Pre-Construction Bird and Bat Monitoring at the Turitea Wind Farm

PRE-CONSTRUCTION BIRD AND BAT MONITORING AT THE TURITEA WIND FARM

R1950s-xvi

PRE-CONSTRUCTION BIRD AND BAT MONITORING AT THE TURITEA WIND FARM

Spectral bat detector (ABM) deployed in a pine tree along South Range Road, Turitea.

Contract Report No. 1950s-xvi

June 2019

Project Team: Keely Paler - Report author, field work Astrid van Meeuwen-Dijkgraaf - Report author Rachel McClellan - Report author Kerry Borkin - Report author William Shaw - Report author Chris Bycroft - Field work

Prepared for: Mercury Energy Hamilton

WELLINGTON OFFICE: 22 RAIHA STREET, ELSDON, P.O. BOX 50-539, PORIRUA Ph 04-237-7341; Fax 04-237-7496

HEAD OFFICE: 99 SALA STREET, P.O. BOX 7137, TE NGAE, ROTORUA Ph 07-343-9017; Fax 07-343-9018, email [email protected], www.wildlands.co.nz

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. SITE OVERVIEW 1

3. METHODS 2 3.1 General 2 3.2 Birds 3 3.3 Bats 4 3.4 Data analysis 7 3.4.1 Wildlands data 7 3.4.2 Groundtruth data 9

4. BIRDS 9 4.1 Overview 9 4.2 Five-minute bird counts 13 4.2.1 Kōmako/bellbird 13 4.2.2 Pīwakawaka/fantail 15 4.2.3 Riroriro/grey warbler 16 4.2.4 Tauhou/silvereye 16 4.2.5 Pōpokotea/whitehead 17 4.2.6 Tūī 18 4.2.7 Kererū 18 4.2.8 Miromiro/pied tomtit 19 4.2.9 Pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck 19 4.2.10 Kāhu/swamp harrier 20 4.3 Flight path monitoring 20 4.4 Incidental observations 24 4.5 At Risk species 24 4.6 Comparison with Groundtruth data 26 4.6.1 Kōmako/bellbird 28 4.6.2 Karearea/bush falcon 28 4.6.3 Popokatea/whitehead 29 4.6.4 Pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck 29 4.6.5 Kāhu/swamp harrier 30 4.6.6 Tūī 30 4.6.7 Miromiro/pied tomtit 31 4.6.8 Titipounamu/rifleman 31 4.6.9 Kererū 32

5. BATS 32

6. DISCUSSION OF BIRD SURVEY FINDINGS 33 6.1 Key findings for particular species 33 6.2 General bird population patterns 34 6.3 Flight paths 35 6.4 Groundtruth counts 36 6.5 Risk assessment for bird species present at the Turitea wind farm 37

6.6 Potential mitigation for avifauna losses 40 6.6.1 Other options investigated 41

7. THREATENED OR AT RISK SPECIES 41 7.1 Overview 41 7.2 Bats 41 7.3 Kārearea/bush falcon 41 7.4 Koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo 43 7.5 Pīhoihoi/New Zealand pipit 44 7.6 Pōpokotea/whitehead 44 7.7 Titipounamu/North Island rifleman 45

8. POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING 45

9. CONCLUSION 46

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 47

REFERENCES 47

APPENDICES

1. Relevant consent conditions 49 2. Bird species recorded during the pre-construction monitoring 51 3. At Risk bird species recorded during pre-construction monitoring 52 4. R output from GLM models used to analyse bird data 62 5. Summary of bat monitoring records at Turitea 63 6. Selected photographs 68

Reviewed and approved for release by:

______W.B. Shaw Director/Principal Ecologist Wildland Consultants Ltd

This report has been produced by Wildland Consultants Ltd for Mercury Energy. All copyright in this report is the property of Wildland Consultants Ltd and any unauthorised publication, reproduction, or adaptation of this report is a breach of that copyright.

1. INTRODUCTION

Mercury NZ Ltd was granted resource consents in 2011 for a modified layout of the proposed Turitea Wind Farm, on the northern end of the Tararua Range. Sixty turbine sites are consented: 33 in the Northern Zone and 27 in the Southern Zone. At this stage, only the northern section is being constructed, however bird and bat monitoring was carried out across the entirety of the consented wind turbine site.

Key concerns associated with potential effects of the wind farm on fauna include the potential for mortality or injury resulting from birds and bats colliding with the turbines and other structures (bird strike), the potential for turbine barrier effects to force birds to alter their flight lines or avoid habitat (habitat avoidance), and the potential for the displacement of birds (habitat loss). There is therefore is a need for a well-considered bird and bat monitoring programme (Board of Inquiry 2011). The resource consent includes conditions requiring monitoring for birds and bats (Appendix 1) and the methodology to address this is described in full in Wildland Consultants (2018).

This report addresses the reporting requirements of this monitoring, as set out in the following conditions:

49. The results of the Pre-construction Avian and Bat Utilisation Surveys shall be provided in writing to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council's Environmental Compliance Manager and the Department of Conservation within 20 working days of the completion of the surveys. [Summary report provided on 14 May 2019]

50. Final reports detailing the outcomes of the Pre-construction Avian and Bat Utilisation Surveys shall also be provided to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council's Environmental Compliance Manager and the Department of Conservation within 2 months of completion of the surveys. These final reports shall identify methods to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of the wind farm on threatened avifauna species and/or threatened bat species.

2. SITE OVERVIEW

The consented layout comprises 33 turbines at the northern end of South Range Road and 27 turbines at the southern end and on Browns Flat. At this stage, only the northern turbine cluster and the transmission lines will be constructed. This report addresses monitoring undertaken across both turbine zones, to enable it to also be applicable should the southern turbine zone also be constructed at a later date. Some of the monitoring was modified in consultation with the Department of Conservation, to reduce effort within the southern zone and increase the survey effort in the northern zone.

The turbine size consented for this project was recently increased via a consent variation, to allow for changes in the turbine sizes currently on the market. Turbines in the northern cluster are likely to comprise Vestas V112 machines, which have the following maximum dimensions:

• Turbine rotor diameter 112 metres. • Hub height 69 metres. • Maximum turbine blade tip height 125 metres. • Blade tip ground clearance 13 metres. • Wind swept area 9,852 metres squared.

The main access to the site will be via a new permanent road access from Pahiatua Track, with limited truck movements along Kahuterawa Road and Greens Road to enable to construction of the internal transmission line and the Browns Flat substation. All other truck movements to transport turbine components and construction plant, labour and materials will be along South Range Road and the Water Catchment Road1.

In addition, construction of the wind farm (for both the Northern and Southern Zones) will include:

• Alterations to existing access tracks and private roads within the wind farm site.

• Construction of a number of new tracks within the site to provide access to individual turbines and some transmission tower sites.

• Vegetation clearance for the creation of these access tracks, road widening, the creation of turbine platforms and lay down areas, substations and other ancillary activities.

• Disposal of excess excavation material at identified areas within the site.

• Site reinstatement, revegetation and new areas of planting within the site.

• Construction of up to three permanent wind monitoring masts of up to 80 metres in height within the site.

• An internal transmission network to take electricity generated from each turbine to two on-site substations.

• An external transmission line to connect the site with the national grid at Linton.

• Minor upgrading of some of the public roads providing external access to the site.

• Ongoing maintenance activities including the monitoring, repair and replacement of turbine components; substation equipment; reticulation network; transmission lines and structures and monitoring masts and roading.

3. METHODS

3.1 General

1 The width of the Water Catchment Road has been reduced from 10 metres to 7.5 metres, with regular passing bays to reduce the vegetation clearance required for road widening.

Methods used in the pre-construction avian survey and pre-construction bat utilisation survey, were developed in consultation with the department of Conservation and are described in full in Wildland Consultants (2018).

3.2 Birds

Birds were monitored across four seasons, as specified in the Consent Condition 47. This has been interpreted to mean that surveys should take place during summer, autumn, winter, and spring, with one of those survey periods being late February-early March (as per Consent Condition 47). The monitoring periods for birds were:

• Season 1: 26/2/18 - 27/3/18. • Season 2: 28/5/18 - 7/6/18. • Season 3: 27/8/18 - 7/9/18. • Season 4: 12/11/18 - 22/11/18.

Five-Minute Bird Counts

A network of five-minute bird count stations was established to monitor bird populations pre- and post-construction in the Turitea wind farm area, and in a control site, at Gordon Kear Forest, that will not be affected by construction of the wind farm. Five-minute bird counts were carried out according to the five-minute bird count protocol described by Dawson and Bull (1975), including the modification suggested by Hartley and Greene (2012). This approach was used to address:

• Condition 47.1 Document seasonal species presence and relative abundance. • Condition 47.2 Record seasonal habitat use (part).

Seventy-five five-minute bird count stations were established, including 40 across the entire extent of the consented Tūīrtea wind farm and 35 in the control site at Gordon Kear (Figure 1). All five-minute bird count stations were at least 200 metres apart. The five-minute bird count stations at the Turitea site were located adjacent to areas which are likely to be affected by the wind farm infrastructure in both the northern and southern turbine zones, whilst the five-minute bird count stations at Gordon Kear were located in habitat types which were as similar as possible to those at the Turitea wind farm site.

Two observers visited each five-minute bird count station twice each season (resulting in 150 five-minute bird counts undertaken during each season, for four seasons).

Total effort for five-minute bird counts comprised 100 hours of observations, with 53.3 hours in the Turitea wind farm, and 46.7 hours in the control site. Data was recorded using standard field sheets and then transcribed for analysis.

Flight Path Monitoring

Flight path monitoring was used to observe and map bird movements around locations where future wind farm infrastructure is to be situated. A network of flight path stations was established on vantage points and all bird activity and flight paths were recorded (Figure 1). Flight path stations were located near habitats that indigenous birds are

likely to move between (e.g. scrub and forest), on high points or in view shafts, enabling observations to be made around key wind farm infrastructure. This was used to address:

• Condition 47.2 Record seasonal habitat use patterns and flight pathways (part). • Condition 47.3 Record seasonal variation for indigenous species that the avian and bat experts determine are at particular risk from wind turbines. • Condition 47.4 Analyse relative risk for bird species.

Each flight path station was monitored for 30 minutes by two observers and during this time all birds observed or heard were recorded. Any observed flight paths were drawn onto aerial photographs, and records were made of flight heights, bird species, number of individuals, and the types of habitats or vegetation types the birds move to and from. Where possible, fixed features were measured for height (e.g. the height of a tree or power pole) and this was used as a reference to estimate height.

In the first season, flight path stations were monitored once per observer at 20 stations located across the extent of the consented Turitea wind farm (two observations per station in season 1). In Seasons 2, 3, and 4, the number of flight path stations was reduced to 14, located in the northern turbine zone, and along South Range Road, with views towards the Transmission Corridor. These changes were made in consultation with Department of Conservation staff. These sites were monitored twice per observer (four observations at each flight path station per season).

Overall, 104 hours of flight path monitoring was undertaken.

Incidental Observations

Additional bird observations were made as observers moved around the wind farm and the control site, with a particular focus on Threatened and At Risk species.

3.3 Bats

The focus of the bat surveys at Turitea was to confirm whether bats use the site. To do this, 30 spectral bat detectors (ABM) were used, rotated between 60 bat monitoring sites. The ABMs enable detection of bats as well as allow for distinction between bat passes and feeding buzzes.

ABMs were generally placed along linear features, near a turbine location (e.g. forest- pasture edge), or within the forest, including an area of former pine forest that was felled during 2018. Some stations were located near the Turitea water catchment

lakes, to increase the possibility of detecting any possible bats as they often hunt for insects over water. The stations were located away from any known electronic structures (including electronically-operated dam sluices and electric fences) as these may trigger spurious records.

Bats hibernate during colder weather and only data for valid bat monitoring nights should be included. Conditions required for bats to be active are:

• Temperatures higher than 10oC. • >70% humidity at dusk. • No more than light rain (2.0 mm per hour; https://weather.niwa.co.nz/about.).

These parameters are most important for the first four hours after dusk. These were determined using weather data from the Ngahere Park Climate Station (Horizons Regional Council) and the Mercury monitoring towers within the wind farm.

Climate data from the Ngahere Park Climate Station was adjusted to account for daylight saving.

In order to comply with Consent Condition 47, bat monitoring was undertaken in all four seasons. Bat boxes were deployed as follows:

• Season 1: 30 bat boxes deployed from 26/2/18-21/3/18. • Season 2: 12 bat boxes deployed from 28/5/18-29/6/18. • Season 3: 12 bat boxes deployed from 27/8/18-23/9/18. • Season 4: All 301 bat boxes from 12/11/18 - 30/4/19.

In the first season, the ABMs were deployed across half of the site, collected and serviced, and then redeployed across the other half of the site.

After discussion with Department of Conservation staff it was agreed to reduce bat survey effort during seasons when temperatures are often too cool (Seasons 2 and 3) to meet the parameters which define a valid monitoring night. Bat monitoring would still be undertaken during these cooler seasons in order to meet the consent conditions. Thus, 12 ABMs was deployed in Seasons 2 and 3, at Game Ridge and at the water catchment lakes. These locations are at lower altitudes and/or in warmer or more sheltered microhabitats that had a greater potential for ongoing bat activity.

To compensate for the reduced monitoring undertaken in the winter months, ABMs were deployed continuously from November 2018 until April 2019, as also decided in consultation with Department of Conservation staff. By monitoring throughout these warmer months, there is a higher possibility of detecting bats, should they be in the area. The 30 ABMs were rotated approximately every two weeks between the 60 identified bat locations, at which time batteries and SD cards were replaced, to ensure successful ongoing data collection.

1 The number of bat boxes decreased over the course of this season, as some bat boxes began to fail due to the prolonged period of time in the field.

ABMs in the water treatment plant were removed in the beginning of 2019 to avoid pine felling activities, and an additional six ABMs were relocated prior to the summer monitoring period, to avoid areas directly affected by recent pine harvesting activities.

As the ABMs were deployed continuously for relatively long periods of time, a few of the bat boxes began to fail, particularly towards the end of the summer. These boxes were retrieved and sent to the Department of Conservation for repairs; resulting in reduced monitoring effort in the late part of Season 4.

Table 1: Summary of bat monitoring effort at the Turitea Wind Farm, February 2018 to April 2019.

Number of Valid Season Number of ABMs Dates Deployed Effort1 Monitoring Nights 1 30 ABMs moved around 26/2/18-21/3/18 20 413 60 locations 2 12 ABMs moved around- 28/5/18-29/6/18 112 106 12 locations 3 12 ABMs moved around 27/8/18-23/9/18 18 135 12 locations 4 30 ABMs moved around 12/11/18-30/4/19 159 2,676 60 locations3 1. Valid bat nights × deployed bat boxes. 2. Climatic data monitoring equipment failure for 15 days during this monitoring period. 3. Reducing during the sampling period due to gradual equipment failure (i.e. some ABMs stopped working due to long deployment) and having to remove ABMs from logging areas near the Turitea water lakes.

A skilled field technician reviewed all files, and any audio files with potential bat recordings were also reviewed by a bat expert.

3.4 Data analysis

3.4.1 Wildlands data

Data analysis was carried out using Excel and R.

Five-Minute Counts

The statistical design for this study was established to create a layout which is roughly balanced between the consented wind farm (40 five-minute bird count stations) and the control site (35 five-minute bird count stations). Data was collected for the northern and southern turbine clusters. For the purpose of statistical analysis, the data set for both the northern and southern clusters were used, as otherwise the design would have been too unbalanced and there would have been insufficient data points for most species.

Some overview calculations were made to determine overall bird abundances, the most common species, and the ratio of indigenous to introduced species. All of the At Risk bird species observed as part of this study were recorded at low or very low numbers. All recorded observations of At Risk species are presented in tabular form in Appendix 3.

Separate analysis were then undertaken for each bird species to determine if there are any significant seasonal or habitat differences in the conspicuousness of birds and whether this was the same between the wind farm and the control site. Candidate species were selected based on whether there was sufficient data to run an analysis, and were further narrowed down to the more common indigenous species and ones which are likely to be negatively impacted by the wind farm. Introduced and Naturalised species were not analysed separately, because it is of less concern if the future wind farm was to result in any potential adverse impacts on these species.

The candidate species selected were kōmako/bellbird, fantail, riroriro/grey warbler, tauhou/silvereye, pōpokotea/whitehead, tūī, kererū, miromiro/pied tomtit, pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck, and kāhu/swamp harrier. These species were analysed using Generalised Linear Models. During the exploratory phase of statistical analysis, models included site (Turitea vs. Gordon Kear) and five-minute bird count station as randomised blocking variables. Whilst this is theoretically the best approach, these models produced error warnings, which indicated insufficient data at this stage to analyse the data using this model without overfitting the data. Instead simple GLM models using combinations of vegetation type, site, and season, with a Poisson distribution were used to analyse the results. The covariate models tested for each species are:

• Species ~ Season, family = poisson() • Species ~ Site, family = poisson() • Species ~ Vegetation, family = poisson() • Species ~ Season + site*season, family = poisson() • Species ~ Vegetation + site* vegetation, family = poisson() • Species ~ Season + Vegetation*Season, family = poisson() • Species ~ Season * site* vegetation, family = poisson()

An Aikake Information Criterion (AIC) test was used to determine which of the covariate models is the strongest predictor of that species count data (Burnham and Anderson 2002). Models with lower AICc values are theoretically closer to the truth than those with higher AICc values, and the Akaike Weight (AICcWt) is the probability that a model is the best model given the model set (Burnham and Anderson 2002). The results of these AICc tests are presented in Appendix 4. Coefficients for the top model are presented for each analysis of each species. These show which covariates are positively and/or negatively related to the species abundance, and standard errors and p-values give an indication of the strength of these relationships.

Flight Paths

All flight paths from the four monitoring season were mapped using ARC GIS, and figures created to identify paths or locations through which birds frequently travel. Due to the request for Department of Conservation to intensify flight path monitoring in the northern zone, flight path mapping is concentrated in the northern turbine cluster.

All birds observed flying at heights within the rotor-blade swept area (13-125 metres above the ground) were identified and the total number per species determined. All observed flight paths are shown in Figure 2 and these are differentiated according to whether they were observed flying above or below 13 metres in height. To determine

if there are any flight paths which are commonly travelled, a heat path map was created, which uses different colours to indicate areas where birds were recorded more frequently (Figure 3). Species recorded flying within the turbine blade envelope were identified and mapped, see Figure 4. These figures were used as a basis to assess the risk that construction of the wind farm will have for the bird population at Turitea.

3.4.2 Groundtruth data

Groundtruth have been monitoring birds, using five-minute bird counts, within the Turitea Reserve since 2003 and in Gordon Kear since 2005 to monitor the responses of bird populations to pest control operations (Groundtruth 2017). This provides an additional, complementary source of information, allowing better capability to detect possible changes in bird populations as a result of wind farm activities.

There are some key differences, however, between five-minute bird count data collected by Groundtruth and that collected by Wildland Consultants, which are outlined in Table 2.

Table 2: Key differences between data collected by Groundtruth and Wildland Consultants. Groundtruth Wildland Consultants Timing of Bird Yearly in spring since 2003 Four seasons throughout a Counts (Turitea) or 2005 (Gordon Kear), single year in 2018. until 2017. Location of Bird Primarily in mature forest Primarily along ridges or in Counts habitats. pasture or grass habitats. Bird Counts Two clusters of five five-minute 60 independent five-minute bird Methodology bird counts spaces 50 metres counts- 40 in Turitea, 35 in apart (five at Gordon Kear; 12 at Gordon Kear. Turitea).

To determine how the Wildland Consultants data comapres with the Groundtruth data, bird monitoring counts from only the spring monitoring period were used. As the five- minute bird count design differs between the consultancies, the maximum count of birds from each monitoring station was taken from the Wildland Consultants data, and this was plotted with the mean Groundtruth data from within each five-minute bird count cluster.

4. BIRDS

4.1 Overview

Forty bird species were observed in this study, with 33 species at the Gordon Kear control site and 40 species at the Turitea wind farm site. In total, 18,630 birds were observed in this study using a combination of five-minute bird counts, flight path monitoring and incidental observations.

4.2 Five-minute bird counts

In total, 9,564 birds were observed during five-minute bird counts, with 5,014 birds recorded at the consented wind farm and 4,550 birds recorded at the Gordon Kear control site. No birds were observed in 6.7% of five-minute bird counts. The mean number of birds recorded from each five-minute bird count was 2.3, with a maximum count of 50 birds recorded within a single five-minute count.

Thirty-eight bird species were recorded using five-minute bird counts (38 at the wind farm site, 34 at the control site; a full list of the bird species recorded is provided in Appendix 2). This includes the following ‘At Risk’ species:

• Titipounamu/North Island rifleman (At Risk-Declining). • Pīhoihoi/New Zealand pipit (At Risk-Declining). • Pōpokotea/whitehead (At Risk-Declining). • Koekoea/long-tailed cuckoo (At Risk-Naturally Uncommon). • Kārearea/bush falcon (At Risk-Recovering).

The proportion of indigenous to exotic species is roughly equal between the Turitea wind farm and the control site, with indigenous species comprising 41% of birds recorded at the Turitea wind farm site, and 43% of the birds recorded at the control site.

The most commonly recorded species in five-minute bird counts at the wind farm site were the Australian magpie (763), tauhou/silvereye (577), putangitangi/paradise shelduck (340), blackbird (337), and chaffinch (298) (Graph 1).

The most commonly recorded species in five-minute bird counts at the control site were the Australian magpie (600), tauhou/silvereye (539), starling (450), house sparrow (436), and riroriro/grey warbler (342).

Analysis of individual candidate species was used to determine whether there are any statistically significant differences in recorded abundances between site, season or vegetation types.

4.2.1 Kōmako/bellbird

The model which best explains variations in the kōmako/bellbird data is:

Bellbird~Vegetation + Site* Vegetation, family= poison(), data=Bellbird.df)

There is a significant (P=0.049) but very small (1.099e+00) difference with greater numbers of kōmako/bellbirds recorded in horopito forest at the future wind farm site compared to at Gordon Kear (Graph 2).

Within the wind farm site, there is also very small but significantly more (P=0.00809; 1.204e+00) kōmako/bellbirds in the regenerating scrub compared to forest pasture boundary.

Graph 1 : Averages of the maximum number of birds recorded per five-minute bird count station for each species, for the Turitea wind farm site and at Gordon Kear, the control site.

Graph 2: Box plots of kōmako/bellbird abundances in five-minute bird counts depending on the site (Control=Gordon Kear, Farm=Turitea wind farm), vegetation type, and season.

4.2.2 Pīwakawaka/fantail

The model which best explains variations in the fantail data is:

Fantail~Vegetation + Site* Vegetation, family= poison(), data=Fantail.df

There are significantly fewer fantails recorded in pasture habitats (-1.69; P=0.0001) and horopito habitats (-1.15; P=0.0017) compared to the pasture/bush habitats (Graph 3).

Graph 3: Box plots of pīwakawaka/fantail abundances in five-minute bird counts depending on the site (Control=Gordon Kear, Farm=Turitea wind farm), vegetation type, and season.

4.2.3 Riroriro/grey warbler

The model which fits the riroriro/grey warbler data best is:

glm(Grey.warbler~Season + Site * Season, family=poisson(), data=Warbler.df

There are significantly more riroriro/grey warblers in season three (0.59, P=0.007) and in season four (0.81, P=0.0001) compared to season one (Graph 4).

Graph 4: Box plots of riroriro/grey warbler abundances in five-minute bird counts depending on the site (Control=Gordon Kear, Farm=Turitea wind farm), vegetation type, and season.

4.2.4 Tauhou/silvereye

The model which fits the tauhou/silvereye data best was:

Glm(Silvereye~Season * Site * Vegetation, family=posson(), data= Silvereye.df

There are significant differences in the abundances of tauhou/silvereyes recorded in the season three (-3.255208; P=5.90e-06) and four (-2.031432; P= 6.58e-08), compared to season one. There are significantly fewer tauhou/silvereyes recorded in the Turitea wind farm site, compared to the Gordon Kear control site (-0.975380; P=6.71e-05). There were also significant vegetation type differences with significantly less tauhou/silvereyes recorded in horopito (-0.673309, P=0.000275), indigenous forest (- 0.447312, P= 0.008869), and pasture (-1.556974; 1.63e-11) compared to the number of tauhou/silvereyes recorded along the pasture/bush boundary vegetation type. These significant differences were all depended on the interactions between the three explanatory variables (Graph 5).

Graph 5: Box plots of tauhou/silvereye abundances in five-minute bird counts depending on the site (Control=Gordon Kear, Farm=Turitea wind farm), vegetation type, and season

4.2.5 Pōpokotea/whitehead

The model which fits the pōpokotea/whitehead data best was:

glm(Whitehead~Season * Site * Vegetation, family=posson(), data= Whitehead.df

The pōpokotea/whitehead count data is negatively biased and there are no significant results for any of the explanatory variables in the above model (Graph 6).

Graph 6: Box plots of pōpokotea/whitehead abundances in five-minute bird counts depending on the site (Control=Gordon Kear, Farm=Turitea wind farm), vegetation type, and season

4.2.6 Tūī

The model which fits the tūī data best was:

Glm (Tui ~ Season * Site * Vegetation, family = poison(), data = Tui.df)

There were no significant differences between any of the fitted variables or the interactions between these (Graph 7).

Graph 7: Box plots of tūī abundances in five-minute bird counts depending on the site (Control=Gordon Kear, Farm=Turitea wind farm), vegetation type, and season.

4.2.7 Kererū

The model which fits the kererū data best was:

glm (Kereru ~ Vegetation + Site * Vegetation, family = poison(), data = Kereru.df)

This data is strongly negatively biased, because there are insufficient data, and there are no statistically significant differences between any of the variables in this model (Graph 8).

Graph 8: Box plots of kererū abundances in five-minute bird counts depending on the site (Control=Gordon Kear, Farm=Turitea wind farm), vegetation type, and season

4.2.8 Miromiro/pied tomtit

The model which fits the miromiro/pied tomtit data best was:

glm (Tomtit ~ Season + Vegetation * Season, family = poisson(), data = Tomtit.df)

There were significantly more miromiro/pied tomtits recorded in season two (1.25, P=0.027), season three (1.42; P=0.011) and season four (1.18; P=0.04) compared to season one (Graph 9).

Graph 9: Box plots of miromiro/pied tomtit abundances in five-minute bird counts depending on the site (Control=Gordon Kear, Farm=Turitea wind farm), vegetation type, and season.

4.2.9 Pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck

The model which fits the paradise shellduck data best was:

glm (Paradise.shelduck ~ Vegetation + Site * Vegetation, family = poison(), data = PShelduck.df)

Significantly fewer (-2.85; P=1.06e-07) putangitangi/paradise shellduck were recorded in pasture or indigenous forest at the Gordon Kear control site, compared to the future Turitea wind farm site (Graph 10).

Significantly more (2.9; P=1.73e-08) putangitangi/paradise shellduck were recorded overall at the Turitea wind farm site compared to the Gordon Kear control site. Significantly fewer putangitangi/paradise shellduck were recorded in regenerating scrub (-1.8; P=8.58e-9) and significantly more putangitangi/paradise shellduck were recorded in pasture (2.17; P=2.45e-05).

Graph 10: Box plots of paradise shellduck abundances in five-minute bird counts depending on the site (Control=Gordon Kear, Farm=Turitea wind farm), vegetation type, and season.

4.2.10 Kāhu/swamp harrier

The model which fits the data best was:

glm (Harrier ~ Vegetation + Site * Vegetation, family = poison(), data = Harrier.df)

There were significantly more kāhu/swamp harriers recorded over pasture (1.32; P=0.13) compared to along the forest/pasture boundary, however this data appears to be negatively biased (Graph 11).

Graph 11: Box plots of kāhu/swamp harrier abundances in five-minute bird counts depending on the site (Control=Gordon Kear, Farm=Turitea wind farm), vegetation type, and season.

4.3 Flight path monitoring

A total of 1,138 flight paths were recorded involving 2,540 individual birds and 32species (Table 3).

Table 3: Number of flight paths and number of birds per species seen during flight path monitoring at the Turitea wind farm. Species in bold indicate species observed flying higher than 13 metres above the ground (the height of the lower blade sweep). Species within threat categories are sorted by number of times recorded flying above 13 metres.

Number of Number of Mean Flight Number of Times Threat Status Common Name Flight Paths Birds Seen Height (metres) Recorded >13 metres At Risk-Declining Pīhoihoi/New Zealand pipit 7 9 7.1 0 Pōpokotea/whitehead 3 18 4.0 0 At Risk- Kārearea/bush falcon 11 12 33.9 8 Recovering Not Threatened Kāhu/swamp harrier 98 106 40.2 80 Tūī * 145 170 14.4 67 Pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck 63 177 26.0 42 New Zealand pigeon, kererū 24 30 22.6 15 Spur-winged plover 16 50 17.6 9 Karoro/southern black-backed gull 8 13 61.9 6 Tauhou/Swamp 43 176 6.5 5 Kōmako/bellbird 6 11 9.2 1 Riroriro/Grey warbler 4 10 5.3 0 Kōtare/kingfisher 1 1 10.0 0 Pīwakawaka/North Island fantail 24 30 3.8 0 Miromiro/pied tomtit 8 13 3.2 0 Pīpīwharauroa/shining cuckoo 1 1 5.0 0 Welcome swallow 12 14 6.3 0 Introduced and Australian magpie 215 622 17.3 87 Naturalised Unidentified finch 97 196 12.0 32 Skylark 33 41 31.5 24 Starling 108 298 8.5 21 Blackbird 43 61 7.4 10 Goldfinch 69 210 8.6 8 Chaffinch 51 148 7.0 7 Greenfinch 13 51 13.8 4 Eastern rosella 9 24 11.3 3 Mallard 2 3 40.0 2 Song thrush 4 6 14.5 2 Yellowhammer 13 20 4.5 1 Dunnock 1 3 1.0 0 House sparrow 4 11 4.3 0

The majority of species and birds were observed flying close to the canopy height or heard or seen within the canopy. Of the flight paths recorded, over half of the birds were recorded flying below 13 metres (1,521 birds) (Figure 2).

Of the 854 birds observed flying above 13 metres, 322 (38%) are indigenous species, whist 532 (62%) comprise introduced species (Graph 12). Only 1.1% of the recorded birds flying above 13 metres comprised Threatened or At Risk species, and these were all kārearea/bush falcon (At Risk-Recovering) (Table 3 and Graph 12). Table 4 sets out the flight height observations, higher than 13 metres above the ground, by height category for each species. These data include all flight paths, including those well away from any proposed infrastructure.

Graph 12: Numbers of birds for each species observed flying at heights greater than 13 metres. Indigenous species in red, and introduced species in blue.

No regularly utilised bird flight paths were identified.

A heat map was created of all the flight paths to see if there were any highly used routes. Figure 3 shows some ‘hotter’ spots near future wind farm infrastructure but that is a result of locating observation points near these locations, rather than particular flight paths being used more frequently than other parts of the wind farm.

Figure 4 illustrates which flight paths would have intersected with the blade-swept envelope of any turbines had they been constructed. Of the 1,138 flight paths that were observed only 112 (9.8%) were within the potential blade-swept area (had the wind farm already been constructed) which included a total of 213 birds (8.4% of the

Table 4: Numbers of birds observed flying within various height categories, greater than 13 metres, at Turitea Wind Farm.

Flight Height (in metres above the ground) Total Species Number 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 65 70 75 80 90 100 200 of Birds Australian magpie 19 37 7 73 47 27 8 1 46 265 Starling 11 75 3 1 90 Swamp harrier 10 8 1 20 5 19 3 4 1 3 1 10 1 86 Paradise shelduck 5 18 6 16 17 14 4 2 2 84 Unidentified finch 25 27 11 10 3 3 79 Tūī 21 32 2 15 3 3 76 Skylark 6 11 6 7 1 1 32 Goldfinch 1 13 15 29 New Zealand pigeon, 3 7 2 3 1 3 2 21 kererū Silvereye 2 12 4 18 Greenfinch 15 3 18 Spur-winged plover 4 3 4 6 17 Chaffinch 5 9 14 Blackbird 7 3 1 2 13 Eastern rosella 9 1 10 Bush falcon 1 1 2 4 1 1 10 Southern black-backed 2 1 1 1 3 8 gull Mallard 1 2 3 Bellbird 2 2 Song thrush 1 1 2 Yellowhammer 1 1 Total per Height 123 272 28 179 93 80 25 2 7 1 7 1 61 4 883 Category

total number of birds observed during flight path monitoring). The number of birds potentially affected is shown in Graph 13 and the data are provided in Table 5. The underlying assumption is also that birds do not take any avoidance actions to fly around constructed features.

Graph 13: Numbers of birds (open bars) and number of flight paths (blue bars) that would have potentially intersected with a blade-swept area had the wind farm already been constructed. Open bars with red speckles denote indigenous bird species.

4.4 Incidental observations

In addition to the structured monitoring, 1,104 incidental bird observations were made over the four seasons of bird monitoring (885 from the wind farm), recording 2,700 birds from 38 species.

Incidental observations identified an additional three species from the Turitea wind farm: rock pigeon (Columba livia), domestic goose (Anser anser), and ruru/morepork (Ninox novaeseelandiae).

4.5 At Risk species

Five At Risk species were recorded during pre-construction monitoring at Turitea, including, three At Risk-Declining, one At Risk-Naturally Uncommon, and one At Risk-Recovering species.

Table 5: Numbers of birds and numbers of flight paths that would have potentially intersected with a blade-swept area had the wind farm already been constructed.

Flight Height (in metres above the ground) Species Total Number Number of 15 20 25 30 40 50 60 70 80 100 of Birds Flight Paths Australian magpie 7 9 7 18 38 3 3 4 89 35 Paradise shelduck 2 7 4 3 4 6 1 27 14 Swamp harrier 1 6 3 1 2 13 13 Tūī 5 2 4 1 1 13 12 Starling 8 2 10 7 Silvereye 10 10 1 Spur-winged plover 1 1 6 8 3 Unidentified finch 4 1 2 7 3 Eastern rosella 7 7 1 Blackbird 4 1 2 7 6 Goldfinch 1 4 5 2 New Zealand pigeon, kererū 2 2 1 5 3 Chaffinch 3 1 4 4 Southern black-backed gull 1 1 1 1 4 4 Skylark 1 2 3 3 Bush falcon 1 1 1 Total per Height Category 45 37 11 42 46 19 5 2 1 5 213 45

Over the four seasons of monitoring, 11 titipounamu/rifleman, 542 pōpokotea/ whitehead (212 at Turitea), 29 karearea/bush falcon, 55 pihoihoi/pipit (37 at Turitea), and 18 koekoea/long-tailed cuckoo (four at Turitea) were recorded.

Locations where these species were recorded are shown in Figure 5, but it should be noted that there is a preponderance of birds at monitoring points, which is a reflection of the monitoring techniques used in this study. Bird monitoring stations were deliberately located adjacent to wind farm infrastructure, and whilst it superficially appears that there are higher numbers of At Risk species clustered close to the proposed wind farm infrastructure, this is actually the result of the higher monitoring effort in these locations. Also, an observation may be of a bird at some distance and/or in a different habitat from the monitoring location, but because the observation is recorded by monitoring location the points are clustered around the map coordinates of the monitoring location.

Titipounamu/rifleman were recorded entirely within indigenous forested areas. Pōpokotea/whitehead were recorded in a wider range of habitats, but primarily within indigenous or pine forest. Pihoihoi/pipit were located primarily in open habitats comprised largely of pasture or felled pine. Greater numbers of koekoea/long-tailed cuckoo were recorded at the control site, and these were recorded from forested environments. Karearea/bush falcon were seen flying over a range of vegetation types, and were the only At Risk species recorded flying at heights greater than 13 metres.

4.6 Comparison with Groundtruth data

Additional species recorded by Groundtruth, but not recorded within this survey undertaken by Wildland Consultants, include kawau/black shag (Phalacrocorax carbo; At Risk-Naturally Uncommon), kākā (Nestor meridionalis; At Risk-Recovering) and the Introduced and Naturalised Canada goose (Branta canadensis), sulphur-crested cockatoo (Cacatua galerita), black swan (Cygnus atratus), and an unidentified gull. Kākā and kawau/black shag have At Risk threat rankings, however these are likely transient species, present only in some years, with all 13 kākā recorded in 2006 and the only kawau/black shag recorded in 2012. All of these additional species also tend to be associated with waterbodies (e.g. the water storage lakes) or more mature forest types.

4.6.1 Kōmako/bellbird

Groundtruth recorded higher numbers of kōmako/bellbirds than this study. Kōmako/bellbird numbers appear to be increasing over time in the Turitea Reserve, whilst the same trend is not recorded in Gordon Kear forest (Graph 14).

Graph 14: Mean numbers of kōmako/bellbirds per five-minute bird count in spring each year, shown by location and the consultancy (GT=Groundtruth; WL=Wildland Consultants).

4.6.2 Karearea/bush falcon

Groundtruth and Wildland Consultants recorded similar numbers of karearea/bush falcon. Falcon numbers are relatively low across both studies, and there does not appear to be any significant trends in the population of this species over time (Graph 15).

Graph 15: Mean numbers of karearea/bush falcon per five-minute bird count in spring each year, shown by location and the consultancy (GT=Groundtruth; WL=Wildland Consultants).

4.6.3 Popokatea/whitehead

Groundtruth recorded higher numbers of popokatea/whitehead at Turitea Reserve than this study (Graph 16). However, the numbers of popokatea/whitehead recorded at Gordon Kear forest were similar for both studies (Groundtruth compared to Wildland Consultants). Popokatea/whitehead numbers appear to be increasing over time in the Turitea Reserve, whilst the same trend was not recorded in Gordon Kear forest.

Graph 16: Mean numbers of popokatea/whitehead per five-minute bird count in spring each year, shown by location and the consultancy (GT=Groundtruth; WL=Wildland Consultants).

4.6.4 Pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck

Both Groundtruth and Wildland Consultants recorded greater numbers of pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck in the Turitea Reserve. There may be a significant but slight increase in pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck numbers at Turitea Reserve over time, but this trend was not evident at Gordon Kear Forest (Graph 17).

Graph 17: Mean numbers of pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck per five-minute bird count in spring each year, shown by location and the consultancy (GT=Groundtruth; WL=Wildland Consultants).

4.6.5 Kāhu/swamp harrier

Higher numbers of kāhu/swamp harrier were recorded by Wildland Consultants compared to the data recorded by Groundtruth. There does not appear to be any significant differences in kāhu/swamp harrier populations between Turitea Reserve and Gordon Kear forest, and there do not appear to be any significant trends in the kāhu/swamp harrier population over time (Graph 18).

Graph 18: Mean numbers of kāhu/swamp harrier per five-minute bird count in spring each year, shown by location and the consultancy (GT=Groundtruth; WL=Wildland Consultants).

4.6.6 Tūī

Groundtruth recorded higher numbers of tūī within the Turitea Reserve compared to those recorded in Gordon Kear forest. Wildland Consultants and Groundtruth recorded similar tūī numbers in the Tureitea Reserve, but Wildland Consultants recorded higher tūī numbers in Gordon Kear, compared to the Groundtruth data. There are significant differences in tūī numbers between the years in the Turitea Reserve, however this is highly variable, and there does not appear to be any significant long-term trend (Graph 19).

Graph 19: Mean numbers of tūī per five-minute bird count in spring each year, shown by location and the consultancy (GT=Groundtruth; WL=Wildland Consultants).

4.6.7 Miromiro/pied tomtit

There are no significant differences in miromiro/pied tomtit numbers between Gordon Kear Forest and the Turitea Reserve in either the Groundtruth or Wildland Consultants data, and there does not appear to be any significant trend in miromiro/ pied tomtit numbers over time (Graph 20).

Graph 20: Mean numbers of miromiro/pied tomtit per five-minute bird count in spring each year, shown by location and the consultancy (GT=Groundtruth; WL=Wildland Consultants).

4.6.8 Titipounamu/rifleman

Groundtruth recorded higher titipounamu/rifleman numbers at Turitea compared to Gordon Kear, and higher numbers compared to Wildland Consultants. Groundtruth have recorded an increase in the titipounamu/rifleman numbers since 2003 at Turitea, but the same trend was not recorded at Gordon Kear (Graph 21).

Graph 21: Mean numbers of titipounamu/rifleman per five-minute bird count in spring each year, shown by location and the consultancy (GT=Groundtruth; WL=Wildland Consultants).

4.6.9 Kererū

There are significant differences in the numbers of kererū observed in the Groudtruth data between the Turitea Reserve and Gordon Kear Forest. The numbers of kererū observed by Wildland Consultants is most similar to the numbers of kererū observed by Groundtruth in Gordon Kear Forest. The Groundtruth data shows a significant increase in the numbers of kererū observed since 2003, but this same trend was not observed at Gordon Kear (Graph 22).

Graph 22: Mean numbers of kererū per five-minute bird count in spring each year, shown by location and the consultancy (GT=Groundtruth; WL=Wildland Consultants).

5. BATS

Table 6 provides a summary of bat survey effort. No bats were detected over 239 nights of monitoring.

Table 6: Results for bat monitoring at the Turitea Wind Farm, February 2018 to April 2019.

Number of functioning bat box-nights (i.e. cumulative number 3,815 of bat boxes per night with at least one audio file) Number of audio files checked 344,360 Number of nights bat boxes in field 239 Number of nights with appropriate weather conditions 1 208 Number of bats recorded 0 1. Valid bat monitoring parameters (conditions required for bats to be active): • Temperatures higher than 10oC. • >70% humidity at dusk. • No more than light rain (2.0 mm per hour).

6. DISCUSSION OF BIRD SURVEY FINDINGS

6.1 Key findings for particular species

Kōmako/bellbirds

There is a slight significant difference in the numbers of kōmako/bellbirds recorded within each habitat type, with greater kōmako/bellbird numbers observed in regenerating Himalayan honeysuckle scrub, compared to the other vegetation types. These birds are unlikely to be using the Himalayan honeysuckle scrub, and are likely to have been recorded in the adjacent forested areas, which provide food source for this species. Pasture and the forest/pasture boundary had lower levels of kōmako/bellbirds, which is likely a reflection of the lack of food resources in the pasture habitats.

Riroriro/grey warbler

There were significant seasonal differences in the number of riroriro/grey warblers recorded, with slightly higher numbers of birds recorded in season three and four compared to season one and two. The majority of riroriro/grey warbler observations are calls (rather than sightings)as this is a small, cryptic species, with a distinctive call. The higher numbers of riroriro/grey warblers recorded in seasons three and four is likely to be due to the increase in calling during the breeding season.

Pīwakawaka/fantail

Significantly fewer pīwakawaka/fantails were observed in pasture and horopito habitats, which reflects the habitat requirements of this species. Pīwakawaka/fantails are often recorded as locally abundant along forest edges and in secondary growth forest (Heather & Robertson 2005), so lower levels of pīwakawaka/fantail in pasture habitats are expected, as this species requires trees to perch on. There is also a slightly lower numbers of pīwakawaka/fantail recorded in horopito forest, which may be due to the more exposed nature within this habitat type, but this requires further investigation.

Tauhou/silvereye

Tauhou/silvereye are a flocking species, where multiple individuals are commonly observed at any one time. This is likely to have skewed the data, producing multiple significant, seemingly unexplainable results. If more data were available, these significant results are likely to even out.

Popokatea/whitehead

There are no significant differences between site, vegetation type, or season in the popokatea/whitehead bird count data. This is possibly due to the overall low number of popokatea/whiteheads recorded and the relatively short time-frame of this study.

Miromiro/pied tomtit

There are significant seasonal differences in the number of miromiro/pied tomtits recorded in five-minute bird counts. This is another small species with a distinctive call

during their breeding season. It is likely that the observed differences between seasons were due to these seasonal differences in pied tit vocalisations.

Tūī

There are no significant differences between site, vegetation type, or season in the tūī bird count data.

Kererū

There are no significant differences between site, vegetation type, or season in the kererū bird count data. This is possibly due to the overall low number of kererū recorded and the relatively short time-frame of this study.

Pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck

There were significantly more pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck recorded at the wind farm site compared to at Gordon Kear. This is at least partially attributed to the pond at Turitea, which supported localized high numbers of this species and was located close to one of the five-minute bird count stations.

There are also significant habitat differences, with more pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck recorded in pasture habitats, and less in regenerating scrub habitats. This is a reflection of this species habitat requirement, where they tend to feed on grass (Heather & Robertson 2005) and therefore are recorded in higher numbers in pasture habitats.

Kāhu/swamp harrier

There were significantly greater numbers of harriers recorded in pasture habitats, which is possibly due to the increased ability for the observed to record this species in open, pasture environments.

6.2 General bird population patterns

Control Site versus Wind Farm

Overall, there are few differences in the abundances of birds recorded between the consented Turitea wind farm site and the control site at Gordon Kear. This is despite different pest control levels, slight habitat differences, and previous Groundtruth data.

There were more bird count stations on the more exposed, higher altitude horopito forest and scrub vegetation type at the wind farm site, than at Gordon Kear. Bird count stations were located on these exposed ridges at Tureitea because this is where the turbines and other associated wind farm infrastructure will be built. It was not possible to find and access the exact same habitat within the control site at Gordon Kear, and there are subsequently higher numbers of bird counts in lower altitude, more sheltered indigenous forest vegetation types at the control site compared to the wind farm site. There are additional habitat differences between the control site and the wind farm site, as there is no regenerating Himalayan honeysuckle-indigenous scrub at Gordon Kear. These differences are the nature of real-world ecological studies.

The wind farm site is subject to intensive pest control operations carried out by Palmerston North City Council. Possum control is undertaken at Gordon Kear by Horizons Regional Council but, overall, this site has lower levels of pest control.

Five-minute bird counts are a measure of bird activity and conspicuousness. The more exposed five-minute bird count locations within the wind farm site has resulted in lower bird conspicuousness compared to the Groundtruth data and compared to Gordon Kear, due to reduced bird activity at these locations. This offset any differences in levels of pest animal control.

Vegetation Types

There are some differences between the bird species within each vegetation type, which is to be expected when considering the differing habitat requirements of the birds recorded. For example, bird counts within pasture environments tended to record higher numbers of bird species thatutelise open habitats such as pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck, pīhoihoi/New Zealand pipit, exotic finches, magpies, and starling. More closed environments such as indigenous forest or horopito scrub recorded higher numbers of kōmako/bellbird. There were few other statistically-significant differences for bird use of various vegetation types.

Seasonal Differences

Some species recorded seasonal differences in the number birds. For most of these species, this is likely the result of differing breeding behaviors and vocalisations in the spring and summer periods compared to winter. Both the long-tail and shinning cuckoo are migratory species that arrive in New Zealand during spring and leave early summer. These two species were only recorded during the November monitoring period.

These differences indicate that it will be important to continue monitor bird populations across the four seasons during the post construction period. This will increase the possibility of detecting any potential differences for species throughout different periods in the year.

6.3 Flight paths

No obvious flight paths, which birds regularly flew, were identified during the field surveys or by the various mapping methods. There are no hotspots of bird activity, therefore none of the turbine locations are considered to be problematic for bird species. Therefore, there are no particular locations which the wind farm should to avoid.

Several species of birds were observed flying within the wind turbine envelopes, including nine indigenous and 10 introduced and naturalised species flying between 13 and 125 metres above the ground. These species may interact with the wind turbines, potentially resulting in fatalities. Indigenous species observed flying at turbine heights include kārearea/bush falcon, kōmako/bellbird, kererū, pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck, tauhou/silvereye, karoro/southern black-backed gull, spur-winged plover, kāhu/swamp harrier, and tūī.

There are a number of factors which influence potential collisions with wind farm infrastructure, including a tendency for birds with certain morphological traits to be at an increased risk of mortality (Marques et al. 2014). For example, larger, soaring birds are at increased risk of colliding with turbines. Additionally, many bird species exhibit avoidance behavior and would be capable of taking evasive action to avoid bird strike (Marques et al. 2014). A full assessment of the potential impact of the wind farm on the bird species recorded at Turitea is outlined in Section 6.5.

6.4 Groundtruth counts

There are some significant differences in the abundances of bird species recorded by Wildland Consultants, compared to those recorded by Groundtruth. This is likely to be due to differences in the methodology, including differences in the location of bird count stations, with the majority of Groundtruth counts located within forest environments, whilst Wildland Consultants counts tended to focus more on exposed ridges, as this is where turbines will be built.

Some additional species were recorded by Groundtruth which is likely the result of different habitats and longer time periods of monitoring. These additional species were all recorded at low frequencies, so whilst they may at times be present within the wind farm, they are unlikely to be present in high numbers and are therefore not likely to feature highly in any blade strike statistics. Wildland Consultants recorded pīhoihoi/New Zealand pipit, which were not recorded by Groundtruth, which is again due to monitoring in differences habitats by the two consultancies.

The data collected by Groundtruth indicates that indigenous forest bird species, which are susceptible to predation by pest animals, occur in higher numbers in Turitea, where there is a more comprehensive pest control programme, than at the Gordon Kear control site. Additionally, Groundtruth have recorded increasing numbers of kōmako/bellbird, kererū, rifleman, tūī and whitehead in the Turitea Reserve from 2003 to 2017, which they attribute to intensive pest control carried out in the area (Groundtruth 2018).

Assuming that Groundtruth will continue to collect annual bird data, this should be used as a complementary source of information, alongside the data collected in the future for post-construction monitoring. This future monitoring will be important to determine any impacts of the wind farm on bird populations and will be required to determine whether any management responses will be required to reduce any negative effects on the avifauna at Turitea. This will be implemented when:

• Post-construction monitoring shows a negative trend in bird abundance or diversity for particular species at Turitea and this differs significantly from the trend seen at Gordon Kear.

• If the five-minute counts by Groundtruth record a decline in birds at Turitea, but not at Gordon Kear, then this would warrant a review with potential to implement some actions.

Table 7: Actions potentially required subject to bird population trends at the Tuitea wind farm site, compared to bird population trends at the Gordon Kear control site. These are divided based on whether data was collected by Groundtruth or during post-construction counts.

Post-Construction Counts Turitea same: Turitea declines: Turitea Declines: Control same Control same Control declines Groundtruth Turitea same: No response Act Investigate. Counts Control same Turitea declines: Investigate and Act Investigate and Control same possibly act possibly act Turitea declines: Investigate Act Natural variation, Control declines no response

6.5 Risk assessment for bird species present at the Turitea wind farm

This section combines data from five-minute bird counts, flight path monitoring, and incidental observations, alongside the scientific literature, to quantify the potential risk of each species interacting with turbines or other wind farm structures.

The chance of birds interacting with wind turbines is dependent of a number of factors including (Powlesland 2009b):

• Density of birds. • Frequency of bird movements. • Type of species. • Landscape features. • Weather conditions.

Potential impacts on bird species can be either direct via collision mortality, or indirect via habitat removal or displacement behavior (Powlesland 2009b).

Collision mortality occurs when a bird strikes a turbine. The turbines to be installed will have a lower blade height of 13 metres and a windswept area of 9,852 metres2. This is a relatively low lower blade sweep height, however, the canopy height along the ridges in Turitea is also low, and many of the species recorded at Turitea tend to fly within or just above the canopy. These blade dimensions have been taken into account, when assessing the likelihood of bird strike for each species.

A characteristic of the Turitea site is that it tends to have a high proportion of inclement days where the ridges are in cloud, particularly in the mornings. Previous studies have indicated that there are higher bird strike rates under poor weather conditions with low visibility (Powlesland 2009b). As poor visibility occurs

Table 8: Risk assessment of potential fatalities or injuries for all indigenous bird species recorded within the Turitea wind farm site, sorted from highest to lowest risk. Scientific name Common name Threat status Risk Assessment Comments Circus approximans Kāhu/swamp harrier Not Threatened Moderate International evidence indicates harriers which fly by soaring and gliding may be vulnerable to collisions with turbines. Known to have previously been killed on wind farms in NZ. Harriers utilise the entire wind farm and significant proportion of birds were observed flying within the potential Rotor Zone. Falco novaeseelandiae Kārearea/bush falcon At Risk-Recovering Moderate There are no confirmed reports of NZ falcon being struck by ferox a wind turbine. However, this is an At Risk species and the loss of a single bird could have local population effects. Hemiphaga New Zealand pigeon, Not Threatened Moderate Kererū are highly dispersive when searching for seasonal novaeseelandiae kererū food and may be at risk from bird strike during flight displays andwere observed occasionally flying at turbine height, although this was mainly restricted to indigenous forest habitats where there will be few or no turbines. Tadorna variegata Pūtangitangi/paradise Not Threatened Moderate Observed in moderately high numbers and flying at turbine shelduck height within the Turitea wind farm. Internationally, wind farm fatalities are known for other species of shelduck. Zosterops lateralis lateralis Tauhou/silvereye Not Threatened Moderate Recorded flying at turbine height, and are known to flock whereby they orient more based on neighbours than the surrounding environment. Previous bird strike deaths have been recorded for this species. Not a threatened species, thus bird strike unlikely to cause population effects. Larus dominicanus Karoro/southern black- Not Threatened Low-Moderate Seen flying occasionally within the rotor zone across the dominicanus backed gull site. Not present in high abundances at the site. Not a threatened species, thus bird strike unlikely to cause population effects. Prosthemadera Tūī Not Threatened Low-moderate Observed commonly flying at turbine height, including within novaeseelandiae the turbine locations. Not a threatened species, thus bird novaeseelandiae strike unlikely to cause population effects. Todiramphus sanctus Kōtare/kingfisher Not Threatened Low-moderate Not observed flying at turbine height, however are known to vagans frequently use elevated perches, including artificial structures such as powerlines and posts, and at least one kōtare/kingfisher has been a collision fatality at a New Zealand wind farm. Not a threatened species, thus bird strike unlikely to cause population effects.

Scientific name Common name Threat status Risk Assessment Comments Vanellus miles Spur-winged plover Not Threatened Low-moderate Recorded occasionally flying at turbine height, particularly novaehollandiae when disturbed. Not a threatened species, thus bird strike unlikely to cause population effects. Anthus novaeseelandiae Pīhoihoi/New Zealand At Risk-Declining Low Not observed flying at turbine height. novaeseelandiae pipit Hirundo neoxena neoxena Welcome swallow Not Threatened Low Highly manoeuvrable aerial feeder. However, mortality has been reported from overseas wind farms (Kingsley and Whittam 2005). Porphyrio melanotus Pūkeko Not Threatened Low Occasionally recorded making long-distance flights at night. melanotus This is mainly a wetland species, whereas most of the turbines are located on the ridgetops. Low abundances of this species occur in Turitea. Acanthisitta chloris granti Titipounamu/North Island At Risk-Declining Less than minor Only heard during surveys. Unlikely to fly high above forest rifleman habitats. Anthornis melanura Kōmako/bellbird Not Threatened Less than minor Not observed flying at turbine height, and usually flies within melanura or just above canopy height. Gerygone igata Riroriro/grey warbler Not Threatened Less than minor Not observed flying at turbine height and rarely recorded flying much above canopy level. Mohoua albicilla Pōpokotea/whitehead At Risk-Declining Less than minor Not observed flying at turbine height, and usually flies within or just above canopy height. Petroica macrocephala Miromiro/pied tomtit Not Threatened Less than minor Not observed flying at turbine height. Whilst frequently toitoi recorded along the forest edge, they rarely fly much above the canopy height. Rhipidura fuliginosa Pīwakawaka/North Island Not Threatened Less than minor Tend to be found within forest and scrub habitats. None placabilis fantail observed flying at turbine height. Good avoidance abilities. Chrysococcyx lucidus Pīpīwharauroa/shining Not Threatened Unknown, but Not observed flying above canopy height. Known to be lucidus cuckoo possibly low- vulnerable to window-collisions. Migrating moderate pīpīwharauroa/shining cuckoo could be at risk of collision, especially in bad weather or at night. Migration patterns within New Zealand are unknown. Eudynamys taitensis Koekoeā/long-tailed At Risk-Naturally Unknown, but Only heard during field work however migrating cuckoo Uncommon possibly low- koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo could be at risk of collision, moderate especially in bad weather or at night. Migration patterns within New Zealand are unknown. Ninox novaeseelandiae Ruru/morepork Not Threatened Unknown Night surveys have not been undertaken, but ruru/morepork novaeseelandiae are known from the site. Internationally, owl species are known to collide with turbine blades. Not a threatened species, thus bird strike unlikely to cause population effects.

frequently at the reserve, this may affect the risk of collision mortality. However, it was noted that many of the birds species moved almost exclusively within the canopy, particularly on inclement days. This factor was not included in the risk assessment for each species.

Construction of the wind farm will result in the removal of the following vegetation types: pasture grassland, rank grass grassland, exotic pine plantation, secondary broadleaved forest, horopito forest and scrub, Himalayan honeysuckle scrub, felled pines, and (sparse remnant emergent podocarps)/mixed secondary forest. Only small amounts of indigenous forest vegetation types will be removed, mainly to construct the transmission power lines. Indigenous vegetation types are likely nesting habitat for indigenous forest bird species. If removal of this vegetation occurs during the breeding season, then this could result in the death of indigenous bird eggs and chicks, including species with an At Risk threat ranking. However, the adult (breeding) birds, which are of higher ecological importance, will be able to survive these relatively small amounts of vegetation removal and will be capable of breeding again, meaning that this is unlikely to have long-lasting ecological consequences (many birds nest more than once during a breeding season).

A subsequent report will address the post-construction monitoring required to assess what, if any, bird strike effects there may be on indigenous avifauna at the wind farm, and what additional steps or mitigation should be undertaken to address this.

6.6 Potential mitigation for avifauna losses

Increased Pest Control

There is currently a programme of extensive pest animal control within the Turitea Reserve. This is successfully controlling possums to low numbers, but rodent numbers fluctuate (Groundtruth 2018b). This control had allowed for increased abundances of many pest-susceptible forest bird species within the area (Groundtruth 2018). Further, additional rat control will be implemented in a smaller area to provide core habitat for lizards. This will be primarily implemented to mitigate for the loss of lizard habitat but will further benefit the breeding success of forest birds.

It should be noted that if these increased pest control measures result in increased bird abundances, this will also increase the possibility of blade strike. It will therefore be important to monitor bird populations in the future to ensure that wind farm activities are not having an overall negative effect on bird species at Turitea.

Habitat Enhancement

One way to mitigate for any bird losses would be to provide alternative food sources. This could be within the Turitea Reserve near the water treatment plant or within the wider catchment, particularly along riparian areas. Habitat enhancement should be undertaken at some distance (several kilometres if possible) from consented turbine locations, to avoid a local increase in bird numbers increasing the potential risk of blade strike.

Enhancement of riparian corridors would support Palmerston North City Councils plan to:

• Expand the green corridors programme, which plants the riparian margins of streams to link Turitea Reserve with the city and river. • Plant indigenous bird friendly trees in Council reserves and along roadsides.

Possible species could include harakeke/flax, tree lucerne, and kōwhai. These plant species will enhance habitat at locations not within the immediate vicinity of the wind farm. This is in part mitigation for the loss of birds, but also to seasonally encourage a spatial distribution of birds away from the wind farm. If this occurs on land owned by a third-party, a contract or Memorandum of Understanding will be required.

6.6.1 Other options investigated

Painting of wind turbine blades with ultra-violet reflective paint and the use of projected UV lights have been investigated as possible repellant options to avoid bird strikes: Young et al (2003) and Hunt & McClure (2015) respectively. Data from these studies was rather inconclusive as to their effectiveness, thus there is insufficient evidence to warrant their application at the Turitea wind farm.

7. THREATENED OR AT RISK SPECIES

7.1 Overview

No bats have been detected at the wind farm site.

Five At Risk bird species were recorded during pre-construction monitoring at Turitea. No bird species with a Threatened status were recorded. Consent Condition 65 requires that measures are provided to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of the wind farm on any recorded Threatened or At Risk avifauna species.

7.2 Bats

Despite bat boxes being placed in locations hypothesised to have the greatest possibility of detecting bats, and despite bat boxes being out for 208 valid monitoring nights, no bats were detected. This indicates that bats are either unlikely to be using this habitat or are present only in extremely low numbers.

As no bats were detected, a procedure will be developed in conjunction with the Department of Conservation detailing the steps to be followed in the event bats are later identified during construction, as per the Consent Condition 48.

7.3 Kārearea/bush falcon

Kārearea/bush falcon is ranked as At Risk-Recovering. At least one pair of kārearea/bush falcon has been recorded within the wind farm site, and these have been seen passing food to each other, indicating that they are likely to be a breeding pair. During the pre-consenting phase of the wind farm, karearea/falcon were thought to be

utilising a pine stand within the northern turbine zone. There was no evidence during this survey that this stand was still being used as a nesting location and pine stands have been removed. There is a confirmed breeding record at the Turitea Dam a few years ago (Dave Bell, NZ falcon database coordinator, pers. comm., 17 June 2019) but there is no further information on the location of falcon nests in the area. It is not yet known whether karearea/falcon are currently nesting within the Turitea wind farm (as opposed to within the wider Turitea Reserve) or just periodically utilise habitat within the vicinity of the wind farm as part of their home range.

Whilst karearea/falcon are a relatively maneuverable species and are thought to be able to avoid wind farm structures, they are known to become ‘prey fixed’ when in pursuit. Therefore, if falcons were hunting within a wind farm, there would be the potential for them to collide with turbine blades (Seaton 2007). In addition, fledgling raptors, through their naivety and poor flying skills, may also be prone to blade strike (Powelsland 2009). Collision risk monitoring undertaken at another wind farm in New Zealand, estimated that the potential collision rate of falcons to turbines could be as high as one collision approximately every 4-5 years (Golder Associates).

Transmission lines to be constructed as part of the wind farm infrastructure, may have a negative impact on bush falcon, as electrocution has been recorded as a major problem in areas where many un-insulated power lines are present (Seaton and Hyde 2013). This can be prevented by ensuring that lines are hung below the isolators to reduce the potential for birds coming into contact with active lines.

Despite the fact that no known karearea falcon fatalities have been recorded as a result of wind farm operation in New Zealand, this species has been recorded in the area flying, at turbine blade height. Additionally, they have been recorded as being present throughout the year and in a variety of habitat types at the Turitea wind farm site. This species should be considered to be at a moderate risk of bird strike fatalities, and therefore require measures to avoid, remedy, or mitigate potential impacts.

Avoid

It is possible that karearea/falcon nest within the Turitea wind farm area. If this is the case, it would be important to locate any nests. Nesting karearea/falcon are known to aggressively attack intruders, including humans, with dive-bombing strikes to the head (Seaton and Hyde 2013). All staff working on site, should be advised to report any such behavior if encountered. This should include anyone undertaking pest control operations or other biodiversity monitoring operations within the wider area.

If a nest is found then construction activities should be restricted within 200 metres of the nest and no construction activities occur within direct sight of it. Additionally, if any nest is located and construction occurs within 500 metres of direct line of sight, then consideration may need to be given to translocation of any chicks or eggs to an approved captive-rearing facility, with the subsequent release of juveniles (Golder 2012). If this is required then the appropriate Wildlife Act permit will need to be obtained from the Department of Conservation prior to active intervention. The cost of the translocation and captive rearing would be covered by the Turitea wind farm project.

To avoid potential electrocution, the transmission power pylons should use a design which prevents direct contact of the un-insulated line with any birds. This could include ensuring that the insulators on the transmission lines hang down and that the transmission line is suspended below the insulators.

Should post-construction monitoring or any incidental observations record dead or falcon with injuries attributable to wind farm infrastructure, then various details need to be collected to determine the situation that may have led to the incident. This would include nearest turbine(s), date of impact (if this can be established), and weather and wind conditions during the most likely impact period. This information is required to parameterise further avoidance measures that may be required, such as increasing turbine start-up speeds, or temporary shutdown of one or more turbines.

Remedy

The Department of Conservation will need to be notified of any sick, injured, or dead karearea/falcon found within the wind farm (0800 362 468); within 24 hours for a dead karearea/falcon and as soon as possible for sick or injured karearea/falcon. If the karearea/falcon was injured as a result of wind farm infrastructure, the Turitea wind farm would cover the costs of its medical care, as advised by the Department of Conservation.

Mitigation could include a financial donation to an organisation which supports falcon conservation (e.g. Wingspan), and/or undertakes research into karearea/falcon responses to wind farms or electrocution. Funds could be established to encourage the release of additional karearea/falcon in the Palmerston North area.

7.4 Koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo

Koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo (Eudynamys taitensis) are an At Risk-Naturally Uncommon species, which have been recorded in low numbers during the spring monitoring period at the wind farm. Koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo is a summer migrant to New Zealand. It undertakes a long annual trans-oceanic migration and is only in New Zealand between September/October until February/March for breeding purposes (Gill 2013). They are known to migrate at night (Heather & Robertson 2005), but other than that, relatively little is known about their migration routes or flight heights.

It has a brood-parasitic approach to breeding, whereby it lays its eggs in pōpokotea/whitehead nests and has no further role in raising its young. Only low numbers of koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo were recorded in the Wildland Consultants’ bird counts, but as there is a healthy population of pōpokotea/whitehead at the site, it is possible that moderate numbers of koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo may occur at Turitea, during the spring and summer season.

It is unknown how susceptible this species will be to blade strike, but they fly at night, when visibility is lower, so may be vulnerable to striking wind turbines, particularly those situated along the forest edge (Powlesland 2009). Collision fatalities have been recorded within the wider cuckoo family (Cuculidae) in other countries (Kingsley & Whittam 2005). This species therefore may be at a moderate risk of bird strike with turbines or transmission power pylons, but there is a high level of uncertainty about

this. Post-construction monitoring will be important to determine how much of an impact wind farms have on this species.

Overall, the population response of koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo will depend strongly on the response of their host-species, the pōpokotea/whitehead, to wind farm activities. As pōpokotea/whitehead are unlikely to be significantly affected by turbines, this is unlikely to have a significant impact on koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo populations. The current animal pest control regime appears to be benefiting the pōpokotea/whitehead (Section 4.6) which provides additional hosts and therefore breeding opportunities for koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo. This could balance out any potential blade strike effects.

Should post-construction monitoring or any incidental observations record dead or injured koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo with injuries attributable to wind farm infrastructure, additional pest control focusing on pōpokotea/whitehead habitat will need to be instigated in consultation with Palmerston North City Council. This would mitigate for the loss of koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo by increasing the survival rate of its chicks.

7.5 Pīhoihoi/New Zealand pipit

Pīhoihoi/New Zealand pipit (Anthus novaeseelandiae novaeseelandiae) is an At Risk- Declining species, which were recorded in open habitats, along roads and within pastoral and regenerating Himalayan honeysuckle habitats at Turitea.

Whilst pipits rarely fly more than 10 metres above the ground and were not observed flying higher than 13 metres during this study, they are known to occasionally fly at heights of more than 40 metres during courtship or long-distance movements (T. Beauchamp, Northland Office, Department of Conservation, pers. comm., 19 February 2009 as cited in Powlesland 2009). This species may be at low risk of collision with turbine blades.

Pipit may nest within grazed pasture grassland, although this is not their preferred nesting habitat, along gravel road and track margins in rank grass, and other open habitats within the wind farm,. This means that construction of the wind farm in open and more pastoral habitats may temporarily affect the success of pipit nests, especially if construction activities occur during the pipit nesting season (August-March). Despite this, construction of the wind farm is unlikely to adversely affect the local population of pipits, as any losses of nests or eggs will be offset by an overall increase in suitable pipit habitat post-construction, through an increase in the proportion of open habitats and road margins.

On balance, the pipit population is unlikely to be adversely affected by the wind farm.

7.6 Pōpokotea/whitehead

Pōpokotea/whitehead (Mohoua albicilla) is an At Risk-Declining bird species which was recorded in reasonable numbers in pine plantations, horopito, and other indigenous forest habitats at Turitea.

Pōpokotea/whitehead are quick, acrobatic fliers, but are often reluctant to make even short movements (greater than 100 metres) across open areas (Powelsland 2009). As pōpokotea/whitehead are unlikely to fly above the canopy, collisions with turbines or power pylons are expected to be rare, meaning that pōpokotea/whitehead are at a very low risk of wind farm-related mortality.

Despite some of the turbines being located close to the forest boundary, minimal clearance of indigenous vegetation types are expected for construction of the turbines. Construction of power pylon footings and the associated tracks within the Turitea Reserve may result in some pōpokotea/whitehead habitat loss; however the actual proportion of habitat loss is very small in comparison to the amount of other suitable habitat in the surrounding area. For example, 0.084% of horopito forest and scrub is anticipated to be removed. This means that the actual loss of pōpokotea/whitehead habitat is likely to be less than minor.

Pōpokotea/whitehead nest between October to January. Clearance of pine stands or indigenous forest, including horopito, during this period may result in the loss of some eggs and chicks. This loss is likely to be short-term, as the adults will survive and breed again. Any potential losses will be mitigated by increased levels of pest control, meaning that the overall impact of vegetation clearance on local pōpokotea/whitehead populations will be short term and likely less than minor.

7.7 Titipounamu/North Island rifleman

Titipounamu/North Island rifleman (Acanthisitta chloris granti) is an At Risk- Declining species. They were not commonly recorded in habitats surveyed by Wildland Consultants, however data collected by Groundtruth indicated that there is a healthy population of titipounamu/North Island rifleman within Turitea Reserve.

Titipounamu/riflemen have limited dispersal capability and tend to move through the forest using short flights, mainly within the canopy (Powlesland 2009)). This species was not recorded flying at turbine blade sweep heights, during monitoring by Wildland Consultants, and it is highly unlikely that they will be involved in collision fatalities at the Turitea wind farms.

(Sparse remnant emergent podocarps)/mixed secondary forest and the mosaic of rimu/tawa forest, tawa forest, and secondary forest are likely to represent the habitat most suitable for rifleman at Turitea. The proportion of these vegetation types which will be removed is minimal, with only 0.01% of (sparse remnant emergent podocarps)/mixed secondary forest and no tawa forest to be removed. This means that there is unlikely to be any titipounamu/rifleman habitat loss. It is possible that some accidental destruction of rifleman eggs or chicks may occur if construction occurs during the rifleman breeding season (August to February), but the effect of this will be minimal and short-term, as many of the adults are anticipated to survive and breed again.

8. POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

The consent conditions require an extensive (minimum three year) post-construction avian and bat monitoring programme to be developed, which as a minimum:

• Records any collision fatality and observed avoidance behaviour, and assess strike/collision effects.

• Reports on recommended measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate any adverse effects of the wind farm on threatened avifauna species.

Full details of the post-construction bird and bat monitoring will be provided in a separate report.

As no bats were detected during the pre-construction survey, a procedure will need to be developed setting out the steps to be followed in the event that bats are found at a later stage.

The purpose of pre-construction monitoring of birds at the Turitea wind farm site and Gordon Kear forest was to establish a baseline of species and abundances, which can be compared to subsequent post-construction monitoring to determine whether the wind farm affects population of birds at Turitea. Results presented in this report will therefore be taken into account when the post-construction monitoring procedures are developed.

9. CONCLUSION

Mercury NZ Ltd are initiating construction of the consented Turitea wind farm. As part of this process, pre-construction monitoring for birds and bats was required by the consent conditions. Monitoring for birds was carried over the period 26 February 2018 to 22 November 2018, in all four seasons, using five-minute bird counts, flight path monitoring, and recording of incidental observations.

Thirty ABMs were used to undertake a comprehensive survey for bats and this was carried out over the period 26 February 2018 to 3 April 2019, with more monitoring effort during the summer period. No bats were detected over 208 nights when conditions were suitable for bat surveys.

Forty bird species were recorded in this study, including five At Risk species. No obvious flight paths were recorded where birds were repeatedly using a particular route. Overall, no consistent differences were found in the bird populations at the Turitea wind farm site and Gordon Kear forest, indicating that the latter site is a comparable control site. Results from this study will provide a very useful baseline, which will be compared with post-construction monitoring data to help determine whether construction of Turitea wind farm has any adverse effects on bird populations.

Potential impacts of the wind farm have been assessed for all recorded bird species and options have been addressed to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any potential adverse effects on At Risk species. The effectiveness of these measure(s) will need to be assessed during the post-construction monitoring programme.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to thank Mason Jackson from Mercury for initiating this project and providing helpful information. Duncan Annandale from Mercury provided access to relevant climate data from within the wind farm site and Horizons Regional Council provided additional meteorological data. We would also like to thank the staff at Groundtruth for providing long- term bird monitoring data for both the Turitea Reserve and Gordon Kear Forest. Mike Manson, Mark Johnston, Daniel Ritchie, and other Palmerston North City Council staff and contractors provided useful discussions about the Turitea Reserve and adjacent areas, and also provided information and on-site health and safety liaison.

REFERENCES

Board of Inquiry 2011: Final Report and Decision of the Board of Inquiry into the Turitea Wind Farm Proposal. Volume 1. Final Hearing Decision. Board of Inquiry, Palmerston North. 625 pp.

Dawson D.G. and Bull P.C. 1975: Counting birds in New Zealand forests. Notornis 22(2): 101- 109.

Gill, B.J. 2013 [updated 2017]. Long-tailed cuckoo. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online.www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz

Golder Associates 2012: New Zealand Falcon Monitoring and Risk Assessment, Hurunui Wind Farm. Golder Associates Report Number 0978205297. Prepared for Meridian Energy Ltd. 35 pp.

Groundtruth 2018a: Turitea Reserve Bird Monitoring October-December 2017. Prepared for Palmerston North City Council. 18 pp.

Groundtruth 2018b: Turitea Reserve Rodent Monitoring 2017-2018. Prepared for Palmerston North City Council. 21 pp.

Hartley L. 2012: Five-minute bird counts in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 36(3): 1-11.

Hartley L. and Greene T. 2012: Birds: incomplete counts - five-minute bird counts. Version 1.0. Inventory and Monitoring Toolbox: Birds, No. DOCDM-534972 Department of Conservation: 22 pp.

Heather B. and Robertson H. 2005: The Field Guide to the Birds of New Zealand. Revised Edition. Viking\Penguin Books..

Grainger Hunt W., McClure C. J. W. and Allison T. D. 2015: Do Raptors React to Ultraviolet Light? Journal of Raptor Research, 49(3) : 342-343

Kingsley A., Whittam B. 2005: Wind turbines and birds. A background review for environmental assessment. Draft report (Viewed 7 Feb 2009) Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, Quebec. 81 pp.

Lloyd B. 2017: Bat call identification manual for DOC’s spectral bat detectors. Lloyd Ecological Consulting. Prepared for the Department of Conservation. 14 pp.

Marques A. T., Batalha H., Rodrigues S., Costa H., Pereira M. J. R., Fonseca C., Mascarenhas M. and Bernardino J. (2014). Understanding bird collisions at wind farms: An updated review on the causes and possible mitigation strategies. Biological Conservation, 179, 40-52.

Seaton R. and Hyde N. 2013 [updated 2017]: New Zealand falcon. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online. www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz

O’Donnell, C.F.J.; Borkin, K.M.; Christie, J.E.; Lloyd, B.; Parsons, S.; Hitchmough, R.A. 2018: Conservation status of New Zealand bats, 2017. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 21. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 4 p.

Palmerston North City Council 2018: Biodiversity Plan Palmerston North; Small City Benefits, Big City Ambition. Retrieved from https://s3.ap-southeast- 2.amazonaws.com/hdp.au.prod.app.pn- thebigpicture.files/9615/2117/5666/Biodiversity_Plan.pdf

Powlesland R. G. 2009a: Bird species of concern at wind farms in New Zealand. DOC Research & Development Series 317. 54 pp.

Powlesland R. G. 2009b: Impacts of wind farms on birds: a review. Science for Conservation 289. 51 pp.

Robertson H.A., Baird K., Dowding J.E., Elliott G.P., Hitchmough R.A., Miskelly C.A., McArthur N., O’Donnell C.F.J., Sagar P.M., Scofield R.P., and Taylor G.A. 2017: Conservation status of New Zealand birds, 2016. New Zealand Threat Classification Series No. 19 Department of Conservation, Wellington. 23 pp.

Sedgeley J.A. 2012: Bats: counting away from roosts—automatic bat detectors. Version 1.0. Inventory and Monitoring Toolbox: Bats, No. DOCDM-590733. Department of Conservation, Christchurch. 24 pp.

Wildland Consultants 2018: Bird and bat pre-construction monitoring plan for the consented Turitea wind farm, northern Tararua Range. Wildland Consultants Ltd Contract Report No. 1950s(v). Prepared for Mercury Energy. 75 pp.

Young D. P., Erikson M. D., Strickland M. D., Good R. E. and Sernka K. J. 2003: Comparison of Avian Responses to UV-Light-Reflective Paint on Wind Turbines; Subcontract Report July 1999-December 2000. National Renewable Energy Laboratory Report NREL/SR- 500-32840. 67 pp.

APPENDIX 1

RELEVANT CONSENT CONDITIONS

TERRESTRIAL ECOLOGY

General

31. The Consent Holder shall engage a suitably qualified and experienced ecologist to advise on the final detailed design for siting of the wind farm infrastructure, including the final placement of turbines and associated infrastructure within the turbine zones, and transmission, roading, erosion and sediment control and other infrastructure across the site.

Pre-construction Avian and Bat Utilisation Surveys

45. The Consent Holder shall engage suitably qualified and experienced avian and bat experts to undertake a Pre-construction Avian Survey and Pre-construction Bat Utilisation Survey.

46. A site plan for the area to be covered by the survey, the survey methodologies and reporting mechanisms for the Pre-construction Avian Survey and Pre-construction Bat Utilisation Surveys shall be developed in consultation with the Department of Conservation and shall be submitted to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council's Environmental Compliance Manager for review, acting in a technical certification capacity, within 1 year of the date of no later than 15 months prior to the commencement of any construction activities these consents. A response should be provided within 30 working days of receipt. Construction activities must not commence until written certification has been obtained.

47. The surveys must each be undertaken for a minimum of 4 consecutive seasons over 1 year (including a period in late February-early March) and shall as a minimum:

47.1 Document seasonal species presence and relative abundance; 47.2 Record seasonal habitat use patterns and flight pathways; 47.3 Record seasonal variation for indigenous species that the avian and bat experts determine are at particular risk from wind turbines; and 47.4 Analyse relative risk for bird species.

48. If no bats are identified as present in the survey area, the Consent Holder shall engage a suitably qualified and experienced bat expert to determine, in consultation with the Department of Conservation, a procedure to be followed in the event bats are later identified during construction.

49. The results of the Pre-construction Avian and Bat Utilisation Surveys shall be provided in writing to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council's Environmental Compliance

Manager and the Department of Conservation within 20 working days of the completion of the surveys.

51. For the purposes of section 125 of the Act, the commencement of the survey under condition 45 shall give effect to these resource consents.

Post Construction Avian and Bat Strike Monitoring

60. The Consent Holder shall engage suitably qualified and experienced avian and bat experts to undertake Post-Construction Avian and Bat Strike monitoring for a minimum of 12 consecutive seasons (3 years) after commissioning of the wind farm.

61. The monitoring methodology and reporting mechanisms shall be developed in consultation with the Department of Conservation and shall as a minimum set out:

61.1 the framework of the collision fatality monitoring; 61.2 the procedures for recording observed avoidance behaviour; and 61.3 any other measures required to accurately assess the strike/collision effects of the wind farm on avifauna and bats.

62. The outcomes of the Pre-construction Avian and Bat Utilisation Studies undertaken in accordance with condition 45 shall be taken into account when identifying which species, if any, require further post-construction monitoring.

63. The monitoring and reporting mechanisms for the Post-Construction Avian and Bat monitoring programmes shall be submitted to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council's Environmental Compliance Manager for review, acting in a technical certification capacity, no later than 2 months after the commencement of any construction works. A response should be provided within 30 working days of receipt.

64. The results of the Post-Construction Avian and Bat Strike monitoring shall be provided in writing annually to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council's Environmental Compliance Manager and the Department of Conservation for a minimum of 12 consecutive seasons (3 years) after commissioning of the wind farm.

65. A final report shall also be provided to the Manawatu-Wanganui Regional Council's Environmental Compliance Manager and the Department of Conservation within 3 months of the completion of the monitoring period. This final report shall include recommendations as to any measures that should be undertaken to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects of the wind farm on threatened avifauna species and/or threatened bat species.

APPENDIX 2

BIRD SPECIES RECORDED DURING THE PRE-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

Table 9: Total of birds for species recorded at the Turitea Wind Farm site and at the Gordon Kear (control) site, for the different monitoring methods. The ‘Occasions’ indicates the number of different occasions that the species was recorded for each method, whilst the ‘Total birds’ indicates the total number of individual birds recorded (either seen or heard) across the entire study.

Wind Farm Control Scientific Name Common Name Five-Minute Counts Flight Path Incidentals Five-minute Counts Incidental Observations Occasions Total Birds Occasions Total Birds Occasions Total Birds Occasions Total Birds Occasions Total Birds At Risk-Declining Acanthisitta chloris granti Titipounamu/ North Island rifleman 3 3 3 3 5 5 4 5 1 1 Anthus novaeseelandiae novaeseelandiae Pīhoihoi/New Zealand pipit 1 1 12 15 24 39 9 12 6 10 Mohoua albicilla Pōpokotea/whitehead 72 180 101 255 39 107 22 58 9 14 At Risk-Recovering Falco novaeseelandiae ferox Bush falcon 2 2 18 21 4 5 0 0 0 0 At Risk-Naturally Uncommon Eudynamys taitensis Koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo 1 2 2 2 1 1 10 11 4 4 Not Threatened Anthornis melanura melanura Kōmako/bellbird 129 169 156 198 22 31 98 115 10 13 Chrysococcyx lucidus lucidus Pīpīwharauroa/shining cuckoo 10 10 18 19 10 10 7 9 2 2 Circus approximans Kāhu/swamp harrier 61 65 105 112 67 79 53 62 9 9 Gerygone igata Riroriro/grey warbler 226 297 215 278 62 74 245 341 31 38 Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae New Zealand pigeon, kererū 13 17 26 34 24 36 13 14 6 7 Hirundo neoxena neoxena Welcome swallow 8 21 16 21 12 19 34 60 3 5 Larus dominicanus dominicanus Karoro/southern black-backed gull 0 0 9 13 6 7 0 0 0 0 Ninox novaeseelandiae novaeseelandiae Morepork 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Petroica macrocephala toitoi Miromiro/pied tomtit 84 136 76 129 28 41 128 199 24 32 Porphyrio melanotus melanotus Pūkeko 1 1 0 0 3 7 0 0 0 0 Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae novaeseelandiae Tūī 112 200 243 369 42 70 78 118 7 11 Rhipidura fuliginosa placabilis Pīwakawaka/North Island fantail 55 70 76 96 26 36 88 103 22 27 Tadorna variegata Pūtangitangi/paradise shelduck 99 340 108 236 98 313 55 130 3 6 Todiramphus sanctus vagans Kōtare/kingfisher 2 2 6 6 0 0 1 1 2 2 Vanellus miles novaehollandiae Spur-winged plover 48 87 75 131 42 92 49 104 2 3 Zosterops lateralis lateralis Tauhou/silvereye 169 577 170 630 21 63 179 538 11 26 Introduced and Naturalised Alauda arvensis Skylark 45 78 49 74 20 40 36 70 0 0 Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 5 20 2 3 5 45 16 41 2 2 Anser anser Feral (greylag) goose 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Carduelis carduelis Goldfinch 96 276 130 357 23 94 51 194 0 0 Carduelis chloris Greenfinch 38 125 38 95 12 42 20 80 0 0 Carduelis flammea Redpoll 5 8 7 7 4 10 3 3 0 0 Columba livia Rock pigeon 0 0 0 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 Emberiza citrinella Yellowhammer 51 79 52 84 15 43 35 55 2 4 Fringilla coelebs Chaffinch 143 298 151 349 26 49 103 211 8 15 Gallus gallus gallus Feral chicken 3 3 6 6 4 25 4 15 1 1 Gymnorhina tibicen Australian magpie 254 763 365 986 129 553 173 600 17 27 Passer domesticus House sparrow 39 145 33 319 7 20 59 436 0 0 Phasianus colchicus Common pheasant 2 2 4 4 5 5 0 0 0 0 Platycercus eximius Eastern rosella 18 24 28 50 19 38 16 29 1 4 Prunella modularis Dunnock 37 62 25 51 0 0 13 14 0 0 Sturnus vulgaris Starling 60 285 151 623 19 255 69 450 0 0 Turdus merula Blackbird 204 337 208 292 47 74 158 245 13 16 Turdus philomelos Song thrush 23 31 23 27 2 3 30 43 0 0 Unidentified finch 97 298 202 456 9 40 67 180 0 0 Other Tui/Bellbird 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Unknown 2 2 5 8 0 0 4 8 0 0 Nothing 34 0 1 0 46 0 Grand Total Grand Total 2,219 5,017 2,914 6,359 885 2,381 1,930 4,554 196 279

APPENDIX 3

AT RISK BIRD SPECIES RECORDED DURING PRE-CONSTRUCTION MONITORING

Table 10: The records for all At Risk bird species recorded; including bush falcon, koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo, titipounamu/North Island rifleman, pīhoihoi/New Zealand pipit and pōpokotea/whitehead.

Numbers Numbers Total Birds Flight Path Date Site Monitoring Type Easting Northing Height Seen Heard Recorded Line Kārearea/bush falcon (At Risk-Recovering) 26/03/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1827628 5518391 3

12/03/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 13/03/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1829718 5520770 1/03/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1826858 5516268 14/03/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829829 5522941 60 FP01-024 15/03/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1828605 5519706 10 FP09-018 26/03/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1828605 5519706 26/03/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 40 FP11-023 26/03/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 40 FP12-029 27/02/2018 1 1 2 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 30 FP23-021 5/03/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 25 FP23-025 26/03/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1829497 5520290 10 12/03/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829626 5520730 15 FP07-032 12/03/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1828146 5519163 27/03/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 27/02/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 40 FP23-049 6/03/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829626 5520730 6/03/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1830438 5521033 7/03/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 100 FP03-107 10/03/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1830661 5521250 5/03/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830661 5521250 10 FP22-061 5/03/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830661 5521250 3 FP22-064 26/02/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830661 5521250 27/02/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830661 5521250 27/02/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1822206 5515833 28/02/2018 1 1 Incidental 1829720 5522345 Koekoeā/long-tailed cuckoo (At Risk-Naturally Uncommon) 29/05/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1819048 5510224 29/05/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1819358 5510337

Numbers Numbers Total Birds Flight Path Date Site Monitoring Type Easting Northing Height Seen Heard Recorded Line 31/05/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1818278 5510847 1/06/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1817662 5510877 1/06/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1819358 5510337 1/06/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1818840 5510230 1/06/2018 2 2 Control 5 min bird count 1818278 5510847 5/06/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1817578 5510611 5/06/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1825937 5518408 5/06/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1818684 5510390 5/06/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1817518 5510413 30/05/2018 1 1 Control Incidental 1818055 5510945 31/05/2018 1 1 Control Incidental 1818064 5510951 29/05/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1817621 5510916 6/06/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1828146 5519163 7/06/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1828146 5519163 31/05/2018 1 1 Control Incidental 1817356 5510338 31/05/2018 1 1 Control Incidental 1818277 5510844 Pīhoihoi/New Zealand pipit (At Risk-Declining) 2/06/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1823963 5517760 29/05/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1829907 5522454 29/05/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1817045 5515723 30/05/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1817746 5515393 31/05/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1818311 5515176 30/05/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1830852 5521225 30/05/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829829 5522941 5/06/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1823179 5517113 5 FP17-008 30/05/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1823179 5517113 5/06/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1824252 5518282

30/05/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental

1/06/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental

5/06/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental

7/06/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental

31/05/2018 3 3 Farm Incidental

1/06/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental

7/06/2018 5 5 Farm Incidental 31/05/2018 2 2 Control 5 min bird count 1816961 5515467 30/05/2018 2 2 Control 5 min bird count 1817222 5515565 31/05/2018 2 2 Control 5 min bird count 1817923 5515265

31/05/2018 2 2 Control Incidental 30/05/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1829116 5520472

Numbers Numbers Total Birds Flight Path Date Site Monitoring Type Easting Northing Height Seen Heard Recorded Line 30/05/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1829829 5522941 5 FP01-022 31/05/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829829 5522941 31/05/2018 2 2 Control Incidental 1816984 5515491 6/06/2018 2 2 Control Incidental 1816968 5515793 30/05/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1823961 5518112 30/05/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1817045 5515723

30/05/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 5/06/2018 2 2 Control Incidental 1818129 5512178 5/06/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1829104 5520378 5/06/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829104 5520378 10 FP08-016 6/06/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829104 5520378 5 FP08-017 6/06/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1824632 5518219 29/05/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1814120 5517773 29/05/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1822912 5517135 29/05/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1829493 5520301 1/06/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1829121 5520417 1/06/2018 1 1 Control Incidental 1818679 5512943 7/06/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1817045 5515723 7/06/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1817045 5515723 29/05/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1829125 5521089 1/06/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1829183 5520287 2/06/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1829497 5520289 5/06/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829104 5520378 10 FP08-044 6/06/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1829104 5520378 10 FP08-045 6/06/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1828605 5519706 5 FP09-038 31/08/2018 1 1 Control Incidental 1818019 5512065 1/09/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1827879 5519026 1/09/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1829451 5520259 30/08/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1824284 5518272 30/08/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1823473 5518180 Titipounamu/North Island rifleman (At Risk-Declining) 29/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1828670 5519972 29/08/2018 2 2 Control 5 min bird count 1817518 5510413

29/08/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 29/08/2018 2 2 Incidental 1817717 5512401 27/08/2018 1 1 Control Incidental 1818573 5510703 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868

Numbers Numbers Total Birds Flight Path Date Site Monitoring Type Easting Northing Height Seen Heard Recorded Line 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1825800 5518179 28/08/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1817518 5510413 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1828152 5519156 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1827046 5521229 28/08/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1818121 5511295 29/08/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1816930 5510452 29/08/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1826898 5521487 29/08/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1830144 5522724 30/08/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1826851 5516253 Pōpokotea/whitehead (At Risk-Declining) 30/08/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1825800 5518179 30/08/2018 3 3 Farm 5 min bird count 1827322 5517436 30/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868

31/08/2018 6 6 Incidental

31/08/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 5/09/2018 1 5 6 Farm 5 min bird count 1830085 5521101 27/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1830144 5522725 27/08/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1817530 5511564 27/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1830085 5521101 29/08/2018 10 10 Farm 5 min bird count 1829487 5522278 30/08/2018 6 6 Farm 5 min bird count 1829907 5522454 4/09/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1830144 5522725 5/09/2018 4 4 Farm 5 min bird count 1830502 5522525 27/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1829116 5520472 1/09/2018 2 2 Control 5 min bird count 1818031 5511490 1/09/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1825119 5515671 27/08/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1830085 5521101 27/08/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1/09/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1830707 5522660 1/09/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1830707 5522660 29/08/2018 4 4 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830312 5521153 28/08/2018 4 4 Farm Flight path 1829626 5520730 31/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829626 5520730 31/08/2018 3 3 Farm Flight path 1829626 5520730 28/08/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1829104 5520378 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1828605 5519706

Numbers Numbers Total Birds Flight Path Date Site Monitoring Type Easting Northing Height Seen Heard Recorded Line 31/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 31/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 31/08/2018 3 3 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 31/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 29/08/2018 3 3 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 28/08/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 28/08/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 28/08/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 30/08/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1830346 5522530 30/08/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1825935 5518357 29/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1831416 5522326 29/08/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1830752 5522732 29/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1826310 5516132 29/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1829153 5520969 30/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1829807 5520949 30/08/2018 4 4 Farm 5 min bird count 1830085 5521101 30/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1831708 5522110 30/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1828152 5519156 30/08/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1827628 5518391 29/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1831416 5522326 27/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1831708 5522110 27/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1831923 5521963 27/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1830144 5522725 27/08/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1830189 5520831 28/08/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1827628 5518391 28/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1827322 5517436 29/08/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1826858 5516268 29/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1830189 5520831 31/08/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1830085 5521101 31/08/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1827322 5517436 5/09/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1827628 5518391 5/09/2018 2 2 Control 5 min bird count 1817618 5511277 12/11/2018 2 2 Control 5 min bird count 1817871 5512280 12/11/2018 6 6 Control 5 min bird count 1817530 5511564

Numbers Numbers Total Birds Flight Path Date Site Monitoring Type Easting Northing Height Seen Heard Recorded Line 12/11/2018 5 5 Farm Incidental 1826661 5521549 12/11/2018 4 4 Farm Incidental 1827046 5521229 12/11/2018 1 1 Control Incidental 1817661 5512398 12/11/2018 5 5 Farm Incidental 1826881 5521471 13/11/2018 4 4 Farm Flight path 1830707 5522660 4 FP02-043 13/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1830707 5522660 13/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1830707 5522660 13/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 13/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 12/11/2018 3 3 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 15/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 15/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1829626 5520730 15/11/2018 3 3 Farm Incidental 1829626 5520730 15/11/2018 3 3 Farm Flight path 1829104 5520378 15/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1828605 5519706 15/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1828605 5519706 15/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1828605 5519706 15/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1828146 5519163 15/11/2018 3 3 Farm Flight path 1828146 5519163 15/11/2018 3 3 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 17/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 17/11/2018 7 7 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 17/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 17/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 15/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830707 5522660 15/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 15/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1831931 5521971 15/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1831012 5521612 14/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830312 5521153 14/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 14/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 20/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829626 5520730 20/11/2018 10 10 Farm Flight path 1829104 5520378 20/11/2018 4 4 Farm Flight path 1828605 5519706 20/11/2018 6 6 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 20/11/2018 4 4 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 20/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 20/11/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1823838 5518318 20/11/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1830570 5522451

Numbers Numbers Total Birds Flight Path Date Site Monitoring Type Easting Northing Height Seen Heard Recorded Line 16/11/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1830255 5522596 16/11/2018 1 1 Control Incidental 1817710 5512405 16/11/2018 1 1 Control Incidental 1817852 5512347 21/11/2018 2 2 Control Incidental 1818617 5511674 21/11/2018 5 5 Farm 5 min bird count 1829487 5522278 14/11/2018 3 3 Farm 5 min bird count 1829907 5522454 14/11/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1830144 5522725 14/11/2018 3 3 Farm 5 min bird count 1830502 5522525 13/11/2018 3 3 Farm 5 min bird count 1830752 5522732 16/11/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1831708 5522110 16/11/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1830189 5520831 13/11/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1830144 5522725 13/11/2018 3 3 Farm 5 min bird count 1829907 5522454 13/11/2018 7 7 Farm 5 min bird count 1829487 5522278 21/11/2018 5 5 Farm 5 min bird count 1830502 5522525 21/11/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1825937 5518408 21/11/2018 2 5 7 Control 5 min bird count 1817518 5510413 21/11/2018 2 2 Control 5 min bird count 1818840 5510230 21/11/2018 6 6 Control 5 min bird count 1819358 5510337 21/11/2018 5 5 Control 5 min bird count 1817618 5511277 21/11/2018 2 2 Control 5 min bird count 1817662 5510877 21/11/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1828152 5519156 21/11/2018 5 5 Farm 5 min bird count 1830752 5522732 20/11/2018 4 4 Farm 5 min bird count 1825119 5515671 20/11/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1827628 5518391 17/11/2018 6 6 Farm 5 min bird count 1830085 5521101 17/11/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1831708 5522110 12/11/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1831708 5522110 12/11/2018 3 3 Farm 5 min bird count 1831416 5522326 12/11/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1828152 5519156 12/11/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1825937 5518408 12/11/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1824712 5516351 12/11/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1819358 5510337 12/11/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1817618 5511277 12/11/2018 2 2 Control 5 min bird count 1816930 5510452 12/11/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1818031 5511490 12/11/2018 3 3 Control 5 min bird count 1818121 5511295 12/11/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1825937 5518408 12/11/2018 6 6 Farm 5 min bird count 1829907 5522454

Numbers Numbers Total Birds Flight Path Date Site Monitoring Type Easting Northing Height Seen Heard Recorded Line 12/11/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1830144 5522725 12/11/2018 4 4 Farm 5 min bird count 1830502 5522525 12/11/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1827322 5517436 13/11/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1827628 5518391 13/11/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1828152 5519156 16/11/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1830085 5521101 16/11/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1827322 5517436 16/11/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1817518 5510413 13/11/2018 2 2 Control 5 min bird count 1817331 5510307 13/11/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1817201 5510400 13/11/2018 4 4 Control 5 min bird count 1816930 5510452 14/11/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1818031 5511490 15/11/2018 1 1 Control 5 min bird count 1818238 5511563 16/11/2018 5 5 Control 5 min bird count 1817469 5512470 16/11/2018 4 4 Farm 5 min bird count 1830085 5521101 16/11/2018 4 4 Farm 5 min bird count 1830715 5521496 17/11/2018 1 1 Farm 5 min bird count 1830189 5520831 20/11/2018 4 4 Farm Incidental 1826555 5521465 21/11/2018 3 3 Farm Incidental 1826412 5521564 21/11/2018 5 5 Farm Incidental 1826898 5521487 22/11/2018 6 6 Farm Incidental 1827046 5521229 22/11/2018 3 3 Farm Incidental 1826097 5520874 22/11/2018 4 4 Farm Incidental 1831117 5522292 22/11/2018 4 4 Farm Incidental 1830806 5522514 22/11/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1830502 5522525 13/11/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1829907 5522454 20/11/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1829912 5522451 20/11/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1830144 5522724 13/11/2018 3 3 Farm Incidental 1830268 5522588 12/11/2018 3 3 Farm Incidental 1830502 5522525 17/11/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1829970 5520713 22/11/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1829626 5520730 12/11/2018 2 2 Control Incidental 1817614 5511246 12/11/2018 1 1 Control Incidental 1818055 5510945 17/11/2018 5 5 Farm Incidental 1831097 5522349 17/11/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1830318 5522552 14/11/2018 3 3 Farm Incidental 1830144 5522725 20/11/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1825706 5518109 20/11/2018 4 4 Farm Incidental 1831571 5522505

Numbers Numbers Total Birds Flight Path Date Site Monitoring Type Easting Northing Height Seen Heard Recorded Line 12/11/2018 2 2 Control Incidental 1817105 5510448 15/11/2018 2 2 Control Incidental 1817494 5512228 14/11/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1831101 5522368 13/11/2018 1 1 Farm Incidental 1827618 5518380 14/11/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1829460 5520750 13/11/2018 4 4 Farm 5 min bird count 1830502 5522525 15/11/2018 2 2 Farm 5 min bird count 1830144 5522725 13/11/2018 6 6 Farm 5 min bird count 1829907 5522454 20/11/2018 6 6 Farm 5 min bird count 1829487 5522278 15/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1829829 5522941 15/11/2018 8 8 Farm Flight path 1830707 5522660 17/11/2018 7 7 Farm Flight path 1830707 5522660 13/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1830707 5522660 20/11/2018 6 6 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 20/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 14/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 14/11/2018 3 3 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 13/11/2018 10 10 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 14/11/2018 4 4 Farm Flight path 1831069 5522228 17/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1831931 5521971 17/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1831931 5521971 13/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1831931 5521971 13/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1831012 5521612 20/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1831012 5521612 17/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829626 5520730 17/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1829626 5520730 14/11/2018 8 8 Farm Flight path 1829626 5520730 14/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1829626 5520730 14/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829104 5520378 20/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829104 5520378 20/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829104 5520378 14/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1829104 5520378 14/11/2018 5 5 Farm Flight path 1828605 5519706 17/11/2018 6 6 Farm Flight path 1828605 5519706 13/11/2018 5 5 Farm Flight path 1828146 5519163 16/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1828146 5519163 13/11/2018 5 5 Farm Flight path 1828146 5519163 13/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1828146 5519163 13/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618

Numbers Numbers Total Birds Flight Path Date Site Monitoring Type Easting Northing Height Seen Heard Recorded Line 13/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 13/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 13/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 15/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 14/11/2018 8 8 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 15/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1827752 5518618 5 FP11-045 16/11/2018 5 5 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 16/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 3 FP12-037 22/11/2018 10 10 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 22/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 22/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1827355 5517868 22/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 12/11/2018 1 1 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 12/11/2018 2 2 Farm Flight path 1830166 5520950 14/11/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1830990 5522406 21/11/2018 6 6 Farm Incidental 1830412 5522535 21/11/2018 2 2 Farm Incidental 1830409 5522531 21/11/2018 6 6 Farm Incidental 1831828 5521972 8/02/2019 2 2 Farm Incidental 1829894 5522451 25/02/2019 2 2 Control Incidental 1818843 5510233

APPENDIX 4

R OUTPUT FROM GLM MODELS USED TO ANALYSE BIRD DATA

The AICc results used to test for the most appropriate GLM model for each species to determine the significance of each species. The best model is the one with the lowest AICc, which is highlighted in yellow.

Pūtangitangi/ Kāhu/ Riroriro/ Kōmako/ Tauhou/ Miromiro/ Pōpokotea/ Fantail Tūī Kererū paradise swamp grey warbler bellbird silvereye pied tomtit whitehead shelduck harrier 1 Season 751.27 602.17 501.59 3,713.98 645.82 577.67 191.06 1,094.72 434.81 602.73 2 Site 792.8 611.25 505.43 4,241.51 720.43 735.81 189.81 1,064.24 432.66 687.68 3 Vegetation 780.27 541.45 477.71 3,990.11 617.9 691.65 173.39 834.38 397.54 620.17 4 Season * Site * 768.72 542.68 495.63 3,257.04 550.64 529.17 209.42 759.15 432.18 488.94 Vegetation 5 Season + Site * 751.01 606.45 503.65 3,635.67 639.52 576.95 196.3 1,059.09 439.51 590.47 Season 6 Vegetation + Site 776.55 526.2 477.18 3,966.5 621.35 667.81 168.6 757.47 395.8 579.16 * Vegetation 7 Season + 754.79 545.13 483.12 3,362.77 531.75 548.16 186.72 819.75 414.34 528.63 Vegetation * Season

APPENDIX 5

SUMMARY OF BAT MONITORING RECORDS AT TURITEA

Number of Bat Boxes with Number of Valid Monitoring Number of Bats Date Greater Than One Recorded Files Night (Y/N)1 Recorded Bat Recording 26/02/2018 1 4 Yes 0 27/02/2018 21 716 Yes 0 28/02/2018 27 3,565 Yes 0 1/03/2018 28 4,885 Yes 0 2/03/2018 28 8351 Yes 0 3/03/2018 29 2,951 Yes 0 4/03/2018 28 4,455 Yes 0 5/03/2018 29 7,416 Yes 0 6/03/2018 29 6,217 No 0 7/03/2018 28 2,182 Yes 0 8/03/2018 29 1,276 Yes 0 9/03/2018 14 487 Yes 0 10/03/2018 13 256 No 0 11/03/2018 12 170 No 0 12/03/2018 24 833 Yes 0 13/03/2018 20 975 Yes 0 14/03/2018 20 952 Yes 0 15/03/2018 22 3,350 Yes 0 16/03/2018 23 1,626 Yes 0 17/03/2018 19 514 Yes 0 18/03/2018 16 928 Yes 0 19/03/2018 13 1,042 No 0 20/03/2018 5 274 Yes 0 21/03/2018 2 42 Yes 0 28/05/2018 5 104 No 0 29/05/2018 4 39 No 0 30/05/2018 5 8 No 0 31/05/2018 6 74 No 0 1/06/2018 7 39 Yes 0 2/06/2018 9 58 Yes 0 3/06/2018 11 482 Yes 0 4/06/2018 8 239 Yes 0 5/06/2018 11 292 Yes 0 6/06/2018 11 245 No 0 7/06/2018 11 1,176 No 0 8/06/2018 6 47 No 0 9/06/2018 8 39 Yes 0 10/06/2018 9 55 Yes 0 11/06/2018 11 299 Yes 0 12/06/2018 11 1,893 Yes 0 13/06/2018 11 3,695 Yes 0 14/06/2018 10 925 Yes 0 15/06/2018 11 3,074 0 16/06/2018 11 2,349 0 17/06/2018 9 643 0 18/06/2018 11 3,175 0

1 Valid monitoring night is determine as: • Temperatures higher than 10oC. • >70% humidity at dusk. • No more than light rain (2.0 mm per hour). NOTE: Collection of climate data failed for the nights 15/06/2019-29/06/2019 inclusive

Number of Bat Boxes with Number of Valid Monitoring Number of Bats Date Greater Than One Recorded Files Night (Y/N)1 Recorded Bat Recording 19/06/2018 9 240 0 20/06/2018 10 248 0 21/06/2018 5 194 0 22/06/2018 4 489 0 23/06/2018 10 2,394 0 24/06/2018 10 2,872 0 25/06/2018 10 486 0 26/06/2018 3 148 0 27/06/2018 3 18 0 28/06/2018 4 4 0 29/06/2018 2 7 0 27/08/2018 3 28 Yes 0 28/08/2018 7 64 Yes 0 29/08/2018 11 949 Yes 0 30/08/2018 11 755 Yes 0 31/08/2018 6 14 No 0 1/09/2018 9 151 Yes 0 2/09/2018 11 3,184 Yes 0 3/09/2018 11 697 No 0 4/09/2018 11 1,484 No 0 5/09/2018 10 875 No 0 6/09/2018 10 181 No 0 7/09/2018 10 551 No 0 8/09/2018 6 54 No 0 9/09/2018 2 4 No 0 10/09/2018 9 201 No 0 11/09/2018 4 33 No 0 12/09/2018 10 302 Yes 0 13/09/2018 6 58 Yes 0 14/09/2018 7 1,778 Yes 0 15/09/2018 5 50 Yes 0 16/09/2018 4 34 Yes 0 17/09/2018 10 1,285 Yes 0 18/09/2018 7 202 Yes 0 19/09/2018 6 237 Yes 0 20/09/2018 5 154 Yes 0 21/09/2018 9 173 Yes 0 22/09/2018 4 75 Yes 0 23/09/2018 10 491 Yes 0 12/11/2018 13 1,029 Yes 0 13/11/2018 22 608 Yes 0 14/11/2018 18 251 Yes 0 15/11/2018 23 473 Yes 0 16/11/2018 22 893 Yes 0 17/11/2018 21 884 Yes 0 18/11/2018 20 463 Yes 0 19/11/2018 14 67 No 0 20/11/2018 25 4,065 No 0 21/11/2018 25 2,182 No 0 22/11/2018 26 1,162 Yes 0 23/11/2018 21 234 Yes 0 24/11/2018 25 2,008 Yes 0 25/11/2018 26 7,439 Yes 0 26/11/2018 25 3,637 Yes 0 27/11/2018 19 243 Yes 0 28/11/2018 20 310 Yes 0 29/11/2018 17 2,305 Yes 0 30/11/2018 20 216 Yes 0 1/12/2018 22 1,273 Yes 0 2/12/2018 18 266 Yes 0

Number of Bat Boxes with Number of Valid Monitoring Number of Bats Date Greater Than One Recorded Files Night (Y/N)1 Recorded Bat Recording 3/12/2018 21 1,663 Yes 0 4/12/2018 23 1,663 Yes 0 5/12/2018 20 791 Yes 0 6/12/2018 15 156 Yes 0 7/12/2018 13 320 Yes 0 8/12/2018 16 274 Yes 0 9/12/2018 17 261 Yes 0 10/12/2018 18 249 Yes 0 11/12/2018 22 976 Yes 0 12/12/2018 20 74 Yes 0 13/12/2018 25 3,145 Yes 0 14/12/2018 23 436 Yes 0 15/12/2018 20 97 Yes 0 16/12/2018 17 322 Yes 0 17/12/2018 21 1,234 Yes 0 18/12/2018 22 683 Yes 0 19/12/2018 24 4,620 Yes 0 20/12/2018 22 253 Yes 0 21/12/2018 25 2,811 Yes 0 22/12/2018 17 669 Yes 0 23/12/2018 22 3,214 Yes 0 24/12/2018 22 2,983 Yes 0 25/12/2018 22 8,669 Yes 0 26/12/2018 18 105 Yes 0 27/12/2018 17 129 Yes 0 28/12/2018 19 194 Yes 0 29/12/2018 12 252 Yes 0 30/12/2018 19 786 Yes 0 31/12/2018 14 153 Yes 0 1/01/2019 19 1,581 Yes 0 2/01/2019 19 650 Yes 0 3/01/2019 13 134 Yes 0 4/01/2019 16 156 Yes 0 5/01/2019 16 732 Yes 0 6/01/2019 18 265 Yes 0 7/01/2019 15 243 Yes 0 8/01/2019 14 86 Yes 0 9/01/2019 14 988 Yes 0 10/01/2019 15 246 Yes 0 11/01/2019 8 55 Yes 0 12/01/2019 7 36 Yes 0 13/01/2019 4 277 Yes 0 14/01/2019 11 65 Yes 0 15/01/2019 19 909 Yes 0 16/01/2019 18 115 Yes 0 17/01/2019 14 77 Yes 0 18/01/2019 19 320 Yes 0 19/01/2019 24 1,080 Yes 0 20/01/2019 15 299 Yes 0 21/01/2019 18 444 Yes 0 22/01/2019 21 416 Yes 0 23/01/2019 20 2,347 Yes 0 24/01/2019 18 143 Yes 0 25/01/2019 18 225 Yes 0 26/01/2019 18 896 Yes 0 27/01/2019 20 5,175 Yes 0 28/01/2019 20 1,565 Yes 0 29/01/2019 17 485 Yes 0 30/01/2019 14 273 Yes 0 31/01/2019 18 652 Yes 0

Number of Bat Boxes with Number of Valid Monitoring Number of Bats Date Greater Than One Recorded Files Night (Y/N)1 Recorded Bat Recording 1/02/2019 18 2,893 Yes 0 2/02/2019 16 259 Yes 0 3/02/2019 15 208 No 0 4/02/2019 18 1,200 Yes 0 5/02/2019 15 943 Yes 0 6/02/2019 12 140 Yes 0 7/02/2019 18 465 Yes 0 8/02/2019 21 2,567 Yes 0 9/02/2019 21 2,486 Yes 0 10/02/2019 19 729 No 0 11/02/2019 19 4,139 Yes 0 12/02/2019 20 2,062 Yes 0 13/02/2019 16 3,453 Yes 0 14/02/2019 19 2,054 Yes 0 15/02/2019 15 347 Yes 0 16/02/2019 18 307 Yes 0 17/02/2019 13 679 Yes 0 18/02/2019 15 296 Yes 0 19/02/2019 15 822 Yes 0 20/02/2019 14 931 Yes 0 21/02/2019 12 2,359 Yes 0 22/02/2019 14 3,251 Yes 0 23/02/2019 13 576 Yes 0 24/02/2019 14 912 Yes 0 25/02/2019 19 441 Yes 0 26/02/2019 16 599 Yes 0 27/02/2019 16 836 Yes 0 28/02/2019 14 145 No 0 1/03/2019 16 197 Yes 0 2/03/2019 13 157 Yes 0 3/03/2019 16 1,212 Yes 0 4/03/2019 14 551 Yes 0 5/03/2019 15 643 Yes 0 6/03/2019 13 617 Yes 0 7/03/2019 15 1,817 Yes 0 8/03/2019 14 4,279 Yes 0 9/03/2019 12 249 Yes 0 10/03/2019 12 565 Yes 0 11/03/2019 12 699 Yes 0 12/03/2019 13 3,037 Yes 0 13/03/2019 13 6,081 Yes 0 14/03/2019 11 902 Yes 0 15/03/2019 13 3,251 Yes 0 16/03/2019 14 1,704 Yes 0 17/03/2019 11 412 Yes 0 18/03/2019 15 3,446 Yes 0 19/03/2019 20 4,479 Yes 0 20/03/2019 19 2,310 Yes 0 21/03/2019 16 3,414 Yes 0 22/03/2019 17 1,334 Yes 0 23/03/2019 15 1,792 Yes 0 24/03/2019 18 2,731 Yes 0 25/03/2019 15 2,693 Yes 0 26/03/2019 17 8,077 No 0 27/03/2019 16 2,714 Yes 0 28/03/2019 15 2,061 Yes 0 29/03/2019 15 2,016 Yes 0 30/03/2019 14 1,152 Yes 0 31/03/2019 16 6,689 Yes 0 1/04/2019 14 1,131 Yes 0

Number of Bat Boxes with Number of Valid Monitoring Number of Bats Date Greater Than One Recorded Files Night (Y/N)1 Recorded Bat Recording 2/04/2019 13 1,135 Yes 0 3/04/2019 10 443 Yes 0 4/04/2019 9 247 Yes 0 5/04/2019 17 1,643 Yes 0 6/04/2019 10 73 No 0 7/04/2019 13 2,289 Yes 0 8/04/2019 12 242 Yes 0 9/04/2019 21 6,084 Yes 0 10/04/2019 17 6,001 Yes 0 11/04/2019 20 10,204 Yes 0 12/04/2019 20 3,643 No 0 13/04/2019 20 2,133 No 0 14/04/2019 19 1,241 Yes 0 15/04/2019 16 383 Yes 0 16/04/2019 20 744 Yes 0 17/04/2019 15 809 Yes 0 18/04/2019 13 256 Yes 0 19/04/2019 14 279 Yes 0 20/04/2019 14 218 Yes 0 21/04/2019 17 1,618 Yes 0 22/04/2019 15 2,232 Yes 0 23/04/2019 13 685 Yes 0 24/04/2019 12 873 Yes 0 25/04/2019 16 984 Yes 0 26/04/2019 11 1,154 Yes 0 27/04/2019 15 6,144 Yes 0 28/04/2019 14 555 Yes 0 29/04/2019 17 1,831 Yes 0 Grand Total 3,815 344,360 208/239 0

APPENDIX 6

SELECTED PHOTOGRAPHS

Plate 1: An example Automatic Bat Monitoring (ABM) device used in this study, with the casing on the left and the speaker and recording device on the right. 18 June 2019

Plate 2: An ABM in a pine tree (top left corner), within Turitea Reserve. 12 March 2018

Plate 3: ABM in a māhoe tree in the Turitea Reserve. 12 June 2018.

Plate 4: Kāhu/swamp harrier soaring over pasture at the Turitea wind farm site. Te Rere Hau wind farm in the back ground. 26 February 2019