Regional Pest Management Plan Proposal

Regional Pest Management Plan – Proposal (November 2017)

______

Hearing Panel Recommendations on Submissions

______

Prepared June 2018

Submitter List

Submitter Submitter Name Contact Page Number 569 South Marlborough Landscape Restoration Trust Ian Mitchell 1 571 Rod Littlefield 3 572 Walter Hilhorst 4 573 Picton Dawn Chorus Siobain Browning 5 574 Nine Scott 6 575 The Westervelt Company Steve Smith 7 576 Aquaculture New Zealand Gary Hooper 9 577 Chilean Needle Grass National Steering Group, Warwick Lissaman 11 CNG Action Group 578 Gillian Durham 15 579 Mirza Downs Rick Stolwerk 16 580 Don Miller 17 581 Federated Farmers of New Zealand Kim Reilly 18 582 Weed Solutions Limited Benjamin James Minehan 33 583 Joan Winifred Dodson 36 584 New Zealand Defence Force Rebecca Davies 37 585 Nelson Forests Limited Heather Arnold 49 586 Pat Williams 51 587 Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc. Debs Martin 54 588 Geoff Evans 70 589 Kiwifruit Vine Health Inc. and New Zealand Kiwifruit John Maher 73 Growers Inc. 590 Department of Conservation Lionel Solly 75 591 Land Information New Zealand Marcus Girvan 99 592 KiwiRail Rebecca Beals 112 593 Marlborough Environment Centre Beverley Ruth Doole 117 594 Phillip Pratt 123 595 Harry Lampe 124 596 Leah Gibson 126 597 Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust Andrew Macalister 127 598 NZ Transport Agency Carol Bannock 131 599 Ministry for Primary Industries Mike Harre 136 600 Fish & Game NZ Rhys Barrier 166 601 Tony Orman 168 602 William Wallace Scholefield 171

Introduction

The following recommendations have been made by the hearing panel (Councillor Cynthia Brooks, Councillor Nadine Taylor and Rural Representative Ross Beech) for the submissions received on the Regional Pest Management Plan – Proposal (November 2017).

These recommendations have been entered into a database with the submissions. This report from the database contains the submission, staff comments and the recommendations of the hearing panel. The recommendations can be viewed by the submitters directly from the database on the Council website. Alternatively, this report is available as a PDF on the Council website or available as a hard copy on request.

569 Ian Mitchell 145 Giffords Road, RD 3, Blenheim 7273

South Marlborough Landscape Restoration Trust

Category: All In Section 6 we wish that the following pinus species be made subject to sections 52 and 53 of the act. Pinus contorta, nigra, mugo, sylvestris and monticola. These species have no commercial value and are known to spread into Marlborough's hinterland. Plants and seed of such should not be available. Decision Requested As above

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff wish to make aware the fact that if a species is within a programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP), it is declared a pest under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act). This triggers the statutory obligations of section 52 and 53 of the Act.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your submission. In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

The hearing panel recommends that a stakeholder reference group is established to support the development of the Proposal and that this work is completed to align with the 2019/2020 Annual Plan process. While this work is being undertaken, Council will continue to support the current collaborative programmes including existing LTP budget allocations. Council’s involvement in wilding conifer management will continue to be guided by our Biosecurity Strategy.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All Section 7.39 is supported Decision Requested Retain section 7.39

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your support of the proposed wilding conifer programme.

571 Rod Littlefield 51A Brooklyn Drive, Redwoodtown, Blenheim 7201

Category: All I most strongly object to the use of 1080 in the use of pest control, especially using rate money to which l contribute. 1080 is exceptionally cruel, and no animal should die this way, especially deer ,pigs and occasionally farm animals which is know to happen. The Graff brothers have plenty of film footage to prove this. (Out of sight, out of mind is not acceptable ) The long term benefits of 1080 is very dubious, as many preditors breed back up to pre 1080 levels. In the case of saving the birds, it's probably killing more than it saves. ( While not in Marlborough ,the kea is sadly now endangered). Finally,the risks to human health is still not fully known, but clearly a large amount ends up in our waterways..Also the recent case of a family in the Waikato poisoned after eating wild pig which is suspected of eating 1080 , should be a warning to all. Decision Requested Not provided.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff comment that 1080 is a registered vertebrate toxic agent available to those who may need to undertake vertebrate pest control.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and your comments on the use of 1080. Your comments are noted by the hearing panel. The use of 1080 is outside the scope of this review process.

572 Walter Hilhorst 77 Hutcheson Street, Mayfield, Blenheim 7201

Category: All Trout are an introduced, noxious organism which, having caused the extinction of native fishes, should be classed as a pest. Their favoured position as a 'fishery' is due to a very effective, historical propaganda campaign waged by Fish & Game for decades, duping an indifferent public for whom, as opposed to birds and plants, native fish are 'out of sight, out of mind' and therefore have suffered from having no advocate. Decision Requested Designate some appropriate water-ways as exclusive habitat for native fishes, mainly white-bait which require low-land, tidal waters to lay eggs. The Taylor and Opawa Rivers are ideal, trout could be eliminated over time by netting and there-after enjoying semi-permanent nets strung across both the lower and higher reaches. Para Swamp is also suitable habitat, nets could be strung across Tuamarina Stream. These measures should be funded by imposing an additional fee on the sale of F&G licenses, a suggestion which may interest councils throughout NZ. That F&G, a private organisation, has jurisdiction over public assets such as water-ways is a travesty and councils throughout NZ should lobby for a change in legislation in order to bring full control within their ambit, F&G reduced to a pressure group like any other private concern.

Staff Comment 1. With respect to the classification of trout

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment that trout are currently a sports fish as designated by the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983. In addition, as a species, a programme under a RPMP would not be a feasible intervention to address such a widespread aquatic species. Staff Comment 2. With respect to managing specific waterways

Staff Recommendations: Note

Reason: Initiatives that may manage a specific waterway are not driven by the Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP). If Council were to be involved in such an initiative, it would likely be a project to protect biodiversity and/or improve water quality. Staff Comment 3. With respect regard the points raised about Fish & Game

Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff comment that not all requests are within the scope of Council's mandate.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and note that trout are currently designated by the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983 as a sport fish and as such cannot be considered for a programme in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

573 Siobain Browning 29 Glentui Place, Waikawa, Picton 7220 (Speaking) Picton Dawn Chorus

Category: All

Decision Requested to include a wider range of introduced, pest mammals in the Pest Management Strategy

Staff Comment 1. To request greater support and/or recognition for a number of introduced mammalian predators.

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: A Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) is a specific tool available to Councils under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act). An RPMP contains programmes for species that have been developed, costs tested and justified to ensure the programme will result in tangible positive outcomes. Only once a programme has been through this rigour, is it proposed. If it makes it into the final RPMP, those species are declared pests. An RPMP is not the place where Council chooses to 'list' species of concern.

With the species outlined in this submission (cats, rodents, possum, mustelids, ungulates and hedgehogs), they are all widespread and well established on mainland Marlborough. It is the view of staff that through the mere fact these species are so widespread and well established, that a species-led programme within a RPMP would not be feasible nor resources available to take such an approach.

Through non-regulatory measures such as education & awareness activities and also information transfer, Council will continue to highlight such species as threats. Council's other programme with respect to biodiversity management is also available to liaise with communities over initiatives where these species are managed to protect the values in a given locality. Even more so if that locality has been identified as a Significant Natural Area.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and for highlighting those mammalian predators that pose a threat to biodiversity values that should be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan. You also highlighted to the hearing panel that the Proposal has a strong focus on agricultural pests. The hearing panel acknowledges that there are a number of programmes for agricultural pests and very few programmes for pests that threaten biodiversity values. This is a reflection of the previous Regional Pest Management Strategies that predominately included agricultural pests. These programmes have a history of intervention and the analysis through this review process concludes that it is appropriate to continue with them to protect the investment that has already been made. As a response to a number of submissions with a biodiversity focus, the hearing panel recommends that Council captures your concerns through the development of a biodiversity strategy. This will provide an integrated framework for enabling intervention and the setting of regional priorities to manage human induced mammalian pests and invasive plant species that are a threat to biodiversity across Marlborough. Council already liaises with communities over initiatives where these types of species could be managed to protect the values in a given locality, for example the SNA project. If necessary and where a regulatory approach is valid, a site-led programme could in the future be developed for inclusion in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

574 Nine Scott 22 Garden Terrace, Picton

Category: All Please consider the animal pest problems near Essons Valley in Picton, there are Goat herds roaming frequently. There is still a considerable wasp problem. Dogs being walked off the leash are causing devastation amongst wild life, killing weka and other birds. Old mans beard and other pest plant species are rife in Essons Valley, Decision Requested have a leash only dog walking policy and enforce it in wild life area's, have effective pest control on pest animals. Have an effective weed control program in Essons Valley

Staff Comment 1. Submission point relating to dog-walking

Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: The issue pertaining to dog-walking is best taken up during any review of dog control policy or directly to Animal Control.

Staff Comment 2. Invasive species occurring in Essons Valley.

Staff Recommendation: Reject

With the species outlined in this submission (goats, wasps, old man's beard), they are all widespread and well established on mainland Marlborough. It is the view of staff that through the mere fact these species are so widespread and well established, that a species-led programme within a RPMP would not be feasible nor resources available to take such an approach.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel thanks you for your submission. The points you raise about dogs being off a leash in Esson’s Valley is not something this panel can address. Instead your submission will be referred to the Animal Control Sub-Committee for their consideration. You have requested the inclusion of goats, wasps and old man’s beard in the Regional Pest Management Plan. You have identified species that are well established in Marlborough. While they do not fit with a species led programme in the Regional Pest Management Plan, there is an opportunity to focus on control where biodiversity values are threatened in certain areas, such as Esson’s Valley. As a response to a number of submissions with a biodiversity focus, the hearing panel recommends that Council captures your concerns through the development of a biodiversity strategy. This will provide an integrated framework for enabling intervention and the setting of regional priorities to manage human induced mammalian pests and invasive plant species that are a threat to biodiversity values across Marlborough. Council already liaises with communities over initiatives where these types of species could be managed to protect the values in a given locality, for example the SNA project. If necessary and where a regulatory approach is valid, a site-led programme could be developed for inclusion in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

575 Steve Smith 24 Te Kopua Street, Acacia Bay, Taupo 3330 (Speaking) The Westervelt Company

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.11 - Contorta pine All Comments included in the uploaded document - 1803 MDC RPMS Submission Decision Requested While we support the intention to restrict the spread of contorta/wilding pines we are concerned that the proposal lacks both specificity and certainty. Council needs to more clearly accept responsibility for its leadership role. An integrated approach is required but it needs a clear leader and that should be council. The document notes in “Principle measure” Council will play a leadership role in seeking to establish collaborative programmes. Council needs to commit in this document to doing things as opposed to seeking, supporting and encouraging. If these are significant issues the plan should be a call to arms. I think we do support the proposed objective but then again, I don’t really know what it means. When I consider the situation on Glazebrook Station I can’t tell you what it will look like in 10 years if the plan is successful or otherwise tell you if it has been a failure. The proposed plan needs to be amended to provide greater specificity and certainty for affected parties. This includes: • Refining the objective related to these species making it specific, measurable and time constrained. • Clearly establish a succinct and meaningful vision. • Highlight the role of council to establish a baseline and monitor the changes in distribution and report the results. This is fundamental to managing a project of this nature. • Set out the leadership role of council. • Define terms used to remove ambiguity and give certainty to ratepayers and stakeholders.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledge the points raised by the submitter. Staff comment that developing a programme or programmes within an RPMP for wilding conifers or high risk species that is feasible, has clear specific objectives and most importantly has adequate resourcing available to implement is nothing short of a challenge. Staff agree that what is proposed does not provide clarity over what success would look like given quality baseline data on both infestation distribution and/or density is lacking.

What is emphasised within the Proposal is the use of collaborative programmes. As has been seen on many occasions across New Zealand, only when numerous willing parties come together and join forces can complex challenges be overcome. In this case, these collaborative programmes are not driven by a single agency's Regional Pest Mangagement Plan (RPMP). RPMPs are a specific tool for a specific purpose. However, when these collaborative programmes invest a large amount of funds on private land, there needs to be an element of security for the future that the outcome can be protected in perpetuity. As a result, this has been attempted within the proposed progammes for wilding conifers and the numerous high risk species. It can be said at the detriment to providing sound, clear programme objectives and a means to monitor success. Monitoring success should form an important element of any collaborative programme so it would be intent of Council to utilise that monitoring for the purposes of any such RPMP progamme.

Hearing Panel Recommendation The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and for your support of the proposed wilding conifer and contorta pine programmes. In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan.

• Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

576 Gary Hooper 28 Montgomery Square, Nelson 7010 (Speaking) Aquaculture New Zealand

Category: All Please see the attached submission agreed by Aquaculture New Zealand and the Marine Farming Association. Decision Requested The proposed pest management plan is adopted by Council, including Part one, Part two related to Mediterranean fanworm (subject to the remedies specified in the attached submission and summarised here) and Part Three. Summary of Remedies in Part Two: Rule 7.21.2.1: the addition of a requirement that once immediate danger to life and vessel is past, that the vessel is subject to inspection, removal and destruction of any fanworm present. Rule 7.21.2.3 the addition of a requirement (or other similar appropriate measure) that in the event of a failure of the intermediate outcome, that transparent criteria are developed recognising that the continued efforts to remove and destroy all fanworms by the occupier of a place (excepting vessels entering Marlborough waters) may no longer be an efficient use of resources. Full detail is in the written submission and must be considered alongside this summary. Section 7.21.3: with the remedy that the categorisation of owners/occupiers of a fouled vessel represent a major exacerbator, rather than a minor one. Section 7.21.3: Risks, the remedy that it is explicitly stated that the focus of the Mediterranean fanworm programme is not just on ports and marinas, but includes vessels entering Marlborough waters which do not necessarily proceed to a port or marina. This could include a "clean vessel" permit application and approval process.

Staff Comment The submitter requested transparent criteria surrounding when Rule 7.21.2.3 may be enforced if it became apparent that the programme of preventing establishment of Mediterranean fanworm was failing.

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: If there is evidence the the programme is failing to meet its objective of preventing the establishment, then the likely course of action would be a review of the programme itself, including the rules within the existing programme. During this review, if another RPMP programme is proposed with for example a Sustained Control objective, new provisions can be developed in consultation with stakeholders. Staff Comment The submitter suggested in point 26 of their submission that surveillance will play a critical role in the programme implementation, including the use of a vessel entry pass system.

Staff Recommendation: Reject in-part

Reason: Ongoing surveillance will play a critical role for the operational aspects of the proposed programme. However, the volume and complexity of vessel traffic into Marlborough waters is in stark contract to that of Fiordland. For such a system to be successful in Marlborough, and not become something easily ignored, an active compliance programme checking that vessels have in-fact obtained passes would have to be implemented. Given the quantity of vessel movements and complexity involved, the feasibility of this is highly questionable. Staff Comment Various elements of support and a request that additional wording is added to Rule 7.21.2.1 with respect to after the immediate danger to a vessel is past.

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: If Council as managmeent agency knows if a risk vessel, and that vessel is utilising this provision within the Rule, that vessel will be closely monitored. With guidance from the Harbourmaster, if a determination is made the risk has past, they will be subject to the baseline Rule and Council will have the ability to use Part 6 powers under the Biosecurity Act 1993 to undertake appropriate actions - which could include addressing any immediate biofouling risks or addressing the presence of Mediterranean fanwom.

The implementation of the Rule will likely form part of communication material to clarify the fact that once the immediate danger is past, the Rule will again apply.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your submission. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for Mediterranean fanworm in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from your submission and others. The hearing panel accepts your request to add a note to proposed Rule 7.21.2.1 as follows: “Once the immediate danger to life and craft has past the owner or person in charge of a craft must ensure that the fouling on the hull and niche areas of the craft does not exceed light fouling. The hearing panel notes that the proposed programme does include all craft entering Marlborough waters including those that are not proceeding to a port. The hearing panel agrees with the staff comment that there is no need to specifically have a provision in the rule that deals with failure of the programme. In the event that Mediterranean fanworm became established in Marlborough then the Council would review the programme using the provisions in the Biosecurity Act. The hearing panel considers that the implementation of a permit system is not a cost effective option due to the complexities and volume of vessel traffic into Marlborough waters.

577 Warwick Lissaman 83 Richmond Brook Road, RD 1, Seddon 7285 (Speaking) Chilean Needle Grass National Steering Group, CNG Action Group (Marlborough)

Category: All please see attached documentation for text of submission Decision Requested to review the proposed classification and rules surrounding chilean needle grass

Staff Comment 1. General points of support

Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff Comment Point 2. The submitter comments that "...,as grouping it under sustained control risks it being seen only as a weed and a nuisance compliance problem...".

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff disagree with the assessment by the submitter as the programme term and associated objective have been selected from those available under the National Policy Direction and have assessed Sustained Control is the most appropriate programme objective.

Staff comment that programme descriptions are not words that Council chooses but a result of an assessment that is undertaken taking into account the following: (a) nature of the distribution of infestations, (b) control tools available, and whether a the distribution of the species can be reduced. If the distribution of the species cannot be reduced due to a combination of biological factors and/or lack of control tools, the Progressive Containment and Eradication programme descriptions/objectives are discounted.

Point 3. The submitter argues that Chilean needle grass needs to be a progressive containment programme; for the life of the plan, enabling the door to be left open to elevating to Pests to be managed under eradication programme 10-15 years out form now.

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff refer to the previous comment and note that at any time, a programme can be reassessed, including the programme objective as either new tools become available or situations change that mean another objective, such as Eradication becomes viable. At this point in time however, with the nature of infestations in Marlborough and the tools available, staff recommend that Sustained Control is the most suitable programme objective.

Point 4. The submitter requests an insertion under section 7.1.3 Means of Achievement.

Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason: Staff agree that more programme specific wording is appropriate that emphasises the strong links with the community with respect to Chilean needle grass.

It is recommended that the following wording be inserted into the final Plan under 7.8.1.3: (f) Continue to engage with the Marlborough Chilean needle grass Action Group

Point 5. The submitter raised the question of why a greater level of national impact information is not reference as part of the justification.

Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff wish to highlight that the Proposal contains information and justification for programmes proposed at a regional level given the Proposal is for a Regional Pest Management Plan. Marlborough 11

District Council only has mandate for its own region. Staff feel that justification at the regional level more than meets the requirements of a analysis of benefits and costs. In addition, staff note that Council will continue to advocate for national leadership by Central Government in cases where there are grounds to address an issue on a national scale as opposed to region-by-region approaches.

Point 6. The submitter referenced issues with the analysis of benefits and costs undertaken to support the proposed programme.

Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff wish to note that the analysis of benefits and costs is undertaken to support one or more of the programme types that may[emphasis] be suitable after the factors listed under comment section 1 have been considered. In the case of Chilean needle grass, only sustained control was assessed as being a suitable progamme description before analyses were undertaken. However, the name of openness, an analysis was also carried out for Eradication.

The current analysis demonstrates the justification for the proposed programme. Staff Comment Point 7. Proposed Rules - Rule 7.8.2.2

Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason: Staff agree that the addition to a record keeping requirement for the movement of sheep would be beneficial to the programme and align with other proposed Rules.

It is recommended that Rule 7.8.2.2 is to read as follows:

No person shall move sheep from a property with a known infestation of Chilean needle grass (Nassella neesiana), unless:

1. The sheep are being transported directly to slaughter, or 2. The sheep were solely grazed in an unaffected area of the property, as agreed to by Council.

And, a record is kept for a minimum period of 5 years from the date of movement that details the steps taken to meet the rule requirements.

Point 8. Proposed Rules - Rule 7.8.2.3.

Staff Recommendation: Reject in-part

Reason: Staff disagree that a grouping of all other livestock (excluding sheep) is necessary. Rules 7.8.2.2 and 7.8.2.3 respectively address the two types of livestock that comprise the majority of livestock movements that pose the greatest risk (to a lesser degree with cattle). It is acknowledged that the level of risk with respect to cattle in not well understood, hence the different Rule structure in 7.8.2.3. The other types of livestock are captured by the provisions of Rule 7.8.2.6 which places a less prescriptive but nonetheless important obligation on people moving domestic animals off property.

Staff agree in part with the submitters request in terms of a suggestion for Rule 7.8.2.3. That is the provision allowing movement of cattle off property at any time if going to slaughter. This was an omissions upon drafting the Proposal.

It is recommended that the following alterations is made so that Rule 7.8.2.3 reads:

No person shall move cattle from a property with a known infestation of Chilean needle grass (Nassella neesiana), unless:

1. The cattle are being transported directly to slaughter; or 2. The cattle were solely grazed in an unaffected area of the property, as agreed to by Council, or 3. The movement is taking place between 1 April and 30 September, and 4. The movement is taking place when ground conditions are dry, and 5. The cattle are stood down (to empty out), for 12 hours prior to movement.

And, a record is kept for a minimum period of 5 years from the date of movement that details the steps taken to meet the rule requirements.

Point 9. Rule 7.8.2.5. 12

Staff Recommendation: Accept.

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support for Rule 7.8.2.5 as written but also seek to further clarify the risk associated with the movement of soil and plant material by inserting a baseline Rule that was used in the former RPMS.

Is is recommended that further explanatory material is inserted making reference to section 9 - Exemptions, and a new Rule 7.8.2.x is inserted and is to read as follows:

Rule 7.8.2.x

No person shall spread or cause to spread plant parts of Chilean needle grass (Nassella neesiana) including seed or soil likely to contain seed from an infested site or property. Staff Comment Point 10. Cost allocation - seeking Central Government funding.

Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Given this is a Regional Pest Management Plan, there are limited mechanisms available to Council with respect to funding the implementation of a RPMP. These are limited to the using of rates collected under the Local Government Act, placing an obligation on occupiers to undertake control, or by seeking an agreement with Central Government to contribute funds. Seeking funds by agreement by its nature is not binding in any way. It requires a degree of commitment over a longer period of time that has not been forthcoming with respect to Chilean needle grass or any other regionally-led initiatives.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your submission on the proposed Chilean needle grass programme. The hearing panel recommends that the programme type remain as Sustained Control as proposed. This programme type most closely matches the reality in Marlborough and also aligns with the approach of other regions with which staff co-operate very closely on the management of Chilean needle grass. Even though the name of the programme might not reflect it, sustained control also has a strong emphasis on preventing new infestations establishing in new areas. This can be seen in the nature of the rules in the proposed programme for Chilean needle grass. As new tools become available or situations change, the appropriateness of the programme can be reassessed.

The hearing panel accepts your request to add a reference to the Marlborough Chilean Needle Grass Action Group under 7.8.1. Objective. The hearing panel recommends under 7.8.1 3) add the following: “f) Continue to engage with the Chilean Needle Grass Action Group (CNGAG) Marlborough.”

The hearing panel accepts your request to add a requirement for record keeping under the proposed rule for sheep to align with the proposed rule for cattle.

The hearing panel accepts your request to allow movement of cattle off a property at any time if going to slaughter. This corrects an omission from the Proposal.

You requested that deer and other farmed livestock be added to proposed rule 7.8.2.3 for cattle. The hearing panel accepts that farmed livestock should be provided for in the rules. The hearing panel recommends that farmed livestock be added to proposed rule 7.8.2.6. We also recommend that proposed rule 7.8.2.6 (domestic livestock) be moved to be under proposed rule 7.8.2.3 (cattle) to group the rules for the movement of animals together.

The hearing panel recommends the following definitions be added to the glossary: Domestic animal means an animal that has been tamed and kept as a pet, work animal or for leisure/competition. Farmed livestock means livestock farmed for the intention to sell or trade or to harvest commodities such as meat, milk, fibre or velvet. Machinery means machinery that is used to undertake soil disturbance or activities tending to pasture, horticulture and arable crops.

The hearing panel agrees with you that an explanatory note be added to proposed rule 7.8.2.5.

The hearing panel also recommends the addition of a new rule that deals specifically with the risk

13 associated with the movement of soil and plant material.

You requested that Council advocates to the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) the risk of Chilean needle grass to New Zealand and seek funding at a national level. The hearing panel acknowledges the effort of Council to work with other Regional Councils to advocate to Government to support and fund regional programmes of significance to New Zealand. The hearing panel recommends that this advocacy work continues.

578 Gillian Durham 5 Rowsell Lane, RD 1, Kerikeri, 0294

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.21 - Mediterranean fanworm 7.21.2.1 - Person in charge of a craft entering Marlborough, meeting biofouling standard The change to the statutory and regulatory environment for the building industry changed in 1991 with the passing of the Building Act resulted in leaky buildings. This has in part been attributed to the provision of achievement standards but inadequacies in the methods sanctioned by the building code to achieve the standards. Rule 7.22.2.1 proposes an achievement standard that is is very difficult for an owner or person in charge of a recreational vessel to assess. Even worse, no methods for achieving the standard are sanctioned by the rule. I suggest that this approach will lead to Mediterranean Fanworm 'leaking' into Marlborough because owners will mis-identify organisms contributing to fouling and will mis-classify the level of fouling. Trained and accredited divers are few and far between in many of our cruising grounds. This same definition and approach was proposed by Northland Regional Council (NRC) in its Marine Pathway Plan. Many submissions pointed out that not only was this achievement standard very difficult to assess, but in remote areas, in-water assessment is required as there are no haul-out facilities. In-water assessment in all conditions, and all seasons, for owners either sailing solo or with their partner can be dangerous as they cannot meet safety recommendations (diving with a buddy and with a third person in the boat). The NZ Underwater Association also recommend regular medical check-ups by a dive doctor for divers, snorkelers over 40 years because cardiovascular problems and poor general fitness kill older divers. The Northland plan is currently subject to appeal in the Environment Court. While this appeal is proceeding, NRC is now consulting on their Regional Plan which is proposing to include the provisions of the Marine Pathway Plan. Both the Minister of Conservation and the Ministry for Primary Industries have raised serious concerns in their submissions on the Regional Plan with the use of 'light fouling' as the basis for a rule without also including sanctioned methods for achieving the rule. They have made recommendations for changes including that "vessels must have an anti-fouling system applied in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, and the anti-fouling system must be within the manufacturer's timeframe of effectiveness." Decision Requested Modify Rule 7.21.2.1 to say "i)The owner or person in charge of a craft entering Marlborough must have an anti-fouling system applied in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions, the anti-fouling system must be with the manufacturer's timeframe of effectiveness, and records (dated invoices etc) demonstrating compliance must be available for inspection on the vessel; ii) must ensure that the fouling on the hull and niche areas of the craft does not exceed 'light fouling'; unless iii) the craft is required to enter Marlborough in an emergency relating to the safety of the craft and/or the health and safety of the person on the craft.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment that with respect to the status to biofouling on a craft they are operating, most operators will be acutely familiar with rates of biofouling establishment due to existing maintenance regimes. Because of this, littoral in-water inspections are not a direct requirement of Rule 7.21.2.1. The onus is placed on the operator of the craft to understand what condition the hull is in before entering Marlborough waters. There are multiple avenues to understand what condition the hull is in, one of which is an in-water inspection but also includes a haul-out, use of a tidal grid or relaying on, and keeping records of, the anti- fouling system used and the last time the craft was hauled or checked. The person in charge can make an informed assessment over which method they will rely upon, to be confident that the craft they are operating complies with the Rule before arriving in Marlborough waters.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel thanks you for your submission. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for Mediterranean fanworm in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from submissions. The hearing panel is satisfied that the revised rule and exceptions have addressed the majority of your concerns.

579 Rick Stolwerk (Speaking) Mirza Downs

Category: All I would like to discuss the funding options under 11.3 for the control of nasella tussock. I would like to present my suggested options to Council. Decision Requested A possible increase in the Council contribution to the control of nasella tussock to individual landowners

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment that due to occupiers with infestations being the both the major beneficiary and exacerbator with respect to the proposed nassella tussock programme, that the allocation of cost by way of an obligation to undertake the control is a fair allocation model.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel thanks you for your submission. The hearing panel rejects your request for increased cost allocation for nassella tussock. We agree with staff comments that occupiers with infestations of nassella tussock are both the major beneficiary and exacerbator and that the allocation of cost by way of an obligation to the occupier to undertake control is a fair allocation model in this instance. At the hearing you explained the operational difficulties you experience with the current rule of having to destroy all nassella tussock. You provided an example of where you control an area of your property early in the season but when inspection occurs (generally later in the season) you can be non-compliant with the rule. The hearing panel encourages you to use the new provision under proposed rule 7.24.2.1 in the Regional Pest Management Plan to seek approval from Council for a management plan. These plans will allow you to agree to a management approach for your property with Council that acknowledges your operational aspirations and that aligns with the regional objective of the programme.

580 Don Miller 20 McCormicks Road, RD 1, Picton 7281

Category: All

Decision Requested To note the comments in my submission and consider their implications.

Staff Comment 1. Submission points with respect to native falcons and the potential impact on kereru

Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: The information provided does not relate to the review of the Regional Pest Management Plan review process. Staff Comment 2. The submitter raises the point that the RPMP Proposal does not mention rats, mustelids, pigs, goats, cats and possums.

Staff Recommendation: Reject

With the species outlined in this submission (rats, mustelids, pigs, goats, cats and possums), they are all widespread and well established on mainland Marlborough.

It is the view of staff that through the mere fact these species are so widespread and well established, that a species-led programme within a RPMP would not be feasible nor resources available to take an approach.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and for highlighting the effect native falcons are having on kereru and that rats, mustelids, pigs, goats, cats and possums should be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan. As a response to a number of submissions with a biodiversity focus, the hearing panel recommends that Council captures your concerns through the development of a biodiversity strategy. This will provide an integrated framework for enabling intervention and the setting of regional priorities to manage human induced mammalian pests and invasive plant species that are a threat to biodiversity values across Marlborough. Council already liaises with communities over initiatives where these types of species could be managed to protect the values in a given locality, for example the SNA project. If necessary and where a regulatory approach is valid, a site-led programme could be developed for inclusion in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

581 Kim Reilly PO Box 5242, Moray Place, Dunedin 9058 (Speaking) Federated Farmers of New Zealand

Category: All Federated Farmers welcomes the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Marlborough Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP). 1.2 Federated Farmers of New Zealand (Inc.) is a voluntary, primary sector organisation representing farming members and their families. Federated Farmers has a long history of representing the needs and interests of New Zealand farming communities, primary producers and agricultural exporters. 1.3 Our members strongly support a regional planning approach that recognises landowners play a principle role as managers and users of the region’s natural and physical resources. Pest management is a critical issue for farmers. Pest plants and animals can cause significant damage to pasture and productivity. Pest management is also a significant cost for farmers, particularly those with extensive farming operations, where annual pest management costs can easily run well into the tens of thousands of dollars. 1.4 We note that the National Policy Direction for Pest Management 2015 requires a more robust process for the development and implementation of Regional Pest Management strategies. We also understand that, practically, a revised Pest Management strategy cannot simply be a ‘grab bag’ of pests that residents of Marlborough would prefer not to see. Inclusion of a pest in the Pest Management strategy places very real costs, both on the Council and on the landowner. There is a need for a balanced approach which aims to deliver efficient and effective management of Marlborough’s pests. 1.5 As a result, Federated Farmers agrees it is timely to review and update the existing Pest Management Strategy, and we agree with Council’s intention to ensure Marlborough’s approach to pest management is in line with neighbouring regional councils. This is particularly important given pest plants and animals do not simply stop at a regional boundary. Effective and efficient control of pests requires integration with the efforts underway in other regions. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your submission.

Category: All 2. General comments 2.1 Federated Farmers acknowledges and supports the extensive consultation that has taken place prior to the notification of the RPMP. We understand iwi and community groups, individual landowners, stakeholders, neighbouring councils and specific interest groups, such as the Marlborough Chilean Needle Grass Action Group and the Rural Advisory Group, have at various points in the process been provided the opportunity to provide information, advice and feedback. 2.2 We support the detailed consideration given to the impacts of the implementation of the plan from both a regional level, as well as a detailed assessment of the impacts and options in relation to individual pests. We support considerations within the RPMP 4 FFNZ SUBMISSION ON PROPOSED REGIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR MARLBOROUGH covering economic, environmental, cultural and the enjoyment of the natural environment. 2.3 We strongly support the recommendation that Marlborough Roads should be responsible for pest management on all formed road reserves, including rest areas, weigh pits and stockpile sites. However, we acknowledge that pragmatically, it is appropriate for there to be a few named exceptions to this recommendation – namely where the reserve is unfenced and the adjacent landowner has ready access to it; where broom and gorse have encroached from adjacent land and are endemic to the locality, and where the only access is via the adjacent land (rather than the formed legal road itself). 2.4 We support the recommendation that adjoining occupiers should be responsible for the management and control of all named pests on unformed (paper) roads. 2.5 We note that the management options considered for the Strategy include:  Exclusion (keeping the pest out of Marlborough)  Eradication (getting rid of the pest from Marlborough)  Progressive containment (contain or reduce the distribution of the pest over time)  Sustained control (ongoing control of the pest to reduce its impact and spread)  S ite-led programmes (exclude, eradicate or control pests in a specific place to protect the values of that place)  Management through good neighbour rules, applying to all land owners and occupiers, including the crown. 2.6 We support any submissions and feedback from our individual members who separately raise their issues to 18 you through this process. Decision Requested Summary:  we agree with Council’s intention to ensure Marlborough’s approach to pest management is in line with neighbouring regional councils;  we support the extensive consultation that has taken place prior to the notification of the RPMP;  we support considerations within the RPMP covering economic, environmental, cultural and the enjoyment of the natural environment;  we strongly support the recommendation that Marlborough Roads be responsible for pest management in all formed road reserves, including rest areas, weigh pits and stockpile sites – alongside some named exceptions to this;  we support the recommendation that adjoining occupiers be responsible for the management and control of all named pests on unformed roads; we support any submissions and feedback from our individual members who separately raise their issues to you through this process.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support of the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Three - Administrative Provisions 11 - Funding All 7. FUNDING 7.1 Pest management has been identified1 by the Parliamentary Commissioner to the Environment as the greatest risk to our native birds and biodiversity. The protection of both native bird species and other biodiversity is a ‘public good’ and has significant benefits for the wider community. For this reason, FFNZ contends that pest management should be at least partially funded through the use of a Uniform Annual General Charge as opposed to the less transparent and equitable general rate. 7.2 The general public benefits from pest and weed control because it contributes to greater native biodiversity and the protection of significant indigenous vegetation and habitats, as required by the Resource Management Act. This natural heritage is important to the identity of New Zealanders and is globally unique in the high level of endemic species. No one community of people in the area benefits more than the other from biodiversity. Farmers are already significant contributors to biodiversity in that many have areas of native bush on their property. 7.3 Farmers generally contribute to pest management twice, through private pest control undertaken on their own land and by paying rates for council pest control activities. 7.4 Education is a valuable tool for the spread of information around occupier responsible management. Lifestyle block owners may need targeted education about their pest and weed control responsibilities, as they have previously lived in urban areas where pests and weeds are less apparent on small urban properties. 7.5 Federated Farmers strongly supports Crown funding and partnerships with industry for pest management. 7.6 We note the extensive consideration given to ascertaining the exacerbators and beneficiaries of each management plan within section 11 of the RPMP. In particular, we note that Table 18 identifies the Weighting used for each calculation, and we note that this will be considered more fully within the upcoming Long Term planning process. Federated Farmers will be fully participating in the Long Term plan process and will raise any additional concerns beyond those identified above at that time. Decision Requested FFNZ contends that pest management should be at least partially funded through the use of a Uniform Annual General Charge as opposed to the less transparent and equitable general rate.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment to the contrary in that the use of Council general rate rating districts and associated weighting factors provides for a very transparent cost allocation model for Council costs, as outlined in section 11 of the Proposal. This allows for individual programme to be assessed, weighted accordingly then looked at as a whole to calculate the final weightings for the function.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel notes the points made in your submission in regards to funding. The hearing panel is satisfied that the current funding model is transparent and allows for the weightings of each individual 19 programme to be assessed and weighted accordingly.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes All 3. Good neighbour rules 3.1 There is an ongoing problem with pest control on Crown land across New Zealand. Crown land includes that under the management of the Department of Conservation (DoC), the New Zealand Railways Corporation (Kiwi Rail), the New Zealand Transport Agency (NZTA) and Land Information New Zealand (LINZ). 3.2 Federated Farmers supports the national direction that Crown, road and rail authorities carry out pest management on the land they occupy and that these entities are bound by the Good Neighbour Rule. In the interests of fairness and efficacy, these entities should comply with and contribute to the Plan in the same way that rural land owners and occupiers are required to. Federated Farmers has long questioned the general exclusion of the Crown from regional pest management responsibilities, as pest species do not recognise legal boundaries. 3.2On Crown land, proactive pest control is seldom undertaken to the level required, and it is often only done when an obvious problem develops - by which stage it is generally more difficult to control the pest within the boundaries. This situation causes problems for farmers and other landowners who bear the costs of poor pest control on adjoining land when it spreads to their own property. 3.2 FFNZ views the good neighbour rule as a key step to addressing the ongoing issue of Crown land being non-rateable and otherwise not required to directly contribute to pest management. While we acknowledge that, for example, DoC often does undertake significant pest management, we consider the good neighbour rule as applied in the Plan will provide a level of clarity and certainty that will ensure the objectives and policies are more likely to be achieved. Below is a photo taken of DoC managed land in Marlborough, showing a dramatic increase and expansion of wilding conifers. 3.3 We note that the RPMP’s Good Neighbour Rules only specifically cover broom and gorse. Many farmers within the region have a boundary with Crown land and because of the nature of Crown land use and management also suffer the impact of pest spread across the boundary. While Federated Farmers applauds the efforts of Council to bind the Crown to the collective management of both gorse and broom, we also seek that the rule be extended beyond just the gorse and broom programmes identified. Given the National Wilding Conifer Management Strategy, to which Federated Farmers, DOC, LINZ and councils are all stakeholders, it seems illogical to not include a Good Neighbour Rule for the management of these prolific and potentially costly pest species. 3.4 Similarly, in our view, both Kiwi Rail and the NZTA have an important role to play in pest management. The rail corridor has long been frustration for farmers. With the increased lease costs of rail corridors for farmers, and landowners subsequently not taking on leases because of these new costs, it is likely that rail corridors will become a greater pest management concern. We are concerned that may farmers may experience similar issues with Kiwi Rail contractors carrying out pest control that they currently do with roading contractors. 3.5 Roading contractors often spread pest plants when clearing slips or working on roadsides, a particular issue for the Marlborough district following the rest years of earthquakes. Roading contractors can also transport seeds of noxious species with cultivation and harvesting machinery. In our view, the monitoring of metal sources along with greater contractual obligations on sub-contractors to abide by good biosecurity practice, via a Code of Practice, are needed. Decision Requested Summary: • we strongly support the use of good neighbour rules and the application of these to Crown, Council, and private land; • we consider these rules must be extended beyond just gorse and broom – for instance they also should be extended as per submissions in section 4 below.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject in-part

Reason: Staff comment: the danger with Rules and Good Neighbour rules in particular is that they are looked at independently from the programme which they are within. Only once there is a justified RPMP programme are Rules looked at if required to ensure the programme is implemented to meet its objective. Where a cross-boundary rule has been examined, including the very specific requirements under the National Policy Direction, it can be proposed as a Good Neighbour Rule.

For these reasons, staff have made the assessment that for only the broom and also gorse programme is a Good Neighbour Rule going to assist in the implementation of the programme(s).

In terms of application of a Rule for a programme for wilding conifers, this is address within comments on that particular matter.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part

The hearing panel recommends: a) That Council explore the use of a Good Neighbour Rule (GNR) for pest programmes that have land occupier obligations; and b) That an assessment be carried out in accordance with clause 8 of the NPD. This process will allow consultation to occur; and c) Following this process undertake a variation to the Regional Pest Management Plan to incorporate GNR’s where applicable.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal 4. Individual Programmes proposed 4.1 We support the in-depth appraisal given to the inclusion of each pest, alongside recommendations of overall objectives for it, and an analysis of any costs and benefits. 4.2 We note the following, easy to read table, on pests proposed to be managed within the Plan for Marlborough. 4.3 In the next section, we will submit on a few specific individual programmes that are either of considerable importance to our members across the country, or have been raised to us specifically by our Marlborough members. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support of the analysis and presentation of Part Two of the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.1 - African feather grass All 5.1 African Feather Grass African Feather Grass is of concern to our members, as it is unpalatable to stock and an overall threat to pastoral production if left uncontrolled. The plant is very adaptable and can displace native species in wetlands, which is of issue for the district’s biodiversity objectives. We support Council’s conclusion that uncontrolled, it could colonise pastoral land, wetlands, roadsides, urban areas and forest margins throughout Marlborough. We note that African Feather Grass is included in the existing Pest Plan for Marlborough, and that it has been actively managed by Council since 1996. We note the comment within the RPMP that as a result of that management programme, sites of infection have decreased from 12 to 7, with total plants decreasing year on year. We note and support the recommendation of adopting a sustained control programme, given the risk of African Feather Grass damaging Marlborough’s pastoral farming economy and native species. Given the low numbers involved, we agree that management needs to be strategic and intensive. Decision Requested Summary • We support Council’s recommendation to continue with sustained control of this pest, alongside adoption of rule 7.1.2.1. • We support the costs of $10,239 coming from Council – to cover control, surveillance, administration and education/awareness; with no additional costs expected of the landowner.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for African feather grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.2 - Bathurst bur All 5.2 Bathurst Bar Bathurst Bar’s hooked seeds and long sharp spines can injure stock, contaminate wool and overrun preferred pasture species and cereal crops if uncontrolled. We note that it is currently controlled within the Regional Pest Management Strategies and actively managed by Council. We note that the investment in this control has reduced sites from 32 to two. A recent re-emergence in a previously eradicated site shows that further ongoing control is required, to ensure there is no potential of damage to Marlborough’s pastoral and arable farming economies. Decision Requested Summary • We support the recommendation of sustained control and the adoption of rule 7.2.2.1; • We support the approval of costs of $3,073 covering control, surveillance, administration and education all being covered by Council.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for bathurst bur in the Regional Pest Management Plan

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.3 - Boneseed All 5.3 Boneseed Boneseed is stated to have the potential to displace native species on coastal cliffs, in salt marshes and on sand dunes. However, only a low level of analysis within the RPMP has been undertaken for this weed. Federated Farmers notes that due to the location of the infestations of boneseed in Marlborough generally being within the thin ribbon of the Department of Conservation Foreshore Reserve in the Marlborough Sounds, the Department of Conservation wishes to co-manage this species. However, we note that less than 20% of total costs of the sustained control programme have been allocated to the Department of Conservation, despite the department being both a beneficiary and exacerbator of the problem. Arguably, DoC’s lack of management of this weed in the past has led to the gravity of the current issue. Decision Requested Summary • Federated Farmers strongly opposes the allocation of less than 20% ($10,000) of total costs being sought from DoC. • We oppose Council being required to fund $41,000. • We seek a substantially greater contribution from DoC towards the sustained control of Boneseed if this programme is to be adopted.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: With respect to funding, staff note that the cost figures within the Proposal do not represent the littoral movement of funds of funds being sought. It reflects the cost inputs by the various parties. With respect to the boneseed programme, by way of proportions, while infestations occur on DOC Foreshore Reserve, most infestations occur on private land, including on properties away from the coastal environment. So the cost outlined demonstrate the input DOC put into a shared operation with MDC targeting the foreshore reserve and adjoining private land while MDC delivers operations across the remaining infestations.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel support the staff comments that the costs outlined for the proposed boneseed programme demonstrate the input from the Department of Conservation (DOC) into a shared operation with Council, with DOC targeting the foreshore reserve and adjoining private land while Council delivers operations across the remaining infestations.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.4 - Broom All 5.4 Broom Broom is resistant to fire and can displace preferred pasture species and impede stock access. It has potential to grow in all areas of the District, from pastoral country and the coast, up to high altitudes. It can also displace native herbaceous species and overall reduce the economic viability of a farming unit. We note estimated costs of control per hectare if the land becomes infested with broom at between $100 and $1,000. Broom is currently a Containment Control Pest in the Regional Pest Management Strategy for Marlborough 2012, involving similar controls and setbacks. We consider there is a significant net benefit to continuing this control, given the potential for damage to Marlborough’s pastoral farming economy if no such control exists. We note the specific rules for occupiers within the Upper Awatere Broom Control Zone, the Middlehurst Gorge Containment Area, the Upper Wairau Broom and Gorse Control Zone, and the Waima/Ure Broom and Gorse Control Zones. We support the need for these rules and note that previous controls in these zones has been of relative success. We note that the majority of the programme costs are proposed to be allocated to occupiers of land within the identified control zones, via the proposed rules requiring broom management. Council costs are proposed to be $9,000 and cover inspection, surveillance, administration and education. We strongly support the need to specifically include Good Neighbour Rules for this pest, to ensure owners of all land types are subject to the same expectations. Decision Requested Summary • Provided landowners within each zone are made well aware of zoning and the rules applicable to their properties, we support the recommendations to adopt a sustained control programme; • we support the specific inclusion of good neighbour rules for this pest; • we support the adoption of rules 7.4.2.1 to 7.4.2.8; with cost allocations of $150,000 coming from landowners and $9,000 from Council (covering inspections, surveillance, administration and education).

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your endorsement of the programme. The hearing panel has recommended the inclusion of a programme for broom in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.5 - Brushtail possum Possums cause substantial environmental and economic damage t forestry, biodiversity, nesting birds and their eggs. From a farming perspective, beyond the impact on pastures and crops, they are also a recognised vector in the spread of the disease bovine tuberculosis to domestic livestock, which is of considerable concern to the primary industry. We note that there are 42 possum-free islands throughout the Marlborough Sounds area, covering 26,599 hectares. We note that the majority of these islands are under the management of the Department of Conservation. Council’s preferred option for this pest is total exclusion on the possum-free islands, and we note that this comes with an estimated annual cost of $6,000 for Council (in the event a response is required) and $25,000 from DoC. We understand that there is no proposition for there to be a programme to manage possums on ‘mainland Marlborough’. Our understanding is that the Marlborough district is due to finish the OSPRI led possum control in the short to medium term. This means that in effect, the District will be untreated and the possum populations could well bounce back. We understand that councils elsewhere in the country have determined to continue the possum control once the TB programme finishes, often part funded by the landowners. While there is an ongoing cost to this possum control, it is far more cost effective to continue to control possums when they are at low numbers and having little impact, than when they get back to plague proportions. We consider that effective control needs to be centrally coordinated and delivered to be effective at keeping possums at low numbers. Decision Requested Summary • We support Council endeavouring for continued exclusion for the possum-free islands as proposed; • we support the adoption of Rules 7.5.2.1 and 7.5.2.2; • we support the cost allocations of $6,000 from Council (but only if a response is required) and $25,000 from DoC, with no additional costs being proposed for surveillance given existing Department of Conservation works and passive surveillance already in place; • we seek that Council consider adding Brushtail Possums to the management

23 programmes within the RPMP.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject in part

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support for the Exclusion programme for possum-free islands.

The submitter seeks Council consider adding Brushtail Possums ('possums') to management programmes within the RPMP. Staff wish to make reference to the process Council conducts when considering an intervention, which may include a programme within an RPMP. This process is outlined within the Council's Biosecurity Strategy.

Possums on mainland Marlborough are a widely established species. In the southern parts of Marlborough, populations are at low densities due to the work of OSPRI (and formally AHB) to reduce possum populations as a means to eradicate bovine tuberculosis (TB). In northern parts of Marlborough, populations are far greater given the absence of the same need to manage possums for the purposes of TB management.

For South Marlborough, in the absence of the programme led by OSPRI, as a result of TB being eradicated from areas, Council and the community can take a fresh look at firstly whether the management of possums as a species for example via a RPMP programme is feasible. If so, it can be assessed whether it is carried out at landscape scales, sites, or smaller geographic areas based on values being protected. Also whether it is agency-led or through a programme of occupier obligations. Alternatively, management of possums could be a voluntary activity occupiers choose to undertaken based on the values that wish to protect for their own property.

Having suitable resources to implement a programme similar to other regions also becomes a factor for Marlborough given the nature of the landscapes, access and ability for the Marlborough community to provide adequate resources to implement the progamme.

While the factors above are factored post-OSPRI , the same conversation is needed for North Marlborough given the justification for intervention may no longer be related to TB. The key question is if species-led management was to occur, where should this be focussed based on what values.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends that the Council together with the community assess the options for managing possums in South Marlborough as a result of the programme led by OSPRI no longer being in place.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.6 - Bur daisy All Bur Daisy displaces desirable pasture species and its spiny burs contaminate wool. We agree with the RPMP conclusion that it has the potential to spread throughout 210,000 hectares of Marlborough’s dry grassland country. It is currently classified as a pest under existing Regional Pest Management Strategies and is actively managed by Council, with only one property now having an infestation. Vigilance is key to the control of this pest. We agree with the RPMP’s finding that there is a significant net benefit to the continued control of this pest, given its potential for damage to Marlborough’s pastoral farming economy. Decision Requested • we agree that eradication is the most appropriate objective given the size of the issue; • we support the adoption of Rule 7.6.2.1 • we support the costs of $6,100 coming from Council – this will cover control, surveillance, administration and education.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation

Accept The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for bur daisy in the Regional Pest Management Plan

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.8 - Chilean needle grass Chilean needle grass is of significant concern to both our Marlborough farmers and to those across wider New Zealand. It is highly invasive, it spreads and grows fast and is highly tolerant of harsh climatic and soil conditions. It was first found in Marlborough in the 1920’s and is considered to be New Zealand’s most invasive weed. By 2016 it had spread to 2,778 hectares in Marlborough. It is thought to have the potential to spread to 15 million hectares nationwide. CNG readily crowds out pasture species, is unpalatable to stock during flowering season, and drops the productivity of the land for pastoral farmers. It has the potential to reduce the production of a paddock by 50%. It is also of concern to the District’s indigenous tussock and grassland ecosystems. It poses significant animal welfare concerns, with its aerial seeds like a pointy dart, which can bore into the eyes, mouth and skins of animals. It is also easily spread by seed carried on stock, machinery, sown seed and in supplements. CNG is difficult to identify when not seeding and this coupled with a lack of awareness of landowners can lead to infestations being sizeable before they are identified. In both Marlborough and Canterbury, the farming communities have established groups that work alongside the council to build awareness, improve identification and assist in the liaison with the local communities. This is vital work, and the resources provided enable farmers to have hope that CNG can be eradicated. In our view, ongoing enforcement and inspection are the key to success of these programmes. Decision Requested • Give the significance of the threat of CNG, we support the need for sustained control. • We note and support the significant costs associated - $350,000 (in complying with the rules) from impacted landowners; $150,000 of Council costs relating to information/awareness; and $250,000 of Council costs associated with control and monitoring. • We consider these costs are necessary and appropriate, given the significant risk to the District, estimated to be $65 million, if no management programme was adopted. • We agree with the adoption of rules 7.8.2.1 to 7.8.2.7.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your endorsement of the programme. The hearing panel has recommended the inclusion of a programme for Chilean needle grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.9 - Chinese pennisetum Chinese pennisetum seeds spread and can attach onto passing animals. It is unpalatable to stock. It has been under management in Marlborough for a number of years and current levels of infestations are now very low. However, we agree with the recommendations within the RPMP that there is significant net benefit to continuing the control of Chinese pennisetum, based on the potential for damage to 265,000 hectares of Marlborough’s pastoral farming habitat and economy, and the risks to the District’s indigenous biodiversity. Decision Requested • We support the sustained control of Chinese Pennisetum; • We support proposed rule 7.9.2.1. • We support estimated costs of $9,000 coming 100% from Council, and note these cover control, surveillance, administration and education.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Hearing Panel Recommendation

Accept The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for Chinese pennisetum in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All Wilding conifers are a major issue for our members. Federated Farmers agrees that there are significant risks to areas of extensive pastoral farming, tussock and indigenous grasslands, scrub and alpine ecosystems, landscape amenity and water yield from the spread of wilding conifers, including Contorta pines, Corsican pines, Mountain pines, Scots pines, Western white pines and European Larch. A significant body of work is underway across New Zealand to address these issues, as illustrated by the formation of the New Zealand Wilding Conifer Management Strategy in 2015, and ongoing government funding via the National Wilding Conifer Management Programme. These work programmes include landowners, councils, the Department of Conservation, the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), Land Information New Zealand, and wider communities. Federated Farmers completely agrees that the management of wilding conifers is a long term endeavour and that it is appropriate to flag the need for sustained control of the spread within the RPMP. We note that progressive containment would cost over $500,000 per annum to the District and agree that given the significant work being undertaken via the Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programmes, that this additional direct expenditure from Council is not financially feasible, nor arguably warranted. We are disappointed to note that no Good Neighbour Rules are proposed for these pest species. Given the significant risks proposed to the district from the spread of these plants, and given the considerable efforts nationwide and locally going into the National Wilding Conifer Management Strategy, to which Federated Farmers, DOC, LINZ and Environment Canterbury are all stakeholders, it seems illogical to not include a Good Neighbour Rule for the management of these prolific pest species. Decision Requested • We support the Council allocating $500 towards the sustained control of Wilding Conifers – including Contorta pines, Mountain pines, Scots pines and Corsican pines; • we support the acknowledgement of the work of the Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programmes for European Larch and Western white pines (with no additional direct costs estimated at this time). • we note that Council’s contribution will cover surveillance, administration and education - with the active management of these species occurring outside of the RPMP under Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programmes, detailed within the Operational Plan; • we also strongly encourage Council to continue its strong support and resourcing of appropriate staff members towards the ongoing collaborative work noted above in this regard. • we seek that Council reconsider the decision not to apply Good Neighbour Rules to these pest species. An approach similar to that taken with gorse and broom should be extended to wilding tree species.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject in-part

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support. With respect to the point regarding Good Neighbour Rules, the proposed direction relies heavily on collaborative projects as this model is proving very successful in Marlborough. It is view of staff that there is no requirement for Good Neighbour Rules to support the implementation of the proposed RPMP programmes at this point in time.

• Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.13 - Cotton thistle All Cotton thistle disperses by seeds attaching to animal coats. It then invades and colonises pastures and if uncontrolled can displace pasture species and impede stock access. It is a major issue for Otago and Canterbury farmers and has the potential to be a significant farmland weed throughout Marlborough if it was to become widespread. We agree with the RPMP recommendation that there is a significant net benefit in adopting a sustained control programme for Cotton Thistle, given the potential for damage to 481,700 hectares of Marlborough’s pastoral farming economy and native plant species. We also agree that the management of this species needs to be both strategic and intensive. Decision Requested • We support the sustained control programme; • we support the adoption of Rule 7.13.2.1; • we support the allocation of associated costs (100% on Council) of $4,800 – which covers control, surveillance, administration and education.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for cotton thistle in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.17 - Giant needle grass All Giant Needle Grass has the potential to cause damage to an estimated 330,000 hectares of the District’s pastoral and tussockland farming systems. Given its current low impact and infestation rates, but the risks that apply if no control is undertaken, we agree that a sustained control programme is appropriate. Decision Requested • We support the sustained control programme proposed • we support adoption of Rule 7.17.2.1; • we support the allocation of associated costs (100% on Council) of $7,200 covering control, surveillance, administration and education.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation

Accept The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for giant needle grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.18 - Gorse All Gorse is a particular nemesis of farming. It not only displaces preferred pasture species, it grows anywhere, impedes stock and vehicular access and is extremely difficult to kill. Its presence can greatly reduce the economic viability of a farming unit. Given the importance of eradicating and containing gorse, we support the need for Good Neighbour rules directly apply to this pest. Decision Requested • We agree the adoption of a sustained control programme for gorse • we agree with the adoption of rules 7.18.2.1 to 7.18.2.4. • we agree with costs of $7,500 coming from Council (covering inspection, surveillance, administration and education) and $80,000 of costs coming from landowners within the control zones via rule compliance.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.19 - Kangaroo grass All Kangaroo grass is an invasive species, which can exclude preferred pasture species. It is not palatable to stock unless part of a burn and graze regime, which may work in Australia, but is not appropriate in Marlborough given the proximity to forestry. We note that Kangaroo grass has been a containment control pest plant in the Regional Pest Management Strategy for Marlborough since 2001. We agree with the RPMP that given the low number of infested properties, a strategic and intensive management programme is required to prevent damage to 326,000 hectares of pastoral habitat. Decision Requested • We agree with the recommended sustained control programme; • we agree with the adoption of rules 7.19.2.1 to 7.19.2.3; • we note and support financial contributions of $29,500 from Council (control, surveillance, administration and education) and $50,000 from impacted landowners (compliance with rules requiring management of the issue);

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel has recommended the inclusion of a programme for kangaroo grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan with an amendment resulting from another submission.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.21 - Mediterranean fanworm All Federated Farmers has some concerns with the proposed costs sought from Council associated with seeking exclusion of this pest, which is present elsewhere in New Zealand and could easily be transferred via recreational vessels. We point to programmes for terrestrial pests and note that landowners significantly

28 contribute to the overall control and management of these species and we consider that aquatic or marine pests should be similarly funded by the industries directly impacted. Decision Requested • Given the uncertainties of the impact of the fanworm, and given the ease from which it could be transferred back into the District even if exclusion was successful, we oppose the $135,000 Council contribution sought. • If the industry determines the exclusion programme is appropriate, and is willing to cost-share with the Ministry for Primary Industries, we will support such adoption – provided no significant contribution is expected from Council.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: The basis for the proposed programme for Mediterranean fanworm lies with Council's regional leadership statutory role within the Biosecurity Act 1993 and roles outlined within the National Pest Management Plan of Action adopted in 2011. Using programme within an RPMP, within support Rules, is seen as a logical intervention to fulfil this role.

With respect to the funding for the programme for Mediterranean fanworm, Council as management agency is somewhat limited with mechanisms for allocating funding for a RPMP programme operating in the marine environment. As it is proposed, the programme for Mediterranean fanworm is proposed to be funded through general rates with a weighting applied evenly across Marlborough's rating district (see section 11.2). With respect to the tests Council has to apply with respect to cost allocation under clause 7(2) of the National Policy Direction (NPD), the method of using general rates is the most efficient and effective method at this point I time.

Coastal occupancy charging through the RMA is being looked at through the Marlborough Environment Plan process with funding marine biosecurity programmes identified as a potential use of funds gathered. That method would more closely align with the NPD cost allocation provisions so if it were to eventuate then the method of funding the Mediterranean fanworm programme would be reviewed.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for Mediterranean fanworm in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions. The hearing panel acknowledges your concern regarding the allocation of costs. However, this can be reviewed should the introduction of coastal occupancy charges be implemented through the Marlborough Environment Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.24 - Nassella tussock All There is currently 53,397 hectares of the District infested with Nassella tussock and potential for it to spread to a further 276,603 hectares. Nassella tussock seeds have the potential to spread up to 10 kilometres in strong winds and can remain viable in the soil for many years. It invades and smothers other grassland species and is largely unpalatable to livestock. We note that previous management has relied upon methods associated with herbicides, cultivation, destocking, topdressing, pasture renewal, afforestation, burning and grazing with cattle. We agree with Council that there is a significant net benefit to continuing the control of nassella tussock based on the potential for damage to Marlborough’s pastoral farming economy. We note that while costs associated with sustained control are significant, that the proposed costs of the operational programme are similar to that within the current programme. In our view, enforcement and inspection are the key to success of these programmes. We have submitted to Environment Canterbury that we consider Good Neighbour Rules should apply to this pest, given the significant impact of control and management not being widely adopted, regardless of land tenure. Decision Requested • we support the continuation of the sustained control programme; • we support the adoption of rules 7.24.2.1 and 7.24.2.2; • we support costs of $220,000 coming from Council and $1,334,925 land occupier costs (through compliance with associated rules); • We seek Council consider the adoption of Good Neighbour Rules for this pest plant.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject in part

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support. With respect to the point regarding Good Neighbour Rules, the nature of the infestations of nassella tussock in Marlborough means there is very little Crown land affected and there is excellent existing relationships between Council and the respective Crown agencies. Council treats those Crown agencies like any other occupier (I.e. requests they meet the obligation to destroy all plants each year) and the agencies respond accordingly.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends: a) That Council explore the use of a Good Neighbour Rule (GNR) for pest programmes that have land occupier obligations; and b) That an assessment be carried out in accordance with clause 8 of the National Policy Direction. This process will allow consultation to occur; and c) Following this process undertake a review of the Regional Pest Management Plan to incorporate GNR where appropriate.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.27 - Rabbits All Rabbits are at near plague levels at various places across New Zealand and their continued high presence elsewhere poses significant risk to farmland and the productive capacity of pastoral farmland. They also pose a risk to soil and water quality, increase erosion, impact animal food sources and their burrows in open country pose a risk to animals. While it is hoped that the release of the haemorrhagic virus disease strain, known as K5 (RHDV1 K5), will be of considerable help in controlling the huge number of wild rabbits, it will not be a silver bullet overnight. Decision Requested • we support the continuation of a sustained control programme; • we support the adoption of rule 7.27.2.1; • we support costs of $80,000 coming from Council going towards control, surveillance, administration and education; alongside $150,000 from landowners in complying with the rules.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for rabbits in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.31 - Saffron thistle All If left uncontrolled, saffron thistle can harm stock, devalue fibre and interfere with crop harvesting. It is currently a controlled plant under the existing Pest Plan. Decision Requested • We support the continued sustained control of this plant; • we support Rule 7.31.2.1 • we support the proposal for $23,000 costs of control, surveillance, administration and education to come from Council.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for saffron thistle in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.36 - Wallabies All In the South Island, Wallabies are issues for landowners in Canterbury, and more recently Otago. They negatively impact farming due to competition with stock for food and other impact on production land. While there are currently no known populations of wallabies in Marlborough, because of the significance of the issue if they become established, we support the Council including them as Exclusion pests within the plan. Decision Requested • we support the Council’s proposal for an Exclusion management programme; • we support the adoption of rules 7.36.2.1 and 7.36.2.2; • we support proposed costs of $2,000 covering control, surveillance, administration and education coming from Council;

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for wallabies in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal Velvetleaf The recent incursion of velvetleaf within New Zealand is a considerable risk to the arable and pastoral farming industries of the Marlborough District. On that basis, it is appropriate to include this invasive cropping pest in the RPMP and aim to exclude or eradicate it from the region. Because the RPMP lasts for 20 years, in our view it is short-sighted not to include it within this plan. Both Waikato and Wellington Regional Councils have proposed to include the species and we have asked the same of Environment Canterbury. Velvetleaf is classified as an Unwanted Organism under the Biosecurity Act 1993. Unwanted Organisms are capable of causing harm to the environment or human health. With this classification the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) can place specific legal controls on its movement; it is illegal to knowingly communicate, cause to be communicated, release, or cause to be released, or otherwise spread any pest or unwanted organism. Federated Farmers understands that properties confirmed with velvetleaf are required to have a farm management plan submitted to MPI via Council; we understand that Council is also responsible for checking the compliance of these plans. On that basis, we consider it appropriate for Council to include velvetleaf within the RPMP to be eradicated, to provide both the acknowledgement and support to ensure it happens. Decision Requested • That velvetleaf is added to the Eradication category of the RPMP, with an indication that control is currently funded and coordinated by MPI.

Staff Comment Velvetleaf

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment that this unwanted organism is currently being managed under a national intervention, led by the Ministry for Primary Industries. Until such time that an official transition or request to transition occurs, staff recommend to take a principled approach whereby Council does not take on the management of such a species so recent after a national incursion response.

Additional note: Velvet leaf was detected in small numbers at one property within Marlborough as a result of fodderbeet contamination. As part of the national response, this property has received one visit. However, in accordance with Marlborough's Biosecurity Strategy goal of preventing new incursions, this site will be visited by staff as opportunities arise to confirm the plants found did not seed and result in an established infestation. This is an interim measure while waiting for a national position to be taken by MPI.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject

The hearing panel recommends that velvet leaf continues to be managed by the Ministry of Primary Industries (MPI) under a national incursion response. Council will continue to monitor the site of incursion in Marlborough and will respond appropriately when directed by MPI. If it is found that the plants have seeded and an infestation has become established in Marlborough, then Council can review the situation.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal Canada Geese Canada geese are widespread in the South Island and are most numerous in pastoral areas, including within the Marlborough District. While they prefer pastoral land adjacent to a lake or large pond as their habitat, they are also found in well-forested mountain valleys. Canada Geese are a major agricultural pest being voracious eaters of pasture, with their excrement fouling both land and waterways. Control of this pest will have environmental as well as production benefits. Two adult Canada Geese eat the equivalent grass per day of one sheep. Federated Farmers is concerned that Canada Geese have not been included as a species under a control program in the RPMP. Canada Geese were once managed by Fish and Game, however with that control now removed they are not identified in any national management framework. In our view, control needs to be centrally led and coordinated as Canada Geese are a highly mobile species and ad-hoc control efforts just spread them further making any future control more difficult. Decision Requested • We seek the sustained control of Canada Geese within the RPMP Staff Comment Canada geese

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Canada geese are large, highly transient birds and frequent the high country environments or Marlborough. Staff comment that intervention by means of a programme within a RPMP would not be feasible, achievable and highly unlikely to secure suitable resources to implement. It is recommended that the management of this species be left to occupiers to carry out or facilitate control operations as they fit to protect their assets.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel recommends that voluntary intervention methods and other mechanisms be used to manage Canada geese in Marlborough.

582 Benjamin James Minehan 40 Kenningtons Road, RD 1, Havelock 7178 (Speaking) Weed Solutions Limited

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.24 - Nassella tussock All We support the inclusion of nassella tussock in the RPMP as Sustained Control. Council needs to ensure the control of this invasive weed continues across the region and that any enforcement action is consistent for all landowners. This invasive species has the potential to ruin hill country farming in the region. Decision Requested Ensure nassella tussock control continues and the downwind spread of the plant in minimised from consistent control.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support for the nassella tussock programme as proposed.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and for your support of the proposed nassella tussock programme. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for nassella tussock in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.30 - Rough horsetail All We fully support the inclusion of rough horsetail in the RPMP. There is no better time to eradicate these species than now before they become well established across the region. Decision Requested Include rough horsetail as Sustained Control in the new RPMP.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support of the proposed rough horsetail programme. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for rough horsetail in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.35 - Tall wheat grass All We fully support the inclusion of tall wheat grass in the RPMP. There is no better time to eradicate these species than now before they become well established across the region. Decision Requested Include tall wheat grass as Sustained Control in the new RPMP.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: 33

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support of the proposed tall wheat grass programme. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for tall wheat grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.41 - Woolly nightshade All We fully support the inclusion of woolly nightshade in the RPMP. There is no better time to eradicate these species than now before they become well established across the region. Decision Requested Include woolly nightshade as Sustained Control in the new RPMP.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support of the proposed woolly nightshade programme. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for woolly nightshade in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All We support the inclusion of wilding conifers in the new RPMP. Decision Requested We support the inclusion of wilding conifers in the new RPMP.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention 34 of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal Council needs to consider the inclusion of sycamore in the RPMP in the future. Sycamore is a shade tolerant species which establishes quickly and spreads by wind. There are a number of infestations across the region, all of which appear to be spreading. Decision Requested Establish where infestations of sycamore exist in the region and track their spread. This information will be important in the future.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledge the presence of sycamore in Marlborough and in instances, exhibited characteristics of being invasive. However, sycamore as a species is very widespread and occurs in a wide range of environments - including the built-up environment as an ornamental species. In terms of where it occurs in natural environments, and is demonstrating invasive characteristics, Council does not have the information required to assess the relative threat.

Due to the widespread nature of the species, a programme within a RPMP for the species as a whole would not be feasible and not recommended as a course of action. The status quo management scenario would be for this species to managed by occupiers as a threat and if the area at threat is of high value, then potentially with the support of Council through the biodiversity protection programme.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel recommends that sycamore be included as part of an analysis that will be undertaken by Council around the management of wilding conifers.

583 Joan Winifred Dodson 204 Cable Station Road, RD 1, Seddon 7285 (Speaking)

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.8 - Chilean needle grass All I support the eradication of needlegrass as per submission. My name is Joan W Dodson and I reside at 204 Cable Station Road, Blind River. When we purchased the property, approximately 20 years ago, I approached Blenheim District Council seeking advice regarding needle grass. I was assured that it would take only 2 weeks a year to carry out the necessary eradication. Joke! No sooner had we moved in than it was declared a core property. Then my life of living with needle grass began. Rex (deceased) soon realised the potential danger of this plant to the high country stations where it would have a devastating effect. A good part of his life from there on was devoted to the eradication of this plant, spraying, trial plots, seminars, talking on the radio, committees etc. Rex did not just spray the basic 10 metres from our boundary, as required by council, but went for total eradication of the whole 500 acres which proved to be succeeding. Surely it has been proved that containment doesn't work. If it did, we wouldn't still be talking about it as the area containing needle grass would be getting less - not increasing. I now only administer 3 acres on this property on which no needle grass was found this year. J. W. Dodson. Decision Requested N/A

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept Thank you for your submission noting the inclusion of Chilean needle grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan which indicates a commitment by Council to achieve targets requested from the community.

584 Rebecca Davies PO Box 2083, Wellington 6140

New Zealand Defence Force

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.1 - African feather grass 7.1.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for African feather grass Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and support of some of the proposed programmes in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.2 - Bathurst bur 7.2.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Bathurst bur Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.3 - Boneseed 7.3.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Boneseed Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment 37

Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.6 - Bur daisy 7.6.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Bur daisy Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.7 - Cathedral bells 7.7.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Cathedral bells Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.8 - Chilean needle grass 7.8.2.7 - Occupier notification rule for Chilean needle grass Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.9 - Chinese pennisetum 7.9.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Chinese pennisetum Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.10 - Climbing spindleberry 7.10.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Climbing spindleberry Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for climbing spindleberry in the Regional Pest Management Plan with an amendment resulting from another submission.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.13 - Cotton thistle 7.13.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Cotton thistle Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. 39

Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.14 - Eel grass 7.14.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Eel grass Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.16 - Evergreen buckthorn 7.16.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Evergreen buckthorn Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.17 - Giant needle grass 7.17.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Giant needle grass Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or

40 observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.19 - Kangaroo grass 7.19.2.3 - Occupier notification rule for Kangaroo grass Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.20 - Madeira vine 7.20.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Madeira vine Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.22 - Moth plant 7.22.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Moth plant Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.24 - Nassella tussock 7.24.2.2 - Occupier notification rule for Nassella tussock Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.25 - Parrot's feather 7.25.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Parrot's feather Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.26 - Purple loosestrife 7.26.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Purple loosestrife Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.28 - Reed sweet grass 7.28.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Reed sweet grass Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.29 - Rooks 7.29.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Rooks Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.30 - Rough horsetail 7.30.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Rough horsetail Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.31 - Saffron thistle 7.31.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Saffron thistle Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.33 - Senegal tea 7.33.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Senegal tea Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.34 - Spartina 7.34.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Spartina Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.35 - Tall wheat grass 7.35.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Tall wheat grass Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.36 - Wallabies 7.36.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Wallabies Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.38 - White-edged nightshade 7.38.2.3 - Occupier notification rule for White-edged nightshade Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified. Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.41 - Woolly nightshade 7.41.2.1 - Occupier notification rule for Woolly nightshade Rules throughout Section 7 require notification to the Marlborough District Council of any new infestation or observation of many of the pests for which programmes are proposed, within 5 working days. NZDF supports the reporting of new infestations of pest plants and animals to assist the Council with surveillance. Reporting deadlines of five working days strike a balance between practicality and the need for information and action. Decision Requested Retain these rules as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.21 - Mediterranean fanworm 7.21.2.1 - Person in charge of a craft entering Marlborough, meeting biofouling standard This proposed rule is in line with other NZ Pest Management Plan rules e.g. Northland. The threshold of light fouling proposed, of small patches totalling less than 5% of the hull and niche areas is equivalent to a Level of Fouling (LoF) Rank 2 contained in the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) document titled “Biofouling risk assessment framework for NZ’s offshore islands”. NZDF currently manages fouling on all of its vessels to maintain a Level of Fouling (LoF) rank of 2 or less. Decision Requested Retain as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management.”

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.21 - Mediterranean fanworm 7.21.2.1 - Person in charge of a craft entering Marlborough, meeting biofouling standard This rule does not include an exemption for NZDF vessels entering Marlborough for the purpose of emergency response or in the event of a natural disaster. NZDF vessels provide assistance in emergencies, including provision of supplies to affected areas and the evacuation of people, as recently seen in the aftermath of the Kaikoura earthquakes. It is appropriate that these critical and essential activities are provided with exemptions from the rule requirements. Rules 17.21.2.2 and 17.21.2.3 will ensure that the Mediterranean fanworm, if observed, can be eradicated. Decision Requested Amend Rule 17.21.2.1 to include provision for military vessels involved in emergency management and disaster response activities, by adding a clause (shown as underlined): The owner or person in charge of a craft entering Marlborough must ensure that the fouling on the hull and niche areas of the craft does not exceed ‘light fouling’; unless: i) The craft is required to enter Marlborough in an emergency relating to the safety of the craft and/or the health and safety of any person on the craft; ii) The craft is required to enter Marlborough in response to a natural disaster and/or in relation to emergency management activities.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: While the scenario raised by the submitter is an event that would likely call for urgency on all fronts, careful consideration would need to be given to the scale of the event and what wording occurs within the Rule. Alignment with terms used by the Ministry for Civil Defence and Emergency Management would be more appropriate than the more open terms as used by the submitter.

It is recommended that rule 17.21.2.1 is to read as follows:

The owner or person in charge of a craft entering Marlborough must ensure that the fouling on the hull and niche areas of the craft does not exceed ‘light fouling’; unless: i) The craft is required to enter Marlborough in an emergency relating to the safety of the craft and/or the health and safety of any person on the craft; or ii) The craft is required to enter Marlborough in response to a declaration of a state of emergency acknowledged by the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management.

‘Light fouling’ is defined as: small patches (up to 100 millimetres in diameter) of visible fouling, totalling less than 5% of the hull and niche areas. A slime layer and/or goose barnacles are allowable fouling.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel has recommended the inclusion of a programme for Mediterranean fanworm in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from your submission and others. The hearing panel recommends that proposed rule 7.21.2.1 include provision for vessels entering for a declared State of Emergency. “Rule 7.21.2.1 The owner or person in charge of a craft entering Marlborough must ensure that the fouling on the hull and niche areas of the craft does not exceed ‘light fouling’: unless i) The craft is entering Marlborough for the purpose of a haul out. The haul out must be undertaken within 24 hours of arriving. Proof via receipt from a haul out facility must be provided upon request of an Authorised person; or ii) The craft is required to enter Marlborough in an emergency relating to the safety of the craft and/or health and safety of any person on the craft; or iii) The craft is required to enter Marlborough in response to a declared State of Emergency acknowledged by the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management.”

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.21 - Mediterranean fanworm 7.21.2.1 - Person in charge of a craft entering Marlborough, meeting biofouling standard For consistency and ease of reference, NZDF requests that the definition of “light fouling “ is inserted into 47 the Glossary section of the Plan as currently the definition is only provided at Rule 7.21.2.1 Decision Requested Insert definition of “light fouling” into the Glossary, from Rule 7.21.2.1

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends that the definition of ‘light fouling’ be removed from the rule and added to the glossary in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.21 - Mediterranean fanworm 7.21.2.2 - Notification rule for Mediterranean fanworm The 24-hour time period for notification is a reasonable requirement. This rule notes that reports to MPI will be sufficient with respect to Rule 7.23.2.2. It would be helpful to clarify how this will be applied i.e. if reported to MPI then it does not need to be reported to the Council? Decision Requested Retain but clarify application of note.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff comment that the reporting of Mediterranean fanworm to MPI does result in direct notification to Council. This due to the close relationship between MPI and Councils with respect to the management of marine biosecurity risks.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends that the Note under Proposed Rule 7.21.2.2 be amended to the following: “Note: Mediterranean fanworm is also a notifiable organism by way of the Biosecurity (Notifiable Organisms) Order 2016. As such, the suspected presence of Mediterranean fanworm must also be reported to MPI in accordance with section 46 of the Biosecurity Act.”

585 Heather Arnold Private Bag 5, Richmond 7050 (Speaking) Nelson Forests Limited

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All The table identifies Douglas fir and Radiata Pine as pests. Decision Requested Douglas fir and Radiata Pine cannot be defined as pests. The Ministry for Primary Industries has provided guidance to regional councils that these species are to be excluded from Pest Management Plans as they are highly valuable commercially grown species. Remove these tree species from the list of pests defined as wilding conifers.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff refer to the proposed programme for wilding conifers, where Douglas fir and Radiata Pine appear. They are associated with a table that defines the target of the programme which reads:

7.39 Wilding conifers Definition Wilding conifers are any introduced conifer tree, including (but not limited to) any of the species listed in Table 13, established by natural means, unless it is located within a forest plantation, and does not create any greater risk or wilding conifer spread to adjacent or nearby land than the forest plantation that it is part of.

For the purposes of this definition, a forest plantation is an area of 1 hectare or more of predominantly planted trees.

Douglas fir and Radiata Pine occur in Table 13.

This definition is in accordance with the guidance referenced by the submitter and means that these species, in their planted form are not subject to the programme nor are they captured by any subsequent declaration as pests referenced in section 6.

49 clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective. The hearing panel recommends that a stakeholder reference group is established to support the development of the Proposal and that this work is completed to align with the 2019/2020 Annual Plan process. While this work is being undertaken, Council will continue to support the current collaborative programmes including existing LTP budget allocations. Council’s involvement in wilding conifer management will continue to be guided by our Biosecurity Strategy.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal Purple Pampas Purple Pampas is an economic threat to plantation forests and disturbed indigenous areas. It is a self pollenating, tall, erect, perennial grass that forms tussock up to 3 m high. It produces large quantities of seed that can be carried long distances by wind. It rapidly invades roadside areas and young forest plantations, smothering young trees and making access difficult and costly. An adjacent council’s Pest Management Plan describes it as follows: “The combination of prolific seeding, extensive wind distribution, and its ability to colonise disturbed land from sea-level up to 800 metres and dominate the site for many years, make it a serious long-term pest.” Decision Requested Add Purple Pampas into the Regional Pest Management Plan as a sustained control pest in the pertinent parts of the Marlborough Region.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff are aware of the threat of Purple pampas but Council does not have good quality information to assess the threat regarding distribution. Anecdotally, Purple pampas is known to occurs sporadically in almost in all parts of the district to varying degrees. As a result, a determination was made in the previous review of the former Regional Pest Management Strategy that this species does not lend itself to being managed under a species-led programme. Council will continue to highlight the species as a threat and advocate for occupier control.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel thanks you for submission and for highlighting that purple pampas poses an economic threat to plantation forests and is a threat to indigenous areas. As a response to a number of submissions with a biodiversity focus, the hearing panel recommends that Council captures your concerns through the development of a biodiversity strategy. This will provide an integrated framework for enabling intervention and the setting of regional priorities to manage human induced mammalian pests and invasive plant species that are a threat to biodiversity values across Marlborough. Council already liaises with communities over initiatives where these types of species could be managed to protect the values in a given locality, for example the SNA project. If necessary and where a regulatory approach is valid, a site- led programme could be developed for inclusion in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

586 Pat Williams (Speaking)

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal My submission addresses three plant pests with particular relevance to the landscape values of Marlborough Sounds roads, namely Kenepuru Road and Queen Charlotte Drive. Kenepuru Road is the sole vehicular accessway to Kenepuru and Pelorus Sounds. Here the much valued native vegetation is threatened by three invasive plant pests: Banana Passionfruit (Passiflora species), Old Man’s Beard (Clematis vitalba), to be referred to as ‘The Climbers’, and Gorse (Ulex europeus). The Climbers Predominantly on the southern side of Kenepuru Road, Banana Passionfruit is smothering and strangling to non existence the native vegetation which would otherwise grow as a border landscape on the road reserve. Also on the reserve land of Kenepuru Road and throughout Queen Charlotte Drive Old Man’s Beard dominates at the expense of the native vegetation which we value. It is with concern I note that neither of these climbers are included in the schedule of Plant Pests. I note that in many counties and regional authorities through NZ that both these climbers are recognised as Plant Pests in various categories. Decision Requested 1. I recommend that Banana Passionfruit and Old Man’s Beard be allocated the status of Sustained Control .In making this recommendation I acknowledge there may not be an easy cure and that some extensive research is required. The first step would be to seek the experience of other Regional Councils, including West Coast and Waikato where I note both these species are classified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

With the species outlined in this submission (banana passionfruit and old man's beard), they are widespread and well established.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel thanks you for your comprehensive and informative submission and presentation made to them. You requested the inclusion of banana passionfruit and old man’s beard in the Regional Pest Management Plan. These species are well established in Marlborough. While they do not fit with a species led programme in the Regional Pest Management Plan, there is an opportunity to focus on control where biodiversity values are threatened. As a response to a number of submissions with a biodiversity focus, the hearing panel recommends that Council captures your concerns through the development of a biodiversity strategy. The supporting material you provided in your submission could be used in the development of such a document. A strategy will provide an integrated framework for enabling intervention and the setting of regional priorities to manage human induced mammalian pests and invasive plant species that are a threat to biodiversity values across Marlborough. Council already liaises with communities over initiatives where these types of species could be managed to protect the values in a given locality, for example the SNA project. If necessary and where a regulatory approach is valid, a site-led programme could be developed for inclusion in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.18 - Gorse All Under the classification ‘Sustained Control’ I conclude it is the intention to at best remove gorse from the target landscape or as a minimum to reduce its impact. Unfortunately the management strategy applied on the road reserve land does completely the opposite, it strengthens gorse at the expense of all other vegetation, native or otherwise. This is explained as follows: • Gorse was introduced to New Zealand by the Scottish settlers as a hedge plant. The inherent property of gorse which makes it ideal for this purpose is its ability to thrive under a regime of cutting. • The sole management tool used on the Sounds’ road verges and banks is a mower. To mow is to cut. The outcome is that gorse recovers with vigour to dominate the roadside vegetation. Vegetation control can be classified under two broad headings: Total or non-selective vegetation control where all plants are removed and only the stronger recovers, in this case gorse. Mowing is a form of non selective vegetation control. Selective vegetation control where the target plant is removed and the desirable species are spared. At Goulter Bay local land owners have voluntarily addressed the problem of roadside gorse using a strategy of selective vegetation control. Here a selective herbicide was applied which killed the gorse but to which the native ground ferns were resistant. As a result the gorse was removed and the ferns, now free of competition, remained and expanded. Further as gorse seeds require full sunlight to germinate the ferns produced a shade canopy beneath which the gorse cannot germinate. Over a period of just 5 or 6 years the roadside vegetation at Goulter Bay has been transformed from being gorse dominant to being native fern dominant. At road reserve ‘Rest Areas’, including the Ohauparuparu Bay Designated Camping Area, large clumps of gorse grow unattended by the Council’s Road Management which is in complete defiance of the classification : Sustained Control. Decision Requested Recommendation: On the immediate road verges and banks a selective vegetation strategy be applied. At Road reserves and rest areas / camping areas the policy of Sustained Control be applied to remove gorse.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: The submitter raises a number of issues related to the management of gorse on road reserves, laybys and a Council controlled camping area. Staff wish to point out that these matters are not driven by the Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP). The only provisions relating to gorse that apply within the geographic vicinity of the Marlborough Sounds is the proposed Good Neighbour Rule 7.18.2.3. Even then, the provisions of section 4.3.2 relating to road reserve responsibilities need to be assessed first before applying that Rule.

The submitter may wish to approach Marlborough Roads regarding the management of gorse on road reserves and the Council Reserves department over management at the designated camping area.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel notes your concerns about the management of gorse and old man’s beard on road reserves. The hearing panel has recommended the inclusion of a programme for gorse in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions. The hearing panel recommends that your submission be referred to Marlborough Roads and the Reserves Section of Council for their consideration.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal As an outcome of circulating my submission through the Sounds community newsletter I received advice of two further species that should be added to the list of plant pests: Wild Ginger (Hedicheum gardnerianum) Chilean Rhubarb (Gunnera tinctorea). Both of these are spreading throughout the Sounds and are very difficult to remove once established. Decision Requested Two further species that should be added to the list of plant pests: Wild Ginger (Hedicheum gardnerianum) Chilean Rhubarb (Gunnera tinctorea)

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: A Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) is a specific tool available to Councils under the

Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act). An RPMP contains programmes for species that have been developed, costs tested and justified to ensure the programme will result in tangible positive outcomes. Only once a programme has been through this rigour, is it proposed. If it makes it into the final RPMP, those species are declared pests. An RPMP is not the place where Council chooses to 'list' species of concern.

With the species outlined in this submission (wild ginger, Chilean rhubarb), they are widespread and well established.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject You have requested the inclusion of wild ginger (Hedicheum gardnerianum) and Chilean rhubarb (Gunnera tinctorea) in the Regional Pest Management Plan. You have identified species that are well established in Marlborough. While they do not fit with a species led programme in the Regional Pest Management Plan, there is an opportunity to focus on control where biodiversity values are threatened. As a response to a number of submissions with a biodiversity focus, the hearing panel recommends that Council captures your concerns through the development of a biodiversity strategy. The supporting material you provided in your submission could be used in the development of such a document. A strategy will provide an integrated framework for enabling intervention and the setting of regional priorities to manage human induced mammalian pests and invasive plant species that are a threat to biodiversity values across Marlborough. Council already liaises with communities over initiatives where these types of species could be managed to protect the values in a given locality, for example the SNA project. If necessary and where a regulatory approach is valid, a site-led programme could be developed for inclusion in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

587 Debs Martin PO Box 266, Nelson 7040 (Speaking) Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc.

Category: All Introduction Thank you for the opportunity to submit on the Proposed Regional Pest Management Plan. The Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of NZ Inc (Forest & Bird) is a not-for-profit community organisation established in 1923. Our Constitutional purpose is: "To take all reasonable steps within the power of the Society for the preservation and protection of the indigenous flora and fauna and natural feature s of New Zealand." As a result of this purpose, the focus of our submission is on pests that have an impact on our indigenous biodiversity and natural features. Our membership and supporters number around 70,000 nationally. In Marlborough, our branch has been involved in conservation, including restoration and pest control since 1969. We are involved in several projects across the region, including at Pelorus Bridge Scenic Reserve where we undertake extensive predator control to protect the resident population of nationally critical long-tailed bats. General New Zealand's biodiversity remains in crisis. There are three overarching threats to our biodiversity: climate change, habitat destruction, and invasive pests and weeds. Within Marlborough, habitat destruction has slowed down markedly since last century, and some areas are under active protection and restoration. Other areas have been secured as public conservation land, and some of these places are the last refugia for many species. South Marlborough (inland and coastal) is one of seven national hot-spots of biodiversity endemism1 After over a decade's experience working as the Regional Manager, and my involvement in collaborative forums, working groups, and restoration projects across the region - it is apparent that grappling with pest and weed issues remains one of the most significant challenges to our biodiversity. 1 Heenan, P. (accessed 2018): "Hotspots of endemism (biodiversity found only in New Zealand). Accessed on Landcare Research website : www .landcareresearch.co.nz/ publications/innovation-stories/2015- stories/endemism-hotspots The Regional Pest Management Plan 2017 (RPMP)·is the opportunity to more widely grapple with some of these pest species. On some fronts, the RPMP achieves that goal, but in many others, the Cost Benefit Analysis or Risk weighs in as too great. Given that decision, it is clear that the RPMP whilst achieving low-hanging fruit, will never adequately deal with the major biosecurity incursion risks to our native biodiversity and places. The biggest threats to our biodiversity are pest plant species like Old Man's Beard and Banana Passionvine. Animal pests include possums, rats and stoats - the "trifecta". Apart from one mention of the maintenance of brushtail possum exclusion from offshore is lands, none of the other key biodiversity threats are included in this plan. Hence it is important that the restrictions of the RPMP are recognised, and Council actively engage with the broader iss ue of pests and weeds through the Biosecurity Strategy2. However, there is still a need for increased regulation for some of the pests that aren't listed, as if they aren't listed, then their ongoing propagation and distribution cannot be controlled, e.g. purple pampas, pigs, etc. There are also matters that could do with consistency with adjoining plans, e.g. Nelson-Tasman, e.g. Indian/common myna. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff acknowledge the intent of the submitter that is to highlight a number of invasive species. However, a Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) is a specific tool available to Councils under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act). An RPMP contains programmes for species that have been developed, costs tested and justified to ensure the programme will result in tangible positive outcomes. Only once a programme has been through this rigour, is it proposed. If it makes it into the final RPMP, those species are declared pests. An RPMP is not the place where Council chooses to 'list' species of concern.

With the species outlined in this submission point (banana passionfruit, old man's beard, possums, rats, stoats), they are widespread and well established. Staff comment that through the mere fact these species are so widespread and well established, that a species-led programme within a RPMP would not be feasible nor resources available to take an approach.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and for highlighting the biggest threats to our biodiversity are old man’s beard, banana passionfruit, possums, rats and stoats. As you have recognised the Regional Pest Management Plan offers limited scope to deal with these species. The hearing panel acknowledges your submission and recommends that Council captures your concerns through the development of a biodiversity strategy. This will provide an integrated framework for enabling intervention and the setting of regional priorities to manage human induced mammalian pests and invasive plant species that are a threat to Marlborough’s biodiversity. If necessary and where a regulatory approach is valid, a site-led programme(s) could be developed for inclusion in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: All Climate Change Forest & Bird is concerned that the other threat to our biodiversity - climate change - is not factored into the assessments of this RPMP. We are aware it is not provided for in the National Direction, but it should not stop that forming a part of the assessment, specifically where certain events may exacerbate the spread of weed species, e.g. storm events effects on dunelands, and their recovery; significant debris flows following major rainfall events, implications of increased risk from drought favouring pest species. Decision Requested Forest & Bird seeks that Council undertake the following: 1. A risk analysis of the implications for the spread of pest species due to current predictions of climate change factors, including storms, sea level rise, warmer temperatures, etc.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledge that issue of climate change in that it will likely affect the way invasive species behave, spread and open new opportunities for invasion. These factors are incorporated into the management decisions of existing species under management and also the ongoing task of risk assessment and profiling new or emerging threats to the region.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel notes your request to undertake a risk analysis of the implications for the spread of pests due to the current predictions of climate change factors including storms, sea level rise and warmer temperatures. We support the staff comment that they acknowledge these factors may affect the way invasive species behave and that other currently non-invasive species could become potential threats. The hearing panel recommends that staff continue to incorporate these factors into their management decisions for current threats and when considering new threats to Marlborough.

Category: Part Three - Administrative Provisions 11 - Funding Proposed RPMP Expenditure (p291} The funding of pest control in the region is reasonable compared to the size of the area, but most of the budget is focused on pest control where it has implications for agriculture, and the budget for species that affect biodiversity is comparably much smaller. Therefore we seek that additional investment is made to control the species we have sought for inclusion; and for increased activity to try to move pest species from sustained control, to eradication - especially where the long term cost comparisons would indicate an upfront investment may have lesser longer term costs. We also strongly urge investment, as we have sought, in a wider biosecurity strategy that deals with site-led approaches, or species approaches, that threaten the region's rich and important biodiversity. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff comment that funding is linked to the individual programmes that have been proposed, including the type of management objective. Due to he background assessments, this management objective reflects whether a feasible programme is possible to implement. For many of the species that are currently affecting biodiversity values, a strategic species-led progamme in a RPMP is not feasible. 55

Reference is made to previous comments regarding the fact that the RPMP is not the driver of investment for site-led management. However, where there is an amendment threat of a species that can affect biodiversity values establishing, or is early in its establishment phase, then strategic intervention is often easily justified and feasible.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel notes your comments on the funding of pest control in Marlborough. As a response to your submission and others with a biodiversity focus, the hearing panel recommends that the Council captures your concerns through the development of a biodiversity strategy. This will be a complementary document to the Biosecurity Strategy that was released with the Proposal. Both strategies will provide a framework for enabling intervention and the setting of regional priorities to manage human induced mammalian pests and invasive plant species that are a threat to biodiversity. The Long Term Plan consultation document of 2018 proposes to increase the funding for Environmental Science and Monitoring and pest management. The former includes a programme for biodiversity.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal

Decision Requested 1. Include species in the RPMP to ensure they are listed and regulated for so to ensure there is no propagation or distribution of pest animal and/or plant species a. Purple pampas b. Pest species into specific sites, e .g. pigs, goats, deer, possums, cats - into public conservation land and/or other defined areas 2. Include the following species in the RPMP: a. Chocolate vine (Akebia quinata) - identifying areas of infestation and undertaking sustained control; ensure prohibition of plant for sale. I sighted one plant in a person's garden in Blenheim and they removed it and disposed of it (5 years ago). b. Climbing asparagus - known biodiversity threat and can be dealt with, but requires effort. c. Indian/common myna - exclusion d. Indian ring-necked parakeet - exclusion (the latter two are both for exclusion in Nelson-Tasman)

Staff Comment 1. Chocolate vine

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment that Council does not have information relating to its distribution in Marlborough. Anecdotally this species commonly occurs in the urban landscape given its history as an ornamental species. Due to this lack of information as a species threatening natural environemnts, a species such as this sits amongst a very large list of invasive species, particularly plants, that Council keeps a watching brief on but not necessarily managed through a programme in a RPMP.

Staff comment that it will continue to be a species to be aware of its invasive potential and gather information on its distribution in natural areas through surveillance activities. Staff Comment 2. Indian/common myna

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment that these birds are not seen as a priority threat to the region at this point and and intervention through a RPMP programme would not be justified. Staff Comment 3. Indian ring-necked parakeet

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff note that the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI) are actively responding to small wild populations of Indian ring-necked parakeets in the North Island. In addition, they have been classified as an Unwanted Organism. Due to the fact MPI are actively responding to instances of this species occurring in the wild, in effect new naturalisations to NZ, it is recommended not to generate overlap by proposing a programme in a RPMP. Staff Comment

4. Numerous other species outlined in this submission point,

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment that through the mere fact these species are so widespread and well established, that a species-led programme within a RPMP would not be feasible nor resources available to take an approach.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject You have requested the inclusion of purple pampas and a site led approach for pigs, goats, deer possums, cats, chocolate vine, climbing asparagus, Indian/common myna (exclusion), Indian ring-necked parakeet (exclusion). The hearing panel recommends that these species are not included in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes All

Decision Requested 3. Introduce a site-led approach into the plan for conservation sensitive areas, including where the community have already engaged in predator control, i.e. a. Kaipupu Point Sanctuary and its surrounding buffer zone (the Wedge and Snout) b. Grovetown Lagoon and Rarangi Dawn Chorus and their surrounding zones c. Wairau Lagoon and Lake Elterwater d. Awatere and Clarence river estuaries e. Havelock estuary f. Pelorus Bridge Scenic Reserve,and other reserves where community effort integrates with public conservation land g. Important riverbed sites for braided river birds, including islands h. Any other community-led projects. 4. Consider including site-led pest control species, including: a. How to regulate and support the management of predator control through regulation b. Considering such things as "cat exclusion" areas. 5. Recognise that the SNA programme leads to difficulties with identifying a site-led approach to biodiversity-based pest control within the RPMP and therefore adequately compensate for this omission by investing more funds in the Biosecurity Strategy (and see further submissions below). 6. Implement a Biosecurity Strategy (including opportunities for community discussion on priorities) into the Long Term Plan and annua l planning budgets: a. Ensure funds available to support community-led initiatives b. Ensure funds available to tackle biodivers ity pests and weeds on Council reserves c. Ensure funds are available to support prioritised biodiversity pest control on identified SNA sites d. Provide for a staff resource that can assist and advise the community and community groups on control of biodiversity threats, especially mammalian predators e. Consider how Marlborough DC can support the national predator-free initiative, especially giving it strategic effect at a regional level f. Ensure funds are available to broadly tackle site-led biodiversity initiatives from some species, e.g. wasps, magpies 7. Encourage the development and implementation of a National Cat Management strategy and any supporting legislation.

Staff Comment 2. Cat Management

Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff wish to comment that the from a strategic pest management perspective, cat management is bet dealt with through the protection of high value sites - see previous comment on potential regulatory support under site-led programmes in the RPMP. At this time, the need for such an approach is not arisen. Staff Comment 1. Site led approach

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment that a site-led approach within a RPMP is only necessary where regulatory support is required to protect work occurring at a given valued site. The work at these valued sites are often delivered through projects seeking to restore, protect and maintain biodiversity - not driven by the

57 programmes within the RPMP. If a valued site did require such regulatory support through a Site-led programme in the RPMP, and it was also a Significant Natural Area identified by Council, an issue arises with the linkage to the current RMA Plans.

The issue is that a conscious decision has previously been made that Significant Natural Areas are not mapped or identified through RMA Plans. As such, identifying the site within the RPMP, be it specifically for pest management purposes, would undermine the current stance within the RMA Plans.

Points raised by the submitter relates to investment choices by Council with respect to the restoration, protection and maintenance of biodiversity values. This is not driven by the RPMP given the RPMP is a tool to intervene for strategic species-led programmes or provide regulatory support for specific sites where necessary.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject As a response to a number of submissions with a biodiversity focus, the hearing panel recommends Council captures your concerns through the development of a biodiversity strategy. This will provide an integrated framework for enabling intervention and the setting of regional priorities to manage human induced mammalian pests and invasive plant species that are a threat to biodiversity.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All Conifer species in general: We support the approach taken within the RPMP to provide a 'backsto p' for the collaborative work being undertaken to control wilding pines. Therefore we support "sustained control" for the following species. 7.11 Contorta pine; 7.12 Corsican pine; 7.15 European larch; 7.23 Mountain pine; 7.32 Scots pine; 7.37 Western white pine; 7.39 Wilding conifer. However, if for some reason,the programme of control changes for the collaborative process, then we would ask for a review of the RPMP on these particular items. "Sustained control - with effort to try and achieve eradication" Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: With all programmes, the required annual review of the Operational Plan for the RPMP will highlight instances where a programme-level review may be required.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a 58 clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.3 - Boneseed All We support the following species as "sustained control", but ask that they work towards trying to achieve eradication wherever possible. It seems that the reason why "eradication" is not chosen as the option, is because of some risk of failure. Given some of them have almost nearly achieved "eradication" already, we believe this might be an overly cautious approach and not raising expectations. However, if there is some way of flagging that "eradication" of these species is the end result we would hope for, and that although the risk of that is high, the level of strategic intervention and, to some degree, investment - will reflect this. When weighed up, the cost of these RPMP pests, will be longer over time if eradication is not achieved. The species are: 7.3 Boneseed; 7.7 Cathedral bells, 7.10 Climbing spindleberry; 7.14 Eel grass; 7.16 Evergreen buckthorn; 7.20 Madeira vine; 7.22 Moth plant; 7.30 Rough horsetail;7.41 Woolly nightshade. Decision Requested Support Sustained control - with effort to try and achieve eradication

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support but note that the operational programme always endeavours to eliminate all plants found each season but sue to the biological nature of the plant and location on infestations, Sustained Control is the most feasible long term objective.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel acknowledges your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for boneseed in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel support the staff comment that Council’s operational programme will endeavour to destroy all plants found each season but due to the biological nature of the plant and location of infestations, sustained control is the most feasible long term objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.7 - Cathedral bells All We support the following species as "sustained control", but ask that they work towards trying to achieve eradication wherever possible. It seems that the reason why "eradication" is not chosen as the option, is because of some risk of failure. Given some of them have almost nearly achieved "eradication" already, we believe this might be an overly cautious approach and not raising expectations. However, if there is some way of flagging that "eradication" of these species is the end result we would hope for, and that although the risk of that is high, the level of strategic intervention and, to some degree, investment - will reflect this. When weighed up, the cost of these RPMP pests, will be longer over time if eradication is not achieved. The species are: 7.3 Boneseed; 7.7 Cathedral bells, 7.10 Climbing spindleberry; 7.14 Eel grass; 7.16 Evergreen buckthorn; 7.20 Madeira vine; 7.22 Moth plant; 7.30 Rough horsetail;7.41 Woolly nightshade. Decision Requested Support Sustained control - with effort to try and achieve eradication

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel acknowledges your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for cathedral bells in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel support the staff comment that Council’s operational programme will endeavour to destroy all plants found each season but due to the biological nature of the plant and location of infestations, sustained control is the most feasible long term objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.10 - Climbing spindleberry We support the following species as "sustained control", but ask that they work towards trying to achieve eradication wherever possible. It seems that the reason why "eradication" is not chosen as the option, is because of some risk of failure. Given some of them have almost nearly achieved "eradication" already, we believe this might be an overly cautious approach and not raising expectations. However, if there is some way of flagging that "eradication" of these species is the end result we would hope for, and that although the risk of that is high, the level of strategic intervention and, to some degree, investment - will reflect this. When weighed up, the cost of these RPMP pests, will be longer over time if eradication is not achieved. The species are: 7.3 Boneseed; 7.7 Cathedral bells, 7.10 Climbing spindleberry; 7.14 Eel grass; 7.16 Evergreen buckthorn; 7.20 Madeira vine; 7.22 Moth plant; 7.30 Rough horsetail;7.41 Woolly nightshade. Decision Requested Support Sustained control - with effort to try and achieve eradication

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for climbing spindleberry in the Regional Pest Management Plan with an amendment resulting from another submission. Climbing spindleberry has been included with an eradication programme which achieves the outcome supported by you in your submission.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.14 - Eel grass All We support the following species as "sustained control", but ask that they work towards trying to achieve eradication wherever possible. It seems that the reason why "eradication" is not chosen as the option, is because of some risk of failure. Given some of them have almost nearly achieved "eradication" already, we believe this might be an overly cautious approach and not raising expectations. However, if there is some way of flagging that "eradication" of these species is the end result we would hope for, and that although the risk of that is high, the level of strategic intervention and, to some degree, investment - will reflect this. When weighed up, the cost of these RPMP pests, will be longer over time if eradication is not achieved. The species are: 7.3 Boneseed; 7.7 Cathedral bells, 7.10 Climbing spindleberry; 7.14 Eel grass; 7.16 Evergreen buckthorn; 7.20 Madeira vine; 7.22 Moth plant; 7.30 Rough horsetail;7.41 Woolly nightshade. Decision Requested Support Sustained control - with effort to try and achieve eradication

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel acknowledges your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for eel grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel support the staff comment that Council’s operational programme will endeavour to destroy all plants found each season but due to the biological nature of the plant and location of infestations, sustained control is the most feasible long term objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.16 - Evergreen buckthorn All We support the following species as "sustained control", but ask that they work towards trying to achieve eradication wherever possible. It seems that the reason why "eradication" is not chosen as the option, is because of some risk of failure. Given some of them have almost nearly achieved "eradication" already, we believe this might be an overly cautious approach and not raising expectations. However, if there is some way of flagging that "eradication" of these species is the end result we would hope for, and that although the risk of that is high, the level of strategic intervention and, to some degree, investment - will reflect this. When weighed up, the cost of these RPMP pests, will be longer over time if eradication is not achieved. The species are: 7.3 Boneseed; 7.7 Cathedral bells, 7.10 Climbing spindleberry; 7.14 Eel grass; 7.16 Evergreen buckthorn; 7.20 Madeira vine; 7.22 Moth plant; 7.30 Rough horsetail;7.41 Woolly nightshade. Decision Requested Support Sustained control - with effort to try and achieve eradication

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel acknowledges your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for evergreen buckthorn in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel support the staff comment that Council’s operational programme will endeavour to destroy all plants found each season but due to the biological nature of the plant and location of infestations, sustained control is the most feasible long term objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.20 - Madeira vine All We support the following species as "sustained control", but ask that they work towards trying to achieve eradication wherever possible. It seems that the reason why "eradication" is not chosen as the option, is because of some risk of failure. Given some of them have almost nearly achieved "eradication" already, we believe this might be an overly cautious approach and not raising expectations. However, if there is some way of flagging that "eradication" of these species is the end result we would hope for, and that although the risk of that is high, the level of strategic intervention and, to some degree, investment - will reflect this. When weighed up, the cost of these RPMP pests, will be longer over time if eradication is not achieved. The species are: 7.3 Boneseed; 7.7 Cathedral bells, 7.10 Climbing spindleberry; 7.14 Eel grass; 7.16 Evergreen buckthorn; 7.20 Madeira vine; 7.22 Moth plant; 7.30 Rough horsetail;7.41 Woolly nightshade. Decision Requested Support Sustained control - with effort to try and achieve eradication

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support but note that the operational programme always endeavours to eliminate all plants found each season but sue to the biological nature of the plant and location on

61 infestations, Sustained Control is the most feasible long term objective.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel acknowledges your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for madeira vine in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel support the staff comment that Council’s operational programme will endeavour to destroy all plants found each season but due to the biological nature of the plant and location of infestations, sustained control is the most feasible long term objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.22 - Moth plant 7.22.1 - Objective for the Moth plant programme We support the following species as "sustained control", but ask that they work towards trying to achieve eradication wherever possible. It seems that the reason why "eradication" is not chosen as the option, is because of some risk of failure. Given some of them have almost nearly achieved "eradication" already, we believe this might be an overly cautious approach and not raising expectations. However, if there is some way of flagging that "eradication" of these species is the end result we would hope for, and that although the risk of that is high, the level of strategic intervention and, to some degree, investment - will reflect this. When weighed up, the cost of these RPMP pests, will be longer over time if eradication is not achieved. The species are: 7.3 Boneseed; 7.7 Cathedral bells, 7.10 Climbing spindleberry; 7.14 Eel grass; 7.16 Evergreen buckthorn; 7.20 Madeira vine; 7.22 Moth plant; 7.30 Rough horsetail;7.41 Woolly nightshade. Decision Requested Support Sustained control - with effort to try and achieve eradication

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel acknowledges your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for moth plant in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel support the staff comment that Council’s operational programme will endeavour to destroy all plants found each season but due to the biological nature of the plant and location of infestations, sustained control is the most feasible long term objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.30 - Rough horsetail All We support the following species as "sustained control", but ask that they work towards trying to achieve eradication wherever possible. It seems that the reason why "eradication" is not chosen as the option, is because of some risk of failure. Given some of them have almost nearly achieved "eradication" already, we believe this might be an overly cautious approach and not raising expectations. However, if there is some way of flagging that "eradication" of these species is the end result we would hope for, and that although the risk of that is high, the level of strategic intervention and, to some degree, investment - will reflect this. When weighed up, the cost of these RPMP pests, will be longer over time if eradication is not achieved. The species are: 7.3 Boneseed; 7.7 Cathedral bells, 7.10 Climbing spindleberry; 7.14 Eel grass; 7.16 Evergreen buckthorn; 7.20 Madeira vine; 7.22 Moth plant; 7.30 Rough horsetail;7.41 Woolly nightshade. Decision Requested Support Sustained control - with effort to try and achieve eradication

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support but note that the operational programme always endeavours to

62 eliminate all plants found each season but sue to the biological nature of the plant and location on infestations, Sustained Control is the most feasible long term objective.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel acknowledges your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for rough horsetail in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel support the staff comment that Council’s operational programme will endeavour to destroy all plants found each season but due to the biological nature of the plant and location of infestations, sustained control is the most feasible long term objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.41 - Woolly nightshade All We support the following species as "sustained control", but ask that they work towards trying to achieve eradication wherever possible. It seems that the reason why "eradication" is not chosen as the option, is because of some risk of failure. Given some of them have almost nearly achieved "eradication" already, we believe this might be an overly cautious approach and not raising expectations. However, if there is some way of flagging that "eradication" of these species is the end result we would hope for, and that although the risk of that is high, the level of strategic intervention and, to some degree, investment - will reflect this. When weighed up, the cost of these RPMP pests, will be longer over time if eradication is not achieved. The species are: 7.3 Boneseed; 7.7 Cathedral bells, 7.10 Climbing spindleberry; 7.14 Eel grass; 7.16 Evergreen buckthorn; 7.20 Madeira vine; 7.22 Moth plant; 7.30 Rough horsetail;7.41 Woolly nightshade. Decision Requested Support Sustained control - with effort to try and achieve eradication

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel acknowledges your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for woolly nightshade in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel support the staff comment that Council’s operational programme will endeavour to destroy all plants found each season but due to the biological nature of the plant and location of infestations, sustained control is the most feasible long term objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.4 - Broom All We also support the following as "sustained control", but ask that they do receive intensive effort given the multiplicity of factors outlined in the RPMP. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: With respect to the level of 'effort' given, this is determined by the programme objective and what is necessary to ensure the programme objective is achieved. Detail at an operational level as to what will be delivered will be contained within the Operational Plan produced and reported upon annually.

Hearing Panel Recommendation

Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your endorsement of the programme. The hearing panel has recommended the inclusion of a programme for broom in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions. The hearing panel acknowledges your request for an intensive effort being given to the broom programme. This will be detailed in the Operational Plan and reported on annually.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.18 - Gorse All We also support the following as "sustained control", but ask that they do receive intensive effort given the multiplicity of factors outlined in the RPMP. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your endorsement of the programme. The hearing panel has recommended the inclusion of a programme for gorse in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions. The hearing panel acknowledges your request for an intensive effort being given to the gorse programme. This will be detailed in the Operational Plan and reported on annually.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.25 - Parrot's feather All We also support the following as "sustained control", but ask that they do receive intensive effort given the multiplicity of factors outlined in the RPMP. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support. With respect to the level of 'effort' given, this is determined by the programme objective and what is necessary to ensure the programme objective is achieved. In Marlborough, the number of sites and level of infestation is very low which aligns to a proportionally higher level of operation effort to maintain that low level of infestation. Detail at an operational level as to what will be delivered will be contained within the Operational Plan produced and reported upon annually.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel acknowledges your request for an intensive effort being given to the parrot’s feather programme. This will be detailed in the Operational Plan and reported on annually.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.27 - Rabbits All We also support the following as "sustained control", but ask that they do receive intensive effort given the multiplicity of factors outlined in the RPMP. Decision Requested

Staff Comment

Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support. With respect to the level of 'effort' given, this is determined by the programme objective and what is necessary to ensure the programme objective is achieved. Detail at an operational level as to what will be delivered will be contained within the Operational Plan produced and reported upon annually.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel acknowledges your request for an intensive effort being given to the rabbit programme. This will be detailed in the Operational Plan and reported on annually.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.26 - Purple loosestrife All As noted, this plant is a seriously invasive weed. All efforts should be made to try and control it to the point of eradication, although we accept that will be difficult with this plant. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support.Given the presence of this plant in ornamental settings, the first logical step was to ensure the management of this highly invasive species occurs in a targeted and systematic fashion under Sustained Control. Operationally, the aim will be to ensure all plants found through management at existing sites and/or new surveillance finds are eliminated. As the programme evolves, the aim would be to see a reduction to a point where Eradication is an achievable objective.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel acknowledges your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for purple loosestrife in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel support the staff comments that operationally, the aim will be to ensure all plants found through management at existing sites and/or new surveillance finds are destroyed. As the programme evolves the aim would be to see a reduction to a point where eradication is an achievable objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.28 - Reed sweet grass We support sustained control, but again ask for this to be an intensive effort Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support. With respect to the level of 'effort' given, this is determined by the programme objective and what is necessary to ensure the programme objective is achieved. Detail at an operational level as to what will be delivered will be contained within the Operational Plan produced and reported upon annually.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel acknowledges your request for an intensive effort being given to the reed sweet grass programme. This will be detailed in the Operational Plan and reported on annually.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.38 - White-edged nightshade All

We support it as sustained control, but wonder if eradication might be able to be achieved if more effort can/is made on the "core" property where the infestation occurs. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support. With respect to the feasibility of Eradication, the 'core' property is a 992ha hill country property with land cover predominantly reverting scrub and native bush. The adjoining properties are also mixed land cover steep hill country. These factors alone make the feasibility of Eradication highly questionable and staff have assessed a Sustained Control objective as being the most feasible and effective management objective.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for white-edged nightshade in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel has concluded that an objective of eradication is not sustainable at this time. Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.6 - Bur daisy All We support the "eradication" programmes outlined for the following species. They are significant pests are should be able to be eradicated, despite a slightly higher risk. For some, e.g. willow-leaved hakea, the eradication is imperative.7.6 Bur daisy; 7.34 Spartina; 7.40 Willow-leaved hakea. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for bur daisy in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.34 - Spartina All We support the "eradication" programmes outlined for the following species. They are significant pests are should be able to be eradicated, despite a slightly higher risk. For some, e.g. willow-leaved hakea, the eradication is imperative.7.6 Bur daisy; 7.34 Spartina; 7.40 Willow-leaved hakea. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for spartina in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.40 - Willow-leaved hakea All 66

We support the "eradication" programmes outlined for the following species. They are significant pests are should be able to be eradicated, despite a slightly higher risk. For some, e.g. willow-leaved hakea, the eradication is imperative. 7.6 Bur daisy; 7.34 Spartina; 7.40 Willow-leaved hakea. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for willow-leaved hakea in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.5 - Brushtail possum All We support the following "exclusion" programmes within the RPMP. 7.5 Brushtail possum (on offshore islands); 7.21 Mediterranean fanworm; 7.29 Rook; 7.33 Senegal tea (well done with the eradication and ongoing surveillance!); 7.36 Wallabies. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel has recommended the inclusion of a programme for brushtail possum in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.21 - Mediterranean fanworm All We support the following "exclusion" programmes within the RPMP. 7.5 Brushtail possum (on offshore islands); 7.21 Mediterranean fanworm; 7.29 Rook; 7.33 Senegal tea (well done with the eradication and ongoing surveillance!); 7.36 Wallabies. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel has recommended the inclusion of a programme for Mediterranean fanworm in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from submissions.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.29 - Rooks All

We support the following "exclusion" programmes within the RPMP. 7.5 Brushtail possum (on offshore islands); 7.21 Mediterranean fanworm; 7.29 Rook; 7.33 Senegal tea (well done with the eradication and ongoing surveillance!); 7.36 Wallabies. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for rook in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.33 - Senegal tea All We support the following "exclusion" programmes within the RPMP. 7.5 Brushtail possum (on offshore islands); 7.21 Mediterranean fanworm; 7.29 Rook; 7.33 Senegal tea (well done with the eradication and ongoing surveillance!); 7.36 Wallabies. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for Senegal tea in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.36 - Wallabies All We support the following "exclusion" programmes within the RPMP. 7.5 Brushtail possum (on offshore islands); 7.21 Mediterranean fanworm; 7.29 Rook; 7.33 Senegal tea (well done with the eradication and ongoing surveillance!); 7.36 Wallabies. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for wallabies in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.35 - Tall wheat grass All

We strongly urge that Council make the investment in eradicating this species, and do not have it as "sustained control". The cost differential in the long term would be a good investment, and the threats are quite significant. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment that this is a new species and programme to Council. Work is continuing to develop the most suitable control tools and the infestations occur predominantly on small lifestyle-type landholdings. Because of these factors, staff have assessed a management objective of Sustained Control as the most logical starting point for the programme. Operationally, the programme will build and take an adaptive management approach with an aim if successful to reviewing the programme in the future.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for tall wheat grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel accepts the staff approach to the implementation of this new programme being adaptive to the results seen through implementation.

588 Geoff Evans 84 Lakings Road, Yelverton, Blenheim 7201 (Speaking)

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All Wilding Pine Control Discussion. Please note that this comment is area specific. It does not apply to other areas such as the Marlborough Sounds or The Awatere where the proposals are generally supported. The Wairau catchment /upper Waihopai is very different to the remainder of Marlborough in that the wilding infestation or planting of trees was encouraged and facilitated by central and local government. The Lands and Survey Department was both the lessor and lessee of most of this area. The Marlborough Catchment Board and the Forest Service focussed mainly on the Wairau catchment because of downstream water and soil effects on the Wairau Plain. Concern at river sediment flow levels and excess flooding was the main driver of these plantings. In the Awatere, Government operations, and Catchment Boards’ jurisdiction, did not take place (although lodegpole pine was planted and removed at Tarndale on Molesworth station). There are few wildings at high altitude in the Awatere. (Withers report). The main source of wilding pines is therefore found mainly from private plantings in this area. The Wairau /Waihopai plantings were introduced by Government, including local government. Taxpayers and ratepayers money was used for establishment. The Local Government’s Catchment Board created an erosion research Station around the Breezer stream in the Wye river. They also hand planted the adjoining high altitude Turkey’s nest. In contrast to the Awatere these high altitude plantings (up to 2000 metres above sea level) are exposed to prevailing or any winds. Spread was inevitable. Some conifer seeds are light and seedlings have been found seven kilometers from the parent tree. The Forest Service (with the consent of the Lands And Survey department) over sowed multi species of conifer seeds throughout the upper Wairau catchment, both with helicopters and fixed wing aircraft. The Forest Service also planted their own afforestation trial plots. Adjoining private land owners were concerned with the impact of wildings on both the biodiversity and productivity of their land.They fought hard to stop this activity and were strongly supported in this by Federated Farmers, and the Marlborough County Council. This concern resulted in an agreement formally adopted by the Marlborough Catchment Board. “ where the forest Service has planted or aerially seeded pinus Contorta on mountain lands in recent times, the Forest Service will monitor the plantings and take steps to eradicate any early spread if that is the adjoining owners wish” (minuted 11/2/86 ) Following this agreement there were documented conifer removal sorties by the Marlborough Catchment Board. Examples include :Spread rates 1982 24 seedlings found, 1986 there were 407 seedlings found. The planned 1989 search and destroy did not take place probably because of 1987 Local Government reforms and the demise of the Catchment Board. The late eighties Local Government reforms placed the responsibility to maintain these water and soil agreements, and control these weeds squarely on the Marlborough District Council. This is supported by the Ledgard report and also the later Wildlands report.(nb the Wildlands report is factually inaccurate in some parts ). The Evans family and others supported the Ledgard report which was adopted by the Marlborough District Council but then only ever partially implemented by them. Stronvar had a “not negotiated” zoned containment control area (no eradication) placed on its title with none of the Ledgard report required conditions such as consultation adopted . There was no wilding control work done on Stronvar because of this zone (area about 650 HA ) Decision Requested Summary, (1) The upper Wairau/Waihopai catchment is very different to other Marlborough wilding areas, Conifer growth is far denser because of the planting, oversowing, and encouragement by local authorities and central Government. (2) Responsibility must remain that of those who established the conifers, ie the Marlborough District Council along with the Forest Service’s heir ,Department of Conservation. This was a minuted agreement (3) There needs to be discussion with land owners in particular the owners of the Bounds , Stronvar and Glazebrook (including Department of Conservation) of the whole catchment as to the best future environmental management and land use of the area. (4) The Evans Family have a long and strong history of trying to cooperate with Council to find solutions on their property.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: The submitter's detailed background and comments are acknowledged by staff. However, as no particular reference to material within the Proposal has been made, it is difficult to assess any requested change. The points raised by the submitter could be addressed through the development phase of a collaborative programme as outlined within the existing RPMP Proposal or in conjunction with a broader land management initiative.

Hearing Panel Recommendation

Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your submission. In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All The proposed Pest Management Plan is not supported in relation to wilding conifer control in the Wairau catchments (including Waihopai , Wye and Leatham) because: (1) The age and size of this infestation is such that meaningful control is virtually impossible. Thirty years ago there were affordable, real control options. Now there are not. (2) The South Marlborough Wilding Trust suggests a collaborative approach to funding .The preceding discussion makes it clear that any financial and legal responsibility for these weeds does not belong with private landowners, it remains with Central and Local Government. Local resources are totally inadequate to meet the present challenge. (3) Removal of wilding conifers would have adverse environmental effects because: (a) The sediment discharge to rivers and flooding will be aggravated. (b) The number of trees now found in this area demand a clear fell and with standard erosion yields this would be environmentally unacceptable, particularly downstream. (c) Vegetative damage /change at high altitude requires centuries to recover. (d) Collateral damage to fragile mountain vegetation and soils is inevitable with chemical control. (e) Physical control is not possible because of the rugged terrain and current health and safety requirements. (f) Change in land use from pastoral farming to other uses means control with livestock is now not an option. (g) Biological control is not possible. (4) Removal of the Containment Control Zones would also be wrong because: (a) a valuable control tool will have been lost and : (b) as no control work has been done in this area, removal would create a huge unwanted new burden on the landowner. (c) Management options were raised on a number of occasions (unsuccessfully} by the Evans family with Council. The Future and the Opportunities: Presently the best option for the wider environment and catchment may be to retain and even extend wilding containment control areas and then enforce the boundaries. This for water and soil conservation in mountain lands and sediment control reasons.. Land users now have to search for other options to get a financial return off these areas. Pastoral farming has declined by 90 %. Other present uses include afforestation , bees, conservation planting, hunting, tourism and carbon farming. .Central Government is now promoting and funding planting of trees. This includes conservation planting much of which will never be harvested. The Emissions Trading Scheme making carbon funding is available to create and sustain these forests. At present these concepts are creating a substantial funding opportunity that could be used to assist rehabilitating these mountain lands. Other new l wilding / soil conservation/river control measures in this area could include: Buffer plantings of commercial exotic or indigenous forest, and mid slope plantings of tree species with lower spreading capability. Water and soil management particularly supply volumes can be addressed by new technologies such as soil aquifer 71 recharge and storage There are major future Marlborough environmental health issues in these Wairau catchments. The downstream impacts will inevitably need to be addressed in the future. This will be a very long process taking centuries of careful sensitive management. Decision Requested Relief sought (1) That, as already agreed in the past , the responsibility to remove or manage conifer wildings on public and private land on these specific areas remain with Council and Central Government. (It would be unjust for responsible landowners, who were forced to participate in what was essentially an erosion control experiment, to be years later required by law to pay for ongoing eradication as proposed.) (2) That the existing Containment Control zones be sustained and consideration be given be given to extending them. (3) That, before any changes are made or action taken, a comprehensive review be undertaken as to the most appropriate future management of these very fragile and valuable mountain lands. This should be a council led review.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: The submitter's detailed background and comments are acknowledged by staff. Staff wish to clarify that the RPMP Proposal does not place any obligation (or are being forced) to participate or fund ongoing control. With respect to Containment Zones, the Proposal does not seek to detail such management approaches within an RPMP programme as it is proposed the management of conifer is to occur through collaborative programmes. It is these collaborative programmes that determine where an operational containment zone may or may not apply.

As no particular reference to material within the Proposal has been made, it is difficult to assess any requested change. The points raised by the submitter could be addressed through the development phase of a collaborative programme as outlined within the existing RPMP Proposal or in conjunction with a broader land management initiative.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

589 John Mather PO Box 4246, Mount Maunganui South, Mount Maunganui 3149 (Speaking) Kiwifruit Vine Health Inc. and New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Inc.

Category: All KVH thanks MDC for assisting with awareness for the threat organism, Brown Marmorated Stink Bug (BMSB). KVH and NZKGI request that MDC continue this awareness and assist MPI with any national response for threat organisms such as the BMSB and Queensland fruit fly. KVH and NZKGI request that MDC continues to support the Biosecurity 2025 initiative. Thank you for considering these requests from KVH and NZKGI. KVH can provide further information or present to any Committee considering submissions to the proposed RPMP. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledge the comments of the submitter and will continue to fulfill its regional role within the biosecurity system, including supporting any national biosecurity response if the need arises.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your comprehensive and informative submission and for your presentation made to them at the hearing.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal Kiwifruit Vine Health (KVH) is the agency established by kiwifruit growers to lead New Zealand’s kiwifruit industry in managing all biosecurity threats to the kiwifruit industry. Kiwifruit includes all Actinidia species. New Zealand Kiwifruit Growers Inc. (NZKGI) was established in 1992 to represent the commercial and political interests of New Zealand’s 2,500 kiwifruit growers. KVH works in partnership with Regional Councils and Territorial Authorities to identify and manage wild kiwifruit infestations throughout NZ. Although there are no commercial kiwifruit orchards in Marlborough, wild kiwifruit is likely to naturalise within your District. This could occur by, for example, plants germinating from seed within a kiwifruit discarded by a tourist or other person; or, birds (such as white-eyes) spreading seed from fruit within a compost pile, or unpicked fruit within a home orchard. Please note that kiwifruit had naturalised in Rotorua’s Redwood Forest after fruit was discarded by mountain bikers. Wild kiwifruit can be a fast- growing, destructive pest plant degrading the biodiversity value of indigenous forest and the productive value of exotic forest. Wild kiwifruit vines can cause the collapse of native bush or cut into the clear wood of a pine tree. Wild kiwifruit may also harbour biosecurity threat organisms such as the Psa bacterial disease. Psa currently remains undetected in the South Island. Should Psa reach the South Island, it could spread from any wild vines in the Marlborough District to commercial kiwifruit orchards in the Nelson/Tasman region via wind movement. Contractors control an average of 11,000 wild kiwifruit vines in the Bay of Plenty yearly. Wild kiwifruit has also been controlled in Auckland, Waikato, Gisborne and Nelson/Tasman regions. Wild kiwifruit readily naturalises in Nelson/Tasman region with approximately 40 sites recorded, therefore it is also likely to naturalise in Marlborough District. Roadside, exotic forest and native bush or scrub sites in Marlborough should be included in any future surveillance programme. KVH and Bay of Plenty Regional Council co-funded a contract report by Dr Jon J. Sullivan, Department of Ecology, Lincoln University, “Assessing the cost effectiveness and future options for wild kiwifruit management in the Bay of Plenty”. The report concluded that there is a positive cost- benefit for controlling wild kiwifruit. Decision Requested 1. That wild kiwifruit be named an Exclusion Pest. Explanation: It is important that wild kiwifruit is promptly destroyed at every detected site. If female vines set fruit, then birds may spread kiwifruit seed resulting in further wild kiwifruit infestations. Control is more effective if undertaken by professional contractors rather than relying on landowners to achieve control. 2. The definition of wild kiwifruit be: “Any unmanaged plant material, self-propagated or abandoned plant of the Actinidia genus on private or public land”. This definition is used by KVH and would be consistent with that requested of other regional councils. 3. That MDC include wild kiwifruit in the group of pest plants for which regional surveillance is undertaken. 4. That MDC and KVH work collaboratively on a public awareness initiative requesting the public to report any wild kiwifruit infestations in Marlborough District. 5. KVH, representing the kiwifruit industry, will consider any request from MDC to contribute toward the cost of destroying any detected wild 73 kiwifruit infestation.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject in-part

Reason: Staff comment that operationally, an Exclusion programme must ensure that the subject (wild kiwifruit) does not establish. As a starting point, there must not be any established infestations already within the region then the management agency must ensure any subsequent infestations detected are responded to. Council does not have information that can accurately define the current status of wild kiwifruit in Marlborough and would need to be cautious making a commitment that could rapidly change scope when information comes to hand.

With respect to threats, the affects on values is two-fold with wild kiwifruit. Firstly, the action of being a potentially invasive vine in natural environments then secondly, the presence of vines acting as a reservoir of PSA bacterial disease (note - PSA is not in the South Island). Council would need to make decisions with respect to wild kiwifruit on its potential as an invasive species in the first instance. Given there is a National Pest Management Plan for PSA, with KVH as management agency, that particular management agency is better placed to address the risk of wild kiwifruit acting as a reservoir of disease. Because there is natural cross-over, it would be prudent of Council to maintain close links with KVH over this issue.

Due to the large degree of uncertainty with respect to both the presence and effect on values of wild kiwifruit in Marlborough, it is not proposed to look at an Exclusion programme for wild kiwifruit. However, it is recommended that staff will highlight and record wild kiwifruit as a species of interest during surveillance and share such information with KVH (as management agency for the NPMP for PSA).

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel would like Council to consider the inclusion of wild kiwifruit as an exclusion programme in the Regional Pest Management Plan. We acknowledge that there is not enough information on the presence, distribution, or feasibility of a programme at this time to be able to recommend the inclusion of programme for wild kiwifruit in the Regional Pest Management Plan. We recommend that staff in partnership with KVH undertake an investigation of wild kiwifruit in Marlborough with a view to potentially developing a proposal subject to the results of the investigation and analysis.

590 Lionel Solly Private Bag 5, Nelson Mail Centre, Nelson 7042 (Speaking) Department of Conservation

Category: All Overall the Proposed RPMP is a sound document that is well aligned with the National Policy Direction (NPD) and guidance material. Whilst a lengthy document, the Proposed RPMP follows a logical structure and is easy to read and understand; and the information on each pest species/programme, including trends in infestation levels and effect of previous control, is useful. The Proposed RPMP could benefit from some additional context, e.g. in relation to the main industries and values at risk from pests or their indirect impacts. It may also be helpful to record that the ratepayer base is low, with only one main city of around 24,000 people; and this may be a reason to prioritise and focus on the particular pests that have been identified. Photographs of each pest might also be useful to assist in identification and reporting; however, this information is likely to be more accessible if it is on Council’s website, rather than in the Proposed RPMP document. Decision Requested Retain Proposed RPMP as notified, subject to the amendments sought in the submissions that follow. Include additional context (explanatory text) in relation to the main industries and values at risk from pests or their indirect impacts; and the effect of the region’s low ratepayer base on prioritisation of pest species and programmes. Consider including photographs of each pest, to assist in identification and reporting, unless this is best done separately (e.g. on Council website).

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and agrees with you that the Regional Pest Management Plan should include explanatory text at the beginning of the Plan that explains the context of the Plan in relation to the delivery of pest management for Marlborough described in the Biosecurity Strategy. The hearing panel also agree that photos will assist the reader and should be included in Part 2 of the final Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: All The RPMP has a particular statutory function and purpose, and must be prepared in accordance with the Biosecurity Act and NPD. However, it is also desirable that the approach to biosecurity/pest management: 1. has clear strategic intent and SMART objectives (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time- bound); 2. supports current strategic (regional and cross-regional) initiatives and programmes for the restoration, protection and enhancement of indigenous biodiversity; and 3. supports initiatives and programmes that are currently in development, e.g. the Kotahitanga mō te Taiao alliance between DOC, Councils and iwi; and other collaborative landscape-scale projects that may be progressed during the period of the RPMP. For both (2) and (3), the agencies and investors involved (both current and potential) require some certainty that gains derived from any specific programme are supported and can be sustained over the longer term. The separate (non-statutory) Biosecurity Strategy is a useful complement to the RPMP in respect of these matters; and to a large extent they will depend on voluntary collaboration between partner organisations, landowners and the wider community. However, the RPMP can provide further strategic direction and a regulatory backstop to support the delivery of programs on the ground. Decision Requested Addressed in submissions on specific sections of the Proposed RPMP, below

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel note your comments about the relationship between the National Policy Direction, Regional Pest Management Plan and our Biosecurity Strategy.

Category: Part One 3 - Relationship with other pest management or pathway plans The Marlborough region borders the Canterbury, Nelson and Tasman regions; and the Canterbury and Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plans are also currently under development, albeit at different stages of the statutory process. It is generally beneficial to have consistency in pest management programmes across administrative boundaries; this simplifies compliance for occupiers of land that spans regional boundaries and is more likely to ensure that programme objectives can be met. There are some areas where pest management programmes in the Proposed RPMP are consistent with those of adjoining regions – e.g. in the treatment of broom and gorse in the Upper Wairau Valley, which borders the Howard- St Arnaud control area in the Proposed Tasman-Nelson RPMP. However, a comparison between the Marlborough and Tasman-Nelson RPMPs (Attachment 2) does show a number of differences between the regions, both in terms of the organisms identified as pests, and the pest management programmes that are proposed. A comparable analysis with the proposed Canterbury RPMP has not yet been done. Some of these differences may be justified and/or of little consequence. However, any inconsistencies that are likely to impact on work programs across regions should be identified and if possible resolved. Decision Requested Identify any inconsistencies between the proposed RPMPs for Marlborough, Canterbury and Tasman- Nelson that are likely to impact on work programs across regions; and work with the neighbouring regional council(s) to resolve these inconsistencies, if possible.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: Staff comment that as referenced in section 3 of the Proposal, the RPMP will not affect any other pest or pathway management plan currently in place.

Inconsistencies and or mis-alignment between neighbouring regions occur on two levels with two very different consequences in reality. If the inconsistency between RPMP programmes occur on the physical boundary between regions then then could cause a tangible effect and could affect another pest management plan.

If the inconsistency occurs within the RPMPs as to how a species is being managed or in relation to wording, it is much more difficult to determine whether there would be any consequential effect. Staff comment that these effects are not apparent and should not hold weight with respect to making comparisons between RPMPs.

At an operational level, there is an ongoing need to maintain existing relationships between neighbouring regions to continually assess any risks that could affect one region or the other.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends that, at an operational level, existing relationships between our neighbours are maintained and that any risks that could affect any one region or another are continually assessed.

Category: Part One 4 - Responsibilities and obligations Weed species (some of which are included in the Proposed RPMP, others which are not) can be introduced or spread as a result of road works, either through the transportation and use of river gravels at the site or dirty machinery, with weed seed carried in/on both. Section 4.3.2 details who is responsible to control the subjects of the Proposed RPMP on road reserves. Ideally this should be wider in scope and cover weeds like wattle, to prevent or mitigate future weed problems. If each work site is visited early enough, control of any weed species present is quick, easy and inexpensive. I would also encourage Council to consider implementation of a pathway management plan for weeds that are transported in gravel/hardcore used for roading etc, where management controls at the point of extraction and sorting (quarries, river-bed extraction sites) would reduce the spread of pest weeds through the region. Decision Requested

Undertake cost-benefit analysis for a pathway management plan for weeds that are transported in gravel/hardcore used for roading etc, where management controls at the point of extraction and sorting (quarries, river-bed extraction sites) would reduce the spread of pest weeds through the region. Include this programme in the RPMP if it is found to be feasible and cost-effective

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment that the scope of 4.3.2 fulfills its purpose which is to address section 70(2)(p) of the Act which is to specify whether the Proposal addresses roads and if so, what portions of the road. IT is not intended to detail specific management objectives as this is addressed within the programmes that apply to those portions of road.

With respect to how roads are to be manged, that is captured by the programmes that apply. That is, provisions or Rules within RPMP for species that part of programmes also apply to activities within roads. These species that are the focus of the RPMP.

The submitter raise concern over exacerbating the spread of weed species through the activities associating with roading such as gravel extraction and movement of materials. Given the species of greatest priority are addressed through specie-led programmes within the RPMP, the submitter is correct that a pathway management plan is a potential regulatory tool available. However, this is opportunity for non-regulatory measures to be utlisied in the first instance before determining whether a regulatory approach is required. .

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject In order to include a weed species in a pathway management plan, an understanding of the weed and the cost of any management programme would need to be collated and analysed against any benefit. In this case detail on the species causing concern was not provided. The hearing panel note that there can be provisions within species led programmes that address pathways specific to that species. An example in the Proposal is proposed Rule 7.4.2.6 for broom.

Category: Part One 5 - Relationship with the National Policy Direction (NPD) Overall the Proposed RPMP is well aligned with the National Policy Direction (NPD) and guidance material. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept Thank you for noting that our Proposal is well aligned with the National Policy Direction.

Category: Part Three - Administrative Provisions 10 - Powers conferred This is a useful summary of the powers that may be conferred to authorised persons under Part 6 of the Act. Decision Requested Retain as proposed

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: This is a requirement of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept Thank you for noting that the inclusion of the Powers Conferred in our Proposal is a useful summary. Category: Part Three - Administrative Provisions All The Glossary includes some terms that do not appear to be used in the Proposed RPMP (e.g. ‘Biological Control’ (footnotes only), ‘Crown Land’, ‘Means of Achievement’, ‘Organic Material’, ‘Pest Agent’, ‘Restricted Place’ and ‘Unwanted Organism’), and these references could therefore be deleted. Decision Requested Delete unnecessary terms (those not used in RPMP)

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason: Staff acknowledge the comment by the submitter regarding superfluous terms within the Glossary. An assess of the Glossary glossary can be made and if the terms ‘Biological Control’, ‘Crown Land’, ‘Means of Achievement’, ‘Organic Material’, ‘Pest Agent’, ‘Restricted Place’ and ‘Unwanted Organism’ are assessed as not being necessary, remove from the Glossary for use in the final RPMP.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends that the glossary be reviewed to ensure that terms used in the Regional Pest Management Plan are defined and those that are not relevant are deleted.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal Comments on particular pest organisms identified in Table 2, and the proposed management programmes, are given below. In addition to the subjects currently listed in Section 6, Table 2, I submit that the following species should be included in the Proposed RPMP: • Plague skink Lampropholis delicate: Eradication / Exclusion programme • Koi carp Cyprinus carpio: Exclusion programme • Gambusia Gambusia affinis: Exclusion programme • Brown bullhead catfish Ameiurus nebulosus: Exclusion programme • Rudd Scardinius erythrophthalmus: Exclusion / Eradication programme • Perch Perca fluviatilis: Exclusion programme • Tench Tinca tinca: Exclusion programme (for parts of district where not present) Koi carp, Gambusia, Catfish, Rudd, Perch and Tench are currently identified as ‘pest fish’ in Marlborough (www.marlborough.govt.nz/environment/biosecurity/other-pests/pest- fish); but were not pest species declared under Council’s Regional Pest Management Strategy, with dedicated management programmes. Additional information on these species is given in Attachment 3. There are several pest species referenced in the proposed Tasman-Nelson RPMP that are not listed in the Proposal for Marlborough. A comparable analysis with the Canterbury RPMP proposal has not yet been done. As noted above, any inconsistencies that are likely to impact on work programs across regions should be identified and if possible resolved. Decision Requested Add the following species to the list of subjects to be managed within the RPMP for Marlborough: • Plague skink Lampropholis delicate: Eradication / Exclusion programme • Koi carp Cyprinus carpio: Exclusion programme • Gambusia Gambusia affinis: Exclusion programme • Brown bullhead catfish Ameiurus nebulosus: Exclusion programme • Rudd Scardinius erythrophthalmus: Exclusion / Eradication programme • Perch Perca fluviatilis: Exclusion programme • Tench Tinca tinca: Exclusion programme (for parts of district where not present). Identify any inconsistencies between the proposed RPMPs for Marlborough, Canterbury and Tasman-Nelson that are likely to impact on work programs across regions; and work with the neighbouring regional council(s) to resolve these inconsistencies, if possible.

Staff Comment 1. Plague skinks

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: The Department of Conservation applied in 2010 to the then Minister of Agriculture and Forestry to have plague skinks declared an Unwanted Organism under the Biosecurity Act 1993. This was an attempt to prevent the deliberate movement of the species, especially to the then plague skink-free South Island. However, with the species being very widespread and abundant in the upper North Island, there have been

78 no feasible means to manage the risk of the inadvertent risk of movement (through "hitch-hiking") of the highly mobile and fecund invasive lizard. As a result, over the last decade there have been over 50 detection of plague skinks in the South Island. The majority of these have been either individuals or small numbers of individual in goods.

In late 2017, a total of two plague skinks were caught on a residential property in Waikawa and subsequent investigation found that these were also likely hitch-hikers. However, an established population was since discovered among a confined garden area in the Riverlands Industrial Estate. For both Marlborough detection, Council has led initial investigations but given the importance of the Riverlands incursion, has requested a position to be taken from DOC to help determine the relative importance and subsequent scale of response. This request given their concern over this species's potential affects on native herptofauna and the fact it incursion is a first for the South Island, not just Marlborough. This has not been forthcoming.

To embark of an Exclusion programme is also a very high risk approach given the very high propensity of inward movements of goods potentially carrying plagues skinks from the North Island.

Without any clarity from the submitter regarding their particular role in any potential Exclusion programme, including resourcing, one has to assume the submitter is requesting Council be both the management agency and funder for such a programme.

Note - there are flexible work streams available guided by the Biosecurity Strategy including joint agreements with the Department of Conservation or standalone projects. Staff Comment 2. Pest fish

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason:There is a crossover in interest and statute in relation to the species listed by the submitter. In summary, all of the species excluding brown bull-headed catfish have a form of regulation to varying degrees through the Freshwater Fisheries Regulations 1983. This regulation sits under the Conservation Act 1987. Brown bull-headed catfish have provisions under the Fisheries (Commercial Fishing) Regulations 2001, and/or Fisheries (Amateur Fishing) Regulations 2013. Both of these regulations sit under the Fisheries Act 1996.

So, in summary, if the submitter believes that an Exclusion programme is necessary to regulate illegal liberations, those provisions are already present within existing statues of which the submitter has available to utilise.

The one aspect which the existing statutes do not cover is the management of the species in place, if detected. Without any clarity from the submitter regarding their particular role in any potential Exclusion programme, including resourcing, one has to assume the submitter is requesting Council be both the management agency and funder for such a programme. However, the existing statues that address aspects of pest fish management rests with the submitter's agency.

Note - there are other flexible work streams available guided by the Biosecurity Strategy and also work Council delivers as part of State of the Environment Monitoring under the Resource Management Act 1991, that may result in joint initiative work with DOC regarding pest fish.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel recommends that Council continue to work with you on the feasibility of an Exclusion Programme for plague skinks. You also request pest fish are included in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel has considered your request and drawn the conclusion that as these pests are regulated under the Conservation Act 2001 and Fisheries Act 1996 with relevant regulations, they fall outside the scope for inclusion in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes All The choice of management programme – and the specific objective – should be informed by the values to be protected or at risk, the pests that impact on the values, the area affected (or potentially affected), the level to which the pest must be controlled to manage impacts to an acceptable level, and an analysis of the benefits and costs that satisfies the requirements of the NPD. More detailed comments on particular pest management programmes are given below; but in general – and focussing particularly on those pests that 79 threaten biodiversity and conservation values – I support the choice of pest management programmes in the Proposed RPMP, and the specific objectives for those programmes. I note that the Proposed RPMP does not include any ‘site-led’ management programmes (although the programmes for Brushtail possums and Willow-leaved hakea are similar in effect). Site-led programmes could be considered for (other) defined places/sites where values are being (or may be) adversely affected by one or more pest species, and where site-led management is an appropriate and cost-effective option to protect those values. E.g. the Upper Wairau (currently identified in the programmes for broom and gorse) could be the subject of a site- led programme to manage a wider range of river bed weeds (see Attachment 4). Decision Requested Retain programmes and objectives as proposed, subject to the amendments sought in these submissions. Evaluate potential to use site-led management programmes for defined places/sites (e.g. the Upper Wairau Valley). Identify preferred course of action for bringing such programmes into the RPMP, if they are an appropriate and cost-effective option.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff comment with respect to site-led programmes, the principles of developing RPMP programmes also apply where a programme for a site has to firstly require regulatory support (given the majority of work at high value sites is delivered without the need for regulation), and there is clarity over the outcomes being sought and those implementing and resourcing the site-led programme. If a site-led is operating without the need for regulation, then the requirement for it to be managed via a site-led programme is not apparent.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel agree that a site–led approach could be considered and where a regulatory approach is valid, then a site-led programme could be developed for inclusion in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.3 - Boneseed All As part of the development of the 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS), the Council and DOC developed a joint initiative that related to the implementation of a number of species-led programmes (primarily in the Sounds). This joint initiative was drafted into the 2007 RPMS and the programmes have progressed operationally to this day. The Proposed RPMP provides for the continuation of these programmes, with costs allocated across both the regional community (Council) and DOC. I support the inclusion of these programmes, and a Memorandum of Understanding between Council and DOC is currently being drafted to set out the arrangements for their implementation as joint initiatives. The specific pest programmes that this applies to are: • Boneseed • Brushtail possum (Islands) • Cathedral bells • Climbing spindleberry • Evergreen buckthorn • Madeira vine • Moth plant • Spartina Some minor amendments to the wording used in specific programmes are requested as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ (it is preferable to find out about a possible island incursion as soon as possible). • 7.10 Climbing spindleberry: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20: Madeira vine: ‘Proposed allocation of costs’ should record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation (to reflect preceding table). • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000 Decision Requested Retain these programmes run as joint initiatives between Council and DOC Amend wording used in specific programmes as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ • 7.10 Climbing asparagus: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20 Madeira vine: amend ‘proposed allocation of costs’ to record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for boneseed in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.5 - Brushtail possum As part of the development of the 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS), the Council and DOC developed a joint initiative that related to the implementation of a number of species-led programmes (primarily in the Sounds). This joint initiative was drafted into the 2007 RPMS and the programmes have progressed operationally to this day. The Proposed RPMP provides for the continuation of these programmes, with costs allocated across both the regional community (Council) and DOC. I support the inclusion of these programmes, and a Memorandum of Understanding between Council and DOC is currently being drafted to set out the arrangements for their implementation as joint initiatives. The specific pest programmes that this applies to are: • Boneseed • Brushtail possum (Islands) • Cathedral bells • Climbing spindleberry • Evergreen buckthorn • Madeira vine • Moth plant • Spartina Some minor amendments to the wording used in specific programmes are requested as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ (it is preferable to find out about a possible island incursion as soon as possible). • 7.10 Climbing spindleberry: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20: Madeira vine: ‘Proposed allocation of costs’ should record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation (to reflect preceding table). • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000 Decision Requested Retain these programmes run as joint initiatives between Council and DOC Amend wording used in specific programmes as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ • 7.10 Climbing asparagus: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20 Madeira vine: amend ‘proposed allocation of costs’ to record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000

Staff Comment Staff acknowledge the points raised by the submitter.

Staff comment that the wording under section 1(b) on page 39 is somewhat generic with respect to a Means of Achievement. However, further customisation is appropriate in this instance.

Staff Recommendation: The wording under section 1(b) on page 39 of the Proposal is to read:

Principle measures to achieve the objective

1) Council Inspection and Service Delivery ... b) Delivering a service to eradicate possums in liaison with land owners/occupiers if applicable. ... Staff agree that a shortening of the time frame for reporting for possums on islands currently possum-free is appropriate to allow immediate response measure to get underway sooner.

Staff Recommendation: An alteration to Rule 7.5.2.1 to read as follows:

Rule 7.5.2.1 Any person is required to notify Council of the presence of brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), observed or suspected on any of the possum-free islands, within 24 hours of the initial observation or suspicion.

A breach of this rule will create an offence under section 154N(19) of the Biosecurity Act. Staff Comment 2. Reporting time frame

Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason: Staff agree that a shortening of the time frame for reporting for possums on islands currently possum-free is appropriate to allow immediate response measure to get underway sooner.

Recommendation an alteration to Rule 7.5.2.1 to read as follows:

A breach of this rule will create an offence under section 154N(19) of the Biosecurity Act.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel accepts your request to change “control” to “eradicate” under the principle measures to achieve the objective for brushtail possums and to a reduction in the reporting time from 5 working days to 24 hours. The hearing panel recommends the following changes: “Rule 7.5.1 Principle measures to achieve the objective 1) Council Inspection and Service Delivery …. b) Delivering a service to eradicate possums in liaison with land owners/occupiers if applicable…” “Rule 7.5.2.1 Any person is required to notify Council of the presence of brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula), observes or suspected on any of the possum-free islands, within 24 hours of the initial observation or suspicion.”

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.7 - Cathedral bells All As part of the development of the 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS), the Council and DOC developed a joint initiative that related to the implementation of a number of species-led programmes (primarily in the Sounds). This joint initiative was drafted into the 2007 RPMS and the programmes have progressed operationally to this day. The Proposed RPMP provides for the continuation of these programmes, with costs allocated across both the regional community (Council) and DOC. I support the inclusion of these programmes, and a Memorandum of Understanding between Council and DOC is currently being drafted to set out the arrangements for their implementation as joint initiatives. The specific pest programmes that this applies to are: • Boneseed • Brushtail possum (Islands) • Cathedral bells • Climbing spindleberry • Evergreen buckthorn • Madeira vine • Moth plant • Spartina Some minor amendments to the wording used in specific programmes are requested as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ (it is preferable to find out about a possible island incursion as soon as possible). • 7.10 Climbing spindleberry: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20: Madeira vine: ‘Proposed allocation of costs’ should record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation (to reflect preceding table). • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000 Decision Requested Retain these programmes run as joint initiatives between Council and DOC Amend wording used in 82 specific programmes as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ • 7.10 Climbing asparagus: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20 Madeira vine: amend ‘proposed allocation of costs’ to record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for cathedral bells in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.10 - Climbing spindleberry All As part of the development of the 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS), the Council and DOC developed a joint initiative that related to the implementation of a number of species-led programmes (primarily in the Sounds). This joint initiative was drafted into the 2007 RPMS and the programmes have progressed operationally to this day. The Proposed RPMP provides for the continuation of these programmes, with costs allocated across both the regional community (Council) and DOC. I support the inclusion of these programmes, and a Memorandum of Understanding between Council and DOC is currently being drafted to set out the arrangements for their implementation as joint initiatives. The specific pest programmes that this applies to are: • Boneseed • Brushtail possum (Islands) • Cathedral bells • Climbing spindleberry • Evergreen buckthorn • Madeira vine • Moth plant • Spartina Some minor amendments to the wording used in specific programmes are requested as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ (it is preferable to find out about a possible island incursion as soon as possible). • 7.10 Climbing spindleberry: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20: Madeira vine: ‘Proposed allocation of costs’ should record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation (to reflect preceding table). • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000 Decision Requested Retain these programmes run as joint initiatives between Council and DOC Amend wording used in specific programmes as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ • 7.10 Climbing asparagus: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20 Madeira vine: amend ‘proposed allocation of costs’ to record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason: Staff acknowledge the need to consistency with respect to the programmes subject to the join initiative.

It is recommended that Section 1(a) on page 72 of the Proposal and future RPMP is to read as follows:

Principle measures to achieve the objective 1) Council Inspection and Service Delivery

Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: a) Delivering a service to control climbing spindleberry in liaison with the occupier

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for climbing spindleberry in the Regional Pest Management Plan with the following amendment. The hearing panel recommends that the section “Principle measures to achieve the objective” is amended as suggested. Proposed section 7.10.1 1) a) be amended from “Inspection by Council may include staff or contractors” to “Inspection by Council in conjunction with the Department of Conservation may include staff or contractors”

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.16 - Evergreen buckthorn All As part of the development of the 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS), the Council and DOC developed a joint initiative that related to the implementation of a number of species-led programmes (primarily in the Sounds). This joint initiative was drafted into the 2007 RPMS and the programmes have progressed operationally to this day. The Proposed RPMP provides for the continuation of these programmes, with costs allocated across both the regional community (Council) and DOC. I support the inclusion of these programmes, and a Memorandum of Understanding between Council and DOC is currently being drafted to set out the arrangements for their implementation as joint initiatives. The specific pest programmes that this applies to are: • Boneseed • Brushtail possum (Islands) • Cathedral bells • Climbing spindleberry • Evergreen buckthorn • Madeira vine • Moth plant • Spartina Some minor amendments to the wording used in specific programmes are requested as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ (it is preferable to find out about a possible island incursion as soon as possible). • 7.10 Climbing spindleberry: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20: Madeira vine: ‘Proposed allocation of costs’ should record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation (to reflect preceding table). • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000 Decision Requested Retain these programmes run as joint initiatives between Council and DOC Amend wording used in specific programmes as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ • 7.10 Climbing asparagus: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20 Madeira vine: amend ‘proposed allocation of costs’ to record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for evergreen buckthorn in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.20 - Madeira vine All As part of the development of the 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS), the Council and DOC developed a joint initiative that related to the implementation of a number of species-led programmes

(primarily in the Sounds). This joint initiative was drafted into the 2007 RPMS and the programmes have progressed operationally to this day. The Proposed RPMP provides for the continuation of these programmes, with costs allocated across both the regional community (Council) and DOC. I support the inclusion of these programmes, and a Memorandum of Understanding between Council and DOC is currently being drafted to set out the arrangements for their implementation as joint initiatives. The specific pest programmes that this applies to are: • Boneseed • Brushtail possum (Islands) • Cathedral bells • Climbing spindleberry • Evergreen buckthorn • Madeira vine • Moth plant • Spartina Some minor amendments to the wording used in specific programmes are requested as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ (it is preferable to find out about a possible island incursion as soon as possible). • 7.10 Climbing spindleberry: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20: Madeira vine: ‘Proposed allocation of costs’ should record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation (to reflect preceding table). • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000 Decision Requested Retain these programmes run as joint initiatives between Council and DOC Amend wording used in specific programmes as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ • 7.10 Climbing asparagus: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20 Madeira vine: amend ‘proposed allocation of costs’ to record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason:Staff acknowledge the point raised by the submitter with respect to cost allocation. However the section of the Proposal the submitter is seeking alteration is material that only occurs within a Proposal and will not be part of the final RPMP. The fact that cost has been allocated to DOC will appear in the final RPMP where the sources of funding are identified.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for madeira vine in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel acknowledges that the proposed allocation of costs for madeira vine under the analysis in the Proposal incorrectly identifies that 100% of the proposed programme costs are Council’s. Table 19 in the Proposal correctly includes madeira vine with DOC contributing costs towards this programme.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.22 - Moth plant All As part of the development of the 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS), the Council and DOC developed a joint initiative that related to the implementation of a number of species-led programmes (primarily in the Sounds). This joint initiative was drafted into the 2007 RPMS and the programmes have progressed operationally to this day. The Proposed RPMP provides for the continuation of these programmes, with costs allocated across both the regional community (Council) and DOC. I support the inclusion of these programmes, and a Memorandum of Understanding between Council and DOC is currently being drafted to set out the arrangements for their implementation as joint initiatives. The specific pest programmes that this applies to are: • Boneseed • Brushtail possum (Islands) • Cathedral bells • Climbing spindleberry • Evergreen buckthorn • Madeira vine • Moth plant • Spartina Some minor amendments to the wording used in specific programmes are requested as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ (it is preferable to find out about a possible island incursion as soon as possible). • 7.10 Climbing spindleberry: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20: Madeira

85 vine: ‘Proposed allocation of costs’ should record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation (to reflect preceding table). • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000 Decision Requested Retain these programmes run as joint initiatives between Council and DOC Amend wording used in specific programmes as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ • 7.10 Climbing asparagus: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20 Madeira vine: amend ‘proposed allocation of costs’ to record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for moth plant in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.34 - Spartina All As part of the development of the 2007 Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS), the Council and DOC developed a joint initiative that related to the implementation of a number of species-led programmes (primarily in the Sounds). This joint initiative was drafted into the 2007 RPMS and the programmes have progressed operationally to this day. The Proposed RPMP provides for the continuation of these programmes, with costs allocated across both the regional community (Council) and DOC. I support the inclusion of these programmes, and a Memorandum of Understanding between Council and DOC is currently being drafted to set out the arrangements for their implementation as joint initiatives. The specific pest programmes that this applies to are: • Boneseed • Brushtail possum (Islands) • Cathedral bells • Climbing spindleberry • Evergreen buckthorn • Madeira vine • Moth plant • Spartina Some minor amendments to the wording used in specific programmes are requested as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ (it is preferable to find out about a possible island incursion as soon as possible). • 7.10 Climbing spindleberry: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20: Madeira vine: ‘Proposed allocation of costs’ should record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation (to reflect preceding table). • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000 Decision Requested Retain these programmes run as joint initiatives between Council and DOC Amend wording used in specific programmes as follows: • 7.5 Brushtail possums: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’, item 1(b), change the word ‘control’ to ‘destroy’ (or ‘eradicate’). Under Rule 7.5.2.1, change ‘within 5 working days’ to ‘within 24 hours’ • 7.10 Climbing asparagus: Under ‘principle measures to achieve the objective’ change item (1) to read ‘Inspection by Council, in conjunction with the Department of Conservation, may include staff or contractors: …’ • 7.20 Madeira vine: amend ‘proposed allocation of costs’ to record that costs have been allocated across both the regional community (Council) and the Department of Conservation • 7.34 Spartina: Under ‘costs of each option’ (Eradication), change DOC’s contribution from $55,000 to $33,000, and change the total annual cost from $77,000 to $55,000

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reasoning: Staff comment that this cost figure, is a reflection of the full cost incurred by DOC delivering their part in the join initiative programme. If that is now $33,000, then that can be reflected.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your support. You have advised Council that your contribution will be $33,000 rather than $55,000 as proposed. In effect this reduces the total cost of the programme. The hearing panel recommends that the reduced cost for this joint initiative programme should be offset between the two agencies as apportioned previously.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.11 - Contorta pine See page 23 of submission Decision Requested Amendments (or other actions) sought: 1. Amend programme 7.15 (European larch) and Table 2 to include all species of larch and hybrids. 2. Review information on costs and beneficiaries to account for indirect impacts of wilding conifers, e.g. on water yield. 3. Review costs/benefits of wilding conifer programmes in the absence of collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP. 4. Amend Proposed RPMP to provide appropriate regulatory ‘backstop’ to achieve programme objectives in the event that collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP do not eventuate or are ineffective (e.g. due to lack of ‘buy-in’ from occupiers within affected areas).

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledge the points raised by the submitter. Staff comment that the guidance produced and referenced by the submitter also clearly articulated the need for any Rules to be part of an appropriate programme that has objectives developed, is feasible and can be effectively implemented in accordance with the requirements in the Biosecurity Act 1993 and National Policy Direction for Pest Management (NPD). It can be easy to focus on need for a Rule itself when in reality, a Rule is a means to support the implementation of a programme.

The issue with developing a programme for either high risk species (e.g. Contorta pine, Corsican pine) or wilding conifers, is defining the scope of the programme, having suitable information on distribution and abundance then assessing whether an RPMP programme will achieve a desired outcome. Coupled with this is the cost to implement the programme and ensure the allocation of those costs done fairly again in accordance with the NPD.

The presence of the National Wilding Conifer Control Programme (NWCCP) has been highlighted in the Proposal. However, the Crown funding available within this programme is not something that can be identified within an analysis of cost allocation due to the inherent insecurity of funding over longer time periods - such as a 10yr RPMP. Council involvement and engagement with the NWCCP has been as a result of the guiding principle of regional leadership in the Council Biosecurity Strategy. Council will continue to fulfill this role.

Collaborative programmes have a relatively long and successful history in Marlborough and it is the view of staff that these collaborative programmes can be supported and/or developed and have the flexibility to deliver on the management of wilding conifers. The need to protect areas that have been subject to work delivered by a collaborative programme has been reflected through the proposed Rule 7.39.2.1.

For the high-risk species identified, management has been identified in the proposal as given effect to by collaborative programmes with no associated Rules considered necessary. Staff wishes to point out that under the proposed programme structure, Council does still have the ability to use administrative provisions under Part 6 of the Act where necessary if a collaborative programme is unable to address the issue and is resulting in the programme failing to meet its objective over time. For example this could be through the use of a Notice of Direction to occupiers or by entering and to destroy conifers where necessary, although adequate funding to carry our these tasks would still be required.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part

In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.12 - Corsican pine See page 23 of submission Decision Requested Amendments (or other actions) sought: 1. Amend programme 7.15 (European larch) and Table 2 to include all species of larch and hybrids. 2. Review information on costs and beneficiaries to account for indirect impacts of wilding conifers, e.g. on water yield. 3. Review costs/benefits of wilding conifer programmes in the absence of collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP. 4. Amend Proposed RPMP to provide appropriate regulatory ‘backstop’ to achieve programme objectives in the event that collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP do not eventuate or are ineffective (e.g. due to lack of ‘buy-in’ from occupiers within affected areas).

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

The presence of the National Wilding Conifer Control Programme (NWCCP) has been highlighted in the Proposal. However, the Crown funding available within this programme is not something that can be identified within an analysis of cost allocation due to the inherent insecurity of funding over longer time 88 periods - such as a 10yr RPMP. Council involvement and engagement with the NWCCP has been as a result of the guiding principle of regional leadership in the Council Biosecurity Strategy. Council will continue to fulfill this role.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.15 - European larch All See page 23 of submission Decision Requested Amendments (or other actions) sought: 1. Amend programme 7.15 (European larch) and Table 2 to include all species of larch and hybrids. 2. Review information on costs and beneficiaries to account for indirect impacts of wilding conifers, e.g. on water yield. 3. Review costs/benefits of wilding conifer programmes in the absence of collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP. 4. Amend Proposed RPMP to provide appropriate regulatory ‘backstop’ to achieve programme objectives in the event that collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP do not eventuate or are ineffective (e.g. due to lack of ‘buy-in’ from occupiers within affected areas).

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.23 - Mountain pine All See page 23 of submission Decision Requested Amendments (or other actions) sought: 1. Amend programme 7.15 (European larch) and Table 2 to include all species of larch and hybrids. 2. Review information on costs and beneficiaries to account for indirect impacts of wilding conifers, e.g. on water yield. 3. Review costs/benefits of wilding conifer programmes in the absence of collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP. 4. Amend Proposed RPMP to provide appropriate regulatory ‘backstop’ to achieve programme objectives in the event that collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP do not eventuate or are ineffective (e.g. due to lack of ‘buy-in’ from occupiers within affected areas).

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

91 conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.32 - Scots pine All See page 23 of submission Decision Requested Amendments (or other actions) sought: 1. Amend programme 7.15 (European larch) and Table 2 to include all species of larch and hybrids. 2. Review information on costs and beneficiaries to account for indirect impacts of wilding conifers, e.g. on water yield. 3. Review costs/benefits of wilding conifer programmes in the absence of collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP. 4. Amend Proposed RPMP to provide appropriate regulatory ‘backstop’ to achieve programme objectives in the event that collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP do not eventuate or are ineffective (e.g. due to lack of ‘buy-in’ from occupiers within affected areas).

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Collaborative programmes have a relatively long and successful history in Marlborough and it is the view of 92 staff that these collaborative programmes can be supported and/or developed and have the flexibility to deliver on the management of wilding conifers. The need to protect areas that have been subject to work delivered by a collaborative programme has been reflected through the proposed Rule 7.39.2.1.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.37 - Western white pine All See page 23 of submission Decision Requested Amendments (or other actions) sought: 1. Amend programme 7.15 (European larch) and Table 2 to include all species of larch and hybrids. 2. Review information on costs and beneficiaries to account for indirect impacts of wilding conifers, e.g. on water yield. 3. Review costs/benefits of wilding conifer programmes in the absence of collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP. 4. Amend Proposed RPMP to provide appropriate regulatory ‘backstop’ to achieve programme objectives in the event that collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP do not eventuate or are ineffective (e.g. due to lack of ‘buy-in’ from occupiers within affected areas).

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledge the points raised by the submitter. Staff comment that the guidance produced 93 and referenced by the submitter also clearly articulated the need for any Rules to be part of an appropriate programme that has objectives developed, is feasible and can be effectively implemented in accordance with the requirements in the Biosecurity Act 1993 and National Policy Direction for Pest Management (NPD). It can be easy to focus on need for a Rule itself when in reality, a Rule is a means to support the implementation of a programme.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All The general programme for wilding conifer includes the 10 species recognised nationally, as well as two additional species: Pinus monticola and P. patula. The programme includes two commercial species causing a level of wilding conifer spread: P.radiata and Pseudotsuga menziesii. There is no background or commentary about these two species. The objective of this sustained control programme is to “ensure the ongoing control of wilding conifers on land within the Marlborough region that has been subject to a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme in order to minimise adverse effects on the environment, enjoyment of the natural environment and economic wellbeing.” The principle measures to achieve this objective are collaborative programs (which sit outside the Proposed RPMP), property inspections, education and advocacy. Land owners and/or occupiers or other persons may also be required to act where rules or statutory obligations dictate, and in this respect Rule 7.39.2.1 requires occupiers to destroy all wilding conifers present on their land prior to cone bearing if they are within a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme Area. This rule only applies upon written notification that the programme has ceased and/or met the objectives. As noted with respect to the species-specific programmes (above), there is currently only one Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme Area (in Molesworth); and this is a high-risk approach for the Marlborough region if national funding for other programmes is delayed or does not eventuate. Decision Requested As for species-specific programmes (above). Amendments (or other actions) sought: 1. Amend programme 7.15 (European larch) and Table 2 to include all species of larch and hybrids. 2. Review information on costs and beneficiaries to account for indirect impacts of wilding conifers, e.g. on water yield. 3. Review costs/benefits of wilding conifer programmes in the absence of collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP. 4. Amend Proposed RPMP to provide appropriate regulatory ‘backstop’ to achieve programme objectives in the event that collaborative initiatives outside the RPMP do not eventuate or are ineffective (e.g. due to lack of ‘buy-in’ from occupiers within affected areas).

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.14 - Eel grass All I support the inclusion of these pest species to be managed under the Sustained Control (Eel grass, Parrot’s feather, Purple loosestrife) and Exclusion (Senegal tea) programmes Decision Requested Retain programmes for these species as proposed

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for eel grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.25 - Parrot's feather All I support the inclusion of these pest species to be managed under the Sustained Control (Eel grass, Parrot’s feather, Purple loosestrife) and Exclusion (Senegal tea) programmes Decision Requested Retain programmes for these species as proposed

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for parrot’s feather in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.26 - Purple loosestrife All I support the inclusion of these pest species to be managed under the Sustained Control (Eel grass, Parrot’s feather, Purple loosestrife) and Exclusion (Senegal tea) programmes Decision Requested Retain programmes for these species as proposed

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for purple loosestrife in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.33 - Senegal tea All I support the inclusion of these pest species to be managed under the Sustained Control (Eel grass, Parrot’s feather, Purple loosestrife) and Exclusion (Senegal tea) programmes Decision Requested Retain programmes for these species as proposed

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for Senegal tea in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.30 - Rough horsetail All I understand that rough horsetail is also a threat to agriculture (the Horizons RPMP proposal states that it ‘Has the capability to seriously affect pastoral productivity’), and this should be recognised Decision Requested Amend information on ‘why it is a threat’ and ‘impacts’ to include effects on pastoral productivity.

Staff Comment

Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support. However, staff comment that the submitter may be confusing the species proposed - Rough horsetail (Equisetum hymale) - with Field horsetail (Equisetum arvense) which is has serious impacts on pastoral productivity.

Rough horsetail (Equisetum hymale) may have impacts in terms of invading wetter pasture areas but given it is much earlier on the invasion curve as a landscaping/ornamental 'escapee' both in Marlborough and New Zealand, such impacts have not been observed.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your information on the impact of rough horsetail. The hearing panel recommends that this information be included in the “Why is it a threat?” section in the final Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 8 - Monitoring Council has had an effective monitoring programme in respect of pests included in the current Regional Pest Management Strategy; and the benefits of this are illustrated in the information on current situation and trends included in the Proposed RPMP. It is important that monitoring and surveillance continue; and the monitoring section of the RPMP should be supported by a more detailed monitoring/surveillance plan covering each pest (or group of pests). I accept that this level of detail may not be appropriate within the RPMP itself and is more likely to be incorporated in the Operational Plan (referenced in this section). The RPMP – or the more detailed monitoring/surveillance plan – should also address how the Council will monitor and if necessary enforce landowners/occupiers’ compliance with the rules in the RPMP. Decision Requested Prepare a more detailed monitoring/surveillance plan to support this section of the Proposed RPMP.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part

Reason: Staff comment that the activities of monitoring, surveillance and compliance inspections are often interchanged and sometime confused.

In the context of the RPMP, monitoring is the action of assessing an RPMP programme (or any programme) as a whole to assess trends and/or programme progress and performance. Surveillance is an activity where new information is sought on the presence or absence of a target. Compliance inspection is an activity to assess whether an occupier, or any other person, who has an obligation under an RPMP programme is meeting that obligation. The submitter is correct in that these are detailed operational activities and the scope of which will be outlined in the Operational Plan.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel acknowledges the staff comments that monitoring of pest programmes and general biosecurity surveillance are two distinct activities undertaken by the Council. The hearing panel recommends that the monitoring of the Council’s performance is detailed in section 8.2 of the Regional Pest Management Plan as proposed and that the detail of the activities will be provided through Operational Plans.

591 Marcus Girvan C/O Boffa Miskell Ltd PO Box 110, Christchurch, 8140 (Speaking) Land Information New Zealand

Category: All Introduction Land Information New Zealand (LINZ) administers almost 2 million hectares of land owned by the Crown, which is approximately 8% of New Zealand’s total land area. LINZ’s portfolio includes 1.6 million hectares of high country pastoral land in the South Island, as well as river and lake beds. LINZ undertakes biosecurity control on unoccupied Crown land. Historically the Crown has not been bound by pest management rules under the Biosecurity Act 1993, and Pest Management Plans. LINZ has however voluntarily undertaken biosecurity control to ensure the Crown acts as a responsible landowner and good neighbour. LINZ’s biosecurity control programme focuses generally on the exclusion, eradication, and management of exotic pest plants and animals on unoccupied land such as river and lake beds. LINZ’s biosecurity programmes contribute to protecting primary industries on neighbouring land, and improved biodiversity outcomes by protecting and allowing native species to regenerate. LINZ works with landowners, local authorities, community groups, and other relevant agencies to ensure its biosecurity programmes are prioritised and coordinated to achieve the maximum benefit. Pest species currently managed by LINZ on unoccupied Crown land in the Marlborough district under its control programme include Gorse and Broom, and Nassella Tussock. Amendments to the Biosecurity Act 1993 have introduced changes which place a greater responsibility on the Crown to manage biosecurity risks. In particular, it provides for the ability for ‘good neighbour’ rules to be included in Regional Pest Management Plans which bind the Crown. LINZ has a particular interest in the review of the Marlborough Regional Pest Plant Management Plan recognition of the potential implications for the future management of unoccupied Crown land by LINZ. It also has an interest in the implications for the management of all occupied Crown land. LINZ in particular wishes to ensure that the pest management obligations placed on LINZ and lessees of Crown land are appropriate to the level of biosecurity risk and values to be protected, and are cost effective to implement. This while at the same time ensuring proposed pest management approaches will be appropriate in managing potential spread onto Crown land. LINZ overall supports the direction and provisions of the Proposed Marlborough Regional Pest Management Plan, except where detailed in the specific submissions in the attached table. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and your support of the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.4 - Broom 7.4.2.7 - Good Neighbour rule for Broom Control LINZ supports management of broom within the District in recognition of its impacts on agricultural land use and environmental values. LINZ however considers that good neighbour rule 7.4.2.7 does not appropriately capture the circumstances when occupiers should manage broom within 10 metres of a property boundary. In particular, LINZ considers that application of the rule should not be restricted only to where the adjoining land is clear of, or under management for broom and the land is being used for agricultural production purposes. LINZ manages areas of crown land such as riverbeds which are not typically used for agricultural purposes, but are equally subject to risk of cross boundary incursion of broom. Under the rule as it is currently worded, occupiers adjoining LINZ managed land would therefore not be required to manage broom within 10 metres of the boundary. Application of the rule would result in increased incursions of broom within LINZ managed land which would impact on environmental values within those areas, and increase demands on LINZ’s current biosecurity management programme. LINZ therefore considers the rule should be amended, such that it applies within 10 metres of the boundary, regardless of whether the adjoining is being used for agricultural production purposes. This would better give effect to objective 7.4.1.2 which seeks to minimise effects of broom on economic wellbeing, the environment, and enjoyment of the natural environment. LINZ also consider that the requirement in the rule that broom only be

99 managed where the broom occurs over a stretch of boundary greater than 50 metres in length is unclear in terms of whether the broom has to be continuous or intermittent in order for the rule to be triggered. LINZ considers that greater clarity should be included in the rule, so that any broom does not need to be fully continuous to trigger the rule requirement. Otherwise there is a risk that adjoining occupiers may simply destroy a segment of broom along the boundary which would have the effect of complying with the 50 metre requirement, but would not minimise the effects of broom to give effect to objective 7.4.1.2. Decision Requested 1. Amend rule 7.4.2.7 to read: Occupiers shall destroy all broom (Cytisus scoparious) plants, on land they occupy, within 10 metres of their property boundary each year before they produce seed, where: a) The broom occurs over a stretch of boundary greater than 50 metres in length, and; b) The adjoining land is clear of, or under management for broom and the land is being used for agricultural production purposes. A breach of this rule will create an offence under section 154N(19) of the Biosecurity Act. 2. Provide greater clarity that the broom does not need to be continuous over a length of 50 metres in order to trigger the rule requirements. 3. Make any other consequential changes needed to the plan to address this submission point

Staff Comment 1. Formatting error to note - within the decision requested by the submitter, the words "and the land is being used for agricultural production" has been marked as "to be removed".

Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason: Staff acknowledge the point raised by the submitter with respect to the reverse sensitivity of this particular Good Neighbour Rule. As background, the addition of the "..for agricultural purposes" provision has a history tied to the justification (from the effects on values) for the programme and particular Rule. What has been overlooked is the fact that on riverbeds that are relatively free from broom, the affect on values is still present as the value in that case is on biodiversity values of these fragile and important braided river ecosystems.

Rule 7.4.2.7 to be amended to read as follows:

Rule 7.4.2.7 (Good Neighbour Rule)

Occupiers shall destroy all broom (Cytisus scoparius) plants, on land they occupy, within 10 metres of their property boundary each year before they produce seed, where: a) the broom occurs over a stretch of boundary greater than 50 metres in length, and; b) the adjoining land is clear of, or under management for broom.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel has considered your request and reviewed the reasons for the proposed Good Neighbour Rule. We have concluded that it would be appropriate to delete the 50 metre length requirement. While this provision provides a trigger for the rule we agree that the provision is too vague. Rather than clarifying the rule we have recommended that it not be included in the final Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel understands the operational reasons for limiting the rule to agricultural production land and has recommended that this restriction be removed in the final Regional Pest Management Plan. We recommend that proposed rule 7.4.2.7 for broom be amended to remove clause a) and to amend clause b) to remove the reference to agricultural production land: “Rule 7.4.2.7 (Good Neighbour Rule) Occupiers shall destroy all broom (Cytisus scoparius) plants, on land they occupy, within 10 metres of their property boundary each year before they produce seed, where the adjoining land is clear of, or under management for broom. A breach of this rule will create an offence under section 154N(19) of the Biosecurity Act.”

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.18 - Gorse 7.18.2.3 - Good Neighbour Rule for Gorse control LINZ supports management of gorse within the District in recognition of its impacts on agricultural land use and environmental values. LINZ however considers that good neighbour rule 7.18.2.3 does not appropriately capture the circumstances when occupiers should manage gorse within 10 metres of a property boundary. In particular, LINZ considers that application of the rule should not be restricted only to where the adjoining land is clear of, or under management for gorse and the land is being used for

100 agricultural production purposes. LINZ manages areas of crown land such as riverbeds which are not typically used for agricultural purposes, but are equally subject to risk of cross boundary incursion of gorse. Under the rule as it is currently worded, occupiers adjoining LINZ managed land would therefore not be required to manage gorse within 10 metres of the boundary. Application of the rule would result in increased incursions of gorse within LINZ managed land which would impact on environmental values within those areas, and increase demands on LINZ’s current biosecurity management programme. LINZ therefore considers the rule should be amended, such that it applies within 10 metres of the boundary, regardless of whether the adjoining is being used for agricultural production purposes. This would better give effect to objective 7.18.2 which seeks to minimise effects of gorse on economic wellbeing, the environment, and enjoyment of the natural environment. LINZ also consider that the requirement in the rule that gorse only be managed where the gorse occurs over a stretch of boundary greater than 50 metres in length is unclear in terms of whether the gorse has to be continuous or intermittent in order for the rule to be triggered. LINZ considers that greater clarity should be included in the rule, so that any gorse does not need to be fully continuous to trigger the rule requirement. Otherwise there is a risk that adjoining occupiers may simply destroy a segment of gorse along the boundary which would have the effect of complying with the 50 metre requirement, but would not minimise the effects of gorse to give effect to objective 7.18.2. Decision Requested 1. Amend rule 7.18.2.3 to read: Occupiers shall destroy all gorse (Ulex europaeus) plants, on land they occupy, within 10 metres of their property boundary each year before they produce seed, where: a) The gorse occurs over a stretch of boundary greater than 50 metres in length, and; b) The adjoining land is clear of, or under management for gorse and the land is being used for agricultural production purposes. A breach of this rule will create an offence under section 154N(19) of the Biosecurity Act. 2. Provide greater clarity that the gorse does not need to be continuous over a length of 50 metres in order to trigger the rule requirements. 3. Make any other consequential changes needed to the plan to address this submission point.

Staff Comment 1. Formatting error to note - within the decision requested by the submitter, the words "and the land is being used for agricultural production" has been marked as to be removed.

Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason: Staff acknowledge the point raised by the submitter with respect to the reverse sensitivity of this particular Good Neighbour Rule. As background, the addition of the "..for agricultural purposes" provision has a history tied to the justification (from the effects on values) for the programme and particular Rule. What has been overlooked is the fact that on riverbeds that are relatively free from gorse, the affect on values is still present as the value in that case is on biodiversity values of these fragile and important braided river ecosystems.

Rule 7.18.2.3 to be amended to read as follows:

Rule 7.18.2.3 (Good Neighbour Rule)

Occupiers shall destroy all gorse (Ulex europaeus) plants, on land they occupy, within 10 metres of their property boundary each year before they produce seed, where: a) the gorse occurs over a stretch of boundary greater than 50 metres in length, and; b) the adjoining land is clear of, or under management for gorse.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept

The hearing panel has considered your request and reviewed the reasons for the proposed Good Neighbour Rule. We have concluded that it would be appropriate to delete the 50 metre length requirement. While this provision provides a trigger for the rule we agree that the provision is too vague. Rather than clarifying the rule we have recommended that it not be included in the final Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel understands the operational reasons for limiting the rule to agricultural production land and has recommended that this restriction be removed in the final Regional Pest Management Plan.

We recommend that proposed rule 7.18.2.3 for gorse be amended to remove clause a) and to amend clause b) to remove the reference to agricultural production land:

101

“Rule 7.18.2.3 (Good Neighbour Rule)

Occupiers shall destroy all gorse (Ulex europaeus) plants, on land they occupy, within 10 metres of their property boundary each year before they produce seed, where the adjoining land is clear of, or under management for gorse.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.11 - Contorta pine All LINZ considers that wilding conifers are a significant pest management issue facing the region. Marlborough is particularly prone to wilding conifer infestation, and the impacts of wilding conifers, and control costs, will increase over time. LINZ supports a strategic approach to management of wilding conifers delivered through partnerships and supported by clear regulatory obligations. Regional Councils, DOC, LINZ and MPI have prepared guidance material for inclusion of rules in Regional Pest Management Plans. These guidelines were prepared by MPI in April 2016. The purposes were to provide consistency in management approaches in RPMP’s and to help implement the NZ Wilding Conifer Management Strategy 2015 – 2030. The principle measures to achieve management of wilding conifers in the proposed RPMP are a combination of collaborative programmes outside of the RPMP, property inspections, education, and advocacy. With the exception of a requirement in rule 7.39.2.1 for landowners in a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme Area to destroy conifers once a programme has ceased, there are no rules requiring management of conifers in the proposed RPMP. Relying on collaborative programmes and voluntary community efforts to manage wilding conifers is high risk. Current MPI funding for conifer controls is fully allocated and insufficient to fully manage all areas of wilding conifer infestation nationally. Consequently, the impacts of wilding conifers in Marlborough and control costs will continue to increase exponentially. LINZ therefore supports (along with DOC and MPI) the inclusion of appropriate regulatory provisions in the RPMP to ensure adverse effects on the environment, enjoyment of the environment, and economic wellbeing are minimised as per the proposed objectives of the RPMP. Decision Requested 1. Amend the RPMP to include appropriate regulatory provisions for the management of wilding conifers, in addition to the current provisions for collaborative programmes. Rules should be consistent with the MPI national guidance.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff comment that the guidance produced and referenced by the submitter also clearly articulated the need for any Rules to be part of an appropriate programme that has objectives developed, is feasible and can be effectively implemented in accordance with the requirements in the Biosecurity Act 1993 and National Policy Direction for Pest Management (NPD). It can be easy to focus on need for a Rule itself when in reality, a Rule is a means to support the implementation of a programme.

The issue with developing a programme for either high risk species (e.g. Contorta pine, Corsican pine) or wilding conifers, is defining the scope of the programme, having suitable information on distribution and abundance then assessing whether an RPMP programme will achieve a desired outcome. Coupled with this is the resources required to implement the programme and allocate those resources fairly.

The presence of the National Wilding Conifer Control Programme has been emphasised in the Proposal. However, the Crown funding available within this programme is not something that can be identified within an analysis of cost allocation to the inherent insecurity of funding over longer time periods - such as a 10yr RPMP.

Collaborative programmes have a relatively long and successful history in Marlborough and it is the view of staff that these collaborative programmes can be developed and have the flexibility to deliver on the management of wilding conifers. The need to protect areas that have been subject to work delivered by a collaborative programme has been reflected through the proposed Rule 7.39.2.1.

102

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.12 - Corsican pine All LINZ considers that wilding conifers are a significant pest management issue facing the region. Marlborough is particularly prone to wilding conifer infestation, and the impacts of wilding conifers, and control costs, will increase over time. LINZ supports a strategic approach to management of wilding conifers delivered through partnerships and supported by clear regulatory obligations. Regional Councils, DOC, LINZ and MPI have prepared guidance material for inclusion of rules in Regional Pest Management Plans. These guidelines were prepared by MPI in April 2016. The purposes were to provide consistency in management approaches in RPMP’s and to help implement the NZ Wilding Conifer Management Strategy 2015 – 2030. The principle measures to achieve management of wilding conifers in the proposed RPMP are a combination of collaborative programmes outside of the RPMP, property inspections, education, and advocacy. With the exception of a requirement in rule 7.39.2.1 for landowners in a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme Area to destroy conifers once a programme has ceased, there are no rules requiring management of conifers in the proposed RPMP. Relying on collaborative programmes and voluntary community efforts to manage wilding conifers is high risk. Current MPI funding for conifer controls is fully allocated and insufficient to fully manage all areas of wilding conifer infestation nationally. Consequently, the impacts of wilding conifers in Marlborough and control costs will continue to increase exponentially. LINZ therefore supports (along with DOC and MPI) the inclusion of appropriate regulatory provisions in the RPMP to ensure adverse effects on the environment, enjoyment of the environment, and economic wellbeing are minimised as per the proposed objectives of the RPMP. Decision Requested Amend the RPMP to include appropriate regulatory provisions for the management of wilding conifers, in addition to the current provisions for collaborative programmes. Rules should be consistent with the MPI national guidance.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

103

The issue with developing a programme for either high risk species (e.g. Contorta pine, Corsican pine) or wilding conifers, is defining the scope of the programme, having suitable information on distribution and abundance then assessing whether an RPMP programme will achieve a desired outcome. Coupled with this is the resources required to implement the programme and allocate those resources fairly.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.15 - European larch All LINZ considers that wilding conifers are a significant pest management issue facing the region.

104

Marlborough is particularly prone to wilding conifer infestation, and the impacts of wilding conifers, and control costs, will increase over time. LINZ supports a strategic approach to management of wilding conifers delivered through partnerships and supported by clear regulatory obligations. Regional Councils, DOC, LINZ and MPI have prepared guidance material for inclusion of rules in Regional Pest Management Plans. These guidelines were prepared by MPI in April 2016. The purposes were to provide consistency in management approaches in RPMP’s and to help implement the NZ Wilding Conifer Management Strategy 2015 – 2030. The principle measures to achieve management of wilding conifers in the proposed RPMP are a combination of collaborative programmes outside of the RPMP, property inspections, education, and advocacy. With the exception of a requirement in rule 7.39.2.1 for landowners in a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme Area to destroy conifers once a programme has ceased, there are no rules requiring management of conifers in the proposed RPMP. Relying on collaborative programmes and voluntary community efforts to manage wilding conifers is high risk. Current MPI funding for conifer controls is fully allocated and insufficient to fully manage all areas of wilding conifer infestation nationally. Consequently, the impacts of wilding conifers in Marlborough and control costs will continue to increase exponentially. LINZ therefore supports (along with DOC and MPI) the inclusion of appropriate regulatory provisions in the RPMP to ensure adverse effects on the environment, enjoyment of the environment, and economic wellbeing are minimised as per the proposed objectives of the RPMP. Decision Requested Amend the RPMP to include appropriate regulatory provisions for the management of wilding conifers, in addition to the current provisions for collaborative programmes. Rules should be consistent with the MPI national guidance.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

The issue with developing a programme for either high risk species (e.g. Contorta pine, Corsican pine) or wilding conifers, is defining the scope of the programme, having suitable information on distribution and abundance then assessing whether an RPMP programme will achieve a desired outcome. Coupled with this is the resources required to implement the programme and allocate those resources fairly.

• Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.23 - Mountain pine All INZ considers that wilding conifers are a significant pest management issue facing the region. Marlborough is particularly prone to wilding conifer infestation, and the impacts of wilding conifers, and control costs, will increase over time. LINZ supports a strategic approach to management of wilding conifers delivered through partnerships and supported by clear regulatory obligations. Regional Councils, DOC, LINZ and MPI have prepared guidance material for inclusion of rules in Regional Pest Management Plans. These guidelines were prepared by MPI in April 2016. The purposes were to provide consistency in management approaches in RPMP’s and to help implement the NZ Wilding Conifer Management Strategy 2015 – 2030. The principle measures to achieve management of wilding conifers in the proposed RPMP are a combination of collaborative programmes outside of the RPMP, property inspections, education, and advocacy. With the exception of a requirement in rule 7.39.2.1 for landowners in a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme Area to destroy conifers once a programme has ceased, there are no rules requiring management of conifers in the proposed RPMP. Relying on collaborative programmes and voluntary community efforts to manage wilding conifers is high risk. Current MPI funding for conifer controls is fully allocated and insufficient to fully manage all areas of wilding conifer infestation nationally. Consequently, the impacts of wilding conifers in Marlborough and control costs will continue to increase exponentially. LINZ therefore supports (along with DOC and MPI) the inclusion of appropriate regulatory provisions in the RPMP to ensure adverse effects on the environment, enjoyment of the environment, and economic wellbeing are minimised as per the proposed objectives of the RPMP. Decision Requested Amend the RPMP to include appropriate regulatory provisions for the management of wilding conifers, in addition to the current provisions for collaborative programmes. Rules should be consistent with the MPI national guidance.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

The issue with developing a programme for either high risk species (e.g. Contorta pine, Corsican pine) or wilding conifers, is defining the scope of the programme, having suitable information on distribution and abundance then assessing whether an RPMP programme will achieve a desired outcome. Coupled with this is the resources required to implement the programme and allocate those resources fairly.

The presence of the National Wilding Conifer Control Programme has been emphasised in the Proposal. However, the Crown funding available within this programme is not something that can be identified within 106 an analysis of cost allocation to the inherent insecurity of funding over longer time periods - such as a 10yr RPMP.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.32 - Scots pine All LINZ considers that wilding conifers are a significant pest management issue facing the region. Marlborough is particularly prone to wilding conifer infestation, and the impacts of wilding conifers, and control costs, will increase over time. LINZ supports a strategic approach to management of wilding conifers delivered through partnerships and supported by clear regulatory obligations. Regional Councils, DOC, LINZ and MPI have prepared guidance material for inclusion of rules in Regional Pest Management Plans. These guidelines were prepared by MPI in April 2016. The purposes were to provide consistency in management approaches in RPMP’s and to help implement the NZ Wilding Conifer Management Strategy 2015 – 2030. The principle measures to achieve management of wilding conifers in the proposed RPMP are a combination of collaborative programmes outside of the RPMP, property inspections, education, and advocacy. With the exception of a requirement in rule 7.39.2.1 for landowners in a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme Area to destroy conifers once a programme has ceased, there are no rules requiring management of conifers in the proposed RPMP. Relying on collaborative programmes and voluntary community efforts to manage wilding conifers is high risk. Current MPI funding for conifer controls is fully allocated and insufficient to fully manage all areas of wilding conifer infestation nationally. Consequently,

107 the impacts of wilding conifers in Marlborough and control costs will continue to increase exponentially. LINZ therefore supports (along with DOC and MPI) the inclusion of appropriate regulatory provisions in the RPMP to ensure adverse effects on the environment, enjoyment of the environment, and economic wellbeing are minimised as per the proposed objectives of the RPMP. Decision Requested Amend the RPMP to include appropriate regulatory provisions for the management of wilding conifers, in addition to the current provisions for collaborative programmes. Rules should be consistent with the MPI national guidance.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

The issue with developing a programme for either high risk species (e.g. Contorta pine, Corsican pine) or wilding conifers, is defining the scope of the programme, having suitable information on distribution and abundance then assessing whether an RPMP programme will achieve a desired outcome. Coupled with this is the resources required to implement the programme and allocate those resources fairly.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a 108 clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.37 - Western white pine All LINZ considers that wilding conifers are a significant pest management issue facing the region. Marlborough is particularly prone to wilding conifer infestation, and the impacts of wilding conifers, and control costs, will increase over time. LINZ supports a strategic approach to management of wilding conifers delivered through partnerships and supported by clear regulatory obligations. Regional Councils, DOC, LINZ and MPI have prepared guidance material for inclusion of rules in Regional Pest Management Plans. These guidelines were prepared by MPI in April 2016. The purposes were to provide consistency in management approaches in RPMP’s and to help implement the NZ Wilding Conifer Management Strategy 2015 – 2030. The principle measures to achieve management of wilding conifers in the proposed RPMP are a combination of collaborative programmes outside of the RPMP, property inspections, education, and advocacy. With the exception of a requirement in rule 7.39.2.1 for landowners in a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme Area to destroy conifers once a programme has ceased, there are no rules requiring management of conifers in the proposed RPMP. Relying on collaborative programmes and voluntary community efforts to manage wilding conifers is high risk. Current MPI funding for conifer controls is fully allocated and insufficient to fully manage all areas of wilding conifer infestation nationally. Consequently, the impacts of wilding conifers in Marlborough and control costs will continue to increase exponentially. LINZ therefore supports (along with DOC and MPI) the inclusion of appropriate regulatory provisions in the RPMP to ensure adverse effects on the environment, enjoyment of the environment, and economic wellbeing are minimised as per the proposed objectives of the RPMP. Decision Requested 1. Amend the RPMP to include appropriate regulatory provisions for the management of wilding conifers, in addition to the current provisions for collaborative programmes. Rules should be consistent with the MPI national guidance.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

The issue with developing a programme for either high risk species (e.g. Contorta pine, Corsican pine) or wilding conifers, is defining the scope of the programme, having suitable information on distribution and abundance then assessing whether an RPMP programme will achieve a desired outcome. Coupled with this is the resources required to implement the programme and allocate those resources fairly.

109

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All LINZ considers that wilding conifers are a significant pest management issue facing the region. Marlborough is particularly prone to wilding conifer infestation, and the impacts of wilding conifers, and control costs, will increase over time. LINZ supports a strategic approach to management of wilding conifers delivered through partnerships and supported by clear regulatory obligations. Regional Councils, DOC, LINZ and MPI have prepared guidance material for inclusion of rules in Regional Pest Management Plans. These guidelines were prepared by MPI in April 2016. The purposes were to provide consistency in management approaches in RPMP’s and to help implement the NZ Wilding Conifer Management Strategy 2015 – 2030. The principle measures to achieve management of wilding conifers in the proposed RPMP are a combination of collaborative programmes outside of the RPMP, property inspections, education, and advocacy. With the exception of a requirement in rule 7.39.2.1 for landowners in a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme Area to destroy conifers once a programme has ceased, there are no rules requiring management of conifers in the proposed RPMP. Relying on collaborative programmes and voluntary community efforts to manage wilding conifers is high risk. Current MPI funding for conifer controls is fully allocated and insufficient to fully manage all areas of wilding conifer infestation nationally. Consequently, the impacts of wilding conifers in Marlborough and control costs will continue to increase exponentially. LINZ therefore supports (along with DOC and MPI) the inclusion of appropriate regulatory provisions in the RPMP to ensure adverse effects on the environment, enjoyment of the environment, and economic wellbeing are minimised as per the proposed objectives of the RPMP. Decision Requested Amend the RPMP to include appropriate regulatory provisions for the management of wilding conifers, in addition to the current provisions for collaborative programmes. Rules should be consistent with the MPI national guidance.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

110

The issue with developing a programme for either high risk species (e.g. Contorta pine, Corsican pine) or wilding conifers, is defining the scope of the programme, having suitable information on distribution and abundance then assessing whether an RPMP programme will achieve a desired outcome. Coupled with this is the resources required to implement the programme and allocate those resources fairly.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

111

592 Rebecca Beals PO Box 593, Wellington 6140 (Speaking) KiwiRail

Category: Part One 4 - Responsibilities and obligations KiwiRail note the discussion that owners and occupiers cannot stop an authorised person from entering a site address biosecurity and pest matters. KiwiRail wish to ensure the Regional Council is aware that the rail land is not publicly accessible for health and safety reasons. KiwiRail operate access to the rail corridor via a permit to enter system, which is required to be obtained prior to access for inspection / pest management activities being undertaken. These can be obtained from here: http://www.kiwirail.co.nz/infrastructure/accessing-the-corridor.html. KiwiRail will support the Council in undertaking its Biosecurity Act responsibilities, however wish to ensure that Council staff do so safely when accessing the rail corridor. Decision Requested Retain as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledges the support and at an operational level will continue to consult and communicate regarding safe access to the rail corridor.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and support of parts of the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel recommends at an operational level staff will consult with you regarding safe access to the rail corridor for pest management.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes All KiwiRail note the majority of rules require the land owner to advise Council within 5 working days of observation of certain identified pest species, with costs associated with addressing such observations falling to Council / DoC / MPI are identified under each rule. This is supported by KiwiRail. Decision Requested Retain as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept Thank you for your support of the 5 working day timeframe for advising Council of observing identified pest species.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.4 - Broom All KiwiRail support that an approved management plan can be put in place in relation to compliance with management of the pest species identified in these rules. While some of the rules relate to management zones through which the rail corridor passes (e.g. the Waima / Ure control zone for broom and gorse). KiwiRail anticipate relying on a Written Management Agreement process. KiwiRail is keen to work with the Council to develop pest management responses that are practical and capable of being undertaken within operational/financial parameters. KiwiRail therefore support the ability to prepare such an agreement. KiwiRail note above that the rail corridor is a unique environment that poses challenges for active pest management, however such an agreement process will give KiwiRail the opportunity to actively manage 112 certain areas at any given time and review the agreement over time to ensure that the corridor is progressively managed in accordance with the Proposed Plan objectives. Decision Requested Retain as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support for the approach in using management plans and will seek to liaise with KiwiRail as an occupier as required.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel has recommended the inclusion of a programme for broom in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions. The hearing panel supports and encourages you to liaise with Council regarding the use of management plans for broom.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.8 - Chilean needle grass All KiwiRail support that an approved management plan can be put in place in relation to compliance with management of the pest species identified in these rules. While some of the rules relate to management zones through which the rail corridor passes (e.g. the Waima / Ure control zone for broom and gorse). KiwiRail anticipate relying on a Written Management Agreement process. KiwiRail is keen to work with the Council to develop pest management responses that are practical and capable of being undertaken within operational/financial parameters. KiwiRail therefore support the ability to prepare such an agreement. KiwiRail note above that the rail corridor is a unique environment that poses challenges for active pest management, however such an agreement process will give KiwiRail the opportunity to actively manage certain areas at any given time and review the agreement over time to ensure that the corridor is progressively managed in accordance with the Proposed Plan objectives. Decision Requested Retain as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support for the approach in using management plans and will seek to liaise with KiwiRail as an occupier as required.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel has recommended the inclusion of a programme for Chilean needle grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions. The hearing panel supports and encourages you to liaise with Council regarding the use of management plans for Chilean needle grass.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.18 - Gorse All KiwiRail support that an approved management plan can be put in place in relation to compliance with management of the pest species identified in these rules. While some of the rules relate to management zones through which the rail corridor passes (e.g. the Waima / Ure control zone for broom and gorse). KiwiRail anticipate relying on a Written Management Agreement process. KiwiRail is keen to work with the Council to develop pest management responses that are practical and capable of being undertaken within operational/financial parameters. KiwiRail therefore support the ability to prepare such an agreement. KiwiRail note above that the rail corridor is a unique environment that poses challenges for active pest management, however such an agreement process will give KiwiRail the opportunity to actively manage certain areas at any given time and review the agreement over time to ensure that the corridor is progressively managed in accordance with the Proposed Plan objectives. 113

Decision Requested Retain as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support for the approach in using management plans and will seek to liaise with KiwiRail as an occupier as required.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for gorse in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions. The hearing panel supports and encourages you to liaise with Council regarding the use of management plans for gorse.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.24 - Nassella tussock All KiwiRail support that an approved management plan can be put in place in relation to compliance with management of the pest species identified in these rules. While some of the rules relate to management zones through which the rail corridor passes (e.g. the Waima / Ure control zone for broom and gorse). KiwiRail anticipate relying on a Written Management Agreement process. KiwiRail is keen to work with the Council to develop pest management responses that are practical and capable of being undertaken within operational/financial parameters. KiwiRail therefore support the ability to prepare such an agreement. KiwiRail note above that the rail corridor is a unique environment that poses challenges for active pest management, however such an agreement process will give KiwiRail the opportunity to actively manage certain areas at any given time and review the agreement over time to ensure that the corridor is progressively managed in accordance with the Proposed Plan objectives. Decision Requested Retain as notified.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support for the approach in using management plans and will seek to liaise with KiwiRail as an occupier as required.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel supports and encourages you to liaise with Council regarding the use of management plans for nassella tussock.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.19 - Kangaroo grass 7.19.2.1 - Occupier obligation to destroy Kangaroo grass, excluding containment areas As with the rules noted above, there is the option of providing a management plan that is approved by Council in relation to pest management. KiwiRail would like to see that a similar approach is taken to kangaroo grass as it is with Broom, Chilean needle grass and Gorse above, and therefore seek that Rule 7.19.2.1 be amended to be consistent. While the rail land is not explicitly within the mapped areas, the mapped area at Redwood Pass immediately adjoins the rail corridor as shown on Map 7 in the Proposed Plan, and therefore in anticipation that management of Kangaroo grass may be required in the future on rail land, KiwiRail would like to ensure that this can be included within the management plan framework. Decision Requested Amend to include the option of preparation of a management plan consistent with Rule 7.4.2.5.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

114

Reason: The use of management plans was not proposed as part of the kangaroo grass programme due to the comparable much smaller scale of the programme and the fact that occupiers under the former RPMS programme have been able to effectively manage infestations in accordance with programme rules.

However, there is merit in aligning the nature of Rules between programmes that have similar structure as the use of a management plan is through an approval process. If an approach to Council is made by an occupier that is clearly seeking to reduce their inputs, this will likely fail in obtaining approval.

It is recommended to alter thee wording for Rules 7.19.2.1 and 7.19.2.2 to read as follows -

Rule 7.19.2.1 Occupiers shall destroy all kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra) plants, on land that they occupy before they produce seed, except in areas of land they occupy that falls within a Kangaroo Grass Containment Area (see Maps 6 - 8), which is subject to Rule 7.19.2.2, unless; a) a management plan approved by Council is in place.

Rule 7.19.2.2 Occupiers of land within a Kangaroo Grass Containment Area (see Maps 6 - 8) shall destroy all kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra) on land they occupy before they produce seed within 5 metres of the Containment Area boundary, unless; a) a management plan approved by Council is in place.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends that proposed rules 7.19.2.1 and 7.19.2.2 include the option of preparing a management plan for kangaroo grass as follows: “Rule 7.19.2.1 Occupiers shall destroy all kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra) plants, on land that they occupy before they produce seed, a) except in areas of land they occupy that falls within a Kangaroo Grass Containment Area (see maps 6-8) which is subject to Rule 7.19.2.2, or b) a management plan approved by Council is in place. A breach of this rule will create an offence under section 154N(19) of the Biosecurity Act. Rule 7.19.2.2 Occupiers of land within a Kangaroo Grass Containment Area (see Maps 6-8) shall destroy all kangaroo grass (Themeda triandra) on land they occupy before they produce seed within 5 metres of the Containment Area Boundary, unless a management plan approved by Council is in place. A breach of this rule will create an offence under section 154N(19) of the Biosecurity Act.”

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.21 - Mediterranean fanworm 7.21.2.1 - Person in charge of a craft entering Marlborough, meeting biofouling standard The pest species identified as being at issue in this section of the Proposed Plan is the Mediterranean fanworm. KiwiRail agree with the direction that Council are proposing in terms of managing the pest species. Under the ‘Explanation of the rules’, the discussion states ‘The purpose of Rule 7.21.2.1 is in accordance with section 73(5)(e) in it is prohibiting or regulating specific uses of goods that may propose the spread or survival of Mediterranean fanworm.’ KiwiRail are unsure what goods are being prohibited or regulated under this rule as notified, with it appearing to control the level of bio-fouling on marine vessels irrespective of the nature of the fouling. The issue KiwiRail wish to have Council address is that the rule proposed at 7.21.2.1 does not relate solely to the fanworm, requiring a response from parties that is greater than the Plan scope of management for that species. It is noted that rules 7.21.2.2 and 7.21.2.3 specifically identify the fanworm and therefore are more consistent with management of that specific pest species. While KiwiRail have a programmed inspection and cleaning regime for the Interislander vessels to address bio-fouling issues, KiwiRail seek that the rule wording be altered to be targeted at the specific pest that is the focus of the programme, or at recreational craft which are understood to be the focus of the intended rule, rather than a generic type bio-fouling rule which would be better suited as part of other management tools that Council have available to it. A potential option around clarification may be that the rule is directed to recreational vessels rather than commercial vessels that regular enter the Sounds, an option for which is that, consistent with the MEP, recognition is to vessels over 500 gross tonnes. Further restriction can be included in relation to regular travel movements between Wellington and Marlborough to ensure that other large vessels such as cruise ships are not captured by the exemption, in the event that Council intend this. Wording to reflect this is provided under the Relief Sought column, however KiwiRail accept that Council may wish to change this to suit the intention of the rule and whether any rule should not apply to more than

115 just the Cook Strait ferry operators. While the option exists within the Biosecurity Act to apply for exemptions, there is no certainty that these would be granted, therefore certainty is sought in the rule wording in the first instance. Decision Requested Amend rule to specifically relate to Mediterranean fanworm / provide clarity that applies to recreational vessels only. An option for wording may be: Rule 7.21.2.1 The owner or person in charge of a craft entering Marlborough, must ensure that the fouling on the hull and niche areas of the craft does not exceed ‘light fouling’; unless: i) The craft is required to enter Marlborough in an emergency relating to the safety of the craft and/or the health and safety of any person on the craft; or ii) The craft exceeds 500 gross registered tonnes and routinely travels between Wellington and Marlborough. ‘Light fouling’ is defined as: small patches (up to 100 millimetres in diameter) of visible fouling, totalling less than 5% of the hull and niche areas. A slime layer and/or goose barnacles are allowable fouling. A breach of this rule will create an offence under section 154N(19) of the Biosecurity Act.

Staff Comment 1. The submitter raises an issue with respect to the purpose and scope of Rule 7.21.2.1.

Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: With respect to the goods being regulated, by definition in the Act, a good means all kind of moveable personal property. In this instance, it is the craft entering Marlborough being treated as goods. With respect to the nature of fouling, the submitter is correct in that the proposed Rule is seeking to address biofouling, irrespective of confirmed presence on Mediterranean fanworm. This is due a combination of the presence of higher levels of biofouling being assessed a high risk of harbouring a marine pest such as Mediterranean fanworm and the need for skills in confirming the presence or absence of a specific marine pest. Therefore, regulating at the "higher level" of biofouling makes the Rule clearer and less ambiguous for the operator of the craft.

Additional note - if the operator of the craft wishes to do so, they could apply for an exemption under section 78 of the Act to enter Marlborough waters with higher levels of biofouling than the Rule allows. It is during this process that evidence could be provided that the craft is not harbouring Mediterranean fanworm. Staff Comment 2. The submitter raises a point relating to the movement of large commercial vessels (interisland ferries) being captured by Rule 7.21.2.1

Staff Recommendation: Reject in-part.

Reason: The movement of the interisland ferries is currently captured by Rule 7.21.2.1 as proposed. There are two options for addressing this issue. Firstly, an exemption could be granted (if the Rule is made operational as currently drafted) assuming evidence has been provided that demonstrates the risk of the ferries harbouring and/or transferring Mediterranean fanworm is negligible. Secondly, Rule 7.21.2.1 could be altered to, in effect, provide more certainty over the management of the interisland ferries.

The exemption pathway would enable the management of this issue to have greater flexibility as the risk profile of the ferries may change over time. For example if Mediterranean fanworm was to establish in high densities in Wellington. This level of flexibility to regularly assess risk would not be available if worded within the RPMP as a review of the programme would be required to make any alterations.

To both ensure flexibility is maintained to manage the changing levels of risk of time when dealing with invasive marine pests, the current Rule wording could be retained but prepare an exemption to Rule 7.21.2.1 for KiwiRail (as operator or the Interislander ferries) and Strait Shipping containing suitable conditions. These conditions can be agreed upon with the operators and the exemption can be issued by Council at the time the Plan is made operative..

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for Mediterranean fanworm in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from your submission and others. The hearing panel has directed staff to work with Cook Strait ferry operators to develop an exemption from proposed Rule 7.21.2.1.

116

593 Beverley Ruth Doole 72 Ferry Road, Spring Creek 7202 (Speaking) Marlborough Environment Centre

Category: Part Three - Administrative Provisions 11 - Funding 11.3 - Funding sources Page 287 of the RPMP states: Funding for the implementation of the proposed Plan is sourced through three distinct avenues: 1. By placing an obligation, and resulting cost, on occupiers (of land or vessels) through Plan rules; 2. Directly collecting funds from ratepayers within the region via the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002 to cover Council costs identified within the Proposal; 3. Other direct funding sources; for example, Crown contributions or direct actions toward the programme implementation. The Council costs for implementing the Plan are proposed to be funded through general rates collected under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002. The Marlborough Environment Centre submits that the effects of activities on the environment must be acknowledged and costed into business operations, i.e. polluter pays rather than the costs being pushed back on the environment or the wider community/ratepayers. Page 290 of the RPMP states: “There is no clear mechanism available to allocate cost of the programme to exacerbators.” The MEC does not accept this and seeks a better attempt by Council to come up with a mechanism to allocate the cost of wilding conifer control back to those who caused the problem (the exacerbators). At the moment the cost is being met by affected landowners, ratepayers and voluntary trusts through community sponsorship and government grants. It is not fair or sustainable for the community to spend significant money and time on wilding conifer control without a serious contribution from plantation owners. Wilding conifers are actually a form of pollution, a down-stream negative effect of the land use. If you compare it to the dairy industry, farmers must invest in processes and infrastructure to meet effluent standards to ensure they don’t have a negative impact on their neighbours and the landscape. The same principle needs to apply to wilding conifers – removing them from the landscape should be the responsibility of the forest owner. So how to finance this? MEC suggests that one approach would be a levy based on harvested logs with the revenue raised contributing to the cost of removing wilding conifers. A 2008 report commissioned by the Marlborough Forest Industry Association stated an annual regional harvest of about 750,000 cubic metres of logs, and estimated this to increase to about 1.5 million cubic metres a year to 2023. A-grade export logs have been fetching $145/cu m. At 50c per cubic metre that would be $750,000 for wilding pine control per year. There would be no cost to forestry owners until they were cashing up at harvest time. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment that they acknowledge the issue being raised by the submitter with respect to costs being borne by exacerbator in the first instance (see Council Biosecurity Strategy). A current limitation is finding the appropriate mechanism to instigate means to achieve this.

In terms of the proposed issues in Marlborough, the most pressing issues due to land vulnerability and species involved are those predominantly in South Marlborough and are as a result of legacy research and/or soil conservation planting. As a result, plantation forestry is not an exacerbator in these instances. However, the mechanism of a levy order under section 100L of the Biosecurity Act 1993 to fund a pest management plan (or part thereof) is available be it having to be made through the minister.

Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All The Marlborough Environment Centre (MEC) agrees with the definition and species list for wilding conifers (7.39 Wilding conifers Table 13, page 262) and the threat posed to native ecosystems, amenity and landscape values, pastoral farming, tourism and water yield. 5. The inclusion and mapping of the Marlborough Sounds in the RPMP wilding conifer section 7.39. Decision Requested 2. MEC seeks clarity from Council about which Plan is responsible for prevention and management of wilding pine spread. Is it the Regional Pest Management Plan? Or is it the Marlborough Environment Plan? Or is it both? 4. Create specific programmes for Douglas fir and Radiata pine (Wilding Conifers Table 13, page 262) to prevent planting in conditions favourable to wilding spread of these species.

Staff Comment 2. Programmes for Douglas fir and Radiata pine

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment that specific species-led programmes within the RPMP for Douglas fir and Radiata pine are not justifiable. This due to the inability to develop an appropriate programme objective that meets the requirements of the National Policy Direction for Pest Management. Also, the cost of the programme would likely far exceed the benefit if an analysis was undertaken. These costs would include management costs, those generated through the opportunity costs of these species being captured by either the obligations within a RPMP programme to meet a programme objective or the statutory obligations imposed if these species were declared pests under the Biosecurity Act 1993 in all their forms (note definition of wilding conifers excludes them in planted form). Staff Comment 1. Seeking clarity

Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: For clarification purposes, a programme within a RPMP is used to manage the threat of an invasive species establishing (Exclusion programme), to outline a strategic species-led management programme (Eradication, Sustained Control, Progressive Containment) or to assist in a regulatory capacity the management of species at a given site (Site-led). In short, the RPMP a tool that could be used manage wilding conifers -subject to a suitable programme being feasible. A RPMP is not the mechanism to control afforestation although provisions within the Biosecurity Act 1993 mean species managed within a RPMP cannot by sold, propagated or otherwise communicated (see section 52 and 53 of the Act). This could be construed to be a 'prevention' mechanism.

Prevention with respect to wilding conifers that could result from afforestation is managed through RMA Plans, and more recently the National Environmental Standard (NES) for Plantation Forestry. The Proposed 118

Marlborough Environment Plan does contain provisions relating to the activity of planting spread prone planting species but with the promulgation of the NES, Council will need to undertake an alignment process and to position itself in accordance with the NES. Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers 7.39.1 - Objective for the Wilding conifers programme However, we do not agree with 7.39.1 Objective: “Over the duration of the Plan, ensure the ongoing control of wilding conifers on land within the Marlborough region that has been subject to a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme in order to minimise the adverse effects… This is too narrow in its approach. Objective 7.39.1 relies on community-based Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programmes to do the initial control work (often a huge job) and the landowner/occupier is only held responsible for maintenance once this control programme has been completed. The objective also limits the control to areas where there is a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme operating. We submit that there needs to be another broader objective to stop wilding spread in the first place, ie, prevention is better than cure. Landowners who put in plantations (1ha or more) need to take responsibility for any future spread from their land use. With good planning and appropriate planting this need not be a big financial burden on the landowner, but it does need increased awareness and a commitment to accept the impacts and costs that their activities may impose on other properties and the general public. MEC submits that it is not sustainable for volunteer trusts and ratepayers to carry the cost of control of wilding conifers while those who profit from growing the trees that are the source of the spread do not contribute. A better approach would be to prevent the spread in the first place by having clearer and stronger rules in the RPMP and/or the Marlborough Environment Plan (MEP) and having a funding mechanism that includes the landowner/occupier contributing to initial control as well as maintenance. Owners of established plantations could contribute to a wilding pine control fund by paying a forestry industry levy, based on harvested volume. So far the industry has stepped back from taking responsibility for wilding conifers. While homestead trees and shelter belts are part of the problem, there is clear evidence that plantation forests are also a signficant source. Decision Requested 1. A new objective to limit the spread of wilding conifers in the first place (prevention is better than cure). The proposed RPMP deals only with wilding conifers after they have spread (ambulance at the bottom of the cliff).

119

Staff Comment Staff Recomemndation: Reject

Reason: Staff refer to the previous comment referencing the fact an RPMP programme is not the mechanism to manage afforestation and any potential risk associated with that afforestation. This now rests under provisions within the National Environmental Standard for Plantation Forestry and RMA Plans where the RMA Plans are allowed to be more stringent.

It it is emphasised both within the Proposal and also the Council's Biosecurity Strategy, that Council will actively facilitate and play a role in Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programmes. Current examples being the Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust (financial contributor and ex officio member) and South Marlborough Landscape Restoration Trust (financial contributor and ex officio member).

With respect to funding, staff comment that not all the wilding conifer issues present in Marlborough are linked to either the previous presence of on going presence of plantation forestry. This is particularly the case in South Marlborough. As part of the assessments under clause 7 of the National Policy Direction for Pest Management (NPD) regarding how a RPMP is to be funded, Council must ensure the method of funding in the plan is effective, efficient, practical, and also administratively efficient. In the absence of an existing levy order under section 100L for this purpose, the process to establish such a levy is cumbersome and must be processed through the appropriate minister. Therefore, at this point, it would be unlikely to meet the requirements of clause 7 of the NPD. However, this mechanism could have potential to allocate costs more fairly on exacerbators, of which the plantation forestry sector can be seen as such.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All Advocacy and Education MEC supports the proposed measures for advocacy and education around wilding conifers. Decision Requested

120

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers 7.39.2.1 - Occupier obligation to destroy Wilding conifers behind a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Control Programme The Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme Area and map refers only to Molesworth (P 264) and does not include the Marlborough Sounds where a community-based control programme has been under way since 2008. The Plan appears to be incomplete on this matter with an unfinished sentence/section on Page 264. Decision Requested The Marlborough Environment Centre seeks the specific inclusion of the Marlborough Sounds in the RPMP. 3. Once this is established we seek objectives and rules in the appropriate Plan/s that recognise the serious risk of wilding conifers and puts measures in place to reduce the risk. For example: o Before planting, the risk of tree spread is to be assessed using the industry Wilding Spread Risk calculator. This assessment is to be done by an independent contractor, not the applicant. o No plantings within 50m of a ridge (to prevent seed being blown into a neighbouring catchment) o Plantations must be patrolled and controlled for wilding spread beyond the boundary and/or into the coastal setback area. o Where there is wilding pine spread that is obviously from a plantation area (ie “tree rain” out of a planted area) the cost of control should be the responsibility of the owner of the source property. o Where the source of spread is less obvious, the cost of wilding pine control to be contributed to by a forestry levy (eg. on harvested logs) o Require new conifer forests to be planted with sterile trees once this technology becomes available (currently at research stage)

Staff Comment 1. Inclusion of Marlborough Sounds

Staff Recommendation: Reject 121

Reason: Staff comment that Appendix 1 within the Proposal outlines the process for a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme establishing. This outlines that the first step is ensuring the community which may ultimately be subject to an obligation in the future, is supportive of the programme being inserted into the RPMP. To this end, Council will be receptive to requests from those who are governing an existing or proposed programme.

Staff Comment 2. Address risk from plantation forestry

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: As previously noted, a RPMP programme is not suggested to as a mechanism to address prevention measures will respect to afforestation.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

122

594 Phillip Pratt 331 Blind River Loop Road, RD 1, Seddon 7285

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.8 - Chilean needle grass 7.8.2.3 - Movement of cattle from a property with a known infestation of Chilean needle grass Support - but we need absolute clarification that we can move store cattle from our property (core property) i.e. dairy grazers and store yearling cattle within the rules set out. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason: Staff acknowledge the support for the proposed programme for Chilean needle grass.

With respect to the movement of cattle, the proposed Rule 7.8.2.3 defines the bounds by which cattle movements can occur. For each occupier, they must test their own system against these provisions. If they fall outside these provisions, occupiers have the ability to apply for an exemption under section 78 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 (process also outlined in section 9 of the RPMP). However, an exemption is not guaranteed as Council must be satisfied that the level of risk associated with the movement, in this case, the spread of Chilean needle grass, does not jeopardise the overall programme objective.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your submission. We have recommended the inclusion of a programme for Chilean needle grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions. We confirm that store cattle can be moved from a property with a known infestation of Chilean needle grass between 1 April and 30 September. If you plan to move store cattle outside of this time, you must apply to the Council for an exemption under section 78 of the Biosecurity Act.

123

595 Harry Lampe 60 Merrifields Road, RD 1, Seddon 7285 (Speaking)

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.8 - Chilean needle grass 7.8.2.1 - Occupier obligation to destroy Chilean needle grass, unless an approved Management Plan is in place Who will pay for the agreed management plans implicated by Council's Plan. i.e applications, inspections etc. 10m strip has had no effect in containment. Will 20m make any difference. Decision Requested Change from a containment policy to an eradication policy. Re classification of Chilean Needle Grass - from regional to a pest of national significance.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: In terms of the overall policy, the programme term and associated objective have been selected from those available under the National Policy Direction and have assessed Sustained Control is the most appropriate programme objective.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: With regard to the implementation costs of management plans, these are negotiated between the occupier and Council. Council is proposing a greater level of investment in the Chilean needle grass programme through the Long Term Plan process.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your submission. We have recommended the inclusion of a programme for Chilean needle grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions. We note that with regard to the implementation costs of management plans, these are negotiated between the occupier and Council. A greater level of investment in the Chilean needle grass programme is proposed through the LTP process as signalled on page 7 of the LTP consultation document.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.8 - Chilean needle grass 7.8.2.3 - Movement of cattle from a property with a known infestation of Chilean needle grass Clarification on grazing rights and store cattle movements Decision Requested Change from a containment policy to an eradication policy. Re classification of Chilean Needle Grass - from regional to a pest of national significance.

Staff Comment With respect to the movement of cattle.

Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: The proposed Rule 7.8.2.3 defines the bounds by which cattle movements can occur. For each occupier, they must test their own system against these provisions. If they fall outside these provisions, occupiers have the ability to apply for an exemption under section 78 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 (process 124 also outlined in section 9 of the RPMP). However, an exemption is not guaranteed as Council must be satisfied that the level of risk associated with the movement, in this case, the spread of Chilean needle grass, does not jeopardise the overall programme objective. Staff Comment With respect to a reclassification of Chilean needle grass.

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends that the programme type remain as Sustained Control as proposed. This programme type most closely matches the reality in Marlborough and also aligns with the approach of other regions with which staff co-operates very closely on the management of Chilean needle grass. Even though the name of the programme might not reflect it, sustained control also has a strong emphasis on preventing new infestations establishing in new areas. This can be seen in the nature of the rules in the proposed programme for Chilean needle grass. As new tools become available or situations change, the appropriateness of the programme can be reassessed. The hearing panel confirms that store cattle can be moved from a property with a known infestation of Chilean needle grass between 1 April and 30 September. If you plan to move store cattle outside of this time, you must apply to the Council for an exemption under section 78 of the Biosecurity Act.

125

596 Leah Gibson 710 Dillons Point Road, RD 3, Blenheim 7273 (Speaking)

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.35 - Tall wheat grass All We (Mark Dix and Leah Gibson) are the owners of the property where tall wheat grass was introduced in the 1970s, before we purchased the land. The Council has been trialling ways of eradicating this grass by using various sprays and different timing on three of our small roadside paddocks. So far some progress has been made but it has been a protracted process, and no definite outcome has been presented. We are reluctant to prolong the process further so would be keen for the decision to be made for eradication, as that would see an end to the process. It may seem that this is the more expensive option for Council, but it would also mean an end to the cost, rather than an ongoing one. Given the relatively small spread of this grass, and its susceptibility to glyphosate at the right time of its growth cycle I would have thought this is the best solution. We would like to be part of the ongoing Pest Management Strategy review where there is opportunity for public involvement. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in-part

Reason: The proposed programme has an objective of Sustained Control as at this point in time, the probability of achieving Eradication (infestations to zero levels) is quite low. This because of the fact the programme is essentially starting from scratch with a species new to Biosecurity. Operationally, Council will seek to manage the entire infestation and operate using an adaptive management approach. If monitoring shows the Sustained Control programme is resulting in success, then an Eradication programme could be assessed in the future.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and acknowledges your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for tall wheat grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel also support the staff comments that operationally, the aim will be to ensure all plants found through management at existing sites and/or new surveillance finds are destroyed. As the programme evolves the aim would be to see a reduction to a point where eradication is an achievable objective.

126

597 Andrew Macalister PO Box 787, Nelson 7040 (Speaking) Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All 1. MSRT agrees with the definition of wilding conifers (Table 1). Douglas fir, Bishops pine, Maritime pine, radiata pine and Mexican weeping pine are all present in the Sounds and have demonstrated wilding characteristics. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and support of the proposed programme in the Regional Pest Management Plan for wilding conifers. In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers 7.39.2.1 - Occupier obligation to destroy Wilding conifers behind a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Control Programme The rules give MSRT the opportunity to hand over the management of any of its management sectors back to the landowners. Presently, MSRT is active in five of fourteen management sectors in the Marlborough Sounds, but in order to progress into new sectors, it needs an exit strategy from those sectors it is currently active in. Decision Requested 127

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All 3. It is noted that relying on the efforts of MSRT and a collaborative approach is a high-risk strategy, as the MSRT is not currently likely to receive funding from the MPI national wilding conifer initiative and is therefore reliant on on-going community grants, business sponsorships and partnerships with landowners. This may be harder to sustain as wilding conifer control moves into a maintenance phase as the need for control is less evident as it is no longer visual. Decision Requested It is therefore submitted that the Plan be amended to provide an appropriate regulatory backstop to achieve programme objectives in the event that the MSRT initiatives are ineffective. A regulatory backstop is only envisaged for the most high-risk species (e.g.: Douglas fir) and/or in the most vulnerable and high-value sites in the Sounds (e.g.: areas of outstanding natural landscape character).

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledge the risk associated with a strategy to use collaborative approach as the primary management tool. However, it the view of staff that with such a complex issue that is wilding conifers, effective management across multiple land tenures (which is often he case in Marlborough) has only been successful when all interested parties come together and operate in a collaborative manner.

While a regulatory backstop is always the desired outcome being sought, this can only be done in an RPMP

128 if a programme can be both justified and feasible. this is the difficult task with wilding conifers given the complexities involved - especially when assessing the costs and cost allocation of any such programme.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for; contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All 4. MSRT supports the process outlined. 5. It is submitted that the trigger point should be where only moderate ongoing maintenance is required. The process currently says “where only ongoing maintenance is required”. In some cases, the maintenance can be quite substantial and this should be addressed before considering handing management back to landowners. 6. The criteria listed states that “wilding conifer infestations have been managed to a level where coning trees are at zero density”. MSRT submits that this should say “at, or close to, zero density”. In some cases, trees are left close to baches, wharves etc where they provide amenity values and/or pose little risk of on-going wilding conifer recruitment. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept.

Reason: Staff acknowledge the difference win wording raised by the submitter and support the propose change to wording. The second criteria under the transition provisions within Appendix 1 is modified to read "Within the CWCPA, or specified parts of the CWCPA, wilding conifer infestations have been managed to a level where coning trees are at or close to zero density."

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from 129 submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.40 - Willow-leaved hakea All 7. MSRT supports the proposed rules. Willow-leaved hakea is a priority for control on D’Urville Island. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your support. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for willow-leaved hakea in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

130

598 Carol Bannock PO Box 13055, Tauranga Central, Tauranga 3141

NZ Transport Agency

Category: All Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed Marlborough Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP). This submission is intended to provide input from the NZ Transport Agency's perspective as the operator of Marlborough's state highway network. This feedback reflects the Agency's environmental obligations and objectives, as well as its prior experience with the management of pest species across the country. this letter provides high-level commentary, while provision-specific feedback is attached. The Land Transport Management Act 2003 requires the Agency to exhibit a sense of social and environmental responsibility in all aspects of its work. To this end, the Agency is committed to taking a proactive approach to pest management and will continue to support Council by undertaking pest control, particularity adjoining areas with high ecological value. The Agency supports the intent and methodology of the proposed RPMP, particularly with respect to the measurability of the objectives through surveillance provisions. The Agency has however sought clarification in terms of how landowner reporting rules will be linked to action on the ground, as this is an important component of plan achievability. The Agency notes the efforts to manage pest specie can be significantly undermined if there is not corresponding action on neighbouring properties to support this. To this end, the Agency would like to emphasise the important of good neighbour provisions, and requests that some additional species be added to those already proposed. Council has an important role to play in terms of landowner guidance and education to ensure that good neighbour obligations are upheld. State highways are linear and travel through many different environemnts. The Agency's neighbouring landowners are many, and adopting varying approaches to the management of their properties. Because of the unique characteristics of the state highway, the Agency would like to encourage a collaborative relationship with Council to enable an adaptive management approach to pest control. The Agency supports Council's intention to play a leadership role to establish collaborative programmes outside of the Plan, but has sought clarification on what the implications of this would be for the Agency. Overall, the Agency supports the targeted approach of focusing on species that require regulatotry intervention and considers that the proposed RPMP is well-placed to meet the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and National Policy Direction (NPD). We welcome the opportunity to discuss any of these matters in more detail. In the first instance, please contact Carol Bannock, Senior Environmental Specialist, [email protected]. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and support of the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: All The Transport Agency welcomes technical support from the Council regarding the identification of new infestations of pest species found on the road network as well as any new species of concern. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel notes your request for technical support from Council regarding the identification of new infestations on the road network. 131

Category: Part One 4 - Responsibilities and obligations It is recommended that the term ‘road reserve’ be replaced with ‘legal road’ and that ‘legal road’ be defined in the glossary/definitions section. This is to avoid confusion with the definition of ‘road reserve’ that exists in legislation. Decision Requested Replace reference to ‘road reserve’ with ‘legal road’. Add definition of ‘legal road’.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept.

Reason: Staff acknowledge the fact the term 'road reserve' has likely been picked up as a colloquialism and used in former Regional Pest Management Strategies.

The Biosecurity Act 1993 uses the term 'road' in section 6 of the Act and also section 70(2)(p) - where a RPMP proposal must outline how roads are to be addressed. The definition of 'road' in the Act is as follows:

"road - includes all bridges, culverts, and fords forming part of any road".

The term 'legal road' be adopted under section 4.3.2 in the place of 'road reserve'. 2. That the term 'legal road' placed in the glossary with a definition that aligns with the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends that section 4.3.2 be named Legal Road and that road reserve (4 places) is replaced with legal road. The glossary term for “Road” will be reviewed.

Category: Part One 4 - Responsibilities and obligations It is recommended that this provision is clarified by adding more detail to the sentence e.g. “the boundary is unfenced and the adjacent owner has ready access to the legal road, in which case responsibility for pest control shall lie with the adjacent owner.’ Decision Requested Further clarification of rule

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason: Further clarity is to applied through the addition of an example such as (for example unfenced legal roads through open pasture).

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends that the section 4.3.2 c) i) be amended to read: i) the boundary is unfenced and the adjacent owner has ready access to the legal road (for example unfenced legal roads through open pasture).

Category: Part One 4 - Responsibilities and obligations Current wording of this provision is liable to be misinterpreted. From discussions with Marlborough Roads, the Transport Agency understands that the intention of this rule is that should adjacent land harbour broom and gorse, the Transport Agency does not need to control these species on the road verge, unless the adjacent property is undertaking gorse and/or broom control. We ask that the Council confirm this. Decision Requested Further clarification of rule

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in-part. Include a provision in section 4.3.2 that clarifies the treatment of 132 legal road for when the adjoining occupier is managing the pests broom and gorse. Note - this requirement is only triggered if there are applicable obligations under the RPMP programme for these species.

Reason: Staff can confirm that the provisions under section 4.3.2, in particular 4.3.2 (c)(ii), means that the application RPMP Rule provisions are not applied in situations where the proposed pests broom and gorse are endemic to the locality and it is clear it has encroached from adjacent land onto legal road.

Where management is occurring on adjacent land, this is not specifically addressed within section 4.3.2.

Insertion: Sub-section (c)(ii) only applies when the occupier of adjoining land to legal road is not undertaking reasonable steps to manage the pests broom and gorse. If the occupier is undertaking reasonable steps, and programme obligations apply, then the obligation stands.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends that section 4.3.2 c) ii) be amended as follows: ii) the pests broom (Cytisus scoparius) and gorse (Ulex europaeus) have encroached from adjacent land onto legal road and are endemic to the locality. This only applies when the occupiers of adjacent land to legal road are not undertaking reasonable steps to manage broom and gorse. If the occupier is undertaking reasonable steps and programme obligations apply, then the obligation stands.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal The Transport Agency asks that other species be considered for good neighbour rules. These are: cathedral bells, madeira vine and moth plant. In the Agency’s prior experience, the main stem of these vines is sometimes on the neighbouring property and control undertaken on the road verge does not kill the plant. Decision Requested Additional species made subject to good neighbour rule

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject.

Reason: Staff comment that these three species are proposed under Council-led Sustained Control programmes, some in conjunction with the Department of Conservation. In these programmes, all infestations are targeted for management each year. As a result, a Good Neighbour Rule is not necessary to support the implementation of these programmes.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel recommends that a Good Neighbour Rule (GNR) is not necessary for the programmes for cathedral bells, madeira vine or moth plant. All of these programmes are subject to Council-led control programmes where all infestations are targeted for management annually.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes All With regards to rules that require occupiers to notify Council of any new infestations, the Transport Agency asks Council to clarify what will happen once the infestation is reported. Decision Requested Further clarification of rule

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: For clarification, if a new infestation is reported to Council, the next steps are determined by the RPMP programme for the species being reported. If it is a Council-led programme (for example moth plant, purple loosestrife), then Biosecurity Officers will respond accordingly to ensure both initial control is undertaken and the site managed accordingly in future years. If for a species where occupier obligation may apply (for example nassella tussock), Council will confirm the report then work with the occupier to ensure

133 they are aware of their obligation.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends that staff provide details of the process to NZTA when a new infestation is reported to Council.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 9 - Exemptions The Transport Agency would like to encourage a collaborative relationship between Council and the Transport Agency to enable an adaptive management approach to pest control on the state highway given linear transports unique characteristics (long, skinny, more neighbours than most). Decision Requested Further engagement between Council and the Transport Agency

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff wish to acknowledge the comment by the submitter. A closer relationship has formed in recent years between Marlborough Road and the Biosecurity Team at Council. This primarily as a result of the management of Chilean needle grass but also expanding to other RPMP programmes. Council also wishes to see that relationship continue.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends that Council continues to engage with NZTA on pest management.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All The Transport Agency seeks clarification on what the wildling conifer collaborative programme may mean for the Transport Agency. Decision Requested Further engagement between Council and the Transport Agency

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: A Wilding Conifer Collaborative Programme may seek involvement by NZ Transport Agency of there are wilding conifers present on legal road within the geographic area of the programme. Given the nature of collaborative programmes, the nature of the involvement could vary greatly from agreeing to remove wilding conifers form the legal road, to offering traffic management services, to providing financial support. The process in establishing the collaborative programme will determine the shape of those involved.

• Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

135

599 Mike Harre PO Box 2526, Wellington 6140 (Speaking) Ministry for Primary Industries

Category: All MPI has a leadership role for biosecurity and manages biosecurity risks offshore, at New Zealand’s border and within New Zealand. This includes setting border standards for arriving vessels and goods, undertaking national high risk surveillance for high risk organisms, leading response to pest incursions, and providing leadership for pest management activities. Part of this role is providing advice to regional councils on whether in MPI’s opinion, proposed plans are inconsistent with the National Policy Direction for Pest management 2015 (NPD). We have reviewed the proposed plan, and in our opinion it is not inconsistent with the NPD. However we would advise that you provide more information regarding the good neighbour rules and the minimum boundary length of 50m for infestations as it is not clear why this was chosen. However we would advise that you provide more information regarding the good neighbour rules and the minimum boundary length of 50m for infestations as it is not clear why this was chosen. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

With respect to background to the Good Neighbour Rules used in the programme for Broom and also Gorse, the minimum 50m boundary length was used as a practical, on-ground measure that went toward meeting the requirements outlined within clause 8 (Good Neighbour Rules) of the National Policy Direction for Pest Management. Staff took the view that when less than 50m of boundary was affected, that the cost imposed on the occupier with the source infestation was unreasonable in comparison to the affect that source would be having on the adjoining occupier (see clause 8(e)). A further explanation of this assessment was carried out and documented in the Supporting Information document to the RPMP Proposal.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and support of the Regional Pest Management Plan. The hearing panel has reviewed the reasons for the proposed Good Neighbour Rule (GNR) for broom and gorse. We have concluded that it would be appropriate to delete the 50 metre length requirement. While this provision provides a trigger for the rule we agree that the provision is too vague. Rather than clarifying the rule we have recommended that it not be included in the final Regional Pest Management Plan. We have recommended the inclusion of a programme for broom and gorse where this GNR applies in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions. We recommend that proposed rule 7.4.2.7 for broom be amended to remove clause a) and to amend clause b) to remove the reference to agricultural production land: “Rule 7.4.2.7 (Good Neighbour Rule) Occupiers shall destroy all broom (Cytisus scoparius) plants, on land they occupy, within 10 metres of their property boundary each year before they produce seed, where the adjoining land is clear of, or under management for broom. A breach of this rule will create an offence under section 154N(19) of the Biosecurity Act.” “Rule 7.18.2.3 (Good Neighbour Rule) Occupiers shall destroy all gorse (Ulex europaeus) plants, on land they occupy, within 10 metres of their property boundary each year before they produce seed, where the adjoining land is clear of, or under management for gorse. A breach of this rule will create an offence under section 154N(19) of the Biosecurity Act.”

Category: All B. Marine Biosecurity In our pest management leadership capacity, MPI is working with regional councils to build marine pest management capability and ensure regional pest or pathway management plan rules are consistent with, and give effect to the National Policy Direction for Pest Management, the Pest Management National Plan of Action (2011) and any other relevant national regulation. Anti-Fouling and In-Water Cleaning Guidelines – June 2013 The New Zealand government has endorsed the “Anti-Fouling and In-Water Cleaning Guidelines – June 2013” (The Guidelines) developed jointly by Australia and New Zealand. The Guidelines aim to minimise both contamination and biosecurity risks associated with shore-

136 based and in-water maintenance of vessels and moveable structures. They provide overarching guidance for in-water cleaning around New Zealand. You may wish to reference the Anti-fouling and In-water Cleaning Guidelines (2013) which provide overarching guidance for in-water cleaning activities, and any regional rules under the Resource Management Act that relate to in-water cleaning, so that vessel owners are aware of their obligations and encouraged to proactively adopt good vessel hygiene practices. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject in-part. That there need not be any specific reference within the RPMP to the the Anti-Fouling and In-Water Cleaning Guidelines – June 2013 but it is featured prominently in any subsequent communication material regarding the programme for Mediterranean fanworm.

Reason: Staff acknowledge the point raised by the submitter with respect to the Anti-Fouling and In-Water Cleaning Guidelines – June 2013. Staff agree that it is important that vessel owners are aware of the guidelines but are of the view that the channel for this is through platforms focused on education/awareness (e.g website or communication material) and not required within the RPMP itself.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends that these guidelines are enacted at an operational level.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal Inclusion of marine pests MPI is pleased to see that Sabella spallanzanii (Mediterranean fanworm) has been added to this pest management plan. We note that there is a great deal of importance placed on marine biosecurity in this area – an active Top of the South Marine Biosecurity Partnership with three councils Tasman, Nelson and Marlborough, MPI and stakeholders, is in place. Further, there is a Small Scale Management Programme (SSMP) (s.100V) in place for Sabella spallanzanii. Each of the councils, Nelson, Tasman and Marlborough, have SSMP’s in place for Sabella spallanzanii, as of June 1, 2017. Decision Requested To enable Councils to take immediate action under this plan if required, MPI suggests that the Councils: a) add marine pests that they do not want and do not currently have in their regions to the Exclusion Pests Programme. This would include adding Eudistoma elongatum (Australian Droplet Tunicate), Pyura doppelgangera (Pyura) and Charybdis japonica (Asian Paddle Crab). Note that there has been a recent range extension of the latter into Tauranga Harbour. b) Add marine pests that are already established in the region to this plan e.g., Styela clava (clubbed tunicate), Didemnum vexillum (Colonial Sea Squirt) and Undaria pinnatifida (Unidaria).

Staff Comment The submitter requested two elements being 1) requesting the addition of a number of marine pest species present in other parts of NZ, and 2) requesting the addition of a number of marine pests already established in the region.

1) Staff Recommendation: Reject.

Staff comment that a Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) is a specific tool available to Councils under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act). An RPMP contains programmes for species that have been developed, costs tested and justified to ensure the programme will result in tangible positive outcomes. Only once a programme has been through this rigour, is it proposed. If it makes it into the final RPMP, those species are declared pests. An RPMP is not the place where Council chooses to 'list' species of concern.

For the species listed (Styela clava , Didemnum vexillum and Undaria), these are widespread and abundant within the region and a species-led programme would not be feasible.

2) Staff Recommendation: Reject.

Reason: With respect to Eudistoma elongatum (Australian Droplet Tunicate), Pyura doppelgangera (Pyura) and Charybdis japonica (Asian Paddle Crab), staff comment that through the guiding principles of investigation and regional leadership in the Council Biosecurity Strategy, there is a standing commitment by Council to investigate and lead the initial decision making process if these species were detected in Marlborough. This is irrespective of whether they are part of a RPMP programme or not. If part of an 137

Exclusion programme, Council would be committing to prevent their establishment which could include undertaking management if detected. It would be preferable to operate in a non-regulatory environment and utilise small scale managmeent programmes under section 100V of the Biosecurity ACt 1993 where regulatory support may be necessary, and the organism is also an unwanted organism.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel has considered your request to include marine pests in the Regional Pest Management Plan. We have concluded that it would be preferable to utilise small scale management programmes under section 100V of the Biosecurity Act 1993 if regulatory support is necessary and the species is an unwanted organism.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.21 - Mediterranean fanworm 7.21.2.1 - Person in charge of a craft entering Marlborough, meeting biofouling standard Rule 7.21.2.1 Terminology: At present these rules refer to “craft”. MPI suggests that the description also cover marine equipment and navigational aids. So that the description reads “vessels and fixed or moveable structures (such as marine equipment and navigational aids)”. Note: Sometimes the document refers to “craft” (in Rules) and sometimes to “vessel” (in the analysis 7.21.3). MPI usually uses the word “vessel”. Either way, it would be good to standardise the wording. Fouling on Vessels: This section of the RPMP is headed Mediterranean fanworm. The inclusion of fouling rules for vessels as Rule 7.21.2.1, while it is relevant in terms of fanworm, is also relevant to other marine pests and more generally to the standards of fouling expected of all vessels and fixed and moveable structures such as marine equipment, navigational aids. We wonder whether it would be sensible to have a generic section in the plan on fouling on vessels. Definition of “light fouling”: The Council’s definition of fouling does not specify the types of organisms that are acceptable. MPI suggests that the council extend the definitions of fouling to include the organisms as per the Australia and New Zealand Anti-fouling and In-Water Cleaning Guidelines (2013) There is no guidance here on what persons in charge of a fouled vessel must do, so MPI suggests that the Council include the following words: Please refer to the Australia and New Zealand Anti-fouling and In- Water Cleaning Guidelines (2013) for guidance. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject in part.

Reason: Staff acknowledge there may be an inconsistency in the use of the term 'craft' and 'vessel' and agree that consistency is required. Staff to note that the analysis material does not appear in the final RPMP.

However, the use of the term 'craft' in the programme Rule was deliberate as it matches the use of the term as used int he Biosecurity Act 1993. See below: craft— (a) means an aircraft, ship, boat, or other machine or vessel used or able to be used for the transport of people or goods, or both, by air or sea; and (b) includes— (i) an oil rig; and (ii) a structure or installation that is imported by being towed through the sea

Therefore, the existing definition capture marine equipment and navigational aids as referenced by the submitter. Staff Comment With respect to the using of a Rule relating to biofouling within a programme for an individual species (Mediterranean fanworm).

Staff Recommendation: Reject - unless guidance is provided by the Ministry for Primary Industries as to an alternative recommended definition.

Reason: Staff comment that this is explained withing the purpose of the Rule, in the Proposal, which reads:

"The purpose of Rule 7.21.2.1 is in accordance section 73(5)(e) in it is prohibiting or regulating specified uses of goods that may promote the spread or survival of Mediterranean fanworm.

138

The prevalence of Mediterranean fanworm in other parts of New Zealand, including the key recreational vessel hubs of Auckland and Whangarei Harbour, means the arrival of craft into Marlborough that are carrying bio-fouling are the biggest risk to the achievement of the proposed Exclusion Programme."

The definition of 'light fouling' was in alignment with the Northland Regional Council definition used in their Regional Pest and Pathway Management Plan [note the marine pathway provisions are under appeal]. However, given multiple regions are addressing similar issues without clear national leadership, staff are open to altering the definition with appropriate guidance. It is noted that that the Fiordland Marine Pathway Plan has used the definition for Long Stay Vessels as outlined within the Craft Risk Management Standard for Biofouling. Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject in-part. That there need not be any specific reference within the RPMP to the the Anti-Fouling and In-Water Cleaning Guidelines – June 2013 but it is featured prominently in any subsequent communication material regarding the programme for Mediterranean fanworm.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for Mediterranean fanworm in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from your submission and others. The hearing panel is satisfied that the revised rules have addressed the majority of your requests.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.21 - Mediterranean fanworm 7.21.2.2 - Notification rule for Mediterranean fanworm The Biosecurity Act 1993 sets out that “Every person is under a duty to inform the Ministry, as soon as practicable in the circumstances, of the presence of what appears to be an organism not normally seen or otherwise detected in New Zealand”. There is an obligation to inform MPI if an Unwanted Organism or pest is found under the Biosecurity Act. The Biosecurity Act 1993 (BSA) provides as follows: “44 General duty to inform” “Every person is under a duty to inform the Ministry, as soon as practicable in the circumstances, of the presence of what appears to be an organism not normally seen or otherwise detected in New Zealand” Accordingly, MPI suggests that you insert the words “and MPI” after “notify Council”. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part.

Reason: Staff wish to comment that given Rule relates to Mediterranean fanworm, and is part of a RPMP, it is appropriate to have the RPMP Rule requiring that Council, as management agency, is notified. Given Mediterrean fanworm is a notifiable organism, by Order in Council, there is also a duty to inform the Ministry for Primary Industries noted under Rule 7.21.2.2. However, an alternation wording within the explanatory note could make that clearer.

Recommended wording for explanatory note under Rule 7.21.2.2:

Note: Mediterranean fanworm is also a notifiable organism by way of the Biosecurity (Notifiable Organisms) Order 2016. As such, the suspected presence of Mediterranean fanworm must also be reported to MPI in accordance with section 46 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part Proposed Rule 7.21.2.2 “Note: Mediterranean fanworm is also a notifiable organism by way of the Biosecurity (Notifiable Organisms) Order 2016. As such, the suspected presence of Mediterranean fanworm must also be reported to MPI in accordance with section 46 of the Biosecurity Act.”

139

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.21 - Mediterranean fanworm 7.21.2.3 - Occupier obligation to take reasonable steps to destroy Mediterranean fanworm, unless an approved amangement plan is in place Rule 7.21.2.3 This rule advises that “the occupier of any place shall take all reasonable steps to destroy Mediterranean fanworm.” We would recommend adding a note directing occupiers to where they can access information on what constitutes “reasonable steps”. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject.

Reason: Staff comment that to prevent superfluous information being inserted into the RPMP that this information can be sought on request or via channels used for education/awareness (e.g website).

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel recommends that information about “reasonable steps” be provided on the Council website and within education and promotional material.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.21 - Mediterranean fanworm All Explanation of the rules: Para 2 of Explanation of the Rules: As mentioned above, this only covers Mediterranean fanworm on craft. Mediterranean fanworm attach to other surfaces as well – wharves, pontoons, aquaculture equipment, hard surfaces in soft sediment. MPI suggests that the Council add: structures and navigational aids to the description so that it reads craft (or vessels) and fixed or moveable structures (such as marine equipment, oil rigs, floating pontoons and navigational aids). If Council wishes to have rules on vessel fouling under each marine pest species, then MPI suggests that Council repeat this new rule for styela clava and other marine pests which are added to your plan. Para 5 of Explanation of the Rules: Again, as above, there are no guidelines on what the permissible methods are to “destroy” the Mediterranean fanworm. Nor on whether certain people only are allowed to “destroy”. Refer to our comments on Rule 7.21.2.3 above about notifying MPI and Council. Alternatively you could add the following words as part of the description of the word “destroy” in the rule “This means that vessels should in the first instance be slipped or contained within an encapsulation system and treated with a biocide. As a last resort, Sabella spallanzanii may be removed in water by divers who are appropriately trained and all Sabella spallanzanii must be contained and returned to the surface for disposal to landfill.” Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason: Staff comment that further detail or specification could be used in relation to Rule 7.21.2.3 given the propensity for ad hoc destruction techniques to be used which may cause further spread of the species. The management agency can specify actions that occupiers are required to take in destroying a pest under section 73(5)(h) of the Biosecurity Act 1993.

Further specification regarding the actions occupiers must take in destroying Mediterranean fanworm if found harbouring on the place they occupy. Rule 7.21.2.3 could read as follows:

Rule 7.21.2.3

The occupier of any place shall take all reasonable steps to destroy Mediterranean fanworm (Sabella spallanzanii) that is identified to be harbouring on that place unless a management plan has been put in place, and approved by Council.

In undertaking the steps to destroy Mediterranean fanworm, the place should in the first instance be slipped or contained within an encapsulation system and treated with a biocide. If that is not practiable, Mediterranean fanworm may be removed in water by divers who are appropriately trained and all Mediterranean fanworm must be contained and returned to the surface for disposal to landfill.

140

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel recommends that proposed rule 7.21.2.3 be amended as follows: The occupier of any place shall take reasonable steps to destroy Mediterranean fanworm (Sabella spallanzanii) that is identified to be harbouring on that place unless a management plan has been put in place, and approved by Council. In undertaking the steps to destroy Mediterranean fanworm, the place (craft or structure) shall first be slipped or contained within an encapsulation system and treated with a biocide. If that it is not practicable, Mediterranean fanworm may be removed in water by divers who are appropriately trained and all Mediterranean fanworm must be contained and returned to the surface for disposal to landfill. A breach of this rule will create an offence under section 154N(19) of the Biosecurity Act.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 8 - Monitoring 8 Monitoring Table 14 As per comments made at the beginning of this submission, add marine pests that Council does not want and do not currently have in your region to the Exclusion Pests Programme. This would include adding Eudistoma elongatum (Australian Droplet Tunicate), Pyura doppelgangera (Pyura) and Charybdis japonica (Asian Paddle Crab). Add marine pests that are already established in the region to this plan e.g., Styela clava (clubbed tunicate), Didemnum vexillum (Colonial Sea Squirt) and Undaria pinnatifida (Unidaria). Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: Staff comment that that section 8 - Monitoring outlines the way in which Council intends to monitor the progress of the proposed RPMP programmes, not monitoring for specific species. The operational task of looking for new infestations or species is termed 'surveillance' and is a key output of both many of the RPMP programmes and also guided directly by the Biosecurity Strategy. Targets for surveillance will be outlined within he Operational Plan and reported upon annually.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel rejects your request to add the proposed marine species to proposed Section 8 Monitoring. This section relates specifically to the monitoring undertaken by Council for the proposed programmes. Council’s surveillance activity is a separate activity and described in our Biosecurity Strategy. The hearing panel recommends that the heading for proposed Section 8 be changed from “Monitoring” to “Monitoring the Programmes” to make this clearer.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All The MPI led Wilding Conifers Programme team have raised a number of points regarding the proposed plan rules in relation to management of wilding conifers. These are set out in the appended table. MPI supports the Council’s commitment to the management of wilding conifers in Marlborough and welcomes the opportunity to acknowledge the Council’s efforts, to date. Wilding conifers are a significant pest management issue facing the District. Marlborough is particularly prone to wilding conifer infestation, with 39% of the District being vulnerable to invasion. Given the scale of the risk, the adverse impacts of wilding conifers, and control costs, will increase over time if not effectively managed. As the Council is a key partner in the National Wilding Conifer Control Programme, MPI encourages it to adopt a regulatory framework that complements and supports the Programme’s work. MPI has developed a guidance document1 for Wilding Conifer parts of Regional Pest Management Plans to promote consistency in policies and best practice in managing wilding conifers. MPI supports the Council’s uptake of this guidance by adopting parts for its own Plan. As Wilding Conifers are widespread it is also appropriate to have regard for relevant provisions in neighbouring Councils’ plans. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

141

Reason:Staff acknowledge the points raised by the submitter. Staff comment that the guidance produced and referenced by the submitter also clearly articulated the need for any Rules (aka' regulatory support') to be part of an appropriate programme that has objectives developed, is feasible and can be effectively implemented in accordance with the requirements in the Biosecurity Act 1993 and National Policy Direction for Pest Management (NPD). It can be easy to focus on need for a Rule itself when in reality, a Rule is a means to support the implementation of a programme.

For the high-risk species identified, management has been identified in the proposal as given effect to by collaborative programmes with no associated Rules considered necessary. Staff wishes to point out that under the proposed programme structure, Council does still have the ability to use administrative provisions under Part 6 of the Act where necessary if a collaborative programme is unable to address the issue and is resulting in the programme failing to meet its objective over time. This can be seen as the regulatory support requested by the submitter. For example this could be through the use of a Notice of Direction to occupiers or by entering and to destroy conifers where necessary, although adequate funding to carry our these tasks would still be required.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

The hearing panel recommends that a stakeholder reference group is established to support the development of the Proposal and that this work is completed to align with the 2019/2020 Annual Plan process. While this work is being undertaken, Council will continue to support the current collaborative 142 programmes including existing LTP budget allocations. Council’s involvement in wilding conifer management will continue to be guided by our Biosecurity Strategy.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers 7.39.1 - Objective for the Wilding conifers programme Including the Strategy's objective : "To prevent the spread of wilding conifers, and to contain or eradicate established areas of wilding conifers by 2030" is consistent with the Plan's reference to the NZ Wilding Control Management Strategy 2015-30 and the National Wilding Control Management Programme. It takes into account the numerous pest conifer species identified in respective parts of the Plan (in addition to those set out in table 13). Decision Requested Consider including the following overarching objective: "To prevent the spread of wilding conifers, and to contain or eradicate established areas of wilding conifers by 2030". Consider, also, MPI's submission on the Programme Control Options (below).

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff acknowledge the points raised by the submitter. Staff comment that there is a need for programmes to have an objective developed that is feasible and can be effectively implemented in accordance with the requirements in the Biosecurity Act 1993 and National Policy Direction for Pest Management (NPD). The non-regulatory National Wilding Conifer Strategy had greater freedom to have a more overarching, visionary objective. This cannot readily cross-over to regulatory plans given these need to be matched to something that is operationally feasible.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes

143

7.39 - Wilding conifers All Table 13 (12 species). Note, also, specific programmes are set out separately in the Plan for Lodgepole or contorta pine, Scots pine, Mountain pine, Corsican Pine, European Larch and Western White Pine. MPI supports declaring Wilding Conifers to be a pest and the use of a standardised definition that MPI has developed in consultation with other agencies and set out in MPI's Guidance material Decision Requested Retain

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.11 - Contorta pine All To enable the regulatory control of at least some planted conifers where they pose a wilding conifer spread risk, and to prevent new plantings of these species, it is recommended that RPMPs expressly classify specified introduced conifer species as pests. Decision Requested Retain

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason: 144

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.12 - Corsican pine All To enable the regulatory control of at least some planted conifers where they pose a wilding conifer spread risk, and to prevent new plantings of these species, it is recommended that RPMPs expressly classify specified introduced conifer species as pests. Decision Requested Retain

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason:

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.15 - European larch All To enable the regulatory control of at least some planted conifers where they pose a wilding conifer spread risk, and to prevent new plantings of these species, it is recommended that RPMPs expressly classify specified introduced conifer species as pests Decision Requested Retain

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

146

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.23 - Mountain pine To enable the regulatory control of at least some planted conifers where they pose a wilding conifer spread risk, and to prevent new plantings of these species, it is recommended that RPMPs expressly classify specified introduced conifer species as pests Decision Requested Retain

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.32 - Scots pine All To enable the regulatory control of at least some planted conifers where they pose a wilding conifer spread risk, and to prevent new plantings of these species, it is recommended that RPMPs expressly classify specified introduced conifer species as pests Decision Requested

147

Retain

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.37 - Western white pine All To enable the regulatory control of at least some planted conifers where they pose a wilding conifer spread risk, and to prevent new plantings of these species, it is recommended that RPMPs expressly classify specified introduced conifer species as pests Decision Requested Retain

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from 148 submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All The adverse effects identified under 'Why are they a threat?' align with the NZ Wilding Control Strategy 2015-30 and is consistent with MPI's guidance on Pest Management Plan Rules for Wilding Conifers. Decision Requested Retain

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason:

149

• Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All MPI supports the specific reference to the NZ Wilding Control Management Strategy 2015-30 and the National Wilding Control Management Programme. An integrated approach is important as it supports the Strategy's aim and objectives. The Plan’s effect on Wilding Conifers appears to be subject to an area being suspended until a CPA has moved into maintenance mode. MPI questions whether this is a sufficient regulatory backstop to support the control operations currently being undertaken. Consideration could be given to supporting the Programme's activities within the Molesworth Collaborative Programme Area. Decision Requested That the Plan consider and specify any other geographic area(s) in which the outcomes will be achieved, with particular emphasis given to vulnerable areas, containment of infestation within vulnerable areas and prevention of spread to areas that are not infested. MPI recommends reconsidering how the RPMP obligations become operative (i.e the 'trigger' mechanism). MPI recommends that the Plan include express provisions that support efforts to prevent infestations outside of this area that are currently clear or have very light / scattered infestations. Keeping clear areas clear prevents new areas of infestation and avoids a cycle of new legacy areas of wilding conifers being created.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Council involvement and engagement with both assisting the development and subsequent implementation of the NZ Wilding Control Management Strategy 2015-30, including the National Wilding Conifer Control Programme has been as a result of the guiding principle of regional leadership in the Council Biosecurity Strategy. Council will continue to fulfill this role. This include the commitment to actively facilitate and support collaborative programmes - irrespective of the presence of a RPMP programme directing such.

Other geographic areas of the district will continually be assessed as Council fulfills its regional leadership role to seek continued growth in delivery and effectiveness of collaborative programmes.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes

150 for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers All MPI notes that the Plan sets out two programme options; Progressive Containment and Sustained Control. The Plan proposes Sustained Control following other collaborative initiatives. MPI supports consistent regulations, especially between neighbouring regions for management of wilding conifers. Environment Canterbury's (ECan) Plan has Outcomes, Objectives and Rules to achieve progressive containment. Progressive containment would be an appropriate outcome as Marlborough and Canterbury share a common position on: - the adverse effects of wildings, - a need to minimise those effects, - the species that need to be managed, and - are partners in the Wilding Control Programme. Decision Requested Progressive containment. MPI supports specific, time-bound and measureable objectives (see below).

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept in part - that a change to Progressive Containment programme objective is tested with further work required to determine whether the resulting programmes(s) are feasible and meet statutory requirements.

Reason: Staff acknowledge the points raised by the submitter and agree that the nature of of how wilding conifer infestations occur in the landscape and the fact they can be physically removed from a locality (as opposed to other invasive plant species) means a Progressive Containment programme objective is more appropriate. However, the approach taken by Environment Canterbury (ECan) did not spatially represent the geographic extent of the programme to a resolution that would be expected of such a Progressive Containment programme that is meeting the requirements of the National Policy Direction for Pest Management (NPD). From the NPD:

“Progressive Containment Programme” (if applicable) in which the intermediate outcome for the programme is to contain or reduce the geographic distribution of the subject, or an organism being spread by the subject, to an area over time.

The ECan Progressive Containment programme does not demonstrate the current geographic distribution of the subject(s), or provide for an ability to show how the geographic distribution of the subject(s) has been contained or reduced over time. This will also be very difficult to do in Marlborough given careful though will 151 have to be given over what infestations of wilding conifers multiple species including radiata pine for example) would be subject to the programme and/or containment areas.

Therefore, in order to structure a programme with a Progressive Containment objective, accurate mapping and data would need to be gathered on infestations in order to demonstrate over time whether a programme that is being implemented is actually containing or reducing wilding conifers over time.

Regardless of the programme objective, the same issue arises as previously commented regarding how Council can be satisfied that there are likely be adequate resources available to implement the programme and how the costs of the programme (in the case of Marlborough likely millions of dollars) are going to be allocated. These are part of the statutory process of making a RPMP Proposal and resulting Plan.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.11 - Contorta pine 7.11.1 - Objective for the Contorta pine programme MPI notes that the Plan sets out two programme options; Progressive Containment and Sustained Control. The Plan proposes Sustained Control following other collaborative initiatives. MPI supports consistent regulations, especially between neighbouring regions for management of wilding conifers. Environment Canterbury's (ECan) Plan has Outcomes, Objectives and Rules to achieve progressive containment. Progressive containment would be an appropriate outcome as Marlborough and Canterbury share a common position on: - the adverse effects of wildings, - a need to minimise those effects, - the species that need to be managed, and - are partners in the Wilding Control Programme. Decision Requested Progressive containment. MPI supports specific, time-bound and measureable objectives (see below).

The ECan Progressive Containment programme does not demonstrate the current geographic distribution of the subject(s), or provide for an ability to show how the geographic distribution of the subject(s) has been contained or reduced over time. This will also be very difficult to do in Marlborough given careful though will have to be given over what infestations of wilding conifers multiple species including radiata pine for example) would be subject to the programme and/or containment areas.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

153

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.12 - Corsican pine 7.12.1 - Objective for the Corsican pine programme MPI notes that the Plan sets out two programme options; Progressive Containment and Sustained Control. The Plan proposes Sustained Control following other collaborative initiatives. MPI supports consistent regulations, especially between neighbouring regions for management of wilding conifers. Environment Canterbury's (ECan) Plan has Outcomes, Objectives and Rules to achieve progressive containment. Progressive containment would be an appropriate outcome as Marlborough and Canterbury share a common position on: - the adverse effects of wildings, - a need to minimise those effects, - the species that need to be managed, and - are partners in the Wilding Control Programme. Decision Requested Progressive containment. MPI supports specific, time-bound and measureable objectives (see below).

The ECan Progressive Containment programme does not demonstrate the current geographic distribution of the subject(s), or provide for an ability to show how the geographic distribution of the subject(s) has been contained or reduced over time. This will also be very difficult to do in Marlborough given careful though will have to be given over what infestations of wilding conifers multiple species including radiata pine for example) would be subject to the programme and/or containment areas.

154

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.15 - European larch 7.15.1 - Objective for the European larch programme MPI notes that the Plan sets out two programme options; Progressive Containment and Sustained Control. The Plan proposes Sustained Control following other collaborative initiatives. MPI supports consistent regulations, especially between neighbouring regions for management of wilding conifers. Environment Canterbury's (ECan) Plan has Outcomes, Objectives and Rules to achieve progressive containment. Progressive containment would be an appropriate outcome as Marlborough and Canterbury share a common position on: - the adverse effects of wildings, - a need to minimise those effects, - the species that need to be managed, and - are partners in the Wilding Control Programme. Decision Requested Progressive containment. MPI supports specific, time-bound and measureable objectives (see below).

The ECan Progressive Containment programme does not demonstrate the current geographic distribution of the subject(s), or provide for an ability to show how the geographic distribution of the subject(s) has been contained or reduced over time. This will also be very difficult to do in Marlborough given careful though will have to be given over what infestations of wilding conifers multiple species including radiata pine for example) would be subject to the programme and/or containment areas.

155

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.23 - Mountain pine 7.23.1 - Objective for the Mountain pine programme MPI notes that the Plan sets out two programme options; Progressive Containment and Sustained Control. The Plan proposes Sustained Control following other collaborative initiatives. MPI supports consistent regulations, especially between neighbouring regions for management of wilding conifers. Environment Canterbury's (ECan) Plan has Outcomes, Objectives and Rules to achieve progressive containment. Progressive containment would be an appropriate outcome as Marlborough and Canterbury share a common position on: - the adverse effects of wildings, - a need to minimise those effects, - the species that need to be managed, and - are partners in the Wilding Control Programme. Decision Requested Progressive containment. MPI supports specific, time-bound and measureable objectives (see below).

The ECan Progressive Containment programme does not demonstrate the current geographic distribution of the subject(s), or provide for an ability to show how the geographic distribution of the subject(s) has been contained or reduced over time. This will also be very difficult to do in Marlborough given careful though will have to be given over what infestations of wilding conifers multiple species including radiata pine for example) would be subject to the programme and/or containment areas.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.32 - Scots pine 7.32.1 - Objective for the Scots pine programme MPI notes that the Plan sets out two programme options; Progressive Containment and Sustained Control. The Plan proposes Sustained Control following other collaborative initiatives. MPI supports consistent regulations, especially between neighbouring regions for management of wilding conifers. Environment Canterbury's (ECan) Plan has Outcomes, Objectives and Rules to achieve progressive containment. Progressive containment would be an appropriate outcome as Marlborough and Canterbury share a common position on: - the adverse effects of wildings, - a need to minimise those effects, - the species that need to be managed, and - are partners in the Wilding Control Programme. Decision Requested Progressive containment. MPI supports specific, time-bound and measureable objectives (see below).

157

The ECan Progressive Containment programme does not demonstrate the current geographic distribution of the subject(s), or provide for an ability to show how the geographic distribution of the subject(s) has been contained or reduced over time. This will also be very difficult to do in Marlborough given careful though will have to be given over what infestations of wilding conifers multiple species including radiata pine for example) would be subject to the programme and/or containment areas.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

158 management will continue to be guided by our Biosecurity Strategy.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.37 - Western white pine 7.37.1 - Objective for the Western white pine programme MPI notes that the Plan sets out two programme options; Progressive Containment and Sustained Control. The Plan proposes Sustained Control following other collaborative initiatives. MPI supports consistent regulations, especially between neighbouring regions for management of wilding conifers. Environment Canterbury's (ECan) Plan has Outcomes, Objectives and Rules to achieve progressive containment. Progressive containment would be an appropriate outcome as Marlborough and Canterbury share a common position on: - the adverse effects of wildings, - a need to minimise those effects, - the species that need to be managed, and - are partners in the Wilding Control Programme. Decision Requested Progressive containment. MPI supports specific, time-bound and measureable objectives (see below).

The ECan Progressive Containment programme does not demonstrate the current geographic distribution of the subject(s), or provide for an ability to show how the geographic distribution of the subject(s) has been contained or reduced over time. This will also be very difficult to do in Marlborough given careful though will have to be given over what infestations of wilding conifers multiple species including radiata pine for example) would be subject to the programme and/or containment areas.

159 within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal Wilding Conifers, Contorta Pine, Corsican Pine, European Larch, Mountain Pine, Scots Pine, Western White Pine. This prevents the new planting of these spread-prone species. Decision Requested MPI supports declaring the specific conifer species as pests.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Accept

Reason:

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

160 programmes including existing LTP budget allocations. Council’s involvement in wilding conifer management will continue to be guided by our Biosecurity Strategy.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal The Plan recognises that significant voluntary efforts are being undertaken in the Molesworth Wilding Conifer Collaborative Area and in other parts of the District. The objective of the Wilding Control Programme is to reduce the area that is infested and to roll back the area occupied by wilding conifers to the point where they can be sustainably managed. As this is consistent with Progressive Containment, as set out in the Plan, the effort and its associated investment would be supported and protected by using a Progressive Containment Control option in the Plan itself. MPI is concerned that there is no clear indication of reducing Wildings across the region, over time. In this regard the wording of the objective is not consistent with that prescribed by National Policy Direction (NPD) for sustained control intermediate outcome. The NPD refers to "reduce impacts" while the Council's proposal refers to "minimise" which, is ill- defined and unlikely to be achieved based on what is set out in the proposed Plan. 'Sustained control' implies a long-term and on-going control programme without any reduction. Progressive containment is consistent with an overarching objective: To prevent the spread of wilding conifers and to contain or eradicate established areas of Wilding Conifers by 2030. MPI also notes that the intermediate outcome for sustained control in the NPD refers to reducing "spread to other properties" - this is not included in the proposal objective statement as it should be (see our comments below re encouraging Council to include a boundary rule in all areas, so that public, private, voluntary control efforts are supported. MPI acknowledges that an effective Progressive Containment Programme requires monitoring across the region and encourages the Council to provide for this. Educating landowners to refrain from using spread prone species in shelter belts and allowing buffer zones for plantation forests will help contain the spread of Wildings and is complementary to and supportive of a regulatory regime. Decision Requested Progressive containment. MPI recommends that the Plan's Outcomes, Objectives and Rules provide for Progressive Containment. The adverse effects set out in in the Plan note that 433,259 hectares (being 39% of the District) is vulnerable to invasion. The success of the collaborative efforts currently underway have been expressly recognised in the Plan. These efforts support Progressive Containment. Given that it is deemed appropriate for the Plan to address the long term sustainability of these, ongoing, voluntary achievements, Progressive Containment is more appropriate than a Sustained Control Programme. MPI recommends that the Plan include in its Objective specifics on where containment will occur and to what extent reduction will occur. Section 8 of the MPI Wilding Conifer Guidance, which sets out standardised programme objective statements may be helpful in this regard; e.g. "Over {the duration of the Plan/an alternative prescribed timeframe}, to {contain/reduce} the geographic distribution of wilding conifers and specifically identified pest species to specified area(s) or zone(s) / to X % of their current area/density (as at X date) / by X% within X region/specified area(s) or zone(s)} in order to reduce the adverse effects of wilding conifers on pastoral production, indigenous biodiversity, cultural and landscape values in the District.

The ECan Progressive Containment programme does not demonstrate the current geographic distribution of the subject(s), or provide for an ability to show how the geographic distribution of the subject(s) has been contained or reduced over time. This will also be very difficult to do in Marlborough given careful though will have to be given over what infestations of wilding conifers multiple species including radiata pine for example) would be subject to the programme and/or containment areas.

161

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers 7.39.2.1 - Occupier obligation to destroy Wilding conifers behind a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Control Programme There is a need to ensure that any funds have been invested in control programmes will be secured by enforceable future maintenance requirements. The proposed rule imposing obligations on occupiers upon written receipt of cessation of CPA is insufficiently clear or certain, and does not provide clear or strong enough protection of public investment in WC control. Suggest rule should apply where control operations to remove WCs and/or pest conifer species have been undertaken and these control operations publicly funded (in whole or part), similar to ECan rule, regardless of whether the CPA is 'complete' or not. MPI would also encourage inclusion of a boundary control rule (similar to ECan 6.3.2) which applies when control operations undertaken on adjoining property within 200m of boundary. This provides a level of further protection of investment in publicly funded control operations, and protection where privately funded operations undertaken. This could be included as a Good Neighbour Rule. The Collaborative Wilding Conifer Programme and any other control investment should be supported by a regulatory backstop rule to control planted pest conifer species (e.g. contorta, etc). It would be prudent to anticipate reluctance from occupiers (albeit a low probability) so a rule should incentivise occupiers to remove them of their own accord once the requirement to control any new WCs kicks in. May provide more assurance by including in the main rule (e.g. ECan's rule 6.3.1). Decision Requested

162

Reconsider. MPI recommends clearer rules requiring occupiers to destroy Wildings.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Noted

Reason: Collaborative programmes have a relatively long and successful history in Marlborough and it is the view of staff that these collaborative programmes can be supported and/or developed and have the flexibility to deliver on the management of wilding conifers. The need to protect areas that have been subject to work delivered by a collaborative programme has been reflected through the proposed Rule 7.39.2.1.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.39 - Wilding conifers 7.39.2.1 - Occupier obligation to destroy Wilding conifers behind a Collaborative Wilding Conifer Control Programme There is an expectation that land occupiers will assume responsibility for maintenance (i.e. keeping areas clear) when the Programme has completed operations. Rule 7.39.2 is subject to conditions set out in Appendix 1, which provides that a transition from a Collaborative Programme Area to RPMP obligation is subject to the removal of adjoining seed sources and conditions that may be difficult to satisfy. The 'trigger' for enforcing rules may prevent the Council from responding to infestations that occur outside of CPAs. The Plan's rules do not come into effect until an area has been included in a Collaborative Programme Area 163 and control activities in that area have been concluded. Consideration be given to applying rules to areas that are clear / not in a CPA, so that infestations do not occur and are not dependant on being designated a CPA. There is a need to ensure that public funds that have been invested in control programmes will be secured by rules for enforceable future maintenance requirements. Wilding conifers are produced by many different introduced conifer species. Ten conifer species are recognised for contributing to the wilding conifer problem in New Zealand. While some of these species now have little or no commercial value and are no longer planted, or much less frequently planted than in the past, several of these species, particularly Radiata pine (Pinus radiata) and Douglas fir (Pseudostuga menziesii), are valuable commercially grown species that contribute significantly to forestry exports. A regulatory back-stop is needed so that seed spread from commercially grown plantations can be managed, particularly in areas where publicly funded pest control programmes have been undertaken to the fullest extent possible. Also, any privately funded and voluntary control efforts should be similarly protected. Decision Requested Reconsider. MPI recommends clearer rules requiring occupiers to destroy Wildings. Recommend additional rule; Occupiers shall destroy all wilding conifers on land they occupy within 200m of an adjoining property boundary prior to cone bearing, if control operations to clear wilding conifers or other reasonable measures to control wilding conifers have been undertaken on the adjoining property, within 200m of the boundary, since the commencement of the Plan.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Noted

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part In response to your submission and others, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

164

165

600 Rhys Barrier PO Box 2173, Stoke, Nelson 7041 (Speaking) Fish & Game NZ

Category: All I write in response to the Marlborough Regional Pest Management strategy received by Nelson Marlborough Fish & Game for comment. Our feedback primarily relates to aquatic weeds likely to seriously impact Marlborough’s largest lowland freshwater wetland, Para Swamp. Currently Fish & Game owns or manages 105 hectares of this 120 hectare wetland complex, and this area of wetland has a large scale ecological restoration program in place, supported by both MDC and DOC. Firstly, Fish and Game commends Marlborough District Council with its management approach to Reed Sweet Grass and purple Loosestrife, both species of which will devastate Para Wetland ecological values should they establish within the Tuamarina catchment. We would be opposed to control funding being removed from these two pest plant species given their ability to devastate ecological values of wetlands. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Note

Reason: Staff wish to acknowledge the support for the proposed programmes for reed sweet grass and purple loosestrife.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept The hearing panel thanks you for your submission and support of the programmes for purple loosestrife and reed sweet grass. The hearing panel recommends the inclusion of a programme for purple loosestrife and reed sweet grass in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal Having reviewed Councils technical appraisal looking at the cost-benefit analysis of differing control strategies, we are in support of the present ranking of these two weed species as sustained control species, given active weed spraying programs are in place and signalled to be continued for these two species. We remain optimistic that Council will one day be able to move them into the eradication category as control technologies improve. Additionally, we note the absence of yellow-flag Iris within the strategy. In the past Fish & Game have approached MDC to include this within the strategy, but the response was that this species was too wide spread within the Marlborough drainage network to consider this ranking. Accordingly, Fish & Game seek that MDC therefore consider including this species within the strategy under an exclusion program for just the Tuamarina catchment instead. If this is put in place now, Council will potentially have some resourcing available to assist Fish & Game with eradication of this pest plant species if and when it establishes within the Tuamarina catchment. Given the extent of this species within Blenheim’s lower urban drainage network and waterways, it is only a matter of time before this species also establishes within the Tuamarina catchment, where it will ultimately permanently alter Para Wetland ecological values and natural character. Fish & Game also notes this species is currently included within Environment Waikato’s pest plant list as a Progressive containment species (see enclosed fact sheet). Decision Requested We submit therefore that this species should at least be acknowledged within the strategy, and included within whatever category Council staff feel is appropriate.

Staff Comment Staff Recommendation: Reject in part. Do not develop a programme for the current RPMP review process. However, commit to scoping options for yellow-flag iris within the Tuamarina Catchment with an aim to undertake a minor review of the RPMP to propose a new programme if there is a viable option available.

Reason: A Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) is a specific tool available to Councils under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act). An RPMP contains programmes for species that have been developed, costs tested and justified to ensure the programme will result in tangible positive outcomes. Only once a programme has been through this rigour, is it proposed. An RPMP is not the framework for listing species of concern. 166

With respect to the invasive species yellow-flag iris, for the above reason this species has not been proposed under a species-led programme for the district.

In terms of the Tuamarina catchment, it contains a number of significant wetlands most notably the Para Wetland. Council does not have information whether yellow-flag iris occurs within this catchment nor has the submitter provided evidence as such.

If not present within the catchment, an Exclusion programme would result in a commitment by Council to ensure yellow-flag iris does not establish. This would mean an operational component of surveillance would be required and also response to reports of its presence. Given this programme would be for the whole catchment, resourcing requirements would need to be assessed.

An alternative option would be for a Site-led programme targeting the 1 or more Significant Wetlands within the catchment. This would focus operational activities on the areas valued and could potentially widen the scope to other invasive species threatening these wetlands. Given these wetlands are already zoned within the Proposed MEP, there are not the same issues regarding mapping these sites as there is with Significant Natural Areas.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Accept in part The hearing panel recommends that Council scope the options for yellow-flag iris within the Tuamarina Catchment with a view to developing a programme that could be incorporated into the Regional Pest Management Plan in the future.

167

601 Tony Orman PO Box 939, Blenheim 7240

Category: All See within attached. Decision Requested

Staff Comment Recommendation: Reject

Reason: The majority of points/issues raised by the submitter are out of scope of this review.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel thanks you for your submission. The hearing panel has recommended the inclusion of a programme for brushtail possums in the Regional Pest Management Plan with amendments resulting from other submissions as well as a programme for wallabies. You have requested that old man’s beard be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan. This species is well established in Marlborough and therefore does not fit with a species led programme in the Regional Pest Management Plan. However, there is an opportunity to focus on control where biodiversity values are threatened in certain areas. As a response to a number of submissions with a biodiversity focus, the hearing panel recommends that Council captures your concerns through the development of a biodiversity strategy. This will provide an integrated framework for enabling intervention and the setting of regional priorities to manage human induced mammalian pests and invasive plant species that are a threat to biodiversity values across Marlborough. Council already liaises with communities over initiatives where these types of species could be managed to protect the values in a given locality, for example the SNA project. If necessary and where a regulatory approach is valid, a site-led programme could be developed for inclusion in the Regional Pest Management Plan. Pest fish (including perch) have not been included as a programme in the Regional Pest Management Plan as they are regulated under the Conservation Act 2001 and Fisheries Act 1996 and relevant regulations and therefore they fall outside the scope for inclusion in the Regional Pest Management Plan.

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 6 - The subjects of this Proposal Some points to consider:- • Based on the above I request deer and possums be removed as pests • i could not find any reference to Old Man’s Beard which incidentally grows unchallenged on Council administration land, e.g. roadsides and reserves. Is this a serious pest management strategy? • Wilding pines are a major threat. In the Branch catchment the “invasion” (dare I use that word!) of douglas fir and other pines is massive. This lies in the path of prevailing westerly winds blowing towards Molesworth. It seems DOC has done little to halt the invasion and dominance of wilding pines. • I note wallabies are listed as a “pest” yet the document says there are “no confirmed or established populations of wallaby” in Marlborough. At a presentation of this strategy I remarked to the council officer who admitted no wallabies existed in Marlborough, that “we might as well regard rhinoceros and hippos are a threat.” I was being flippant but making the point that making wallabies a pest in Marlborough is bizarre. I realise one was found dead on a road but I suggest this was very probably dropped from a vehicle as some Marlborough hunters frequently go to south Canterbury to shoot wallaby. • I note perch are designated a pest fish. Having fished for perch as a boy in the Manawatu and in Otago and Hawkes Bay for them, I do not regard them as a pest. They are a fine sporting fish. In numerous rivers like the Manawatu, Pomohaka, Mataura, Ruamahunga they co- exist with trout and no doubt native fish. Indeed a study many decades ago in Lake Maherangi (Otago) showed perch fry which can hatch in thousands, provided valuable food for shags and trout. • I suggest the strategy fails to deal with the decline in native freshwater life such as eels and koura and instead is in some aspects, focused on imagined pests. Effort would be better spent on the real declines in bio-diversity and the real causes. e.g. eels, koura and native birds and insects declining under the “cocktail of chemicals." Decision Requested

Staff Comment 1. The submitter requested deer and possums be removed as pests.

168

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Reason: A programme for deer has not been proposed as part of this review and the Exclusion programme proposed for possums relates to currently possum-free islands in the Marlborough Sounds. Staff Comment 2. The submitter sought action on old man's beard.

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Staff comment: A Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP) is a specific tool available to Councils under the Biosecurity Act 1993 (the Act). An RPMP contains programmes for species that have been developed, costs tested and justified to ensure the programme will result in tangible positive outcomes. Only once a programme has been through this rigour, is it proposed. If it makes it into the final RPMP, those species are declared pests. An RPMP is not the place where Council chooses to 'list' species of concern.

With the species outlined in this submission (old man's beard), it is widespread and well established.

Additional Note: That the submitter may wish to approach Council through another avenue regarding the management of old man's beard road reserves and the management on a specific Council Reserve. The management of widespread all invasive species is not driven by the Regional Pest Management Plan but by the decisions of the authority charged with the management of those areas - for example Marlborough Roads. Staff Comment 3. The submitter questioned the proposal relating to wallabies.

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Staff comment: It is widely recognised in biosecurity systems that prevention or early intervention provides that greatest long term benefit. An organism does not need to be present within a region in order to have management provisions placed on it. The premise of an Exclusion programme is for species that pose an immediate threat of establishment. The programme raises the profile of the threat but also means Council makes a commitment to take immediate measures to prevent the species establishing if detected within the region. Staff Comment 4. The submitter questioned the presence of perch.

Staff Recommendation: Reject

Staff comment: A programme for perch has not been proposed as part of this review.

Hearing Panel Recommendation In response to your submission and other, the hearing panel recommends that the proposed programmes for: contorta pine, Corsican pine, European larch, mountain pine, Scots pine, western white pine and wilding conifers not be included in the Regional Pest Management Plan at this time. A clear message from submitters is that relying on collaborative programmes as proposed is not seen as Council providing enough leadership or providing enough certainty to stakeholders and the community for these high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers. Therefore the hearing panel has concluded that further work is required to develop a Proposal specifically for high-risk conifer species and wilding conifers that seeks to: • Provide certainty about the roles of Council and other stakeholders. • Support the current collaborative programmes. • Provide a clearer framework for handover from collaborative programmes to a regulatory programme for Marlborough in the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Integrate management of the high risk conifers and other wilding species under a single programme within the Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider the management of the existing containment zones in the 2012 Regional Pest Management Plan. • Consider other species such as sycamore and European larch hybrids. • Have a focus of protecting current non infested areas in Marlborough. • Provide certainty of obligations and benefits for stakeholders and ratepayers and aligns with the intention of the National Wilding Conifer Programme including funding elements. • Incorporate a Good Neighbour Rule. • Better align with MPI National Guidelines and also other region’s approaches where appropriate. The work undertaken as part of this process will include identifying reporting mechanisms, setting out a

169 clear funding framework and benefits and costs for a new programme including addressing the option for a progressive containment objective.

170

602 William Wallace Scholefield Private Bag, Havelock, 7150

Category: Part Two - Proposed Programmes 7 - Programmes 7.38 - White-edged nightshade All 1 / Core contamination area : Map 10 The area crossed in blue stripes in attached Map should be included in the core containment area . Reason : This 48 acre title was originally included in the Beatrix Bay titles , and was sold by us to Redwood’s . It is now held in the name of Joy Redwood . This title was where white - edged nightshade originated . Mrs Hoquard established the plant on this title ,when they owned all of Te Puru and Beatrix Bay , and spread it ultimately to the core containment area . As the original core containment area has been increased to include Pohuenui past Piri Paua neck . The Redwoods title should also be part of the core containment area , to be completely accurate and fair, as the title is the origin of the problem . It should be noted that on the core containment area White E N cannot and does not displace native species . They grow up regardless of the density of the thickets . Once Manuka , Kanuka and broadleaf native species get large enough they shade the ground and prevent Any growth of white - edged nightshade which is the case on 90%. Of the core containment area. Decision Requested We request that the core containment area be removed from the noxious weeds schedule as it no longer poses a problem . The areas adjoining the core containment area should remain.

Staff Comment Recommendation: Reject

Reason: The reasoning behind the use of a Containment Area in the programme for White-edged nightshade is to acknowledge the area of land were infestations have been historically bad and the nature of the current land cover makes effective management not practical. This was the reasoning behind the additional area to the west of Piri Paua neck being included in the proposed programme.

While the area of land noted by the submitter may have been an "origin" of the infestation, the current land cover is grazed pasture. It is an area where plants continue to be found but because of the nature of land cover, effective management is entirely practical.

Hearing Panel Recommendation Reject The hearing panel recommends that the proposed programme for white-edged nightshade be implemented as proposed. The spatial location of the Containment Area has been set to ensure measures are in place to protect the spread of white-edged nightshade. Practical boundaries have been set taking into account the nature of the land cover and habitats in order to achieve effective management outcomes.

171