others to build a nationally representative network of marine reserves and other marine protected areas" to recognise some of the key agencies DOC will be collaborating with in order to build a network of marine reserves and other protected areas, including the identification of priority areas.

72/13

The Council generally supports the objective, but with some amendments to reflect that: DOC will collaborate with the Auckland Council in the identification and


1.5.1.6 Objective Accept in partObjective 1.5.1.6 has been retained. Note that other objectives refer to collaborative efforts in the

72/14




management of priority ecosystem sites on both conservation and non-conservation land.

management of priority ecosystems both on and off public conservation lands.

The Council generally supports the objective, but with some amendments to reflect that: DOC will collaborate with the Auckland Council in the identification and management of priority ecosystem sites on both conservation and non-conservation land.


1.5.1.7 Objective AcceptAmend Objective 1.5.1.7 to read: "Advocate for and work with the Auckland Council, Waikato councils [72/15] and the community (including landowners), to.."

Given the coverage of Auckland Council of the majority of the Auckland CMS area it is appropriate to acknowledge Auckland Council (and Waikato councils) in the Objective.

72/15

The Council fully supports the objective to ensure the recovery and conservation of the Maui's dolphin.

Inferred: Retain Objective 1.5.1.9.1.5.1.9 Objective AcceptSupport noted.72/16

The Council generally supports the objective, but with some amendments to reflect that: The Auckland Council has significant input to the management of Auckland's harbours and marine areas and DOC and the Council will work collaboratively to restore intertidal ecosystems and habitats, and protect indigenous and migratory species.


1.5.1.11 Objective AcceptGiven the coverage of Auckland Council of the majority of the Auckland CMS area it is appropriate to acknowledge Auckland Council in Objective 1.5.1.11.

Amend Objective 1.5.1.11 to read: "Work with Auckland Council and others to undertake...".

Given the coverage of Auckland Council of the majority of the Auckland CMS area it is appropriate to acknowledge Auckland Council in Objective 1.5.1.11.

72/17

The Council supports the proposal to place greater emphasis on the management of historic heritage on Kawau Island as a historic icon destination and Motuihe as a future "gateway destination".

No decision sought.1.5.2 History is protected and brought to life

NotedThe proposal to develop Kawau Island Historic Reserve as a historic icon during the term of the CMS has been retained. The intent of Objectives 1.5.2.1 to 1.5.2.7 has been retained.

72/18

Support objective. Inferred: Retain Objective 1.5.2.1.1.5.2.1 Objective AcceptSupport noted.72/19







The Council supports this objective. Inferred: Retain Objective 1.5.2.5.1.5.2.5 Objective AcceptSupport noted.72/23



The Council supports Goat Island and North Head as icon destinations to allow for increased tourist numbers. Any increase in numbers to Goat Island should be within the bounds of tolerance of the marine ecosystem.

The Council does not support increased pressure of visitors to important wildlife reserves such as Tiritiri Matangi and Rangitoto. Strict rules must apply to pest free sanctuaries. Auckland Council fully supports the advocacy role of the open sanctuary model of Tiritiri Matangi, but stresses the importance of limiting human impact in a wildlife reserve which has a role in recovering populations of threatened species. On Rangitoto ecosystems and biodiversity are at an early stage of re-establishment after mammalian pest eradication. Extra visitors increase the risk of pest incursions.

The Council would like the CMS to include reference to the need for people to practice biosecurity measures. These measures are critically important for Gulf Islands to prevent spread of disease such as PTA (Phytophthlora taxa Agathis).

Amend Section to reference the need for people to practice biosecurity hygiene precautions.


Accept in partThe categorisation of Goat Island, North Head, Tiritiri Matangi and Rangitoto as icon destinations remains the same as in the Draft CMS. The categorisation does not necessarily imply increased visitation, rather it identifies the nature of the experience visitors could expect.

Paragraph one of Section 1.5.3 already recognises that in providing recreation opportunities, the natural and historic values of sites need to be considered. Thus other objectives and policies in Parts One, Two and Three will apply. These other sections have been amended to address the spread of PTA and it is not necessary to restate this matter here.

72/26

Supports Kawau Island and Great Barrier Island as gateway destinations to allow for increased tourist numbers.

Has concerns about increased visitor numbers to important wildlife reserves such as Motuora and Rangitoto. The Motuora Trust has done much work on the island including pest removal and preparing the island for relocation of species.

No specific decision sought1.5.3 More people participate

NotedNote that the classifications of Aotea Track, Great Barrier Island (Gateway) and Rangitoto (Icon) remain unchanged from that included in the Draft CMS. Kawau has been reclassified as an Historic Icon destination in response to another submission by Auckland Council (see 72/18) and additional policies have been inserted into Section 2.8 concerning the management of plant and animal

72/27




Conditionally supports Motuihe as a first tier gateway destination. Increased visitor numbers will have to be balanced with protection of threatened species.

Wants greater effort to control pests on Kawau Island. The island has one of the largest suite of pest species.

pests at Kawau Island.

The Council supports DOC in facilitating other parties being involved in conservation. However, the Council does not want this to lead to a reduction in the level of resourcing by DOC in the management of Auckland's natural and historic heritage.

No specific decision sought.1.5.4 More people engage

AcceptSupport noted. The level of resourcing of DOC is outside the CMS's influence.72/28

The objectives in 1.5.5, other than 1.5.5.3, do not highlight the need to mitigate conservation threats. Words such as promote or enhance not appropriate language. Seen as enabling business opportunities rather than the protection of the land. Needs more appropriate action words such as fund or conduct active conservation management. Third party funding is acceptable, so long as conservation outcomes are the reasons for this and does not result in reduced central government funding.

Inferred: Amend Section 1.5.5 by rewording objectives to reflect need to mitigate conservation threats.


RejectThe language of 1.5.5 is about furthering “conservation” through working with business, much of which already occurs. The 1.5.5 objectives must be read in conjunction with the other 1.5 objectives and other provisions of the CMS (& legislation & general policy), and a business opportunity that was potentially ‘negative’ to conservation values would be subject to various statutory and other processes. DOC believes that conservation outcomes do need to be met more by business; Government will determine if DOC funding is affected by this in any way.

72/29

The Council highlights all stakeholders to focus on the ecological alerts presented in the latest State of the Gulf Environment report 2011. The Gulf is experiencing ongoing environmental degradation and resources are being lost. The Council considers this threat is not adequately addressed in the CMS.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.1.6 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park

AcceptAccept by inserting the following paragraph into Section 1.6:

"The Forum prepares three-yearly reports on the state of the Environment of the Hauraki Gulf. This report measures progress towards achieving this vision including information on progress towards integrated management and responses to strategic and prioritised issues.

The most recent report in 2011 demonstrated that the Gulf has undergone incredible transformations over two human lifespans and concluded that most environmental indicators either show negative trends or remain at levels which are indicative of poor environmental condition. It also concluded that the work of the myriad of agencies involved in managing

72/30




the Gulf need to be integrated if many of the issues facing the Gulf are to be addressed and the environmental decline halted."

The inserted text identifies the Forum's responsibilities with respect to reporting on the state of the Gulf, references the latest report and highlights some of the key issues.

The word "preservation" should be removed from this section and the entire CMS document and replaced with the term "conservation". Preservation means something is set in place at a specific time.

The CMS should have a stronger focus on the establishment of marine reserves. The Council supports marine reserves adjacent to terrestrial reserves.

The Council is concerned at the lack of marine pest monitoring. Should be much greater concern over the management needs of less prominent marine reserves.

It is important to correctly interpret Maori relationship to and support for marine reserves.

Inferred: Amend CMS by removing the word "preservation" from the entire document and replacing it with the word "conservation".


RejectThe Department is required to manage marine reserves consistent with the Marine Reserves Act 1971. The purpose of the Act (section 3(1)) specifically refers to preservation. The use of this term is therefore appropriate in the context of Section 2.1 of the CMS.

72/31

The Council including the Albert Eden and Whau Local Boards supports the establishment of a board walk from Heron Park to Holly Street across the marine reserve. It will increase public access to and appreciation of the marine reserve. This is a priority connection in the Greenways Plans for both local boards.

Inferred: Amend Section 2.1 to include policy/ milestone for establishment of boardwalk.


RejectThe last para of the description of Motu Manawa-Pollen Island Marine Reserve (pg 40) states that the creation of a boardwalk will be investigated. Enhanced public access to the reserve is also provided for in the outcome (last sentence of para 6, pg 41).

The boardwalk is an Auckland Council led project so it is inappropriate to put a timeline on its establishment.

72/32

There is no outcome statement for Leigh Marine Reserve (Cape Rodney-Okakari Point (CROP)).

Inferred: Amend Section 2.1 to include an outcome statement for the Leigh Marine Reserve, as requested in the submission.


Accept in partSection 2.1 does not apply to the Cape Rodney-Okakari Point Marine Reserve. A number of changes have been made to pg 37, including deleting Cape Rodney-Okakari Point Marine Reserve from the table, to clarify that Cape Rodney-Okakari Point Marine Reserve is not included in Section 2.1.

72/33




The Council queries the CMS in singling out Cape Rodney Okakari Point Reserve as a reserve complex when other marine reserves don't have this status.

Inferred: Amend Section 2.2 so that Cape Rodney Okakari Point Reserve is not identified separately.


RejectThe Leigh Reserves Complex place, which includes the Cape Rodney-Okakari Point Marine Reserve, has a unique set of management issues relating to the integrated management of its land and water. This place requires a different management approach than the other marine reserves in Section 2.1, and is therefore in a separate section.

72/34

Agrees with and supports policy. Retain Policy 2.2.1.2.2.1 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.2.1 retained.72/35




Supports policy. Retain Policy 2.2.5.2.2.5 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.2.5 retained.72/39

Supports policy. Retain Policy 2.2.6.2.2.6 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.2.6 retained.72/40



Support DOC's intention to ensure the island retains its largely unmodified environment and high diversity of species. The Council supports the use of the island by volunteers and researchers. The Council does not support increasing the numbers of visitors to the island via commercial concessions. Priority must be for the conservation of threatened species. Visitors will increase the biosecurity risks. DOC has few staff on the island to manage issues. If DOC proceeds with allowing tourist access, then it should only permitted for a single concessionaire on a trial basis. Any access should be in collaboration with Ngati Manuhiri.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.3 Hauturu/Little Barrier Island Place

RejectThe submitter's support of the use of volunteers and researchers is noted. The current Auckland CMS has a limit of 20 visitors per day and allows for nature tourism concessions to be considered. The draft CMS does not change these policies but adds an annual limit of 600 visitors to account for a potential increase in nature tourism visits over the next ten years. It is considered that biosecurity risks and impacts on staff management of the island would be better managed through all visits coming under a concession arrangement. However this will be investigated further as signalled by Policy 2.3.5.

72/43




The CMS states that Maui's dolphin is frequently seen at the mouth of the Kaipara Harbour. The Council would like DOC to provide evidence of this.

No decision sought.2.7 Kaipara Harbour Place

Accept in partAmend the Description - paragraph beginning "Maui's dolphins are .." to refer to 'occasional' sightings rather than 'frequent' sightings.

While Maui's dolphin are known to use the Kaipara Harbour, sightings are infrequent. Thus rewording the sentence to delete references to them being seen frequently is appropriate.

72/44

The Council would like the CMS to clarify that Browns Island is owned by the Auckland Council and a change in the reserve status would have to be initiated by Auckland Council.

Inferred: Amend Section 2.13 to CMS to clarify that Browns Island is owned by the Auckland Council and a change in the reserve status would have to be initiated by Auckland Council.

2.13 Browns Island Place

AcceptThe description has been amended, and Policy 2.13.3 and the milestone in Year 5 deleted. These changes collectively reflect that Browns Island is owned by the Auckland Council and that any change in the classification of Browns Island would have to be initiated by the Council.

72/45

The Council supports the actions of DOC in managing the public conservation land of Aotea Great Barrier Island.

DOC is urged to improve the conservation of Kaka.

The Council supports the feral pest control aiming for eradication, especially at Te Paparahi and Rakitu.

The Council conditionally supports the translocation of Kokako to Te Paparahi Conservation Area. However, long term funding of the reintroduction plan must be guaranteed for it to be a success. If this cannot be guaranteed, the Council will withdraw its support.

The Council recommends the immediate eradication of mammalian pests from all areas of the island that have Kauri.

The Council supports increased tourism to the island. However, the spread of PTA is a concern. Great Barrier is the only Gulf island where PTA has been detected. DOC needs to upgrade biosecurity measures to restrict the spread of PTA on the island and to other islands including entry points, education, quarantining of livestock and instillation of footwear Trigene baths and


Accept in partThe submitter's concerns regarding the ongoing funding if kokako are returned to Te Paparahi are noted. However, funding is an operational issue and will not be addressed in the CMS.

The following text has been added to the description in Section 1.5.1 regarding kauri dieback:

" A current threat to kauri forests is kauri dieback disease (Phytophthora taxon Agathis or PTA), a soil-borne fungus-like organism that kills kauri trees, is a significant risk to the health and functioning of kauri forest ecosystems, and can be spread by human activity as well as by animals. At the time of writing this strategy PTA had been confirmed at several sites on Great Barrier and the former Rodney District. Important areas for kauri dieback prevention in Auckland are Hauturu- Little Barrier Island Place and Mataitai Forest, Kohukonui and Mangatawhiri-Vinings in the Hunuas (see Map 2). Since 2008 when PTA was declared an unwanted organism, the Department has been working with Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council the Ministry of Primary Industries, iwi and others on a Kauri Dieback Joint Agency Response (KDJAR). The

72/46




scrub stations at the beginning of all tracks on the island.

KDJAR has formulated a number of measures (refer Part 3) as part of a long term management programme which the Department will give effect to.

The following new objective has also been added to Section 1.5.1:

" Work with the Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council and the Ministry of Primary Industries to manage the spreads and effects of kauri dieback disease and increase community understanding of the disease and recommended measures for disease prevention.."

It is appropriate for the description and policy to be included in Section 1.5.1 rather than Section 2.6 Great Barrier Island (Aotea) Place as kauri dieback is an issue requiring management throughout the region.

The Council does not support DOC's proposal to increase the daily limit from 150 to 170 passengers per day to visit Tiritiri Matangi. Increased visitor numbers will place increased pressure on biodiversity and infrastructure. The risk of disease or pest incursion will be increased. The situation where temporary restrictions have to be placed on tracks and visitor facilities should be avoided. The construction of any more tracks on the island is opposed.

No specific decision sought. Amend the wording of the CMS to give effect to the submission.


RejectThe daily limit of 170 passengers per day to visit Tiritiri Matangi by ferry has been trialled over a two year period. Monitoring of the trial has not shown that this has significantly affected visitor experience, wildlife or infrastructure. Respondents to a visitor satisfaction survey noted that group management (small group sizes, introductory talk, information provided by guides) and good facilities and diversity of tracks were the two things that contributed to a lack of negative impacts from interactions with other people. The approach of adopting visitor limits and mechanisms to control the dispersal of people from the ferry (by group management, diversity of tracks) is therefore considered to be consistent with enabling more people to experience the island and the Outcomes for the Place.

72/47

Policy 2.10.5 (b) (ii) is opposed. It is noted that the submission incorrectly refers to Policy 2.10.1(b)(ii). There is no such policy in the CMS.

Policy 2.10.5 (d) Allowing night walks raises a number of biosecurity risks such as the careful checking of gear.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.10.5 Policy RejectClauses 2.10.5 (b) (v) and (d) both provide for guided activities managed under concessions. Biosecurity risks can be managed under concession conditions, including the checking of gear. In fact having a concession arrangement to manage these

72/48




The Council does not support Policy 2.10.5(b)(v). This policy allows for up to 65,000 visitors to the island which is a significant increase from the current maximum. There will be increased biosecurity risk from other concessionaires who are not processed through the existing wharf process.

activities provides a much greater control than can be applied to visitors who are able to make there own way tot eh island as provided by the Open Sanctuary status.

The Council does not support DOC's intention to increase overnight accommodation to allow of up to 50 people, as stated in Policy 2.10.8(e). The Heritage Buck House should remain with the current number of overnight beds. An increase 50 more people per night would significantly increase the level of disturbance, especially to nocturnally active species such as the little spotted kiwi, tuatara and other reptiles.

Inferred: Delete Clause (e) Policy 2.10.8.2.10.8 Policy RejectIn considering proposals for new overnight accommodation the criteria in Policy 2.10.8 will need to be considered in conjunction with those in Policy 3.8.6 (not 3.8.6 as incorrectly referenced in the draft). Collectively these two policies provide considerable emphasis on ensuring that any new buildings and the uses associated with it are appropriate to the Place. While it is acknowledged that the limit of 50 could be arbitrary to a certain extent, any proposal would have to meet all other criteria as well as signified by the use of the word "and" in the policy. Thus simply staying below the limit of 50 would not be sufficient for a proposal to be approved. Any proposal would need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and demonstrate compliance with all criteria including those in Policy 3.8.5 relating to the outcomes for the place and impacts on recreational values.

72/49

The Council strongly objects to any increase in aircraft activity near or on the island. The policy should be amended to allow only helicopters that are used in an emergency or for permitted species translocations.

Amend Policy 2.10.9 to allow only for helicopters that are used in an emergency or for permitted species translocations.

2.10.9 Policy Accept1) Delete Policy 2.10.9 and replace with the following: "Should not allow aircraft landings on Tiritiri Matangi Island, to protect the visitor experience and avoid adverse effects on natural, historic, cultural and amenity values." ; (2) Change the aircraft zoning for Tiritiri to "red" on the aircraft access zone maps: and(3) Delete Policy 3.4.5(g).

Changing the aircraft zoning to red and making the changes to related policies will establish a regime where aircraft landings are only allowed for search and rescue, departmental management purposes, emergency situations, maritime navigational aid management or land survey work as noted in Part

72/50




Three (p. 114).


The Council does not support cycling on Motutapu or Rangitoto expect for concession events such as the Dual. However, cycling and running events such as this need to be strictly controlled because of the potential for significant adverse effects including cumulative effects on historic heritage and archaeological sites in particular. It can result in accelerated deterioration of tracks and other facilities. This can detract from the experience of other recreational users and create increased demand for quarry material for maintenance.

Monitoring of effects of mountain biking is essential and should be independently done as DOC has a financial interest in these activities with revenue received from concessions. All mountain biking and running events must be on trail. The bypassing of parts of trails and riding unapproved trails for all bicycling must be controlled. With only one ranger for both islands, policing of activities will be difficult. DOC will have to reinforce tracks at wear points and where they are near archaeological sites.

Research on the impact of mountain biking categorises effects into the following categories:- trampling- erosion

Inferred: Amend Section 2.11 by:(1) Deleting mountain biking except for concession events such as the DUAL; and(2) Providing for independent monitoring of events.






- wildlife disturbance- hazards to humans

In the Councils opinion, the most critical issue and potential negative impact is the disturbance to wildlife. Rangitoto is currently free of mammalian pests and is establishing as a wildlife sanctuary. DOC is encouraged to follow the logic of its own stated outcome (page 90): "Both islands are free of mammalian pests and have new habitats for populations of rare and threatened indigenous species, enabling the restoration of the island's natural diversity."The Council opposes the establishment of any campsites on Rangitoto Island. All camping facilities should be limited to Motutapu and heavily controlled. The development of a basic campsite on the western side of Motutapu as part of a kayaking trail is supported in principle. However, this should only be without significant adverse environmental effects. A strict biosecurity protocol must be followed by kayakers to restrict the risk of pests or pathogens being transferred. The terrain is unsuitable. There are difficulties with water supply and waste disposal. Difficult to see how a campground with toilets could be serviced at Boulder Bay because of lack of road access. Limiting use to low numbers and policing a booking system at this location may be difficult. There are significant historic heritage sites at both proposed locations.

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.11.2 to ensure that no campsites are established on Rangitoto Island.

2.11.2 Policy RejectPolicy 2.11.2 addresses the proposed campsite investigations for Boulder Bay and McKenzie Bay not 2.11.2. It is noted that the submitter (refer 72/53) also made a submission on Policy 2.11.2. Please refer to the response to this submission.

72/52

There are significant historic heritage sites at both locations (McKenzie Bay and Boulder Bay). Therefore, Policy 2.11.12 should be further qualified in relation to potential adverse effects on the natural environment and historic heritage.

Amend wording of Policy 2.11.12 to have regard to potential adverse effects on the natural environment and historic heritage.

2.11.12 Policy Accept in partThe intention is to develop a single small-scale basic campsite at either McKenzie or Boulder Bays. Basic campsites have very limited facilities - basic toilets and water and there is already a toilet at McKenzie Bay. Given this very little land area or disturbance is generally required in order to establish such a site. While both sites contain a few recorded historic sites (mainly ship wrecks), the Department does not consider the presence of these sites will automatically preclude the development of a small-scale campsite. Issues such as potential adverse effects on the natural environment and historic heritage will form part of

72/53




the investigations referred to in Policy 2.11.12. These will be undertaken having regard to the policies in Section 1.5 of the CMS.

It is acknowledged that Policy 2.11.12 may not reflect the Departments intention to develop a small-scale basic campsite as referred to in the descriptive text and Outcome Statement. In order to clarify this intention changes are recommended to Policy 2.11.12 and associated descriptive text and Outcome so that they are aligned and do not create expectations or a larger more developed site with the potential to have significant adverse effects on the natural environment and historic heritage.

The Council would like to see more obvious and transparent fire management policy for Rangitoto and Motutapu. Currently the baches have outdoor braziers and indoor fireplaces. Fire is an ever-present risk on islands like Rangitoto.

Inferred: Amend Section 2.11 by adding a policy on fire management.


Accept in partThe smoke-free campaign generally refers to making areas smoke-free for public health reasons. While it is acknowledged that the Auckland Council has resolved to do this progressively in terms of parks and reserves this was only done after extensive investigations and public consultation. If the Department were to do this would also need to undertake similar investigations and consultation not just at a local level but at a national level also. It is therefore inappropriate to amend the CMS as requested by the submitter.

It is noted however that provisions (description and a policy) have been inserted into Part Three in response to a submission by Forest and Bird (57/7) which address the effects on public conservation land from fire. This policy would apply to Rangitoto and Motutapu and are considered sufficient therefore it is considered unnecessary to insert a policy within Section 2.11 (Motutapu and Rangitoto Islands Place).

72/54

The Council supports the intention to enhance visitor experience of Motuihe Island with the development of further services. The island has excellent trails and interpretive signs. The CMS is encouraged to put greater emphasis on the unique historical, archaeological and cultural history of the island.

Inferred: Retain emphasis of Section 2.12.2.12 Motuihe Island Place

AcceptThe paragraph commencing "In 1872,.." has been amended to emphasise the island's interesting and varied history.

72/55




There should be more emphasis with the CMS on the ecological connectedness of Motutapu, Motuihe and Rangitoto Islands. There is already a mixing of the population of some bird species.

Amend CMS to place more emphasis with the CMS on the ecological connectedness of Motutapu, Motuihe and Rangitoto Islands


AcceptThe Department acknowledges that some bird species are already establishing new populations on different islands after being released elsewhere. The following sentence has been added to reflect that birds translocated to one island could benefit other islands:

"Bird species introductions on Rangitoto and Motutapu may also benefit other nearby islands such as Motuihe Island (Te Motu-a-Ihenga), with birds moving from island to island establishing populations."

72/56

There should be more emphasis with the CMS on the ecological connectedness of Motutapu, Motuihe and Rangitoto Islands. There is already a mixing of the population of some bird species.

Amend CMS to place more emphasis with the CMS on the ecological connectedness of Motutapu, Motuihe and Rangitoto Islands


AcceptThe Department acknowledges that there is an ecological connection between Motutapu, Motuihe and Rangitoto. The first para of the description has been amended to reflect that bird species move between the islands.

72/57

The Council does not support the reclassification of the island as a Historic Reserve. The island is owned by Auckland Council. A change in status would need to be initiated by the Council. The Council need to collaborate with DOC to find a solution to controlling Kikuyu (Pennisetum clandestinum). The Council supports managing the island in its current state as an un-vegetated maunga. It’s the only island left that prominently displays its geological heritage.

Inferred: Amend Section 2.13 by deleting reclassification proposal;


AcceptThe description has been amended, and Policy 2.13.3 and the milestone in Year 5 deleted. These changes collectively reflect that Browns Island is owned by the Auckland Council and that any change in the classification of Browns Island would have to be initiated by the Council.

72/58

The Council supports DOC in its conservation role in managing the Firth of Thames/Tikapa Moana Wetland. The wetland is being impacted on by land based activities. Extensive vegetation clearance, sedimentation and nutrient contamination have had considerable impacts on the marine receiving environment. The Council identifies its responsibility in the conservation of areas in the Auckland region that are used by migratory birds, including its obligations to protect the migratory wading bird habitat of the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours under the Ramsar Convention and East Asian- Australasian Flyway Partnership. The Council will work closely with DOC and Miranda Naturalists Trust to monitor the health of

Inferred: Retain Section 2.15.2.15 Firth of Thames/ Tikapa Moana Wetlands Place

NotedThe submitter's support is noted.

72/59




migratory bird species populations.Support policy. Retain Policy 2.15.1.2.15.1 Policy Accept in part

Policy 2.15.1 retained, with amendments in response to another submission to better reflect Conservation General Policy and New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.

72/60

Support policy. Retain Policy 2.15.2.2.15.2 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.15.2 retained.72/61

Support policy. Retain Policy 2.15.3.2.15.3 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.15.3 retained with amendments in response to another submission to reflect that the Muddy Feet project has been superseded by the Marine Spatial Plan process.

72/62


Support policy. Retain Policy 2.15.5.2.15.5 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.15.5 retained with amendments in response to another submission to reflect that the Muddy Feet project has been superseded by the Marine Spatial Plan process.

72/64

Support policy. Retain Policy 2.15.6.2.15.6 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.15.6 retained with amendments in response to another submission to add more detail about the achievement of obligations under the Ramsar convention and with amendments in response to another submission to reflect that the Muddy Feet project has been superseded by the Marine Spatial Plan process.

72/65




Support policy. Retain Policy 2.15.10.2.15.10 Policy Accept in partRetain Policy 2.15.10, with amendments in response to another submission to reflect that the Muddy Feet project has been superseded by the Marine Spatial Plan process.

72/69





Support policy. Retain Policy 2.15.12.2.15.12 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.15.12 retained with amendments in response to another submission to better reflect Conservation General Policy.

72/71

Support policy. Retain Policy 2.15.132.15.13 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.15.13 retained.72/72


This policy is inadequate to support the reference to Appendix 1 of the CMS. There are works and activities in Appendix 1 that relate to activities that are controlled by regional land use rules in Auckland regional plans.

Amend Policy 3.1.5 be amended to read as follows:

"When undertaking work or activities that are covered by Appendix 1, determine if they (a) meet the requirements of section 4(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 for exemption from land use controls consents, and (b) meet the requirements of sections 9(2), 12, 13, 14 and/or 15 of the Resource Management Act 1991."

3.1.5 Policy RejectIt is not considered necessary to amend policy 3.1.5 as requested by the submitter. The decision sought would unnecessarily complicate the sole purpose of the policy, which is to determine whether it is exempt from requiring a land use consent under section 9(3) of the Resource Management Act.

72/74

The title of Appendix 1 is insufficient. It is misleading of the title to suggest that activities listed will meet the requirements of section 4(3)(b) of the RMA, as this is not possible until a specific proposal for works or activities has been prepared. The statement: "This table is presented to meet the requirements for enabling exemptions under Section 4(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA)" is misleading. The table doesn't meet the requirements for enabling exemptions, but rather it lists activities that may be eligible as determined on a case by case basis. Given that Auckland Council is a unitary authority it is appropriate to use the term local authority rather than territorial authority.

There are many activities in Appendix 1 which relate to activities controlled by Sections 9(2), 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the RMA and regional rules in Auckland's regional plans, that is the Auckland Council's Regional Plans for Sediment Control and Air, Land and Water. These plans will eventually be superseded by the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

No specific decision sought. But infers the wording of the CMS be reworded in accordance with Council's other submissions on Section 4(3) of the RMA.

Appendix 1 - RMA (1) The submitter is correct in the point that this list can only identify those activities that may be eligible for an exemption.The title of Appendix 1 shall be amended to include the word "may", so that the it is worded: "Work or activities of the Department of Conservation that may meet the requirements..."

(2) As the Auckland Council is not a territorial authority, it is more correct to use the more generic term local authority. Territorial authorities are included within the definition of local authority, so this still covers references to Waikato District Council correctly.

The term "territorial authority" in the introductory text to Appendix 1 should be replaced with the term "local authority"

72/75




Regarding the naming of the common dolphin species found in the Hauraki Gulf. The use of "capensis" is incorrect for the species in the Gulf. The correct taxonomic name for the NZ common dolphin is Delphinus delphis. Refer to work by Dr Karen Stockin, Massey University (2005,2007,2008,2009).

No specific decision sought. But would assume that the text of the CMS should be corrected.


AcceptThe scientific name for the common dolphin in the Hauraki Gulf has been corrected to Delphinus delphis in the paragraph commencing "Auckland Conservancy is home to..".72/76

The CMS refers to Treasured Islands. This needs to be corrected to Treasure Islands.

Amend Section 1.3 to refer to "Treasure Island".1.3 Distinctive features, values and issues - Treasured islands

RejectThe use of the term "treasured" islands is intended to convey that the islands are treasured by people and is appropriate in this context.

72/77

The following statement needs clarification: "Islands also have associations with European settlement, including sites of early farming, military use and industry, and ship graveyards." Does this mean ship graveyards (commonly used to mean a scuttling ground of sunken ships, not people), or the graveyards of people who died in a shipwreck?

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.1.3 Distinctive features, values and issues - Treasured islands

AcceptReword sentence to read "Islands also have associations with European settlement, including sites of early farming, military use and industry, and 'ship graveyards', places where unwanted ships were scuttled.'

Ships graveyards in this sentence refers to places where ships are scuttled, not graveyards of people who died in shipwrecks.

72/78

In reference to Mana whenua, "recognising" Iwi is a poor term. The term "acknowledging" is more appropriate and respectful.

Amend CMS to "acknowledge Iwi" rather than "recognise".


RejectIwi had the opportunity to review the draft CMS prior to notification and again to submit on the notified draft. No comments/ submissions have been received from them regarding this wording, therefore no changes are recommended.

72/79

The extent of the Auckland Conservancy equates closely to the Auckland Council's boundaries. The two agencies share many common goals regarding the protection and restoration of indigenous biodiversity and historic heritage. Much can be achieved by the alignment of the two agencies planning and operations as reflected in the Memorandum of Understanding recently signed between DOC and the Council. This submission seeks to advance the collaborative approach. CMSs are part of a wider planning landscape. CMSs are required by General Policy to have regard to local government plans and in turn local government planning under the RMA is required to have regard to CMSs. Planning for natural and historic resources can not be done in isolation from wider local,

No specific decision sought.General AcceptAdd the following explanatory text to Section 1.5.4: "The Department works with a wide range of other statutory agencies to achieve common objectives and mutually agreed priorities. Examples are: ....Auckland Council and council controlled organisations on a wide range of issues including the protection and restoration of indigenous biodiversity and historic heritage, plant and animal pest management, transport, tourism, and coastal and marine planning".

The changes reflect that this is the main way the Department and NZTA can work together to support the direction set out in the CMS. The changes to

72/80




regional and Iwi planning. There are synergies between the purpose of the CMS and the purpose of the Auckland Plan. Integration will ensure good conservation and environmental outcomes at a regional scale. The Auckland plan identifies nationally and regionally important recreational, open space and ecological areas that should be protected from development and landscapes and areas of historic heritage value.

The Auckland Council strongly supports the continued existence of the Auckland Conservancy, which should be well resourced. The Council expresses its concern regarding funding cuts that DOC, particularly operations has been subject to.

Section 1.5.4 are not limited to working towards increasing accessibility to the Gulf Islands however and the CMS does not preclude co-operation on other matters of mutual interest. Providing further detail beyond the changes outlined, such as reference to the matters within the MOU is inappropriate within the CMS as Auckland Council and the Department need the flexibility to review priorities as and when needed, rather than being locked into certain priorities for the 10-year life of the CMS.

It is noted that objectives and policies throughout the CMS refer to the Auckland Council where there are specific issues of mutual interest. For example, marine spatial planning and PTA etc.

Overall ATEED is supportive of the long-term vision for the Auckland Conservancy and in particular is encouraged by the strategy's emphasis on enhancing Auckland's attractiveness and unique visitor proposition. The CMS is well aligned to Auckland's Visitor Plan and identifies opportunities for ATEED and DOC to work together on. Auckland's natural environment plays a key role in providing visitor experiences and a distinctive city brand. The CMS provides scope to help grow demand and may it a destination of choice for people to live, work, visit and enjoy.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.General NotedATEED's support for the CMS is noted.72/81

ATEED supports this objective.

ATEED is supportive of initiatives within the CMS that have the potential to provide high quality tourism and recreational experiences, contribute to Auckland's overall liveability and draw visitors to the region.




Inferred: Retain Objective 1.6.7.1.6.7 Objective Objective 1.6.7 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.72/83

ATEED supports this objective. Inferred: Retain Objective 1.5.1.14.1.5.1.14 Objective AcceptSupport noted.72/84




ATEED is supportive of initiatives within the CMS that have the potential to provide high quality tourism and recreational experiences, contribute to Auckland's overall liveability and draw visitors to the region.ATEED supports this objective.





Inferred: Retain Objective 1.6.2.1.6.2 Objective NotedObjective 1.6.2 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

72/86



Inferred: Retain Objective 1.6.4.1.6.4 Objective Section 1.6 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.72/87



Inferred: Retain Objective 2.11.5.2.11.5 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.11.5 retained.72/88

ATEED supports this policy.


Inferred: Retain Policy 2.11.7.2.11.7 Policy AcceptThe mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.

72/89















Inferred: Retain Objective 1.6.8.1.6.8 Objective Objective 1.6.8 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.72/93











ATEED is supportive of initiatives within the CMS that have the potential to provide high quality tourism and recreational experiences, contribute to Auckland's





overall liveability and draw visitors to the region.ATEED supports this objective.















Film Auckland, which operates as a part of ATEED released the draft Auckland Film Protocol to attract and retain screen production businesses in Auckland. ATEED is pleased to see the acknowledgement of the industry in the CMS, in the context of creating more business opportunities delivering increased prosperity and conservation gains. ATEED strongly supports the commitment by to work with agencies and businesses to create and develop opportunities to promote conservation products and services.










Inferred: Retain Objective 1.5.5.11.1.5.5.11 Objective Support noted.72/10

Film Auckland, which operates as a part of ATEED released the draft Auckland Film Protocol to attract and retain screen production businesses in Auckland. ATEED is pleased to see the acknowledgement of the industry in the CMS, in the context of creating more business opportunities delivering increased prosperity and conservation gains. ATEED strongly supports the commitment by DOC to streamline and seek efficiencies in statutory processes. Particularly approval timeframes for DOC permits and transparency around fee structures and the investment of the fee income back into the Auckland conservancy.





ATEED agrees with the proposed approach regarding filming concessions and events on DOC sites. However, ATEED advocate for a more open and flexible approach that focuses on the minimisation and mitigation of adverse effects where complete avoidance may not be possible. Where there are difficulties with the proposed filming activity ATEED requests DOC considers all possibilities for mitigation put forward by the screen production sector. This approach is consistent with the Auckland Screen and Digital Content Strategy 2020 and the goal to create an optimal regulatory environment across Auckland for the screen production sector. The Auckland Film Protocol has a number of core elements that work well with the DOC Code of Practice: Filming on Public Conservation Lands. A seamless transition between filming on Auckland Council controlled areas to DOC areas.

No specific decision sought. Infers a change in wording to the relevant objectives.

1.5.3.6 Objective NotedUnder the Conservation General Policy 2005, concessions are required to be obtained for all commercial filming and photography. In Section 1.5.5, the CMS recognises the valuable role the screen sector plays as one of the internationally competitive sections in the Auckland economy. Section 1.5.5 includes a number of objectives directed at building relationships with the Auckland Council, industry groups and the like.

Policies in Part Two - Places include criteria which concessionaire applications will be assessed against. In most cases these criteria give the screen industry the flexibility to look at a range of mitigation proposals. In some circumstances, such as at Hauturu/Little Barrier, the Kermadec Islands and the Mokohinau Islands, and in relation to aircraft use, filming may be restricted to some extent, but no more than other activities with the same or similar effects. This approach is considered to be appropriate.

72/10



2.11.6 Policy NotedUnder the Conservation General Policy 2005, concessions are required to be obtained for all commercial filming and photography. In Section 1.5.5, the CMS recognises the valuable role the screen sector plays as one of the internationally competitive sections in the Auckland economy. Section 1.5.5 includes a number of objectives directed at building relationships with the Auckland Council, industry groups and the like.


72/10








72/11

ATEED agrees with the proposed approach in (a) filming concessions and events on DOC sites. However, ATEED advocate for a more open and flexible approach that focuses on the minimisation and mitigation of adverse effects where complete avoidance may not be possible. Where there are difficulties with the proposed filming activity ATEED requests DOC considers all possibilities for mitigation put forward by the screen production sector. This approach is consistent with the Auckland Screen and Digital Content Strategy 2020 and the goal to create an optimal regulatory environment across Auckland for the screen production sector. The Auckland Film Protocol has a number of core elements that work well with the DOC Code of Practice: Filming on Public Conservation Lands. A seamless transition between filming on Auckland Council controlled areas to DOC areas.




72/11








72/11

The Kaipatiki Local Board is supportive of the principle of the key organisational outcomes outlined in the document to be delivered within Auckland conservancy over the next 10 years.

Inferred: Retain key organisational outcomes outlined in this section of the CMS.


AcceptThe outcomes have been retained although the Introduction to Section 1.5.1 has been significantly reworded to clarify the relationship between Section 1.5.1 and DOC's Statement on Intent.

72/11

The Kaipatiki Board Local Board wishes to emphasise that a critical part of Auckland being the "world's most liveable city" (page 16, Auckland CMS) is the ease of public access to pristine natural environments and the extensive conservation estate.

No decision sought.1.3 Distinctive features, values and issues - Gateway

NotedThe last sentence of paragraph 4, page 16 refers to access and that this paragraph remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.72/11

The Kaipatiki Local Board wishes to express its support for retaining and encouraging public access to the inner gulf islands and accessible outer islands; and the availability of varied and appropriately managed recreational pursuits on the islands.

Inferred: Retain provisions providing for public access to and the availability of recreational pursuits on the islands.

1.3 Distinctive features, values and issues - Treasured islands

NotedThe 'Treasured Islands' section (Section 1.3) remains substantially the same as those notified in the draft CMS.

72/11

The Kaipatiki Local Board recognises that in a few cases, like Hauturu/Little Barrier Island, public excluded areas are warranted for biosecurity reasons.

Inferred: Retain provisions in CMS which restrict public access for biosecurity reasons.

1.3 Distinctive features, values and issues - Biodiversity refuges

NotedThe Vision and other provisions in the plan which control public access to Hauturu/ Little Barrier remains substantially the same as those notified in the draft CMS.72/11




The Kaipatiki Local Board wishes to note the advantage of creating classifications of marine reserves, using a similar approach to the Reserves Act, which allows for gradation of activities from protected scientific areas to areas which enhance conservation values, but allow recreational use.

No decision sought.2.1 Marine Reserves Place

RejectThe Marine Reserves Act 1971 does not provide for different classifications of marine reserves.72/11

The Waiheke Local Board supports:

(1) Concentrating visitor numbers to land based areas of Auckland Conservancy rather than to island sanctuaries, due to disease risk and pest incursion.

(2) All measures to manage sedimentation in the Gulf and mammalian pest management.

Inferred: Retain those provisions of the CMS which give effect to the two matters raised in the submission.


RejectWhile the Department seeks to manage the risk of disease and pest/ mammalian incursions, only 10% of the Conservancies land area is on the mainland and most of the popular and iconic sites people wish to visit are on the islands. It is not therefore practical to concentrate visitors on mainland sites. Furthermore responsibility for managing sedimentation within the Gulf falls outside of the Department's responsibilities, except in relation to its own activities.

72/11

(1) The Waiheke Local Board supports the expansion of recreational activities (including cycling) on Motutapu, but not on Rangitoto.

(2) The Board also supports better fire management and protection policy for Motutapu and Rangitoto.

Inferred: Provisions in the CMS which support the two matters raised in this submission.


Accept in partExpansion of recreational activities retained.

Provisions (description and a policy) have been inserted into Part Three which address the effects on public conservation land from fire. These apply to all Places, including Motutapu and Rangitoto Islands and it is considered unnecessary to include any additional provisions in Section 2.11.

Comments regarding mountain biking are addressed in the supplementary report.

72/11

The Waiheke Local Board opposes the establishment of any campsite on Rangitoto. All camping facilities should be limited to Motutapu.

Inferred: Amend CMS provisions to give effect to the submission.


RejectThe appropriateness of a campground on Rangitoto at either Boulder or McKenzie bays has not been fully investigated yet and will only go ahead if investigations show it is appropriate. The proposal to investigate a campground on Rangitoto will therefore remain in the CMS.

72/12

The Waiheke Local Board supports the intention to enhance the visitor experience of Motuihe Island.

Inferred: Retain provisions in CMS to give effect to this submission.


AcceptThe provisions in Section 2.12 relating to enhancing the visitor experience on Motuihe have been retained.72/12




The Waiheke Local Board supports more emphasis with the management strategy for the ecological connectedness of Motutapu, Motuihe and Rangitoto Islands.

Seek provisions in the CMS which give effect to the submission.


AcceptAmendments have been made to both Section 2.11 Rangitoto and Motutapu and Section 2.12 Motuihe to emphasise the ecological connectivity of the three islands.

72/12

The Waiheke Local Board:

(1) Notes there needs to be consideration of the impact of the reclassification on the recreation use of the island for present and future generations.

(2) Supports light grazing by sheep until such time that funding is available to support grass control and replanting.

Inferred: Amend the CMS to give effect to the two matters specified in the submission.


Accept in partThe submitter’s views on the impact of the reclassification of Browns Island on recreational use is noted. The description has been amended, and Policy 2.13.3 and the milestone in Year 5 deleted in response to submissions 72/45 and 72/58. These changes collectively reflect that Browns Island is owned by the Auckland Council and that any change in the classification of Browns Island would have to be initiated by the Council.

Should the Auckland Council initiate the reclassification of Browns Island, the process will include an analysis of the impact of reclassification on recreational use on the island.

The submitter’s view on grazing on Browns Island is noted. Grazing on Browns Island would be carried out under a concession. The concessions process would include an assessment of the effects of the proposed grazing activity on the values of Browns Island. If grazing by heavy animals would adversely effect the island’s values, it would not be approved.

72/12

The Devonport Takapuna Local Board supports the direction the CMS is taking. However, the Board is concerned that DOC may not be adequately resourced to deliver on its responsibilities. Delivery of the CMS is contingent on adequate resourcing.

The CMS be amended to contain information on the resources available to deliver on the strategy.

General NotedThe purpose of the CMS is essentially to set the strategic direction for the Department. Resourcing the delivery/ implementation of the CMS is an operational matter and outside the scope of the document.

72/12

The Devonport Takapuna Local Board is concerned about adequate weed control is undertaken on DOC sites and that there will not be an adverse impact on neighbouring Auckland Council parks and reserves.

Amend the CMS to provide clarity on weed control policies to be included in the document.


AcceptInsert a new objective in Section 1.5.1 to read: "Collaborate with agencies and communities to prevent the establishment and spread of the plant, animal and invertebrate pests listed in Appendix 5 in Auckland".

The Descriptive text under 'Biodiversity' (Section

72/12




1.3) identifies introduced species - plants and animals as threats to biodiversity, however and this section is intended to flow through to Section 1.5.1. Given this the introduction of an objective in Section 1.5.1 which provides clarity around weed and pest control priorities is appropriate. It is further noted that specific policies are included in Places-Part 2 where appropriate.

Supports the prioritisation of investment in recreation facilities and services at places where visitor use is likely to grow or demand is highest.

Retain overall direction of travel described in section 1.3.1.3 Distinctive features, values and issues - Gateway

Noted The 'Gateway' section (Section 1.3) remains substantially the same as those notified in the draft CMS.72/12

The Devonport Takapuna Local Board supports the prioritisation and active protection of conserved sites on the basis of their historical, cultural and physical significance, in particular the Coastal Defence network. Support the proposal to work cooperatively with Iwi to protect and interpret sites, especially those subject to Treaty Settlements, where DOC has obligations.

Propose that Auckland Council and this Local Board are involved in any joint work associated with Fort Takapuna and North Head.

Retain objectives 1.5.2.1 to 1.5.2.7 with the addition of "Local Authority/ Auckland Council" when referring to community involvement in collaborative efforts.

1.5.2 History is protected and brought to life - objectives - general

Accept in partAll objectives have been retained although some have been amended in response to submissions.

Amend objectives (and related milestones) in Section 1.5.2 to refer to Appendix 12 where appropriate and correct the reference to the title of the Appendix.

The objectives all refer to sites on public conservation land and/or Appendix 12. These are all sites which DOC is responsible for managing and are not generally sites over which DOC would collaborate with Auckland Council/ local authorities with respect to management except in the case of North Head which is subject to Treaty settlement processes and this is recognised in Section 2.15. Including references to Appendix 12 in the objectives (and related milestones) make this situation more explicit.

72/12

The Devonport Takapuna Local Board supports creation of North Head Historic Reserve as an icon destination, ensuring a high quality experience that supports tourism growth.

Retain reference to North Head as an icon destination.1.5.3 More people participate

AcceptSupport noted

72/12

The Devonport Takapuna Local Board supports increased participation in recreation; and partnerships between DOC, Iwi/tangata whenua, Auckland Council, Devonport Takapuna Local Board at Fort Takapuna and Te Araroa Trail

Retain reference to Fort Takapuna and Te Araroa Trail as gateway destinations and enhance the reference to partnership working between DOC, Iwi and Auckland Council in objectives 1.5.3.1 to 1.5.3.9.


Accept in partInsert a new objective in Section 1.5.3 to read: "Work with Auckland Council, Walking Access Commission, Te Araroa Trust, landowners and others to progressively enhance linkages between public conservation lands and other public open

72/12




space".

The additional objective recognises the Te Araroa Trail and partnerships with Auckland Council.

The Devonport Takapuna Local Board supports notion that DOC is not solely responsible for conservation. Collaborative partnerships are key, particularly with Auckland Council and Iwi, but also with other local community groups and organisations.

Retain Objective 1.5.4.1on relationship building and partnership, working on developing formal and active partnerships between DOC, Auckland Council and Iwi/tangata whenua.


AcceptSupport noted.

72/13

The Devonport Takapuna Local Board supports the objectives regarding the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park and the role played by the Hauraki Gulf Forum in promoting the integrated conservation management within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

Retain Objectives 1.6.1-1.6.8.1.6 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park - objectives - general

NotedObjectives 1.6.1 - 1.6.8 remain substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

72/13

The Devonport Takapuna Local Board supports an increase in access for visitors to Rangitoto and Motutapu but urge caution with introducing new visitor amenities particularly mountain biking and camping to ensure they do not have detrimental environmental impacts.

Retain proposal to investigate development of basic campsite for a multi day kayaking trail and proceed with trial for mountain biking as proposed including seasonal restrictions, restrictions to roads on Rangitoto and proposed limits on numbers.


AcceptComments regarding mountain biking are addressed in a supplementary report.

The appropriateness of a campground on Rangitoto at either Boulder or McKenzie bays has not been fully investigated yet and will only go ahead if investigations show it is appropriate. The proposal to investigate a campground on Rangitoto will therefore remain in the CMS.

72/13

The Devonport Takapuna Local Board supports the creation of a continuous coastal track from Narrow Neck Beach to Torpedo Bay accessible to locals and tourists.

Retain policy 2.14.22.14 Coast Defence Historic Reserves Place

AcceptPolicy 2.14.2 retained.

72/13

The Devonport Takapuna Local Board supports the provision of further concessions at Fort Takapuna including a café/restaurant in the officers mess building.

Retain the outcome defined in page 104 in relation to Port Takapuna.


AcceptOutcome referring to Fort Takapuna (pg 104) retained.

72/13The Devonport Takapuna Local Board supports the intended outcome that high numbers of visitors continue to access North Head and that the reserve retains its open space character, dramatic vistas of the Gulf and neighbourhood park ambience.

Retain the outcome defined on page 104 in relation to North Head.


AcceptOutcome referring to North Head (pg 104) retained.

72/13

Submitter: Reuben MuirI am the Club Safety Officer for the Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club and I have held that





position for approximately 18 years.Club Safety Officer is an official position under the New Zealand Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (NZHGPA) Part 149 certification. It is my role to investigate and report on safety issues with paragliders in the Auckland Region. I also run a certified loft for repairing paragliding equipment.

Oppose Policy 2.14.4 for the following reasons:

(1) They refer to safety without any reported incidents of safety, and without any understanding of paraglider safety. In the time that I have been Club Safety Officer, I am not aware of any safety incident in New Zealand or overseas where an observer or bystander has been injured or their safety put at risk from paragliding. I should also add that I am not aware, and I have not attended any safety incidents of this nature at either Fort Takapuna or North Head. I live locally in Devonport, fly at North Head regularly and I am in regular contact with the local DOC staff. If there was ever any safety issue at these sites, I would certainly have heard about it.

(2) They stray into areas of aviation safety without any understanding of flying paragliders, or of paragliding safety issues (which are already highly regulated).

Paragliding is a significant addition to the recreational and amenity values of both Fort Takapuna and North Head, not only for the pilots taking part, but alsofor the many other visitors who gain enjoyment from watching us fly and taking photos.I am the Club Safety Officer for the Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club and I have held that position for approximately 18 years.Club Safety Officer is an official position under the New Zealand Hang Gliding and Paragliding Association (NZHGPA) Part 149 certification. It is my role to investigate and report on safety issues with paragliders in the Auckland Region. I also run a certified loft for repairing paragliding equipment.

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.14.8 as requested by Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club.





Oppose Policy 2.14.8 for the following reasons:

(1) They refer to safety without any reported incidents of safety, and without any understanding of paraglider safety. In the time that I have been Club Safety Officer, I am not aware of any safety incident in New Zealand or overseas where an observer or bystander has been injured or their safety put at risk from paragliding. I should also add that I am not aware, and I have not attended any safety incidents of this nature at either Fort Takapuna or North Head. I live locally in Devonport, fly at North Head regularly and I am in regular contact with the local DOC staff. If there was ever any safety issue at these sites, I would certainly have heard about it.

Submitter: Film New ZealandSupport policy as allows the use of aircraft for filming to be considered on own merits when the number of landings are higher than the restrictions that exist for orange and/ or yellow zones

Two areas give us concerns as follows:(1) Over use of restrictive red zones which represent no possibility of supporting filming with helicopter use. The use of helicopters to support filming is rare and sporadic, but on occasion necessary.(2) Are uneasy at the concept of "natural quiet" is it is interpreted to mean that occasional filming as an activity id antithetical to that quiet. Also aircraft zones relate to landings and aircraft can still technically fly over red zones. Therefore concept of 'natural' quiet difficult to quantify as a reason for excluding aircraft to these areas.

Anecdotal evidence from DOC staff indicates that intermittent short terms use of aircraft for filming results in no discernable impact on either the environment or other recreational users.

(1) Retain Policy 3.4.6; andInferred: (2) Request that DOC seek to use orange zones rather than red zones.

3.4.6 Policy Accept in part(1) Support noted.(2) A comprehensive change of red zones to orange zones is not supported. Zone changes are being considered as part of individual submissions regarding specific locations and these will be determined on their merits.

74/1

Submitter: Richard KempConcerned that non-powered aircraft landings would be prohibited from Fort Takapuna on the basis of

Either:(1) Delete Policy 2.14.4; or





recreational and amenity values and visitor safety.

In respect of visitor safety, it is considered that without further study on the actual and potential adverse safety effects resulting on members of the public, the status-quo should remain. Persons using this area legally need to be licensed to fly by the NZHGPA, or alternatively under the direct supervision of a certified instructor.

In respect of amenity values, it is strongly considered that non-powered free flight considerably adds to the recreational amenity of an area. For example, children and mothers often standby watching pilots prepare and take off. The lack of audible noise generated by non-powered flight means that no significant adverse nuisance effects result. In addition it is emphasised that persons undertaking free flight from non-motorised aircraft are themselves partaking in a recreational activity.

(2) Undertake further consultation with relevant interest groups to develop more appropriate policies.

Concerns same as for Policy 2.14.4.

Consider that on the North Head site, the positive addition to recreational amenity is greater than Fort Takapuna given the larger amount of the general public that are present on that site. North Head is a small site, with a maximum of two aircraft and therefore any actual and potential safety effects are considered to be minimal. Furthermore the visibility of free flight on North Head means that members of the public have a highlighted awareness of persons undertaking any free flight.

Concerned that policy is subject to the criteria in Policy 3.4.2 which states that landings may not be undertaken within 50m of tracks, huts, or car parks. This would prevent persons top-landing on north head. It is considered that the reference to this policy would force landings on the beach, even when this could result in adverse safety effects. For example when the beach contained a large number of passive recreational users, and a safer and more efficient option would be to top-land.

Either:(1) Delete Policy 2.14.8; or (2) Undertake further consultation with relevant interest groups to develop more appropriate policies.





Even in terms of model flying it is considered much safer to allow someone standing on north head flying a model to land close to them, rather than a large distance away on the beach, where from afar it would be more difficult to ascertain if any risk to the safety of persons and property exists. There is also no mention of hang gliding, where this activity is similar to that of paragliding.

Policy provides little long-term certainty which could lead to confusion.

Submitter: Jonathan BielbyI have been a resident and a paraglider pilot on the North Shore since 2007, mainly flying from Kennedy Park. On the occasions when I fly North Head or Fort Takapuna, I have always had friendly and enthusiastic responses from other members of the public. There are only a limited number of days of the year where weather conditions allow flying from North Head or Fort Takapuna. Paragliding is a silent, non-obtrusive activity, and banning it from North Head is akin to banning yachting in the Hauraki Gulf, or kite flying. I do not think that policies for these places should be changed or restricted for the use of non-motorized aircraft. There has never been any accidents at these sites where any other members of the public were injured, and I question how banning paragliding will protect the recreation and amenity values.


I have been a resident and a paraglider pilot on the North Shore since 2007, mainly flying from Kennedy Park. On the occasions when I fly North Head or Fort Takapuna, I have always had friendly and enthusiastic responses from other members of the public. There are only a limited number of days of the year where weather conditions allow flying from North Head or Fort Takapuna. Paragliding is a silent, non-obtrusive activity, and banning it from North Head is akin to banning yachting in the Hauraki Gulf, or kite flying. I do not think that policies for these places should be changed or restricted for the use of non-motorized aircraft. There has never been any accidents at these

Amend Policy 2.14.8 to read: "Allow the use of non-motorised aircraft, subject to this activity avoiding any adverse effects on thesafety and enjoyment of other visitors"





sites where any other members of the public were injured, and I question how banning paragliding will protect the recreation and amenity values.

Submitter: Little Barrier Island (Hauturu) Supporters TrustPara 5, p. 49- Note that there will be no access to the bunkhouse for day visitors once the installation of an eco-toilet at the quarantine facility has been completed. This has been donated by the Hauturu Supporters Trust and will provide for the basic necessities of the 'backcountry' experience referred to in 2.3.8.

Amend Section 2.3 as follows:(1) Check gazettal for resolution Island/ Hauturu as Resolution Island may have been gazetted before Hauturu;(2) Change Nature Reserve to capitals;(3) Amend Para 2, p. 48 to refer to presence of storm petrel and chevron skink as detailed in submission;(4) Amend Para 2, p. 48 by italicising botanic names (Giant weta);(5) Amend Para 1, p. 49 to refer full range of activities undertaken by the Supporters Trust as detailed in submission;(6) Amend line 2, Para 5 by inserting the word "to" after the word "as"; and(7) Amend Para 1, p. 50 by inserting the words: "and with the Little Barrier Island (Hauturu Supporters Trust" after the words: "Ngati Manuhiri" in second sentence.

2.3 Hauturu/Little Barrier Island Place

Accept in part(1) Amend paragraph 1of the description to read: "Hauturu/Little Barrier Island—the wind blown summit of Toi—was New Zealand’s second formally protected island nature reserve (after Resolution Island in Fiordland)";

(2) Amend paragraph 2, refer to the storm petrel and chevron skink;

(3) Amend the description of the activities of the Little Barrier Island (Hauturu) Supporters Trust to read:"Te Hauturu-o-Toi/Little Barrier Island has an active community conservation group. The Little Barrier Island (Hauturu) Supporters Trust, established in 1997, supports a number of key work programmes on the islands. In particular, it raises funds for weed eradication, tuatara recovery and for selected research purposes. The Trust raises public awareness of the island including facilitating volunteer weekends".

The amendments correctly identify other species of significance on the Island and reflect the range of activities undertaken by the Trust. The Ngati Manuhiri Settlement Act requires the Department to prepare this in partnership with Ngati Manuhiri thus the reference to these parties in reference to the conservation management plan are appropriate. The management planning process does however involve public consultation with other stakeholders such as the Trust and public generally.

77/1

No reasons provided. Amend Policy 2.3.1 by inserting the words: "Such transfers will be the subject of thorough scientific debate and canvassing of options" at end of policy.

2.3.1 Policy RejectProposals to transfer (translocate species) are accessed thoroughly by the Department as a matter of practice. This is however an operational detail and it is not the role of the CMS to provide this detail.

77/2




No reasons provided. Amend Para 4 of Outcome by inserting the words "abundant birdlife" after the words "scenic beauty" in the first sentence.

2.3 Hauturu/Little Barrier Island Place - outcome

AcceptAdd the words "abundant birdlife" after the words "scenic beauty" in the first of the paragraph beginning "landing by boat .." of the Outcome.

As a pest-free island, the islands birdlife is a significant feature and it is appropriate for the Outcome to reflect this.

77/3

Consider that an annual cap is needed for all visitors to the island. It is important to establish the capacity of the island to sustain the numbers of visitors of any form by:(1) Recording all persons who land on the island, other than for resident ranger/s and their immediate families, and(2) Monitoring and recording their impact on the island and, in particular, its ecosystems.

Amend Policy 2.3.2 by rewording Clause (b) by inserting the word "day" after the word "restrict".

2.3.2 Policy Accept in partInsert a new policy to read: "Monitor the impacts of visitation on the resources and values of the Island".

The current Auckland CMS has a limit of 20 visitors per day and allows for nature tourism concessions to be considered. The draft CMS retains this daily limit but adds an annual limit of 600 visitors. This is a conservative limit and it will be important to monitor the impacts of visitation on the islands values. The preamble to Policy 2.3.2 specifically refers to 'day visitors' thus it is not necessary for Clause (b) to refer to this also.

77/4

Is reference to 2.3.2 intended? Review policy references made in Policy 2.3.5.2.3.5 Policy AcceptAmend Policy 2.3.5 to refer to Policy 2.3.2.

The changes correct an error.

77/5

Last bullet should refer to Asparagus scandens as per Table A5.2.

Amend Milestones by referring to correct species of Asparagus in last bullet.

2.3 Hauturu/Little Barrier Island Place - milestones - outputs

AcceptAmend Year 10 milestone to refer to Asparagus scandens.

77/6

Please clarify reference to "Little Barrier roads and tracks".

Section on remedial work to historical assets is wide-ranging and non-specific:

Inferred: Review:(1) Reference to Little Barrier roads and tracks on p. 151; and(2) Whether interventions in relation to remedial works on historical assets apply.

Appendix 1 - RMA Accept in part(1) The reference to roads in the "Recreational structures and buildings" section of the Appendix 1 table is incorrect. It is noted that the "Recreational tracks, roads and car parking areas only refers to tracks on Little Barrier/Hauturu. The reference to roads on Little Barrier/Hauturu should be deleted from the text in the table.

(2) Under "Historic assets" for Little Barrier/Hauturu a reference is made to "archaeological landscape".

77/7




The submitters would be aware that there are a number of archaeological sites located on the island. The purpose of this Appendix is to identify in a broad sense what activities that may meet be eligible for an exemption for a land use consent. It is not meant to be specific to each site or proposed activity. Nevertheless, any works regarding an archaeological site would be still subject to the archaeological provisions of the Historic Places Trust 1993, for which there is no exemption.

Eradication of kikuyu on Hauturu where possible is insufficient.

Amend Appendix 5 as follows:(1) In Table A5.1 (p. 169) add for many on Hauturu "prevention, surveillance and eradication"; and(2) Reword Table A5.2 (p. 174) for kikuyu on Hauturu to read: "prevention, containment and eradication"

Appendix 5 - Pests RejectEastern rosella and myna are not considered to be a serious threat to indigenous species on Te Hauturu-o-Toi/Little Barrier Island as they frequent open areas and the forest edges, rather than being present in the forest. Prevention and surveillance is considered an appropriate management response for these species on Te Hauturu-o-Toi/Little Barrier Island; it is not considered appropriate to include "eradicate" in the 'Management response' column for this species.

Kikuyu is also a pest that does not significantly threaten the forest as it does not spread within the forest. From the Department's experience, it is possible to reduced kikuyu to isolated infestations, but complete eradication of kikuyu on Te Hauturu-o-Toi/Little Barrier Island could take longer than the life of the CMS. It is therefore appropriate to retain the words "where possible" in the CMS.

77/8

Amend Table A6.3. to refer to Notiomystis cincta (not cincata).

Appendix 6 - Flora and fauna

AcceptThe scientific name for hihi/stitchbird has been corrected to Notiomystis cinta as requested.77/9

Why not add the following? - Hihi, Wetapunga, Cook's petrel, NZ Storm petrel.

Amend Appendix 7 by adding the following species: Hihi, Wetapunga, Cook's petrel, NZ Storm petrel

Appendix 7 - Icon species

Accept in partThe heading of Appendix 7 has been amended to "Nationally iconic species in Auckland Conservancy" .


77/10






No reasons provided. Insert definitions of the following terms:(1) Nature Reserve;(2) Scientific Reserve;(3) Recreation Reserve;(4) Marine Reserve;(5) Scenic Reserve;(6) Historic Reserve;(7) Conservation area; and(8) Relict.

Glossary Accept in partAll of these classifications of reserves are identified under the definition of "Reserve". The meaning given these individual classification of reserves is taken straight from section 2 of the Reserves Act 1977.

77/11

Submitter: New Zealand Wind Energy AssociationSupports clear and consistent identification and description of NZ important natural values and areas managed by DOC. Supports centralised structure approach.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.General NotedThe submitters general support of the CMS is noted.78/1

Terms have no definition or clear description. These terms are not capable of practical meaning and should not be used unless the places are clearly delineated and the reasons why have been defined are clearly articulated.

Inferred: The terms should deleted from the CMS unless these places are clearly delineated and the reasons why they have been defined are clearly articulated.

Glossary Accept in partThe term "heritage landscape" is not used in the Auckland CMS. The terms "historic landscape" and "cultural landscape" are used. The term cultural landscape is not meant to define specific areas for the purposes of policy implementation, but are simply meant to describe in a general sense how a particular area is developed by humans, as opposed to being a natural landscape.

78/2

Naming and structure of appendices should be amended so they have the same heading and number across conservancies. Should have "nationally consistent appendices" and where an appendix exists that is unique to a conservancy list separately as 'other appendix".

Amend CMS so that appendices are nationally consistent; but where an appendix exists that is unique to a conservancy list it separately as 'other appendices'.

General NotedAppendices within conservation management strategies have adopted consistent headings and content generally. Appendices are presented in a standard order although the numbering is not always identical and sometimes local appendices have been inserted and this affects the numbering as they are presented in the order to which they are referred to in the documents consistent with standard referencing practice.

78/3




Supports consistent listing of all places subject to provisions of the CMS. Headings of nationally consistent appendices and headings within respective tables should match.

Amend references to Appendices so that headings of nationally consistent appendices and headings within respective tables match.


AcceptThese matters are provided for in a national template used to develop the CMS although some local flexibility has been used in order to reflect local situations.

78/4

Maps not clear and should be topographical maps shown at a lower scale. The places subject to provisions should be clearly delineated. Maps should be available on internet using GIS so different layers of information can be provided.

Amend maps:(1) Use topographical maps shown at a lower scale;(2) Places subject to provisions should be clearly delineated; and(3) Maps should be available on internet using GIS so different layers of information can be provided.

Maps legend NotedMaps of an appropriate scale were provided on the DOC website at the time that the Draft Auckland CMS was notified. It is intended that the revised Auckland CMS will be released with appropriate scale maps. Volume II of the CMS contains 20 maps which clearly show the Places in Part 2 of Volume I of the CMS.

Providing maps in electronic format using GIS would allow different layers of information to be provided, and have other benefits including the ability for the maps to be updated more easily and for maps to be viewed at different scales. However, It is a requirement to include printed maps in the draft CMS, including an inventory of public conservation land.

78/5

DOC advised in March 2011 that a national CMS template on energy activities would be provided. Will this be produced?

Inferred: Amend CMS to provide template on energy activities.


RejectThe approach taken in the Plan is to identify outcomes/ objectives sought both across the conservancy and in specific places. Should energy activities meet these outcomes and related policies and other provisions, they may be considered provided they are consistent with relevant legislation and Conservation General Policy. This approach applies to all infrastructural-type activities (including but not limited to transmission lines, water supply etc) and is considered to be appropriate.

78/6

Submitter: New Zealand Deerstalker's Association IncorporatedBecause this Plan expired in 2005, this review is eight years overdue. This is an excessive period for which there can be no excuse, and we note that no explanation is given in the document. Judging by this record the new plan might not be reviewed until 2032. If DOC expects to maintain stakeholders’ confidence in the robustness of the process it should take steps to include in the final draft an explanation for the delay and

Amend CMS by:(1) Including timetable for review and explanation of delay in preparation; and(2) Clarify review intentions by rewording Para 2, p. 5 under CMS Structure to read: "This CMS will have effect for 10 years, during which it may be formally reviewed or amended and at the end of which it will be revised".

General Accept in part(1) Insert a new section header titled 'CMS term'; and(2) Amend the existing text below it to read as follows: "This strategy will have effect for 10 years, or until formally amended or reviewed in full or in part. The term of this strategy is from 2014 to 2024 but may be extended with ministerial approval".

79/1




outline what it accordingly proposes to do to ensure it will not happen again. A timetable for review must also be included.

We note that page A5 states: ‘This CMS will have effect for 10 years, or until formally amended or reviewed.’ This statement is ambiguous. It could be taken to mean that the CMS could have effect for longer than 10 years if it is not amended or reviewed within that period. This needs to be clarified.

We have seen elsewhere how failure to review CMPs by their expiry date can lead to unsound ad hoc management, as in the recent proposal to expand concessionaire rights, including privatisation of road access, at Fox and Franz Josef Glaciers in Westland National Park. While deploring the delay in revising the Auckland CMS, we are pleased to note in this has not been used to justify precipitate actions of the kind we have seen in Westland, which are no substitute for review to properly fulfil statutory obligations. Neglecting that process opens the way for hasty and ill-thought-out management proposals and sets dangerous precedents.

The changes clarify the situation with respect to the CMS term and review procedures.

DOC has become increasingly dependent upon recreational hunters to carry out wild animal control in the Auckland conservancy, especially pigs and goats. These are animals of no interest to commercial hunters and WARO operators so in many areas it is only private recreational hunters who pursue these. Hunting pigs generally requires special skills and a trained team of dogs that is expensive to maintain. In many places the only control of goats and pigs is provided by private hunters, at no cost to DOC. This is good reason for DOC to strive to encourage free access for hunters on lands it controls, and to support hunter organisations including the NZDA, the National Pig Hunters Association and local clubs or branches. It should also work cooperatively with the forthcoming Game Animal Council.

You will be aware that the NZDA deplores illegal

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.General Accept in partWithin public conservation land in Auckland, hunting occurs in two main Places - South Kaipara (Section 2.7) and Firth of Thames (Section 2.15). In both these sections changes have been made in response to submissions which have provided more information about hunting activities. Within Section 2.7 explicit mention of the fallow herd management has been made in response to another submission point made by the submitter (refer 79/3) and within Section 2.15 references to game birds have been inserted in response to a submission by Fish and Game (32/7).

79/2




releases of animals, in keeping with our ‘Policy Item 7: Total opposition to the illegal release of game animals’. While farm escapes are different in intent from deliberate releases, we recognise their effect is the same, but note that farmers have every incentive to prevent such releases. Controls on reported escapes of farmed deer appear to be well provided for in the Auckland Pest Management Strategy administered by the Auckland Regional Council.Forest is home of a small Fallow deer herd managed for recreational hunting under an Auckland Regional Council approved deer management plan. This is not acknowledged in CMS and statements made about Fallow deer at Woodhill are misleading, untrue and contradict or ignore relevant information. For example, Para 5, p. 67 implies that fallow deer are a threat to values which is not supported by data.

CMS does not recognise that significant areas of high conservation value at Woodhill have been fenced to protect native species at initiative of Woodhill Fallow Management Council. An initiative which would seem to exemplify the kind of initiative sought by DOC to increase the amount of conservation work undertaken by the community.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.7 Kaipara Harbour Place

Accept(1) Delete the sentence in the Description that reads: "Fallow deer, which are expanding in numbers and spreading from Woodhill Forest, represent a key threat to these values"; and(2) Insert the following new paragraph into the Description: " Woodhill Forest is home to a fallow deer herd managed for recreational hunting under a ballot system by the Woodhill Fallow Management Council. This provides the closest hunting opportunities close to Auckland city. Some income from ballot applications and hunting permits is applied to fence and protect areas containing high conservation values within the forest".

79/3

Strongly question the pressures/ threats identified as being caused by deer, p. 172. No distributional or numerical data is provided to underpin claims and it is not clear which species occur in Auckland as identified in Section 10.3.6 of the Regional Pest Management Strategy. (RPMS)

The proposed management response creates an issue where none exists and is appropriate only in relation to illegal or accidental releases. Deer farming prohibited around the Hunuas, Waitakere and offshore islands so little risk of escapes. Where risks a possibility there is little likelihood of significant numbers building up given the measures in the RPMS.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.Appendix 5 - Pests NotedThe submitter's views on the pressures and threats from deer are noted.

79/4

We draw your attention to the Game Animal Bill currently before parliament. The NZDA supports the establishment of this organisation as a statutory body.

Inferred: Amend CMS to recognise Game Animal Bill.General RejectIt is inappropriate for the CMS to anticipate the outcomes of the parliamentary process by referring to

79/5




This legislation creates prospects for the future management of wild animals by place that could lead to their being redefined in certain places as game animals and managed for their hunting benefits.

DOC should support the future GAC by cooperating with its work to further hunters’ interests, for example by helping to negotiate recreational hunter access to private lands and resolving issues and disputes that involve competing hunter interests and issues between hunting and other recreational interests. A close relationship with the GAC should be anticipated in the new CMS, but this is not at present mentioned.

a Bill. If the Act is passed before the CMS is approved, it will be updated to record the functions of the Game Animal Council as provided for in the Act.

Submitter: Wayne RohrsOppose Policy 2.14.4. Wants paragliding provided for at Fort Takapuna. Does not consider paragliding poses a safety risk and that restricting the sport in this location will detract from recreational amenity values.


Opposes Policy 2.14.8. Wants paragliding provided for at North Head. Does not consider that paragliding poses a safety risk and that restricting the sport in this location will detract from the recreational amenity values.

Amend Policy 2.14.8 be reworded to read: "Allow the use of non-motorised aircraft, subject to this activity avoiding any adverse effects on the safety and enjoyment of other visitors".


Submitter: Kawau Island Advisory CommitteeNote Pohutukawa Trust has experienced frustration due to DOC's inaction in implementing existing CMS particularly Objective/sections 12.2.4, 12.5.7 and 12.7.2.

Consider that in Draft CMS the wallaby issue is being at best brushed aside, and at worse, ignored.

Note that in Table A.51the eradication of wallaby is identified as a priority in all sites except Kawau. This is counter productive to the proposed Outcomes (p. 74) and will make these (particularly Year 5 Outcome relating to replanting) difficult to achieve.

Note that there has been a lot of comment by visitors and locals about the latest fence. Do not consider that fence will be adequate as wallabies will be able to get

Amend the Section 2.8 by:(1) Rewording the Outcome (p. 75) to read: "Some of the Trust’s supporters and pro-wallaby people whose expectations have been raised by the Department would accept the provisions in the current strategy to retain wallabies inside an escape-proof captive wallaby display (CMS 1995-2005 Key Area 12, paragraph 12.5.7) within the Kawau Island Historic Reserve".


RejectDOC only manages 10% of the land area of the island and cannot practically prevent incursions from elsewhere on the island (or contain a limited number of wallabies within the Mansion House grounds for visitors to view) without severely constraining visitor use or affecting amenity and other values. Given this it is impractical for the Department to commit to total eradication or to retain some wallabies within an enclosure. The Department will however co-operate with the Auckland Council and local community to implement the direction of the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy.

81/1




through/ under it.After the initial outlay to bring the Mansion House buildings and the Coppermine Chimney up to scratch, funding for the future upkeep could be enhanced by the willingness of DOC to make the area more user friendly for various functions, not necessarily the house itself which needs to have special consideration taken for its care, but certainly within the mown areas of the grounds.

All funds raised by any functions should be paid directly into an account for upgrading the grounds, Mansion House and other facilities and not put into a DOC consolidated account.

House should be open from 8.30am to 6.00pm during summer and from 11.30am to last ferry departure time in winter.

Add a new policy or amend 2.8.1(e), so that more opportunity is given for public use of the mown area of the grounds. This could be done in a way that would not detract from visitor's enjoyment and use of the surrounding grounds and gardens.

2.8.1 Policy Accept in partInsert a new policy to read:

"Identify a suitable event site(s) within the Mansion House grounds and encourage events subject to such uses:a) being consistent with the restoration and maintenance of the historic values of the Place;b) not detracting from visitors’ enjoyment and use of the surrounding grounds and gardens; andc) fulfilling any relevant policies in Part Three."

It should be suitable to identify a site or sites within the grounds suitable for events and where marquees and other temporary structures can be erected without damaging heritage features and this could be made available for events which will complement visitor experiences whilst not detracting from the historic character of the place. The use of income from such events and opening hours are operational issues and beyond the scope of the CMS.

81/2

It is not felt that the Kawau Vision Statement ratified by the Rodney District Council would be upheld by the introduction of mountain biking on tracks and roads in the Kawau Island Historic Reserve and therefore would not be possible under 3.3.5 b) is consistent with the desired outcome for the place in which the proposed application will occur.

Inferred: Delete Policy 2.8.2.2.8.2 Policy RejectPolicy 2.8.2 when interpreted in the context of the Outcome and other policies in Section 2.8 would need to support/ complement the enjoyment of the historic values of the Place. As such mountain biking would be allowed as a means to explore within the limited time allowed by ferry terminals rather than as an adventure activity in itself. It is considered that this approach is not inconsistent with the document referred to by the submitter ('A Vision for Kawau Island', adopted 30 June 2009), a non-statutory guideline for further planning processes which DOC was involved in developing.

81/3

This idea has received support from island property owners in past.

Inferred: Retain Policy 2.8.4.2.8.4 Policy NotedPolicy 2.8.4 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

81/4

In past support has been expressed from public/ islanders for small scale camping ground- particularly after closure of Pah Farm

Inferred: Retain Policy 2.8.5.2.8.5 Policy NotedPolicy 2.8.5 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

81/5




Policy needs to provide for helicopter landings in case of emergency.

Amend Policy 2.8.7 to provide for helicopter landings in case of emergency.

2.8.7 Policy Accept in partAs noted in Part 3 (p. 114) concessions are not required to land on public conservation land in emergency situations under the Conservation Act. This applies irrespective of the zoning (red, orange, yellow, green) applied in the CMS to a particular area. Thus it is unnecessary to amend Policy 2.8.7.

81/6

Submitter: Auckland Sea Kayaks LtdSupports. It will increase the profile for Sea Kayaking in this region and will be very appealing to paddlers.

Retain Policy 2.8.4.2.8.4 Policy NotedPolicy 2.8.4 remains largely substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

82/1

Mountain biking will pose a risk to walkers when visitor numbers high (Spring, summer and autumn). 'No go' areas and tracks will only be enforced if trips guided. This will not appeal to mountain bike enthusiast.

Retain Policy 2.11.7(a) on a trail period on any mountain bike tours / rentals that take place with a review after the period.


82/2

Support Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust’s in restoring Baches 103 and 114. It is important to preserve the cultural heritage of the island.

We feel the bach community does a good job at increasing public awareness and looking after the land.


Support campsite at McKenzie Bay. This would increase the profile of the Hauraki Gulf as a multiday kayak destination for recreational paddlers and commercial operators. It will link up the Northern and Southern sections of the Auckland Kayak Trail and help promote Auckland as a world class sea kayak location.

Retain Policy 2.11.12.2.11.12 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.11.12 retained with minor changes for consistency with referencing in the descriptive text and outcome statement.

82/4

Oppose development of visitor centre/ café at Rangitoto wharf. Will take away Rangitoto’s appeal as a self-sufficient island. Sea Kayakers will look to alternative locations as many people paddle to get away from modern amenities. We also feel that there will be no proper rubbish management plan in place in regards to this development.

Delete Policy 2.11.13.2.11.13 Policy RejectPolicy 2.11.13 will remain in the CMS. Concerns regarding the cafe will be addressed through the concessions process should an application be received for a café. This process is likely to be a public process, and there will be an opportunity to comment on it.

82/5

Sea kayaking in Auckland is growing. The boat ramp and storage area for kayaks at Rangitoto Wharf is too small/ very limited. Any increase in kayaks visiting this area will lead to conflict. At low tide it is dangerous to

Inferred: Insert a new policy in Section 2.11 to provide for extension/new kayak landing area at Rangitoto Wharf.


NotedThe outcome for Rangitoto (para 2, pg 88) acknowledges that visitors access the island by kayak. The description states that visitor facilities

82/6Page 245 of 294Auckland CMS: Response to Submissions by Submitter



launch / retrieve kayaks due to the restricted size of boat ramp and launching area.

A new area or increase current area is essential. A large, low angle, all tide launching area is required. This will reduce the chances of potential conflict amongst kayakers and make the area safer.

within the Rangitoto Wharf area are continuing to be upgraded to cater for increasing visitor numbers (para 2, pg 87).

The submitter's comment that a larger or new area is needed for launching and stowing kayaks is noted. For guided kayaking, this can be discussed through the concessions process. For independent kayakers, this is an operational issue and will not be addressed in the CMS.

The current state of the pool at Rangitoto Wharf is not acceptable. It is a visitor’s first impression of the island and if it is low tide it looks disgusting. Reinstate the pool to an appropriate clean level or fill it in / cover it. If it looks like the people managing the island don’t care, how can we expect visitors to care?

Insert new policy providing for reinstatement of pool at Rangitoto Wharf.


NotedThe submitter's view on the Rangitoto tidal pool is noted. The outcome for Rangitoto refers to the visitor zone between the Rangitoto Wharf and summit being managed as an Icon Destination, meaning visitor facilities provide a quality experience that meets visitor expectations (see description in Section 1.5.3, pg 24). This outcome provides direction for the tidal pool, as it is within the visitor zone. Policies are only need in addition to the outcome to constrain or enable the outcome.

82/7


Refurbish the Naval Surgeons Cottage on Motuihe into a Bunk style accommodation. Will increase visitors to island and appeal to sea kayaks as will reduce amount of gear to carry. Also near safe launching location.

Insert new policy to provide for refurbishment of the Naval Surgeons Cottage on Motuihe into a Bunk style accommodation

2.12 Motuihe Island Place - policies - general

RejectThe Department supports additional overnight accommodation on Motuihe Island. The outcome already provides guidance for overnight accommodation (see last para, pg 97), and Policy 2.12.7 provides further guidance on overnight accommodation.

82/9


Crater Bay is the most popular landing site for anyone visiting the island. As no toilets are available people are going in the limited amount of bush. This is unacceptable, it is unsightly and poses a health risk.

Insert new policy providing for toilets to be built at Crater Bay.

2.13 Browns Island Place - policies - general

Accept in partThe submitter’s view on the lack of toilet facilities at Crater Bay is noted. The outcome needs to be read together with the policies. Policies are only needed in addition to an outcome in order to enable or constrain an outcome. In this case a policy is not needed as the outcome for Browns Island provides for the provision of basic facilities, which could include toilet facilities.

82/11




Submitter: Derek NashThis is a blanket restriction being imposed without consultation and impacting on the enjoyment of various users of this resource. As worded the policy discriminates against non-powered aircraft but would (by default) still allow take-offs and landings by motorised aircraft. With the supposed rationale being safety, the thinking behind this policy is obviously nonsense.


This policy is discriminatory. There is no mention of hang gliders, but kites may be allowed. Some kites are substantial structures with solid frameworks, as are hang gliders. The policy as proposed may allow one of these substantial structures to operate but not another.

Another concern is with the use of the word "may". Interpretation of this policy as written apparently gives DOC the opportunity to allow or not allow an activity on the strength of a whim.



Submitter: Te Araroa TrustThere is no mention of the relationship between DOC and Te Araroa Trust, defined by the Memorandum of Understanding, as a key partner in the delivery of recreation in conservation areas.

Recognising this, the Trust would like to see Te Araroa tracks that cross or partially cross conservation areas be included as "gateway destinations".

Amend CMS by:(1) Inserting a new objective which refers to the partnership between DOC and Te Araroa Trust and focuses on the ongoing development and improvement of the Te Araroa experience including visitor asset development and information management; and(2) Where Te Araroa tracks cross conservation areas, the tracks should be included as "Gateway Destinations" and should include all or some of the following:- Tamahunga- Puhoi- North Shore Coastal- Hunuas


Accept in partInsert a new objective in Section 1.5.3 to read: "Work with Auckland Council, Walking Access Commission, Te Araroa Trust, landowners and others to progressively enhance linkages between public conservation lands and other public open space".

While it is acknowledged that the Te Araroa Trail does meet some of the criteria for a gateway destination in that it can help introduce New Zealanders to the outdoors and enable them to learn about conservation, there are other sites within Auckland which are higher in priority. This is not to say that DOC won't work with partners such as the Te Araroa Trust as recognised in the descriptive text in Section 1.5.3 although this is most likely to be done in the context of increasing accessibility (and information) rather than asset development. The new objective recognises this.

84/1

Submitter: Lesley Leversha




Consider that many people do not know about some of our beautiful places/ birds/ etc so do not know how to value them. Suggest using the local media/ free papers to inform and education people. If people know how special our surroundings are, they will, hopefully appreciate them.

Inferred: Amend CMS to promote greater use of media and local papers to inform and educate people.

General Accept in partSections 1.5.2, 1.5.3 and 1.5.4 contain a wide varieties of objectives directed at raising awareness of heritage, recreation and conservation generally and encouraging people to visit public conservation lands to see and experience these values first-hand. Collectively these sections in conjunction with more detailed provisions elsewhere in the CMS, provide a framework which guides media and education programmes. The CMS is however a strategic document and it is not appropriate to include the level of operational detail requested by eh submitter.

85/1

Submitter: Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation TrustThere is a factual error in paragraph 4 of the Description on Page 85 of the CMS, regarding the baches the Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust manages. There are four baches the Trust manages (baches 103, 114, 78 and 52).

There is a factual error in the wording of paragraph 3 on page 87 of the Description regarding which baches are available for overnight accommodation. Baches 103, 114 and 78 are available for overnight accommodation.

Amend Description by:(1) Changing para 4 to read: "and also manages four other baches (Baches 103, 114, 78 and 52).(2) Changing the wording of the sentence in para 3 read: "It is expected that Baches 103, 114 and 78 will be made available"


AcceptThe errors regarding which baches the Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust manage in para 4 of the description (pg 85) and para 4 of the description (pg 87) have been corrected.

86/1

There is a factual error in Policy 2.11.11 on page 93. The correct bach numbers need to be referred to, which are baches 103, 114, 78 and 52 and 38.

Amend Policy 2.11.11 to read: "Support the Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust's efforts in restoring Baches 103, 114, 78, 52 and 38, and enter a management agreement".

2.11.11 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.11.11 has been amended to correct the factual error in the bach numbers the Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust are restoring.

86/2

In Policy 2.11.13 there is an incorrect policy reference regarding where the assessment criteria are to be found. The wording of the policy incorrectly refers to Policy 3.8.6, in Part 3 of the CMS which does not exist. The last policy in that section of the CMS is 3.8.5.

The Trust is opposed to the development of a café-type facility on Rangitoto Island. The provision of a café seems is contradictory to the objectives of complementing the natural, historic and cultural values of Rangitoto Island. The provision of a concession for a café-type facility would decrease the Trust's ability to fund its restoration work on the island, as per the

Amend Policy 2.11.13 by:(1) Referring to the correct policy reference in Part 3 of the CMS; and(2) Deleting the provision of a café-type facility.

2.11.13 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.11.13 will remain in the CMS. Concerns regarding the cafe will be addressed through the concessions process should an application be received for a café. This process is likely to be a public process, and there will be an opportunity to comment on it.

The reference to Policy 3.8.6 has been corrected to 3.8.5.

86/3




Memorandum of Understanding it has with DOC. The Trust has no issue with an upgraded visitor centre as the current structure lacks capacity.The Trust is opposed to the establishment of camping area on Rangitoto Island. It is considered an activity fraught with difficulties, including accessibility, fire risk, provision of services, vandalism and pest incursion. The Trust considers the difficulties outweigh the benefits. However, if DOC was to have camping on the island then it is accepted that McKenzie Bay would be the best location.

Amend Policy 2.11.12 so that it does not provide for a camping area on Rangitoto Island.

2.11.12 Policy Reject

The intention of the CMS is to investigate a small-scale basic campsite at either McKenzie or Boulder Bay to form part of a Hauraki Gulf kayaking trail. A site only will be selected following further investigations and during these investigations issues related to matters such as fire risk, services, vandalism and pest incursion will be considered.

86/4

The Trust considers that the proposed mountain biking policy has tried to mitigate all factors associated with the known and perceived risks of mountain biking on Rangitoto Island. However, the Trust prefers that mountain biking remain a non-permitted activity on Rangitoto Island, outside of the DUAL. The Trust considers that no mountain biking is in the best interests of all current users of Rangitoto Island including those who participate in the DUAL and is in the best interests of the natural, historic and cultural values of the Island. That the risks associated with the activity outweigh any benefits, including increased dispersal of invasive weeds, increased conflict and risk of injury with other pedestrians and road users and increased fire risk.

Delete mountain biking trial on Rangitoto Island, other than for the DUAL event.

Otherwise, the trust considers that if mountain biking is permitted, that the policy should be trialled and it should be restricted to guided concessions and not single bike hire.


86/5


Amend Policy 2.11.8 so that mountain biking remain a non- permitted activity on Rangitoto Island, other than for the DUAL event.



86/6








86/7





86/8

Submitter: Michael John HeardOppose policy. Support changes put forward in Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club submission.

Adopt changes sought by Submission 52.2.14.4 Policy Accept in partParagliding is addressed in a supplementary report.87/1

Oppose policy. Support changes put forward in Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club submission.

Adopt changes sought by Submission 52.2.14.8 Policy Accept in partParagliding is addressed in a supplementary report.87/2

Submitter: Marc Dumont de ChassartOppose policy. I understand the intention is to protect its recreation and amenity values, and visitor safety, however I feel the section is misguided.





Approach is too ‘heavy handed’ on recreational pilots. By its very nature pilots have upmost respect for safety and concern for those involved in and around flying activities. No pilot wants to take unnecessary risks, especially around built up or populated areas. In fact, by allowing pilots to operate I would expect safety in and round the region to be enhanced. These pilots are aware of and respect the environment in which they operate. After all it is this environment which is pivotal to their safety and enjoyment. Therefore they have a vested interest in protecting it.I feel this again is unnecessary and unreasonable for the objectives stated (adverse effects on the safety and enjoyment of other visitors).In fact I know paragliding on North Head actually enhances and attracts visitors to the area, which I believe is positive for the venue and amenities nearby.It is unclear if permission must be sort or it is DOC’s responsibility to notify all pilots that when the area is or is not allowed to be used. It is an unnecessary burden on both the department responsible and pilots concerned.

Amend Policy 2.14.8 to read: "May allow the use of non-motorised aircraft limited to parapenting, model gliders and kites, subject to this activity avoiding any adverse effects on the safety and enjoyment of other visitors, and subject to the criteria in Policy 3.4.2 in Part Three".


Submitter: Waikato Regional CouncilWRC supports the explanation about where a CMS fits within a statutory context. However, the overall picture across conservancy boundaries would be a useful inclusion. National conservation targets and how each conservancy fits in with these is not clear.

Amend CMS to:(1) Include an overview of other conservancy's CMS, particularly those that border Auckland;(2) Provide explanation of how the management of Places and non-priority sites will take place and link in with Places and other sites across conservancy boundaries; and(3) Include explanation about how all the CMS nationally contribute to DOC's national conservation and recreation targets.

Purpose CMS Accept in part(1) The conservation management strategies for Northland, Auckland and Waikato were prepared in parallel and DOC is satisfied that the policy direction is generally consistent. Providing an overview of other CMS’s within the Auckland CMS is not however considered to be desirable since it is much more appropriate to refer to the source document rather than a summary. It is recommended however that Map 1 be amended to include notes showing which CMS is applicable to the north and south of Auckland.

(2) As noted above the CMS’s for Northland and Waikato were prepared at the same time as the Auckland CMS. Through this process particular attention was paid to ensuring that the direction for natural heritage/ Places that straddle conservancy boundaries was consistent. This particularly applied

89/1




in terms of the management of the Firth of Thames, Waikato River catchment, Kaipara Harbour and Mangawhai/ te Arai coast. It is acknowledged that the CMS could be amended to make it clear that this integrated approach will continue to be applied in terms of the implementation of the CMS’s and to this effect the following changes are recommended:

(i) Amending the "CMS Structure" section by inserting the following paragraphs:

"Sites not covered by a Part Two Place are of no lesser value or importance but require less detailed management direction. Conservation management will still be undertaken in these areas in line with the vision, objectives, milestones and related provisions in Parts One, Three and Four of the strategy".

"Further guidance for interpretation is provided at the start of Parts One, Two and Three, in Policy 3.1.1 and the Glossary".

(ii) Insert the following descriptive text in Section 1.5.1:

"A number of the nationally, regionally and locally important places above extend across administrative boundaries of the Department and other agencies. A coordinated and multi-agency approach to the management of the natural resources in these places is important in order to achieve integrated conservation management".

(iii) Inserting the following policies in Part Three:

“X Manage public conservation lands and waters to be consistent with the outcomes, objectives and policies of this strategy.X Adopt an integrated management approach (as defined in the Conservation general Policy 2006) to the application of this strategy and to ensure cross-boundary management of public conservation lands and waters”.




(3) Section 1.5 as a whole shows how activities in Auckland fit within DOC’s strategic direction with the four headings used reflecting the Department’s Statement of Intent. This could be further clarified by amending the first paragraph of Section 1.5 to read as follows:


These national conservation outcomes are linked to the Department’s Outcome Statement and 100-year Vision as detailed in the Department’s Statement of Intent"

CMS is difficult to navigate. Needs a consistent logical planning framework. Sections do not always include all different policy steps (objectives, policies, outcomes, milestones). Sometimes milestones don’t relate to policies. Outcome statements are long and descriptive and therefore unclear how they are to be measured. The Proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement (RPS) contains "environmental results anticipated" (ERAs). These describe change expected from implementing policies and methods and provide a vision of policy success.

Cross agency integrated management could be achieved by aligning the CMS with the ERAs for biodiversity and achieve consistency across private and public land.

WRC congratulates development of 3,5 and 10 year milestones. CMS would benefit of explanation of how success or failure is measured. CMS milestones mostly relate to producing reports. Should relate to measuring a change in the state of the resource. Otherwise it will be difficult to measure effectiveness of CMS in

Amend CMS to:(1) Ensure a consistent and logical planning framework throughout the CMS. Include policies in sections 1.4, 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7. Include Milestones in sections 1.6 and 1.7;(2) Include more specific outcome statements in line with realistic achievable targets. Where appropriate the outcome statements should reflect the Proposed Waikato RPS Environmental Results Anticipated where the conservancy crosses into the boundary of the WRC in order to achieve integrated management for biodiversity and conservation goals; and(3) Ensure milestones or outputs are targeted and describe a measurable change in the state of a resource.

CMS structure Accept in partThe CMS is intended to be strategic document and the objectives in part one are intended to be high level conversancy wide objectives. Revise milestones throughout CMS to make then specific, measurable, realistic and time-bound.

Where there is a place that requires some additional management guidance it will be covered in a Place and have an additional outcome statement and policies.

The submitters is correct in identifying that milestones could be improved and are number of changes are recommended to do this. Where Objectives and policies have been amended in response to submissions, milestones have also been reviewed.

89/2




achieving conservation goals.Links between conservation and local government planning frameworks is inadequate. General Policy requires CMS to have regard to statutory plans produced by local authorities. However, the CMS doesn’t mention these documents. CMS needs to make consideration of the Regional Policy Statement to ensure of integrated management of biodiversity outcomes on private and conservation land.

Amend Introduction to provide an explanation about how the CMS has had regard to territorial authorities' statutory plans and if and how there is alignment with the policy statements and plans for Auckland and Waikato.


Accept in partPolicy 13(a)(vi) states that a CMS should also have regard to relevant territorial authority statutory planning documents. This is stated in this section of the CMS. This section is only meant to be introductory and any reference should be broad in nature. Whilst the majority of the Auckland Conservancy is located within the Auckland Council boundaries, the southern extent of the Conservancy overlaps with the Waikato Region. The CMS identifies specific places in which require specific management direction. The Firth of Thames/Tikapa Moana Wetland Place is the only one which is co-located within the Waikato Region. There are numerous references in this section to the role to how the Department is working with the Waikato Regional Council on matters which are both resource management and conservation issues. No changes are to be made to this section of the CMS.

89/3

WRC supports DOC's long term vision for Auckland conservancy. The increase in the amount of conservation work through partnerships with community, business, Iwi and other groups is noted. This could be an appropriate place to explain DOC's goal of 60% of conservation work being achieved through partnerships. This will clarify the expectations of these groups to achieve conservation gains.

Amend Section 1.2 to provide an explanation of DOC's expectation that 60% of conservation work will be achieved through partnerships.


Accept in partThe Vision remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

The 'Vision' is meant to be aspirational and describe a state to aim for. Section 1.2 already recognises that the Department aims to increase the amount of conservation work achieved through partnerships with tangata whenua, communities, other agencies and business. Other provisions identify those areas where partnerships could be entered into. The level of resourcing achieved through partnerships is an operational issue and not appropriately addressed through the CMS, particularly as it may change over time.

89/4

WRC notes that this section doesn’t contain any policies making it unclear how objectives will be carried out and milestones/outputs achieved. This sections covers important matters. However, with no specific policy actions there is concern that these important areas will not receive adequate attention.

Add policies to 1.5.1, 1.5.2, 1.5.3 and 1.5.41.5 Auckland Conservancy by 2024

RejectThe objectives are operative in the same way policies are. This format was adopted after consideration of a range of options for matters that extend over the whole CMS area. Specific policy actions are included at the Pt 2 Place level where needed.

89/5




WRC supports the inclusion of the Hunua Ranges as a key place. Parts of the Hunua Ranges are now in WRC jurisdiction. WRC is seeking to work more collaboratively with DOC and Auckland Council who also have responsibilities in this area. Particularly to protect and enhance biodiversity and ecosystem services. However, there doesn’t seem to be any policy direction on this place even though it is considered important.

Amend Section 1.5.1. to include policy direction, particularly in relation to working collaboratively on the management of the Hunua Ranges with Auckland Council and WRC.


AcceptAdd a new objective in Section 1.5.1 to read: "Recognise that the Hunua Ranges are a single entity despite being divided by Department of Conservation and local government jurisdictions, and liaise closely with the Auckland Council, Waikato councils, tangata whenua and others to achieve integrated and compatible decision making about the protection, enhancement and recreational use of the Hunua Ranges".

While the Hunua Ranges is considered nationally important, a large portion of the ranges are on public land administered by the Auckland Council with the management direction being included in the Auckland Council's Regional Parks Management Plan. Given this, it is not appropriate or necessary for DOC to provide comprehensive policy direction for this area. The objectives in Part 1 and particularly Objectives 1.5.1.4 and 1.5.1.7 do however apply and it is considered appropriate to add a further objective to Section 1.5.1 to recognise the need for agencies to collaborate in managing this area.

89/6

The management objectives for indigenous species habitats and ecosystems, as required by Conservation General Policy cl.4.1(b) are insufficiently articulated in terms of purposes of prevention, recovery, maintenance, restoration and protection. WRC wants more guidance from the CMS as to how DOC will undertake its primary functions in this regard.

Amend Section 1.5 to ensure the objectives for indigenous species and ecosystems reflect the Conservation General Policy 4.1(b).


Accept in partAmendments made to the objectives in Section 1.5.1 as a result of other submissions include more detail about conservaton values, priorities and advocacy actions. Further direction is also provided for Places managed by DOC in Part Two where policies are included around issues such as threat management. Biosecurity, ecological restoration, wetlands and habitat enhancement).The wording of the provisions are considered consistent with Conservation General Policy, and appropriate for the outcomes sought.

89/7

The objectives in this section infer that DOC's role is defined as contributing to conservation of natural resources, but fails to recognise the considerable role and responsibility of the Department in the conservation of natural resources.

Amend Objective 1.5.1.1 to read: "Maintain a national network of representative ecosystems conserved to a healthy functioning state, focusing on the priority ecosystems listed in Appendices 2 and 4".

1.5.1.1 Objective RejectIn the Auckland context "contribute to" as opposed to 'maintain" is appropriate in the context of DOC's role. Within Auckland over 90% of public conservation land is on islands and thus does not include a representative range of ecosystems. That is not to say that a representative range of ecosystems

89/8




are not protected on publicly owned land - the Auckland Council has considerable land holdings on the mainland, hence the use of the term "contribute" in Objective 1.5.1.1.


Amend Objective 1.5.1.2 to read: "Prevent the loss of and ensure the recovery and persistence of more nationally threatened species as listed in Appendix 6".

1.5.1.2 Objective RejectObjective 1.5.1.2 refers to the management of species both on and off public conservation land. While DOC actively manages threatened species on public conservation, other agencies, iwi and the community all assist in species management off public conservation lands. It is therefore beyond DOC’s influence to “prevent’ the loss of these species and the current reference to “contribute” appropriately recognises DOC’s role.

89/9


Amend Objective 1.5.1.5 to read: "Maintain a nationally representative network of marine protected areas, taking into account the marine ecosystems listed in Appendix 8".

1.5.1.5 Objective Accept in partDOC maintains an existing network of marine reserves and the management direction for these are contained in Sections 2.1 (Marine Reserves Place) and 2.2 (Leigh reserves Complex).

The intention of Objective 1.5.1.5 is to go beyond maintaining existing protected areas and to build a larger network of marine reserves and other protected areas in order to implement the Marine Protected Areas Policy and Implementation Plan which aims to protect 10% of New Zealand's marine environment. This requires a collaborative process to be adopted by a number of agencies and therefore the emphasis in Objective 1.5.1.5 on collaboration is appropriate.

89/10

The milestones or outputs seems only related to selected objectives. For example there are some objectives (1.5.1.9, 1.5.1.11 and 1.5.1.13) that do not have any corresponding milestones or outputs. There is concern that without measurable specific outputs for all objectives, the implementation of some will be overlooked.

The milestones/outputs are mostly about producing a report. To make them more meaningful and measurable it is suggested to amend the wording to for example:

Amend CMS so that:(1) Where a milestone/output throughout the CMS refers to the production of a report, amend so it reflects what the report will provide information on; and(2) Ensure all objectives have a corresponding milestone/output, particularly of objectives 1.5.1.9, 1.5.1.11 and 1.5.1.13.


Accept in partAmend milestones throughout the CMS to be more measurable.

Throughout the CMS, there has been a selective use of milestones against objectives and policies, as a means of realistically reporting to the conservation board (see Part Four, Objective 4.1.1). Given this approach it is unnecessary/ inappropriate for milestones to refer to 'reporting'. The milestones should be rewritten to reflect tangible/ measurable outcomes, where possible. The milestones should be

89/11




"A report on the number of nationally threatened species for which a work programme is underway has show xxx (e.g. a reduction in the number or threatened species or a reduction in the number of threats, etc.).

rewritten to reflect tangible/ measurable outcomes, where possible.

A key work programme of the Hauraki Gulf Forum is the development of a spatial plan for the park. The WRC, Auckland City, Ministry of Primary Industries and DOC are working together on the plan. The CMS should make reference to this in the policy framework.

Amend Section 1.6 to provide information on the development of a marine spatial plan for the Hauraki Gulf.

1.6 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park

AcceptInsert the following paragraph into Section 1.6:

"Accordingly the Forum is developing a marine spatial plan for the Hauraki Gulf. The overarching goal of the plan will be to restore and enhance the environmental health of the Gulf and enable appropriate use and development. The plan will provide non-statutory recommendations to be considered by statutory agencies for incorporation into their planning documents, including this Strategy."

The inserted text describes the development of the spatial plan. It does not explicitly recognise the agencies listed in the submission in relation to the plan as they are already identified as Forum members in paragraph 2, p. 32.

89/12

A key work programme of the Hauraki Gulf Forum is the development of a spatial plan for the park. The WRC, Auckland City, Ministry of Primary Industries and DOC are working together on the plan. The CMS should make reference to this in the policy framework.

Amend Objective 1.6.3 to read: "Support the Hauraki Gulf Forum, and particularly the development and implementation of a marine spatial plan, to promote and improve integrated conservation management within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park".

1.6.3 Objective AcceptAmend Objective 1.6.3 to read: "Support the Hauraki Gulf Forum, and particularly the development and implementation of a marine spatial plan, to promote and improve integrated conservation management within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park".

Currently one of the main programmes of the Forum is the development of the marine spatial plan and it is appropriate to amend Objective 1.6.3 to reflect this. It is noted that additional descriptive text about this planning exercise has also be added in response to another submission point made by the submitter (89/12).

89/13

The Muddy Feet project has been superseded by the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Spatial Plan.

Amend Section 2.15 by removing references to the Muddy Feet project, or note that it has been subsumed into the marine spatial planning project.


AcceptChanges have been made to the description, and policies 2.15.3, 2.15.5 & 2.15.10, and Year 5 milestone to delete the Muddy Feet project and correctly describe the Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial 89/14




Plan.This section should contain more detail on the management of this place, given its importance as an internationally recognised RAMSAR site. It is difficult to understand how DOC will uphold its obligations to protect the wetlands and migratory birds habitat under the convention (Policy 2.15.6). While the intent of Policy 2.15.1 is supported it is unclear how DOC will advocate for protection of ecological values and hydrological processes. More policy direction is required to clarify what mechanisms DOC will use here.

Amend Section 2.15 to provide more specific policy direction highlighting a more active role for DOC and clarifying the types of mechanisms it can use to do this effectively. For example working collaboratively with Auckland Council , WRC and other stakeholders in the development of Harbour and Catchment Plans.


Accept in partThe following has been added to Section 2.15 to provide more direction on the management of the Firth of Thames place given its importance as an internationally recognised RAMSAR site: a description of cross boundary CMS management has been added to the description (para 1, pg 105), an appendix has been added listing the RAMSAR criteria for the Firth of Thames, the Living Waters initiative has been listed under the programmes in the description on pg 109, para 2 of the outcome has been amended, Policy 2.15.6 has been amended, and Year 10 milestone has been amended.

A new policy has also been inserted into Part Three requiring consideration of RAMSAR in relation to the assessment of concession applications.

89/15

The policies should also be amended to better reflect requirements of CPG (4.1, 4.4 and in particular 13 (a) (vi)) and NZCPS (Policies 11, 13, 14 and 15).

Amend policies in Section 2.15 to better reflect requirements of CPG (particularly 13(a)(vi) which will improve consistency with NZCPS Policies 11, 13, 14 and 15.


AcceptThe description (first sentence, last para, pg 106), outcome (paragraphs 1, 2 & 3), and policies 2.15.1 & 2.15.12 have been amended to better reflect the requirements of the Conservation General Policy and New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement.89/16

Supports DOC's contribution to a spartina and saltwater paspalum control plan with WRC. A good example of working across boundaries for integrated management. However, this milestone has no policies to facilitate the development of the control plan.

Amend Section 2.15 to include:(1) A policy related to DOC's contribution to a spartina and saltwater paspalum control programme; and(2) Check other milestones and policies for inconsistencies.

2.15 Firth of Thames/ Tikapa Moana Wetlands Place - outcome

AcceptA new policy has been added regarding the spartina and saltwater paspalum control programme, in order to align the with the Year 3 milestone. The milestones in Year 3 and Year 10 have been amended to align with the new policy.

89/17

This section needs to be more focused and address the following questions:

- what are the conservation targets?- what are the key biodiversity indicators for DOC to monitor?

The CMS needs to at least maintain the gains by ensuring an ongoing monitoring programme and management to remove pests and weeds.

Amend Part Four to:(1) Include more specific outcome statements in line with realistic achievable targets. Where appropriate the outcome statements should reflect the Proposed Waikato RPS Environmental Results Anticipated, to achieve integrated management for biodiversity and conservation goals; and(2) Ensure milestones or outputs are targeted and describe a measurable change in the state of a resource.

Part Four - Implementation, monitoring, reporting and review

Accept in part(1) The conservation management strategies for Northland, Auckland and Waikato were prepared in parallel and DOC is satisfied that the policy direction is generally consistent. Providing an overview of other CMS’s within the Auckland CMS is not however considered to be desirable since it is much more appropriate to refer to the source document rather than a summary. It is recommended however that Map 1 be amended to include notes showing which CMS is applicable to the north and south of

89/18




The development of good indicators is essential to measuring progress to goals. WRC strongly endorses the intention to work closely with regional councils on this, particularly in the development of joint indicators. The Regional Council Biodiversity Forum is currently implementing a suite of national biodiversity indicators, developed by Landcare Research which is a useful framework for monitoring biodiversity across the region.

Auckland.

(2) As noted above the CMS’s for Northland and Waikato were prepared at the same time as the Auckland CMS. Through this process particular attention was paid to ensuring that the direction for natural heritage/ Places that straddle conservancy boundaries was consistent. This particularly applied in terms of the management of the Firth of Thames, Waikato River catchment, Kaipara Harbour and Mangawhai/ te Arai coast. It is acknowledged that the CMS could be amended to make it clear that this integrated approach will continue to be applied in terms of the implementation of the CMS’s and to this effect the following changes are recommended:

(i) Amending the "CMS Structure" section by inserting the following paragraphs:

"Sites not covered by a Part Two Place are of no lesser value or importance but require less detailed management direction. Conservation management will still be undertaken in these areas in line with the vision, objectives, milestones and related provisions in Parts One, Three and Four of the strategy".

"Further guidance for interpretation is provided at the start of Parts One, Two and Three, in Policy 3.1.1 and the Glossary".

(ii) Insert the following descriptive text in Section 1.5.1:

"A number of the nationally, regionally and locally important places above extend across administrative boundaries of the Department and other agencies. A coordinated and multi-agency approach to the management of the natural resources in these places is important in order to achieve integrated conservation management”

(iii) Inserting the following policies in Part Three:




“X Manage public conservation lands and waters to be consistent with the outcomes, objectives and policies of this strategy.X Adopt an integrated management approach (as defined in the Conservation general Policy 2006) to the application of this strategy and to ensure cross-boundary management of public conservation lands and waters”.

(3) Section 1.5 as a whole shows how activities in Auckland fit within DOC’s strategic direction with the four headings used reflecting the Department’s Statement of Intent. This could be further clarified by amending the first paragraph of Section 1.5 to read as follows:


These national conservation outcomes are linked to the Department’s Outcome Statement and 100-year Vision as detailed in the Department’s Statement of Intent"

It is unclear how these priorities relate to the Places identified in Part Two of the CMS. For instance the priorities listed include Mangatawhiri-Vinings, Kohukohunui (Hunua) and Mataitai Forest - yet, they are not included as a Place. WRC would like to see Appendix 4 annotated to indicate which special place each of the ecosystem management units fall within.

Amend Appendix 4 to indicate which Place each of the ecosystem management units fall within.


RejectThe ecosystem managed units listed in Appendix 4 are already listed as per what Place they are within. Mangatawhiri-Vinings, Kohukohunui (Hunua) and Mataitai Forest are included in the list under the heading 'Other priority ecosystem sites' as they are not within a Place.

89/19

Submitter: Straterra IncGenerally support direction of CMS and purpose of integrated management. In connection with integrated management note there is often a connection between where mining is done today and where it was done in past (e.g. Kawau, Great Barrier). While same resource the technology for resource discovery, extraction and

(1) Note support for Purpose;(2) Add new objective referring to integrated management like in Waikato CMS (1.5.1.6); andInferred: (3) Amend Purpose to note the link between minerals activity today and mineral activities of the past (historic heritage).

General Accept in part(1) Support for the Purpose of the CMS is noted.(2) Objective 1.5.1.6 of the Auckland CMS relates to integrated management and is identical to Objective 1.5.1.6 of the Waikato CMS.(3) The Purpose section states that both the Crown

90/1




environmental management has advanced. Minerals Act 1991 and the Historic Places Act 1993 are relevant to this strategy. Whilst the link between historic and current mining activities is noted, it is not considered necessary to provide any more detail in what is a considered a general introductory section on the purpose of the CMS.

The Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 provides for the "sustainable management" of New Zealand's wider marine jurisdiction, rather than protection per se. Future marine reserves legislation may provide for full or partial protection of marine areas which would leave open the possibility of future minerals development under the new EEZ legislation.

Amend Policy 2.1.7 to by inserting the words "full or partial" after the word "achieve".

2.1.7 Policy RejectSections 27-29 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 provide for a range of protection mechanisms to be used to achieve the purpose of the Act. The use of the words "statutory protection" in Policy 2.1.7 reflects the range of mechanisms and is therefore appropriate. The statutory protection mechanisms allow full or partial protection, so there is no need to state this in Policy 2.1.7.

90/2

Argue that mining is not a major threat to the Maui's dolphin (as stated in para 2, p. 13) and that there is no evidence to support this. Suggest removal of reference between seabed mining and Maui's dolphin, noting that society's interests would be safeguarded under RMA and Marine Mammal Protection Act 1978.

Amend Para 2, p. 13 by removing the words "seabed mining".


RejectThe West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary was gazetted in 2008 to provide additional protection for the Maui's dolphin. Within the sanctuary restrictions are applied on seabed mining as a mechanism to assist in protecting Maui's dolphin. This would not have been justified had seabed mining not been assessed as a threat.

90/3

Crown Minerals (Permitting and Crown land) Bill proposes changes to decision-making on applications. Notably the inclusion of the Minister of Energy and Resources as a decision-maker and broadened criteria for decision making to include economic and social criteria.

Amend last para, p. 116 to read: "Under the Crown Minerals Act 1991, the Minister of Conservation and the Minister of Energy and resources share the consenting role for all Crown land administered by the Department, subject to conservation, economic and social criteria under that Act".


AcceptThis should be updated to reflect the current legislation.

The following text should be added to the end of the Authorisation paragraph on page 116:

Mining

Under the Crown Minerals Act 1991, the Minister of Conservation has an approval role for access arrangements and minimum impact activities for all public conservation land. The Minister of Energy and Resources also has an approval role for access arrangements that relate to Tier 1 permits (as defined in the Act) and significant variations to those access arrangements. No access arrangements are allowable for land in Schedule 4 of the Act (which includes but

90/4




is not restricted to all national parks, wilderness areas and marine reserves), except in very limited circumstances, which are set out in the Act.

Seek consistency across all CMS on helicopter access (as per recommendations made on draft Waikato CMS).

Inferred: Amend CMS as per submission on draft Waikato CMS.

Part Three - Aircraft RejectProvisions in Part 3 of the CMS are designed to control the landing of aircraft on public conservation lands whether they are fixed wing or helicopter. Other than the exemptions provided for aircraft use such as search and rescue, all other types of aircraft use of public conservation land should generally be treated the same and be subject to the same regulatory framework.

90/5

Support intent of section.

Submission also identifies and supports related provisions in CMS including:(1) Para 2 under 'Relationships', p. 5 relating to implementation of Statement of Intent;(2) Para 4 Under Section 1.2;(3) Para 4 under Section 1.5.4 in relation to looking for new and innovative opportunities;(4) Section 1.5.5, particularly in relation to the Department seeking to identify new opportunities (last sentence, para 1),

Insert new objective to read: "Identify and promote new business opportunities and partnerships that deliver conservation gains and enhance prosperity".


Accept in partSupport noted. Specific, currently identifiable new business opportunities are identified in the Part Two Place sections. The current objectives are seen as components to the "identify and promote" approach set out in the 1.5.5 introduction’s first para, and not needing a specific objective worded as requested.

90/6

Support on the basis that this can form part of businesses 'social licence to operate".


Amend Purpose to include Minister of Conservation's role as land owner under the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

Purpose CMS AcceptAmend the 'Purpose of conservation management strategies' which identifies legislation under which the Minister of Conservation has a role to refer to the Crown Minerals Act 1991.

It is appropriate to recognise the Minister's role under this Act.

90/8

Submitter: Environmental & Conservation Organisations of New Zealand Inc (ECO)Concerned with priority being given to the generation of tourism to the detriment of conservation.

Consider that Section 6 clearly describes a hierarchy, prioritisation management for conservation over recreation, and allowing tourism.

Request that in formulating the CMS both the Conservation Board and Department are mindful of:(1) The duty imposed by Section 6(a) Conservation Act (CA) to manage for conservation purposes;(2) The priority defined in Section 6(e) CA that recreation is not to be inconsistent with conservation;

General Accept in partAdd to purpose of CMS: "The Department's functions are, for the most part, identified in section 6 of the Act and in other Acts listed in the First Schedule of the Act".

91/1




(3) The duty imposed in Section 6(e) CA to foster recreation; and(4) The ability imposed in Section 6(e) CA to allow . . . tourism.

Note that: The Conservation General Policy was approved in 2005 after a public consultation process and this provides CMS guidance consistent with the identified Acts and international conventions. The Departmental emphasis on collaboration set out in the CMS is a response to findings that indigenous biodiversity continues to decline despite the best efforts. The Department can only implement itslegislation with the resources it has available to do so. It is acknowledged that the NZ Biodiversity Strategy is not being achieved. This is why the Departments focus is having to change to gain extra revenue and establish new partnerships to grow conservation.

Submitter: Motutapu Outdoor Education TrustGenerally support content. Note that issues raised previously do not appear to have been incorporated.

General NotedThe submitters general support is noted. Specific changes have been made to Section 2.11 in response to changes sought by the submitter.

92/1

Appear to be no mention of the expansion or establishment of marine reserves.

Inferred: Add provision for the expansion or establishment of reserves giving priority to sites such as Motutapu Outdoor Education Trust where conservation practices are in place and there is opportunity to expand public exposure and participation.



92/2

Generally support description where CMS actively seeks to promote both islands and encourages more and longer visitation.

(1) Amend references to additional accommodation to state that it should be short term such as one or two nights for maximise participation and utilisation;(2) Insert the following paragraph: "The Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp provides a unique opportunity for young people to benefit and understand different conservation values, lifestyle and outdoor education experiences. This is done in the setting of the on-going upgrade of the heritage artillery barracks at Administration Bay. To achieve this, the CMS recognises the need to provide for the necessary infrastructure (water, storm-water, sewerage, energy, roading), staff and instructor accommodation, safe outdoor education facilities, and the retention and upgrade of the heritage buildings at Motutapu for adaptive reuse for an outdoor education camp."


Accept in partThe outcome and policies provide for additional overnight accommodation on Rangitoto and Motutapu. These facilities are likely to be managed under a concession. The concessions process will guide how these facilities may be booked and how long people stay.

The Department agrees that recognition should be given to the trusts/community groups that undertake restoration work on the island. The description (para 6, pg 86) has been amended as follows to include a reference to the three main groups:

"There are a number of trusts and community groups that presently undertake valuable conservation work on these islands, including: - The Motutapu Restoration Trust, which formed in

92/3




1994. The Trust’s aim is to protect and restore the natural and cultural landscape of Motutapu. Significant volunteer effort and funding has been put into replanting, facilitating translocations and conserving historic features.- The Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp Trust, which operates the Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp. The camp provides an opportunity for young people to experience conservation and outdoor education.- The Rangitoto Island Historic Conservation Trust, which aims to conserve and interpret the historic bach communities on Rangitoto Island."

While generally support mountain biking as a concept have following concerns:(1) The roads / tracks on both Motutapu & Rangitoto are narrow, metal, uneven and of a generally poor standard. These roads are already used by stock, pedestrians, road vehicles and farm machinery. This shared use presents very real risks of injury and worse(2) The model presented will require significant investment to establish and run including capital investment in equipment, service and office space, concession establishment / application, base line environmental monitoring, on-going environmental monitoring, equipment maintenance, guides, modification (we assume) to gates, fences etc. We have doubts that this model is financially viable and that this would result in a poor offer, poor experience and be detrimental to the overall perception of the islands (3) Regardless of the commercial / concessional issue, residents should be permitted to use their own bikes for environmentally sound transport on Motutapu Island.

If trial approved, restrictions would be essential.

Amend MTB proposal by: (1) Inserting the following: "To reduce motorised vehicle use, fossil fuel use, CO2 emissions and promote healthy lifestyles, residents are permitted and encouraged to use bicycles as to / from work transport"; and(2) applying seasonal restrictions, strict control of routes, numbers in groups and behavioural standards.



Safe pedestrian access is critical. Retain Policy 2.11.4.2.11.4 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.11.4 retained.92/5

No reasons provided. Retain Policy 2.11.5.2.11.5 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.11.5 retained.92/6






Support of Motutapu Outdoor Education Trust. Retain Policy 2.11.19.2.11.19 Policy AcceptPolicy 2.11.19 retained.92/9


Motutapu Outdoor Education trust (MOEC) already has a number of professionally run, high standard programs/activities in this area. Using existing infrastructure. Any additional activities should extend this offer. Home Bay would be natural site for extension due to proposed improved accessibility. Need to protect existing concession holder (MOEC).

Note that Policy 3.8.6 does not appear to exist.

Amend Policy 2.11.21 by:(1) Protecting and ensuring there are no negative impacts on the existing concession holder;(2) Reviewing/ amending reference to Policy 3.8.6.

2.11.21 Policy Accept in partThe submitter's views that any further conservation/outdoor recreation education on Motutapu should also be provided by the Motutapu Outdoor Education Trust is noted. Policy 2.11.21 requires any additional education to be complementary to the existing Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp facility, thus protecting the existing concession holder. However, the policy does provide for another concessionaire to provide additional education on Motutapu. Any application would be only be granted if it did not adversely impact on the Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp facilities.

The reference to Policy 3.8.6 has been corrected. Policy 2.11.21 should refer to Policy 3.8.5.

92/11

Support short-term basis accommodation as part of multi-day walk, kayak (NB: else where in submission refers to one or two nights). Need to ensure that are no negative impacts on existing concession holder.


Inferred: Amend Policy 2.11.22 by:(1) Providing accommodation on short-term basis(2) Adopting a non-competition policy to ensure there are no negative impacts on the existing concession holder; and(3) Reviewing/ amending reference to Policy 3.8.6.

2.11.22 Policy Accept in partThe submitter's support of this policy is noted. Policy 2.11.22 requires any overnight visitor accommodation to be assessed against Policy 3.8.6 (which has been corrected to read 3.8.5 - see below). 3.8.5 a) relates to the outcome and policies for a Place. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the outcome for Motutapu refer to the current activities provided by concessionaires at Home Bay e.g. the Reid Homestead interpretation centre, conservation volunteering etc. Any new overnight visitor accommodation would only be approved if it was consistent with this outcome.

The reference to Policy 3.8.6 has been amended to the correct reference 3.8.5.

92/12

Support short-term basic accommodation as part of multi-day walk, kayak (NB: else where in submission refers to one or two nights). Need to ensure that are no

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.11.23 by:(1) Providing accommodation on short-term basis(2) Adopting a non-competition policy to ensure there are

2.11.23 Policy Accept in partThe submitter's support of this policy is noted. Policy 2.11.23(d) requires any overnight visitor

92/13




negative impacts on existing concession holder.


no negative impacts on the existing concession holder; and(3) Reviewing/ amending reference to Policy 3.8.6.

accommodation to be assessed against Policy 3.8.6 (which has been corrected to read 3.8.5 - see below). 3.8.5 a) relates to the outcome and policies for a Place. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the outcome for Motutapu refer to the current activities provided by concessionaires at Home Bay e.g. the Reid Homestead interpretation centre, conservation volunteering etc. Any new overnight visitor accommodation would only be approved if it was consistent with this outcome.

The reference to Policy 3.8.6 has been amended to the correct reference 3.8.5.


The CMS specifically supports activities of Motutapu Restoration Trust and Rangitoto heritage bach restoration trust but does not providespecific support to the Outdoor Education Camp. The Camp brings 12,000 young people to the island each year for a lifestyle experience in the outdoors in the conservation estate, and seeing the work of conservation in our community, as well as providing skills and experiences in outdoor education.

Insert a new policy in Section 2.11 to read: "Support the Motutapu Outdoor Education Trust’s efforts in upgrading the former artillery barracks at Administration Bay and utilising the unique location of Motutapu to provide outdoor education and lifestyle experiences, and exposure to conservation values for young New Zealanders".


RejectPolicy 2.11.19 already provides for support of the operation of the Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp.

92/15

First milestone, Year 10 - waterway fencing. Consider this should have higher priority. Ref Policy 2.11.20.

Inferred: Amend Milestones so that waterway fencing occurs earlier.

2.11 Motutapu and Rangitoto Islands Place - milestones - outputs

AcceptThe Department supports waterway fencing being given higher priority in the milestone. The milestone regarding waterways being fenced off has been separated from the milestone regarding 150 hectares of Motutapu being replanted, and moved to the Year 5 milestones.

92/16

It is necessary and critical that the Motutapu Outdoor Education Trust has secure tenure over suitable accommodation for the staff (and their families) of MOEC.

Note comments.Part Three - Private accomodation and related facilities

NotedThe submitters concerns have been noted. This is not a matter for the CMS. However, the comments will be forwarded onto the appropriate staff.92/17

Maintenance should be given higher priority on Motutapu and Rangitoto.

Inferred: Amend to provide for greater maintenance on Motutapu and Rangitoto.

3.2.1 Policy Accept in partThe purpose of this policy is not to prioritise maintenance in different locations. This matter can not be implemented through the CMS. The issue will be forwarded onto the relevant operations staff.

92/18




Road maintenance should be given higher priority on Motutapu and Rangitoto.

There is no mention of Former Artillery Barracks/ Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp however other structures of lesser historical value listed.

Inferred: Amend Appendix 1 to:(1) Provide for greater road maintenance on Motutapu and Rangitoto;(2) Specifically refer to Former Artillery Barracks/ Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp under "Historic assets- remedial works and maintenance".

Appendix 1 - RMA Reject(1) Roads on both Motutapu and Rangitoto are mentioned in the relevant part of the Appendix 1 tables. The purpose of the Appendix is only to identify in a broad manner those activities that may be eligible for an exemption from getting a land use consent. The Appendix is not meant to be specific in identifying which activities nor are is it meant to rank their importance.

(2) The references to certain activities in this Appendix is meant to be quite broad and inclusive. The section of the Appendix titled "Historic assets" already refers to military installations on Motutapu. By definition a military installation includes a base or camp. Therefore, this reference is considered adequate.

92/19

Wetlands, p. 161. Wetlands on Motutapu are of significance.

Inferred: Amend Appendix to refer to Motutapu wetlands.Appendix 2 - Key ecosystems and habitats

AcceptThe description in the Motutapu and Rangitoto Islands Place describes Motutapu's wetlands as significant. Motutapu wetlands has been added to the list of important areas in the Wetland row of the table in Appendix 2.

92/20

Summary is incomplete and makes no reference to buildings or any other non-archaeological sites.

Inferred: Amend Appendix 3 with respect to "issues" at Motutapu to refer to non-archaeological historic sites.

Appendix 3 - Islands AcceptMotutapu Island has historic sites which require protection e.g. the Reid Homestead, WWII sites. The 'Issues' cell on the Motutapu row of Appendix 3 will be amended as follows:

"Pest plants, maintaining biosecurity, protecting archaeological and historic sites"

92/21

While Rangitoto & Motutapu are shown as Gateway destinations only one local treasure is identified. Consider there are several other "local treasures" of which Motutapu Camp is one.

Inferred: Amend Appendix 10 to identify Motutapu Camp as a 'local treasure".

Appendix 10 - Key recreation destinations

RejectThe Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp cannot be included as a Local treasure as it is managed by a concessionaire, not the Department, meaning it is not a recreation destination that the public can freely visit.

92/22

There is specific mention of several structures, buildings, sites however no mention of the former Artillery Barracks / Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp in this section.

Inferred: Amend Appendix 12 to include former Artillery Barracks / Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp.

Appendix 12 - Actively conserved historic places

RejectThe former Artillery Barracks/Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp are not included in Appendix 12. This site does not currently meet the criteria for an 92/23




actively conserved historic place. Actively conserved historic places are reviewed periodically, and are likely to be reviewed during the life of the CMS. Whether the Artillery Barracks/Motutapu Outdoor Education Camp should be an actively conserved historic place will be considered at the time the lists are reviewed.

We note that Rangitoto has been given an indicative ecosystem and destination priority of Secondary and Motutapu has not been prioritised in any way. Believe that Motutapu should be given a priority given its size and the substantial investment made in Pest Eradication, Reforestation, Preservation of Historic Sites, substantial wetland areas etc

Inferred: Amend Map 2 to include Motutapu as a priority site.

Map 2 - Indicative ecosystem and destination priorities

RejectThe 'High priority' and 'Second priority' ecosystem priorities shown in Map 2: Indicative ecosystem and destination priorities reflect the list of priority ecosystem management sites on public conservation land in Appendix 4 in Volume I of the CMS. The list in Appendix 4 has been taken from the Department's national list of 941 ecosystem management units, which represent the full range of New Zealand's terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems. However, the table in Appendix 4 does not necessarily list all nationally significant ecosystems present in Auckland Conservancy. The list is subject to change as priorities are refined and revised - new sites may be added and others removed.

Rangitoto is shown as both an Icon visitor destination (summit track and short walks near Rangitoto Wharf) and Gateway visitor destination (other places on Rangitoto), and Motutapu has been shown as a Gateway visitor destination. This reflects the way the Department intends to manage these sites for visitors, as described in Section 1.5.3 and Section 2.11 in Volume I of the CMS.

92/24

Submitter: Forest and Bird Motu Manawa Restoration GroupThe Group supports the references to pest control on pages 39-40 of the CMS regarding the Marine Reserve and the wording of policy 2.1.2. However, the CMS should be more explicit about pest and weed control and where it should occur. The role of DOC with Traherne Island/ Te Kou Natural Heritage Restoration Plan 2009-14 and the Traherne Island Weed and Pest Management Plan. A pest and weed management plan for both the Marine and Scientific Reserve should be designed to integrate with conditions of consent

Amend Section 2.1 by:(1) Rewording the statement in Section 2.1, Outcome 39-40 to read:"Conditions of this public work will enable pest control and eco-sourced native plant restoration to be undertaken and public awareness of the values of the Marine Reserve to be increased";(2) Rewording the statement in Section 2.1, Outcome page 41, to read: "Pest and weed control will be actively undertaken in the Motu Manawa (Pollen Island) Marine


Accept in partThe description has been amended to better reflect the public conservation land within the Motu Manawa/Pollen Island Marine Reserve and to be more descriptive of the conditions of the widening of the motorway: a fuller description of the Motu Manawa Pollen Island Scientific Reserve has been added and a reference to native plant restoration.

The Department agrees that native species in the

93/1




imposed by the Waterview Connection Project Board of Inquiry on NZTA regarding the Traherne Island Weed and Pest Management Plan). DOC is responsible to act as a consultant to NZTA to the management plan, so will know how that can be integrated for pest and weed control for both reserves. It should also be clear that DOC will work with volunteers to carry out pest and weed control on these reserves.

The CMS should also refer as well to eco-sourced native plant restoration where this is necessary within and around the marine reserve, in cooperation with other authorities such as Auckland Council and NZTA.

Reserve and the Motu Manawa (Pollen Island) Scientific Reserve that is consistent with and supportive of pest and weed control undertaken on Traherne Island and the surrounding coastal margin of the marine reserve. Where practicable, community volunteers will be involved in this pest and weed control".

Add the following words to the end of Policy 2.1.1:"including pest and weed control."

Motu Manawa/Pollen Island are would benefit from pest/predator control. Therefore, a new policy has been added to enable threats to native species on the coastal margins of the marine reserve and associated islands to be managed.

The Group supports the installation of boardwalks and interconnected walkway systems in and around the coastal margin of the Marine Reserve and the State Highway 16 causeway. Ideally would form a continuous pedestrian circuit that would allow public to walk around the perimeter of the area of the Reserve that is impounded by the SH16 causeway. The public works to construct these amenities are justified if they are:- not intrusive- contribute to peoples access to the reserves- facilitate pest and weed control, native plant restoration and rubbish removal. The Group supports provision of interpretive signs on the proposed circuit.

As well as improved access, the Group also advocates for increased education about the reserve.

Some particular points about the boardwalk proposal:- resting areas with seating and bird watching platforms or hides and interpretive signs.- lighting for accessing at night or consider locking boardwalk outside daylight hours.- dogs should be banned from boardwalk- fishing should be banned from boardwalk- signs at entries to say polluting or littering is an offence and monitoring of this by DOC and Auckland Council

(1) Retain the references to enhancing public access, awareness and appreciation, boardwalk construction, scientific research, non-motorised water sports, bird watching by visitors, etc., in the CMS (pages 39-41) and policies 2.1.3 and 2.1.4.(2) Amend Policy 2.1.5 to read: "Enhance public access to and enjoyment of marine reserves while ensuring human activities and visitor facilities do not negatively impact on opportunities for scientific research, the natural, historic and cultural values of marine reserves, or other visitors".


Accept in partThe references to enhancing public access, awareness and appreciation, boardwalk construction, scientific research, non-motorised water sports, bird watching by visitors, etc have been retained.

The outcome and policies need to be read together. The outcome already provides for access to and enjoyment of the Motu Manawa/Pollen Island Marine Reserve (last sentence, para 6, pg 41). Policies are only inserted when there is a need to constrain or enable an outcome. In this case, policy 2.1.5 has been included as access may need to be constrained in circumstances where human activities and visitor facilities negatively impact on the value of marine reserves.

93/2




- smoking should be banned on boardwalk, it is an offence to litter in a marine reserve- should be considered whether access should be restricted to pedestrians only, due to public safety. Otherwise, design boardwalk to slow traffic and still only allow bikes, but not skateboards or motorbikes.The Group supports the status quo where the Scientific Reserve is an open reserves with free public access without restriction and requiring DOC permission. If limited access in the text of the CMS is because of the existing natural and artificial physical barriers to accessing Pollen Island, such as tides, mangroves, motorway causeway) and no other reason then the Group endorses that approach. The group considers getting to the island is challenging enough and therefore will limit access without the need for alteration of policy in the CMS to do this. The Group is aware of one private group that is trying to restrict public access to the Island in partnership with DOC and does not support this proposal. The Group would like the CMS to clarify that the status quo is sufficient.

Modify Description to read: "Access to the adjoining Motu Manawa Pollen Island Scientific Reserve will continue to be limited by its extant physical barriers to protect its values as an open scientific reserve and not otherwise restricted".


AcceptIt is the Department's intention to keep access to the Motu Manawa Pollen Island Scientific Reserve as it is now, without restriction and no permit required, but limited because of the physical nature of the surrounding area. Therefore, the descriptive paragraph which begins "During the term of the .." of the Motu Manawa/Pollen Island Marine Reserve (last para, pg 39) has been amended to better describe how access to the marine reserve is limited.

93/3

The Group supports references to pollution problems in the Marine Reserve. However is disappointed by the lack of enforcement of the Marine Reserves Act in respect of pollution and littering into the Marine Reserve.

The Group is also very concerned at the present and historical discharge of storm water and sewage into the Marine Reserve, even if some of the infrastructure predates the gazettal of the Reserve. The Group considers that the discharges may be breach of Section 18 of the Marine Reserves Act 1971. The Group wants the CMS to make explicit mention of the enforcement of the Marine Reserves Act offence clauses. Policy 2.1.6 could be more explicit in this regard.

Amend Policy 2.1.6 to read: "Ensure effected compliance and law enforcement, including active enforcement with respect to offences committed under the Marine Reserves Act 1971, within marine reserves, working with tangata whenua, other agencies and the local community where appropriate".


Accept in partThe purpose of conservation management strategies are to set strategic direction, other tools are designed to implement this direction at an operational level, including bylaws. This is recognised in the 'Bylaws and regulations' section in the Introduction, Objective 1.5.1.7, and Policies 2.2.9, 3.2.8 and 3.3.8 and related provisions.

93/4

The Group would like the CMS to state that an objective for the period 2014-2024 is for DOC to investigate and if possible implement the extension of the area of the Reserve northwest to encompass and protect the tidal flats, mangroves and foreshore of the eastern coastline of Te Atatu Peninsula from the Whau

Amend Section 2.1 to make explicit reference to expanding the area of the Marine Reserve to include the intertidal shorebird feeding grounds of the eastern Te Atatu Peninsula, as stated in the following text: "Expansion of the area of the Motu Manawa (Pollen Island) Marine Reserve to include the intertidal shorebird


RejectThe Marine Protected Areas Policy and implementation Plan (MPA Policy) has been developed to assist the government achieve the marine protection targets established in the New Zealand Biodiversity Strategy and is intended to

93/5




River bridge of State Highway 16 to at least the north-eastern tip of the peninsula. See appendix 3 for detail.

All statements in the CMS about the ecological significance of the extant Reserve, apply equally to the area the group advocates for extension. The area is considered of national significance, and is a major regional intertidal feeding ground for many shore and migratory bird species. It is considered the additional area meets the criteria for a Marine Reserve under Section 3 of that Act.

feeding grounds of eastern Te Atatu Peninsula will be investigated and if possible implemented".

guide the development of a comprehensive network of marine protected areas representative of the full range of New Zealand’s marine habitats and ecosystems. DOC and the Ministry for Primary Industries are the lead government agencies responsible for implementing the MPA Policy.




The Group endorses the following two submissions:

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc (Dr Mark Bellingham).Their submission requested that the CMS include mention that the Motu Manawa (Pollen Island) Marine Reserve is a breeding area for NZ Dotterel, fernbird, banded rail and habitat for a rare moth. Also that the CMS should include a policy addressing the importance of continuing pest control in the Reserve.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.General NotedChanges have been made to the CMS in response to submissions made by both the Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc and Albert-Eden Local Board and Whau Local Board.

93/6




Albert-Eden Local Board and Whau Local BoardTheir submission advocated that the reference to improving public access to the Motu Manawa (Pollen Island) Reserve by boardwalk be retained in the CMS. The Group supports the extension of this concept to include a boardwalk walkway system that takes in the coastal margin of the Whau Local Board in the same marine reserve and interconnects with the cycleway running along State Highway 16 causeway across Waterview Inlet.

Submitter: Goat Island CollectiveStakeholders defined as people/ persons/ properties directly involved within the boundaries marked clearly on maps of 2014(?) management plan for Goat Island marine reserve. Include landowners, commercial operators, DOC, University of Auckland and Iwi.

Concerns that co-founders of reserve (neighbouring property owners who sold to create reserve) are no longer acknowledged as stakeholders. Many of these farms no longer viable and alternative incomes have been sought - often these businesses have been built around providing services to visitors to Goat Island.

Inferred: Amend Section 2.2 to:(1) Acknowledge all stakeholders including landowners, commercial operators, DOC, University of Auckland and Iwi; and(2) Acknowledge history of land acquisition for reserve as detailed in submission.


Accept in partThe paragraph beginning "the complexity of land tenure.." has been amended to also refer to the University of Auckland.

The purpose of the description in Part 2 of the CMS is to provide enough context so the outcome and policies for that place can be clearly understood. A description of the history of land acquisition of the Leigh Recreation Reserve is not considered necessary to aid the understanding of the outcome and policies in Section 2.2. However, the description (first para, pg 45), policies 2.2.2 and 2.2.7 (pg 46) have been amended to address the submitter’s concerns that some stakeholders have been omitted and adjacent landowners are no longer acknowledged as stakeholders.

94/1

In the description Goat Island Marine Reserve has been incorrectly misrepresented. The number factor or visitors to Goat Island are well over stated, this has been proven by manual car counting and visitors monitored by local businesses. There has been a decline because of the economic down turn. It is predicted that there are 200 - 250,000 visitors per year and that there is only six weeks in the year that is congested.

Inferred: Amend Description to correctly represent visitation.


RejectThe figure of 375,000 visitors per year is based on the most recent data collected by the Department in 2010/2011. Anecdotal evidence collected by the Department since this time estimates 350,000 visitors per year. It is the Department's view that 200,000 to 250,000 visitors per year is an underestimate of the current visitor numbers, so the text in the description will remain unchanged.

94/2

Oppose. Maori have already been acknowledged with the placement of a statue which represents their beliefs. The co founders which are also Stake Holders have not been acknowledged.

Inferred: Amend Section 2.1 by deleting proposal to change reserve name.


RejectIt is inferred that the submitter is referring to the renaming of part of the Leigh Recreation Reserve (last para, pg 44). Section 63 of the Ngāti Manuhiri

94/3




The public have had no correspondence as to the claim of 5.4670 ha of land. There is no understanding of what land may have been vested to Maori, but we do know that over the last three years of the Maori claim at Goat Island Marine Reserve that the Stake Holders (neighbouring land owners) which are previous land owners would like to know if any of their land which was purchased to create the marine reserve has been vested by government. (This land is subject to the threat of the Ministry of Works Act)

As the success of the Marine Reserve has been the success of the current stakeholders (excluding Maori) we believe that the current names given to The Goat Island Marine reserve should not change, as this would confuse the already confused name pattern and that the name most commonly known as The Goat Island Marine Reserve.

Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Act 2012 requires that 5.4670 ha of the Leigh Recreation Reserve be renamed the Wakatūwhenua Recreation Reserve. The Department is not proposing to discontinue using the name Goat Island to refer to the marine reserve. This name will be used alongside the official geographic names introduced by the Ngāti Manuhiri Treaty of Waitangi Settlement Act 2012, and the gazetted name of the marine reserve (Cape Rodney-Okakari Point Marine Reserve).

The stakeholders need to be included as these are the people that already provide education in the water, safety, enjoyment and accommodation within a complex environment. The stakeholders have visions for the future success of the marine reserve that will also complement the marine reserve and the other stakeholders.

Amend Policy 2.2.2 to refer to stakeholders.2.2.2 Policy AcceptThe Department acknowledges the importance of working with other stakeholders in regard to education, research, and to effectively manage the marine reserve, walkway and adjacent covenanted land.

Therefore, Policy 2.2.2 has been amended to reflect that the Department will work with other stakeholders.

94/4

(b) - There is no comprehensive statistics that show an ongoing progressive influx of visitors to the area, and that there is only six weeks of the year that there is congestion, congestion has reduced now that traffic NZ have taken advise from landowners (stakeholder) which this could be better improved if the stakeholders where acknowledged before action or work was to of taken place.

(c ) - There is no comprehensive statistics that give an ongoing progressive influx to the area, and that there is only six weeks of the year that there is congestion and it is accepted by visitors to Goat Island Marine as 50%

Amend Policy 2.2.4 by deleting clauses (b) and (c ).2.2.4 Policy Accept in partPolicies 2.2.4 and 2.2.5 need to be read together. Policy 2.2.4 c) sets the maximum number of visitors the Department intends to cater for. The Department acknowledges that at most times of the year visitor numbers would not reach this level. However, at peak times there could be up to 1500 people within the Leigh Reserves Complex (Wakatūwhenua) at once.

Policy 2.2.4 b) has been amended as follows to reflect that congestion and overcrowding with the Leigh Reserves Complex (Wakatūwhenua) only occurs

94/5




of the visitors are frequent visitors at this time of the year. The complaint is traffic congestion driving through Warkworth and Matakana, not Goat Island.

during some periods:

"minimises congestion and overcrowding within the Leigh Reserves Complex (Wakatūwhenua) during the peak summer months."

Policy 2.2.5 makes a commitment to undertake ongoing monitoring of visitor numbers and visitor satisfaction in the Leigh Reserves Complex (Wakatūwhenua). This policy has been amended as follows to better link it to Policy 2.2.4:

"Undertake visitor monitoring to calculate the number of visitors per year and determine the level of visitor satisfaction. If monitoring indicates that visitor satisfaction is decreasing, and it appears to the Department that the measures in policy 2.2.4 are not working, consider management options to address this, including working with Auckland Council and adjacent landowners to more actively manage vehicle movements and parking, and promoting alternative sites for exploring marine ecosystems."

Include stakeholders (adjacent landowners) as their land/ activities affected.

Amend Policy 2.2.7 to refer to other stakeholders.2.2.7 Policy AcceptThe Department acknowledges the importance of adjacent landowners to ensure land adjacent to the Leigh Reserves Complex is managed in accordance with the outcome and policies of this place. Therefore, Policy 2.2.7 (pg 46) has been amended to refer to adjacent landowners.

94/6

It is important that the current commercial operators/ stakeholders are part of these amendments as they are the only persons that perform the actions needed for safety, knowledge and experience of surface water activities within the reserve, and that most complaints are caused from outside operators which do not have the knowledge of the marine reserve or do not know how to work in with local providers of surface water activities.

Amend Policy 2.2.8 to work with current commercial operators/ stakeholders and seek bylaws.

2.2.8 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.2.8 (pg 46) already includes the words "and others", which encompasses commercial operators, stakeholders etc. The Policy has been amended to better reflect where public safety needs to be addressed and conflicts between marine reserve users occur.

94/7

It is important that the current commercial operators/ stakeholders are part of these amendments as they are the only persons that perform the actions needed for

Amend Policy 2.2.9 to work with current commercial operators/ stakeholders and seek bylaws.

2.2.9 Policy NotedIn implementing the CMS, the Department will monitor the effectiveness of policies and issues.

94/8




safety, knowledge and experience of surface water activities within the reserve, and that most complaints are caused from outside operators which do not have the knowledge of the marine reserve or do not know how to work in with local providers of surface water activities.

Should an issue such as public safety at the Leigh Reserves Complex (Wakatūwhenua) emerge which requires a bylaw or regulation to manage it, the Department will undertake a public process to develop bylaws or regulations. This public process would include seeking the input of commercial operators and other stakeholders.

This policy needs to be deleted as there is no statistics to confirm that the level of persons are exceeding its current capacity and that it is of the commercial businesses that have seen a decline in visitors, and that if there is a growth trend which could be noticed only after the Milestones- Outputs for 2014 statistics and that there is plenty of adjacent (stakeholders) land that could provide amenities for visitors if so needed.

Delete Policy 2.2.11.2.2.11 Policy RejectThe purpose of Policy 2.2.11 (pg 47) is to provide certainty to potential concessionaires on the criteria used to access concession applications for the Leigh Reserves Complex (Wakatūwhenua). The intention is for potential adverse effects to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Policy will not prevent concessions being approved unless the carrying capacity is being exceeded.

94/9

Submitter: Film AucklandSupport policy as allows the use of aircraft for filming to be considered on own merits when the number of landings are higher than the restrictions that exist for orange and/ or yellow zones. As these events are rare and intermittent the overall impact on the environment and other users will be minor as shown in South Island.

Film Auckland has contributed to and support submission by Film NZ.


Submitter: Eel Enhancement Co LtdThe submitter opposes Policy 3.11.1. Policy is in conflict with the Quota Management System (QMS) which permits commercial Eel fishing . To be consistent DOC would also have to advocate against non commercial fishing.

Delete Policy 3.11.1.3.11.1 Policy RejectThe policy states that commercial eeling "should" not be authorised. It does not state that it "will" not be authorised. These two terms have different meanings under the Conservation General Policy. Using the term "should" in the policy provides some discretion as to whether eeling is authorised or not, it is not as absolute as the term "will". This is consistent with the position that it is considered that commercial eel fishing is generally not compatible with achieving preservation of the species.

96/1

The submitter opposes Policy 3.11.2 in part. Policy should seek to enhance, not protect the eel populations.

Amend Policy 3.11.2 by deleting the word "protect" and replace it with the word "enhance"

3.11.2 Policy RejectThe term "protect" is considered consistent with the wording of the Conservation Act.

96/2




Submitter: Michael LeeNo reasons provided. Amend Section 1.6 to include policies to increase the

number of fully-protected marine reserves within the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park.

1.6 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park





97/1

No reasons provided. Amend Section to include specific commitment to increase fully-protected marine reserves within the Auckland conservancy.


Accept in partSection 2.1 of the CMS relates to existing reserves. The objectives in Section 1.5.1 and in particular 97/2




Objective 1.5.1.5 relates to new marine reserves or marine protected areas.

Lack of commitment to specific action to remove rats from Rakitu island.

Insert new policy in Section 2.6 to make a commitment to remove rats from Rakitu island.


AcceptThe following new policy clause and milestone have been added to address the submitter's concern about the lack of commitment to eradicating rats from Rakitu Island:

Policy 2.6.2c:

"eradicating rats from Rakitu Island."

Milestone completed by the end of Year 3 after CMS approval (2017):


97/3

Lack of commitment to enhance the unique biodiversity and natural heritage of Kawau Island including the Governor Grey legacy.

Inferred: Amend Section 2.8 to include commitment to enhancing biodiversity and heritage.


Accept in partInsert a new policy to read: "Remove exotic trees within the Kawau Island Historic Reserve to enhance public safety and ecological values where this is consistent with the restoration of the historic and cultural landscape".

While the 'Outcome' and 'Milestones' both refer to the removal of some trees neither section provides guidance as to the extent or circumstances of removal. As such it is considered appropriate to insert an additional policy to clarify this.

97/4

Submitter: North Western Community AssociationSupport proposed boardwalk subject to consultation with the community, community groups and adjacent landowners. Boardwalk will:(1) Enhance appreciation of reserve.(2) Allow community to experience different aspects of environment/ ecosystem from variety of vantage points.(3) Have educational benefits.(4) Allow community to circumnavigate lagoon area through connection of isolated reserves, streets, parks and other spaces.(5) Have potential to connect to State Highway 16 cycleway.

Inferred: Retain Section 2.1 with respect to Motu Manawa - Pollen Island Marine Reserve.


NotedMotu Manawa-Pollen Island part of Section 2.1 retained.98/1




(6) Allow coastal and marine access to residents and visitors but keep public movements out of riparian areas.

The boardwalk and access points would need to be sensitively located and designed so as to preserve the privacy, security and amenity of adjacent residents. It would also need to preserve channels for kayak and paddle board navigation. Would also need to consider reducing visual and environmental impact.

Submission includes diagram of suggested design and suggestions as to alignment, pitch/ dimensions.

Understand that dogs will not be permitted due to marine reserve status.

North Western Community Association look forward to further involvement in development of boardwalk.Support proposed boardwalk subject to consultation with the community, community groups and adjacent landowners. Boardwalk will:(1) Enhance appreciation of reserve.(2) Allow community to experience different aspects of environment/ ecosystem from variety of vantage points.(3) Have educational benefits.(4) Allow community to circumnavigate lagoon area through connection of isolated reserves, streets, parks and other spaces.(5) Have potential to connect to State Highway 16 cycleway.(6) Allow coastal and marine access to residents and visitors but keep public movements out of riparian areas.

The boardwalk and access points would nee to be sensitively located and designed so as to preserve the privacy, security and amenity of adjacent residents. It would also need to preserve channels for kayak and paddle board navigation. Would also need to consider reducing visual and environmental impact.

Inferred: Retain Outcome statements (Section 2.1) with respect to Motu Manawa - Pollen Island Marine Reserve.


AcceptThe Motu Manawa-Pollen Island part of Section 2.1 has been retained.98/2

Submitter: Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust




Te Uri o Hau have been consulted during the preparation of the draft CMS and supports a lot of the CMS. The Trust reminds DOC of its obligations under Section 4 of the Conservation Act to give effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Trust requests that CMS links to Treaty Settlements, MOU, management plans and strategies developed by Trust (these are addressed in separate submissions). These identify resource management issues of significance to tangata whenua and the manner in which they are addressed impact on role as kaitiaki and collective wellbeing.

Refer to individual submission points.General AcceptRefer to responses to other submission points made by the submitter.

99/1

Would like to see Iwi and hapu planning documents such as Te Uri o Hau Kaitiakitanga o te Taiao added to this section.

Amend section to refer to Iwi and hapu planning documents such as Te Uri o Hau Kaitiakitanga o te Taiao.


Accept in partConservation management strategies are part of a wider planning framework. This section already acknowledges that planning for natural and historic resources can not be undertaken in isolation from iwi planning processes. The CMS goes onto state that planning must occur in an integrated manner to ensure that good conservation and environmental outcomes at the regional scale. The wording of the section is meant to be broad and not refer to specific planning documents.

It is not considered necessary to amend this section.

99/2

Would like to see vision and objectives aligning with Te Uri o Hau objectives and values. Support comments on tangata whenua involvement, IKHMG and the Kaipara Harbour.

Amend Section 1.2 (Vision) to refer to Te Uri o Hau Vision and objectives as expressed in "Te Uri o Hau Kaitiakitanga o te Taiao", specifically:(1) Values (Section 8);(2) Short term objectives (Section 9); and(3) Long term objectives (Section 10).


NotedThe "Te Uri o Hau Kaitiakitanga o te Taiao" plan has been taken into account in preparing the CMS and the values and short and long term objectives have been reflected elsewhere in the CMS and most specifically in Section 1.5 and the places within Te Uri o Hau's rohe.

It is not however appropriate to amend the 'Vision' to refer to objectives as expressed in " Te Uri o Hau Kaitiakitanga o te Taiao" as the intent is for the Vision to be aspirational and describe an end state to aim for. Whereas the objectives within Te Uri o Hau's plan are more about courses of actions and guiding principles to be used in making decisions or concern specific Places. The 'Vision' also encompasses an area with many iwi, so it is not

99/3




appropriate to refer to just one iwi in this part of the CMS.

Support acknowledgement of Te Uri o Hau Treaty Settlement (2002).

Inferred: Retain Section 1.4.1.4 Treaty of Waitangi responsibilities

NotedSection 1.4 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS except where it has been updated to reflect Treaty settlement obligations.99/4

Support objectives and milestones with tangata whenua involvement.

Inferred: Retain objectives and policies in Section 1.5 with tangata whenua involvement.


AcceptSupport noted.

99/5Support. Acknowledge comments around the IKHMG and the Kaipara Harbour as a taonga of cultural significance for Te Uri o Hau and the wider Ngati Whatua. Support the outcomes, policies and milestones and tangata whenua involvement.

Inferred: Retain Section 2.7.2.7 Kaipara Harbour Place

NotedThe policies and outcomes in Section 2.7 remain substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS.

99/6

Would like to see Te Arai included as a place and for DOC to include as a business opportunity the work around the Te Arai subdivision.

Amend CMS to:(1) Include Te Arai as a Place; (2) Include as a business opportunity the work around the Te Arai subdivision;(3) Include Te Arai in the maps.


Accept in partThe Department agrees that Te Arai dunelands area meets the criteria for selection as a Place because of: its importance as a habitat for the nationally critical NZ fairy tern; conflicts between biodiversity outcomes, use of adjacent private land and public conservation land; and integrated management required for biodiversity, recreation and advocacy outcomes. Section 2.7 has been amended to include Te Arai and Pakiri in this place.

99/7

Generally support policies around vehicles, animals, authorisations, prospecting, mining, 7 explorations, marine mammal viewing, sand and shingle extraction, commercial eeling and collection of material. Te Uri o Hau would like to have involvement in all these areas.

Note that there is sand extraction at Taporapora.

Inferred: Amend Part Three to include policies and milestones that support tangata whenua involvement.


Accept in partThe CMS should be read as a whole. This means that the objectives in Section 1.4 provide direction for all decision making processes involving iwi around matters such as vehicle use, animals, authorisations and other activities. Section 1.4 also includes milestones.

99/8

Support DOC's monitoring, reporting and review process but would like DOC to acknowledge Te Uri o Hau monitoring, reporting and review processes.

Inferred: Amend Part Four to acknowledge Te Uri o Hau monitoring, reporting and review processes (Part 2, "Te Uri o Hau Kaitiakitanga o te Taiao").

Part Four - Implementation, monitoring, reporting and review

RejectThe purpose of Part Four is to identify how the Department will implement and report on the implementation of the CMS. It is generic in nature and it would not be appropriate to amend it to refer specifically to one iwi.

99/9

Generally support information supplied in the appendices and maps except for exclusion of Te Arai

Retain maps.General Accept in partIn response to a separate submission point made by 99/10




(refer separate submission point). Te Uri O Hau (and other submitters) Te Arai has been included in the Kaipara Place and that Place renamed.

Submitter: John CharterisConcerned with a perceive move away from secularism by increasing emphasis on aspects of maoritanga such as the concept of 'tikanga' spiritualism and 'mauri' in the governance of the DOC estate.

Amend CMS to provide for management of DOC estate to be undertaken as a secular activity with scientific principles only used for all outcomes.

General RejectPublic conservation lands are valued not only by Maori but also others for non-secular reasons. The Conservation Act and other relevant acts e.g. Reserves Act requires the Department to give effect to a wide range of values/ principles, not only scientific ones in all aspects of management including the CMS.

100/1

Submitter: Mountain Bike New Zealand Inc (MTBNZ)Support trial. Research and experience on other tracks (most notable Queen Charlotte) has shown that physical impacts and social conflicts can be managed.


Support proposal. Would urge DOC to ensure proper planning, good route choices, good design and professional construction standards to avoid the risk of hastily built, low quality trails. Takes more resources to repair, rebuild or reroute trail that has been rushed.


Query the use of the phrase "‘thrill seeking’ styles of mountain biking". We consider that this is phrase is not useful as (1) it is unclear how the phrase would be interpreted and applied and (2) it is unnecessarily pejorative.

Amend Policy 3.3.9 to read: "Should seek to avoid conflicts between mountain bikers and other users, and/or impacts on natural, cultural or heritage values".

3.3.9 Policy Accept in partThe intention of Policy 3.3.9 is to signal that DOC will only allow 'thrill seeker' mountain biking (as defined in the Glossary) in limited circumstances where it will not result in conflicts with other users and/or impacts on listed values. Deletion of reference to 'thrill seeker styles' of mountain biking as requested by the submitter would effectively implement a higher level of control on ALL mountain biking.

101/3

Support proposal. Research and experience on other tracks (most notable Queen Charlotte) has shown that physical impacts and social conflicts can be managed.

Retain Policy 2.8.2.2.8.2 Policy Accept in partPolicy 2.8.4 remains substantially the same as that notified in the draft CMS

101/4

Support trial.

Mountain Biking NZ (MTBNZ) does not anticipate major issues to be caused by allowing mountain bikers to share the roads with pedestrians and vehicles. Is of the view that it would be more appropriate to impose

Retain mountain bike trial.2.11 MTB proposal - General

AcceptThe mountain biking proposal is addressed in a supplementary report.101/5




restrictions on the use of vehicular traffic rather than on mountain bikers. Allowing mountain biking will advance the objectives of the strategy to increase recreational use and enjoyment of the islands while maintaining their values. Following the trial period, urge DOC to enable independent (i.e. without a guide) access to the tracks on Motutapu Island.

Submitter: Thomas LandPara 6, p. 61 - Strongly support the intention to incorporate all areas of public conservation land under a single classification. Support reclassification as Conservation Park not National Reserve. "Conservation Park" summarises everything that Great Barrier should be about: Conservation, the protection and restoration of natural and historic heritage. And, Park, a place for use and enjoyment. Reserve implies withholding, or locking up (exclusivity). Park brings a feeling of inclusivity.

Reclassification/ renaming provides an opportunity in terms of recognising and promoting conservation land (including rebranding) on Great Barrier, and the conservation and visitor value of Great Barrier Island as a whole.

Reword Para 6, p. 61 to read: "It is intended to incorporate all areas of public conservation land under a single classification, as conservation park in order to promote the integrated management of the natural, historic, cultural and recreational values of the island".



102/1

No outcome for reclassification. This outcome is significant and should be added.

Insert new outcome to read: "Public conservation lands will be re-classified as Conservation Park to adequately recognise their natural and historic values and facilitate promotion of the island as a destination where these values can be enjoyed".


RejectThe purpose of an outcome statement is to describe a future desired state at a place as it will be experienced by visitors in at least 10 years time. It is most unlikely that the status of the land in itself will form part of the visitor experience, although the level of protection a changed status may give may assist in achieving some of the stated outcomes. Given this it is inappropriate to amend the outcome as requested.


102/2

An investigation is a preliminary stepping stone towards implementing a change of classification. An investigation is not a policy in itself. The policy should be to reclassify the land. National Reserve should be removed, for reasons previously discussed.

Amend Policy 2.6.12 to read: "Reclassify conservation lands on Aotea under the Conservation Act 1987, seeking conservation park status to better reflect their significant conservation values".

2.6.12 Policy RejectAn investigation is still required to determine which classification is more appropriate. Further consultation on which classification would be more appropriate will be undertaken at the time the

102/3




proposal is advanced.An output of completing the reclassification needs to be added. The draft output of investigation, with no output related to any actual action towards reclassification, is entirely inadequate. A five year timeframe (2019) should be adequate for completing the process, with investigation and consultation completed within three years (2017).

It is understood that the Ngati Rehua/ Ngati Wai Treaty of Waitangi settlement and the Auckland Council land swap would probably need to be completed before the statutory process of reclassification could be commenced. However, the investigation and pre-statutory consultation could be commenced at any time.

Amend Outputs as follows:(1) Insert 5 year output to read: "Reclassification of public conservation land on Aotea as a conservation park has been completed";(2) Change reclassification output (Year 5) to become a Year 3 output to read: "Completed by the end of Year 3 after CMS approval (2017)Investigation and consultation to re-classify public conservation land on Aotea as a conservation park has been completed".


AcceptIn order to address the submitter's concerns about the lack of a milestone about the completion of the reclassification process on Great Barrier, the Year 5 milestone to complete the investigation to reclassify public conservation land on Great Barrier has been moved to Year 3 (with minor wording changes), and the following new milestone has been added in Year 5:


102/4

Submitter: Jeremy WattsI have regularly flown at North Head and Fort Takapuna since they have been available for use by this sport. Do not support restrictions on us of these areas. Paragliding is a self regulated body with high qualification standards, with the Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club responsible for membership use of the Auckland Area Flying Sites. This has ensured a long time track record of responsible use of these places. The experience and rating requirement for pilots at these sites is set at a level that ensures a high level of safety for all present.

Considers that paragliding at these historic sites is the most low impact recreational use of the area. There are relatively few days that weather allows the activity. Visitors to the park are often interested in activity. Not aware of any issues with safety of passengers, on-lookers or beach users at sites. Consider that paragliding has become part of the culture in the area providing a point of interest. Not aware of any negative interactions with other visitors.


I have regularly flown at North Head and Fort Takapuna since they have been available for use by this sport. Do not support restrictions on us of these areas.

Amend Policy 2.14.8 to read: "Allow the use of non-motorised aircraft, subject to this activity avoiding any adverse effects on the safety and enjoyment of other





Paragliding is a self regulated body with high qualification standards, with the Auckland Hang Gliding and Paragliding Club responsible for membership use of the Auckland Area Flying Sites. This has ensured a long time track record of responsible use of these places. The experience and rating requirement for pilots at these sites is set at a level that ensures a high level of safety for all present.

Considers that paragliding at these historic sites is the most low impact recreational use of the area. There are relatively few days that weather allows the activity. Visitors to the park are often interested in activity. Not aware of any issues with safety of passengers, on-lookers or beach users at sites. Consider that paragliding has become part of the culture in the area providing a point of interest. Not aware of any negative interactions with other visitors.

visitors".

Submitter: Ananda Krishnan SrinivasanOppose policy. Paragliding is a self regulated body with high qualification standard with a Club responsible for managing sites. Paragliding at these historic sites is the most low impact recreational use of the area. There are relatively few days that weather allows the activity. Other users of area interested by paragliding and not negatively affected.


Oppose policy. Paragliding is a self regulated body with high qualification standard with a Club responsible for managing sites. Paragliding at these historic sites is the most low impact recreational use of the area. There are relatively few days that weather allows the activity. Other users of area interested by paragliding and not negatively affected.



Submitter: Auckland Mountain Bike ClubConditionally support proposals for expanded access for mountain bikes. Note that access should be planned and sited in appropriate areas in order to provide a more complete recreational experience for a wide range of riders (i.e. beginner to advanced) over a range of tail

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.Part Three - Mountain bikes (non-motorised)

NotedThe matters raised by the submitter are noted.

105/1




distance and durations (i.e. from hourly rides to multi day). As proposed CMS generally only allows for piece-meal short rides located in dispirit areas.

Note that lack of bike access onto Gulf Islands an insult given about 1/3 NZ population (along with 3 DOC huts) within a couple of house drive/ ferry.

CMS is over-legislating away the ride experience: the preference for concession-only riding, the fear of "rough nature" and "steep grade" terrain, the never ending adverse effects, the potential for walker conflicts, the feed of seeds on bikes but not on trampers' tents, packs and boots. A policy can be designed to fail where all the controls erode the experience.Bike access on the Harataonga Walkway is essential to opening both high quality short casual rides and multi-day rides.


Inferred: Support for mountain biking trial.

CMS is over-legislating away the ride experience: the preference for concession-only riding, the fear of "rough nature" and "steep grade" terrain, the never ending adverse effects, the potential for walker conflicts, the fear of seeds on bikes but not on trampers' tents, packs and boots. A policy can be designed to fail where all the controls erode the experience. Rental bikes and only on farm roads and only 4km on Rangitoto is not an exciting start to a magnificent island ride experience.

Inferred: Adopt mountain biking trial without controls.2.11 MTB proposal - General


Inferred: Support.

Support expansion of mountain biking into new areas. Area extensively logged and mined and these commodities were pulled out on foot, horse and by tram. These overgrown trails are still in place. CMS needs some imagination, research, planning and basic new facilities to create short to long, beginner to advanced ride experiences by reopening these trails and opening them to local villages. Bike clubs and networks can provide knowledge to assist with this.





Submitter: Simon YatesConditionally support proposals for expanded access for mountain bikes. Note that access should be planned and sited in appropriate areas in order to provide a more complete recreational experience for a wide range of riders (i.e. beginner to advanced) over a range of tail distance and durations (i.e. from hourly rides to multi day). As proposed CMS generally only allows for piece-meal short rides located in dispirit areas.

Note that lack of bike access onto Gulf Islands an insult given about 1/3 NZ population (along with 3 DOC huts) within a couple of house drive/ ferry.

CMS is over-legislating away the ride experience: the preference for concession-only riding, the fear of "rough nature" and "steep grade" terrain, the never ending adverse effects, the potential for walker conflicts, the feed of seeds on bikes but not on trampers' tents, packs and boots. A policy can be designed to fail where all the controls erode the experience.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.Part Three - Mountain bikes (non-motorised)

NotedThe matters raised by the submitter are noted.

106/1

Bike access on the Harataonga Walkway is essential to opening both high quality short casual rides and multi-day rides.


Inferred: Support for mountain biking trial.

CMS is over-legislating away the ride experience: the preference for concession-only riding, the fear of "rough nature" and "steep grade" terrain, the never ending adverse effects, the potential for walker conflicts, the fear of seeds on bikes but not on trampers' tents, packs and boots. A policy can be designed to fail where all the controls erode the experience. Rental bikes and only on farm roads and only 4km on Rangitoto is not an exciting start to a magnificent island ride experience.

Inferred: Adopt mountain biking trial without controls.2.11 MTB proposal - General


Support expansion of mountain biking into new areas. Area extensively logged and mined and these commodities were pulled out on foot, horse and by tram. These overgrown trails are still in place. CMS needs some imagination, research, planning and basic new facilities to create short to long, beginner to





advanced ride experiences by reopening these trails and opening them to local villages. Bike clubs and networks can provide knowledge to assist with this.

Submitter: Walking Access CommissionThe NZ Walking Access Commission is an entity established by the Walking Access Act 2008. It has statutory responsibility for leading and supporting the negotiation, establishment and maintenances of walking and other access. The CMS needs to support and endorse these roles and include statements encouraging cop-operation between the Commission, DOC and other groups. This approach is essential in achieving DOC's recreation strategy - encouraging more people to participate in outdoor recreation. And the co-ordinated approach in the Destination Management Framework. Some CMS (e.g. draft Canterbury) include some examples of provisions.

Commission has prepared two documents - "Guidelines on the Management of Unformed Legal Roads" and "Outdoor Access Code" which may be useful in reviewing draft CMS.

Amend CMS:(1) To recognise the statutory role of NZ Walking Access Commission in leading and supporting the negotiation, establishment, maintenance and improvement of walking access, including walkways over public and private land;(2) By inserting a specific section on access in its recreation statements which set out the policies for public access on and to conservation and, where appropriate, adjoining private land; (3) Include provisions that encourage cooperation between DOC, the Commission, conservation boards, local authorities and landowners in securing, retaining and protecting enduring access to public conservation lands; and(4) include the following statements in the CMS:

"Recognise the role of the NZ Walking Access Commission in facilitating public recreational access on land of all tenures and support and engage with the Commission where this will lead to improved or enduring access to public conservation land.

Support the retention of existing legal public access, such as unformed legal roads, gazetted walkways, easements, esplanade reserves, marginal strips and access strips where they provide current or potential recreational access to public conservation lands.

Collaborate and cooperate with NZWAC, local authorities and landowners in seeking improvements to public access over land of all tenures, by way of easements or other instruments, where it does or may in future provide recreational access to public conservation lands.

Endorse and actively promote the responsibilities of the public in accessing public conservation lands, including the provisions of the Outdoor Access Code."

General Accept in part(1) Add the following objective to Section 1.5.3: "Work with Auckland Council, Walking Access Commission, Te Araroa Trust, landowners and others to progressively enhance linkages between public conservation lands and other public open space"; and(2) Add the following explanatory text to Section 1.5.4: "The Department works with a wide range of other statutory agencies to achieve common objectives and mutually agreed priorities. Examples are: Walking Access Commission on facilitating public access across land:...".

The Walking Access Commission has a statutory role in leading, supporting the negotiation, establishment, maintenance and improvement of walking access, including walkways over public and private land. The Commissions objectives are therefore likely to be complimentary to DOC's in many circumstances so a co-operative approach of working together is desirable.

107/1




Generally informative and inspirational content. Lack of information as to what actions will be taken to reach/ achieve objectives, outcomes & milestones. Thus will be difficult to hold the Conservancy to account.

Inferred: Amend CMS to identify actions to be taken by Conservancy to achieve objectives, outcomes & milestones.

Part One - general NotedThe purpose of the CMS is to provide strategic direction to the Conservancy. Detailed actions will be included in work programmes consistent with this direction.

107/2

Impressive albeit ambitious. Inferred: Retain Section 1.2.1.2 Vision for Auckland - 2060


Last para, p. 23. Add Historic Places Trust and Iwi. Amend last para, Section 1.5.2 to refer to Historic Places Trust and Iwi.


AcceptAmend last paragraph, Section 1.5.2 to read: "The Department will work cooperatively with iwi and the New Zealand Historic Places Trust to protect...".

It is appropriate to recognise the NZ Historic Places Trust in this context given their statutory role.

107/4

Refer to Historic Places Trust. Amend Objective 1.5.2.5 to refer to Historic Places Trust.1.5.2.5 Objective Accept in partNoting that a new objective has been added to Section 1.5.2 in response to a submission by the NZ Historic Places Trust (44/7) that reads: "Work with the New Zealand Historic Places Trust, community heritage interest groups and others to protect historic and cultural heritage sites, and others to utilise expertise to provide an integrated and enhanced visitor experience."

The changes reflect the NZ Historic Places Trust significant role in this area.

107/5

Support identification of Motutapu as a gateway destination. This will require improvements by passenger ferry services which are currently stifling potential use of the island.

Inferred: Amend CMS to improve ferry services to Motutapu.


Accept in partInsert a new objective into Section 1.5.3 to read: "Work with ferry and other transport operators, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and funding agencies to enhance transport services to the Gulf Islands".

It is acknowledged that current ferry services to some islands is serving to restrict public access to some. Not only does this limit individuals choices as to where to go but it also means that the Department is less able to influence visitor loadings (and impacts) throughout islands in the Gulf. The issue has in part been recognised in Section 1.5.3 (page 24) but it is

107/6




considered appropriate to elaborate on it within the text and to insert an additional objective.

Not accurate to state that policies "describe the course of action" by which Outcomes will be achieved.

Amend Part Two by deleting the words "describe the course of action" in relation to policies on p. 36.


RejectThe submitter's views on the wording of the introduction to Part Two - Places is noted. However, this is the nationally consistent wording used in all CMSs, so the wording will be retained as it is.

107/7

The Outcomes for recreation are impressive but there is a lack of content in the policies to back this up. E.g. The reference in the Outcomes "to extend the track network to better connect recreation opportunities located in different parts of the island" is not referred to in any way within the policy section.

Inferred: Include new policies to show how Outcomes are to be achieved.


RejectThe submitter's support of the outcome is noted. The outcome and policies need to be read together. A policy is only needed in addition to the outcome to enable or constrain an outcome. In this case, it is the Department's view that additional policies are not needed.

107/8

There is a mismatch between the outcomes and the policies/ milestones. In the outcomes recreation is strong e.g. "people are attracted to the Kaipara area for its distinctive landscapes, abundant wildlife and rich cultural history. Visitors enjoy a range of recreation activities in a predominately rural and coastal setting. The Department works cooperatively with other land managers to provide a range of well-managed recreation opportunities that complement those available on public conservation land and protect natural, cultural and historic values" and yet in the policies/ milestones, no references is given to how this outcome will be achieved or measured.

Inferred: Include new policies/ milestones to show how outcomes are to be achieved.


AcceptAdd a milestones under year 3, 5 and 10 to read: "More than 95% of people visiting public conservation land in Kaipara Harbour Place are satisfied with their visit".

Policies are included where it is necessary to specifically constrain or enable an activity in order to achieve the Outcomes for that Place or where the Outcomes of that Place do not provide sufficient direction. As the Objectives in Section 1.5 are considered to provide appropriate direction in term of managing recreational activities within the Kaipara Place, it is not considered necessary to provide additional direction in terms of recreation through the inclusion of policies. As the submitter notes, the Outcome seeks for appropriate recreation opportunities to be provided and it would be appropriate to include milestone to assist the Department in monitoring how progress towards achieving this outcome will be achieved or monitored.

107/9

Outcomes are well supported by policies and milestones. Retain Section 2.10 with respect to policies and milestones.2.10 Tiritiri Matangi Island Place

NotedThe policies and milestones in Section 2.10 remain substantially the same as those notified in the draft CMS.107/1




No reason for request. Amend Section 2.11 by moving information on future recreational intentions in Description on p. 86 to policies section.


RejectPolicies are included in Section 2.11 which address these matters - most notably Policies 2.11.2, 2.11.3, 2.11.5, 2.11.6, 2.11.11, 2.11.12, 2.11.22 and 2.11.23. This direction is also reflected in the Outcome for Place.

107/1

The Outcome (p. 91) includes the statement: "the range of recreational and educational . . . Gateway destination" and elsewhere "Year-round ferry access will be encouraged . . . In conjunction with commercial ferry operator". This is supported as current ferry service to Home Bay is inadequate and compromises visitor access and enjoyment of island's facilities and walking opportunities. Issue needs coverage in policy section.

Insert new policy in Section 2.11 something along the lines of "encourage the operation of a 7-day a week (excluding Christmas Day) scheduled ferry service" as per Tiritiri Matangi Section.


AcceptThis issue of access applies to a number of Gulf Islands and changes have been made to Section 1.5.3 to descriptive text and the addition of a new objective which reads:

"Work with ferry and other transport operators, Auckland Council, Auckland Transport and other agencies to enhance transport services to the Gulf Islands."

107/1

Submitter: Ngati Whatua Orakei Whai Maia LimitedNgati Whatua Orakei (NWO) strongly support Objectives 1.4.1. to 1.4.9 but wish to reinforce desire for partnership with DOC with regards to areas of shared interest irrespective of the finalisation of Treaty settlements.

Particularly supports DOC's intention to strengthen relationships with tangata whenua by:- Creating formal agreements- Actively ensuring that consultation is early, on-going, informed and effective.

NWO is particularly eager to see an improvement in consultation processes (whole ambit ranging from plans/ strategies, applications, species translocations etc). Currently struggle to deal with volume of requests and to provide informed and constructive comments- early involvement vital as is sufficient time to respond. Iwi need to be resourced to respond to requests and are keen to see more detail on this. The process by which DOC and NWO engaged on the proposed Rangitoto-Motutapu visitor experience is a good example of consultation.

Early contact and effective working relationships with

Inferred: Amend CMS:(1) Meet with relevant Iwi to establish a formal process by which Iwi are resourced to engage in departmental processes and amend CMS accordingly; and(2) To adopt suggestion of an 'outline reserve management plan' for Motu Manawa Marine Reserve as a non-statutory reference document

1.4 Treaty of Waitangi - objectives - general

RejectThe CMS is a strategic document which recognises that the Department must work in partnership with iwi. How these partnerships are implemented or resourced is an operational issue and outside the scope of the CMS.

It is considered that the direction provided in the 'Marine Reserves Place' (Section 2.1) is sufficient in terms of Motu Manawa-Pollen Island Marine Reserve and that a management plan is not required.

108/1




Iwi can provide greater certainty on scope with respect to Maori values and better more robust outcomes.

NWO would appreciate opportunity to work with DOC in riparian and native bush enhancement on conservation land.

NWO would like to remind DOC of Iwi Management Plan completed late 2012 (included with submission). Provides clear guidance on issues of importance to NWO. Specific issue would like DOC support on relates to Motu Manawa Marine Reserve being affected by motorway upgrade. Suggestion of an 'outline reserve management plan' as a non-statutory reference document.

Submitter: Auckland Botanical SocietyAuckland Botanical Society have found CMS of great relevance. Especially value the complete list and location maps of Scenic Reserves and Conservation Areas.

Have some concern that restructuring and staff cuts at DOC will threaten the ability of the Conservancy to do its job effectively. Some of these issues appear to be apparent in the scope of the document. CMS is very limited in the key areas (places) identified and we wonder if this represents the very limited resources available. The old CMS has a comprehensive list of all significant natural areas in the conservancy on and off the DOC estate.

Amend CMS by expanding scope to include more Hauraki Gulf Islands (scope for pest eradications and species conservation and ecological restoration) and mainland sites.

General Accept in partThe CMS is designed to be read as a whole. Objectives in Part One apply to all public conservation land in Auckland and provide management direction in terms of issues such as pest eradication, species conservation and ecological restoration. Discrete areas have been included in Places where issues require addressing that require more direction than provided in Part One. Most of the Places in Part Two are already within the Hauraki Gulf recognising that this is where management challenges are the greatest and reflecting the fact that 90% of the land managed by the conservancy within the Hauraki Gulf. The Department is satisfied that the current approach provides sufficient direction in terms of mainland sites. Issues such as resourcing and implementation are operational issues and are outside the scope of the CMS.

109/1

Agree with statement "a nationally representative range of marine ecosystems and habitats is protected on the west coast of Auckland Conservancy. . . ". There is heavy, indiscriminate harvesting of marine invertebrates at places like Muriwai, Piha and Anawhata, seemingly without any legal protection under the Fisheries Act.

inferred: Retain Section 1.2.1.2 Vision for Auckland - 2060





Last para p. 27 - Suggest that it is DOC's role to initiate and lead conservation programmes with community assistance. Groups such as the Auckland Botanical Society are keen to help, but not to initiate and lead.

Inferred: Amend last para p. 27 to recognise that it is DOC's role to lead and initiate programmes.


RejectDOC’s message to New Zealand is that conservation is a national community responsibility, and that while DOC has an important role it simply cannot lead and initiate all the needed conservation work even if it’s funding was significantly increased. It is also desirable in terms of community ‘ownership’ of conservation that there be many community-led initiatives.

109/3

Hunuas are a place of considerable interest - Auckland's best beech forests, kauri and kokako. DOC should consider improving access to the larger southern native bush reserves - e.g. Mangatawhiri Conservation Area, Mataitai Scenic Reserve and Vining Scenic Reserve.

Improve access at Warkworth/ Dome Valley/ Omaha area. Hochstetler's frog there.

Amend Part Three by:(1) Inserting a new section for Hunua Ranges containing outcomes, policies and milestones; andInferred: (2) Inserting new section for the Warkworth/ Dome Valley/ Omaha area:


Accept in partThe Department acknowledges that the Hunua Ranges are a place of considerable interest and notes the submitter's request for the Hunua Ranges and the Warkworth/Dome Valley/Omaha area to be included as places in the CMS. These areas do not meet the definition of a Place as they do not require any management direction in addition to the Objectives in Part 1. However, a further objective to guide the management of the Hunua Ranges has been added to Section 1.5.1

Objective 1.5.1.1 provides for direction for conserving the forests in the Hunua Ranges, and Objective 1.5.1.2 for the species within these forests. This objective also provides for the protection of the Hochstetter's frog. Objective 1.5.3.4 provides for improved access to the Hunua Ranges and Warkworth/Dome Valley/Omaha area.

109/4

Effort on Kawau Island should be expanded. It is not only a historic reserve but has enormous potential for ecological restoration.

The decision sought by the submission is unclear.2.8 Kawau Island Place

NotedNo changes to the CMS were sought by the submitter.

109/5Appendix contains quite a broad ecosystem classification which will miss out some of the key ecosystem and habitat types (e.g. taraire-kohekohe broadleaved forests, back dune scrublands, Kahikatea/ swamp maire/cabbage tree swamp forests). The source and purpose of it and potential limitations particularly identifying ecosystem types on private land should be made clear.

Inferred: Amend Appendix 2 by:(1) Revise habitat classification to be more inclusive of key ecosystem and habitat types; and(2) Note the source, purpose and limitations of identifying ecosystem types on private land.


Accept in part(1) The ecosystem/habitat types listed in the table in Appendix 2 have been taken from the National Heritage Management System (NHMS). The list in the table is a general description of the important ecosystem/habitat types found in Auckland Conservancy. The table does not reflect all ecosystem/habitat types in the Auckland Conservancy.

The appendix will be amended so that a note below

109/6




the title explains the source of habitat and ecosystems types.

(2) The submitters concerns regarding identification of ecosystem types on private land are noted. However, the list in the appendix does not differentiate between ecosystems located on public conservation land or private land.

This is a short list and misses some key species e.g. taraire, puriri (both currently dying in northern coastal forests) and kereru Key role in seed dispersal and forest regeneration as well s having public advocacy potential)..

Amend Appendix 7 to include taraire, puriri and kereru.Appendix 7 - Icon species

Accept in partThe heading of Appendix 7 has been amended to "Nationally iconic species in Auckland".




109/7

Submitter: Devonport Scout GroupDevonport Scout Group pleased to see the suggestions for mountain biking on Rangitoto and Motutapu.

Should extent areas to include Motutapu Bay to Rangitoto Wharf and Islington Bay. This would provide more options for the length of journeys and give visitors another activity (i.e. cycle from Rangitoto Wharf to the beach at McKenzie Bay). Could also link to other activities - kayaking, swimming, walking.

Amend MTB proposal:(1) Extend to include Motutapu Bay to Rangitoto Wharf and Islington Bay



Support provision of two campsites to allow circumnavigation of Rangitoto by kayak. In addition to camp at McKenzie Bay, a second should be at Gardiners Gap/ Islington Bay rather than at Boulder Bay. Would be easier to service being near main roads.

Inferred: Amend Policy 2.11.12 to provide for campsites at McKenzie Bay and Gardiners Gap/ Islington Bay.

2.11.12 Policy Accept in partThe submitter's view that two campgrounds should be provided, at McKenzie Bay and Gardiners Gap/Islington Bay is noted. During the life of this CMS, the Department only intends to develop one small-scale campsite at either McKenzie Bay or Boulder as identified in the descriptive text and Outcome. It is acknowledged that Policy 2.11.12

110/2




may not reflect this as it refers to "McKenzie Bay or another suitable location". The location will be determined following investigations which will involve a level of consultation with key stakeholders. In order to clarify this intention with respect to sites, changes are recommended to the descriptive text, outcome and policy so that they are aligned and do not create false expectations as to alternative locations.

It would be great if tidal swimming pool at Rangitoto Wharf were restored. It only (particularly) fills at a very high tide.

Insert new policy to restore the tidal swimming pool at Rangitoto Wharf.


NotedThe submitter's view on the Rangitoto tidal pool is noted. The outcome for Rangitoto refers to the visitor zone between the Rangitoto Wharf and summit being managed as an Icon Destination, meaning visitor facilities provide a quality experience that meets visitor expectations (see description in Section 1.5.3, pg 24). This outcome provides direction for the tidal pool, as it is within the visitor zone. Policies are only need in addition to the outcome to constrain or enable the outcome.

110/3

Submitter: Peter Jenkins & Peter WoodersonMany recent tramps undertaken by submitters in past 2 months included visiting traces of old mining or logging sites. Sites are of interest to people with interest in history. While some are blot on landscape, most are not.

Submitters not opposed to renewed mining/ extraction activity in some areas provided it is MANAGED RESPONSIBLY with appropriate controls. Note that Broken Hill mine near Tairua seems to have negligible impact from a noise, ecological and visual perspective. If it can provide jobs and wealth for NZ with the best protection then it should be allowed. Revenue could assist DOC budget.

Inferred: Amend Part Three so that selective new uses of DOC sites are not automatically refused provided appropriate protection/ controls are in place and monitored.


Accept in partPart Three of the CMS does not automatically exclude any activity although it does provide some direction as to the relative likelihood of an activity being granted approval (see use of "will", "may", "should") and sets out criteria for decision making based on consideration of the impacts of an activity.

111/1


Summary of Submissions by Submitter - Acukland CMS · 2018-05-25 · 81 Kawau Island Advisory...

Documents

Transcript of Summary of Submissions by Submitter - Acukland CMS · 2018-05-25 · 81 Kawau Island Advisory...