Docdm-348042
WAIHOLA–WAIPORI WETLANDS: WEED CONTROL AND NATIVE PLANT RESTORATION WORKSHOP
KEY ISSUE SCOPING REPORT
Compiled by: Peter Raal September 2008
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 SCOPE
The Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee is preparing a five-year weed control and native plant restoration operational plan for the Waihola-Waipori wetland system in three phases – the scoping, issues assessment and strategy production phases. This report is the product of the scoping phase of the project.
The purpose of preparing a Key Issue Scoping Report is to ensure that all important issues, identified by the parties who have contributed to the scoping phase of the weed control and native plant restoration operational plan, are accurately reflected. It is also the intention that the circulation of the report will ensure that the proposed actions, to be addressed during the issues assessment phase of the project, receive adequate review.
The procedure that has been applied to establish the most important areas of concern which relate to the operational plan is described in this report. Analysis of the issues associated with the Waihola-Waipori wetland system indicates that key issues can be identified which should receive priority attention.
Waihola-Waipori Wetlands
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the scoping document
This report describes the scoping procedure that has been applied to: • Develop an agreed community vision for weed control and native plant restoration within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system; and • Identify important issues that need to be addressed in the compilation of the five- year weed control and native plant restoration operational plan for the Waihola- Waipori wetland system.
The aim of producing the report is threefold: firstly, it defines an agreed community vision for weed control and native plant restoration in the wetland, secondly, it ensures that important issues, identified by the various parties who have contributed to the scoping phase of the weed control and native plant restoration operational plan, are accurately reflected; and finally, the report provides some indication as to how the issues could be addressed during the Issues Assessment Phase of the project.
This final Scoping Report will guide the Issues Assessment, or second phase, of the project.
1.2 Background to the project
The current weed management of the Waihola-Waipori wetland system is running in a somewhat ad hoc, open book manner at present. Although there are some guiding documents, for example, the Department of Conservation Weed Control guidelines (Raal, 2003), there is no over-arching strategy document that can be referred to regarding weed control in the Waihola-Waipori wetland system as a whole.
Weed control in the Waihola-Waipori wetland system is now at a stage where there is a need to take stock of the work already undertaken and focus on the future long-term weed control within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system. The aim is to develop an objective, workable and achievable five-year weed control and native plant restoration operational plan for the Waihola-Waipori wetland system as a whole.
The aim of inviting interested and affected parties participation during the scoping exercise was to develop an agreed community vision regarding weed control and native plant restoration within the wetland and to ensure that all major concerns and issues relating to the proposed weed control operational plan were identified at the start of the planning phase for the project. The early identification of key issues and important issues that need to be addressed during the issue assessment phase of the project and the elimination of unimportant issues permits a more focussed approach to be adopted. Scoping also reduces the risk of key issues arising later in the process when it may be difficult to address them efficiently.
The scoping procedure that has been adopted, the agreed community vision and the issues that were identified, are discussed in the following sections of this report.
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 2. AGREED COMMUNITY VISION DEVELOPMENT AND KEY ISSUE SCOPING WORKSHOP
2.1 Invited participation by interested and affected parties
A workshop was convened at the Waihola Hall, Waihola on 23 September 2008 in order to ensure interested and affected parties participation in the development of an agreed community vision regarding weed control and native plant restoration within the Waihola-Waipori wetland and identification and definition of key and important issues which need to be addressed in the Waihola-Waipori wetland system weed control and native plant restoration operational plan.
2.2 Workshop programme
As an introduction to the workshop and to be able to understand the weed issues and to orientate delegates, the history of weed control within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system was described by Dr Peter Johnson, Pete Ravenscroft (Department of Conservation) and Steve Bryant (Otakou Runanga representative, Tatawai Trustee).
After these introductory talks the meeting moved into the workshop phase. In order to maximise group participation and efficiency, the workshop was conducted using a visual gathering approach which was designed to identify an agreed community vision and the issues associated with a weed control and native plant restoration strategy for the Waihola-Waipori wetland system. The participants attending the workshop are listed in Appendix 1.
During the first session of the workshop programme, the participants were tasked to raise as many ideas and needs as possible relating to the development of an agreed community vision for weed control and native plant restoration on both private and public land within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system. To stimulate thought the participants were asked the following question: “In terms of weeds and native plants, how would you like to describe your wetland in 5 year’s time?” The objective of this aspect of the workshop was to gather all people’s ideas for the wetland so that an agreed community vision, incorporating all of these needs, can be compiled.
The workshop convenors used the information gathered in the first session to compile a draft “agreed community vision” which was used to help guide the afternoon’s proceedings (see Section 3 below).
During the second session of the workshop programme and keeping the draft agreed community vision in mind, the participants were tasked to raise all issues which
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 related to the management of weeds and native plant restoration within the Waihola- Waipori wetland system. The following question was asked “What are the stumbling blocks/obstacles that are preventing the wetland being effectively managed for weeds?” The objective of this aspect of the workshop was to identify all the issues, problem areas and opportunities that need to be addressed in the weed control operational plan for it to be successful. The purpose of this session was to ensure that no important matters or concerns would be overlooked in the compilation of the operational plan.
After completion of the key issues identification process, the group was asked to dot prioritise generic areas of concern (labelled clusters). The 5 most important key issues, particularly those regarding the current and ongoing roles and responsibilities in the management and control of weeds within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system, were highlighted using this process.
The final session of the workshop was to seek ideas and information to help develop a plan of action for weed control in the wetland. For the purposes of discussion and to focus the session, delegates were asked to consider how they would like to see weed control in the wetland implemented. With this in mind the following questions were posed “Assuming a limit on the amount of available resources, which weed species should we control first?” and “Which areas should be cleared of weeds first?”
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 3. AGREED COMMUNITY VISION
The responses to the question posed in the first workshop session are presented in a question-type format with minor editorial changes in Appendix 2. The information gathered during this session was collated and a draft “agreed community vision” compiled.
The draft agreed community vision reads as follows:
“A wetland system where weeds are being actively controlled according to a plan in order to maintain and enhance the diversity of habitats including a balance of open water and land, for the benefit of native plants, fish, birds and other fauna and for recreational purposes”.
4. KEY ISSUE ANALYSIS
4.1 Method of analysis
All issues raised during the workshop are important and need to be addressed in the compilation of the operational plan. However, a number of these issues could be fundamentally important to weed management and native plant restoration within the Waihola–Waipori wetland system and it is therefore important that they are identified as key issues so that there can be some focus upon them.
After identifying the issues and concerns, the delegates were asked to rate what they thought were the most important issues to be addressed in the weed control and native plant restoration operational plan for the Waihola-Waipori wetland system.
4.2 Results
The responses to the question posed in the second workshop session are presented in a question-type format with minor editorial changes in Appendix 3.
The dot rating scores for the scored generic issue statements are presented in Table 1. The scored issues are considered to be key issues that need to be comprehensively addressed before the operational plan is compiled.
4.3 Discussion
4.3.1 Issues
The major issues and concerns relating to the weed control and native plant restoration operational plan for the Waihola-Waipori wetland system are contained within the 7 generic issue statements presented in Table 1 (see Appendix 3 for detail on specific issues raised).
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008
The dot rating exercise of the issues indicates that 5 of them are particularly important due to the extent to which they influence, or are influenced, by most of the other issues. These are considered to be key issues that need to be resolved for the proposed operational plan to be successful.
Both the key issues and other important issues relating to the weed control and native plant restoration operational plan for the Waihola-Waipori wetland system are discussed briefly below.
Table 1: Key and important issues relating to the weed control and native plant restoration operational plan for the Waihola-Waipori wetland system.
ISSUE DOT RATING Key issues 1. Commitment to investing in the management of weeds in the wetland Not rated as not on the board This issue was identified during informal conversation with several at the time to be voted on, but considered fundamental delegates at the workshop (rather than in the formal workshop session) to the success of the so has been included in this list of key issues. proposed programme 2. Resourcing (finances and labour) Finances 29 Labour 11 40 3. Weed control strategy and operational plan 38 4. Research (knowledge systems and methodology needs) 15 4a. Weed control methodologies - 4b. Weed distribution map and inventory - 5. Organisation 8 Important issues 1. Landowner and public relations - 2. Access and operational constraints -
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 4.3.2 Follow-up requirements
The next phase of the weed control and native plant restoration operational plan for the Waihola-Waipori wetland system programme will require in-depth thought and, in some cases, specific actions and/or applied studies to address the issues and areas of concern relating to the proposed operational plan (the issue assessment phase). The aim of this approach is to assimilate information that, once incorporated into an operational plan, will ensure the effective long-term management of the weed populations within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system and that all potential benefits arising out of the programme are optimised. Each contribution will need to provide background information on the subject to which it relates in order to describe its relevance to the issue being addressed. All issues will then need to be described in terms of their impact on the effective management of weeds within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system and practical actions (mitigation) which can be applied to manage the issues towards acceptable levels of significance will need to be proposed.
The proposed actions required for each key issue are presented at the end of each issue summary below. Where appropriate, the responses to identify the ways to manage the major issues and who should do them have been incorporated within these proposals.
KEY ISSUES
Key Issue 1: What is the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee ongoing interest and investment obligation with regard to weed control and native plant establishment within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system?
The status and importance of the Waihola-Waipori wetland system to the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee and its continued involvement in ongoing weed control operations and native plant restoration needs to be determined as a priority. The decisions made by “management” in this regard are fundamental in determining the levels of commitment of the Committee in terms of financial, manpower and time resources that will be included in the proposed operational plan.
Issues that need to be considered in the decision making process include whether the Committee wants to remain committed to investing in the management of weeds in this high profile, biodiversity and recreationally important icon and what the opportunities and constraints are if the weed control operations are to be initiated.
If it is decided that the Committee will manage weeds and establish native plants within the Lake Waihola-Waipori wetland system then it is important that management goals for the programme be formulated. These goals should be captured in the vision and mission statements (see Section 3 above) within the proposed operational plan which will act to guide the effective implementation of the future weed control and native plant establishment programme.
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 Proposed actions
Weed control within the Lake Waihola-Waipori wetland system is a local initiatives programme. Therefore all decisions regarding future weed control within the wetland rests with the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee.
Before committing to compiling a comprehensive operational plan, the Committee needs to produce a statement clearly stating its commitment to ongoing weed control and native plant establishment within the Lake Waihola-Waipori wetland system. This statement is critical in that it will set the aims and objectives for weed control programmes for the wetland and will act to guide the Committee’s continued future long term involvement (Action: Chairman of the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee).
Further to the above, the Chairman of the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee is to approach all stakeholders with the following objectives: - To obtain a clear commitment from all affected parties to ongoing weed control in the Lake Waihola-Waipori wetland system; and - Establish how important weed control in the Lake Waihola-Waipori wetland system is to the community and where it fits into the overall strategy for the wetland (i.e. establish its priority in an overall context).
Once a decision regarding the level of commitment of the Committee for its role in the control of weeds and native plant establishment within the Lake Waihola-Waipori wetland system has been made, the Committee should write vision and mission statements that reflect the direction to be taken and which are captured in a comprehensive weed control and native plant restoration operational plan for the wetland.
Once the above has been completed, the Committee will know what its obligations are in terms of long-term weed control objectives for the wetland. These objectives will guide how the operational plan will be compiled and it will give the Committee a clear situation for which it can plan for future operations.
Key Issue 2: Are there sufficient resources (finances and labour) to do effective weed control within the Lake Waihola-Waipori wetland system?
The outcome of Key Issue 1 above will dictate the level of resourcing by the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee for ongoing control of weeds within the Lake Waihola-Waipori wetland system.
Assuming that there is a commitment made by the Committee for the ongoing control of weeds within the Lake Waihola-Waipori wetland system, then it will need to be decided how the annual funds and manpower to complete the work can be secured on a permanent basis (i.e. where the money and/or manpower will come from). Of particular importance in this regard are the continually increasing costs of weed control and the ongoing costs of maintenance of previously cleared areas. Options that could be considered include various agencies providing baseline funding, sponsorship and grant opportunities and generating income from users of the wetland.
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 The Committee will also need to consider whether it can dedicate sufficient staff and equipment resources to meet its weed control needs for the wetland.
Consideration should be given to what will happen if the financial, equipment and manpower resources cannot be secured and, as a result, the objectives of the proposed operational plan cannot be met.
Assuming that the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee does not commit to the ongoing management of the wetland, it will need to be determined what obligations regarding residual funding, manpower and equipment needs of current management operations exist and for how long the agencies involved are obligated to continue providing these resources (i.e. what is the status quo regarding ongoing residual financial commitment of the various agencies for the long-term weed control management of the Waihola-Waipori wetland).
Proposed action
Initially an inventory is required to quantify the nature and extent of the current resources committed to weed control within the Lake Waihola-Waipori wetland system. Prior to commencement with this exercise, an inventory protocol for the data to be captured as well as specifications for the output requirements such as income and expenditure tables, manpower allocations etc should be developed (Action: Chairman of the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee).
Once the above has been completed, a commitment to the level of the Committee’s continued annual baseline funding will need to be obtained (see Key Issue 1 above).
To be able to guarantee a sustainable income for ongoing weed control within the wetland, it was generally agreed amongst the workshop participants that sponsorship, grants and other sources of income should be sought. A study should be conducted to see whether it is feasible to generate increased funding through: - Grants; - Sponsorship; - Encouraging local agencies that currently undertake weed control to continue or increase funding weed control work; - Involving local communities and volunteers; and - Applying levies for visitors (especially concessionaires) using the recreation opportunities presented by wetland. (Action: Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee)
In all the instances above, mechanisms should be sought to prevent any income generated from being lost (i.e. the systems must ensure that the funds go directly into the Waihola-Waipori wetland management fund, which also needs to be created).
Key issue 3: Do we have prescribed weed control and native plant restoration management objectives and an operational plan for the Waihola- Waipori wetland system?
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 The outcomes of Key Issues 1 and 2 above will dictate the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee’s management objectives with regard to weed control and native plant restoration within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system.
Assuming that there is a full commitment by the Committee to ongoing weed control within the wetland, it should then be decided exactly how the weed infestations will be managed (i.e. as a single entity or as individual management sections). This should be achieved by the compilation of a comprehensive operational plan that is invoked by a dedicated project leader that is specifically assigned to oversee the portfolio.
Other considerations include whether the plan should have an inclusive approach towards all issues arising, if all interest groups will be represented on a Management Board, whether the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee will utilise volunteers for dealing with some management issues and how the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee will assign workdays (including access and accommodation issues) for staff needed to work on the wetland.
Proposed actions
Once Key Issues 1 and 2 are resolved, a broad overview is required of how the weed infestations within the wetland should be managed and what the long-term aims and objectives of such a management plan are (in the context of the decisions made). For the purposes of the operational plan, this should be a relatively comprehensive study and must be adequate to enable the management guidelines to accommodate all technical, socio-economic and land-use issues which are considered to be significant.
Information for this investigation should be obtained by a desk-top study, carried out in consultation with those stakeholders who have much of the required information at hand. Other possible sources of information to be investigated include publications covering similar management situations (i.e. projects researching similar management scenarios). In addition to gathering information, the study should aim to prepare lists of the advantages and disadvantages of taking on extensive weed control operations within the wetland.
The study should provide a brief overview of the issues raised at the workshop and should provide information on past, present and future management activities. Where possible, the duration of the activities should also be assessed and dedicated staff assigned to each task (Action: Pete Raal)
Key issue 4: What are the research questions that need to be answered to make the programme a success?
In order to improve current, and determine future, weed control management guidelines for the Waihola-Waipori wetland system it is important to understand what research questions need to be answered. Questions that need to be answered include what are the effects of the weed control operations on other plant interactions within the wetland, what scientific information is lacking to guide the effective management of the weed infestations within the wetland and what other pests could potentially become established within the wetland in the future?
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008
Proposed actions
The importance and relevance of the research questions raised should be evaluated and the research needs arranged in priority order. Once this is done and if and when funding becomes available, formal scientific studies to answer these questions, in priority order, should be commissioned using consultants and/or university students.
Further to the above, two specific research needs were identified at the workshop and are discussed separately below.
Key issue 4a: Do we have effective weed control methodologies to be able to do the job effectively and efficiently?
Many issues relating to the current weed control methods being used in the wetland were raised during the workshop session. Queries regarding the methodologies, technical skill levels, techniques and equipment used, retraining issues and standards relating to all aspects of weed control, but particularly aerial control of Glyceria and willows (and their stump removal), were highlighted as concerns.
Spraying Glyceria and willows from a helicopter in wetland conditions is more technically demanding than spraying in a flat paddock. To successfully control these weeds the helicopter pilots need to be experienced with these sorts of operations, have a good and efficient ground crew to service the helicopter with herbicide and/or fuel refills to ensure quick turnaround times and need have a good working knowledge of the technical skills (for example, drop spray size, different nozzle types, mixers to be used etc) required.
Proper ground control guidelines and techniques need to be developed for different situations. For example, large trees in dense stands should be killed standing to allow for the clearing of germinating seedlings underneath.
In general, the disturbances and gaps in the vegetation created during weed control operations, such as making tracks or the clearing of the weeds themselves, promote the re-invasion of the same or different weeds. For this reason, it is important to think what species will fill the holes just created – we do not want to ‘replace one weed with another’.
In order to minimise the negative impacts of unwanted weeds re-infesting any holes created during weed control operations, managers need to use a multi-weed approach (i.e. treat all weeds occurring at a treatment site at the same time) coupled with a weed control method that will cause the least disturbance. This approach will create the best conditions for desirable native vegetation to re-establish itself, lessen the need for repeat treatments and minimise the negative ecological effects usually associated with non-specific weed control operations. Also, consideration should be given to supplementary planting of appropriate native species at key ecological sites.
Proposed actions
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 An in depth review of weed control methodology, including standards and the use of appropriate equipment for similar weed control projects by other agencies, for each of the issues mentioned above should be undertaken. The findings of the management methodologies and standards and the best type of equipment to be used should be incorporated into the proposed operational plan which will dictate how the weed control operations should be conducted and managed within the wetland (Action: Pete Raal).
Once the above has been completed, an investigation should be undertaken to identify those important aspects of the weed control operations that require clearly defined management objectives and to establish priority actions (using the best methodologies available) to achieve these goals (i.e. if one is appointed, the project manager should implement a quality standards approach to weed control within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system with the objective of minimising repeat visits to previously treated sites). An understanding of the autecology of each weed species, especially the length of time their seeds remain viable in the soil, is an important aspect of this part of the study.
Using the results of the above investigations and studies, a detailed weed control and maintenance plan to acceptable standards for the wetland can be compiled for inclusion in the proposed operational plan.
An effective maintenance regime that includes monitoring and surveillance of previously cleared areas is considered to be the key to success of the whole weed control programme. The primary objective of the maintenance regime is to prevent newly established weeds in previously cleared areas from ever seeding and spreading their range.
Key issue 4b: Do we need a comprehensive weed distribution map and inventory to plan the weed control operations properly?
A primary objective of any weed control operation is to establish the weed infestations within the study site and to map these for record purposes. The aim is to stratify the weed infestations into management categories and to provide some information about each category, including a detailed weed inventory, so that effective management approaches can be developed (see Key Issue 3 above).
The map will serve as a basis from which to assess future biological changes that may occur in the weed populations in response to active management (or not). Most importantly, it provides an objective means to evaluate the ecological significance of the vegetation in the different management categories that are to be affected by management since this cannot be done once management has occurred.
Proposed actions
Recent, high resolution, colour aerial photographs should be used to map the distribution of weeds within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system and a Geographic Information System should be used to capture and store the map information. Prior to commencement with the capturing of the map and weed inventory data on the GIS, there should be consultation with the data managers in order to establish an effective
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 inventory protocol for the data to be captured as well as specifications for output requirements such as maps, tables, management schedules etc.
Key issue 5: Do we need to have a properly organised and coordinated approach towards weed control in the wetland?
It became clear from the workshop that there is a perception that the current weed control efforts occurring within the wetland are fragmented and uncoordinated (i.e. nobody appears to be working according to a universal plan) and that there is a lack of a coordinated approach by all interested and affected parties. Furthermore, there is a perceived low level of support by government agencies (DOC and ORC) of private weed control efforts.
The issues relating to organisation and coordination of weed control efforts will need to be resolved if the programme is to be successful and meet its objectives.
Proposed actions
This issue should be addressed by bringing together all the weed control actions of all interested and affected parties under a single, universally acceptable operational plan (see Key issue 3 above). In order to achieve this objective, all key interest groups need to be identified and consulted as regards their needs, vision and expectations for the wetland and surrounding areas and, based on their current control efforts, to provide information on future management activities (Action: Pete Raal).
IMPORTANT ISSUES
1. What do we need to do to get all land-owners and the general public’s support of the weed control programmes?
Landowner’s within the whole Waihola-Waipori wetland system need to work together especially as regards the prevention of the infestation of weeds from one property onto another (i.e. boundary issues).
In terms of public relations, the major issue is dealing with the perceptions that people have of the area. Over time it has come to be expected by some of the public that the willows are an integral part of the landscape around the wetland. Any envisaged weed control operations closer to Waihola will result in large tracts of dead trees in this area which are in direct contrast to these perceptions. The differences in public opinion and the weed control objectives will need to be carefully managed to prevent negative publicity from arising.
Another issue to consider are the problems associated with spraying herbicides in areas utilised by the public. Appropriate management controls and measures will need to be developed and put in place before weed control in these areas is done.
The image that the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee will portray is dependent on the outcome of Key Issue 1. This decision will determine whether the Committee will have a high or low profile image, depending on its ongoing level of weed control within the wetland.
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008
Assuming the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee remains involved in extensive weed control operations in the wetland and wants to retain its image then consideration needs to be given to how the successes achieved should be advertised, marketed and promoted, for example, in the press.
Proposed actions
In an attempt to raise the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee’s image with the general public, it should be considered whether dedicated public awareness and management programmes needs to be invoked to manage the image aspect of the Committee’s involvement in weed control within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system. An integral part of these programmes is the development of an open and transparent consultative process which will ensure that public opinion is heard on matters relating to weed control issues in the wetland. The public awareness programme should form part of, and be run in conjunction with, the weed control operational plan (Action: Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee).
Fundamental to the requirements above is the level of funding available to implement an image building programme (see Key Issue 2 above).
2. What are the operational and physical and legal access constraints which may hinder weed control efforts within the wetland?
The fact that most weed control will take place over or near water severely constrain the implementation of many weed control operations within the wetland. These issues are particularly relevant in instances where herbicides are required to bring the weeds under control.
Helicopters are relatively easy to mobilise to do weed control work but are expensive and experienced operators with the proper equipment and necessary skills are not always available (see key point 4 above).
Besides the above, other issues concerning the deployment of ground crews include getting permission to work on private properties, physical access to weed control sites and the costs of ferrying the crews to difficult sites.
Proposed actions
Using the weed map produced (see Key Issue 4b above), the weed control operational plan needs to clearly identify those management units where ground crews could potentially be used and those where helicopters should be used so that effective management approaches can be developed (see key issue 4 above). These decisions should be clearly highlighted in the proposed weed control operational plan for the wetland (Action: Pete Raal).
Assuming one is employed, the project leader will be responsible for getting permission to work on private properties. He/she will also be responsible for providing both ground and aerial operators with the specifications for the weed control operations required and monitoring their performance with regard to these
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 specifications. The specifications should be drawn up similar to the requirements of the Department of Conservation’s Weed Planner Standard Operating Procedure (2002) and be reviewed annually using the Department of Conservation’s Weed Reporting and Reviewing Standard Operating Procedure (2002) (Action: project leader)
5. INFORMATION TO HELP DEVELOP A PLAN OF ACTION FOR WEED CONTROL IN THE WETLAND
This section summarises the ideas and information provided by the workshop participants to help develop a plan of action for weed control in the wetland.
5.1 AREAS WHICH SHOULD BE CLEARED OF WEEDS FIRST
Participants at the workshop provided the following information regarding which priority areas should be cleared of weeds first.
Most emphasis was placed on the need to clear of weeds (mainly willow and Glyceria) back from the water’s edge to create a buffer of 3 – 10 m from the lake perimeters, the Sinclair Wetlands and all waterways. This is for ecological reasons, to improve water flow and to provide open water for access and recreation purposes.
Other important areas where invasive weeds should be cleared as a priority and to get the best return on the investment made in weed control efforts include ecologically important areas supporting rare and/or threatened plants, rare and/or threatened ecosystems and sites where isolated patches of outliers or sparse infestations of ecologically damaging invasive weeds have recently become established.
Other points raised during this session include doing follow-up work in areas that have been treated for weeds in the past, doing some work in highly visible areas to attract public support, continuing with weed control work that has already been initiated (for example, continue the work done on Dan Lyders property) and working from upstream areas downstream to prevent re-infestation by seed and plant fragments (crack willow) from occurring.
5.2 PRIORITY WEEDS TO BE CLEARED
Assuming there is a limit on the amount of available resources, the participants at the workshop agreed that the following invasive weeds, and starting with isolated outliers and clumps before moving into more dense infestations, should be controlled first:
Crack willow Grey willow Gorse Pines Glyceria Alder Broom
In some instances, particularly in high use recreation areas, consideration may need to be given to removing dead willows (branches and stumps) to create access to channels and open water.
Raupo could be considered for control in areas where it is deemed to be spreading beyond what is considered an acceptable area.
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008
6. CONCLUSION
The information in this report captures all the issues and concerns raised at a key issue scoping weed control and native plant restoration workshop held at the Waihola Hall, Waihola on 23 September 2008. This information, together with the findings of the proposed studies, is to be used to compile an effective operational plan which will be applicable to the ongoing weed control management of Waihola-Waipori wetland system immediately and in the long-term. The main aim of the operational plan is to give the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee direction and set priorities for management action as regards weed control and native plant restoration within the wetland.
7. REFERENCES
Department of Conservation. 2002. Weed Control Reporting and Reviewing Standard Operating Procedure. Department of Conservation Internal Report QD Code NH/1399.Christchurch.
Department of Conservation. 2002. The Weed Planner. Department of Conservation Internal Report QD Code NH/3001.Christchurch.
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008
APPENDIX 1
PERSONS ATTENDING THE SCOPING WORKSHOP HELD AT THE WAIHOLA HALL, WAIHOLA ON 23 SEPTEMBER 2008 TO DETERMINE AN AGREED COMMUNITY VISION AND ESTABLISH ISSUES AND AREAS OF CONCERN WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WAIHOLA-WAIPORI WETLAND SYSTEM WEED CONTROL OPERATIONAL PLAN
INVITED INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTING or ADDRESS Annika Korsten 129 Evans Street Kent Stringer P O Box 115081 David Mules Department of Conservation Bert Wiel Chatham Street David Dobbie 22 Greenhithe Gavin Manson 854 Berwick Road Pauline Bacon 26 Nore Street David Shepherd Otago Regional Council David Vollweiler 82 Berriedale Road David Agnew Department of Conservation Murray Neilson Department of Conservation Lindsay Anderton P O Box 15009 John McIntyre Berwick Clareindon Road Bryan Leckie P O Box 15024 Ray O’Connell 26A Forfar Street Robin Manson Sinclair Wetland Stu Michelle P O Box 15104 R J O’Brien Berwick Donald Scott 55 Riccarton Road Peter Oliver City Forests Peter Johnson Landcare Research Pete Ravenscroft Department of Conservation Ray Beardsmore Woodside Bruce Vollweiler Clutha District Council Ramon Strong Otago Regional Council Kyle Nelson Ross Dungey Ecotek Ltd Gail Tipa Dan Lyders Berwick Ted Palmer 47 Skibo Street Clint Hughes 269 Riverbank Road Ian Hadland Fish and Game Otago Steve Dixon P O Box 76 Ieuan Davies P O Box 387 Betty Bungard P O Box 15103 Val Popham P O Box 15116 Morgan Trotter Fish & Game Otago Marc Schallenberg University of Otago David Wilson Henley-Berwick Road Colin Bungard P O Box 15103
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008
PERSONS UNABLE TO ATTEND REPRESENTING Mike Moehu Trustpower Rachel Puentener Ngai Tahu Alan Petrie Susie McKeague Otago Regional Council Stephen Woodhead Deputy Chair, Otago Regional Council John Kerr Wenita Murray Brass Clutha District Council
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 APPENDIX 2
POINTS RAISED AT THE WORKSHOP AS INPUT TOWARDS THE COMPILATION OF AN AGREED COMMUNITY VISION FOR WEED CONTROL AND NATIVE PLANT RESTORATION FOR THE WAIHOLA- WAIPORI WETLAND SYSTEM
1. Weed control - Will there be a noticeable reduction in all significant, ecosystem-changing invasive weeds (crack and grey willow, Glyceria, gorse, broom, alder, silver birch)? - Will there be a reduction of weed-infested areas? - Will weeds be controlled in priority (ecological and recreation), most at risk areas? - Will all outlier populations of weeds be controlled? - Will populations of weeds that have been controlled be continually managed so that no regeneration in these treated areas can occur in the future? - Will the weeds occurring along the margins of waterways be controlled? - Will Raupo be controlled as a weed in some parts?
This point is strongly linked to these research and management needs: - Will a baseline survey map showing the distribution and extent of the major weed infestations be compiled? - Will there be a weed control plan in place and being implemented? - Will the weed control programmes that are started be properly monitored to see whether they are having the desired effect? - Will the risk of new weed incursion and infestations be prevented and/or reduced in the future?
And: - Will biological control methods be used? - Will there be a minimum use of toxins (herbicides)?
2. Native plants - Will the weeds be under control and native plants regenerating and increasing in density? - Will there be no further spread of exotics to facilitate the establishment and spread of native plant species? - Will there be few weeds and many natives in the wetland? - Will the size of the native plant dominated sites be gradually increasing? - Will native plants regenerate naturally beneath areas sprayed for weeds? - Will there be an increase in the numbers (species and densities) of native plants? - Will native plants be dominant in the ecosystem? - Will there be a programme of native plant restoration in place? - Will more native plants be planted in areas cleared of weeds to help control the re- establishment of the same or different weeds? - Will native plants that were historically present be re-introduced?
This point is strongly linked to these research needs:
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 - Will trial areas documenting native vegetation recovery after the control of willows and alder be established? - Will the main factors driving the native vegetation patterns be determined? - Will the recovery of the native plants be monitored (i.e. to determine how they are doing)?
And: - Will the wetland be restored to a predominantly native ecosystem? - Will habitat diversity be improved? - Will the all representative habitat types within the wetland be protected? - Will habitat diversity for all representative native species of the wetland be retained and enhanced? - Will threatened plants, animals and birds be protected? - Will waterfowl and fish habitat be improved? - Will the fishery be kept in good order?
3. Open water - Will weeds (especially willows) be controlled to provide clear waterways? - Will there be increased areas of open water? - Will there be a proper balance between swampland and open water areas? - Will the open water areas be cleaner and support more birdlife? - Will the weeds be removed from the channel bank margins to allow the wetland to function in the proper hydrological manner?
These points are strongly linked to open water and relate to access: - Will all dead willows (branches and stumps) be removed to create access to channels and open water? - Will the blocked waterways be opened up?
This point is indirectly linked to the open water issue: - Will water level be at a decent level in a controlled situation (i.e. let nature prevail)?
4. Self sustainability - After implementing weed control and native plant restoration management, will the wetland be self sustainable?
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 APPENDIX 3
ISSUES AND CONCERNS RAISED AT THE KEY ISSUE SCOPING WORKSHOP CONVENED TO ESTABLISH THE AREAS OF CONCERN WHICH NEED TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE COMPILATION OF A WEED CONTROL OPERATIONAL PLAN FOR THE WAIHOLA-WAIPORI WETLAND SYSTEM
KEY ISSUES
1. What are the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee’s ongoing interest and investment obligations with regard to weed control within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system? - How important is effective weed control within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system to the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee? - Will the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee management commit to long-term funding for the ongoing control of weeds within the wetland? - What will happen to this high profile (from a biodiversity and recreation point of view) Otago icon if the weed control operations are stopped or not fully funded? This point is strongly linked to: - Other than willows and Glyceria, will the control of other weeds be included within the weed control and native pant restoration operational plan for the Waihola-Waipori wetland system?
2. Are there sufficient resources to do effective weed control within the Waihola-Waipori wetland system?
Financial - Is there enough money to do the weed control work? - Where will (future) funding come from? - How can annual funding (and manpower) for the weed control work to be done be reliably secured on a permanent basis? - Will those weeds that can easily be controlled be selected for control with the money that’s available? - Will the weed control methods be kept simple so money is not wasted? This point is strongly linked to: - What are the realistic cost estimates for ongoing annual weed control, surveillance and maintenance requirements? - How will we cope with increasing weed control costs over time? - How will the ongoing control, surveillance and maintenance costs be met? Both points above are strongly linked to: - What are potential sponsorship and other funding opportunities? - Will all applications for funding assistance be well thought out and include all viewpoints?
Labour - Are there enough people and/or staff available to do the job? - Where will the labour come from?
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 - Will the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee have access to dedicated staff and equipment? The above points are strongly linked to: - Is there enough time to do the job effectively? - Are there enough volunteers with passion available to help? - Will health and safety requirements negatively impact on the objectives of the weed control programme from being achieved? - What is the exact size of the weed control effort for the wetland?
3. Do we have prescribed weed control management objectives and an effective operational plan for the Waihola-Waipori wetland system? - Do all interested and affected parties have a common vision for weed control in the wetland? - Do we need to develop weed control management objectives for the Waihola- Waipori wetland system? - Do we need a clear, comprehensive, cohesive and co-ordinated management strategy and defined weed control operational plan for the wetland? - Does a clear process need to be followed for developing the weed control operational plan? - Where do we start with weed control in the wetland? - Which weeds do we control and where? - Is Raupo a weed that needs to be controlled? - Do we want to do native species restoration work and, if so, which areas should be targeted? - Will we remove dead willow stems and trunks in the water that are causing a boating hazard? - Will there be any monitoring of the weed control efforts? - Will any surveillance be undertaken to determine whether the same or new weeds have become re-established in previously cleared or other areas? - Will any follow-up weed control work be done? This point is strongly linked to: - Where will we get the resources to control weeds within the wetland? (see Key issue 2 above) - Do we need to have an inclusive management approach for all weed control issues for the wetland? - Will a dedicated person be assigned to manage the project? - How does the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee assign workdays for staff to work on weeds in the wetland? - How does the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee accommodate staff access and accommodation for persons working on weeds within the wetland?
4. What research questions should be answered to make the weed control programme more effective in the long-term? - Which are the critical areas where weeds must be controlled first? - Which are the critical weed species to be controlled first? - What other pests could potentially become established? - Have all research needs been identified? - What are the positive and negative consequences of weed control for the wetland?
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 - Do we have enough knowledge of weed – other plant interactions to be able to make informed management decisions? - Does sufficient scientific information already exist to guide the effective management of weeds in the wetland?
4a. Do we have effective weed control methodologies to be able to do the job effectively and efficiently? - What weed control methods should we use? - How do we do weed control? - What will the impact be of using herbicide sprays (ground and aerial) on the wetland ecology? - Do we have the knowledge to be able to use the correct herbicide chemical for the different weed species present? - Will any native plants be killed when spraying with herbicides? - Will herbicide spray drift kill native and garden plants on private properties? - Are effective weed control strategies for each of the weeds species occurring within the wetland already known (including costs etc)? - Is it better and/or cheaper to use ground or aerial control methods? - Do effective and appropriate environmentally friendly weed control technologies (for example, biocontrol and non-toxic methods) already exist? - Are there any effective aerial weed control contractors with the necessary technical and flying skills, knowledge of required equipment and application techniques, safety plans etc available to do the work or do they need to be retrained? - What are the health and safety issues and requirements applicable to all weed control operations within the wetland? - Can the long-term maintenance of areas previously cleared of weeds be assured? - Do we have enough knowledge of weed seed sources to prevent re-invasion within the wetland from occurring? - Will there be a further spread of Glyceria or any other weeds after the willows have been killed? - Can it be ensured that the natural and cultural values associated with the wetland will not be degraded by any weed control initiatives? - What weed control management standards can be expected for the wetland? - Are there variations in the weed control management standards currently being applied to the weeds in the wetland?
4b. Do we need a comprehensive weed distribution map and inventory to plan the weed control operations properly? - Do we know exactly where each weed infestation is, what their extent is and which weed species are present? - How do we compartmentalise each weed infestation into bite sized pieces for management purposes? - Do we need to visually record our weed control successes (or failures) so people can see what we have done (or not) in the past? - Shouldn’t the weed distribution data be captured on a GIS system for performance reporting purposes? The following point is juxtaposed to the issues raised above: - Isn’t too much science getting in the road of “getting the job done”?
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 5. Do we need to have a properly organised and coordinated approach towards weed control in the wetland? - Can’t weed control efforts occurring within the wetland be better organised? - Why are the current weed control efforts in the wetland so fragmented? - Are all parties involved effectively co-ordinated to ensure efficient and cost- effective management? - If one landowner controls their weeds will their neighbours do the same? - Why is there a lack of cooperation and a coordinated approach to weed control within the wetland by the community, landowners and the different agencies? - Why is nobody sticking to a planned attack (universal operational plan) on the weeds? - Why is there such a low level of support of private weed control operations by relevant agencies (ORC)? - How do we formalise the relationship between the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee and the landowners? - How does the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee formalise any weed control operations done by land-owners? - How does the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee establish liaison with landowners? - What is required to resolve weed control issues between the Lake Waihola Waipori Wetlands Committee and landowners?
IMPORTANT ISSUES
1. What do we need to do to get the general public’s support of the weed control programmes? - The general public expect to see willows. What will they say when they start seeing dead and/or removed trees? - The public perception of the wetlands as they are now with all the established willows is different to what they actually looked like in the past. How will we get this message across to people? - How do we promote the message of weed control (i.e. the “big picture”)? - How do we increase the public’s appreciation of the values and importance of the wetland? - How do we increase public awareness about the wetland?
2. What are the operational and physical and legal access constraints which may hinder weed control efforts within the wetland?
- Is physical access to areas where there is a need to do weed control an issue at any/some sites? - Is there a requirement to get permission from the landowners to do weed control at all sites? - What are the climatic, environmental and other factors that could negatively affect weed control operations within the wetland? - How does the water and difficult accessibility affect ground crews operating in the wetland? - How do we provide accommodation for large numbers of people if they are required to work in the wetland?
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008 - What are the extra costs of ferrying ground crews in and out of difficult to access sites? - Is spraying chemicals from helicopters an acceptable for of weed control in the wetland? - Where is it possible to use ground crews and where could a helicopter rather be used? - Who will provide the specifications for weed control for both ground and aerial weed control contractors?
Final Key Issue Scoping Report October 2008