Offshore aquaculture in New Zealand and its potential effects ...

Offshore aquaculture in New Zealand and

its potential effects on seabirds

Offshore aquaculture in New Zealand and its potential effects on seabirds

Baylee Connor-McClean, Samantha Ray, Mike Bell and Elizabeth Bell

Wildlife Management International Ltd PO Box 607 Blenheim 7240 New Zealand www.wmil.co.nz

This report was prepared by Wildlife Management International Limited for the Ministry of Primary Industries.

30th June 2020

Citation:

This report should be cited as:

Connor-McClean, B.; Ray, S.; Bell M. & Bell, E. 2020. Offshore aquaculture in New Zealand and its potential effects on seabirds. Unpublished Wildlife Management International Technical Report to the Ministry of Primary Industries.

All photographs in this Report are copyright © WMIL unless otherwise credited, in which case the person or organization credited is the copyright holder.

http://www.wmil.co.nz/


1

Contents

1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3

2. New Zealand seabirds ..................................................................................................................... 4

2.1 Diversity ........................................................................................................................................ 4

2.2 Important breeding colonies ........................................................................................................ 5

2.3 Important foraging areas .............................................................................................................. 8

3. Offshore aquaculture .................................................................................................................... 10

3.1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 10

3.2 Technology for international offshore farming .......................................................................... 11

3.2.1 Salmon offshore farming..................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1.1 Floating pens .................................................................................................................... 11

3.2.1.2 Semi-submersible cages ................................................................................................... 12

3.2.1.3 Submersible structures .................................................................................................... 13

3.2.1.4 Technologies being developed......................................................................................... 14

3.2.1.4.1 Closed cages ................................................................................................................... 14

3.2.1.4.2 Havfarm ......................................................................................................................... 15

3.2.1.4.3 Semi-submersible Spar Fish Farm ................................................................................. 16

3.2.2 Mussel offshore farming ..................................................................................................... 17

3.2.2.1 Long-line systems .......................................................................................................... 17

3.2.3 Seaweed offshore farming .................................................................................................. 19

3.2.3.1 Seaweed carrier ........................................................................................................... 19

3.2.3.2 Ring system ................................................................................................................... 19

3.2.3.3 Macroalgal Cultivation Rig (MACR) .............................................................................. 20

3.2.3.4 Horizontal nets .................................................................................................................. 21

3.3 Applications for offshore farming of King salmon in New Zealand ........................................... 21

3.3.1 New Zealand King Salmon application ................................................................................ 21

3.3.2 Ngāi Tahu Seafood Resources application .................................................................... 22

3.3.3 Sanford Limited application .............................................................................................. 23

4. Aquaculture effects on seabirds ................................................................................................... 25

4.1 Artificial light attraction .............................................................................................................. 26

4.1.1 Shielding light visibility ......................................................................................................... 26

4.1.2 Flashing and strobing lights ................................................................................................. 26

4.1.3 Lights of differing wavelengths ............................................................................................ 27

4.1.4 Submerged lighting .............................................................................................................. 27

4.2 Entanglement .............................................................................................................................. 27


2

4.2.1 Predator-proof netting systems ........................................................................................... 28

4.2.2 Increasing net visibility ......................................................................................................... 28

4.2.3 Submersible sea cages ......................................................................................................... 28

4.2.5 Tension of longlines and netting systems ............................................................................ 29

4.2.6 Deterrents ............................................................................................................................ 29

4.3 Noise ........................................................................................................................................... 30

4.3.1 Soundless engineering ......................................................................................................... 30

4.4 Pollutants .................................................................................................................................... 30

4.4.1 Rubbish management .......................................................................................................... 32

4.4.2 Improved feeding techniques .............................................................................................. 32

4.4.3 Chemical Waste Management ............................................................................................. 32

4.4.4 Mobile farming ..................................................................................................................... 32

4.5 Pest species and biosecurity ....................................................................................................... 33

4.5.1 Distance to offshore predator free islands and biosecurity checks ..................................... 34

5. Risk assessment of aquaculture on seabirds ................................................................................ 35

5.1 Context and scope ...................................................................................................................... 35

5.2 Risk Analysis: Potential effects of offshore aquaculture on seabirds in New Zealand ............... 37

6. Acknowledgements ....................................................................................................................... 46

7. References .................................................................................................................................... 46

8. Appendices .................................................................................................................................... 63


3

1. Introduction

New Zealand is a global seabird biodiversity hotspot, with more species of seabird breeding or regularly occurring in New Zealand waters than anywhere else on the globe. There are ninety-two species breeding in the country, and a further twenty species regularly occurring in New Zealand waters during their non-breeding season (Gill, et al., 2010; New Zealand Birds Online, 2013). An estimated fourteen million seabirds breed in New Zealand, with some of the world’s largest seabird colonies occurring on our “seabird islands” (Forest & Bird, 2014a; 2014b). The waters around New Zealand provide important foraging areas, with high seabird species richness occurring in northern and southern areas.

As a result of this high seabird biodiversity, any human food production or harvesting in the marine environment is likely to lead to seabird interactions. With the increasing demand for seafood globally, the aquaculture industry is looking to expand from inshore habitats to those more offshore. A variety of offshore aquaculture technologies are currently used and being tested worldwide to farm fish, bivalve and seaweed species. These technologies include floating pens, semi-submersible structures, submersible structures, mobile farms, long line structures, and seaweed ring, mat, and net systems (See references in following sections). In the last two years there have been three resource consent applications for offshore marine fish farming in New Zealand (New Zealand King Salmon, 2019; Stantec, 2019; Sanford Limited, 2020), while offshore mussel farming has begun (Toi-eda, 2009; Whakatohea, 2020), which has highlighted the need for a review into the effects offshore aquaculture may have on seabirds in New Zealand.

Aquaculture has the potential to produce a range of disturbances to seabirds, which if not managed correctly, can have negative consequences. Numerous studies worldwide have been carried out to measure the effects that aquaculture has on seabird populations, including their island habitats and marine ecosystems. With New Zealand surrounded by oceans and having favourable climates to many seabird populations, it is crucial that the effects these farms may have on New Zealand’s seabird populations are taken into consideration.

This report has three main sections. Firstly, we start by discussing the known status of seabirds in New Zealand, including their breeding distribution and at sea foraging range. We then review the technologies currently being used and developed for offshore farming of salmon, mussel, and seaweed globally – and then specifically the recent resource consent applications lodged in New Zealand. We then move to reviewing the potential impacts offshore marine farming may have on seabirds in New Zealand – including discussing management actions required to reduce the risk to seabirds.


4

2. New Zealand seabirds

2.1 Diversity

There are approximately 10,400 species of birds worldwide (Gaskin & Rayner, 2013), although only 370 of these are categorized as ‘seabirds’ (Jenkins & Van Houtan, 2016). Many seabirds in New Zealand breed on islands but possess unique physiological and morphological adaptations that enable them to spend significant lengths of time out at sea, some travelling from one side of an ocean to the other (Taylor, 2000).

Aotearoa/ New Zealand is surrounded by productive oceans (StatsNZ, 2016), influenced by subtropical and subantarctic currents optimizing feeding opportunities for seabirds. The absence of mammalian predators for millennia prior to human arrival and our extensive coastline has created a multitude of breeding habitats for seabirds (Gaskin & Rayner, 2013). This has resulted in the New Zealand archipelago being home to the greatest diversity of resident seabird species than anywhere else on Earth (92 species, Table 1) (Whitehead et al, 2019). Of these, 36 species are endemic to New Zealand (Taylor, 2000, Forest & Bird, 2014a) earning the country the title of ‘seabird capital of the world.’ Further, one third of all global seabird species are regularly found foraging within New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) during part of their annual life cycle (Forest & Bird, 2014a).

Worldwide seabird populations have declined, becoming the most threatened bird group globally (Croxall, et al., 2012; Rodríguez, et al., 2019; Robertson, et al., 2017). In New Zealand 32 native species are ‘threatened with extinction’, with 12 species classed as ‘nationally critical’ including albatross, penguin, petrel and shag species (Ministry for the Environment & Statistics, 2016; Robertson, et al., 2017). A further 51 species are at ‘risk of extinction’ (Ministry for the Environment & Statistics, 2016; Robertson, et al., 2017). It is crucial that any activities in the marine environment consider the impacts on seabird breeding sites and offshore foraging areas.

Table 1. Number of species of seabird breeding or visiting New Zealand per family group (Gill, et al., 2010; New Zealand Birds Online, 2013).

Family Breeding Regular non-breeding visitor Vagrant

Penguins 6 9

Albatross 14 2 4

Petrels 26 7 10

Shearwaters 9 2 7

Storm petrels 7 1 2

Tropicbird/Frigatebirds 1 3

Gannet/Booby 2 1 1

Shag/Cormorants 13 1

Skua/Gulls 4 3 2

Tern/Noddies 10 3 5

Total 92 19 44


5

2.2 Important breeding colonies

New Zealand has a vast coastline and many offshore islands which support approximately 14 million breeding pairs of seabirds (Forest & Bird, 2014a; 2014b). Breeding colonies differ in habitat, topography and nesting type depending on the species, although most breeding sites are on offshore islands or coastal headlands (Table 2). Most nesting sites remain close to the ocean and are vulnerable to rapid changes caused by humans (Waugh, et al., 2013). Various species are less adapted to responding to these changes and such influences may affect them during their breeding season (Waugh, et al., 2013).

Table 2. Breeding habitat of each seabird group breeding in New Zealand.

Group Breeding habitat

Penguins In burrows, or on the surface, nesting under vegetation, amongst boulders or in open colonies behind the shoreline, some birds can travel hundreds of metres inland to breed.

Albatross Surface nesters or under forest on windswept islands of the Southern Ocean

Petrels In burrows on offshore islands under forest, scrub, or tussock from sea level to 600m; a few species are surface nesters

Shearwaters In burrows on offshore islands under forest, scrub, or tussock from sea level to 1500m

Storm petrels In burrows or under dense cover or rocks on offshore islands in forest, scrub or tussock

Tropicbird/Frigatebirds Only found breeding in the Kermadec Islands, nesting on the ground or in low vegetation

Gannet/Booby Breeding on exposed rocky offshore islets or headlands

Shag/Cormorants Wide variety of breeding sites, from rocky offshore islands, cliffs or nesting in trees depending on the species

Skua/Gulls Breeding on rocky offshore islets or headlands and river mouths, one species breeds inland on braided rivers

Tern/Noddies Breeding on rocky offshore islets or headlands and river mouths, one species breeds inland on braided rivers

With 92 species of seabird breeding in New Zealand, to identify seabird breeding hotspots we mapped all significant breeding colonies of each species. An assessment of a significant breeding colony was based on the number of breeding pairs at each site in relation to the family of seabird (Table 3). A colony of >20 penguins constituted a significant breeding colony, whereas >1,000 shearwaters was required to be considered a significant breeding colony. Colonies of endangered seabirds (based on the New Zealand Threat Classification System (Robertson, et al., 2017), regardless of size, were also considered to be a significant breeding colony.


6

Table 3. Number of breeding pairs required to constitute a significant breeding colony.

Group Breeding habitat

Penguins >20 breeding pairs

Albatross >100 breeding pairs

Petrels >1,000 breeding pairs

Shearwaters >1,000 breeding pairs

Storm petrels >500 breeding pairs

Tropicbird/Frigatebirds >20 breeding pairs

Gannet/Booby >500 breeding pairs

Shag/Cormorants >20 breeding pairs

Skua/Gulls >500 breeding pairs

Tern/Noddies >500 breeding pairs

Significant breeding colonies for all species were identified and mapped (Figure 2; refer to Appendix 1 and 2 for references). Seabird breeding is not evenly distributed around the country, with hotspots in the Subantarctic Islands (including Snares, Campbell, Antipodes, and Bounty Islands), Stewart Island, Chatham Islands, Banks Peninsula, Marlborough Sounds, and the Hauraki Gulf area (Figure 2).

Figure 1. A breeding colony of King shags in the Marlborough Sounds (photographed by Dan Burgin).


7

Figure 2. Locations of significant breeding colonies of seabirds in New Zealand, where each orange dot represents a significant seabird breeding colony, incudes Chatham Islands, Subantarctic Islands and Kermadec Islands (data and references displayed in Appendix 1 & 2).


8

2.3 Important foraging areas

Whilst consideration of breeding locations of seabirds is important, consideration of foraging areas is equally essential. New Zealand provides foraging grounds for the highest threatened species diversity than anywhere else in the world (Forest & Bird, 2014a; Figure 3). During the non-breeding season, one third of global seabird species are regularly found within New Zealand’s EEZ highlighting the importance of undisturbed waters at various foraging hotspots (Forest & Bird, 2014b).

Figure 3: Seabird species richness on a global scale overlaid with spatial research effort for seabirds highlighting New Zealand’s position as a global hotspot for seabirds. Sourced from Mott & Clarke, 2018.

Seabird species all have varying foraging ranges, some restricted to harbours, estuaries, and bays (Forest & Bird, 2014b). In contrast pelagic species spend most of their lives in marine areas remote from land. These areas are usually related to specific oceanographic features, such as shelf breaks, ridges, sea mounts, eddies, upwellings and convergence zones creating many foraging hotspots around New Zealand’s diverse marine topography (Forest & Bird, 2014a).

Previously, foraging areas were recorded by observations from vessels, however in recent years, the use of GPS and satellite tracking devices are drastically changing our knowledge on seabird foraging locations and behaviour (Forest & Bird, 2014a). A significant number of tracking studies on New Zealand seabirds has been undertaken, providing fine scale information of foraging range of many species, and broader scale habitat use assessments from global location sensing tags.

To investigate species richness throughout New Zealand waters, we collated data from published and unpublished sources on foraging range from tracking studies (refer to Appendix 2 for references). If tracking data were not available, an approximation of foraging range was made based on tracking data of the closest related species. In total, we identified tracking data (or a close proxy from a related species) for 60 species of seabirds breeding in New Zealand (including Chatham and Subantarctic Islands but excluding the Kermadec Islands).


9

A polygon was drawn for each colony using the mean foraging range as the radius for generating the polygon. For multi-colony species, each colony polygon was merged to give a single polygon showing the approximate at-sea distribution for that species during the breeding season. Each species’ distribution was “clipped” with an outline of New Zealand and its outlying islands to remove any areas that overlapped with land. All polygons were then converted to point files and combined to allow for kernel density analysis. To generate the kernel density map, a smoothing parameter (radius) of 300km was used and applied to a 1km x 1km grid over the extent of the species distributions to identify foraging hotspots (Figure 4). All GIS analyses was carried out in QGIS version 2.18. As the mean foraging range has been mapped from breeding colonies, it is recognised that there is a bias to species breeding colonies rather than foraging areas in Figure 4. As more tracking work is carried out for different seabird species, a clear picture will be formed on the key foraging areas for New Zealand’s seabirds. However, Figure 4 still provides a picture of high seabird activity areas around New Zealand.

The highest species richness was found around the Subantarctic Islands (including Snares, Campbell, Antipodes, and Bounty Islands), Foveaux Strait/ Stewart Island area, Chatham Islands, Fiordland, Hauraki Gulf, and Northland area.

Figure 4. Heat map showing important foraging areas for seabirds during their breeding season, where darker blues represent foraging areas for a large richness of seabirds and pale colours signify less richness of seabirds foraging in those locations (References in Appendix 2).


10

3. Offshore aquaculture

3.1 Background

There is a large demand for seafood globally. In 2016, 171 million tonnes of seafood (including fish, crustaceans, molluscs, and other aquatic animals) were produced across the globe (FAO, 2018). Aquaculture produced just under half of this at 80 million tonnes and included 54.1 million tonnes of finfish, 17.1 million tonnes of molluscs, 7.9 million tonnes of crustaceans and 0.9 million tonnes of other aquatic animals (FAO, 2018). Aquaculture also produced 30.1 million tonnes of aquatic plants, as well as 0.03 million tonnes of products not used for consumption, including shells and pearls (FAO, 2018). Aquaculture is the fastest growing food producer in the world, although growth has slowed since the 1990’s (FAO, 2018).

The majority of aquaculture is carried out at inland sites rather than coastal or marine sites (FAO, 2018) where the water is more protected from weather. However, there is an increasing interest in establishing aquaculture in offshore sites. The definition for offshore farming varies but is most often described by the distance from the shore, being exposed to oceanic waves and more extreme weather (Muir and Bascuro, 2000; Holmer, 2013; Lovatelli, et al., 2013). The definition produced from the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations (FAO) workshop is described in the table below:

Table 4. Distinguished characteristics between Coastal, Off-coast, and offshore marine farming (Lovatelli, et al., 2013; also in Muir & Basurco, 2000; Holmer, 2013)

Characteristics Coastal Off-the coast Offshore

Location/hydrography <500m from the coast <10m depth at low tide within site usually sheltered

0.5 – 3 km from the coast 10-50 m depth at low tide often within sight somewhat sheltered

>2km generally within continental shelf zones possibly open ocean >50m depth

Environment Hs usually <1m short period winds localised coastal currents possibly strong tidal streams

Hs <= 3-4 m, localized coastal currents some tidal streams

Hs 5 m or more, regularly 2-3 m oceanic swells variable wind periods possibly less localized current effect

Access Accessible 100% landing possible at all times

> 90% accessible on at least once daily basis landing usually possible

Usually >80% accessible landing may be possible, periodic, e.g. every 3-10 days

Operation manual involvement, feeding, monitoring and more

Some automated operations, e.g feeding, monitoring and more

Remote operations, automated feeding, distance monitoring, system function

Exposure sheltered Partly exposed (e.g. >90 degrees exposed)

Exposed (e.g. >180 degrees)

Hs= significant wave height


11

There are several factors causing the industry to look at farming further offshore, including limited space inshore for the industry to grow and improved water quality offshore with less pollution and less eutrophication occurring (Holmer, 2013). Offshore sites are more exposed and are thought to be better at dispersing waste such as faeces and feed waste (Holmer, 2013). Moving offshore is also expected to reduce the instances of sea lice in farmed finfish and reduce transmission to wild populations (Holmer, 2013). Parasite occurrence is also an issue for inshore mussel farms, but instances may be lower in offshore environments (Buck, et al., 2005). Despite these proposed advantages to offshore farming, there are some additional challenges which inshore or close to shore sites do not experience. Offshore conditions are more extreme, and structures need to be able to withstand larger waves and stronger currents. Therefore, structures produced for inshore farming cannot be used offshore and very few structures are currently in use at offshore sites (Buck, et al., 2018) although more technologies are being developed.

Farming offshore is a relatively new method for farming fish. Developments for offshore farming are occurring in Norway, China, the USA, Mexico, Panama, Chile, Singapore, Brunei, Indonesia, Turkey and Australia for a variety of fish species including Hawaiian Kanpachi (Seriola rivoliana), Yellowtail jack (Seriola lalandi), striped bass (Morone saxatilis), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), totoaba (Totoaba macdonaldi), red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus), cobia (Rachycentron canadum), Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), Coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), yellow croaker (Larimichthys polyactis), barramundi (Lates calcarifer), grouper (Epinephelinae) and sea bream (Sparus aurata) (California Environmental Associates, 2018). Currently there are no operational offshore finfish farms in New Zealand, however three applications for resource consent have been submitted to farm king salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytschaII) offshore.

Mussels can also be farmed in the offshore environment (Cheney, et al., 2010). Blue mussels (Mytilus edulis) and Mediterranean mussels (Mytilus galloprovincialis) have been farmed offshore in the USA, Germany, Norway, Belgium, and Denmark (Cheney, 2010; Goseberg, et al., 2017). In New Zealand, the first experimental offshore Greenshell mussel (Perna canaliculus) farms, were installed in Hawkes Bay in 2005 (Goseberg, et al., 2017). Trials into farming seaweed offshore is occurring in Norway, Germany, Spain, the Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, and the United Kingdom with only a few farms producing seaweed commercially (Roesijadi, et al., 2008; Buck, et al., 2017). However, no farms are operational in New Zealand presently. There have also been trials in multi-use sites, combining existing offshore structures such as wind farms with mussel and seaweed structures (Buck & Langan, 2017; Mizuta, et al., 2019). Wind farms are also being trialled as integrated multi trophic aquaculture (IMTA) sites using fish, bivalve and seaweed structures. Combining extractive species such as bivalves and seaweeds with fish farms can reduce the organic waste produced from farmed fish (Buck, et al., 2017). Nutrients from the waste is used to grow the bivalves and seaweed, and these farmed species can in turn be harvested as well (Troell, et al., 2009).

3.2 Technology for international offshore farming

The technologies currently being used and those being developed internationally for offshore salmon, mussel and seaweed farming are discussed below:

3.2.1 Salmon offshore farming

Salmon farming offshore currently uses or are developing technologies that are floating, semi-submersed, fully submersible or closed structures.

3.2.1.1 Floating pens

Huon Aquaculture have developed floating flexible cages, called Fortress pens, for offshore farming. These pens were designed, for Coho salmon farming, at Storm Bay, Tasmania which is a high energy,


12

exposed site with storm swells and gale winds. Pens were also tested in Providence Bay, New South Wales for yellowtail kingfish (Seriola lalandi). The project began in 2012, with trials in the water in 2013 (Huon Aquaculture, 2020a). Farms are now operational in Storm Bay.

Pens are either square or round with circumferences ranging from 120m-240m and volumes of 10,000-72,000m3 (Huon Aquaculture, 2020a). Fortress pens of 240m circumference can hold 800 tonnes of fish (Huon Aquaculture, 2020d). Fortress pens have a two-net system below the water; an outer net to exclude predators such as seals and sharks and inner net which holds the salmon, each net separated by 2-7m (Huon Aquaculture, 2020b). The outer predator net is always kept tensioned while the inner net has a unique tension system which it allows it to move with the pen (Huon Aquaculture, 2020b). Out of the water is an additional net covering the top of the cage, held up high above the water, by flexible poles to exclude birds from entering the pen, with an escape hatch to allow birds to leave if they do manage to enter (Huon Aquaculture, 2020c). Nets are made from Kevlar and pen structures from high density polyethylene (HDPE) or nylon (Huon Aquaculture, 2020a). Each pen also has a walkway for staff to work. Pens are moored to the seabed and managed remotely.

Farms are fed by moored feed barges with three currently in Storm Bay and another arriving in 2020 which can be operated remotely (Huon Aquaculture, 2020d).

Figure 5. Circular (left) and square (right) Fortress pens (Huon Aquaculture, 2020a).

3.2.1.2 Semi-submersible cages

Semi-submersible structures are those which are partially submerged or could be submerged below the water surface for periods of time such as during storm events.

Ocean Farm 1 Ocean Farm 1 is a cage structure, based on an oil rig design, developed by SalMar in Norway, and built in China. The pilot of Ocean Farm 1 began in 2017 and is located 5km off the coast of Frohavet, Norway. Ocean Farm 1 is a semi-submersible, rigid structure, which is slack anchored offshore. It is operational at depths of 100 to 300m and can withstand waves up to 11m (SalMar, 2017; Jak et al. 2019). With a height of 68m and a diameter of 100m, this structure has a volume of 250,000m3 and can hold 1.5million Atlantic salmon (SalMar, 2017; Jak, et al., 2019; Wang & Park, 2019). Ocean Farm 1 can be divided into three sections, for different farming operations and fish can be handled on board (SalMar, 2017). SalMar are finding the farm is operating well with fish growing well and few salmon lice present (SalMar, 2018).


13

Figure 6. Ocean Farm 1 in construction (left) (Wang and Park, 2019), Ocean Farm 1 in the water (right) (SalMar, 2017). Smart Fish Farm The Smart Fish Farm designed by SalMar, Norway, started development in 2019. The design is based on Ocean Farm 1 but the Smart Fish Farm is larger at 160m wide. This structure will be able to be installed in more exposed conditions, in open water 20-30 nautical miles off Trøndelag and able to hold twice as many salmon (SalMar 2018; 2019). This structure will be at an ‘oil-rig scale’, and is designed to produce over 12,000 tonnes of fish and withstand waves up to 15m high (California Environmental Associates, 2018) and will have eight production chambers (SalMar, 2018).

Figure 7. Smart Fish Farm. Source Fish Farming Expert, 2019.

3.2.1.3 Submersible structures

Submersible structures are those which are lowered below the water surface and anchored closer to the seafloor (Holmer, 2013).

Akva ‘Atlantis’ Pens Akva Atlantis Pens are developed in Norway and fish were first deployed in 2019. The pens are moored to the seabed and are designed to be submerged at depths of 25-40m. These pens are made of plastic and are 160m in circumference. Pens are remotely operated, and can be inflated by filling with air, or submerged by filling with water. The centre of the pen is a dome providing air for the fish (AKVA Group, 2019).

Sanford Limited are working with AKVA Group to design a pen based on the Atlantis design for their proposed farm off Stewart Island. Like the Atlantis pens they are moored to the seabed and can be raised by inflating with air or lowered by filling with water allowing the pens to be submerged in adverse weather. The pens are designed to be moored 30-60m off the seabed. The pens are proposed


14

to be 120m in circumference, have a depth of 25m, with a total volume of 27,000m3. Sites will also have a vehicle to supply food (Porter, 2020).

Feeding and cleaning are carried out under water. A feeding system will provide food to the fish at low depths to reduce the attraction of birds to the pens (Porter, 2020; Sanford Limited, 2020). Cameras and sensors are underwater to monitor the fish and their feeding behaviour. A remotely operated vehicle (ROV) will clean and monitor the nets. An air dome will also be present to provide air to the fish. Moorings will be monitored with GPS and strain gauges to monitor any movement and tension on the moorings. LED lighting will also be underwater to allow growth in the fish (Porter, 2020) lights will be angled downward to reduce light spill (Sanford Limited, 2020).

A single net made from HDPE will be used and kept at tension to exclude predators. But a predator net could be installed if needed. A bird net will not cover the top of the pen, instead a HDPE net which will hold the fish and jump poles will be able to prevent predators entering the pen while it is underwater and on the surface (Porter, 2020).

Figure 8. Diagram of Akva Atlantis 120m circumference pens (Porter, 2020).

Figure 9. Akva Atlantis pen receiving fish and being submerged (Porter, 2020).

3.2.1.4 Technologies being developed

3.2.1.4.1 Closed cages

Closed cages to farm salmon are being designed and tested and include the Egg and Marine Donut.

The Egg

The egg is a concept from Marine Harvest in conjunction with Hauge Aqua being trialled in Norway (California Environmental Associates, 2018). The egg is a closed farm with the aim to prevent sea lice occurring and to reduce food waste and fish escapes (Hauge Aqua, 2020). The Egg is proposed to be 44m in height and 33m wide, to have a volume of 22,000m3 and be able to hold up to 1,000 tons of salmon (Norsk Fiskeoppdrett, 2018). Ninety percent of the egg is always submerged.

Water enters the egg by being sucked up by pumps from 20m below the water surface. The water then flows in a circular movement to the top, where it leaves the tank 4 metres below the water surface (Hauge Aqua, 2020). The water quality and volume can be controlled to maintain oxygen levels and to reduce carbon dioxide levels withing the egg. Light is also controlled. Fish faeces and food waste


15

are filtered into a separate tank to be removed. The egg will also be supported by a feed barge and power (Hauge Aqua, 2020). However, this project may be on hold.

Figure 10. Outside structure (left) and inside structure (right) of the Egg (Hauge Aqua, 2020).

The Marine Donut

The Marine Donut is also a concept from Marine Harvest (California Environmental Associates, 2018). This structure was originally designed for fjords in Norway but can be placed in more exposed locations and can withstand wave heights up to 3m. This is a closed structure made from HDPE material and is 22,000m3 in volume. The structure is semi-submerged with 90% of it under water and water will be pumped up from deeper water into the closed structure. Two permits were approved, which would produce a total of 1100 tonnes of salmon and rainbow trout for up to 7 years. The Marine Donut will be supported by feed barges and a control centre (Jensen, 2019a; Fish Farmer Magazine, ND).

Figure 11. The Marine Donut concept (Fish Farming Magazine, 2019).

3.2.1.4.2 Havfarm

Havfarm is an offshore farm concept which is based on a ship hull, designed by Nordalks in Norway. There have been three designs for the Havfarm concept. Havfarm 1 was designed to be 431m long and 54m wide and is designed to hold 10,000 tonnes of salmon (Jak, et al., 2019; Wang & Park, 2019) and has been built to withstand waves up to 10m (Ship

https://haugeaqua.com/technology/egget


16

Technology, 2018). Havfarm 1 will be stationary and permanently moored about 5km south west of Hadseloya, Norway. The structure is made of steel and, and has 6 individual mesh pens, 50m across and 10m deep. Havfarm 1 will have propellers for the structure to move around the mooring. Operation of Havfarm 1 was planned to begin in mid-2020 (Ship Technology, 2018). Havfarm 2 will be moored but will be able to lift anchor and move locations with an engine. If adverse weather occurs the farm will be able to move to a more sheltered location (Ship Technology, 2018). Havfarm 3 has not been built yet but will be designed to move between sites changing conditions offshore. Conditions may be influenced by the time of year, weather and wind. This structure will stay stationary by using “propulsion machineries” but can be anchored if it is to stay in one location for a long period of time (Jenson, 2019b).

Figure 12. Havfarm design (Nordlaks, ND).

3.2.1.4.3 Semi-submersible Spar Fish Farm

The semi-submersible Spar Fish Farm (SSFF150) was designed by De Maas SMC for farming yellow croaker (Larimichthys polyactis) in China but could be used for salmon. This design is based on Ocean Farm 1 and is suitable for deep water. SSFF150 can withstand very high winds by submerging 10m under the water surface. SSFF150 is 139m in diameter and 12 meters tall (California Environmental Associates, 2018) and can hold up to 3,000 tonnes of yellow croaker (Fish Farming Expert, 2020).

This structure has a middle tower (“spar”) which holds the machinery for operating the structure, food will be stored here and contains housing for people operating the farm (California Environmental Associates, 2018).


17

Figure 13. Semi-submersible Spar Fish Farm (Fish Farming Expert, 2019).

3.2.2 Mussel offshore farming

3.2.2.1 Long-line systems

Long-lines were first trialled offshore in New Zealand in 2005 at Hawkes Bay for Greenshell mussels (Perna canaliculu). Offshore longlines structures were based on the long lines traditionally used in New Zealand inshore waters (Goseberg, et al., 2017). Inshore longlines are made up of a backbone (a rope) which extends from 100m to 200m along the water surface. A longline then drops down from the backbone, attaching at one side of the backbone and drops down to 10 to 15m and then loops up to the other side. The longline then follows along the backbone and suspends down again (between 3000m to 4000m of longline is hung from the backbone). These longlines can produce between 6.5kg to 13kg of mussels per metre over a 12-month to 20-month period. Longlines are moored to the sea floor by chains at the ends of the backbone. Inshore longlines have either single or double backbones (Goseberg, et al., 2017).

Offshore longlines were similar to those currently used inshore however, only a single backbone was used and the backbone was submerged under the water surface, attached to buoys on the surface. Submerging the ropes provides more protection from waves to reduce losing mussels from the lines (Goseberg, et al., 2017).


18

Figure 14. A cross section of a sub-surface longline marine farm (Goseberg, et al., 2017).

The first commercial offshore greenshell mussel farm in New Zealand is located 8.5km off the Ōpōtiki coast in the Bay of Plenty (Toi-eda, 2009; Whakatohea, 2020). This farm started as a trial in 2001 (Whakatohea, 2020) but began commercially harvesting mussels in 2016 (Ōpōtiki District Council, 2017). This farm also uses longlines, submerged below the water surface (Toi-eda, 2009). The farm’s resource consent also allows farming other species such as scallops (Pecten novaezealandiae), pacific (Crassostrea gigas) and flat oysters (Tiostrea chilensis), geoducks (Panopea zelandica), paua (Haliotidae family), seaweeds and sea cucumbers (Stichopus mollis) (Toi-eda, 2009).

Submerged longlines have also been trialled overseas for growing blue mussels similar to the longlines used in New Zealand. Trials for growing blue mussels on submerged longlines at wind farms in the German Bight were carried out in 2002 and 2003 (Buck, 2007). Pilots and research for submerged longlines have also been carried out for IMTA projects in the USA (Buck, et al., 2017; Mizuta & Wikfors, 2019). Additionally, blue mussel farms combined with wind farms have been studied in the Netherlands and Denmark (Buck, et al., 2017). Currently, offshore mussels are farmed in France and Italy, using submerged lines (Danioux, et al., 2000; Buck, et al., 2017).

Set and forget system

The set and forget system are a new system currently being developed by the Cawthorn Institute, Nelson, New Zealand. This is also a fully submersible system but instead uses a double backbone. The set and forget system are similar to the submerged longlines, but floats are secured directly along the backbone. There are also moorings every 35m along the backbone. The backbone is pushed below the surface to the wanted depth and the set and forget system is engaged. The mussels are then left until they are to be harvested, when the mechanisms are released for the backbone to rise to the surface (Goseberg, et al., 2017).


19

Figure 15. Cross section of the set and forget submersible shellfish system (Goseberg et al. 2017).

3.2.3 Seaweed offshore farming

3.2.3.1 Seaweed carrier

The seaweed carrier was developed in Norway and is a “sheet like structure”, similar to a large seaweed plant. The structure has a single mooring to the sea floor allowing the sea carrier to move back and forward in the waves. It designed to withstand rough water and has few parts (Seaweed Energy Solutions AS, ND; Buck, et al., 2017; Buck, et al., 2018).

3.2.3.2 Ring system

The ring system was found to be successful in producing algae offshore. The design involved a ring of 5m diameter, made of polyethelene tube, with a steel cable inside. The ring was able to float with a centre buoy. Ropes were secured through the ring, like a cobweb design and culture line was suspended from these to produce brown algae (Laminaria saccharina). A crow’s foot was used to attach the ring on a mooring system. (Buck & Buchholz, 2004).


20

Figure 16. Ring system developed for offshore algae farming. (Buck & Buchholz, 2004).

3.2.3.3 Macroalgal Cultivation Rig (MACR)

The Macroalgal Cultivation rig was developed by Ocean Rainforest and was tested for exposed and

deep water farming of brown algae (Saccharina latissima) and winged kelp (Alaria esculenta) in Faroe

Islands, in the Northwest Atlantic Ocean. This system uses a longline rig system and has a polysteel backbone of 500m, with surface floats at either end. Seed lines are used to grow the juvenile sporophytes in hatcheries, which are then wrapped around the growth lines before being deployed at sea. Growth lines are connected to the backbone, with a surface float, allowing the lines to be perpendicular in the water. The structure was also moored to the seafloor by four anchor lines. This system is easy to set up and use and provides the ability to switch species between harvests. The growth lines can also be lowered to a horizontal position in adverse weather to prevent damage (Figure 17; Bak, et al., 2018)

Figure 17. Macroalgal Cultivation Rig (MACR). Seed lines (A) are twined around growth lines (B) that are attached at 2-m intervals to the fix line (C) by a loop and held in a vertical position by a buoy. Two main surface floats (D) and four steel anchors (E) ensure the right position of the rig (Bak et al. 2018).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/saccharina-latissima

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/alaria-esculenta


21

3.2.3.4 Horizontal nets

Ecofys and Hortimare carried out a trial for growing Larminaria species offshore at a wind farm in the Netherlands in 2012. This system involved steel cables moored to the sea floor and buoys at the water surface, with horizontal nets between the cables. The trials were successful, and a small offshore farm was established off the Island of Texel (Buck, et al., 2018).

3.3 Applications for offshore farming of King salmon in New Zealand

Inshore salmon farming is established inshore in New Zealand; in Marlborough, Southland and Canterbury, however, there is now interest in establishing farms offshore. We have found three applications for resource consent to farm King salmon in the open ocean in New Zealand;

• New Zealand King Salmon have proposed farming 6-12km north of Cape Lambert, Marlborough

• Ngāi Tahu Seafood Resources have proposed farming between 1.5-6km off the Northern coast of Rakiura/Stewart Island

• Sanford Limited have proposed farming 28km south of Bluff.

3.3.1 New Zealand King Salmon application

New Zealand King Salmon produces the most King salmon globally at 8,300 tonnes annually (New Zealand King Salmon, 2019). New Zealand King Salmon have consent for eleven inshore farms in the Marlborough Sounds (Marlborough Salmon Working Group, 2016; New Zealand King Salmon, 2019) and currently eight of these are in use (New Zealand King Salmon, 2020). In 2016, the Marlborough Salmon Working Group recommended establishing offshore salmon farms to the Marlborough salmon farming industry to “ensure ongoing environmental improvement and social improvement” (Marlborough Salmon Working Group, 2016). NZ King Salmon feel the technologies are now available for an offshore farm to be developed in New Zealand (New Zealand King Salmon, 2019).

New Zealand King Salmon have proposed an offshore site 6 to 12km north of Cape Lambert, in the Marlborough Sounds (New Zealand King Salmon, 2019). The site is approximately 1,792 hectares in size and ranges in depth from 60-110m. There is a 2% probability that waves are greater than 3m and mean mid-depth current speed is 0.35m/s with a max of 1.24m/s (New Zealand King Salmon, 2019). The technology which will be used at this site has not been determined but the proposed design at Stage 1 is to use two sets of pens. Each of these pens will contain eight plastic black net pens of up to 200 metres in circumference each, each set of pens will be supported by one barge (in total 16 pens and 2 barges). Each pen will produce 500 tonnes of fish annually. Proposed stage 2 is to double the production, over 40 pens (New Zealand King Salmon, 2019).


22

Figure 18. Proposed design for the New Zealand King Salmon offshore salmon farm (New Zealand King Salmon, 2019).

3.3.2 Ngāi Tahu Seafood Resources application

Ngāi Tahu Seafood Resources currently hold consents for spat and mussel production in Tasman, Marlborough and Canterbury. Ngāi Tahu Seafood Resources do not currently farm finfish but do hold a lease for a small farm site in Marlborough which is leased to Plant and Food Research as a trial site for finfish aquaculture and are also involved in aquaculture research groups (Stantec, 2019).

Ngai Tahu have an increasing interest in finfish aquaculture. In addition, the Crown has an obligation “….to provide aquaculture space in accordance with the Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004 to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu” (Stantec, 2019). Therefore, Ngāi Tahu Seafood Resources has proposed a site North of Rakiura/Stewart Island to establish a King salmon marine farming site.

The proposed site is 2500 hectares in size off the North coast of Rakiura/Stewart Island and ranges from 1.5 to 6km offshore with a depth range of 20-50m in Foveaux Strait. The site experiences a maximum wave height of 3m and strong currents. The farm is proposed to produce 30,000 tonnes of fish annually. Three different types of farms are proposed within the site for the different life cycles; a broad stock farm (for rearing and breeding stock), two smolt farms (used to grow smolt from a land based hatchery) and four grow out farms (smolt transferred here when they reach 1.5kg and harvested at 4.5kg) (Stantec, 2019).

The structures for this site need to be able to withstand strong currents, wind and wave conditions. Therefore, large circular pens like those produced by Akva or Huon have been proposed for this site. The pens are to be submersible and suspended at a depth of 17 – 22 m below the sea surface. Ngāi Tahu Seafood Resources are considering two different net structures: the first is a two net system, one which holds the fish with an outer net held tightly to exclude predators from the salmon; or a single strong net that will both hold the fish and prevent predators entering the nets (Stantec, 2019).

Feed barges will also be used for the smolt farms and grow out farms. The pens and feed barges would need to be anchored to the seabed, with concrete anchors and mooring lines attaching to the anchors


23

and pen nets. This project will roll out in stages to trial equipment for the farm and to monitor environmental effects (Stantec, 2019).

3.3.3 Sanford Limited application

Sanford Limited currently carries out greenshell mussel aquaculture with a mussel hatchery in Nelson, farms in Tasman Bay, Golden Bay, Marlborough Sounds, Canterbury, Rakiura/Stewart Island, Waikato and Auckland and processing plants in Marlborough and Tauranga. Sanford Limited also operates king salmon farms hatcheries in Kaitangata, Waitaki and North Canterbury as well as farms in Rakiura/Stewart Island and a processing plant in Bluff (Sanford Limited, 2020).

Sanford Limited are looking to expand offshore due to the increasing demand for King salmon. Sanford Limited have proposed an offshore farming project ‘Project South’ made up of five farming areas (at least 8km away from each other), 28km from Bluff, South of Ruapuke Island, with a depth of approximately 50-80m. Project South will farm up to 25,000 green weight tonnes (GWT) of King salmon annually. Each of the five farming areas will have ten circular pens and a barge, 157.4ha in size for each area. Sanford has been working with the AKVA Group to design a pen for Project South. The design is based on the submersible AKVA Atlantis pens. The 120m circumference pens will be moored to the seabed and can flooded or inflated to raise and lower the structure when needed (Sanford Limited, 2020).

Figure 19. The proposed location of the Five farming areas (Sanford Limited, 2020).


24

Figure 20. Diagram of the Project South pens, barge, mooring lines and feed pipes (Sanford Limited, 2020).

Figure 21. An example layout for a Project South farming area using 120m circumference pens (Sanford Limited, 2020).


25

4. Aquaculture effects on seabirds

Over recent years, applications for resource consent to establish offshore marine farms around New Zealand have begun to increase. With no previous history of offshore farming in the country, careful consideration of the effects these farms may have on New Zealand’s seabirds must be carried out using science-based information.

Primarily due to anthropogenic factors, seabirds have undergone substantial population declines, becoming the most threatened group of birds worldwide (Rodríguez, et al., 2019, Croxall, et al., 2012). This highlights the need for the aquaculture industry to apply management actions that will minimize effects on declining seabird populations.

Many studies have been undertaken worldwide to measure the potential interaction between marine finfish, shellfish and seaweed aquaculture, and seabird populations. Interactions can have detrimental or in some cases, beneficial impacts upon seabirds that breed or forage within close proximity of aquaculture farms, or that use shared waters as a passageway for migration.

Numerous studies have found that aquaculture farms can be attractive to many seabird species that prey on fish and predatory invertebrates, such as crabs attracted to mussel longlines (Burnell, 1996; Boelens, et al., 1999; Davenport, et al., 2003). A Chilean study found that diving seabirds were two to five times more abundant in areas where salmon farms were located in comparison to sites that were marine farm free (Callier, et al., 2018).

This could pose a threat to diving seabirds that can become entangled in netting and longlines. Plunge diving species, such as Australasian gannets, are also at risk of colliding with farming structures as they enter the waters at high speeds (Biswell, 2017).

Within New Zealand’s aquaculture industry, there have been no reports of seabird deaths due to entanglement (Sagar, 2013a; Butler 2003; Lloyd 2003; White, 2018). However, reports of entanglement in overseas marine farms show that this is still a possibility without appropriate management actions, such as distance from important seabird areas (Iwama, et al., 1997).

Due to New Zealand being a seabird hotspot, a significant number of Important Bird Areas (IBAs) have been identified. This includes 97 IBA sites on land, including offshore islands, which identify key seabird breeding sites; and 69 offshore IBA sites in oceanic areas that are crucial foraging sites of species with a limited range, or key foraging areas for pelagic seabirds (Forest & Bird, 2014a). With many of New Zealand’s seabird species being in decline and under threat (Robertson, et al., 2017), it is essential that marine farmers and fisheries acknowledge Important Bird Areas (IBAs) and reduce disturbance around these areas to prevent disruption to natural behavioral patterns.

Aquaculture naturally produces a range of disturbances to seabirds (such as noise and lighting) which, if not managed correctly, can have negative consequences (such as seabird attraction or repulsion, disorientation, and collisions). Surman & Dunlop (2015) noted that birds were found with regurgitated meals on decks after they had been disorientated by lights and collided into vessels, thereby depriving nestlings of a meal. Lights have also disorientated inexperienced fledglings that orientate towards light on the horizon, easily being vulnerable to artificial lights around them, such as shearwaters and storm petrels (Surman & Dunlop, 2015).

If a breeding colony is disrupted by any external factor, possible consequences are nest abandonment, reduced breeding success and local population declines (Anderson, et al., 2011). By keeping aquaculture farms away from seabird colonies and nearby foraging areas, negative impacts from human disturbances that result from seabirds being displaced or disturbed at their breeding sites is reduced.


26

We investigated the effects that offshore aquaculture had on seabird communities through numerous local and international studies. Further we discuss findings on the implementation of management actions to mitigate these interactions.

4.1 Artificial light attraction

Artificial lighting is used within aquaculture for navigation and slowing down fish maturation by manipulating circadian rhythms (Hansen, et al., 2017; Soltveit, 2016; Delabbio, 2015; Orrego, 2015). Birds travelling and foraging at night can be attracted to lights resulting in collision with structures, and in many cases causing injuries, or fatalities (Sagar, 2013a). On vessels, nocturnal bird collisions are more frequent when bright, artificial light sources angled outwards or upwards are used during times of poor visibility, during bad weather, or when a vessel is relatively close to large breeding colonies (Le Corre, et al., 2003; Rodríguez, et al., 2012). In the absence of the moon and during low foggy conditions, birds flying above the fog in the starlit sky have been known to drop down through the mist to the lights (Evans Ogden, 1996). Black (2005) records that almost 900 prions, storm petrels, and diving petrels were found on deck of a trawler that was travelling in darkness during a calm, foggy night with strong ice-lights resulting in over one quarter being found dead. This extreme case highlights the importance of minimizing effects caused by artificial lighting.

Many seabird species, particularly fledglings, can be disorientated by artificial light sources. Birds use a variety of orientational cues such as the stars, setting sun, the moon and topographical features (Moore, 1987; Berthold, 1993; Martin, 1990). Post breeding season, many shearwater and storm petrel fledglings depart nesting grounds and head to sea during the pre-dawn darkness. These young, inexperienced birds navigate and orientate towards light on the horizon and use the moon as an orientational reference leaving them vulnerable to being attracted to artificial lighting (Baker, 1984). Confusing the artificial light source with the moon and other environmental cues causes many to become disorientated, often ending up in coastal towns or colliding with vessels resulting in injury or mortality (Surman & Dunlop, 2015). Nights of full moon reduces the attraction of seabirds to lights (Reed, et al., 1985)

Various studies within aquaculture that focus on adverse effects of lighting have found that the following actions have contributed to less attraction to seabirds (McClellan, et al., 2020; McVeagh, 2012; MPI, 2013; Reed, et al., 1985).

4.1.1 Shielding light visibility

To prevent birds from being attracted to lights during foggy conditions, lights can be shielded. By shielding lights, disorientation in birds flying above lights will be minimised. This technique has been implemented and proven successful in Hawaii, preventing collision of many endangered seabirds (Reed, et al., 1985). The presence of a moon at any phase also seems to reduce the effects of artificial lights (Martin, 1990).

4.1.2 Flashing and strobing lights

Modifications to lighting measures such as changed lights from a constant beam to flashing or strobe lighting have been proposed in marine-based industries, but many remain untested (McClellan, 2020). This method of lighting is preferable to a constant beam as the interruption of light seems to allow birds caught in the beam of light to be able to disperse (Baldwin, 1965; Avery, et al., 1976). Studies in Ontario have demonstrated that mortalities have almost completely been eliminated by switching from floodlighting to strobe lighting (Broughton, 1977; Chubbuck, 1983). However, the opposite has also been observed with seabirds becoming disorientated and landing with strobe lighting (G. Taylor, pers. comm.). Further research is needed to determine if flashing or strobing lighting is an effective seabird deterrent.


27

4.1.3 Lights of differing wavelengths

White light is commonly associated with major migratory bird kills and while there is little evidence that suggests that the spectral composition of lights has an effect on bird collisions, several studies indicate that red, blue, yellow, and green light may be less attractive than white light (McClellan et al, 2020; Broughton, 1977). While red light has been shown to reduce the level of bird mortality, one study indicates that red light could have the potential to disrupt the magnetic orientation of migrating birds (Wiltschko, et al., 1993). A formal trial was conducted by Rodríguez, et al. (2017) concluding that high pressure sodium lights attracted fewer seabirds than light emitting diodes (LED), and considerably less seabirds than metal halide lights.

The wavelengths of yellow and red lights could also be less attractive to plankton and other marine life, preventing concentrations near the ocean’s surface under the lights. This would minimize disruptions to the natural foraging behaviours of some such as red-billed gull populations which have been sighted feeding at night under offshore lights (Surman & Dunlop, 2015).

4.1.4 Submerged lighting

By submerging the lights at depth rather than near the surface, and by using downward pointing lights, visibility from the surface will be low minimising effects on seabirds. Cages that have installed lights for controlled fish maturation usually have little spread outside of the pens, preventing effects on marine species outside of the cages (McClellan, et al., 2020). Downward pointing lights can be used in cages to further minimise effects created by attraction to lights from above the water’s surface.

Other possible mitigation measures include controlling the lights based on conditions and time of year, for example reducing the lights on foggy nights when birds are more attracted to lights and reducing light use when seabirds are fledging nearby (G. Taylor, pers. comm.). These measures will need further investigation to determine their effectiveness.

4.2 Entanglement

Within fishery and aquaculture industries, avian interactions occur on a regular basis. There are some beneficial interactions for seabirds such as roosting on marine farms where birds can rest between foraging stretches, reducing energy expenditure, and possible terrestrial predation (McClellan, 2020). However, numerous seabirds continuing to roost on aquaculture structures increases the risk of negative interactions such as entanglement (Surman & Dunlop, 2015; Ministry of Primary Industries, 2013; Sagar, 2013a).

Seabird mortalities derived from entanglement within commercial fisheries and marine farming is a widely known issue that occurs worldwide. Within New Zealand, a number of species have become entangled and drowned in commercial fisheries equipment including sooty shearwater, black petrel, Campbell albatross, and yellow-eyed penguin (Bell, 2014; Bell & Bell, 2018; Crawford, et al., 2017; Thompson, 2010). However, these mortalities are all related to fishing methods such as trawling, gill and set netting. There have been no reports of seabird deaths because of entanglement within aquaculture farms in New Zealand (Sagar, 2013a). Aquaculture entanglement cases overseas have recorded mortalities due to varying aspects of the cage netting design with birds (mainly shags) drowning after entering sea cages (Iwama, et al., 1997).

Seabirds seizing fish and fish-food out of marine farm pens is also a common issue that can lead to entanglement. A study in Tasmania observed cormorant species, white-bellied sea eagles and fur seals all capturing fish out of the pens, while red-billed gulls fed on the automatically distributed fish food over the pens (Pemberton, et al., 1991), leading to a number of entangled mortality cases every year (Huon Aquaculture, 2020c). This signifies that in New Zealand there is potential for scavenging and


28

diving birds attracted to fish and feed pellets to become entangled in fish containment nets and anti-predator nets surrounding the cage without seabird-friendly net designs involved.

The following components of net designs have been researched in numerous studies and have been found to affect the natural behaviours of seabirds in differing ways:

4.2.1 Predator-proof netting systems

To prevent the likelihood of birds and other marine species from being drawn to fish farms and risking entanglement, many farms in the aquaculture industry have added outer anti-predator nets to surround the fish cages, creating a barrier to reduce attempted predation on the fish, leading to potential entanglement of species in the fish nets (Ministry for Primary Industries, 2013). Mesh size would need to ensure that the smallest seabird species such as the diving petrels are also excluded from the fish, otherwise species such as the critical Whenua Hou diving petrel could be at risk. It is likely a mesh size of less than 60mm is needed but this would need to be tested before implementation (G. Taylor, pers. comm.). In Australia, entanglement of predatory birds, such as White-bellied sea eagle, gulls, cormorants, and ospreys, has been an ongoing issue (Pemberton, et al., 1991; Surman & Dunlop, 2015; Australian Marine Parks, 2001). A two-year net development project was undertaken by Huon Aquaculture to design a strong fortress pen that supported an outer predator-proof netting system (Huon Aquaculture, 2020a). Predator-proof nets are designed to keep seals, sharks, and seabirds away from the fish, eliminating piercing through fish nets into cages, and drowning as a result (Sagar, 2013a; SAMS Research Services Ltd, 2018). Standard buffering distances used between predator nets and the main cage are advised to be around 1.5m with predator nets having an appropriate net size of around 60mm (Boffa Miskell Limited, 2019). Such standards are used for Huon Aquaculture’s Fortress Pen and while the farms still entangle a variety of seabirds (mainly in their above-water bird net), it is not clear what characteristics of the netting are leading to entanglements (McClellan, 2020; Huon Aquaculture, 2020a). No studies or descriptions of fish farms with an absent anti-predator netting were found, so it is possible that structures without additional predator nets on the outside of fish farms could reduce seabird entanglement further (McClellan, 2020). However, other factors, such as shark and seal predation, could still have negative effects.

4.2.2 Increasing net visibility

A large problem fisheries encounter is catching diving seabirds in their nets. However, gillnet fisheries often use fine, transparent, monofilament nets which leads to a decreased visibility and therefore, increased risk of seabird entanglement (Melvin, et al., 1999; Žydelis, et al., 2013). Due to the absence of needing transparent nets within finfish farming, aquaculture netting should be stronger and more visible to reduce entanglements. Research conducted by Nemtzov and Olsvig-Whittaker (2003) examined 101 netted fish pens using 11 different net types varying in mesh size, material, colour, and thickness, and studied the influence these had on bird mortality. Results stated that levels of mortality were primarily determined by net visibility. Fewer birds were entangled in nets with dark-coloured netting and reduced mesh size (20-30mm), made of woven nylon 1.8-2.0mm thick.

4.2.3 Submersible sea cages

Whilst there are many structures used by various companies to eliminate avian interactions with the farms, submergible sea cage structures have the least surface area for birds to land and least visibility of the fish from above. In 2005, a trial was conducted where oyster bags were submerged approximately 3-6cm under the ocean’s surface to try and discourage seabirds from roosting on them. St-Onge, et al. (2007) reported that less birds were observed on the submerged oyster bags and could be considered a potential mean for minimizing the attraction of birds to marine farms. Fish cages can be submerged even deeper, eliminating interaction of surface seizing birds. There is risk for diving birds, such as Australasian gannets (Morus serrator) to collide with unseen cages, however their predominantly coastal foraging habitats reduce this risk for offshore aquaculture farms.


29

4.2.4 Installing top nets over cages

To prevent foraging birds from plunging into pens from above, many finfish farms have placed nets over the pens which also excludes physical interactions with pens. Huon Aquaculture’s fortress pens have higher, more taught nets keeping birds away from the fish and fish feed pellets (Huon, 2017; NOAA, 2005). With denied opportunity to perch and access food, seabirds are discouraged from interacting with the pens as a place to rest or feed. If a bird lands on the netting, a small mesh size and taught structure enables the birds to become airborne again without being tangled in the net (McClellan, 2020). The mesh size is also very important to prevent the legs and feet of birds slipping through the net as this could result in entanglement or injuries such as leg sprains or breaks.

4.2.5 Tension of longlines and netting systems

To prevent seabirds from colliding with nets and longline systems, risking entanglement, the element of net and line tension must be taken into consideration. However, the most effective level of tautness is less clear as various studies have resulted in different findings. Russell, et al. (2012) confirms that netting should be strung tight to prevent the weight of any perched seabirds from causing the net to dip. As mentioned above, the taught structure also enables birds to become airborne again if they accidently land on the netting. However, other studies mention that nets should not be strung too tightly as tightly pulled nets entangle many birds which is likely due to reduced visibility compared to nets that are more loose causing movement to occur within the water and with the wind, increasing visibility (Russell, et al., 2012; Nemtzov & Olsvig-Whittaker, 2003). While the most effective level of tautness is unclear, altering this aspect is easy to undergo allowing farms to adjust the slack when needed. Within mussel farms, loose and thin lines tend to create the highest threat to diving seabirds. New Zealand mussel farms have low entanglement risks due to long lines being placed under considerable tension (Ministry for Primary Industries, 2013).

4.2.6 Deterrents

To prevent seabirds from being attracted to aquaculture farms, the use of deterrents could be implemented. Deterrents have been trailed and used within fisheries to repel birds from taking baited hooks (Brothers, 1995), and similar designs could be effective in keeping feeding and roosting seabirds away from farms, minimising the risks of harmful effects that result from seabird interactions with farms.

Designs differ between fisheries but include lines with suspended streamers or towed objects such as buoy bags (Brothers, et al., 1999). Studies from around the world have noted a significant reduction in seabird bycatch and interaction with longline fisheries around Norway (Løkkeborg & Bjordal, 1992; Løkkeborg, 1998; Løkkeborg, 2001; Løkkeborg, 2003; Løkkeborg & Robertson, 2002), Hawaii (Boggs, 2001), Chile (Ashford & Croxall, 1998), Alaska (Melvin, et al., 2001), Japan (Minami & Kiyota, 2004) and studies on the New Zealand pelagic tuna longline and demersal ling (Genypterus blacodes) auto line fisheries (Imber 1994; Smith 2001). Fisheries on the Chatham Rise found that the aerial section of their bird scaring lines seemed to keep all seabirds, with an exception of cape pigeons (Daption capense), away from longlines (Smith, 2001) with particular success on larger seabirds such as albatross.

Other deterrent ideas for seabirds include dripping shark liver oil on the ocean, trials found this significantly reduced the number of seabirds following boats and the number of dives by seabirds (Pierre & Norden, 2006), however cod liver oil, tuna and vegetable oils have also been found to be attractive to some storm petrel and petrel species (Lequette, et al., 1989). Therefore, the use of oils may be a risk to birds. Additionally, increased net visibility was also found to deter seabirds (Bull, 2007) as well as reflective deterrents above and below water. The selected colour effective in repelling birds is currently under studied. For information on repelling birds with various lighting techniques, refer to section 4.1.


30

4.3 Noise

Noise produced by aquatic technology such as vessels and mechanical harvesters is well transmitted in marine environments which can have a variety of attraction and repulsive effects on seabirds and other marine life. The generation of noise within aquaculture contributes to habitat degradation, impacting several seabird species within the area. At finfish farms, noise can be continuous due to the hum of a generator while shellfish and seaweed farms appear to be more intermittent, becoming louder during maintenance and harvesting (Forrest & Hopkins, 2017). Many seabirds are sensitive to noise disturbance and can be displaced from foraging locations and colony sites in response to this disturbance (Kaiser, et al., 1998, Connolly & Colwell 2005). Keeley, et al. (2009) claims that nesting king shags in the Marlborough Sounds were highly susceptible to human disturbance caused by the noise and presence of boats and even aircrafts nearby, leading to part or complete abandonment of nests and chicks.

The following noise reduction techniques have been researched and found to affect the natural behaviours of seabirds in differing ways:

4.3.1 Soundless engineering

To minimize noise disturbance at aquaculture farms, various mobile cage designs have been engineered to function with low noise. One design relies on the natural ocean currents to drift the submerged cage along, which is hooked to a barge (World Fishing & Agriculture, 2013). This requires little motored steering while still enabling the fish cage to enter deeper, exposed waters.

Other devices, such as propellers and generators can be engineered to reduce excess noise levels, and activities such as harvesting can be scheduled at times away from nesting and breeding seasons to reduce the level of disturbance and displacement of seabirds (Shannon, et al., 2015).

Vessels travelling to and from marine farms are advised to keep reduced speeds and remain at a distance greater than 500m from coastal shores to prevent largescale disturbance of breeding birds. Colonies of seabird species with a high threat classification should be avoided from the vessel route altogether.

4.4 Pollutants

Like commercial and recreational fishing, pollutants caused by aquaculture equipment and technology has increasingly become a major threat to seabirds in marine environments. Aquaculture pollutants include hydrocarbons, heavy metals, hydrophobic persistent organic pollutants, excess organic waste nutrients, lost farm equipment, and plastic debris (Thompson, 2013). In particular, plastic pollution is now considered to be at a similar magnitude as climate change due to its negative impacts on biological systems (Whitehead, et al., 2019). As a now essential part of modern society (Gregory, 1999), much of waste produced is mismanaged and can create harmful impacts on the marine ecosystem for considerable lengths of time due to its robustness and persistence in the environment (Bergmann, et al., 2019).

The consumption of plastics by seabirds has been increasing since the first observations internationally in the 1960s (Rothstein, 1973) and in New Zealand seabirds in the 1970s (Gregory, 1978; Harper & Fowler, 1987). Ingestion usually occurs by mistaking plastic as prey, from accidental consumption during foraging activities, and indirect consumption through prey which are known to consume microplastics (Van Cauwenberghe & Janssen, 2014; Lourenco, et al., 2017; Whitehead, et al., 2019). Consumption can cause direct harm through blockages, or internal injury along the digestive tracts (Whitehead, et al., 2019), along with not providing necessary nutrition for activity and growth of birds


31

(Clunies-Ross, et al., 2016), although some seabirds may eventually regurgitate plastics, reducing harmful effects (Hays & Cormons, 1974). Additionally, potential toxicology from plastics transferring to organisms have the potential to be detrimental to seabird populations in New Zealand (Oehlmann, et al., 2009; Teuten, et al., 2009).

Autopsy examination results of four young Laysan albatross confirmed that regurgitation of plastics from parenting birds to chicks occurs in this species (Pettit, et al., 1981). For one young bird, a large quantity of indigestible matter had contributed to intestinal obstruction, while another bird had ulcerations in the mucosa as a result from bulky plastics in the proventriculus (Pettit, et al., 1981).

Another study reported that 15 of 37 marine bird species in Alaska contained plastic particles (Day, 1980). Among seabirds, ingestion of plastics is directly related to foraging behaviour and diet (Ryan, 1987). Within Day’s study, pursuit divers had the largest occurrence of plastic (26%), while 16% of Alaskan surface-seizing feeders and 9% of dip feeders were found to have consumed plastic (Day, 1980). No plunge or piracy feeders contained plastics in this study (Day, 1980).

Organic waste build-up beneath marine farms is another factor that can have an effect on the flora and fauna within the area. High sedimentation rates of dead mussel shells, their faeces and epifauna, and build-up of organic material beneath fish farms can all impact sediment chemistry and overlying water column, creating harmful anoxic conditions (Roycroft, et al., 2017; De Grave, et al., 1998; Crawford, 2001). Whilst off-shore aquaculture can effectively use more exposed, deeper waters than in-shore areas to flush out food and waste nutrients, it is still important to prepare for, and monitor conditions to prevent negative effects from occurring. If waters are not deep enough and currents are weak, the build-up of excess organic waste pollution can lead to a range of effects including a reduction in diversity, to the complete absence of these lower forms of animal life (Mancuso, 2015). Health effects caused by these conditions can be detrimental to fish and seabird predators of fish, causing a deterioration of health (DPIF, 1997; Crawford, 2001).

Chemical use on marine farms have previously been widely used resulting in a build-up of chemical contaminants, many of which persist in the environment, resulting in adverse effects to biota (Hansen & Lunestad, 1992). Various compounds (mercury, dioxins, and polychlorinated biphenyls) can become progressively more concentrated in animal tissue across successive trophic levels in the food chain causing seabirds to be sensitive to contamination (Connell, 1988; Fisher, 1995; Braga, et al., 2000; Päpke & Fürst, 2003).

The use of copper-based antifoulants can also be problematic due to leaching into the environment causing various toxic effects on non-target species (Forrest, et al., 2007; Science for Environment Policy, 2015). This can include reduced growth and reproduction levels in clams (Munari & Mistri, 2007), inhibited phytoplankton growth (Cid, et al., 1995; Franklin, et al., 2001) and damaging of fish gills (Mochida et al, 2006) creating adverse effects on the foraging behaviour of seabirds and contamination.

Exposure to other sources of pollutants can also have substantial effects on both individuals and populations of seabirds. Direct mortality is the most obvious effect, especially when it is related to point-source pollution such as oil spills, which can be known to kill large numbers of birds in a short space of time (Piatt, et al., 1990). However, sub-lethal exposure can also have significant effects, affecting physiology, development, behaviour, and reproductive performance (Whitney & Cristol, 2017; ICES, 2003). Pollutants can also have an indirect impact on seabirds by altering their habitat structure and prey availability (Forest & Bird, 2014a).

The following management actions have been studied and undertaken by various marine industries to help minimize the dangers and impacts of pollution to seabirds:


32

4.4.1 Rubbish management

In order to minimise loose rubbish (e.g. old ropes, netting, floats, empty feed bags, discarded equipment, packaging, etc.), many marine farms seal their waste material in containers or securely stow loose materials on board transport vessels ready to be disposed of on land (Department of Fisheries, 2015). Marine debris spotted around the aquaculture operation is also collected and disposed of by operators. This reduces seabird entanglement or ingestion of particles further. Some vessels also cover scuppers with a mesh to prevent rubbish loss at sea.

4.4.2 Improved feeding techniques

One of the most effective ways of reducing water pollution from fish farms is to minimise feed loss due to farmers over feeding their stock. Food is left uneaten or may be ingested but later regurgitated or excreted undigested through the gut (Seymour & Bergheim, 1991). Seabirds may be attracted to excess fish food causing risk of interaction with the marine farms and entanglement or physical effects from fish feed. Thorpe, et al. (1990) discovered that fish feeding was most active early in the morning and then again in the afternoon. Feed supplied between these periods was largely wasted. Whilst ecosystem effects are minimised in offshore farming due to stronger currents and depths for dispersal, excess nutrients in offshore areas still have the potential to alter ecosystems and species that inhabit these areas which are preyed upon by seabirds (White, 2013).

One aspect of excess fish food provides beneficial outcomes for seabirds due to other marine prey attracted to food resources produced from finfish, shellfish, and seaweed farms. A South Australian Bluefin Tuna farm at Port Lincoln estimates that seabirds (predominantly red-billed gulls) took 790 tonnes of fish food (pilchards) from all tuna pens annually (Harrison, 2010; Surman & Dunlop, 2015). This energy subsidy was observed to allow red-billed gulls nesting nearby to extend their breeding season in parallel to the tuna ranching season, increasing their reproductive output per pair. This has also exponentially increased their local breeding population from 3,300 pairs in 1999 to 27,800 pairs in 2005 (Harrison, 2010). However, this excess food is sourced from the marine ecosystem, so while it may benefit a single seabird species, others may be negatively impacted by the harvesting of their natural prey. The effects of this are unknown and require further investigation.

4.4.3 Chemical Waste Management

To reduce the effects of various compounds (mercury, dioxins, and polychlorinated biphenyls) from being carried down the food chain in animal tissue, many farms have reduced their fish feed content and replaced it with alternatives (Bell, et al., 2005; Berntssen, et al., 2005). This includes vegetable products, which effectively reduce PCB and dioxin concentrations (Bell, et al., 2005; Berntssen, et al., 2005). Additionally, sourcing feed from companies that derive their products from regions where trace contaminants in raw materials are comparatively low can create further reduced contamination in feed and effects on the wider ecosystem (Forrest, et al., 2007).

Techniques that require no antifoulants should also be included in management actions including exposing fouled equipment to air, power washing, soaking marine equipment in freshwater, and applying heat (Fitridge, et al., 2012). A number of non-toxic alternatives to copper-based antifoulants that use natural chemicals extracted from marine organisms, such as corals and sponges which keep their own surfaces free of biofouling (Qian, et al., 2009) are currently in development (Science for Environment Policy, 2015).

4.4.4 Mobile farming

To prevent the issue of waste build up in the waters surrounding marine farms, mobile farming structures have been designed to be constantly on the move over the ocean’s surface, entering waters over 12,000ft deep and distributing waste evenly along the way (Crawford, et al., 2001). The vastness and exposure of these waters to environmental elements significantly diminish the potential problems


33

of anoxic conditions developing by dispersing organic waste materials. The shift from stationary to mobile farming supports healthy environmental standards, enabling local food webs to remain unaltered, keeping levels of marine life and foraging behaviours naturalised with minimal effects (Roycroft, et al., 2017).

4.5 Pest species and biosecurity

Offshore aquaculture has the potential to aid pest species reaching offshore predator free islands in two ways:

1. If farms are between offshore predator free islands and the mainland this could reduce the distance for mammalian pest species to swim by giving them a structure to rest on.

2. Additionally, pest species (animal and plant) could be transported in boats to offshore marine farms and then swim or be dispersed by waves to offshore predator free islands.

A number of introduced mammalian species are a threat to seabirds in New Zealand, and predator

free islands provide a refuge for many of New Zealand’s native species including seabirds. Seabirds

are not well adapted to withstanding predators for a several reasons, they have low reproductive

rates, they nest on the surface or underground and have long chick rearing periods (Mulder, et al.,

2011). Most mammalian predators reach offshore islands with the help of people or will swim short

distances to reach these islands whereas stoats (Mustela erminea) and rats (Rattus spp.) are known

to swim longer distances to reach islands.

Stoats are known to be good swimmers. Taylor & Tilley (1984) found islands less than 1.2km from the mainland were invaded by stoats. However, recently stoats have been found to swim much further, with islands up to 3km offshore at risk of being reinvaded (Veale, et al., 2012a; Veale, et al., 2012b; King, et al., 2014). An incursion also occurred on Kapiti Island, possibly by swimming, which shows there could be a risk out to as far as 5.2km (Veale, et al., 2012; Prada, et al., 2003; Parkes, et al., 2017). Pregnant females pose an even greater risk if they reach offshore islands as they can start a population on the island. Stoats are opportunistic feeders and have been found to feed on seabird eggs, chicks and small adult seabirds. For, example, analysis of stoat scat at a Hutton’s shearwater (Puffinus huttoni) colony on the mainland found adult, chick and egg remains and that Hutton’s shearwaters were the main component of stoat diet (Cuthbert, et al., 2000). Additionally, a single stoat killed around 70 common diving petrel (Pelecanoides urinatrix) on Bethels Beach (Whitehead, 2019).

Rodents are also a threat to seabirds on offshore islands. Ship rats (Rattus rattus) are thought to have

swum about 500m to Motutapere and Tawhitinui Islands (Russell & Clout, 2005). However, Norway

rats (Rattus norvegicus) can swim much further up to 1km and 2km when the water conditions are

good (Russell & Clout, 2005). The Noises islands were reinvaded up to six times by Norway rats from

Rakino, 2.2km away (Clout & Russell, 2006). However, rats are more often accidentally reintroduced

by boats (Bellingham, et al., 2009). Norway and ship rats can prey on adults, chicks and the eggs of

seabirds (Atkinson, 1985; Whitehead, 2019). House mice (Mus musculus) are reluctant swimmers

(Parkes, et al., 2017) but can swim up to 500m (Evans, 1978). Additionally, mice are small and could

easily be transported by humans in vessels. Mice have been implicated in extinctions of, or impact on

breeding populations of native species including those as large as albatross with small, ground nesting

seabirds particularly vulnerable to predation (Jones, et al., 2003; Cuthbert & Hilton, 2004; Mackay, et

al., 2007; Wanless, et al., 2009).

Invasive plant species have the potential to be dispersed to offshore islands from vessels visiting farm

sites. Invasive plant species can have negative impacts on seabird species, including spearing flying

birds, covering nesting sites and tangling birds (Whitehead, 2019).


34

4.5.1 Distance to offshore predator free islands and biosecurity checks

To prevent assisting mammalian predators accessing offshore islands, marine farms should not be established between the mainland and predator free islands. Additionally, offshore marine farms should not be within 6km of offshore predator free islands. Any vessels travelling or working near offshore predator free islands should undergo biosecurity checks to prevent transporting rodents and invasive plant species. This includes checking any gear and the boat for pests and seeds, cleaning gear to remove soil and seeds and ensure gear is sealed (DOC, 2020).


35

5. Risk assessment of aquaculture on seabirds

5.1 Context and scope

This assessment is produced on the current knowledge of seabird interactions with marine aquaculture worldwide. Both the inherent risk (before management actions are implemented) and residual risk (following implementation of adequate management actions) were scored by each author using definitions in Table 4. This evaluated the effects of offshore aquaculture on seabirds, and the nature and level of management actions necessary to bring the risk to seabirds to an acceptable level (refer to section 4.0 for full details on management actions). The average of the three separate scores was used to derive a final inherent and residual risk assessment score.

This assessment has considered all relevant information relating to:

• Potential locations of offshore aquaculture farms

• Seabird species known to inhabit various areas within the vicinity of proposed farm areas

• The projected characteristics of offshore aquaculture farming types

• Studied management actions implemented for minimizing interactions between seabirds and the proposed types of aquaculture farming.

To determine a quantifiable risk level, a consequence versus probability risk matrix for each potential effect previously mentioned was undertaken (Table 5). The consequence rating (1-4) projects the potential outcome of seabird interaction with certain characteristics of offshore farming, where moderate (2) impacts show the maximum level of impact acceptable. The probability rating (1-5) displays the likelihood of such events from occurring. The definitions of probability and consequence levels are all stated in Table 6. The combined score of the consequence and probability ratings is then used to determine the overall Risk Rating (Table 7).

Table 5. Consequence versus probability risk matrix for hazard assessment for seabirds.

Probability

Remote Unlikely Possible Likely

Consequence 1 2 3 4

Minor 1 1 2 3 4

Moderate 2 2 4 6 8

Serious 3 3 6 9 12

Critical 4 4 8 12 16


36

Table 6. Definitions of probability and consequence indicators in relation to aquaculture impacts on seabirds in New Zealand.

Probability Level Probability Definition

Remote A consequence that is very unlikely to occur within aquaculture, yet may still be plausible: probability 1-2%

Unlikely A consequence that is not expected to occur within aquaculture: probability 3-9%

Possible A consequence that may occur within aquaculture: probability 10-39%

Likely A consequence that is expected to occur within aquaculture: probability 40-100%

Consequence level Consequence Definition

Minor Measurable but with minimal impacts that are of an acceptable level. Objectives are able to be met.

Moderate Maximum level of impacts acceptable to still meet objectives.

Serious Above acceptable levels of impact with long term negative effects on objectives. Restoration may be achieved within a short to moderate time frame.

Critical Unacceptable level of impact. Serious negative effects on objectives with restoration being unobtainable or achievable over extensive amounts of time.

Table 7. Combined risk score of offshore farming impacts on seabirds.

Risk Level Risk Assessment Score

Advised Management Response

Negligible 0-2 Acceptable; further levels of action unrequired

Low 3-4 Acceptable; with appropriate actions currently in place

Moderate 6-8 Undesirable; Continue strong management actions with new risk control actions to be introduced within near future

High 9-15 Unacceptable; Increases to management actions required urgently- major management changes required in immediate future

Severe 16 Unacceptable; Increases and major changes to management actions required immediately


37

5.2 Risk Analysis: Potential effects of offshore aquaculture on seabirds in New Zealand

This risk analysis assessment below (Table 8) was created using information provided in numerous scientific studies referred to throughout this report (refer to section 4.0 for details on management actions and references to studies used). By following the recommendations of the level of management actions required, the risk of offshore aquaculture in New Zealand impacting seabirds can be greatly reduced.


38

Table 8. Assessment of risks to seabirds. Hazards were individually analyzed, both inherent hazards with no management actions yet put in place, and their residual hazards (assuming relevant management actions are implemented). (See Section 4 for more detail and references)

Hazard (See section 4.0 for details)

Risk Score (Assuming no management

controls)

Justification & Management Actions (See section 4.0 for details)

Possible Risk Score (Following

implementation of appropriate

management controls)

(1) Pollutants. Pollutants including hydrocarbons, heavy metals, oil spills and organic waste which can have various effects on individual seabirds or whole populations including mortality. Oil created by stock feed and dead fish can also attract seabirds increasing risk of entanglement.

Probability Possible (3)

Consequence

Critical (4)

Hazard Score (12)

Risk Level

High

Consequence: Critical Seabirds are sensitive to the effects of pollutants which can lead to issues in development, physiology and reproductive system performance and survival rates of seabirds. Mortality can also result from point-source pollution events. Probability: Possible Without management actions put in place, it is certain that these pollution events could cause detrimental effects to seabird populations around the farms. Management Actions: Secure loose material, minimize fish feed loss, use less harmful feed alternatives, use techniques that require no antifoulants, waste dispersal through mobile farming systems Significant bird groups affected: Shags, gulls, petrels, prions, shearwaters, albatross, penguins, terns

Probability Unlikely (2)

Consequence

Serious (3)

Hazard Score (6)

Risk Level

Moderate


39

(2) Lighting Management. Attraction, disorientation and mortality of seabirds at night due to aspects of navigational or vessel lighting. Lighting may also increase plankton and other marine life providing nocturnal feeding opportunities for diurnal foragers.


Consequence

Serious (3)

Hazard Score (9)

Risk level

High

Consequence: Serious Many species breeding in NZ are nocturnal and migratory. Likely to be disorientated by lighting at night especially in foggy conditions leading to injury, regurgitation or death. Probability: Possible Certain that without management actions implemented, seabirds will collide with structures or vessels, and fledglings are likely to become disoriented during migration. Red-billed gulls likely to forage at night. Management Actions: Shield lights, use other colours than white lighting, submerge lights, angle lights downwards, only use lights during necessary times Significant bird groups affected: Shearwaters, storm petrels, Pterodroma petrels, red-billed gulls


Consequence

Serious (3)

Hazard Score (6)

Risk Level

Moderate


40

(3) Pests and biosecurity. Marine farms could reduce the distance for pests to swim if they are between offshore predator free islands and the mainland, structures could be used for pests to rest and recover on. Pests (animal and plant) on boats can be transported to marine farms and could then swim or be dispersed to offshore predator free islands.


Consequence

Critical (4)

Hazard score (12)

Risk level

HIGH

Consequence: Critical Many threatened seabird species colonies are on pest free offshore islands, which protects them from pest species. If pests such as stoats or rats were to make it to these islands, they would have a devasting effect on seabirds Probability: Possible Pest species such as stoats and rodents are known to swim; up to 500m (mice), 2km (rats) and 5km (stoats) Management actions: No farms between offshore predator free islands and the mainland. No farms closer than 6kms to offshore islands. Biosecurity checks of boats travelling near offshore islands. Significant bird species affected: Albatross, petrels, storm petrel, shearwaters, penguins

Probability: Unlikely (2)

Consequence:

Critical (4)

Hazard score (8)

Risk level

Moderate


41

(4) Entanglement. Seabird entanglement in sea cage netting, cage top netting, anti-predator netting and long lines during foraging or roosting, causing injury or drowning.

Probability Likely (4)

Consequence

Serious (3)

Hazard Score (12)

Risk level

High

Consequence: Serious Many seabird species are divers or pursuit divers and are already annually caught in fishing nets and lines. Fish farms would be attractive to many seabirds. Probability: Likely Certain that without management actions implemented, seabirds will become entangled. Management Actions: Anti-predator netting installation, increase net visibility through darker netting, reduced mesh size to ensure the smallest seabirds are excluded, thick woven nylon nets, submersed sea cages and shellfish lines, installation of top nets over cages, alter tautness of longlines and netting, use seabird deterrents Significant bird groups affected: Penguins, shearwaters, gannets, shags, petrels

Probability Remote (1)

Consequence

Serious (3)

Hazard Score (3)

Risk Level

Low


42

(5) Disturbance. Disturbance to seabirds or colonies due to site activities and vessel operations can negatively affect individuals and breeding success. Direct disturbance can include noise and activity at farm sites.


Consequence

Serious (3)

Hazard Score (9)

Risk Level

High

Consequence: Serious There is potential for frequent disturbances created at sites close to breeding colonies to negatively affect breeding success. Some disturbances could cause individuals to abandon nest or colony sites temporarily or permanently. Disturbances may repel or attract species to sites altering foraging behaviour. Probability: Possible Certain that without management actions implemented, human and technology disturbance may impact breeding birds. Management Actions: Use of soundless engineering, schedule harvesting times outside of close seabird nesting and breeding seasons, commuting vessels to go slow and distance themselves from coastal areas and avoid areas with Nationally Endangered/ Critical species breeding Significant bird groups affected: Shags, gulls, terns


Consequence

Minor (1)

Hazard Score (2)

Risk Level

Low


43

(6) Marine Debris. Ingestion or entanglement of foreign objects such as plastics and loose farm equipment could lead to injury, or death of seabirds.


Consequence Moderate (2)

Hazard Score (8)

Risk Level

Moderate

Consequence: Moderate Seabirds are vulnerable to ingesting plastics and parts that look like food in the water resulting in negative impacts. Entanglement in foreign objects can also result in injury or mortality. Few impact records of individuals knowingly occur every year. Probability: Likely Without management actions implemented seabirds are likely to ingest waste or become entangled in netting and other loose farming equipment. Management Actions: Secure and seal waste on board vessels to dispose of at appropriate sites on land, collect debris spotted around aquaculture operations Significant bird groups affected: Shearwaters, gulls, shags, penguins, prions, terns



Hazard Score (4)

Risk Level

Low


44

(7) Roosting. Seabirds could be drawn to farm infrastructure as roosting sites leading to risk in collision, entanglement, reduced water quality and negative human interactions. Birds can save energy due to roosting sites and be safe from land based predators.



Hazard Score (8)

Risk Level

Moderate

Consequence: Moderate Roosting could result in negative impacts, but detrimental consequences are unlikely to occur often. Positive impacts for seabirds are likely to result from roosting opportunities on farm structures. Probability: Likely It is likely that the utilization of sea cages or vessels as roosting will occur if management actions are not put in place. Management Actions: Instalment of top nets over cages, use of submersible sea cages and long line structures, use of seabird deterrents, alter tautness of nets Significant bird groups affected: Shags, Gulls, terns


Consequence

Minor (1)

Hazard Score (2)

Risk Level

Low

(8) Attraction due to marine farm Location. Aquaculture farms located near seabird colonies can be attractive to many species, resulting in changes to foraging behaviour.



Hazard Score (6)

Risk Level

Moderate

Consequence: Moderate Seabirds attracted to pens result in energy expenditure from diversions from natural foraging path and differences in foraging behaviour. Marine organisms attracted to mussel and seaweed farms may provide increased feeding opportunities for seabirds within the area. Probability: Possible Possible that seabirds will be attracted to farms without management actions. Management Actions: Locate marine farms away from areas of significant bird areas, seabird deterrents Significant bird groups affected: Albatross, shearwaters, petrels, penguins, gulls, shags



Hazard Score (4)

Risk Level

Low


45

(9) Habitat Exclusion. Loss of foraging habitat due to presence and size of marine farms.


Consequence

Minor (1)

Hazard Score (3)

Risk Level

Low

Consequence: Minor Minimal loss of habitat to foraging seabirds. Probability: Possible Loss of habitat is likely to occur at low levels. Management Actions: Locate marine farms away from areas of significant seabird foraging habitat (e.g. seabed features that cause upwelling zones), minimise noise disturbance Significant bird groups affected: Shearwaters, petrels, gulls, prions


Consequence

Minor (1)

Hazard Score (2)

Risk Level

Low

(10) Attraction due to increased feeding opportunities. Attraction of baitfish, plankton, crustaceans and predatory fish to aquaculture structures and stock/crop could lead to changes in seabird's natural foraging behaviour and locations.


Consequence

Minor (1)

Hazard Score (3)

Risk Level

Low

Consequence: Minor Increased interaction around farms due to increased feeding opportunities could result in negative effects such as entanglement and changed foraging behaviour. Additional food resources could impact size of breeding populations. Probability: Possible Without management actions, baitfish are likely to aggregate around sea cages resulting in the likelihood of exploitation by seabirds. Management Actions: Minimize feed loss, use of deterrents, installation of anti-predator netting, installation of top nets, only necessary lighting used Significant bird groups affected: Terns, cormorants, gulls, penguins


Consequence

Minor (1)

Hazard Score (2)

Risk Level

Low


46

6. Acknowledgements

Thank you to the Ministry for Primary Industries for funding this project and special thanks to Rachel Somerville for effectively managing this contract and for providing additional logistical support and technical advice. Mark Preece from New Zealand King Salmon provided information on their offshore farming proposal, and additional material, and we thank him for this. The help from WMIL staff was heavily appreciated, especially Patrick Crowe for producing map, and Dan Burgin for providing the seabird photos. Pierre Tellier (Ministry for the Environment), Marco Milardi (Fisheries New Zealand) and Graeme Taylor (Department of Conservation) provided comments and improved an earlier draft of this report.

7. References

AKVA Group. 2019. Fish in Atlantis: A potential game changer for aquaculture. Accessed 25/06/2020 from https://blog.akvagroup.com/fish-in-atlantis-a-potential-game-changer-for-aquaculture

Anderson, O.R.; Small, C.J.; Croxall, J.P.; Dunn, E.K.; Sullivan, B.J.; Yates, O. & Black, A. 2011. Global seabird bycatch in longline fisheries. Endangered Species Research 14 (91), 91–106.

Ashford, J.R. & Croxall, J.P. 1998. An assessment of CCAMLR measures employed to mitigate seabird mortality in longlining operations for Dissostichus eleginoides around South Georgia. CCAMLR Science 5: 217–230.

Australian Marine Parks. 2001. Impact of aquaculture. Accessed 28/07/2020 from https://parksaustralia.gov.au/marine/management/resources/scientific-publications/impact-aquaculture/

Avery, M.; Springer, P.F. & Cassel, J.F. 1976. The effects of a tall tower on nocturnal bird migration – a portable ceilometer study. Auk 93: 281-291.

Bak, U.G.; Mols-Mortensen, A. & Gregersen, O. 2018. Production method and cost of commercial-scale offshore cultivation of kelp in the Faroe Islands using multiple partial harvesting. Algal Research 33: 36-47.

Baker, R.R. 1984. Bird navigation: the solution of a mystery? Hodder & Stoughton. London.

Baldwin, D.H. 1965. Enquiry into the Mass Mortality of Nocturnal Migrants in Ontario. The Ontario Naturalist 3(1): 3-11.

Bell, E.A. 2013a [updated 2017]. White-chinned petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Bell, E.A. 2013b [updated 2018]. Grey petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Bell, E.A. 2014. Identification of seabirds captured in New Zealand fisheries: 1 July 2013–30 June 2014. Report prepared by Wildlife Management International for the New Zealand Department of Conservation, Wellington.

Bell, E.A. & Bell, M.D. 2018. INT2016-01 Identification of seabirds caught in New Zealand fisheries: 1 July 2017 to 30 June 2018. Annual Technical Report to the Conservation Services Programme, Department of Conservation. Wellington, New Zealand.

https://blog.akvagroup.com/fish-in-atlantis-a-potential-game-changer-for-aquaculture

https://parksaustralia.gov.au/marine/management/resources/scientific-publications/impact-aquaculture/

https://parksaustralia.gov.au/marine/management/resources/scientific-publications/impact-aquaculture/

http://www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz/



47

Bell, E.A.; Ray, S.; Crowe, P.; Butler, D.; Bell, M. & McArthur, N. 2019. Population trends, at-sea distribution and breeding population size of black petrels (Procellaria parkinsoni)- 2018/2019 operational report. Client report prepared for Ministry for Primary Industries.

Bell, E.A. & Stewart, P. 2016. Black petrels (Procellaria parkinsoni) population study on Moehau Range, Coromandel, 2015/16. Report prepared by Wildlife Management International Ltd for the New Zealand Department of Conservation, Wellington. 10p.

Bell, J.G.; McGhee, F.; Dick, J.R. & Tocher, D.R. 2005. Dioxin and dixon-like polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS) in Scottish farmed salmon (Salmo salar): effects of replacement of dietary marine fish oil vegetable oils. Aquaculture 243: 305-314.

Bell, M. 2012. A breeding survey of three species of shags in the Marlborough Sounds. Notornis 59(1&2): 60-65.

Bell, M. 2013a. Chatham Island shag, In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Bell, M. 2013b. [updated 2015]. Pitt Island shag. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Bell, M. 2015. Foraging ecology and dive behaviour of Pitt Island shags (Stictocarbo featherstoni). Notornis 62(2): 76-84.

Bellingham, P.J.; Towns, D.R.; Cameron, E.K.; Davis, J.J.; Wardle, D.A.; Wilmshurst, J.M. & Mulder, C.P.H. 2010. New Zealand island restoration: seabirds, predators, and the importance of history. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 34: 115-136

Bennet, D.G.; Horton, T.W.; Goldstein, S.J.; Rowe, L. & Briskie, J. 2019. Flying south: Foraging locations of the Hutton’s shearwater (Puffinus huttoni) revealed by Time-Depth Recorders and GPS tracking. Ecology and Evolution 9: 7914–7927.

Bergmann, M.; Mützel, S.; Primpke, S.; Tekman, M.B.; Trachsel, J. & Gerdts, G. 2019. White and wonderful? Microplastics prevail in snow from the Alps to the Arctic. Science Advances 5: 1-10.

Berntssen, M.G.; Lundebye, A.K. & Torstensen, B.E. 2005. Reducing the levels of dioxins and dioxin-like PCBs in farmed Atlantic salmon by substitution of fish oil with vegetable oil in the feed. Aquaculture Nutrition 11: 219-231.

Berthold, P. 1993. Bird migration – a general survey. Oxford University Press, Oxford, U.K.

BirdLife International. 2004. Tracking ocean wanderers: the global distribution of albatrosses and petrels. Results from the Global Procellariiform Tracking Workshop, 1–5 September, 2003, Gordon’s Bay, South Africa. Cambridge, UK: BirdLife International.

Biswell, S. 2017. A fisher’s guide: New Zealand coastal seabirds. Department of Conservation, Wellington. Retrieved from https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/conservation/marine-and-coastal/fishing/fishers-guide-nz-seabirds.pdf

Black A. 2005. Light induced seabird mortality on vessels operating in the Southern Ocean: incidents and mitigation measures. Antarctic Science 17: 67-68.

Boelens, R.G.V.; Maloney, D.M.; Parsons, A.P. & Walsh, A.R. 1999. Irelands marine and coastal areas and adjacent seas. An environmental assessment. Marine Institute, Dublin, Ireland, 338 pp.

Boffa Miskell Limited. 2019. Te Ara a Kiwi Aquaculture Project: Seabird Assessment. Report prepared by Boffa Miskell Limited for Ngāi Tahu Seafood Resources.


https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/conservation/marine-and-coastal/fishing/fishers-guide-nz-seabirds.pdf

https://www.doc.govt.nz/globalassets/documents/conservation/marine-and-coastal/fishing/fishers-guide-nz-seabirds.pdf


48

Boggs, C.H. 2001. Deterring albatrosses from contacting baits during swordfish longline sets. Pp. 79–94 in Melvin, E.; Parrish, J.K. (Eds): Seabird bycatch: trends, roadblocks and solutions. University of Alaska Sea Grant, Fairbanks, Alaska.

Booth, A.M.; Minot, E.O.; Fordham, R.A. & Innes, J.G. 1996. Kiore (Rattus exulans) predation on the eggs of the little shearwater (Puffinus assimilis haurakiensis). Notornis 43: 147-153.

Braga, M.C.B.; Shaw, G. & Lester, J.N. 2000. Mercury modelling to predict contamination and bioaccumulation in aquatic ecosystems. Review of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 164: 69-92.

Brothers, N. 1995. Principles of birdline construction and use to reduce bait loss and bird deaths during longline setting. CCAMLR Working Paper WG-IMALF-94. Hobart, Australia. 19p.

Brothers, N.; Cooper, J. & Løkkeborg, S. 1999. The incidental catch of seabirds by longline fisheries: worldwide review and technical guidelines for mitigation. FAO Fisheries Circular 937, 101p.

Broughton, D. 1977. The bird kill problem at Ontario Hydro’s thermal generating stations. A study of nocturnal migrant mortality due to casualty at lighted stacks. Ontario Hydro unpublished report. CTS-07017-1.

Buck, B.H. 2007. Experimental trials on the feasibility of offshore seed production of the mussel Mytilus edulis in the German Bight: installation, technical requirements and environmental conditions. Helgoland Marine Research 61: 87-101

Buck, B.H. & Buchholz, C.M. 2004. The offshore-ring: A new system design for the open ocean aqua culture of macroalgae. Journal of Applied Phycology 16: 355-368.

Buck, B.H. & Langan, R. 2017. Aquaculture Perspective of Multi-Use Sites in the Open Ocean. Springer Open, Cham, Switzerland, 430p.

Buck, B.H.; Thieltges, D.W.; Walter, U.; Nehls, G. & Rosenthal, H. 2005. Inshore-offshore comparison of parasite infestation in Mytilus edulis: implications for open ocean aquaculture. Journal of Applied Ichthyology 21: 107-113.

Buck, B.H.; Nevejan, N.; Chambers, M.D. & Chopin, T. Chapter 2 Offshore and Multi-Use Aquaculture with Extractive species: Seaweeds and Bivalves. In Buck, B.H. & Langan, R (eds.), Aquaculture Perspective of multi-use sites in the open ocean. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51159-7_2.

Buck, B.H.; Troell, M.F.; Krause, G.; Angel, D.L.; Grote, B. & Chopin, T. 2018. State of the art and challenges for offshore integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA). Frontiers in Marine Science 5: 1-21.

Bull, L. S. 2007. Reducing seabird bycatch in longline, trawl and gillnet fisheries. Fish and Fisheries 8(1), 31–56. doi:10.1111/j.1467-2979.2007.00234.x.

Burnell, G. 1996. The Environmental impact of marine bivalve mollusc exploitation: a brief review of the disturbances caused by mariculture and fishing. Royal Irish Academy, Dublin. pp 84–97.

Butler, D. 2003. Possible impacts of marine farming of mussels (Perna canaliculus) on king shag (Leucocarbo carunculatus). DoC Science Internal Series 111. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

California Environmental Associates. 2018. Offshore Finfish Aquaculture: Global review and US prospects. The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. 34 p. https://www.packard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Offshore_Aquaculture_Report.pdf

Callier, M.D.; Byron, C.J.; Bengtson, D.A.; Cranford, P.J.; Cross, S.F.; Focken, U.; Jansen, H.M.; Kamermans, P.; Kiessling, A.; Landry, T.; O’Beirn, F.; Petersson, E.; Rheault, R.B.; Strand, O.;

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51159-7_2

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-51159-7_2

https://www.packard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Offshore_Aquaculture_Report.pdf

https://www.packard.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Offshore_Aquaculture_Report.pdf


49

Sundell, K.; Svasand, T.; Wikfors, G.H. & McKindsey, C.H. 2018. Attraction and repulsion of mobile wild organisms to finfish and shellfish aquaculture: a review. Reviews in Aquaculture 10: 924-949

Cheney, D.; Langan, R.; Heasman, K.; Friedman, B. & Davis, J. 2010. Shellfish culture in the open ocean: Lessons learned for offshore expansion. Marine Technology Society Journal 44: 55-67.

Chubbuck, D.A. 1983. Lennox Generating Station – effects of construction and operation on the natural environment. Environmental Studies and Assessments Department. Report No. 83558, December.

Cid, A.; Herrero, C.; Torres, E. & Abalde, J. 1995. Copper toxicity on the marine microalga Phaeodactylum tricornutum: effects on photosynthesis and related parameters. Aquatic Toxicology 31(2): 165–174.

Clout, M.N. & Russell, R.C. 2006. The eradication of mammals from New Zealand islands. In: Koike F, Clout MN, Kawamichi M, De Poorter M, Iwatsuki K eds. Assessment and control of biological invasion risks. Gland, Switzerland, IUCN. Pp. 127–141

Clunies-Ross, P.J.; Smith, G.P.S.; Gordon, K.C. & Gaw, S. 2016. Synthetic shorelines in New Zealand? Quantification and characterisation of microplastic pollution on Canterbury’s coastlines. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 50 (2): 317-325.

Connell, D.W. 1988. Bioaccumulation behavior of persistent organic chemicals with aquatic organisms. Review of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 101: 117-154.

Connolly, L.M. & Colwell, M.A. 2005. Comparative use of long-line oysterbeds and adjacent tidal flats by waterbirds. Bird Conservation International 15: 237-255.

Crawford, C.M. 2001. Environmental risk assessment of shellfish farming in Tasmania. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, University of Tasmania.

Crawford, C.M.; Mitchell, I.M. & Macleod, C. 2001. The Effects of Shellfish Farming on the Benthic Environment. Draft Final Report to the Tasmanian Oyster Research Council: October 2001.

Crawford, R.; Ellenberg, U.; Frere, E.; Hagen, C.; Baird, K.; Brewin, P.; Crofts, S.; Glass, J.; Mattern, T.; Pompert, J.; Ross, K.; Kemper, J.; Ludynia, K.; Sherley, R.B.; Steinfurth, A.; Suazo, C.G.; Yorio, P.; Tamini, L.; Mangel, J.C.; Bugoni, L.; Jiménez Uzcátegui, G.; Simeone, A.; Luna-Jorquera, G.; Gandini, P. Woehler, E.J.; Pütz, K.; Dann, P.; Chiaradia, A. & Small, C. 2017. Tangled and drowned: A global review of penguin bycatch in fisheries. Endangered Species Research 34, 373–396.

Crowe, P. 2018. Foraging distribution and behaviour of flesh-footed shearwaters (Puffinus carneipes) breeding on Lady Alice Island – January 2018. Report prepared by Wildlife Management International Limited for the New Zealand Department of Conservation, Wellington. 21p.

Croxall, J.P.; Butchart, S.H.; Lascelles, B.E.N.; Stattersfield, A.J.; Sullivan, B.E.N.; Symes, A. & Taylor, P. 2012. Seabird conservation status, threats and priority actions: a global assessment. Bird Conservation International 22, 1–34.

Cuthbert, R.; Sommer, E. & Davis, L.S. 2000. Seasonal variation in the diet of stoats in a breeding colony of Hutton’s shearwaters. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 27: 367-373.

Cuthbert, R. & Hilton, G. 2004. Introduced house mice Mus musculus: a significant predator of threatened and endemic birds on Gough Island, South Atlantic Ocean? Biological Conservation 117:483-489.

Danioux, C.: Bompais, X. & Loste, C. 2000. Offshore mollusc production in the Mediterranean basin. In: Ed: Mui J., Basurco B. Mediterranean offshore mariculture. Zaragoza: CIHEAM. P 115-140


50

Dann, P. 1994. The abundance, breeding distribution and nest sites of blue penguins in Otago, New Zealand. Notornis 41: 157-166.

Day, R. H. 1980. The occurrence and characteristics of plastic pollution in Alaska's marine birds. Unpublished Masters thesis, University of Alaska.

Davenport, J.; Black, K.; Burnell, G.; Cross, T.; Culloty, S.; Ekaratne, S.; Furness, R.W.; Mulcahy, M. & Thetmeyer, H. 2003. Aquaculture: the ecological issues. British Ecological Society/Blackwell Science, Oxford, 89 pp.

De Grave, S.; Moore, S.J. & Burnell, G. 1998. Changes in benthic macrofauna associated with intertidal oyster, Crassostrea gigas (Thunberg) culture. Journal of Shellfish Research 17, 1137-1142.

Delabbio, J. 2015. LED lighting technology provides unique benefits for aquaculture. Global Aquaculture Alliance. Retrieved from https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/advocate/led-lighting-technology-benefits-aquaculture/.

Department of Fisheries. 2015. Mid West Aquaculture Development Zone Waste Management Plan. Prepared by Department of Fisheries, Western Australia.

Deppe, L. 2012. Spatial and temporal patterns of at-sea distribution and habitat use of New Zealand albatrosses. Doctoral thesis, University of Canterbury, New Zealand.

Deppe, L.; McGregor, K.; Tomasetto, F.; Briskie, J. & Scofield, P. 2014. Distribution and predictability of foraging areas in breeding Chatham albatrosses Thalassarche eremita in relation to environmental characteristics. Marine Ecology Progress Series 498: 287-301.

DOC. 2020. Visiting pest free islands. Accessed 19/08/20. From https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/know-before-you-go/visiting-pest-free-islands/

Doherty, J. & Brager, S. 1997. The breeding population of Spotted Shags (Stictocarbo punctatus punctatus) on Banks Peninsula: 36 years later. Notornis 44: 49-56.

DPIF. 1997. Marine Farming Development Plans for Tasmania – D’Entrecasteaux Channel. Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries, Tasmania.

Ellenberg, U. 2013 [updated 2017]. Fiordland crested penguin. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online. www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz

Elliott, G.P. & Walker, K.J. 2013 [updated 2017]. Antipodean albatross. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Evans Ogden, L.J. 1996. Collision Course: The Hazards of Lighted Structures and Windows to Migrating Birds. Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP), 20p.

FAO. 2018. The State of World Fisheries and Aquaculture 2018- Meeting the sustainable development goals. Rome. License: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO

Fish Farming Expert. 2019. Ocean Farm’s big brother will go ahead says SalMar. Accessed 22/05/20. From https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/ocean-farms-big-brother-to-go-ahead-says-salmar/.

Fish Farming Expert. 2020. A new mega-cage sets off for the sea. Accessed 218/06/2020. From https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/a-new-mega-cage-sets-off-for-the-sea/.

Fish Farming Magazine. 2019. Accessed 25/06/2020. From https://www.fishfarmermagazine.com/news/mowi-rationed-to-two-donuts/.

Fisher, P.R. & Boren, L. 2012. New Zealand king shag (Leucocarbo carunculatus) foraging distribution and use of mussel farms in Admiralty Bay, Marlborough Sounds. Notornis 59: 105-115.

https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/advocate/led-lighting-technology-benefits-aquaculture/

https://www.aquaculturealliance.org/advocate/led-lighting-technology-benefits-aquaculture/

https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/know-before-you-go/visiting-pest-free-islands/

https://www.doc.govt.nz/parks-and-recreation/know-before-you-go/visiting-pest-free-islands/

https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/ocean-farms-big-brother-to-go-ahead-says-salmar/

https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/ocean-farms-big-brother-to-go-ahead-says-salmar/

https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/a-new-mega-cage-sets-off-for-the-sea/

https://www.fishfarmermagazine.com/news/mowi-rationed-to-two-donuts/


51

Fisher, S.W. 1995. Mechanisms of bioaccumulation in aquatic systems. Review of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 142: 87-117.

Fitridge, I.; Dempster, T.; Guenther, J. & de Nys, R. 2012. The impact and control of biofouling in marine aquaculture: a review. Biofouling 28 (7): 649–669.

Flemming, S.A. 2013 [updated 2020]. Little penguin. In Miskelly C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Forest & Bird. 2014a. New Zealand Seabirds: Important Bird Areas and Conservation. The Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. 72p.

Forest & Bird. 2014b. New Zealand Seabirds: Sites at Sea, Seaward Extensions, Pelagic Areas. The Royal Forest & Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand. 54-60p.

Forrest, B. & Hopkins, G. 2017. Grouping Aquaculture species by their ecological effects. Prepared for Ministry for Primary Industries. Cawthron Report No. 2984. 30 p. plus appendices

Forrest, B.; Keeley, N.; Gillespie, P.; Hopkins, G.; Knight, B. & Govier, D. 2007. Review of the ecological effects of marine finfish aquaculture: final report. Prepared for Ministry of Fisheries. Cawthron Report No. 1285. 71p.

Franklin, N.M.; Stauber, J.L. & Lim, R.P. 2001. Development of flow cytometry-based algal bioassays for assessing toxicity of copper in natural waters. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 20 (1): 160–170.

Freeman, R.; Dennis, T.; Landers, T.; Thompson, D.; Bell, E.; Walker, M. & Guilford, T. 2010. Black Petrels (Procellaria parkinsoni) Patrol the Ocean Shelf-Break: GPS Tracking of a Vulnerable Procellariiform Seabird. PLoS ONE 5(2): e9236. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0009236.

Frost, P.G.H. & Taylor, G. 2018. The status of the red-billed gull (Larus novaehollandiae scopulinus) in New Zealand, 2014-2016. Notornis 65: 1-13

Gaskin, C.P. 2011. Seabirds of the Kermadec region: their natural history and conservation. Science for Conservation 316. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 71 p.

Gaskin, C.P. & Rayner, M.J. 2013. Seabirds of the Hauraki Gulf: Natural History, Research and Conservation. Hauraki Gulf Forum, Auckland, New Zealand.

Gill, B.J.; Bell, B.D.; Chambers, D.K.; Medway, D.G.; Palma, R.L.; Scofield, R.P.; Tennyson, A.J.D. & Worthy, T.H. 2010. Checklist of the Birds of New Zealand, Norfolk and Macquarie Islands, and the Ross Dependency, Antarctica – Fourth Edition. Te Papa Press, Wellington.

Goseberg, N.; Chambers, M.D.; Heasman, K.; Fredriksson, D.; Fredheim, A. & Schlurmann, T. 2017. Technologcical approaches to longline- and cage- based aquaculture in open ocean environments. In: Buck B., Langan R. (eds) Aquaculture Perspective of Multi-Use Sites in the Open Ocean. Springer, 71-95p.

Gregory, M.R. 1978. Accumulation and distribution of virgin plastic granules on New Zealand beaches. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 12 (4): 399-414.

Gregory, M.R. 1999. Plastics and South Pacific Island shores: environmental implications. Ocean & Coastal Management 42: 603-615.

Hansen, P.K. & Lunestad, B.T. 1992. Effects of oxytetracycline, oxolinic acid, and flumequine on bacteria in an artificial marine fish farm sediment. Canadian Journal of Microbiology 39: 1307-1312.

Hansen, T.J.; Fjelldal, P.G.; Folkedal, O.; Vagseth, T. & Oppedal, F. 2017. Effects of light source and intensity on sexual maturation, growth and swimming behaviour of Atlantic salmon in sea cages. Aquaculture Environment Interactions 9: 193-204.


52

Harper, P.C. & Fowler, J.A. 1987. Plastic pellets in New Zealand Storm-killed Prions (Pachyptila sp.). Notornis, 34: 65-70.

Hauge Aqua. 2020. Egget. Accessed 5/06/2020 .From https://haugeaqua.com/technology/egget.

Hays, H. & Cormons, G. 1974. Plastic particles found in tern pellets on coastal beaches and at factory sites. Marine Pollution Bulletin 5: 44-46.

Hemmings, A.D. 2013. Subantarctic skua. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Holmer, M. 2013. Sustainable development of marine aquaculture off-the-coast and offshore- a review of environmental and ecosystem issues and future needs in temperate zones. In Lovatelli A., Aguilar-Manjarrez J., Soto S eds. Expanding mariculture farther offshore: technical, environmental, spatial and governance challenges. FAO Technical Workshop, 22-25 March 2010, Orbetello, Italy. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 24. Rome, FAO: 135-171.

Huon Aquaculture. 2020a. Huon Fortress Pen System. Retrieved 22/05/2020. From https://www.huonaqua.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Huon-Fortress-Brochure.pdf.

Huon Aquaculture. 2020b. Huon’s Fortress Pens. Accessed 22/05/2020 From https://www.huonaqua.com.au/our-approach/future-fish-farming/huons-fortress-pens/.

Huon Aquaculture, 2020c. Wildlife Mortalities. Accessed 24/6/2020. From https://dashboard.huonaqua.com.au/environment/wildlife.

Huon Aquaculture, 2020d. Storm Bay - Offshore Farming. Retrieved 25/05/2020. From https://www.huonaqua.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Storm-Bay-Fact-Sheet-web-1.pdf.

ICES. 2003. Seabirds as Monitors of the Marine Environment. ICES Cooperative Research Report No. 258. 73p.

Imber, M.J. 1994. Report on a tuna long-lining fishing voyage aboard Southern Venture to observe seabird by-catch problems. Science & Research Series, 65. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 12p.

Ismar, S.M.H. 2013a. Australasian gannet. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Ismar, S.M.H. 2013b [updated 2017]. Red-tailed tropicbird. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Ismar, S.M.H. 2013c. Masked booby. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Iwama, G.; Nichol, L. & Ford, J. 1997. BC salmon aquaculture review interim draft report: Key issue D: aquatic mammals and other species (pp. 1–29). Victoria, B.C.: Environmental Assessment Office.

Jak R.G.; Poelman, M.; Schram, E.; Matthes, S. & Fagerland, K. 2019. Outline of concepts for aquaculture on floating modular islands. Space@Sea project report funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme. Retrieved from https://spaceatsea-project.eu/images/d8.1.pdf.

Jamieson, S.E.; Tennyson, A.J.D.; Wilson, K.; Crotty, E.; Miskelly, C.M.; Taylor, G.A. & Waugh, S.M. 2016. A review of the distribution and size of prion (Pachyptila spp.) colonies throughout New Zealand. Tuhinga 27: 56-80.

Jenkins, C.N. & Van Houtan, K.S. 2016. Global and regional priorities for marine biodiversity protection. Seabirds at the Crossroads, Pavilion Event, IUCN World Conservation Congress, Hawaii.

https://haugeaqua.com/technology/egget

https://www.huonaqua.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/Huon-Fortress-Brochure.pdf

https://www.huonaqua.com.au/our-approach/future-fish-farming/huons-fortress-pens/

https://dashboard.huonaqua.com.au/environment/wildlife

https://www.huonaqua.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Storm-Bay-Fact-Sheet-web-1.pdf

https://www.huonaqua.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Storm-Bay-Fact-Sheet-web-1.pdf




https://spaceatsea-project.eu/images/d8.1.pdf

https://spaceatsea-project.eu/images/d8.1.pdf


53

Jensen, D. 2019a. Havfarm 3: Governmentally driven innovations in Norwegian aquaculture. Master’s thesis in International Fisheries Management, Norwegian College of Fishery Science (NFH), University of Tromso- the Arctic University of Norway.

Jensen, P. 2019b. Mowi offered just a small bite of the Marine Donut. Accessed 25/06/20. From https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/mowi-offered-smaller-taste-of-the-marine-donut/.

Jones, A.G.; Chown, S.L.; Ryan, P.G.; Gremmen, N.J.M. & Gaston, K.J. (2003). A review of conservation threats on Gough Island: a case study for terrestrial conservation in the Southern Oceans. Biological Conservation 113: 75-87.

Kaiser, M.J.; Laing, I.; Utting, D. & Burnell, G.M. 1998. Environmental impacts of bivalve Aquaculture. Journal of Shellfish Research 17: 59-66.

Keeley, N.; Forrest, B.; Hopkins, G.; Gillespie, P.; Webb, B.; Knight, B. & Gardner, J. 2009. Sustainable Aquaculture in New Zealand: Review of the Ecological Effects of Farming Shellfish and Other Non-finfish Species. Prepared for the Ministry of Fisheries. Cawthron Report No. 1476, 150p.

King, C.M.; Veale, A.; Patty, B. & Hayward, L. 2014. Swimming capabilities of stoats and the threat to inshore sanctuaries. Biological Invasions 16: 987-995.

Le Corre, M.; Ghestemme, T.; Salamolard, M. & Couzi, F.-X. 2003. Rescue of the Mascarene petrel, a critically endangered seabird of Réunion Island, Indian Ocean. The Condor 105(2), 387–391.

Lequette, B.; Verheyden, C. & Jouventin, P. 1989. Olfaction in Subantarctic seabirds: It’s phylogenetic and ecological significance. The Condor 91: 732-735.

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.

Løkkeborg, S. 1998. Seabird bycatch and bait loss in long-lining using different setting methods. ICES Journal of Marine Science 55: 145–149.

Løkkeborg, S. 2001. Reducing seabird bycatch in longline fisheries by means of bird-scaring lines and underwater setting. University of Alaska Sea Grant, Fairbanks, Alaska. Pp. 33–41.

Løkkeborg, S. 2003. Review and evaluation of three mitigation measures—bird-scaring line, underwater setting, and line shooter—to reduce seabird bycatch in the North Atlantic longline fishery. Fisheries Research 60: 11–16.

Løkkeborg, S. & Bjordal, J. 1992. Reduced bait loss and bycatch of seabirds in longlining by using a seabird scarer. CCAMLR WG FSA-92. Hobart, Australia. 5p.

Løkkeborg, S. & Robertson, G. 2002. Seabird and longline interactions: effects of a bird-scaring streamer line and line shooter on the incidental capture of northern fulmars Fulmarus glacialis. Biological Conservation 106: 359–364.

Lourenço, P.M.; Serra-Gonçalves, C.; Ferreira, J.L.; Catry, T. & Granadeiro, J.P. 2017. Plastic and other microfibres in sediments, macroinvertebrates, and shorebirds from three intertidal wetlands of southern Europe and west Africa. Environmental Pollution 231: 123-133.

Lovatelli, A.; Aguilar-Manjarrez, J. & Soto, D., eds. 2013. Expanding mariculture farther offshore: technical, environmental, spatial; and governance challenges. FAO Technical workshop, 22-25 March 2010, Orbetello, Italy. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Proceedings No. 24. Rome, FAO. 7300.

Machovsky-Capuska, G.E.; Hauber, M.E.; Dassis, M.; Libby, E.; Wikelski, M.C.; Schuckard, R.; Melville, D.S.; Cook, W.; Houston, M. & Raubenheimer, D. 2014. Foraging behaviour and habitat use of chick-rearing Australasian Gannets in New Zealand. Journal of Ornithology 155: 379-387.

https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/mowi-offered-smaller-taste-of-the-marine-donut/

https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/mowi-offered-smaller-taste-of-the-marine-donut/


54

MacLeod, C.J.; Adams, J. & Lyver, P. 2008. At-sea distribution of satellite-tracked Grey-faced petrels, Pterodroma macroptera gouldi captured on the Ruamaahua (Aldermen) Islands, New Zealand. Papers and Proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 142(1), 73-86.

Mackay, J.W.B.; Russell, J.C. & Murphy, E.C. (2007). Eradicating house mice from islands: successes, failures and the way forward. Pages 294-304 in Witmer, G.W.; Pitt, W.C.; Fagerstone, K.A. (Eds.): Managing Vertebrate Invasive Species: Proceedings of an International Symposium. USDA/APHIS/WS, National Wildlife Research Centre, Fort Collins, USA.

Mancuso, M. 2015. Effects of fish farming on marine environment. Journal of Fisheries Science.com 9(3): 89-90.

Marlborough Salmon Working Group. 2016. Advice to the Minister of Aquaculture. 23 November 2016: https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/15982. Accessed 29/05/2020.

Martin, G.R. 1990. The visual problems of nocturnal migration. In: E. Gwinner (ed.) Bird Migration. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 185-197.

Mattern, T. 2001. Foraging strategies and breeding success in the Little Penguin, Eudyptula minor: a comparative study between different habitats. Masters thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Mattern, T. 2006. Marine Ecology of offshore and inshore foraging penguins: The Snares penguin Eudyptes robustus and yellow-eyed penguin Megadyptes antipodes. Doctoral thesis, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Mattern, T.; Ellenberg, U.; Houston, D.M. & Davis, L.S. 2007. Consistent foraging routes and benthic foraging behaviour in yellow-eyed penguins. Marine Ecology Progress Series 343: 295-306.

Mattern, T. & Wilson, K. 2018. New Zealand penguins – current knowledge and research priorities. A report compiled for Birds New Zealand.

McClellan, R.; Reid, A. & Pyatt, T. 2020. Foveaux Strait Seabirds: Assessment of Environmental effects for project south. Report prepared for Sanford Ltd.

McKinlay, B. 2013 [updated 2017]. Stewart Island shag. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

McVeagh, R. 2012. Statement of evidence of Christopher David Cornelisen in relation to submerged artificial lighting for the New Zealand King Salmon Co. Limited. Retrieved from https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/proposal/NSP000002/Evidence-Applicants-evidence/28f2e3c19c/23-Christopher-David-Cornelisen-Submerged-Artificial-Lighting-v1.pdf.

Melvin, E. F.; Parrish, J. K. & Conquest, L. 1999. Novel tools to reduce seabird bycatch in coastal gillnet fisheries. Conservation Biology 13(6), 1386–1397.

Melvin, E.; Parrish, J.K.; Dietrich, K.S. & Hamel, O.S. 2001. Solutions to seabird bycatch in Alaska’s demersal longline fisheries. Washington Sea Grant Programme A/FP7. 52p.

Michaux, B. 2013 [updated 2017]. Bounty Island shag. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Mills, J.A. 2013. White-fronted tern. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Minami, H. & Kiyota, M. 2004. Effect of blue-dyed bait and tori-pole streamer on reduction of incidental take of seabirds in the Japanese southern bluefin tuna longline fisheries. Unpublished conference report CCSBT-ERS/0402/08.

Ministry for the Environment & Statistics New Zealand. 2016. New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting Series: Our marine environment 2016. Available from www.mfe.govt.nz and www.stats.govt.nz.

https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/15982

https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/proposal/NSP000002/Evidence-Applicants-evidence/28f2e3c19c/23-Christopher-David-Cornelisen-Submerged-Artificial-Lighting-v1.pdf

https://www.epa.govt.nz/assets/FileAPI/proposal/NSP000002/Evidence-Applicants-evidence/28f2e3c19c/23-Christopher-David-Cornelisen-Submerged-Artificial-Lighting-v1.pdf



55

Ministry for Primary Industries. 2013. Overview of Ecological Effects of Aquaculture. A review compiled by the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research, and the Cawthron Institute for MPI. Retrieved from https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/4300/direct.

Mischler, C. & Bell, M. 2016. Clarence river black-billed gull management. Unpublished technical report by Wildlife Management International Ltd for Environment Canterbury.

Miskelly, C.M. 2013 Erect-crested penguin. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.birdsonline.org.nz.

Miskelly, C.M. 2013a [updated 2017]. Snares crested penguin. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Miskelly, C.M. 2013b [updated 2017]. Common diving petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Miskelly, C.; Gilad, D.; Taylor, G.A.; Tennyson, A.J.D. & Waugh, S.M. 2019. A review of the distribution and size of gadfly petrel (Pterodroma spp.) colonies throughout New Zealand. Tuhinga 30: 99-177.

Mizuta, D.D. & Wikfors, G.H. 2019. Depth selection and In Situ Validation for Offshore Mussel Aquaculture in northeast United States Federal Waters. Journal of Marine Science and Engineering 9(293):1-32.

Mizuta, D.D.; Dixon, M.S.; Maney, E.J.; Fregeau, M. & Wikfors, G.H. 2019. Offshore mussel aquaculture: strategies for farming in the changing environment of the Northeast U.S. shelf EEZ. The Bulletin of Japan Fisheries Research and Education Agency 49: 111-119.

Mochida, K.; Ito, K.; Harino, H.; Kakuno, A. & Fujii, K. 2006. Acute toxicity of pyrithione antifouling biocides and joint toxicity with copper to red sea bream (Pagrus major) and toy shrimp (Heptacarpus futilirostris). Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25(11): 3058–3064.

Moore, F.R. 1987. Sunset and orientation behaviour of migrating birds. Biological Review 62: 65-86.

Moore, P.J. 2013 [updated 2017]. Southern royal albatross. In Miskelly, C.M (ed.), New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz

Morrison, K.W. 2013 [updated 2017]. Eastern rockhopper penguin. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Morrison, K.W. 2015. Factors affecting the population dynamics of Eastern Rockhopper Penguins (Eudyptes chrysocome filholi) on Campbell Island, New Zealand. Doctoral thesis, Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.

Mott, R. & Clarke, R.H. 2018. Systematic review of geographic biases in the collection of at-sea distribution data for seabirds. Emu- Austral Ornithology 4-7pp.

Muir, J.F. & Basurco, B. 2000. Mediterranean offshore mariculture. Options Mediterrannees, series B Etudes et Recherches, no. 30. CIHEAM (International Centre for Advanced Mediterranean Agronomic Studies), Zaragoza

Munari, C. & Mistri, M. 2007. Effect of copper on the scope for growth of clams (Tapes philippinarum) from a farming area in the Northern Adriatic Sea. Marine Environmental Research 64 (3): 347–357.

Nemtzov S.C. & Olsvig-Whittaker L. 2003. The use of netting over fishponds as a hazard to waterbirds. Waterbirds 26: 416-423.

New Zealand Birds Online. 2013. The digital encyclopaedia of New Zealand birds. Accessed June-July 2020. Retrieved from http://nzbirdsonline.org.nz/.

https://www.mpi.govt.nz/dmsdocument/4300/direct

http://www.birdsonline.org.nz/




http://nzbirdsonline.org.nz/


56

New Zealand King Salmon. 2019. Open Ocean Salmon Farming: Cook Strait. Application for Resource Consent. The New Zealand King Salmon Co. Limited.

New Zealand King Salmon. 2020. Our farming. Retrieved from https://www.kingsalmon.co.nz/our-environment/farm-locations/.

NOAA. 2005. Guidelines for ecological risk assessment of marine fish aquaculture: Prepared at the NOAA Fisheries Service Manchester Research Station International Workshop, April 11-14, 2005 (No. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-71). National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, US Department of Commerce.

Norsk Fiskeoppdrett. 2018. Should be fish in the Egg during 2019. Accessed 5/06/2020. From https://www.kyst.no/article/boer-vaere-fisk-i-egget-i-loepet-av-2019/.

Oehlmann, J.; Schulte-Oehlmann, U.; Kloas, W.; Jagnytsch, O.; Lutz, I.; Kusk, K.O.; Wollenberger, L.; Santos, E.M.; Paul, G.C.; van Look, K.J.W. & Tyler, C. R. 2009. A critical analysis of the biological impacts of plasticizers on wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 364 (1526): 2047–2062.

Ōpōtiki District Council. 2017. First Harvest. Accessed 31/7/20. From https://www.odc.govt.nz/our-council/current-projects/harbour-development/media-releases/Pages/First-Harvest.aspx .

Orrego, R. 2015. Effect of LED lighting on growth and development of Atlantic salmon. Fish Farming Expert Website. Accessed 29/07/2020. Retrieved from https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/effect-of-led-lighting-on-growth-and-development-of-atlantic-salmon/.

Päpke, O. & Fürst, P. 2003. Background contamination of humans with dioxins, dioxin-like PCBs and other POPs. In: Persistent Organic Pollutants. The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry, Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 30: 271-295.

Parkes, J.P.; Byrom, A.E. & Edge, K-E. 2017. Eradicating mammals on New Zealand island reserves: what is left to do? New Zealand Journal of Ecology 41 (2): 263-270.

Pemberton, D.; Brothers, N. & Copson, G. 1991. Predators on marine fish farms in Tasmania. Papers and proceedings of the Royal Society of Tasmania 125: 33-35. https://doi.org/10.26749/rstpp.125.33 ISSN 0080-4703.

Pettit, T. N.; Grant, G. & Whittow, G. C. 1981. Ingestion of plastic by Laysan Albatross. Auk 98: 839-841.

Phalan, B.; Phillips, R.A.; Silk, J.R.D.; Afanasyev, V.; Fukuda, A.; Fox, J.; Catry, P.; Higuchi, H. & Croxall, J.P. 2007. Foraging behaviour of four albatross species by night and day. Marine Ecology Progress Series 340: 271-286.

Phillips, R.A.; Silk, J.R.D. & Croxall, J.P. 2005. Foraging and provisioning strategies of the light-mantled sooty albatross at South Georgia: competition and co-existence with sympatric pelagic predators. Marine Ecology Progress Series 285: 259-270.

Piatt, J.F.; Lensink, C.J.; Butler, W.; Kendziorek, M.; & Nysewander, D.R. 1990. Immediate impact of the Exxon Valdez oil spill on marine birds. Auk 107: 387−397.

Pierre, J.P. & Nordern, W.S. 2006. Reducing seabird bycatch in longline fisheries using a natural olfactory deterrent. Biological Conservation 130: 406-415.

Porter, M. 2020. Appendix N of Project South Open Ocean Marine Farm Resource consent: Applications and assessment of environmental effects. Porters Primary Production & Consulting.

https://www.kingsalmon.co.nz/our-environment/farm-locations/

https://www.kingsalmon.co.nz/our-environment/farm-locations/

https://www.kyst.no/article/boer-vaere-fisk-i-egget-i-loepet-av-2019/

https://www.odc.govt.nz/our-council/current-projects/harbour-development/media-releases/Pages/First-Harvest.aspx

https://www.odc.govt.nz/our-council/current-projects/harbour-development/media-releases/Pages/First-Harvest.aspx

https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/effect-of-led-lighting-on-growth-and-development-of-atlantic-salmon/

https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/effect-of-led-lighting-on-growth-and-development-of-atlantic-salmon/

https://doi.org/10.26749/rstpp.125.33%20ISSN%200080-4703


57

Poupart, T.A.; Waugh, S.M.; Bost, C.A.; Kato, A.; Miskelly, C.M.; Rogers, K.M. & Arnould, J.P.Y. 2019. Foraging ecology of a winter breeder, the Fiordland penguin. Marine Ecology Progress Series 614: 183-197.

Powlesland, R.G. 2013a. Black shag. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Powlesland, R.G. 2013b [updated 2017]. Pied shag. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Prada, D.; Veale, A.; Duckworth, J.; Murphy, E.; Treadgold, S.; Howitt, R.; Hunter, S. & Gleeson, D. 2013. Unwelcome visitors: employing forensic methodologies to inform the stoat (Mustela erminea) incursion response plan on Kapiti Island. New Zealand Journal of Zoology 41(1):1‐9.

Qian, P.; Xu, Y. & Fusetani, N. 2009. Natural products as antifouling compounds: recent progress and future perspectives. Biofouling 26 (2): 223–234.

Rayner, M.J.; Hauber, M.E.; Clout, M.N.; Seldon, D.S.; Dijken, S.V.; Bury, S. & Phillips, R.A. 2008. Foraging ecology of the Cook’s petrel Pterodroma cookii during the austral breeding season: a comparison of its two populations. Marine Ecology Progress Series 370: 271-284.

Rayner, M.J.; Taylor, G.A.; Gummer, H.D.; Phillips, R.A.; Sagar, P.M.; Shaffer, S.A. & Thompson, D.R. 2012. The breeding cycle, year-round distribution and activity patterns of the endangered Chatham Petrel (Pterodroma axillarisI). Emu – Austral Ornithology 112: 107-116

Rayner, M.J.; Taylor, G.A.; Gaskin, C.P. & Dunphy, B.J. 2017. Seasonal activity and unpredicted polar front migration of northern New Zealand Common Diving Petrels (Pelecanoides urinatrix). Emu – Austral Ornithology 117(3):290-298..

Reed, J.R.; Sincock, J.L. & Hailman, J.P. 1985. Light attraction in endangered procellariiform birds: reduction by shielding upward radiation. The Auk 102: 377-383.

Robertson, H.A.; Baird, K.; Dowding, J.E.; Elliott, G.P.; Hitchmough, R.A.; Miskelly, C.M.; McArthur, N.; O’Donnell, C.F.J.; Sagar, P.M.; Scofield, R.P. & Taylor, G.A. 2017. Conservation status of New Zealand birds, 2016. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 19. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 23 p.

Rodríguez, A.; Rodríguez, B. & Lucas, M. P. 2012. Trends in numbers of petrels attracted to artificial lights suggest population declines in Tenerife, Canary Islands. Ibis 154(1), 167–172.

Rodríguez, A.; Dann, P. & Chiaradia, A. 2017. Reducing light-induced mortality of seabirds: High pressure sodium lights decrease the fatal attraction of shearwaters. Journal of Nature Conservation 39: 68-72.

Rodríguez, A.; Arcos, J.M.; Bretagnolle, V.; Dias, M.P.; Holmes, N.D., Louzao, M.; Provencher, J.; Raine, A.F.; Ramírez, F.; Rodríguez, B.; Ronconi, R.A.; Taylor, R.S.; Bonnaud, E.; Borrelle, S.B.; Cortés, V.; Descamps, S.; Friesen, V.L.; Genovart, M.; Hedd, A.; Hodum, P.; Humphries, G.R.W.; Le Corre, M.; Lebarbenchon, C.; Martin, R.; Melvin, E.F.; Montevecchi, W.A.; Pinet, P.; Pollet, I.L.; Ramos, R.; Russell, J.C.; Ryan, P.G.; Sanz-Aguilar, A.; Spatz, D.R.; Travers, M.; Votier, S.C.; Wanless, R.M.; Woehler, E. & Chiaradia, A. 2019. Future Directions in Conservation Research on Petrels and Shearwaters. Frontiers in Marine Science 6: 94.

Roesijadi, G.; Copping, A.E. & Huesemann, M.H. 2008. Techno-Economic Feasibility Analysis of Offshore Seaweed Farming for Bioenergy and Biobased Products. Independent Research and Development Report, IR Number: PNWD-3931.

Rothstein, S. 1973. Plastic particle pollution of the surface of the Atlantic Ocean: Evidence from a seabird. The Condor 75: 344-345.




58

Roycroft, D.; Kelly, T.C. & Lewis, L.J. 2007. Behavioural interactions of seabirds with suspended longlines. Aquaculture International 15: 25-36.

Russell, I.; Broughton, B.; Keller, T. & Carss, D. 2012. The INTERCAFE Cormorant Management Toolbox: methods for reducing Cormorant problems at European fisheries. NERC Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, Oxfordshire, UK. DOI: 10.13140/2.1.5061.2481.

Russell, J.C. & Clout, M.N. 2005. Rodent incursions on New Zealand Islands. School of Biological Sciences, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Ryan, P.G. 1987. The incidence and characteristics of plastic particles ingested by seabirds. Marine Environmental Research 23(3) 175-206.

Sagar, P. 2013a. Literature review of ecological effects of aquaculture: Seabird interactions. Wellington: Prepared by Cawthron Institute and NIWA for the Ministry of Primary Industries.

Sagar, P.M. 2013b [updated 2017]. Buller’s mollymawk. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Sagar, P.M. 2013c [updated 2017]. White-capped mollymawk. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Sagar, P.M. 2013d [updated 2017]. Salvin’s mollymawk. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Sagar, P.M. 2013e. Cape petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Sagar, P.M. 2013f. Antarctic tern. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

SalMar. 2017. Annual Report 2017. https://www.salmar.no/en/latest-reports/. Accessed 25/05/2020

SalMar. 2018. Annual Report 2018 https://www.salmar.no/en/latest-reports/. Accessed 29/05/2020

SalMar. 2019. Annual Report, 2019 https://www.salmar.no/en/latest-reports/. Accessed 29/05/2020

SAMS Research Services Ltd. 2018. Review of the environmental impacts of salmon farming in Scotland. Report for the Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform (ECCLR) Committee, The Scottish Parliament.

Sanford Limited. 2020. Project South Open Ocean Marine farm: Resource Consent Applications and Assessment of Environmental Effects.

Schuckard, R. 2006. Distribution of New Zealand king shags (Leucocarbo carunculatus) foraging from the Trio Island and Stewart Island colonies, Marlborough Sounds, New Zealand. Notornis 53: 277-281.

Schuckard, R.; Melville, D. & Taylor, G. 2015. Population and breeding census of New Zealand king shag (Leucocarbo carunculatus) in 2015. Notornis 62: 209-218.

Science for Environment Policy. 2015. Sustainable Aquaculture. Future Brief 11. Brief produced for the European Commission DG Environment by the Science Communication Unit, UWE, Bristol. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy.

Seaweed Energy Solutions AS. 2010. SES Patents first mass-scale seaweed cultivation structure. Accessed 27/06/2020. From http://www.seaweedenergysolutions.com/en/news/ses-patents-first-mass-scale-seaweed-cultivation-structure.

Seymour, E.A. & Bergheim, A. 1991. Towards a Reduction of Pollution from Intensive Aquaculture with Reference to the Farming of Salmonids in Norway. Aquacultural Engineering 10:73-88.





https://www.salmar.no/en/latest-reports/



http://ec.europa.eu/science-environment-policy

http://www.seaweedenergysolutions.com/en/news/ses-patents-first-mass-scale-seaweed-cultivation-structure

http://www.seaweedenergysolutions.com/en/news/ses-patents-first-mass-scale-seaweed-cultivation-structure


59

Shannon, G.; McKenna, M.F.; Angeloni, L.M.; Crooks, K.R.; Fristrup, K.; Brown, E.; Warner, K.A.; Nelson, M.D.; White, C.; Briggs, J.; McFarland, S. & Wittemyer, G. 2015. A synthesis of two decades of research documenting the effects of noise on wildlife. Biological Reviews 18p.

Ship Technology. 2018. Havfarm: a new salmon fishing revolution in Norway. Accessed 25/05/2020. From https://www.ship-technology.com/features/havfarm-fish-farm-vessel/.

Sibson, R.B. 1992. Some thoughts on Caspian terns in New Zealand. Notornis 39: 87-93.

Smith, N.W.M. 2001. Longline sink rates of an auto line vessel, and notes on seabird interactions. Science for Conservation 183. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 32p.

Söhle, I.S.; Roberstson, C.J.R.; Nicholls, D.G.; Mouritsen, H.; Frost, B. & Mouller, H. 2007. Satellite tracking of sooty shearwaters (Puffinus griseus) during their pre-laying “exodus” and incubation. Notornis 54: 180-188.

Soltveit, T. 2016. Lights help combat lice. Fish Farming Expert Website. Accessed 29/07/2020. Retrieved from https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/lights-help-combat-lice/

Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center, Aquaculture Department. 1991. Coastal aquaculture: Environmental issues. Aqua Farm News 9(5), 1-6.

Southey, I. 2013a [updated 2017]. Grey-backed storm petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Southey, I. 2013b. White-faced storm petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Southey, I. 2013c [updated 2018]. Black-bellied storm petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Southey, I. 2013d. Kermadec storm petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

St-Onge, P.; Comeau, L.A. & Pernet, F. 2007. Submerging floating oyster bags: an effective means for deterring coastal birds from roosting in aquaculture farms. Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2741.

Stahl, J.C. & Sagar, P.M. 2000. Foraging strategies of southern Buller’s albatross Diomedea b. bulleri breeding on The Snares, New Zealand. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 30(3): 299-318.

Stantec. 2019. Te Ara a kiwa aquaculture. Application for Resource Consent and assessment of effects on the environment. Prepared for Ngāi Tahu Seafood Resources. Project No.: 310001082.

StatsNZ. 2016. Primary Productivity. Accessed 28/07/2020. Retrieved from http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/environment/environmental-reporting-series/environmental-indicators/Home/Marine/primary-productivity.aspx.

Surman, C. & Dunlop, N. J. 2015. Impact Assessment of aquaculture on seabird communities of the Abrolhos Islands, to support the Mid- West Aquaculture Development Zone proposal. Prepared for Government of Western Australia Department of Fisheries.

Szabo, M.J. 2013 [updated 2017]. Kermadec petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Szabo, M.J. 2013a [updated 2017]. Northern Giant Petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Szabo, M.J. 2013b [updated 2018]. Auckland Islands shag. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

https://www.ship-technology.com/features/havfarm-fish-farm-vessel/

https://www.fishfarmingexpert.com/article/lights-help-combat-lice/





http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/environment/environmental-reporting-series/environmental-indicators/Home/Marine/primary-productivity.aspx

http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/environment/environmental-reporting-series/environmental-indicators/Home/Marine/primary-productivity.aspx





60

Szabo, M.J. 2013c [updated 2017]. Campbell Island shag. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Szabo, M.J. 2013d [updated 2017]. Spotted shag. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Taylor, G. 2000. Action plan for Seabird Conservation in New Zealand Part A: Threatened Seabirds. Wellington, NZ. Department of Conservation Biology Recovery Unit. ISBN 0-478-21921-5.

Taylor, G.A. 2013a. South Georgian diving petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Taylor, G.A. 2013b [updated 2019]. Black-winged petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Taylor, M.J. 2013c. Little shag. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Taylor, R.H. & Tilley, J.A.V. 1984. Stoats (Mustela erminea) on Adele and Fisherman Islands, Abel Tasman National Park, and other offshore islands in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 7: 139-145

Taylor, G.A.; Elliot, G.P.; Walker, K.J. & Bose, S. 2020. Year-round distribution, breeding cycle and activity of white-headed petrels (Pterodroma lessonii) nesting on Adams Island, Auckland Islands. Notornis 67 (1): 369-386

Tennyson, A.J.D. 2013a. White-bellied storm petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Tennyson, A.J.D. 2013b [updated 2015]. White-naped petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Tennyson, A.J.D. 2013c. Brown noddy. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Teuten, E.L.; Saquing, J.M.; Knappe, D.R.U.; Barlaz, M.A.; Jonsson, S.; Björn, A.; Rowland, S.J.; Thompson, R.C.; Galloway, T.S.; Yamashita, R.; Ochi, D.; Watanuki, Y.; Moore, C.; Hung Viet, P.; Seang Tana, T.; Prudente, M.; Boonyatumanond, R.; Zakaria, M.P.; Akkhavong, K.; Ogata, Y.; Hirai, H.; Iwasa, S.; Mizukawa, K.; Hagino, Y.; Imamura, A.; Saha, M. & Takada, H. 2009. Transport and release of chemicals from plastics to the environment and to wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences 364 (1526): 2027–2045.

Thiers, L.; Delord, K.; Barbraud, C.; Phillips, R.A.; Pinaud, D. & Weimerskirch, H. 2014. Foraging zones of the two sibling species of giant petrels in Indian Ocean throughout the annual cycle: implication for their conservation. Marine Ecology Progress Series 499: 233-248.

Thompson, D. R. 2010. Autopsy report for seabirds killed and returned from New Zealand fisheries, 1 October 2008 to 30 September 2009 (DOC Marine Conservation Services Series No. 6). Department of Conservation.

Thompson, D. 2013. Seabirds of the Chatham Rise. In support of an environmental impact assessment for Chatham Rock Phosphate. Report prepared by NIWA for Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd.

Thompson, D.; Sagar, P. & Torres, L. 2009. A population and distribution study of white-capped albatross (Auckland Islands). Report prepared for the Conservation Services Programme, Department of Conservation.

Thompson, D.; Sagar, P.; Torres, L. & Charteris, M. 2014. Salvin’s albatross at the Bounty Islands: at-sea distribution. Report prepared from Department of Conservation.









61

Thorpe, J.E.; Talbot, C.; Miles, M.S.; Rawlings, C. & Keay, D. S. 1990. Studies of food intake by salmon in sea cages. Video film paper. Proceedings 'World Aquaculture, 90', Halifax, Canada, 10-14 June 1990.

Toi-eda. 2009. The Opotiki Harbour Transformation Project. Accessed from http://www.toi-eda.co.nz/Economic-Development/Bay-of-Connections-strategies.aspx.

Torres, L.G.; Sagar, P.M.; Thompson, D.R. & Phillips, R.A. 2013. Scaling down the analysis of seabird-fishery interactions. Marine Ecology Progress Series 473: 275-289.

Troell, M.; Joyce, A.; Chopin, T.; Neori, A.; Buschmann, A.H. & Fang, J. 2009. Ecological engineering in aquaculture- Potential for integrated multi-trophic aquaculture (IMTA) in marine offshore systems. Aquaculture 297: 1-9.

Troup, C. 2004. Foraging strategies of Southern Royal Albatrosses, Diomedea epomophora Campbell Island during incubation. Maters thesis, Lincoln University, Canterbury, New Zealand.

Turbott, E.G. & Bell, B.D. 1995. A census of Spotted Shags (Strictocarbo punctatus punctatus) breeding on Banks Peninsula in 1960. 1995. Notornis 42: 197-202.

Van Cauwenberghe, L. & Janssen, C.R. 2014. Microplastics in bivalves cultured for human consumption. Environmental Pollution 193: 65-70.

Veale, A.J.; Hannaford, O.D.; Russell, J.C. & Clout M.N. 2012a. Modelling the distribution of stoats on New Zealand offshore islands. New Zealand Journal of Ecology 36 (1): 38-47.

Veale, A.J.; Clout, M.N. & Gleeson, D.M. 2012b. Genetic population assignment reveals a long-distance incursion to an island by a stoat (Mustela erminea). Biological Invasions 14: 735-742.

Walker, K. & Elliott, G. 2006. At-sea distribution of Gibson’s and Antipodean wandering albatrosses, and relationships with longline fisheries. Notornis 53: 265-290.

Wang, C.M.; Chu, Z.Y.I. & Park J.C. 2019. Moving offshore for fish farming. Journal of Aquaculture and Marine Biology 8: 38-39

Wanless, R.M.; Angel, A.; Cuthbert, R.J.; Hilton, G.M. & Ryan, P.G. (2007). Can predation by invasive mice drive seabird extinctions? Biology Letters 3: 2241-244.

Waugh, S.M. 2013a [updated 2017]. Grey-headed mollymawk. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Waugh, S.M. 2013b [updated 2017]. Campbell black-browed mollymawk. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Waugh, S.M. 2013c. Light-mantled albatross. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Waugh, S.M. & Bartle, J.A. 2013. Westland petrel. In Miskelly, C.M. (ed.) New Zealand Birds Online, retrieved from www.nzbirdsonline.org.nz.

Waugh, S.; Troup, C.; Filippo, D. & Weimerskirch, H. 2002. Foraging zones of Southern royal albatrosses. The Condor 104: 662-667.

Waugh, S.M.; Tennyson, A.J.D.; Taylor, G.A., & Wilson, K. 2013. Population sizes of shearwaters (Puffinus spp.) breeding in New Zealand with recommendations for monitoring. Tuhinga 24: 159-204.

Weimerskirch, H. & Robertson, G. 1994. Satellite tracking of light-mantled sooty albatrosses. Polar Biology 14: 123-126.

Whakatohea. 2020. Aquaculture. Accessed 30/7/20 from http://www.whakatohea.co.nz/moana.html.

http://www.toi-eda.co.nz/Economic-Development/Bay-of-Connections-strategies.aspx

http://www.toi-eda.co.nz/Economic-Development/Bay-of-Connections-strategies.aspx





http://www.whakatohea.co.nz/moana.html


62

White, P. 2013. Environmental consequences of poor feed quality and feed management. FAO Fisheries and Aquaculture Technical Paper.

White, S. 2018. Proposed Mussel Spat Catching Facility Supplementary Ecology Report- Ohinau Marine Farms. Pacific Coastal Ecology. Retrieved from https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/assets/WRC/Community/whats-happening/have-your-say/Mercury-Bay/RCAppln-spat-catching-farm-ecology.pdf.

Whitehead, E.A.; Adams, N.; Baird, K.A.; Bell, E.A.; Borrelle, S.B.; Dunphy, B.J.; Gaskin, C.P.; Landers, T.J.; Rayner, M.J. & Russell, J.C. 2019. Threats to Seabirds of Northern Aotearoa New Zealand. Northern New Zealand Seabird Charitable Trust, Auckland, New Zealand, 76p.

Whitney, M.C. & Cristol, D.A. 2017. Impacts of Sublethal Mercury Exposure on Birds: A Detailed Review. Reviews of environmental contamination and toxicology.

Wiltschko, W.; Munro, U.; Ford, H. & Wiltschko, R. 1993. Red light disrupts magnetic orientation of migratory birds. Nature 364: 525-526.

World Fishing & Agriculture. 2013. Mobile fish pen named a top 25 invention. Accessed 30/7/20 from https://www.worldfishing.net/news101/fish-farming/mobile-fish-pen-named-a-top-25-invention

Zhang J.; O’Reilly, K.M.; Perry G.L.W.; Taylor, G.A. & Dennis, T.E. 2015. Extending the functionality of Behavioural change-point analysis with k-means clustering: A case study with the little penguin (Eudyptula minor). PLoS ONE 10(4): 1-14

Žydelis, R.; Small, C. & French, G. 2013. The incidental catch of seabirds in gillnet fisheries: A global review. Biological Conservation 162, 76–88.

https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/assets/WRC/Community/whats-happening/have-your-say/Mercury-Bay/RCAppln-spat-catching-farm-ecology.pdf

https://www.waikatoregion.govt.nz/assets/WRC/Community/whats-happening/have-your-say/Mercury-Bay/RCAppln-spat-catching-farm-ecology.pdf

https://www.worldfishing.net/news101/fish-farming/mobile-fish-pen-named-a-top-25-invention

https://www.worldfishing.net/news101/fish-farming/mobile-fish-pen-named-a-top-25-invention


63

8. Appendices

Appendix 1. References used to determine significant seabird breeding colonies in New Zealand with data used to create figure 2 & 4.

Seabird Species References

Eastern rockhopper penguin Morrison, 2013; Morrison, 2015

Fiordland crested penguin Ellenberg, 2013

Snares crested penguin Miskelly, 2013a

Erect-crested penguin Miskelly, 2013

Yellow-eyed penguin Mattern & Wilson, 2018

Little penguin Dann, 1994; Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Flemming, 2013

Chatham Island blue penguin Flemming, 2013

Gibson's albatross Elliot & Walker, 2013

Antipodean albatross Elliot & Walker, 2013

Southern royal albatross Moore, 2013

Northern royal albatross BirdLife International, 2004

Grey-headed mollymawk Waugh, 2013a

Campbell black-browed mollymawk Waugh, 2013b

Northern Buller's Mollymawk (Pacific) Sagar, 2013b

Southern Buller's mollymawk Sagar, 2013b

White-capped mollymawk Sagar, 2013c

Chatham Island mollymawk BirdLife International, 2004; Deppe, 2012; Deppe, et al., 2014

Salvin's mollymawk Sagar, 2013d

Light-mantled sooty albatross Waugh, 2013c

Northern giant petrel Szabo, 2013a

Snares cape petrel Sagar, 2013e

Grey-faced petrel Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Miskelly, et al., 2019

White-headed petrel Miskelly, et al., 2019

Chatham Island taiko Miskelly, et al., 2019

Kermadec petrel Szabo, 2013; Gaskin, 2011

Soft-plumaged petrel Miskelly, et al., 2019

Mottled petrel Miskelly, et al., 2019

White-naped petrel Tennyson, 2013b

Black-winged petrel Taylor, 2013b; Miskelly, et al., 2019; Gaskin, 2011

Chatham petrel Miskelly, et al., 2019

Cook's petrel Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Miskelly, et al., 2019

Pycroft's petrel Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Miskelly, et al., 2019

Broad-billed prion Jamieson, et al., 2016

Antarctic prion Jamieson, et al., 2016

Fairy prion Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Jamieson, et al., 2016

Fulmar prion Jamieson, et al., 2016

White-chinned petrel Bell, 2013a

Westland petrel Waugh & Bartle, 2013


64

Black petrel Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Bell & Stewart, 2016; Bell, et al., 2019

Grey petrel Bell, 2013b

Wedge-tailed shearwater Waugh, et al., 2013; Gaskin, 2011

Buller's shearwater Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Waugh, et al., 2013

Flesh-footed shearwater Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Waugh, et al., 2013

Sooty shearwater Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Waugh, et al., 2013

Fluttering shearwater Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Waugh, et al., 2013

Hutton's shearwater Waugh, et al., 2013

Little shearwater Waugh, et al., 2013; Gaskin, 2011

North Island Little Shearwater Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Waugh, et al., 2013

Subantarctic little shearwater Waugh, et al., 2013

Grey-backed storm petrel Southey, 2013a

White-faced storm petrel Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Southey, 2013b

Kermadec storm petrel Southey, 2013d; Gaskin, 2011

New Zealand storm petrel Gaskin & Rayner, 2013

Black-bellied storm petrel Southey, 2013c

White-bellied storm petrel Tennyson, 2013a; Gaskin, 2011

Common diving petrel Miskelly, 2013b; Gaskin & Rayner, 2013

South Georgian (Whenua Hou) diving petrel Taylor, 2013a

Red-tailed tropicbird Ismar, 2013b; Gaskin, 2011

Australasian gannet Ismar, 2013a; Gaskin & Rayner, 2013

Masked booby Ismar, 2013c; Gaskin, 2011

Little shag Bell, 2012; Miskelly, 2013b; Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Taylor, 2013c

Black shag Powlesland, 2013a

Pied shag Bell, 2012; Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Powlesland, 2013b

Little black shag Powlesland, 2013b

New Zealand king shag Bell, 2012; Schuckard, et al., 2015

Stewart Island shag McKinlay, 2013

Otago shag NZ Bird Atlas explore tool

Chatham Island shag Bell, 2013c

Bounty Island shag Michaux, 2013

Auckland Island shag Szabo, 2013b

Campbell Island shag Szabo, 2013c

Spotted shag Turbott & Bell, 1995; Doherty & Brager, 1997; Bell, 2012; Gaskin & Rayner, 2013; Szabo, 2013d

Pitt Island shag Bell, 2013d

Subantarctic skua Hemmings, 2013

Red-billed gull Frost & Taylor, 2018; Gaskin & Rayner, 2013

Black-billed gull Mischler & Bell, 2016

Black noddy Szabo, 2013; Gaskin, 2011

Grey noddy Szabo, 2013; Gaskin, 2011

Brown noddy Tennyson, 2013c; Gaskin, 2011


65

White tern Szabo, 2013; Gaskin, 2011

Sooty tern McKinlay, 2013; Gaskin, 2011

Fairy tern Gaskin & Rayner, 2013

Caspian tern Sibson, 1992; Gaskin & Rayner, 2013

White -fronted tern Mills, 2013; Gaskin & Rayner, 2013

Antarctic tern Sagar, 2013f


66

Appendix 2. References used to determine New Zealand seabird species mean foraging ranges during the breeding season with data used to create Figure 4.

Seabird Species Mean foraging range (km) References

Eastern rockhopper penguin 200 Morrison, 2015

Fiordland crested penguin 40 Poupart, et al., 2019

Snares crested penguin 80 Mattern, 2006

Erect-crested penguin 100 Expert opinion using data from related species

Yellow-eyed penguin 20 Mattern, et al., 2007

Little penguin 10 Mattern, 2001; Zhang, et al., 2015

Chatham Island blue penguin 10 Expert opinion using data from related species

Gibson's albatross 3000 Expert opinion using data from related species

Antipodean albatross 3000 Walker & Elliot, 2006

Southern royal albatross 3000 Troup, 2004; Waugh, et al., 2002

Northern royal albatross 3000 BirdLife International, 2004

Grey-headed mollymawk 1500 Phalan, et al., 2007

Campbell black-browed mollymawk 1000 Expert opinion using data from related species

Northern Buller's Mollymawk (Pacific)

1000

Torres, et al., 2013

Southern Buller's mollymawk 400 Stahl & Sagar, 2000; BirdLife International, 2004; Torres, et al., 2013

White-capped mollymawk 1500 Thompson, et al., 2009

Chatham Island mollymawk 360 BirdLife International, 2004; Deppe, 2012; Deppe, 2014

Salvin's mollymawk 500 Thompson, et al., 2014

Light-mantled sooty albatross 1500 Weimerskirch & Robertson, 1994; Phillips, et al., 2005; Phalan, et al., 2007

Northern giant petrel 700 Thiers, et al., 2014

Grey-faced petrel 1000 MacLeod, et al., 2008

White-headed petrel 700 Expert opinion using data from related species1

Chatham Island taiko 700 Expert opinion using data from related species

Soft-plumaged petrel 700 Expert opinion using data from related species

Mottled petrel 700 Expert opinion using data from related species

1 A recent paper Taylor, et al., 2020 gives a mean foraging distance 3, 846km for white-headed petrel. This paper shows all foraging into the Tasman Sea and South Pacific Ocean and has been excluded from the kernel map for risk assessment as they show no birds foraging around New Zealand waters where any of the marine farms have currently been proposed.


67

Black-winged petrel 500 Expert opinion using data from related species

Chatham petrel 500 Expert opinion using data from related species2

Cook's petrel 500 Rayner, et al., 2008

Pycroft's petrel 500 Expert opinion using data from related species

Broad-billed prion 250 Expert opinion using data from related species

Antarctic prion 250 Expert opinion using data from related species

Fairy prion 250 Expert opinion using data from related species

Fulmar prion 250 Expert opinion using data from related species

White-chinned petrel 700 Expert opinion using data from related species

Westland petrel 700 Expert opinion using data from related species

Black petrel 700 Freeman, et al., 2010

Grey petrel 700 Expert opinion using data from related species

Buller's shearwater 500 Expert opinion using data from related species

Flesh-footed shearwater 500 Crowe, 2018

Sooty shearwater 1000 Söhle, et al., 2007

Fluttering shearwater 200 Expert opinion using data from related species

Hutton's shearwater 200 Bennet, et al., 2019

North Island Little Shearwater 200 Expert opinion using data from related species

Subantarctic little shearwater 400 Expert opinion using data from related species

Grey-backed storm petrel 100 Expert opinion using data from related species

White-faced storm petrel 100 Expert opinion using data from related species

New Zealand storm petrel 100 Expert opinion using data from related species

Black-bellied storm petrel 100 Expert opinion using data from related species

Common diving petrel 300 Rayner, et al., 2017

South Georgian (Whenua Hou) diving petrel

300 Expert opinion using data from related species

Australasian gannet 60 Machovsky-Capuska, et al., 2014

2 A paper from Rayner, et al., 2015 gives a foraging range of 2000 to 3000km during incubation for the Chatham petrel. This paper shows all foraging to the south and south-east of the Chatham Islands and has been excluded from the kernel map for risk assessment as they show no birds foraging around New Zealand waters where the marine farms have currently been proposed.


68

Pied shag 20 Bell, 2012

New Zealand king shag 15 Schuckard, 2006; Bell, 2012; Fisher & Boren, 2012

Stewart Island shag 15 McClellan, et al., 2020

Chatham Island shag 15 Expert opinion using data from related species

Bounty Island shag 15 Expert opinion using data from related species

Auckland Island shag 15 Expert opinion using data from related species

Campbell Island shag 15 Expert opinion using data from related species

Spotted shag 15 Bell, 2012

Pitt Island shag 7 Bell, 2015

Red-billed gull 50 Expert opinion using data from related species

Offshore aquaculture in New Zealand and its potential effects ...

Documents

Transcript of Offshore aquaculture in New Zealand and its potential effects ...