*,.*;1&ffi.r4g., ' r 1, '- i:-ur*- .-c
Phil Bell and AI Bramley
.
Ib;,r',i,
't'"
newzealand .govt.nz
l)cl)1r rt ll lrllt ()l' ( irrscn'aliort 'la I'it l)tt
-.11(t tt'1.10
i
Cover image: Sculpture at the enEance to Rakiura National Park, Stewa.t Island Photo. Sue Wilkins (2oo8)
o Copyright May2o13, New Zealand Depa ment of Conseryation
Prepared by Phil Bell and Al Bramley Future of Predator Control Prosramme
Technical Developnent Science and Capability Group
Wellinston
In the intercst of foâ‚Źst conseffation, we support paperless electronic publishinq-
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Stewart lsland represents a significantly larger biodiversity restoration project than we have ever attempted. At over 169,0oo ha any attempt to remove rats, feral cats, and possums would be r5 times larger than the largest successlul island eradication conducted in New Zealand (Norway rats lrom Campbell Island).
Using our current suite oftools and best practice for island eradications, we do not consider that it is technically feasible to eradicate rats, cats, and possums from Stewart Island at this time.
Pivotal to the success of this project is the ownership of it by rAe Srewaft Island comm&nicy. Through seeing and understanding what can be achieved, the community will become project champions and the guardians ofthe natural capital that is restored. By signilicantly enhancing ihe biodiversity around the Halfmoon Bay area that understanding will occur, and the aspiraiions of the local communitywill include capturing the environmental AND economic benefits that a predator-free Stewart Island can bring. To achieve this, we propose starting with a project to eliminate predators from an area encompassing the township (somewhere between loooha and soooha). The final extent and methods used to eliminate the predators would be for the community to decide. We recommend that, to the extent it is financially possible, the communitybe allowed to make the biodiversity gains 'on their terms'. We have also identified the critical technical innovations that would'change the game' {or this project (and most large scale predator control projects in New Zealand). If these innovation challenges were overcome, theywould go a long way towards making a project of this magnitude feasible. The critical teehnical innovations are; . large scale detection of key predators . targeted application of toxin 1th;s ;nnovorion would fLow on from the detection
. . .
innovationl improved efficiency olbait spreading lure development deer repelient
In addiiion to the critical technical innovations, a number of important knowledge gaps have been identified during this analysis. These gaps need to be better understood beforr we can determine the feasibility of this project. Theyare: . predator interactions e.g. will cats be driven towards local extinction if rats are removed? . will mice establish and erupt if rats and/or cats are removed?
r . . o
reline technologies forpredator proof fencing new toxin application methods ongoing biosecurity, especially against rats and mice invasion behaviour
In order to drive these innovations forward a minimum investment ofgr million per annum is requircd for the next 5 years.
SETTING THE SCENE Dr Gareth Morgan (of the Morgan Foundation) has approached the Department of Conservation proposing a partnership approach to investigating the elimination of rats, possums, and feral cats from Stewart Island. This report scopes the main issues and areas for consideration belore such a venture can be undertaken'. Taroet area Stewart Island/Rakiura is ihe third largest island of New Zealand. It is located approximately 3okm south ofthe South Island.It is a large island surrounded by a number of smaller islands and rock stacks (some of which are already predator {ree, such as Codlish Island (Whenua Hou) and Big South Cape Island (Taukihepa)). The total land area that would need to be targeted in an elimination attempt would be 169,464 ha. This represents a project that is 15 times largerthan the largest successful rodent eradication (Norway rats off Campbell lsland); and 6 times larger than the largest successful cat eradication (2g,oooha Marion Island).
Approximately 9oz olthe island is public conservation land managed by the Department of Conservation, ofwhich Bo% is ihe Rakiura National Park. The remaining 10% ofihe island is managed by the Rakiura Maori Land Trust (approx. 8z); or in freehold title (zz) centred on the town. The population on the island is approx. 38o people, the majority of which are concentrated in the township area on the northern side of Paterson Inlet. Conservation priodties Within DOC's ecosystem prioritisation system of Public ConseNation Land, Stewart Island has twelve eeosystem management units present in the top 7OO ranked units. The highest ranked ecosystem management unit is the Rakeahua River wetlands (664ha), ranked at 47. The other ecosystem management units (and associated ranls) are: . Freshwater River (!o,748ha) - zs! . Tin Ranse (7482ha) 257 . Toitoi flat wetland (9a8ha) - 337 . Ruggedy dunes/saline (rl8ha) ' 352 . Port Pegasus (1452rha) 38o . Mason Bay dunes (L193ha) ' 986 r Smokeybeach dunes (65ha) 498 . Mount Anglem (14s83ha) - sso . Rakeahua (7,o68ha) 619 . Douqhboy Bay dunes (84ha) - 67s o Three Lesged Woodhen (2ha) - 693
While it is clear that Stewart lsland contarns some very important conservation sites, only the top 4oo ecosystem management units across the countryhave been funded for management ftom within DOC's current budget. Therefore, the restoration ol {urther sites will not happen without the help of the community. Accordingly, the Department has embarked on a new operating model, whereby we seek to achieve more conservation across the country by engaging with others in ourwork. Our engagement with Dr Gareth Morgan and our serious consideration of the proposal to eliminate predators from Stewart Island is an example of this new operating model in practice.
l This report
draws heavily lrom the work done in 2oo8 by Brent Beaven for the Stewa.t Island Rakiura
Taroet species Stewart Island is fortunately free ftom mustelids, rabbits, feral pigs, and feral goats - all which have caused signilicant environmental damage across New Zealand.
<
This investigation is centred on the following target species present on Stewart Island: . Norway rat (Rotlus norvegicus) . Ship rat (Rotrus rotrus)
. . o
Kiore/Pacific rat (Rartus erulans) Possum (Irichosurus rulpecula) Feral cat (Felis carus)
However, we also consider that any {uture work should include hedgehogs (Ennaceus europaeus), which are known to be present in small numbers near the township of Oban
Deer (red deer Cervus elopAus; and white tailed deer Odocoileus virginionus) have been excluded from this project; largely due to the high value placed on these animals b' the local and extended community, and the expectation that inclusion of deer will result in significant public opposition to any proposal to undertake this predaior eliminatron project.
It is necessaryto mention that the retention ofdeer on the island will have serious ecological consequences, namely through the inhibition of lorest regeneration. This levâ&#x201A;Ź of impact will need to be monitored and the exclusion of deer from this project does not remove the Department of Conservations responsibility to control deer ifthe necessity arises in the future-
Current approach to eradications The current agreed best practice for island eradications of rodents' in New Zealand is th aerial application frcm a spreader bucket beneath a GPS guided helicopter of brodifacoum (second generation anti coagulant toxin) cereal baits. The bait is spread in two complete applications over an entire island (first being 8kg/ha; and second being 4.skg/ha) 7'1o days apart. Projects targeting multiple species at the same time (e.g. the Rangitoto Motutapu Islands multi species eradication) have used larger application rate and/or a third application to ensure that the target animals gain access to the necessary volume of toxin.
Given the large scale ol this project and the number oftarget species involved, ifthe project were to proceed in the short term in accordance with current best practice, a higher total bait application rate ol z5kg/ha (ikely spread over z or 3 applications) woul likely be required. As such, a minimum ol4240 tonnes ofbait would be needed. Animal Control Products (the company that produces brodifacoum bait in New Zealand) can currently produce approx. 10 tonnes of bait per day. Therefore to produce the amount of bait being suggested, Animal Control Products would take 424 days or over 14 months. I addition, the bait currently has a recommended storage life of 3 to 4 months.
multi species eradication project relies heavily on possums eating the bait directly, and cats succumbing to secondary poisoning through scavenging and eating poisoned rats and possums. However it is unlikely that all individuals will be killed as a Success in a
'zhoome, KGjBrown, DrCox,A.; Croma.ty, Pj Mcclelland, ?., Goldins, C.; Giffiths, R, Bell, P.2orr Curretri Asreed Best Pm.ti.e for Rodenl l.adi.arion Ae.ial broadcastins poisonbait (Ve6ion r.2). New Zealand
result of the toxin, and follow-up work, such as traps, hunting with dogs, etc, would be needed to eliminate those individuals that do not succumb to the poisoning regime.
One predator dog team can effectively hunt approximately so 6oha per day (K. Vinceng pers. comm). Currentlythere are 4 fully certified predator dog handlers in New Zealand
(with z additional handlers currently holding intedm certification), and not all ofthem are certified for all ofthe target species. Given the scale ol Stewart Island, at the rate the) hunt, ii would take t5 dog teams 19o days to cover the entire island.
Therefore, using current best practise techniques, methods, and technology, it is not Ieasible to eradicate rats, possums, and feral eats from Stewart Island at this time. This project is not simply a matter of'scaling up' our existing methods we consider there is t signilicant risk offailure using our current best practise on an island ofthis magnitude.
However, we have identified several critical technical innovations and knowledge gaps that would'change the game'for this project (and most large scale predator controi work in New Zealand). Ilthese innovation challenges were solved, we consider theywould go long way towards deiermining the success of a project ofthis scale.
Steppinq stone approach The Department of Conse ation has a history of incremental improvements in island eradications - taking on islands of increasing size or complexity, learning all the while to do even bigger islands. An example ol this being the combined rat and cat eradicatron or Raoul Island (2938ha) in 2oo2 led onto the multispecies eradications on Rangitoto and Motutapu Islands (combined 3842ha) in 2oo9. Given the two orders of maqnitude size difference involved and the requirement for significant changes in how we undertake eradications ofthis scale (outlined throughout this report), the value in this stepping stone approach appears limited. Where a stepping stone approach is likely to be of benefit. is as trial sites lor some of the technieal innovations described further in this
repon.
ISSUES IDENTIFICATION Sociel engegemeflt end ownership There are very few eradications that have taken place on islands with resident populations,let alone ofthe size of Stewart Islands community. There are approx.3So residenis on Stewart Island at present. There is a growing concern over the viability of the isiand community (with a sh nking population, reduced school pupil numbers, and expensive diesel generated electricity identified as the key drivers ofthese concerns; D. Belworthy, pers. comm). This entne project hinges on its social acceptance by this community - every aspect has a'social dimension' underpinning it. Even if all of the technical feasibility challenges are meq the social aspect has the ability to prevent atry operation ever taking place (e.g. ifthe loeal community does not want it, it will not happen).
Genuine engagement with the community is critical, but its success will be dependent or the community developing a sense oI ownership ofthe project. The community needs to feel that this project delivers some ofthe aspects for their tision'ofthe island. What tha 'vision' for the island is is not well understood, but improved economic prospects are on( result we would expect from this proposed major gain in ecological capital and biodiversity (e.9. via increased tourism). Likewise, in advancing this project, we need to understand and respect the community's attitudes to eradication, biodivercity, the various methodologies and technologies, their support and their opposition.
Starting the journq/: To develop this sense ol ownership from within the Siewart Island community ofthis project, we consider that the immediate operational goal should be to build on, and enhance, the biodiversity gains around the Halfmoon Bay area. There are already a number of small scale community-driven projects happening in that area: . Stewart Island Rakiura Community and Environment Trust (SIRCET) predaror control and restoration work around Halfmoon Bay . Daneing Stars Foundation predator prool fenced sanctuary r Partnership between DOC and Air New Zealand to increase biodiversity around the Rakiura Track o Ulva Island open sanctuary (with the UIva Island Trust) An appetite for conservation and biodiversity restoration already exists in some parts of the community - after all the community 'demanded' that the invading mt population or UIva Island was re eradicated in 2ou. We propose building on ihat work bytargeting an area encompassing the to\anship (somewhere between roooha and Soooha) for elimination of all the target species (including hedgehogs). The exact size ofthe area and methods used to eliminate these predators would be for the communityto decide.In essence, we recommend the community be allowed to make the biodiversity gains'on their terms'.
This smaller-scale project would enable us to enhance our relationship with the community and understand theii motivations, attitudes to eradication and the technique involved, and their willingness to engage with or own a Iarge scale project. At the same time, the project will 'bring more biodiversity to the community's backdoor' building enthusiasm and understanding ofthe connection betvreen eliminating predators and
Target Species Hedsehoss: We consider that any future work should include hedgehogs, which are knoe,n predators of ground nesting birds, as well as having impacts on invertebraie and reptile populations. The current population ofhedgehogs is believed to be small and Ioealised near the towaship oI Oban (B. Beaven, pers. comm) however this needs to be
confirmed. Hedgehogs offer the possibility of an 'early win' for eradication, iftheir limited distribution is confirmed. However, a small eradication targeting the hedgehogs alone may have Iimited visibility, as there appears to be a laek ofcommunity recognition olthe presence or damage ofthe hedgehogs.
Mice: There is no current evidence to suggest that mice are present on the island. The presencâ&#x201A;Ź of cats and rais may have prevented mice from establishing; conversely, the mice may be suppressed to below currently detectable levels on the island. Miee have been eaught on occasion at the main wharfin Oban @. Beaven, perc. comm), so they are a known invasion risk. No mice have ever been detected within the Dancing Stars Foundation management area in the six years it has been managed to zero density of all predators @ehind a predator proof fence), suggesting that they have not beeome established on the island (or at Ieast not in that area ofthe Island). The presence of mice on the salmon farm in Big Glory Bay needs cladfication. It is understood that mice have arrived there on occasion with salmon feed (A. Roberts, pers. comm).lfthey are prcsent on the farm, discussions should be held with the salmon farm company with the goal o{eradicating them and reducing the risk of reinvasion. This is cdtical, given the farm presents a high risk ofintrodueing mice onto Stewart Island.
Ifthe elimination of rats and cats proceedg it could greatly increase the likelihood of mice becoming established on the island (due to the lack of natwal enemies and competitors). Br.rilding understanding about the likelihood of mouse establishment and eruption, and the ecological consequences of those events, will be critical to many future aspects ofthis project - choice of target species, biosecurity requirements, etc. Rots: Generally, where rat species co-exist, habitat partitioning tends to occur. Harper et al3 {ound on Stewart island that ship rats dominated in podocarp broadleaf forest and riparian shrub land; Nor_way rats were most common in subalpine shrub land; and kiore dominated in manuka shrub land. However, ship rats (and Norway rats in smaller numbers) were found in all vegetation/habitat types- It will be important to understand the distdbution and habitat usage by each rat species to determine lvhether there is any competitive interplay for resources (and therefore how that may influence bait or device access lor each species).
3
Harpe., G.A., Dickinsoa K.J.M., and Seddon, P.J. (2oo 5) Hdbitdt use by thtee rut spec;es @anus spp) on
In addition, understanding the relationship between the rats and the feral cats will be important. It has been suggested4 that removing all of the rats could place significant pressure on the feral cats and potentially drive them to extinction by starvation. This theory needs to be robusdy tested.
Cots: Discussions with local DOC staff on Stewart Island has suggested that the disrribution o cats is limited, possibly to habitat that provides best ptotection from wet weather. This needs invesiigatio& however it may open up the possibility oftreating sections ofthe island with cat-speci{ic techniques (rather than the whole island). There is a strong possibility that a number ol cats would be kiiled via secondary poisoning in any bait operation (involving 1o8o or brodifacoum) targeting rats and/or possums. In a small expe ment on Stewart Island g out of to radio collared cats were killed during a roSo operation targeting possums (the cats were found to be scavenging dead possums). As mentioned above, the relationship between cats and rats needs to be studied to identi& ilthere are dependences to be exploited in an elimination operation. However, secondary poisoning can not be relied on to account for all ofthe {eral cats on the island - cats survived the aedal eradication of rats on Raoul Island; and Rangitoto/Motutapu Islands. As such, we need to determine howto conduct the follow u work to detect and kill the remaining animals. The eurrent use of dogs and hunters is Iogistically and technically infeasible on an island the size and scaie of Steurart Island. We need new tools of sufficient high sensitivityto detect low numbers of animals across large landscapes. Some Stewart lslanders own cats as pets. There is the potential for some pets to be killed as a result of an elimination operation. This maydamage any public support for the project. Mitigation measures need to be investigated (and tested with the community{or acceptance) measures could include keeping the animal indoors during the operation (or at least the duration ofthe operation around the town)i or holding the cats offthe isiand for the full duration of the elimination project (to be returned, desexed, once success has been determined).
The Southland Regional Pest Management Strategy (RPMS) requires all pets to be neutered and micro'chipped on Stewart Island. Ifenforced, this will greatly assist in controlling cat numbers on the island during and afier anyelimination. There may be scope to seek additional changes to the RPMS to further rest ct the ownership of cats (and other animals) to maintain the biodiversity gains of any elimination project.
Discussions with Iocal DOC stafl on Stewart Island have suggested thar the distribution ofpossums is limited, possibly driven by availability of preferred habitat. This theory needs investigation, however it may open up the possibility of treating sections of the island for possums (rather than the whole island). Based on experiences from other eradication operations (e.g. Kapiti Island, Codfish Island), it seems unlikelythat poisoning can be relied on to aceount for all possums on the island. As such, we need to determine how to conduct the follow up work to detect and kill the remaining animals. The current use ofdogs and hunters is logistically and
4
Harper, c.A. (2oos) Nrne ticdl and functianal rcsponse of ferol cars (felis catus) t o ranations in abundonce
technically infeasible on an island the size and scale of Stewart Island. We need new tool with sufficiently high enough sensitivity to detect low numbers of animals across large iandscapes.
While a number ofmainland sites have been treaied for possum and rat control with aerially applied ro8o with good results, these have been contrcl operations by nature, they are not seeking to remove every individual. Understanding the issues with interspecies competition in an eradication context (e.g. does one speeies have a competitive advantage that may result in the creation of gaps in the bait coverage such that some individuals do not ever encounter any bait) wili enable robust pianning ol the methodology to reduce this risk.
Target mal<e-up and sequencing: There is a choice to be made as to what suite ol predators is targeted in what order. Ther< appears to be merit in investigating the costs and benefits of a range of targeting approaches (e.g. single species at a time, multi species, etc). The choice made here will have direct flow-on effects to the other areas of the project - namely, biosecurity (e.g. possums are easier to keep off an island than rodents).
Critica] to the decision oftarget make up will be {ull understanding otthe ecological consequences oftaklng one (or more) predator out of the system, and leaving otherc preseni. Will iaking cats out create a mesopredator release situation whereby the rat populations explode? If cats and rats are removed, will mice establish and erupt? Are there ecological beneliis (or costs) in removing possums but leaving the rats and cats present for a time? It willbe critical to understand the population dynamics and interdependencies ofthe target predators (and their prey), in order to design the optimal programme to enhance biodiversity gains on the island. One potential scenario raised in a number o{ discussions dunng the investigation stage of this project has been the removal of possums from the entire island in the immediate future. Given the constraints outiined above (e.g. not able to secure complete eradiation using toxin alone, the number ol dog teams required to hunt ihe island, etc), removrng possums from Stewart Island does not appear feasibie at this time. Advancements in predator (possum) detection tools and understanding of reinvasion behaviour (r,rhich
could allow us to 'defend'areas) may enable a possum eradication to occur in the future, potentially targeting zones one at a time rather than the entire island.
Methodr
Aerictl application: Our current best practise of using helicopters to spread the bait would not work for an island ofthis size. Currently, helicopters can spread around Bookg of bait per llying hour: Therefore, spreading 4240 tonnes of bait over Stewart Is]and would take one helicopter 53oo hours or 663 days flying I hours a day (or alternatively, 67 helicopters flylng for B hours a day lor ro days)l As sueh, we need to Iind improved efficiencies in delivering bait across large landscapes that significanily speeds up and increases coverage ofthe target area (e.g. utilising fixed wing aircraft that can carry and distribute larger loads). Presently, in eradications, we apply a considerable amount ofbait to the island to ensure that every individual has access to the quantity needed to ki]1 them. However, we do not
s
lsland Eradication Advisory Group neetins notes (15
(do.dn
16
December2olo): Stewan lsland Râ&#x201A;Źview key srase l
6876l)1).
1(
know if we are overloading the area with more toxin than is sufficient (to killall individuals). In some operations, this is likely to be the case given some bait is still evident on the ground some weeks after the aerial application has taken place. IIwe could deiect in real time (or close to it) ho1.r many individuals are still present after each application, it could allow for different treatment regimes over time, potentially resulting in less toxin and labour being used.If we are able to reduce the amount of toxin used to onlythat which is necessary, it could result in significantly lower application times and requirements, saving time and resources. G r oun
d - b a s e d c omp on
e
nt s :
Our current tools for detection (e.g. tracking cards/tunnels) and trapping (e.g. DOC series traps in boxes) are too labour intensive for a project of this scale. The track networ (and subsequent maintenance) alone would be beyond our capacity (as well as being undesirable across those ecosystems) not to mention the sheer number o{ devices needing regular checking, baiting, resetting, and maintaining. The need for new and improved detection tools (with high sensitivity to detect low numbers of animals over large landscapes) is abundantly apparent.Ifwe knew where the animal(s) is, we would b< in a posiiion to target our follow-up or response actions with greater precision.
Our current Iures Ior traps (e.g. egg, rabbit meag etc) do not have the optimum'pull'to draw in the target animals over a large area, nor to dlaw them consistently into the devic they encounter. As such, we are required to have our devices rclativelyclose together across the landscape which resuits in a high number of devices and a maintenance regime that becomes prohibitive in a project this size. IIwe could develop a'super lure' (or a series ollures for each target species) it would enable us to set our device networks wider and reduce the number of devices within them pulling the animal to the device, rather than putting the device where the animal is. One area that does not appear to have been considered in ary great detail before now is the idea of deterrents or repellents. Couldwe develop some form of deterrent that repels animals away from eertain areas? This technology could then be used much Iike predator-proof fencing, and could allow us to establish zones or bu{fers that the target animals would be very reluctant to enter (or cross) because of the power olthe detefient.
The township o{ Oban will Iikely need to be treated using ground based techniques (e.9. toxin in bait stations, traps, etc). How this is integrated into the methodology and timing ofthe rest ofthe operation will need serious consideration, to avoid issues with target animals moving between untreated and treated areas. The idea of a predator'proof fence close to the township has been raised for this project. The merits of this approach will need to be investigated, taking account ofthe community's views and perceptions (e.g. being excluded from the rest ofthe island, etc). Predator prool fencing is discussed agair later in the document.
Zoning: The potentially limited distributions of possums and cats add weight to the possibility ol dividing the island into zones to be targeted separatel, rather than attempting the elimination over the entire island. Some eradications on large islands (e.g. Macquarie Island) have applied bait over multiple days, and have retreated small buffer zones (over previously ireated areas) to redllce the risk oI rats moving from untreated into previousb treated zones and avoiding encountering bait. The curreni South Georgia Island Norway rat eradication has been operating under a strategy oftreating the island as a sedes of islands (or zones) due to the many large glaeiers that divide up the island (and are large
enough that mts can not cross them). However, no continuous island has been broken into zones for treatment at different times,
utr
We would need to better understand the invasion behaviour of the target animals, as we1 as our ability to eliminate predators from areas facing constant invasion pressures, and our ability to defend those areas from reinvasion. Critical to this will be our ability to establish and maintain some kind of buffer area between the zones, be it with a predator proof fence and/or a network ofdevices etc.
Tools
Brodifacoum is the most commonly used toxin for rodent eradications on islands. ro8o (sodium flouroacetate) has been used for a number ofyears to target possums and rats it control operations in New Zealand. These are the onlyviable toxins that are currently registered in New Zealand for aerial application under speeific conditions. Currently, brodifacoum can not be broadcast aerially on Stewart Island due to the 1abel restrictions (for aeriallyapplied use oniy on unstocked off shore islands or mainland areas behind predator-proof {ences). Stewart Island would be considered part oi the mainland lor the purpose of an elimination campaign ofthis scale (A. Fairweather, pers. comm). Therefore, it would require a change to its registmtion - there is a precedent her with the registration changed to allow brodifacoum to be aerially applied at mainland sites behind predator'proof fences.
The recent development of new humane toxins has largelyproven unsuccessfu], with only paraminopropiophenone @APP) showing promise thus far. PAPP has recently beer registered in New Zealand for use in fresh meat bait in bait stations to target cats and stoats. The Australian authorities are trialling some methods for encapsulating PAPP fand separately, ro8o] into a bait {or aerial application6 - this work is in its early stages. 11 is possible that aerial application of PAPP targeting cats would be ofbenefit for this project, therefore it will requirc additional trialling and registration here in New Zealand. There is a considerable amount of research going on into new vertebrate toxic agents (VTAs) lor possums at present. These include zinc phosphide (nearly registered); sodiun nitrite; and C*C (where two toxins, cholecalciferol and coumatetralyl are combined). For anyolthese VTAs to be registered in New Zealand by the Agricultural Compounds and Veterinary Medicines Group, a data efficacy package needs to be submitted that shows the VTA is humane. PAPP and sodium nitrite could be considered the most humane of these + VTAs, but all ofthem will be suffieiently humane to pass registration. There are field tdals underway to Iook at the eflieacy of aerially distributed cholecalciferol; zinc phosphide; and sodium nitrite. However, it will likelybe 5* years before any ofthese would be available for aerial distribution @ecause aerial application ofthese VTAs will need to be approved bythe Environmental Protection Authority) (A Fairweather, pers. comm.).
6Johnston,M., Gislionl f., O'Donoghue M., Holdswodh, M., RobiGor! S., HerodA. and Eklom, K (2op) assessnenf of rne Cu/iositya bdt fat tudnogetuent af fetdl cdts in *e seni-atid zane â&#x201A;Źlinders Rdnses NotioroiPorl). Arthur RyLah Ilstitute for lnvilonmental Research Technical Report Series No.234.
field
Traps and devices: The'Good Nature'series of selfresetting traps (for possums and rats, with a cat trap being t alled by US authorities in Hawaii) ofier a way to reduce the trapping burden (mentioned above in the ground based operations section). This technology is improvin all the time, with the number of resets per traps increasing from a single reset (at prototype) to 24 resets lorthe stoat/rat tlap; and 12 resets Ior the possum trap. The Department is currently undertaking trials ofboth the rat/stoat; and the possum resettir traps to investigate their reliabilitn effectiveness and their efficacy compared with the DOC series oftraps. As this technology develops and our understanding grows ofhow best to use it, these resetting tBps may offer effective ways ofcarrying out the groundbased components of an eiimination strategy.
Coupled with the development of PAPP, outlined above, has been the development of a new toxin delivery device known as the'Spit[ire', being deveioped by Connovation Ltd., in association with Lincoln University. This device squirts toxin onto the animaj's body as they move through the box. The animal ingests the toxin as they self-groom and then dies. The mechanism ofthe Spitfirc is the same for all target species, but the'housing' will be tailored for each species for example, the rat and stoat spitfire mechanism can into a standard DOCzoo trap box. It is hoped the Spitlire device will have the ability to deliver approx. too doses oftoxin before it requires refilling. Successful pen trials have been conducted at Lincoln Universityusing PAPP for stoats & cats;1o8o for ship & Norway rats; and zinc phosphide for possums @. Murphy, pers. comm). Field trials are being pianned for all species.
I
Use of predator-proof fences The use oIa predator proo{ fence has been suggested by many people when they contemplate this project and its scale. One area that could benefit fiom having such a
fence would be behind the township area. Predator proof fencing technoloov is sufficiently advanced to enable an order ofmagnitude shift in the biodivercity gains being aehieved around the town. It could potentially serve as a clear demarcation of where aedal application methods end and ground based operations siart (depending on how large ihe area to be treated is); and it could prove to be a key biosecu ty tool in stopping invading animals from reaching the rest ofthe island once clear olpredators- C course, before any fence can be constructed, the Stewart Island community need to agre( to it.
However, if fencing technology is going to be used in this project, we need to understan( it better. While a number of conservation projects in New Zealand are currently using predator proof fencing (e.g. Zealandia, Maungatautiri Ecological Island), we consider there are some critical knowledge gaps which need to be answered, such as how animals interact with these fences, how different designs (height, hoods, mesh shape and size, etc affect pe ormance, and how to manage 'leaks' or breaches of the fence, particularly around the ends (e.g. underctanding the use o{'wings'at the fence ends protruding dowr eliffs or into the ocean). Deel lepellents:
With deer being excluded lrom this projec! it is important that we use cost-effective methods that limit the impact on the deer populations and ihe associated hunting activities. Key to this will likely be the need to further develop effective deer repellents (both operationally and cost-wise) that prevents deer from ingesting toxin or interacting with devices.
O.* .*9
a deer
!L13, but.rl .s|:',: labour inror s;vp
repellent rhat is cur.enr'y used :n aer;at roso op"rarrons,
ro apply to the ba r and rnerelore is verv e\pensivF. Current.y
ad-dingdeer repellent to aerial logo possum operations using very low bait application
rares aods approx. g€j.per ha ro the project costT as a crude indication, that would add a mrnlm rm ol $2.02 million to the cost ol rhe bat (ar rhe volumes L,s"d aoove). \or to mention wherher it is even possible to manulacture rhe quantity of rep"fl""i fil"iy a U" required for an operation ofthis scale.
Deer repellent has never been used in New Zealand in any toxin other than lo8o (A Fairweather, pe,". comm). Research with deer repelle,rt in roao hasl"* red deer by-kill; however lurther research is n""d'"a to a.t"r.in" "fr.*"," *a.* equally (or more) effective in baits containing brodifacoum. Likewise,."*"J f" totesr the effectiveness of deer repellent on.whit" t"l"a a""r """a"a 6tr" _or" ."J.""ii.""ffy vaiued of the deer species on Stewarr Istand). L effect deer repellents have on the atrractivene"", "dditi.r, pd"t^bilitn.nd devices for the target animals (and other non-target species e.g. native birds all research/trials to date indicate that the attractiveness of baitsio nati ru norl speciFb is not in. reased by rne rs. of rne r"pel,ert). ".o",
*l.r"i;;il;;;.
_;;;
;;i.."i#,r," .iii;;;;";;"" .,
Baitmatix: Stewart Island's climate offers a challenge when it comes to the right bait matrix. ln current eradication operations, brodifacoum is used in a cereal balea U"fi n,t"-,.* Howe""r. t\is narriy do.s ror I and le wot condirions well n"".* i"^ ._,,.r..,. . -,r potentially losing palatabitity. Stewart rstand ,".,;;i;;;J" r"",'ia"r. _,,f. ""*"s*C, i."," o","i". j.;;. t m n o1 rarn or nor-) ac ording to N, WA.s N"t,or"t ii"'b:;","r,". (a Us company) produced brodifacor:m bait in a more_weather resistant matrix for the Rat Island Norway rat eradication (in the Aleuti", r"t""d") ;;;;;. iii."i" #i" -,* *"a on Stewan Islano. test;ng wi ,b^ required to en"ure tnar rh" marrii s"l;;;;; wrthstand condirjons on ihe island without adversely alfecting the attrectiveness or palatabilityto the target species (and non target species). The bait matrix used to house the toxin could be coupled with the potential advances in lure deve'opm.nr (outlin.d aoove) o claate a stronger a.tra.,ion [o. the tarqet animals. lt .outd a,low us to use less bait by ,pulling.ar imals to rhe oa,t, ra-her tr an pla'. irq rhe bair unare lh. target ani-nal is. Ol .ourse. any changas in ihF ba;j matrrx make up wiltn^eq ro be thoror.rghly res-eo lo. alracrivaress and pal"."Uiti,V i, Uoti, ,1"
species.
.";i";;;;;
,"rn",
Detection/Monitoring As ou lrned abov". large scale oerection rools ar" one of m" key missinq oiec€s oI technology lor this project. These detection.to.f. ,"rfa ,r,*"a.", individuals,tut ideally they would also be ab1" to taf ""t ""ifi"iir"",i*" iiro".l.i*"i" ,* a U"n,. "" -i.,"r" wir h. As sucn. it could change how we approac\ th. wnole op"rarion -;;hr;;; -. sFrecr.vely rarga. areas with particular tools and/or oevices at ." ecred densiLils dependr g on ihe s:7e ol rhe poprlarions detected. These roo s cou.d ooen uD rhe possibility to 'spot rreat'areas or divide the rstu"a int" ,o.r"., ,"ii,"rlhJ,l ,",I.i,"ff, unnec"ssarily needing to cov"r th. ent:r- is,and with roxin or devi.es
T
IEAG neetins nores (rs 16 Decenbe.2olo): Srewart Island Revi€w keystase 1(docdm 687601).
14
Non-target species Deer:
Although deer are out ofthe scope ofthis project, they do require serious consideration especially iftoxic bait is used. Deer have the potential to consume large quantities of the bait (unless an effective repellent is used) and create gaps in the coverage, while also killing some ofthe deer. These gaps could result in not all target species having access tr the bait and therefore surviving that aspect of the operation. Any eonsumption ofbait (ifbrodifacoum is used) may result in sub lethal levels of the toxin being present in deer. Brodilacoum residues have been found in some deet samples, in the Iivers and (to a lesser extent) in muscle tissue, following some brodifacoum operations3. Due to the toxin s persistence in the food chain, a ban on consumption ofdeer meat from Stewart Island will need to be investigated. The current withholding or caution period used by DOC is 36 months (for a bait station operation). With the presence of deei on Stevvart Island it is likely a withholding period ofthis Iength would be needed (A. Fairweather, pers. comm.).
Obviously, anywithholding periods will have an impact on deer hunting on ihe island. We considerthat the deer hunters should be involved in investigating mitigation measllres (e.g. trials ofdeer repellent involving white tailed deer, closing zones of tire island to hunting during treatment periods, etc) to reduce the impact on deer and hunting activities. This involvement could go some way to achieving greater buy-in frorr that sectlon ofthe community, and reduce the perception of any research being captured or biased by DOC.
Notive species: In all eradication operations, there is some Ievel of non-target by kill ol native species (namely birds via primary and secondary poisoning). However it is impossible to accumteiy predict the levelof non-target losses.Itwill be important to understand which native species on Stewart Island are at most risk (via bait acceptance tdals etc), so that appropriate mitigation measures (e.g. eaptive holding ortranslocation off the island for return post-operation) can be investigated and tested. Seocl, There is a small number of sheep on Rakiura Maori Land Trust land near The Neek. These animals will need to be prevented from eating the bait (if used) this may best be done by removing the animals ftom the island to be retumed after the operation is completed.
Ngai Tahu Stewart lsland/Rakiura lies \,r'ithin the t bal area of Ngai Tahu. It is absolutely critical that Ngai Tahu is represented on any governance structure that is set up forthis project. Withoui their support for a project olthis magnitude, it is extremely unlikelythis projeet
will succeed. The recent eradication work undertaken on the Maori owned Titi (muttonbird) Islands, off the south-west coast ol Stewart Island, has been hugely suecessful in demonstrating the biodiveBity gains that can be made here. Not onlyhas this work illustrated the
0
Broome. KG.; Faitueathe. A.A.C-: Fisher. P. 2ot2: Brodifdcoutu Pesticide lnfomation ,Reviâ&#x201A;Źr.
Ve6ior
damage being done by invasive rats, but also our ability to halt that damage through
current eradication techniques. A number ofland owners have changed their views on toxins, eradications, etc, moving ftom 'anti'to 'pro' due to seeing the operation and the results firsthand @. MeClelland, pers. eomm). These Iand owners could be strcng allies and advocates in progressing the Siewart Island project.
Kiore is a valued taonga species by some Maori. Initial conversations with local iwi members suggest that the removal of kiore from Stewait Islandwill not create significan concern, so long as a population of kiore is maintained within the tribal area o{ Southlanr (S. Bull and G. Thompson, pe$. comm). Further discussions will be required with local iwi to determine an appropriate management approach for kiore to address the concerns that a population of kiore is maintained.
Rakiura Maori Lend Trust
Rakiura Maori Land Trust manages approx. Sz of Stewart lsland, on behalf ofMaori Iandowners. This land is predominately on the east/south-east coast ofthe Island.It is absolutely criticalthat they are pafi olany community engagement (and any govemanct structure that is set up for this project). Without their support and the ability to access their land, it is extremely unlikely this project will have any chance of success.
Biosecurity
There are a number ofpathways for potential reintroduction of predators onto Stewart Island Ierry, plane, fishing vessels, Ireight, etc. We need to understand these path\aay risks and the subsequent invasion and establishment risks. This knowledge will enable u to develop appropriate interventions on those pathways that could greatly reduce the risl o{ an incursion. As noted above, the choice oftarget species has implications for the biosecurity risks associated (as diflerent measures will be needed to keep possums oll th island, than would be required to keep rats out). Dete ction prcbobi litie s:
There have been recent advances in our understanding of detection probabilities with regards to island biosecurity, particularlythe work on Barrow Island in Australia.lt is important that we take those learnings and develop robust New Zealand-cent c methodology for understanding the probabilities of arrival, and (arguably more importandy) of detection of an invading individual. This knowledge will enable us to develop appropriate methods ofintervention at Iikely depature and arrival/detection points that could greatly reduce the risk of an incursion developing into an establishing population. There are clear links between this knowledge and the innovaiion required on large scale detection iools mentioned above. Invasion biology: Related to the wider suite of biosecurity issues, we do not know how invading individuals behave at large scale sites. Experiments at smaller sites indicate that individuais move throughout the area (potentially searching lor a mate), but we do not know ifthis type of behaviour holds true over large scale areas nor howthe behaviour changes as the establishing populations grows and invades futher. This knowledge, coupled with the development of large scale detection tools (outlined above), will Iikely result in a better methods Ior responding to biosecurity incursion events (e.g- spot treatment of areas).
lmpacts on way of life: It has been suggested that the biosecudty standards required to maintain predator{ree status on Stewart Island would need to be akin to that when entering New Zealand. It is highly unlikely that the residents and visitors to the island would tolerate such an intensive process. Ifthe biosecurity requirements are considered too onerous, people are less likelyto conform to them - biosecurity needs to be seen as a'normal'part of life. Coupledwith the developments in detection theory and detection tools, we need to develop a biosecurity system that is effective, but does not undulyimpact on individuals and their lifestyles on the island.
Maintenance af the system: Biosecurity is forever (or for as long as the island is deliberately maintained {ree from that species). But biosecuity measures cost - both in the prevention and the response side. Any system that is developed will need to take into account the ongoing maintenance involved in having prevention and response components. Likelvise, system will need to be established around who is responsible for deteeting and responding to
incursion events.
WHERE TO FROM HERE?
As noted above, using current best practise techniques, methods, and technology, it is nc feasible to eradicate rats, possums, and feral cats from Stewart Island at this time. However there are a number of challenges that if met would go a long way to determining whetherwe could be successful with a project ofthis scale. The Halfmoon Bay proiect As outlined above, we recommend that the immediate operational goal for this project should be to significantly enhance the biodiversity gains around Halfmoon Bay. Our proposal to achieve this is to target an area encompassing the township (somewhere between roooha and soooha) for elimination of all the target species (ineluding hedgehogs). We consider that this seale ol project is feasible using our current suite of tools and techniques (so long as the community wants the projeet to happen). In order to faeilitate community engagement and subsequent ownership ofthis project, we believe that the exact size ofthe area and methods used to eliminate these predators should be for the community to decide. In essence, we recommend the communitybe allowed to make the biodiversity gains'on their terms'.
This smaller'scaie project would enable us to ensure a close relationship is in place with the community; and their motivations, attitudes to eradication and the techniques involved, and their willingness to engage with or own a project of scale are completely Llnderstood. At the same time, the project will'bring more biodiversityto the community's backdool building enthusiasm and understanding of the connection between eliminating predators and restodng native biodivercity A small scale project around the town will provide the testing ground to determine if we can eliminate predators in the presence of a resident human population. Furthetmore, it would help identifywhether we are able to delend those biodiversity gains, in the presence of constant invasion pressure. This invasion pressure would allowvaluable learning about reinvasion rates onto the island, identilying common pathways and
origins for invading species. We consider that the initial work towards this aspect of the project - namely, the community engagement and building that relationship could begin immediately. The timing ofthe subsequent components, depending on what those are (e.g. construction of a predator proof fence, elimination ofthe target species, funding models, planning permissions, etc), will be determined in conjunction with the community.
Critical technical innovations We have identilied several critical technical innovations that would'change the game' fo this project (and most large scale predator control work in New Zealand):
Latge scale detechon toors - we do not have any proven method that is technically and logistically feasible to detect very low numbers ofpredators across large landscapes at high sensitivity. Our current tools (tracking cards, etc) are not appropriate {or this scale of project. This is our number one technical innovation challenge. To;geted, applic.ttion offoxin [this innovation would flow on from the detection innovationl if we are able to solve the detection problem, it could significantly change how we use toxin. Rather than covering all areas at all times with toxin and bait as we do now (to ensure that every animal can access it), we could potentially selectively target
spreadiae - our curent best pracrise of using heticopters lTff::3:l:,:""r:f6ait wlrn ouckets to spread the bair becomes cost and capacity prohibitive
at the scaie of thls project This is compounded bv our ,se of bait in q.,.ntities ttrat urrsr."" ,rr-irar"ia""r" wherher ihis is e,".ist,,e o. .,ot. We ,,";; .r^11_::"..":,: l], 1,, Tnowing equirF ess bair. andlor . ild ways ro dFrrver baj r across -.:i.9"Ios,es i:::: la'l0snapes :l:: "1 lhdt e'gnilicanhatlv r so..ds rarge :p "overage oI tho rarg"r ar"a te.g. lixed wing aircraft). Lure development - o rr current .ure. (for rraps ano bait marrix) do not have opti,n
,;;";i",
'pull -odraw,arge'arimalsinf.omlarg.ar"as.Thisholdsrruelora'fof,fr""io., species of this project. We need to deve)op 1u*" ,f.,r, riff g"""*;#;"*; landscape scale areas, thereby reduce the neea t" prt a""i*"
but rather draw the animat(s) to where the
.. i.rJ*'fr"."
ded"";.;"';.i;;iliii".,
rm
;::;""
t"
."r_a ,"
,r*" rnargreatty-ncrea"Frheirteract:or rar"olanimalsor cprhey.ncounterorrdjces rn otherwords, we need to get more animals goi"g i"a Deerrepellent - in order.for this project to gain the public "". "";".'-_" support to proceed, we need to uevarop mernoos rha. reduce he irnpact on deer. Key o tn:s wjll be he o"vclopmenr ot elecrrve oeer repoIenl thdt prevFnrs deer lrom lngesting roxin or trreractit q with de\,l.es. Associated with .har is rhe need ro rnd"rsrand rhe eff^.t o.". ,"p"tti..,t.'l.or. on rhe use of roxins o' dereces ror the targer anir""'. .r;":'"";;J 1"ra .if.,", "",
native birdsr
Xnon
_" rl""r*"
";
l"ao" o.o"
In addirion ro the critical technical inno. have been uncovered d.,.ing thi"
a number
ofimportant knowledge gaps
"n"ry"iitio"s'
Pledator i,tero,ctions.. we need to understand how these target species behave in the presence of each other on Stewart Island, especiaily in relatio"n to i_rabfi" *a compe. iiion for resour.es. Tnero are a numbe, k"y q .",tion" tn"t;";;;""^* ;:;".,"g
'";"1,.,.","j]"a,r-,"
"f they will-sreatly inform the methods, rechniqu*, "" timing of any operation. Mice: we need to know if mice are present on the island. This question has never been caiegorrcany answered. We need to und-orstand the likelihood of mouse establishment, a-nd a,conseguential eruption. rf all (or some) oi,f," ,".g", ,"_.".jir._ ,t rsrand: and rhe ecological consequences of such an event. "f"";";." This knowredqe wir enable " oenrstons to be made or critical matrers s rc\ as biosecur irv roquir"menis orc.
*;";;"1;;;f
Predator-proof fencing relinerlena if fencing t""lnotogy g;i;;i.l" i" *"a ,, ,fr," projecr (poranria.ly .o crea,p biodivers: y gains around H;lfm;on B-"r, ,r" ,""i i" uno,arsrand rr bFtfer. ( .ili.a,issues .o b. rocussed or include \ow animals int.ract wrth these.fences, how different designs affect breaches of the fence.
perf.r-"".",;;;;;;;;;;;;" ilil::.
New toxin crpplicatioa metiods.r we need to expand the development of toxin applrcar,ior methods. b r ldingon rne registrarion ol pApp ano ri e in"*,., .t ,f." rnro avenues and methods applicable to large scale projects (e.g. aerially applied -Jprxre PAPP for cats er. \ Erosecurity: we n'eed to undersLand the pathway and incursion risks for the isrand. we neeo to better understand rhe Drobahiliiics of arrival and of detection, of an invading indiv.rduâ&#x201A;Źl This l.nowledge wiiJ enabJe us to d",r"top *";;;;;i;;;;",,." that could grearlv red r"e rh. risk ol an incu-s:or oevelopinq "pprop.iri" :nro an population. There are ctear tinks between this ".r"briJi_k,"*t"dg" ;,;;;;"" i"r'..,."a ." large scale detection tools. ""J;" Invd.sio bioloy: rclated to the wider suite of biosecurity issues, we do not know how invading individuals behave at large scale sites. This knowledge, corri"d.;ilil^
19
development of large scale detection tools, will likely result in a better methodology for responding to biosecudty incursion events.
It is our opinion that to drive this innovation forward and addrcss the important knowledge gaps will require a minimum investment ofgl million per annum Ior the nexl 5 Years.
Governance and Technical Guidance Howthis project is governed depends on how it proceeds into the future. There are two clear streams ofwork outlined in this report: r) OperationaL the Halfmoon Bay project planning, developing, and executing thl elimination ofpredato$ to achieve community driven goals z) Technical solving the innovation challengesj while being informed and learnin{ from the operational stream
Ifthe Halfmoon
Bay project goes ahead, it would appear logieal to have a Stewart Island centric governance group guiding the operational stream. As a community driven project, the govemance group also needs to come largely from the community. Therefol membership should span the community- capturing the cultural, economic, societal, an,
enyironmental views ofthe Stewart Island residents (and community at large).
The technical innovation challenges in this report are not Stewart Island-specific, but rather challenges that we will face at most large scale projects throughout ihe country. A such, the technical group guiding this work could have a much wider focus. Its membership could include experts from the Crown Research Institures (CRI,s), univercities, central govemment, non Government environmental organisationq and thâ&#x201A;Ź
technological community.
! gET ;1cl:rq E RE
E
3!
E
6
'. eE. {
o- iJ I ^ = ! \o.: 5 +, E 6 i i E_d < -a : < o < +.rc!o D d I :'1X-
qo
o-
,
l F
e#BI
zU X
o
ztrl I
5=
EI .r6
E&
N
oo o o-
E&
(o
6'
I ! g
U lrl
p-
d a d g*
6
F E
E ! o-- G- ! a'r o .l ! - +a c +o a ro ;? 6;9;3'l .Pd 60 Et A.: 5: x 5; ;,4 H 3 i; g 8- f-J .; i:. *; S; f ; E- 3'c B 1 ia-:G E 0:. 1d€ t': 3.3 0€ 5C. aO rg o !o o ;': ) '3 ) ';5 I o o : oj q .o ;o 5 Y 6 o- ,b 6 6 s- # 6 o i,P 5, a ts =;; 8 x +; E a ? 6I .1 . a5- g ;id I P d t di
ii;A.x sH;Elae'*='q3 itE.{P:.r} E+3E qE HE- ;i; iglda i?f i:;18:;r
+3 ii+i.-i31+rit;E eE=B';_=&+ d:!Et; i; ai! b o-.q. ;6i l€ +L?E6 ii,: e ; s;-0n::5; q 6-q i5 3d ,i, B:e g=5 : lEgY-"-; d F
a
,: ;
3
a
19
<c !o Ca aa ,i5 DEJ
o-
,qa
E-
g
55
5
0
e
nl}
c
oa
3
x'
o- i1
+
:l
1Z e-l6E :d : a q 3?.E :3- : 3 ie e 5 93r :Y a t.5i ;; ; s i-.
tt-
tts- r!-
ttsri id-
ds
6g6g6s6g6g
"b A
= ii !
i@
(a
c_
I d&;iJsB 3ii': q 3 ; ;i!o-qg; I = & ;4eE_3e= i E i:E.e E f
raSj E !+ *i 3 lsid !; r i{: ;3 I:t, ; 6
o
n'
a
rd
€.
9+ *
t r-
6g6q6g
B
6
;;;;;;
o o
@
H,otGl rt X < r !r
3
r3
d idii c ,3
^-9o --o H t'!
:ia* € I
5 o-
a
t I
iE [
529.
P^
;PB
95'
€f-
Es n6 :
;
9
F
3E v1
.:r 5
o-6 €
I i'r
z.<
;=
3.fi :,3 6; i E-
o.
f.i?a qz 4 ! ooha
oo-9 HR
9
gr +e!{9E:a!:1 dF!
;
u '1 n 9\9,i9 *uI pQP upu
t: f;g * tE i[tsu &i 3E u g qf Ps [4 iE Et 3t
6! b,v
+io o *1
5j.=
ot'".i : i { 5:5ol, 9
1r'; - 5-H :6sD E&;-:9
J +r o = 1;:i €q
iE^';!
s9,663-=
X
iq rSigE ?:,;-?q: ai
iFf;[*I]
lils
F
l9
! J.
€; 3; [i u q io 6o 5+(q o=.1!:;
o:r
35 3 i E ? FE fE 3 E +i"e & I7 o i I ! c': d d E. -3 ii :tb a R d F ',i -= E=n::ir 1q;: i. '- ** 3a s eii6=6_-i 6ax= ; j- o o; q 6 F*" o 3 4: g-^ ; =i o &r d sp;?io Elits I q ^g
€r;i;'i rsII i 2:*i i 5i1: o o- O^o 5 Y-o
;,
3€?r + noi o tq
I
7 :
9.i r ir
o
aa
j
cdo'a
E
ra
&o o-r,
1 g
6-< 6 I 5! @.ci +
=S. o *l E d
9 i!
o
= Y
A oi a E.
E
tr P
@r-
cDF td-
@r- dt-
.r5
+6
i.5 i'5 f6
:cs :Es rq6
9;99-
1;:e *5-pE 3AL o?g
a
\h
11
iisRq
E ; 1 .-q 1<
-^ ,!
I
+ X
5^ !-
I
;o-1. 6-o:r
-t)
6g6s
oin r.
:1.
E= q€Er'
d-
EdF tnF tI.-
raF
a6 aL BOx0
ra 5a re .r.
,<.
t
5H
@!
E3 n,o
EO
o.
3[
$
EP
F
3E
vHs
n
aJ+ Phd id ,1*
oo
€s I ::9
Edts
6q
A@6
{
So,P-
6-3
CP tE.
a;
x9-
a6-
E.
!ii
b"o 5Z To iq rid oi
rt
r'
!
g.
-. o I
qP
o-t
o
q6-
EE
.
6P 8o
nli;
tx.
Ea
E3
3
9; d9-d9'i'
6
;
;;
.i6.1 ;;
B c 5
I
E c