In the matter of a Board of Inquiry appointed to consider The New

Zealand King Salmon Company Limited’s Proposal for Private Plan

Change Requests to the Marlborough Sounds Resource Management

Plan and Resource Consent Applications for marine farming at nine

sites located in the Marlborough Sounds

Evidence from the East Bay Conservation Society Incorporated

10 August 2012

Presented by Finlay Thompson, Secretary East Bay Conservation Society

1

INTRODUCTION

1. This document incorporates and expands on material presented to the Board in an initial

submission on 2 May 2012, and expresses the consensus view of the members of the East

Bay Conservation Society (EBCS). We oppose the King Salmon applications.

2. In June 2012 we filed a statement of support for the Minister of Conservation’s request

for independent review of the applicant’s nutrient and hydrodynamic modelling. EBCS

has undertaken and presented expert evidence on hydrodynamic modelling in the past,

and thanks the Board for its decision in this matter.

3. The timing and tight time frame and the sheer size of this application has precluded

EBCS from a full study of all sites and undertaking our own research. We refer the Board

to the expert evidence of some other participants: in particular to Sustain our Sounds on

water column, seabed and benthic issues; to the evidence of the Marlborough District

Council, the Minister of Conservation, and the Environmental Defence Society on

landscape, visual amenity and natural character; and to the evidence of the Marlborough

District Council on planning matters.

4. EBCS reserves the right to reference our support for the evidence of others on key issues

following the circulation of submitters’ expert evidence. Any such reference will be noted

in our Opening Submission.

5. The NZKS proposals are complex and multi-layered and in our view deserve thorough

scrutiny through wide and informed public debate. In our preliminary submission we

noted that although this application relates to substantive environmental and community

interests in public space, there is an enormous disparity between the resource available to

the applicant and the lack of resources available to the public. We want to express our

thanks to the Board for its efforts since then to alleviate the pressures that submitters,

especially those living in the Sounds, are under, including the facilitation meetings, the

extension of timelines and the opportunity to examine the applicant’s evidence-in-chief

and the review of Cawthron modelling before finalising our own further evidence.

EBCS BACKGROUND

East Bay Conservation Society - Longstanding experience of living with marine

farming in the Marlborough Sounds.

6. The East Bay Conservation Society (EBCS) represents a small community in the Sounds

in a north facing, residentially attractive side of a large bay in the outer Queen Charlotte

Sound, which is zoned CMZ2. We have had experience of living with a Mew Zealand

King Salmon (NZKS) farm and with other marine farms since 1989. We suggest to the

Board that our collective experience of living alongside marine farming enterprises in the

outer Sounds for over 20 years is highly relevant to this Inquiry. We feel a strong duty of

care to participate responsibly in these processes as a result of the hard won knowledge

we have accrued. Our submission, based on real experience with many of the issues under

consideration, provides a level of practical expertise that we suggest should be taken into

consideration alongside that of other experts.

2

7. EBCS was formed and incorporated in 2001 to provide a voice for the protection of

recognised ecological values in East Bay, Arapawa Island from an explosion of marine

farming expansion in the “gold rush” of 1999. Its members are principally families who

own or use property adjacent to the CMZ2 area of East Bay. Land owned by members

encircles or overlooks Otanerau Bay at the southern end of this zone, where the applicant

operates its Otanerau farm. Four of the five houses in the bay are in line of sight with the

farm and in varying weather conditions are within sound distance. All householders are

within smell distance of the farm as they go past it by boat. Although this NZKS

application does not expand the current level of salmon farming in East Bay, our

observation of the effects of increasing the size of the Otanerau farm and its feed loading

through experimental adaptive management since 2005 is very pertinent.

8. In 1999 East Bay landowners were totally unaware that a CMZ2 zone had been created

in East Bay at the request of the marine farming industry. This was subsequent to

notification of the Proposed Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan which

showed East Bay as a marine farming prohibited area. Within three months of the lifting

of the moratorium in 1999, a total of over 200 hectares of new space was applied for, in

addition to the 48 hectares that could potentially be occupied by existing and undeveloped

older marine farm licences. EBCS made submissions in relation to the 19 applications for

new space in East Bay and participated in related Environment Court cases. In the end

less than 5% of the area applied for was granted.

9. Since 1999, EBCS has been fully engaged in all matters affecting the coastal marine area,

both at local and central government level. The most recent have been the Board of

Inquiry processes during the development of the NZCPS 2010 and the Aquaculture

Legislation Amendment (No 3) Bill that resulted in the 2011 Aquaculture Reforms. EBCS

is contributing to the development of the new combined Marlborough Sounds Resource

Management Plan and Regional Policy Statement (Plan/RPS) following an invitation by

the Marlborough District Council (MDC) to join the Marine Focus Group.

10. The Key Points listed below are based upon our long standing experience and expert

knowledge of the topics. We consider that our experience can be directly extrapolated to

many of the sites now under consideration.

3

EBCS KEY POINTS: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY AND TABLE OF CONTENTS

Ecological Impacts

1. There is insufficient recorded baseline data about whole of Sounds marine and

benthic ecology and the impact of nutrient loading from existing marine farms

on the water column. The NZKS evidence does not adequately assess the

cumulative impact of the proposed nine salmon farms on the marine ecology

alongside other existing activities. Page 5

2. The proposal offers no benefits to avoid or mitigate existing environmental

inadequacies of locating salmon farms in the current CMZ2 because the

proposed new zones still impact on the ecologically important coastal inshore

benthic habitats. Page 8

3. An adaptive management approach must be based on adequate information that

enables timely alerts to environmental changes likely to lead to a sudden tipping

point into disaster for the Sounds ecology. Lessons can be learnt from the history

of adaptive management at the Otanerau salmon farm. Page 12

4. Compliance of all salmon farms with ecologically sound standards should be

monitored by independent experts, funded from a collective industry levy (such

as coastal occupancy charges) and commissioned by a publicly accountable

agency. Page 17

Community

5. The natural wild landscape of the whole Sounds is why we go there. Protection

for future generations of what is left from the spread of industrial activities is a

most serious stewardship responsibility. Page 18

6. Salmon farms occupy public space with unavoidable, seriously disturbing

consequences for the amenity values of neighbouring communities, as we can

testify from our experience in East Bay. The amenity values of the neighbours

require serious recognition and adequate protection. Page 19

7. Navigation to and from the outer Queen Charlotte Sound is seriously

compromised by the siting of the new Ruaomoko and Kaitapeha marine farms.

Page 20

8. On the basis of practical experience of a sustainable lifestyle in the Sounds

together with acquired knowledge of sustainability in the salmon industry, EBCS

challenges the claim that NZKS salmon is grown sustainably. Page 22

4

Planning and Process

9. The wider planning context and history of aquaculture in the Marlborough

Sounds has important lessons for the Board in making decisions on these

applications. The ad hoc nature of the proposal effectively negates planning

processes under the 2011 aquaculture legislative reforms and introduces

unforeseen risks, particularly in relation to the expansion of finfish farming,

both in the Marlborough Sounds and nationally. Page 24

10. The proposal overrides and potentially negates the objectives of community

developed local body planning which seeks to protect residential and

recreational amenities as the dominant use in Queen Charlotte Sound. Page 26

CONCLUSION

The proposals detrimentally impact and potentially destroy the unique heritage that

is the maritime environment and landscape of the Sounds, currently in the

stewardship of both the local community and the nation. Page 29

APPENDICIES

Appendix A – Marine Farm Data Validation, Date: 1st of Feb 2012

Appendix B – Environmental Impacts on Otanerau Bay Farm Monitoring 2011,

Cawthron Report #2071

Appendix C – Conditions of Consent – from original EBCS submission

MAIN EVIDENCE: DISCUSSION OF THE KEY POINTS

Ecological Impacts

Key Point One

There is insufficient recorded baseline data about whole of Sounds marine and benthic

ecology and the impact of nutrient loading from existing marine farms on the water

column. The NZKS evidence does not adequately assess the cumulative impact of the

proposed nine salmon farms on the marine ecology alongside other existing activities.

11. Our principal concern in looking at the effects of marine farming has been the paucity of

marine ecological data in the Sounds, especially in relation to fisheries habitats and

breeding grounds; important benthic populations such as brachiopods, scallops,

burrowing anemones, horse mussels, sponge and algae beds and the habitats of marine

birds and mammals. This is particularly so with respect to those studies that have directly

examined the response of water column systems to increases in nutrient loading

associated with marine farms.

12. Serious risks from the cumulative impact of marine farming include:

5

• Loss of habitat

• Water quality degradation

• Accumulation of therapeutics and trace contaminants

• Introduction of disease to existing wild fish stock;

• Increased risk of algal blooms as a result of high nitrogen loading;

• Effects on seabirds and mammals

13. Until recently, there have been few studies that draw reputable information together for

the whole of the Sounds. There are therefore also few studies on which holistic, long term

planning for marine farming in the Sounds can be based, so as to ensure the retention of

sensitive ecological populations. Yet gradual, cumulative changes eventually reach the

whole food chain. Separate consideration of reports on distinct topics without a robust

understanding of cumulative long term impacts is potentially dangerous when there are

applications such as this for the introduction of nine new salmon farms to the existing

environment. In the absence of baseline studies there should at least be a serious

assessment of cumulative impacts by modelling existing discharges together with the

proposed discharges, not just from aquaculture but also from existing and planned land

based activities such as deforestation and sewage outfalls.

14. NZKS does not seem to have recognised assessment of cumulative impacts as a

significant issue and the Board does not have any assessment in front of them, as far as

we know. EBCS acknowledges the difficulties of providing a widely based

biogeochemical model. The Board has been advised that:

- such an undertaking that would be informative with respect to management of

multiple nutrient sources to the Sounds environment, could only be achieved through

government (and/or multi-stakeholder) research funding. The cost would be

prohibitive for a private client and would still require collection of data over a

number of years for model variation1.

15. The NZKS site surveys and modelling add some new information to the Sounds data

base. However, many uncertainties remain, particularly with respect to the influence of

the fine-scale eddying effect of wind driven water currents carrying nutrients and

sediments into slowly flushed bays, a topic for which EBCS has previously

commissioned research in East Bay. Also, EBCS can find no suggestion from within the

application or NZKS evidence that any consideration has been given to estimating the

extent of benthic communities and their habitats that have already been heavily

compromised by the existing mussel farm industry in the Sounds.

16.MDC now recognises, as do those who can observe seabed changes over time near

mussel and salmon farms, the risks from cumulative changes to the environment and the

critical importance of baseline studies. MDC has taken steps in recent years to fill some

gaps in whole of Sounds information by gathering together all known published work,

including benthic surveys and reports funded by applicants for marine farms, into an

electronic data base held at the MDC offices. This work culminated in a substantial report

1

Gillespie Evidence in Chief NZKS para 31

6

that takes a new approach as an ecological reference in recognising nine large scale

marine biogeographic areas in Marlborough2.

17. In its introduction its authors state,

“The report identifies and describes the ecological values for significant sites that

support rare, unique or special features, from the top of the high tide mark to the

edge of the regional boundary 22 km offshore, for an area that stretches from Cape

Soucis in Tasman Bay (Croisilles Harbour) in the north-west, through the

Marlborough Sounds, and south to Willawa Point, near Kekerengu, on the east coast.

This report outlines known information on areas with conservation, scientific or

ecological value that have come from a variety of sources including previous reports,

however some sites have only been recently discovered and require further study.

There is no doubt that many areas remain unknown, while some existing areas are

often poorly described or their extent remains unmapped.”

18. The report sets out the issues and threats, and environmental variables that need to be

considered in a holistic assessment of a proposal to introduce expansion of any activity

that threatens to upset the current balance of uses in the coastal marine area. It highlights

the complexity of the variables that contribute to the ecology of the Sounds that make it

difficult to predict outcomes with any certainty, even with constantly improving

modelling techniques.

19.The report also states that the seabed under mussel farms in areas of shallow coarse

substrata with poor circulation can get completely covered in mussel shell debris and

develop an aerobic layer close to the surface of the underlying sediment. Community

composition both within and on the seafloor can also change and there is a reduction in

water movement and phytoplankton in and down-current of a mussel farm3. EBCS

underwater research supports these findings. In considering cumulative effects from the

additional salmon farming proposed, the extent of existing mussel and salmon farm

industry degradation, on the Sounds benthic ecology is surely information that is highly

pertinent to the Board’s enquiry.

20. We agree with the Minister of Conservation and others that the effects associated with

nutrient loading resulting from the proposed nine salmon farms are critical issues for this

proposal. We commend the Board’s call for an independent review of the NZKS expert

evidence in relation to hydrodynamic dispersal because understanding this is vital if we

wish to protect the benthic health of neighbouring ecologies. To have confidence in the

Board’s decision, lay people have to rely on the quality of scientific information provided

for the Board. EBCS believes the seabed/benthic and water column evidence to be

provided by Sustain our Sounds will prove an invaluable contribution and ask that the

Board takes our support for this evidence into account.

21. Whether there is sufficient well tested data available to make informed decisions relating

to the likely impact of the nine sites on sensitive benthic and marine populations across

the whole of the Sounds is an important question for the Board. In our view this is not

2 Marlborough District Council and Department of Conservation Ecologically Significant Marine Sites in

Marlborough, New Zealand, Davidson et al 2011.3 Ibid, P.13.

7

currently the case. A Top-of-the-South databank of knowledge, not based on other

locations or overseas finding, is vital to assess this expansionary rush and also for

renewals of existing marine farm permits come 2024. EBCS suggests that a widely based

biogeochemical model is required to plan expansion of marine farming of any sort in the

Marlborough Sounds (not just these nine sites), so that the cumulative impacts of marine

farming on the wider Sounds environmental capital can be adequately assessed.

Key Point Two

The proposal offers no benefits to avoid or mitigate existing inadequacies of locating

salmon farms in the current CMZ2 because the proposed new zones still impact on

ecologically important inshore coastal benthic habitats.

22.NZKS concedes that aquaculture operations can have adverse effects on the seabed

environment and have potential to have wider-scale effects on inshore and ecologically

important ecosystems. Values associated with conservation, the natural character of the

seascape and fishery resources of recreational, commercial and customary importance

can also be adversely affected. Therefore, for this proposal, from an ecological

perspective, the process underpinning site selection was designed to prevent the

establishment of fish farms over particularly sensitive or ecologically important seabed

habitats.4

23. EBCS understands that within the Marlborough Sounds, inshore benthic habitats are in

general characterised by sloping coarser substrates and high biodiversity, when compared

to flat and muddy habitat further offshore. The mid-bay muddy plains are extensive and

are regarded to be more uniform and of lower ecological value. Marine farming is

associated with the release of fine sediments, and habitats that are already muddy are

suspected to undergo less change when subjected to this impact.

24. To illustrate the importance of the inshore slope, the document Ecologically Significant

Marine Sites in Marlborough, New Zealand 2011, describes habitats and species of

importance in the Marlborough Sounds. For the enclosed areas of the Sounds, this

summary indicates that close to 100% of the reported ecologically significant subtidal

communities only occur on the inshore slope and not on the abundant flat mud that

occurs further away from shore.

25. EBCS’ own surveys in East Bay confirm this pattern – with giant lampshell, burrowing

anemone, elephant fish egg cases, scallops, tube worm mounds, red algae beds and horse

mussel beds – all only occurring on the inshore slope, and not in the deep flat mud that

comprises the majority of the bay’s seafloor (see Figures 1 and 2). Despite this, all

marine farm development in East Bay has occurred very close to or over the sensitive and

ecologically valuable inshore slope, rather than over nearby flat mud.

4 Taylor Executive Summary, Evidence in Chief for NZKS 2012

8

Fig

ure

1:

Dep

th p

rofi

lefr

om

On

auk

uB

ay,E

ast

Bay

,Ara

paw

aIs

lan

d,u

sin

g E

BC

Sb

ath

ym

etry

.

Th

elo

cati

on

of

this

pro

file

isin

dic

ated

by

ad

ott

ed r

ed l

ine

in t

he

map

in

Fig

ure

2.T

his

typ

ical

pro

file

illu

stra

tes

the

exte

nt

of

the

flat

mu

d p

lain

(ju

stb

elo

w

45

md

epth

in

th

isca

se),

rela

tiv

eto

th

eex

tent

of

the

slo

pin

g i

nsh

ore

.E

BC

Sdiv

esu

rvey

sfr

equ

entl

y n

ote

d t

he

spec

ies

list

ed i

n t

he

insh

ore

zon

e,b

ut

did

no

t

fin

d t

hem

in t

he

flat

mu

d.

9

Fla

tM

ud,

little

co

nsp

icu

ou

s e

pifa

un

a

Insho

reslo

pe,

co

ars

er

su

bstr

ate

s.

Ha

bita

tfo

r:

Scallo

ps

Blu

eC

od

Lam

psh

ell

Burr

ow

ing

an

em

on

eH

ors

em

usse

lsR

ed

Alg

ae

Ele

ph

an

tF

ish

spa

wn

ing

….e

tc

Insho

reslo

pe,

co

ars

er

su

bstr

ate

s.

Ha

bita

tfo

r:

Scallo

ps

Blu

eC

od

Lam

psh

ell

Burr

ow

ing

an

em

on

eH

ors

em

usse

lsR

ed

Alg

ae

Ele

ph

an

tF

ish

spa

wn

ing

….e

tc

Fig

ure

2:

Lo

cati

on

of

tran

sect

fro

mF

igu

re1.

10

26. EBCS does not submit that flat mud habitat is of no value. For example, we understand that King

Shag feed in such habitat on witch flounder – but flat mud habitat is generally less biodiverse and

is more common in the Marlborough Sounds compared to the inshore slope habitat. EBCS is

concerned that all the NZ King Salmon applications are in part over, or in close proximity to, the

inshore slope. It is not sustainable to locate this type of development over the most valuable and

sensitive habitat in the Marlborough Sounds, while avoiding more abundant flat mud habitat.

27. EBCS suggests that this situation has arisen due to inadequate planning for aquaculture

development in the Marlborough Sounds. Planning to date has encouraged farm development

close to shore only, primarily for navigational reasons, which could be considered the exact

opposite of what is required to protect the subtidal ecology of the Marlborough Sounds.

28. The attached map from the MDC website (Appendix A) with existing marine farms highlighted

in dark blue, illustrates the extent of loss of ecologically valuable inshore slope habitats that has

been incrementally occurring since marine farming began in the Marlborough Sounds in the

1970’s. These farms are all located within the 250m (from MHS) wide CMZ2 that in 1995 was

deemed to be the most appropriate place to consider expansion of the marine farming industry.

The NZKS application, while seeking to alter the Sounds Plan through choosing sites to its own

advantage, has not addressed this fundamental problem within the plan. NZKS is in effect asking

the Board to decide that a portion of the benthos can be sacrificed to enable site selection that will

meet other RMA Part 2 tests during assessment of their proposals.

29. As a consequence, further habitats will be lost or compromised. For example:

Habitats in the centre of the primary depositional footprints are likely to be highly modified

and any sessile sensitive epifauna are unlikely to survive. The increased availability of

organic-rich particulates is expected to cause significant changes in the benthos beneath and

near to all of the farms. Despite the rigorous site selection process of high-flow, highly

dispersive sites, ecologically significant habitats such as biogenic clumps in the outer extent

of the Ngamahau footprint, patches of deep reef within the Kaitapeha and Ruaomoko

footprints, and a significant reef habitat close to the White horse Rock farm will potentially

be adversely affected5.

30. Mr Davidson, principal author of the MDC and DOC report on Ecologically Significant Marine

Sites, states in his evidence for NZKS:

There is little doubt that the number, extent and quality of important biological values in the

Sounds, as well as the quality of the general marine environment, has declined since the

arrival of humans. Inappropriate or poorly planned human endeavours have often had a

negative effect on the marine environment. This has undoubtedly led to a reduction in the

quality and quantity of biological values in the Marlborough Sounds. It is therefore important

that remaining sites with significant biological values in the Sounds are not further adversely

affected and are well managed.

31. EBCS suggests all the inshore benthos, even that with more common biological values, is

deserving of this same protection. We simply do not know what critical mass of this essential

component of the food-web structure of the Sounds marine ecology is necessary to avoid a tipping

5

. Keeley, Evidence in Chief Benthic Effects NZKS 2012

11

point into ecological disaster. We note that while the NZCPS requires recognition of aquaculture’s

potential contributions when in appropriate places, it also requires protection of natural character

from inappropriate subdivision, use and development, and the protection of indigenous biological

diversity and the avoidance of effects on threatened indigenous taxa. Of relevance here are:

• RMA Section 5 safeguarding the life-supporting capacity of water and ecosystems and

appropriately avoiding, remedying or mitigating adverse effects

• RMA Section 7(d) Intrinsic values of ecosystems

• NZCPS Policies 11 and 13.

Key Point Three

An adaptive management approach must be based on adequate information that enables timely

alerts to environmental changes likely to lead to a sudden tipping point into disaster for the Sounds

ecology. Lessons can be learnt from the history of adaptive management at the Otanerau salmon

farm.

32. By highlighting our experience of adaptive management with the Otanerau farm, EBCS hopes to

provide some food for thought for the Board members in deliberating on this critical issue at the

very heart of the proposal. The Key Point we are calling attention to here is the inability of current

knowledge about the Marlborough Sounds to provide a robust basis for the Board to have

confidence in the adaptive management approach.

33.EBCS first encountered the concept of adaptive management in 2004 when NZKS applied for

resource consent to increase the area of surface structures of the Otanerau farm from 1.289

hectares to 2.00 hectares. They also wished to discharge up to 4000 metric tonnes of salmon feed

per annum, an increase of 1000 metric tonnes, and to install underwater lighting6 Adaptive

management had been designed and trialled for about a year at the Te Pangu farm and NZKS were

confident that, with newly improved feeding mechanisms and controlled monitoring of

environmental effects, the Otanerau farm site could safely absorb the planned expansion.

34. Although eight of the nine proposed NZKS sites are in higher flow areas than Otanerau, we

believe this farm provides a useful case study for the board to consider how much reliance it

should place on the Marine Environmental Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan (MEM-

AMP) that is an integral part of the NZKS proposal. The Otanerau example is particularly

relevant to the Papatua site.

Seabed and water column effects

35. The Otanerau farm was established in 1989 on what Cawthron classify as a low-moderate flow

site. The farm has not been in continuous use since that time. We recall the structures disappeared

for at least a year, possibly two, at the time the Proposed MSRMP was notified in 1995. Our

understanding from speaking with former employees working on the farm is that it was not

performing as well as Regal Salmon (the then owners) hoped and fish were getting sick. The latter

was possibly related to over-warm water temperatures during the summer months. Since the re-

establishment of the farm on the site, fish stock have been moved to the Te Pangu farm from late

December to mid-late April to avoid the effects of the warmer water temperature in Otanerau Bay

6 Marlborough District Council, Decision on application for resource consent No U040212 from NZKS Ltd, 22 April

2005

12

during those months. This farm is therefore effectively fallowed for three to four months each

year.

36. Despite this, the annual monitoring surveys over the last ten years have shown consistently high

levels of nutrient enrichment of the seabed under the farm, with bacterial mats and highly elevated

levels of total free sulphides producing strong sulphide odours and outgassing bubbles breaking at

the sea surface. Sediment change has been present in grab samples each year up to 200 metres

from the cage boundary in the north-easterly current flow direction. Sediment samples tested for

% organics by EBCS in 2005 found elevated levels at stations in an east to north arc up to more

than 500 metres from the cage boundaries. Cawthron are aware of these results but continue to

take samples from out to a maximum of only 200 metres for annual monitoring surveys.

37.The Cawthron Report of monitoring prior to the 2004 hearing, used as the basis for designing the

ES zones for Otanerau, showed “the seabed to have deteriorated since the previous year’s

monitoring survey. Organic content in the sediments below the cages had increased with a

corresponding decrease in animal abundance with conditions almost too harsh to support

infaunal communities. There was a strong H2S odour and sediments released outgassing bubbles

when disturbed. Copper levels beneath the farm were within acceptable levels but zinc levels were

elevated”7.

38. EBCS opposed the application as we were not convinced that this newly proposed “try it and see”

way of managing environmental effects, on a year to year basis, could work on a farm where the

feed loading was to be increased into an environment already heavily compromised. [We were

also concerned that increasing the number of cages could assist an expansion of the spread of the

invasive sea squirt, Didemnum vexillum which had recently been brought into the bay on NZKS

cages temporarily stored next to an infected barge in Shakespeare Bay.]

39. Consent was granted in April 2005 subject to conditions including adaptive management. The

maximum volume of feed to be discharged within the first year was 3500 metric tonnes. The

November 2011 Cawthron Report No 2071 (Appendix B) shows annual feed inputs since 2001

have historically ranged from 1501 to 2568 tonnes. Over the year December 2010 to the end of

November 2011 a total of 1346 tonnes of feed was used. The farm has never yet been able to

utilise the maximum feed volume granted in 2005 due to the maximum acceptable ES limits being

reached each year.

40.This was the case again for the year ending November 2011. Cawthron suggested that farming

intensity would need to be further reduced for some recovery to occur. NZKS has voluntarily

agreed to restrict its rolling 12 month average feed out between November 2011 and November

2012 to 1850 metric tonnes. If that does not improve environmental effects, the tonnage will need

to be further reduced8.

41. The 1850 metric tonnes to be trialled is greater than the previous year’s loading of 1346 metric

tonnes and seems to contradict the rationale for a more conservative approach. The report

explains that the Otanerau farm had been significantly reduced in size in 2009 as cages were

removed from this farm and shifted to a number of other farm sites, resulting in a lower than usual

24-month total of feed discharge up to November 2011. The fact that seabed deterioration actually

7 Cawthron Report No 9748 Preece Farm Operation Detail Evidence NZKS 2012

13

increased is explained away by the temporary relocation and addition of the Ruakaka farm to the

Otanerau site for 3.5 months between 12 June and 2 October 2010.

42. The key point to emphasise here is that even by maintaining lower than predicted levels of feed

discharge, the Otanerau farm is being pushed each year to the absolute limits of agreed

environmental effects. For the Y/E November 2011 (see Appendix B):

• The enrichment stage beneath the cages (ES 5.9) was close to ES 6, which is an undesirable

state. Although not completely azoic, ES 5.9 is a highly impacted and biologically

impoverished state and beyond the point at which wastes are efficiently assimilated – and

instead waste is likely to be accumulating.

• The copper and zinc concentrations beneath the cages exceeded the best available guideline

thresholds for probable biological effects (ANZECC 2000, as concluded by Clement et al.

2010)

Off-site effects

43.Unpredicted off-site effects have also occurred. Near-bottom Dissolved Oxygen levels are

frequently low and in some years, the water column has shown depleted dissolved oxygen at

distance from the cage boundary9.

44. Further fine scale off-site environmental impacts were discovered late in 2005 when EBCS divers

were surveying benthic transects within a large embayment, created by the landform of Parea

Point some 200 metres to the north of the farm cage boundary. The seabed under the deeper ends

of the two transects nearest to the salmon farm, about 200 and 275 metres distant respectively,

appeared to have a patchy covering of fine black-grey sediment even though the underlying

material was coarse. Further inshore, brachiopods were partially covered in soft sediment. Cable

ties identified as those used by divers to secure predator nets on the salmon farm were observed

and photographed at various depths along the transect that followed the steep seabed slope

separating the salmon farm from the site being surveyed for a proposed mussel farm.

45. The tidal current flow carrying sediment from the salmon farm had been estimated for adaptive

management purposes to travel in a north-easterly direction from the northern boundary of the

farm. The deep ends of the EBCS dive transects were in a due northerly direction from the farm,

with the transects running in a westerly direction to the shore of the embayment. EBCS

commissioned Dr Neil Hartstein from the Danish Hydraulic Institute to undertake hydrodynamic

and depositional modelling of water movement in East Bay to be used as evidence in an

Environment Court appeal in relation to the proposed mussel farm partially located in the Parea

Point embayment. Dr Hartsteins’ analysis showed that tidal currents are insignificant, compared to

wind driven currents in the dispersal of sediment from marine farms in East Bay.

46. The modelling also confirmed that the sediment and the cable ties observed on the divers’

transects were being carried northwards by southerly wind forced currents from the salmon farm

and eddying around a rocky promontory into the embayment, rather than in the opposite direction

on which the adaptive management depositional footprint for the salmon farm is based. Sediment

is deposited on the seabed over about half of the intended structures area for the mussel farm, and,

as the EBCS survey found, soft sediments were drifting further inshore and settling on nationally

significant benthic species such as brachiopods and burrowing anemone.

9 Gillespie Evidence NZKS 2011

14

47. The Environment Court upheld the MDC decision to grant the Parea Point mussel farm but on an

adaptive management basis, with only three of the nine lines applied for to be installed initially.

The Ministry of Fisheries preferred to follow a safer route to protect sensitive benthic species and

declined to grant a marine farm licence to grow mussels on the first three inshore lines of the farm

if it were installed. There are no lines in the water as yet. The applicant applied to renew the

resource consent eighteen months ago and a hearing is yet to be held.

48. Cawthron are aware of the deposition of salmon farm sediments on sensitive off-site benthic

habitats and species in the Parea Point embayment as they acted as the benthic expert for the

prospective mussel farmer. They continue to survey one transect only, every second year,

perpendicular to the salmon farm and shoreline well to the south of the embayment, when testing

for off-site environmental effects on the benthos during monitoring surveys at the Otanerau farm

for NZKS.

49. EBCS has found that significant off-site effects can and do occur as a result of human or

mechanical error. The southern shoreline of Otanerau Bay provides a 330 metre long sand and

smooth pebble beach that offers safe bathing in waters warmed by the shallow depth at the head

of the bay. This beach was unpleasant to linger on during one entire summer owing to a strong

fish oil odour that had permeated the sand. Enquiries indicated that this was the result of problems

with the fish feeding mechanism during the previous spring. The smell took a good year to

disappear. This was a significant negative effect on a valued community amenity.

Monitoring and compliance

50. EBCS has become increasingly concerned about the poor performance of the Otanerau farm. We

are even more concerned about the MDC’s apparent lack of ability to provide a prompt

management response when the farm reaches maximum acceptable ES limits. We understand that

Cawthron’s report of the November 2011 monitoring was received by MDC in March 2012.

When EBCS sought a copy of the management response in July, we were advised that it was not

publicly available as it was still waiting for council sign off. The delays at every step of the way

indicate an irresponsible attitude to dealing with the environmental problems at Otanerau by both

NZKS and MDC.

51. Having run out of patience, EBCS made a request in writing to the MDC to order removal of the

farm until it can be shown that the benthos has recovered. The reply was that this is not

achievable within the current framework because NZKS is complying with the conditions of their

consent.

52. We understand the pressures that NZKS are under to meet market orders and the need for

Otanerau to make a contribution to this demand. However, we find it totally unacceptable that the

environment of Otanerau Bay has to pay such a high price by pushing conditions under the farm

year after year to the point where it is marginal to be growing fish by the time they are moved to

Te Pangu for the summer months. Clearly, the pattern since adaptive management began seven

years ago, is that the 3 to 4 months of fallowing provide insufficient respite for recovery to enable

production to continue at the previous year’s level. This farm appears to be on a downward spiral

along with Ruakaka to join the ranks of Hallam Cove, Crail Bay, Forsyth and Waihinau. This is

despite the much vaunted adaptive management.

15

53.EBCS has little confidence in MDC’s recent assurance that “the site will improve significantly

over time and this will be evidenced during the next round of monitoring in November this year.”

NZKS has volunteered a further small reduction in feed discharge for the current year. This

reduction needs to occur gradually to avoid fish mortalities, requiring a 24 month time frame for

results to become apparent10.

54. Again, the response is too slow and too long. With annual monitoring, there is a risk of anoxic

and/or azoic levels being present for some months before detection and action is begun to halt the

process. It is inevitable that, even if lower ES levels can be achieved, damage to the environment

is able to continue during the long delays at every step of the way to implementing a remedy.

Once damage has occurred, the process of monitoring conditions and then restoring the local

ecology is very protracted and quite unproven.

55. It will by now be apparent to the Board that EBCS has even less confidence in the likely success

of adaptive management than we had in 2005. The MEM-AMP that has been proposed seems to

have some improved features that may successfully address some of the issues we have

highlighted here. However, the modelling that informs the Conditions of Consent seems to have

some deficiencies, namely lack of recognition of wind forced currents on the movement of farm

wastes in water from the proposed farms, insufficient baseline information within the models to

provide certainty of outcomes, and the lack of a worst case scenario modelled by using maximum

recommended feed levels, not initial feed levels, to anticipate possible tipping points for the

environment.

Failure of adaptive management regime

56.The problems associated with the adaptive management regime for the Otanerau farm provide

good examples of situations described in the some scientific literature reviewing these kinds of

management systems11. In particular, the fact that ecological systems do not behave proportionally

to activity and may move permanently to stable, and highly degraded, states. Otanerau’s ecology

may never return to its initial pristine state. Our experience, as detailed in this submission, shows

that the proposed limits imposed by the adaptive management regime on the Otanerau farm do not

allow the ecology to recover. In fact, the highly impacted state of the bay, confirmed by

monitoring, means that any further farm waste is now accumulating. In our view, the ecology has

been pushed over a tipping point and that the only reasonable action to protect the bay, and the

greater area, is to remove the farm altogether.

Conclusion

57. In our view there is insufficient benthic and water column research to impose a viable adaptive

management plan that caters for the long term needs of an expanded salmon farm industry. EBCS

accepts that the Board will balance the level of risk to the ecology indicated in the evidence

against counter evidence that suggests adaptive management can provide protection. It points out,

however, that if there is no evidence produced about the critical factors for the tipping points into

ecological disaster, and whether those factors are present or absent in particular situations,

adaptive management is an inappropriate approach.

10 Preece Farm Operation Detail Evidence NZKS 2012.11

Resilience and sustainable development: building adaptive capacity in a world of transformations, Folke C, Carpenter

S, Elmqvist T, Gunderson L, Holling CS, Walker B.Ambio, 2002 Aug;31(5):437-40.

16

Key Point Four

Compliance of all salmon farms with ecologically sound standards should be monitored by

independent experts, funded from a collective industry levy (such as coastal occupancy charges)

and commissioned by a publicly accountable agency.

58. In light of the discussion in the section above, it is clear that monitoring and enforcing standards

is a critical aspect for the introduction of nine more salmon farms. Indeed the experience

discussed in the section above illustrates the pitfalls and is almost an example of how not to do it.

The expectation that the industry can monitor itself and that local authorities have appropriate

expertise and resources to review the data and enforce conditions in a timely and accountable way

is clearly unrealistic.

59. Data on the benthic environment of the Sounds has largely been collected and presented at RMA

hearings, including at this Inquiry, by the applicants for marine farm space. When NZKS or any

subsequent owners wish to change aspects of the proposed farms, this would be the expected

process. The pool of benthic experts that can be asked to prepare reports on marine farm

proposals in the Marlborough Sounds is very small, with the same people carrying out the work

while wearing different hats. Experts in the same organisation may be contracted to undertake

ongoing monitoring. The risk of capture by clients is correspondingly high.

60. We have experience of data being presented by experts that does not reflect adequate quality

standards or independent peer review, but which favours the funder’s interests. We also have

experienced experts in the larger Government funded research agencies turning down

commissions with us which might lead to their appearances as experts on the opposite side from

lucrative clients, as we noted in our legal submission to the Board relating to peer review of the

NZKS hydrodynamic modelling report. This situation is not unique to benthic experts. NZ is a

small country and in financially constrained times we accept that expert objectivity from clients

may be hard to maintain.

61. Although inadequate evidence can be (and has been) successfully challenged in court hearings,

this is not the case with ongoing monitoring. EBCS wants to alert the Board to the importance of

independent experts being contracted independently of the funder. We call your attention to the

funding and contracting of research relating to deep sea fisheries. The industry pays a levy to the

Ministry of Primary Industries (previously MFish) which uses these funds to commission

monitoring and research. This provides strong incentives for the industry and officials to work

together to reduce environmentally detrimental and costly side effects.

62. Our strong view, based on our own experience and the above model, is that commissioning

monitoring and research should be funded by a levy on the industry but managed by a publicly

accountable independent agency.

63.As noted in our earlier submission, EBCS has always advocated the application of coastal

occupancy charges (COCs) to marine farming space. A legal challenge to the current plan by three

EBCS members on the basis that the Plan should include COCs for marine farming was only

withdrawn after agreement with MDC in 2008 about their intention to introduce such COCs in the

new Plan. We noted that NZ King Salmon opposes the introduction of COCs in relation to their

new sites prior to the new plan being notified12.

12 NZKS Fourth Memorandum of Counsel in respect of modifications made to its plan change by the Council, 21/3/2012

17

64. This seems inconsistent with an application which essentially seeks to vary the plan in advance of

it being notified. Given that COCs are to cover Council’s costs in relation to management of their

new marine farms it also suggests lack of good will by NZKS to contribute to the minimal costs

of their proposed occupation of coastal space; an appearance of taking from the community

without reciprocal giving.

Community

Key Point Five

The natural wild landscape of the whole Sounds is why we go there. Protection for future

generations of what is left from the spread of industrial activities is a most serious stewardship

responsibility.

65. The beautiful natural landscape of the Sounds is probably the most important reason why people

love to go there, and keep coming back. Some members of EBCS recall what Otanerau Bay was

like before the Otanerau salmon farm was established. Even though some of the surrounding

landscape had been cleared for farm land, the bay felt remote, natural and wild. Residents, visitors

and boaties all enjoyed these aspects of the bay. With the presence of the salmon farm, its visual

and noise impacts, and the regular comings and goings of the various service boats, the nature of

the bay has significantly changed. We still consider Otanerau Bay a fantastic place to go to, but it

no longer has that special feeling of natural wilderness and remoteness from the city, rather you

feel near a place of industry.

66. We do not deny there have occasionally been benefits from having the farm in the bay such as

barge transport for delivery of goods but most EBCS members wish the farm was not there and

lament the loss of the natural bay. The presence of the salmon farm in the bay also raises stressful

concerns about what detrimental effects may be going on beneath the waters. If the NZKS

application proceeds, the residents, visitors and boaties that go to those CNZ3 areas are likely to

experience similar negative effects and sense of loss.

67. In East Bay our landscape is regenerating from the impacts of farming and forestry. It will take

time, but the evolution from pasture to native bush and birds is well underway. While the presence

of marine farms adversely affects our marine landscape, EBCS has so far had some success in

limiting the carpeting of the bay with marine farms. In other parts of the Sounds, particularly in

parts of Pelorus Sound, the landscape has already been more seriously degraded by the spread of

industrial activities.

68. EBCS recognises that human industrial activity on both sea and land will continue and that the

task of the Board is to balance this with protection of the natural wildlife landscape. The line will

be drawn by decision-makers such as this Board of Inquiry. In our view, the degree of

industrialisation that nine more salmon farms will have on the landscape, particularly with respect

to natural character, intrinsic values and the sense of open space, is unacceptable. It is out of step

with our stewardship of this unique environment so that future generations can enjoy the same

beauty that lifts our spirits.

69. We know from experience that in the long term the landscape reflects the health of the natural life

it sustains. A balance that protects the landscape and allows dynamic regeneration of natural life

18

on land and in the sea from industrial degradation must be maintained. This is in the best interests

of both the community and industry. We endorse the evidence of the Marlborough District

Council, the Minister of Conservation, and the Environmental Defence Society on landscape,

visual amenity and natural character. We ask the Board to consider their balancing task in regard

to landscape most seriously.

Key Point Six

Salmon farms occupy public space with unavoidable, seriously disturbing consequences for the

amenity values of neighbouring communities, as we can testify from our experience in East Bay.

The amenity values of the neighbours require serious recognition and adequate protection.

70. Salmon farms have exclusive use of public space, which carries serious consequences for their

neighbouring communities. For an activity to earn such a right, any effects need to be negligible.

EBCS considers the NZKS proposals potentially change the current use and character of the

public space in the Sounds. What is primarily a community recreational, living, and tourist marine

space will be adversely affected and could become an industrialised zone. This risk is not just

from these NZKS proposals but from the precedent they will establish.

71. NZKS has acknowledged that there will be off-site effects of varying degrees from the proposal.

EBCS suggests that collectively these cannot be assessed as less than minor and are sufficient

cause to decline the proposal. We reject the apparently new bench mark adopted by some of the

applicant’s experts for assessing effects on amenity values. To conclude that mitigation efforts to

reduce effects such as noise and odour will make them less than impacts currently experienced by

residents near to a salmon farm, and therefore more acceptable to neighbours of the proposed

farms, is not, in our view a sustainable or even logical argument. It seems analogous to saying that

two wrongs can make a right.

72. Our experience in East Bay of the Otanerau salmon farm includes visual degradation, noise and

smell. Since taking over the operation of the farm some years ago, NZKS have endeavoured in

particular to minimise noise effects for neighbours. We find their staff ready to discuss and try to

remedy any identified problems, and noise levels have reduced compared with the early years of

operation during the nineties. We support the measures set out in the Proposed Conditions of

Consent to lessen the effects of odour from the farms. However, smell and mechanical noise are

unavoidable necessities for the operation of this activity. EBCS members have learned to live with

this fact but that is not to say we find it acceptable, nor would we accept the “lessening” methods

suggested in mitigation as enabling location of salmon farms near residential properties. There

will still be effects that diminish the enjoyment of being at those properties.

73. The noise from the generator and water blaster is heard to varying degrees at four of the five

houses in Otanerau Bay that are in line of sight of the salmon farm. These houses are in a range of

about 900m to 2.1km distance from the farm. Noise from the farm is deflected away from the fifth

house by a ridge close by that also obscures a view of the farm. This is the only house built in

Otanerau Bay since the salmon farm started operating in 1989 and the site was chosen to

minimise negative effects from the salmon farm. Wind direction and natural background noise

from wind and wave action alter the volume of the sound coming from the farm on a day to day

basis.

19

74. It is not so much the volume but the repetitive nature of the sounds that diminish one’s enjoyment

of the locality. We liken it to the noise that town residents are subject to from road works, a

constant and persistent aggravation in the neighbourhood, the type of noise that city dwellers

come to the Sounds to escape from. Unfortunately, for those living near a salmon farm, the noise

generated by the activity does not stop at 5pm and is at its most obvious on the calm, balmy days

conducive to being out and about to enjoy what the bay has to offer. Of course the calm on such

days is also interrupted intermittently by boat motors, but this is part of the maritime environment

just as intermittent car noise is acceptable compared with persistent grinding roadworks.

75. We agree that the change from Controlled to Discretionary activity status has helped to lessen the

perception of exclusivity to some degree. However, the term sought is 35 years. If, within this

period it is decided either by the Applicant or the consenting authority that the activity needs to

cease, a zone will still exist where salmon farming is the only activity permitted for the exclusive

use of a new applicant. The reality is that the community and the industry have competing

interests in the Sounds and lines must be drawn to protect community amenity values in public

spaces.

76. We suggest that the Board should not underestimate the seriousness of the pressure from marine

farming on communities. In East Bay the marine farm industry, including NZKS, has sought to

protect their interests by opposing land subdivision plans unless the subdivider imposes a

condition on the registered title of new allotments to the effect that new owners will not

object to marine farms in the future. Reverse sensitivity clauses, which seem like threats to the

recipients, are a dubious legal practise anywhere. In a place like East Bay where the community

has a long history of trying to protect natural amenity values from potentially serious degradation,

they are abhorrent. Rather than working with the community to establish mutually agreed limits

on marine farming, we see this attempt to stifle dialogue as akin to blackmail.

77. Subdivision is common in the Sounds, as anywhere, to allow family succession or to enable

landowners to realise some equity in their property. Given this precedent, how long will it be

before the landowners neighbouring the proposed new farms are subject to this kind of pressure?

Two of the farms in Queen Charlotte Sound and Tory Channel are in front of houses.

78. If the Board is considering granting consent and considering reverse sensitivity issues during its

assessments and in setting conditions, we ask that it places a high priority, on the protection of

property rights of landowners in the vicinity of any of the proposed CMZ3 areas, as well as other

users of the Sounds. For example, at [19] of the proposed Conditions of Consent, we do not think

the visual effects mitigation offered to the house in Kaitapeha Bay takes account of the possibility

of subdivision of the adjacent land creating another house site.

Key Point Seven

Navigation to and from the outer Queen Charlotte Sound is seriously compromised by the siting of

the new Ruaomoko and Kaitapeha marine farms.

79. The Queen Charlotte Sound is the highway for all the holiday homes and permanent residences in

East Bay in the outer Queen Charlotte Sound, and many other residents in the Sound also have

water only access. This means that protection of access is a priority amenity value in Queen

Charlotte Sound.

20

80. Safety in navigating small craft near marine farm sites has long been recognised as a critical

matter in siting marine farms in the Sounds. Several of the NZKS proposed farms are directly on

the navigation route of small craft taking advantage of the shelter of the coastline during severe

weather. In this respect there is one very important matter that the Applicant has failed to address

in its evidence on navigation in Queen Charlotte Sound. This is the need to maintain clear water

space for the manoeuvre that is employed by recreational boats of residents living to the north of

Dieffenbach Point when crossing Tory Channel in rough southerly conditions.

81. The navigation witnesses have correctly identified that the most commonly used route to travel up

and down the Sound is either up the middle or, in windier nor’west conditions, hugging the

western shoreline. To avoid side-on gusts and wave action EBCS members and others commonly

cut into the openings of individual bays, catching the tops of the waves as we angle across to a

point where it is safe to turn in the lee of the opposite hill in order to run out of the bay and round

the next point with the waves. This is called ‘bay hopping’ by Sounds people.

82. Boaties employ the same method to travel the sound in southerly conditions, using the lee of the

land on the eastern coastline for shelter. The main area of concern in these winds, once gusts

reach 35 or more knots, is the open water between the headlands at the Queen Charlotte entrance

to Tory Channel. Williwaws can be particularly strong as they funnel from the channel around

each point. The water between the points can be confused and ‘bubbly’, especially if the tide is

turning and there are often wakes from larger boats and ferries hidden in the overall swell and

wave action.

83. When EBCS members encounter these conditions, the safest way to cross the channel is to once

again, use the concept of bay hopping. There is normally a small area of flatter water created by

the landform of the Ruaomoko Reserve that we aim for to make our turning manoeuvre when

travelling either north or south - to home or to Waikawa. The precise location of this calmer water

can vary, depending on whether the wind is southerly or more south easterly. After studying the

maps and simulated photographs of the Ruaomoko zone site we believe its location will interfere

with our ability to fall back on the navigational safety measure as outlined here. Even if

conditions allow us to cross the channel in a relatively straight line, we will be impeded by both

the Ruaomoko and Kaitapeha farms from seeking our usual shelter from the Arapawa Island

landforms. Our boats will be forced to take a line through much rougher water than necessary at

present.

84. This matter was raised with the Applicant’s experts at a facilitation meeting. They considered that

the remedy was to travel inshore of these two farms. Travelling for this distance in windy

conditions with obstructions on either side of our route, in the predicted width shown on the maps,

is a navigation option that has no appeal to us. It goes against all our safety instincts. It cannot be

likened to coming into a marina in much tighter spaces as suggested by the experts. More

importantly, the location of the Ruaomoko farm will remove our choice of a turning point at a

position to optimise safety in the conditions described.

85. Sometimes it is necessary to travel, despite the weather conditions, for business including Council

or EPA meetings, personal events, attending appointments and linking with other transport

arrangements. These are the occasions when it will be important to have clear water space at each

side of the entrance to Tory Channel. For recreational boaties also, the southerly can hit the Sound

21

with very little prior warning and it is easy to be caught in the Outer Sound. Once the storm has

hit, boaties are unlikely to choose to go fishing or boating while it lasts.

86. It is important to note that mains power is not available to houses north of Tawa Bay in

Endeavour Inlet, neither on the western side of Queen Charlotte Sound, nor on Arapawa Island to

the north of Patten Passage. This means that residents and holidaymakers travelling to the

unreticulated areas can be carrying large loads of perishable supplies. Given the organisation and

effort required to transfer this load, it is often necessary to take a chance on the weather and stick

to the schedule, despite a strong southerly wind. In a similar vein, most people need to be highly

organised about shutting down and departing at the end of a holiday period or because of going

away for a period. With fridges and freezers defrosted, the house shut down and the boat packed,

it is difficult to delay departing because of the arrival of strong winds. Being able to pick a

sheltered route is really important.

87. Travel after dark is also a quite regular necessity during the shorter days of the year. We have

studied the implications of the siting of Ruaomoko and Kaitapeha for this situation. We agree with

the experts that navigation lights on the farms should be sufficient to alert boaties to their

presence. We recommend that any such lights should be visible from the maximum distance

possible to allow plenty of time for boats to adjust course in windy and wet conditions.

88. We are unable to provide the Board with the number of households likely to be affected by the

problem we perceive. We can confirm that we observe many others besides EBCS members

relying on this route for safe passage. We were taught this manoeuvre by “old salts” of the Sound

and have passed it on to many others over the years. There could be significant increased use of

this waterway over the next 35 years that the Board needs to take into account in considering this

matter.

89. EBCS believes that preserving the current clear water space for future generations and not

granting the proposed Kaitapeha and Ruauomoko farms would be sustainable resource

management. We refer the Board to:

• MSRMP Objective 19.3.1: Safe, efficient and sustainably managed water transport

systems in a manner that avoids, remedies and mitigates adverse effects; and

• MSRMP Policy 1.6: Ensure recreational interests retain a dominant status over

commercial activities that require occupation of coastal space and which preclude

recreational use in Queen Charlotte Sound, including Tory Channel, but Excluding Port

and Marina zones.

Key Point Eight

On the basis of practical experience of a sustainable lifestyle in the Sounds together with

acquired knowledge of sustainability in the salmon industry, EBCS challenges the claim that

NZKS salmon is grown sustainably.

90. NZKS have entitled their application “Sustainably Growing King Salmon” so it can be assumed

that NZKS claim that their application is a sustainable one. We encourage the board to clarify

what NZKS means by “sustainably” and also to require evidence that their operation is

sustainable. EBCS considers that a minimum condition of consent for a sustainable salmon farm

would be that a farm operating with environmental effects approaching azoic and anoxic sediment

22

levels should be immediately fallowed and not allowed to return to that site until a sustainable

level of biodiversity returns to those sediments.

91. EBCS has serious doubts that the NZKS application is a sustainable one, as that term is usually

defined, and sees the use of the word “sustainably” in their application as an example of “green

washing”. The following definitions of sustainability are found in the Collins English Dictionary

(Seventh Edition 2005).

• Sustainable adj 1 capable of being sustained, 2 (of economic development, energy sources)

capable of being maintained at a steady level without exhausting natural resources or causing

severe ecological damage: sustainable development, 3 (of economic growth) non-inflationary.

• Greenwash n a superficial or insincere display of concern for the environment that is shown

by an organisation.

92. Several of the East Bay community try to lead a sustainable lifestyle including growing and

catching their own food, generating their own electricity, storing carbon, and living an organic

lifestyle with a minimal ecological foot print. However no one owning property in East Bay can

claim to meet the definition of being sustainable above. This is because everyone in a remote

location is at least reliant on fossil fuels for most, if not all, their transport needs. As is well

known, peak oil is a serious concern, as is global warming and unsustainable pollution in areas of

high population and factory farming. Corporate organisations who claim to be sustainable in

remote locations, such as NZKS, cannot pass this test either.

93. NZKS:

• Is totally reliant on fossil fuels for transportation;

• Is responsible for the generation of thousands of tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere;

• Is responsible for fouling the environment surrounding its farms and exceeding

internationally recognised limits for copper and zinc and almost reaching anoxic and azoiclevels;13

• Acknowledges that the effects of enrichment caused by the farms is detrimental to the

environment yet does not take management action until near anoxic and azoic levels arereached;

• Recognises that despite management action farms cannot continue at the previous stocking

and feed levels because of the degraded benthos14.• Have told EBCS that it would not be economic to capture all of their farm wastes in a closed

containment system.15

94. EBCS considers that NZKS cannot claim to be growing salmon sustainably because they cannot

maintain their stock at a steady level without exhausting natural resources and without causing

severe ecological damage at their normal stocking levels. EBCS also contends that the NZKS

proposal is not sustainable in both economic and environmental terms because NZKS uses the

wild environment to make a profit by fouling that environment without paying any occupancy

charges or having to clean up its wastes, which are already significant on a national scale. This is

comparable to a dairy farmer having thousands of cows in the conservation estate, not paying any

ground rent and being free to discharge all effluent to the waterways.

13 Cawthron report no. 2071, Environmental Impacts of the Otanerau Bay Salmon Farm: Annual Monitoring 2011, and

brief of evidence of M J Gillard in relation to site selection and consultation for the NZKS June 2012 14 Statement of evidence of N B Keeley in relation to benthic effects for NZKS June 2012, Letter from MDC to EBCS in

relation to the NZKS Otanerau 15

M Gillard personal comment at previous NZKS consent hearings and Brief of Evidence of Mark Preece in relation to

farm operation detail for NZKS June 2012 paras 145-151

23

95.This is not acceptable in 2012 just as it is no longer acceptable to discharge untreated municipal

sewerage to the rivers or sea. NZKS should not be simply allowed to make a profit from the

environment in this way in 2012, and should certainly not be able to expand its operations while

continuing to do so. NZKS says that capturing all of their wastes (such as a closed containment

system) is uneconomic16 which further reinforces this point.

96. EBCS further disputes the NZKS economic justification of their proposal on the grounds that it is

misleading about the true cost benefit ratio and as to its sustainability in terms of carbon footprint.

Since the feed is grown and processed overseas (a percentage still wild fish) then shipped to New

Zealand and transported to the farms, as are the staff to feed the fish and manage the farms, and

since the fish are then transported to processing plants with a substantial quantity later exported,

we suggest the carbon footprint of getting a salmon fillet to the market place is likely to be large.

EBCS notes that NZKS have not provided any evidence of using carbon offsetting and would

consider this one small step towards being considered “sustainable”.

97.Based on the NZKS published production and the evidence of Mark Preece17 EBCS works out

that NZKS produces in excess of 2.9kg x 8500mt=24,650 tonnes of carbon. This assumes NZKS

is counting all of its own or the Atlantic salmon carbon, and is just as efficient. EBCS considers

this is doubtful since we are at the bottom of the world, far from feed supplies and markets, and

because 8500t is the marketed fish not including all the fish that die. Meanwhile this is all done at

the expense of the Sounds environment, which is not costed at all.

98.The Global Aquaculture Performance Index (GAPI) is a tool produced by the Seafood Ecology

Research Group at the University of Victoria, British Columbia, Canada. It is an index that rates

fish farming by species and by country, and also by species in a country. It rates farming practices

from 0 to 100 using ten parameters which are Capture-Based Aquaculture, Ecological Energy,

Industrial Energy, Sustainability of Feed, Antibiotics, Antifoulants, Biochemical Oxygen Demand,

Parasiticides, Escapes, and Pathogens. In the summary section of the 2010 report, which is of

2007 data, it states that “the normalised species –country scores range from a very low score of 10

(groupers from Indonesia) to a mediocre score of 73 (Chinook salmon from New Zealand) with

an average score of 53.” So while Chinook salmon from New Zealand rates at the top of this list,

it is only rated as mediocre. EBCS considers the Marlborough Sounds deserve better than

mediocre..18

Planning and Process

Key Point Nine

The wider planning context and history of aquaculture in the Marlborough Sounds has

important lessons for the Board in making decisions on these applications. The ad hoc nature of

the proposal effectively negates planning processes under the 2011 aquaculture legislative

reforms and introduces unforeseen risks, particularly in relation to the expansion of finfish

farming, both in the Marlborough Sounds and nationally.

16 Brief of evidence of Mark Preece in relation to farm operation detail for NZKS June 2012, para’s 145-15117 Brief of evidence of Mark Preece in relation to farm operation detail for NZKS June 2012, para’s 1218

2010 GAPI, Summary of results, page 14 www.gapi.ca.

24

99. In reaching a decision about whether the proposed new CMZ3 planning process should be

endorsed for NZKS, and by that precedent also future applicants, EBCS considers it is important

for the Board to be well informed about the history of marine farm planning in the Sounds and the

new legislative context of the Aquaculture Reform (Repeals and Transitions) Amendment Act No

2 (2011), which came into force, on 1 October 2011.

100. The reforms amend not only the original Aquaculture Reform Act 2004, but also the Fisheries

Act 1996, The Maori Commercial Aquaculture Claims Settlement Act 2004, and the Resource

Management Act 1991. The reforms remove the need for AMA’s and effectively open up CMZ2

to further expansion of both mussel and finfish farming. It will also now be possible for

applications to be made to convert mussel farm licences to farm finfish on already compromised

existing mussel farm sites. MDC has already granted consent for two applications to proceed, one

for experimental salmon farming and the other for experimental farming of hapuku. A quick look

at the application AEE’s suggests that neither were subjected to a high level of scrutiny for

ecological effects.

101. The NZKS proposal was lodged with the EPA on 3 October 2011, two days after aquaculture

legislative reforms came into effect. It does not appear that the EPA, the Minister of Conservation,

or the Board, took these legislative changes into account when reaching decisions about the

timing of notification of this proposal. In effect the possible expansion of marine farming in

CMZ2 is running in parallel with the Board’s assessment of this planning proposal.

102. In lodging this application, NZKS is exercising a right already provided in part by the 2011 RMA

changes and should more logically have been dealt with in that context. By getting their

application into the Environmental Protection Authority when the new legislation came into

effect, NZKS was first in line, ahead of competitors for the same sites. NZKS has undertaken

research at entirely its own cost probably because the threat of trade competition precluded any

meaningful pre-consultation. The risk of such an approach is that NZKS might end up with

nothing. The NZKS planning proposals “put the cart before the horse”, so to speak, leading to a

possible repetition of the circumstances that led to the hasty and ecologically ill-conceived

creation of the CMZ2.

103. In Key Point 2 above, EBCS provided evidence to show that the inshore coastal CMZ2 areas are

not ecologically “safe” places to resume expansion of the industry. In this section we explain how

that arose as it is important to recognise that the separation of the CMZ2 from the prohibited areas

was based upon very minimal ecological assessment, with the few areas of ecological significance

known at the time being placed in the marine farming prohibited CMZ1. The positioning of the

CMZ2 in the 1995 Proposed Marlborough Sounds Resource Management Plan was dictated by

the ribbon development already established by the location of several hundred marine farms in a

band parallel to and within 250 metres or so of the coast-line. Most of these farms had been issued

licences under the Marine Farming Act 1971 when the principal considerations were navigational

access and sheltered water for the early anchoring systems. Even those consented to under the

RMA were granted on very limited benthic assessments.

104. In effect the zone was created by DoC from a desk-top study using limited known landscape and

ecological data as a suggested method of controlling the expansion of marine farming and

included in their submission to the proposed MSRMP in 1995. They expected it to generate public

25

discussion, not necessarily be adopted carte blanche as happened (albeit with several alterations

accepted from the marine farming industry).

105. It is principally only in those areas of the CMZ2 where new marine farms were granted consent

from late in 2002 after new, more robust criteria for benthic assessment were introduced that the

suitability of the CMZ2 for marine farming has been adequately tested. As a result, even in this

critical zone there is a great paucity of comparative baseline information available.

106. The timing of lodgement, acceptance and notification of the NZKS proposal has effectively

overshadowed any discussion in the public arena about the ramifications of the new legislation on

expansion of marine farming, especially of finfish, in the Sounds. The scenario EBCS fears is

repeated attempts to gain resource consent in unsuitable places that the community will have to

defend through another endless round of hearings and appeals. Breaking new ground for obtaining

consent for commercial enterprise in public space further sets back the opportunities for sensible

planning for a sustainable industry and creates a fertile breeding ground for unintended

consequences.

107. While we are pleased that none of the sites will now be under a controlled activity regime, our

view is that allowing the CMZ3 precedent for one-off plan changes will ultimately threaten

sustainable planning. If this precedent is successful, many other applicants will pursue similar

plan changes. In effect the Sounds are at risk of being industrialised without a whole-of-Sounds

context being considered and without proper precautions being in place. The long term risk of

irreversible environmental damage is unacceptably high in our view.

108. This is not just a Marlborough Sounds matter but an issue of national importance. If marine

farming proceeds here, where the development of aquaculture was pioneered, without adequate

information and planning to establish a realistically sustainable industry, other localities are likely

to follow suit. EBCS considers that the precedent of CMZ3 overruling zoning established by

substantive RMA process and analysis is a direct threat to the integrity of the planning process,

and also potentially disastrous for all sustainable resource management in New Zealand, whether

in the sea or on land. EBCS does not consider the Board’s terms of reference enable it to ride

roughshod over decades of principled resource management planning by communities, rather they

are required to undertake a careful balancing of the issues in considering the planning changes

proposed.

Key Point Ten

The planning proposal overrides and potentially negates the objectives of community developed

local body planning which seeks to protect residential and recreational amenities as the dominant

use in Queen Charlotte Sound.

109. The EBCS community is based in East Bay, which is also the small area of Queen Charlotte

Sound zoned for marine farming. Most of Queen Charlotte Sound (QCS), the most accessible

Sound for visitors and residents, has been long established as CMZ1 to allow those amenity

interests to flourish and also preserve the special wild and wildlife environment. That

environment is why people enjoy being there. The Board has a particularly contentious planning

responsibility when considering planning proposals that will potentially increase the industrial

footprint in QCS beyond current limits.

26

110. EBCS considers that the NZKS planning changes will circumvent and undermine the substantial

planning already undertaken by MDC and local community in relation to QCS. The reason is very

simple. The effect of allowing these and any other sites to be added as one-off plan changes is to

add marine farming to space currently reserved, and extensively used by the community, under

the community’s own RMA planning processes.

111. As set out in our initial submission of 2 May 2012, EBCS maintains that the Board of Inquiry has

grounds to reject the request from NZKS for plan changes on the basis of the grounds in Clause

25(4), First Schedule, Resource Management Act 1991. Since then, MDC and the Department of

Conservation have filed expert submissions challenging the planning changes and EBCS wishes

to support and refer to these grounds. In the light of these submissions from experts we do not add

further detailed submissions on the planning processes here, as we originally envisaged. Our view

is that the Board has grounds to reject the planning change proposals in the light of these later

submissions.

112. We include below some material from our original comment relating to clause 25(4) which we

think is still relevant.

RMA Clause 25(4)(c)

113. EBCS considers that the Applicant’s proposal is caught by Clause 25(4)(c) – that the request

or part of the request is not in accordance with sound resource management practice. In its

February decision19 the Board considered that the changes would be in accordance with sound

resource management practice on the basis that “the primary plan change request proposes the

traditional planning technique of zoning with associated regulatory methods- -”. Since the

proposal will overturn established zoning to allow aquaculture in certain areas where it is now

prohibited, it logically cannot be found to be in accordance with current sound resource

management. So in order not to be caught by Clause 25(4)(c), the applicant must provide analysis

that justifies overturning MDC’s current zoning.

114. The current zoning for aquaculture in the Marlborough Sounds is based on extensive

consultation and analysis in light of the RMA’s sustainability and precautionary principles. In

addition, a new regional policy statement built largely on the last ten years of experience in

management of aquaculture in the Sounds is on the way. EBCS supports the submission from

MDC which finds that the case for overturning current zoning is not made out by NZKS20.

Clause 25(4)(d)

115. EBCS also considers that the proposal should be rejected for reasons found in Clause 25(4)(d) –

that the request or part of the request would make the policy statement or plan inconsistent with

Part 5 (Standards, policy statements and plans). We consider that the KS proposal is in conflict

with policies found in the following current planning documents.

• NZ Coastal Policy Statement: EBCS considers several policies found here conflict

with the NZKS proposal, in particular the objective of ensuring the ecosystems and

natural character within the coastal environment are preserved and protected. The

unique inshore benthic environment of the Marlborough Sounds already carries a

high proportion of aquaculture industrial plant. Extending this, by way of bubble

19 Decision of Board of Inquiry on acceptance/registration of Plan Change requests NZKS Proposal 14 February 201220

Marlborough District Council New Zealand King Salmon Plan Change and Resource Consent Applications: Key Issues

Report, Prepared for the Environmental Protection Authority, February 2012.

27

zoning runs counter to the wider planning context of the region, as is required under

the Coastal Policy Statement. Policy 3 advocating a precautionary approach where

the effects are “uncertain, or unknown or little understood but potentially

significantly adverse”, is relevant.

• Marlborough Regional Policy Statement only allows development of resources

provided that adverse effects are remedied or mitigated. EBCS experience, as well as

the Hydrodynamic review report21 indicates long term consequences of pollution from

salmon farms which cannot be adequately remedied other than by limiting the size

and number of farms in pristine areas. This evidence is relevant to the Water Quality

and Marine Habitat policies in this Policy Statement.

116. We also note that the strategic plan of the Ministry for Primary Industries: Fisheries Division has

a single goal – to maximise the value New Zealanders obtain through the sustainable use of

fishery resources and protection of the aquatic environment. This is supported by three underlying

strategies and actions specified to achieve these strategies: We call these to the attention of the

Board and suggest that they align with the co-ordinated planning approach of clause 25(4)(d.) to

aquaculture.

1 Protect the health of the aquatic environment by:o developing and implementing frameworks and processes to:

manage the effects of fishing on the aquatic environment

maintain marine biodiversity and aquatic habitats

avoid or manage marine biosecurity risks

allow the government or stakeholders to take action againstthose who degrade the aquatic environment.

o enabling New Zealanders to participate effectively in developing

policies, frameworks, and standards to manage effects on, and protect,the aquatic environment.

2 Enable people to get the best value from the sustainable and efficient use offisheries by:

o better defining and integrating the rights and obligations of

commercial, customary, recreational, and other users and allocatingthose rights and obligations

o maintaining the integrity of policies, frameworks, and processes to

support the rights and obligations associated with fisheries use andconservation

o developing institutional frameworks and capacity for fisheries

stakeholders and the public to participate effectively in fisheries management

o enabling New Zealanders to participate effectively in developing

frameworks and processes for using fisheries resources and makingdecisions.

3 Ensure the Crown delivers on its obligations to Maori with respect to fisheries by:

o establishing and maintaining effective relationships

21 Review of evidence submitted by Mr Ben Knight on behalf of NZKS

28

o developing frameworks and processes to implement the 1992 Fisheries

Deed of Settlemento ensuring contemporary grievances are not created.

Review of the Marlborough Regional Policy Statement and Marlborough Sounds Resource

Management Plan (MSRMP)

117. EBCS considers that the fact these reviews are well underway is a relevant factor for

consideration by the Board. The NZKS proposal puts their farms into a separate zone not

integrated with other salmon farms, let alone other marine farming activities, which seems to

make a mockery of these substantive planning processes already underway, which will also

integrate plans to be in accordance with the Aquaculture Reform Act 2004 and its 2011

Amendments. The reforms under that Act are significant and complex and have yet to be

accommodated in the Sounds region. Until we review the implications of these reforms we don't

know if that extra space is really needed. Whether a new CMZ3 will meet sustainable

management purposes and can be integrated into the new plan should be a matter for MDC to

consider.

118. In our view, rather than NZKS plan changes compromising the MDC planning process, the

proposed plan changes should follow notification of the new MSRMP. We note that in para 20 (of

the 14 Feb decision) the Board suggested the proposed plan changes would not be inconsistent

with the Coastal Policy Statement nor the MSRMP ‘as sought to be changed”. If the shape of the

new MSRMP was already broadly known and accepted by NZKS, there seems little justification

for according a private application greater priority than regionally based plans nearing

completion. We understand the rationale was that the private plan changes could be put in place

quickly. That has not been the reality. The unintended outcome has been to greatly complicate and

delay the application as participants don’t know the shape of the new MSRMP, as well as to

further delay notification of the MSRMP.

119. We suggest the common sense lesson from this experience is that the aquaculture planning

processes are already so complex that one-off changes simply cause delay and confusion for all

concerned. The proposal cannot be seriously considered in isolation from the implications of the

2011 aquaculture legislative reforms on the marine farming provisions of the MSRMP. EBCS

considers that a sensible planning decision on the NZKS proposed new zones in Queen Charlotte

Sound should await consideration by MDC under its new proposed Marlborough Sounds

Resource Management Plan.

CONCLUSION

120. The Marlborough Sounds are a unique, heritage environment valued by New Zealanders for

many reasons other than productivity. In light of all the issues raised above, we consider that a

precautionary principle approach by the Board is essential. Reinforcing the matters we have called

attention to in this submission, we attach as Appendix C, the conditions of consent we originally

included in our first submission to the Board as important should some of the proposals be

accepted. EBCS has two questions that it hopes the Board can answer with confidence in its

decision-making:

1. Can the marine ecology of the Marlborough Sounds withstand an expansion of salmon

farming?

29

2. Can a safe limit to any expansion be confidently determined by the proposed methods of

experimental adaptive management?

121. EBCS members are proud of our long standing participation in aquaculture policies and planning

for the Sounds, and of our reputation for presenting reasonable, reliable and rigorous evidence.

The evidence and views we have presented here are based on the practical experience of a small

community living with marine farms, together with the study and research we have undertaken

over the past decade to understand the marine environment where we live. Our assessment is that

the two questions above cannot be confidently answered in the affirmative.

122. We therefore believe the NZKS proposals will detrimentally impact and potentially destroy the

unique heritage that is the maritime environment and landscape of the Sounds, currently in the

stewardship of both the local community and the nation. EBCS opposes the NZKS proposals in

full.

30

APPENDIX A

Marine Farm Data Validation

Date: 1st of Feb 2012

31

"M "M"M"M"M"M"M "M"M"M"M"M"M"M

"M

"M"M

"M

"M"M"M

¯

Legend"M Granted

Granted but now under appealGranted

MDC ZonesCoastal Marine Zone WAMP (CMZ)Coastal Marine Zone One MSRMP (CMZ1)Coastal Marine Zone Two MSRMP (CMZ2)Marina Zone MSRMPPort Zone MSRMP Marine Farm Data Validation Date:

1st of Feb 2012

APPENDIX B

Environmental Impacts on Otanerau Bay Farm Monitoring 2011

Cawthron Report #2071

32

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2071 MARCH 2012

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE OTANERAU BAY SALMON FARM: ANNUAL MONITORING 2011

ROBYN DUNMORE, NIGEL KEELEY

Prepared for New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited.

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE 98 Halifax Street East, Nelson 7010 | Private Bag 2, Nelson 7042 | New Zealand Ph. +64 3 548 2319 | Fax. +64 3 546 9464 www.cawthron.org.nz

REVIEWED BY: Paul Gillespie

APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY:Rowan Strickland

ISSUE DATE: March 2012

RECOMMENDED CITATION: Dunmore R, Keeley N. 2012. Environmental Impacts of the Otanerau Bay Salmon Farm: Annual Monitoring 2011. Prepared for New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited. Cawthron Report No. 2071. 14 p. plus appendices.

© COPYRIGHT: Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of study, research, criticism, or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, this publication must not be reproduced in whole or in part without the written permission of the Copyright Holder, who, unless other authorship is cited in the text or acknowledgements, is the commissioner of the report.

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2071 MARCH 2012

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................11.1. Site details and history of feed usage............................................................................................................. 2

2. METHODS........................................................................................................................42.1. Soft sediment habitats .................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.1. Sampling locations .................................................................................................................................... 4

2.1.2. Environmental variables ............................................................................................................................ 5

2.2. Rocky habitats ................................................................................................................................................ 6

2.3. Water column ................................................................................................................................................. 6

3. RESULTS .........................................................................................................................73.1. Soft sediment habitats .................................................................................................................................... 7

3.1.1. Copper and zinc ........................................................................................................................................ 9

3.2. Water column ................................................................................................................................................. 9

4. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: ASSESSMENT OF ENRICHMENT STAGE AND COMPLIANCE ................................................................................................................10

4.1. Seabed habitats............................................................................................................................................ 10

4.2. Water column ............................................................................................................................................... 11

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS...............................................................13

6. REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................14

7. APPENDICES.................................................................................................................15

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of Marlborough Sounds area showing the location of the OTA salmon farm along with NZKS’s seven other farm sites.................................................................................... 1

Figure 2. Annual feed inputs at the Otanerau Bay farm, 2001-2011. ................................................ 3Figure 3. Monthly feed inputs at the Otanerau Bay farm from December 2010 to November

2011. ................................................................................................................................... 3Figure 4. Soft sediment and inshore habitat sampling locations for OTA in 2011............................. 5Figure 5. Multiplot of organic matter, redox potential, total free sulphides and near-bottom DO. ..... 7Figure 6. Multiplot of infauna statistics. .............................................................................................. 8

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Seabed effects score card summarising compliance and requirement for management responses.......................................................................................................................... 11

MARCH 2012 REPORT NO. 2071 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

iv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Summary of 2011 results. ................................................................................................. 15

Table 1.1. Summary of the physical and chemical properties of sediments from the Otanerau Bay stations during the 2011 monitoring survey. Bracketed values = SE.

Appendix 2. Historical comparisons...................................................................................................... 16

Figure 2.1. Comparison of mean AFDW, infauna abundance and richness, and C. capitatadensities recorded at Otanerau Bay since 2001.

Figure 2.2. Comparison of the last seven years of annual monitoring data for sediment copper and zinc concentrations beneath all eight NZKS farms and two control stations.

Table 2.1. Summary of historical benthic impact levels at main stations situated beneath and down-current of the Otanerau Bay farm.

Appendix 3. Detailed ES calculations. .................................................................................................. 18

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2071 MARCH 2012

1

1. INTRODUCTION

New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited (NZKS) is the largest finfish farming company in New Zealand and has a long history in the Marlborough Sounds. NZKS has eight consented farms in the region (Figure 1): Te Pangu Bay (TEP), Ruakaka Bay (RUA), Otanerau Bay (OTA), Waihinau Bay (WAI), Forsyth Bay (FOR), Clay Point (CLA), Marine Farm Licence 48 (MFL-48) and Marine Farm Licence 32 (MFL-32).

!!

!

!

!

!!

!

MFL 48

MFL 32

Clay Point

Ruakaka

Forsyth

Te Pangu

Otanerau

Waihinau

0 5 10 15 202.5Kms

-Cook Strait

Que

enC

harlo

tteSo

und

Pelor

us S

ound

D'U

rville

Is.

TASMANBAY

TASMAN SEA

PACIFIC OCEAN

Keneperu Sound

Tory Channel

Port Gore

Expandedarea

Inne

r Pel

orus

Sound

Beatrix Bay

CrailBay

Figure 1. Map of Marlborough Sounds area showing the location of the OTA salmon farm (red dot) along with NZKS’s seven other farm sites (black dots).

MARCH 2012 REPORT NO. 2071 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

2

NZKS is required to undertake environmental monitoring and reporting in accordance with its marine farm consents. The monitoring is conducted under an annual environmental monitoring plan (AEMP) that is prepared by Cawthron on behalf of NZKS. The specific methods of the plan were revised in 2010 to accommodate improvements in knowledge and techniques as described in Keeley (2011). Detailed methods and rationale relating to this year’s monitoring can be found in Keeley 2012.

Consent conditions for all of the farms broadly require monitoring of the effects of deposition on the seabed, with particular regard to the benthic community composition and abundance, and dissolved oxygen (DO) levels. The environmental monitoring results determine whether the farms are compliant with the seabed impact zones concept; a model, which provides an upper limit to the spatial extent and magnitude of seabed impacts (see Keeley 2012). In addition, water column monitoring (measuring nutrients and chlorophyll-a) is undertaken each year at one low-flow and one high-flowfarm, and TEP and CLA have adjacent rocky reef communities that are monitored. This report presents the 2011 annual monitoring results for the Otanerau Bay salmon farm.

1.1.Site details and history of feed usage

The Otanerau Bay farm site was established in 1990 and, with average water current speeds of ~ 6 cm/s, it is considered a low-moderate flow site. Feed inputs at this farm have historically ranged from 1501 to 2568 tonnes (since 2001, Figure 2). Over the 12-month period leading up to this year’s monitoring (i.e. December 2010 to the end of November 2011) a total of 1346 tonnes of feed was used (Figure 3). The majority of this feed input occurred in May to November 2011.

In 2009 the Otanerau Bay farm was significantly reduced in size as cages were removed from this farm and shifted to a number of other farm sites. A harmful algal bloom affecting the inner Marlborough Sounds forced the Ruakaka Bay salmon farm to be temporarily relocated to some spare space on the northern end of the Otanerau Bay farm for 3.5 months, between 12 June and 2 October 2010. Hence, the Otanerau Bay site was more intensively utilised (while the Ruakaka Bay site lay fallow) over thisperiod than at other times of the year.

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2071 MARCH 2012

3

Figure 2. Annual feed inputs at the Otanerau Bay farm, 2001-2011.

De

cem

be

r

Jan

ua

ry

Fe

bru

ary

Ma

rch

Ap

ril

Ma

y

Jun

e

July

Au

gu

st

Se

pte

mb

er

Octo

be

r

No

vem

be

r

0

40

80

120

160

200

Fee

dIn

pu

t(m

t)

Figure 3. Monthly feed inputs at the Otanerau Bay farm from December 2010 to November 2011.

MARCH 2012 REPORT NO. 2071 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

4

2. METHODS

The eight NZKS farms are situated at depths generally ~ 25-35 m and over similar seabed substrates, but they vary in terms of their flow regimes. The differences in flowrates (and flushing) have ramifications for how each farm is monitored due to the associated differences in how the various environmental variables respond. TEP and CLA are considered high-flow sites, WAI and OTA low- to moderate-flow and FOR, RUA, MFL-48 and MFL-32 are low-current sites. Detailed methods and rationale describing the sampling protocol for all of NZKS’s farms can be found in the most recent Annual Environmental Monitoring Plan (AEMP, Cawthron Report 1872). Copies are held by Marlborough District Council (MDC) and NZKS. This plan is updated andmodified routinely to accommodate the most relevant and effective sampling methods. A condensed summary of the revised techniques that were adopted this year is provided below. Sampling at OTA occurred on 22 November 2011

2.1.Soft sediment habitats

2.1.1. Sampling locations

The OTA salmon farm was monitored at two cage stations (at the edge of Zone 1), two stations along a transect aligned in a down-current direction (from the cages) at distances that correspond to the Zone 2-3 and 3-4 boundaries specified under the zones concept (i.e. stations ‘50 m’ and ‘150 m’, respectively) and at two comparable reference or ‘control’ (i.e. ‘Ctl-1’ and ‘Ctl-2’) stations (Figure 4). For a full explanation of the zones concept, please refer to Keeley 2011. The orientation of the OTA transect was altered from previous years, and now runs perpendicular to the longest axis of the site and the predominant direction of flow. This departs from the ideal orientation specified in the AEMP (which is in a down-current orientation), but was considered necessary to avoid the ‘down-current’ stations being situated within the consented boundaries, in an area that was recently farmed (cages are presently at one end of what is a long, narrow site).

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2071 MARCH 2012

5

50m

150m

Cage 1

Cage 2

QC-Ctl- 1

0 50 100 150 20025

Meters

Ü

Otanerau Bay

Sampling stations

Consented area

Cage position

Structure boundary

QC-Ctl-2

Approximately 4000 mfrom farm cages

Figure 4. Soft sediment and inshore habitat sampling locations for OTA in 2011. ‘Ctl’ = Control.

2.1.2. Environmental variables

Three replicate sediment (modified van Veen) grab samples were collected at each sampling station. Each grab sample was examined for sediment odour, texture, bacterial mat coverage and the top 3 cm of one sediment core (63 mm diameter) wasanalysed for organic content (as % AFDW), redox potential (EhNHE, mV), and total freesulphides (µM). In addition, ‘cage’ samples were analysed for copper and zinc concentrations. A separate core (130 mm diameter, ~ 100 mm deep) was collected from each grab for infauna identification and enumeration. The term infauna describes the animals buried within the sediment matrix and does not adequately represent the

MARCH 2012 REPORT NO. 2071 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

6

epifauna component (animals living on the sediment surface). Observations of sediment out-gassing visible at the surface were also made. Raw infauna data were further analysed to calculate the total abundance (N), total number of taxa (S), Shannon-Weiner diversity index (H’), Pielou’s evenness index (J’), Margalef richness index (d), AMBI biotic coefficient (BC) and M-AMBI ecological quality ratio (EQR). Refer to Keeley 2012 for an explanation of each of the biotic indices.

2.2. Rocky habitats

The Otanerau Bay salmon farm is a low- to moderate-flow site which contains no significant reef habitats within the primary depositional footprint. Inshore habitats are visually inspected qualitatively every second year for assessment of general health with respect to any signs of excessive organic deposition. Video footage is collected on each scheduled occasion and archived for assessment of any obvious changes ofvisual characteristics over time. This assessment was undertaken during 2010 monitoring survey and consequently was not repeated during the present 2011 survey.

2.3. Water column

Dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations were measured at each of the benthic sampling stations by collecting water ~1 m from the seabed with a van Dorn sampling bottle and measuring with a calibrated, on-board DO meter.

Nutrients are measured at one low-flow and one high-flow salmon farm each year; in 2011 this was undertaken at RUA and CLA. Samples were collected from mid-water using a van Dorn sampler and analysed in the laboratory for nitrate-N (NO3-N), nitrite-N (NO2-N), ammoniacal-N (NH4-N), dissolved reactive phosphorous (DRP) and chlorophyll-a (chl-a). Although these measurements were not undertaken at OTA, the results from RUA low-flow site are considered to be generally representative.

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2071 MARCH 2012

7

3. RESULTS

3.1.Soft sediment habitats

Average sediment organic matter levels were elevated (by ~ 2.3 times) beneath the cages compared to the down-current and control stations, which had similar levels (Figure 5). Sediments at the cages also had negative redox potentials (average -106 EhNHE, mV) and highly elevated levels of total free sulphides, particularly at Cage 1. This was consistent with observations of sediments freely out-gassing, evidenced by bubbles breaking at the sea surface, and very strong sulphide odours (Appendix 1).

Ca

ge

1

Ca

ge

2

50

m

15

0m

QC

Ctl1

QC

Ctl2

0

4

8

12

16

20

%A

FD

W

Ca

ge

1

Ca

ge

2

50

m

15

0m

QC

Ctl1

QC

Ctl2

0

2

4

6

8

Dis

solv

edO

xyge

n(m

g/L)

Ca

ge

1

Ca

ge

2

50

m

15

0m

QC

Ctl1

QC

Ctl2

-200

-100

0

100

200

300

Red

oxP

oten

tial(

Eh

NH

E,

mV

)

Ca

ge

1

Ca

ge

2

50

m

15

0m

QC

Ctl1

QC

Ctl2

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

To

talF

ree

Sul

phi

des

(µM

)

Figure 5. Multiplot of organic matter (as % AFDW), redox potential (EhNHE, mV), total free sulphides(µM) and near-bottom DO (mg/l). Error bars = SE, n=3.

MARCH 2012 REPORT NO. 2071 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

8

0

100

200

300

400

Tot

alA

bun

danc

e/co

re(N

)

0

10

20

30

No.

Ta

xa/c

ore

(S)

0

1

2

3

Sha

nnon

Wei

ner

Div

ersi

ty(H

')

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Pie

lou'

sev

enne

ss(J

')

Ca

ge1

Ca

ge2

50

m

15

0m

QC

-Ctl-1

QC

-Ctl-2

0

2

4

6

8

Mar

gale

fric

hne

ss(d

)

Ca

ge

1

Ca

ge

2

50

m

150

m

QC

-Ctl-1

QC

-Ctl-2

0

2

4

6

AM

BIB

iotic

Coe

ffici

ent

(BC

)

AM BIm AMBI

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

M-A

MB

IE

colo

gica

lqua

lity

ratio

(EQ

R)

Figure 6. Multiplot of infauna statistics. Error bars = SE, n=3.

The infauna communities at the cage stations were severely impoverished, as indicated by an average of 1.5 taxa and 34 individuals per core (Figure 5) and low diversity (H’), richness (d) and ecological quality ratio (EQR). Samples from the Cage 2 station were particularly impacted; one replicate was virtually azoic and contained only one capitellid worm. Diversity was also somewhat reduced at ‘50 m’ due to relatively high abundances of a few disturbance-tolerant, opportunistic taxa (especially Capitella capitata). The 150 m station infauna had similar abundance, richness and diversity to the Control 1 station (QC-Ctl-1), approximately 550 m north of the farm.

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2071 MARCH 2012

9

3.1.1. Copper and zinc

Copper concentration in the sediments below the cages exceeded the ISQG-High trigger level with an average of 1440 mg/kg (SE 731, n = 6) and zinc concentration also exceeded the ISQG-High guidelines with an average of 583 mg/kg (SE 93, n = 6, Appendix 2, Figure 2.2). Zinc levels were slightly elevated in comparison to 2010, but have increased by 5.4-fold since 2009. Copper concentrations had increased by and 64- and 7.9-fold in comparison to 2009 and 2010 respectively.

3.2. Water column

Near-bottom (water column) dissolved oxygen (DO) levels were slightly depressed (by ~12%) at the cage stations relative to the controls (Figure 5). DO levels at the 50 and 150 m stations were similar to those recorded at the control stations.

Water column nutrient levels were not analysed at Otanerau during the 2011 annual monitoring, but results from the RUA survey showed that chl-a was reduced and NH4-N was elevated with proximity to the farm (Dunmore and Keeley 2012a). DRP, NO3-N and NO2-N levels were similar across all stations.

MARCH 2012 REPORT NO. 2071 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

10

4. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: ASSESSMENT OF ENRICHMENT STAGE AND COMPLIANCE

Enrichment stage (ES) was calculated by converting each environmental result (raw data) into an equivalent ES score using the appropriate linear model. Average ES scores were then calculated for the sediment chemistry variables (redox and sulphides), the ‘infauna composition’ variables (abundance, richness, diversity and biotic indices) and for total organic matter (TOM), representing ‘organic loading’ for each sample/ grab. The ‘overall ES’ for a given sample was calculated by determining the weighted average of those three groups of variables. Finally, the overall ES for the sampling station was equated to the average of the replicate samples with the degreeof certainty reflected in the associated standard error. To determine compliance, the overall ES for each station was compared to predefined environmental quality standards under the zones concept. The methods and rationale for quantifying ES and assessing environmental compliance at the NZKS sites in 2011 are described inKeeley 2012.

4.1. Seabed habitats

The 2011 assessment of soft-sediment conditions, in terms of compliance with the zones concept and associated conditions, are summarised below and in Table 1.

Organic loading (as indicated by % AFDW) beneath the cages was high,particularly at Cage 2, and the benthic infauna remained severely compromised.

Conditions at the cage station were considered to be at the maximum accepted ES limit. While an average ES 5.9 state is not technically ‘azoic’, one of the cage stations was virtually azoic with only trace numbers of opportunistic taxa. Hence, it is a severely impacted state and beyond the preferred Zone 1 conditions; defined by the point of peak infauna abundance and dominance of opportunists (ES 5).

Both copper and zinc concentrations in the sediments beneath the cages exceeded ISQG-High (for probable biological effects).

Conditions at the Zone 2-3 boundary (‘50 m’) station were within the maximum accepted ES limit for this site with an ES of 3.1 (maximum permitted ES = 3.5), indicative of moderate effects.

The Zone 3-4 boundary (‘150 m’) and control stations surveyed in the 2011 annual monitoring were within the acceptable ES limits for these stations and comparable to the control sites.

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2071 MARCH 2012

11

Table 1. Seabed effects score card summarising compliance and requirement for management responses. Refer to Appendix 3 for detailed enrichment stage (ES) calculations, and refer to Keeley 2012 for a more detailed breakdown of how overall ES was calculated from each environmental variable for each sampling station.

Station ES (±SE) Comments

Cage 1 Organic loading: 4.71 (0.29)Sediment chemistry: 5.87 (0.06)Infauna composition: 6.16 (0.05)

Overall: 5.77 (0.03)

Sediments freely outgassing with very strong sulphide odours and high organic matter content. Very low redox values, and highsulphides. Infauna community severely impoverished, with only capitellid polychaetes present, and one nematode in one sample.

Cage 2 Organic loading: 5.03 (0.80)Sediment chemistry: 5.19 (0.18)Infauna composition: 6.71 (0.08)

Overall: 5.93 (0.14)

Bacterial mats present, sediments freely outgassing with very strong sulphide odours and high organic matter content. Very low redox values, and high sulphides. Infauna community nearly azoic, with an average of only six individuals and 1.7 taxa per core.

Organic loading: 1.50 (0.00)Sediment chemistry: 2.65 (0.09)

50 m (Zone 2-3 Boundary) Infauna composition: 3.98 (0.27) Overall: 3.10 (0.15)

Moderate sulphide odours, elevated sulphides, elevated densities of opportunistic, enrichment-tolerant species.

Organic loading: 1.50 (0.00)Sediment chemistry: 1.71 (0.08)

150 m (Zone 3-4 Boundary) Infauna composition: 2.54 (0.06) Overall: 2.10 (0.06)

Sediment chemistry and infauna community characteristics similar to Control 1.

Organic loading: 2.52 (0.51)Sediment chemistry: 1.78 (0.03)Infauna composition: 2.83 (0.07)

Control 1

Overall: 2.47 (0.09)

Diverse infauna communities, low organic matter content and total free sulphide levels.

Organic loading: 2.01 (0.51)Sediment chemistry: 1.76 (0.19)Infauna composition: 1.87 (0.16)

Control 2

Overall: 1.83 (0.14)

Very diverse infauna communities, low organic matter content and total free sulphide levels.

4.2. Water column

Near-bottom dissolved oxygen (DO) levels in the water were reduced at the cage stations, suggesting a farm-related effect. However, the 12 % reduction in DO encountered beneath the cages (relative to the control stations) is unlikely to have been ecologically significant. If, as suspected, the oxygen demand is coming from organic waste material on the seabed, then it is likely that DO levels would be further reduced nearer to the surface of the seabed.

Monitoring of chl-a at the low-flow Ruakaka farm showed that concentrations were lower closer to the farm, but were within levels observed naturally in the Marlborough

MARCH 2012 REPORT NO. 2071 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

12

Sounds (Dunmore and Keeley 2012a). Chl-a concentrations can be temporally and spatially variable, and the difference observed between near-farm levels and control levels was less than that observed over a tidal cycle in Pelorus Sound (Gibbs et al. 1992). The difference observed at RUA is not considered to be ecologically significant.

NH4-N concentrations at Ruakaka were slightly elevated with proximity to the farm, indicating localised low-level enrichment (Dunmore and Keeley 2012a). However, levels were not outside the range previously reported for the wider Marlborough Sounds environment (Gibbs et al. 1992). Elevated NH4-N levels were also reported for this farm in 1998 and 2002 (Hopkins and Forrest 2002), and for other fish farming sites (La Rosa et al. 2002, Hopkins 2004, Dunmore and Keeley 2012b). It has been concluded that localised elevated NH4-N concentrations of similar magnitude observed around the farms are unlikely to have significant adverse effects on the wider Marlborough Sounds ecosystem (Hopkins and Forrest 2002). This conclusion is consistent with the expected flushing rate and consequent dilution as the water is transported away from the farm (Gillespie et al. 2011).

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2071 MARCH 2012

13

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In November 2011, the Otanerau Bay farm was assessed overall to be at the maximum acceptable ES limits, and a management response is recommended following consultation with MDC and research providers to reduce the impacts. This finding is based on:

The enrichment stage beneath the cages (ES 5.9) was close to ES 6, which is an undesirable state. Although not completely azoic, ES 5.9 is a highly impacted and biologically impoverished state and beyond the point at which wastes are efficiently assimilated – and instead waste is likely to be accumulating.

The copper and zinc concentrations beneath the cages exceeded the best available guideline thresholds for probable biological effects (ANZECC 2000, as concluded by Clement et al. 2010).

The deterioration in conditions is likely to be related to the temporary relocation andaddition of the Ruakaka farm to this site in 2010 and the fact that most of the feed usage (and production) occurred in the seven months prior to monitoring. The reduction in farm size, and subsequently feed inputs, since mid 2009 would likely otherwise have enabled further recovery from this state. However, the total feed inputduring the last 24 months (1925 and 1346 t/yr in 2010 and 2011 respectively) was still relatively low in comparison to historical levels. Hence, it would appear that the Otanerau site is impacted to a point where the infauna is severely compromised and farming intensity would need to be reduced for some recovery to occur. We note that NZKS have recently started using feed containing organic zinc, which is likely to reduce zinc inputs to the seabed. In addition, copper-based antifouling is no longer used on the nets and therefore inputs of copper to the environment should be substantially reduced.

MARCH 2012 REPORT NO. 2071 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

14

6. REFERENCES

ANZECC 2000. Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality 2000 Volume 1. National Water Quality Management Strategy Paper No. 4. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand, Canberra.

Clement D, Keeley N, Sneddon R. 2010. Ecological Relevance of Copper (Cu) and Zinc (Zn) in Sediments Beneath Fish Farms in New Zealand. Prepared for Marlborough District Council. Report No. 1805. 48 p. plus appendices.

Dunmore R, Keeley N. 2012a. Environmental Impacts of the Ruakaka Bay Salmon Farm: Annual Monitoring 2011. Prepared for New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd. Cawthron Report No. 2072. 14 p. plus appendices.

Dunmore R, Keeley N. 2012b. Environmental Impacts of the Clay Point Salmon Farm: Annual Monitoring 2011. Prepared for New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd. Cawthron Report No. 2070. 15 p. plus appendices.

Gibbs MM, Pickmere SE, Woods PH, Payne GW, James MR, Hickman RW, Illingworth J. 1992. Nutrient and chlorophyll-a variability at six stations associated with mussel farming in Pelorus Sound, 1984-85. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 26: 197-211.

Gillespie P, Knight BR, MacKenzie L 2011. The New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited: Assessment of Environmental Effects – Water Column. Prepared for The New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd. Cawthron Report No. 1985. 79 p.

Hopkins G. 2004. Seabed Impacts of Marlborough Sounds Salmon Farms: Te Pangu Bay Monitoring 2003. Prepared for New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited. Cawthron Report No. 847b. 25 p. plus appendices.

Hopkins G, Forrest B. 2002. Environmental Impacts of the Ruakaka Bay Salmon Farm, Marlborough Sounds. Prepared for New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited. Cawthron Report No. 763. 34 p. plus appendices.

Keeley N. 2011 NZKS Annual Monitoring Plan (revised Oct 2010). Prepared for New Zealand King Salmon Company Ltd. Cawthron Report No. 1872. 28 p. plusappendices.

Keeley N. 2012 Assessment of Enrichment Stage and Compliance for Salmon Farms. Prepared for New Zealand King Salmon Company Limited. Report No. 2080 15 p.

La Rosa T, Mirto S, Favaloro E, Savona B, Sarà G, Danovaro R., Mazzola A, 2002. Impact on the water column biogeochemistry of a Mediterranean mussel and fish farm. Water Research 36: 713-721.

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2071 MARCH 2012

15

7. APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Summary of 2011 results.

Table 1.1. Summary of the physical and chemical properties of sediments from the Otanerau Bay stations during the 2011 monitoring survey. Bracketed values = SE.

Station Units Cage-1 Cage 2 50 m 150 m QS-Ctl-1 QS-Ctl-2

Depth m 35.5 35.1 36.3 36.6 40.3 37.1

AFDW % 12.0 14.7 5.4 5.6 6.4 5.3

Redox EhNHE, mV -110.4 -100.6 189.2 198.7 190.8 229.1

Sulphides µM 7656.3 3652.7 544.8 46.9 54.8 106.7

Bacterial mat - present

Out-gassing - Freely Freely None None None NoneSed

imen

ts

Odour - Very Strong Very Strong Moderate None None None

Abundance No./core 61(18.1) 6(2.65) 251(137.82) 178(37.62) 145(18.82) 97(38.94) No. taxa No./core 1.33(0.33) 1.67(0.33) 10.67(0.88) 19.33(2.33) 15.33(0.33) 26(3) Richness Stat. 0.10(0.10) 0.32(0.16) 1.87(0.06) 3.55(0.3) 2.89(0.09) 5.63(0.22) Evenness Stat. 0.07(0.07) 0.44(0.22) 0.52(0.14) 0.62(0.04) 0.63(0.03) 0.84(0.08) Shannon-Weiner Index 0.05(0.05) 0.30(0.15) 1.20(0.29) 1.83(0.05) 1.71(0.08) 2.71(0.17) AMBI Index 5.98(0.02) 5.63(0.27) 4.94(0.52) 1.88(0.05) 2.24(0.01) 2.30(0.33)

Infa

una

stat

istic

s

M-AMBI Index 0.02(0.01) 0.09(0.04) 0.36(0.07) 0.77(0.02) 0.69(0.01) 0.93(0.02) Near bottom DO mg/l 6.31 6.94 7.63 7.52 7.73 7.2

MARCH 2012 REPORT NO. 2071 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

16

Appendix 2. Historical comparisons.

2001

20

02

20

03

200

42

005

20

06

20

07

2008

20

09

20

10

201

1

20

01

20

02

200

32

004

20

05

200

620

072

00

82

00

92

01

02

011

20

01

20

02

200

32

00

42

00

52

006

200

72

00

82

00

92

010

20

11

20

01

200

22

00

32

00

42

005

200

62

00

72

00

82

009

200

12

002

200

32

00

42

00

52

006

20

10

20

11

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

C.c

ap

itata

abu

nda

nce

(num

ber

/co

re)

0

10

20

30

40

Sp

ecie

sR

ich

nes

s(ta

xa/c

ore)

0

1000

2000

3000

Infa

una

Ab

und

anc

e(n

umb

er/c

ore

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

%A

FD

W

Cages 50m 150m 250m Controls

Figure 2.1. Comparison of mean AFDW, infauna abundance and richness (No. taxa), and C. capitata densities recorded at Otanerau Bay since 2001. High densities of capitellid polychaetesare typically 1,000 individuals m-2 (=13 per 0.013 m² core) or greater (ANZECC 2000 guidelines). Note: 2009 cage and down-current stations were in different locations to previous years due changes in farm boundaries.

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2071 MARCH 2012

17

05 06 07 08 09 10 11 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 05 06 07 10 06 07 08 09 10 11 10 11 06 10 11 05 06 07 10 05 06 07 10

0

100

200

300160020002400

Co

ppe

r(m

g/k

g)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

Zin

c(m

g/k

g)

CL

A

FO

R

OT

A

RU

A

TE

P

WA

I(O

ld)

WA

I(N

ew

)

MFL

-48

MF

L-3

2

PS

Ctl

QC

Ctl

Figure 2.2. Comparison of the last seven years of annual monitoring data for sediment copper and zinc concentrations beneath all eight NZKS farms and two control stations (P.S. = Pelorus Sound, Q.C. = Queen Charlotte). Red dotted lines indicate respective ANZECC ISQG High and Low trigger levels. Otanerau data are in blue. Note break in y-axis and change in scale in copper graph (OTA 2011 average copper concentration was 1440 mg/kg).

Table 2.1. Summary of historical benthic impact levels at main stations situated beneath and down-current of the Otanerau Bay farm. Assessed according to the ranking system provided in previous annual monitoring reports. This comparison does not include recent monitoringyears because the classification system was changed in 2010 to a quantitative method.

Survey Cages 50 m 150 m 250 m Controls Impact Level 2001 na na 25.1-30 Very high

2002 na na 20.1-25 High

2003 15.1-20 Moderate

2004 11-15 Low

2005 10 Natural

2006

2007

2008

2009

MARCH 2012 REPORT NO. 2071 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

18

Appendix 3. Detailed ES calculations.For details pertaining to how the figures in these tables were calculated, see Keeley 2012.

Flow environment: LFFarm OTASite Cage1Raw data (Input table)Variable Grab1 Grab2 Grab3 Grab4 Grab5 Ave SD n SETOM 14 12 10 12 2 3 1.15

Redox -116.6 -121 -93.7 -110.4 14.66 3 8.46Sulphides 7851 7851 7267 7656.3 336.75 3 194.42

Abundance 33 95 56 61.333 31.34 3 18.09No. Taxa 2 1 1 1.3333 0.58 3 0.33P. evenness 0.1959 0 0 0.0653 0.11 3 0.06Richness 0.286 0 0 0.0953 0.17 3 0.1SWDI 0.1358 0 0 0.0453 0.08 3 0.05AMBI 5.9545 6 6 5.9848 0.03 3 0.02M-AMBI 0.0416 0.0094 0.0094 0.0201 0.02 3 0.01

ES equivalents (do not touch)Variable Repl 1 Repl 2 Repl 3 Repl 4 Repl 5 Ave SD n SETOM 5.21 4.74 4.19 4.7133 0.51 3 0.29

Redox 5.18 5.22 4.97 5.1233 0.13 3 0.08Sulphides 6.66 6.66 6.52 6.6133 0.08 3 0.05

Abundance 6 6 6 6 0 3 0No. Taxa 6 6 6 6 0 3 0P. evennessRichness 6.17 6.62 6.62 6.47 0.26 3 0.15SWDIAMBIM-AMBI

Grab1 Grab2 Grab3 Grab4 Grab5 Wt Ave SD n SEOrganic loading 5.21 4.74 4.19 0.2 4.71 0.51 3 0.29Sediment chemistry 5.92 5.94 5.745 0.3 5.87 0.11 3 0.06Infauna composition 6.0567 6.2067 6.2067 0.5 6.16 0.09 3 0.05

Overall ES 5.8 5.8 5.7 5.77 0.06 3 0.03

Flow environment: LFOTA

Site Cage2Raw data (Input table)Variable Grab1 Grab2 Grab3 Grab4 Grab5 Ave SD n SETOM 22 14 8 14.667 7.02 3 4.05

Redox -83.8 -108 -110 -100.6 14.58 3 8.42Sulphides 2466 3919 4573 3652.7 1078.5 3 622.67

Abundance 1 7 10 6 4.58 3 2.64No. Taxa 1 2 2 1.6667 0.58 3 0.33P. evenness 0 0.5917 0.7219 0.4379 0.38 3 0.22Richness 0 0.5139 0.4343 0.3161 0.28 3 0.16SWDI 0 0.4101 0.5004 0.3035 0.27 3 0.16AMBI 6 5.7857 5.1 5.6286 0.47 3 0.27M-AMBI 0.0094 0.0938 0.1624 0.0885 0.08 3 0.05

ES equivalents (do not touch)Variable Repl 1 Repl 2 Repl 3 Repl 4 Repl 5 Ave SD n SETOM 6.33 5.21 3.56 5.0333 1.39 3 0.8

Redox 4.88 5.1 5.12 5.0333 0.13 3 0.08Sulphides 4.78 5.49 5.74 5.3367 0.5 3 0.29

Abundance 7 7 7 7 0 3 0No. Taxa 7 7 7 7 0 3 0P. evennessRichness 6.62 5.83 5.94 6.13 0.43 3 0.25SWDIAMBIM-AMBI

Grab1 Grab2 Grab3 Grab4 Grab5 Wt Ave SD n SEOrganic loading 6.33 5.21 3.56 0.2 5.03 1.39 3 0.8Sediment chemistry 4.83 5.295 5.43 0.3 5.19 0.31 3 0.18Infauna composition 6.8733 6.61 6.6467 0.5 6.71 0.14 3 0.08

Overall ES 6.2 5.9 5.7 5.93 0.25 3 0.14

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 2071 MARCH 2012

19

Flow environment LFOTA50m

Raw data (Input table)Variable Grab1 Grab2 Grab3 Grab4 Grab5 Ave SD n SETOM 5.2 5.6 5.3 5.3667 0.21 3 0.12

Redox 206.2 187.4 174.1 189.23 16.13 3 9.31Sulphides 451 569 614 544.84 84.22 3 48.62

Abundance 164 68 521 251 238.7 3 137.81No. Taxa 11 9 12 10.667 1.53 3 0.88P. evenness 0.4939 0.7744 0.2867 0.5183 0.24 3 0.14Richness 1.961 1.896 1.758 1.8717 0.1 3 0.06SWDI 1.184 1.702 0.7124 1.1995 0.49 3 0.28AMBI 5.2043 3.9265 5.6833 4.938 0.91 3 0.53M-AMBI 0.3344 0.4924 0.2386 0.3551 0.13 3 0.08

ES equivalents (do not touch)Variable Repl 1 Repl 2 Repl 3 Repl 4 Repl 5 Ave SD n SETOM 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0 3 0

Redox 2.27 2.44 2.56 2.4233 0.15 3 0.09Sulphides 2.68 2.92 3.01 2.87 0.17 3 0.1

Abundance 2.76 2.01 3.74 2.8367 0.87 3 0.5No. Taxa 3.77 4.24 3.55 3.8533 0.35 3 0.2P. evennessRichness 3.95 4.02 4.18 4.05 0.12 3 0.07SWDI 4.18 3.29 4.99 4.1533 0.85 3 0.49AMBI 4.44 3.48 4.79 4.2367 0.68 3 0.39M-AMBI 4.86 4 5.37 4.7433 0.69 3 0.4

Grab1 Grab2 Grab3 Grab4 Grab5 Wt Ave SD n SEOrganic loading 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.2 1.5 0 3 0Sediment chemist 2.475 2.68 2.785 0.3 2.65 0.16 3 0.09Infauna composit 3.9933 3.5067 4.4367 0.5 3.98 0.47 3 0.27

Overall ES 3 2.9 3.4 3.1 0.26 3 0.15

Flow environment LFOTA150m

Raw data (Input table)Variable Grab1 Grab2 Grab3 Grab4 Grab5 Ave SD n SETOM 5.3 5.6 5.8 5.5667 0.25 3 0.14

Redox 214.9 183.1 198.2 198.73 15.91 3 9.19Sulphides 33 56 52 46.924 12.5 3 7.22

Abundance 240 110 183 177.67 65.16 3 37.62No. Taxa 23 15 20 19.333 4.04 3 2.33P. evenness 0.5486 0.6967 0.6235 0.6229 0.07 3 0.04Richness 4.014 2.978 3.647 3.5463 0.53 3 0.31SWDI 1.72 1.887 1.868 1.825 0.09 3 0.05AMBI 1.8138 1.8578 1.9698 1.8805 0.08 3 0.05M-AMBI 0.7992 0.7437 0.779 0.7739 0.03 3 0.02

ES equivalents (do not touch)Variable Repl 1 Repl 2 Repl 3 Repl 4 Repl 5 Ave SD n SETOM 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0 3 0

Redox 2.19 2.48 2.35 2.34 0.15 3 0.09Sulphides 0.95 1.16 1.12 1.0767 0.11 3 0.06

Abundance 3.08 2.42 2.85 2.7833 0.34 3 0.2No. Taxa 2.02 2.97 2.28 2.4233 0.49 3 0.28P. evennessRichness 2.18 2.94 2.41 2.51 0.39 3 0.23SWDI 3.26 2.97 3.01 3.08 0.16 3 0.09AMBI 1.91 1.94 2.02 1.9567 0.06 3 0.03M-AMBI 2.35 2.65 2.46 2.4867 0.15 3 0.09

Grab1 Grab2 Grab3 Grab4 Grab5 Wt Ave SD n SEOrganic loading 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.2 1.5 0 3 0Sediment chemist 1.57 1.82 1.735 0.3 1.71 0.13 3 0.08Infauna composit 2.4667 2.6483 2.505 0.5 2.54 0.1 3 0.06

Overall ES 2 2.2 2.1 2.1 0.1 3 0.06

MARCH 2012 REPORT NO. 2071 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

20

Flow environment LFOTA

Control 1Raw data (Input table)Variable Grab1 Grab2 Grab3 Grab4 Grab5 Ave SD n SETOM 6.5 6.3 6.5 6.4333 0.12 3 0.07

Redox 162.3 203 207.2 190.83 24.8 3 14.32Sulphides 38 61 65 54.758 14.59 3 8.42

Abundance 148 176 111 145 32.6 3 18.82No. Taxa 16 15 15 15.333 0.58 3 0.33P. evenness 0.6273 0.5774 0.6785 0.6277 0.05 3 0.03Richness 3.002 2.708 2.973 2.8943 0.16 3 0.09SWDI 1.739 1.564 1.837 1.7133 0.14 3 0.08AMBI 2.2653 2.2414 2.2162 2.241 0.02 3 0.01M-AMBI 0.6991 0.6671 0.7075 0.6912 0.02 3 0.01

ES equivalents (do not touch)Variable Repl 1 Repl 2 Repl 3 Repl 4 Repl 5 Ave SD n SETOM 3.03 1.5 3.03 2.52 0.88 3 0.51

Redox 2.67 2.3 2.26 2.41 0.23 3 0.13Sulphides 1 1.19 1.23 1.14 0.12 3 0.07

Abundance 2.67 2.82 2.42 2.6367 0.2 3 0.12No. Taxa 2.8 2.97 2.97 2.9133 0.1 3 0.06P. evennessRichness 2.92 3.18 2.94 3.0133 0.14 3 0.08SWDI 3.23 3.53 3.06 3.2733 0.24 3 0.14AMBI 2.24 2.22 2.21 2.2233 0.02 3 0.01M-AMBI 2.89 3.06 2.84 2.93 0.12 3 0.07

Grab1 Grab2 Grab3 Grab4 Grab5 Wt Ave SD n SEOrganic loading 3.03 1.5 3.03 0.2 2.52 0.88 3 0.51Sediment chemist 1.835 1.745 1.745 0.3 1.78 0.05 3 0.03Infauna composit 2.7917 2.9633 2.74 0.5 2.83 0.12 3 0.07

Overall ES 2.6 2.3 2.5 2.47 0.15 3 0.09

Flow environment LFOTA

Control 2Raw data (Input table)Variable Grab1 Grab2 Grab3 Grab4 Grab5 Ave SD n SETOM 5 4.5 6.5 5.3333 1.04 3 0.6

Redox 239.3 249.6 198.4 229.1 27.08 3 15.63Sulphides 45 83 193 106.7 77.13 3 44.53

Abundance 174 50 66 96.667 67.45 3 38.94No. Taxa 32 23 23 26 5.2 3 3P. evenness 0.6853 0.9369 0.9007 0.841 0.14 3 0.08Richness 6.009 5.624 5.251 5.628 0.38 3 0.22SWDI 2.375 2.938 2.824 2.7123 0.3 3 0.17AMBI 2.9371 1.8438 2.1048 2.2952 0.57 3 0.33M-AMBI 0.8839 0.9674 0.9301 0.9271 0.04 3 0.02

ES equivalents (do not touch)Variable Repl 1 Repl 2 Repl 3 Repl 4 Repl 5 Ave SD n SETOM 1.5 1.5 3.03 2.01 0.88 3 0.51

Redox 1.98 1.88 2.34 2.0667 0.24 3 0.14Sulphides 1.06 1.35 1.92 1.4433 0.44 3 0.25

Abundance 2.81 1.74 1.98 2.1767 0.56 3 0.32No. Taxa 1.98 2.02 2.02 2.0067 0.02 3 0.01P. evennessRichness 1.47 1.53 1.62 1.54 0.08 3 0.05SWDI 2.14 1.17 1.36 1.5567 0.51 3 0.29AMBI 2.74 1.93 2.12 2.2633 0.42 3 0.24M-AMBI 1.89 1.44 1.64 1.6567 0.23 3 0.13

Grab1 Grab2 Grab3 Grab4 Grab5 Wt Ave SD n SEOrganic loading 1.5 1.5 3.03 0.2 2.01 0.88 3 0.51Sediment chemist 1.52 1.615 2.13 0.3 1.76 0.33 3 0.19Infauna composit 2.1717 1.6383 1.79 0.5 1.87 0.27 3 0.16

Overall ES 1.8 1.6 2.1 1.83 0.25 3 0.14

APPENDIX C:

Conditions of Consent – from original EBCS submission

The conditions that EBCS sees as essential if any farms are approved are listed:

• A process be initiated that establishes environmental standards, and compliance

requirements for marine farms. This process must be contracted independently of the

commercial operation.

• A truly independent monitoring regime be established, with funds provided by a levy on the

industry. This levy needs to be specifically raised for the purpose of monitoring the

environmental impacts of farms.

• Scientific agencies undertaking the monitoring need to be contracted independently of the

commercial operators, for example through a government agency.

• A term of no longer than 20 years for any resource consent granted to align it with the term

currently set for all marine farms in the sounds by the plan, case law created by the

Environment Court and the 2011 RMA reform.

33