Te Wharau Investments Limited - Ministry of Fisheries

Coastal Permit Application prepared for 

Te Wharau Investments Limited 

Menzies Bay, Banks Peninsula 

May 2012

Coastal Permit Application prepared for 

Te Wharau Investments Ltd 


May 2012 

Novo Group Ltd 

10 Bishop Street, St Albans 

PO Box 38 123, Christchurch 8842 

P: (03) 365 5570 

E: info@novogroup.co.nz 

W: www.novogroup.co.nz 

Document Date: 20/04/2012 

Document Version/Status: Final 

Project Reference: 112001 

Project Manager: JP 

Prepared by: JP 

Reviewed by: AF 

Note- This document has been prepared for the benefit of Te Wharau Investments Ltd. No liability is accepted by 

Novo Group Ltd, any of its employees or sub-consultants with respect to its use by any other person. 

Date last saved 30 / May / 12 11:57:00



Date last saved 30 / May / 12 11:57:00 

i 

Form 9: Application for Resource Consent 

Under Section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991 

TO: The Canterbury Regional Council 

Te Wharau Investments Ltd [the applicant], applies for the Coastal Permit described below. 

1. The names and addresses of the owner and occupier (other than the applicant) of land to which this 

application relates are as follows: 

N/A 

2. The location of the proposed activity is as follows: 

Menzies Bay, Banks Peninsula (as identified in the attached plans and information). 

3. A description of the activities to which the application relates is: 

A coastal permit is sought to alter the layout of an existing, consented 6 hectare 

marine farm in Menzies Bay. Specifically, the proposal seeks to retire 

approximately 60% of the existing farm structure (nearest the shoreline) and reestablish 

it adjacent to the remaining half of the farm in deeper water, further from 

the shore. 

The proposed activities for which consent is sought will be undertaken in 

accordance with the details, information and plans that accompany and form part 

of the application, including the Assessment of Effects on the Environment 

attached as Appendix 1. 

4. No additional consents are required in relation to this proposal. 

5. Attached, in accordance with the Fourth Schedule of the Resource Management Act 1991, is an 

assessment of environmental effects in the detail that corresponds with the scale and significance of the 

effects that the proposed activity may have on the environment. 

6. All information required to be included in this application by the district plan, the regional plan, the 

Resource Management Act 1991, or any regulations made under that Act is attached. 

(Signature of applicant or person authorised to sign on behalf) 

Address for service: 

Novo Group Limited 

PO Box 38 123 

Christchurch 8842 

Attention: Jeremy Phillips 

Telephone: 03 365 5570 

Email: jeremy@novogroup.co.nz 

DATED: 30 May 2012 

Address for Council fees: 


PO Box 2301 

Christchurch 

Attention: Paddy Cotter 

Telephone: 03 366 0935



Table of Contents 

Appendix 1: Assessment of Effects on the Environment ................................................................... 1 

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1 

2 The Site and Surrounding Environment ..................................................................................... 2 

2.1 Site Particulars .................................................................................................................. 2 

3 Background information ............................................................................................................. 3 

3.1 Coastal Permit CRC063161.1 ........................................................................................... 3 

4 Description of the Proposal ........................................................................................................ 4 

5 Statutory Context ....................................................................................................................... 5 

5.1 Aquaculture Reforms 2011 ............................................................................................... 5 

5.2 Resource Management Act 1991 ..................................................................................... 5 

5.2.1 Section 127 ............................................................................................................... 5 

5.3 Regional Coastal Environment Plan- Rules ........................................................................ 6 

6 Assessment of Actual or Potential Effects on the Environment (s104(1)(a)) and Relevant Plan 

Provisions(s104(1)(b)) ........................................................................................................................ 7 

6.1.1 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 ............................................................ 7 

6.1.2 Regional Coastal Environment Plan Context ............................................................. 7 

6.1.3 Defining ‘the environment’ ......................................................................................... 9 

6.1.4 Relevant actual or potential effects ............................................................................ 9 

6.1.4.1 Anchorage and navigation for vessels; ............................................................ 9 

6.1.4.2 Recreational users; ........................................................................................ 10 

6.1.4.3 The cultural, historic, scenic, amenity, Tangata Whenua, and natural values 

of the area; 10 

6.1.4.4 Marine, foreshore and seabed ecology; ........................................................ 10 

6.1.4.5 Water quality & currents; ............................................................................... 12 

6.1.4.6 Effects on seabirds and marine mammals .................................................... 13 

6.2 Summary ......................................................................................................................... 13 

8 Relevant Other Matters ............................................................................................................ 14 

8.1 Consultation .................................................................................................................... 14 

8.2 Consideration of Alternatives .......................................................................................... 14 

9 Statutory Considerations .......................................................................................................... 15 

9.1 Resource Management Act 1991- Sections 5-8 (Part II) ................................................ 15 

10 Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 16 

Table of Figures 

Figure 1: Site Location (Source: Google Maps) ............................................................................... 2 

Appendices 

Appendix 2: Photographs of Marine Farm and Locality 

Appendix 3: Approved Resource Consent & Plans – CRC063161.1 

Appendix 4: Regional Coastal Environment Plan Map 8.4 

Appendix 5: Plan of Proposed Marine Farm 

Appendix 6: Davidson Environmental Ltd Report 


ii



Appendix 1: Assessment of Effects on the Environment 

1 Introduction 

1. Section 88 of the Resource Management Act 1991 (‘the Act’) sets out the particular 

requirements for persons making an application to a consenting authority for a 

resource consent. Section 88(2)(b) states that an application must be made in the 

prescribed form and manner; and include, in accordance with Schedule 4 of the Act, 

an assessment of environmental effects in such detail as corresponds with the scale 

and significance of the effects that the activity may have on the environment. The 

following assessment is made in accordance with these requirements. 


1



2 The Site and Surrounding Environment 

2.1 Site Particulars 

2. This application relates to an existing marine farm owned by the applicant of 

approximately six hectares situated in Menzies Bay, Banks Peninsula. 

3. Menzies Bay is approximately 90km by road from Christchurch and is identified in the 

location plan marked as Figure 1 below. 

Figure 1: Site Location (Source: Google Maps) 

4. The existing marine farm is conventional in layout and structures. Seabed screw 

anchors are attached to nylon warps and backbones (lines), with polythene floats 

supporting continuous culture ropes. There are 16 lines, each being 178 metres in 

length, arranged in two blocks of eight. The lines are supported by approximately 391 

floats, including end-marker orange floats. The floats and lines support approximately 

46,000 metres of crop-growing lines. 

5. The farm is approximately 50 metres seaward of mean high water mark on the eastern 

shore of Menzies Bay. The bay is orientated approximately north-south and is 

surrounded on its east and west sides by steep, high hill slopes. A shallow valley lies 

at the southerly end, behind a stoney beach with flattish sandy bottom intertidal zone. 

This valley rises to high hills to the south. The east and west shorelines are rocky, 

whilst the seabed of the bay is composed of a sandy mud sediment. 

6. Water depths in the farm area range from 4.5m (at the southeastern corner nearest 

the shoreline at the head of the bay) to a low-water depth of 9.0m at the seaward end. 

Tidal range is approximately 1.8m. 

7. Photos illustrating the marine farm, Menzies Bay and landforms are included as 

Appendix 2. These features are otherwise described in the technical report in 

Appendix 6. 


2 

Menzies Bay



3 Background information 

3.1 Coastal Permit CRC063161.1 

8. A coastal permit (CRC063161.1) was originally approved on 1 April 1992 for use of 

approximately six hectares of Menzies Bay as a marine farm (MF352). A review of the 

consent occurred in 2008, with notice of the review (and associated conditions) taking 

effect from 1 December 2008. The consent expires on 1 January 2025. 

9. The consent approval (as reviewed) was subject to 16 conditions, including condition 2 

as follows: 


3 

2. This permit applies to the area (“the Permit Area”), comprising 

approximately six hectares situated in Menzies Bay, Banks Peninsula, as 

identified in the attached Plan CRC063161A. 

10. A copy of the approved consent decision (as reviewed) and corresponding plans are 

included in Appendix 3. 

11. In addition to the background above, it is relevant to note that the marine farm 

described above is recognised within the Regional Coastal Environment Plan for the 

Canterbury Region. In particular, Map 8.4 identifies the marine farm and its general 

location within Menzies Bay. 

12. A copy of Map 8.4 annotated to show the existing farm is included as Appendix 4.



4 Description of the Proposal 

13. The applicant seeks to reconfigure the existing marine farm as consented to by the 

approved consent CRC063161.1. 

14. The reconfiguration provides for approximately 60% of the existing marine farm to be 

relocated from its existing position in shallower water (near the head of the bay) to 

deeper water on the seaward side of the existing farm. Specifically, 2.4 hectares of 

existing farm will be retained in situ, with the balance 3.6 hectare area retired and 

relocated to the north. A plan showing the proposed farm layout is included in 

Appendix 5. 

15. The proposed change is intended to improve the productivity of the marine farm. 

16. Presently, the shallower parts of the farm are disproportionately affected by tidal 

fluctuations, storm events and rough sea conditions. By repositioning these parts of 

the farm to deeper waters, the culture ropes will be less affected by such conditions, 

with an associated improvement in crop health and productivity. 

17. Those parts of the existing farm that are unchanged by this proposal are currently 

located in sufficiently deep water so as to avoid the problems described above. 

Accordingly, there is no need to alter their location. 

18. It is noted that two options for reconfiguring the marine farm were originally considered. 

However, following a technical assessment of the benthos, habitats and ecological 

attributes associated with the existing marine farm and proposed alternative options, a 

third option was considered. This third option has since been adopted and forms the 

basis of the present application. 

19. The proposed change to the marine farm will still generally accord with the conditions 

of consent imposed under CRC063161.1, in terms of the marine farm’s area, its 

general location and its operation and management. Accordingly, it is envisaged that 

the majority of the consent conditions applying to the existing marine farm can continue 

to apply to the modified farm. 


4



5 Statutory Context 

5.1 Aquaculture Reforms 2011 

20. The changes to the aquaculture planning and consenting processes introduced by the 

legislative reforms in 2011 aim to reduce regulatory costs, delays and uncertainty; 

encourage investment in aquaculture; and integrate decision-making . 

21. A key change is the removal of the requirement for aquaculture management areas 

(AMAs), meaning that applications for new marine farms can now be made, subject to 

the provisions of the relevant regional coastal plan. 

22. In the context of this application, the aquaculture reforms are not considered to alter 

the procedural requirements or merits of the proposal. More particularly, this 

application seeks to alter an existing, consented marine farm providing for a 

reconfigured layout within an area of Menzies Bay recognised and accepted for 

marine farming by the Regional Coastal Environment Plan. 

5.2 Resource Management Act 1991 

5.2.1 Section 127 

23. Section 127 of the Resource Management Act states: 

“127. Change or cancellation of consent condition on application by consent holder – 


5 

(1) The holder of a resource consent may apply to a consent authority for a change 

or cancellation of a condition of the consent (other than any condition as to the 

duration of the consent). 

(3) Sections 88 to 121 apply, with all necessary modifications, as if – 

(a) the application were an application for a resource consent for a 

discretionary activity; and 

(b) the references to a resource consent and to the activity were references 

only to the change or cancellation of a condition and the effects of the 

change or cancellation respectively. 

(4) For the purposes of determining who is adversely affected by the change or 

cancellation, the local authority must consider, in particular, every person who – 

(a) made a submission on the original application; and 

(b) may be affected by the change or cancellation.” 

24. The High Court has held that whether an application is truly one for a variation of the 

condition under s127 or whether in reality, it is seeking consent to an activity which is 

materially different in nature, is a question of fact and degree to be determined in the 

circumstances of the case. In deciding whether an application for variation is in 

substance a new application, a consent authority should compare any differences in 

the adverse effects likely to follow from the varied proposal with those associated with 

the activity in its original form. Where the application would result in a fundamentally 

different activity or one having materially different adverse effects, a new application 

may be required.



25. Based on the assessment of the proposal in the context of the relevant statutory plans 

and the technical assessment (Appendix 6), it is considered that the activity and 

effects of the proposal are not materially different in nature to that previously 

approved. Specifically, the proposal still relates to a marine farm of six hectares in the 

same general locality, with no new or additional adverse effects of any significance. 

26. As the nature of the activity and its effects will not materially differ as a consequence 

of the change, it is considered that the application can be appropriately considered as 

a change of consent conditions, rather than as a fresh resource consent application. 

Specifically, changes to condition 2 of CRC063161.1 would provide for the revised 

farm layout now proposed, with remaining conditions otherwise governing the activity 

and its effects. 

27. Notwithstanding the conclusion above and the Regional Council’s acknowledgement 

that ‘consideration [of the proposal] would take into account the previously consented 

situation’, the Council has advised that a new resource consent application is required. 

In forming such a view the Council has noted that: ‘there will be new structures in a 

different area of the bay from previously consented, the potential for an increase in 

biomass of mussels and potential for altered effects on ecology and amenity’ 1 . 

28. This application for a new resource consent is made on the basis of the Council’s 

position on the proposal, but without prejudice to the applicant’s position that it should, 

more appropriately, be processed as a change of consent conditions under section 

127 of the Act. 

5.3 Regional Coastal Environment Plan- Rules 

29. Resource consent is sought due to non-compliance with Rule 8.5 of the Regional 

Coastal Environment Plan as follows: 

Rule 8.5 Non-Complying Activities 


6 

The following are Non-Complying Activities in, on, under, or over any foreshore or 

seabed: 

…(c) the erection or placement of a structure within an Area of Significant Natural 

Value or within an area listed in Schedule 5.13. This shall not apply to: 

(i) a structure allowed as a Permitted Activity by Rule 8.1; or 

(ii) a structure controlled by Rule 8.2 or Rule 8.6; or 

(iii) a marine farm structure that was authorised prior to 16 May 2001; or 

(iv) the erection or placement of a structure or structures undertaken for the 

purpose of maintaining, repairing, or protecting network utility infrastructure. 

30. Applying this rule to the proposal it is noted that Menzies Bay is listed in Schedule 

5.13 and the new marine farm structures proposed were not authorised prior to 16 

May 2001. 

1 Email correspondence from P Hopwood, ECan Team Leader Consents Planning, 30/03/2012



6 Assessment of Actual or Potential Effects on the Environment 

(s104(1)(a)) and Relevant Plan Provisions(s104(1)(b)) 

6.1.1 New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement 2010 

31. The New Zealand Coastal Policy Statement (NZCPS) is a national policy statement 

under the Act and is intended to state policies in order to achieve the purpose of the 

Act in relation to the coastal environment of New Zealand. 

32. Regional plans, including regional coastal plans, must give effect to the NZCPS as set 

out in section 67(3)(b) of the Act. On that basis, the proposal’s consistency with the 

Regional Coastal Environment Plan (as assessed below) indicates consistency with 

the NZCPS. Attention is drawn to policy 8 in the NZCPS which requires recognition of 

the contribution of aquaculture to the well-being of people and communities and 

requires provision for aquaculture activities in appropriate places: 

Policy 8 Aquaculture 


7 

Recognise the significant existing and potential contribution of aquaculture to the 

social, economic and cultural well-being of people and communities by: 

(a) including in regional policy statements and regional coastal plans 

provision for aquaculture activities in appropriate places in the coastal 

environment, recognising that relevant considerations may include: 

(i) the need for high water quality for aquaculture activities; and 

(ii) the need for land-based facilities associated with marine farming; 

(b) taking account of the social and economic benefits of aquaculture, 

including any available assessments of national and regional economic 

benefits; and 

(c) ensuring that development in the coastal environment does not make 

water quality unfit for aquaculture activities in areas approved for that 

purpose. 

6.1.2 Regional Coastal Environment Plan Context 

33. The Regional Coastal Environment Plan for the Canterbury Region (RCEP) provides 

the relevant context for identifying the actual or potential effects associated with the 

proposed change that warrant assessment. 

34. The RCEP identifies Menzies Bay as an ‘Area of Banks Peninsula to be Maintained in 

the Present Natural States, Free of Additional Structures’ in Schedule 5. However, 

this status must also be viewed in the context of Map 8.4 in the RCEP which 

specifically recognises an ‘authorised marine farm’ in Menzies Bay for that part of the 

CMA presently occupied by the existing marine farm and that area proposed to be 

occupied by the revised farm layout. A copy of map 8.4, with an overlay of the 

existing and proposed marine farm is included in Appendix 4. 

35. Policies 8.5 and 8.15 in the RCEP are of particular relevance and are copied in full 

below (with emphasis added in bold): 

Policy 8.5 

In considering applications for resource consents to occupy the Coastal Marine Area, 

Environment Canterbury should: 

(a) give priority to maintaining safe anchorages for vessels; and



Policy 8.15 


8 

(b) avoid impeding navigational channels and access to wharves, slipways 

and jetties; and 

(c) avoid displacing existing public recreational use of the area where there 

are no safe adjacent alternative areas available; and 

(d) have regard to existing commercial use of the area and any adverse 

effects on that activity, including recognition of the designated Port 

Operational Areas; and 

(e) have regard to any adverse effects on the values relating to the natural 

character of the coastal environment, both within and outside the immediate 

location; and 

(f) have regard to any adverse effects on the cultural, historic, scenic, 

amenity, Tangata Whenua, and natural values of the area; and 

(g) have regard to available alternative sites and the reasons for the 

applicant’s choice of site; and 

(h) have regard to existing use and development of the area and the 

extent to which the natural character of the area has already been 

compromised; and 

(i) only provide for the period or periods of occupation that are reasonably 

necessary to meet the purposes for which occupation is sought. 

(1) Areas of Banks Peninsula listed in Schedule 5.13 and Areas of Significant Natural 

Value should be maintained in their present natural states; free of additional 

structures, including marine farms; unless it can be established for those areas that 

the structures and their use will have no more than minor adverse effects on: 

(a) the natural character of the area including its overall landscape and 

seascape; and 

(b) the marine, foreshore and seabed ecology; and 

(c) the water quality; and 

(d) the use or enjoyment of the area by recreational, tourist or other users of 

the marine environment who do not require authorisations for exclusive 

occupancy; and 

(e) the habitat of Hectors Dolphins. 

(2) Exceptions to (1) should only be made for: 

(a) wharves, jetties and other structures that facilitate public access to the 

marine environment; 

(b) intake or outfall structures; 

(c) marine farm operations that existed or were authorised prior to 28 

August 1998; 

(d) areas for which existing marine farm permits were granted under the 

Fisheries Act 1983 or the Marine Farming Act 1971 prior to 16 May 2001; 

(e) minor expansions of existing marine farm operations at or adjacent 

to their existing locations; 

(f) an area in close proximity to an existing marine farm for the 

temporary relocation of the marine farm for reasons of storms, algal 

blooms, oil spills, toxic discharges and other environmental hazards for 

the operation of the marine farm; 

(g) structures for the monitoring of, and/or research into, the marine 

environment;




9 

(h) structures for the conservation and/or enhancement of marine species; 

(i) small scale non-commercial marine farming structures in Mataitai 

Reserves; and 

(j) structures needed to maintain, repair, or protect network utility 

infrastructure. 

36. Noting the above, and other relevant provisions in the RCEP, it is evident that the 

existing use and development of the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) and associated 

effects are a key consideration when assessing coastal permits and their effects. 

Moreover, the RCEP specifically acknowledges existing marine farms and provides for 

‘minor expansions at or adjacent to their existing locations’ and relocations (albeit 

temporary) in response to storm and other hazards. In Menzies Bay specifically, the 

area occupied by the existing and proposed marine farm is expressly recognised as 

providing for ‘authorised marine farms’. These factors are all of fundamental 

importance to the assessment of this proposal and demonstrate the proposal’s 

consistency with the RCEP. 

6.1.3 Defining ‘the environment’ 

37. Case law has clearly established that ‘the environment’ against which effects are to be 

assessed in terms of sections 95-95E and sections 104-104D of the Act, constitutes 

the ‘existing environment’. This includes the environment as modified by existing 

lawful activities and/or activities which could be established pursuant to 

unimplemented resource consents. 2 

38. Accordingly, when assessing the effects of this proposal consideration must be given 

to those additional or marginal effects on the receiving environment as it exists 3 — that 

being the environment as modified by the current marine farm in Menzies Bay. 

6.1.4 Relevant actual or potential effects 

39. Noting the context above, consideration is given to the actual or potential effects of the 

proposal on the existing environment in respect of: 

Anchorage and navigation for vessels; 

Recreational users; 

The cultural, historic, scenic, amenity, Tangata Whenua, and natural 

values of the area; 

Marine, foreshore and seabed ecology; 

Water quality and currents; 

Seabirds and marine mammals 

6.1.4.1 Anchorage and navigation for vessels; 

40. The proposal will not adversely affect the anchorage and/or navigation of vessels, 

relative to the status quo. Conversely, the relocation of the inshore part of the existing 

marine farm to deeper waters is likely to have beneficial effects. 

2 Refer: Queenstown-Lakes District Council v Hawthorn Estate (NZRMA424 2006) 

3 Refer: Rodney District Council v Eyres Eco-Park Ltd (NZRMA1 2007)



6.1.4.2 Recreational users; 

10 

41. Existing recreational values and users will not be adversely affected by the proposal, 

noting that: 

(i) Menzies Bay is generally remote from the main Christchurch-Akaroa highway, 

settled urban areas (Christchurch, Akaroa, Lyttelton, etc), and the nearest 

public boat launching facilities (e.g., Little Akaloa and Pigeon Bay]). 

Accordingly, Menzies Bay experiences relatively low levels of recreational use 

by on-shore and off-shore users. 

(ii) In terms of on-shore recreational values, these are predominantly at the head 

of Menzies Bay where a small beach area is located. The proposed marine 

farm will be further separated from this part of Menzies Bay than the existing 

marine farm, such that no new or additional adverse effects on the recreational 

values of this area will occur. On-shore recreational values for other parts of 

Menzies Bay near the revised marine farm are negligible noting that the 

topography is dominated by steep hills slopes rising from the water’s edge (see 

Appendix 2). In any case, the proposed revisions will not affect these values 

given the separation distance proposed. 

(iii) In terms of off-shore recreational values (and relative to its current location), 

the revised farm location will be in a wider section of Menzies Bay, further from 

the head of Menzies Bay and the aforementioned beach, and away from the 

eastern edge of the Bay. As noted above, this will ensure navigational 

channels for boat traffic are not adversely affected. To the extent that the 

revised location will occupy a slightly different part of the Bay, this is not 

considered to adversely affect recreational values to any greater extent than 

the status quo. 

42. For these reasons, no adverse effects on public recreation and amenity values are 

anticipated, relative to the status quo. 

6.1.4.3 The cultural, historic, scenic, amenity, Tangata Whenua, and natural values of 

the area; 

43. These values and the natural and coastal character for Menzies Bay generally, are 

already influenced by the existing 6 hectare marine farm and its proximity to the 

shore. 

44. The proposal will not increase the area/extent or significantly alter the existing 

farm’s location in Menzies Bay and accordingly no new or additional adverse effects 

on these values will occur. 

45. Conversely, the repositioning of part of the farm away from the shoreline is 

considered to have potentially positive effects in terms of any cultural, historic, 

scenic, amenity, Tangata Whenua, and natural values of the area. 

6.1.4.4 Marine, foreshore and seabed ecology; 

46. The applicant has engaged Davidson Environmental Ltd to report on these (and 

other relevant) matters. 




11 

47. Mr Davidson’s ecological report is included as Appendix 6 and this describes the 

benthos, habitats and ecological attributes associated with the existing and 

proposed marine farms in inner Menzies Bay. 

48. Based on the initial findings of this assessment, the applicant has modified the 

proposal as originally conceived, and the layout of the marine farm now proposed 

as part of this consent application reflects Mr Davidson’s recommendations. 

49. By way of relevant conclusions on the proposal, this report states on pages 31-33: 

‘The present marine farming activity in Menzies Bay has had little detectable visual 

impact on the benthos under and adjacent to the two 3 ha consent areas... 

…It is expected that the benthic impact of growing mussels at the northern 

application area in Menzies Bay will be comparable to the present inshore farm 

(i.e. low). Depths are relatively shallow and it is probable based on observations 

from the existing marine farm area, that relatively little mussel shell debris will 

accumulate under the lines. 

Based on the information collected during the present study in Menzies Bay and 

the literature about mussel farm impacts, it is very unlikely that the new farm area 

established to the north of existing lines would have any detectable impact on 

water quality. It is unlikely that any change to chlorophyl a concentrations would be 

detectable outside the area the consent and area occupied by droppers. Tidal 

currents may be reduced, but the scale of the reduction is likely to be small and 

unlikely to have any adverse impact on the local environment. 

Provided the applicant adheres to the Mussel Industry ECOP, the introduction of 

marine debris would be minimized and would therefore present little threat of 

entanglement by birds. A beach cleanup at the head of the Bay once every 6 

months would ensure that any debris from the farm would be removed. 

Based on the literature there is little risk that marine mammals would be entangled 

in marine farm structures. As a precautionary measure, it is recommended that 

single indicator floats that rise from anchors should not be used at the site. 

The Applicant is a member of the NZ Mussel Industry Environmental Code of 

Practice and as such is bound by biosecurity measures and Acts that aim to 

minimize the chance of unwanted organisms being introduced into the area. 

6.2 Inshore 3 ha area 

The inshore 3 ha portion of the existing consent is positioned in very shallow water 

and is over a benthos characterised by silt and clay with a component of sand and 

natural shell. No species, habitats or communities with known scientific, 

conservation or ecological importance were observed from this area. The impact of 

the present marine farming activity in this shallow zone is low with little or no 

mussel debris observed from most photographs. Although the substratum is suited 

for farming (i.e. silt and clay) and the impact of mussel farming in this area is low, 

the farm owner wishes to relinquish this area due to problems associated with the 

very shallow depth. 

6.3 Northern 3 ha consent area 

… At the time of the present investigation the farm owner intended to retain this 

[northern] 3 ha area for mussel farming activities. The impact of the present marine 

farming activity in this area was low with little or no mussel debris observed from 

most photographs. There was no indication that hard shore habitats and the 




12 

species associated with this substratum had been adversely impacted by the 

present marine farming activity. 

The substratum seaward of the red line in Figure 8 is suited for marine farming (i.e. 

silt and clay), however, the substratum inshore of the red line is characterised by a 

substratum that is restricted to a narrow strip around the edges of Banks 

Peninsula. Due to the limited extent of this habitat around the Peninsula and the 

higher diversity of species that hard shores support compared to silt and clay 

areas, it is recommended that this area be relinquished and this lost consent area 

be added onto the total area of the northern application area. 

6.4 Proposed northern application area 

At the time of the survey the applicant proposed a 3 ha area located to the north of 

the existing consent area. Based on data collected during the present study, most 

of this area was characterised by silt and clay with a small component of natural 

shell material. However, the southern inshore boundary of this proposed 

application area supported areas with natural dead whole and broken shell that 

had been colonised by foliose red algae. As this habitat and community type is of 

ecological interest, it is recommended that the application area be modified to 

avoid this area. It is recommended that the southern corners of this area be 

relocated further from shore thereby moving the southern end of the proposed 

farm further from shore and over silt and clay substrata. This shift would place any 

marine farming structures well distant to inshore habitats and their associated 

communities. 

6.5 Modified plan of application 

Following the identification of biological values in the present report, the farm 

owner modified the application in an effort to avoid these areas and position the 

present consent and the new application area over mud substrata (Figure 9). In the 

new plan, more of the existing consent has been removed (i.e. inshore boundary) 

as recommended and the northern application has been enlarged and adjusted 

further from shore. 

These adjustments achieve the recommendations made in the present report. No 

further changes to the farm boundaries on biological criteria are recommended’. 

50. Noting the conclusions above and Mr Davidson’s report, any adverse effects on 

marine biology are considered to be less than minor. 

6.1.4.5 Water quality & currents; 

51. Mr Davidson’s report considers potential effects on water quality in detail in section 

5.2, concluding: 

‘The present consent area is 6 ha in size and is located in a bay representative of 

many bays around northern Banks Peninsula. The farm has been fully developed 

since 2002. The present application, if successful, will effectively relocate the 

inshore mussel growing structures further north in the bay. No additional 

backbones will be added as part of this process, however, the droppers in the 

northern area will be longer due to increased water depth. Based on numerous 

studies in the Marlborough Sounds, it is unlikely that a 6 ha farm in Menzies Bay 

would have a detectable impact on water quality or phytoplankton levels beyond 

the boundaries of the consent. Further, no other marine farms are located within 

the Bay, thereby further reducing the potential for any cumulative impacts on water 

quality or phytoplankton levels’. 




52. In respect of tidal currents, section 5.3 of Mr Davidson’s report concludes: 

13 

‘Existing tidal currents appear to run parallel to the shore into and then out of the 

Bay. This pattern of tidal flow follows the same orientation of the existing and 

proposed farm backbones. This will facilitate better water flow through the farm 

compared to mussel lines that deflect or are situated across the direction of tidal 

flow. It is therefore unlikely that structures in the northern area will alter the existing 

tidal flow strength to any significant degree’. 

53. Based on this assessment, any adverse effects on water quality or currents are 

considered to be less than minor. 

6.1.4.6 Effects on seabirds and marine mammals 

54. Section 5.2 of Mr Davidson’s report considers this issue and finds no evidence to 

suggest that such effects will be of any significance. Again, it is noted that the 

proposal will not involve any significant change to the existing marine farm which 

might result in new or additional adverse effects. 

6.2 Summary 

55. Noting the context above, the proposed changes to the marine farm are considered 

to have no new or different adverse effects which are more than minor relative to 

the effects of the existing marine farm. In particular: 

Navigational channels, boat access or anchorage opportunities will not be 

adversely affected as a result of the proposed change. 

Existing public recreation users or opportunities for use will not be affected. 

Effects on cultural, historic, scenic, amenity, Tangata Whenua, and natural 

values (including landscape and seascape character) will be unaltered, noting 

that Menzies Bay is already influenced in this regard by the existing marine 

farm. Whilst the position of the marine farm will change, the effects will not 

(other than potential positive effects associated with its more distant position 

from the shoreline). 

No adverse effects to the marine, foreshore or seabed ecology will arise as a 

consequence of the change proposed. 

No adverse effects on water quality and currents will arise as a consequence 

of the change proposed. 

No adverse effects to seabirds and marine mammals will occur as a 

consequence of the change in position proposed. 

56. Noting the above and the revised farm’s position within the ‘authorised marine farm’ 

area identified in the RCEP Map 8.4, the proposed change to the marine farm is 

concluded to have less than minor effects (at most) relative to the effects of the 

existing marine farm. 

57. Moreover, the change proposed is considered to accord with the relevant provisions in 

the RCEP, where these contemplate and provide for changes to existing marine farm 

structures and operations. 




8 Relevant Other Matters 

8.1 Consultation 

14 

58. Based on the assessment of effects above, no other parties are considered to be 

adversely affected by the proposal and no consultation has therefore been 

undertaken. 

8.2 Consideration of Alternatives 

59. The preceding assessment of effects shows that the proposal will not have any 

significant adverse effects on the environment. Therefore an assessment of 

alternatives is not required. 




9 Statutory Considerations 

9.1 Resource Management Act 1991- Sections 5-8 (Part II) 

15 

60. In considering an application for resource consent, pre-eminence must be given to 

Part II, the purpose and principles of the Resource Management Act. The purpose of 

the Act is to promote the sustainable management of natural and physical resources. 

Section 5 imposes a duty on consent authorities to promote sustainable management 

while avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects of activities on the 

environment. 

61. In regards to section 5, the proposal is consistent with the enabling provision of 

section 5 in that the proposal will be providing for the efficient and sustainable use 

of the site, without compromising the quality of the surrounding environment. 

Importantly, the activity will not result in any adverse effects that would be in conflict 

with section 5(2)(a) – (c). 

62. Matters of national importance are set out in section 6 and the following matters 

apply to the proposal. 

(a) the preservation of the natural character of the coastal environment 

(including the coastal marine area), wetlands, and lakes and rivers and 

their margins, and the protection of them from inappropriate subdivision, 

use, and development: 

(b) the protection of outstanding natural features and landscapes from 

inappropriate subdivision, use, and development: 

(d) the maintenance and enhancement of public access to and along the 

coastal marine area, lakes, and rivers: 

63. These matters are recognised and provided for within the provisions of the RCEP, 

against which the proposal has been assessed. Moreover, the conclusion as to the 

effects of the proposal demonstrates consistency with these matters. 

64. Section 7 lists various matters to which regard shall be had in achieving the 

purpose of the Act. The matters of particular relevance to this application are: 

(b) the efficient use and development of natural and physical resources: 

(c) The maintenance and enhancement of amenity values; and 

(d) The maintenance and enhancement of the quality of the environment. 

65. In respect of subsections (c) and (d), it is considered that the proposal will maintain 

and enhance amenity values and the quality of the existing environment. 

Subsection (b) is of particular relevant, insofar that the proposal expressly seeks to 

provide for the more efficient use of the existing consented marine farm (a physical 

resource) and the natural resources upon which it relies. 

66. There are no section 8 matters (Treaty of Waitangi) which need to be taken into 

account. 

67. For these reasons, it is considered that the proposal is in keeping with Part II of the 

Resource Management Act 1991. 




10 Conclusion 

16 

68. The preceding assessment has demonstrated that the proposed change will have 

actual or potential effects on the existing environment which are less than minor in 

scale. Further, the proposal is in accordance with the relevant provisions in the 

RCEP. Accordingly, the proposal is considered to promote the purpose and 

principles of the Resource Management Act 1991, as set out in Part II. 

69. Based on the conclusions above, it is concluded that the Council should grant consent 

to the activity in accordance with sections 104, 104B and 104D and Part 2 of the Act, 

subject to appropriate conditions. 




Appendix 2: Photographs of Marine Farm and Locality 













Appendix 3: Approved Resource Consent & Plans – CRC063161.1 




Appendix 4: Regional Coastal Environment Plan Map 8.4 




RCEP recognised marine farms (grey) 

Existing marine farm (red outline) 

Proposed marine farm (green outline) 




Appendix 5: Plan of Proposed Marine Farm 


N 

PO Box 13-343 

7 Lincoln Lane 

Christchurch 

Ph: (03) 379 9901 

Fax: (03) 3799903 

E-mail: mail@aasurvey.co.nz 

File: T26/12451 Drawn: 14/3/2012 

Existing marine farm 

licence area. 

6.0 ha CRC 063161 

A 

2.4 ha 

120m 

40°37'10" (Grid) 

400m total 

Menzies Bay 

B 

1.8 ha 

C 

1.8 ha 

25° (Grid) 

200m 

MENZIES BAY 

ROAD 

155m 

115m 

155m 

boundary of exclusion area 

Redefinition of Marine Farm 

Licence Area 


Te Wharau Investments Limited 

ROAD 

NOTE: The registration of the licence 

boundaries with the aerial photo has 

been done from office-based records 

and has not been ground-truthed on site. 

Scale 1:6000 (@ A4) 

0 100 

Metres 

KEY 

200 

Existing licence area 

Proposed licence area 

OPTION 1a 

Version 1 

Photography: Google Earth Pro 

flown April 2011



Appendix 6: Davidson Environmental Ltd Report 


A report prepared for: 

Te Wharau Investiments Ltd. 

P.O. Box 2301 

Christchurch 8140 

April 2012 

Davidson Environmental Limited 

Ecological report in relation 

to an existing mussel farm 

and a proposed marine farm 

application site located in 


Research, survey and monitoring report number 716

Bibliographic reference: 

Davidson, R.J.; Davidson, B.R.J. 2012. Ecological report in relation to an existing mussel farm 

and a proposed marine farm application site located in Menzies Bay, Banks Peninsula. 

Prepared by Davidson Environmental Ltd. for Te Wharau Investiments Ltd. Survey and 

monitoring report no. 716. 63p. 

© Copyright 

The contents of this report are copyright and may not be reproduced in any form without 

the permission of the client. 

Prepared by: 

Davidson Environmental Limited 

P.O. Box 958, Nelson 7040 

Phone 03 545 2600 

Mobile 027 445 3352 

e-mail davidson@xtra.co.nz 

April 2012

Specialists in research, survey and monitoring 

1.0 Introduction 

The aim of the present study was to describe the benthos, habitats and ecological attributes 

associated with (A) a new 3 hectare marine farm area; and (B) an existing marine farm 

located in inner Menzies Bay, Banks Peninsula (Figure 1, Plates 1, 2, 3 and 4). 

The present report also investigates the impact of the existing marine farm area. The 

existing farm comprises two 3 ha blocks. The applicant proposes to relinquish the inshore, 

southern-most 3 ha block should the new northern 3 ha application be approved. 

The present report provides biological information using GPS and remote sensing 

technologies. 

Figure 1. Location of existing two 3 ha marine farm consent area (grey) and proposed 3 ha 

application for a new site (green) in Menzies Bay, Banks Peninsula. 

Davidson Environmental Ltd. Page 3

Plate 1. Aerial photo of Menzies Bay with existing marine farm (grey) and proposed marine farm area (green) superimposed.

Plate 2. Looking into the proposed farm area from the north. Photo taken from offshore of the northern proposed boundary. 

Plate 3. Looking into the existing backbone lines from the north. Photo taken from the northern boundary of the consent looking 

southwards.

Plate 4. Existing marine farm (grey) and proposed marine farm area (green) in Menzies Bay (Google Earth oblique view).


2.0 Background information 

2.1 Study area 

Menzies Bay is located on the northern coast of Bank Peninsula. The Bay is approximately 

107 ha in size and has a coastline of 5.6 km. 

The existing consent area comprises two contiguous 3 ha blocks located near the head of 

the bay (i.e. closest boundary 354 m from the beach), while the proposed new farm site is 

located immediately north of the present consent (i.e. closest boundary 762 m from the 

beach) (Figure 2). 

Figure 2. Location of existing consent (grey) and proposed new farm (green) in Menzies 

Bay.


2.2 Historical reports 

No biological information could be found in relation to the original application for a marine 

farm at this site. 

2.3 Existing biological information 

There are a number of biological reports relating to the subtidal marine environment 

around Banks Peninsula. No reports were, however, found that studied Menzies Bay. 

Reports relating to soft bottom communities have been produced for Little Akaloa 

(Davidson 1989, Fenwick 2002), and for other areas around the Peninsula (Dingwall 1974, 

Fenwick 1999 and 2004, Knight 1974). Reports for rocky shores around the Peninsula have 

been produced by Davidson (2008), Davidson and Abel (2003), Davidson et al. (2001), 

Fenwick (2004), Schiel and Hickford (2001), and Shears and Babcock (2007). 

Soft bottom shores 

Fenwick (2002) stated that sediment in Little Akaloa was characterised by poorly sorted 

muds with a low organic content and relatively low shell content (1-14%). The author also 

stated that the infauna associated with this soft sediment were generally comparable to 

that of similar sediments elsewhere around Banks Peninsula and New Zealand. Fenwick 

(2002) stated that species diversity increased with increasing depth, but greatest abundance 

of invertebrates were recorded from shallow sites compared with deep sites. The infauna at 

Little Akaloa was dominated by polychaetes at most stations with amphipods being 

abundant at one station. 

The author stated that sediment was the most likely environmental variable as well as depth 

that would determine the infaunal community in any bay around the Peninsula. It is 

therefore probable that Little Akaloa Bay infauna and the other bays along the northern side 

of the Peninsula dominated by muds would have a comparable invertebrate infauna to Little 

Akaloa. 

Rocky shores 

Schiel and Hickford (2001) investigated rocky shores at Taylors Mistake and Godley Head as 

well as other rocky shores at Kaikoura, Fiordland and the Chatham Islands. The authors 

stated that fucalean algae dominated shallow rocky areas at all locations, but the species


composition varied among regions. Carpophyllum maschalocarpum dominated inshore 

areas in some sites around Banks Peninsula. 

The authors stated that major differences among regions included the high levels of 

encrusting invertebrates in the understory around Banks Peninsula. They stated that this 

was one of the most striking differences among the regions with sea tulips (P. 

pachydermatina) being extremely abundant, as was a rich understory of bryozoans and 

mussels. They also stated that this type of habitat was extensive around Banks Peninsula 

occurring to at least Wainui in Akaroa Harbour. The authors concluded that at no other 

region in their study supported such a rich invertebrate understory. They also stated that 

one of the most striking differences between the study areas was the mobile reef fish fauna 

being dominated by spotty (Notolabrus celidotus) around Banks Peninsula. 

Schiel and Hickford (2001) reported that tunicates and a wide range of other encrusting 

invertebrates formed 9–30% cover at 9–12 m at the Banks Peninsula sites. Mussels (Perna 

canaliculus) formed a 30% cover in deeper water. At Taylor’s Mistake, sponges and a wide 

range of encrusting invertebrates dominated the understory. At Godley Head, P. 

pachydermatina occurred at 2–8 per m 2 at all the depths sampled, but at Taylor’s Mistake, 

this species was confined to the 5 m depth stratum. The most abundant gastropods at both 

sites were the paua Haliotis iris, the topshell Trochus viridis and the turbinid Cookia sulcata. 

It is probable that the community observed from the more sheltered of the Schiel and 

Hickford (2001) sites would be comparable to the sheltered parts of Menzies Bay near the 

marine farm.


3.0 Methods 

The present biological survey was conducted on February 13 th 2012. Prior to fieldwork, the 

existing consent corners and the proposed marine farm application corners were plotted 

onto mapping software (TUMONZ 6 professional). The laptop running the mapping software 

was linked to a portable GPS receiver allowing real-time plotting of the corners of marine 

farm surface structures and to pinpoint drop camera stations in the field. This GPS system 

has a maximum error of +/- 5 m. The depth at each corner of the proposed marine farm was 

surveyed using the real-time GPS. 

3.1 Drop camera stations and site depths 

Drop camera photographs were collected from the existing consent area (two 3 ha blocks) 

and from the proposed 3 ha northern new farm area during the survey area. Photographs 

were collected from within the consent and application area and also from offshore and 

inshore of these areas. Inshore photographs were collected in an effort to locate any hard 

substrata close to the consent area or application area. 

At each site, a Sea Viewer underwater splash camera fixed to an aluminium frame was 

lowered to the benthos and an oblique still photograph was collected where the frame 

landed. The location of photograph stations was selected in an effort to obtain good 

coverage of the existing consent and the proposed application area. Additional photographs 

were taken when any features of particular interest (e.g. shell debris, reef structures, 

cobbles, algal beds) were observed on the remote monitor on-board the survey vessel. All 

photographs collected during the survey have been included in Appendix 1.


4.0 Results 

4.1 Depths 

Inshore corner depths of the existing consent ranged from 3 m to 3.1 along the southern 

boundary near the beach (Figure 3, Table 1). Along the northern boundary furthest away 

from the beach, depths were 7.9 to 8 m. Centrally consent depths were 4.9 m on the 

eastern inshore boundary and 5.9 m at the offshore central point. Depths for the proposed 

marine farm area were 8 m to 8.6 m at the southern corners and 8.7m to 11.5 m along the 

northern proposed boundary (Figure 4, Table 1). 

Table 1. Depths recorded from the corners of the existing consent and the proposed marine 

farm corners in Menzies Bay. Depths adjusted to datum. Coordinates = NZTM 

(Northing/Easting). 

Type No. & Depth (m) Coordina te s 

Existing consent corner A, 8.5m 2507240.26,5729485.92 

Existing consent corner B, 8.4m 2507354.45,5729388.63 

Existing consent corner C, 3.5m 2507095.02,5729084.14 

Existing consent corner D, 3.6m 2506980.83,5729181.44 

Existing consent corner E, 6.4m 2507109.9,5729332.8 

Existing consent corner F, 5.5m 2507225.1,5729236.8 

Proposed consent corner 1, 9.1m 2507297.4,5729437.2 



Proposed consent corner 4, 12m 2507465.2,5729800.4 

Structure corner A 2507129.1,5729349.5 

Structure corner B 2507094.3,5729311.0 

Structure corner C 2506993.5,5729187.2 

Structure corner D 2507109.4,5729098.4 

Structure corner E 2507210.8,5729220.3 

Structure corner F 2507242.2,5729254.5 

Structure corner G 2507337.4,5729367.6 

Structure corner H 2507216.5,5729459.5 

4.2 Substratum and habitats 

A total of 74 drop camera images were collected from Menzies Bay. A total of 39 were 

collected from the existing consent and areas immediately adjacent to the consent (Figure 

5). A total of twenty of these were collected from areas under marine farm growing 

structures. The remaining were positioned inshore, offshore or alongshore of farm


structures. A total of 35 photographs were collected from the proposed new marine farm 

area (Figure 6). Substratum and habitat distribution relative to the consent and the 

proposed marine farm application were based drop camera images (Table 2, Appendix 1). 

The scope and scale of the marine farming impact within and adjacent to the existing 

consent area was determined using drop camera images. 

Existing consent 

Substratum under most of the existing consent areas were characterised by soft sediment 

(Plate 5). Based on visual characteristics determined from drop camera photographs, silt 

and clay (i.e. mud) was the dominant particle size, however, the proportion of sand on the 

sea floor increased with decreasing depth and proximity to the head of the bay. Sand was, 

however, a small component of the sediment. Small ripples in the substratum were 

observed at photo points 8, 22, 23, however, rippling due to wave action was observed from 

few other photos. A small component of natural broken shell was observed from most 

photos. Occasional inshore photos supported whole dead shell. 

Plate 5. Silt and clay representative of most of the existing consent area (photo 10).


At the northern end and along the offshore boundary of the existing consent a thin 

microalgal layer was observed on the surface of the sediment (photos 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5). This 

is characterised by a yellow to light brown colour on the sediment surface. 

At the southern inshore corner of the northern 3 ha consent area a zone of cobbles and 

pebble substrata were observed from drop camera images. This substratum was also seen 

from adjacent areas inshore of the consent (photos 17, 18, 25 and 26). This rocky area 

appears to extend into the Bay from a small ridgeline that extends down the adjacent 

hillside. No other rocky substrata were observed inshore and adjacent to the consent. 

Plate 6. Cobbles and pebbles with silt and clay substratum located along the inshore areas 

of the northern existing consent area (photo 17). Note presence of foliose red algae, 

probably Lenormandia or Rhodomenia sp.


Northern application area 

Drop camera photographs were collected from within the initially proposed northern 

marine farm area, as well as offshore and inshore of this area (Figure 6). Most of the 

application area was characterised by silt and clay (i.e. mud) (Plate 7). 

Along inshore parts of the initially proposed northern application area, dead whole shell 

material was observed on the mud. This shell was often colonised by foliose red algae (Plate 

8). Based on drop camera photographs, red algae was located in the southern half of the 

application along the inshore strip of the proposed farm as well as inshore of the 

application. 

Plate 7. Silt and clay substratum widespread in the northern application area (photo 54).


Plate 8. Foliose red algae attached to shell material under the inshore portion of the 

northern proposed application area (photo 64).

Figure 3. Corner depths of the existing marine farm consent (grey) and physical extent of surfaces (pink).

Figure 4. Corner depths of the initially proposed marine farm area (green).

Figure 5. Drop camera stations (triangles) located within the exsting consent.

Figure 6. Drop camera photo stations relative to the initially proposed consent area.

Table 2. Coordinates of drop camera stations (NZTM). Depth, substratum and biological 

feature data are also listed. Colours are: pink = under backbones, grey = in consent (under 

warps or no structures), green =application, blue outside consent and application. 

No. & Depth (m) Coordina te s Loca tion Position Substra tum She ll de bris 

1 2507220.9,5729461.0 In consent Under warps Silt and clay None 

2 2507191.1,5729424.1 In consent Under backbones Silt and clay, natural shell None 

3 2507159.1,5729383.3 In consent Under backbones Silt and clay, mussel shell Moderate 

4 2507115.4,5729341.3 Offshore of consent Near warps Silt and clay, natural shell None 



7 2506995.5,5729172.0 In consent Under warps Silt and clay, natural shell None 




11 2507187.8,5729314.9 In consent Under backbones Silt and clay None 






17 2507235.8,5729285.9 In consent Under backbones Cobbles, pebbles, silt, natural shell, red algae None 

18 2507213.7,5729257.0 In consent Under warps Cobbles, pebbles, silt, natural & mussel shell, red algae Moderate 




22 2507112.6,5729095.5 Inshore of consent 5 m from backbone Silt and clay, natural shell None 



25 2507245.5,5729248.9 Inshore of consent 7 m from backbone Cobbles, pebbles, silt, natural & mussel shell Moderate 

26 2507277.6,5729285.8 Inshore of consent 7 m from backbone Cobbles, pebbles, silt, natural & mussel shell, red algae Low 


28 2507307.3,5729332.6 Inshore of consent Under backbone Silt and clay, natural & mussel shell, red algae Low 

29 2507275.9,5729297.1 In consent Under backbones Silt and clay, natural & mussel shell, red algae Moderate 

30 2507235.3,5729300.5 In consent Under backbones Silt and clay, mussel shell Low 


32 2507287.7,5729361.7 In consent Under backbones Silt and clay None 

33 2507205.2,5729467.9 Offshore of consent 13 m from backbone Silt and clay, natural shell None 



36 2507110.8,5729347.9 Offshore of consent No farm structures Silt and clay, natural shell None 



39 2506972.4,5729188.8 Offshore of consent No farm structures Silt and clay, natural shell None 

40 2507380.0,5729430.6 Inshore of application No structures Silt and clay None 

41 2507389.2,5729468.2 Within application No structures Silt and clay, natural shell, red algae None 

42 2507400.3,5729517.2 Within application No structures Silt and clay, natural shell None 





47 2507496.0,5729769.8 Within application No structures Silt and clay None 




51 2507356.4,5729579.6 Offshore of application No structures Silt and clay None 

52 2507333.5,5729510.2 Within application No structures Silt and clay, mussel shell Low 





57 2507496.9,5729679.4 Inshore of application No structures Silt and clay None 

58 2507516.1,5729729.7 Inshore of application No structures Silt and clay, natural shell None 

59 2507529.8,5729783.1 Alongshore of application No structures Silt and clay None 






65 2507411.5,5729417.6 Inshore of application No structures Silt and clay, natural & mussel shell, red algae Low 

66 2507413.8,5729466.9 Inshore of application No structures Silt and clay, natural shell, red algae None 



69 2507459.0,5729606.2 Inshore of application No structures Silt and clay, natural shell, red algae None 





74 2507447.7,5729751.2 Within application No structures Silt and clay None


5.0 Existing and future impacts 

There are many New Zealand and international reports outlining the impact of mussel 

aquaculture (see Keeley et al. 2009 for review). This section discusses the impact of the 

marine farm and the development of the northern proposed area. It should be noted that 

the total area farmed in Menzies Bay will not change should the northern area be granted. 

Therefore any impacts associated with the existing farm provide a good indication of impact 

levels that would be expected for the new northern area should it be granted. 

5.1 Benthic impact of the present marine farm 

Background 

Keeley et al. (2009) state in relation to benthic effects of mussel farms: 

“The main ecological effects on the seabed from farming mussels, oysters and other filterfeeding 

bivalves arise from biodeposits and drop-off of shell and associated biota. In most 

instances, the severity of seabed effects has been assessed as low to moderate. The effects 

exhibit as minor enrichment of the seabed sediments (organic content increases by ~7.5%), 

increased build up of shell litter directly beneath the site, and in some instances increased 

aggregations of starfish and other epifauna taxa. Sediment enrichment, in-turn, affects the 

composition of sediment dwelling biota with productivity generally enhanced (i.e. some 

smaller species become more prolific). Changes to the surface dwelling biota (e.g. starfish) 

have been documented but are difficult to quantify and vary significantly between sites. 

Seabed effects are most pronounced directly beneath farm sites, reduce rapidly with 

distance, and are usually difficult to detect within 20-50 m away. The most important factors 

influencing the magnitude of effects are water depth and current speeds; hence severity of 

effects is very much site-specific and effects are minimised by locating farms in well-flushed 

areas, where species and habitats of special value are not present.” 

It is not unusual to see a 100 % cover of mussel shell debris under mussel droppers in the 

Marlborough Sounds (Figure 7). The percentage cover of mussel shell generally declines 

with increasing distance from the dropper and shell is usually absent by between 10 and 20 

m distance from droppers (De Jong 1994; Kaspar et al. 1985) (Figure 7). Data collected from 



the Marlborough Sounds shows the spread of shell at six representative farms in Pelorus 

Sound declines with increasing distance from the inshore dropper. Some farms show 

relatively little shell near the droppers, while others have 100% shell debris cover (Figure 7). 

The reasons why shell is spread away from droppers is due to a variety of conditions. These 

include mussel harvesting practices, vessel layout, movement of backbones due to tide and 

winds, water depth, wave action and tidal currents. The greatest amount of shell is often 

deposited during harvesting events (Davidson 1998a). In general, shallow farms result in less 

shell debris, spread over a smaller area, while deep marine farms result in a spread of shell 

over a wider area and usually lead to a greater density of debris on the benthos. 

Menzies Bay benthic impacts 

The first marine farm growing structures at the Menzies Bay site were installed in 

approximately 2002 and growing commenced in the year following (Paddy Cotter, pers. 

comm.). In the last five years three mussel crops have been harvested from the two 3 ha 

consent areas and it is probable that up to six crops have been grown and harvested from 

the site since 2002.The impact of farming at the site was assessed using drop camera images 

collected from throughout the consent area and from areas inshore and offshore of the 

farmed area. 

Mussel shell debris was observed from very few photographs with most showing little or no 

mussel shell debris (Plate 9). Live mussels growing on the benthos were observed inshore of 

the farm (Plate 10). It is unknown whether these originated from the farm or occur 

naturally. It is probable that they are naturally occurring as Banks Peninsula is known to 

support relatively high numbers of mussels growing on rocky shores (Schiel and Hickford 

2001). 

The benthic impact of the present activity is low compared to most mussel farms in the 

Marlborough Sounds (Figure 7). Shallow sites like Menzies Bay (i.e. less than approximately 

10 m depth) have relatively little mussel shell debris and fine sediment deposition under 

and close to droppers. Most mussel shell deposition occurs during harvesting events and to 

a less extent mussel backbone and float cleaning activities (Davidson 1998a). It is probable 

this is due to lower levels of shell loss during harvesting activities. Shorter droppers are 



relatively easy to handle compared with 12 m long droppers. This results in less drop-off 

during the harvesting process (author pers. obs.). 

Plate 9. Mussel shell debris observed on silt and clay under existing backbones (photo 3). 

Plate 10. Live mussels on silt, clay and natural shell inshore of the consent (photo 29). 


% Mussel debris (per m 2 ) 

100 

90 

80 

70 

60 

50 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

0 5 10 15 20 

Distance from backbone (m) 

Figure 7. Examples of mussel debris spread from six representative marine farms in Pelorus Sound, Marlborough. Percentage mussel debris 

was estimated from quadrats deployed by divers swimming away from the inshore dropper perpendicular to farm backbone structures.

5.2 Water quality and phytoplankton effects 

Background 

Bivalves and other associated fauna growing on droppers release dissolved nitrogen (e.g. 

ammonium) directly into the water column, which can cause localised enrichment and 

stimulate phytoplankton growth. Toxic microalga blooms that can feed on enriched water 

may lead to ecological or health problems, but there is no evidence of this being 

exacerbated by mussel farming in New Zealand (Keeley et al. 2009). Filtration pressure by 

mussels is sufficient to potentially alter the composition of the phytoplankton and 

zooplankton/mesoplankton communities through feeding, but the extent to which this 

occurs and its ecological consequences are poorly understood. 

Many water column surveys have been conducted as part of FRIAs studies in the intensively 

farmed Marlborough Sounds. These studies provided data in relation to phytoplankton 

depletion in and around existing mussel farms. These surveys are temporal snapshots of 

phytoplankton abundance (as indicated by chlorophyll a), at a depth of ~3 m. Keeley et al. 

(2009) reported that out of a total of 36 chlorophyll a surveys conducted both within and 

outside farmed areas, 21 had concentrations of chlorophyl a that were 1 to 15% lower 

within the farmed areas compared to outside farmed areas. The remaining 15 surveys 

revealed no differences or marginally higher chlorophyl a concentrations within farmed 

areas. The authors concluded that “based on these comparisons, it would appear that 

typical, small New Zealand mussel farms have relatively little influence on the overall 

concentration of phytoplankton in the water column, particularly within the context of the 

wider spatial area surrounding the farms.” Based on their review Keeley et al. (2009) stated 

that “despite the recognised knowledge gaps, the fact that no significant water column 

related issues have been documented suggests that effects associated with traditional 

inshore farming practices are minor”. 

Menzies Bay 

The present consent area is 6 ha in size and is located in a bay representative of many bays 

around northern Banks Peninsula. The farm has been fully developed since 2002. The 

present application, if successful, will effectively relocate the inshore mussel growing 

structures further north in the bay. No additional backbones will be added as part of this 

process, however, the droppers in the northern area will be longer due to increased water 

depth. Based on numerous studies in the Marlborough Sounds, it is unlikely that a 6 ha farm 

in Menzies Bay would have a detectable impact on water quality or phytoplankton levels 

beyond the boundaries of the consent. Further, no other marine farms are located within 

the Bay, thereby further reducing the potential for any cumulative impacts on water quality 

or phytoplankton levels.


5.3 Impact on tidal flow and water currents 

Background 

Currents generated by tides and/or waves play an important role in the transport and 

delivery of drifting microscopic plants and animals (seston) and dissolved nutrients and 

gases (i.e. O2 and CO2), and the flushing of wastes and associated nutrients into and out of 

the marine system. Keeley et al. (2009) stated that currents also influence seabed habitats 

and associated biota through sediment movement and shell litter deposition, and the flux of 

nutrients between the benthos and the overlying water column. Insufficient currents limit 

resuspension of seabed sediments and associated detrital material from shellfish farming. In 

this instance excessive accumulation of organic wastes resulting in localised enrichment can 

occur. 

Relatively few studies exist on the impact of mussel structures (Plew 2005; Plew et al. 2005; 

Morrisey et al. 2006; Stevens et al. 2008). Plew et al. (2005) investigated changes in currents 

at a long-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 longline structures. In this 

regard, Plew (2005) notes higher currents beneath the farm than within, generating a shear 

layer below. However, the undercurrent was not significantly greater than velocities 

recorded upstream of the farm. Morrissey et al. (2006) investigated this issue at a relatively 

low intensively farmed area and estimated local changes in currents in the range of -10% 

around the majority of the farmed area to +20% in areas where current was deflected close 

to shore. Despite evidence of local modification of currents and waves by farm structures, 

coastal ribbon development of marine farms in New Zealand is unlikely to significantly affect 

bay-wide hydrodynamic characteristics (Plew et al. 2005). 

Menzies Bay 

On the day of the survey, low tide was 0.8 m at 1.20 pm and high tide was 2.74 m at 8.13 

am. During the survey, the tide was initially high, but was outgoing during the survey, 

becoming low at the end of field work. The largest tides around the Peninsula are 

approximately 2.9 m making the tide during the survey a relatively large tide. 



Observations of water direction and relative strength were made periodically during field 

work within Menzies Bay both within and adjacent farm structures. Observations were also 

collected offshore of the Bay, approximately 1km north of the Peninsula. Water movement 

within the Bay was relatively light with water moving alongshore and northwards towards 

the open sea. It is probable that this pattern reverses on the incoming tide. NIWA current 

data show this in and out cycle for large Bays on the Peninsula (e.g. Lyttleton and Akaroa) 

(Plate 11). 

Existing tidal currents appear to run parallel to the shore into and then out of the Bay. This 

pattern of tidal flow follows the same orientation of the existing and proposed farm 

backbones. This will facilitate better water flow through the farm compared to mussel lines 

that deflect or are situated across the direction of tidal flow. It is therefore unlikely that 

structures in the northern area will alter the existing tidal flow strength to any significant 

degree. Observations made from areas offshore of Menzies Bay suggested that tidal flow 

was considerably stronger than any tidal movement observed within Menzies Bay. Tides 

appeared to move south-east on the outgoing tide and were of sufficient strength to bend 

the mussel backbone lines located in this offshore area. NIWA data suggests that tidal 

direction is highly variable in this offshore 

area. 

(http://www.niwa.co.nz/sites/default/files/i 

mages/imported/0003/42987/bpmov_2.gif) 

Plate 11. NIWA current model during the 

outgoing tide (left) and incoming (right) tide. 



5.4 Anchoring disturbance impacts 

The applicant plans to install screw anchors at the proposed new site. During installation of 

anchors, sediment will be disturbed and will enter the water column. In addition, a small 

area of the seafloor will be disturbed by the screw. This activity occurs during installation 

and will last over a period of a few days. No further disturbance occurs after initial anchor 

installation. 

Menzies Bay, like all of the bays around the northern site of Banks Peninsula, is a highly 

turbid environment. Water visibility due to suspended fine sediment is rarely more the 1 m 

and often considerably less. The marine benthic community comprises species that are able 

to cope with this high turbidity. Installation of anchors will result in a localised sediment 

plume. This event is, however, within the normal range of turbidity events that the Menzies 

Bay benthic community is regularly exposed to. Apart from the physical disturbance at the 

anchor, there will be no long-lasting impact in the area due to this activity. 

5.5 Seabirds and marine mammals 

Seabirds 

Based on the few studies that have investigated the interactions between mussel farms and 

birds, mussel aquaculture potentially affects seabirds by altering their food resources, 

causing physical disturbances (e.g. noise) and/or being a possible entanglement risk. The 

structures associated with aquaculture may also provide benefits including additional 

perching and feeding opportunities. For example, king shags have largely abandoned many 

mainland roost sites presumably in favour of mussel floats that they regularly use in 

Marlborough (Brown 2001). Further, variable oyster catchers are regularly observed feeding 

on mussel backbones and floats. 

Overall, New Zealand (Butler 2003) and overseas (Ross et al. 2001; Roycroft et al. 2004; Kirk 

et al. 2007) studies suggest that the general attraction of particular seabirds to mussel farms 

is likely due to increased foraging success on fish and biofouling, and even on the cultured 

stock itself. The consequences of this attraction will likely depend on the species’ dietary 



preferences and response to both direct and indirect ecosystem changes induced by mussel 

cultivation. 

Birds are potentially at risk from operational by-products of farms, including ties and 

plastics. The threat is considered to be greater after stormy weather (Page et al. 2000) and 

at poorly operated farms. Butler (2003) found young and adult Australian gannets (Sula 

serrator) in the Marlborough Sounds entangled in discarded rope ties from mussel farms 

that had been incorporated into nests by parents. Gannets are not known from Banks 

Peninsula, however, a variety of shags are present and may potentially use ties as nesting 

material. 

The mussel industry Environmental Code of Practice seeks to minimise such risks, and they 

are likely to be minimal on well-maintained farms (Keeley et al. (2009). 

Marine mammals 

Banks Peninsula is an important area for the endangered Hector’s dolphin. Despite the 

overlap between Hectors’ dolphins and mussel farms in East Bay, Marlborough Sounds, no 

entanglements in a mussel farm has been documented. There are two reported incidences 

of dolphin entanglement and death at a salmon farm in New Zealand, both from the 

Marlborough Sounds (M. Aviss, Department of Conservation Picton). In one, an unidentified 

dolphin species became trapped while a predator net was being replaced, and in the other 

case, a Hector’s dolphin became trapped under a predator net. Internationally, fatal 

entanglements of dolphins in predator nets of finfish farms have been reported from 

Australia (Gibbs and Kemper 2000; Kemper and Gibbs 2001; Kemper et al. 2003) and Italy 

(Díaz López and Bernal Shirai 2007). This may reflect attraction of dolphins to a food source 

(Kemper and Gibbs 2001) although such interactions between finfish farms and cetaceans 

have not been proven (Kemper et al. 2003). 

I was able to find only one record of a marine mammal becoming trapped or tangled in a 

mussel farm (i.e. a Bryde’s whale) (Wursig and Gailey 2002). The low incidence of mussel 

farm entanglements is probably related to the fact that warps and backbones are under 

tension thereby reducing the chance of entanglement. This is in stark contrast to lobster 

pots that have a single line to the surface. This line is usually under little or no tension. 



Whales migrating up the east coast of the South Island pass hundreds of lobster lines that 

present a serious entanglement threat (Plate 12). Wursig and Gailey (2002) stated that 

entanglements by larger whales in aquaculture facilities are relatively rare events. 

Plate 12. Humpback whale in near Birdlings Flat, Canterbury with cray pot float and line 

attached (photo Mike Morrissey, DOC). 

5.6 Biosecurity issues 

The applicant belongs to the Mussel Industry Environmental Code of Practice (ECOP). As a 

member, the applicant and his contractors are bound by good environmental practices. As 

well as all aspects of farming such as establishment, seeding, and harvesting, the Code 

includes guidelines on the transfer of mussel seed (Section 8.5) and the NZ Mussel Industry 

Seed Transfer Code. All members of the ECOP are also bound by the Biosecurity Act 1983, as 

well as the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996. 

The most probable ways new species will be introduced to this site would be from mussel 

spat transfer and harvesters. Both spat and harvesting vessels come from Marlborough and 

are bound by the NZ Mussel Industry Seed Transfer Code and HSNO 1996 Act. 



6.0 Conclusions 

6.1 Existing impacts and potential impacts should the northern 

application area be approved 

The present marine farming activity in Menzies Bay has had little detectable visual impact 

on the benthos under and adjacent to the two 3 ha consent areas. The lack of mussel shell 

debris and a lack of an accumulation of pseudofaeces from most photographs have been 

previously recorded from particular mussel farm sites in the Marlborough Sounds. This 

phenomenon appears related to the depth of the marine farm site. Shallow sites with short 

droppers have little or no mussel shell debris deposition. The reason for this may be related 

little or no mussel loss as mussels come onboard the harvester (author per obs.). 

It is not unusual to see 100 % shell cover under droppers at most deep marine farm sites in 

the Marlborough Sounds. The percentage cover of mussel shell declines with distance from 

the dropper and shell is usually absent by between 10 and 20 m distance from the dropper. 

The reason for the spread of shell up to 20 m distance is related to harvesting practices, 

vessel layout and the movement of backbones due to tide and winds. 

It is expected that the benthic impact of growing mussels at the northern application area in 

Menzies Bay will be comparable to the present inshore farm (i.e. low). Depths are relatively 

shallow and it is probable based on observations from the existing marine farm area, that 

relatively little mussel shell debris will accumulate under the lines. 

Based on the information collected during the present study in Menzies Bay and the 

literature about mussel farm impacts, it is very unlikely that the new farm area established 

to the north of existing lines would have any detectable impact on water quality. It is 

unlikely that any change to chlorophyl a concentrations would be detectable outside the 

area the consent and area occupied by droppers. Tidal currents may be reduced, but the 

scale of the reduction is likely to be small and unlikely to have any adverse impact on the 

local environment. 

Provided the applicant adheres to the Mussel Industry ECOP, the introduction of marine 

debris would be minimized and would therefore present little threat of entanglement by 



birds. A beach cleanup at the head of the Bay once every 6 months would ensure that any 

debris from the farm would be removed. 

Based on the literature there is little risk that marine mammals would be entangled in 

marine farm structures. As a precautionary measure, it is recommended that single 

indicator floats that rise from anchors should not be used at the site. 

The Applicant is a member of the NZ Mussel Industry Environmental Code of Practice and as 

such is bound by biosecurity measures and Acts that aim to minimize the chance of 

unwanted organisms being introduced into the area. 

6.2 Inshore 3 ha area 

The inshore 3 ha portion of the existing consent is positioned in very shallow water and is 

over a benthos characterised by silt and clay with a component of sand and natural shell. No 

species, habitats or communities with known scientific, conservation or ecological 

importance were observed from this area. The impact of the present marine farming activity 

in this shallow zone is low with little or no mussel debris observed from most photographs. 

Although the substratum is suited for farming (i.e. silt and clay) and the impact of mussel 

farming in this area is low, the farm owner wishes to relinquish this area due to problems 

associated with the very shallow depth. 

6.3 Northern 3 ha consent area 

Most of this area was characterised by silt and clay with a small component of natural shell. 

An area along the inshore edge of the consent was, however, characterised by cobbles, 

pebbles with natural whole and dead shell. The area occupied by this hard substratum has 

been indicted by a red line (Figure 8). 

At the time of the present investigation the farm owner intended to retain this 3 ha area for 

mussel farming activities. The impact of the present marine farming activity in this area was 

low with little or no mussel debris observed from most photographs. There was no 

indication that hard shore habitats and the species associated with this substratum had 

been adversely impacted by the present marine farming activity. 



The substratum seaward of the red line in Figure 8 is suited for marine farming (i.e. silt and 

clay), however, the substratum inshore of the red line is characterised by a substratum that 

is restricted to a narrow strip around the edges of Banks Peninsula. Due to the limited 

extent of this habitat around the Peninsula and the higher diversity of species that hard 

shores support compared to silt and clay areas, it is recommended that this area be 

relinquished and this lost consent area be added onto the total area of the northern 

application area. 

6.4 Proposed northern application area 

At the time of the survey the applicant proposed a 3 ha area located to the north of the 

existing consent area. Based on data collected during the present study, most of this area 

was characterised by silt and clay with a small component of natural shell material. 

However, the southern inshore boundary of this proposed application area supported areas 

with natural dead whole and broken shell that had been colonised by foliose red algae. As 

this habitat and community type is of ecological interest, it is recommended that the 

application area be modified to avoid this area. It is recommended that the southern 

corners of this area be relocated further from shore thereby moving the southern end of the 

proposed farm further from shore and over silt and clay substrata. This shift would place 

any marine farming structures well distant to inshore habitats and their associated 

communities. 

6.5 Modified plan of application 

Following the identification of biological values in the present report, the farm owner 

modified the application in an effort to avoid these areas and position the present consent 

and the new application area over mud substrata (Figure 9). In the new plan, more of the 

existing consent has been removed (i.e. inshore boundary) as recommended and the 

northern application has been enlarged and adjusted further from shore. 

These adjustments achieve the recommendations made in the present report. No further 

changes to the farm boundaries on biological criteria are recommended. 


Figure 8. Suggested exclusion area (inshore of red line) relative to the existing consent and present application boundaries.

Figure 9. Modified plan based on ecological recommendations.


References 

Brown D.A. 2001. Evidence presented to a hearing before Marlborough District Council of 

application by Maclab (NZ) Limited, No. U990690 Forsyth Bay. Copy held by MDC. 

Butler D.J. 2003. Possible impacts of marine farming of mussels (Perna canaliculus) on king 

shags (Leucocarbo carunculatus). DOC Science Internal Series 111. Department of 

Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 29 p. 

Cole R 2002. Impacts of marine farming on wild fish populations. Final Research Report for 

Ministry of Fisheries Research Project ENV2000/08. Objective One. NIWA June 2002. 

Davidson, R.J. 2008. Biological mapping of Pohatu Marine Reserve, Banks Peninsula. 

Prepared by Davidson Environmental Limited for Department of Conservation. Survey 

and Monitoring Report No. 568. 

Davidson RJ 1998a. Preliminary report on ecological issues related to mussel harvesting 

activities. Prepared by Davidson Environmental Ltd for the Department of 

Conservation, Wellington. Survey and Monitoring Report No. 158. 23 p. 

Davidson, R.J.; Richards L.A. 2005. Biological monitoring of a relocated mussel farm located 

in Otanerau Bay, East Bay 2002-2005. Prepared by Davidson Environmental Limited for 

Marlborough District Council. Survey and Monitoring Report No. 478. 

Davidson, R. J. Abel W. 2003. Second sampling of Pohatu Marine Reserve, Flea Bay, Banks 

Peninsula. Prepared by Davidson Environmental Limited for Department of 

Conservation, Canterbury. Survey and Monitoring Report No. 443. 

Davidson, R.J. and Pande, A. 2002. Biological report on the benthos under and adjacent to a 

relocated mussel farm site located in East Bay. Prepared by Davidson Environmental 

Limited for Marlborough District Council. Survey and Monitoring Report No. 419. 

Davidson, R. J.; Barrier, R.; Pande, A. 2001. Baseline biological report on Pohatu Marine 

Reserve, Akaroa, Banks Peninsula. Prepared by Davidson Environmental Limited for 

Department of Conservation, Canterbury. Survey and Monitoring Report No. 352. 

Davidson, R.J. 1989. The bottom fauna from three subtidal locations around Banks 

Peninsula, Canterbury, New Zealand. New Zealand Natural Sciences 16: 87-95. 

De Jong RJ 1994. The effects of mussel farming in the benthic environment. Master of 

Science thesis. University of Auckland. 

Díaz López B, Bernal Shirai JA 2007. Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) presence and 

incidental capture in a marine fish farm on the north-eastern coast of Sardinia (Italy). 

Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 87: 113–117. 

Dingwall, P.R. 1974: Bay-head sand beaches of Banks Peninsula, New Zealand. New Zealand 

Oceanographic Institute Memoir 15: 1-63. 

Fenwick, G.D. 2004. Marine ecology of Akaroa Harbour: rocky shores and subtidal bottoms. 

NIWA Client Report CHC2004/056 prepared for Environment Canterbury. 



Fenwick, G.D. 2002. Marine benthic infauna of three bays around Banks Peninsula. NIWA 

Client Report CHC02/51 prepared for Environment Canterbury. 

Fenwick, G.D. 1999: The benthos off South Brighton, Pegasus Bay: a preliminary assessment. 

NIWA Client Report CHC99/53. 27 p. 

Gibbs M, Ross A, Downes M 2002. Nutrient cycling and fluxes in Beatrix Bay, Pelorus Sound, 

New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 36: 675-697. 

Gibbs MM, Pickmere SE, Woods PH, Payne GW, James MR, Hickman RW, Illingworth J. 1992. 

Nutrient and chlorophyll a variability at six stations associated with mussel farming in 

Pelorus Sound,1984-1985. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 

26: 197-211. 

Hayden B, Ross A, James M, Hadfield M, Gibbs M 2000. Carrying capacity: the way to 

sustainable shellfish production. Aquaculture Update 7-9. 

Kaspar HF, Gillespie PA, Boyer IC, MacKenzie AL 1985. Effects of mussel aquaculture on the 

nitrogen cycle and benthic communities in Kenepuru Sound, Marlborough Sounds, 

New Zealand. Marine Biology 85: 127-136. 

Keeley, N.; Forrest, B.; Hopkins, G.; Gillespie, P.; Clement, D.; Webb, S.; Knight, B.; Gardner, 

J. 2009. Sustainable aquaculture in New Zealand: Review of the ecological effects of 

farming shellfish and other non-finfish species. Cawthron Report No. 1476. 150p. 

Kemper C, Pemberton D, Cawthorn M, Heinrich S, Mann J, Wursig B, Shaughnessy P, Gales R 

2003. Aquaculture and marine mammals: Co-existence or conflict? In: Gales N, Hindell 

M, Kirkwood R eds. Marine mammals: Fisheries, tourism and management issues. 

Australia, CSIRO Publishing. Pp. 208-228. 

Kemper CM, Gibbs SE 2001. Dolphin interactions with tuna feedlots at Port Lincoln, South 

Australia and recommendations for minimising entanglements. Journal of Cetacean 

Research and Management 3: 283-292. 

Kirk M.; Esler D.; Boyd W.S. 2007. Morphology and density of mussels on natural and 

aquaculture structure habitats: implications for sea duck predators. Marine Ecology 

Progress Series 346:179-187. 

Knight, G.S. 1974: Benthic community structure in Lyttelton Harbour. New Zealand Journal 

of Marine and Freshwater Research 8(2): 291-306. 

Morrisey D.J.; Cole R.G.; Davey N.K.; Handley S.J.; Bradley A.; Brown S.N.; Madarasz A.L. 

2006. Abundance and Diversity of Fish on Mussel Farms in New Zealand. Aquaculture 

252: 277-288. 

Page M.J.; O’Shea S.; Carter L.; Laing A.K.; Stanton B.R.; Cranfield H.J.; Booth J.D.; Grieve J., 

Ross A. 2000. An ecological investigation of the proposed Clifford Bay Marine Farm. 

NIWA report WLG20/2. 34 p. 

Plew D.R. 2005. The hydrodynamic effects of long-line mussel farms, Unpublished PhD 

thesis, University of Caterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, pp. 356 

Plew D.R.; Stevens C.L.; Spigel R.H.; Hartstein N.D. 2005. Hydrodynamic implications of large 

offshore mussel farms. IEEE Journal of Oceanic Engineering 30: 95-108. 



Ross B.P.; Lien J.; Furness R.W. 2001. Use of underwater playback to reduce the impact of 

eiders on mussel farms. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 58: 517–524. 

Roycroft D.; Kelly T.C.; Lewis L.J. 2004. Birds, seals and the suspension culture of mussels in 

Bantry Bay, a non-seaduck area in Southwest Ireland. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf 

Science 61:703–712. 

Schiel, D.R.; Hickford, M.J.H. 2001. Biological structure of nearshore rocky subtidal habitats 

in southern New Zealand. Science for Conservation 182. 54 p. 

Shears, N.T.; Babcock, R.C. 2007. Quantitative description of mainland New Zealand’s 

shallow subtidal reef communities. Produced for Department of Conservation, Science 

for Conservation report 280. 

Stevens C.; Plew D.; Hartstein N.; Fredriksson D. 2008. The physics of open-water shellfish 

aquaculture. Journal of Aquacultural Engineering 38: 145-160. 

Wursig, B.; Gailey, G.A. 2002. Marine mammal and aquaculture: Conflicts and potential 

resolutions. Responsible Marine Aquaculture. Editors: R.R. Stickney and J.P. McVey. 


Appendix 1. Drop camera photographs 

Photo site 1 

Photo site 2 

Photo site 3

Photo site 4 

Photo site 5 

Photo site 6 


Photo site 7 

Photo site 8 

Photo site 9 


Photo site 10 

Photo site 11 

Photo site 12 


Photo 13 

Photo 14 

Photo 15 


Photo 16 

Photo 17 

Photo 18 


Photo 19 

Photo 20 

Photo 21 


Photo 22 

Photo 23 

Photo 24 


Photo 25 

Photo 26 

Photo 27 


Photo 28 

Photo 29 

Photo 30 


Photo 31 

Photo 32 

Photo 33 


Photo 34 

Photo 35 

Photo 36 


Photo 37 

Photo 38 

Photo 39 


Photo 40 

Photo 41 

Photo 42 


Photo 43 

Photo 44 

Photo 45 


Photo 46 

Photo 47 

Photo 48 


Photo 49 

Photo 50 

Photo 51 


Photo 52 

Photo 53 

Photo 54 


Photo 55 

Photo 56 

Photo 57 


Photo 58 

Photo 59 

Photo 60 


Photo 61 

Photo 62 

Photo 63 


Photo 64 

Photo 65 

Photo 66 


Photo 67 

Photo 68 

Photo 69 


Photo 70 

Photo 71 

Photo 72 


Photo 73 

Photo 74

Te Wharau Investments Limited - Ministry of Fisheries

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?