Category Archives: Sounds Management

King Salmon apply for 8 new salmon farms in Marlborough Sounds

King Salmon have lodged 2 applications with E.P.A (Environmental Protection Agency) to be heard in the 2012 New Year, by a “Board of Enquiry”, ‘for expediency’, whose members are apparently appointed by the Minister of Fisheries.

1) Applying for a Private Plan Change to the existing Marlborough District Council Sounds Plan. (If successful, it would enable King Salmon un-restricted future use of the Marlborough Sounds.)

2) Applying for Resource Consent for approximately 8 new salmon farms immediately.

It is understood that such simultaneous applications, addressing matters of potentially significant local impact, has never occurred before.

Should King Salmon proposed tactic be successful, the time to undertake due diligence ie positive and negative effects on the environment and community will be reduced from approximately 3 years to approximately 9 months.
View video here

Salmon farming in Norway, Canada, Scotland, and Chile, after destroying the seabed beneath and contributing to disease and algae blooms) that devastated their industries, now seek to establish them in our Sounds.

Posted in Aquaculture, Fisheries, Sounds Management, Uncategorized, video | Comments Off

Land Based Salmon Farm

Retired scientist Larry Albright raises sockeye salmon in above-ground fresh water tanks which prevents waste from entering open water systems.

Posted in Aquaculture, Fisheries, Foreshore and Seabed, Sounds Management, video | Comments Off

Dive beneath an old Salmon Farm

Take a dive with filmmaker Twyla Roscovich at an old salmon farm in the Broughton Archipelago in British Columbia.

Posted in Aquaculture, Fisheries, Foreshore and Seabed, Sounds Management | 1 Comment

Foreshore and Seabed Submission

Dear Minister

My wife Takutai and I attended your road show in Blenheim. I raised an issue; you said I would be contacted so there would be further discussion.
Your secretary took our contact details but as yet contact has not been made!

Ownership of the seabed is an issue about perception. In 1850 Maori owned and controlled the vast majority of NZ, the pakeha population was roughly 2,000 people Maori population over 500,000.

The perception of the time was that Maori owned the land and resources; this was guaranteed by Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi.

“Full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands forests and fisheries.”

This ownership was acknowledged by the New Zealand company who when they purchased the village of Waitohi off Te Atiawa in 1840, also purchased the seabed out as far as Mabel island  so that they could develop a working port.

This is a significant precedent as the NZ Company were heavily involved  in large scale land purchases around Whanganui, Wellington, Blenheim, Nelson, Lyttelton.

I know of no act of parliament where any successive govt ever proclaimed govt ownership of the foreshore and seabed we agree that the 2004 act was an act of modern day confiscation, and a huge black mark against the Labour government.

We saw the act and the furore over access to the beaches as a red herring when the govts real focus was on total ownership, they knew that in the next 100 yrs the countries wealth will be in the unexploited resources under the sea in the form of gold, diamonds, other ores, precious minerals, oil, fish stocks, iron sands etc….

We are pleased that this act is to be repealed and would like to see it adjudicated in the Maori land court and supreme court., we would rather see  the courts ratify ownership as opposed to the “Lets make a deal approach, “ that seems to be favoured by the minister.

This issue over ownership needs to be sorted once and for all or it will continue to haunt future generations, we owe it to our grand children to sort this issue properly, property rights and customary rights.

Heoi ano, the taki that we raised with the minister is a burning issue in the Queen Charlotte Sounds, the issue over the National Govt bill that has allowed for the unfettered growth of aquaculture.

Government has also pressured our local body government  to change our District Plan to open the Sounds up and make it into one great big aquaculture farm.

These licenses are for the right to occupy the seabed for 35 yrs, council draft them as controlled activities which means that when the time frame is up the council have no option but to renew. ( provided they comply with conditions. )

This is the right to occupy in perpetuity, OWNERSHIP OF THE SEABED.

The Queen Charlotte is the only true sheltered recreational area between the Hauraki and Fiordland, and as such needs to be protected and restored, for recreation and tourism, ideally as a National park.

Mr Minister you told me that you weren’t the man to speak to, that I should be talking to the minister of fisheries, Conservation…… I know all that BUT this act is about ownership of the foreshore and SEABED, that this government is happy to sell off to multinational companies with leases held in perpetuity.

The Pelorus Sounds is now full to the eyes with aquaculture farms, now they want to take over the ownership of our seabed as well.

We honestly believe that licenses to occupy our seabed needs to be an issue that is addressed under this act and respectfully request that you acknowledge the issue that we have raised.
The Queen Charlotte Sounds Tourisim industry representatives and Guardians Of The Sounds, are happy to meet with you and discuss this issue in more detail.
Noho Ora Mai,
Pete & Takutai Beech.
Chairman of The Guardians of The Sounds, and Eco-Tour operator in the Queen Charlotte Sounds.

Posted in Aquaculture, Foreshore and Seabed, Sounds Management, Submissions and Letters | Comments Off

Private Plan Change to create AMA Areas

Sounds property owners , Tourism operators, recreational users, Sounds property owners, tourism operators, recreational users, fishermen, divers, walkers all need to be aware of the Councils current intent to have a variation to change the Sounds plan to get rid of the current Tendering process. This will enable any company applying for an AMA area can be assured they are successful in the resource consent process that they will be granted that area.

The government have instructed local government to create AMA (aquaculture marine areas.) This would be an unpopular move, council have collaborated with the aquaculture industry and told them if they get rid of the tendering process and give them surety the industry can then apply for whatever areas they want as AMA’s (eg areas which are currently prohibited)

This will facilitate another gold rush of applications. I realise the current state of the economy is not conducive to growth but it will pick up. As soon as demand exceeds supply the private plan changes will flood in. At the moment rules in the current plan are not robust enough to regulate or do compliance properly.

Council know and has said later this year they will have a variation to rewrite the Aquaculture laws.

This is fundamentally wrong, they are going to get rid of the tendering process. This will allow industry to choose their own AMA areas and have surety. Knowing that the public won’t be able to affect the process and later after the damage is done they will have an upgrade of the Aquaculture laws.

You say that the industry need surety; the public need surety as well.

This is the cart before the horse.

Council says it is user pays and why should the public have to fund AMA applications for the benefit of industry. That sounds reasonable, unfortunately we know what the end result of these changes will be. The establishment of AMA areas should have been a process instigated by council through a public consultation round so that the public have a chance to say if, where or not at all, with this process Industry chooses and the public have to use a very expensive process using lawyers to object.

The Sounds will become one great big aquaculture farm. We will be unable to stop it, at the hearings the applicants will have a couple of lawyers, RMA consultants, landscape architect, expert witnesses and if the public cannot match their line up, and of course we cannot, the economic argument will win every time. It will allow for privatisation of our sea bed.

Continue reading

Posted in Aquaculture, Sounds Management, Submissions and Letters | Comments Off

Methyl Bromide Draft Code of Practice for Port Marlborough

Proposed by The Guardians of the Sounds

Site Specific Code of Practice for Use of Methyl Bromide in Shakespeare Bay

  1. That no release of fumigant gas shall be released to atmosphere when there is evidence of a cold inversion layer present in the form of cloud cover over Port Shakespeare and Picton that would allow for toxic gas to rise, reach the ceiling and be swept by any North west winds over the Picton community.
  2. That wind socks and electronic wind monitors to tell of wind strength and direction, to be erected around the log yard that needs to be checked before fumigations are commenced. And during fumigations if wind direction should change.
  3. Fumigant gas not to be released in very still conditions to protect health and safety of fumigators, port workers and employees of businesses adjacent to port boundary. In still conditions the gasses may linger or go to ground.
  4. Fumigation not to occur if there are North West Winds that could blow a plume of gas over town.
  5. Temperature needs to factor in conditions of release also, not to be released under a set temperature. Should it be allowed to be released on a rainy day that is cool with no sun to help flash it off with still conditions ?
  6. No fumigation when there are ferries or cruise ships are berthing or tied at a berth
  7. That all fumigation workers must wear protective clothing gas masks and gloves approved for use for handling or exposure to toxic fumigants. Gas masks/ filters to be used only once.
  8. All port workers to vacate port yard while fumigations are being undertaken and not to return until monitoring assures the supervisor that there is zero risk of exposure to said fumigant.
  9. Fumigations to be monitored by a company that is totally independent of Genera or Port Marlb. NMHD to be notified of any release of fumigant to atmosphere.
    The decision made on whether climatic conditions and wind and weather is suitable needs to be expert in this field, but independent !
  10. Not sure what your monitoring regime is, obviously you monitor around the yard and around boundary, but what about the lookout above the port, (outside boundary ) because there is an obvious risk that as the gas rises the wind could blow a plume onto hills above port and threaten public !
    What about monitoring down on the big wharf, terminal, fore shore, Nelson Square.
    It needs to be more than just the yard boundary fence.
  11. Owners of houses in residential areas in Port shakespear and on hills in vicinity of port to be notified, along with boat owners on vessels in shakespear bay. To be notified of fumigations
  12. Query !!!!! concerned about risk to workers in businesses along West Shore, would it be better to fumigate outside of work hrs ?
  13. I suspect that the heat of the sun helps flash the gas off to atmosphere ideal time frame would probably be in early evening after 6.00 pm.
  14. Would it be possible for Port Marlb to notify Picton Community of fumigations through Radio Marlborough and Marlb Radio VHF & Port company operators on Ch19.
  15. That vehicle access should be denied to public around the west shore while fumigations are being carried out.
  16. No Fumigants should be allowed to be stored on Port Marlborough premises unless it is in a specially designed building that complies with HSNO regulations that Port Marlb have a resource consent for.
  17. Water quality. Methyl Bromide is eco toxic, so when wharves/ships holds are washed down the discharge must be filtered to prevent toxins entering marine environment. Fresh water streams in shakespear bay must be monitored after fumigations so to shell fish beds.
  18. Policy 1.1 of the Marlborough Sounds resource management plan 17.2.3 need to be adhered to.
  19. Port supervisors to work with MDC staff to set up an up to date Hazardous screening programme. Keeping good data/records of fumigations eg amount of fumigant used per tonnage, when, where, how often.
Posted in Forestry, Methyl Bromide, Sounds Management | 1 Comment

Its Not Just About The Blue Cod

It is disheartening to witness the collapse of our Blue Cod fishery but it is understandable.

Having been diving the Marlborough Sounds for 36years. I have enjoyed seeing 20lb moki, an abundance of crayfish, snapper, kingfish, groper, blue cod and other species. Sadly we have watched as species have become less and less.

Continue reading

Posted in Fisheries, Sounds Management | Comments Off

Submission re Marine Environment and Blue Cod Fishery

Submission re Marine Environment and Blue Cod Fishery in the Marlborough Sounds.
April 2008, Danny and Lyn Boulton

To embrace eco-system based and integrated management preserving a minimum of 35% of the coastal area of the Marlborough Sounds.

Before you say no be sure you understand the science and evidence that supports this submission’.

Continue reading

Posted in Aquaculture, Fisheries, Sounds Management, Submissions and Letters | Comments Off

Regional Policy Statement 2008

Kia Ora ,

These are thoughts on the need to develop long term strategic planning for

Totaranui Queen Charlotte Sounds.

I have limited this submission to Totaranui, QCS , My knowledge of Hioere,Pelorus is limited and judgements on its future is best left to persons who are better aquainted than myself, the only suggestion is that Tenneson Inlet Worlds End and d’Urville, Is French Pass should be made into MPA’s and don’t allow those wonderful big outer Sounds inlets like Port Gore and Titirangi be made into AMA areas, it is their seclusion that makes them so special don’t allow them to be fulled up to the eyes with aquaculture

Continue reading

Posted in Aquaculture, Fisheries, Forestry, Methyl Bromide, Sounds Management, Submissions and Letters | Comments Off

Submission to Proposed NZRPS

21st April 2008

Submission to Proposed NZRPS.

Pete Beech, Chairman of Guardians of The Sounds.

316A Waikawa RD Picton

03 5736901 p.beech@xtra.co.nz

Kia Ora Dave,

Well I received your letter to get into gear and put my thoughts on paper, I’m not a bureaucrat or academic mate, I haven’t read your proposed policy , and I don’t know an awful lot about what is going on in other areas of the Motu, but we have a strong sense of responsibility for the Marlb Sounds and I’m happy to share my thoughts with you.

My whanau have lived in the sounds for 6 generations, my wife and children are Maori and her Maori whakaaro ( ideals , Kaitiakitanga, Matauranga, ) have had a big impact on my ideals and the kaupapa of the Guardians of the Sounds.

Continue reading

Posted in Sounds Management, Submissions and Letters | Comments Off