Ecological Restoration of Bream Head On-Ground Works Operational Plan 2017 – 2022

Ecological Restoration of Bream Head

On-ground Works Operational Plan

2017 – 2022

Prepared by: Dai Morgan1,2, Adam Willetts2, John Gardiner2, Geoff Pike2

2017

1. Applied and Environmental Sciences, NorthTec, Whangarei 2. Bream Head Conservation Trust

Covering photographs (clockwise from the top): View of the north-eastern side of the Bream Head Scenic Reserve (Ocean Beach in the foreground) (image © Dan May); head ranger (Adam Willetts) with a school group in 2016 (image © David Monro); Clematis paniculata (image © Adam Willetts); Smuggler Track maintenance group working at Home Bay (image © Melissa Arseneault); a translocated North Island robin (image © Ben Smedley).

Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ...... 4 2.0 Acknowledgments ...... 5 3.0 Introduction ...... 6 3.1 Aspirational goals of the Bream Head Conservation Trust ...... 6 3.2 Significant achievements 2012-2017 ...... 7 3.3 Aim of this Operational Plan ...... 7 4.0 Core operational work streams ...... 7 4.1 Threats ...... 8 4.1.1 Animal pest control ...... 8 4.1.2 Plant pest control ...... 9 4.1.3 Biosecurity incursions ...... 10 4.1.4 Pest monitoring ...... 10 4.2 Biological assets ...... 12 4.2.1 Bird species (not including monitoring programs associated with translocations) ...... 12 4.2.2 Grey-faced petrel nest survival ...... 13 4.2.3 Lizard species ...... 13 4.3 Increasing biodiversity ...... 14 4.3.1 Translocations and assisted reintroductions ...... 14 4.3.2 Revegetation ...... 15 5.0 References ...... 16

1.0 Executive Summary

Bream Head is a c. 800 ha scenic reserve at the entrance of the Whangarei Harbour, Northland, that includes a c. 620 ha pohutukawa-broadleaf coastal forest of very high biological importance. In 2002, the Bream Head Conservation Trust was established as a partnership between all stakeholders to lead a project to ecologically restore the reserve; although, management within the reserve began long before this date. The Bream Head Conservation Trust’s visions are to:

 Restore and maintain the ecology of the reserve  Preserve its historical and archaeological features  Enhance its recreational and educational potential in ways which are compatible with conservation values

In order to realise these visions over the next five years (2017-2022), an Operational Plan that describes three ‘on-ground’ core operational work streams are presented. These core work streams cover goals relating to:

 Managing ecological threats  Managing existing biodiversity assets  Increasing biodiversity

The rationale for each goal and the key performance indicators attached to each goal is explained. Tasks that need to be completed in order to realise the goals are also presented.

Core operational work streams that relate to education and communications will be presented in a separate document.

This Operational Plan builds on the inaugural Operational Plan (2012-2017) (see Ritchie 2011), which should be consulted in order to gain a greater appreciation of the restoration of Bream Head.

2.0 Acknowledgments

The restoration work done at Bream Head has been a very successful partnership between the community, the Department of Conservation, iwi and the Bream Head Conservation Trust. The Bream Head Conservation Trust sincerely thanks everyone who has contributed to the restoration of the reserve. Thanks also to Bream Head Conservation Trust trustees who provided comments on previous drafts; Wendy Holland for writing section 4.3.2; Kevin Parker for discussion about bird translocations; and Evan Davies for comments and producing the maps. The Bream Head Conservation Trust gratefully acknowledges support from:

3.0 Introduction

The Bream Head Scenic Reserve is located at the entrance of the Whangarei Harbour (Figure 1) and encompasses a total area of c. 800 ha. Within the reserve exists a c. 620 ha predominantly pohutukawa-broadleaf coastal forest of high biological value and is the largest of its type remaining in Northland (Goldwater and Beadel 2010). In addition, the reserve enjoys a rich cultural history and was extensively used by Maori due to a close proximity to plentiful resources and its strategically important location.

Since the early 1990s management has been undertaken within the reserve to reduce pest animal and plant populations and to restore the ecology to a former state. In 2002, the Bream Head Conservation Trust (BHCT) was established as an operational partnership between iwi, the Department of Conservation (DOC), the Whangarei District Council, and latterly Refining NZ, Ministry for the Environment and Foundation North to lead the restoration of the reserve.

The Bream Head Conservation Trust’s visions are to:

This document presents an Operational Plan for the next five-year period (2017-2022). The plan progresses and builds on the considerable achievements (see below) of the previous five-year Operational Plan (see Ritchie 2011) and the core operational work streams reflect the BHCT’s desire to ensure that the significant biodiversity gains are sustained over the next five years.

Much of the information that was presented in the preceding 2012-2017 Operational Plan (Ritchie 2011) is still relevant, particularly with respect to the history of the reserve, the formation of the BHCT, and the conservation status of many of the resident native species. As such, it is not the purpose of this document to reproduce this information. Accordingly, it is recommended that the last Operational Plan is used in conjunction with this edition in order to gain a complete appreciation of area’s history and the restoration work that is on-going at Bream Head.

3.1 Aspirational goals of the Bream Head Conservation Trust

In addition to three principle visions (see above), the BHCT has several aspirational goals that it would like to ultimately see achieved. These aspirational goals can be divided into two main components:

1. Creating a self-sustaining restoration project. Although this document focuses on operations over the next five years, most of the work presented (e.g. pest mammal and plant management) will require on-going commitment. As such, it is critical that the BHCT establishes a sustainable model that ensures these activities can be implemented over longer timeframes than those described in this document. In order to do this, the BHCT acknowledges that renewable funding sources need to be secured, and that the project continues to enjoy the support of the local community. This aspirational goal will be the focus of a future strategic document (BHCT in prep.).

2. To be predator free. In July 2016 the National government announced a bold plan to make New Zealand free of mammalian predators (excluding cats Felis catus) by the year 2050. Although this vision is still in its infancy, the BHCT supports the concept in principle. Therefore, the BHCT will continually assess new predator management technology as it is developed, and implement new practices when research has indicated that they are best practice.

3.2 Significant achievements 2012-2017

Ritchie (2011) presents a considerable list of achievements that have been accomplished since management began within the reserve up until 2011. Since 2011, additional significant achievements within the reserve include:

 An increase in the number of regular volunteers participating in conservation activities by 200%  The planting of c. 40,000 extra trees (2012-2017)  Establishment of a pest mammal monitoring program (2010)  Consistently maintaining pest mammal indices under target levels (see below)  Establishment of a lizard monitoring program (2011)  Discovery of moko skink (Oligosoma moco) (2012)  The discovery of a new species of skink (2013)  Establishment of a translocated North Island robin (Petroica longipes) population (2016)  Establishment of a bird monitoring program (2015)

3.3 Aim of this Operational Plan

The aim of this Operational Plan is to present an on-ground work schedule that will continue to fulfil the BHCT’s visions, while being pragmatic and logistically achievable under the current levels of resourcing. This Operational Plan is also outcomes based. Accordingly, for the ecologically based core operational work streams, the key performance indicators (KPI) that quantify the success of each goal, are based on published research and/or current best practice.

4.0 Core operational work streams

The BHCT aims to deliver on goals across five core operational work streams; however, only the three ‘on-ground’ core operational work streams (threats, biological assets, and increasing biodiversity) are presented in this document. All on-ground core operational work streams, goals, tasks and KPIs are listed in Table 1. Educational and communications core operational work streams will be presented in a separate document. While information relating to each work stream is presented in isolation, the BHCT suggest that they should not be considered mutually exclusive as the success (or failure) to achieve some of the KPIs relating to a given goal may have impacts on other goals.

The KPIs that will determine the success of each goal within a given core operational work stream have been selected because:

1. Previous research has shown that they would be attainable under our proposed management regime(s) 2. They have been set by DOC as levels required before species can be reintroduced (e.g. pest mammal residual tracking index (RTI) and residual trap catch (RTC) levels; Table 1) 3. Are highly desirable in order for the integrity of the reserve to be maintained (e.g. the eradication of all biosecurity incursions; Table 1)

Furthermore, we have also identified specific tasks (with projected resourcing levels) that need to be completed in order for the KPIs to be realised. Where appropriate, justification for a specific KPI, or brief explanations of the methodology or rationales for tasks are provided.

Finally, we have also given each task a priority classification score from “low” to “very high” priority in order to help the BHCT allocate resources should they become limited in the future.

4.1 Threats

Introduced plant and animal pests have been repeatedly shown to threaten the viability of native flora and fauna populations (Innes and Barker 1999). Eradication or reducing these threats to very low levels has beneficial impacts on native populations (Innes and Barker 1999). Managing these threats is of critical importance to the BHCT, as all other work streams rely on the ability to maintain low pest numbers. Accordingly, the tasks within this work stream are mostly considered of “high” or “very high” priority (Table 1).

Figure 1. Aerial photograph of Bream Head Scenic reserve showing locations of pest management devices.

4.1.1 Animal pest control

Rat (Rattus spp.) and possum (Trichosurus vulpecula) KPIs (Table 1) reflect levels required by DOC before a site can be considered for species reintroductions (Ritchie 2011). KPIs for other pests, however, are more difficult to set as survey protocols are not accurate enough (e.g. stoats; Gillies 2013) or the management practices required to reduce pest numbers have only recently been developed (e.g. wasp spp.).

To quantify the success of stoat management, we considered it appropriate to monitor the outcomes of species that are particularly vulnerable to predation. Therefore, we have based the resulting outcome KPIs on findings from other conservation projects and are described below (see sections 4.2.1 and 4.2.2).

The recent development of Vespex® wasp management protocol (see www.merchento.com for further protocol information) has delivered impressive results in beech (Nothofagus spp.) forest within the Nelson area; however, there has been limited use in northern New Zealand Figure 2. Busby trappers having morning tea pohutukawa-broadleaf dominated forests, and we were after completing their work (image © Sally not able to find published studies documenting its efficacy Prince). in this habitat type. Despite this, DOC have incorporated Vespex® into their pest management strategies (DOC 2016) and we are comfortable using it at Bream Head. The KPI of at least 90% reduction of wasps is consistent with results reported in studies conducted in beech forests (e.g. Rotorua Daily Post 2017).

The tasks associated with reducing animal pests mainly involve the maintenance of the current pest control program. Briefly, 1160 bait stations are filled bimonthly (diphacinone or pindone toxin); 59 rat traps, 24 cat traps and 94 Doc200 traps are checked fortnightly; and 213 Sentinel possum traps are checked monthly (Figure 1) by rangers or volunteers. Figure 1 shows device distribution across the reserve.

During the 2016/17 grey-faced petrel breeding season nest mortality was 100%, indicating that there was probably a residual stoat (or possibly cat) population that were not entering traps. Therefore, to kill these apparently trap-shy pests, a ground-based 1080 operation (i.e. rat bait stations will be filled with 1080) is planned for July 2017. In the four months leading up to this operation, rat control will be suspended in order to increase the rodent population; thus, increasing the probability of secondary kills of stoats and cats (e.g. Robertson et al. 2016). The use of 1080 in bait stations has been used in other areas successfully (Robertson et al. 2016) including nearby Mount Manaia Scenic Reserve in 2014 (Tyson 2015).

4.1.2 Plant pest control

Plant pest control within the reserve has been sporadic over the period of the last Operational Plan. Accordingly, the BHCT considers a strategy that prioritises weeds for control over the next five years is needed. As such, a weed management plan will be developed in conjunction with other organisations (i.e. DOC, Weed Action Whangarei Heads) by the end of 2017 which will aim to:

1. Map all weeds within the reserves 2. Prioritises weed species for management 3. Describes a pragmatic management plan to reduce weeds across the reserve

It is anticipated that the weed management plan will begin to be implemented from 2018.

4.1.3 Biosecurity incursions

The establishment of new animal or plant pest species populations is highly undesirable and the BHCT consider the eradication of any incursion of “very high” priority (Table 1). Currently, biosecurity incursions can be detected through anecdotal observations from BHCT or DOC rangers, volunteers or other visitors to the reserve, or being captured in existing devices. It is possible, however, that populations of some pest plant species exist within the reserve that are currently not thought to be present. It is anticipated that all weed species will be identified during the implementation of the weed management plan, as one of the KPIs will be to survey the reserve in order to identify all weeds and map their distribution.

The BHCT will also encourage more communication with surrounding landcare groups on biosecurity through the production of yearly reports on all incursions and mitigation measures. It is hoped that reciprocal communications will occur, which will ultimately allow for better knowledge of biosecurity concerns across the Whangarei Heads area.

4.1.4 Pest monitoring

Collecting accurate data on the abundance of pest animal populations is critical to quantify the success of the pest animal pest control program. The rodent tracking tunnel protocol (Gillies 2013) is conducted across 15 transects (see Figure 3) every May, August and December.

Possum RTCs are not calculated using the standard leg hold trap, WaxTag, or chew card survey protocols (e.g. NPCA 2015) for two reasons: 1) possum populations are apparently at very low abundances because catch rates in traps has been minimal and interference of devices during tracking tunnel surveys has not been observed for several years (BHCT unpublished data): and 2) considerable resources would be needed to conduct additional surveys. Instead, RTC values for possums are calculated using the formula:

Accordingly, the information collected during possum trap resets is used to calculate the index and is not current best practise. Therefore, the results of this method are used as a way of comparing the size of the residual possum population temporally within Bream Head, and cannot be compared to other sites.

In addition to indexing protocols, a biannual survey across the reserve by a mustelid indicator dog will be conducted. We have ambitiously set a KPI of zero stoat detections from these surveys.

Table 1. Bream Head Conservation Trust five-year operational work plan including key performance indicators to quantify management success. A priority ranking from low to very high for each task has been assigned in order to provide guidance to managers needing to allocate limited resources. Boxes highlighted green indicate the tasks which are part of core business; blue indicates tasks that are dependent on gaining funding, the results of other management, or the development of new technology. ‘RTI’ and ‘RTC’ are abbreviated forms of ‘residual tracking index’ and ‘residual trap catch’, respectively. The resources required are only indicative of estimated labour (in hours); costs (in 2017 dollars), when known, are reported in the document. Year Resources required Core (PM= project

operational Category Operational goal Key performance indicators Task Frequency Priority manager, R= ranger, work stream V= volunteer)

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 PM=24, R=73, V=137 Maintain current bait station and trap network Bimonthly Very high Threats  Rat spp.: RTI of ≤2% h/round  Possum: RTC of ≤5% PM=60, R=80, V=180 Ground based 1080 operation Pulse Very high  Stoat: >50% of monitored grey-faced petrel nests are h To maintain at current levels, successful1 Animal pest Deploy an extra 48 cat traps and 12 mustelid traps Pulse R=24 Very high or reduce the abundance of  Wasp spp.: >90% reduction in wasps after the annual Vespex® control Implement Vespex® wasp management Annually PM= 24, R=10 h/y High animal pest populations operation Employ new predator control technology when  All volunteers following best practice On-going Unknown High appropriate2  No detections during mustelid indicator dog surveys Audit and provide two training sessions to volunteers Annually PM:60h/y Very high conducting pest control activities To have no increase in the Develop a weed management plan in conjunction with n/a PM=32 h High distribution or relative  A weed management plan developed by 2018 external agencies Plant pest control abundance of known weed  KPI’s indicated in the weed management plan are achieved Implement the weed management plan n/a Unknown High species

To have no increase in the  All incursions are eradicated if technically possible Respond appropriately to all incursions within 1 month of PM=6, R=32 On-going Very high Biosecurity number of pest species present  Production of a biannual publication summarising biosecurity detection h/incursion incursions in the area between Ocean incursions and mitigation measures at Bream Head for Collate and report on biosecurity incursions and mitigation Beach and Urquharts Bay Biannually 12hrs/y Moderate circulation to adjacent landcare groups measures at Bream Head May, To obtain accurate and timely  Three rodent tracking tunnel surveys are completed per year Conduct tracking tunnel surveys across 15 transects August, PM=30, R=60 h/y Very high Pest monitoring information on pest population  Monthly possum RTC population indexing is completed December abundance  Two mustelid indicator dog surveys are completed per year Calculate possum population indices from trap catch data Monthly PM=24 h/y Very high Conduct mustelid indicator dog surveys Biannually Contractor 16hr/y Very high  No decrease in the relative abundance of any bird species Conduct five-minute bird count surveys at 46 count To increase or have no Quarterly PM=8, V=80 h/y Moderate Biological  A 2% annual increase in the relative abundance of tui, kukupa stations Birds decrease in the relative Assets and North Island brown kiwi Conduct kiwi call count surveys Annually PM=8, V=66 h/y High abundance of all bird species  >50% of monitored grey-faced petrel nests are successful Grey-faced petrel nest outcome monitoring Annually PM=32, V=32 h/y High To maintain the Placostylus  No decrease in the relative abundance of the known Invertebrates hongii population at its current Conduct the DOC developed Placostylus hongii survey Biennially V=56 h/survey Low Placostylus hongii population size  No decrease in the relative abundance of any native lizard PM=82, R=64, V= 256 Conduct lizard surveys at established sites Annually High To maintain the relative species h/release Lizards abundance of all native lizard  Document the incursion of plague skinks (Lampropholis Contractor=100 species delicata) and any impact on Bream Head skinks (Oligosoma Conduct NorthTec developed plague skink survey Annually High “Bream Head”) h/survey Release a population of whitehead n/a Unknown Very high Increasing Monitor the survival of whiteheads through the first  75% of released whiteheads and rifleman survive until n/a Unknown Very high biodiversity To reintroduce appropriate breeding season Translocations breeding species4 Release a population rifleman n/a Unknown  Whitehead and rifleman populations increase by ≥10%4 Low Monitor the survival of rifleman through the first breeding n/a Unknown Low season Use acoustic lures to attract Australasian gannets to breed n/a Unknown Low Assisted To encourage the colonisation at a prepared site close to the Radar Station5  A resident population of Australasian gannet reintroductions of appropriate species3 Monitor the survival of Australasian gannets through the n/a Unknown Low first breeding season Conduct manuka brush seeding experiment and monitor PM= 24.5, R=18, V=60  Manuka brush seeding is completed Pulse High its success h/y To increase the amount of  A revegetation plan developed by 2019 Revegetation Develop a revegetation plan in conjunction with external native habitat n/a Unknown High  KPI’s indicated in the revegetation management plan are agencies achieved Implement the revegetation plan n/a Unknown High 1. Outcome monitoring of species known to be particularly susceptible to stoats is appropriate as there are currently no viable protocols that measure stoat abundance; 2. new technologies will be critically assessed and employed if it has been shown to be efficient and cost effective; 3. as indicated in Parker (2015); 4. see Innes et al. (1999); 5. see Sawyer and Fogle (2013).

Figure 3. Aerial photograph of Bream Head Scenic reserve showing locations of tracking tunnel transects, five-minute bird count stations and lizard monitoring sites (ACO = ‘artificial cover object’).

4.2 Biological assets

The impact introduced pest species have had on native populations is well documented (e.g. Innes and Barker 1999); therefore, controlling these threats within Bream Head will ultimately help fulfil one of the BHCT’s visions which is to “restore and maintain the ecology of the reserve”. It is important to be able to quantify the success of pest management activities in terms of increasing residual populations of native species. This section describes the goals and associated KPIs and tasks that need to be completed to monitor the response of biological assets to pest management.

Priority rankings for tasks range from “low” to “high” which is slightly lower than those attached to the threats core operational work stream. This is because the impacts of pest management on native populations has been documented in other studies, and while it is highly desirable to also be able to report these trends within Bream Head to the local community and potential funders, the BHCT acknowledge that it will always be more important to ensure resourcing for pest management receives the highest priority.

4.2.1 Bird species (not including monitoring programs associated with translocations)

Populations are monitored using two methods: 1) directional call counts (North Island brown kiwi Apteryx mantelli only) (Craig and Topia 2016) at four sites; and 2) the five-minute bird count (5MBC) method (Dawson and Bull 1975) at 46 permanently marked count stations (Figure 3). 5MBC stations are mainly located along walking tracks, which enables volunteers of most abilities to participate in this activity (Figure 4). Directional counts are conducted each May and 5MBCs in January, April, July, and October.

Population indexing protocols, such as directional call counts and 5MBCs, have been criticised by several authors due to the fact that the relationship between the results of the index and the actual numbers of birds in an area is often not known (e.g. Anderson 2001). However, over 2,000 studies have employed this protocol in New Zealand since its inception in the late 1970’s (Hartley 2012). The 5MBC method can be a suitable tool to monitor birds if it is used in an appropriate context. For

example, it is especially powerful at documenting temporal changes in residual bird populations within a given site if the same count stations are repeatedly visited at similar times of the years and under relatively constant environmental conditions (Hartley 2012). The 5MBC monitoring program at Bream Head observes this format.

The KPIs that relate to birds revolve around only a limited number of species (Table 1). This is because recent research has found Figure 4. Jenny Butcher and Roger Clark on Smugglers Track that detecting changes in many bird species is conducting a five-minute bird count (image © Adam Willetts). difficult because the effect of habitat type and size are confounding factors; isolating these effects from the effect of pest control can be problematic (Ruffell and Didham 2017). Furthermore, it is also possible that the 5MBC method has trouble detecting relatively small changes in some bird species (Hartley and Greene 2012). Despite this, tui (Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae) and kukupa (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) have been identified as species that respond positively to pest control if monitored using 5MBCs (Ruffell and Didham 2017). Furthermore, North Island brown kiwi populations have also been shown to positively respond to predator control, which has been detected using the kiwi call count method (e.g. Topia 2014). There has been limited research on the amount tui and kukupa populations respond to pest control in Northland coastal forests; however, North Island brown kiwi have been increasing at a rate of c. 2% annually in Northland forests under predator management (Topia 2014). Accordingly, we have selected a 2% annual increase in the detection rates of tui, kukupa and North Island brown kiwi (Table 1).

4.2.2 Grey-faced petrel/oi nest survival

Grey-faced petrel/oi nest monitoring is conducted by checking burrows at different stages of the breeding cycle. Visits to the nesting colony are not regular enough for daily survival rates to be calculated (e.g. Mayfield 1975); however, they do occur at frequencies that enable nest outcomes to be measured (i.e. every c. 2 weeks).

During the 2016 breeding season 100% (n= 10 nest) of monitored failed; predation by stoat(s) was suspected as the cause as a small residual population was known to be present in the area. In areas where even small populations of stoats are present, the survival rates of Westland petrel (Procellaria westlandica) nests are very low; however, when predators are controlled breeding success of c. 40- 50% is common (Wilson 2016). Accordingly, the KPI of 50% breeding success of grey-faced petrels each breeding season reflects this research (Table 1).

4.2.3 Lizard species

Currently, there are nine species of native lizard resident on Bream Head, including a new species endemic to Bream Head which is yet to be formally described. An annual survey is conducted in January/February to measure the relative abundance of these. During each survey, 25 gee-minnow

traps, 60 pitfall traps and 80 artificial cover objects are deployed at permanently marked locations over five nights (Figure 3). Furthermore, spotlighting is also conducted on two nights during surveys. All lizards caught during this period are identified to species level and enumerated before being released back into the wild.

Despite the survey protocol being a relatively crude measure of the population size of these species, it is a valuable method which can compare trends between years. There is limited research on how lizard species respond in areas that have enjoyed very low numbers of pest populations over long periods of time. Therefore, we have conservatively set a KPI of having no decrease in any native lizard species each year. The data collected over the next 5 years will act as baseline information to help determine more appropriate KPIs in the future.

4.3 Increasing biodiversity

The impact of introduced mammalian predators, grazing by domestic stock and habitat loss has had a significant effect on biodiversity; however, management actions implemented over the last 14 years has restricted, and in some cases reversed, these losses (see Ritchie 2011 for recent successes).

In addition to a revegetation program, a species reintroduction plan has been written which indicates a suite of species that would have existed at Bream Head in the past and could be reintroduced under the current management regime (see Parker et al. 2015). This section highlights the intended restoration program over the next five years; however, some of the described projects are dependent on successfully acquiring additional funds.

Priority rankings for tasks within this core operational work stream are generally lower than those listed above. This is because many of these tasks can only be considered for implementation if: 1) threats are managed to levels as dictated by the associated KPIs; and 2) additional funding is secured. Two exceptions to this are the “very high” priority ranking attached to the post-release monitoring of translocated species. This is because funding applications were accepted on the proviso post-release monitoring was conducted.

4.3.1 Translocations and assisted reintroductions

The BHCT has set ambitious translocation and assisted reintroduction goals. Funding and DOC permits were secured in 2014 to translocate 80-100 whiteheads/popokatea (Mohoua Figure 5. Popokatea/whiteheads will be released into Bream albicilla) to Bream Head (Figure 5). This event Head in May 2017. Image © Martin Sanders will occur in May 2017. In addition, funding http://martinsanders.smugmug.com/ and permits will be sought in order to translocate a population of rifleman/titipounamu (Acanthisitta chloris) to Bream Head in 2021. Finally, funding and permits will also be sort in order to attempt to attract Australasian gannets/takupu

(Morus serrator) to naturally colonise an area on Bream Head for breeding using acoustic lures and other methods (see Sawyer and Fogle 2013 for detailed methods).

For all translocated species, a survival rate of 75% of individuals to the first breeding season is generally used as a threshold to indicate that the ‘establishment phase’ (see Parker et al. 2013) was successful (K. Parker, Parker Conservation pers. comm.). Accordingly, we have established KPIs of 75% survival of individuals from release to the first breeding season for all translocations (Table 1); post- release monitoring of translocated species (e.g., see Arcus et al. 2016) to Bream Head will occur to determine if establishment KPIs have been realised. Secondly, a breeding population needs to establish and breeding rates have to be greater than mortality to ensure that medium-term persistence occurs (Parker et al. 2013). For birds like popokatea and titipounamu it is logistically challenging to quantify breeding success; therefore, we have set a KPI of a 10% annual increase in population indices for these species (determined through 5MBC monitoring), as previous research has indicated that this level is achievable if mammalian predators are managed to low levels (see Innes et al. 1999).

The KPIs that relate to the colonisation of takupu have been intentionally kept conservative. This is primarily because there are limited data on the breeding success rates for this species after colonisation (but see Sawyer and Fogle 2013). Accordingly, we will monitor nest outcomes in the first breeding season if takupu do indeed colonise Bream Head, which will allow us to establish appropriate breeding KPIs in following seasons.

4.3.2 Revegetation

To date, over 40,000 trees have been planted within the boundaries of the Bream Head reserve. Continuing to increase the amount of native vegetation remains an important goal of the BHCT as it not only provides additional habitat for native fauna, tree planting days are an excellent way of engaging with the Figure 6. Volunteers participating in the 2016 planting day (image © Adam community (Figure 6); Willetts). however, the detection of myrtle rust at several sites across New Zealand (including Northland) is cause for a conservative approach to revegetation activities in the short term. Accordingly, planting of nursery grown plants (which are predominantly myrtle species) is not currently planned. Instead, a trial will be conducted in 2017 where manuka (Leptospermum scoparium) brush cut from resident Bream Head trees is used to seed prepared sites around the Smugglers Bay area. Monitoring (e.g. germination success, juvenile survival, photopoints) will occur over the following two years to quantify the success of the trial. A decision about whether to continue this method will be made during 2019.

In addition, during 2018 a revegetation plan will be written by the BHCT with input from key stakeholders (DOC, NRC, iwi and the Whangarei Heads Landcare Forum). It is anticipated that this plan will then be implemented from 2019.

5.0 References

Anderson, D.R. 2001. The need to get basics right in wildlife field studies. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29: 1294-1297.

Arcus, N.; Barr, B.; Willetts, A.; Parker, K. 2016. Post-release monitoring of the North Island robin (Petroica longipes) at Bream Head Scenic Reserve, Whangarei, Northland. Proceedings of the New Zealand Ecological Society Conference. 19-23 November, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Craig, E.; Topia, M. 2017. Call count monitoring of Northland brown kiwi 2016. Department of Conservation, Whangarei. Pp 36.

Dawson, D.G.; Bull, P.C. 1975. Counting birds in New Zealand forests. Notornis 22: 101-109.

DOC 2016. Wasp control using Vespex. Retrieved from: http://www.doc.govt.nz/waspcontrol (21/4/17).

Goldwater, N.; Beadel, S. 2010. Natural areas of Manaia Ecological District (Northland Conservancy). Reconnaissance Survey Report for the Protected Natural Areas Programme. Department of Conservation, Whangarei.

Hartley, L.J. 2012. Five-minute bird counts in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 36: 268- 278.

Hartley, L.; Greene, T. 2012. Birds: incomplete counts - five-minute bird counts. Version 1.0. In Greene. T, McNutt. K (editors) 2012. Biodiversity Inventory and Monitoring Toolbox. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand

Innes, J.; Barker, G. 1999. Ecological consequences of toxin use for mammalian pest control in New Zealand - an overview. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 23: 111-127.

Innes, J.; Hay, R.; Flux, I.; Bradfield, P.; Speed, H.; Jansen, P. 1999. Successful recovery of North Island kokako Callaeas cinerea wilsoni populations, by adaptive management. Biological Conservation 87: 201-214.

Mayfield, H.F. 1975. Suggestions for calculating nest success. The Wilson Bulletin 87: 456-466.

NPCA. 2015. A1 Possum population monitoring using the trap-catch, WaxTag and chewcard methods. National Possum Control Agencies, Wellington. Pp 44.

Parker, K.A.; Parker, G.C.; Barr, B.P. 2015. Bream Reintroduction Plan. Unpublished report to the Bream Head Conservation Trust.

Parker, K.; Ewen, J.; Seddon, P.; Armstrong, D. 2013. Post-release monitoring of bird translocations: Why is it important and how do we do it? Notornis 60: 85–92

Ritchie, J. 2011. Operational plan: Ecological restoration of Bream Head 2011-2017. Unpublished report to Bream Head Conservation Trust.

Robertson, H.A.; Craig, E.; Gardiner, C.; Graham, P.J. 2016. Short pulse of 1080 improves the survival of brown kiwi chicks in an area subjected to long-term stoat trapping. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 43: 351-362.

Rotorua Daily Mail. 2017. Waging war on wasps with revolutionary bait. Retrieved from: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/rotorua-daily- post/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503438&objectid=11814353 (21/4/17).

Ruffell, J.; Didham, R.K. 2017. Conserving biodiversity in New Zealand’s lowland landscapes: does forest cover or pest control have a greater effect on native birds? New Zealand Journal of Ecology 41: 23-33.

Sawyer, S.; Fogle, S.R. 2013. Establishment of a new breeding colony of Australasian gannets (Morus serrator) at Young Nick’s Head Peninsula. Notornis 60: 180-182.

Topia, M. 2014. Kiwi Coast call count report 2014. Unpublished report to the Kiwi Coast. Pp 45.

Tyson, N. 2015. Kiwi Coast Annual Report 2015. Unpublished Kiwi Coast Report. Pp 32.

Wilson, K-J. 2016. A review of the biology and ecology and an evaluation of threats to the Westland petrel Procellaria westlandica. Unpublished West Coast Penguin Trust. Pp. 46.