A NEW REGIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GISBORNE

Transcription

1 A NEW REGIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GISBORNE OCTOBER 2015

2 WHY DO WE NEED A PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN? Weeds and animal pests cause significant impacts to Gisborne s: economy; environment; and human health. Council is required by law to take a leadership role around the management of weeds and animal pests. A Regional Pest Management Plan is a key tool we can use to help manage the spread and impacts of weeds and animal pests. Currently we have a Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) which was adopted in 2010 this will be replaced by a new plan in This discussion document outlines the key issues and proposed responses to the weed and animal pest issues facing Gisborne and forms the first step in developing a new Regional Pest Management Plan. We need your feedback Community and stakeholder feedback on these proposals is critical. We are proposing some different approaches to how weeds and animal pests are managed. It s important that we get this right, as we know for some types of weeds and animal pests the current approach is not working. A feedback form is attached to this document which can be posted back into the Council. Alternatively you can come along to a community or stakeholder meeting to talk about your ideas. Community meetings will be advertised, but if you would like to talk to our staff about your ideas outside of this, or invite us to attend your own community meeting please contact us on Lois.Easton@gdc.govt.nz or (06)

3 What has changed since the last strategy? Changes to the Biosecurity Act, and new National Policy Direction have meant that we have some new tools in the toolbox. We have a better understanding on how to be more effective in managing some weeds and animal pests and when we won t be effective. Nationally, Bovine TB control is being successful so we are less at threat from possums introducing Bovine TB into our cattle herds New pests are coming into the country and our region we need to recognise and control new threats to our environment, health and economy. GLOSSARY New Rule Type What we are trying to achieve during the 10 year life of the plan. Exclusion Programme Prevent the weed or pest establishing in our region. Eradication Programme Progressive Containment Programme Sustained Control Programme Site-led Pest Programme Pathway Programme Get rid of all populations of the weed or pest. Contain or reduce the geographic distribution to a smaller area over time. Reduce the impacts on values and spread to other properties by keeping the levels of the weed or pest below certain thresholds where they start to have impacts. Exclude, eradicate, contain, reduce or controlled within a place to an extent that protects the values of the place eg: in order to protect biodiversity values. Reduce the spread of harmful organisms (as a group, rather than specific species) eg: reduce the spread of marine pests. 3

4 KEY ISSUES AND WHAT WE PROPOSE TO DO ABOUT THEM Issue 1: Lack of awareness and understanding of weeds and animal pests what they are, why they are a problem, how to control them, and how to avoid spreading them. Weeds and animal pests are introduced and spread around our district because people aren t aware of them and have a poor understanding of why and how they need to be managed. This is seen particularly in Gisborne city and our townships, which are major hotspots for weeds in particular. Good information and advisory support to landholders and citizens will also enable them to maximise the effectiveness of their weed and pest control efforts so they do this work during the right season and with the right methods. Increase education, information, advice and assistance to communities and landowners. Undertake weed and pest awareness raising activities particularly in the city and township areas and in the areas of marine and freshwater pests. Issue 2: Multiple weeds and animal pests are being spread in the same way. Targeting these pathways can be a more effective way to stop their spread, than targeting individual species. New pests such as the freshwater weed didymo (rock snot) and the marine pest Mediterranean Fanworm threaten our environment through spread by boats. But they are just two examples of pests that can be spread that way. In marine environments the hulls of boats, and seawater from ballast and sea chests, can spread a large number of pests. Similarly a wide range of freshwater weeds can be spread by boats, kayaks and fishing gear not just didymo. And this is a problem with agricultural and forestry weeds also. Many of these have spread through the district through the movement of farm or forestry harvest equipment. Develop Pathway Management Plans for key risk pathways. These plans might include rules and other methods to ensure we reduce the spread of weeds and animal pests by that pathway. In the first instance we will develop a Marine Pathway Plan and a Freshwater Pathway Plan. Develop pathway focussed education programmes about farm biosecurity and movement of agricultural and forestry equipment. 4

5 Issue 3: Gisborne city and the townships are the source of many weed and pest infestations and are where the effects of some weeds and pests are most felt. The city and townships generate the most requests for service for weed and pest management. Pests such as wasps, feral pigeons, magpies, Argentine ants and privet mainly have their effects felt in these more built up areas. In addition many weeds are present in high populations in the city and townships particularly those that affect biodiversity. New environmental weed infestations are often garden escapes or spread by garden waste dumping from built up areas. Specifically target city and township areas for weed and animal pest management where they have their major infestations (for example, moth plant, boxthorn, Argentine ants, spiny emex) or where their effects are felt most strongly (such as privet, magpies) Use a combination of approaches education, advocacy, assistance, pathways of spread (for example, garden waste) and rules. Issue 4: Roadsides are a major source and dispersal point for some weeds and pests. The current approach of requiring adjacent landowners to be responsible for roadside weeds isn t working. Road maintenance can often be a source of weed spread (for example, flail mowing spreading pampas, roadside illegal dumping, movement of road maintenance machinery and materials) and adjacent landowners are not the source of the problem. Nationally all other regional councils require the roading authority to take responsibility for their weeds. Require NZ Transport Agency and Tairāwhiti Roads to take responsibility for roadside weed and animal pest management within the road reserve of formed roads. Where paper roads run through private land, weed and animal pest management will continue to be the adjacent landowner responsibility. 5

6 Issue 5: Lack of weed and animal pest control on Crown land can undermine the success of efforts by adjacent landowners and the Council to manage weeds and animal pests. We now have the ability to put in place Good Neighbour Rules which require the Crown to do its bit to support Council and landowner efforts. Until the recent amendments to the Biosecurity Act, the Crown was not bound by the Regional Pest Management Plan rules. Where there is weed or animal pest control activity being undertaken on adjacent land, we will require the Crown to be a Good Neighbour and also do weed and animal pest control on Crown land. The main Crown land affected is owned by the Department of Conservation and Land Information New Zealand. Issue 6: Some weeds and animal pests are only a problem in some locations, and others are so widespread that managing them across the district is unrealistic. Management of ecological and biodiversity threats in particular is more effective if it is dealt with on a site basis rather than just targeting individual species. Managing weeds and animal pests on a site-led basis rather than species-led basis is now recognised as the most effective way of dealing with many widespread weeds and animal pests, particularly where they only have their impacts in particular types of locations. In addition, existing landowner, QEII Trust, Nga Whenua Rahui, community and DOC site-led biodiversity programmes are undermined by lack of weed and pest control by adjacent neighbours. Site led programmes and associated rules can help ensure the success of weed and pest control efforts where they are protecting particular values such as biodiversity. What we proposed to do: Put in place new site-led programmes for many of the weeds and animal pests in the existing RPMS. This means rules for control will be related to where the site led programmes are being undertaken rather than across the whole district. We will develop criteria for site-led programmes and where rules will apply to adjacent landowners. 6

7 Issue 7: Possum management. Possum control is currently the biggest focus of animal pest management in the Gisborne district. With the increasing success of the Bovine TB programme and the reduction of the threat of Bovine TB in Hawkes Bay coming into the district it may be more effective to focus our possum (Bovine TB vector) control efforts on the Hawkes Bay boundary, rather than evenly spread across the district. While possums also do damage to biodiversity and erosion protection plantings, the major driver for the current RPMS focus has been vector control. Four options are proposed to consider in relation to possum control in the new plan. Option 1: Retain current District-wide control approach to possums. The current programme sees possums being controlled by the us on a District wide basis. The focus is on maintaining low numbers on farmland across the District, with PMA (high value bush) areas and erosion control plantings targeted for control. Option 2: Some District wide control but more focus on Hawkes Bay border area. This would be a scaling back in much of the district and result in possum numbers increasing perhaps to a 30% Residual Trap Catch level with 10% Residual Trap Catch level of control in the southwest part of the District (for example, Wharerata, Tiniroto, Waerenga-O-Kuri, Pihere). Option 3: Undertake an intensive targeted approach to possum control in a tight buffer area on the Hawkes Bay Boundary and elsewhere treat possum as a site-led pest. This would see the focus of possum control being in a small band along the Hawkes Bay boundary perhaps 2km wide, with a low level such as 5% Residual Trap Catch in that location. Everywhere else in the district possum control would only be required/occur in relation to site-led programmes such as in targeted biodiversity or erosion protection areas. Option 4: Maintain a possum control buffer with Hawkes Bay with a relatively low level (10% RTC) and support joint landowner/council control across the district where requested by landowners through the creation of designated possum control areas. This approach could be similar to that of some councils whereby if a group of landowners get together and agree to jointly undertake possum control, the Council will undertake a knock down to a low level (eg 5% RTC) and support landowners with bait, traps and advice to undertake possum control themselves on an ongoing basis. An example of this type of programme is the Taranaki Self-Help Programme. 7

8 Possum Management: Costs of the Options The costs of these options are likely to be similar, however once the Council has decided on the option to implement, it will also be looking at whether we should continue to be the agency to deliver the possum control programme. Currently it is our staff who deliver the programme funded by a targeted rate on rural landowners. Some other councils contract private operators to undertake possum control, rather than using their own staff who only undertake monitoring of the contracts for example Waikato Regional Council. Other councils only monitor possum numbers, and require landowners to undertake the control themselves by enforcing rules for example Hawkes Bay Regional Council. Issue 8: Eradication of small infestations of weeds and animal pests which have not yet established in many locations in the district is most effectively achieved by targeted effort from experienced pest control staff. The benefit to the wider community of eradication of pests in low numbers (so they don t spread) is much greater than the benefit to an individual landowner. In the current RPMS rooks are the only pest targeted for eradication. But there are a number of weeds which have six or less established sites where eradication is a feasible option within ten years. Some of these weeds are known as Total Control in the current strategy we monitor these and requires landowners to manage them. Clearly identify weeds and pests for eradication and time frames to achieve this. Our staff undertake direct service delivery to eradicate these pests rather than rely on monitoring and landowner action. 8

9 Issue 9: New pests have come into the region since the last RMPS. Surveillance and control as soon as a pest arrives is a key way of preventing new pests establishing. Pests such as Mediterranean fanworm, horse nettle and apple of Sodom have come into the district since More pests will inevitably arrive from neighbouring regions and through pest pathways. Develop an active surveillance programme and respond to eradicate new pests in order to prevent their establishment in the district. Include newly arrived pests in the eradication programme, and also identify potential risk species which may come into the district and identify these in an active exclusion programme. This might include pests such as didymo, Chilean needle grass, nasella tussock and eastern rosella. Issue 10: Lack of action by some landowners is undermining the weed and animal pest control efforts of the Council and other landowners in the district. We have a wide range of enforcement powers under the Biosecurity Act, but in practice has tended not to place a strong emphasis on enforcement. Other councils have a much more assertive approach to compliance with pest management rules. This increases the effectiveness of weed and pest control efforts, as they are not undermined by some landowners inaction. Be very clear with all landowners that if Council is unable to achieve compliance with rules through working with landowners that enforcement options will be followed through with. Enforcement options include notices of direction and also direct control and cost recovery. 9

10 Issue 11: Council land is also a source of weeds and animal pests. Council has a number of landholdings such as parks and reserves, as well as freehold land which are afflicted with weed and animal pest problems. Like the Crown we need to be a good neighbour and as a regulatory authority for weeds and animal pests provide a good example of what is needed in this area. Assess Council owned land for weed and pest issues, develop and implement good practice weed and pest management plans. Use these sites as both case studies of good practice and also demonstrations of effective weed and pest management. Issue 12: A new National Pest Pet Accord has been developed. Releases of pets into the wild and these establishing as pests has become a significant problem in some parts of New Zealand. A new National Pest Pet Accord much like the National Plant Pest Accord has been developed. Implement the National Pest Pet Accord alongside the National Plant Pest Accord. 10

11 REGIONAL PEST MANAGEMENT PLAN FEEDBACK FORM Name: Address: Phone: 1. Do you support increasing education, information, advice and assistance programmes? 2. Do you support the development of Pathway Plans for Marine and Freshwater Pests? 3. Do you support targeting Gisborne city and township areas for weed and animal pest management? 4. Do you support requiring roading authorities being responsible for weeds and pests within the road reserve of formed roads? 5. Do you support including Good Neighbour Rules for the Crown in the new RPMS? 6. Do you support the move to site-led programmes for widespread weed and pest species? 11

12 7. Do you support Council undertaking direct service delivery to eradicate pests where this is feasible within 10 years? 8. Do you support the development of an active surveillance and immediate response programme for new pest arrivals into Gisborne? 9. Do you support stronger use of Council s enforcement powers around weed and animal pests? 10. Do you support any of the possum management options outlined in the discussion document? Option 1: Current district wide control approach. Option 2: Some district wide control but more focus on Hawkes Bay border. Option 3: Intensively target Hawkes Bay buffer area, elsewhere site-led pest. Option 4: Maintain Hawkes Bay buffer, support landowner initiatives in designated possum control area. YES YES YES YES NO NO NO NO Comments: 12 PLEASE RETURN TO: Gisborne District Council PO Box 747 GISBORNE 4040