Submission by:
Guardians of Pāuatahanui Inlet 29 June 2018

Greater Wellington Regional Council Parks Network Plan Review 2018 

Context

The Battle Hill and northern parts of Belmont Regional Parks are contributory parts of the Pāuatahanui Inlet catchment.  The Belmont Park is a major contributory part of the catchment.

The Inlet currently suffers from in-flows that contribute sediment and especially increasing amounts of fine muds into the inlet ecosystem.  There is also evidence of increasing nutrient in-flows.  The only way this can be arrested effectively is to limit sediment inputs from the contributory catchments.  To do this land use must be effectively and consistently managed.

GWRC owns and manages, in the form of parks and forests, a very substantial part of the catchment.  Management from a water quality perspective has, in our view, been far from exemplary in the past.  In the future GWRC needs to lead by example in this area.  We see the Parks Network Plan and related park management having an important role in best practice land management and water quality effects.

We note that there are a number of helpful proposals in the Parks Network discussion document that will help limit and, hopefully improve water quality and reduce sediment and nutrient inflows from the park system.  Our comments on them are as follows:

Reducing sediment run off into waterways through riparian re vegetation

This is a critical proposal and we want to see the parks plan provide for increased planting on both Battle Hill and, especially, the northern aspects of Belmont Park.   Aside from these specific areas, we consider that a major emphasis of the parks plan generally should be reversion of as much of the park system as possible to native vegetation, especially in gully areas, steep faces and any other places that might be erosion prone.

We note that the current Parks Management Plan provides for retirement of pasture in steep parts of the Battle Hill Park.  But, with the exception of Cannons Creek (where there is considerable beneficial planting) and possibly the area to the west of the Transmission Gully Motorway, there are no current proposals for vegetation retirement or riparian planting on the northern slopes and related riparian areas of the Belmont Park. 

We consider, and submit, this must be changed. There should be much more riparian and general native planting, especially on the steep and exposed northern aspects of Belmont Park.

Stock access to streams

Unquestionably, there should be no stock access anywhere near streams and riparian areas.  We support the proposals to put limits on any and all such access.  One way of adding to such limits is to reduce the intensity and distribution of stock on all parkland.  We recommend this be considered and implemented.

Retiring and controlling grazing

Retirement from grazing is of importance to the Pāuatahanui Inlet and we submit that this should be applied, especially on the northern aspects of Belmont Park and also as far as is practicable on Battle Hill Park. 

Where grazing continues, we consider that it must be confined to low impact animals such as sheep which, as far as we know, are the predominant and possibly only grazing animal on the two parks in the catchment.  Heavy hoofed animals such as cattle have a much greater and deleterious impact on vegetation and land.  They should not be allowed on any steep or exposed hillsides or wetland or boggy areas.  The experience at Whitireia Park demonstrates the problems with cattle, not just on the environment but also on ease of access to park users.  Their removal has made a big difference.

Exotic planting harvesting practice

We note and support the proposal to ensure no harvesting or slash deposition affects any streams and watercourses.  The production forest on the eastern parts of Battle Hill Park needs careful management.  When and if harvesting occurs, we would prefer any replanting to be in native species.

Nutrient run off

We note and support the proposal to manage nutrient inputs on to park pasture.  But we would prefer to see the pasture area significantly reduced.

Climate change

The park system provides an important contributory buffer to the increasing effects of storms and high intensity rainfall events.  But open areas of pasture are not nearly as good at providing a buffer as are areas of forest planting.  Again, we submit that more emphasis needs to be put into limiting and retiring pasture and increasing native forest planting.

Further park developments

The park system provides and has the potential to provide further ecologically beneficial catchment protection and amenity, together with diverse regional recreation opportunities.  We submit that the parks network should continuously be evaluated to ensure its functions are provided in the most effective ways and places.  This should include taking up opportunities to extend the parks network by buying land adjacent to existing parks and also looking for opportunities to acquire new park areas when appropriate land purchase opportunities arise.