OIAD 5208 Item 2 documents for release.pdf

From:
Nicola Toki
To:
Jennifer Germano
Subject:
Cape Sanctuary and kiwi
Date:
Thursday, 26 May 2016 10:36:06 pm
Hey Jen,
I know you’re flat out – but i remember in our last meeting about kiwi with Todd and Sarah,
when they referred to the Cape Sanctuary experience, you said that you hadn’t even begun to
look into that.
I’ve only heard snippets, so i can’t really comment at all. Except to say, that i think someone
should look into it. If they are not behaving in a way that fulfils their obligations from an animal
welfare or translocation point of view, shouldn’t we investigate? What do you think?
Nicola
Nicola Toki
Threatened Species Ambassador| Kaitiaki Mana Mōrearea
Department of Conservation - Te Papa Atawhai
s9(2)(a)
Conservation leadership for our nature
Tākina te hī, Tiakina, te hā o te Āo Tūroa
http://www.doc.govt.nz/tsambassador
Find me on twitter at @DOCTSambassador
under the Official Information Act
Released

From:
Nicola Toki
To:
Bruce Parkes
Subject:
FW: Cape Sanctuary shore plover
Date:
Wednesday, 7 September 2016 9:03:05 pm
Attachments:
Shore Plover Breeding Programme Report Rev C Taurapa.pdf
Hi Bruce,
As discussed the other day – I haven’t forgotten your tasking of me to come up with a
series of bullet points on decisions around threatened species which had poor outcomes.
This is one Scratch and I have raised with you before.  I have seen the correspondence and
memos that led up to this, and I still can’t understand why DOC would fund half (or any) of
an aviary (and a ranger) we haven’t identified as a need (what we do need is an upgrade to
the Mt Bruce facilities for shore plover – and not to mention the poor kaki aviaries in
Twizel, which desperately need rebuilt, after last year’s snow crushed one and damaged
another).  If CS want to pay for the whole thing, that’s another story
I am not involved enough in the decision process on this – but from the outside, spending
DOC money on a facility we don’t seem to need while others are in disrepair feels risky.  I
also am aware that Isaacs Wildlife and Conservation Centre (Peacocke Springs in CHCH)
are quite upset about rumours that we would pay for a facility elsewhere when they
currently raise shore plover, pateke, orange fronted parakeet, whio and other wildlife for
us according to an MOU, and as they are self-funding, at no cost to us.
Not sure if you got any further on the Cape Sanctuary issue – but to build this and pay for
any of it is a big decision, and it may be worth a word to Mike/Martin?
FYI anyway.
Nicola
_____________________________________________
From: Dave Houston
under the Official Information Act
Sent: Monday, 5 September 2016 1:29 p.m.
To: Paul Jansen <[email address]>; Nicola Toki <[email address]>
Subject: Cape Sanctuary shore plover
FYI,  the latest version of the Cape Sanctuary aviary plans.  Note the comments on funding
(excerpts below).  As the proposed timeframe is this summer, this means that DOC would
presumably have to find half of the $280k + GST construction costs and half a staff
Released
member.
“In August 2015 discussions were held between DOC (Damian Coutts, Dave
Carlton) and Cape Sanctuary (CS) (Andy Lowe, s9(2)(a)
around the
feasibility of establishing a Shore Plover breeding facility at Cape Sanctuary. It

was agreed in principle that there was no insurmountable impediment to this
happening and that detailed work should be carried out on the basis of a
50/50 split on the capital costs (materials and equipment) for a new facility
generally in accordance with the 2014 Husbandry Manual. It should be noted
that these costs are significantly less than the costs estimated by others for
this type of establishment due to the availability of skilled volunteers.”
“It was also initially agreed that the facility should be located on the Ocean
Beach side of CS due to better access, and the availability of sites very close to
the birds natural environment. After further consideration around ensuring
security of the site, disease vectors and other factors, it was agreed that the
Aviary would be located on Taurapa Station on the Maraetotara River.
Agreement in principle was also reached that DOC would fund a 50% FTE of a
co-ordinator for the facility. The balance of personnel would be covered by
volunteers, as has proven very successful in the establishment of the
Kaka/Kakariki Aviaries at the Lodge side of CS.”
Cheers,

Dave Houston
Technical Advisor, Ecology
Science and Policy Group
Department of Conservation – Te Papa Atawhai
Tämaki Makaurau / Auckland Office
Private Bag 68 908, Newton, Auckland 1145
s9(2)(a)
the Official Information Act
12-16 Nicholls Lane, Parnell, Auckland 1010
VPN: 7056 | [email address]
un
Released

From:
Nicola Toki
To:
Lyndon Slater
Subject:
FW: kakapo/takahe management team minutes
Date:
Wednesday, 20 December 2017 11:11:00 am

From: Deidre Vercoe
Sent: Monday, 11 December 2017 12:23 p.m.
To: L\Operations - Kakapo-Takahe <[email address]>
Cc: Aaron Fleming <[email address]>; Juanita Tresidder <[email address]>; Sam Parsons
<[email address]>; Chrissy Wickes <[email address]>; Nicola Toki <[email address]>
Subject: kakapo/takahe management team minutes

Kia ora koutou
tion Act

Out of scope
Notes from this week’s meeting below for your info.

Kākāpō / Takahē Management team meeting - minutes
11th December
Attendees:
Deidre, Daryl, Andrew, Glen, Nichy, Theo
Topic
Notes
Official I
THIS WEEK:
9(2)(a), Out of scope
Team whereabouts (If not
mentioned = as per normal)
Health and Safety
undOut of scope
Takahē operational update
Released Out of scope Cape Sanctuary has had a poor result with their rabbit control.
They have been advised not to put Takahē back at the size for a few years while they get
better control established. The three pairs will be held elsewhere and is no major impact
on the programme.
Out of scope

Out of scope
Act
Kākāpō operational update
Advocacy

under
Released

From:
Nicola Toki
To:
Emma Neill
Subject:
FW: Shore plover transfer project assessment of critical issues
Date:
Tuesday, 27 September 2016 8:51:05 pm
Attachments:
DMH comments - Shore plover assessment of critical issues May 2015 Draft.doc
s9(2)(g)(i)
Shore plover facility (captive breeding) being built at Cape Sanctuary without knowledge of shore
plover recovery group leader.

Also – moving breeding pairs will kill one third, render another third incapable of ever breeding
again and leave just one third possibly viable breeding pairs.  Dave H’s advice on this was def
s9(2)(g)(i)
on Act
ignored.  in addition RK and DC agree to fund half of the aviary (we haven’t identified that we
need), when in fact our existing aviary at Mt Bruce needs upgrading,

Enjoy your reading – but if you could put this one into the table if you think it merits a ‘tech
advice not sought or ignored’ then do so.
Cheers
Nic

From: Nicola Toki
Sent: Tuesday, 19 January 2016 3:54 p.m.
To: Paul Jansen <[email address]>
Subject: FW: Shore plover transfer project assessment of critical issues

FYI (not to be disseminated further at this point).

Definitely highlights a lack of system.  I think the second paragraph describes the crux of the
issue we’ve been discussing   In my view, Dave H was right to ask for what the objectives and
outcomes are likely to be (which is what we’ve been talking about), before the group could
assess whether it was a go-er or not. I think in that instance, the group (via DH) are not saying
‘no’ for no reason, they’re simply asking for the thinking to be done about benefits to the
under the Official Info
species, cost benefit analysis, and value exchange.  So it’s about DOC doing our due diligence in
order to make the best decision with the most information. Then i guess it’s up to the decision
maker – but they need plenty of info up front.

Wit in the document – there are nine critical issues that the recovery group raised (once they
eventually got hold of what was going on). Personally, I think the critical issue is – WHY DO WE
NEED A NEW FACILITY?
·    Can we quantify that need?
·    What is not being provided by current captive management
Released
facilities?
·    How much will it cost to get them up to speed?
·    How does that balance up against the cost of a new one in
another place?
·    What impact will this have on our relationships with current

partners (i.e. Pukaha/Mt Bruce and Isaacs Conservation and
Wildlife Trust – who are extending their facilities to meet our
requirements – at no cost to us).
s9(2)(g)(i)
about what our conservation captive management facility needs
are – whether there was a place for them, and if so, for what conservation outcome.  It seems
like we haven’t identified this need – because the Recovery Group (who are best placed to
identify that need) were not aware that this proposal was even happening.
Thoughts?
From: Dave Houston
Sent: Tuesday, 19 January 2016 3:07 p.m.
To: Nicola Toki
Subject: FW: Shore plover transfer project assessment of critical issues
From: Dave Houston
Sent: Tuesday, 12 May 2015 1:10 p.m.
To: David Carlton
s9(2)(a) icial Information Act
Cc: Denise Fastier; Rose Collen; Avi Holzapfel;
Subject: RE: Shore plover transfer project assessment of critical issues
Hi DC,
Given that no aims or objectives for this project have been stated, I am reluctant to agree that
this is likely to be “an advantageous move for the future of the shore plover programme” and
that proceeding to a MOU is the next step.
While this paper addresses some specific risks identified, it does not provide any information for
the decision-maker to assess the overall merit of the proposal, its benefit to shore plover or what
the costs and value exchanges are.
under the O
Outlining the aim of this proposal and any objectives would be useful in assessing how the
proposed solutions/mitigation to each of the critical issues would aid this “advantageous move”
and should also be central to the drafting of any MOU.  Are we able to insert these and do this
assessment before this document goes to the decision-maker?
I have also made some comments in the attached copy of the document.  I note here are still a
number of issues that the project team has not been able to fully discuss (design, placement,
water and protection from disturbance) and I look forward to an opportunity to do so.
Released
Regards,
Dave

From: David Carlton
Sent: Wednesday, 6 May 2015 1:47 p.m.
To: Dave Houston; Denise Fastier; Rose Collen; s9(2)(a)
Cc: Avi Holzapfel
Subject: Shore plover transfer project assessment of critical issues
Hi folks
Please find attached the amalgamation of all our information around the nine critical issues that
were identified.
Have a read and get back to me with any comments where you think I’ve not captured the
analysis accurately enough.
I’ve also included a recommendation to Mark Davies based on the level of risk the critical issues
pose and I’m keen to hear your views on that too.
If everyone could get back to me by the end of next Tuesday (12th) that would be grand.
Cheers
DC
Conservation Service Manager
Kaimanatū Matarautaki
Hawke's Bay District Office
Department of Conservation - Te Papa Atawhai
s9(2)(a)
under the Official Information Act
Released

Attachment to previous email
6TH MAY 2015
TO: Mark Davies, Acting Director-Services, LNI
FROM: Dave Carlton, CSM-Hawke’s Bay District
SUBJECT: SHORE PLOVER BREEDING PROGRAMME CAPE SANCTUARY PROJECT
ASSESSMENT OF CRITICAL ISSUES
INTRODUCTION
In assessing the viability of a proposal to transfer the shore plover captive breeding
programme from Pukaha Mount Bruce (PMB) to Cape Sanctuary (CS) nine critical issues
have been identified.
A task of the project team is to assess these issues and be satisfied that effective
measures can be put in place to ensure risks to operations and recovery of the species
are minimised and that the transfer of facilities to Cape Sanctuary is an advantageous
move for the future of the shore plover programme.
The following critical issues were identified;
1. What if established pairs of shore plover, when shifted, stop breeding or have
increased mortality?
2. How to prevent loss of genetic diversity?
3. How to ensure Cape Sanctuary has the same capacity as the current PMB facility?
4. What if there is a lack of resourcing in Hawke’s Bay to support the programme?
5. What if CS exerts pressure to be allowed to release shore plover at Cape
Kidnappers?
6. How to ensure CS remains in the programme long term?
under the Official Information Act
7. What if releases of shore plover to sites will slow down in the transition phase?
8. What if there is an increased avian disease risk from insect vectors at CS?
9. What if the aviary site at CS draws in released birds from Waikawa?
RECOMMENDATION
It’s is the view of the Project team that the critical issues have been addressed
sufficiently to recommend that the project progressed to drafting a Deed of Agreement
Released
(MOU) formalising the conditions, term of the partnership and responsibilities of both
parties prior to your final decision to approve and proceed with the project.
Page | 1

ANALYSIS
The Shore Plover Recovery Group and others have identified the following critical issues
that need to be considered if the transfer of the programme from Pukaha Mount Bruce
(PMB) to Cape Sanctuary (CS) is to be successful:
1. WHAT IF ESTABLISHED PAIRS OF SHORE PLOVER, WHEN SHIFTED, STOP BREEDING OR
HAVE INCREASED MORTALITY?
Shore Plover are known to be sensitive to transfer.  Based on previous experiences
it is likely that currently productive pairs will cease breeding if transferred and
breeding birds will suffer from the stress associated with transfer and
acclimatisation with new environments and possible mortality could result.
To date eight established breeding pairs have been transferred as pairs into or
between captive sites. Of these only two have bred successfully following
transfer, others being non-productive at the new location. 40% of birds have died
within a year of transfer.
The Shore Plover Recovery Group formulated four potential scenarios for
consideration as to how transfer of the breeding stock from PMB to CS could be
achieved (docdm-1552035). A bulk transfer of all birds to the CS facility is
considered too risky given the potential for mortality and cessation of breeding in
established for pairs. The loss of production output and potential losses of
valuable genetics is an unacceptable risk to the programme.
A measured transfer of one breeding pair per year, starting with those of lesser
genetic value, could be attempted but this still carries a risk to production and
genetics with each pair that is transferred across.
Solution/Mitigation:
The recommended approach is transfer juveniles in first year (~5) along with any spare
adults from PMB and from year 2  onwards transfer  non-paired adults as they become
under the Official Information Act
avail ble, i.e. after death/divorce of partner.
Res dual risk:
The implication of the preferred approach is that it may take 10 years to affect a
complete transfer with both CS and PMB running under capacity through that
period as one starts up and the other winds down.
Conversations with the Chatham Island community should also be initiated to
explore the possibility of sourcing further shore plover from Rangatira. Cyclone
Released
Pam has recently highlighted the vulnerability of this population to random
events and there may an advantage in harvesting 12-20 eggs from Rangatira,
incubate them at PMB or ICWT and stock CS with them plus juveniles with
Western Reef lineage.
Page | 3

2. HOW TO PREVENT LOSS OF GENETIC DIVERSITY?
As a consequence of not managing Critical Issue 1, birds with important genetic
diversity from the Western reef lineage may be lost permanently.  A single bird
(Westy) was brought into captivity from the now-extinct Western Reef
population.  He contributed to many releases at Mana and Waikawa Islands
however due to predator incursions most of these birds have now been lost.  A son
of Westy is breeding at PMB and he offers our best opportunity to retain Western
Reef genes in the population.  His loss to the programme, by mortality or
inactivity, would be a significant one.
Solution/Mitigation:
The recommended approach for transfer will ensure the risk of genetic loss is
minimised.
Residual risk:
The size of the gene pool of the New Zealand birds is unknown in relation to
those on the Chatham Islands. There is some urgency as part of the wider
recovery programme to fully understand the genetic variance in the population to
assist with future management decisions
3. HOW TO ENSURE CAPE SANCTUARY HAS THE SAME CAPACITY AS THE CURRENT PMB
FACILITY?
In terms of current occupancy both the PMB and Isaacs Wildlife Trust current
facilities are close to capacity.  IWT have 4 pairs and can cater for 6, while PMB
has 6 pairs and can cater for 8.
An ideal design capacity suggested by the Recovery Group would be large
enough to house 8-10 pairs and be capable of producing 50 or more
juveniles/year. This could be achieved given that the design of the CS facility has
the ability to expand enabling the addition of new flights as required in the future.
under the Official Information Act
The initial proposal for the main aviary design at CS was one flight smaller than
the PMB set up. In addition to this while PMB currently has three holding aviaries
and two insect proof fledgling aviaries the initial CS design had one of each.
Solution/Mitigation:
Released
Plans for the CS facility design have been modified to have the same capacity as
the existing PMB design. As a result the cost of the build is now estimated to be
$280,000 in total.
Page | 4

Residual risk:
An ideal design capacity suggested by the Recovery Group would be large
enough to house 8-10 pairs and be capable of producing 50 or more
juveniles/year. This could be achieved given that the design of the CS facility has
the ability to expand enabling the addition of new flights as required in the future.
4. WHAT IF THERE IS A LACK OF RESOURCING IN HAWKE’S BAY TO SUPPORT THE PROGRAMME?
Husbandry of shore plover is a labour intensive operation and it’s critical that sufficient
FTEs are allocated to maintain the standards and output required for success.
Solution/Mitigation:
An MOU will be negotiated between DOC and Cape Sanctuary setting the level
of ongoing resourcing both parties will commit to. CS will have one full time
person solely managing shore plover with additional assistance from DOC
Napier Office, other CS staff and volunteers. This is staffing resource at least
equivalent to that currently available to the project.
Residual risk:
Either party may at some future time due to circumstances be unable to continue with
their level of commitment. Any MOU will need provisions to minimise this risk and an
exit strategy that minimises the impact to the programme and species. Careful
consideration must be given to the length of term for the MOU to ensure the parties are
bound for a long enough period to warrant the investment at the CS site.
5. WHAT IF CS EXERTS PRESSURE TO BE ALLOWED TO RELEASE SHORE PLOVER AT CAPE
KIDNAPPERS?
CS has expressed in the past a desire to have shore plover released at the Cape. However
while there pest control regime is effective in protecting many native species it is not
sufficient at this stage for highly vulnerable species such as shore plover.
Solution/M tigation:
Both parties agree that release of shore plover at the Cape is an unrealistic
under the Official Information Act
proposition in the short to medium term. As improvements in pest control
technology evolve both parties are committed to repopulation of the Rangaiika
and Ocean Beaches as a long term aspirational goal.
Residual risk:
None.
6. HOW TO ENSURE CS REMAINS IN THE PROGRAMME LONG TERM?
Released
This is also a risk the programme accepts currently at the Isaacs Wildlife Trust facility in
Christchurch and is considered a low risk given the level of investment CS are proposing
to make. Appropriate mechanisms to bind the parties in an agreement will need
investigating.
Page | 5

Solution/Mitigation:
Each party will be bound by the MOU committing to a suitable term that warrants
the level of investment
Residual risk:
Agreement may not be reached on an appropriate length of term for the partnership that
would warrant the transfer of facilities and transition phase.
7. WHAT IF RELEASES OF SHORE PLOVER TO SITES WILL SLOW DOWN IN THE TRANSITION
PHASE?
The Recovery Group is unanimous in seeing any reduction in short-term output
capacity as a significant risk to current efforts to establish self-sustaining
populations at Waikawa and Motutapu as larger releases have proven to be more
successful than smaller ones.
The impact on releases to Waikawa and Motutapu will need to be considered in
the project plan. Some decrease in releases in the transition phase might be
acceptable if a greater number of juveniles than current output could be produced
once the CS facility is established. If PMB is run to best practice in the transition
phase there should be an increase of output over previous years to offset this.
Solution/Mitigation:
The transfer option proposed will minimise this as PMB will operate alongside to
maintain output while CS achieves full production.
Residual risk:
Decisions prioritizing either releases to islands or the stocking the CS facility may be
required in years where production is limited for other reasons.
under the Official Information Act
8. WHAT IF THERE IS AN INCREASED AVIAN DISEASE RISK FROM INSECT VECTORS AT CS?
With a potential higher incidence of mosquitoes and sand flies in the coastal
environment of the Cape some advice will be required on the increased risk to plover in
the coastal environment. While the proposed site is more in keeping with their natural
habitat the potential increased risk from malaria or avian pox virus needs to be examined
and considered.
Solution/Mitigation:
Released
The likelihood and impact of this is difficult to quantify and the risk here may
prove to be no greater than at PMB or IWT. Stocking the facility at first with
juveniles and singles will allow us to test the risk and control measures without
risking any of the valuable breeding pairs. In the worst case scenario, should the
Page | 6

site prove to be untenable because of the prevalence of avian disease vectors the
entire facility is designed to be portable and can be relocated to another site if
required.
Residual risk:
The site may be untenable and require further investment to relocate to a third
site not identified at this time or back to PMB.
9. WHAT IF THE AVIARY SITE AT CS DRAWS IN RELEASED BIRDS FROM WAIKAWA?
Juveniles are known to wander widely.  This is accounted for this in the release
programme by releasing large numbers of birds to get them established at a site,
knowing that many will disperse and be lost to predators on the mainland. We
also know that sometimes wandering juveniles will return to a release site when
they don't find other shore plover elsewhere to settle with. There is a risk that
aviaries at CS will draw in wandering juveniles from Waikawa, and because of the
proximity to the coast they could be less likely to return to Waikawa and thus
slow the recovery there.  The recovery group acknowledges that this risk is
difficult to quantify.
Solution/Mitigation:
It is difficult to assess the whether this issue is real or not without trialling. If they
do indeed fly back at least there is an opportunity to recapture them so they are
not entirely lost to the population.
Residual risk:
Should birds be found to have indeed flown back to CS it may slow down the
restocking of Waikawa.
under the Official Information Act
Released
Page | 7

Attachment to previous email
To s9(2)(a)

Pest Control Co-ordinator
Cape Sanctuary
Search for Rats in Cape Sanctuary with a Rodent Detection Dog
Purpose of Visit
To search for sign of rats using a Rodent Detection Dog to validate the 0% rat tracking results being
indicated by tracking tunnels. This was deemed necessary as another release of Tieke (Saddleback)
was being considered.
The work
s9(2)(a)mation Act
14th December 2015 – Travel from Auckland, arrived early evening to stay at

Caught up on what the Cape Sanctuary project is about and what the expectations of my visit were.
15th Dec – Searched eastern side of the “Rough Block” with Pai (Certified Rodent Detection Dog).
One Dog indication near Baitstation 466 (in which the bait had been chewed by either mice or weta)
and another indication near baitstation 397A. Challenged by constant encounters with rabbits, even
in dense bush. Heard a Tieke between baitstations 187 and 439A.
16th Dec – Back in Rough Block (Aviary side). Another indication by Pai. Still being challenged by
rabbits. Saw goat sign and found a dead kid (possibly still born?), had been dead for about a week.
17th Dec – Searched pine block above the road in the morning. Dog indication in valley floor in dense
/ lush vegetation (very similar site to prev ous). Searched pines and big ravine below the road in the
afternoon, no indications.
18th December – Searched gullies to SE of Rough Block. No indications.
Conclusions and Reccomendations
Despite the very good coverage of rodent baitstations, I believe that it is likely that there are still rats
(albeit in very low numbers) within the core of Cape Sanctuary.
under the Official Info
The presence of and density of rabbits throughout the Cape Sanctuary was incredibly confounding
and confusing for Pai and his handler. Although trained to be target specific, the constant exposure
to rabbits (especially the large number of juveniles encountered in unexpected places) over time
made searching for rats more and more challenging. This situation makes it difficult for me to be
more definite about the rat situation at Cape Sanctuary. Had I known about this situation before
coming down I would have put in extra training (rabbit aversion) and brought some dead rats with
me to give Pai some “finds” and keep him focussed.
Released
Having been engaged in pest control for the last 35 years, I offer some observations, based on that
experience, of the pest control efforts encountered during my visit.

  The rodent baitstation network looks to be well set out and most bait looked fresh and in
good condition
  The Fenn traps desperately need replacing with DOC200s, they looked old and corroded. I
understand that there are weasels in the sanctuary and none of the Fenns encountered
would have caught a weasel.
  The high rabbit numbers will be acting as an attraction to predators like cats and mustelids,
plus making it challenging to use Pest Detection Dogs
  A point for Cape Sanctuary staff to consider when using Tracking Tunnels as a surveillance
tool to detect rats is that putting them out ‘to protocol’ is actually of not much use to you
when you are trying to protect highly ‘rat vulnerable’ birds like Tieke. You need to put the
tracking tunnels in rat habitat and actually hunt for rats with them. You should be trying to
detect the presence of rats, rather than getting an index of rat density which is what the
protocol is designed for.
Although it was not in my brief, I feel compelled to pass on my personal concerns regarding the
translocation of more Tieke to Cape Sanctuary. As we all know, Tieke are incredibly vulnerable to
mammalian predators. As well as the probable presence of rats in the core of the sanctuary, I believe
that there are weasels and cats within the sanctuary also. To release such vulnerable threatened
species into an area containing these predators, to my mind would be irresponsible.
Acknowledgements
Thankyou s9(2)(a)
for accommodating me  n your home for the week and for providing me
with the maps and local knowledge to enable me to make the best use of my time at Cape
Sanctuary.

Fin Buchanan
Technical Advisor Threats (Pest Detection Dogs)
under the Official Information Act
Science and Pol cy
Department of Conservation, PO Box 32-026, Devonport 0744, Auckland
Released

From:
Nicola Toki
To:
Bruce Parkes; Paul Jansen
Subject:
Predator report - Cape Sanctuary
Date:
Wednesday, 7 September 2016 9:16:23 pm
Attachments:
To s9(2)(a) (Repaired).pdf
image001.jpg
Hi Bruce/Scratch,

Before I forget, and because I was working with Fin yesterday (Kiwibank conservation dogs
launch), it reminded me that I meant to pass this on.

In Dec last year, the then-pest control guy (s9(2)(a)
asked Fin Buchanan to do a quick audit
of the pest situation at Cape Sanctuary.  Fin found trapping was not up to spec, and likely low
level rats, weasels and cats, as well as so many rabbits they confounded his rodent dog   He
wrote the attached report, and never heard anything back from CS (except a thank you from
s9(  who has since left) or DOC.  It’s pretty straightforward stuff, but his last para is very
pertinent.
2)

“Although it was not in my brief, I feel compelled to pass on my personal concerns regarding the
translocation of more Tieke to Cape Sanctuary. As we all know, Tieke are incredibly vulnerable to
mammalian predators. As well as the probable presence of rats in the core of the sanctuary, I
believe that there are weasels and cats within the sanctuary also. To release such vulnerable
threatened species into an area containing these predators  to my mind would be irresponsible.”

I haven’t visited Cape Sanctuary in many years – but some auditing/monitoring of this situation
seems like a good idea.

On that note – I’ve had some noise from  he zoos, that sanctuaries in general seem to not have
to jump through the hoops they do, and it is a bit of a gap.  Some policy on sanctuaries’
responsibilities, and some follow up from us on translocations is probably worth looking into.

Cheers,
Nicola

From: Finlay Buchanan
under the Official Information Act
Sent: Friday, 15 January 2016 8:40 a.m.
To: Nicola Toki <[email address]>
Subject: FW: s9(2)(a)

Kia ora Nic

Herewith…..

Interestingly, I have had no response from Napier (other than a thankyou from s9(2)(a)
who
Released
incidentally has now resigned) so have no idea how it was received.

I trust that you will use this constructively.

Mauri ora

From:
Nicola Toki
To:
Lucy Hodgins
Subject:
RE: Case study interview
Date:
Wednesday, 30 August 2017 2:26:00 pm
Hi Lucy, I’m happy to do this, but I can’t seem to find the appointment in my calendar? Are we
still set for three?

-----Original Appointment-----
From: Lucy Hodgins
Sent: Tuesday, 29 August 2017 9:05 a.m.
To: Nicola Toki
Subject: Case study interview
When: Wednesday, 30 August 2017 3:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. (UTC+12:00) Auckland, Wellington.
Where: National Office - MR - L2.09 - Kauri VPN 8281, DDI 04 471 3281 (Seats 4) TV, PC, Camera,
Wireless Speakerphone

Kia ora Nic

Context: last month the Interface team interviewed staff from Terrestrial ecosystems, Threats,
Operations and Partnerships units to learn about their Interfaces. We asked all interviewees to
name relevant case studies that we could pursue to start building a picture of the decision-
making process and how cross functional teams were/are being applied. We received a huge
number of cases and with the help of managers have narrowed it down to a select few.

Case studies were selected based on the following criteria;
Each TEU/Threats manager involved in at least one case study
Mix of ‘good news’ and ‘not so good news’ cases.
Mix of TEU/Threats led and other group led cases.
Mix of retrospective, future and current cases.

Case Study: Translocat ons of Saddlebacks to Cape Sanctuary

The purpose of these case studies is for leaders on both sides of the interface to learn how to
under the Official Information Act
apply the ‘Cross Functional Team Process’ and the ‘Raise Critical Issues Process’ to improve the
interface.

The purpose of this interview is to capture your perspective of the task involved in this case
study and its execution.

We intend to use the information you share with us but we will not reveal what any individual
said without your explicit permission.

Released
Please let me know as soon as possible if you are unable to attend this session and suggest an
alternative time. I would like to have all interviews completed over the next two and a half
weeks.

Thank you and looking forward to talking to you.

Lucy

under the Official Information Act
Released

From:
Nicola Toki
To:
Jessica Scrimgeour
Subject:
Re: draft letter re Miracle at Rainbow Springs
Date:
Tuesday, 7 June 2016 10:44:11 am
hey jess I'm away from my desk can u send a pdf? also I'd like to talk to u re cape
sanctuary kiwi at some point. when suits you?
Nic
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone.
Out of scope
tion Act
Rel

From:
Nicola Toki
To:
Paul Jansen
Subject:
RE: Predator report - Cape Sanctuary
Date:
Thursday, 8 September 2016 9:39:00 am
Attachments:
image001.jpg
Nope. I’m also interested in a current update of their pest control… who’s gonna ask?

From: Paul Jansen
Sent: Thursday, 8 September 2016 7:33 a.m.
To: Nicola Toki <[email address]>; Bruce Parkes <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Predator report - Cape Sanctuary

Hi Nic

Do we know where the next tieke translocation has got to??

S

From: Nicola Toki
Sent: Wednesday, 7 September 2016 9:16 p.m.
To: Bruce Parkes <[email address]>; Paul Jansen <[email address]>
Subject: Predator report - Cape Sanctuary

Hi Bruce/Scratch,

Before I forget, and because I was working with Fin yesterday (Kiwibank conservation dogs
launch), it reminded me that I meant to pass this on.

In Dec last year, the then-pest control guy (s9(2)(a)
asked Fin Buchanan to do a quick audit
of the pest situation at Cape Sanctuary.  Fin found trapping was not up to spec, and likely low-
level rats, weasels and cats, as well as so many rabbits they confounded his rodent dog.  He
wrote the attached report, and never heard anything back from CS (except a thank you from
s9(  who has since left) or DOC.  It’s pretty straightforward stuff, but his last para is very
pertinent.
2)
under the Official Information Act

“Although it was not in my brief, I feel compelled to pass on my personal concerns regarding the
translocation of more Tieke to Cape Sanctuary. As we all know, Tieke are incredibly vulnerable to
mammalian predators. As well as the probable presence of rats in the core of the sanctuary, I
believe that there are weasels and cats within the sanctuary also. To release such vulnerable
threatened species into an area containing these predators, to my mind would be irresponsible.”

I haven’t visited Cape Sanctuary in many years – but some auditing/monitoring of this situation
seems like a good idea.
Released

On that note – I’ve had some noise from the zoos, that sanctuaries in general seem to not have
to jump through the hoops they do, and it is a bit of a gap.  Some policy on sanctuaries’
responsibilities, and some follow up from us on translocations is probably worth looking into.

From:
Nicola Toki
To:
James Holborow
Subject:
Re: Tieke Transfer Resolution Island
Date:
Thursday, 22 June 2017 8:03:04 am
Bloody hell
Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message --------
From: James Holborow <[email address]>
Date: 22/06/17 8:00 AM (GMT+12:00)
To: Nicola Toki <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Tieke Transfer Resolution Island
Have done.

James Holborow
VPN 5432 | Skype for Business – go on, try it | Mobile: 027 2611 736
[email address]

From: Nicola Toki
Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2017 07:58
To: James Holborow <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Tieke Transfer Resolution Island

Forward him Greg's email and chase him up!?

Sent from my Samsung device
under the Official Information Act
----- - Original message --------
From: James Holborow <[email address]>
Date: 22/06/17 7:55 AM (GMT+12:00)
To: Nicola Toki <[email address]>, Julie Knauf <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Tieke Transfer Resolution Island
Agreed. I have not heard from Lindsay as yet.
Released

James Holborow
VPN 5432 | Skype for Business – go on, try it | Mobile: 027 2611 736
[email address]

From: Nicola Toki
Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2017 07:21
To: Julie Knauf <[email address]>; James Holborow <[email address]>
Subject: Re: Tieke Transfer Resolution Island

Yes. I would say this is a good one.  Also the cape sanctuary tieke release where 120 were
released into an area known to have rats, cats and weasels and nearly all were eaten. I raised it
but nobody ever responded.

I actually have a collection of these that Bruce P asked me to compile.

Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message --------
From: Julie Knauf <[email address]>
Date: 22/06/17 7:16 AM (GMT+12:00)
To: Nicola Toki <[email address]>, James Holborow <[email address]>
Subject: RE: Tieke Transfer Resolution Island
Hi both,
In my interface interview yesterday Matt was seeking case studies for our “deep dive”…shall we
offer this one up and get some support around us to get what we’re seeking?

JK

From: Nicola Toki
Sent: Thursday, 22 June 2017 6:48 a.m.
To: Julie Knauf <[email address]>
Subject: Fwd: Tieke Transfer Resolution Island

under the Official Information Act

Morning Julie,

I was just reading a paper about what makes a successful translocation,  which got me
thinking about the below and particularly the process here.

Last year the Te Anau office had four separate pieces of advice compiled by four
individuals that to go ahead was a bad idea. (James forgot to mention Pete McLelland
which was another external piece).
Released

Your team has raised the new translocation and why it is happening with the accountable
manager (Greg Lind), who passed it to the ranger (Lindsay Wilson) who as far as I know
hasn't replied.

If we look at team process (or just professional courtesy), wouldn't the Te Anau team
communicate effectively with the science team who are quite reasonably asking questions
on behalf of the species?

From my point of view, while the department focuses on the health of populations, deaths
of individual birds mean a lot to the public and iwi. Predictable deaths even more so.

I'd like some assurances around stoat levels, number of birds being released, monitoring
and reporting etc before I would feel even a little comfortable about this plan.

Just food for thought as you begin looking at translocations and especially the process
followed.

Nic

Sent from my Samsung device
-------- Original message --------
From: Nicola Toki <[email address]>
Date: 21/06/17 3:44 PM (GMT+12:00)
To: Julie Knauf <[email address]>
Subject: FW: Tieke Transfer Resolution Island
FYI
Out of scope
fficial Information Act
Rel

Out of scope

s9(2)(g)(i)