supplementary ecology report - waikato...1503 supplementary ecology report.doc 2 mussels reproduce...
TRANSCRIPT
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
iv
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
vi
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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:
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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).
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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-
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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).
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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)
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
24
maybesensible inordertomonitororrecordthespecificeffectsof the facilityonthe
seabirdsfoundinthearea.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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)
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
28
Figure4.1 Sighting locations for Southern rightwhales aroundmainlandNew
Zealandbetween1976andJune2002.(fromPatenaude,2003)
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
• Shelteredharbourstosemi-exposedcoastsandreefs
• Wharves,pontoons,structures,boathulls
• Foulingorganism• Canformdense
colonies• Veryfastgrowing
Asianpaddlecrab Charybdisjaponica • Lowtideto15m• Sandandmudin
mostcoastalhabitats
• Veryaggressivepredator
• Detrimentaltoaquaculture
NorthernPacificseastar Asteriasamurensis • Lowintertidalto25m
• Shelteredharbourstosemi-exposedcoastsandreefs
• Wharves,pontoons,structures,boathulls
• Veryfastgrowing• Canformdense
colonies• Voraciouspredator
Clubbedseasquirt Styellaclava • Lowintertidalto25m
• Shelteredharbourstosemi-exposedcoastsandreefs
• Wharves,pontoons,structures,boathulls
• Foulingorganism• Canformdense
colonies• Disruptsnatural
ecologicalbalance• Highlyefficientfilter
feeder
Dropletseasquirt Eudistomaelongatum • Intertidaltosubtidal• Shelteredharbours
tosemi-exposedcoastsandreefs
• Wharves,pontoons,structures,boathulls
• Foulingorganism• Canformdense
colonies• Disruptsnatural
ecologicalbalance
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
42
Seasquirt Pyuradoppelgangera • Intertidaltosubtidal• Hardsurfaces
• Foulingorganism• Canformdense
colonies• Disruptsnatural
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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.
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
64
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
65
10 BENTHICBIOLOGICALDATA
1503SupplementaryEcologyReport.doc
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