MANAGEMENT STRATEGY:

The Control of Wilding Conifers in Kenepuru Sound

September 2010

Prepared for: KENEPURU & CENTRAL SOUNDS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC.

Prepared by: Andrew Macalister

Leviathan Consulting

With support from:

2 | P a g e

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................. 3

BACKGROUND .................................................................................................................................................... 4

Defining the problem ..................................................................................................................................... 5

Current situation............................................................................................................................................ 6

Wilding spread patterns ................................................................................................................................. 7

THE STRATEGY .................................................................................................................................................... 9

Purpose and Status of Strategy....................................................................................................................... 9

Vision ............................................................................................................................................................ 9

Methods ........................................................................................................................................................ 9

MANAGEMENT PLAN ........................................................................................................................................ 11

Management sectors ................................................................................................................................... 11

Site-led prioritisation ................................................................................................................................... 11

Budget estimates ......................................................................................................................................... 15

Management Plan summary ........................................................................................................................ 16

Maintenance Control ................................................................................................................................... 17

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN .................................................................................................................................. 18

Control methodologies ................................................................................................................................ 18

Control timing.............................................................................................................................................. 22

Contractor procurement .............................................................................................................................. 22

Landowner liaison & approvals ..................................................................................................................... 22

Health & Safety ............................................................................................................................................ 23

Statutory compliance ................................................................................................................................... 24

Contractor management .............................................................................................................................. 25

Programme management ............................................................................................................................ 26

BUSINESS PLAN ................................................................................................................................................ 27

Proposed expenditure .................................................................................................................................. 27

Fund raising ................................................................................................................................................. 29

Financial management ................................................................................................................................. 29

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ..................................................................................................................................... 30

REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................................... 30

APPENDIX 1: MAP OF MANAGEMENT SECTORS ................................................................................................. 31

APPENDIX 2: PHOTO SELECTION ....................................................................................................................... 32

APPENDIX 3: SPREAD VIGOUR OF WILDING CONIFER SPECIES ............................................................................ 40

3 | P a g e

INTRODUCTION

I welcome the initiative of the Kenepuru and Central Sounds Residents Association to initiate a programme to reduce wilding pines in the Kenepuru. My Council includes wilding pines in its schedule of pest plants but lacks the resources to undertake a comprehensive management programme. It is the initiatives of community groups, working in partnership with Council, which is the only practical way for this pervasive problem to be overcome.

We have supported this plan with seed funding and believe that the major improvements already evident in the Queen Charlotte, following the work of the Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust, will be emulated in the Kenepuru. We look to having our landscapes restored, to see native forests covering our hillsides and for our native fauna return in increasing numbers.

I commend this project.

ALISTAIR SOWMAN MAYOR OF MARLBOROUGH

4 | P a g e

BACKGROUND

Wilding conifers are commonly known as wilding pines, rogue pines or feral pines. For the purposes of this Strategy, they are defined as introduced species of the Class Conifersopsida (Gymnospermae) that are self-sown or growing wild.

In the Marlborough Sounds, Pinus radiata (Monterey pine) accounts for approximately 90% of all wildings encountered.

In Kenepuru Sound, occasional specimens of Pinus pinaster (maritime pine), Pinus muricata (Bishop pine), Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas fir), Pinus patula (Mexican weeping pine), Cupressus macrocarpa (macrocarpa), Cupressus lawsoniana (Lawson cypress) and Cupressus lusitanica are also encountered.

The dominance of Pinus radiata as a wilding conifer reflects the fact that they had been widely planted in homestead plantations and as shelter belts throughout the Sounds, dating as far back as the early 1900s.

These stands of mature trees provided abundant seed sources to allow wildings to establish under limited grazing pressure across former paddocks and burnt-off hillsides during the mid-1900s. The many mature wilding conifers that are present on the south side of Kenepuru are an example of this legacy.

This process is still occurring today, although on a smaller scale. On the north side of Kenepuru, for example, marginal spurs and faces are reverting to light scrub cover in close proximity to large stands of commercial Pinus radiata forestry plantations. This is allowing the rapid establishment of new wilding stands.

While the opportunity for conifer establishment becomes increasingly limited as the native forest canopy matures, wilding conifers have continued to establish where high light opportunities present themselves. These light gaps naturally occur around roadsides, on coastal escarpments and along powerline access tracks. In Kenepuru Sound, such examples of on-going recruitment can be found along the length of the Queen Charlotte Drive, on powerline and access tracks, along the Queen Charlotte Track, and along the coastal margins between Waitaria and Goulter Bay.

Light gaps can also be caused by one-off events such as slips, fires, drought, pig rooting or wind damage. In these ‘micro-sites’, where there is an adjacent seed source, dense stands of wilding conifers that can prevent the normal regeneration of native species can still occur. An example of this can be found on the north side of Manaroa Saddle, where a dense stand of Pinus radiata has established after a fire swept through the area, and on upper slopes on the south side of Kenepuru, where extensive pig-rooting in light vegetation cover has allowed opportunistic establishment of new wildings. The presence of commercial Pinus radiata forestry plantations on the north side of Kenepuru Sound and at Kenepuru Head means that these areas will remain more susceptible to on-going wilding establishment than the south side of Kenepuru, which is

5 | P a g e

free of commercial forestry plantations from Broughton Bay through to Kenepuru Heads, and which also has a generally intact manuka-kanuka canopy throughout. Of related concern is the presence of Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas fir) in the area, of which one small stand was noted at Manaroa Saddle. This species is the most shade-tolerant of the common wilding conifer species, able to establish even under moderate vegetation cover, and its seed is also one of the most readily-dispersed by wind, increasing the spread risk further. Although it tends to favour cooler climates, it could still pose a significant risk in the Marlborough Sounds.

DEFINING THE PROBLEM

The spread of wilding conifers is an increasing problem throughout the Marlborough Sounds.

The problem has been acknowledged by the major land manager in the Marlborough Sounds, the Department of Conservation (DOC), by the Marlborough District Council (MDC), and by Sounds residents, business interests and recreational users.

As noted in the MDC’s Strategy for Control of Wilding Conifers in North Marlborough (Ledgard, 2004):

“There is little doubt that most of the people who live, and/or consider themselves stakeholders, in North Marlborough, in particular the Sounds area, favour the control of wilding pines.”

LANDSCAPE IMPACTS

The most immediate impact is the visual intrusion on the landscape, and loss of associated landscape and amenity values, as wilding conifers establish above the regenerating native forest canopy and, in many areas, have become or are threatening to become the dominant forest species.

The Marlborough Sounds have long been recognised as a key natural landscape and recreational resource in New Zealand (Lucas, 2007). MDC’s Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan notes that:

“In its entirety, the landscape of the Marlborough Sounds Plan area has outstanding visual values. It displays a broad range of types of visual landscapes and features which are often of greater value for their collective contribution than for their individual value. The location of the Sounds at the top of the South Island with the role as a sea corridor and gateway to the South Island ensures a high public profile as a travel route.”

In Kenepuru Sound, the Plan identifies Portage Island, Weka Point and Ferndale Scenic Reserves, Schnapper Point, Kenepuru Head and the main dividing ridges as all being Areas of Outstanding Landscape Value.

6 | P a g e

Lucas’ Blights and Blots on the Landscape: Wilding Pines in Queen Charlotte Sound (Lucas, 2007) identified that, without extensive and comprehensive wilding management, the landscape values of Queen Charlotte Sound will gradually diminish. It will lose its distinctiveness, and very special identity based on its natural qualities. It can be assumed that the same outcomes will occur in Kenepuru Sound without active management.

ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS

Associated with the spread of wilding conifers is the loss or displacement of native biodiversity, where wilding pines have become, or are becoming, the dominant forest species.

MDC’s North Marlborough Significant Natural Areas Project identifies wilding conifers as the greatest weed threat in North Marlborough. The report notes that:

“(Wilding conifers) are rapidly invading regenerating vegetation and sensitive places such as coastal scarps and ultramafic areas...they have the ability to rapidly proliferate and destroy the integrity of the native vegetation.”

DOC’s South Island Wilding Conifer Strategy (Harding, 2001) identifies the threat of wilding conifers to the Marlborough Sounds as including the invasion and suppression of regenerating fernland and shrubland, and the suppression of native forest regeneration.

Walls’ The Ecological Case for Wilding Pine Removal in Queen Charlotte Sound identifies that wilding pines put the following ecosystems at risk:

i. coastal scarps

ii. islands,

iii. regenerating native vegetation

iv. streams.

The report also identifies at least eight types of native plants at risk, plus many native animals (land birds, shore-nesting birds, lizards, invertebrates and freshwater fish).

CURRENT SITUATION

Despite the recognition of the problem, no co-ordinated approach has been in place to manage the spread of wilding conifers in the Marlborough Sounds.

DOC undertakes low-level control on the areas of public conservation land identified as top priority in its South Island Wilding Conifer Strategy (Harding, 2001), prioritised against its Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive Weeds (Owen, 1998), which considers the impact on native biodiversity only.

7 | P a g e

This has resulted in DOC control being largely restricted to the island sanctuaries it manages, such as Blumine, Motuara and Long Island.

Despite being the major land manager in the Sounds, DOC is unlikely to fund further wilding conifer control on the land it manages, as funding is allocated against native biodiversity impacts only and DOC’s South Island Wilding Conifer Strategy gives most areas of public conservation land in the Sounds a ranking score of only 2.5 out of 21 on its prioritisation methodology.

MDC’s Regional Pest Management Strategy (2007) identifies Pinus contorta as a containment control pest plant in Marlborough and is managing a joint programme to contain its spread in South Marlborough. However, there is no known P. contorta in the Marlborough Sounds. This means that neither the Council, forest owners, nor landowners are under an obligation to manage the spread of wilding conifer species in the Marlborough Sounds.

Nevertheless, resident/community groups and individuals undertake wilding conifer control on an ad hoc basis on private land, often extending onto public conservation land, with a range of control methodologies employed. Since 2007, these community activities have been supplemented by a co-ordinated wilding pine control programme in Queen Charlotte Sound, managed by the Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust.

Between 2008 and 2010, the Trust has conducted control over 5,600ha of Queen Charlotte Sound, with a budget of $500,000. Funding has been provided primarily by the NZ Lottery Grants Board (Environment & Heritage Fund), Canterbury Community Trust, landowners, Marlborough District Council, Department of Conservation, and local businesses. The programme has provided a model for how a comprehensive community-led wilding conifer programme can be initiated and maintained with the support of key stakeholders.

WILDING SPREAD PATTERNS

In order to understand the pattern of spread of wilding conifers, and the likelihood of successful control, consideration needs to be given to several factors, including:

Age of seed production Distance of seed dispersal Viability of seed Composition and stature of plant communities on adjoining land.

Age of seed production: Most pine species, including P. radiata, can start producing some seed between ages 8-10, but regular seed production from the majority of trees does not start until age 12-15 (Ledgard, 2004). Distance of seed dispersal: For conifers, seed dispersal is almost entirely by wind, with most seed typically falling within 200m downwind of the parent source. Occasionally, seed is dispersed greater distances of more than a kilometre. This distant spread typically occurs at greater than five year intervals, often averaging only once every 10-20 years (Ledgard, 2004). Factors that influence the distance seed travels are:

8 | P a g e

The size and weight of seeds: The seed of P. radiata is relatively heavier than the seed of other common wilding species and is therefore less likely to travel as long distances as P. contorta, for example. In a trial where seed was released into a fixed-speed airflow of 30km/h, 45% of the P. radiata seed dropped within 2m of the release point (Ledgard, unpubl. data). No data is recorded for P. pinaster The prevalence, direction and strength of prevailing winds: The strong winds that regularly occur in the Marlborough Sounds provide a ready vehicle for seed dispersal. However, because of the turbulent wind patterns in the Sounds, the patterns of spread can be hard to predict, although it will generally be downwind from the prevailing western quadrant winds that occur. Fortunately, most seed dispersal takes place in autumn and winter (Harding, 2001), which is usually the period with the least likelihood of strong winds in the Sounds. The presence and siting of adjoining seed sources: The presence of seeding trees at exposed sites, such as ridge-tops and exposed upper faces, will increase the likelihood that seeds are widely dispersed. Conversely, the location of seeding trees at sheltered sites and on lee slopes will reduce the likelihood of dispersal. Viability of seed: There is no significant long-lasting seed bank in the soil from wilding conifers. Once released from the cone, seed generally remains viable for only two to three years in the soil, although seed may remain viable in cones for slightly longer periods (Ledgard, 2004). Composition and stature of plant communities on adjoining land: Wilding conifers generally require high light conditions in order to establish. Bare ground and low-stature plant communities, such as grassland and herbfields, are the most favourable communities for wilding establishment. Shrubland is relatively less favourable, and forest generally unfavourable (Harding, 2001). It is for this reason that mature trees are often seen in the Sounds protruding from a surrounding manuka/kanuka canopy, but with no young seedlings visible near-by. In such cases, only a disturbance which allows more light to reach the ground will create an opportunity for new wilding establishment (Ledgard, 2004). When these factors are all taken into account, it becomes obvious that the control of wilding conifers, and particularly P. radiata, is a practical proposition in the Marlborough Sounds context. The short-lived seeds, the slowness of young trees to set seed, and the limited establishment opportunities means it is a lot easier to ‘break the cycle’ of wilding conifer establishment than occurs with species such as broom or gorse, which have long-lived seeds and sets seed at a young age, and banana passionfruit, where seeds can be carried long distances by birds or feral animals. It is for this reason that DOC accords wilding conifers a lower Biological Success Rating than it does to weeds such as old man’s beard and gorse (Harding, 2001). A summary of the spread vigour of the most common wilding conifer species is presented in Appendix 3.

9 | P a g e

THE STRATEGY

This Strategy was commissioned by the Kenepuru & Central Sounds Residents Association (KCSRA), with funding support from the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board’s Environment & Heritage Fund, the Marlborough District Council and the Department of Conservation.

PURPOSE AND STATUS OF STRATEGY

The Strategy has four purposes:

i. To provide a framework for operational planning by prioritising areas for control and providing indicative cost estimates. (Refer to Management Plan)

ii. To define proposed methods of control, and the delivery of the control programme.(Refer to Implementation Plan)

iii. To document proposed expenditure over the term of this Strategy, and outline a fund-raising strategy.(Refer to Business Plan)

iv. To enable informed discussions and collaboration with private landowners and with other control agencies, stakeholders and statutory authorities.

The Strategy is a non-statutory plan, and has no legal status.

VISION

The Strategy’s vision is for the initial control of wilding conifers from all high-priority locations of Kenepuru Sound by 2015.

METHODS

For the purposes of developing this strategy, a desktop survey of Kenepuru Sound was conducted in July 2010, using the Marlborough District Council’s aerial orthophotography database and ArcGIS resources, Google Earth and Map Toaster, to establish the general extent and distribution of wilding conifers in the area.

A three-day field inspection was undertaken in August 2010 by boat, foot and vehicle over the entire Kenepuru Sound area.

10 | P a g e

On the basis of inspections, field data and aerial photography resources, an inventory of each control block was undertaken, with a budget developed and blocks prioritised.

All major landowners in those areas where control was regarded as a priority were contacted, either during or after the field inspection, to discuss management options. Where a major landowner did not support control, or did not support the preferred method of control, this is noted in the Strategy. In some instances, the major landowner was either unable to be located, or indicated that further consultation may be required immediately prior to control, where there were multiple owners of the property.

The draft plan was then provided to members of the Kenepuru & Central Sounds Residents Association for comment, before plan completion.

11 | P a g e

MANAGEMENT PLAN

A central purpose of this Strategy is to provide a framework for operational planning by prioritising areas for control and providing indicative cost estimates. To achieve this objective, a Management Plan has been developed using the following procedures.

MANAGEMENT SECTORS

For the purposes of operational planning, Kenepuru Sound has been divided into a number of management sectors, based on the extent of wilding conifer infestation, access considerations, tenure, land use and landscape values.

Each sector is intended to represent a coherent area of land, that is of suitable scale and size, on which it is possible to undertake effective wilding conifer control in a short (2-3 month) timeframe.

A map showing these management sectors is attached as Appendix 1.

SITE-LED PRIORITISATION

A scoring system has been developed for each management sector, to attribute a priority for each sector based on the following attributes:

THREAT TO ECOLOGICAL VALUES

For the purpose of this Strategy, it is assumed that the presence of wilding conifers is typically detrimental to ecological values.

As outlined in The Ecological Case for Wilding Pine Removal in Queen Charlotte Sound (Walls, Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust, 2007), the main ecosystems at risk from wilding conifers in the inner Marlborough Sounds are coastal scarps, islands, regenerating native vegetation and streams. In all of these ecosystems, invading pines grow very rapidly and become physically dominant, thereby displacing native species and changing soil and water conditions. However, ultramafic and mafic shrublands are also an important ecosystem found in the Marlborough Sounds (although not in Queen Charlotte or Kenepuru Sound), and should also be included as being at risk from wilding conifers.

The threat to ecological values is scored primarily with reference to the presence of these ecosystem types.

12 | P a g e

Score Value

1. Either ecosystems that are not at risk from wilding conifer domination (such as indigenous forest), or ecosystems that are at risk from wilding conifer domination, but which have low ecological value due to widespread abundance of other pest and weed species.

2. Ecosystems that are at risk from wilding conifer domination, but which are not nationally-important ecosystems, such as manuka/kanuka forests and regenerating shrublands.

3. Nationally-important ecosystems that are at risk from wilding conifer domination, particularly rare ultramafic plant communities and rare coastal plant communities.

LANDSCAPE VALUES

For the purpose of this Strategy, it is assumed that the presence of wilding conifers is detrimental to landscape values.

Landscape values were scored primarily with reference to the designation of Areas of Outstanding Landscape Value, in the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan (Marlborough District Council, 2003)

In addition, it was assumed that wilding conifers on prominent headlands and/or skylines are more detrimental to landscape values than wilding conifers in valleys and hillsides.

Score Value

1. Neither designated as an Area of Outstanding Landscape Value in the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan, nor a prominent headland/skyline.

2. Partly designated as an Area of Outstanding Landscape Value in the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan, or a prominent headland/skyline.

3. Designated as an Area of Outstanding Landscape Value in the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan.

EXTENT OF INFESTATION

The practicality of undertaking effective initial control is affected by the density of the wilding conifer infestation. Lower densities allow larger areas to be cleared of wilding conifers for the same amount of resources that would be required to clear a small area of high density wilding conifers. Additionally by controlling the few outlier trees the spread of seeds over a large area is greatly reduced.

13 | P a g e

Infestation scores were developed primarily through a desktop survey of aerial photographs of the management area, and field inspections. Most seedlings and pre-emergent trees will not have been identified, as they are not visible from aerial photographs or visual inspection, therefore it is accepted that the inventory will consistently underestimate the density of conifer infestation at each site.

Score Value

1. Dense infestations (> 8 trees/ha).

2. Moderate infestations (2-8 trees/ha)

3. Low infestations (<2 trees/ha)

RISK OF REINVASION

The practicality of undertaking initial control is also influenced by the risk that wilding conifers will re-establish on a control site, thereby undermining initial control efforts and introducing significant maintenance costs.

The risk of wilding conifer reinvasion was scored using the Decision Support System developed in Assessing Risk of Wilding Spread (Ledgard, Scion Research, 2008). The system accords risk based on six factors – the species providing the seed source, the siting of the seed source, the location of the seed source relative to prevailing winds, the distance of the seed source, the vegetation cover at the control site, and the amount of grazing at the control site. Based on this assessment, the following general considerations apply.

Of the three main conifer species encountered in the management area, Pinus pinaster and Pinus muricata have more spreading vigour than Pinus radiata.

Remaining seed sources located near to the control site, on ‘take-off’ sites (such as ridge-tops) and upwind of the prevailing north-westerly winds will cause more of a problem than seed sources distant from the control site, or that are in sheltered downwind locations.

A control site with a closed canopy is less likely to have reinvasion problems than a lightly-vegetated site or one that is open to land disturbance.

Grazing pressure will reduce reinvasion problems, even on open sites. For the purposes of scoring, it was assumed that all wilding conifers within the priority management sectors will be removed during the term of this Strategy, and therefore will not contribute to reinvasion. Conversely, it was assumed that all commercial forestry within the management area, and land for which wilding control is not favoured, will continue to contribute to reinvasion.

Score Value

14 | P a g e

1. A score of 12 or more using the DSS (high reinvasion risk)

2. A score of between 10 and 11 using the DSS (moderate reinvasion risk)

3. Score of less than 10 using the DSS (low reinvasion risk)

15 | P a g e

BUDGET ESTIMATES

In calculating the cost of initial control, the following budget assumptions have been made:

Labour: Professional contractors have been budgeted at $46.00/hr

Accommodation: Accommodation has been budgeted at $25.00 per person per night, for every eight-hour day worked.

Herbicide: Herbicide use is calculated at $60 per person per day. Using metsulfuron at 200g/litre for herbicide injection, this assumes a contractor will use, on average, five litres of herbicide per day.

Travel: Travel ex-Nelson or Blenheim is calculated at between $414 and $828 each round trip, allowing for mileage and travel time. The weighting is added to every 120hrs worked, assuming a team of two-three contractors travels together and does five day spells.

Use of quads, boats, additional herbicide: A weighting is added to individual block budgets, where the use of quads or boats will be required, or where additional herbicide is likely to be used, such as in thick stands of trees.

Tree-felling: The felling of trees in sensitive areas, such as around roads, houses and the coastline, can rapidly increase the cost of control, with the controlled felling of a single tree costing up to $1000. A weighting is added to individual block budgets where trees exist around excluded areas, to recognise these additional costs. As the cost of each individual excluded tree is impossible to predict in advance, this weighting is not expected to fully account for all excluded trees, but to allow the priority trees to be felled.

Management costs: A control programme requires a degree of management oversight, in order to obtain funding support, manage community relations, undertake contractor procurement and auditing, and reporting. For the purposes of this programme, management has been costed at 24% of the costs of control.

By valuing each budget item separately, it will be possible to quantify the value of in-kind support, such as the use of free accommodation or boat support, if this is offered by landowners in undertaking control.

16 | P a g e

MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY

The following table summarises the management sectors in Kenepuru Sound, their relative scoring and a budget estimate for each sector.

Sectors that score less than 7 were not costed, on the basis that these were a low priority for control, and Goulter Bay sector was not costed as the primary landowner indicated they were managing the wilding conifers on their property independently.

Sector Number

Sector Name Total Score

TOTAL COST

8 Portage Island 11 $ 2,390

5 Tara Bay 10 $ 10,130

7 Portage Bay 10 $ 15,423

9 Nikau Cove 10 $ 19,218

2 Broughton Bay 9 $ 4,027

18 McMahon East 9 $ 14,089

3 Te Mahia Bay 9 $ 17,192

14 Kenepuru Head 9 $ 21,458

4 Island Pt 9 $ 22,211

26 Weka Pt-Ferndale 9 $ 23,873

10 Shelterbelt 9 $ 30,101

13 Kenepuru 7A 9 $ 52,905

12 Sandy Bay 9 $ 58,925

25 Goulter Bay 8 Not costed

29 Double Bay 8 $ 8,684

17 Stokes 8 $ 14,134

22 Manaroa Head 8 $ 16,496

11 Black Rock 8 $ 32,976

6 Pukatea 8 $ 36,015

1 Schnapper Pt 7 $ 40,478

19 McMahon West 7 $ 18,629

21 Waitaria 6 Not costed

23 Motu Roa 6 Not costed

28 Nopera 6 Not costed

20 Fish Bay 5 Not costed

24 Waitaria Amenity 5 Not costed

27 St Omer Saddle 5 Not costed

15 Williams Rd 4 Not costed

16 Kenepuru Saddle 4 Not costed

17 | P a g e

MAINTENANCE CONTROL

No matter how successful the initial control work is, there will inevitably be trees that are missed and a few trees that re-establish after control. This will require follow-up maintenance control to be undertaken.

The frequency and cost of maintenance control will differ between sites, based on a number of variables, with maintenance actions ultimately guided by field inspections of the treated areas. Therefore, the Management Strategy does not identify when follow-up control will be required to be undertaken, or at what cost. In general terms, it is anticipated that little pine re-establishment is likely in the top priority sites, primarily due to the presence of a surrounding closed native forest canopy and no adjacent seed sources. In these situations, maintenance should not be necessary more than twice over a 10-15 year period. The timing of the first maintenance control cycle will generally be guided by the completeness of initial control. If a number of mature, coning trees are missed during initial control, for example, it is recommended that the first repeat control is undertaken as soon as possible to remove those trees. If no mature, coning trees are left after initial control, the first repeat control could be left for up to four or five years. The interval of up to five years after initial control will allow any missed or post-control seedlings to develop into emergent trees, which are more easily located by control operators, but will still see them controlled before they begin to set seed. (Most pine species, including Pinus radiata, can start producing seed between ages eight to ten, but regular seed production from the majority of trees does not start until ages 12-15 (Ledgard, 2004)). The second repeat control could be left for up to a further ten years, if there is no remaining seed source. Each maintenance cycle should require a decreasing amount of control effort and, therefore, decreasing costs. If high numbers of seedlings establish under dense stands of poisoned trees, it is recommended that seedlings are removed at more frequent repeat intervals, to allow a native understory to develop that will help suppress further seedling establishment.

18 | P a g e

IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

A central purpose of this Strategy is to define proposed methods of control, and to outline how the control programme should be delivered. To achieve this objective, an Implementation Plan has been developed.

CONTROL METHODOLOGIES

The Trust has identified four control methodologies that are suitable for controlling wilding conifers in Kenepuru Sound.

Herbicide injection: An effective and proven methodology – herbicide injection - is available for the control of medium to large wilding conifers, and is the primary control method recommended for this Management Strategy. Using this method, mature trees are poisoned by drilling up to twelve holes into their trunks, and injecting herbicide into each hole. The active ingredient is usually 600g/kg metsulfuron-methyl, although glyphosate is also required for species such as Pinus pinaster. Poisoned trees are left standing, eventually becoming a dead spar in the forest that will rot away, with its branches and stem slowly falling to the ground in pieces. For small trees, this is a rapid process, but for large trees may take up to 15 years. This method is now generally preferred to the felling of wilding conifers in forested areas, as felled trees break down a lot of regenerating native vegetation as they hit the ground, thereby opening up a ‘light well’ on the forest floor. Conifer seeds require high light conditions to germinate, and dozens of seedlings can appear around the felled tree. By contrast, poisoning leaves the surrounding regenerating native vegetation undisturbed, and allows a more seamless transition from wilding conifers to native vegetation. Very little secondary conifer re-growth can be expected where there is an intact native forest canopy around the poisoned tree. Generally, not all pines are poisoned within a control area, as it is generally regarded as unsafe to leave dead or dying trees in locations that may pose a hazard to coastal navigation, the public, public access, public utilities or man-made structures (e.g: in close proximity to power lines, private dwellings, boatsheds, jetties, walking tracks, roads). In these instances, pines would be required to be felled in a controlled manner. Ring-barking: An alternative control methodology for forested environments is ring-barking. Ring-barking has the same advantages as herbicide injection, leaving the surrounding regenerating native vegetation undisturbed, allowing a more seamless transition from wilding conifers to native vegetation. Ring-barking is not recommended as a reliable tree-killing technique in Wilding Control: Guidelines for the Control of Wilding Conifers (Ledgard, NZ Forest Research Institute, 2009). It has been used successfully in the Marlborough

19 | P a g e

Sounds (L. Dunwoodie, pers. comm.), but to ring-bark thoroughly increases the budget very significantly, with large trees taking up to an hour each, compared to less than five minutes for herbicide injection. Therefore, this control method is not recommended for this Management Strategy, except in the event that land-owners do not permit the use of herbicides on their property, Manual control: Hand-pulling seedlings remains the most effective form of control for young trees, and can be safely undertaken by volunteers and untrained staff. Hand-pulling is supplemented by the use of loppers or a pruning saw to cut off saplings that are too large or difficult to pull from the ground. The method is simple and recommended for use, but to be effective it is imperative that all green needles are removed from the tree, otherwise control will not be successful. Felling: Felling with a chainsaw remains the preferred method of treating trees excluded from herbicide injection. Felling must be carried out by a qualified chainsaw operator, and requires excellent health and safety procedures. Where trees are felled, it is imperative all green needles are removed below the cut stump. This usually requires the use of loppers or a tomahawk following felling, and can be supplemented by spraying herbicide onto the cut stump in case some green needles are not removed.

20 | P a g e

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF WILDING CONIFER CONTROL METHODS.

Advantages Disadvantages

Felling Sure of success Leaves a large light gap that will encourage seedling reestablishment.

Rapid removal from the landscape.

High operator risk – trained people required.

Cost recovery possible in dense infestations via timber extraction.

OSH/DOC requirements mean two people need to work together.

Controlled felling possible, in sensitive areas, such as around power lines.

Heavy equipment to carry.

Expensive.

Herbicide injection. Lightweight equipment. Standing dead trees unsightly for up to 10 years.

Low operator risk. Use of chemicals.

Small light gap created with low risk of seedling establishment.

Decay of poisoned trees uncontrolled, making it unsuitable in sensitive areas.

Standing dead tree provides habitat for native insects.

Standing dead tree may act as perch for birds that spread native seeds.

Comparatively low cost

Ring-barking Small light gap created with low risk of seedling establishment.

Unreliable results

Avoids use of chemicals Standing dead trees unsightly for up to 10

21 | P a g e

years.

Standing dead tree provides habitat for native insects.

Decay of ring-barked trees uncontrolled, making it unsuitable in sensitive areas.

Standing dead tree may act as perch for birds that spread native seeds.

High operator risk – trained people required.

OSH/DOC requirements mean two people need to work together.

Heavy equipment to carry.

Expensive.

22 | P a g e

CONTROL TIMING

Control will be optimally timed for spring of each year, as that is the time when conifers grow most actively and therefore are most susceptible to herbicide injection.

However, as Pinus radiata shows active growth throughout the year, summer is also an acceptable time for control.

Controlled felling, as a follow-up to those trees excluded from herbicide injection, will be optimally undertaken in summer and early autumn.

CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT

Professional contractors will be engaged to undertake the work, with procurement conducted in an open and transparent manner in winter/early spring of each year.

In the first year, procurement should be undertaken through a competitive tendering process, to establish the size of the likely contractor market and to encourage innovations and price competitiveness.

Procurement methodologies in future years will be dependent on the outcome of the first year’s procurement and control outcomes.

The services shall be performed on an hourly rate for poisoning. Contractors will be required to enter into a written Contract for Services and Project Schedule with KCSRA for each management sector they undertake.

LANDOWNER LIAISON & APPROVALS

Written permission to enter upon private land must be obtained by Contractors from all landowners/occupiers, using a Landowner Access Consent Form, which forms part of the standard Contract conditions. The form must be fully completed and legible, and should be filled out in person except for absentee landowners.

The Contractor shall fully comply with all access conditions stipulated in Landowner Access Consent Forms.

Landowners are under no obligation to agree to control on their land and, where access is denied, the property will be removed from the control programme.

23 | P a g e

HEALTH & SAFETY

Health and safety is an important consideration when planning wilding conifer control.

The minimum health and safety requirements apply:

i. COMMUNICATIONS: All staff employed by the Contractor shall maintain sufficient communications equipment in the field that is capable of immediately obtaining outside assistance should an accident or any other emergency occur.

ii. FIRST AID: All staff employed by the Contractor shall maintain and carry a personal first aid kit while in the field.

iii. HERBICIDE USE: Personal protective equipment shall be worn during herbicide mixing and application, as recommended by the manufacturer on the herbicide label.

iv. TOOL USE: Any use of power and hand-operated tools shall comply with recognised safe work practices, particularly with regard to the use of personal protective equipment, refuelling procedures and maintenance.

v. AIRCRAFT: If the Contractor wishes to use aircraft in the completion of the Services, prior approval of the Trust must be obtained. The operator of any aircraft must possess a current Air Operator Certificate or equivalent, as required by the Civil Aviation Authority.

vi. BOATS: For access to all control areas, powered vessels are required to be surveyed and operated by a commercially ticketed skipper (LLO or greater). For access within a site, non-powered vessels are permitted, subject to recognised safe boat handling practices.

vii. FIRE: The Contractor shall maintain some means of fire suppression while in the field, such as a 420g fire extinguisher.

24 | P a g e

STATUTORY COMPLIANCE

In recommending control methodologies for wilding conifers in Kenepuru Sound, it is vital that the recommended control methodologies meet all relevant statutory requirements.

Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan: The Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust obtained a Certificate of Compliance, pursuant of Section 139 of the Resource Management Act, for the same control methodologies being employed in Queen Charlotte Sound, subject to certain conditions being stipulated in written Contracts and Project Schedules. Therefore, it is assumed that the same approach will be similarly compliant in Kenepuru Sound.

Conservation Act and Reserves Act: The Department of Conservation, which is responsible for implementation of these Acts, has provided written support for the proposed methodology on public conservation land in Kenepuru Sound.

New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS): Under the ETS, the landowner, or the person with the right to deforest, incurs liabilities for the carbon released when pre-1990 forest land is deforested.

Pre‑1990 forest land is land of more than one hectare covered by forest species (either

exotic or indigenous)on 31 December 1989 that remained in forest, and was predominantly exotic forest species on 31 December 2007. Forest land is considered deforested when the land use is changed from forestry to another land use, such as grazing.

However, land is not considered deforested if the land is left to regenerate back into forest, or forest species are planted, where the regeneration meets the following thresholds:

• 4 years after clearing, each hectare has been replanted or has naturally regenerated with at least 500

stems per hectare of forest species; or

• 10 years after clearing, predominantly exotic forest species are growing, but each hectare has tree crown cover of at least 30 percent from trees that have reached 5 metres; or

• 20 years after clearing, predominantly indigenous forest species are growing, but each hectare has tree crown cover of at least 30 percent from trees that have reached 5 metres.

These three regeneration scenarios are all likely to occur in the Sounds, under the proposed control methodologies, as pioneer native species do well in the Sounds and growth rates are rapid. Therefore, it is unlikely that liabilities will be incurred in the few situations where more than one hectare of dense conifers are treated.

In the event that the KCRSA believes the control of wilding conifers is likely to incur liabilities, it may either apply for a one-off permanent exemption from deforestation if the area of pre-1990 land is under 50ha, or it may seek a Tree Weed Exemption for a particular management sector.

Hazardous Substances and New Organism Act: The use of metsulfuron-methyl and glyphosate is certain to certain controls under the HSNO Act. The proposed

25 | P a g e

methodologies are compliant with these controls, subject to certain conditions being stipulated in written Contracts and Project Schedules.

CONTRACTOR MANAGEMENT

All work will be subject to quality assurance auditing.

For a new contractor, or an existing contractor that has significantly changed personnel, a quality assurance audit shall be conducted within the first two days of commencement, and up to twice more during the term of the Contract.

For all other contractors, a quality assurance audit may take place up to twice during the term of the Contract.

The quality assurance audit shall ensure that all Contract conditions, including delivery of the Standard Operational Specifications, are being complied with.

In the event of there being any evidence of poor workmanship or any failures to complete the Contract specifications to a satisfactory standard, the Trust can either require immediate remediation at the Contractor’s expense, or to terminate the Contract.

26 | P a g e

PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT

Management services are budgeted at 24% of the cost of control for each sector. This allows for the following services to be undertaken by a Programme Co-ordinator:

i. Managing communications with KCSRA members

a. Establish and maintain effective working relationships with KCSRA members

b. Ensure KCSRA meetings are adequately reported to and serviced.

ii. Managing community relations

a. Ensure all landowners and land managers provide access consent before control work commences.

b. Ensure effective communications of the wilding conifer control programme with the wider Sounds community.

c. Ensure effective communications and reporting is maintained with key stakeholders (DOC, MDC etc).

d. Erect signage at key access points for each control sector.

iii. Contract management

a. Prepare contract and tender documents for each of the control sectors.

b. Ensure contracts are tendered and awarded in keeping with established best practice.

c. Assist KCSRA members in tender evaluation and tender award processes.

iv. Contractor management

a. Identify and establish communications with contracting market.

b. Convene an annual contractor’s meeting prior to tender release.

c. Hold pre-operational briefings with successful contractors.

d. Audit contractors and deal with any operational issues.

e. Advise control completion, in association with KCSRA.

27 | P a g e

BUSINESS PLAN

A central purpose of this Strategy is to document proposed expenditure over the term of this Strategy, and outline a fund-raising strategy. To achieve this objective, a Business Plan has been developed.

PROPOSED EXPENDITURE

The Management Plan has allocated a budget and score for each management sector, and the Implementation Plan has identified how control should be undertaken. The Business Plan now identifies how the programme should be delivered.

In recommending proposed expenditure, the following criteria have been followed:

Sectors that have a total score of less than 7 should be excluded from the Business Plan, on the basis that these sectors are low priority for control, and the funds for these sectors could more productively be used in other areas of the Marlborough Sounds, outside the scope of this current Strategy, such as Outer Queen Charlotte Sound or d’Urville Island.

Sectors that have a score of 7 have been costed, but excluded from the Business Plan at this stage, on the basis that these sectors are also a low priority for control. However, these sectors may be suitable for inclusion at a later stage, depending on landowner and stakeholder commitment to the control of these sectors.

Inclusion of any management sector in the Business Plan should be conditional on major landowners indicating support for the proposed control programme. In consulting on the Strategy, only one major landowner indicated a lack of support for the programme, and the two relevant management sectors have therefore been removed from the Business Plan. In some situations, where there are multiple owners, initial support was conditional on further consultation with other owners. In other situations, major landowners were not able to be contacted, and therefore will need to be tracked down prior to fund-raising for the relevant sector.

Following these criteria, the Business Plan proposes expenditure of $317,099 (GST excl) over three financial years, commencing July 2011 and concluding in June 2014. This expenditure comprises:

2011-12: $111,981

2012-13: $141,931

2013-14: $ 63,187

28 | P a g e

The following table details the proposed expenditure.

Implementation Sector Number

Sector Name Total Score

CONTROL COST

MANAGEMENT COST

TOTAL COST

2011-12

8 Portage Island 11 $ 1,927

$ 463

$ 2,390

7 Portage Bay 10 $ 12,438 $ 2,985 $ 15,423

9 Nikau Cove 10 $ 15,499 $ 3,720 $ 19,218

18 McMahon East 9 $ 11,362 $ 2,727 $ 14,089

3 Te Mahia Bay 9 $ 13,865 $ 3,328 $ 17,192

14 Kenepuru Head 9 $ 17,305 $ 4,153 $ 21,458

4 Island Pt 9 $ 17,912 $ 4,299 $ 22,211

2012-13

10 Shelterbelt 9 $ 24,275 $ 5,826 $ 30,101

13 Kenepuru 7A 9 $ 42,665 $ 10,240 $ 52,905

12 Sandy Bay 9 $ 47,520 $ 11,405 $ 58,925

2013-14

26 Weka Pt-Ferndale 9 $ 19,253 $ 4,621 $ 23,873

29 Double Bay 8 $ 7,003 $ 1,681 $ 8,684

17 Stokes 8 $ 11,398 $ 2,736 $ 14,134

22 Manaroa Head 8 $ 13,303 $ 3,193 $ 16,496

Defer

5 Tara Bay 10

Majority landowner doesn’t support. Partial

control possible. 2 Broughton Bay 9

Majority landowner doesn’t support. Partial

control possible.

6 Pukatea 8

Majority landowner doesn’t support. Partial

control possible.

25 Goulter Bay 8

Under self-management

11 Black Rock 8

Landowner not able to be contacted.

1 Schnapper Pt 7

Low priority. Potential for later inclusion.

19 McMahon West 7

Low priority. Potential for later inclusion.

21 Waitaria 6 Low priority

23 Motu Roa 6 Low priority

28 Nopera 6 Low priority

20 Fish Bay 5 Low priority

24 Waitaria Amenity 5 Low priority

27 St Omer Saddle 5 Low priority

15 Williams Rd 4 Low priority

16 Kenepuru Saddle 4 Low priority

29 | P a g e

FUND RAISING

Funding will generally be sought on a combined ‘Control plus Management’ basis for each sector, such that the funding for management services be sought as part of the budget for each sector. Where this is not possible, the KCSRA will put up its management services as a separate project for funding on an annual basis.

Over the term of this Strategy, two sources of funds are sought – Primary Funding and Partnership Funding.

PRIMARY FUNDING

Primary Funding will be the funds granted as the foundation of any project, and will generally be sought principally from national funding agencies such as the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board, Canterbury Community Trust, Lion Foundation, Sustainable Management Fund and Biodiversity Condition Fund.

PARTNERSHIP FUNDING

A common expectation of funding agencies is that all community organisations should have done some fund-raising towards the specific project for which an application is being made. In some cases, the community organisation is expected to fund up to 30% of the project total. The KCSRA defines this as Partnership Funding.

Partnership Funding will be generally sought from local resident associations and landowners, local business interests, the Department of Conservation and Marlborough District Council. The KCSRA may also undertake its own occasional fund-raising activities.

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

The KCSRA proposes to manage its finances in keeping with accepted standards of transparency and accountability.

It will provide financial management and reporting in line with the Charities Act 2005, and its own constitution, and will also comply with any financial audit or reporting requirements put in place by external funding agencies.

30 | P a g e

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author would like to thank the following for their assistance in the preparation of this report: Dain Simpson, Pat Williams (KCSRA); Roy Grose, Willie Abel (DOC); Alan Johnson, Jamie Sigmund, Hellen Munro (MDC); Nick Ledgard (Scion Research Ltd), Rod & Glenn Eatwell, and the Portage Resort Hotel.

A special thanks is also due to the many landowners and residents who gave their time and advice freely.

Finally, acknowledgement needs to be made to the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board (Environment & Heritage Fund), Department of Conservation (Sounds Area Office) and Marlborough District Council, which jointly funded the development of the Strategy.

REFERENCES

Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive Weeds (Owen, Department of Conservation, 1998),

South Island Wilding Conifer Strategy (Harding, Department of Conservation, 2001)

Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan (Marlborough District Council, 2003)

A Strategy for Control of Wilding Conifers in North Marlborough (Ledgard, Marlborough

District Council, 2004)

Review of the use of Herbicides to control Wilding Conifers (Raal, Department of

Conservation, 2005)

Restoring Native Forest to the Marlborough Sounds: A summary of the workshop and

field day held on Friday, April 20 and Saturday, April 21, 2007 (Marlborough District

Council, 2007)

Wilding Conifer Strategic Plan for Inner Queen Charlotte Sound (Macalister,

Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust, 2007)

The Ecological Case for Wilding Pine Removal in Queen Charlotte Sound (Walls,

Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust, 2007)

Blights and Blots on the Landscape: Wilding Pines in Queen Charlotte Sound (Lucas,

Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust, 2007)

Wilding Conifer Management Report for Flock Hill Station, Waimakariri Basin,

Canterbury (Woods, Environment Canterbury, 2007)

Assessing Risk of Wilding Spread (Ledgard, Scion Research, 2008)

Wilding Control: Guidelines for the Control of Wilding Conifers (Ledgard, Scion

Research, 2009)

North Marlborough Significant Natural Areas Project (Walls & Eade, Marlborough

District Council, 2009)

Management Plan: Wilding Exotic Trees on d’Urville Island, Marlborough Sounds

(Macalister, Marlborough District Council, 2010)

A Guide to Tree Weed Exemptions (Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, 2010)

APPENDIX 1: MAP OF MANAGEMENT SECTORS

APPENDIX 2: PHOTO SELECTION

Figure 1: The natural ecological demeanour of the Sounds, resplendent in diverse native bush down to the shore (Photo: Geoff Walls).

Figure 2: The norm today in much of the Sounds, with wilding Pinus radiata well established and increasing where-ever the opportunity exists (Photo: Geoff Walls).

Figure 3: A much more advanced infestation, with pines dominant over much of the land, including the rocky shore scarp and the rear of the beach to the right. This situation has developed in just a few decades following the cessation of pastoral farming (Photo: Geoff Walls).

Figure 4: An example of wilding pine control on the flanks of Tory Channel. The big old pines have been poisoned standing (Photo: Geoff Walls).

Figure 5: These photos, taken 18 months apart on Arapawa Island, show the rapid regeneration that takes place underneath stands of poisoned trees. Shady conditions, increased soil moisture and soil nutrients combine to provide an excellent nursery for native plants (Photo: Nick Ledgard/ENSIS).

Figure 6: Beneath the dead pines is growing rich regenerating native vegetation, rapidly forming forest. The slow death and decay of the pines favours this process and prevents re-establishment of pines (Photo: Geoff Walls).

Figure 7: The contrast between felling and stem injection is evident here. The felled tree has created a large hole in the forest canopy, creating ideal conditions for further pine seedling establishment. By contrast the canopy is undisturbed around the standing tree, thereby minimising the chance of pine seedling establishment.

Figure 8: Stem injection in action. Holes are drilled around the trunk, and a herbicide solution is immediately injected into the holes. No herbicide is released into the soil, atmosphere or waterways using this method.

Figure 9: A typical scene on the south side of Kenepuru Sound. Mature pines protrude from a well-established manuka-kanuka canopy. The only remaining opportunities for conifer establishment on these well-vegetated faces are along road edges, access tracks, areas of land disturbance and on upper faces where native vegetation cover is lighter.

Figure 10: A typical scene on the north side of Kenepuru Sound. A mosaic of farmland, commercial forestry and lightly-vegetated slopes predominate, with intact indigenous forest remaining on higher slopes. The opportunities for on-going conifer establishment are higher in these areas due to the proximity of abundant seed sources and the lighter native vegetation cover.

Figure 11: Many areas of reverting farmland on the north side of Kenepuru have only a light native vegetation cover. Here young pines are rapidly establishing in Te Matau o Maui Bay, with on-going recruitment likely due to the presence of adjacent commercial pine plantations.

Figure 12: Pines will establish along rocky coastal margins, even in areas of mature indigenous forest, provided there are seed sources near-by.

Figure 13: A particular challenge in Kenepuru Sound will be managing the many pines that have established along the Kenepuru Road. Trees favour the open faces of roadsides but are expensive and time-consuming to remove safely.

APPENDIX 3: SPREAD VIGOUR OF WILDING CONIFER SPECIES

The following common wilding conifer species have been assigned a spread vigour category by the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry (MAF, 2010) as follows.

No spreading vigour

Lawson’s cypress (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana)

Leyland cypress (Cupressocyparis leylandii)

Low spreading vigour:

Radiata pine (P. radiata)

Bishop pine (P. muricata)

Medium spreading vigour

Maritime pine (P. pinaster)

Mexican weeping pine (P. patula)

Ponderosa pine (P. ponderosa)

Corsican pine (P. nigra)

High spreading vigour

Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)

Contorta pine (P. contorta)

Scots pine (P. sylvestris)