WILDING CONIFER STRATEGIC PLAN
Inner Queen Charlotte Sound
Prepared for: MARLBOROUGH SOUNDS RESTORATION TRUST
With financial assistance from the New Zealand King Salmon Co. Ltd.
Prepared by: Andrew Macalister
Leviathan Consulting
September 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE...... 3 INTRODUCTION ...... 4 Background ...... 4 Defining the problem ...... 5 Current situation ...... 6 THE STRATEGY ...... 8 Purpose and Status of Strategy ...... 8 Vision ...... 8 MANAGEMENT PLAN ...... 9 Management sectors ...... 9 Wilding conifer inventory ...... 9 Site-led prioritisation ...... 10 Budget estimates ...... 12 Management Plan summary ...... 14 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ...... 15 Control Methodologies ...... 15 Control timing ...... 20 Contractor procurement ...... 20 Statutory compliance ...... 20 Landowner liaison & approvals ...... 21 Health & Safety ...... 21 Contractor management ...... 22 Programme Management ...... 22 BUSINESS PLAN ...... 24 Proposed expenditure ...... 24 Trust status ...... 26 Fund raising ...... 27 Financial Management ...... 28 REFERENCES ...... 29 APPENDIX 1: MAP OF MANAGEMENT SECTORS ...... 30 APPENDIX 2: PHOTO SELECTION ...... 31
2 | P a g e
APPENDIX 3: SUMMARY OF MANAGEMENT, IMPLEMENTATION AND BUSINESS PLANS ...... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED.
PREFACE
Wilding pines obscure the ridges and flatten the dramatic landscape of the Sounds. Not only that, but these same pines compromise and slow down the active regeneration of native forest which once covered this area of national importance.
The presence of wilding pines in such large numbers stems from misguided management decisions made in the Sounds in the early part of the 20th century. When it was decided to allow commercial forestry in this iconic area, it was recognised even then that the pines would spread beyond their initial planting areas.
What is needed now is a community-led approach to solve this problem. The Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust is to be commended for mapping a way forward.
Plans, if they are to succeed, need financial buy-in. The Trust hopes that local and central government and the local community will get in behind this important initiative. Please give your active support.
Sir Paul Reeves Patron Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust
3 | P a g e
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
Wilding conifers are commonly known as wilding pines, rogue pines or feral pines.
For the purposes of this Strategy, they are defined as introduced species of the Class Conifersopsida (Gymnospermae) that are self-sown or growing wild, of which Pinus radiata comprises the main species in the Marlborough Sounds.
The dominance of Pinus radiata reflects the fact that they had been widely planted in commercial forestry lots and as shelter belts throughout the Sounds, dating as far back as the early 1900s.
Many of the wilding conifers that are currently present in Inner Queen Charlotte Sound are a legacy of this practice, as seedlings established at the cessation of farming, when former paddocks or burnt-off hillsides were allowed to revert to scrub/forest under limited grazing pressure.
While the opportunity for conifer establishment becomes increasingly limited as the native forest canopy matures, conifers are extremely long-lived and produce a large number of wind-blown seeds which allows time for more and more trees to become established as high light opportunities present themselves. These light gaps can be caused by events such slips, drought, pig rooting or wind damage. Over many years these occasional opportunities can lead to a widespread and, in places, dense canopy of wilding conifers that can prevent the normal regeneration of native species.
Over the last few years in particular, there has been an increasing awareness of the impacts wilding conifers are having in the Marlborough Sounds. Several communities and individuals have become concerned enough to undertake control in areas that would otherwise fall outside the priority areas where publicly-funded organisations such as the Department of Conservation (DOC) are able to instigate control. While sometimes having a significant impact within their spheres of interest, these groups are often disadvantaged by not having a strategic or co-ordinated approach in the implementation of their control operations.
The Strategy aims to address this situation by planning wilding conifer control throughout Inner Queen Charlotte Sound in a strategic and achievable way.
4 | P a g e
DEFINING THE PROBLEM
The spread of wilding conifers is an increasing problem throughout the Marlborough Sounds.
The problem has been acknowledged by the major land manager in the Marlborough Sounds, the Department of Conservation (DOC), by the Marlborough District Council (MDC), and by Sounds residents, business interests and recreational users.
As noted in the MDC’s Strategy for Control of Wilding Conifers in North Marlborough (Ledgard, 2004):
“There is little doubt that most of the people who live, and/or consider themselves stakeholders, in North Marlborough, in particular the Sounds area, favour the control of wilding pines.”
LANDSCAPE IMPACTS
The most immediate impact is the visual intrusion on the landscape, and loss of associated landscape and amenity values, as wilding pines establish above the regenerating native forest canopy and, in many areas, have become or are threatening to become the dominant forest species.
The MDC’s Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan notes that:
“In its entirety, the landscape of the Marlborough Sounds Plan area has outstanding visual values. It displays a broad range of types of visual landscapes and features which are often of greater value for their collective contribution than for their individual value. The location of the Sounds at the top of the South Island with the role as a sea corridor and gateway to the South Island ensures a high public profile as a travel route.”
Lucas’ Blights and Blots on the Landscape: Wilding Pines in Queen Charlotte Sound (Lucas, 2007) identified that, without extensive and comprehensive wilding management, the landscape values of Queen Charlotte Sound will gradually diminish. It will lose its distinctiveness, and very special identity based on its natural qualities.
ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS
Associated with this spread of wilding pines is the loss or displacement of native biodiversity, where wilding pines have become, or are becoming, the dominant forest species.
DOC’s South Island Wilding Conifer Strategy (Harding, 2001) identifies the threat of wilding conifers to the Marlborough Sounds as including the invasion and suppression of regenerating fernland and shrubland, and the suppression of native forest regeneration.
Walls’ The Ecological Case for Wilding Pine Removal in Queen Charlotte Sound identifies that wilding pines put the following ecosystems at risk:
i. coastal scarps
5 | P a g e
ii. islands,
iii. regenerating native vegetation
iv. streams.
The report also identifies at least eight types of native plants at risk, plus many native animals (land birds, shore-nesting birds, lizards, invertebrates and freshwater fish).
CURRENT SITUATION
Despite the recognition of the problem, no co-ordinated approach has been in place to manage the spread of wilding conifers in the Marlborough Sounds.
DOC undertakes low-level control on the areas of public conservation land identified as top priority in its South Island Wilding Conifer Strategy (Harding, 2001), prioritised against its Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive Weeds (Owen, 1998), which considers the impact on native biodiversity only.
This has resulted in DOC control being largely restricted to the island sanctuaries it manages, such as Blumine, Motuara and Long Island, and unltramafic areas on d’Urville Island.
Despite being the major land manager in the Sounds, DOC is unlikely to fund further wilding conifer control on the land it manages, as funding is allocated against native biodiversity impacts only and DOC’s South Island Wilding Conifer Strategy gives most areas of public conservation land in the Sounds a ranking score of only 2.5 out of 21 on its prioritisation methodology.
MDC’s Regional Pest Management Strategy (2007) acknowledges wilding conifers as an ecological threat, but does not give them legal pest status. This means that there is no obligation on Council, forest owners, or landowners to manage the spread of wilding conifers.
Nevertheless, resident/community groups and individuals undertake wilding conifer control on an ad hoc basis on private land, often extending onto public conservation land, with a range of control methodologies employed.
MDC supports such private landowner initiatives through the provision of advice, and has jointly funded research into control options to advance this goal, through a Foundation of Research, Science and Technology programme.
DOC also supports private landowner initiatives through its ‘Working with Communities’ programme, which amounts to about $5,000 annually in the Sounds. This is the only provision DOC has to work on wilding conifers for reasons other than the protection of native biodiversity.
The Trust was established as a means of generating a community-led response to the wilding conifer problem.
6 | P a g e
To achieve this end, the Trust commissioned an initial management plan, entitled ‘The Inner Queen Charlotte Sound Pine Plan’ from Marlborough ecological consultant, Tom Stein, in June 2007, with funding support from the Department of Conservation.
The report presented an inventory and work plan for the removal of wilding conifers in the Inner Queen Charlotte Sound and, for the first time, offered a strategic approach to tackling the problem.
The Trust also commissioned ecologist Geoff Walls, of Taramoa Ltd, to prepare a report on the impact of wilding pines on ecological values, and landscape architect Di Lucas, of Lucas Associates Ltd, to provide an assessment of the landscape effects of wilding trees on the Marlborough Sounds. Both reports, funded by Marlborough District Council, present a compelling case, on the basis of ecological and landscape values respectively, for comprehensive wilding pine control in the Sounds.
In 2008-09, the Trust was successful with a $90,543.00 bid to the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board’s Environment and Heritage Fund to undertake control work in seven priority sectors of Inner Queen Charlotte Sound. In addition, the Trust was successful with a $12,000 bid to the Department of Conservation’s Biodiversity Condition Fund to undertake control in an eighth priority sector. The New Zealand King Salmon company Ltd also contributed $10,609 towards the management of the 2008-09 control programme.
7 | P a g e
THE STRATEGY
This Strategy was commissioned by the Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust, which is a charitable organisation established with the aim of facilitating the restoration of native ecosystems in the Marlborough Sounds, and protecting the area’s landscape values.
The original document was prepared in 2007 by ecological consultant, Tom Stein, as ‘The Inner Queen Charlotte Sound Pine Plan’, and was updated by the Trust Chairman, Andrew Macalister, in August 2008, with funding support from the New Zealand King Salmon Co. Ltd.
PURPOSE AND STATUS OF STRATEGY
The Strategy has four purposes: i. To provide a framework for operational planning by prioritising areas for control and providing indicative cost estimates. (Refer to Management Plan) ii. To define proposed methods of control, and outline how the control programme will be delivered.(Refer to Implementation Plan) iii. To document proposed expenditure over the term of this Strategy, and outline a fund-raising strategy.(Refer to Business Plan) iv. To enable informed discussions and collaboration with private landowners and with other control agencies, funding organisations, stakeholders and statutory authorities.
The Strategy is a non-statutory plan, and has no legal status.
VISION
The Strategy’s vision is for the initial control of wilding conifers from all high-priority locations of Inner Queen Charlotte Sound by 2011.
8 | P a g e
MANAGEMENT PLAN
A central purpose of this Strategy is to provide a framework for operational planning by prioritising areas for control and providing indicative cost estimates. To achieve this objective, a Management Plan has been developed using the following procedures.
MANAGEMENT SECTORS
For the purposes of operational planning, Inner Queen Charlotte Sound has been divided into a number of management sectors, based on the extent of wilding conifer infestation, access considerations, tenure, land use and landscape values.
Each sector is intended to represent a coherent area of land, that is of suitable scale and size, on which it is possible to undertake effective wilding conifer control in a short (2-3 month) timeframe.
A map showing these management sectors is attached as Appendix 1.
Some areas of Inner Queen Charlotte Sound were excluded from the scope of the Management Plan:
i. the townships of Picton and Waikawa
ii. Kaipupu Point (under management by the Kaipupu Point Mainland Island Society)
iii. Victoria Domain (under management by Marlborough District Council)
iv. two areas dedicated to commercial forestry management in Whatamango Bay and behind Anakiwa (owned by Whatamonga Farms Ltd and Nelson Pine Industries Ltd respectively).
WILDING CONIFER INVENTORY
In establishing management sectors, and for budgeting purposes, the extent of wilding conifer infestation in Inner Queen Charlotte Sound was assessed using the following sources:
i. A Strategy for Control of Wilding Conifers in North Marlborough (Ledgard, 2004)
ii. Aerial photographs
iii. Site inspections. 9 | P a g e
The infestations were grouped into four categories, according to the density of the wilding conifers:
i. No wilding conifers
ii. Less than one tree per hectare
iii. More than one tree per hectare
iv. Dense infestations, defined as having an overlapping canopy.
It is accepted that most seedlings and pre-emergent trees will not have been identified, as they are not visible from aerial photographs or visual inspection, and that the inventory will consistently underestimate the density of conifer infestation at each site. To recognise this, the inventory of tree numbers has always used the highest figure within estimate ranges, and an additional contingency factor has been included in budgeting.
SITE-LED PRIORITISATION
A scoring system has been developed for each management sector, to attribute a priority for each sector based on the following attributes:
THREAT TO ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES
The potential for wilding conifers to alter the long-term viability of the likely climax vegetation of a site and the likelihood of that site providing habitat for threatened or limited distribution plants were considered when determining a score for the threat to environmental values for each block. This implies that a block with exposed headlands, where the climax vegetation is always likely to be of a low stature, and is also, because of its exposed nature, more likely to provide habitat for threatened plant species will score higher than an area of mature forest which has a lower chance of being invaded by conifers and is found in a wider range of sites.
Score Value
1. Significant other introduced weed species present.
2. Mature established native forest at low risk of wilding conifer domination.
3. Well established regeneration comprising mainly native species.
4. Early stage regeneration comprising mainly native species.
5. Contains potentially low stature climax vegetation as found on exposed littoral areas or ultramafic zones.
LANDSCAPE VALUES
10 | P a g e
For the purpose of this Strategy, it is assumed that the presence of wilding conifers is detrimental to landscape values. It is assumed that wilding conifers on the skyline are more obtrusive than those on a hillside and that the larger the hillside the less obtrusive wilding conifers are. Accordingly headlands of less than 300m altitude are a higher priority than large hillsides. It also assumes that dense stands of pines with a “managed” and “historic” appearance are preferable to scattered wilding conifers. Finally, it recognises that landscape values are higher in areas of high public use, such as along the main inter-island ferry route.
Score Value
1. Developed hillside and or hillsides with areas of managed forest, several houses or patches of farmland.
2. Hillsides with scattered wilding conifers.
3. Hillsides with scattered wilding conifers in areas of high public use.
4. Headlands below 300m with scattered wilding conifers.
5. Headlands below 300m with scattered wilding conifers in areas of high public use.
EXTENT OF INFESTATION
The density of the wilding conifer infestation has a large bearing on the possibility of effective control. Lower densities allow larger areas to be cleared of wilding conifers for the same amount of resources that would be required to clear a small area of high density wilding conifers. Additionally by controlling the few outlier trees the spread of seeds over a large area is greatly reduced.
Score Value
1. Dense infestations.
2. > 1 wilding conifer per hectare.
3. < 1 wilding conifer per hectare with some dense patches.
4. Very low density, close to no wilding conifers.
11 | P a g e
BUDGET ESTIMATES
The costing of wilding conifer control in regenerating forest in the Marlborough Sounds is an inexact science.
Firstly, wilding conifer control in the Marlborough Sounds is subject to several cost factors that are not commonly encountered in other areas of New Zealand. These include
1. Travel to site: In most cases boat transport is required to get to and from the site, requiring the use of a commercial water taxi, although ATV access will be possible to some locations.
2. Variability of terrain and forest cover: While many of the hills in the Marlborough Sounds do not reach a high altitude, the land is generally steep and the ‘tightness’ of the regenerating forests can make travel on site slow.
3. Density of the infestation: Where the wilding conifer population is dense most of the time involved in the control operation is in the time taken to treat each tree. Generally in a dense stand of trees it should be possible to treat up to 10 trees an hour. Conversely where the wilding conifers population is less than one per hectare most of the time required is in locating and getting from tree to tree. Depending on the density of the regeneration and the steepness of the terrain it is possible to control 1 or 2 trees in an hour. Densities between these two examples will require control times that are similarly adjusted.
4. Exclusion areas: There are a number of areas where conifers are not able to be treated with herbicide, such as around baches and power lines. In these areas, more expensive forms of control, notably tree-felling, will be required.
Secondly, budgeting involves making several assumptions that, if they do not hold true, can have a significant impact on the final cost of control.
When estimating the costs for control in each of the blocks the following assumptions were used.
1. Competent contractors with the required skills and qualifications (i.e. first aid certificate, GROWSAFE certificate and bush navigation skills), equipment (i.e. drill and bits, spray gear, first aid kit, pruning saw, wet weather gear) and health and safety plan, will charge around $40.00 per hour.
2. Contractors will primarily be expected to stay on site, in order to minimize the costs and ‘dead time’ involved in travelling daily to a site. Boat travel is therefore budgeted as one return trip per person every two working days, with an hour of travel time. An hour per person per day is also allowed for travel within the site.
3. The average cost of the required herbicide solution is estimated at an average of $5 an hour.
4. An average of one hour will be required for treatment of each widely-scattered emergent tree, assuming some trees will be hard to access or locate. Closely-
12 | P a g e
scattered trees will be able to be treated at the rate of two per hour. Dense stands of trees will be controlled at a faster rate, as they are close together and easily accessed, with up to 10 an hour able to be treated.
5. A 30% margin has been added to allow for high numbers of seedlings and pre- emergent trees being located, that were not detectable on aerial photos or visual inspection, and to allow for the contract felling of trees excluded from herbicide injection.
It is accepted that it will not be until several operations have been undertaken that a more accurate picture of pricing can be obtained, at which time budgets may need to be revised.
RECOGNITION OF COMMERCIALLY-VIABLE STANDS OF WILDING CONIFERS
In making budget estimates, the Trust has also sought to recognise that there are some areas, within designated management sectors, where stands of wilding conifers occur in sufficient density, such that they could be viable for small-scale commercial logging. These have only been included within budget estimates where landowners have indicated approval to do so.
For the purposes of budgeting, therefore, the following stands were excluded from budget estimates:
1. A dense stand on the west side of Lochmara Bay (Department of Conservation)
2. A dense stand on the east side of Lochmara Bay, behind East Bay (Department of Conservation)
3. A small woodlot on the east side of Whatamango Bay (Whatamango Farms Ltd)
It is accepted that this list may not be complete, as the threshold for what is commercially viable for logging can vary rapidly according to export log prices and could affect landowner intentions with regard to their wilding conifers. In the event that additional landowners indicate a desire to have trees excluded from the scope of control, this will be recognised by the Trust.
The following dense stands were included in budget estimates
1. Wedge Point (Department of Conservation)
2. A dense stand on the headland between Kahikatea Bay and East Bay (Queen Charlotte Holdings Ltd)
Where a landowner wishes to undertake commercial logging of their conifers, the Trust will advocate that post-harvest management of the site be undertaken. If the landowner does not wish to have a second-rotation plantation forest, the Trust recommends that the forest site be allowed to recover for at least one year to allow maximum conifer regeneration to commence, prior to herbicide treatment of the site. This will remove the vast majority of the seedlings, and allow the best opportunity for successional native forest regeneration to occur, which may be assisted through the over-sowing or planting of suitable native species.
13 | P a g e
MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY
The following table summarises the management sectors in Inner Queen Charlotte Sound, and identifies their relative priority and a budget estimate for each sector.
No. NAME PRIORITY CONTROL 8 PIHAKA PT 1 $ 240.50 7 KUMUTOTO 2 $ 3,418.38 3 BULL HEAD 2 $ 15,538.10 5 TAHUAHUA 3 $ 53,761.81 10 NGATAWHETAWHETA 3 $ 23,307.14 26 RUAMOKO PT 3 $ 23,307.14 25 DIEFFENBACH 4 $ 38,845.24 2 BAY OF MANY COVES 5 $ 6,526.00 23 WHATAMANGO FARM 6 $ 23,307.14 6 BLACKWOOD BAY 7 $ 5,671.40 4 RUAKAKA 7 $ 12,508.17 12 LOCHMARA HEAD 8 $ 10,954.36 24 KAHIKATEA BAY 8 $ 37,369.12 9 TOREA WEST 8 $ 7,458.29 17 UMUNGATA 9 $ 3,884.52 15 OHAHAU HEAD 9 $ 19,034.17 11 LOCHMARA EAST 10 $ 17,091.90 20 WEDGE PT 10 $ 23,307.14 1 ARATAWA 10 $ 30,299.29 22 AHURIRI BAY 10 $ 25,171.71 14 ONAHAU EAST 10 $ 19,306.08 16 ONAHAU WEST 11 $ 6,215.24 13 LOCHMARA WEST 11 $ 24,860.95 19 GROVE ARM 12 $ 58,578.62 18 ANAKIWA 13 $ 12,042.02 21 WAIKAWA 14 $ 14,916.57
Th e Management Plan does not identify when follow -up control will be required to be undertaken, or at what cost. It is accepted that, no matter how successful the initial control work is, there will inevitably be trees that are missed and a few trees that establish after control has finished.
It is anticipated that the follow-up should be undertaken within five years of initial control, before new seedlings set seed, but the scale and complexity of this task will not be known until at least two years of initial control has been successfully completed.
14 | P a g e
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
A central purpose of this Strategy is to define proposed methods of control, and to outline the delivery of the control programme. To achieve this objective, an Implementation Plan has been developed.
CONTROL METHODOLOGIES
The Trust has identified three control methodologies that are suitable for controlling wilding conifers in the Marlborough Sounds.
REMOVAL OF SMALL SEEDLINGS/PRE-EMERGENT TREES
Small seedlings and young trees that have not emerged from the canopy shall be either hand-pulled or cleanly cut using a pruning saw/shears/loppers.
Seedlings shall be placed clear of the ground, and dirt shaken from their roots, to prevent re-establishment.
Young trees shall be completely severed from the stump as close to the ground as possible, and all green branches and green needles that may still be on the stump removed.
Small seedlings and young trees that occur underneath power lines, where this area is being actively managed by Marlborough Lines for vegetation regrowth, shall be excluded from the scope of the Services.
HERBICIDE INJECTION
Emergent trees shall be drilled and injected with herbicide, by preference. Poisoning sanding trees has been preferred to felling, as large trees break down a lot of regenerating native vegetation as they hit the ground, thereby opening up a ‘light well’ on the forest floor. Pine seeds like high light conditions to germinate, and dozens of seedlings can appear around the felled tree. By contrast, poisoning leaves the surrounding regenerating native vegetation undisturbed, and allows a seamless transition from wilding pines to native vegetation. Very little secondary pine re-growth is anticipated from poisoning.
For Pinus radiata between 0.2 and 0.5m in diameter, a minimum of two holes shall be drilled at even spacings into the sap wood of the trunk. The holes shall be drilled at the most convenient height, using a 20mm drill bit, to approximately 75mm deep, and on a downward angle. The holes shall not extend deeply into the centre of the tree. For Pinus radiata between 0.5 and 1.0m in diameter, a minimum of four holes shall be drilled at even spacings into the sap wood of the trunk. The holes shall be drilled at the most convenient height, using a 20mm drill bit, to approximately 75mm deep, and on a downward angle. The holes shall not extend deeply into the centre of the tree. 15 | P a g e
For Pinus radiata between 1.0 and 1.5m in diameter, a minimum of six holes shall be drilled at even spacings into the sap wood of the trunk. The holes shall be drilled at the most convenient height, using a 20mm drill bit, to approximately 75mm deep, and on a downward angle. The holes shall not extend deeply into the centre of the tree.
For Pinus pinaster, Pinus contorta and other species of conifer, the treatment rate shall be doubled.
Where the tree has multiple leaders or stems, each leader/stem shall be treated as a separate tree.
Immediately after drilling, each hole shall be filled with a minimum of 10mls of metsulfuron solution, or sufficient such that the liquid reaches up to the outside edge of the sap wood.
The metsulfuron solution shall comprise 600 g/kg Metsulfuron-Methyl in the form of a water dispersible granule, mixed with clean, fresh water, at a rate of 200g per litre.
Only personnel that hold a current GROWSAFE Standard certificate are permitted to mix and dispense the metsulfuron solution.
The solution must be under the control of an Approved Handler, licensed under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.
The Contractor shall also comply with the relevant requirements of the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan with regard to the Application of Agrichemicals, including, but not limited to, Sections 30.1.9.5 (Sounds Residential Zone), 36.1.7.9 (Rural One Zone), 38.1.3 (Conservation Zone).
CONTROLLED FELLING
While herbicide injection is the preferred methodology for emergent trees, requirements under the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan, Department of Conservation and other landowner/manager requirements, and the need to protect high-voltage power lines means that in the following situations, trees are not able to be poisoned:
i. within 80m of power lines;
ii. within 100m of private dwellings, boatsheds, jetties or other structures, or the access tracks to these structures, on the Sounds Foreshore Reserve;
iii. within 50m of public structures, walking tracks, camping and amenity areas, or popular beaches that are managed as part of the public conservation estate;
iv. within 50m of public roads;
v. within 8m of any permanently flowing river, or any lake, wetland or the sea OR within 20m of any permanently flowing river, or any lake, wetland or the sea where the wilding conifers occupy more than 100 metres length per kilometre of the legal riparian boundary; 16 | P a g e
vi. that have been requested as an exclusion in accordance with written instructions from the relevant landowner, through the Landowner Access Consent Form.
vii. any other tree which, by its location, may pose a hazard to coastal navigation, the public, public access, public utilities or man-made structures if it is poisoned and left in place.
In these situations, controlled felling is the preferred methodology.
For all tree-felling, the work shall comply with the Department of Labour’s: i. Arboriculture Code of Practice (http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/order/catalogue/pdf/arborcode.pdf) ii. Guidelines for Chainsaw Work (http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/order/catalogue/pdf/chainsaw2.pdf) iii. Safety & Health in Forest Operations (http://www.osh.dol.govt.nz/order/catalogue/pdf/forest-a.pdf)
In addition, all chainsaw users are required to hold the following NZQA Unit Standards, as a minimum: i. 6916 Knowledge of chainsaw use ii. 6917 Operate a chainsaw iii. 17763 Knowledge of tree felling iv. 17766 Fell trees safely.
For the felling of trees within 80m of power lines, the work shall comply with Marlborough Lines’ standard work procedures, including Specifications and Conditions for Line Clearing Operations on Marlborough Lines’ Network, Work Procedures Manual and Job Sheet and Hazard Identification Form
On public conservation land, the work shall comply with the Department of Conservation’s Standard Operating Procedure for Chainsaw Use, for any chainsaw work undertaken after 30 June 2009.
On private land, the planned work programme will be agreed with the relevant landowner/manager, including the identification of any hazards, prior to commencement.
ALTERNATIVE METHODS
The Trust will investigate other control methods as an alternative, or enhancement, to herbicide injection, subject to available funding, field trials, evaluation of cost effectiveness, and/or the presentation of relevant research.
The treatment of widely-scattered trees in the most remote areas of the Sounds, away from tracks or road access, is the situation most suited to an alternative or enhanced control methodology. The methods used elsewhere in New Zealand for difficult-to- access trees all involve the use of a helicopter, and are; foliar spot spraying, aerial root spraying, dropping personnel on-site using a sling or cage, and dropping personnel by landing the helicopter near-by (skid-hopping). Each method has been developed for use in different contexts, with the size and species of wilding conifer, and the stature of the 17 | P a g e
surrounding vegetation being the main variables. It is considered a priority by the Trust to identify which of these, or any other method, may be more suited to the Marlborough Sounds context, rather than requiring individual contractors to walk to and locate the trees by foot.
Secondly, trials into chemical thinning of forestry plantations during the 1980-90s suggests that tree frilling may be an alternative to herbicide injection, and could prove to be a faster technique in dense stands of wilding conifers.
The Trust does not believe that aerial boom spraying will be an effective tool in the Sound, given the high level of development and recreational activity in the area.
18 | P a g e
ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF WILDING CONIFER CONTROL METHODS.
Advantages Disadvantages
Felling of wilding Sure of success Leaves a large light gap that conifers may encourage seedling reestablishment.
Rapid removal from the High operator risk – trained landscape. people required.
Cost recovery possible in OSH/DOC requirements dense infestations via timber mean two people need to extraction. work together.
Controlled felling possible, in Heavy equipment to carry. sensitive areas, such as around power lines.
Expensive.
Herbicide injection. Lightweight equipment. Standing dead trees unsightly.
Low operator risk. Use of ‘poisonous’ chemicals.
Small light gap created with Slow response time. low risk of seedling establishment.
Standing dead tree provides Decay of poisoned trees habitat for native insects. uncontrolled, making it unsuitable in sensitive areas.
Standing dead tree may act as perch for birds that spread native seeds.
Comparatively low cost
19 | P a g e
CONTROL TIMING
Control will be optimally timed for spring of each year, as that is the time when conifers grow most actively and therefore are most susceptible to herbicide injection.
However, as Pinus radiata is distinctive among conifers in showing active growth throughout the year, summer is also an acceptable time for control.
Controlled felling, as a follow-up to those trees excluded from herbicide injection, will be optimally undertaken in summer and early autumn.
CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT
Contractors will be engaged to undertake the work, with procurement conducted in an open and transparent manner in winter/early spring of each year.
In the first year (2008-09), procurement will be undertaken through a competitive tendering process, to establish the size of the likely contractor market and to encourage innovations and price competitiveness.
Procurement methodologies in future years will be dependent on the outcome of the first year’s procurement and control outcomes.
The services shall be performed on a daily rate for poisoning, and an hourly rate for tree-felling. Contractors will be required to enter into a written Contract for Services and Project Schedule for each management sector they undertake.
STATUTORY COMPLIANCE
The Trust has obtained a Certificate of Compliance, pursuant to Section 139 of the Resource Management Act 1991 for its proposed control methodology.
The Department of Conservation has also provided its written approval of the proposed methodology on public conservation land.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry has advised that the proposed methodology would not constitute forest clearance, and therefore would not be liable for penalties under New Zealand’s emissions trading scheme.
20 | P a g e
LANDOWNER LIAISON & APPROVALS
Written permission to enter upon private land must be obtained by Contractors from all landowners/occupiers, using the Trust’s Landowner Access Consent Form, which forms part of the standard Contract conditions. The form must be fully completed and legible, and should be filled out in person except for absentee landowners. The Contractor shall fully comply with all access conditions stipulated in Landowner Access Consent Forms. Landowners are under no obligation to agree to control on their land and, where access is denied, the property will be removed from the control programme.
HEALTH & SAFETY
Health and safety is an important consideration when planning wilding conifer control.
The minimum health and safety requirements apply:
i. COMMUNICATIONS: All staff employed by the Contractor shall maintain sufficient communications equipment in the field that is capable of immediately obtaining outside assistance should an accident or any other emergency occur.
ii. FIRST AID: All staff employed by the Contractor shall maintain and carry a personal first aid kit while in the field.
iii. HERBICIDE USE: Personal protective equipment shall be worn during herbicide mixing and application, as recommended by the manufacturer on the herbicide label.
iv. TOOL USE: Any use of power and hand-operated tools shall comply with recognised safe work practices, particularly with regard to the use of personal protective equipment, refuelling procedures and maintenance.
v. AIRCRAFT: If the Contractor wishes to use aircraft in the completion of the Services, prior approval of the Trust must be obtained. The operator of any aircraft must possess a current Air Operator Certificate or equivalent, as required by the Civil Aviation Authority.
vi. BOATS: For access to all control areas, powered vessels are required to be surveyed and operated by a commercially ticketed skipper (LLO or greater). For access within a site, non-powered vessels are permitted, subject to recognised safe boat handling practices. vii. FIRE: The Contractor shall maintain some means of fire suppression while in the field, such as a 420g fire extinguisher.
21 | P a g e
CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT
All work will be subject to quality assurance auditing by the Trust.
For a new contractor, or an existing contractor that has significantly changed personnel, a quality assurance audit shall be conducted within the first two days of commencement, and up to twice more during the term of the Contract.
For all other contractors, a quality assurance audit may take place up to twice during the term of the Contract.
The quality assurance audit shall ensure that all Contract conditions, including delivery of the Standard Operational Specifications, are being complied with.
In the event of there being any evidence of poor workmanship or any failures to complete the Contract specifications to a satisfactory standard, the Trust can either require immediate remediation at the Contractor’s expense, or to terminate the Contract.
PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT
The Trust is budgeting its management services at 24% of the cost of control for each sector. This allows for the following services to be undertaken by a Programme Co- ordinator engaged or employed by the Trust:
i. Managing communications with Trust members
a. Establish and maintain effective working relationships with Trust members
b. Ensure Trust meetings are adequately reported to and serviced.
ii. Managing community relations
a. Ensure all landowners and land managers provide access consent before control work commences.
b. Ensure effective communications of the wilding conifer control programme with the wider Sounds community.
c. Ensure effective communications and reporting is maintained with key stakeholders (DOC, MDC etc).
d. Erect signage at key access points for each control sector. iii. Contract management
a. Prepare contract and tender documents for each of the control sectors.
22 | P a g e
b. Ensure contracts are tendered and awarded in keeping with established best practice.
c. Assist Trust members in tender evaluation and tender award processes.
iv. Contractor management
a. Identify and establish communications with contracting market.
b. Convene an annual contractor’s meeting prior to tender release.
c. Hold pre-operational briefings with successful contractors.
d. Audit contractors and deal with any operational issues.
e. Advise control completion, in association with Trust.
23 | P a g e
BUSINESS PLAN
A central purpose of this Strategy is to document proposed expenditure over the term of this Strategy, and outline a fund-raising strategy. To achieve this objective, a Business Plan has been developed.
PROPOSED EXPENDITURE
The Management Plan has allocated a budget for each management sector, and the Implementation Plan has also identified the requirement to fund the Trust’s management services at a ratio of 1:4.2 to successfully implement the Strategy.
Over the entire Strategy, proposed expenditure of $607,553.40 is therefore estimated, comprising $489,962.42 on control, and $117,590.98 on management.
Sectors that have a total score of less than five have been excluded from the Business Plan, on the basis that these sectors are low priority for control, and the funds for these sectors could more productively be used in other areas of the Marlborough Sounds, outside the scope of this current Strategy, such as Outer Queen Charlotte Sound or Kenepuru Sound.
The Trust proposes to deliver this expenditure over three financial years, commencing July 2008 and concluding in June 2011.
The following table specifies the proposed fall of expenditure, based on the prioritization undertaken in the Management Plan.
24 | P a g e
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2008-09 2009-10 2010 -11 No. NAME CONTROL CONTROL CONTROL MGMT MGMT MGMT $ $
8 PIHAKA PT 234.00 57.72 $ $
7 KUMUTOTO 2,886.00 820.41 $ $
3 BULL HEAD 11,481.00 3,729.14 $ $
5 TAHUAHUA 44,720.00 12,902.83 $ $
10 NGATAWHETAWHETA 18,330.00 5,593.71 $ $
23a WHATAMANGO FARM (1) 10,666.67 3,183.00 $ $
4 RUAKAKA 9,837.00 3,001.96 $ $
17 UMUNGATA 3,055.00 932.29 $ $
26 RUAMOKO PT 23,307.14 5,593.71 $ $
25 DIEFFENBACH 38,845.24 9,322.86 $ $
2 BAY OF MANY COVES 6,526.00 1,566.24 $ $
23b WHATAMANGO FARM (2) 12,640.47 5,000.00 $ $
6 BLACKWOOD BAY 5,671.40 1,361.14 $ $
12 LOCHMARA HEAD 10,954.36 2,629.05 $ $
24 KAHIKATEA BAY 37,369.12 8,968.59 $ $
9 TOREA WEST 7,458.29 1,789.99 $ $
11 LOCHMARA EAST 17,091.90 4,102.06 $ $
15 OHAHAU HEAD 19,034.17 4,568.20 $ 23,307.14 $ 20 WEDGE PT 5,593.71 $ $
1 ARATAWA 30,299.29 7,272.00 $ $
22 AHURIRI BAY 25,171.71 6,041.21 $ $
14 ONAHAU EAST 19,306.08 4,633.46 $ $
16 ONAHAU WEST 6,215.24 1,491.66 $ $
13 LOCHMARA WEST 24,860.95 5,966.63 $ $
19 GROVE ARM 58,578.62 14,058.87 $ $ $ $ $ $ 101,209.67 161,806.10 206,773.20 29,538.07 38,893.63 49,625.57
25 | P a g e
The expenditure for 2008-09 has been confirmed, made up of the following contributions:
New Zealand Lottery Grants Board
Control $90,543.00
Management $17,075.00
Biodiversity Condition Fund
Control $10,666.67
Management $960.00
New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd
Management $10,609.00
Significant in-kind support has also been provided by both the Department of Conservation and Marlborough District Council during 2008-09.
TRUST STATUS
Effective fund-raising is dependent on the Trust establishing itself as a credible and professional entity.
The Trust is incorporated under the Charitable Trusts Act 1957, and is a registered charitable entity in terms of the Charities Act 2005.
Information about the Trust is publicly available on the Charities Register (www.register.charities.govt.nz/CharitiesRegister/).
The Trust is exempt from income tax, and individuals or companies who donate property to the charity are given relief from gift duty.
The Trust is also considered a donee organisation for tax purposes, such that any gifts of money it receives from individuals and certain companies qualify for tax advantages.
Trust members are:
Andrew Macalister (Chairman): Andrew is a third-generation property owner in Queen Charlotte Sound. He is an independent consultant, and was formerly manager of the Animal Health Board’s possum control programme on the West Coast of the South Island, which is the largest vertebrate pest control programme in New Zealand.
Michael Gilbert (Secretary): Michael is a third-generation lessee in the Sounds, and has holidayed there most of his life. He is a barrister and solicitor, and manages Michael Gilbert Lawyers, a prominent Nelson legal firm
26 | P a g e
Vennessa Ede (Treasurer): Vennessa is a Waikawa resident whose family has been living in the Marlborough Sounds for many generations. She is a trustee for Te Atiawa Trust Board, and is employed as an accountant for Port Marlborough.
Geoff Walls: Geoff Walls is a freelance conservation ecologist with a lifetime's experience of the Sounds. In recent years, he has been engaged on ecological surveys of private land throughout the Sounds. His family owns land on d'Urville Island, protected since 1988 by QEII National Trust Open Space Covenant.
Rhys Millar: Rhys is a second-generation landowner in the Sounds, and spends a large proportion of his time there in both a professional and private capacity. He is an environmental forester and active conservationist, managing a number of private and community -based projects.
Peter Beech: Peter is a fourth-generation landowner in the Sounds, and is Chairman of Guardians of the Sounds. The Guardians is an incorporated society that has been very active in protecting Queen Charlotte Sound from the impacts of fast ferries, and other environmental issues. Peter runs an eco-tourism business out of Picton.
Doug Holmes: Doug is a viticulturist at Grove Mill Wines. He has been involved in vineyards in Marlborough for over thirty years, with an interest in natural production systems. He was president of the NZ Grapevine Improvement Group for five years.
The Department of Conservation’s Sounds Area Manager and the Marlborough District Council’s Environmental Science and Monitoring Manager are ex officio members of the Trust, without voting rights.
FUND RAISING
Funding will generally be sought on a combined ‘Control plus Management’ basis for each sector, such that the additional 24% funding for management services be sought as part of the budget for each sector. Where this is not possible, the Trust will put up its management services as a separate project for funding on an annual basis.
Over the term of this Strategy, two sources of funds are sought – Primary Funding and Partnership Funding.
PRIMARY FUNDING
Primary Funding will be the funds granted as the foundation of any project, and will generally be sought principally from national funding agencies such as the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board, Canterbury Community Trust, Lion Foundation, Sustainable Management Fund and Biodiversity Condition Fund, and the Department of Conservation and Marlborough District Council.
PARTNERSHIP FUNDING
A common expectation of funding agencies is that all community organisations should have done some fund-raising towards the specific project for which this application is 27 | P a g e
being made. In some cases, the community organisation is expected to fund up to 30% of the project total.
The Trust defines this as Partnership Funding. Partnership Funding will be generally sought from local residents associations and individuals, local business interests, the Department of Conservation and Marlborough District Council. The Trust may also undertake its own occasional fund-raising activities.
FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
The Trust proposes to manage its finances in keeping with accepted standards of transparency and accountability.
It will provide financial management and reporting in line with the Charities Act 2005, and its own constitution, and will also comply with any financial audit or reporting requirements put in place by external funding agencies.
28 | P a g e
REFERENCES
Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive Weeds (Owen, Department of Conservation, 1998),
South Island Wilding Conifer Strategy (Harding, Department of Conservation, 2002)
Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan (Marlborough District Council, 2003)
A Strategy for Control of Wilding Conifers in North Marlborough (Ledgard, Marlborough District Council, 2004)
Review of the use of Herbicides to control Wilding Conifers (Raal, Department of Conservation, 2005)
Restoring Native Forest to the Marlborough Sounds: A summary of the workshop and field day held on Friday, April 20 and Saturday, April 21, 2007 (Marlborough District Council, 2007)
The Inner Queen Charlotte Sound Pine Plan (Stein, Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust, 2007)
The Ecological Case for Wilding Pine Removal in Queen Charlotte Sound (Walls, Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust, 2007)
Blights and Blots on the Landscape: Wilding Pines in Queen Charlotte Sound (Lucas, Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust, 2007)
29 | P a g e
APPENDIX 1: MAP OF MANAGEMENT SECTORS APPENDIX 2: PHOTO SELECTION
The following photos are excerpted from The Ecological Case for Wilding Pine Removal in Queen Charlotte Sound (Walls, Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust, 2007)
Above: The natural ecological demeanour of the Sounds, resplendent in diverse native bush down to the shore.
Below: The norm today in much of the Sounds, with wilding exotic pines well established and rapidly increasing at the expense of the native vegetation.
Above: Wilding pines beginning to invade a vulnerable open coastal slope.
Below: A much more advanced infestation, with pines dominant over much of the land, including the rocky shore scarp and the rear of the beach to the right. This situation has developed in just a few decades following the cessation of pastoral farming.
Above: Even islands and sheltered shores are not safe from wilding pine invasion. Here, a tiny islet in Nydia Bay is utterly dominated by an exotic pine.
Below: A wilding pine seedling in an estuary margin in the Sounds, poised to rapidly out-grow the natural estuarine vegetation.
Above: A superb example of progressive wilding pine control on the flanks of Tory Channel. The big old pines have been poisoned standing.
Below: Beneath and among the dead pines is growing rich regenerating native vegetation, rapidly forming forest. The slow death and decay of the pines favours this process and prevents re-establishment of pines.
Above: Wilding pines marching inland and upslope. If not stopped they will eventually coalesce to form dense stands, squeezing out the regenerating native bush.