Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee Committee

The Chairman and Councillors 

Operations, Monitoring and Regulation 

Committee 

NOTICE IS GIVEN that the next meeting of the Operations, 

Monitoring and Regulation Committee will be held in The Boeing 

Room, Classic Flyers NZ, 9 Jean Batten Drive, Tauranga 

Airport on: 

EMBARGOED 

Until 2 working days before meeting on: 

Thursday, 24 November 2011 

commencing at 9.30 a.m. 

Mary-Anne Macleod 

Chief Executive 

17 November 2011

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. 

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. 

Membership 

All Councillors including the Chairman as Ex-Officio. 

Term of the Committee 

For the period of the 2010/2013 Triennium unless discharged earlier by the Regional Council. 

Specific Responsibilities and Delegated Authority 

The Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee is delegated the power of authority to: 

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. 

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. 

Page 3 of 92

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. 

Approve the allocation of funds (as identified in the Ten Year Plan and Annual Plan) to the 

Environmental Enhancement Fund. 

Exercise all Council’s duties, functions and powers for determining resource consent 

applications. 

Approve submissions on behalf of the Council in relation to consent applications. 

Approve environmental agreements with private landowners, in accordance with the Policy on 

Partnerships with the Private Sector. 

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). 

Approve its Subcommittee’s recommendations for matters outside the Subcommittee delegated 

authority. 

Carry out hearings under any statute, for areas within its terms of reference. 

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. 

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. 

Page 4 of 92

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 12.00 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 5 of 92

Committee Membership 

Chairman: 

M Whitaker 

Deputy Chairman: P Sherry 

Councillors: 

Ex Officio: 

Secretary: 

I Noble, T Marr, N Oppatt, J Mansell, R Bennett, J Nees, T Eru, L Thurston, 

P Thompson, D Owens 

Chairman J Cronin 

S Cubbon 

Recommendations in reports are not to be construed as Council policy until adopted by Council. 

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 Ballance Farm Environment Awards Annual Update 11 

A presentation from John Mackintosh and Doug Lineham 

3.2 Nutrient management and the dairy industry 17 

A presentation from Brigid Buckley, Dairy NZ 

APPENDIX – Nutrient management and the dairy industry 

3.3 Bovine Tuberculosis – A presentation from the Animal Health Board 23 

3.4 Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Implementation Progress 25 

APPENDIX 1 – 2011-2012 Master spreadsheet for Ohiwa Harbour Strategy 

11 October 2011 

APPENDIX 2 – Ohiwa Community Newsletter 1 July 2011 

APPENDIX 3 – Letter from the Ministry of Fisheries October 2011 

Page 7 of 92

3.5 Trace Elements in Bay of Plenty Soils 37 

APPENDIX – Trace elements analyses results November 2011 – 

Refer Environmental Publication 2011/16 

3.6 Eastern Bay of Plenty Feral Goat Control Programme – Annual 

Progress report 2010/11 43 

APPENDIX – Eastern BOP Feral Goat Programme – 2011/11 Annual 

Progress report – Final November 2011 

3.7 Western Weed Warden Trial Interim Report 47 

3.8 Whakatane and Ohope Stormwater Catchment Management 

Planning Project Update 51 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT 1 – Catchment Management – Whakatane and 

Ohope Investigation and Implementation Project Stage 2 Mitigation Options 

Report September 2011 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT 2 – Stormwater Catchment Management 

Whakatane and Ohope Situation Report 

3.9 Restoration of Whitebait Habitats 

A presentation from Matt Bloxham 

3.10 NERM Beach Profile Monitoring 2011 59 

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT – refer Environmental Publication 2011-14 

NERM Beach Profile Monitoring 2011 

3.11 Puarenga Stream Investigation Update 65 

APPENDIX – Puarenga Memo September 2011 – Draft Working document 

3.12 Quarterly Consents Update Report 73 

APPENDIX 1 – 111107 RMI decisions granted 26.9.2011 to 4.11.2011 

APPENDIX 2 – 111109 Graph of incoming and outgoing monthly application 

numbers 

3.13 Group Managers’ Report 83 

4 Consideration of General Business 

Page 8 of 92

Reports 

Page 9 of 92

File Reference: 1.00036 

Significance of Decision: Low 

Report To: Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee 

 

Meeting Date: 24 November 2011 

Report From: 

Warwick Murray, Group Manager Land Management 

Ballance Farm Environment Awards Annual Update 

Executive Summary 

This report is a brief summary of the Ballance Farm Environment Award programme. The 

Ballance Farm Environment Award Management Committee will make a presentation in support 

of the report. 

1 Recommendations 

That the Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee under its delegated 

authority: 

1 Receives the report, Ballance Farm Environment Awards Annual Update. 

2 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 Act 2003, Civil Defence and Emergency 

Act 2002, and Local Government Act 1974 and 2002). 

2 Background 

The Farm Environment Awards have existed nationally since 1993. In 2004, The New 

Zealand Farm Environment Award Trust was established. The Trust's core business is 

promoting sustainable environmental management of land; one of the ways it does this 

is to implement the Ballance Farm Environment Awards. It is still responsible for this 

but also has a broader role in ensuring any events or awards run under the New 

Zealand Farm Environment Award banner stay true to the original idea. 

The Balance Farm Environment awards in the Bay of Plenty are managed by the Farm 

Environment Award Trust (Bay of Plenty Region), which runs the awards annually. This 

is done by the Ballance Farm Environment Awards Management Committee. It is this 

committee which is presenting to you today. 

About the awards 

The Ballance Farm Environment Awards finds and reward farming operations that are 

achieving a high standard across three key factors essential to a successful farming 

operation: 

Page 11 of 92

• Sustainable Profitability 

• Environmental awareness 

• Social and community responsibility 

While the Awards are about celebrating winning practices, they are first and foremost 

focus on learning and knowledge sharing. For those farmers who do not yet feel they 

are ready to enter, the Awards are an opportunity to benchmark themselves against 

their peers and receive confidential constructive feedback from a team of three 

independent assessors. Many people enter the Awards to share ideas and expertise 

with the wider farming community. Notable among the entrants is a pattern of seeking 

methods, often in innovative ways, to find sustainable solutions to limitations that they 

encounter in their farming businesses. Each year one farming operation is judged as 

the supreme winner for the region, and seven additional awards are made across a 

range of farm types and businesses. 

How the awards benefit the future 

The awards help many farming businesses to enhance their assets in a variety of 

ways. Many past participants have entered to learn new ways of doing things. Farmers 

have said that the benefits to be gained from entering include: 

• Linking sustainable farming practices to long-term profitability 

• The opportunity to discuss practical farm information and business with 

assessors from arrange of fields 

• Gathering new ideas and different methods from other entrants 

• Confirmation that current farm management practices are sustainable 

Ballance Farm Environment Awards Partners 

The local awards benefit from having national and regional partners. Currently they are; 

National Sponsors 

• Ballance Agri-Nutrients 

• Livestock Improvement Company (LIC) 

• Massey University 

• Hill Laboratories 

• PGG Wrightson 

• Beef and Lamb 

• New Zealand Farm Environment Award Trust 

Regional Sponsors 

• Bay of Plenty Regional Council 

• Zespri® International Limited 

Page 12 of 92

here to enter text. 

3 Our role 

We have been working with and supporting the farm environment awards for a long 

time. In December 2008 the Council updated its relationship with the Farm 

Environment Award Trust and signed a contract agreement with them that changed the 

way we engage with the Ballance Farm Environment Award programme. Instead of 

the organisation of the Awards being undertaken by one of our communications 

advisers (as we used to) or directly paying some of the programme costs (as we did in 

2008) we now fund the Farm Environment Award Trust (Bay of Plenty Region) with a 

total annual grant of $30,000. 

This assists the Trust in achieving its principal objective which is; 

“The advancement, education, assistance and promotion of sustainable environmental 

management of land and other natural resources on farms within the Bay of Plenty 

region”. 

The Trust is also to provide reports to the Council in June and December of each year. 

Council’s commitment on top of its financial obligation is to cover the print cost of 

meetings, have representation on the management committee and Trust (Simon 

Stokes – Land Resources Manager Eastern), personnel support for the annual awards 

and field day, and to provide meeting rooms. We also provide one assessment judge 

(Biosecurity Officer Plants, Des Pooley), who supports the field day arrangements, with 

other Land Management staff in support if necessary, and Simon Stokes is also the 

Master of Ceremony at the Awards and supports both event coordination and delivery. 

4 Financial Implications 

Current Budget 

Funding falls within current budget allocation. 

Future Implications 

As per the Ten Year Plan proposal. 

Simon Stokes 

Manager Land Resources (Eastern) 

 

for Group Manager Land Management 

 

15 November 2011 

Click 

Page 13 of 92

PRESENTATION 

Ballance Farm Environment Awards Update 

PRESENT AT ION - B all an ce Farm Environ ment Award s Upd ate 

Page 15 of 92




 


Report From: 


Nutrient management and the dairy industry 


Brigid Buckley, Developer – Sustainability from DairyNZ will be presenting to the committee on 

the current proposals for nutrient management within the dairy industry for dairy farmers under a 

Primary Growth Programme initiative. 



authority: 

1 Receives the report, Nutrient management and the dairy industry. 






2 Background 

Nutrient budgeting and nutrient management plans have been promoted as a way 

forward to effectively manage nutrient inputs and outputs on a farm. 

There is an increasing requirement for farmers to have a nutrient budget and a nutrient 

management plan. For example, the Dairying and Clean Stream Accord Regional 

Action Plan for the Bay of Plenty (2008) has a priority for action; 

• That nutrients are managed affectively to minimise losses to ground and surface 

waters 

This was to be achieved by dairy farms having in place systems to manage nutrient 

inputs and outputs of which both Fonterra and Bay of Plenty Regional Council would 

promote and encourage nutrient budgets. 

Another example in the recent release of ‘A guide to managing farm dairy effluent – in 

the Bay of Plenty’, produced by DairyNZ and the Bay of Plenty Regional Council, also 

encourages and shows how nutrients can be managed within a nutrient management 

plan and budget. 

Page 17 of 92


Currently, in the Regional Water and Land Plan, landowners do not require a nutrient 

budget or nutrient management plan under rules relating to the permitted discharge of 

fertiliser or the controlled discharge of farm dairy effluent; however a nutrient budget or 

nutrient management plan could be embedded as a consent condition. Only Rule 11 

has requirements with regards to nutrient budgeting and nutrient management 

planning. 

This presentation will provide the latest information on just how nutrient management 

planning is developing in New Zealand under the Primary Growth Partnership 

programme, where the Nutrient Management Programme, jointly funded by the dairy 

industry and the government, is aiming to transform nutrient management long term for 

dairy farmers. 



There are no current budget implications 


There are no future financial implications. 

Simon Stokes 


 


 


Click 

Page 18 of 92

PRESENTATION 


PRESENTATION - Nutrient management and the dairy industry 

Page 19 of 92

$Nutrientmanagementan.2673.1109090114$ 

APPENDIX 


presentation 

APPENDIX - Nutrient management and the dairy industry presentat ion 

Page 21 of 92

Nutrient management and the 

dairy industry 

Presentation to the Bay of Plenty Regional Council 

24 November 2011

Overview 

• Nutrient management for the dairy industry 

• Primary Growth Partnership – Nutrient Management Programme 

– Overview 

– Regional indicators of nutrient performance 

– Audited nutrient management systems 

– Capability building – nutrient management advisor accreditation and assurance 

systems 

• Questions

New Zealand’s dairy industry 

• Significant growth over the last 20 years. 

– Production + environmental footprint 

• Significant changes: 

– How we farm and where we farm, regulatory environment, perception 

• Increased scrutiny from regulators and the New Zealand public. 

– Central and regional government, catchments (Waituna, Mohaka...) 

• Challenge – environment, social and economic...

Nutrient management for the dairy 

industry 

• Nutrient budgets provide the basis on nutrient management planning 

on more than 95 percent of New Zealand’s dairy farms. 

• At present, both NB and NMPs are delivered by fertiliser 

representatives and farm consultants. 

• Different templates, based on 2007 Nutrient Management Code of 

Practice. 

• The fertiliser industry has a leadership role in providing dairy farmers 

with NM advice.

Primary Growth Partnership 

Programme 

• Seven year, $170 million programme of work which is jointly funded by 

the dairy industry and government. 

• DairyNZ (lead), Fonterra, Synlait, LIC, Landcorp, Young Farmers, 

Agricultural Services Ltd and ZESPRI. 

• Aim is to transform the dairy value chain through investment in new 

people, capability and knowledge. 

• On farm the measure of success will be in enabling farmers to 

significantly reduce their environmental footprint while increasing 

efficiency, as well as substantially improving agricultural education.

PGP Nutrient Management 

• Nutrient management is a key area where improvements are sought. 

• Three components to the PGP Nutrient Management Programme 

– Regional indicators of nutrient performance 

– Audited nutrient management system 

– Building capability - nutrient management advisor accreditation 

• Partnership between the fertiliser and dairy industries.

Regional indicators of nutrient 

performance 

• Raise awareness of nutrient management concepts and tools amongst 

dairy farmers. 

• Improve nutrient use efficiency, reduce nutrient losses. 

• Drive demand for nutrient management advice. 

• Nutrient performance indicators: 

– Nitrogen conversion efficiency (%) 

– N leaching (kg N/ha/year) 

– P loss (kg P/ha/year)

Regional distribution graphs 

Bay of Plenty Region 

• Improve NCE, whilst look for opportunities to reduce your N footprint. 

• Reduce N leaching by making improvements to NCE.

Audited NM System 

• Industry nutrient management performance auditing scheme that 

measures and incentivises continual improvement. 

• Contracted to Richard Allen and Mike Hide at Fonterra, but not a 

‘Fonterra-only’ project. 

• Two components: 

– Develop a nutrient efficiency monitoring scheme. 

– Pilot an ANMS in three catchments: Upper Waikato, Mangatainoka, 

Hurunui.

What is the goal? 

•Develop an industry run nutrient management system that will: 

– measure and monitor nitrogen use efficiency and losses; and 

– improve the efficiency of nitrogen use and reduce nitrogen loss from dairy farms; and 

– be internally and externally audited; and 

– be available for any milk supply company to implement; and 

– provide an alternative to regional council regulation in some situations. 

• Phosphorus is not included.

Audited NM System 

Farmer maintains 

relevant data 

throughout the season 

Communication of 

requirements to 

farmers 

Data submitted at 

season end 

Season Commences 

Information is used to develop Nutrient 

Management Plan for coming season 

Other Data Sources Audit 

Data entered to 

Overseer 

Regulatory 

Authorities 

Reports p 

sent t 

showing 

against

Nutrient Advisor Training 

• The fertiliser industry has existing minimum knowledge requirements for 

nutrient management advisors 

Entry 

Requirements 

Within 3 

Months 

Within 6 

Months 

Within 1 Year Within 1-2 

years 

Within 2-4 

Years 

Nutrient 

Management 

Agricultural 

Degree or 

Diploma 

NM1 

Massey 

Introduction 

to Nutrient 

Management 

Self – 

Assessment 

NM2 

Codes of 

Practice 

NM3 

The 

Regional 

Perspective 

NM4 

Nutrient 

Budgets – 

Principles 

NM5 

Nutrient 

Budgets - 

Operations 

NM6 

Nutrient 

Budgets - 

Interpretations 

NM7 

Massey 

Intermediate 

Sustainable 

Nutrient 

Management 

NM8 

Nutrient 

Management 

Plans 

NM9 

Massey 

Advanced 

Sustainable 

Nutrient 

Management 

Source: Fert Rese

Nutrient Advisor Accreditation 

• Extending this to include consultants 

Source: Fert Research, 2011

Questions...


Significance of Decision: Receives Only - No Decisions 


 


Report From: 


Bovine Tuberculosis - A presentation from the Animal Health Board 


This paper introduces a presentation that will be made to the Committee by William McCook, 

Chief Executive of the Animal Health Board Incorporated (AHB). 

The AHB was formed in the early 1990’s by the Government and cattle, dairy and deer 

industries to manage bovine tuberculosis (TB) in New Zealand. TB is contagious “wasting 

disease” (closely related to human TB) that could threaten New Zealand’s access to overseas 

markets for our dairy, beef and venison products. Managing the disease in New Zealand is 

complicated by the fact that possums, and other wildlife, act as vectors for the disease. This 

means that the TB control programme has two main activities: disease control within cattle and 

deer herds and vector control (primarily controlling possums to low levels). 

TB is managed under the National Bovine Tuberculosis Pest Management Strategy (NPMS) 

with the AHB being the strategy management agency. The NPMS has been in place since 

1998 and has just completed its second review earlier this year. To date, the AHB has made 

very good progress towards achieving its objectives of reducing the number of TB infected 

herds in New Zealand, bringing the number of infected herds down from over 1700 in the mid 

1990’s to 81 as of 30 June 2011. The new revised strategy will now focus on attempting to 

eradicate the disease from infected possum populations so as to break the cycle of infection 

from wildlife to domestic stock. 

Council (and the previous pest destruction boards) have had a historical involvement in TB 

vector control and were contracted to the AHB to manage the Tb vector programme in the Bay 

of Plenty from 2000 to 2008. Council has also supported the NPMS since 2000 as a funding 

contributor. 

William’s presentation will cover the background of TB in New Zealand, operational aspects of 

the TB control programme, the revised NPMS and the TB situation in the Bay of Plenty. 



authority: 

1 Receives the report, Bovine Tuberculosis - A presentation from the Animal 

Health Board. 

Page 23 of 92


Greg Corbett 

Manager Land Resources (Rotorua) 

 


 


Click 

Page 24 of 92




 


Report From: 


Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Implementation Progress 


The purpose of this report is to update the Operations, Monitoring and Regulation committee on 

actions contained within the hiwa Harbour Strategy. Two major highlights since the last report 

on 7 th September 2010; consent was granted for mangrove removal to Upokorehe and the 

hiwa Harbour margin was completed with regards to stock access. 



authority: 

1 Receives the report, hiwa Harbour Strategy Implementation Progress. 






2 Background 

This hiwa Harbour Strategy (The ‘Strategy’) covers the hiwa Harbour and its land 

catchment area. 

The Strategy is a non-statutory document that was prepared by Bay of Plenty Regional 

Council with input from Whakatane District Council, ptiki District Council, Ngati Awa, 

Upokorehe, Whakatohe, and Ngi Thoe. The Strategy was formally approved in 

June 2008. 

Implementation of the hiwa Harbour Strategy has been on-going since June 2008. A 

report was last presented to the committee on 7 th September 2010 and this report 

provides the annual update on progress in implementing actions contained within the 

strategy. 

There are two hiwa Harbour Implementation Forum hui per year and an update report 

on progress towards implementing actions within the hiwa Harbour Strategy is 

provided to each hui. Four hui have been held since the ‘Forum’ became operational, 

with two held since the hiwa Harbour Implementation Forum’s re-establishment after 

Page 25 of 92

the local body elections held in 2010. The Terms of Reference for the hiwa Harbour 

Implementation Forum has remained as altered and resolved by this Council on 10 

December 2009. 

Current elected partner representatives for this triennium are; 

1 Bay of Plenty Regional Council Cr Malcolm Whittaker 

2 Opotiki District Council Cr Selby Fisher 

3 Whakatane District Council Cr Christine Chambers 

4 Ngai Thoe (Waimana Kaaku Trust) Nika Rua 

5 Whakathea (Mori Trust Board) Maude Edwards 

6 Upokorehe Maui Manuel 

7 Ngati Awa (Te Runanga o Ngti Awa) Te Kei Merito 

The organisational structure has remained with the hiwa Harbour Strategy 

Coordination Group providing the daily role of implementing the strategy’s actions. 

3 hiwa Harbour Strategy Actions Update 

A complete list of the hiwa Harbour Strategy actions and their status is shown in 

Appendix 1. There are additional worksheets showing the action status of the four 

completed supporting plans and subsets of actions for the strategy also, they are; 

Sediment and Mangrove Management Plan, hiwa Harbour Strategy Communications 

Plan, Ecological actions and Resource Management actions. 

The following are highlights of activities since the last report to this committee on 7 th 

September 2010. 

• Since June 2008 76% of the 37 hiwa Harbour Strategy actions have been 

completed or are in progress to be completed. Some of these actions have resulted 

in on-going work and some have added new actions to do. 

• 70% of the additional actions contained with the Sediment and Mangrove 

Management Plan, hiwa Harbour Strategy Communications Plan, Ecological 

actions and Resource Management actions have been completed or are in progress 

to be completed. 

• This current year will see a focus on 51 actions based on those still in progress, 

completed and on-going, or where no progress has occurred yet. 

• Four hiwa Harbour Strategy Coordination Group hui have been held with 

representatives from all of the strategy partners since the last report to this 

committee. An additional hui was held to review the hiwa harbour Strategy actions 

status and operational priority which is shown in Appendix 1. 

• The hiwa Harbour Community newsletter and e-newsletter has been up and 

running which informs the community. An example is shown in Appendix 2. Four 

community newsletters and e-news publications are to be produced annually. 

• There is a new proposed ‘hiwa Harbour Rural Zone’ within the draft Whakatne 

District Council Plan with land around hiwa Harbour being rezoned rural. This 

Page 26 of 92

provides for greater consistency with the ptiki District Council plan. The zone 

extends 2-3km inland and excludes the hope residential area. A brief summary of 

what this means within the hiwa Harbour Rural Zone: 

o lot sizes are increased from 2 ha to 4 ha 

o all buildings and structures require a resource consent 

o no building is allowed within 100m of the harbour’s edge (20m for hakana 

Island) 

o no building is allowed within 50m of a ridgeline 

o 

earthworks greater than 200m3 require a resource consent 

o forestry and harvesting greater than 5 ha require discretionary consent 

(ptiki District Council already has this activity as a discretionary consent). 

o 

hakana and Uretara Islands have been given special protection and 

identified as ‘Outstanding Natural Features’ and landscapes. The draft plan 

provisions will ensure that the impact of development on hakana Island is 

minimised. Protection for the natural environment has also improved with a 

number of sites containing significant indigenous biodiversity listed. These 

sites have been mapped in the draft plan, with provisions to protect them. 

Cultural sites are protected with provisions for protecting cultural sites - the 

sites identified in the draft plan are the same as in the Operative Plan. Other 

sites may be added after consultation with iwi. Finally Esplanade reserves as 

part of new subdivisions in the Awaraputuna, Waiotane, Wainui, Nukuhou 

Streams/Rivers and the hiwa Harbour coastal margin have been identified 

as water bodies where people who subdivide land may need to provide 

esplanade reserves or strips for public access or conservation purposes. 

• The business case for a coordinator for the harbour has been completed with four 

options put forward. The work has highlighted the need for someone field based 

amongst the community as the hiwa Harbour coordinator who will coordinate the 

myriad of operational requirements and actions that require implementation. Options 

will be discussed at the next hiwa Harbour Strategy Coordination Group meeting in 


• A letter was sent to the Minister of Fisheries on August 3 rd with regards to a request 

from the Forum to obtain information about cockle and pipi harvest in hiwa Harbour 

and to invite a representative to attend our next Forum hui. The Ministry declined to 

attend the hui in person but did offer to video or telephone conference, which was 

considered unacceptable in relation to the issue. 

• A summary of hiwa Harbour and Nukuhou work for the year 2010 2011. 

o 

The hiwa Harbour margin totals 56kms and 3kms of fencing has been 

added over the 2010/2011 year. We are pleased to report that the hiwa 

Harbour margin is now 100% protected from stock access. Our target for the 

2010/2011 year was an increase of 0.5% and achieving a 3% increase ahead 

of target has been a highlight this year. 

o 25kms of the 28.8kms of hiwa Harbour catchment stream margins are 

protected, with 2.1kms of stream protection being added in the 2010/2011 

year. Therefore 86% of the catchment’s stream margins are now protected 

from stock access. 

Page 27 of 92

o The Nukuhou River and tributary streams are 146.5km. 111km or 76% is 

protected currently and 7.5km has been added this year, lifting the total to 

118.5km leaving 28km to do. This increases the protection to 80%. 

o In summary there is still significant length of the Nukuhou River to protect 

(28km) and the target is for a 1% increase in protection this financial year. An 

estimated total cost if this was purely achieved with a single hot wire 

approach to fencing would be approximately $196,000. 

• There are five care groups located around the hiwa Harbour. They are; hiwa 

Reserve Care Group, Nukuhou Saltmarsh Care Group, Ohakana Island 

Landowners/Rate Payers Association Care Group, Paparoa Road Care Group, 

and Matakerepu gorge Care Group. 

In the 2010 2011 year $9,000 was spent on animal and plant pest work through 

the groups and on re-printing the hiwa Bird Book. This year the budget is 

significantly higher at $35,000 for works through the Groups. A majority of this 

increase is due to the inclusion of Uretara Island for animal and plant pest 

management. 

• The marshbirds and threatened plants surveys have been completed. The marsh 

bird survey has shown that there has been an overall increase in birdlife which is 

a good indicator of improving health of the ecology of the harbour. 

Overall there has been a continuing focus on coordinating existing work requirements 

and working together on new projects. A good example has been the improved 

alignment of District plans. 

4 Focus for 2011 2012 

At a recent hiwa Harbour Strategy Coordination Group hui the hiwa Harbour Strategy 

actions were re-evaluated for status of completion and re-prioritised in relation to the 

workload that is building from various actions and subsequent action plans to meet the 

original action requirements. This process was endorsed by the hiwa Harbour 

Implementation Forum at its October 31 st hui. 

In summary five key overarching actions were selected to focus on for 2011 2012. 

1 Community connection actions. There is a real need to connect with the hiwa 

Harbour community better than we have been doing and also to connect with 

visitors and tourists. Therefore several actions in the hiwa Harbour Strategy 

Communications Plan are to be completed such as the selection of ‘Top sites’ for 

signage and brochures and gathering the local communities together 

2 Re-establishment and upgrade of the webpage on the Bay of Plenty Regional 

Council’s website. This aspect to communicating with a wider audience and 

keeping more people informed is underdone and needs improvement. 

3 Sourcing of logs for setting aside to prepare for carving pou pou or pou whenua. 

This is something that the iwi are keen to start doing. Pou pou and pou whenua 

would be located around the harbour. 

4 Aim to have in place by July 1 st 2012, a hiwa Harbour coordinator who could 

improve the coordination, integration, and communication of tasks relating to hiwa 

Harbour, including tracking and reporting on progress, and communications and 

community engagement. The current options presented in the recently completed 

Page 28 of 92

usiness case assessment are to be analysed and discussed by the hiwa 

Harbour Strategy Coordination Group at its December hui. 

5 Ngti Awa want to invite their own people to work with them along the hiwa 

Harbour margin where their land meets the harbour, to encourage them to 

participate in restorative planting to hold sediment and to reduce nutrients from 

entering the estuary margins. 

3 Important issues 

3.1 Mangroves 

Mangrove removal in the hiwa Harbour will be undertaken at a series of working bees 

during the coming summer. The first will be held on Sunday 13 th November adjacent to 

Kutarere, Wharf Rd. This first session will be a trial for a small number of Upokorehe 

hap members where they hope to work out which methods of cutting the mangroves 

is the best suited to the situation here and where we will establish an appropriate 

method of record keeping and measurement using a GPS unit. 

Working bees for wider community participation will begin in earnest on December 10 th 

2011. 

A communications plan has been developed which will ensure that the wider hiwa 

Harbour community is well informed about the project and which will also provide a 

mechanism for interested people to become involved in the work alongside the consent 

holder - Upokorehe hap. 

Hand held equipment, refreshments and technical support will be provided at all the 

working bees by the Eastern Land Resources team. 

3.2 Pipi and cockle commercial license and harvest in hiwa harbour 

The hiwa Harbour Implementation Forum recently became aware of pipi and cockle 

commercial licenses for an area which includes hiwa Harbour and in fact states that 

cockle and pipi harvesting commercially can only occur within hiwa Harbour. 

Appendix 3 has a brief summary of this issue contained in a letter from the Ministry of 

Fisheries in response to a letter from the hiwa Harbour Implementation Forum sent 

August 3 rd 2011. 

At the 31 st October hui the hiwa Harbour Implementation Forum resolved to ask its 

member representatives to go back to their organisations to establish a position on 

whether they supported the commercial harvesting of pipi and cockles in hiwa 

Harbour, or not. At the next hiwa Harbour Implementation Forum hui in 2012 there 

will a be a report presented which sets out the background to this issue and evaluates 

options for future management of shell fish in the harbour to assist partner 

organisations in developing a position on the issue. 

3.3 Nukuhou River 

While there has been considerable improvement along the length of the Nukuhou River 

with regards to removing stock access, installing bridges, and removing aged willow 

trees which were causing flooding issues, with the overall aim to reduce nutrient and 

sediment entering hiwa Harbour, there is still a significant issue which is the active 

and severe to extreme river bank erosion in the lower half of the Nukuhou River above 

Matakerepu gorge. 

Page 29 of 92


This is due to several issues; the reactivation and removal of sediment stored in the 

river system since the original tree planting work was put in place, changing the shape 

and dynamic of the river and its banks; the high energy flows that now occur in the river 

due to the removal of the trees; and a steady increase in the frequency of storm events 

in a large catchment which drains to a relatively small alluvial flood plain system which 

consists of unconsolidated alluvial material. To a large extent the works programmes 

that have been replanting river bank edges and riparian margins with native plants and 

willows or encouraging retirement (often seen as existing grasses) are suitable options 

to reduce or remove riverbank erosion, however, in places the steepness of the river 

bank and the increased flood flows hasn’t allowed time for stability to be put in place by 

the work. 

River works has been proceeding in the river below Matakerepu gorge to reduce the 

erosion points but this has halted due to a non-compliance issue with a landowner. 

Landowners affected by river bank erosion above Matakerepu gorge will need to 

continue to work with Land Management Officers to manage on-going river bank 

erosion and the down-cutting of the river bed. It is therefore planned to hold a 

landowner meeting in December 2011 to update the landowners on the work that has 

been occurring in the Nukuhou catchment and under the hiwa Harbour Strategy. 





As per the Ten Year Plan proposal. 

Simon Stokes 


 


 


Click 

Page 30 of 92

$20112012Masterspread.2674.1107010710$ 

APPENDIX 1 

2011 2012 Master spreadsheet for Ohiwa 

Harbour Strategy 11 October 2011 

APPENDI X 1 - 2011 2012 Master spr ead sh eet for O hi wa H arbo ur Strat eg y 11 Octob er 2011 PDF VERSI ON 

Page 31 of 92

Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Action Plan - progress tracking report to August 26 2011 

Theme Action 

Ref 

Action Proposed Lead 

Agency 

Support Agencies OHS Due Date Target Start 

Date 

Target Due 

Date 

Status First Quarter - August 26 

Progress report 

Second Quarter 

December 9 


Third Quarter 

February 17 


Fourth Quarter May 25 


General comments/end of financial year summary 

A more informed 

community 

13.3.2 Develop a Communication/Education 

Plan. Includes 13.3.1 & 13.3.3 

BOPRC OHSCG - Territorial 

Authorities, DoC and 

iwi. 

1/06/2011 Aug-08 Jun-11 COMPLETED On-going - correlates to Communications 

plan actions worksheet 

Three-year OHS communications action plan (2010-2013) completed and year one actions are 

underway. 


community 

13.3.1 Provide Coordinated Signs and 

Interpretive Material; component of 

action 13.3.2Linked to research 

gathered in action 9.3.3 Identify 

hiwa Harbour’s Cultural Heritage. 

BOPRC (Tim Senior) OHSCG - Territorial 


iwi 

1/06/2013 Jun-10 Jun-13 IN PROGRESS High priority - Two sites need to be 

decided upon to get in place by Xmas 

2011 to meet annual requirement 

Subject to implementation of three-year OHS communications action plan 2010 – 2013. Year one 

ends 30/6/11 and includes:‘Top sites’ project - two ‘Top sites’ planned for each of the three years 

Linked to research to be gathered in action 9.3.3 Identify hiwa Harbour’s Cultural Heritage. Add 

te reo Mori translation capability to documentation produced when and where appropriate. 


community 

13.3.4 Support the Work of Landowners and 

Community Groups.Linked to actions: 

12.3.1: Develop Incentives for 

Landowners 7.3.2: Planting of 

unstable slopes. 

BOPRC (Land 

Management) 

Landowners and 

community groups. 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 IN PROGRESS Ohiwa Harbour margin completed. Need 

to continue to and look to grow 

awareness and support 

Continuing BOPRC support of the following groups in plant and animal pest management, and revegetation:Estuary 

Care: Nukuhou Saltmarsh – Uretara IslandCoast Care: hiwaLand Care: 

Paparoa Road,Ohakana Island, Te Motu Island, hiwa Reserve. Ngti Awa to campaign for 

kaitiaki volunteering to support community initiatives. BOPRC also actively supporting annual 

BirdsaPlenty festival. 


community 

13.3.3 Website development action plan; 

component of action 13.3.2 

BOPRC (Tim 

Senior/Alex Grenfell) 

OHSCG - Territorial 


iwi. 

1/06/2013 Jun-10 Jun-13 NO PROGRESS High priority after review of actions and is 

being worked on by BOPRC staff now 

Subject to implementation of three-year OHS communications action plan. 


community 

13.3.5 Review Community Suggestions BOPRC All OHSCG partners to 

assess actions and 

potentially implement 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Dec-11 NO PROGRESS High priority. Review community 

suggestions actioned is underway 

Some actions are being progressed via other work programmes, including the following items:2 - 

heritage trail - could be included in reserves vision (action 10.3.3) and comms plan (action 13.3.2). 

Community engaged in regional park proposal, which includes walkway and management plan6 – 

bins and seating are part of WDC’s on-going work 7 - nightlight at Port hope boat ramp 

completed 13 - pontoon consent applied for, not granted – WDC will not pursue I7 – shade trees 

part of additional planting at hope Recreation Reserve, incudes ‘Hospice Planting’18 – tidal 

swimming facility part of proposed Port hope Plan for consultation. NB may not be safe option 

due to hydrology. 

Health of the 

estuary 

7.3.5 Stop Contamination of Urban Storm 

waterLinked to action:13.3.2 

Comms/Education Plan 

ODC/WDC ODC/WDC 1/07/2009 Aug-08 Aug-09 COMPLETED Stencilling promotion on stormwater 

grates. Add this action to 

communications plan. 

Need to include storm-water related messages and actions in implementation of OHS 

Communications Action Plan. Opotiki ODC currently has no education/comms actions planned or 

underway Whakatne WDC/BOPRC doing catchment study around urban stormwater Trade 

waste bylaws in place and pamphlet sent with invoices. Draft pamphlet for stormwater/waste water 

under development. Comprehensive stormwater consent to be developed for all WDC catchments, 

hiwa/hope not underway yet New building and resource consents require stormwater 

management as specified in an engineering code of practice. Talk to consents people. 

Health of the 

estuary 

7.3.3 Nutrient Budgeting Information BOPRC (Land 

Management) 

Territorial Authorities, 

Federated Farmers 

1/07/2009 Aug-08 Aug-09 COMPLETED AND ON- 

GOING 

On-going action which has been reemphasised 

to Land Management staff at 

BOPRC to check. 

Dairy farmers supplying Fonterra must have a nutrient budget. Nationally focused project is 

underway to streamline nutrient management planning. To truly assess what the status is of each 

farm, staff will have to request whether farmers have a budget or not. 

Health of the 

estuary 

7.3.4 Advice on Shellfish Risks Councils and Ministry 

of Health to discuss 

who will take the lead 

on this project. 

Councils and Min 

Health to discuss who 

will support project. 

BOPRC (Water 

Management) provide 

monitoring. 


GOING 

On-going, Low priority. Contact MoH 

(Marion Henton) to ascertain what 

process is. 

No progress.Need to assess relevance and priority. Send letter to MoH to 'Understand the work 

that you do and the functions that MoH administers. We want to know how to help/ better 

understand.' Explore website opportunity. Has been discussed with MoH. We will support their 

notifications by ensuring appropriate locations of signage and promoting through 

website/newsletters. MoH notifications being sent to TimS. 

Health of the 

estuary 

7.3.1 Managing sedimentation within the 

catchment Rule provisions to be 

checked Best practice in 

management methods. 


Management) 

ptiki and Whakatne 

District Councils 

(Planning and 

Consents) 


GOING 

Status of earthworks rules to be checked 

in new Whakatne District Plan and 

BOPRC Regional Policy Statement (V2). 

Forestry guidelines review isu nderway at 

BOPRC 

Rule provisions Current rule provisions in relevant planning documents are being 

implemented.Best practise BOPRC providing advice, education and enforcement to ensure land 

management practises comply with best practise.Target figures are reported to OHIF once a year. 

Page 1 of 11

Theme Action 

Ref 


Agency 


Date 

Target Due 

Date 




December 9 


Third Quarter 

February 17 





Health of the 

estuary 

7.3.2 Planting on unstable slopes. Linked 

to actions: 7.3.6 Mangrove Mgt 12.3.1 

Landowner incentives 13.3.4 Support 

landowners & care groups. 

BOPRC (Landowners and 

managers) 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 IN PROGRESS On-going action with Land Management 

staff having set targets for this financial 

year to achieve 

On-going BOPRC land management work with landowners driven by LUC study of catchment and 

Sediment/Mangrove Management Plan. Still 6,979ha's or 40% of the catchment area in LUC Class 

6/7 land which needs some form of erosion control work or land use change to woody vegetation. 

Main focus is still waterways but work is progressed when possible 

Health of the 

estuary 

7.3.6 Management of Mangroves BOPRC (Land 

Management) 

Territorial Authorities, 

Ministry of Fisheries, 

Department of 

Conservation, Iwi, 

Estuary Care groups 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 IN PROGRESS Monitoring ongoing and trial removal to 

begin in November 2011 and hopefully 

groups working over summer 

Work is based on Sediment/Mangrove Management Plan. Consent granted to Upokorehe for 

mangrove removal. 

Kaimoana 8.3.2 Mhinga Mataitai Status for hiwa 

Harbour 

Kaimoana 8.3.1 Advocacy on Fishing Issues OHS partners to 

discuss who would 

like to take lead. 

Local iwi Ministry of Fisheries 1/07/2010 Aug-08 Jun-13 IN PROGRESS High priority. Rohe moana establishment 

needs to occur 

OHS partners to 

discuss who would like 

to support. 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 NO PROGRESS Low priority. This action has slipped 

through cracks, largely due to lack of MoF 

engagement. OHSCG need to figure 

some way of getting this progressed. 

OHSCG to contact local MoF rep to 

discuss. 

Ngti Awa leading this action and making progress. Rohe moana still to be established. This action 

will be part of a report to the October 31st OHIF hui. 

Progress establishment of lead and support agencies actions required. Once Mahinga Mataitai is 

established, advocacy role will get underway. OHSCG wants to know what resoruces MoF puts in. 

Kaitiakitanga 9.3.1 Developing an Iwi Planning 

Document for hiwa Harbour; 

combined with action 9.3.5. 






to support. 

1/07/2009 Aug-08 Aug-09 COMPLETED Need to take document to OHIF for 

endorsement in principle. 

All Iwi have contributed to completed document; Te Kete Kai a Te Tohu Mohukihuku mo te Umu 

Taonoa a Tairongo. Ngti Awa have adopted this document and the next step is document 

acknowledgement by OHS statutory organisations. 

Kaitiakitanga 9.3.5 Add Kaitiakitanga into the 

Community’s View of Harbour 

Management; combined with action 

9.3.1 Linked to action 13.3.2 

Comms/education plan. 






to support. 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 COMPLETED This acknowledgement needs to be 

added to 9.3.1 and endorsed in principle 

by OHIF 

This action will be part of a report to the October 31st OHIF hui. 

Kaitiakitanga 9.3.4 Develop Protocols with Statutory 

Agencies Linked to 11.3.2 Review 

Resource Management Protocols 

Local iwi Partner Councils 1/07/2010 Aug-08 Aug-10 COMPLETED AND ON- 

GOING 

High priority. Work is now underway 

through several actions in Resource 

Management Review Actions worksheet 

Consultant’s review has been completed and is being implemented. See 11.3.2 summary. Boffa 

Miskell are already doing some work on this issue at BOPRC. 

Kaitiakitanga 9.3.2 Whakathea Review ‘Tawharau o 

Nga Hapu o Whakathea’ 

Whakathea Councils to assist 1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 IN PROGRESS Whakathea to advise of progress Whakathea looking into this action. 

Kaitiakitanga 9.3.3 Identify hiwa Harbour’s Cultural 

Heritage.Linked to actions: 13.3.1 

Signage/interpretation 13.3.2 

Comms/education 13.3.3 Website. 

Local iwi BOPRC, ODC, WDC 

and New Zealand 

Historic Places Trust. 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 IN PROGRESS Need to complete the work and it is tied 

to work in communications plan 

Ngti Awa has already identified their cultural heritage. Underway with Upokorehe, Ngi Thoe 

and Whakathea (with BOPRC support). Completion of this action is needed to enable 

implementation of actions in 13.3.2 Communications/education plan, i.e. hiwa’s ‘Top Sites’ 

project. 

Managing 

development 

pressures 

11.3.1 Understand Future Residential 

Development 

WDC and ODC Bay of Plenty Regional 

Council, iwi, 

landowners 

1/07/2010 Aug-08 Aug-10 COMPLETED Needs some better or deliberate focus to 

meet this action. Tied to WDC plan 

review, which has been completed. ODC 

completed. 

WDC is doing some analysis work on this action as part of current District Plan review.An analysis 

of the ODC Plan has not commenced at this stage as a full review of the District Plan is due in 

2015. ODC will commence work in 2012 that will feed into the 2015 review. ODC have kept in 

touch with WDC District Plan review in relation to the hiwa Harbour Zone. 

Managing 

development 

pressures 

11.3.3 Evaluate Plans to Protect Character 

and Estuarine Health of hiwa 

OHS partner councils 

to discuss who would 


BOPRC (planning 

frameworks) 

OHS partner councils 

to discuss who would 

like to support. 

1/07/2009 Aug-08 Jun-13 COMPLETED AND ON- 

GOING 

Correlates to Resource Management 

Review Actions worksheet. 

Consultant’s review has been completed. Findings include:An integrated plan policy structure is 

still to be developed There is an opportunity to have a coordinating forum for plan review, such as 

through expansion of current WDC Plan review. 

Managing 

development 

pressures 

11.3.2 Review Resource Management 

Protocols 

Bay of Plenty 

Regional Council 

(Sustainable 

Development) 

Territorial authorities, 

iwi, developers 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 COMPLETED AND ON- 

GOING 


Reivew Actions worksheet 

Consultant’s review has been completed. Findings include: Protocols are still evolving ODC, WDC 

and Ngti Awa have created protocols BOPRC has protocols with TLAs Especially important to 

have protocols, such as triggers for consents, where territories are adjacent or overlap Iwi 

management plans and kaitiakitanga plan contribute to kaitiaki protocols. Boffa Miskell are already 

doing some work on this issue at BOPRC. 

Natural areas, 

plants and 

animals 

12.3.1 Develop incentives for landowners 

(Linked to action 13.3.4 support 

landowners & community groups 

7.3.2: Planting of unstable slopes). 


Management) 

Landowners 1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 COMPLETED BOPRC incentives ongoing - need to ask 

the question of look at incentives from 

WDC/ODC or if the BOPRC incentives 

remain effective at lower grant rates to 

landowners for riparian work 

This action is now ‘on-going’ and has targets identified in the hiwa Harbour Catchment land-use 

study and follow up report, hiwa Sediment and Mangrove Management Plan. 

Page 2 of 11

Theme Action 

Ref 


Agency 


Date 

Target Due 

Date 




December 9 


Third Quarter 

February 17 







animals 

12.3.6 Ramsar status for hiwa Harbour Bay of Plenty 


(Sustainable 

Development) 

DOC, Territorial 

authorities and iwi. 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 COMPLETED decision remains for action to be on hold 

until further notice 

OHIF has put this action on hold. 



animals 

12.3.2 Review Monitoring and Enforcement 

Regimes 

To be discussed with 

other councils to see if 

they would like to take 

lead. 


GOING 


Reivew actions worksheet 

Consultant’s review has been completed. Findings include: Monitoring of resource consents going 

well, though still some concern re: overlap areas and over who is/should be doing what Feedback 

to other OHS partners when research is gathered is working well but needs coordination Annual 

reporting of all research recommended. 



animals 

12.3.5 Protect Bird Habitat and Species BOPRC/DoC.OHS 

partner councils to 



Community/care 

groups.OHS partner 

councils to discuss 

who would like to 

support. 

1/07/2009 Aug-08 Aug-09 IN PROGRESS On-going. Completed marshbird survey 

and threatened plants survey - correlates 

to Ecological Actions worksheet 

On-going through care group and environmental programme work. Funded publication; Discover 

the birds of the hiwa Harbour. Staff working to develop further mechanisms for protecting 

valuable sites. 



animals 

12.3.3 Develop an Understanding of 

Indigenous Fish Species 

BOPRC (Water 

management) 

In conjunction with 

DOC. 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 IN PROGRESS High priority. Need update from ecologist 

re new investigative work. 

Indigenous fish surveys of: streams immediately adjacent to hiwa Harbour - completed streams 

in upper catchment. Ignanga and whitebait assessments need completion 



animals 

12.3.4 Assess Ecological Quality of hiwa 

Harbour 

BOPRC DoC/consultants 1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 IN PROGRESS High Priority. Correlates to Ecological 

Actions worksheet 

Multiple components with various timeframes. Completed: Threats to known threatened plants 

(May 2011) Survey to identify inanga habitats. No inanga found. Survey hampered by heavy 

rainfall events (Autumn 2011) Continue monitoring of specific vegetation types (on-going) Update 

fauna report from 1980s (Marshbird survey completed by volunteers in Jan 2011) To be 

completed: Freshwater invertebrate sampling (to be completed Summer 2011/12) Survey of 

marine fish abundance in estuary (still to be investigated) Register of indigenous vegetation sites 

(subject to WDC SNA process as part of District Plan review) Gather info on unsurveyed 

vegetation types (still to be investigated) Survey terrestrial invertebrates and reptiles (still to be 

investigated) Survey to assess presence of native bats (still to be investigated). 

Recreation 

opportunities 

10.3.5 Assess Public Camping Facilities OHS partners to 





to support. 

1/01/2009 Aug-08 Jan-09 COMPLETED action has completed status but is also 

open to change depending on District 

planning reviews 

At the time the OHS was being developed there was some concern that camping grounds would 

close/disappear but this has not been the case. The action may be discarded or new terms of 

reference agreed for alternative action For example, an assessment of seasonal environmental 

impacts (such as increased sewage) of camping grounds. WDC/ODC have investigated this 

action and have placed the action on hold. Private camping areas to be broadcast. Investigate 

working with Toi EDA. 

Recreation 

opportunities 

10.3.9 Develop Policy for Controlling 

Vehicles on Tidal Flats and Beaches 

ptiki and 

Whakatne District 

Councils 

ptiki and Whakatne 

District Councils 

1/07/2009 Aug-08 Aug-09 COMPLETED Correlates to Resource Management 

Review Actions worksheet 

Consultant’s review has been completed. Findings include: Policy covered in bylaws of both 

district councils Signage at major access points Promotion/implementation/enforcement of bylaw 

good at ODC end of harbour and not currently undertaken at WDC end. 

Recreation 

opportunities 

10.3.8 Review Bylaws Relating to Higher 

Impact Activities - s 

Territorial Authorities Iwi, DoC 1/07/2010 Aug-08 1-Aug-10 COMPLETED Correlates to Resource Management 

Reivew actions worksheet 

Consultant’s review has been completed. Linked to review of 10.3.9 and 10.3.10 

Recreation 

opportunities 

10.3.10 Promote Harbour Wardens, Fisheries 

Officers and Kaitiaki 

Bay of Plenty 


(Water Management) 

Ministry of Fisheries, 

Iwi 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 IN PROGRESS Correlates to wardens' hui action Wardens hui held. Stronger support being provided to wardens. 

Recreation 

opportunities 

10.3.7 Monitoring Recreation Activities BOPRC (Harbour 

master) for water 

related activities. 

ODC/WDC for landbased 

activities. 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 NO PROGRESS Campground monitoring still to do. 

Needs discussion with Harbour Master 

with regards to water based monitoring 

Water activities are monitored annually for the hiwa Harbour by BOPRC honorary wardens - 

information needs to be fed into OHSCG 

Recreation 

opportunities 

10.3.4 Enhance hope Spit Harbour Edge 

Walkway 

Whakatane District 

Council 

DoC, landowners 1/07/2010 Aug-08 1-Jun-13 NO PROGRESS WDC to action by June 2013 To be addressed at this location. (Progress has been made on walkway from hiwa end) 

Page 3 of 11

Theme Action 

Ref 


Agency 


Date 

Target Due 

Date 



Recreation 

opportunities 

10.3.1 Consider Opportunities to Obtain 

Harbour Access 

Territorial authorities Bay of Plenty Regional 

Council, DoC, iwi, 

landowners, 

developers 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 ON HOLD Needs more emphasis from District 

councils. 

Recreation 

opportunities 

10.3.3 Develop Reserves Vision for hiwa 

Harbour 

Territorial authorities Bay of Plenty Regional 

Council, DOC, iwi, 

landowners 

1/06/2013 Aug-08 Jun-13 ON HOLD Action is not a priorty until many other 

actions are dealt with. BOPRC Tim 

Senior to follow up with this. 

Recreation 

opportunities 

10.3.6 Investigate development of Regional 

Parks 

Bay of Plenty 


(Land Management) 

Strategy partners, 

landowners, DoC 


actions are dealt with. BOPRC Tim 

Senior to follow up with this. 

Recreation 

opportunities 

10.3.2 Clarify the Status of Public Land OHS partners to 





to support. 


actions are dealt with. Requires 

comprehensive spatial planning map to 

establish land tenure and contacts. 

Page 4 of 11 


December 9 


Third Quarter 

February 17 





Opotiki ODC planning mechanisms have not been reviewed for public access to harbour - District 

Plan to be reviewed in 2015. hiwa Harbour walkway is underway from Opotiki end and enables 

public access. Whakatne WDC District Plan review currently underway and includes review of 

esplanade provisions Several potential subdivisions in WDC end of the harbour and Council will 

work to secure esplanade reserve/strip if subdivisions proceed. 

Harbour-wide reserves vision and action plan still to be established by ODC/WDC.Some work 

underway at Opotiki end, including completion of the car park associated with new walkway and 

hiwa Cove subdivision.BOPRC, ODC, Upokorehe and community involved in Onekawa/Te 

Mawhai regional park development. 

NB Six-month timeframe (due 1/1/09) identified for initial assessment. This component was 

overdue but has since been completed. No due date on other processes. Onekawa Te Mawhai 

long-term management plan development is nearing completion. Several hui have been held to 

keep stakeholders informed, plus there has been an increase in operational activity on site. 

Action is on hold. Need to assess relevance and priority.

Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Communications Plan actions - progress to August 26 2011 

Theme Action Ref Action Sub Action Project description Proposed 

Lead Agency 

Support 

Agencies 

OHS 

communicati 

ons plan due 

date 

Target Start 

Date 

Target Due 

Date 

Status First Quarter - 

August 26 


Second 

Quarter 

December 9 

Progress 

report 

Third Quarter 

February 17 

Progress 

report 

Fourth 

Quarter May 

25 

Progress 

report 

General comments/end of financial year 

summary 

A more 

informed 

community 

13.3.2 Develop a 

Communication/Ed 

ucation 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 (Tim) Contractor 1/03/10 Mar-10 Mar-10 COMPLETED n/a One-off action required only in 2010. 

A more 

informed 

community 



ucation Plan 

OHSCG E- 

contacts list 

Develop e-contacts for easy 

communications with OHSCG reps and 

others in their organisations. 

BOPRC (Tim) OHSCG - 

Territorial 

Authorities, 

DoC and iwi. 

1/08/10 Jul-10 Sep-10 COMPLETED n/a One-off action required only in 2010. 

A more 

informed 

community 

A more 

informed 

community 



ucation Plan 



ucation Plan 

Protocol for 

publications 

OHSCG Rapid 

response e- 

contact list 

and phone 

tree 

Prepare protocol concerning process for 

research and publication of any 

cultural/ecological information. 

Develop and maintain email and phone 

contact list for all relevant OHSCG 

contacts. To provide for rapid 

communications and resolutions between 

meetings and as issues arise. 

BOPRC (Tim) Contractor 1/10/10 Jul-10 Oct-10 COMPLETED n/a One-off action required only in 2010. 


Territorial 

Authorities, 


1/06/11 Jul-10 Jul-11 COMPLETED List is continually 

being updated 

Will require regular up-dating 

A more 

informed 

community 



ucation Plan 

Stakeholder 

Research 

Informal survey of (12) Ohiwa residents 

to find out if and how they would like to 

receive OHS related information. 

BOPRC 

(Alex/Tim) 

1/06/11 Jul-10 Jun-11 COMPLETED Informal survey 

has been 

completed. All 

those spoken to 

preferred email 

Alex/Tim to record outcomes 

A more 

informed 

community 



ucation Plan 

Community 

contacts list 

Gather contacts for Ohiwa community 

interested in receiving newsletter. 

BOPRC OHSCG - 

Territorial 

Authorities, 


1/06/11 Jul-10 Jun-11 COMPLETED List is continually 

being updated 

Will require regular up-dating 

A more 

informed 

community 



ucation Plan 

Top sites' 

project 

Two sites of significance 

(cultural/environmental/recreation/landsc 

ape) agreed on per year. Develop 

location based interpretation/signage and 

publications. 


Territorial 

Authorities, 


1/06/13 Jul-10 Jun-13 IN PROGRESS Growing interest 

from wider 

community in 

Tauwhare pa 

Organisations are close to deciding which two 

sites to focus on. REAP/Toi EDA funded 

education resource and short tourism version 

currently being created. Need to keep in 

touch with this output and these people. 

A more 

informed 

community 



ucation Plan 

OHSCG E- 

news 

Generate 4 e-newsletter/year for OHSCG 

reps and staff in their organisations. 


Territorial 

Authorities, 


1/06/15 Jul-10 Jun-15 IN PROGRESS Issue 2 completed Cheeky Rooster hired to produce 4 

newsletters in 2011/2012 financial year 

A more 

informed 

community 

A more 

informed 

community 



ucation Plan 



ucation Plan 

Community 

newsletter 

OHSCG 

operational 

wananga 

Generate 4 emailable/printable 

newsletters/year for Ohiwa community. 

Three-monthly get together of OHSCG 

operational staff. 

BOPRC OHSCG - 

Territorial 

Authorities, 


BOPRC OHSCG - 

Territorial 

Authorities, 


1/06/15 Jul-11 Jun-15 IN PROGRESS Issue 1 completed Cheeky Rooster hired to produce 4 

newsletters in 2011/2012 financial year. Add 

community review suggestions to the 

newsltter and update the community. Also, 

BOPRC to explore shellfish risk calendar and 

publicise via community newsletter 

1/06/15 Jul-10 Jun-15 IN PROGRESS Two meetings held 

so far, 3rd to be 

held December 

So far considered valuable by all participants. 

Will stick to 4 times / yr but review if 

necessary 

Page 5 of 11


Lead Agency 

Support 

Agencies 

OHS 

communicati 

ons plan due 

date 

Target Start 

Date 

Target Due 

Date 


August 26 


A more 

informed 

community 



ucation 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 (Tim) Waimana 

Kaaku 

1/06/15 Jul-10 Jun-11 NO PROGRESS Need to reexamine 

this 

action to ensure 

necessity 

A more 

informed 

community 



ucation Plan 

Ohiwa 

Harbour 

celebratory 

events. 

Annual get together of OHS partner reps 

and staff and community to celebrate 

work done and appreciation of the 

harbour. 


Territorial 

Authorities, 


1/06/15 Jul-11 Jun-15 NO PROGRESS Could be annual 

celebration/festival 

A more 

informed 

community 



ucation Plan 

Whanaungata 

nga 

Hosted marae stays run by iwi with help 

as required from OHS agency staff. 

Focussed on Harbour's cultural and 

natural history. 

Iwi Iwi and relvant 

OHSCG reps 

as required. 

1/06/15 Jul-11 Jun-15 NO PROGRESS Three to six 

monthly. 

A more 

informed 

community 



ucation Plan 

Decisionmakers 

wananga 

Harbour tour and marae stay for 

Councillors and managers of statutory 

orgs. Focused on Harbur's cultural and 

natural history and resources. 

BOPRC (Tim) OHSCG reps 1/10/13 Jul-11 Oct-13 NO PROGRESS One-off event for 

every round of 

Councillors. 

A more 

informed 

community 



ucation Plan 

Education 

Resource 

Focused on Harbour's cultural and 

natural history and resources. Begin 

research to explore existing programmes, 

establish development team, develop 

relationships with stakeholders (schools, 

REAP, campgrounds, tourism providers 

etc), begin research and identify practical 

involvement opportunties for students. 

BOPRC (Tim) OHSCG reps 

and REAP, 

BOPRC 

comms (Env 

Ed), and TEA. 

1/06/12 Jul-11 Jun-12 NO PROGRESS Major piece of 

work to undertake 

Page 6 of 11 

Second 

Quarter 

December 9 

Progress 

report 

Third Quarter 

February 17 

Progress 

report 

Fourth 

Quarter May 

25 

Progress 

report 

General comments/end of financial year 

summary 

Waimana Kaaku expressed interest in 

hosting, with BOPRC organising, first annual 

hui for all OHS related staff, politicians and 

volunteers. This idea was initiated by iwi so 

need to let them decide. 

August 2011. New action added to comms 

action plan. This action was identified by the 

OHSCG comms team as a future opportunity 

(pg 26 of OHS comms plan). Could be timed 

to conincide with another significant event 

such as matariki in June, or the arrival of the 

Kuaka (Godwits). Or BirdsaPlenty festival? 

New action for 2011/12 year. 



.

Sediment & Mangrove Management Plan actions - progress to August 26 2011 

Theme Action Ref Action Sub Action Project 

description 

Health of the 

estuary 

7.3.6 Management of 

Mangroves 

Mangrove Consent Work with Upokorehe to 

develop mangrove 

removal consent 

Proposed 

Lead 

Agency 

Support 

Agencies 

OHS Due 

Date 

Target 

Start Date 

Target Due 

Date 


August 26 


BOPRC Upokorehe 30/06/11 Aug-08 Jun-11 COMPLETED Trial work to be 

carried out in Nov 

2011. 

Second 

Quarter 

December 

9 

Progress 

report 

Third 

Quarter 

February 

17 

Progress 

report 

Fourth 

Quarter 

May 25 

Progress 

report 

General comments/end 

of financial year 

summary 

Consent issued to 2020 

Health of the 

estuary 

Health of the 

estuary 


Mangroves 

7.3.1 Managing 

sedimentation in 

the catchment 

Mangrove removal 

communications 

plan 

Forestry operations 

education 

Develop plan for how 

stakeholders and 

ocmmunity will be 

invovled/communicated 

with as mangorve 

removal prject 

progresses 

Forestry operations 

education for large 

operations and on farm 

operations, plus 

promotion 

BOPRC Upokorehe 30/06/11 Aug-08 Jun-11 COMPLETED as above - funding is 

in place for this 

financial year to 

support groups from 

BOPRC. Presentations 

given to WDC and 

hope and Tneatua 

communti boards 

BOPRC all other 

agencies 

30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 COMPLETED On-going work in a 

way but companies 

well informed 

Draft plan created by Consultant 

(Cheeky Rooster) Has been 

confirmed with Upokorehe for 

implementaion over summer 

2011/12 

Health of the 

estuary 



the catchment 

Forestry consents Forestry consents are 

applied correctly and 

monitored, promote the 

use of forestry operators 

accreditation scheme 


agencies 

30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 COMPLETED On-going work by 

BOPRC to obtain 

consent compliance. 

How many consents 

in the catchments? 

Health of the 

estuary 

Health of the 

estuary 



the catchment 



the catchment 

Land use change Promote the change in 

land use to forest type 

vegetation of all LUC 

Class 7 land as per the 

Riparian fencing Continue fencing sotck 

from remaining 47.3km 

of waterways in the 

hiwa and Nukuhou 

catchments 


agencies 


agencies 

30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS 2010-2011 results to 

be presented to OHIF 


be presented to OHIF 

Part of Land Management 

programme for hiwa and 

Nukuhou catchments 




Health of the 

estuary 



the catchment 

river and stream 

bank stabilising 

works 

Continue river and 

stream bank stabilising 

works (Jap walnut 

removal, revegetation) 

for the major streams - 

focus on Nukuhou and 

Matahaka stream 


agencies 


be presented to OHIF. 

95% of Japanese 

walnuts in Nukuhou 

catchment removed. 




Health of the 

estuary 



the catchment 

Stock crossings All stock crossings 

through streams must 

be altered to culverts or 

bridges 


agencies 

30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS 2010-2011 results? Part of Land Management 



Page 7 of 11


description 

Health of the 

estuary 

7.3.2 Planting on 

unstable slopes 

Soil conservation 

planting 

Promotion of spaced soil 

conservation planting on 

LUC Class 6 pasture land 

Health of the 

estuary 



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. 

Health of the 

estuary 



the catchment 

Retirement of 

indigenous forest 

Continue to protect and 

retire indigenous forest, 

particularly focused on 

sites with high ecological 

values 

Health of the 

estuary 



the catchment 

Implement farm 

planning and 

education 

Implement and promote 

farm planning and 

sustainable land use 

education, where 

necessary 

Health of the 

estuary 

Health of the 

estuary 


Mangroves 


Mangroves 

Fact sheet update Review draft fact sheet 

and prepare for 

Upokorehe Training 

Day 

publication 

Upokorehe/BOPRC hold 

training day to practise 

mangrove removal 

techniques and ensure 

all health and safety 

procedures covered. 

Health of the 

estuary 


Mangroves 

Community working 

bees 

Promote and hold two 

community working 

bees for the purpose of 

removing mangroves 

Health of the 

estuary 


Mangroves 

Media promotion Prepare and distibute 

media, in accordance 

with comms plan, about 

mangrove removal 

project and working 

bees 

Proposed 

Lead 

Agency 

Support 

Agencies 

OHS Due 

Date 

Target 

Start Date 

Target Due 

Date 


August 26 



agencies 

30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS On-going but 

mammoth area to put 

work into (6,979ha's) 

advising on forestry 

and carbon currently 

to affect land use 

change 


agencies 

30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS On-going but lacking 

some enthusiasm - 

results lately? 

BOPRC WDC, ODC, 

Ngti Awa 

30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS 2010-2011 results? 

hiwa Cove 

subdivision will 

protect indig forest 

remnants 


agencies 

30/06/14 Oct-09 Jun-14 IN PROGRESS Ngti Awa Farm has 

been through this 

process as an example 

- other landowners 

not large enough or 

keen currently 

BOPRC Upokorehe 30/06/12 Jun-11 Jun-12 IN PROGRESS Implementation in 

2011/12 summer 

Upokorehe BOPRC 30/06/12 Jun-11 Jun-12 NO PROGRESS Implementation in 

November 2011 

Upokorehe BOPRC 30/06/12 Jun-11 Jun-12 NO PROGRESS Implementation in 


BOPRC Upokorehe 30/06/12 Jun-11 Jun-12 NO PROGRESS Implementation in 


Page 8 of 11 

Second 

Quarter 

December 

9 

Progress 

report 

Third 

Quarter 

February 

17 

Progress 

report 

Fourth 

Quarter 

May 25 

Progress 

report 

General comments/end 

of financial year 

summary 










This work will alos provide 

educational opportunities 

related to a more informed 

community

Ohiwa Harbour Strategy Ecological survey actions - progress to August 26 2011 


description 



animals 

12.3.4 Assess Ecological 

Quality of hiwa 

Harbour 

Threatened plant 

survey 

Complete 

threatened 

plant survey 

Proposed 

Lead Agency 

Support 

Agencies 

Ecological 

Actions Due 

Date 

Target Start 

Date 

Target Due 

Date 


August 26 


BOPRC DOC 30/06/11 Jun-10 Jun-11 COMPLETED Presentation to OHIF 

on results 

Second 

Quarter 

December 

9 

Progress 

report 

Third 

Quarter 

February 

17 

Progress 

report 

Fourth 

Quarter 

May 25 

Progress 

report 

General comments/end of financial 

year summary 

Completed May 2011. Survey made 

recommendations for pest plant control and 

future survey. 



animals 



animals 



Harbour 



Harbour 

Register of 

indigenous 

vegetation sites 

Survey inanga 

and white bait 

populations and 

habitats 

Register of 

indigenous 

vegetation 

sites 

Survey to 

identify inanga 

habitats. 

BOPRC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-11 COMPLETED 

BOPRC DOC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-12 IN PROGRESS More specific work 

needed to be done 

here 

Have added Whakatne SNA sites. Most 

vegetation information is based on old surveys 

(very few surveyed since 1990s) 

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 2012. 



animals 



Harbour 

Update fauna 

report from 

1980s 

Update fauna 

report from 

1980s 

BOPRC DOC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-16 IN PROGRESS Marshbird sites now 

known so can 

provide focus for 

pest control and land 

protection - 

presentation to OHIF 

Marshbird survey completed by volunteers in Jan 

2011. Other fauna potentially covered off by 

other recommendations? 



animals 



Harbour 

Freshwater 

invertebrate 

sampling 

Freshwater 

invertebrate 

sampling 

BOPRC DOC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-12 NO PROGRESS To be done over 

summer 2011/2012 



animals 



Harbour 

Survey of marine 

fish abundance in 

estuary 

Survey of 

marine fish 

abundance in 

estuary 

BOPRC MOF 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-16 NO PROGRESS MOF reported on 

shellfish fishery in 

2010 

Needs to be done regularly to be meaningful? 



animals 



animals 



Harbour 



Harbour 

Continue 

monitoring of 

specific 

vegetation types 

Survey terrestrial 

invertebrates and 

reptiles 

Continue 

monitoring of 

specific 

vegetation 

types 

Survey 

terrestrial 

invertebrates 

and reptiles 

BOPRC DOC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-16 ON HOLD not a priority 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. 

BOPRC DOC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-16 ON HOLD not a priority 

Th i i h b i d b 

Page 9 of 11


description 



animals 



Harbour 

Survey to assess 

presence of 

native bats 

Survey to 

assess 

presence of 

native bats 

Proposed 

Lead Agency 

Support 

Agencies 

Ecological 

Actions Due 

Date 

Target Start 

Date 

Target Due 

Date 


August 26 


Second 

Quarter 

December 

9 

Progress 

report 

Third 

Quarter 

February 

17 

Progress 

report 

Fourth 

Quarter 

May 25 

Progress 

report 


year summary 

BOPRC 30/06/16 Jun-10 Jun-12 ON HOLD not a priority Looking at spending a few nights soon surveying 

some potential locations. 

Page 10 of 11

Resource Management Review Actions - progress to August 26 2011 


Lead Agency 

Support 

Agencies 

Resource 

Mgt review 

due date 

Target Start 

Date 

Target Due 

Date 

Status First Quarter 

August 26 


Recreation 

opportunities 

Managing 

development 

pressures 

10.3.8 Review Bylaws 

Relating to Higher 

Impact Activities 

11.3.3 Evaluate Plans to 

Protect Character 

and Estuarine 

Health of hiwa 

Establish Harbour 

Wardens' Forum 

Establish Ohiwa Harbour 

Planning Zone 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. 

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”. 

BOPRC (Tim 

Senior and 

Brian Spake) 

MOF 30/06/11 1-May-11 30-Jun-11 COMPLETED There are currently 

2 distinct groups 

with distinct roles. 

There may be some 

informal 

collaboration 

between them 

WDC ODC, BOPRC 1/12/11 1-Jul-11 1/12/11 COMPLETED WDC are 

developing this 

work as part of their 

district plan review 



animals 

12.3.2 Review Monitoring 

and Enforcement 

Regimes 

Commission a business 

case for a Ohiwa Harbour 

Strategy Coordinator 

Develop business case to explore establishment of a 

position to coordinate and/or manage the actions required 

in the OHS or by the partners to the Strategy. 

BOPRC 

(Consultant - 

Cheeky 

Rooster) 

ODC, WDC, 

Iwi, DoC 

1/12/11 1-May-11 31-Aug-11 COMPLETED Thuis work has 

been completed 

and circulated and 

will be disucssed at 

next OHSCG hui in 

Dec 

Recreation 

opportunities 

10.3.8 Review Bylaws 

Relating to Higher 

Impact Activities 

Propose common harbour 

bylaws 

Ohiwa Harbour Wardens Forum to develop common 

bylaws for consideration by councils in bylaw reviews 

BOPRC (Tim 

Senior and 

Brian Spake) 

ODC, WDC 

and Iwi 

30/06/12 30-Jun-11 30-Jun-12 COMPLETED Wardens hui said 

this was not 

applicable and is for 

District Councils to 

develop and 

enforce 

Managing 

development 

pressures 



animals 

Managing 

development 

pressures 

11.3.2 Review Resource 

Management 

Protocols 

12.3.2 Review Monitoring 

and Enforcement 

Regimes 

11.3.2 Review Resource 

Management 

Protocols 

Continuous improvement 

of protocols and 

procedures 

Annual monitoring and 

reporting of enforcement 

Formalise iwi advisory 

status 

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. 

Develop reporting process and report findings annually to 

OHSCG. 

Councils to foster and encourage Iwi Environmental 

Committees within their rohe to formalise their advisory 

status. 

ODC, WDC, 

BOPRC 

BOPRC 

(Consultant - 

John Whale) 

ODC, WDC, 

BOPRC 

Iwi, DoC 1/10/11 1-Jul-11 31-Dec-11 IN PROGRESS contractor 

underway but not 

completed work - 

has missed due 

date 

ODC, WDC, 

BOPRC, Iwi 

1/10/11 1-Jul-11 1-Dec-11 IN PROGRESS contractor 

underway but not 

completed work - 

has missed due 

date 

Iwi 30/06/12 1-Jul-11 1-Jul-12 NO PROGRESS waiting for above 

11.3.2 action to be 

completed 

Page 11 of 11 

Second 

Quarter 

December 9 

Progress 

report 

Third Quarter 

February 17 

Progress 

report 

Fourth 

Quarter May 

25 

Progress 

report 


year summary 

First Warden's hui has been held and to be 

reported on at OHSCG in August 2011.

APPENDIX 2 

Ohiwa Community Newsletter 1 - July 2011 

APPENDI X 2 - O hi wa Co mmun it y N ewsletter 1 - Jul y 2011 (final) 

$OhiwaCommunityNewsle.2674.1107010734$ 

Page 33 of 92

Contents 

How is Ōhiwa doing? 

Ōhiwa Harbour wetlands 

field day 

Mangroves update 

Farm management 

improves Ōhiwa 

Ōhiwa Harbour 

wardens’ hui 

Care group helps 

whitebait and birds 

Ōhiwa reserves care 

group 

Ōnekawa Te Mawhai park 

Ōhiwa walking track 

‘Top sites’ project 

Ōhiwa bird guide 

Birds-a-Plenty 

The annual ‘Birds-a-Plenty’ 

festival kicks off this year on 24 

September and runs through 

until 16 October. 

There are loads of interesting 

events and walks highlighting 

the amazing diversity of birdlife 

in and around Ōhiwa Harbour. 

Grab a programme at 

www.whakatane.com 

Welcome to the first Ōhiwa Harbour community 

newsletter 

We live in a special place; Ōhiwa Harbour is considered by many to be the 

‘jewel in the crown’ of the eastern Bay of Plenty. This newsletter is 

brought to you by the local organisations that are working in partnership 

to make sure Ōhiwa remains the special place that it is today, for 

generations to come. 

The partnership includes Ōpōtiki and Whakatāne District Councils, Bay of 

Plenty Regional Council, Department of Conservation and the iwi 

Whakatōhea, Upokorehe, Ngāti Awa and Tuhoe. A framework was 

designed in 2008, called the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy, which charted a 

path for how they would work with each other, and with the community, 

to care for the harbour. 

There has been a great deal of work in and around the Ōhiwa Harbour in 

recent years, some led by the partners and some by volunteers and 

residents. This newsletter has been established to help share this 

progress and to promote the wellbeing of the harbour. 

Your feedback on this newsletter would be very welcome. If you would 

like to share your stories or find out more about any of the projects 

included here, please contact the coordinator of the Ōhiwa Harbour 

Strategy communications project, Tim Senior, at the Bay of Plenty 

Regional Council tim.senior@boprc.govt.nz or phone 0800 884 880. 

New ‘who does 

what’ brochure 

This new brochure should 

have hit your mailbox by 

now. The brochure, 

‘Ōhiwa Harbour – Shared 

treasure’, has all of the 

contacts for those working 

in, on and around the 

harbour. 

August 2011 

1

How is the Ōhiwa Harbour doing? 

Water quality in the harbour is slowly improving. The 

Regional Council’s water-quality monitoring 

programme has shown that the amount of nutrients 

entering the harbour is reducing. That’s great news, 

but erosion in the catchment is still bringing too 

much sediment into the harbour and so there is still 

more work to be done to address this issue. 

The greatest recent gains have come from removal 

of stock from the harbour margins. Many 

landowners have now fenced the harbour margin so 

that stock can’t access the harbour, and some have 

reinstated wetlands and native plants along the 

margins. The wetlands and native plants act like 

natural filters, catching silt and nutrients from run 

off before it enters the harbour. 

fenced to exclude stock. The Regional Council is 

working closely with landowners and aims to have 

the harbour margins completely fenced in the very 

near future. 

Ōhiwa Harbour wetlands field day 

“What will you feel most proud of when you leave 

your farm?” Farm consultant, Bill Adam, asked this 

of participants in his introduction to the wetlands 

field day held in March at a Paparoa Road property 

on the edge of the Ōhiwa Harbour. 

Regional Council land management staff who 

organised the field day said that people were 

interested in wetland creation and enhancement for 

various reasons, including silt capture, cleaner water, 

increased birdlife and beautification. 

Ōhiwa Harbour and catchment 

margins fenced to exclude stock (2010) 

% fenced 

to exclude 

stock 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Ōhiwa 

Harbour 

margins 

Ōhiwa 

Harbour 

stream 

margins 

Nukuhou 

River and 

catchment 

margins 

The Ōhiwa Harbour margin totals 56kms. 97% of the 

harbour margin is now fenced to exclude stock. 

Of the 28.8kms of Ōhiwa Harbour catchment stream 

margins, 79% is now fenced. The Nukuhou River and 

its tributaries total 146.5kms, and 76 % has been 

70 local residents and farmers attended the field day to 

listen to guest speakers who spoke about the benefits of 

wetlands and their experience in cost-effectively 

designing, creating, enhancing and caring for wetlands. 

Mangroves update 

The Upokorehe hapū, based at Kutarere, recently 

gained resource consent to remove seedlings and 

small outlying areas of mangroves around the Ōhiwa 

Harbour. 

While the hapū is the only group permitted to 

remove mangroves in the harbour, the local 

community will be invited to join Upokorehe in this 

work during community working bees this summer. 

2

Farm management improves Ōhiwa 

Fifteen years ago, Nukuhou farmer, Norm Craig, 

contacted the Bay of Plenty Regional Council for help 

and began a co-operative relationship that has led to 

retiring and planting 10kms of stream edges to filter 

farm run-off and reduce stream-bank erosion, and 

has created multiple wetlands for silt capture and 

beautification. 

Water quality in the Nukuhou stream and Ōhiwa 

Harbour are slowly improving, showing that the 

efforts of people like Norm Craig are paying off. Mr 

Craig remains committed to the "cleaner and 

greener" approach. He says, "It's so much more 

satisfying if the work is aesthetically pleasing. It's all 

about quality of life - fresh air, nice places around 

you that give you enjoyment, being proud of what 

you've done and sharing it with others." 

Nukuhou farmer, 

Norm Craig, found 

that environmental 

improvements on 

his dairy farm have 

made it a much 

more pleasant 

place to be. 

summer, members of the hapū’s Resource 

Management Team patrol the harbour ensuring that 

shellfish beds are not over exploited and that people 

are taking care of the harbour. 

In the past, these volunteers had worked only with 

the organisations responsible for the rule or bylaw 

that they were wardens for. In June, a new initiative 

of the Whakatāne Harbour Master and the Regional 

Council brought all of the volunteer wardens 

together. The volunteer wardens had a chance to 

meet with each other and learn what each group 

does, as well as share experience and training. 

Care group helps whitebait and birds 

The Nukuhou saltmarsh care group at Cheddar 

Valley has been actively caring for the saltmarsh and 

the nearby river mouth since 2003. 

The group recently dug swales, or ditches, beside the 

Nukuhou River near the ‘S’ bend at Cheddar Valley, 

to provide a spawning area for whitebait. They have 

also made a walkway and planted hundreds of native 

plants through the area. 

Whitebait are not the only beneficiaries of their 

efforts; fernbird and banded rail numbers are also up 

as a result of the group’s predator trapping activities. 

During the last seven years, the group has trapped 

167 stoats and 88 weasels around the margins of the 

saltmarsh. 

Ōhiwa Harbour wardens’ hui 

Every summer, a group of dedicated volunteers take 

up roles as wardens around the Ōhiwa Harbour. The 

wardens educate and liaise with the community and 

visitors about navigation and safety rules, local 

bylaws and fisheries. 

The Upokorehe hapū are particularly active as 

volunteer wardens on the eastern side of the 

harbour. They consider their role as bylaw and 

fisheries wardens to be part of exercising their 

kaitiakitanga, or guardianship, of the harbour. Over 

3

Ōhiwa reserves care group 

The Ōhiwa reserves care group has been looking 

after Whangakopikopiko (Tern) Island for several 

years. The island is an important breeding place for 

such rare birds as the white fronted tern and NZ 

dotterel, so predators on the island, including stoats 

and rats, are trapped or poisoned. 

Students from Waiōtahe School have also been 

regular helpers on the island. They have been 

planting native plants, including the rare ‘Thornton’ 

kanuka, which is native to the island. 

Ōhiwa bird guide 

If you are heading out for a picnic or walk with 

friends or family, grab a copy of this guide before 

you go. 

The nifty pocket-sized treasure trove of bird pictures 

and information, (coupled with a location map of 

where to find what), has proven to be a hit with 

locals and visitors alike. 

The guide was produced by the Ōhiwa care group 

and is available free from the Regional Council. 

Ōnekawa Te Mawhai park 

This new park, on the spectacular headland between 

Ōhiwa and Bryan’s Beach, was opened by 

Upokorehe and the Regional Council in 2010. 

A new walking track has been completed in the park 

to create a link with the Ōhiwa bush reserve. This is a 

very special walk on a sunny day. The Regional 

Council is also planning further enhancement of the 

park. 

Ōhiwa walking track 

Another exciting resource for keen walkers and 

Sunday strollers is the new walking track along the 

harbour shore at Ōhiwa. 

People will no longer have to walk along a narrow 

and, at times, quite busy stretch of Ōhiwa Harbour 

Road. This section of track is just stage one of the 

Ōpōtiki District Council project, which will add many 

more kilometres of walkway and will include signage 

that tells the stories of the harbour. 

‘Top sites’ project 

An exciting new three-year communications project 

will identify and promote a series of ‘top sites’ 

around the Ōhiwa Harbour. 

Sites that are special because of their cultural 

history, ecological values, landscape values or 

recreational opportunities will be the focus of new 

interpretive and promotional material, which will be 

used for education and tourism. 

Watch this space! 

For further information about any of the stories in 

this newsletter please contact the coordinator of 

the Ōhiwa Harbour Strategy communications 

project, Tim Senior, at the Bay of Plenty Regional 

Council tim.senior@envbop.govt.nz or phone 0800 

884 880. 

4

$LetterfromtheMinistr.2674.1107011009$ 

APPENDIX 3 

Letter from the Ministry of Fisheries October 

2011 

APPENDI X 3 - L etter fr om th e Min istr y of Fi sheries O ctober 2011 

Page 35 of 92




 


Report From: 


Trace Elements in Bay of Plenty Soils 


The purpose of this report is to update the committee on the soil quality monitoring project 

being run under the Natural Environment Regional Monitoring Network (NERMN) 

programme. The report summarises the changes in topsoil trace element concentrations of 

sites under dairy pasture, maize, drystock (sheep/beef and deer pastures) and kiwifruit 

orchards monitored since 1999/2000. In depth results are shown in Appendix 1. 



authority: 

1 Receives the report, Trace Elements in Bay of Plenty Soils. 

2 Confirms that the significance of the decisions has been assessed as LOW, 

and under Section 79 of the Local Government Act (LGA) 2002 confirms that 

in the light of the level of significance of the decisions it does not require: (a) 

Further identification and assessment of different options under section 77 

LGA; (b) Further investigation or consideration of community views under 

section 78 LGA; (c) Any further written record of the manner in which section 

77 and section 78 matters have been addressed. 

2 Background 

Chemical elements occurring in soils at concentrations generally below 100 mg/kg are 

referred to as trace elements. When they are metallic with a specific gravity of more 

than 6 they are also known as heavy metals (Hooda 2010). Trace elements 

accumulate in soils either naturally through the weathering of minerals contained in 

their parent materials but they can become soil contaminants introduced through a 

range of agricultural and industrial activities. Some trace elements are essential for the 

growth of plants and animals and are termed micronutrients (e.g. copper and zinc). 

Others are not (e.g. cadmium and arsenic). However, both essential and non-essential 

elements can become toxic to plants and animals at elevated concentrations. It is in 

this context that the monitoring of soil trace elements is important now and in the 

future. 

Trace element sampling has recently been included in the Bay of Plenty’s regular 

regional soil quality/health monitoring programme (Guinto 2009; 2010) due to concerns 

regarding the potential risk of accumulation associated with some past and present-day 

Page 37 of 92

land use practices such as fertiliser application and disease control. For example, 

cadmium is an unavoidable contaminant in phosphate fertilisers, facial eczema 

treatment contains high levels of zinc, and copper is used as a fungicide in orchards. 

Copper is also now commonly used to combat the recently discovered Pseudomonas 

bacterial disease (Pseudomonas syringae pv actinidiae or Psa) of kiwifruit. Other 

regional councils (e.g. Tasman, Marlborough and Waikato) have also included trace 

element sampling as part of their soil quality monitoring programmes (Burton 2009; 

Gray 2010; Taylor et al. 2010; Taylor 2011; Taylor et al. 2011). 

Previous work on the trace element concentrations of soils in agricultural and 

horticultural areas of the Bay of Plenty (Solutions in Environmental Management (SEM) 

2005) has indicated that copper and arsenic were the elements that most frequently 

exceeded the selected “trigger levels” “”or ”guideline values” for agriculture and 

residential land uses. Out of 103 topsoil (0-7.5 cm) samples analysed, an exceedance 

rate of 15.5% was found for copper while it was 13% for arsenic. It recommended 

further investigation of agricultural and horticultural lands prior to development to more 

sensitive land uses such as residential. More recent research on kiwifruit orchards in 

the Bay of Plenty (Benge and Manhire 2011) has shown that, on average, the topsoil 

(0-15 cm) concentrations of trace metals were below the guideline values. However, 

concern was expressed for arsenic, copper and cadmium as their average 

concentrations were close (50-63%) to their respective guideline values. It was noted 

that arsenic could be potentially leaching into soils from treated posts, cadmium 

accumulating from phosphate fertilisers and copper from sprays used in orchards. 

This report focuses on the results of the trace element sampling in farmed soils 

covering dairy pasture and maize cropping sites in 2009 and drystock (sheep/beef and 

deer pastures) and kiwifruit orchards in 2010. It discusses the temporal changes of 

trace element concentrations of the farmed sites over a ten-year period. In addition, a 

comparison between the initial concentrations of trace elements in farmed sites 

(1999/2000) relative to initial concentrations in indigenous forest sites (2000) that are 

considered background levels was made. 

3 Soil sampling and trace element analyses 

Topsoil samples (0-10 cm) were collected from the regional soil quality sampling sites 

in 2009 and 2010. In 2009, dairy pasture and maize cropping sites were sampled. In 

2010, sheep/beef pasture, deer pasture, and kiwifruit orchard sites were sampled 

(Guinto 2010). The sampling procedure for trace elements followed the standard 

protocol for New Zealand soil quality sampling for chemical analysis (Hill and Sparling 

2009). Briefly, a 50-m transect was established in each site. Samples were collected 

with a step-on soil sampler at 2-m intervals along the 50-m transect. The 25 individual 

samples collected per site were bulked and mixed thoroughly in a plastic bag. It should 

be noted that the standard 0-10 cm topsoil sampling depth represents a compromise 

for the various land uses since pasture soils (dairy, sheep/beef and deer) are normally 

sampled at 0-7.5 cm while maize and kiwifruit soils are sampled at 0-15 cm. 

The samples were submitted to Hill Laboratories in Hamilton City for the analysis of the 

trace metals arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cd), copper (Cu), chromium (Cr), 

lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), Uranium (U), and zinc (Zn). The concentrations 

were reported as total recoverable metals in mg/kg dry soil (Kim and Taylor 2009). 

Mean trace element concentrations by land use class were compared with New 

Zealand environmental guideline values (NZWWA 2003) for all trace elements except 

uranium wherein the Canadian soil guideline value was used (CCME 2007). Previous 

trace element data from all land uses considered were also used in order to show 

trends over time (i.e. from selected archived soil samples collected in 1999/2000, 2004, 

2005, and 2006 which were also submitted for analysis). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) 

Page 38 of 92

was applied to the data set to detect if there are significant changes in mean trace 

element concentrations over time. Prior to ANOVA, the data were tested for normality 

and homogeneity of variance (Levene’s test). 

To detect if trace element enrichment occurs as a result of farming, initial (1999/2000) 

trace element concentrations from the various land uses were compared with 

background levels obtained from indigenous forest sites collected in 2000. Student’s t- 

test (with unequal group variances assumed) was used to assess if the difference in 

means between each land use and the indigenous forest sites were significant. 

Some trace element results (e.g. mercury) were below the detection limit. In these 

cases, the values were replaced by half the detection limit (e.g. 0.5 mg/kg was used if 

the detection limit is 1 mg/kg) (Berthouex and Brown 2002). In terms of number of 

samples, it should be noted that the initial 1999/2000 sampling for dairy sites included 

only 11 samples analysed whereas the subsequent samplings included 19 samples. 

Fewer number of samples analysed over time also occurred in maize, sheep/beef, deer 

and kiwifruit sites as a result of residential land use conversion and a few landowners 

not allowing access to their properties during later sampling. 

4 Results 

In depth results are located in Appendix 1. 

Topsoil’s were analysed for the trace elements arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, 

lead, mercury, nickel, uranium and zinc and levels compared with their respective 

guideline values. Mean values for each sampling year were all below the environmental 

guideline values for each element. The temporal changes in mean trace element 

concentrations for all land uses were not significant. In the latest (2009) dairy pasture 

sampling, 26% (5 out of 19 sites) of the sites have cadmium levels exceeding the 1 

mg/kg guideline value which is a concern. This is a reflection of the continual use of 

phosphate fertilisers in this land use resulting in the accumulation of cadmium as a 

fertiliser impurity over time. However, the mean concentrations in 2004 (0.76 mg/kg) and 

2009 (0.75 mg/kg) were almost identical suggesting that cadmium concentration has not 

increased in the last 5 years. In kiwifruit orchard sites, copper and zinc concentrations 

over the 10-year period (2000-2010) appear to be increasing but the increases were not 

statistically significant due to the small sample size. Nevertheless, this is will most likely 

be a concern particularly for copper which is now a widely used spray to control the 

Pseudomonas disease (Psa) of kiwifruit vines. 

Background concentrations of trace elements from indigenous forest sites were 

generally lower than the initial concentrations from farmed soils at the commencement of 

the regional soil quality monitoring programme. 

5 Conclusions 

For the land uses monitored, the temporal changes in mean trace element 

concentrations were not significant. Mean values for each sampling year were all below 

the environmental guideline values for each element. For dairy pasture sites, there 

were increasing trends in cadmium and zinc concentrations over a 10-year period 

(1999-2009) but these increases were not statistically significant. In fact, for cadmium, 

mean concentrations in 2004 (0.76 mg/kg) and 2009 (0.75 mg/kg) were almost 

identical suggesting that cadmium concentration has not increased since 2004. 

However, in the 2009 sampling, 26% (5 out of 19 sites) have cadmium levels 

exceeding the 1 mg/kg guideline value which is a concern. In kiwifruit orchard sites, 

copper and zinc concentrations over the 10-year period (2000-2010) appear to be 

increasing but the increases were not statistically significant due to the small sample 

Page 39 of 92


size. Nevertheless, this will most likely be a concern particularly for copper which is 

now a widely used spray to control the Pseudomonas disease (Psa) of kiwifruit vines. 

Topsoil trace element concentrations were generally higher in agricultural land uses 

relative to background concentrations in indigenous forest sites reflecting that 

enrichment is attributable to land management practices that added detectable 

quantities of trace elements to soils. 

The ten-year soil quality monitoring programme is invaluable in providing information 

on changes in topsoil trace element levels and should continue well into the future. 

For cadmium, farmers, landowners and other stakeholders should be guided by the 

Cadmium Management Strategy (MAF 2011, Rys 2011) which sets out approaches for 

reducing the risk of cadmium accumulation in New Zealand farming systems. A key 

component of this strategy is the tiered fertiliser management strategy under which 

specific management actions will be linked to four trigger values (tiers) for the cadmium 

concentration in the soil. 

Farmers should monitor cadmium concentrations in their soils and adopt fertiliser and 

soil management practices to reduce cadmium uptake by crops and pastures. These 

include: use of phosphate fertilisers with low cadmium levels, maintain soil pH at the 

upper recommended limits for crop type, maintain high organic matter content in the 

soil, alleviate any zinc deficiency in the soil, avoid fertiliser blends and irrigation water 

containing high levels of chloride, and the use of crop varieties which have a lower 

level of cadmium uptake (Tikkisetty 2011). 

Kiwifruit growers using copper sprays in their orchards to control Psa disease need to 

periodically monitor the copper levels in their soils. They should also keep abreast of 

research developments on alternative disease control strategies to reduce their 

dependence on copper sprays. 





As per the Ten Year Plan. 

Dani Guinto 

Environmental Scientist 

 


 


Click 

Page 40 of 92

$PDFTraceelementsanal.2683.1108083639$ 

APPENDIX 

PDF Trace elements analyses results November 

2011 

APPENDIX - PDF Trace elements analyses results November 2011 

Page 41 of 92

Appendix 1 

1 Results - Changes in trace element concentrations under 

different land uses 

1.1 Dairy pasture sites 

Table 1 shows the temporal changes in mean trace element concentrations in dairy 

pasture sites. Mean values for each sampling year were all below the environmental 

guideline values for each element. There were no statistically significant changes in 

the concentration of all trace elements measured. There were increasing trends in 

cadmium and zinc concentrations over a 10-year period but these increases were 

not statistically significant. In the latest (2009) dairy pasture sampling, 26% (5 out of 

19 sites) of the sites have cadmium levels exceeding the 1 mg/kg guideline value 

which is a concern. This is a reflection of the continual use of phosphate fertilisers 

in this land use resulting in the accumulation of cadmium as a fertiliser impurity over 

time. However, the mean concentrations in 2004 (0.76 mg/kg) and 2009 (0.75 

mg/kg) were almost identical suggesting that cadmium concentration has not 

increased in the last 5 years. 

Table 1. Temporal changes in mean topsoil trace element concentrations (mg/kg) of 

dairy pasture sites. 

Element Year P value Guideline 

1999/2000 

(n=11) 

2004 

(n=19) 

2009 

(n=19) 

value 

(mg/kg) 

Arsenic 5.3 (1.3) 5.3 (1.4) 4.9 (1.2) 0.974 ns 20 

Cadmium 0.68 (0.14) 0.76 (0.13) 0.75 (0.09) 0.905 ns 1 

Chromium 7.7 (0.9) 8.0 (0.8) 7.6 (0.8) 0.949 ns 600 

Copper 16.4 (3.0) 12.8 (2.4) 16.1 (3.7) 0.682 ns 100 

Lead 6.6 (0.8) 5.6 (0.7) 5.6 (0.6) 0.570 ns 300 

Mercury 0.07 (0.01) 0.07 (0.01) 0.07 (0.01) 0.991 ns 1 

Nickel 5.7 (1.0) 5.7 (0.8) 6.0 (1.0) 0.965 ns 60 

Uranium 1.43 (0.22) 1.46 (0.14) 1.51 (0.14) 0.937 ns 23 

Zinc 51.7 (8.0) 73.0 (18.5) 72.4 (17.8) 0.693 ns 300 

ns = not significant 

Numbers in parenthesis are standard errors 

2000 

(n=6) 

2004 

(n=6) 

2006 

(n=6) 

2009 

(n=5) 


maize sites. 


Value 

(mg/kg) 

Arsenic 6.2 (0.8) 6.0 (0.7) 6.3 (0.7) 4.9 (0.8) 0.601 ns 20 

Cadmium 0.23 (0.02) 0.27 (0.04) 0.32 (0.03) 0.29 (0.02) 0.274 ns 1 

Chromium 8.5 (1.3) 9.7 (1.6) 9.7 (1.5) 8.3 (1.4) 0.854 ns 600 

Copper 15.0 (1.4) 12.7 (1.8) 12.5 (2.0) 10.4 (1.7) 0.380 ns 100 

Lead 9.3 (2.2) 10.4 (2.8) 9.8 (2.3) 9.2 (1.8) 0.983 ns 300 

Mercury 0.06 (0.01) 0.07 (0.01) 0.08 (0.02) 0.07 (0.01) 0.900 ns 1 

Nickel 6.8 (1.1) 7.2 (1.3) 6.8 (1.3) 6.2 (1.3) 0.966 ns 60 

Uranium 0.90 (0.10) 0.95 (0.11) 1.02 (0.11) 1.02 (0.13) 0.854 ns 23 

Zinc 47.0 (7.7) 48.0 (9.6) 52.5 (10.5) 41.1 (7.2) 0.859 ns 300



1.2 Maize cropping sites 

Table 2 shows the temporal changes in mean trace element concentrations in 

maize cropping sites. Mean values for each sampling year were all below the 

environmental guideline value for each element. There were no statistically 

significant changes in the concentration of all trace elements measured. Copper 

concentration over the 10-year period appears to be decreasing but the decrease 

was not statistically significant. 

1.3 Sheep/beef pasture sites 


sheep/beef sites. Mean values for each sampling year were all below the 

environmental guideline value for each element. There were no statistically 

significant changes in the concentration of all trace elements measured. Zinc 

concentration over the 10-year period appears to be decreasing but the decrease 

was not statistically significant. 


sheep/beef pasture sites. 


2000 

(n=8) 

2005 

(n=10) 

2010 

(n=9) 

value 

(mg/kg) 

Arsenic 7.1 (2.9) 7.0(2.6) 5.8 (2.1) 0.713 ns 20 

Cadmium 0.38 (0.08) 0.43 (0.07) 0.36 (0.06) 0.567 ns 1 

Chromium 3.9 (0.5) 4.10 (0.31) 3.28 (0.29) 0.199 ns 600 

Copper 9.8 (0.8) 7.50 (0.54) 6.89 (0.54) 0.968 ns 100 

Lead 5.9 (0.5) 5.82 (0.61) 4.62 (0.44) 0.387 ns 300 

Mercury 0.08 (0.02) 0.10 (0.02) 0.07 (0.01) 0.417 ns 1 

Nickel 1.75 (0.49) 1.60 (0.34) 2.53 (0.73) 0.337 ns 60 

Uranium 0.82 (0.11) 1.03 (0.11) 0.80 (0.09) 0.667 ns 23 

Zinc 35.2 (4.8) 31.6 (3.2) 28.2 (2.4) 0.140 ns 300 



1.4 Deer pasture sites 

Table 4 shows the temporal changes in mean trace element concentrations in deer 

pasture sites. Mean values for each sampling year were all below the environmental 

guideline value for each element. There were no statistically significant changes in 

the concentration of all trace elements measured. 

1.5 Kiwifruit orchard sites 


kiwifruit orchard sites. Mean values for each sampling year were all below the 

environmental guideline values for each element. There were no statistically

significant changes in the concentration of all trace elements measured. Copper 

and zinc concentrations over the 10-year period appear to be increasing but the 

increases were not statistically significant due to the small sample size (n=6 or 5). 

While not statistically significant, the increase in mean copper concentration is 

almost 78% over the 10-year period. This is will more likely be a concern since 

copper is now a widely used spray to control the pseudomonas disease (Psa) of 

kiwifruit vines. 


deer pasture sites. 


2000 

(n=4) 

2005 

(n=4) 

2010 

(n=3) 

Value 

(mg/kg) 

Arsenic 2.8 (0.6) 3.2 (0.5) 2.6 (0.6) 0.695 ns 20 

Cadmium 0.60 (0.11) 0.60 (0.07) 0.53 (0.08) 0.841 ns 1 

Chromium 4.2 (0.8) 4.25 (0.48) 3.67 (0.82) 0.808 ns 600 

Copper 15.2 (4.0) 18.25 (5.41) 14.70 (5.01) 0.858 ns 100 

Lead 4.5 (1.0) 4.82 (1.11) 3.61 (1.06) 0.742 ns 300 

Mercury 0.05 (

indigenous forest topsoils have lower concentrations of trace elements compared 

with farmed topsoils. 

By further aggregating the farmed sites and doing a pooled t-test, a more simplified 

comparison between farmed and unfarmed sites is presented in Table 7 which 

shows that cadmium, chromium, nickel, uranium and zinc levels are significantly 

elevated in farmed sites relative to background levels in indigenous forest sites at 

the start of the regional soil quality monitoring programme. Similar results were 

obtained by Taylor (2011) and Taylor et al. (2011) for the Waikato region. 

Table 6. Initial mean topsoil (0-10 cm) concentrations of trace elements (mg/kg) under 

farmed land uses relative to background levels in indigenous forests. 

Element Indigenous 

Forest 

2000 

Dairy 

1999/2000 

(n=11) 

Maize 

2000 

(n=6) 

Sheep/ 

Beef 

2000 

Deer 

2000 

(n=4) 

Kiwifruit 

2000 

(n=6) 

Guideline 

Value 

(mg/kg) 

(n=5) 

(n=8) 

Arsenic 6.4 5.3 6.2 7.1 2.8 5.3 20 

Cadmium 0.08 0.68 0.23 0.38 0.60 0.65 1 

Chromium 3.0 7.7 8.5 3.9 4.2 7.7 600 

Copper 15.0 16.4 15.0 9.8 15.2 24.0 100 

Lead 8.4 6.6 9.3 5.9 4.5 9.6 300 

Mercury 0.14 0.07 0.06 0.08 0.05 0.08 1 

Nickel 1.4 5.7 6.8 1.8 2.8 5.5 60 

Uranium 0.52 1.43 0.90 0.82 1.05 1.18 23 

Zinc 29.6 51.7 47.0 35.2 32.0 72.0 300 

Table 7. Comparison of initial mean topsoil (0-10 cm) concentrations of trace elements 

(mg/kg) in indigenous forest sites and farmed sites (pooled data). 

Element 

Indigenous forest 

sites in 2000 

Farmed sites 

in 1999/2000 

Significance 

(P value) 

(n=5) 

(n=35) 

Arsenic 6.4 (2.5) 5.6 (0.8) 0.765 ns 

Cadmium 0.08 (0.03) 0.52 (0.06)

included for comparative purposes. When corrected to a common depth of 0-10 cm, 

there is generally good agreement between the background levels of trace 

elements in this report and the SEM report except for arsenic and copper which are 

higher in this report. Similarly, good agreement between background levels in this 

report and the Waikato region background levels are apparent except for chromium 

and nickel which are much lower for the Bay of Plenty region. 

Table 8. Comparison of measured background levels of trace elements in the Bay of 

Plenty region (mg/kg) with those reported by SEM (2005) and the Waikato region. 

Element 1999/2000 

indigenous 

forest samples 

SEM Report 

(n=25) 

(0-7.5 cm) 

SEM Report 

(n=25) 

(Corrected to 

Waikato (Taylor 

and Kim 2009) 

(0-10 cm) 

(n=5) 

(0-10 cm) 

0-10 cm) 

Arsenic 6.4 4.92 3.7 5.1 

Cadmium 0.08 0.14 0.10 0.11 

Chromium 3.0 4.48 3.4 18 

Copper 15.0 10.08 7.6 16 

Lead 8.4 12.55 9.4 11 

Mercury 0.14 No data No data 0.19 

Nickel 1.40 1.64 1.23 3.9 

Uranium 0.52 No data No data 0.79 

Zinc 29.6 45.04 33.8 28





 


Report From: 


Eastern Bay of Plenty Feral Goat Control Programme - Annual 

progress report 2010/11 


Feral goats are classified as a “containment pest” in Council’s new Regional Pest Management 

Plan and are managed in collaboration with the Department of Conservation, Nga Whenua 

Rhui and Gisborne District Council. This collaborative control programme commenced in 2005 

and is guided by the Eastern Bay of Plenty Feral Goat Management Strategy (Shaw, 2005). 

Attached to this paper is the annual report for the collaborative work programme for the 2010/11 

year. The report provides a record of the background to the programme, achievements to date, 

risks and issues around implementation and recommendations regarding future implementation. 

To date significant gains have been made in halting the spread of goats and reducing goat 

densities and a number of sites are now at zero density. While progress has been good, the 

report also highlights the continued need for political support to ensure the gains made are at 

least maintained, improved information sharing between agencies and increased coordination 

and advocacy with landowners. 



authority: 

1 Receives the report, Eastern Bay of Plenty Feral Goat Control Programme - 

Annual progress report 2010/11. 

Greg Corbett 

Manager Land Resources (Rotorua) 

 


 


Click 

Page 43 of 92

$EasternBOPFeralGoatP.2688.1108110946$ 

APPENDIX 

Eastern BOP Feral Goat Programme - 2010-11 

Annual Progress Report - Final November 2011 

APPENDIX - East ern B OP Feral Goat Programme - 2010- 11 Annual Progress Report - Final November 2011 

Page 45 of 92

Eastern Bay of Plenty 

Feral Goat Control Programme 

Annual Progress Report 2010-2011 

October 2011 

A Report Prepared for: 

Nga Whenua Rahui

Prepared by: 

Tony Fenton 

Alchemists Ltd 

PO Box 9049 

Rotorua 

Eastern BOP Feral Goat Control – Annual Report 2010-11 2

Contents 

Executive Summary ................................................................................................... 5 

Acknowledgements .................................................................................................... 6 

1.0 Background ...................................................................................................... 7 

1.1 Historical Context .......................................................................................... 7 

2.0 Collaborative Programme ................................................................................. 8 

3.0 Achievements in Feral Goat Control in Eastern BOP ..................................... 11 

3.1 Achievements to date ..................................................................................... 11 

3.2 Achievements in 2010-11 ............................................................................... 12 

4.0 Programme Implementation ........................................................................... 16 

5.0 Future Implementation Improvements ............................................................ 19 

6.0 Appendix 1 ..................................................................................................... 20 

References ............................................................................................................... 31 




This is an annual report for the collaborative work programme between the Department of 

Conservation (DOC), Nga Whenua Rahui (NWR), Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC) 

and Gisborne District Council (GDC) to control feral goats in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. This 

report presents a cross agency summary of operational expenditure, achievements and 

future implementation needs. 

Feral goats have long been recognised as an issue in the eastern Bay of Plenty for their 

impact on biodiversity of indigenous habitat and contribution to erosion by vegetation 

damage in susceptible country. Prior to DOC being formed in 1987, the NZ Forest Service 

carried out feral goat control. During the 1990’s DOC undertook some control on the true 

right bank of Motu River and true left of Waioeka River (Wildlands (2000)). 

In 2005 an Eastern Bay of Plenty Feral Goat Management Strategy (Shaw, 2005) was 

developed. This document aimed to guide inter-agency effort and foster a collaborative work 

programme between agencies with a role in goat management. This strategy has had its first 

five yearly review (Shaw and Gillies, 2010). A primary aim of the strategy is the protection 

and enhancement of indigenous forest habitat within the Raukumara-Otara-Urewera forest 

tract. The achievement of this requires goats to be controlled on both crown and private 

land. The goals of the strategy are: 

Maintain goat-free status of areas of indigenous vegetation where goats are currently 

not present. 

Eradicate feral goats from strategically important outlier areas within five years. 

Eradicate feral goats from the management area within 50 years. 

The strategy identifies 19 management units (MU’s) across the eastern Bay of Plenty and 

part of Gisborne District. For each MU objectives, roles and responsibilities are established 

for relevant agencies which aim to achieve the strategy goals. The benefit of this 

collaborative work programme is that coordination of resources and legislative roles allows 

for more effective implementation of a comprehensive work programme. 

To date the programme of work has achieved significant gains in halting the spread of feral 

goats and reducing goat densities over a number of management units. The western side of 

the Waioeka River is now considered goat free offering protection to Te Urewera. Goat 

densities on the true right of the Motu have been reduced to very low levels offering 

protection to the Raukumara area. Populations have been reduced to low levels in satellite 

populations at Lottin Point and Kereu River. Sustained efforts in the eastern Waioeka and 

Otara catchments are resulting in a marked lowering of goat density across a large area of 

terrain. 

In 2010/11 the total operational spend under the joint programme was $406,236, resulting in 

2055 goats killed. Most of the goats killed occur in the management units with the highest 

remaining density (MU 7-9, 10, 11a). These areas also receive most of the operational 

budget. The strategy objectives for several MU’s have been further advanced during the 

year. The key achievements in the programme this year include (see Appendix 1 – Table A 

for further details): 

Further reductions in goat density have been achieved in MU’s 7,8,10 and 11b 

(based on goat kills/hunting day) 

Infrastructure established to support future control work (MU 13,14), two eradication 

attempts initiated 

Survey of landowners in MU 3 undertaken 

Ongoing surveillance monitoring of MU’s that have been made goat free (MU6, 1, 2) 

or very low density (MU 4, 5) 


Control effort was again focused on the true left of the Motu River (MU 11b) to create 

a low density buffer to protect gains made on the true right of the Motu River (MU 12) 

MU’s with a very low density of goat which have the objective of eradication of goats require 

considerable operation effort and resources to achieve their outcome. The process required 

to remove the last remaining goats takes time and application of several control methods. 

There are several management units at this stage in the process (MU 13, 14, 15, 16, and 12) 

and they are progressing well towards their goals. 

Considerable management efforts is also now being put into larger buffer areas which occur 

outside of the Bay of Plenty Region (MU 17, 18, 19). These activities are supported by DOC 

and GDC. 

Ongoing monitoring and surveillance occurred on MU’s that are at very low density or goat 

free. This ongoing vigilance is required if gains are to be protected and needs to be 

continued as part of operational work. The gains can quickly be eroded in an area if private 

landowners are not fully supportive of the programme or compliant with District and regional 

plans. The role of advocacy and coordination with landowners and across agencies is 

important for long-term and enduring outcomes. 

In the five year review of the strategy (Shaw and Gillies, 2010) a number of 

recommendations were made for implementation some of these are reiterated here. Further 

ideas were raised by operational staff during development of this report. These actions 

include: 

Political support for the collaborative work programme and maintenance of funding is 

crucial 

Improved project communications, including an annual planning workshop and 

information sharing 

Developing agreed standard practices and data processing across agencies 

Establishing a single database for the programme of work. 

Increasing coordination and advocacy with landowners 

Acknowledgements 

This report has been based on the data and input from key staff at the partner agencies. The 

assistance of staff from the Department of Conservation (Shane Gebert, John Lucas, Matt 

Hickson, Simon Hustler), Nga Whenua Rahui (Denis Peters, George Delamare), Bay of 

Plenty Regional Council (David Paine, Greg Corbett), and Gisborne District Council ( Phil 

Karaitiana) is gratefully acknowledged. 


1.0 Background 

This report is the first joint annual report for the Eastern Bay of Plenty Feral Goat Control 

Programme. The objectives for this report are: 

To provide a cross-agency report of annual progress achieved by the joint 

programme of work. 

To establish a template for future collaborative reporting that is consistent, simplified, 

and useful for the partners business needs. 

Clearly identify for decision makers any management issues and other risks for ongoing 

implementation and project success. 

To assist with annual planning, prioritisation of work areas and effort and encourage 

collaborative problem solving. 

1.1 Historical Context 

Feral goats are well recognised as having major negative impacts on indigenous vegetation 

and successional sequences. They also decrease the quality of habitat for indigenous fauna 

and can increase the rate of erosion through de-vegetation at susceptible sites. If left 

uncontrolled they can have wide scale, pervasive effects on indigenous biodiversity. Feral 

goats in the East Coast area can have a birth rate of around 100% (Lucas, 2003). This 

means that the population can double in size within two years if uncontrolled, and any 

hunting effort must remove a large proportion of the population each year to simply keep the 

population at the existing level. 

Goats have long been recognised as a problem in the Eastern Bay of Plenty. Historically the 

New Zealand Forest Service (NZFS) undertook goat control in areas of high infestation. This 

stopped when the NZFS was disestablished and the Department of Conservation (DOC) 

was formed in 1987. With no specific control effort goat numbers increased markedly in the 

1990’s. DOC undertook some initial control work in 1989. During the 1990s DOC undertook 

control work on true right bank of Motu river and true left of Waioeka River Wildlands (2000) 

, and from 2000 they have consistently undertaken control work in the Waioeka and 

Waiotahi catchments guided by their own management strategy (Lucas, 2003). The areas of 

active control have since widened under this collaborative control programme which includes 

DOC, Nga Whenua Rahui (NWR), Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BOPRC), and Gisborne 

District Council (GDC). 

Pre 1987 

Control work by NZ Forest Service. 

1989 Control work undertaken by DOC. 

2000 Beginning of continuous goat control work in Waioeka and Waiotahi 

catchments by DOC. 

2005 Development of Eastern BOP Feral Goat Management Plan – defined 16 

Management Units, guides cross agency coordination across Eastern 

BOP. 

2010 Review of Eastern BOP Feral Goat Management Plan – inclusion of three 

new Management Units to increase buffer protection. 

Table 1: Recent management of Feral Goat control in Eastern Bay of Plenty 


It is important to exclude goats from indigenous vegetation and habitats where they are 

currently not present, and to remove infestations from sites with significant ecological values. 

Controlling feral goat impacts is likely to be a significant and on-going issue for the agencies 

due to the continual risk of new populations establishing and the goat’s potential for rapid 

population increase. 

The present level of resources available for feral goat control do not allow for all areas under 

threat to be managed and therefore decisions in the management strategies have been 

based upon the biodiversity values of the site/s threatened and the significance of the threat. 

The Raukumara-Otara-Urewera tract is one of the largest in New Zealand and protection 

and enhancement of this indigenous forest habitat is a very high priority. Priorities for work 

have been established based on current strategies and management plans (Lucas, 2003) 

(Shaw, 2005) and through collaborative discussion and agreement between agencies. 

In 2005 a multi-agency strategy was prepared for the long-term management of feral goats 

in the eastern Bay of Plenty (Shaw, 2005). The goals identified for this project, in relative 

order of priority are: 

 

 

 

Maintain goat-free status of areas of indigenous vegetation where goats are currently 

not present. 

Eradicate feral goats from strategically important outlier areas within five years. 

Eradicate feral goats from the management area within 50 years. 

2.0 Collaborative Programme 

To achieve effective outcomes for goat control over such a large area required a high level 

of inter-agency and land owner coordination and cooperation. This model of a collaborative 

programme guided by one strategy is seen as the most productive and cost effective way of 

achieving the required outcomes and for producing an enduring result. 

The development of a joint management strategy for feral goat management in the eastern 

Bay of Plenty (Shaw, 2005) is aimed at guiding a long-term multi-agency collaborative 

approach to the issue. The strategy is developed with a species led focus on feral goats. The 

management objectives under the strategy are: 

To establish and maintain a high level of inter-agency collaboration and information 

exchange. 

To assign management and implementation responsibilities for each management 

unit, and to review these responsibilities every five years, or as required. 

To establish and maintain a regional database of goat distribution records, including 

goat farms in strategic locations on the perimeter of goat-free areas. 

To work collaboratively with private land owners to ensure that they understand the 

strategic importance and justification for a high level of goat control 

 

 

To review goat management every five years. 

To ensure that adequate resources (including personnel) are available to implement 

the strategy. 


Figure 1: Management Units in eastern Bay of Plenty Feral Goat Management Strategy (Gillies and Shaw, 2010), also showing current goat density 1 

1 Density is defined as H = at site carrying capacity, M = below carrying capacity due to some control, L < 1 kill/hunting day 


The initial management strategy was reviewed in 2009 (Shaw and Gillies, 2010). This 

resulted in the establishment of three additional MUs to create a total of 19 MUs across 

the control area (Figure 1). Under this collaboration management responsibilities and 

support roles have been defined for each MU ((Shaw and Gillies, 2010), Appendix 1 

Table B). The feral goat management strategy (Shaw and Gillies, 2010) sets out 

management objectives for each of the 19 MUs (see Appendix 1 – Table A). These 

objectives guide the planning and implementation of work programmes undertaken by 

the agencies involved. 

Under this collaborative programme each agency is able to attend to their 

organisational priorities, but do this in a coordinated way that provides a more 

productive outcome for the goals of the programme as a whole. Setting of priorities and 

ranking of sites for goat control uses a series of primary ranking criteria for the 

management areas in order to provide consistency in prioritising funding for feral goat 

control (as in National Feral Goat control plan). 

Depending on the location and current status of a management unit work programmes 

can apply different management approaches to achieve the strategy objectives. These 

different approaches can include: 

Keeping goats out of goat free areas 

Maintaining an area as a buffer (i.e. between goat free and low density, or low 

density and high density to reduce reinvasion) 

Reducing goat densities in preparation for eradication 

Keeping goats at low density to protect biodiversity and soil and water values 

BOPRC as the regional agency has an important role in leading the coordination and 

advocacy for the programme. It also has responsibilities under its Regional Pest 

Management Plan (RPMP) as required under the Biosecurity Act. The District Councils 

(GDC, Opotiki District Council and Whakatane District Council) are also important 

advocates in the prevention of spread and establishment through District Plan rules 

and their implementation. District Council support is also required when working with 

land owners to control the location and management of farmed goats. Management 

across regional boundaries is also important. This requires coordination works 

programmes and advocacy effort between BORPC and GDC’s in implementing their 

RPMP’s. 

DOC has responsibility for feral goat control on the land it administers through the 

Reserves Act 1977, the National Parks Act 1980 and the Conservation Act 1987. The 

Wild Animal Control Act 1977 allows DOC to control feral goats on land it does not 

administer to prevent damage to conservation values or to prevent goats dispersing 

onto adjacent DOC administered areas. 

Of particular importance for the protection of key areas in the eastern Bay of Plenty is 

the work undertaken in the East Coast and Hawkes Bay by DOC and GDC staff. This 

work supports the objectives of the Management Strategy by providing control across 

buffer areas which span the regional boundaries along the south-eastern side of the 

Raukumara-Otara-Urewera forest tract (MU 17, 18, 19 and 6a). 

This pest management programme has been developed with a single species focus. 

Goats are known as a high priority threat as they breed quickly and can have greater 

impact on vegetation than other browsing species. The management of threats for 

biodiversity at sites is moving towards an integrated pest management approach aimed 

at maintaining a wide range of habitat and ecosystem services. 


3.0 Achievements in Feral Goat Control in 

Eastern BOP 

3.1 Achievements to date 

Over the last five years the level of resourcing has been relatively stable between 

$300,000 - $400,000/yr and resulting kill rate have been 1800-2300/yr (Figure 2). This 

resourcing is only the operational budgets for the programme. This does not include 

the advocacy and coordination work that different agency staff undertake to support 

this programme. 

The achievements of the programme are summarised below against the goals of the 

management strategy: 

1. Maintain goat-free status of areas of indigenous vegetation where goats are 

currently not present. 

o Western side of the Waioeka River is now considered goat free (MU 6) 

o Populations on the true right side of Motu catchment (MU 12) have been 

contained and reduced to very low levels 

o Kiwinui are is goat free (MU2) 

o Western side of Urewera is goat free (MU1) 

2. Eradicate feral goats from strategically important outlier areas within five years. 

o Sustained control has reduced populations to low numbers in two important 

satellite populations (Kereu River MU 13 and Lottin Point MU 16). Issues 

remain with securing full support and compliance of landowners in the area. 

3. Eradicate feral goats from the management area within 50 years. 

o Significant effort has been invested into sustained control by DOC in MU 7 

and 8 over the last 7 years. As a result the goat densities have been 

reduced. This reduction represents significant progress towards meeting the 

long-term management objective. 

o 

Incorporation of additional management units and coordination of effort with 

GDC has increased buffer areas and will in time further reduce the risk of 

reinvasion. 

Kill data over time also show variations depending on control strategies and focus of 

effort. For example high kill rates were achieved in MU 10 when control in this area 

started in 2008 and in MU 11a focus effort was put into an area of high goat density 

during 2007 and 2008 resulting in high kill rates. These actions resulted in the sudden 

lift in kill rates seen in Figure 2. 

In MU’s with medium-high goat densities continued control effort is showing progress 

towards reducing goat populations. This is indicated by monitoring data of goat kills 

achieved per hunting day (Table 2). 

MU No. 2008/09 

(kills/hunting day) 

2009/10 


2010/11 


7 2.7 1.8 1.4 

8 2.6 2.5 2.2 

10 6.6 4.7 3.5 

11b 12.6 4.4 3.4 

Table 2: Reducing goat density indicated by an ongoing reduction in goat kills 

achieved per hunting day. 


3000 

$450,000 

2500 

$400,000 

$350,000 

2000 

$300,000 

1500 

1000 

$250,000 

$200,000 

$150,000 

Ground Kills 

Aerial Kills 

Annual Spend $ 

500 

$100,000 

$50,000 

0 

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

$0 

Figure 2: Joint Annual Expenditure and Goats Killed in Eastern Bay of Plenty 2 

The benefits of control efforts to date are visually noticeable. Figure 3 and Figure 4 

show the changes to the vegetation on a river flat in MU 8. This clearly indicates the 

impact that goats are having on vegetation when in high densities (Figure 3). 

In November 2008 this area still has goats at a medium density and other browsing 

animals present but there is some recovery of vegetation outside the exclosure plot. 

Vegetation within the exclosure plot (Figure 4) demonstrates the biodiversity benefits 

achievable from total eradication of browsing animals. 

3.2 Achievements in 2010-11 

During the 2010/11 year the total operational spend on feral goat control has been 

$406,236. During the 2010-11 period 2055 goats were killed, 1630 (80%) though 

ground control kills and 425 (20%) aerial kills. The majority of this operational 

expenditure and kills achieved occurred in the areas of medium and medium-high goat 

density (i.e MU’s 7-9, 10, 11a)(Figure 1,Figure 6, see Appendix 1 for detailed data). 

The monitoring and maintenance of MUs that now have very low or zero goat densities 

is important ongoing work that is required if this status is to be protected. 

2 See Appendix 1 – Table B for the detailed data 


Figure 3: Thyne Creek in MU 8, Upper Otara catchment – August 2000 prior to 

goat control (L.Wilson DOC) 

Figure 4: Thyne Creek in MU 8, Upper Otara catchment – November 2008 after 

goat control (A.Kirk, DOC) 


The key achievements in the programme this year include (see Appendix 1 – Table A 

for further details): 

Further reductions in goat density have been achieved in MU’s 7,8,10 and 11b 

(based on goat kills/hunting day)(Table 2) 

Infrastructure established to support future control work (MU 13,14), two 

eradication attempts initiated 

Survey of landowners in MU 3 undertaken 

Ongoing surveillance monitoring of MU’s that have been made goat free (MU6, 

1, 2) or very low density (MU 4, 5) 

Control effort was again focused on the true left of the Motu River (MU 11b) to 

create a low density buffer to protect gains made on the true right of the Motu 

River (MU 12) 

Achieving the longer term management objectives can be difficult and requires 

perseverance. Monitoring data for operations can vary over time as control effort is 

focused into different blocks within a control area. Assessment of progress towards 

management objectives needs to be considered across several years, especially in 

areas of medium-high density. In areas of medium-high density the kill rates are higher 

and consequently $/kill are low. As goat density in an area drops as a result of 

continued control the $/kill (i.e. hour of hunting effort per goat killed) increases (Figure 

5 – MU 7, 8, 9). The achievement of a zero density status is time consuming and 

difficult, making the final goats very expensive per animal to remove (Figure 5 – MU 

16). In some MUs the kill rates vary over time as the management unit has been 

expanded to include new areas for control. 

It should also be noted that during 2010-11 an additional 1229 goats were killed 

adjacent to this management programme on the south western boundary of Te 

Urewera by DOC Wairoa staff. This work represents an effort by DOC to reduce the 

density and spread of feral goats from this part of Hawkes Bay. This in its self is a 

challenging objective. The outcome of this work could in future affect the objectives of 

this programme. 

It should be noted that although budget remained relatively stable over time the amount 

of work effort that can be undertaken each year is gradually reduced by the effects of 

inflation and increasing ground based and aerial control operational costs. 

Figure 5: Changes in cost per goat killed over time – Examples of two 

management areas (see Appendix 1 for details). 


Figure 6: Distribution of expenditure and kill across management units (See details in Appendix 1 – Table B)(base map from Shaw & Gillies 2010) 


4.0 Programme Implementation 

Based on discussions with operational staff a number of points relating to 

implementation have been identified. These were either potential improvements that 

had been identified and require follow up, or potential risks to the on-going success of 

the programme. A number of these have already been identified in the recent review of 

the management strategy (Shaw and Gillies, 2010). Those still requiring further action 

are included below. These points on implementation are grouped into work areas. 

Risks Mitigation 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The biggest risk to the programme is maintaining the current level of resourcing. 

Currently pressure on funding exists in all agencies. In addition DOC is 

undergoing a restructure and is also undertaking a national prioritisation 

assessment of site/threat funding (National Heritage Management System – 

NHMS). 

This project has a single species approach. However agencies are looking 

more to applying an integrated pest management approach for key sites. The 

importance of continuing this approach for goats in this region needs to be 

communicated across the agencies. 

Data availability, consistency and transparency, and changing MU boundaries 

currently makes reporting on the whole programme difficult and time 

consuming. This could be improved through a centralised database and 

standard procedures. 

The risk of ongoing leakiness of goats into goat free areas could undo 

achievements (i.e. Waiotahi Valley, Galatea) and therefore funding for ongoing 

surveillance monitoring is very important. 

There is concern about future field capability for this type of work as there are 

not many young hunters coming through to learn skills and methods. 

Goats in the Torere Pines area are not currently being managed and could 

pose a future issue. 

The illegal release of other browsing animals (i.e. sika deer, pigs) into new 

areas could result in negative impacts on biodiversity in high value areas. 

Operational Planning and Coordination 

 

 

An annual workshop should be held so programme progress and issues can be 

discussed across agencies. This should include discussing proposed work 

plans for the next financial year to ensure that collaboration and alignment can 

be optimised. The agencies met in May 2011, but for planning purposes it 

would be more relevant to meet in October/November to assist linkages with 

annual planning for the next year. These meetings should cover: 

o information and outcomes on work undertaken 

o discuss and agree priorities for coming year(s) work 

o reviewing and solving implementation needs 

o sharing research/new technology finding and setting collaborative 

programme of investigations 

The standardisation of methods for data collection and processing across 

agencies would provide benefits for programme management and reporting. 


This could include consistent data templates and standard processing methods 

so that all data is comparable and of consistent quality (i.e a standard operating 

procedure for field activities and information management). This was 

highlighted in the recent review of the management strategy (Shaw and Gillies, 

2010) but has not been initiated yet. 

There is scope to improve cross agency communications on operational 

activities. This is particularly required when operations are occurring that may 

be adjacent to or cross into others areas. 

Information Management 

 

In conjunction with the need for standard data capture and processing there is a 

need for a central database for records, data and information on the project. 

This should be established promptly to suit the needs of all the agencies. This 

need was identified in (Shaw and Gillies, 2010). They identified the key 

elements for this database as: 

Management units and subdivision into hunting blocks 

GPS recordings of kills and hunting 

Types of control undertaken/unit/block 

Methods and personnel used for control 

Cost incurred/unit on annual basis 

Standard recording of tasks and activities 

Status of remaining goat population 

Operational Improvements 

 

 

Opportunities exist to improve the information flows between agencies on 

developments and trialing of different operational techniques. 

This could involve developing a shared research and development approach. 

This could be used to assess new technologies, equipment or methods. An 

agency could focus on a specific technology or method and then share their 

research and results. A shared research agenda could be established at each 

annual planning meeting. 

Collaborative Management 

Overall programme implementation needs to be supported by an increase in 

coordination effort (e.g. more information sharing, one database, improved 

communications). 

Increased coordinated of advocacy with landowners and advocacy across 

councils is key to moving forward issues with landowners in some critical 

management units. 

The collaborative needs to continue to build a collective strong case for the 

work programme. To make it hard for the funders to withdraw support. 

There needs to be proactive reporting of achievements and wider picture – 

reiterate the collaborative approach, its importance and the economics, wider 

benefits to the community 


Readjustment of Management Units 

A number of issues have been raised about specific boundaries for some management 

units. The following adjustments to units are proposed following discussions between 

BOPRC and DOC: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MU 6 & 6a uses the Waioeka River as the boundary in head waters as opposed 

the SH2. 

Similarly with MU 9 to use rivers as boundaries 

MU 11 & 12 boundary is realigned from the headwaters to the sea in fine detail 

using the centre of the river. This is a boundary between eradication area and 

high levels of goats. 

MU12a, b, c is merged into MU12 as there no longer seemed a good reason for 

3 subunits. 

MU 11 a & b should be divided using the Takaputahi River and the Motu Rd to 

divide the blocks north-south. 

MU 19 be extended southwards to more logical land boundaries using ridges 

and streams. It's an extra area but it’s unlikely to have work in that extra zone 

by DOC. 


5.0 Future Implementation Improvements 

The following key actions are recommended to focus the operations and 

implementation of the Eastern Bay of Plenty Feral Goat Control Programme: 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Each agency needs to actively promote the benefits of this collaborative 

approach for achieving their outcomes. 

Given upcoming changes to DOC funding and priorities it would be 

advantageous for BOPRC to formally acknowledge the importance of the DOC 

effort and resourcing and to expressing their support for the collaborative 

approach and the need for it to continue. 

Partners should hold an annual review/planning day for the project that utilises 

the information collated in the annual report to plan next year’s work/priorities. It 

should also discuss and agree on ways to tackle any management issues. 

Standard methods of data collection and processing should be established and 

agreed. 

A centralised database of information should be created to meet the needs of 

the programme. 

Increased coordination and advocacy with landowners is applied to key 

management units. 

There will need to be an increase in resourcing or focusing of resources to 

ensure that the coordination support that is required occurs (i.e. standard 

processes, database, landowner advocacy) 


6.0 Appendix 1 

Table A: Management Units - Annual Status on Management Objectives 

(Note: Underlined indicates which management objective have been met) 

MU 

Number 

1 

2 

3 

Management 

Unit Name 

Western Te 

Urewera 

Management 

Objective June 2011 Status June 2010 Status June 2009 Status 

Ensure pockets of 

goats have been 

eliminated and new 

incursions do not 

become 

established 

Kiwinui To eradicate 

population by 2005 

Ohope 

Waiotane 

Taneatua 

Hiwarau 

Develop coordinated 

approach 

with 

landowners/manag 

er 

Contain the 

Objective not met. Very 

small population of goats on 

one farm kept outside 1 km 

buffer from TUNP. 

One incursion into the buffer 

noted and goats were shot 

as they strayed onto a 

neighbouring farm. No other 

incursion seen since. 

Fencing at the rear of the 

property has been slightly 

improved again but is still not 

goat proof. 

High profile on-going 

monitoring taking place of 

this property 

Objective met 

Further monitoring in future 

Objective met 

Goats wide spread and in 

low numbers 

Survey of Land owners 

undertaken 

No complaints or requests 

Objective not met. Moderate 

population of goats on one 

farm generally kept outside 1 

km buffer from TUNP. 

With assistance from 

Federated Farmers 90% of 

animals removed. One 

report of goats on the park 

boundary from a hunter 

however these were not 

found during a follow up 

surprise inspection. 

Fencing at the rear of the 

property has been improved 

but is still not goat proof. 

High profile on-going 

monitoring taking place of 

this property. 

Objective met 

No reports and no 

monitoring. Clear-fell 

Logging underway in forest 

very open and visible 

Objective met 

Survey of Land owners 

undertaken 


for assistance 

Objective not met. Small / 

moderate population of 

goats on one farm kept 

outside 1 km buffer from 

TUNP. 

Periodic monitoring taking 

place of this property. 

Fencing inspection of this 

property found that fences 

at the rear of the property 

bordering the park were not 

stock proof. 

Landowner has been 

prosecuted in the past for 

stock trespass into the 

park. Told DOC will not 

hesitate to do so again if his 

stock are found in the park. 

Landowner said he would 

erect better fencing 

immediately 

Objective met 

No reports and no 

monitoring. Clear-fell 

Logging underway in forest 

very open and visible 

Objectives met 


for assistance

MU 

Number 

4 

5 

6 

6a 

7 

8 

Management 

Unit Name 

Waiotahi 

western 

Waiotahi 

eastern 

Waioeka 

western 

Management 


population and 

reduce to very low 

level in selected 

parts. 

Prevent expansion 

and/or dispersal 

Eliminate feral 

population 

Farmed goats are 

contained 

Contain expansion 

(top priority) 

Eliminate 

population 

Eliminate all 

infestations 

Tighten goat 

farming control 

Kotepato Eliminate all 

Waioeka 

eastern 

infestations 

Respond to 

sightings 

Maintain at low 

numbers (to 2014) 

Eliminate 

infestation (to 

2025) 

for assistance 

Objective met 

Aerial control 

1 goat shot by private 

hunters outside MU blocks 

several km’s south of MU4 

Progress made by land 

owners on fencing to stop 

‘leakage’ 

On- going liaison and 

monitoring needed 

Objective met? 

Ground hunting, aerial 

control 

Looking for five goats 

reported end of previous 

financial year (not yet found) 

Ongoing monitoring and 

response required 

Objective met 



Objective met 




control 

Population at medium levels 

ground hunter effort 64.06 

man days for 88 goat kills 

Maintaining to low levels 

Waiotahi west not worked 

this year effort was directed 

to report of sighting several 

km south of this block and 

rest of effort went to MU5 

Expansion contained 

Farmed goats removed from 

Russel Joblins property 

Report by member of public 

of five goats seen late 2009- 

2010 financial year (not yet 

found) 

Population at zero density 

All goat farms disestablished 

Population not eliminated 

(very low densities) 

Responding to sightings 


control 

Population at medium levels, 




Ground hunting 


Expansion/dispersal 

prevented, feral population 

eliminated but farmed 

goats not contained 

Ground hunting with 

indicating dog 

Expansion contained 

Farmed goats possibly 

creating a feral populations 


All goat farms 

disestablished 

Population not eliminated 

(very low densities) 

Responding to sightings 


control 





Upper Otara Establish and Ground hunting, aerial Ground hunting, aerial Ground hunting, aerial 


MU 

Number 

9 

10 

11a 

11b 

Management 

Unit Name 

Lower Otara 

Tractor creek 

Lower Otara 

eastern 

Toatoa to Motu 

western 

Toatoa to Motu 

eastern 

Management 


upgrade 

infrastructure 

Contain population 

Reduce population 

to low levels 

Eliminate 

population (to 

2050) 

Reduce to low 

levels 

Eliminate feral 

population 

Reduce to very low 

numbers 

Establish goat free 

buffer on margins 

Reduce to low 

levels 

Reduce to low 

levels 

control 




Kills/effort is trending 

downward (on track) 


Population on Public Crown 

Land at medium levels 

Population on private land 

only small portion of this MU 

addressed 

Ground hunting Population 

at medium levels, ground 

hunter effort 76.68 man days 

for 270 goat kills 

Population on PCL at 

medium levels 

High-density population on 

private land 


control 

Population at medium-high 

levels, ground hunter effort 

33.93 man days for 76 goat 

kills 

Reducing to low levels 


control 





control 






Population on Public Crown 

Land at medium levels 


unknown only small portion 

of this MU addressed 


at medium levels, ground 

hunter effort 59.25 man days 

for 278 goat kills 


medium levels 

High-density population on 

private land 


control 




kills 



control 

Recently funded West Motu, 

control initiated 



control 




Huts and tracks upgraded 



medium levels 


unknown 


at high levels, ground 

hunter effort 103.87 man 

days for 685 goat kills 

Recently funded and 

control initiated this 

financial year 


control 




kills 

Buffer created for Te 

Kahika / Mangatutara 

control site in 2007/08 

Maintain to low levels 





kills 

Maintain to low levels 


MU 

Number 

12a,b,c 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

Management 

Unit Name 

a)East of Motu 

northern 

b)East of Motu 

central 

c)East of Motu 

southern 

Management 



kills 

Contain expansion 

Reduce extent of 

infestation 

Reduce to very low 

numbers 

Kereu/TeWaiti Eliminate 

remaining animals 

West of 

Raukokore 

East of 

Raukokohe 

Contain and 

eliminate 

population 

Contain and 

eliminate 

population 

Cape Runaway Eliminate 

population 

Waikura - Lottin 

Point 

Create a buffer to 

minise reinfestation 

of 

adjacent MUs. 

Medium term - 

eliminate 


control 

Population at low levels, 



Maintain to very low levels 

Establish Eradication 

attempt by Judas. Recut 

tracks, insert huts x 2. 

Hunt 2/3 of control blocks. 

Establish 1 Judas , Kill 5 

other associates 

Contract in preparation for 

next 2 yr effort 

No control during period 

No control during period 

Access and other issues 

being worked through 

Small population (3) 

associated with Waititi Cow 

shed remain. Follow up with 

Peter Waititi 

Seek formal agreement not 

to have goats 

Further work required with 

adjacent landowners 

Few goats remain at East by 

/on Potikirua 

High numbers on Lottin Point 

Station 



control 




Maintain to very low levels 

Consultation with Forest 

manager , security staff and 

owners completed 

Logging underway 

No control carried out 


control 




Maintaining to very low 

levels 

Consultation initiated 

No Work carried out Cape Runaway cleared by 

Judas operation. 

Waititi release small mob of 

Boers goats at Cowshed 

Landowner Lottin Point 

contacted and dialogue 

started. 

Landowner meeting held. 

GDC have good contacts in 

this valley 


MU 

Number 

Management 

Unit Name 

Management 


populations 

18 

19 

Rip Pakihiroa Eliminate in 

Raukumara Forest 

Park. 

Create buffer to 

minimise reinfestation 

Mangaotane 

Ruatahunga 

Create buffer to 

minimise reinfestation 

in 

Raukumara Forest 

Park. 

Some early progress made 

More work required with 

adjoining landowners 

High risk area in need of 

further effort 

Monitoring and reevaluation 

of situation required 


Table B: Management Units – Budget Allocations and Kill Data 

2010/11 2009/10 2008/09 2007/08 2006/07 

MU 

No. Name 

DOC 

Control 

Area Name 

Lead 

Agency Management Objective 

Funding 

Spent Kills 

No. 

Aerial 

kills 

No. 

Ground 

kills 

Funding 

Spent in 

09/010 

Kills in 

09/010 

No. 

Aerial 

kills 

No. 

Ground 

kills 

Funding 

Spent in 

2008/09 

Kills in 

2008/09 

No. 

Aerial 

kills 

No. 

Ground 

kills 

Funding 

Spent in 

2007/08 

Kills in 

2007/08 

No. 

Aerial 

kills 

No. 

Ground 

kills 

Funding 

Spent in 

2006/07 

Kills in 

2006/07 

No. 

Aerial 

kills 

No. 

Ground 

kills 

1 

Western Te 

Urewera DOC 

Ensure pockets of goats have been eliminated 

and new incursions do not become established $500 0 0 0 $500 0 0 0 $500 0 0 0 

2 Kiwinui BOPRC To eradicate population by 2005 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 

3 

Ohope 

Waiotane 

Taneatua 

Hiwarau BOPRC 

Develop co-ordinated approach with 

landowners/managers. Contain the population 

and reduce to very low level in selected parts. $1,280 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 

4 Waiotahi 

western Waiotahi DOC Prevent expansion and/or dispersal; Eliminate 

feral population; Farmed goats are contained $3,000 1 0 1 $5,000 0 0 0 $5,000 0 0 0 $10,000 23 5 18 $11,000 24 0 24 

5 Waiotahi 

eastern DOC Contain expansion (top priority); eliminate 

population 

6 Waioeka 

western DOC Eliminate all infestations; Tighten goat farming 

control $2,880 0 0 $9,600 0 0 0 $4,800 0 0 0 $11,520 0 0 0 $23,080 1 0 1 

6a Kotepato DOC Eliminate all infestations; respond to sightings $9,000 0 0 

7 

Waioeka 

eastern DOC 

Maintain at low numbers (to 2014); Eliminate 

infestation - long term (2025) 

10 

11a 

Waioeka/ 

Urutawa 

Establish and upgrade infrastructure; contain 

population; reduce population to low levels; 

Eliminate population lon term (2050) 

8 Upper Otara 

DOC 

9 Lower Otara DOC Reduce to low levels; eliminate feral population 

$162,300 862 174 688 $162,300 905 167 738 $148,300 934 63 871 $148,300 1245 96 1149 $148,300 1161 71 1090 

Lower Otara eastern Waiaua/ 

Meremere 

Hill DOC Reduce to very low numbers; establish goat free 

buffer on margins $20,000 270 0 270 $31,500 278 0 278 $31,500 685 0 685 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 

Toatoa to 

Motu 

western Whitikau DOC Reduce to low levels $14,000 238 54 184 $14,000 353 61 292 $14,000 607 0 607 $10,000 671 0 671 $10,000 302 0 302 

11b 

NWR $27,888 75 13 62 $28,350 58 0 58 $0 0 0 0 $3,200 37 0 37 $20,960 18 0 18 

Toatoa to 

Motu 

eastern DOC Reduce to low levels $28,018 244 97 147 $30,658 289 132 157 $6,460 46 0 46 $13,910 186 54 132 $4,899 43 43 0 

12a East of Motu 

northern DOC 

East of Motu 

12b central Te Kahika DOC 

Contain expansion; reduce extent of infestation; 

reduce to very low numbers 


reduce to very low numbers $32,740 15 3 12 $34,720 14 7 7 $39,540 15 2 13 $34,400 65 21 44 $46,000 52 6 46 

12c 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

East of Motu 

southern DOC Contain expansion; reduce extent of infestation; 


Kereu/Te 

NWR/DO 

Waiti 

C Eliminate remaining animals $0 3 0 3 $14,175 0 0 5 $14,175 0 0 0 $26,263 0 0 0 $20,807 12 0 12 

West of 

Raukokore NWR Contain and eliminate population $0 0 0 0 $12,600 5 0 5 $14,175 0 0 0 $8,106 3 0 3 $13,198 2 0 2 

East of 

Raukokohe NWR Contain and eliminate population $0 0 0 0 $6,300 0 0 0 $12,600 4 0 4 $12,600 14 0 14 $13,198 11 0 11 

Cape 

BOPRC/ 

Runaway 

NWR Eliminate population $18,900 3 0 3 $6,300 4 0 4 $14,175 10 0 10 $7,190 11 0 11 $18,547 3 0 3 

Waikura - 

Lottin Point BOPRC 

Create a buffer to minise re-infestation of 

adjacent MUs. Medium term - eliminate 

populations $1,730 72 72 $0 55 0 55 27 0 27 6 0 6 $0 0 0 0 

18 

Rip 

Pakihiroa BOPRC 

Eliminate in Raukumara Forest Park. Create 

buffer to minimise re-infestation $54,000 193 37 156 $13,950 45 0 45 $16,550 153 0 153 $16,550 154 0 154 

19 

Mangaotane 

Ruatahunga BOPRC 

Create buffer to minimise re-infestation in 

Raukumara Forest Park. $30,000 79 47 32 $0 0 0 0 

$406,236 2055 425 1630 $369,953 2006 367 1644 $305,225 2328 65 2263 $302,039 2414 176 2238 $346,539 1783 120 1663 

Hawkes Bay Buffer - protection for South West area of Te Urewera $39,834.00 1229 703 526 

awainting confirmed data Data based on DOC control areas 


MU 

No. Name 

DOC 

Control 

Area Name 

Lead 

Agency Management Objective 

Funding 

Spent in 

2005/06 

2005/06 2004/05 2003/04 2002/03 

Kills in 

2005/06 

No. 

Aerial 

kills 

No. 

Ground 

kills 

Funding 

Spent in 

2004/05 

Kills in 

2004/05 

No. 

Aerial 

kills 

No. 

Ground 

kills 

Funding 

Spent in 

2003/04 

Kills in 

2003/04 

No. 

Aerial 

kills 

No. 

Ground 

kills 

Funding 

Spent in 

2002/03 

Kills in 

2002/03 

No. 

Aerial 

kills 

No. 

Ground 

kills 

1 

Western Te 

Urewera DOC 

Ensure pockets of goats have been eliminated 

and new incursions do not become established 

2 Kiwinui BOPRC To eradicate population by 2005 $0 0 0 0 $4,500 0 0 0 $3,600 0 0 0 $13,332 0 0 0 

3 

Ohope 

Waiotane 

Taneatua 

Hiwarau BOPRC 

Develop co-ordinated approach with 

landowners/managers. Contain the population 

and reduce to very low level in selected parts. $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 

4 Waiotahi 

western Waiotahi DOC Prevent expansion and/or dispersal; Eliminate 

feral population; Farmed goats are contained $11,000 0 0 0 $11,000 32 0 32 $11,500 19 19 $7,500 88 88 

5 Waiotahi 

eastern DOC Contain expansion (top priority); eliminate 

population 

Waioeka 

Eliminate all infestations; Tighten goat farming 

6 western DOC control $15,114 0 0 0 $8,800 0 0 0 $66,490 284 0 284 $18,630 18 0 18 

6a Kotepato DOC Eliminate all infestations; respond to sightings 

7 

Waioeka 

eastern DOC 

Maintain at low numbers (to 2014); Eliminate 

infestation - long term (2025) 

10 

11a 

Waioeka/ 

Urutawa 

Establish and upgrade infrastructure; contain 

population; reduce population to low levels; 

Eliminate population lon term (2050) 

8 Upper Otara 

DOC 

9 Lower Otara DOC Reduce to low levels; eliminate feral population 

Lower Otara eastern Waiaua/ 

Meremere 

Hill DOC Reduce to very low numbers; establish goat free 

buffer on margins $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 

Toatoa to 

Motu 

western Whitikau DOC Reduce to low levels $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 

$148,300 1402 421 981 $148,300 1407 147 1260 $148,300 1520 122 1398 $88,300 1154 333 821 

11b 

NWR $17,370 139 0 139 $0 0 0 0 

Toatoa to 

Motu 

eastern DOC Reduce to low levels $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 

12a East of Motu 

northern DOC 

East of Motu 

12b central Te Kahika DOC 




reduce to very low numbers $46,000 78 22 56 $40,000 32 4 28 

12c 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

East of Motu 

southern DOC Contain expansion; reduce extent of infestation; 


Kereu/Te 

NWR/DO 

Waiti 

C Eliminate remaining animals $16,655 28 5 23 $16,655 28 5 23 

West of 

Raukokore NWR Contain and eliminate population $10,808 12 0 12 $10,808 12 0 12 

East of 

Raukokohe NWR Contain and eliminate population $13,608 12 0 12 $13,608 12 0 12 

Cape 

BOPRC/ 

Runaway 

NWR Eliminate population $25,206 95 0 95 $13,896 16 0 16 

Waikura - 

Lottin Point BOPRC 

Create a buffer to minise re-infestation of 

adjacent MUs. Medium term - eliminate 

populations $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 $0 0 0 0 

18 

Rip 

Pakihiroa BOPRC 

Eliminate in Raukumara Forest Park. Create 

buffer to minimise re-infestation 

19 

Mangaotane 

Ruatahunga BOPRC 

Create buffer to minimise re-infestation in 

Raukumara Forest Park. 

$304,061 1766 448 1318 $267,567 1539 156 1383 


Table C: Management Unit Notes – Identifying Issues and Barriers for 

each Unit 

1 Western Te Urewera 

Closely monitored by staff at Murupara. Older goats sent to works, younger 

kept still breeding. 

Has stayed outside 1 km boundary recently. Has appeared in court 3 times on 

WAC and National park compliance charges and lost 

Activities are moderately successful at present 

Constant monitoring of site required in future 

2 Kiwinui 

Operation completed 2005 monitored 2006 

Eradication completed successfully, no reports of goats in 5 years 

Site being logged 2011 no reports of goats 

There are many small milking goat herds all round this site. 

3 Ohope Waiotane Taneatua Hiwarau 

Survey most large land owners and canvassed forest industry. 

Land owners generally wary of Council interest but were made aware of 

responsibilities’ to keep secure and willingness of Council to help with 

problems. 

One large land owner has high number of goats 

All forestry companies have some control in place and focus on goat control at 

planting time. They were made aware of opportunity for council to assist if 

required. 

No complaints received from within the MU, nor any requests for assistance. 

A general understanding of the area was confirmed. Goats are wide spread in 

low numbers. Land owners prefer to deal with own problems before requesting 

assistance. 

One large landowner has high number of goats behind $250000 of new fences 

(Evans). This property (Kererutahi is under advice from Land management 

officers for land use change) A small feral population is known to be on property 

but outside this fence 

Goats were confirmed in Waiotane SR. (Dave Paine ) 

Land owners are aware of our interest in improved management. Currently a 

low priority site . No complaints received 

Eventually eradication at appropriate time , however very large number of 

landowners currently happy with situation 

4 Waiotahi western 

Some work required on Cooper, Craig, Laurence and Steadman fences. 

Steadman has completed significant amount of new fence. Has replaced 

boundary fence all but 200m have been battened 

Laurence had 15 goats out Oct 2010 these were back in by next inspection 22 

Dec 2010 

DOC hunted but No goats shot in Waiōtahe Scenic reserve this year 

On-going monitoring required. 

5 Waiotahi eastern 

Siting from public - reported 6 goats but no goats found 

Continue to monitor 

6 Waioeka western 

Site still remains at zero density

Still a successful operation 

Monitor site in November 2013 

DOC received report of old Billy goat shot by helicopter in Te Waiiti catchment 

(Te Tai Miro??). Possible an old missing Judas from Wairata. No collar or ear 

tags carcass not inspected. 

6a 

 

 

 

 

Kotepato 

Aerial surveillance to maintain perimeter of park goat free 

None seen and none shot 

But GDC Phil K reports 22 shot on Manawanui Station by GDC staff, Sending 

details to Simon 

Good result 

7 Waioeka eastern 

8 Upper Otara 

9 Lower Otara Tractor creek 

All private land on Tractor Ck land needs addressing 

10 Lower Otara eastern 

Kills/effort trending down 

11a 

Toatoa to Motu western 

11b 

 

 

 

 

 

Toatoa to Motu eastern 

Aerial Buffer to prevent goats crossing Motu 

No aerial shooting carried out this financial year 

Lots of Feral DOGS (DOC)confining goats to steep faces 

Best time to hunt Mōtū is fine evening. Many older billies in mobs suggesting 

young killed by dogs 

This site needs periodic targeted shooting by all agencies 

12a East of Motu northern 

7 goats reported at the mouth of Maugatutara but could be Te Kahika by Tim 

Woodwood sic (WHK Hunting and Fishing), DOC responded but location seems 

incorrect 

Needs on going surveillance 

Extra effort will go into 12a 2011/12 

12b 

East of Motu central 

12c 

 

East of Motu southern 

There is an issue with MU Boundaries coinciding with BOPRC MUs. This need 

rationalised to facilitate reporting. 

13 Kereu/Te Waiti 

Established infrastructure huts and tracks at each site and hunted twice at 

Maungaroa. 1 judas established 4 kills (1 off Judas) Approx 66% of site 


intensively hunted needs further 33% done. Also could insert Judas now to 

saturate area 

14 West of Raukokere 

Restarted eradicating operation with installation of infrastructure, huts and 

tracks. NWR will hunt, BOPRC will support 

Hunting yet to start 

15 East of Raukokere 

Operations curtailed until access and issues sorted with the Farm trust. Old 

Trust defunct, leased , new lease has issues with weeds want s goats( Same 

lease at Pōtikirua, MU16) 

NWR senior management have been asked to intervene at high level to protect 

Kawenata and get onto issues with lease. 

This situation has led to a review of Kawenata agreements back to owners 

original desires 

16 Cape Runaway 

Objective met for Runaway unit, but lost as land owners adjacent re introduced 

goats. 

Needs follow-up. No contact made this year to re-establish relationship 

17 Waikura - Lottin Point 

This is a complex site with several farmers holding differing views to holding 

goats. High goat prices ($75/head ) are making things difficult. 

GDC report 67 shot on Rewatu Stn, 3 on Te Kumi Stn in 32.5 hrs work. 

Lottin Point has been difficult for years and serves as a strong source of feral 

goats populating neighbouring properties. Discussions with the landowner, 

GDC, NWR, BOPRC have stated positions. 

Pōtikirua Stn has had considerable NWR finance and goat control to protect 

Kawenata over 14 yrs . The management team has changed and along with 

Tawaroa Stn has now changed from its supportive position of a no goats policy. 

Cape Runaway was eradicated but needs more work with Land owner Peter 

Waititi to secure permanent goat free status agreement. 

Waikura Valley station owners are generally in support of no goats but for one 

property 

All but Cape are outside BOP region 

Things have deteriorated, and negotiations need to be stepped up 

18 Rip Pakihiroa 

DOC supporting boundary protection and confinement on rateable land to 

protect DOC lands in GDC region. 

GDC reports Kopuaponamu Stn (sic) and Te Rere Stn Mgrs are OK to be shot. 

Rewatu Stn still causing issues as goats feed out to other stations. Rewatu 

Station on the market! 

Some success here more work required with land owners 

19 Mangaotane Ruatahunga 

Ruatahanga has a steady drift toward park, GDC working in area 

Goats spreading from Mangatu incorporation area are threatening the 

Raukumura Forest Park with 2 goats shot at mouth on Mangaotane stream and 

high numbers on the Kirks Clearing. 

Mangatu Issue: resource consent allows logging returns to create a pool of 

funds to establish pest control operations. However, there is some doubt about 

where these are to be spent and whether it is to be at this priority site. 


Agreed as highest risk area but John Lucas believes manageable under current 

restraints. 

Phil K is to feed back to his manager the threat from Mangatu goats and notify 

us of time frame on consent process and operations 

All agree to monitor kill situation over next year to determine whether situation 

is deteriorating 

Greg agrees to send letter of support to Conservator and GDC - re progress on 

project and need to maintain effort 

PM John Lucas has extended the buffer into PVT ML to protect park however 

high number put site under pressure 

Line work on MU needs altered to fit DOC units 

No goats are known within RFP but are threatening . 

This site requires close monitoring and liaison with landowners to direct hunter 

effort to prevent crossing of Mōtū and entry to RFP 

Additional Buffer Activity – Southern Protection of Te Urewera 

Work undertaken by DOC - Wairoa Office 

Approximately 1200 kills last year, mostly by helicopter. Helicopter run every 2 months. 

Focused ground work undertaken at strategic places (i.e Papuni Stn - Wayne Looney 

contractor). 

Summary 

The Whole area needs annual aerial hunting sustained. All farmers pretty 

responsible in the buffer zones and pretty much all landowners within control 

focus areas are supportive. 

Hautapu River are 4-5 kills per flight. Some years ago 2 were shot across the 

Hautapu River on TL (Exclusion zone) This site was ground hunted after these 

shot but no kills . Ngatapa Farm manager (Craig Jacobs) continues to destroy 

any goats seen on property ex TR Hautapu and Te Kooti lookout. 

Te Kooti lookout still hold goats mainly on TR Hoe river side. This would be an 

eradication opportunity now that Exotic forest has been harvested. 

Dead Shepherd Creek still holds Low numbers with up to 6 shot each aerial 

shoot. No Ground hunting has occurred there for years because of cost. 

Tataraakina has goats spread thinly throughout he thought. 

Some goats have turned up at Pine milling (Peter Shaw) 


References 

Gillies, R. and W. Shaw (2010). Strategic Management of Feral Goats between 

the Rangitaiki River and Cape Runaway: 2009 Update and Review. Rotorua, 

Wildlands: 85. 

Lucas, J. (2003). East Coast Hawkes Bay Conservancy Feral Goat 

Management Strategy 2003-2008, Department of Conservation: 24. 

Shaw, W. (2005). Strategic Management of Feral Goats Between the Rangitaki 

RIver and Cape Runaway, Bay of Plenty Region. Rotorua, Wildlands 

Consultants: 66. 

Shaw, W. and R. Gillies (2010). Strategic Management of Feral Goats Between 

the Rangitaki River and Cape Runaway 2009 Update and Review. Rotorua, 

Wildlands Consultants: 85. 

Shaw, W. and R. Gillies (2010). Strategic Review of Feral Goat Management 

East of the Rangitaiki River. Rotorua, Wildlands ConsultantsLtd: 24. 





 


Report From: 


Western Weed WardenTrial Interim Report 


A Weed Warden community engagement trial has been undertaken in the western Bay of 

Plenty, beginning 3 September 2010. The trial aimed to raise community awareness of pest 

plants and enlist a network of community volunteers to effectively increase the level of 

reporting and control of Regional Pest Management Strategy pest plants. The trial has 

achieved limited success. 

Biosecurity staff recommend that the trial be re-named, trialled for a 12 month period with a 

focus on building a biosecurity surveillance network of partners who work within at-risk 

environments and have a professional or private hobby interest in the identification of plants 

and/or animals. 



authority: 

1 Receives the report, Weed Warden Trial. 

2 Notes that the initial Weed Wardens trial has been of limited success. 

3 Agrees to extend the trial for a further 12 month period, the network to be 

known as Weed Finders Bay of Plenty, to comprise a network of partners as 

noted in section 7 of this report. 

4 Notes that the trial will be funded from the Biosecurity operational budget as 

approved within Council’s Annual and Ten Year Plans. 

5 Notes that the decisions recommended below have been assessed in 

accordance with the Bay of Plenty Regional Council’s Policy on Significance 

as having a low degree of significance. 

1 Weed Warden Trial 

The Weed Warden trial programme was undertaken in the western Bay of Plenty 

following a request by some councillors that we investigate the potential for such a 

Page 47 of 92

programme, particularly for increasing the level of community awareness, involvement, 

surveillance and control of pest plants. Project objectives were to: 

a) Target the control of specified pest plants within the western region 

b) Acknowledge the value and role of key community individuals or “Weed Wardens” 

in the implementation of the Council’s pest plant Biosecurity role, and in the raising 

of public and community awareness. 

Expected outputs were: 

a) An increase in ownership by the community in regards to pest plant identification 

and control action 

b) A decrease in the number of specified pest plants in the western region 

c) The establishment of a group of volunteers who will complement the Council’s pest 

plant surveillance work 

d) An increase in the knowledge of where pest plants are located. 

2 Volunteers and Process 

Three members of the western Bay of Plenty community volunteered to undertake 

Weed Warden duties. They included a landscape gardener, a pro-active Care Group 

volunteer and a member of the mokoroa community. The volunteer wardens were 

provided with plant identification books and factsheets; training in the collection and 

reporting of suspect pest plants; historic information as to the locations of infestations 

of the most serious pests in the western Bay of Plenty; attended a “weed walk” with 

biosecurity staff to assist in the identification of pests in the field; on-going contact and 

encouragement to report locations of pests. 

Volunteers were introduced to land resources administration staff and briefed on the 

procedure and process for reporting, recording and follow-up control of pests. 

3 What Was Achieved 

The Wardens reported few weeds or locations, reasons for this are outlined below. 

Lantana was spotted along the mokoroa foreshore and subsequently controlled by a 

contractor; a roadside location of privet was reported and controlled by the roading 

authority. The site has been re-planted with suitable native plants as part of the Honda 

treefund project. An increased level of weed control and partnership with Council is 

likely in the mokoroa area, including regular weed awareness articles in the 

mokoroa Omelette community paper. 

4 Difficulties in Progressing the Trial 

• The word “warden” put off a number of prospective volunteers. Warden has a 

connotation of ensuring that rules are adhered to and people were reluctant to 

be put into a position of “dobbing in” neighbours, clients or other members of the 

community 

• Volunteers had limited time to purposefully survey areas 

Page 48 of 92

• Volunteers had no right of access onto private property. The trial therefore was 

restricted to roadsides, DOC or District Council reserves and locations such as 

harbour foreshore 

• Community projects, including a modest trial such as Weed Wardens, can be 

very demanding of staff time to ensure that adequate liaison and coaching of 

volunteers occurs. The trial was undertaken over a very demanding time for 

biosecurity staff with the Regional Pest Management Plan review, Psa kiwifruit 

disease incursion and new incursions of priority pests such as alligator weed 

and Noogoora bur into the western Bay of Plenty. 

5 Positives in Undertaking the Trial 

• The volunteers were easy to work with and always receptive to the trial’s 

objectives 

• Council has established some further valuable contacts in the rural community 

• A simple reporting and staff follow-up system has been established for this type 

of community liaison. 

6 Lessons from the Australian Weed Spotters Project 

A weed spotter’s network was trialled in Queensland, Australia, from July 2008 until 

January 2010. The project’s goal was to achieve the early detection of new weeds in 

Queensland. The trial was run by a full-time coordinator who worked with 180 

volunteers at the trial’s 18 month conclusion. Volunteers were from three main groups 

of people: members of current care groups; active retirees, students and job seekers; 

or people whose core business is weeds, such as State or local government 

biosecurity staff, national park staff or employees of the quarantine service. 

783 weed specimens were submitted for identification over the 18 month period. Two 

weeds which were new to Queensland were detected – one by a Biosecurity 

Queensland officer and the other by a Queensland Parks and Wildlife Officer – both 

were off-duty when they wondered about a plant, collected it and sent it for 

identification. 

Most plants were collected over holiday periods. The trial moved to a web-based 

system for the delivery of information, which provided a number of advantages but was 

also very time-consuming to administer. 

7 A Future Collaborative Pest Surveillance Trial 

In the Regional Pest Management Plan’s 2012 Operational Plan report, submitted to 

Council, 19 October 2011, it was suggested that “Weed Finders” networks be 

investigated and trialled. The networks will be a combination of volunteers from 

community care groups and “plant-minded” partners such as members of botanical 

societies or people that work or have worked in nurseries or horticulture and already 

have established plant identification skills. 

Other valuable partners include professionals such as district council drainage 

engineers or reserves officers – people who routinely survey very high-risk 

environments such as drains and streams close to urban areas where aquatic pests 

have a high chance of establishing. The value of such partnership was recently proven 

in the Tauranga area when a Tauranga City Council drainage engineer reported two 

infestations of the serious aquatic weed Senegal tea in April 2011. The infestations 

were in streams at Welcome Bay and Ohauiti. This Eradication Category pest had not 

Page 49 of 92


been found in the Tauranga area for 10 years and was able to be effectively eradicated 

at the earliest opportunity. 

Biosecurity staff would like to extend the weed surveillance trial for a 12 month period 

and set up a network of “plant-minded” partners which include professionals working in 

the outdoor environment and those undertaking regular plant surveys, such as 

members of Bay of Plenty Botanical Societies. It will also include rural contractors, 

interested livestock or cropping farmers and people who regularly work in plant 

nurseries. 

The network will be known as “Weed Finders Bay of Plenty” and will consist of at least 

15 individuals. Volunteers will be sought from the existing network of contacts known 

to biosecurity staff, as well as advertisements placed into community newspapers. 

The trial will be adequately coordinated; will produce a newsletter every 6 months; hold 

plant identification workshops at Tauranga, Whakatne and Rotorua, led by the land 

resources team and open to Weed Finder partners or members of the public. 

Results of this further trial will be reported to the Operations, Monitoring and Regulation 

Committee November 2012, with regular updates within community newspapers and 

Council’s own Group Manager’s Report (Operations, Monitoring and Regulation 

Committee). 

John Mather 

Senior Biosecurity Officer 

 


 


Click 

Page 50 of 92




 


Report From: 

Ken Tarboton, Group Manager Environmental Hazards 

Whakatane and Ohope Stormwater Catchment Management Planning 

Project Update. 


Following the heavy rainfall events in June 2010, which resulted in significant flooding of 

Whakatne and hope urban areas, a project team was established jointly with the Bay of 

Plenty Regional Council and Whakatne District Council, partnering with Environment Ngati 

Awa. 

The purpose of this report is to provide an update to Council for the Whakatne and hope 

Streams Catchment Management Planning project. The Regional Council Environmental 

Hazards and Land Management Groups have been working in collaboration with Whakatne 

District Council since Bay of Plenty Regional Council signed a Project Charter in August 2010. 



authority: 

1 Receives the report “Whakatne and hope Stormwater Catchment 

Management Planning project update”. 

2 Introduction 

The purpose of the Whakatane and hope Stormwater Catchment Management 

Planning (CMP) project is to take a “whole-of-catchment” approach to flood mitigation 

planning for the hope and Whakatne urban community and infrastructure. This 

should ensure that future works are carried out in a comprehensive manner 

considering the upper and lower catchment issues, through the identification of 

structural and non-structural solutions. 

The rivers and streams entering Whakatne and hope are considered to pose a 

significant risk to infrastructure and property during heavy rain events. 

Upper catchment land use directly impacts on the flows in the streams, in addition to 

the debris and sediment carried within them. Urban and rural landowners in the upper 

and lower catchments are affected by flooding and erosion in the streams. 

Page 51 of 92

There are significant infrastructural assets in the lower catchments placed at risk by 

erosion and flooding. Erosion protection works have been carried out over the years 

but this has generally been in an ‘ad hoc’ manner on a site-by-site basis. 

Past upgrades to infrastructural assets has sometimes failed to acknowledge the 

impact of land-use in the upper catchments and on areas without infrastructure. Works 

programmes need to be prioritised on a risk basis. Physical works in and around the 

streams to manage stream bank erosion and to provide flood protection is likely to 

require resource consent. 

This CMP project was established to bring together the landowners and key 

organisations to develop a long-term plan which will result in the implementation of 

physical works and management plans to manage the flood and erosion risk in these 

catchments (shown in Figure 1 below). 

Figure 1 – Whakatne and hope Streams Stormwater Catchments 

3 Progress to Date 

The project stages were established as follows: 

Page 52 of 92

Stage Outcome Proposed Date Delivery Date 

Stage 1 Preparation of a Situation Report November 2010 November 2010 

Stage 2 Develop Mitigation Options Report End August 2011 September 2011 

Stage 3 Implementation identified projects Commence July 2012 

The Stage 1 Situation Report was submitted to the Whakatne District Council Project 

and Services Committee meeting of 1 December 2010. The purpose of the report was 

to set the scene and context for the catchment management project. The report 

provided an introduction/background to the project; outlined the legal/planning 

framework; listed relevant stakeholders; detailed previous studies and recent physical 

works; described the catchments including operational performance during several 

recent significant rainfall events; and presented the results of a gap analysis of 

available existing information. 

The Stage 2 Mitigations Options Report was submitted to the Whakatne District 

Council Project and Services Committee meeting of 21 September 2011. Reports are 

available on request. 

The Mitigation Options Report focuses on identifying the risk in each catchment. The 

frequency of flooding in current situations was evaluated and options to mitigate 

flooding for future climate conditions proposed. Flood maps have been developed for 

current and future scenarios. 

A revision to the project plan was proposed in the Mitigations Option Report. This 

approach adopts the recommendations of the NZ Standard ‘Managing Flood Risk – A 

Process Standard.’ The objective is to include the community at an early stage to 

ensure an understanding of the current issues and risks and to provide information on 

residual risks, estimated costs, timelines and emergency management responsibilities. 

This risk approach acknowledges that final solutions have not yet been fully developed 

and will continue to be refined during the investigation process. Revisions to mitigation 

solutions are likely to result from this process and this must be understood at the start 

of the process by the community and management. 

Bay of Plenty Regional Council (BoPRC), Whakatne District Council (WDC), Ngti 

Awa, local residents, and the community will all be involved during the statutory 

requirement for consultation prior to resource consent application being sought for 

structural mitigation for the stream works. 

4 Regional Council Support 

The Regional Council has been a supportive partner in this project. To-date, BoPRC 

input has included technical assistance with project scoping; management; and 

technical support with WDC-funded surveying; hydrological assessment; modelling; 

and the provision of land management expertise. 

BoPRC potential future involvement in each of the mitigation options is summarised 

below: 

Structural mitigation measures in the upper or lower catchment will be to benefit the 

urban environment therefore the costs for these works will sit with WDC and private 

landowners (including urban sections). However, BoPRC may contribute where funding 

Page 53 of 92


is available if the work matches criteria under the current land management 

programmes. 

Non-structural mitigation measures proposed include: 

1. Land cover changes from pasture to tree cover are recommended and provide other 

benefits. BoPRC has existing programmes in place where support is available to 

landowners. BoPRC ‘business-as-usual’ support is anticipated. 

2. Minimum floor levels can be addressed by WDC in the review to the District Plan. 

3. Flood monitoring and warning can be improved by WDC in partnership with 

BoPRC utilising our expertise. WDC would provide funding for equipment and 

installation, with technical support from BoPRC for monitoring and calibration. 

BoPRC ‘business-as-usual’ support is anticipated. 

4. Inspection and maintenance improvements lie with WDC, however upper 

catchment inspections and debris load is well understood by BoPRC and is carried 

out as part of existing programmes. Land use compliance in the upper catchment is 

a role that will continue to have an impact on the lower catchment areas e.g. forest 

harvesting. This is a ‘business-as-usual’ responsibility of the BoPRC consents and 

compliance teams. 



No significant effect anticipated on existing Stream Management budget, or the 

Sustainable Land Use Implementation programme budget. 


Business-as-usual for existing Stream Management budget. 

Ten Year / Annual Plan Implications 

Business-as-usual for existing Stream Management budget. 

Colin Meadowcroft 

Engineering Manager, Rivers and Drainage 

 

for Group Manager Environmental Hazards 

 


Click 

Page 54 of 92

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT 1 

Catchment Management - Whakatane and Ohope 

Investigation and Implimentation Project Stage 2 

Mitigation Options report September 2011 

SUPPORTING D OCUMEN T 1 - C atchment M anagement - W hakatane and Ohope Investigation and Impliment ation Project St age 2 Mitig ation Option s repo rt September 2011 

Page 55 of 92

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT 2 

Stormwater Catchment Management Whakatane 

and Ohope Situation Report 

SUPPORT ING D OCUMEN T 2 - Sto rm wat er C atch ment M an agem ent W hakatan e and Ohop e Situatio n Report 

Page 57 of 92




 


Report From: 

Rob Donald, Water Science and Support Manager 

NERMN Beach Profile Monitoring 2011 


This is the third report detailing the results of the coastal monitoring network initiated by Bay of 

Plenty Regional Council in 1990 as part of its Natural Environment Regional Monitoring Network 

(NERMN) programme. A total of 53 sites are profiled on an annual basis within the current 

coastal monitoring programme. Some selected sites are monitored quarterly; others are 

monitored as necessary, i.e. after storm events or where a beach is considered to be of 

significant concern to the public due to impacts on property. 

Over time, changes in the beach morphology along the sandy Bay of Plenty coastline result 

from the “cut and fill” processes. The movement of sediment from this process is dependent on 

wind and wave action as well as sediment properties. These seasonal changes are 

superimposed on short and long term processes which act to produce periods (tens of years) of 

erosion, accretion and dynamic equilibrium. 

Results from this report indicate that the following areas are showing trends of erosion for the 

period 1990-2010; hope Beach, Pukehina Beach, Southern area of Waihi Beach, central 

section of Hikuwai Beach. 

A continuation of this NERMN module is important in the management regime of this coastal 

area. There are increasing pressures (development and recreational) in this coastal 

environment. The profile monitoring provides a baseline dataset for determining the physical 

state of these beach systems. Additional increasing pressures such as sea level rise further 

enforce the requirement for this monitoring to continue. A future monitoring schedule has been 

outlined in Part 3 of the report which will allow for timely and representative information to be 

collected and analysed. 



authority: 

1 Receives the report, NERMN Beach Profile Monitoring 2011. 


Page 59 of 92

A total of 53 sites are profiled on an annual basis within the current coastal monitoring 

programme. Some selected sites are monitored quarterly; others are monitored as 

necessary, i.e. after storm events or where a beach is considered to be of significant 

concern to the public due to impacts on private property. All beaches between Waihi 

Beach in the west to Hikuwai Beach in the east are covered by the monitoring 

programme. This monitoring covers 135 kilometres of open coastline. 

3 Results 

Figure 1 shows the results (5 trend indicators) from the statistical analysis of toe of 

foredune position and beach sediment volume measurements and calculations for 

each of the profile sites. The period of record analysed was 1990 to February 2011. 

Field observations and analysis of historical photography (oblique and vertical) was 

also used to validate these determined trends. 

4 Updated Monitoring Schedule 

Table 1 contains the proposed schedule of profile measurements for the NERMN 

profiles. The sites chosen for the quarterly programme are sites which front the main 

residential developments within the region and hence are required datasets for robust 

environmental monitoring, coastal natural hazard analysis and zone mapping. 

Table 1 Coastal NERMN monitoring schedule for the next five years (2011-2015). 

Site 

All sites (Total = 57) 

• CCS1 to CCS54 inclusive. 

• Coast Care sites at Papamoa (2 

sites), Waihi Beach (1 site) and Mt 

Maunganui (1 site). 

Selected sites (Total = 23) 

• CCS9 – CCS11 (Ohope). 

• CCS25 – CCS29 (Pukehina). 

• CCS34 – CCS40 (Papamoa/Mount). 

• CCS47 – CCS54 (Waihi). 

Pre and post significant storm sites 

(typically a selection of the quarterly 

sites and/or a selection based on 

reports of erosion). 

Monitoring 

frequency 

Annually 

Quarterly 

As required 

Page 60 of 92

Figure 1 Beach state trend overview for the Bay of Plenty (1990-2011). 

5 Conclusions 

Page 61 of 92


The current monitoring programme is adequate for long-term trend determinations 

along the Bay of Plenty coastline. However the frequency of profile measurements 

does not allow for the full analysis of beach process to be undertaken. It is therefore 

important that storm specific monitoring (as programmed in the monitoring schedule) is 

undertaken in a timely manner and thus increases the value of these datasets when 

undertaking future coastal erosion hazard investigations and more detailed trend 

analysis. 

Results from this report show that the following beaches are showing trends of erosion: 

• Ohope Beach 

• Pukehina Beach 

• Southern area of Waihi Beach 

• Central section of Hikuwai Beach 

This pattern has not changed since the last report which summarised data up to 2006. 

6 Presentation 

Shane Iremonger, Environmental Scientist, will give a brief presentation on the findings 

of the report. 



The work is completed under the budget for the Physical Coastal NERMN programme. 


As above. 

Ten Year / Annual Plan Implications 

No changes or implications to the Ten Year Plan or Annual Plan. 

Shane Iremonger 

Environmental Scientist 

 

for Water Science and Support Manager 

 


Click 

Page 62 of 92

SUPPORTING DOCUMENT 

Environmental Publication 2011-14 NERMN 

Beach Profile Monitoring 2011 

SUPPORT ING D OCUMEN T - Environ ment al Pub lication 2011- 14 NERMN Beach Profil e Mon itoring 2011 

Page 63 of 92




 


Report From: 

Nick Zaman, Pollution Prevention Manager 

Puarenga Stream Investigation Update 


Questions were raised by tangata whenua earlier in the year about the quality of the 

Puarenga Stream, and in particular, the effect of contaminants in the water on the health of 

penny divers at the Whakarewarewa bridge (the bridge). 

The Puarenga Stream is classified as ‘poor’ for recreational use. This means that the stream 

is generally not suitable for swimming. Bay of Plenty Regional Council carried out some 

additional sampling to confirm the level and source of contaminants, and the extent to which 

these might be impacting on the health of aquatic organisms and penny divers. It was found 

that elevated levels of faecal coliform occur in the stream during runoff from rainfall but 

otherwise levels rarely exceed recreational guidelines. This confirms the standard advice 

provided by the Regional Council and Toi Te Ora Public Health, to avoid swimming within 48 

hours after rainfall. No pentachlorophenol (PCP) was found at the bridge although was 

detected higher up the catchment. Elevated levels of metals, particularly arsenic, were found 

at the bridge however these are consistent with influences from a geothermal field. 

There are a number of potential influences on the quality of the Puarenga Stream which 

have been selected for closer scrutiny. These are the Red Stag timber mill, dairy farms (x3), 

Rotorua District Council landfill and Rotorua District Council forest wastewater irrigation. 

Regional Council staff are working with these groups to help bring about improvements in 

the water quality of the Puarenga Stream. Thourangi have also been actively involved in 

this process and invited to provide feedback on the draft report (attached). 



authority: 

1 Receives the report, Puarenga Stream Investigation Update. 

2 Purpose 

This report provides an update on investigations into the water quality of the Puarenga 

Stream and catchment. The report provides an overview of the environmental 

monitoring undertaken, on-going programmes, preliminary findings and the 

recommended next steps to minimise risks to human health and the environment. 


Page 65 of 92

The potential for contamination in the Puarenga Stream to be causing a risk to human 

health has recently been raised as an issue by tangata whenua, and was the subject of 

media scrutiny in May and June 2011. Toi Te Ora – Public Health Service called 

together relevant agencies to establish whether there is a human health issue and to 

gather more information on the potential risk. 

A series of joint meetings have been held with Toi Te Ora, Rotorua District Council, 

and Thourangi Tribal Authority. Thorangi’s rohe includes the Puarenga Stream. 

Since May 2011, Bay of Plenty Regional Council has undertaken additional sampling to 

our normal monitoring programme to further characterise the quality of the Puarenga 

stream and its tributaries. Investigation into potential health and environmental effects 

from contaminants entering the water of the Puarenga stream and its tributaries has 

focused on contaminants known to be present historically; those that are used currently 

(timber treatment associated chemicals: PCP, arsenic, chromium and copper); and 

indicators of faecal contamination. 

This information is presented in this report to help identify and quantify contaminant 

sources and their impacts as well as provide a focus for on-going investigations. This 

paper summarises the results and findings and is largely based on the appended draft 

report. The draft report has yet to be finalised as monitoring and investigation is not 

complete and a number of meetings are still to be held with key parties. 

4 Background 

Three marae, Te Pakira, Hinemihi, and Hurunga O Te Rangi, are located along the 

Puarenga Stream, as well as the tourist attractions of Whakarewarewa Village and Te 

Puia. The Puarenga Stream at Whakarewarewa is used for swimming and bathing and 

has significant cultural values (Kusabs and Shaw, 2008). 

Geothermal inputs occur at the urban fringe and due to its acidic nature, high turbidity, 

and elevated metal concentrations the stream is considered thermal from this point till it 

reaches Lake Rotorua. 

Plantation forestry dominates to the east of the catchment and pastoral farming to the 

west. The lower catchment is dominated by urban land-use forming Rotorua City. 

There are a number of industrial land-uses in the catchment but the dominant ones are 

the 120 ha Red Stag sawmill (formerly Waipa Mill) located in the Waipa sub-catchment 

and the Rotorua District Council landfill located in the Tureporepo sub-catchment. In 

addition, treated wastewater from the Rotorua wastewater treatment plant is irrigated in 

the Whakarewarewa forest within the Waipa sub-catchment. 

Following the distribution of this report a meeting (and site inspection) was held with 

Red Stag management on 5 October 2011. At the time of writing this paper, a separate 

meeting with Rotorua District Council is scheduled for Monday 14 November to discuss 

the report findings and implications, and how some of the issues can be addressed. 

We also intend to meet separately with Thourangi representatives on the same day, 

subject to confirmation. 

5 Summary of Findings 

5.1 Faecal Contamination 

Page 66 of 92

The stream had previously been assessed against Ministry for the Environment’s (MfE) 

recreational water quality guidelines and classified as ‘poor’ for recreational use. This 

means that the stream is generally not suitable for swimming, particularly for the young 

and unwell. 

Increases in faecal contamination occur with moderate to heavy rainfall but are 

otherwise rarely above recreational guidelines. The indicator bacteria E.coli has been 

found in levels in the stream that confirm the standard health advice given by the 

Regional Council and Toi Te Ora Public Health, to avoid swimming within 48 hours 

after rainfall. 

Forest wastewater irrigation is increasing the load of faecal indicator bacteria in the 

Puarenga Stream through the Waipa and Kauaka streams; however E.coli levels 

during baseflow conditions generally remain below the recreational guideline. The 

Kauaka Stream also has added bacterial loading from pastoral agriculture which 

increases its bacterial contribution relative to the Waipa. 

Loading to both these streams as a result of the land treatment system is expected to 

reduce as upgrades to the wastewater treatment plant come into effect. The new 

membrane bioreactor (MBR) is currently being commissioned (November 2011) and 

will treat one third of the wastewater treatment plant effluent to a high standard, 

reducing the bacterial levels of this effluent stream. This should reduce the levels of 

bacteria discharged to the wastewater irrigation scheme. 

There is little evidence that landfill leachate is impacting the Tureporepo Stream, but 

the stream does have elevated faecal indicator levels, particularly during rainfall. 

Increased faecal indicator levels could impact on downstream users and requires 

further investigation, particularly as comparatively much of faecal loading to the 

Puarenga Stream comes from the Tureporepo. 

Historically, there has been elevated faecal loading from some pastoral farming areas 

and it is likely there is still significant contribution from this land use in certain areas. 

Riparian management, farming compliance checks and regulation are some of the 

mechanisms in place to help further reduce the faecal loading from this source. 

Recreational use of the area has also been increasing due to the mountain-bike park 

located adjacent to tributaries of the Waipa Stream. A lack of toilet facilities, combined 

with increased usage of the forest could also be contributing to faecal contamination. 

5.2 Metals and PCP 

During May, June and July 2011 further chemical monitoring was carried out. Samples 

were taken from the bridge and further upstream to assess contaminant concentrations 

in the Puarenga Stream sediments and waters, one during dry weather and the other 

during rainfall. Comparison of the sediments results indicates metal concentrations well 

below guideline levels for the protection of aquatic organisms. The situation is similar 

for water with the exception of total chromium taken during wet weather. 

Sediment samples taken from the Whakarewarewa bridge contain higher arsenic and 

mercury levels compared to the Hemo Gorge, consistent with influences from the 

geothermal field affecting the downstream site. Concentrations of arsenic and boron in 

the water samples are similarly geothermally influenced. No PCP was detected at the 

bridge. 

Toi Te Ora considers that there may be some small risk to penny divers if they were to 

ingest sediment over a prolonged period, as a result of placing coins in their mouth. 

Page 67 of 92

6 Actions 

The following summarises the work undertaken to date by the Regional Council in the 

last four months to better quantify contamination in the Puarenga Stream and 

catchment. 

6.1 Red Stag timber mill 

Council officers have met with Red Stag and reviewed their current monitoring. 

Regional Council has requested further monitoring information and asked Red Stag to 

carry out work to reduce the discharge of sediment to the stream during rainfall events, 

from one cesspit in particular. The site will be revisited again in January 2012 to check 

that the work has been completed. 

6.2 Dairy farms 

The three dairy farms in the catchment were visited on 2 November 2011. Two farms 

had ‘low risk’ non-compliance issues, and the other was complying with their resource 

consent. The two non-complying properties are scheduled for a follow up visit on 1 


6.3 Rotorua District Council 

An abatement notice was issued in June 2011 requiring various actions including an 

audit of the forest wastewater irrigation system. The final date for completion of this 

work is 30 November 2011. 

BOPRC staff will be meeting with Rotorua District Council on 14 November 2011 to 

follow up further on landfill and forest wastewater irrigation issues. 

7 Conclusion 

Data presented in the investigation suggest the primary risk to human health as a result 

of coming into contact with the Puarenga Stream is faecal contamination, particularly 

after rainfall. Contamination comes from three key areas: 1. Tureporepo Stream 

(Rotorua District Council Landfill and upstream pastoral land-uses); 2. 

Waihauhaukakahi and Kauaka pastoral land-use; 3. Kauaka and Waipa downstream of 

the wastewater land treatment blocks. There may also be some risk for penny divers 

from ingesting sediment due to the relatively high natural levels of arsenic. 

Recommendations 

1. Tureporepo sub-catchment: As the Tureporepo sub-catchment is one of the more 

significant contributors to the faecal contamination in the Puarenga Stream; further 

understanding of the size and source of contributors should be a primary focus. The 

stormwater loading from landfill components needs better definition as well as better 

understanding of sources above the landfill. Management and reduction of the source 

contributors potentially could significantly reduce the faecal contaminant loading to the 

Puarenga Stream. 

2. Farming: Improvements to farm based infrastructure in or near streams, riparian 

exclusion from stock, and improvements in effluent management are some of the 

mechanisms that can reduce the bacterial load from pastoral farming. It is recommended 

Page 68 of 92


that investigation of areas where stock access to waterways occurs, in conjunction with 

further bacterial load definition of tributaries, to prioritise future land and stock 

management areas. 

3. Rotorua District Council Wastewater Irrigation: To reduce the bacterial loading from 

the forest wastewater irrigation programme there are a range of factors that could be 

investigated. Increased buffer zones around wetted areas; further inactivation (e.g. 

greater exposure time to sunlight, disinfection treatment); reduced loading to spray 

blocks (particularly during rainfall); and reducing loading to wastewater treatment plant 

through education. Some of these suggestions have been looked at already, and 

implementation is dependent on what potential gains could be achieved measured 

against the relative cost. The addition of the MBR treatment system may be one of the 

most significant improvements to be made in this regard and may render other potential 

improvements as insignificant by comparison. Rotorua District Council have 

acknowledged the need to find other suitable land areas for disposal of waste water in 

the long-term and this was discussed with Councillors at the OMR Committee Meeting 

held on 19 October 2011. 

4. Recreational use: Further investigation of recreational use in the Whakarewarewa 

Forest Park to determine whether adequate toilet facilities are provided for users. 

5. Communication: Regular communication of recreational surveillance monitoring results 

to the residents of Whakarewarewa Village will be one mechanism to help raise 

awareness of any microbiological recreation issues. Local hap should also be regularly 

updated on any on-going investigations and management actions. 

Next Steps 

1. Red Stag Timber Mill – Regional Council will follow up on the review of monitoring data, 

and confirm requested actions to reduce sediment runoff have been carried out. 

2. Rotorua District Council – Regional Council are meeting with RDC on 14 November 

2011 to examine outstanding issues and progress. 

a) Landfill – Regional Council will be carrying out further investigation of stormwater 

runoff to determine the impact on bacterial loading. 

b) Forest Wastewater Irrigation – RDC presented to the OMR Committee in October 

2011 on its intended next steps to comply with consent requirements. Staff will 

continue to evaluate the performance of the wastewater disposal system as the 

improvements are implemented. 

3. Dairy Farms – Regional Council will be undertaking follow up site visits to the two of the 

three dairy farms in the catchment which weren’t considered to be fully complying with 

consent requirements. 

Sam Weiss 

Project Implementation Officer 

 

for Pollution Prevention Manager 

 


Click 

Page 69 of 92

$PuarengaMemoSeptembe.2691.1110103743$ 

APPENDIX 

Puarenga Memo September 2011 - Draft working 

document 

APPENDIX - Puarenga Memo Sept ember 2011 - D raft working document 

Page 71 of 92

From: Paul Scholes Date: 12 September 2011 

File Ref: 

Subject: 

A745046 

Update on Puarenga Stream Investigation 

DRAFT 


In May 2011 a member of the public took some soil and water samples from sites in the Puarenga 

catchment to investigate if water contamination might be occurring and in particular causing health 

issues for the Whakarewarewa penny divers. The issue was explored in the media on Mori TV 

and TV3 and consequently the Toi Te Ora District Health Medical Officer, Jim Millar, called a 

meeting with relevant agencies to establish if there was a health issue. Jim Millar had not received 

any health complaints related to recreational use of the Puarenga Stream, but wanted more 

information to determine the current health risks. 

Since May 2011 Bay of Plenty Regional Council has undertaken some extra sampling to further 

characterise the quality of the Puarenga Stream and its tributaries. This information, together with 

regional monitoring data and resource consent data the Bay of Plenty Regional Council collects in 

the catchment, is presented in this report to help identify and quantify contaminant sources and 

their impacts as well as provide a focus for on-going investigations. 

Investigation into potential health effects from contaminants entering the water of the Puarenga 

Stream and its tributaries has focused on contaminants known to be present historically, or those 

that are heavily used currently (i.e. timber mill associated chemicals: PCP, arsenic, chromium and 

copper); and indicators of faecal contamination. 

2 Puarenga Stream and Catchment 

Three marae, Te Pakira, Hinemihi, and Hurunga O Te Rangi, are located along the Puarenga, as 

well as the tourist attractions of Whakarewarewa Village and Te Puia. The Puarenga Stream at 

Whakarewarewa is used for swimming and bathing and has significant cultural values (Kusabs and 

Shaw, 2008). 

The Puarenga catchment is approximately 82.1 km 2 with 46.2% of the catchment in forestry, 

30.3% in pasture and 16.9% in indigenous vegetation (Figure 1). The catchment is defined by a 

rhyolitic dome to the east and Mamaku ignimbrite to the west and in-filled with sediments and 

pyroclastics in between. 

Plantation forestry dominates to the east of the catchment and pastoral farming to the west. The 

lower catchment is dominated by urban land-use forming Rotorua City. Geothermal inputs occur at 

the urban fringe and due to the acidic nature, high turbidity, and elevated metal concentrations the 

stream is considered thermal from this point till it reaches Lake Rotorua. 

The catchment has five main sub-catchments with varying flows (Table 1). The Waipa, 

Tureporepo, Waihauhaukakakhi and Kauaka all merge to become the Puarenga Stream. Municipal 

water abstraction is undertaken in the Waipa Stream and has been for over a century. 

DRAFT ONLY

Table1 

Baseflow in Puarenga catchment. 

Stream 

Baseflow (l/s) 

Main stem 1700 

Waipa (includes South) 580 

Waipa South 70 

Kauaka 250 

Tureporepo 230 

Waihauhaukakahi 640 

Note: based on 1976/77 gaugings from White et al, 2007 

There are a number of industrial land-uses in the catchment but the dominant ones are the 77 ha 

Red Stag sawmill (formerly Waipa Mill) located in the Waipa sub-catchment and the Rotorua 

District Council landfill located in the Tureporepo sub-catchment. In addition, treated wastewater 

from the Rotorua wastewater treatment plant is irrigated in the Whakarewarewa forest within the 

Waipa sub-catchment. 

Figure 1 

Puarenga surface water catchment and land use 

Kusabs and Shaw (2008) undertook an ecological assessment of the catchment in 2008. The 

assessment focused on fish and koura, terrestrial vegetation and avifauna. 

DRAFT ONLY

The report concluded that the Puarenga Stream and its tributaries have a low fisheries value with 

only three species recorded in the 16 fish surveys. Those were brook char (Salvelinus fontinalis), 

small rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and shortfin eel (Anguilla australis). Small koura or 

freshwater crayfish (Paranephrops planifrons) have also been recorded on occasion. The 

diadromous fish populations are prevented from migration up the stream due to the geothermal 

barrier. 

For further detail on terrestrial and avifauna and further historical context on the ecology of the 

area refer to Kusabs and Shaw (2008). 

3 Environmental Quality Monitoring 

The Bay of Plenty Regional Council undertakes monthly water quality monitoring on the Puarenga 

Stream as part of the Natural Environment Regional Monitoring Network (NERMN) and weekly 

monitoring during October to March as part of the bathing surveillance programme. 

3.1 Bathing Surveillance Programme 

A variety of organisms are potentially present in excreta such as viruses, bacteria, protozoa (single 

cell organisms), and helminths (nematodes). These can reach recreational waters via a variety of 

pathways and in variable concentrations. 

The impacts of pathogenic micro-organisms on human health are most commonly manifest as 

gastro-enteritis, but other common illnesses include respiratory problems and skin rashes. Serious 

illness can also be attributed to infection from pathogens contained in waters, for example, 

Hepatitis A, giardiasis, cryptosporidiosis, campylobacteriosis, and salmonellosis (MfE/MoH, 2003). 

Indicator micro-organisms are used to assess recreational water quality as it is difficult and 

impractical to measure all potentially pathogenic micro-organisms. Indicator micro-organisms give 

an indirect measure of pathogen levels. The bacteriological indicators chosen are associated with 

the gut of warm blooded animals and are common in excreta. While these indicator bacteria are 

not generally harmful themselves, they do indicate the presence of harmful pathogens. In 

freshwaters the indicator bacteria Escherichia coli (E.coli) is used. 

A three-tiered management framework has been adopted to help signal when recreational waters 

are potentially at risk to users. The system uses the colours green (safe mode), orange (cautionary 

mode) and red (unsafe mode) to denote the risk to users. 

The weekly bathing surveillance monitoring occurs on the Puarenga Stream off Sala Road. The 

weekly monitoring information is updated on the Bay of Plenty Regional Council website and alert 

levels reported to Toi Te Ora Public Health the day after sampling. Bathing surveillance over the 

summer months shows the Puarenga to have relatively high bacterial levels compared to most 

other streams in the region (Figure 2). 

The Suitability for Recreation Grade for the Puarenga following the Microbiological Water Quality 

Guidelines (2003) for 2007 to 2011, is ‘poor’. The advice associated with this grading is generally 

not okay for swimming, as indicated by historical results. Swimming should be avoided, particularly 

by the very young, the very old and those with compromised immunity. Permanent warning signs 

may be erected at these sites, although councils may monitor these sites weekly and post 

temporary warnings. Figure 3 shows the percentage days in compliance with the guidelines over 

the last five years, with some years being worse than others. 

An extensive survey of Puarenga catchment was undertaken in October and November of 2000. At 

this time the high E.coli concentrations were found in the Waiotomanga Stream and its tributary the 

Te Kahikatea, as well as above the landfill (McIntosh and Gibbons-Davies, 2001). 

DRAFT ONLY

Rivers 

Waimapu River @ Greerton Park 

Pongakawa River 

Ngongotaha Stream @ Railway Bridge 

Kaiate Stream @ Falls 

Utuhina River @ Lake Road 

Puarenga Stream @ Scion 

Ngamuwahine @ reserve 

Rururanga @ Park 

Tarawera River @ Boyce Park 

Mclarens Falls 

Waiteti Stream @ u/s river mouth 

Waioeka River @ SH2 Bridge 

Otara River @ SH33 Bridge 

Wairoa River @ Bethlehem 

Tuapiro River @ McMillan Rd 

Rangitaiki River @ Thornton Domain 

Whakatane River @ Landing Rd 

Uretara @ Katikati Boat Ramp 

Kaituna River @ Waitangi 

Waioeka @ Gorge Mouth 

Waimana River @ Gorge Picnic area 

Awahou River @ Glouster Rd 

Rotoehu Soda Springs 

Rangitaiki @ Te Teko Bridge 

Ohau Channel @ SH33 Bridge 

Whakatane River @ Ruatoki Bridge 

Harapara @ SH33 Bridge 

Kaituna River @ Trout Pool 

Median 

25%-75% 

Non-Outlier Range 

Outliers 

Extremes 

0.5 5.0 50.0 500.0 5000.0 

E.coli (cfu/100ml) 

Figure 2 

Box-whisker plots of E.coli concentrations, river sites 2010/2011 bathing 

season. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3 Percentage days Puarenga near Scion is in compliance with red alert bathing 

guideline over the bathing surveillance season. 

3.2 Natural Environment Regional Monitoring Network 

Monthly monitoring occurs in the Puarenga near Scion. A range of physico-chemical parameters 

are measured as well as indicator bacteria. Most physical parameters are within the relevant 

Regional Water and Land Plan classification (aquatic ecosystem) with the exception of turbidity. 

DRAFT ONLY

Elevated turbidity is in part due to the geothermal discharges. Nutrients are at levels that can 

increase nuisance biological growths; however due to the nature of moving bedload in this stream 

nuisance growths are not observed. 

Figure 4 displays the monthly E.coli data on an annual basis and shows that median E.coli 

concentrations are below the recreation guideline alert levels and 75 th percentiles have been above 

the guideline twice in the last 18 years. 

Recreation guideline red alert mode 

Figure 4 Box-whisker plot of annual log E.coli concentrations, Puarenga Stream at Scion (median, 

25 & 75 percentiles shown). 

3.3 Supplementary Monitoring 

Further monitoring of a range of parameters in the Puarenga Stream, including metals and E.coli, 

was undertaken during May, June and July 2011. 

Physico-chemical Monitoring 

Samples were taken from the Whakarewarewa penny diving bridge and further upstream to assess 

contaminant concentrations in the Puarenga sediments and waters (Figure 5). Two sets of 

samples were taken, one during a period of dry weather so the stream is at baseflow conditions 

and the second during rainfall during the rising limb of the hydrograph. Results are presented in 

tables 2 and 3. 

DRAFT ONLY

Figure 5 

Monitoring Site location map. 

Comparison of sediment results with the Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and 

Marine Water Quality (2000) (ANZECC Guidelines) indicates metal concentrations are well below 

guideline levels for the protection of aquatic organisms (Table 2). The situation is similar for water 

DRAFT ONLY

samples (Table 3) with the exception of total chromium in samples taken during wet weather, 

which exceed the ANZECC trigger for chromium VI at both sites. Chromium III may also be present 

in these samples, which is less toxic than chromium VI; therefore samples may still be within the 

ANZECC guideline. 

Sediment samples taken from the Whakarewarewa Bridge contain higher arsenic and mercury 

levels compared to Hemo Gorge, this is consistent with influences from the geothermal field 

affecting the Whakarewarewa site. Concentrations of arsenic and boron in the water samples are 

similarly geothermal influenced. The influence of geothermal waters can also be seen in the pH, 

temperature and conductivity differences. 

Although turbidity 1 levels are the same at both sites on the same day, suspended solids 2 levels are 

lower downstream at the Whakarewarewa Bridge. This may be explained by the geothermal 

waters in this area exhibiting a flocculation effect. Suspended solids levels showed little change 

from dry to a rainfall affected sample although the waters were visibly more turbid during rainfall, 

as shown by the differences in turbidity on the two sampling days. Some of this discolouration 

originates from the Red Stag site during rainfall conditions. 

Table 2 Sediment concentration results for Puarenga Stream at Whakarewarewa Bridge 

(downstream site) and Hemo Gorge (upstream site). 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3 Water concentration results for Puarenga Stream at Whakarewarewa Bridge 

(downstream site) and Hemo Gorge (upstream site). 

1 Turbidity is a measure of the scattering and absorption of incident light by particles contained in the water 

column. It is commonly determined by nephelometry which gives the values Nephelometric Turbidity Units 

(NTU). 

2 Suspended solids is a measure of the weight of material contained in a sample of the water column. 

DRAFT ONLY

Bacteriological Monitoring 

Water column E.coli concentrations were measured at five locations, two on the main-stem of the 

Puarenga and one site on each of the three main tributaries before they enter the Puarenga mainstem. 

Samples were taken during dry and wet weather. 

Dry weather sampling found E.coli concentrations to be similar, with the highest in the Waipa 

Stream (Table 4). All sites were below the recreation guideline orange alert mode (260 

E.coli/100ml). However, during rainfall all sites exceeded the recreational guidelines red alert mode 

but again E.coli levels were similar for all sites. 

Table 4 E.coli concentration results for Puarenga Stream at Whakarewarewa Bridge 

(downstream site) and Hemo Gorge (upstream site, and above the confluence of the three main 

tributaries of the Puarenga Stream. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sampling over the wider catchment was carried out on 12 July 2011 after 14.5 mm rainfall 

overnight and results are shown in Table 5. Under lighter rainfall condition than experienced in 

June, the Kauaka and Tureporepo Streams (Figure 5) had higher E.coli concentrations than the 

other tributaries. 

Table 5 

E.coli concentration results for Puarenga catchment 

DRAFT ONLY

Using the water balance/flow data from White et al (2007) (see Table 1) and the E.coli 

concentrations measured in June/July a picture of bacterial loading develops. Bacterial loads from 

the dry weather situation are only a fraction of the wet weather loading in the catchment (Figure 6 

a)), which indicates the catchment bacterial loading is highly responsive to rainfall. Both rain 

impacted loading results indicate the greatest portion of the loading is from the Waihuahuakakahi 

and Tureporepo catchments, although part of the Waihuahuakakahi sub-catchment, the 

Waiotokomanga, has a relatively small loading due its low flow (Figure 6 b)). Wet weather loadings 

are based on baseflow conditions and are likely to be smaller when factoring in dilution due to the 

added stormflow component. 

a) b) 

Figure 6 

rainfall. 

Estimated E.coli loads a) wet and dry conditions, June 2011; b) July 2011 after 

Potential bacterial sources are varied. Waipa is potentially impacted by Red Stag and Rotorua 

District Council (RDC) spray irrigation of effluent; Kauaka Stream has effluent irrigation for RDC as 

well as significant dairy farms in the upper catchment and sheep and beef grazing; the 

Waihuahuakakahi catchment is predominantly pastoral farming; and the Tureporepo contains the 

RDC landfill as well as sheep and beef farms and some dairy grazing. 

Microbial source tracking, a new technique used to identify the source of bacteria, has been used 

to help identify the dominant bacterial sources. Sampling occurred on 12 July 2011 (see Table 5 

for E.coli results, Figure 5 for locations) and results are presented in Table 6. All results were 

positive for the universal Bacteroidales marker (Bac32) indicating the presence of faecal 

contamination. 

Table 6 Microbial source tracking results, Puarenga catchment, July 2011. 

Site Ruminant Wildfowl Gull Human Human 

Methanobrevibacter 

Human 

DRAFT ONLY

Bacteroidales smithii Polyomavirus 

Waipa Neg Neg Neg Positive Neg Neg 

Waipa @ Hill Rd Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg Neg 

Kauaka Positive Neg Neg Positive Neg Neg 

Waitokomanga Positive Neg Neg Positive Neg Neg 

Tureporepo Positive Positive Positive Positive Neg Neg 

The lower Waipa Stream tested positive for the most common human marker, whilst in the upper 

catchment, where E.coli indicates the presence of faecal contamination, the human marker was 

not detected. A sample from the bottom of the Kauaka tested positive for ruminant marker and the 

human Bacteroidales marker. The human source is likely be from the wastewater irrigation blocks 

located between the Kauaka and Waipa tributaries, and pastoral farming is undertaken at the head 

of the catchment explaining the ruminant marker. 

Results from the Waitokomanga were positive for the ruminant marker, which is usual for an area 

dominated by dairy and beef farming. , A human marker was also found, this is unusual as there 

are few residences in this part of the catchment, and it is probably present due to a failing septic 

tank system. The Tureporepo was positive across all tested markers, implicating the landfill as a 

source of bacterial contamination, with disposal of many waste streams and a large transient 

population of gulls. 

Possible contaminated sites 

In May and June 2011, the regional council sampled various sites in the catchment where we had 

information from a local iwi suggesting contamination might be present. The results are presented 

in Table 9 and 10. 

Table 9 

Soil concentration results for various sites in Puarenga catchment 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Results for the first three sites (‘Old piping’, ‘Pond dump site’ and ‘Irrigated wetland’) presented in 

Table 9 are consistent with background soil levels and do not indicate the presence of 

contamination. However, the results from the ‘Tabletop’ and the ‘Stream bank’ do show elevated 

DRAFT ONLY

levels of contaminants. The results indicate that the wood waste dumped at the tabletop site did 

contain a range of contaminants including arsenic, chromium and copper. PCP was not detected in 

soils taken from the tabletop site. 

Leachate was also collected at the ‘Tabletop’ site and subsequently analysed. The results are 

presented in Table 10. PCP, TCT and chromium were not detected. Arsenic and copper were only 

detected in the total results. 

Leachate generation from the sites will depend on a variety of factors, including pH of the soils, the 

water table height, and solubility of mineral constituents. These factors have not been investigated. 

The location of the samples is presented in Appendix I. 

Table 10 

Leachate concentration results from ‘Tabletop’ dump site 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 Potential Contaminant Sources 

4.1 Land Treatment System (LTS) – Rotorua District Council 

Rotorua District Council (RDC) hold consent 60739 allowing the discharge of treated effluent from 

the Rotorua wastewater treatment plant to the Whakarewarewa Forest. Effluent is sprayed into the 

forest with the objective of reducing the nutrient and bacterial load to Lake Rotorua. 

Spray irrigation areas are shown in Figure 7 and located north of the Waipa Stream and between 

the Waipa and Kauaka Stream. Irrigation is limited to an application on a block for a maximum of 

24 hours at 5mm/hour, with a maximum of 120mm/day on any specific sub area (condition 3.2). 16 

spray blocks over 265 ha are operated on a rotational basis. The total spray block area, including 

buffer zones, is 433ha. Spray areas have a vegetated 15-30 metre wide buffer zones to minimise 

spray drift. Approximately 20,000 m 3 of effluent on average is sprayed per day. 

DRAFT ONLY

Figure 7 

Location of spray irrigation blocks In Whakarewarewa Forest. 

Consent conditions require a number of checks and balances to ensure that any potential adverse 

effects from the activity are minimised. These include: monitoring of quality and rate of discharge; 

operation undertaken in accordance with Land Treatment Management plan; adherence to buffer 

zones; Waipa stream monitoring (upstream and downstream); nutrient limits; and others. 

For the purpose of this investigation, the focus is on faecal indicator monitoring in the Waipa 

Stream and potential downstream impacts. For further information on other aspects of consent, 

such as the nutrient contribution, please refer to Park and Holst (2009). 

Faecal coliform and more recently E.coli monitoring has been undertaken as condition of the 

consent. E.coli results are presented in Figure 8 for the Waipa Stream upstream and downstream 

of the spray irrigation blocks. The E.coli levels in the spray effluent (averaged over a week) are 

also presented. Some statistics on the E.coli concentrations in the downstream Waipa Stream site 

are given in Table 7. 

DRAFT ONLY

Figure 8 E.coli concentrations upstream and downstream of land treatment system, Waipa 

Stream and averaged weekly effluent data. 

E.coli concentrations downstream of the wastewater Land Treatment Site (LTS) are on average 

around seven times higher than upstream (2002 to 2011). Concentrations of E.coli at all sampling 

points have remained relatively consistent for a number of years with no apparent increasing or 

decreasing trends. Only six of the 110 samples taken downstream of the spray irrigation block over 

the past nine years have been greater than the 550 E.coli/100ml recreational guideline. 

Table 7 

Statistics for E.coli data for downstream site, Waipa Stream. 

Year 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 

N 12 12 12 12 12 12 10 12 12 4 

Mean 253 520 59 79 137 165 234 167 128 135 

Median 105 70 47 59 110 110 89 113 98 105 

25% 82 49 30 55 82 86 71 75 78 70 

75% 115 133 71 95 123 163 195 166 165 170 

Minimum 66 40 11 17 24 22 21 40 28 70 

Maximum 1900 2900 170 200 520 520 1000 560 310 260 

An abatement notice was issued to RDC on 7 June 2011. This was largely issued in response to 

nitrogen levels discharged to the Waipa stream being in excess of the consent limit of 30 tonnes 

per annum. Work to comply with the directives in the notice is still underway. A high level meeting, 

and forest site visit, involving the Chief Executives and other senior management of both RDC and 

the BOPRC was held on 31 August 2011 to fully brief parties on the situation, to discuss the 

abatement notice and plant upgrades. 

4.2 Red Stag Timber Limited 

DRAFT ONLY

Red Stag Mill is located in between tributaries of the Waipa Stream to the south-east of Rotorua. 

Over the period of time that this mill site has been operating, various chemicals have been used in 

different ways to act as antisapstain preservative and to preserve the sawn timbers against rot and 

insect attack. 

Historic use of chemicals has resulted in contamination of both land and groundwater. 

Pentochlorophenol or PCP was a commonly used chemical, now not in use, found in groundwaters 

around the site. Groundwater was collected and pumped to a Rayox plant for decontamination for 

several years. Now groundwater is pumped to a storage pond and treatment from uv radiation is 

enough to treat the residual levels of PCP remaining in groundwaters before it is irrigated to the 

forest. 

Condition 8.1 of Red Stag’s consent 60451 requires monitoring of groundwater for a range of 

parameters including PCP. The highest level of groundwater PCP was detected in 2000, when the 

average for the year was 2.34 g/m 3 . Subsequent remediation has resulted in the average of the 

last two years of data dropping to 0.06 g/m 3 i.e. current groundwater PCP levels are less than 3% 

of what they were about ten years ago (BOPRC monitoring data). 

Remediation has also resulted in PCP levels in the Waipa Stream falling from about 0.04 g/m 3 to 

about 0.0002 g/m 3 , significantly less than the ANZECC trigger value of 0.01 g/m 3 (95% level of 

protection) (Kusabs and Shaw, 2008). More recent results (Mori TV) have detected PCP in Waipa 

stream water at 0.0004 g/m 3 however again well below the ANZECC trigger value. 

The Red Stag mill, like many other timber treatment mills, currently uses a chemical mix of copper, 

chromium, arsenic and boron (CCAB) to treat timber. In addition to PCP these are the chemicals 

that require monitoring under the consents Red Stag Timber holds. 

Comparison of CCAB chemicals in water against the ANZECC 95% protection of species guideline 

for Waipa Stream sites upstream and downstream of the mill for the last four years of monitoring 

shows all concentrations are below their respective ANZECC guidelines. Concentrations of PCP in 

the stream samples (both upstream and downstream) are below the level of analytical detection in 

the last three years (seven monitoring rounds), with one exception for the downstream site on 

15/01/2009. The concentration of PCP was just above the analytical detection limit at 0.00031 g/m 3 

which is well below the ANZECC 95% protection of species guideline (0.01 g/m 3 ). 

Copper, chromium, arsenic and PCP are also monitored in sediments upstream and downstream 

of the mill in the Waipa Stream as part of the mill’s consent conditions. Results of this monitoring 

are shown in Figure 9. Copper and chromium remain well below the ANZECC ISQG-Low trigger 

value for sediments, but recent arsenic results downstream of the mill have been over this trigger 

although remain under the ANZECC ISQG-High guideline. Recent results suggest an increase in 

levels of CCA elements in sediments downstream of the mill may be a result of unseasonably high 

rainfall over summer. Bay of Plenty Regional Council is still working with Red Stag to investigate 

the causes of this increase. 

DRAFT ONLY

Figure 9 Arsenic, copper and chromium concentrations in Waipa Stream sediments, 

upstream and downstream of the Red Stag Mill. 

As the groundwater effluent is spray irrigated into a forest area between the Waipa and Kauaka 

Streams quarterly monitoring is also undertaken on the Kauaka Stream. Chromium, copper and 

PCP levels have remained below detection limits; arsenic has had an average concentration of 

0.002 g/m 3 from 2000 to 2011 which is well below the ANZECC 95% protection of species 

guideline of 0.013 g/m 3 . 

The permit holder’s consultant (Opus) undertook an invertebrate survey of the Waipa Stream in 

December 2010. Invertebrate surveys can be a test of stream water quality and ecological 

integrity. The survey shows a significant difference in invertebrate numbers and diversity between 

the upstream and downstream sites, and between the 2007 survey compared to the 2010 survey. 

This possibly indicates a decline in stream health downstream of the mill; however the survey was 

undertaken at above median flow conditions, which may not be the best representation of actual 

conditions. Also, there are some habitat differences between the upstream and downstream sites, 

which reduce the validity of comparative analysis. Statistical comparison between surveys has also 

been made using 2007 winter data with 2010 summer data which may also contribute to any 

difference. 

4.3 Landfill – Rotorua District Council 

DRAFT ONLY

The consent holder is required by consent 23996 to monitor the effects of the entire landfill 

operation upon surface water quality by sampling at the following sites: 

• Tributary of the Waihuahuakakahi Stream at the State Highway 30 culvert (SWSS A). 

• The Tureporepo Stream at base flow above (SWSS C) and below (SWSS B) the Rotorua 

District Landfill 

• The ‘Dog Pound’ Stream immediately downstream of stormwater pond (SWSS D). 

Comparison of upstream and downstream (one summer and one winter sample) data for the past 

five years shows little evidence of any leachate contamination from the landfill (Figure 10). 

Summer 2008 did see elevated chloride, ammonium, faecal coliform, and conductivity results in the 

downstream site (SWSS B) partially as a result of much lower summer flows upstream of the 

landfill (SWSS C). However, at this time it is possible that stormwater or related discharge from the 

landfill was being experienced. Ammonium was still well under levels that might have toxic effects 

on aquatic organisms, but faecal coliform levels were highly elevated and potentially impacting 

downstream users. Since summer 2008, faecal coliform levels have been under 550 n/100ml. The 

bathing red alert level is 550 E.coli/100ml. E.coli are a sub-species of faecal coliform and are likely 

to be similar in number. During baseflow conditions, faecal levels are similar upstream as to 

downstream. 

The annual report from RDC as required by the consent shows that most determinands measured 

at SWSS A on the tributary of the Waihuahuakakahi Stream are elevated with respect to other 

surface water sampling locations measured as part of the consent. Ammonium was relatively high 

for the summer of 2011 (1.49 g/m 3 ), but still under the ANZECC (2000) freshwater trigger of 2.26 

g/m 3 for pH of 6.9. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DRAFT ONLY

Figure 10 

Stream. 

Upstream (SWSS C) and downstream (SWSS B) monitoring data for Tureporepo 

DRAFT ONLY

Faecal contamination is also elevated in the tributary of the Waihuahuakakahi and has often been 

above recommended contact recreation guidelines. Together with the elevated levels and bacterial 

contaminant sources elsewhere in this sub-catchment, there is a downstream impact on water 

quality, particularly under saturated conditions. 

Dog Pound Stream is reported as having no indication of leachate. Levels of nitrogen species, 

conductivity, and chloride are similar to the upstream site, SWSS C, with some exceptions. 

Bacterial levels are reported as likely to be caused by upstream runoff. This may be the case, 

sampling further upstream could help determine this. 

Table 9 

Indicator bacteria concentrations from tributaries and ponds near RDC landfill. 

12 July 2011 E.coli (cfu/100ml) FC (cfu/100ml) 

Tureporepo below SWSS C & SWSS D 2400 2700 

Tureporepo @ SH30 2200 2200 

14 July 2011 E.coli (cfu/100ml) FC (cfu/100ml) 

Tureporepo above SWP B 4600 4600 

SWP B 12100 12300 

SWSS A 2100 2500 

11 August 2011 E.coli (cfu/100ml) FC (cfu/100ml) 

Tureporepo @ SH30 (S2) 2000 2000 

SWSS (A) 1100 1500 

Old pond SWP(A) 33,000 33,000 

Tureporepo SWSS C 870 870 

Tureporepo – Dog Pound Stream 430 430 

Tureporepo trib2 150 300 

Tureporepo below SWSS B 2000 2000 

Recent monitoring by Bay of Plenty Regional Council in the Tureporepo catchment shows surface 

waters can have high bacterial loading (Table 9). Discharges were observed from current 

stormwater sediment pond (SWP B) and the old stormwater sediment pond (SWP A)– both the 

sediment ponds had a high bacterial concentration. Elevated bacterial loads were also found 

during rain events above and below the discharge from SWP B, and also on the tributary of the 

Waihuahuakakahi at SWSS A. Sampling above the landfill at SWSS C and Dog Pound stream also 

showed elevated faecal indicator bacterial levels, indicating that some contamination is occurring 

above the landfill. 

4.4 Dairy Consents 

Currently there are three dairy farms within the Puarenga Stream catchment. These are the 

Duorock Dairies Ltd, Winiata and Parekarangi A4 & Other Block dairies. Combined, these dairies 

milk approximately 1900 cows per season on average, with two of the three farms milking about 

1700 of those. 

Consent compliance on the three farms has been mixed over the years. Two of the three sites 

have non-compliance issues recorded over the last couple of seasons. Regional Council 

compliance staff are working with farm managers to overcome these issues. All three sites will 

continue to receive regular unannounced inspections. 

In September 2009, an abatement notice was issued to one of the farms in the Puarenga stream 

catchment, specifically the Waihuahuakakahi catchment. The notice required works be undertaken 

on the farm’s effluent sump system, which was later addressed by the installation of a new lined 

pond. In addition to the sump issue, the abatement notice also required attention be given to the 

effluent application rate so that it complied with the requirements of the consent and did not cause 

DRAFT ONLY

un off into any watercourse. The abatement notice is still in place which means that the consent 

holder must continue to comply with its requirements. It is likely to be cancelled if the site is in full 

compliance after this year’s inspection. 

4.5 Land Use 

The majority of land management works were done in this catchment under the Kaituna Catchment 

Control Scheme between about 1980 and 1991 when the riparian margins of the main streams on 

ten major properties were fenced to exclude stock, and planted. Some areas of existing native 

bush were also fenced, and stock crossings and alternative water supplies were established. 

Routine monitoring shows that fences are in various states of repair and stock have accessed 

some protection areas. Not all properties were addressed by this scheme, and some streams and 

wetlands remain unprotected. 

More recently Environmental Programmes have been put in place on two of these properties to 

extend protection areas to improve water quality in the Puarenga Stream and Lake Rotorua. A 

schedule and budget has been agreed between Bay of Plenty Regional Council and the 

landowner, with financial assistance from Rotorua District Council and Nga Whenua Rhui. These 

works have been largely completed and funding for this programme will cease in 2014. 

Approximately 2710m of stream was fenced off in 2010, 345m in 2009, 1395m in 2008 and 1245m 

in 2007. The riparian margins have been re-vegetated, principally with native trees, shrubs and 

sedges. Two alternative water supplies have been installed. 

New initiatives offered by BOPRC that may assist with water quality are Riparian Management 

Plans, Lakes Protection Agreements and Biodiversity Management Plans. Two properties in the 

Puarenga catchment currently have proposals being scoped out under these schemes. In addition, 

Rule 9 of the Regional Water and Land Plan states that stock in the beds of rivers or streams in the 

catchment of the Rotorua Lakes is a discretionary activity, which requires a resource consent. 

5 Discussion and Conclusion 

Metals and PCP 

There are some natural sources of contamination in Rotorua. Quoting from a recent NIWA report 

(2011) “a unique aspect of the rohe of Te Arawa (Rotorua) is that natural geothermal activity is a 

significant source of elevated concentrations of heavy metals, which may accumulate in some kai 

species and represent a risk to consumers. Other sources of potentially toxic contaminants (e.g. 

heavy metals in stormwater, pesticides from agriculture) may also represent a risk to consumers of 

wild kai”. 

Recent monitoring of sediments and water at Whakarewarewa Village Bridge show levels of PCP 

and CCA metals in the rivers to be below trigger levels that would impact on aquatic organisms. 

The exception was chromium where one water sample was below the 95% trigger guideline for 

water but above the 80% trigger. Total chromium was analysed for and the ANZECC trigger levels 

are based upon chromium VI so it is possible that the sample still meets the 95% trigger guideline. 

Arsenic sediment levels have also been elevated downstream of Red Stag in recent sampling but 

this does not seem to have impacted metal levels in stream waters. Bay of Plenty Regional Council 

is working with Red Stag to find out the reason for this increase. 

There is an obvious increased concentration of some elements at the Whakarewarewa bridge due 

to the geothermal waters and such concentrations at this stream location may change intermittently 

with fluxes in geothermal activity. 

The 2011 RDC landfill annual compliance report concludes there is minor chemical contamination 

of the tributary of the Waihuahuakakahi Stream but little environmental degradation. This 

DRAFT ONLY

assumption has been made based on the stream being diluted at the Kauaka confluence, which 

does occur due to the relatively low flow in the tributary. However, for the rest of the tributary 

upstream from the confluence, landfill leachate may be having an impact as contaminants 

intermittently show levels above aquatic organism protection triggers. 

Conductivity, ammonium, chloride and cBOD levels indicate that stormwater is impacted by landfill 

activities, but only at levels that are likely to have only minor impacts on surface waters. 

Bacteria 

Increases in faecal contamination occur with moderate to heavy rainfall but are otherwise rarely 

above recreational guidelines. The indicator bacteria E.coli has been found in concentrations in 

the stream that confirm health advice given by the Regional Council and Toi Te Ora Public Health, 

to avoid swimming 48 hours after rainfall. At other times the Puarenga Stream shows E.coli levels 

below microbiological swimming water quality guidelines except the site monitored below the 

Whakarewarewa village, which has a poor suitability for recreation grading due to bacterial 

contamination. 

Mechanisms for bacterial loading onto the streams potentially follow two main pathways, overland 

flow via surface water conduits, groundwater, or a combination of both. Sinton et al (2005) found 

that substantial bacteria and viruses reach groundwater through macropores beneath effluent 

irrigation schemes on alluvial gravel formations. Although pumice sands are one of the better 

mediums for pathogen removal (Pang, 2009) rainfall can significantly increase microbial leaching. 

It is apparent that wastewater irrigation is increasing the loads of faecal indicator bacteria in the 

Puarenga through the Waipa and Kauaka Stream; however E.coli levels during baseflow 

conditions generally remain below the recreational guideline. The Kauaka Stream also has added 

bacterial loading from pastoral agriculture which increases its bacterial contribution relative to the 

Waipa. 

Loading to both these streams as a result of the land treatment system will improve as upgrades to 

the wastewater treatment plant come into effect. The new membrane bioreactor (MBR) is 

scheduled to start up in late 2011 and will treat one third of the wastewater treatment plant effluent 

to a high standard greatly reducing the bacterial concentration of this effluent stream. This should 

have a marked improvement on the levels of bacteria discharged to the irrigation scheme. 

There is little evidence that landfill leachate is impacting the Tureporepo Stream, but the stream 

has elevated faecal indicator levels particularly during rainfall. Elevated faecal indicator levels have 

been found in the sediment retention ponds; however elevated faecal levels are also experienced 

above the landfill in two of the three tributaries. 

Increased faecal indicator levels could have impacts on downstream users and requires further 

investigation, particularly as comparatively much of faecal loading to the Puarenga comes from the 

Tureporepo. Surface water samples and stormwater samples need to be taken at the same time to 

see what the potential impacts on the stream might be. 

Historically, there has been elevated faecal loading from some pastoral farming areas and it is 

likely there is still significant contribution from this land use in certain areas. Riparian management, 

farming compliance check and regulation are some of the mechanism in place to help further 

reduce the faecal loading from this source. 

Recreational use has been increasing due to the mountain-bike park located adjacent to tributaries 

of the Waipa Stream. Basic toilet facilities and increased usage of this facility could also be 

contributing to faecal contamination. 

Recommendations 

DRAFT ONLY

1. Tureporepo sub-catchment: As the Tureporepo sub-catchment is one of the more 

significant contributors to the faecal contamination in the Puarenga, further understanding 

of the size and source of contributions should be a primary focus. Emphasis on the 

stormwater loading from landfill components needs better definition as well as better 

understanding of sources above the landfill. Management and reduction of the source 

contributors potentially could significantly reduce the faecal contaminant loading to the 

Puarenga. Sampling of stormwater discharges and surface waters should occur 

concurrently and it would be useful if indicator bacteria were included in the analysis. 

2. Farming: Improvements to farm based infrastructure in or near streams, riparian exclusion 

from stock, and improvements in effluent management are some of the mechanisms that 

can reduce the bacterial load from pastoral farming. It is recommended that investigation of 

areas where stock access waterways occurs in conjunction with further bacterial load 

definition of tributaries, to prioritise future land and stock management areas. Further 

educational programmes for the farming community are also a mechanism recommended 

to help improve practices and reduce effluent runoff. 

3. RDC Wastewater Irrigation: To reduce the bacterial loading from the land treatment spray 

irrigation programme there are a range of factors that could be investigated. Increased 

buffer zones around wetted areas; further inactivation (e.g. greater exposure time to 

sunlight, disinfection treatment); reduced loading to spray blocks (particularly during 

rainfall); and reducing load to WWTP through education. Some of these suggestions have 

been looked at already, and implementation is dependent on what potential gains could be 

achieved measured against the relative cost. The addition of an MBR system (currently 

underway) may be one of the most significant improvements to be made in this regard and 

may render other potential improvements as insignificant by comparison. 

4. Recreational use: Further investigation of recreational useage in the Whakarewarewa 

Forest Park to determine whether adequate toilet facilities are provided for users. 

5. Communication: Regular communication of recreational surveillance monitoring to the 

residents of Whakarewarewa Village will be one mechanism to help raise awareness of any 

microbiological recreation issues. Local hap should also be regularly updated on any ongoing 

investigations and management actions. 

Next Steps 

1. Red Stag Timber Mill – BOPRC will be meeting with Red Stag to review monitoring data, 

and consent matters 

2. RDC Landfill – BOPRC will be carrying out further investigation of stormwater runoff to 

determine the impact on bacterial loading. 

3. RDC Wastewater Irrigation – RDC will be presenting to the BOPRC in October on its 

intended next steps to comply with consent requirements. BOPRC will continue to evaluate 

the performance of the wastewater disposal system as the improvements are implemented. 

4. Dairy Farm – BOPRC will be undertaking comprehensive site visits of all of the three dairy 

farms in the catchment. 

References 

DRAFT ONLY

Australian and New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC), 2000: Australian and 

New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality. 

Kusabs I. and W. Shaw, 2008: An ecological overview of the Puarenga Stream with particular 

emphasis on cultural values. 

McIntosh J. and J. Gibbons-Davies, 2001: Bathing Suitability Investigations Summer 2000/2001. 

Environment Bay of Plenty Environmental Report 2001/14. 

MfE/MoH, 2003: Microbiological Water Quality Guidelines for Marine and Freshwaters. Publication 

number: ME 944. 

Pang, L. 2009: Microbial Removal Rates in Subsurface Media Estimated From Published Studies 

of Field Experiments and Large Intact Cores. Journal of Environmental Quality 38:1531- 

1559 (2009). 

Park S. 2009: Rotorua District Council Spray Irrigation Compliance Report. Environment Bay of 

Plenty Environmental Publication 2009/13. 

Phillips N. and M. Stewaet, G. Olsen, C. Hickey, 2011: Risk assessment of contaminants in kai 

from within the Te Arawa rohe – Summary report. National Institute for Water and 

Atmosphere (NIWA). 

Sinton. L.W., R.R. Braithwaite, C.H. Hall, L. Pang, M.E. Close, & M.J. Noonnan (2005): Tracing the 

movement of irrigated effluent in an alluvial gravel aquifer. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 

(2005) 166: 287-301. 

White, P.A. and G.N. Kilgour, T. Hong, 2007: Lake Rotorua groundwater and Lake Rotorua 

nutrients Phase 3 science programme technical report. GNS Science Consultancy Report 

2007/220. 

DRAFT ONLY

Appendix I: Soil sampling results 

(refer next page) 

DRAFT ONLY

DRAFT ONLY




 


Report From: 

Helen Creagh, Consents Manager 

Quarterly Consents Update Report 


The purpose of this report is to update the committee on Consents Section activity for the period 

26 September (date since last report) to 4 November 2011. 



authority: 

1 Receives the report, Quarterly Consents Update Report. 

2 Activity Summary 

The following applications have been processed by the Bay of Plenty Regional Council 

under delegated authority during the period 26 September to 4 November 2011. 

Details about these decisions are contained in Appendix 1 to this report. 

Current period 

26 September 

to 4 November 

2011 

Previous 

period 1 July to 

23 September 

2011 

Financial year 1 

July to 4 

November 

Notified decisions 2 2 4 

Limited notified decisions 0 0 0 

Non-notified decisions 41 94 135 

Total decisions issued 43 96 139 

Mean processing days for 

non-notified decisions 

Mean end to end days for 

non-notified decisions 

59.9 11.3 25.9 

59.9 11.3 25.9 

Percentage of non-notified 90.24% 98.9% 97.04% 

Page 73 of 92

Current period 

26 September 

to 4 November 

2011 

Previous 

period 1 July to 

23 September 

2011 

Financial year 1 

July to 4 

November 

consents processed within 

timeframe 

Consents refused 0 1 1 

Certificates of compliance 

issued 

Certificates of compliance 

refused 

0 1 1 

0 0 0 

S357 objection decisions 1 0 1 

Surrenders 13 14 27 

Transfers 26 31 57 

Other consents activity that has occurred during the period 26 September to 4 

November 2011: 

Current Period: 26 

September to 4 

November 2011 

Previous Period: 1 July 

to 23 September 2011 

Applications received 42 89 

Notified consents 

advertised during period 

Notified and limited 

notified consent hearings 

held during period 

1 5 

0 1 

The status of consent applications being processed: 

As at 8 November 2011 As at 29 September 2011 

Applications received 34 34 

Notified consents under 

submission 

Limited notified consents 

under submission 

Further information 

required 

0 2 

1 0 

42 38 

Written approvals required 21 22 

Page 74 of 92

As at 8 November 2011 As at 29 September 2011 

Section 37 time extensions 53 54 

Section 91 other 

applications required 

1 1 

Withdrawal requested 1 1 

Submissions closed (prehearing 

or hearing stage) 

1 0 

3 Consents Under Appeal 

Applicant Locality Status Reason for Appeal 

Heybridge 

Developments 

Limited 

(65125 & 65126) 

Lochhead 

Road, Te Puna 

High Court Decision 

received, referred 

back to Environment 

Court for reconsideration. 

Appellant has sought 

leave from High Court 

to appeal to Court of 

Appeal. 

Appeals on the basis 

of cultural effects. 

Rotom No.1 

Incorporation 

(65361 & 65362) 

Rotom 

Geothermal 

Field 

Appeal Withdrawn. 

Appeal from 

applicant on decision 

to decline consent. 

Port of Tauranga 

Limited 

(65806 & 65807) 

Tauranga 

Harbour 

Environment Court 

adjourned end of April 

requiring parties to 

negotiate further and 

the applicant to 

provide further 

information. 

Appeals on the basis 

of cultural effects. 

Hearing reconvening 

14 November. 

Page 75 of 92

Applicant Locality Status Reason for Appeal 

Bay of Plenty 


(65979 & 65980) 

Okere Gates & 

hau Channel 

Appeal resolved in 

mediation. 

Appeal on basis of 

cultural effects (Ngti 

Pikiao). 

Rotorua District 

Council 

(66675) 

Wastewater 

Treatment 

Plant. 

Manawahe 

Road, Lake 

Rotom. 

Environment Court 

Mediation pending. 

Appeals on basis of 

cultural and water 

quality effects 

(Rotom Ratepayers 

and Residents 

Association, Ngti 

Pikiao and Ngti 

Mkino). 

4 Trends 

Application numbers are decreasing to 2008-2009 levels after a peak in 2010 (refer 

graph in appendices). Decision numbers have steadily exceeded application numbers 

over the past year, reflecting a push by the Consents Section to resolve long-standing 

applications. 

5 Ministry for the Environment RMA Survey Results 

The Bay of Plenty Regional Council Consents Section is one of the top Regional 

Council’s in the recent Ministry for the Environment RMA Survey results. The survey 

examined key aspects of RMA process in all local authorities in New Zealand. I am very 

pleased with the results of the survey and the way we compare to other Regional 

Councils in New Zealand. 



The revenue of the previous financial year was over budget, in line with high application 

numbers. Decreasing application numbers will result in decreased revenue, although at 

this stage I expect application numbers to remain stable. 


Additional resource consent requirements resulting from legislation changes e.g. Water 

Metering Regulations, Dam Safety Scheme and further Resource Management Act 

amendments (including National Policies and Environmental Standards) need to be 

considered in future budgeting. 

Ten Year/Annual Plan Implications 

Additional resource requirements resulting from legislation changes e.g. Water Metering 

Regulations, Dam Safety Scheme and further Resource Management Act amendments 

(including National Policies and Environmental Standards) need to be considered in 

future budgeting. 

Helen Creagh 

Consents Manager 

Page 76 of 92


 

for Consents Manager 

 


Click 

Page 77 of 92

$111107RMIdecisionsgr.2687.1109012659$ 

APPENDIX 1 

111107 RMI decisions granted 26.9.2011 to 

4.11.2011 

APPENDI X 1 - 111107 RMI deci sion s grant ed 26. 9.2011 to 4.11. 2011 pdf 

Page 79 of 92

Consent decisions issued from 26 September 2011 to 4 November 2011 

Consent Applicant Purpose Location Decision 

date 

Non-notified consents approved 

66897 BD Harrison 

Discharge onsite effluent to ground 

soakage 

229 Pongakawa Valley Road 

Kennedy Bay 

Lake Rotoehu 26/09/2011 

66883 R Hislop 

Discharge septic tank treated effluent to 

soakage trenches 

281 Spencer Road 

Lake Tarawera 28/09/2011 

66888 Distinction Rotorua Install two geothermal bores 

390 Fenton Street 

Rotorua 28/09/2011 

66885 Kempton Park Limited 

Large scale earthworks for retirement 

village 

40 Carmichael Road 

Bethlehem 

Tauranga 29/09/2011 

66900 Orica New Zealand Limited Install three monitoring bores 

Tasman Quay 

Mount Maunganui 29/09/2011 

66507 

New Zealand Premium Aquaculture 

Limited 

Intake and discharge structures in the 

Coastal Marine Area 

51 Pukakura Road 

Katikati 30/09/2011 

66874 Rotorua District Council Erosion protection works 

Hamurana Road 

West of # 1423 

Rotorua 30/09/2011 

66821 

Kaingaroa Forest Village 

Incorporated Discharge treated wastewater to land Kaingaroa Village 03/10/2011 

66877 R Ross 

Discharge septic tank treated effluent to 

soakage trenches 


Lake Tarawera 04/10/2011 

66884 A and S Marshall 

Take and discharge geothermal water 

for domestic use 

109 Kayelene Place 

Omokoroa 04/10/2011 

66881 Bluehaven Management Limited 

Large scale earthworks, discharge 

stormwater and take water for dust 

control 

Golden Sands Drive 

Papamoa 05/10/2011



date 

66904 K and T Clarke Install and test a bore 

13d I’anson Road 

Te Puna 05/10/2011 

66887 JC Taylor 

Discharge dairy effluent to pasture 

irrigation and ground soakage 

796 Omanawa Road 

RD 1 


66909 Chevron New Zealand Limited Install and test four bores 

79 Bridge Street 

Opotiki 06/10/2011 

66785 Fallohide Trust 

Take and use geothermal fluid and 

subsequent discharge to an open drain 

following use in a domestic mineral pool 

119 Kayelene Place 

Omokoroa 07/10/2011 

66892 Mansfield Developments Limited 

Large scale earthworks for residential 

subdivision 

15 Poike Road 


66850 Orica New Zealand Limited 

Discharge stormwater to Tauranga 

Harbour 

2 Triton Avenue 


64735 M Dymock 

Jetty (B93) and ramp (B93A) on Lake 

Rotoiti 

40 Wharetoroa Drive 

Gisborne Point 

Rotoiti 11/10/2011 

66867 Rotorua District Council 

Earthworks, discharge stormwater to 

land and structure for reticulated 

sewage system 

Hamurana and Awahou Communities 

Rotorua 11/10/2011 

66893 Z Energy Limited 

Take groundwater during tank 

excavation 

81 Hewletts Road 

Mount Maunganui 11/10/2011 

66912 Paripari Community Water Scheme Install and test a bore 

8270 State Highway 35 

Whanarua Bay 12/10/2011 

66890 Carnot Street Bore Syndicate 

Take and use geothermal fluid for use 

in a multiple user (domestic) system 

prior to discharge to water via reinjection 

30 Carnot Street 

Rotorua 13/10/2011



date 

66911 New Zealand Transport Agency Emergency repairs to highway 

State Highway 2 

Waioeka Gorge 17/10/2011 

64286 AC Firth Jetty (B148) in Lake Rotoiti 

211 Tumoana Road 

Lake Rotoiti 18/10/2011 

66899 AD and DW Steel 

Take groundwater for irrigation and 

frost protection 

213 Gow Road 

Edgecumbe 18/10/2011 

66766 L Taia 

Jetty (B157) and ramp (B157A) in Lake 

Rotoiti 

919E State Highway 30 


66809 Ryman Healthcare Limited 

Large scale earthworks for retirement 

village development 

112 Carmichael Road 

Bethlehem 


66906 Fulton Hogan Limited 

Take water from a bore for dust control 

and irrigation 

Domain Road Intersection 


64468 

N and S Hamilton and R and S 

Parker Jetty (B252) in Lake Rotoiti 

325 Whangamoa Drive 


66811 Whakatane District Council Establish a waste processing facility 

State Highway 30/Kohatu Road 

Awakeri 25/10/2011 

65472 Tatou International Limited 

Use and maintain three single span 

footbridges over the Waingaehe Stream 

and use two weirs on the bed of the 

Waingaehe Stream 

77 Robinson Avenue 

Holden’s Bay 

Rotorua 27/10/2011 

62492 Ray Bramberry Trust 

Use an existing seawall and occupy 

space in the Coastal Marine Area 

348 Maungatapu Road 


66908 P and K Mullins Take groundwater for irrigation 

100 Awaiti South Road 

RD 3 

Whakatane 03/11/2011 

66935 C Aiken 

Boatshed (H105) and slipway (H105A) 

in Lake Tarawera 


Lake Tarawera 04/11/2011



date 

Non-notified changes approved 

24932 Affco New Zealand Limited 

Change conditions to include additional 

sampling upstream from discharge and 

account for upstream influences in 

reported discharge. 

Main Road 

Rangiuru 27/10/2011 

64378 J Stevenson and JH Parbhu Consent associated lake structure. 

138 Te Akau Road 

kere Falls 04/10/2011 

61600 Eastern Sea Farms Limited 

Change consent conditions to allow for 

farming of additional species. 

Three Nautical Miles Offshore 

ptiki 

06/10/2011 

74 Maket Road 

63114 Maket Estates Limited Increase rate of take and use of water. Maket 13/10/2011 

66351 N Amoamo 

Change location of pond and 

subsequent earthworks associated with 

the pond construction. 

9747 State Highway 35 

Raukokore 17/10/2011 

66048 Kiwi Charms Limited 

Increase stocking rate and associated 

effluent discharge. 

618 Te Matai Road 

Te Puke 03/11/2011 

66623 BP Oil New Zealand Limited 

Change consent conditions to increase 

number of bores to be installed from 

four to five. 

195 Maungatapu Road 


Notified consents approved 

66205 Maketu Estates Limited 

Take groundwater for irrigation and 

frost protection. 

191 Gridley Road 

Rangiuru 

Te Puke 29/09/2011 

66396 D & T Bull Limited 

Take water from Tumurau Canal for 

irrigation. 

889 Braemar Road 

Whakatne 03/11/2011

$111109Graphofincomin.2687.1109012709$ 

APPENDIX 2 

111109 Graph of incoming and outgoing monthly 

application numbers 

APPENDIX 2 - 111109 Graph of incoming and outgoing monthly application numbers pdf 

Page 81 of 92

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Chart1 

Application and Decision Tracking 

Month/Year 

Page 1 

Applications 

Decisions 

Applications (6 month 

moving average) 

Decisions (6 month 

moving average) 

Files


Significance of Decision: 

Receives Only - No Decisions 

Report To: 

Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee 


Report From: 

Ken Tarboton, Group Manager Environmental Hazards 

Group Managers Report 


This paper provides a brief summary of key operational issues and achievements for the 

Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee. This agenda item also provides the 

Committee with an opportunity to have further input into significant operational matters. 

The paper follows the Council’s Ten Year Plan 2009 – 2019 programme structure but only those 

programmes that have items to report are included. Some of the items below may repeat 

information contained in “Councillor Catchup”. While this represents a degree of repetition, 

inclusion in this agenda paper is intended as a means of formally presenting them to Council. 



authority: 

1 Receives the report, Group Managers Report. 

2 Sustainable Land Management 

2.1 Weed Swap Day 

A Weed Swap day was held on 29 October at the Kirau Park markets in Rotorua. This 

initiative was undertaken to raise awareness of pest plants and stimulate people to 

control problem plants and replace them with more desirable species. Members of the 

public bringing in weeds were offered a replacement native plant. The initiative 

provided the opportunity for staff to engage with local people and discuss the issues 

around managing pest plants on their properties. The day was well attended with staff 

meeting and talking to over 150 people. Approximately 450 native plants (150 donated 

by Treeline Nursery) were handed out on the day. 

2.2 Tauranga Harbour Land Management Sub-catchment Landowner Meeting 

Over the past few months land resources staff in the western area, in association with 

NZ Landcare Trust and the Department of Conservation, have initiated meetings to 

present the state of the environment to landowners in the individual sub-catchments of 

the Tauranga Harbour. Department Of Conservation staff were involved in the 

presentations updating the landowner groups on operations undertaken, and points of 

interest for the specific areas. 

Page 83 of 92

Following each of the presentations a facilitation session was run by the NZ Landcare 

Trust Regional Coordinator. The aim of the facilitated session was to give the local 

community the chance to raise issues that they perceive to be high priority in their subcatchment. 

These issues, along with questions and concerns that have arisen from 

presentation points, have been recorded and will form the basis of the community 

feedback section of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council Tauranga Harbour subcatchment 

action plans. The meetings were well supported by landowners and also our 

own Councillors. 

There were very strong common themes raised at all the meetings including streambank 

erosion, water quality, pest animal control, stock in streams, the lack of useful 

monitoring data, and more. 

2.3 Papamoa College and Papamoa Hills Regional Park 

Ppmoa College Year 7 students are doing a range of group projects focusing on 

Ppmoa Hills Regional Park. These include designing signage to identify native 

species in the park and learning about traditional/cultural uses, learning about the 

Ppmoa Pa complex and the formation/use of Pa. There is increasing interest by 

schools in the park and the Land Resources staff look forward to developing a strong 

education and engagement programme 

2.4 DoC Stream Protection opportunity 

Land Resources staff has been involved with assisting Department of Conservation 

(DOC) to protect the banks of the Ohourere Stream in the Wairoa River catchment. 

DOC owns an 8 hectare marginal strip at the end of Crawford Road that has historically 

been grazed to the water’s edge. Adjacent owners have been granted a license to 

graze the strip with the condition they agree to a Riparian Management Plan that was 

drafted by land resource staff and agreed to by DOC and the new owner. All costs are 

covered by the grazer. The fence is now up and the riparian margin will be planted in 

appropriate species over the next few years. 

2.5 Wild Kiwifruit control results – Land Management Biosecurity Programme 

Update 

Contractors controlling wild kiwifruit in the Bay of Plenty have once again recorded the 

number and size of vines controlled over the 2010/2011 season. The number of wild 

Page 84 of 92

vines detected and controlled has more than doubled the previous year’s count; from 

3,200 vines to 7,200 destroyed last summer and autumn. 

One reason for the increase is that the control team were once again working in 

problematic areas of Te Puke, especially pine forest blocks close to kiwifruit orchards. 

There is a high germination rate of wild kiwifruit plants in the pine blocks, even higher if 

the block has been recently logged and opened up to increased light levels. Much of 

the dormant kiwifruit seed germinates resulting in high numbers of wild plants, often 

establishing within a metre or two of each other. Contractors cut these plants close to 

ground level and apply herbicide to destroy them. 

Council has also been inspecting and programming the control of kiwifruit plants in a 

small number of abandoned orchards. The control of wild kiwifruit and management of 

any abandoned orchards has had the additional benefit of preventing the further spread 

of PSA kiwifruit disease. Bay of Plenty Regional Council continues to work with New 

Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Inc. to work collaboratively controlling wild kiwifruit. 

A Te Puke pine block heavily infested with wild kiwifruit 

2.6 Woolly Nightshade Biocontrol Agent Update – Biological Control 

Programme Update 

The Land Resources Western Biosecurity staff continue to monitor populations of the 

woolly nightshade lace bug biocontrol agent. The lace bug was first released in the 

Welcome Bay area in November 2010 and successfully increased its population last 

summer. Some of the lace bugs were able to be collected and redistributed to other 

problem areas in the woolly nightshade core infestation zone. The lace bug, like woolly 

nightshade, is native to South America. It sucks the sap from woolly nightshade leaves 

which turn yellow and often fall from the plant. If lace bug populations build to high 

numbers then woolly nightshade should be less healthy with reduced reproductive 

ability. Biosecurity staff will continue to collect and redistribute lace bugs as the 

population density allows. 

The woolly nightshade lace bug biocontrol agent was approved for import and release 

by the Environmental Risk Management Authority in 2009. About 40 biocontrol agent 

species are present in the Bay of Plenty assisting in the control of a range of 

environmental and agricultural weeds. 

Page 85 of 92

Adult Woolly Nighshade lace bugs 

2.7 New Enemy for problem thistles – Biological Control Programme Update 

A post-release monitoring inspection of sites where the green thistle beetle biocontrol 

agent had been released in 2008 has found that the insects have successfully 

established. Green thistle beetle (Cassida rubiginosa) was approved for release by the 

Environmental Risk Management Authority to assist in the control of Californian, 

nodding and winged thistles. Two release sites, one in the Lower Kaimais and one at 

Pikowai, have recently been checked by Land Resources Western staff. There was 

ample evidence of damage to thistles from the adult and juvenile beetles with 

numerous holes in the leaves of plants. 

Californian thistle has been one of the most problematic thistle weeds, especially as 

they spread from numerous underground rhizomes. They can take over large areas 

and reduce the amount of pasture available to livestock. The green thistle beetle will 

be collected and further releases will be made across the Bay of Plenty region to 

increase the rate of spread and damage to target thistle species. 

Green Thistle Beetle 

2.8 Rena Oiled Wildlife Facility 

Page 86 of 92

Several Council staff (including Land Resources Western staff and contractors) have 

been involved at the Rena Oiled Wildlife Facility, at the Te Maunga Wastewater 

Treatment Plant near Baypark Welcome Bay. Te Maunga was one of a number of 

sites explored and proved to be ideal for a number of reasons. It could hold a potential 

1000-bird facility; it is away from the public eye but close to accommodation for 

responders; water was readily available; and it is Tauranga City Council-owned (rather 

than a commercial site with possible financial implications). 

Staff have been involved in communications, in wildlife responding, as well as in the 

management and administration of the centre. This has included looking after the 

birds; the sourcing, training and management of responders both in the centre and in 

the field (such as on Mtt Island); and “putting out fires”, such as resolving personality 

clashes on site and politely turning away members of the public who would arrive at the 

security gate to “see the penguins”. 

There is up to 70 wildlife responders assisting on any given day. Most responders 

want to wash and feed the penguins, however it’s not a glamor job and can be very 

stressful; in some cases made worse by the post-mortem tent on site. Everyone at the 

facility has two free counselling sessions available to them if they need it and many 

have had to take up the opportunity. 

Council staff have gradually been phased out and are returning to their normal duties. 

 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

 

 

 

 

 

Page 87 of 92

Aerial view of the Oiled Wildlife Facility - Te Maunga Wastewater Treatment Plant 

(Photos courtesy of Maritime NZ 

 

2.9 Te Onep Wetland formal opening 29 October 2011 

On a drizzly Saturday morning, approximately 40 – 50 people attended the formal 

opening of Te Onep wetland, at the corner of State Highway 30 and Braemar Road, 

Onep. Originally a wet block of struggling eucalyptus trees owned by Norske Skog, 

the wetland was created using BOPRCs old Environmental Programmes, in which over 

12000 plants were established around a series of open water ponds. The drain that 

was originally formed when the land was a farm is inhabited by both the Giant Kokopu 

and Banded Kokopu, as well eels and many native bird species. 

Page 88 of 92

Representatives from Department of Corrections, Norske Skog, Bay of Plenty Regional 

Council, Nukuhou Salt Marsh Care Group as well as members of the local community 

attended the opening, partook in a damp walk around the wetland and enjoyed a cold 

drink and BBQ at the end of the ceremony. 

The event was hosted by Bill Clarke, who has been instrumental in all facets of the 

wetlands development from inception through design, building, planting as well as the 

recent works, a 800 metre all weather walking track around the wetland. The walking 

track was created using BOPRCs Environmental Enhancement Fund to source the 

materials and the Department of Corrections who provided the labour. The ribbon 

officially opening the wetland and track to the public was cut by 4 year local girl Hollie 

Mees. 

The project will now be expanded to include more Norske Skog land, Otipa, into which 

the walking track will extend, as well as the large block of 5 year old pine trees to the 

south of Te Onep Wetland which will be the site for a large public access Mountain 

Bike Track in to the future. A big effort and thanks to Land Management Officer Mark 

Lumsden for organising this successful event. 

3 Sustainable Water Management 

3.1 Tauranga Harbour Management 

3.1.1 Recreation Users Forum meetings 

Page 89 of 92

One of the agreed actions in the Tauranga Harbour Recreation Strategy August 2008, 

was the establishment of a forum made up of relevant agencies, recreation groups, 

tangata whenua and community representatives to discuss recreational issues, identify 

emerging issues, facilitate communication and co-ordination, amongst other things. 

The first meeting was held in Tauranga on 29 October 2010. At the second meeting in 

March 2011, attendees agreed that separate Northern Harbour and Southern Harbour 

meetings should be held in future and at least once per year there should be a 

combined meeting. Since then there have been meetings of both the Southern and 

Northern Forums in April and June 2011 and combined meetings in August and 

October. The Northern Harbour meetings are chaired by Selwyn Hill from Bowentown 

and the Southern Harbour meetings are chaired by Jane Nees. Both of the combined 

forum meetings held to date were chaired by Selwyn Hill. Regional Council staff 

provide administrative support. The total number of people on our contact / meeting 

invitation list is 173. Typical numbers attending meetings are 30 – 40 for Northern 

Harbour meetings and 20 – 30 for Southern Harbour meetings. 

3.1.2 Sea Lettuce 

The first sea lettuce clean-up for the 2011/2012 spring/summer was carried out at 

Kulim Park / Otumoetai on 25 and 26 October. Approximately 40 tonnes were 

removed over two days. The cost of the clean-up was met by council but disposal costs 

were met by Maritime NZ as the sea lettuce had some residual Rena oil contamination. 

The sea lettuce was taken, along with other oil contaminated waste, to Hampton 

Downs Landfill in the Waikato. At this stage, there is very little sea lettuce at the usual 

problem spots in the northern harbour (Ongare Point, Kauri Point and Athenree) and in 

the southern harbour the only places where there are significant build ups are at the 

Kulim Park/Otumoetai/ Matua foreshore and in Hunters Creek, Matakana Island. 

Page 90 of 92


The photographs show the Kulim Park clean up on Tuesday 26 October. 

3.1.3 Broad-scale ecological survey of harbour 

One of the most significant gaps identified in the recently completed report “Health of 

Te Awanui Tauranga Harbour” (Manaaki Taha Moana) is an understanding of the role 

of various anthropogenic stressors on biodiversity. The report recommends conducting 

a broad scale survey of the harbour, involving ecological sampling over a range of 

habitats together with associated sediment and water sampling. The survey will involve 

resource inputs from Manaaki Taha Moana (a Ministry of Science and Innovation 

funded project aimed at enhancing ecosystems for iwi), Massey University, Waikato 

University, Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi, Cawthron Institute, Bay of Plenty 

Polytechnic and BOPRC. The survey will commence in late November and initially 

concentrate on the southern harbour intertidal area and move to the northern harbour 

later in the summer. If resources allow (particularly specialists from BOP Polytechnic 

who are currently heavily involved in Rena oil impact monitoring), then sub- tidal survey 

work will be done this summer, otherwise this work will be done in the 2012/13 

summer. BOPRC contribution to the project will be the two students that were agreed 

to by Council as part of the 2011/12 Annual Plan decisions, together with overview and 

supervision by Stephen Park, Senior Scientist. 

4 Rivers and Drainage and Flood Management 

4.1 Flood damage repair work 

Good progress has been made with the urgent high priority flood repair works across 

the river schemes. At the current rate of progress, and assuming the region 

experiences reasonable weather over the coming months, the budgeted funding for 

these extraordinary works will be expended by approximately January 2012. Staff will 

report to the first OMR Committee meeting in the new year with details of progress to 

date and likely request to use some the budgeted funds for FY2012-2013 to be used to 

keep the works progressing. 

Ken Tarboton 

Group Manager Environmental Hazards 


Click 

Page 91 of 92

Page 92 of 92

Operations, Monitoring and Regulation Committee Committee

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?