supplementary ecology report - waikato...1503 supplementary ecology report.doc 2 mussels reproduce...

M a y 2 0 1 8

P r e p a r e d b y S . W h i t e , P a c i f i c C o a s t a l E c o l o g y

w w w . p a c i f i c e c o l o g y . c o . n z

ProposedMusselSpatCatchingFacility

SupplementaryEcologyReportOhinauMarineFarms

08Fall

1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc

ii


iii

TableofContentsEXECUTIVESUMMARY..................................................................................................................................V

1 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................11.1 SPATCATCHING.......................................................................................................................................................11.2 PROPOSAL.................................................................................................................................................................4

2 BENTHICHABITAT.................................................................................................................................62.1 SEABEDSURVEY......................................................................................................................................................62.2 BENTHICBIOTA....................................................................................................................................................11

3 SEABIRDINTERACTIONS...................................................................................................................153.1 SEABIRDSPECIES.................................................................................................................................................183.2 MANAGEMENTOFSEABIRDINTERACTIONS...................................................................................................21

4 MARINEMAMMALINTERACTIONS.................................................................................................254.1 MARINEMAMMALSPECIES................................................................................................................................264.2 MANAGEMENTOFMARINEMAMMALINTERACTIONS..................................................................................32

5 FISHERIES...............................................................................................................................................36

6 BIOSECURITY.........................................................................................................................................40

7 WATERCOLUMNEFFECTS................................................................................................................45

8 DISCUSSION............................................................................................................................................48

9 REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................51

10 BENTHICBIOLOGICALDATA.........................................................................................................65


iv


v

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

Thisreportsupplementsandsupportsanoriginalreportontheecologicalimpactsofa

proposed mussel spat catching facility within Mercury Bay, near Whitianga. The

locationandoperationof theproposedmusselspatcatchingfacilityaredescribedand

presented along with an examination of the seabed environment and biological

communitiesintheimmediatevicinity.Thepotentialeffectsoftheproposalonseabirds

andmarinemammals are discussed including the potential for habitat exclusion and

entanglementeffects.

AnassessmentofthecommercialandrecreationalfishingeffortwithinMercuryBayis

presentedandtheimplicationsoftheproposalanditseffectsonfishingintheareaare

discussed. The biosecurity risks associated with the proposal are presented and

discussedalongwith suggestions foraBiosecurityManagementPlan tomanage those

risks. Thewater columneffects of theproposal are presented anddiscussedwith an

assessmentofthelikelyoveralleffectsbasedoncurrentresearchandmonitoringresults

fromintensivemusselfarmingoperations.

Thelocationandthetypeandscaleofoperationsforthisproposedmusselspatcatching

farm appear to provide for the avoidance orminimisation of these potential adverse

effects.Anyadverseeffectsonseabirdsarelikelytobelessthanminorandthereisthe

potentialformildpositiveeffectsintermsofroostingsitesandforpiscivorousseabirds.

Adverse effects onmarine mammals are unlikely and the potential for entanglement

issuesforbothseabirdsandmarinemammalsisextremelylow.

The likely effects on commercial and recreational fishing in the area areminimal and

anypotentialbiosecurityeffectscanbeadequatelyaddressedthroughthe formulation

andoperationofaBiosecurityManagementPlan.Anywatercolumneffectsthatmight

arisefromtheproposalarelikelytobeimpossibletomeasureinthefield.


vi


1

1 INTRODUCTION

OhinauMarineFarms,whichisajointventurebetweenMrPeterBullandMrJoeDavis

representingNgatiHei(together‘theapplicant’),havemadeanapplicationforresource

consentforamusselspatcatchingfacilityatWhauwhau,Whitianga.Atechnicalreport

presenting the results of an investigation into the ecological implications of this

applicationandananalysisoftheeffectsthatarelikelytoresultfromtheproposalwas

prepared inFebruary2016(White,2016). Thisreport isdesignedtosupplementand

support that original technical report by expanding upon some of the analysis and

discussion,andbypresentinganddiscussingfurtherinformationtoclarifytheexpected

effectsoftheproposalshouldresourceconsentsbegranted.

1.1 SpatCatching

“Spat” is the term applied to larval and juvenile forms of, in this case, New Zealand

greenshellmussel (Perna canaliculus). P. canaliculus is a native New Zealand species

thatoccursaroundthecoastlineofmainlandNewZealand.P.canaliculusmostlyoccurs

belowthe intertidalzonebutcanoccasionallybe found intertidally. P.canaliculus isa

filterfeeding,bivalvemolluscthatfeedsonplanktonicorganismsbyfilteringthemfrom

the seawater it pumps through its respiratory and feeding systems. P. canaliculus

reproduces by broadcast spawning sperm and eggs into thewater columnwhere the

eggsarefertilisedanddevelopintomicroscopic,free-swimming,planktoniclarvaethat

drift through the coastal currents until they find a suitable substratum to attach to,

transformintoasessilephaseanddevelopintomussels.

TheNewZealandmussel aquaculture industry reliesona sourceof larvae,or spat, to

providethestockthatisthenon-grownorcultivatedtoacommerciallyharvestablesize.

To date themajority of spat (around270 tonnes or 80%of the spat required for the

musselaquacultureindustry)hascomefrombeach-castseaweedcollectedfromNinety

MileBeachinNorthland.Theentireindustryisheavilydependentuponnaturalspatfall

eventsandvariationintimingandquantityofthesenaturalspatfalleventsrepresentsa

significant commercial risk for the industry. A key alternative methodology for spat

collection is the suspensionof “hairy” ropes in thewater columnat strategic times to

allowmussellarvaetosettleontotheropes.


2

Mussels reproduce atdifferent timesof the year and to varyingdegreeshowever, the

mainspawningperiod isusuallyat thebeginningof,orduring,winterafterwhich the

mussels“hibernate”orexperienceaperiodofreducedactivityandproductivitydueto

thecolderwatertemperatures. Accuratepredictionofspawningactivityisimpossible,

but spawning is usually triggered by changes in weather and cooling coastal water

temperatures and close monitoring of these conditions can suggest when mussel

spawningactivity is likely tooccur. Thequantitiesofspat inanareawilldependtoa

largeextentuponthematureadultpopulationsofmusselsinthelocality.Theapplicants

are confident through local knowledge and experience that there are sufficient

populationsof adultmussels in the area to support a spat catching facility of the size

proposed.

With spat catching facilities, “hairy” spat catching ropes are suspended in the water

columnattimeswhenitispredictedthataspawningeventmayoccur.If,however,the

ropesdonotcatchspatasanticipated,theyarethenremovedfromthewaterandre-set

priortothenextpredictedspawningevent. Byonlysettingropeswhenmusselspawn

are likely to be caught, the incidental fouling on the spat catching ropes is kept to a

minimum. Excessive foulingof thespatcatchingropesmakes it impossible toslip the

spatforreseedingwithoutdamage.Whilethebuoysandbackbonesandtheiranchoring

systemswouldbepermanentlyestablished,thespatcatchingdropperlineswouldonly

bedeployedasneeded.

The Gazette No. 10699 Fisheries (Declaration of Species as Spat Notice (No.2)) 1993

definesgreenshellmusselspatasbeingoflessthan40mmshellwidth.Thisaccountsfor

boththemicroscopiclarvalformsofthemusselspatandthemetamorphosedformsof

the juvenile mussels up to a size whereby they can effectively be handled with a

reasonablechanceofsurvival.Oncethespathavedevelopedtoasizeof35-40mmshell

width,theycanbeslippedfromthespatcatchingropesandseededontogrowingropes.

Atasizeoflessthan35mmshellwidththemusselspatarenothardyenoughtosurvive

theslippingandhandlingprocessesrequiredforre-seeding. Themusselspatcantake

from6to9monthstodeveloptothe35mmsizedependinguponthetimeofyearand


3

conditions including phytoplankton productivity, water quality and ambient water

temperatures.

While theaquaculture industrydefinesgreenshellmusselspat in functional terms, the

Waikato Regional Council has a different definition ofmussel spat. From a resource

managementpoint of view, theWaikatoRegionalCouncil considersmussel spat tobe

themicroscopic freeswimmingmussel larvaeandthenewlymetamorphosedformsof

juvenile mussels. In terms of resource management, Waikato Regional Council

considersthatthedevelopmentofthenewlysettledmussellarvaetoasizewherethey

canbesuccessfullyslippedfromthespatcatchingropesandseededontogrowingropes

is theongrowingofmussels,which is a separateactivity from thecatchingofmussel

spat.

Intheareaproposedforspatcatchingbytheapplicants,theongrowingofmusselsisa

prohibited activity under theWaikato Regional Council’s Regional Coastal Plan. This

means that theproposal for spat catchingmust involve the short termdeploymentof

spatcatchingropesattimeswhenmusselspawningeventsarepredicted,assessmentof

the ropes for suitable spat collection and subsequent removal and relocation of the

ropestoanareainwhichresourceconsentsareheldfortheongrowingofmussels.This

shiftintheproposalwasmadeaftertheoriginalecologicalreportwaswritten.

Theanalysiscontainedwithintheoriginalreportwasbasedupontheexpectedeffects

resulting from the collection of spat and development of the mussel larvae to a size

suitable for slipping and reseeding (35-40mm shell width). The ecological effects of

developingthemussellarvaetoasizesuitableforhandlingarelikelytobeconsiderably

greater than for thedeploymentof spatcatchingropesandrelocationof ropesaftera

periodoftwoweeksorso. Thetemporarydeploymentofspatcatchingropesseverely

reduces or virtually eliminates the potential for ecological effects resulting from

biological waste from the developing mussels, long term shading, hydrodynamic

disturbance, planktonic depletion, etc and dramatically reduces potential interaction

effectswithseabirdsandmarinemammals.


4

1.2 Proposal

The applicants propose the establishment of three 10 hectare blocks of mussel spat

catching facility in thewaters of thenorthernpart ofMercuryBay, Coromandel. The

proposedareaforthespatcatchingfacilityincludesallbuoys,anchorsandstructures.It

isproposedthatscrewanchorsofasuitablesizeandconstructionwouldbeestablished

intheseabedwithanchoringlinesextendingtothesurfacetobuoysandbackbonelines

thatwouldsupportspatcatchingdropperlinesasrequired.

Whilethebuoysandbackbonestructuresusedforspatcatchingmaybesimilartothose

usedforgrowingmusselstoacommerciallyharvestablesize,thedropperropesusedfor

spatcatchingaredifferent. Thespatcatchingdropperropesareparticularly“hairy”to

provideagreatersurfaceareaformussellarvaetosettleonto.Thisproposaldoesnot

includeon-growingmusselsandthedropperlineswouldberemovedtoanareasuitable

fordevelopmentandongrowingofthejuvenilemusselsonceappropriatespatfallhas

occurredon thespatcatchingropes. Theproposedspatcatchingstructureswouldbe

sited 1.6km off the Whauwhau coast, approximately 9km northeast of Whitianga,

Coromandel.

Figure1: General location of proposed spat catching facility (yellow star) in

relationtoWhitiangaandMercuryBay,Coromandel.


5

The main periods of spat catching are the months of September and October with a

secondaryperiod inMarchandApril. The timesofmusselspawningactivitycanvary

eachyear,however,itisanticipatedthatspatcatchingwillbeundertakenmainlyduring

thesemonths.Initiallyitisanticipatedthat5spatcatchinglonglineswouldbedeployed

ineachofthethreeblocksproposedandeachblockwouldhaveapproximately10,000

metresofcatchingrope.Oncetheropeshavebeendeployed,theywouldbecheckedon

a weekly basis for spat fall. Ropeswould then be transported to Kennedy Bay, Port

CharlesortheCoromandelareaforongrowingofthejuvenilemussels.


6

2 BENTHICHABITAT

Afulldescriptionofthebenthichabitatwasundertakenintheoriginalecologyreport,

includingthepresentationoftheresultsofamultibeamsidescansonarinvestigationof

theseabed,sedimentgrainsizedistributiondata,sedimentchemistryandasummaryof

abenthicbiologicalsamplingexercise(White,2016).Forthepurposesofclarity,some

ofthatinformationwillberepeatedhere.

2.1 SeabedSurvey

Discovery Marine Limited was tasked with conducting a seabed survey within the

boundaries of theproposed spat catching facility. The survey involved aMBES sonar

survey of the designated area and associated ground-truthing of results using

underwatervideocameraaswellasdredgesamplingon21August2015.

Figure2.1: SeabedtexturemapfromseabedMBESsurvey


7

Inspection of the MBES imagery indicated two main sediment types within the site.

Thesewere confirmedusingadropvideocameraanddredge sampler. Primarily, the

seabedwithintheareasurveyedconsistedofcoarsesandandbrokenshell(shellhash),

and fine sandandmud. Thebackscatter image inFigure2.1 indicates seabed texture

variation. The interfaces between varying sediment types are quite defined in the

backscatterdata. Thedepthsalong themorepronounced interfacesvaryby less than

0.2minheight.

Based upon initial MBES results, a series of drop video camera investigations were

undertakenforeachofthethreesitestodeterminedifferingseabedtypesasseeninthe

MBES data. Seabed ‘features’ identified in theMBES recordswere also interrogated

withtheweighteddredge.Smallsandrippleswereevidentthroughoutthesurveyarea

as evidenced in the drop video camera footage. No significant seabed features were

locatedwithintheproposedmarinefarmsites.Theseabedgenerallyconsistedofcoarse

ormedium grain sand and broken shell with some lesser patches of mud/silts. The

seabedwasgentlyslopingwithdepthsrangingfrom20mintheSWcornerto25.5min

the NE corner. Therewas nomarine life (e.g. scallops, horsemussels, etc) observed

withinthevideofootage.

Thefullreportonthismultibeamsidescansonarsurveyoftheareawasappendedtothe

originalecologyreport(White,2016).

Sediment grain size distribution and sediment chemistry were described from three

composite sediment samples that were collected on 10 November 2015, each one

representing the sediments within one of the proposed blocks of the spat catching

facility.Eachofthosecompositesampleswasmadeupfromportionsofthreeindividual

sediment samples collected from within the particular block. For example, the SQA

samplewasmadeupofportionsofthreeindividualsamplesA1,A2andA3,allofwhich

werecollectedfromwithintheAblockoftheproposedsite.Likewise,sampleSQBwas

madeupofportionsofsamplesB1,B2andB3(allfromwithintheBblock)andsample

SQCwasmadeupofportionsofsamplesC1,C2andC3fromwithintheCblockofthe

proposedsite.ThespecificGPSlocationsofeachoftheindividualsamplesaregivenin

theoriginalreport.


8

Thelocationsoftheindividualsampleswereintendedtoprovidecoverageofeachblock,

however, the specific locations of the individual samples within each block were not

systematically selected with precision. The weather conditions, vessel used for

sampling purposes and the navigational equipment available on the vessel, together

withthe imprecisionof thesamplingtechnique(boatoperatedboxdredge)weresuch

that positioning individual sampleswithin and across eachblock of theproposed site

was considered to be stochastic enough to provide an in-built randomness to the

samplingexercise.

Figure2.2 Locationsofindividualsedimentsamplingsites

Table2.1: ResultsofsedimentgrainsizeanalysisSedimentGrainSize Description SQA SQB SQC

≥2mm Gravel <0.1 9.7 12.2<2mm,≥1mm VeryCoarseSand 0.1 6.1 12.9<1mm,≥0.50mm CoarseSand 1.0 11.3 28.2<0.50mm,≥0.25mm MediumSand 1.8 31.8 12.5<0.25mm,≥0.125mm FineSand 17.0 24.0 20.9<0.125mm,≥0.063mm VeryFineSand 68.7 12.0 8.3<0.063mm Mud 11.3 5.3 5.0

Total 100.0 100.2 100.0Classification sM (m)gS (m)gS


9

Theresultsofthesedimentgrainsizedistributionsamplingshowthatthesedimentsat

thesiteareamixofmud,sandandlargermaterials(brokenshell)withSQAclassifiedas

sandymudandsamplesSQBandSQCclassifiedasslightlymuddygravellysands.These

resultsareconsistentwiththefindingsoftheMBESsonarsurveyandgroundtruthing.

The results of chemistry analysis on the three composite sediment samples were

presentedintheoriginalreportandarerepeatedhereforclarity.

Table2.2: Resultsofthechemicalanalysisofcompositesedimentsamples

Parameter units SQA SQB SQC ANZECCISQG-Low ISQG-High

Totalorganiccarbon g/100gdryweight 0.18 <0.13 <0.13 - -Totalnitrogen g/100gdryweight <0.05 <0.05 <0.05 - -Totalrecoverablephosphorus mg/kgdryweight 330 300 220 - -Totalarsenic mg/kgdryweight 11 13 13 20 70Totalcadmium mg/kgdryweight <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 1.5 10Totalchromium mg/kgdryweight 15 11 12 80 370Totalcopper mg/kgdryweight <2 <2 <2 65 270Totallead mg/kgdryweight 5.1 4.1 4.4 50 220Totalnickel mg/kgdryweight 3 <2 2 21 52Totalzinc mg/kgdryweight 32 16 20 200 410

Nosedimentqualityguidelinesexistfornutrientsinmarinesediments,however,these

parameters were measured to determine the baseline nutrient concentrations in the

areaproposedforthespatcatchingfacility.Thereisanacceptedstoichiometricratioof

nitrogen to phosphorus, which has been determined from examination of oceanic

phytoplanktontobe16:1totalNitrogentoPhosphorus.Theacceptedargumentisthat

atnitrogentophosphorusratioslessthan16:1thatnitrogenisalimitingfactortoalgal

growthwhile at ratioshigher than16:1 thatphosphorus is the limiting factor inalgal

growth. Downing (1997) discusses this stoichiometric ratio and shows that while

oceanic systemsmay adhere to the 16N:1P relationship, estuarine systems frequently

varyquiteconsiderablyfromthisacceptedratio.

Given that the average total nitrogen concentration in the sediments examined was

<0.05g/100gdryweight(or<500mg/kgdryweight)andtheaveragetotalphosphorus

concentrationwas283mg/kgdryweight,whichresolvestoaratioof1.77:1theratioof

totalnitrogentophosphorussuggeststhatthesedimentsinthisareaofMercuryBayare


10

highlynitrogen limitedandthat inputsofnitrogentothesystemmightstimulatealgal

proliferation.

Nitrogen inputs to coastal systems generally come from land-based sources such as

partially treatedwastewaterdischargesordiffuserun-off fromfarmland. Muchof the

land use in this area ofMercury Bay is undeveloped landwith good vegetative cover

withsomedevelopedfarmlandandasmallnumberofresidentiallots.Thewaterquality

in Mercury Bay may be affected by future changes in land use practices in the

surroundingcatchmentandassuchthecontrolofsedimentandnutrientsourcesinthe

catchment of the Bay should be carefully managed in order to avoid sediment and

nutrientinputsintothecoastalwaters.Althoughitispossiblethathighdensitymussel

culture facilities might contribute nitrogen into the water column in quantities large

enough to affect the water and sediment quality, the proposed spat catching activity

doesnotincludetheongrowingofjuvenilemusselspastthenewlysettledlarvalphase

and,assuch,isveryunlikelytoevergeneratenitrogeninputsofanymeasureablescale.

Theproposalisextremelyunlikelytohaveanynotableimpactonthesedimentnitrogen

concentrationsintheimmediateorwidervicinity.

Theconcentrationsoftotalorganiccarbonrecordedwithinthethreecompositesamples

wererelativelyloworwereatorbelowtheminimumlimitofdetectionfortheanalytical

methodology used. From this we can determine that the area proposed for spat

collection isnot generally subject tohigh levels of organic enrichment. Although it is

possiblethathighdensitymusselculturefacilitiesmightcontributeorganiccarboninto

thewatercolumnandsedimentsbelowthefarmsinquantitieslargeenoughtoaffectthe

waterandsedimentquality,theproposedspatcatchingactivitydoesnotincludetheon

growing of juvenilemussels past the newly settled larval phase and, as such, is very

unlikelytoevergenerateorganiccarboninputsofanymeasureablescale.Theproposal

isextremelyunlikelytohaveanynotableimpactontheorganiccarbonconcentrations

inthewatercolumnorsedimentsintheimmediateorwidervicinity.Theproposalfor

seasonalspatcatchingisextremelyunlikelytomeasurablychangethelevelsoforganic

enrichmentinthisarea.


11

Theconcentrationsofmetallicandmetalloidprioritypollutantsinthesedimentsinthe

areaproposedformusselspatcollectionwereallverylowcomparedtoAustralianand

New Zealand Environment Conservation Council (ANZECC) marine interim sediment

qualityguidelines. Theseguidelinesaresetat levels thatareprotectiveofaquatic life

and the low concentrations of thesemetallic parameters suggests that the sediments

andtheareaingeneralisnotsubjecttohighlevelsofanthropogeniccontamination.The

proposalforseasonalmusselspatcatchingwouldnotaddsignificantconcentrationsof

metallic contaminants to the area and any contaminant effects resulting from the

proposedfacilityareextremelyunlikelytobemeasureable.

2.2 BenthicBiota

Abenthicbiota sampling exercisewasundertaken in the areaon10November2015.

Nineindividualsedimentsampleswerecollectedfromtheseabedintheareaproposed

formusselspatcatchingusingaboatoperatedboxdredge.Thespecificmethodologyof

the benthic biota samplingwas described in the original ecology report. The specific

locationsoftheindividualsamplecollectionpointswereidentifiedusingGPSandthose

locationswerepresented in theoriginalecologyreport (White,2016). The individual

sediment sampling locations for thebenthicbiota samplinghavebeen comparedwith

theresultsoftheMBESsonarsurveyandthesedimenttypes,asdescribedbyDiscovery

MarineLtd,foreachbiotasamplearepresentedinTable2.3.

Table2.3: SedimenttypesforindividualbiotasamplesBlock Sample SedimentTypeA A1 Sandandbrokenshell

A2 SandandbrokenshellA3 Sandandmud/silts

B B1 Sandandmud/siltsB2 SandandbrokenshellB3 Sandandbrokenshell

C C1 SandandbrokenshellC2 SandandbrokenshellC3 Sandandmud/silts

A summaryof the results of thebiota samplingwaspresented in theoriginal ecology

report,andthoseresultsarerepeatedhereforclarity.Therawbenthicbiotadataisalso

appendedtothisreport.


12

Asshowninthesummarydata,thebenthicbiologicalcommunitiesintheareaproposed

forthespatcatchingfacilitywerereasonablydiversewithgoodnumbersoftaxafound

ineachlocationwith11to32taxafoundintheninesampleswithsomevariabilityinthe

numbersofindividualswithineachsample.

Table2.4: SummaryofthenumberofseparatetaxafoundineachsampleTaxa A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3Anthozoa 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Nemertea 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1Polychaeta 9 9 10 12 5 10 5 3 11Gastropoda 0 3 4 3 1 1 1 1 3Bivalvia 3 3 2 2 2 3 3 1 3Amphipoda 6 7 7 8 4 6 3 6 6Decapoda 3 5 2 3 3 2 1 0 2Cumacea 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 1Isopoda 1 1 1 1 0 2 0 0 2Ostracoda 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Echinodermata 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0Ascideacea 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Osteichthyes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0Totaltaxa(R) 24 32 28 31 17 27 15 11 29ShannonIndex 1.1606 1.1275 1.1596 1.1247 1.0768 1.1977 1.1425 1.1079 1.1150

Richness(R)isthemeasureofthenumbersofindividualtaxaorspeciesfoundwithina

sample,andisthesimplestindicatorofecologicaldiversity.Richnessdoesnottakeinto

account the abundanceof each taxaor species and is thereforenot a truemeasureof

diversity.

TheShannonindex(H’)hasbeenapopulardiversity index intheecological literature,

where it is also known as Shannon's diversity index, the Shannon–Wiener index, the

Shannon–Weaver index and the Shannon entropy. The measure was originally

proposed by Claude Shannon to quantify the entropy (uncertainty or information

content)instringsoftext.Theideaappliedtoecologicaldataisthatthemoredifferent

numbers thereare,and themoreequal theirproportionalabundances in thestringof

data,themoredifficultitistocorrectlypredictwhichnumberwillbethenextoneinthe

string.TheShannonentropyquantifiestheuncertainty(entropyordegreeofsurprise)

associatedwiththisprediction.Itismostoftencalculatedasfollows:


13

where is the proportion of characters belonging to the ith type of number in the

string of data. In this case, is the proportion of individuals belonging to the ith

speciesinthebenthicbiotadataset.TheShannonentropyquantifiestheuncertaintyin

predictingthespeciesidentityofanindividualthatistakenatrandomfromthedataset.

Because the dataset collectedduring the benthic biota sampling included zero values,

thedatawastransformed(y’=y+1)inordertoremovethezerovaluesasln(0)=∞.For

convenience,theShannonIndexisexpressedintermsofitsabsolutevalue(i.e.positive

valuesratherthannegativevalues).

Benthic biota samples A3, B1 and C3 came from sand and mud/silts sediment type,

whilesamplesA1,A2,B2,B3,C1andC2came fromsandandbrokenshell sediments.

ThemeanRichness index for the sandandmud/silts samples is29.33 taxa,while the

meanRichness index for the sand andbroken shell samples is 21.00 taxa. Themean

ShannonIndexforthesandandmud/siltssamplesis1.1331,whilethemeanShannon

Indexfromthesandandbrokenshellsamplesis1.1355.

The sand and mud/silts samples appear to have a higher number of taxa or species

presentthanthesamplescollectedfromthesandandbrokenshellsediments,however,

theShannonIndexmeasureofdiversitywasessentiallythesameforthetwosediment

types.

Table2.5: Summary of the number of individual organisms found in eachsample

Taxa A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3Anthozoa 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Nemertea 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1Polychaeta 52 38 55 23 8 24 6 4 39Gastropoda 0 5 5 6 6 1 5 1 4Bivalvia 4 4 2 41 7 3 5 1 9Amphipoda 156 121 195 236 28 219 71 24 165Decapoda 11 7 3 7 8 2 6 0 6Cumacea 7 4 11 4 0 6 0 0 9Isopoda 2 7 7 1 0 3 0 0 2Ostracoda 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Echinodermata 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0Ascideacea 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


14

Osteichthyes 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0TotalIndivs 233 189 279 319 59 260 96 30 235

Amphipodsandpolychaetewormswerenumericallydominantatallsamplinglocations,

bothintermsofnumbersoftaxaandnumbersofindividuals.Someorganismsaremore

tolerantoforganicallyenrichedconditionsandassuchtheirpresenceinhighnumbers

is potentially indicative of organic enrichment. Cirratulid and Capetellid polychaete

worms in particular are known to be indicative of organic enrichment in sediments.

WhileCirratulidwormswerefoundinlownumbersinmostofthesamples,onlyasingle

Capetellidwormwasfoundinonesample(B1). Giventhepresenceofawiderangeof

otherspeciesandtherelativelylownumbersofCirratulidandCapetellidwormsfound,

itisunlikelythatthesedimentsinthelocationssampledhavebeensubjecttohighlevels

oforganicenrichment.Thisconclusionissupportedbythesedimentchemistryresults.

Groundtruthingof theMBESsonarsurveydidnotrevealanysignificantbiogenicreef

structures or shellfish (e.g. scallops or horse mussels) beds. Polychaete worm

abundance was moderate across the entire area with polychaete worm numbers in

samples A1 and A3 being highest. At A1 this was mostly due to the abundance of

Maldanid (Maldane sp.) and Spionid (Paraprionospio sp.) worms while at A3 this

abundancewasmostlyduetotheSpionidwormSpiophanesbombyx.Theabundanceof

polychaetewormsingeneralwasmoderate,however,itisunclearwhetherthedensity

ofpolychaetewormswashighenoughtoattractandholdlargenumbersoffish,suchas

snapper,andcouldthereforebeclassifiedasa“wormbed”.Undoubtedlyfishspeciesof

commercial and recreational value are likely to be found in the area, and it may be

somewhatproductiveasafishingsite,however,thereislittleineithertheMBESsonar

survey or benthic biological data to suggest that this area is high value habitat,

biologicallyuniqueorunusual,orofparticularlyhighbiologicaldiversityorvalue.


15

3 SEABIRDINTERACTIONS

InNewZealand, thegenerallyperceivednegativeeffectsofaquaculturehavecentered

on entanglement (resulting in birds drowning) as well as habitat exclusion and

displacementfromfeedinggroundsbyphysicalstructures,disturbanceandchangesto

the food web. Potential negative effects may also include disturbance of breeding

coloniesandbird’sfeeding,blockageofthedigestivetractfollowingingestionofforeign

objects, injury or death following collision with farm structures and the spread of

pathogens or pest species. In contrast, a potential beneficial effect includes the

provisionofroostsitesclosertoforagingareas,thussavingenergyinflyingtoandfrom

more traditional roosting sites and so enablingmore efficient foraging. Likewise, the

attraction and aggregation of small fish around marine farm structures may provide

enhancedfeedingopportunitiesforpiscivorousseabirds(Sagar,2013).

Thelocationofmarinefarmswithintherangeofseabirdsandtheconservationstatusof

thoseseabirdspecies(ameasureoftheriskofextinction)arethemainfactorsthatmay

leadtoissuesofsustainabilityandconservationconcern.Ofparticularconcernarethe

location of farms in relation to breeding and feeding sites and the operational

proceduresofregularfarmactivities.Sitingoffarmsclosetobreedingandfeedingsites

mayleadtodisturbanceoftheseabirds,theconsequenceofwhichwilldependuponthe

conservationstatusofthespeciesaffected(Sagar,2013).

There are significant knowledge gaps concerning almost all seabird species in New

Zealand. While overall distribution of most species is well documented, detailed

informationonthetime-specificdistribution,abundanceandcriticalhabitatsislacking

(Sagar,2013).

Several New Zealand and overseas studies discuss the potential ecological effects of

shellfish aquaculture on seabird populations, but only a few direct studies have been

conducted(Roycroftetal.2004;Zydelisetal.2006;Kirketal.2007). Basedon these

studies,mussel aquaculturehas thepotential to affect someseabirdsbyaltering their

food resources, causing physical disturbances (e.g. noise) and/or being a possible

entanglement risk. Sagar (2013) presents a review of the literature with regard to

seabird interactions with both feed-added aquaculture (e.g.


16

salmon,kingfish,hapuku)andfilterfeederaquaculturestructures. Sagar(2013)notes

thatwhile perceivednegative effects of both feed added and filter feeder aquaculture

havecenteredonentanglementissues,therehavebeennoreportsofseabirddeathsasa

result of entanglement in aquaculture facilities in New Zealand (Butler, 2003; Lloyd,

2003).

Sagar (2013) considers the potential effects of habitat exclusion and considers the

effects tobe insignificantgiven thesmallareaoccupiedby filter-feederaquaculture in

NewZealandinrelationtothelargetotalareaofsuitablehabitatavailableforforaging

seabirds. Given the small physical presence of the anchor lines, buoys and backbone

linesproposedforthespatcatchingfacilityandtheshorttermtemporarydeploymentof

spat catching lines involved in this proposal, the actual physical area occupied by the

proposedstructuresareverysmallintermsofbotharealandtemporalextent.Effective

managementoptionsfortheminimisationofhabitatexclusioneffectscanbeachievedby

careful site selection that avoids key foraging areas of seabird specieswith restricted

habitatrequirements(Sagar,2013).

The potential effects of smothering of seabed by debris frommussel ropes, including

shell drop andnutrient enrichment as a result of psuedofaeces and faecesproduction

from mussel stock, leading to changes in the seabed fauna are considered by Sagar

(2013)tobe insignificantgiventhesmallareaoccupiedbyfilter feederaquaculture in

NewZealandinrelationtothelargetotalareaofsuitablehabitatavailableforforaging

seabirds. Giventhat thisproposaldoesnot includethedevelopmentorongrowingof

juvenilemussels, thepotential forchanges inseabedfaunaofthisnature isessentially

eliminated.

Increasesintheabundanceanddiversityofsomesmallfishspeciesaroundaquaculture

facilities have been documented (Grange, 2002). These fish species were probably

attractedbyshelterunderthefarmstructuresandtofeedonorganismsinhabitingthe

ropesandfarmstructures.Asaconsequence,piscivorousseabirds,suchasshags,terns

and penguins,may be attracted to, and benefit from, enhanced feeding opportunities

providedbythesefarmstructures(Sagar,2013).


17

Filter feeder aquaculture facilities provide new roosting sites, usually on buoys

supportingbackboneanddropperropes.Thismaybenefitsomeseabirdspecies(Lalas,

2001)with shags, gulls and ternsmost likely tobenefit fromadditional roosting sites

closetoenhancedfeedingopportunities.Useofsuchnewroostingsitesmayreducethe

energyexpenditureofthebirdsbecausetheydonothavetoflytoandfromtheirnatural

land-basedroostingsites,whichmaybesomedistancefromtheirforagingarea(Sagar,

2013).

Increased human activity associated with filter feeder aquaculture facilities can have

significant detrimental effects on the feeding and breeding of seabirds. For example,

smallboattraffic,ornoiseassociatedwithaquaculturefacilities,maydisturbbirdsthat

are feeding or breeding in the vicinity (Sagar, 2013). The most obvious means of

avoidingsignificanteffectsoncolonialnestingspecies,suchasshags,gullsandterns,is

carefulsiteselectionforaquaculturefacilities.

Little is known about the distances over which foraging and feeding seabirds may

become disturbed, however, it is likely to be species specific. Literature about

disturbance distances for king shags in the Marlborough Sounds is ambiguous. For

example,Davidsonet al (1995)proposedbuffer zonesof300metres around roosting

sitesand1000metresaroundbreedingcolonies,butTaylor(2000)recommendedthat

smallboatsdonotapproachbreedingcoloniescloserthan100metres. Morerecently,

Lalas(2001)notedthatkingshagsrestingashoreoronemergentobjectsonlyflewoff

(exhibitedavoidancebehaviour)whenapproachedtowithin30metres.

Ingestionofmarinelitter,particularlyplastics,iscommonamongseabirdsandcancause

deathbydehydration,blockageofthedigestivetract,ortoxinsreleasedintheintestines.

In addition, large numbers of seabirds have ben reported to have died as a result of

becomingentangledinplasticdebris(Derraik,2002).Amongseabirds,theingestionof

plastics is directly related to foraging behaviour anddiet (Ryan, 1987). For example,

species that feed on surface or near-surface dwelling invertebrates aremore likely to

confusepiecesofplasticwiththeirpreythanarepiscivoresandthereforehaveahigher

incidence of ingested plastics (Azzarello & Van Vleet, 1987). Piscivorous seabirds,

however,havebeenrecordedtoconsumeplasticbagsandfood-


18

handlinggloves(Sagar,2013).Itshouldbenotedthattheharmcausedbytheingestion

ofplasticsmaynotberestrictedtotheindividualseabirdthatconsumedthembecause

adultsthatregurgitatefoodtotheirchickscouldpassplasticsontotheiroffspring(Fry

etal,1987).

Entanglementinplasticdebris,especiallyindiscardedfishinggear(nets),isalsoavery

seriousthreat toseabirds. Forexample,entanglementaccountedfor13percent to29

percentoftheobservedmortalityofgannets(Sulabassana)intheGermanBight(Schrey

& Vauk, 1987). Marine litter arising from aquaculture operations, however, can be

minimisedbysensiblemanagementpractices.

Seabirds flying at night may become attracted to artificial lighting and have been

recorded colliding with fishing vessels and lighthouses (Montevecchi, 2006). The

attractionofseabirdstoartificiallightingappearstobemorepronouncedwhenmistor

lightrainprevails(Sagar,2013).Theresultsofsuchcollisionsincludedeathasaresult

of injury. Feeding of some seabirds, particularly species of petrels, shearwaters and

shags, is related to the phase of the moon. Shags, for example, have been recorded

foraging at night,with their absences frombreeding colonies (presumably on feeding

trips)coincidingwithahalforfullmoon,althoughthegreatmajorityoffeedingoccurs

duringtheday(Saptoznikow&Qunitana,2002;Whiteetal.2008). Mitigationofthese

potential effects includes site selection to avoid being on the flight path between

foraging areas and breeding colonies, minimising the use of lights and downward-

pointingandshadedlights.

3.1 SeabirdSpecies

Therearearound10,400speciesofbirdsworldwide,however,onlyabout359ofthose

speciesare“seabirds”,i.e.theybreedonlandbutspendthemajorityoftheirlivesatsea.

They are essentially marine creatures and possess unique physiological and

morphological adaptations toa lifedominatedby the sea. Theycanbehighlymobile,

andinsomecasesthewholepopulationofaspeciescantravelfromonesideofanocean

toanother. Theycomeinallshapesandsizesandarehighlyspecialised. TheHauraki

Gulf Marine Park is home to a rich diversity of seabirds. There are 27 seabird taxa

known to breed in this region, of which 16 (59%) are New


19

Zealandendemic species (Gaskin&Rayner,2013). These taxa include14petrels and

shearwaters,1penguin,1gannet,5 cormorants (shags),3gullsand3 terns. Of these

species,Buller’s shearwaters (Puffinusbulleri),NewZealand fairy tern (Sternulanereis

davisae),Pycroft’spetrel(Pterodromapycrofti)andblackpetrel(Procellariaparkonsoni)

breed nowhere else in New Zealand or the world. The New Zealand storm petrel

(Fregettamaoriana)wasdiscoveredbreedingonHauturu/LittleBarrierIslandin2013

andthisistheonlyknownbreedingsiteforthisspecies.Over70speciesofseabird(c.

20% of the world’s seabird species) have been seen within the region (Gasking and

Rayner,2013).

Thefeedinghabitsofseabirdsvary.Somespeciesregularlyfeedoverland(gulls)orin

freshwater(shags),othersfeedintidalharboursandinshorewater(gulls,terns,shags,

gannets)andtherest feedonthecontinentalshelfandbeyondindeepoceanicwaters

(petrels, shearwaters and gannets). Flight formany species (i.e. petrels, shearwaters,

gannets)isextremelyefficientduetodynamicsoaring(Pennycuick,1982),whileother

species, such aspenguins, shags, divingpetrels and shearwaters fly underwaterusing

theirwings. Seabirdscanfindfoodover largedistancesusingexcellentvisiontokeep

themalerttotheactivitiesofotherseabirds,fishesandcetaceans(Au&Pitman,1986)

andastrongsenseofsmellisenhancedbylargeolfactorybulbs(Hutchinson&Wenzel,

1980).Allofthisallowsseabirdstoexploitsuchpreyasfish,crustaceans(krill)oftenin

associationwithfishschools,cephalopods(squid),planktonandzooplanktonfromthe

surfacetodepthsof60metresormore(Brooke,2004;Rayneretal,2008;Taylor,2008;

Rayneretal2011b).

There are 11 species of seabird known to have breeding sites in reasonably close

proximity to theareaproposed forspatcatchingactivity (Table3.1). Inaddition, it is

reasonable to assume that seabird species like Australasian gannets (Morus serrator;

IUCN status Least Concern), Southern black-backed gulls (Larus dominicanus

dominicanus; IUCN status Least Concern) and red-billed gulls (Larus scopulinus; IUCN

statusLeastConcern)wouldbe found inoraroundtheareaproposed formusselspat

catchingonaregularbasis. Fieldnotesrecordedduringbenthicbiologicalsamplingin

the area inOctober 2015 show the presence of gannets, penguins, black-backed gulls

andred-billedgulls(SWhite,persobs).


20

Table3.1 Seabird speciesknown tohavebreeding sites in closeproximity totheproposedspatcatchingactivity(fromGaskin&Rayner,2013)

CommonName ScientificName ConservationStatus1

KnownBreedingSites

Northernlittlepenguin Eudyptulaminoriredale AtRiskDeclining

Ohinau Is., MercuryIslands

Greyfacedpetrel Pterodromamacropteragouldi NotThreatened

Ohinau Is., MercuryIslands, Mahurangi Is,MotuekaIs.

Pycroft’spetrel Pterodromapycrofti AtRiskRecovering

MercuryIslands

Fleshfootedshearwater Puffinuscarneipes NationallyVulnerable

Ohinau Is., MercuryIslands

Sootyshearwater Puffinusgriseus AtRiskDeclining

EasternMercuryIslands

Flutteringshearwater Puffinusgavia AtRiskRelict

OhinauIs,MercuryIslands

NIlittleshearwater Puffinusassimilishaurakiensis AtRiskRecovering

Mercury Islands,AldermanIslands

Whitefacedstormpetrel Pelagodromasmarinamaoriana AtRiskRelict

OhinauIs.

Commondivingpetrel Pelecanoidesurinatrixurinatrix AtRiskRelict

Ohinau Is., MercuryIslands, Black Rocks,MotukorureIs.

Piedshag Phalacrocoraxvariusvarius AtRiskRecovering

MahurangiIs.,WhakarenuiPoint

Whitefrontedtern Sternastriata AtRiskDeclining

MercuryIslands

Approximately 60% of NZ seabird species regularly foragemore than 50km offshore

while the remainingspecies feedover inshorewatersandonlyoccasionallyare found

wellawayfromland(Taylor2000a).Otherspeciessuchasgulls,terns,shags,penguins

andgannets(tosomedegree)feedclosetotheshorelinesofthemainlandandinnerand

outerGulf Islandswhere theybreed. Flutteringshearwaters, fleshfootedshearwaters,

diving petrels and storm petrels forage predominantly in continental shelf waters.

Pycroft’s and grey-faced petrels are pelagic seabirds that search for prey beyond the

continentalshelf(Gaskin&Rayner,2013).

TheshearwaterandpetrelspecieslistedinTable3.1allhaveknownbreedingsiteson

islandsoffshore fromtheareaproposed forspatcatchingactivity. Theseseabirdsare

predominantly continental shelf or beyond-continental shelf foraging species and as

such movements between breeding areas and foraging areas would be extremely

1Robertsonetal(2016)


21

unlikely to take these seabirds into contact with the proposed spat catching facility.

Given that the known breeding sites for these seabird species are around 5 nautical

milesfromtheproposedspatcatchingfacility,itishighlyimprobablethatanyactivityat

oraroundthespatcatchingfacilitywoulddisturbseabirdbreeding.

The exception to this is the known breeding site for common diving petrel on

Motukorure(Centre)Island.Thisislandisapproximately1.7nauticalmilessouthofthe

areaproposed for spatcatching. This separationmakes ithighly improbable thatany

activity at the proposed spat catching site would result in disturbance of breeding

individualsonMotukorureIslandgiventhattherecommendeddistancesfromkingshag

breeding sites were 100-1000 metres in the Marlborough Sounds. Movements of

common diving petrel between this breeding site and expected foraging areaswould

possibly take individuals past the area proposed for spat catching, although it is

expected thatpetrelswould tend tomoveeastwardout tosea, rather thannorthward

pasttheproposedspatcatchingactivity.Itisunlikelythatcommondivingpetrelwould

spend foraging time in and around the area proposed for spat catching in particular,

however, it is theoretically possible that some of these seabirds, along with gannets,

shags, black-backed gulls, red-billed gulls, white fronted terns and penguins, may be

affectedbythisproposal.Ofthosespeciespotentiallyaffectedbytheproposal,northern

littlepenguins,red-billedgullsandwhitefrontedternshaveaconservationstatusofAt

RiskDeclining,shagshaveaconservationstatusofAtRiskRecoveringwhilegannetsand

black-backed gulls are listed as being Not Threatened. The common diving petrel is

listedashavingaconservationstatusofAtRiskRelict.Thismeansthatthespecieshas

undergoneadocumenteddeclineandnowoccupieslessthan10%of itsformerrange,

however,thepopulationisnowstable.

3.2 ManagementofSeabirdInteractions

Asdiscussed,thereispotentialforinteractionsbetweenseabirdsandtheproposedspat

catching facility and associated activity. It is possible to manage these potential

interactionstoavoidorminimiseadverseeffectsandtomitigateanypotentialadverse

effectswithpossiblepositiveeffects. Whileentanglement isperceived tobea central

issuewithregardtoseabirds,therehavebeennoreportsofseabirddeathsasaresultof


22

entanglementinaquaculturefacilitiesinNewZealand(Butler,2003;Lloyd,2003).

Habitatexclusioneffectsonseabirdsarebestmanagedbycarefulsiteselectionoffilter

feeding aquaculture facilities in order to avoid key foraging areas for species with

limitedorrestrictedforagingrequirements(Sagar,2013). Theproposedspatcatching

facilityislocatedinanareathatavoidskeyforagingareasfortheshearwaterandpetrel

species that areknown tobreedwithin5nauticalmilesof theproposal. The seabird

species identified as potentially being affectedby theproposal (gannets, shags, black-

backedgulls, red-billedgulls,white-fronted ternsandNorthern littlepenguin)arenot

likelytobeexcludedfromkeyforagingareasasaresultoftheproposedspatcatching

facility. Allof thosespecieshavebeenobservedforagingand/orrestingonoraround

musselfarmsintheHaurakiGulfareawithoutanyreportedexclusionorotheradverse

effects.Duetotheseasonalnatureandshorttermdeploymentofropestheproposalfor

a mussel spat catching operation would have significantly fewer exclusion effects on

seabirds thanmussel cultivation facilities and as such it is considered unlikely that a

spatcatchingfacilitywouldhavenegativeimpactsontheseseabirdspecies.

Disturbanceofseabirdsisapotentialadverseeffectresultingfromaquacultureactivity

and the most effective means of managing disturbance is careful site selection for

aquaculture facilities to avoid disturbance of known seabird breeding areas (Sagar,

2013). As discussed, the closest known breeding site to the proposed spat catching

facility is the common diving petrel breeding site onMotukorure Island, 1.7 nautical

miles to thesouth. It ishighlyunlikely that theproposedspat catching facilitywould

haveanydisturbanceeffectsonthisbreedingsite.

Marinelitterisapotentialproblemforallseabirdspeciesandthemosteffectivemeans

ofavoidinglitter,particularlyplastic litter,generatedfromanaquaculturefacility isto

instigate sensible management practices in and around the facility to prevent the

introduction of litter into the sea. This is a required practice in the New Zealand

aquacultureenvironmentalprotocols.

Artificiallightingassociatedwithaquaculturefacilitieshasthepotentialtohaveadverse

effectsonseabirds.Themosteffectivemethodofmanagingthis


23

potential includes careful site selection to avoid having aquaculture facilities on the

flightpathbetween foragingareasandbreedingcolonies,minimising theuseof lights

and using downward-pointing and shaded lights where such lighting is necessary

(Sagar, 2013). The proposed spat catching facility avoids the flight paths between

foraging areas and breeding sites of seabirds known to be breeding in the area. The

proposed facility would require appropriate navigation lighting to ensure the safe

navigationofvesselsinandaroundthearea,however,beyondthat,itisunlikelythatthe

spatcatchingfacilitywouldrequireorshowanysignificantartificiallighting.Theremay

beapotentialfordeckspotlightsorotherlightingtobeusedonvesselsworkingatthe

spat catching facility on occasion, however, this is not expected to be a regular

occurrenceasmostactivityatthefacilityisexpectedtobeundertakenduringdaylight

hours.

Thereisasmallpotentialforsmallfishtobeattractedtothespatcatchingfacilityand

this may provide a potential benefit for piscivorous seabirds that may forage in and

around theproposed facility. Given that it is unlikely that the facilitywill havemuch

more than anchor lines, backbone lines andbuoys formuchof the timeandwill only

havespatcatchingdropperropesonashorttermtemporarybasis,asandwhenmussel

spawningeventsareexpected,thepotentialforfishattractionisadmittedlylimited.The

presence of buoys and backbone lines, however, does provide a potential benefit for

shags,ternsandgullsaspotentialroostingsites.

Managing seabird interactions is mostly undertaken by careful site selection of

aquaculturefacilitiestoavoidadverseeffectsandbysensiblemanagementpracticesto

avoid the introduction of litter, or unnecessary artificial lighting. The proposed spat

catching facility is sited inanarea thatavoidsdisturbanceofknownseabirdbreeding

sitesandavoidsflightpathsbetweenseabirdbreedingsitesandforagingareas. While

perceivednegativeeffectsofaquaculturehavecenteredonentanglement issues, there

have been no reports of seabird deaths as a result of entanglement in aquaculture

facilitiesinNewZealand.

Notingthepresence,activityandinteractionsofseabirdsatthefacilitywherepossible


24

maybesensible inordertomonitororrecordthespecificeffectsof the facilityonthe

seabirdsfoundinthearea.


25

4 MARINEMAMMALINTERACTIONS

Interactionsbetweenmarinemammalsandaquacultureusuallyresultfromanoverlap

betweenthespatiallocationofthefacilitiesandthebreeding,feedingand/ormigrating

habitat of the marine mammal species. To date, issues such as habitat exclusion,

underwater noise and entanglement appear to be minor for New Zealand mussel

farmingwithnorecordedinstancesofanymarinemammalshavingbecomeentangled

inmusselfarmsinNewZealand(Clement,2013).

Several overseas studies (Wursig & Gailey, 2002; Kemper et al, 2003;Wright, 2008)

havecharacterisedthepossibleinteractionsbetweenmarinemammalsandaquaculture

facilities, which include competition for space (habitat modification or exclusion),

potential for entanglement, underwater noise or disturbance and possible flow-on

effectsduetoalterationsintrophicpathways.Thephysicallocationofthemarinefarm

withinimportanthabitatsormigrationroutesofNewZealandmarinemammalspecies

is themain factor that then leads on to potentially adverse interactions or avoidance

issues.Onceamarinefarmiswithinthedistributionrangeofaspecies,thetypesofgear

and equipment employed, as well as operational procedures around regular farm

activities,influencetheprobabilityandscaleofimpactsonmarinemammals(Clement,

2013).

Overseas research highlights that the nature of habitat exclusion effects on marine

mammalsgreatlydependsonthetypeofaquaculturefacilityandtheparticularspecies

of marine mammal present in the area (Kemper et al, 2003;Watson-Capps & Mann,

2005; Heinrich, 2006; Ribeiro et al, 2007). Mussel farm cultivation ropes typically

extendverticallyfromfloatsatthesurfacethroughthewatercolumntowithinashort

distanceabovetheseabed.Markowitzetal(2004)demonstratedwithsonarthatthese

verticalstructurescanappearasvisualoracousticbarriersthatcanpotentiallyexclude

marinemammals fromhabitats previously used for feeding, calving and/ormigration

activities. Studies inNewZealandhaveso faraddressed interactionsbetweenmussel

farms and Hector’s (Slooten et al, 2001) and dusky dolphins (Markowitz et al, 2004;

Vaughan&Wursig,2006;Duprey,2007;Pearsonetal,2007).Collectively,thesestudies

suggest that while some marine mammal species are not completely displaced from

regions as awhole, they do not appear to be utilising habitats


26

occupied by shellfish farms in the samemanner as prior to the farm’s establishment.

Pinnipedsappeartobetheonegroupofmarinemammalsthatwillnotbeexcludedfrom

habitatsbymusselfarming(Clement,2013).

4.1 MarineMammalSpecies

DuFresne(2008)liststheprimarycetaceanspecieslikelytobeencounteredintheFirth

of Thames as including short-beaked common dolphin (Delphinus, delphinus),

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), Orca (Orcinus orca), Bryde’s whale

(Balaenoptera edeni/brydei) and Beaked whales (Genus: Berardius, Ziphius,

Hyperoodon,Tasmacetus,Mesoplodon).Othermarinemammalsknowntooccurinthe

Hauraki Gulf includeNew Zealand fur seal, Southern rightwhales, humpbackwhales,

Southern right whale dolphin, pilot whales, minke whales and false killer whales.

(DuFresne,2008).

Table4.1 MarinemammalsknowntooccurintheHaurakiGulfCommonName ScientificName ConservationStatus2Short-beakedcommondolphin Delphinusdelphinus NotThreatenedBottle-noseddolphin Tursiopstruncatus NationallyEndangeredLeast

ConcernOrca/killerwhale Orcinusorca NationallyCriticalData

DeficientBryde’swhale Balaenopteraedeni/brydei NationallyCriticalData

DeficientBeakedwhales Genus:Berardius,Ziphius,Hyperoodon,

Tasmecetus,MesoplodonVariousThreatClassifications

DataDeficientSouthernrightwhale Eubalaenaaustralis NationallyVulnerableLeast

ConcernHumpbackwhale Megapteranovaeangliae AtRiskLeastConcernSouthernrightwhaledolphin Lissodelphisperonii NotThreatenedData

DeficientPilotwhale Globicephalamelas NotThreatenedData

DeficientMinkewhale Balaenopterabonaerensis NotThreatenedData

DeficientFalsekillerwhale Psuedorcacrassidens NotThreatenedData

DeficientNZfurseal Arctocephalusforsteri NotThreatened

Humpback whales can occasionally be seen off New Zealand’s east coast on their

migratoryjourneysfromAntarcticatothetropicalwatersoftheSouthPacific.Gibbs&

Childerhouse (2000) list humpback whale sighting data with 20 sightings from the

2Bakeretal(2013)


27

HaurakiGulf andBay of Plenty areas covering a period from1978 to 1999, however,

over that time period no humpback whales were recorded along the eastern

Coromandelcoastline,letalonewithinMercuryBay.Whilemigratinghumpbackwhales

mayoccasionallytravelclosetothecoastoftheCoromandelPeninsula,giventhevolume

ofrecreationalandcommercialvesselmovementsandthelackofsightingsrecorded,it

wouldappeartobeunlikelythattheirpresenceisacommonfeatureduringeitherthe

northern or southern migrations between tropical and sub-Antarctic waters of these

whales.Itappearstobeextremelyunlikelythatanymigratinghumpbackwhaleswould

everencounteramusselspatcatchingfacilitysitedintheproposedlocation.

Historically, Southern right whales were widely distributed in New Zealand waters

around themainlandandsubAntarctic islands.Southernrightwhalescalve incoastal

waters inwintermonths and tend tomigrate offshore to feeding grounds in summer

months, with their distribution in summer linked to copepods and euphausids, their

primary prey species (Patenaude, 2003). Southern right whales underwent a

catastrophic decline in numbers around mainland New Zealand as a result of shore-

basedandpelagicwhalingactivity. Demographicmodellingbasedonhistoricalwhale

catch data suggest that prior to exploitation Southern right whales in New Zealand

waters likely numbered more than 16,000 (Patenaude 2000). Despite 65 years of

protection,Southernrightwhales inNewZealandwatersstillnumber less than5%of

theirhistoricalabundance.Therearefewpublishedreportsofsightingsofrightwhales

aroundmainland and little information is available about themainland New Zealand

Southernrightwhalepopulation(Patenaude,2003).

AlthoughSouthernrightwhalesaresometimesfoundincoastalmainlandNewZealand

waters(Figure4.1),theyhavenotbeenrecordedofftheeasternCoromandelPeninsula

orwithinMercuryBay. Itwould appear to be extremelyunlikely that Southern right

whaleswouldencounteramusselspatcatchingfacilitysitedintheproposedlocation.


28

Figure4.1 Sighting locations for Southern rightwhales aroundmainlandNew

Zealandbetween1976andJune2002.(fromPatenaude,2003)


29

Bryde’swhalesareacoastalbaleenwhale foundbetweenCapeBrettandEastCape in

NewZealand,witharesidentpopulationofabout46Bryde’swhaleswithintheHauraki

Gulfandanother159whalesarethoughttousetheGulfforpartoftheyear(Wisemanet

al,2011).Figure4.2showssightinglocationsforBryde’swhalesinthewiderHauraki

Gulf from between August 2000 and September 2016 with data coming from the

HaurakiGulfForum2018reportonthestateoftheenvironmentforthewiderHauraki

Gulf. Although there are reported individual sightings of Bryde’s whales in Colville

Channel, nearCuvier Island andnorthofGreatMercury Island, there areno reported

sightingsforBryde’swhaleswithinMercuryBayoverthattimeperiod.

Figure4.2 Sighting locations for Bryde’s whale in the Hauraki Gulf between

August2000andSeptember2016(fromHaurakiGulfForum,2018)

Giventhevolumeofrecreationalandcommercialvesselmovementswithinandaround

MercuryBayandthelackofBryde’swhalesightingsrecorded,theareaproposedforthis


30

spat catching facility appears to be outside the recognised range for Bryde’s whales,

however,thereisasmallpossibilityofthesewhalesbeingfoundintheareaonoccasion.

Despite thepresenceofmultiplemusselcultivation farmswithin theHaurakiGulfand

Firth of Thames, an area known to be central to the resident population of Bryde’s

whales in theHaurakiGulf, therehavebeenno reported incidentsof entanglementof

Bryde’swhalesinmusselfarmstructures.Itwouldappeartobeextremelyunlikelythat

a mussel spat catching facility of the type proposed, sited in the proposed location,

wouldhaveanyimpactuponBryde’swhalesinNewZealand.

While beakedwhales of several species, Southern right whale dolphins, pilot whales,

minke whales and false killer whales clearly enter the wider Hauraki Gulf area on

occasion,thelevelofinformationonthedistributionpatterns,behaviourandabundance

ofthesewhalesinthewiderHaurakiGulfand,inparticulartheMercuryBayarea,isso

lowastomakedefinitivestatementsabouttherisksresultingfrominteractionswiththe

proposedspatcatchingfacilitytobeimpossible.Itisknownthatingeneralthebeaked

whalestendtobedeepwaterforagersand,assuch,therelativelyshallowcoastalwaters

aroundtheeasternCoromandel,andMercuryBayinparticular,arenotgoingtobekey

foraginghabitatforthesemarinemammals.Therehavebeennorecordedincidencesof

any of the marine mammal species mentioned becoming entangled in mussel farm

equipmentinNewZealand,despitethesignificantareasofmusselfarmswithincoastal

NewZealandwaters.Onthisbasisalone,itwouldappearthattheriskstothesemarine

mammalspeciespresentedbytheproposedspatcatchingfacilitywouldbeminimal.

Both bottlenose and common dolphin hunt fish species and may utilise this area of

MercuryBayanditisthereforepossiblethatbothspeciesmayencounteramusselspat

catching facility sited in the proposed location. Despite the long-term existence and

operationofmusselfarmsinmanycoastallocationsinNewZealandtherehavebeenno

recordedentanglementeventsorotherimmediatelyadverseeffectsondolphinscaused

bymusselfarming.Therehavebeenstudiesthathavedocumentedthehabitatexclusion

of Dusky dolphin from some areas of the Marlborough Sounds as a result of the

relatively intense mussel farming activity within some embayments, however, this

proposaldoesnotrepresentalevelofdevelopmentapproachingthatlevelofintensity.


31

TherearepotentiallythreesubpopulationsofOrcainNewZealandwaters:Northand

South Islandpopulations; and an additional group that appears to travel between the

twoislands(Visser,2000).SomeOrcahavebeenknowntotravelanaverageof170km

per day, covering up to 4000 km. The New Zealand Orca population is thought to

number around 200 individuals (Suisted and Neal, 2004). Figure 4.3, taken from

DuFresne(2008),showssightinglocationsofOrcaintheFirthofThames/Coromandel

areafrom1994-2008.Whilethereare“hotspots”ofsightingsaroundcentresofhuman

activity,thisisnotlikelytoreflectthetruedistributionpatterns.Itdoes,however,givea

generalindicationthatOrcaarefrequentvisitorstotheMercuryBayarea.

Figure 4.3 Locations of Orca sightings (blue triangles) in the Firth of Thames

& Coromandel region, 1994 – 2008. (from DuFresne, 2008)

It is, therefore, quite feasible that Orcamay encounter amussel spat catching facility

sited in theproposed location. Orca inNewZealandappear to forageon rays, sharks

and finfish,aswellasmarinemammals(Visser,2000). The fishaggregationeffectsof

musselfarmstructuresmayservetoattractOrca,aswellasdolphin,totheCoromandel

area due to the enhanced feeding opportunities. However, despite the long-term


32

existenceandoperationofmusselfarmsinmanycoastallocationsinNewZealand,and

in particular density around the Coromandel Peninsula, there have been no adverse

effectsonOrcarecordedasaresultofmusselfarming.Thisproposalislikelytohavea

smallerfishaggregationeffectthanafull-scalemusselcultivationfarmandistherefore

lesslikelytoattractOrcaanddolphin.

New Zealand fur seals are known to occasionally venture into Coromandel coastal

waters, however, generally speaking the individual seals that do venture into the

Coromandel area are juveniles exploring the coast. These individuals tend to be

inquisitive andare likely tobe attracted to amussel spat catching facility rather than

excluded by the structures and activity associated with aquaculture. As with other

marinemammals, and despite the long establishedmarine farms around the country,

therehavebeennoadverseeffectsonfursealsrecordedasaresultofmussel farming

and pinnipeds (seals) are the one group ofmarinemammal species least likely to be

excludedfromhabitatsbymusselfarming.

4.2 ManagementofMarineMammalInteractions

Sitingmusselfarmsinareastominimiseoravoidthelikelihoodofspatialoverlapwith

species’ home ranges, critical breeding and foraging habitats or migration routes is

likelytobethemosteffectivemanagementoptiontopreventhabitatexclusioneffectson

marinemammals. Althoughtheproposedspatcatching facilitywillhaveanchor lines,

backbonelinesandbuoysasmusselfarmsdo,itwillnothavepermanent,orlongterm

deploymentof verticalmussel cultivation ropes topresent the samevertical visual or

acousticbarriereffect.Spatcatchinglineswillbedeployedonashortterm,temporary

basisandwillberelocatedfordevelopmentandongrowingofthejuvenilemusselsina

suitableareaformusselcultivation. It is likelythattheproposedspatcatchingfacility

would result in considerably reduced habitat exclusion effects on marine mammals

compared with those that might occur with a conventional mussel farm in the same

locationanditcouldbearguedthathabitatexclusioneffectswouldprobablybeminimal.

Mussel farming structures canoccupya largeportionof thewater column, effectively

creatingthree-dimensionalstructuresthatmarinemammalshavetoactivelynavigateor

manoevrearound. Theproposedspat catching facilitywillnot


33

havepermanentor longtermdeploymentofverticaldropper linesas foundatmussel

cultivation farms. There have only been three cases ofwhales entangling in shellfish

farmsinAustraliaandNewZealand,withnoknownfatalentanglementsofpinnipedsor

dolphins(Clement,2013).

Manyspeciesofmarinemammalsareknownfortheircuriousnatureandtheyareoften

attractedtonovelobjects,suchasfloatingdebrisand/orlines.Whilesomeincidencesof

dolphinentanglement inthin lineshavebeenreportedfromoverseas,nonehavebeen

associated with shellfish aquaculture. On other occasions, New Zealand marine

mammalshavebecomeentangled innon-biologicalmarinewasteordebris (Mattlin&

Cawthorn, 1986; Derraik, 2002). These reports, as well as reports from overseas,

indicatethatloose,thinlinesorbuoysandfloatsposethegreatestentanglementthreat

to marine mammals. As such, potential entanglement risks at the proposed spat

catchingfacilityarelikelytobelowbecauseanchorandbackbonelinesarekeptunder

tensionandmanagementofthespatcatchingactivitywillensurethattherearenoloose

linesassociatedwiththefacility.

Because they don’t echolocate (Tyack& Clark, 2000), baleenwhales, such as Bryde’s,

southern right and humpback whales, aremore prone to entanglement issues. Over

60%ofnorthern rightwhales in theNorthAtlantichave entanglement scars on them

(Hamilton et al, 1998). There has been one documented case of a Bryde’s whale

(Balaenopterabrydei)entangledinasingleropeusedtobuoyanisolatedspatcatching

structureatGreatBarrierIslandintheHaurakiGulf(SeafoodNewZealand,1996)and

five instances of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) found entangled in

crayfish pots near Kaikoura. Because of their echolocation abilities and smaller size,

thereisalowerriskofdolphinsbecomingentangledinlines,andwhiletherehavebeen

instances of dolphins entangled in fishing gear, there have been no reported cases of

dolphinsentangledinlinesinNewZealand(Lloyd,2003;Clement,2013).

Therisksofentanglementarethoughttobegreaterwiththinneroruntensionedropes

suchasbuoylinesusedtomarkcrayfishpots(Lloyd,2003).Theproposedspatcatching

facilitydoesnotincludeuntensionedlines,smalllinesorisolatedstructuresofthistype

asstandaloneelementsofthefacility.Rathertheproposedspat


34

catching facility is a relatively robustly structured collection of buoys, backbones and

mooring lineswith suspendeddropper ropesdeployedonly at timesof expected spat

fall. The “hairy”mussel spat catching dropper lines are around 25mm diameter and

would be relatively obvious underwater to visually or acoustically orienting animals.

Dropperlineswouldbedeployedclusteredingroupswithintheoverallfootprintofthe

proposed facility, rather than spread out as individual dropper lines in a low density

distribution.Thesemeasures,togetherwiththespecificlocationoftheproposedfacility

away from known locations, key foraging areas ormigration routes of baleenwhales

shouldavoidorminimisetherisksofentanglement.

Underwaternoiseintheoceansisafairlywidespread,yetlargelyunknownproblemfor

marinemammals,particularly the largerwhalespecies(Nowaceketal,2007;Weilgart,

2007;Wright, 2008). The level and persistence of any underwater noises associated

withmusselfarmingmaybeminimalrelativetootherunderwaternoisesources,suchas

commercial vessels, but will vary according to farm features (type, size), habitat

characteristics (location, water depth, types of bottom sediments, shape of coastline,

backgroundnoiselevels)andactivitieswithinthefarmmanagement.Duetothenature

of the proposed spat catching facility and its operational procedures, the levels of

underwaternoisethatarelikelytoresultfromtheproposalwouldbeconsiderablyless

thanthosegeneratedbyanactivemusselcultivationfacility,anditcouldbearguedthat

underwaternoisegenerationfromtheproposedfacilitywouldbelessthanminor.

Overseas research has demonstrated thatwhalesmay bemore sensitive to increased

noiseproductionintheirhabitatsoralongmigrationroutes(Gard,1974;Herman,1979;

Bryant et al, 1984; Glockner-Ferrari & Ferrari, 1990), however, most odontocete

(toothed whales and dolphins) and pinniped species demonstrate few avoidance

behavioursandconsiderabletoleranceofmostunderwaternoiseswithafewexceptions

(Richardson,1995). The curiosity and temporaryattractionofdolphins toboatnoise

will be familiar to most recreational or commercial vessel users and this has been

recognised in the literature(Carwardine,1995;Dawsonetal,2000). Thesitingof the

proposed spat catching facilitywould result in little tonooverlapwithknownbaleen

whale habitat and is outside key foraging, breeding or migratory habitat for known

whalespeciesinNewZealand.


35

The potential for wider, more indirect ecosystem effects onmarinemammals due to

musselaquaculture,includingfood-webinteractions(Black,2001;Kaiser,2001;Wursig

&Gailey,2002;Kemperetal,2003),biotoxinandpathogen(disease)outbreaks(Geraci

etal,1999;Kaiser,2001)andantibioticuse(Buschmannetal,1996;Kaiser,2001)have

been considered in the literature, however, no actual research or any indirect effects

haveyetbeendocumentedordemonstratedresultingfromfull-scalemusselfarms.Due

totheseasonalandshorttermnatureofoperations,theproposedspatcatchingactivity

shouldhaveconsiderablyfewereffectsonmarinemammalsthanaconventionalmussel

farminthesamelocation.Theproposedactivityislikelytohaveunmeasurableeffects

onwaterquality,planktonicsupply,hydrodynamics,currents,sedimentquality,orfood-

web interactions. With careful and sensible biosecurity management measures, the

proposalshouldhavenoimpactonbiosecurityintheareaandisunlikelytointroduce

biotoxins or pathogen outbreaks. There is no intention to use antibiotics or other

biocontrolagentsattheproposedspatcatchingfacility.Theexpectedeffectsonmarine

mammalswouldbelessthanminor.

Notingthepresence,activityandinteractionsofmarinemammalsatthefacility,where

possible,maybesensibleinordertomonitororrecordthespecificeffectsofthefacility

onthemarinemammalsfoundinthearea


36

5 FISHERIES

Overall,around75differentspeciesof finfisharecaughtcommercially fromthewider

Hauraki Gulf (Hauraki Gulf Forum, 2018). Snapper has historically been the main

commercialspecieslandedintermsofreportedcatchweight,butcommerciallandings

of snapper, flounders, gurnard and john dory generally displayed declining trends

between2007-2008and2015-2016,whileotherspecieshaveshownfluctuationbutno

consistenttrends(HaurakiGulfForum,2018).

Whilebottomtrawling,Danishseiningandbottomlongliningtogetherprovidearound

85-90%ofthecommercialcatchofsnapper,gurnard,tarakihi,kahawai,rig,trevallyand

john dory (Hauraki Gulf Forum, 2011), there are restrictions to bottom trawling and

DanishseiningappliedtotheMercuryBayarea.RecordsofbottomtrawlingandDanish

seiningbetween1January2014and31December2016showthatlittlefishingactivity

(lessthan10bottomtrawlsandlessthan10Danishseinetrawls)occurredinthearea

andallofthisfishingactivityoccurredoutsideMercuryBayitself(HaurakiGulfForum,

2018). Thenumbersofcommercial longlinesetswithinthenorthernportionofouter

MercuryBayfrom1January2011to31December2013isreportedasbeingbetween

50and100sets,whileintheperiod1January2014to31December2016thenumbers

ofcommercial longlinesetswerereportedasaround15-25sets. There isahistoryof

commerciallongliningactivitywithinthenorthernouterMercuryBayareathatmaybe

affectedbytheproposedspatcatchingfacility.

Hartil et al (2013) conducted aerial surveys of the wider Hauraki Gulf, including

Mercury Bay, togetherwith boat ramp interviews of recreational fishers. These data

wereusedtopresenttherecreationalfishingeffort(numbersofboatsobserved)during

aerial surveys conducted in 2011 and 2012 inHauraki Gulf Forum (2018). The data

suggests that 9-16 boats were present in the northern outer Mercury Bay area

(potentially affected by the proposed spat catching facility) during the survey period,

while the inner areas ofMercuryBay showhigher levels of recreational fishing effort

with17-32boatsrecorded.

Inadditiontotheaerialsurveys,Hartiletal(2013)conductedboatrampinterviewsat

theWhitiangaboatrampover44daysinthe2011-2012period.


37

As a result of those interviews, itwas recorded that 832 fishers in 304 boats landed

1007 snapper, 340 kahawai, 78 red gurnard, 143 tarakihi and 117 trevally. It is

assumed that these species of finfish might be found in the vicinity of the proposed

mussel spat catching facility. The 9-16 boats observed in the general vicinity of

proposedspatcatchingfacilityrepresentapproximately3-5%oftherecreationalfishing

boats interviewed atWhitianga boat ramp by Hartil et al (2013) over the same time

period. Ifweassumethateachof the9-16boatshad,onaverage,2.74 fishersaboard

(theaveragenumberoffishersperboatinterviewedbyHartiletal(2013)atWhitianga

boatramp)thenoverthesurveyperiodapproximately25-44recreationalfisherswere

fishing in the general vicinity of the proposed mussel spat catching facility over the

2011-2012surveyperiod.

The extrapolations made from the Hartil et al (2013) data involve assumptions

regardingtheproportionsoftrailerboatsfishingandprobablelaunchingpoints,among

others. These assumptions may or may not be valid, however, the extrapolations

provideat leastaroughquantificationofthenumbersof fisherswhocouldpotentially

beaffectedbytheproposal.

MrMaxRosshasmadecommentsontheproposalinassociationwiththeMercuryBay

Boating Club. These comments were centered principally on perceived navigation

issues in relation to the proposed spat catching facility, however, Mr Ross did make

mention of recreational fishing activity in or near the area proposed for the spat

catchingfacility. MrRossmentionsthatheoftensetsabottomlongline inornearthe

areacoveredbytheproposal,ashebelievesthatthereisaproductivewormbedinthe

areathatattractsandholdssnapperandotherfish. WhiletheMBESsonarsurveyand

benthic biological sampling failed to detect any significant biogenic reef structures or

highlyabundantpopulationsofpolychaetewormsintheareacoveredbytheproposal,

thepresenceoftheproposedspatcatchingfacilitywouldnottotallyexcludethesetting

of bottom longlines in and around the spat catching facility footprint. The physical

structuresassociatedwiththeproposalmayserveasamildattractanttorecreationally

importantfishspecies.


38

Marine farms and other artificial structures in marine environments provide a three

dimensional reef habitat for colonisation by fouling organisms and associated biota

(Costa-Pierce&Bridger 2002). Studies fromNewZealand (e.g.MAFBiosecurityNew

Zealand port baseline surveys) and overseas (Hughes et al. 2005; Braithwaite et al.

2007)indicatethatthedominantbiotaonsuchartificialstructuresincludesmacroalgae

(seaweeds) and attached (sessile) filter-feeding invertebrates such as sea squirts,

bryozoansandmussels.Theseassemblages typicallyhavearangeofothernon-sessile

animalsassociatedwiththem,suchaspolychaetewormsandvarioussmallcrustaceans.

Basedonoverseasresearch,thecommunitiesthatdeveloponartificialstructurescanbe

quitedifferenttothoseinnearbyrockyareas(Glasby1999;Connell2000).

Musselfarminginvolvesintroducingacomplexthree-dimensionalstructuretoaseabed

that is otherwise relatively featureless (i.e. sand/mud), which can be colonised by a

diverse and productive fouling community. Both the fouling communities and the

mussels themselves canbe attractive as food sources formany species of fish. These

alterationstotheexistinghabitatcanimprovethesuitabilityoftheenvironmentforfish

(Caselle et al. 2002; Dempster et al. 2006) resulting in enhanced numbers of

recreationally valued fish species. This is the same principle uponwhich FAD’s (fish

attraction devices) are used to aggregate fish for commercial and recreational fishing

purposes (Buckley et al.1989; Relini et al.2000; Dempster & Kingsford 2003). As a

result, it is commonly believed that marine farms have the potential to enhance the

abundance of some fish species (Grange, 2002; Dealteris et al. 2004). Anecdotal

evidence surrounding the preference of many anglers to fish in or nearmussel farm

structuressuggeststhatfishattractionisarealeffectofmusselfarming.

Whiletheproposedspatcatchingfacilitywouldconsistofanchorlines,backbonelines

andbuoys,asfoundinmusselfarmingdevelopments,verticalspatcatchinglineswould

onlybedeployedonashortterm,temporarybasiswhenamusselspawningeventwas

predicted. The spat catching ropes would only be deployed until they had collected

sufficientmusselspatandwouldneedtoberelocatedtoasuitablemusselongrowing

facilitywithinacoupleofweeks.Ifmusselspatfalldidnotoccuraspredicted,thenthe

ropes would be removed from the water to prevent fouling from other marine


39

organismsandspatcatchinglineswouldthenbedeployedforthenextpredictedmussel

spawningevent.

Asaresult,theproposedspatcatchingfacilitywouldnotpresentsuchacomplexhabitat

as a mussel farming facility might. Anchor lines, backbone lines and buoys might

developencrustingcommunitiesof foulingorganisms,however,withoutthe longterm

deployment of mussel cultivation ropes, the spat catching facility is likely to have a

considerablyreducedpotentialforattractingandholdingfishspeciescomparedwitha

mussel farm. The proposed spat catching facility is also not likely to result in the

exclusionof recreational fishersdue to thepresenceanddensityofmusselcultivation

lines.Spatcatchinglines,whiledeployedforshortperiodsoftime,mayresultinsome

smalldegreeofexclusioneffecttorecreationalfishers,however,fortheremainderofthe

time, the buoys, backbone lines and anchoring systems of the proposed spat catching

facilityarelikelytobeamildattractanttorecreationallinefisherswhocantemporarily

moor themselves to the structures while line fishing. In addition, the presence and

operation of the proposed spat catching facility would not preclude the laying and

retrievingof commercial or recreational long lines in thearea, although it is accepted

thattherewouldneedtobeagreaterdegreeofcareexhibitedbythefishersoperating

thelonglineequipment.

Whiletheremaybeasmallnumberofcommercialandrecreational fisherswhomight

customarilyutilise thenorthernouterMercuryBayareaas a fishingground thatmay

potentially be affected by the proposed spat catching facility, it is unlikely that all

potentialeffectswouldbenegativeor that fishingactivity isnecessarilyexcludedasa

result of the proposal. It is also likely that there may be some positive effects for

recreationalfishersinthearearesultingfromtheproposedspatcatchingfacility.


40

6 BIOSECURITY

Biosecurity, in the context of the proposed spat catching facility, refers to the

introduction to New Zealand waters of foreign, invasive or pest species and the

movement(spread)ofsuchspeciesfromanyareainwhichtheymaybeestablishedto

areaswithinNewZealandwatersthatdonothavethesespeciespresent.Foracountry

likeNewZealandthatreliessoheavilyonprimaryproductivityand,inthiscontext,the

aquacultureindustry, formuchofthecountry’sGDP,biosecurityisaconstantandreal

threat both economically and environmentally. The primary focus of agencies

responsible for biosecurity in New Zealand has been to prevent the introduction of

foreignorganismsintoNewZealand,however,withthevolumeofinternationalshipping

that is essential for the country there has inevitably been accidental introductions of

foreignspecies.

Some of those species are more serious in terms of economic and environmental

implicationsthanothers,forexample,Pacificoyster(Crassostreagigas)wasaccidentally

introducedtoNewZealand in the1950’s. Ithas insomeareascompletelysupplanted

the native rock oyster Saccostrea glomerata and has modified and dominates some

habitatasithasformedbiogenicreefstructuresofsignificantsizeandextent.Sincethe

1970’s the Pacific oyster has been cultivated and is now one of the three main

aquaculturespeciesinNewZealandalongwithkingsalmonandgreenshellmussels.

Most introducedspecies,however,donotprovidepositivebenefits to theaquaculture

industry with increased fouling of lines, buoys, structures and vessels and the active

competition for space and/or food resources with cultivated shellfish being common

adverse effects for mussel farmers. The additional time and resources required to

preventthespreadoftheseorganisms,monitorforthemortoreportandcontrolthemif

discovered presents a cost to the aquaculture industry, however, it is in the best

interests of the industry and of New Zealand in general that the introduction of pest

speciesispreventedandanyestablishedpestsarecontrolledandcontained.

While there is a long list of foreign species thatNewZealand agencies are constantly

vigilantfor,themainorganismsofconcernintheAucklandandwiderHaurakiGulfarea

appeartobeMediterraneanfanworm(Sabellaspallanzanii),the


41

AsiankelpUndariapinnatafida,Asianpaddlecrab(Charybdisjaponica),NorthernPacific

seastar (Asteriasamurensis), the clubbed sea squirt (Styellaclava) and the sea squirts

EudistomaelongatumandPyuradoppelgangera. Inparticular,controllingthespreadof

these species from areas where they have become established (e.g. the Waitemata

Harbour) to areas that are currently free from these organisms (e.g. Coromandel and

MercuryBay)isofprincipalconcern.

Table6.1 PrincipalmarinepestspeciesofconcernCommonName ScientificName Habitat ImpactMediterraneanfanworm Sabellaspallanzanii • Lowtideto30m

• Shelteredharbourstosemi-exposedcoastsandreefs

• Wharves,pontoons,structures,boathulls

• Foulingorganism• Canformdense

colonies• Highlyefficientfilter

feeder• Disruptsnatural

ecologicalbalanceAsiankelp Undariapinnatafida • Intertidalto40m




colonies• Veryfastgrowing

Asianpaddlecrab Charybdisjaponica • Lowtideto15m• Sandandmudin

mostcoastalhabitats

• Veryaggressivepredator

• Detrimentaltoaquaculture

NorthernPacificseastar Asteriasamurensis • Lowintertidalto25m



• Veryfastgrowing• Canformdense

colonies• Voraciouspredator

Clubbedseasquirt Styellaclava • Lowintertidalto25m




colonies• Disruptsnatural

ecologicalbalance• Highlyefficientfilter

feeder

Dropletseasquirt Eudistomaelongatum • Intertidaltosubtidal• Shelteredharbours

tosemi-exposedcoastsandreefs




ecologicalbalance


42

Seasquirt Pyuradoppelgangera • Intertidaltosubtidal• Hardsurfaces



ecologicalbalance

Themainvectorsforspreadfortheseorganismsappearstobevesselsandequipment

usedinthemarineenvironmentthathavenotbeenproperlycleanedpriortomovement

betweenareas.NorthlandRegionalCouncil,forexample,areattemptingtopreventthe

spread of Mediterranean fanworm from Auckland’s Waitemata Harbour to wider

Northland through targeting of vessels moving between these areas. There are

requirements to demonstrate appropriate cleaning and antifouling of vessels entering

Northlandwaters fromAuckland, aswell as underwater inspections of vesselswhere

therisksofunwantedtransferoforganismsaredeemedtobehigh.Thesemeasuresare

appliedtobothrecreationalandcommercialvessels.

Where invasive species are found tobe spreading, earlydetectionand rapidaction to

control or eliminate the organisms is key to preventing thewide scale spread of pest

species.

So far as is known, Mercury Bay is free of all of the species listed in Table 6.1.

CoromandelHarbouranditssurroundingareaisfreefromallofthesespecieswiththe

exception of occasional discoveries of small patches of Mediterranean fanworm in

CoromandelandTaurangaHarbours,whichhavebeeneliminatedwheneverfound.

Atpresent,thebestmeansofmanagingbiosecurityissuesassociatedwithaquaculture

facilities is to instigate a BiosecurityManagement Plan (BMP) that covers equipment

and vessels, people management, staff training and education and biosecurity risk

assessments andmanagement, etc. Table 6.2 outlines examples of the aspects of the

BiosecurityManagementPlanthatshouldbeconsideredandcovered.

Oneofthekeyaspectsofbiosecurityandpestspeciescontrolinvolvesthemaintenance

of vessels moved between areas. The proposal involves vessel movements between

Mercury Bay and the Coromandel Harbour area. Any vessels that are to be moving

betweenareaswouldrequireregularassessmentforbiosecurity


43

threat and scheduled maintenance and hull cleaning to prevent pest species spread.

Thiswouldnormallyincludeoutofwatercleaningandpotentiallyantifoulingtreatment,

if necessary, on an annual basis. The vessel’s hull and underwater structures, with

particularemphasisoncrevices, throughhullapertures, seachestorwater intakes,or

wetareas(e.g.anchorwells,livebaittanks,etc)shouldbeassessedforbiosecurityrisk

via visual inspection (e.g. diver, video and/or stills camera, etc) prior tomoving from

anyhigh-riskareastolowerriskregions.Shouldanypestspeciesbefound,appropriate

measures should then be taken to remove or eliminate the pests prior to vessel

movement.

Table6.2 ExampleAspectsofanAquacultureFacilityBiosecurityManagementPlan

BiosecurityRiskManagement • RegularcontactwithBiosecurityagenciestomaintainawarenessoflatestthreatsandchangestopolicyanddirection

• Annual in-water survey of marine farm structures and seabedfootprinttoidentifyanyofthemarinepestslistedintheRPMPorontheMPIUO’sregister

Equipment,VehiclesandVessels • Assessment of all equipment, vehicles and vessels entering andleaving the aquaculture facility for biosecurity risk andappropriateactionstaken

• Standard Operating Procedures for the regular cleaning anddisinfectionofallequipment,vehiclesandvessels

• DedicateddeliveryandloadingareasPeopleManagement • Assessment of all staff and visitors entering the aquaculture

facilityforbiosecurityriskandappropriateactionstaken• Managefarmaccess• Allvisitorstobebriefedregardingon-farmbiosecurityissues• Preventative measures for pest and disease entry and spread

appliedStaffTraining&Education • Stafftounderstandbiosecurityplansandresponsibilities

• Stafftobetrainedonaspectsofbiosecurityandcontingencyplansincluding identification of pests and biosecurity risks inassociationwithpestsanddiseases

RecordKeeping • Maintain records of all aspects of biosecurity management (e.g.maintenance,cleaning,stafftraining,visitorlogs,etc)

WasteManagement • Allwaste assessed for biosecurity risk to farm and environmentandappropriateactionstaken

• Containment,handlinganddisposalofwasteinbiosecuremannerContingencyPlans • Contingency plans should be prepared for direct (e.g. disease

outbreak,pestdiscovery)andindirect(e.g.storms,tsunamis,etc)incidencesthatmayinfluenceon-farmbiosecurity

Greenshellmussels are not highly prone to disease. Hine (1989) found no disease-

associated mortalities in greenshell mussels or the presence of potentially serious

pathogens within the mussels. A review on mytilids with particular emphasis on P.

canaliculus (Webb 2007) indicated that there have been no


44

particularlydestructivediseasesofmusselspecies identified inNewZealand,with the

exceptionofadigestiveviraldisease.Jonesetal.(1996)reportedmortalitiesincultured

greenshellmusselsintheouterMarlboroughSoundsasaresultofdigestiveviraldisease

(digestive epithelial virosis). The majority of these mortalities were associated with

virus-likeparticlesanddigestivetubuledamage.Theconditionalsoaffectsscallopsand

clamsinNewZealandandotherbivalvemolluscselsewhere.Virusesproducingsimilar

digestive tissue effects on bivalvemolluscs have been reported in Australia, Scotland,

Denmark, and elsewhere (Bower 2001). This digestive viral disease has not been

reported in the Coromandel area. Due to the relatively short time in the water

potentially exposed to viruses, the spat are less likely to be affected than cultivated

musselsandanytrans-shipmentofstockisunlikelytoimpactonnewlocations.

AnotherpathogenthatposespotentialenvironmentalriskistheparasiteAPX,whichis

reportedfromNewZealandonly(Digglesetal.2002;Hine2002b)andhasbeenfoundin

mussels fromtheMarlboroughSoundsandalsooccurscommonlyindredgeoystersO.

chilensis(alsoknownasflatoyster)fromallaroundthecoast(Digglesetal.2002;Hine

2002b).Inoysters,APXcancauseasignificantconditionreferredtoascoccidiosis(Hine

& Jones1994),however, itseffectonmussels is lessnoteworthy. Culturedgreenshell

mussels appear topresentnomajor threat towildmolluscs, aswildgreenshellstocks

canharbourallknownpathogenswiththeexceptionofAPX.SinceAPXisalsofoundin

dredge oysters, however, there would remain a reservoir of infection even in the

absenceofgreenshellmusselculture.

The threat to wild mussels and other bivalve species from farmed mussels carrying

indigenousdiseases/parasitesisthereforelow.KnownpathogensinNewZealandoccur

inarangeofotherwildbivalvespecies,oftenatagreaterprevalenceandintensitythan

in cultured mussels. Farmed mussels could pose a threat if they were vehicles for

introduction of an exotic disease but this is a possibility only if P. canaliculus is

susceptible and if appropriate intermediate hosts (if required) are available. The

catchingofspat in themannerproposed isunlikely torepresentany threat towildor

cultivatedpopulationsofmusselsinNewZealand.


45

7 WATERCOLUMNEFFECTS

Forthepurposesofthissupplementaryreportontheecologicalimpactsoftheproposed

mussel spatcatching facility,watercolumneffectshasbeenusedacatch-allphrase to

cover such issues as potential impacts to seston, water quality, currents and

hydrodynamics.Strictlyspeaking,theissuesofcoastalcurrentsandhydrodynamicsare

specialist areas of study that are outside the scope of an ecological report, except

perhaps, in broad terms regarding the ecological implications, such as planktonic

depletion and nutrient or discharge dispersion and dilution. In that regard, any

discussionofwatercolumneffectswithinthisreportwillberestrictedtogeneralterms

andwhereappropriatethelimitationsofexpertisewillbeacknowledged.

Keeley et al (2009) contains a good discussion regarding thewater column effects of

musselfarmsandwhilethereisnobenefitinreproducingthatdiscussioninitsentirety

withinthisreport,someaspectsoftheKeeleyetal(2009)discussionwillbehighlighted

hereanddiscussedinrelationtothespatcatchingproposal.

Currentsgeneratedbytidesandwavesplayanimportantrole inthetransportationof

plankton and dissolved nutrients and gases as well as the flushing of wastes and

associated nutrients into and out of themarine system. Currentsmay be affected by

marinefarmingstructuresduetodragforcescreatedbytheinteractionofamovingfluid

withanchoredsubmarinestructures.Theseforceshavebeenwellstudiedforarangeof

engineering applications, but little research has been conducted in relation tomarine

farms(Keeleyetal,2009).

Ofthestudiesconducted,thetwomainapproachestakenhavebeentodirectlymeasure

currentspeedsandcomparethedifferenceswithinandoutsideofexistingmarinefarms

or to estimatemacro-scale changes using hydrodynamicmodelling techniques. Boyd

andHeasman(1998)showeddecreasesincurrentspeedswithinmusselfarmstobeas

little as10%of ambient flow. This study also investigatedhowchanges in structural

densityaffectedcurrentswithinthefarmsrevealingthatincreasedropedensityleadto

decreased current velocities. The effects of this ‘structural porosity’ have particular

relevancetotheproposalbeingconsidered.


46

AmorerecentstudybyPlewetal.(2005)investigatedchangesincurrentsatalong-line

mussel farm in New Zealand and found a 38% decrease in current speed and a

reorientation of water flow parallel to the alignment of the mussel lines at peak

velocities. Currents below the farm structure are often not affected by the longline

structuresanddropperlines.

Despiteevidenceforlocalmodificationofcurrentsandwavesbyfarmstructures,coastal

ribbondevelopmentofmarine farms inNewZealand is unlikely to significantly affect

bay-widehydrodynamiccharacteristics(Plewetal2005).Whilealterationofthewave

climate shoreward of farms could theoretically affect ecologically important intertidal

andshallowsubtidalhabitats(Davidson&Richards2005),observationsatfarmsitesin

theMarlboroughSoundsprovidenoevidencetosuggestthatthisisanissueatpresent

levelsofdevelopment(Keeleyetal,2009).

The ‘structuralporosity’ of amarine farm is an important factor. High ropedensities

produce greater hydrodynamic drag factors and therefore have a higher influence on

currents. Theproposalpresentsa farmstructurethat forthemajorityof thetimehas

minimal structures andvery low ropedensity and is therefore likely tohaveminimal

effectoncurrentsandwaves. Atthetimesofspatropedeployment,thedensityofthe

dropper lines may have a greater influence on currents, however, these influences

wouldbea fractionof thoseproducedbya single full-scalemussel cultivation facility.

Research suggests thatmultiplemussel cultivation facilities in close proximity do not

have significant hydrodynamic effects and it is therefore expected that this proposal

would have hydrodynamic effects on a local and wider scale that would be

unmeasurable.

The location has a high exposure to near surface andwind-driven currents from the

eastern and southern quarters and is relatively exposed to locally generated wave

conditionsfromthosedirections. Onthatbasis,residual(non-tidal)currentsarelikely

tobehighlyvariable.

Mussels, as filter feeders, remove organicmaterial, including phytoplankton, from the

water column and release dissolved nutrients and particulates


47

backintothewatercolumn.Densecurtainsofmusselssuspendedinthewatercolumn

representedbythecropofamusselcultivationfacilitycanpotentiallyleadtoahaloof

water depleted of phytoplankton and enriched by released nutrients that extends

beyondthefarmarea. Thescale,durationandecologicalsignificanceofthesebeyond-

farmeffectsintheFirthofThameshavebeenthesubjectofmodellingstudiesandfield

researchoverthelast15yearsorso.

TheWilson Bay aquaculture zone in the Firth of Thames, when established, was the

largestconcentrationofmussel farms inone location(SeaChange,October2014)and

totalledabout1200haof farmablespace ina totalmarine farmzoneofabout2500ha.

Comprehensiveandquantitativemonitoringrequirementswere imposedandmultiple

physicalandbiophysicalmodelsweredeveloped.CitingNIWAresearch(Stenton-Dozey

etal,2012)theMarineSpatialPlandocumentreportedthatfrom12yearsofmonitoring

data supported by synoptic surveys, NIWA concluded that no significant depletion of

phytoplanktonhasoccurredfrommusselfarmingintheFirthofThames.Giventhelack

ofphytoplanktondepletioninadensemusselcultivationarea,theshorttermtemporary

presenceofmussellarvaeandmicroscopicjuvenilemusselsoftheproposedspatfarmis

unlikelytoresultinanymeasurableplanktonicdepletioneffects.

Duringfeedingmusselsexcreteammoniaintothewatercolumn,whichisthenoxidised

throughtheactionofheterotrophicbacteria. Foulingorganismsalsocontributetothe

dissolved nitrogen pool, however, in the New Zealand situation where most mussel

farms are situated in well-flushed areas, nutrient enrichment beyond the farm

boundaries is difficult to detect (Zeldis, 2008; Stenton-Dozey, 2013). Given the

difficultiesinmeasuringnutrientenrichmentasaresultoffull-scalemusselcultivation,

thelikelyeffectsofnutrientcontributionfromtheshorttermandtemporarypresenceof

mussel larvae and microscopic juvenile mussels of the proposed spat farm in this

situationwouldbesosmallastobeimpossibletoquantifyinthefield.Asaresultofthe

immeasurable impacts the proposed activity would have, the measurement or

monitoringoftheseparametersispointless.


48

8 DISCUSSION

The most important management tools for preventing adverse effects as a result of

musselaquacultureappearstobetheappropriatelocationofmusselfarmingstructures

and an appropriate scale of activity. This applies to all manner of potential adverse

effects from seabed andwater column impacts to seabirds andmarinemammals and

includesfisheriesimpactsonhumans.Thelocationandthetypeandscaleofoperations

forthisproposedmusselspatcatchingfacilityprovidefortheavoidanceorminimisation

ofthesepotentialadverseeffects.

The seabed in the proposed location is sand andmud/silts or sand and broken shell

(shell hash) and does not have any biogenic reef structures present. The biological

communitiespresentweremoderatelydiversebutdidnotrepresenthighvaluehabitat

orshowuniqueorunusualcharacteristicsthatmightprecludetheproposedactivity.

The main periods of spat catching are the months of September and October with a

secondaryperiod inMarchandApril. The timesofmusselspawningactivitycanvary

each year, however, it is proposed that spat catching at this site will be undertaken

mainly during these months. Each of the three blocks proposed would have

approximately10,000metresofcatchingropeoverthetimeofexpectedspatfall.Once

theropeshavebeendeployed,theywouldbecheckedonaweeklybasisforspatfalland

relocatedoncesufficientmusselspatdensityhasbeenachieved.

Theproposedlocationissufficientlyseparatedfromknownbreedingsitesofseabirdsto

avoid disturbance effects and is not likely to affect common diving petrels transiting

between breeding sites and key foraging habitat. Coastal seabirds are unlikely to be

adversely affected as a result of key foraging habitat exclusion and the proposalmay

provide some mild positive benefits in terms or enhanced roosting habitat and the

potentialfortheattractionofsmallfishthatmightbenefitpiscivorousseabirds.Marine

litter isan issue thatcanbeadequatelymanaged through farmmanagementpractices

andartificiallightingassociatedwiththeproposalwouldbeminimalandisunlikelyto

beanissueforseabirds.Whileentanglementissuesmaybeperceivedtobeapotential

threat to seabirds, the reality is that aquaculture in New Zealand does not result in


49

seabirdentanglement,unlikecommercialandrecreationalfishing.

The locationoftheproposal isoutsidetherecognisedrangeofBryde’swhales,andno

recordedsightingsofBryde’swhales,Southernrightwhalesorhumpbackwhalesinor

nearMercuryBaycouldbefound.Thesebaleenwhalespecieswouldbeatthehighest

risk of entanglementwith the proposed spat catching facility due to their inability to

echolocate,however,given theunlikely interactionof thesespecieswith theproposed

facility,thoserisksappeartobelessthanminor.Thepresenceandbehaviourofvarious

species of beaked whales is made difficult to assess due to the lack of data on their

distribution,however,itisknownthatthesewhalesaredeep-waterforagersandassuch

the proposal is extremely unlikely to affect key foraging habitat for these marine

mammals.DolphinsandOrcaarefrequentvisitorstotheMercuryBayandarelikelyto

encounter the proposed spat catching facility, but the agility, intelligence and

echolocationabilitiesofthesemarinemammals,togetherwiththescaleofoperationsof

thefacilitywouldsuggestthatanyadverseeffectsarelikelytobelessthanminor.New

Zealandfursealareunlikelytobeadverselyaffectedbythisproposal.

CommercialfishingoperationsdonotappeartobeasignificantactivitywithinMercury

Bayandofthecommercialfishingactivitythatdoesoccur,thepresenceandoperationof

the proposed spat catching facility does not represent total exclusion. Likewise, the

presenceandoperationof theproposed facilitywouldnotexcluderecreational lineor

bottomlonglinefishingfromtheareaandtheremaybesomesmallbenefitthroughthe

attractionoffishtopermanentlymooredbuoysandstructures.

While the potential for biosecurity issues exists and the consequences of pest species

expansion may be significant, these risks can be adequately managed, as they are

elsewhere in the country, through the development and activation of a Biosecurity

ManagementPlan.Therisksofpestspeciesbeingspreadviacommercialorrecreational

vessels and equipment exist whether this proposed spat catching facility is granted

consentornotandthisproposal,withitsattendantbiosecuritymanagement,isunlikely

tochangethatriskprofile.Therisksoftheintroductionorspreadofdiseaseasaresult

oftheproposedactivityareextremelylow.


50

Thewatercolumneffectsresultingfrommusselfarmingarehighlylocalisedanddifficult

tomeasureeveninfull-scaleandhighdensitycultivationsituations.Giventhelocation

andscaleandtheseasonalnatureofoperations, thisproposal isextremelyunlikely to

haveanymeasureableeffectsonthewatercolumnintermsofeitherplanktondepletion

or nutrient release and therefore there is no ecological value in monitoring these

parameters. Given the high structural porosity and the short term and temporary

deployment of spat catching lines, the hydrodynamic effects of the proposed spat

catching facility are unlikely to be anything more than minor. As a result of the

separation of the proposed spat catching facility from the coastline and the minimal

effectsontidal,windgeneratedandresidualcurrentsandthewaveenvironmentwithin

Mercury Bay, the proposal is not likely to have any measurable effects on coastal

processeswithinthelocalorwiderarea.


51

9 REFERENCES

ANZECC(2000)Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality,Volume 1, The Guidelines (Chapters 1-7). Australian and New ZealandEnvironment and Conservation Council (ANZECC) and Agriculture and ResourceManagement Council of Australia and New Zealand (ARMCANZ). Paper No. 4 -Volume1(Chapters1-7)October2000.

AuDW,PitmanRL(1986) Seabird interactions with dolphins and tuna in the eastern tropical Pacific.

Condor88:304-317.AzarelloMY,Van-VleetES(1987) Marinebirdsandplasticpollution.MarineEcologyProgressSeries37:295-303.BlackKD(2001)

Sustainability of aquaculture. In: Black KD ed. Environmental impacts ofaquaculture.SheffieldAcademicPress,Sheffield,UnitedKingdom.Pp.199–212.

BougrierS,HawkinsAJS,HeralM.(1997)Preingestive selectionof differentmicroalgalmixtures inCrassostrea gigas andMytilusedulisanalysedbyflowcytrometry.Aquaculture150:123-134.

BowerSM(2001)SynopsisofInfectiousDiseasesandParasitesofCommerciallyExploitedShellfish:Virus-Like Disease of Mussels. http://www-sci.pac.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/shelldis/pages/virldmu_e.htm

BoydAJ&HeasmanKG(1998) Shellfish aquaculture in the Benguela system: water flow patterns within a

musselfarminSaldahnaBay,SouthAfrica.JournalofShellfishResearch17:25-32. BraithwaiteRA,CadavidCarrascosaMC,McEvoyLA(2007)

Biofouling of salmon cage netting and the efficacy of a typical copper-basedantifoulant.Aquaculture262:219-226.

BrookeMDL(2004) AlbatrossesandPetrelsacrosstheworld.OxfordUniversityPress,Oxford.BryantPJ,LaffertyCM,LaffertySK(1984) ReoccupationofLagunaGuerroNegro,BajaCalifornia,Mexico,bygraywhales.In:

The Gray Whale: Estrichtius robustus, pp 375-386. Jones ML, Swartz SL,LeatherwoodS(eds).AcademicPress,Orlando,Florida,UnitedStatesofAmerica.

BuckleyRM,ItanoDG,BuckleyTW(1989)FishAggregationDevice (FAD)EnhancementofOffshoreFisheries inAmericanSamoa.BulletinofMarineScience44:942-949.


52

BuschmannAH,LopezDAMedinaA(1996) A review of the environmental effects and alternative production strategies of

marineaquacultureinChile.AquaculturalEngineering15(6):397-421.ButlerD(2003) Possible impactsofmarine farmingofmussels(Pernacanaliculus)onkingshag

(Leucocarbo carunculatus). DoC Science Internal Series 111. Department ofConservation,Wellington,NewZealand.

CallierMD,McKindseyCW,DesrosiersG(2007)Multi-scalespatialvariationsinbenthicsedimentgeochemistryandmacrofaunalcommunitiesundera suspendedmussel culture.MarineEcologyProgressSeries348:103-115.

CallierMD,WeiseAM,McKindseyCW,DesrosiersG(2006)Sedimentationrates inasuspendedmussel farm(Great-EntryLagoon,Canada):biodeposit production and dispersion.MarineEcologyProgressSeries322:129-141.

CarwardineM(1995) Whales,dolphinsandporpoises.HarperCollins,Sydney,Australia.

CaselleJE,LoveMS,FusaroC,SchroederD(2002)

Trash orHabitat? Fish Assemblages onOffshoreOilfield SeafloorDebris in theSantaBarbaraChannel,California.ICESJournalofMarineScience59:S258-S265.

CastelJ,LabourgeJP,EscaravageV,AubyI,GarciaME(1989)Influenceofseagrassandoysterparksontheabundanceandbiomasspatternsofmeio-andmacrobenthosintidalflats.EstuarineCoastalShelfScience28:71-85.

ChamberlainJ,FernandesTF,ReadP,NickellTD,DaviesIM(2001)ImpactofBiodepositsFromSuspendedMussel(MytilusEdulisL.)CultureontheSurroundingSurficialSediments.ICESJournalofMarineScience58:411-416.

ChristensenPB,GludRN,DalsgaardT,GillespieP(2003)Impacts of long-line mussel farming on oxygen and nitrogen dynamics andbiologicalcommunitiesofcoastalsediments.Aquaculture218:567-588.

ClementD(2013) Literature review of ecological effects of Aquaculture: Effects on marine

mammals.ReportforMinistryforPrimaryIndustries,August2013,19pp.

ConnellSD(2000)Floating Pontoons Create Novel Habitats for Subtidal Epibiota. Journal ofExperimentalMarineBiologyandEcology247:183-194.

Costa-PierceBA,BridgerCJ(2002)Theroleofmarineaquaculturefacilitiesashabitatsandecosystems.In:Stickney


53

RR,McVay JP eds.ResponsibleMarineAquaculture. CAP InternationalPress,NewYork.Pp.105-144.

CranfordPJ,StrainPM,DowdM,HargraveBT,GrantJ,ArchambaultM(2007)Influence of mussel aquaculture on nitrogen dynamics in a nutrient enrichedcoastalembayment.MarineEcologyProgressSeries347:61-78.

Davidson RJ, Courtney SP, Millar IR, Brown DA, Deans NA, Clerke PR, Dix JC,LawlessPF,MavorSJ,McRaeSM(1995) Ecologicallyimportantmarine,freshwater,islandandmainlandareasfromCape

Soucis to the Ure River, Marlborough, New Zealand: Recommendations forprotection. Occasional Publication 16. Nelson/Marlborough Conservancy,DepartmentofConservation,Nelson,NewZealand.

DavidsonRJ(1998)Preliminary report on ecological issues related tomussel harvesting activities.Prepared by Davidson Environmental Ltd for the Department of Conservation,Wellington.SurveyandMonitoringReportNo.158.23p.

DavidsonRJ,BrownDA(1999)Ecological report of potential marine farm areas located offshore of the westcoast of Coromandel Peninsula. Prepared by Davidson Environmental Ltd forEnvironmentalWaikato.SurveyandMonitoringReportNo.177.39p.

DawsonS,duFresneS,SlootenE,WadeP(2000) Line-transect survey of Hector’s Dolp[hin abundance between Motunau and

Timaru.DepartmentofConservation,Wellington,NewZealand.

DeJongRJ(1994)Theeffectsofmusselfarminginthebenthicenvironment.MasterofSciencethesis.UniversityofAuckland.

DealterisJT,KilpatrickBD,RehaultRB(2004)A comparative evaluation of habitat value of shellfish aquaculture gear,submerged aquatic vegetation and a non-vegetated seabed. Journal of ShellfishResearch23:867-874.

DempsterT,KingsfordM(2003)HomingofPelagicFishtoFishAggregationDevices(FAD's):theRoleofSensoryCues.MarineEcologyProgressSeries258:213-222.

DerraikJGB(2002) The pollution of the marine environment by plastic debris: A review.Marine

PollutionBulletin44(9):842-852.

DigglesBK,HinePM,HandleyS,BousteadNC(2002)A handbook of diseases of importance to aquaculture in New Zealand. NIWAScienceandTechnologySeriesNo.49.200p.


54

Downing,JA(1997) Marinenitrogen:phosphorusstoichiometryandtheglobalN:Pcycle. Biogeochemistry37:237-252.DuFresneSP,GrantAR,NordenWS,PierreJS(2007) Factors affecting cetceanbycatch in aNewZealand trawl fishery.DoCResearch

andDevelopmentSeries282.DepartmentofConservation,Wellington.DuFresneS(2008) Evaluationof the impactsof finfish farmingonmarinemammals in theFirthof

Thames.ReportforEnvironmentWaikato.TechnicalReportTR0827.25pp+app.DupreyNMT(2007) Dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) behaviour and human interactions:

Implications for tourism and aquaculture. MSc Thesis, Texas A&M UniversityDepartmentofWildlifeandFisheriesScience,Texas,UnitedStatesofAmerica.

FindlayRH,WatlingL(1997)Predictionofbenthicimpactforsalmonnet-pensbasedonthebalanceofbenthicoxygensupplyanddemand.MarineEcologyProgressSeries155:147-157.

ForrestB,BarterP(1999)Site assessments for seven proposed mussel farm areas in the MarlboroughSounds.CawthronReportNo.496.42p.plusappendices.

ForrestBM,KeeleyNB,GillespiePA,HopkinsGA,KnightB,GovierD(2007)Review of the ecological effects of marine finfish aquaculture: final report.CawthronReportNo.1285.CawthronInstitute,Nelson,NewZealand.71p.

FryDM,FeferSI,SileoL(1987) IngestionofplasticdebrisbyLaysanalbatrossandwedge-tailedshearwaters in

theHawaiinIslands.MarinePollutionBulletin18:339-343.GardR(1974) Aerial census of Gray whales in Baja California lagoons, 1970 and 1973, with

notesonbehaviour,mortalityandconservation.CaliforniaFishandGame60(3):132-134.

GaskinCP,RaynerMJ(2013) SeabirdsoftheHaurakiGulf:Naturalhistory,researchandconservation.Hauraki

GulfForum.GeraciJR,HarwoodJ,LounsburyVJ(1999) Marinemammaldie-offs;Causes, investigationsand issues. In:Conservationand

management of marine mammals pp 367-395. Twiss JR, Reeves RR (eds).SmithsonianInstitutionPress,Washington,UnitedStatesofAmerica.


55

GibbsN,ChilderhouseS(2000) HumpbackwhalesaroundNewZealand.ConservationAdvisoryScienceNotesNo.

257.DepartmentofConservation,Wellington,NewZealand.

GibbsM,PilcherO,KeeleyN,HeasmanK,WebbS(2006)Aquaculturestockingdensityguidelinesforalternativebivalvespecies.PreparedforMinistryofFisheries.CawthronReportNo.1192.35p.

GibbsM,RossA,DownesM(2002)Nutrient cycling and fluxes in Beatrix Bay, Pelorus Sound, New Zealand. NewZealandJournalofMarineandFreshwaterResearch36:675-697.

GibbsM,VantW(1997)Seasonal changes in factors controlling phytoplankton in Beatrix Bay, NewZealand.NewZealandJournalofMarineandFreshwaterResearch31:237-248.

GibbsMT(2004)Interactionsbetweenbivalve shellfish farmsand fishery resources.Aquaculture240:267-296.

GibbsMT(2007)Sustainability performance indicators for suspended bivalve aquacultureactivities.EcologicalIndicators7:94-107.

GilesH,PilditchCA(2004)Effects of diet on sinking rates and erosion thresholds of mussel Pernacanaliculusbiodeposits.MarineEcologyProgressSeries282:205-219.

GilesH,PilditchCA,BellDG(2006)Sediments frommussel (Pernacanaliculus)culture in theFirthofThames,NewZealand:impactsonsedimentoxygenandnutrientfluxes.Aquaculture261:125-140.

GlasbyTM(1999)DifferencesbetweensubtidalepibiotaonpierpilingsandrockyreefsatmarinasinSydney,Australia.Estuarine,CoastalandShelfScience48:281-290.

Glockner-FerrariDA,FerrariMJ(1990) Reproduction in the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) in Hawaiian

waters1975-1988:Thelifehistoryandbehaviourofknownindividualsidentifiedthrough surface and underwater photography. Reports of the InternationalWhalingCommission.SpecialIssue12:161-169.

GrangeKR(2002)The effects ofmussel farms on benthic habitats and fisheries resourceswithinand outside marine farms, Pelorus Sound. Prepared for the Mussel IndustryCouncil.UnpublishedNIWAClientReportNEL2002-003.24p.


56

GrantJ,CranfordPJ,HargraveB,CarreauM,SchofieldB,ArmsworthyS,Burdett-CouttsV,IbarraDiego(2005)

Amodelofaquaculturebiodepositionformultipleestuariesandfieldvalidationatbluemussel(Mytilusedulis)culturesites ineasternCanada.CanadianJournalofFisheriesandAquaticSciences62:1271-1285.

HamiltonP,KnowltonAR,MarxMK,KrausSD(1998)

Age structure and longevity in North Atlantic right whales Eubalaena glacialisandtheirrelationtoreproduction.MarineEcologyProgressSeries171:285-292.

HargraveBT,DoucetteLI,CranfordPJ,LawBA,MilliganTG(2008)Influenceofmussel aquacultureon sedimentorganic enrichment in anutrient-richcoastalembayment.MarineEcologyProgressSeries365:137-149.

HartilB,BianR,RushN,ArmigerH(2013) Aerial-access recreational harvest estimates for snapper, kahawai, red gurnard,

tarakihi and trevally in FMA1 in 2011-12. New Zealand Fisheries AssessmentReport2013/70.MinistryforPrimaryIndustries,Wellington,NewZealand.

HartsteinND,RowdenAA(2004)Effectofbiodeposits frommussel cultureonmacroinvertebrateassemblagesatsites of different hydrodynamic regime.Marine Environment Research 57: 339-357.

HartsteinND,RowdenAA(2008)EffectofBiodepositsFromMusselCultureonMacroinvertebrateAssemblagesatSitesofDifferentHydrodynamicRegime.MarineEnvironmentalResearch57:339-357.

HartsteinND,StevensCL(2005)Deposition beneath long-line mussel farms. Aquacultural Engineering 33: 192-213.

HatcherA,GrantJ,SchofieldB(1994)Effects of Suspended Mussel Culture (Mytilus Spp.) on Sedimentation, BenthicRespirationandSedimentNutrientDynamicsinaCoastalBay.Mar.Ecol.Prog.Ser.115:219-235.

HaurakiGulfForum(2018) StateofOurGulf2017.HaurakiGulf/TikapaMoana/TeMoana-nui-a-ToiStateof

theEnvironmentReport2017.HaurakiGulfForum,Auckland,NewZealand.HeinrichS(2006) Ecology of Chileandolphins andPeale’s dolphins at Isla Chiloe, southern Chile.

PhDThesis,UniversityofStAndrews,Fife,Scotland.HermanLM(1979) Humpback whales in Hawaiian waters: A study in historical ecology. Pacific

Science33(1):1-15.


57

HinePM(1989)

Parasites and diseases of commercially important molluscs in New Zealand.Advances in Tropical Aquaculture. Tahiti, Feb 20- March 4. AQUACOP IFREMERActesColloque9.Pp.199-206.

HinePM(2002)

Severe apicomplexan infection in oysters Ostrea chilensis (Philippi, 1845) apredisposingfactorinbonamiosis?DiseasesofAquaticOrganisms51:49-60.

HinePM,JonesJB(1994)BonamiaandotheraquaticparasitesofimportancetoNewZealand.NewZealandJournalofZoology21:49-56.

HughesDJ,CookEJ,SayerMDJ(2005)

Biofiltration and biofouling on artificial structures in Europe: the potential formitigatingorganic impacts.OceanographyandMarineBiology:anAnnualReview43:123-172.

HutchinsonLV,WenzelBM(1980) Olfactoryguidanceinforagingprocellariiformes.Condor82:314-319.

HuxhamM,GilpinL,MocogniM,HarperS(2006)

Microalgae, macrofauna and sediment stability: an experimental test of areciprocalrelationship.MarineEcologyProgressSeries310:55-63.

JamesMR,WeatherheadMA,RossAH(2001)Size-Specific Clearance, Excretion, and Respiration Rates and PhytoplanktonSelectivity for theMusselPernaCanaliculusatLowLevelsofNaturalFood.NewZealandJournalofMarineandFreshwaterResearch35:73-86.

JaramilloE,BertanC,ButcherB(1992)MusselDepositioninanEstuaryinSouthernChile.MarineEcologyProgressSeries82:85-94.

JonesJB,ScottiPD,DearingSC,WesneyB(1996)

Virus-like particles associatedwithmarinemusselmortalities in New Zealand.DiseasesofAquaticOrganisms25:143-149.

KaiserMJ,LaingI,UttingD,BurnellGM(1998)

Environmental impacts of bivalve Aquaculture. Journalof ShellfishResearch17:59-66.

KaiserMJ(2001) Ecological effects of shellfish aquaculture. In: Evironmental Impacts of

Aquaculture pp 51-75. Black KD (ed) Sheffield Academic Press, Sheffield, UnitedKingdom.


58

KasparHF,GillespiePA,BoyerIC,MacKenzieAL(1985)Effectsofmusselaquacultureonthenitrogencycleandbenthiccommunities inKenepuruSound,MarlboroughSounds,NewZealand.MarineBiology85:127-136.

KeeleyN,ForrestR(2008)

Benthic effects of spat catching activities in Golden Bay.Prepared forRingroadConsortiumLtd.CawthronReportNo.1505.14p.+appendices.

KeeleyN,HattonS,HeasmanK,DivettT,GibbsM(2005)

OpenOceanAquaculture:Annual report.Confidentialdocument.CathronReportNo.1069.

KeeleyN,ForrestB,HopkinsG,GillespieP,KnightB,WebbS,ClementD,GardnerJ(2009)

Sustainable aquaculture in New Zealand: Review of the ecological effects offarmng shellfish and other non-finfish species. Prepared for the Ministry ofFisheries.CawthronReportNo.1476.150p+appendices.

KemperCM,PembertonD,CawthornM,HeinrichS,MannJ,WursigB,ShaughnessyP,GalesR(2003)

Aquacultureandmarinemammals:Co-existenceorconflict?In:Marinemammals:Fisheries, tourism and management issues, pp 208-224. Gales N, Hindell M,KirkwoodR(eds)CSIROPublishing,Collingwood,Victoria,Australia.

KirkM,EslerD,BoydWS(2007)

Morphology and density of mussels on natural and aquaculture structurehabitats: implications for sea duck predators. Marine Ecology Progress Series346:179-187.

LalasC(2001) EvidencepresentedforKukuMaraPartnership,ForsythBay.EnvironmentCourt

Hearing,Blenheim.StatementsofevidenceVolume1October.LloydBD(2003) Potential effects of mussel farming on New Zealand’s marine mammals and

seabirds: A discussion paper. Department of Conservation, Wellington, NewZealand.

MacKenzieAL,GillespiePA(1986)

Plankton Ecology and Productivity, Nutrient Chemistry, and Hydrography ofTasman Bay, New Zealand, 1982-1984. New Zealand Journal of Marine andFreshwaterResearch20:365-395.

MarkowitzTM,HarlinAD,WursigB,McFaddenCJ(2004) Dusky dolphin foraging habitat> Overlap with aquaculture in New Zealand.

AquaticConservation:MarineandFreshwaterEcosystems14:133-149.


59

MattsonJ,LindénO(1983)Benthic macrofauna succession under mussel, Mytilus edulis L. (Bivalvia),culturedonhanginglong-lines.Sarsia68:97-102.

MironG,LandryT,ArchambaultO,FrenetteB(2005)

Effectsofmusselculturehusbandrypracticesonvariousbenthiccharacteristics.Aquaculture250:138-154.

MirtoA,LaRosaT,NaovaroR,Mazzola(2000)

Microbial and meiofaunal response to intensive mussel-farm biodeposition incoastal sediments of the Western Mediterranean.Marine Pollution Bulletin 40:244-252.

MontevecchiWA(2006) Influences of artificial light on marine birds. In: Ecological consequences of

artificial night lighting, pp 94-113. Rich C, Longcore T (eds) Island Press,WashingtonDC,UnitedStatesofAmerica.

NowacekDP,ThorneLH,JohnstonDW,TyackPL(2007) Responsesofcetaceanstoanthropogenicnoise.MammalReview37(2):81-115.OgilvieSC,RossAH,JamesMR,SchielDR(2003)

In Situ Enclosure Experiments on the Influence of Cultured Mussels (PernaCanaliculus) on Phytoplankton at Times of High and Low Ambient Nitrogen.JournalofExperimentalMarineBiologyandEcology295:23-39.

PatenaudeNJ(2000) DemographicandgeneticstatusofsouthernrightwhalesattheAucklandIslands,

NewZealand.PhDThesis,UniversityofAuckland,Auckland,NewZealand.PatenaudeNJ(2003) Sightings of southern rightwhales around ‘mainland’ New Zealand. Science for

Conservation225.DepartmentofConservation,Wellington,NewZealand.PearsonTH,RosenbergR(1978)

Macrobenthic succession in relation toorganicenrichmentandpollutionof themarine environment.OceanographyandMarineBiologyAnnualReview16:229-311.

PearsonH,SrivivasanM,VaughanR,WursigB(2007) Cetacean abundance, habitat use and behaviour in winter and spring 2006,

Admiralty Bay, New Zealand, with comparisons to 2005.Report toMrlboroughDistrictCouncilandDepartmentofConservation.

PennycuickCJ((1982) The flight of petrels and albatrosses (Procellariformes), observed in South

Georgiaanditsvicinity.PhilosophicalTransactionsofRoyalSocietyofLondon300:75-106.


60

PlewDR(2005) The hydrodynamic effects of long-line mussel farms. PhD Thesis, University of

Canterbury.Christchurch,NewZealand.PlewDR,StevensCL,SpigelRH,HartsteinND(2005) Hydrodynamic implications of large offshore mussel farms. IEEE Journal of

OcenaicEngineering30:95-108.PrinsTC,SmaalAC,DameRF(1998)

A review of the feedbacks between bivalve grazing and ecosystem processes.AquaticEcology31:349-359.

Rayner MJ, Hauber ME, Clout MN, Seldon DS, Van Dijken S, Bury S, Phillips RA(2008) Foraging ecology of the Cook’s petrel Pterodroma cookii during the austral

breeding season: a comparison of its two populations.MarineEcologyProgressSeries370:271-284.

RaynerMJ,TaylorGA,ThompsonDR,TorresLG,SagarPM,ShafferSA(2011) Migration and divind activity in three post-breeding flesh-footed shearwaters

(Puffinuscarneipes).JournalofAvianBiology42:266-270.ReliniG,ReliniM,MontanariM(2000)

Anoffshorebuoyasasmallartificialislandandafish-aggregatingdevice(FAD)intheMediterranean.Hydrobiologia440:65-80.

RibeiroS,ViddiFA,CordeiroJL,FreitasTRO(2007) Fine-scale habitat selection of Chilean dolphins (Cephalorhynchus eutropis):

InteractionswithaquacultureactivitiesinsouthernChiloeIsland,Chile.JournalofMarineBiologicalAssociationoftheUnitedKingdom87:119-128.

RichardsonWJ(1995) Documented disturbance reactions. In:Marinemammalsandnoise, pp241-324.

Richardson WJ, Greene CR, Malme CI, Thomson DH (eds). Academic Press, SanDiego,UnitedStatesofAmerica.

Robertson HA, Baird K, Dowding, JE, Elliot GP, Hitmough RA, Miskelly CM,McArthurN,O’DonnellCFJ,SagarPM,ScofieldRP,TaylorGA(2016) Conservation status of New Zealand birds. New Zealand Threat Classification

Series19.27pp.RodhouseP,RodenC(1987)

Carbon budget for a coastal inlet in relation to intensive cultivation ofsuspension-feedingbivalvemolluscs.MarineEcologyProgressSeries36:225-236.

RoycroftD,KellyTC,LewisLJ(2004)

Birds,sealsandthesuspensioncultureofmusselsinBantryBay,anon-seaduckareainSouthwestIreland.Estuarine,CoastalandShelfScience61:703–712.


61

RyanPG(1987) Theincidenceandcharacteristicsofplasticparticlesingestedbyseabirds.Marine

EnvironmentResearch23:175-206.SagarP(2013) Literature review of ecological effects of aquaculture: Seabird interactions.

ReportforMinistryforPrimaryIndustries,August2013,18pp.SapoznikowA,QuintanaF(2002) EvidenceforRockShags(Phalacrocoraxmagellanicus)andImperialCormorants

P.atricepsleavingtheirnestsatnight.MarineOrnithology30:34-35.SeaChange(2014) SeaChangeHaurakiGulfMarineSpatialPlan.AquacultureRoundTable.Technical

Report2:synthesisofissuesandoptions.SeafoodNewZealand(1996) CorrespondencetoEditor“TheExceptionNottheRule”.September1996,4(8):8.ShreyE,VaukGJM(1987) Recordsofentangledgannets(Sulabassana)atHelgoland,GermanBight.Marine

PollutionBulletin18:350-352.SlootenE,DawsonSM,DuFresneS(2001) ReportoninteractionsbetweenHector’sdolphins(Cephalorynchushectori)and

aGoldenBaymusselfarm.UnpublishedreportforEnvironmentCanterbury.Stenton-DozeyJ(2013) Literature reviewof ecological effectsof aquaculture:Pelagiceffects.Reportfor

MinistryforPrimaryIndustries,August2013,21pp.Stenton-DozeyJ,MorriseyD,BroekhuizenN,OldmanJ(2008)

Fisheries Resource Impact Assessment (Wilson Bay Area B, Interim AMA).Prepared forMinistry of Fisheries. NIWAClient Report CHC2008-145.Ministry ofFisheriesProject:AQE200801.69p.+appendices.

Stenton-DozeyJ,ZeldisJ,VopelK(2004)

Mussel farming in the Firth of Thames- a public document.NIWAClientReportCHC2004-07.

Stenton-DozeyJ,ZeldisJ,VopelK(2005)

MusselfarminginWilsonBay,FirthofThames–apublicdocument2005.NIWAClientReportCHC2005-036.

TaylorGA(2000) Action plan for seabird conservation in New Zealand. Part A: Threatened

seabirds. Threatened Species Occasional Publication 16. Department ofConservation,Wellington,NewZealand.


62

TaylorGA(2008) Maximum diving depths of eight New Zealand Procellariiformes including

Pterodroma species. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania142:89-98.

TyackPL,ClarkCW(2000) Communicationsandacousticbehaviourofdolphinsandwhales.pp156-224In:

Au WWL, Popper AN, Fay RR (eds) Hearing by whales and dolphins. Springer-Verlag,NewYork,UnitedStatesofAmerica.

VaughnR,WursigB(2006) Duskydolphindistribution,behaviourandpredatorassociations inspring2005,

Admiralty Bay, New Zealand.A report toMarlboroughDistrictCouncil andNewZealandDepartmentofConservation.

VisserIN(2000) Orca (Orcinus orca) in New Zealandwaters.PhDThesis,University ofAuckland,

Auckland,NewZealand.WaiteL,GrantJ,DavidsonJ(2005)

Bay-scalespatialgrowthvariationofmusselMytilusedulisinsuspendedculture,PrinceEdwardIsland,Canada.MarineEcologyProgressSeries297:157-167.

WatsonS(1996)

Wilson’s Bay Marine Farm Applications: Assessment of Environmental Effects.NIWAConsultancyReportNo.SAN300.January1996.105p.plusappendices.

Watson-CappsJJ,MannJ(2005) Theeffectsofaquacultureonbottlenosedolphin(Tursiopssp.)ranginginShark

Bay,WesternAustralia.BiologicalConservation124:519-526.WebbS(2007)

Pathogens and Parasites of the Mussels Mytilus galloprovincialis and Pernacanaliculus: Assessment of the Threats Faced by New Zealand Aquaculture.CawthronReportNo.1334.28p.

WeilgartLS(2007) The impacts of anthropogenic ocean noise on cetaceans and implications for

management.CanadianJournalofZoology85:1091-1116.WestonDP(1990)

Quantitativeexaminationofmacrobenthiccommunitychangesalonganorganicenrichmentgradient.MarineEcologyProgressSeries61:233-244.

WhiteCR,ButlerPJ,GremilletDG,MartinGR(2008)

Behavioural strategies of cormorants (Phalacrocoracidae) foraging underchallenginglightconditions.Ibis150(Supplement):231-239.


63

WhiteS(2016) Ecologicaleffectsresultingfromaproposedmusselspatcatchingfacility.Report

forOhinauMarineFarms.47pp+app.

WildishDJ,AkagiHM,HamiltonN,HargraveBT(1999)ArecommendedmethodformonitoringsedimentstodetectorganicenrichmentfromAquacultureintheBayofFundy.CanadianTechnicalReportofFisheriesandAquaticSciencesNo.2286.31p.

WisemanN,ParsonsS,StockinKA,BakerCS(2011) SeasonaloccurrenceanddistributionofBryde’swhalesintheHaurakiGulf,New

Zealand.MarineMammalScience27:253-267.WongKLC,O’SheaS(2011)

The effects of a mussel farm on benthic macrofaunal communities in HaurakiGulf, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research.45(2):187-212.

WrightA(2008) What’s all the noise about? A call for lowering underwater noise from ships.

MarineTechnologyReporter51(5):22-25.WursigB,GaileyGA(2002) Marinemammalsandaquaculture:Conflictsandpotential resolutions.pp45-59

In:Responsiblemarineaquaculture. StickneyRR,McVay JP (eds). CAPPress,NewYork,UnitedStatesofAmerica.

ZeldisJ,RobinsonK,RossA,HaydenB(2004)

First observations of predation by New Zealand Greenshell mussels Pernacanaliculuson zooplankton. JournalofExperimentalMarineBiologyandEcology311(2):287-299.

ZeldisJR(2008) WilsonBaymarinefarmmonitoringbiannualreportfor2006and2007.Prepared

for Wilson Bay Group A Consortium. NIWA Client Report CHC2008-086. NIWAProjectWBC08501.

ZeldisJR,Howard-WilliamsC,CarterCM,SchielDR(2008)

ENSO and riverine control of nutrient loading, phytoplankton biomass andmussel aquaculture yield in Pelorus Sound, New Zealand. Mar Ecol Prog Ser371:131-142.

ZydelisR,EslerD,BoydWS,LacroixDL,KirkM(2006)

Habitat use by Wintering Surf and White-Winged Scoters: Effects ofEnvironmental attributes and shellfish aquaculture. Journal of WildlifeManagement70(6):1754-1762.


64


65

10 BENTHICBIOLOGICALDATA

Species A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 C1 C2 C3ANTHOZOAEdwardsiasp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0UnidentifiedanthozoanA 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0NEMERTEA 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1POLYCHAETAAmpharetidae 7 1 9 0 0 2 0 0 6Capitellidae 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Cirratulidae 2 1 6 3 0 10 1 1 4Glyceridae 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0Goniadidae 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Lumbrineridae 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0Magelonidae:Magelonasp. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0Maldanidae:Maldanesp. 11 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 1Nephtyidae:Aglaophamussp. 2 4 1 1 3 2 0 0 1Onuphidae 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 2Opheliidae:Armandiamaculata 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 1 6Opheliidae:Travisiasp. 0 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0Orbiniidae 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 2 3Oweniidae:Oweniapetersenae 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Phyllodocidae(2species) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Polynoidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0Sabellidae 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0Sigalionidae 2 4 4 1 0 2 1 0 2Spionidae:Paraprionospiosp. 16 14 7 2 0 2 0 0 3Spionidae:Polydora-group 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Spionidae:Prionospiomulticristata 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Spionidae:Spiophanesbombyx 5 6 19 6 1 1 0 0 10Syllidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0GASTROPODACalyptraeidae(possibly2species) 0 0 1 2 6 1 5 1 1?Epitoniidae:Cirsotremazelebori 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0?Pyramidellidae:Agathageorgiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1?Muricidae 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Trochidae:Antisolariumegenum 0 2 1 3 0 0 0 0 0UnidentifiedgastropodA 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 2UnidentifiedgastropodB 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0BIVALVIACardiidae:Pratulumpulchellum 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0Glycymeridae:Glycymerismodesta 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0Mactridae:Scalpomactrascalpellum 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 1Nuculidae:Nuculanitidula 1 0 1 0 5 1 3 0 1Tellinidae 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0Veneridae:Taweraspissa 0 0 0 40 2 1 0 0 7UnidentifiedbivalveA 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0UnidentifiedbivalveB 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0CRUSTACEAAmphipodaAmpeliscidae 6 3 1 1 0 0 0 0 1Caprellidae 1 1 3 2 0 2 0 0 0Oedicerotidae:?Patukisp. 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0Phoxocephalidae(2species) 4 5 5 13 2 3 2 1 2UnidentifiedamphipodA 141 100 168 152 21 175 18 11 104UnidentifiedamphipodB 0 10 16 60 4 34 51 9 55UnidentifiedamphipodC 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 1UnidentifiedamphipodD 2 1 0 4 1 3 0 1 0UnidentifiedamphipodE 0 0 1 3 0 2 0 1 2Cumacea(atleast3species) 7 4 11 4 0 6 0 0 9Natantia(2species) 1 1 2 1 1 0 0 0 0DecapodaCallianassidae 8 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0Diogenidae:Paguristessp. 2 1 0 5 6 1 6 0 5Macropipidae:Nectocarcinusantarcticus 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1Majidae 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0Unidentifieddecapodjuvenile 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0IsopodaAnthuridea 2 7 7 0 0 1 0 0 1Cirolanidae(2species) 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1Nebaliacea 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0Ostracoda 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0ECHINODERMATAHolothuroidea 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0Ophiuroidea 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0ASCIDIACEA 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0OSTEICHTHYES 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0

TotalNumberofTaxa(Richness) 24 32 28 31 17 27 15 11 29TotalNumberofIndividuals 233 189 279 319 59 260 96 30 235ShannonIndex 1.1606 1.1275 1.1596 1.1247 1.0768 1.1977 1.1425 1.1079 1.1150

supplementary ecology report - waikato...1503 supplementary ecology report.doc 2 mussels reproduce...

Documents