EPA Report: Verified Source: Pestlink Operational Report for Norway rat, Possum, Ship rat Control in the Egmont National Park

22 Sep 2016 - 20 Dec 2016 3/05/2017 Department of Conservation Contents 1. Operation Summary

Operation Name Norway rat, Possum, Ship rat Control in Egmont National Park Operation Date 22 Sep 2016 - 20 Dec 2016 District New Plymouth Region: Hauraki-Waikato- Pestlink Reference 1617TAR01 Treatment Area Egmont National Park Size (ha) 32723.00 Conservation Unit Name(s) GA Id(s) Egmont National Park 2792897

Treatment Block Details Treatment Blocks Size (ha) Grid Ref GIS Ref Egmont National Park 33783.00

Contractor Name Ravensdown Aerowork

Treatment Dates Start Completion Egmont National Park 22 Sep 2016 20 Dec 2016

Target Pest Details Target Treatment Blocks Control Method Name Pests Egmont National Park Possum, Pesticide Aerial Pesticide - Aerial in Egmont Norway National Park-(1) rat, Ship rat

Conservation Outcome(s) This operation is being undertaken to protect the health and integrity of the community in Egmont National Park.

Result Target(s) Treatment Area/Block What we got • The result target for Egmont National Park 16% Total. 8.8% with boundary possums for this monitoring data removed operation will be a wax tag indice of less than 10% (10 possum marked tags per 100 wax tags) 2- 6 weeks after the toxic application.

• The result target for Egmont National Park 12% Total. 7% with boundary rats for this monitoring data removed operation will be a tracking tunnel indice of less than 5% (5 rats per 100 tracking tunnels) 2-6 weeks after the toxic application.

Outcome Targets What we got • The conservation outcome target is the protection of the health and integrity of the forest ecosystems within Egmont National Park.

Pestlink Ref: 1617TAR01 Page 2 of 9 Date Printed: 11 May 2017

2. Introduction

2.1 TREATMENT AREA

Non-target species Common Name Scientific Name

Target benefit species Common Name Scientific Name - Melicytus drucei Large land Snail Powelliphanta "Egmont" Blue duck, Whio, mountain Hymenolaimus malacorhynchos duck, blue mountain duck brown kiwi Apteryx mantelli Tomtit Petroica macrocephala Whitehead, Popokatea Mohoua albicilla Kamahi, tawheo, tawhero, Weinmannia racemosa tawherowhero Kohekohe Dysoxylum spectabile - - Laurelia novae-zelandiae - Podocarpus nivalis Hall's totara Podocarpus laetus titoki Alectryon excelsus sens. lat. Pate Schefflera digitata Tawa Beilschmiedia tawa Elaeocarpus dentatus var. hinau dentatus Pigeonwood Hedycarya arborea - Libocedrus bidwillii Melicytus ramiflorus subsp. Mahoe ramiflorus Mapou Myrsine australis Tree fuchsia Fuchsia excorticata Woodrose Dactylanthus taylorii - Brachyglottis kirkii - Ileostylus micranthus

Threatened species Common Name Scientific Name

Geographical location The Egmont National Park is situated 7 km NE of New Plymouth.

Pestlink Ref: 1617TAR01 Page 3 of 9 Date Printed: 11 May 2017

TREATMENT BLOCK DETAILS: Treatment block Egmont National Park Logged and unlogged lowland , montane forest and scrub, Vegetation type subalpine tussockland, alpine herbfields, lowland to montane bogs. Bioclimatic zone alpine lowland sub-montane montane sub-alpine Climate characteristics: Rainfall 6800 mm Temperature: Average Summer 0.0 Average Winter 0.0 Snow level 0 m Altitude 100-1800 m Visited by locals and tourists for the varied purposes of picnicking, viewing scenery, short walks, tramping, climbing, skiing. For tangata Community and Iwi whenua the mountain is a source of great spiritual value and a physical interests and cultural haven, as they have a long association and identification with it. The Mounga has great spiritual value to all local iwi, presence of Wahi Historic sites Tapu sites, burial sites, pa sites, extensive history of use, food gathering etc. European history extensive.

2.2 MANAGEMENT HISTORY Management history was not chosen to be shown in this operational report. This history is, however, available via Pestlink 3 Outcomes and Targets 3.1 CONSERVATION OUTCOMES This operation is being undertaken to protect the health and integrity of the forest community in Egmont National Park. 3.2 TARGETS 3.2.1 Result Targets The result targets for the treatment area were: • The result target for possums for this operation will be a wax tag indice of less than 10% (10 possum marked tags per 100 wax tags) 2-6 weeks after the toxic application.

• The result target for rats for this operation will be a tracking tunnel indice of less than 5% (5 rats per 100 tracking tunnels) 2-6 weeks after the toxic application.

Pestlink Ref: 1617TAR01 Page 4 of 9 Date Printed: 11 May 2017

3.2.2 Outcome Targets The outcome targets for the treatment area were: • The conservation outcome target is the protection of the health and integrity of the forest ecosystems within Egmont National Park.

4 Consultation, Consents & Notifications 4.1 CONSULTATION see Op Egmont Communication Plan, Consultation outcomes generally positive - some negative from small group called 100% Pure Taranaki led by Chris Wilkes. Lessons learned Very complex level of notification required for this operation. Worked well having one person see the majority of the landowners. This meant one person knew the issues involved so only need to refer to that person. The same thing worked by assigning a different person to iwi consulation, community groups, concessionaires, MOH etc. Sharing the load. No negative feedback given from this space. It also worked very well having an individual at National Office assigned to handle Media. 4.2 CONSENTS Consent Consent date File Reference Permission ID DOC Consent 14/07/2016 NHT-02-16-501 2834713 MOH Consent 29/07/2016 NHT-02-16-501 16-001-MCL-TRPH

Lessons learned Donna Worthy handled all consents. She did an excellent job. It made life easy for the MOH office to have the one person to talk to as issues arose. 4.3 NOTIFICATION see Communication Plan, Lessons learned Very complex level of notification required for this operation. Worked well having one person see the majority of the landowners. This meant one person knew the issues involved so only need to refer to that person. The same thing worked by assigning a different person to iwi consulation, community groups, concessionaires, MOH etc. Sharing the load. No negative feedback given from this space.

Pestlink Ref: 1617TAR01 Page 5 of 9 Date Printed: 11 May 2017

5 Methods 5.1 TARGET SPECIES

Treatment Block Egmont National Park Control method Name Target pest species Pesticide - Aerial Pesticide - Aerial in Possum Egmont National Park-(1) Norway rat Ship rat

Target Pest Treatment Block Control Method Name Species Egmont National Park Pesticide - Aerial Pesticide - Aerial in Egmont Possum National Park-(1) Norway rat Ship rat Trade name of pesticide 0.15% 1080 Pellets RS5 Name of pesticide Sodium fluoroacetate Type of bait Cereal pellet Toxic loading 1.5 g/kg Bait quality sampling Not Conducted Bait Details Pre-feed Toxic Bait type Cinnamon Cereal pellet Lure/ mask/ deterrent Cinnamon Cinnamon Lure/ mask/ deterrent 0.15% 0.30% Dye None Green Individual Bait Weight 6.0g 6.0g

Sowing Rate Details Pre-feed Wind Date Rate(kg/ha) Direction Speed 22/09/2016 1.00 Calm SE 23/09/2016 1.00 Calm SE

Toxic Date Rate(kg/ha) Wind Speed Direction 01/12/2016 2.00 Calm SE 20/12/2016 2.00 Calm SE

Pestlink Ref: 1617TAR01 Page 6 of 9 Date Printed: 11 May 2017

Time between pre-feed and toxic 69 End of Caution Period Date 20/06/2017 Aircraft type Jet Ranger Hughes 500D or E Hughes 500NT Squirrel AS 350 Number of Aircraft 5 Sowing gear details Description Capacity Aerowork used all their own sowing buckets. 300 kg Calibration curves were supplied.

Type of navigational guidance Satlock G4 & Satlock M3 system used

Hi ab from trucks directly into Loading Method sowing buckets. 300kg at a time.

Complaints and Incidents During the aerial application of 1080 there were no serious complaints or incidents. Other Details about this method - Deviations from planned operation - Lessons Learned -

5.2 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5.2.1 Effects on Non-Target Species - Effects on Non-Target Species Not Applicable 5.2.2 Effects on Soil and Water Quality - Effects on Soil and Water Quality Not Applicable 5.2.3 Effects on Ecosystems - Effects on Ecosystems Not Applicable 5.2.4 Effects on Human Health - Effects on Human Health Not Applicable

Pestlink Ref: 1617TAR01 Page 7 of 9 Date Printed: 11 May 2017

6 Monitoring Results and Outcomes 6.1 RESULT MONITORING - TARGET SPECIES Result target(s) The result target for possums for this operation will be a wax tag indice of less than 10% (10 possum marked tags per 100 wax tags) 2-6 weeks after the toxic application. The result target for rats for this operation will be a tracking tunnel indice of less than 5% (5 rats per 100 tracking tunnels) 2-6 weeks after the toxic application.

6.1.1 Target Species Monitoring WaxTag Method: Species monitored Possum - Trichosurus vulpecula in Egmont National Park Monitor method details Waxtag monitoring was undertaken in line with NPCA Possum Population Monitoring protocols. 30 monitoring lines were established around the mountain. 10 waxtags were installed on each line at 20m intervals for a 7 night period. Refer to DOC2855224 for results. Deviations No changes to method from originally planned method. Target pest result details Pre During/Post Monitoring dates July August 2016 January 2017 Results 16% Total. 8.8% with 28% Total. 21% with boundary boundary monitoring data monitoring data removed removed

Result target met? Yes Lessons Learned Monitoring worked well overall. Lines should be maintained in order to replicate monitoring for every future 1080 operation at this site. Two potential changes. One would be potentially using chewcards in the future rather than waxtags. RTC would be ideal but the cost involved outweighs the benefits. Other change would be to consider how the final results were presented. Multiple lines were close to the ENP boundary and skewed the overall total because of the edge effect. Results are stratified in this report to show data without boundary lines and the total result. 6.1.2 Target Species Monitoring Tracking tunnels Method: Species monitored Norway rat - Rattus norvegicus , Ship rat - Rattus rattus in Egmont National Park Monitor method details Tracking tunnel monitoring was undertaken in line with DOC best practice protocols. 30 monitoring

Pestlink Ref: 1617TAR01 Page 8 of 9 Date Printed: 11 May 2017

lines were established around the mountain. 10 tunnels were installed on each line at 50m intervals. Each card was out for one night. Deviations No changes to method from originally planned method. Target pest result details Pre During/Post Monitoring dates July August 2016 January 2017 Results 45% Total. 48% with boundary 12% Total. 7% with boundary monitoring data removed monitoring data removed

Result target met? No Lessons Learned Monitoring worked well overall. Lines should be maintained in order to replicate monitoring for every future 1080 operation at this site. One change would be to consider how the final results were presented. Multiple lines were close to the ENP boundary and skewed the overall total because of the edge effect. Results are stratified in this report to show data without boundary lines and the total result.

6.2 RESULT MONITORING - ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 6.2.1 Non Target Species No monitoring of non target species was undertaken. 6.2.2 Soil and Water Quality No monitoring of soil and water quality was undertaken. 6.2.3 Ecosystems No monitoring of ecosystems was undertaken. 6.2.4 Human Health No monitoring of human health was undertaken.

6.3 OUTCOME MONITORING Outcome targets The conservation outcome target is the protection of the health and integrity of the forest ecosystems within Egmont National Park.

No monitoring of outcomes was undertaken

Pestlink Ref: 1617TAR01 Page 9 of 9 Date Printed: 11 May 2017