This page created 5 October 2002 / last modified 21 January 2003
Pm 019
Wairau Valley
Marlborough Land District
Tenure review not approved by Commissioner of Crown Lands
Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society
PO Box 2516
Christchurch Mail Centre
25 June 2002
DTZ
PO Box 142
Christchurch
SUBMISSION ON PRELIMINARY TENURE REVIEW PROPOSAL FOR RAGLAN, RAGLAN RANGE, WAIRAU VALLEY, MARLBOROUGH
1. INTRODUCTION
The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society (Forest and Bird) is New Zealand's oldest and most active voluntary conservation organisations. Formed in 1923 the Society has around 38,000 members in 56 branches around New Zealand. This evidence is on behalf of the Central Office. The Society's constitution requires it to:
"take all reasonable steps within the power of the Society for the preservation and protection of indigenous flora and fauna and natural features of New Zealand for the benefit of the public including future generations."
"Protection of natural heritage includes indigenous forests, mountains, lakes, tussocklands, wetlands, coastline, marine areas, offshore islands and the plants and wildlife found in those areas."
The writer inspected the property in May 2002 with Andy Dennis of FMC and thanks Mr and Mrs Lacey for this opportunity.
2. PRELIMINARY PROPOSAL
Forest and Bird understands the preliminary proposal to be:
3. GENERAL COMMENTS
3.1 Crown undervaluing its interest in pastoral leases
The Crown appears to be significantly undervaluing its interest in pastoral leases. Documents obtained under the Official Information Act suggest that the Crown proposes to allow some 1480 ha to be freeholded for $15,000 plus GST.! Some consideration for the 80 ha of freehold is expected but this cost equates to $10.13 per hectare. This is ridiculously low.
3.2 More information (maps) needed as part of Preliminary Proposal
Very limited information was supplied to submitters as part of the preliminary proposal for Raglan. It contained no map of proposed new fencing nor of easements. Other agents of the Commissioner (including other DTZ NZ Ltd or Knight Frank offices) have included this information with preliminary proposals and it has been very useful in ensuring that the public and submitters fully understand the proposal. Forest and Bird had access to additional background reports on Raglan (not provided to other public submitters) which contained information on fencing and easements. It would be more efficient and helpful if such maps were part of the preliminary proposal and if the Christchurch/Marlborough offices of DTZ Ltd followed the model used by the Alexandra and Timaru offices.
3.3 Confusion over size of areas to be protected
1. The Bush Camp Stream corridor and Windy Point wetland are part of the Wairau River Flats area which the proposal document refers to as being around 53 ha and which earlier documents have referred to as being around 65 ha and around 85 ha. The area needs to be accurately mapped and it is of concern if looseness with the area boundaries reduces the eventual area to be protected as conservation land.
2. The proposal states that 550 ha on the Raglan Range upper slopes is to be protected. Yet the boundary in the preliminary proposal is significantly different from that proposed in the DoC's Conservation Values report (Harding, 1995) which was lower down the slopes and included a significantly greater area of shrubland and forest. This needs to be clarified.
4. SUMMARY OF CONCERNS
Changes required
Forest and Bird opposes the preliminary proposal as failing to promote ecologically sustainable management and not adequately protecting inherent values. The proposal is contrary to section 24 of the Crown Pastoral Land Act 1998 (the Act or CPLA), in particular section 24(a)(i) and s24(b) because it proposes the freeholding of extensive areas of shrublands and forest with significant inherent values.
The proposal does not safeguard the public interest by allowing such a substantial area of Crown land to be freeholded and so little protected for conservation.
The parts of the proposal of concern where Forest and Bird believes changes are required are:
These concerns are dealt with in more detail below.
4.1 Commissioner's failure to protect significant inherent values while tenure review occurs
The Department of Conservation's 1995 conservation resources report identified much larger areas as having significant conservation values than are proposed for protection as conservation land. See Map 1 attached. During a recent field inspection extensive recent burning was evident on faces and in the Bush Camp Stream gully and an unnamed gully to the south west (See Photographs 1-6 attached). These areas are within Area 1 recommended for protection by DoC in 1995. This was presumably known to the lessees if they were provided with a copy of the 1995 DoC report and it was certainly known to the Commissioner and his agents.
The Commissioner of Crown Lands (CCL) and his agents are failing to protect the public interest in Crown land or ensure tenure review promotes ecologically sustainable management by allowing lessees to burn or clear vegetation in areas which have been identified by DoC and recommended for protection. This provides a strong incentive to lessees to destroy or degrade areas recommended for protection so that they can freehold them. Through the discretionary consent process the Commissioner can and should decline consent to degradation and modification of any area which DoC has identified as having significant conservation values.
It undermines the tenure review process if the Commissioner allows lessees to destroy or degrade areas identified as significant and thereby potentially increasing the area available for freeholding. Forest and Bird strongly opposes lessees being rewarded for and able to benefit from the Commissioner's negligence. Allowing this to occur here would set a very poor precedent for other tenure reviews and may encourage other lessees to similarly destroy conservation values.
While the shrublands on the lower slopes between Bush Camp Stream and Possum Stream have been significantly reduced by burning they have the potential to regenerate if no further burning or spraying occurs. Restoration potential should be part of any consideration of significant inherent values.
Decision sought
Either:
a) Include all of Area 1 identified as having significant conservation values in Map 1 of DoC's 1995 report (attached) despite some of these values have been since degraded; or as a minimum
b) Redraw the proposed conservation land/freehold land boundary to follow the shrub edge as shown in the photographs of Landscape Panorama 1 and Landscape Panorama 2 attached.
4.2 Raglan Range upper slopes- Proposed freeholding of kanuka/manuka shrublands
The freeholding of extensive areas of tall kanuka and manuka shrubland is strongly opposed and does not promote ecologically sustainable management, particularly given the extensive burning which has occurred recently on terrace faces in the Bush Camp Stream area and in unnamed stream gullies to the west.
Burning has occurred close to waterways and right up to at least one stream margin. Riparian buffers have not been adequately protected. The 1995 DoC resource report recommended against burning in the gullies and proposed only to allow burning on the faces.
The Knight Frank submission (17.12.99) states: "An area of approximately 100 ha was originally recommended to be included with the above area. Following discussions with the DGC's delegate it was agreed that values had been diminished on this area after part was burnt and it should no longer be restored to full Crown ownership and control."
Extensive areas of dense strongly regenerating kanuka, manuka shrubland and mixed broadleaf forest are within the area proposed for freeholding. This is opposed as not promoting ecologically sustainable management, particularly given the extent of recent burning in areas which are likely to quickly revert to bracken fern.
Freeholding these upper slopes is not ecologically sustainable because:
These tall shrublands are not capable of economic use for pastoral farming without burning. No case has been made as to why the shrublands should be freeholded.
Decision sought
Redraw the boundary between proposed conservation and freehold land on the upper slopes of the Raglan Range to follow the original 1995 boundary recommended by DoC (Harding 1995) so that all shrublands in Area 1 on Map 1 (attached) become conservation land. See revised boundary of Landscape Panorama 1 attached. A new boundary should be redrawn using recent aerial photographs to ensure all the shrubland areas are included.
All of the catchments of all significant streams from Netting Stream westwards should be included as conservation land upstream of the area where they emerge from their more enclosed mountain valleys.
4.3 Forested and shrubland gullies between Dover Stream and Bull Paddock Flat
Four gullies in the western part of Raglan (three with heavy shrubland and forest cover) were proposed as conservation land in the 1995 DoC report as part of Area 1 on Map 1.
There is heavy shrubland and forest cover in these gullies (see Landscape Panorama 2 attached). Aerial photographs show that beech and kanuka manuka shrubland behind the ridge is spreading and if natural processes continue unimpeded (ie without burning, spraying or heavy stocking) then the small area of grassland above the gullies will soon become kanuka/manuka shrubland.
These gullies have significant inherent values because of their dense and strongly regenerating indigenous vegetation cover, their habitat values, particularly for invertebrates and insectivorous birds and their contribution to a natural landscape. The absence of a formal landscape assessment means that landscape values have been understated and not fully described.
The gullies form a major part of the view for travellers on State Highway 63, particularly those who stop at the Monument. The gullies are not capable of economic use for pastoral farming unless they are burnt, sprayed or otherwise cleared. This would not promote ecologically sustainable management. The small area of grassland above the gullies is unlikely to sustain many stock.
No reasons are given in the preliminary proposal or any of the background reports as to why the gullies are now proposed for freeholding and why DoC's 1995 recommendations have not been implemented. No information is given about their current economic use.
It is contrary to the public interest and to section 24(a)(i) and s24(b)(ii) of the CPLA to allow these western gullies to be freeholded, particularly given the extent to which the lessees have been able to clear significant shrublands and areas proposed for protection in 1995 elsewhere on the property, advantaging their position for tenure review.
Decision sought
Amend the proposed boundary between conservation and freehold land to include the four gullies between Dover Stream and Bull Flat Paddock by following the boundary proposed by DoC in 1995 on Map 1 attached or following the edge of the kanuka/manuka shrubland along a boundary similar to that identified in Landscape Panorama 2 attached.
4.4 More of Bull Paddock Flat freehold deserves protection
The lessees' agreement to include this area in tenure review is appreciated. As the 1995 DoC report notes, the area has significant inherent values with tall red beech forest on gentle toe slopes, tall kanuka forest and an induced frost flat community with an unusual ground cover which is slowly being colonised by kanuka. The forested area contains the best forest bird populations encountered on the DoC field inspection.
It is disappointing that so little of the freehold area is proposed for conservation status given its high inherent values. A larger area was identified has having significant conservation value in the 1995 DoC report. (See Area 4 on Map 1 attached).
No reasons are given in any of the information available to Forest and Bird as to why the area has been reduced from that proposed by DoC in 1995. This lack of transparency and accountability by the Commissioner's agents is opposed.
Decision sought
Amend the proposed freehold/conservation land boundary for the freehold area to follow that proposed by DoC in 1995 and identified as Area 4 on Map 1 attached.
4.5 Wairau River scarps/terrace faces - Landscape and ecological values not adequately investigated
DoC's 1995 conservation values report did not include a professional landscape assessment as has been done for most other conservation resource reports. This is a major oversight by DoC, particularly given the length of time available to undertake such a report. Not having such a professional assessment means landscape values are under-stated and significant inherent values have not been adequately identified. Section 24 of the Crown Pastoral Lands Act (CPLA) has not been fully implemented.
Landscape values contribute to both "cultural" and "ecological" attributes and characteristics and are part of inherent values as defined in section 2 of the CPLA.
The terrace faces or scarps adjacent to the Wairau River are a dramatic and obvious landscape feature and have high landscape values in Forest and Bird's opinion. Despite being cleared in the past indigenous vegetation is now regenerating strongly. See Landscape Panorama 1.
Some of the scarps appear to be legal road but it is unclear whether the legal road follows the base of the terrace face or the top or goes across it.
The scarps and the absence of weeds such as broom in the river bed and exotic species such as willows contribute to the section of the Wairau river adjacent to Raglan having high natural character . This deserves recognition and protection through tenure review as it contributes significantly to amenity values and the recreational experience. The scarps are obvious to fishers, picnickers, walkers and other river users and travellers on State Highway 63. The indigenous character and dramatic height of the scarps make a strong contribution to the feeling of being in a wild and natural landscape, particularly when compared to the much more heavily modified riparian areas downstream of the Wash Bridge.
The steep slopes of the scarps mean that the land is not suitable for or capable of economic use for pastoral farming and there is no justification for freeholding. Continued regeneration of indigenous vegetation should be encouraged to better protect soil conservation values and water quality.
Decision sought
Amend the preliminary proposal so that the freehold land boundary runs along the top of the first terrace adjacent to the Wairau river for the length of the property or inside of the legal road boundary (whichever is further from the river). This is intended to ensure that all of the scarps or terrace faces adjacent to the river upstream of Netting Stream are protected as conservation land. See Landscape Panorama 1.
Provide a 30 year easement concession for any farm tracking which crosses these faces.
4.6 Need for public access up eastern boundary to Blowhard
The preliminary proposal does not identify any direct access to the Blowhard peak on the Raglan Range from the area near the Wash Bridge on State Highway 63 as the 1995 DoC report proposed (see page 16). While the marginal strips along Wash Stream in theory could provide access to Blowhard a more practical route would be as DoC proposed directly long the fenceline at the eastern boundary of the present pastoral lease. While there is access to Blowhard from the Branch River an alternative route from the east is desirable. Raglan appears to be the only property which is going through tenure review where this is possible.
Decision sought
Provide an easement for public foot access up the fenceline on the eastern boundary of the current Raglan pastoral lease.
4.7 Fencing
a) Raglan Range conservation land/freehold land boundary
The preliminary proposal contains no suggestions that the boundary between proposed conservation and freehold land on the upper slopes will be fenced. Yet an aerial photograph among information obtained under the Official Information Act shows some proposed fencing. A map attached to a " Report on Consultation on the second revised Draft Preliminary Proposal" (26 October 2001) shows no fencing on the upper boundary. This confirms the need for more of the shrublands to be included as conservation land to provide an effective buffer against stock.
Decision sought
Include the majority of kanuka/manuka shrublands as conservation land following the boundaries of the attached photographs (Landscape Panoramas 1 and 2).
b) Windy Flat wetland (river terrace between Possum Stream and Bush Camp Stream)
DoC has noted that there is a requirement to fence approx 1650 metres of the wetland area yet the preliminary proposal contains no indication that this will be done. If an easement is to be granted for stock access as part of tenure review then fencing should be done at the same time. It is inequitable and inefficient to leave this to be done by DoC at some unspecified later date.
A 26 October 2001 report by the Commissioner's agent (Knight Frank) has noted: "The fencing details and specifications were not referred to in the second revised DPP most likely because of the extended period over which the three DPPs have been developed and produced. It was always anticipated that fencing would be required, and the estimated cost of fencing has been taken into account in previous financial reports." That report (section 2) also notes that the lessee Bill Lacey had noted that one part of the Windy Flat wetland would not need fencing in his view and that another part would be harder to fence than originally anticipated. It suggests that agreement was reached over the fencing line (section 5). A map ("Raglan proposal") attached to the October report shows proposed new fencing. See Map 2 attached. The preliminary proposal and the accompanying map make no mention of and do not show any proposed fencing.
Decision sought
Amend the preliminary proposal to include LINZ funding the fencing of approx 1600 metres of the Windy Flat wetland to prevent stock damage to the wetland.
4.8 Perpetual concession term opposed
A concession through conservation land to allow access for farm management and stock movement is not opposed. Forest and Bird questions why an easement is necessary and why the right to move stock cannot be safeguarded through a licence or permit rather than an easement. The perpetual term is strongly opposed.
Section 49 of the CPLA strongly discourages the use of easements where a lease, licence or permit could be used. The easement report by DoC give no reasons (other than to maximise the security of tenure for the concessionaire) as to why an easement is more appropriate than a licence or permit. The DoC report appears to have not even considered section 49 and its preference for mechanisms other than easements.
Grazing stock impede regeneration, trample vegetation, damage wetland edges through pugging, and degrade water quality. If fencing is ineffective in preventing stock damage to the wetland or if land uses change, it may be appropriate to phase out stock access some time in the future. A perpetual concession would not allow this. The Conservation Act allows a 60 year concession term in exceptional circumstances. A shorter term would allow the usage and appropriateness of the concession conditions to be reviewed. A licence or permit rather than an easement would also provide greater flexibility for the future.
Decision sought
Change the easement to a licence or permit. Amend the term of the concession for access for farm management purposes to 30 years and.
4.9 Sustainable management covenants needed for forestry and vegetation clearance
Raglan is in marked contrast to other properties in the Wairau Valley in that the lessees have maintained the property largely free of weeds and exotic trees. There are no willows or pine plantations along the river. Gullies and lower slopes of the range are clothed in beech forest and kanuka and manuka shrublands. Indigenous vegetation and grasslands predominant. There are few obvious structures. The high natural character of the Raglan Range is an important part of the views from State Highway 63 and the approach to and descent from St Arnaud and Nelson Lakes National Park. These landscape and botanical values need to be maintained to preserve the integrity of the larger landscape and the tourist and visitor experience from the road and in the riverbed.
The corridor of exotic conifers on Rainbow Station beside State Highway 63 on the north bank of the Wairau shows how poorly sited pines can compromise landscape and amenity values. Further downstream, large scale pine plantings on Manuka Island have destroyed areas of significant indigenous vegetation, degraded landscape values and created a major potential wilding problem for the Red Hills and adjacent conservation land.
Any future change in ownership of Raglan means there is no guarantee that the landscape sympathetic management of the current lessees will continue. The Resource Management Act does not provide adequate mechanisms to control forestry. The proposed Wairau-Awatere Resource Management Plan contains few controls on earthworks, vegetation clearance or forestry plantings. Appeals on the plan were lodged in the Environment Court by DoC and Forest and Bird in 1998. These have yet to be resolved and may not be resolved for some years.
Forestry and shelter belt plantings would be an obvious disruption in the landscape, gridding its expansive tawny and shrubby character with lines of dark green trees. This would disrupt views and obscure the glacially smoothed landforms. Forestry on the river terraces could deplete wetlands and small streams of water. Trees could cause a major wilding spread problem for the Branch Conservation Area, particularly if shade tolerant species such as douglas fir were grown. These impacts could be avoided by a sustainable management covenant under section 97 of the Crown Pastoral Lands Act which prohibited exotic afforestation.
While kanuka and manuka may regenerate after burning, herbicide spraying could destroy these shrublands permanently. The Wairau-Awatere Resource Management Plan contains only weak controls on forestry and indigenous vegetation clearance including burning. The plan has been appealed to the Environment Court but is currently inadequate to promote or ensure sustainable management under the Resource Management Act. Controls on burning in gullies and a requirement to not burn any vegetation in a broad setback from waterways would better promote ecologically sustainable management by preventing erosion , protecting water quality, landscape values and the natural character of waterways.
A sustainable management covenant is needed to prohibit forestry and spraying and prevent permanent loss of shrublands on the property.
Decision sought
Make the freeholding on Raglan subject to a sustainable management covenant which:
a) prohibits exotic afforestation; and
b) prohibits herbicide spraying to clear extensive areas of indigenous vegetation other than spot spraying intended to control weeds such as gorse, broom, and briar.
c) allows burning only on faces and not on steep slopes, in gullies or within 50 metres of any waterway.
4.10 Wider marginal strips or expanded riparian conservation area
Attachment "C" (Waterways in Pastoral Lease 19 along which section 24 Conservation Act 1987 applies) shows marginal strips apply along the true right of the Wairau River, Wash Stream, the lower part of Netting Stream, the lower part of Possum Stream and only a very small portion of Dover Stream.
The marginal strips on Netting Stream and Possum Stream do not extend all the way to conservation land. In the interests of extending the Queens Chain the marginal strips should also be created along the remainder of Netting and Possum Streams to join up with the proposed conservation land.
The Bush Camp Stream conservation area is supported. Riparian protection is also needed beside Netting Stream, Possum Stream and Dover Stream.
There is increasing recognition of the value of protective management of riparian vegetation in buffering water quality from the impacts of adjacent land uses and in protecting aquatic ecosystems. Nutrient run-off (especially nitrogen and phosphorus) as a result of fertiliser application and stock effluent run-off close to waterways can stimulate aquatic plant growth and can cause nuisance growths of algae (algal blooms) and other aquatic plants. Maintaining shrublands, forest and indigenous vegetation on riparian margins safeguards the natural character of the waterway. During the field inspection of Raglan bellbirds and grey warbler were loud in the bush edging both sides of the stream and obviously present in reasonably high numbers.
Retaining corridors of protected vegetation alongside these major streams from the conservation land to where they join the Wairau River would help protect corridors for bird and wildlife movement and maintain stream health and water quality in the Wairau. It would also retain a stronger element of natural character on the lower terraces given that with freeholding these may be developed for more intensive grazing.
Decision sought
Extend the marginal strips on Possum and Netting Streams so that they join up with the proposed conservation land.
Widen the marginal strips or protect an additional 100 metre area as conservation land on both banks of Netting, Possum and Dover Streams the length of the streams to provide a protective riparian buffer.
Eugenie Sage
Regional field officer
Attachments
Map 1 Raglan Station Significant Conservation Areas.
The map is from Harding, M (April 1995) "Conservation Values of Raglan Pastoral Lease, Wairau Valley, Marlborough (and recommendations for protection)" for Department of Conservation . Nelson/Marlborough Conservancy Internal Report No 19.
Landscape Panorama 1 - Raglan Range from Bush Camp Stream, unnamed stream and Dover Stream
Landscape Panorama 2 - Raglan Range - four forested gullies to south-west of Dover Stream between Dover Stream and Bull Paddock Flat . (NZMS 260 N29 St Arnaud Grid reference N29 around 090360).
Photographs 1-5 Burning in Bush Camp Stream area and in unnamed stream to south west.
Attachment "C" Waterways in Pastoral Lease No 19 along which section 24 Conservation Act 1987 applies