Application 124771 - Ministry of Fisheries

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2167 MAY 2012
the farm, but only 20 m inshore of the farm and it did not encroach on inshore
habitats.
2. Occasional horse mussels were observed along the inshore boundary of existing
farm which suggests that, beyond mussel clump/shell drop-off areas, this
species can survive in relatively close proximity to mussel farms. The proposed
offshore extension of the farm will be greater than 100 m from where the horse
mussels were observed and, therefore, the extension is highly unlikely to have
any direct effects on the local population.
3. The benthic environment within the proposed 1 ha extension area has already
been partially affected by mussel clumps/shell drop-off. Therefore, any effects
from the proposed extension are likely to be no more than minor, with the net
result being a possible increase of the area affected by clumps/shell drop-off in
an alongshore direction.
4. This is likely to result in no more than minor and reversible changes to the
benthic environment and to associated epifauna and infauna communities.
5. These effects are placed into a broader context in a wider-scale assessment of
effects (Taylor et al. 2012).
3. REFERENCES
Giles H, Pilditch CA, Bell DG. 2006. Sedimentation from mussel (Perna canaliculus)
culture in the Firth of Thames, New Zealand: Impacts on sediment oxygen and
nutrient fluxes. Aquaculture 261:125-140.
Hartstein ND, Stevens CL. 2005. Deposition beneath long-line mussel farms.
Aquaculture Engineering 33:192-213.
Taylor DI, Clark D and Keeley N. 2012. Assessment of Benthic and Water Column
Effects from Inshore Coromandel Mussel Farms. Prepared for a collective of
Coromandel Mussel Farmers. Cawthron Report No. 2134. 31 p. plus
appendices.
Wong KLC, O’Shea S. 2011. The effects of a mussel farm on benthic macrofaunal
communities in Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine
and Freshwater Research 45(2): 187-212.
5