Waihi North Project: Assessment of Terrestrial Ecological Values & Effects 62138 WNP AEE 12 with Clause 3.9 (4)(c) and Appendix 2 of the proposed National Policy Statement for Indigenous Biodiversity, which provides that a Significant Natural Area should not be managed as such on the basis of the threat of myrtle rust to kānuka and mānuka alone. 3.3 FAUNA 3.3.1 Frogs Desktop investigations involved a review of the Department of Conservation’s Amphibian and Reptile Distribution Scheme (ARDS) database (accessed February 2019), as well as an analysis of aerial and topographic imagery for the presence of first and second order streams, where potential habitat for Hochstetter’s frog (Leiopelma hochstetteri) is most likely. Hochstetter’s frog surveys were undertaken within shaded, hard-bottom or stony streams or cascades. These features can provide suitable habitat for frogs because small, interstitial spaces provided by crevices and rock clusters are free of sediment. Streams where potential habitat was present were surveyed for frog presence. All frog habitat assessments and searches were undertaken by Chris Wedding (Wildlife Authority 37604-FAU). All footwear and equipment were scrubbed with a stiff brush and sprayed using Trigene prior to survey. Stream searches of two watercourses within the southern SNA fragment (Figure 3) were undertaken on 5 and 6 March 2019 to determine suitability of potential habitat and the presence of frogs. The searches were undertaken during warm and dry weather, when frogs are considered to be more reliably found at close proximity to stream edges within their habitat. Suitable potential habitat for Hochstetter’s frogs was considered to be first and second order stony stream banks under a mature forest canopy, with occasional small pools or waterfalls and a gently sloping bank. Such streams are less prone to flooding than larger streams and have plenty of searchable habitat. Marginal potential habitats were also searched, where they were considered to provide some of the attributes of suitable potential habitat, although searchable areas were patchy. Searches were undertaken during the day, between 1000 and 1500 hours. Searches involved moving slowly upstream watercourses A and B (Figure 3) with a headlamp to increase visibility of search areas. All potential refuges were examined by carefully lifting stones, logs and leaf litter along both stream banks, up to one metre from the water’s edge. Overhanging vegetation and rock crevices were also examined under torch light. All lifted substrates were replaced in their original position. A total of four-person search hours were undertaken within watercourse B (approximately 350 m) on 5 March 2019, and three-person search hours of watercourse A (approximately 200 m) on 6 March 2019.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjE2NDg3