I am heartened by the support that I received from many of you during the election campaign.   I would like to really thank those who gave me their vote.  I assure those people, and the people who may not have voted for me, that I will be working hard for you all to bring about change within Environment Waikato.   While EW does do some good work, we can tend to overshadow the good stuff with the dopey things that we do.

Our handling of Pest Management is not impressive.  Maybe the good support received by Clyde Graf is a reflection of this.   Clyde was very generous and rang me on Saturday to congratulate me on my win at the polls.   I will be using the wide support that he received to ram home that EW needs to do pest management in a better manner than what it is doing at present.

I firmly believe that we have some areas that need attention in the Regulatory role.   I will be pursuing this in the coming term.   I am a firm believer in the basics of fairness and natural justice and I have first hand experience that this is not always the case with EW.   The community is entitled to fairness and natural justice.   I have a horror of the “traffic cop” mentality.   I do not want to see it being incorporated into our activities.   If someone is deliberately flouting the law, then deal with it.  And deal with it swiftly.   However, in life one size does not fit all and things are not always “black and white”.   We have a regulatory role but with that comes the responsibility to exercise that role with fairness and discretion.

EW has some real challenges in the next three years.   There is a dire need to restrain rates.   Water quality is a major issue.   We have to put into effect the government/iwi River Settlement.   Just making it work will be a difficult task, let alone funding it.  We are still arguing the funding case to Government.  Hopefully it will see sense in the end.

On the Coromandel we have the mangrove issue.  I am determined to ensure that some staff and consultants do not turn a pest plant management issue into another unneeded industry at great cost to rate-payers.

I am always available to members of the community.   Email me at simon.friar@xtra.co.nz.   My phone is 0275 926.322 or you can ring EW on 0800 800.401 during business hours and ask to be put through to me.   If you have a problem which you cannot resolve through the staff system, let me know about it.  I will see what can or should be done.

Once again, thanks for your confidence in me and I look forward to working for you.

Simon Friar

This letter appeared in the Coastal News and pretty much sums up the mangrove issue.   However, we have turned the corner on this one and it will be easier in the future.  There is an issue with residual fondness for mangroves by some staff and consultants but I will be working on that matter.  

The following letter was printed in the Coastal News last week.   It is from the Whangamata Ratepayers Association.  It speaks for itself.

A few months ago, Waikato Regional Council applied for and received a consent to remove mangroves from the Opoutere Harbour.  This work is being done in conjunction with the local community who wanted action before their harbour went the same way as the Whangamata Harbour.   There are also consents in place for marine paspalum and spartina.

The regional Council has also lodged an application for a consent to remove mangroves as a part of the harbour and catchment plant in Whangamata.  This is presently in the notification stage and the submissions must be in by midday on 1st October.   The application will then go through the process.   It is envisaged that removal of mangroves would commence in April 2011 after the main holiday period has finished.  This is to minimise the inconvenience although the local community do not see any action that manages mangroves as inconvenience.  Virtually to a person, they say “Bring it on”.

Council is also in discussions with the local community in Tairua and Pauanui.  The harbour there is under threat (most harbours and estuaries around the Coromandel are).   The discussions are well underway and progress should be reasonable rapid.

I have been approached by concerned community members living in Whitianga and Matarangi.  Same problem – same concerns.   We will commence discussions in those areas as soon as we have the Tairua Harbour one nailed.

While it seems a long drawn out process – well it is.  However, it must be remembered that a mere three years ago, we were confronted with a very obstructive council who were hellbent non prosecuting communities and they spent a lot of money in following that path.  It is a pity that they did not spend the money (the best part of $1 million) on actually doing work.   In the three years that I have been on Council, I have managed to turn that attitude around to a point where the Councillors were unanimous in their support for proper management of mangroves as a part of harbour and catchment plans.   Not a bad effort for a “one trick mangrove show pony” in my humble opinion.

I am of the firm view that some of the processes and procedures utilised by EW at present are in need of review.  One of these is in the area of animal pest control projects.  In the time that I have been involved with Council as Chairman of the Regional Pest Management  Committee, there has been a number of complaints from land-owners complaining about the way in which they have been treated.  Any analysis of their complaints will support my belief that review is required.    There is some foundation to their complaints.

At present, when a pest management project is being considered, the project is put through a process which establishes where it sits in the priority queue.  Funding is limited for obvious reasons and is likely to be so for some time.  Therefore, we cannot do every project.   The Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) was issued during the last Council term.   It was appealed but it has subsequently been sorted out between the various parties and is now operative.

One provision under the RPMS provides that where aerial 1080 has been selected as the best method, if a land owner wishes to have land based methods used instead, then the land owner is required to meet any difference in cost if this is significant.   This being the case, this provision then imposes upon the Council the requirement to ensure that any price obtained for the land based method has been fairly and competitively obtained and, furthermore, that it is seen to be so.

In my view, this is an area which has been the foundation of many of the complaints received in the past.

Presently, the Council utilises the services of contractors to do much of the preliminary consultation when a pest management project is being implemented.   This has the consequence of land-owners possibly being approached by a number of contractors to determine what the land-owners wishes may or may not be.   Inevitably, there are communication break-downs and this has led to some of the problems encountered in the past.

It is my view that the initial consultation must be carried out by EW staff.  The staff should make contact with the individual land-owners, provide a map of the property and have that confirmed by the land-owner.  This is also the time to determine any concerns regarding control methods, any particular farm practices or timetables and the like.   I think it is important to note that if a land owner does not wish to have aerial 1080, then that is their right.  They should not be cross-examined, criticised or bullied.

At this point of time, the control method will not be known.   If the land-owner is willing to accept aerial 1080 if it is later proposed, then there should be sign-off to that effect.   In the event that the land-owner does not want aerial 1080, information about the policy under the RPMS regarding any significant increase in cost should be provided to the land-owner.  The staff member would then arrange for that particular property to be separately identified and when the area is publicly tendered, the fact that an individual price for a land based method for this property is required.  

Once tendered publicly, the various tenderers would submit their prices.   Where there is a land-owner who wishes land based methods, then the individual price that has been obtained can be discussed with them and they can make a final decision as to method.

I have been asked about the increased costs of using staff for this consultation.  I believe it will be reasonably cost neutral.   You can bet your bottom dollar that the contractor’s time to do the consultation is factored into their price – it would be a fairly significant cost for them.   If they no longer need to do this part of it, then the contractors prices should reflect this.

But Council needs to get control over this important aspect of it relationship with land owners.  We cannot continue with the same process that has been used in the past.

This is the basis of what I have been discussing with other councillors and the CEO.   I have now put a paper to the CEO for consideration and debate.  But I know it will provide better value to the land owner and to the Council.   And it brings about fairness and transparency to the process.

Simon Friar

The term Residual Trap Catch (RTC) is commonly used in relation to pest management operations.   It is an area that can confuse the general public and this confusion arises from the wording of the term.  It is the word “residual” that causes the confusion.

In the minds of the average person, the term “residual” means “what is left”.    However, in the case of RTC, “residual” actually means “randomised”.   I have long argued that it should be called Randomised Trap Catch as that is what it actually is. 

It is not a precise measurement of what number of possums may be left in an area.   However, I can understand how people are led to think it is because of the term “residual”.

It is a method of laying out traps in straight lines of 10.  The number of lines and the placement is decided by computer or manually in accordance with THE PROTOCCOL or a combination of both.  If you really want to punish yourself for starting to read this stuff and want to read the full document, send me an email by clicking on this link simon.friar@xtra.co.nz and I will send it to you.   It is 36 pages of scientific reading which might enthrall you.

Here is a sample:

 The theory behind this RTC method is that it removes human intervention from the statistical process.   It means that sometimes the trap lines may be laid in a place where possums are likely to be.  It also means the converse – the trap lines may be in an area where there is little likelihood of encountering possums.   It is a statistical method which allows one area to be compared equally with another area, despite possible differences in area etc.

The lines are monitored over three nights and the results put through the equation process.   If the figure is less than a given figure, then that is regarded well.   When it is over then more consideration is given to it.

In relation to possums, the EW RPMS provides that the level should not exceed 5 Residual Trap Catch (RTC).     The RPMS stipulates that if the RTC level is between 5-7%, then it is a staff call as to whether it should be included into a programme.  This is variable.  It might be included if it was adjacent to another block that was going to be subject to another operation.   Otherise, it might wait until a later time.

Over 7% means that it is automatically considered for a project.  However, it must take its place in the priority queue.    Finance is constrained.  There are lots of things which would be good to do but we must have regard to the rate-payers ability to pay, especially these days.  

According to Landcare Research, a 5% RTC is roughly equivalent to 5 possums per 10 hectares of area.    So in a 100 hectare property, the possum population should be around 50.   If the RTC was 6.5%, then the population would be around 65 possums.   Some consider that the target level of 5% is too low.  That is a matter of debate.   I have to concede that I find the trigger point of 1-2% RTC over the target as being pretty fine.   But others hold a different view.

The Animal Health Board through its TBFree propgramme are dealing with possums as a carrier of TB.  I do not think anyone will argue that we should not be vigilant in eliminating TB.      TBFree has a target of 2%RTC.     If an area has no TB or has been cleared of TB, then the pest management operations are for biodiversity reasons.   As far as possums are concerned, this involves forests and plants.   There have been some cases of possums attacking bird’s nests but rats, stoats and ferrets are the main offenders there.   

As far as plants are concerned, it depends on the plant itself as to what level of possum population it can sustain.       Some species are impacted at levels of 2% RTC.   Other plants can sustain levels up to 20% RTC.   This again, is an area of debate as to what level is appropriate.

Environment Waikato (EW) has a policy regarding pest management which provides for a land-owner to select an alternative form of treatment but if it is going to cost significantly more, then the land-owner is required to pay the difference.   When this was initially being discussed, I was somewhat uncomfortable with it.  But then I compared it to the health system.  If you get public health treatment, you will be given a certain course of treatment.   If there is an alternative course which costs more, you can elect to undergo that but you are required to pay for it.   There are parallels that can be drawn.

And to get straight to the point, this issue is really only going to arise if the determined method of treatment is aerial 1080.   Many people are uncomfortable with such aerial application and do not want it on their land.

In early June 2010, two land-owners came to the Regional Pest Management Committee and made submissions by way of a deputation.   This avenue is provided to land-owners if they are unable to reach an agreement with staff.   The two land-owners were very genuine and hard-working farmers.  I am the Chairman of that committee.   As I told the meeting, the issue was not the rights and wrongs of one form of control compared to another.  The land-owners are entitled to hold their views and they do not need to be cross-examined or criticised for those views.

In my view, the issue before the committee was whether we had a process, is that process fair and was it applied fairly and equitably.  The land-owners presented evidence which raised some questions, at least in my mind,  in this area.   Because of this, I decided that there would be value in forming a sub-committee to look into all the aspects of these two cases in order to find a solution to the impasse.   I moved a resolution to that effect and it was passed unanimously.   A sub-committee of myself and Andra Neeley (the local Councillor) together with two staff are meeting with the land-owners to find that solution.

I have a firm view that EW needs to have a robust and fair process in this area.   Land-owners who wish to have alternative control are entitled to have the cost of the two options put before them and then they can make a final decision.  The costs for the two different methods need to be obtained by way of a competitive process which ensures that there are the usual commercial pressures on pricing.

I am looking into this area and I will be discussing my views with the CEO.   I will keep you posted.

Many people, especially those who live in harbourside communities around the top half of the North Island, will be well aware of the ever increasing infestation of mangroves in our harbours and estuaries. We are losing the areas that we used to swim in, catch fish such as snapper and flounder, boat and sail in and the other recreational activities that the harbours and estuaries provided.

A few years ago, marine birds were plentiful. There was a large supply of marine snails and small fish for them to feed on. Large fish could be seen chasing shoals of small fish.

However, those sights and activities are now very curtailed by the spread of mangroves. Take the Moanaanuanu Estuary in Whangamata. That was, until recent years, a clear expanse of water with sandy shores where the previously mentioned activities took place. Now it is difficult to see the channel in places. The snails, birds and fish have gone to be replaced by mud and slime. Very little lives under the mangroves.

Yes, there are some people who still subscribe to the previous foolish notion that mangroves are some sort of gift from the Gods, that they are havens for small fish and birdlife abounds. They are demonstrably wrong and even the person whose research started that notion, Professor Chapman, has admitted that his research related to mangroves in overseas countries, not the NZ situation. But nevertheless, these misguided people fail to recognise the situation and chant the nonsense like a mantra.

Thankfully, the vast majority of people realise that any plant can become a pest if it is growing in the wrong place. The vast majority of community of Whangamata (98.7% of over 1200 surveyed) want effective management of mangroves in the process of restoring the harbour. After years of obstinence, Waikato Regional Council (EW) is now moving down the path of mangrove management as a part of harbour and catchment restoration.

There is plenty of evidence that effective management produces excellent environmental and recreational benefits. The Whangamata community removed about 7 hectares of mangroves in the Maonaanuanu Estuary after being denied any proper response from authorities for years. Despite EW’s claim that there was not enough current to clear the area of mud and slime, the mud and slime has reduced from knee deep to no longer being detectable in many areas and sand has been exposed in others. Birds have returned. This morning (1st May) while checking the community’s rodent traps, Gary Lowe and I observed shoals of fish being chased by larger fish in the cleared area.

It is worth mentioning that the community has implemented a rodent control programme around the harbour. This is under the control of the Habourcare Inc. Bunnings were kind enough to sponsir materials for bait stations. Presently rats and mice are being caught in large quantities and the bait stations are being relieved of bait. We are about in bring in some traps for possums, stoats and weasels.

EW is presently moving towards mangrove management. A criteria has been developed and it merely needs to be applied correctly over the harbour. Council has resolved that all mangroves south of the “1944″ line are candidates for removal. The “1944″ line is a line drawn from the forestry HQ across the harbour at the northern reaches of the harbour.

There are some areas of mangroves in the “candidate” area that we need to get some more information before removal can be justified. However, it is clear that there are good reasons that the vast majority of mangroves in the area designated can be removed and good environmental benefits will be obtained.

It is envisaged that removal will be by way of a start/stop adaptive management regime. An area is cleared and testing is subsequently done. Provided no adverse effects are found, the next stage is cleared and further testing is done. No adverse effects – move onto the next area and so on. Very logical and rational.