Plan formally adopted - October 2024
Our partial review of the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019 – 2029 is has been formally adopted by both Tasman District Council on 12 September and Nelson City Council on 10 October.
Read the new RPMP proof with the complete rules as adopted by both Councils (also in the document library). This document will be signed following a final edit by Tasman District Council CEO and be available on both Council websites once complete. Minutes of the meetings for full adoption, and the summary of submissions are also provided in the document library, and can also be found on the respective websites and YouTube channels.
Staff will now work on updating education material to explain the new rules and assist landowners in identifying these new pests on their property.
Any questions about the new rules and how they may apply to your property, please contact biosecurity@tasman.govt.nz
Background information for the consultation
There are many organisms currently in the Tasman Nelson region, or which could potentially establish in the region, that are considered undesirable or a nuisance.
In 2023, a regional pest management joint committee of Nelson City and Tasman District Councils carried out a partial review of the Plan.
The partial review considered specific changes relating to the management of blue passion flower, boneseed, Vietnamese parsley, moth plant, pampas grass, sabella, water celery, pest conifer, and feral/stray cats.
Following early consultation with stakeholder groups, the proposed changes went out for public consultation in February 2024.
Thanks so much to everyone who submitted feedback on what they thought was important – we received more than 100 individual submissions on a range of topics, with 12 speaking to their submissions at the hearings in May.
In July, a Joint Committee deliberated and agreed on the recommendations to put up for adoption by the respective Councils.
You can influence our Pest Management Plan
Feedback closed 28 March 2024.
We are seeking your feedback on the proposal outlined below - a partial review of the Tasman-Nelson Regional Pest Management Plan 2019 – 2029 (RPMP) which provides the framework for pest management in the Tasman and Nelson regions.
This is your opportunity to influence pest management activities and policies in our region.
As with the development of the current RPMP in 2018/2019, the proposal is a collaborative effort between Tasman District and Nelson City Councils.
The partial review proposal intends to declare blue passion flower, moth plant, common and purple pampas, water celery, Vietnamese parsley and several pest and wilding conifer trees as new pests in the whole, or parts of, Tasman-Nelson.
It also serves to amend existing pest policies and rules around boneseed, Mediterranean fanworm (Sabella) and feral/stray cats, placing new obligations on occupiers of land and marine craft/structures accordingly.
The proposal does not otherwise affect the current RPMP, except for minor changes required to update the plan and reflect the inclusion of the new sections, policies and rules.
We will consider all submissions before making amendments to the RPMP. Hearings are planned for May, before we finalise the amended plan. Both Councils are expected to approve and adopt the plan later this year.
Feedback closed on 28 March 2024.
Read more and give you feedback using the tabs for each pest below. If you have questions regarding the proposals before completing your submission, please email biosecurity@tasman.govt.nz.
Alternatively, you can write to:
The Chief Executive
Tasman District Council
189 Queen Street
Private Bag 4
Richmond 7050
The proposed changes
The table below summarises the proposed pests or pest groupings and the main reasons for their inclusion in the proposal. Click on the tabs further down the page for more details or read the full proposal here.
|
Proposed pest |
Key reasons for proposed change
|
|
Blue passion flower |
Emerging pest in the region. Eradication is the proposed outcome while infestations are relatively small. |
|
Boneseed (Nelson Port Hills only) |
Refinement to the programme, requiring occupiers in a defined area on Nelson’s Port Hills to undertake control on their properties. This will help maintain the integrity of the existing eradication programme in the rest of Tasman-Nelson. |
|
Conifers - pest conifers and wilding conifers |
Maintaining the gains of prior investment in control work in current (named) operational areas and introducing two new rules: to keep vulnerable land that is clear of wildings clear and for exacerbators of wilding spread from planted forests to undertake control where seed spread is clearly occurring onto neighbouring land. |
|
Feral and stray cats |
Increasing threats to indigenous wildlife (birds, fish and invertebrates) at sites of high ecological value - in Tasman (Abel Tasman National Park enclaves and St Arnaud township area) and in Nelson city (named publicly owned parks/reserves). |
|
Moth plant |
Emerging pest in the region. Eradication is the proposed outcome while infestations are small. Aligns with Marlborough District Council (MDC) rules. |
|
Pampas (purple and common) |
Opportunity to target pampas at two Golden Bay sites only, where controlling pampas is realistic due to its low density and distribution compared with most other places. |
|
Sabella (Mediterranean fan worm) |
Consistent with the MDC policy around fouling levels on craft in an aligned Top of the South approach. Includes new occupier / owner control and management obligations. |
|
Vietnamese parsley and water celery |
Two emerging pests in the region where sustained control is proposed. The rules are considered together as the proposed management programme is the same. |
Blue passion flower
Blue passion flower (Passiflora caerulea)
Current status: Not a named pest in current RPMP.
Proposed management category: Eradication
Eradication programme proposed for whole region.
Rationale for inclusion: We need to act quickly while there is still a chance to eradicate this plant. It already occurs in the Grampians (refer Figure 1) where mature vines were found during 2023 and there are lots of seeds in the infested areas. Nelson City sites will need significant funding and staff resources set aside to help landowners.
Figure 1: Most dense blue passion flower (BPF) infestations located within urban properties (red circled area), north of Nelson Hospital (centre/right). BPF is already escaping into the Grampians Reserve and the hills behind (arrowed). Photo P. Russell, May 2023.
Blue passion flower has been in the region for 20-25 years but now seems to be expanding its range. Estimated current extent is mainly in Nelson urban areas, originating as garden escapees. There are also current sites in Tasman (on individual properties and a larger infestation in Hope).
Description and adverse effects:
A vigorous evergreen climbing vine with hanging white-purple flowers. It can be distinguished from all other passionfruit by at least some of the leaves having five lobes. This species inhabits light gaps and forest edges, scrub, roadside margins, wastelands, hedges, and domestic gardens. It will readily spread into natural areas, smothering native plants and preventing the establishment of native plant seedlings. Its seeds are spread by birds and small mammals (e.g. rats/possums).
Proposed Plan rules:
Specific Rule for Blue Passion Flower in the Tasman-Nelson region
Over the duration of this Plan, occupiers within the Tasman-Nelson region must:
a. Report sightings of blue passion flower on their land to Tasman District Council within five working days of their sighting.
b. Destroy any blue passion flower on their property, on an annual basis, on the direction of an authorised person.
A breach of this rule is an offence under Section 154N(19) of the Act.
Boneseed
Boneseed (Chrysanthemoides monilifera) - Nelson Port Hills only
Current status: Eradication in the whole region - except the current Port Hills exclusion area.
Proposed management category: Sustained Control programme proposed for Port Hills area only, and maintain current Eradication rule over the rest of the region.
Rationale for inclusion: Extensive surveys of the Port Hills shows the need for active control within the area. This includes Beachville, Stepneyville, Washington Valley, Toi Toi, Moana, Britannia Heights, Bishopdale and Nelson South. Eradication is not going to be achievable in these areas but increased control here will help to keep eradication as an option in areas outside the Port Hills (e.g. Rabbit Island area where boneseed seems likely to be ‘washed’ off the hills into the sea which then float across to infest neighbouring coastal areas). The Port Hills remains a source of reinvasion into land that is clear of or being cleared of boneseed.
Landowners will be responsible for control, with contractors potentially involved if funding is available. Some steep and difficult areas to reach on private land could be subject to exemption provisions. Other very difficult to access, publicly owned sites (e.g. Rocks Road cliffs) will need a targeted control programme to be undertaken. With a 20-year seed life, a long-term extensive programme needs to be developed.
Description and adverse effects:
A multi-branched bushy shrub, up to 3m high. It is an aggressive coloniser in coastal sites (dunes, cliffs, salt marshes) and can displace desirable native species. Its seed can remain dormant when deeply buried for more than 10 years.
Proposed Plan rules:
Specific Rule for Boneseed in the Port Hills area
Over the duration of this Plan, occupiers in the Port Hills area of Nelson, as shown on the Map 1 (in this Proposal), must destroy any boneseed on their land, on an annual basis, prior to the completion of flowering, unless there is a negotiated agreement in place between the Management Agency and occupier as an alternative way to achieve this rule.
A breach of this rule is an offence under Section 154N(19) of the Act.
Moth Plant
Moth plant (Araujia hortorum). Also known as Araujia sericifera.
Current status: Not a named pest in current RPMP.
Proposed management category: Eradication pest proposed for the whole region.
Rationale for inclusion: Staff currently respond to a small number of urban sites based mostly on information supplied. Limited numbers of seedlings have appeared so far. However, at some point, we will need Biosecurity Act powers to access properties for inspection and issuing directions. Being listed as a pest will allow this to happen. Moth plant is highly invasive and many other councils list it in their RPMPs, including Marlborough. Adding it to the Tasman-Nelson RMPM provides cross-boundary consistency. The sizes of known infestations are still small and contained which makes eradication highly feasible. There is a chance to ‘nip this pest plant in the bud’ before it gets established and prevent ‘another old man’s beard’ scenario.
Description and adverse effects:
A vigorous evergreen climbing vine with clusters of bell-shaped white flowers followed by a leathery pear-shaped pod that is readily mistaken for choko. Has a toxic smelly milky sap that can cause skin irritation and dermatitis. This species inhabits light gaps and forest edges, scrub, roadside margins, wastelands, hedges, and domestic gardens. It will readily spread into natural areas, smothering native plants and preventing the establishment of native plant seedlings.
Proposed Plan rule:
Over the duration of this Plan, occupiers within the Tasman-Nelson region must report sightings of the named Eradication Pests* on their land to Tasman District Council within five working days of their sighting.
A breach of this rule is an offence under Section 154N(19) of the Act.
* There is an existing blanket rule for 14 eradication pests and requirements for reporting moth plant would be added in with these.
Pampas Grass
Pampas grass – common pampas (Cortaderia selloana) and purple pampas (Cortaderia jubata) - Golden Bay sites only
Current status: Not named pests in the RPMP. Both species listed as ‘organisms of interest’ in Appendix 2.
Proposed management category: Sustained Control programme proposed in two areas in Golden Bay – the Aorere Valley (lower area) and Whanganui Inlet to Puponga (upper area) – refer to the map below.
Rationale for inclusion: Both species are well established and widely spread through much of the lowlands of Tasman District and Nelson City areas. Since 2019, when pampas was removed from the previous RPMP, biosecurity officers have noted a marked increase in the incidence of the pest. However, parts of the Aorere Valley and the western coast of Golden Bay around Westhaven remain relatively free of pampas . Pampas is likely to continue to spread into these areas if unmanaged, affecting the indigenous biodiversity values of bush margins, indigenous grasslands, escarpments and wetlands in these areas.
It is proposed to include both species of pampas, otherwise staff would be left ‘splitting hairs’ on which species is which. Also, visually, the public see pampas as pampas, not as C. jubata or C. selloana. Both species have a negative impact on environmental and production values.
Description and adverse effects:
Pampas are large-clump forming grasses that can grow up to 3m-4m tall. Pampas can be distinguished from the native toetoe (Austroderia species) by its more erect and fuller flower head that is white to pinkish (C. selloana) or has a purple tinge (C. jubata) rather than cream coloured.
Pampas species are hardy and tolerant plants making them highly adaptable to a range of habitats including forest light gaps, slips and other disturbed sites (including sprayed or burned sites), river and forest margins, cliffs, shrublands, tussockland, fernland, herbfields, salt marshes, and wetlands. They colonise quickly and can become very dense, effectively out-competing indigenous species to replace ground cover species and shrubs. Pampas tends not to invade grazed pastures, but can quickly invade retired pasture and over-run restoration planting sites. Seeds are spread very long distances by wind (up to 25km) and occasionally by water, soil movement, contaminated machinery, clothing and on animal pelts.
Proposed Plan rules:
Specific Rule For Common and Purple Pampas In The Tasman-Nelson Region
Over the duration of this Plan:
a. Occupiers in Golden Bay (within the Sustained Control areas - Aorere Valley and Whanganui Inlet to Puponga) as shown on the map must destroy any common and purple pampas on their land, on an annual basis, prior to the completion of flowering.
b. Occupiers in Golden Bay (adjoining the Sustained Control areas - Aorere Valley and Whanganui Inlet to Puponga) as shown on the map must destroy any pampas within 200m of their property boundary (before completion of flowering) where the adjoining occupier (within the Sustained Control area) is taking reasonable steps to destroy pampas on the adjoining land. This is a Good Neighbour Rule.
A breach of this rule is an offence under Section 154N(19) of the Act.
Water Celery/Vietnamese Parsley
Water celery (Apium nodiflorum) and Vietnamese parsley (Oenanthe javanica)
Current status: Neither species are in the current RPMP.
Proposed management category: Sustained control programmes are proposed for the whole region for both species. They are listed together for management purposes as the approach taken is the same for both plants.
Rationale for inclusion: Water celery is in the early stages of naturalisation in Nelson City and Tasman District (e.g. isolated infestations in Brook Stream and Saxton Creek). Likewise, Vietnamese parsley is in a very early establishment stage, near Washbourn Gardens and Poorman Valley Stream. Both plants were the subject of a NIWA commissioned report by NCC (Champion, 2018).
While the abundance of both plants is relatively low, the current infestations are beyond the eradication stage and ability. There is a large invasion potential in regional waterways that are still free of the pest. Trials to control incursions have been successful at reducing the size of infestations, but have not yet proven to be able to eliminate them completely. The most effective herbicides are also ones that require resource consent for use over water.
Description and adverse effects:
Water celery smothering stream margins
Water celery is an aquatic herb that appears to be reliant on human activity to disperse fragments. While not cultivated as a culinary herb it can be mistaken for watercress (Nasturtium officinale). It is widespread in the North Island, though rare in the South Island. It can have negative impacts on river recreational (fishing and swimming), infrastructural (drainage), and environmental (aquatic biodiversity) values by clogging small streams and waterways.
Vietnamese parsley in Poorman Valley Stream
Vietnamese parsley is an aquatic herb cultivated as an ornamental and culinary herb species. It was first recorded as successfully establishing in the wild in 2014. It impacts on river recreational (fishing and swimming), infrastructural (drainage), and environmental (aquatic biodiversity) values by clogging small streams and waterways.
Proposed Plan rules:
Specific Rule for water celery and Vietnamese parsley in the Tasman-Nelson Region.
Over the duration of this Plan occupiers within the Tasman-Nelson region must:
a. Destroy any water celery and Vietnamese parsley on their land, on the written direction of an authorised person, on an annual basis, prior to the onset of flowering.
b. Remove all fragments of water celery and Vietnamese parsley from their places (i.e. machinery, equipment and craft that have been in contact with waterway vegetation) when leaving infested waterways, and dispose of all fragments to landfill.
A breach of this rule is an offence under Section 154N(19) of the Act.
Feral and stray cats
Feral and stray cats (Felis catus)
Current status: Feral cats are only included in the site-led programme for Waimea Estuary.
Proposed management category: Site-Led. Further site-led programmes are proposed, targeting both feral and stray cats in Tasman and Nelson.
Rationale for inclusion: Both Councils wish to step up feral and stray cat management at sites with important biodiversity values and further promote responsible companion cat ownership overall.
Cats in general contribute to negative impacts on indigenous biodiversity (e.g. direct predation on native birds, reptiles and insects, freshwater fish and invertebrates across the region, or indirectly through nest or colony desertions).
This proposal concerns the management of feral and stray cats at several named high-value sites (refer to the Maps below):
The following cat definitions apply when reading this Plan;
|
Type |
Relationships with humans |
Considerations |
|
Companion cat |
Directly dependent |
Has owner/ guardian |
|
Stray cat |
Directly or indirectly dependent |
Community cat(s), semi-owned, unowned, managed or unmanaged as a single cat or colony |
|
Feral cat |
Independent and unsocial |
Wild animal, considered a pest in many regions in New Zealand. |
Source: SPCA/NZ Cat Management Strategy
A cat can also be deemed a ‘pest agent cat’ under the RPMP, with rules. Pest agent cat definition under this Plan is: any cat that in any way leads to the replication or survival of stray or feral cat populations.
Proposed Plan rules:
New approaches for (i) Nelson City – specific high value sites, (ii) current ATNP site-led programme and (iii) new St Arnaud environs site-led programme (refer to Map 3 of the Proposal). Rules are noted as follows:
Nelson city rules
Specific rule for feral and stray cats in the Nelson City site-led programmes
Over the duration of this Plan, and with regard to high value sites within Nelson City (as shown on Map 3.1 in this proposal):
a) Any person who suspects the presence of any feral or stray cat in any named high value site must report its presence and location to Nelson City Council within 48 hours of their sighting.
b) No person shall feed or shelter any feral or stray cat in any named high value site.
Specific pest agent cat rule for the Nelson City site-led programme
No person shall deliberately release into the wild (i.e., in any named high value site in Nelson as shown on Map 3.1 in this Proposal) any companion or stray cat.
St Arnaud rules
Specific rule for feral and stray cats in the St Arnaud environs site led programme
Over the duration of this Plan, and with regard to the St Arnaud site-led programme (as shown on Map 3.2 of this Proposal):
Any person who suspects the presence of any feral or stray cat observed within the mapped area must report its presence and location to Tasman District Council within 48 hours of their sighting.
Specific pest agent cat rule for the St Arnaud environs site-led programme
Over the duration of this Plan, and with regard to the St Arnaud site-led programme (as shown on Map 3.2 of this Proposal):
a. No person shall keep, hold or harbour any companion cat within the mapped area unless it is desexed and its identity is microchipped and the chip is registered on the New Zealand Companion Animal Register.
b. No person shall deliberately release into the wild (e.g. Nelson Lakes National Park and environs) any companion cat from or living within the mapped area.
Abel Tasman National Park rules
Additional rule for Abel Tasman National Park private enclaves
Following existing rules a. and b. and in relation to the ATNP site-led programme areas – Awaroa, Torrent Bay and Marahau North, as shown in three maps (Map 3.31, 3.32 and 3.33, respectively, of this proposal):
a. Any person who suspects the presence of any feral or stray cat within the ATNPSLP must report its presence and location to Tasman District Council within 48 hours of their sighting.
A breach of these rules is an offence under Section 154N(19) of the Act.
Maps for the feral and stray cat rules proposed.
Sabella
Sabella, or Mediterranean fan worm (Sabella spallanzanii )
Current status: Eradication over whole region with rules requiring occupiers to report Sabella presence and to allow access to places they occupy for control.
Proposed management category: Eradication
Rationale for inclusion: The proposed amendments align with the Marlborough RPMP and therefore provide consistency across the Top of the South’s coastal marine areas. There are three additional Sabella control rules included which provide a backstop ability for the Councils to undertake enforcement action if and when compliance situations arise. The current ‘reporting of Sabella’ rule would be retained (and edited) as Sabella is a notifiable organism.
The eradication goal is retained with rules added requiring owners of vessels and marine equipment (craft) entering the region to not exceed a standardised fouling level, (as developed by the Cawthron Institute), and for owners/occupiers of places to destroy Sabella when directed to by an Authorised Person, and stating how this is to be done.
Plan rules and explanations of rules:
Specific Rules For Sabella In The Tasman-Nelson Region
Over the duration of this Plan:
a. The owner or person in charge of any marine craft entering the Tasman-Nelson region must ensure that the fouling on the hull and niche areas of the craft does not exceed level 2 on the Cawthron level of fouling (LoF) scale, unless:
i) The craft is entering Tasman-Nelson for the purpose of hauling out. The haul out must be undertaken within 24 hours of arriving. Proof via receipt from a haul out facility must be provided to an Authorised Person if requested, or
ii) The craft is entering Tasman-Nelson for emergency purposes and the craft leaves the region within 24 hours of arrival (or otherwise the occupier needs to comply with the rule), or
iii) The craft is required to enter Tasman-Nelson in response to a declaration of a state of emergency, as determined by the Ministry of Civil Defence & Emergency Management.
Rule a. does not apply to marine craft that have entered New Zealand waters in compliance with the Craft Risk Management Standard (CRMS) for Biofouling in the period two months prior to either directly or subsequently entering Tasman-Nelson waters.
Rule a. is also not intended to apply to those craft that are usually moored in the Tasman-Nelson region and leave the region for no more than 24 hours before returning.
Level 2 macrofouling (e.g. having goose barnacles) is defined by the Cawthron Institute as: macrofouling is present in small patches, or a few isolated individuals or small colonies, and covers between 1 - 5% of the visible surface (refer to Appendix 2 of the full proposal document).
In relation to receipt verification from haul out facilities, this will need to be from a recognised haul out facility (i.e. the Top of the South has a list of recognised facilities) or proof that the facility complies with the respective council's consent rules.
b. The occupier or person in charge of any place (e.g. marine craft or structure) shall destroy Sabella that has been found on that place, on written direction from an Authorised Person, unless there is an approved agreement in place between the Management Agency and occupier as an alternative way to achieve this requirement.
c. In undertaking steps to destroy Sabella (under rule b.), the place shall first be slipped or contained within an encapsulation system and treated with biocode. If that is not practicable, Sabella may be removed in water by divers who are appropriately trained and all Sabella must be contained and returned to the surface for disposal to a suitably authorised facility.
Marine craft that have been hand cleared of sabella by divers under rule c. (i.e. where treated in-situ within TDC’s jurisdiction) are permitted to stay at the site of treatment for a maximum of one month following treatment. After this period craft are required to be slipped and fully cleaned, to the satisfaction of an authorised person. There is a boat haul out facility with Port Nelson.
d. Any person who suspects they have observed Sabella in Tasman-Nelson shall notify the Management Agency within 24 hours of making the observation, detailing the location and situation of the suspected pest.
Rule d. applies as Sabella is also a notifiable organism through the Biosecurity (Notifiable Organisms) Order 2016. The suspected presence of Sabella must also be reported to the Ministry for Primary Industries in accordance with section 46 of the Biosecurity Act 1993.
Pest and wilding conifers
Pest conifers and wilding conifers
Current status: No species of conifers are currently named as pests except for Douglas fir, and only within the Abel Tasman National Park enclaves and subsequent ATNP site-led programme.
Proposed management category: Progressive Containment
Species covered and definitions
There are ten conifer species proposed to be declared ‘pest conifers’ in the RPMP as listed below.
| Bishops pine (Pinus muricata) | Maritime pine (Pinus pinaster) |
| Contorta pine (Pinus contorta) | Mexican weeping pine (Pinus patula) |
| Corsican pine (Pinus nigra) | Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) |
| Mountain pine (Pinus mugo) including sub-species and botanical variants |
Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris) |
| European larch (Larix decidua) and botanical variants | Western white pine (Pinus monticola) |
The species above occur in planted (historical) or wilding states and all can cause adverse impacts on regional values. Contorta pine is the most invasive of this group and is deemed an unwanted organism nationally. Some pest conifers have commercial worth where they have been planted and harvested. However, most of these species have little or no economic worth, in contrast to the significant environmental cost of their spread. Generally, pest conifers need to be controlled/harvested wherever they occur in the region (including where they occur in plantations) as soon as it is practicable.
A further group of conifers comprises two species grown as commercial crops, but which can also naturally spread and contribute to wilding conifer adverse effects. Two species of conifer are proposed to be declared ‘wilding conifers’ in the RPMP as listed below.
| Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) | Radiata pine (Pinus radiata) |
The RPMP is not concerned with stopping forestry activities operating within a landowner’s private property. However, plantations of Douglas fir and Radiata pine can result in self-seeded and unintentional spread. That's why we are proposing that self-seeded trees of these two species, outside the area of an existing planted forest, be deemed ‘wilding conifers’.
This Plan also refers to ‘pest agent conifer’, which means any introduced conifer species that is capable of helping the spread of wilding conifers and is not located within a plantation forest.
Readers should note that in this section, in general terms, ‘wilding conifer’ or ‘pest agent conifer’ may also refer to any of the 12 named conifer species.
Rationale for inclusion:
Including pest conifers and wilding conifers into the Tasman-Nelson RPMP for the first time is an important interim step in their region-wide management. It will help us to maintain the gains of prior and current control efforts. We need to protect the investments made in the four wilding conifer operational areas we are currently managing (refer to Map 4 in this Proposal):
Proposed Plan rules:
Two types of management programme are proposed - a region-wide approach and targeted programmes in operational areas under current management.
i. Region-wide programmes
Three rules are proposed, outside of current operational areas under management:
- A clear land rule;
- A planted conifer forest (wilding spread) rule; and
- A pest agent conifer rule.
Specific rules for pest/wilding conifers applicable across the whole region
Over the duration of this Plan, within the Tasman-Nelson region and prior to cone bearing:
a. Outside of named wilding conifer operational areas, after 1 July 2025, occupiers of land that is clear or relatively clear of pest or wilding conifer must destroy any pest or wilding conifer on their land, to ensure that land that is clear or relatively clear of pest or wilding conifers remains clear, on the written direction of 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.
‘Clear land’ is defined as parts of the region that are currently clear, (or infestations are at a low or very low density), but highly susceptible to wilding conifer spread if a seed source becomes established. 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 these vulnerable or susceptible areas. Further, protected ‘specimen’ conifer trees named in District Plans (made under the Resource Management Act) may be exempt from this requirement, on a case by case basis.
b. From 1 July 2024, occupiers of planted conifer forests (greater than 1 hectare), outside of named wilding conifer operational areas, are liable for the costs for the removal of any wilding conifers present on adjoining land, within 200m of the planted forest property’s boundary. This requirement will be on written direction from an authorised person, following a valid complaint from an adjoining affected neighbour, and where there is evidence (in the opinion of an authorised person) that wilding spread has occurred from the planted forest to an adjoining property.
c. Occupiers must destroy any pest agent conifer on their land, on direction of an authorised person, where an adjoining occupier is undertaking active pest conifer or wilding conifer control on their land and the wilding spread is clearly attributable to the pest agent conifer(s).
(ii) Current operational areas under management
It is assumed that current priority control areas and programmes will continue to be funded until the ‘back of each problem’ is broken (i.e. no coning trees remain) and responsibility for ongoing control can be transferred back to individual land occupiers to manage. ‘Transitional’ criteria have yet to be determined nationally, however the following rules would generally not be implemented until an operational area has received:
- Initial control; and
- 2-3 rounds of maintenance control (with varying years, i.e. typically 3-5 years, between control cycles, dependant on the species).
There are four wilding conifer control operational areas in the Tasman-Nelson region which are the key subject of the RPMP pest conifers proposal.
Specific rules for pest/wilding conifers in parts of the region (as listed below):
- Mt Richmond Wilding Conifer Management Unit;
- Tākaka Hill community project;
- Abel Tasman National Park (ATNP) - Project Janszoon; and
- Golden Bay (including ATNP Halo) - Project De-vine.
Over the duration of this Plan, within the above operational areas under current management, in the Tasman-Nelson region (as shown in Maps 4.1, 4.2 and 4.31 and 4.32 in this Proposal) and prior to cone bearing:
d. Occupiers must destroy any pest/wilding conifers on their land where they are located within a defined operational area 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.
e. Occupiers within a defined operational area must destroy any pest/wilding conifers on their land within 200m of an adjoining property boundary, where the adjoining property has previously been cleared of pest/wilding conifers through prior control and the adjoining occupier is also undertaking active control work within 200m of their property boundary. This is a Good Neighbour Rule 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..
A breach of any of the above rules is an offence under Section 154(N)19 of the Act.
Explanation of the Rules
The purpose of these rules is in accordance with sections 73(5)(h) and (m), as outlined below:
- Rule (a) is a ‘clear land rule’ and requires occupiers to take specific actions to control pest or wilding conifers when instructed to by appropriate council officers in writing. The intent of the rule is to primarily protect high value biodiversity areas which are deemed vulnerable to any wilding conifer spread where infestations are small (and densities low to very low) and control now is feasible and cost effective, as determined by council officers. The rule could also be used to protect production land or for cultural/aesthetic reasons where wilding or pest conifers are impacting on these values. A negotiated agreement between the Council and occupier is a valid alternative way to meet this rule requirement.
- Rule (b) is a ‘planted forestry seed spread rule’ and aims to ensure that forest occupiers (plantation and permanent forests) are responsible for any wilding spread of conifer seedlings from their forests onto immediately neighbouring land, from 1 July 2024 onwards. 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 wildings and their land use remains otherwise unchanged.
A four-step process is followed:
Step 1: Complaint received by 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 them on the most appropriate way to deal with the problem.
Step 4: If no agreement can be reached, RPMP enforcement provisions may be enacted.
A negotiated agreement between the forest occupier and adjoining occupier (and validated by the Management Agency) will be a binding way to meet this rule requirement, e.g. that the agreement documents which party will undertake and/or fund the required control, over what time period and what the access agreements are to carry out control work.
- Rule (c) is a ‘pest agent conifer rule’ which aims to prevent pest/wilding conifer establishment across property boundaries 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. This rule would be triggered primarily through a valid complaint made by a neighbour to the Management Agency, and that person must be making a genuine attempt to control pest/wilding conifers on their property.
- Rule (d) is about ‘maintaining the gains’ of any control work undertaken to ensure that the benefits of 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, as deemed valid by the Management Agency). This definition extends to include individual private property control programmes, on a case by case basis.
- Rule (e) is a ‘good neighbour rule’ designed to protect an occupier who has been taking reasonable steps (e.g. active/ongoing control work) on their property and is being impacted by wilding conifer infestations on 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 suitable way to bind the Crown to meet its RPMP obligations.
- Rules d-e above relate to operational areas that have received the agreed level of work, or agreed control targets have been met, and where the Management Agency determines that ongoing control will transition back to individual land occupiers.
