Assessment of Environmental Effects for Rat and Possum Control in

DOCDM-1326691 - Abel Tasman Project Janszoon Rat and Possum Control AEE Technical edit for PJ website

Assessment of Environmental Effects for Rat and Possum Control in the Abel Tasman National Park. Department of Conservation and Project Janszoon Trust.

Prepared by: Steve Deverell Takaka Field Base P.O. Box 166. Takaka. November 2013


NOTE for website version: For individual privacy protection reasons all public consultation outcomes and responses, correspondence or other details that relate to specific individuals or groups are not included here. Pagination below has been amended for this version.

Chapter 1 Introduction Section 1.1: Introducing the environmental assessment process ............................................ 1 Section 1.2: Objective of this Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE) ....................... 3

Chapter 2 Overview of the Proposed Operation

Section 2.1: Introduction ............................................................................................................... 4 Section 2.2: Description of the proposed operation ................................................................. 4 Section 2.3: Objectives of the proposed operation ................................................................. 12 Section 2.4: Adverse impacts of possums/rats and reasons for control .............................. 15 Section 2.5: Legal requirement to control possums/rats ........................................................ 21 Section 2.6: Other consents required ........................................................................................ 22

Chapter 3 Description of the Treatment area

Section 3.1: Introduction ............................................................................................................. 23 Section 3.2: Description of the receiving environment .......................................................... 24 Section 3.3: Flora and fauna........................................................................................................ 33 Section 3.4: Other animals present ............................................................................................ 40 Section 3.5: Significance of the treatment area to Tangata Whenua ..................................... 42 Section 3.6: Archaeological sites ................................................................................................ 43 Section 3.7: Recreational and commercial interests ................................................................ 43

Chapter 4 Options for Pest Control

Section 4.1: Introduction ............................................................................................................. 50 Section 4.2: Project decision criteria .......................................................................................... 50 Section 4.3: Alternative options for pest control ..................................................................... 51 Section 4.4: Evaluation of methods ........................................................................................... 51 Section 4.5: Conclusion ............................................................................................................... 63

Chapter 5 Environmental Effects of 1080 Use and Proposed Consent

Conditions Section 5.1: Introduction ............................................................................................................. 65 Section 5.2: Effects of proposed operation on soil and water quality .................................. 65 Section 5.3: Effects of proposed operation on non-target native species ........................... 72 Section 5.4: Effects of proposed operation on non-target domestic animals ..................... 80 Section 5.5: Effects of proposed operation on human health & community well-being .. 83 Section 5.6: Effects of proposed operation on cultural and spiritual values ....................... 93 Section 5.7: Effects of proposed operation on ecosystems ................................................... 94 Section 5.8: Other adverse effects............................................................................................ 100 Section 5.9: Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 102

Contents


Chapter 6 Public Consultation Section 6.1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 103 Section 6.2: Public consultation process ................................................................................. 103 Section 6.3: RMA Section 95E approvals ............................................................................... 110

Chapter 7 Environmental Monitoring and Proposed Monitoring Standards

Section 7.1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 112 Section 7.2: Outcome and result monitoring ......................................................................... 112 Section 7.3: Monitoring the effect on non-target species ..................................................... 115 Section 7.4: Bait monitoring ..................................................................................................... 116 Section 7.5: Soil and water quality monitoring ....................................................................... 117 Section 7.6: Ecosystem monitoring ......................................................................................... 118

Chapter 8 Relevant Planning Documents

Section 8.1: Introduction ........................................................................................................... 119 Section 8.2: Resource Management Act 1991 ........................................................................ 119 Section 8.3: Provisions of Conservation Management Strategy & management plans .... 123 Section 8.4: Other guidelines, plans and/or strategies .......................................................... 126 Section 8.5: Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 127

Chapter 9 Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 128 Appendices

Appendix 1: Maps ............................................................................................................................... Appendix 2: Review of 1080 ............................................................................................................ Appendix 3: Consultation Record .................................................................................................... Appendix 4: References ..................................................................................................................... Appendix 5: Operations and/or other plans relevant to the application .................................. Appendix 6: DOC Performance Standards Sheets ........................................................................ Appendix 7: Caution Period Calculation .........................................................................................


1

Chapter 1 Introduction

Section 1.1 Introducing the environmental assessment process

Introduction

This document assesses the actual and potential environmental effects of controlling rats and possums in the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area of Abel Tasman National Park, and several other small conservation/ public reserves and a parcel of private land, through the aerial application of 1080 (refer to maps in Appendix 1) It is provided in support of an application submitted by the Director-General of Conservation. This operation consists of several control operations to be undertaken at different times within the consented period (hereafter referred to singularly). Whilst the Director-General of Conservation is the applicant, the project is being undertaken by the Department of Conservation in collaboration with the Project Janszoon Trust. The Department is acting in accordance with its statutory roles under the National Parks Act 1980, and the Reserves Act 1977. The Project Janszoon Trust is a charitable organisation formed to advocate for and support the transformation of ecological values in the Abel Tasman National Park. The Trust, in partnership with the Department, intends to invest in a range of measures over the next 30 years which will reverse the incursion of predators and weed species in the Park, actively restore key elements of the natural vegetation, support the reintroduction of lost species as the conditions allow and help build the network of community and visitor support for the Park.

The Project Janszoon Trust undertakes restoration activities within a Project Janszoon management area (c.f. Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area1). This management area is not a formally defined and demarcated area and lies within the Abel Tasman National Park and adjacent DOC-managed conservation areas and private land. Management activities are based on the objectives described in the Project Janszoon Restoration Strategy.

The operation will extend over a 10year consent period where the requirement for control will be determined by either rat or possum population thresholds being exceeded. Along with the possum control requirements, the 10 year period is being sought in order to be able to respond at short notice to rat irruptions resulting from episodic beech mast events. The number of operations to be conducted within the 10 year period will be determined how often threat monitoring thresholds are exceeded (see Section 2.2).

1 The Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area is the area for which consent is being sought for rat

and possum control.


2

The “operation” will be comprised of two distinct modalities and related treatment areas depending on the requirement to control both rats and possums concurrently, or only rats. The two modalities are referred to as: Type A (rat and possum) shown in Map 1; and Type B (rat) shown in Map 22 (Appendix 1). The number of operations of either Type A or Type B required within the consent period will depend on the threshold levels of one or both of the target pests (see Section 2.2: Control design). It is proposed that the operation be undertaken by aerially applying 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate) at 1.5 g/kg (0.15% w/w) in cereal pellets at 2 kg/ha over a maximum of 12,359 hectares of the consented control area. The toxic bait operation will be preceded by an aerial application of

nontoxic prefeed pellets over a maximum of 12,359 hectares of the consented control area at 1 kg/ha. Ground control within two discrete blocks (total 544 hectares) in the vicinity of the Awaroa and Torrent Bay communities will target possums only using a range of toxins and/or trapping. The operational design (treatment areas and methods of control) has been developed with consideration of: maximisation of the spatial effect of both rat and possum control; alignment of different treatment methodologies with the range of management objectives at different localities; minimisation of operational effects that would entail or result in considerable additional complexity; level of adjacent landowner and wider community concerns and/or aspirations.

The development of the control strategy for largescale rat and possum control considered the following factors:

i) Ecological significance of discrete sectors of the Project Janszoon management area considering: a. Presence and distribution of threatened plant and

animal taxa b. Level of threat posed by possums and/or rats at an

individual threatened species or at a community level.

ii) The range of habitats, vegetation communities, and animal pest distribution patterns that are present throughout the Abel Tasman National Park which affect or influence the management objectives identified in the Project Janszoon Restoration Strategy and the appropriate pest control options that may be applied.

2 Unless otherwise stated and differentiated, all general descriptions of the treatment area pertain to the

larger rat and possum control treatment area (Modality Type A).


3

iii) Operational objectives and constraints considering:

a. The range of control methods that are currently available and where the efficacy of these methods is

welldocumented and shown to achieve the specific control objectives (see section 2.2).

b. The singlepest /multipest control requirements at discrete sectors of the Project Janszoon management area where there are different priorities for control of either: possums only, rats only, or possum and rats.

c. Previous animal pest management at different parts of the Project Janszoon management area.

d. Longterm community participation, engagement and support for the project.

If not appropriately managed, 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate) can present risks to public health, non-target native species, domestic stock and dogs. This AEE outlines the significance of these effects and the means by which these risks will be managed to ensure that adverse effects are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated. This assessment of effects has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements of Section 88 and the fourth schedule to the Resource Management Act 1991.

Section 1.2 Objective of this Assessment of Environmental Effects (AEE)

AEE objective

The Department of Conservation has prepared this Assessment of Environmental Effects to:

consider the reasons for controlling rats and possums;

consider options and methods for controlling rats and possums;

describe the proposed operation;

describe the receiving environment;

assess the impact of the proposed operation on the environment;

identify the actual and potential effects of the proposed operation and outline appropriate management of these effects;

enable adequate public consultation concerning the proposed operation; and

propose a programme for monitoring.


4

Chapter 2 Overview of the Proposed Operation

Section 2.1 Introduction

Overview

This section provides an overview of the proposed operation by briefly describing:

the objectives of the operation;

the adverse impacts of rats and reasons for their control;

the adverse impacts of possums and reasons for their control;

the control design and timing;

the method, poison and bait proposed;

previous control efforts; and

the legal requirements to control possums.

Section 2.2 Description of the proposed operation

Name of treatment area:

Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area (see Appendix 1: Maps 1 and 2)

Size of area:

Aerial 1080:

Modality Type A3: Rat and Possum Control 12,359 hectares Modality Type B: Rat Control 9,714 hectares

Ground (Modality Type A only):

Possum Leg-hold /kill trapping, cholecalciferol, cyanide paste: 544 hectares

Note:

This total area excludes a significant area of nonforest habitat at

Moa Park. This area of low stature vegetation/ nonforest habitat will be excluded from the aerial application of bait in accordance with DOC standard operating procedures for aerial bait application in kea habitat. This area has been mapped from the visual analysis of aerial photography and the definition of this area is indicative only. The final definition of this area will be established during the operational mapping phase4 and may be modified slightly from that shown in Maps 1 and 2 (Appendix 1).

3 See explanation of Modality Type A and Modality Type B in Section 2.2: Preferred Timing. 4 This phase is when operational maps for helicopter GPS guidance are developed considering consent boundaries and any additional operational bait exclusion zones.


5

Target animal pest[s]:

Ship Rats (Rattus rattus) Possums (Trichosurus vulpecula)

Purposes of control:

The primary objective of the multi –year/multi- application rat and possum control programme is to respond to episodic beech mast induced rat population irruptions at the higher altitude sector of the treatment area which pose a significant threat to extant native bird and invertebrate species, as well as bird species that are proposed for reintroduction such as mohua (yellowhead/Mohoua ochrocephala) as part of the Project Janszoon Trust restoration project. The proposed landscape-scale rat control during these irruptive phases will augment and support intensive ground-based rat control at high priority multi-pest management sites. Possum control is required throughout the treatment area to reduce threats to birds and invertebrates, and to maintain and improve populations of highly vulnerable plant species and communities namely: 1) the coastal broadleaf forest containing a wide variety of

possumpalatable species including Melicytus ramiflorus (mahoe), Weinmannia racemosa (kamahi), Cyathea medullaris (mamaku) and Metrosideros robusta (northern rata); 2) the upland cedar forest containing Libocedrus bidwillii (pahautea), Podocarpus hallii (Hall’s totara), Metrosideros umbellata (southern rata)

Raukaua simplex (threefinger) and remnant population of Peraxilla tetrapetala (red mistletoe). These plant communities are under constant pressure and threat from possums. Rat and possum control will maintain and improve densities of two species of native land snail; Powelliphanta hochstetteri hochstetteri (yellow-based form) and Rhytida o’connori towards a viable population density. The impact of both rat and possum predation on native land snail species (Powelliphanta and Rhytida spp) has been well documented since the 1990’s (e.g. Walker 2003), and rats and possums are clearly implicated in the decline of many of these species. Sustained control of possums throughout the c.4,000 ha northern sector of Abel Tasman National Park using ground control methods is currently (November 2013) being planned. Periodic aerial 1080 control of possums in the adjacent southern sector will significantly improve the effectiveness of that management regime.


6

The effectiveness of the existing (4,500 ha) and planned5 (c. 10,000 ha) trapping infrastructure for stoat control will be enhanced during beech mast induced stoat irruptions due to the secondary kill effects of the operation. This will reduce predation on key bird species currently present (e.g. kaka, kakariki, kea and robin) as well as bird species proposed for reintroduction (e.g. mohua, kiwi and pateke). While shown to be very effective at controlling stoats by a secondary poisoning pathway (which is a desired outcome), the use of aerial 1080 specifically for the targeted control of stoats is not currently approved (DOC). The secondary kill result of this method is considered a significant beneficial ancillary effect increasing the overall ecological benefits this method achieves over alternative methods.

Preferred methods and pesticide:

1. Aerial control: 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate) 2. Ground control: Cholecalciferol and cyanide; trapping.

Preferred timing:

Resource Consent is being sought for a 10 year period. This consent period is required to provide operational managers with possum control tools and a rat control mechanism to address episodic rat irruption events resulting from beech mast events. The timing of rat control operations within the consent period will depend on whether the rat risk index breaches an operational trigger indicating that control is warranted6. The rat risk index is a combination of three factors: rat density, beech mast, and time of year (season). Beech masting is an irregular event with an average frequency of 3-5 years. An increase in mouse numbers always follows, in what is known as a ‘population irruption’. The magnitude of rat irruptions in beech forests depends on the number of rats present at the start of the beech mast, which can depend on several random factors such as altitude and the severity of the preceding winter. At the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon site we expect reasonably severe rat irruptions with each beech mast due to the generally low altitude of the site and the proximity to the coast with lowland podocarp/broadleaved forest. The likely need for an operation will become apparent in late spring prior to a beech mast year when flowers can be observed on the beech trees. The requirement can be

5 Scheduled for infrastructure completion and trap activation by early 2014. 6 Rat population levels will be monitored using a series of tracking tunnels within the upland sector of the treatment area, and checked as per the monitoring plan (Chapter 7.2) at least three times per year in February, May, August or November. If late winter tracking rates indicate a high over-winter rat population, a decision on whether to proceed with a 1080 operation the following spring will be made by a group of specialists within DOC. In making their decision, the group will collate and consider a range of technical information, including tracking tunnel rates, beech flowering and beech seeding rates.


7

confirmed by February of the beech mast year when seed-set is confirmed and rodent surveys are conducted. Timing (at both a year and seasonal level) is far more critical when targeting rats compared to possums. Flexibility in timing needs to be retained in order to minimise the average rat density over the beech mast period. If rat density in high altitude parts of the site exceeds 20% (Footprint Tracking Index [FTI]) in February of a mast year then an operation in the following May-September period is optimal. If rat density in February is less than 20% FTI at the high altitude area then a September-December operation is optimal. It is anticipated that rat-targeted control will be required 2-4 times in the next ten year period. Background to beech mast and pest irruption processes. The extensive forests of southern beech (Nothofagus spp.) in New Zealand are important conservation reserves for endemic birds (Wilson et al. 1998; Elliott 1996) and bats (Pryde et al. 2005). Nothofagus spp. are a masting species, producing abundant flowers in spring (November) and seeds in autumn (March–June) every few years (a classic resource pulse), stimulating population irruptions of seed-eating species and their predators, including mice (Mus musculus), ship rats (Rattus rattus), and stoats (Mustela erminea) (King and Moller 1997; Dilks et al. 2003). Studies of beech seedfall patterns have shown that these trees periodically flower, then seed heavily. However, the amount of seedfall in any year, and the interval between full mast years, are both very variable (Wardle 1984; Allen & Platt 1990; Burrows & Allen 1991; Schauber et al. 2002). Kelly et al (2013) used 26 long-term data sets from five plant families to show that the temperature difference between the two previous summers (∆T) better predicts seed crops. This discovery explains how masting species tailor their flowering patterns to sites across altitudinal temperature gradients and can improve predictions of impacts on seed consumers. Wardle (1984) defined the variability of production of seed crop as: full mast (>4000 seeds/m²); partial mast (500-4000 seeds/m²); and poor mast (<500 seeds/m²). Fitzgerald (1978), King (1983), Murphy (1992), and Fitzgerald et al. (1996) all found that mouse (Mus musculus) populations in beech forest increase dramatically following high seedfall. King (1983) quantified a link between short-term irruptions (12–16 month duration) in mouse, ship rat and stoat populations as a result of overwinter breeding and increased survival of rodents and high summer productivity of stoats. King suggested that there could be a


8

flow-on effect of increasing the predation rate on birds in beech forest ecosystems. Following the rodent irruption, populations of predators, especially stoats, increase greatly in number, elevating predation on both rodents and endemic species (King 1983; Murphy and Dowding 1995; King and Moller 1997; Dilks et al. 2003). Mast production varies among beech species and mast years affecting how stoats, rats and other members of the community respond to mast abundance (Ruscoe et al. 2006; Christie et al. 2009). Because

beech seedfall in mixed forests is often dominated by one species in any one year, it is possible that in forests with only one beech species full mast years are much rarer than in forests containing a mixture of two or three species. Therefore, mixed beech forests may have mouse/predator irruptions more often than single species forests. There is considerable complexity to the vegetation patterns throughout the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area, where five beech species (Nothofagus fusca, N. menziesii, N. solandri var. cliffortioides, N. solandri var. solandri and N. truncata) are present at different areas and with several species growing sympatrically. The significance of other canopy tree species (podocarp and broadleaf species) as major components to the forest, particularly at lower elevations means that the effects of beech mast events on rat population dynamics is unclear. The rat monitoring network will be expanded from the existing monitoring of the upland area and established throughout the treatment area to provide this information. It is proposed that an additional 10 monitoring lines will be established in the lower altitude beech/lowland podocarp forest in 2013/14. In addition a further 10 lines will be established in the proposed c. 1,500 ha intensive pest management site at Falls River/Torrent Bay/Bark Bay. This will enable a comparison of effects between three treatments: aerial-only (upland and lowland; aerial + intensive ground control; ground control-only (See also Section 7.2)). Possum numbers throughout the management area will be monitored using standard monitoring techniques, following either: the Trap Catch monitoring protocol (NPCA 2011) or the Wax Tag monitoring protocol (NPCA 2010). For maintenance/recovery of general forest condition the target

Residual TrapCatch Index rate (RTCI) will be set at 5%. However, for highly palatable/vulnerable species (e.g. Powelliphanta spp.) a RTCI <1% (raised set) maintained to 3 years after the operation is required. This monitoring will determine the need for possum control (if threshold trigger levels are exceeded) and assess the effects of any operation on possum densities.


9

Control design

The control design and timing consists of two discrete modalities based on the primary pest species trigger and the need for a

multitarget species control throughout the management area. See Appendix 8 for a schematic on the Type A/Type B modalities decision process.

1. Modality Type A. Possumtrigger; or rattrigger operation if the residual7 area also requires possum control. (See Map 1).

2. Modality Type B. Rattrigger and no requirement for possum control in residual areas. (See Map 2).

Potential control cycles8 are as follows

Op.1: Rattriggered control includes 12,359 ha of aerial and 544 ha of ground control Rationale: Possums remain low (<3%) at upland sector but high (>20%) at previously untreated lowland sectors. or

Op 1: Possum triggered control and includes 12,359 ha of aerial and 544 ha of ground control Rationale: Possums exceed threshold (>3%) at upland sector and high (>20%) at previously untreated lowland sectors

Op.2: Rattriggered but control only in 9,715 ha Rationale: Possums remain low (<3%) throughout due to previous control.

Op.3: Possum triggered control and includes 12,359 ha of aerial and 544 ha of ground control Rationale: Possums exceed threshold (>3%) throughout at previously treated sectors. or

Op 3: Rattriggered but control only in 9,715 ha Rationale: Possums remain low (<3%) throughout due to previous control.

Preferred timing for operation Modality Types A and B

The preferred timing of the rattriggered operation is winter to late-spring for maximum effect on rat population reduction throughout the nesting period for birds.

The preferred timing of a possumtriggered only operation is for winter to minimize the effects on public use of the area.

7 i.e. outside of rat-only treatment area (Map 2) 8 Assuming the first operation is undertaken in Year 1 of a 10 year plan with an indicative number of 3 operations within this timeframe.


10

Survey periods for rat population monitoring and operational trigger determination. Rat populations will be monitored using a series of tracking tunnels within the upland sector of the treatment area and checked as per the monitoring plan (Chapter 7.2) at least three times per year in February, May, August or November. Results which indicate that a rat-triggered operation may be required within a 6-month period will be forwarded to all consenting authorities (Tasman District Council, Nelson/Marlborough District Health Board, DOC) to advise of the possibility of such an operation.

Baits:

Toxic baits:

Aerial 1080 i) Rat and Possum operation: RS5 3cm long cereal pellet

baits at 12 g/bait ii) Rat-only operation: RS5 3cm long cereal pellet baits at 12

g/bait9

Cholecalciferol paste (Feracol®) in bait bags/bait stations

Cyanide (encapsulated pellet in paste/block [Feratox®]) in bait stations/bags.

Prefeed baits:

Aerial: Modality Type A and Type B. RS5 2cm long cereal pellet baits at 6 g/bait

Ground Control: Connovation 213 Ferafeed paste/pellets

Toxic loading:

1080: 1.5g 1080/kg (0.15% w/w 1080)

Cholecalciferol: 8 g/kg (8.0 % w/w)

Cyanide (Potassium Cyanide): 475g/kg

Lure:

Aerial 1080: Cinnamon (double-lured)

Bait application rate: (aerial 1080)

Aerial 1080 The target aerial sowing rate of toxic baits will be averaged at 2 kg/ha using broadcast sowing methods throughout except for sections of the boundary along the DOC Coast Track and at coastal margins.

9 For a rat-only operation, and where the possum population remains at very low levels throughout the area, the sowing rate of 1080 may be reduced to 1 kg/ha and use 6g cereal baits. This will be an operational decision made by DOC managers with technical advice based on best practice and overall operational effectiveness.


11

Trickle sow application methods will be used in parallel swathes along both sides of the Coast Track. The number of swathes will be determined by the complexity of direction of the Coast Track with parallel swathes applied at 70 m intervals until broadcast sowing methods can be used with the assurance of either no over-flight of boundaries or unacceptably large gaps with no application of baits. Assuming trickle sow estimates of 0.25 kg/sec at 110 km/hr flying speed at 70 m swathe intervals this results in a bait application rate of c. 1 kg/ha. A total of 24,718 kg of 1080 bait (0.15% w/w 1080) will be applied to a maximum 12,359 hectares of the aerial sector of the treatment area.10 Note: This total bait amount includes an estimated 10% overlap effect of normal sowing swathes. This effect will be included in the maximum amount of bait stated above. In addition, any gaps in bait coverage that are identified by the helicopter onboard GPS system will be required to be re-sown. Areas of normal swathe overlap and areas directly adjacent to these in-filled gaps may therefore receive a sowing rate in excess of the average of 2 kilograms per hectare. The toxic bait shall be applied at an average rate of 2 kilograms per hectare over the control area. The bait application rate may be exceeded at areas of swathe overlap up to a maximum of 4 kilograms per hectare where several swathes intersect. Therefore the total application rate sought in this consent is an average of 2 kg/ha, with a maximum of at least 4 kg/ha to accommodate potential multiple sowing in small overlap areas. Cholecalciferol (Feracol®)

Bait bags (including Strikers): 40g Cholecalciferol paste/bag. Up to 3 bags/site (100 x 100m)

Bait stations: 200g Cholecalciferol paste/station (100 x 100m) Cyanide(Feratox®)

Bait bags: One encapsulated pellet/20 gm paste/bag. Up to 2 bags/site (100 x 100m)

Bait stations: < 6 encapsulated pellet/bait station. (100 x 100m)

10 See Section Preferred timing for an explanation and details of the two different operational areas relating to the primary target pest.


12

Prefeed:

Aerial 1080

The target aerial sowing rate of nontoxic baits will be 1 kg cereal bait/ha over: Type A: 12,359 hectares Type B: 9,715 hectares Cholecalciferol (Feracol®)

Bait bags (including Strikers): 20g paste/bag for > 6 days

Bait stations: 200g paste/bait station for 1-2 weeks Cyanide(Feratox®)

Bait bags: 12-20g paste/bag. 3-10 days prior to toxic

Bait stations: c. 200g paste/bait station for 1-2 weeks

Nature of receiving environment:

The majority of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area lies within Abel Tasman National Park, but it also includes small areas of public reserves and a private scenic reserve. See Appendix 1 (Map 1 and Map 2). The treatment area extends from sea-level at the Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve to 1156 m.a.s.l. at Mt Evans at the southern boundary. An area of c. 4,200 hectares lies above the 700 m.a.s.l altitudinal contour which is considered to be the altitudinal limit of lowland podocarp species such as rimu (Dacrydium

cupressinum). This upland area is the focal point of rattriggered control for threatened fauna conservation benefits. The area of Abel Tasman N.P within the treatment area is comprised

of granite and coastal soils dissected by steepdraining internal waterways. Slopes are moderate throughout but steep at incised and eroded watercourses. Seral vegetation constitutes much of the lower, coastal forests with patches of northern rata/kamahi intergrading into red, silver and mountain beech at higher altitudes. The townships of Motueka and Takaka are c. 15 km south and c. 8.5 km NW respectively from any closest point of the treatment area.

Project proposer:

Department of Conservation, Motueka Field Base.

Section 2.3 Objectives of the proposed operation

Priority of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon operation

This operation(s) is an integral part of the multi-animal pest management strategy of the Project Janszoon restoration initiative for Abel Tasman National Park. This pest control strategy addresses a suite of mammalian herbivores and predators at an interacting range


13

of sites and utilising a range of control measures. This management includes (but is not limited to):

1. Stoat control (trapping) at c 4,500 ha of the upland (> 700 m a.s.l.) sector for kaka, kea and kakariki protection and for securing a predator-reduced habitat for potential re-introductions of kiwi and mohua at this site. Operational: January 2013.

2. Stoat control (trapping) at c 10,000 ha encompassing the majority of the Park south of Awaroa Inlet. The objectives are to extend protection for the above species as well as providing a secure habitat for the potential reintroduction of brown teal/pateke/Anas chlorotis (Nationally endangered). Operational (scheduled): January 2014.

3. Intensive multi-pest (stoat, rat, possum) trapping within a c.

1,500 ha area inland of Falls River/Torrent Bay/Bark Bay. This intensive ground-based management within an area of high value native forest will provide a secure lowland/ coastal habitat for colonisation by bird species which are protected at the higher altitude areas by predator control and normal environmental mechanisms.

Rat control (at mast driven irruptive periods) and possum control (at threshold levels resulting from normal rates of increase [from reproduction and immigration]) will augment the conservation gains at these intensive management sites and, at periods of high rat population levels, is considered to be an essential management step to achieve the stated conservation objectives. The conservation values of the treatment area were initially assessed using criteria outlined in the National Possum Control Plan 1993-2002, which is no longer operational. The Possum Control Priorities of Nelson/Marlborough Conservancy Report, completed by Landcare Research identified the Abel Tasman biogeographic unit as a high priority area for possum control (Rose, Pekelharing, Platt and Savage, 1995, p 11). The Conservation Management Strategy for the Nelson/Marlborough Conservancy 1996 (Vol. 1, p 202) identifies the importance of completing possum control in targeted areas of the Conservancy. The priorities identified in this document remain valid until updated and aligned with the new (2013) DOC regional structure.

This operation is consistent with the Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan 2008-2018 which identifies the northern coast, karst areas, Canaan, Totaranui and the Awaroa headwater areas as high priority areas for possum control to protect land snails and forest communities (Table 4, p 54). This priority reflects the values of flora


14

and fauna present and their vulnerability to possum damage.

More recently, the Department of Conservation has designed and is progressively implementing an integrated and scientifically-sound system for managing natural heritage across New Zealand. This system was developed by the Natural Heritage Management System (NHMS) Programme to support DOC to prioritise, plan, monitor and report on its natural heritage work. The system has two natural heritage outcome objectives viz. to conserve a full range of New Zealand’s ecosystems; and to ensure the persistence of nationally-threatened species. A total of 10 ecosystem types within the Project Janszoon management area of Abel Tasman National Park have been identified for priority management according to 2013 rankings. In addition, the NHMS species optimization process has identified the following species located within the treatment area which will benefit from rat and possum control and are listed below according to 2013 rankings.

NAME COMMON NAME RANK

Powelliphanta hochstetteri Large land snail 460 Rhytida o’connori Snail 582

Conservation outcomes(s)

The Department of Conservation will undertake this operation to protect the health and integrity of native plant and animal species and forest communities within this area of Abel Tasman National Park. The conservation objectives of the operation are:

To benefit threatened bird species present, particularly those susceptible to rat and possum predation such as kakariki and kaka.

To prevent the functional extinction of possum susceptible flora species e.g. mistletoe spp.

To provide a secure habitat for potential reintroductions of rat and possum vulnerable threatened bird species especially during rat irruption phases e.g. mohua.

To enhance the effectiveness of the stoat ground control programme (trapping) particularly at periods when stoat populations increase following episodic beech mast events.

The conservation targets and monitoring methods proposed are described in detail in: Chapter 7: Proposed Environmental Monitoring.

Operational target(s)

In order to achieve these objectives, the operational targets are:

To reduce possums within the aerial treatment area to a


15

residual trap catch (raised set) of less than 1% (< 1% RTC) immediately following the operation.

or:

To reduce possums within the aerial treatment area to a wax tag monitoring level of less than 15% (< 15% BMI) immediately following the operation

To reduce rat tracking indices within the upland rat monitoring sector11 to below threatened species protection thresholds immediately following the operation. This threshold

is estimated to equate to ≤ 5% rat tracking in nonbeech mast years (annual average) and <15% (annual average) in beech mast years.

See also Chapter 7.2

Section 2.4 Adverse impacts of rats and possums and reasons for control The adverse impact of rats

Ship rats (Rattus rattus) were accidentally introduced into New Zealand between 1860 and 1890, and predation by rats is now considered to be a major threat to New Zealand’s endemic biodiversity (Innes et. al. 2010). The effects of rats on a near-pristine New Zealand bird fauna was best demonstrated when ship rats exterminated the greater short-tailed bat (Mystacina robusta) and five species of native forest bird species (including Stead’s bush wren [Xenicus longipes variabilis]) within 4 years of colonising Big South Cape Island (Bell 1978; Ramsay 1978). Although it is difficult to isolate the impacts of each rodent species, the spread of ship rats on the North Island was more or less coincident with declines of the bellbird (Anthornis melanura), robin (Petroica australis), stitchbird (Notiomystis cincta), saddleback (Philesturnus carunculatus), and New Zealand thrush/-piopio (Turnagra capensis). In the South Island, declines of the mohua ((Mohoua ochrocephala), South Island kokako (Callaeas cinerea cinerea), and parakeets (Cyanoramphus novaezealandiae and C. auriceps) all occurred during the period when ship rats were spreading (Atkinson 1973). Tennyson and Martinson (2006) identify ship rats amongst the primary causes of extinction of North Island piopio (Turnagra capensis tanagra), South Island piopio (Turnagra capensis capensis), South Island kokako (Callaeas cinerea cinerea), bush wren (Xenicus longipes), and Stewart Island snipe (Coenocorypha aucklandica iredalei ); stoats amongst the primary causes of extinction of huia (Hymenolaimus malacorhynchos), NZ little bitten (Ixobrychus novaezelandiae), South Island piopio, South Island

11 Upland sector is the c. 4,500 ha of >700m a.s.l. beech-dominated area within which 12 rodent monitoring lines have been surveyed since November 2012 and from which the rat operation “trigger” will be determined.


16

kokako and laughing owl (Sceloglaux albifacies); and possums as possibly contributing to the extinction of South Island kokako. Harper (2009) identified ship rats and possums as important agents of forest bird extinction (brown teal, rifleman, mohua, South Island kokako, falcon, Stewart Island weka and probably yellow-crowned parakeet) on Stewart Island in the absence of stoats. These two target pests are included in a guild of introduced predators that was identified as the likely cause of decline of kereru, kaka, kakapo and robin on Stewart Island. Ship rats have been shown to have significant impacts (population suppression and local extinction) on North Island robin (Brown 1997; Brown et al 1998; Armstrong et al. 2006), South Island robin (Elliott et al 2010), South Island rifleman (Elliott et al 2010), mohua (Elliott et al. 1996; O’Donnell et al. 2002), kakariki (Elliott et al. 1996), bellbird (Kelly et al. 2005; Elliott et al. 2010; Harper 2010), kereru (Innes et al. 2004), North Island kokako (Innes et al. 1999; Flux 2006), kaka (Harper 2005), giant landsnails (Walker 2003) and long & short-tailed bats (Pryde et al 2005; O’Donnell et al 2011). Native ground-dwelling birds and particularly hole-nesting birds are particularly susceptible to predation by rats because these species are arboreal and the native species have evolved few predator-avoidance behaviours. For instance, mohua is a small, hole-nesting passerine that was once present in most forest habitats over much of South Island and Stewart Island, but began to decline noticeably around the 1890s and is now present in only 25% of its former range (O’Donnell 1996). Declines and local extinctions in mohua populations during winter coincident with high rat densities have been reported in New Zealand from Eglinton Valley, Fiordland (Dilks et al. 2003); Mt Stokes, Marlborough; Catlins State Forest Park, Otago; and the Dart Valley (McQueen & Lawrence 2008). Mohua start nesting in spring (October) (Elliott 1996) and are unlikely to be nesting from June to September. However, mohua, and other birds taking refuge at night in confined spaces such as holes in tree trunks, are vulnerable to predation by rats, especially during rat plagues. The ranges of the native parrots, kakariki (Cyanoramphus auriceps) and kaka (Nestor meridionalis) have also contracted. Predation by rats and stoats, but also human induced habitat modification, is thought responsible. As for mohua, both kaka and kakariki nest in tree hollows up to 20 m from the ground. Both ship rats and stoats are able climbers, and can access a large proportion of nests (Dilks et al. 2003). Ship rats are ubiquitous in forests and maintain high densities in diverse forest (up to 14 rats ha–1) (Innes 2005). In New Zealand beech forests ship rats live at low densities during most years (up to 4.6 rats ha–1; [Ruscoe, pers obs in: Ruscoe & Pech 2010]), are patchy in their distribution and are sometimes undetectable, but can reach very high


17

The adverse impact of possums

densities in response to beech seed masting events (Innes 2005; Harper 2005; DOC unpubl. data; King & Moller 1997). Seasonal breeding of ship rats causes corresponding seasonal changes in density, from low numbers in spring and early summer to a peak usually in autumn/winter. Heavy seeding of hinau (Elaeocarpus dentatus), pigeonwood (Hedycarya arborea), rimu (Dacrydium cuppressinum), and beech species have all preceded extended breeding seasons, indicating the key role food supply plays in initiating population increases (Daniel 1978; Blackwell et al. 2003; Dilks et al. 2003). Ship rats were estimated to reach a density of up to 50 rats ha–1 in response to fruit masting (Innes 2005). Ship rats occur at much higher densities in lowland podocarp-hardwood forests (up to 14 rats ha–1; Ruscoe et al. 2009) than in beech forest (up to 4.6 rats ha–1 during inter-mast years), where they are not as numerous as house mice and do not respond to seedfall to the same extent. In upland beech forest ship rats are a periodic threat to forest birds following beech mast events while in lowland coastal forest they are a constant threat. Most threat occurs over the breeding season when eggs, chicks and incubating birds are at risk on the nest (Innes et al. 2010). However, roosting birds and bats are also at risk outside the breeding season (Elliott et al. 1996; O’Donnell et al. 2002; Pryde et al 2005; O’Donnell et al 2011). Therefore different control strategies are required for upland beech forest and coastal lowland forest. Birds present at Abel Tasman that are currently suppressed by ship rat predation include bellbird, brown creeper, fantail, kakariki, kereru, rifleman, robin, tomtit and tui. Bird species currently proposed for establishment at Abel Tasman that would require rats to be managed before introductions include kakariki, mohua and brown teal.

Possums have been present throughout most areas of Golden Bay/Tasman since the earliest recorded liberations in the 1890’s, which continued until the 1930’s (Pracy 1974). By 1950 population levels were heavy to dense around early (pre-1920) liberation sites including the Takaka (Abel Tasman National Park) area. As a result of the gazetting of Abel Tasman N.P. in 1942 and the retirement from grazing of large areas at the coastal regions, forest succession processes have likely enabled higher possum populations in these areas due to a high proportion of possum-preferred species present (e.g. mahoe [Melicytus ramiflorus]) in these seral forests. Possums are opportunistic feeders, browsing the foliage, flowers and fruit of a wide range of plant species and preying on invertebrates and the eggs, chicks and adults of forest birds (Brown et al. 1993). However, a few key species characteristically form the bulk of their diet. Where these species are major structural components of forests, possum-related damage is extensive and may lead to complete canopy collapse over large areas (Pekelharimg & Batcheler 1990, Rose et al. 1992).


18

The forests of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area are distinguished by the significant proportion of the canopy of possum palatable tree species present throughout the altitudinal range of the area. Although southern rata (Metrosideros umbellata) accounts for <10%

of canopy cover overall throughout the midhigh elevations, northern

rata (Metrosideros robusta) comprises 1030% cover at low elevations, particularly north of Awaroa (Rose, Pekelharing, Platt & Savage 1995). A survey of canopy dieback and possum browse levels in the Awaroa River catchment in 1994/1995 reported that possum browsing was widespread (44-100% of sample trees browsed) with intensive browsing on Halls totara (Podocarpus hallii), and subcanopy species such as toro (Myrsine salicina), lancewood (Pseudopanax crassifolius) and heketara (Olearia rani). Kamahi (Weinmannia racemosa) in seral forests were moderately to severely browsed with 13-29% of trees affected (Rose, Platt, Pekelharing, Moore, Suisted & Savage 1995). Kamahi is also a major structural component of the forests of sectors of the treatment area, particularly at low elevations and often in association

with the palatable subcanopy species such as mahoe and fivefinger (Pseudopanax arboreus). Possums have been clearly implicated in the high mortality of these canopy tree species (Meads 1976; Leutert 1988; Pekelharing & Batcheler 1990; Rose, Pekelharing, Platt 1992; Rose; Pekelharing; Platt, Woolmore 1993; Cowan, Chilvers, Efford, McElrea 1997). Halls totara at higher altitudes of the area is also impacted by possum

herbivory and possuminduced dieback and mortality of this tree species has been shown (Rose et al. 1988; Smale et al. 1993; Ogden & Carlaw 1997; Rogers 1997; Bellingham et al 1999). The impact of possum and rat predation on native land snail species (Powelliphanta and Rhytida spp.) has been well documented since the 1990’s (e.g. Walker 2003; Bennett, Standish, Stringer 2002), and are clearly implicated in the decline of many of these species. However, exact relationships between pest animal and snail densities are unclear and susceptibility of snail populations may be strongly influenced by snail abundance, alternative food availability for possums and rats, and the history of learned predation behaviour. The Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area supports two taxa of the Powelliphanta and Rhytida genera, both of which are endemic to the east Tasman /Golden Bay area. Direct possum predation on a range of bird species such as kaka has been well documented (e.g. Moorhouse et al. 2003; Robertson & Beauchamp in: Wilson et al 1998) as well as the indirect competitive mechanisms negatively affecting forest bird species (Wilson et al 1998. See also: Section 2.4: Adverse impacts of rats, for further references on possum predation). The extent of this indirect effect in the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area is however, unknown. While in


19

South Island beech forests stoats have been considered the main kaka predator (Wilson et al. 1998), results from other studies suggest that in some other forest types possums may be a critical threat to kaka conservation (Veltman 2000; Powlesland et al. 2003). High levels of possum disturbance have been recorded at kea nests and predation is strongly suspected (DOC unpublished data).

History of previous control operations

The Department of Conservation has undertaken possum control variously throughout parts of the Abel Tasman National Park which include the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area since 2003. These operations are tabulated below (Table 1) with pertinent operation specifications. In 2003 a DOC aerial 1080 possum control operation (3 kg/ha

nonprefeed) was conducted throughout a 4,436 ha area focussed on the Evans Ridge/upper Wainui River area as part of a contiguous ground based control in the Canaan Downs S.R. area and Takaka Valley faces of ATNP. In 2008 the above area was included in a 6,300 ha DOC aerial 1080 possum control operation (2 kg/ha 1080 and 1 kg/ha prefeed) that extended the north boundary with the addition of c. 1,000 ha at the upper Awaroa estuary area.

Areas on the east of the Awaroa River and within the DOC Golden Bay Area have been included in the DOC Golden Bay Area possum block system for commercial fur recovery. Intermittent fur recovery activity has taken place in these areas (notably around Awaroa). No formal control of the southern and eastern sectors of the Park has occurred, but there have been limited and infrequent fur recovery activities, primarily along the Coast Track and accessible areas of the Inland Track (Castle Rock area). An index of the relative effectiveness of these operations (Residual Trap

Catch Index (RTCI)) was undertaken by pre and postoperation possum trap catch monitoring.

Date of Operation

Area12 Method Rate/ha Resource Consent

June 2003 4436 Aerial 108013 12g cereal pellets

3 kg toxic

No-prefeed

RM030516

Nov 2008 6289 Aerial 1080 12 g cereal pellets

2 kg toxic

1 kg prefeed

RM080652

Table 1. Previous possum control operations within the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area requiring resource consent

12 Actual operational area c.f. planned/consented 13 0.15 % w/w 1080.


20

Date Site (block) Management Precontrol RTCI (%)

Postcontrol RTCI (%)

2003 Upland Aerial 1080 17.1 ± 5.3 0.3 ± 0.6

2008 Upland Aerial 1080 8.6 ± 2.6 0.3 ± 0.7 2012 Upland Trend 2.1 ± 1.7 2012 MotuekaUntreated Trend 19.6 ± 7.6

Precontrol

BMI (%)

2012 Upland Trend 25.6 ± 8.8 2012 MotuekaUntreated Trend 58.0 ± 10.4

Table 2. Possum population monitoring within the centralsouthern area of Abel Tasman National Park related to control operations and for trend monitor planning functions. The “Upland” site refers to the area treated under

Resource Consents RM030516 and RM080652. Residual TrapCatch Index (RTCI) monitoring followed the standard trap catch monitoring protocol (NPCA 2011). Possum population monitoring using the Wax Tag monitoring method was undertaken in 2012 concurrent with the trap catch survey resulting in a Bite Mark Index [BMI]). Monitoring followed the standard Wax Tag monitoring protocol (NPCA 2010).

A community based possum (and stoat) trapping programme has operated between Boundary Bay and Akersten Bay over the past decade. This has been augmented by a Tasman District Council possum control programme based on low density kill traps located primarily along public walking tracks. A recent (<5 years) extension of this control includes some of the area between Tregidga Creek and Kilby Stream behind the Torrent Bay community.

Summary of reason for rat/possum control

The Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon rat and possum operation is one element of a multi-decade long restoration initiative being undertaken by a privately-funded initiative (Project Janszoon) in partnership with the Department of Conservation. The proposed rat and possum control operation is a critical element of the animal pest control strategy (Project Janszoon Trust contract report 2012) that has been developed to achieve the restoration objectives of this partnership. The Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon rat and possum control operation will operate throughout the consent period for the control of irruptive increases of rat populations as a consequence of episodic beech mast events that cannot be predicted in advance and for the ongoing suppression of predicted increases in possum numbers. Large-scale rat control during rat irruptions is critical to maintain the conservation gains achieved by the intensive management of animal pests at smaller “key sites” within the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon management area. It is considered that any benefits accrued from that management will likely be negated by the effects of these episodic rat irruption events if they are left unmanaged.


21

The Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area contains numerous nationally threatened plant and invertebrate taxa that are either endemic to the area or highly range restricted. The vulnerability of these taxa to rat predation and/or possum predation/herbivory has been well documented and both the sustained control of possum populations at low densities and the alleviation of rat predation at irruptive phases is required to maintain or improve viable populations of these species. This level of ensured protection will also be required to be demonstrated before the re-introductions of rat and/or possum-vulnerable bird species can be approved.

Section 2.5 Legal requirement to control rats/possums

Introduction

The Department of Conservation is legally responsible for the protection of the flora and fauna that occur on lands that it administers. This responsibility stems from the provisions of the Conservation Act 1987, Reserves Act 1977 and the National Parks Act 1980. The Conservation Act 1987 defines the purpose and functions of the Department of Conservation. One of the Department’s primary functions is to preserve and protect plants, animals and ecosystems. The Department of Conservation is vested with a statutory responsibility to control the adverse effects of animal pests on protected flora and fauna on lands it administers. This responsibility must be exercised with regard to the potential adverse effects of control measures. This issue is directly addressed in this AEE.

National Parks Act 1980

The Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area is largely contained within Abel Tasman National Park, and management is therefore guided by the National Parks Act 1980. This Act seeks to preserve, in perpetuity, national parks in a natural state and specifies that all “introduced plants and animals shall as far as possible be exterminated” (Section 4). The Department of Conservation is required to manage national parks so as to secure the protection and well-being of their native plants and animals (Section 43). While eradication of rats and possums is not considered possible, the Department seeks to control these pest animals in priority areas. The adequate protection of the ecological values of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon area is directly threatened by the sustained impacts of rats and possums.

Reserves Act 1977

The Boundary Bay Scenic Reserve is managed as a scenic reserve pursuant to the requirements of the Reserves Act 1977. This Act requires that the flora and fauna within a reserve be managed and protected to the extent compatible with the principle or primary purpose of the reserve. Under the Reserves Act 1977, the purpose of a scenic reserve is:


22

a) for the purpose of protecting and preserving in perpetuity for

their intrinsic worth and for the benefit, enjoyment, and use of

the public, suitable areas possessing such qualities of scenic

interest, beauty, or natural features or landscape that their

protection and preservation are desirable in the public interest:

(b) for the purpose of providing, in appropriate circumstances,

suitable areas which by development and the introduction of

flora, whether indigenous or exotic, will become of such scenic

interest or beauty that their development, protection, and

preservation are desirable in the public interest Any animal pest operation must therefore comply with this requirement, as well as the requirement of the relevant Conservation Management Strategy and management plans.

Section 2.6 Other consents required

Other consents required

The Department is required to obtain a Permission for the use of Vertebrate Toxic Agent(s) from a warranted HSNO enforcement officer acting under powers delegated from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), usually: i) Medical Officer of Health ii) Health Protection Officer iii) Other employee of the Ministry of Health A VTA permission will be sought from the Health Protection Officer (Public Health Service, Nelson Marlborough District Health Board) prior to specific operations.

Department of Conservation permission is required for the use of toxins on land which the department administers. Internal DOC consent, subject to a delegation. Permission under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act is required and will be sought prior to specific operations.

All known adjoining occupiers/ landowners have been visited and approvals obtained where necessary (attached in Appendix 3D).

The Trespass Act 1980 and the Wild Animal Control Act 1977 require written approval from landowners whose land will be included in the operation. One parcel of private land is included in the aerial sector of the operation. Therefore landowner written approvals are required. Initial written approval based on the description of proposed activity and map of the treatment area has been obtained (Appendix 3D) and written confirmation of this approval will be obtained after provision of this AEE.


23

Chapter 3 Description of the Treatment Area


Overview

This section describes the treatment area, including:

the physical characteristics of the area;

ecology of the area;

significance to Tangata Whenua;

recreational and commercial values; and

other animal pests present. The ecological description of the area includes an assessment of the ecological significance of values and habitat at the location. This assessment makes reference to accepted ecological ranking systems, including:

The classification of species according to threat of extinction New Zealand Threat Classification System manual. (Townsend, de Lange, Duffy, Miskelly, Molloy, Norton. 2008).

The classification of species according to threat of extinction (Molloy, Bell, Clout, de Lange, Given, Norton, Smith & Stephens. 2002).

Setting Priorities for the Conservation of New Zealand’s Threatened Plants and Animals (Molly & Davis. 1992)

Established methods for biological ranking for nature conservation (Shaw. 1994);

DOC Natural Heritage Management System (NHMS)

Information on the significance of the area to Tangata Whenua has been obtained through consultation with Iwi.


24

Section 3.2 Description of the receiving environment

Area and location

Land Description Modality

Type A (ha)

Modality Type B (ha)

Abel Tasman National Park 12,181.8 9,615.6

Boundary Bay Scenic Reserve N/A N/A

Moncrieff Private Scenic Reserve 52.6 N/A

Torrent Bay Water Works Reserve N/A N/A Local Purpose Reserve-Falls River 0.2 0.2 Marginal Strip - Awaroa River 9.3 9.3 Marginal Strip - Falls River 16.3 16.3 Other 98.8 73.2 TOTAL 12359.0 9715.0 Table 3. The total aerial only treatment area (excluding aerial bait exclusion zones [water supply and hut] where identified) by DOC conservation unit and covenant. “Other” refers to unallocated Crown land and unformed legal roads located within the outer National Park boundary. The unformed legal roads are administered by Tasman District Council and written consent. has been obtained to include these parcels in the aerial 1080 treatment block. Note: Total area size is rounded. Land Description

Modality Type A (ha)

Modality Type B (ha)

Abel Tasman National Park 512.0 N/A

Boundary Bay Scenic Reserve 5.0 N/A

Moncrieff Private Scenic Reserve 0 N/A

Torrent Bay Water Works Reserve 22.3 N/A Local Purpose Reserve-Falls River 0 N/A Marginal Strip - Awaroa River 0 N/A Marginal Strip - Falls River 0 N/A Other 5.1 N/A TOTAL 544.0 NIL Table 4. The total ground control only treatment area by DOC conservation unit and covenant. Note: Total area size is rounded

Land parcels (excluding hydro and road reserve) affected by inclusion in the aerial and ground treatment blocks are:

Department of Conservation-managed land.

Appellation Label Title Activity

Section 9 Blk IX Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080

Section 2 Blk X Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080




25

Crown Land Block IX (under action) Totaranui SD

Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080





Section 8 Blk III Kaiteriteri SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080 & Ground

Section 1 (Awaroa) Square 10 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080

Section 8 SQ 10 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080


Pt Section 24 Blk XI Waitapu SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080

Pt Section 5 SO 5328 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080 & Ground

Pt Section 1 Blk VII Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080 & Ground

Pt Section 23 SQ 10 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080 & Ground

Section 1 (Onetahutu) SQ 10 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080

Reserve C SQ 10 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080

Section 6 Blk VIII Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080

Pt Section 10 Blk IV Kaiteriteri SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080

Pt Section 3 Blk X Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080

Pt Section 2 SQ 10 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080


Crown Land Block X (under action) Totaranui SD


Pt Section 13 Blk VI Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080 & Ground

Section 4 Blk III Kaiteriteri SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080 & Ground






Local Purpose Reserve-Falls River

Aerial 1080


Marginal Strip-Falls River

Aerial 1080


Marginal Strip-Awaroa River

Aerial 1080




Section 5 Blk V Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080

Section 20 SQ 10 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080 & Ground

Pt Section 24 SQ 10 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080 & Ground

Section 8 SO 11181 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080



Pt Section 3 Blk III Kaiteriteri SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080

Pt Section 31 Blk IV Takaka SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080

Section 7 Blk III Kaiteriteri SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080


Reserve B SQ 10 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080





Section 6 Blk VI Kaiteriteri SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080




26


Section 11 Blk VI Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080


Section 35 Blk IV Takaka SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080








Section 12 Blk XI Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080






Crown Land Block VI (under action) Kaiteriteri SD


Pt Section 3 Blk V Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080








Lot 2 DP 10375 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080

Section 2 (Awaroa) Square 10 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080

Pt Section 3 Blk X Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080











Pt Section 15 Blk VI Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080 & Ground








Lot 3 DP 10375 Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080


Pt Section 14 Blk VI Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080


Crown Land Block V (under action) Totaranui SD




27


Section 16 Blk VI Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080 & Ground

Section 1 Blk XII Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080



Pt Section 32 Blk IV Takaka SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080



Section 1 Blk X Totaranui SD Abel Tasman N. P. Aerial 1080 & Ground







Lot 1 DP 9573 Abel Tasman N. P. Ground





Pt Section 22 SQ 10 Abel Tasman N. P. Ground


Section 9 Blk III Kaiteriteri SD Abel Tasman N. P. Ground





Pt Section 1 Blk III Kaiteriteri SD Torrent Bay WaterWorks Reserve

Ground



Lot 6 DP 16782 Boundary Bay S.R. Ground








Pt Section 12 SQ 10 Abel Tasman N. P. Ground

Lot A SECT 1Blk III Kaiteriteri SD Abel Tasman N. P. Ground

Key for Legislative Code (legislation under which the land is held): NP. National Park. National Parks Act 1980 SR. Scenic Reserve. Reserves Act 1977 Conservation Units: Abel Tasman National Park: 00016 (NZ Gazette 1942) Boundary Bay Scenic Reserve: 00163


28

Land in Other Ownership.

Appellation Label Title Ownership Size (ha) Activity

Pt Section 7 Blk VI Kaiteriteri SD

Moncrieff Private Scenic Reserve14

52.6 Aerial 1080

The Moncrieff Private Scenic Reserve is managed as part of the Abel Tasman National Park through a covenant with the Crown. The covenant allows the public to pass through the Moncrieff property on the Coast Track, between Akersten Bay and Anchorage, and on to Watering Cove, as well as on the Torrent Bay/Holyoake Clearing Track that links up with the Inland Track. An agreement with the land owners allows the Department to manage all these facilities for public use and also provides for undertaking pest control programmes (Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan 2008-2018). Refer to Appendix 3D for landowner consent register and copies of written permission. Modality Type A (Rat and Possum). Total treatment area15 of 12,903 hectares includes: 1. Aerial Treatment Area: 12,359 hectares 2. Ground Treatment Area: 544 hectares

1. Aerial Control: 12,359 hectares The majority of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon aerial treatment area lies within the Abel Tasman National Park, with the inclusion of part of a private land enclave within the park (Moncrieff Private Scenic Reserve). Throughout most of the length of the southern, western and northern boundaries there is a buffer of public conservation land between the treatment area and adjacent private land. The southern boundary is formed by the watershed that excludes all parts of the Marahau Valley and contributing watercourses. The western boundary has been drafted to exclude all catchments directly and indirectly affecting any part of the Takaka Valley and is broadly defined by the Pikikiruna Range between Birds Clearing in the north to Pisgah Hill in the south. The upper Wainui River watershed defines the aerial treatment boundary at the Canaan Downs Scenic Reserve and all watercourses draining into this reserve have been excluded, including consideration of any allogenic stream affects of the dominant karst geology to the west. The northern boundary between Birds Clearing and upper Awaroa Inlet follows the 2008 operational boundary to Awapoto Hut before

14 Also listed as: Conservation Covenant - Moncrieff Astrolabe 15 Total treatment area refers to the maximum area for control under the rat and possum operation Type A (See Section 2.2). The rat-only (Type B) treatment area is detailed below (See also Section 2.2 for details).


29

utilising the Awaroa River as a natural boundary until approaching the upper Awaroa Inlet. A non-treatment buffer strip is present between the treatment area and the Awaroa Road/car park. With the exception of two coastal blocks (Abel Head and Foul Point), the eastern boundary is described by the DOC Abel Tasman Coast Track with a 100 m wide bait exclusion zone established on both sides of this track. The boundary at this sector also considers water intakes supplying public (DOC hut and campgrounds) as well as numerous private and community water supplies.

This total area excludes a significant area of nonforest habitat at Moa

Park. This area of low stature vegetation/ nonforest habitat will be excluded from the aerial application of bait in accordance with DOC standard operating procedures for aerial bait application in kea habitat. This area has been mapped from the visual analysis of aerial photography and the definition of this area is indicative only. The extent of this excluded area will be based on interpretation of aerial photography during the operational planning stages and confirmed at a prefeed operation.

2. Ground Control: 544 hectares

The ground control (possum only as the target pest species) area consists of two separate blocks defined by the presence of numerous private land blocks encompassed by Abel Tasman National Park. These two blocks effectively create a ground control buffer between the aerial treatment block and the private land enclaves at Awaroa and Torrent Bay/Boundary Bay. The extent of these blocks was determined by the location of water supply intakes and affected catchments and extending the ground control to minimise any possible immediate downstream effects (e.g. possum carcass outwash). Modality Type B (Rat). Total treatment area of 9,715 includes: 1. Aerial Treatment Area. 9,715 hectares 2. Ground Treatment Area. Nil

1. Aerial Control: 9,715 hectares

The southern and western boundary follows the boundary described for Type A operation except for the truncation of the south-east extent at Holyoake Clearing, thereby excluding the south-east coastal regions. The eastern boundary is defined by straight line boundary sectors to include as much of the lowland coastal area while eliminating or minimising the effects on public and privates water supplies, public activities and public notification requirements. The northern boundary follows no terrain-based definition but has been drafted for operational efficiency as a straight line from Awapoto Hut in the west. The definition and extent of this area has considered the


30

maximum effect of reducing rat reinvasion into the upland area as well as supporting the proposed intensive multi-pest ground control management site at Torrent Bay/Bark Bay.

2. Ground Control: 0 ha

There will be NO ground control associated with a rat-only (Type B) operation. Aerial bait loading site (Modality Type A and Modality B) The location of the site for the helicopter loading of 1080 baits (LZ) has not yet been confirmed. There are currently three candidate sites that are being considered and the final selection will depend on the key factor of site security. This effect will be more accurately assessed closer to the time of any operation. The attributes of these 3 sites are:

1. Two sites are located on Public Conservation Land (PCL) managed by the Department of Conservation. The third site is on private farmland from which a previous operation was based with landowner approval and support. If required, landowner approval will be obtained.

2. One of the three sites (on PCL) would not require that the aircraft fly over stocked land. One site (on PCL) would require that stock are removed (<200m from LZ to un-stocked PCL) where this PCL is currently stocked under a lease agreement. This site has been used as a bait loading site in a previous operation. The third site would require a small area (distance to PCL< 200m) to be destocked as in the previous operation from this site.

Advice Notice All consenting authorities (Tasman District Council, Nelson/Marlborough Public Health Board, DOC) will be advised of the selection of the operational base for loading aircraft for the 1080-toxic bait operation no less than five (5) days from the start of the operation. Refer to Appendix 1 for maps of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area.

Adjacent land tenure and uses

The majority of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area is directly bounded by land owned by the Crown and managed by the Department of Conservation (Abel Tasman National Park, Canaan Downs Scenic Reserve). The southern extent of the treatment area borders contiguous areas of

conservationmanaged land within the Marahau Valley catchment. The minimum distance to adjacent private land along this length of boundary is c 1.5 km. The Marahau Valley consists of numerous small land parcels particularly on the southern (true right) side of the


31

Marahau River. The four private land blocks contiguous with the park boundary are used for orchards, dry stock and/or as general lifestyle blocks. The main Marahau community, where there are bases for numerous National Park DOC concessionaires and other tourist operators, is c. 2.5 km distant from the nearest point of the treatment area. At the Canaan Downs area, the nearest adjacent private land is an unoccupied pasture/native forest block over 3 km from the boundary with the DOC Canaan Downs Scenic Reserve situated between these areas. A part of the Canaan Downs Scenic Reserve is leased for sheep farming but there is no permanent residence on site. The western boundary along the Pikikiruna Range approaches sheep /dry stock farms at several points (near Murray Peak and north at Birds Clearing), however the remainder of the adjacent area is unstocked regenerating scrubland or native forest with no residences within 1 km of the boundary on these blocks. At the north-west extent of the treatment area at Birds Clearing, the boundary approaches to 1.5 km of several permanent residences. The intervening area is used for sheep and dry-stock cattle farming. The entire upper Wainui River catchment is included within the treatment area and exits the treatment area approximately 4km upstream of this river exiting the National Park. The closest permanent residence along the northern boundary is c. 1.5 km from the area with intervening National Park. A c. 40 ha block of private land of forest and regenerating scrubland at Awaroa Road is entirely encompassed by the National Park and lies 500 m from the treatment boundary with the Awapoto River located between this block and the treatment area. This block contains several residences although generally not with permanent/ long term residents. The north-eastern boundary of the treatment area is described by the coastline of Tasman Bay. The Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve extends the length of coastline between the Abel Tasman National Park and Tasman Bay. Within this sector there are two significant areas containing numerous private land blocks. The presence of these private blocks at Awaroa and Torrent Bay/Boundary Bay preceded the gazettal of the National Park and persist as enclaves within the park that can be reached only by sea, air (Awaroa) or by foot using the DOC tracks. The Awaroa community is comprised of approximately 50 land blocks containing numerous residences. The majority of these residences are unoccupied throughout the year and are used primarily as holiday homes only. Awaroa Lodge is a four star wilderness lodge set at the eastern margin of the enclave. The Torrent Bay community is a similarly a holiday-home dominated enclave comprising approximately 50 private land blocks extending


32

northwards along the coast to the southern extent of Frenchman Bay. A small DOC reserve (Boundary Bay Scenic Reserve [5.0 ha]) is located between several of these private blocks and the National Park. The Torrent Bay Water Works Reserve (22.3 ha) is administered by TDC and was established to provide a secure and safe water supply for the Torrent Bay community. This reserve and all areas within the supply catchment of the Torrent Bay water supply have been excluded from the aerial 1080 block and will be controlled for possums using ground control methods.

Topography and geology

The rock underlying much of the park is granite, the weathering of which is responsible for the coastal formations, rocky stream beds and characteristically infertile soils.. The Pikikiruna Range forms the backbone of the entire park and defines the western boundary of the treatment area. This range gives rise to four of the park’s main rivers, the Wainui, Awapoto, Awaroa and Falls rivers. The lower reaches of the Awapoto and Awaroa rivers meander through flat, coastal wetland areas and alluvial terraces before discharging through delta areas (which are within the Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve) into the Awaroa Inlet. Mt Evans (1156m) and Murray Peak (1101m) are the highest elevations in the park and both lie at the boundary of the treatment area. The interior of the park is rugged, with a complex system of ridges and deeply incised stream gully and river valleys. Much of the Canaan area is marble, which at 450 million years old is among New Zealand’s older rock. Erosion of the soluble marble has created the distinctive karst landscape characterised by sinking streams, dry valleys, resurgent springs, areas of carved karrenfield and sinkholes. Cave systems are numerous and sometimes extensive. However, the treatment area has been defined so that no marble or limestone-based areas are directly or indirectly (by allogenic watercourse effects) included. The altitudinal range of the area extends from sea level at the northern extent of the treatment area to 1156 m at Mt Evans, which lies on the operational boundary with other areas of the National Park.

Significant water bodies

In the interior of the park, zones of weakness in the weathered granite

bedrock control the courses of several parallel northwardflowing rivers. Three of the main rivers, Awapoto River, Awaroa River, and Wainui River are controlled by this drainage pattern. The first two rivers debouche into the Awaroa Inlet and the latter into Wainui Bay. The Falls and Torrent Rivers cut across the granite bedrock pattern and flow eastward directly into Tasman Bay (at Sandfly Bay and Torrent Bay respectively).


33

The catchments of the Awapoto, Awaroa, Falls, Torrent and Wainui Rivers constitute approximately 8%, 32%, 14%, 8% and 12% of the total aerial treatment area respectively. West of the Pikikiruna Range and at the Canaan karst plateau the watercourses drain westward into marble karst, going underground

into complex hydrogeological systems. However, these areas have been specifically excluded from the treatment area to preclude operational influences in the Takaka Valley.

Climate

The Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area receives between 1500 and 4000mm of rain per annum. Precipitation in the area is strongly influenced by altitude resulting in a strong precipitation gradient which decreases from the inland higher altitude areas to the coast. Rain falls on average 125 days per year in the coastal regions with more in the inland areas. Prevailing winds are from the northwest to southwest quadrants being strong in late spring and summer. The Pikikiruna range has almost a montane climate with snow falling to 800m several times annually although not persisting for long. Frosts are common throughout the greater part of the area >200 m a.s.l during winter. The average summer high is 24º C, with overnight lows of around 13º C. Winter temperatures range from an average high of 12.5º C. to a low of 4º C. During late spring and throughout summer the interior is subject to strong westerly winds, while the autumn and winter months are generally calm.

Section 3.3 Flora and fauna

Vegetation types and their extent

The Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area lies within Abel Tasman National Park and several smaller adjacent conservation areas and private land. The Abel Tasman National Park comprises one of the largest tracts of lowland (<600m) forest remaining in the Nelson region. The coastal area vegetation is characterised by lush gully forests with nikau (Rhopalostylis sapida), and puketea (Laurelia novaezelandiae), dry kanuka (Kunzea ericoides) forests, manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) scrub and mahoe (Melicytus ramiflorus) with ngaio (Myoporum laetum) and akeake (Dodonaea viscosa) on the coastal fringe. Northern rata (Metrosideros robusta) is a significant canopy emergent, often in association with kamahi (Weinmannia racemosa) throughout the unmodified coastal and low altitude forest. Much of the area is undergoing progressive regeneration through various seral stages after early land clearance for


34

farming and timber extraction. Some of these areas have only been retired since the mid 20th century. The southern coastal areas remain the most heavily modified and degraded areas of the park due to extensive and repeated fire management for land clearance and farming. This has resulted in impoverished soils and loss of topsoils over large areas at exposed sites. Forest succession stages are often retarded in these areas with manuka/kanuka attempting to provide the initial stages of recovery. Exotic plant invasions are most apparent at this sector with species

such as willow leaved hakea (Hakea salicifolia) gaining advantage in the high light environments. The main vegetation types of the interior are lowland forest of mixed podocarps, beech and broadleaved species, especially rimu (Dacrydium cupressinum), hard beech (Nothofagus truncata), totara (Podocarpus totara), pigeonwood (Hedycarya arborea) and mahoe. Kiekie (Freycinetia baueriana) and nikau are common in the gullies and valleys. In unmodified areas the vegetation reflects altitude and soil influences. On the flood plains and fertile soils there is a rich

podocarp/broadleaf/beech forest of a multitier structure. At higher altitude, red beech (Nothofagus fusca) dominates in deep soils, giving way to silver beech (N. menziesii) at less fertile sites with mountain beech (N. solandri var. cliffortioides) occurring in pure stands on ridges. Neinei (Dracophyllum traversii) is common in the shrub tier with the common forest shrub species (e.g. Coprosma spp., Pseudowintera colorata, Leucopogon fasciculatus). On north facing drier slopes and infertile ridges, manuka/kanuka is often associated with gorse (Ulex europaeus) and native forest regeneration is slow. The highest and coolest part of the interior of the treatment area support mountain beech, silver beech, mountain cedar (Libocedrus bidwillii) and southern rata (Metrosideros umbellata). At Moa Park infertile soils, poor drainage and cold climate have resulted in red tussock (Chionochloa rubra) scrubland, which include mossfields, bog pine (Halocarpus bidwillii), Hebe spp., and alpine herbs. The forest type most susceptible to possum impacts is below 500m a.s.l. These forests have higher possum densities and a greater proportion of possum palatable plant species. However, possums have been implicated in major collapse events of southern rata, mountain cedar and Halls totara (Podocarpus hallii) forests elsewhere in New Zealand with the beech mistletoes (Peraxilla and Alepis spp.) of the upland forest types also severely affected (Sweetapple et al 2002; Sessions & Kelly 2001a; Ogle 1997; Norton 1995). Within Abel Tasman National Park there is a wide diversity of natural ecosystems ranging from subalpine bogs and tussock lands to lowland coastal forests and dunes. The contrast between the fertile calcareous

based substrates and infertile granite soils also further influence


35

plant species richness and distribution patterns. However, the possum and rat management area lies almost entirely within the granite zone and the specialist plants strongly associated with the calcareous areas are therefore either absent or only marginally present. A third of the threatened plants listed in the Abel Tasman N.P. Management Plan

20082018 are restricted to limestone and marble substrates on the northern and western parts of the park and a quarter of these are endemic to the Nelson /Tasman region. The integrity of large parts of the park (notably in the lowland/ coastal areas) has been significantly modified by historical land clearance practises. The prolonged presence of a suite of introduced herbivores and predators have also greatly reduced or eliminated a range of high value plant and animal species. The coastal (<200 m a.s.l) sector contains 12 species of plants that are classified as “Threatened” or “At Risk” (from: The New Zealand Threat Classification System manual, Townsend et al. 2008). This area provides habitat for a large number of sea birds, coastal waders, estuarine and coastal wetland bird species, several of which are listed within the “Threatened” or “At Risk” categories (see below). The interior is less modified from historical land clearance with c. 90%, 65% and 51% cover of the original upland beech, lowland beech and lowland mixed forest respectively remaining. This area holds 22 species of plants that are classified as “Threatened” or “At Risk”.

COMMON NAME SPECIES THREAT RANKING16 RANGE

coastal peppercress Lepidium banksii nationally critical PJMA, e

shovel mint Scutellaria novae-zelandiae nationally critical nima ,e

limestone groundsel Senecia aff.glaucophyllus nationally critical nima

swordleaf puha Kirkianella “glauca” nationally vulnerable Presumed extinct

NZ mustard cress, matangoa Rorippa divaricata nationally critical PJMA

yellow mistletoe Alepis flavida declining nima

gossamer grass Anemanthele lessoniana declining PJMA

estuary sedge Carex littorosa declining PJMA

coastal porcupine shrub Melicytus crassifolius declining nima

scarlet mistletoe Peraxilla colensoi declining PJMA

red mistletoe Peraxilla tetrapetala declining PJMA

poroporo Solanum aviculare declining PJMA

16 Threat classification after: de Lange PJ, Norton DA, Courtney SP, Heenan PB, Barkla JW, Cameron EK, Hitchmough R, Townsend AJ 2009. Threatened and uncommon plants of New Zealand (2008 revision). New Zealand Journal of Botany 47: 61–96.


36

COMMON NAME SPECIES THREAT RANKING17 RANGE

native germander Teucridium parvifolium declining nima

tupeia mistletoe Tupeia antarctica declining PJMA

pingao Desmoschoenus spiralis relict PJMA

puha Sochus kirkii relict nima

largeleave milktree Streblus banksii relict PJMA

Pikikiruna sedge Carex creminicola naturally uncommon nima, e

a greenhood orchid Diplodium alveatum coloniser PJMA

weeping inaka Dracophyllum urvilleanum naturally uncommon PJMA, e

orchid little spotted Drymoanthus flavus* naturally uncommon PJMA

Euchiton polylepis* naturally uncommon PJMA

Euchiton paludosus* naturally uncommon PJMA

black filmy fern Hymenophyllum atrovirens naturally uncommon PJMA

coral mistletoe Korthalsella salicornioides naturally uncommon PJMA

limestone mahoe Melicytus obovatus naturally uncommon nima, e

coastal musk Minimus repens naturally uncommon PJMA

hidden spider orchid Molloybas cryptanthus naturally uncommon PJMA(?)

limestone forgetmenot Myosotis brockiei naturally uncommon nima

roundleaved forgetmenot Myosotis spathulata naturally uncommon PJMA

flush forgetmenot Myosotis venosa naturally uncommon PJMA

pink orchid Petalochilus variegatus naturally uncommon nima

Pikikiruna poa Poa xenica naturally uncommon nima, e

fierce lancewood Pseudopanax ferox naturally uncommon PJMA

limestone fivefinger Pseudeopanax macintyrei naturally uncommon nima

limestone kowhai Sophora longicarninata naturally uncommon nima, e

native spinach Tetragonia tetragonioides naturally uncommon PJMA (?)

large sun orchid Thelymitra formosa naturally uncommon PJMA

fern Trichomanes colensoi* naturally uncommon PJMA

bog tussock hookgrass Uncinia obtusifolia naturally uncommon PJMA

limestone harebell Wahlenbergia mathewsii naturally uncommon nima, e

* Additional species recorded after 2008 and listed in New Zealand Indigenous Vascular Plant Checklist 2010. (New Zealand Plant Conservation Network). Range Key PJMA =known to be present within the Project Janszoon rat and possum Management Area nima =Not In Management Area but elsewhere Abel Tasman National Park and possibly present. e = endemic to ex-Nelson/Marlborough Conservancy

17 Threat classification after: de Lange PJ, Norton DA, Courtney SP, Heenan PB, Barkla JW, Cameron EK, Hitchmough R, Townsend AJ 2009. Threatened and uncommon plants of New Zealand (2008 revision). New Zealand Journal of Botany 47: 61–96.


37

Native bird species

Due to the coastal/submontane environmental gradient of Abel Tasman National Park there are a range of habitats for bird species ranging from the common to seriously threatened. With the exception of the bird monitoring established in 2012 as part of the outcome monitoring programme for this operation (Gaze 2012), there is no specific survey data available for abundance and distribution of bird species throughout Abel Tasman N.P. Threatened native bird species present at the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area include: COMMON NAME SPECIES THREAT RANK18

Australasian bittern Botaurus poiciloptilus Nationally endangered

Kea Nestor notabilis Nationally endangered

Banded dotterel Charadrius bicinctus bicinctus

Nationally vulnerable

Blue duck, whio Hymenolaimus malachorhynchos


Caspian tern Hydroprogne caspia Nationally vulnerable

South Island kaka Nestor meridionalis meridionalis


New Zealand falcon Falco novaeseelandiae Nationally vulnerable

Banded rail Gallirallus philippensis assimilis

Declining

New Zealand pipit Anthus novaeseelandiae Declining

South Island rifleman Acanthisitta chloris chloris

Declining

South Island fernbird Bowdleria punctata Declining

Marsh crake Porzana pusilla affinis Relict Table 5. Threatened and At Risk native bird species of Abel Tasman National Park (from Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan

20082018) excluding At Risk coastal and sea birds

18 Threat classification after: Robertson,H.A., Dowding, J.E., Elliott, G.P., Hitchmough, R.A., Miskelly,

C.M., O’Donnell, C.F.J., Powlesland, R.G., Sagar, P.M., Scofield,R.P., Taylor,G.A. 2013 . Conservation status of New Zealand birds, 2012. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 4. Department of Conservation


38

Other common native bird species include: COMMON NAME SPECIES

Bellbird Anthornis melanura

Black backed gull Larus dominicanus

Brown creeper Finschia novaeseelandiae

Fantail Rhipidura fuliginosa

Grey warbler Gergone igata

Long-tailed cuckoo Eudynamis taitensis

Morepork Ninox novaeseelandiae

Shining cuckoo Chalcites lucidus

Silvereye Zosterops lateralis

South Island tomtit Petroica macrocephala macrocephala

South Island robin Petroica australis

Tui Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae

Western weka Galliralus australis australis

Yellow-crowned parakeet Cyanoramphus auriceps

Invertebrate fauna

Very little information has been recorded on common invertebrate species present in the park. Threatened invertebrate species known to be present at the Abel Tasman National Park area include: SPECIES THREAT RANK19

Powelliphanta hochstetteri hochstetteri (yellowbased) Gradual Decline

Rhytida o’connori Nationally critical

Mecodema costellum obesum Serious Decline

Powelliphanta hochstetteri hochstetteri and Rhytida o’connori are known to be widely distributed throughout a large area of the Project Janszoon treatment area. P.hochstetteri hochstetteri and R. o’connori are known to be significantly predated by possums and rats, and rats respectively.

Bat species

The longtailed bat (Chalinolobus tuberculata [Nationally Critical20]) has been previously recorded in the park although the most recent survey

(20092012) failed to detect any presence at survey sites in the northern and western area (Lloyd 2012). The southern short-tailed (Mystacina tuberculata tuberculata [Nationally Endangered]) may be present in the area, although no comprehensive survey work has been completed to confirm this.

19 Threat classification after: Hitchmough, R., Bull, L., and Cormarty, P. 2007. New Zealand Threat

Classification System lists. 2005. Department of Conservation Publication. 20 Threat classification after: O'Donnell, CFJ., Christie, JE., Hitchmough, RA., Lloyd, B. and Parsons, S.

(2010) The conservation status of New Zealand bats. New Zealand Journal of Zoology. 37 (4). 297311


39

Aquatic fauna

The quality of freshwater streams and rivers is high within the treatment area due to mature and regenerating native forest cover within the headwaters of all catchments. Very little detailed information has been recorded on fish species present within the actual control area. 14 species of native freshwater fish known to be present (ATNP Management Plan 2008-2018) within the catchment include: COMMON NAME SPECIES THREAT RANK21

giant kokopu Galaxias argenteus Declining

koaro Galaxias brevipinnis Declining

koura Paranephrops planifrons Gradual decline22

long fin eel Anguilla dieffenbachii Declining

short-jawed kokopu Galaxias postvectis Declining

upland bully

Gobiomorphus breviceps

Not threatened

Brown trout (Salmo trutta) are present in the lower reaches of the Awaroa River

Native amphibians

There are no records of native amphibians in this area.

Native reptiles

Very little information has been recorded on native reptile species present within the actual control area. Species known to be present include: COMMON NAME SPECIES THREAT RANK23

Common gecko Hoplodactylus maculates Not threatened

Common skink Oligosoma nigriplantare polychrome

Not threatened

Forest gecko Hoplodactylus granulatus Not threatened

Nelson green gecko Naultinus stellatus Declining

21 Threat classification after: Allibone R, David B, Hitchmough R, Jellyman D, Ling N, Ravenscroft P,

Waters J 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fish, 2009. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44: 271–287 22 Threat classification after: Hitchmough, R., Bull, L., and Cormarty, P. 2007. New Zealand Threat

Classification System lists. 2005. Department of Conservation Publication. 23 Hitchmough RA, Hoare JM, Jamieson H, Newman D, Tocher MD, Anderson PJ, Lettink M, Whitaker

AH 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2009. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 37: 203–224


40

Section 3.4 Other animals present

Introduced bird species

Widespread introduced bird species include, but are not limited to : COMMON NAME SPECIES

Blackbird Turdus otidiformis

California quail Callipepla californica

Chaffinch Fringilla coelebs

Goldfinch Fringilla coelebs

Greenfinch Carduelis chloris

Hedge sparrow Prunella modularis

Redpoll Carduel flammea

Skylark Alauda arvensis

Starling Alauda arvensis

Thrush Turnagra capensis

Thrushes are known predators of Powelliphanta spp. There is no information on the effect the other species are having on the ecology of the Abel Tasman National Park area.

Animal pests present

Possums have been present in the area since liberations in the Takaka

Valley and Upper Takaka Valley in 18901900 and 19201930 respectively (Pracy 1974, 1981). Refer Section 2.4 for details on possum abundance. Commercial possum fur recovery operators are permitted to trap or poison possums throughout the treatment area. However, almost all of this activity occurs at the coastal areas and in the northern sectors of the park. A possum hunting block system operates throughout the northern half of the Park. As a result of the consultation process for the DOC 2008 Abel Tasman possum control operation, a c. 4,000 ha area was excluded from the DOC possum management and reserved for commercial fur harvesting opportunities. This area received no specific treatment by the Department but the operations of permitted commercial fur recovery operators were encouraged and facilitated. Since 2008 there has been limited fur recovery activity in this designated commercial recovery area. Intermittent control has occurred in most possum hunting blocks, however the focus of most control activity has been north of the Awaroa Rd and at the margins of the upper Awaroa estuary. Monitoring suggests that possum densities have trebled in this sector between 2008 and 2012. The current proposal retains this exemption of this northern sector from formal possum control except for the inclusion of c. 500 ha into the aerial treatment block for improved boundary security from reinvasion.


41

Pigs (Sus scrofa) were first introduced to New Zealand by Captains Cook and Furneaux at Queen Charlotte Sound in 1773 and further establishment throughout were assisted by gold mining activities in

18601890 (Clarke & Dzieciolowski 1991). Forests in areas of the Nelson region with the longest pig occupation histories such as Abel Tasman N.P may be expected to the most heavily modified by pigs (Rose 1994). The area is able to be hunted for pigs by permitted hunters with dogs, although the majority of pig hunting occurs in the northern part of Abel Tasman N.P. (surrounding, and north of Awaroa Inlet) due to the easier access for hunters and with the management of this area under a hunter block system administered by DOC. The majority of this high hunter –use area is outside of the proposed aerial treatment block. The extent of pig damage on the floristic values of the area is undetermined but there has been increasing concern at the pig predation effects on P. hochstetteri hochstetteri. A total of three pig predated shells were recorded in the 2010 re-measurement of thirteen 100 m² and eight 25 m² snail monitoring plots near Harwoods Hole. This is the highest level of mammalian predation at this site. It is considered that this level of predation is possibly underestimated with no damaged small shells (< 30 mm diameter) being detected because of their small size. It is therefore possible that the smaller snail Rhytida o’connori (maximum diameter < 30 mm) could be similarly predated. Red deer (Cervus elaphus) were initially liberated at Nelson in 1861 and by 1920 had colonised most of the northern South Island (Rose 1994). Deer attained highest population densities between 1925 and 1940,

after which a postirruptive population decline occurred, caused by the reduction in food availability and associated population stress.

Commercial helicopter deer recovery operations between 19651985 elsewhere in the region did not influence deer numbers in the treatment area due to the unsuitability of terrain and vegetation for aerial hunting. Due to the absence of open upland areas or open river terraces, very little recreational deer hunting occurs. Red deer are considered to be in low numbers throughout the treatment area. (See also Section 5.8 and Section 6.2). Goats (Capra hircus) are present in low to moderate numbers throughout the area but are found in high numbers at several sectors of the Park boundary adjoining private blocks/farmland which can harbour relatively high number of goats. Areas of high incursion of goats are along the length of the Pikikiruna Range which border farmland with higher fertility limestone vegetation and at the upper Marahau Valley/Castle Rock area. Limited goat culling operations have been undertaken by DOC contract hunters at areas of high floristic value and/or animal densities. This pest management has been expanded as part of the Project Janszoon animal pest control strategy.


42

Ship rats (rattus rattus) are likely to be ubiquitous throughout the treatment area with the elevation of the area not reaching the upper altitudinal limit for this species. This species is one of the target pest species for control. Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) are also likely to be present at river/stream edges. Both species have likely been present in the area since at least the early 18th century due to the proximity of early colonial activity. Monitoring of rodent and stoat numbers in the upland zone of the treatment area commenced in November 2012 with permanent tracking tunnel lines established randomly throughout a c. 2,000 ha survey area. Rodent tracking surveys have been undertaken at three month intervals and results from these surveys will provide the trigger mechanism for the rat-triggered control operation and the post-operation result monitoring. Date % FTI (± SE)

Nov 2012 8 ± 4 Feb 2013 18 ± 5 May 2013 30 ± 9 Aug 2013 13 ± 5 Table 6. Footprint Tracking Index Tracking indices (FTI) results from 12 monitoring lines at the upland area of Wainui/Evans Ridge since November 2012.

Stoats will be controlled throughout c. 15,000 ha of the Project Janszoon management area by a network of traps (partially established in 2013. See Section 2.3 for details) and will be additionally controlled as a secondary kill effect from eating poisoned rodents. Other animal pests present include weasels, mice and hedgehogs.

Section 3.5 Significance of the treatment area to Tangata Whenua

Iwi associations

The treatment area lies within the rohe of several iwi and the following iwi were consulted:

Manawhenua ki Mohua (representing Te Atiawa, Ngati Tama and Ngati Rarua).

Tiakina te Taiaio (representing Ngati Tama, Ngati Rarua, Te Atiawa and Ngati Koata)

Significance of treatment area to Tangata Whenua

Iwi consider the entire Abel Tasman National Park to be wahi tapu, particularly the cave systems associated with the marble landscapes. The coast contains many known sites of Maori occupation and has extensive wahi tapu and urupa areas, most of which are recorded in the New Zealand Archaeological Association files, but none are registered by the New Zealand Historic Places Trust (Abel Tasman N.P. Management Plan 2008-2018).


43

Section 3.6 Archaeological sites

Summary of known sites

All of the known Maori and European sites of occupation are confined to the coastal regions of the Park. There are two, relatively small, former fortified (defensive pa) sites at Awaroa Head and Abel Head. A further five sites of pit/terrace description may have been associated with early settlement sites. Several other midden and artefact sites are recorded at the coastal areas. (ref: DOC GIS: natis2.NATISADM.ADMINISTRATIVE_NZAA_ArchaeologicalSites). European use was largely confined to the coastal regions with timber extraction in the lowland and forest clearing for farming, particularly at Awaroa (1862) and Bark Bay (Wairima) (1870). Other industries included shipbuilding (at Awaroa, and Torrent Bay (Rakauroa)), bark-stripping for tanning (at Bark Bay) and quarrying at Tonga Bay. There are a number of house sites and associated exotic trees, as well as remnants of the sawmilling that occurred in this area for boat building purposes but none of these are of significant archaeological or historic value. The remnants of the old Awaroa school and a relict steam engine are present at the edge of Awaroa Inlet and (especially the latter) are occasionally visited.

Section 3.7 Recreational and commercial interests Recreational values and public access

Abel Tasman National Park is one of the most popular outdoor recreational destinations in New Zealand. The Coast Track extends along the eastern boundary of the treatment area. This track is one of the DOC tracks designated as a “Great Walk” and is the most heavily used DOC ‘tramping track” in New Zealand with over 150,000 annual

users, of whom 30,000 undertake multiday trips staying at DOC huts and campsites. Approximately 95% of park use is confined to within 500m of the coastline. Use is highly seasonal with the summer months (November to April) accounting for 88% of the annual use.

The most significant use of the park is by day visitors to the coastal regions. This short-term activity comprises c 73% of the total public use of the park including hut and campsite use at the Coast Track, and Inland Track /Harwoods Hole visitor use (Appendix 3. ATNP Management Plan 2008-2018).

Water taxis, rental kayaks and boat charter services provide easy access and visitors can reach almost any part of the coastline. Water taxis are confined to designated Coastal Access Points at Anchorage, Torrent Bay, Medlands Bay, Bark Bay, Onetahuti, Awaroa Beach and Sawpit


44

Point (Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management Plan 2012)

Access to the entire length of the Abel Tasman N.P. is possible by private water craft and boating activity and access to the beaches is very popular during the summer months. However there are limited practical boat landing/ access points along the coast. An inspection of the coastline between Guilbert Point and Awaroa Inlet was undertaken by DOC staff and the Health Protection Officer in May 2013. The purpose of this inspection was to indentify all possible boat (motor and kayak) landing points that could enable visitors to directly access the interior of the park (i.e. beyond the immediate vicinity of the coast). This assessment included the feasibility/likelihood of a boat landing (description of beach or rocky coastline) and the type of terrain and vegetation immediately inland of the foreshore. This information was used to determine the proximity of the boundary of the treatment area to the coast and recommendations for the locations of public warning signs and information signs.

The Awaroa Road leads to the Awaroa Inlet (31km from Takaka) which further provides access to the Awaroa Hut (DOC) and the private land blocks at Awaroa. The Coastal Track enters the treatment area from the south after crossing the Awaroa Inlet.

The interior of the park is largely unmodified and tracks are less developed compared to the coastal regions. Visitor use is relatively low, particularly in the winter months and visitors are primarily more experienced trampers. The main route through this area is via the Inland Track along Evans Ridge which links Marahau to Wainui via Pigeon Saddle on the Awaroa Road. Several internal tracks create minor circuits and links to the Takaka Valley/ Coast Track at various points but these are significantly less utilised.

The northern and coastal parts of the treatment area are a popular destination for pig hunters and commercial possum fur recovery operators. Both activities in the northern (north of line: Onetahuti Bay –Awapoto hut) are monitored by a block booking system managed by the Takaka Field Base. Limited goat hunting occurs at the boundaries of the park, especially on the western (Pikikiruna) boundary. (See also Section 3.4)

Abel Tasman N.P. is serviced by a DOC track network that is largely based on the perimeter of the park. A large part of the interior is not accessible by formed tracks and is infrequently visited.

Affected24 DOC tracks ( mapped on NZTopo50 map series) in the treatment area are:

1. Coast Track (Great Walk). Marahau to Awaroa Inlet (including several high /low tide alternative routes at Torrent Bay and

24 Directly affected by the application of 1080 bait or by establishment of specific track exclusion zones.


45

Bark Bay inlets. Usage rating high at all times.

2. Anchorage to Holyoake Clearing Track. Link/shortcut track between Coast Track and Inland Track. Usage rating moderate to low in summer and winter respectively.

3. Inland Track: Tinline Bay to Awapoto Hut via Holyoake Shelter, Castle Rock Hut, Moa Park Shelter, Evans Ridge. Usage moderate to low in summer and winter respectively.

4. Porter Rock Track Side track to view Porter Rock viewpoint. Usage rating moderate to low in summer and winter respectively.

5. Wainui Valley Track. Wainui Saddle to Birds Clearing via Wainui Hut. Usage rating moderate to low in summer and winter respectively.

6. Evans Ridge-Wainui Saddle Track. Link track between Inland Track_Evans Ridge turnoff and Wainui Saddle. Usage rating moderate to low in summer and winter respectively.

7. Evans Ridge-Wainui Hut Track. Link track between Inland Track at Evans Ridge and Wainui Hut. Usage rating low in both summer and winter.

8. Falls River Track. One way track between Torrent Bay and Falls River. Usage rating moderate to low in summer and winter respectively.

9. Cleopatra’s Pool Track. One way track between Torrent Bay and a section of Torrent River. Usage rating high to low in summer and winter respectively.

10. Awaroa Shortcut. Shortcut track from near Tonga Saddle to east of Awaroa Airstrip. In Ground Control treatment block.

11. Frenchman Bay Headland. Short side track from Coast Track to high point. In Ground Control treatment block.

Where: High=>50 people/day, Medium =<50 people/day, and low==<10 people/day

Track name Visitor numbers

Abel Tasman Coast Track 160,000

Inland Track 1,700

Falls River Track 1,500

Torrent Bay /Holyoake Clearing Track 500

Table 7. Indicative track use for selected tracks July 2010 to June

2011. Reference DOC AMIS May report DOCDM 764775.


46

There are numerous DOC huts25, campsites and private dwellings within or adjacent to the treatment area:

Within treatment area:

DOC huts: I. Wainui Hut

II. Moa Park Shelter.

Directly adjacent to the treatment area, on the boundary of the treatment area, or within the aerial bait exclusion zones:

DOC huts. I. Akersten Bay Campsite

II. Anchorage Hut III. Apple Tree Bay Campsite IV. Awapoto Hut V. Awaroa Hut

VI. Bark Bay Hut VII. Castle Rock Hut

VIII. Holyoake Shelter IX. Mosquito Bay Campsite X. Observation Beach Campsite

XI. Onetahuti Campsite XII. Te Pukatea Bay Campsite

XIII. Tonga Quarry Campsite XIV. Torrent Bay Campsite XV. Watering Cove Campsite

Private. I. Awaroa community (numerous)

II. Cook dwelling (Stillwell Bay) III. Freeth dwelling (Stillwell Bay) IV. Moncrieff dwelling (Moncrieff Private S.R) V. Torrent Bay community /Boundary Bay (numerous)

VI. Whitwell dwelling (Apple Tree Bay) VII. Wilkinson dwelling (Bark Bay)

All DOC overnight facilities along the coast (Coast Track) are managed by an online booking system and records of occupancy (bednights) are available from interrogation of the booking database. DOC Hut/Campsite N Bednights

Akersten Bay Campsite 341

Anchorage Campsite 9979

Anchorage Hut 5380

Apple Tree Bay Campsite 880

Awaroa Hut 2991

25 All DOC huts have associated camping opportunities.


47

Awaroa Campsite 4560

Bark Bay Hut 6941

Bark Bay Campsite 6729

Mosquito Bay Campsite 1250

Observation Beach Campsite 885

Onetahuti Bay Campsite 2271

Te Pukatea Bay Campsite 2595

Tinline Campsite 1019

Tonga Quarry Campsite 903

Torrent Bay Village Campsite 1563

Watering Cove Campsite 1015

Table 8. Hut and campsite occupancy at DOC overnight facilities at Abel Tasman N.P between July 2012 and June 2013. Data from DOC online booking system and reported in DOCDM -1204686

The use of the park (as reflected in the hut/campsite occupancy data) is strongly influenced by summer /winter seasonal effects. Month N Bednights % of total

January 12492 21.1

February 9247 15.6

March 8864 15.0

April 4508 7.6

May 1703 2.8

June 724 1.2

July 802 1.3

August 780 1.3

September 1078 1.8

October 2601 4.4

November 5468 9.2

December 10826 18.3

Table 9. Monthly totals of occupancy at DOC overnight facilities along the Coast Track (Abel Tasman N.P) between July 2012 and June 2013. Data from DOC online booking system and reported in DOCDM -1204686

As an indicator of country-of-origin visitor use of the Park, nearly half of all bednights booked at DOC facilities on the Coast Track were from New Zealand visitors (Table10). The proportion of each nationality of day-visitor use is not recorded.


48

Country % of total bednights

New Zealand 47.1

Germany 14.0

United States 7.8

United Kingdom 5.4

Australia 4.2

France 3.0

Israel 2.7

Canada 2.4

Netherlands 2.3

Switzerland 1.7

Czech Republic 1.2

Table 10. Country of origin visitor use (> 1%) of DOC overnight (hut and campsite) facilities along the Coast Track (Abel Tasman N.P) between July 2010 and June 2011 as a proportion of the total number of bednights. Data from DOC online booking system and reported in DOCDM -764775

Commercial values

Reflecting the high public profile and public use of Abel Tasman National Park, there are numerous concessionaires active in the Park. However the majority confine their activities to the coastal regions. As at the end of October 2013 there were 64 active concessions (51 entities) for commercial and recreational operators with a DOC concession to operate within the Abel Tasman National Park26 .

A total of 48 of the major concessionaires and commercial tourist operators were identified for consultation on the potential effects of the operation on any part of their activities. These included:

Five operators hold concessions to transport visitors to and from designated coastal access points.

Four operators hold concessions to undertake sea kayak tours and/ or rental of kayaks primarily for use on the ATNP coast.

Twenty-one guided nature tours hold concessions to undertake guided walks in the park.

A canyoning operator has a concession to take canyoning adventure tours to three designated sites at the coastal parts of the park.

Other:

Several commercial lodges are present at the private land enclave at Awaroa Inlet.

A grazing lease (sheep) operates at the Canaan Downs Scenic

26 The DOC concessions database information does not specify areas of concession activity in more detail. i.e. several of this total number of concessionaires do not operate within the treatment area, or in any part where their activities may be affected.


49

Reserve. These concessionaires support the high public use of the area by providing sea access to designated coastal access points between The Anchorage and Awaroa Inlet. Concessionaires also offer opportunities for specific activities such as sea kayak rental and tours, guided nature/walking tours and canyoning. All operations are prescribed in location of activity and schedule and this information is available from DOC concession managers. Coastal landing sites are also limited and clearly defined (Refer to the Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management Plan 2012 for details). Limited guided walk concessionaires operate in the interior with most activity focussed at Harwoods Hole in the Canaan Downs Scenic Reserve area (outside of treatment area).


50

Chapter 4 Options for Pest Control


Overview

This chapter assesses the options available for the control of rats and possums, and sets out the reasons for the preferred option(s). This decision relies on the project decision criteria described in Section 4.2 of this AEE. The selection of options of control (methods and pesticide) is affected and constrained by the operational objective of controlling both rats and possums at different control cycles dependant on animal pest population increases. The key objective is to control rats during the beech mast driven population irruption events at critical management sites of high biodiversity values within the treatment area. The ability to respond effectively and within a short window of operational effectiveness will influence the range of suitable options. Wider scale periodic control of possums will be subject to normal process of reproduction and immigration-effect increases in the possum population and can therefore be planned and managed accordingly with more viable control options.

Section 4.2 Project decision criteria

Criteria to guide the selection of method and pesticide

Project decision criteria can help assess and select an appropriate rat and/or possum control method from the options available. This AEE uses the following criteria to assess the alternatives available:

must be effective at killing both target species: rats and possums;

may be effective in killing other animal pest species;

must be cost effective;

adverse effects on species of non-target wildlife, livestock and dogs must be known to be minor and/or can be appropriately addressed;

any risks to human health and community well-being can be appropriately addressed;

Must be a registered toxicant and approved for proposed use.


51

Section 4.3 Alternative options for pest control

Alternative options

The following alternative options for rat and/or possum control have been considered and are evaluated in Section 4.4: Alternative methods include:

1. Do nothing 2. Aerial application of toxins 3. Ground application of toxins 4. Trapping

Preliminary notes on Options

1. Do nothing. If no rat and/or possum control is carried out then the highly significant and threatened bird, land snail and plant species within the area will be severely and possibly irreversibly affected by increased predation and herbivory. This option is not acceptable and is not considered further.

2. Aerial application of toxins Aerial application of carrot baits impregnated with 1080 toxin is not considered below as DOC performance standards for aerial 1080 use in kea habitat precludes the use of carrot baits.

Note: Pesticides and application methods used to control vertebrate pests must be approved under the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms (HSNO) Act 1996 and registered under the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines (ACVM) Act 1997. Methods of application for registered pesticide formulations must also have DOC approvals.

Section 4.4 Evaluation of methods

Introduction to the methods available

This section describes the advantages and disadvantages of the range of methods available to control possums/rats within the treatment area.

The methods assessed include (from the Department of Conservation Best Practice Manual):

Aerial application of toxins: (1080 cereal pellets)

Ground controlHand laying toxins: (incl.1080 cereal pellets, cyanide paste)

Ground controlBait bags:(including:1080 paste, Feratox®, Feracol®)

Ground control Bait stations: (including.1080 cereal pellets, 1080


52

paste, diphacinone, Feratox (cyanide), Feracol (cholecalciferol)

Trapping (including: kill and leg-hold)

Each method is assessed against the project decision criteria.

Aerial application of toxins: Cereal

pellets an introduction

Aerial bait spread operations have been used in a large number of successful pest operations (for both possum and rat control objectives). This technique involves the spread of toxic baits from aircraft, usually by helicopter with an under-slung bucket using Global Positioning System (GPS) navigational guidance. Baits are applied using a broadcast swathe or non-broadcast trickle-sow distribution. Baits are usually 6-12 gram green dyed cereal pellet baits containing

1.5g/kg 1080 aerially spread over the treatment area at the rate of 25 kg of baits/ha. Bait size and application rate are optimised for target pest species and densities. The toxic application is usually preceded by the application of non -toxic prefeed baits to accustom the pest animal to the baits as a secure and attractive food. This overcomes any neo-phobic behaviour or bait shyness from previous control operations and significantly increases the kill percentage of all target pests. In August 2007, the Environmental Risk Management Authority (ERMA) completed an extensive review of 1080 for use in pest control in New Zealand. The review considered all available scientific literature and expert evidence on all aspects of 1080 use before approving 1080 for continued use. This review concluded that he continued use of 1080 has significant benefits for New Zealand’s environment and that well-managed aerial operations posed a low risk to the native environment and to indigenous biodiversity. The review made recommendations that included:

Establishing a watch list of aerial 1080 operations;

Strengthening existing controls for all users of 1080 to further mitigate the risks;

Promoting best practice before and during 1080 operations;

Further research into the effects of 1080 and the use of alternatives.

In June 2011 the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment released a report investigating the use of 1080 (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment 2011). This report concluded that the continued use of 1080 was imperative as the most effective method currently available for biodiversity protection, as assessed for effectiveness, safety and humaneness. This report recommended continued research into alternatives but recommended to Parliament that no moratorium for 1080 use be established and that regulatory processes are simplified (under the RMA and other legislation) to facilitate operations such as responses to beech mast pest irruptions. Currently the only pesticides registered for aerial distribution on the


53

mainland of New Zealand and with DOC permission for use for possum/or and rat control are cereal and carrot baits impregnated with 0.08% and 0.15% w/w 1080. The only other pesticides registered for aerial distribution are pindone (rabbits only) and brodifacoum. Brodifacoum use for possum control is prohibited (DOC Status List) and this toxin cannot be used as a rodenticide where pigs are present (DOC policy 2013).

Advantages of aerial application of toxins: Cereal pellets

1080 pellets have been proven highly effective against both rats and possums in a single operation;

Large areas can be treated quickly, at optimal times for operational effectiveness. Toxin would be able to be applied during the preferred control period;

Control occurs over a short time-frame with simultaneous control throughout the treatment area eliminating between-control block movements of pest animals;

Rugged and inaccessible areas can be treated effectively;

Poisoning is efficient/cost effective at high rat and possum densities;

Baits can be easily and evenly distributed at regulated densities. This ensures the presentation to the target population of toxin at adequate lethal dose availability;

The use of accurate GPS technology permits the aircraft flight lines (as an indication of bait application areas) to be inspected ensuring that bait is applied to all of the treatment area. GPS technology allows sensitive sites to be excluded from the treatment area;

No direct damage to habitat i.e., no track cutting;

Manufactured bait is usually of high quality and consistency;

1080 pellets come ready to use out of the packet which minimises the logistics required on the loading site;

Manufactured bait eliminates hazards of handling concentrated poison in the field.

Disadvantages of aerial application of toxins: Cereal pellets

Aerial operations and policy controls on the use of toxins. Aerial

operations require substantial planning and leadin time;

Aerial operations are highly weather dependant and can be affected by unpredicted rain as 1080 is readily leached from pellet bait by rainfall;

Increased risk of poison being applied outside the target area. Precision flying and bait application is required at sensitive areas (boundaries, exclusion zones);

Difficult to clear all bait from all areas used by the public;

Variable public acceptance of this method;

Incorrect use of 1080 cereal bait can cause bait shyness that probably lasts for the lifetime of individual possums and can be


54

significant in a possum population for at least 3 years;

Prolonged bad weather can affect an operation as possums need to feed on baits before any significant rain. Delays can cause compounding problems of retaining a state of operational readiness (e.g., availability of staff and aircraft, communication with neighbours and recreational users);

This technique is incompatible with other conservation work that uses dogs, e.g. goat hunting, threatened species and predator work, recreational control of pigs;

Toxic carcasses can wash out of treatment area posing risks to dogs.

Assessment of aerial application of: Cereal pellet baits at this location

1080 is an acute, broad spectrum toxin that is water soluble and readily biodegradable. This method is highly effective and suited to the large size of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area. Aerially sown 1080 cereal pellets is a relatively inexpensive and highly effective technique of achieving high kill rates of both rats and possums. All target pest individuals will be exposed to the baits and a lethal dose will be presented. This method is an appropriate technique considering the target pest species and the operational requirements of control responses (including immediacy of threat and knockdown timeframe) and the size of the treatment area.

The multitarget pest species objective of this operation can only effectively be achieved by the use of 1080 toxin aerially applied at the required bait distribution density to enable all target pest animals to be exposed to toxic bait. Aerial 1080 is known to be effective at killing both primary target species (rats and possums) (Morgan 2004; Green 2003; Morgan and Hickling 2000; Henderson et. al 1999; Innes et al 1995). Rats are one of the two the primary target pest species for one of the operation types (Modality Type A) and the single target pest species for the other (Modality Type B). The aerial application of a rodenticide is the only method shown to be effective in controlling rats over such large areas during rat population irruption phases. Currently the only rodenticide approved for aerial distribution on the mainland of New Zealand is cereal baits impregnated with 1080. The aerial application of 1080 for rat control at variable control rotations will have the advantage of suppressing the possum population as an ancillary effect, thereby reducing the need and frequency of a possum-specific control operation. The previous aerial control operations conducted in the Abel Tasman N.P. and adjacent control areas achieved the RTCI targets of <1% from high

preoperation possum densities. Given the large area needed to be covered and the success of previous adjacent aerial operations this method is expected to again result in the objectives being met. Currently the only pesticide approved for aerial distribution on the mainland of New Zealand for possum control is cereal or carrot baits impregnated with 1080.


55

The majority of the treatment area is surrounded by a buffer of land administered by the Department of Conservation, thereby minimizing the effect on adjacent or proximate private land where the effects of this operation might be of concern. Where the treatment area includes or approaches private land blocks, potential risks to private water supplies, domestic stock and dogs have been considered and mitigated for as much as possible. Those sectors of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon management area where these issues were considered of significance have been excluded from the aerial 1080 control block (affecting only Modality Type A) and will be treated using ground control methods. The operation will be subject to, and consistent with, Medical Officer of Health conditions relating to water exclusion zones. There are no direct effects of aerial control on neighbouring landowners except where agreement has been reached on the location of the treatment boundary and water supply protection measures. The boundary in some sectors has been drafted at watershed ridges with effective buffer zones maintained to further ensure that landowners in catchments with water intakes are not adversely affected. Risks to humans from bait handling and distribution will be low through compliance with stringent safety and performance standards. Stringent conditions to ensure that the risk to public health is negligible can be imposed and adhered to. There is high public use of parts of the treatment area (specifically for Modality Type A) with a high-use DOC track and numerous DOC huts/campsites present. The definition of the aerial 1080 treatment area has considered the likelihood of public access into the treatment area and parts of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area have either been included in the ground control blocks, or identified as bait exclusion zones (e.g. along the Coast Track). The boundaries of the rat-focussed operation (Modality Type B) have been drafted to further reduce potential human health risks. Resources are available for a multi platform delivery of information to users of the park. The use of toxins (aerial and ground based) require mandatory levels of public information and warning signage. This could be considered to have a potential adverse impact on commercial tourism operators where there is a concern for human health risks by visitors. However this level of warning sign requirement for aerial 1080 use would not be reduced if ground based control using toxins were used. Physical damage to the environment will be negligible, especially when compared to alternative non-aerial methods. Adverse effects on non-target species can be managed through performance standards, with particular note of operational practises to minimize the risk to kea. Dogs are highly susceptible to 1080 and there is risk to dogs due to the proximity of the treatment boundary to several neighbouring landowners with dogs. This risk has been identified at two primary


56

sites where private land blocks are contained within Abel Tasman N.P (Awaroa and Torrent Bay). The boundary of the aerial 1080 block has been drafted to address this issue and, in the case of the Awaroa site, the entire Venture Creek catchment has been excluded to minimise the potential for outwash of poisoned carcasses into the Awaroa Inlet. During this pesticide use there is the potential for baits to enter waterways although residues in water are insignificant and the actual level of immediate public health risk is well understood and documented as being negligible. There is a large body of regulatory toxicology information which gives us relatively high certainty for the risk assessment of this (refer Appendix 2). All public and private water supplies that are within or potentially directly affected by the operation have been identified and mitigation measures taken that further reduce any perceptions of human health concerns. All operations will comply with any requirements or conditions specified in the MOH permission for each specific operation. The MOH is the primary agency to assess public safety issues (including for water). Department of Conservation staff in the North and Western South Island region are experienced with aerial 1080 control operations. Therefore no policy, planning or logistical difficulties are foreseen.

Hand laying toxins: an introduction

Poison bait is offered to rats and/or possums (depending on specificity of toxin) by distributing baits directly to the ground by ground operators at estimated application densities. The pattern of distribution of baits (c. f. the average application density) depends on the travel path of the person applying the bait. This pattern is dictated either by following a grid pattern in suitable terrain, or by following natural topographical features (i.e. ridges, spurs). Hand-laid toxins can be used in all possum and rat densities but the effectiveness is strictly determined by the intensity of bait application lines to ensure that the territories of all individuals of the pest animal are applied with toxic bait(s). This method is generally used over small areas compared to aerial operations and is particularly suitable where the confident and correct distribution of baits in areas of high sensitivity needs is critical.

Advantages of hand laying toxins

Application of baits can be very precise and provide security at highly sensitive areas;

Practical to avoid all areas of public use, roads and aquatic habitats;

Sowing/application rates can be reduced due to more discriminate bait placement (e.g. targeted at identified high pest-use areas;

Cost effective for small areas with easy access;

A variety of animal pests can access poison;


57

Some forms of bait can be placed specifically to minimise non-target impacts (e.g. placement of cyanide paste at >70 cm above ground to prevent access by weka, dogs etc);

Public perception that it is safer than aerial operations.

Disadvantages of hand laying toxins

Legal and policy controls on the use of toxins;

Time consuming, costly and good coverage difficult in large treatment areas;

Small home ranges of rats require very intensive bait delivery patterns. Bait application lines must be <100m apart;

Not recommended for rat control in DOC Best Practise guidelines and has not previously been undertaken for rat control (hand-laid 1080 cereal baits);

Impractical in large treatment areas with limited access. Significant logistical constraints such as ground operator bait resupply requirements. Significant loss of efficiency (i.e. greater cost) at increased distances from access/resupply points;

A ground operation (even for possums only) would take significantly longer than an aerial operation (an order of months compared with days for an aerial operation). Weather constraints (requirement for minimum periods of fine weather for assurance of 1080 bait toxicity) would further delay and/or reduce the effectiveness of a ground-based operation;

Clumped distribution of baits. Not all possums or rats will be put at risk of poisoning, some will not find baits;

Impractical on difficult terrain;

Risk of occupational exposure for people using the toxin;

Variable public acceptance of this method with the use of toxins;

Accessible to non-target species, including dogs;

Large staff resource needed. A large number of ground contractors would be required to achieve a rapid knockdown of possums over such a large area. This would provide difficulties in contractor availability and logistics.

Assessment of hand laying toxins at this location

This method is not appropriate for the control of rats at any density and especially so during beech mast driven rat population irruptions. Rats are the primary target pest species for this operation. Due to the small territorial range of rats (<1 ha [Innes and Skipworth, 1983; Hickson, Moller, Garrick 1986; Dowding and Murphy, 1994. But see: Pryde et al., 2005]), bait distribution is required at a fine scale with only small gaps in bait coverage permitted. The delivery of baits to every rat territory by hand-laid baits would not be feasible due to the difficulty of the terrain throughout a large part of the treatment area. The control of possums to desired levels is theoretically possible but would entail addressing significant issues of access and field supply logistics, ground staff resources and time constraints (involving weather influences). The time taken to complete a hand broadcast of


58

toxins (1080 cereal pellets) would necessitate a prolonged period of

fine weather to permit the prefeeding and toxic baiting phase to be accomplished so that the maximum numbers of rats and possums have been exposed to the bait before toxic leaching by rain. This method could be used to avoid any sensitive areas where aerial application is considered unacceptable. This method is considered suitable for the sensitive sites such as around private land boundaries, water supply intakes /catchments and other public areas if identified by consent authorities.

Bait bag poisoning: an introduction

Poison bait is offered to rats and possums in small biodegradable paper bags stapled to trees along transects. Rats and possums tear open the bags to reach the poison. Some manufacturers supply “ready-to -use” bait bags filled with toxic baits in a prefeed matrix.

Poisoning can be used at all target pest densities and in all types of habitat. This technique has wide application where ground control techniques are feasible, project objectives call for periodic control of

rats and possums and non-target issues can be effectively managed.

Advantages of Bait bag poisoning

Poisoning is efficient/cost effective at high possum densities;

If used bags are not retrieved, only a single visit is required to apply poison;

No cost in bait stations, minimal track cutting required;

Operators can cover areas at a pace comparable to handlaying if the terrain allows.

Disadvantages of Bait bag poisoning

Not recommended for rat control in DOC Best Practise guidelines and has not previously been undertaken for rat control;

Most toxins require a prefeed operation thereby increasing labour costs;

Time consuming, costly and difficult to achieve good coverage over large treatment areas. Baits are recommended to be applied along lines < 100 m apart (for possums only). Intense coverage of an area required and therefore not suitable for large operations;

The logistics of presenting all individuals of all target species with baits that they will find and eat requires substantial planning to be successful;

Toxins may be effective on only one of the target pest species, with multiple delivery requirements;

At high rat densities, the use of multipest toxins for possum control objectives only may result in low possum kill rates;

Legal and policy controls on the use of poisons;

There may be community concerns about the use of poisons;

Baits are not well protected from weather;


59

Some toxins require the retrieval of used/unused bags;

Some non-target issues (e.g. weka);

Baits left to degrade can expose possums and rats to sub-lethal doses.

Assessment of Bait bag poisoning at this location

This method is not appropriate for the control of rats at any density and especially so during beech mast driven rat population irruptions. See also Assessment for hand laying toxins above. This method will not be effective at controlling rats at any level and possums to accepted residual levels within the majority of the proposed control area given the size and difficulty of most of the terrain. Large scale use of this method is inappropriate due to the requirement to visit each bait location at least three times (prefeed, toxic bait deployment, toxic bait retrieval) for some toxins. This method could be used to avoid any sensitive areas where aerial application is considered unacceptable. This method is considered suitable for the sensitive sites such as around private land boundaries, water supply intakes /catchments and other public areas if identified by consent authorities.

Bait stations: an introduction

The use of bait stations as a delivery for toxic bait was first developed in the late 1970s. Bait is housed in small pre-built stations and placed in a grid network throughout the control area to ensure all rats possums have an opportunity to feed from them. Tracks are usually needed to place and monitor the network of stations. Pre-feeding may be required depending on toxins used. Bait stations are normally used to maintain low possum numbers, that is, they follow an operation that knocks down possum numbers to low levels. Rat baits containing 1080, cholecalciferol, coumatetralyl, diphacinone and pindone are currently available for use in bait stations. Possum baits containing 1080, cholecalciferol, cyanide and pindone are currently available for use in bait stations (with specific operational constraints on some toxins).

Advantages of bait stations

Limited access to bait for some non-target species;

Bait stations keep bait dry, so operations are not weather dependent;

A variety of animal pests can access poison;

Bait take can be monitored;

Unused bait can be removed;

Bait stations can remain in place for ongoing use in maintenance operations;

A wide range of toxins are registered for this use;


60

Practical to avoid all areas of public use, roads and aquatic habitats;

Biodegradable bait stations are available which means that retrieval of baits/stations is not essential;

Effective over smaller treatment areas or with good access

Disadvantages of bait stations

Bait stations for rats are required at high densities to ensure that home ranges of all individual rats have bait stations deployed within them. This requires baits stations not greater than 100 m x 100 m apart (equivalent to one bait station per hectare);

All rats and/or possums may not be poisoned; some may not access bait stations thereby reducing operational effectiveness;

During periods of high rat numbers following beech mast events, bait stations require frequent refilling of bait;

Toxins may be effective on only one of the target pest species, resulting in multiple delivery requirements;

Some effective toxins for possum control (e.g. Feratox) cannot be used in areas where ground birds are present;

Most toxins require a prefeed operation thereby increasing labour costs. Prefeeding may need to be extended during wet weather or if bait stations have been raised to minimise the risk to non-target ground dwelling birds;

Bait stations must be checked regularly during either pre-feeding and/or toxic baiting to ensure they do not become empty, thereby significantly increasing cost. For example first generation anticoagulants such as diphacinone are a multiple feed toxin. Rats must feed on the toxin for at least 5 consecutive days to ensure they receive a lethal dose;

High labour cost in establishment, pre-feeding, and maintenance;

Significant logistical considerations in bait station deployment, bait refilling;

Hindered by physical terrain where access for staff is difficult and/or dangerous;

Reduced non-target effect although still some risk from poisoned carcasses;

Cutting and marking tracks may have significant visual and physical impacts and pose some risk to vegetation types prone to canopy opening (e.g. high altitude forest).

An assessment of bait stations at this location

The use of permanent or semi permanent bait stations throughout the control area would be prohibitively expensive to install and maintain in a grid system that would be required to reach operational targets for both rats and possums. A bait station network that is of the required density for rat control in the rat control only area (Map 2) would necessitate the deployment and servicing of c. 9,800 bait stations along a total of c. 980 km of


61

bait station tracks entailing the understory clearance of c. 98 ha (for average of 1 m wide bait station track). Ground based operations using bait stations for the specific control of rats have been used elsewhere in New Zealand but have been shown to be incapable of controlling rats during beech mast induced irruptions to levels required for species protection. Bird species that are highly vulnerable to rat predation (e.g. the potentially re-introduced yellowhead/mohua) will likely suffer catastrophic decline/local extinction. As this (control of rats during irruptive phases) is one of the primary objectives of the operation, then this method cannot be considered a viable option. A bait station network for the control of possums only could be considered where a gradual knockdown to mid-range possum levels (e.g. 10 % RTC) may be achieved where bait stations are deployed on lines c. 500 m apart. Bait stations are predominately used for maintenance control to keep possum and or rat numbers at low levels following initial knockdown and in treatment areas considerably smaller than the entire Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon area. The use of bait stations which contain low risk toxins is appropriate in the more accessible and high public use areas but this comprises only a small part of the entire treatment area. These methods could be used in the ground control blocks at Awaroa and Torrent Bay. Further detail on this method (e.g. discussion of alternative poison and bait types) and further assessment of the risks of these techniques has not been presented because the basic method is not an operationally effective option for addressing one of the two target pest species throughout the majority of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area.

Trapping: an introduction

A range of trapping techniques is available to catch and kill animal

pests. Of these options, leghold trap or killtrap techniques are the most commonly considered for possum control operations. Snap

killtraps are the primary control tool for rodents.

Advantages of trapping

Traps can be set in a very target-specific manner;

Traps can be located in areas of high public use and access and do not require buffer zones to sensitive areas.

Animals are available for autopsy and/or body count;

There is greater public acceptance of this method than for any other form of control.


62

Disadvantages of trapping

Traps are pestspecific. This would require a multiple trapping device network;

Traps for rats are required at high densities to ensure that home ranges of all individual rats have traps deployed within them. DOC Best practise guidelines requires deployment of traps not greater than 100 m x 50 m apart (i.e. equivalent to 2 per hectare);

All rats and/or possums may not be trapped due to un-trapped home ranges thereby reducing operational effectiveness;

During rat irruption events, traps become “saturated” by the low trap to rat population ratio. Percentage kill rates are unacceptably low;

Risk for non-target species, such as ground dwelling birds (e.g. kiwi) or the particularly curious (e.g. kaka).Traps are therefore required to be raised above ground and/or secure from non-target entry (tunnels/boxes);

High labour/trap cost in establishment;

Risk of trap shyness;

High labour cost as possum leghold traps must be checked every 24 hours.

Assessment of trapping at this location

In addition to rats, possums are also a primary target pest species for

this operation. There is currently no trap (killtrap or otherwise) which effectively targets both these pest species. Therefore, specific trap types for both possums and rats will need to be deployed. Due to the small territorial range of rats, the trapping infrastructure to ensure effective rat control will need to be very intensive. In accordance with DOC Best Practise guidelines for rat trapping, a total of c. 19,600 traps would be required along c. 980 km of trap line, entailing the understory clearance of c. 98 ha. Trapping on such a large scale for rat control is not practical or physically possible given the requirement for a large number of traps and staff, and the physical terrain needed to be covered. Trapping will not achieve an adequate kill rate of rats during beech mast driven population increases. Bird species that are highly vulnerable to rat predation (e.g. the potentially re-introduced yellowhead/mohua) will likely suffer catastrophic decline/local extinction. The disturbance of the natural environment by line cutting and marking will be high. Trapping using possum leg-hold traps poses an unacceptable risk for ground dwelling birds such as weka. The treatment area has an increasing population of weka and kiwi are one of the bird species identified for potential reintroduction. The

accepted protocol requiring placement of traps 70100 cm above the ground would mitigate this risk but would greatly increase the logistical difficulties and efficiencies. Kea and kaka are known to be


63

present in the area. Both species are inquisitive birds and have been

known to be caught in both kill and leghold traps. This method (for possums only) could be effectively used in the ground control blocks (Awaroa and Torrent Bay) and in aerial exclusion zones around huts and DOC tracks.

Section 4.5 Conclusion

Preferred options

Two control methods have been selected to be employed at two different sectors of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon operational area. The operational objectives at these sites differ from each other. Rat and possum control methods assessed included: trapping; ground control methods of hand laying toxins and in bait stations; and the aerial application of toxins. Each method (using best-practice where available) was assessed against the project decision criteria. The primary aims of the operation are: i) to control rats during episodic beech mast induced rat population irruptions with the protection focus at the higher altitude parts of the treatment area for maximum and achievable conservation benefits; and ii) to control possums throughout the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area when possums levels exceed native species protection thresholds. The recommended options are: aerial spread of 1080 cereal baits at 0.15% toxic loading at a target sowing rate of 2 kg/ha sowing rate with

an application of nontoxic prefeed baits at a target sowing rate of 1 kg/ha over a maximum of 12,359 hectares of the treatment area when either the rat or possum trigger threshold is exceeded (Modality Type A); and an operation with the same application specifications over 9,715 hectares of the treatment area when the rat trigger threshold is exceeded (Modality Type B). This option for the majority of the treatment area has the significant advantage of addressing one of the target pests (possums) as “secondary” target during rat-focussed operations, resulting in a possible greater interval required between possum focussed control operations. Ground control methods are considered inappropriate in the majority of the block due to the failure of these methods to adequately control rats during beech mast induced rat population increases. Ground control methods for possum control only using bait stations/bags containing the toxins cholecalciferol and/or cyanide; and/or trapping using either kill or leg-hold traps will be employed in two ground control blocks surrounding private land blocks at Awaroa


64

and Torrent Bay. Ground control for possums only at these sites will meet the objectives at these sites where possums are considered the primary threat (i.e. no in-situ rat control objectives). The use of Feratox® will only be considered if the proposed areas for application have been confirmed as not being occupied by weka. The Department of Conservation permission process will assess this. Cholecalciferol (a non-controlled pesticide) will be used at all areas where there is an elevated risk of the public encountering baits and in other aerial exclusion zones (hut and water exclusion zones).

The application of nontoxic prefeed pellets will be undertaken throughout the above area as a specific operational measure to optimise the kill rate of both rats and possums and have the greatest secondary kill benefits on mustelids. There will be a preferred interval of at least 7 days between the prefeed and toxic bait applications. Aerial 1080 is the only method available that meets all criteria for the control of rats during population irruption phases throughout key sites of the treatment area, and for the control of possums. The environmental effects of aerially applied 1080, and measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects, are considered further in the following Chapter.


65

Chapter 5 Environmental Effects of 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate) Use and Proposed Consent Conditions


Overview

This chapter: 1. Summarises the known risks of actual and/or potential effects of

this operation on:

soil and water quality

non-target native species

non-target domestic animals

human health and community well-being

cultural and spiritual values

ecosystems 2. Assesses the significance of the risks for each of the above at this

particular site; 3. Discusses options to manage the risks; and 4. Identifies proposed consent conditions to avoid, remedy or mitigate

the risk of actual or potential adverse effects. Appendix 2 contains a more detailed review of the effects of 1080

Section 5.2 Effects of proposed operation on soil and water quality

Soil & water quality

The potential for contamination of waterways by 1080 has long been a focus for community concern for other departmental operations. Adopting appropriate precautions will avoid adverse effects on water bodies and ensure the safety of drinking and stock water. Degradation of 1080 is relatively slow in soil and sediments, taking 1-4 weeks under favourable conditions (Eason, Miller, Ogilvie, Fairweather, 2010). The rate of degradation will be influenced by the presence of soil or litter micro-organisms, and temperature, soil moisture and rainfall. Recent research (Fisher & Northcott, 2010) has shown that the aerobic transformation of 1080 in soils varies significantly depending on temperature, and that the key transformation products are hydroxyacetic acid, also known as glycolate, and carbon dioxide. Sodium monofluoroacetate is highly water soluble so leaching out of soil will occur. Water samples have been collected from streams following numerous pest control operations using 1080. 95.5% of these samples contained no residues of 1080. Where residues were found most of these had less than 1 µg/L 1080.


66

Where higher 1080 residues have been found in water, the samples were mostly from very small streams and/or associated with the presence of bait and taken relatively soon after bait application. Based on research results (Eason et al. 1999), and using a safety factor of x500, the Ministry of Health has recommended that the concentration of 1080 in drinking-water should not exceed 0.005 mg/L. 1080 (http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/9c57904f727879eacc256bb100143184?OpenDocument). The Ministry of Health has developed guidelines which address contamination of water supplies in aerial 1080 operations: Conditions

2230 In: Issuing Permissions for the Use of Vertebrate Toxic Agents (VTAs). Guidelines for Public Health Units. Revised Edition 2010. Baits containing 1080 start to breakdown with the first significant rainfall following their application, and the toxin may be dissolved before biodegrading occurs. If heavy rainfall follows the application of 1080 baits, leaching to immeasurable concentrations (<0.0001 mg/L) may proceed biodegradation (Eason et al. 2011). The treatment area receives between 1500-4000 mm of rain per annum.

The mean total rainfall for a 6month period between November and April between 1994 and 2010 measured at the TDC rainfall gauge at Canaan was 1,530 mm. This site receives an annual rainfall of 3,500 mm. The mean monthly rainfall for the two months (October and November) immediately after an operation for a rat-focussed spring operational date (e.g. October) between 1995 and 2012) is 204 mm and 348 mm respectively. Assuming a 40% level of these rainfall averages at the lowest (coastal) rainfall areas (c. 3500 mm p.a. compared to c. 1500 mm p.a.) this equates to October and November rainfall of 82 mm and 139 mm respectively. At this level of rainfall and with higher spring/summer temperatures the 1080 baits are expected to break down very rapidly (Bowen, Morgan, Eason, 1995; Thomas, Maddigan, Gardner, 2004; Booth, Ogilvie, Eason, 1999).

http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/9c57904f727879eacc256bb100143184?OpenDocument

http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/0/9c57904f727879eacc256bb100143184?OpenDocument


67

The following information in italics is reproduced from the Pesticide Information Review - 1080 (Fairweather et al 2013) Soil 2.2.1 What is the range of toxic residue levels observed in soil? On the day 0.15% 1080 Pellets were handlaid in a field trial in the Tararua Forest Park, 0.01 mg kg 1 1080 was detected in one of four litter samples. Following a field trial using 0.15% carrot baits in the Tararua Forest Park, litter samples had 1080 residues of between 0.0 - 0.6 mg kg 1 on the day the baits were laid and between 0 - 16 mg kg 1 seven days post poisoning (Spurr et al. 2002). During 1997-98, 118 samples of soil were taken after three different aerial applications of Wanganui #7 0.15% 1080 Pellets. There were detectable, but low (mean 0.0092 mg kg 1) 1080 residues in 6 of the soil samples taken from two of the three operations. The mean concentrations of 1080 in soil outside the two baiting areas appeared to be lower than those inside (Wright et al. 2002). During the same study, samples of leaf litter were also taken. There were low, but detectable, amounts of 1080 in the litter at Days 1, 5 and 30 post-baiting. The highest concentration found in a leaf litter sample was 0.19 mg kg 1 on Day 5 from inside one treatment area. All remaining leaf litter samples with detectable 1080 were below 0.01 mg kg 1 and were from up to 600 m outside one of the treatment areas. It was suggested that these ‘outside’ results were due to baits or fragments reaching the ground close to the sampling plots (Wright et al. 2002). Soil samples (n=10) taken from two airstrips in 1997 had 1080 residues ranged from 0 – 0.0035 mg kg 1 (P Fisher pers. comm. 2004). Soil from three tip/landfill sites was sampled for 1080 residues in 1996-97. The Balgownie landfill, Wanganui had 1080 residues ranged from 330 – 930 mg kg 1 (n=2). Winton tip, central Southland had 1080 residues ranged from 50 - 1450 mg kg 1 (n=4) and at an unspecified landfill site 1080 residues ranged from 0.0008 - 3 mg kg 1 (n=11) (P Fisher pers. comm. 2004). 2.2.2 How long does degradation of 1080 take in soil or sediment? Degradation of 1080 is slow in soil and sediments, taking 1-4 weeks under favourable conditions. Laboratory studies on the biodegradation of 1080 have shown that it is defluorinated by soil micro-organisms (Walker & Bong 1981; Wong et al. 1992) and within soils themselves (David & Gardiner 1966; Parfitt et al. 1994). If 1080 is not degraded by micro-organisms present in most NZ soils, it is likely to be removed from soil by leaching (Parfitt et al. 1994). During laboratory studies, 6.1 mg of 1080 (equivalent to one possum bait) was added to 14 g samples of Kaitoke silt loam. The time taken for the 1080 in the soil to decline by 50% was 10 days at 23°C, and 80 days at 5°C (Parfitt et al. 1994). The authors also reported that when 1080 was added to Conroy sandy loam the degradation was much slower under dry conditions than wetter conditions. In Conroy sandy loam with 20% water content, it took approximately 30 days for a 50% reduction in the 1080.


68

2.2.3 Are there environmental factors that affect degradation in soil? The presence of soil or litter micro-organisms, and temperature, soil moisture and rainfall affect the rate of 1080 degradation in soil. Some soil micro-organisms, e.g. Pseudomonas and Fusarium species, can metabolise 1080 (Walker & Bong 1981; King et al. 1994). However, not all micro-organisms can readily defluorinate monofluoroacetate and the rate of metabolism differs between species of soil bacteria and fungi (King et al. 1994). 1080 could be expected to persist in soil much longer in the absence of micro-organisms, however sterile soil is unlikely to occur naturally. Temperature and soil moisture content affect the rate at which micro-organisms in soil degrade 1080. At lower temperatures/moisture content degradation is slower and 1080 will persist in the soil longer (Parfitt et al. 1994). Studies have shown that substantial defluorination of 1080 occurs in soil at temperatures of 15 - 3 Rainfall is also a major factor in removing 1080 from soil due to 1080’s water solubility. 1080 has a low preference for adsorption on soil minerals, so that 1080 in soil not removed by microbial action is likely to be leached (Parfitt et al. 1994). Note: Environmental factors will determine how widely the breakdown times reported for specific sites can be applied. For example, because breakdown is significantly affected by temperature, rainfall, leaf litter, presence or types of micro-organisms, it may occur faster or slower than the time quoted in Section 2.2.2. Water While it is not intended to discharge the pellets into water, some bait will fall into small rivers/streams. 2.3.1 Where available, what is the range of toxic residue levels observed in natural water? Between 1990 and 2011, 2537 water samples were been collected from streams following aerial 1080 pest control operations throughout New Zealand. The samples were taken within 24 hours of the bait being laid and after subsequent heavy rain. 96.6% of these samples contained no residues of 1080. Residues ranging from 0.1 – 9.0 µg l 1 were found in 86 samples but most of these had less than 1 µg l 1 1080. These samples were mostly from very small streams and/or associated with the presence of bait. Six samples contained 1080 residues higher 2.0 µg l 1. Four of these six samples were likely to have been as a result of inadvertent contamination (Booth et al. 2007; Wright 2011). A water monitoring program following aerial 1080 (0.15% and 0.08% 1080 Wanganui #7 Pellets at 5 kg ha 1) possum control operations on Mt Taranaki/Egmont in 1993-94, showed no detectable 1080 in 159 (1993) and 72 (1994) water samples from surface water or treated water supplies (Fowles & Williams 1997). Following aerial possum baiting (0.08% 1080 Wanganui #7 Pellets) in Tararua Forest Park in 1993, 66 water samples from eight sites collected over 4 months


69

had no detectable 1080 (limit of detection 0.3 µg l 1) (Meenken & Eason 1995). Following aerial rabbit baiting (pre-feed baiting and carrot baits containing 0.023% 1080, sowing rates from 16 – 60 kg ha 1 depending on rabbit densities) in Otago during 1992, streams and rivers were monitored for 4 weeks after the operation. 2 out of 29 samples contained measurable amounts of 1080 (0.3 and 0.6 µg l 1). These samples occurred within 48 hours of bait application, and all subsequent samples were below the limit of detection (Hamilton & Eason 1994). No 1080 was detected in 36 water samples taken from six streams over a 4 month period at Waipoua following aerial possum control using 0.08% 1080 Pellets sown at 5 - 6 kg ha 1 in 1990. After the 1990 aerial possum control operation using 0.08% 1080 Pellets at 14 kg ha 1 on Rangitoto Island 24 water samples were collected over 6 months from 2 surface water and 2 ground water sites. No 1080 was detected in any of these samples (Eason et al. 1992). Meekin et al. (2000) monitored water in a stream at the bottom of 14 ha catchment for the presence of 1080 after 0.15% Wanganui #7 pellets had been handlaid in a at a rate of 10.7 kg ha 1. Monitoring occurred at regular intervals over the 17 hours after the bait was applied and during a rain event two days after the bait was laid. No 1080 was detected in any of the 52 water samples taken. Srinivasan et al. (2012) investigated the fate of 1080 released from baits during a rainfall event immediately following an aerial 1080 operation. In this field study, stream and soilwater was sampled in a 148.8 ha headwater catchment of the Inangahua River, on the West Coast, following the application of 0.15% 1080 Wanganui #7 pellets. The pellets were applied at a rate of 2.5 kg ha 1 within 24 hours of a rainfall event (28 mm in 8 hours, with an additional 100mm falling over the next 9 days). Water sampling occurred between 5 hours and 9 days after the 1080 was applied. The only stream sample that contained 1080 (at 0.1 µg l 1) was collected 105 minutes after the rain started. None of the other 15 samples contained 1080 residues. Soilwater samples were taken approximately 200 mm downhill from baits after 34.4, 57.0 and 60.6 mm of rain had fallen. 1080 residues in these soilwater samples ranged from 0.5 – 61 µg l 1. Concentrations of 1080 in bore groundwater surrounding a landfill site at Winton, central Southland, were measured following burial of 12000 kg of 1080 bait. 1080 was detected in 5 of 28 groundwater samples analysed (highest value 24 µg l-1). The amount of 1080 in groundwater sampled 5 and 13 metres from the disposal site decreased until none was detected after 10 months (Bowman 1999). 2.3.2 How long does degradation of 1080 take in natural water? 1080 degradation will occur within 1 - 2 weeks in natural water. The overall degradation rate of 1080 in stream water, when measured in the laboratory, declined by approximately 25% in the first 24 hours. After this the rate of decline was temperature dependent (Ogilvie et al. 1995; Ogilvie et al. 1996). Eason et al. (Eason et al. 1993b) showed that 1080 declined by approximately 70% in 1 day and dropped to below detectable limits in 4 days in aquaria containing plants and invertebrates. In an aquarium study by Parfitt et al. (1994) 80 litre aquaria containing biologically acti -1 of 1080 (the equivalent to adding 2-3 pellets per aquarium). Water samples were taken from the tanks at 2, 24, 48, 72, 79, 101 and 141 hours after the addition of the


70

1080. The 1080 was eliminated from the aquaria water within 48 - 141 hours. When 40 0.15% 1080 Wanganui #7 pellets were placed in a stream simulator with a 5 litre s-1 flow rate, 1080 concentrations at the outlet of the simulator peaked at 1.1 µg l-1 after 2 days and no residues were detected in the water after 8 days (Suren & Bonnett 2006). Note: Natural/stream water implies the presence of aquatic plants, invertebrates and micro-organisms, and sediment. 2.3.3 Are there environmental factors that affect degradation in aquatic environments? A number of factors affect the degradation of 1080 in aquatic environments. These include temperature, the presence of aquatic plants and microorganisms, and flow and volume of the waterway. While the concentration of 1080 in deionised (sterile) water remains relatively constant and independent of temperature, the concentration of 1080 in stream water declines over time (Booth et al. 1999b). The rate at which 1080 degrades in stream water increases significantly as water temperature rises (Ogilvie et al. 1995; Ogilvie et al. 1996). The aquatic plants Elodea canadensis (Wright et al. 2001) and Myriophyllum triphyllum (Booth et al. 1999b) were found in laboratory trials to reduce the concentration of 1080 in water. In aquaria trials Parfitt et al. (1994) reported that the rate of 1080 degradation was dependent on the species of bacteria present. Flow and volume of the waterway affect the dilution of 1080 in natural water, but are unlikely to significantly affect degradation at the low concentrations of 1080 that have been found in the environment. Note: Environmental factors will determine how widely the breakdown times reported for specific sites can be applied. For example, because breakdown is significantly affected by temperature, pH, volume, still/running water, or presence or types of micro-organisms, it may occur faster or slower than the time quoted in Section 2.3.2. Until November 2008 aerial 1080 operations in Golden Bay have required water sampling at selected sites as part of the Ministry of Health VTA permit process. A total of 18 water samples were collected from numerous sites at streams and water supplies following the 2001 Canaan aerial 1080 operation. Water sampling sites were located both within the treatment area and downstream in the Takaka

valley where resurgence of Canaanderived drainage systems occurs.

Samples were taken 2496 hours after control and after 20 mm of rain. All samples returned <LDL (Least Detectable Level) 1080 residue (<0.0001 µg/mL [ppm]). Two water samples were collected from one site at a domestic supply water intake following the 2008 Abel Tasman/ Canaan aerial 1080

operation. Samples were taken 2448 hours after control and after 50 mm of rain. Both samples returned <LDL (Least Detectable Level)


71

1080 residue. (<0.0001 µg/mL [ppm]). A total of two water samples were collected from two sites at a public hut supply water intakes (Boulder Lake and Anatoki Forks) following

the 2004 Anatoki aerial 1080 operation. Samples were taken 2448 hours after control. Both samples returned <LDL (Least Detectable Level) 1080 residue (<0.0001 µg/mL [ppm]). One water sample was collected from a site within a private land block that was included in the 2009 Gouland/Kahurangi aerial 1080 operation. The sample was taken approximately 5 weeks after the operation at the request of the landowner to verify that there was no long term residual contamination of stream water. The sample returned <LDL (Least Detectable Level) 1080 residue. (<0.0001 µg/mL [ppm]). All landowners directly adjacent to Abel Tasman N.P (unless >1 km from the treatment boundary AND not in a directly affected catchment) have been consulted on water supply details. Proposed consent conditions will be applied to mitigate for effects that meet Ministry of Health permit conditions (refer Section 5.5 for details). Water supplies have been identified and classified in three groups

1. Public (DOC huts, campsites and picnic areas) 2. Private- Community (shared community-based water supplies

at Awaroa and Torrent Bay) 3. Private (single private dwelling)

All water supplies that are affected, or have been considered in the operational planning are listed in Appendix 1a. There is no other public water supply extraction point within 3 km of the treatment boundary.

Section 5.2.1 Proposed consent conditions to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of proposed operation on soil and water quality

Consent conditions for soil and water quality

Adopting appropriate precautions will avoid or mitigate risks of adverse effects in water bodies and ensure the safety of drinking water. 1. Compliance with the MOH quantitative standard will be

monitored. This monitoring is described in Chapter 7.

2. All public and private domestic water supplies that are located in, or are within 200 m of the bait application area, or any other facilities providing direct potable water supplies as identified in Appendix 1A will be disconnected prior to the operation until MOH or landowner consent conditions are met.


72

3. The aircraft will not, when flying to or from the treatment area, fly

over a public drinking water supply or waterway that is less than 100 m upstream of a point of extraction for a drinking water supply (not being a water supply exclusively for stock).

4. Flight paths outside the treatment area that cross public or private

land shall be restricted so that in no case shall the flight path cross a dwelling or pass within 100 m of any water supply intake.

5. No baits will be aerially laid within 100 m of any other water

supply intake not identified in Appendix 1A but determined by MOH consent conditions.

6. Water supplies will be tested if requested by MOH consent

conditions. 7. The operational base for the aircraft shall be established no closer

to any watercourse of sinkhole as specified in the VTA Permission issued for this operation.

Section 5.3 Effects of proposed operation on non-target native species

Effect on native birds

1080 is toxic to birds but most native birds (individuals and species) are not killed by aerial 1080 operations. Although individuals from 19 species of native birds and 13 species of introduced birds have been found dead after aerial 1080 drops, most of the deaths were associated with only four operations that occurred 35 years ago (Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, 2011). Birds were at greater risk historically when carrot baits (with a large proportion of small fragments “chaff”) were commonly used and when cereal baits were dropped at very high sowing rates (e.g. 30 kg/ha). The operations proposed for Project Janszoon involve sowing rates of <2kg/ha. However, the use of non-toxic prefeed baits has become standard practice in recent years and this could increase the risk to some species (Veltman and Westbrooke, 2011). While some individuals of some species may be at risk a key question is - does the net benefit to bird populations outweigh the risk to individuals? The effects of aerially applied 1080 on native bird species have been studied either at an individual and/or population level. Veltman & Westbrooke (2011) concluded that the risk to whio, kiwi, kaka and kokako was very low. The species most at risk are likely fernbird, kea, morepork (ruru), robin and tomtit (DOC unpublished data). Nationally threatened bird species recorded in the treatment area are;


73

kaka, kea, and N.Z. falcon. Kea are present throughout the Park although the breeding population of kea is estimated to be small. Kea are known to be at risk from 1080 operations. Twenty out of a total of one hundred and fifty radio-tagged kea died during ten monitored 1080 operations between 2008 and 2013 (Josh Kemp, DOC, pers. comm. 2013). Deaths occurred at three operations (Fox/Franz 2008, Okarito 2011, and Otira 2013), all of which are Westland ‘beech gap’ forests. No deaths occurred at seven operations (Arawhata 2008, Mt Arthur 2009, Hawdon Valley 2009, Wangapeka 2011, Abbey Rocks 2011, Hawdon Valley 2012, Copland 2012), which includes six beech forest operations. Satellite tracking of radio-tagged birds has provided evidence that a high proportion of kea raised in Westland are exposed to artificial food at rubbish dumps and from tourists, whereas keas in upland beech forests are unlikely to have such exposure. A likely explanation for the pattern of kea deaths (the ‘junk food’ hypothesis) is that ‘junk food kea’ are more prone to eating 1080 pellets. At one Westland site (Okarito), where 22% of radio tagged kea were killed by aerial 1080 in 2011, the stoat and possum control resulting from the 1080 caused a fourfold increase in productivity among the surviving kea. Population modelling shows that this population emerged better off after two years, than the adjacent untreated population which had been through an unmitigated stoat plague (Josh Kemp, DOC, pers. comm. 2013). Stoat control can be achieved as a secondary effect of 1080 operations designed to control rodent population increases, or by using ground based stoat traps. The Project Janszoon project will undertake both of these control options, so it is highly likely that the kea population will benefit from the overall programme even if the junk food theory is wrong. If the junk food theory is correct, the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon operation will undoubtedly be highly beneficial to the kea population. In August 2013 the bird repellent D-pulegone was placed in 1080 baits to discourage kea eating bait as part of a 1080 operation at Otira (Westland). A total of 5 out of 39 monitored birds died and further research is required to improve and test the efficacy of this repellent. A second repellent Anthroquinone has yet to be trialled. Without pest control management it is predicted that keas will become functionally extinct in the Abel Tasman within the next 50-100 years, primarily due to episodic mast-driven stoat plagues. Without the protection intervention of Project Janszoon, kea would persist in Abel


74

Tasman only as a low density ‘sink’ population maintained by young kea dispersing into the area from predator controlled areas in Kahurangi National Park (Josh Kemp, DOC, pers. comm. 2013).

In 2010, DOC instigated new compulsory performance standards for

aerial 1080 control operations where kea are present to minimize the

potential risk to kea. These standards will be strictly adhered to in this

operation (see below for details).

A total of 29 colour-banded tomtit (Petroica macrocephala) have been exposed to the proposed method and bait type over two operations and 1 has disappeared after poisoning. A monitoring study in Tongariro Conservation Area in 2001 using distance sampling found no significant difference in the mortality of tomtit between the treatment and non-treatment sites (Westbrooke et al. 2003). This study was extended with an additional site treated with cereal pellets at 3 kg/ha at Mt Pureora in 2003. Results from all three sites led the authors to conclude that aerial poisoning operations using cereal pellets at low sowing rates causes “…little, if any…” short term impacts on tomtit populations (Westbrooke & Powlesland 2005). Although the mortality of tomtits was estimated to be 10-40% in one study, both robins and tomtits were found to increase their nesting success to compensate in sites where the 1080 operation resulted in effective control of pests. A total of 40 colour banded robins (Petroica australis) has been exposed to this method and bait type over 2 operations and 10 have disappeared after poisoning (Walker 1997; Powlesland et al. (1999). Although this operation may result in some non-target deaths (primarily robins and tomtits) research has shown that 1080 operations can also have a net positive effect where non-target deaths in the short-term have been counterbalanced by better survival of the population in the longer term (Powlesland et al. 1998). Weka (Gallirallus australis) are currently recovering throughout the Abel Tasman N.P after a significant regional decline in the mid 1990’s. This recovery has been assisted by DOC translocation efforts in the north of the Park. A total of 40 radio tagged weka have been monitored during four aerial 1080 operations using cereal pellets and 28 birds in one carrot operation since 1994 with one weka having died from poisoning in the cereal operations and one in the carrot operation. Stoat predation is one of the major causes of weka mortality and any possible direct negative effect of the operation on weka would be offset by the significant reduction in stoat as a consequence of stoat by-kills effect of the operation, especially during beech mast irruption events. A remnant and likely near functionally extinct population of kaka (Nestor meridionalis) are present within the treatment area. A total of 35


75

radio tagged kaka have been exposed to this method and bait type over two operations and none have died from poisoning. Additionally, 38 radio tagged birds have been exposed to 0.08% carrot baits over 2 operations and none have died from poisoning (Greene 1998; Powlesland et al. 2003). NZ falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae) have not been monitored individually when exposed to this method and bait type. However falcon territories have remained occupied, presumably by the resident birds, during four aerial 1080 operations using cereal pellets (Pureora 1984, Mapara 1990-92) and one using carrot bait (Waihaha 1994) (Spurr & Powlesland 1997). The total number of falcon involved in this monitoring is about 13, although the Mapara birds (3 pairs) were exposed in three consecutive years (Calder & Deuss 1985; Bradfield 1993; Greene 1998). Seaton et al. (2009) collected productivity data from 87 falcon nests in Kaingaroa pine plantation during three breeding seasons, 2003-2006. During this time 1080 pellets and carrot baits were ground laid or aerially applied in forest compartments where falcon bred. The numbers of chicks successfully fledged was not related to time since 1080 application (1 month to >3 years), application method or bait type. During the study the breeding falcon population increased from 20 to 36 pairs, leading to the authors concluding that 1080 did not have a negative impact on falcon, and probably had a positive impact by reducing predation pressure on the falcon. Thirty-one morepork (Ninox novaeseelandiae) were monitored (radio-tagged) through two pre-fed aerial 1080 operations at Abbey Rocks (2011) and Waitutu (2010) and no deaths occurred due to 1080 poisoning (Graeme Elliott, DOC, pers. comm. 2013). Thirty-six nesting rifleman (Acanthisitta chloris) (18 pairs) were monitored through one pre-fed 1080 drop at Whakapohai, South Westland (2010) and no deaths occurred (Graeme Elliott, DOC, pers. comm. 2013). Three of 31 monitored fernbirds (Bowdleria punctata) were killed by 1080 in an aerial 1080 operation in Central Westland (van Klink et al. 2012). Fifty-eight nesting yellow-crowned parakeets (Cyanaorammphus auriceps) (29 pairs) were monitored through three 1080 drops (South Branch Hurunui (2006), Lake Daniels (2007), and Dart Valley (2007)) and one death occurred giving an estimated death rate of 1.7% (Graeme Elliott, DOC, pers. comm. 2013).

A report on the 2006 Hurunui South Branch and 2007 Dart Valley

operations concluded that while some kakariki were killed during these

1080 operations, given the rate of nest predation observed in areas

where no predator control was carried out (rat and stoat control as

direct and secondary effects respectively), the net benefit from the


76

1080 operations was positive. No detectable impact could be

determined through five minute bird count monitoring before and

after four aerial 1080 operations using carrot or cereal pellet baits

(Spurr & Powlesland 1997). Additionally following an intensively

monitored aerial 1080 operation in Waihaha in 1994 using carrot bait,

Greene (1998) observed “…kakariki remained common within the

study area...”.

An assessment on the potential for kakariki to access and ingest aerial applied poison baits was undertaken in 2002 as part of an investigation into the potential risks of eradicating kiore from Macauley Island (Kermadec Group) with an aerial application of toxic baits. To simulate the eradication operation, 50 kg of non-toxic cereal baits containing pyranine bio tracer were spread by hand over 6 ha of the island at a concentration of 8 kg/ha. Parakeets were then observed and/or captured and examined for any evidence of bait ingestion. None of the birds examined showed any traces of pyranine, nor were any parakeets seen foraging directly on baits (Greene et al. 2004). Similarly there has been no detectable effect on the resident parakeet populations following a number of similar aerial poisoning (brodifacoum) operations on numerous offshore islands since 1989 (McFadden & Greene, 1994; Towns et al., 1994; Empson & Miskelly, 1999; Towns & Broome, 2003). On the basis of this research the risk to red-crowned parakeets is considered to be minimal, particularly because they forage in the mid-upper forest strata. The greatest danger to parakeets of consuming baits is if they collect in the canopy (i.e. in upper dense foliage and tree forks), although the number of baits to do so would be small. In 2002 and 2005, the NZ wood pigeon (kereru) (Hemiphaga novaseelandiae) was classified as being in “gradual decline”. In June 2008 the threat status of each New Zealand bird (native, introduced, migrant, vagrant and coloniser) was re-evaluated and the threat status of the kereru has been changed to “not threatened”27. The distribution of kereru had improved by 26% during a 20-year monitoring period (Powlesland & Miskelly, pers comm. 2008). This period has also coincided with large scale possum control efforts particularly with the use of aerial 1080. Native bird populations are at low risk from aerial 1080 operations (Greene et al. 2013), and benefit from effective predator control (O’Donnell & Hoare 2012; Baber et al. 2009; Innes et al. 1999; Innes et al. 2010) but decrease in density and distribution in the absence of effective pest management (Elliott et al. 2010). The benefits of effective predator control clearly outweigh the potential losses from aerial 1080 for all native bird species occurring within the Project

27 Retained in Section 3.3 as listed as Gradual Decline” until the reclassification has been formally documented.


77

Janszoon treatment area.

Options to manage risk and/or levels of exposure:

Adopting accepted operational practices reduces the risk for birds.

Techniques developed in recent years are important components of

the operation. For 1080 dull green dyed bait has been shown to be the

least attractive colour to birds. Cinnamonlured baits instead of fruit

lures help to repel most birds (Udy & Pracy 1981). Ensuring bait

meets all quality specifications is considered the best way to avoid

adversely affecting birds.

In March 2010, the DOC Pesticide Advisory Group reviewed the research results to date to recommend new compulsory performance standards. DOC staff and AHB representatives have been consulted on the operational implications of the new standards. The following new standards have been approved by DOC's general management, to be applied to all new permissions for aerial 1080 operations in areas where kea are present. The following compulsory performance standards will apply:

Only use RS5 pellets

Use a maximum of 2kg/ha of prefeed bait for 12g baits (or 1kg/ha for 6g baits)

Use a maximum of 2kg/ha of toxic bait for 12g baits (or 1kg/ha for 6g baits)

Above the tree line, avoid sowing baits in areas of low structural vegetation cover (e.g. alpine herb fields and tussock).

This operation will adhere to these standards to ensure that the risk to

kea is minimized to the extent that current research indicates.

Nonforested areas within the operational boundaries will be

identified and mapped and will be excluded from the operational

sowing plan to reduce the risk to kea.

Effect on bats

Lesser short-tailed bats (Mystacina tuberculata) feed on arthropod taxa known to consume 1080 baits. Thus, they may be vulnerable to secondary poisoning after control operations using aerially broadcast 1080 baits and residues in these prey can in theory be enough to kill a bat. Lloyd (1994) offered non-toxic cereal pellets containing a fluorescent marker to captive bats and hand broadcast baits throughout an area known to be inhabited by bats and concluded “…short-tailed bats are unlikely to eat carrot or grain-based baits…”. In a study in Rangataua Forest where 0.15% 1080 pellets were aerially broadcast (3 – 5 kg /ha) over “…almost the entire winter range…” of the study animals, a total of 269 short-tailed bats were caught at their roost following poisoning and held for 48 hours to determine


78

mortality or signs of poisoning. All animals survived and showed no signs of 1080 poisoning (Lloyd & McQueen 2002). This result compares favourably for the assessment of risk for insectivores surmised by an earlier study (Lloyd & McQueen 2000).

Effect on Invertebrates

The effect of the aerial 1080 operation on common invertebrates within the area will be minor. Invertebrate populations have been monitored in several aerial 1080 poisoning operations and none have suggested significant population effects on any species studied, nor is there evidence to suggest poisoned invertebrates are a significant factor in secondary poisoning

of other animals. Longterm (up to 20 years) monitoring of native land snails nationally indicates that the alleviation of possum predation in sites treated with aerial 1080 poisoning can lead to benefits to threatened populations (K Walker DOC. pers. comm.). An extensive study of forest invertebrates on 1080 baits (Sherley et al. 1999) found that at any time only a small proportion of baits had invertebrates on them, and the few individuals per bait represented a small section of the fauna present in the litter. The number of invertebrates recorded on baits in treatment grids declined when 0.15% 1080 pellets were laid at 18 kg/ha, but started to return to original levels (relative to control grids) within 6 days of removal of the toxic baits. This sowing rate is approximately nine times that proposed to be used in the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area. The reduction in invertebrate numbers did not extend further than 20cm around any bait. Another study (Spurr & Berben, 2004 cited in Fairweather, Broome & Fisher, 2013) hand laid 0.15% 1080 cereal pellets at 5 kg/ha to simulate aerial poisoning in Tararua Forest Park in 1999 and monitored the occupancy of artificial refuges by tree weta (Hemideina crassidens) and cave weta (Isoplectron sp.). No significant impact of bait application was found for these species nor was there any effect observed on numbers of slugs, spiders and cockroaches which also commonly used the same refuges. No impact was detected on populations of weta in Waipoua Forest and all cockroaches, centipedes, millipedes, kauri snails and all but one beetle survived in enclosures with 0.08% 1080 pellets (Pierce & Montgomery et al. 1992). Spurr (1994b cited in, Fairweather, Broome & Fisher, 2013) found no impacts on populations of amphipods, ants, beetles, collembolans, millipedes, mites, slugs, snails, spiders and cave weta at Puketi Forest or Titirangi Scenic Reserve where 0.08% 1080 pellets were aerially applied at 5 kg/ha. Spurr and Drew (1999) assessed the number of invertebrates found


79

on different bait types at three different operations. The number of species and number of individual invertebrates found on baits were a small proportion of the number likely to be present in the forest litter and it was predicted that vertebrate pest control operations are unlikely to have any long term deleterious impacts on invertebrate populations. In Mapara where 0.08% 1080 pellets were aerially applied in three consecutive years (1990-92), a comparison of invertebrate fauna showed a greater number of predatory insects in the treatment site, characteristic of a healthy forest, and more fungal eating insects in the non-treatment site, characteristic of unhealthy forest (Bradfield, 1993 cited in Fairweather, Broome & Fisher, 2013). A laboratory study to determine the risk of primary or secondary poisoning resulting exposures of the native ant (Huberia striata) to 1080 baits showed that the increase in mortality was relatively small (7% after 24 h and 12% after 48 h). The risk of secondary poisoning to insectivores declined rapidly, from a peak of 5.51 mg/kg one day after exposure, to 0.27 mg/kg after 7 days, and was determined to be negligible (Booth & Wickstrom 1999).

Effect on reptiles

Reptiles are highly tolerant of 1080 (Spurr 1993). Lizards and frogs were not monitored in any 1080 poisoning operations prior to 1994; and none have been reported killed by 1080. Captive McCann’s skinks (Oligosoma maccanni) ate non-toxic cereal pellets (RS5 and Agtech), especially when the baits were wet, but the level of consumption (0.01-0.02g) was probably insufficient for the animals to have received a lethal dose had the baits been toxic (Freeman, Hickling & Bannock, 1997).

Effect on fish and other aquatic fauna

Aquatic species are not considered likely to be at risk of 1080 poisoning because fish are highly tolerant of 1080 (Bauermeister et al. 1977); and contamination of water by 1080 has rarely been detected and only at extremely low level when it has occurred. Laboratory studies conducted on trout show they tolerate 1080 in concentrations many times higher than they could possibly experience during an aerial 1080 operation (Rammell & Fleming 1978). Other studies have shown that there is no apparent effect of submerged 1080 baits to either invertebrates or native fish (Suren & Lambert 2004; Suren & Bonnet 2006). It therefore seems unlikely that fish or benthic macro-invertebrates within the treatment area will be adversely affected. Appendix 2 provides a comprehensive assessment of the risk of 1080 to aquatic fauna.


80

Section 5.3.1 Proposed consent conditions to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on non-target native species

Consent conditions for non-target native species

Ensuring 1080 bait meets all quality specifications is considered the best way to avoid adversely affecting birds and other native species 8. 1080 baits will be lured with cinnamon 9. 1080 baits will have a mean size of 12g or more and 95% of baits

will weigh more than 9g. 10. 1080 bait quality will be checked to ensure bait size complies with

standards (see Section 7.4 Bait monitoring). 11. 1080 baits will be dyed green to deter birds. 12. 1080 baits will be sown at an effective average sowing rate of 2

kg/ha but not greater than 4 kg/ha. 13. RS5 baits will be used.

14. Nonforested /open-ground areas within the operational boundaries will be identified and mapped and will be excluded as much as is practicable from aerial bait application to reduce the risk to kea.

Section 5.4 Effects of proposed operation on non-target domestic animals

Effect on livestock

Livestock are susceptible to 1080 poisoning. Partially degraded baits are hazardous to sheep and cattle although an animal the size of a cow would have to eat many to receive a lethal dose. Appendix 2 provides a comprehensive assessment of the risk of 1080 to livestock. There is some risk to livestock on private land due to the proximity (<200 m) of the treatment area boundary to private stocked land at a section (Pikikiruna Range) of the western boundary. This affects two landowners with livestock possibly within this range. One of the possible helicopter bait loading zones is entirely contained within the National Park and therefore there is no risk of direct exposure of stock to 1080 baits from loading site operations. However, the other two sites are either located on conservation land leased for grazing or on private land. Both of these stock sheep or dry-stock cattle only. Care will be required by the helicopter contractor to ensure that the approach to the loading site is constrained within the designated flight corridor and does not overfly stocked areas. An immediate post-operation check of all surrounding stocked land will


81

be carried out to ensure that any stray baits are collected as far as is practicable. If used, the stocked loading sites will be cordoned off and stock excluded until bait and rainfall monitoring indicates that the area is safe. All landowners directly adjacent to Abel Tasman N. P. and within 1 km of the treatment area have been consulted over this proposal and no concerns about stock were expressed. No stock water for any farm directly adjacent to Abel Tasman N. P. and surrounding the treatment area is obtained directly from any watercourse that is affected by the proposed operation. All farm-owners downstream of a watercourse exiting any part of the treatment area were consulted. The 24 hr notification process will also alert landowners of any risk, where landowners have specifically requested to be informed within this timeframe.

Effect on dogs

Dogs are highly susceptible to 1080 and must not be exposed to the opportunity to directly eat toxic baits or scavenge from poisoned possum carcasses. Carcasses can remain toxic after 1080 poisoning until completely decomposed which can take between 1-12 months, depending on weather conditions and micro-site factors. Under the National Parks Act 1980 (Part VA) dogs are not permitted in a national park without a permit. In line with the Abel Tasman

National Park bylaws and management plan, no permit will be issued for any part of the treatment area. The area of private land included in the operation (Moncrieff Private Scenic Reserve) is managed as part of the park through a covenant with the Crown. Dog access restrictions apply similarly to this block. All dogs illegally brought into the control area by the visiting public are at risk from the operation. Hunters wishing to hunt with dogs within Abel Tasman National Park are issued with permits for a maximum period of 6 months. The DOC information leaflet: Discover Nelson and Marlborough. Changes to dog access permits states: “Permits to enter with a dog will be issued only from the Area Office which manages the location where dogs are to be taken” It is therefore possible for the relevant DOC office to halt the issuing of Dog Access Permits for any period of time required. An inspection of the record of Dog Access Permits issued for the affected area indicates that this step would affect very few hunters. There is some risk to dogs on private land due to the proximity (<200 m) of the treatment area boundary to private land at a section (Pikikiruna Range) of the western boundary. This affects two landowners with livestock and with working stock dogs possibly within this range. The risk to these dogs is for poisoned rats or


82

possums to travel this distance beyond the treatment boundary where they may be scavenged by these dogs. This risk was identified as part of the DOC 2008 operation with an identical boundary at this sector. This risk is also presented with the possible outwash of waterborne poisoned carcasses outside the treatment area and deposited at river edges or where watercourses reach the coastal areas.

Section 5.4.1 Proposed consent conditions to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on non-target domestic animals

Consent conditions for livestock

15. Adjacent landowners (< 1km from the treatment boundary)

with stock will be notified of the operation 24-48 hours prior to the application of toxic baits to enable these landowners to withdraw stock further from the treatment boundary if desired in case of an over-flight of the boundary.

16. If used, the area surrounding the two potential helicopter

loading sites where stock can be present but removed prior to the operation will be inspected for baits at the completion of the operation. Helicopter GPS flight data will be inspected to ensure that the flight corridor has been maintained and no overflight of stocked land has occurred.

17. If used, the area surrounding the two potential helicopter

loading sites where stock can be present but removed prior to the operation will be cordoned off and signage erected indicating that the area has been used for the loading of toxic baits until such time that the area is considered safe according to bait monitoring and rainfall guidelines.

Consent conditions to protect dogs

18. Signs will be erected at all normal public entry points to the

treatment area and maintained until the caution period has expired and/or the area is deemed safe according to bait and carcass monitoring protocols. The number and location of warning signs will depend on the operation type (Type A: rat and possum, or Type B: rat only) and will otherwise adhere to MOH permit conditions. Refer to Appendix 1 and Appendix 3E for details

19. Beaches adjacent to major river outlets and major river estuary/inlet margins will be inspected for water-borne possum carcasses after significant rainfall events.

20. Signs at every entry point will clearly state “poison baits or

carcasses are deadly to dogs”.


83

21. Neighbouring farmers/private landowners will be offered the use of muzzles for their dogs and written and verbal information will be provided to each about the risk of poisoning to dogs, how to avoid those risks, and appropriate responses in the event of poisoning. “1080 and Dogs Don’t Mix” pamphlets will be issued and explained to dog owners.

22. All landowners whose land is directly adjacent to the Abel

Tasman National Park and within 1 km of the treatment boundary will be notified 24-48 hours before the start of the toxic bait operation.

23. The Department’s Public Notification of Pesticide Operations

Standard Operating Procedure will be followed to inform visitors of the operation and the risk to dogs. Hunting permits with dog permits will not be issued for affected areas for the duration of the caution period.

Section 5.5 Effects of proposed operation on human health and community well-being

Effects on human health and community well-being

The risk of 1080 to human health is described in detail in Appendix 2. The estimated lethal dose of 1080 in humans lies in the range of 0.7 and 10.0 mg/kg. Sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) is absorbed through the gastrointestinal tract or via the lungs if inhaled. Monofluoroacetate is not readily absorbed through intact skin, but it can be absorbed more readily through cuts and abrasions. The onset of clinical signs usually ranges from 30 minutes to about 2-3 hours. In summary, a 60kg adult would have to eat about six 12 gram baits (containing 0.15% 1080) to receive a fatal dose. Heavier people would need to eat more. A child weighing 20kg would need to eat approximately two 12 gram baits (containing 0.15% 1080). 1080 is not a mutagen and is unlikely to be a carcinogen (Eason et al 1999, Eason et al 2010). It has sub-lethal effects on reproduction and is classified as a teratogen. There is no effective antidote for 1080 poisoning in humans and any treatment given is largely symptomatic and supportive. Assessment of risk and exposure from this operation: Public use of the coastal areas of Abel Tasman N.P. is high throughout the year and, in the summer months becomes an extremely popular destination for international and local tourism and as a beach/boating destination for local Tasman residents. The length of the Abel Tasman N.P. coastline between Marahau and Awaroa is also described by the DOC Great Walk Coast Track. This is


84

the most popular DOC walking track nationally. By comparison, the southern and western areas of the treatment area which are serviced by other DOC tracks are less well frequented and the interior parts are largely not accessed at all. As such there are very different levels of potential effects on public health at varying parts of the treatment area. Although people may enter the area where toxic baits are laid, actual exposure to the toxin can only occur if sufficient concentrations of baits are located and handled or inhaled or ingested. Exposure of any significance (that which may cause harm) is only likely if baits or contaminated animals are eaten in substantial quantities. With the exception of two larger coastal headlands, the treatment area lies entirely inland of the Coast Track which is excluded from bait application by a100 m wide bait exclusion zone both sides of the track. After an assessment of the terrain, vegetation description and consideration of the minimal likelihood of the public entering the operation area from the coastal areas, the possible risks to human health were considered manageable. This assessment was undertaken by project managers and the Health Protection Officer of Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. Standard signage at normal access and entry points as well as an extensive delivery of information to park users by a variety of means will minimize any possible effect on human health. All public and private water supplies that are within catchments that may be affected by any part of the operation have been identified and steps taken to eliminate or minimise the potential for human health risk. All measures will adhere to MOH permit conditions There are two DOC huts/shelters within the treatment area (see Section 3.7). Water is manually collected directly from adjacent streams which are entirely contained within the treatment area. Alternative supplies will be provided for use at these huts for as long as MOH permit conditions require. Other DOC huts at the boundary that collect rain from their roofs for drinking water supply have been excluded from the treatment area. The human health risks relating to water are discussed in Section 5.2 and risk mitigation is provided in Section 5.5.1. All marked public walking tracks will be closed for the duration of the aerial application of toxic bait and until tracks have been cleared of baits according to all consent conditions (refer Appendix 3E for locations/descriptions of signs in the Sign Register). All landowners directly adjacent to Abel Tasman N.P. and within a 1km radius of the treatment boundary been consulted on all aspects of the operation and will continue to be informed at critical stages of the operation. See Appendix 3 for details.


85

The issue of off-site contamination by dust–drift has been evaluated. There is no published information on the LC5028 for 1080 in dust or

mist. A Biological Exposure Index (BEI) of 15 g /l (0.015 ppm) for 1080 has been set by Occupational Health and Safety Service (OSH) New Zealand (Occupational Safety and Health Service 2002) The following text (italics) is copied from: Appendix E: Monitoring of Environmental Media Following 1080 Operations. ERMA review 2007 Evaluation and Review Report: Re-assessment of 1080 (HRE05002) E2.3 Fate of dust from baits Three aerial operations using cereal baits were monitored for dust drift in 1997 and 1998 (Wright et al 2002). The results are summarised in Table E4[not appended here]. Any baits or fragments more than 1 g were removed from the dust samples before analysis. The maximum deposition of 1080 falling in dust was 25.2 μg/m2 on day 1 at Rangitaua. Residues in dust inside all treatment areas were significantly greater than outside at day 1, but not at day 5. Water samples were taken from streams inside the treatment areas at Rangitaua and Whitecliffs, with two positive samples from five collected on day 1 at Whitecliffs (0.1 and 0.2 μg/L; LOD 0.1 μg/L). No information was provided on wind speed on the day of operation; whether a global positioning system was used to check flight paths and the accuracy of bait release. The main conclusion that can be drawn from Wright et al (2002) is that dust drift can occur over a considerable distance off-site (at least 1 km), although the concentrations of 1080 in dust are small. The degradation of 1080 in leaf litter under laboratory conditions is summarised in Table C8, Appendix C. [not appended here]. The Agency is not aware of any other studies reporting on dust drift from the aerial application of 1080 and it may be difficult to generalise to other situations. There is insufficient information to know whether other bait types or delivery buckets would create more or less dust. The authors in this study did not report the amount of dust collected after bait application, only the amount of 1080 per square metre of dust collector. The proposed sowing rate (2 kg/ha) is less than half those used during Wright et al.’s (2002) study (5 kg/ha) and there have been significant improvements in bait quality which have reduced the amount of dust produced by cereal pellets. Therefore the dust levels recorded by Wright et al. (2002) could be considered a worst case scenario for current operations. The mean amount of dust recorded outside the treatment area on day one in Wright et al.’s (2002) study was 0.05 µg m-2. Using an LD50 of 2 mg kg-1 for humans, a 70 kg person would need to inhale/ingest all the 1080 dust covering 3.5 square km at once to receive an LD50 and therefore a 50% chance of dying from 1080.

28 Lethal Concentration 50%. The calculated concentration of a gas/liquid that kills 50% of

the test organisms


86

Options to manage risk and/or levels of exposure: A number of measures will be taken to control risks to human health and community well-being: Certainty about the operation: The public requires certainty as to the nature, timing and scale of the operation to ensure that they stay outside the area during the operation or adhere to safety guidelines. Reassurance that the operation has been planned and undertaken in a professional and externally reviewed process is also essential. This AEE should alleviate concerns about the effective management of the operation. Clearly defining the treatment area: The operation can be managed to confine the sowing of baits exclusively to the treatment area by following DOC best practise guidelines. Public areas (e.g. walking tracks, huts, campsites, water supply intakes) will avoided by establishing and maintaining suitable non-baiting \buffer areas where appropriate. The aerial application of bait at sensitive boundaries will be accurately delivered by more precise trickle-sow application methods. The boundaries of the treatment area will be defined accurately using GIS mapping and confirmed during operational boundary checks. The operational boundary at an area where some concern has been expressed about dust drift lies north/north-east of the location of this concern (Marahau Valley). Dust contamination of this area would be against the prevailing wind direction. The boundary at this sector would also likely be flown below the level of the ridge on the interior of the treatment area, thereby also reducing off-site dust dispersal. These areas are detailed on the maps in Appendix 1. Avoiding exposure to recreational users and concessionaires: Given the minimal risk of exposure to the visiting public, it should not be necessary to close access to the area except for temporary closure of maintained tracks over which bait will be applied until track inspections have been completed that comply with MOH permit conditions. A 100m buffer (exclusion) zone will apply on either side of the Abel Tasman Coast Track, where no baits will be discharged. Stringent procedures on clearance of baits from public walking tracks will be adhered to. These procedures have been developed with MOH guidance and will meet all conditions imposed by the MOH. Recreational hunters will be specifically apprised of the operation and restrictions involved through the DOC Pesticides Summary sheets and hunting permit system.


87

Public notification: All parties will be advised of the operation and the relevant conditions through a variety of methods, including: direct notification (letter, phone, and/or meetings), public notification in newspapers (Golden Bay Weekly, The Leader: Tasman Edition and Nelson Mail), direct information delivery via concessionaires and tourism operators, DOC and visitor information centre advisories, and warning signs29 in the treatment area (see Section 5.5.1. below; “Public Notification for Pesticide Operations SOP”). This communication aims to ensure all people entering the treatment areas are informed about the operation, the presence of toxic baits, the

risks to people, dogs and livestock and the basis for reopening the area to the public. Operational notification will also be sent to the Tasman District Council, Medical Officer of Health and the police. Distinctive baits: All toxic 1080 baits are coloured green to ensure they can be seen and

distinguished from prefeed nontoxic pellets. Using proven pesticide handling techniques and equipment: Staff working with toxins have potentially the highest risk of exposure and will comply with all standard safety procedures to minimise risk. The risks to staff involved in the operation will be managed through appropriate hazard planning, training, supervision and adherence to safe handling techniques, and the use of protective equipment in good condition. Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) have set a “Biological Exposure Index” for 1080 in urine of 15 parts per billion (micrograms per litre) based on studies of the sub-lethal effects of 1080 on animals. This represents a conservative maximum level acceptable for workers frequently exposed to 1080. Twenty-seven workers involved in aerial 1080 pellet operations have so far been tested for exposure to 1080 and all were found to be well below this standard.

Section 5.5.1 Proposed consent conditions to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on human health and community well-being

Consent conditions for human health

Bait type, toxic loading, rate of application and area of distribution: 24. The concentration of 12 gm 1080 baits will be 0.15% w/w (as

confirmed from bait analysis) and will be spread using a

GPSguided helicopter within the 12,359 hectare treatment area

29 The number and location of warning signs will depend on the operation type (Type A: rat and possum,

or Type B: rat only). Refer to Appendix 3E for details.


88

at an average application rate of 2 kg/ha and not exceeding 4kg/ha.

25. No aerial 1080 will be applied within two days prior to or during any school or public holiday.

Restrictions on public access 26. Public access will restricted as far as practicable to tracks listed

below (also listed Section 3.7 ([listed 1-11]) on the day (s) of any aerial 1080 operation until the tracks have been cleared of toxic baits according to Resource Consent and Ministry of Health VTA Permit conditions (whichever has more stringent or higher level of conditions).

I. Inland Track: Tinline Bay to Awapoto Hut via Holyoake Shelter, Castle Rock Hut, Moa Park Shelter, Evans Ridge. Includes Porter Rock Track side-track to Porter Rock viewpoint.

II. Wainui Valley Track. Wainui Saddle to Birds Clearing via Wainui Hut.

III. Evans Ridge-Wainui Saddle Track. Link track between Inland Track_Evans Ridge turnoff and Wainui Saddle.

IV. Evans Ridge-Wainui Hut Track. Link track between Inland Track at Evans Ridge and Wainui Hut.

V. Falls River Track. Track between Torrent Bay and Falls River. Public access will otherwise not be restricted to the treatment area Areas where no bait will be laid: 27. All practicable steps will be taken to ensure that toxic baits will

not be applied beyond the agreed boundaries.

28. All practicable steps will be taken to ensure that no 1080 baits will be aerially applied or otherwise laid within 100 m either side of the DOC Great Walk Coast Track; within 150 m radius of all DOC hut and campsite facilities; and within bait exclusion zones at public and private water supply intakes that meet MOH permit conditions.

29. Parallel trickle sow application swathes will be flown at the Coast Track bait exclusion zone and at all coastal boundaries

30. No 1080 baits will be aerially applied or otherwise laid within 20 m of the coastal marine boundary.

31. A swath width will be flown parallel to, and inside all treatment


89

area boundaries before infilling to minimise the likelihood of over-flights.

32. Aircraft will be fitted with an approved Differential Global

Positioning System (or equivalent) navigational guidance equipment to ensure even spread and will be tracked to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that bait is spread only within operational boundaries.

33. The helicopter bait loading site (s) will be sited on either Public

Conservation Land (PCL) or on private land where landowner consent will be obtained. All bait loading site(s) will be de-stocked where relevant and the designated flight corridor between the loading site(s) and the treatment area will be defined so that there is no over-flight of any stocked area. This designated flight path will be maintained and compliance confirmed by GPS flight records.

34. The pilot will shut down the spreading bucket before leaving

the aerial treatment area to refill and only restart once inside the area again.

Water supplies

a) Intakes inside treatment area30 A. Name of Supply: Wainui Hut (DOC)

NZTM Grid Ref. ( E 1593333 N 5470751) Type of Supply: Direct stream source to DOC hut. Manual collection. 150 m bait exclusion radius and provision of alternative water supply until MOH permit conditions are met.

B. Name of Supply: Moa Park Shelter (DOC) NZTM Grid Ref. ( E 1594626 N 5468104) Type of Supply: Direct stream source to DOC hut. Manual collection. 150 m bait exclusion radius and provision of alternative water supply until MOH permit conditions are met.

b) Intakes outside treatment area (within 1 km)

Potentially affected water supplies only are marked on Map 1 and Map 2. Refer Appendix 1 (Map 1 and Map 2) and Appendix 1A for details of all water supplies.

35. No Vertebrate Toxic Agent (VTA) will be laid within a specified radius of all mapped domestic (private and public) water supply intakes (listed below in Appendix 1A). This distance will be specified within the VTA Permission issued for this operation.

36. The water intakes at all affected water supplies will be

disconnected prior to the operation in accordance with

30 Applies to both Modality Type A and Modality Type B


90

Condition 25 of: Issuing Permissions for the Use of Vertebrate Toxic Agents (VTAs), Guidelines for Public Health Units 2010 where:

ii. The domestic water supply shall be temporarily disconnected until such time as water testing finds no VTA contamination above 50 percent of the Ministry’s PMAV.

and if water testing is required by either the water supply owner and/or MOH permit.

37. The aircraft applying the bait shall not fly in transit over, or

within 100 m upstream of any water supply intake listed in Appendix 1A.

Public notification 38. The public will be advised of the operation between 2 weeks to

2 months prior to the scheduled start date of any operation. The control programme shall be advertised in the public notices section of the Nelson Mail, Motueka/Golden Bay News and the Golden Bay Weekly at least ten working days in advance of every toxic bait aerial operation. The advertisement will outline: a) The nature of the operation, b) the area to which the application applies, c) the date that poison will be discharged, and d) will provide a contact name and telephone number for Notification will be distributed as an Important Notice to Visitors (INV) advisement sent to all DOC and track information outlets.

39. The following information centres will be notified of the

operation a minimum of 24 hours prior to the commencement of both the prefeed and toxic bait applications.

I- Sites: Nelson, Motueka, Takaka 40. The following parties will be advised between 24-48 hours prior

to the commencement of both the prefeed and toxic bait applications

Adjacent landowners;

Other landowners/interest groups (e.g. concessionaires) if requested;

MOH (Health Protection Officer);

Tasman District Council;

Police;

Department of Conservation (DOC permission authority).

41. Warning signs shall be erected at least one day prior to the

discharge at every normal point of entry to the treatment area (refer Map 1 and Map 2)31, checked at regular intervals, and shall

31 The number and location of warning signs will depend on the operation type (Type A: rat and possum,

or Type B: rat only). Refer to Appendix 3E for details.


91

be repaired/replaced within 24 hours of discovery or notification of damage or theft. The standard warning signs will be accompanied by additional information detailing the objectives of the pest control operation and providing more information on the use of toxins. Signs shall meet the legal requirements as set out in the Public Notification SOP. Signs shall be maintained until baits and poisoned carcasses cease to be toxic.

42. Advisory notices will be placed at all major access points to tracks which will not be excluded from prefeed bait application prior to any prefeed operation to inform the public of the

impending operation. These will inform them of the nontoxic nature of the baits, safety precautions when a helicopter is sowing baits overhead and impending track closures.

43. Advisory/information signs will be erected at boat ramps at

Tarakohe, Marahau and Kaiteriteri immediately after the aerial 1080 operation to inform the public that may access the area from the coast and of the potential risk to dogs from poisoned possum carcasses on beaches that have been washed out of the treatment area.

Consultation and Notification of Pesticide Operations SOP

The DOC Consultation and Notification SOP will be followed in this operation. This SOP aims to minimise the public risks from pesticide use on lands managed by DOC; to adequately inform the public about pesticide operations and to meet legal requirements relating to consultation and notification. It includes standards and procedures for communicating with the public:

before bait application (e.g. communication planning);

during the operation (e.g. warning sign standards);

after the operation (e.g. post operational updates) It also includes the standards and co-ordination processes for producing the Pesticides Summary, a four-monthly summary of pesticide operations on land managed by DOC.

Safe Handling of Pesticides SOP

The DOC Safe Handling of Pesticides SOP will be followed in this operation. This SOP aims to ensure pesticides used in animal pest operations are handled, transported and disposed of as safely as possible and contains standards to minimise worker exposure and meet legal requirements relating to the field use of pesticides. These include:

standards for safety planning and briefings;

standards to be met at all times (e.g. label compliance, supervision, tracking, storage and transport);


92

operational standards and procedures covering bait preparation, use, clean-up and disposal;

minimum specifications for personal protective equipment; and

Procedures for accidents, spills, loss of pesticides and poisoning.

Disposal standards include:

Surplus pesticide is stored in its original packaging with the manufacturer’s label attached and MSDS available.

Used or redundant pesticide scheduled for disposal must be: securely contained with the manufacturers label, and taken to a disposal facility approved by a local authority; and delivered with the product MSDS to disposal personnel who are approved handlers (where required under HSNO e.g. 1080, pindone); OR where transport to disposal facility is impractical/unsafe, follow the label regarding disposal.

Contaminated packaging and equipment for disposal must be sealed in clearly labelled containers which identify contents and taken to a disposal facility approved by a local authority OR where transport to disposal facility is impractical/unsafe, follow the label regarding disposal. Disposal of contaminated packaging will comply with the ERMA 1080 Review decision 2007 in: Appendix A: Controls for sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and formulated substances containing 1080 D6 Regulation 10 – Disposal requirements for packages. This control gives the disposal requirements for packages that contained sodium fluoroacetate (1080) and are no longer to be used for that purpose. Such packages must be decontaminated / treated or rendered incapable of containing any substance (hazardous or otherwise) and then disposed of in a manner that is consistent with the disposal requirements for the substance. In addition, the manner of disposal must take into account the material that the package is manufactured from.

Regional Council and Local Authority disposal requirements for pesticides, containers, equipment, carcasses must be met at all times (e.g. discharge consent to air/water).

Contaminated safety equipment, machinery and any other equipment that has been in contact with the pesticide are thoroughly washed at a location where runoff is unlikely to enter any natural water body.

Identifying Boundaries for Pesticide Operations SOP

The DOC Identifying Boundaries for Pesticide Operations SOP will be followed in this operation. This SOP provides standards and procedures for:

defining and confirming operation boundaries, including


93

exclusion zones and sensitive areas, when planning a pesticide operation; and

ensuring operators are fully briefed before an operation commences.

The following steps will provide assurance that the above standards are met.

Aircraft will have a Global Positioning System navigational guidance system (GPS) to ensure baits are distributed appropriately and to reduce the likelihood of baits entering exclusion zones or falling outside the application area.

Pilots will upload a digital copy of the treatment boundary and exclusion zones to the onboard GPS system and these boundaries will be flown with the Operations Manager (or a person nominated by them who knows the area well) to confirm that the electronic boundary is correct prior to sowing toxic bait.

Pilots will receive hard copy maps and briefings from the project manager before laying any toxic bait.

Section 5.6 Effects of proposed operation on cultural and spiritual values

Cultural and spiritual values

The Iwi of Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama, and Te Atiawa, represented by Manawhenua ki Mohua, and Tiakina te Taiaio (representing Ngati Tama, Ngati Rarua, Te Atiawa and Ngati Koata) were consulted at the preliminary stages of the planning process as being the iwi who exercise authority over the area. They have been consulted about the effects of this operation on any cultural values. Iwi wish to be informed of any possum control work occurring in Golden Bay/Tasman Bay area and are supportive of the operations objectives and management proposal.

Section 5.6.1 Proposed consent conditions to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects of proposed operation on cultural and spiritual values

Consent conditions

No further performance standards are required in addition to those already outlined in Section 5 above and in Section 7 below.


94

Section 5.7 Effects of proposed operation on ecosystems

Effects on ecosystems

Direct benefits to specific ecosystem components, particularly plant and invertebrate species identified as the primary benefit species for this operation (Section 2.2) are well understood or can be expected (e.g. Sweetapple et al. 2002; Sessions et al. 2001; Rogers & Walker, 2005; Rogers, 1997; Pekelharing & Batcheler 1990; but see Nugent, Whitford, Sweetapple, Duncan & Holland, 2010). The increase in ecosystem productivity by the reduction in the consumption of foliage, flowers and fruit of indigenous plants, and predation of native fauna by animal pests will also result in indirect,

flow on benefits to a range of other species (notably both frugivorous and nectivorous native birds, invertebrates, and bats). Species with highly developed mutualisms (Anderson, Kelly, Robertson, Ladley & Innes, 2004) will particularly benefit. The increase in productivity may make more high value food available to foraging pigs. In some areas pigs have been known to increase in numbers following aerial 1080 operations. The mechanism for this is unknown but it is possibly food related or due to a temporary respite from hunting (due to pig hunters and their dogs keeping out of the area) or could be coincidental normal fluctuation of the pig population due to other factors. 1080 in baits may be defluorinated in 1–2 weeks under favourable conditions. However, under less favourable conditions breakdown may take several weeks and, in extreme cold and drought, 1080 residues could persist in baits for several months. The rate of degradation will be influenced by the presence of soil or litter micro-organisms, and temperature, soil moisture and rainfall. Sodium monofluoroacetate is highly water soluble so leaching out of soil will occur.

While plants can take up 1080, it is unlikely to be in large amounts. The maximum length of time 1080 residues persist in plants is approximately 38 days (Ogilvie et al. 1998; Ogilvie et al. 2006; Ogilvie et al. 2010; Miller et al. 2009). The uptake of 1080 has been reported in a number of plants including: kapuka (New Zealand broadleaf, Griselinia littoralis) (Ogilvie et al. 1998), karamu (Coprosma robusta) (Ogilvie et al. 2006), puha (Sonchus spp.) (Miller et al. 2009). However, not all plants appear to take up 1080. No uptake of 1080 was reported in pikopiko (Asplenium bulbiferum) when single Wanganui #7 1.5 g/kg 1080 pellets were placed at the base of pikopiko in the field, and the plants monitored for 1080 uptake (Ogilvie et al. 2006; Ogilvie et al. 2010).

Temperature, and the presence of aquatic plants and microbes all

affect 1080 degradation in aquatic environments. Water samples have

been collected from streams following numerous pest control

operations using 1080. A total of 96.3% of these samples contained no


95

residues of 1080. Where residues were found most of these had less

than 1 µg/L 1080. Where higher 1080 residues have been found in

water, the samples were mostly from very small streams and/or

associated with the specific presence of bait.

Recent monitoring studies of aquatic species contamination have

shown no extended ecosystem residue effect. During the February

2010 Egmont National Park aerial 1080 operation freshwater and

marine mussels were monitored for 1080 residues. Freshwater mussels

were sampled from 11 sites within the treatment area. Marine mussels

were sampled at 2 sites approximately 20 km from the treatment area.

No 1080 was detected in any of the samples (VPRD).

Impacts of stoats and beneficial effects of multi-predator control Stoats were introduced to New Zealand in 1884 to control rabbits despite strong opposition from ornithologists such as Thomas Henry Potts (Potts 1976), and Sir Walter Buller (Galbreath 1989) who correctly recognised the risk to native birds (King & Murphy 2005). Stoats are ubiquitous in forests and agile climbers. While not reaching the same densities (1–10/km² [Basse et al. 1999]) as ship rats (400–600/km² [Ruscoe et al. 2006; Innes 2005]) and possums, they are very mobile with large home ranges (males often >200 ha and females often >100 ha) and are efficient hunters (King & Murphy 2005). Stoats are important predators of mohua (Elliott et. al. 1996; O’Donnell et. al. 1996; Dilks et al 2003), kakariki (Elliott et. al. 1996), bellbirds (Kelly et. al. 2005), North Island kokako (Flux et al. 2006), kaka (Moorhouse et. al. 2003; Greene et. al 2004; Taylor et. al. 2009), kea (Kemp in press), rock wren (Jo Hoare, DOC, pers. comm. 2013), kiwi (McLennan et al. 1996), whio (Whitehead et al. 2008; Glaser & Allerby 2010), brown teal (O’Connor et. al. 2007) and takahe (Wickes et. al. 2009). Secondary poisoning has been an effective mechanism of controlling stoats in New Zealand forests. In South Island beech forest, 100% of the resident radio-tagged stoats were poisoned following brodifacoum poisoning operations that killed rodents and possums (Alterio et al. 1997; Brown et al. 1998. Gillies & Pierce (1999) found that radio-tagged small mammalian carnivores died of secondary poisoning during 1080 bait station poisoning operations in North Island podocarp forest. Similarly, all the radio-tagged stoats died shortly after aerial application of 1080 for rodent and possum control in North Island podocarp forest (Murphy et al. 1999). Rats were found in the gut of 67% of poisoned stoats in that study. Ecological and behavioural responses to pest control such as prey switching, trap shyness and meso-predator release directly impact on ecological outcomes. Murphy et al. (1998) found that reinvading stoats ate more birds after successful predator control operations had


96

removed the rodents that were previously the stoat’s primary prey. Therefore effective rat and possum control could potentially result in more predation pressure from reinvading stoats in the absence of landscape stoat trapping. Prey switching by stoats between rodents and native animals (birds and invertebrates) also occurs naturally in masting forests (beech and rimu) as rodent abundance fluctuates with beech masting (White & King 2006). The ‘rodent crash phase’ is the most dangerous time for native species, as rat and mouse numbers decline steeply during the post-mast winter in the absence of seed. Takahe adults, for example, are usually safe from predation by stoats due their large size. However, increased predation occurs during the winter-spring of post-beech mast year impacting on the takahe population (Hegg et al. 2012). Project Janszoon has deployed landscape wide stoat trapping (over c 14,500 ha) which should prevent prey switching from occurring. The aerial poison operations are designed to cause simultaneous stoat and rat population crashes and the stoat trapping is designed to control reinvading stoats. An increase in numbers of one predator in response to the removal of another predator (mesopredator release) can have negative ecological outcomes. Flux et al. (in prep.) found that ship rat abundance was higher at stoat control sites than at non-treatment sites. However Ruscoe et al (2011) did not detect an increase in rats when stoats were removed but did detect an increase in rats following possum removal (as did Sweetapple & Nugent 2007) (although stoats were probably also controlled by the possum control operation), and an increase in mice when rats were removed. There is some evidence that removal of stoats can increase the intensity of rat plagues (Flux et al. in prep.) but this was not supported by Blackwell et al. (2003). Population models suggest that predators cannot prevent an irruption of ship rats in New Zealand forests, but may be able to delay the start of an irruption or hasten its decline during a post-mast crash phase (Blackwell et al 2001; Ruscoe et al 2003). Aerial 1080 is effective at controlling stoats when rodents are present (Murphy et al. 1999) and in association with landscape stoat trapping will provide protection to a wide variety of species. Robertson et al. (in press) found that kiwi chick survival declined at trapped sites over years of trapping and that poisoning stoats at trapped sites resulted in increased kiwi chick survival, indicating that trap shy stoats were living within trap networks. They recommended that managers should poison periodically at trapped sites to remove trap shy stoats through secondary poisoning. Project Janszoon proposes an integrated poisoning and trapping regime. We anticipate some mesopredator release of rats due to ongoing control of possums and stoats. Short-term mesopredator release of


97

mice is also expected after pulsed rat control operations (i.e. aerial 1080) and long-term release of mice is expected in the intensive rat control area (Falls River/Torrent Bay/Bark Bay). However, the long-term Janszoon predator management regime is strategically designed to result in a net overall benefit to the broadest possible range of native species. That is, the anticipated mesopredator release is allowed-for in the overall design, and operations are planned to occur at sufficient frequency and optimal timing in order to deliver net benefit to the ecosystem regardless of the anticipated mesopredator release. Ruscoe et al (2011) showed that there was competitive release of rats following removal of a herbivore (possums), although stoats were probably controlled at the same time making it difficult to assign all of the effect to possums. Rat diet consists of up to 75% seeds and fruit, and stomach contents from possums and rats in lowland podocarp forests have shown a 55% dietary overlap in these components (Sweetapple & Nugent 2007). A study post operation rat responses in lowland podocarp hardwood forest of the North Island (Sweetapple & Nugent (2007) indicated that ship rat populations, at least sometimes, increase following possum control in these forest types. That study speculated that this increase may occur directly through reduced competition from possums for favoured foods, or indirectly, through improvements in overall forest health and productivity resulting from possum control (Cowan 1990; Clout & Gaze, 1984; Cowan & Waddington 1990; Norton 2000; Veltman 2000). The mesopredator release effects noted above also apply to ground based stoat removal (trapping). This effect (at whatever level) therefore currently operates at the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon management area due to the existing (2013) and planned (2014) extension to the stoat trap network. Any possible additional mesopredator release effects as a direct consequence of an aerial 1080 operation need to be considered against this existing effect. However, studies in other forest types have shown that factors other than prior possum and stoat control can limit rat abundance. For example ship rat abundance did not exceed pre-control levels within one year of possum control in pohutukawa (Metrosideros excelsa)-dominated seral hardwood forest (Miller & Miller 1995). Monitoring of rat abundance in South Island beech and rimu forests have indicate that beech mast, fertility, and climate are the overriding determinants of rat abundance, rather than prior possum and stoat control. For example, in the lowland podocarp-broadleaved-beech forest of the Oparara Basin (which is similar to Abel Tasman in altitude and vegetation and has stoat trapping in place) an aerial 1080 operation during an inter-mast year in 2008 resulted in zero rat abundance for almost two years (Fig 1). (Note that there was no mesopredator release of mice in this case).


98

Rodents increased as a consequence of a beech mast in 2009 which was controlled by a DOC aerial operation (there was perhaps some mesopredator release of mice in this case). Rats recovered only slightly before exhibiting their usual post-mast population crash between August and November of the post-mast year (2010). A rimu mast in summer 2011 caused an increase in rat numbers but no management was undertaken to control this irruption. A natural rat population crash is evident during the post-mast year of 2012. The subsequent increase during autumn 2013 the interpreted as the result of the normal summer breeding in the absence of mast This is the most applicable case study of rodent dynamics with aerial 1080 drops available and we expect dynamics to follow similar drivers in the lower altitude (i.e. <500m) portion of the Project Janszoon area. Simplistic predictions about rat numbers inevitably spiking after possum and rat control do not apply to these forests. The influences of masting cycles and post-mast crashes (climate driven in the absence of mast) are paramount. In high altitude pure-beech forests, such as occurs at >500m a.s.l. within the Janszoon project area, rimu is absent and the 2011 rat irruption evident at the Oparara would, therefore, not have occurred. Masting cycles and inter-mast climate become even more important in pure beech forests. For example, in the pure beech forests of the Landsborough Valley (South Westland), repeated aerial 1080 operations combined with constant stoat trapping have not resulted in rat irruptions (Fig.2).

Figure 1. Rodent tracking at mixed podocarp/ beech forest at Oparara between 2004 and 2013 throughout a period in which two aerial 1080 operations were conducted.


99

Beech masts appear to be the only factor that can override climatic limitation of rats in these forests to generate rat irruptions. We expect rat dynamics in the upland portion of the Janszoon study area to behave more like this, although we expect it to be more prone to rat irruptions than the Landsborough due to the presence of red beech and the proximity of low altitude forests. Hence, we expect a rat irruption with each beech mast, but we don’t expect the aerial 1080 operations to generate rat irruptions. Monitoring ship rats and stoats using tracking tunnels and possums using trap catch and/or wax tags will enable changes in pest abundance linked to management to be measured. Pest abundance measures will inform management. The use of an integrated trapping, poisoning and monitoring regime instigated by Project Janszoon will minimise the risk of prey switching, trap shyness and avoid adverse impacts of mesopredator release.

Figure 2. Rodent tracking at pure beech forest at Landsborough Valley (South Westland) between 2004 and 2013 throughout a period in which two aerial 1080 operations were conducted and the area experienced three beech mast events.


100

Section 5.7.1 Proposed consent conditions to avoid, remedy or mitigate adverse effects on effects on ecosystems

Consent conditions for effects on ecosystems

No additional consent conditions are proposed as no more than de minimus adverse effects are anticipated; all consent conditions outlined above will mitigate any adverse effects.

Section 5.8 Other adverse effects

Other adverse effects

Red deer (Cervus elaphus scoticus) were released in the Nelson region in 1906 and are present in low numbers throughout the treatment area. Whilst the National Parks Act 1990 specifies that all introduced plants and animals shall as far as possible be removed (Section 4), this operation could be perceived to have an adverse effect by some sectors of the community. Feral red deer mortality from aerial 1080 poisoning using cereal pellet baits is variable, ranging from 5 % to 54 % (Fraser & Sweetapple, 2000; Meenken & Sweetapple, 2000; Nugent et al 2001; Eason et al 2011) and does not appear to be consistently influenced by toxic loading, sowing rate, prefeeding or bait type. The exact causes of variation in deer mortality are still not clear. In a study following a 1080 operation in the Blue Mountains, Nugent & Yockney (2004) showed that at least 30% of adult fallow deer females survived and a moderate by-kill of deer populations is probably negated within a couple of years from increased productivity. The by-kill of fallow deer in the Blue Mountains appears higher than is usual for red deer (Nugent et al. 2001) where the mortality rate was also related to deer size and appeared to be greatest in areas with the highest deer density and the most open understorey (Nugent & Yockney 2004). However, fallow deer are not present in Abel Tasman National Park and red deer are considered to be possibly less susceptible to 1080 poisoning. For hunted or controlled populations, potential rates of population recovery have been estimated to be 30–40% per year (i.e. recovery to pre-control or pre-hunting levels in 3–5 years if there is a 50% initial kill) (Nugent et al. 2001 In: Eason 2002). Using a breeding hind

population recovery model based on a 50% deer by kill rate which was provided in support of a submission by H. Barr to the 2007 ERMA 1080 review (Submission # 9324 In: Environmental Risk Management Authority 1080 Review 2007), it can be expected that

deer populations will have fully recovered to precontrol levels within 6 years of the operation.


101

The Tasman Resource Management Plan provides for the ground application of 1080 baits as a permitted activity. However, this method

may elevate the risk to nontarget animals such as deer, even at reduced sowing rates compared to the aerial application of 1080 pellets. This is due to the more clumped distribution of baits resulting from the travel line of a ground operator and narrow bait application swathe, and the deliberate, targeted placement of baits for increased detection by possums. By way of example the aerial distribution of 12 gm baits at 2 kg/ha results in an average distribution of 1 bait/ 60 m². Ground based application of baits at a rate of 0.5 kg/ha theoretically results in an average distribution of 1 bait/240 m² over the whole treatment area. However, with a conservative ground application grid pattern of lines 200 m apart and assuming an effective sowing swathe width of 7 m, bait densities along each treatment lines will be 1 bait/ 9 m² m area to maintain the overall 0.5 kg/ha rate. This clumped distribution of baits may then make it easier for foraging animals such as deer to locate and

ingest a lethal dose (a 80 kg red deer requires 22.5 baits of 12 gm pellets baits to receive a LD50 dose).

Therefore the preferred option, of aerially applied 1080 baits, has either the same or possibly less adverse impact on deer numbers than the permitted baseline activity of handlaid 1080 baits.

The three local branches (Nelson, Motueka and Golden Bay) of the NZ Deerstalkers Association have been included in the consultation phases of the operation.

Pigs are present in low numbers throughout the area. Pig hunting is a popular recreational activity in both Golden Bay and Motueka areas. However, little or no pig hunting occurs throughout the majority of the area. Although pigs are not highly susceptible to 1080 poisoning, the precautionary exclusion period for hunting after a poisoning operation will curtail hunting in this area.

Section 5.8.1 Proposed consent conditions to avoid, remedy or mitigate other adverse effects

Consent conditions for other adverse effects

No consent conditions in addition to those listed above are proposed.


102


Conclusion on effects and performance standards

The benefits and cost effectiveness of aerial 1080 are well understood (Brown & Urlich, 2005; Westbrooke et al. 2003). Any risks are acceptable given long term ecological benefits for the region. Risks to human health and community are understood and are negligible or manageable (Fairweather, Broome, Fisher, 2013). The adverse effects of this operation should be mitigated by the performance standards suggested. Previous aerial 1080 operations have been conducted in parts of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon Management area since 2001 and have achieved the operational targets with no significant adverse effects. In addition, there have been numerous similar operations conducted throughout Golden Bay (Kahurangi and Abel Tasman National Parks) since 1994 with no significant adverse effects. Where there have been reported effects in previous operations, recommendations for increased mitigation steps have been implemented. Toxins and delivery methods have been selected that are appropriate to the different sectors of the proposed area in order to minimise any deleterious effects while not compromising the operational effectiveness. This assessment has explored ways in which the risks of this operation can be minimised, and any actual or potential adverse effects are avoided, remedied or mitigated. The performance standards identified in this chapter are an appropriate way of achieving this outcome. These are based on the previous control operations in the area and at similar sites/operational techniques.


103

Chapter 6 Public Consultation


Introduction

Public consultation is necessary to inform the public of the proposed operation, to discover the significant issues, and to constructively discuss the means by which any concerns may be addressed. This chapter outlines:

information made available to the public about the proposed operation;

who has been consulted about the proposed operation;

how people have responded to the proposal;

measures adopted to mitigate the concerns, if any, raised through the public consultation process; and

what approvals have been obtained from adversely affected parties in accordance with Section 95E of the Resource Management Act 1991.

Relevant documentation, including correspondence, is attached in Appendix 3 of this AEE.

Section 6.2 Public consultation process

NOTE for website version: Consultation outcomes and responses are not included in detail here for individual privacy protection reasons.

Public consultation process

Consultation A Communication Plan, Information Sheets (Consultation-Options and Consultation-Effects) and draft operational maps were developed at the initial planning stages (Appendix 3A). A list of all affected parties/stakeholders and adjoining land owners was drafted. An Operational Plan was developed which was used as a core document in the public consultation process. Consultation with major concessionaires and tourism operators that have significant commercial interests in areas of Abel Tasman NP that might be affected by the operation were identified and discussions with these operators commenced in November 2012. Consultation with adjoining landowners and affected communities commenced in February 2013.


104

Iwi who consider the Abel Tasman N.P to lie within their rohe were similarly identified and since late 2012 there has been ongoing discussion and presentation of Project Janszoon restoration goals (including pest control objectives and control measures) with representatives of these iwi (trusts, governance boards) and interested individuals as members of these iwi. The consultation process comprised of two phases: Phase 1(Consultation on Options) This consisted of presenting an overview of the Project Janszoon restoration objectives over the next 2-30 years. The objectives for animal pest control were described where pest control measures were required at different scales, at different high priority management sites within the project area that align with the conservation targets at each site, and targeting a range of animal pest threats at different spatial and temporal scales. The objective of this phase was for the invitation for discussion on all potential options for control and to obtain feedback on any general and/or specific areas of concern or interest (see Appendix 3B for the Information Sheet: Phase 1). This expression of views consisted not only of concern of the impacts of the use of several of the control options (e.g. opposition to toxins in general or aerial 1080 specifically) but also included requests by neighbouring landowners to extend the potential pest control area to include their land. A total of c. 180 individual landowners, and interested groups /parties were consulted during this phase. In the preparation of Phase 1 of the consultation process, the Department has directly consulted with the following parties:

Ministry of Health (Public Health Service Health Protection Officer)

Tasman District Council

Iwi

Neighbouring landowners (both as individuals and also as part of larger community resident associations e.g. Awaroa, Torrent Bay and Marahau residents groups)

Community interest/user groups.

DOC concessionaires and local tourism operators (major operators)

Members of Parliament (Nelson and Tasman)

Mayor –Tasman District Council

Tourism Nelson Phase 2 (Consultation on Effects) This phase consisted of presenting a pest control proposal that had been developed based on the management objectives of the operation


105

and considering the (sometimes conflicting) views, concerns, aspirations and general comments received during Phase 1 of the process. All parties previously contacted were included as well as numerous other community groups, agencies, schools, interest parties and a broader group of all Abel Tasman N.P. concession holders. This proposal detailed the areas of pest control and described the preferred method(s) selected for control at each site. Further discussion on this proposal was invited for consideration in drafting the final operation plan and all consents/permissions application documents (See Appendix 3B for the Information Sheet: Phase 2). As part of the Consultation process: Phase 2, The Department has directly consulted with the following parties:

All of the above listed parties (Phase 1)

DOC concessionaires and local tourism operators (other operators with a high level of activity in the park and environs)

Schools (within Nelson, Motueka and Golden Bay area)

Neighbouring landowners (additional to Phase 1)

Community interest/user groups not included in Phase 1 (e.g. tramping clubs)

Nelson Marlborough Conservation Board

Fish and Game Council

Recreational Groups

Agricultural e.g. New Zealand Federated Farmers/Fonterra

Other (e.g. Friends of Nelson Haven and Tasman Bay, Friends of Golden Bay

Refer to Appendix 3 (Communication Plan) for a record of the consultation process.

Notification All of the above parties will be notified of the operation when all necessary consents have been obtained. In addition to those parties already contacted as part of Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the consultation process, other parties and agencies considered necessary to ensure public safety and will be informed of the operation. These notification–only parties will include: medical and veterinary services throughout the Nelson, Motueka, Golden Bay districts, the agricultural sector (dairy producers, beekeepers, wild game processors) etc. A notification information sheet will be developed which will describe the components and timing of the operation and detail all recommended safety measures. Advisory notices will be placed at selected access points to the treatment area (dependant on operation type) prior to the prefeed bait application operation. This will advise the public of the impending operation in order to reassure track users of the non-toxic nature of


106

the baits and to recommend safety measure if a helicopter is operating overhead.

Tangata Whenua

Manawhenua ki Mohua (MkM) representing Te Atiawa, Ngati Tama and Ngati Rarua have been directly consulted about the effects of this operation on any cultural values from the earliest stages of the inception of Project Janszoon and the pest control proposals in particular. Tiakina te Taiaio (representing Ngati Tama, Ngati Rarua, Te Atiawa and Ngati Koata) has also been directly consulted from the earliest stages of the inception of Project Janszoon and the pest control proposals in particular. Refer to Appendix 3A (Communication Record) for a record of the consultation process.

Local authorities

This AEE is included as part of a Resource Consent Discharge application. Consultation on the development of the operational plan and discussions on consent requirements for the operation has taken place with TDC consent planners since October 2012. Council staff also assisted in identifying information required for this AEE and potentially adversely affected parties. The following local authority was consulted:

Tasman District Council

Adjoining landowners/ occupiers

The majority of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area is directly bounded by land owned by the Crown and managed by the Department of Conservation (Abel Tasman National Park, Canaan Downs Scenic Reserve). All landowners/occupiers that directly adjoin these areas of conservation land and surrounding the treatment area were directly consulted. Some landowners beyond this 1km radius were also included, particularly at Phase 1 of the process where the final operational boundaries were not defined at that point. These landowners continue to be kept informed of developments in the operation if requested by them. Two significant landowner groups are clearly identified as being most likely affected by any operation that approaches the coastal regions of the Park. These two groups are located at discrete landowner enclaves Awaroa and Torrent Bay surrounded by Abel Tasman N.P and Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve. The latter area also includes several other private land blocks/dwellings along the coast at Boundary Bay


107

and between Anchorage and Apple Tree Bay. The importance of Awaroa and Torrent Bay community support for the Project Janszoon Trust restoration proposals in general, and the pest control strategy and operational proposals in particular, was identified at the initial establishment of the Trust and DOC Memorandum of Agreement in early 2012. The majority of landowners at Awaroa and Torrent Bay are represented by their respective resident associations. Liaison with both associations has been maintained since mid-2012 with attendance by Project Janszoon project management staff at the Annual General Meetings and periodically at committee meetings of both associations. This liaison has enabled the project’s aims to be clearly presented with discussions on pest control initiatives and for the expression of the views and potential concerns of landowners within these groups. In addition to this, all landowners were individually contacted during Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the consultation process as for all other landowners. With the exception of the attendance at several association AGMs and committee meetings of these associations, direct contact with most of the landowners has been limited by the fact that nearly all of these blocks are not permanent residences and are used as holiday homes only by absentee landowners or rental. Landowners in the Marahau Valley were included in both phases of the consultation process either individually and/or as part of the Marahau Residents and Ratepayers Association. Landowners of the four private blocks contiguous with Abel Tasman N.P. (but still > 1 km from the final, proposed aerial 1080 operational boundary) were identified as being the prime consultation audience. All other residents of the broader Marahau community were able to be informed of the pest control initiatives and final proposal through the Marahau Residents and Ratepayers Association. A large block of private land (194 ha) is contained between the Abel Tasman National Park and Abel Tasman Foreshore Reserve. The Moncrieff Private Scenic Reserve is managed as part of the Abel Tasman National Park through a covenant with the Crown. A part of this block (52.6 ha) will be included in the aerial control as part of Modality Type A. Written permissions from affected landowners/occupiers are required for this operation and a Consents Register (Appendix 3D shows a record of these and a copy of this permission is appended. Refer to Appendix 3A (Communication Record) for a record of the consultation process.


108

Public, recreational users and concessionaires

In preparing this AEE the Department has identified all public, recreational users and concessionaires that might be affected by the operation. The most significant public use of the treatment area is by walkers (single and multi-day) at the coastal sectors of Abel Tasman N.P. and boating and kayaking activity along the coast. There are a large number of DOC concession-holders as well as other tourism based operators that support the high public use of this park focussed especially at the coastal areas. Other recreational use such as hunting (deer and pig) is minimal. A total of less than 25 hunting permits (primarily for deer) were issued by the Golden Bay Area Office for the northern half of Abel Tasman N.P in the 2007 calendar year. (See also Section 3.4 and Section 5.8). It is suggested that these hunting levels have not changed significantly since 2007. Recreational hunting clubs were included in the consultation process but no concerns were raised.

Abel Tasman National Park is one of the most popular outdoor recreational destinations in New Zealand and the DOC Great Walk is the most heavily used DOC walking track in New Zealand (See also Section 3.7).

The southern and western parts of the Park are serviced by DOC tracks that are significantly less used and are considered more tramping tracks compared to the Coast Track. The absence of DOC public facilities, additional tracks and the difficulty of the terrain and vegetation throughout the central parts of the treatment area significantly reduce recreational use.

All tramping clubs in the Nelson region have been contacted as part of the consultation process and no concerns have been expressed. There are numerous commercial operators that service the high tourist interest in Abel Tasman National Park. Those operators (including those holding a DOC concession to operate within the Park and/or the Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve) that have been identified as being possibly most likely affected by any operation have been closely involved throughout the development of the rat and possum control operation. The significance of any potential impact on these activities by the operation was identified as a key element in the development and planning for the operation. Key stakeholders were identified at an early stage and have been consulted since late 2012 on how the operation may affect them and what steps can be taken to eliminate or mitigate these concerns. All permitted concessionaires who undertake commercial ventures within the treatment area were invited to express their views on the proposal at the early planning stage of the operation. This allowed for


109

any valid concerns to be incorporated into the operational plan. The main concern expressed by most concessionaires was that visitors could be deterred from visiting the Park or the coastal environs, due to the perception that there was a direct or potential personal risk due to the use of toxins for pest control. This deterrence effect could also extend to an aversion by some visitors to the use of toxins/chemicals in general for any purpose. There is concern expressed by concessionaires that the rationale for toxin use, the actions of toxin delivery, the level of risk and the measures taken to minimise any risk would not be understood or appreciated by many visitors, especially international tourists. However this apprehension would similarly be felt when the proposed intensive pest management at the Falls River/Torrent Bay/Bark Bay area is established using ground delivery of toxins, requiring a number of warning signs that would have the same impact on visitors. The effect of the proposed aerial rat and possum control operation over and above the effects of these other ground-based operations should be considered against these existing/planned ground operations. Addressing these concerns of the concessionaires has been a significant part of the on-going consultation process with these parties and considerable resources will be invested over the period of the operation to ensure that all visitors to the Park receive accurate, instructive and comprehensive information on all aspects of the operation. Concessionaires are essential in this information delivery process. The major concessionaires are participating in the development of tools (e.g. information delivery resources to clients) along with project managers to not only minimize potential commercial impacts but also to provide more comprehensive information on the Project Janszoon restoration objectives and to establish a context for the need for pest control. It is envisaged that these tools will include (but not be limited to): large information signs accompanying the standard toxin warning signs providing background information on the reasons for pest control and facts on 1080; brochures/leaflets containing the same information and delivered by concessionaires themselves directly to clients; briefings of all concessionaire staff by operation managers to ensure that these staff are able to provide accurate responses to questions from clients. The design of both components of the operation (Modality Type A and Modality Type B) has considered the concerns of concessionaires and the potential impacts on their activities where possible. The eastern extent of the boundary of Modality Type B (rat) has been drafted to minimize the effects at this sector e.g. reduction in the


110

number of affected water supply catchments, reduction in the number of warning signs required. The latter has direct implications for reducing concessionaire concerns about visitor perceptions. All parties determined to be affected by the operation will be advised of the operation and the relevant conditions through a variety of methods, including: direct notification (letter, phone, and meetings), public notification in newspapers, DOC and visitor information centre advisories, and warning signs in the treatment area. An information folder containing facts about 1080, photos of possum effects on the vegetation, maps and other relevant information will be available at the Department of Conservation offices in Motueka and Takaka for public information.

Fish and Game Council

A letter and Information Sheet outlining the proposal (Phase 2) was sent to the Nelson/Marlborough Fish and Game Council in August 2013 inviting comments on the proposal. This organisation will continue to be kept informed and notified of the significant steps of the operation(s).

Conservation Board

This operation is considered to be consistent with the provisions of both the Nelson/Marlborough Conservation Management Strategy and the Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan. All members of the Nelson/Marlborough Conservation Board were provided with information on the operation (Consultation Phase 2).

Other interest groups

In preparing this AEE the department has identified all major interest groups that might be affected by the operation. Consultation outcomes and responses are not included here for individual privacy protection reasons.

Section 6.3 RMA Section 95E approvals

RMA Section 95E approvals

As part of the above consultation process, all affected landowners /occupiers were approached to consider granting their approval to the proposed operation under section 95E of the Resource Management Act 1991. Signed consent was obtained from all affected landowners /occupiers where their land is included in the treatment area. Only one landowner is directly affected by the operation. A 52.6 ha part of the Moncrieff Private Scenic Reserve is included in the aerial


111

1080 block for Modality Type A (rat and possum).Written approval has been obtained (Refer Appendix 3D for copies of signed approvals). The proposal is not considered to have an adverse effect on any other parties that is more than de minimus. It is also noted that the Tasman Resource Management Plan permits an activity (ground application of 1080) with equivalent effects; and provides for the discharge of 1080 poison from air onto land as a controlled activity, with a limited range of matters over which control has been reserved. Therefore no written approvals from these parties are considered necessary under section 95E of the Resource Management Act 1991. However, submissions of support and agreement for this proposal have been received from the two major landowner groups most likely affected by this operation (Awaroa and Torrent Bay). Refer to Appendix 3C


112

Chapter 7 Environmental Monitoring and Proposed Monitoring Standards


Introduction

Monitoring is important to determine:

Whether the threshold levels of one or both of the target pests have been exceeded, as an operational trigger indicating that control is warranted;

the achievement of the conservation and operational objectives;

whether adverse environmental effects have been avoided, remedied or mitigated; and

post-operational management decisions, such as giving the operational all-clear and removing warning signs.

Section 7.2 Outcome and result monitoring

Result monitoring

Monitoring the effectiveness of the proposed operation is considered essential to measure:

the abundance of rats and possums in a treatment area prior to control (influences choice of control technique); and

whether an operation has reduced rat and possum abundance to the target residual catch rate.

Rats Rats are a primary target species for this operation and operational specifications have been set to achieve the highest kill rate. The effect of the operation on rodents (rats as a target species and mice as a secondary ecological monitoring species) will be monitored using the existing tracking tunnel infrastructure established at the upland (Wainui Valley-Evans Ridge) zone where 12 permanent tracking tunnel lines were established randomly throughout a c. 2,000 ha survey area. Monitoring commenced in November 2012 and has been undertaken at 3 month intervals thereafter. Operation trigger thresholds will be based on monitoring results from this survey area. Monitoring will adhere to the standards tracking protocol: Using tracking tunnels to monitor rodents and mustelids (Gillies and Williams dme://olddm-118330) The aim is to reduce rat populations to below threshold densities that

dme://olddm-118330/


113

allow the snail population to recover. This threshold is estimated to

equate to less than 5% Footprint Tunnel Index (FTI) in nonmast years (annual average) and <15% (annual average) in mast years. It is proposed that rats will also be monitored in two additional survey blocks. A further 10 FTI lines will be randomly located in the mixed beech/lowland podocarp areas of the project to determine rat population dynamics in the lower altitude forests where episodic beech masts are likely not the primary driver of rat population fluctuations. It is planned that this rodent monitoring will be established in 2013/2014 with the intention to assess the relative effects of the beech component of the forest on rodent populations. This area will be subject to the aerial control (both Type A and Type B). It is also proposed that an additional survey area (with c. 10 FTI lines) will be established in the proposed intensive multi-pest ground control block at Falls River/Torrent Bay/Bark Bay. Depending on the final location and size of this management area, it is possible that a further two experimental survey blocks could be monitored for rodents. This rodent monitoring design could result in the following survey strata: upland periodic aerial 1080; lowland periodic aerial 1080; intensive ground management only; intensive ground management + periodic aerial 1080. This information will be used to guide decisions on future management of rats and the implications of control methods. Possums Possum numbers throughout the management area will be monitored using standard monitoring techniques, following either: the Trap Catch monitoring protocol (NPCA 2011) or the Wax Tag monitoring protocol (NPCA 2010). Both methods were used concurrently in 2012 for the pre-control trend monitoring survey to enable pre-control baseline levels to be established for both methods. For maintenance/recovery of general forest condition the target

Residual TrapCatch Index rate (RTCI) will be set at 5%. However, for highly palatable/vulnerable species (e.g. Powelliphanta spp.) a RTCI of <1% (raised set) maintained to 3 years after the operation is required. This monitoring will determine the need for possum control (if threshold trigger levels are exceeded) and assess the effects of any operation on possum densities.

Outcome monitoring

Outcome monitoring is essential to determine whether rat and possum control is having the desired effect on native species of interest. The Department will undertake outcome monitoring to assess the


114

achievement of the stated conservation objectives. There is currently no outcome monitoring infrastructure established within the treatment area to assess the effects of the proposed operation on the floristic values or on either of the Powelliphanta and Rhytida target benefit species. Possum impact and operational outcome monitoring will be addressed as part of the Project Janszoon Vegetation Monitoring Plan currently in development. Until this plan is finalised and approved for implementation, draft outcome monitoring programmes are proposed below.

Mistletoe monitoring: A small population of red mistletoe (Peraxilla tetrapetala) has recently been located within the treatment area. A survey in 2014 will attempt to increase the size of the monitoring sample. Mistletoe plants will be tagged and assessed following an adapted Peraxilla/Alepis monitoring method based on standard FBI (Payton et al 1999).

Mistletoe species are highly possum palatable and are a useful key indicator species for the assessing the effects of possum control (Sessions & Kelly 2001b). These species are also an analogue for the similarly susceptible Powelliphanta species. As such mistletoe species are an effective indicator of the possum impacts and responses to control if specific Powelliphanta monitoring is not able to be established.

Powelliphanta monitoring: Plots will be established within the

treatment area and will be remeasured on an ongoing biennial

remeasurement schedule using standard snail monitoring techniques (Walker, 2000). Refer also: Snail monitoring 2012-13 Canaan Powelliphanta hochstetteri_Rhytida oconnori report: DOCDM 1155863.

Bird monitoring. Bird monitoring commenced in 2012 within the aerial treatment area as a means to detect changes over time. This work involves a 10km route which is divided into 100 x 100m transects and the number of each species is recorded whilst walking the route. There are three monitoring transects; one in the high altitude forest within the treatment area and two in lowland forest that will be outside the aerial treatment area but within areas subject to some form of ground control. Each route is repeated c.10 times within a two week period in spring. Results from the 2012 survey and a description of the methodology are detailed in Gaze (2012).

In addition, it is proposed that the birdlife in the interior of the park will be mapped in 2014 as this is considered a transition zone into which vulnerable species will disperse as the treatment allows improved productivity and survival


115

(Gaze, 2012). An existing infrastructure of land snail monitoring for P. hochstetteri hochstetteri and R. o’connori exists in an adjacent part of Abel Tasman N.P. This monitoring is conducted on a biennial measurement regime yearly and results are analysed to identify changes in health parameters. Similarly, there is an existing programme monitoring the health condition and level of possum impacts on Halls totara (Podocarpus hallii) and mistletoe (mostly Peraxila colensoi) at the Rameka track area. Results from these plots in an “unmanaged” site can be used as an experimental control site to compare to results from monitoring plots within the Project Janszoon management area. The monitoring systems present at these non-treatment sites are:

A total of 84 Podocarpus hallii trees have been tagged and assessed following the standard FBI (Payton et al 1999) method since 2001.

A total of 15 mistletoe (Peraxilla colensoi, P tetrapetela and Alepis flavida) plants have been tagged and monitored following an adapted Peraxilla/Alepis monitoring method based on standard FBI (Payton et al 1999). All three species are highly possum palatable and an effective indicator of the impacts of possum herbivory and responses to control

The scheduled biennial remeasurement of thirteen 100 m² and eight 25 m² permanent monitoring plots established within the previous possum control area (but outside the proposed rat and possum control area) will assess the effects of uncontrolled possum predation on Powelliphanta hochstetteri hochstetteri and Rhytida o’connori land snails. This will monitor changes in the number of live Powelliphanta and Rhytida land snails present within the plots and the levels and causes of predation detected.

This information will assist in assessing the benefits of the control and provide information for decisions on strategies for future rat and possum control.

Section 7.3 Monitoring the effect on non-target species

Fauna monitoring

Except for the fauna outcome monitoring described in Section 7.2, no

structured and rigorous nontarget fauna monitoring will be undertaken that relates specifically to the immediate effects of this operation.


116

However, it is anticipated that birds that may be translocated to the area (e.g. kaka, kiwi) will be fitted with radio-transmitters at release to monitor their home range establishment. Monitoring of these birds will therefore provide information on possible effects of any operation. It is possible that kaka may be released into the management area in winter 2014. If so, monitoring of these birds could provide such information.

Section 7.4 Bait monitoring

Introduction

Bait monitoring is an important component of this proposed operation given the toxicity of the bait to non-target species and the proximity of adjoining livestock and dogs. Monitoring results will be used to determine the appropriate date for opening areas of adjoining farmland to livestock and removing poison warning signs.

Bait monitoring proposed

Monitoring bait quality: The range and average toxic loading and size of a sample of baits will be monitored via standard laboratory assessment techniques prior to the operation.

Aerial monitoring of bait spread: A Global Positioning System (GPS) will be used as an aid to mapping bait spread. This will allow highly accurate bait placement on all parts of the treatment area. A map of bait spread will be available visually from a computer screen on the GPS as well as recorded on a data logger, downloaded and presented as a printed map. The map will have reference points to enable field checking of any areas where bait spread may be questionable.

Bait coverage over the treatment area during application will be monitored by periodically viewing the GPS map on the helicopter’s onboard display. Gaps in bait coverage can be identified during the operation and rectified. Any instances of over-flight of the boundary can be identified and appropriate action taken. GPS data will be maintained, downloaded and presented as a printed map for subsequent inspection and verification of the application.

Rainfall will be monitored at the TDC Canaan Downs rain gauge to assess the level of probable rates of toxic leaching and breakdown of the pellets. Although just outside the treatment area, monitoring of rainfall at this station will be indicative of levels within the treatment area. Because of the rainfall gradient across the area, the location of this rainfall gauge site aligns with the average annual rainfall at the western –central extent of the treatment area (the highest rainfall sector).


117

A temporary rainfall gauge will be deployed at either Awaroa or Totaranui (northern Abel Tasman N.P.) to monitor the low rainfall sectors of the treatment area at the coast. This area receives the lowest rainfall (c.1500 mm p.a.) within the treatment area and will provide a conservative estimate of the amount of rain received by treatment area, and consequently a

conservative estimate of bait degradation. Longterm monitoring of baits and possum carcasses (see below) within the treatment area will assist in determining when the operational all-clear can be given and warning signs removed.

The breakdown of baits over time will be a significant determinant in reopening the area. 1080 baits will be caged at

24 locations within the treatment area and will be monitored over the period following the operation. This monitoring will include toxin assay of baits if required. This monitoring will comply with DOC Bait and Carcass Breakdown Monitoring Protocol (Appendix 9: Obtaining Consents for Animal Pest

Control Operations DOC Standard Operating Procedure). See also Appendix 7 for Caution Period Calculation.

Possum carcasses will be caged at 24 locations within the treatment area. The time it takes for the complete breakdown of the carcasses will be recorded. This monitoring will comply with DOC Bait and Carcass Breakdown Monitoring Protocol (Appendix 9: Obtaining Consents for Animal Pest Control

Operations DOC Standard Operating Procedure). See also Appendix 7 for Caution Period Calculation.

Staff may be present at sensitive/ critical boundaries (proximity of operational boundary to private land) to ensure these areas have not received bait. Appropriate action can be taken if bait is found to be present.

Section 7.5 Soil and water quality monitoring

Soil & water quality

Based on the many water samples taken for analysis directly following aerial 1080 operations in New Zealand over the past ten years, we are satisfied that there is only an extremely small risk of 1080 residues ending up in any water bodies at a level that is detectable or such that it poses any risk to any non-target organisms, including humans (see Appendix 2). Water quality is to be monitored during the 1080 poisoning operation to determine the presence of residues in any public water supply catchment within the poison treatment area if required by MOH consent conditions.


118

There has been no request by any of the landowners who abstract water from any part of the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon area for a water test to be conducted. Any water monitoring required will be undertaken in accordance with standard Landcare Research laboratory procedures.

Section 7.6 Ecosystem monitoring

Ecosystem monitoring

No other ecosystem monitoring specific to this operation is planned other than that discussed above. The effects of similar operations on a range of bird species e.g. kea, weka, and small passerines, are being monitored in depth at several sites throughout New Zealand.


119

Chapter 8 Relevant Planning Documents


Introduction

This section assesses whether the proposed operation is consistent with relevant guidelines, plans and/or strategies.

Section 8.2 Resource Management Act 1991

RMA requirements

Resource consent from Tasman District Council is required for discharging 1080 cereal pellets from the air for this operation

Assessment of operation against RMA, policies & plans

Resource Management Act (1991) Relevant Resource Management Act 1991 (RMA) considerations are summarised below. A resource consent is required by virtue of section 15 of the RMA: Section 15: Discharge of contaminants into the environment (1) No person may discharge any –

(a) Contaminant or water into water; or (b) Contaminant onto or into land in circumstances which may result in that

contaminant (or any other contaminant emanating as a result of natural processes from that contaminant) entering water; or…

unless the discharge is expressly allowed by a national environmental standard or other regulations, a rule in a regional plan as well as a rule in a proposed regional plan for the same region (if there is one), or a resource consent. ...

(2A) No person may discharge any contaminant ... into or onto land, from a place or any other source, whether moveable or not, in a manner that contravenes a regional rule unless the discharge – (a) is expressly allowed by a national environmental standard or other

regulations; or (b) is expressly allowed by a resource consent; or (c) is an activity allowed by section 20A. ...

The aerial discharge of 1080 to land, and the aerial discharge of 1080 to land in circumstances where 1080 (a contaminant) may enter water, are not expressly allowed by a national environmental standard, other


120

regulations, or a rule in the relevant regional plan. Accordingly, a resource consent is required. The matters to be considered when determining an application for a resource consent are set out in section 104 of the RMA. These include:

Any actual or potential effects on the environment of allowing the activity;

Any relevant provisions of a national policy statement, New Zealand coastal policy statement, regional policy statement, plan or proposed plan;

Any other matter that the consent authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

The consent authority may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the environment if the relevant plan permits an activity with that effect. The actual or potential effects on the environment associated with the current proposal are described in Section 5 of this AEE. Both the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management 2011 (NPS-FM) and the New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 (NZCPS) are relevant to this application. The latter is relevant because part of the operational area is within the coastal environment, but there will be no discharge to the coastal marine area. The proposed operation is consistent with Objective A1 of the NPS-FM; and with the relevant provisions of the NZCPS, including Objectives 1 and 4, and Policies 5, 11 and 23. The relevant provisions of the Tasman Resource Management Plan are considered below. All of the matters in section 104 are subject to Part 2 of the RMA. The proposed operation is considered to be consistent with the requirements of Part 2 for the following reasons:

The life-supporting capacity of water, soil and ecosystems will not be compromised.

Adverse effects on the environment are appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

The reduction of rat and possum numbers will protect and enhance indigenous vegetation, ecosystems, and populations of threatened (and more common) native species within a substantial area of Abel Tasman National Park and the Moncrieff Private Scenic Reserve.

Public access to and along the coastal marine area will not be compromised, as the Abel Tasman Coast Track and foreshore are excluded from the operational area.


121

The values of Māori have been taken into account when preparing this application.

In undertaking the operation the Department is exercising responsible stewardship of Abel Tasman National Park, in accordance with the requirements of the National Parks Act 1980. That Act states that national parks shall be administered and maintained so that (inter alia) the native plants and animals of the parks shall as far as possible be preserved and the introduced plants and animals shall as far as possible be exterminated.

The operation protects the intrinsic values of ecosystems.

The proposed operation will not have any (significant) adverse effects on amenity values, the quality of the environment, or the habitat of trout or salmon.

If possum numbers dictate and also if a ship rat population irruption occurs within the treatment area within the consent period the proposed discharge of contaminants (1080) is the best method of control to prevent the significant and possibly irreversible effects of predation and herbivory on the conservation values described above. An assessment of the effects of the proposed operation has demonstrated that all adverse effects, other than minor, will be avoided, remedied, and mitigated through operational measures, identified in the AEE above. Tasman Resource Management Plan The Tasman Resource Management Plan (TRMP) has several provisions that do or could relate to the aerial discharge of 1080 to land and to water; and the relationship between these provisions is not entirely clear. The aerial discharge of 1080 from air onto land for possum and other vertebrate control is a controlled activity under Rule 36.1.3.1 of the TRMP, if it complies with the following conditions: (a) A navigational guidance system is used to ensure the discharge is within defined areas and reduces risks of application to surface water. A resource consent is required and may include conditions on the following matters over which the Council has reserved control: (1) Approval from landowners on whose land the activity is to take

place. (2) Environmental monitoring before and after the application of the

compound 1080. (3) Notification requirements for the public, interest groups and for

neighbouring landowners. (4) Contingency planning. (5) Amounts and concentration of 1080 to be used. (6) Type of baits to be used and need for screening to avoid chaff.


122

(7) Areas over which 1080 is to be applied. (8) Methods and times of application. (9) Review of conditions. (10) Expiry date of the consent. The Principal Reasons for Rules (Section 36.1.20) states that “The controlled status for 1080 use reflects the importance of pest control, particularly possum control to protect indigenous flora and fauna and to help control the spread of TB as well as the environmental risks involved in its use.” It also acknowledges that there is a risk of contamination of water resources. Rule 36.1.3.1 deals with the aerial discharge of 1080 to land, and the discharge of 1080 to water, which cannot be avoided during aerial applications, is not explicitly addressed here – even though the rule appears to anticipate that some application to surface water will occur. 1080 can be defined as both a ‘contaminant’ and a ‘pesticide’ under the definitions given in Chapter 2 of the TRMP. Discharges of contaminants to water are addressed by Rule 36.2, and the discharge of 1080 to water would be a discretionary activity pursuant to Rule 36.2.3.1. The discharge of pesticides to land, water or air is addressed by Rule 36.6, and the aerial discharge of 1080 (to both land and water) would be a discretionary activity under Rule 36.6.2.3.However, this Rule may not be applicable, since the aerial application of 1080 to land is explicitly addressed by Rule 36.1.3.1. It is our assessment that the aerial discharge of 1080 to land is a controlled activity pursuant to Rule 36.1.3.1; and that the incidental discharge of 1080 to water is a discretionary activity pursuant to Rules 36.2.3.1 and/or 36.6.2.3. When the different activities are ‘bundled’, the proposal would therefore be assessed as a discretionary activity. A resource consent is required. Consent may be refused or conditions may be imposed. In considering the application under section 104 of the RMA, the Council must have regard to (inter alia) any relevant provisions of the TRMP. From an assessment of the TRMP, the objectives and policies that are particularly relevant to this application are set out below:

i. Chapter 33: Discharges to Land and Fresh Water Objective 33.1.2 and Policies 33.1.3.2, 33.1.3.5, 33.1.3.6, 33.1.3.13

ii. Chapter 5: Site Amenity Effects

Objectives 5.1.2, 5.5.2 and Policies 5.1.3.11, 5.5.3.3, 5.5.3.4

iii. Chapter 10: Significant Natural Values and Cultural Heritage Objective 10.1.2 and Policy 10.1.3.1


123

iv. Chapter 14: Reserves and Open Space

Objectives 14.3.2, 14.4.2 and Policies 14.3.3.2, 14.4.3.2 This operation is consistent with these objectives and policies of the TRMP for the following reasons:

The bait to be used (RS5 cereal 1080 pellet @ 0.15% toxic loading) is neither persistent nor bio-accumulative in soil or water.

Any accidental discharge of cereal bait to water will, as a result of reasonable mixing, dilution and toxin breakdown, comply with water quality standards; and will not adversely affect aquatic ecosystems or species, the life-supporting capacity of freshwater, or water supplies used for human consumption.

The operation has been designed to ensure that adverse effects on neighbouring properties (and downstream water users) will be avoided.

Risks to public health and safety will be appropriately avoided, remedied or mitigated, as detailed in Section 5.5.1 of this AEE.

The values of Māori have been taken into account when preparing this application.

The reduction of rat and possum numbers will protect and enhance indigenous vegetation, ecosystems, and populations of threatened (and more common) native species within a substantial area of Abel Tasman National Park and the Moncrieff Private Scenic Reserve.

Risks to non-target species are in many cases de minimus, and will otherwise be appropriately avoided or mitigated.

Provisions relating to the coastal marine area are not considered to be relevant to this application, as there will be no discharge to the foreshore, seabed or coastal waters. A 20 m buffer zone will minimise the possibility of cereal bait entering the marine environment. To the best of the applicant’s knowledge, the proposed activity does not trigger any other rule, in any other regional or district plan.

Section 8.3 Conservation Management Strategy and management plans

Conservation Management Strategy (CMS)

This operation is consistent with the CMS for the Nelson/ Marlborough Conservancy (Sept 1996). Relevant provisions are as follows: Objective 10.1: Animal Threats: “To remove or minimise the impact of animal pests on native plants and animals where practical and consistent with the legislation.”


124

Implementation 10.1.1: Animal threats: “Priority for pest control will be in accordance with national control plans and will be given to areas set out in Table 33, p 202.” Implementation 10.1.6: “Animal threats: Possum and goat control will be carried out in areas that are of high natural, historic or recreational value and where achievable goals can be met.”

Conservation /National Park management plans

General Policy for National Parks 2005 This operation is consistent with the General Policy for National Parks. Relevant provisions are as follows: S. 3. page 19, Public Participation in national parks: “People and organisations interested in national parks should be consulted on specific proposals that have significance for them.” Consistent with the proposed operation: consultation will be undertaken prior to an aerial 1080 operation and as part of this AEE. S. 4.1 page 22, Indigenous species, habitats and ecosystems “Indigenous species, habitats and ecosystems within a national park should be managed to:

i) prevent the loss of, or decline in, their full range; ii preserve those with unique or distinctive values; iii) maintain viable representative examples across their full range; iv) maintain indigenous character and avoid adverse effects on habitats and

ecosystems; and v) restore indigenous species (including genetic integrity and diversity),

habitats and ecosystems identified as priorities, using national criteria and methodologies, or where identified in national park management plans.”

Consistent with the proposed operation: Aerial 1080 rat and possum control will be undertaken to prevent the loss of, or decline in a range of threatened plant, bird and invertebrate species as described in Section 2.3. S. 4.3 page 24-25, Biosecurity and management of threats to indigenous species, habitats and ecosystems

4.3(c) “National park biosecurity and pest management should: i) seek to maximise outcomes for the benefit of indigenous species, habitats

and ecosystems.” 4.3(d) iv) “controlling widespread introduced species where necessary to

maintain the general welfare of national park indigenous species, habitats and ecosystems or to maintain scenic and landform values.”


125

Both consistent with the proposed operation: While an aerial 1080 rat and possum operation is primarily to reduce predation and herbivory on threatened plant and animal species control, the method will also maximise outcomes for other indigenous species, habitats and ecosystems and maintain their general welfare.

4.3(k) “The ecological effects of pest management within national parks should be monitored. In particular, monitoring should measure: i) the effectiveness of control methods in meeting pest management, and indigenous habitat or ecosystem maintenance or restoration objectives; ii) the impact on indigenous non-target species; and iii) any other detrimental effects.

Consistent with the proposed operation: The ecological effects of the operation, including its effectiveness on Possums and ship rats and impact on non-target indigenous species will be monitored as outlined in Chapter 7.

Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan (20082018) The operation is consistent with the following provisions in the Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan (2008-2018) 4.1.1.8 Policies (p.58)

1. To preserve the intrinsic natural values of the park. 2. To preserve threatened and at risk species and restore the integrity and

functioning of natural ecosystems throughout the park wherever possible. 3. To eradicate and control pests as far as possible throughout the park, in

line with this plan. 4.1.1.9 Implementation (p 58)

6. Carry out animal pest control operations consistent with priorities identified in Table 4, national pest control plans and Tasman District Council’s regional pest management strategy.

9. Use whatever method or combination of methods necessary or animal pest control to maintain ecosystem health.

14. Where practical and where they meet the objectives of this plan, co-ordinate pest control programmes with those of adjoining land managers.

and Section 4.1.1.4 Animal pests (p. 53) states:

Introduced animals adversely affect native plants and animals in the park through browsing, competition and predation. These pests should be eradicated or controlled using the most efficient and appropriate means available. This includes hunting, trapping, bio-control, ground baiting and aerial poisoning. Currently, aerial poisoning is the most effective method for possum control


126

throughout large areas with difficult terrain and vegetation cover. Where the Department intends to use toxins, such as 1080, it is required to consult with the affected parties prior to carrying out poisoning operations. This is in accordance with Departmental policies, the Resource Management Act 1991 and Tasman District Council’s Resource Management Plan.

This operation is consistent with the Abel Tasman National Park

Management Plan (20082018) which identifies the Awaroa headwaters, Torrent Bay and Moa Park as key biodiversity areas to be managed for possums as a priority for native species protection (Table 4 p 54).

Section 8.4 Other guidelines, plans and/or strategies

Other management guidelines, plans and/or strategies

The proposed operation is consistent with previous assessments of priority areas for pest control in the National Possum Plan 1993-2002, which is considered a management plan for the purposes of section 4(3) of the Resource Management Act 1991. The Possum Control Plan contains a list of priority management units for possum control. The Landcare Research report: Priority Areas for Possum Control in Nelson/Marlborough Conservancy (Rose, Pekelharing, Platt & Savage, 1995) identified the Abel Tasman biogeographic unit as a high

priority area for possum control (pp 10 11) with a primary rank score of 21. This was consistent with the overall classification of the Abel Tasman ecosystem as being the most susceptible management unit with susceptibility scores of a)”High” for forest communities, b) “Low” for special vulnerable flora, and c) “Medium” for Threatened fauna (Rose [editor], 1994) The Department of Conservation has designed and is progressively implementing an integrated and scientifically-sound system for managing natural heritage across New Zealand. This system was developed by the Natural Heritage Management System (NHMS) Programme to support DOC to prioritise, plan, monitor and report on its natural heritage work. The system two natural heritage outcome objectives viz. to conserve a full range of New Zealand’s ecosystems; and to ensure the persistence of nationally-threatened species. A total of 10 ecosystem types and two species have been identified in Abel Tasman National Park within the Project Janszoon management area for priority management. This operation is consistent with the Powelliphanta Recovery Plan (Walker 2003) 10 year objectives for Powelliphanta hochstetteri hochstetteri:

I. Increase population density at key sites by improved survival through sustained predator control

II. Increase snail recruitment and survival through habitat improvement


127


Consistency with guidelines, plans and/or strategies

The operation described in the AEE is consistent with the guidelines, plans and strategies relevant to this operation.


128

Chapter 9 Conclusion

Conclusion

The proposed large-scale rat and possum control is a key element of a long term initiative for the ecological restoration of Abel Tasman National Park. This operation is critical to support the management objectives of a suite of restoration activities throughout the management area and/or at key management sites. Large scale periodic possum control and intermittent rat control during episodic rat irruption phases is imperative to achieve these conservation objectives. The Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area currently contains several bird taxa that are threatened and, as part of the Project Janszoon Restoration Strategy, there are proposals for the reintroduction of critical threatened species such as mohua (yellowhead) and kiwi. Large scale rat control is critical to ensure that the highly rat-vulnerable bird species are protected during episodic rat population irruptions resulting from beech mast events. These beech masts are unable to be predicted and confirmed within a timeframe that would enable all operational planning and consenting processes to be completed in time for a control operation to be conducted. Therefore a multi-year consent with the ability to undertake a number of operations within the consent period is required in order to be able to respond to these rat irruption events if and when required. Sustained control of possums throughout the Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon treatment area at low densities is also required to maintain and improve viable populations of threatened plant and invertebrate species and for the maintenance of general forest health. This AEE has assessed the control of both rats and possums simultaneously by using a single toxin and delivery method viz: the aerial application of cereal pellet baits impregnated with 1080 poison. This is the most effective means of protecting the conservation values within the treatment area and, in the case of rat control in periods of beech mast induced rat population irruptions, has been shown to be the only method currently available that is capable of controlling rats to required levels. A mechanism of pest animal density thresholds for the two target pest species (rats and possums) has been proposed that would trigger one of two operation types, where the area to be treated is also guided by the population density of the other pest species. This combination of primary target-pest operational profiles offers a more adaptive approach to applying control only where and when required, thereby reducing any adverse effects of the operation. Rats are a primary target pest species for this operation and aerial


129

control methods have been shown to be highly effective at controlling both rat and possum populations. Aerial application of 1080 cereal pellets compares favourably with the alternatives available and, where operational constraints and objectives are considered for both pest species, the proposed method is the only viable method. Ground control methods are proposed in appropriate areas where it is possible to achieve the pest control objectives and reduce public health concerns and issues about community well-being. The impact of the proposed operation on non-target species is expected to be minimal and the operation plan has been based on

minimising recognized potential nontarget effects. The proposed operation has been rigorously evaluated as recorded in this AEE. Significant issues have been the risk it poses to native species, the environment and public safety. The assessment establishes that the operation will avoid, remedy or mitigate actual or potential adverse effects, and that it is in accordance with relevant legislation. Appropriate environmental performance standards are proposed to achieve this and form part of the proposed operation. These standards establish how all actual or potential environmental effects would be avoided, remedied or mitigated. The affects on concessionaires and other commercial interests have been considered as a significant issue representing wider concerns. Measures will be taken to alleviate these concerns by the public and provide information that will ensure that risks to public safety and human health are minimised. All adjacent landowners have been consulted and consents have been received by affected parties where relevant. There are no more than de minimus adverse effects of the operation on other parties as a result of the operational design (including the boundaries of the treatment area) and mitigation steps proposed in this application. Standard procedures will be adopted to ensure that the public receive adequate notification prior to the operation and will be informed of risks of entry into the treatment area. The Abel Tasman Coast Track will be excluded from the treatment area, and all other main entry points to the area will be closed off during the application of the toxic baits until tracks have been inspected by DOC staff. Other informal or unmarked access routes that enable entry into the area are not present or are very limited in local use and it is considered that members of the public using these routes will be sufficiently aware of the safety implications of an aerial 1080 operation. Standard procedures will also be adopted to ensure that the public receive adequate notification of the risks of the operation. The taking


130

of game meat will be restricted for a period after the operation until

baits and carcasses have disintegrated or become nontoxic. This

could take up to 46 months. Dog access will not be permitted to the treatment area during the period of the operation and therefore accidental poisoning of dogs is unlikely. Following the operation, warning signs will only be removed after monitoring results indicate a satisfactory level of bait and carcass breakdown. All parties consulted on the effects of the operation will be kept

informed during the planning, operational and postoperational phases of the operation. Those parties requesting 24 hrs notification of the aerial 1080 application will be contacted directly. These parties will be identified during the initial notification process when the operational plan has been finalised and approved. Monitoring standards are also proposed. This will measure the effectiveness of the operation and the positive impacts on the floristic and faunal values of the treatment area. These standards will also contribute to post-operational management decisions. All monitoring results will contribute to the Department of Conservation’s national monitoring of the effectiveness of possum control operations. A MOH Permit for Use of a Vertebrate Toxic Agent(s) for the operation is currently being sought from the Health Protection Officer (Public Health Service Nelson) and this will be provided in support of this AEE when approved.


i

Appendix 1: Maps

NOTE for website version: For Maps 1 and 2 refer to links:

Introduction The following maps are included in this AEE

Map 1. Modality Type A (Rat and Possum control). Resource

Consent area. Included are: i) Treatment blocks: Aerial 1080 and ground control ii) Location of water intakes/supplies iii) Water exclusion zones iv) Public facilities (huts/tracks) v) Warning sign locations vi) Non-forest exclusion zone (indicative) vii) Land tenure (Public Conservation Land).

Map 2. Modality Type B (Rat control). Resource Consent area.

Included are: i) Treatment blocks: Aerial 1080 ii) Location of water intakes/supplies iii) Water exclusion zones iv) Public facilities (huts/tracks) v) Warning sign locations vi) Non-forest exclusion zone (indicative) vii) Land tenure (Public Conservation Land).

Map 1Map 2

http://www.janszoon.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/project-janszoon-rat-and-possum-control-map-1.pdf

http://www.janszoon.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/project-janszoon-rat-control-map-2.pdf


ii

Appendix 2: Review of sodium flouroacetate (1080)

This review describes and evaluates the pesticide(s) proposed for use in this operation. The full text (109 pages) is not appended here. See DOCDM-25427 for full text.

Sodium fluoroacetate

Pesticide Information Review

Authors/Compilers:

A. A. C. Fairweather & K.G. Broome

Department of Conservation

Science and Capability Group

Private Bag 3072,

Hamilton 3240, New Zealand

P. Fisher

Landcare Research, PO Box 69, Lincoln

This report may be cites as:

Fairweather, A.A.C.; Broome, K.G.; Fisher, P. 2013: Sodium Fluoroacetate Pesticide

Information Review. Version 2013/1. Unpublished report docdm-25427, Department

of Conservation, Hamilton, NZ. 109p.

DOCDM-25427

http://www.janszoon.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/docdm-25427-1080-pesticide-review.pdf


iii

Appendix 3: Consultation Record

NOTE for website version: Consultation outcomes and responses, correspondence or other details that relate to specific individuals or groups are not included here for individual privacy protection reasons.

See >>>>>>for links to:

Consultation on options- Information Sheet _ Phase 1.

Consultation on effects -Information Sheet _ Phase 2

Map 1Map 2

http://www.janszoon.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/project-janszoon-rat-control-map-2.pdf

http://www.janszoon.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/project-janszoon-rat-and-possum-control-map-1.pdf


iv

Appendix 4: References

List of published references

The following published references were used in developing this AEE.

Abel Tasman N.P. Management Plan. 2008-2018 http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/policies-and-

plans/national-park-management-plans/abel-tasman/atnp-management-plan.pdf

Allen, R.B.; Platt, K.H. 1990. Annual seedfall variation in Nothofagus

solandri (Fagaceae), Canterbury, New Zealand. Oikos 57: 199-206.

Allibone R, David B, Hitchmough R, Jellyman D, Ling N,

Ravenscroft P, Waters J 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand freshwater fish, 2009. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44: 271–287

Alterio, N.; Brown, K.; Moller, H. 1997 Secondary poisoning of

mustelids in a New Zealand Nothofagus forest. Journal of Zoology, London 243: 863-869.

Aspen, P., Stringer, I.A.N., Potter, M. (1999) Invertebrate abundance

in pitfall traps before and after aerial sowing and bait station presentation of 1080. In Presentation at Ecological Consequences of Poisons used for Mammalian Pest Control, scientific meeting organised by NZ zoological Society, Christchurch 9-10 July 1998.

Anderson, S. H., Kelly, D., Robertson, A. W., Ladley, J. J. & Innes, J.

G. (2004). Birds as pollinators and dispersers: a case study from New Zealand. Acta XXIII Congressus Internationalis Ornithologici. Acta Zoologica Sinica 52(Supplement): 112-115.

Atkinson, I.A.E. 1973. Spread of the ship rat (Rattus r. rattus L.) in

New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 3: 457-472.

Atkinson, I.A.E.; Campbell, D.J.; Fitzgerald, B.M.; Flux, J.E.C.;

Meads, M.J. 1995. Possums and possum control; effects on lowland forest ecosystems. A literature review with specific reference to the use of 1080. Science for Conservation 1 Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Baber, M., Brejaart, R., Babbitt, K., Lovegrove, T., Ussher, G. 2009.

Response of non-target native birds to mammalian pest control for kokako (Callaeas cinerea) in the Hunua Ranges, New Zealand. Notornis 56: 176-182.

http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/about-doc/role/policies-and-plans/national-park-management-plans/abel-tasman/atnp-management-plan.pdf




v

Barr, H. 2007 In: Environmental Risk Management Authority

Decision 2007. Application for the Reassessment of a Hazardous Substance under Section 63 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Name of Substance(s): Sodium Fluoroacetate (1080) and Formulated Substances Containing 1080 Application Number: HRE05002. Environmental Risk Management Authority. http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/newsevents/focus/1080/submissions/addsub8.pdf

Basse B, McLennan, JA, Wake GC 1999. Analysis of the impact of

stoats, Mustela erminea, on northern brown kiwi, Apteryx mantelli, in New Zealand. Wildlife Research 26: 227–237.

Batcheler, C.L., Cowan, P.E. 1989. Review of the status of the

possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) in New Zealand. Contract report for the Technical Advisory Committee (Animal Pests), Ministry of Agriculture & Fisheries, Wellington. 129 pp.

Bauermeister, A., Thompson, C.J., Nimmo, I.A. 1977: The

susceptibility of rainbow trout to fluoroacetate. Biochemical Society Transactions 5: 304–306.

Bell, B.D. 1978.The Big South Cape islands rat irruption. In:

Dingwall, P. R., Atkinson, I.A.E., Hay, C. (eds) The ecology and control of rodents in New Zealand Nature Reserves. Department of Lands & Survey Information Series 4: 33-40.

Bellingham, P., Wiser, S.K., Hall, G.M.J., Allen, R.R., Suisted, P.A.

1997. Impacts of possum browsing on the long-term maintenance of forest biodiversity. Science for Conservation 103. Department of Conservation

Bennett, S.J.; Standish, R.J.; Stringer, I.A.N. 2002: Effects of rodent

poisoning on Powelliphanta traversi. Science for Conservation 195C. 16 p.

Blackwell, G.L, Potter, M. A, Minot, E.O. 2001. Rodent and predator

population dynamics in an eruptive system. Ecological Modelling 142 (3): 189-300

Blackwell, G.L., Potter, M.A., McLennan, J.A., Minot, E.O. 2003. The

role of predators in ship rat and house mouse population eruptions: drivers of passengers? OIKOS 100: 601-613

Booth. H., Wickstrom, M. L. 1999. The toxicity of sodium

monofluoroacetate (1080) to Huberia striata, a New Zealand native ant. New Zealand Journal of Ecology (1999) 23(2): 161–165

http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/newsevents/focus/1080/submissions/addsub8.pdf

http://www.ermanz.govt.nz/newsevents/focus/1080/submissions/addsub8.pdf


vi

Booth, L.H.; Ogilvie, S.C.; Eason, C.T. 1999a: Persistence of 1080

sodium monofluoroacetate (1080), pindone, cholecalciferol,

and brodifacoum under simulated rainfall. (416/94). New

Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research, 42: 107-112.

Booth, L.H, Ogilvie S.C, Wright, G.R., Eason, C.T. 1999b.

Degradation of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) and fluorocitrate in water. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 62: 34-39.

Booth LH, Fisher P, Brown L 2007. The 1080 debate - water

monitoring after aerial application of 1080 baits for pest control -an update. Water and Wastes in New Zealand November edition: 34-39.

Bowen, L.H.; Morgan, D.R.; Eason, C.T. 1995a: Persistence of 1080

in baits under simulated rainfall (416/94). Landcare Research

Contract Report: LC9495/107. Bowen, L.; Morgan, D.; Eason, C.T. 1995b. Persistence of sodium

monofluoroacetate (1080) in baits under simulated rainfall. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 38: 529-531.

Bowman, R. G. 1999: Fate of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080)

following disposal of pest bait to a landfill. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 23 (2): 193-197.

Burrows, L. E., and R. B. Allen. 1991. Silver beech (Nothofagus menziesii

(Hook. f.) Oerst.) seedfall patterns in the Takitimu Range, South Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany 29:361–365.

Brown, K.P. 1997b. Predation at nests of two New Zealand endemic

passerines; implications for bird community restoration. Pacific Conservation Biology 3: 91-98.

Brown, K.; Innes, J.; Shorten, R. 1993: Evidence that possums prey

on and scavenge birds’ eggs, birds and mammals. Notornis 40: 169-177.

Brown, K.P.; Alterio, N.; Moller, H. 1998. Secondary poisoning of

stoats (Mustela erminea) at low mouse (Mus musculus) abundance in a New Zealand Nothofagus forest. Wildlife Research 25: 419-426.).

Brown, K. P., Urlich, S. (2005). Aerial 1080 operations to maximise

biodiversity protection. Wellington, Department of Conservation. Calder, B.; Deuss, F. 1985. The effect of 1080 poisoning on bird

populations in Motere, Pureora Forest Park, winter 1984.


vii

New Zealand Forest Service internal report (unpubl.). 39 p. Christie, J. E., Kemp, J., Rickard, C., Murphy, E.C. 2009. Measuring

stoat (Mustela erminea) and ship rat (Rattus rattus) capture success against micro-habitat factors. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 30 (1)

Clarke C.M.H., Dzieciolowski R.M. 1991.Feral pigs in the northern

South Island New Zealand: 1.Origin, distribution and density. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand.

Clout, M.N., Gaze, P.D. 1984. Brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula

Kerr) in a New Zealand beech (Nothofagus) forest. New

Zealand Journal of Ecology 7: 147155 Cowan, P.E. 1990. Brushtail possum. In: King, C.M.(Editor), The

handbook of New Zealand mammals, pp. 68-98. Oxford University Press, Auckland, N.Z.

Cowan, P.E., Waddington, D.C. 1990. Suppression of fruit

production of the endemic forest tree, Elaeocarpus dentatus, by introduced marsupial brushtail possums Trichosurus vulpecula. New Zealand Journal of Botany 28: 217-224.

Cowan, P. E., Chilvers, B. L., Efford, M. G., McElrea, G. J. 1997:

Effects of possum browsing on northern rata, Orongorongo Valley, Wellington, New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 27: 173–179.

Daniel, M, J. 1978. Population ecology of ship and Norway rats in

New Zealand. In: Dingwall, P. R., Atkinson, I. A. E., Hay, C. (eds) The ecology and control of rodents in New Zealand Nature Reserves. Department of Lands & Survey Information Series 4:1 45-152.

David, W.A.L. & Gardiner, B.O.C. (1951) Investigations on the

systemic insecticidal action of sodium fluoroacetate and of three phosphorus compounds on Aphis fabae Scop. Annals of Applied Biology, 38, 91-110

David W.A.L, Gardiner B.O.C .1966. Persistence of fluoroacetate and

fluoroacetamide in soil. Nature 209: 1367-1368. Department of Conservation Policy Document. 2013. Use of second

generation anticoagulants on public conservation lands. Information for pest control staff. Revised 2013. DOC File DOCDM-97398

de Lange. P.J., Norton, D.A., Courtnay, S. P., Heenan, P. B., Barkla, J.

W., Cameron, E.W., Hitchmough, R., Townsend, A. J. 2009. Threatened and uncommon plants of New Zealand (2008


viii

revision). New Zealand Journal of Botany 47: 61–96. Dilks, P., Willans, M., Pryde, M., Fraser, I. 2003. Large scale stoat

control to protect mohua (Mohoua ochrocephala) and kaka (Nestor meridionalis) in the Eglinton Valley, Fiordland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 27 (1): 1-9

Dowding J.E.; Murphy E.C. 1994. Ecology of ship rats (Rattus rattus)

in a kauri (Agathis australis) forest in Northland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 18: 19-28.

Eason, C. T., Wright, G. R. and Fitzgerald, H. 1992: Sodium

monofluoroacetate (1080) water-residue analysis after large-scale possum control. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 16 (1): 47-49.

Eason CT, Gooneratne R, Wright GR, Pierce R, Frampton CM 1993.

The fate of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) in water, mammals, and invertebrates. Proceedings of the forty-sixth New Zealand Plant Protection Conference: 297-301.

Eason, C.T.; Gooneratne, R.; Rammell, C.G. 1994: A review of the

toxicokinetics and toxicodynamics of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) in animals. In: Seawright, A.; Eason, C.T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Science Workshop on 1080. Royal Society of New Zealand miscellaneous series 28: 82–90.

Eason C.T.; Wickstrom, M.; Turck, P. 1998: Interim report: recent

regulatory and environmental toxicology studies on 1080: results and implications, Landcare Research Contract Report LC9798/094, prepared for Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Eason C.T.; Wickstrom, M.; Turck, P., Wright, G.R.G. 1999. A review

of recent regulatory and environmental toxicology studies on 1080: Results and implications. New Zealand Journal of Ecology (1999) 23(2): 129–137

Eason, C.T.; Miller, A., Ogilvie, S., Fairweather, A. 2010. An updated

review of the toxicology and ecotoxicology of sodium fluoroacetate (1080) in relation to its use as a pest control tool in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35 (1):

Eason C.T.; Wickstrom, M.; Turck, P. 1998: Interim report: recent

regulatory and environmental toxicology studies on 1080: results and implications, Landcare Research Contract Report LC9798/094, prepared for Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Elliot, G. 1996. Mohua and stoats: a population viability analysis. New

Zealand Journal of Zoology 23: 239-247


ix

Elliot, G., Dilks, P., O'Donnell, C. 1996. The ecology of yellow-crowned parakeets (Cyanoramphus auriceps) in Nothofagus forest in Fiordland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 23: 249-265

Elliott, G. P., Wilson, P. R., Taylor, R. H., Beggs, J. R. 2010. Declines

in common, widespread native birds in a mature temperate forest. Biological Conservation. 143: 2119-2126.

Empson, R.A., Miskelly, C.M: 1999. The risks, costs and benefits of

using brodifacoum to eradicate rats. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 23(2): 241-254

Environmental Risk Management Authority Decision 2007.

Application for the Reassessment of a Hazardous Substance under Section 63 of the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 Name of Substance(s): Sodium Fluoroacetate (1080) and Formulated Substances Containing 1080 Application Number: HRE05002. Environmental Risk Management Authority

Fairweather, A.A.C.; Broome, K.G.; Fisher, P. 2013: Sodium

Fluoroacetate Pesticide Information Review. Version 2013/1. Unpublished report docdm-25427, Department of Conservation, Hamilton, NZ. 109p

Fisher P, Northcott G 2010. Aerobic transformation of 1080 in soil.

Landcare Research Contract Report for the Animal Health Board. 45 p.

Fitzgerald, B.M. 1978. Population ecology of mice in New Zealand.

In: Dingwall, P.R.; Atkinson, I.A.E.; Hay, C. (Editors), The ecology and control of rodents in New Zealand nature reserves, pp. 163-171. New Zealand Department of Lands and Survey Information Series 4. Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, New Zealand. 237 pp.

Fitzgerald,B. M., Daniel M. J., Fitzgerald, A. E., Karl, B. J., Meads ,M.

J. , Notman, P. R.1996. Factors affecting the numbers of house mice (Mus musculus) in hard beech (Nothofagus truncata) forest. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 26 (2): 237-249

Flux, I.; Bradfield, P.; Innes, J. 2006. Breeding biology of North Island

kokako (Callaeas cinerea wilsoni) at Mapara Wildlife Management reserve, King Country, New Zealand. Notornis 53: 199-207

Fowles, C. R., Williams, J. R. 1997: Water quality monitoring in

relation to a possum control operation on Mount Taranaki/Egmont. New Zealand Natural Sciences 23: 93-99.


x

Fraser, K.W.; Sweetapple, P.J. 2000: A comparison of the effectiveness of two toxic loadings (0.08% and 0.15%) for control of deer during aerial 1080 poisoning using carrot baits. Landcare Research Contract Report LC9900/84 (unpublished). 22 p.

Freeman, A.B.; Hickling, G.J.; Bannock, C.A. 1996. Response of the

skink Oligosoma maccanni (Reptilia: Lacertilia) to two vertebrate pest-control baits. Wildlife Research 23: 511-516.

Gaze, P. 2012. Report to Janszoon Trust - Monitoring of birdlife

2012. Unpublished report. Project Janszoon Trust Gillies, C.A., Pierce, R.J. 1999. Secondary poisoning of mammalian

predators during possum and rodent control operations at Trounson Kauri Park, Northland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 23: 183-192.

Glaser, A., Allerby, T. 2010. Whio. Te Urewera Mainland Island

Annual Report: July 2008 - June 2009, pp 78-88. East Coast Bay of Plenty Conservancy, Department of Conservation.

Green, W. 2003. The use of 1080 to control possum and other pests:

a resource document. Animal Health Board and Department of Conservation. Wellington.

Greene, T.C. 1998. The effects of compound 1080 on populations of

specific non-target species, Waihaha Ecological Area, Pureora Forest Park, winter 1994. Science for Conservation No. 69. Department of Conservation.

Greene, T.C.; Scofield, R.P.; Dilks, P.J. 2004. Status of Kermadec red-

crowned parakeets and the likely effects of a proposed kiore eradication programme. Macauley Island expedition July 2002. DOC Science Internal Series 179. Wellington: Department of Conservation, New Zealand.

Greene, T. C., Dilks, P. J., Westbrooke, I. M., Pryde, M. A. 2013.

Monitoring selected forest bird species through aerial application of 1080 baits, Waitutu, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 37: 41-50.

Hamilton, D. J., Eason, C. T. 1994: Monitoring for 1080 residues in

waterways after a rabbit-poisoning operation in Central Otago. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 37 (2): 195-198.

Hartley, L.; O’Connor, C.; Waas, J.; Matthews, L. 1999. Colour

preferences in North Island robins (Petroica australis): implications for deterring birds from poisonous baits. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 23: 255-259.


xi

Hegg, D., Greaves, G., Maxwell, J.M., MacKenzie, D.I., Jmaieson, I.G. 2012. Demography of takahe (Porphyrio hochstetteri) in Fiordland: environmental factors and management affect survival and breeding success. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 36(1): 75-89

Henderson, R. J., C. M. Frampton, Morgan, D.R.; Hickling, G.J. 1999.

The efficacy of baits containing 1080 for control of brushtail possums. Journal of Wildlife Management 63(4): 1138-1151.

Harper, G.A. 2009. The native forest birds of Stewart Island/Rakiura:

patterns of recent declines and extinctions. Notornis, 56: 63-81

Hickson, R.E.; Moller, H.; Garrick, A.S. 1986. Poisoning rats on

Stewart Island. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 9: 111-121. Hitchmough, R., Bull, L., Cromarty, P. (comp.) 2007. New Zealand

Threat Classification System lists—2005. Science & Technical Publishing, Department of Conservation. Wellington.

Hitchmough RA, Hoare JM, Jamieson H, Newman D, Tocher MD,

Anderson PJ, Lettink M, Whitaker AH 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2009. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 37: 203–224

Innes J. 1995: The impacts of possums on native fauna. In C.

O'Donnell (compiler), Proceedings of a workshop on possums as conservation pests, 11-15. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Innes, J.G.; Skipworth, J.P. 1983. Home ranges of ship rats in a small

New Zealand forest as revealed by trapping and tracking. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 10: 99-110.

Innes, J., Hay, R., Flux, I., Bradfield, P., Speed, H., Jansen, P. 1999.

Successful recovery of North Island kokako Callaeas cinerea wilsoni populations, by adaptive management. Biological Conservation 87: 201-214.

Innes, J., Kelly, D., Overton, J. M., Gillies, C. 2010. Predation and

other factors currently limiting New Zealand forest birds. New Zealand Journal of Ecology. 34: 86-114.

Innes, J., Warburton, B., Williams, D., Speed, H., Bradfield, P., 1995:

Large scale poisoning of ship rat (Rattus rattus) in indigenous forests of the North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 19:5-17.

Kelly, D., Brindle, C., Ladley, J., Robertson A. W., Maddigan, F. W.,

Butler,J., Ward-Smith,T., Murphy,D.J., Sessions. L.A. 2005.


xii

Can stoat (Mustela erminea) trapping increase bellbird (Anthornis melanura) populations and benefit mistletoe (Peraxilla tetrapetala) pollination? New Zealand Journal of Ecology 29(1): 69-82

Kelly, D., Geledehuis, A., James, A., Holland, E.P., Plank, M.J.,

Brockie, R.E., Cowan, P.E., Harper, G.A., Lee, W.G., Maitland, M.J., Mark, A.F., Mills, J.A., Wilson, P.R., Byrom, A.E. 2013. Of mast and mean: differential-temperature cue makes mast seeding insensitive to climate change. Ecology Letters 16: 90–98

King C. M.1983. The Relationships between Beech (Nothofagus Sp.)

Seedfall and Populations of Mice (Mus musculus), and the Demographic and Dietary Responses of Stoats (Mustela erminea), in Three New Zealand Forests. Journal of Animal Ecology 52 (1) 141-166

King, D.R.; Kirkpatrick, W.E.; Wang, D.H.; Kinnear, J.E. 1994:

Degradation of 1080 in Australian soils. In: Seawright, A.; Eason, C.T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Science Workshop on 1080. Royal Society of New Zealand miscellaneous series 28: 45–50.

King, C.M., Moller, H. 1997. Distribution and response of rats (Rattus

rattus, R . exulans)to seedfall in New Zealand beech forests. Pacific Conservation Biology 3: 143-155

King CM, Murphy EC 2005. Stoat. In: King, CM ed. The handbook

of New Zealand mammals. 2nd ed. Melbourne, Oxford University Press. Pp. 261–287.

Leathwick, J. R., Hay, J. R. and Fitzgerald, A. E., 1983. The influence

of browsing by introduced mammals on the decline of the North Island kokako. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 6, 55–70

Leutert, A. 1988. Mortality, foliage loss, and possum browsing in

southern rata (Metrosideros umbellata) in Westland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany 26: 7-20.

Lloyd BD 1994. Evaluating the potential hazards of 1080 aerial

operations to short-tailed bat populations. Conservancy Advisory Science Notes 18. Department of Conservation, Wellington

Lloyd, B. D., McQueen S.M. 2000. An assessment of the probability

of secondary poisoning of forest insectivores following an aerial 1080 possum control operation. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 24(1): 47–56

Lloyd, B. D., McQueen S.M. 2002. Measuring mortality in short-tailed

bats (Mystacina tuberculata) as they return from foraging after


xiii

an aerial 1080 possum control operation. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 26(1): 53–59

Lloyd, B. D. 2012. Top of the south bat conservation programme.

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society: Bat surveys annual report 2011-2012. Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society:

McNaughton, A.; Greene, B. 1994. The effect of 1080 on the

Hochstetter’s frog (Leiopelma hochstetteri) population in the Hunua Ranges 1994. Auckland Regional Council Parks Technical Publication Series No. 7. ARC Parks Service, Auckland. 25 p.

McFadden, I and Greene, T. 1994. Using brodifacoum to eradicate

kiore (Rattus exulans) from Burgess Island and the Knights Group of the Mokohinau Islands. Department of Conservation, Science and Research Series 70: 18pp.

McLennan JA, Potter MA, Robertson HA, Wake GC, Colbourne R,

Dew L, Joyce L, McCann AJ, Miles J, Miller PJ, Reid J 1996. Role of predation in the decline of kiwi, Apteryx spp., in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 20: 27–35.

McQueen, S., Lawrence, B.2008. Diet of ship rats following a mast

event in beech (Nothofagus spp.) forest. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 32 (2): 214-218

Meads, M. J. 1976: Effects of opossum browsing on northern rata

trees in the Orongorongo Valley, Wellington, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 3: 127–139.

Meenken, D., Eason, C. T. 1995: Effects on water quality of a possum

(Trichosurus vulpecula) poisoning operation using toxin 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate). New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 29 (1): 25-28.

Meenken, D.; Sweetapple, P. 2000: Comparison of red deer and

possum kills following aerial 1080 poisoning by broadcast and strip application in the Wainuiomata and Orongorongo catchments, Wellington. Unpublished report Animal Health Board. Wellington

Meenken D, Johnson B, Eason CT 2000. Effect of 1080 hand-baiting

on water quality. Wairarapa Division Report 00/1. Wellington Regional Council

Miller, C.J.; Miller, T.K. 1995. Population dynamics and diet of

rodents on Rangitoto Island, New Zealand, including the effect of a 1080 poison operation. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 19: 19-27.

Miller, A., Ogilvie, S.C., Ataria, J.M., Waiwai, J., Doherty, J. 2009.


xiv

Sodium fluoroacetate (compound 1080) uptake by puha, a culturally-important food plant. Lincoln University Wildlife Management Report No. 48. Lincoln University, New Zealand

Ministry of Health. 2010. Issuing Permissions for the Use of Vertebrate Toxic

Agents (VTAs): Guidelines for Public Health Units: Revised edition 2010. Ministry of Health.Wellington:

Molloy, J.; Davis, A. 1992. Setting priorities for the conservation of

New Zealand’s threatened plants and animals. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand

Moorhouse R, Greene T, Dilks P, Powlesland R, Moran L,Taylor G,

Jones A, Knegtmans J, Wills D, Pryde M, Fraser I, August A, August C. 2003. Control of introduced mammalian predators improves kaka Nestor meridionalis breeding success: reversing the decline of a threatened New Zealand parrot. Biological Conservation 110(1):33–44

Morgan, D.R. 1994a. Improved cost-effectiveness and safety of

sodium monofluoroacetate(1080) possum control operations. In: Seawright, A.A.; Eason, C.T. eds Proceedings of the science workshop on 1080. The Royal Society of New Zealand, Miscellaneous series 28. Pp.144-150.

Morgan, D.R. 1994c. Improving the efficiency of aerial sowing of

baits for possum control. New Zealand journal of agricultural research 37:199-206

Morgan, D. R. 2004. Maximising the Effectiveness of Aerial 1080

Control of Possums (Trichosurus vulpecula). Unpubl. thesis for PhD, Lincoln University, New Zealand

Morgan, D.R and Hickling, G. 2000. Techniques used for poisoning

possums. Ch 13 Pgs 143-153 in “The Brushtail Possum – Biology, Impact and Management of an Introduced Marsupial”, T.L. Montague (Ed.). Manaaki Whenua Press. Lincoln, New Zealand

Murphy, E.C.1992. The effects of a natural increase in food supply on

a wild population of house mice. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 16(1): 33-40

Murphy, E.C., Clapperton, B.K., Bradfield, P.M.F., Speed, H.J.1998.

Effects of rat-poisoning operations on abundance and diet of mustelids in New Zealand podocarp forests. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 25: 315-328.

Murphy, E. C., Dowding, J. E. 1995. Ecology of the stoat in

Nothofagus forest: Home range, habitat use and diet at different stages of the beech mast cycle. New Zealand Journal


xv

of Ecology 19 (2): 97-109 Murphy, E.C.; Robbins, L.; Young, J.B.; Dowding, J.E. 1999.

Secondary poisoning of stoats after an aerial 1080 poison operation in Pureora Forest, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 23: 175-182.

National Possum Control Plan 1993-2002. 1994 1st edition.

Department of Conservation publication. National Possum Control Agencies 2010. Possum population

monitoring using the Waxtag® method. National Possum Control Agencies publication. Wellington, New Zealand. 30 pp.

National Possum Control Agencies 2011. Possum population

monitoring using the trap catch method. National Possum Control Agencies publication. Wellington, New Zealand. 44 pp.

Norton, D. A 1995 An assessment of possum (Trichosurus vulpecula)

impacts on Loranthaceous mistletoes. In: de Lange, P. J.; Norton, D. A. (Editors), New Zealand’s loranthaceous mistletoes Proceedings of a workshop hosted by Threatened Species Unit, Department of Conservation, Cass, 17 – 20 July 1995.

Norton, D. 2000. Benefits of possum control for native vegetation.

In: Montague T ed. The brushtail possum: biology, impacts and management of an introduced marsupial. Lincoln, Manaaki Whenua Press. Pp. 47–61.

Nugent, G., Fraser, K., Asher, G.W., Tustin, K.G., 2001. Advances in

New Zealand mammalogy 19902000: Deer .Journal of the

Royal Society of New Zealand 31: 263298.

Nugent, G., Yockney, I., 2004. Fallow deer deaths during aerial1080 poisoning of possums in the Blue mountains, Otago, New

Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 31: 185192. Nugent, G., Whitford, J., Sweetapple, P., Duncan, R., Holland, P.,

2010. Effect of one-hit control on the density of possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) and their impacts on native forest. Science For Conservation: 304. Department of Conservation

Occupational Safety and Health Service 2002. Workplace exposure

standards effective from 2002. Department of Labour, Wellington. 88 p.

O’Connor, S.M., Maloney, R.F., Pierce, R.J. 2007. Pateke (Anas

chlorotis) recovery plan, 2005–10 Threatened Species


xvi

Recovery Plan 59. Science & Technical Publishing. Department of Conservation

O'Donnell, C.F.J.1996. Predators and the decline of New Zealand

forest birds: An introduction to the hole‐nesting bird and predator programme. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 23 (3): 213-219

O'Donnell, C. J. F.; Dilks, P. J.; Elliott, G. P. 1996. Control of stoat

Mustela erminea population irruption to enhance Mohua (Yellowhead) Mohoua ochrocephala breeding success in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 23: 279-286

O'Donnell, CFJ., Christie, JE., Hitchmough, RA., Lloyd, B. and

Parsons, S. 2010. The conservation status of New Zealand

bats. New Zealand Journal of Zoology. 37 (4). 297311 O'Donnell, C.F.J. (2002) Timing of breeding, productivity and

survival of long-tailed bats Chalinolobus tuberculatus (Chiroptera: Vespertilionidae) in cold-temperate rainforest in New Zealand. Journal of Zoology. 257 (3): 311–323

O’Donnell, C. F., Edmonds, H., Hoare, J. M. 2011. Survival of PIT-

tagged lesser short-tailed bats (Mystacina tuberculata) through a pest control operation using the toxin pindone in bait stations. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35(3): 291-295

O’Donnell, C. F., Hoare, J. M. 2012. Quantifying the benefits of long-

term integrated pest control for forest bird populations in a New Zealand temperate rainforest. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 36: 131-140.

Ogden, J., Carlaw, G. 1997. Monitoring of permanent plots in the

Waitakere Regional Park to assess changes in forest health as a result of possums. First remeasurement 1997. Auckland Uniservices Limited Report 6098.01 for Auckland Regional Council.

Ogle, C. C. 1997. Evidence for the impacts of possums on mistletoes.

In: de Lange, P. J.; Norton, D. A. (Editors), New Zealand’s

Loranthaceous mistletoes, pp. 105109. Department of Conservation. New Zealand

Ogilvie, SC, Ataria, JM, Waiwai, J, Doherty, JE, Lambert, M, Lambert,

N, King, D (2006). Uptake and persistence of the vertebrate pesticide, sodium monofluoroacetate (Compound 1080), in plants of cultural importance. Ecotoxicology 15:1-7

Ogilvie, SC, Ataria, JM, Waiwai, J, Doherty, J, Miller, AA, Ross, JG,

Eason, CT (2010). Vertebrate pesticide risk assessment by

indigenous communities in New Zealand. Integrative Zoology 1:


xvii

449-455

Ogilvie, S. C., Bowen, L. H. and Eason, C. T. 1995: The effect of the

plant Myriophyllum triphyllum and temperature on the degradation of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) in an aquatic ecosystem. Proceedings of the New Zealand Plant Protection Conference 48: 260-263.

Ogilvie, S.C., Hetzel, F., Eason, C.T. 1996. Effect of temperature on

the biodegradation of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) in water and in Elodea canadensis. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 56: 942-947.

Parfitt R.C.; Eason, C.T.; Morgan, A.; Burke, C.M.; Wright, G.R. 1994.

The fate of sodium monofluoroacetate in soil and water. In: Seawright, A.; Eason, C.T. (eds.) Proceedings of the Science Workshop on 1080. Royal Society of New Zealand miscellaneous series 28: 59–66.

Parfitt, R.L., Eason, C.T., Hoff, H., Heng, L.K. 1995. Sodium

monofluoroacetate leaching through soil. Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 55: 162-169.

Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment. 2011. Evaluating

the use of 1080: Predators, poisons and silent forests. Office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, Wellington

Payton, I.J., Pekelharing, C.J, Frampton, C.M. 1999. Foliar Browse

Index. A method for monitoring possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) damage to plant species and forest communities. Landcare Research publication.

Pekelharing, C. J., Batcheler, C. L. 1990. The effect of control of

brushtail possums (Trichosurus vulpecula) on condition of a Southern Rata/Kamahi (Metrosideros Umbellata/Weinmannia Racemosa) forest canopy In Westland, New Zealand. New

Zealand Journal of Ecology: 13. 7382. Pierce, R.J.; Montgomery, P.J. 1992. The fate of birds and selected

invertebrates during a 1080 operation. Science & Research Internal Report No. 121. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Ponde, D.E., Dence, C.S., Oyama, N., Kim, J., Tai, Y.-C., Laforest, R.,

Siegel, B.A., & Welch, M.J. (2007) 18F-Fluoroacetate: A Potential Acetate Analog for Prostate Tumor Imagingâ€”In Vivo Evaluation of 18F-Fluoroacetate Versus 11C-Acetate. Journal of Nuclear Medicine 48. 420-428.

Powlesland, R., Knegtmans, J., Marshall, I. 1998. Evaluating the

impacts of 1080 possum control operations on North Island


xviii

robins, North Island tomtits and moreporks at Pureora – preliminary results. Science for Conservation No. 74. Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Powlesland, R.G., Knegtmans, J.W., Marshall, I.S.J. 1999. Costs and

benefits of aerial 1080 possum control operations using carrot baits to North Island robins (Petroica australis longipes), Pureora Forest Park. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 23: 149-159.

Powlesland, R.G, Wills, D.E., August, A.C.L., August, C.L. 2003.

Effects of a 1080 operation on kaka and kereru survival and nesting success, Whirinaki Forest Park New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 27(2): 125–137

Powlesland, R.G., Knegtmans, J.W., & Styche, A. (2000) Mortality of

North Island tomtits (Petroica macrocephala toitoi) caused by aerial 1080 possum control operations, 1997-98, Pureora Forest Park. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 24, 161-168.

Powlesland, R.G., Stringer, I.A.N., & Hedderley, D.I. (2005) Effects

of an aerial 1080 possum poison operation using carrot on invertebrates in artificial refuges at Whirinaki Forest Park, 1999-2002. New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 29, 193-205.

Pracy, L. T. 1974. Introduction and liberation of the opossum

(Trichosurus vulpecula) into New Zealand. New Zealand Forest Service, information series No. 45. 28 p.

Pracy, L. T. 1981. Opossum Survey. Counter pest 5: pp 515. Pryde, M.A., O’Donnell, C.F.J., Barker, R.J. 2005. Factors influencing

survival and long-term population viability of New Zealand long-tailed bats (Chalinolobus tuberculatus): implications for conservation. Biological Conservation 126: 175−185.

Rammell, C.G.; Fleming, P.A. 1978. Compound 1080 properties and

use of sodium monofluoroacetate in New Zealand. Published by MAF, pp 112.

Ramsay, G.W. 1978. A review of the effect of rodents on the New

Zealand invertebrate fauna. In: Dingwall, P.R.; Atkinson, I.A.E.; Hay, C. (Editors), The ecology and control of rodents in New Zealand nature reserves, pp. 89-95. Information Series No. 4, Department of Lands and Survey, Wellington, New Zealand. 237 pp.

Robertson,H.A., Dowding, J.E., Elliott, G.P., Hitchmough, R.A.,

Miskelly, C.M., O’Donnell, C.F.J., Powlesland, R.G., Sagar, P.M., Scofield,R.P., Taylor, G.A. 2013. Conservation status of New Zealand birds, 2012. New Zealand Threat Classification


xix

Series 4. Department of Conservation Rhodes, M., Elliot, G., & Kemp, J. (2008). Parakeet nesting success

with and without predator control in the Hurunui Valley, North Canterbury., Rep. No. DOCDM-384475. Department of Conservation.

Rogers, G., 1997. Trends in health of pahautea and Hall’s totara in

relation to possum control in central North Island. Science For Conservation: 52. Department of Conservation

Rogers, G., Walker, S., 2005. Is Pittosporum patulum Hook. f. threatened

by pest herbivory in eastern South Island, New Zealand? New Zealand Journal of Ecology, 29 (1).

Rose, A. B. (editor). 1994. A Review of Possums and

PossumVulnerable Species in Nelson/Marlborough Conservancy. Landcare Contract Report: LC9394/119. Department of Conservation

Rose, A. B., Platt, K. H.., Pekelharing, C. J., Moore, T. J., Suisted, P.,

and Savage, T.J. 1995. Forest Dieback and the Impact of Possums in Nelson/Marlborough Conservancy. Landcare Contract Report: LC9596/12. Department of Conservation

Rose, A. B., Pekelharing, C. J., Platt, K. H, and Savage, T.J. 1995.

Priority Areas for possum Control in Nelson/Marlborough Conservancy. Landcare Contract Report: LC9596/13. Department of Conservation

Rose, A.B.; Pekelharing C.J.; Platt, K.H. 1992. Magnitude of canopy

dieback and implications for conservation of southern rata – kamahi (Metrosideros umbellata – Weinmannia racemosa) forests, central Westland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 16: 23-32.

Rose, A.B.; Pekelharing C.J.; Platt, K.H., Woolmore, C. B. 1993.

Impact of Invading Brushtail Possum Populations on Mixed Beech- Broadleaved Forests, South Westland, New Zealand New Zealand Journal of Ecology (1993) 17(1): 19–28

Ruscoe, W.A.; Choquenot, D.; Heyward, R.; Yockney, I.; Young, N.;

Drew, K. 2003: Seed production, predators and house mouse population eruptions in New Zealand beech forests. Pp. 334–337 in Singleton, G.R.; Hinds, L.A.; Krebs, C.J.; Spratt, D.M. (Eds): Rats, mice and people: rodent biology and management. ACIAR Monograph No. 96.

Ruscoe WA, Elkinton JS, Choquenot D, Allen RB 2005. Predation of

beech seed by mice: effects of numerical and functional responses. Journal of Animal Ecology 74: 1005–1019.


xx

Ruscoe, W.W., Ramsey, D.S.L., Pech, R.P., Sweetapple, P.J., Yockney,

I., Barron, M.C., Perry, M., Nugent, G., Carran, R., Warne, R., Brauscg, C., Duncan, R.P. 2011. Unexpected consequences of control: competitive vs. predator release in a four-species assemblage of invasive mammals. Ecology Letters.

Schauber ,E. M., Kelly, D., Turchin, P. et al. (2002). Masting by

eighteen New Zealand plant species: the role of temperature as a synchronizing cue. Ecology 83, 1214–25.

Seaton, S., Holland, J.D., Minot, E.O., Springett, B.P. 2009. Breeding

success of New Zealand falcons (Falco novaeseelandiae) in a pine plantation. New Zealand Journal of Ecology (2009) 33(1): 32-39

Sessions, L.A.; Rance, C.; Grant, A.; Kelly, D. 2001. Possum

(Trichosurus vulpecula) control benefits native beech mistletoes (Loranthaceae). New Zealand Journal of Ecology 25: 27-33.

Sessions, L.A. and Kelly, D. 2001. Heterogeneity in vertebrate and

invertebrate herbivory and its consequences for New Zealand mistletoes and the impact of vertebrate herbivores. Methods for monitoring herbivory and growth of Austral Ecology 26.

Sessions, L.A. and Kelly, D. 2001. Methods for monitoring herbivory

and growth of NZ mistletoes (Loranthaceae). New Zealand Journal of Ecology: 25 (2).

Shaw, W.B. 1994: Botanical Ranking for Native Conservation DOC

Science and Research Series No 72. Department of Conservation Sherley G, Wakelin M, McCartney J 1999. Forest invertebrates found

on baits used in pest mammal control and the impact of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) on their numbers at Ohakune, North Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 26: 279-302.

Smale, M.C., Rose, A.B., Frampton, C.M., Owen, H.J. 1993. The

efficacy of possum control in reducing forest dieback in the Otira and Deception catchments, central Westland. Unpublished Landcare Research Contract Report LC9293/110. Department of Conservation.

Spurr, E. B. 1993: A review of the effects of pesticides on lizards.

Conservation Advisory Science Notes. No. 33. Department of Conservation

Spurr, E.B. (1994) Review of the impacts on non-target species of


xxi

sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) in baits used for brushtail possum control in New Zealand. In Proceedings of the Science Workshop on 1080. The Royal Society of New Zealand Miscellaneous Series 28 (eds A.A. Seawright & C.T. Eason), pp. 124-133.

Spurr, E. B., Powlesland, R. G 1997. Impacts of aerial 1080 application

on non-target native fauna: review and priorities for research. Science for Conservation: 62. Department of Conservation

Spurr, E.B.; Drew, K.W. 1999. Invertebrates feeding on baits used for

vertebrate pest control in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 23: 167-173.

Spurr EB, Berben PH, McGregor PG, Arnold GC 2002. Impacts of

simulated aerial application of 1080-poisoned baits on ground-dwelling invertebrate populations (R-10478). Landcare Research Contract Report LC0102/094. Landcare Research Ltd., Lincoln. 41 p.

Suren, A.M., Bonnet, M. L. 2006. Consumption of baits containing

sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) by the New Zealand freshwater crayfish (Paranephrops planifrons). New Zealand

Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40: 169178. Suren, A.M., Lambert, P. 2004. The effects of 1080 on invertebrate

communities and fish in West Coast streams. NIWA contract

report: CHC2004096 Sutton, N. (2012). Tongariro Forest Kiwi Sanctuary Annual Report,

July 2011 - June 2012., Rep. No. docdm-1035275. DOC, Ruapehu Area Office., Whakapapa.

Sweetapple, P. J., Nugent, G., Whitford, J., Knightbridge, P., 2002.

Mistletoe (Tupeia antarctica) recovery and decline following possum control in a New Zealand forest. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 26(1): 61-71

Sweetapple, P.J., Nugent, G. 2007. Ship rat demography and diet

following possum control in a mixed podocarp-hardwood forest. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 31 (2): 186-201

Taylor, G., Moorhouse, R., Moran, L., Kemp, J., Elliott, G., Bruce, T.

2009. Effect of controlling introduced predators on Kaka (Nestor meridionalis) in the Rotoiti Nature Recovery Project Nelson Lakes National Park, New Zealand. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Tennyson, A. & Martinson, P. 2006. Extinct Birds of New Zealand.

Te Papa Press, Wellington


xxii

Thomas, M., Maddigan, F., Gardner, D. 2004. Decay of 1080 baits used for possum control. Contract report for Animal Health Board. Project No: R-80599.

Tomkins, B.A. (1994) Screening procedure for sodium fluoroacetate

(Compound 1080) at sub-microgram/gram concentrations in soils. Analytical letters, 27, 2703–2718.

Towns, D. R.; McFadden. I.; Thomson, P.; Robertson, H.; Colbourne,

R. 1994: Offshore islands cooperative conservation project with ICI Crop Care Division: Phase Two (Red Mercury Island). Science and Research Internal Report No.142. Wellington, Department of Conservation.

Towns, D. R., and Broome, K. G. 2003. From small Maria to massive

Campbell: forty years of rat eradications from New Zealand islands. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 30: 377-398

Townsend, A.J., de Lange, P.J., Duffy, C.A.J., Miskelly,C. M., Molloy,

J., Norton, D.A. 2007. New Zealand Threat Classification System manual Science & Technical series. Department of Conservation

Van Klink, P. Kemp, J. O’Donnell, C. 2013. Effect of aerial

application of 1080 cereal baits for possum control on radio-tagged South Island fernbirds (Bowdleria punctata). New Zealand Journal of Zoology 40: 145-153.

Veltman, C. 2000. Do native wildlife benefit from possum control?

In: Morgan, T.L. (Editor), The brushtail possum: biology, impact and management of an introduced marsupial, pp.241-250. Lincoln, Manaaki Whenua Press.

Veltman, C. J., Westbrooke. I. 2011. Forest bird mortality and baiting

practices in New Zealand aerial 1080 operations from 1986 to 2009. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35(1): 21-29.

VPRD. Vertebrate Pesticides Residue Database. Department of

Conservation internal database.19982010. Walker K 1997. Effect of aerial distribution of 1080 for possum

control on weka, great spotted kiwi, morepork and fernbird. Ecological Management 5: 29-37

. Walker K. 2003. Recovery plan for Powelliphanta land snails

20032013. Threatened Species Recovery Plans 49. Department of Conservation.

Walker, J.R.L.; Bong, C.L. 1981. Metabolism of fluoroacetate by a soil

Pseudomonas and Fusarium solani. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 13: 231–235.


xxiii

Warburton, B. 1999. Trap-catch monitoring for monitoring possum

populations. Landcare Research publication. Lincoln New Zealand.

Wardle, J.A. 1984. The New Zealand beeches: Ecology, utilisation and

management. New Zealand Forest Service. Wellington, N.Z. 447 pp

Westbrooke, I., N. Etheridge, Powlesland. R.G. 2003. Comparing

methods for assessing mortality impacts of an aerial 1080 pest control operation on tomtits (Petroica macrocephala toitoi) in Tongariro Forest. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 27(2): 115-123.

White PCL, King CM 2006. Predation on native birds in New

Zealand beech forests: the role of functional relationships between Stoats Mustela erminea and rodents. Ibis 148: 765–771.

Whitehead, A.L.; Edge, K.-A.; Smart, A.F.; Hill, G.S.; Willans, M.J.

2008. Large scale predator control improves the productivity of a rare New Zealand riverine duck. Biological Conservation 141: 2784-2794.

Wickes, C., Crouchley, D., Maxwell, J.2009.Takahe (Porphyrio

hochstetteri) recovery plan 2007–2012. Threatened Species Recovery Plan 61.Science & Technical Publishing. Department of Conservation

Wilson, P.R.; Karl, B.J.; Toft, R.J.; Beggs, J.R.; Taylor, R.H. 1998. The

role of introduced predators and competitors in the decline of kaka (Nestor meridionalis) populations in New Zealand. Biological Conservation 83: 175-185.

Wong DH, Kirkpatrick WE, King DR, Kinnear JE 1992.

Defluorination of sodium monofluoroacetate (1080) by microorganisms isolated from Western Australian soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 24: 833-838

Wright GR, Booth LH, Morriss GA, Potts MD, Brown L, Eason CT

2002. Assessing potential environmental contamination from compound 1080 (sodium monofluoroacetate) in bait dust during possum control operations. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 45: 57-65.

Wright, K. (2004). Hutt Water Supply Catchment - possum control

aerial operation July 2003. Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wellington.

Appendix 5: Operations and/or other plans relevant to the application

Available on request.

Abel Tasman National Park Management Plan 2008-2018. http://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/about-doc/role/policies-and-plans/national-park-management-plans/abel-tasman/atnp-management-plan.pdf

Abel Tasman Foreshore Scenic Reserve Management Plan. 2012. http://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/about-doc/role/policies-and-plans/abel-tasman-foreshore-management-plan/abel-tasman-foreshore-scenic-reserve-management-plan.pdf

Resource Consent obtained for the 2003 Abel Tasman Aerial 1080 operation

Resource Consent obtained for the 2008 Abel Tasman/Canaan Downs Aerial 1080 operation (RM080652).

Assessment of Environmental Effects for Possum Control in the Abel Tasman/Canaan Downs Operational Area 2000 (DOCDM 193363)

http://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/about-doc/role/policies-and-plans/national-park-management-plans/abel-tasman/atnp-management-plan.pdf



http://www.doc.govt.nz/documents/about-doc/role/policies-and-plans/abel-tasman-foreshore-management-plan/abel-tasman-foreshore-scenic-reserve-management-plan.pdf



Appendix 6: DOC Performance Standards Sheets

Pesticide Use #1

Sodium fluoroacetate 1.5g/kg Cereal pellet Aerial (0.15% 1080 Pellet)

Target Pests: Possums, Rats

DOC Operation

Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon

Caution Period

The estimated caution period for this operation is 6 (six) months after last date of bait application and is subject to compulsory bait and carcass monitoring. This estimated caution period cannot be reduced to less than 4 months, and must be extended if the endpoints for monitoring have not been met at the end of the period.

DOC SOPs & Policies Shall Be Followed

Compulsory for all operations: Consultation and Notification of Pest Operations SOP, including Warning Signs (docdm-22832) Identifying Boundaries for Pesticide Operations SOP (docdm-30357) Bait and Carcass Monitoring SOP (docdm-61641) Compulsory for DOC operations: Safe Handling of Pesticides SOP (docdm-22730) Pestlink Reporting SOP (docdm-52340) Operational Planning for Animal Pest Operations Guideline (docdm-236983)

Performance Standards

Compulsory for all operations 1. For operations targeting rats, prefeed with this pesticide use. 2. In areas where kea are present:

only use cinnamon-lured RS5 pellets; use a maximum of 2kg/ha of prefeed bait for 12g baits (or 1kg/ha for 6g baits); use a maximum of 2kg/ha of toxic bait for 12g baits (or 1kg/ha for 6g baits); avoid sowing baits in areas of low structural vegetation cover (e.g. alpine herb fields and

tussock) above the tree line. 3. This pesticide must not be used, stored or prepared, with any prefeed, bait or attractant which is

likely to lead any person to believe that the substance is intended for human consumption. 4. Unless in approved container supplied by the manufacturer, this pesticide must not be used in

any culinary utensil or other container which is likely to lead any person to believe the contents are intended for human consumption, regardless of any modification or other warning labels attached.

5. Consent providers must be given at least 24 hours notice before the pesticide is applied and a close liaison will be maintained throughout the operation.

6. Consent providers will be notified as soon as possible in case of any accidental discharge into a surface water body.

7. Flight paths to and from the bait loading zones by aircraft equipped with loaded or uncleaned bait sowing equipment must avoid: stocked paddocks, residential dwellings, and any other 'no fly zones' specified by consent providers.

8. An aircraft must not, when flying to or from the treatment area, fly over a public drinking water supply or waterway that is less than 100 metres upstream of a point of extraction from a water

source for a drinking water supply (not being a water supply exclusively for stock). 9. For operations targeting possums, baits will have a mean size in excess of 6g and 95% of baits

should weigh more than 4g. 10. The baits must be dyed green or blue. 11. Contaminated safety equipment, machinery and any other equipment that has been in contact

with the pesticide are washed at a location where runoff is unlikely to enter any natural waterbody.

12. All pesticide not legally applied and all pesticide packaging is removed from DOC administered land and disposed of in a way which meets all legal requirements.

13. The boundaries of the bait preparation and loading site are marked and loading site signs (docdm-181171) erected. At the end of every day of the operation (including the final day), the loading site and any storage area must be fenced so that people do not inadvertently enter the site and stock cannot gain access to the area. The fence and signs remain in place until you judge that there is no longer a risk to stock.

14. If there is any likelihood that farm stock has been exposed to 1080, the owner must be advised as soon as possible and stock removed from the area.

15. The product must only be used as specified on the manufacturer’s product label. Compulsory for this operation (delete those that you won’t be applying to your operation) 16. Bait sowing rate must be no greater than 5kg/ha for 6gm baits (or equivalent bait density per

hectare for other bait sizes). 17. Designate a "Safety Officer" on loading site who audits and ensures adherence to safety

standards. 18. Use bait sowing buckets with retractable legs. 19. In areas where kea are present avoid sowing baits on specified areas of low structural vegetation

cover below the tree line (e.g. river flats). This performance standard will be applied to large open areas that can practicably be excluded from the operation.

20. [Add further standards as required, using extra pages if needed. Attach conditions from other consents as separate pages.]

Information Needs

Compulsory for all operations Nil Compulsory for this operation 1. [Add as required.]

Operational Planning & Design Considerations

Apply bait in coldest months of year. For operations targeting possums, do not repeat aerial operations within 4 years using the same

bait. Current Agreed Best Practice – Possum Control – Aerial Application of 1080 Cereal Pellets

(docdm-341728) Current Agreed Best Practice – Rat Control – Aerial Application of 1080 Cereal Bait (docdm-

29375)

My approval dated [date] is subject to these performance standards being met. Compliance monitoring may occur. . [Name] Director, Conservation Services

dme://docdm-181171/

dme://docdm-341728/

dme://docdm-29375/

dme://docdm-29375/

Appendix 7 Caution Period Calculation .

Abel Tasman-Project Janszoon Calculation of Periods (Aerial 1080 1.5g/kg cereal pellets) Operational Details Summary

Date (dependant on operation type): July November Bait type: Cereal pellets. RS5 12 gm. 0.15% w/w 1080 at 2 kg/ha

Details of treatment block:

Area 12,359.3ha32

Vegetation type Lowland podocarp/beech/hardwood to beech/rata forest at higher elevations

Animal pests present Possum, rodents, pigs, deer, goats, mustelids,

Bio-climatic zone Lowland to sub-montane

Climate characteristics

Altitude 0-1156 m

Rainfall 15004000 mm/yr

Snow level33 N/A

Temp average summer 17

average winter 8

Community/Iwi interests – Coast Track and coastal regions one of the most popular walking and tourist/holiday destinations in NZ. Very high summer use especially at the coast but year-round visitor use. Interior significantly less well used and large tracts are largely unvisited. Very low hunter interest with low deer numbers throughout.

Local climate conditions Precipitation in the area is strongly influenced by altitude resulting in a strong precipitation gradient which decreases from the inland higher altitude areas to the coast. Rainfall on average 125 days per year in the coastal regions with more in the inland areas. Prevailing winds are from the northwest to southwest quadrants. Winters are cool with snow generally not falling/remaining more than several days to altitudes within the treatment area. Freezing levels can persist for short periods throughout the winter months at the higher altitudes. The operational area receives between 1500-4000 mm of rain per annum. The mean total

rainfall for a 6month period between November and April between 1994 and 2010 measured at the TDC rainfall gauge at Canaan was 1,530 mm. This site receives an annual rainfall of 3,500 mm. The mean monthly rainfall for the two months (October and November) immediately after an operation for a rat-focussed spring scheduled date (e.g. October) between 1995 and 2012) is 204 mm and 348 mm respectively.

32 Area stated is for the aerial 1080 component of Modality Type A. 33 Average of minimum level of persistent (>2 weeks p.a.) snow cover

DOC guidelines

What the DOC Pesticide Information Review says – summary

What does this mean for my site?

(i) How long do baits remain toxic?

Until broken down *

Section 2.1.1: 1080 in baits may be significantly defluorinated in 1–2 weeks under favourable conditions. However, under less favourable conditions breakdown may take several weeks and, in extreme cold and drought, 1080 residues could persist in baits for several months.

The predicted rainfall levels at the site (estimated from records from an adjacent TDC rainfall monitoring station) will likely exceed the 100 mm needed by RS5 pellets for 1080 to be completely leached from RS5 pellets (Thomas et al. 2004) throughout the majority of the treatment

area within 12 months. Monitoring cages will be established at a minimum of two sites that reflect the range of rainfall in the treatment area (DOC SOP requirement for one site/1500mm rainfall) Estimate – 2 months

DOC guidelines

What the DOC Pesticide Information Review says – summary

What does this mean for my site?

(ii) How long do carcass residues last?

Until broken down *

Sections 2.5.4 & 2.5.5: 1080 can persist in carcasses for months. The rate of degradation of 1080 in carcasses will depend on moisture, temperature and the presence of micro-organisms and detritivourus insects such as blow-flies. Warm humid weather conditions accelerate breakdown while cool dry conditions retard it.

Due to the most likely timing of either of the operations (Type A and Type B) in late winter-early summer, it is anticipated that carcass degradation would be enhanced by the higher temperatures and humidity that is usually associated with similar operations conducted in autumn/winter. Caged carcasses will be located and monitored at several sites based on rainfall gradients rather than altitude (with marginal temperature differences) to assess a high rainfall (4000 mm p.a.) site and low rainfall (1500 mm p.a.) site. Estimate – 4 months

(iii) How long sub-lethal residues last?

2 weeks Sections 2.5.1-2.5.3: 1080 has a relatively short half-life in sub-lethally dosed animals and it is metabolised and eliminated from living animals within days.

No monitoring required as any sub-lethal residues to be well gone by the time baits and carcasses are broken down. Estimate – 2 weeks

Caution Period

Minimum Recommended (from Caution Period Calculator DOCDM 690617)

Estimated Why

4 months 8 months 6 months Due to proposed timing of the operation in late winter-early summer and the higher temperature and humidity levels throughout much of the monitoring period it is likely an accelerated breakdown rate of both carcasses and baits can be expected. This is based on previous operations conducted at a similar time (Abel Tasman 2008, Anatoki 2009). Post operational monitoring of caged bait and carcasses will determine whether an extension is required to be notified.

Appendix 8 Operation-type decision. Schematic of operation -type (Modality Type A or Modality Type B) decision process for three operations within the consent period. The initial operation (Operation 1) will be a Type A operation as the possum numbers outside the upland sector currently (2013) exceed control thresholds (>20% RTC) and a knockdown operation throughout is required.

Yes

OR

Is the rat trigger (upland sector) exceeded?

Is the possum trigger (> 3 % RTC throughout) exceeded?

No

No

Yes

Modality Type A

Modality Type A


Yes

No Modality Type B

OR



No

No

Yes

Yes

Modality Type A

Modality Type A


Yes

No Modality Type B


Is the possum trigger (> 3 % RTC at upland sector) exceeded?

No

Yes Modality Type A

OR

No

Modality Type A

Yes

O

pera

tio

n 1

O

pera

tio

n 2

O

pera

tio

n 3