Date: 18 April, 2011

Large-Scale Mangrove Clearance Rejected

A panel of three independent commissioners has rejected an application to completely strip Mangawhai Harbour of all its mangroves.

Applicant the Mangawhai Harbour Restoration Society Incorporated applied to the Northland Regional Council in August last year for five coastal permits which if granted would have allowed it to remove approximately 87 hectares of mangroves – effectively stripping them from the entire harbour.

The society had also sought permission to burn felled mangroves that could not easily be removed, to dredge about 1.7km of the upper harbour channel and to deposit dredged material on to the foreshore “for the purposes of beach creation”.

The society’s application was publicly notified in October last year, attracting almost 300 submissions by a 01 November cut-off date. Of those, 243 submissions supported the proposal, 42 opposed it, three were neutral and one did not say.

A three-member regional council Hearings Committee, chaired by Napier-based independent commissioner Rob van Voorthuysen, heard the application in Mangawhai earlier this month. (subs: April 2011)

In their decision, the commissioners said they accepted evidence from the society and numerous other submitters that mangroves had spread into areas where they had not been historically present.

“We consider that the spread of mangroves has been greatly facilitated by the two roading causeways that cross the upper arms of the (Mangawhai) estuary. Nevertheless, the spread of mangroves is nature’s response to the existence of those causeways and we reject submissions that the current extent of mangroves within the wider harbour should somehow be excluded from the harbour’s natural character.”

The commissioners felt it was important to differentiate between people’s landscape or amenity aspirations - and natural character.

While they accepted some would prefer mangroves weren’t present, “a dislike of mangroves cannot legitimately, in our view, translate into a conclusion that mangroves are neither natural nor an intrinsic component of the harbour’s natural character”.

Given the society’s applications were for the total removal of mangroves from the harbour, “on the evidence presented we are unable to conclude that the effects of that mangrove removal on natural character will be minor”.

In a similar vein, the commissioners said while changes were made to the Regional Coastal Plan for Northland in July last year to allow for mangrove removal, the plan “directs us to apply a cautious approach to the proposed removal of mangroves”.

“In our view this means that the removal of mangroves should only occur where it can be clearly demonstrated that the adverse effects of doing so will be no more than minor. We have already found that is not the case here.”

The commissioners had similar concerns about the effects of the overall proposal on birdlife (in particular the New Zealand Fairy Tern) and shellfish in the area. They also commented on a “paucity of information” about the scale of the proposed burning of felled mangroves, once again finding they could not conclude the effects would be no more than minor.

All things considered, the commissioners said the applications did not pass either of two “gateway” tests for non-complying activities set out in the Resource Management Act, effectively leaving them with little choice but to decline the society’s applications in their entirety.

However, the commissioners suggested a more modest mangrove removal proposal for Mangawhai Harbour “may very well prove to be appropriate”.

They invited the society to “reflect upon a proposition which was neatly summarised, in our view, by one submitter”.

That submitter said total eradication of mangroves would destroy a wonderful habitat, but conversely, total neglect of the issue would simply allow them to take over most of the shallow areas in the upper harbour.

The submitter’s solution was to selectively manage mangroves in a balanced way to control mangrove spread, but also preserve the special parts of the harbour where salt marshes nestled between the mangroves and dry land.

The commissioners’ decision can now be appealed to the Environment Court for 15 working days.

ENDS

© Scoop Media