BEFORE THE WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL ... - wrcweb.cwp… · ALH-395890-2-847-V9 Page 1 of 44 BEFORE...

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

BEFORE THE WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL

Application APP139219

UNDER the Resource Management Act 1991 (the Act)

IN THE MATTER of an application for a new coastal permit to

operate a spat farm in Whauwhau, Whitianga

(APP139219)

APPLICANT Ohinau Aquaculture Limited

EVIDENCE OF HELEN MAREE MCCONNELL ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT

Dated this 22nd day of November 2019

GASCOIGNE WICKS LAWYERS BLENHEIM Solicitor: Quentin AM Davies / Amanda L Hills ([email protected] / [email protected])

Applicant’s Solicitors 79 High Street P O Box 2 BLENHEIM 7240 Tel: (03) 578-4229 Fax: (03) 578-4080

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. I have been asked by the Applicant for this resource consent to assess the effects on

marine mammals of the proposed mussel spat farm in Mercury Bay, Whitianga.

2. In summary, my findings on species in this Bay are:

a. Four marine mammal species are likely to occur around the proposed spat farm

(bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins, orca and New Zealand fur seals);

b. Two species could possibly be present (southern right whales and Bryde’s whale);

c. Other marine mammal species probably only occur as rare visitors to the area; and

d. I consider that the proposed spat farm does not constitute critical habitat for any

marine mammal species.

3. My assessment findings conclude that1:

a. I consider the potential habitat exclusion/modification effects on dolphins and orca

from the proposed spat farm in Mercury Bay to be minor;

b. I consider the potential habitat exclusion/modification effects on baleen whales and

seals from the proposed spat farm in Mercury Bay to be negligible;

c. I consider the potential effects of entanglement on dolphins, orca and baleen whales

from the proposed spat farm in Mercury Bay to be minor;

d. I consider the potential effects of entanglement on seals from the proposed spat

farm in Mercury Bay to be negligible;

e. I consider the potential effects of underwater noise on marine mammals from the

proposed spat farm in Mercury Bay to be negligible;

f. I consider the potential trophic effects on marine mammals from the proposed spat

farm in Mercury Bay to be negligible;

g. I consider the potential effects of marine debris on marine mammals from the

proposed spat farm in Mercury Bay to be negligible; and

h. I consider the potential effects of boat strike on marine mammals from the proposed

spat farm in Mercury Bay to be negligible.

4. In my evidence I provide recommendations to minimise interactions between the

proposed spat farm and marine mammals. These recommendations have been

1 For the meaning of these terms, please see para [44] below.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

incorporated into proffered conditions which are presented in the evidence by Robin

Britton.

INTRODUCTION

Current Position

5. My name is Helen Maree McConnell. I am an Associate at SLR Consulting NZ Limited. I

have held this position since August 2015.

6. In this role my responsibilities include the provision of high quality technical marine

science advice to a range of clients (typically industry and government) spanning the

topics of aquaculture, marine discharges, oil and gas, mining and coastal development.

Qualifications and Experience

7. I hold a Master of Science degree (with distinction) in Marine Science from the University

of Otago which I completed in 2002; and a Bachelor of Science degree, majoring in

Zoology also from the University of Otago (1998).

8. I have fifteen years of experience in research, policy development, science writing, and

providing environmental advice to both the public and private sectors. I have experience

across a wide range of marine and coastal topics, though my area of speciality is in

marine mammal ecology and conservation. I have particular experience in assessing the

effects of oil and gas activities, undertaken in the marine environment, on marine

mammals, and I have experience in assessing the effects of oil contamination and

response options for marine wildlife.

9. My previous employment includes:

a. Marine Ecologist – Resource and Environmental Management Ltd, Nelson

(November 2013 to August 2015);

b. Research Officer – Wildbase, Massey University, Palmerston North (November 2008

to November 2015);

c. Senior Technical Support Officer, Marine Conservation Unit, Department of

Conservation, Wellington (November 2003 to May 2007);

d. Tutor – School for International Training: Conservation and Biodiversity, Hamilton

(2001 to 2002).

10. I have prepared and presented ecological evidence at two previous hearings as follows:

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

a. Shell Todd Oil Services Marine Consent Application (Before the Environmental

Protection Authority in 2015) to continue natural gas extraction and associated

activities at Maui Platform A and Maui Platform B in the Maui natural gas field.

During this hearing I presented expert evidence on 1) the potential effects on marine

mammals and 2) the potential effects of a condensate spill on marine wildlife.

b. OMV New Zealand Ltd Maari Field Development Marine Consent Application (Before

the Environmental Protection Authority in 2014) to continue drilling in the Maari

Field in the South Taranaki Bight. During this hearing I presented expert evidence on

1) the potential effects on marine mammals and 2) the potential effects of an oil spill

on marine wildlife.

11. I have authored 12 peer reviewed publications relating to marine mammal ecology and

oiled wildlife response; with two additional papers currently in preparation.

History of involvement with aquaculture

12. My involvement with aquaculture projects to date is as follows:

a. During previous employment with Resource and Environmental Management Ltd, I

led the preparation of the New Zealand King Salmon “Marine Mammal and Shark

Management Plan”2.

b. I was engaged by the Department of Conservation (DOC) in 2017 to review a report

prepared by NIWA on the potential impacts of aquaculture on New Zealand sea lions

in Port Pegasus, Stewart Island.

c. I have recently undertaken an assessment of environmental effects for a proposed

aquaculture project in the Auckland region.

Code of Conduct and Conflict of Interest Declaration

13. I have read the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses 2014, and I

agree to comply with it. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are

within my area of expertise, except where I state I am relying on what I have been told

by another person. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might

alter or detract from the opinions expressed.

2 https://www.kingsalmon.co.nz/kingsalmon/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Marine-Mammal-and-Shark-Management-Plan-V2-April-2019-1.pdf

https://www.kingsalmon.co.nz/kingsalmon/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Marine-Mammal-and-Shark-Management-Plan-V2-April-2019-1.pdf

https://www.kingsalmon.co.nz/kingsalmon/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Marine-Mammal-and-Shark-Management-Plan-V2-April-2019-1.pdf

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

14. I have no commercial relationship with the applicant, save in my role as an expert in

relation to this application.

SCOPE OF REPORT

15. I have reviewed the application documents, including the existing ecology report3, the

supplementary ecology report4 and the peer review5 of that ecology report6, as part of

the process to prepare evidence for this hearing. I have also reviewed the ecological

evidence of Dr Peter Wilson, and the hydrodynamic evidence of Brett Beamsley. I have

reviewed the evidence of Dr Andrew Jeffs in respect of the quality and life of ropes used

in spat catching, and the evidence of Peter Bull in terms of operational best practice.

16. I refer to the detailed summary of this application in the evidence of Peter Bull and Robin

Britton.

17. My evidence is based on my own knowledge and experience as stated above. I have

undertaken a desktop analysis of the proposed farm from a marine mammal

perspective.

18. My evidence addresses:

a. What marine mammal species occur in and around Mercury Bay;

b. The potential effects of the proposed spat farm on marine mammals;

c. The potential effects of the proposed spat farm in the context of other

anthropogenic threats to marine mammals; and

d. Best management practices to reduce any residual risk to marine mammals.

19. I have also read the s 42A Officer’s report and the submissions and will respond to

relevant points.

EXISTING ENVIRONMENT: MARINE MAMMALS IN AND AROUND MERCURY BAY

20. For the purpose of my evidence the following data sources were used to assess the

likelihood of marine mammal species being present around the proposed spat farm:

3 Pacific Coastal Ecology (S. White), “Ecological Effects Resulting from a Proposed Mussel Spat Catching Facility (Ohinau Marine Farms)”, Reference 1503 Whauwhau Ecology Report, February 2016. 4 Pacific Coastal Ecology (S. White), “Proposed Mussels Spat Catching Facility: Supplementary Ecology Report (Ohinau Marine Farms)”, Reference 1503 Supplementary Ecology Report, May 2018. 5 Boffa Miskell Limited (Jacqui Bell), Letter to Christin Atchinson titled: “Ecological Assessment Peer Review – Application for Mussel Spat Catching Farm – Whauwhau, Mercury Bay, Waikato”, Dated 23 March 2018. 6 Above n 1.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

a. Sightings data as recorded in the DOC Marine Mammals Sightings Database from

1968 to 2019 (DOC Sightings Database) (supplied by H. Hendriks, DOC, 23 September

2019)7;

b. Stranding data as recorded in the DOC Marine Mammals Stranding Database from

1873 to 2018 (DOC Stranding Database) (supplied by H. Hendriks, DOC, 23

September 2019); and

c. Knowledge of species distribution and habitat use obtained from published and

unpublished literature.

21. For this assessment an Area of Interest (AOI) was defined to encompass the coast from

Cape Colville in the north to Otahu River Mouth, near Whangamata in the south. Given

the large home ranges of marine mammals it is important that any distributional

assessment is not solely limited to Mercury Bay.

22. A summary of my findings is presented in Table 1 and Figure 1 included as Appendix

HMM1, which indicates that four species are likely to occur around the proposed spat

farm (bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins, orca and New Zealand fur seals) and two

species could possibly be present around the proposed spat farm (southern right whales

and Bryde’s whale). A short description of the relevant ecology of each of these species

is provided presently. The remaining species represented in the DOC Marine Mammals

Sighting Database and the DOC Marine Mammals Stranding Database probably only

occur as rare visitors to Mercury Bay, hence I consider it unlikely for these species to be

present around the proposed spat farm.

Bottlenose dolphins

23. My analysis suggests that bottlenose dolphins are likely to be present around the

proposed spat farm as this species is frequently sighted in the AOI, including inside

Mercury Bay. This species is listed as ‘Nationally Endangered’ by the New Zealand Threat

Classification Scheme on account of its very small fragmented population (Baker et al.,

2019).

24. Inshore bottlenose dolphins in New Zealand represent four genetically distinct

populations inhabiting; Northland, Marlborough Sounds, Fiordland (Tezanos-Pinto et al.,

7 This database contains both opportunistic sightings from the public/DOC staff/tourism operators/vessel masters etc.; and systematic sightings from seismic surveys. The database does not address variance in effort through space and time or the potential for species to be misidentified by untrained observers.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

2009), and Otago/Stewart Island (Brough et al., 2015). Bottlenose dolphins seen in

Mercury Bay are part of the ‘Northland’ population which extends from Doubtless Bay

to Tauranga and numbers 418 – 487 dolphins (Constantine, 2002). Dolphins from this

population range widely along the east coast of north-eastern New Zealand, with home-

ranges that commonly extend 500 km along the coastline (Constantine, 2002). Genetic

interchange with this population and pelagic groups of Pacific Ocean dolphins has also

been documented (Tezanos-Pinto et al., 2009), with dolphins found further offshore in

summer and closer inshore in shallower waters in winter (Constantine, 2002).

25. Whilst bottlenose dolphins clearly utilise habitat in Mercury Bay on a reasonably

frequent basis, there is little information available on which to assess specifically how

dolphins utilise habitat in this area. We do however know that this population ranges

widely; hence Mercury Bay would represent only a small portion of any individual

dolphins’ home-range. Of the ten reported sightings of this species from the AOI, only

one sighting noted the presence of calves; hence this habitat most likely doesn’t

represent critical breeding habitat for this species. Bottlenose dolphins have a varied

diet of fish and squid (Blanco et al., 2001; Gowans et al., 2008) and carry out foraging

dives in both shallow and deep habitats (to depths of over 500 m) (Wells & Scott, 2009).

Common dolphins

26. My analysis suggests that common dolphins are likely to be present around the

proposed spat farm as this species is commonly seen in the AOI, including within

Mercury Bay. This species is listed as ‘Not Threatened’ by the New Zealand Threat

Classification Scheme (Baker et al., 2019).

27. Common dolphins occur in all regions of New Zealand; however, most sightings occur

around the North Island and upper South Island (Berkenbusch et al., 2013). Total

abundance of the New Zealand population is unknown, but is likely to be substantial

(Berkenbusch et al., 2013). Photo-identification evidence confirms that individuals of

this species move between Mercury Bay and the Hauraki Gulf (100 km), as well as

between Mercury Bay and Whakatane (200 km); generally indicating that common

dolphins are highly mobile throughout a large home-range (Neumann et al., 2002).

28. Whilst common dolphins clearly utilise habitat in Mercury Bay on a frequent basis, there

is little information available on which to assess specifically how dolphins utilise habitat

in this area. We do however know that common dolphins move readily between

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

locations and that numbers of common dolphins in Mercury Bay tend to decrease in

autumn (Neumann et al., 2002); hence Mercury Bay would represent only a small

portion of any individual dolphins’ home-range. Indeed, Neumann et al. (2002) suggest

that productivity conditions off the east coast of Coromandel are probably not

consistent enough to support a resident population of common dolphins. Stomach

content analysis of stranded and by-caught common dolphins in New Zealand revealed

a diverse diet of fish and cephalopod species, with arrow squid, jack mackerel and

anchovy identified as the primary prey species (Meynier et al., 2008). Of the 31 reported

sightings of this species from the AOI, 15 noted the presence of calves; hence this habitat

could support some breeding behaviours.

Orca:

29. My analysis suggests that orca are likely to be present around the proposed spat farm

as sightings in the AOI are relatively common, and sightings certainly occur inside

Mercury Bay. This species is listed as ‘Nationally Critical’ by the New Zealand Threat

Classification Scheme on account of its very small population size (Baker et al., 2019).

30. New Zealand orca have been studied since 1992 and the New Zealand population is

believed to be made up of at least three sub-populations based on geographic

distribution; a North Island only subpopulation, South Island only subpopulation, and

North and South Island subpopulation (Visser, 2000), but the overall population size is

small (65 – 167 individuals: Visser, 2006). Recent genetic analysis supports geographical

segregation of the population and suggests a degree of site fidelity within

subpopulations (Olavarria et al., 2014). New Zealand orca are wide-ranging, with some

whales estimated to travel on average 100 – 150 km per day (Visser, 2007). High re-

sighting rates of identifiable individuals suggest that these whales live permanently or

at least semi-permanently around the New Zealand coast (Visser, 2007). The presence

of orca along the North Island’s east coast peaks between August and October,

remaining relatively high in November, with a secondary peak in May/June (Visser, 2000;

2007). The year-round presence of immature animals suggests that a distinct breeding

season is lacking for New Zealand orca (Visser, 2000).

31. The diet of New Zealand orca has been recorded to include 27 species of prey, ten of

which have not been recorded for orca elsewhere (Visser, 2000). These prey species can

be categorised into four main types: rays, sharks, finfish, and cetaceans. Benthic

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

foraging for rays is common around New Zealand’s coast and appears to be unique to

New Zealand orca (Visser, 1999; Duignan et al., 2000). Orca present around the North

Island (the ‘North Island only subpopulation’ and the ‘North and South Island

subpopulation’) are generalist foragers that opportunistically take advantage of prey

(Visser, 2007) and forage extensively inside enclosed harbours and estuarine areas

(Visser, 2000).

32. Orca clearly utilise habitat in Mercury Bay on a relatively frequent basis, and based on

what we know about prey preferences, benthic foraging for rays is likely to occur in the

vicinity of the proposed spat farm. As orca move readily between locations over large

distances (Visser, 2007), Mercury Bay would represent only a small portion of any

individual whale’s home-range. Of the 12 reported sightings of this species from the AOI,

four noted the presence of calves; hence this habitat could support some breeding

behaviours.

New Zealand fur seals

33. My analysis suggests that New Zealand fur seals are likely to be present around the

proposed spat farm as fur seals are common off the east coast of the Coromandel

Peninsula, particularly over winter months (J. Blakemore, DOC, pers. comm.). This

species is listed as ‘Not Threatened’ by the New Zealand Threat Classification Scheme

(Baker et al., 2019).

34. This species is widespread around rocky coastlines of the New Zealand mainland and

offshore islands. A reliable total abundance estimate is not available for this species but

estimates in the vicinity of 100,000 individuals have been suggested (Harcourt, 2001).

Most breeding locations for this species occur on the South Island, this species is

expanding its range northwards following the cessation of commercial and subsistence

hunting (Lalas & Bradshaw, 2001) and regular breeding now occurs as far north as

Gannet Island in Waikato (Bouma et al., 2008). The New Zealand non-breeding

distribution is much wider, extending from Three Kings Islands in the north to the

Subantarctic islands in the south. The closest known regular haul-out location to the

proposed spat farm site is Mahurangi Island (approximately 9 km to the southeast; J.

Blakemore, DOC, pers. comm.).

35. This species forages well offshore and returns to shore every few days to rest (Boren,

2005). New Zealand fur seals forage on a range of species, with the relative importance

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

of each prey item varying by season. Arrow squid are important prey items in summer

and autumn, lanternfish are taken year-round, barracouta and jack mackerel are major

contributors to the summer diet, while red cod, ahuru, and octopus are important winter

prey species (Harcourt et al., 2002). In general, the diet of New Zealand fur seals shifts

from a squid dominated diet in summer and autumn, to mixed fish dominated in winter

(Harcourt et al., 2002). Foraging habitats vary with season and sex although inshore and

deeper offshore foraging habitat is used throughout the year (Harcourt et al., 2002).

Females tend to forage over continental shelf waters, with males using deeper

continental shelf breaks and pelagic waters (Page et al., 2005).

36. While New Zealand fur seals will certainly occur in and around the proposed spat farm,

Mercury Bay is part of the non-breeding distribution for this species and foraging

typically occurs further offshore. Therefore, the proposed farm site and surrounds do

not represent critical habitat for this species.

Southern right whales

37. My analysis suggests that southern right whales could possibly be present around the

proposed spat farm as this species utilises shallow coastal waters as their winter calving

and nursery grounds and of the eleven sightings in the AOI, three have occurred inside

Mercury Bay. This species is listed as ‘Recovering’ by the New Zealand Threat

Classification Scheme (Baker et al., 2019).

38. Southern right whales migrate thousands of kilometres from sheltered coastal wintering

grounds around the New Zealand mainland and Subantarctic islands to offshore summer

feeding grounds in Antarctic waters (Carroll et al., 2011). Commercial whaling

decimated southern right whale populations to near extinction and no southern right

whales were seen around mainland New Zealand between 1928 and 1963 (Gaskin,

1964). Recent photo-identification and genetic evidence suggests that the New Zealand

population is slowly recovering (Carroll et al., 2015). Port Ross in the subantarctic

Auckland Islands supports the densest New Zealand breeding aggregation (Rayment et

al., 2012), but a gradual recolonisation of breeding range around mainland New Zealand

is also occurring (Patenaude, 2003; Carroll et al., 2014; Carroll et al., 2015). The primary

calving habitat around mainland New Zealand is thought to occur between Napier and

Mount Manganui and all sightings of cow and calf pairs around mainland New Zealand

have occurred in winter or spring (Patenaude, 2003).

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

39. Southern right whales have been recorded in Mercury Bay, and we know that shallow

inshore habitat is important to this species during the winter breeding season. Despite

this, southern right whales move readily between locations; hence Mercury Bay would

represent only a small portion of any individual whale’s potential winter breeding

habitat. Of the 11 reported sightings of this species from the AOI, three noted the

presence of calves; hence this habitat could support some breeding behaviours. Baleen

whales tend not to feed during the breeding season; hence Mercury Bay and surrounds

would not represent foraging habitat for this species.

Bryde’s whales

40. My analysis suggests that Bryde’s whales could possibly be present around the proposed

spat farm as sightings of this species are relatively common in open waters of the AOI

and one sighting has been reported inside Mercury Bay. This species is listed as

‘Nationally Critical’ by the New Zealand Threat Classification Scheme on account of its

very small population size and conservation dependent nature (Baker et al., 2019).

41. In New Zealand, Bryde’s whales are known from the north-eastern coastal region

between East Cape and North Cape (Gaskin, 1963). There are few places worldwide

where Bryde’s whales are frequently sighted, with the Hauraki Gulf and Northland

region supporting one of the few known resident populations in the world (Constantine

et al., 2012). Tezanos-Pinto et al. (2017) estimated there to be < 50 Bryde’s whales using

waters of the Hauraki Gulf each season; however no overall population size estimate is

available. Bryde’s whales in temperate waters are semi-migratory and make local

seasonal movements (Gaskin, 1968) to take advantage of prey aggregations (Carroll et

al., 2019). Bryde’s whales are known to feed on schooling fish (e.g. anchovies, herring,

pilchards and mackerel) (Omura, 1962), krill and plankton (Constantine et al., 2012).

Due to the year-round availability of fish and zooplankton in the Hauraki Gulf, Bryde’s

whales can feed year-round at this location, reducing the necessity for migrations

(Wiseman et al., 2011). Bryde’s whales are active during the day, spending most daylight

hours below the sea surface foraging and travelling (Constantine et al., 2012). High

activity levels usually occur when feeding on surface plankton (Izadi et al., 2018). Activity

is lower at night, when whales rest near the sea surface (Constantine et al., 2012). The

high proportion of time spent at or near the surface makes Bryde’s whales particularly

vulnerable to ship strike (Constantine et al., 2012).

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

42. While Bryde’s whales are known from the AOI, all evidence suggests that the population

concentration occurs further north (Hauraki Gulf to Northland). Twelve of the 13

sightings from the AOI (from the DOC Sightings Database) were made in spring or

summer reflecting this species preference for warm water (> 14°C) (Baker, 1999) and

only one sighting included a calf. Therefore, while Bryde’s whales could possibly be

present on a seasonal basis, I don’t consider Mercury Bay to represent critical habitat

for this species.

OUTLINE OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS

43. The potential effects of shellfish aquaculture on marine mammals have been reported

by several different authors (e.g. Lloyd, 2003; Keeley et al., 2009; Clement, 2013; MPI,

2013; Price et al., 2017) as follows:

a. Habitat exclusion or modification;

b. Entanglement;

c. Underwater noise disturbance;

d. Alterations to trophic pathways;

e. Marine debris; and

f. Boat strike.

44. Below I discuss each of these potential effects for the different marine mammal species

that are likely to be present in and around the proposed spat farm. The potential effects

of primary concern are habitat exclusion/modification and entanglement (Clement,

2013); hence these effects are afforded the greatest attention. For each potential effect

and based on my discussion points I conclude each subsection with my opinion regarding

the magnitude of effect where the following terms are used:

a. Negligible: The activity may have an effect, but the effect would be undetectable.

The effect is considered to be of ecological insignificance to marine mammal

populations;

b. Minor: The activity may have a detectable effect, but the effect is considered to be

of low ecological significance to marine mammal populations; and

c. Moderate: The activity would have a detectable effect, and the effect is considered

to be of moderate ecological significance to marine mammal populations.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

45. It is important to note that little specific information is available with regards to the

impacts of spat collecting farms on marine mammals, but MPI (2013) conclude that

“from the available information on spat-catching effects in New Zealand, it appears that

the effects are similar or lesser than for the cultivation stage, with no issues that are

likely to be of more significance than for the cultivation phase. An exception may be an

increase in the potential for entanglement of medium- to large-sized whales”.

46. The consequences of any actual effects that occur in relation to the establishment of the

proposed spat farm would increase in significance if they affect threatened species. The

threatened species that are likely to be present in and around the proposed spat farm

are bottlenose dolphins (nationally endangered) and orca/killer whales (nationally

critical). Bryde’s whales (nationally critical), and southern right whales (recovering) could

possibly be present on an infrequent seasonal basis.

Habitat Exclusion or Modification

47. Aquaculture structures can act as barriers, obstacles or attractants depending on the

type of structure and the marine mammal species affected (Würsig & Gailey, 2002;

Clement, 2013; NOAA, 2013). The primary effect on marine mammals from shellfish

aquaculture is exclusion from coastal habitat (Würsig & Gailey, 2002); where the nature

of exclusion depends on the species and the aquaculture method (Clement, 2013). The

ecological consequence of habitat exclusion depends largely on the importance of the

habitat to those species affected. To date, exclusion of marine mammals from critical

habitat by mussel farming in New Zealand has been considered a minor issue, although

continued industry growth is noted as a risk factor which could elevate the significance

of this issue in the future (Keeley et al., 2009).

48. Some marine mammal species may not be completely excluded from shellfish farms, but

the presence of farm structures can change the way marine mammals utilise habitat in

the vicinity and alternatively, aquaculture farms can attract marine mammals. Fish farms

in particular are reported to be powerful attractants to marine mammals (Würsig &

Gailey, 2002), but curious species (e.g. pinnipeds and some dolphins) may also be

attracted to shellfish farms (Clement, 2013).

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

49. In general, the effects of habitat exclusion or modification from aquaculture are not

considered to be high-risk for marine mammals, as to date the spatial overlap between

critical habitat and aquaculture in New Zealand is minimal (Clement, 2013).

Potential effects on dolphins, porpoises and toothed whales

50. In New Zealand the effects of shellfish aquaculture are best described for dusky dolphins

in Admiralty Bay, in the Marlborough Sounds. While dusky dolphins are not expected to

be present around the proposed spat farm, the information below is useful to

understand how mussel farms can act as three-dimensional obstructions to some

dolphin species. During a five-year study Markowitz et al. (2004) reported that dusky

dolphins spent significantly less time within the boundary of mussel farms (14.2 minutes)

in Admiralty Bay than outside them (147.5 hours) and that the vertical structure of

cultivation lines acted as a visual or acoustic barrier to dusky dolphins. The findings of

Duprey (2007; as cited in Price et al., 2017) were similar and reported avoidance of

mussel farms by both dusky dolphins and bottlenose dolphins in Admiralty Bay: where

only 2 of 332 groups of dusky dolphins observed were seen inside mussel farms and of

the nine observations of bottlenose dolphins, no groups were observed inside farms.

51. As well as avoidance of mussel farms, the behaviour of dusky dolphins in Admiralty Bay

changed when inside farm boundaries, with dolphins moving rapidly between the rows

of floats (Markowitz et al., 2004). A subsequent study on the same population of dusky

dolphins in Admiralty Bay found that while foraging behaviour did increase in waters

adjacent to farms (possibly as a result of higher densities of fish around farm structures),

the ability of dolphins to cooperatively herd schools of small prey fish was compromised

when dolphins were inside or near mussel farms (Pearson et al., 2012). These authors

suggested that mussel cultivation lines interfered with the circling behaviour that dusky

dolphins use to contain schools of bait fish as cooperative feeding efforts ceased when

bait fish schools moved near mussel farms. In a previous study (Pearson, 2009) it was

also suggested that mussel farms may affect the ability of dusky dolphins to find prey as

dolphins travelled less when in the vicinity of farms.

52. Regarding the observed habitat exclusion and behavioural effects on dusky dolphins in

Admiralty Bay it is noteworthy that there is an existing ‘ribbon’ of marine farms in the

shallow coastal waters of Admiralty Bay: with over 40 mussel cultivation farms within

the 2,781 ha embayment. In addition to this, Admiralty Bay constitutes significant

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

seasonal feeding habitat for dusky dolphins, where dolphin abundance in the bay has

been estimated to be greater than 700 individual dolphins (Pearson et al., 2012). In

contrast the proposed spat farm location represents the first aquaculture farm in

Mercury Bay and as outlined in Paragraphs 23 to 42, is unlikely to constitute critical

habitat for any marine mammal species.

53. Exclusion of marine mammals from areas of shellfish aquaculture in other countries has

also been reported. For example, Ribeiro et al. (2007) found that the Chilean dolphin

avoided areas with high densities of mussel farms (greater than 60% coverage), but at

lower densities (less than 30%) dolphins remained present in and around mussel farms

and foraging behaviour was observed near mussel lines.

54. While exclusion and changes to habitat use are clearly demonstrable for some species,

Clement (2013) noted that common dolphins and bottlenose dolphins may be attracted

to farms; however, as mentioned above, some evidence of exclusion of bottlenose

dolphins around mussel cultivation farms in Admiralty Bay has been reported.

55. Of the species expected at the proposed spat farm site, there is little specific information

about how common dolphins, bottlenose dolphins and orca perceive and behave around

shellfish farms. Common dolphins could be attracted to farms to take advantage of wild

fish that may aggregate around farm structures, while bottlenose dolphins may avoid

farms (as seen in Admiralty Bay). Detailed records of orca around shellfish farms are

absent, but Visser (2007) notes that “New Zealand orca are known to avoid entering

marine farms”. While habitat exclusion and associated effects relating to reduced

foraging success could become problematic for some species in areas where marine

farm coverage is extensive, I consider the habitat exclusion/modification effects on

dolphins and orca from the proposed spat farm in Mercury Bay to be minor as:

a. The proposed spat farm is relatively small (30 ha) compared to the vast geographic

home-ranges of bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins and orca (see Paragraphs 24,

27 and 30);

b. No marine mammal species is entirely reliant on the proposed farm location as

foraging or breeding habitat, and any marine mammal species that do forage or

breed in the area will have alternative habitat available nearby;

c. The proposed spat farm would be the first of its kind in Mercury Bay hence there are

no cumulative effects on space availability to consider; and

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

d. Dropper lines will only be deployed when spat collecting episodes are predicted;

hence the subsurface area will be largely unimpeded for sustained periods

throughout the year.

Potential effects on baleen whales

56. Little information exists with regards to how baleen whales perceive and respond to

coastal shellfish farms. However, large scale or offshore developments are generally

assumed to pose a greater risk to baleen whales than small inshore developments

(Clement, 2013). In particular, concern would arise if multiple farms excluded depleted

populations from important nursery grounds (Clement, 2013). Baleen whales rely on

visual and acoustic cues to interpret their environment and while migrating some

individuals have been recorded swimming into aquaculture areas as they follow

traditional migration routes (Kemper et al., 2003).

57. Despite Bryde’s whale and southern right whale sightings occasionally being reported in

Mercury Bay there is no consistency in the sightings record to indicate that whales

routinely use this habitat. Indeed, southern right whales have been sighted in Mercury

Bay in only three of the last 20 calendar years, and Bryde’s whales have been seen in

Mercury Bay in only one of these years (DOC Marine Mammal Sighting Database). On

this basis it appears that Mercury Bay does not represent critical habitat for these

species; hence any adverse effects of exclusion/habitat modification would be negligible

for baleen whales.

Potential effect on New Zealand fur seals

58. It is unlikely that New Zealand fur seals will be excluded from space occupied by shellfish

farms; in fact, pinnipeds are often attracted to ‘novel structures and habitat’ (Clement,

2013). In addition, New Zealand fur seals do not make predictable seasonal migrations,

they breed ashore and they typically forage well offshore (Page et al., 2005); hence

exclusion from critical habitat is highly unlikely from the proposed spat farm. On this

basis, I consider the habitat exclusion/modification effects on New Zealand fur seals

from the proposed spat farm in Mercury Bay to be negligible.

Entanglement

59. When best practise management is followed (i.e. lines are kept tensioned, no loose

ropes are left trailing, and farms are located away from traditional migratory routes: see

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

Paragraph 86c), entanglement of marine mammals in shellfish aquaculture structures is

low risk (Clement, 2013). This is reinforced by the fact that despite a long history of

mussel farming in New Zealand (some 40 years) very few entanglements have been

reported and of these reports only two resulted in marine mammal mortality. I provide

a summary of the known entanglement incidents below:

a. Records indicate that two Bryde’s whales died in the 1990s as a result of

entanglement in spat collecting lines in the Hauraki Gulf (Lloyd, 2003).

b. A juvenile humpback whale was freed from a mussel farm in Marlborough in 2011.

That whale already had a craypot buoy tangled around its tail and had been marked

with buoys by DOC the day before. It was freed by marine farm workers.8

c. A whale (most likely a sei whale) was also found dead in a mussel farm in the outer

Marlborough Sounds in 2018; however, given its advanced state of decomposition it

is likely to have died before it became entangled (A. Baxter, DOC, pers. comm.).

d. No additional entanglements of marine mammals in mussel farms have been

reported in New Zealand (Clement, 2013).

60. Even on a global scale only a small number of marine mammal fatalities have been

attributed to shellfish aquaculture structures: a harbour porpoise and a juvenile

humpback whale both reportedly died after becoming entangled in single dropper spat

collecting lines in Iceland in 1998 and 2010 respectively (Price et al., 2017).

61. However, it is generally recognised that marine mammals are at a higher risk of

entanglement when they interact with lines that are slack in the water as opposed to

lines that are maintained under tension (Lloyd, 2003; Keeley et al., 2009, Clement, 2013).

Of relevance to this application is that spat collecting lines are comparatively light weight

and under less tension compared to cultivation ropes that are taut under the growing

product load (MPI, 2013; Price et al., 2017). It is noteworthy that all the fatalities noted

in Paragraphs 59 and 60 are attributable to spat collecting lines. MPI (2013) concludes

that the risk of entanglement of medium- to large-sized whales is thought to be greater

for spat lines than cultivation lines. Having said that, the two incidences involving Bryde’s

whales occurred some 25 years ago. I understand that standard operating practices have

8 See 10 July 2011 Stuff articles: Workers tell of freeing whale - http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/5262562/Workers-tell-of-freeing-whale; and Whale freed from craypot tangle - http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-news/latest-edition/5261894/Whale-freed-from-craypot-tangle.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/5262562/Workers-tell-of-freeing-whale

http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/5262562/Workers-tell-of-freeing-whale

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-news/latest-edition/5261894/Whale-freed-from-craypot-tangle

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sunday-news/latest-edition/5261894/Whale-freed-from-craypot-tangle

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

improved greatly since the 1990s, as reflected by a number of industry codes of practice

(discussed by Peter Bull in his evidence) and the use of weighted dropper lines largely

eliminates any slack in the dropper lines through the water column.

Potential effects on dolphins, porpoises and toothed whales

62. Dolphins, porpoises and toothed whales belong to the sub-order of marine mammals

known as odontocetes. A characteristic of odontocetes is that they echolocate to

navigate and forage. It is generally considered that echolocating marine mammals can

effectively perceive mussel farms, and in most cases can navigate through or around

them (Lloyd, 2003; Markowitz et al., 2004). On this basis the risk of entanglement is

typically considered to be lower for odontocetes than baleen whales (Lloyd, 2003), and

despite New Zealand’s extensive history of shellfish farming, no records of entanglement

have been reported for odontocetes (Clement, 2013). The odontocetes expected to be

present in and around the proposed spat collecting farm are bottlenose dolphins,

common dolphins and orca. These species all have reasonably extensive home-ranges

(see Paragraphs 24, 27 and 30) and the coastal nature of these home-ranges (which

includes densely populated areas such as the Hauraki Gulf) mean that these species are

not naïve to manmade objects and probably encounter lines and buoys (moorings, cray

pots etc) on a reasonably frequent basis. While entanglements in cray pot lines have

been reported for all odontocete species expected in the proposed spat farm (common

dolphin x1, bottlenose dolphins x1; DOC Marine Mammal Stranding Database and orca

x6; Laverick et al., 2017); the prevalence of this gear in coastal waterways compared to

the relatively low number of entanglements suggests that entanglements are rare

occurrences. It is also important to note that cray pot lines pose a higher entanglement

risk than spat collecting lines as they:

a. occur individually hence would be more difficult to detect; and

b. typically are relatively thin lines (8 – 16 mm9) and have a length of slack line near the

surface to prevent the pot from lifting off the seabed with wave or tide action.

63. By comparison, spat collecting lines will occur in a dense aggregation at the farm site

and because of their relatively heavy gauge (25 mm) and the fact that droppers will be

constructed from weighted rope, they will stay relatively taut through the water column.

9 https://www.actionoutdoors.kiwi/epages/shop.sf/en_NZ/?ObjectPath=/Shops/ActionFishing/Categories/ROPES/Cray-Fishing-Rope

https://www.actionoutdoors.kiwi/epages/shop.sf/en_NZ/?ObjectPath=/Shops/ActionFishing/Categories/ROPES/Cray-Fishing-Rope

https://www.actionoutdoors.kiwi/epages/shop.sf/en_NZ/?ObjectPath=/Shops/ActionFishing/Categories/ROPES/Cray-Fishing-Rope

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

In addition, the observations of bottlenose dolphins avoiding mussel farms in Admiralty

Bay (Duprey, 2007) suggest that this species may be seldom seen within the proposed

spat farm; and likewise, Visser (2007) states that “New Zealand killer whales are known

to avoid entering marine farm areas”. These observations indicate that these two

species may have a reduced risk of entanglement on account of such avoidance

behaviours. Based on this information I consider the potential effects of entanglement

on dolphins and orca from the proposed spat farm in Mercury Bay to be minor. It is

however noteworthy that any fatal entanglement of a threatened species (i.e.

bottlenose dolphin or orca) could result in population level consequences (e.g. slow the

rate of population recovery).

Potential effect on baleen whales

64. MPI (2013) listed the following characteristics which confer a greater risk of

entanglement to marine mammals:

a. Inability to echolocate - Baleen whales do not echolocate and therefore may be more

susceptible to entanglement than other marine mammals as they rely on visual and

acoustic cues to navigate (Lloyd, 2003);

b. Inquisitive or playful behaviour – where some whales are quite curious and are

attracted to novel objects (Clement, 2013);

c. A propensity to roll – humpback whales tend to roll when they become entangled in

ropes;

d. Large pectoral fins and tail flukes (e.g. humpback whales), and/or large gaping

mouths (most baleen whales); and

e. Larger less agile species.

65. Other factors that are thought to contribute to the ability of marine mammals to safely

navigate around objects (as summarised by Wilson et al., 2007) include:

a. age, where young animals may not recognise obstacles as threats;

b. health, where diseased animals may have compromised abilities to detect obstacles;

and

c. population density, where probability dictates that the greater the density of marine

mammals in an area the greater the chance of interactions.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

d. Clement & Elvines (2019) also note that some behaviours (feeding, breeding or

resting) may ‘distract’ individuals from being able to detect obstacles and hence

increase the likelihood of individuals becoming entangled.

66. Baleen whales are not expected to be routinely present at the proposed spat farm site

and on account of this the likelihood of an individual becoming entangled is low.

However, as noted in Paragraphs 37 and 40, southern right whales and Bryde’s whales

may be occasional visitors to Mercury Bay. Despite the potential entanglement risks that

marine farms pose to baleen whales, a well-designed and maintained marine farm which

adopts best practice operational procedures can significantly reduce its entanglement

risk. Based on the use of weighted dropper lines and assuming the recommendations in

Paragraphs 86 and 87 are adopted, I consider the potential effects of entanglement on

baleen whales to be minor (based on the low probability of any entanglement incident).

It is however noteworthy that any fatal entanglement of a threatened species (i.e.

southern right whale or Bryde’s whale) could result in population level consequences

(e.g. slow the rate of population recovery).

Potential effect on New Zealand fur seals

67. While New Zealand fur seals are likely to be attracted to aquaculture structures, the

smaller size of this species and their agility underwater put them at lower entanglement

risk than larger less agile species (MPI, 2013). In general pinnipeds are less likely to suffer

negative impacts from shellfish farms than whales or dolphins (Würsig & Gailey, 2002),

with no reported entanglements globally (Price et al., 2017). On this basis, I consider the

potential effects of entanglement on New Zealand fur seals to be negligible.

Underwater noise

68. Marine mammals produce sound for communication, foraging, navigation,

reproduction, parental care, avoidance of predators, and to gain an overall awareness

of their surrounding environment (Thomas et al., 1992; Johnson et al., 2009; Quick &

Janik, 2012). Toothed whales and dolphins use echolocation to forage and navigate,

whilst all marine mammals use passive listening to gather useful navigational cues (e.g.

the sound of waves breaking on coastline etc.). On this basis underwater noise

generated by human activity has the potential to impact marine mammals.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

69. Marine mammals must be able to perceive and effectively respond to biologically

important sounds. Anthropogenic noise can interfere with the perception of these

sounds; a phenomenon referred to as ‘masking’. Even activities that emit relatively low

intensity underwater noise can cause masking, but the ecological significance of any

effect will depend on the significance of the habitat affected and the duration of the

effect.

70. Underwater noise may also interrupt behavioural patterns (e.g. feeding, breeding,

migrating or resting) and temporary avoidance by marine mammals is commonly

reported in the vicinity of high intensity acoustic disturbance (Stone & Tasker, 2006).

Avoidance can lead to displacement from habitat and detrimental effects could be

expected if this displacement occurs from critical habitat over an extended period. In

contrast, some species appear to be attracted to low/medium intensity acoustic

disturbance (e.g. Würsig et al., 1998; Simmonds et al., 2004).

71. During construction of the proposed spat farm, the installation of the screw anchors will

generate the highest noise levels (see the Statement of Evidence of Peter Bull). Noise

associated with construction could result in some short-term behavioural effects, for

example attraction of more curious species (e.g. New Zealand fur seals, common

dolphins, bottlenose dolphins: Clement, 2013); or displacement of other species (orca:

Morton & Symonds, 2002). However, the noise intensity of the installation of the screw

anchors is low compared to other marine industry activities (e.g. pile driving and seismic

surveys), construction noise will be short-term in nature so any behavioural effects

would be temporary, and the proposed spat farm site is unlikely to represent critical

habitat for any marine mammal species.

72. As stated in the supplementary ecology report (White, 2018), the levels of noise that are

likely to result from the proposed spat farm would be less than those generated by a

mussel cultivation farm. It is also recognised that wider Mercury Bay has a reasonably

high existing level of vessel activity (recreational and commercial fishing, pleasure craft,

commercial tourism operators etc.); hence there is expected to be some existing

background noise levels in and around the proposed farm site (although I understand

existing vessel activity is likely to be primarily on the navigation route offshore of the

site and inshore along the beaches and that vessels are more likely to pass by the

proposed site itself). Therefore, marine mammals that frequently use this habitat are

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

most likely accustomed to reasonably high ambient noise levels. Based on this

information I consider the effects of underwater noise on marine mammals from the

proposed spat farm to be negligible. Noise can be managed through appropriate

conditions, as outlined in Robin Britton’s evidence. I also understand that the farm

operations will need to comply with the relevant noise standards in the Regional Coastal

Plan.

Alterations to trophic pathways

73. Changes to benthic communities in the vicinity of shellfish farms have been well

documented and typically result from the following benthic effects as summarised by

MPI (2013):

a. Localised organic enrichment of the seabed beneath the farm;

b. Smothering of benthic organisms by bio-deposits;

c. Biofouling drop off and debris: and

d. Seabed shading by structures.

74. While organic enrichment of the seabed is the primary benthic effect, it is typically

accompanied by a build-up of shell litter and these changes sometimes trigger

aggregations of starfish and other benthic species (MPI, 2013). Changes to benthic

communities can have flow on (indirect) effects for benthic predators (Würsig & Gailey,

2002), including marine mammals and demersal fish species which could be targeted as

marine mammal prey. Of the marine mammals identified as potentially being present in

and around the proposed spat farm, the diets of common dolphins (Meynier et al.,

2008), orca (Visser, 2007) and New Zealand fur seals (Harcourt et al., 2002) are known

to include some benthic prey species; however none of these species is solely reliant on

benthic prey as pelagic prey also contributes to the overall diets.

75. As the proposed spat collecting farm will not ‘on-grow’ mussels beyond approximately

20 mm in length, with an average length of 10 mm, the potential benthic effects are

likely to be considerably lower than those expected at a mussel cultivation farm. Indeed,

Dr Peter Wilson predicts in his Statement of Evidence that “the levels of sedimentation

and organic enrichment from spat farming will be very low and, therefore, any potential

effects to the benthic ecology are likely to be low to negligible”10.

10 Statement of Evidence of Dr Peter Wilson, at [50].

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

76. Benthic foraging for rays is common in orca around New Zealand’s coast and rays

reportedly use aquaculture farms as havens in which to seek refuge from foraging orca

(Visser, 2007). Subsequently, it stands to reason that aquaculture farms could reduce

foraging success of orca. In addition, Visser (2007) noted that the farming of filter

feeding shellfish can reduce planktonic prey for naturally occurring shellfish on which

rays feed; noting that changes to the local ray community could impact orca.

77. While these potential trophic effects are noted, the ecological significance of such

effects from the proposed spat farm are considered to be negligible as:

a. The degree of benthic impact from the proposed spat farm will be considerably less

than a mussel cultivation farm, is unlikely to be detectable, and in the event that it

is detectable the effect is likely to be minor and the zone of benthic impact will be

highly localised;

b. Despite the presence of some benthic prey in the diets of some marine mammals

that are expected in and around the proposed farm, no marine mammal species

relies solely on benthic prey;

c. No marine mammal species is entirely reliant on the proposed farm location as

foraging habitat, and any marine mammal species that do forage in the area will have

plenty of nearby alternative benthic foraging habitat;

d. The proposed spat farm is relatively small (30 ha) compared to the vast geographic

home-ranges of bottlenose dolphins, common dolphins and orca (see Paragraphs 24,

27 and 30);

e. Dropper lines will only be deployed when spat collecting episodes are predicted;

hence the subsurface area will be largely unimpeded for large parts of the year;

f. The reduction of plankton in the water column will be substantially less than for a

full-scale cultivation mussel farm, would only occur within and a short distance from

the droppers if spat are on the lines, and is highly unlikely to be detectable; and

g. The proposed spat farm would be the first of its kind in Mercury Bay, hence there

are no cumulative effects on space availability to consider.

Marine Debris

78. Debris in the marine environment is of global concern and can affect marine mammals

in several ways: namely ingestion of debris or entanglement in debris. An extreme

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

consequence of marine debris ingestion is blockage of the digestive tract leading to

death by starvation, however, sublethal effects include malnutrition, disease and

exposure to toxins (summarised by Baulch & Perry, 2014). Entanglement in debris can

lead to injury or drowning.

79. While the ingestion of plastic debris is not uncommon in marine mammals globally, New

Zealand has a relatively low observed incidence, with Massey University pathologists

reporting that they have seen no cases of marine mammals with large ingested plastic

objects since 2006 and are only aware of a few other anecdotal cases in New Zealand in

which plastic ingestion may have been involved (Dr W. Roe, Massey University, pers.

comm.). While marine farms are a potential source of marine debris, when best practice

management is followed the potential for non-biodegradable waste to be lost to the

surrounding marine environment is very low. Indeed, data show that the majority of

plastic waste in the marine environment is from consumer goods (see the Statement of

Evidence of Dr Andrew Jeffs). In the rare cases where debris from the proposed farm

might enter the water column, a condition of consent requires these to be retrieved.

Based on this, and assuming the recommendations in Paragraphs 86 and 87 are adopted,

I consider the potential effects of marine debris from the proposed spat farm on marine

mammals to be negligible.

80. An emerging concern is the effects of microplastics (<5 mm) on marine mammals.

Microplastics are ubiquitous in the marine environment and come from a variety of

sources including fragmentation of larger plastic objects and debris in the marine

environment, discharge of waste water contaminated by microbeads and synthetic

textile fibres, and road runoff containing particles from vehicle tyres and paint (Nelms

et al., 2019). The introduction of microplastics from degrading synthetic ropes is

discussed in the Statement of Evidence of Dr Andrew Jeffs who confirms that spat ropes

will be made of high-quality polyethylene which is extremely durable and is ‘stabilised’

during manufacture to prevent degradation by ultraviolet light (sunlight). As a

consequence, the ropes used in spat catching operations are highly durable and will be

used for many consecutive years before needing to be replaced. Nelms et al (2019)

assessed the presence of microplastics from 50 stranded marine mammals (including

whales, dolphins and pinnipeds) around the UK and detected microplastics in every

animal examined (an average of 5.5 particles per animal). Nylon was the most abundant

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

type of polymer detected, occurring both as fibres and fragments. The findings of this

study suggested a link between increased microplastic burdens and infectious disease,

but the authors caution that further research is required to better understand this

relationship as they also noted that microplastic particles in the digestive tracts of

marine mammals were transitory.

81. While spat collecting droppers, backbone lines and buoys overtime will undoubtedly add

to the microplastic burden in the coastal environment, there is no evidence to suggest

that this potential source is any more significant than any other of the multiple sources

of microplastic into the Mercury Bay area (indeed, proportionally it is likely to be less),

particularly as the high surface area droppers will only be deployed for a limited

timeframe each year. I understand that Peter Bull is an experienced marine farmer and

will operate this farm to the high standards of other farms he operates. Replacing ropes

and other aspects of farm structures before they become degraded will be an important

mitigation measure in this respect.

Boat Strike

82. Collisions between vessels and marine mammals are recognised as an increasing

conservation concern globally (IWC, 2014). Several factors influence the likelihood of

collisions, these are:

a. vessel size – larger vessels (> 80 m) are more frequently involved in collisions with

marine mammals than smaller vessels (Laist et al., 2001; Jensen & Silber, 2003);

b. vessel speed – most lethal marine mammal collisions involve vessels travelling at

faster speeds (> 12 knots) (Laist et al., 2001; Vanderlaan & Taggart, 2007);

c. species – large whales are the most common victims of collisions (e.g. fin whales,

right whales, humpback whales, minke whales and sperm whales) (Laist et al., 2001;

Jensen & Silber, 2003; Van Waerebeek et al., 2007); and

d. behaviour - species that remain at or near the sea surface for extended periods are

particularly vulnerable to collisions (Constantine et al. 2012); as are species that are

attracted to vessels (Bejder et al. 1999; Würsig et al., 1998).

83. All marine mammal species potentially present in the vicinity of the proposed spat farm

are potentially at risk of collision with operational vessels, however these risks can be

successfully managed in accordance with the recommendations in Paragraph 86h. It is

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

worth noting that spat farm vessels will contribute only a minor component to the

overall traffic density in Mercury Bay (see Statement of Evidence of Robin Britton and

John Hudson); hence the risk of boat strike to marine mammals in the area already exists

from both commercial and recreational vessel operators on a daily basis.

84. While the potential for boat strike is noted in association with the construction and

operation of the proposed spat farm, the potential effect is considered to be negligible

as:

a. the size and agility of dolphins and fur seals means that these groups are more

successful at avoiding potential collisions;

b. The relatively small size of vessels associated with the proposed spat farm will reduce

the potential for collision with larger whale species and will significantly reduce the

likelihood of fatal injury;

c. Vessel operators should be vigilant for marine mammals during farm operations and

behave in accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Regulations 1992 which

set out requirements with regards to acceptable behaviour around marine

mammals; and

d. Vessels associated with the proposed spat farm will confer no greater risk of boat

strike to marine mammals than any other vessels travelling in and around Mercury

Bay.

Cumulative Effects

85. Cumulative effects occur when the effects of an activity are added to or interact with

other effects in space and time. Assessing the cumulative effect of different

anthropogenic activities on wildlife populations is globally recognised as a complicated

field for which quantitative tools are currently under development, but not yet widely

available (Wright & Khyn, 2014). In the absence of such tools, a quantitative assessment

of cumulative effects is not included in this report but from a qualitative perspective the

following comments should be noted:

a. Some of the species expected to be present in and around the proposed spat farm are

threatened species; and

b. Multiple other threats to marine mammals are present in and around Mercury Bay, for

example:

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

i. Potential entanglement in fishing gear (especially unattended set nets and cray pots);

ii. Potential disturbance from high levels of boat traffic (wider Mercury Bay has a

reasonably high level of existing marine based recreation and tourism);

iii. Potential trophic effects from habitat degradation (e.g. climate change, over-fishing,

and changes to benthic communities from trawling, dredging, and the placement of

moorings etc); and

iv. Potential exposure to contaminants primarily from terrestrial runoff and/or

discharge, where the contaminants of primary concern to marine mammals are:

organochlorines (such as PCBs, DDT etc.), hydrocarbons (namely PAHs), and heavy

metals (such as mercury, cadmium and lead) (De Guise et al., 2003).

OUTLINE OF RECOMMENDATIONS

86. The primary way to avoid interactions between marine mammals and aquaculture is to

select marine farm sites to minimise overlap between farming activities and critical

marine mammal habitat (Clement, 2013; MPI, 2013). I consider that the proposed spat

farm does not constitute critical habitat for any marine mammal species. While some

foraging and breeding behaviours occur in Mercury Bay, this area represents a very small

portion of the home-range for all species that will potentially be present. Additional

recommendations to minimise interactions are listed below:

a. Noise associated with farm construction and operations should be minimised

(conditions are proposed);

b. The use of artificial lighting should be minimised (I understand that the only light at

the site will be for navigational safety purposes. Vessels will not operate at the site

at night);

c. No free or loose ropes/lines. All ropes and lines should be maintained under tension

(this is covered in the proposed conditions of consent, and the proposed Operations

Management Plan);

d. Anchor warps should not overlap or cross between farm blocks (the design of the

site meets this requirement, as shown by the site layout plans at Appendix 1c of the

Assessment of Environmental Effects);

e. All waste or debris should be safely contained, particularly non-biodegradable waste.

Recover any lost items (addressed by conditions of consent and best practice);

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

f. Farm maintenance should be prioritised (e.g. keeping ropes/lines well tensioned,

promptly repairing any damaged equipment etc.) (addressed by conditions of

consent and the proposed Operations Management Plan);

g. Care taken to select site to minimise zone of benthic impact (my understanding is

that this has been achieved via careful site selection, and via the application being

limited to spat);

h. Awareness and compliance with Marine Mammal Protection Regulations 1992,

including:

i. Avoid sudden or repeated changes in speed and direction near marine

mammals;

ii. There should be no more than three vessels within 300 m of any marine

mammal;

iii. Ensure that the vessel travels no faster than idle or ‘no wake’ speed within

300 m of any marine mammal;

iv. Approach whales and dolphins from behind and to the side;

v. Do not circle them, obstruct their path or cut through any group;

vi. Keep at least 50 m from whales (or 200 m from any large whale mother and

calf/calves); and

vii. Idle slowly away. Speed may be gradually increased to out-distance

dolphins and should not exceed 10 knots within 300 m of any dolphin

87. The following management practices should underpin any mitigation measures:

a. The establishment of a Marine Mammal Management Plan to describe the protocols

that will be put in place to minimise the potential for interactions between marine

mammals and the spat collecting farm11;

b. The Management Plan must include strict guidelines to reduce potential

entanglement risks;

c. The Management Plan must be developed in discussion with DOC;

11 The farm should be operated in accordance with best practice. I understand that will also be reflected in other management plans, such as the Operations Management Plan referred to in the proposed conditions. That will also assist in mitigating residual risk to marine mammals.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

d. Establish recording, reporting and response procedures in the event of marine

mammal interactions with farm structures (including entanglement, injury or death);

e. Conduct quantitative trials of any new mitigation techniques and/or management

modifications on an adaptive basis;

f. Farm staff should regularly monitor for the presence (and absence) of marine

mammals, i.e. records should be made as to whether marine mammals were present

or not every time staff are in attendance at the farm, and if present the species and

number of individuals should be noted;

g. All marine mammal entanglements should be recorded and reported to DOC

regardless of the outcome: i.e. successful release, injured, mortality; and

h. All observed marine mammal interactions with farm structures should be recorded.

88. The consent conditions should require the preparation of a Marine Mammal

Management Plan and specify the objectives of that Plan. Other details should be set

out in the Management Plan itself. This enables the Management Plan to evolve along

with best practice, technological improvements and increased knowledge, while

requiring any amendments to achieve the overarching objectives set out in the

conditions.

89. I recommend the following conditions:

1. The consent holder must prepare, implement and comply with a Marine Mammal

Management Plan:

a. The Marine Mammal Management Plan shall be prepared by the consent holder

four months prior to the first installation of structures under this consent.

b. The Marine Mammal Management Plan shall be signed-off by a suitably qualified

and experienced marine scientist.

c. The Marine Mammal Management Plan shall be provided to the Department of

Conservation for comment.

d. Three months after the date the Marine Mammal Management Plan is prepared, or

after comments are provided by the Department of Conservation (whichever is

sooner), the Management Plan shall be provided to the Waikato Regional Council,

along with any comments provided by the Department of Conservation.

2. The objectives of the Marine Mammal Management Plan must be to:

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

a. avoid adverse effects and where it is not practicable to avoid effects to minimise

those effects on marine mammals from the operation of the marine farm;

b. minimise the potential for interaction of marine mammals with the marine farm;

c. determine how the operation of the marine farm will be managed adaptively to

avoid, remedy and mitigate adverse effects on marine mammals;

d. ensure that the best practicable option is adopted to avoid entanglement of marine

mammals, having regard to best international practice, ongoing research and

allowing for technological improvements;

e. establish recording, reporting and response procedures in the event of marine

mammal interaction, entanglement, injury or death within the marine farm

boundaries; and

f. outline any requirements to monitor and record the presence of marine mammals in

the vicinity of the marine farm.

RESPONSE TO SUBMITTERS

90. I have reviewed the submissions lodged for this application, and provide particular

comment addressing the submissions which I consider are most relevant to effects on

marine mammals.

91. Several submissions note the presence of marine mammals in and around the proposed

farm location, for example Peter & Janet Finlayson note that bottlenose dolphins,

common dolphins, New Zealand fur seals and orca frequent the area. My evidence

largely supports the observations made in submissions about these species occurring in

Mercury Bay (see Paragraph 22).

92. Two submissions single out species that I have assessed as unlikely to occur in and

around the proposed spat farm; they are:

a. the submission by James Grierson, which states that pilot whales are often seen in

the area; and

b. the submission by The Royal Society of Forest and Bird, which states that baleen

whales, including humpback whales use the area.

Unfortunately, no data is provided within these submissions with regards to numbers of

sightings, timing of sightings, location of sightings.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

93. As per my assessment in Table 1 at Appendix HMM1, two sighting of long-finned pilot

whales have been made from the AOI, however, pilot whales forage at depth (i.e. several

hundred metres; Berkenbusch et al., 2013) hence they do not routinely occur in very

shallow coastal waters12. Although some humpback whales migrate northwards along

the Coromandel coast and can approach closely to shore when passing headlands or

moving through confined waters (e.g. Gibbs et al., 2017). Of the seven sightings from

the AOI none have occurred inside Mercury Bay. As noted in Paragraph 22 both of these

species probably only occur as rare visitors to the proposed farm location.

94. Of the potential effects on marine mammals that I have identified in my evidence, the

potential for entanglement was the one that submitters were most commonly

concerned about (for example: Peter and Janet Finlayson, Georgina Hackett, Helen

Vivian, Ann Shelton, Duncan Munro, Joanna Wolfgram, The Double Bay Property

Owners, Paul Duffy, Lindsey Hogg, and Sally Synnott). My evidence thoroughly addresses

this risk in Paragraphs 59 to 67 and concludes that I consider the potential effects of

entanglement on dolphins, orca and baleen whales from the proposed spat farm in

Mercury Bay to be minor and the potential effects of entanglement on seals to be

negligible.

95. Submitters were also concerned about the potential for habitat exclusion (for example:

Georgina Hackett, The Royal Society of Forest and Bird, Carlene Wolfgram, the Double

Bay Property Owners, Paul Duffy, and Sally Synnott). My evidence also thoroughly

addresses this risk, in Paragraphs 47 to 58, and concludes that I consider the potential

effects of habitat exclusion on dolphins and orca from the proposed spat farm in

Mercury Bay to be minor and the potential effects on baleen whales and seals to be

negligible.

96. The potential for impacts on marine mammal foraging behaviours and foraging success

was also raised as a concern by several submitters (for example: Ann Shelton, Duncan

Munro, Carlene Wolfgram, The Double Bay Property Owners, Paul Duffy, Philip and

Barbara Hawken, and Clifford Catt). My evidence thoroughly addresses this risk in

Paragraphs 73 to 77 and concludes that I consider the potential trophic effects on marine

mammals from the proposed spat farm in Mercury Bay to be negligible.

12 In this context the depth at the proposed farm site is 20 to 25m. In context of the foraging depth of pilot whales these are very shallow waters.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

97. In particular, three submissions13 refer to the views of Dr Ingrid Visser of the Orca

Research Trust. I have reviewed Dr Visser’s earlier research paper14 which is referenced

in the submission of Anne Margaret Shelton and Duncan Hugh Munro, and which is

alluded to in the Vivian submission. The following quote cited in the Shelton/Munro

submission (and alluded to in the Vivian submission) is in relation to full mussel farms

and effects on killer whales (orca):

“This directly impacts on the foraging success of the killer whales, as

the physical nature of some of these structures excludes killer whales,

and thereby prevents them foraging.”15

98. This application is for a spat farm only and the potential effects on orca foraging success

are addressed in Paragraphs 76 and 77.

99. Further, the Vivian submission states that it is a concern of Dr Visser’s that:

“…they [Orcas] would become trapped or injured as they pursue stingray which

hide in the mussel farm structures.”

100. However, that statement is contrary to the findings in the Visser paper cited regarding

killer whales/orca, for example, as: “NZ killer whales are known to avoid entering marine

farm areas” 16 . My evidence addresses the potential for orca entanglement in

Paragraphs 62 and 63 and based on this information I conclude that the magnitude of

this potential effect is minor for orca.

101. One submitter (Paul Duffy) mentioned the potential impacts of litter ingestion on marine

wildlife. My evidence thoroughly addresses this risk in Paragraphs 78 to 81 and

concludes that the potential effects of marine debris on marine mammals from the

proposed spat farm in Mercury Bay are negligible.

102. One submitter (The Royal Society of Forest and Bird) voiced concern that the applicant

has not provided sufficient information on the risk to marine mammals, and while I agree

that the potential risks were not well addressed in the initial application, the

supplementary ecology report provided adequate information on the primary risks

13 Being: Helen Sara Vivian, Anne Margaret Shelton & Duncan Hugh Munro, and Clifford Richard Catt. 14 I. N. Visser, “Killer Whales in New Zealand Waters: Status and Distribution with Comments on Foraging”, Orca Research Trust. 15 I. N. Visser, “Killer Whales in New Zealand Waters: Status and Distribution with Comments on Foraging”, Orca Research Trust, at p 5. 16 I. N. Visser, “Killer Whales in New Zealand Waters: Status and Distribution with Comments on Foraging”, Orca Research Trust, at p 5.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

(habitat exclusion, entanglement, and underwater noise). My evidence adds to this

existing body of information and also addresses the additional risks of (trophic

interactions, marine debris and boat strike). This submitter also notes that “there are

gaps in the existing knowledge of marine mammal movement over this area which have

not been sufficiently clarified by the applicant”. Unfortunately, with regard to marine

mammal distribution and movement, information is typically scarce for most coastal

locations of New Zealand; for this reason I used multiple data sources (DOC sighting data,

DOC stranding data, published literature and unpublished literature) to describe species

distribution in the area and I consider the combination of these sources to be the best

available information and sufficient for the purpose of assessing the potential effects of

this application on marine mammals.

RESPONSE TO SECTION 42A REPORT

103. There are a few points in the s 42A Council officer’s report that I can comment on or

clarify as follows.

104. The discrepancy regarding the recorded incidences of entanglement in mussel farms are

noted. To the best of my knowledge the description of entanglement incidents provided

in Paragraph 59 is accurate for New Zealand mussel farms and I am only aware of one

reported incident in Australia which involved a humpback whale calf which was released

alive following entanglement in a mussel cultivation line (i.e. on a grow-out farm) in

Western Australia (as reported in Clement, 2013 and Price et al., 2017). I provide further

mention of global fatalities in mussel farms in Paragraph 60.

105. As outlined in Paragraphs 61, the elimination of loose lines is fundamental to the

reduction in entanglement risk for marine mammals. The weighted cores of the dropper

lines will ensure that they hang under tension through the water column.

106. I address the possible effects of habitat exclusion and modification on marine mammals

in Paragraphs 47 to 58 and conclude that effects on dolphins and orca will be minor for

the reasons stated in Paragraph 55. I consider the potential habitat

exclusion/modification effects on baleen whales and seals from the proposed spat farm

in Mercury Bay to be negligible.

107. I address the potential effects of underwater noise on marine mammals in Paragraphs

68 to 72. While I am also unable to give measures of the likely noise levels of screw

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

anchor placement (which is predicted to produce the most intense noise profile of all

proposed activities), the intensity of such noise will be low compared to activities that

are typically associated with significant behavioural responses from marine mammals

(e.g. pile driving and seismic surveys) and the construction phase will be short-lived so

any effects from underwater noise during construction will be strictly temporary. I also

note that the Applicant agrees to the s 42A Council officer’s proposed condition “Works

for the erection and placement of marine farming structures in the coastal marine area

authorised under this consent shall be carried out in a manner that complies with the

noise levels set out in NZS 6803: 1999 "Acoustics - Construction Noise” or any

subsequent updated version of that document.”

108. I thoroughly address the issues raised by submissions regarding marine mammals in

Paragraphs 90 to 102.

CONCLUSION

109. My evidence assesses the marine mammal species that are likely to occur in and around

Mercury Bay and the potential effects on these marine mammals from the proposed

spat collecting farm.

110. Based on DOC Marine Mammal Sightings and Strandings Databases I conclude that four

marine mammal species are likely to occur around the proposed spat farm (bottlenose

dolphins, common dolphins, orca and New Zealand fur seals) and two species could

possibly be present around the proposed spat farm (southern right whales and Bryde’s

whale). While other marine mammal species are represented in these databases, they

probably only occur as rare visitors to the area, hence are unlikely to interact with the

proposed spat farm.

111. Marine mammal interactions with shellfish farms are rare on a global basis (Price et al.,

2017). However, I have identified and discussed the following potential effects on

marine mammals:

a. Habitat exclusion or modification;

b. Entanglement;

c. Underwater noise disturbance;

d. Alterations to trophic pathways;

e. Marine debris; and

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

f. Boat strike.

112. Most of these potential effects, I consider to be of negligible magnitude for marine

mammals - the activity may have an effect, but the effect would be undetectable and of

ecological insignificance to marine mammal populations. The only exceptions to this are:

a. Habitat exclusion or modification, which I consider will have a minor effect on

odontocetes (dolphins, porpoises and toothed whales) – the activity may have a

detectable effect, but the effect is considered to be of low ecological significance;

and

b. Entanglement, which I consider will have a minor effect on odontocetes and baleen

whales and while the risk of entanglement can be successfully managed through

farm design and management practises (see recommendations in Paragraph 86), it

is noteworthy that any fatal entanglement of a threatened species (i.e. bottlenose

dolphin, orca, Bryde’s whale or southern right whale) could result in population level

consequences (e.g. a reduction in the rate of population recovery).

113. The primary way to avoid interactions between marine mammals and aquaculture is to

select marine farm sites to minimise overlap between farming activities and critical

marine mammal habitat (Clement, 2013; MPI, 2013). I consider that the proposed spat

farm does not constitute critical habitat for any marine mammal species. While some

foraging and breeding behaviours occur in Mercury Bay, this area represents a very small

portion of the home-range for all species that will potentially be present. A suite of

additional recommendations to minimise interactions have also been provided, which

are reflected in the proposed consent conditions, and will be detailed further in a Marine

Mammal Management Plan for this site.

_________________

Helen McConnell

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

REFERENCES

Baker, A.N., 1999. ‘Whales & Dolphins of New Zealand & Australia: An identification guide’. Victoria

University Press, Wellington, New Zealand.

Baker, C.S., Chilvers, B.L., Constantine, R., DuFresne, S., Mattlin, R.H., Van Helden, A., Hitchmough, R.,

2010. ‘Conservation status of New Zealand marine mammals (suborders Cetacea and Pinnipedia),

2009’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 44(2): 101 – 115.

Baker, C.S., Boren, L., Childerhouse, S., Constantine, R., van Helden, A., Lundquist, D., Rayment, W.,

Rolfe, J.R., 2019. Conservation status of New Zealand marine mammals, 2019. New Zealand Threat

Classification Series 29, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand, 18p.

Baulch, S., Perry, C. 2014. Evaluating the impacts of marine debris on cetaceans. Marine Pollution

Bulletin 80: 210-221.

Bejder, L., Dawson, S., Harraway, J. 1999. Responses by Hector’s dolphins to boats and swimmers in

Porpoise Bay, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science 15 (3): 738-750.

Berkenbusch, K., Abraham, E.R., Torres, L.G., 2013. ‘New Zealand marine mammals and commercial

fisheries’. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 119. Ministry for Primary

Industries, Wellington, New Zealand. 113 p.

Blanco, C., Salomon, O., Raga, J.A., 2001. ‘Diet of the bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the

western Mediterranean Sea’. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 81:

1053 – 1058.

Boren, L., 2005. ‘New Zealand fur seals in the Kaikoura region: colony dynamics, maternal investment

and health’. PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury.

Bouma, S., Hickman, G., Taucher, D. 2008. ‘Abundance and reproduction of the New Zealand fur seal

(Arctocephalus forsteri) along the west coast of the Waikato region, New Zealand’. Journal of the Royal

Society of New Zealand 38(2):89-96.

Brough, T.E., Guerra, M., Dawson, S.M., 2015. ‘Photo-identification Of Bottlenose Dolphins in The Far

South Of New Zealand Indicates A ‘New’ Previously Unstudied Population’. New Zealand Journal of

Marine and Freshwater Research, 49(1): 150 – 158.

Brownell RL, Ralls K, Baumann-Pickering S, Poole MM. 2009. Behavior of melon-headed whales near

oceanic islands. Marine Mammal Science 25: 639-658

Carroll, E., Patenaude, N., Alexander, A., Steel, D., Harcourt, R., Childerhouse, S., Smith, S., Bannister,

J., Constantine, R., Baker, C.S., 2011. ‘Population structure and individual movement of southern right

whales around New Zealand and Australia’. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 432, 257 – 268.

Carroll, E.L., Rayment, W.J., Alexander, A.M., Baker, C.S., Patenaudae, N.J., Steel, D., Constantine, R.,

Cole, R., Boren, L.J., Childerhouse, S., 2014. ‘Reestablishment of former wintering grounds by New

Zealand southern right whales’. Marine Mammal Science, 30(1): 206 – 220

Carroll, E.L., Baker, C.S., Watson, M., Alderman, R., Bannister, J., Gaggiotti, O.E., Grocke, D.R.,

Patenaude, N., Harcourt, R., 2015. ‘Cultural traditions across a migratory network shape the genetic

structure of southern right whales around Australia and New Zealand’. Scientific Reports, 5,

DOI:10.1038/srep16182.

Carroll, E.L., Gallego, R., Sewell, M.A., Zeldis, J., Ranjard, L., Ross, H.A., Tooman, L.K., O’Rorke, R.,

Newcomb, R.D., Constantine, R., 2019. ‘Multi-locus DNA metabarcoding of zooplankton communities

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

and scat reveal trophic interactions of a generalist predator’. Scientific Reports, 9:281,

DOI:10.1038/s41598-018-36478-x.

Clement, D. 2013. Literature review of ecological effects of aquaculture: effects on marine mammals

(Chapter 4). A report prepared for the Ministry of Primary Industries. Cawthron Institute, Nelson.

Clement, D., Elvines, D. 2019. Marine mammal assessment for a proposed salmon farm offshore of

the Marlborough Sounds. Prepared for New Zealand King Salmon. Cawthron Report No. 3316. 38 p.

plus appendices.

Constantine, R., 2002. ‘The behavioural ecology of the bottlenose dolphins of northeastern New

Zealand: a population exposed to tourism’. PhD thesis, The University of Auckland, New Zealand,

233p.

Constantine, R., Aguliar Soto, N., Johnson, M., 2012. ‘Sharing the waters: minimising ship collisions

with Bryde’s whales in the Hauraki Gulf’. Research Progress Report, February 2012, 22p.

Dawbin, W.H., 1956. ‘The migrations of humpback whales which pass the New Zealand coast’.

Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 84(1): 147 – 196.

De Guise, S., Beckman, K., Holladay, S. 2003. Contaminants and marine mammal immunotoxicology

and pathology. In Toxicology of Marine Mammals. Eds Vos, G., Bossart., G., Fournier, M., O’Shea, T.

Published by Taylor and Francis, London.

Duignan, P.J., Hunter, J.E.B., Visser, I.N., Jones, G.W., Nutman, A., 2000. ‘Stingray spines: a potential

cause of killer whale mortality in New Zealand’. Aquatic Mammals, 26: 143 – 147.

Duprey N.M.T. 2007. Dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) behaviour and human interactions:

implications for tourism and aquaculture. Master’s Thesis, Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences, Texas A&M

University.

Dwyer, S.L., Clement, D.M., Pawley, M.D.M., Stockin, K.A., 2016. ‘Distribution and relative density of

cetaceans in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater

Research, DOI: 10.1080/00288330.2016.1160942

Fordyce RE, Marx FG. 2012. ‘The pygmy right whale Caperea marginata: the last of the cetotheres’.

Proc R Soc B 280: 20122645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2012.2645

Gaskin, D.E., 1963. ‘Whale marking cruises in New Zealand waters made between February and

August 1963’. Norsk Hvalfangst-Tidendae, 11: 1 – 12.

Gaskin, D.E. 1964. Return of the southern right whale to New Zealand waters, 1963. Tuatara 12: 115-

118.

Gaskin, D.E., 1968. ‘The New Zealand cetacea’. Fisheries Research Bulletin 1, 1-18.

Gibbs, N., Childerhouse, S., 2000. ‘Humpback whales around New Zealand’. Conservation Advisory

Science Notes No. 257, Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Gibbs, N.J., Dunlop, R.A., Gibbs, E.J., Heberley, J.A., Olavarria, C., 2017. ‘The potential beginning of a

post-whaling recovery in New Zealand humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)’. Marine

Mammal Science, 34(2): 499 – 513.

Goodall, R.N.P., 2002. ‘Spectacled porpoise Phocoena dioptrica’. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Würsig and J. G.

M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopaedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 1158-1161. Academic Press, San Diego,

California, USA.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

Gowans, S., Würsig, B., Karczmarski, L., 2008. ‘The social structure and strategies of delphinids:

predictions based on an ecological framework’. Advances in Marine Biology, 53: 195 – 293.

Harcourt, RG, 2001, ‘Advances in New Zealand Mammalogy 1990 – 2000: Pinnipeds’, Journal of the

Royal Society of New Zealand, 31:135 – 160.

Harcourt, R.G., Bradshaw, C.J.A., Dickson, K., Davis, L.S., 2002. ‘Foraging ecology of a generalist

predator, the female New Zealand fur seal’. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 227: 11 – 24.

Horwood, J., 2009. ‘Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis’. In, Perrin, W.F.; Würsig, B.G.; Thewissen, J.G.M.

(Eds.), Encyclopaedia of marine mammals”, pp. 1001–1003. Academic Press, United States

IWC 2014. Whales and Ship Strikes: A problem for both whales and vessels. International Whaling

Commission. http://iwc.int/ship-strikes.

Izadi, S., Johnson, M., Aguilar de Soto, N., Constantine, R., 2018. ‘Night-life of Bryde’s whales:

ecological implications of resting in a baleen whale’. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol., 72:78.

Jefferson, T.A., Leatherwood, S., Webber, M.A., 1993. ’Marine Mammals of the World: FAO Species

Identification Guide’. United Nation Environment Programme and Food and Agricultural Organization

of the UN.

Jefferson, T.A., Webber, M.A., Pitman, L., 2008. ‘Marine mammals of the world: a comprehensive

guide to their identification’. Elsevier 573 p

Jensen, A.S., Silber, G.K. 2003. Large whale ship strike database. U.S. Department of Commerce,

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Technical Memorandum. NMFS-OPR 25. 37 pp.

Johnson, M., Soto, N., Madsen, P. 2009. Studying the Behavioural and Sensory Ecology of Marine

Mammals Using Acoustic Recording Tags: A Review. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 395: 55-73.

Keeley N., Forrest, B., Hopkins, G., Gillespie, P., Knight, B., Webb, S., Clement, D., Gardner, J. 2009.

Review of the ecological effects of farming shellfish and other non-finfish species in New Zealand.

Cawthron Report. Cawthron Institute, Nelson, New Zealand.

Kemper, K. 2002. ‘Distribution of the Pygmy Right Whale, Caperea marginata, in the Australasian

Region’, Marine Mammal Science 18(1): 99 - 111.

Kemper, C.M., Pemberton, D., Cawthorn, M., Heinrich, S., Mann, J., Würsig, B., Shaughnessy, P., Gales,

R. 2003. Aquaculture and marine mammals: coexistence or conflict? In Gales, N., Hindell, M.,

Kirkwood, R. (Ed.), Marine Mammals: Fisheries Tourism and Management Issues. CSIRO Publishing.

Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S., Pod, M. 2001. Collisions between ships and whales.

Marine Mammal Science, 17: 35–75.

Lalas, C., Bradshaw, J.A., 2001. ‘Folklore and chimerical numbers: review of a millennium of

interaction between fur seals and humans in the New Zealand region’. New Zealand Journal of Marine

and Freshwater Research, 35(3): 477 – 497.

Laverick, S., Douglas, L., Childerhouse, S., Burns, D. 2017. Entanglement of cetaceans in pot/trap lines

and set nets and a review of potential mitigation methods. Report prepared for the Department of

Conservation by Blue Planet Marine. p 75.

Leopard Seals, 2019. Vagrant or resident to NZ? http://www.leopardseals.org/vagrant-or-resident-to-

nz/

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

Lloyd, B.D. 2003. Potential effects of mussel farming on New Zealand’s marine mammals and seabirds:

a discussion paper. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Markowitz, T.M., Harlin, A.D., Würsig, B., Mcfadden, C.J. 2004. Dusky dolphin foraging habitat: Overlap

with aquaculture in New Zealand. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 14: 133–

149.

Meissner, A., Martinez, E., Orams, M., Stockin, K. 2014. ‘Effects of commercial tourism activities on

bottlenose and common dolphin populations in East Coast Bay of Plenty waters’. Unpublished report

prepared by Massey University for the Department of Conservation.

Meynier, L., Stockin, K.A., Bando, M.K.H., Duignan, P.J., 2008. ‘Stomach contents of common dolphins

(Delphinus sp.) from New Zealand waters’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research,

42: 257 – 268.

Ministry for Primary Industries. 2013. Overview of ecological effects of aquaculture. Wellington, New

Zealand. ISBN 978-0-478-40536-1

Morton, A.B., Symonds, H.K. 2002. Displacement of Orcinus Orca (L.) by high amplitude sound in British

Columbia, Canada. ICES Journal of Marine Science 59: 71–80.

Nelms, S., Barnett, J., Brownlow, A., Davison, N., Deaville, R., Galloway, T., Lindeque, P., Santillo, D.,

Godley, B. 2019. Microplastics in marine mammals stranded around the British coast: ubiquitous but

transitory? Scientific Reports 9:1075.

Neumann, D. R., Leitenberger, A.A., Orams, M.B. 2002. ‘Photo-identification of shortbeaked common

dolphins, Delphinus delphis, in north-east New Zealand: A photo-catalogue of recognisable

individuals’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 36:593–604.

NOAA, 2013. Marine Cage Culture & the Environment. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS

164.

O’Callaghan, T.M., Baker, A.N., Helden, A., 2001. ‘Long-finned pilot whale strandings in New Zealand

– the past 25 years’. Science poster no. 52, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Available from http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/science-andtechnical/SciencePoster52.pdf.

Olavarria, C., Baker, C.S., Tezanos-Pinto, G., 2014. ‘Low mtDNA genetic diversity among killer whales

around New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 48(1): 147 – 153.

Omura, H., 1962. ‘Further information on Bryde’s whale from the coast of Japan’. Scientific reports

of the Whales Research Institute, 16: 7 – 18.

Page, B., McKenzie, J., Goldsworthy, S.D. 2005. ‘Inter-sexual differences in New Zealand fur seal diving

behaviour’. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 304: 249 – 264.

Patenaude, N.J., 2003. ‘Sightings of southern right whales around ‘mainland’ New Zealand’. Science

for Conservation 225, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand 15 p.

Pearson, H.C., 2009. Influences on dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) fission-fusion dynamics

in Admiralty Bay, New Zealand. Behavioral Ecology and Sociobiology 63(10):1437-1446.

Pearson, H.C., Vaughn‐Hirshorn, R.L., Srinivasan, M., Würsig, B. 2012. Avoidance of mussel farms by

dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and

Freshwater Research 46(4): 567‐574.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

Price, C.S., Keane, E., Morin, D., Vaccaro, C., Bean, D., Morris, J.A. 2017. Protected species and longline

mussel aquaculture interactions. NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS NCCOS 211. 85 p.

Quick, N., Janik, V. 2012. Bottlenose Dolphins Exchange Signature Whistles When Meeting at Sea.

Proceedings of the Royal Society B 279: 2539-2545.

Rayment, W., Davidson, A., Dawson, S., Slooten, E., Webster, T., 2012. ‘Distribution of southern right

whales on the Auckland Island calving grounds’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater

Research, 46(3): 431-436.

Ribeiro, S., Viddi, F.A., Cordeiro, J.L., Freitas, T.R.O. 2007. Fine-scale habitat selection of Chilean

dolphins (Cephalorhynchus eutropia): Interactions with aquaculture activities in southern Chiloé

Island, Chile. Journal of Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom 87: 119–128.

Shirihai, H., Jarrett, B., 2006. ‘Whales, Dolphins and Other Marine Mammals of the World’. Princeton,

Princeton University Press: 56-58.

Simmonds, M., Dolman, S., Weilgart, L. 2004. Oceans of Noise. Whale and Dolphin Conservation

Society Science Report, Wiltshire, UK.

Stone, C.J., Tasker, M.L. 2006. The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in UK waters. Journal of

Cetacean Research and Management 8(3): 255-263.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade,

P., Pitman, R.L., 2008a. ‘Ziphius cavirostris’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:

e.T23211A9429826’. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T23211A9429826.en


P., Pitman, R.L., 2008b. ‘Mesoplodon grayi’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:

e.T13247A3428839’. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T13247A3428839.en.


P., Pitman, R.L., 2008c. ‘Tasmacetus shepherdi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:



P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008d. ‘Hyperoodon planifrons’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:

e.T10708A3208830. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T10708A3208830.en.


P., Pitman, R.L., 2008e. ‘Mesoplodon layardii.’ The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:


Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J.K.B., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G.,

Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2012. ‘Kogia breviceps’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012:

e.T11047A17692192. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012.RLTS.T11047A17692192.en.

Tezanos-Pinto, G., Baker, C.S., Russell, K., Martien, K., Baird, R.W., Hutt, A., Stone, G., Mignucci-

Giannoni, A.A., Caballero, S., Endo, T., Lavery, S., Oremus, M., Olavarria, C., Garrigue, C., 2009. ‘A

worldwide perspective on the population structure and genetic diversity of bottlenose dolphins

(Tursiops truncatus) in New Zealand’. Journal of Heredity, 100(1): 11 – 24.

Tezanos-Pinto, G., Hupman, K., Wiseman, N., Dwyer, S.L., Baker, C.S., Brooks, L., Outhwaite, B., Lea,

C., Stockin, K.A., 2017. ‘Local abundance, apparent survival and site fidelity of Bryde’s whales in the

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

Hauraki Gulf (New Zealand) inferred from long-term photo-identification’. Endangered Species

Research, 34: 61 – 73.

Thomas, J., Kastelein, R., Supin, A. 1992. Marine Mammal Sensory Systems. Plenum Press, New York.

Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Taggart, C.T. 2007. Vessel collisions with whales: the probability of lethal injury

based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science 23(1): 144–156.

Van Waerebeek, K., Baker, A.N., Felix, F., Gedanke, J., Iniguez, M., Sanino, G.P., Secchi, E., Sutaria, D.,

van Helden, A., Wang, Y. 2007. Vessel collisions with small cetaceans worldwide and with large whales

in the southern hemisphere, an initial assessment. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 6(1).

Visser, I.N., 1999. ‘Benthic foraging on stingrays by killer whales (Orcinus orca) in New Zealand waters’.

Marine Mammal Science, 15(1): 220 – 227.

Visser, I.N., 2000. ‘Orca (Orcinus orca) in New Zealand waters’. PhD Thesis, University of Auckland,

199p.

Visser, I.N., 2006. ‘Benthic foraging on stingrays by killer whales (Orcinus orca) in New Zealand waters’.

Marine Mammal Science, 15(1): 220 – 227.

Visser, I.N., 2007. ‘Killer whales in New Zealand waters: status and distribution with comments on

foraging’. Paper SC/59/SM19 presented to the Scientific Committee of the International Whaling

Commission, Anchorage, Alaska, USA.

Wells, R.S., Scott, M.D., 2009. ‘Common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus’. In, W. F. Perrin and

B. Würsig and J. G. M. Thewissen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals, pp. 249–255. Academic

Press, United States.

White, S. 2018. Proposed Mussels Spat Catching Facility: Supplementary Ecology Report (Ohinau

Marine Farms), Prepared by Pacific Coastal Ecology. Reference 1503 Supplementary Ecology Report,

May 2018.

Wilson, B., Batty, R. S., Daunt, F., Carter, C. 2007. Collision risks between marine renewable energy

devices and mammals, fish and diving birds. Report to the Scottish Executive. Scottish Association for

Marine Science, Oban, Scotland, PA37 1QA.

Wiseman, N., Parsons, S., Stockin, K.A., Baker, C.S., 2011. ‘Seasonal occurrence and distribution of

Bryde’s whales in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand’. Marine Mammal Science, 27(4): E253 – E267.

Wright, A., Kyhn, L. 2014. Practical management of cumulative anthropogenic impacts with working

marine examples. Conservation Biology 29(2): 333-340.

Würsig, B., Lynn, S.K., Jefferson, T.A., Mullin, K.D. 1998. Behaviour of cetaceans in the Northern Gulf

of Mexico relative to survey ships and aircraft. Aquatic Mammals 24: 41–50.

Würsig, B., Gailey, G.A. 2002. Marine mammals and aquaculture: Conflicts and potential resolutions,

pp. 45–59. In: Responsible marine aquaculture. Stickney, R.R.; McVay, J.P. (eds.). CAP International

Press, New York, United States of America.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

APPENDIX HMM1

Table 1 Summary of Marine Mammal Sightings and Strandings in the Area of Interest & Likelihood of Presence in the proposed spat farm

Common Name Scientific Name NZ Conservation Status

(Baker et al., 2019)

Qualifier * IUCN Conservation Status

www.redlist.org

DOC Stranding database

(No. of events in AOI)

DOC Sightings database

(No. of reports in AOI)

Likelihood of presence at proposed farm

Blue whale Balaenoptera musculus sp

Data deficient TO Critically endangered (1) Two subspecies of blue whale occur in NZ waters (Antarctic and pygmy blue whales). Coastal sightings are not uncommon around NZ with a concentration of spring and summer sightings being noted for NE North Island (Berkenbusch et al., 2013), but there are relatively few sightings recorded in the AOI. For this reason, it is unlikely that blue whales will be present around the proposed spat farm.

Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus Nationally endangered

De, PF, SO, Sp Least concern (11) (10) Constantine (2002) reported the range of the coastal bottlenose dolphin population along the northern North Island to be from Doubtless Bay to Tauranga. This species is frequently sighted in the AOI (including inside Mercury Bay) and is therefore likely to be present around the proposed spat farm.

Bryde's whale Balaenoptera edeni Nationally critical CD, DP, SO Data deficient (2) (13) Bryde’s whales are known from the north-eastern coastal region between East Cape and North Cape (Gaskin, 1963). There are few places worldwide where Bryde’s whales are frequently sighted, with the Hauraki Gulf and Northland region supporting one of the few known resident populations in the world (Constantine et al., 2012). Within the AOI, sightings of this species are relatively common in open waters and one sighting has been reported inside Mercury Bay. Based on this it is possible that Bryde’s whales could be present around the proposed spat farm, but most sightings are in deeper open coastal waters.

Common dolphin Delphinus delphis Not threatened DP,SO Least concern (18) (31) Both the Hauraki Gulf and Bay of Plenty support common dolphin populations on a year-round basis (Dwyer et al., 2016; Meissner et al., 2014). Neumann et al. (2002) confirmed that at least some individuals move between the Hauraki Gulf and Mercury Bay on the east coast of the Coromandel Peninsula - approximately 100 km. This species is commonly seen in the AOI (including within Mercury Bay); hence common dolphins are likely to be present around the proposed spat farm.

Cuvier's beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris Data deficient SO Least concern (5) This species is found in deep waters (> 200 m) and is thought to prefer steep bathymetry near the continental slope in water depths greater than 1,000 m (Taylor et al., 2008a). On this basis, it is unlikely that Cuvier’s beaked whales will be present around the proposed spat farm.

Dwarf minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata

Data deficient DP, SO Least concern (2) Coastal sightings of minke whales are not uncommon around NZ (Berkenbusch et al., 2013). However, despite a small number of stranding events for this species, no sightings have occurred within the AOI. On this basis, it is unlikely that minke whales will be present around the proposed spat farm.

False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens Naturally uncommon

DP, T?O Data deficient (2) Mostly found in deep, offshore waters but also occasionally over the continental shelf and shallower areas (Berkenbusch et al., 2013). Forage down to water depths of 500 m (Shirihai & Jarrett, 2006). Based on this information it is unlikely they will be present around the proposed spat farm.

Gray's beaked whale Mesoplodon grayi Not threatened S?O Data deficient (7) This species has a circumpolar distribution south of 30° and occurs in deep waters beyond the shelf edge (Taylor et al., 2008b). Therefore, despite the reasonable number of stranding events reported for the AOI, it is unlikely that Gray’s beaked whales will be present around the proposed spat farm.

Hector's dolphin Cephalorhynchus hectori sp.

Nationally vulnerable

CD, DP, PF Endangered (7) There are two subspecies: South Island Hector’s dolphin (C. hectori hectori) and Maui’s dolphin (C. hectori maui). Maui’s dolphins are present on the west coast of the North Island, and South Island Hector’s dolphins are present around the South Island (see Baker et al., 2010). The Coromandel Peninsula is considered outside of the normal distributional range for both subspecies. Based on this information and despite the small number of sightings in the AOI, it is unlikely that Hector’s dolphins will be present around the proposed spat farm.

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Migrant SO Least concern (2) (7) Humpback whales migrate northwards along coastal NZ from May to August (Gibbs & Childerhouse, 2000), and southward from September to December (Dawbin, 1956). During migrations they typically use continental shelf waters (Jefferson et al 2008) and can approach closely to shore when passing headlands or moving through confined waters (e.g. Gibbs et al., 2017). Of the seven sightings from the AOI none have occurred inside Mercury Bay, therefore it is unlikely that humpback whales would be present around the proposed spat farm.

Orca Orcinus orca Nationally critical DP, S?O, Sp Data deficient (2) (12) Small groups of orca are typically seen around New Zealand where they travel an average of 100 – 150 km per day (Visser, 2000). Some groups of are thought to feed predominantly on rays which can bring them into very shallow coastal waters (Visser, 2000). Sightings in the AOI are relatively common, including sightings inside Mercury Bay. On this basis, it is likely that orca will be present around the proposed spat farm.

Leopard seal Hydrurga leptonyx Naturally uncommon

De, SO Least concern (1) During spring and summer leopard seals are typically found around the Antarctic pack ice; however, in autumn and winter they disperse northwards where they are occasionally observed along NZ’s coastline. It has been suggested that at least some leopard seals reside around the New Zealand coast for months at a time (Leopard Seals, 2019). Leopard seals are rare visitors to the Coromandel; hence are unlikely to be present around the proposed spat farm.

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

Common Name Scientific Name NZ Conservation Status

(Baker et al., 2019)

Qualifier * IUCN Conservation Status

www.redlist.org

DOC Stranding database

(No. of events in AOI)

DOC Sightings database

(No. of reports in AOI)

Likelihood of presence at proposed farm

Long-finned pilot whale Globicephala melas Not threatened DP, S?O Data deficient (9) (2) Pilot whale sightings occur in NZ waters year-round (Berkenbusch et al., 2013). Long-finned pilot whales commonly strand on New Zealand coasts; with the stranding rate peaking in spring and summer (O’Callaghan et al., 2001). Because pilot whales forage at depth (i.e. several hundred metres; Berkenbusch et al., 2013), they do not routinely occur in very shallow coastal waters. Therefore, despite the small number of sightings and strandings from the AOI it is unlikely that pilot whales will be present around the proposed spat farm.

Melon-headed whale Peponocephala electra Vagrant SO Least concern (1) This species occurs in deep oceanic waters. Sightings are relatively rare over the continental shelf (Brownell et al. 2009). They are primarily distributed in waters ranging from 300 to 2,000 meters in depth (Brownell et al. 2009). Based on this and the lack of sightings from the AOI, it is unlikely that this species would be present around the proposed spat farm.

New Zealand fur seal Arctocephalus forsteri Not threatened Inc, SO Least Concern (6) NZ fur seals are widespread around rocky coastlines on the mainland and offshore islands from Three King’s Islands to Macquarie Island. Despite most breeding locations for this species occurring on the South Island, this species is expanding its range northwards (Lalas & Bradshaw, 2001) and regular breeding now occurs as far north as Gannet Island in Waikato (Bouma et al., 2008). While this species forages over the continental shelf and shelf break (Page et al., 2005), they return to shore every few days. On the east coast of the Coromandel, fur seals tend to increase in number from May/June and stay for the winter months (J. Blakemore, DOC, pers. comm.). On this basis it is likely that this species will have a seasonal presence around the proposed spat farm.

Pygmy right whale Caperea marginata Data deficient S?O Data deficient (1) Pygmy right whales are the smallest, most cryptic and least known of the baleen whales (Fordyce & Marx, 2012). In New Zealand, sightings typically occur near Stewart Island and Cook Strait (Kemper, 2002). Based on this and the lack of sightings from the AOI, it is unlikely that this species would be present around the proposed spat farm.

Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps Data deficient DP, S?O Data deficient (5) Pygmy sperm whales are seldom seen at sea on account of their low profile in the water and lack of a visible blow; for this reason, little information is available on this species. They are, however, known to be a deep-water species (Taylor et al., 2012). Therefore, despite the small number of strandings from the AOI it is unlikely that this species will be present around the proposed spat farm.

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Data deficient TO Endangered (2) This species is generally found in offshore, deep waters beyond the continental slope (Horwood, 2009). Based on this and the low number of sightings in the AOI, sei whales are unlikely to be present around the proposed spat farm

Shepherd's beaked whale Tasmacetus shepherdi Data deficient SO Data deficient (1) A circumpolar distribution in cold temperate waters is presumed. Thought to be relatively rare and occur in deep water usually well offshore (Taylor et al., 2008c). Based on this and the lack of sightings from the AOI, it is unlikely that this species would be present around the proposed spat farm.

Southern bottlenose whale

Hyperoodon planifrons Data deficient SO Least concern (4) This species has a circumpolar distribution in the southern hemisphere, south of about 30°S (Jefferson et al., 1993); however, most sightings are from about 57°S to 70°S (Taylor et al., 2008d). Knowledge of the biology of this species is scarce, but they are thought to be a deep-water species (Baker, 1999). Based on this and the lack of sightings from the AOI, it is unlikely that this species would be present around the proposed spat farm.

Southern right whale Eubalaena australis Recovering OL, RR, SO Least concern (11) Coastal waters around mainland New Zealand represent a historic calving ground for this species, with recent evidence suggesting a slow recolonization of this breeding range (Carroll et al., 2014). Southern right whales utilise shallow coastal waters as their winter calving and nursery grounds (Patenaude, 2003). In this respect, this species is exceptional amongst baleen whales in that they are commonly observed with the naked eye from shore. Of the eleven sightings in the AOI, three have occurred inside Mercury Bay. On this basis it is possible that southern right whales could be present around the proposed spat farm

Spectacled porpoise Phocoena dioptrica Data deficient S?O Data deficient (1) Spectacled porpoises occur only in cold temperate waters, with their distribution thought to be restricted to the circumpolar sub-Antarctic (Baker, 1999; Goodall, 2002). Based on this and the lack of sightings from the AOI, it is unlikely that this species would be present around the proposed spat farm.

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Data deficient DP, TO Vulnerable (6) (1) Sperm whales have a wide global distribution but are predominantly found in deep waters (> 1,000 m) in the open ocean over the continental slope (Berkenbusch et al., 2013). Therefore, despite the small number of sightings and strandings from the AOI it is unlikely that sperm whales will be present around the proposed spat farm.

Strap-toothed whale Mesoplodon layardii Data deficient S?O Data deficient (1) This species occurs between 35-60°S in cold temperate waters and prefers deep waters beyond the shelf edge (Taylor et al., 2008e). Based on this and the lack of sightings from the AOI, it is unlikely that this species would be present around the proposed spat farm.

* Qualifiers to the New Zealand Threat Classification System are as follows: Secure Overseas (SO), Uncertain whether the taxon is secure overseas (S?O), Threatened Overseas (TO), Data Poor (DP), Conservation Dependent (CD), Sparse (Sp), Range Restricted (RR), Increasing (Inc), One Location (OL), Designated (De), Population Fragmentation (PF)

ALH-395890-2-847-V9

of 44

Figure 1: Summary of Marine Mammal Sightings (blue dots) and Strandings (red dots) in

the Area of Interest (light blue polygon)

BEFORE THE WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL ... - wrcweb.cwp… · ALH-395890-2-847-V9 Page 1 of 44 BEFORE...

Documents

Transcript of BEFORE THE WAIKATO REGIONAL COUNCIL ... - wrcweb.cwp… · ALH-395890-2-847-V9 Page 1 of 44 BEFORE...