EEccoollooggiiccaall AAsssseessssmmeenntt && RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCoonnsseerrvvaattiioonn MMaannaaggeemmeenntt SSttrraatteeggiieess OOwwhhaaookkoo BB&&DD BBlloocckkss

Prepared By: Wildlife Management Associates Turangi NEW ZEALAND

May 2009

This report was prepared for the Owhaoko B&D Trust by:

Wildlife Management Associates PO Box 308 Turangi 3353 NEW ZEALAND

Phone (07) 386 7887

Email: [email protected]

Expert input was provided by the following personnel:

• Cam Speedy, BSc (Wildlife Biologist) - Overall project coordination, threatened fauna, animal pests, deer impact; • Amber MacEwan, MSc (Aquatic Biologist) – Freshwater and fisheries; • Nick Singers, MSc (Botanist) – Vegetation descriptions/mapping, threatened plants, weed threats; • Alana Lawrence, BSc (Hons) – Beech regeneration; • John Luff (Fencing Contractor) - Fencing requirements.

The assessment and recommendations contained in this report are based on observations and data collected over two 5-day field visits in January and February 2009, together with direction from and discussion with landowner representatives and their licensed helicopter concessionaire. The information and recommendations contained herein are provided in good faith based on the best professional judgement of the authors. The authors accept no liability, legal or otherwise, for any outcomes that result from the use of this information.

Table of Contents

1.0 Executive Summary ...... 7 2.0 Introduction ...... 11 3.0 Vegetation ...... 12 3.1 Vegetation History ...... 12 3.2 Vegetation Patterns ...... 14 3.2.1 Alpine Tussock Grasslands & Herbfields ...... 14 3.2.1.1 Waiopurutu Valley and Prominent Cone ...... 14 3.2.1.2 Tawake-Tohunga Plateau and mountain tops ...... 15 3.2.2 Scrubland areas ...... 16 3.2.3 Mountain beech forest ...... 16 3.2.4 Taruarau Valley ...... 17 4.0 Mountain Beech Regeneration ...... 18 4.1 Methods ...... 19 4.2 Results ...... 20 4.3 Discussion and Management Implications ...... 23 4.4 Recommendations ...... 24 5.0 Indigenous Flora & Fauna ...... 25 5.1 Flora ...... 25 5.1.1 Red mistletoe (Peraxilla tetrapetala) ...... 25 5.1.2 Euchiton paludosus ...... 25 5.1.3 Carex astonii ...... 25 5.1.4 Regionally uncommon plants ...... 25 5.2 Fauna ...... 26 5.2.1 Kaka (Nestor meridionalis)...... 26 5.2.2 Kakariki (Cyanoramphus auriceps) ...... 26 5.2.3 Kereru (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) ...... 26 5.2.4. Falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae) ...... 26 5.2.5 Fernbird (Bowdleria punctata vealeae) ...... 27 5.2.6 Long-tailed Cuckoo (Eudynamys taitensis) ...... 27 5.2.7 Other Birds ...... 27 5.2.8 Skinks ...... 27 5.2.9 Recommendations ...... 28 6.0 Fisheries ...... 28 6.1 Methods ...... 28 6.2 Results ...... 28 6.3 Discussion and Management Implications ...... 31 6.4 Recommendations ...... 32

7.0 Introduced Plants & Animals ...... 32 7.1 Weeds ...... 32 7.1.1 Lodge pole pine ...... 32 7.1.2 Heather (Calluna vulgaris) ...... 33 7.1.3 Mouse-eared hawkweed (Heiracium pilosella) ...... 34 7.1.4 Management Implications ...... 34 7.1.5 Recommendations ...... 34 7.2 Introduced Animals ...... 35 7.2.1 Animal Pests ...... 35 7.2.1.1 Possums ...... 35 7.2.1.2 Rodents ...... 36 7.2.1.3 Cats & Mustelids ...... 37 7.2.1.4 Lagomorphs ...... 38 7.2.1.5 Recommendations ...... 38 7.2.2 Game Animals ...... 38 7.2.2.1 Recommendations ...... 41 7.2.3 Livestock ...... 41 7.3 Stock Fencing ...... 42 7.3.1 Fencing Conditions ...... 42 7.3.2 Options ...... 42 7.3.3 Fence Materials and Specifications ...... 43 7.3.4 Tasks relating to the cost of the various options ...... 43 7.3.5 Comparison of cost for various options ...... 44 7.3.6 Recommendations ...... 44 8.0 References ...... 45 9.0 Appendices ...... 47 Appendix 1: Maps ...... 47 Map 1 - Block Boundary Map ...... 47 Map 2 - Vegetation Map ...... 49 Map 3 - Mountain Beech Transects ...... 51 Appendix 2: Species Lists ...... 53 Appendix 3: Eel Otolith Information ...... 65 Appendix 4: Deer Harvest Data (1999 to 2007) ...... 67 Appendix 5: Maps and Cost Details of various fencing options ...... 70

1.0 Executive Summary

Introduction The Owhaoko B&D Blocks (“the Blocks”) consist of some 13,778 hectares of mountainous land in the central North Island, lying between the Kaimanawa and Kaweka Ranges. They are situated within the Kaimanawa Ecological District and range in altitude from approximately 890m in the Taruarau Valley to 1577m above sea level on Tawake-Tohunga peak.

The Blocks are administered by the Owhaoko B&D Trust (“the Trust”) on behalf of the beneficial owners. The Trust is an Ahu Whenua Trust under section 215 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

The Trust permits controlled hunting, trout fishing and other recreational activities consistent with the values of the land.

The Blocks are formally protected by a Nga Whenua Rahui Kawenata. The requirement to discharge specified responsibilities under the Kawenata has prompted the Trust to seek more information on the biodiversity values of the land and threats to its long term sustainability, such as weeds and pests. This report represents the outcomes of a detailed Ecological Assessment undertaken during two field visits in early 2009.

Vegetation The vegetation patterns within the Blocks have been hugely influenced by volcanic eruptions, fire and grazing. The current vegetation within the Blocks is dominated by 3 broad types: alpine tussock grasslands & herbfields; scrubland; and beech forest. Locally there are smaller areas of more specific vegetation types related to geological and hydrological influences. These include small areas of wetland (at a range of altitudes), pumice bluffs and rock cliffs, mobile screes and rocky alpine tops that provide habitat for more specific plant species. A detailed vegetation map forms part of this report.

Mountain Beech Regeneration Regeneration of mountain beech forest has previously been identified as a key ecological management issue throughout the Kaweka and Kaimanawa ranges. As this is the major forest type present in the Blocks, an important part of this Ecological Assessment was to understand deer impacts on mountain beech regeneration. A purpose designed assessment method based on seedling counts along transects located within selected critical sites showed that mountain beech regeneration is currently inadequate at some critical sites to replace mountain beech canopies following natural collapse or disturbance. It is therefore recommended that:

• Deer impact management regimes should be instigated to address mountain beech regeneration issues at critical sites to ensure maintenance of this habitat type in the long term. • Re-measurement of the eight established transects should be repeated in summer 2018/19 to determine the effectiveness of the management response.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 7 of 76

Indigenous Flora & Fauna Observations of threatened flora and fauna were undertaken as part of the general assessment of the Blocks throughout both field visits. Specific investigations were also undertaken for small scaled skink. The Blocks contain a small number of rare and/or threatened plants that are regionally uncommon, sparse or in decline. The Blocks also contain a number of threatened species of fauna that are nationally endangered, sparse or in decline. No acutely threatened species were found during the surveys. It is likely that North Island Brown Kiwi have already become locally extinct. Recommendations relating to indigenous flora and fauna include:

• Skink detections should be followed up with placement of purpose built lizard “shelters”. These should be placed in the Tawake-Tohunga mountain bike shelter and along suitable pumice bluff type river terrace habitat on the Taruarau River and checked regularly for inhabitants to help identify the species present. • No further recommendations are considered necessary at this time, however, if pest control work is instigated, species monitoring programmes should be investigated to determine the outcomes of such control programmes.

Fisheries Three sections of the Taruarau River and its tributaries and one section of the Waingakia River were surveyed for freshwater fish populations using a combination of trapping, spotlighting and non-electric riffle sampling. Two species of freshwater fish were found to be present in high densities within both catchments: the endemic longfin eel and the introduced rainbow trout. No other native fish or brown trout were found during this survey. Recommendations relating to fisheries include:

• Manuka scrub should be maintained as this is producing the food that supports the trout fishery during summer. • All eels taken from the Blocks should be less than 60cm in length and should be measured for length and have their otoliths extracted for age analysis (see Appendix 3) to help understand growth rates and population age structure. • Longfin eel stocks should be protected by ensuring users are aware that the taking of longfin eels within the Blocks is restricted.

Introduced Plants and Animals

Weeds Three particular weeds of significant ecological concern were detected within the Blocks: wilding lodge-pole pine, heather and mouse-eared hawkweed. Recommendations relating to weeds include:

• A management regime to control lodge pole pine as described should be instigated on a three year rotation. • The licensed helicopter concessionaire should be encouraged to GPS all pines seen. • Accurate location records should be kept of all coning pine trees to allow for these sites to be regularly monitored for new seedlings.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 8 of 76

• Liaison with the Horizons Regional Council should be maintained to maximise the efficiency of the pine management regime within that part of the Blocks that falls within the Horizons Region. • All known heather infestations should be checked annually during flowering in late February/March to ensure these locations are effectively controlled. • A block-wide heather survey should be undertaken to ensure there are no other undetected infestations, including all access tracks into the Blocks through Ngamatea Station. • Hawkes Bay and Horizons regional councils should be approached for advice on opportunities for release of hawkweed biocontrol agents within the Blocks. • A weed advocacy programme involving posters in huts and biosecurity provisions by the licensed helicopter concessionaire should be instigated as soon as possible. • Didymo specific biosecurity measures should be discussed with and instigated by the licensed helicopter concessionaire.

Animals The Blocks are inhabited by a range of introduced mammalian species including pests, highly prized game animals and, at times, trespassing livestock. The Trust’s approach to managing these different animals will have a significant impact on the long term sustainability of the habitats and natural values, the revenue opportunities from the Blocks, and important relationships with neighbouring land owners.

Animal Pests Recommendations relating to pest animal management include:

• Possum fur and skin hunting should be encouraged as widely as possible within the constraints of other land uses. Royalties on possum skins/fur harvested from the Blocks should not be charged. • Clear objectives for the control of possums should be articulated for the Blocks. • A policy on acceptable possum control methods should be established and funding options for control assessed. • All users should be encouraged to destroy feral cats whenever the opportunity arises. • Clear objectives for the control of introduced predators should be articulated for the Blocks before considering any formal predator suppression regime. • Effective stock exclusion and fire suppression/management should be ensured to allow recovery of sparsely vegetated habitat in the Taruarau Valley which will reduce the amount of habitat suitable for rabbits.

Game Animals Given there is strong evidence deer that are having an impact on mountain beech seedling regeneration at many sites across the Blocks, a change to the current deer management regime should be considered by the Trust. Small but subtle changes could be implemented to manipulate the deer harvest by diverting hunting pressure off males, and especially young males, more onto females. This would both enhance the quality (age) of stags and the intensity of the rut hunting available to hunters, and improve environmental outcomes through a reduction of the impact the herd has on the habitat.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 9 of 76

Recommendations relating to deer management include:

• New hunting restrictions should be implemented that protect young male deer, limit the harvest of mature male deer and re-focus the hunting effort more on female deer by removing all restrictions on females, within the Blocks. • These changes should be communicated with hunters so they understand and support the new approach. • Hunting effort should be guided into areas where beech regeneration is being compromised by deer browse through the use of quality information and improved access opportunities. • Collection of hunting statistics, as part of the permit system, should continue in a manner consistent with the information collected since 1999.

Livestock The Nga Whenua Rahui Kawenata under which the Blocks are managed specifically prohibits the use of the land for grazing livestock. While there is a long history of sheep grazing on the Blocks, it has been many decades since significant numbers of sheep have been grazed there. However, in the late winter of 2007, a significant cattle trespass occurred. The significant negative effects of this cattle trespass incident have prompted a review of fencing needs as part of this assessment. Recommendations relating to stock trespass and fencing include:

• The recommended option for fencing between the Blocks and Ngamatea Station is the marking of the boundary with easily discernible/visible markers at regular intervals. This will require a good dialogue to be opened and maintained with Ngamatea management to ensure stock are not grazed in the northern reaches of the station which would reduce the risk of stock trespass. It will also make it easier for clients of both neighbours to identify the boundary and thereby reduce trespass by clients. • If the option above is found to be untenable, it is recommended that fencing the boundary on a "give and take" basis be undertaken to prevent stock access up the Taruarau River Valley. This alignment would reduce the number of floodgates required across some of the smaller streams crossing the boundary. The fence would be built on a 50/50 cost share basis between Ngamatea Station and the Trust. • If none of the above options are negotiable, the third and last option is to erect a fence on the surveyed boundary. This fence would be built on a 50/50 cost basis between Ngamatea Station and the Trust.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 10 of 76

2.0 Introduction

The Owhaoko B&D Blocks consist of some 13,778 hectares of mountainous land in the central North Island, lying between the Kaimanawa and Kaweka Ranges. The Blocks are landlocked, bounded by the Owhaoko A Blocks to the north, the Rangitikei Remote Experience Zone of Kaimanawa Forest Park to the west, the Ngaruroro River and Kaweka Forest Park to the east, and Ngamatea Station to the south. The only practical land access is via Ngamatea Station, which is restricted.

The Blocks fall within the boundaries of two regional councils. The Hawkes Bay Regional Council has statutory functions for all land in the Taruarau River catchment draining east to the Pacific Ocean on the Hawkes Bay Coast. The Horizons Regional Council has statutory functions for all land in the Rangitikei River catchment draining south-west to the Tasman Sea on the Manawatu Coast.

The Blocks are administered by the Owhaoko B&D Trust on behalf of the beneficial owners of the Owhaoko B East, B1B, D1, D3, D4B, D8B and Part D7B blocks, collectively referred to as the Owhaoko B&D Blocks1. The Trust is an Ahu Whenua Trust under section 215 of Te Ture Whenua Maori Act 1993.

The Trust permits controlled hunting, trout fishing and other recreational activities consistent with the values of the land.

The Blocks are formally protected by a Nga Whenua Rahui Kawenata which the Trust entered into with the Minister of Conservation in February 2005. The Kawenata confers a “Reserve” status that disqualifies the Trust from conducting farming, agricultural, horticultural or forestry activities. In return for compensation payments made by the Crown to the Trust, the Kawenata requires the Trust to manage the land:

“… so as to preserve the natural environment, the landscape amenity, the wildlife habitat, the freshwater habitat, the historical value of the land and the spiritual and cultural values which tangata whenua associate with the land.”

The Kawenata also requires the Trust to:

“…Keep the land free from troublesome adventive plants and animal pests…;”

The requirement to discharge specified responsibilities under the Kawenata has prompted the Trust to seek more information on the biodiversity values of the land and threats to its long term sustainability, such as weeds and pests. The assessment will form part of a longer term vision to develop a formal Conservation Management Plan for the Blocks. Funding was sought from the Biodiversity Advice Fund for the project and this report represents the outcomes of that assessment. The report provides an insight into key land management issues that need to be addressed by the Trust and includes a number of recommendations that will assist the Trust achieve its objectives.

1 See Map 1 in Appendix 1 ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 11 of 76

3.0 Vegetation

The Blocks are situated within the Kaimanawa Ecological District and range in altitude from approximately 890m in the Taruarau Valley to 1577m above sea level on Tawake-Tohunga peak. The vegetation is montane to alpine in composition with forests dominated by mountain beech. Large areas of tussock grassland, scrub and alpine herbfields are also present.

3.1 Vegetation History

The vegetation patterns within the Blocks have been hugely influenced by volcanic eruptions, fire and grazing. Most of the Blocks would have been affected by the Taupo AD 186 eruption. This eruption destroyed much of the vegetation and deposited large amounts of Taupo pumice over thousands of square kilometres across the Central North Island. The eruption’s pyroclastic flow of super heated molten pumice and gases flowed over the western Kaimanawa Range and down the Taruarau, Mangamaire and Waingakia valleys, with charred forest remains still visible in the pumice deposits throughout the Blocks. This eruption has significantly influenced the soils, landforms and vegetation patterns of the Blocks.

Large areas of free draining pumice soils occur on all shallow slopes and flat terraces. The wider soil structures of the Blocks are also heavily influenced by ash and other volcanic material sourced from the volcanoes of Tongariro National Park to the west which have erupted at regular intervals and with varying intensity since 230 AD.

Following the Taupo eruption, islands of forest would have been present in refugia on the lee (south) slopes that were protected from the main impacts. These would have provided the seed sources for forest regeneration. At the time of Maori arrival, tall forest would have returned to all of the land below the “tree line” at approximately 1400m above sea level. This forest would have been dominated by mountain beech with associated montane shrubs and trees. Small areas of Hall’s totara and red beech forest may have also been present along the lower reaches of the Taruarau Valley. Tussock and alpine species were probably restricted to the alpine tops, slips, rocky bluffs and mobile river valleys.

Maori greatly modified the vegetation of the Blocks by the deliberate or accidental use of fire. Much of the Ngamatea Plateau and central Kaimanawa Range (including part of the Blocks) were probably first burnt by Maori approximately 450 years ago. This large fire was identified as the first major fire of the Ngamatea Plateau, deforesting most of the fire prone area between the Kaimanawa and Ruahine Ranges (Rogers, 1994). This fire was so large and hot that in some places it burnt the organic layer within the soil structure, especially on ridge tops where the fire was hottest. This led to accelerated erosion. These erosion scars can still be seen today in the many clay pans situated on steeper ridges, often surrounded by scrub or forest. Subsequent and repeated fires following this main event have removed little additional forest but have helped maintain or develop the area predominantly into red tussock (Chionochloa rubra) grassland. These fires have influenced the current vegetation patterns of all major catchments. At many locations, rapid regeneration into scrub is occurring. At these

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 12 of 76

sites, very little tall beech forest occurs or is present only as small “islands” within steep gorges and gullies (for example on the south side of the Tawake-Tohunga Range).

European graziers arrived relatively early to the Blocks (at that time the name for Ngamatea Station was also Owhaoko). The first lease for the land was granted to John Studholme in 1878. There are no known written accounts of the vegetation composition before grazing. However, there is little doubt that most of this land was already tussock grassland with abundant palatable inter-tussock grasses and herbs. Sheep could freely graze without restriction across vast acreages and proliferated in the early years with abundant food. Sheep numbers rapidly grew on the virgin ungrazed land and by 1894, 60,400 sheep were shorn (Riseborough, 2006). It is highly likely that within only a few decades, the land was over- grazed. This, combined with repeated use of fire (as was the normal management practise at that time), would have resulted in the loss of most of the palatable native grasses and herbs. Sheep would have also grazed within the beech forest areas and it is likely that they would have removed much of the palatable under-storey (especially ferns and small seedlings) from the smaller patches of forest, well before deer arrived into the area.

This history of “fire stick farming”, combined with over-grazing, facilitated the spread of rabbits which further deteriorated the vegetation cover, although this would have been restricted to lower altitudes. There are numerous photos (most taken in the 1950s-60s) within the book “Ngamatea – the land and the people” (Riseborough, 2006) that show a very low and sparse vegetation cover of unpalatable shrubs and short tussock with little tall red tussock present.

The first deer to be seen on Ngamatea was in 1903, and by 1930, deer were abundant with large mobs of 40-50 seen browsing in the open, near forest margins. Deer were so abundant in 1938, that Ngamatea was forced to close its back country because of competition with deer for feed (Elder, 1962). One of the recorded impacts of deer within these beech forests is that the most common under-storey species, such as mountain five-finger and other large-leaved shrubs, were almost entirely removed through browsing and bark stripping. Deer continue to prevent the regeneration of these large-leaf shrub and tree species, even at the lower densities they occur in today.

As there are no fences between the Blocks and Ngamatea Station, casual (or on occasion deliberate) grazing still occurs. Illegal cattle grazing occurred in the winter of 2007 within the Taruarau Valley and caused considerable vegetation and soil damage.

The deliberate practise of burning tussock is likely to have ceased in the late 1960s to early 1970s, around the time of the formation of the Kaimanawa Forest Park. Grazing had however been formally prohibited in the Harkness Valley in neighbouring Kaweka Forest Park in 1962 after the New Zealand Forest Service were forced to extinguish a large fire there. The most recent major fire that burnt within the Blocks was the Ohinewairua fire which started on 4th February 1983. This fire burnt into the Taruarau Valley, across the river and onto the Mt. Meany Tops. Given the current low stature vegetation of the southern faces of the Tawake- Tohunga Range, these were likely also burnt during the Ohinewairua fire. Another smaller, more recent fire started as a result of a light aeroplane crash (circa 1988), though it only burnt a relatively small area within the Taruarau Valley.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 13 of 76

The long grazing history combined with fire use, removed most palatable species and facilitated the expansion of unpalatable natives (e.g. monoao, manuka and mountain daisy) and browse resistant, introduced grasses and herbs. Significant vegetation recovery, particularly within the last 30 years, has occurred due to the prevention of grazing and control of fires over most of the Blocks. Vegetation recovery is most advanced at lower altitude, on better soils and on wetter, more fertile sites, particularly for red tussock, monoao, manuka and kanuka. These four species now dominate large areas, especially within the upper Taruarau and Waingakia valleys. The tussock grasslands on the main Tawake-Tohunga Plateau have recovered very well from grazing and are today in a highly intact state. At higher altitude, the very palatable snow tussock (Chionochloa pallens) is relatively common and is likely to be expanding. Vegetation recovery has been slow on the western steep slopes of the Tawake- Tohunga Range. Much of this face is now dominated by manuka scrub.

3.2 Vegetation Patterns

The current vegetation within the Blcoks is dominated by 3 broad types: alpine tussock grasslands and herbfields (5,830 ha), scrubland (2,529 ha) and beech forest (5,244 ha). Small areas of alpine gravel, rock and scree fields are also present (33 ha). Locally there are smaller areas of more specific vegetation types related to geological and hydrological influences. These include small areas of wetland (at a range of altitudes), pumice bluffs and rocky cliffs, which provide specific habitat for specialised plant species.

A vegetation distribution map is shown in Appendix 1. Specific discussion of key vegetation patterns and features follow.

3.2.1 Alpine Tussock Grasslands & Herbfields The Blocks contain large areas of alpine vegetation in a highly natural condition, even though they were being grazed by sheep up until the early 1970s. Two main ranges are present – Prominent Cone and the Tawake-Tohunga Range, though alpine vegetation is also present on the tops of Mt Meany and the Golden Hills.

3.2.1.1 Waiopurutu Valley and Prominent Cone This small valley occurs within a frost hollow at an altitude of 1100m above sea level and is dominated by alpine bog and red tussock grassland. It is surrounded by alpine scrub and mountain beech forest. In the valley floor, on free draining pumice terraces, the vegetation is dominated by red tussock, hard tussock and blue tussock (Poa colensoi) with occasional wip-cord hebe (Hebe tetragona) and Mt. Ruapehu hebe (Hebe venustula). Interspersed within these dry terraces, where water flows and pools are present, areas of red tussock and Overview of the Waiopurutu Valley from wire rushland occur. Prominent Cone showing red tussock grassland, alpine bog, scrub and beech forest. Snow tussock grassland in the foreground. ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 14 of 76

Where fires have reduced the mountain beech cover on the surrounding side slopes of the valley, the vegetation is dominated by sub-alpine scrub of inaka (Dracophyllum recurvum), manuka, toatoa and other sub-alpine scrub species.

The alpine vegetation of Prominent Cone includes two main vegetation types – alpine tussock grassland and shrub and a cushion-field of small shrubs and moss at higher altitude. Common species of the grassland include red and snow tussock, Epacris alpina, inaka, wipcord hebe and a small prostrate mingimingi (Coprosma decurva). The regionally uncommon green hooded orchid (Pterostylis humulis) was seen here. The vegetation of the cushionfield was dominated by stunted shrubs at approximately 30cm height of E.alpina, pygmy pine (Lepidothamnus alpina), inaka, snow totara and areas of woolly moss (Racrometrim).

3.2.1.2 Tawake-Tohunga Plateau and mountain tops Similar vegetation patterns to Prominent Cone are also present on the Tawake-Tohunga Range. Here however, very large areas of tall tussock grassland are present which are dominated by red tussock, inaka, mountain daisy and occasional snow totara. The alpine tall tussock grassland plateau here would be considered comparable, in regard to its significance, with some of the better examples present within the wider Central North Island such as Mt. Hauhungatahi, the Umukarikari Range and Northern Ruahine Range. There was also a good range of specialised alpine Alpine red tussock-whipcord hebe grassland on the plants present and it is likely that a wider main Tawake-Tohunga Range. variety would be found with further survey.

On the main plateau, in shallow sloping and wetter places, small areas of alpine bog vegetation are present, dominated by wire-rush and Carlpha alpina with local patches of other species such as the forked sundew (Drosera binata). At around 1400m, snow totara and snow tussock become more common and dominant species. Above 1480m, on exposed surfaces, the tussock grassland grades into cushion fields with a similar vegetation composition to Prominent Cone, except that a higher abundance of snow totara is present.

The western side of the Tawake-Tohunga Range falls steeply and abruptly into the Waingakia Stream. Here are large areas of rocky cliffs with smaller areas of scree within the gully heads. On the rocky cliffs, the regionally rare hebe (Hebe colensoi) was found, possibly occurring at its highest known altitude (close to 1500m above sea level). Several typical scree plants were also found, including Epilobium pycnostachnum, E.glabbelum and Senecio glaucophyllus. Further down, within the gullies and steep slopes, snow totara and alpine daisy were common.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 15 of 76

3.2.2 Scrubland areas Monoao and manuka-kanuka scrub are the most common scrubland vegetation types found within the Blocks. At higher altitude, for example on the Otutu tops, are localised areas of alpine scrub of toatoa-bog pine and whipcord hebe. Large areas of monoao “frostflat” like scrub is present on the higher riverflats and side-slopes of the Taruarau Valley. This grades into manuka-kanuka scrub on higher side-slopes of the valley. At the head of the Waingakia Valley are dense areas of tall (1.5-2m high) monoao frostflat scrub, while on the steeper hill slopes and also in the Mangamaire Valley is a dense cover of manuka scrub. Where these scrub areas occur near beech forest, young pole sized mountain beech trees are starting to regenerate, though these are still reasonably uncommon.

3.2.3 Mountain beech forest Mountain beech (Nothofagus solandri var. cliffortoides) is virtually the only tall forest type present throughout all areas of the Blocks. The only exception to this is a small area of red beech (N. fusca) which was found within the Rocky Creek catchment. Mountain beech forest occurs on an altitudinal gradient between 900 and 1400m above sea level.

In Otutu Bush, at high altitude, the forest composition is simpler, with a mountain beech forest canopy over divaricating small leaved shrubs and mountain toatoa (Phyllocladus alpinus). Canopy gaps are more frequent and are quite common at higher altitude and critical sites of regeneration. In these locations there is very limited mountain beech seedling regeneration and the forest appears to be developing towards an open woodland of standing mountain beech trees, interspersed with deer browsed turf and coprosma scrub. On wetter, Overlooking Haumingi Bush towards the steep and barren western faces of the south facing sites, dense areas of the bright Tawake-Tohunga Range. green unpalatable water fern and Hypolepis millefolium are also present. At lower altitude, the forest composition is more diverse, with species such as broadleaf, marble leaf and bush lawyer common, along with divaricating coprosma shrubs. Mountain beech forest regeneration is generally adequate here. Palatable, large leaved shrubs and small trees (e.g. wavy leafed karamu, kohuhu and fuchsia) are rare and are only present in refugia sites, such as rock faces and stream cliffs where deer cannot access. There is also a lack of ground ferns, a sign of the long grazing history.

In some of the smaller beech forest patches such as Haumingi Bush, where deer numbers are likely to be lower, mountain beech forest regeneration is more prolific.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 16 of 76

3.2.4 Taruarau Valley The Taruarau Valley is a major feature of the Blocks. The Taruarau River flows within a relatively broad valley system with small to moderate sized river terraces surrounded by moderately steep hill slopes on either side. Its geomorpholgy has been shaped by the Taupo eruption, and typical pumice landforms and vegetation types are present. The head of the valley is more confined but it broadens out significantly further down the valley toward the southern boundary of the Blocks. Most of the vegetation is fire induced, with virtually all forest removed to the main valley’s ridgeline The Taruarau Valley showing characteristic Taupo pumice landforms with red tussock or confined to steep gully refugia. The grassland on lower alluvial river flats, red valley’s vegetation has also been affected by a tussock monoao frost flat scrub on higher long history of sheep and cattle grazing and terraces grading into manula-kanuka scrubs on this area has the highest number of introduced higher slopes. A small area of wetland is present weed species, particularly grasses. in an old river course.

The vegetation on the lower river flats is dominated by tall red tussock grassland, which occurs also on many of the higher terraces and side slopes. There are a few smaller areas of hard tussock, generally with exotic grasses. On the higher side slopes, monoao (Dracophyllum subulatum) is more common and in places is the dominant cover, forming a “frostflat scrubland”. In between tall tussock clumps, exotic pasture grasses are very common, particularly in moister and or more fertile locations. This is especially the case on the lower, flood prone river terraces where grazing has been most intense. Common exotic grasses include: Yorkshire fog (Holcus lanatus), sweet vernal (Anthoxicum odoratum), browntop (Agrostis capillaris) and chewings fescue (Festuca). Mouse-eared hawkweed (Heiracium pilosella) is also abundant between tussocks on drier sites and where heavy pugging by cattle has occurred. These exotic grasses and flatweeds form a dense sward and there are few native herbs in between these tussocks.

Small wetlands are present on the lower river terraces in a few locations. A variety of vegetation types are represented here. In steep gullies that dissect the main river terraces, a more fertile sedgeland of purei (Carex secta), cutty grass (C.coriacea) and red tussock occurs. In shallow sloping gullies and depressions, more infertile fen and bog wetlands occur, being dominated by square sedge (Lepidosperma australe), wirerush (Empodisma minima), Carpha alpina, and tangle fern (Gleichena dicarpa). At one location on a lower river terrace, a small area of wetland scrub occurs. This is being dominated by twiggy tree daisy (Olearia virgata) which has likely survived past fires because of the moister locality and protection by river cliffs.

On the higher side slopes of the valley the vegetation grades into monoao scrub and then into taller manuka-kanuka scrub, in association with occasional patches of red tussock grassland and small areas of short, deer grazed grassland in gullies. Mountain beech forest is present in more sheltered gullies and away from the valleys and leading ridges. ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 17 of 76

4.0 Mountain Beech Regeneration

Regeneration of mountain beech forest has previously been identified as a key ecological management issue throughout the Kaweka and Kaimanawa ranges. Mountain beech regenerates via a seedling bank that results from periodic (every five to ten years) mass seeding events called “mast years”. The last major event was 1998/99. However, it appears likely that the 2008/09 season will also result in a mast seeding event with many trees observed in flower/seed during January and February 2009. Trees on forest edges were especially heavy with seed.

Mountain beech seeds germinate quickly but seedlings then grow extremely slowly, often for decades, until suitable high light conditions result from natural canopy collapse – either through single trees growing old and dying, or falling, or more often, from severe storm events where high winds and/or heavy snow collapse large numbers of trees at a single site. Under these high light situations, seedlings rush for the light gaps forming pole stands, the fastest growing and strongest trees eventually forming the new canopy.

Heavy deer browse can seriously inhibit this process. Even though mountain beech is only considered moderately palatable to deer, where the availability of food has been reduced by over-browsing, mountain beech can become a significant part of the deer diet (Fraser, 1991). However, reductions of deer density to levels below approximately 6 deer per km2 in the Kaweka Ranges have been demonstrated to allow mountain beech regeneration processes to begin again, following a period of suppression by higher deer densities (Department of Conservation, 2006).

A key part of this assessment of the Blocks, therefore, was to understand deer impacts on mountain beech regeneration. Initial observations during the January 2009 field visit identified a range of site differences in mountain beech regeneration patterns. Under much of the closed, mature canopy, mountain beech seedlings were common and regeneration appeared likely to result in canopy replacement over time. At other sites, major canopy collapse events that appeared to have occurred 20 to 30 years earlier (probably as a result of Cyclone Bernie in 1982 or Cyclone Bola in 1988) had started to regenerate well. However, at some sites, deer browse was clearly inhibiting regeneration, especially at high altitude near the upper limit of mountain beech and on the edges of ‘islands’ of bush, particularly on north facing slopes where deer activity was high.

A range of mountain beech regeneration scenarios were identified throughout the Blocks, representing differences in aspect, topography, the nature of the under-storey habitat, the timing of canopy collapse relevant to the history of deer harvest and density (see also section 7.2.2), and the scale of the collapse (from single trees to whole faces or ridges of forest).

Heavy impacted deer lawn with coprosma scrub in open mountain beech woodland at Golden Hills bush, February 2009. ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 18 of 76

A large scale assessment of mountain beech forest regeneration was beyond the scope and resources of this assessment, so a number of critical sites were identified during the January 2009 field visit for assessment during the subsequent visit in February 2009. A total of eight, highly deer impacted transect sites were selected to determine seedling regeneration rates, to compare these with other studies in the region, and help understand the management implications of “worse-case-scenario” deer impact on beech forest regeneration on the Blocks. These transects were assessed between 9th and 13th February 2009.

4.1 Methods

Mountain beech seedlings were counted up to a distance of five metres either side of 200 metre long compass bearing transects through identified critical beech forest habitat. Compass bearings were subjectively selected to sample a particular land form, habitat type or on the edges of beech “islands” to run perpendicular to the bush edge. On one transect (in the Waingakia), high numbers of seedlings were present on the first 100 metres of the transect so it was shortened to just 100 metres. Each transect was marked along the centre at 20m intervals by nailing orange plastic triangles to trees. A GPS reading was taken at the start of each transect (these are recorded in Table 1 below). Maps of the eight transect locations are shown in Appendix 1.

Table 1. Location of each mountain beech regeneration transect.

Transect Transect Transect start Number Name Bearing Easting Northing 1 Bishops Bush 250 2780746 6211302 2 Otutu near bush egde 320 2788001 6211739 3 Otutu Saddle 070 2787498 6212332

4 Otutu Ridge 000 2787280 6212523 5 Waingakia Deer Lawn 060 2774276 6213325

6 Waingakia Pole Stand 280 2774863 6212975 7 Golden Hills Edge 250 2783441 6216658 8 Golden Hills warm face 300 2782540 6215870

Seedlings were counted in three height classes: 15−45cm and 45−135cm (within the deer browse range) and 135−200cm (above the deer browse range). Seedlings were classified as either ‘hedged’ (by deer browse) if they had no obvious growing tip, or ‘intact’ if they had an obvious growing tip. As each transect was sampled, a record was taken of the number of metres dominated by each of four main under-storey habitat classes (outlined in Table 2 below) related to the beech canopy above, which dictates the light environment and, hence, conditions for seedling growth. Seedling counts were then converted to a measure of seedlings per hectare.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 19 of 76

Table 2. Definition of the four main habitat classes.

Habitat Class Code Description Closed canopy CC Mature mountain beech canopy – low light environment in under-storey. Pole stand PS Thick stand of small mountain beech trees – very low light environment in under-storey. Coprosma/toatoa/bush CS/TS/RS Thick shrubland approximately 2m tall. No or little mature lawyer shrubland canopy above – high light environment in under-storey. Deer lawn DL Turf of herbaceous species with interspersed shrubs. No mature canopy above – very high light environment at ground level.

4.2 Results

The data obtained from each transect is detailed in Table 3. The data is summarised in Table 4 and presented graphically in Figures 1 to 8.

Table 3. Table of seedling density (stems per ha) in size classes for each habitat class

15-45cm 45-135cm 135-200cm Line Date Habitat % Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Total Class per ha 1 9/02/09 CC 0.65 15 35 0 0 0 0 50 1 9/02/09 CS 0.35 0 10 0 5 0 0 15 2 10/02/09 DL 0.295 160 115 65 10 0 0 350 2 10/02/09 CC 0.575 530 145 125 55 0 60 915 2 10/02/09 CS 0.03 255 20 0 5 0 0 280 2 10/02/09 TS 0.1 335 70 40 55 0 15 515 3 10/02/09 CC 0.62 20 0 0 5 0 0 25 3 10/02/09 CS 0.04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10/02/09 PS 0.34 10 5 0 0 0 0 15 4 10/02/09 CC 0.69 20 25 10 5 0 20 80 4 10/02/09 PS 0.31 0 35 0 0 0 55 90 5 11/02/09 CC 0.33 2490 170 1140 450 0 100 4350 5 11/02/09 DL 0.54 420 140 480 290 0 130 1460 5 11/02/09 CS/TS 0.13 70 30 40 60 0 30 230 6 11/02/09 CC 0.305 830 85 100 10 0 45 1070 6 11/02/09 PS 0.645 320 85 160 255 10 675 1505 6 11/02/09 Windfall 0.05 0 0 15 0 0 20 35 7 12/02/09 CC 0.5 0 20 0 0 0 0 20 7 12/02/09 Young 0.45 15 10 0 0 0 5 30 CC 7 12/02/09 CC light 0.05 0 5 0 0 0 0 5 gap 8 12/02/09 CC 0.41 0 0 5 5 0 0 10 8 12/02/09 CS/RS 0.15 0 10 0 0 0 5 15 8 12/02/09 CS 0.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 12/02/09 CC/CS 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 under 8 12/02/09 sparse 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 canopy ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 20 of 76

Table 4. Total stems per hectare at each transect (all habitat classes combined).

15-45cm 45-135cm 135−200cm Total TOTAL Line Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact 1 15 45 0 5 0 0 15 50 65 2 1280 350 230 125 0 75 1510 550 2060 3 30 5 0 5 0 0 30 10 40 4 20 60 10 5 0 75 30 140 170 5 2980 340 1660 800 0 260 4640 1400 6040 6 1150 170 275 265 10 740 1435 1175 2610 7 15 35 0 0 0 5 15 40 55 8 0 10 5 5 0 5 5 20 25

Five of the eight transects had low levels of regeneration. All these transects were dominated by closed canopy mature and/or pole stand forest (transects 1& 8 with 65% and 71% closed canopy forest respectively and transects 3, 4, & 7 with 96% to 100% closed canopy forest). There were moderate levels of regeneration on transects 2 & 6 where increased canopy damage was apparent (30% open canopy on transect 2 and 65% very young pole stand on transect 6). The highest level of seedling regeneration was found on transect 5 where large scale canopy collapse (67% open canopy) had occurred.

Figures 1 to 8. Graphical representation of regeneration (in seedlings per ha) occurring in each transect. Transects with similar levels of regeneration are grouped together.

Low regeneration transects:

Transect 1 Transect 3

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0 Number of seedlings/Ha Number of seedlings/Ha of Number Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact

15-45cm 45-135cm 135-200cm 15-45cm 45-135cm 135-200cm Category Category

Transect 4 Transect 7

80 50 70 60 40 50 30 40 30 20 20 10 10

0 Num ber seedlings/Ha 0 Num berseedlings/Ha of Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact

15-45cm 45-135cm 135-200cm 15-45cm 45-135cm 135-200cm Category Category

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 21 of 76

Transect 8

50

40

30

20

10

0 Number seedlings/Ha of Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact

15-45cm 45-135cm 135-200cm Category

Moderate regeneration transects:

Transect 2 Transect 6

1400 1400 1200 1200 1000 1000 800 800 600 600 400 400 200 200 0 0 Number of seedlings/Ha of Number Number of seedlings/Ha of Number Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact

15-45cm 45-135cm 135-200cm 15-45cm 45-135cm 135-200cm Category Category

High regeneration transect:

Transect 5

3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 Number ofseedlings/Ha Hedged Intact Hedged Intact Hedged Intact

15-45cm 45-135cm 135-200cm Category

The poorest regeneration was observed on transect 8, near Golden Hills hut. Even in the higher light environments of the Coprosma shrubland/bush lawyer and deer lawn habitat classes, where greater regeneration might be expected, seedling density was only 15 seedlings per hectare. Transect 7 at Golden Hills bush which was located in largely intact canopy forest, also had very low numbers of seedlings, suggesting that this patch of forest overall is regenerating very poorly.

Transects 5 & 6 (both at Waingakia) show that this patch of forest overall has the highest levels of regeneration. This appears to be a generally young stand that has recently gone through successful regeneration after major canopy collapse, despite localised deer impact on the forest edge (e.g., transect 5).

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 22 of 76

The proportions of hedged seedlings were highest on transects 2 & 5 which both had high levels of open canopy shrubland or deer lawn under damaged or completely collapsed canopy (43% and 67% respectively). Clearly, deer target these high light environments when feeding.

Heavily hedged mountain beech saplings, Waingakia Bush, February 2009.

Total stems per hectare at each transect (all habitat classes and hedged/intact combined) in the 15−135cm size classes is shown in Table 5. This information allows comparison with data from other studies of mountain beech regeneration within the Kaweka and Kaimanawa region.

Table 5: Total stems per hectare at each transect (all habitat classes and hedged/intact combined) in the 15−135cm size classes.

Line Number of seedlings/ha (15−135cm) 1 65 2 1985 3 40 4 95 5 5780 6 1860 7 50 8 20

4.3 Discussion and Management Implications

An indication of comparative beech regeneration in similar habitat within the region can be obtained from at least four other studies in the Kaimanawa/Kaweka ranges (Duncan et.al, 2006; Allen & Allan, 1997; Husheer et.al., 2003 and Husheer et.al., 2006). Different methods were used to obtain the data for these more in depth studies, so direct comparisons should be undertaken with some caution. However, they provide guidelines for the level of beech regeneration that might be required to maintain a beech canopy following damage or collapse within the existing beech forests of the Block. ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 23 of 76

These studies suggest that beech canopies in the region contain in the range of 1100 to 2000 stems per ha of mature trees. These are, therefore, the levels of sapling (>135cm) regeneration that would need to be ‘escaping’ deer browse in forest under-stories or in canopy collapse scenarios, to guarantee an ongoing canopy at all current beech forest sites. The studies referenced also observed “seedling banks” (those 15cm – 135cm) in the range of 2,000 to 15,000 stems per ha in situations where deer had access to seedlings, and up to 43,000 stems per ha where deer were excluded (Husheer, 2003).

Clearly, the regeneration recorded in this assessment is generally well below these ranges. However, the regeneration figures from the reference studies were obtained from randomly located plots across a wide range of deer impact scenarios rather than the targeted sampling at high deer impact sites undertaken during this assessment (such as the higher altitude north facing slopes, sites with open canopy, ridgelines and forest edges). Thus, the deer impact observed in this assessment is likely to represent the extreme end of the deer impact continuum within the Blocks.

The highest density of stems per ha of the large size class (135cm−2m) observed in the Blocks was 740 stems/ha along Transect 6 (see Table 3). This transect was located in a dense young pole stand of mountain beech habitat in the Waingakia catchment, with numerous larger saplings and small mountain beech trees in the under-storey. Because this assessment did not count saplings greater than 2 metres, as was done in the reference studies, the data presented is likely to be an underestimation of the total number of saplings compared with these studies. The larger saplings and young trees observed at this site, but not recorded, in fact indicate that this stand is well on the way to recovery after cyclone damage during the 1980’s and that the comparatively low sapling density is more a result of seedling competition, low light environment and sampling criteria used, rather than the impacts of deer browse.

However, the low number of saplings (>135 cm) counted at all of the other seven transects, together with the almost absence of a ‘seedling bank’ at some sites (< 100 stems per ha), is clear evidence that mountain beech regeneration is unlikely to occur at many critical sites within the Blocks following natural collapse or disturbance. If the maintenance of the existing mountain beech canopy is a Trust objective in the longer term, some management of deer impact at identifiable critical sites will be required. While this will not require elimination of deer, density reductions will be required (see Section 7.2.2).

4.4 Recommendations

• Deer impact management regimes should be instigated to address mountain beech regeneration issues at critical sites to ensure maintenance of this habitat type in the long term (see also Section 7.2.2). • Re-measurement of the eight established transects should be repeated in summer 2018/19 to determine the effectiveness of the management response.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 24 of 76

5.0 Indigenous Flora & Fauna

5.1 Flora

The Blocks contain a few rare and/or threatened plants that are regionally uncommon, sparse or in decline. No acutely threatened species were found during the survey. Threat classifications used are from de Lange et.al., 2004.

5.1.1 Red mistletoe (Peraxilla tetrapetala) Three plants were seen in the Otutu bush and would be considered to be rare here. The plant is likely to be still present in most beech forest areas and would have once been very common. It is now rare, largely due to possum browse, as it is highly palatable. It has a threat rank of ‘Gradual Decline’ and will continue to decline without protection from browse through possum control or caging of individual plants. Possum control to protect mistletoe is expensive because possum numbers need to be kept very low in perpetuity. Flowering mistletoe, Otutu Bush, January 2009.

5.1.2 Euchiton paludosus This is a very small plant within the daisy family that grows in alpine wetlands. It was found at one site on the Prominent Cone ridge growing with an alpine sundew. E.paludosus has a threat rank of ‘Sparse’.

5.1.3 Carex astonii This is a small tussock sedge that grows in seasonally wet pools amongst red tussock grassland. It was found at the head of the Waingakia Valley and the Taruarau Valley. C.astonii has a threat rank of ‘Range Restricted’. One voucher specimen was deposited at the national herbarium (CHR603266).

5.1.4 Regionally uncommon plants Colensoi’s hebe (Hebe colensoi): at least 20 plants of this species were found on the main Tawake-Tohunga Range. This hebe is endemic to the Kaimanawa-Kaweka and northern Ruahine ranges but is most common within the stream and river gorges of the Taruarau and Rangitikei valleys. It is considered to be ‘Regionally Uncommon’. A voucher specimen was deposited at the national herbarium (CHR 603256).

Native mint (Mentha cunninghamii): Though not rare, this plant is very uncommon within the Kaimanawa Ecological District and is only known in the central North Island from a handful of sites. A voucher specimen was deposited at the national herbarium (CHR 603263).

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 25 of 76

Native forget-me-not (Myosostis sp. very small): A very small native forget-me-not was seen in the rocky creek area. It could not be identified by the national herbarium and is likely to be uncommon and possibly threatened in the Central North Island. A voucher specimen was deposited at the national herbarium (CHR 603262).

Scree and high alpine plants Though not rare, the following plants are uncommon within the mountains of the North Island: alpine daisy (Brachyscome sinclarii), scree willow herb (Epilobium pycnostachum) and Senecio glaucophyllus.

5.2 Fauna

Observations of birds and other fauna were undertaken as part of the general assessment of the Blocks throughout the field visits. Specific investigations were also undertaken for small scaled skink. The Blocks contain a number of threatened species of fauna that are nationally endangered, sparse or in decline. Threat classifications used are from Hitchmough, 2005.

5.2.1 Kaka (Nestor meridionalis) Kaka are classified as ‘Nationally Endangered’ due to nest predation of females and nestlings, competition for food by possums and loss of their preferred forest habitat. The closest populations are in the northern Kaimanawa beech forests and the managed population based around Rangataua Forest on the lower southern slopes of Mount Ruapehu. A single kaka, probably a male, was heard calling in the Otutu Bush area during the February field visit. The bird was attracted in by imitating a territorial call, but, while it came close, it was not seen. There is unlikely to be a significant population of kaka in the Blocks and this bird is likely to have been a seasonal visitor or passing through.

5.2.2 Kakariki (Cyanoramphus auriceps) Kakariki are classified as being in ‘Gradual Decline’ due to nest predation by stoats and ship rats and a reduction in forest cover. Kakariki were heard in most of the larger beech forest tracts and fragments during both the January and February field visits. Their numbers are likely to increase during the apparent 2008/09 beech mast due to an increase in food supply and subsequent nesting success, but are likely to fall again due to stoat predation following this event.

5.2.3 Kereru (Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae) Kereru are classified as being in ‘Gradual Decline’ due to nest predation, competition for fruit, flowers and buds, and loss of their preferred forest habitat. Numbers are unlikely to be high in upland beech forests and only two birds (both singles) were seen during the February visit in beech forest at Otutu Bush and at Golden Hills. They were apparently feeding on bush lawyer berries.

5.2.4. Falcon (Falco novaeseelandiae) Falcon are classified as being ‘Nationally Vulnerable’. Falcon are still relatively common in the Central North Island high country, however, only a single bird was heard calling in the Taruarau Valley during the January visit as part of this assessment.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 26 of 76

5.2.5 Fernbird (Bowdleria punctata vealeae) Fernbird are classified as being “Sparse” due to their specific habitat requirements for low stature native scrub and wetland vegetation. Fernbird were widespread in the scrub associations of the Taruarau Valley during both January and February visits.

5.2.6 Long-tailed Cuckoo (Eudynamys taitensis) Long-tailed cuckoo are classified as being in ‘Gradual Decline’ as a result of reduction in forest cover. Long-tailed cuckoo were heard in all beech habitat, although only one was heard during the February visit with the birds starting to migrate back to the Pacific.

5.2.7 Other Birds A wide range of both native and introduced birds were observed during the field visits. While it is likely that North Island Brown Kiwi once inhabited the forest and more advanced scrub habitats within the Blocks, there have been no recent reports of kiwi in the area. There are scattered records of kiwi in recent decades from across the Kaimanawa and Kaweka ranges. Kiwi numbers are in serious decline and it is likely that they have become locally extinct in the Blocks due to periodic episodes of adult mortality caused by rabbit predators such as ferrets and a more insidious ongoing predation pressure on juveniles by stoats.

While suitable habitat for blue duck (Hymenolaimus malachorhynchos) occurs in river systems contained within the Blocks, and they are present in low numbers in adjoining catchments of the Rangitikei and Ngaruroro, no blue duck or blue duck sign was observed during field visits.

Rifleman and whitehead were the most notable forest birds observed and were present in good numbers in all beech forest, including the smaller islands and fragments. Not quite so common, but also widespread, were grey warbler, silvereye, tomtit, tui and bellbird. Ruru were heard at night from all sites visited. Pipits were in abundance in the open country. Also common in the open country were harrier hawk and welcome swallow (usually associated with pumice bluffs around the Taruarau River and its major tributaries). Introduced blackbirds and chaffinches were common throughout all habitats while yellowhammers and redpolls were also prolific in the open country. During the January visit, significant numbers of Canada Geese were found to be feeding in the tussock – their faecal material being abundant wherever exotic grasses were present. A family group of magpies was present at the old Golden Hills musterer’s hut. Grey duck and black shag (Phalacrocorax carbo) were also seen on the Taruarau River and its tributaries; and a ring necked pheasant cock was heard calling from tussock near the owners hut on two occasions. A full species list appears in Appendix 2.

5.2.8 Skinks The small-scaled skink (Oligosoma microlepis – classified as ‘Serious Decline’) and brown skink (O.zealandicum) have previously been recorded near this location. The speckled skink (O.infrapunctatum) and common skink (O.nigriplantare ploychroma) are also possibly present. Fifteen tracking tunnels, baited with cat food, were placed in pumice bluff habitat along the Taruarau River during the January visit. Cards were collected three weeks later. A single skink pass was recorded on one card. The remaining cards were heavily tracked by mice. In addition, a skink faecal pellet was found in the Tawake-Tohunga Range shelter during January. These records should be followed up with further investigation. ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 27 of 76

5.2.9 Recommendations • Skink detections should be followed up with placement of purpose built lizard “shelters”. These should be placed in the Tawake-Tohunga mountain bike shelter and along suitable pumice bluff type river terrace habitat on the Taruarau River and checked regularly for inhabitants to help identify the species present. • No further recommendations are considered necessary at this time, however, if pest control work is instigated, species monitoring programmes should be investigated to determine the outcomes of such control programmes.

6.0 Fisheries

The Blocks contain two main rivers which form the partial headwaters of two major North Island catchments: the Taruarau River (a 3rd order tributary of the Ngaruroro catchment, which flows east to meet the sea near Clive) and the Waingakia River (a 2nd order tributary of the Rangitikei catchment which flows west to enter the sea at Tangimoana). Three sections of the Taruarau River and its tributaries and one section of the Waingakia River were surveyed for freshwater fish populations (see Figure 9).

6.1 Methods

Surveying was carried out using a combination of trapping, spotlighting and non-electric riffle sampling (akin to invertebrate kick sampling). Electro fishing was not conducted due to cost constraints and a perceived risk to the recreational trout fishery. Searching for bully (Eleotriidae) nests was also carried out. Three millimetre gee-minnow traps and 10 millimetre fyke nets (see photos below Figure 9) were repeatedly set for overnight periods, which, in conjunction with periodic spotlighting and riffle sampling, was conducted over the period 9 to 13 February 2009. Two rainbow trout were killed and their stomach contents examined.

6.2 Results

Two species of freshwater fish were found to be present in high densities in both catchments: the endemic longfin eel (Anguilla dieffenbachii) and the introduced rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss). Anecdotes of brown trout (Salmo trutta) occurring in the Taruarau River are available but none were found during this survey. Size classes of trout in the Taruarau River were sharply delineated, with the majority of individuals being juveniles (~20- 60mm fork length) or large adults (~300–500mm). Largely juveniles were found in the Rocky Creek Taruarau tributary and also in the Waingakia River.

Size classes of longfin eels ranged from ~250mm total length to ~1000mm in the Taruarau River and Rocky Creek, while eels observed in the Waingakia ranged from ~250mm to ~800mm. No fish were found in the small unnamed southern tributary of the Taruarau River.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 28 of 76

Figure 9. NZMS 260 series map showing locations of freshwater fish surveying.

Set fyke nets (left) and gee minnow traps (right). Air pockets were not left due to the low temperature, relatively high degree of turbulence and low occurrence of aquatic macrophytes present in the waterbodies, posing no or very low risk of asphyxiation from low dissolved oxygen levels at night. Photo on right courtesy of R. Martin.

Stomach content analysis of two adult female rainbow trout collectively represented terrestrial insect species: 63% Coleoptera (beetles of which 60% were the manuka beetle Pyronota festiva); 21% Hymenoptera (all native bees); 1% Odonata (dragonfly); 1% Orthoptera (alpine grasshopper) and 3% unidentified terrestrial invertebrates. A single aquatic insect was recovered, representing the genus Plecoptera (stonefly) (see Figures 10 & 11). ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 29 of 76

Figure 10. Undigested stomach contents of two adult female rainbow trout.

Figure 11. Pie graphs showing (left) percentage terrestrial vs. aquatic invertebrates represented and (right) percentage of various terrestrial insect taxa.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 30 of 76

6.3 Discussion and Management Implications

The absence of native fish species (other than eels) is largely to be expected. Both the headwaters of the Ngaruroro and the Rangitikei catchments were affected by the AD 186 volcanic eruptions and thus are not expected to contain non-migratory species such as the dwarf galaxias (Galaxias divergens), koura (Paranephrops planifrons), Cran’s bully (Gobiomorphus basalis) and upland bully (Gobiomorphus breviceps) due to their inability to re-colonise areas following catastrophic events that cause local extinction (McDowall, 1996). Both the Taruarau and the Waingakia Rivers are very far inland and thus migratory species (that are able to recolonise such areas through coastal dispersal) such as koaro (Galaxias brevipinnis) and possibly shortjaw kokopu (Galaxias postvectis) are far less likely to occur here (Joy et.al., 2000). Added to this distance, is the huge negative effect on native fish by introduced trout through predation and competition (McDowall, 2006).

The size classes of longfin eels recorded by this assessment suggest there is currently adequate recruitment and survival of this species locally. This is in direct contrast to many areas of New Zealand where significant declines in this species have been noted since the 1970’s, due mainly to heavy harvest pressure, both commercial and recreational/customary. The isolated nature of the Blocks makes local eel resources less vulnerable to heavy exploitation, however, given the declining status of the longfin eel fishery regionally and nationally, a conservative approach to eel harvest should be adopted by the Trust. If eel harvest is considered an important aspect of land owner or recreational use of the Blocks, attempts should be made to restrict this harvest and ensure older (large migrating adult) eels are protected to increase spawning escapement, by imposing a maximum size limit. As male longfin eels can mature from 65cm (15 to 30 years old) and females from 90cm (30 to 60 years old), the suggested size limit is 60 cm. Data on age specific growth rates growth should also be sought from local eel populations through the collection and analysis of otiliths (ear bones) for aging from harvested longfin eels wherever possible.

Size class distributions of trout in the Taruarau River suggest that this river provides both adequate spawning, and juvenile and adult feeding habitat. The Waingakia River distributions suggest that, while this smaller river provides ample spawning and juvenile feeding habitat, it is less able to support feeding adults. Rainbow trout in the upper Rangitikei River are potentially migrating up the Waingakia River to spawn, then returning to the lower reaches where more food is available. Size class distribution of eels in both rivers shows that recruitment is still occurring. The apparent difference between the Taruarau and the Waingakia rivers with regards to eel length range is more likely an artefact of sampling size rather than a genuine representation of difference.

Stomach content analysis of adult rainbow trout in the Taruarau River revealed a virtually exclusive terrestrial diet during the February assessment, the majority of which consists of manuka beetles and native bees – both of which are supported by the manuka scrub habitat types within the main valleys.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 31 of 76

6.4 Recommendations

• Manuka scrub should be maintained as this is producing the food that supports the trout fishery during summer. • All eels taken from the Blocks should be less than 60cm in length, should be measured for length and have their otoliths extracted for age analysis (see Appendix 3) to help understand growth rates and population age structure. • Longfin eel stocks should be protected by ensuring users are aware that the taking of large adult longfin eels within the Blocks is restricted.

7.0 Introduced Plants & Animals

7.1 Weeds

Three particular weeds of significant ecological concern were detected within the Blocks: wilding lodge-pole pine (Pinus contorta), heather (Calluna vulgaris) and mouse-eared hawkweed (Heiracium pilosella).

7.1.1 Lodge pole pine Large seed sources of lodge-pole pine occur within the main Kaweka Range, Sparrow-hawk Range and Karioi Forest near Waiouru. Smaller seed sources occur within the Rangitikei River trench and possibly within Kaimanawa Forest Park and the N.Z. Defence lands, though both of the latter two areas receive regular control operations. The seed is highly mobile and wind dispersed and will be continuously deposited within the Blocks, due to these surrounding seed sources. As such, to maintain a low density, regular surveillance will be required to find and control plants as they appear.

Lodge pole pine is the most significant weed threat and if not treated would take over all open lands, turning them into tall wilding pine forest. It is currently rare within the Blocks and has been controlled on two separate occasions within the last three years within the Horizons Region, which is within the headwaters of the Rangitikei River. Some control has occurred within the Hawkes Bay Region by the Department of Conservation in the past, though this is no longer occurring. It has been estimated that 8000ha of wilding prone land occurs within the Blocks, with 4000ha occurring within the Horizons Region and 4000ha within the Hawkes Bay Region. This area should be searched at least every three years and all plants cut down (as low to the ground as possible), making sure that no green needles remain. Where it occurs within rocky ground or with multiple stems that have been antler thrashed by deer, all stumps should be pasted with Vigilant Gel™.

Steep and difficult terrain and areas with a high scrub cover should be specifically targeted with aerial searching from a helicopter. An estimate of 4 hours helicopter time every three years will be required to complete this task.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 32 of 76

Much of the remaining land can be searched from quad bike along the Taruarau Valley and the Tawake-Tohunga mountain bike track. However, until access arrangements can be formalised, quad access is not guaranteed and further tracking networks are required to maximise the effectiveness of this type of management. In the meantime, aerial searches of the steeper country should include the valley habitat, requiring a further 3 hours flying every three years. In addition to aerial searches, the licensed concessionaire should be encouraged to pass on GPS locations of all trees seen during other helicopter based activity.

Where coning trees are discovered, all cones should be recovered and a record of the adult seeding tree kept so that these sites can be checked on a three year rotation until the seed bank has been exhausted, which is estimated to take 2-3 rotations (ten years).

Horizons Regional Council has obligated itself to treat all land within the Blocks that occurs within its region and the Trust should liaise closely with the Council to achieve efficient use of resources. Control of Lodge pole pine in the Hawkes Bay Region rests with the landowner, however, the programme suggested will ensure cost-effective protection from this weed threat.

7.1.2 Heather (Calluna vulgaris) Heather is a highly invasive small shrub that can completely displace red tussock grassland and alpine grassland up to approximately 1450-1500m above sea level. It is a significant ecological threat to the tussock grasslands present in the Blocks.

Two locations of heather infestation were discovered during the January and February 2009 field visits (near the south- eastern end of the Golden Hills airstrip on the track between the airstrip and the Golden Hills airstrip hut). Both included one large (5+ year old) plant and approximately 50 seedlings surrounding the “mother plant’ out to a distance of ten metres. These were pulled out and subsequently sprayed with Metsulfuron.

Heather is spread commonly by people (on socks, in boots, jackets, raincoats and on vehicles etc.) and this is the most Flowering Heather likely source of this introduction. The known sites should be checked annually at least for the next five years and all seedlings removed. Heather possibly occurs elsewhere within the Blocks and a specific survey should be undertaken along the Taruarau Valley during peak flowering (late Feb-March) to determine if other infestations are present. Access tracks into the Blocks from Ngamatea Station should also be checked annually during the March flowering period and any plants found should be destroyed to avoid any vehicle contamination with seed.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 33 of 76

7.1.3 Mouse-eared hawkweed (Heiracium pilosella) This is a small flatweed that has invaded the tussock grasslands, principally those of the Taruarau Valley where the grazing history is most intense. It forms large mats of vegetation which outcompete and eliminate intertussock grasses and herbs. At other sites around New Zealand, up to five different insect biological control agents have been released to control this weed. These are likely to be the only control methods available. Two of these (the gall wasp and gall fly) have established on the Waiouru Defence Lands. It is recommended that the Trust seeks advice from both Horizons and Mouse-eared hawkweed (Hieracium pilosella) a Hawkes Bay regional councils in relation to the significant weed of red tussock grassland on release of these agents onto the Blocks. dry pumice terraces.

7.1.4 Management Implications Lodge pole pine and heather could colonise large areas of the Blocks. While the Trust will need to manage these threats itself, the recreational use of the Blocks provides an excellent means of weed monitoring, provided users are educated about the weeds of concern. A simple laminated A4 “Wanted” poster at each hut is a simple, low cost means of achieving this education. These posters would identify the key weeds, inform the users why they must be controlled and what to do if they are found.

Biosecurity risks should also be managed through the licensed concessionaire as helicopter landing sites are a major point of entry for many weeds. Users should be reminded of risks, and appropriate procedures in relation to checking and cleaning equipment before entering the Blocks.

This approach will also protect the aquatic habitats of the Blocks from pests such as the invasive aquatic algae Didymo.

7.1.5 Recommendations • A management regime to control lodge pole pine as described should be instigated on a three year rotation. • The licensed helicopter concessionaire should be encouraged to GPS all pines seen. • Accurate location records should be kept of all coning pine trees to allow for these sites to be regularly monitored for new seedlings. • Liaison with the Horizons Regional Council should be maintained to maximise the efficiency of the pine management regime within that part of the Blocks that falls within the Horizons Region. • All known heather infestations should be checked annually during flowering in late February/March to ensure these locations are effectively controlled. • A block-wide heather survey should be undertaken to ensure there are no other undetected infestations, including all access tracks into the Blocks through Ngamatea Station. ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 34 of 76

• Hawkes Bay and Horizons regional councils should be approached for advice on opportunities for release of hawkweed biocontrol agents within the Blocks. • A weed advocacy programme involving posters in huts and biosecurity provisions by the licensed helicopter concessionaire should be instigated as soon as possible. • Didymo specific biosecurity measures should be discussed with and instigated by the licensed helicopter concessionaire.

7.2 Introduced Animals

The Blocks are inhabited by a range of introduced mammalian species including pests, highly prized game animals and, at times, trespassing livestock. The Trust’s approach to managing these different animals will have a significant impact on the long term sustainability of the habitats and natural values, the revenue opportunities from the Blocks, and important relationships with neighbouring land owners.

7.2.1 Animal Pests A number of animal pest species impact on the Blocks. Implications and management issues for each species (or group of species) are discussed below.

7.2.1.1 Possums The brush tailed possum (Trichosaurus vulpecula) was introduced to New Zealand from Australia in the 1800’s. Widespread liberations, mostly via translocations, occurred throughout the country, including the Central North Island, between 1890 and 1940. Possums are thought to have peaked in the Kaimanawa Ranges in the 1960’s after high deer numbers had opened up forest under-stories in preceding decades (Pracy, 1974).

Possums living within the Blocks have been targeted for skins and furs at various times since the 1960s but there have never been any coordinated control programmes. The most recent fur harvesting occurred in about 2000 (Helisika staff, pers.comm) but the resultant harvest is unknown.

Possum sign was widespread across the Blocks, in all habitats, during the January and February 2009 field visits. The population is likely to be near biological carrying capacity in all habitats and controlled by food and climate at its current density, as evidenced by numerous possum skeletons found. No quantitative assessments were undertaken to index possum abundance against set parameters (e.g., Residual Trap Catch Index), and while no obvious damage to any specific values was noted, the sign observed would suggest they will most certainly be competing with native fauna and other valued species (e.g., deer – see also Section 7.2.2) for food resources, and applying predation pressure on populations of indigenous birds and invertebrates at their current densities. Effectively managing this impact is likely to be expensive and will require a long term funding commitment – $10 to $20 per ha/p.a. (Speedy, 2004) to provide any discernable benefit.

It is not known if Bovine Tuberculosis (Tb) is present in the possum population of the Blocks, however, the fact that no herd break-downs were recorded as a result of a significant cattle trespass in late winter 2007 (see also Section 7.2.3), and that Tb in deer has never been

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 35 of 76

recorded despite significant annual harvest (see also Section 7.2.2), would suggest Tb is not endemic on the Blocks. Subsidies from the agricultural sector are, therefore, unlikely to be available for effective possum suppression regimes in the immediate future.

The Trust has indicated its discomfort with the use of Sodium monofluoroacetate (1080), one of the main control tools used for large tracts of isolated and rugged possum habitat, due to the potential impact on deer hunting, hunter perceptions and possible effects on other valued non-target species. The Owhaoko B&D Block Pest Strategy (2008) clearly states that a policy on 1080 is yet to be discussed and decided by beneficial owners and the Trust. Clear objectives for possum control are also still to be agreed.

Until such time as these objectives are articulated and a policy on acceptable possum control methods has been formally established, periodic skin and/or fur recovery will remain the only option open to the Trust for managing possum impacts. The effectiveness of such control is likely to be limited as it will occur at the discretion of the licensed operators (depending on other land uses at the time); be localised to areas where suitable access and accommodation are available; and short lived due to the sheer size and rugged nature of the Blocks, which will ensure the likelihood of reinvasion from adjoining untreated areas. Attempts to charge royalties on skins/fur harvested will reduce the attractiveness of this control method and, therefore, its potential to contribute to the long term sustainability of natural habitats on the Blocks.

7.2.1.2 Rodents Ship rats (Rattus rattus), mice (Mus musculus) and Norway rats (R. norvegicus) have found their way into every suitable habitat type of mainland New Zealand since European colonisation and will all be present on the Blocks. Although no quantitative investigations were undertaken as part of this assessment, mice foot prints were recorded in most of 15 tracking tunnels established in monoao/tussock habitat on the river terraces of the Taruarau River during skink surveys; and a large rat (probably a Norway rat) was seen in the spot light on the banks of the Taruarau River during fisheries surveys.

The populations of these species are likely to be near biological carrying capacity in all habitats and controlled by food and climate at their current densities. No quantitative assessments were undertaken to index rodents (e.g., Footprint Tracking Index), and while no obvious damage to any specific values was noted, they will most certainly be competing with native fauna for food resources, such as seeds, fruit and insects, and applying predation pressure on populations of indigenous birds, lizards and invertebrates at their current densities.

Effectively managing rodents on a landscape scale is unlikely to be feasible on the Blocks. Localised rodent control around hut sites may be required when environmental conditions allow for extreme population expansion, such as during beech and/or tussock mast years. The 2008/09 summer appears to be a heavy flowering/seeding year for both mountain beech and red tussock.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 36 of 76

7.2.1.3 Cats & Mustelids Feral cats (Felis catus) have been reported in the Blocks for many years. Their numbers are likely to be very low and they tend to prey mostly on rodents and rabbits. However, their impact on birds, lizards and invertebrates can be seasonally very significant. All users of the Blocks should be encouraged to destroy cats whenever the opportunity arises. Such opportunities are most likely during deer hunting or possum trapping activities.

Mustelids include Ferrets (Mustela furo), stoats (M.erminea) and weasels (M.nivalis vulgaris). These predators have also found their way into every suitable habitat type of mainland New Zealand since their introduction as a biocontrol agent for rabbits in the late 1800’s. While no quantitative investigations were undertaken of mustelid density as part of this assessment, and no mustelids or obvious mustelid sign was observed, all will be present on the Blocks.

Ferret activity will be concentrated on the dry, open areas of sparse vegetation around the Taruarau River terraces where rabbit density is highest. It is likely local populations on the Blocks are propped up by spillover from the vast agricultural landscape of neighbouring Ngamatea Station, where they are relatively common (Martin Brenstrum – pers.comm). Their poor ability to climb trees and preference not to swim makes the higher altitude and/or forested areas of the Blocks less attractive to ferrets, so this species is likely to be uncommon away from the Taruarau Valley. Nevertheless, their impact on native birds, lizards and invertebrates is likely to be significant where their numbers are propped up by rabbits. They have probably contributed to the significant decline (if not total loss) of adult kiwi from the Blocks.

Stoats will be widespread in all habitat types across the Blocks, although they tend to be suppressed where ferret activity is high. Their strong ability to climb and their swimming capabilities, combined with high breeding output and capacity to disperse for large distances as juveniles, make the stoat one of the more damaging and difficult pest species to manage. They are responsible for heavy predation on kakariki and kaka, lizards, waterfowl and invertebrates, and are the main predator of kiwi chicks.

Weasels tend to be suppressed where stoats or ferrets are active so populations of weasels on the Blocks are likely to be low. Nevertheless, they have a similar impact on invertebrate and lizard populations to stoats, ferrets, cats and rodents. They will often be more noticeable soon after stoat and ferret control programmes begin.

Suppression of ferret, stoat and weasel populations is technically achievable with a number of new and increasingly more effective trapping and poisoning techniques being developed in recent years (e.g., DoC 200 Box trap, PAPP poison paste). However, the large cost of establishing landscape scale mustelid control will be hard to justify unless it is part of a larger, integrated pest management programme addressing a number of pest threats across the Blocks. Options exist to protect local values vulnerable to mustelids (e.g., skink populations). Clear objectives would need to be articulated by the Trust to ensure any such expenditure was effective.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 37 of 76

7.2.1.4 Lagomorphs Both hares and rabbits were observed during the January and February 2009 field visits.

Rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus cuniculus) sign (burrows, buck heaps and scratchings) was common throughout the more open tussock and grasslands on the lower altitude, drier river terraces of the Taruarau Valley but appeared to be restricted to areas where most recent fires had kept the habitat open with sparse vegetation. Old, collapsed rabbit warren complexes in the lower Tarurau Valley indicated that the area had been subject to far heavier rabbit infestations in the past. Rabbits appeared absent from higher altitude alpine areas. It seems likely that rabbit infestations will decline if stock trespass and fire can be controlled to allow faster vegetation succession in open areas, back to taller tussock grassland and shrublands.

European hares (Lepus europaeus occidentalis) were widespread across all open habitats from valley floors to alpine vegetation above 1500m above sea level, including taller tussock, tussock/shrublands and even on deer lawns and clearings on or near the edges of mountain beech forest habitat. Hares have an observable impact on native plants, especially the native brooms (Charmichaelia spp). However, control of hares at a landscape scale is not practical due to their widespread distribution throughout the Central North Island, their large home ranges and the fact that they are technically difficult to target with conventional pest control methods.

7.2.1.5 Recommendations • Possum fur and skin hunting should be encouraged as widely as possible within the constraints of other land uses. Royalties on possum skins/fur harvested from the Blocks should not be charged. • Clear objectives for the control of possums should be articulated for the Blocks. • A policy on acceptable possum control methods should be established and funding options for control assessed. • All users should be encouraged to destroy feral cats whenever the opportunity arises. • Clear objectives for the control of introduced predators should be articulated for the Blocks before considering any formal predator suppression regime. • Effective stock exclusion and fire suppression/management should be ensured to allow recovery of sparsely vegetated habitat in the Taruarau Valley which will reduce the amount of habitat suitable for rabbits.

7.2.2 Game Animals Hunting is an important social and economic activity on the Blocks. Recreational deer hunting is currently one of the most important land uses in terms of both levels of use, and economic return to the Trust. The Blocks have a well deserved reputation as a hunting destination and are managed on an exclusive block basis for a large clientele. Beneficial owners also value the hunting opportunity provided by the Blocks. However, deer have the potential to negatively impact on the long term ecological sustainability of the habitats within the Blocks. Careful management is therefore required to balance these potentially conflicting values.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 38 of 76

Red deer (Cervus elephus scoticus) were first recorded in the Central North Island high country by shepherds in the early 1900’s. By 1930, they were extremely numerous and significant forest depletion had occurred throughout much of the Kaimanawa and Kaweka ranges. Sika deer (Cervus nippon) were released at Poronui Station in 1905 and were locally abundant in the Northern Kaimanawa Range by 1925. By 1970 they had spread through much of the Kaweka Ranges (Davidson & Fraser, Summer sika stag in velvet 1991), but were still rare on the Blocks (Peter Steadman, pers.comm). As the venison recovery industry got underway in the 1970s and 1980s the larger red deer, with their greater preference for open country, came under increasing harvest pressure. This allowed the smaller forest dwelling sika, with their preference for heavy cover and a greater digestive capability to thrive in habitat that had been seriously depleted by red deer (Hoffman, 1989; Fraser, 1996). They have since replaced red deer throughout most of the forested habitat of the Central North Island, including the Blocks. While both species can still be found on the Blocks, sika are the dominant species throughout the lower altitude forest and scrub habitats, with red deer now more restricted to the higher altitude open habitat.

As a general rule, female deer are relatively sedentary with a sika hind home range averaging just a few grid squares – 300 to 400 ha (Davidson, 1979). These discrete home ranges are the focus of the family groups associated with breeding females, usually of between two and five deer – depending on her age and breeding output. In contrast, male deer occupy distinct summer and breeding ranges, trading seasonally between the two, covering home ranges three to four times larger than females in the process (Davidson, 1979). From a habitat management perspective, the implications of these sex specific behaviours are very significant. Female deer and their family groups tend to focus their environmental impact on a discrete localised area of habitat. Mature males, once they have left their mothers, disperse their environmental impact over a much larger area. Controlling deer impact, then, is best achieved by targeting female deer.

All hunters on the Blocks are permitted by the Trust and, except beneficial owners that hunt, access the land exclusively via the licensed concessionaire, who restricts the harvest to a limit of one deer per hunter, plus one additional deer per party. Velvet stags are protected and animals cannot be shot under spotlight at night. Records from hunting permit returns kept by the Trust over the past decade have documented the annual reported deer harvest on a block by block basis (see Appendix 4). Further insights into deer harvest can be obtained by reading entries in hut log books.

On average, an annual deer harvest of 150 deer has been reported from the Blocks in the nine years from 1999 to 2007 (range 99 to 188). While the reported deer harvest has remained relatively stable since 1999, the total harvest is likely to be significantly higher than the 1.11 deer per km² per annum figure reported. Since 2004, the harvest has been heavily (and increasingly) biased in favour of males (323 stags vs 208 hinds), with yearling males making ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 39 of 76

up more than quarter (26.2%) of the total annual reported harvest. This observation is backed up by comments in the hut books.

Clearly, hunters value male deer highly, due to the fact that they carry antlers and that their sex specific behaviours make them more vulnerable to hunting – adult males during the autumn rut and juvenile males during their first spring/summer after leaving their family groups. The hunting statistics in Appendix 4 strongly support this observation. This heavily young male biased deer harvest will be resulting in a number of negative management outcomes on the Blocks, from both a hunting and environmental management perspective. An 8 point sika stag taken in the rut – the ultimate These include: hunting prize on the Blocks.

• A higher proportion of female deer and, hence, more intense localised environmental impact; • A higher proportion or females increasing the reproductive capacity of the herd (more deer) which might be perceived as a better outcome for hunting, but it also puts more pressure on the habitat, resulting in higher environmental impact; • Poor age structure in the male component of the herd, resulting in poorer rutting intensity due to the low numbers of mature males competing for breeding females; • Poor rut intensity draws out the rut resulting in a longer fawning period in spring/summer (late born fawns are often smaller and die in their first winter); • Poor stags having an opportunity to pass on large numbers of poor genes due to limited competition for mating rights; and • Reduced trophy potential – since trophy quality is a combination of three critical factors: genetics, age and nutrition.

Given there is strong evidence that deer are having an impact on mountain beech seedling regeneration at many sites across the Blocks (see Section 4.0), changing the current deer management regime should be considered by the Trust. Small but subtle changes could be implemented to manipulate the deer harvest by diverting hunting pressure off males, and especially young males, more onto females. This would both enhance the quality (age) of stags and the intensity of the rut hunting available to hunters, and improve environmental outcomes through reducing the overall impact of the herd on the habitat. Such a change could occur with limited impact on the total overall deer harvest and is more about changing herd structure than herd size.

Such a harvest manipulation would be achieved by prohibiting the harvest of spikers (young males); limiting the harvest of stags to those with hard, forked antlers; restricting the harvest of mature males to a single stag per person per trip; and removing all restrictions from female deer (i.e., no limit on the number of female deer a hunter can take per trip). These moves could be enhanced by producing a hunting information “Fact Sheet” that was provided to all ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 40 of 76

hunters prior to arriving on their allocated block. This would explain the new management regime, what it is trying to achieve, and seek compliance. This hunting management system could be further enhanced by providing information about areas of higher deer impact; the addition of large, high quality and up to date aerial photographs of hunting blocks on hut walls; new landing and camp sites near high impact areas; and additional access tracks where access is otherwise made difficult by vegetation type or terrain.

These changes are likely to be well received by hunters and will increase the value of the hunting experience, and hence the commercial value, on the Blocks. More effective hunting effort by informed hunters, targeting the right sex and age classes of deer, will have significant multiple benefits in terms of both hunting and environmental outcomes that will be evident in as little as three years.

7.2.2.1 Recommendations • New hunting restrictions should be implemented that protect young male deer, limit the harvest of mature male deer and re-focus the hunting effort more on female deer by removing all restrictions on females within the Blocks. • These changes should be communicated with hunters so they understand and support the new approach. • Hunting effort should be guided into areas where beech regeneration is being compromised by deer browse through the use of quality information and improved access opportunities. • Collection of hunting statistics, as part of the permit system, should continue in a manner consistent with the information collected since 1999.

7.2.3 Livestock The Nga Whenua Rahui Kawenata under which the Blocks are managed specifically prohibits the use of the land for grazing livestock. While there is a long history of sheep grazing on the Blocks, it has been many decades since significant numbers of sheep have been grazed there. However, in the late winter of 2007 – during the period approximately late August to late October – a significant cattle trespass occurred. The cattle are thought to have originated from the adjoining Ngamatea Station to the south. This trespass resulted in significant damage to the Taruarau Valley, Golden Hills Bush and beyond into the Owhaoko A Blocks to the north. Pugging, grazing, the increased opportunity for weed establishment and physical damage to low stature vegetation associations and access tracks, are all outcomes that were still obvious during the January and February 2009 field visits. The significant negative effects of this cattle trespass incident have prompted a review of fencing needs as part of this investigation.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 41 of 76

7.3 Stock Fencing

An assessment/survey of fencing requirements was carried out along the common boundary of land parcels Pt. D7B Owhaoko, D3 Owhaoko and Ngamatea Station where cattle trespass has been an issue in the past. There is approximately 16.9 kilometres of common boundary shared by the Trust and Ngamatea Station. Of the total 16.9 kilometres of boundary, 6.95 kilometres was assessed to be at risk from stock trespass. The remaining 9.95 kilometres is inaccessible to stock.

The survey commenced at a point (grid reference NZMS 260 Sheet U20 2779227E 6208431N) deemed inaccessible to stock approximately 850 metres northwest of “Burglars Hut”. The boundary was traversed by foot to the point (grid reference NZMS 260 Sheet U20 2784562E 6206193N, where a 50mm x 50mm length of angle iron, one metre in height, is driven into the ground. This appeared to be the marker for the common boundary between D3 Owhaoko, C1 Owhaoko and Ngamatea Station.

7.3.1 Fencing Conditions The topography on the boundary traversed varied from well drained pumice slopes to poorly drained swampy river terraces. The country rises to undulating hills with reasonably steep gradients and an occasional broad ridge before descending to relatively steep, Greywacke rock littered, ash slopes to terminate at the common boundary point of D3 Owhaoko, C1 Owhaoko and Ngamatea Station. Vegetation comprises of a mixture of kanuka scrubland, red tussock grassland and wet wire rush land.

7.3.2 Options The entire assessed boundary is able to be fenced, some sections more easily than others. There are a number of options available. In considering these options, the Trust will need to consider the purpose of the fence: whether it is to contain stock within a certain area and to exclude stock from other areas; whether it is to define the boundary between the Blocks and neighbouring Ngamatea Station; or a combination of these.

Options include: 1. Erect no fence between the Blocks and Ngamatea Station. 2. Define the boundary with marker posts. 3. Erect a fence on the easiest line close to the surveyed boundary on a “give and take” basis. 4. Erect a fence on the surveyed boundary.

Not to erect a fence at all will put a stricter stock control requirement on Ngamatea Station.

If defining a boundary is the primary purpose of a fence, to reduce instances of inadvertent or intentional trespass by users of adjoining properties, then the boundary could be indicated at regular intervals with appropriate markers, for minimal cost.

To erect any fence over this type of country will require that line/ground preparations be kept to a minimum due to the actions of water, wind and frost heave on bare ground in the fragile erosion prone volcanic (pumice and ash) soils.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 42 of 76

A fence following the line of the surveyed boundary does not necessarily mean that it follows the most practical line for a fence. This option could increase future maintenance costs.

A fence erected as close as practical to the surveyed boundary on a “give and take” basis gives the fencer the freedom to choose the most appropriate line for the fence. While this may result in a slightly longer and, therefore, initially more expensive fence, the final product is not only easier to erect but structurally a great deal stronger, requiring less maintenance and therefore less ongoing costs in the future. For this type of fence to be erected there is the need for agreement between adjoining neighbours on the best line for the fence to be built on.

Under the Fencing Act (1978), a fencing notice can be served by either neighbour on the other describing: the boundary to be fenced, the type of fence, the method of construction, the estimated total cost, how materials are to be purchased or supplied, how these will be paid for, and dates for commencement and completion of the work.

7.3.3 Fence Materials and Specifications The materials and specifications for any fence on the boundary of the Blocks and Ngamatea Station needs to prevent cattle from walking/pushing through. A five wire cattle fence would work well in this location. Given the nature of the country and the history of fire in the area, steel standards could be substituted for posts if the risk of fire was assessed to be significant.

Details of fence materials and their specifications are outlined in Table 6.

7.3.4 Tasks relating to the cost of the various options Line preparation – requires the marking out of the fence line or boundary dependent upon the option taken. There will be a requirement for the contractor(s) to stay on site for a number of nights due to the length of time this task will take.

Line clearance – clear a minimum 1.5 metre wide working area either side of the fence line. This requires the removal of all vegetation on the line over 200mm in height. Scrub- bars/chainsaws could be used to remove vegetation on country too steep for a tractor. On the easier contoured country, use of a tractor with a mounted rotary-slasher or flail-mower could be an option. There will be a requirement for the contractor(s) to stay on site for a number of nights due to the length of time this task will take.

Cost of materials – estimated costs of materials are based on prices as at March 2009.

Transport of materials – includes cartage of required materials to a suitable site to be stockpiled and the flying of materials to smaller stockpiles located strategically at the worksite.

Laying of fence line – involves the laying out of material by hand from the smaller stockpiles.

Erection of fence/boundary markers – an estimate of the contract rate to erect a fence or boundary markers over this type of country given the topography encountered during the survey/assessment. There will be a requirement for the contractor(s) to stay on site for a number of nights due to the length of time this task will take.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 43 of 76

Table 6. Fence Materials and Specifications.

Strainer post type 2.4m medium Angle post type 2.1m medium (only required if fence is built on a “give and take” basis) Stay post type 2.1m Post intervals 2.74m Post type 1.8m No. 1 rounds Number of wires 5 Wire type 3.15mm galvanised, high tensile Footing wire 3.15mm stainless steel Post staple type 50mm x 4mm galvanised, barbed Steel standard type 1.8m “Waratah” Maximum strain length 300 metres Estimated fence length 6960 metres, 7380 metres (dependent upon option taken) Floodgates required Up to 7 (dependent upon option taken)

7.3.5 Comparison of cost for various options

Table 7. DEFINE THE FENCE ON FENCE BUILT ON BOUNDARY WITH SURVEYED “GIVE AND MARKER POSTS BOUNDARY TAKE” BASIS

Line preparation 3,770 2,900 2,900 Line clearance 0 8,960 9,465 Cost of materials 850 30,000 32,000 Transport of materials 4,500 17,200 17,500 Laying of fence line 0 13,920 15,360 Erection of fence/boundary 2,030 39,262 39,741 markers TOTAL COST $11,150 $112,242 $116,966

The maps and cost details of recommended fence lines for the various fencing options are attached in Appendix 5.

7.3.6 Recommendations • The recommended option for fencing between the Blocks and Ngamatea Station is the marking of the boundary with easily discernible/visible markers at regular intervals. This will require a good dialogue to be opened and maintained with Ngamatea management to ensure stock are not grazed in the northern reaches of the station which would reduce the risk of stock trespass. It will also make it easier for clients of both neighbours to identify the boundary and thereby reduce trespass by clients. • If the option above is found to be untenable, it is recommended that fencing the boundary on a "give and take" basis be undertaken to prevent stock access up the Taruarau River Valley. This alignment would reduce the number of floodgates required across some of the smaller streams crossing the boundary. The fence would be built on a 50/50 cost share basis between Ngamatea Station and the Trust. • If none of the above options are negotiable, the third and last option is to erect a fence on the surveyed boundary. This fence would be built on a 50/50 cost basis between Ngamatea Station and the Trust. ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 44 of 76

8.0 References

Allen R. & Allan C. 1997. Mountain beech forest dynamics in the Kaweka Range and the influence of browsing animals. Science for Conservation: 44. Department of Conservation. Wellington, N.Z. de Lange, P.J. et.al. 2004. Threatened and uncommon plants of New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Botany, Vol. 42: 45−76.

Davidson, M.M. 1979. Movement of marked sika and red deer in central North Island, New Zealand. NZ Journal of Forestry Science 9:77-88.

Davidson, M.M., Fraser, K.W. 1991. Official hunting patterns, and trends in the proportions of sika and red deer in the Kaweka Range, New Zealand, 1958-1988. NZ Journal of Ecology 15: 31-40.

Department of Conservation. 2006. Kaweka Mountain Beech Liaison Group Report. Department of Conservation, Napier.

Duncan, R., Ruscoe, W., Richardson, S. & Allen, R. 2006. Consequences of deer control for Kaweka mountain beech forest dynamics. Landcare Research Contract Report: LC0607/021. Lincoln, N.Z.

Elder, N.L. 1962. Vegetation of the Kaimanawa Ranges. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Vol.2:1.

Fraser, K.W. 1991. Comparison of sika and red deer diets in the central North Island. NZ Wildlife 12(96) 39-40.

Fraser, K.W. 1996. Comparative rumen morphology of sympatric sika and red deer in the Ahimanawa and Kaweka Ranges, central North Island, New Zealand. Oecologia 105: 160- 166.

Hitchmough, R. 2005. Threat Classification System for New Zealand Fauna. Department of Conservation. Wellington.

Hofmann, R.R. 1989. Evolutionary steps of ecophysiological adaptation and diversification of ruminants: a comparative view of their digestive systems. Oecologia 78: 443-457.

Husheer, S.W., Coomes, D.A. & Robertson, A.W. 2003. Long−term influences of introduced deer on the composition and structure of New Zealand Nothofagus forests. Forest Ecology and Management: 181, 99−117.

Husheer, S.W., Allen, R.B. & Robertson, A.W. 2006. Suppression of Regeneration in New Zealand Mountain Beech Forests is Dependent on Species of Introduced Deer. Biological Invasions: 8(4), 823−834.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 45 of 76

Joy, M. K., Henderson, I. M. & Death, R. G. 2000. Diadromy and longitudinal patterns of upstream penetration of freshwater fish in Taranaki. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 34:531-543. New Zealand.

McDowall, R. M. 1996. Volcanism and freshwater fish biogeography in the northeastern North Island of New Zealand. Journal of Biogeography 23:139-148.

McDowall, R. M. 2006. Crying wolf, crying foul, or crying shame: alien salmonids and a biodiversity crisis in the southern cool-temperate galaxioid fishes? Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 16:233-422.

Pracy, L.T. 1974. Introduction and liberation of the opossum (Trichosurus vulpecula) into New Zealand. Information Series, 45. NZ Forest Service. Wellington.

Riseborough, Hazel. 2006. Ngamatea, The Land and the People. Auckland University Press.

Rogers G.M. 1994. North Island seral tussock grasslands 1. Origins and land use history. New Zealand Journal of Botany 32 271-286.

Speedy, C. 2004. Hatepe Trial – Comparison of ground and aerial Tb vector control methods. Epro Ltd, Taupo. Contract Research Report to the Animal Health Board.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 46 of 76

9.0 Appendices

Appendix 1: Maps

Map 1 - Block Boundary Map

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 47 of 76

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 48 of 76

Map 2 - Vegetation Map

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 49 of 76

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 50 of 76

Map 3 - Mountain Beech Transects

Transect 1 = Bishops Bush; Transect 2 = Otutu top; Transect 3 = Otutu saddle; Transect 4 = Otutu Ridge; Transect 5 = Waingakia deer lawn; Transect 6 = Waingakia pole stand; Transect 7 = Golden Hills edge; Transect 8 = Golden Hills hut.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 51 of 76

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 52 of 76

Appendix 2: Species Lists

Plant Species of the Owhaoko B&D Blocks, Kaimanawa Ranges

This plant species list in a compilation of three separate species lists for relatively distinct habitat types:

i.) sub−alpine tussock grassland and scrub below the tree line along the Taruarau River; ii.) mountain beech forest; and iii.) Alpine areas of tussock grassland and herbfields.

This list was compiled by Nicholas Singers from field work that occurred between 14th − 18th January 2009.

Several species were vouchered for identification purposes to the national herbarium at Landcare Research, Lincoln and are indicated by CHR followed by their individual voucher number.

Abundance Key

Species abundance was quantified subjectively using the following abundance key. r = rare u = uncommon l = local o = occasional c = common, also lc = locally common a = abundant, also la = locally abundant p = present

* = exotic/adventive species

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 53 of 76

Distribution within Scientific Name Common Name habitat types Taruarau Beech Alpine Gymnosperm Trees and Shrubs Halocarpus bidwillii mountain pine, bog pine u Lepidothamnus laxifolius pigmy pine a *Pinus contorta Lodge-pole fir r o u Phyllocladus alpinus celery-top pine c o Podocarpus hallii Hall’s totara r Podocarpus nivalis montain totara a Podocarpus hallii x nivalis p

Monocot Trees Cordyline indivisa mountatin cabbage tree u

Dicot Trees and Shrubs Aristotelia fruticosa mountain wineberry r o Aristotelia serrata wineberry, makomako Brachyglottis bidwillii u *Calluna vulgaris heather, ling r Carmichaelia australis NZ broom u Carmichaelia nana r Carpodetus serratus marble leaf, putaputaweta o Coprosma acerosa var. brunnea pepperwood, sand coprosma r Coprosma cheesemaii u o Coprosma aff. cheesemanii p Coprosma depressa p Coprosma foetidissima stinkwood c Coprosma lineariifolia yellow wood, mikimiki c Coprosma microcarpa small seeded coprosma u la Coprosma perpusilla c Coprosma petriei turfy coprosma u Coprosma propinqua subsp. propinqua mingimingi r Coprosma propinqua x robusta u Coprosma pseudocuneata o Coprosma rigida Coprosma robusta karamu, glossy karamu r Coprosma rugosa l Coprosma tayloriae divaricating coprosma a Coprosma tenuifolia wavy-leaved karamu r Coriaria arborea tree tutu Coriaria kingiana l Coriaria plumosa feathery tutu, mountain tutu l Coriaria pteridoides small-leaved tutu

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 54 of 76

Distribution within Scientific Name Common Name habitat types Taruarau Beech Alpine Cyathodes empetrifolia bog mingimingi l Cyathodes juniperina prickly mingimingi o Dracophyllum recurvum curved leaved neinei a Dracophyllum strictum Dracophylum subulatum monoao a Epacris alpina a Fuchsia excorticata tree fuchsia, kotukutuku r Gaultheria colensoi mountain snowberry o Gaultheria depressa u o Gaultheria macrostigma prostrate snowberry o p Griselinia littoralis broadleaf, papauma c Hebe colensoi (CHR 603256) r Hebe odora Hebe stricta var. stricta koromiko l Hebe stricta var. lata shining koromiko u Hebe tetragona whipcord hebe c Hebe venustula u a Kunzea ericoides kanuka, white tea tree a o Leptospermum scoparium manuka, red tea tree a Leucopogon colensoi o Leucopogon fasciculatus tall mingimingi Leucopogon fraseri dwarf mingimingi, patotara a Myrsine divaricata weeping mapou / matipo a Myrsine nummularia creeping mapou / matipo p Nothofagus fusca red beech la Nothofagus solandri var. cliffortioides mountain beech a Nothofagus solandri var. solandri black beech Olearia arborescens common / glossy tree daisy Olearia furfuracea p Olearia virgata twiggy tree daisy lc Ozothamnus leptophyllus a Pentachondra pumila o Peraxilla tetrapetala scarlet mistletoe u Pimelea prostrata NZ daphne, Strathmore weed a Pittosporum tenuifolium var. colensoi kohuhu r Pseudopanax colensoi orihou r Pseudopanax crassifolius lancewood, horoeka r Raukaua anomalus u Raukaua simplex three-finger c

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 55 of 76

Distribution within Scientific Name Common Name habitat types Taruarau Beech Alpine

Dicot liannes Clematis paniculata white clematis r Clematis quadribracteolata o Muehlenbeckia australis Pohuehue u Muehlenbeckia axillaris creeping pohuehue o Rubus cissoides bush lawyer c Rubus schmidelioides white-leaved lawyer lc

Fern allies Lycopodium fastigiatum alpine / mountain clubmoss o o Lycopodium scariosum creeping clubmoss p

Ferns Asplenium hookerianum Hooker’s spleenwort u Asplenium flaccidum hanging spleenwort o Asplenium terrestre u Blechnum fluviatile kiwakiwa c Blechnum montanum mountain kiokio r Blechnum nigrum r Blechnum novae-zelandiae kiokio u Blechnum pennamarina o Blechnum procerum small kiokio c Gleichenia dicarpa tangle fern o Grammitis billardierii c Histiopteris incisa water fern, mata c Hymenophyllum multifidum filmy fern o Hymenophyllum sanguinolentum o Hypolepis millefolium thousand-leaved fern c Leptopteris superba Prince of Wales Feathers r Lindsaea trichomanoides Microsorum pustulatum hounds tongue, kowaowao r Polystichum vestitum prickly shield fern c Pteridium esculentum bracken, rahurahu u Sticherus cunninghamii umbrella fern Lc

Orchids Caladenia chlorostylis c Chiloglottis cornuta green bird orchid c Corybas oblongus l ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 56 of 76

Distribution within Scientific Name Common Name habitat types Taruarau Beech Alpine Corybas orbiculatus o Corybas trilobus c Earina mucronata bamboo orchid p Gastrodia sesamoides Potato orchid p Gastrodia cunninghamii black orchid p Microtis unifolia onion orchid o Microtis oligantha onion orchid Prasophyllum colensoi leek orchid u c Pterostylis humilis r Pterostylis montana broad-leaved elf's hood p Pterostylis aff. montana Pterostylis patens tutukiwi c Thelymitra cyanea short-leaved thelymitra u Thelymitra hatchii Hatch’s sun orchid p p Thelymitra longifolia long-leaved thelymitra o Thelymitra “Whakapapa” Ruapehu sun orchid o

Grasses Agrostis stolonifera l * Agrostis capillaris brown top, bent grass c * Aira caryophyllea silvery hair grass u * Aira praecox early hair grass * Anthoxanthum odoratum sweet vernal a Chinochloa pallens la Chinochloa rubra red tussock a a Cortaderia fulvida toetoe lc Deyeuxia avenoides mountain oat grass o o Dichelachne crinata long-hair plume grass u Elymus solandri blue wheatgrass o Festuca novae−zelandiae hard tussock a * Festuca rubra subsp. communtata chewings fescue c * Festuca rubra subsp. rubra red fescue o Hierocloe recurvata holy grass p Hierocloe redolens holy grass, karetu *Holcus lanatus Yorkshire fog lc Lachnagrostis striata p *Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass r Microlaena stipoides meadow / slender rice grass p Poa anceps broad-leaved poa lc *Poa annua annual poa p Poa breviglumis a Poa cita silver tussock u ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 57 of 76

Distribution within Scientific Name Common Name habitat types Taruarau Beech Alpine Poa colensoi blue tussock c Poa imbecilla weak poa Poa novae-zelandiae drooping poa u * Poa pratensis Kentucky bluegrass o Rytidosperma clavatum (CHR603257) o Rytidosperma gracile l Rytidosperma setifolium bristle tussock c a Stenostachys gracilis (CHR 603251) p p

Sedges and rushes Carex astonii (CHR603266) p Carex breviculmus o Carex comans u Carex coriaceae cutty grass, rautahi la Carex dipsacea (CHR603264,603264) l Carex dissita u Carex echinata starsedge l *Carex ovalis (CHR 603256) u Carex secta niggerhead, pukio,makura l Carex solandri u Carex tahoata u Carex testacea (CHR603250) p Carpha alpina l Centrolepis ciliata u Eleocharis acuta sharp spike sedge l Eleocharis gracilis l Empodisma minus wire rush la Isolepis crassiuscula l Isolepis subtilissima (CHR 603254) o *Juncus articulatus u *Juncus effusus u Juncus gregiflorus leafless rush p Juncus novae−zelandiae dwarf rush l Lepidosperma australe square sedge o Luzula banksiana coastal woodrush Luzula picta var. picta (CHR 603261) p Oreobolus pectinatus comb sedge, cushion sedge o Schoenus pauciflorus bog rush, sedge tussock l c Uncinia clavata u Uncinia fuscovaginata p Uncinia rubra o p ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 58 of 76

Distribution within Scientific Name Common Name habitat types Taruarau Beech Alpine Uncinia rupestris (CHR 603259) o

Monocot herbs other than grasses, sedges, rushes Astelia aff. nervosa mountain astelia u Bulbinella hookeri Maori onion u Herpolirion novae-zelandiae grasslily, skylily, creeping lily c Lilaeopsis ruthiana p Phormium cookianum mountain flax, wharariki l Potamogeton suboblongus mud pondweed, rerewai l

Composite herbs *Achillea millefolium yarrow u Anaphalioides bellidioides Hell’s bells p Anaphalioides trinervis l Brachyglottis lagopus yellow rock daisy p Brachycome sinclarii u Celmisia glandulosa downy daisy u o Celmisia gracilenta mountain daisy, pekepeka o o Celmisia spectabilis common mountain daisy o a *Cirsium arvense Californian thistle u *Cirsium palustre marsh thistle lc *Cirsium vulgare Scotch thistle u Craspedia uniflora “wetland” woolly head u Craspedia uniflora “stream banks” woollyhead l Euchiton collinus (CHR603259) u Euchiton delicatus creeping cudweed l Euchiton limosus u Euchiton paludosus Euchiton ruahinicus creeping cudweed u Euchiton sphaericus r *Gnaphalium coarctatum purple cudweed l Helichrysum filicaule p *Hieracium pilosella mouse-eared hawkweed a o *Hypochoeris radicata catsear c o Lagenifera cuneata slender N Z daisy p Lagenifera pinnatifida c Lagenifera pumila papataniwhaniwha o Lagenifera strangulata parani c Leptinella squalida fern-leaf pincushion p

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 59 of 76

Distribution within Scientific Name Common Name habitat types Taruarau Beech Alpine *Leucathemum vulgare oxeye daisy u Microseris scapigera Yam daisy u p *Mycelis muralis wall lettuce o Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum Jersey cudweed p Raoulia albosericea Volcanic Plateau raoulia o Raoulia australis golden scabweed l Raoulia grandiflora large-flowered mat daisy p Raoulia tenuicaulis mat daisy, tutahuna c Senecio glaucophyllus r *Senecio jacobaea ragwort, Saint Jame's wort o *Sonchus asper prickly sowthistle u Taraxacum magellanicum native dandelion u *Taraxacum officinale dandelion u Vittadinia australis white fuzz weed c

Dicot herbs (other than composites) *Acaena agnifera o Acaena anserinifolia bidibid, piripiri, hutiwai u c Acaena emittens o Acaena inermis mountain bidibi u Acaena microphylla scarlet bidibid u Acaena novae-zelandiae red bidibid o Aciphylla squarrosa speargrass, karamea o Anisotome aromatica native carrot, aniseed, kopoti a *Callitriche stagnalis starwort l Cardamine debilis agg. NZ bittercress, panapana p *Centaurium erythraea centaury r Drosera arcturi alpine sundew u Drosera binata forked sundew, scented sundew lc p Drosera spathula l Epilobium alsinioides o Epilobium brunnescens creeping willowherb l Epilobium glabellum glossy willowherb p Epilobium microphyllum u Epilobium macropus p Epilobium nerterioides p Epilobium pedunculare long-stalked willowherb p Epilobium pubens Epilobium pychnostachyum scree epilobium p Epilobium rotundifolium round-leaved willowherb Euphrasia cuneata North Island eyebright o a ______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 60 of 76

Distribution within Scientific Name Common Name habitat types Taruarau Beech Alpine Euphrasia zelandica lesser NZ eyebright l Forstera bidwillii leafy forstera p Gentiana bellidifolia mountain / common NZ gentian c marsh gentian, small NZ Gentianella grisebachii gentian u Geranium microphyllum small-leaved cranesbill o Geranium potentilloides var. potentilliodes o Geranium sessiliflorum short-flowered cranesbill o c Gonocarpus aggregatus u Gonocarpus micranthus u Gunnera dentata l Hydrocotyle heteromeria waxweed pennywort p Hydrocotyle moschata hairy pennywort a Hydrocotyle novaezelandiae u Hydrocotyle sulcata pennyworth l Hypericum japonicum matted Saint John's wort u Kelleria dieffenbachii NZ thyme p Leptostigma setulosa p p *Linum catharticum purging / fairy flax o *Lotus pedunculatus lotus Mentha cunninghamii (CHR 603263) native mint r Montia campylostigma p Montia fontana blinks Myosotis forsteri forget−me−not p Myosostis sp. very small (CHR 603262) forget−me−not r *Myosotis laxa water forget-me-not l Nertera villosa p Oreomyrrhis colensoi mountain myrrh *Ornithopus perpusillus wild seradella Ourisia caespitosa Ourisia macrophylla mountain foxglove Ourisia vulcanica matted ourisia p Oxalis exilis creeping / yellow oxalis p Oxalis magellanica white oxalis, tutae-kahu a Parahebe lanceolata l Plantago lanigera l Plantago unifolia l Pratia angulata panakenake l *Prunella vulgaris selfheal l Ranunculus amphitrichus swamp buttercup o Ranunculus glabrifolius swamp buttercup l

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 61 of 76

Distribution within Scientific Name Common Name habitat types Taruarau Beech Alpine Ranunculus multicapus common tussock buttercup Ranunculus nivicola mountain buttercup p Ranunculus reflexus bush / hairy buttercup, maruru l p *Ranunculus repens creeping buttercup, crowfoot * Rumex acetosella sheep's sorrel u *Sagina procumbens pearlwort u Schizeilema trifoliolatum a Scleranthus uniflorus r Selleria microphylla selliera, remuremu la Stellaria gracilenta slender chickweed *Stellaria media chickweed Stellaria parviflora NZ chickweed u *Trifolium dubium suckling clover *Trifolium repens white clover l Urtica incisa bush / scrub nettle c Utricularia dichotoma bladderworth *Verbascum Thapsus great / woolly mullein r *Veronica serpyllifolia Turf speedwell r Viola cunninghamii mountain / white violet u Viola filicaulis forest violet c Wahlenbergia pygmaea maori bluebell c a

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 62 of 76

Animal Species

Scientific Name Common Name Birds (indigenous) Acanthisitta chloris rifleman Anas superciliosa grey duck Anthornis melanura bellbird Anthus novaeseelandiae pipit Bowdleria punctata vealeae fernbird Circus approximans harrier hawk Cyanoramphus auriceps kakariki Eudynamys taitensis long-tailed cuckoo Falco novaeseelandiae falcon Gerygone igata grey warbler Hemiphaga novaeseelandiae kereru Hirundo tahitica welcome swallow Mohoua albicilla whitehead Nestor meridionalis kaka Ninox novaeseelandiae ruru Petroica macrocephala tomtit Phalacrocorax carbo black shag Prosthemadera novaeseelandiae tui Rhipidura fuliginosa fantail Tadorna variegata paradise shelduck Zosterops lateralis silvereye

Birds (introduced) Acanthis flammea redpoll Branta canadensis Canada geese Emberiza citronella yellowhammer Fringilla coelebs chaffinch Gymnorhina tibicen magpie Lobibyx novaehollandiae spur winged plover Phasianus colchicus ring necked pheasant Prunella modularis hedge sparrow Turdus merula black bird

Skink species (possibly present) Oligosoma infrapunctatum speckled skink Oligosoma microlepis small-scaled skink Oligosoma nigriplantare ploychroma common skink Oligosoma zealandicum brown skink

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 63 of 76

Scientific Name Common Name

Fish Anguilla dieffenbachii longfin eel Oncorhynchus mykiss rainbow trout Salmo trutta brown trout (reported but not confirmed)

Mammals Cervus elephus scoticus red deer Cervus nippon sika deer Erinaceus europaeus occidentalis hedgehog Felis catus feral cat Lepus europaeus occidentalis European hare Mus musculus mouse Mustela erminea stoat Mustela furo ferret Mustela nivalis vulgaris weasel Oryctolagus cuniculus cuniculus rabbit Rattus norvegicus Norway rat Rattus rattus ship rats Trichosaurus vulpecula brush tailed possum

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 64 of 76

Appendix 3: Eel Otolith Information

Sagittal otoliths are a pair of small, calcareous, spherical or approximately spherical structures that grow by accruing layers. They allow fish to be aged in the same way that trees can be aged by counting growth rings.

They are dissected out from the rear portion of the skull cavity – ease of location varies with species but they are quite distinctive in shape and will be easily recognised once found as they are not connected to any other bone but rather sit inside a cavity surrounded by soft tissue and cranial fluid.

A pair of eel otoliths should be stored in an airtight container, together with notes on length and any other information that the collector may feel to be of interest.

Annual collection of the date should be arranged.

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 65 of 76

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 66 of 76

Appendix 4: Deer Harvest Data (1999 to 2007)

Month/Year Adult Stags Adult Hinds Yearling Stags Yearling Hinds Total Harvest

1999 January 0 4 2 2 8 February 4 5 1 1 11 March 1 11 0 3 15 April 23 15 1 0 39 May 6 3 22 2 33 June 2 1 2 1 6 July 0 0 1 0 1 August 0 3 1 0 4 September 0 3 3 1 7 October 1 2 1 3 7 November 3 17 14 3 37 December 2 6 3 2 13 Total 42 70 51 18 181 2000 January 1 3 5 2 11 February 5 10 11 3 29 March 6 6 9 6 27 April 16 10 7 4 37 May 0 2 1 1 4 June 0 0 0 0 0 July 0 2 0 1 3 August 0 1 0 1 2 September 0 2 0 0 2 October 1 3 2 0 6 November 1 11 3 6 21 December 3 1 4 1 9 Total 33 51 42 25 151 2001 January 0 6 4 4 14 February 1 12 3 3 19 March 3 5 14 2 24 April 12 5 6 3 26 May 5 7 4 0 16 June 1 2 1 3 7 July 1 0 1 0 2 August 0 0 0 0 0 September 0 0 0 0 0 October 1 7 5 4 17 November 6 22 8 2 33 December 4 19 3 4 30 Total 34 85 49 25 188

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 67 of 76

Month/Year Adult Stags Adult Hinds Yearling Stags Yearling Hinds Total Harvest

2002 January 0 3 1 2 6 February 2 4 3 8 17 March 6 10 3 3 22 April 17 11 5 2 35 May 2 2 0 0 4 June 0 0 0 0 0 July 0 0 0 0 0 August 0 0 0 0 0 September 2 1 0 0 3 October 0 0 5 2 7 November 6 9 11 5 31 December 3 10 5 1 19 Total 38 50 33 23 144 2003 January 0 2 5 0 7 February 6 2 1 4 13 March 5 12 4 1 22 April 6 6 2 1 15 May 4 4 2 0 10 June 1 1 1 0 3 July 2 2 0 0 4 August 1 1 0 0 2 September 0 0 1 0 1 October 2 2 0 1 5 November 2 14 7 3 26 December 9 9 4 0 22 Total 38 55 27 10 130 2004 January 4 4 1 0 9 February 5 0 0 0 5 March 7 9 0 1 17 April 16 4 9 0 29 May 3 1 2 0 6 June 0 2 0 0 2 July 0 0 0 0 0 August 1 3 1 0 5 September 0 0 0 0 0 October 0 1 1 0 2 November 0 2 4 2 8 December 2 7 6 1 16 Total 38 33 24 4 99

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 68 of 76

Month/Year Adult Stags Adult Hinds Yearling Stags Yearling Hinds Total Harvest

2005 January 0 1 2 1 4 February 4 3 5 1 13 March 6 6 5 0 17 April 13 6 3 2 24 May 4 4 0 0 8 June 0 0 0 1 1 July 1 0 2 2 5 August 1 1 0 0 2 September 0 1 2 1 4 October 2 2 3 3 10 November 1 10 7 4 22 December 3 9 10 4 26 Total 35 43 39 19 136 2006 January 2 2 2 0 6 February 5 5 4 2 16 March 8 7 10 3 28 April 12 6 8 4 30 May 3 1 1 0 5 June 0 0 0 0 0 July 0 0 0 0 0 August 0 0 0 0 0 September 4 0 1 0 5 October 2 2 0 0 4 November 2 6 1 1 10 December 6 15 7 1 29 Total 44 44 34 11 133 2007 January 8 6 1 0 15 February 7 9 13 0 29 March 14 6 1 1 22 April 24 4 13 0 41 May 2 1 2 2 7 June 1 0 0 1 2 July 0 0 0 0 0 August 0 0 0 0 0 September 5 1 4 0 10 October 1 4 1 0 6 November 4 9 1 2 16 December 1 7 6 1 15 Total 67 47 42 7 163

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 69 of 76

Appendix 5: Maps and Cost Details of various fencing options

PREFERRED OPTION – DEFINE THE BOUNDARY WITH MARKER POSTS

Section of 10.05km boundary that could be indicated by suitable markers

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 70 of 76

LINE PREPARATION (10.05km boundary) - survey/mark out line prior to vegetation clearance and erection 13 person days @ $240/day (person day is 8 productive hrs) 3,120 13 days accommodation allowance @ $50/day 650 3,770 LINE CLEARANCE 0 COST OF MATERIALS (10.05km) 850 TRANSPORT OF MATERIALS Road/ ground transport to landing zone 500 1hr required to lift approximately 700kg of material onto fence line 1 hr 4,000 helicopter ferry to site, helicopter @ $2000/hr 4,500 ERECTION OF BOUNDARY MARKERS (from the top of Tawake Tohunga watershed ridge to corner of Owhaoko D1, Owhaoko C1 and Ngamatea Station – 10054 metres, with a marker at 100 metres intervals.) 7 person days @ $240/day (person day is 8 productive hrs) 1,680 7 days accommodation allowance @ $50/day 350 2,030

TOTAL COST 11,150

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 71 of 76

SECOND PREFERENCE OPTION – FENCE BUILT ON “GIVE AND TAKE” BASIS

Section 7.38 km of boundary that could be fenced on a “give and take” basis to prevent stock trespass

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 72 of 76

LINE PREPARATION (7.38km boundary) - survey/mark out line prior to vegetation clearance and erection 10 person days @ $240/day (person day is 8 productive hrs) 2,400 10 days accommodation allowance @ $50/day 500 2,900 LINE CLEARANCE (7.38km boundary) - a person clears 250 metres of line to prescribed standard per day 29.5 person days at $270/day 7,965 30 days accommodation allowance @ $50/day 1,500 9,465 COST OF MATERIALS (7.38km) 32,000 TRANSPORT OF MATERIALS Road/ ground transport to landing zone 5,000 5.25hrs required to lift approximately 31,904 kg of material onto fence line 1 12,500 hr helicopter ferry to site, helicopter @ $2000/hr 17,500 LAYING OF FENCE LINE (7.38km) Lay material on fence line @ $2.00/m 14,760 12 days accommodation allowance @ $50/day 600 15,360 ERECTION OF FENCE Contour and digging conditions of fence line (undulating/easy – 57%; hill/easy – 34%; hill/alluvial – 9%) Approximately 1104 hrs to erect fence @ $4.45/m 32,841 138 days accommodation allowance @ $50/day 6,900 39,741

TOTAL COST 116,966

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 73 of 76

THIRD PREFERENCE OPTION – FENCE BUILT ON SURVEYED BOUNDARY

Section 6.96 km of boundary that could be fenced to prevent stock trespass

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 74 of 76

LINE PREPARATION (6.96km boundary) - survey/mark out line prior to vegetation clearance and erection 10 person days @ $240/day (person day is 8 productive hrs) 2,400 10 days accommodation allowance @ $50/day 500 2,900 LINE CLEARANCE (6.96km boundary) - a person clears 250 metres of line to prescribed standard per day 28 person days at $270/day 7,560 28 days accommodation allowance @ $50/day 1,400 8,960 COST OF MATERIALS (6.96km) 30,000 TRANSPORT OF MATERIALS Road/ ground transport to landing zone 5,000 5.1hrs required to lift approximately 30,944 kg of material onto fence line 1 hr 12,200 helicopter ferry to site, helicopter @ $2000/hr 17,200 LAYING OF FENCE LINE (6.96km) Lay material on fence line @ $2.00/m 13,920 10 days accommodation allowance @ $50/day 500 13,920 ERECTION OF FENCE Contour and digging conditions of fence line (flat/alluvial, swamp – 2%; undulating/easy – 54%; hill/easy – 24%; hill/alluvial – 20%) Approximately 1000 hrs to erect fence @ $4.70/m 32,712 131 days accommodation allowance @ $50/day 6,550 39,262

TOTAL COST 112,242

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 75 of 76

______Ecological Assessment & Recommended Conservation Management Strategies – Owhaoko B&D Blocks Wildlife Management Associates – May 2009 Page 76 of 76