Some issues were encountered with the 2006 stratification. This was due to the presence of tuatua in very high abundances at much higher tidal heights than considered ‘normal’, resulting in the misinterpretation of beach areas with siphon holes as toheroa beds, together with some unexpected misidentification problems between juvenile toheroa and juvenile tuatua, in the initial stratification survey. While these issues were rectified in the main survey through careful use of identification guides and diagnostics, it meant that the initial stratification of the beach based on the density of siphon holes was not optimal. We suspect that the siphon holes observed in the 2006 stratification survey were those of tuatua not toheroa. Given the low abundance of toheroa on the beach, the effects of this sub-optimal stratification were unlikely to have significantly impacted on the final conclusions, but probably resulted in some inflation of the c.v.