Thursday, 1 August 2013

Transcription

1 NOTICE IS GIVEN that the next meeting of the Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee will be held in The Council Chamber, Rotorua District Council, Civic Administration Building, 1061 Haupapa Street, Rotorua on: EMBARGOED Until 2 working days before meeting on: Thursday, 1 August 2013 commencing at 9.30 a.m. Mary-Anne Macleod Chief Executive 25 July 2013

2

3 Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee Terms of Reference The Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee has core functions of implementation and monitoring of Regional Council Strategy and Policy. 1 Delegated Function To set the operational direction for approved Regional Council policy and strategy and monitor how it is implemented. This will be achieved through the development of specific operational decisions which translate policy and strategy into action. 2 Membership All Councillors including the Chairman as Ex-Officio. 3 Term of the Committee For the period of the 2010/2013 Triennium unless discharged earlier by the Regional Council. 4 Specific Responsibilities and Delegated Authority The Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee is delegated the power of authority to: 1. Approve operational plans (as identified in council s Ten Year Plan and Annual Plan) that implement approved Regional Council Strategy and policy. Including: Regional park management plans. Asset management plans. The Tier II Response Plan for oil pollution incidents and submit for approval to the Maritime Safety Authority. 2. Monitor the implementation and progress of approved Regional Council policy, strategy, operational plans and programmes. Examples include: The Regional Pest Management Strategy. Asset Management Plans. The Environmental Enhancement Fund. Rivers and Drainage schemes. Small scale sewage reticulation subsidy scheme. Council s Tier II Response Plan for oil pollution incidents. Biodiversity and environmental programmes with private owners. Environmental response functions. Transport related plans. Contaminated sites programme. Bylaws. Civil defence emergency management responsibilities as a member of the Bay of Plenty Civil Defence Emergency Management Group. Monitoring, compliance and investigation programmes. A page i

4 3. Make decisions about compliance and enforcement functions and action relating to any statute Council operates under such as: Warranting officers. Taking enforcement and court action. Issuing fines and infringement notices. 4. Approve the allocation of funds (as identified in the Ten Year Plan and Annual Plan) to the Environmental Enhancement Fund. 5. Exercise all Council s duties, functions and powers for determining resource consent applications. 6. Approve submissions on behalf of the Council in relation to consent applications. 7. Approve environmental agreements with private landowners, in accordance with the Policy on Partnerships with the Private Sector. 8. Establish subcommittees and hearing panels and delegate to them any authorities that have been delegated by Council to the Operations, Monitoring and Regulation, Committee and to appoint members (not limited to members of the Operations Monitoring and Regulation Committee). 9. Approve its Subcommittee s recommendations for matters outside the Subcommittee delegated authority. 10. Carry out hearings under any statute, for areas within its terms of reference. 11. Enter into contracts on matters within its terms of reference to a maximum value of $700,000 (excluding GST) for any one contract, subject to and within the allocation of funds set aside for that purpose in the Ten Year Plan or Annual Plan or as otherwise specifically approved by Council. 12. Approve, within its terms of reference, the transfer of budget levels between activities or to exceed the budget level for an activity with no commensurate savings elsewhere, up to $100,000 and to recommend to Council amounts exceeding $100,000. Note: The Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee reports directly to Regional Council The Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee is not delegated the power of authority to: Develop, adopt or review strategic policy and strategy. Approve Council submissions on legislation, policy, regulations, standards, plans and other instruments prepared by Central Government, Local Government and other organisations. Identify, monitor and evaluate necessary actions by the organisation and other relevant organisations on the Rotorua Te Arawa Lakes programme. A page ii

5 Public Forum 1. A period of up to 15 minutes shall be set aside near the beginning of the meeting to enable members of the public to make statements about any matter on the agenda of that meeting which is open to the public, but excluding any matter on which comment could prejudice any specified statutory process the council is required to follow. 2. The time allowed for each speaker will normally be up to 5 minutes but will be up to the discretion of the chair. A maximum of 3 public participants will be allowed per meeting. 3. No statements by public participants to the Council shall be allowed unless a written, electronic or oral application has been received by the Chief Executive (Governance Team) by noon of the working day prior to the meeting and the Chair s approval has subsequently been obtained. The application shall include the following: name of participant; organisation represented (if any); meeting at which they wish to participate; and matter on the agenda to be addressed. 4. Members of the meeting may put questions to any public participants, relevant to the matter being raised through the chair. Any questions must be asked and answered within the time period given to a public participant. The chair shall determine the number of questions. page iii

6 page iv

7 Membership Chairman: M Whitaker Deputy Chairman: P Sherry Councillors: Ex Officio: Secretary: R Bennett, T Eru, J Mansell, T Marr, J Nees, I Noble, N Oppatt, D Owens, P Thompson, L Thurston Council Chairman J Cronin S Cubbon Recommendations in reports are not to be construed as Council policy until adopted by Council. Agenda 1 Apologies 2 General Business and Tabled Items Items not on the agenda for the meeting require a resolution under section 46A of the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 stating the reasons why the item was not on the agenda and why it cannot be delayed until a subsequent meeting. 3 Reports 3.1 Update on Mechanical Mangrove Management, Tauranga Harbour 3 APPENDIX 1 - Mechanical Mangrove Management Tauranga Harbour OMR Presentation 1 August Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Implementation Progress 23 APPENDIX 1 - Combined Ohiwa Harbour Strategy OHS Actions May Harbour Erosion Ballance Farm Environment Award criteria for nutrients 49 APPENDIX BFEA Judging Manual Template 53 APPENDIX 2 - BFEA Judging Workbook - McFetridge Example 85 APPENDIX 3 - Judges Feedback Report - McFetridge Example 117 page v

8 3.5 Biodiversity Collaboration with the Department of Conservation 125 APPENDIX 1 - Biodiversity collaboration with DOC - FINAL report including sign-off document - 12 June 2013.d Implementation of Resource Management (Measurement and Reporting of Water Takes) Regulations 2010 and Water Abstraction Compliance: Irrigation and Frost Protection Maritime Operations Report for 2012/ APPENDIX 1 - Provisions of the Local Government Act 1974 relevant to maritime operations Schedule of Enquiries, Complaints and Enforcement Activities: 1 April to 30 June APPENDIX 1 - Appendix 1 Complaints Report Apr - Jun General Manager's Report Consideration of General Business page vi

9 Reports Page 1 of 226

10 Page 2 of 226

11 File Reference: Significance of Decision: Receives Only - No Decisions Report To: Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee Meeting Date: 01 August 2013 Report From: Warwick Murray, General Manager Natural Resource Operations Update on Mechanical Mangrove Management, Tauranga Harbour Executive Summary This paper provides an update on the current mechanical mangrove management for Tauranga Harbour. The areas for mangrove management provided for in the Ten Year Plan include additional mature plant removal; boundary rationalisation; exposed stump removal and seedling maintenance. A PowerPoint presentation will accompany this paper. 1 Recommendations That the Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee under its delegated authority: 1 Receives the report, Update on Mechanical Mangrove Management, Tauranga Harbour. 2 Background The initial mechanical mangrove management commenced in January 2010 and finished August A total of 110 hectares of mature mangroves over 10 consented areas were mulched. These 110 hectares equate to approximately 10% of the mangroves in Tauranga Harbour. Council agreed to mangrove management where there was a community desire to do so. Council s current policy is to assist established Estuary Care Groups within the areas the groups hold consent. Further financial support was allocated for mangrove management in the 2012/13 year. This was to provide on-going support in the case of additional mature mangrove removal and a new level of support for seedling and stump maintenance. Navigation through the consent process for these new actions has proved complex, adding significant delays. As a result Council supported the continuation of this work into the 2013/14 financial year and increased the budget by $70,000 to assist in the delivery. In October 2012 three further resource consent applications were lodged. A week after the consents were lodged Dr Carolyn Lundquist from NIWA published a report Page 3 of 226

12 Update on Mechanical Mangrove Management, Tauranga Harbour on the effects of mechanical removal of mangroves in Tauranga Harbour which was critical of some aspects of the Science Monitoring Effects Report prepared by the Regional Council Science section. While Dr Lundquist agreed on the data, she did not agree on the conclusions, particularly around the impact of mulch and the ability of the area to recover post-clearing. Staff also were concerned at the inability of the mulch to tidally flush in some estuaries as had initially been expected. Following Dr Lundquist s report the consents were put on hold while a peer review was commissioned. The peer review was received 21 February 2013 and noted that there was insufficient and inconclusive data to prove whether the mulching methodology had either positive or negative effects in the estuary. Staff therefore initiated a process to gather alternative methods to mulching. This was achieved through a public Expressions of Interest (EOI) process. As a result, the methodology recommended for mature mangrove removal is barge removal and root rake, and mulching of the remaining pneumatophores. While more expensive than mulching, given the concerns regarding leaving the mulch in situ, it is the most practical alternative. This new methodology had been trialled previous to the 110 hectare removal. While the method was successful, the cost of clearing 110 hectares using this method was cost prohibitive, compared to mulching. The current mature area for 2013/14 is approximately hectares, which makes root rake and barge a viable option, and less controversial in regards to the mulch being left in-situ. Budget was provided to complete 30 hectares of mature removal in the 2012/2013 financial year. The costs for this removal were provided based on the previously used cheaper mulching methodology. While 30 hectares of mature mangroves was supported by Council, the Estuary Care Groups have only identified and requested hectares for removal. 3 Current Actions 3.1 Mechanical Seedling Removal Resource Consent Resource Consent Term Requested: Ten years Regular removal of mangrove seedlings is the most effective method of controlling future mangrove expansion. Currently Estuary Care Groups remove mangrove seedlings manually. This is very labour-intensive. In Welcome Bay estuary, for example, approximately hectares of coastal margin (out of a total of 350 hectares) are colonisable by mangrove seedlings. The hectares area is currently cleared by hand on an annual basis by the Estuary Care Group. Consent had been applied for mechanical seedling removal in 10 areas (approximately 500 hectares). The proposed methodology uses a prototype Argos seedling mower. This will be a purpose-built lightweight machine that exerts 0.8 PSI over its two 33 cm wide tracks. A limited trial was undertaken in 2011 with little disturbance to bird roosting sites and macro fauna. Consent has been requested for 10 years. Page 4 of 226 2

13 Update on Mechanical Mangrove Management, Tauranga Harbour Resource Consent Status Being Progressed 1. The benthic and bird monitoring programmes are being independently peer reviewed by a third party this is a consent requirement. 2. All information will then be sent to the Independent Commissioner (Greg Hill) for review of the recommended notification status; i.e. non-notified; limited notification; or public notification. 3. Operational work is dependent on resource consent being granted which then allows staff to enter a contract to build the seedling machine. The building is estimated to take two to three weeks. In addition, work cannot be undertaken during the Department of Conservation (DOC)-imposed bird breeding season from 1 September 2013 to 28 February It is likely that this consent will be publicly notified and could possibly be referred to the Environment Court. If this does eventuate then works could possibly be delayed until the beginning of March Mechanical Stump Removal Resource Consent Resource Consent Term Requested Three years The appearance of exposed stumps in cleared areas was recognised by Estuary Care Group members as an issue. The stumps increasingly become exposed as the sediment and mud migrates and / or compacts. Stumps are now visible above the estuary surface in the areas where mature mangrove mulching was completed in 2010/2011. The protruding stumps create obstructions which can catch sea lettuce and mangrove propagules as well as potentially being safety hazards for people. They also lower the efficiency of sediment mobilisation. Consent for mechanical stump removal has been granted. Removal is planned in the 10 previously cleared areas (approximately 90 hectares). The methodology is to re-cut and mulch the stumps. In areas where the mulching machine is unable to gain access due to a very soft substrate or areas where debris are present, manual removal by scrub-bar will be used. Consent has been granted for three years. Resource Consent Status Granted 13 May 2013 Mechanical operational work commenced in Matua Estuary 16 July Following legal advice, the start of the work was put on hold until the completion of the Regional Policy Statement (RPS) mangrove appeal to the Environment Court. Work commenced after the RPS hearing but was stopped 17 July 2013 by Mr Basil Graeme and Mr Al Fleming from Forest & Bird who protested on site. Mr Graham stood in front of the digger making it unsafe for the machine to continue and requested that work be stopped. Their protest was that the resource consent did not cover removal of the mangrove seedlings that were within the stump areas. The Council Compliance Officer attended the site and allowed work to continue for the rest of the day while legal opinion was sought. A variation to the consent was sought and granted, allowing work to continue 23 July. The consent has now been changed to include the removal of mangrove seedlings in consented stump areas. Work recommenced 23 July Page 5 of 226 3

14 Update on Mechanical Mangrove Management, Tauranga Harbour Manual removal of stumps has also been completed by scrub-bar at Mangawhai Bay, Omokoroa (2.2 hectares of mature mangroves, seedlings and stumps), and at Johnson Reserve, Welcome Bay (0.8 hectares of mature mangroves). More manual removal is planned at the Waimapu Estuary, Fraser Cove in the next four weeks. 3.3 Mechanical Additional Mature Removal Resource Consent Resource Consent Term Requested One year While Council made provisions in the TYP for 30 hectares of mature mangrove removal in this financial year, the Estuary Care Groups identified only an approximate hectares for clearing. This includes new areas as well as areas needing their previously cut boundaries rationalised. The additional mature removal areas are listed below in Table 1. The proposed methodology is by root rake and removal by barge and mulching of the pneumatophores. Consent has been requested for 12 months. Table 1. Additional Mature Mangrove Removal Sites Estuary Matahui Road Uretara Ōmokoroa Waikaraka Matua Welcome Bay Total Approx. ha 7.8 ha 3.0 ha 0.4 ha 1.0 ha 0.3 ha 0.93 ha ha Resource Consent Status Being Progressed This consent is required to be publicly notified (decision made by Commissioner Greg Hill). The consent granting timeframe may be between three and four months. The resource consent application is currently being updated to meet the requirements of the public notification process; the additional public scrutiny; and possible Environment Court action. It is likely to be resubmitted for public notification early-august. Operational work is likely to be delayed until January 2014, as work cannot be undertaken during the DOC-imposed bird breeding season from 1 September 2013 to 31 December If referred to the Environment Court, operational work could be further delayed. Page 6 of 226 4

15 Update on Mechanical Mangrove Management, Tauranga Harbour 4 Projected Timeline The following is a projected timeline. It is, however, dependent on the Resource Consent process Activity May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Anticipated consent approval Seedling removal Seedlings Bird Breeding Consent approval granted Stump Removal Stumps Bird breeding Anticipated Consent approval Mature Removal Additional Mature Bird breeding 5 Regional Policy Statement Mangrove Appeal Update This hearing was held 8-10 July The decision has yet to be made, but the following are comments from staff s personal observations made during the hearing. Judge Smith gave an indication that he understood there was a need to take a balanced approach between the purely ecological view and communities amenity aspirations. He also gave his understanding that the major cause of the mangrove expansion in Tauranga Harbour was sediment, linking the importance of Council taking a catchment approach to help address the issue. He noted the importance of rules and guidelines where mangroves could be managed, based on robust criteria, addressing amenity, cultural, access, and recreational values. He further commented that he did not see that the parties were that far apart in what they wanted, and that there was no actual disagreement in regards to the ecological value of mangroves. He saw that there was more a clash of values. The decision will be provided within the next three months. Page 7 of 226 5

16 here to enter text. Update on Mechanical Mangrove Management, Tauranga Harbour 6 Conclusion While mangrove management work has started, the process to gain resource consent for the work has proven to be complex; one which still attracts opposition and intense scrutiny. Staff are endeavouring to work through the processes as quickly as possible. 7 Financial Implications Provision has been made for these activities outlined in the Ten Year Plan. Council has supported a further $70,000 within the current Annual Plan process in recognition that much of the work budgeted in the 2012/13 year will actually be completed in the 2013/14 year. It should be noted that the current allocated budget does not include legal or consenting costs if the remaining two consents go to Environment Court or Appeal. Amy Greaves Land Management Officer (Western) for General Manager Natural Resource Operations 24 July 2013 Click Page 8 of 226 6

17 APPENDIX 1 Mechanical Mangrove Management Tauranga Harbour OMR Presentation 1 August 2013 pptx Page 9 of 226

18 Page 10 of 226

19 Mechanical Mangrove Management Tauranga Harbour Presentation for Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee 1 August 2013 Amy Greaves Land Management Officer (Coastal) Page 11 of 226

20 10 Estuary Care Groups 11 defined management areas across Tauranga Harbour 2 Page 12 of 226

21 Estuary Care Group Activities Mangrove maintenance Weed control Restoration and riparian planting Bird monitoring Benthic and transect monitoring Weed control Pest Control Rubbish removal Education Matua Estuary Care Group Working Bee March Page 13 of 226

22 Mechanical Mangrove Removal Background Council gained mechanical consent Mechanical removal of 110 ha mature mangroves 2012 Council support to remove more: Stumps Seedlings Mature Mangroves 4 Page 14 of 226

23 Driven by Estuary Care Groups to restore estuaries like this Mangawhai Bay, Te Puna 5 Page 15 of 226

24 Before mulching Ōmokoroa - 18 January 2010 After mulching 6 Ōmokoroa - 29 January 2010 Page 16 of 226

25 Status of Current Resource Consents Three Resource Consents: Seedling maintenance Monitoring plans being peer reviewed Stump removal Granted May 2013, work started 16 July Additional mature removal (approx ha) Public notification 7 Page 17 of 226

26 Methodology for Seedling Removal Argos Prototype AND Manual Removal 8 Page 18 of 226

27 Methodology for Stump Removal Cut and Mulch 9 Page 19 of 226

28 Methodology for Additional Mature Removal Root rake and barge removal 10 Page 20 of 226

29 Questions? 11 Page 21 of 226

30 Page 22 of 226

31 File Reference: Significance of Decision: Low Report To: Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee Meeting Date: 01 August 2013 Report From: Warwick Murray, General Manager Natural Resource Operations Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Implementation Progress Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to update the Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee on the implementation of the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy. The partners have in completed the 37 actions in the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy and generated several more which have also been completed or formed the basis for business as usual. A state of the environment report at the recent Ōhiwa Harbour Implementation Forum hui confirmed that the overall health of the Ōhiwa Harbour and the Nukuhou River catchment is improving ecologically. Two of the partners (Whakatōhea and Ngāi Tūhoe) are still involved in Treaty settlement processes with the Crown, which involves the Ōhiwa Harbour. This has not affected the ability of the partnership to keep coordinating the management of the harbour or its catchments. There are three main objectives for The first one is to continue implementing the on-going actions and to ensure those actions in progress are completed or develop into ongoing business. The second and main objective is linked to completing the mini review of the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy before the first hui of the Ōhiwa Harbour Implementation Forum in the new triennium. The mini reviews objective is to analyse performance against set criteria of the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy and to gather feedback in the current process and results from the partners. The third objective is to implement the new environmental monitoring recommendations for the harbour and catchment and to ensure monitoring already in place is completed. Recent decisions within the council in implementing the NPS for Freshwater includes the Ōhiwa Harbour and Nukuhou River as a defined catchment for work and this has been captured in the Water Management Programme. It is entirely probable that the mini review will recommend that the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy evolves to include requirements under the NPS for Freshwater. Ōhiwa Harbour and the Nukuhou River catchment are well placed to provide a suitable situation to test and develop catchment management through a collaborative approach. This is because of the structure in place with the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy Coordination Group and the Ōhiwa Harbour Implementation Forum. 1 Recommendations Page 23 of 226

32 Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Implementation Progress That the Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee under its delegated authority: 8 Receives the report, Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy Implementation Progress. 9 Confirms that the decision is within the Bay of Plenty Regional Council s strategic planning framework (Council s Ten Year Plan, and planning documents and processes under the Resource Management Act 1991, Biosecurity Act 1993, Land Transport Management Act 2003, Civil Defence and Emergency Management Act 2002, and Local Government Acts 1974 and 2002). 2 Background The Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy (The Strategy ) covers the Ōhiwa Harbour and its land catchment area. The purpose of this report is to update the Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee on the implementation of actions contained within the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy. The Strategy is a non-statutory document that was prepared by Bay of Plenty Regional Council with input from Whakatāne District Council, Ōpōtiki District Council, Ngati Awa, Upokorehe, Whakatōhea, and Ngāi Tūhoe. The Strategy was formally approved in June Implementation of the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy is overseen by the Ōhiwa Harbour Implementation Forum. This Forum has been in existence since June 2008 and its Terms of Reference remains as resolved by the Regional Councils on 10 December Current membership of the Forum is still; 1 Bay of Plenty Regional Council Cr Malcolm Whittaker 2 Opotiki District Council Cr Selby Fisher 3 Whakatāne District Council Cr Christine Chambers 4 Ngai Tūhoe (Waimana Kaaku Trust) Nika Rua 5 Whakatōhea (Māori Trust Board) Maude Edwards 6 Upokorehe Maui Manuel 7 Ngati Awa (Te Runanga o Ngāti Awa) Te Kei Merito The Forum meets twice a year and a progress report is presented to the Operations, Monitoring and Regulations Committee once a year. The last report was present to this committee on 6 th December Two Ōhiwa Harbour Implementation Forum hui have been held in Coordination of operational work undertaken by the various partners is overseen by the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy Coordination Group which has both political and staff representation. Four Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy Coordination Group hui have been in Page 24 of 226 2

33 Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Implementation Progress To support the strategy s implementation the Bay of Plenty Regional Council operational budget was $94, Strategy Actions Update A complete list of strategy actions and their status is shown in Appendix 1. There are additional worksheets showing the action status of the four completed supporting action plans and subsets of actions, namely: Sediment and Mangrove Management Plan, Ōhiwa Harbour Communications Plan, Ecological actions and Resource Management actions. There are 37 actions in the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy. All of them at this stage have been completed and are finished or on-going, or are in progress. This is an increase from 86% to 100%. Four strategy actions resulted in four additional planning documents and this is a summary of their progress. Progress has increased this year to 90% of actions completed which is an increase from 86% last year actions within the Communications Plan: 17 completed or in progress (89%) no change since the last hui actions within the Sediment and Mangrove Management Plan: 16 completed or in progress (100%) actions with the Ecological actions: 6 completed or in progress (66%) and 3 on hold indefinitely actions within the Resource Management actions: 7 completed or in progress (100%). 3.1 Objectives for The objectives for were to address the remaining five actions in the strategy that had not been implemented, in addition to continuing the on-going actions. Those actions are; Advocacy on fishing issues Clarify the status of public land Enhance the Ōhope spit Harbour Edge walkway Monitoring recreation activities Review community suggestions (numbering 22) Advocacy on fishing issues Recently funding from the Ministry of Primary Industries via Mai nga Kuri o Wharei ti Tihirau and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council and Te Runanga o Ngāti Awa has been successfully provided for new mussel/starfish survey. Diving the mussel beds has been completed and the report is being prepared, for the mussel beds on the Ōhope side of Ōhiwa Harbour. A meeting is also planned between Council staff and the local Ministry of Primary Industries representative to discuss further fishing advocacy management. Recently the 0800 POACHER hot line has been added to the website. Page 25 of 226 3

34 Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Implementation Progress Fisheries issues within Ōhiwa Harbour have been an area of slow progress for the strategy partners. There has been a long term focus on the process of developing a moana rohe led by Ngāti Awa followed by the implementation of a maitatai reserve. This approach needs further kōrero between the three iwi and one hapū partners as to how to progress this approach to fishery issues within the Ōhiwa Harbour. Progress is also contingent on Crown settlement processes Clarify the status of public land Mapping the status of ownership of land parcels adjacent to harbour has been largely completed with a small collection of parcels having their status reviewed by the District Councils. At this early stage though, it is clear that the ownership of land parcels directly adjacent to the harbour is a mixture of private and public land with paper roads complicating the picture. Access sites for the public are well known and there is minimal scope for increasing the amount of access. Since the strategy has been in place there has been no pressure from the community or any user groups to increase access to the harbour Enhance the Ōhope spit Harbour Edge walkway This action was quite specific and other walkway opportunities have arisen and been pursued. 1 Enhance the Ōhope spit Harbour Edge walkway - this action has been discussed previously with the Department of Conservation but there has been no progress on creating more of a walkway than what is defined at the Ōhope spit currently. The status quo remains. 2 Ōpōtiki District Council are extending the Ōhiwa based walkway having completed the consent process and Historic Places Trust assessment. Work will start soon once tenders close and will be completed by Christmas Another proposal is a raised walkway in Ōhope being proposed by the Rotary Club of Whakatāne. The project s vision is to provide the public the opportunity to appreciate the visual tidal moods, plant and wildlife that Ōhiwa Harbour offers, to encourage healthy activity for walkers, bikers and those in wheelchairs and create contemplation sites for mental rest. Connectivity with existing reserves is important to link them and enhance their usefulness as a public amenity. The route of the proposed boardwalk is around 2061 metres. It is envisaged that it will meander from a grassy area on the eastern side of Waterways Drive and, close to the shoreline, connect two un-named district council reserves on Harbour Rd, pass through Otao South Reserve and onto the Ōhope wharf. Ramps across the boardwalk will be made available at intervals where formed access tracks are identified in conjunction with Whakatāne District Council and where adjacent property owners are able to subsidise or fund them. At intervals extended decking to allow seating, interpretive signage and possibly commemorative plaques. It is envisaged that the project would be undertaken in four stages, beginning at Waterways drive. The short first stage would allow for any practical hurdles and other issues to be worked through. The design will comply with New Zealand Standard SNZ HB8630:2004, Tracks and Outdoor Visitor Structures. Mike Collins, a retired structural engineer is providing the design work and Page 26 of 226 4

35 Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Implementation Progress Richard Boon, a local draughtsman is also assisting and developing cost estimates. Mapping has been carried out by Trig Yates from Bay of Plenty Regional Council. Currently a project steering committee is being set up. The project will involve some significant costs. There are a number of private funds which have been identified for possible assistance such as Rotary District Designated Funds Rotary International Matching Grant and the Nova Energy Community Support Fund. Local public body funds available may include the Bay of Plenty Regional Council Environmental Enhancement Fund, the Whakatāne District Council Community Fund, the Ōhope Community Board cash in lieu account and discretionary fund. National funding agencies include the New Zealand Lotteries Commission, the New Zealand Walking access commission. Optional extras such as seating, signage and plaques could also be funded by local businesses and individuals. Donations of cash, materials and/or labour are hoped for from the local community Monitoring recreation activities One of the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy actions is to carry out monitoring of recreation activities. Observation tells us that one of the most important aspects of Ōhiwa Harbour and its environs is that it is well used by visitors and locals alike for a wide range of recreational activities. By far the majority of online visits to the new Ōhiwa webpages have been to the recreation pages. It has had double the visits than any other page. A large section of the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy is dedicated to recreation. Action of the OHS: Monitoring Recreation Activities (see Appendix 1), demands that recreation activities are monitored to: assess recreational usage identify incompatible uses including conflict with cultural and ecological values assist with demand management (such as the need for facilities) None of these three aspects have been formally monitored and we only have anecdotal information. It is not possible to respond to these without firm data. A survey of users of the harbour will occur during the summer. This will include a survey of the community. The survey will provide information about recreational activities around the harbour and to: identify whether further provision of recreational opportunities is necessary (for example do mountain bikers need to be provided for), identify whether the various facilities provided are sufficient and in the right locations (for example would people appreciate more picnic tables) identify incompatible and conflicting uses and provide some insights into how these could be addressed add value to the design of some projects already underway, such as the provision of walkways and a heritage trail. The survey report is due in March Page 27 of 226 5

36 Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Implementation Progress Review community suggestions This related to 22 suggestions from members of the community for actions that fell outside the scope of the main themes of the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy around the Ōhiwa harbour. Eleven of these have been completed in recent years by the agencies responsible such as enhancing the old pumice pit (on Wainui Rd), carried out by Whakatāne District Council, and providing toilet facilities at Ōhiwa Scenic Reserve, carried out by Ōpōtiki District Council. Three actions are in progress, such as establishing pest eradication programmes on islands. An action relating to control the location of fish nets is the responsibility of the Ministry of Primary Industries. There are rules for the size and shape of nets and that they can t block a channel, but there are no rules over where you put a net in the harbour. The Ministry has indicated that this won t change. Another action was to assess coastal erosion and there is no coastal erosion of any significance within the Ōhiwa Harbour. The remaining six actions were assessed and cannot be carried out, either because they are prohibitively expensive, for example providing a tidal swimming facility; or for practical reasons, for example the better identification of channels is not possible because of the nature of the harbour substrate. 3.2 Existing on-going actions highlights Of the on-going actions the following are highlights; Mangrove removal is being led by Te Upokorehe hapū with community support. An area of 11.7ha has been cleared of seedlings and outlying plants over the last two years. It has been a real success story thus far with a lot of manual labour involved and no other issues to contend with A signage survey of the Ōhiwa Harbour has been completed. All of the partners have agreed to implement the following recommendations which will aim to improve the effectiveness and use of signs around our harbour: It is the responsibility of each partner organisation to work cooperatively with these recommendations and ensure they are acted upon. In addition a signage best-practice guide will assist Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy partner organisations with the design and placement of future signs for maximum effect. Key points include signage content, placement, timing, layout and use of QR codes. Recommendations to be implemented 1. Remove or replace aged or poor-quality signage as quickly as possible. 2. Whenever possible, employ a site-led approach to new signage. This provides opportunity for organisational collaboration to produce fewer, more effective signs. 3. A signage best practice guide will help OHS partner organisations with design and placement of future signs. 4. Interpretation best practice is added to the guide A State of Environment report has been completed for the Ōhiwa Harbour and its catchment collating various recorded monitoring data which provides a summary of the current state of our harbour and its catchments. A summary is as follows. Page 28 of 226 6

37 Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Implementation Progress Land Land cover changes occurring within Ōhiwa Harbour Catchment have been minor since Complete fencing of the Ōhiwa Harbour margin has been achieved. The Ōhiwa Harbour catchment streams are 28.8km. 26.9km or 93% is currently protected. 0.3km has been added this year to increase the protection to 94%. The Nukuhou River and tributary streams are 146.5km. 120km or 81% is currently protected. 5.5km has been added this year to increase the protection to 85%. A large amount of forestry has been harvested since 2008, 12% of the catchment with nearly all of it replanted. There has been minor reduction in the pastoral hill country that remains to other land uses with a lot of soil conservation planting yet to occur on hills to reduce slipping. Terrestrial Biodiversity There are numerous threatened flora and fauna, including marsh birds, bats and kiwi occurring within the catchment. Some plant species recorded were not previously known to occur within the catchment. There have been increases in the abundance and a distribution of native fauna includes Australasian bittern, North Island fern bird, weka, kiwi and variable oyster catcher. Introduced pest plants and animals are controlled in numerous areas within the catchment with a focus on those affecting the indigenous fauna and flora. A coordinated approach to increase the buffer for the harbour edge is planned for the future. Water Marine water quality is monitored at two sites and is rated good when compared to other eastern bay estuaries. However, suspended solids and wastewater related measures are showing increasing trends on the eastern side of the Harbour. Bathing water quality in the Harbour remains as one of the best in the Bay of Plenty. Freshwater quality results in the Nukuhou River show some improvement for suspended solids and nitrogen however, we are also seeing an increased temperature trend. Streams feeding directly into Ōhiwa Harbour contain relatively diverse native freshwater fish populations. However, around 40% of streams have barriers to fish migration. This figure needs to be reduced to improve the potential habitat for native fish species. In relation to the overall macro-invertebrate stream health there has been no real change in the Ōhiwa Harbour Catchment over time other than in one Ōhiwa Harbour catchment tributary stream. Comparison of the Kutarere, Wainui and Nukuhou sites to others in the region showed that they had similar macro-invertebrate stream health as other pasture streams. Marine and Estuary Marine sediment results are good with contaminants results well below guideline values. Benthic communities have maintained their species richness and diversity over time. Mussel beds in the Harbour have been reduced with simultaneous starfish population increases. Mangrove extents were last mapped in An area of 11.7ha has been cleared of seedlings and outlying plants over the last two years. Mapping is currently being carried out and this will help indicate whether the rate of spread is matched by the current rate of removal. Being in mind that the density of mangroves Page 29 of 226 7

38 here to enter text. Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Implementation Progress may be increasing within the zone of no removal. Sea grass extents are showing no changes over time. 4 Communications and Engagement The past year has seen the establishment of the Ōhiwa web page on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council website and it seems to have been a success. Of the 1753 pages on the website, the Ōhiwa page is the 33rd most popular, shown by the number of visits. The community newsletter is now into its eighth quarterly issue and is ed to over 150 individuals, groups and organisations with some very positive feedback from readers. 5 Objectives for There are three main objectives for The first one is to continue implementing the on-going actions and to ensure those actions in progress are completed or develop into on-going business. The second and main objective is linked to completing the mini review of the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy before the first hui of the Ōhiwa Harbour Implementation Forum in the new triennium. The council had previously approved support for a review and recently approved the Ōhiwa Harbour Implementation Forum s recommendation to endorse the review to occur. The third objective is to implement the monitoring recommendations for the harbour and catchment and to ensure monitoring already in place is completed. 6 Financial Implications Current Budget There are no current budget implications. Future Implications There are no future budget implications in relation to implementing the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy. Following a mini review of the strategy in there may be some alteration required for the annual plan. Simon Stokes Land Management Manager - (Eastern) for General Manager Natural Resource Operations 19 July 2013 Click Page 30 of 226 8

39 APPENDIX 1 Combined Ohiwa Harbour Strategy OHS Actions May 2013 PDF Page 31 of 226

40 Page 32 of 226

41 Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Action Plan progress tracking report to May 24th 2013 Theme Action Ref Action Intent and details Proposed Lead Agency Proposed Support Agencies OHS Due Date Target Due Date Status Start of year status and First Quarter August 27 Progress report Second Quarter to December 10 Progress report Third quarter to Feb 18 Progress report Fourth quarter to April 29 Progress report Health of the estuary Managing sedimentation within the catchment. Evaluate current practice and rule BOPRC, ODC, provisions. Ensure best WDC practice in management methods. Forum to review. Advice to roading authorities. Enforcement action if apporpriate. Fed farmers, Forestry, NZTA, Iwi, Roading contractors. 1/07/2009 Jul-10 COMPLETED AND ONGOING See also sediment and mangrove plan actions Status of earthworks rules to be checked in new Whakatāne District Plan and BOPRC Regional Policy Statement. Forestry guidelines review is underway at BOPRC Ōhiwa catchment streams total 28.8km. 26.9km 2nd Wainui Rd route security mtg held - options protected (93.7%). Nukuhou River and tribs presented with modelling. total 146.5km km protected (81.9%) Wainui Rd route security first consultation mtg held with engineers, stakeholders and residents. Options ranked. 2nd hui on 17th Dec. Wainui Rd route security upgrade has go ahead, approved by BOPRC. Mitigation of sedimentation and interference with biodiversity will be mitigated. Still need to ensure any earthworks or forestry harvest roading and or havesting is managed well. Health of the estuary Planting on unstable slopes. Also on riparian margins. Encourage BOPRC, planting, esp. public land. landowners, Discourage removal. Target high ODC, WDC risk areas. Iwi, Community groups Ongoing Jul-13 COMPLETED AND ONGOING See also sediment and mangrove plan actions On-going action with Land Management staff having set targets. This is an on-going part of the advisory service but there has been minimla spaced planting on unstable slopes. The only work that has ouccrred has been to put forestry species in place in the Waingarara strean catchment (90ha's). Health of the estuary Nutrient Budgeting Information. Promote - website and info sheets. BOPRC ODC, WDC, Federated Farmers 1/07/2009 Jul-09 COMPLETED AND ONGOING See also sediment and mangrove plan actions On-going action which has been re-emphasised to Land Management staff at BOPRC to check. Nutrient budgeting is reportedly been put in place by the fertiliser companies and reported as such from a regional basis. There have also been field days for dairy farmers in the area on effluent and fertiliser management. Staff do talk to farmers about thier nutrient management but there is more work to be done to focus on diffuse nutrient management issues on farm. Health of the estuary Advice on Shellfish Risks. Provide public advice (not to gather after heavy rain) and signage. BOPRC, MoH BOPRC, WDC, ODC, Iwi 1/07/2009 Jul-09 COMPLETED AND ONGOING On-going. Toi Te Ora put warnings on website. These will be promoted locally by partners. N/A N/A N/A Health of the estuary Stop Contamination of Urban Storm water. Raise awareness and provide advice. Car washing recommendations. Stencil drains. Action plans from BOPRC stormwater strategy. ODC/WDC BOPRC, community 1/07/2009 Jul-09 COMPLETED AND ONGOING See also Comms plan actions Stencilling promotion on stormwater grates - no action so far. Action added to comms plan. Health of the estuary Management of Mangroves. Map, monitor, research trends, causes and impacts. Support management plans. BOPRC ODC, WDC, Ongoing Jul-13 COMPLETED 4ha mangroves cleared near Kutarere by hapū DOC, Iwi, Care groups AND ONGOING and Kutarere community. See sediment and See sediment and mangrove actions. mangrove plan actions Annual report sent to Pollution prevention. 2 more working bees Ōhiwa side. From spit to Factsheet comleted. Plan completed for 2012/3. Reeves Rd extension completed. 1 working bee First season's working bee held at Ōhiwa. Kutarere side. Almost reached 1st Kutarere stream. Factsheet being distributed. group set up. New mapping in progress. Another 7 working bees held. Season completed volunteers. Fortnightly updates sent. Kaimoana Advocacy on Fishing Issues. Enforcement and research of Iwi, BOPRC, sustainable use. More WDC, ODC fisheries officers. Support wardens in compliance. Investigate methods and sustainability. More resources, interest from MPI. Communicate issues to MPI. Joint advocacy. MPI Ongoing Jul-13 IN PROGRESS Exchange of letters with MPI. Unsatisfactory outcome. MPI staff not prepared to visit. Starfish issue raised again - unable to cull without rohe moana. After furthef correspondence with MPI, Graeme McGregor, senior fisheries analyst attended October OHIF to discuss cockle and pipi licences. Plan to promote in Seaweek in March. Article in Opo News and Beacon. Trying to get funding for Kura Burke to redo mussel/starfish survey. Her 1st survey presented to last OHIF. Upokorehe Kaitiaki active over summer. Funding from MPI via Mai nga Kuri o Wharei ti Tihirau with top up from BOPRC and Ngāti Awa for new mussel/starfish survey. Diving to start soon. Meeting planned between Tim and Eugene. Kaimoana Māhinga Mataitai Status for Ōhiwa Harbour. Seek this. Consult with community. Increase community understanding. Iwi partners MPI 1/07/2010 Jul-13 IN PROGRESS High priority. Bev has provided information on process. Iwi to lead. Page 33 of 226

42 Theme Action Ref Action Intent and details Proposed Lead Agency Proposed Support Agencies OHS Due Date Target Due Date Status Start of year status and First Quarter August 27 Progress report Second Quarter to December 10 Progress report Third quarter to Feb 18 Progress report Fourth quarter to April 29 Progress report Kaitiakitanga Develop Iwi Planning Document for Ōhiwa Harbour. Integrated plan. Develop protocols and processes. Iwi partners BOPRC, ODC, WDC 1/07/2009 Jul-09 COMPLETED Paper has been to OHSCG and OHIF. Kaitiakitanga Whakatōhea Review Tawharau o Nga Hapu o Whakatōhea. (Iwi management Plan) Whakatōhea BOPRC, ODC To be determined by Whakatōhe a Jul-13 IN PROGRESS In progress. Whakatōhea to advise of developments. Draft plan has been completed. Kaitiakitanga Identify Ōhiwa Harbour s Cultural Heritage. For protection purposes. Ensure appropriate rules in Plans. Iwi partners BOPRC, ODC, WDC, NZHPT Ongoing Jul-13 IN PROGRESS See also Comms plan actions Need to complete the work and it is tied to work in communications plan (Top sites, website) Upokorehe working towards completing theirs. Kaitiakitanga Develop Protocols with Statutory Agencies To provide processes to integrate kaitiakitanga into resource management processes. Cost sharing. Iwi parners BOPRC, ODC, WDC 1/07/2010 Jul-10 COMPLETED AND ONGOING See also Resource Management actions High priority. Work is now underway through several actions in Resource Management Review Actions worksheet Further recommendations presented by consultant which need to be discussed internally by BOPRC, WDC, ODC. Still some work to do in this to ensure all of the partners have satisfactory protocols with regards to providing for their kaitiakitanga for the harbour. Kaitiakitanga Add Kaitiakitanga into the Community s View of Harbour Management. Integrate into resource management. Use wananga, signage, education resources. Iwi partners, BOPRC, WDC, ODC DOC, MPI, Community Ongoing Jul-13 COMPLETED AND ONGOING This acknowledgement needs to be added to and endorsed in principle by OHIF. Kaitiakitanga approach for Ōhiwa Harbour should be now applied to implementation of the actions in the strategy Recreation opportunities Consider Opportunities to Obtain Harbour Access. Through landowner agreements, aquisition, exchange, district plan changes, subdivision, RCEP changes. ODC, WDC. BOPRC, DoC, iwi, landowners, developers Ongoing Jul-13 IN PROGRESS Needs more emphasis from District councils. Esplanade reserves are set aside with new subdivisions. This action is being considered further as part of clarifying status of public land exercise. Recreation opportunities Clarify the Status of Public Land. And clarify access over paper roads,marginal strips. Investigate access issues. Need for management controls? Reserve man plans, dist plans. BOPRC, ODC, WDC DOC, reserve trustees. 1/07/2009 Jul-13 IN PROGRESS Action is not a priorty until many other actions are dealt with. Requires comprehensive spatial planning map to establish land tenure and contacts. Mapping status of ownership of land parcels adjacent to harbour largely completed. Assessment has begun and to be completed before next hui. Recreation opportunities Develop Reserves Vision for Ōhiwa Harbour. Assess long term objectives for ODC, WDC. reserves and walkways. Future needs and access. Ōhope reserves man plan. Port Ōhope Development Concept plan. BOPRC, DOC, iwi. 1/07/2010 Jul-13 IN PROGRESS Action is not a priorty until many other actions are dealt with. BOPRC Tim Senior to follow up with this. ODC reserves management plans out for public submission but process currently on hold. Recreation opportunities Enhance Ōhope Spit Enhancement through Man Plan. Harbour Edge Walkway. Track and signage. WDC DoC, iwi, landowners 1/07/2010 Jul-13 IN PROGRESS WDC to action by June 2013 WDC investigating this. Hugh Lovelock and To be discussed with Hugh further before next Rotary have plan to build walkway from wharf to hui Waterways subdivision. Recreation opportunities Assess Public Camping Facilities. Investigate current and future demand, protection mechanisms to ensure future availability. Encourage new space if necessary. WDC, ODC, DOC Iwi, interest groups, lease holders 1/01/2009 Jan-09 COMPLETED AND ONGOING Action has completed status but is also open to change depending on District planning reviews. Recreation opportunities Investigate development of Regional Parks. To enhance access to harbour. Links with other reserves. To support low impact recreation. BOPRC (Land Management) All partners, landowners Ongoing Jul-13 IN PROGRESS Action is not a priorty until many other actions are dealt with. Onekawa Te Mawhai in progress. Onekawa Te Mawhai MoU signed by Upokorehe and BOPRC. Management plan now in development. Basic operational maintenance of site continues. Page 34 of 226

43 Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Communications Plan actions progress to May 24th 2013 Theme Action Ref OHS Action Comms Plan Sub Action Project description Proposed Lead Agency Support Agencies OHS communicati ons plan due date Target Start Date Target Due Date Status Start of year status and First Quarter August 27 Progress report Second quarter December 10 Progress report Feb progress April progress Health of the estuary Stop Contamination of Urban Storm water. Linked to action: Comms/Education Plan Stormwater promotion Stencilling promotion on stormwater grates ODC, WDC ODC, WDC, BOPRC 1/07/2009 Aug-08 Aug-09 COMPLETED AND ONGOING COMPLETED Kaitiakitanga Add Kaitiakitanga into the Kaitiakitanga Community s View of Harbour inclusion Management; combined with action Linked to action Comms/education plan. Details to be confirmed OHS partners to discuss who would like to take lead. OHS partners to discuss who would like to support. 1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 COMPLETED AND ONGOING COMPLETED A more informed community Develop a Communication/Education Plan Quick Guide to the OHS comms plan Prepare a one-page overview document so that people can gain an understanding of what the communications plan contains. BOPRC Contractor 1/03/10 Mar-10 Mar-10 COMPLETED COMPLETED A more informed community Develop a Communication/Education Plan OHSCG E- contacts list Develop e-contacts for easy communications with OHSCG reps and others in their organisations. BOPRC All OHSCG partners. 1/08/10 Jul-10 Sep-10 COMPLETED AND ONGOING List is continually being updated List regularly updated List regularly updated List regularly updated A more informed community A more informed community A more informed community A more informed community Develop a Communication/Education Plan Develop a Communication/Education Plan Develop a Communication/Education Plan Develop a Communication/Education Plan Protocol for publications Prepare protocol concerning process for research and publication of any cultural/ecological information. OHSCG Rapid Develop and maintain and BOPRC response e-contact phone contact list for all relevant list and phone tree OHSCG contacts. To provide for rapid communications and resolutions between meetings and as issues arise. Stakeholder Research Community contacts list Informal survey of Ohiwa residents to find out if and how they would like to receive OHS related information. Gather contacts for Ohiwa community interested in receiving newsletter. BOPRC Contractor 1/10/10 Jul-10 Oct-10 COMPLETED COMPLETED. preferred. All OHSCG partners 1/06/11 Jul-10 Jul-11 COMPLETED AND ONGOING BOPRC 1/06/11 Jul-10 Jun-11 COMPLETED A list of Top Sites has been proposed and outline plan prepared. Pou project has been put on hold. BOPRC All OHSCG partners 1/06/11 Jul-10 Jun-11 COMPLETED AND ON GOING List is continually being updated. OHSCG members to give contacts details for their networks to Tim Senior by tim.senior@envbop.govt.nz or phone on (All). List regularly updated List regularly updated List regularly updated The OHSCG e-newsletter was trialed over the past year but will be discontinued, as the OHSCG Hui Summary and Ōhiwa Community Newsletter are now conveying the same information. List regularly updated. List regularly updated. List regularly updated. Currently about 150 individuals and groups Page 35 of 226

44 Theme Action Ref OHS Action Comms Plan Sub Action Project description Proposed Lead Agency Support Agencies OHS communicati ons plan due date Target Start Date Target Due Date Status Start of year status and First Quarter August 27 Progress report Second quarter December 10 Progress report Feb progress April progress A more informed community Develop a Communication/Education Plan Top sites' project Two sites of significance BOPRC (cultural/environmental/recreatio n/landscape) agreed on per year. Develop location based interpretation/signage and publications. All OHSCG partners 1/06/13 Jul-10 Jun-13 IN PROGRESS 4 issues completed - last in July. A more informed community Develop a Communication/Education Plan OHSCG E-news Generate 4 e-newsletter/year for BOPRC OHSCG reps and staff in their organisations. All OHSCG partners. 1/06/15 Jul-10 Jun-15 COMPLETED Three mtgs held during year - last in Minutes summary produced Minutes summary produced Minutes summary produced June. Top sites, monitoring, bird monitoring, care groups, pest control, dotterels, branding discussed. A more informed community A more informed community Develop a Communication/Education Plan Develop a Communication/Education Plan Community newsletter OHSCG operational wananga Generate 4 able/printable newsletters/year for Ohiwa community. Three-monthly get together of OHSCG operational staff. BOPRC BOPRC All OHSCG partners. All OHSCG partners and community groups/other stakeholders 1/06/15 Jul-11 Jun-15 COMPLETED AND ONGOING 1/06/15 Jul-10 Jun-15 COMPLETED AND ONGOING Simon Stokes, Bev Hughes and 5 issues completed - last in other OHSCG members will meet October 2012 with OHS iwi partners. The hui will be an opportunity for the wider hapū and iwi to discuss important Ōhiwa Jan issue 6 produced Mar issue 7 produced Harbour issues kanohi ki te kanohi Xmas 2012 celebration held at ŌhopeNo pressing needs this quarter No pressing needs this quarter No pressing needs this quarter. No point in haing hui if there is no great need. A more informed community Develop a Communication/Education Plan OHS wananga Annual get together of OHS partner reps and staff to continue to build relationships as well as assess progress and plan for future OHS actions. BOPRC Iwi 1/06/15 Jul-10 Jun-11 IN PROGRESS No action last year. None held None held None held. But this is perhaps increasing in importance as iwi negotiate/realise settlements and staff change A more informed community Develop a Communication/Education Plan Ohiwa Harbour Annual get together of OHS celebratory events. partner reps and staff and community to celebrate work done and appreciation of the harbour. BOPRC All OHSCG partners. 1/06/15 Jul-11 Jun-15 COMPLETED AND ONGOING No action last year. Birds-a-plenty festival supported by staff and small sponsorship by BOPRC A more informed community Develop a Communication/Education Plan Whanaungatanga Hosted marae stays run by iwi with help as required from OHS agency staff. Focused on Harbour's cultural and natural history. 3-6 monthly. Iwi Iwi and relvant OHSCG reps as required. 1/06/15 Jul-11 Jun-15 NO PROGRESS No action last year. A more informed community Develop a Communication/Education Plan Decision-makers wananga Harbour tour and marae stay for Councillors and managers of statutory orgs. Focused on Harbur's cultural and natural history and resources. One off event. BOPRC All OHSCG partners. 1/10/13 Jul-11 Oct-13 NO PROGRESS Tim working with Cheeky Rooster. Review and framework prepared. Text prepared and uploaded. Page 36 of 226

45 Sediment & Mangrove Management Plan actions progress to May 24th 20 Theme Action Ref OHS Action Sediment and Mangrove plan Sub Action Health of the estuary Managing sedimentation in the catchment Forestry operations education Project description Forestry operations education for large operations and on farm operations, plus promotion Proposed Lead Agency BOPRC Support Agencies all other agencies OHS Due Date Target Start Date Target Due Date Status 30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 COMPLETED AND ONGOING Year start status and First Quarter August 27 Progress report Consent applied for and granted to 2020 Year start status and First Quarter August 27 Progress report Second quarter December 10 Progress Report On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Health of the estuary Managing sedimentation in the catchment Forestry consents Forestry consents are applied correctly and monitored, promote the use of forestry operators accreditation scheme BOPRC all other agencies 30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 COMPLETED Comms plan finalised and implementation begun in Comms plan finalised and AND ONGOING November Presentations given to WDC and Ōhope implementation begun in November and Tāneatua community boards Presentations given to WDC and Ōhope and Tāneatua community boards. On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Health of the estuary Managing sedimentation in the catchment Land use change Promote the change in land use to forest type vegetation of all LUC Class 7 land as per the erosion risk map BOPRC all other agencies 30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Update? On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Update? On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Health of the estuary Health of the estuary Managing sedimentation in the catchment Managing sedimentation in the catchment Riparian fencing River and stream bank stabilising works Continue fencing stock from remaining 47.3km of waterways in the Ōhiwa and Nukuhou catchments BOPRC Continue river and stream bank BOPRC stabilising works (Jap walnut removal, revegetation) for the major streams - focus on Nukuhou and Matahaka stream all other agencies all other agencies 30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Update? 30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Update? On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Update? On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Update? On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Ōhiwa catchment streams total 28.8km. 26.9km protected (93.7%). Nukuhou River and tribs total 146 5km 118 5km protected On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. This has been focused on the lower Nukuhou River due to on-going erosion of river banks. Health of the estuary Managing sedimentation in the catchment Stock crossings All stock crossings through streams must be altered to culverts or bridges BOPRC all other agencies 30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Update? On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Update? On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. This work is being supported by the dairy industry as per their Cleans Streams Accord. Health of the estuary Managing sedimentation in the catchment Promotion of farm management to reduce sedimentation Promote the maintenace of suitable pasture cover, fertiliser regimes, and suitable stock types on farmed LUC Class 6 land. BOPRC all other agencies 30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Update? On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Update? On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Health of the estuary Managing sedimentation in the catchment Retirement of indigenous forest Continue to protect and retire indigenous forest, particularly focused on sites with high ecological values BOPRC WDC, ODC, Ngāti Awa 30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Update? On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Update? On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Ōhiwa Cove subdivision will protect some indig forest remnants. Health of the estuary Health of the estuary Managing sedimentation in the catchment Planting on unstable slopes Implement farm Implement and promote farm planning and education planning and sustainable land use education, where necessary Soil conservation planting BOPRC Promotion of spaced soil BOPRC conservation planting on LUC Class 6 pasture land all other agencies all other agencies 30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Ongoing but mammoth area to put work into (6,979ha's) advising on forestry and carbon currently to affect land use change. Update? 30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Update? On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. On-going but mammoth area to put work into (6,979ha's) advising on forestry and carbon currently to affect land use On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Ngāti Awa Farm Land management Plan beginning implentation. On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Health of the estuary Management of Mangroves Mangrove Consent Work with Upokorehe to develop mangrove removal consent BOPRC Upokorehe 30/06/11 Aug-08 Jun-11 COMPLETED On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Ōhiwa Cove subdivision will protect indig forest remnants. Update? On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Ōhiwa Cove subdivision will protect indig forest remnants. Page 37 of 226

46 Theme Action Ref OHS Action Sediment and Mangrove plan Sub Action Health of the estuary Management of Mangroves Mangrove removal communications plan Project description Develop plan for how stakeholders and community will be invovled/communicated with as mangrove removal project progresses Proposed Lead Agency Support Agencies OHS Due Date Target Start Date Target Due Date Status BOPRC Upokorehe 30/06/11 Aug-08 Jun-11 COMPLETED AND ONGOING Year start status and First Quarter August 27 Progress report On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Ngāti Awa Fram Land management Plan under implentation. Update? Year start status and First Quarter August 27 Progress report On-going work for BOPRC land management staff. Ngāti Awa Fram Land management Plan under implentation. Second quarter December 10 Progress Report Articles/columns placed in local papers (Early Dec). Factsheet and programme distributed locally. Health of the estuary Management of Mangroves Fact sheet update Review draft fact sheet and prepare for publication BOPRC Upokorehe 30/06/12 Jun-11 Jun-12 COMPLETED Draft produced Completed Health of the estuary Management of Mangroves Upokorehe Training Day Upokorehe/BOPRC hold training day to practise mangrove removal techniques and ensure all health and safety procedures covered. Upokorehe BOPRC 30/06/12 Jun-11 Jun-12 COMPLETED Completed Nov 2011 Completed Nov 2011 Health of the estuary Management of Mangroves Community working bees Promote and hold two community working bees for the purpose of removing mangroves. This work will also provide educational opportunities related to Action 13 'A more informed community'. Upokorehe BOPRC 30/06/12 Jun-11 Jun-12 IN PROGRESS Mangrove removal is underway. 7 working bees held and 4ha mangroves cleared. Attendees from At this stage Upokorehe only involved as management of larger numbers problematic. Methodology now streamlined. Plan for summer 2012 is to alternate Upokorehe and wider community working bees. Mangrove removal is underway. 7 working bees held and 4ha mangroves cleared. Attendees from At this stage Upokorehe only involved as management of larger numbers problematic. Methodology now streamlined. Plan for summer 2012 is to alternate Upokorehe and wider community working bees. First for 2012/13 held Sat Dec attendees. Completed area from Ōhiwa spit to Loop Rd junction. Health of the estuary Management of Mangroves Media promotion Prepare and distibute media, in accordance with comms plan, about mangrove removal project and working bees BOPRC Upokorehe 30/06/12 Jun-11 Jun-12 IN PROGRESS A number of general media items have been distributed and published in various media during 2011/12. More intensive work will be carried out in the spring of Presentations given to WDC and Ōhope and Tāneatua community boards. A number of general media items have been distributed and published in various media during 2011/12. More intensive work will be carried out in the spring of Presentations given to WDC and Ōhope and Tāneatua community boards. Articles/columns placed in local papers (Early Dec). Factsheet and programme distributed locally. Page 38 of 226

47 Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Ecological survey actions progress to May 24th 2013 Theme Action Ref Action Sub Action Project description Proposed Lead Agency Support Agencies Ecological Actions Due Date Target Start Date Target Due Date Status Start of year status and First Quarter August 27 Progress Report Second Quarter December 15 Progress Report Feb progress April progress Natural areas, plants and animals Assess Ecological Quality of Ōhiwa Harbour Threatened plant survey Complete threatened plant survey BOPRC DOC 30/06/11 Jun-10 Jun-11 COMPLETED Survey completed by Wildlands. AND ONGOING Ecological monitoring programme in development. Monitoring programme for threatened plants in development. Monitoring programmed compled SOOHE report nearing completion. Natural areas, plants and animals Assess Ecological Quality of Ōhiwa Harbour Register of indigenous vegetation sites Register of indigenous vegetation sites BOPRC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-11 IN PROGRESS Ecological monitoring programme in development. Monitoring programme for indig veg in development. Natural areas, plants and animals Assess Ecological Quality of Ōhiwa Harbour Survey inanga and white bait populations and habitats Survey to identify inanga habitats. BOPRC DOC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-12 IN PROGRESS Methodology being clarified. Ecological monitoring programme in development. Methodology being clarified. Monitoring programme for fish in development. Natural areas, plants and animals Assess Ecological Quality of Ōhiwa Harbour Update fauna report from 1980s Update fauna report from 1980s BOPRC DOC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-16 IN PROGRESS Marshbird survey completed by volunteers. Ecological monitoring programme in development. Need to decide how to use report findings for further protection Monitoring programme in development. Shore birds monitored by OSNZ. Also this year caspian terns. Natural areas, plants and animals Assess Ecological Quality of Ōhiwa Harbour Freshwater invertebrate sampling Freshwater BOPRC DOC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-12 IN PROGRESS Macroinvertebrate analysis underway invertebrate sampling Natural areas, plants and animals Assess Ecological Quality of Ōhiwa Harbour Survey of marine fish abundance in estuary Survey of marine fish BOPRC MPI 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-16 ON HOLD MPI reported on shelfish in 2010 but abundance in estuary have also indicated that there wont be any marine fish survey soon. Natural areas, plants and animals Assess Ecological Quality of Ōhiwa Harbour Continue monitoring of Continue monitoring specific vegetation types of specific vegetation types BOPRC DOC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-16 ON HOLD Not a priority. Ecological monitoring programme in development. Not a priority. Ecological monitoring programme in development. Natural areas, plants and animals Assess Ecological Quality of Ōhiwa Harbour Survey terrestrial invertebrates and reptiles Survey terrestrial invertebrates and reptiles BOPRC DOC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-16 ON HOLD Not a priority. Ecological monitoring programme in development. Not a priority. Ecological monitoring programme in development. Natural areas, plants and animals Assess Ecological Quality of Ōhiwa Harbour Survey to assess presence of native bats Survey to assess presence of native bats BOPRC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-12 COMPLETED Not a priority. Upper catchment surveyed Not a priority. Ecological AND ONGOING and bats found at 1 site. Ecological monitoring programme in development. monitoring programme in development. Page 39 of 226

48 General comments/end of financial year summary Completed May Survey made recommendations for pest plant control and future survey. Have added Whakatāne SNA sites. Most vegetation information is based on old surveys (very few surveyed since 1980s) Salinity sampling completed spring 2010, low flow sampling hampered by heavy rain. Spawning observed autumn 2011 in lower Nukuhou. Spawning in other streams should be looked for autumn Marshbird survey completed by volunteers in Jan Other fauna potentially covered off by other recommendations? Need to decide how to use report findings for further protection. Part of the science monitoring programme now in place for the harbour. MoF reported on shelfish in Need to decide how to go about this. Mangroves are being monitored right around the region for extent in line with the time frames of the photography acquisition (RDAM) which is currently behind schedule for this last summer. Upper catchment surveyed and bats found at 1 site. Page 40 of 226

49 Resource Management Review Actions progress to May 24th 2013 Theme Action Ref Action Sub Action Project description Proposed Lead Agency Support Agencies Resource Mgt review due date Target Start Date Target Due Date Status Start of year status and First Quarter August 27 Progress Report Second Quarter December 10 Progress report Feb progress April progress Recreation opportunities Review Bylaws Relating to Higher Impact Activities Establish Harbour Wardens' Forum To help integrate Harbour, Beach Bylaw and Fisheries Wardens to optimise human resources, reduce costs and improve effectiveness of application of bylaws. Could include review of bylaw-related signage, community education, uniforms, safety and warden training. BOPRC (Tim Senior and Brian Spake) MPI 30/06/11 1-May Jun-11 COMPLETED Wardens hui held. No change to status quo. Resource Upokorehe AND ONGOING kaitiaki better. Investigate WDC wardens? Will discuss with Eugene Recreation opportunities Review Bylaws Relating to Higher Impact Activities Propose common harbour bylaws Ōhiwa Harbour Wardens Forum to develop common bylaws for consideration by councils in bylaw reviews BOPRC (Tim ODC, WDC and Senior and Brian Iwi Spake) 30/06/12 30-Jun Jun-12 COMPLETED Idea on hold due to lask of need as two TLAs working closely together through District Plan revision processes. WDC draft is closely aligned with ODC. ODC review to begin soon. Managing development pressures Review Resource Management Protocols Continuous improvement of protocols and procedures Update of protocols/procedures around input into decision-making and information sharing, especially around statutory processes such as consents, to improve their inclusiveness and efficiency. ODC, WDC, BOPRC Iwi, DoC 1/10/11 1-Jul Dec-11 IN PROGRESS Business case completed. Tim Senior, has an important role in the Contractor report suggests better coordination of OHS action and communications. In order to get methods of information sharing. additional help for this role, OHSCG is exploring various scenarios including resourcing a post-graduate research position that could simultaneously assist with the work to be done and undertake valuable research for the OHS project. Use OHS action plan and principles to establish terms of reference for the possible role and guidelines for the research (OHSCG). Review research options for OHSCG to consider (Steve B). Contact Paul Kayes from Te Whare Wānanga O Awanuiārangi (Steve B). Meeting with Steve Brightwell postponed because of eruption. Need to progress Managing development pressures Review Resource Management Protocols Formalise iwi advisory status Councils to foster and encourage Iwi Environmental Committees within their rohe to formalise their advisory status. ODC, WDC, BOPRC Iwi 30/06/12 1-Jul-11 1-Jul-12 IN PROGRESS Wardens hui said this was not applicable and is for District Councils to develop and enforce Managing development pressures Evaluate Plans to Protect Character and Estuarine Health of Ōhiwa Establish Ohiwa Harbour Planning Zone Forum The Ohiwa Harbour Planning Zone Forum would review district plans, regional plans and the regional policy statement to achieve a common vision to lead towards a Ohiwa Harbour Planning Zone. WDC ODC, BOPRC 1/12/11 1-Jul-11 1/12/11 COMPLETED Contractor underway? WDC plan is drafted and out for submission. Natural areas, plants and animals Review Monitoring and Enforcement Regimes Commission a business case for a Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Coordinator Develop business case to explore BOPRC establishment of a position to coordinate and/or manage the actions required in the OHS or by the partners to the Strategy. ODC, WDC, Iwi, DoC 1/12/11 1-May Aug-11 COMPLETED Contractor underway? Steve Brigtwell has completed investigation of research options. Natural areas, plants and animals Review Monitoring and Enforcement Regimes Annual monitoring and reporting of enforcement Develop reporting process and report findings annually to OHSCG. BOPRC ODC, WDC, BOPRC, Iwi 1/10/11 1-Jul-11 1-Dec-11 IN PROGRESS Discussions about this have bee held with Whakatōhea. Upokorehe hapū management plan completed Need to do this Page 41 of 226

50 General comments/end of financial year summary Wardens hui held. No desire for forum change to status quo. Resource Upokorehe kaitiaki better. Investigate WDC wardens? Monitor effectiveness of wardens and kaitiaki and resource better. COMPLETED. Wardens hui said this was not applicable and is for District Councils to develop and enforce Councils to discuss with a view to work on internal processes Whakatōhea making progress. Upokorehe completed. Tūhoe? Ngāti Awa? Idea on hold due to lack of need as two TLAs working closely together through District Plan revision processes. WDC draft is closely aligned with ODC. ODC review to begin soon. Business case completed. Tim Senior, has an important role in the coordination of OHS action and communications. In order to get additional help for this role, OHSCG is exploring various scenarios including resourcing a post-graduate research position that could simultaneously assist with the work to be done and undertake valuable research for the OHS project. Review research options for OHSCG to consider (Steve B). Contact Paul Kayes from Te Whare Wānanga O Awanuiārangi (Steve B). Meeting with Steve Brightwell postponed because of eruption. Contractor has made recommendations about how to do this. Page 42 of 226

51 File Reference: Significance of Decision: Receives Only - No Decisions Report To: Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee Meeting Date: 01 August 2013 Report From: David Phizacklea, Regional Integrated Planning Manager Harbour Erosion Executive Summary Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Tauranga City Council and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council have each contributed $30,000 through their 2013/14 annual plans towards a project to help refine harbour erosion policy for Tauranga Harbour. It is proposed to spend this money as follows: $15,000 Literature Review/Stocktake (to be completed first) $30,000 High Level Geotechnical/ Physical Science Review $15,000 Update Information on Legal Obligations (to be completed after first) $25,000 Assess the high-level relative Benefits, Costs (and Risks) of Hazard Options (to be completed after second) Following receipt of the Benefits and Costs report it is proposed that staff will prepare draft policy for the three partner councils to consider and undertake any subsequent community consultation. 1 Recommendations That the Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee under its delegated authority: 1 Receives the report, Harbour Erosion. 2 Purpose The purpose of this paper is to provide information on proposed work to provide guidance on the management of harbour erosion. This follows agreement by Bay of Plenty Regional, Tauranga City and Western Bay of Plenty District Council s to each contribute $30,000 towards a project to help refine policy in this area. 3 Background Page 43 of 226

52 Harbour Erosion Staff of Western Bay of Plenty District Council, Tauranga City Council and Bay of Plenty Regional Council met on 18 June 2013 to develop details of a project to help Councils respond to requests to address inner-harbour erosion. The issue of inner harbour erosion has regained public focus following recent slips on peninsular cliff edges - especially in Tauranga Harbour at Matua and Ōmokoroa. Residents are seeking more to be done protect their properties from future erosion, while esplanade reserve and other loss is also of concern. There is particular pressure for engineered solutions to address cliff toe regression and eventual (catastrophic) failure of developed inner harbour cliffs. 4 The Current Situation A survey in 1992 found there to be over 1,000 coastal protection works in Tauranga Harbour. Since then, structures owned by Tauranga City and Western Bay of Plenty have been consented, but a large number of privately owned structures remain unconsented. As part of a wider study of Tauranga Harbour, Bay of Plenty Regional Council intends to review these structures over the next two years. The Manaaki Taha Moana project is also involved in mapping parts of Tauranga Harbour. The 2002 Harbour Protection Guidelines set out broad steps to address erosion problems. Firstly, the guidelines recommend considering do nothing and other soft options. These can work in areas with space to spare and where wave energy is low. The only cost of do nothing is progressive loss of land. If doing nothing and other soft options won t work, and erosion really is a problem, the guidelines recommend considering engineered solutions. Information is given on when various options might work and what sort of design life to expect. 4.1 Policy Direction The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 and Proposed Bay of Plenty Regional Policy Statement state a preference to avoid hard-protection structures. The recently notified Draft Regional Coastal Environment Plan echoes this preference. 5 The Problem The current policy framework addresses harbour erosion from a resource management perspective. It considers limits and controls on activities to ensure environmental bottom lines are maintained. This policy provides no guidance on when councils might consider building protection structures to protect community assets. Given the proliferation of structures, concerns about the effects of climate change and potential for the issue to become worse, councils need a robust and allencompassing policy framework. 6 The Solution Four reports are proposed to support Council policy development in relation to inner harbour coastal hazards: Page 44 of 226 2

53 Harbour Erosion 6.1 Literature Review/Stocktake (to be completed first) Available Budget: $15k It is proposed to review policy approaches taken elsewhere in New Zealand to address cliff slumping in moderate-energy environments (such as harbours and lakes). The review will require a consideration of research undertaken for Tauranga Harbour, the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours and in Lake Taupō and will: Collate existing Bay of Plenty research and opinion including: o o A review of legal opinion sought in relation to Councils duty to Act (or not Act) in response to similar hazards A review of geotechnical studies commissioned to better understand the rate and mechanics of cliff erosion in moderate energy coastal environments. Describe the policy situation (managed retreat, protection structures etc) being applied here and elsewhere Detail the rationale behind the policy situation observed (NZCPS, RMA, Benefit cost analysis) Include comments addressing the relevance of this work to Tauranga Harbour. Subsequent research (listed below) will proceed if the findings from this step do not adequately inform the question of whether Council is obliged to and should, considering the benefits and costs and wider policy environment, engage in developing coastal hazard protection structures. The research will distinguish between policy for Resource Management purposes, and policy used to guide decisions on whether to install protection structures. This will help Councils better understand what others are doing in the same situation. 6.2 High Level Geotechnical/ Physical Science Review Available Budget: $30k Our understanding of the mechanics of cliff slumping and property loss is limited and needs to be updated to provide revised estimate of erosion rates (having regard of agreed sea-level rise). This work will feed into a similarly high-level assessment of the benefits and costs of hazard mitigation options. This work will be desktop based on the basis it is to be used to populate a generic benefit cost analysis (only). This research will: Provide a high level estimate of costs (per linear meter or equivalent) to install drainage, protection and maintain typically protection infrastructure; Provide a high level estimate of rates of erosion under protection and unprotected; Page 45 of 226 3

54 Harbour Erosion Assume a 100 year lifetime (i.e. maintenance/ construction costs should assume protection for 100 years). This work should draw on practical experience, historic data and geotechnical expertise. The budget is limited and the project needs to be scoped to budget having regard of the high level end use of the work. This information will be used to prepare a benefit cost analysis, but will not be suitable for use in PIMs or LIMs. 6.3 Update Information on Legal Obligations (to be completed after first) Available Budget: $15k Simpson Grierson has recently provided an opinion on Council responsibilities and obligations in relation to Tsunami inundation. This opinion and those collated in the step 5.1 should be pulled into a single opinion or report answering the following questions: What legal responsibilities do Councils have to manage hazards to protect: Public assets such as roads, reserves and other network infrastructure Private assets such as land, dwellings and other structures. Answers to these questions will help Councils understand whether they must protect public or private property (and in what circumstances). 6.4 Assess the high-level relative Benefits, Costs and Risks of Hazard Options (to be completed after second) Available Budget: $25k Councils need to understand the benefits and costs of reasonable policy alternatives. With regards hazards affecting harbour peninsulas these include protecting hazard-prone land with engineered structures, managed retreat and doing nothing. Costs may include construction, maintenance, loss of public access and landscape which depend on erosion rates, land values, protection structure costs and wider (non-market) costs and benefits. Risks include consideration of residual probability of the hazard once protection is put in place and the probability and consequence of hazards sans-protection. This work requires a broad assessment of land values (valuation database), erosion rates, cost of protection structures and an assessment of wider benefits of costs (in monetary or non-monetary terms). Erosion rate and structure cost information will be available from earlier work-streams. Three preliminary scenarios require assessing: No protection, no Council response. Erosion continues and insurers and private landowners manage the situation themselves; Managed retreat. Council purchases at-risk properties in the 100 year horizon and these people relocate; Page 46 of 226 4

55 here to enter text. Harbour Erosion Active management. Council implements cliff-base protection and drainage capable of protecting peninsular properties. This scenario will include consideration of residual chance of failure. The purpose of this analysis is to provide an order of magnitude indication for decision-makers. A costing of these scenarios will help Councils understand whether they should protect public or private property (and in what circumstances), and of the risk profiles of different scenarios. 7 Next Steps The proposed work will take approximately 9 months to complete. Each report will be made available to the three partner councils. Following consideration of the High-Level Relative Benefits and Costs report is proposed that staff prepare a draft discussion paper and Council policy for consideration and any subsequent community consultation. James Low Senior Planner (Regional Integrated) for Regional Integrated Planning Manager 22 July 2013 Click Page 47 of 226 5

56 Page 48 of 226

57 File Reference: Significance of Decision: Receives Only - No Decisions Report To: Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee Meeting Date: 01 August 2013 Report From: Warwick Murray, General Manager Natural Resource Operations Ballance Farm Environment Award criteria for nutrients Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to inform the Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee on the criteria used for the Ballance Farm Environment Awards in relation to nutrient management and if the awards reflect best management practice. There are criteria that focus on nutrients in the awards documentation and judging process and the awards have an overarching focus on improving farm management practices. Note that regional councils cannot stipulate any of the judging criteria or guidelines. Staff are involved on the local Trust committee s and as judges to ensure that standards are adhered to and to reduce the risk of an award going to farmers who are not actively managing their nutrient losses. We are satisfied that the criteria are robust and that Council s support for the programme can be justified given the benefits that this programme provides in promoting sustainable farm management practices. 1 Recommendations That the Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee under its delegated authority: 1 Receives the report, Ballance Farm Environment Award criteria for nutrients. 2 Background The Council has supported the Farm Environment Award Trust (Bay of Plenty) to deliver the Ballance Farm Environment Awards in the Bay of Plenty since These awards are run under the banner of the National Ballance Farm Environment Awards by the New Zealand Farm Environment Award Trust which was also established in Nationally the Farm Environment Awards have existed since The Farm Environment Award Trust (Bay of Plenty) delegates the management and running of the annual awards to the Ballance Farm Environment Awards Management Committee. This committee appoints a judging coordinator who ensures the entire process is run according to the New Zealand Farm Environment Award Trust guidelines. Local assessors (judges) from the rural sector agencies Page 49 of 226

58 Ballance Farm Environment Award criteria for nutrients including the Council and past winners and entrants are instructed on the processes and requirements of awards judging annually. A Judges Manual, Judges Workbook and Entrants Feedback Report are all documents to enable judges to apply their roles. These are provided by the National Ballance Farm Environment Awards team at the New Zealand Farm Environment Award Trust. Examples are in Appendix 1: Judges Manual; Appendix 2 Judges Workbook; Appendix 3 Feedback Report. The following information comments on the criteria being applied to awards assessment to reassure the Committee that they do judge on nutrient management and reflect best management practice. 3 Awards judging criteria The Awards judging criterion is managed by the National Ballance Farm Environment Awards team at the New Zealand Farm Environment Award Trust. No regional council stipulates any of the judging criteria or guidelines. The criterion for each entrant is the same and focuses on three main components; 1. Human Resource 2. Physical Resource 3. Financial Resource Within these components are the following categories: Production; Financial; Soils; Nutrient Management; Water; Biodiversity; In Business Practice; Health; Social and Other. In relation to these categories the Judging Workbook contains a reference sheet to guide judges in assessing each category based on a series of judged areas Appendix 2; page 15, Judges Workbook. For nutrients the entrants are assessed on soil testing, nutrient budgeting, feed in/out, fertilizer recording, nitrogen policy and effluent management. 4 Measuring the value of nutrient loss within a catchment A specific question was asked at the last committee meeting about whether nutrient loss and the value of that within the catchment was measured when judging and expressed the wish to see winners being chosen as the least nutrient polluting. Currently there is criterion in the judging documentation on measuring nutrient loss but not on the value of that within a catchment. Nutrient loss is judged on the aforementioned nutrient assessment criteria. Judges questions and entrant s answers would provide clarity on nutrient loss as entrants would have for example Overseer results to provide which could over time show a change. Nutrient loss would also be considered in relation to the entire nutrient story for the business. Does this constitute an entrants ability to provide a measured basis for their catchment? It doesn t, but not all catchments in the Bay of Plenty have nutrient targets other than Lake Rotorua and lakes with action plans to be measured against. The judging process may compare entrants within the same catchment but they would also need to compare the assessment with entrants not within the catchment on their specific rate of nutrient loss. The only farmers benchmarked to what nutrients they were losing between 2001 and 2004 are around Lake Rotorua and four other lakes but they are not annually audited on where their business sits post bench- Page 50 of 226 2

59 Ballance Farm Environment Award criteria for nutrients marking. At the end of the day the detail that is extricated from an entrant will be dependent on the judge s questions. Measuring nutrient loss and the value of that within a catchment may be able to occur regionally in the future and when it does the judging criterion will have to account for this. There is a precedent in regards to this with the 2012 regional winner, J & B Hitchcock, hailing from the Lake Rotorua catchment and presenting a winning entry to the judges primarily because of their nutrient management in their business and its contribution towards sustainability. The environmental awards are geared towards the overall sustainability of a rural business and while the winners or entrants are not assessed on a measured nutrient basis with regards to their catchment they must display a high level of competence in nutrient management. 5 Do the awards reflect best management practice? Within the awards documentation there is no focus or language used in relation to best management practice. However the whole judging criteria and assessment is geared around the National Ballance Farm Environment Awards mission statement which is: The advancement, education, assistance and promotion of sustainable environmental management of land and other natural resources on farms within New Zealand. This overall objective is to promote sustainable land management on New Zealand farms, believing that role models and education are effective tools to improving farming practices. Both of these statements suggest that the entire process of the awards will result in winners, and entrants who don t succeed in being the best that year, being more informed or judged on sustainable environmental management and tools and techniques for improving farming practice. This does reflect an approach of best management practice but it is quite clearly referred to in the judges documentation as being a beneficial part of the process the transfer and learning that should occur for an entrant. Within the local competition the Council provides two awards which promote a focus on best management practice. One is for an entrant providing a high level of overall environmental practice and sustainable business approach and one is for an entrant practising and leading in a level of environmental technology that is outstanding. Below are the two award criteria for judges. Award 1: Bay of Plenty Regional Council Environmental Award This award is for an entrant who shows a particular enthusiasm, knowledge and expertise, and success, in one or more aspects of environmental management and technology. For example, the successful and extensive use of: bio-control to manage plant pests or have established an advanced effluent management system or have installed soil moisture probes or have highly managed forests/trees etc. The focus is on successful implementation and a high level of expertise. The aim is to showcase this success or expertise to others through the awards and this is where a farm may not be winning overall but the entrant and a technique they are implementing might be. Page 51 of 226 3

60 here to enter text. Ballance Farm Environment Award criteria for nutrients Award 2: Bay of Plenty Regional Council Environmental Award The focus of this award is on good environmental practices that are sustainable and beneficial for the environment of the whole farm. This second award could have its wording changed to better promote good management practice. Simon Stokes Land Management Manager - (Eastern) for General Manager Natural Resource Operations 23 July 2013 Click Page 52 of 226 4

61 APPENDIX BFEA Judging Manual Template Page 53 of 226

62 Page 54 of 226

63 This image cannot currently be displayed Judges Manual Bay of Plenty Region Revised Manual due to: Finalist Selection Day /Debrief changed from Thursday 29 th November to Monday 26 th November All Judges Feedback Reports and CD of photos must be into BOP Regional Coordinator by Friday 23 rd November Page 0 of 29 Page 55 of 226

64 Judges Training Manual Table of Contents BFEA MISSION STATEMENT... 2 OBJECTIVES OF THE BFEA AWARDS... 2 AWARDS STRUCTURE... 2 ABOUT THE BALLANCE FARM ENVIRONMENT AWARDS... 2 A. JUDGES TRAINING DAY AIMS... 3 B. IMPORTANT DATES 2012/ C. KEY CONTACTS... 3 BENEFITS OF ENTERING... 4 JUDGING TEAM FORMATS... 4 ROLES OF TEAM MEMBERS... 4 AREAS BEING JUDGED... 5 FARM VISITS... 5 ON PROPERTY JUDGING PROCEDURE... 5 IDEAS FOR EFFECTIVE ON FARM JUDGING... 6 INFORMATION ON PHOTOGRAPHS... 7 JUDGES FEEDBACK REPORTS... 8 FINALISTS SELECTION DAY (Previously known as Assessors Debrief Day)... 8 APPENDIX 1: 2013 AWARDS... 9 APPENDIX 2: COMMUNICATIONS SKILLS APPENDIX 3: EXAMPLE FEEDBACK REPORT APPENDIX 4: FARM VISITS ONE PAGE JUDGING REFERENCE SHEET APPENDIX 5: PHOTO RECORD SHEET APPENDIX 6: NOTES ON NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT Page 1 of 29 Page 56 of 226

65 BFEA MISSION STATEMENT The advancement, education, assistance and promotion of sustainable environmental management of land and other natural resources on farms within New Zealand. OBJECTIVES OF THE BFEA AWARDS The overall objective of the Ballance Farm Environment Awards is to promote sustainable land management on New Zealand farms believing that role models and education are effective tools to improving farming practices. This objective is achieved by: The judging process, which we aim to keep mutually enjoyable and informative. Our commitment to practical solutions, which benefit people as well as the land. Our support for diversity there s never one right answer, it s about what works. Our deed requires us to use objective criteria to determine sustainable management where practical. Our down to earth approach to communicating sustainable management concepts which relies on real people and their stories. AWARDS STRUCTURE Nine Award Categories plus Regional Awards, Supreme Winner and National Award Winner Gordon Stephenson Trophy recipient A farm can be sheep/beef/orchard/dairy/vineyard A farm is defined as a land based business enterprise based on productive or amenity use of soils or other natural resources Must be within the BOP Region and checked for compliance through BOPRC Property must fit the overall objectives of the Awards Property must be an economically viable farming enterprise. ABOUT THE BALLANCE FARM ENVIRONMENT AWARDS The Awards recognise farmers and growers who protect and enhance the environment and contribute to the community while running profitable businesses. The Awards were initiated in Waikato in The Ballance Farm Environment Awards started in Waikato and Wellington/Wairarapa in They are now in nine regions throughout the country. They are organised by a local management team which reports to a national management team. Page 2 of 29 Page 57 of 226

66 A. JUDGES TRAINING DAY AIMS To facilitate the setting up of the judging teams To assist judges to learn standard practice in assessment To ensure consistency of decisions will be made across all teams. B. IMPORTANT DATES 2012/2013 Entries Open 01 August 2012 Entries Close 12 October 2012 Judging First Round 19 October to 23 rd November 2012 Finalist Selection Day/Debrief 26 November 2012 Judges Feedback Reports Due 23 November 2012 CD of Entrants Photographs Due 23 November 2012 Judging Finals Round Early/Mid December 2012 Awards Evening 22 February 2013 Supreme Winners Field Day To be confirmed C. KEY CONTACTS Bay of Plenty Regional Coordinator Bay of Plenty Judging Coordinator Kirsten Winter Margaret Wright PO Box Manawahe Road, RD 4 TE PUKE 3153 WHAKATANE 3194 Phone: Phone: Mobile: Mobile: bop@bfea.org.nz dandmwright@farmside.co,nz Bay of Plenty Management Committee Bruce Calder (Chairman) Margaret Wright (Judging Coordinator) Terry Harding (Ballance Agri Nutrients) Doug Lineham (Rezare Systems Ltd) Ian Noble (BOP Regional Councillor) John Bourke Lester Deighton (LIC) Ray Hayward (Federated Farmers) Kirsten Winter (Regional Coordinator) Andrew Reid (Ballance Agri Nutrients) Bruce Fraser (Fraser Consultants) Earle Wells Ian Pirani John Mackintosh (BOP Farm Forestry) Malcolm Whitaker (BOP Regional Councillor) Simon Stokes (BOP Regional Council) Page 3 of 29 Page 58 of 226

67 BENEFITS OF ENTERING To the Entrant: It gives an opportunity to learn new things Confirms s/he is on the right track (or assists them to get on it) Allows him/her to be recognised Rewards success Allows the sharing of knowledge with other farmers Feedback Report from Judges with recommendations for the business. To the Judge: Get to meet energetic, enthusiastic people Allows promotion of sustainability message Opportunity for an enjoyable experience. JUDGING TEAM FORMATS Judging Teams are made up of representatives from professional organisations, local government, sponsors and farmers Teams are put together to complement experience, knowledge and skills in order to ensure each team is robust Team Leaders will liaise with entrants and arrange times to visit. ROLES OF TEAM MEMBERS Each team will have 3 4 members: Team Leader, Note Taker, and Photographer Team Leader: Is in charge of all communication with the entrant and Judging Team members Has the ultimate responsibility of any decisions Is responsible to set up all dates and entrant visits Is to ensure the final Feedback Report is submitted on time Is to co ordinate the oral report back at the Finalists Selection Day Responsible for taking notes (or appointing someone to do this) Each team must have a photographer (make sure you ask permission) and catalogue photos please. All photos must be taken on a digital camera. All members should be asking questions and contributing feedback. Page 4 of 29 Page 59 of 226

68 AREAS BEING JUDGED To base all aspects concerning judging of the Ballance Farm Environment Awards on three management components: 1. Human Resource 2. Physical Resource 3. Financial Resource This includes looking at: 1. Production 2. Financial 3. Soils 4. Nutrient Management 5. Water 6. Biodiversity 7. In Business Practice 8. Health 9. Social 10. Other FARM VISITS What you need Personalised Judging Workbook for each entrant Judges Forms completed by the entrant Map of the property (supplied by Bay of Plenty Regional Council) Photo log sheet. ON PROPERTY JUDGING PROCEDURE This is the suggested procedure for the farm visit to the entrant. Much of this is the responsibility of the Team Leader. 1. Communicate with the entrant the night before confirming that all is prepared for the visit. Make sure the meeting place is agreed to and its location understood. Also at that time answer any questions about the visit that are concerning the entrant. 2. Check that all judges are available for the next day s judging and that they know meeting time, place and who is providing transport. Also that they are coming prepared with cameras, judging sheets and recording papers. 3. Ensure the team knows the address of the property to be visited and there is enough travelling time allowed to arrive at the correct time. If running early wait Page 5 of 29 Page 60 of 226

69 near the address so as to all arrive on time. Try to never be late. 4. Introduce the Judging Team to the entrants and give some background about them. It is important that the entrants have some information about Judges and why the judge has been chosen. Have name tags for Team Members. 5. Suggest that everyone should sit at a table. Inform the entrant about how you would like the visit to proceed and check that is okay with them. Be aware that some people are happier and more relaxed on the farm rather than sitting at a table. Better information is gathered from comfortable people. 6. State how long the visit will take and what the Judging Team would like to see and hear. 7. That you will take photos and notes. Photos need to be at least high resolution, (at least 1MB) for good reproduction. Each team will be issued with a memory stick/cd for copying photos to provide to the Regional Co ordinator. 8. Have the entrant talk about themselves, why they entered, about the property, what they are most proud of, any numbers and figures that have not been gathered already. 9. Carry out the farm inspection. Try to have each Judge spend time riding or sitting with entrant during the farm trip depending on mode of transport. 10. If possible return to the original meeting table/place and review the visit. Make sure at this time that Judges have covered all the areas of assessment that they wanted to and that the entrant has covered all that they wanted too. 11. Before leaving inform the entrant about what will happen from that time on. ie: When Feedback Reports will be sent out, dates for the Awards evening. When the Finals Round Judging will take place and when they will be informed if they are part of that. Leave a card with this information on it and a thank you to them. 12. Immediately post visit (within 20 minutes) detailed recording should take place. This must include all Judges that were present and must once again cover all topics. This is the time that most accurate information can be recorded. These records form the basis for accurate Feedback Reports. IDEAS FOR EFFECTIVE ON FARM JUDGING 1. All Judges must have a clear understanding of the topics they are to cover when judging an entrant and their property. This is one of the main purposes of the Training Day. Page 6 of 29 Page 61 of 226

70 2. Precise accurate information must be collected during the farm visit. 3. Accurate and full note taking during the visit is essential. We should not be afraid to take notes (entrants have wondered at times how Judges who did not take notes could possibly remember all that is said during a 3 hour visit.) 4. Judges should refer, during the visit, to their list of topics to ensure that they have covered all the topics. (If we are to have equal and even judging over all properties and all regions we must cover all topics at the farm visit.) 5. Ask what/ why/ how? questions. Take photos that record important points. Make sure photos include all people involved with the farm, special machinery, stock, important biodiversity etc. 6. It is important to remember that photo records will form the basis of the DVD about the property at the Awards evening and must convey more information than just land and trees (our winners are winners because they farm in a holistic way using their human, physical and financial resources in a sustainable way.) 7. Thoughtful accurate writing of the Feedback Report should now come using the information gathered (any points the writer is unsure of could be checked with the entrant at this point.) 8. Always team review and correct suggestions of the draft Feedback Report. 9. All team members must be pressed to contribute to the Feedback Reports. Team leaders have a responsibility to make sure all Team Members contribute and feel as though they have had input into the report. 10. After review and final writing the Feedback Report must be signed off by the whole team before being handed over to the Regional Co ordinator (at this point grammar spelling and accuracy should once again be checked. Also any checking with Regional Councils, Fonterra etc. should be carried out if not already.) INFORMATION ON PHOTOGRAPHS REVISED: CD with Entrants Photographs due Friday 23 rd November 2012 Photographs taken during the property visit are important as they form the basis for the DVD played at the Awards evening. The specifications for photos are: Photos to be at least 1MB in size Photos should include nice big landscape shots to show off the Property. A minimum of 30 photos or more different frames is best. Please do not include photos of the Judging Team. Page 7 of 29 Page 62 of 226

71 Please include a close up photograph of the farm owners together. A CD will be supplied to the Photographer for each entrant. JUDGES FEEDBACK REPORTS All entrants receive a Feedback Report There should be no (unwelcome) surprises in it Any issues should have been identified (preferably by the farmer) and discussed during the visit Reinforce what the property is doing well Give recommendations to enhance learning experience Report is written by the Team Leader (or by judge appointed by the Team leader) Please use Arial black in size 12 font Report needs to be read and endorsed by the entire Judging Team. Once written, report to be sent through to Regional Co ordinator for checking (grammar, spelling, nothing libellous etc). The Regional Co ordinator will also add the BFEA logo and a photo to professionalise the presentation. Remember the entrants want feedback (not just a repetition of what they re doing). An example of a Feedback Report is included in the Appendix for your reference. FINALISTS SELECTION DAY (Previously known as Assessors Debrief Day) REVISED: To be held: Monday 26 th November 2012 This is where decisions are made, so it is important you are prepared Each team to have decided who will speak for each entrant visit Prepare an oral report back based on your report 5 minutes maximum report back per farm visit Have photos of the property available to demonstrate. The Regional Coordinator can prepare these for a data show. Be prepared to make a recommendation in regard to what award/s you believe the entrant is eligible for. Page 8 of 29 Page 63 of 226

72 APPENDIX 1: 2013 AWARDS Categories and Prizes Supreme Winner The overall winner who is selected to represent the Bay of Plenty region. $3,000 cash Ballance Nutrient Management Award This Award focuses on the wise use of nutrients for productivity while demonstrating excellent care for the environment around them. A very good understanding of nutrient cycles will need to be demonstrated. Nutrient budgeting will be understood and well documented. The impacts of nutrients on both surface and ground water will need to be well understood and well managed. $1000 cash/product LIC Dairy Farm Award This Award recognises the dairy farmer who demonstrates in a practical way the choices that have been made to farm for the long term. Considerations will be made around the wise use of the land, labour and capital resource available or created. Increasingly the effects of dairy farming on both surface and groundwater and its impact on soil properties are factors the judges will consider. $1000 cash/product Beef + Lamb New Zealand Livestock Farm Award This Award recognises the livestock farmer (other than dairy) who demonstrates in a practical way the choices that have been made to farm for the long term. Considerations will be made around the wise use of the land, labour and capital resource available or created. Stock will be well cared for. Stock class and type will be well suited to the land contour and soil type and managed appropriately to suit those soils. $1000 cash/services Hill Laboratories Harvest Award This award recognises the farmer who is predominantly involved in growing crops, (e.g. Grain, Seed, Viticulture, Horticulture) but also encompasses livestock farmers who demonstrate excellent pasture and soil management. Page 9 of 29 Page 64 of 226

73 Consideration will include the effect the farming system has on the land resource currently and in the long term. Its effect on the water resource, along with nutrient use and effect will also be considered. Some formal monitoring or measuring of effects of the growing system on these resources would be a positive. Demonstration of a good understanding of weed and pest management and treatments is also required. $1000 cash/product PGG Wrightson Land and Life Award This Award is focused more on the all important people side of the farming business. The personal beliefs of pride and passion for the land will be a key part of the considerations. A community spirit will be evident, along with a very good relationship with external advice or support from agribusiness people. Intergenerational thinking and planning is often a feature. $1000 cash/product Massey University Discovery Award The Discovery Award is given in recognition of discovery and implementation of economically and environmentally sustainable farming systems. The Award recognises farmers and farming families who have been proactive in seeking or developing knowledge and applying that knowledge to move their farming business to a more sustainable state. The winner, or their nominee, will receive a fees scholarship to further their professional development through a short course (subject to entry requirements), or period of private study, at Massey University. $1000 cash/services WaterForce Integrated Management Award The WaterForce Award recognizes the farmer who has developed and implemented integrated water management systems and processes for water used within their farming system. This award will take into account the design of systems and the efficiency of monitoring water usage, water saved and cost effectiveness in any land based farming system. $1000 cash/product Donaghys Farm Stewardship Award Page 10 of 29 Page 65 of 226

74 This Award is for the creation of special places on farm and may include protection and/or enhancement of cultural, historic, or unique natural or manmade features. There is also a need to demonstrate management systems that improve productivity and sustainability. $1000 cash/product Meridian Energy Excellence Award Driving excellence in utilising on farm opportunities to generate or maximise energy efficiently. $1000 cash/product Award 1: Bay of Plenty Regional Council Environmental Awards This award for an entrant who shows a particular enthusiasm or knowledge and expertise, and success, in one or more aspects of environmental management and technology. For example, the successful and extensive use of: bio control to manage plant pests or have established an advanced effluent management system or have installed soil moisture probes or have highly managed forests/trees etc. The focus is on successful implementation and a high level of expertise. The aim is to showcase this success or expertise to others through the awards and this is where a farm may not be applicable but the entrant and a technique they are implementing might be. $500 Award 2: Bay of Plenty Regional Council Environmental Award The focus of the award is on good environmental practices that are sustainable and beneficial for the environment of the whole farm $500 Page 11 of 29 Page 66 of 226

75 ZESPRI Kiwifruit Orchard Award This award identifies the kiwifruit orchard that most clearly demonstrates the use of sustainable orchard practices and management. Key areas of focus will be environmental responsibility, economic return, community awareness and the ethical management of resources including labour and orchard inputs $1000 cash/product. For a further description of each of these individual awards, please refer to the website Page 12 of 29 Page 67 of 226

76 APPENDIX 2: COMMUNICATIONS SKILLS Questioning, listening and feedback skills Purpose The aim of these notes and the associated training session is for judges to be able to build an open communication relationship with entrants and through this obtain a clear and accurate understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the farm and its management. The key skills are: Active Listening Open Questions Constructive Feedback. Attitude Underlying effective communication is an attitude of wanting to learn from the entrants. If you are keen to identify the entrants strengths and how they can be applied on other farms then listening and questioning follows naturally. Active Listening Active listening is the key skill in getting information from people and in building relationships with them. By communication to others that we are really listening and understanding what they are saying we can encourage them to tell us more. Specific active listening skills Use verbal and non verbal reinforcement to show that you listening. Verbal reinforcers are little words such as sure, yes, uh huh, etc. Non verbal reinforcers include nodding your head, changing body position, using hands, etc all to indicate that you are tuned in and understand what is being said. Avoid distracting behaviour such as the classic pen clicking which might indicate that your mind is elsewhere or you wish you were elsewhere. Allow for pauses. Many people do not speak quickly and need a little time to organise ideas. This is especially so if you have asked them a searching question. Allow time for an answer and don t be tempted to jump in with another question or a clarification. Also silence creates a vacuum which encourages the entrant to speak. Use key words in the answer to one question to frame the next question. For example. I ve seen some real changes since I fenced this area off. could be followed by What sort of benefits have you seen? This shows you are listening and keeps the conversation moving forward. Page 13 of 29 Page 68 of 226

77 Do not use the time of the answer to one question to plan your next question. You will not be listening and your next question may not be relevant. You know you are actively listening when you are speaking 20% or less of the time and the entrant is speaking 80% of the time. Questioning There are three categories of questions; 1. Closed 2. Direct 3. Open Closed questions can be answered with a simple yes or no. In everyday conversation we ask many closed questions and people are in the habit of answering as if they were open. For example, Did you have a good day? is answered Yes, we went to the beach and had a barbeque with friends. The trouble is when we are judging and the entrant is a bit nervous the closed questions tend to be conversation stoppers and get answered with only yes or no. Direct questions ask for specific facts such as Who?, When? or How many? They can be answered with a simple fact and again result in a very staccato conversation. Open Questions need more than a yes/no or simple fact answers. They usually begin with Why?, How?, What?, Who? They can still be specific if necessary. For example, What are you doing to improve lambing percentage? vs What s your mating policy? vs What ram:ewe ratio do you use? vs How many rams did you use? The benefits of open questions are: Gets better information because avoids assumption; Avoids interrogation effect. Feedback It is important that at the end of the visit the judges appoint one speaker to provide some positive verbal feedback to the entrant. Once you have identified the farmer s passions, strengths and areas for improvement it is important to provide positive and effective feedback. A very effective model for this is the Toastmasters model: Commend, Recommend, Commend To use this technique select two or three things about the farm visit and comment on them. Mention; Page 14 of 29 Page 69 of 226

78 1. What the farmer has done well, 2. What in your opinion could be improved on, and then 3. Conclude with a positive comment. For example; I am impressed with your solar power and the cost savings you are achieving. I have heard about a new system used in Australia that combines wind and solar power to generate all the farm s power needs that could help to improve your system. This is one of the most cost effective solar power systems I have seen. Feedback tips Be specific on your feedback. Carefully select your feedback words. When you make a comment make sure it is clear that it is your opinion only unless it is the final summary of the judges opinion of the farm. Don t repeat a point once it is made. Find something positive about what you have seen and how it affected you in a positive manner. Look directly at the farmer when speaking. Speak to behaviour and practices not attitudes, feelings or motivation. The aim of feedback is to help the farmer do better so limit yourself to two or three areas for improvement. If you cover more it is demolishing. If everything is very good you may pass on areas for improvement but you must always comment on strengths. Remember, at the conclusion of the visit the farmer should be left feeling motivated and eager to continue their good work. Summary Active listening Big friendly open questions Feelings before facts. Commend, Recommend, Commend Page 15 of 29 Page 70 of 226

79 APPENDIX 3: EXAMPLE FEEDBACK REPORT (The Feedback Report Template will be ed out to all judging teams. It may differ slightly from this example) This image cannot currently be displayed. Feedback Report John Brown Bay of Plenty Ballance Farm Environment Awards 2011/12 Page 16 of 29 Page 71 of 226