biosecurity activity (plants) - horizons · control, and mpi presented about the latest work at a...

Biosecurity Activity (Plants)

1 Zero Density/Containment Species

1.1 Activity Report

1.1.1 Species worked on during this reporting period include banana passionfruit, climbing spindleberry, old man’s beard, Pinus contorta.

Old Man’s Beard

1.1.2 We have finished the control season against old man’s beard for 2016. While the later part of the season was disrupted with velvetleaf survey and destroy work we have good support from contractors finishing off control work and the relatively late summer, mild autumn conditions allowed us to complete a full work programme. We again used all available tools to survey for and destroy old man’s beard in the control zone.

1.1.3 Of interest to the future programme has been the big influence of forests and forestry companies in the ease or otherwise of site management. Whanganui area sites have increased in number as recently harvested forests near the containment zone are highly vulnerable to invasion and subsequent establishment. We are also finding access is becoming more difficult due to harvesting operations placing restrictions across a forest. Though a relatively short time period in the life of a forest, some estates are harvested over a number of years as compartments come on stream, and the access issues mean survey and control operations take more time. This is compounded by our desire to get in early and find plants before they become mature and able to spread from the canopy height; something we may not be able to achieve without good access.

1.1.4 A couple of discoveries this year have really impressed upon staff how effective old man’s beard is at making the most of any situation. While looking for the root systems of two very large vine systems recently the staff member for Tararua was puzzled when a ground inspection revealed nothing. It wasn’t until he looked up and saw the vines had grown aerially, as an epiphyte, from within host trees!

Photo 1: Sub- canopy old man’s beard not seen from aerial survey, only found by field survey. (D.Alker)

Photo 2: Old man’s beard stem system existing without touching the ground, encased within a tree. (J.Keast)

Pinus contorta

1.1.5 Control work continued against P. contorta through the Waiouru area and northern parts of the Control zone. Our work to protect significant areas of natural habitat drives the programme. These areas comprise crown land within the central plateau and also significant areas of vulnerable private land, from wetlands to fragile sub-alpine grasslands. The wetland complex at Raketapauma has mixed land tenure and has for some time been the focus of protection works from wilding conifers. Adjoining shelter trees and local isolated large coning trees have been felled in recent years and we are now down to mopping up the last of the progeny caused from this ‘seed rain’. However, it was quite a shock to see the internal recruitment from trees within the wetland itself, given the size and age of these trrees. Though spread would be slow given their size, it does impress upon us as managers that return periods need to be quite short to accommodate the very fast maturation of contorta within this environment. This season saw 3,038 trees controlled with 814 of them coning.

Photo 3 and Photo 4: The left image shows a Pinus contorta ‘tree’ with a mature cone at only 4 years old and less than one metre high. The right image shows similar trees dispersing through Raketapauma wetland area. (M.Matthewson)

1.1.6 Horizons staff organised the 33rd meeting of the Pinus contorta Coordinating Committee, now known as the Central North Island Wilding Conifer Group. The meeting was held in Taupo over May 18-19. Day one was an information exchange session with the various agencies updating all about their progress over the last two years (frequency of meeting), science input from SCION, who presented about the latest wilding research and chemical control, and MPI presented about the latest work at a national level that seeks to outwork the national WildingConifer Management Strategy. Day two included a field trip hosted by DOC and Hawkes Bay Regional Council to assess the challenges and success of wilding confier control in the upper Rangitaiki.

Photo 5: Leith Rhynd from DOC Turangi, describing the success of protecting the Rangitaiki frost flats from conversion into a forest with the potential loss of a rare habitat and at least two unique to New Zealand species. (C.Davey)

Craig Davey Natural Resources and Partnerships Coordinator - Plants

2 Production Species

2.1 Activity Report

2.1.1 Complaints or enquiries were received about blackberry, broom and gorse. Species worked on during this period include woolly nightshade.

2.1.2 We had about a dozen boundary complaints over this period. Most were able to be resolved without the compliance process of legal notices. However, we did have to issue request to clear notices in some instances and one outstanding boundary complaint was acted on.

Photo 6: Landowner RTC issue has been resolved with clearance being done. (D.Alker)

2.1.3 A longstanding matter in the Tararua District between an occupier of Maori land, Horizons, the neighbour, and the owners of the property is nearing resolution. The occupier, who is fighting eviction, is still involved in legal court processes. His eviction is in the Court of Appeal at the moment but we expect it will proceed without a hearing. This will hopefully lead to his removal from the land and then the parties involved can take the next steps in resolving the boundary matter. Te Tumu Paeroa have been good to deal throughout the considerable time this process has taken, and are equally if not more frustrated than we are over this matter.

Keep it clean

2.1.4 A staff member was working in forestry blocks at Ongarue and noticed a contractor from Rotorua was undertaking vegetation clearance with mowers. He was advised about the tutsan he was mowing and without washing his equipment he would more than likely spread that to the next location he mowed. The staff member suggested washing down his mower before leaving the block and going back to Rotorua, explained the threat tutsan posed and that he was not to knowingly spread tutsan. Once the contractor was aware of the situation he was happy to comply and let Horizons know when this was being done; which allowed us to audit and capture the process.

2.1.5 Staff also worked with Trevor James, AgResearch, on chemical and adjuvant trials against tutsan on a local farm.

Photo 7, Photo 8 and Photo 9: Washing down mowing equipment to prevent tutsan spreading from Ongarue to Rotorua and beyond. (D.Alker)


3 Biological Control

3.1 Targets – Year to Date Progress

Measure Reporting Period

YTD Actual 1

st 2

nd 3

rd 4

th 5

th

Monitor and report on bio agent release sites - sites inspected

0 3 12 4 20 39

Monitor and report on bio agent release sites - new releases/transfers

0 - 13 6 19

3.2 Activity Report

Field horsetail

3.2.1 The Rangitikei Horsetail Group has been successful in its application to the Environmental Protection Agency for the release of the field horsetail weevil to assist with field horsetail management in New Zealand. The group is now funding a breeding programme in the Christchurch containment facility of Landcare Research to hopefully have enough weevils mature and ready for release in late spring or early summer.

Photo 10: Field horsetail weevil Grypus equiseti (Landcare Research)

Tutsan

3.2.2 The Tutsan Action Group has been successful with its application to the Environmental Protection Agency for the release of the tutsan leaf and stem feeding moth and the leaf feeding beetle to assist with tutsan management in New Zealand. Nine years of commitment and persistence has paid off for the Taumarunui community and others involved in this project.

Buddleia

3.2.3 Buddleja weevils are still spreading rapidly across the region, moving through the Ruahines and reaching as Weber on their own. They are doing considerable damage, with many trees stripped completely, similar to what is being seen further North. This explosion has really only come this year, which is quite amazing.

Photo 11: Buddleja leaves being stripped by larvae and also showing adults. (J.Keast)

Photo 12: Buddleia leaf weevil damage on the Tamaki River, about 6 km as the crow flies from closest release site. (No, it hasn’t been sprayed). (J.Keast)

Photo 13: Broom showing galls, Whanganui. (C.Davey)

Broom gall mite

3.2.4 This time of the year is when we report through to Landcare Research the local results of those biocontrol agents flagged under the National Biocontrol Assessment project. The only species we currently report on is the broom gall mite. Others to come on stream shortly will be the Darwin’s barberry weevil, and tutsan and field horsetail agents among others.

3.2.5 We assess 11 of our 30 odd viable sites and now have two sites showing the presence of the broom gall mite. As can be seen in the image to the right, galls form on branches and have the effect of soaking up the plant’s resources into the gall as opposed to growth.

3.2.6 The images in figure 5 show the effect of the gall mite since release and this year when the galls were confirmed.

3.2.7 We expect the mites are having an influence on the broom prior to the galls becoming visible. We have every expectation that over the next couple of years the other sites we assess will begin to present galls.

Photo 14 and Photo 15: Release site of broom gall mite April 2012, (left hand image). The ratty looking appearance 4 years and 1 month later, May 2016. (C.Davey)


4 Non-rateable Land & Crown Agencies


Measure Reporting Period YTD

Actual Target %

1st 2

nd 3

rd 4

th 5

th

MOU/Liaison progress 1 4 2 3 10 12 60%

4.2 Activity Report

We liaise with the following agencies: LINZ, DOC, KiwiRail, NZ Defence Force, NZ Transport Agency (NZTA), Palmerston North City Council and Whanganui, Ruapehu, Rangitikei, Manawatu, Tararua and Horowhenua district councils. We also meet annually with neighbouring regional councils to discuss boundary pest control issues.

4.2.1 We have met with various non-rateable and crown agencies over the last two months, particularly in relation to the Regional Pest Management Plan and implications for these entities.


5 Surveillance



Actual %

1st 2

nd 3

rd 4

th 5

th

Survey and inspect all nurseries for National Pest Plant Accord (NPPA) listed weeds

0 - - - - 0 NA

Report all discoveries and action taken Reported below

Survey and record status of all known and new Surveillance species sites

26 - - - - 26 NA

New sites 0 - - 11 2 0 NA

Total sites 26 - - 37 39 39 NA

Zero Density progress (cumulative sites at Zero Density)

18 - - - - 46%

5.2 Activity Report

Velvetleaf

5.2.1 Staff undertook a second inspection at the only Kyros 128 fodder beet paddock to not present with velvetleaf, and again confirmed absence of the invasive plant. We also inspected two previously infected properties for any late season bolting/presence and did not find any.

5.2.2 We were alerted to the presence of velvetleaf in the Tararua by DLF (the seed merchant that supplied New Zealand with contaminated fodder beet) after they found plants while inspecting for yield assessment. This property was not known to Horizons, and through a trace back we have pinned it to a batch of seed sold out of Farmlands Dannevirke. Staff had investigated in March and received information to warrant closing out this batch. We now know Farmlands staff had taken it upon themselves to inspect this crop under their national office directions. This decision unfortunately resulted in three separate properties now being infested with velvetleaf. We found nine plants across two properties totalling 11 ha at Ormondville and a further plant 50 km away. This lone plant was found due to a contractor trace back identifying where the seed left in the drill after sowing at Ormondville travelled off farm and subsequently was sown in the headland of the next block, which happened to be a different line of fodder beet.

5.2.3 We have disposed of all collected plants and any collected seed not in boxes at Bonney Glen landfill.


Map 1: Known locations of velvetleaf in our region as at end of May 2016; found in Kyros, Bangor and contaminated lines.

6 Awareness & Promotion



Actual 1st 2

nd 3

rd 4

th 5

th

Report on all awareness and promotional activity *1 45 88 186 120 63 502

*1 AP/LTP targets

6.2 Activity Table

Activity What

Talks to groups

Horowhenua Forest and Bird NPPA Talk,

Central North Island Wildling Conifer Group meeting held in Taupo on 18-19 May.

Field days

Media articles Velvetleaf – Manawatu Standard

6.3 Activity report

Graph 1: Pest plant enquiries - summary

0

5

10

15

20

25

Production Zero-Density Freshwater Surveillance Non-Strategy

24

21

0 1

17

Frontlines: April-May 2016

6.3.1 The main topics of enquiry during this period were:

PRODUCTION Enquiry about green thistle beetle availability

ZERO-DENSITY Old man’s beard sightings

FRESHWATER No enquiries this period

SURVEILLANCE Field horsetail

NON-STRATEGY Arum lily, climbing dock, blue morning glory and black nightshade

Check Clean Dry Programme competition

6.3.2 Best yet. New initiatives. Highest number of people engaged with. National training.

6.3.3 The 2015-16 Check Clean Dry campaign in the Horizons Region was the most successful season in the programme’s history. This was achieved by building on the strategies and stakeholder engagement used for the past two seasons. Compared to last season, which up to then was the most successful to date, more people were seen at point of activity locations, with four times as many in the northern part of the region; new events were included in the programme and a new club that had never been previously involved in the programme was engaged. Almost all relevant clubs and organisations in the Horizons region have now been included in the programme in the last three seasons. The Massey Alpine Club remains the only known club in the region where despite attempts, engagement has not occurred. This season there was also new engagement with secondary schools in the Whanganui area, as well as maintaining links with key stakeholders, businesses and organisations. Signage is in place at all significant user sites in all waterways, though much will need replacing next season due to aging signage. Media coverage was achieved through newspaper articles, a radio interview and an email to all Hunting and Fishing email recipients (60,000) prior to the start of the trout fishing season, thus reaching a major proportion of New Zealand’s fishermen and hunters.

6.3.4 As for the last two seasons, the region was managed in two parts, northern and southern. The northern area, the Ruapehu District, was covered by a new advocate, Opae Steedman, from December to February. Andrew Watt provided advocacy for the rest of the season in that area. The southern part of the region (Rangitikei, Whanganui, Tararua, Manawatu, Horowhenua and Manawatu districts) was covered by Andrew Watt. Andrew and Opae worked semi-autonomously under the management of Craig Davey, Environmental Coordinator for Horizons Regional Council. Andrew’s experience and expertise was utilised to train Opae and plan a waterside advocacy strategy for the northern part of the region, which was implemented very successfully by Opae.

6.3.5 Having advocates based in different locations (Ashhurst and Taihape) meant again this large region could be effectively covered during the peak summer season by minimising travel

time and costs. The ideal location for the northern advocate would be National Park/ Ohakune. Unfortunately no suitable candidate could be found in one of those locations this season.

6.3.6 Running the programme over 12 months was again very successful as much of the club and stakeholder engagement occurred or was planned over the winter months. Many large clubs organise club meetings up to six months in advance so can never be effectively engaged by a summer-only advocate. Tourism operators are also more receptive during their winter season. Although they may be interested in promoting Check Clean Dry, they are often very busy during the traditional summer advocacy period and can be less receptive than they would be when they are not so busy.

Photo 16: Questioning competitors, Ruapehu Express (A.Watt)

6.3.7 A focus on popular walking tracks and freedom campsites meant a huge fourfold increase in numbers engaged in the northern part of the region compared to last season, which to then had the most high risk users engaged by waterside advocacy.

6.3.8 The 2015-16 season aimed to build on the relationships established with clubs and other organisations over previous seasons, so they would adhere to Check Clean Dry and also spread the message and distribute collateral as part of what they do. As per last season, this was achieved by:

Working with retailers, accommodation providers, manufacturers and i-Sites to promote Check Clean Dry and distribute collateral.

Create opportunities for stakeholders to take ownership of Check Clean Dry and distribute collateral and promote Check Clean Dry where possible.

Identify resources and train other individuals who would promote Check Clean Dry and distribute collateral, either while they are doing their outdoor activities or through their work (e.g. tourism operators).

6.3.9 This approach has generally been successful, though there was variation with levels of engagement across groups and organisations. This was expected when this strategy was formulated. Ongoing motivation was found to be an issue for some groups, businesses and individuals. Relationships and the promotion of the programme with stakeholders, groups and individuals cannot be taken for granted for those relationships to remain effective. Overall though, resourcing groups and individuals to promote Check Clean Dry did extend the reach and effectiveness of the programme. On a number of occasions Andrew Watt came across risk users who had received collateral and Check Clean Dry information from stakeholders and groups like i-Sites and Fish and Game rangers. That showed the success of working with groups and individuals to promote the message in order to reach a wider audience than could be achieved by advocates alone.

6.3.10 Pukaha Mt Bruce continued to include Check Clean Dry as part of the daily tuna (eel) talk. Andrew Watt trained staff in how to present that message and they have plenty of cleaning collateral to distribute. This initiative exposed thousands of risk users to the Check Clean Dry message this season. A high quality collateral stand next to where the talk occurs will be implemented over the winter ready for next season, so that cleaning collateral is available straight after that talk.

6.3.11 This season saw 4,775 high risk users engaged by waterside advocacy, compared to 2,845 in 2014-15. That increase was almost all in the northern part of the region. Last season, 559 risk users were engaged in that area compared to 2,307 this season. Targeting non-traditional locations like popular tramping tracks and mountain biking locations that may not be near a waterway or have waterway crossings was very successful, especially the Ketetahi track end. These locations are used by an array of high risk users. People were very receptive to the Check Clean Dry message at these locations, even though they weren’t engaged in a water based activity at the time. Specifically targeted were locations where we thought foreign freedom campers, trampers and other high risk users were likely to be.

6.3.12 Foreign freedom campers were targeted as the priority high risk user group this season. Locations specifically targeted for them were:

Ohinepine Campsite (Ruapehu District)

Waikawa Reserve (Horowhenua District)

Woodville Ferry Reserve (Tararua District)

Tongariro Northern Crossing, Ketetahi and Mangatapopo track ends (Ruapehu District)

Mangahuia Campsite (Ruapehu District)

Mangawhero Campsite (Ruapehu District)

Manawatu Gorge Walk (Palmerston North District)

Woodville Campground (Tararua District).

6.3.13 All these sites proved to be great locations to engage high risk freedom campers. Often these locations weren’t popular with domestic campers and emptied out mid-morning and filled up in the late evening. This required a change from 8am-5pm advocacy to effectively engage them. There appeared to be a marked increase in foreign freedom campers this season. For example, the Woodville Ferry Reserve used to have two to four freedom campers their each morning two years ago, now that number is between 10 and 30.

6.3.14 The advocates felt that not only were more high risk users engaged this season through point of activity advocacy but that a higher percentage of high risk users were engaged. This was achieved by targeting locations where high risk users were likely to be and spending less time at some of the traditional campsites and swimming spots, where most people are very low risk to no risk of spreading pests as the annual camping trip to that location is the sum of their water based activity.

6.3.15 For the first time, a differentiation was made between high and low risk users when recording point of activity advocacy, although that information was not recorded during previous seasons. Anecdotally Andrew Watt ,who spoke with over 2,600 high risk users, felt that he was talking with a far higher proportion of high risk users, especially foreign freedom campers, than in previous seasons. This differentiation was made to give more meaning to engagement figures as we aimed to engage high risk users. The type of high risk activity was also recorded to gauge the proportion of different user groups being engaged.

6.3.16 The number of events we attended or that were engaged in the Check Clean Dry programme was similar to last season, though more people were engaged though those events. Most events had Check Clean Dry information sent out to competitors before the event. There were pleasing rates of compliance at most events, with many competitors having already Check Clean Dried or knowing that a cleaning station would be there.

6.3.17 All event organisers worked with were fine to have advocates attend and provide Check Clean Dry resources and cleaning stations, but few have shown any initiative to do anything themselves. This is an ongoing challenge as events such as the Rangitikei River Race require no concessions, so there is little leverage that can be applied to event organisers to do Check Clean Dry for the event themselves. However, attending these events is a very effective way to engage high risk user group like multi-sporter,s who are difficult to find and engage otherwise. Attending events is still a very effective use of resources to reach these otherwise hard to reach risk groups like multi-sporters and anglers, as well as minimising risk of a pest incursion involved with the events.

6.3.18 Overall, there seems to be a trend that smaller local events are shrinking or disappearing while large professionally run events are holding their own or growing. Three small events attended in the last few seasons now know longer run.

Photo 17: CCD advocacy works! Two French anglers about to fish the Manawatu River having checked and cleaned their equipment after reading about Check Clean Dry when they bought their fishing licences online. (A.Watt).

Craig Davey NATURAL RESOURCES AND PARTNERSHIPS COORDINATOR - PLANTS

Biosecurity Activity (Plants) Summary

Project Key Deliverables Progress to Date

Nature Central (NC) Wilding Conifer Implementation Plan

Work with NC partners and other stakeholders to: 1. Form plan

2. Activity planning and tracking sheet

3. Annual meeting scheduled.

Annual meeting held, maps produced, alignment with programmes achieved.

Waimarino TNP Darwin’s barberry control programme

Organise joint work programme alongside DOC.

Programme underway. We have good cooperation and alignment with DOC.

Yellow bristle grass (YBG) intervention investigation

Decide on the best actions Horizons can take to arrest the spread and impact of YBG on the Region.

Beginning to disseminate best practice information to road managers. Topic of meeting with NZTA. Staff assessed infected roadside management options in the Waikato.

Rangitikei Horsetail Group

Assist group financially and with actions as required.

EPA approves field horsetail weevil for release into New Zealand.

Tutsan Action Group Assist group financially and with actions as required.

EPA approves tutsan agents for release.

Agent assessment project

1. Workable structure established for Horizons staff to implement

2. Tutsan assessment sites established.

3. Other plants planned and criteria established.

Horizons’ protocol for regional and national assessment protocol commitments has been established.

Desert Road Invasive Legume Control Group

Relationship between parties maintained.

MOU completed

Coordinated action in priority areas is undertaken against the target species.

Annual meeting held in late September, collaborative approach to weed infestation management occurring between parties. Work of the various parties is progressing through the spray season.

Check, Clean, Dry (CCD) advocacy programme

1. Establish season plan

2. Establish register of relationships to be managed to enable wide community uptake of message.

Programme wrapped for the year.

biosecurity activity (plants) - horizons · control, and mpi presented about the latest work at a...

Documents