Agenda of Hauraki Gulf Forum

I hereby give notice that an ordinary meeting of the Hauraki Gulf Forum will be held on:

Date:

Time:

Meeting Room:

Venue:

Monday, 20 August 2018

1.00pm

Reception Lounge
Auckland Town Hall
301-305 Queen Street
Auckland

Hauraki Gulf Forum

OPEN AGENDA

MEMBERSHIP

Chairperson	Mr John Meeuwsen	Waiheke Local Board (Auckland Council)
Deputy Chairperson
Members	Mr Andrew Baucke	Department of Conservation
	Mr Jeff Cleave	Great Barrier Local Board (Auckland Council)
	Cr Paul Cronin	Matamata-Piako District Council
	Cr Christine Fletcher	Auckland Council
	Mayor Sandra Goudie	Thames-Coromandel District Council
	Mr Steve Halley	Ministry for Primary Industries
	Cr Richard Hills	Auckland Council
	Mr Terrence Hohneck	Tangata Whenua
	Cr Mike Lee	Auckland Council
	Ms Nicola MacDonald	Tangata Whenua
	Mr Paul Majurey	Tangata Whenua
	Cr Rob McGuire	Waikato District Council
	Cr Dal Minogue	Waikato Regional Council
	Ms Liane Ngamane	Tangata Whenua
	Mr Dean Ogilvie	Tangata Whenua
	Ms Marty Rogers	Te Puni Kōkiri
	Ms Moana Tamaariki-Pohe	Tangata Whenua
	Mayor John Tregidga	Hauraki District Council
	Cr Wayne Walker	Auckland Council
	Cr John Watson	Auckland Council

(Quorum 11 members)

Mike Giddey

Governance Advisor

14 August 2018

Contact Telephone: 027 221 7183

Email: mike.giddey@aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Website: www.aucklandcouncil.govt.nz

Terms of Reference

The Hauraki Gulf Forum is established under the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 with the following purpose, functions, powers and membership.

Purpose (Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, s 15)

· Integrate the management and, where appropriate, to promote the conservation and management in a sustainable manner, of the natural, historic and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments, for the benefit and enjoyment of the people and communities of the Gulf and New Zealand

· Facilitate communication, cooperation, and coordination on matters relating to the statutory functions of the constituent parties in relation of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands and catchments and the forum

· Recognise the historic, traditional, cultural and spiritual relationship of tangata whenua with the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and where appropriate, its catchments

Functions (Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, s 17)

· Prepare a list of strategic issues, determine a priority for action on each issue, and regularly review that list

· Facilitate and encourage co-ordinated financial planning, where possible, by the constituent parties

· Obtain, share, and monitor information on the state of the natural and physical resources

· Receive reports on the completion and implementation of deeds of recognition

· Require and receive reports from constituent parties on the development and implementation of policies and strategies to address the issues identified under paragraph (a)

· Receive reports from the tangata whenua of the Hauraki Gulf on the development and implementation of iwi management or development plans

· Prepare and publish, once every 3 years, a report on the state of the environment in the Hauraki Gulf, including information on progress towards integrated management and responses to the issues identified in accordance with paragraph (a)

· Promote and advocate the integrated management and, where appropriate, the sustainable management of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments

· Encourage, share, co-ordinate where appropriate, and disseminate educational and promotional material

· Liaise with, and receive reports from, persons and groups having an interest in the Hauraki Gulf and business and community interests to promote an interest in the purposes of the forum

· Commission research into matters relating to the functions of the forum

When carrying out its functions, the forum must have particular regard to the historic, traditional, cultural, and spiritual relationship of tangata whenua with the natural, historic, and physical resources of the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments

Powers (Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, s 18):

· Consider issues related to its purpose

· Receive reports from constituent parties

· Make recommendations to constituent parties

· Advise any person who requests the forum's advice

Commission or undertake those activities that are necessary to achieve its purpose.

The forum must not:

(a) appear before a court or tribunal other than as a witness if called by a party to proceedings

(b) take part in a decision-making process under any enactment other than to advise when requested to do so.

Joint committee (Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000, s 16)

“(2) The forum consists of the following representatives:

(a) 1 representative appointed by the Minister of Conservation:

(b) 1 representative appointed by the Minister of Fisheries:

(c) 1 representative appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs:

(ca) 7 representatives appointed by the Auckland Council:

(d) 1 representative appointed by each of the following local authorities:

(iv) Hauraki District Council:

(vi) Matamata-Piako District Council:

(ix) Thames-Coromandel District Council:

(x) Waikato District Council:

(xi) Waikato Regional Council:

(e) 6 representatives of the tangata whenua of the Hauraki Gulf and its islands appointed by the Minister, after consultation with the tangata whenua and the Minister of Maori Affairs.

(2A) The representatives appointed in accordance with subsection (2)(ca) must—

(a) be members of —

(i) the Auckland Council; or

(ii) a local board of the Auckland Council elected in accordance with the Local Electoral Act 2001 and

(b) include 1 member of each of the Great Barrier Island and Waiheke Island local board”

Hauraki Gulf Forum

20 August 2018

Strategic Issues

File No.: CP2018/14392

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This report presents strategic issues as required by s.17 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 for the Forum’s consideration.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. A list of strategic issues is fundamental to how the Hauraki Gulf Forum functions; how it plans and prepares for Forum meetings and ultimately, how the Forum has a positive influence on the health and management of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana / Te Moana-nui-a-toi, its islands and catchments.

3. In order to determine its list of strategic issues, Forum Members participated in a workshop on 14 May 2018, and subsequently, a draft set of strategic issues was prepared and circulated to Members in mid-July.

4. The proposed strategic issues are organised into three priority topics and associated strategic issues, as follows:

· To improve integrated management through collaborative planning, informed decision-making and credible action. This area of work will include a focus on engagement with central government, tangata whenua participation and improvements to Forum operations.

· To restore water quality values through addressing land use activities that degrade those values. This topic will see the Forum focusing on sedimentation, costal development and urbanisation and water quality issues, such as nutrients and contaminants.

· To recognise critical marine values and ecosystems through advocating for protection, restoration and enhancement. This area of work will bring a focus on marine protected areas, biodiversity loss and reduction and marine contaminants.

5. Alongside a new set of strategic issues, changes are proposed to the constituent party reporting. It is proposed that consistent party reporting from here on be issue-specific, as determined by the Forum and/or the Chairperson and consistent with the strategic issues identified.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hauraki Gulf Forum:

a) receive the report.

b) adopt the strategic issues.

c) request the Executive Officer, Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson use the strategic issues document to inform the forward work programme and agenda for the Forum.

Horopaki / Context

6. Section 17 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 describes the Functions of the Forum. These include:

(1) To promote sections 7 and 8, the Forum has the following functions in relation to the Hauraki Gulf, its islands, and catchments:

(a) to prepare a list of strategic issues, determine a priority for action on each issue, and regularly review that list:

(e) to require and receive reports from constituent parties on the development and implementation of policies and strategies to address the issues identified under paragraph

(g) to prepare and publish, once every 3 years, a report on the state of the environment in the Hauraki Gulf, including information on progress towards integrated management and responses to the issues identified in accordance with paragraph (a)

7. The current strategic issues framework was adopted by the Forum in 2012 and has been constant since then. In 2012, the strategic issues were identified in response to the state of the environment report, and were identified as:

R	Regenerating areas
E	Enhanced fisheries
M	Mana whenua expression
A	Active land management
K	Knowledge utilisation (ecosystem-based)

8. As required by s.17(1)(a), with the current set of strategic issues there is currently no clearly articulated priority for action on each issue. Furthermore, the interpretation of the strategic issues has been subject to broad interpretation.

9. Some Forum members have expressed concerns regarding the lack of clear action plan (linked to strategic issues) for the Forum’s work programme and have signaled that this be remedied.

10. Since the last set of strategic issues were developed by the Forum, the context has shifted, making a reasonably thorough review of the Forum’s strategic issues necessary.

11. Throughout the preparation of the 2017 State of the Environment Report, it was expected that the resulting report would subsequently inform a Forum discussion on the identification and prioritisation of strategic issues.

12. The fifth triennial state of the gulf report is the third consecutive report showing the health of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park to be in a state of decline, with that decline determined based on 11 environmental indicators (introduced in 2011), used to assess the state of the Gulf.

13. In the Chair and Deputy Chair Foreword, the 2017 State of the Gulf report draws attention to 10 selected key issues affecting the life-supporting capacity of the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana / Te Moana-nui-a-toi, its islands and catchments, as being:

· Water quality: stormwater, sediments, nutrients, heavy metals, microbiological pathogens, micro-plastics and rubbish.

· Fish stocks, fishing activity and aquaculture.

· Marine protected areas in the Gulf.

· Ocean sprawl.

· Biodiversity, habitat restoration and species recovery.

· Tāngata whenua and treaty settlements in the Hauraki Gulf / Tīkapa Moana / Te Moana-nui-a-toi.

· Progress in achieving integrated management in the Gulf: Sea Change – Tai Timu, Tai Pari: the Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan.

· The Crown and the Forum.

· Integrated funding.

· The America’s Cup opportunities.

14. Since the last set of strategic issues were adopted, the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Spatial Plan, Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari has been finalised. Whilst not adopted by the Forum, the Forum was a key initiator and advocate for the development of the plan which has generated substantial community expectations.

15. To determine its list of strategic issues, Forum Members participated in a workshop on 14 May 2018, facilitated by independent facilitator, Helen Richie. Forum members discussed what is meant by strategic issues, and discussed that the strategic issues:

· should directly related to the legislation

· are something where the constituent parties can make a difference

· should not be too many or too complex, and should focus the work of the Forum, and

· can be opportunity or a concern.

16. A report from the Interim Executive Officer prepared for the workshop indicated that the next set of strategic issues could be improved by:

· being clearly defined

· being linked clearly to the Sections 7 and 8 of the Act

· being linked to the State of the Environment Report

· having a clear action schedule against each strategic issue

· being evidence based where practicable

· facilitate discussions towards improving integrated management

· having regular reporting, and

· being more regularly reviewed by the Forum.

17. During the workshop, Forum Members discussed that, to promote the sustainable management and conservation of the Gulf, the Forum must improve collaborative and integrated planning.

18. It was discussed that areas of focus for the Forum should include:

· Improving water quality, and related land management practices, and

· Protecting and valuing marine environments,

And that this work be underpinned by:

· Mātauranga Māori

· Supporting and inspiring communities

· Knowledge and measurement.

19. Members then requested that the Interim Executive Officer work with Technical Officers to develop this further into a set of strategic issues for the Forum’s consideration.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

20. A draft set of strategic issues was prepared and circulated to Members in mid-July.

21. The strategic issues are organised into three priority topics and associated strategic issues, as follows:

· To restore water quality values through addressing land use activities that degrade those values. This topic will see the Forum focus on sedimentation, costal development and urbanisation and water quality issues, such as nutrients and contaminants.

· To recognise critical marine values and ecosystems through advocating for protection, restoration and enhancement. This area of work will focus on marine protected areas, biodiversity loss and reduction and marine contaminants.

22. Feedback has been received from some (but not all) consistent parties and overall has been very positive.

Constituent party reporting

23. The draft strategic issues also include an indication of Forum activities.

24. These activities largely involve requests for information from constituent parties, which should encourage discussion regarding integrated planning and management.

25. Historically, constituent parties have been given the opportunity to provide reports to each Forum meeting. The report template made provision for constituent party updates to be presented against each strategic issue, but this has been used inconsistently, and several constituent parties did not provide reports at all, and/or do not provide reports regularly.

26. With the setting of the new strategic issues, changes are proposed to the constituent party reporting.

27. Consistent party reporting from here forward is proposed to be issue-specific, guided by the activities outlined against each strategic issue.

28. This style of constituent party reporting should foster a spotlight on particular issues and promote better discussion regarding integrated planning and management. It is intended to give validity to the strategic issues and should support the Forum to advance its outcomes.

29. This approach does not preclude constituent parties reporting on other matters. If a constituent party has matters that it wishes to raise to the Forum, then these can be included as separate and specific agenda items, with the Chairperson’s approval.

Further improvement

30. Feedback from the Thames-Coromandel District Council included that it would be helpful to have an end statement (i.e. desired goal or outcome statement) for each of the strategic issues, and that the strategic issues paper should be more succinct.

31. The HGMP Act does not require the Forum to set outcome statements, however, the Forum should consider the merit of this suggestion and whether it would support the Forum’s purpose.

32. Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari outlines objectives across a range of themes, similar and in some cases identical to the proposed set of strategic issues.

33. It is suggested that, should the Forum desire goals or outcome statements against each strategic issue, alignment to the Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari objectives be considered as a starting point.

34. Wider feedback regarding the need to prescribe outcome statements against each of the strategic issues would be welcomed.

35. Forum Members may also wish to suggest further improvement items.

Putting the strategic issues into action

36. As noted earlier in this report, the draft strategic issues also include an indication of Forum activities, in particular, calling for reports and analysis from consistent parties on particular topics.

37. Once the Forum has considered and agreed its strategic issues, a forward work programme can be generated so that consistent parties have a timeframe to work toward for these reporting requirements.

Overall comments

38. The strategic issues as proposed will enable the Forum to better plans and prepare for Forum meetings. With the suggested Forum activities as a guide, the Forum should realise improvements in meaningful information sharing, identification of collaboration opportunities amongst constituent parties and increased integrated management.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Draft Strategic Issues	21

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Katina Conomos – Interim Executive Officer, Hauraki Gulf Forum
Authoriser	Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Hauraki Gulf Forum

20 August 2018

Sediment pollution and associated environmental effects at the Long Bay Okura Marine Reserve

File No.: CP2018/13575

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. This report is in response to a resolution from the 14 May 2018 Hauraki Gulf Forum seeking that Auckland Council provide a report to the next Forum meeting, regarding “the sediment pollution and associated environmental effects at the Long Bay Okura Marine Reserve, and advise on controls on sediment”. Attachment A contains a copy of the resolution.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. Planning for development within the catchments that discharge into the Okura Estuary and Long Bay Okura Marine reserve has, as a material consideration, long taken account of effects on the marine environment.

3. Auckland Council is currently undertaking data collection for catchment wide hydrological modelling, which will be used primarily for assessing the long-term effects of urbanisation on the marine environment. It will also inform future decisions on development in the Okura and Weiti Catchments.

4. Current developments close to the Long Bay Okura Marine reserve, at Weiti and Long Bay, are rigorously monitored and are shown to be in general compliance with their respective Consent Conditions, including those related to sediment control.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hauraki Gulf Forum:

a) receive the report.

Horopaki / Context

Planning history and context

5. The catchments that flow into the Long Bay Okura Marine Reserve are split into two main areas; Weiti and Long Bay/Okura. There is a long planning history in each of these areas. The following summarises that planning history and shows that most of the planning decisions in these areas have been made by the Environment Court.

Weiti

6. The genesis of Weiti’s current planning framework, defined for this purpose by the land bound in red in Figure 1, started under the former Rodney District Council (RDC). In 2011 RDC allowed for the clustering of up to 550 dwellings at Weiti into its District Plan provisions. RDC derived that figure by combining the number of dwellings that could have been developed as of right under a surrounding Rodney rural zone (Countryside Living Rural) in its 1993 District Plan (that being 400 dwellings), plus 150 dwellings that were already provided for under the RDC Special 8 Zone. It was considered at that time that clustering of 550 dwellings would have a lower impact at Weiti and on the surrounding receiving environment than the provision of 550 dwellings on countryside living lots spread across the whole of the Weiti land.

7. These provisions were carried over into the Auckland Unitary Plan being recommended by the Independent Hearings Panel and confirmed by Auckland Council via a Precinct Management Layer. The extent of this precinct is also shown in Figure 1, with the precinct being split into three sub-precincts (Weiti A and B being mainly for clustered residential development, and the balance of the site, Weiti Sub-precinct C, providing for conservation and forestry activities). The land owner (Weiti Development Limited Partnership) appealed this decision, but that appeal has now been withdrawn.

Figure 1 – Weiti land, and associated Unitary Plan zones and precincts

Long Bay/Okura

8. At Long Bay/Okura the relevant planning history goes back to 1996, when the Environment Court first considered the location of the Metropolitan Urban Limit (MUL) in that area following the lodgment of appeals. The Environment Court in its 1996 decision stated that the MUL should follow the watershed/catchment boundary between Long Bay and Okura Catchments (i.e. the route of Vaughans Road, and shown as a dashed black line in Figure 2), meaning that south of this ridgeline (Long Bay) would be treated as urban for planning purposes and north of this (Okura) would be rural. The Court had this to say about the catchment:

“We have concluded that urbanisation of the part of the subject land in the Okura catchment [the land north of Vaughans Road in the former North Shore City Council] would necessarily have significant adverse effects on the environment of the Okura Estuary, and that the estuary, and its high quality waters and ecosystem, possesses life supporting capacity which deserves to be safeguarded… We have found that the landscape quality of the Okura Estuary and its margins is so high, and the likely visual effect of urbanisation of the part of the subject land within its visual catchment are such, as to indicate that in those respects it should not be urbanised”.

9. This outcome was upheld on appeal to the High Court in 1997.

10. In 2003, the Environment Court then considered the type of rural development appropriate for the Okura land. It concluded that this land should be covered by two rural zones, the western part (Rural 4(i) zone) having an average site size of 2ha, and the eastern part (Rural 4(ii) zone) having a minimum site area of 4ha. The Court also determined that there should be controls on the level of earthworks, and use of environmental enhancement measures, including fencing and planting of riparian strips, the revegetation of coastal margins, wetlands and erosion prone areas, and the provision of esplanade reserves.

11. In relation to Long Bay, North Shore City Council progressed with structure planning for that area, which the Environment Court in 1996 decided was within the MUL and therefore an urban area. The Environment Court in 1999 made an order that stipulated “Additional Principles for Long Bay Structure Plan” be included in the North Shore Proposed District Plan, along with the methods of implementation (the rules). The “Additional Principles” addressed matters such as:

· the protection of habitat values, water quality and the ecological values of the Long Bay Okura Marine Reserve;

· utilising landscape and ecological surveys to determine the carrying capacity of the land to manage it in a sustainable way;

· protecting significant landscape and ecological values of the area.

12. This culminated in the completion of the Long Bay Structure Plan, which was incorporated into the North Shore City District Plan in 2006. These provisions guided development of Long Bay and were in essence carried over into the Auckland Unitary Plan in the form of the Long Bay Precinct Management Layer.

13. The Auckland Unitary Plan included provisions in line with the above at Weiti (paras 6-7), Long Bay (paras 11-12), and Okura (by maintaining the land surrounding Okura village as rural, outside the Rural Urban Boundary [RUB], with the same subdivision controls of 2ha and 4ha as the former North Shore City District Plan). The Auckland Unitary Plan was made Operative in Part in November 2016, excluding (amongst other things) the provisions relating to Okura, given that these are the subject of appeals as outlined below.

14. In relation to the provisions for the land to the east of Okura village, (shown in Figure 2), Okura Holdings Limited (a subsidiary of Todd Property Group), appealed the council’s decision on the provisions applying to the land, to the Environment Court, and sought to urbanise this land. Their proposal is to relocate the Unitary Plan’s RUB to include the land in urban Auckland, remove its rural zoning and give this land a mixture of ‘live’ zonings for urban residential development. This proposal from Okura Holdings Limited contains no maximum number of dwellings, with the yield to be confirmed through any subsequent Resource Consent process. Council considers up to approximately 1,900 dwellings could be provided under the plan provisions sought by Okura Holdings Ltd, should this land be urbanised.

Figure 2 – Extent of precinct in purple, as sought by Okura Holdings Ltd for urbanisation

15. This proposal was not supported by council, which defended its decision to maintain the RUB for Auckland along Vaughans Road at an Environment Court Hearing in September to November 2017. The Environment Court released its decision on 6 June 2018, dismissing the appeals, thereby retaining the Okura area outside of the RUB, and retaining Countryside Living zoning (with a 4ha site size additional subdivision control) over the land. A copy of this decision can be found in Attachment B.

16. Subsequently, Okura Holdings Limited has appealed this Environment Court decision to the High Court, on points of law. The council is currently in the process of defending the Environment Court decision in the High Court. A decision from the High Court is not expected until next year.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Ecological Health of Okura Estuary

17. Auckland Council, and previous councils, have been monitoring the health of the ecological communities on intertidal mud and sandflats within the Okura Estuary since 2000. For context, a further seven small east coast estuaries are also monitored. Monitoring is carried out twice per year and at four sites within each estuary. In Okura, council monitors ten sites in recognition of anticipated changes in land use in the catchment. This monitoring has shown changes in species sensitive to mud at all Okura sites and increased fine sediment at some sites.

18. Similar changes have been observed in the other east coast estuaries. In particular, increased fine sediment has been recorded at most sites in Waikopua and Turanga (near Whitford), and Mangemangeroa (near Botany), one or two sites in Puhoi, Orewa and Waiwera but not at Whangateau. In Okura, a trend consistent with sedimentation (individual species or sediment) was detected at every site and changes in community composition consistent with increasing mud content were detected at nearly half the sites. For Turanga more than one trend consistent with increased sedimentation was detected at all sites; in Orewa and Mangemangeroa more than one trend consistent with increased sedimentation was detected at three of the four sites. Turanga, Waiwera, Mangemangeroa and Whangateau also exhibited trends consistent with sedimentation in community level indicators at three of the four sites.

19. Overall, this suggests that there are concerning changes at Okura in terms of the number of sites exhibiting trends consistent with sedimentation. Changes observed in Turanga, Whangateau, Waiwera and Mangemangeroa are also of concern. The estuary showing the fewest changes of concern is Puhoi.

20. These findings are detailed in Auckland Council Technical Report 2017/003. It is important to note that while there were a large number of trends consistent with increased sedimentation, there were also trends that were not consistent with sedimentation, so it is a complex situation.

21. Pine forest adjacent to Okura Estuary was harvested between 2012 and 2014. Monitoring set up specifically to track the outcomes of this harvesting showed while suspended sediment yield increased because of harvesting activity, this increase was no longer apparent during the post-harvest and stabilisation period. A change in ecological community was also recorded at some sites and this did not return to pre-harvest community structure at some sites.

22. Data up to October 2017 has recently been analysed (in draft) for Okura and shows that changes in species sensitive to sediment have continued. The estuary was sampled in April 2018 after the recent publicised cockle mortality event and the processing of these samples has been prioritised, but the results are not yet available.

Cockle Mortality Event

23. A die off of large numbers of cockles in Okura Estuary was reported in April 2018. Samples were sent to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) for testing and investigation. MPI’s role is to test for the presence of exotic diseases. In order to rule out an exotic disease they try to rule in other agents – however in the case of shellfish mortalities it is very often multifactorial, and it is almost impossible to pinpoint one single cause. While council’s long-term monitoring does show trends consistent with increased sedimentation, it is impossible to say that sediment is the cause of the cockles dying in this instance. Sediment may be one of many factors that are reducing the resilience of these shellfish.

24. There have been increased shellfish mortalities reported throughout the country this summer and recently there have been reports of cockles dying in Whangateau Estuary that are also being investigated by MPI. Cockles from Okura Estuary have also been retested by MPI. The results of both sampling times were unable to pinpoint a primary cause (see DoC report for more details).

25. A degree of environmental stress was identified, which could be due to several variables such as high sediment during a rainfall event, sustained high water temperatures or exposure to high temperatures during low tide. Without samples from other locations, there is no context for whether this degree of environmental stress is present in other estuaries.

Augmented monitoring

26. Due to the changes being seen in the ecology of the Okura Estuary, council is developing further receiving environment monitoring to complement what it already has in place. This will focus on monitoring the suspended sediment in selected streams draining to Okura and Weiti Bay. Water quality buoys deployed as part of the hydrodynamic modelling (referred to below) will provide continuous data on currents, waves, sediment deposition rate, and a number of other water quality parameters in the wider receiving environments.

Hydrodynamic (Sediment and Metals) Modelling

27. As rural land becomes urbanised, it is generally expected that sediment loads will decrease, and loadings of heavy metals, such as copper and zinc, will increase. Deposited sediments may become contaminated with metals, and effects may be expected to occur in the marine ecosystem. A range of urbanisation scenarios are possible within the catchments of the Okura and Weiti estuaries, and a sediment and metals modelling exercise is currently underway to better understand the likely impacts of these scenarios.

28. Currents, waves, sediment deposition rates, and a number of other water quality parameters are currently being measured where the Okura and Weiti estuaries discharge into Karepiro Bay. This data will be used to calibrate a hydrodynamic sediment transport model that includes the Okura and Weiti estuaries, and the entirety of the marine reserve.

29. The hydrodynamic model will provide a better understanding of the fate of sediment and metals discharged into the estuaries, including the extent to which the Okura and Weiti systems exchange contaminants, or receive contaminants from further afield. The hydrodynamic model will be used to model the risk profile of various catchment development scenarios, to inform any future plan changes and structure planning exercises. Initial results from the modelling exercise are expected in late 2018.

30. The hydrodynamic model is being developed primarily to assess the long-term effects of urbanisation, over many decades. However, the calibrated model may also be used to better understand the fate of sediment discharged during the earthworks phase of development, from any given point within the model’s boundaries. Ultimately the hydrodynamic modelling results will be able to inform future decisions on development in the Okura and Weiti Estuaries.

Resource Consent Compliance

31. Both the Long Bay development and Weiti development consents were granted by the Environment Court with conditions imposed around erosion and sediment control that followed best practice. The frequency of the monitoring of these consents to determine compliance is established using a risk-based approach.

32. At its peak, the Long Bay development had up to eight high risk projects that were monitored and scored during regular inspections. Currently there is only one high risk bulk earthworks site and there will be bulk earthworks associated with two further stages that have yet to start.

33. The Weiti development has two high risk projects that are both nearing completion.

34. The high-risk projects associated with both developments are monitored on a fortnightly basis throughout the duration of the project to ensure the scale and complexities are controlled to a high standard.

35. It is important to note that the conditions imposed on the consents are designed to perform during normal weather patterns. The controls in place are expected to retain up to 90% of the sediment when operating at their best, although during extreme weather events discharge of some sediment will occur.

36. This type of discharge is not exclusive to these two developments. There is an additional condition associated with both developments that requires council to be provided with an Adaptive Environmental Monitoring and Management Response Plan following a trigger event of significant rainfall (classified as 25mm or more in a 24-hour period). These plans are prepared by independent experts who visit the site to ensure that erosion and sediment controls are operating effectively. A combination of automated and manual sampling as well as visual inspection is used to identify potential issues following these trigger events.

37. Given the risk rating of these projects and the significance of the receiving environment, these two developments experience some of the highest levels of compliance monitoring in the Auckland region.

38. Compliance at these sites has been consistently high and the erosion and sediment controls in place at both these developments are achieving high levels of effectiveness. During council inspections of these sites, there has not been any significant non-compliance resulting in enforcement action against either developer. Some minor non-compliance has been identified over the duration of the work. These minor issues have been rectified quickly to ensure the potential of significant harm occurring is reduced.

Ngā whakaaweawe ā-rohe me ngā tirohanga a te poari ā-rohe /
Local impacts and local board views

39. The Long Bay Okura Marine Reserve is within the Hibiscus and Bays Local Board Area. The Local Board supported council’s position to keep the land to the east of Okura village rural through the Unitary Plan process. The Local Board has also made statements in support of protecting the Long Bay Okura Marine Reserve from adverse effects.

Tauākī whakaaweawe Māori / Māori impact statement

40. The following where directly notified of the original Weiti subdivision (Karepiro - 150 lots) dated 26/08/07:

· Ngāti Whātua Nga Rima o Kaipara

· Ngāti Paoa Whanau Trust

· Te Kawarau ā Maki

· Manuhiri Omaha Kaitiakitangi Ora

· Te Uri o Hau Settlement Trust

· Te Rūnganga o Te Tau

· Ngāti Pono Whanu Trust

41. Responses were received from Ngāti Whātua Nga Rima O Kaipara and Te Kawarau ā Maki. In relation to issues of sedimentation/impacts on the Marine Reserve, Ngāti Whātua Nga Rima O Kaipara raised concerns over the zoning, the location of lots, any development in the Karepiro Valley areas, and the diversion or modification of watercourses. Te Kawarau ā Maki objected to the subdivision, had concerns over the scale of the development, and wanted the most sustainable practices employed to protect the receiving environment.

42. From this it can be seen that iwi have concerns over environmental impacts from development within the Okura/Weiti catchments and wish to see the protection of the receiving environment and Marine Reserve.

Ngā koringa ā-muri / Next steps

43. As discussed in the main body of this report, work is currently underway with the aim of completing initial results from a hydrodynamic model by the end of 2018. The hydrodynamic model is being developed primarily for the purpose of assessing the long-term effects of urbanisation, over many decades. However, the calibrated model may also be used to better understand the fate of sediment discharged during the earthworks phase of development, from any given point within the model’s boundaries.

44. In addition, Auckland Council’s Environment and Community Committee resolved at its 10 July meeting, following a public input presentation from the Long Bay Okura Great Parks Society, to request a report from staff. This report is to cover the regulatory and environmental issues relating to sediment in the Long Bay Okura Marine Reserve, with options for improved management of sediment discharge to the Marine Reserve. It is to also comment on the wider regional implications of such. This report is programmed to go to the Environment and Community Committee on 14 August 2018.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Hauraki Gulf Forum - 14 May 2018 resolution extract from minutes	35
b ⇨	Environment Court Decision Yang & Others, and Okura Holding Limited v Auckland Council (Under Separate Cover)

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Austin Fox - Principal Planner
Authoriser	Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Department of Conservation - Long Bay-Okura Marine Reserve	39

Hauraki Gulf Forum

20 August 2018

Constituent Party Report - Sediment

File No.: CP2018/14393

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To support improved integrated planning and management, Forum members have been asked to contribute an issue-specific constituent party report on the topic of sedimentation.

2. This report compiles the reports received.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hauraki Gulf Forum:

a) receive the report.

b) advise further questions to be reported upon in the short-term future, in respect of sedimentation.

Horopaki / Context

3. The Hauraki Gulf Forum is currently considering its strategic issues (see separate agenda item) one of which is sediment.

4. The 2017 State of the Gulf report noted the following in relation to sediment:

· Sediment is a serious environmental contaminant that degrades coastal habitats and is toxic to many marine organisms (Airoldi 2003; Thrush et al. 2004).

· The environmental significance of increasing sediment loads has led to it being ranked the third highest[1] of 65 identified threats to marine habitats in New Zealand respectively (MacDiarmid et al. 2012).

· Deposited sediments accumulate in sheltered estuaries or deep coastal areas where the energy from waves and currents is too weak to remobilise them. In estuaries, thick (> 2cm deep) deposits of land-derived sediment rapidly kill most animals buried beneath them (Norkko et al. 2002).

· Thin deposits (1-7mm) also lead to a reduction in species’ diversity and abundance, even in muddy areas where animals are expected to be adapted to high sediment loads (Berkenbusch et al. 2001).

· Recovery tends to occur slowly after depositional events and can take in excess of a year (Norkko et al. 2002).

· Sediments suspended in the water column also affect marine plants and animals by reducing water clarity, light levels, food quality and the feeding ability of animals.

· Consequently, the condition and survival of marine species frequently declines as suspended sediment concentrations increase (e.g. Hewitt et al. 2001; Ellis et al. 2002; Nicholls et al. 2003; Morrison et al. 2009).

5. SeaChange Tai Timu Tai Pari includes a theme on sediment, which states that the overall goal is to reduce sediment entering the coastal marine area to levels which support healthy marine habitats. This will, in turn, support more abundant marine life and fish stocks and provide greater opportunities for people and communities to enjoy the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park (page 130).

6. To support improved integrated planning and management, Forum members have been asked to contribute an issue-specific constituent party report on the topic of sediment.

7. It was suggested that constituent parties report on sediment if relevant, the following:

a) How they will set and measure sediment load limits for the waters in their area.

b) The key issues to be tackled to achieve reductions of sediment entering the coastal marine area and any targets that have been developed.

c) Whether there are means available to stabilise sediment already in the marine environment and, if so, what is planned.

d) What research and policy work is underway that is of relevant to sedimentation.

e) Whether policy work includes examining the effectiveness of relevant legislation and/or regulatory tools in this context.

f) However approximate, any information on the budget provisioning for work, staffing etc for activities relevant to sedimentation control may help to begin the process of exploring the development of a system for “coordinated financial planning by the constituent parties”.

8. Members were also urged to signal issues they want reported on in respect of sediment in the future.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

9. An issues-specific approach to constituent party reporting, with more time and planning, can provide more focus and promote integrated planning and management between constituent parties. It should also enable the Forum to identify where it should take an advocacy role, if required, and how else it can affect change.

10. On this occasion, members were given two weeks to provide a report. At the time of compiling the agenda, Thames-Coromandel District, Hauraki District and Auckland Council contributed reports, which are attached.

11. As one of the the key issues affecting the life-supporting capacity of the Hauraki Gulf / Tikapa Moana / Te Moana-nui-a-Toi, further reporting and analysis of this sediment is justified, in particular a focus on:

a) The role that each constituent party has in relation to sedimentation.

b) Work that is being undertaken nationally in relation to this issue.

c) An assessment where constituent party policies and operations can be improved.

d) Examining the effectiveness of relevant legislation and regulatory tools in this context.

Thames-Coromandel District Council

Hauraki Gulf Forum sedimentation control responses

As at 8 August 2018

· How they will set and measure sediment load limits for the waters in their area.

This work is undertaken by WRC.

· The key issues to be tackled to achieve reductions of sediment entering the coastal marine area and any targets that have been developed.

Sedimentation issues to be tackled include: land uses and developments, forestry, DOC estate debris, land clearance, coastal settlements and infrastructure, sewage discharge, infilling/reclamation, road building, pests in waterways such as koi carp and catfish.

· Whether there are means available to stabilise sediment already in the marine environment and, if so, what is planned.

Dune planting - we have a number of active Beachcare Groups around the Coromandel Peninsula

· Cooks Beach

· Rings Beach, Kuaotunu and Otama

· Whangapoua

· Kennedy Bay

· Wharekaho

· Buffalo Beach, Whitianga

· Tairua

· Pauanui

· Onemana

· Whangamata

· Whiritoa

District Plan earthworks provisions

The District Plan recognises that management of earthworks and soil disturbance is predominantly the responsibility of the WRC. The Proposed Plan manages the effects of earthworks on amenity, traffic, health and safety, visual, nuisance effects on adjacent properties (including sedimentation), building controls, effects on infrastructure, and reverse sensitivity effects. In addition the Plan manages the impacts of earthworks on outstanding natural features and historic heritage, landscapes, areas of high natural character and the Coastal Environment.

Section 9 Outstanding Natural Features and Landscapes Policy 1b f) provides for "Minimising earthworks as far as practicable."; Policy 1b g) provides for "Completing and/or revegetating and earthworks as soon as possible."

Each plan zone contains earthworks rules specific to the zone.

The Natural Character variation introduced a rule that provides for earthworks as a permitted activity for ecosystem protection, rehabilitation or restoration works.

District Plan Riparian Planting

Promoting and undertaking riparian planting.

Riparian Planting is provided for in the District Plan.

Section 16 Subdivision Policy 5a of the District Plan states that - "Planting and enhancement of wetlands and the margins of water bodies shall be encouraged through subdivision."

Objective 6 states that "Subdivision provides for the maintenance and enhancement of conservation values, ..." and Policy 6a g) seeks to "Protect the natural character and/or amenity values associated with a riparian area."

· What research and policy work is underway that is of relevance to sedimentation.

TCDC are in the early stages of planning development of Shoreline Management Plans. As part of this we will investigate means available to stabilise sediment already in the marine environment. WRC will be a lead on this component of the plans.

The impact of sedimentation was considered in the development of Council's Coastal Management Strategy; adopted in June 2018.

· Whether policy work includes examining the effectiveness of relevant legislation and/or regulatory tools in this context.

Not applicable

· However approximate, any information on the budget provisioning for work, staffing etc for activities relevant to sedimentation control may help to begin the process of exploring the development of a system for “coordinated financial planning by the constituent parties”.

The Forum is yet to agree that the development of a 'system for co-ordinated financial planning by the constituent parties' is an effective use of limited resources when clearly the issues are being addressed by the constituent parties. There is the danger of attempting to micro manage resulting in continued limited outcomes.

Hauraki District Council

Hauraki Gulf Forum sedimentation control responses

As at 1 August 2018

While the items [questions provided by the Chairperson] in relation to sediment controls and monitoring relate to Regional Council as a District Council we have earthwork guidelines in our District Plan which triggers the need for earthwork consents for proposed development. Conditions on proposed subdivisions include sediment controls like the provision of silt fencing and metal on vehicle entrance ways to avoid soil on to the road. Any earthwork controls are in line with WRC guidelines. These conditions are checked by our Development Engineer.

In relation to our engineering department any road maintenance; construction jobs like pipeline replacements will always include sediment controls within the contract of works; which is monitored.

In relation to collaborative planning any proposed subdivision over 1 ha requires a stormwater discharge consent from the WRC.

Auckland Council

As at 13 August 2018

Across Auckland Council and Council Controlled Organisations there are several extensive research, monitoring, enforcement and mitigation initiatives addressing the challenges and opportunities of sediment and sedimentation.

Auckland Council submitted a paper which outlines some of the current policies, trends and initiatives identified by the Council to address the environmental challenges presented by sediment and sedimentation.

This report is attached.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Auckland Council Sediment Story - Policies, Trends and Initiatives	49

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Katina Conomos – Interim Executive Officer, Hauraki Gulf Forum
Authoriser	Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Hauraki Gulf Forum

20 August 2018

Executive Officer Report

File No.: CP2018/14401

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To provide an update from the Hauraki Gulf Forum’s Interim Executive Officer.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. This report is prepared by the Hauraki Gulf Forum’s Interim Executive Officer to update Forum members on the delivery of the annual work program, follow up actions from previous meetings, and other matters of relevance since the last meeting.

3. This report is seeking delegation for the preparation of a submission (if required) to the Environmental Protection Agency in relation to the Coastal Resources Management Ltd. consent application for dumping of dredged material, and also seeking delegation to support Auckland Council with the recruitment of a permanent Executive Officer.

4. This report also presents the final position for the year end 2017/2018 and makes several proposals for the 2018/2019 budget.

5. This report also seeks engagement from members regarding the preparation of the 2019 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park poster.

6. The Forum may also wish to use this report to provide further instruction regarding its work programme, or any particular matters requiring further attention from the Executive Officer.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hauraki Gulf Forum:

a) receive the Hauraki Gulf Forum Interim Executive Officer’s report.

b) nominate a working party (if desired) to work alongside the Executive Officer, Chairperson and other stakeholders to scope the theme of the 2019 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park poster.

c) delegate approval of the Hauraki Gulf Forum’s submission to the Environmental Protection Agency concerning the Coastal Resources Management Ltd. consent application, to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, on the proviso that the Forum is invited to participate in this submission process.

d) note the 2017-2018 year-end financial position.

e) agree to increase the 2018-2019 Forum budget by $5,000 to provide a small budget for Chairperson and Executive Officer related expenses (predominantly travel) funded in accordance with the Forum’s previously agreed funding formula.

f) agree to reduce the 2018-2019 Auckland Council contribution by $21,914 and allocate $21,914 from the accumulated surplus to the 2018-2019 budget.

g) note that invoices for the 2018-2019 constituent party contributions will now be issued.

h) delegate the chairperson and deputy chairperson to support Auckland Council recruit an Executive Officer for the Hauraki Gulf Forum.

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Seminar / Holdaway Awards

7. The 2018 Seminar will be held in the Events Centre at the Auckland War Memorial Museum on Wednesday, 5 September.

8. The Seminar programme is included as an attachment to this report.

9. Please let me know if you wish to attend so that I can arrange a ticket for you.

10. Your support to promote the event is still very much appreciated and encouraged, particularly through your social network channels.

11. The Forum has delegated the adjudication of the Holdaway Award to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson, and the recipient(s) will be announced at the Seminar. I am in discussion with Sarah Cornelius (daughter of Jim and Ann Holdaway) to arrange for her to attend and present the award.

2019 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Poster Series

12. Work must now commence to scope and prepare the 2019 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Poster, the distribution of which coincides with SeaWeek in March each year.

13. I have contacted the primary stakeholders involved (NZME, Young Ocean Explorers, the illustrator and graphic designer) to advise that I will call a meeting soon to discuss the scope for the next poster.

14. I am seeking a working party to work alongside the Executive Officer, and the Chairperson and other stakeholders to scope the theme for the 2019 Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Poster series.

Other Press

15. Over the last two months there has been a number of good-quality press material in relation to the Gulf, from the perspective of concern for the health of the Gulf. I would particularly highlight:

16. From 23 July 2018, RNZ Kathryn Ryan’s interview with Liane Ngamane and Raewyn Peart. https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018654757/hauraki-gulf-health-inertia

17. From 4 August 2018, NewsHub article and video in which a number of stakeholders are interviewed https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/shows/2018/08/the-shocking-decline-of-the-hauraki-gulf.html

18. From 19 June 2018, RNZ Kathryn Ryan’s interview with Andrew Jeffs from Auckland University speaking regarding the project to restore the mussel beds in the Hauraki Gulf. NB: Andrew Jeffs is one of the Seminar speakers. https://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/2018649916/restoring-the-hauraki-gulf-with-mussels

Hauraki Gulf Forum Facebook

19. I have been contacted by Christopher Dempsey, who set up and has been operating a Hauraki Gulf Forum Facebook page for several years.

20. I believe that it is more appropriate that the Executive Officer manages the Hauraki Gulf Forum Facebook page, and given that Christopher wants to hand the Facebook page over I have arranged for myself to become the administrator of this page for the time being.

21. Christopher’s efforts have been very well intended and I have thanked him for his contribution.

22. I intend to develop some operational guidelines for use of the Facebook page to provide a frame of reference for how the Facebook account should be used.

Coastal Resources Ltd dumping consent

23. On 5 June 2018, Coastal Resources Limited (CRL) lodged an application for a 35-year marine dumping consent to dump up to 250,000m³ of dredged material from source sites within Auckland and Waikato.

24. The dump site is at the existing consented Northern Disposal Area site, which is located 25 km east of Great Barrier Island, as shown on the following map (sourced from the public notice).

25. If approved, the consent will replace CRL’s current consent, which expires in 2032 and under which up to 50,000m3 of dredged material, from existing or proposed marinas in Auckland and Waikato, can be dumped annually.

26. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is the consenting authority and the consent application will be decided by the Decision-Making Committee (DMC) appointed by the EPA.

27. At the invitation of the EPA, Chairperson Meeuwsen and I gave an ‘informal and induction’ presentation to the Decision-Making Committee. The purpose of the presentation was to brief the DMC on the role and purpose of the Hauraki Gulf Forum, as well as advise what information the Forum has access to. An overview of the 2017 State of the Environment report was provided verbally, and copies of the report have been provided.

28. S.18(3)(b) of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act states the Forum must not take part in a decision-making process under any enactment other than to advise when requested to do so.

29. The DMC have expressed their interest for the Forum to formally provide information as part of the submission process. The EPA Manager and I are in discussion regarding the legality of this.

30. Submissions close on 10 September 2018. I am therefore recommending that delegation be given to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to approve a submission to the EPA CRL consent, if the Forum is invited to do so.

31. Further information about the application and process can be found here: https://www.epa.govt.nz/public-consultations/open-consultations/coastal-resources-limited/

Long Bay Okura Marine Reserve – Sedimentation issue

32. At the Forum’s 14 May meeting, upon receiving a presentation from the Long Bay Okura Great Park Society, the Forum expressed strong concern regarding the sediment pollution at Long Bay Okura Marine Reserve (HGF/2018/18).

33. The Forum also requested that the Executive Officer make recommendations on how the Forum can respond to concerns raised by the Long Bay Okura Great Park Society.

34. The Long Bay Okura Great Park Society have, in and of themselves, been very proactive in raising their concerns.

35. The Society presented to the Auckland Council’s Environment and Community Committee on 10 July 2018 and generated national press interest.

36. https://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/361532/environmentalists-lobby-to-shut-developments-polluting-marine-reserve

37. https://www.stuff.co.nz/auckland/105361640/okura-community-calls-for-council-action-on-sediment-stressed-marine-reserve

38. The Society will present again to the Auckland Council’s Environment and Community Committee on 14 August 2018. Forum Members have been invited to attend in support, in their capacity as Hauraki Gulf Forum members.

39. The Forum can continue to express concern and apply pressure to constituent parties. It can (and is) maintaining contact with the Long Bay Okura Great Park Society to maintain awareness of the situation and extend support to the Society’s awareness raising and challenge efforts. Otherwise, there is little more that the Forum can do within its current legislative frameworks to respond to the concerns raised by the Long Bay Okura Great Park Society.

40. The issue at Long Bay Okura Park Marine Reserve has again highlighted attention to the issue of sedimentation, a matter which the Forum is considering as one of its Strategic Issues (see separate agenda item).

Environmental Defence Society Conference

41. Chairperson Meeuwsen and I attended the Environmental Defence Society Conference in Auckland on 2 and 3 August 2018.

42. Four Ministers were speaking at the event and given the extent of reform packages being proposed by the current Government I felt that it was important for the Forum to hear what was being said. The Ministers who presented were the Minster for the Environment David Parker, Minister of Fisheries Stuart Nash, Minister of Conservation Eugenie Sage, and the Minister for Housing, Urban Development and Transport Phil Twyford. The Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Hon. Simon Upton also presented.

43. Key points from some of the Ministerial presentations included:

· The Minister of Fisheries supports cameras onboard boats but wants to sort out the dumping and discarding regime prior. He also supports a move to eco-system-based management by 2020, or in the very least, ensuring that conversation regarding eco-system-based management has begun.

· The Housing Minister’s priorities include infrastructure financing, transport pricing and reforming the planning system to encourage, not restrict growth.

· The Minister of Conservation indicated a priority was to protect marine biodiversity with a focus on reducing bycatch of mammals and seabirds. She indicated that work is being undertaken on a cabinet paper in relation to Sea Change. In relation to marine protection activities, protection of the Kermadec’s are the priority.

44. The Conference also provided valuable networking opportunities for both the Chairperson and myself.

45. The Auckland War Memorial Museum are now interested to meet and discuss their forward research programme.

46. One of the conference speakers, Catherine Iorns from Victoria University School of Law is interested to point her students to topics of study and has inquired whether there are legal challenges of interest in and around the Gulf. Catherine’s area of interest is using human rights law to protect New Zealand's natural environment. For those interested to learn more about Catherine, a link to a recent TED talk can be found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWKMavfi9i8

47. New Zealand Geographic presented on their virtual reality (VR) project, whereby 20 VR experiences are being prepared to connect New Zealanders with their environment and inspire social change. There are two sites within the Hauraki Gulf included in this VR project, which should be launched before the end of this year. A preview can be viewed here: https://www.nzgeo.com/video/nzvr-trailer/

Bryde’s Whale Ship Strike Collaborative Group

48. Ports of Auckland Ltd report that ship speeds are reasonably stable, with the monthly average for Port vessels in the Hauraki Gulf being 10.15 in Q2 (slightly above the target of 10 knots). The Ports of Auckland report is attached as Attachment B.

49. At the time of writing the report from the International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW) has not yet been received and it will be stipulated separately. In my last report, I reported that IFAW only had funding available to support daily monitoring until end of June 2018. The funding is raised philanthropically and costs IFAW approximately $7,000 (AUD) per annum. For the time being, IFAW have been continuing to fund the daily monitoring.

Black Petrel Working Group

50. In previous reports, both Tim Higham and I have advised that the Black Petrel Working Group was investigating whether the range of initiatives already in place to help protect black petrels at sea (being seabird smart training, liaison role, seabird management plans, observer programme and electronic monitoring trials) could provide the basis for an assurance scheme to increase transparency and recognition of seabird smart fishing. The assurance scheme concept had been developed to a trial-ready phase.

51. However, in late June the seafood industry representatives who sit on the Black Petrel Working Group advised that for several reasons they were not intending to commit to the assurance scheme proposal as it had been outlined. However, they did point out strongly that the decision not to progress with the assurance scheme was not a reflection of the industry’s commitment to Black Petrels, and their preference was for the Black Petrel Working Group to assess progress to date on the Pledge (from 2014) and update the current implementation plan for the Working Group.

52. The Black Petrel Working Group met on 1 August 2018, hosted by Minister of Fisheries and an assessment of progress against the Pledge was undertaken and a structured discussion about the forward work programme was had.

53. The Black Petrel Working Group is coordinated by the Southern Seabirds Solutions Trust. The Trust have called for funding from the Working Group members to continue to fund their support.

54. In the past, the Forum has provided financial support to the Trust. After liaison with the Chairperson, I have again offered a small amount of financial assistance, but this time made this conditional on evidence of financial support being provided by other Working Group members.

55. The Working Group brings together industry (Leigh Fisheries, Fisheries Inshore NZ, Sanford Ltd, Moana New Zealand), with DoC and Ministry of Fisheries, and NGOs including Forrest and Bird and WWF. I see value in the continuation of the Working Group as a platform for information sharing, collaboration and an avenue through which concerns can be raised and industry views sought. In this mix, the Forum can also play an important advocacy role to Government.

56. In terms of the birds, members may also be interested to view this blog series which is charting the journey of 14 tagged fledgling young black petrels from New Zealand to South America: https://www.catchfishnotbirds.nz/news/

Gulf Journal

57. The next issue of the Gulf Journal and its associated e-newsletter is being compiled for publication this month.

Standing orders, Governance Statement and delegation policy

58. The Forum has made previous resolutions regarding the review of standing orders, governance statement and delegation policy, which arose from a number of procedural meeting issues that the Forum was experiencing in 2017.

59. At the last meeting I suggested that staff would like to work with the newly elected Forum Chair and Deputy Chair regarding these items on the work programme between now and the next meeting. This work has not yet occurred but will remain on the work programme for action following the adoption of the Strategic Issues, which has been the priority.

Hauraki Gulf Forum Budget 2017-2018

60. The final performance against budget for 2017-2018 can now be presented and is included as Attachment C.

61. The Auckland Council contribution has been treated differently to other constituent party contributions whereby it is not invoiced as per the agreed funding formula but instead the costs associated with the employment of the Executive Officer, as incurred by Auckland Council, have been considered to be the Auckland Council contribution. This practice has occurred for many years and (as itemised separately as ‘Auckland Council contribution’ in the revenue line).

62. The Forum resolved (HGF/2018/28) to change the practice of the Auckland Council contribution being treated separately, and from 2018/2019 the Auckland Council contribution will be treated the same as other constituent party contributions, as an invoiced and capped contribution.

63. The total cost of the State of the Environment report is higher than previously reported but still slightly under the $150,000 budgeted.

64. In 2017-2018 the Auckland Council contributed $21,914 in additional funds to cover the contracted interim Executive Officer.

65. As reported in May 2018, for 2017-2018 revenue from constituent party contributions is shown $31,000 lower than forecast, due to an invoicing error regarding the treatment of GST.

66. The combination of these two factors has meant that expenditure for the year is higher than was originally forecast in budget, but this has been offset (in part) by the Auckland Council.

67. As at end of June 2018, the Forum has an accumulated surplus of $101,540.

Hauraki Gulf Forum Budget 2018-2019

68. In May 2018, the Forum adopted an interim budget and agreed to revisit the budget following the setting of the Forum’s strategic issues and more detailed work programme.

69. Invoices for the 2018-2019 have not yet been sent but will be sent following the 20 August meeting.

70. I wish to make recommendations in relation to the 2018-2019 budget:

71. I recommend increasing the Forum budget by $5,000 to provide a small budget for Chairperson and Executive Officer related expenses (predominantly travel). An example of why this is necessary is that recently, the Chairperson travelled to meet with constituent parties throughout the Waikato. Chairperson Meeuwsen has indicated this is something he intends to do from time to time.

72. In 2017-2018 Auckland Council contributed an additional $21,914 to cover the contracted interim Executive Officer. Given that the Forum has a current surplus, I recommend that we reduce the Auckland Council’s 2018-2019 contribution by $21,914, and cover that ‘shortfall’ from the accumulated surplus.

73. The budget as presented below if fully committed, so should the Forum wish to commission additional work (for example, analysis or investigation arising from the Strategic Issues), this would need to be in addition to the budget below.

Item	2018/19 revised budget (excluding GST)
State of the Environment report (annualised contribution)	$50,000
Communications (includes annual report, web site, seminar, awards)	$40,000
Education project – Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Poster	$10,000
Facilitation of responses to issues (including whale strike and seabird capture)	$10,000
Administrative and travel expense	$5,000
Administrative authority expenses (including Executive Officer, financial and secretarial services)	$147,250
Total	$262,250

Executive Officer Recruitment

74. In May 2018, a paper was presented to the Forum which noted that the Forum, at that time, was in a transitory and evolutionary phase with the resignation of the Forum Chairperson and the Forum being in the process of setting its Strategic Issues.

75. At that time, it was recommended continuing with the temporary (contractor) coverage of the Executive Officer role.

76. The Forum has since made good progress with its Strategic Issues and has a clearer pathway forward for its future work.

77. As the workload for the Executive Officer is now starting to demand more, it will be more economical to have a permanent person in the role, rather than a contractor.

78. The Administering Authority Agreement (separate item on the agenda) sets out broadly the responsibilities and expectations of the Executive Officer.

79. Staff are now recommending that recruitment commence for a permanent Executive Officer and seek delegation to the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson to support Auckland Council recruit an Executive Officer for the Hauraki Gulf Forum.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Seminar Programme	75
b ⇩	Ports of Auckland report	77
c ⇩	2017-2018 Financial Position	79

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author	Katina Conomos – Interim Executive Officer, Hauraki Gulf Forum
Authoriser	Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Hauraki Gulf Forum

20 August 2018

Hauraki Gulf Forum Administering Authority Agreement

File No.: CP2018/14394

Te take mō te pūrongo / Purpose of the report

1. To present a Service Level Agreement between the Hauraki Gulf Forum (the Forum) and the Auckland Council as the Administering Authority for adoption.

Whakarāpopototanga matua / Executive summary

2. The Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act requires that one of the constituent parties be appointed as the Administering Authority for the Forum.

3. The Auckland Council currently fulfils the Administering Authority role.

4. A draft Service Level Agreement that sets out the arrangements between the Forum and the Administering Authority was presented to the Forum at the meeting on 14 May for consideration. The Service Level Agreement is now being presented for adoption.

5. The new Agreement presents what the Auckland Council, as the Administering Authority provides by way of support to the Forum, and also sets out what the obligations are of the Forum in this relationship.

Ngā tūtohunga / Recommendation/s

That the Hauraki Gulf Forum:

a) receive the Hauraki Gulf Forum Administering Authority Arrangements report.

b) adopt the Service Level Agreement between the Hauraki Gulf Forum and Auckland Council as the Administering Authority.

Horopaki / Context

6. Section 28 of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act (the Act) establishes that one of the constituent parties must be appointed as the Administering Authority for the Forum. The Administering Authority must administer and service the Forum and ensure as far as practicable that the functions, powers, and duties set out in Part 2 of the Act are carried out.

7. The Auckland Council currently fulfils the Administering Authority role, having assumed the functions of the previously appointed Auckland Regional Council, in the reorganisation of local government in Auckland.

8. In June 2005, the then Auckland Regional Council and the Hauraki Gulf Forum entered into a Performance Agreement to formalise the accountability between the Hauraki Gulf Forum and the Administering Authority. This is the last such agreement. Consequently, there is currently inadequate documentation regarding the agreement between the Forum and the Auckland Council in its role of Administering Authority.

9. In practice, this means that the range of services the Auckland Council should provide the Forum is unclear, the level of funding required is not transparent and roles and responsibilities are blurred.

10. The purpose of an Agreement is to make the service obligations of the Administering Authority clear for all concerned as well as to provide appropriate accountability between the Forum and its Administering Authority.

11. In relation to costs, the Act provides for the Forum to agree costs associated with the administration and servicing of the Forum as well as costs associated with undertaking the Forum’s powers.

12. Section 19 of the Act outlines that

(1) The administrative and servicing functions of the Forum and the costs of those functions must be agreed from time to time by the Forum.

(2) Unless the constituent parties agree otherwise, the costs agreed under subsection (1) must be divided equally among the constituent parties and each constituent party must pay 1 share of the costs.

(3) Administrative and servicing costs are not payable by constituent parties who are tangata whenua representatives.

13. Historically, the Auckland Council has not been presenting the full costs associated with supporting the Forum and has in practice been absorbing the costs associated with democracy services, financial and communications support.

14. This practice is historical, and whilst not deliberate, it means that the full costs associated with servicing the Forum are not transparent, and it means that the burden of costs is inequitable.

15. At its meeting on 14 May 2018, the Forum resolved to fund the full costs associated with the Administrative Authority support as part of its forward budget, on the proviso that these costs are presented and agreed as part of the Forum’s forward budget (HGF/2018/28).

Tātaritanga me ngā tohutohu / Analysis and advice

16. The Agreement presents what the Auckland Council, as the Administering Authority, will provide by way of support to the Forum, and also sets out what the obligations are of the Forum in this relationship.

17. The Agreement describes the services associated with meeting administration and governance, as well as communications and finance. It also provides a service description of the services provided by the executive officer.

18. The Agreement has been prepared based on what services the Forum currently receives from the Auckland Council, as well as a small number of services that haven’t been consistently provided to the Forum previously but should be (such as financial reporting).

19. Section 28(1) of the Act states that the Administering authority should be appointed for a minimum of three years. Ideally, this appointment should be considered at the beginning of each electoral term, when the Forum meets for the first time in that term.

20. The Service Level Agreement has a term of three years from adoption, with an option to renew for a further three years.

21. This Agreement does not stipulate key performance indicators for the services provided by the Administering Authority, instead, the Agreement places the requirement on the Forum chair to undertake a review of effectiveness every three years. Development of key performance indicators could be an area for improvement in future if desired.

22. This Agreement, along with a refreshed Governance Statement (or similar) should guide the operational mechanics of the Forum (HGF/2017/32).

23. If when setting its strategic direction (through the setting of Strategic Issues), the Forum determines it requires additional or different support, the Service Level Agreement can be renegotiated and adjusted. Having clarity and agreement on the current level of services that the Forum receives provides a good platform from which to have that conversation if required.

Ngā ritenga ā-pūtea / Financial implications

24. The costs associated with the Administering Authority function are articulated and agreed as part of the Forum’s forward budget.

Ngā tāpirihanga / Attachments

No.	Title	Page
a ⇩	Service Level Agreement	85

Ngā kaihaina / Signatories

Author

Katina Conomos – Interim Executive Officer, Hauraki Gulf Forum

Authorisers

Jacques Victor - GM Auckland Plan Strategy and Research

Phil Wilson - Governance Director

[1] The threat posed by increasing sediment loads is ranked equal to the threat posed by bottom trawling. Ocean acidification and climate change were ranked greatest and second greatest threats.