Agenda of Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 March 2016

Approval of New Marine Protected Areas Act Council Submission

File No.: CP2016/02150

Purpose

1. This report seeks the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee’s approval of an Auckland Council submission to the Government on their consultation document ‘A New Marine Protected Areas Act’.

Executive Summary

2. On 12 January 2016 the Ministry for the Environment released ‘A New Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Act: Consultation Document’ for submissions by 11 March 2016.

3. The Government proposes a new approach to marine protection. The new Act would replace the Marine Reserves Act 1971, and would apply to New Zealand’s territorial sea.

4. The main points proposed for the Auckland Council submission on this consultation document are:

A. Support for refining the purpose of the legislative framework to ‘enhance, protect and restore marine biodiversity’. There are different ways this can be achieved. Alternatives include:

(i) The Government’s choice to extend the scope from Marine Reserves to Marine Protected Areas by proposing three additional MPA categories (one of which is a fisheries management purpose) through the proposed new Act; or

(ii) To carry out a more focused review of existing legislation (e.g. Marine Reserves Act) such that an integrated and compatible framework is achieved;

Option (i) creates jurisdictional overlap, complexity and increased coordination costs (see also B). Therefore staff recommend option (ii) as a more appropriate approach.

B. Concerns that extending the scope from Marine Reserves to Marine Protected Areas creates the potential for jurisdictional overlap, duplication of efforts and increased coordination costs by:

· using and packaging a selected number of legislative provisions from a much wider range of available tools that can contribute to marine protection;

· addressing purposes that are not central to marine protection outcomes (i.e., fisheries management as it relates to enhancing recreational fishing activities).

Staff recommend dealing with fishing restrictions (which include ‘recreational fishing parks’) under the Fisheries Act 1996, and not under MPA legislation.

The proposed framework does not provide a systematic approach for the identification of areas and/or species for protection. Further, the proposed MPA categories do not provide protection in themselves, as they use (a limited selection of) existing legislative tools that can contribute to marine protection.

Staff therefore recommend a more focused review of existing legislation (see also section A) and evaluation of how a broader range of tools within existing frameworks could be applied and further integrated to derive marine biodiversity outcomes.

C. Recommendation to consider further application of existing tools to achieve sustainable recreational fisheries rather than introducing a new tool ‘recreational fishing parks’ (see also sections A & B).

D. The need to follow proper consultation processes and assessments of costs and benefits for specific proposals to establish two recreational fishing parks (one in the Hauraki Gulf).

E. Recommendation to extend the application of the new Act to include the wider Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

F. Support for improved processes for collaboration and more rigour in the assessment of the costs and benefits of proposals, while noting concerns about effectiveness and efficiency of collaborative and board of inquiry processes and the lack of specified content requirements for terms of reference and assessment criteria.

G. Recommendation not to transition existing tools into the new framework, as this will add complexity and creates overlap and confusion between different legislative frameworks and their appropriate application (see also sections A & B).

H. Acknowledging the importance of enforcement and monitoring of areas set aside for marine biodiversity protection, but recommend the need to:

· explore synergies amongst different agencies that could possibly reduce costs;

· include specific criteria to guide the outcomes of the review.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) approve the attached submission, including any amendments sought by the committee, in response to the Ministry for the Environment’s ‘A New Marine Protected Areas Act: Consultation Document’.

b) delegate authority to the Chair of the committee to approve any final amendments to the submission resulting from changes agreed at the meeting.

Comments

The proposed New Marine Protected Areas Act:

5. On 12 January 2016 the Ministry for the Environment released ‘A New Marine Protected Areas (MPA) Act: Consultation Document’ for submissions by 11 March 2016. The consultation document proposes ‘a new approach to marine protection aiming to achieve an appropriate balance between protecting the marine environment and maximizing commercial, recreational and cultural opportunities’.

6. The proposed MPA Act aims to address a range of issues with the existing Marine Reserves Act 1971 and is intended to replace that Act. It would broaden the scope from Marine Reserves, the only form of marine protection currently considered by the Marine Reserves Act, to Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) to provide for ‘the creation of a representative and adaptable network of MPAs to enhance, protect and restore marine biodiversity’. It would apply within New Zealand’s territorial sea (from land to 12 nautical miles offshore).

7. The new Act proposes four MPA categories: marine reserves, species-specific sanctuaries, seabed reserves and recreational fishing parks (see Attachment A). The main purpose of the first three categories is to protect and preserve aspects of biodiversity, while recreational fishing parks aim to enhance the enjoyment and value of recreational fishing.

8. Future MPAs are proposed to be established through a collaborative and/or board of inquiry process with final Ministerial approval. Decision-making processes require consideration of environmental benefits and impacts on existing and future uses and values including recreational, cultural or economic benefits and losses.

9. The Government also proposes to establish two Recreational Fishing Parks under the new Act, one in the Hauraki Gulf (see Attachment B).

Importance for Auckland Council

10. Auckland Council has a statutory obligation^{^[1]} to sustainably manage the natural and physical resources within its region, including the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) that covers an area of approximately 11,000 km2. This responsibility is shared with other agencies^{^[2]}, because the Council’s legislative mandate does not cover all activities within the CMA (for example, it excludes marine reserves and fisheries management). The marine environment is of particular importance to the identity of Auckland.

11. The proposed MPA Act would apply within New Zealand’s territorial sea, including Auckland Council’s CMA. It may therefore affect Auckland Council’s decision-making processes related to the sustainable management of the natural and physical resources within the Auckland region.

Key points covered in the proposed Auckland Council Submission

A. Intentions of the proposed new MPA Act

12. Staff acknowledge that the existing Marine Reserves Act 1971 has several limitations, and therefore supports refining the legislative framework to ‘enhance, protect and restore marine biodiversity’.

13. There are different ways this can be achieved:

(i) Government chooses the option of extending the scope from Marine Reserves to Marine Protected Areas by proposing three additional MPA categories (as currently proposed); or

(ii) To carry out a more focused review of existing legislations (e.g. Marine Reserves Act), such that an integrated and compatible link between frameworks is achieved.

Option (i) creates jurisdictional overlap, complexity and increased coordination costs (see also B). Therefore staff recommend option (ii).

14. If Government adopts option (i), staff recommend:

· Ensuring that the approach for the identification of MPAs is applied systematically (e.g. by considering guidelines laid out in the MPA classification, protection standard and implementation guidelines);

· Considering and evaluating the full range of existing tools that can contribute to marine protection, and considering impacts of inclusion of these tools under the new framework (see section B below). This would further increase the potential jurisdictional overlap between agencies, complexity and coordination costs.

B. The extended scope from Marine Reserves to Marine Protected Areas

15. One of the objectives of the proposed new MPA Act is to create a network of MPAs (with different levels of protection). The consultation document does not outline a systematic approach for the identification of Marine Reserves or any of the other proposed MPA categories, and therefore does not address this identified limitation of the existing Marine Reserves Act.

16. The proposed extended framework in the consultation document creates the potential for jurisdictional overlap between agencies, duplication of effort and increased coordination costs. Complexity, confusion and overlap are introduced through:

a) using and packaging a selected number of legislative provisions from a much wider range of available tools that can contribute to marine protection, thus affecting the interaction and synergies between various tools;

b) addressing purposes that are not central to marine protection outcomes (ie, fisheries management as it relates to enhancing recreational fishing activities).

17. To avoid complexity, confusion and overlap, staff recommend a more focused review of existing legislation (see also A) and evaluation of how a broader range of tools within existing frameworks could be applied and integrated to derive marine biodiversity outcomes as intended by the proposed new Act^{^[3]}.

C. Consider further application of existing tools to manage the interactions with commercial fisheries rather than introducing a new tool ‘recreational fishing parks’

18. Inclusion of this MPA category increases complexity and overlap between different legislation (see also sections A and B).

19. Staff consider the purpose of these parks ‘to enhance the enjoyment and value of recreational fishing’ a core fisheries management responsibility.

20. Legislative frameworks / tools already exist to manage the interactions with (commercial) fisheries that may both benefit biodiversity outcomes and recreational fisheries. Available tools under the Fisheries Act 1996 include, for example, allocative decisions around the quantity of a species that may be taken between fishing interests, area-based restrictions, method and gear restrictions, seasonal closures, and bag limits and size restrictions.

21. The establishment of ‘recreational fishing parks’ may have unintended impacts such as displacement effects and a shift towards fishing methods that may have greater impacts on the marine environment. These issues are already considered when fisheries management decisions are made.

22. To avoid complexity and overlap with already existing legislation and considering the potential for unintended impacts, staff recommend exploring further application of existing tools to achieve sustainable recreational fisheries rather than introducing a new tool ‘recreational fishing parks’.

D. The need to follow proper consultation processes and provide an assessment of costs and benefits for specific proposals to establish two recreational fishing parks (one in the Hauraki Gulf; see appendix B).

23. Staff do not support proposals to establish two specific recreational fishing parks, circumventing the new processes that the proposed Act sets out to establish.

24. Staff recommend that these proposals follow proper consultation processes, take into account existing initiatives (such as the integrating nature of the Sea Change – Tai Timu Tai Pari project, and the Snapper 1 Strategic Planning Group) and provide an assessment of economic, environmental, social and cultural benefits and losses^{^[4]}.

E. Extend the scope of the new proposed Act to include the wider Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ)

25. The consultation document does not propose to extend the scope of the new Act to the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), for waters beyond the territorial sea – 12 nautical miles from the coast. Including the wider EEZ would avoid the need for the development of ad hoc legislation for marine protection when new information (e.g. science discovery) becomes available.

26. Marine protection measures should acknowledge that species cross the arbitrary boundary between the territorial sea and the EEZ.

27. Staff therefore recommend extending the scope of any refined legislation to include the wider EEZ.

F. Establishment processes

28. Staff support the development of improved processes for effective collaboration and for more rigour in the assessment of the costs and benefits of proposals. The use of terms of reference and criteria for assessing the merits of a particular proposal will be useful, but lack specified content requirements.

29. The consultation document seeks feedback on whether a collaborative process or a board of enquiry process should be followed in reaching a recommendation and/or decision on an application. There are advantages and disadvantages to each approach (e.g, costs, effectiveness, representation, goodwill, acceptance), yet it is conceivable that neither of these approaches might be suitable in some circumstances. For example, where a proposal is advanced that has complete agreement, then perhaps a simpler approach is required.

G. Implementation and transitioning existing measures

30. Transitioning existing Marine Reserves and marine mammal sanctuaries into the new MPA Act (without changing the levels of protection) seems straightforward if warranted, but incorporating other existing tools that provide marine protection can be complex and create overlap and confusion with other legislative frameworks. The consultation document does not, for example, provide clarity on:

· the impact on the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act and its organising framework and principles as a mechanism for integration;

· the possibility of incorporating areas identified in the CMA by councils under the RMA and its NZCPS (e.g. Policy 11 indigenous biodiversity - such as Auckland’s Significant Ecological Areas) that are variously protected by objectives, policies and rules in council’s statutory policies and plans (such as the proposed Auckland Unitary Plan);

· criteria that will be used to incorporate existing area-based restrictions into the new proposed Act.

31. Because of the complexity and the creation of overlap between different legislative tools, staff do not recommend transitioning existing tools into the new proposed MPA Act (see also sections A & B).

32. If Government adopts the framework currently proposed (option (i) in section A), staff recommend providing clear guidance or criteria for the transitioning process.

H. Compliance, monitoring and review

33. Officials acknowledge the importance of adequately enforcing any restrictions established for the purpose of marine protection.

34. Officials also acknowledge the importance of regular monitoring and reporting as very important tools to assess the performance of marine protection measures against their original objectives and inform management decisions.

35. Given the costs related to both compliance and monitoring and reporting activities, staff recommend exploring possibilities to improve synergies between monitoring requirements of different legislation, where this is relevant to potentially overlapping areas of responsibility amongst agencies.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

36. All Local Boards were provided an opportunity to contribute their views on the new proposed MPA Act. A covering memo, including a link to the MPA Consultation Document, was circulated to Local Boards on 25 January 2016. Informal Local Board views received by 9 February are summarised below and formal views received before the Council submission is finalized will be attached to it.

37. Informal responses have been received from Waitemata, Waiheke, Franklin and Great Barrier Local Boards. The views expressed are generally, and sometimes specifically, in alignment with the proposed Auckland Council submission. However, several views also amplify or extend on from the proposed council submission points, and some raise additional matters.

38. Combined précis of Local Boards’ views that amplify or extend proposed submission points:

· Rejection of a recreational fishing park in the Gulf (Waiheke, Great Barrier, Franklin), which should not allow any commercial fishing or any mining of oil and minerals [in any MPA] (Waiheke, Waitemata), and its establishment should specifically provide for iwi consultation (Waitemata).

· Support for the proposed objectives set out in the consultation document (Great Barrier, Waiheke), but environmental outcomes should trump economic ones where there is conflict (Waiheke).

· Recreational fishing parks excluding new Marine Reserves would undermine Local Board and community aspirations, which should be provided for in the Act (Waiheke).

· The proposed MPA categories are too narrow [except for fishing parks which are too broad] (Waiheke) and should be broadened (Waiheke, Great Barrier) to e.g. enable development of multi-use networks (Waiheke), or allow for restrictions on commercial fishing while allowing some local recreational take.

· The consultation document pre-empts or cuts across the Seachange – Tai Timu Tai Pari work and process, whereas it should be inclusive of it (Franklin, Great Barrier, Waiheke).

· Support for a quota and/or species limit for small commercial operators to enable them to continue to operate and not be displaced into other areas, particularly the Manukau Harbour (Franklin).

39. Combined précis of new matters raised by Local Boards:

· The limited time provided for submissions unreasonably restricts opportunities to obtain well considered views from Local Boards and communities (Great Barrier).

· The proposed legislation should not enable continued fishing in the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park unless it meets the objective of enhancing Gulf fisheries (Great Barrier).

Māori impact statement

40. The Government’s MPA Act consultation document was publicly released for submission from any interested party, including Māori interests. Auckland’s iwi and hapu may therefore choose to make their own submissions directly to the Ministry.

41. All iwi/hapu on the kaitiaki contact list provided by Te Waka Angamua were given an opportunity to contribute their views to development of the council’s submission by circulating an email, similar to that for the Local Boards, on 22 January 2016.

42. Ngāti Tamaoho has responded in support of efforts to review and strengthen MPA legislation. They also stated that “as tangata whenua this proposal helps lead into a future where our country is creating a legacy of Tangaroa-marine awareness and protection for generations of New Zealanders to come”. However, they further clarify that, as mana whenua, their general support “does not in any way undermine Ngāti Tamaoho cultural and historical whanaungatanga and rites to our marine and coastal rohe also any future recreational and commercial opportunities that help Ngāti Tamaoho achieve mana motuhake”.

Implementation

43. The consultation document proposes that the new MPA Act would “provide for MPAs in the territorial sea to be recognised in regional coastal plans”. A range of potential methods to implement this is available to the Government that has considerably different implications for councils. For example, a simple legislative requirement to, say, ‘recognise and provide for’ new MPAs might trigger the need to change or vary coastal plans so they incorporate any new MPAs in their maps (and where relevant in their text). The RMA plan change or variation process can involve considerable resource and time even though the outcome would be a pre-determined requirement. Alternatively, the new MPA Act might include regulation-making powers where the Governor-General could Gazette regulations that ‘insert’ any new MPAs directly into coastal plans without the need for a RMA process.

44. Council decision-making under the RMA would also be affected by establishment of new MPAs under the proposed legislation. Decision-making would be required to ‘take MPAs into account’ when considering activities within or adjacent to MPAs, and whether or not a potentially affected species or ecosystem is ‘otherwise protected as part of the representative network of MPAs.

45. In the event that the relevant points in the proposed council submission are adopted by the Government, the council would need to consider resourcing any participation in and contribution to the collaborative and/or board of inquiry process. Similar resourcing requirements apply should the Council wish to participate in any joint management, monitoring and review processes (particularly if MPAs abut Council managed regional parks or encompass ‘state of the environment’ monitoring sites). Council may also wish to initiate, lead or contribute to the identification of areas to be proposed for marine protection.

46. In essence, there will be significant costs associated with planning, management and review processes for Councils where MPAs need to be recognised through RMA processes, along with costs (including monitoring and compliance) associated with particular initiatives where Councils are invited to participate.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Summary of categories under the proposed new Marine Protected Areas Act	17
b View	Proposed location for a Hauraki Gulf Recreational Fishing Park	19
c View	Draft submission on the consultation document of a proposed new Marine Protected Areas Act	21

Signatories

Authors

Sietse Bouma - Principal Specialist Environmental Strategy

Dave Allen – Principal Coastal Specialist

Dominic McCarthy – Principal Specialist Environmental Strategy

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Jim Quinn - Chief of Strategy

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 March 2016

Update on the implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach

File No.: CP2016/00558

Purpose

1. To update the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee on progress against structure, the operational model and outcomes to date of the Empowered Communities approach.

Executive Summary

2. The Community Empowerment unit has been operational since 1 October 2015.

3. At the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee (RSP) meeting on 4 June 2015, the committee requested a report back on progress against outcomes and the implementation of the Empowered Communities Structure and model at the February and June 2016 committee meetings.

4. Good progress has been made in terms of implementing the staffing structure and operation of the model is underway, with a focus on changing the practice of the Community Empowerment unit and widening it across the Arts, Community and Events (ACE) department.

5. Early indication to the committee at the 4 June 2015 meeting, anticipated the Community Empowerment Unit would be established from 1 July 2015, with a new operating model in place from 1 January 2016. The disestablishment of the previous Community Development and Safety Unit has taken longer than anticipated, with the Community Empowerment Unit launched on 1 October 2015. It will take until the end of June 2016 to transition the new unit fully and see a complete change in approach to the work undertaken.

6. To date the key focus of the Community Empowerment Unit has been:

· ensuring continuity of services and delivery of the 2015/16 agreed local board work programmes

· delivering on Community Development and Safety Committee (CDS) and various panel commitments

· recruiting of new staff

· developing new systems and process for the operating model

· leading and participating in the Organisational Strategy initiatives

· developing an empowered communities evaluation framework and plan.

7. Cost savings associated with the Community Empowerment Unit implementation is $1.6 million in FY15/16. This will increase to $2 million per annum from FY16/17 onwards for the remainder of the 2015-2025 Long Term Plan.

8. The Empowered Communities Approach in the Community Empowerment Unit will be fully operational in FY 2016/17, with a further phased roll out of the approach across the whole of council over the next five years.

Recommendation/s

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) receive the update on the implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach report.

Comments

Background

9. On 4 June 2015, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee resolved to:

a) endorse the implementation of the ECA which will result in a new operating model for the Community Development and Safety unit

b) request that progress against outcomes, implementation of the structure and operation of the model be reviewed and reported back to the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in February and July 2016

c) endorse that additional funding to deliver locally driven initiatives be considered as part of the 2016/2017 Annual Plan. (Resolution number: REG/2015/41).

10. The Empowered Communities Approach provides clear strategic direction for a whole of council shift to working in ways that are more empowering of communities. The approach:

· provides a framework to enable council to deliver services in a more effective and empowering way

· supports community-led development and builds on the Thriving Communities’ Action Plan Ngā Hāpori Momohi (April 2014)

· involves a shift away from direct service delivery to supporting community-led initiatives, with a view to embedding a new way of working across the council family

· encourages flexibility to meet the varying requirements of communities and local boards, rather than taking a ‘one size fits all’ approach.

Transition

11. The Community Empowerment Unit was established to lead and operationalise the Empowered Communities Approach. The unit became operational on 1 October 2015.

12. As reported at the June 2015 Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

“A transition period will be necessary with the model implemented from July to December 2015. It is expected that the new model will be fully embedded by FY 2016/17 with learnings from the first 6-12 months shaping the full implementation”.

13. A significant recruitment, induction and training programme has occurred since 1 October 2015. Most staff are now in position and embracing the new way of working.

14. The unit has been operational and in its transition phase for four months. During this time, the focus has been on:

· ensuring continuity of services and delivery of the 2015/16 agreed local board work programmes

· delivering on Community Development and Safety committee (CDS) and various panel commitments

· recruiting of new staff

· developing new systems and process for the operating model

· leading and participating in the Organisational Strategy initiatives

· developing an empowered communities evaluation framework and plan.

Staffing

15. To date the unit is 92 per cent fully staffed, with six of 76 positions still vacant. All local boards have strategic brokers assigned to their board. Many of these staff commenced in their roles from December onwards and have been through an intensive induction and training process.

16. The Community Practice Hub of specialist advisors, youth connection advisors and community contracts advisors have ensured the commitments in delivering on all local board work programmes, regional committee and panel commitments.

Ensuring continuity of service delivery

17. Specialist advisors have been responsible for delivering on existing 2015/16 work programmes. As strategic brokers are embedded in roles they are driving the delivery of local board work programmes supported by specialist advisors.

18. There are already good examples from local board areas of where taking an Empowered Communities Approach is changing both the work of council and the interaction with communities. The following are tangible examples of how the Empowered Communities Approach is being used to support and deliver on current local board commitments as the unit transitions into a new way of working:

a) Te Auaunga Awa: Walmsley and Underwood Reserves Project (Puketāpapa Local Board)

· This project began as a need to upgrade stormwater systems in a local park. By using an Empowered Communities Approach, staff looked for opportunities to be innovative in what could be achieved. They established a relationship with a local school who created a nursery to grow native seedlings that will be planted at the local park once stormwater works are completed.

· Unitec agreed to provide training to 16 young people and the successful tender agreed to offer apprenticeships to these young people. Unitec designed their course so the young people will finish their training at the time the works begin, enabling them to move seamlessly from education into apprenticeship. This is an example of how the Empowered Communities Approach can leverage and create opportunities that are significantly broader than the original scope of the works planned.

b) Avondale Christmas Market (Whau Local Board)

· In December 2015, Community Empowerment Unit staff worked closely with Community Waitakere and Avondale Community Action to hold a successful community Christmas market. This followed consultation with local people about ways to activate the space around the Avondale Community centre.

· Community Empowerment Unit staff supported Avondale Community Action with:

o developing a full site plan and gaining a permit from the Events unit

o inviting existing New Lynn night market stall holders to sell food and hold stalls, streamlining the licensing and compliance process

o creating a zero waste plan and connecting the market with Eco Matters to ensure a zero waste event, eliminating the need for approval from council’s Waste Management unit

o connecting the market to the Creative Souls Project which is a youth mentoring programme in Avondale for young people who want to get involved in music. Creative Souls performed at the Christmas market.

· Staff used this event as an opportunity to work to overcome barriers that community organisations experience when attempting to hold such events, such as the requirements for site plans, health and safety plans, waste plans and licensing and compliance.

c) Des Punjab Sports and Culture Club (Otara-Papatoetoe Local Board)

· In November 2015, staff worked closely with the Des Punjab Sports and Culture Club in Papatoetoe following a request for support.

· The club wanted to organise and deliver a sports event for its Punjabi community with an intergenerational focus.

· Staff ran three capacity building sessions with the organising committee. These covered project planning, project delivery, funding options, how to apply for funding, accountability and reporting and identifying and accessing appropriate venues.

· The club applied (for the first time) for Creative Communities funding with success. Staff mentored the Club, providing advice on each step of the booking process required by council.

· The club delivered a highly successful two day Punjabi Intergenerational Sports Event, creating stronger ties between old and young and an alignment with the local board’s priority of supporting seniors. Over 200 people attended over the two days, and over 50 people participated in structured games and sports.

· The club acknowledged this success was a significant confidence building step in accessing council resources and noted that it is well placed to continue this process independently from here.

· Since then, other Punjabi groups, inspired by this success, have taken the initiative to start planning other similar indoor and outdoor activities. The first of these, a traditional indoor games day for Punjabi women will take place on 31 January 2016, at the Alan Brewster Recreation Centre.

d) Wellsford Library building (Rodney Local Board)

· Staff organised an independently facilitated workshop for the Wellsford community in December 2015 on how they would like to see the old library building used. This session was attended by forty people who were given the opportunity to discuss the various options for its future use and decide on a process for how it should be governed and managed.

· Participants were keen for the building to be made widely available for a variety of purposes and groups to use. They also wanted to see broad community involvement in the ongoing governance of the building, and suggested that a community steering group be formed that represents a range of community interests to oversee its development. Staff will assist the community with the formation of the steering group.

· The local community was very appreciative of the local board retaining the building for community use and going back to the community for further conversations and input.

19. The examples detailed above demonstrate how the Empowered Communities Approach can achieve the outcomes of the model such as:

· increasing the level of control and influence communities and local people have over things they care about

· ensuring a diverse range of people have more opportunities to be involved in meaningful engagement and participation in public and community life

· enabling more community-led design and delivery of local initiatives

· increasing capacity and capability of voluntary and community groups

· ensuring council and communities are working together in ways that are joined up and which maximise each other’s potential to contribute to improved community outcomes.

Regional Work Programme

20. Regional work programme commitments continue to be delivered by the Community Empowerment Unit. Some examples are:

Homelessness

21. Staff have completed funding agreements with Community Housing Aotearoa (CHA) to recruit an emergency housing coordinator and Salvation Army (Waitakere) to develop an outreach service in West Auckland. Staff have also established a steering group to enhance public amenities (24 hour showers, lockers and toilets) through the Aotea Quarter Framework.

Disability

22. Staff continue to provide advisory support to the Disability Advisory Panel and promote Empowered Communities Approach opportunities and support within the disability sector. The Community Empowerment Unit is assisting with the review of the Auckland Transport Disability Policy and development of the Auckland Transport Disability Action Plan.

23. Staff will lead the implementation of the new Auckland Council Disability Operational Action Plan.

24. Key activities planned are; the co-hosting of a forum on access to the environment and transport planned for February 2016 and working to make the upcoming local elections more accessible.

Safety

25. Staff continue to support community initiatives that improve community safety and wellbeing. This has included working with agencies and organisations, council departments and community volunteers (including capacity building) to increase the public’s awareness of what can be done to prevent vehicle crime, burglary, graffiti vandalism, violence, alcohol and drug harm.

Youth

26. Staff have worked with the Youth Advisory Panel, youth voice groups and local boards to develop a new way of working for local youth voice groups. The focus has been on developing youth led operating models which will enable young people to influence decision making, take action and create change in their local area. All current youth voice groups are being transitioned into the new way of operating by 30 June 2016. This new way of operating will be more aligned to the Empowered Communities Approach.

Empowered communities operating model

27. The empowered communities model involves a shift from delivering community development activities, to using community-led development processes. Developing an operational practice model to support the key functions of the unit and will be fully embedded in all work programmes in FY 2016/17.

28. The shift in key operational practices requires:

· a sharp focus on community-led activity to provide opportunities where:

o more people participate/have a say

o staff work to build capacity of community groups to lead local activities themselves

o resources previously held by council are devolved to communities

o the rest of council understands and is supported to work in an Empowered Communities way.

· consolidating and focussing council’s place-making functions to achieve positive and meaningful community wellbeing outcomes

· building on existing relationships to ensure we are attuned to supporting Māori and Māori aspirations

· ensuring inclusion and equity for diverse populations across Auckland.

Evaluation framework

29. Community Empowerment Unit is working with the Research, Investigation and Monitoring Unit (RIMU) and external evaluators to develop an evaluation plan and framework for the Empowered Communities Approach. The evaluation will inform changes to the operating model during its formative stages and be used to evaluate progress on achieving the desired outcomes over the first three years.

30. A Request for Proposal for a formative and outcome evaluation (2016-2018) went to tender in November 2015 and the Centre for Social and Health Research Outcomes and Evaluation (SHORE, Massey University) was selected. The contract is expected to be confirmed with SHORE by early February 2016.

31. A cross-council reference group will be convened by RIMU to guide the evaluation work as the implementation of the Empowered Communities Approach model proceeds.

32. An evaluation plan including a monitoring framework will be prepared in collaboration with the reference group by mid-March 2016.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

33. The Empowered Communities Approach builds on the strong community-led planning and development focus of the 2014/2015 Local Board Plans.

34. To strengthen the relationship between the new Community Empowerment Unit and local boards, the strategic brokers are located in local board offices where they will provide strategic advice to support delivery of local board plans.

35. The Community Empowerment Unit is focussed on ensuring delivery of work programmes is not compromised during the initial transition period. Updates on activity within each local board will be reported through the quarterly reporting process to local boards.

36. Staff will support local boards in the development of their 2016/17 work programmes to ensure the 2016/17 plans align with the Empowered Communities Approach. Workshops with local boards begin in March 2016.

37. Local boards approved in principle their support of the empowered communities approach in May/June 2015. At this time a number of concerns were raised including the budget implications of the proposed model and the limited resource to deliver on 2015/16 local board plans. Concerns have recently been raised about gaps in delivery of service provision during the transition process. Staff are working to ensure delivery of current work programmes.

38. Specific local board feedback will be sought for the June 2016 update report.

Māori impact statement

39. The council’s Māori Responsiveness Framework has guided and shapes the Empowered Communities Approach.

40. Staff have identified and will leverage off previous work in Ruapotaka and Makaurau marae to scope the feasibility of piloting marae as community hubs.

41. Te Waka Angumua (TWA) will be involved in the cross-council evaluation reference group.

42. The Community Empowerment Unit will develop more enabling and responsive ways of working with mana whenua, mataawaka, marae and Māori organisations across the region to nurture community-led development initiatives.

43. Recruitment is underway for two specialist roles in the Practice Hub, who will hold a Māori focus within the Community Empowerment Unit emphasising partnering, investment and research, innovation and best practice. It is expected that these roles will work alongside TWA.

Implementation

44. The Empowered Communities Approach will continue to be implemented and evaluated with the model fully operational in FY 2016/17.

45. Staff have developed an Empowered Communities checklist for other parts of the organisation to get an understanding of good practice when applying the Empowered Communities Approach to their business as usual practices.

46. A phased roll out of this tool is currently under development to ensure alignment with strategic organisational priorities and timeframes.

47. Once the transition phase has been completed and the Empowered Communities Approach is fully operational, the Community Empowerment Unit will focus on widening the approach across the Arts, Community and Events department, the Operations Division and then the wider council.

Attachments

There are no attachments for this report.

Signatories

Authors

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Authorisers

Graham Bodman - General Manager Arts, Community and Events

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

Regional Strategy and Policy Committee

03 March 2016

Project Hunua 2015 Post Operation Report

File No.: CP2016/01752

Purpose

1. To provide an overview of the 2015 Hunua Ranges aerial 1080 operational programme, including post-treatment results achieved.

Executive Summary

2. In October 2014 the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee approved a change in pest control methodology for the Hunua Ranges regional parklands, to include the aerial application of sodium-fluoroacetate (1080) commencing in mid-2015.

3. The decision to change pest control methodology was based on the risk that increasing animal pest densities posed to significant species and ecosystems in the parklands. Aerial application of 1080 cereal pellets was recommended as the most effective method to reduce pest densities to targeted levels across the expansive parkland and to protect the significant ecological values within it.

4. The 1080 bait application was carried out across two treatment blocks in August and September 2015 to reduce pest densities to below the agreed performance measure of five per cent tracking or trapping index. Post-operational monitoring results showed a successful reduction in rat densities across the operational area from 91.6 per cent to 1.03 per cent. Significantly, no rats were detected in the monitoring carried out in the high value Kōkako Management Area following the operation or in three subsequent monitors carried out at six-weekly intervals.

5. The specific management focus for the Hunua Ranges regional parklands as set out in the Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 is to ‘protect and enhance this outstanding wildlife habitat with high ecological values, and to cultivate an ethic of stewardship’. The 1080 bait application has directly delivered to the following objectives:

· lowering the threshold for possum control to a maximum of five per cent residual trap catch to reduce possum abundance over the whole park to improve forest health

· continuing integrated pest animal control at selected sites within the ranges, including the Kōkako Management and Hunua Falls Pest Control Project Areas…to allow for complete ecosystem recovery and reintroductions of rare and threatened species

· continuing the integrated pest animal eradication and management programmes in the Hunua Ranges onto neighbouring reserve land and adjoining private property.

6. Outcome monitoring of the species being protected as a result of the operation is continuing but early results are positive including the successful fledging of 13 kōkako chicks from six monitored pairs, compared with no chicks in the 2014/15 breeding season and the on-going presence of Hochstetter’s frogs following the operation.

7. Ongoing pest management is essential if the high-value environment of the Hunua Ranges is to be maintained. Pest management options will continue to be assessed and informed by ongoing monitoring. Council is committed to ensuring its pest control toolbox is based on best practice and is supporting the development of new technologies such as remote sensing and self-resetting traps. However, to maintain the gains from the 2015 pest control programme, further range-wide pest control using 1080 is likely to be required.

8. This pest control operation allowed for significant discussion with environmental groups, users of the parklands, adjoining residents, and partnership level discussions with mana whenua and the Franklin Local Board on how to protect, restore and enhance the ecological values of the Hunua Ranges. These relationships have tangible outcomes wider than the use of 1080 in the park and they will be fundamental to the successful future management of the parklands. For example as a result of the operation a number of neighbours indicated a strong willingness to manage pest on their properties and council will work with them to build on this enthusiasm to create stronger pest animal buffer zones for the park. Significantly, our partnership with mana whenua is creating a greater understanding of kaitiakitanga and the kaitiaki cadetship programme with the Department of Conservation and Auckland Council is one way this will continue to be fostered.

9. These relationships will be especially important as the reduction in pest densities also raises the possibility of reintroducing indigenous species that would have historically been present within the parkland (such as North Island brown kiwi) or which would benefit from the Hunua Ranges habitat.

Recommendations

That the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee:

a) note the achievement of the 2015 Hunua Ranges regional parklands aerial 1080 operation in reducing pest densities.

Comments

Background

10. The Hunua Ranges is the largest forest in mainland Auckland, characterised by rugged terrain, low population densities, outstanding wildlife habitat and high ecological values.

11. It is home to the only naturally occurring population of kōkako in mainland Auckland. It is also the habitat for a number of rare and endangered fauna and flora including the long-tailed bat, Hochstetter’s frog and kākā. The Hunua Ranges provide habitat to a number of other indigenous species including kererū, bellbird, tomtit, tūī and pīwakawaka (fantail).

12. Ongoing control of animal pest predators is essential to ensure the protection and restoration of these native species and ecosystems. As the parkland manager, council has a responsibility for the delivery of this function and to meet targets relating to animal pest control as described in the Regional Parks Management Plan and Long-term Plan 2015-2025.

13. The Hunua Ranges has a long history of pest control, particularly following the discovery of only one breeding pair of kōkako in the early 1990s. For example, aerial application of 1080 was used in 1994 to reduce pest densities and, subsequent to this, a range of ground based methods for pest control have been applied. More recent methodology has involved the use of brodifacoum in bait stations to target rats in the kōkako management areas along with traps to control stoats. A roaming programme of possum control has been carried out on an annual basis across the Hunua Ranges using cyanide and focussing on areas identified through monitoring as having higher possums densities. Neighbouring landowners such as the Department of Conservation (DOC) have applied 1080 aerially in the adjoining Mangatawhiri and Vinings Reserves in 2001 and 2006.

14. Consistent with a national trend, monitoring in the Hunua Ranges during 2014 showed high and increasing rat and possum populations. This increase in pest numbers posed a significant risk to the unique wildlife, their habitats and high ecological values of the park.

15. The pest control methods being used in the regional parklands were no longer effectively controlling pests to the levels required to ensure the significant ecological values were protected and the problem needed to be effectively addressed.

16. In October 2014, following workshops with local boards and the governing body, the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee considered a report on pest management options to address the problem of such high pest densities in the Hunua Ranges. The committee approved the recommended change in pest methodology for the Hunua Ranges regional parklands (Hunua Ranges, Waharau and Whakatiwai regional parks), to the aerial application of 1080, commencing in mid-2015.

17. As part of this decision, the Regional Strategy and Policy (RSP) Committee also established a Hunua Project Political Advisory Group made up of RSP members, a representative of the Independent Māori Statutory Board (IMSB) and a representative from the Franklin Local Board to ‘work with staff in the planning and implementation phase of the aerial application of 1080 in the Hunua Ranges’. This group met regularly throughout the operational phase of the project.

Operational programme

18. Animal pest control programmes using aerially applied 1080 are complex and require thorough planning and implementation. Comprehensive communication is required particularly in areas where people live, recreate and work to ensure concerns are understood and that operational methodology is developed in a way that takes these into account along with ensuring non-target impacts on the environment are managed.

19. Agencies are required to meet the minimum standards set out in the controls of the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s 2007 Decision on the reassessment of 1080, including any conditions of required permissions.

20. In order to ensure that the Hunua aerial 1080 operation was consistent with these requirements a number of operational workstreams were established these included:

· Mana Whenua Engagement

· Communication and Stakeholder Engagement

· Operational Planning and Implementation

Summary of operation

Permissions and guidelines

21. Permissions for the operation were required and granted by the Medical Officer of Health, Auckland Regional Public Health Service and DOC for the DOC-administered lands. Resource consent for the operational area within the Waikato region, which is subject to the Waikato Regional Plan, was held and exercised by the operational contractor.

22. Aerial application of 1080 in the area of the Hunua Ranges that falls within the Auckland region is a permitted activity under the Auckland Council Regional Plan (Air, Land and Water), Auckland Council District Plan (Franklin, Manukau and Papakura sections) and the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan.

Communication and engagement

23. Communication, stakeholder and mana whenua engagement plans were developed for the operation in accordance with the National Pest Control Agencies ‘Aerial 1080 Pest Control Industry Guidelines’ and the Environmental Risk Management Authority’s ‘Communications Guideline for Aerial 1080 Operations’ and led by Auckland Council in collaboration with DOC for the lands they administer.

24. General communications activity throughout the operation included publishing stories in Our Auckland; issuing media releases at each stage of the operation and working with media on news stories; installing interpretive signs at major arrival points within the parklands; developing comprehensive web-based information and placing advertisements in local newspapers and newsletters.

Mana whenua engagement

25. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Pāoa, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Maru Runanga, Waikato-Tainui and Te Akitai have historical, customary, cultural and spiritual ties to the Hunua Ranges and were identified as having a significant interest in the proposed pest control operation.

26. Given the significance of the Hunua Ranges, a specialised mana whenua engagement plan was developed. The specific purpose of the plan was to ensure engagement was:

· meaningful by engaging in the early stages of operational plan development

· had regard to each other’s consultation and engagement protocols so that mana whenua interests and values are addressed in development of planning and or delivery of services

· ensured that engagement and consultation practices were accessible to mana whenua with concepts explained; timely and accurate answers that make sense to the end user are provided, resulting in the best outcomes for mana whenua

· providing opportunities to be involved in the programme and on-going pest management.

27. As a result of extensive engagement involving written communication, hui, a workshop attended by technical experts and iwi from other areas, marae visits and follow-up discussions, mana whenua confirmed support for the operation and expressed particular interest in being directly involved in aspects of the operational planning and implementation.

28. This partnership approach included working alongside council officers to develop a cultural water monitoring programme, conducting a dawn blessing at the commencement of the operation and over the bait ahead of application, site meetings with decision makers and assisting with the collection of water samples and track clearance.

29. Following the operation, council has partnered with DOC to offer a six-month kaitiaki cadetship programme. The four successful cadets have worked alongside rangers in the southern regional parks to develop a range of skills and experience.

Operational agencies

30. The majority of Auckland’s water supply (about 65 per cent) is sourced from the reservoirs within the Hunua Ranges. Watercare had a significant interest in the operation in its role as manager of the public water supply reservoirs and was represented on the project operational working group.

31. DOC has a shared boundary with the regional parklands. During the initial consultation phase it was determined DOC had plans to carry out pest control in the Mangatawhiri and Vining’s reserves during the 2015/16 business year. Subsequently it was agreed that the adjoining DOC administered lands would be included in the operation which was confirmed by way of formal agreement.

32. The Hunua Ranges regional parklands are owned by Auckland Council but partly fall within the Waikato region. Auckland Council receives an annual contribution from Waikato Regional Council to deliver pest control on private land in accordance with the Auckland Regional Pest Management Strategy requirements. A letter of support for the Hunua pest control operation was provided by Waikato Regional Council and staff assisted during the operation.

Landowners and occupiers

33. Extensive communication was carried out with adjoining landowners and occupiers. This included an introductory letter and questionnaire to obtain property-specific information (confirmation of property boundaries, water takes and locations, and stock, dog or fencing issues) to assist with operational planning. This was followed up with face-to-face meetings where requested, phone calls, regular project updates, the provision of factsheets specific to adjoining properties and maps showing the operational area, and email and SMS text notifications.

34. Information on how to care for dogs during the operation and caution period was provided, along with an offer of muzzles and emetic treatments for dogs. During the operation, 115 muzzles were provided for dogs; staff were available to deliver and fit the muzzles when requested.

35. This landowner engagement also identified those property owners, with contiguous forested areas, that wanted their land treated during the operation.

36. In addition to direct communication with adjoining properties, a number of communications were sent to properties within three kilometres of the operational area.

General stakeholders

37. Information was provided to interested members of the public and a range of identified stakeholder groups including concessionaires, recreational groups, hunting permit holders, outdoor education providers, local conservation groups and non-governmental organisations. Over 1,800 contacts were placed on the project stakeholder database over the course of the operation. Schools, early childcare centres, medical providers, NZ Police and veterinary clinics were included in notifications.

38. Project information was available to the general public through council’s website with pages dedicated to the project. A dedicated Hunua Project email address was also provided for enquiries and for people wishing to opt into the stakeholder database for more detailed project updates.

Consultation outcomes

39. As a result of early discussions with the operational agencies it was agreed that, given this was the first aerial operation in the parklands in over 20 years, the operation would be carried out with a more precautionary approach than is typical for other aerial 1080 operations. This acknowledged the need to provide education and communication around council activities that may raise community interest such as this project and to assure our communities that the safety of residents is at the forefront of our decision making and operational management.

Operation implementation

40. To manage both actual and perceived risk the operational area was split into two treatment blocks based on water catchment features (as per the map in Attachment A). This enabled the isolation of the water supply within each of the treatment blocks during application and until water monitoring had been completed.

41. During the planning phase the operational boundary was adjusted to include DOC administered land and private land where private landowners requested to be included, resulting in an increase in the treatment area from approximately 17,000ha of council-owned parkland to 21,500ha in total.

42. Mitigation strategies for domestic water takes were agreed with landowners. All extraction points were excluded and had setbacks placed around them. Drinking water was supplied to one property on request and one water tank was covered. Monitoring was also carried out for properties that requested it. Potable water was made available at Wharekawa Marae to any members of the community not subject to specific mitigation who wanted an alternate - this offer was not taken up by anyone.

43. Setbacks were increased for some properties where there were issues with livestock fencing and council provided temporary electric fencing to one landowner whose boundary fence was insecure. Another boundary fence was replaced with joint contributions between council and the land owner and a further fence was repaired.

44. The treatment of the two blocks was carried out by qualified pest control contractors in three stages:

· Stage One: Aerial application of non-toxic pre-feed bait over Block One (Mangatawhiri and Wairoa and adjoining out of catchment areas including Mangatawhiri Forest Conservation Area and Vining Scenic Reserve).

· Stage Two: Aerial application of non-toxic pre-feed bait over Block Two (Mangatangi and Cosseys catchments and adjoining out of catchment areas) and aerial application of toxic bait over Block One.

· Stage Three: Aerial application of toxic bait over Block Two.

45. The treatment methods for each of the operational stages are detailed in Table One below.

	Block One: Mangatawhiri and Wairoa and adjoining out of catchment areas including Mangatawhiri Forest Conservation Area and Vining Scenic Reserve	Block Two: Mangatangi and Cossey catchments and adjoining out of catchment areas
Block Size	8,896 ha	12,515 ha
Pre-feed Application
Date of application	30 July 2015	22 August 2015
Type of bait	ACP Wanganui RS 5, 16mm, 6g cereal pellets	ACP Wanganui RS 5, 16mm, 6g cereal pellets
Sowing rate	1.5 kg/ha	1.5 kg/ha

1080 Application
Date of application	21 August 2015*	14 September 2015
Type of bait	ACP Wanganui RS 5, 20mm, 12g cereal pellets, 1080 @ 0.15 per cent	ACP Wanganui RS 5, 20mm, 12g cereal pellets, 1080 @ 0.15 per cent
Sowing rate	2.5 kg/ha	2.5 kg/ha
Lures added	Double strength cinnamon	Double strength cinnamon
Repellents added	None	None

* Some small gaps (less than 15ha) between flight lines were treated on 22 August 2015

Table One: Hunua Project Treatment Details

46. Following the toxic bait application, all roads, tracks, amenity areas and campgrounds were manually cleared of baits by council staff with assistance from mana whenua, DOC, volunteers and Waikato Regional Council. This included approximately 168km of tracks and roads.

47. All areas were required to be checked and cleared of baits from each direction within 24 hours and 72 hours of application. High use areas were checked a third time after 120 hours. In most instances, a minimum of three people were required for short distance walking tracks, with a greater number of people required for longer tracks and roads.

48. A high degree of planning and coordination was put in place to ensure the large number of teams operating within the park at different times in a range of conditions were able to do so safely.

49. A number of aspects of the operational programme were audited by the Auckland Regional Public Health Service including:

· confirmation of consultation, in particular with neighbours

· placement and presence of warning signage

· loading site operations, and

· track clearance.

Results to Date

50. Following completion of bait application, monitoring of post-operational pest densities has been completed. The targets for the operation were a reduction in possum and rat densities to below 5 per cent tracking or trapping index and this has been successfully achieved. Of particular note was the reduction in rat densities across the operational area from 91.6 per cent pre-application to 1.03 per cent post the operation.

51. Significantly, no rats were detected at all in the monitoring carried out in the Kōkako Management Area following the operation or in three subsequent monitors carried out at six-weekly intervals.

52. The final monitoring results for are summarised in Table Two below.

Result Target	Treatment Block	Pre-operation Monitoring Results	Post-operation Result
Possums
Less than 5% Residual Trap Catch (RTC) for treatment area	Block One	October 2014: 11% RTC*.	0.25%
Less than 5% Residual Trap Catch for treatment area	Block Two	October 2014: 11% RTC*.	1.00%
Rats
Less than 5% Tracking Tunnel Index in Kōkako Management Areas (KMA and Piggots)	Traversed both blocks	KMA late July: 34% RTI	0%
Significant reduction in Tracking Tunnel Index across wider treatment area (pre-operational result 91.6%)	Both Blocks	May 2015: 91.6% RTI	1.03%

*Note: These results were considered to be an underestimate of possum densities as monitoring lines were impacted by high levels of rat interference. The highest line recorded was 52.6%

Table Two: Animal Pest Monitoring Results

Species monitoring

53. A number of outcome monitoring programmes will be conducted throughout 2016. These include kōkako fledging success, general forest bird survey, Hochstetter’s frog and long-tailed bat presence/absence and vegetation recovery using fixed photo-points.

54. At the time of writing this report, 13 kōkako chicks have successfully fledged from the six monitored pairs with some of these pairs currently re-nesting. This compares with no chicks from monitored pairs hatching in the 2014/2015 breeding season. A survey of Hochstetter’s frog has been complete and will continue in April 2016. The initial survey has shown the on-going presence of frogs following the 1080 bait application.

Water monitoring

55. An extensive water monitoring programme was completed for the four public drinking reservoirs ahead of them being returned to service. This included monitoring following a high rainfall event in the Mangatawhiri and Wairoa catchments. Over 300 water samples were taken from the public reservoirs, private water takes and cultural monitoring sites.

56. No 1080 was detected in any of the samples collected.

Operational challenges

57. During the operation there was some peaceful protest, some incidents involving people and dogs inside the operational area and one confirmed dog death as a result of 1080 poisoning. Of the small number of incidents that arose during the operational programme the most common were the multiple public incidents ignoring park closure signs and advice about the potentially fatal risks to dogs.

58. On the days of bait application and until the track clearance programme was completed the regional parklands and tracks on Department of Conservation administered land were closed to the public. All gates into the regional parklands were locked and track entrances outside the locked gates were posted with closure signs and blocked with tape. In addition information was posted on council’s website and publicised through our networks and the media. Despite these measures two members of the public were encountered walking and running inside the operational area on the day immediately after bait application. Both were aware that the parklands were closed and had deliberately chosen to ignore the signage and barriers in place. Both visitors were accompanied out of the operational area to ensure their safety.

59. Similar issues with visitors ignoring the park closure were encountered at Hunua Falls which was excluded from the operation but closed to the public to prevent access into the parklands beyond. To enter this area people had to climb over a locked gate displaying the park closure signs and information on the reason for this. Following these incidents additional measures were taken following the application of bait to Block One to increase awareness of park closures by placing ‘park closed’ tape over directional destination signs and physically boarding up the bridge to the Hunua Falls walkway.

60. One complaint was received following the death of a dog belonging to a property adjoining the operational area. Toxicology reports confirmed the dog had died as a result of secondary poisoning from 1080. A second dog death was also reported to council but was unable to be confirmed as being as a result of 1080 poisoning.

61. Five dogs were also encountered within the operational area immediately after bait application. In all instances staff were able to safely remove them from the operational area. As detailed above specific measures were put in place to manage the risk to dogs from secondary poisoning and staff were on hand to help, providing muzzles for dogs living in close proximity to the area.

Financials

62. In 2014 DOC identified $17 per/hectare as the average cost of its aerial 1080 operations. This data was used to inform the initial costings for council’s project, as detailed in the October 2014 report the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee seeking approval for this project.

63. Following a competitive procurement process for the Hunua project (supply, transportation and aerial application of 1080 baits) the final contract price for the operation was $541,268 or approximately $25 per hectare which included the treatment of DOC administered land and adjoining private land. This cost was spread across the 2014-15 and 2015-16 financial years.

64. The final contract price reflected increased establishment costs resulting from adjusting the operation to manage the catchment areas more cautiously. This meant having two separate blocks, the use of a trickle bucket to treat the operational boundary and reservoir perimeters. Changes to bait formulation and sowing rates based on monitoring results were also factors.

65. DOC contributed both in-kind and financial support for the treatment of its land and Waikato Regional Council’s annual contribution towards pest control around the Hunua Ranges was directed into the treatment of Waikato-based private land where landowners had sought to be included in the operation.

66. Council’s previous investment targeted at possums, rodents and stoats did not provide control over the whole of the Hunua Ranges parklands but was directed to areas where densities exceeded target measures. This control generally covered only a fraction of the Hunua Ranges regional parklands at a combined cost of $473,000 annually. From this budget possum control was delivered across the park on a rotational basis at a cost of approximately $358,000 (excluding monitoring costs) per annum.

67. Due to the success of the aerial 1080 operation no further possum control is planned for the Hunua regional parklands until winter 2017. The resultant budget efficiencies will be directed into animal pest management at other high priority sites determined through current ecosystem prioritisation work and assisting neighbours to establish and maintain pest control measures which will enhance overall protection.

Future Pest Management

68. The 2015 aerial pest control operation will formally conclude with the end of the caution period, which is being informed by bait and carcass breakdown monitoring. Based on monitoring results to date this is expected to occur in mid-March, at which time all warning signs will be removed and stakeholders advised.

69. Following this operation the current management focus in the Hunua Ranges regional parklands is continuing with outcome monitoring to measure resultant changes in ecological condition and monitoring of animal pests, particularly in the kōkako management areas, to inform any interim control requirements.

70. The benefits resulting from successful pest reduction across the Hunua Ranges regional parklands are expected to last through until 2017 upon which time pest densities are likely to have increased to the level requiring further control.

71. Range-wide pest monitoring will therefore be carried out in 2016/17 to inform the requirements and methods for the 2017/18 Hunua Ranges pest control programme. In the absence of more effective large-scale pest control alternatives, a further aerial operation using 1080 is considered likely to be necessary to maintain the gains made through the 2015 operation and to support species reintroductions.

72. In addition to reviewing current pest control methodologies, investment is being made in the development of new technology and methodologies. This includes the use of camera traps as a tool for multi-species pest monitoring and testing the efficacy of self-resetting traps out in the field. The biosecurity team is also supporting the trial of a radio-based network communications platform as a means of remotely monitoring trap activity. This technology, if effective, also has broader application to monitor transmitters on pests or native species saving significant time in manual field searches.

73. Through the 2015 operation a number of neighbours indicated a strong willingness to manage pests on their adjoining properties and the biosecurity and biodiversity teams within council are working through how this can be supported and expanded into the future.

74. While protecting existing values within the regional parklands, the range wide reduction in pest densities also raises the possibility of reintroducing indigenous species that would have historically been present within the area or would benefit from becoming established at an additional location. The reintroduction of species is conditional on the maintenance of low pest densities within the area. Preliminary discussions have been had with DOC and mana whenua about the possible reintroduction of North Island brown kiwi which will continue to be explored.

75. The effective reduction of pests is an on-going challenge throughout the region, particularly for larger high value ecosystems which have shown similar increases in pest densities to those of the Hunua Ranges.

76. Learnings from the Hunua pest control operation are currently being assessed and their application to other sites being considered. These findings along with a review of existing pest control practices will be reported to an upcoming meeting of the April Regional Strategy and Policy committee.

Consideration

Local Board views and implications

77. Local board members were invited to a workshop held with members of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee in September 2014. The purpose of this workshop was to enable discussion on the challenge, methodology and the alternatives ahead of the Regional Strategy and Policy Committee meeting on 9 October 2014.

78. At the October Regional Strategy and Policy committee meeting the Franklin Local Board confirmed general support for the proposed change and noted that the health of the Hunua Ranges over a wide spectrum is incredibly important to not only the local board but the local and wider community.

79. A resolution of the 9 October 2014 meeting was the establishment of a political advisory group to work with staff in the planning and implementation phase of the aerial application of 1080 in the Hunua Ranges. A Franklin Local Board member was appointed to the political advisory group.

80. Regular workshops and communication with the local board occurred throughout the project with good support from the board. The Franklin Local Board representative also attended field trips, hui with mana whenua and contributed to local media communications on the project.

Māori impact statement

81. The Hunua Ranges are of historical, customary, cultural and spiritual significance to Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Koheriki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Pāoa, and Ngaati Whanaunga. Two iwi also have kaitiakitanga status; Ngati Maru Ruanga, Ngati Te Ata Waiohua and Tainui – Waikato.

82. The maunga Kohukohunui is the highest peak within the Hunua Ranges, is a tūpuna maunga and an important boundary marker. Kōkako are a highly valued taonga species and mana whenua have been active partners in enabling kōkako recovery in the park including the translocation of birds to increase the population’s genetic diversity. The reduction in pest densities offers protection of existing values and the possibility of species reintroductions in the future.

83. The Regional Parks Management Plan 2010 recognises the relationship of mana whenua in the Hunua Ranges and includes consultation on the planning, protection, development and management of the park and Māori values they contain - Policy: 17.5.4 20 (a).

84. Officers worked with Te Waka Angamua who provided tautoko and support for engagement with iwi. A priority was to ensure appropriate tikanga for relevant iwi and mana whenua is practiced and opportunities to be involved in the project planning and implementation provided.

85. Ngāi Tai ki Tāmaki, Ngāti Tamaoho, Ngāti Pāoa, Ngāti Whanaunga, Ngāti Te Ata, Ngāti Maru Runanga, Waikato-Tainui and Te Akitai were identified as having a significant interest in the proposed pest control operation. An extensive engagement approach was developed through a mana whenua engagement plan as described in the engagement section above.

86. This engagement allowed for effective Māori communication with mana whenua, a contribution to kaitiaki outcomes through the reduction of pest densities, the protection of significant ecological values and wai (water) monitoring and the development of Māori capacity through both direct involvement in the project and the newly established kaitiaki cadetship programme.

87. In addition to direct engagement with mana whenua, an Independent Maori Statutory Board member was elected to the project’s political advisory group.

88. The potential re-use of 1080 in the Hunua Ranges has been discussed with mana whenua. Discussion has focused on the use of best practice to control predators and our commitment to keeping up with new technologies. The re-use of 1080 or the use of toxins generally within the range is something that mana whenua would like to see council operations moving away from. This noted, staff have conveyed that in the short-medium term if pest densities increase to levels that pose a risk to native species and ecosystems and in the absence of other solutions, it is likely to be used again. If this is the case mana whenua engagement in line with the mana whenua engagement plan for this project will be applied.

Implementation

89. There are no additional implementation issues of note.

Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a View	Hunua Project 2015 Flight Zones	57

Signatories

Authors

Mara Bebich - Stakeholder Liasion Manager

Rachel Kelleher, Manager Biodiversity, Environmental Services - Infrastructure & Environmental Services

Authorisers

Mace Ward - General Manager Parks, Sports and Recreation

Barry Potter - Director Infrastructure and Environmental Services

Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer

[1] Resource Management Act 1991, Biosecurity Act 1993, Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, Waitakere Ranges Heritage Areas Act 2008

[2] E.g. Department of Conservation, Ministry for Primary Industries

[3] Some of the key measures used in some legislation are not spatial in nature, yet they are significant in mitigating adverse effects on biodiversity outcomes.

[4] Examples of existing information for the Hauraki Gulf that could be used in the assessment mentioned above are provided in the draft submission.

Chairperson	Cr George Wood, CNZM
Deputy Chairperson	Cr Anae Arthur Anae
Members	Cr Cameron Brewer	Mr Kris MacDonald
	Mayor Len Brown, JP	Cr Calum Penrose
	Cr Dr Cathy Casey	Cr Dick Quax
	Cr Bill Cashmore	Cr Sharon Stewart, QSM
	Cr Ross Clow	Cr Sir John Walker, KNZM, CBE
	Cr Linda Cooper, JP	Cr Wayne Walker
	Cr Chris Darby	Cr John Watson
	Cr Alf Filipaina	Cr Penny Webster
	Cr Hon Christine Fletcher, QSO	Mr Glenn Wilcox
	Deputy Mayor Penny Hulse
	Cr Denise Krum
	Cr Mike Lee

Authors	Louis Dalzell - Democracy Advisor
Authorisers	Dean Kimpton - Chief Operating Officer