Application 124771 - Ministry of Fisheries
Application 124771 - Ministry of Fisheries
Application 124771 - Ministry of Fisheries
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
Waikato Regional Council<br />
Private Bag 3038<br />
Waikato Mail Centre<br />
HAMILTON 3240<br />
Attn: Christin Atchinson<br />
Dear Christin<br />
Robin Britton<br />
PC BOX 7016<br />
Hamilton 3247<br />
Mobile 027 281 2969<br />
Email rbrittonOwave.co.nz<br />
2"" June 2012<br />
Re: Coromandel Marine Farms - <strong>Application</strong>s for Extensions<br />
Please find enclosed resource consent applications for extensions to the following<br />
existing marine farms in the Coromandel.<br />
Applicant Name Company Name Li/lease No. Consent No<br />
P James AD James 380 112687<br />
AD James 421 112701<br />
G James Goldridge 361 112676<br />
Moturoa Trust 373 112682<br />
Gilbert James 291 112653<br />
R Bronlund Seahorse Mussels Ltd 327 112663<br />
Seahorse Mussels Ltd 343 112667<br />
M James MW & RLG James 383 112698<br />
R Caldicutt Weka Marine Farms 363 112679<br />
Each application includes:<br />
• Covering letter<br />
• Assessment <strong>of</strong> Environmental Effects<br />
o Survey plan<br />
o Short Report: Cawthron<br />
• Lodgment fee <strong>of</strong> $500.00 per farm<br />
Weka Marine Farms 379 112686<br />
In addition one copy <strong>of</strong> a full report from Cawthron which addresses all farms<br />
extensions is also submitted.<br />
A CD including copies <strong>of</strong> all this documentation is also enclosed.
Each applicant requests that you forward a GST receipt to the applicant (or via<br />
myself), regarding the payment lodged.<br />
If there are any further queries on this please feel fi-ee to call me on 027 281 2969.<br />
Many thanks.<br />
Yours sincerely<br />
Robin Britton<br />
Resource Management/ Plarming Consultant
REPORT NO. 2134<br />
ASSESSMENT OF BENTHIC AND WATER COLUMN<br />
EFFECTS FROM INSHORE COROMANDEL<br />
MUSSEL FARMS
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY<br />
In August 2011, a collective <strong>of</strong> inshore mussel farmers from Coromandel approached<br />
Cawthron Institute (Cawthron) to provide baseline benthic assessments <strong>of</strong> effects as a part <strong>of</strong><br />
their applications for 1 ha extensions to 32 mussel farms. These ‘baseline’ assessments and<br />
their structure are detailed in the Waikato Regional Council (WRC) Draft Coastal Plan.<br />
To fulfil the requirements <strong>of</strong> the Coastal Plan, a wider-scale assessment programme was<br />
agreed upon by WRC, Cawthron and the collective <strong>of</strong> farmers, whereby eight representative<br />
‘reference’ farms were selected for full benthic and water column assessments to provide an<br />
indication <strong>of</strong> the effects <strong>of</strong> mussel farms, and six ‘control’ sites were selected to provide a<br />
‘baseline’ or ‘background’ assessment <strong>of</strong> the unfarmed benthic and water column<br />
environments. Fieldwork was carried out between 12-16 December 2011.<br />
The seabed beneath and adjacent to the six control and eight reference farm sites was<br />
characterised and mapped using a range <strong>of</strong> sampling techniques including depth pr<strong>of</strong>iling,<br />
sediment grab sampling and video transects. Sediments were tested for total nitrogen (TN),<br />
total organic carbon (TOC), particle grain-size and infauna (richness, abundance and<br />
diversity). At all 32 mussel farm sites, sufficient sampling was undertaken to delineate the<br />
extent <strong>of</strong> mussel clumps around farm areas (see Appendix 7-39).<br />
No clear patterns in sediment particle grain-size components relating to area (north or south<br />
<strong>of</strong> Coromandel Harbour) or site type (’control’ versus ‘farm’) were evident (see Section 5.1).<br />
At the majority <strong>of</strong> sites sediments were dominated (> 50%) by fine muddy silts (< 64 μm).<br />
Sediment cores at the majority <strong>of</strong> sites were characterised by a fairly uniform light grey/brown<br />
colour and appeared well oxygenated, with no evidence <strong>of</strong> an apparent Redox Potential<br />
Discontinuity (aRPD) layer or sulphide odours.<br />
Total nitrogen was significantly higher in sediments collected from under the reference farms<br />
than at control sites (see Section 5.1). In general, lower average TN was found at sites<br />
where sediments had a greater sand component.<br />
Sediment organic content (total organic carbon, TOC) at the reference farms and control<br />
sites was different in the two different areas (north or south <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Harbour) (see<br />
Section 5.1). Farm sites to the north, generally had greater TOC than those to the south <strong>of</strong><br />
Coromandel Harbour, while control sites had similar TOC regardless <strong>of</strong> which area they were<br />
in. Overall, TOC was greatest in sediments that contained the most gravel - sized particles,<br />
and lowest at sites with sediments that had a greater sand component.<br />
Dominant infauna taxa across all sites were the window shell (Theora lubrica), various<br />
species <strong>of</strong> polychaetes (e.g. Heteromastus filiformis, Prionospio multicristata, Prionospio<br />
yuriel and Sphaerosyllis sp.), brittle stars, and oligochaete worms (Section 5.2). The<br />
dominant epifauna taxa by abundance were Phoxocephalidae amphipods, Decapoda larvae<br />
(unidentified) and Melitidae amphipods.<br />
iii
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
The differences in infauna communities between the reference farm and control sites were<br />
indicative <strong>of</strong> a mildly enriched benthic environment beneath farms resulting in greater<br />
abundances <strong>of</strong> opportunistic species. However, in most cases the subtle differences<br />
observed were in the abundance <strong>of</strong> species, rather than their presence or absence,<br />
suggesting that infauna communities in the wider environment are already exposed to mild<br />
enrichment. This conclusion was supported when the biological and physico-chemical data<br />
were used to calculate enrichment stage (ES), and no significant difference between the ES<br />
<strong>of</strong> control and farmed sites was found.<br />
Epibiota communities at the reference farm sites were characterised by mussels and large<br />
numbers <strong>of</strong> sea stars, sea cucumbers and ascidians, and were relatively diverse compared<br />
to the sparse epifauna observed at most control sites (see Section 5.3). Scallops and horse<br />
mussels were observed inshore <strong>of</strong> some reference farm and control sites, particularly on<br />
sand- and shell-dominated substrata.<br />
A snap-shot <strong>of</strong> water column properties at the reference farm and control sites using<br />
replicate CTD casts showed a well-mixed water column at some reference farms and control<br />
sites, but a thermo- and halo- cline (stratification <strong>of</strong> temperature or salinity) was observed<br />
between 5-10 m at several reference farm sites and control sites (Section 5.4). The greatest<br />
inter-site range in salinity and temperatures was observed in the top 5-10 m <strong>of</strong> the water<br />
column. Chlorophyll-a (chl-a) was similar between reference farms and control sites<br />
throughout much <strong>of</strong> the water column. Water column turbidity was similar between the<br />
reference farms and control sites in the top 1-2 m <strong>of</strong> the water column; but there was less<br />
turbidity between 3-5 m at farm sites. At depths <strong>of</strong> 5-7 m, farm sites were more turbid, but at<br />
depths greater than 7 m, turbidity was generally lower at farm sites.<br />
All <strong>of</strong> the 32 mussel farm sites and their proposed extension areas (Appendices 7-39) appear<br />
to have been placed away from significant inshore reef and other sensitive habitats and were<br />
mainly over muddy substrata. Consequently, effects to the benthic environment were<br />
restricted to changes in infauna and epifauna abundances, related mussel drop-<strong>of</strong>f and mild<br />
enrichment from the farms.<br />
Conclusions:<br />
iv<br />
1. Our assessment <strong>of</strong> the environment beneath the reference farms in the north and<br />
south <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Harbour (from Wilsons Bay to Colville Bay) found differences<br />
in the physical and biological characteristics <strong>of</strong> benthos, when compared to control<br />
sites. Effects included minor enrichment and increased diversity <strong>of</strong> epibiota, and<br />
were equivalent to those observed beneath mussel farms elsewhere in New<br />
Zealand.<br />
2. Farm-related effects <strong>of</strong> mild enrichment, and increased abundances <strong>of</strong> infauna<br />
and epibiota were attributable to mussel drop-<strong>of</strong>f and other farm-related deposition<br />
that are not necessarily negative and would be reversible over time. The
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
depositional effects did not extend to any reef or significant inshore rocky habitat<br />
at any <strong>of</strong> the 32 mussel farm sites.<br />
3. The top 10 m <strong>of</strong> the water column had the greatest variability in salinity and<br />
temperature across both reference farms and control sites, but no consistent<br />
patterns or differences were observed in chl-a. Reference farm sites were<br />
generally found to be less turbid than control sites below a depth <strong>of</strong> 7 m, which<br />
could be attributed to filtration <strong>of</strong> the water column by mussels. Wider-scale and<br />
longer-term monitoring and validated models will be necessary to provide a<br />
greater understanding <strong>of</strong> the contribution <strong>of</strong> aquaculture to water column<br />
properties in the Coromandel region.<br />
4. In general, the effects <strong>of</strong> mussel farms on the benthic marine environment, in<br />
terms <strong>of</strong> enrichment and modification, have been found to be minor (Keeley et al.<br />
2011), particularly when placed over primarily muddy substrata. Here we found<br />
that the effects to the benthic environment from Coromandel inshore mussel farms<br />
are similar, if not less, than in other areas <strong>of</strong> New Zealand. Therefore, providing<br />
the proposed additional 1 ha extensions (over and above the existing consented<br />
farm areas) are placed over similar substrata, the effects to the environment are<br />
likely to be similar to those observed in this assessment.<br />
v
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
TABLE OF CONTENTS<br />
1. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1<br />
2. AREA AQUACULTURE HISTORY ................................................................................... 3<br />
3. BACKGROUND TO SEABED AND WATER COLUMN EFFECTS .................................. 4<br />
3.1. Seabed effects ................................................................................................................................................ 4<br />
3.2. Water column effects ...................................................................................................................................... 6<br />
4. METHODS ........................................................................................................................ 7<br />
4.1. Characterisation and mapping <strong>of</strong> the seabed ................................................................................................. 7<br />
4.1.1. Site bathymetry ......................................................................................................................................... 7<br />
4.1.2. Sediment physical, chemical and biological properties ............................................................................. 7<br />
4.2. Water column sampling .................................................................................................................................. 8<br />
5. RESULTS ......................................................................................................................... 9<br />
5.1. Sediment physical and chemical properties ................................................................................................... 9<br />
5.2. Sediment biological properties ...................................................................................................................... 11<br />
5.3. Enrichment stages ........................................................................................................................................ 15<br />
5.4. Epibiota from video transects ....................................................................................................................... 15<br />
5.5. Water column properties .............................................................................................................................. 20<br />
6. DISCUSSION .................................................................................................................. 25<br />
6.1. Benthic effects .............................................................................................................................................. 25<br />
6.2. Water column effects .................................................................................................................................... 26<br />
6.3. General conclusions ..................................................................................................................................... 28<br />
7. REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 30<br />
8. APPENDICES ................................................................................................................. 32<br />
LIST OF FIGURES<br />
Figure 1. Map showing the eight reference farm sites and the six control sites used in the wider<br />
assessment <strong>of</strong> benthic and water column effects. .............................................................. 2<br />
Figure 2. Summary <strong>of</strong> potential wider ecological effects, localised benthic effects, and water<br />
column effects <strong>of</strong> mussel farming on the environment. ...................................................... 4<br />
Figure 3. Stylised depiction <strong>of</strong> a typical enrichment gradient experienced at low flow sites,<br />
showing generally understood responses in commonly measured environmental<br />
variables. ............................................................................................................................. 5<br />
Figure 4. Average sediment grain-size, total nitrogen and total organic carbon for control and<br />
farm sites to the north and south <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Harbour. .............................................. 10<br />
Figure 5. Average total nitrogen and total organic carbon from reference farms and control sites<br />
to the north and south <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Harbour. ............................................................... 11<br />
Figure 6. MDS (Multidimensional scaling) plot <strong>of</strong> similarity <strong>of</strong> infauna communities between<br />
control and farm sites to the north and south <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Harbour............................. 13<br />
Figure 7. Average enrichment stages from replicate grab samples at control and reference farm<br />
sites. .................................................................................................................................. 15<br />
Figure 8. Representative images captured from video footage from control sites and reference<br />
farm sites. A) Sandy seabed with horse mussels, B) Sand and shell seabed with<br />
mussels and anemone, C) Mud seabed with horse mussel and benthic diatom mat, D)<br />
Mud seabed with mussels and benthic diatom mat, E) Mud seabed, F) Mud seabed<br />
with shell. .......................................................................................................................... 17<br />
vii
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
Figure 9. Representative images <strong>of</strong> epibiota captured from video footage from reference farm<br />
sites A) Mussels and sea stars, B) Sandy seabed with mussels and scallop shell, C)<br />
Mud seabed with solitary ascidian, D) Mussels and sea star. .......................................... 18<br />
Figure 10. CTD salinity and temperature data from six control sites and eight reference farm<br />
sites. .................................................................................................................................. 21<br />
Figure 11. CTD chlorophyll and turbidity data from six control sites and eight reference farm sites. 22<br />
Figure 12. Fluorescence in depth bins from six control sites and eight reference farm sites. ........... 23<br />
Figure 13. Turbidity in depth bins from six control sites and eight reference farm sites. ................... 24<br />
Figure 14. Depth averaged water velocities from an unvalidated model <strong>of</strong> the study area on the<br />
Coromandel Peninsula at various tidal states in February 2000. ..................................... 28<br />
LIST OF TABLES<br />
Table 1. Average and relative abundances <strong>of</strong> the 10 most common infauna and epifauna taxa<br />
collected from grab samples within six control and eight reference farm sites in<br />
Coromandel ....................................................................................................................... 14<br />
Table 2. Relative abundance <strong>of</strong> the most common epibiota observed from video transects at six<br />
control and eight reference farm sites in Coromandel ...................................................... 19<br />
LIST OF APPENDICES<br />
Appendix 1. GPS locations <strong>of</strong> grab samples and CTD casts in NZ Map Grid and WGS 84 from the<br />
eight reference farm sites and the six control sites. .......................................................... 32<br />
Appendix 2. Physico-chemical and biological data, and biotic indices, from grab samples at the<br />
eight reference farm sites and the six control sites. .......................................................... 33<br />
Appendix 3. Sediment core photographs from the eight reference farm sites and the six control<br />
sites. .................................................................................................................................. 35<br />
Appendix 4. Complete list <strong>of</strong> biota recorded from grab samples at reference farm sites and control<br />
sites. .................................................................................................................................. 38<br />
Appendix 5. Results <strong>of</strong> the Simper analysis for infauna abundance data from grab samples at<br />
reference farm sites and control sites at 35% similarity. .................................................. 42<br />
Appendix 6. Benthic maps for the eight reference farm sites, showing estimated extent <strong>of</strong> mussel<br />
shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f and sediment grain-size results. ................................................................. 46<br />
Appendix 7. Cawthron short reports for 32 proposed inshore mussel farm extensions. ...................... 56<br />
viii
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
1. BACKGROUND<br />
In August 2011, a collective <strong>of</strong> inshore mussel farmers from Coromandel approached<br />
Cawthron Institute (Cawthron) to provide baseline benthic assessments <strong>of</strong> effects, as<br />
a part <strong>of</strong> their applications for 1 ha extensions to their mussel farms. These ‘baseline’<br />
assessments and their structure are detailed in the Waikato Regional Council (WRC)<br />
Draft Coastal Plan. However, many <strong>of</strong> the farms in question had recently been issued<br />
with <strong>of</strong>f-site and over-size notices by WRC and in most cases the extensions being<br />
applied for were already being farmed. Consequently, it was not possible to provide<br />
true ‘pre-impact’ baseline data for the proposed extensions. Following liaison with<br />
WRC, it was agreed that full baseline surveys for each extension would be<br />
unproductive and instead a rationalised approach should be used to fulfil the<br />
requirements <strong>of</strong> the Coastal Plan.<br />
To accomplish this, a wider-scale assessment programme was agreed upon by WRC,<br />
Cawthron and the collective <strong>of</strong> farmers, whereby eight representative ‘reference’<br />
farms (Table 1) were selected for full benthic and water column assessments to<br />
provide an indication <strong>of</strong> the effects <strong>of</strong> mussel farms, and six ‘control’ sites were<br />
selected to provide a ‘baseline’ or ‘background’ assessment <strong>of</strong> the unfarmed benthic<br />
and water column environments. The reference farms and control sites were chosen<br />
to span the majority <strong>of</strong> the inshore mussel farm region along on the western side <strong>of</strong><br />
the Coromandel Peninsula from Wilsons Bay to Colville Bay (Figure 1). This report<br />
summarises the results from this wider-scale assessment and individual farm<br />
extension reports are appended to this document.<br />
1
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
2<br />
Key<br />
Hauraki<br />
Gulf<br />
Firth <strong>of</strong><br />
Thames<br />
Reference farms<br />
Control sites<br />
Motukahaua<br />
Island<br />
Other marine farms<br />
Moturua<br />
Island<br />
Farm 1<br />
Farm 3<br />
Farm 6<br />
Control 4<br />
Farm 8<br />
Motuwi<br />
Island<br />
Control 1<br />
Farm 7<br />
Control 2<br />
Control 6<br />
Wilson<br />
Bay<br />
Farm 2<br />
Control 3<br />
Control<br />
5<br />
Colville Bay<br />
Farm 5<br />
Farm 4<br />
Coromandel<br />
Harbour<br />
Coromandel<br />
Peninsula<br />
Sugarloaf Wharf<br />
Te Kouma Harbour<br />
Manaia Harbour<br />
Ü<br />
Farm 1 - Li 396<br />
Farm 2 - Li 292<br />
Farm 3 - Li 346<br />
Farm 4 - Li 296<br />
Farm 5 - Li 380<br />
Farm 6 - Li 362<br />
Farm 7 - Li 379<br />
Farm 8 - Li 344<br />
0 1.25 2.5 5 7.5 10<br />
km<br />
Figure 1. Map showing the eight reference farm sites (red) and the six control sites (blue) used in<br />
the wider assessment <strong>of</strong> benthic and water column effects.
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
2. AREA AQUACULTURE HISTORY<br />
The eastern Hauraki Gulf was one <strong>of</strong> the first areas in New Zealand to have long-line<br />
mussel farms. From the early 1980s, the number <strong>of</strong> inshore mussel farms along the<br />
Coromandel Peninsula have increased to over fifty farms that currently cover an area<br />
<strong>of</strong> approximately 250 ha. Most <strong>of</strong> these farms are located in a narrow coastal strip<br />
around the Coromandel Peninsula, with the main regions at Coromandel and Manaia<br />
Harbours. These areas <strong>of</strong>fer sheltered waters, accessibility, favourable climate and<br />
good growing conditions for mussel farming. In 1999, a 1210 ha zone <strong>of</strong> mussel farms<br />
was set up <strong>of</strong>fshore from Wilson Bay, bringing the total area <strong>of</strong> marine farms to 1500<br />
ha (including intertidal oyster farms). The Waikato region now produces about 20% (c.<br />
21,000 tonnes) <strong>of</strong> New Zealand’s green-lipped mussels, Perna canaliculus.<br />
3
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
3. BACKGROUND TO SEABED AND WATER COLUMN<br />
EFFECTS<br />
4<br />
The ecological effects from farming mussels and other filter-feeding bivalves on the<br />
benthic and wider environment have recently been reviewed in a New Zealand<br />
context (Figure 2, Keeley et al. 2010). Below we provide a summary <strong>of</strong> the effects <strong>of</strong><br />
mussel farms on the seabed and water column, taken from Keeley et al. 2010 (with<br />
minor changes).<br />
Figure 2. Summary <strong>of</strong> potential wider ecological effects, localised benthic effects, and water<br />
column effects <strong>of</strong> mussel farming on the environment (from Keeley et al. 2010).<br />
3.1. Seabed effects<br />
The main ecological effects on the seabed from farming mussels and other filterfeeding<br />
bivalves arise from biodeposits (Giles et al. 2006) and drop-<strong>of</strong>f <strong>of</strong> mussels,<br />
shell and associated biota (Wong & O’Shea 2011). In most instances, the severity <strong>of</strong><br />
seabed effects have been assessed as low to moderate (Keeley et al. 2010). The<br />
effects exhibit as minor enrichment <strong>of</strong> the seabed sediments (organic content<br />
increases <strong>of</strong> up to ~7.5%) (Hartstein & Stevens 2005), increased build-up <strong>of</strong> shell litter<br />
directly beneath the site and, in some instances, increased aggregations <strong>of</strong> seastars<br />
and other epifauna taxa (Kaspar et al. 1985). Sediment enrichment, in-turn, affects the<br />
composition <strong>of</strong> sediment dwelling biota with productivity generally enhanced (i.e.<br />
some smaller species, like polychaete worms, become more prolific). Changes to the<br />
surface dwelling biota (e.g. seastars) have been documented but are difficult to<br />
quantify and vary significantly between sites (Kaspar et al. 1985). Seabed effects are<br />
most pronounced directly beneath farm sites, reduce rapidly with distance, and are
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
usually difficult to detect within 20-50 m away. A similar conclusion was reached in a<br />
recent study under mussel farms in the Hauraki Gulf (Wong & O’Shea 2011), who<br />
suggested that the extent <strong>of</strong> mussel clumps on the seabed was the best indicator <strong>of</strong><br />
the extent <strong>of</strong> benthic effects. The most important factors influencing the area and<br />
magnitude <strong>of</strong> effects surrounding mussel farms are water depth and current speeds<br />
(Hartstein & Stevens 2005); hence severity <strong>of</strong> effects is very much site-specific and<br />
effects are minimised by locating farms in well-flushed areas, where species and<br />
habitats <strong>of</strong> special value are not present.<br />
Enrichment from farm-derived biodeposits is the primary cause <strong>of</strong> seabed effects in<br />
s<strong>of</strong>t-sediment habitats and the type <strong>of</strong> effects are reasonably well described (Keeley<br />
et al. 2010), as such they can be placed on an enrichment gradient ranging from<br />
natural to azoic (Figure 3). Using biological and physico-chemical data from benthic<br />
enrichment studies under finfish and mussel farms throughout New Zealand, the<br />
gradient has been described numerically with enrichment stages (ES) 1 to 7<br />
(Figure 3). This method can now be assigned to benthic grab samples to allow<br />
comparison <strong>of</strong> enrichment effects from sites around New Zealand (Keeley et al. 2012,<br />
Keeley et al. In press).<br />
Figure 3. Stylised depiction <strong>of</strong> a typical enrichment gradient experienced at low flow sites, showing<br />
generally understood responses in commonly measured environmental variables<br />
(species richness, infauna abundance, sediment organic content and sulfides and<br />
Redox). Apparent Redox Potential Discontinuity depth (aRPD) and prevalence <strong>of</strong> bacteria<br />
(Beggiatoa spp.) mats and methane/H2S out-gassing also indicated. The gradient spans<br />
from natural or pristine conditions on the right (ES = 1) to highly enriched azoic conditions<br />
on the left (ES = 7).<br />
5
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
6<br />
3.2. Water column effects<br />
Effects <strong>of</strong> mussel cultivation on the water column are less well defined than for the<br />
seabed, because water column characteristics are more dynamic and inherently<br />
harder to quantify. The physical presence <strong>of</strong> farms can alter and reduce current<br />
speeds, which affects water residence times and has implications for associated<br />
biological processes. Farm structures can also attenuate short-period waves (Plew et<br />
al. 2005), which can affect inshore ecology, but these issues are not considered<br />
significant at the present scale <strong>of</strong> development in New Zealand. Bivalves and other<br />
associated fauna release dissolved nitrogen (e.g. ammonium) directly into the water<br />
column, which can cause localised enrichment and stimulate phytoplankton growth.<br />
Toxic microalga blooms may lead to ecological or health problems, but there is no<br />
evidence <strong>of</strong> this being exacerbated by mussel farming in New Zealand waters.<br />
Filtration pressure by mussels is sufficient to potentially alter the composition <strong>of</strong> the<br />
phytoplankton and zooplankton/mesoplankton communities through feeding, but the<br />
extent to which this occurs and its ecological consequences are poorly understood.<br />
Despite the recognised knowledge gaps, the fact that no significant water column<br />
related issues have been documented, suggests that effects associated with<br />
traditional inshore farming practices are minor (Keeley et al. 2010).
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
4. METHODS<br />
4.1. Characterisation and mapping <strong>of</strong> the seabed<br />
The seabed beneath and adjacent to the reference farms and control sites was<br />
characterised and mapped using a range <strong>of</strong> sampling techniques including depth<br />
pr<strong>of</strong>iling, sediment grab sampling and video transects (see Appendix 1 for sampling<br />
coordinates). Sufficient sampling was undertaken to delineate the extent <strong>of</strong> mussel<br />
clumps around farm areas. The fieldwork was carried out over four days from 12-16<br />
December 2011.<br />
4.1.1. Site bathymetry<br />
Depth pr<strong>of</strong>iling at the reference farm sites was calculated from digitised bathymetric<br />
charts and in-situ measurements to assist in the characterisation the seabed. In-situ<br />
measurements were taken using continuous depth readings from a Garmin F100<br />
depth sounder within and adjacent to the reference farm areas, and were sent to a PC<br />
via a RS232 serial output. The PC simultaneously collected separate RS232 serial<br />
output <strong>of</strong> latitude and longitude from a GPS, and both data streams were incorporated<br />
using communications s<strong>of</strong>tware. In-situ depth measurements were standardised to<br />
chart datum and plotted using Surfer v7 surface mapping s<strong>of</strong>tware. The 2-D<br />
graduated colour contour map was gridded using the natural neighbour method<br />
(Sibson 1981).<br />
4.1.2. Sediment physical, chemical and biological properties<br />
Sediment grab samples were collected using a 0.01 m 2 van Veen grab sampler from<br />
three sampling stations within the eight reference farm sites and six control sites. The<br />
following sub-samples were collected from each grab sample to characterise the<br />
physical, chemical and biological properties <strong>of</strong> the sediments:<br />
Sediment core samples: A 63 mm diameter core was photographed and the<br />
top 25 mm was collected for analyses <strong>of</strong> sediment grain-size and total organic<br />
carbon (TOC) and total nitrogen (TN). Grain-size was determined gravimetrically<br />
after separation <strong>of</strong> fractions by wet sieving and drying at 105 ºC, for gravel<br />
(≥2 mm), sand (≥63 μm -
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
8<br />
Macr<strong>of</strong>aunal core samples: A 130 mm diameter core, approximately 100 mm<br />
deep was gently sieved through a 0.5 mm mesh and animals retained were<br />
preserved with ethanol and 10% glyoxal in sea water, and transported back to<br />
Cawthron for identification and counting. Infauna data were analysed to<br />
ascertain levels <strong>of</strong> abundance (taxa density) and taxa richness and diversity. The<br />
infaunal assemblages were contrasted using non-metric multidimensional<br />
scaling or MDS (Kruskal & Wish 1978) and ordination and cluster diagrams<br />
based on Bray-Curtis similarities (Clarke & Warwick 1994). Abundance data<br />
were fourth-root transformed to de-emphasise the influence <strong>of</strong> the dominant<br />
species (by abundance). The major taxa contributing to the similarities <strong>of</strong> each<br />
group (areas) were identified using analysis <strong>of</strong> similarities (SIMPER; Clarke &<br />
Warwick 1994; Clarke & Gorley 2001). All multivariate analyses were performed<br />
with PRIMER v6 s<strong>of</strong>tware.<br />
Enrichment stages: The quantitative biological and physico-chemical data from<br />
each grab sample were used to assign an enrichment stage (ES) (Figure 3). ES,<br />
from 1 being ‘pristine/natural’ to 7 being ‘azoic/anoxic’, is quantitatively<br />
determined from previously derived empirical relationships with multiple biotic<br />
and physico-chemical indicators (for further details see Keeley et al. In press).<br />
4.2. Water column sampling<br />
A snap-shot in time <strong>of</strong> the water column conditions at the six control and eight<br />
reference farm sites was provided by three replicate casts <strong>of</strong> a Seabird CTD at each<br />
site. The CTD measured, salinity, temperature, chl-a and clarity (turbidity) throughout<br />
the water column.
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
5. RESULTS<br />
5.1. Sediment physical and chemical properties<br />
Sediments sampled from within the eight reference farms and six control sites<br />
contained varying amounts <strong>of</strong> silt and clay (< 63 µm), sand (< 2 mm and > 63 µm) and<br />
gravel-sized (> 2 mm) components (Figure 4, see Appendix 2 for raw data). No clear<br />
patterns in sediment particle grain-size components relating to area (north or south <strong>of</strong><br />
Coromandel Harbour) or site type (‘control’ versus ‘farm’) were evident. The majority<br />
<strong>of</strong> sites within the region had only small gravel components, and only four sites had an<br />
average gravel component <strong>of</strong> 20% or more (Control sites 1 and 4 and Farm sites 1<br />
and 6). A different suite <strong>of</strong> sites had sand components greater than 30% <strong>of</strong> their total<br />
dry weight (Control sites 2 and 4 and Farm sites 2, 6 and 7), and it was these same<br />
sites that had silt components that were less than 50% <strong>of</strong> their total dry weight. At all<br />
other sites, the majority <strong>of</strong> the sediments (> 50%) were comprised <strong>of</strong> fine muddy silts<br />
(< 63 um).<br />
Observations made from video footage (see Section 5.4), were consistent with these<br />
results, where fine silt/mud was the most common substratum, even at control sites.<br />
Sand/shell dominated substrata were only observed at a small number <strong>of</strong> control and<br />
farm sites. Sediment cores at the majority <strong>of</strong> reference farm and control sites were<br />
characterised by a fairly uniform light grey/brown colour and appeared well<br />
oxygenated, with poorly defined aRPD layers that ranged between 40 and 60 mm<br />
below the seafloor (see Appendix 2 for images). No sulphide odours were detected.<br />
Total nitrogen (TN) was significantly higher in sediments collected from under farms<br />
than at control sites (site type, F1, 38 = 7.98, p
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
Figure 4. Average sediment grain-size (percentage <strong>of</strong> dry weight), total nitrogen (TN, mg kg -1 dry<br />
weight) and total organic carbon (TOC, percentage <strong>of</strong> dry weight) for control and farm<br />
sites to the north and south <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Harbour.<br />
10
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Total Nitrogen (+ 1s.e.)<br />
Total Organic Carbon (± 1s.e.)<br />
2500<br />
2000<br />
1500<br />
1000<br />
500<br />
0<br />
3<br />
2.5<br />
2<br />
1.5<br />
1<br />
0.5<br />
0<br />
North<br />
South<br />
Reference Farms Control Sites<br />
North<br />
South<br />
Reference Farms Control Sites<br />
Site Type<br />
Figure 5. Average total nitrogen (TN, mg kg -1 dry weight, ± 1 s.e.) and total organic carbon (TOC,<br />
percentage <strong>of</strong> dry weight, ± 1 s.e.) from reference farms and control sites to the north and<br />
south <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Harbour.<br />
5.2. Sediment biological properties<br />
Sediments sampled from the control sites contained infaunal communities<br />
representative <strong>of</strong> those commonly found in natural sediments throughout the Hauraki<br />
Gulf (Wong & O’Shea 2011), and are therefore considered indicative <strong>of</strong> background<br />
conditions. Two <strong>of</strong> the grabs at Control site 2 were characterised by low infauna taxa<br />
richness and taxa abundance (Table 1). A total <strong>of</strong> 110 macro-benthic taxa were<br />
recorded across all samples, comprised <strong>of</strong> 64 infauna species and 66 epifauna<br />
species. Average macro-benthic taxa richness (total infauna and epifauna) per sample<br />
was similar between control and farm sites, ranging from 10 to 33 at control sites, and<br />
16 to 28 taxa at reference farm sites. Sample evenness, from Pielou’s evenness<br />
11
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
12<br />
index, was also similar between farm and reference sites, with the most even samples<br />
(i.e. closest to 1 in the index) being Control site 6 (0.97) and Farm site 1 (0.89).<br />
Species diversity was calculated using the Shannon Wiener diversity index, and<br />
averaged between 2.15 and 2.9 at Control sites (3 and 1 respectively) and between<br />
1.93 and 2.89 at Farm sites (4 and 1). A complete list <strong>of</strong> biological indices can be<br />
found in Appendix 2 and a complete taxa list can be found in Appendix 3.<br />
The dominant infauna taxa across all sites were the window shell (Theora lubrica),<br />
various species <strong>of</strong> polychaetes (e.g. Heteromastus filiformis, Prionospio multicristata,<br />
Prionospio yuriel and Sphaerosyllis sp.), brittle stars, and oligochaete worms (Table<br />
1). The dominant epifauna taxa by abundance were Phoxocephalidae amphipods,<br />
Decapoda larvae (unidentified), Cumaceans and Melitidae amphipods.<br />
Patterns in infaunal community composition were further explored using multivariate<br />
statistical techniques (Figure 6, see Appendix 1 for Simper analysis). In addition to<br />
being distinguished by the low total abundance and taxa richness, multivariate<br />
analysis showed the infaunal community at Control site 2 was different to the other<br />
stations; due mainly to a greater abundance <strong>of</strong> the nut clam, Nucula gallinacea and<br />
Phyllodocidae polychaetes, and the near absence <strong>of</strong> polychaete worms like<br />
Sigalionidae sp., Cossura consimilis and Prionospio yuriel. This group was also<br />
differentiated by lower abundances <strong>of</strong> a number <strong>of</strong> invasive bivalve (Theora lubrica),<br />
the capitellid worm (Heteromastus filiformis) and the polychaete worm (Sphaerosyllis<br />
sp).<br />
The infauna communities from the control and farm grab samples were generally<br />
separated at the 35% level <strong>of</strong> similarity (Figure 3). The majority <strong>of</strong> samples from the<br />
control sites and individual grabs from four farm sites (Li 292, 362, 379, and 396),<br />
were differentiated by greater numbers <strong>of</strong> polychaetes (Neonesidea sp., Sigalionidae,<br />
Cossura consimilis and Aglaophamus species), but also by lower abundances <strong>of</strong> most<br />
taxa found in the majority <strong>of</strong> farm samples. Grab samples from farm sites and<br />
individual grabs from Control site 1, 4 and 6, were grouped by higher abundances <strong>of</strong><br />
polychaete worms including Prionospio multicristata, Prionospio yuriel, and the<br />
capitellid worm (Heteromastus filiformis), but also had greater numbers <strong>of</strong> the invasive<br />
marine bivalve (Theora lubrica).<br />
The differences in infauna communities found between farm and control sites are<br />
indicative <strong>of</strong> a mildly enriched benthic environment beneath farms resulting in greater<br />
abundances <strong>of</strong> opportunistic species. However, in most cases the subtle differences<br />
observed were in the abundance <strong>of</strong> species, rather than their presence or absence.<br />
This suggests that infauna communities in the wider environment are already exposed<br />
to mild enrichment through natural sedimentation processes.
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Control 2<br />
Control 2<br />
Transform: Fourth root<br />
Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity<br />
Control 2Control<br />
6<br />
Control 5<br />
Farm 2 Farm 1<br />
Control 6<br />
Control 1<br />
Control 4<br />
Farm 2 Control<br />
Control<br />
1<br />
1<br />
Control 4<br />
Farm 1 Farm 4<br />
Control 4<br />
Farm Farm 1 6 Farm 7 Control 5<br />
Farm 3 Control 3<br />
Farm 6 Farm 3 Farm 7<br />
Farm 8 Farm 8 Control 3<br />
Farm<br />
Farm<br />
3<br />
7<br />
Farm 4<br />
Farm 5<br />
Control 5<br />
Farm 5 Farm 2<br />
Farm 6<br />
Farm 8 Control 3<br />
Farm 5<br />
Farm 4<br />
Control 6<br />
2D Stress: 0.22<br />
Grouping<br />
Control North<br />
Control South<br />
Farm North<br />
Farm South<br />
Similarity<br />
35<br />
Figure 6. MDS (Multidimensional scaling) plot <strong>of</strong> similarity <strong>of</strong> infauna communities between control<br />
and farm sites to the north and south <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Harbour. Circles in the MDS plot<br />
show 35% similarity (see Appendix 1 for full Simper analysis).<br />
The epifauna communities from grab samples were similar at farm and control sites<br />
(Table 1) and were also indicative <strong>of</strong> a mildly enriched benthic environment.<br />
Opportunistic species such as amphipods, cumaceans and crabs were present at<br />
most sites in similar abundances. The slipper shell snail (Sigapatella novaezelandiae),<br />
however, was only found at the most northern control site (Con 1), while the anemone<br />
(Anthopleura aureoradiata), and the mussel pea crab (Pinnotheres novaezelandiae),<br />
were only found on mussel shell deposits beneath reference farm sites.<br />
13
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Table 1. Average and relative abundances (%) <strong>of</strong> the 10 most common infauna and epifauna taxa collected from grab samples within six control and eight<br />
reference farm sites in Coromandel (See Appendix 4 for full species list).<br />
Con Con Con Con Con Con<br />
Rel.<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6<br />
Av. abund.<br />
Taxa<br />
INFAUNA<br />
Common Name Nth Nth Nth Sth Sth Sth Farm1 Farm2 Farm3 Farm4 Farm5 Farm6 Farm7 Farm8 abund. (%)<br />
Heteromastus filiformis Polychaete worm 13 1 2 14 3 1 2 41 4 12 8 5 3 3 10 13<br />
Prionospio multicristata Polychaete worm 14 10 15 8 3 4 4 76 1 1 15 11<br />
Theora lubrica Window Shell 1 1 2 4 4 4 7 15 18 6 3 16 11 6 7 9<br />
Prionospio yuriel Polychaete worm 3 2 3 1 1 3 3 22 18 4 2 10 8 7 9<br />
Sphaerosyllis sp. Polychaete worm 23 8 1 6 24 2 4 1 5 2 9 7<br />
Ophiuroidea Brittle stars 12 1 2 3 4 10 5 3 2 5 4<br />
Armandia maculata Polychaete worm 4 1 8 6 7 2 2 16 3 3 6 4<br />
Sigalionidae Polychaete worm 2 1 2 2 3 3 3 4 5 3 3 2 5 2 3 4<br />
Oligochaeta Oligochaete worms 1 1 5 3 4 1 2 18 5 3<br />
Cirratulidae<br />
EPIFAUNA<br />
Polychaete worm 2 2 2 1 1 3 15 2 3 4 1 6 2 3 3<br />
Phoxocephalidae Amphipod (family) 3 2 4 12 14 38 16 25 2 108 3 5 21 33<br />
Decapoda (larvae unid.) UI Crab Larvae 99 1 66 13<br />
Cumacea Cumaceans 4 2 1 2 2 2 2 4 3 1 1 42 3 2 6 9<br />
Melitidae Amphipod 19 1 1 38 1 2 2 2 3 3 10 2 5 7<br />
Sigapatella novaezelandiae Slipper shell snail 57 57 4<br />
Petrolisthes elongatus Half crab 1 1 7 3 1 2 1 1 9 3 3<br />
Aoridae Amphipod (Family) 4 3 3 1 14 2 4 2<br />
Anthopleura aureoradiata Anemone 3 2 16 9 2<br />
Pinnotheres novaezelandiae Mussel Pea Crab 14 14 2<br />
Philine auriformis White Sea Slug 3 2 1 2 2 1 2 3 1 2 2<br />
Average # <strong>of</strong> Individuals 151 22 21 95 22 16 108 223 105 77 81 228 65 50<br />
Average # <strong>of</strong> Taxa 33 16 11 24 12 10 28 27 23 16 23 28 20 16<br />
Pielou’s Evenness 0.89 0.95 0.92 0.73 0.94 0.97 0.89 0.75 0.79 0.73 0.88 0.77 0.88 0.80<br />
Shannon Wiener Diversity 2.90 2.61 2.15 2.27 2.28 2.22 2.89 2.21 2.46 1.93 2.68 2.36 2.63 2.20<br />
14
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
5.3. Enrichment stages<br />
The biological and physico-chemical data from each grab sample were used to<br />
assess and compare the relative enrichment stage (ES) <strong>of</strong> each grab sample<br />
(Figure 7). No significant difference between the ES <strong>of</strong> grab samples at control and<br />
reference farm sites (F1,40 = 0.12, p > 0.05) was observed. All sites, except Control site<br />
2, were mildy enriched regardless <strong>of</strong> type (‘control’ or ‘farm’), with average ES scores<br />
<strong>of</strong> 2.03 (s.e. ± 0.85) across all control sites and 2.07 (s.e. ± 0.74) at reference farm<br />
site.<br />
Enrichment Stage (ES ± 1 s.e.)<br />
3.5<br />
3<br />
2.5<br />
2<br />
1.5<br />
1<br />
0.5<br />
0<br />
Con 1 Con 2 Con 3 Con 4 Con 5 Con 6 Farm<br />
1<br />
Figure 7. Average enrichment stages (ES) from replicate grab samples at control and reference<br />
farm sites (see Appendix 2 for raw data used to calculate ES).<br />
5.4. Epibiota from video transects<br />
Video transects were used to determine the dominant substrata, the extent <strong>of</strong> mussel<br />
shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f and the characteristic epibiota at each site (Table 2, Figures 8 and 9)<br />
Dense mussel shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f was found to extend no more than 25-40 m from the farm<br />
edge <strong>of</strong> all reference farms (see maps in Appendix 6), but sparse clumps <strong>of</strong> mussels<br />
were observed out to 100 m at some sites, possibly due to the repositioning <strong>of</strong> farms<br />
over time. Epifauna species associated with mussel drop-<strong>of</strong>f, and the food and solid<br />
substratum it provides, were common at farm sites (Figure 8, Table 2). A variety <strong>of</strong><br />
sessile organisms were observed living on mussel shell beneath farms (Figure 9 A-D),<br />
including solitary ascidians (Pyura pachydermatina and the invasive Styela clava),<br />
bryozoans (including Watersipora cucullata and Bugula sp.), finger and mat forming<br />
sponges, bivalves, calcareous polychaetes, small feather hydroids (unknown species)<br />
and seaweeds (including Codium sp.). Mobile fauna observed beneath farm sites<br />
included fish (mainly leatherjackets, Parika scaber, and spotty wrasse Notolabrus<br />
Farm<br />
2<br />
Farm<br />
3<br />
Farm<br />
4<br />
Farm<br />
5<br />
Farm<br />
6<br />
Farm<br />
7<br />
Farm<br />
8<br />
15
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
16<br />
celidotus), sea stars (Coscinasterias muricata, Patiriella regularis and Astrostole<br />
scabra), crustaceans (particularly crabs like the pillbox crab, Halicarcinus<br />
innominatus; the half crab, Petrolisthes novaezelandiae; and the masking crab<br />
Notomithrax minor), sea urchins, and other echinoderms (like the sea cucumber,<br />
Stichopus mollis).<br />
Despite having the greatest organic content in benthic sediments (Figure 4), Farm site<br />
1 and its surrounding area had the highest diversity <strong>of</strong> epibiota, with abundant Steyla<br />
clava (~41), finger sponges (Callyspongia spp.) and horse mussels (Atrina<br />
zealandica, abundance estimated to be 0.52 m -2 ).<br />
Consistent with the results <strong>of</strong> the sediment samples, a mud/silt substratum was the<br />
most common substratum observed across reference farm and control sites (Figure 8<br />
C- E). A shell/sand substratum was observed only at one control site (Con 1, Figure<br />
8A) and at one farm site (Farm 1, Figure 8B). Horse mussels were most commonly<br />
observed on substrata with a greater sand content, both beneath reference farms and<br />
at control sites. They were most common in a small patch in one transect at Con 1,<br />
where 45 were observed in a 20 m transect. An orange benthic diatom film was<br />
common at reference farm and control sites, particularly on shallower silt/mud habitats<br />
(Figure 8C and 8D).
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
A) B)<br />
C) D)<br />
E) F)<br />
Figure 8. Representative images captured from video footage from control sites (left column) and<br />
reference farm sites (right). A) Sandy seabed with horse mussels, B) Sand and shell<br />
seabed with mussels and anemone, C) Mud seabed with horse mussel and benthic<br />
diatom mat, D) ) Mud seabed with mussels and benthic diatom mat, E) Mud seabed, F)<br />
Mud seabed with shell.<br />
17
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
Figure 9. Representative images <strong>of</strong> epibiota captured from video footage from reference farm sites<br />
A) Mussels and sea stars, B) Sandy seabed with mussels and scallop shell, C) Mud<br />
seabed with solitary ascidian (Styela clava), D) Mussels and sea star.<br />
18<br />
A) B)<br />
C) D)
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Table 2. Relative abundance <strong>of</strong> the most common epibiota observed from video transects at six control and eight reference farm sites in Coromandel<br />
(Abundance = A (> 20 per transect), Common = C (8-20 per transect), Occasional = O (3-7 per transect), Rare = R (1-2 per transect),<br />
Not observed = Blank).<br />
Con Con Con<br />
Con 1 Con 2 Con 3 4 5 6<br />
Taxa<br />
EPIFAUNA<br />
Common Name<br />
Nth Nth Nth Sth Sth Sth Farm1 Farm2 Farm3 Farm4 Farm5 Farm6 Farm7 Farm8<br />
Perna canaliculus Greenlipped mussel A A A O-A A A A A<br />
Coscinasterias muricata 11 arm seastars O O O O O O C-A<br />
Patiriella regularis Cushion star O O-C R O-C C R O O-A O-C O-C O O-C<br />
Stichopus mollis Sea cucumber O O O O O O R<br />
Styela clava Solitary ascidian O R C-A C O-C O R R<br />
Hydroida Small feather hydroid O O A A A A A A A A<br />
Pecten novaezealandiae Scallop R R R<br />
Atrina zealandica Horse mussel A C R O O O R<br />
Callyspongia sp. Finger sponge R<br />
Actinothoe albocincta White striped anemone R R R R<br />
EPIFLORA<br />
Benthic Diatom Mat Brown benthic film C C C C C C C C C C-A A C R C<br />
Codium sp. Green alga R<br />
Rhodophyta spp. Red algae O O O<br />
Carpophyllum sp. Brown alga R<br />
19
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
20<br />
5.5. Water column properties<br />
A snap-shot <strong>of</strong> water column properties at the reference farm and control sites using<br />
replicate CTD casts showed that the water column was well mixed at some reference<br />
farm and control sites, but that a weak thermo- and halo- cline (stratification <strong>of</strong><br />
temperature or salinity) was present between 5-10 m at several sites (Figure 10). The<br />
greatest range in salinity and temperatures was observed in the top 5-10 m <strong>of</strong> the<br />
water column.<br />
The range in chl-a, measured as fluorescence, was similar between control and farm<br />
sites throughout much <strong>of</strong> the water column (Figures 11 and 12). Chl-a concentrations<br />
were centred on 0.1 µg/L throughout much <strong>of</strong> the water column, but were significantly<br />
higher at reference farm sites than control sites between 4-11 m depth (Figure 12).<br />
Water column turbidity (as Formazin Turbidity Units, FTU) was similar between farm<br />
and control sites in the top 3 m <strong>of</strong> the water column (Figure 11), but between 3-5 m<br />
farm sites were less turbid; and below 12 m, farm sites were more turbid. This could<br />
be attributed to filtration <strong>of</strong> the upper water column by mussels, and release <strong>of</strong> pseudo<br />
faeces toward the lower water column.<br />
In general, the top 10 m <strong>of</strong> the water column had the greatest variability in salinity and<br />
temperature, but no consistent patterns or differences were observed in chl-a.<br />
Wider-scale and longer-term monitoring and validated models will be necessary to<br />
provide a greater understanding <strong>of</strong> the contribution <strong>of</strong> aquaculture to water column<br />
properties in the Coromandel region.
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Control Sites (n = 6) Reference Farms (n = 8)<br />
Figure 10. CTD salinity and temperature data from six control sites (left column) and eight reference<br />
farm sites (right column). Thick lines are smoothed averages and colours denote different<br />
sites.<br />
21
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
Figure 11. CTD chlorophyll and turbidity data from six control sites (left column) and eight reference<br />
farm sites (right column). Thick lines are smoothed averages and colours denote different<br />
sites.<br />
22<br />
Control Sites (n = 6) Reference Farms (n = 8)
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Figure 12. Fluorescence (Chl-a - µg/L) in depth bins from six control sites (red) and eight reference<br />
farm sites (blue). Tested using Wilcoxon signed-rank test <strong>of</strong> 1–5 m depth bins.<br />
Significance (e.g. p < 0.05) and level are denoted by the font size. Direction <strong>of</strong> difference<br />
is denoted by font colour (Blue = Farm is higher, Red = Control is higher).<br />
23
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
Figure 13. Turbidity in depth bins from six control sites (red) and eight reference farm sites (blue).<br />
Tested using Wilcoxon signed-rank test <strong>of</strong> 1–5 m depth bins. Significance (e.g. p < 0.05)<br />
and level are denoted by the font size. Direction <strong>of</strong> difference is denoted by font colour<br />
(Blue = Farm is more turbid, Red = Control is more turbid).<br />
24
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
6. DISCUSSION<br />
6.1. Benthic effects<br />
The effects <strong>of</strong> the reference farm sites on the benthic environment were consistent<br />
with those observed beneath mussel farming throughout New Zealand (e.g. Kaspar et<br />
al. 1985, Hartstein & Stevens 2005, Giles et al. 2006, Keeley et al. 2010, Wong &<br />
O’Shea 2011).<br />
The physico-chemical effects beneath reference mussel farms included slight<br />
increases in TOC and TN compared to control sites, but the composition <strong>of</strong> sediment<br />
was similar. Increases in TOC were not always evident, however, and were only<br />
observed between reference farms and control sites to the north <strong>of</strong> Coromandel<br />
Harbour. Interestingly, the average TOC recorded across the reference farms (2.1%,<br />
s.e. = 0.3) was considerably lower than levels observed under similar farms in the<br />
Marlborough Sounds, which regularly exceed 10% in sheltered areas (Hartstein &<br />
Stevens 2005). Average levels <strong>of</strong> TN (0.2%) were similar to those observed<br />
elsewhere in the Firth <strong>of</strong> Thames (Giles & Pilditch 2006), but considerably lower than<br />
those observed beneath mussel farms elsewhere in New Zealand, which can exceed<br />
1% (Hatcher et al. 1994). Therefore, either the majority <strong>of</strong> reference farm sites in this<br />
study were in relatively high flow areas, where organic wastes are dispersed rather<br />
than accumulating beneath the farms, or the inshore mussel farming in the<br />
Coromandel is less intensive than in the other areas (e.g. Marlborough Sounds).<br />
Infaunal community compositions at reference farms and control sites were broadly<br />
similar but farm sites generally had greater abundances <strong>of</strong> each taxa type. Most <strong>of</strong> the<br />
infauna communities were characteristic <strong>of</strong> those found in mildly enriched sediments<br />
observed elsewhere in the Hauraki Gulf (Wong & O’Shea 2011), possibly due to wider<br />
scale enrichment occurring in the environment. This conclusion was supported by<br />
similar enrichment stages (ES) <strong>of</strong> grab samples from control and reference farm sites,<br />
with samples ranging from natural to mild enrichment (ES 1.7 – 2.8 in Figure 3).<br />
The epibenthic communities and the extent <strong>of</strong> mussel shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f at the reference<br />
farm sites were typical <strong>of</strong> those observed under mussel farms elsewhere in the<br />
Hauraki Gulf (Wong & O’Shea 2011) and in the Marlborough Sounds (Kaspar et al.<br />
1985, Keeley et al. 2010). Shell material extended no more than 50 m from farms and<br />
formed a layer approximately 10 cm deep over most <strong>of</strong> the reference farm sites. This<br />
shell-covered substratum was characterised by a greater diversity and abundance <strong>of</strong><br />
epibiota than observed at control sites.<br />
The ecological effects <strong>of</strong> biodeposition from mussel farms depend on the level <strong>of</strong> shell<br />
deposition and enrichment from biodeposits, which will vary according to site-specific<br />
characteristics such as water currents, water depth and farm management practices<br />
(Forrest 1995). The existing substratum type also plays a major role in determining<br />
the level <strong>of</strong> benthic effects (Giles et al. 2006). In mud/silt dominated areas, organic<br />
25
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
26<br />
enrichment, together with the accumulation <strong>of</strong> debris beneath coastal mussel farms,<br />
increases both the food available for scavengers and habitat heterogeneity. This in<br />
turn can lead to significant increases in the diversity <strong>of</strong> infauna and epibiota (Inglis et<br />
al. 2000, Wong & O’Shea 2011). However, in shell- and sand-dominated benthic<br />
habitats, shifts in epibiota feeding and living on mussels and changes to enrichment<br />
tolerant infauna taxa can occur (Keeley et al. 2010).<br />
Clumps <strong>of</strong> mussels beneath the reference farm sites had been colonised by a range<br />
<strong>of</strong> organisms and provided a reef-like habitat for a variety <strong>of</strong> small fishes and mobile<br />
fauna. Elsewhere, biodeposits beneath mussel farms have been are known to attract<br />
large numbers <strong>of</strong> predatory fish, seastars, crabs, sea urchins and other echinoderms<br />
(Mattsson & Lindén 1983, Kaspar et al. 1985, Cole & Grange 1996). Furthermore,<br />
exclusion <strong>of</strong> trawling by the farm infrastructure also means that species which are<br />
regularly harvested or damaged by trawling in open areas <strong>of</strong> seabed, such as scallops<br />
(Pecten novaezelandiae) and horse mussels (Atrina zealandica), are occasionally<br />
abundant beneath the farms. The extent to which protection for these species is<br />
occurring beneath Coromandel mussel farms however is unknown; scallops were rare<br />
at all sites and occasional beds <strong>of</strong> horse mussels were observed beneath three<br />
reference farm sites and at four control sites.<br />
In general, mussel farming is unlikely to result in irreversible ecological effects<br />
(Forrest 1995, Keeley et al. 2010). Farms placed over mud / silt habitat, as were the<br />
majority <strong>of</strong> farm sites in this study, would likely return to pre-farm conditions within one<br />
to two years <strong>of</strong> farm removal. However, this would depend on the level <strong>of</strong> shell cover<br />
at each site. In extreme cases, banks <strong>of</strong> sediment and shell material up to 2 m high<br />
have been observed beneath Coromandel mussel farms (e.g. C<strong>of</strong>fey 2001), but the<br />
accumulation and extent <strong>of</strong> shell material depends on processes such as water<br />
movement and bioturbation which tends to disperse and modify deposited materials<br />
(Morrisey et al. 2000). Overall, the enrichment effects <strong>of</strong> inshore mussel farms on the<br />
benthic environment in the Coromandel were minor; while shell deposition and related<br />
effects on diversity and abundance <strong>of</strong> epibiota, while considerable, were not<br />
necessarily negative (Keeley et al. 2010).<br />
6.2. Water column effects<br />
The water column properties measured at reference farm sites and control sites were<br />
broadly similar and no clear patterns in differences were observed. Water column<br />
turbidity in the top 1-2 m <strong>of</strong> the water column was similar between farm and control<br />
sites, but farm sites were less turbid between 3-5 m and below 7 m depth. This lower<br />
turbidity may be attributed to the filtering effect <strong>of</strong> the mussels on the farm droppers,<br />
but this effect will depend greatly on the state <strong>of</strong> the tide and the water velocities at<br />
each site, which are known to influence the residence time <strong>of</strong> water passing through<br />
mussel farms (Plew 2011).
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Unless they are used to calibrate ongoing wider-scale monitoring efforts (Inglis et al.<br />
2000), it is generally considered that, due to significant temporal and spatial variability<br />
in water column properties, one-<strong>of</strong>f synoptic samples are <strong>of</strong> little benefit to<br />
understanding the effects <strong>of</strong> aquaculture on the environment. In future, the synoptic<br />
data collected as part <strong>of</strong> this study may be used to validate wider scale water column<br />
modelling efforts. For example, an unvalidated model (courtesy <strong>of</strong> MetOcean<br />
Solutions Limited), shows depth averaged velocities across the study area and<br />
potential processes affecting mixing and water characteristics during incoming and<br />
outgoing tides (Figure 12). Peak velocities are estimated at in the main channel areas<br />
and inshore <strong>of</strong> small island groups to the north <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Harbour (red arrows<br />
Figure 12). In conjunction with the data collected here, future, long term and widerscale<br />
monitoring could be used to validate such models and assist in detecting widerscale<br />
and longer term trends in water column properties.<br />
27
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
28<br />
Incoming Tide<br />
High Tide<br />
Outgoing Tide<br />
Low Tide<br />
Figure 14. Depth averaged water velocities (colour scale in m s -1 ) from an unvalidated model <strong>of</strong> the<br />
study area on the Coromandel Peninsula at various tidal states in February 2000<br />
(Courtesy <strong>of</strong> MetOcean Solutions Ltd.). Red arrows show peak flow areas behind islands to<br />
the North <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Harbour.<br />
6.3. General conclusions<br />
In general, the effects <strong>of</strong> mussel farms on the benthic marine environment, in terms <strong>of</strong><br />
enrichment and modification, have been found to be minor (Keeley et al. 2011),<br />
particularly when placed over primarily muddy substrata. Here we found that the<br />
effects to the benthic environment from Coromandel inshore mussel farms are similar,<br />
if not less, than in other areas <strong>of</strong> New Zealand. Therefore, providing the proposed<br />
additional 1 ha extensions (over and above the existing consented farm areas) are
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
placed over similar substrata, the effects to the environment are likely to be similar to<br />
those observed in this assessment.<br />
All <strong>of</strong> the 32 mussel farm sites assessed in this study (Appendices 7-39) had been<br />
placed away from significant inshore reef and other sensitive habitats, and were<br />
mainly over muddy substrata. Consequently, effects to the benthic environment were<br />
restricted to changes in infauna and epifauna abundances related to mussel drop-<strong>of</strong>f<br />
and mild enrichment from farm biodeposits.<br />
Conclusions:<br />
1. Our assessment <strong>of</strong> the environment beneath reference farm sites in the<br />
Coromandel found differences in the physical and biological characteristics <strong>of</strong><br />
benthos when compared to control sites. Effects included minor enrichment and<br />
increased diversity <strong>of</strong> epibiota, and were equivalent to those observed beneath<br />
mussel farms elsewhere in New Zealand.<br />
2. Farm-related effects <strong>of</strong> mild enrichment and increased abundances <strong>of</strong> infauna and<br />
epibiota were attributable to mussel drop-<strong>of</strong>f and other farm-related deposition that<br />
are not necessarily negative and would be reversible over time. The depositional<br />
effects did not extend to any reef or significant inshore rocky habitat at any <strong>of</strong> the<br />
32 mussel farm sites.<br />
3. The top 10 m <strong>of</strong> the water column had the greatest variability in salinity and<br />
temperature across both reference farm and control sites, but no consistent<br />
patterns or differences were observed in chl–a. Reference farm sites were<br />
generally found to be less turbid than control sites below a depth <strong>of</strong> 7 m, which<br />
could be attributed to filtration <strong>of</strong> the water column by mussels. Wider-scale and<br />
longer-term monitoring and validated models will be necessary to provide a<br />
greater understanding <strong>of</strong> the contribution <strong>of</strong> aquaculture to water column<br />
properties in the Coromandel region.<br />
29
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
7. REFERENCES<br />
30<br />
C<strong>of</strong>fey BT 2001. Coromandel Mussel Farmers Association marine farm at the mouth<br />
<strong>of</strong> Coromandel Harbour: Biological aspects <strong>of</strong> an assessment <strong>of</strong> environmental<br />
effects. Report prepared for Coromandel Marine Farmers’ Association.<br />
OoS:BAEE: CMFA / MFP 364. 26p.<br />
Cole RG, Grange KR 1996. Under the mussel farm. Seafood New Zealand<br />
November: 25-26.<br />
Giles H, Pilditch C, Bell DG 2006. Sedimentation from mussel (Perna canaliculus)<br />
culture in the Firth <strong>of</strong> Thames, New Zealand: Impacts on sediment oxygen and<br />
nutrient fluxes. Aquaculture 261:125-140.<br />
Hartstein ND, Stevens CL 2005. Deposition beneath long-line mussel farms.<br />
Aquaculture Engineering 33:192-213.<br />
Hatcher A, Grant J, Sch<strong>of</strong>ield B 1994. Effects <strong>of</strong> suspended mussel culture (Mytilus<br />
spp.) on sedimentation, benthic respiration and sediment nutrient dynamics in<br />
a coastal bay. Marine Ecology Progress Series 115:219-235.<br />
Inglis GJ, Hayden BJ, Ross AH. 2000. An overview <strong>of</strong> factors affecting the carrying<br />
capacity <strong>of</strong> coastal embayments for mussel culture. Prepared for the <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong><br />
the Environment. NIWA Client Report: CHC00/69. 38p.<br />
Kaspar HF, Gillespie, PA, Boyer IC, MacKenzie AL. 1985. Effects <strong>of</strong> mussel<br />
aquaculture on the nitrogen cycle and benthic communities in Kenepuru<br />
Sound, Marlborough Sounds, New Zealand. Marine Biology 85:127-136.<br />
Keeley N, Forrest B, Hopkins G, Gillespie P, Clement D, Webb S, Knight B, Gardner J<br />
2010. Review <strong>of</strong> the Ecological Effects <strong>of</strong> Farming Shellfish and Other Nonfinfish<br />
Species in New Zealand. Prepared for the <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fisheries</strong>.<br />
Cawthron Report No. 1476. 144 p. plus appendices.<br />
Keeley N, MacLeod C, Forrest B 2012. Combining best pr<strong>of</strong>essional judgement and<br />
quantile regression splines to improve characterisation <strong>of</strong> macr<strong>of</strong>aunal<br />
responses to enrichment. Ecological Indicators 12:154-166.<br />
Mattsson J, Lindén O 1983. Benthic macr<strong>of</strong>auna succession under mussels, Mytilus<br />
edulis L. (Bivalvia), cultured on hanging long-lines. Sarsia 68:97-102.<br />
Morrisey DJ, Gibbs MM, Pickmere SE, Cole RG 2000. Predicting impacts and<br />
recovery <strong>of</strong> marine-farm sites in Stewart Island, New Zealand, from the<br />
Findlay-Watling model. Aquaculture 185:257-271.<br />
Plew DR, Stevens CL, Spigel RH, Hartstein ND 2005. Hydrodynamic implications <strong>of</strong><br />
large <strong>of</strong>fshore mussel farms. IEEE Journal <strong>of</strong> Oceanic Engineering 30:95-108.<br />
Plew DR 2011. Depth-Averaged Drag Coefficient for Modeling Flow through<br />
Suspended Canopies. Journal <strong>of</strong> Hydraulic Engineering-Asce 137:234-247.
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Wong KLC, O’Shea S 2011. The effects <strong>of</strong> a mussel farm on benthic macr<strong>of</strong>aunal<br />
communities in Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal <strong>of</strong> Marine<br />
and Freshwater Research 45(2):187-212.<br />
31
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
8. APPENDICES<br />
Appendix 1. GPS locations <strong>of</strong> grab samples and CTD casts in NZ Map Grid and WGS 84<br />
from the eight reference farm sites and the six control sites.<br />
Site Grab NZMG_N NZMG_E WGS84_LAT WGS84_Long<br />
Control1 1 6499671.211 2725200.834 36 40 42.79223 S 175 24 11.05599 E<br />
Control1 2 6499685.884 2725288.198 36 40 42.23916 S 175 24 14.55716 E<br />
Control1 3 6499678.819 2725120.952 36 40 42.61613 S 175 24 07.83157 E<br />
Control2 1 6495098.042 2727643.990 36 43 08.91961 S 175 25 54.49151 E<br />
Control2 2 6495114.782 2727782.051 36 43 08.25332 S 175 26 00.03418 E<br />
Control2 3 6494857.566 2727740.597 36 43 16.63143 S 175 25 58.65005 E<br />
Control3 1 6489107.059 2728750.223 36 46 22.20408 S 175 26 45.73981 E<br />
Control3 2 6489125.002 2728843.246 36 46 21.53856 S 175 26 49.46947 E<br />
Control3 3 6489104.420 2728922.580 36 46 22.13465 S 175 26 52.69036 E<br />
Control4 1 6483629.774 2725572.159 36 49 22.66154 S 175 24 43.67240 E<br />
Control4 2 6483701.307 2725566.447 36 49 20.34692 S 175 24 43.36306 E<br />
Control4 3 6483728.157 2725621.611 36 49 19.42725 S 175 24 45.55850 E<br />
Control5 1 6483397.465 2726755.858 36 49 29.14183 S 175 25 31.67633 E<br />
Control5 2 6483401.908 2726871.941 36 49 28.89417 S 175 25 36.35390 E<br />
Control5 3 6483313.936 2726889.342 36 49 31.73141 S 175 25 37.15344 E<br />
Control6 1 6476754.803 2725443.082 36 53 05.72090 S 175 24 46.05521 E<br />
Control6 2 6476935.487 2725500.785 36 52 59.81037 S 175 24 48.18501 E<br />
Control6 3 6476891.177 2725602.119 36 53 01.15729 S 175 24 52.32470 E<br />
Farm1 1 6497502.816 2724882.784 36 41 53.39044 S 175 24 00.62818 E<br />
Farm1 2 6497534.657 2724979.005 36 41 52.27289 S 175 24 04.46815 E<br />
Farm1 3 6497807.139 2724764.999 36 41 43.62574 S 175 23 55.55143 E<br />
Farm2 1 6491115.973 2727102.095 36 45 18.53497 S 175 25 37.07614 E<br />
Farm2 2 6491198.826 2726885.246 36 45 16.04164 S 175 25 28.24527 E<br />
Farm2 3 6491163.297 2726808.068 36 45 17.26259 S 175 25 25.17433 E<br />
Farm3 1 6493122.034 2728365.674 36 44 12.35156 S 175 26 25.76289 E<br />
Farm3 2 6493047.242 2728342.863 36 44 14.79737 S 175 26 24.92718 E<br />
Farm3 3 6492933.649 2728420.224 36 44 18.41156 S 175 26 28.17072 E<br />
Farm4 1 6491078.472 2729409.640 36 45 17.68150 S 175 27 10.11241 E<br />
Farm4 2 6490986.577 2729437.441 36 45 20.63642 S 175 27 11.33569 E<br />
Farm4 3 6490911.420 2729493.276 36 45 23.02327 S 175 27 13.67006 E<br />
Farm5 1 6486781.511 2728133.933 36 47 38.17054 S 175 26 23.48940 E<br />
Farm5 2 6486798.342 2728116.158 36 47 37.64069 S 175 26 22.75395 E<br />
Farm5 3 6486734.570 2727954.714 36 47 39.85343 S 175 26 16.31545 E<br />
Farm6 1 6484696.010 2727344.835 36 48 46.50623 S 175 25 53.99018 E<br />
Farm6 2 6484688.866 2727396.408 36 48 46.69179 S 175 25 56.07814 E<br />
Farm6 3 6484749.781 2727421.158 36 48 44.69427 S 175 25 57.00860 E<br />
Farm7 1 6481444.900 2725902.800 36 50 33.21997 S 175 24 59.42461 E<br />
Farm7 2 6481311.700 2725842.809 36 50 37.59275 S 175 24 57.15140 E<br />
Farm7 3 6481386.710 2725855.863 36 50 35.14869 S 175 24 57.59517 E<br />
Farm8 1 6478720.508 2725190.737 36 52 02.19992 S 175 24 33.69919 E<br />
Farm8 2 6478821.451 2725389.103 36 51 58.75055 S 175 24 41.59386 E<br />
Farm8 3 6478624.956 2725225.101 36 52 05.26807 S 175 24 35.19154 E<br />
32
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Appendix 2. Physico-chemical and biological data, and biotic indices, from grab samples at the eight reference farm sites and the six control sites.<br />
Stations TOC TN<br />
Gravel<br />
(>2mm)<br />
Sand<br />
(63µm)<br />
Silt &<br />
Clay<br />
(
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Appendix 2. continued<br />
Stations TOC TN<br />
Gravel<br />
(>2mm)<br />
Sand<br />
(63µm)<br />
Silt &<br />
Clay<br />
(
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Appendix 3. Sediment core photographs from the eight reference farm sites and the six<br />
control sites.<br />
Farm1<br />
Farm2<br />
Farm3<br />
Control1<br />
Control 2<br />
Control 3<br />
35
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
Appendix 3. continued<br />
Farm 4<br />
Farm 5<br />
36<br />
Control 4<br />
Control 5<br />
Farm 6 Control 6
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Appendix 3. continued<br />
Farm 7<br />
Farm 8<br />
37
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
Appendix 4. Complete list <strong>of</strong> biota recorded from grab samples at reference farm sites<br />
and control sites.<br />
Taxa Gen/Group Common Name<br />
38<br />
Infauna<br />
/Epifauna<br />
Total<br />
#<br />
Average<br />
#<br />
Relative<br />
#<br />
Sponge (bread) Porifera Sponge Unid. e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Sycon sp. Porifera Glass sponge e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Anthopleura aureoradiata Anthozoa Anemone e 36 9.0 1.0<br />
Edwardsia sp. Anthozoa Burrowing anemone i 3 1.0 0.1<br />
Platyhelminthes Platyhelminthes Flat Worm e 9 1.5 0.2<br />
Nemertea Nemertea Proboscis worms i 26 1.3 0.7<br />
Ischnochiton maorianus Polyplacophora Chiton e 3 3.0 0.1<br />
Leptochiton inquinatus Polyplacophora Chiton e 19 3.8 0.5<br />
Gastropoda ( rissoid like) Gastropoda Unidentified gastropod e 2 2.0 0.1<br />
Amalda australis Gastropoda Southern olive shell e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Amalda mucronata Gastropoda Olive Shell e 6 2.0 0.2<br />
Austr<strong>of</strong>usus glans Gastropoda Whelk e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Caecum digitulum Gastropoda Snail e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Cominella maculosa Gastropoda Spotted Whelk e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Cominella virgata Gastropoda Whelk e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Crepidula monoxyla Gastropoda Slipper shell e 2 2.0 0.1<br />
Neoguraleus sp. Gastropoda Snail e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Sigapatella novaezelandiae Gastropoda Circular slipper limpet e 57 57.0 1.5<br />
Zegalerus tenuis Gastropoda Snail e 5 1.7 0.1<br />
Opisthobranchia Unid. Opisthobranchia Slug e 2 2.0 0.1<br />
Philine auriformis Opisthobranchia White Slug e 27 2.1 0.7<br />
Arthritica bifurca Bivalvia Small bivalve i 2 1.0 0.1<br />
Borniola sp. Bivalvia Small bivalve i 2 2.0 0.1<br />
Chlamys sp. Bivalvia Fan Scallop e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Corbula zelandica Bivalvia Small bivalve i 3 3.0 0.1<br />
Crassostrea gigas Bivalvia Pacific Oyster e 2 2.0 0.1<br />
Dosinia lambata Bivalvia Silky Dosina i 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Hiatella arctica Bivalvia Saltwater clam i 2 1.0 0.1<br />
Limaria orientalis Bivalvia File Shell e 8 2.0 0.2<br />
Melliteryx parva Bivalvia Bivalve i 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Mytilus galloprovincialis Bivalvia Blue mussel e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Nucula gallinacea Bivalvia Nut shell i 4 1.3 0.1<br />
Nucula nitidula Bivalvia Nut shell i 15 2.1 0.4<br />
Pecten novaezelandiae Bivalvia Scallop; Tipa e 2 2.0 0.1<br />
Perna canaliculus Bivalvia Green Lipped Mussel e 18 6.0 0.5<br />
Tawera spissa Bivalvia Morning Star i 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Theora lubrica Bivalvia Window Shell i 217 7.2 5.8<br />
Zenatia acinaces Bivalvia Bivalve i 4 1.0 0.1<br />
Oligochaeta Oligochaeta<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Oligochaete worms i 74 4.9 2.0<br />
Ampharetidae<br />
Ampharaetidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 7 1.2 0.2<br />
Chrysopetalum sp.<br />
Chrysopetalidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Leitoscoloplos kerguelensis Orbiniidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Orbinia papillosa<br />
Orbiniidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Scoloplos cylindrifer<br />
Orbiniidae Polychaete worm i 5 1.7 0.1
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Taxa Gen/Group Common Name<br />
Infauna<br />
/Epifauna<br />
Total<br />
#<br />
Average<br />
#<br />
Relative<br />
#<br />
Paraonidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Paraonidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 64 4.0 1.7<br />
Cossura consimilis<br />
Cossuridae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 37 1.8 1.0<br />
Boccardia sp.<br />
Spionidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 19 3.2 0.5<br />
Paraprionospio pinnata Spionidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Prionospio aucklandica Spionidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Prionospio multicristata Spionidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 262 15.4 7.0<br />
Prionospio yuriel<br />
Spionidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 211 7.3 5.6<br />
Spiophanes kroyeri<br />
Spionidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Chaetopterus sp.<br />
Chaetopteridae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Phyllochaetopterus socialis Chaetopteridae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Parchment worm i 2 1.0 0.1<br />
Capitella capitata<br />
Capitellidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 8 1.3 0.2<br />
Capitellethus zeylanicus Capitellidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 7 1.0 0.2<br />
Heteromastus filiformis Capitellidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 297 9.6 7.9<br />
Maldanidae<br />
Maldanidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Bamboo Worms i 16 4.0 0.4<br />
Armandia maculata<br />
Opheliidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 90 5.6 2.4<br />
Phyllodocidae<br />
Phyllodocidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Paddle worms i 20 2.2 0.5<br />
Polynoidae<br />
Polynoidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Scale worms i 42 1.8 1.1<br />
Sigalionidae<br />
Sigalionidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 89 2.7 2.4<br />
Hesionidae<br />
Hesionidae Polychaete worm i 21 1.6 0.6<br />
Syllidae Polychaeta: Syllidae Polychaete worm i 18 2.0 0.5<br />
Sphaerosyllis sp. Polychaeta: Syllidae Polychaete worm i 166 8.7 4.4<br />
Nereidae (juvenile) Polychaeta: Nereidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Rag worms i 5 1.7 0.1<br />
Glyceridae<br />
Glyceridae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 48 3.2 1.3<br />
Goniada sp.<br />
Goniadidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Aglaophamus sp.<br />
Nephtyidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 53 2.4 1.4<br />
Onuphis aucklandensis Onuphidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 7 1.0 0.2<br />
Eunicidae<br />
Eunicidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 5 2.5 0.1<br />
Lumbrineridae<br />
Lumbrineridae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 35 1.8 0.9<br />
Dorvilleidae<br />
Dorvilleidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 34 3.4 0.9<br />
Cirratulidae<br />
Cirratulidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 67 2.8 1.8<br />
Flabelligeridae<br />
Flabelligeridae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 9 1.5 0.2<br />
Flabelligera affinis<br />
Flabelligeridae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 5 1.7 0.1<br />
Pectinaria australis<br />
Pectinariidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 21 2.6 0.6<br />
Terebellidae<br />
Terebellidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Polychaete worm i 44 2.1 1.2<br />
Euchone pallida<br />
Sabellidae Fan worm i 4 1.0 0.1<br />
Pomatoceros sp. Polychaeta: Fan worm e 3 3.0 0.1<br />
39
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
Taxa Gen/Group Common Name<br />
40<br />
Infauna<br />
/Epifauna<br />
Total<br />
#<br />
Average<br />
#<br />
Relative<br />
#<br />
Serpula sp.<br />
Serpulidae<br />
Polychaeta:<br />
Serpulidae Fan worm e 7 3.5 0.2<br />
Nebalia sp. Crustacea Crustacean e 5 1.7 0.1<br />
Notostraca Crustacea Tadpole shrimps e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Mysidacea Mysidacea Mysid shrimp e 12 1.3 0.3<br />
Cumacea Cumacea Cumaceans e 135 5.6 3.6<br />
Tanaid sp. Tanaidacea Tanaid Shrimp i 6 2.0 0.2<br />
Anthuridea Isopoda Isopod e 14 4.7 0.4<br />
Munna schauinslandi Isopoda Isopod e 8 2.0 0.2<br />
Aoridae Amphipoda Amphipod (Family) e 37 4.1 1.0<br />
Caprellidae Amphipoda Amphipod (Family) e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Corophiidae Amphipoda Amphipod (family) e 2 2.0 0.1<br />
Dexaminidae Amphipoda Amphipod (Family) e 3 1.5 0.1<br />
Liljeborgiidae Amphipoda Amphipod (family) e 12 6.0 0.3<br />
Lysianassidae Amphipoda Amphipods e 20 3.3 0.5<br />
Melitidae Amphipoda Amphipod e 109 5.5 2.9<br />
Phoxocephalidae Amphipoda Amphipod (family) e 483 21.0 12.9<br />
Amphipoda indet. Amphipoda Amphipod (Family) e 2 2.0 0.1<br />
Alpheus sp. Decapoda Snapping shrimp e 5 1.3 0.1<br />
Betaeus sp. Decapoda Shrimp e 3 1.0 0.1<br />
Halicarcinus cookii Decapoda Pill-box Crab e 26 2.2 0.7<br />
Halicarcinus whitei Decapoda Pill-box Crab e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Macrophthalmus hirtipes Decapoda Stalk-eyed Mud Crab i 19 1.6 0.5<br />
Neolithodes brodiei Decapoda Crab i 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Notomithrax minor Decapoda Masking crab i 5 1.7 0.1<br />
Pagurus sp. Decapoda Hermit Crab e 11 2.2 0.3<br />
Palaemon affinis Decapoda Estuarine Prawn e 10 1.7 0.3<br />
Petrolisthes elongatus Decapoda Half crab e 38 2.7 1.0<br />
Pinnotheres novaezelandiae Decapoda Mussel Pea Crab e 28 14.0 0.7<br />
Pyromaia tuberculata Decapoda Spider crab e 3 1.5 0.1<br />
Upogebia danai Decapoda Mud Shrimp i 13 2.6 0.3<br />
Decapoda (larvae unid.) Decapoda Crab Larvae e 199 66.3 5.3<br />
Cymbicopia hispida Ostracoda Ostracod e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Cypridinodes concentrica Ostracoda Ostracod e 18 2.0 0.5<br />
Diasterope grisea Ostracoda Ostracod e 3 1.0 0.1<br />
Neonesidea sp. Ostracoda Ostracod i 65 4.3 1.7<br />
Parasterope quadrata Ostracoda Ostracod e 9 1.3 0.2<br />
Scleroconcha arcuata Ostracoda Ostracod e 13 4.3 0.3<br />
Trachyleberis lytteltonsis Ostracoda Ostracod i 13 1.9 0.3<br />
Copepoda Copepoda Copepods e 3 1.0 0.1<br />
Balanus sp. Cirripedia Barnacle e 27 5.4 0.7<br />
Bryozoa (encrusting) Bryozoa Bryozoan e 6 1.5 0.2<br />
Bryozoa (solid stalked) Bryozoa Bryozoan e 4 1.3 0.1<br />
Waltonia inconspicua Brachiopoda Lamp shell e 2 2.0 0.1<br />
Echinocardium cordatum Echinoidea Heart Urchin i 8 1.6 0.2<br />
Patiriella regularis Asteroidea Cushion Star e 2 1.0 0.1<br />
Ophiuroidea Ophiuroidea Brittle stars i 95 5.0 2.5<br />
Trochodota dendyi Holothuroidea Sea cucumber i 1 1.0 0.0<br />
Asterocarpa sp. Ascidiacea Sea squirt e 1 1.0 0.0
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Taxa Gen/Group Common Name<br />
Infauna<br />
/Epifauna<br />
Total<br />
#<br />
Average<br />
#<br />
Cnemidocarpa bicornuta Ascidiacea Saddle squirt e 3 1.0 0.1<br />
Didemnum sp. Ascidiacea Colonial sea squirt e 2 2.0 0.1<br />
Relative<br />
#<br />
Styela clava Ascidiacea Sea squirt e 1 1.0 0.0<br />
41
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
Appendix 5. Results <strong>of</strong> the Simper analysis for infauna abundance data from grab<br />
samples at reference farm sites and control sites at 35% similarity (Primer 6).<br />
SIMPER<br />
Similarity Percentages - species contributions<br />
One-Way Analysis<br />
Data worksheet<br />
Name: Data2<br />
Data type: Abundance<br />
Sample selection: All<br />
Variable selection: All<br />
Parameters<br />
Resemblance: S17 Bray Curtis similarity<br />
Cut <strong>of</strong>f for low contributions: 90.00%<br />
Factor Groups<br />
Sample 35 Percent<br />
Control 1 Nth: CONTROL1NTH-G1 c<br />
Control 1 Nth: CONTROL1NTH-G2 c<br />
Control 2 Nth: Control2NTH-G2 c<br />
Control 3 Nth: Control3Nth-G1 c<br />
Control 3 Nth: Control3Nth-G2 c<br />
Control 3 Nth: Control3Nth-G3 c<br />
Control 4 Sth: Control4Sth-G1 c<br />
Control 4 Sth: Control4Sth-G2 c<br />
Control 5 Sth: Control5Sth-G1 c<br />
Control 5 Sth: Control5Sth-G2 c<br />
Control 5 Sth: Control5Sth-G3 c<br />
Control 6 Sth: Control6Sth-G1 c<br />
Control 6 Sth: Control6Sth-G3 c<br />
Li292: Li292FARM2-G3 c<br />
Li362: LI362FARM6-G1 c<br />
Li379: Li379FARM7-G3 c<br />
Li396: Li396FARM1-G3 c<br />
Control 1 Nth: CONTROL1NTH-G3 b<br />
Control 4 Sth: Control4Sth-G3 b<br />
Control 6 Sth: Control6Sth-G2 b<br />
Li292: Li292FARM2-G1 b<br />
Li292: Li292FARM2-G2 b<br />
Li296: Li296FARM4-G1 b<br />
Li296: Li296FARM4-G2 b<br />
Li296: Li296FARM4-G3 b<br />
Li344: Li344FARM8-G1 b<br />
Li344: Li344FARM8-G2 b<br />
Li344: Li344FARM8-G3 b<br />
Li346: Li346FARM3-G1 b<br />
Li346: Li346FARM3-G2 b<br />
Li346: Li346FARM3-G3 b<br />
Li362: LI362FARM6-G2 b<br />
Li362: LI362FARM6-G3 b<br />
Li379: Li379FARM7-G1 b<br />
Li379: Li379FARM7-G2 b<br />
Li380: Li380FARM5-G1 b<br />
Li380: Li380FARM5-G2 b<br />
Li380: Li380FARM5-G3 b<br />
Li396: Li396FARM1-G1 b<br />
Li396: Li396FARM1-G2 b<br />
Control 2 Nth: Control2NTH-G1 a<br />
Control 2 Nth: Control2NTH-G3 a<br />
Group c<br />
Average similarity: 42.07<br />
Species Av.Abund Av.Sim Sim/SD Contrib% Cum.%<br />
Sigalionidae 1.11 8.64 2.14 20.53 20.53<br />
Cossura consimilis 0.86 5.52 1.07 13.12 33.65<br />
Aglaophamus sp. 0.86 4.53 0.93 10.78 44.43<br />
42
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Appendix 5. continued<br />
Heteromastus filiformis 0.75 3.82 0.77 9.08 53.51<br />
Neonesidea sp. 0.82 3.20 0.67 7.59 61.10<br />
Theora lubrica 0.74 2.92 0.68 6.94 68.05<br />
Cirratulidae 0.67 2.70 0.69 6.43 74.47<br />
Lumbrineridae 0.58 2.22 0.59 5.28 79.75<br />
Prionospio yuriel 0.58 2.06 0.59 4.89 84.64<br />
Ophiuroidea 0.50 1.33 0.42 3.17 87.81<br />
Macrophthalmus hirtipes 0.46 1.32 0.42 3.13 90.94<br />
Group b<br />
Average similarity: 43.97<br />
Species Av.Abund Av.Sim Sim/SD Contrib% Cum.%<br />
Prionospio yuriel 1.35 4.75 1.41 10.80 10.80<br />
Theora lubrica 1.36 4.59 1.36 10.44 21.24<br />
Heteromastus filiformis 1.39 4.46 1.27 10.14 31.37<br />
Polynoidae 0.89 2.99 1.14 6.80 38.17<br />
Sigalionidae 0.94 2.97 1.00 6.74 44.91<br />
Prionospio multicristata 1.17 2.71 0.89 6.15 51.07<br />
Oligochaeta 0.83 2.48 0.70 5.64 56.71<br />
Terebellidae 0.85 2.31 0.91 5.26 61.97<br />
Sphaerosyllis sp. 1.01 2.07 0.80 4.71 66.68<br />
Armandia maculata 0.91 1.86 0.72 4.23 70.91<br />
Nemertea 0.69 1.77 0.80 4.03 74.95<br />
Cirratulidae 0.77 1.77 0.70 4.03 78.97<br />
Paraonidae 0.70 1.42 0.56 3.24 82.21<br />
Glyceridae 0.66 1.12 0.58 2.55 84.76<br />
Ophiuroidea 0.66 0.82 0.45 1.85 86.61<br />
Hesionidae 0.49 0.70 0.45 1.58 88.20<br />
Lumbrineridae 0.44 0.59 0.39 1.34 89.54<br />
Pectinaria australis 0.42 0.56 0.34 1.28 90.83<br />
Group a<br />
Average similarity: 53.24<br />
Species Av.Abund Av.Sim Contrib% Cum.%<br />
Lumbrineridae 1.19 10.23 19.21 19.21<br />
Nucula gallinacea 1.09 8.60 16.16 35.37<br />
Phyllodocidae 1.00 8.60 16.16 51.53<br />
Polynoidae 1.00 8.60 16.16 67.69<br />
Aglaophamus sp. 1.00 8.60 16.16 83.84<br />
Ophiuroidea 1.00 8.60 16.16 100.00<br />
Groups c & b<br />
Average dissimilarity = 68.36<br />
Species Group c Group b Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.%<br />
Av.Abund Av.Abund<br />
Prionospio multicristata 0.06 1.17 3.30 1.30 4.82 4.82<br />
Prionospio yuriel 0.58 1.35 3.10 1.18 4.53 9.35<br />
Theora lubrica 0.74 1.36 2.93 1.28 4.28 13.64<br />
Oligochaeta 0.06 0.83 2.91 1.06 4.26 17.90<br />
Heteromastus filiformis 0.75 1.39 2.77 1.29 4.06 21.96<br />
Sphaerosyllis sp. 0.25 1.01 2.62 1.24 3.84 25.80<br />
Neonesidea sp. 0.82 0.17 2.50 1.01 3.66 29.46<br />
Armandia maculata 0.12 0.91 2.47 1.19 3.61 33.07<br />
Polynoidae 0.25 0.89 2.42 1.31 3.54 36.61<br />
Aglaophamus sp. 0.86 0.43 2.35 1.17 3.44 40.05<br />
Cossura consimilis 0.86 0.38 2.32 1.16 3.40 43.45<br />
Terebellidae 0.24 0.85 2.29 1.26 3.35 46.80<br />
Paraonidae 0.24 0.70 2.17 1.00 3.17 49.97<br />
Ophiuroidea 0.50 0.66 2.13 1.05 3.12 53.09<br />
Cirratulidae 0.67 0.77 2.13 1.10 3.12 56.21<br />
Lumbrineridae 0.58 0.44 1.89 1.01 2.76 58.98<br />
Nemertea 0.25 0.69 1.88 1.13 2.75 61.73<br />
Glyceridae 0.19 0.66 1.85 1.03 2.71 64.44<br />
Sigalionidae 1.11 0.94 1.63 0.94 2.39 66.83<br />
Macrophthalmus hirtipes 0.46 0.24 1.61 0.87 2.36 69.18<br />
Hesionidae 0.18 0.49 1.47 0.87 2.15 71.33<br />
43
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
Appendix 5. continued<br />
Species Group c Group b Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.%<br />
Av.Abund Av.Abund<br />
Dorvilleidae 0.12 0.46 1.36 0.77 1.98 73.31<br />
Pectinaria australis 0.00 0.42 1.30 0.70 1.91 75.22<br />
Syllidae 0.06 0.41 1.24 0.72 1.81 77.03<br />
Trachyleberis lytteltonsis 0.35 0.09 1.11 0.65 1.62 78.66<br />
Onuphis aucklandensis 0.24 0.13 1.03 0.62 1.51 80.16<br />
Nucula nitidula 0.23 0.13 0.89 0.56 1.30 81.47<br />
Phyllodocidae 0.00 0.37 0.89 0.65 1.30 82.77<br />
Echinocardium cordatum 0.26 0.04 0.86 0.57 1.25 84.02<br />
Capitella capitata 0.00 0.27 0.84 0.55 1.22 85.24<br />
Flabelligeridae 0.19 0.15 0.82 0.57 1.19 86.44<br />
Boccardia sp. 0.00 0.33 0.77 0.57 1.13 87.57<br />
Ampharetidae 0.07 0.22 0.72 0.54 1.05 88.61<br />
Upogebia danai 0.00 0.27 0.68 0.51 0.99 89.61<br />
Capitellethus zeylanicus 0.06 0.22 0.67 0.56 0.98 90.59<br />
Groups c & a<br />
Average dissimilarity = 71.73<br />
Group c Group a<br />
Species Av.Abund Av.Abund Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.%<br />
Sigalionidae 1.11 0.00 4.93 2.78 6.87 6.87<br />
Nucula gallinacea 0.06 1.09 4.58 3.08 6.38 13.25<br />
Phyllodocidae 0.00 1.00 4.41 5.76 6.15 19.40<br />
Cossura consimilis 0.86 0.00 3.86 1.61 5.38 24.78<br />
Neonesidea sp. 0.82 0.75 3.56 1.14 4.96 29.74<br />
Polynoidae 0.25 1.00 3.45 1.74 4.82 34.56<br />
Ophiuroidea 0.50 1.00 3.08 1.51 4.29 38.85<br />
Lumbrineridae 0.58 1.19 2.87 1.08 4.00 42.85<br />
Theora lubrica 0.74 0.50 2.80 1.16 3.91 46.75<br />
Cirratulidae 0.67 0.00 2.75 1.14 3.84 50.59<br />
Heteromastus filiformis 0.75 0.50 2.65 1.12 3.69 54.28<br />
Nucula nitidula 0.23 0.59 2.59 0.99 3.60 57.89<br />
Prionospio yuriel 0.58 0.00 2.34 1.02 3.26 61.15<br />
Arthritica bifurca 0.00 0.50 2.33 0.96 3.25 64.40<br />
Dosinia lambata 0.00 0.50 2.33 0.96 3.25 67.64<br />
Nemertea 0.25 0.50 2.18 0.98 3.04 70.69<br />
Terebellidae 0.24 0.50 2.13 0.97 2.96 73.65<br />
Capitellethus zeylanicus 0.06 0.50 2.09 0.97 2.91 76.56<br />
Edwardsia sp. 0.06 0.50 2.09 0.97 2.91 79.48<br />
Aglaophamus sp. 0.86 1.00 1.99 1.05 2.77 82.24<br />
Macrophthalmus hirtipes 0.46 0.00 1.92 0.80 2.67 84.92<br />
Trachyleberis lytteltonsis 0.35 0.00 1.36 0.62 1.90 86.82<br />
Onuphis aucklandensis 0.24 0.00 1.07 0.54 1.49 88.30<br />
Echinocardium cordatum 0.26 0.00 1.03 0.54 1.44 89.74<br />
Paraonidae 0.24 0.00 1.00 0.53 1.40 91.14<br />
Groups b & a<br />
Average dissimilarity = 76.14<br />
Species Group b<br />
Group a Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.%<br />
Av.Abund<br />
Av.Abund<br />
Prionospio yuriel 1.35 0.00 4.31 1.76 5.66 5.66<br />
Nucula gallinacea 0.00 1.09 3.52 3.33 4.62 10.28<br />
Prionospio multicristata 1.17 0.00 3.32 1.32 4.36 14.64<br />
Theora lubrica 1.36 0.50 3.12 1.62 4.10 18.73<br />
Heteromastus filiformis 1.39 0.50 3.11 1.53 4.09 22.83<br />
Oligochaeta 0.83 0.00 2.94 1.08 3.86 26.69<br />
Sigalionidae 0.94 0.00 2.94 1.51 3.85 30.54<br />
Sphaerosyllis sp. 1.01 0.00 2.70 1.25 3.55 34.09<br />
Lumbrineridae 0.44 1.19 2.68 1.33 3.52 37.61<br />
Phyllodocidae 0.37 1.00 2.62 1.67 3.45 41.05<br />
Ophiuroidea 0.66 1.00 2.60 1.83 3.42 44.47<br />
Armandia maculata 0.91 0.00 2.48 1.17 3.25 47.72<br />
Aglaophamus sp. 0.43 1.00 2.38 1.56 3.12 50.84<br />
Neonesidea sp. 0.17 0.75 2.30 0.97 3.03 53.87<br />
44
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Appendix 5. continued<br />
Species Group b<br />
Group a Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.%<br />
Av.Abund<br />
Av.Abund<br />
Cirratulidae 0.77 0.00 2.26 1.13 2.97 56.84<br />
Paraonidae 0.70 0.00 2.18 0.96 2.86 59.70<br />
Terebellidae 0.85 0.50 2.04 1.15 2.68 62.38<br />
Nucula nitidula 0.13 0.59 1.84 0.96 2.41 64.80<br />
Glyceridae 0.66 0.00 1.77 1.00 2.33 67.12<br />
Nemertea 0.69 0.50 1.69 0.99 2.22 69.34<br />
Dosinia lambata 0.00 0.50 1.67 0.92 2.19 71.54<br />
Arthritica bifurca 0.04 0.50 1.66 0.92 2.18 73.72<br />
Capitellethus zeylanicus 0.22 0.50 1.55 0.93 2.04 75.76<br />
Edwardsia sp. 0.04 0.50 1.54 0.93 2.02 77.77<br />
Hesionidae 0.49 0.00 1.31 0.81 1.72 79.49<br />
Pectinaria australis 0.42 0.00 1.29 0.70 1.69 81.18<br />
Dorvilleidae 0.46 0.00 1.19 0.70 1.57 82.75<br />
Syllidae 0.41 0.00 1.14 0.69 1.50 84.25<br />
Cossura consimilis 0.38 0.00 1.11 0.68 1.46 85.71<br />
Polynoidae 0.89 1.00 1.10 0.75 1.45 87.16<br />
Capitella capitata 0.27 0.00 0.83 0.55 1.09 88.25<br />
Boccardia sp. 0.33 0.00 0.77 0.57 1.01 89.26<br />
Macrophthalmus hirtipes 0.24 0.00 0.75 0.49 0.99 90.24<br />
45
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
Appendix 6. Benthic maps for the eight reference farm sites, showing estimated extent <strong>of</strong><br />
mussel shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f and sediment grain-size results.<br />
46<br />
Farm 1<br />
25m<br />
30m 35m<br />
245m from<br />
shore<br />
Li373<br />
5m 10m 15m 20m<br />
Moturua Island<br />
0 37.575<br />
150 225 300<br />
m<br />
Farm 2<br />
Motukopake Island<br />
15m<br />
Li293<br />
65 m from<br />
shore<br />
20m 25m<br />
Li292A<br />
Stocking<br />
density<br />
= 11 lines<br />
Li292B<br />
Stocking<br />
density<br />
= 10 lines<br />
5m 10m 15m 20m<br />
0 30 60 120 180 240<br />
m<br />
Li396<br />
Stocking<br />
density<br />
= 14 lines<br />
Li333<br />
Li294<br />
Li294<br />
±<br />
Li361 Li361<br />
Moturuhi<br />
Is.<br />
Moturua<br />
Is.<br />
30m<br />
30m<br />
Li396 current farm area<br />
Li373 & 361 current farm areas<br />
Li396 currently consented area<br />
Li373 farm extension<br />
±<br />
Waimate<br />
Is.<br />
Li292 current farm area<br />
Li293, 294 & 333 current farm area<br />
Li292 currently consented area<br />
Li292 farm extension<br />
Coromandel<br />
±<br />
±<br />
T5<br />
Inshore west<br />
4<br />
Li373<br />
0 2550<br />
100 150 200<br />
m<br />
293<br />
inner T4<br />
Motukopake Island<br />
Inner outer T1<br />
Li293<br />
292<br />
inner T4<br />
Li292A<br />
3<br />
1<br />
Li292B<br />
0 30 60 120 180 240<br />
m<br />
South 361 north 396<br />
3<br />
Li396<br />
2<br />
4<br />
T5<br />
T6<br />
Li333<br />
1<br />
Li294<br />
Li294<br />
Li361<br />
Li396<br />
361 north<br />
2<br />
Sediment Key<br />
Li361<br />
South 361-396<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
Sand & clay<br />
Li396 current farm area<br />
Li361 & 373 current farm areas<br />
Li396 farm extension<br />
Mussel extent<br />
Video transect<br />
North T1<br />
Li292 current farm area<br />
Sediment Key<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
Silt & clay<br />
Li293, 294 & 333 current farm area<br />
Li292 farm extension<br />
Mussel extent<br />
Video transect<br />
T6
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Farm 3<br />
±<br />
Waimate<br />
Is.<br />
17 m<br />
Coromandel<br />
Li346<br />
Stocking density<br />
= 12 lines<br />
720 m from<br />
shore<br />
13 m<br />
Li310 W<br />
0 65 130 260 390 520<br />
m<br />
Sediment Key<br />
346 west<br />
T1<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
Silt & clay<br />
2<br />
346 northeast<br />
1<br />
4<br />
Li346<br />
3<br />
Li310 W<br />
310 south T2<br />
7 m<br />
Li310 E<br />
0 50 100 200 300 400<br />
m<br />
5 m<br />
310 east<br />
heading north<br />
Li310 E<br />
310 east T3<br />
Oahuru Bay<br />
Li326<br />
Li346 current farm area<br />
Li310 & 326 current farm area<br />
Li346 currenlty consented area<br />
Li346 farm extension<br />
Li326<br />
326 southwest<br />
Li346 current farm area<br />
Li310 & 326 current farm area<br />
Li346 farm extension<br />
Li346, 310 & 326 mussel extent<br />
Video transect<br />
±<br />
326 east<br />
47
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
48<br />
Farm 4<br />
±<br />
Waimate<br />
Is.<br />
Sediment Key<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
343 west<br />
Silt and clay<br />
Coromandel<br />
343 north<br />
Li343<br />
Li343<br />
0 50 100 150 200<br />
25<br />
m<br />
296 north<br />
343 inshore<br />
90 m from<br />
shore<br />
Motukakarikitahi<br />
Island<br />
4<br />
Motukakarikitahi<br />
Island<br />
Li296<br />
Stocking density<br />
= 18 lines<br />
1<br />
2<br />
296-343<br />
south<br />
Li296<br />
3<br />
10 m<br />
Li383<br />
0 2550<br />
100 150 200<br />
m<br />
Li296 farm extension<br />
Li296 currently consented area<br />
Li296 current farm area<br />
Li 343 & 383 current farm area<br />
Li383<br />
383-296<br />
south<br />
Li296 current farm area<br />
Li343 & 383 current farm area<br />
Li296 farm extension<br />
Li343, 296 & 383 mussel extent<br />
Video transect<br />
383 north<br />
±<br />
383 east
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Farm 5<br />
Whanganui<br />
Island<br />
5 m<br />
100 m from<br />
shore<br />
10 m<br />
Stocking density<br />
= 17 lines<br />
0 20 40 80 120 160<br />
m<br />
±<br />
T4<br />
T3<br />
3<br />
Li380 + Li421<br />
T1<br />
Li380<br />
Li421<br />
Li380<br />
0 25 50 100 150 200<br />
m<br />
2<br />
4<br />
1<br />
T2<br />
±<br />
Coromandel<br />
Te Kouma<br />
Li 380 + Li421 current farm area<br />
Li380 currently consented area<br />
Li421 currently consented area<br />
Li380 farm extension<br />
Li380 + Li421 current farm area<br />
Li380 farm extension<br />
Mussel extent<br />
Video transect<br />
Sediment Key<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
Silt and clay<br />
49
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
50<br />
Farm 6<br />
10 m<br />
5 m<br />
±<br />
T3<br />
4<br />
Li362<br />
Stocking density<br />
= 15 lines<br />
140 m from shore<br />
1<br />
T2<br />
Li362<br />
0 20 40 80 120 160<br />
m<br />
2<br />
3<br />
T1<br />
T4<br />
±<br />
5 m<br />
Te Kouma<br />
Li362 current farm area<br />
Coromandel<br />
0 1530<br />
60 90 120<br />
m<br />
Li362 currently consented area<br />
Li362 farm extension<br />
Sediment Key<br />
Li362 current farm area<br />
Li362 farm extension<br />
Mussel extent<br />
Video transect<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
Silt and clay
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Farm 7<br />
15 m<br />
10 m<br />
5 m<br />
Li379<br />
Stocking density<br />
= 11 lines<br />
0 15 30<br />
±<br />
60 90 120<br />
m<br />
T4<br />
2<br />
3<br />
0 15 30 60 90 120<br />
m<br />
1<br />
T1<br />
T3<br />
Li379<br />
Wekarua Island<br />
110 m from shore<br />
4<br />
T2<br />
±<br />
Li378<br />
Li379 current farm area<br />
Li378 current farm area<br />
Li379 currently consented area<br />
Li379 farm extension<br />
Coromandel<br />
Te Kouma<br />
Sediment Key<br />
Manaia<br />
Li378<br />
Li379 current farm area<br />
Li378 current farm area<br />
Li379 farm extension<br />
Mussel extent<br />
Video transect<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
Silt and clay<br />
51
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
52<br />
Farm 8<br />
10 m 5 m<br />
0 25 50 100 150 200<br />
m<br />
±<br />
T1<br />
4<br />
Li344B<br />
Stocking density = 14 lines<br />
0 30 60 120 180 240<br />
m<br />
1<br />
Li344A<br />
Stocking density<br />
= 4 lines<br />
3<br />
15 m<br />
Li344A<br />
Li344B<br />
2<br />
T3<br />
±<br />
85 m to shore<br />
10 m<br />
Li344 current farm area<br />
Li344 currently consented area<br />
Li344 farm extension<br />
T2<br />
Te Kouma<br />
Sediment Key<br />
Manaia<br />
Kirita Bay<br />
Li344 current farm area<br />
Li344 farm extension<br />
Mussel extent<br />
Video transect<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
Silt and clay
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Control 1<br />
3<br />
1<br />
Control 1<br />
0 25 50 100 150 200<br />
m<br />
Control 2<br />
Motuwi Island<br />
1<br />
0 25 50 100 150 200<br />
m<br />
3<br />
2<br />
2<br />
Control 2<br />
Motuwi<br />
Is.<br />
Moturua<br />
Is.<br />
Motuoruhi Is.<br />
Sediment Key<br />
± Motuoruhi<br />
Is.<br />
Ngohitanu<br />
Bay<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
±<br />
Silt and clay<br />
Waimate<br />
Is.<br />
Sediment Key<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
Silt and clay<br />
53
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
54<br />
Control 3<br />
1<br />
2<br />
Control 3<br />
0 30 60 120 180 240<br />
m<br />
Control 4<br />
Sediment Key<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
Silt and clay<br />
3<br />
Control 4<br />
2<br />
1<br />
Rangipukea<br />
Island<br />
3<br />
±<br />
Whanganui<br />
Island<br />
±<br />
Sediment Key<br />
Coromandel<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
Silt and clay<br />
Coromandel<br />
Te Kouma<br />
Manaia<br />
0 25 50 100 150 200<br />
m
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2134 MAY 2012<br />
Control 5<br />
0 25 50 100 150 200<br />
m<br />
Control 6<br />
Control 6<br />
1<br />
0 15 30 60 90 120<br />
m<br />
1<br />
Control 5<br />
2<br />
2<br />
3<br />
3<br />
±<br />
±<br />
Te Kouma<br />
Manaia<br />
Sediment Key<br />
Coromandel<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
Silt and clay<br />
Te Kouma<br />
Sediment Key<br />
Manaia<br />
> 600 m to shore<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
Silt and clay<br />
55
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2134 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
Appendix 7. Cawthron short reports for 32 proposed inshore mussel farm extensions.<br />
56
To: Waikato Regional Council<br />
Private Bag 3038<br />
Waikato Mail Centre<br />
HAMILTON 3240<br />
1. Applicant: Moturoa Trust No 2<br />
LI 373/ CN 112682<br />
<strong>Application</strong> for Resource Consent<br />
under s88 <strong>of</strong> the Resource Management Act<br />
2. Resource Consents Sought:<br />
Resource consent is sought to use and occupy space in the coastal marine area for<br />
conventional mussel farming, spat catching and the farming <strong>of</strong> oysters and scallops, and<br />
associated structures, and to undertake associated discharges to water and disturbance <strong>of</strong><br />
and deposition on the seabed.<br />
The area that the application relates to is a one hectare extension to an existing marine farm<br />
in the Coromandel area. The location is identified and activities discussed in more detail in<br />
the attached Assessment <strong>of</strong> Environmental Effects (AEE).<br />
No other resource consents are required for the proposed activity.<br />
The term <strong>of</strong> the consent sought is for approximately 13 years (ie to be consistent with the<br />
term <strong>of</strong> the neighbouring consented farm).<br />
3. Assessment <strong>of</strong> Environmental Effects<br />
Attached to this application, is an AEE that corresponds with the scale and significance <strong>of</strong> the<br />
effects <strong>of</strong> the proposed activity and which is set out in accordance with Schedule 4 <strong>of</strong> the<br />
RMA. In addition the report: Taylor, D., Clark, D., Keeley, N., Goodwin, E., 2012. Assessment<br />
<strong>of</strong> Benthic and Water Column Effects from Inshore Coromandel Mussel Farms; Prepared for a<br />
Collective <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Mussel Farmers. Cawthron Institute, is relied on in support <strong>of</strong> this<br />
application.<br />
4. Address for Service<br />
This application along with a $500 deposit has been filed by Robin Britton, consultant to the<br />
applicant. The addresses for service are jointly as follows:<br />
Robin Britton<br />
PO Box 7016<br />
Hamilton East 3247<br />
Moturoa Trust No 2<br />
PO Box 716<br />
Thames 3540<br />
Any queries can be made to Robin Britton at: 027 281 2969; or rbritton@wave.co.nz<br />
Date:<br />
Signature: R Britton on behalf <strong>of</strong> the applicant
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT<br />
Coromandel Marine Farm Extension<br />
MOTURUA TRUST NO 2<br />
FARM: LI 373/ CN 112682<br />
June 2012<br />
Prepared by:<br />
Robin Britton<br />
Resource Management Consultant<br />
PO Box 7016<br />
Hamilton 3247
Contents<br />
2<br />
Contents ..................................................................................................................................................... 2<br />
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 3<br />
2. Description <strong>of</strong> the Proposal ........................................................................................................ 3<br />
3. Consideration <strong>of</strong> possible alternative locations .................................................................. 5<br />
4. Assessment <strong>of</strong> actual or potential effects............................................................................. 5<br />
4. Description <strong>of</strong> mitigation measures ...................................................................................... 12<br />
5. Consultation ................................................................................................................................... 13<br />
6. Monitoring ....................................................................................................................................... 13<br />
7. Relevant Planning Provisions................................................................................................... 14<br />
8. Consent Conditions ..................................................................................................................... 18<br />
9. Notification ..................................................................................................................................... 18<br />
10 Conclusions .................................................................................................................................... 19<br />
Appendix 1: Survey plan showing location <strong>of</strong> the farm and proposed extension ........ 20<br />
Appendix 2: Short Report - Coromandel Mussel Farm Extension – LI 373 .................... 21<br />
2
3<br />
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT<br />
MARINE FARM EXTENSION<br />
Prepared in accordance with Section 88(2)(b) <strong>of</strong> the Resource Management Act and taking into<br />
account the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Waikato Regional Coastal Plan (RCP).<br />
1. Introduction<br />
1.1 This assessment <strong>of</strong> effects on the environment (AEE) relates to a one hectare extension to<br />
the following farm owned by Moturua Trust No 2:<br />
LI 373/ CN 112682<br />
1.2 Rule 16.5.5A (Extensions <strong>of</strong> Marine Farms) <strong>of</strong> the RCP enables an extension <strong>of</strong> an existing<br />
farm to be applied for. This application is for new space.<br />
1.3 The current consented area <strong>of</strong> the farm is 6 hectares. The farm is the northernmost farm<br />
<strong>of</strong> those that are generally located <strong>of</strong>f-shore from Moturua Island, as shown on the RCP<br />
Map 14.<br />
1.4 The survey plan showing the location and position <strong>of</strong> the area which is being applied for,<br />
is attached in Appendix 1.<br />
1.5 The farming <strong>of</strong> mussels (Perna canaliculus) and spat catching, and the farming <strong>of</strong> oysters<br />
and scallops will be the activities undertaken within the area being applied for.<br />
1.6 In accordance with Rule 16.5.5A <strong>of</strong> the RCP, this consent application is for a discretionary<br />
activity.<br />
1.7 The existing consented marine farm provides the base-line from which the effects <strong>of</strong> the<br />
area being applied for are to be considered.<br />
1.8 This AEE is structured using the headings <strong>of</strong> the Fourth Schedule to the RMA, and also<br />
addresses the information requirements <strong>of</strong> the RCP contained in Appendices I and 1A, and<br />
the matters raised in Rule 16.5.5A.<br />
2. Description <strong>of</strong> the Proposal<br />
2.1 This application seeks a one hectare extension to an existing consented area to erect,<br />
place and use structures and occupy space, along with associated discharges to water and<br />
air, and disturbances <strong>of</strong> and deposition to the seabed in the coastal marine area (CMA).<br />
The extension would be used for conventional longline structures for the purpose <strong>of</strong><br />
farming mussels (Perna canaliculus), oysters and scallops, including spat catching. The<br />
term <strong>of</strong> the consent being sought is for 13 years – to enable the term <strong>of</strong> the area which is<br />
the subject <strong>of</strong> this application, to be made concurrent with the term <strong>of</strong> the existing<br />
3
4<br />
marine farm (which expires on 1 January 2025). The application relates to the one<br />
hectare area identified on the Survey Plan in Appendix 1.<br />
2.2 No other resource consents are required for this activity.<br />
2.3 There is a functional need for this activity to be located within the coastal marine area.<br />
2.4 The layout to be used includes 4 double backbones per hectare, which would be aligned<br />
with the direction <strong>of</strong> the existing lines <strong>of</strong> the current consented area and orientated<br />
parallel to tidal flows.<br />
2.5 The buoys to be used to support the longlines will be between 200 – 300 litres in volume.<br />
2.6 The anchors to be used are screw anchors buried to approximately 6m.<br />
2.7 The longline structures to be used include:<br />
backbone/mainline length 130 - 160m<br />
dropper length 10m<br />
backbone and mooring line rope type – 24 - 36mm polypropylene;<br />
surface buoy separation – 2m to 10m (depending on stocking rate and size);<br />
buoys will be orange at the corners <strong>of</strong> blocks and at the middle <strong>of</strong> the most seaward<br />
and most landward lines; all other buoys will be black;<br />
the proposed lighting is to mark corners B & F as shown on the plan in Appendix 1 and<br />
described further below. <strong>Application</strong>s for these lights have been submitted to<br />
Maritime New Zealand for approval.<br />
oysters and scallops would be hung in cages or trays suspended from the back-bone<br />
lines<br />
spat catching would occur on spat role droppers.<br />
2.8 No additional vessel movements would result from farming the proposed extended area<br />
<strong>of</strong> the farm.<br />
2.9 The applicant currently uses and would continue to use the landing facilities at the Sugar<br />
Loaf. The use <strong>of</strong> the Sugar Loaf wharf is an authorised activity. The current resource<br />
consent for the wharf does not limit the use <strong>of</strong> the wharf by way <strong>of</strong> restrictions on vessel<br />
movements or tonnage crossing the facility. Additional use <strong>of</strong> the wharf associated with<br />
this farm extension is therefore a consented activity.<br />
2.10 It is considered that the quantity <strong>of</strong> product arising from the additional 1 hectare<br />
extension would have a minimal impact on the current wharf operations. It is also<br />
considered that the wharf infrastructure can address the cumulative impacts <strong>of</strong> other<br />
proposed extensions in the area, anticipated by Waikato Regional Council to be a<br />
maximum <strong>of</strong> 48 hectares (if all existing farms sought an extension). Reference is made to<br />
the “Wharfing Infrastructure Discussion Document” prepared for the Haruaki<br />
Development Group, 2010 & 2011, in support <strong>of</strong> this matter.<br />
4
5<br />
2.11 The applicant currently has a private share base in the facilities which would amply cope<br />
with the extra product from this 1 ha extension. The applicant is also aware <strong>of</strong> the current<br />
discussions on future wharf infrastructure options and <strong>of</strong> Waikato Regional Council’s<br />
intention to develop an aquaculture strategy which would, among other matters, consider<br />
the future infrastructural needs <strong>of</strong> the industry. The applicant would be involved in these<br />
studies through the Coromandel Marine Farmers Association.<br />
3. Consideration <strong>of</strong> possible alternative locations<br />
3.1 The RMA requires a description <strong>of</strong> any possible alternative locations or methods for<br />
undertaking the activity for which consent is sought, where it is likely that the activity will<br />
result in any significant adverse effect on the environment. The applicant contends that<br />
there would be no significant adverse effect on the environment arising from this<br />
application. Alternative sides <strong>of</strong> the existing consented area were considered for the one<br />
hectare extension, and in consideration <strong>of</strong> practicalities such as tidal flows, navigation and<br />
existing operations, were dismissed.<br />
3.2 RCP rule 16.5.5A clearly anticipates the application site as being a potentially appropriate<br />
area for marine farming.<br />
4. Assessment <strong>of</strong> actual or potential effects<br />
4.1 This part <strong>of</strong> the AEE deals in detail with the actual or potential effects on the environment<br />
<strong>of</strong> the proposed activity. It also addresses the matters, where relevant, outlined in the<br />
Fourth Schedule to the RMA and addresses all relevant matters outlined in Rule 16.5.5A<br />
and Appendices I and IA <strong>of</strong> the RCP. The comments made below are supported by the<br />
scientific report attached as Appendix 2 and the report: Taylor D, Clark D, Keeley N and<br />
Goodwin E, 2012. Assessment <strong>of</strong> Benthic and Water Column Effects from Inshore<br />
Coromandel Mussel Farms. Prepared for a Collective <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Mussel Farmers.<br />
Cawthron Institute.<br />
4.2 Any effect on those in the neighbourhood and, where relevant, the wider community<br />
including any socio-economic and cultural effects<br />
4.2.1 The existing farm <strong>of</strong> 6ha hectares has been farmed since prior to the<br />
commencement <strong>of</strong> the RMA in 1991. It is considered that the impacts <strong>of</strong> a one<br />
hectare extension on the “neighbourhood” would be no more than minor.<br />
4.2.2 In terms <strong>of</strong> socio-economic effects the marine farming industry creates and<br />
supports a range <strong>of</strong> direct and indirect employment opportunities in the Thames-<br />
Coromandel region. It is noted that the 1ha extension is located in highly<br />
productive waters and will make a valuable economic contribution to the<br />
applicant’s business. The report “Economic Impact <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Aquaculture:<br />
Report prepared for the Hauraki-Coromandel Development Group”, (Wyatt, S.,<br />
5
6<br />
2011) identified that the aquaculture industry contributed $31.4 million to<br />
Waikato’s regional GDP in 2010/11. In respect <strong>of</strong> this application, potential socioeconomic<br />
effects include employment opportunities from managing, transporting<br />
and processing additional product.<br />
4.2.3 The applicant would continue to utilise their existing land-based facilities and<br />
support infrastructure associated with the existing consented farm. The applicant<br />
considers these facilities to be sufficient and adequate to service the proposed<br />
one hectare extension.<br />
4.2.4 In terms <strong>of</strong> socio-economic impacts on other parties, the extension to the farm<br />
would contribute to the recreational fishing opportunities for boating fishers near<br />
the farm. It is currently common practice for recreational fishers to tie up to<br />
mussel buoys and fish within the farmed areas. Public access to the farm would<br />
not be restricted.<br />
4.2.5 In respect <strong>of</strong> cultural effects it is considered that the extension would have no<br />
impacts on cultural matters. The applicant is not aware that the site <strong>of</strong> the<br />
extension is <strong>of</strong> any significance to tangata whenua. To the knowledge <strong>of</strong> the<br />
applicant, no cultural issues have been raised in relation to farming in this area.<br />
4.3 Any physical effect on the locality, including any landscape and visual effects<br />
Landscape and Visual Effects<br />
4.3.1 The proposed farm extension is located on the northern and western edges <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existing farm. The extension is at its closest boundary approximately (but no<br />
closer than) 50 metres from shore. The visual impact <strong>of</strong> the additional one<br />
hectare over and above the impact <strong>of</strong> the existing farm is considered to be less<br />
than minor. There are no dwellings overlooking the existing farm.<br />
4.3.2 The farm is located <strong>of</strong>fshore from Moturua Island. The natural character <strong>of</strong> the<br />
area is already altered by the presence <strong>of</strong> the existing 3 farms. Moturua Island is<br />
uninhabited and is primarily bush clad. The proposed additional one hectare<br />
would have minimal additional impact on the natural character <strong>of</strong> the area due to<br />
the small size <strong>of</strong> the extension and the distance <strong>of</strong>f-shore. In addition the visibility<br />
<strong>of</strong> the buoys is only a smaller proportion <strong>of</strong> the overall surface area <strong>of</strong> the farm<br />
due to the requirement to accommodate the anchor warps (which are beneath<br />
the water line).<br />
4.3.3 The plan requires orange buoys to delineate the farms (corners and middle <strong>of</strong> the<br />
most seaward and most landward lines). This not only identifies each farm block<br />
but it also has a significant safety role, as it serves to warn other users <strong>of</strong> the<br />
marine environment <strong>of</strong> the farm boundaries. Therefore although bright in colour,<br />
these buoys serve as an extra navigational aid for other marine users.<br />
6
7<br />
4.3.4 The buoys would not be visible from the mainland (distance <strong>of</strong> approximately<br />
8kms). The buoys would be visible from the Island from different viewing<br />
perspectives. However the extra lines envisaged by the extension would have<br />
minimal additional visual impact as the focus point would generally be on the<br />
farm as a whole and not on the additional lines. The currently established farm<br />
also blends into the backdrop landscape <strong>of</strong> the Island when viewed from sea.<br />
4.3.5 The two navigation lights marking the seaward-most corners <strong>of</strong> the farm would<br />
have a range <strong>of</strong> 1 nautical mile. The existing light at corner A would not be<br />
required to be moved, while the existing light at corner A would be moved to<br />
corner F (refer Appendix 1 map). In discussion with the Harbourmaster, lighting <strong>of</strong><br />
corners E & C were not required as there is a lack <strong>of</strong> safe passage between the<br />
farm and the shore. Therefore there would be no increase in visual effects over<br />
and above the existing lighting.<br />
4.3.6 The marine vessels that are currently utilised in the farming <strong>of</strong> the consented site,<br />
being harvesting barges and small service crafts, all provide occasional minor<br />
visual attraction. No additional barges or craft over and above what is used<br />
currently to service the existing farm would be used to service the proposed<br />
additional lines within the one hectare extension.<br />
Coastal Processes<br />
4.3.7 In relation to the effects on coastal processes, reference is made to the attached<br />
scientific report (Appendix 2) and the report: Taylor D, Clark D, Keeley N and<br />
Goodwin E, 2012. Assessment <strong>of</strong> Benthic and Water Column Effects from Inshore<br />
Coromandel Mussel Farms. Prepared for a Collective <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Mussel<br />
Farmers. Cawthron Institute. In addition reference is made to the Cawthron<br />
Report 1 which reviews literature related to the effects <strong>of</strong> mussel farming on<br />
coastal processes. This report notes that the presence <strong>of</strong> farms can alter and<br />
reduce current speeds and can attenuate short-period waves. It further notes<br />
that “these issues are not considered significant at the present scale <strong>of</strong><br />
development in New Zealand” (pv).<br />
4.3.8 Based on the information reviewed in the above reports, it is considered that the<br />
overall effects <strong>of</strong> the one hectare extension on coastal processes will be<br />
negligible.<br />
4.4 Any effect on ecosystems, including effects on plants or animals and any physical<br />
disturbance <strong>of</strong> habitats in the vicinity<br />
4.4.1 In relation to the effects on ecosystems, reference is made to the attached<br />
scientific report (Appendix 2) and the report: Taylor D, Clark D, Keeley N and<br />
1 Keeley, N. et al., 2009. Sustainable Aquaculture in New Zealand: Review <strong>of</strong> the Ecological Effects <strong>of</strong> Farming Shellfish and Other Nonfish<br />
Species. Prepared for <strong>Ministry</strong> <strong>of</strong> <strong>Fisheries</strong>. Cawthron Report No 1476<br />
7
8<br />
Goodwin E, 2012. Assessment <strong>of</strong> Benthic and Water Column Effects from Inshore<br />
Coromandel Mussel Farms. Prepared for a Collective <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Mussel<br />
Farmers. Cawthron Institute.<br />
4.4.2 It is considered that the one hectare extension would have a less than minor<br />
impact over and above the effects from the existing consented farm.<br />
4.4.3 It is also considered that the cumulative effects <strong>of</strong> the proposed farm extension<br />
on plants, animals and habitat disturbance will be less than minor, given the<br />
location <strong>of</strong> the farm, the proposed density <strong>of</strong> lines and the existing operations.<br />
4.4.4 With regard to water quality, the mussel farming industry is subject to various<br />
stringent requirements (including food and health standards which are set by NZ’s<br />
Health Authorities and are consistent with USA and EU standards). Therefore the<br />
water and shellfish quality would be regularly checked to ensure they meet these<br />
health standards.<br />
4.4.5 With regard to fishing, there would be no known impacts on customary or<br />
commercial fishing in this in-shore area. While recreational fishing is commonly<br />
known to be enhanced by the presence <strong>of</strong> marine farms.<br />
Carrying Capacity and Phytoplankton<br />
4.4.6 In relation to the effects on phytoplankton, reference is made to the attached<br />
scientific report (Appendix 2) and the report: Taylor D, Clark D, Keeley N and<br />
Goodwin E, 2012. Assessment <strong>of</strong> Benthic and Water Column Effects from Inshore<br />
Coromandel Mussel Farms. Prepared for a Collective <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Mussel<br />
Farmers. Cawthron Institute. In addition it is noted that in the past 10 years or<br />
more <strong>of</strong> monitoring undertaken by NIWA at Wilsons Bay, there have been no<br />
significant issues recorded in terms <strong>of</strong> phytoplankton depletion.<br />
4.4.7 The overall small size <strong>of</strong> the existing farm along with the proposed line layouts for<br />
the extension to the marine farm will ensure that there is sufficient water flow to<br />
the mussel lines to provide adequate quantities <strong>of</strong> phytoplankton. There is<br />
unlikely to be any material effect on phytoplankton much beyond the boundaries<br />
<strong>of</strong> the farm and therefore no impact on the nutrient supplies available to any<br />
nearby farms.<br />
4.4.8 It is therefore considered that the one hectare extension would have a less than<br />
minor impact over and above the effects from the existing consented farm.<br />
Benthic Assessment<br />
4.4.9 In relation to the effects on benthic communities, reference is made to the<br />
attached scientific report (Appendix 2) and the report: Taylor D, Clark D, Keeley N<br />
and Goodwin E, 2012. Assessment <strong>of</strong> Benthic and Water Column Effects from<br />
8
9<br />
Inshore Coromandel Mussel Farms. Prepared for a Collective <strong>of</strong> Coromandel<br />
Mussel Farmers. Cawthron Institute.<br />
4.4.10 It is therefore considered that the one hectare extension would have a less than<br />
minor impact over and above the effects from the existing consented farm.<br />
4.4.11 With respect to marine mammals or seabirds, the applicant has advised that there<br />
have been no known reports <strong>of</strong> entanglement, during the operation <strong>of</strong> the<br />
existing farm.<br />
4.5 Any effect on natural and physical resources having aesthetic, recreational, scientific,<br />
historical, spiritual, cultural, or other special value for present or future generations<br />
4.5.1 The legislative and subsequent RCP provisions anticipated that any effect on<br />
natural and physical resources having aesthetic, recreational, scientific, historical,<br />
spiritual, cultural, or other special value for present or future generations, would<br />
be less than minor in respect <strong>of</strong> the proposed farm extension. The proposed<br />
extension to the existing farm has been recognised as an appropriate use in the<br />
RCP.<br />
4.5.2 Potential adverse effects on navigation safety and fishing will be minimal due to<br />
the small size <strong>of</strong> the extension. The farm extension is not located in any<br />
navigation channels or mooring areas. There are no other navigation issues<br />
associated with the existing farm and none anticipated from the proposed<br />
extension area. It is considered that the lighting and the buoys (black and<br />
orange), will facilitate safe public access around the proposed structures.<br />
4.5.3 Public access through the consented farm and proposed extension will not be<br />
restricted. There is also high recreational value to fishers for catching fish in the<br />
vicinity <strong>of</strong> the farm.<br />
4.5.4 As mentioned above, the extension to the farm would have minimal adverse<br />
visual or aesthetic impact on land-based observers.<br />
4.5.5 There are no known adverse effects <strong>of</strong> the proposal on tangata whenua interests.<br />
4.5.6 The applicant has no knowledge <strong>of</strong> any heritage values which could be adversely<br />
affected by the proposal. Likewise it is not considered that there would be any<br />
adverse effects on any nearby Department <strong>of</strong> Conservation land.<br />
4.5.7 In terms <strong>of</strong> the use <strong>of</strong> the Sugar Loaf wharf, any potential adverse effects will be<br />
minimal due to the fact that no additional service vessels will be required and the<br />
product from the one hectare will be negligible in respect to the total product<br />
crossing the wharf.<br />
9
10<br />
4.5.8 The capacity <strong>of</strong> the wharf to accommodate the proposed increase in product from<br />
the extension to the existing farm (and cumulatively from other extensions in the<br />
area being applied for), is assessed as being adequate. Existing industry operators<br />
currently manage the use <strong>of</strong> the facility in accordance with the operational<br />
management plan 2 (which addresses issues such as traffic control, loading and<br />
carpark manoeuvring and locations and storage <strong>of</strong> equipment). This assessment<br />
is based on the current tonnage crossing the wharf being estimated at<br />
approximately 25,000 tonnes 3 and an expectation that the wharf can adequately<br />
accommodate at least 35,000 tonnes 4 . Notwithstanding the recently approved<br />
quantities anticipated from Wilsons Bay Area B developments, it is considered<br />
that there is currently sufficient capacity to accommodate the cumulative product<br />
from the anticipated farm extensions. It is anticipated that any effects resulting<br />
from more tonnage from the proposed one hectare extension will be no more<br />
than minor over and above the existing tonnage.<br />
4.5.9 There would be no additional traffic associated with the loading/ unloading<br />
activities <strong>of</strong> vessels and trucks servicing the area <strong>of</strong> the farm extension, as the<br />
applicant would be utilising existing vessels/ trucks and other services, as<br />
currently used to service the existing farm. Therefore, residents close to the<br />
wharf and visitors to it will not be adversely affected by the activities associated<br />
with the proposed one hectare extension. It is noted that the traffic and wharf<br />
activities that were anticipated by the Area B applications were <strong>of</strong> no concern to<br />
NZ Transport Authority nor to Thames Coromandel District Council. It is therefore<br />
concluded that the effects from the 1 hectare extension being applied for would<br />
also be acceptable to both organisations.<br />
4.5.10 The applicant therefore considers that the existing facilities are available to and<br />
can adequately be used for servicing the one hectare marine farm extension,<br />
given that the applicant is an existing operator and will be utilising existing vessels<br />
and existing trucks, and there is an existing wharf management protocol in place.<br />
4.5.11 The applicant notes that the Hauraki-Coromandel Development Group and<br />
Thames Coromandel District Council is currently working on future wharfing<br />
infrastructure requirements to support the Coromandel aquaculture industry.<br />
Likewise Waikato Regional Council aims to address this matter in accordance with<br />
its Regional Land Transport Strategy 2011 - 2041, along with policy work relating<br />
to aquaculture growth in the region. It is clear that a strategic approach to<br />
planning for aquaculture infrastructure (as anticipated by the above work) is<br />
taking place and should occur independently <strong>of</strong> this application.<br />
2 Te Kouma Sugar Loaf Landing Facility Coromandel Harbour: Operational Management Plan 1993 & draft 2011<br />
3 Dunbar-Smith, B., for the Hauraki Coromandel Development Group, 2010.Wharfing Infrastructure Discussion Document, p18<br />
4 Ibid, pp 6, 24<br />
10
4.6 Any discharge <strong>of</strong> contaminants into the environment, including any unreasonable<br />
emission <strong>of</strong> noise and options for the treatment and disposal <strong>of</strong> contaminants<br />
11<br />
4.6.1 The discharges associated with mussel farming include pseud<strong>of</strong>aeces and “drop<strong>of</strong>f”<br />
(shells, sediment and other marine life) resulting from cultivation and<br />
harvesting processes. These are discharges which are covered by Rule 16.5.5A <strong>of</strong><br />
the RCP and for which consent is sought. The effect <strong>of</strong> the discharges on the<br />
benthic ecosystem is covered in the scientific report attached in Appendix 2.<br />
4.6.2 Compliance with the Mussel Industry’s Code <strong>of</strong> Practice will ensure that there is<br />
minimal overboard loss <strong>of</strong> non-biodegradable or other waste materials. Regular<br />
maintenance checks <strong>of</strong> the farms would also be undertaken to ensure security <strong>of</strong><br />
the high economic investment in the structures. Any waste rope would be taken<br />
to shore for land disposal. Any bio-fouling on lines or mussels is generally<br />
removed as a part <strong>of</strong> the harvesting process, and therefore returned to the<br />
marine area.<br />
4.6.3 There will be no unreasonable emissions <strong>of</strong> noise from the proposed activity. The<br />
only noise resulting from the activity would be from the barges and harvesting<br />
equipment and will therefore be intermittent and seasonal. There would only be<br />
a minor increase over and above the existing consented operations.<br />
4.7 Any risk to the neighbourhood, the wider community, or the environment through<br />
natural hazards or the use <strong>of</strong> hazardous substances or hazardous installations<br />
4.7.1 The relevance <strong>of</strong> the above factors to this application is in respect <strong>of</strong>:<br />
(i) potential hazardous installations in the form <strong>of</strong> the longlines and<br />
navigational equipment and the potential, albeit minimal, resulting<br />
hazard to marine users; and<br />
(ii) the effects <strong>of</strong> natural hazards, in the form <strong>of</strong> adverse weather conditions,<br />
or changes in sea level<br />
(iii) refuelling <strong>of</strong> vessels at Te Kouma wharf.<br />
4.7.2 The proposed longline structures would be secured to the ocean floor by screw<br />
anchors at each end <strong>of</strong> each mussel line. The proposed anchor types do not pose<br />
any threat to vessels, as they are approximately 6 metres below the surface.<br />
4.7.3 Sufficient room between mussel lines will be left in order to provide safe<br />
navigable channels for small vessels and service vessels. Accordingly, it is<br />
anticipated that commercial and recreational vessels that are under competent<br />
control will still be able to utilise the waters <strong>of</strong> the area and navigate freely<br />
between the marine farm lines without undue risk, and to pass around the farm<br />
block, including in adverse weather conditions.<br />
4.7.4 To avoid a hazard to users <strong>of</strong> the CMA, the applicant will ensure that the lighting<br />
system is extended to incorporate the proposed extension area (ie corners B & F<br />
11
12<br />
in Appendix 1 and designed in accordance with Maritime New Zealand’s<br />
“Guidelines for Aquaculture Management Areas and Marine Farms 2005). Lights<br />
would be regularly maintained.<br />
4.7.5 The lights will be yellow and set to flash 5 times every 20 seconds. They will be<br />
visible to 1 nm and stand 1m above sea level, as per Maritime NZ requirements.<br />
4.7.6 Technological changes in recent years in terms <strong>of</strong> anchoring and type <strong>of</strong> ropes<br />
used and changes in farming practices have significantly reduced the occurrence<br />
<strong>of</strong> breakages, particularly during storm events. Should there be a rope break,<br />
however, there would be no impacts on other farms, due to the distance to the<br />
nearest other farm. Due to the cost <strong>of</strong> equipment, the applicant would seek to<br />
secure/ recover any damaged gear as soon as possible, thereby also avoiding any<br />
navigation concerns. In addition, the farms will be regularly maintained to ensure<br />
security <strong>of</strong> lines and buoys.<br />
4.7.7 There will be no hazardous substances used by the farmers in exercising the<br />
consent applied for by this application. However it is noted that vessels servicing<br />
the farm area would undertake refuelling at Sugar La<strong>of</strong> or Coromandel wharves.<br />
At both <strong>of</strong> these locations authorised pumps and refuelling systems are in place,<br />
including oil spill response planning. Vessel skippers have been trained in the safe<br />
use <strong>of</strong> the refuelling equipment.<br />
4.7.8 Sea level rise is unlikely to have any significant impact on the marine farms 5 . The<br />
structures are floating and will be adjusted over time to any change in sea levels.<br />
4. Description <strong>of</strong> mitigation measures<br />
4.1 A description <strong>of</strong> the mitigation measures (safeguards and contingency plans where<br />
relevant) to be undertaken to help prevent or reduce the actual or potential effects <strong>of</strong> the<br />
proposed activity is required to be provided by the RMA.<br />
4.2 The applicant would operate the proposed extension in a sound commercial manner and<br />
in compliance with the standards identified in the Mussel Industry Code <strong>of</strong> Practice.<br />
These standards are designed to ensure efficient management <strong>of</strong> the farm and the<br />
production <strong>of</strong> high quality stock, to ensure long term financial viability and environmental<br />
sustainability. It is noted that farmers are audited by Aquaculture New Zealand in respect<br />
<strong>of</strong> implementing this Code <strong>of</strong> Practice.<br />
4.3 The applicant would comply with the Te Kouma Sugar Loaf Landing Facility Operational<br />
Management Plan. This management plan addresses all potential effects <strong>of</strong> using the<br />
5 <strong>Ministry</strong> for the Environment, 2008. Coastal Hazards and Climate Change. A Guidance Manual for Local Government in New<br />
Zealand. 2 nd edition. Revised by Ramsay, D and Bell, R. (NIWA).<br />
12
13<br />
Sugar Loaf wharf through management <strong>of</strong> activities such as vehicle movements, parking,<br />
storage <strong>of</strong> equipment and noise.<br />
4.4 The proposed navigation aids will adequately mitigate any potential impacts on<br />
navigation.<br />
4.5 A rigorous maintenance regime will be undertaken to ensure the security <strong>of</strong> the<br />
structures as the cost <strong>of</strong> lost and damaged lines, buoys and mussel product is<br />
economically significant.<br />
4.6 In respect <strong>of</strong> Exotic Disease Management, while it is recognised that the presence <strong>of</strong> an<br />
algal bloom will impact on harvesting, it is almost always only toxic to humans and almost<br />
never would it kill any stock on the lines. It is also to be noted that the Mussel Industry<br />
Council has developed a draft plan to guide response to exotic diseases. This plan meets<br />
the requirements <strong>of</strong> MAF Biosecurity for controlling the potential spread <strong>of</strong> exotic<br />
diseases in the aquaculture industry. The applicant would fully co-operate with the<br />
implementation <strong>of</strong> this plan. (Ref: NZ Mussel Industry Council Ltd, 2004. Exotic Disease<br />
Response Plan. Draft Version 1). In addition it is noted that the Aquaculture Industry is<br />
developing a Mussel Industry Biosecurity Contingency Plan. In the event <strong>of</strong> any incursion,<br />
both these documents would be drawn upon in any response.<br />
5. Consultation<br />
5.1 No consultation has been undertaken in respect <strong>of</strong> the proposed extension to the existing<br />
farm. It is relied on that the provisions <strong>of</strong> the legislative changes and the amendments to<br />
the RCP would have publicly heralded the application.<br />
5.2 It is submitted that neither tangata whenua nor any other people would be adversely<br />
affected by the proposed extension, given the existing use <strong>of</strong> the area as a marine farm.<br />
6. Monitoring<br />
6.1 The RMA requires a description <strong>of</strong> the monitoring that would be undertaken, where the<br />
scale or significance <strong>of</strong> effects is such that monitoring is required. The applicant does not<br />
consider the effects would be significant (based on the scientific information in Appendix<br />
2).<br />
6.2 The baseline survey submitted with the AEE shows that the site is not located over any<br />
sensitive substrates, and being a standard farm is likely to show similar effects as per<br />
other sites monitored in the Coromandel area. Measuring any effects from the 1 ha<br />
extension would be considerably impacted by the larger adjacent farmed areas. It is<br />
therefore contended that the need for a monitoring plan is not appropriate.<br />
6.3 The applicant currently participates in mandatory water quality monitoring programmes.<br />
13
7. Relevant Planning Provisions<br />
14<br />
7.1 In accordance with s104(b) <strong>of</strong> the RMA, this part <strong>of</strong> the application sets out the relevant<br />
planning framework. With respect to this application, the activity is classified in the RCP<br />
as a discretionary activity.<br />
National Policy Statements<br />
7.2 There are two national policy statements which are relevant to the application.<br />
7.3 Firstly, the NZCPS (2010) includes a specific policy referring to marine farming which<br />
states:<br />
Policy 8: Aquaculture<br />
Recognise the significant and existing potential contribution <strong>of</strong> aquaculture to the<br />
social, economic and cultural well-being <strong>of</strong> people and communities by:<br />
(a) including in regional policy statements and regional coastal plans<br />
provision for aquaculture activities in appropriate places in the coastal<br />
environment, recognising that relevant considerations may include:<br />
(i) the need for high water quality for aquaculture activities; and<br />
(ii) the need for land-based facilities associated with marine farming;<br />
(b) taking account <strong>of</strong> the social and economic benefits <strong>of</strong> aquaculture,<br />
including any available assessments <strong>of</strong> national and regional economic<br />
benefits; and<br />
(c) ensuring that development in the coastal environment does not make<br />
water quality unfit for aquaculture activities in areas approved for that<br />
purpose.<br />
It is clear that marine farming is an appropriate use <strong>of</strong> the CMA, and that it would<br />
contribute significantly to the economic, cultural and social well-beings <strong>of</strong> the region’s<br />
communities. Provision for farm extensions has been included in the RCP. It is<br />
considered that the application is consistent with the 2010 NZCPS.<br />
7.4 Secondly, sections 7 and 8 <strong>of</strong> the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000 have the effect <strong>of</strong><br />
an NZCPS. This Act promotes a co-operative approach to the integrated and sustainable<br />
management <strong>of</strong> the Hauraki Gulf. This Act recognises the importance <strong>of</strong> the Hauraki<br />
Gulf and the diversity <strong>of</strong> the marine ecosystem and the wide values and uses people<br />
have <strong>of</strong> the area.<br />
7.5 Section 7 recognises the national significance <strong>of</strong> the Gulf and emphasises the lifesupporting<br />
capacity <strong>of</strong> the Gulf and in particular identifies that this:<br />
“…includes the capacity -<br />
(a) to provide for the … relationship <strong>of</strong> the tangata whenua <strong>of</strong> the Gulf with the<br />
Gulf … and the … wellbeing <strong>of</strong> people and communities,<br />
14
15<br />
(b) to use the resources <strong>of</strong> the Gulf …for economic activities and recreation…and<br />
(c) to maintain the…water and ecosystems <strong>of</strong> the Gulf”.<br />
It is considered that the application is consistent with these directives.<br />
7.6 Section 8 identifies management objectives. These relate to a range <strong>of</strong> environmental,<br />
Maori and community matters, all <strong>of</strong> which have been addressed in this application. The<br />
protection <strong>of</strong> kaimoana is one objective, and based on the assessments referred to in this<br />
AEE, there will be no adverse effects on this resource as a result <strong>of</strong> the application. Subsection<br />
(e) states:<br />
“the maintenance and, where appropriate, the enhancement <strong>of</strong> the contribution <strong>of</strong><br />
the …physical resources <strong>of</strong> the Hauraki Gulf…to the social and economic well-being<br />
<strong>of</strong> the people and communities <strong>of</strong> the Hauraki Gulf and New Zealand”.<br />
Marine farming provides an opportunity to enhance the social and economic wellbeing <strong>of</strong><br />
people and communities <strong>of</strong> the Hauraki Gulf (as discussed in section 4 above).<br />
7.7 It is considered that this application for a one hectare extension is consistent with the<br />
directions <strong>of</strong> this NZCPS, and with the work being undertaken by the Hauraki Gulf Forum.<br />
Operative Regional Policy Statement<br />
7.8 The operative Regional Policy Statement (2007) includes a section on coastal<br />
management in section 3.5. In particular:<br />
Objective 3.5.4 refers to the preservation <strong>of</strong> natural character, which is a matter <strong>of</strong><br />
national importance in s6(a) <strong>of</strong> the RMA. This objective is implemented in particular<br />
through policies on protection <strong>of</strong> significant areas, recognition <strong>of</strong> coastal processes<br />
and adoption <strong>of</strong> a precautionary approach.<br />
Objective 3.5.5 addresses coastal water quality and includes one policy on<br />
maintaining and enhancing water quality.<br />
Objective 3.5.6 covers integrated management and is implemented by policies on<br />
consistent management approaches by different agencies and recognition <strong>of</strong> Tangata<br />
Whenua interests.<br />
Objective 3.5.7 and its related policy cover the maintenance and enhancement <strong>of</strong><br />
public access<br />
Objective 3.5.8 and its related policy address excessive noise emissions<br />
7.9 The proposed area that is the subject <strong>of</strong> this application is consistent with the above<br />
policy directives. The area is in a locality where marine farming is already being<br />
undertaken and the additional impact on natural character <strong>of</strong> the additional 1 ha area<br />
would be negligible. Marine faming requires high quality water quality in order to meet<br />
food and health standards. The activity within the area being applied for would not<br />
degrade existing water quality. The need for integrated management is recognised and<br />
15
16<br />
the applicant is a member <strong>of</strong> the industry in the Coromandel, working with different<br />
agencies involved in aquaculture and support requirements. Public access is not<br />
restricted through the area subject to this application. The activities on the 1 hectare area<br />
being applied for would not generate excessive noise. The associated vessel operations<br />
are also not considered to be excessive.<br />
Proposed Regional Policy Statement<br />
7.10 The proposed Waikato Regional Policy Statement (2010) has a range <strong>of</strong> objectives and<br />
policies that support this application. In particular, there is one Objective and two policies<br />
that are particularly relevant: namely<br />
Objective 3.6: Coastal Environment. This objective highlights the need for integrated<br />
management and the protection <strong>of</strong> unique values and the avoidance <strong>of</strong> conflicts<br />
between uses and values.<br />
Policy 7.1: Interests in the coastal marine area: This policy recognises the coastal<br />
marine area as being public space and the need to allocate space to different<br />
activities. It has two key implementation methods relating to allocation <strong>of</strong> space and<br />
an aquaculture strategy.<br />
Policy 7.2: Marine Water Quality: This policy seeks to maintain or enhance water<br />
quality. It includes a method recognising the importance <strong>of</strong> improving water quality.<br />
The proposed RPS anticipates that aquaculture is an appropriate use in the CMA for<br />
environmental, social, economic and cultural well-beings. Method 7.1.4 combined with<br />
the recent legislative and RCP changes recognise that the one hectare extension to<br />
existing farms would be an appropriate development in the coastal marine area. This<br />
application is therefore consistent with the directions <strong>of</strong> the proposed RPS.<br />
Waikato Regional Coastal Plan<br />
7.11 The RCP is the most relevant planning instrument to this proposal, in that it specifically<br />
addresses extensions to existing farms. Within the RCP a marine farming extension is<br />
identified as being a discretionary activity.<br />
7.12 The Issue, Objective and Policies in Chapter 6 <strong>of</strong> the plan support the further development<br />
<strong>of</strong> marine farming. Marine farming is recognised as an important industry within the<br />
Waikato region. There is also an emphasis on sustainable management and efficient use<br />
<strong>of</strong> space. This application is consistent with the directions <strong>of</strong> the RCP. Specific provisions<br />
are discussed below.<br />
Objectives and Policies<br />
7.13 Chapter 6 <strong>of</strong> the plan addresses marine farming. The introduction recognises the<br />
importance <strong>of</strong> the Firth <strong>of</strong> Thames and Coromandel areas for marine farming. It also<br />
recognises the potential for new technologies and the contribution this makes to the<br />
social and economic future <strong>of</strong> the area. It is noted that this has been supported through<br />
the report: “Economic Impact <strong>of</strong> Coromandel Aquaculture”, Wyatt, S., 2011.<br />
16
7.14 Objective 6.1 states:<br />
Marine farming developed in an efficient and sustainable manner which avoids<br />
adverse effects on the coastal environment as far as practicable.<br />
17<br />
It is considered that the application for a one hectare extension is consistent with and<br />
meets the above objective and that the application is planned to be managed in a manner<br />
to ensure the efficient use <strong>of</strong> space and efficiency in the operation <strong>of</strong> the farm.<br />
7.15 Policy 6.1.1 – (Marine Farming Structures) states:<br />
Take a precautionary approach to marine farm development by ensuring that the<br />
erection, placement, use <strong>of</strong>, and occupation <strong>of</strong> space by any marine farm structure in<br />
the coastal marine area avoids as far as practicable any adverse effects (including<br />
cumulative effects) on the coastal environment. Where complete avoidance is not<br />
practicable, adverse effects should be remedied or mitigated.<br />
This policy is an enabling and precautionary policy which recognises that erecting and<br />
using structures are a required part <strong>of</strong> marine farming. The farming structures proposed<br />
will be an extension to an existing farm. The effects <strong>of</strong> the proposed structures are<br />
considered to be acceptable as discussed above. This application meets the policy<br />
directive.<br />
7.16 Policy 6.1.1c – (Extensions to Marine Farms) states:<br />
Where assessment shows that the adverse effects <strong>of</strong> an authorised marine farm<br />
are not significant, provide for small extensions that:<br />
a) avoid adverse effects on areas <strong>of</strong> ecological significance;<br />
b) maintain access to the shoreline from the coastal marine area;<br />
c) maintain navigational safety and recreational values;<br />
d) maintain natural character and amenity values.<br />
The policy specifically provides for small extensions to existing farms. This application<br />
meets the policy directive, as discussed in sections <strong>of</strong> the AEE above.<br />
7.17 Policy 6.1.2 – (Recreation and Navigation) states:<br />
Ensure marine farms are located, constructed and maintained in a way which does<br />
not compromise safe recreation and navigation.<br />
This application meets this policy directive. A lighting application has been submitted to<br />
Maritime New Zealand for approval. The applicant will also ensure that an appropriate<br />
maintenance regime will be undertaken to maintain and service the lights.<br />
17
7.18 Policy 6.1.3 – (Integrated Management) states:<br />
Promote integrated management between marine farm operators, relevant<br />
network utility operators and all agencies with marine farming responsibilities.<br />
18<br />
This policy addresses the need for integrated management. The applicant is already a<br />
part <strong>of</strong> the existing industry on the Coromandel area and will immediately integrate the<br />
operations <strong>of</strong> this application for an extension into their existing activities. This ensures<br />
maximum efficiency in use <strong>of</strong> people and facilities within the industry. The applicant is<br />
aware <strong>of</strong> the requirements for Maritime NZ approvals; the health and Safety approvals;<br />
and the “MFish” requirements for the undue adverse effects assessment and Fish serve<br />
registrations. This application will therefore fit comfortably into the current processes the<br />
industry has already established, including with relevant agencies, to ensure integrated<br />
management.<br />
7.19 In addition, Rule 16.5.5A sets out a range <strong>of</strong> standards and terms. It is considered that<br />
this application and the way it would be implemented would meet all the standards and<br />
terms.<br />
Information requirements <strong>of</strong> the plan<br />
7.20 Appendix 1 and 1A <strong>of</strong> the RCP sets out a list <strong>of</strong> information that may be required when<br />
applying for a coastal permit. The relevant matters have been covered in this application<br />
in the above sections and as detailed in the following paragraphs.<br />
7.21 The General information requirements have been addressed throughout this document<br />
and further in the attached scientific report. It is submitted that any cumulative adverse<br />
effects <strong>of</strong> the proposed activity would be less than minor.<br />
7.22 The matters specific to Marine Farming have been addressed throughout this AEE. It is<br />
submitted that the effects <strong>of</strong> marine farming from the one hectare extension are<br />
anticipated by the plan and will be less than minor.<br />
7.23 It is considered that all the relevant information requirements set out in Appendix I and<br />
1A <strong>of</strong> the plan have been satisfied.<br />
8. Consent Conditions<br />
8.1 The term <strong>of</strong> the consent being sought is for approximately 13 years – to enable the term<br />
<strong>of</strong> the extension area which is the subject <strong>of</strong> this application, to be made concurrent with<br />
the term <strong>of</strong> the existing marine farm (which expires on 1 January 2025).<br />
9. Notification<br />
9.1 The applicant requests that the application be processed as a non-notified application.<br />
The plan is silent in terms <strong>of</strong> notification and the application is for a discretionary activity.<br />
9.3 The Council must publicly notify an application if the effects will be or are likely to be<br />
more than minor, a rule in a National Environmental Standard (‘NES’) requires it to be<br />
18
19<br />
publicly notified, or the applicant requests that it be publicly notified. In determining<br />
whether adverse effects are likely to be more than minor, effects on owners or occupants<br />
<strong>of</strong> the subject or adjacent land must be disregarded.<br />
9.4 In this case, there is no NES which requires the application to be publicly notified and the<br />
applicant does not request that the application be notified. Based on the analysis in this<br />
AEE and relevant reports on effects, it is contended that the effects <strong>of</strong> the proposal will be<br />
less than minor. It is considered that the Council has sufficient information regarding the<br />
impacts <strong>of</strong> marine farming in the proposed area <strong>of</strong> the extension. Therefore, it is<br />
contended that public involvement is not warranted from either a public interest or<br />
information perspective.<br />
10 Conclusions<br />
10.1 The key points <strong>of</strong> this application for a one hectare extension are:<br />
The extension is located adjacent to and contiguous with the applicant’s existing<br />
marine farm LI 373.<br />
The one hectare extension has been provided for in the RCP in rule 16.5.5A.<br />
The application meets the standards and terms <strong>of</strong> Rule 16.5.5A.<br />
Based on the scientific report submitted in support <strong>of</strong> the application, the<br />
environmental effects <strong>of</strong> developing the one hectare extension are considered to<br />
be acceptable and adverse effects will be less than minor.<br />
The application represents efficient use <strong>of</strong> the CMA and will enable the local<br />
marine farming industry to grow and will result in positive effects on the<br />
economic and social wellbeing <strong>of</strong> the local communities.<br />
This application is consistent with the Government’s Aquaculture directives, the<br />
NZCPS 2010, and the objectives and policies <strong>of</strong> the proposed RPS and RCP.<br />
The matters in Rule 16.5.5A and Appendices 1 and 1A <strong>of</strong> the RCP have been<br />
covered and the extent to which the proposed one hectare extension would<br />
change the effects over and above the existing use has been identified as being<br />
negligible.<br />
10.2 It is therefore considered that the application warrants consent and need not be notified.<br />
19
Appendix 1: Survey plan showing location <strong>of</strong> the farm and<br />
proposed extension<br />
20<br />
20
21<br />
Appendix 2: Short Report - Coromandel Mussel Farm Extension –<br />
LI 373<br />
21
REPORT NO. 2167<br />
COROMANDEL MUSSEL FARM EXTENSION -<br />
BENTHIC SURVEY ASSESSMENT FOR LI 373
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2167 MAY 2012<br />
COROMANDEL MUSSEL FARM EXTENSION -<br />
BENTHIC SURVEY ASSESSMENT FOR LI 373<br />
DANA CLARK, DAVID TAYLOR, ERIC GOODWIN<br />
Prepared for Gold Ridge Marine Farm Limited.<br />
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
98 Halifax Street East, Nelson 7010 | Private Bag 2, Nelson 7042 | New Zealand<br />
Ph. +64 3 548 2319 | Fax. +64 3 546 9464<br />
www.cawthron.org.nz<br />
REVIEWED BY:<br />
Robyn Dunmore<br />
APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY:<br />
Rowan Strickland<br />
ISSUE DATE: 30 May 2012<br />
RECOMMENDED CITATION: Clark D, Taylor D, Goodwin E. 2012. Coromandel Mussel Farm Extension - Benthic Survey<br />
Assessment for Li 373. Prepared for Gold Ridge Marine Farm Limited . Cawthron Report No. 2167. 5 p. plus appendix.<br />
© COPYRIGHT: Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose <strong>of</strong> study, research, criticism, or review, as permitted under the<br />
Copyright Act, this publication must not be reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission <strong>of</strong> the Copyright Holder,<br />
who, unless other authorship is cited in the text or acknowledgements, is the commissioner <strong>of</strong> the report.
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2167 MAY 2012<br />
1. SURVEY SUMMARY<br />
A benthic assessment was commissioned by Gold Ridge Marine Farm Limited and<br />
carried out by the Cawthron Institute (Cawthron) on 14 December 2011, within and<br />
adjacent to a proposed 1 ha extension at Li 373, SO 56415.<br />
1.1. Current farm layout<br />
A consent for Li 373, a 6 ha green-lipped mussel (Perna canaliculus) farm, was issued<br />
in 1987 and the farm was installed over the following 10 years. It has been used<br />
exclusively for this purpose since that date.<br />
Li 373 lies to the east <strong>of</strong> Moturua Island, to the north <strong>of</strong> the Coromandel Harbour and<br />
16 km from the Coromandel Harbour / Sugarloaf Wharf at Te Kouma (Figure 1). The<br />
farm is at depths ranging between 14-30 m. It is no closer than 45 m from the shore<br />
and is situated adjacent to mussel farms, Li 396 and Li 361.<br />
25m<br />
30m 35m<br />
45m from<br />
shore<br />
Moturua Island<br />
Li373<br />
Stocking<br />
density<br />
= 11 lines<br />
5m 10m 15m<br />
Li396<br />
0 37.5 75 150 225 300<br />
m<br />
20m<br />
Li396<br />
±<br />
Li361 Li361<br />
Moturuhi<br />
Is.<br />
Moturua<br />
Is.<br />
30m<br />
Li373 current farm area<br />
Li361 & 396 current farm areas<br />
Li373 currently consented area<br />
Li373 farm extension<br />
Figure 1. Site map <strong>of</strong> mussel farm Li 373 showing the location <strong>of</strong> the current farm (surface<br />
structures), the currently consented area and the proposed farm extension. The current<br />
farm areas (surface structures) <strong>of</strong> the neighbouring mussel farms, Li 396 and Li 361, are<br />
shown in grey. Bathymetry is indicated by blue shading and depth labels. Inset shows the<br />
location <strong>of</strong> the farm within the wider northern Coromandel area.<br />
30m<br />
1
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2167 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
2<br />
Li 373 is currently farmed in two blocks <strong>of</strong> 11 x c.150 m floated backbone lines per<br />
block and is stocked with mussels <strong>of</strong> varying growth stages. No lines have been used<br />
for spat catching.<br />
Based on the assessment done on 14 December 2011, and the area <strong>of</strong> farm surface<br />
structures was mostly contained within the consented area.<br />
1.2. Benthic assessment methods<br />
The benthic assessment was carried out using video transects and a grab sample<br />
within and adjacent to the proposed extension and currently farmed area (Figure 2).<br />
±<br />
T5<br />
Inshore west<br />
Li373<br />
0 25 50 100 150 200<br />
m<br />
South 361 north 396<br />
Li396<br />
T6<br />
Li361<br />
Li396<br />
361 north<br />
Sediment Key<br />
Li361<br />
South 361-396<br />
Li373 current farm area<br />
Gravel<br />
Sand<br />
Silt & clay<br />
Li361 & 396 current farm areas<br />
Li373 farm extension<br />
Mussel extent<br />
Video transect<br />
Figure 2. Map <strong>of</strong> mussel farm Li 373 showing the location <strong>of</strong> the current farm (surface structures)<br />
and proposed farm extension, the estimated extent <strong>of</strong> mussel shell clumps beneath the<br />
farms, video transect locations and grain size at the sediment grab station. The current<br />
farm areas (surface structures) <strong>of</strong> the neighbouring mussel farms, Li 361 and Li 396, are<br />
shown in grey.
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2167 MAY 2012<br />
Mussel shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f is commonly used an indicator <strong>of</strong> the extent <strong>of</strong> benthic effects<br />
beneath mussel farms (Wong & O’Shea 2011), and video transects were used to<br />
determine the limits <strong>of</strong> mussel shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f and/or mussel clumps on the seabed<br />
around the block <strong>of</strong> farms. Li 373 is situated adjacent to Li 396 and Li 361 and the<br />
extent <strong>of</strong> mussel shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f was determined around the entire block <strong>of</strong> farms. An<br />
underwater video camera and light was attached to a sled and tethered via cables to a<br />
VCR and television on the boat. Six transects (Figure 2) were undertaken by lowering<br />
the sled and camera to the seabed and towing it in the required direction. GPS<br />
positions were recorded for each transect with observations <strong>of</strong> conspicuous epifauna<br />
and substratum type.<br />
A single grab sample was collected from t outside the southwest corner <strong>of</strong> the farm<br />
using a 0.01 m 2 van Veen grab sampler. A 63 mm diameter core sub-sample was<br />
photographed and the top 25 mm was collected for analyses <strong>of</strong> sediment grain size.<br />
Grain size was determined gravimetrically after separation <strong>of</strong> fractions by wet sieving<br />
and drying at 105°C, for gravel (≥ 2 mm), sand (≥ 63 μm - < 2 mm) and silt/clay (< 63<br />
μm) size classes.<br />
Depth pr<strong>of</strong>iling was undertaken to assist in characterising the seabed. Continuous<br />
depth readings from a Garmin F100 depth sounder within and adjacent to the farm<br />
areas, and were sent to a PC via a RS232 serial output. The PC simultaneously<br />
collected separate RS232 serial output <strong>of</strong> latitude and longitude from a GPS, and both<br />
data streams were incorporated using communications s<strong>of</strong>tware. Depths were<br />
standardised to chart datum and plotted as depth contours in ArcMap.<br />
1.3. Benthic assessment results<br />
Video transects along the perimeter <strong>of</strong> the farm revealed mussel clumps, mussel shell<br />
drop-<strong>of</strong>f and a fine covering <strong>of</strong> shell hash overlying mud (e.g. Appendix photographs 1<br />
and 7). A patchy film <strong>of</strong> orange/brown benthic diatoms was present in some mud<br />
areas (Appendix photograph 2). Conspicuous epifauna included cushion stars<br />
(Patiriella sp.), ascidians (Styela clava), eleven-armed sea stars (Coscinasterias<br />
muricata), sea cucumbers and small feather hydroids. Two horse mussels (Atrina<br />
zelandica) were observed along the inshore transect. Burrows in the mud were<br />
common, suggesting that regular bioturbation occurs over the site.<br />
Other transects around this block <strong>of</strong> farms have shown a similar environment <strong>of</strong><br />
mussel clumps and shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f on mud (e.g. Appendix photographs 9 and 11);<br />
therefore, it is likely that this habitat is widespread beneath the farm. Mussel clumps<br />
and shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f became less dense with distance from the farm. Beyond the mussel<br />
clump/shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f areas (> 50-115 m north and south <strong>of</strong> the farm; > 20 m inshore <strong>of</strong><br />
the farm) the substratum was mud, <strong>of</strong>ten covered with shell hash, with few epifauna<br />
present (Appendix photographs 2 and 6).<br />
3
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2167 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
4<br />
The sediment at the southern edge <strong>of</strong> the farm was primarily gravel (57.6% silt and<br />
clay) with some sand (19.7%) and silt and clay (22.6%) present (Figures 2 and 3). The<br />
high gravel content is consistent with the fine covering <strong>of</strong> shell hash observed in some<br />
areas around the farm. The sediment core was a uniform grey brown colour with shell<br />
hash/gravel visible and no obvious apparent redox potential discontinuity (aRPD)<br />
layer (Figure 3).<br />
Figure 3. Photograph <strong>of</strong> the sediment core from mussel farm Li 373.<br />
2. CONCLUSION<br />
The benthic environment observed under the current farm and the proposed<br />
extension was typical <strong>of</strong> the modified benthic habitats found beneath inshore mussel<br />
farms throughout the Coromandel (Taylor et al. 2012). The area was characterised by<br />
areas <strong>of</strong> increased mussel shell cover and greater abundances <strong>of</strong> associated<br />
epifauna. Site-specific factors such as water currents and substratum type are known<br />
to influence the depositional effects <strong>of</strong> mussel farms on the benthic environment<br />
(Hartstein & Stevens 2005, Giles et al. 2006), but the extent <strong>of</strong> effects can largely be<br />
determined by the limits <strong>of</strong> the mussel shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f (Wong & O’Shea 2011).<br />
The main findings <strong>of</strong> the benthic assessment were:<br />
1. Mussel clumps and shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f were the most conspicuous changes to the<br />
benthic environment. This extended approximately 50-115 m north and south <strong>of</strong>
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2167 MAY 2012<br />
the farm, but only 20 m inshore <strong>of</strong> the farm and it did not encroach on inshore<br />
habitats.<br />
2. Occasional horse mussels were observed along the inshore boundary <strong>of</strong> existing<br />
farm which suggests that, beyond mussel clump/shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f areas, this<br />
species can survive in relatively close proximity to mussel farms. The proposed<br />
<strong>of</strong>fshore extension <strong>of</strong> the farm will be greater than 100 m from where the horse<br />
mussels were observed and, therefore, the extension is highly unlikely to have<br />
any direct effects on the local population.<br />
3. The benthic environment within the proposed 1 ha extension area has already<br />
been partially affected by mussel clumps/shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f. Therefore, any effects<br />
from the proposed extension are likely to be no more than minor, with the net<br />
result being a possible increase <strong>of</strong> the area affected by clumps/shell drop-<strong>of</strong>f in<br />
an alongshore direction.<br />
4. This is likely to result in no more than minor and reversible changes to the<br />
benthic environment and to associated epifauna and infauna communities.<br />
5. These effects are placed into a broader context in a wider-scale assessment <strong>of</strong><br />
effects (Taylor et al. 2012).<br />
3. REFERENCES<br />
Giles H, Pilditch CA, Bell DG. 2006. Sedimentation from mussel (Perna canaliculus)<br />
culture in the Firth <strong>of</strong> Thames, New Zealand: Impacts on sediment oxygen and<br />
nutrient fluxes. Aquaculture 261:125-140.<br />
Hartstein ND, Stevens CL. 2005. Deposition beneath long-line mussel farms.<br />
Aquaculture Engineering 33:192-213.<br />
Taylor DI, Clark D and Keeley N. 2012. Assessment <strong>of</strong> Benthic and Water Column<br />
Effects from Inshore Coromandel Mussel Farms. Prepared for a collective <strong>of</strong><br />
Coromandel Mussel Farmers. Cawthron Report No. 2134. 31 p. plus<br />
appendices.<br />
Wong KLC, O’Shea S. 2011. The effects <strong>of</strong> a mussel farm on benthic macr<strong>of</strong>aunal<br />
communities in Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal <strong>of</strong> Marine<br />
and Freshwater Research 45(2): 187-212.<br />
5
MAY 2012 REPORT NO. 2167 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE<br />
4. APPENDIX<br />
Appendix 1. Seabed transect samples from beneath Li 373 and the neighbouring farms.<br />
6<br />
1 2<br />
3 4<br />
5 6<br />
7 8
CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2167 MAY 2012<br />
9 10<br />
11 12<br />
13 14<br />
15 16<br />
7
'"• Bank or New Zealand<br />
SPCMEQUEDinYPAID<br />
0 FOR GOLD RIDQE MARINE FARM LTD<br />
ffSOQUBi H-osoi«5e.i: OOITEISS<br />
^.i k