|
|
|
|
MINUTES of the Regional Pest Management Joint Committee MEETING
held 9:30am - RPMP Deliberations, Thursday, 11 July 2024 at Tasman Council Chamber, 189 Queen Street, Richmond |
The video link of this meeting is available on the Council’s YouTube channel.
Present: Tasman District Council: Councillors C Butler (Chair), M Kininmonth and Deputy Mayor S Bryant
Nelson City Council: Councillors M Benge, R Sanson (Deputy Chair) and A Stallard
In Attendance: Tasman
District Council: Acting Group Manager –
Information, Science and Technology (R Smith), Team Leader – Biosecurity
and Biodiversity
(G Coleman), Council Contractors (P Russell) and (J Lambie, via Zoom), Team
Leader – Democracy Services (E Stephenson)
Nelson City Council: Environmental Programmes Advisor (R Frizzell) and Team Leader – Biodiversity and Biosecurity (P Cochrane)
The Chair opened the meeting and invited Deputy Chair Councillor Sanson to give the opening karakia.
2 APOLOGIES AND LEAVE OF ABSENCE
Nil
Nil
During discussion on the item, Councillor Aaron Stallard subsequently noted that he was in the process of joining the Tasman Environmental Trust, which had made a submission to the review of the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029.
Nil
Team Leader – Biosecurity and Biodiversity, Guinevere Coleman, introduced staff and consultants and gave the background for the review and consultation process.
Staff explained the significant rule changes proposed to the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 (TNRPMP) rule-by-rule, and answered questions.
The specific Tasman and Nelson changes relating to the proposed feral and stray cat rules were clarified. Discussion took place regarding a simple reporting mechanism and it was noted that the cat measures were wider than the TNRPMP and would be included with the proposed bylaw messaging, which would have a strong focus on education.
It was noted that the next review of the TNRPMP would be 2029, and it was requested that a concerted effort be made to engage with groups across the region as part of that process.
Members were reminded of the legislative requirement for a positive cost benefit analysis.
Discussion took place regarding the rules regarding releasing cats into the wild and the consequences for repeat offenders.
The meeting was adjourned at 10.12am and reconvened at 10.20am.
Acting Group Manager - Information, Science and Technology, Rob Smith, clarified how the legislation worked and that it was important to understand that the Council was on a pathway to improved cat management, covering animal welfare as well as predator control, and that, in the absence of legislation, the rules available were using the Biosecurity Act through the TNRPMP and through the proposed Cat Bylaw, the bylaw and the TNRPMP would go hand-in-hand.
He noted that the intention was to enable groups in this space to do their job, and provide the ability for those groups to operate. The bylaw would be in place alongside the TNRPMP, and that once the bylaw required microchipping, then community groups could act more effectively under the TNRPMP.
Discussion took place regarding the pest conifer rules and Consultant, Peter Russell, summarised the changes and answered questions rule-by-rule.
Staff noted that rule b. had been amended in the proposed TNRPMP to reflect the wording proposed by the forestry company submissions during the hearings process.
As a result of discussion regarding seed areas, cone-bearing trees, legacy pines, the 200 metre rule, seed sources, and evidence of spread, changes were made to clause 9 of the officer’s recommendations, with the agreement of the meeting, as follows:
k. removal
of the word ‘or’ …Authorised Person), or unless there
is…
l. the
word ‘includes’ was changed to ‘may include’ in the
sentence - Evidence of spread
includes may include…
l. bullet
point 3 was removed – There are no other likely seed sources located
on the adjoining
land or other neighbouring land; and
m. clause m. was changed as follows:
Occupiers must destroy any pest agent conifer on their land, on
direction of an authorised person, where an adjoining occupier is occupier
must be taking reasonable steps to control wilding conifers undertaking
proactive wilding conifer control on their land and that evidence of
wilding spread is clearly attributable to the pest agent conifer(s), or unless
there is a negotiated agreement in place between the Management Agency and
occupier as an alternative way to achieve this requirement; and
n. the word ‘to’ was added – state of transition to be managed by…
It was noted that the final adoption of the TNRPMP would be recommended to both Councils and staff were acknowledged and thanked for their work on the review, which had been a complicated process.
|
7.1 Deliberations report on the partial review of the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 |
|
Moved Councillor Sanson/Deputy Mayor Bryant That the Regional Pest Management Joint Committee 1. receives the Deliberations report on the partial review of the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029; and 2. receives the Feral and stray cat provisions for the Tasman Nelson Partial Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 Review Revision in response to submissions and hearings (marked-up version) (Attachment 1 to the agenda report); and 3. receives the Wilding/pest conifer provisions for the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 Partial Review Revisions in response to submissions and hearings (marked-up version) (Attachment 2 to the agenda report); and 4. receives the summary of submissions with staff recommendations for the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 (Attachment 3 to the agenda report); and 5. acknowledges the late submission to the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 received from Project De-Vine Environmental Trust on 23 April 2024; and 6. approves the proposed rules as written in the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 Proposal document for blue passionflower, boneseed, moth plant, pampas, water celery and Vietnamese parsley; and 7. approves the proposed changes to the Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 rules for feral and stray cats in Nelson City, Abel Tasman National Park enclaves and the St Arnaud environs to: a. Clarify the rationale for inclusion section to include the complete list of proposed changes in all site-led programmes. b. Edit description and adverse effects to clarify feral and stray cats come from reproduction and illegally released companion cats; and impact of toxoplasmosis on native wildlife. c. Amend the Nelson City specific rule (a) from “must report to “shall report”. d. Amend the explanation of the rules (a) to clarify that reported sightings will be recorded and used to consider management needs at site. e. Amend the Nelson City rule that no person shall deliberately release into the wild any cat, including a companion cat. f. Amend the St Arnaud specific rule from “must report to “shall report” and include explanation that reports will be recorded and used for considering management at the site. g. Amend St Arnaud rule (b) to No person shall deliberately release into the wild (into the Nelson Lakes National Park and environs) any cat, including a companion cat. h. Amend the Abel Tasman site-led rule to include (b) No person shall deliberately release into the wild (into the Abel Tasman National Park and private enclaves) any cat, including a companion cat. This is a specific pest agent cat rule for the Abel Tasman National Park and enclaves site-led programme; and 8. approves the inclusion of Bell Island into the Waimea Inlet site-led programme for feral cats; and 9. approves the proposed changes to the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 rules for pest conifers, which also include wilding conifers to: a. amend “Pest Conifer and Wilding conifers” to “Pest Conifers” and amend the category to refer to “subjects”. Ten individual species are designated pests in any regional situation while the wilding conifer sub-class of subjects covers two species, and their pest designations apply only when they occur in wilding states; and b. amend the definition of wilding conifers to be ‘self-seeded” rather than natural; and c. amend the definition of pest conifers to recognise that some species have commercial worth, as while an unwanted organism, contorta can have economic value in some circumstances; and d. amend the definition of pest conifers to: i. Radiata pine and Douglas fir are commercially grown in the region. The Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 is not concerned with preventing production or permanent forestry operating within an occupier’s private property. However, plantations of these species may result in self-seeded and unintentional spread, hence self-seeded trees of these two species, outside of existing forest plantations, are deemed to be ‘wilding conifers’[1]; and e. amend the definition of pest agent conifers to: i. ‘Pest agent conifer’ - means any introduced conifer (that is not otherwise specified as a pest within the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029) that is capable of helping the spread of wilding conifers and is not located within a forest plantation (e.g. a shelter belt of Douglas fir under 1 ha. in an area that is clearly exacerbating seed spread issues for a neighbouring property); and f. amend adverse effects of pest conifers to: i. Wilding conifers cause significant impacts on native ecosystems in the Tasman-Nelson region, such as invading iconic tussock grasslands, alpine herblands and (in particular) the ultramafic areas of Dun Mountain and the Red Hills. ii. National analysis of trends indicates that wilding conifers can outcompete native species in regenerating scrub for space, water and nutrients, adversely affect recreational and visual/landscape values, alter soil and soil fauna, reduce pastoral farming availability, reduce water availability (for irrigation and hydro power generation) and may help create or contribute to wildfire risks. iii. All these impacts are also likely to adversely affect tāngata whenua values across Te Tau Ihu. Some adverse effects may be exacerbated by the potential impacts of climate change (e.g. more frequent or intense drought/dry conditions which could make some catchments more prone to flow sensitivity). Having increasing infestations of wilding conifers may lead to increased uptake of available water in vulnerable catchments; and g. amend the “Rationale for inclusion” to: i. Pest and wilding conifers are included for the first time in the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 to help manage their spread more effectively[2]. A key objective is operationally focused - to maintain the gains of prior and current control efforts in four designated operational areas. ii. The general approach (including regulation) aligns with Marlborough District Council and Environment Canterbury pest conifer policies and is practical and adaptable while advocating for negotiated agreements between parties as an alternative to enforcing rules (where the result may achieve the same or similar outcomes as rules). iii. Equally, there are two strategic objectives to support their inclusion: Firstly, to help stop further spread and protect land in Tasman-Nelson that has not been impacted by pest conifers to date (or to control infestations that are just becoming noticeable). History has shown that an important contributor to pest conifer spread problems is a lack of early action, and that the cost of control increases significantly the longer spread is left uncontrolled. Secondly, the inclusion of wilding radiata pine and wilding Douglas fir is intended to address the negative effects of wild dispersal of these species from planted situations such as plantation forests, hedgerows, and specimen trees. The intention is to enhance the existing obligation on the forestry industry to manage seed dispersal effects as part of that sectors’ social licence to operate in Tasman-Nelson; and h. amend the rationale for inclusion to include: The development of appropriate rules to support these objectives is important - (1) to help prevent new areas of pest conifers becoming established due to a lack of proactive action; and (2) land occupiers neighbouring onto forest plantations should not be liable for, or have to undertake pest control on their land through, the spread of self-seeded conifers from forest plantations; and i. amend Plan rules and inclusions to clarify the ‘Pest Conifer” programme, which is divided into two sub programmes: Nelson-Tasman wide; and within four specific Operational Areas; and j. amend Region-wide programme explanation to clarify the clear land rule, the planted forest (wilding spread) rule, and the pest agent conifer rule; and k. amend Rule (a) to: Occupiers must destroy all pest conifers present on land they occupy, unless the land they occupy falls within a named pest conifer operational area (as shown in Maps), urban areas or areas of high intensity land use (as determined by an Authorised Person), unless there is a negotiated agreement in place between the Management Agency and occupier as an alternative way to achieve this requirement; and l. Amend Rule (b) to: From 1 July 2024, occupiers of forest plantations (greater than 1 hectare), outside of named pest conifer operational areas, are liable for the costs of removal of any new wilding conifers present (i.e. subsequently occurring) on adjoining land (where that land is clear of any infestation of wilding conifers as of 30 June 2024). This requirement is limited to adjoining land within 200m of the forest plantation property’s boundary and the adjoining occupier must be taking reasonable steps to control wilding conifers elsewhere on the property. This obligation will be on written direction from an authorised person, following a complaint from an adjoining affected neighbour, and where there is evidence that wilding spread has occurred from the planted forest to an adjoining property. A negotiated agreement between the Management Agency and the two occupier parties is an alternative way to achieve this agreement. Reasonable steps: means an occupier is proactively managing wilding conifers and using approaches, methods and tools advocated in the National Programme’s Best Practice Guidelines for managing wilding conifers. Evidence of spread may include (but is not limited to): · That the wilding conifers are the same species as those in the forest plantation. · That the source forest plantation trees were of cone-bearing age on 1 July 2024, and · The likelihood of other seed sources located on the complainant’s land causing the spread; and m. Amend rule (c) to: Occupiers must destroy any pest agent conifer on their land, on direction of an authorised person, where an adjoining occupier is taking reasonable steps to control wilding conifers on their land and that evidence of wilding spread is clearly attributable to the pest agent conifer(s), unless there is a negotiated agreement in place between the Management Agency and occupier as an alternative way to achieve this requirement; and n. Amend the current operational Areas under management to clarify the need for the area to be under the National Wilding Conifer Control Programme and that the property is in a state of transition to be managed by land occupiers into the future; and o. Amend Current Operational areas under management to reflect sub programme naming change with two rules: A maintain the gains rule; and a Good Neighbour rule; and p. Amend rule (d) to: Occupiers must destroy any pest conifers on their land where the property is located within one of the four named operational areas that has received prior control, or there is a negotiated agreement in place between the Management Agency and occupier as an alternative way to achieve this requirement. This rule does not imply any obligations on occupiers of planted forests of species not listed as pest conifers and does not apply until a property has received initial and maintenance control, as described above; and q. Amend rule (e) to: Occupiers within any of the four named operational areas must destroy any pest conifers on their land within 200m of an adjoining property boundary, where the adjoining property has previously been cleared of pest conifers through prior control and the adjoining occupier is also taking reasonable steps to control pest conifers within 200m of their property boundary. This is a Good Neighbour Rule (GNR) and will apply unless there is a negotiated agreement in place between the Management Agency and occupier as an alternative way to achieve this requirement; and r. Amend Explanation of the rules to rule (a) to: Rule (a) places a general obligation on relevant occupiers to remove any pest conifer to prevent new infestations occurring. The principal objective is to provide the Management Agency with powers allowing it to focus on land which is ostensibly clear of wilding conifers to remain clear. Although the majority of wilding conifer spread is predictable, a characteristic of spread (particularly in highly susceptible areas) is also the occurrence of random, irregular, long distance spread into areas previously unaffected. This rule provides an early intervention trigger for vulnerable or susceptible areas. Exemptions may be sought under s. 78(2) of the Act (e.g. for protected ‘specimen’ conifer trees named in District Plans made under the Resource Management Act).; and s. Amend Explanation of the rules to rule (b) to: Rule (b) aims to ensure that forestry occupiers (of both plantation and permanent forests) are liable for (to pay and/or control) any new wilding spread of conifer seedlings from their forests onto immediately neighbouring land, from 1 July 2024 onwards, with the proviso that the land adjoining the planted forest was free of wilding conifers at this date. It is unreasonable for affected occupiers adjoining planted forests to have to clear wildings and/or pay for this control work (i.e. the ‘exacerbator pays’ principle). Implementation of this rule is based on the opinion of an appropriate council officer and must be backed with proof of spread occurring. The rule only applies where the adjoining occupier (making the complaint) is making reasonable attempts to keep their land clear of wilding conifers. A four-step process is followed to enact the rule: Step 1: Complaint received by the Council. Step 2: Complaint investigated by an appropriate Authorised Person (with powers of entry) to validate complaint. Step 3: Meeting held between the parties to engage with them and to reach a negotiated agreement. Step 4: If no agreement can be reached, Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan enforcement provisions may be enacted; and t. Amend Explanation of the rules to rule (c) to: Rule (c) is a ‘pest agent conifer rule’ which aims to prevent wilding conifer establishment across property boundaries principally through the control of conifer woodlots and shelterbelts (under 1 hectare in size) or individual trees that are determined, in the opinion of an authorised person, to be genuine sources of seed spread. The same ‘evidence’ criteria from rule b applies. This rule is triggered by a complaint made by a neighbour to the Management Agency, and that person must be taking reasonable steps to control pest/wilding conifers on their property. ‘Reasonable steps’ definition from rule b also applies; and u. Amend Explanation of the rules to rule (d) to: Rule (d) is about ‘maintaining the gains’ of prior control work to ensure that the benefits of this control are not lost through inaction (or for any other reason) by any occupier. ‘Prior’ means any work underway from 1 January 2016 (when the national programme commenced) to the present day. ‘Control’ means any work funded all or in part through formalised or planned programmes (e.g. national, regional or local operations including environmental trust led initiatives, and as deemed valid by the Management Agency). This definition extends to include individual private property control programmes, on a case by case basis. ‘On their land’ refers to any property located within one of the mapped operational areas, provided there has been control undertaken on that property. The obligation applies anywhere on that property (hence a property wide obligation); and v. Amend Explanation of the rules to rule (e) to: Rule (e) is a ‘good neighbour rule’ designed to protect an occupier who has been taking reasonable steps (e.g. control work using best practice) on their property and is being impacted by pest conifer infestations on a neighbouring property (e.g. through inaction or unsatisfactory/incomplete control). The 200m distance is based on science that notes the majority of conifer seeds fall within this space from source trees. In practicable terms this is the only way to bind the Crown to meet its Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan obligations, however the GNR is not limited in only applying to Crown land. A GNR generally seeks to manage the externality impacts arising from pests spilling over from one property to a neighbouring property that is free of, or being cleared of that pest.; and 10. approves the proposed changes to the rule explanation for sabella. a. In relation to rule (a), extend the exemption for vessels normally moored in Nelson-Tasman and leaving the region for short periods from 24 hours to three (3) calendar days; and 11. agrees that staff give effect to the recommendations referred to in Resolutions 6, 7, 8, and 9 when preparing the amended Tasman Nelson regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029; and 12. agrees that the amended Tasman Nelson regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 and the Deliberations report be presented to both Councils for consideration; and 13. recommends to the Nelson City and Tasman District Councils that the amended Tasman Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019-2029 be adopted, subject to the same agreement by the other Council.
|
Nil
Councillor Sanson offered the closing karakia.
The meeting concluded at 12.06pm
Confirmed as a correct record of proceedings by resolution on 12 September 2024.
|
That the Tasman District Council
6. confirms the minutes of the 11 July 2024 meeting of the Regional Pest Management Joint Committee as a true and correct record of the meeting
|