ADDITIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND COST BENEFIT PEST ...€¦ · Wilding conifers are any introduced conifer tree, including (but not limited to) any of the species listed in Table
Post on 29-Jul-2020
1 Views
Preview:
Transcript
ADDITIONAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS FOR THE GREATER WELLINGTON REGIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN
1. PURPOSE
This report provides an impact assessment and cost benefit analysis for the inclusion of wilding
conifer and feral deer in the Regional Pest Management Plan (RPMP). It is prepared in accordance
with the requirements of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and the related National Policy Direction for Pest
Management 2015 (NPD).
2. PROPOSED PROGRESSIVE CONTAINMENT PROGRAMME PESTS
2.1 Wilding conifers – European larch, Douglas fir, pine species (Larix decidua, Pseudotsuga menziesii, Pinus spp.)
Description
Wilding conifers are any introduced conifer tree, including (but not limited to) any of the species
listed in Table 1, established by natural means, unless it is located within a forest plantation, and does
not create any greater risk of wilding conifer spread to adjacent or nearby land than the forest
plantation that it is a part of.
For the purposes of this definition, a forest plantation is an area of 1 hectare or more of predominantly
planted trees.
Table 1. Wilding conifer species
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME
European larch Larix decidua
Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii
Pine species
Bishops pine Pinus muricata
Contorta or lodgepole pine Pinus contorta
Corsican pine Pinus nigra
Dwarf mountain pine Pinus mugo
Wilding conifers are introduced conifers that have mainly established naturally as a result of natural
seed spread. This process has been exacerbated by landowners failing to take action when wilding
conifers first occur, and much of the ongoing wilding conifer spread in New Zealand is generated
from existing areas of reproducing wilding conifers. Much of the initial wilding conifer spread
originated from a range of sources, particularly historic or ‘legacy’ plantings, such as Crown plantings
for erosion control (as in our region) and research; long-established shelterbelts and amenity plantings
on private and pastoral lease land; and in some locations, from woodlots and forest plantations.
Wilding conifers are produced by many different introduced conifer species. Ten conifer species are
recognised as currently contributing most to the wilding conifer problem in New Zealand. While some
of these species now have little or no commercial value and are no longer planted, or much less
frequently planted than in the past, several of these species, particularly Radiata pine (Pinus radiata)
and Douglas fir (Pseudostuga menziesii), are highly valuable commercially grown species that
contribute significantly to forestry exports.
a. Pest status, attributes and distribution
Status in New Zealand
With the development of the Nation Wilding Conifer Strategy 2015-30, a number of regional
Councils have wilding conifers listed as pests in RPMPs.
Relevant biology
Attribute Description
Form Various forms from evergreen stunted growth forms (eg, contorta
pine) to deciduous (European larch) and tall specimen trees (eg,
various pine species and Douglas fir)
Habitat Range of habitats from open areas to regenerating bush, but most
destructive in the high country at alpine and sub-alpine and/or upper
bush margin zone.
Regional distribution Limited known distribution in Eastern Rimutaka range (Pakuratahi
KNE) and some urban and peri-urban problem sites
Competitive ability Wilding conifers aggressive colonizing characteristics aid their
ability to displace low-level plant communities, especially native
grasslands, and create forests. Also Douglas fir is able to spread into
shrublands, regenerating native forest and mature forest where there
are canopy gaps and a relatively sparse understory.
Maritime pine Pinus pinaster
Mountain pine Pinus unicinata
Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa
Radiata Pine Pinus radiata
Scots pine Pinus sylvestris
Reproductive ability Very easily dispersed through wind-blown seeds
Resistance to control A range of effective control methods exist. Control of trees on often
steep terrain pose whole raft of serious health and safety issues
Benefits Minimal, some landowners could have seen wilding conifers as a
resource. Majority of public and landowners see them as a threat to
production and environmental values.
Control programme under the RPMS
Wilding conifers are managed under site–led Key Native Ecosystems, Reserves and Forest Health
programmes under the Regional Pest Management Strategy 2002-2022.
Current situation
Wilding conifers has been identified as being in the Wellington Region. Due to the limited known
infestation, the progressive containment programme is proposed as:
The species is limited in distribution in the Wellington Region.
b. Impact assessment
Land use/habitats
Land use type Current land use
infested
Potential land use
infested
Pest significant
problem on this
land type
Dairy - Low No
Sheep and beef - Low No
Forestry - - No
Horticulture - - No
Native
bush/conservation
Low Medium Yes
Coastal - - No
Estuarine and marine - - No
Freshwater/wetland - - No
Urban/non productive - Low No
Water bodies occupied
Water Body Type Current water body
infested
Potential water body
infested
Lakes - -
Rivers & Streams - -
Wetlands - -
Ponds & dams - -
Drains & canals - -
Troughs - -
High = Most infested/preferred Low = Less infested/preferred
How is it a problem?
Category Current Potential Comment Source
Production
Dairy - - Description
Sheep and beef - -
Forestry - -
Horticulture - -
Tourism - -
International trade - -
Other - -
Environment
Soil resources - Low Alters decomposition
rates and nutrient
cycling. Can raise
soil levels through
sedimentation.
Water quality Low Moderate Can cause lowering
of the water table.
Threatened species Low High Significant threat to
indigenous
biodiversity as it can
form dense stands of
monoculture
replacing alpine and
sub alpine
ecosystems.
Species diversity High Dense stands
compete with
indigenous species
and prevent native
recruitment.
Social/cultural
Human health - -
Recreation - Moderate Forms dense and
impenetrable stands
that obstruct access
and changes general
landscape feel of the
area.
Māori culture Low Can impede or
restrict access to
cultural sites
Options to respond to Wilding conifers
1. Do nothing: In this scenario, no control of Wilding conifers is undertaken, and the assumption is
made that the species continues to establish in new areas and no attempt is made to control
infestations.
2. Progressive containment: In which the intermediate outcome for the programme is to contain or
reduce the geographic distribution of the subject, or an organism being spread by the subject, to an
area over time.
Level of analysis
In relation to the NPD considerations (section 6(1) outlines four criteria) a low-level analysis was
deemed appropriate for Wilding conifers.
c. Cost-benefit analysis
Benefits of each option
Benefit Option
No regional intervention
(do-nothing approach)
Progressive containment
To reduce the
geographic
distribution or extent
Low – limited to alpine and
subalpine terrain in the
Medium – High as wilding pines
can have significant adverse impact
on land production, landscape,
of Wilding Conifers
to protect the
Wellington Region’s
indigenous
environmental
values, specifically
alpine and sub-
alpine habitat
biodiversity.
Wellington region. environmental and native
biodiversity values. Also wilding
conifer control reduces risk to Māori
losing access wahi tapu sites and
loss of taonga species.
Costs of each option
Option
Programme costs No regional intervention
(do-nothing approach)
Annual cost (excl GST)
Progressive containment
Annual cost (excl GST)
Council costs
Control
Surveillance
Administration
Education/awareness
- $20,000
Land occupier costs - -
Total ($) - $20,000
Costs of effects on
values
Medium – very few known sites
and limited natural habitats that
would be adversely affected by the
spread of wilding conifers
Low - a progressive containment
programme would reduce the
impact on the environment for a
modest cost of control.
CBA assumptions and inputs
Pest assumptions Values Programme assumptions Values
Current area
infested:
800ha Proposed programme: Progressive
containment
Maximum potential
area infested:
5,000ha Proposed annual
expenditure by Council:
$20,000
Time to reach
maximum extent:
75 (5) Repeated inspections and
works required:
Inspect and control by
service delivery
annually.
Current impacts ($): Unknown Discount rate: 4%
d. Risks to success
Risk that each option will not achieve the NPD objective 6(2)(g)
Risk type
Option
No regional intervention
(do-nothing approach)
Progressive containment
Outcome risk
(technical and
operational risks)
Medium - infestations would
increase. Voluntary control by
landowners likely to have little
impact.
Low – some risk if using chemical
control due to the potential for non-
target damage.
Regulatory Risk Low Low – some risk if using chemical
control but known infestations are
not in an area easily accessible to
public.
Legal risk Low Low
Socio-political risk Medium – if left uncontrolled it
could extend its range and become
a nuisance to the public of the
region. Under a do-nothing
approach there would be a
moderate to high risk of public
and political criticism of Greater
Wellington for not being more
proactive over wilding conifer
management, as it is done in
neighbouring regions.
Medium – high - if no prevention,
this plant could expand its range
which could become a nuisance and
be noticed by the general public in
future.
Other risks - -
e. Who should pay?
Matters for consideration in allocating costs for proposed Wilding Conifer plan
Legislative rights and responsibilities None known.
Management objectives Progressive containment.
Stage of infestation Very few known infestations and all are under
control
Most effective control agents Greater Wellington control is likely to be more
effective due to the limited number of known
sites and the potential of infestation.
Urgency Moderate
Efficiency and effectiveness Greater Wellington owns or administers land
with known infestations. Greater Wellington
control is the most effective option
Practicality of targeting beneficiaries The main beneficiaries are the wider community
for biodiversity benefits and this group can be
readily targeted through the General Rate.
Practicality of targeting exacerbators Exacerbators other than Greater Wellington are
currently unknown.
Administrative efficiency General rate is highly efficient for addressing
community benefits related to biodiversity.
Security Rating mechanisms are generally secure.
Fairness Fair as only known infestations are on the
publically owned land
Reasonable Yes.
Parties bearing indirect costs None known.
Transitional cost allocation arrangements None required.
Mechanisms available General rate is the most readily available
mechanism. Levies are expensive to establish and
administer.
Beneficiaries and exacerbators
Group Beneficiary Exacerbator Change
behaviour
Benefits
exceed costs
Control cost
effectively
Land
occupiers
Minor Minor Yes Yes Yes
Regional
community
Major Major No Yes No
Proposed allocation of costs
The proposed programme costs are to be 100% Council costs, allocated across the various rating
districts used in the Wellington Region under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002.
f. Preferred option
Progressive containment is the preferred option and is realistic given the distribution of the species.
Greater Wellington will undertake direct control (through its service delivery programme) of Wilding
conifers at all known sites. The control costs involved under a progressive containment programme
are relatively minor compared to the benefits to the regional biodiversity and natural environments.
3. PROPOSED SITE-LED PROGRAMME PESTS
3.1 Feral deer (Cervus elaphus)
Red deer were liberated in Wairarapa in the 1800s and were well established by early 1900s. Fallow
and sika were illegally released in the Wellington region in more recent times for recreational hunting.
Red deer still remain the most common species in the region. Feral deer frequent native bush,
regenerated scrubland, exotic forestry and rough grassland in the region.
Any deer which is not held behind effective fences or otherwise constrained, and identified in
accordance with a recognised identification system, is considered to be feral by GWRC.
a. Pest status, attributes and distribution
Status in New Zealand
Naturalised. Under the Wild Animal Control Act 1977, any deer that is not -
(A) held behind effective fences or otherwise constrained; and
(B) identified in accordance with an animal identification device approved under the National Animal
Identification and Tracing Act 2012 or in accordance with an identification system approved under
section 50 of the Biosecurity Act 1993 and approved by the Director-General for the purposes of this
Act,
is recognised as a “wild” or feral deer.
Relevant biology
Attribute Description
Form Fallow are a small deer, with a coat that is
either black, brown with spots, or
occasionally, white. Adults weigh between
30 and 85kg.
Red deer are a medium sized deer with a
reddish brown coat and a creamy coloured
rump patch. Adults weigh between 80 to
200kg. They are the largest and most
common deer in the region.
Sika are a small deer, chestnut coloured in
summer with spots , and dark coloured in the
winter, When alarmed, sika display a white
rump patch, and make a piercing whistle.
Adults weigh between 45 and 85kg.
Habitat Generalist herbivore that browses a wide
variety of plant species but often concentrates
the majority of feeding on a small number of
favoured species. They are able to stand on
two legs to reach higher vegetation, and will
eat fresh leaf litter as well as live vegetation.
Feral deer are able to occupy a wide variety
of climates and habitat types, and are able to
survive in the absence of a permanent water
source.
Regional distribution Widespread
Competitive ability Efficient in digestion of plant and leaf
material, facilitating the use of a wide variety
of plant species. Palatable bush plant species
such as pate, broadleaf, three-finger,
lancewood, and hen and chicken fern can be
all but removed from the ground tier.
Browsing reduces vegetation cover and
density and causes the loss of plant species
richness and altered community composition
in favour of unpalatable species. Pest plant
invasion can occur under these
circumstances. Deer also damage vegetation
planted on land retired for soil conservation
purposes and newly planted or young trees in
exotic forests.
Reproductive ability Polygynous mating system (one male with a
group of females) with high reproductive
success. One offspring produced per year.
Juveniles stay with the mother for about 6
months.
Resistance to control No natural predators in New Zealand.
Controlled by shooting and high-quality
fencing.
Benefits High recreational hunting values and also
limited wild meat exports
Control programme under the RPMS
Feral deer are controlled under site–led Key Native Ecosystems, Reserves and Forest Health
programmes under the Regional Pest Management Strategy 2002-2022.
Current situation
Feral deer are widespread throughout the region, however high numbers are localised. Control
programmes are maintained by service delivery in several Key Native Ecosystem sites in the region
by Greater Wellington and hunted by the recreational and professional hunters.
b. Impact assessment
Land use/habitat types
Land use type Current land use
infested
Potential land use
infested
Pest significant
problem on this
land type
Dairy - Low No
Sheep and beef Low Moderate Yes
Forestry Low Moderate Yes
Horticulture Low Low No
Native bush /
conservation
High High Yes
Coastal Low High No
Estuarine and marine - - No
Freshwater / wetland - - No
Urban / non productive Low Low No
How is it a problem?
Category Current
Potential Comment
Production
Dairy - Low Competes with stock for pasture and
reduces pasture productivity. May
spread livestock diseases.
Sheep and beef Low Moderate Removal of vegetation through
browsing and trampling can cause soil
erosion, particularly in the eastern hill
country.
Forestry Low Moderate Can cause severe damage to young
trees in plantation forests by
trampling seedlings, browsing young
trees and stripping bark from older
trees.
Horticulture - Low Can cause damage to fruit trees and
crops.
Tourism - - Resource - can be seen as a tourist
attraction, also hunting tourism
International trade - - Resource - modest exports of wild
venison to overseas markets
Environment
Soil resources Low Moderate Removal of vegetation through
browsing and trampling can cause
erosion.
Water quality Low Moderate Erosion of soil can lead to increased
sedimentation in waterways.
Threatened species Low Moderate Eats a wide variety of plant species
and can eliminate preferred
(palatable) species, leading to changes
in plant species composition, and
preventing forest regeneration and
succession.
Species diversity High Eats a wide variety of plant species
and can eliminate preferred
(palatable) species, leading to changes
in plant species composition, and
preventing forest regeneration and
succession.
Social / cultural
Human health Low Damages and eliminates palatable
native plant species and alters
structure of native forest, which can
affect recreational experiences.
Viewed as a recreational resource by
hunters.
Recreation Low Destroys native forests and damages
peri-urban gardens.
Māori culture Moderate Destroys native forests and eats
culturally important plants.
Options to respond
1. Do nothing: In this scenario, no control of feral deer is undertaken, and the assumption is made that
the species continues to establish and no attempt is made to control the population.
2. Site-led: In which the intermediate outcome for the programme is that the subject, or an organism
being spread by the subject, that is capable of causing damage to a place is excluded or eradicated
from that place, or is contained, reduced or controlled within the place to an extent that protects the
values of that place.
Level of analysis
In relation to the NPD considerations (section 6(1) outlines four criteria) a low-level analysis was
deemed appropriate for feral deer.
c. Cost-benefit analysis
Benefits of each option
Benefit Option
No regional intervention (do-
nothing approach)
Site-led
Protect the cultural
and economic values
of KNE areas and on
TA reserves in the
region.
Council avoids the costs of an
intervention approach.
Provides for a rule for the control
of feral deer. Mitigates adverse
impacts of feral deer in high
value native biodiversity areas by
maintaining low deer numbers.
Costs of each option
Programme Costs Option
No regional intervention (do-
nothing approach)
Annual cost (excl GST)
Site-led
Annual cost (excl GST)
Council costs
Control
Surveillance
Administration
Education /
awareness
$5,000 – mostly staff time
responding to public enquiries
$13,500 – contact management
and control work.
$5,000 – mostly staff time
responding to public enquiries
Land occupier costs $- $-
Total ($) $5,000 $18,500
Costs of effects on
values
High - Due to feral deer having
a large home range, no respect
for boundaries, and can re-
invade areas from long
distances, control efforts can be
short lived if constant control is
not maintained. Feral deer occur
throughout some rural and semi-
Low - Costs to values are
reduced. Ongoing costs of a
control programme.
rural areas of the Wellington
Region. Environmental impacts
are recognised as being severe
where no control is undertaken.
d. Risks to success
Risk that each option will not achieve the NPD objective 6(2)(g)
Options
Risk type No regional intervention
(do-nothing approach)
Site-led
Outcome Risk (Technical and
operational risks)
Medium –Control of
individuals in the wild can be
difficult due to the animal
intelligence and wariness;
access to all land types, and
therefore may not be
successfully implemented by
the public in the absence of
regionally coordinated
management by Council.
Inadequately contained
farmed deer and illegal
releases represent an on-
going source of reinvasion of
high biodiversity value areas.
None identified.
Regulatory Risk None identified. Medium - Potential for
deliberate releases to
establish or supplement wild
populations as a hunting
resource.
Legal risk None identified. None identified.
Socio-political risk None identified. Medium - Valued by iwi
and some sectors of the
public as a cultural,
recreational and/or food
provisioning resource.
Other risks None identified. None identified.
e. Who should pay?
Matters for consideration in allocating costs for proposed feral deer plan
Legislative rights and responsibilities Responsibilities under the Wild Animal Control
Act 1977
Management objectives Site-led.
Stage of infestation Established throughout the region.
Most effective control agents Greater Wellington to undertake direct control by
service delivery in Key Native Ecosystems and in
actively managed Territorial Authority reserves.
Urgency Low.
Efficiency and effectiveness General rate is highly efficient for addressing
community benefits related to biodiversity.
Practicality of targeting beneficiaries Individual beneficiaries cannot be easily targeted
at a regional level other than through a levy. The
majority of benefits are for the public of the
region as a common good through maintained or
improved native biodiversity values. Wider
beneficiaries can be targeted through general rate.
Practicality of targeting exacerbators Feral deer are highly mobile so difficult to target
exacerbators.
Administrative efficiency General rate is highly efficient where common
good and wider public benefits are addressed.
Security Rating mechanisms are generally secure.
Fairness Moderate. Wider community covering costs for a
pest which may not currently affect them
directly.
Reasonable Given the moderate funding requirements and
difficulty of alternative approaches the general
rate is a reasonable approach.
Parties bearing indirect costs Hunters experience some loss of value associated
with perceived reduced hunting opportunity.
Transitional cost allocation arrangements None required.
Mechanisms available General rate is the most readily available
mechanisms. Levies are expensive to establish
and administer.
Beneficiaries and exacerbators
Group Beneficiary Exacerbator Change
behaviour
Benefits
exceed costs
Control cost
effectively
Land occupiers
(Crown and
Private)
Major Major Yes Yes Yes
Regional
Community
Major - No Yes Yes
Proposed allocation of costs
The proposed programme will be funded through the general rate allocated across the various rating
districts used in the Wellington Region under the Local Government (Rating) Act 2002, and cost
recovery.
f. Preferred option
Site-led Key Native Ecosystem and TA Reserves programme is the preferred option and is realistic
given the region wide distribution of feral deer. Greater Wellington will undertake direct control
(through its service delivery programme) of feral deer on selected KNE sites. The control costs
involved under site-led programme are relatively minor compared to the benefits to the regional
biodiversity and natural environments.
top related