Northland Mooring Owners & Ratepayers
Northland Mooring Owners & Ratepayers
Common Sense and Local Knowledge against Bureaucracy - a necessity to protect our hard earned money
"Scrutinize everything, believe little, think for yourself."
Northland Mooring Owners & Ratepayers want to spread our message of cooperation. We believe that a single action can make a difference in the community, and that collective action can change a lot. Through advocacy and outreach activities, our team works eagerly to contribute their part to the good of our boating community.
yes, it's all about numbers
when you want to fight bureaucracy
Who We Are
Our group has grown rapidly from a handful of frustrated Russell residents to a movement of Far North yachtsmen and ratepayers between Mangonui and Whangarei
We are driven by a single goal: To do our part in making our Boating Community in New Zealand's Marine Environment a better place for all. We fight against stubborn bureaucracy, represented by Northland Regional Council (NRC) whose Officers and Councillors hold themselves aloof from common sense. They approved the new Marine Pest Management Plan (MPMP) and its unfair charging policy with the preconceived opinion that Northland's recreational boats were the main vector of spreading marine pests, rather than boats spending time in already infested waters with poorly maintained hulls and then entering Northland waters as well as natural vectors like tidal streams and winddrift.
NRC wrongly assumes that the likelihood of the introduction of pests being attributed to hull fouling is at least 75%, but there is no reference to support this figure and it is not plausible at all since NRC themselves list 19 out of 20 (sic!) high risk marine pests as being capable of being dispersed by tidal streams and currents. In their own reports and Pest Control Hub they state that Mediterranean Fanworm larvae can spread over 20 km naturally and that the Asian Paddle Crab is capable of swimming long distances. Cawthron Institute also confirms this.
It appears that NRC's Biosecurity Team around Don McKenzie completely ignore local knowledge and experience (as requested by the Ombudsman to be incorporated after we had complained to his office), when they recognize hull fouling of yachts and (to a small extent ballast water) as the only pathways for the spreading of marine pests. We have clearly shown that natural vectors like tidal streams, currents and wind drift are very important factors and that they cannot be controlled. (see e.g.: Cawthron Institute Rep.No. 2232, Oct.2012: (quote):
“Following introduction from overseas, most NIS that establish in the NZ environment continue to spread domestically, both by NATURAL DISPERSAL MECHANISMS (named first and foremost!) and by anthropogenic vectors such as vessels and transfers of aquaculture equipment or seed-stock....As many species can be difficult to control in the marine
environment, any new species that are introduced from overseas (sic!) or from other regions within NZ are likely to become a permanent part of the marine biota.” (unquote)., or: from NRC's own “Pest Control Hub”: (quote): “Asian Paddle Crab ...larvae can float ...for 3 – 4 weeks, during which time they can be moved large distances by tides and currents.” (unquote).
We have also shown that the assignment of divers cannot bring the desired and unrealistically announced success as poor visibility in our shallow and often very muddy tidal waters in many mooring areas restricts their effectiveness drastically. Moreover are
they mainly employed during the summer months, thus ignoring the fact that marine pests spread during every month of the year. Expenses for this purpose must therefore be regarded as a waste of ratepayers' money.
The large number of cruise ships which arrive annually in the Bay of Islands and whose ballast water discharge and hull fouling cannot be controlled sufficiently either (some arrive
directly from overseas without any hull inspection ) also shows the ineffectiveness of NRC's MPMP, partly because it relies only on palliative paperwork from shipping agents delivered to MPI (Ministry for Primary Industries).
How totally insufficient this bureaucratic way of dealing with this difficult matter really is, shows the incident with the cruise liner VIKING SUN, which had arrived on 07/03/2019 in the Bay of Islands directly from Bora Bora and which had its last hull inspection done on 11/02/2019 in Valparaiso/Chile. This means that the big ship must have been inspected very superficially (if at all) in one of the dirtiest ports of South America and then have sailed across a large part of the South Pacific, most probably bringing marine pests to New Zealand waters although its agents had supplied the “necessary documentation of a pest free hull.”
NRC's Biosecurity team ignore also the Ombudsman's other request: “to use sound common sense and relevant scientific research” when they give the impression that (quote) “their regional efforts to stop the spread of marine pests could be amplified (unquote).
On the contrary, already established marine pests (Mediterranean Fanworm) cannot be controlled, let alone their spread stopped, as shown above.
Get Involved
You Can Make a Difference
Tell NRC why you don't believe their reasoning
Write submissions to NRC.
the deadline for their "Have your say" period ends on 24th of May
NRC's latest ideas about "Better ways to stop marine pests" resemble a "rain tax". Please go to our "News" page. There you'll find a draft submission which you can use as a blueprint for your own.
Because of previous bad experience with NRC's "consultation process", we also recommend to request a personal hearing, since written submissions, especially the electronic ones, have the tendency to land in NRC's waste basket.
This is our latest complaint to the Ombudsman
Pete Deeming
1 Tirairaka Terrace
Okiato Point
RD 1 Russell
Ph.: (09) 403 7836, e-mail: p.d.deeming@xtra.co.nz
Office of the Ombudsman
L 14, 70 The Terrace
Wellington 6011
PO Box 10152
Wellington 6143
by e-mail
Complaint about Malcolm Nicolson's (CEO NRC) reply to OIRs (below), corresponding Northland Regional Council staff members' offence against their Code of Conduct and their faulty advice to Council and resulting erroneous decisions.
A) Background:
I am a member of a sizeable group of Northland ratepayers that has for years been opposing Northland Regional Council's inconsistent “Marine Pest Management Plan” (MPMP) which shall now become the template for other regions by extending it “over the Top of the North Councils (TON)” and possibly nation wide later while boat owners and ratepayers are erroneously made to believe that better results could thus be achieved.
As this is not reasonable I supported two OIRs (see below) which Malcolm Nicolson, the CEO of NRC didn't answer as required by LGOIMA but responded in a very unsatisfactory way only.
B) Complaint in detail:
Our first OIR, dated 13/12/2020
Official Information Request
referring to
NRC's Cost Benefit Analysis on which the MPMP is based
This cost benefit analysis as it was presented to the full council by NRC staff is one of the main reasons why the decision made by the Councillors on MPMP was erroneous, that is, the inherent advice given to them by NRC staff members was deficient, incomplete and wrong and therefore unreasonable:.
The underlying assumptions of the CBA are, to put it mildly, problematic:
First and foremost it has to be emphasized that the CBA has been drawn up assuming that the risk of hull fouling is by far the main vector for the spreading of marine pests. We have clearly shown that this is untrue and even the NRC discussion paper for the council's “Combined Consultation Deliberations Meeting” on 08/06/2017 lists that there are “commercial activities (aquaculture)”, “pests already established”, “high nutrient levels” (agricultural run off effects) and “other sources of spread” (natural vectors like tidal streams, ocean currents, winddrift, flotsam, ballast water, bilge water, sea chests of commercial shipping, commercial fishing and trailered boats) which would influence the equation considerably if taken into account, or in other words: If in the CBA the risk of hull fouling being the main vector for the spreading of marine pests is changed, then the risk of all other pathways being also vectors for the spreading of marine pests would have to change too.
However: There is absolutely no indication that the used model allows for this. Councillors Yeoman, Smart and Finlayson therefore supported the “status quo”, i.e. no marine biosecurity charge, based on the proposed plans. Apparently they were the only ones who recognized the importance the deficient advice from council staff had on the decision making process of the full council. This becomes also obvious when assumptions of the. Sensitivity analysis are considered:
The key assumptions state that based on the assumed contribution of hullfouling to the Pi value, the risks associated with the introduction of a marine pest from all other pathways are calculated as the residual risk, which remains constant throughout the analysis. This 'constant' residual risk has been set at a low value. Surely, what should remain 'constant' throughout the analysis is that the likelihood of pest introduction in 1 year attributable to all marine pathways is 100%. So in the sensitivity analysis, if the likelihood of pest introduction attributed to hull fouling (HF) is reduced from 90% to 45%, then the likelihood of pest introduction attributed to all other pathways should be 55% but not 10% as shown in the CBA.
Or of the Overestimation of the likelihood of a marine pest being introduced into Northland in any one year (75%): It is highly likely that this probability is overestimated, as NRC's biosecurity monitoring over the past 5 years may have recognized previously established marine pests in Northland for the first time, but if a pest has been present for many years, but is not uniformly distributed, each time NRC undertakes a new survey, there is an increased chance of finding the already established pest.
Under: FTE cost for compliance: The Fiordland “Clean Vessel Pass”CVP treats boats with no CVP as high risk and the boat owner pays for the dive check. The only staff costs relate to identifying boats with no CVP and not expensive costs of contractors diving. This means that with CVP rule staff hours were likely to be much lower.
Under “Key assumptions, 1.2” in the CBA “boat owners' time and costs” are grossly underestimated: Where do figures like “8 hours at 35 $ = 280 $” annually come from? They are blatantly unfounded. The true situation is quite different. In order to gain better insight for you we have specified the average costs per year for an average boat of 30 ft = 10m hull (this is a very conservative presumption) length as follows:
a) DIY: 8 liters of antifouling paint = $ 500 + 1 liter waterline paint = $ 60 + propspeed paint = $ 180 + ½ day sander hire with vaccum equipment = $ 60 + 6 sanding discs = $ 60 + 3 x masking tape = $ 25 + cleaner and sponges = $ 40 + waterblasting = $ 100 + biosecurity fee = $20 + Travellift fee = $ 320 + hardstand for 5 days (weather permitting) = $ 130 + travel costs = $ 100. This amounts to $ 1,595. This sum equals nearly 6 times the CBA figure.
b) Haul out work done by boatyard: Add at least $ 2,000 (labour). This is $ 3,595 in total and equals nearly 13 times the CBA figure.
In this cost account expenses for cleaning the boat's hull during the year between the haul out times in order to keep up with MPMP's requirements of a biofouling- and pest free vessel are not even included. They could easily amount to additional costs of up to NZD 800.-
Under “Benefit Cost Calculation assumptions” the CBA specifies 4% as the discount rate. However: Treasury's current discount rate for projects that are difficult to categorize including regulatory proposals, is 6% as of 13/10/2016
Under “Key estimates” and “Estimation of values” $ 1,100,000,000 (1.1 billions) are listed as the value of our marine environment at risk. So far nobody has been able to explain this figure. Where does it come from? How is it derived? Which single values have been contributed and so forth. Using this valuation to assess the 'benefit' in a CBA for a marine pathway plan seems to be fantastic. Forrest & Sinner (2016. Report 2779, Cawthron Institute) say "the expected outcome from management is to delay rather than prevent pest spread." Treasury, in its Cost Benefit Analysis Guide 2015, says "Only those costs directly attributable to the policy should be taken into account." Placing a value on the marine environment impacted by marine pests is based on vague assumptions and methods that are highly contestable. The marine environment is impacted by environmental degradation resulting from development, industrial, forestry & farming run-off, waste, marine pollution, tourism, overfishing, cyclones, tsunami and the like. Even if this model for a CBA was considered valid, the lack of transparency in the assumptions underpinning a value for the proportion of the marine environment impacted is unfathomable. Forrest & Skinner said that estimating this "is difficult and highly subjective". In addition and as explained above the Council ignores the impact of tides, ocean currents, flotsam and jetsam, winddrift and global warming on the continued introduction of marine pests in Northland.
.Under “Public and private cost assumptions” the number of affected vessels is 3,000 and the important question is: Why only 3,000? The attachment 2 of item 3.2 of “Council agenda paper for the Extraordinary Council Meeting, 8 March 2017” identifies 4,379 total moorings and marina berths. MPP document (p. 99) states that Northland ports receive about 400 large commercial vessels annually (compare under Unfairness with 492 commercial ships of all sizes in Northport only) plus more than 2,000 visiting recreational vessels p/a. A very conservative estimate of the number of recreational vessels affected is therefore 6,379.
Furthermore:
The number of boats to which the costs are applied is derived from an estimate of point-of-time ‘occupancy’ of moorings and marina berths, applying those estimates to a period of one year. The CBA totally ignores that lots of boats (not only one!\) occupy the same single marina berth and the same moorings during a year. All that means that most probably the figure of vessels affected is more in the vicinity of 8,000, creating an error factor of 2,8.
Regardless of this, the 4,379 boats of the NRC agenda paper for the Extraordinary Council Meeting, 8 March 2017 have to be seen also in context with the table “Supplementary Item 3.5, Combined Consultation Deliberations, 7 and 8 June 2017, Page 13, which states that "Northland is subject to 3000-4000 visiting vessels per annum”. So, after adding both data we obtain even a range of 7379 to 8379 recreational vessels, and that again means
that diver hull surveys are conducted on between 24% and 27% of boats moored, berthed in marinas, and anchored in Northland.
Moreover and to add to the confusion and misinformation of Councillors:
a) The CBA used 3,000 as the number of vessels for the cost calculations;
b) The marine section of the RPMPMP says there are more than 2,000 visiting recreational vessels p/a, and about 2,000 long-distance arrivals and departures (but how many arrivals? This would be important as mainly arriving boats could contribute to the spreading of marine pests)
So how can then NRC staff claim that the 2,000 diver hull surveys p/a on boats moored, berthed in marinas, and anchored in Northland mean that about ⅔ of the hulls of non-trailered boats visiting or domiciled in Northland are surveyed? This contradiction is obvious and most probably one reason why Councillors Yeoman, Smart and Finlayson did not support MPMP.
It is certainly essential for a conclusive CBA in regards to this matter to sort out whether diver surveys of ⅔ of vessels in Northland each year are undertaken, or only of ¼. Already ⅔ have to be seen as extremely questionable in regards of efficiency, but ¼ would have to be considered ridiculous.
All this taken into account it becomes obvious that the full council made their decision based on misleading information and that the advice given to them by NRC staff members was deficient, incomplete and therefore unreasonable.
And it was also illegal. Please refer to the regulations of the Biosecurity Act 1993. Under section:
135 Options for cost recovery
(1): The Director-General, every other chief executive, and every management agency,...... shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that so much of the costs of administering this Act, including costs incurred as the management agency of a pest management plan or pathway management plan,..... are recovered in accordance with the principles of equity and efficiency ..(sic!).
I hereby request clarification on our above-mentioned points of criticism. Please explain these discrepancies especially considering their future integration within a MPMP of the TON Regional Councils.
Yours faithfully
Our second OIR, dated 13/12/2020:
Official Information Request
referring to the discrepancy between
the removal of the last haul out facilities in the Bay of Islands and NRC's claim of keeping our coastal waters fanworm free or at least to keep areas declared “fanworm free” in this state.
In NRC's 25/11/2020 newsletter you published (quote):
Dylan Lease, manager at Tutukaka at Northland, is proud that his marina is pristine...
Therefore he is diligent about ensuring that all vessels entering the marina are free of marine pests... and to meet Northland Regional Council’s rules too.”
(unquote).
In various other publications NRC also claims that Tutukaka is fanworm free.
Even if this were true, the question arises, how much longer?
In June 2020 in a hasty action, NRC removed the grid poles in Pomare Bay (Russell), thereby closing the last publicly accessible haul out and hull cleaning facility for many boats.
In October 2020 the only slipway in Opua's Marina, suitable for heavy and deep-drafted vessels, was also no longer available due to Council's decision making and one of our members was forced to sail his boat with a fouled hull to a Whangarei boat yard.
On the way there he stopped in Tutukaka overnight. So did he bring Fanworm back there? While no one knows, there remains uncertainty and a probability that could have been avoided if NRC had planned more reasonably.
Because not only this boat but many others are affected by this nonsense, a real problem arises here that has to be viewed in the larger context of an allegedly environmentally friendly policy.
I hereby request clarification on my above-mentioned points of criticism. Please answer the following questions, especially considering the future integration of the explained problems within a MPMP of the TON Regional Councils.
How are deep drafted and heavy boats supposed to maintain a clean hull when the only haul out facilities suitable for them in the Bay of Islands have been removed?
How can our coastal waters be kept pest free when boats with fouled hulls have to sail from their berths in the Bay of Islands to a boatyard in Whangarei?
How can NRC claim that Tutukaka is fanworm free although this pest can easily be carried there by a fouled boat coming from Opua?
Notwithstanding that boats are not the main pathway vector for the spread of marine pests, is the above problem recognized by NRC and how does Council want to counter it?
Yours faithfully
----------------------------------------------
The following is Malcolm Nicolson's (CEO NRC) response:
REQ.606266
27 January 2021
By email
REQUEST FOR OFFICIAL INFORMATION
I refer to your requests for information contained in your letters of 13 December 2020.
Your request for information relating to the Northland Regional Council’s cost benefit analysis (CBA) on which the Marine Pathway Management Plan as based under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) has been considered and granted. Please find enclosed the following:
Where do figures like “8 hours at 35 $ = 280 $” annually come from?
This figure was included in the CBA to account for an estimate of the opportunity cost to the boat owners of having to carry out the additional measures. It is only one component of the total private sector costs that were considered within the model.
Estimation of values” $ 1,100,000,000 (1.1 billions) are listed as the value of our marine environment at risk. So far nobody has been able to explain this figure. Where does it come from? How is it derived?
The value of the marine environment was calculated by summing the value of three marine biome in Northland that were in turn found by multiplying a value per ha for the specified marine biome by the area of that biome in Northland. The per hectare values were derived from work done for the Department of Conservation by van der Belt and Cole in 2014 (www.doc.govt.nz/documents/science-and-technical/sfc326entire.pdf). The area of marine biome in Northland were taken from work done by Vince Kerr for the Department of Conservation and Northland Regional Council.
Why only 3,000?
This was derived from the number of licensed moorings in Northland. See the Moorings and Marinas strategy for Northland - 2014.
https://www.nrc.govt.nz/media/4z0pcwya/mooringsandmarinasstrategyfinaljuly2014web.pdf
Your request for information relating the discrepancy between the removal of the last haul out facilities in the Bay of Islands as based under the Local Government Official Information and Meetings Act 1987 (LGOIMA) has been considered and granted. Please find enclosed the following:
How are deep drafted and heavy boats supposed to maintain a clean hull when the
only haul out facilities in the Bay of Islands have been removed?
It is my consideration that there are adequate haulout facilities available in the Bay of Islands and elsewhere in the Northland region for vessel owners to maintain a clean hull. The links below provide directories of haulouts and in water cleaning options.
https://www.boaties.co.nz/directory/haul-out
https://www.marinepests.nz/find-a-haulout.html
https://www.nrc.govt.nz/maritime/our-marine-environment/cleaning-your-boat/.
How can our coastal waters be kept pest free when boats with fouled hulls have to sail from their berths in the Bay of Islands to a boatyard in Whangarei?
If a fouled vessel sails directly from its berth to haulout for the purposes of achieving a clean hull there is little risk of marine pest transfer.
How can NRC claim that Tutukaka is fanworm free although this pest can easily be carried there by a fouled boat coming from Opua?
Diver survey has confirmed that there is no fanworm on structures within Tutukaka harbour. The marina also insists on visiting vessel owners providing evidence of a recent lift and wash or antifoul to reduce the risk of marine pest transfer.
Notwithstanding that boats are not the main pathway vector for the spread of
marine pests, is the above problem recognized by NRC and how does Council want
to counter it?
The current marine pest and pathway plan provides protection against marine pest spread and we look forward to further gains as other region councils combine on a proposed interregional plan.
Please note that this is all the publicly available information (in accordance with the Local Government Information and Meetings Act 1987 and Privacy Act 1993) that can be identified in current information repositories.
Yours faithfully
Malcolm Nicolson
Chief Executive Officer
Since this reply was no answer according to LGOIMA we responded on
28/01/2021 as follows;
Northland Regional Council
Private Bag 9021
Whangarei 0148
by e-mail
attn.: Malcolm Nicolson (CEO), Penny Smart, Justin Blaikie, Amy McDonald, Martin Robinson, Joce Yeoman, Rick Stolwerk, Jack Craw, Colin Kitchen
Good Morning Mr Nicolson,
thank you for your response to our recent OIRs. Unfortunately and as usual you didn't answer, i.e. you did not respond as requested by the rules of LGOIMA and by plain common sense, namely to give the public clear, transparent information on obvious concerns, but apparently in a way that shows that you simply want to get rid of unpleasant questions.
In the following I will explain how unreasonable you replied to us, the applicants, ratepayers and members of the public as represented by “the voice of the public” - Penny Smart and the other councillors:
A) Our OIR dated 13 December 2020 about NRC's CBA on which MPMP is based: Out of 16 questions and concerns you replied to barely 3 ! And yes, you replied to these, but you didn't answer any of them.
• You failed to respond to our concerns that the CBA was based on the unsubstantiated claim that hull fouling was by far the main vector for the spreading of marine pests. We have clearly shown that this is untrue and even the NRC discussion paper for the council's “Combined Consultation Deliberations Meeting” on 08/06/2017 lists that there are “commercial activities (aquaculture)”, “pests already established”, “high nutrient levels” (agricultural run off effects) and “other sources of spread” (natural vectors like tidal streams, ocean currents, winddrift, flotsam, ballast water, bilge water, sea chests of commercial shipping, commercial fishing and trailered boats) which would influence the equation considerably if taken into account, or in other words: If in the CBA the risk of hull fouling being the main vector for the spreading of marine pests is changed, then the risk of all other pathways being also vectors for the spreading of marine pests would have to change too.
• However: There is absolutely no indication that the used model allows for this. Councillors Yeoman, Smart and Finlayson therefore supported the “status quo”, i.e. no marine
biosecurity charge, based on the proposed plans. Apparently they were the only ones who recognized the importance the deficient advice from council staff had on the decision making process of the full council. This becomes also obvious when assumptions of the Sensitivity analysis are considered:
• The key assumptions state that based on the assumed contribution of hullfouling to the Pi value, the risks associated with the introduction of a marine pest from all other pathways are calculated as the residual risk, which remains constant throughout the analysis. This 'constant' residual risk has been set at a low value. Surely, what should remain 'constant' throughout the analysis is that the likelihood of pest introduction in 1 year attributable to all marine pathways is 100%. So in the sensitivity analysis, if the likelihood of pest introduction attributed to hull fouling (HF) is reduced from 90% to 45%, then the likelihood of pest introduction attributed to all other pathways should be 55% but not 10% as shown in the CBA. This is a very clear disregard for the simplest of mathematics and is therefore unreasonable.
• You also failed to respond to the question of Overestimating the likelihood of a marine pest being introduced into Northland in any one year (75%): It is highly likely that this probability is overestimated, as NRC's biosecurity monitoring over the past 5 years may have recognized previously established marine pests in Northland for the first time, but if a pest has been present for many years, but is not uniformly distributed, each time NRC undertakes a new survey, there is an increased chance of finding the already established pest.
• You failed to respond to our concern regarding the FTE cost for compliance: The Fiordland “Clean Vessel Pass”CVP treats boats with no CVP as high risk and the boat owner pays for the dive check. The only staff costs relate to identifying boats with no CVP and not expensive costs of contractors diving. This means that with CVP rule staff hours were likely to be much lower.
• Although you replied to (quote): “Where do figures like “8 hours at 35 $ = 280 $” annually come from?
This figure was included in the CBA to account for an estimate of the opportunity cost to the boat owners of having to carry out the additional measures. It is only one component of the total private sector costs that were considered within the model.” (unquote),
you didn't answer our question, because your response shows how completely unaware you are of the practical situation any boat owner has to face when he is “ordered by NRC” to haul his boat out of the water if it exceeds NRC's mandatory and arbitrary standards for fouling.Then the full shipyard costs mentioned by us (see below) will be incurred and not just some totally unfounded "opportunity costs". Under “Key assumptions, 1.2” in the CBA “boat owners' time and costs” are grossly underestimated and the true situation is quite different. In order to gain better insight for you we have even specified the average costs for the haul out of an average boat of 30 ft = 10m hull (this is a very conservative presumption) length as follows:
a) DIY: 8 liters of antifouling paint = $ 500 + 1 liter waterline paint = $ 60 + propspeed paint = $ 180 + ½ day sander hire with vaccum equipment = $ 60 + 6 sanding discs = $ 60 + 3 x masking tape = $ 25 + cleaner and sponges = $ 40 + waterblasting = $ 100 + biosecurity fee = $20 + Travellift fee = $ 320 + hardstand for 5 days (weather permitting) = $ 130 + travel costs = $ 100. This amounts to $ 1,595. This sum equals nearly 6 times the CBA figure.
b) Haul out work done by boatyard: Add at least $ 2,000 (labour). This is $ 3,595 in total and equals nearly 13 times the CBA figure.
In this cost account expenses for cleaning the boat's hull during the year between the normal haul out times in order to keep up with MPMP's requirements of a biofouling- and pest free vessel are not even included. They could easily amount to additional costs of up to NZD 1,800.- for employing divers up to six times per year because of today's ineffective antifouling paints. This alone equals again more than six times the CBA figure.
• Under “Benefit Cost Calculation assumptions” the CBA specifies 4% as the discount rate. However: Treasury's current discount rate for projects that are difficult to categorize including regulatory proposals, is 6% as of 13/10/2016. You have also failed to address this concern.
• To our inquiry: “Under “Key estimates” and “Estimation of values” $ 1,100,000,000 (1.1 billions) are listed as the value of our marine environment at risk. So far nobody has been able to explain this figure. Where does it come from? How is it derived? Which single values have been contributed and so forth. Using this valuation to assess the 'benefit' in a CBA for a marine pathway plan seems to be fantastic. Forrest & Sinner (2016. Report 2779, Cawthron Institute) say "the expected outcome from management is to delay rather than prevent pest spread." Treasury, in its Cost Benefit Analysis Guide 2015, says "Only those costs directly attributable to the policy should be taken into account." Placing a value on the marine environment impacted by marine pests is based on vague assumptions and methods that are highly contestable. The marine environment is impacted by environmental degradation resulting from development, industrial, forestry & farming run-off, waste, marine pollution, tourism, overfishing, cyclones, tsunami and the like. Even if this model for a CBA was considered valid, the lack of transparency in the assumptions underpinning a value for the proportion of the marine environment impacted is unfathomable. Forrest & Skinner said that estimating this "is difficult and highly subjective". In addition and as explained above the Council ignores the impact of tides, ocean currents, flotsam and jetsam, winddrift and global warming on the continued introduction of marine pests in Northland.” You replied:
(quote):”The value of the marine environment was calculated by summing the value of three marine biome in Northland that were in turn found by multiplying a value per ha for the specified marine biome by the area of that biome in Northland. The per hectare values were derived from work done for the Department of Conservation by van der Belt and Cole in 2014 (www.doc.govt.nz/documents/science-and-technical/sfc326entire.pdf). The area of marine biome in Northland were taken from work done by Vince Kerr for the Department of Conservation and Northland Regional Council. (unquote).
As biomes are merely collections of plants and animals that have common characteristics for the environment they exist in and nothing else, any attempts to attach a monetary value to them are highly dubious. Therefore the opinions of Forest & Sinner (Cawthron Institute) and Treasury's Cost Benefit Analysis Guide (2015) have still to be considered valid and crucial in this context. So once more you have failed to answer our query in a reasonable and satisfactory manner.
• Under “Public and private cost assumptions” the number of affected vessels is 3,000 and the important question is: Why only 3,000?
You simply wrote: (quote): “This was derived from the number of licensed moorings in Northland. See the Moorings and Marinas strategy for Northland - 2014. “
This, dear and esteemed Mr Nicolson, just isn't good enough! We actually pointed out to you and queried why the attachment 2 of item 3.2 of “Council agenda paper for the Extraordinary Council Meeting, 8 March 2017” identifies 4,379 total moorings and marina berths plus more than 2,000 visiting recreational vessels p/a. A very conservative estimate of the number of recreational vessels affected is therefore 6,379. So where does the corresponding figure 3,000 in the CBA come from? Again you have failed to answer our query in a reasonable and satisfactory manner.
• Furthermore:
The number of boats to which the costs are applied is derived from an estimate of point-of time ‘occupancy’ of moorings and marina berths, applying those estimates to a period of one year. The CBA totally ignores that lots of boats (not only one!) occupy the same single marina berth and the same moorings during a year. All that means that most probably the figure of vessels affected is more in the vicinity of 8,000, creating an error factor of 2,8.
• Regardless of this, the 4,379 boats of the NRC agenda paper for the Extraordinary Council Meeting, 8 March 2017 have to be seen also in context with the table “Supplementary Item 3.5, Combined Consultation Deliberations, 7 and 8 June 2017, Page 13, which states that "Northland is subject to 3000-4000 visiting vessels per annum”. So, after adding both data we obtain even a range of 7379 to 8379 recreational vessels, and that again means:
• that diver hull surveys are conducted on between 24% and 27% of boats moored, berthed in marinas, and anchored in Northland. You have failed to answer this query in a reasonable and satisfactory manner too.
• Moreover and to add to the confusion and misinformation of Councillors and us, the public: a) The CBA used 3,000 as the number of vessels for the cost calculations;
b) The marine section of the RPMPMP says there are more than 2,000 visiting recreational vessels p/a, and about 2,000 long-distance arrivals and departures (but how many arrivals? This would be important as mainly arriving boats could contribute to the spreading, more importantly, introducing of marine pests)
• So how can then NRC staff claim that the 2,000 diver hull surveys p/a on boats moored, berthed in marinas, and anchored in Northland mean that about ⅔ of the hulls of non trailered boats visiting or domiciled in Northland are surveyed? This contradiction is obvious and most probably one reason why Councillors Yeoman, Smart and Finlayson did not support MPMP in 2017.
• It is certainly essential for a conclusive CBA in regards to this matter to sort out whether diver surveys of ⅔ of vessels in Northland each year are undertaken, or only of ¼. Already ⅔ have to be seen as extremely questionable in regards of efficiency, but ¼ would have to be considered ridiculous. We urgently request clarification from you because you have also failed to answer these questions.
• All this taken into account it becomes obvious that the full council made their decision on the implementation of MPMP based on misleading information and that the advice given to them by NRC staff members was deficient, incomplete and therefore unreasonable.. And it was also illegal. Please refer to the regulations of the Biosecurity Act 1993. Under section:
135 Options for cost recovery
(1): The Director-General, every other chief executive, and every management agency,...... shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that so much of the costs of administering this Act, including costs incurred as the management agency of a pest management plan or pathway management plan,..... are recovered in accordance with the principles of equity and efficiency ..(sic!).
You have failed to answer this query in a reasonable and satisfactory manner too.
B) Our OIR dated 13 December 2020 about “The Discrepancy between the removal of the last haul out facilities in the Bay of Islands and NRC's claim of keeping our coastal waters fanworm free or at least to keep areas declared “fanworm free” in this state”:
To all 4 questions and concerns you replied as usual in a meaningless and evasive manner. Once more your responses are no answers.
• Question 1: How are deep drafted and heavy boats supposed to maintain a clean hull when the only haul out facilities suitable for them in the Bay of Islands have
been removed?
You wrote: (quote): “It is my consideration that there are adequate haulout facilities available in the Bay of Islands and elsewhere in the Northland region for vessel owners to maintain a clean hull. The links below provide directories of haulouts and in water cleaning options.”(unquote).
With all due respect, your information is nonsense! As a boat owner in the Bay of Islands I most probably know the local haul out facilities much better than you. My boat and many boats of its size and type can NOT be hauled out in the Bay of Islands any longer because Council has closed down (in fact removed) the only so far available slipway in Opua. No travel lift and no trailer is suitable to haul these boats out of the water and they have now to be sailed down to Whangarei boatyards. So, you have failed to answer this question in a reasonable and satisfactory way too.
• Question 2: How can our coastal waters be kept pest free when boats with fouled hulls have to sail from their berths in the Bay of Islands to a boatyard in Whangarei? You wrote: (quote):
“If a fouled vessel sails directly from its berth to haulout for the purposes of achieving a clean hull there is little risk of marine pest transfer.” (unquote)
Again, with all due respect, this response is either nonsense and/or deliberately misleading the public. Either a boat's hull can carry pests and consequently spread them along its route or it cannot. In any case, it is not up to you to decide when or under what conditions that are convenient for you, the spreading of marine pests will happen. So, consequently you have failed to answer this question in a reasonable and satisfactory way too.
• Question 3: How can NRC claim that Tutukaka is fanworm free although this pest can easily be carried there by a fouled boat coming from Opua?
You wrote: (quote): “
Diver survey has confirmed that there is NO Fanworm on structures within Tutukaka harbour. The marina also insists on visiting vessel owners providing evidence of a recent lift and wash or antifoul to reduce the risk of marine pest transfer.” (unquote)
• Once more, with all due respect, this response shows how little you know about the real situation, how much you rely on erroneous information from your informers which is then apparently forwarded to our Councillors, but it also reveals a remarkable inconsistency and contradiction among the officials of our authorities and especially bad memory in your case: .
On 21 December 2020 you sent after all the following e-mail:
“I am able to provide the following information about marine pest controls in the Tutukaka Harbour..Our hull surveillance inspections took place over the last fortnight in Tutukaka marina and wider harbour – one vessel was found harbouring fanworms. -The 3 individual worms that were found ..”
This is interesting, to put it mildly, isn't it Mr Nicolson?
Particularly if this boat had been longer term in Tutukaka, those three fanworms have had the opportunity to spawn, releasing between 50,000 and 100,000 eggs each! Do you then still believe that MPMP “protects against marine pest spreading”, especially considering the strong tidal streams in Tutukaka Harbour?
We even have photographic evidence of Sabella Spallanzanii enjoying Tutukaka Harbour, so it doesn't solve the problem when you tell the public the contrary against your own better judgement. Furthermore, it does not matter if you provide irrelevant information about measures that only affect a small part of Tutukaka Harbour like statements of the Marina staff.
• Question 4: Notwithstanding that boats are not the main pathway vector for the spread of marine pests, is the above problem recognized by NRC and how does Council want to counter it?”
You wrote (quote): “The current marine pest and pathway plan provides protection against marine pest spread and we look forward to further gains as other region councils combine on a proposed interregional plan.” (unquote)
Well, Mr Nicolson, in its complete insignificance and untruthfulness, this statement is hard to beat if you take the actual facts into account (see above and elsewhere).
Once again you have failed in responding to our OIRs. In fact we consider the way you deal with serios inquiries of ratepayers, as highly inappropriate because of its indifference and disregard of public concerns.
We therefore ask you to finally provide correct and reasonable answers as soon as possible before we are forced to complain with the Ombudsman again. Since more than the 20 planned working days have already passed, we have noted February 2nd as the reference date.
Regards etc.
There was no further reply.
C) I also complain about the offence of NRC staff members (CEO) against their Code of Conduct:
Under “Introduction to NRC's Code of Conduct” it says:
The purpose of the code is.... to promote effective decision‐making and community engagement;
enhance the credibility and accountability of the local authority to its communities by ensuring the council operates in an open and transparent fashion.
My comments:
it cannot be called “effective decision-making” when the basis for all decision making like in this specific case a Cost Benefit Analysis is faulty.
It cannot be called “effective decision making” when on the one hand NRC requests boat owners to keep their boats clean (slogan “Clean below – good to go!”) and on the other hand they remove haul-out facilities like publicly accessible grid-poles and even slipways.
It cannot be called “effective decision-making” when important scientific knowledge and relevant research is ignored.
It cannot be called “enhancing the credibility and accountability of the local authority to its communities” when OIRs are responded to but their questions are not specifically answered, when during a consultation process many votes of several hundred individuals against a council plan are only counted as one single vote, when Councillors refuse to communicate with public groups, when even the Council Chairperson, the “voice of the public”, refuses for herself and fellow councillors to answer the public based on alleged “legal advice” received by the NRC.
It cannot be called “enhancing the credibility and accountability of the local authority to its communities when clearly common sense and public knowledge are continuously ignored and violated by the local authority.
Under 5.3 “Relationships with the public” it says:
“Given that the performance of the council requires the trust and respect of individual citizens, members will
interact with members of the public in a fair, respectful, equitable and honest manner
be available to listen and respond openly and honestly to community concerns
represent the views of citizens and organisations accurately, regardless of the members' own opinions on the matters raised
consider all popints of view or interests when participating in debate and making decisions
act in a way that upholds the reputation of the Local Authority.
Mr Nicolson, as well as all of the Councillors failed on all of these points.
Expected outcome:
I expect correct and satisfactory answers by the CEO to our OIRs and a mediation meeting with representatives of NRC ( CEO, Chairperson and the councillor responsible for our district) in order to solve long lasting issues before the cost escalation of the MPMP is extended to other regions without the necessary corrections.
Yours faithfully
Pete Deeming
…
Email:
This is what mainly spreads marine pests: Our tides and ocean currents, wind drift and flotsam - every day, every hour, every minute. Not only during the summer months, when NRC divers preferably but only randomly operate to check for established pests, but also in winter.
and above all: Cruise Ships and other commercial craft
In the Bay of Islands alone 64 cruise ships have arrived in the 2018/2019 summer season!
10 billion Tons of ballast water per year
and yachts are only allowed to have "slight fouling" no matter whether this contains a pest or not - otherwise there can be a heavy fine. Isn't this rule - declaring any fouling a pest - vexatious?
We have several times drawn NRC's attention explicitly to the Ballast Water issue in areas like Waitangi and Northport anchorages as one of the most critical points in this matter. But all they had to say was:
”The incidence of pest detections in these areas has historically been significantly lower than in recreational vessel hubs like marinas.”
This is another unproven claim, whereas we have delivered the following proof for the contrary:
There are recently around 400 berths available in the Bay of Islands Marina. About 300 are permanently occupied by mainly local boats which rarely leave the BOI and do therefore not pose any risk for marine biodiversity by spreading marine pests. If we assume (in favour of NRC's reasoning) that 60 of the remaining 100 berths accommodate cruising boats which travel abroad or outside the area, the picture will show as follows:
The submerged surface area of an average yacht's hull could possibly be infested by the odd marine pest, let's say (also in NRC's favour, as most cruising boats need to have a clean hull because of speed, seaworthiness etc.) one per boat. This makes it a theoretical total of 60 pest specimen per season which might enter the BOI waters.
In sharp contrast with this, 41 ships have to be seen which arrive monthly at Northport-Whangarei, only. That is in total 492 ships/year
Many of them use ballast water to improve maneuverability, stability and general seaworthiness before they discharge thousands of tons per hour into Whangarei Harbour. Ballast water can contain thousands of aquatic microbes, plants and animals, which are spread as the vessel releases ballast water and there are hundreds of organisms carried in ballast water that cause problematic ecological effects outside of their natural range. The IMO lists the ten most unwanted species as:
Cholera(!) , Cladoceran Water Flea, Mitten Crab, Mediterranean Fanworm, Toxic algae (red/brown/green tides) (various species), Round Goby, Asian Paddle Crab, North American Comb Jelly, North Pacific Seastar, Zebra Mussel, Asian Kelp, European Green Crab. There are up to 3,000 different species of micro-organisms only which are being carried all over the globe in ballast water and many of them are considered pests.
A vessel may arrive in port intending to discharge ballast, but without having performed satisfactory ballast management procedures.
If such procedures are deemed necessary by the appropriate authorities, there are two options for managing ballast water on arrival:
Ballast could be transferred ashore for treatment at shore-based facilities, if these existed, but they do not exist in Whangarei;
or the vessel may be directed to depart port and use one of the "en route" options for ballast water management. On board treatment could conceivably
be conducted in port, but at this time there is no known technology that is effective under these circumstances.
If the vessel has performed “satisfactory” ballast management procedures before it arrived, it has usually followed one of the following two discharge standards:
One standard, known as D-1, involves exchanging ballast water in areas outside the influence of coastal and
estuarine ecosystems. This exchange standard is an interim step. It is only an option for existing ships, and for a limited period of time. After that transitional period expires (when?Within the next 10 years?), all ships of 400 GT and above will be required to meet the treatment standard.
D-1 Ballast water exchange standard
95 per cent volumetric exchange of the water in ballast water tanks. Additional operational requirements for conduct of exchange:
• more than 200 nautical miles from land and in water at least 200 metres in depth or if that’s not practicable then as far as possible from the nearest land and in all cases at least 50 nautical miles from the coast, and in water at least 200 metres in depth; or in a ballast water exchange area designated by a coastal State.
The other discharge standard is called
D-2 Ballast water performance:
In this case discharged ballast water must contain less than—
• 10 viable organisms per cubic metre that are greater than or equal to 50 micrometres in minimum dimension; and
• 10 viable organisms per mill litre (mls) that are—
greater than or equal to 10 micrometres in minimum dimension; but
less than 50 micrometres in minimum dimension; and in regards of pathogens:
Discharged ballast water must contain less than the maximum concentration of the indicator microbes specified below:
• Toxicogenic Vibrio cholera (O1 and O139)
1 cfu* per 100 mls; or
1 cfu per 1 gram (wet weight) zooplankton samples:
• Escherichia coli 250 cfu per 100 mls
• Intestinal Enterococci 100 cfu per 100 mls.
That means that all ballast water that is discharged into Whangarei Harbour may still contain 9 viable organisms per cubic metre that are greater than or equal to 50 micrometres in minimum dimension and 9 viable organisms per ml that are greater than or equal to 10 micrometres in minimum dimension, but less than 50 micrometres in minimum dimension – not to mention pathogens.
This is an enormous amount of organisms from other areas released into our coastal waters, given that nearly every day thousands of tons of ballast water (containing easily
many thousand viable organisms, many of them pests) are probably discharged at Northport only, a scenario which has especially to be expected if the master of a vessel
considers exchanging ballast water unsafe:
As safety is paramount in conducting ballast water exchange, one of the limitations of exchange as a method of ballast water management is that the master may consider it unsafe and a ship may arrive at the end of an international voyage without having exchanged its ballast !!!
Rule 300.122 acknowledges the master’s authority NOT to exchange ballast water. The rule’s test is that the master must reasonably believe that complying with the exchange standard would threaten the safety or stability of the ship, its crew, or its passengers because of adverse weather, ship design or stress, equipment failure, or any other extraordinary condition...
In this context:
https://www.maritimenz.govt.nz/commercial/environment/operators/documents/Ballast-watermanagementguidelines.
pdf
There are many masters who would certainly consider it unsafe to round Whangarei Heads on a vessel of large displacement with no ballast (particulary tankers arriving empty) but against strong winds and tide, especially considering Whangarei's weak tugs. And there are doubtless others who would use this convenient loophole for their own purposes, whatever they are.
Why don't those have to pay who are really responsible for spreading or having spread marine pests?
We suggest small additional fees for every cruise ship passenger and for all other commercial shipping.
This is a typical sea-chest grating with little fouling, right?
From the outside it still looks more ore less o.k, doesn't it?
and this is another sea-chest entrance, with heavy fouling. Who would know what's hidden behind?
No hull inspection as required by MPI's Craft Risk Managing Plans (CRMP) or any rules of NRC's MPMP would ever prevent Commercial Shipping from spreading pests into ours waters.