The Control of Wilding Conifers in Outer Queen Charlotte Sound

Transcription

1 MANAGEMENT STRATEGY: The Control of Wilding Conifers in Outer Queen Charlotte Sound June 2013 Prepared for: ENDEAVOUR INLET CONSERVATION TRUST EAST BAY CONSERVATION SOCIETY Prepared by: Andrew Macalister R&D Environmental Ltd With support from:

2 TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD... 3 BACKGROUND... 4 Introduction... 4 Characteristics of Wilding Conifer Spread... 5 Impacts of wilding conifer spread... 6 Current management... 8 THE STRATEGY Purpose and Status of Strategy Vision Methods MANAGEMENT PLAN Control Blocks Site-led prioritisation Budget estimates Management Plan summary IMPLEMENTATION Programme Delivery Control Methods Control timing Maintenance Control Contractor procurement Landowner liaison & approvals Health & Safety statutory compliance Contractor management Programme Management Fund raising Financial Management ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS REFERENCES APPENDIX 1: PHOTO SELECTION P a g e

3 FOREWORD Over the past seven years the appearance of more and more silvering wilding pines on the ridges and flanks of the Inner Sounds are testament to the impact of the control programme initiated and run by the Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust. My father, who was the previous patron of the Trust, was a great admirer of its community-led response to the spread of wilding pines, and it is encouraging now to see the community and the Trust mapping the way forward for the next phase of the programme in the Outer Sounds. The Marlborough Sounds are an area of great natural beauty and important landscape and environmental values. It is vital that the Sounds and its native ecosystems be restored and protected for future generations. This programme relies on the financial support and cooperation of the local community, as well as local and central government. Please enable this important next phase by actively supporting the Trust s work. Judge Sarah Reeves Patron Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust 3 P a g e

4 BACKGROUND INTRODUCTION 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 Outer Queen Charlotte Sound, Pinus pinaster (maritime pine) is also an important feature around Resolution Bay, and Pinus muricata (Bishop pine) occur in East Bay. Occasional specimens of Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas fir), Pinus patula (Mexican weeping pine), Cupressus macrocarpa (macrocarpa), Cupressus lawsoniana (Lawson cypress) and Cupressus lusitanica may also be encountered throughout the project area. The dominance of Pinus radiata as a wilding conifer is primarily a legacy of the many homestead woodlots and shelter belts planted as far back as the late 1800s, when much of the Sounds was burnt and cleared for farming. These stands of mature trees provided abundant seed sources to allow wildings to establish across Sounds hillsides under limited grazing pressure, particularly when former paddocks were retired from pastoral farming during the 1900s. The establishment of commercial Pinus radiata forestry plantations on Arapawa Island under forestry incentive schemes during the 1970s and 80s has introduced a second, and much larger, seed source into Outer Queen Charlotte Sound. The outcome of this phase in the Sounds natural history is still in the process of being defined, as many forest owners battle with the marginal economics of Sounds forestry and the implications of the Climate Change Response (Emissions Trading) Amendment Act If these forests are not harvested, and the trees are left to grow and mature, they will present a huge seed source in the outer Sound. If these forests are harvested and replanted, or if no post-harvest site management is undertaken following harvesting, they will re-emerge as a future seed reservoir as the second generation of trees matures over the next 20 years. This legacy means that wilding conifers will continue to establish throughout Outer Queen Charlotte Sound where-ever the opportunity presents itself. Areas of continued invasion will naturally occur on bare ridges and hilltops in an early stage of native forest succession, throughout the entire coastal margin of the Sound, and along roadsides and access tracks. Land disturbance caused by one-off events such as 4 P a g e

5 slips, fires, drought, pig rooting or wind damage will also allow opportunistic wilding conifer establishment. Fortunately, however, as most of Outer Queen Charlotte Sound is being allowed to regenerate, the opportunities for conifer establishment will generally decline over time as native forest succession continues. CHARACTERISTICS OF WILDING CONIFER SPREAD In order to understand the pattern of spread of wilding conifers, 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: Pinus spp. can start producing some seed between ages 8-10, but regular seed production from the majority of trees does not start until age (Ledgard, 2004). Distance of seed dispersal: In New Zealand, Pinus spp. seed dispersal is almost entirely by wind, with most seed typically falling within 200m downwind of the parent source ( fringe spread ). Occasionally, seed is dispersed distances of more than a kilometer ( distant spread ). This distant spread typically occurs at greater than five year intervals, often averaging only once every years (Ledgard, 2004). Factors that influence the distance seed travels are: Seed mass: The ratio of seed mass to wing length is a reasonable indicator of the seed dispersal potential of pine species. Both P. radiata and P. pinaster have only a moderate ratio of seed mass to wing length and are therefore less likely to travel as long distances as, for example, P. contorta or Pseudotsuga menziesii (Douglas fir). 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). 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. 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. 5 P a g e

6 Viability of seed: There is no significant long-lasting seed bank in the soil from Pinus spp. Once released from the cone, seed generally remains viable in the soil for only two to three years, 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 lowstature 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 apparent 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 set 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 the Department of Conservation accords wilding conifers a lower Biological Success Rating than it does to weeds such as old man s beard and gorse (Harding, 2001). IMPACTS OF WILDING CONIFER SPREAD The spread of wilding conifers is a substantial problem throughout the Marlborough Sounds. The problem has been recognised 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. 6 P a g e

7 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. Lucas Blights and Blots on the Landscape: Wilding Pines in Queen Charlotte Sound (Lucas, 2007) identified that, without extensive and comprehensive wilding management, the landscape values of Queen Charlotte Sound will gradually diminish. It will lose its distinctiveness, and very special identity based on its natural qualities. ECOLOGICAL IMPACTS Associated with the spread of wilding conifers is the loss or displacement of native biodiversity, where wilding conifers 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. The most obvious ecological impacts of wilding conifers are on native plant communities. The fast growth rates of wilding conifers allow them to out-compete and suppress low-stature native vegetation, such as coastal plant communities. In extreme situations, the uncontrolled spread of wilding conifers could lead to the local extinction of some plant communities. Wilding conifers can also alter the structure of shrubland and regenerating forest, by establishing in light gaps and open ridges and outcompeting native forest species. 7 P a g e

8 In addition to impacting on native plant communities, wilding conifers can also have an impact on native fauna, particularly lizards and invertebrates. A recent assessment of the ecological impacts of wilding conifers (Walls, 2007) noted that there are many close obligatory associations between native plants and native invertebrates, such that invertebrates would be displaced if wilding conifers suppressed native coastal vegetation, shrubland and regenerating forest. Similarly, displacement of native shrubland and regenerating forest by wilding conifers is likely to impact on native lizards, which feed on nectar, fruit and invertebrates. Harding (2001) also notes that, in general, fewer native bird species are found in conifer forests than in native forests. Wilding conifers are also likely to affect freshwater communities, as conifer forests will lower catchment flows as compared to either native forest or pasture. These reduced catchment flows could have significant implications on in-stream flora and fauna (Harding, 2001). In summary, therefore, the uncontrolled spread of wilding conifers in the Sounds is likely to lead to substantial displacement of native species and a net loss in biological diversity. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC IMPACTS DOC s South Island Wilding Conifer Strategy (Harding, 2001) also notes that wilding conifers can threaten cultural and historic sites. The large, spreading root mass of mature trees can alter and damage a range of historic and cultural features, such as historic building foundations, early mining sites, early European graves, pa terraces and sites, and urupa (Harding, 2001). In Outer Queen Charlotte Sound, cultural sites that are at risk include Wharehunga Bay and coastal urupa, such as can be found in East Bay. CURRENT MANAGEMENT Despite the recognition of the problem, no co-ordinated approach has been in place to manage the spread of wilding conifers in the Marlborough Sounds. DOC undertakes low-level control on the areas of public conservation land identified as top priority in its South Island Wilding Conifer Strategy (Harding, 2001), prioritised against its Strategic Plan for Managing Invasive Weeds (Owen, 1998), which considers the impact on native biodiversity only. This has resulted in DOC control being largely restricted to the island sanctuaries it manages, such as Blumine, Motuara and Long Island. 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 8 P a g e

9 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 (2012) 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, residents associations, 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 conifer control programme, managed by the Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust. Between 2008 and 2013, the Trust has conducted control in Inner Queen Charlotte Sound, Kenepuru Sound and on D Urville Island with a budget of almost $1 million. 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. 9 P a g e

10 THE STRATEGY This Strategy was commissioned by the Endeavour Inlet Conservation Trust and the East Bay Conservation Society, with funding support from 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. ii. To document proposed expenditure over the term of this Strategy. iii. To provide specifications for the delivery of the control programme. 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 Outer Queen Charlotte Sound by June METHODS For the purposes of developing this strategy, a desktop survey of Outer Queen Charlotte Sound was conducted in January-February 2013, 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. Field inspections were undertaken in February-March 2013 by boat, foot and vehicle over the entire project area. 10 P a g e

11 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, and on whose land wilding conifers were noted, were contacted 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 Management Plan Summary. In some instances, the major landowner was either unable to be located, or indicated that further consultation may be required, particularly where there were multiple owners of the property. The draft plan was then provided to the Endeavour Inlet Conservation Trust, East Bay Conservation Society, Marlborough District Council and the Department of Conservation for comment, before plan completion. 11 P a g e

12 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. CONTROL BLOCKS For the purposes of operational planning, Outer Queen Charlotte Sound has been divided into a number of control blocks, based on the extent of wilding conifer infestation, access considerations, tenure, land use and landscape values. Each block 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. Islands being managed by the Department of Conservation and private land being managed for commercial forestry were excluded from consideration. The map below shows the control blocks. 12 P a g e

13 SITE-LED PRIORITISATION A scoring system has been developed for each control block, to attribute a priority for each block 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 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 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. 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) 13 P a g e

14 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. Infestation scores were developed primarily through a desktop survey of aerial photographs of the management area, and field inspections. Most seedlings and preemergent 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. 14 P a g e

15 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 control blocks 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 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

16 BUDGET ESTIMATES A budgeting system has been developed for each control block, to calculate the cost of initial control. The following budget assumptions have been made: Labour: Professional contractors have been budgeted at $50.00/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 $20 per person per day. Using metsulfuron at 50g/litre for herbicide injection, this assumes a contractor will use, on average, eight litres of herbicide per day. Travel: Travel ex-blenheim is calculated at $650 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 undertake contractor procurement and auditing, health & safety management, and reporting. For the purposes of this programme, management has been costed at 14% of the costs of control. By valuing each budget item separately, it will be possible to quantify the value of inkind support, such as the use of accommodation or boat support, if this is offered by landowners in undertaking control. 16 P a g e

17 MANAGEMENT PLAN SUMMARY The following table summarises the control blocks in Outer Queen Charlotte Sound, their relative scoring and a budget estimate for initial control. Control Block No Priority Score Comments TOTAL COST Resolution Bay $ 5,696 Motuara $ 3,249 Koamaru $ 1,392 Anatohia $ 18,498 East Bay $ 18,934 Edgecombe Pt 1 9 $ 16,138 Big Bay 6 9 $ 4,609 Tawa Bay 10 9 $ 37,273 Scott Pt 11 9 $ 19,288 Patten Passage 18 9 $ 14,567 Wharehunga 17 8 $ 46,313 OQC Aerial Treatment 24 8 Undertake after initial control $ 24,624 Furneaux Head 8 7 $ 24,495 Furneaux West 7 9 Defer $ 12,911 Furneaux East 9 9 Under community management $ - Umuwheke 19 6 Defer $ - Double Bay 20 6 Defer $ - Ngaio Cove 21 6 Defer $ - Kaitapeha 22 6 Defer $ - Ruaomoko Pt B 23 6 Defer $ - Bakers Bay 2 5 Defer $ - Deep Bay 3 5 Defer $ - Moonlight Bay 4 5 Defer $ - Punga Cove 5 4 Defer $ - TOTAL $ 247,987 Blocks that scored less than 7 have not been costed, on the basis that these were a low priority for control. These low-priority control blocks may be suitable for inclusion at a later stage, depending on landowner and stakeholder commitment and the evolution of control methodologies. Inclusion of any control block was conditional on major landowners indicating support for the proposed control programme. Where a property has multiple owners, support was often conditional on further consultation and, in one instance, it is recommended that control is deferred. 17 P a g e

18 In all other blocks, it is recommended that initial control take place by June Following these criteria, expenditure of $247,987 (GST excl) is proposed. The map below shows the proposed programme implementation by June P a g e

19 IMPLEMENTATION A central purpose of this Strategy is to outline how the control programme should be delivered. To achieve this objective, the following specifications been developed. PROGRAMME DELIVERY It is planned that the Endeavour Inlet Conservation Trust and the East Bay Conservation Society will collaborate with the Marlborough Sounds Restoration Trust for successful and timely delivery of the proposed programme. The aim of the collaboration will be to utilise the local networks of the EICT and EBCS to communicate on the programme and to mobilise logistical and financial buy-in from local landowners, and to take advantage of the considerable expertise and fund-raising potential of the MSRT in delivering wilding conifer control. CONTROL METHODS There are seven control methodologies that are suitable for controlling wilding conifers in Outer Queen Charlotte Sound. Herbicide injection: An effective and proven methodology herbicide injection - is available for the control of medium to large wilding conifers. 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 for Pinus radiata, and 540g/litre glyphosate for 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 native vegetation undisturbed, and allows a more seamless transition from wilding conifers to native vegetation. Less conifer regrowth can be expected where there is an intact native forest canopy around the poisoned tree. Herbicide injection should take place during spring/early summer, as that is the time when conifers grow most actively and therefore translocate the herbicide most quickly. 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 19 P a g e

20 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 medium to large trees in a forested environment 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, 2009), due to the lack of certainty of success. While it has been used successfully in the Marlborough Sounds, to ring-bark effectively increases the budget very significantly, with large trees taking up to an hour each, compared to less than five minutes for herbicide injection (L. Dunwoodie, pers. comm.). Furthermore, field observations suggest that ring-barked trees appear to be put under stress and release significant amounts of seed following control, often with large numbers of seedlings establishing around the ring-barked tree (P. Amberger, pers. comm.). Therefore, this control method is not favoured for use. Felling: Felling with a chainsaw remains a suitable method of killing medium to large trees. Felling must be carried out by a qualified chainsaw operator, and requires excellent health and safety procedures as it is a high-risk activity. Felling should be undertaken at times of low public use. While felling immediately removes the tree from the landscape, felled trees break down a lot of native vegetation as they hit the ground, thereby opening up a light well on the forest floor in which dozens of seedlings can appear as can other adventive weed species. Felling is also very expensive as compared to herbicide injection, and is therefore only recommended as a method of treating medium to large trees excluded from herbicide injection, such as occur around the coastline and close to powerlines and baches. Basal bark application: Spraying the bark of trees with a triclopyr/oil solution offers an alternative form of control for small to medium trees. The method offers a faster means of control than herbicide injection - but is currently only recommended for trees in the soft bark growth phase, with a trunk diameter of 250mm or less. The method can only be used in dry conditions, and requires good access as moderate amounts of herbicide can be required. Aerial basal bark application: Where trees are in inaccessible areas, or widely dispersed, basal bark application by helicopter offers an effective control methodology. 20 P a g e

21 Aerial spot-spraying removes the need for ground staff to travel long distances by foot, or to work in hazardous locations, such as coastal escarpments, and will be useful for follow-up control when widely-spread young trees are emerging from the forest canopy. Aerial basal bark application has been successfully used in the Marlborough Sounds and Abel Tasman National Park, and generally is best for single-stem trees of less than 600mm trunk diameter (Macalister & Stein, 2013). The treatment of larger trees is possible but is generally expensive due to the amount of flying time and herbicide required to treat a single tree. Aerial boom spraying: Where large numbers of pine seedlings are emerging, such as after the harvest of a forestry plantation, aerial boom-spraying is the most cost-effective means of control and is a conventional pre-planting technique used in the commercial forestry industry. For closed-canopy forests of pines more than two metres tall, aerial boom spraying methods are now available that may be suitable for certain situations in the Marlborough Sounds. Boom-spraying methodologies remain in a rapid state of development, with different approaches being trialled throughout the country. Manual control: Hand-pulling seedlings remains an effective form of control for young trees, and can be safely undertaken by volunteers and untrained staff at any time of the year. 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 all green needles must be removed from the tree. 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. 21 P a g e

22 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 at sites with a surrounding closed native forest canopy and no adjacent seed sources. In these situations, maintenance should not be necessary more than twice over a year period. At sites within an open or broken vegetation cover and/or adjacent seed sources, it is likely that more intensive maintenance control will be required. 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. 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. Where dense wilding conifer stands have been controlled, it is likely that there is a large seed bank present that will see seedlings establish within three years of control. At these sites, 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. CONTRACTOR PROCUREMENT Professional contractors will be engaged to undertake the work, with procurement conducted in an open and transparent manner 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. 22 P a g e

23 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. Contractors will be required to enter into a written Contract for Services and Project Schedule 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. 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 Contractors 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. iii. iv. FIRST AID: All staff employed by Contractors shall hold a current Basic First Aid qualification, and maintain and carry a personal first aid kit while in the field. HERBICIDE USE: All staff employed by Contractors shall hold a current Growsafe certificate and/or Approved Handlers for Agrichemicals. Personal protective equipment shall be worn during herbicide mixing and application, as recommended by the manufacturer on the herbicide label. 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. 23 P a g e

24 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. vii. 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. FIRE: The Contractor shall maintain some means of fire suppression while in the field, such as a 420g fire extinguisher. STATUTORY COMPLIANCE Wilding conifer control activities shall meet all relevant statutory requirements, including, but not limited to, the following: 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 control methodologies being employed in Queen Charlotte Sound, subject to certain conditions being stipulated in written Contracts and Project Schedules. Conservation Act and Reserves Act: The Department of Conservation, which is responsible for implementation of these Acts, has provided written and funding support for the proposed work on public conservation land in Outer Queen Charlotte 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 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 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 24 P a g e

25 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 is treated. In the event that the partnership or the landowner 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 herbicide is subject to certain controls under the HSNO Act. The proposed 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. 25 P a g e

26 PROGRAMME MANAGEMENT Management services are required to ensure the programme is delivered in a professional manner. The tasks to be undertaken in programme management include: i. Managing communications a. Establish and maintain effective working relationships with the partnership members. b. Ensure the partnership 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 (e.g.: DOC, MDC, programme sponsors). d. Erect signage at appropriate points. iii. Contract management a. Prepare contract and tender documents for each of the control blocks. b. Ensure contracts are tendered and awarded in keeping with established best practice. c. Assist the partnership members in tender evaluation and tender award processes. iv. Contractor management a. Identify and establish communications with contracting market. b. Hold pre-operational briefings with successful contractors. c. Audit contractors and deal with any operational issues. d. Advise control completion, in association with the partnership. 26 P a g e

27 FUND RAISING In order to ensure successful implementation, effective fund-raising will be required. It is recommended that two sources of funds be 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 by MSRT from national funding agencies such as the New Zealand Lottery Grants Board, Canterbury Community Trust, Lion Foundation 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. Partnership funding will be generally sought by EICT/EBCG through their members and local landowners and business interests. As the project is a community-led one, with no statutory authority, there is no obligation on landowners to contribute funding towards control on their property. However, it is anticipated that most landowners will facilitate control, such as through in-kind support in the form of contractor accommodation or boat transport, volunteer labour, undertaking to manage any follow-up control or a cash donation. The MSRT will also negotiate partnership funding from the Department of Conservation and Marlborough District Council and seek private and business sponsorships. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT The programme finances will be managed in keeping with accepted standards of transparency and accountability. The Trust 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. 27 P a g e

28 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author would like to thank the following for their assistance in the preparation of this report: Carey Virtue, John Hellstrom (EICT); Mark Denize (EBCS); Roy Grose, Phil Clerke (DOC); Alan Johnson, Jamie Sigmund, Hellen Munro (MDC); Nick Ledgard. 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 Department of Conservation (Sounds Area Office) and Marlborough District Council, which jointly funded the development of the Strategy. 28 P a g e REFERENCES Ecology and Biogeography of Pinus (Richardson, Cambridge University Press, 1998) 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) Management Strategy: The Control of Wilding Conifers in Abel Tasman National Park (Macalister, Abel Tasman Birdsong Trust, 2010)

29 Management Strategy: The Control of Wilding Conifers in Kenepuru Sound (Macalister, Kenepuru & Central Sounds Residents Association, 2010) The Aerial Control of Scattered Wilding Pinus radiata in Forest Environments (Macalister & Stein, Biodiversity Advice Fund, 2013) A Review of the Management Options for Pinus pinaster at Bark Bay, Abel Tasman National Park (Macalister, Project Janszoon, 2013) 29 P a g e

30 APPENDIX 1: 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).

31 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).

32 Figure 5: 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 6: 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).

33 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.

34 Figure 8: A typical scene in Outer Queen Charlotte Sound. Mature pines protrude from a well-established manuka-kanuka canopy. The on-going opportunities for conifer establishment on these well-vegetated faces are along coastal margins, road and access tracks, areas of land disturbance and on upper faces where native vegetation cover is lighter. Figure 9: There are many areas of light vegetation cover in the project area, particularly in East Bay. Parea Point (above), which is the western headland of Otanerau Bay, will almost inevitably be transformed into a wilding pine forest over the next 25 years without control, due to the light vegetation cover and presence of adjacent P. radiata stands.

35 Figure 10: This headland, in Endeavour Inlet, illustrates how pines will eventually dominate exposed rocky margins. In these circumstances, where pines have been left to mature, control is often not feasible as protocols dictate that no treated trees are to fall onto the foreshore. Figure 11: Although Pinus radiata is prevalent in the project area, a stand of Pinus pinaster is also present in Resolution Bay (outlined in red). This species is more rounded and olive-green than P. radiata and therefore doesn t impose itself on the landscape to the same degree, but nevertheless presents the same ecological threats as P. radiata.

36 This example of landowner-initiated wilding pine control, at Te Ipapakereru Bay, near Patten Passage, is an illustration of what is possible through co-ordinated community action. Without such intervention, there would be a gradual in-fill of wilding pines along the exposed coastal margins and ridgelines, transforming the scenic and ecological fabric of this area.