Coromandel Possum Control Options - Waikato Regional Council

Options and analysisOption One – Standard PPCA approachDescription of optionThe assessment process carried out resulted in aerial control being the preferred and most effective method for 4 of the 6 sectors.The same contractor recorded the highest overall scores for the Te Kouma and Manaia sectors, with regard to ground control. The total quote tocover the six sectors was $360,000 (averaged at $43.00/ha.), which is $245,000 over the available budget.Impact assessmentRegional costsand benefitsMost of the operation would be completed over the space of 1-2 weeks. Minimum disruption would occur to landowneroperations (forestry and farming). This option would provide the best immediate outcome for catchment and biodiversity values.However, it would cost more than the budget allows.Community Views Aerial 1080 use may not be popular with a small section of the community. The majority of the landowners are likely to besympathetic or ambivalent to its use. Having one contractor negotiate to do this work, would allow scope for the Council torequire the hiring of local labour, seek joint ventures or possibly subcontracting arrangements with local contractors.Annual Plan /LTCCPImplicationsWould require an additional $245,000 which would only be achieved by reducing other budgets or increasing catchmentoperational funding.Doc # 2222846 Page 6

Option Two – Modified PPCA approach – addressing community considerationsDescription of optionThis option covers two sub-options. It would abandon all aerial control in favour or the next best ground control proposals offered and assessed (for 3sectors) utilising iwi based contractors on extensively Maori owned lands (2 sectors) and accepts the CILT alternative proposal of training up younglocal people in trapping and cyanide methods. The total cost under this option (a) trapping and toxins is $474,165 (average $57.00/ha.) or $360,000over the available budget. Option (b) – trapping only would be $487,000 ($59.00/ha.) or $372,000 over the available budget.Impact assessmentRegional costsand benefitsSome protection offered to biodiversity and catchment values but not as great as under Option 1. Control would be requiredmore frequently. Both options cost substantially more than the budget. In line with Council policy landowners would be requiredto pay the difference in control costs between the most cost effective option and the desired option on their land. However, itwould still leave the same budget shortfall as outlined in Option 1.Community Views No aerial 1080 use would appease some community members. Three different contractors would be involved, all CoromandelPeninsula based. Toxins would still be used potentially over much of the area, which would be counter to the CCCB and TCDCpolicies. Manaia Iwi would be able to control ‘their’ lands. These options would adopt the CILT proposal, thereby addressingpotentially some social issues in the community.Annual Plan /LTCCPImplicationsWould require additional funds – between 360k – 372k over the current budget (and more funding on a more regular basis),which is unlikely given current financial constraints.Doc # 2222846 Page 7

Option Three – DOC Integration and Coromandel-Colville Community Board mixed approachDescription of optionThe limited budget available would see control work restricted to just the Tihiouou sector (1B) along with an adjacent Kereta East block to the west,which is in the Peninsula Project Stage 2 area. Kereta East (1,323 ha.) is essentially iwi owned land with a DOC managed land landlocked in themiddle, just like in the Tihiouou sector. This work would strongly complement the DOC control in the Papakai north, Manaia Kauri sanctuary, TeWawawahi and Goldfields blocks, in the same way as the WRC buffer programme around, for example, Mount Pirongia, functions. A map showingthese southern, stage 2, areas will be available at the meeting.Impact assessmentRegional costsand benefitsThis proposal would signal the end of attempting systematic possum control across the Stage 3 area in the foreseeable future (atleast the next three years). It would by default enable the Community Board desire to have control undertaken by meat/furharvesters, despite history showing that this approach will not achieve the desired biodiversity/catchment outcomes. ProposedStage 3 work, as outlined above, would tie in very well with DOC priority work in the southern Manaia areas.Community Views It is uncertain what the whole community view of a much reduced possum control programme would be. Some elements will beunhappy and others will be happy, just as some landowners will carry on doing their own control and others won’t. This optionallows the Board approach to be tested but does not extend to having in place a possum trapping training scheme for localyoung people.Annual Plan /LTCCPImplicationsThis option will not require any additional LTP funding as any control would be limited to the $115,000 proposed carry forwardbudget from 2011/12.Doc # 2222846 Page 8

Community Board Proposal – DiscussionThe Board has requested deferment of all funding for this area for 1-2 years to allow commercialharvesters the chance to undertake the sustainable harvest of possums. This concept is not newand has been tried in many parts of New Zealand. The staff view is that this approach is akin to‘farming possums’. The Council mandate is that first and foremost possums are a pest and not aresource.An April 2012 study by Landcare Research tried to answer whether contradictory goals ofeconomically-sustainable harvest and biodiversity protection (resource v pest) can beaccommodated in North Island forest situations (refer to summary article in Appendix 5). Thestudy showed that harvesters expected RTCs of 50–70 per cent when initiating traplines. It alsoshowed that they stopped trapping on average when the RTC was 26 per cent RTC (range 20-30per cent) and left trapped areas for 1 year before returning (hence the possum farming analogy).These RTCs are significantly higher (four times greater densities) than the

a busy walkway on public land. Staff approach any potential use or funding of cyanidebased operations with well-heeded caution, and(ii) The cost of the CILT proposal was higher by almost $15,000 than the preferredcontractor under option 1 and $23,000 more expensive than the cheapest quote for thework in that sector. The difference is that CILT see this proposal as lasting for at least 12months initially, with a big training component built in to it, while a contractor would be inthe sector to achieve the result (over 2-3 months) then would leave and take on anothercontract role (as per the standard PPCA business model).In considering this proposal the Committee should note that the Council does not have theresources in either technical training or the labour capacity to co-ordinate or help facilitate thedelivery of this work. With only $115,000 available for this work, the CILT proposal does notappear to offer value for money in terms of overall Stage 3 possum control. It is a small coastalsector with low perceived catchment values and biodiversity values as it is primarily farmland. It isalso geographically separated from the DOC land that is proposed to be treated further south.Further, Council would not consider itself the primary funder of this work. The staff view is that thiswork is of a local employment initiative nature and better suited to being managed and run by theCommunity Board via the District Council.Preferred OptionOption 3 is the preferred option and would have three effects – (i) it means that the budgeted$115,000 would be spent to support DOC operations in the south and no additional funding will berequired, (ii) it also enables the CCCB favoured position of leaving the remainder of the area(about 7,500 ha) to commercial fur/meat harvesters to be pursued and (iii) this option would meanthat the CILT alternative proposed cannot be accommodated due to its high cost.Policy ConsiderationsTo the best of the writer’s knowledge, this decision is not significantly inconsistent with nor isanticipated to have consequences that will be significantly inconsistent with any policy adopted bythis local authority or any plan required by the Local Government Act 2002 or any other enactment.Legislative contextThese decisions are not subject to any decision making requirements other than the LocalGovernment Act.Assessment of significanceIn accordance with WRC’s Significance Policy, the significance of these decisions is judged to below. Local Government Act decision-making principles apply.ConclusionThe case for promoting more commercial harvesting in the area, by the Community Board (andendorsed by the Coromandel Catchment Liaison Subcommittee) has been strongly put. However,recent scientific evidence has shown that harvesters stopped trapping at between 20 – 30% RTCto allow for replenishment of the population. Consequently staff do not believe that catchment orconservation goals will be achieved through this approach alone.The proposal from CILT has some merit but staff do not believe that it is cost effective or will assistgreatly in achieving the Councils PPCA or Peninsula Project aims. The local community (via theBoard) is better placed to fund and coordinate local ventures of this nature. If the CILT approachwas to be adopted it would be counter to the regional PPCA business model and could set aprecedence that the Council could not meet in the rest of the region.Doc # 2222846 Page 10

Finally, funding constraints (for this work and the next round of control in 2014/15) mean that theCouncil has to reprioritise and work within the budget with regard to this work. Supporting the coreDOC control work in South Manaia is the most logical and effective way the Council can contributeto Peninsula Project goals.PG RussellProgramme Manager, RPMS OperationsJH SimmonsGroup Manager, Biosecurity-HeritageAttachmentsAppendix 1Appendix 2Appendix 3Appendix 4Appendix 5The three stages of the Peninsula Project animal pest control programmeStage 3 operation sectors for the RFP processCoromandel Colville Community Board possum control submissionCoromandel Independent Living Trust possum control proposal for TeKouma/Preeces sectorCan possum fur harvesters both make a living and help protect forest biodiversity.Excerpt from Kararehe Kino – Vertebrate Pest research, Issue 20, June 2012Doc # 2222846 Page 11

Appendix 1: The three stages of the Peninsula Project animal pest controlprogrammeDoc # 2222846 Page 12

Appendix 2: Stage 3 operation sectors for the RFP processDoc # 2222846 Page 13

Appendix 3THAMES COROMANDEL DISTRICT COUNCIL27 June 2012Dear SirProposal for Possum-Control - Coromandel-Colville Community BoardWith reference to your letter dated 29 May 2012 seeking confirmation of the draft proposalforwarded to Cr Kneebone by TCDC Cr Brljevich please find attached the confirmed proposalwhich was adopted at the Coromandel-Colville Community Board's recent meeting.The Community Board looks forward to Regional Council's response at its earliestconvenience.Yours sincerelyMargaret HarrisonArea Coordinator CoromandelOn behalf ofCoromandel-Colville Community BoardDistrict Office: 515 Mackay Street, Thames 3500 • Private Bag, Thames 3540, New Zealand Telephone: (07)868 0200 • Fax: (07) 868 0234 Email: customer.services@tcdc.govt.nz • Website: www.tcdc.govt.nz OFFICESAT: COROMANDEL • WHITIANGA • WHANGAMATADoc # 2222846 Page 14

Coromandel Possum Control ProposalMay it please the CommitteeIssue:Both the Thames Coromandel District Council and the Coromandel Colville Community Boardhave passed resolutions that state their preferred method of pest control in their respective areasof jurisdiction is the use of traps and cyanide. They are opposed to residual poison.The Waikato Regional Council is proposing a pest control operation between the 309 Road andManaia later this year. The proposal is for the use of bait stations. This is inconsistent with thewishes of both the District Council and the Community Board unless cyanide is used.The Community Board has come up with a possible solution to this issue that could possibly notonly solve the problem of the use of residual poison, but may also prove more effective in thecontrol of possums and make a significant saving in the cost of the proposed control operation.Opportunity:"Behind every problem lies an opportunity".To see the opportunity in the problem of possum control requires a shift in how one views thepossum. Currently the possum is looked at from the point of view that it is a pest that needs to beexterminated. Extermination is probably not achievable with today's technology. Even if it were itwould be unaffordable. We are now viewing the possum as a resource that needs to be properlymanaged.There are businesses that are developing products and markets based on the possum resource.Manufacturers are combining possum fur with Merino wool to make a superior product that issought after for high-end garments. Innovative designers are experimenting with combining furwith flax fibre to make a new worsted fabric that developers are hoping will prove to be popular.Possum meat has an important place as a hypoallergenic pet food and as an acceptable food forhumans. Currently possum carcasses are being exported to Taiwan, Hong Kong and Malaysia,where possum is known as kiwi bear or brushtail. The meat is being promoted in Asia as a healthy,low-cholesterol dish. Possum meat is uniquely and abnormally high in the unsaturated fatty acidsOmega 3 and 6. This gives it anti inflammatory and hypoallergenic properties that have enabled itto be used to treat skin and bowel disorders.Possum pies and Pete's Possum Pate are produced commercially at Pukekura. The potential ofpossums as a commercial resource can no longer be disputed as there is now a track record ofsuccessful enterprises.Request:We are requesting the Pest Management Committee defer expenditure on the Manaia block for 1to 2 years to allow the Coromandel community to trial a mixture of commercial and privatetrapping. We believe the following regime will keep possum numbers at an acceptable level tosatisfy the WRC. While these measures may not achieve the 5% RTC requirement, we believethey will result in an average that is below the WRC's current periodic treatment average. This isbecause it will be an ongoing cull, rather than a burst every 5 years or so that allows possumnumbers to exceed the 5% RTC's for much of the time.We accept the following controls may not achieve a 5%RTC (this has yet to be tested). What wedon't accept is the rationale behind the 5%. We understand the 5% is for TB control and possiblysome biodiversity gains. TB is not an issue in this area. We have yet to see a scientific study thatproves possums and rats cause flooding, and are therefore remain unconvinced of the claims inthis regard. Biodiversity gains are a hotly debated topic that is not covered in this proposal.Doc # 2222846 Page 15

What should be of concern to the WRC is the introduction of hefty penalties for animal crueltythrough the use of poisons. Both 1080 and brodifacoum are identified by Connovation Researchas "inhumane" and therefore would not meet the WRC policy requirement that poisons used byWRC must be humane. The following proposal overcomes this problem.Proposal:A commercial possum trapper, with 12 years experience, has recently expanded into the proposedcontrol area. He trapped two areas just prior to the recent monitoring programme. These two areason the 309 Road returned a "zero" RTC, compared to two adjacent areas that returned an RTC of11, which were the highest recorded in the control area.This trapper sells both the fur and carcasses. If poison were to be used in the control operation hewould be forced to abandon the area until he could guarantee the meat was safe. If he wereallowed to continue his enterprise, he would keep the possum numbers at a sustainable level. Thiscould be confirmed by way of independent monitoring. There is a qualified monitor living within thecontrol area who could be utilised for this at minimal cost.Another trapper wants to do the southern arm of the Te Kouma harbour and any of the otherManaia properties he gets time for. For owners of land that has been identified with possumnumbers at a level that requires control, but are not at a level that is economic for commercialtrapping, the WRC could possibly fund a training session and provide resources to enable theselandowners to undertake their own trapping. The commercial trapper is prepared to buy thecarcasses from them provided they can give an assurance there is no poison used on the land.There are two part time trappers that regularly trap Preeces Point. Other landowners alreadyconduct their own control and the RTC's reflect this. If there is any other land that is of concern,this could be dealt with by paying a commercial trapper a subsidy to trap the area to an agreedlevel. The budget for this exercise would now only require sufficient funds to allow for monitoring,some training and possibly some traps, and a discretionary fund for a subsidy if required.Overall we believe this regime would achieve a result acceptable to the WRC.Risk Assessment:The most significant risk for this alternative to the proposed control programme is that it will notachieve acceptable RTC levels. Independent monitoring will identify this if it occurs. It could thenbe addressed through localised contracted control.Summary:Local industry is already resolving most of the issues around possum control in the Manaia block.This industry needs to be encouraged, as it is a true win-win situation. If the WRC goes ahead withits programmed possum control of this area this industry will relocate and an opportunity to savevaluable ratepayer dollars and create a sustainable industry will be lost.Doc # 2222846 Page 16

Appendix 4Possum Control Proposal by CILT for TeKouma/Preeces BlockIntroduction:In the aftermath of the Global Financial Crisis and closer to home the Canterbury earthquakes, those workingwithin local communities are increasingly aware that the old ways are no longer sacrosanct and that it isnecessary to find new approaches to on-going issues. Collaboration with other groups is becoming the newmodel for success.Sustainability and viability are not just catchphrases: they must be at the heart of any proposal where theGovernment is working both with and within the community.In CILT’s proposal for the possum control programme, we intend to work with the Regional Council notonly to eliminate the possum population in the Te Kouma/Preeces Block but also to provide employment andtraining opportunities. Qualifications will be provided in the use of hazardous substances as well as shortenvironmental courses.CILT is a locally based community organisation with a 15 year record of maintaining and managing “hightrust contracts”. Through a variety of government and non-government agencies, CILT has a proven recordof addressing local issues as varied as waste management and youth development, adult education andwalkways development, often in association with the Community Board.Working in collaboration with the Regional Council and local landowners we propose a community focusedapproach for pest management.Considering the extra elements which CILT is bringing to its proposal, not to mention the risk our Trust istaking in exposing itself to the emotional controversy over possum control, the tender price of $50 a hectarecan only be seen as exceptionally good value for money.Block and Tender:Te Kouma/Preeces: 1,672.19 ha. @ $50+GST per hectare. [= $83,609]Methodology:Under the supervision of a qualified and experienced conservationist, a team of young people will be trainedin the use of traps and poisons and then systematically work through the block. Using a combination of trapsand non-residual toxins (cyanide) it is planned to clear the area within 12 months of contract commencement.If resources permit, CILT would be keen to broaden the project after this point. All the operations will becarried out in accordance with Waikato Regional Council guidelines.Experience:The Supervisor, Lisa Kearney, has been closely involved in the Moehau Environment Group (MEG) forseveral years and brings from it the experience of settling up a Kiwi sanctuary and other predator-freeoperations, all under Department of Conservation supervision.CILT has “umbrella-ed” two workers on a DoC possum eradication contract in 2008 to a successfulconclusion, as well as completing Environment Waikato’s planting and weeding projects.Risk Identification:The use of specific possum traps and bait stations will limit the danger to those animals. At the same time alllandowners will be notified of the project prior to commencement and also kept up to date during the wholeprocess. Warning notices will be posted throughout the block and equally in the local press. Since non-Doc # 2222846 Page 17

esidual toxins will only be used, there is minimal on-going danger of third party poisoning. A full riskassessment management plan will be undertaken, both desk-top and on the ground.Consultation Process:All land owners will be identified through the land registry and contacted individually prior to any work.Each one will be requested to agree to allowing the relevant CILT personnel access to their land for theextent of the project to lay and clear the traps and stations. As stated above, they will each be kept fullyaware at all stages of the process, mostly by e-mail. CILT intends to develop a database for landowners toensure timely and accurate information. Where appropriate we will use the Te Kouma Residents andRatepayers Association as the conduit for consultation. Ideally we will have Memoranda of Understandingwith landowners.Resources:All involved in this scheme will travel to and from the block in a dedicated CILT vehicle. Suitable traps havealready been offered to CILT by MEG, and CILT itself will fund the bait stations and toxins. MEG has alsooffered technical expertise and use of its fur-stripping machine. David Hamon has expressed a willingness toparticipate in our education and planning programme.Conclusion:CILT is keen to undertake this exciting project which, with the support of the Community Board, promises tonot only seriously control the possum population in this area, but also provide employment and training for agroup of otherwise unemployed local people.Because of its holistic approach, a fresh departure from the norm, should our proposal be accepted CILTwould welcome the opportunity to discuss with the Regional Council further details of the implementation ofthe entire project.Doc # 2222846 Page 18

Appendix 5Doc # 2222846 Page 19

Doc # 2222846 Page 20