RENA PANEL Preparation for Expert Conferencing Minutes and Follow-up Actions from the MEETING of 4 March 2015, 10.00am, held Cooney Lees Morgan offices, Tauranga. [Note: Update Comments have been added as at 11 March 2015] AUTHOR: Marlene Oliver (Expert Conferencing Facilitator). Attendees (and submission numbers) Marlene Oliver Independent facilitator for expert conferencing Shad Rolleston Applicant Keith Frentz Applicant; and also a watching brief for Mt Maunganui Underwater Club (#033); Wellington Underwater Club (#036); Auckland University Underwater Club (#064) Elaine Rangi Butler personal submission (#065); (#076, #019) Umuhuri Matehaere (#115) Hugh Sayers - (#115) and written instruction from Mr Paul to appear on behalf of Mataatua District Maori Council (#116). Pia Bennett on behalf Te Arawa (#141) Alex Hope counsel for Te Arawa ki Tai (instructed by Raewyn Bennett) (#141) Awhi Awhimate Chairperson of (#141) Kerema Akuhata - Te Patuwai (#090) (#076, #019) from 1.30pm Joe Harawira (#076, #019) and Sawmill Workers Against Pollution (under submitter Joe Harawira) (#081) Jeremy Prebble Law Office (#088) from 1.00pm Ken Stephen Law Office (#088) from 1.00pm Paul Cooney counsel for Bay of Plenty as consent authority Rachel Boyte counsel for Bay of Plenty as consent authority Apologies: Jason Pou (counsel for ); Matt Casey (counsel for the Applicant); Luke Faithfull (reporting planner for the Bay of Plenty as consent authority); Carlton Bidois (Ngati Ranginui). Agenda Item 1 Attendance and introductions Parties all completed introductions (see above). Marlene Oliver clarified that she is still a Commissioner with the Environment Court but she had been appointed by the Rena Panel as an independent contractor to facilitate expert conferencing. She advised that the minutes of this meeting would be made available on the website Paul Cooney explained the distinction between the functions of. is a local authority with a wide jurisdiction extending out to offshore island. It has responsibilities under the Local Government Act. It also acts as a consent authority. Its role is to receive and determine resource consent applications. In this case a panel of Independent Commissioners has been appointed to make the decision. This is independent from its role as a local authority. The has filed a submission as local authority. Alex Hope had filed a memorandum providing his details as an additional address for service for Te Arawa ki Tai.
Agenda Item 2 Hearing Process and Administration Marlene drew attention to the recent material posted on the Rena website: The hearing date and the venue ASB Baypark; starting on 24 June 2015. 2 Hearing Timetable and Procedures Alex asked whether there was any feeling for how long it will take. Marlene said she understood that at this stage the venue had been booked for three weeks. At this stage the hearing panel will be uncertain as to the number of submitters / parties that will be speaking. Hugh Sayers asked about the format for the panel hearing is it like a submitter hearing where you get a set time to present, no cross examination of witnesses etc? Marlene said that it was a first instance Council hearing as opposed to a Board of Inquiry / Environment Court / direct referral case. There will be no cross examination, but there will be questions from the panel. There was a discussion over whether written submissions needed to be circulated in accordance with the timetable set by the Panel or whether that applied only to witnesses, including Maori cultural witnesses. Marlene will refer these matters to the Panel for clarification and in particular as to whether submissions (other than legal submissions by counsel) were required to be in writing and whether or not there was a timetable so that the Panel could pre-read them. Experts There was a discussion about the term expert conferencing and whether or not it was meant to be limited to technical experts. Marlene noted that it was wider than that as evidenced by the Panel s Memo II which listed the range of topics. Alex advised that his clients considered that cultural witnesses should not be seen as different from technical witnesses. Alex advised that Kepa Morgan was an engineer but he would be attending all topics because of his wider Maori viewpoint. Maori Language Alex asked whether there would be an interpretation service. Hugh referred to the memorandum from the Panel which already covered that (para 18, Memo II). Marlene confirmed that the Panel request advance notice so they can arrange for an interpreter and the facilities required, as well as make the appropriate adjustment to the timetable. Alex asked about an intermediate position ie where people are using some Maori words and phrases. Joe Harawira said that there were different hapu and iwi and this needed to be understood. Keith said, referring to Alex s earlier point re translation, that cultural caucusing may be useful for this ie to develop an agreed translation for key terms. Marlene noted that the Panel was made up of experienced people. Counsel (or other Party coordinators) should consider how best to run their cases and assist the Panel, but that if any Party was concerned they could seek clarification from the Panel in advance. Administration Contacts & Website Pia Bennett asked that soft copies (PDFs) be added to the website so that documents could be downloaded and printed / sent to others. Hugh asked whether the emails that go out to inform submitters that something had been added to the site could simply attach the document. Alex said he had had some difficulty finding the correct address for the hearing manager and that the phone operator was not familiar with the project contacts. Keith Frentz had experienced older documents (eg s87 report) dropping off the website but understands this has been rectified.
3 Marlene noted that the Parties contact details will be based on written submissions so where parties bring on new counsel etc they need to advise the Panel through the administrator. Marlene advised that she would be meeting with the administration staff the next day and would discuss the above matters with them. [These matters were discussed on 5 March 2015 please advise the Hearing Administrator or Marlene Oliver if there are any issues.] Agenda Item 3 - Introduction to expert conferencing Marlene outlined some of the key elements relating to expert conferencing: The process will largely follow the Environment Court Practice Note 2014. It was best found through the Environment Court website as a google search will show up draft versions that are outdated. The Practice Note also contains useful information for experts and evidence writing. The expert conferencing process is without prejudice and confidential so that people can make sure they take the opportunity to freely talk and question one another. What is discussed remains inside that meeting. The public outcome of the conferencing is the Joint Witness Statement (JWS). That is the document that will be signed by the participants and experts need to be aware that this is equivalent to evidence it is a significant document. Any document prepared for discussion purposes for conferencing should be clearly labelled as for the purpose of expert conferencing so it remains within the confidential realm. Only the JWS and any attachments are to be presented to the Panel. Expert conferencing was not a public meeting, nor was it like mediation. Only the relevant experts would attend. Agenda Item 4 Expert Conferencing Topics - Memo II (para 15) a) Maori cultural b) Salvage c) Contaminants and ecology d) Planning e) Natural character and landscape f) Dive safety and navigation g) Social and recreation Human Health and Heritage were added as additional topics [4(h) & 4(i)]. [Note: two further topics have been suggested by Hugh: Cultural and biodiversity offsetting & Alternatives (statutory and non-statutory)]. Hugh raised issues with resourcing of experts and the timetable. Hugh asked where marine mammals and fisheries. Keith clarified that it would be ecology. This was added to 4(c). Keith circulated a list of the application technical reports and identified which ones were relevant to the different topics. Keith circulated a list of experts, for the applicant, and their availability calendar. Keith requested that the initial contact with the experts be made through either him or Cushla. Keith clarified that this was simply to coordinate the first introduction which they thought was best done through a central point, but that thereafter there was no issue at all with contact being directly expert to expert.
4 Alex said they would have two witnesses Joe Te Kowhai and Kepa Morgan. From Te Arawa ki Tai s perspective Kepa Morgan is an engineer but also a mauri expert. Mauri covers everything in the list so he should be included in all of the topics. Paul asked whether he would want to get involved in birds and Alex said he would need to take instructions but from what he had read of the reports Dr Morgan will want to have input into everything. Marlene said it may be helpful preparation for conferencing if Dr Morgan were to highlight areas where he has a different view from what the experts for the Regional Council or applicant have stated so far, as this would assist with the agendas. Break for lunch 11.50 am. Return from lunch 1.00pm. The s representatives were in attendance. Ken Stephen outlined that the was providing a resourcing package to the Maori submitters. This was being coordinated by the Ministry of Transport who had engaged a facilitator Chappie Te Kani. The email address for the facilitator, who all Maori submitters are to contact in the first instance is chappietekani@gmail.com. Expert Conferencing - Table The parties worked through this document filling in the details of known experts for each topic. There was some discussion over the need for ocean dispersal modelling caucusing. Marlene agreed that this would probably need to be a separate topic from ecology, but added it to 4(c) Contaminants and Ecology, for now. Marlene said that she would be facilitating the face-to-face meetings in April but that she was expecting experts to make contact with other experts before then, and in particular to have requested any further information/clarifications. Marlene asked that all Parties instruct their experts to make contact with other relevant experts as soon as possible. It is not expected that will say statements or evidence be available before experts make contact with other experts. Marlene explained that she will be working with experts to have an agenda prepared in advance of face-to-face sessions. Keith said that it was anticipated that all people presenting evidence would go to the site and see it for themselves. Parties need to contact Keith to make arrangements to visit the site. Regarding the salvage topic, Paul explained that they wanted to avoid the expense of bringing experts to NZ from Holland for expert conferencing. It was agreed that cost effective and efficient options would be considered including video conference from their respective countries, or even have them meet somewhere like Singapore if they are all flying through there. Keith asked about acoustics and avifauna the applicant is not proposing to caucus on these. Jeremy said the was not proposing to call evidence on those matters but was keeping a watching brief. Alex said he would take instructions on this but suspects Dr Morgan will want to discuss. Joe Harawira and Kereama Akuhata left the meeting at this point. Marlene reminded Parties that they were to respond to the Panel by Friday 6 March with names and contact details of their experts. A further version of the spreadsheet would be prepared after Friday 6 March and circulated to Parties with experts. [Note: Some parties filed a Memo or an email on 6 March advising of their interest in participating in expert conferencing. Rather than post all of these on the web site the relevant details have been included in the updated Table (see note below). If any party wishes to see a copy of the material filed, then please request the same from the Hearing Administrator. Attached is a Table with the Expert Conferencing Topics, Parties and their experts (names only) as at 11 March 2015. A more comprehensive version of the table with contact details will be circulated to Parties with experts and to those people who attended the 4 March Meeting.]
5 Agenda Item 6 Further Information The Council had prepared a table relating to : The further information to be provided by the Applicant (refer Panel Memo II, para 11(a)); and The s requests refer to Memo of 18 February 2015, Appendix B The meeting worked through the table, adding additional information. A copy of the Table as at the end of the meeting is attached. Keith read out paragraph 7 of the Panel s memo re information provided by 7 April and reiterated that the ADUS survey and the sampling reporting could not physically be made available by that date. The sampling will commence weather permitting Monday, but this is not looking likely, so it would be as soon as possible thereafter. Keith advised that the issue was the processing of all the data they have been told by ADUS that it will take longer than 2 weeks to do this. The ecological characterization and the copper recovery reports are almost complete and will be released shortly, likely before 7 April. There was discussion about the delay. Jeremy Prebble clarified that this meant that the Applicant would not be meeting the direction of the Panel and said he assumed they will be going back to the Panel on that basis. Marlene said that having had that indication, she would like Keith to pass on to Matt Casey that those attending the meeting invited him to write a memo to the panel responding to their direction and this will allow others to respond on the matter. [Note: A Memo from Counsel for the Applicant, dated 10 March 2015, has been filed updating the availability of information.] Jeremy clarified that the reference to strata in the information request was so they could better understand the proportion of the reef affected. All the reports say 1 or 2% of the reef but not clearly how much of the shallower parts are actually affected. They need more of a profile so they can understand this. Jeremy asked for a detailed map of the site. The scales have been difficult for the experts. Keith clarified that the grids are 10m x 10m. Keith agreed that they will arrange a useful map that can also be used at the hearing. Agenda Item 7 Other Matters Maori Cultural Issues Marlene asked whether the parties thought that it would be worth conferencing on Māori cultural issues, given that individuals and groups will want to present their own position at the hearing rather than one single set of agreed outcomes. agreed Alex asked whether there was any feeling for how long it will take. Marlene said she understood that at this stage the venue had been booked for three weeks. At this stage the hearing panel will be uncertain as to the number of submitters / parties that will be speaking.. Pia said that the opportunity should be offered to Māori experts who want to conference. Jeremy suggested that Marlene could check with the panel whether it has a view on what it might find helpful. Keith said the applicant was extremely open to discussions. He suggested two elements: 1) the cultural beliefs which may not be able to be caucused on, but that 2) concerns about the methodology used in the cultural values assessment undertaken by the applicant may be worth discussing Marlene confirmed that she would proceed on the basis that Maori cultural issues would be included as a topic and she would seek further input from the parties at the end of March. Marlene thanked everyone. The meeting closed at 4.00pm.
Rena Expert Conferencing: Table relating to further information discussed at Meeting on 4 March 2015. BOPRC summary of the further information requested in the Memo dated 18 Feb 2015 Further information requested (Appendix B of Memo dated 18 Feb 2015) 1. Information providing a general update on the state of the wreck after recent salvage works 2. Information on status of remaining cargo containing contaminants of particular concern. 3. Information explicitly addressing work to be done prior to start of the consent 4. Information about the status of the full cargo manifest. 5. Audit documentation of the containers as detailed in the manifest of point 4. 6. Info confirming status of bulk organic material remaining in the wreck, and assessment of potential mass release events. 7. Info to back up claims milk powder has been discharged. BOPRC's position on information requirement Should be addressed by the Applicant s wreck and debris field update to be provided by 7 April This information was summarised in the application, specifically Volume 1 and 3. The application also identifies the process by which the contaminants of concern was identified, Section 5.4 Vol 3 of the application. A full manifest is provided as Appendix A Vol 3. Further, it was agreed at the previous technical caucusing that the main concerns were the copper and TBT. They have done further testing on the TBT through imposex monitoring and I assume they will provide this information in their evidence. The copper will be addressed through the Copper Recovery Report. An update to the status of the manifest following the completion of the salvage works would be useful as there should now be a clearer picture of what is down there after the salvage works. See comment 1 above See comment 2 above See comment 2 above See comment 2 above See comment 2 above Information Availability as discussed on 4 March 2015 7 April - Applicant to provide an updated ADUS Survey and wreck and debris field description. Matt Casey to report to the hearing panel with update. Further information on copper contamination will be provided as part of the Copper Recovery Report to be submitted by 7 April (and likely available sooner). A general report updating the manifest will be provided in the week of 23 March. 1
Rena Expert Conferencing: Table relating to further information discussed at Meeting on 4 March 2015. 8. Info describing a detailed painting treatment history. 9. Video footage of the Reef area from Jan 2015 10. Access to a diver who has visited the Reef. 11. Bathymetry survey info for the Reef, including any info on the physical damage as a result of the grounding This has been somewhat addressed in the applicant s Antifoulant report by Safinah and the Bioresearches report. The results are based on paint samples taken. The Council's wreck deterioration expert (Lance Marshall of Jacobs) experienced difficulties in trying to source historical information on the Rena when preparing his report. See comment 1, but the Council will have some footage available for circulation once our Dive team provides their report and video from the Feb 2015 dive visit. This will be made available within two weeks. See comment 9. Will be most up to date once get dive video. To some degree this has already been provided in the previous ADUS survey information and the TMC Full Wreck Removal Report provided by the applicant. It may also be further detailed in the updated wreck and debris footage to be provided. Some of the damage may not be visible due to the wreck still being in place on the reef. 12. Updated information on the See comment 1 and 2 (ask Keith) current state of the wreck and debris field following the salvage works i.e. what will remain in situ 13. Fisheries population data There is no historical information on fisheries populations at the Reef, this has been identified by the Council's experts (Jon Brodie, TropWater, James Cook Uni). Further, I am not aware that the applicant has undertaken any of their own surveys as part of the application process. Volume 2 of the Application. Techncial reports by Safinah and Bioresearches. Keith Frentz to provide additional references, and MSDS. Applicant may present this as part of the Ecological Characterisation Report, which is due to be circulated before 7 April. This issue may be addressed in the Copper Report, due by 7 April. can contact Council's divers if they have specific questions but this should be managed through the Reporting Officer or Legal Counsel. to talk to Police Divers. Updated wreck and debris field images to be provided by 7 April. TMC Full Wreck Removal report provided as Attachment 21 to the Council's s87f report. See above re ADUS delays. Keith Frentz to check whether better detailed mapping (scale, contours etc) can be made available. 2
Rena Expert Conferencing: Table relating to further information discussed at Meeting on 4 March 2015. 14. Analysis of the % depth of strata on the Reef occupied of the wreck and debris field. 15. Details of measures to remove copper clove 16. Information on: (i) adverse effects of sediment recovery techniques; (ii) contamination rates resulting from the salvage recovery operation. 17. Info on extent of sediment deposits available for sampling. 18. Presentation of data detailing the presence and spatial distribution of multiple contaminants within sediments, and any information on cumulative effects 19. Description of process undertaken to located and attempted removal of copper clove, and detail of contingency measures if cannot be removed. 20. Copy of the updated monitoring plan providing for the agreed matters in the technical caucusing. We have not had anything that fits this to date but may be provided as part of the ecological characterisation. To be addressed by the copper recovery report (i) There was only verbal information exchanged at the Caucusing on adverse effects of sediment recovery. Council has not received any information on these matters however, there is some value in asking for this information to see what response is provided. There was only verbal information exchanged at the Caucusing. Sediment matters have been discussed in the Bioresearches Sediment Report and further consideration has been provided in the Council's s87f report. See comment 17 above See comment 15 Applicant to provide the updated monitoring plan as part of their evidence but would be useful to have prior to any further caucusing. Ecological characterisation to be provided by 7 April. Taken this on board for the proposal to ADUS, asked to look at profile of the Reef with the wreck in situ. Copper Report due by 7 April To be subject to caucusing Bioresearches Sediment Quality Report provided in Volume 2 of the Application. Sections 8.4.1 and 8.4.2 of the Council's s87f report discuss sedimentation matters. TAG Group to provide recent sampling results. 3
Rena - Expert Conferencing List, as at 11 March 2015. Please advise Marlene Oliver of any changes. Conferencing Topic Ecology and contaminants Recreational Dive Safety Navigational Safety Party Represented Applicant (and SWAP) Applicant Mount Underwater Club Applicant Expert details (Name only) Louis Tremblay (Ecotoxicity) Oliver Fleurl (Paint) Paul Barter (Water and sediment quality) Deana Clements (marine mammals) Steve White (Physical reef ecology) Brett Beamsley (oceanography) Phil Ross (monitoring) Rick Boyd (if required) Jon Brodie (Tropwater, James Cook University) Stephen Park () Martin Cawthron (marine mammals) Dr Rachel McClellan (avifauna if required) Lance Marshall (Jacobs wreck deterioration) Dr Chris Hickey (NIWA) Dr Matthew Allen (EPA) Dr Graeme Rickard (NIWA) Dr Debbie Freeman (DOC) Dr Shane Geange (DOC) Dr Kepa Morgan (mauri model) Joe Harawira Des Gorman and / or Simon Mitchell Jeroen Jongejans (Knight Line) Nick Haslam (LOC Group Ltd) Dr Kepa Morgan Joe Te Kowhai Lay experts and possibly an independent expert -. Nigel Drake Jim Dilley (Environment Canterbury Harbour Master) Nick Haslam (LOC - navigation) Dr Kepa Morgan Joe Te Kowhai Rena - Expert Conferencing List, as at 11 March 2015. Please advise Marlene Oliver of any changes. 1
Rena - Expert Conferencing List, as at 11 March 2015. Please advise Marlene Oliver of any changes. Human health Applicant Dr Francesca Kelly Peter Cressey (ESR) Matt Ashworth (ESR) (and SWAP) NA Dr Kepa Morgan Joe Harawira Natural Character and Landscape Applicant Wade Robertson Stephen Brown Rebecca Ryder (Boffa Miskell) Jo Noble Brad Coombs (Isthmus) Dr Kepa Morgan and Piatarihi Bennett Salvage Applicant Colin Barker (TMC) Roger King (TMC) Camiel de Jonge (GSC) Nick Haslam (LOC) Dr Kepa Morgan Joe Te Kowhai Social impacts and recreation Applicant Amelia Linzey Rob Greenaway Ross Corbett NA Dr Kepa Morgan and Joe Te Kowhai Rena - Expert Conferencing List, as at 11 March 2015. Please advise Marlene Oliver of any changes. 2
Rena - Expert Conferencing List, as at 11 March 2015. Please advise Marlene Oliver of any changes. Planning Applicant Keith Frentz, Cushla Loomb, and Chris Moore on conditions (as submitter) Mount Underwater Club Luke Faithfull (Mitchell Partnerships) Mark Ashby Rob van Voorthuysen Bridgette Munro Piatarihi Bennett and Dr Kepa Morgan Heritage Applicant Andy Dodd NA Pam Bain (Heritage NZ) Dr Kepa Morgan Maori Cultural Applicant Shad Rolleston Des Kahotea Wira Gardiner Tahu Potiki Reginald Proffit Dr Grant Young Raewyn Bennett, Timi Te Po Hohepa, Te Ariki Morehu, Dr Kepa Morgan (mauri) Cultural and biodiversity offsetting Alternatives (statutory and non-statutory) (suggested by MRMT) (suggested by MRMT) Note re: site visits - Applicant will assist and coordinate site visits so please liaise with Keith Frentz regarding this Rena - Expert Conferencing List, as at 11 March 2015. Please advise Marlene Oliver of any changes. 3