ENV-2011-CHC-090. UNDER The Resource Management Act 1991 MERIDIAN ENERGY LIMITED. HURUNUI DISTRICT COUNCIL and CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL

Transcription

1 BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY ENV-2011-CHC-090 UNDER The Resource Management Act 1991 BETWEEN MERIDIAN ENERGY LIMITED Applicant AND HURUNUI DISTRICT COUNCIL and CANTERBURY REGIONAL COUNCIL Consent Authorities Statement of evidence for Glenmark Community Against Wind Turbines Incorporated By Derek James Onley, ornithologist Malcolm Wallace Barrister PO Box Armagh Christchurch 8141 Phone:

2 1. I am Derek James Onley, ornithologist and illustrator. I studied Geography at Cambridge University, then after a short spell at the British Trust for Ornithology, I worked at the Edward Grey Institute for Field Ornithology at Oxford where my main task was to look after long term studies of passerines in Wytham Wood and seabirds on Skokholm Island. I came to New Zealand in the 1970s where I have done a wide range of jobs from farming and fishing to ornithological work both in the field and museum. Studies of Albatrosses, Petrels and forest birds have taken me to many parts of New Zealand including Campbell and Poor Knights Islands and the Chathams. I am a member of the Ornithological Society of New Zealand and have been a member of their council and various committees. 2. I have been living in the coastal Otago area for nearly 25 years. Over the past 15 years I have illustrated guides and handbooks to New Zealand and Australian birds and illustrated and co-authored works on seabird bi-catch and the Albatrosses, Petrels and Shearwaters of the world for publishers and organisations in Europe and North America as well as Australasia. More recently I have advised on bird interactions with wind turbines and water management in Otago and Southland and am involved in several conservation related projects on birds and habitats both locally and in Paraguay. 3. I have been engaged by Glenmark Community Against Wind Turbines Incorporated to comment upon the avifauna assessments prepared for the Project Hurunui wind farm proposal, the documents being: Assessment of Effects on Avifauna prepared for Meridian Energy Limited by Boffa Miskell Limited January 2

3 2011: plus further information in the Statement of Evidence in Chief of Scott Hooson on behalf of Meridian Energy Limited including Appendix D, 20 January 2012; Survey for Nesting New Zealand Falcon at the Proposed Hurunui Wind Farm , Report Number , July 2010 and the subsequent New Zealand Falcon Monitoring and Risk Assessment, Hurunui Wind Farm, Report Number both Submitted to Meridian Energy Ltd by Golder Associates January I have also read the avifauna sections of the Review of Ecological Information for the proposed Hurunui wind farm, Contract Report No. 2501, prepared for the Hurunui District Council by Wildlands Consultants July I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses contained in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note 2011 and I agree to comply with it. 5. Sources. There is a wide range of literature, comment, news reports etc available on the subject of the interactions between birds and wind turbines. The assessment of the effects of turbines upon birds ranges from that in The Truth about the danger to birds and bats (WEL Networks Wind Park Update April 2008) which says that wind farms are not a problem for birds in New Zealand to a recent claim by Mark Duchamp, president of Save the Eagles International (STEI) derived somewhat deviously it seems from a SEO/Birdlife publication (Atienza et al 2012) that 6-18 million birds have been killed by wind farms in Spain. The disparate nature of these claims makes it all the more important that sources should be scientifically sound and I suggest that in order to ensure that conclusions 3

4 are valid the original studies from reputable, refereed journals should be and seen to be consulted. 6. My main concerns with the Avifauna Assessment and the further information presented in Scott Hooson s evidence are that: the methodology employed has not been developed with full regard to ornithological literature on bird survey techniques and is subsequently poorly suited to gather good data. the methodology employed is in some respects unsuited to the New Zealand situation. the analysis of the data is flawed and shows little understanding of the nature of bird survey observations the species risk analyses are in many cases unwarranted given the lack or poor nature of the data 7. My main concerns with the Falcon work revolve around : the lack of data on birds other than the nesting pair, the need for a wider geographical approach to risk assessment 4

5 the mitigation strategies in the light of identification of a relatively high risk. Below I look at these concerns in more detail. 8. The Avifauna Assessment Methodology Although true that New Zealand does not have guidelines for avifauna studies at proposed or operational wind farms, I would contend that apart from designing studies to specifically address the problem of interactions with turbines, assessing bird populations at a site is essentially an ornithological problem that has been widely addressed in ornithological literature over many years. 9. There is a large body of ornithological literature on methods of counting, censusing and monitoring birds and terrestrial mammals (which present similar problems). Methods include point counts, transect counts, a technique known as distance and hybrids thereof with point and transect counts, mapping, photographic, sound and radar records, and more interactive techniques involving playback of calls, mark recapture, radio and satellite tracking. e.g. Bibby et al 2000, Bibby and Gregory, Gibbons & Donald in Sutherland, Newton & Green There is also a growing body of literature in ornithological journals on the interactions between birds and wind farms and techniques for assessments. The best summary to date is Drewitt & Langstone

6 10. However the methodology in this study is based upon Anderson et al. 2001, AUSWEA 2005, and Bird Studies Canada Does this approach take into account the extensive work done on bird surveying over the past 60 years? Do the source documents refer to and consider the major sources of survey techniques documented in refereed ornithological journals? The methodology used by Hooson was first proposed by Anderson et al in 1999 in a study prepared for the Avian Subcommittee of the National Wind Coordinating Committee USA. Of 60 non-statistical references only 16 refer to original ornithological research in journals or books. The AUSWEA 2005 reference appears to be unobtainable and a request for the document failed to elicit a response. However the main points are still accessible online as AUSWIND Best Practice Guidelines Appendix 8, Assessing Bird Issues at Wind Farms. There are only 6 references, none to ornithological sources other than the New Atlas of Australian Birds though Langston and Pullen s 2003 report to the Standing Committee of the Convention on the Conservation of European Wildlife and Natural Habitats is included. Langston and Pullen are also referred to in Bird Studies Canada 2003 but otherwise there are only two references to studies in ornithological journals. A subsequent paper involving the same agency, Wind Turbines & Birds - Monitoring Protocols April 2007 prepared by Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada describes a wide variety of field methods in some detail but has no bibliography. I would suggest that this literature on assessing birds at wind farm sites does not make good use of the available ornithological literature. 6

7 11. In the Avifauna Assessment Hooson adopts the three stage process developed by Anderson et al. Is this applicable to the New Zealand situation? The Level 1 study has the potential to preclude any further investigation if existing information and a preliminary site survey determine that there are no threatened bird species which may be sensitive to wind farms resident at the site, or moving across the site. Given that the level of ornithological data throughout most of New Zealand is extremely poor (e.g. the Atlas of Bird Distribution in NZ has poor coverage of this wind farm site and adjacent areas) and that in this case black-fronted tern, the most endangered of all species recorded in the study was picked up mainly outside the systematic sampling, I would suggest that the likelihood of missing out on the threatened species that prompt a move to level 2 is high. Consequently I would question the methodology s appropriateness for New Zealand conditions. In fact in this case, level 1 investigations did indicate that further research was required but the fact remains that this and other aspects of the methodology may be inappropriate to New Zealand. 12. Thirty minute point counts are not a recommended or standard method of surveying birds. However they have been used at wind farm sites to assess the use of and record behaviour around wind turbine sites as they are in this report. Smallwood has used this technique in the continued monitoring at Altamont in California, the wind farm site that killed and still continues to kill large numbers of raptors and first alerted ornithologists to the problem. It is important to note that though adequate as an indicator of the species present and necessary as input into the analysis of risk of collision, avoidance and habitat use, the 30 minute count is not 7

8 a good measure of bird population size. The main reasons are that it does not attempt to avoid duplication of sightings: the flock of greenfinches in this study may well fly past the observer several times in a 30 minute period, and it takes little account of the variation in conspicuousness both between species and temporally. More of conspicuousness below in the discussion of timing of observations and analysis of data. 13. Five minute counts however are a recognised bird survey technique. As developed by Dawson and Bull they are not, as claimed by Hooson a rapid sampling method used to assess bird abundances, but a systematic methodology developed to assess bird populations in forest and scrub habitats in New Zealand. They proposed a grid or transect of points 200 metres apart and at each point birds would be counted for five minutes, specifically aiming to count each bird only once. Guidance is given as to the number and timing of counts required to give robust (for want of a better word) results and results are expressed as birds/5minute count for each species. Given some knowledge of the experience of the observers and other environmental variables (e.g. weather, closed or open habitat) these measures can allow comparisons of bird populations between habitats and over time. Note however that this is not a direct estimate of the number of birds present. Though obviously related in some way to actual numbers the relationship is dependant upon the bird s conspicuousness i.e. the proportion of the actual number of birds present that the observer records and this varies between species and over their annual cycle. 8

9 14. In addition to these two techniques this avifauna report also includes other observations, termed roaming counts, gleaned while on site. These, while adding to our knowledge of the avifauna, notably several records of black-fronted tern and falcon, should not be regarded as an important part of baseline data because of the difficulties of comparing data collected in an unsystematic fashion. That the records of black-fronted tern were gathered in this manner do of course create considerable doubt as to the efficacy of the two main survey techniques chosen. 15. Observers are notoriously varied in their abilities and even with New Zealand s relatively small avifauna, good audio and visual identification and observational skills are required. Good guidelines for bird survey work include statements such as: It is very important that field workers hired to perform surveys are skilled at identifying birds by song and call and by sight. Proponents are responsible for ensuring that field staff carrying out bird surveys have adequate skills. For this reason, it is desirable for field work to include a means of estimating detection probabilities or observer validation in the protocols. (Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada, 2007). There is no information in the avifauna assessment that answers the following essential questions : Were the same observers used throughout? What was their experience and abilities? Will the same observers be used in the future and if not will new observers be evaluated against old? Observers were also required to estimate flight height. The Wildlands review questions the accuracy of this data and I agree with their misgivings. 9

10 16. Adequate sample? The avifauna survey was conducted over a two month period from mid-november to mid-january. It was recognised that additional counts would be advisable for the rest of the year, a point stressed by the Wildlands review and further counts were carried out from November 2010 to July 2011 albeit at a lower rate. However the major part of the breeding season August, September and October was still not covered due to lack of access over the lambing period. Birds breed at the same time as sheep. Most of the species present at the site start breeding by September and many are approaching the end of their breeding season by December. It is obviously essential that avifaunal assessments include the main part of the breeding season. This survey fails to do so. 17. This late season surveying has several consequences for bird surveying: Birds that have finished breeding may move out of the area. In this survey the most notable absence is pied oystercatcher which are known to nest in paddocks in the area. They start nesting in August and can be finished and back on the coast by mid- November. Drawing conclusions about the distribution and risks to such species on the basis of this survey is especially unwarranted and misleading. As the breeding season progresses male song decreases in frequency and birds become considerably less conspicuous and more difficult to count. Introduced passerines like skylark and blackbird show especially strong seasonal patterns of 10

11 song but the same is also true as far as we know for native species such as grey warbler and pipit. Drawing conclusions about the abundance and risks to such species on the basis of this survey shows a lack of understanding of the necessity to gather data at the appropriate time of year, a lack of understanding of the part conspicuousness plays in the analysis of data and is consequently misleading. 18. Despite acknowledging that seasonal variation may occur (e.g. kereru may visit the wind farm site to feed when particular trees are fruiting and bellbirds may traverse the site more often when kowhai are flowering.) Hooson assesses risk on the basis of just 8 weeks survey over late spring/summer and a reduced and incomplete survey for the rest of the year. (Note that the results for these counts carried out subsequent to the Avifauna assessment document are only included in a rudimentary form in Hooson s later statement of evidence and it appears that all use of survey data, including most risk assessments, is in fact only based upon the original 2 month surveys.) 19. I would also question the claim that, Ideally, to account for seasonal variation bird activity would have been assessed over the following periods: 1. 1 September 30 November (spring) 2. 1 December 28/29 February (summer) 3. 1 March 31 May (autumn) 4. 1 June 31 August (winter) This is a completely arbitrary division and a worryingly unscientific approach to surveying birds. There is very little if any knowledge of seasonal patterns of for 11

12 example kereru and one should not assume that surveys based on such quarterly divisions would identify them. Ideally a large number of surveys should be carried out regularly throughout the year whereupon some seasonal patterns may be identifiable. 20. Expecting to account for daily variation in bird activity by counting at different times of the day would at first seem reasonable as birds could well change the areas they use throughout the day. However it again fails to take account of the problem of conspicuousness. Guidelines for bird surveying suggest that the best time to observe is from half an hour or so after dawn, (to avoid the dawn chorus, a time when so many birds are calling or singing that accurate counting is difficult) until mid-morning as there is a noticeable decrease in bird activity and vocalisations by afternoon and consequently a decrease in conspicuousness and accuracy of counts. 21. No night time surveys were carried out. Nocturnal surveys are obviously essential for morepork and are useful for picking up species such as migrating waders which call as they move overhead e.g. pied oystercatchers. Consideration should be given to the use of sound recording devices set out on ridges overnight. 22. In conclusion the daytime bird survey took place over nine months of the year, omitting the critical breeding months of August to October. A total of 360 hours (8%)out of a possible c4300 daylight hours was spent on site during which 191 hours (4.5%) was spent on standardised replicable surveys over eighteen 30 minute count 12

13 stations and eight 5 minute count stations. Ignoring the inexplicable omission of essential breeding data these figures would appear to be minimal. There are statistical techniques available, mostly based on an analysis of the variability of count data that allow a researcher to optimise the number of counts required to gather statistically meaningful data. These do not appear to have been used. 23. Analysis of data At all times it is necessary to remember that the data collected is of necessity a sample: quantitative records bearing some relationship to the actual situation. This means that you require some confidence that the data collected bears a close or known relationship to reality and that the conclusions drawn are consistent with an awareness of the limitations of this approach. Much of the literature about bird surveys deals with this question: whether the methodology results in a good or interpretable relationship with the actual numbers or distribution of birds. 24. Over the last seven years I and a dozen volunteers have been monitoring birds in the Orokonui Eco-sanctuary a patch of regenerating native bush inside a predator proof fence near Dunedin. We carry out 5 minute counts based upon the Dawson & Bull model every fortnight during spring, early summer and autumn at 50 stations in the reserve and at two control areas outside. Every year we have a party for the volunteers and their families at which I give a summary of the previous years results. Then we abandon the science and amidst fine food, drink and good company we add up the total number of birds counted, hand out the awards for the best dressed bird counter, the person who counted the most birds... Adding up the 13

14 total number of birds recorded is a joke. It has no statistical or biological meaning whatsoever. To see it included in an environmental assessment report is astonishing. To see it seriously included as a measure of effort or survey effectiveness, even if by inference only, is astounding and shows a complete lack of understanding of the nature of bird survey data. 25. Not only are we presented with the total numbers of birds recorded using the three survey techniques but Hooson further confounds this basic mistake by expressing the total count for each species as a percentage of the total counts for the 30 minute and 5 minute point counts. He then goes on to use these percentage figures as a measure of abundance for each species or group of species. Subsequently he states that for the 30 minute point counts the great majority (90%) of birdlife at the proposed turbine sites are exotic and for 5 minute count data the most abundant species recorded were introduced passerines; yellow hammer, greenfinch, chaffinch and redpoll. This is a far from legitimate interpretation of the data. Percentages of species can only be compared if the actual numbers of birds present are known. You can no more add up numbers of redpolls and grey warblers and come up with anything meaningful than apples and oranges. Without knowledge of the relationship between counts and actual numbers of birds present, dependant upon a detailed knowledge of the conspicuousness of each species, these figures and conclusions are meaningless. 14

15 26. Risk Assessment The bird threat classifications for New Zealand arrived at by Miskelly et al 2008 are unfortunately crude compared to those for many species in Europe and North America. Take for example the population estimate for the endemic black-fronted tern, a bird that nests in colonies in the open and in many cases at well known sites, factors that make it easy to census compared with the likes of many forest species. The best we can come up with is mature individuals, 50-70% population decline (Miskelly et al 2008) or 10,000 birds with a predicted 50% decline in the population over the next 25 years (O Donnell and Hoare, 2010). Compare this with 1947 pairs of Little Tern in the UK (Mitchell, P.I. et al. (2004) Seabird populations of Britain and Ireland). New Zealand does not have long term, detailed census figures that allow accurate assessment of status for many, if any bird species. Nor do we have much in the way of longevity and productivity data, essential ingredients in threat assessment. Coupled with the difficulties of assessing risks at the wind turbine end, this lack of data makes it essential to approach any conclusions about risk assessment with considerable caution, if not out right skepticism. 27. The data for migratory shorebirds is particularly deficient and is acknowledged as so. I comment elsewhere on the possible reason for the lack of pied oystercatcher records and suggest that sound recorders set out on ridge tops overnight would be an efficient way of picking up calling birds overflying the area. My main concern here is that Southey 2009, Migration in New Zealand. Southern Bird 40 is given so much credence. Southern Bird is the quarterly news magazine of the Ornithological Society of New Zealand. Unlike Notornis it is not a refereed scientific journal. Furthermore, 15

16 although Southey is one of the few people in New Zealand to have actively searched out migrating birds in the field, his report is preliminary and more to the point there is no indication of observer coverage and his coastal pathways that feature prominently in Hooson s risk assessments are likely a product of the majority of observation points being on the coast. (I admit an interest in his map of migration routes, as the one small arrow heading inland in Wanganui results from me hearing a single small group of oystercatchers flying northwards while in bed at night. Such is the quality of the data.) Despite this paucity of information Hooson is prepared to state that Thus, although little definitive information is available with which to describe the actual routes that migratory birds take through the region, counts at estuaries north of the proposed wind farm suggest that the majority of birds migrate up the coast and those that do pass overland, which could potentially fly over the site, may do so well above the proposed rotor swept height. This is a completely unsubstantiated statement. 28. In addition one must be cautious about dismissing those species regarded as widespread and common as beyond risk. Unlike North America and Europe which have had schemes to monitor common land birds for well over half a century, New Zealand has had no monitoring of any sort until Landcare s Garden Bird Survey started up a few years ago. In the 1970s when I left the UK after working for several years on bird populations, few would have predicted the decline of common birds such as song thrushes, bullfinches and tree sparrows and no one spared a thought for house sparrows. We must not be dismissive or complacent about the commonest of our birds and have to be aware of the possibility of changes in their populations. 16

17 29. A particularly worrying approach to risk assessment is demonstrated by that for the New Zealand pipit. 52 pipits, 21% flying at blade height were recorded at the wind farm site. Here we have a species that is classified as at risk and declining, is present at the site in the breeding season, regularly flies at blade height, is known to move during the non-breeding season (therefore more individuals than the identified summer birds are likely to pass through or use the site) and has been considered to be at moderate risk of collision with turbine blades (Powlesland 2009). Yet Hooson s conclusion is that the death of individual birds as a result of collision fatalities is unlikely to have an impact on these species at the population level. Where is the data to support such a conclusion, if indeed data can be used to support the phrase individual birds? Furthermore in the process of reaching this conclusion Hooson calls into question the validity and relevance of the at risk, declining classification by asserting that any further threat is unlikely to be a problem because the species has a widespread distribution throughout the North and South Islands and is locally common (undefined) in the eastern foothills of the South Island. This is completely unscientific at best and emotive at worst. 30. Numbers v Individuals. The pipit is an example of the danger of assuming that the numbers of a species recorded in a survey is necessarily a good indication of the total numbers, i.e. the number of individuals and hence the proportion of the total population using the site. For example, tui have become a relatively frequent visitor to gardens in Dunedin over the past ten years. Most people would maintain that half a dozen at the most would visit their sugar water feeders and some people maintain that it is the same couple of birds returning month after month. Banding birds in a 17

18 suburban garden in the city has revealed that over one hundred individuals have visited the feeder during the autumn months in the last couple of years and that birds have moved north to Oamaru and south as far as the Catlins. 31. To arrive at a good risk assessment one would ideally know the proportion of the population in question that is present in the potential risk site. It is therefore very difficult for example to know how significant the total of 21 black-fronted terns is if the number of individuals involved is unknown. Black-fronted terns also appear to be a transient and irregular visitor to the site, though one that flies at a particularly vulnerable height, so it is questionable whether the sampling methodology is likely to record a meaningful sample of the species. 32. The risk assessment for black-fronted terns also concludes that the effect of fatalities from wind farm collisions will be negligible compared with the impact of nest predation, ignoring the fact that the threats to black-fronted terns are cumulative. They include for example, changes in braided river habitats due to irrigation and hydro dams, changes in farm practice in foraging areas adjacent to nest sites and reduced juvenile survival and could well include factors such as changes in prey availability over autumn and winter along the coast due to commercial fishing. While we should obviously address the problem of nest predation we should also avoid adding risk to the survival of a nationally endangered endemic bird. Claiming that the collision threat is negligible in comparison with other threats, thereby inferring that it is insignificant is illogical and lacking any scientific basis. 18

19 33. In conclusion The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, a major player in conservation and wildlife management in the UK for many years, is in a difficult position when it comes to wind farms. On the one hand it acknowledges their role in reducing the UK s carbon footprint (not something that is relevant in New Zealand) thus hopefully decreasing the threats from climate change, but it is also aware that they can cause serious problems for birds and their habitats. They obviously will object to wind farms when, as they say, the assessment reveals potentially serious problems for birds or their habitats that cannot be controlled or avoided. But in a country committed more than most to renewable energy policies, their policy is also to object to wind farms when there is an inadequate assessment of the impacts on birds or their habitats and when there is insufficient information about the risks to birds and their habitats to conclude that there will not be a problem. 34. I would contend on the basis of the points I have identified above the RSPB would have no problem objecting vehemently to this wind farm proposal on the basis that there is an inadequate assessment of the impacts on birds or their habitats and even more vehemently on the basis that there is insufficient information about the risks to birds and their habitats to conclude that there will not be a problem. 35. The Falcon Assessment. It is pleasing to see that a nesting falcon pair was found and subsequently monitored. I agree with much of the commentary made in the Wildlands review of this work but would like to add and stress the following: 19

20 36. The important factors affecting collision risk are the time spent flying and the routes taken between the fixes. It is possible for example that infrequently flying well away from the core area may pose a greater risk of collision depending on the route taken. There is no data on this aspect and no discussion on flight frequency or flight paths is presented. Yet much is made in the risk analysis of the uncertainty surrounding the ability of the species to avoid turbines (avoidance behaviour), indicating in fact that such an ability, though undocumented for the species, would decrease the collision risk. 37. The radio tracking data suggest a relatively small home range for the breeding pair but it is known that adults forage more widely over autumn and winter (Holland & McCutcheon, 2007) and that juveniles disperse widely after becoming independent and leaving their parents' territory. As a result, other individuals may well visit the wind farm site throughout the year. During my visit in April we saw one falcon and found a falcon kill, a chaffinch, in neighbouring properties outside the core area identified for the breeding pair. 38. We note with some concern that phase 1 of the study consisted only of breeding surveys to assess whether falcons were nesting within the wind farm envelope. Though also included were observations on the general landscape within and surrounding the proposed wind farm envelope, it is far from clear how much of the adjacent area was well surveyed. Other breeding pairs may be present in the area and could use the wind farm site. If present these need to be identified. 20

21 Apart from asking local residents, a technique employed by Steve Lawrence in the Dunedin area, consisting of loud speakers mounted on the roof of a vehicle playing falcon calls has proved effective at finding falcons over a wide area during the breeding season. 39. Due to the large home ranges; a breeding female in Kaiangaroa Forest moved 137km from her nesting area in winter (Holland & McCutcheon, 2007) and the dispersal of juvenile falcons at independence, it is important that nearby wind farm developments and their associated transmission line networks be brought into the mix when assessing risk even to the local population. The RSPB in the UK is calling for a more strategic and long term planning approach to wind development than is currently being taken, including a closer examination of the effects of interactions among wind farms and between wind farms and other forms of development. 40. Avoidance Options The suggestion that for any nest located within 500 m of direct line of sight of construction activities, translocation of eggs/chicks to an approved captive rearing institution and subsequent release of juveniles seems excessive and it may have the unintended consequence of causing the adults to abandon that nest site, something of a mixed blessing? The proposal will also only return birds into a situation where the risk of turbine interaction is relatively high. Forestry operation staff in the Dunedin district report any falcons seen during normal forestry operations and an ornithologist has been employed to locate nesting falcons. The companies were prepared to cease operations near nest sites, whether felling, pruning, planting or 21

22 infrastructure construction or maintenance, for the duration of its occupancy. It doesn t seem unreasonable to expect a similar consideration from wind farm managers? 41. It is worrying however that the study estimates that on average the time between potential collisions for the resident adult falcons could be approximately 4 to 5 years and every 50 years for juveniles and that this does not prompt a more in depth analysis of the potential effects on local and eastern falcon populations using survival and productivity parameters, even if these are based upon limited data. 42. Recently in Britain and Ireland wind farm consent was refused or withdrawn on the basis of the threat to hen harriers, a large hawk not dissimilar to our harrier: A major energy firm withdrew its planning application to develop a 29-turbine wind farm at Waterhead Moor near Largs, North Ayrshire and in Co Cork, Eire, Bord Pleanala, in the first ruling of its kind, shot down a wind farm with 29 turbines planned for Co Cork because it could interfere with the habitat of the protected hen harrier. Hen harriers are relatively rare in the British Isles. A 2010 estimate gave 646 breeding pairs over summer and 750 individuals over winter. However the species has a worldwide distribution, breeding in Europe, Asia, and North America, and wintering south N Africa, S Asia & N South America. The UK conservation status is Red (endangered), the Europeans express some concern and the worldwide consensus is least concern. In contrast the NZ Falcon is endemic, (only occurs in NZ) and has conservation status of nationally vulnerable and a population estimate of individuals, not numbers that inspire confidence in the data. 22

23 43. So it is surprising that the relatively high risk assessment for Falcon does not at the very least prompt a wider range of avoidance and mitigation strategies and address the possibility of consent refusal. References Anderson et al 1999 Studying Wind Energy/Bird Interactions: A Guidance Document Prepared for the Avian Subcommittee and NWCC National Wind Coordinating Committee. USA. Atienza J. C. et al 2012, Directrices para la evaluacion del impacto de los parques eolicos en aves y murcielagos. SEO/Birdlife, Madrid. Bibby C.J. et al Bird Census Techniques, Second Edition. Academic Press, London, UK. Bibby C.J 2004 Bird Diversity Survey Methods in Sutherland, Newton & Green, Bird Ecology and Conservation A Handbook of Techniques. Drewitt, A.L. & Langston R.H.W 2006, Assessing the impacts of wind farms on birds, Ibis, 148, British Ornithologists Union Gregory, Gibbons & Donald, Bird Census and Survey Techniques in Sutherland, Newton & Green, Bird Ecology and Conservation A Handbook of Techniques. Holland, S.D.; McCutcheon, R.R Satellite tracking a New Zealand falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae). Notornis 54(1): Miskelly, C.M.; Dowding, J.E.; Elliott, G.P.; Powlesland, R'G'; Robertson' H.A.; Sagar, P.M.; Scofield, R.P.; Taylor, G.A Conservation status of New Zealand birds, Notornis 55: O Donnell C.F.J.; Hoare, J.M Meta-analysis of status and trends in breeding populations of black-fronted terns (Chlidonias albostriatus) New Zealand Journal of Ecology 35(1): Powlesland, R.G. 2009: Bird species of concern at wind farms in New Zealand. DOC Research and Development Series 317. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 23

24 Southey 2009, Migration in New Zealand. Southern Bird 40 The Truth about the danger to birds and bats (WEL Networks Wind Park Update April 2008) Wind Turbines & Birds - Monitoring Protocols. Canadian Wildlife Service Environment Canada, April Dated: 25 th April