BEFORE THE NORTHLAND REGIONAL COUNCIL

Under The Resource Management Act 1991

And In the matter of The Proposed Regional Plan for Northland

Statement of evidence of Clinton Anthony John Duffy on behalf of the Minister of Conservation Dated 10 August 2018

Department of Conservation P O Box 10 420 WELLINGTON Solicitors acting: May Downing/Katherine Anton Telephone: 027 564 1428 Email: [email protected] 1 Introduction 1. My full name is Clinton Anthony John Duffy.

2. I am employed by the Department of Conservation (DOC), Marine Ecosystems Team as a Technical Advisor - Marine. I have worked for Department of Conservation since June 1989. I have 29 years’ experience in coastal and marine management, policy and research. I was employed by the Nelson/Marlborough Conservancy, DOC, to lead a dive survey of the Marlborough Sounds in 1989 and have held a variety of marine and marine and freshwater technical support and scientific positions within DOC since then. I am a member of the Marine Sciences Society, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Shark Specialist Group – Australia and Oceania, and the Oceania Chondrichthyan Society. I am also a Marine Associate of the Auckland War Memorial Museum and an expert reviewer for Marine Conservation Action Fund, New England Aquarium. I have authored or co-authored more than 70 scientific papers and reports on aspects of marine species biology, marine ecology and biogeography, and marine protected areas.

3. My qualifications are an M.Sc. (Hons) in Zoology from the University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand (1990). I am currently enrolled as a Ph.D. student (part-time) in the Institute of Marine Science, University of Auckland.

4. My role (Technical Advisor – Marine) includes assessment of resource consent applications for activities within the Coastal Marine Area and Exclusive Economic Zone; assessment of marine reserve permit applications; review of research and funding proposals; research contract supervision; provision of technical support to DOC operations staff and external groups (e.g. Foundation North; Tai Timu Tai Pari Sea Change Hauraki Gulf Marine Spatial Plan Stake- Holder Working Group); advice and research on protected sharks and rays; and marine species identifications.

5. I have dived in a private and professional capacity at many sites in eastern Northland, including two biodiversity surveys of sites located between Bay of Islands and Cape Reinga, I participated in the Northland Marine Ecological Significant Areas meeting (21 August 2015, Northland Regional Council) and the Kapowairua Bioblitz (25-28 March 2018). I am currently researching white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) movements and habitat use in Northland. The latter

2 has included aerial surveys of marine megafauna occurring between Kaipara Harbour and Cape Reinga, and satellite tagging juvenile white sharks in Kaipara Harbour.

6. In preparing my evidence I have read the proposed Regional Plan, Regional Policy Statement, the S42 recommendations relating to activities in the Coastal Marine Area (CMA) and the Ecologically Significant Marine Area Assessment Sheets. I have also reviewed the relevant scientific literature on the estuarine and marine ecosystems of Northland, including Kerr (2005), Morrison (2005), Morrison et al. (2014b) and Jones et al. (2016).

Code of Conduct

7. I have read and agree to comply with the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses produced by the Environment Court. While this is not an Environment Court hearing, I have prepared this evidence in accordance with, and I agree to comply with, that code for this hearing. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. I am authorised to give this evidence on behalf of the Minister of Conservation.

Scope of evidence

8. My evidence addresses the following:

a. The ecological values of Northland’s Coastal Marine Area b. Adverse effects of temporary structures and moorings c. Mangrove removal d. Removal of plant debris from the CMA e. Reclamations f. Coastal works – general provisions g. Drainage of land and associated discharges to the CMA.

3 Ecological Values of Northland’s Coastal Marine Area

Northern continental shelf

9. The continental shelf north of 34o 30’S forms part of the Three Kings Plateau as defined by Nelson et al. (1982). It is an area of low terrigenous sediment input, predominantly biogenic carbonate sediments and persistent upwelling generated by the interaction of oceanic and tidal currents with the complex underwater topography (Stanton 1973; Campbell et al. 1982). This part of the shelf is strongly influenced by the Tasman Front, which attaches to its north eastern margin and flows southeast as the East Auckland Current (EAUC) (Stanton 1979; Roemmich & Sutton 1998; Stanton & Sutton 2003). A large permanent warm core eddy (North Cape Eddy) extending to 1500 m depth is located offshore of the EAUC (Roemmich & Sutton 1998). This eddy re-circulates about 50% of the flow in the EAUC and probably serves as a larval retention mechanism (Roemmich & Sutton 1998).

10. The Three Kings Plateau, including the mainland continental shelf, is a global biodiversity hotspot, supporting exceptionally diverse benthic communities, including extensive rhodolith beds, at least 223 sponges, 301 bryozoans (not exceeded anywhere else in the world), as well as colonial hydroids, barnacles, serpulid tubeworm colonies, compound ascidians, soft corals, gorgonians and black corals (Cryer et al. 2000; Rowden et al. 2004; Morrison 2005; Beaumont et al. 2008; Tuck et al. 2010, 2012; NIWA 2011; Wood et al. 2012). True species richness of filter-feeding invertebrates on the inner shelf between North Cape and Cape Reinga is estimated to exceed 700 species (Cryer et al. 2000). Highest reported shelf species diversity occurs off Spirits and Tom Bowling Bays in 40– 80 m depth. The fauna of this area also exhibits very high rates of national and regional endemism (Cryer et al. 2000; Kelly et al. 2007).

East Northland continental shelf

11. North of Whangarei the Northland shelf is covered with mixed terrigenous and carbonate sediments comprising a patchwork of gravelly sand, sand, muddy sand and gravelly muddy sand. Carbonate content is highest on the inner shelf and in bays and harbours (50-80%) and generally decreases with depth (Rogers 2012).

4 There are also extensive coastal and mid-shelf rocky reef systems, which together with beds of infaunal molluscs serve as sources of biogenic carbonate sediments (Rogers 2012). South of Whangarei shelf sediments are predominantly terrigenous. Freshwater and sediment inputs to the shelf are generally low (Bradford-Grieve et al. 2006; Rogers 2012). A characteristic feature of the east Northland shelf are the prominent headlands, large estuaries and harbours and numerous offshore islands, including the Cavalli and Poor Knights Islands located on the mid and outer shelf respectively.

12. Oceanic flow in the region is dominated by the East Auckland Current (EAUC) (Stanton & Sutton 2003), which originates northeast of North Cape and flows south-east along the upper slope. Temperature variability in the mixed layer of the EAUC is dominated by the annual seasonal cycle, with variability between years highly correlated with the Southern Oscillation Index and wind speed and direction (Sutton & Roemmich 2001). Shoaling of the EAUC over the slope results in high nutrient levels near the surface along the shelf edge. Circulation over the shelf is dominated by local winds and the southeast flow of the EAUC (Sharples & Greig 1998). Curvature of the flow around Cape Brett and the narrowness of the shelf at this point are thought to result in localised upwelling (Sharples & Greig 1998). Episodic upwelling of slope water onto the shelf during autumn and winter is driven by long-shelf winds blowing towards the southeast. This more generalised upwelling transports nutrients, particularly nitrate, onshore and results in this being one of New Zealand’s most biologically productive shelf regions (Sharples & Greig 1998; Zeldis et al. 2001, 2004; Zeldis 2004; Bradford- Grieve et al. 2006).

13. The flow of subtropical water across the Tasman Sea and its reattachment to the New Zealand shelf as the EAUC results in the transport of larvae and juveniles of numerous subtropical and tropical species to the northeast shelf, resulting in elevated diversity of benthic invertebrates and fishes (Francis et al. 1999; Sutton & Roemmich 2001; Beaumont et al. 2008). The mixture of subtropical, tropical and widespread temperate species, including dominant habitat formers such as laminarian kelps, is what distinguishes the northeast North Island from all other coastal bioregions (Francis 1996; Shears et al. 2008).

5 14. Parengarenga, Houhora and Rangaunu Harbours are significant as large, relatively natural harbours that contain unique, diverse estuarine assemblages characterised by subtropical species not seen in estuaries elsewhere in New Zealand. Parengarenga Harbour supports an extremely diverse invertebrate fauna of at least 452 species, as well as diverse fish fauna that includes unusual estuarine populations of lancelets (Epigonichthys hectori), sand divers (Limichthys polyactis) and short-finned worm eels (Muraenichthys australis) (Francis et al. 2011; Morrison 2005).

15. Offshore reefs in the region support diverse invertebrate assemblages including protected coral species (particularly gorgonians and antipatharians). Outer shelf and upper slope habitats are poorly known but include extensive areas of rough bottom, particularly where canyons intersect the shelf break. Demersal fish diversity over the upper slope is moderate (Clark & King 1989; Leathwick et al. 2006). Spawning aggregations of snapper occur in outer Bay of Islands.

16. Pelagic productivity is high. Phytoplankton blooms along the shelf break in spring and early summer support a relatively high biomass of large zooplankton (particularly euphausiids, hyperid amphipods, salps, siphonophores, pteropods) that in turn supports a variety of squids, a resident fish community consisting of about 13 species, and a highly migratory fish community of about 15 sub-tropical and tropical species (Bailey 1983). The resident fish community includes several mesopelgic fishes as well as small epipelagic species important in the diets of larger predatory fishes, seabirds and cetaceans. The migratory community includes a variety of pelagic sharks, rays, billfishes and tunas. The latter include commercially important skipjack, albacore, yellowfin and bigeye tunas. These highly migratory species are present only during summer and appear to follow the 20oC isotherm from tropical regions to northern New Zealand (Bailey 1983).

17. Protected fishes occurring in the region include great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias), shark (Rhincodon typus), spine-tailed devil ray (Mobula mobular), giant manta (M. birostris), spotted black grouper (Epienephelus daemelii) and giant grouper (E. lanceolatus) (Paulin et al. 1982; Bailey 1983; Duffy 2002; Duffy & Abbott 2003; Francis & Lyon 2012; Jones & Francis 2012). The cetacean fauna of the region is relatively diverse and includes southern right

6 whale, , blue whale, Bryde’s whale, sei whale, minke whale, common , striped (Stenella coeruleoalba), bottlenose dolphin, , false killer , long-finned and a variety of beaked whales (Baker 1983; Visser 2000; Baker & Madon 2002; Constantine 2002; O’Callaghan & Baker 2002; Stockin et al. 2008; Visser et al. 2010; Wiseman et al. 2011; Olson et al. 2015). Resident species are Bryde’s whale, common dolphin, bottlenose dolphin and killer whale. The threat status of these is assessed as Nationally Critical, Not Threatened, Nationally Endangered and Nationally Critical respectively (Baker et al. 2010). Clusters of sightings of Bryde’s whales occur off Cape Brett, Cape Karikari and in the vicinity of Parengarenga Canyon (Baker & Madon 2002; O’Callaghan & Baker 2002). Common dolphins are widespread (Baker 1983).

18. Genetic evidence shows there is little or no connectivity between the Northeast North Island and other coastal bottlenose dolphin populations but population structure within Northeast North Island is unclear (Tezanos-Pinto 2009; Tezanos- Pinto et al. 2009). The largest population appears to be centred on Bay of Islands but there is evidence of movement of individuals between Hauraki Gulf, Bay of Islands and elsewhere in Northland, as well as changing habitat use in the Bay of Islands (Constantine 2002; Berghan et al. 2008; Tezanos-Pinto 2009; Tezanos- Pinto et al. 2013).

19. The combination of high pelagic productivity and numerous predator-free islands makes the Northeast Shelf a globally significant seabird biodiversity hotspot (Gaskin & Rayner 2013). More than 70 species of seabird (c. 20% of the world’s seabirds) have been recorded in the region, with large nesting colonies occur on predator-free offshore islands, with more resilient species breeding at scattered mainland locations. The total number of seabird taxa breeding in the region is 27 of which 16 (59 %) are New Zealand endemics, and 4 (14.8%) are regional endemics (Gaskin & Rayner 2013). The latter are the New Zealand fairy tern (Sternula nereis davisae), Pycroft’s petrel (Pterodroma pycrofti), black petrel (Procellaria parkinsoni) and New Zealand storm petrel (Fregetta maoriana). In addition to seabirds Parengarenga and Rangaunu Harbours contain nationally and internationally important wading and shore bird habitats. Houhora Harbour contains regionally important wading and shore bird habitat.

7

20. Large areas of the coast and shelf retain a high degree naturalness. Parengarenga, Houhora and Rangaunu Harbours are considered the most pristine in Northland and support important, relatively intact examples of indigenous coastal wetland and saltmarsh vegetation, as well as having a large proportion of their intertidal area covered in sea grass (Zostera muelleri). Nationally rare subtidal sea grass habitats also occur inside these harbours, as well as outside the entrance to Rangaunu Harbour and in some of the bays around Urupukapuka Island, Bay of Islands.

21. Marine protected areas include Mimiwhangata Marine Park, Poor Knights Islands Marine Reserve, and Motukaroro and Waikaraka Marine Reserves in Whangarei Harbour.

West Northland continental shelf

22. The sea floor over much of this area is a featureless gently shelving plain. Inner shelf sediments are predominantly very fine sands which grade into slightly coarser reworked sands on the middle shelf, which in turn grade into muddy, very fine sands and sandy muds at the shelf break (Carter 1980). Recent sedimentation rates on the shelf are low to moderate (Carter 1980). With the exception of Ahipara Banks, offshore reef complexes tend to be relatively small and isolated.

23. Currents over the shelf are weak and dominated by local winds (Stanton 1973; Carter 1980; Ridgway 1980; Heath 1982; Sutton & Bowen 2011). Mean flow is to the northwest (Sutton & Bowen 2011). During summer winds from the southeast cause regular upwelling of shelf waters from 30-50 m depth (Stanton 1973; Ridgway 1980). Transport of shelf sediments is to the northeast and is largely achieved by storm waves. Little or no sediment transport occurs below 40 m depth (Carter 1980; Ridgway 1980). The harbours are all flooded valley systems and are characterized by deep channels, multiple arms with a high proportion of their area as intertidal sand flats.

24. Kaipara Harbour is the largest estuary in the Southern Hemisphere (surface area 947 km2, coastline 900 km). It supports a diverse estuarine fish assemblage due

8 to its size, habitat diversity and relatively natural condition, and is considered a critical nursery area for snapper (Pagrus auratus) with up to 98% of the west coast North Island stock estimated to originate from it (Morrison 2008; Francis et al. 2011). The reason for the predominance of juveniles from Kaipara Harbour in the west coast fishery is unclear but may be related to the extent of subtidal sea grass present in the harbour (Morrison 2008; Sim-Smith 2012; Parsons et al. 2014).

25. Kaipara Harbour, Parengarenga Harbour and the continental shelf between North Head, Kaipara Harbour, and Karikari Peninsula is important juvenile white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) habitat (pers. obs.).

Outstanding issues from the Minister’s perspective

26. In this section I provide a response to the reporting officer’s recommendations on submission points made by the MOC, relating to potential effects on marine and coastal ecology.

Coastal Structures C.1.1 General structures

C.1.1.3 Temporary coastal structure - permitted activity

27. This rule allows a variety of temporary structures to be built within the CMA, including within mapped significant areas, provided they do not exceed 10 m2 (excluding any anchor(s) and anchor line(s) and any structure being used for construction or maintenance purposes) and comply with C.1.8 Coastal works general conditions. C.1.8 requires there must be no damage to shellfish beds and no disturbance or damage to saltmarsh or seagrass meadows in mapped Significant Ecological Areas, and there be no disturbance of indigenous or migratory bird nesting or roosting sites. It also requires restoration of any visible disturbance of the foreshore or seabed.

28. A wide range of physically vulnerable intertidal and subtidal biogenic habitats (habitats formed by biological structures or processes) such as algal beds

9 (including rhodoliths), tubeworm colonies, worm snail colonies (Family: Vermetidae) and sponge assemblages occur within Northland’s CMA (Cryer et al. 2000; Morrison 2005; Morrison et al. 2014a, b; Jones et al. 2016) are excluded from the scope of C.1.8. The effect of this is that only shellfish beds, saltmarsh and sea grass beds within mapped Significant Ecological Areas would be protected from adverse effects caused by the construction, operation and removal of temporary structures.

29. The implicit assumption appears to be that temporary structures and the devices and structures used to construct and maintain them are not capable of long-term or permanent disturbance or damage to ecological values. This is not the case. Biogenic structures formed by organisms such as bryozoans, tubeworms, vermetids and rhodoliths are vulnerable to physical damage and generally slow growing meaning that they can easily be damaged by short term, one-off events and have long recovery times (MacDiarmid et al. 2012; Morrison et al. 2014a). This rule therefore has the capacity to allow ongoing degradation of ecological values within the mapped significant areas. Outside mapped significant areas not even shellfish beds, salt marsh and sea grass habitats would be protected from these activities. Morrison (2005) notes that the large-scale loss of saltmarsh vegetation through reclamation and other human activities has occurred throughout most Northland estuaries, with overall loss likely to be underestimated. Damage to those remaining areas of salt marsh should therefore be avoided wherever possible.

C.1.2 Moorings and anchorages

30. Morrisey et al. (2018) provide a comprehensive review the effects of moorings on marine environment. Habitats and species identified as being particularly sensitive to the effects of conventional block-and-chain swing moorings include:

• rocky reefs and cobble fields within the area swept by the chain • sea grass beds • seaweeds (macroalgae) • rhodoliths (unattached, branching or unbranched crustose red algae) • hydroids

10 • bryozoans • shellfish (mollusks) and brachiopods • burrowing anemones • sponges • tubeworm structures • shell hash.

31. Shell hash (an accumulation of dead shell) is included in this list of sensitive habitats because once stabilized by encrusting algae and sessile invertebrates it provides complex, three-dimensional structure that enhances the biodiversity of soft sediments (Hewitt et al. 2005; Morrisey et al. 2018).

32. Swing moorings primarily impact the seabed within the arc of movement of the ground chain surrounding the anchor. The arc swept by the chain with changes in tidal movement and wind direction may be 360º around the anchor. Even in areas without conspicuous surface features disturbance by the chain will loosen sediments making them prone to erosion and resuspension (Morrisey et al. 2018). Disturbance and destruction of sensitive habitats can also occur when anchor blocks are dragged across the sea floor during bad weather, because of oversized vessels tying up to them, or when they are being repositioned.

33. Adverse effects of moorings can be minimized by locating them in areas without sensitive habitats or using moorings designed to prevent the chain and/or mooring lines from contacting the seafloor (Morrisey et al. 2018). In recognition of the damage that moorings can do to sensitive habitats Morrisey et al.’s (2018) recommendations for the Marlborough Sounds included no consents for new moorings in ecologically significant marine sites, and removal or conversion to environmentally friendly moorings in areas where they are adversely affecting significant values.

Mangrove removal 34. In general, mangrove management should recognize that:

11 • estuaries are dynamic environments and the distributions of all species occurring within them will continually change in response to changing environmental conditions • that mangroves are an indigenous species and a natural part of estuarine ecosystems • mangroves occupy a relatively narrow intertidal range and expansion of mangrove habitats is controlled by changes in sea level or accelerated infilling of estuaries triggered by catchment development, land use practices and changes to estuarine hydrographic regimes • changes in sediment composition and loss of species associated with habitats that mangroves have expanded into may have been be caused by the factors that led to mangrove spread, such as increased rates of sediment deposition or reduced water quality, rather than the mangroves themselves • removal of mangroves from areas they have expanded into will not necessarily return the intertidal zone to its former state unless land-based sediment inputs to the system have been addressed and the cleared areas are dispersive rather than depositional environments • unnecessary removal of mangroves is likely to result in additional adverse environmental impacts (including loss of ecosystem services), the significance of which will reflect the scale and method of the removal (Morrisey et al. 2007; Lundquist et al. 2017).

C.1.4.1 Mangrove seedling removal – permitted activity 35. This rule allows “the use of motorised machinery to transport people, tools or removed mangrove vegetation.” Intertidal estuarine sand and mudflats are sensitive habitats that are vulnerable to disturbance from a variety of anthropogenic activities including trampling and motor vehicles. Vehicles generally do more damage than trampling (5-30 times more), with the level of damage dependent upon the type of vehicle, how it is operated and the physical and biological nature of the affected habitat (Tyler-Walters & Arnold 2008). Tracks caused by vehicles on low energy shores may remain visible for months or years as displaced sediments must be redistributed by bioturbation rather than by waves and tidal currents. Documented ecological impacts of vehicle use on tidal flats include sediment compaction, altered species composition, significant

12 reductions in the abundance of infauna and epifauna (particularly crustacea and bivalve shellfish) and reductions in the extent and cover of wetland and aquatic vegetation (Withers & Tunnell 1998; Tyler-Walters & Arnold 2008; Macleod et al. 2009; Fairweather 2011; Research Planning, Inc. 2014; Trave & Sheaves 2014; Lundquist et al. 2017; Šunde et al. 2017). Tracks caused by vehicles can also act as drains causing water to run off intertidal flats more rapidly as the tide falls. If orientated parallel to the shore they may form pools that act as low-tide refugia for some species (Withers & Tunnell 1998). Where persistent tracks function as drains they have the potential to cause long-term alterations in rates of tidal exposure which could affect persistence of infaunal invertebrates and have flow- on effects on higher trophic levels including shorebirds (Withers & Tunnell 1998). Adverse impacts are greatest in areas of highest vehicle use. However, some studies have found maximum impacts can occur after only a few vehicle passes (Withers & Tunnell 1998). Although changes in community structure may be less where vehicle use is more diffuse, this is offset the larger area affected (Macleod et al. 2009). Re-colonisation of vehicle tracks by intertidal organisms can be rapid when large source populations are present but complete recovery can be a long process due to compaction of sediments (Fairweather 2011).

36. In general, vehicle use on any type of intertidal shore should be avoided wherever possible. Best practice guidelines developed for storm debris removal in the United States recommend that all unnecessary contact with wetland vegetation or soils on foot or by vehicle should be avoided, and manual recovery where the substrate is firm enough to support foot traffic and debris is small and light enough to be removed by hand-picking or with hand tools (Research Planning, Inc. 2014). As only the removal of seedlings less than 60 centimetres tall is permitted by this rule site access and transport of removed vegetation should be on foot or by boat as described in these guidelines and as recommended in New Zealand by Lundquist et al. (2017). I am therefore of the opinion that the reference to the use of motorised machinery to transport people, tools or removed vegetation should be deleted from this rule.

Dredging, disturbance and disposal C.1.5.4 Removal of nuisance marine plant debris – permitted activity

13 37. Beach cast organic material, both marine and terrestrial, is an important source of nutrients for beach organisms and helps stabilise and build dunes (Zemke-White et al. 2005). Through decomposition and nutrient cycling beach cast seaweeds support a diverse range of organisms including bacteria, yeasts, fungi, nematodes, mites and numerous marine and terrestrial macrofaunal invertebrates (Zemke- White et al. 2005). Most studies of the impacts of harvesting beach-cast seaweed and beach grooming indicate an immediate short-term decrease in densities of strandline species with relatively rapid recovery from one-off events, whereas long-term removal of seaweeds and other stranded organic detritus results in a shift to a fauna and flora resembling beaches with no input of beach-cast seaweeds. Differences in beach topography and habitat values have also been noted between raked and unraked beaches (Zemke-White et al. 2005). Given the potential for removal of beach cast plant and animal material to disrupt the physical and ecological processes supporting indigenous biodiversity within and above the CMA unnecessary removal of this material from beaches should be avoided wherever possible. As noted above, vehicle use in the intertidal zone is also detrimental to beach flora and fauna, including bivalve shellfish, and should also be avoided wherever possible (Moller et al. 2014; Šunde et al. 2017).

38. I therefore support the changes recommended in the S42a report that would restrict the removal of marine plant debris as a permitted activity to those instances where public access, or safe use of the beach was adversely affected.

C.1.5.9 burial of dead animals – permitted activity 39. This rule operates within and outside the CMA. In practice carcasses of dead animals that present a public health risk are generally removed and buried outside the CMA. Burial within the CMA would generally result in the carcass being exposed again within a few tidal cycles.

40. With respect to the control and mitigation of the effects of the removal on indigenous biodiversity occurring within the CMA the proposed general conditions in rule C.1.8. apply. These only refer to the avoidance of damage to shellfish beds and disturbance or damage to saltmarsh and seagrass meadows inside mapped Significant Ecological Areas, avoidance of disturbance to nesting

14 or roosting birds and restoration of visible disturbance of the foreshore and seabed. Consequently, no protection would be afforded to significant indigenous vegetation or habitats as defined in Appendix 5 of the Regional Policy Statement occurring outside mapped Significant Ecological Areas, and only limited protection of those within them.

41. While it may be impractical to avoid adverse effects on all indigenous coastal species unnecessary disturbance and damage to remnant coastal vegetation within and outside the CMA should be avoided wherever possible. Where they pose no risk to public health carcasses should be left in-situ and allowed to decompose naturally as they provide a source of nutrients for beach organisms.

Reclamations C.1.6.4 Reclamation – discretionary activity 42. Bird roosting and nesting areas are particularly vulnerable to disturbance and damage from structures, construction activities and reclamations. These habitats should be included in this rule, particularly as they have been included in the rules relating to mangrove removal (C.1.4.1, C.1.4.3) and dredging and disposal (C.1.5.1, 1.5.4, C.1.5.6, C.1.5.8, C.1.5.10-11), and the new rule covering deposition of material for beneficial purposes (pg. 99, Proposed Regional Plan S42a Recommendations).

General conditions C.1.8 Coastal works general conditions

43. Although care needs to be taken to avoid unnecessary impacts on indigenous coastal species, I agree that a requirement to avoid adverse effects on all indigenous species wherever they occur would restrict and possibly prevent the ability to carry out even minor works within the CMA.

44. Notwithstanding that, this rule does not provide adequate protection for the biological and ecological values identified in Appendix 5 of the Regional Policy Statement, or those within mapped Significant Ecological Areas. This rule largely ignores impacts on all forms of indigenous biodiversity outside the mapped areas,

15 and within them it only prohibits damage and disturbance to a generic subset of the values present (i.e. shellfish beds, seagrass and saltmarsh). As previously noted a wide range of other biogenic habitats including rhodolith beds, structures formed by tubeworms and vermetid snails, and sponge assemblages occur within Northland’s CMA (Cryer et al. 2000; Morrison 2005; Morrison et al. 2014a, b; Jones et al. 2016). These habitat types provide additional structural complexity within intertidal and subtidal benthic biomes and typically elevate benthic biodiversity within them well above surrounding less structured habitats. Many have also been shown to be important for fishery production (Morrison et al. 2014a). By adopting a one size fits all approach that ignores the diversity of ecologically coastal and marine habitats present within the region C.1.8 limits the protection provided to Significant Ecological Areas as well as ecologically significant habitats occurring outside these mapped areas. Information identifying the habitats and biological features contributing to the regional and national importance of the mapped significant areas is contained in the Ecologically Significant Marine Area Assessment Sheets published by the NRC. To ensure that these values are protected rule C.1.8 should refer to the ecological values identified in the relevant assessment sheet. Outside the mapped areas the criteria and definitions contained in Appendix 5 of the Regional Policy statement should be referenced by the rule.

Land drainage and associated discharges to the CMA C.4.1 Land drainage – permitted activity 45. Adverse effects due to human activities in catchments that result in discharges to the coastal marine environment are some of the most serious threats to New Zealand’s marine habitats (Morrison et al. 2009, 2014a; MacDiarmid et al. 2012). Foremost among these is increased runoff of terrestrial sediments resulting from catchment development. Increases in sedimentation rates and turbidity of coastal waters are recognised as some of the greatest threats to sheltered intertidal mud and sand flat, subtidal mud, seagrass and coastal rocky reef habitats (Airoldi 2003; Thrush et al. 2004; Schiel et al. 2006; Schwarz et al. 2006; Steger 2006; Morrison et al. 2009; MacDiarmid et al. 2012). Other significant threats arising from human activities in catchments include increased nutrient loading and discharges of contaminants such as heavy metals (MacDiarmid et al. 2012). Although estuarine

16 and intertidal organisms are generally robust to short-term changes in salinity, long-term or permanent changes in the salinity of estuaries and inlets due to increases in freshwater inputs will also affect the composition, structure and function of the biological communities inhabiting them (Hayward et al. 2006; Ford et al. 2007). In this context freshwater may also be considered a contaminant in marine ecosystems.

46. The adverse effects of increased sedimentation on coastal species have been extensively studied and are well understood. They may be direct (e.g. infilling of the substratum by fine sediments, smothering, decreased efficiency of filter feeders, reduced larval survival and settlement success, reduced foraging efficiency), or indirect through effects on ecological processes (e.g. loss of complex biogenic habitats, changes in community composition affecting predation and competition, altered nutrient recycling) (Airoldi 2003; Thrush et al. 2004; Schwarz et al. 2006; Morrison et al. 2009). In many cases the species vulnerable to terrigenous sediments are ecosystem engineers (Schiel et al. 2006; Schwarz et al. 2006; Morrison et al. 2009). As well as resulting in reduced species diversity, their loss also adversely impacts ecological function and the delivery of ecosystem services (Thrush et al. 2006).

47. Factors influencing the response of benthic invertebrate assemblages to sediment deposition events include the thickness of deposition, frequency of deposition, local hydrodynamics, seasonal timing of deposition and the spatial scale at which these events occur (Thrush et al. 1996; Norkko et al. 2002; Lundquist et al. 2006; Hewitt 2008). Heavy deposition of terrigenous sediments results in large immediate reductions in the abundance of benthic invertebrates (Norkko et al. 2002; Hewitt 2008). Where deposited sediment is rapidly dispersed recovery of invertebrate populations occurs relatively quickly in surface sediments but may still take more than 400 days in sub-surface sediments (Norkko et al. 2002). Lohrer et al. (2004) found that deposits of terrigenous sediment as little as 3 mm thick were sufficient to significantly alter macrobenthic community structure at more sheltered sites. This included reductions in the number of taxa and declines in the densities of nearly every common species. Large bivalve shellfish and other species living deep in sediments were least affected. With repeated applications of thin layers of terrigenous sediments (i.e. .3 mm thickness, monthly over six

17 months) they found that sandflat sediments gradually became finer as the proportion of clay increased, and macrofaunal community composition progressively diverged from control sites. In the sheltered, upper reaches of estuaries such changes are likely to be permanent because fine terrigenous sediments are unlikely to be resuspended and redistributed by waves and tidal currents (e.g. Green & Reeve 2015).

48. Rule C.4.1 permits land drainage and the associated discharge of drainage water provided the activity complies with C.4.8 land drainage and flood control general conditions. C.4.8 provides for the discharge of drainage water either directly or indirectly to the CMA regardless of the scale or nature of the activity. While parts 6, 11, 12 and 13 of C.4.8 set limits on the effect of the discharge on the receiving environment, enforcement of these would necessarily be retrospective making avoidance of disturbance or damage to marine life, particularly subtle cumulative impacts, unlikely. In fact, part 13 of C.4.8 allows for discharges of sediment to occur to the CMA for up to 12 hours a day, for five consecutive days.

49. As previously noted, changes in sediment texture, an important driver of benthic community composition and structure, caused by the deposition of fine terrigenous sediments in estuarine and marine habitats are often permanent and irreversible. Furthermore, attribution of adverse ecological effects to a specific activity without comprehensive catchment monitoring, including upstream and downstream of discharges as well as the receiving environment, is usually technically impossible. Consequently, ensuring compliance with C.4.8 is likely to be difficult and haphazard at best. In my opinion rules C.4.1 and C.4.8 will allow the proliferation of adverse impacts of catchment development on the indigenous marine biodiversity of coastal Northland, particularly estuarine habitats.

Conclusion

50. While I accept that policy 4.4.1 in the Regional Policy Statement and policy D2.8 in the S42a report on the proposed regional plan provide a high level of protection for mapped areas of significance and significant areas of indigenous biodiversity I consider the activities identified in my evidence (i.e. temporary structures, moorings, mangrove removal, use of vehicles in the intertidal, removal of plant

18 debris and animal carcasses, reclamations and associated discharge to the CMA) have the potential to have significant adverse immediate and cumulative impacts on sensitive habitats inside and outside mapped significant areas. The effect of which would ultimately be to undermine the purpose of the policies in the Regional Policy Statement and Regional Plan. By only recognising a limited, generic suite of sensitive habitats (i.e. shellfish beds, salt marsh and seagrass beds) the coastal works general conditions (rule C.1.8) provide insufficient direction to people wishing to undertake these permitted activities and will therefore fail to provide adequate protection to indigenous biodiversity even within mapped ecologically significant areas.

51. In particular, increases in the turbidity of coastal waters and the deposition of fine terrigenous sediments in the marine environment due to catchment development is recognised as one of the major threats to indigenous freshwater, estuarine and marine biodiversity in New Zealand. It is the major threat to estuarine ecosystems in the Hauraki Gulf, particularly in increasingly urbanised catchments around Auckland, and has been identified as one of the major pressures on the health of Kaipara Harbour. Off the east coast of Northland the Bay of Islands Oceans 20/20 Survey carried out between 2008 and 2010 found increasingly heavy deposits of fine silt covering the inner shelf from the Bay of Islands south. Mangrove expansion is an indicator of accelerated infilling of estuaries. Once an estuary reaches capacity any more sediment transported into it is exported to the coastal zone and onto the inner shelf. By permitting the discharges of water associated with the drainage of land directly to the CMA, or indirectly to it via discharge to a river or stream without the requirement for any form of treatment rules C.4.1 and C.4.8 of the proposed plan simply perpetuate the status quo and allow for ongoing adverse effects of sedimentation on indigenous marine biodiversity.

Clinton Anthony John Duffy

DATED this 10th day of August 2018

19

References

Airoldi, L., 2003. The effects of sedimentation on rocky coast assemblages. Oceanography and Marine Biology, 41: 161– 236. Bailey, K. N. 1983. Food and feeding habits of fish associated with skipjack tuna in New Zealand. Unpublished MSc thesis, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. Baker, A. N. 1983. Whales & dolphins of New Zealand and Australia. Victoria University Press, Wellington, New Zealand. 133 pp. Baker, A. N.; Madon, B. 2002. Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera cf. brydei Olsen 1913) in the Hauraki Gulf and northeastern New Zealand waters. Science for Conservation 272. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 14 pp. Baker, C. S.; Chilvers, B. L.; Constantine, R.; DuFresne, S.; Mattlin, R. H.; van Helden, A.; Hitchmough, R. 2010. Conservation status of New Zealand marine mammals (suborders Cetacea and Pinnipedia), 2009. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 44: 101-115. Beaumont, J.; Oliver, M.; MacDiarmid, A. 2008. Mapping the Values of New Zealand’s Coastal Waters. 1. Environmental Values. Biosecurity New Zealand technical Paper No: 2008/16. Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, Wellington, New Zealand. 73 pp. Bradford-Grieve, J.; Probert, K.; Lewis, K.; Sutton, P.; Zeldis, J.; Orpin, A. 2006. Chapter 36. New Zealand shelf region. Pp.1451-1492 in Robinson, A, R., Brink, K. H. (eds.), The Sea: Ideas and Observations on Progress in the Study of Seas Vol. 14. Interdisciplinary Regional Studies and Syntheses. Part B. Wiley, New York. Carter, L. 1980. Ironsand in continental shelf sediments off western New Zealand—a synopsis, New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 23(4): 455-468. Clark, M. R.; King, K. J. 1989. Deepwater fish resources off the North Island, New Zealand: results of a trawl survey, May 1985 to June 1986. N.Z. Fisheries Technical Report No. 11. 56 pp. Constantine, R. 2002. The behavioural ecology of the bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) of northeastern New Zealand: A Population Exposed to Tourism. PhD. thesis, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland. 233 pp. Cryer, M.; O’Shea, S.; Gordon, D.; Kelly, M.; Drury, J.; Morrison, M.; Hill, A.; Saunders, H.; Shankar, U.; Wilkinson, M.; Foster, G. 2000. Distribution and structure of benthic invertebrate communities between North Cape and Cape Reinga. NIWA

20 Final Research Report for Ministry of Fisheries Research Project ENV9805, Objectives 1–4. 153 pp. Duffy, C. A. J. 2002: Distribution, seasonality, lengths, and feeding behaviour of whale sharks (Rhincodon typus) observed in New Zealand waters. New Zealand journal of marine and freshwater research, 36: 565-570. Duffy, C. A. J.; Abbott, D. 2003: Sightings of mobulid rays from northern New Zealand, with confirmation of the occurrence of Manta birostris in New Zealand waters. New Zealand journal of marine and freshwater research, 37: 715-721. Fairweather, P. 2011. Intertidal Seashores. In, The vulnerability of coastal and marine habitats in South Australia. Marine Parks, Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, Adelaide, South Australia. 96 pp. Ford, R. B.; Anderson, M. J.; Kelly, S. 2007. Subtle and negligible effects of rainfall on estuarine infauna: evidence from three years of event-driven sampling. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 340: 17–27. Francis, M. P. 1996. Geographic distribution of marine reef fishes in the New Zealand region. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 30: 35—55. Francis, M.; Lyon, W. 2012. Review of commercial fishery interactions and population information for eight New Zealand protected fish species. Final Report prepared for Department of Conservation Contract No.4345. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd., Wellington. 68 pp. Francis, M. P.; Morrison, M. A.; Leathwick, J.; Walsh, C. 2011. Predicting patterns of richness, occurrence and abundance of small fish in New Zealand estuaries. Marine and Freshwater Research, 62: 1327–1341. Francis, M. P.; Worthington, C. J.; Saul, P.; Clements, K. D. 1999. New and rare tropical and subtropical fishes from northern New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 33: 571–586. Gaskin, C. P.; Rayner, M. J. 2013. Seabirds of the Hauraki Gulf: Natural History, Research and Conservation. Hauraki Gulf Forum. 142 pp. Green, M.; Reeve, G. 2015. Assessment of Potential Effects of Land Development on Okura Estuary: Estuary Sediment Transport Modelling – Additional Scenarios. Prepared for Todd Property Group. NIWA Client Report No: HAM2015-043. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd, Hamilton. 72 pp. Hayward, B. W.; Grenfell, H. R.; Sabaa, A. T.; Morley, M. S.; Horrocks, M. 2006. Effect and Timing of Increased Freshwater Runoff into Sheltered Harbor Environments around Auckland City, New Zealand. Estuaries and Coasts, 29: 165-182.

21 Heath, R. A. 1982. What drives the mean circulation on the New Zealand west coast continental shelf? New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 16(2): 215-226. Hewitt, J. 2008. Benthic ecology of Weiti Estuary and Karepiro Bay. Prepared by NIWA for Auckland Council. Auckland Council technical report, TR2008/019. 31 pp. Hewitt, J. E.; Thrush, S. F.; Halliday, J.; Duffy, C. 2005. The importance of small-scale habitat structure for maintaining beta diversity. Ecology, 86: 1619–1626. Jones, E.; Francis M. 2012. Protected rays – occurrence and development of mitigation methods in the New Zealand tuna purse seine fishery. Final report prepared for Department of Conservation Contract No.4352. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd., Wellington. 37 pp. Jones, E. G.; Morrison, M. A.; Davey, N.; Hartill, B. W.; Sutton, C. 2016. Biogenic habitats on New Zealand’s continental shelf. Part I: Local Ecological Knowledge. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 174. 95 pp. Kelly, M.; Ellwood, M.; Tubbs, L.; Buckeridge, J. 2007. The lithistid Demospongiae in New Zealand waters: species composition and distribution. Pp 393-404, in Custódio MR, Lôbo-Hajdu G, Hajdu E, Muricy G (eds) Porifera research: biodiversity, innovation and sustainability. Série Livros 28, Museu Nacional, Rio de Janeiro. 684 pp. Kerr, V. 2005. Near Shore Marine Classification System. Unpublished report, Northland Conservancy, Department of Conservation. 87 pp. Leathwick, J. R., J. Elith, M. P. Francis, T. Hastie and P. Taylor. 2006. Variation in demersal fish species richness in the oceans surrounding New Zealand: an analysis using boosted regression trees. Marine Ecology Progress Series 321: 267–281. Lohrer, A. M.; Thrush, S. F.; Hewitt, J. E.; Berkenbusch, K.; Ahrens, M.; Cummings, V. J. 2004. Terrestrially derived sediment: response of marine macrobenthic communities to thin terrigenous deposits. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 273: 121–138. Lundquist, C. J.; Thrush, S. F.; Hewitt, J. E.; Halliday, J.; MacDonald, I.; Cummings, V. J. 2006. Spatial variability in recolonisation potential: influence of organism behaviour and hydrodynamics on the distribution of macrofaunal colonists. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 324: 67-81. Lundquist, C.; Carter, K.; Hailes, S.; Bulmer, R. 2017. Guidelines for Managing Mangroves (Mānawa) Expansion in New Zealand. NIWA Information Series No. 85. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd.

22 MacDiarmid, A.; McKenzie, A.; Sturman, J.; Beaumont, J.; Mikaloff-Fletcher, S.; Dunne, J. 2012. Assessment of anthropogenic threats to New Zealand marine habitats. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 93. 255 pp. Macleod, C. K.; Forbes, S. E.; Shepherd, C. J.; Crawford, C. 2009. Effects of oyster farming service vehicles on an intertidal sand flat. Aquaculture Research 40(7): 772 – 780. Moller, J. A.; Garden, C.; Moller, S. I.; Beentjes, M.; Skerrett, M.; Scott, D.; Stirling, F. F.; Moller, J. S.; Moller, H. 2014. Impact of vehicles on recruitment of toheroa on Oreti Beach. Ecosystems Consultants Report 2014/2. [Online at: http://www.ecosystemsconsultants.co.nz/project/conserving-a-taonga-speciesand- recreation]. Morrisey, D.; Beard, C.; Morrison, M.; Craggs, R.; Lowe, M. 2007. The New Zealand mangrove: review of the current state of knowledge. Auckland Regional Council Technical Publication Number 325. 156 pp. Morrisey, D.; Cameron, M.; Newcombe, E. 2018. Effects of moorings on different types of marine habitat. Marlborough District Council. Cawthron Report No. 3098. Cawthron Institute, Nelson. 42 pp. Morrison, M. 2005. An information review of the natural marine features and ecology of Northland. NIWA Client Report: AKL2005-30. NIWA Project: DOC05101. National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd., Auckland. 174 pp. Morrison, M. 2008. Tracking snapper origins. Water and Atmosphere 16: 4. Morrison, M. A.; Jones, E.; Consalvey, M.; Berkenbusch, K. 2014a. Linking marine fisheries species to biogenic habitats in New Zealand: a review and synthesis of knowledge. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 130. 156 p. Morrison, M. A.; Lowe, M. L.; Jones, E. G.; Makey, L.; Shankar, U.; Usmar, N.; Miller, A.; Smith, M.; Middleton, C. 2014b. Habitats of particular significance for fisheries management: the Kaipara Harbour. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 129. 169 pp. Morrison, M. A.; Lowe, M. L.; Parsons, D. M.; Usmar, N. R.; McLeod, I. M. 2009. A review of land-based effects on coastal fisheries and supporting biodiversity in New Zealand. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 37. 100 pp.

23 Nelson, C. S.; Hancock, G. E.; Kamp, P. J. J. 1982. Shelf to basin, temperate skeletal carbonate sediments, Three Kings Plateau, New Zealand. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 52(3): 717-732. NIWA 2011. Tangaroa’s amazing voyage. http://www.niwa.co.nz/news/tangaroa%E2%80%99s-amazing-voyage Norkko, A.; Thrush, S. F.; Hewitt, J. E.; Cummings, V. J.; Norkko, J.; Ellis, J. I.; Funnell, G. A.; Schultz, D.; MacDonald, I. 2002. Smothering of estuarine sandflats by terrigenous clay: the role of wind-wave disturbance and bioturbation in site- dependent macrofaunal recovery. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 234: 23–41. O’Callaghan T. M.; Baker, C. S. 2002. Summer cetacean community, with particular reference to Bryde’s whales, in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. DOC Science Internal Series 55. Department of Conservation, Wellington. 18 pp. Olson, P. A.; Ensor, P.; Olavarria, C.; Bott, N.; Constantine, R.; Weir, J.; Childerhouse, S.; van der Linde, M.; Schmitt, N.; Miller, B. S.; Double, M. C. 2015. New Zealand blue whales: residency, morphology, and feeding behavior of a little-known population. Pacific Science, 69: 477–485. Parsons, D. M.; Sim-Smith, C. J.; Cryer, M.; Francis, M. P.; Hartill, B.; Jones, E. G.; Le Port, A.; Lowe, M.; McKenzie, J.; Morrison, M.; Paul, L. J.; Radford, C.; Ross, P. M.; Spong, K. T.; Trnski, T.; Usmar, N.; Walsh, C.; Zeldis, J. 2014. Snapper (Chrysophrys auratus): a review of life history and key vulnerabilities in New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 48: 256-283. Paulin, C. D.; Habib, G.; Carey, C. L.; Swanson, P. M.; Voss, G. J. 1982. New records of Mobula japanica and Masturus lanceolatus, and further records of Luvaris imperialis (Pisces: Mobulidae, Molidae, Louvaridae) from New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 16: 11–17. Research Planning, Inc. 2014. Best management practices for removal of debris from wetlands and other intertidal areas. Prepared for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration Marine Debris Program. Research Planning, Inc., Columbia, SC. 18 pp. Ridgway, N. M. 1980. Hydrological conditions and circulation off the west coast of the North Island, New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 14(2): 155-167. Roemmich, D.; Sutton, P. 1998. The mean and variability of ocean circulation past northern New Zealand: determining the representativeness of hydrographic climatologies. Journal of Geophysical Research 103: 13041-13054.

24 Rogers, D. C. 2012. The skeletal carbonate contribution to mixed terrigenous-carbonate sediments on the temperate northeastern Northland continental shelf, New Zealand. Unpublished thesis, Master of Science in Earth and Ocean Sciences, University of Waikato. Rowden, A.A.; Warwick, R. M.; Gordon, D.P. 2004. Bryozoan biodiversity in the New Zealand region and implications for marine conservation. Biodiversity and Conservation 13: 2695–2721. Schiel, D.; Wood, S. A.; Dunmore, R. A.; Taylor, D. I. 2006. Sediment on rocky intertidal reefs: Effects on early post-settlement stages of habitat-forming seaweeds. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology, 331: 158– 172. Schwarz, A.; Taylor R.; Hewitt, J.; Phillips, J.; Shima, J.; Cole, R.; Budd, R. 2006. Impacts of terrestrial runoff on the biodiversity of rocky reefs. New Zealand aquatic environment and biodiversity report, No. 7. Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington. 109 pp. Sharples, J.; Greig, M. J. N. 1998. Tidal currents, mean flows and upwelling on the north- east shelf of New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 32(2): 215-231. Shears, N. T.; Smith, F.; Babcock, R.; Duffy, C. A. J.; Villouta, E. 2008. Evaluation of biogeographic classification schemes for conservation planning: application to New Zealand’s coastal marine environment. Conservation Biology, 22(2): 467-481. Sim-Smith, C. J.; Jeffs, A.; Radford, C. 2012. Variation in the growth of larval and juvenile snapper, Chrysophrys auratus. Marine and Freshwater Research, 63: 1231- 1243. Stanton, B. R.1973. Hydrological investigations around northern New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 7(1 & 2): 85-110. Stanton, B. R.1979. The Tasman Front. New Zealand Journal of Marine & Freshwater Research, 1979, 13(2): 201-214. Stanton, B.; Sutton, P. 2003. Velocity measurements in the East Auckland Current north- east of North Cape, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 37:1, 195-204 Stanton, B. R.; Sutton, P. J. H.; Chiswell, S. M. 1997. The East Auckland Current, 1994- 95. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 31: 537-549. Steger, K. 2006: Impact of terrestrial-derived sedimentation on temperate rocky reef communities. PhD thesis, University of Wellington.

25 Šunde, C.; Berthelsen, A.; Sinner, J.; Gillespie, P.; Stringer, K.; Floerl, L. 2017. Impacts of vehicle access at Delaware (Wakapuaka) Inlet. Cawthron Institute Report No. 3015 75 pp. Sutton, P. J. H.; Bowen, M. M. 2011.Currents off the west coast of Northland, New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 45:4, 609-624. Sutton, P. J. H.; Roemmich, D. 2001. Ocean temperature climate off north-east New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 35: 553-565. Tezanos-Pinto, G. 2009. Population Structure, Abundance and Reproductive Parameters of Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Bay of Islands (Northland, New Zealand). PhD. thesis, School of Biological Sciences, The University of Auckland. 243 pp. Tezanos-Pinto, G.; Baker, C. S.; Russell, K.; Martien, K.; Baird, R. W.; Hutt, A.; Stone, G.; Mignucci-Giannoni, A. A.; Caballero, S.; Endo, T.; Lavery, S.; Oremus, M.; Olavarría, C.; Garrigue, C. 2009. A worldwide perspective on the population structure and genetic diversity of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in New Zealand. Journal of Heredity, 100(1): 11–24. Tezanos-Pinto, G.; Constantine, R.; Brooks, L.; Jackson, J. A.; Mourão, F.; Wells, S.; Baker, C. S. 2013. Decline in local abundance of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) in the Bay of Islands, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science, DOI: 10.1111/mms.12008. Thrush, S. F.; Hewitt, J. E.; Cummings, V. J.; Ellis, J. I.; Hatton, C.; Lohrer, A.; Norkko, A. 2004. Muddy waters: elevating sediment input to coastal and estuarine habitats. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2: 299–306. Thrush, S. F.; Hewitt, J. E.; Gibbs, M.; Lundquist, C.; Norkko, A. 2006. Functional role of large organisms in intertidal communities: community effects and ecosystem function. Ecosystems 9: 1–13. Thrush, S. F.; Whitlatch, R. B.; Pridmore, R. D.; Hewitt, J. E.; Cummings, V. J.; Wilkinson, M. R. 1996. Scale-dependent recolonization: the role of sediment stability in a dynamic sandflat habitat. Ecology, 77(8): 2472–2487. Trave, C.; Sheaves, M. 2014. Ecotone analysis: assessing the impact of vehicle transit on saltmarsh crab population and ecosystem. SpringerPlus 2014, 3:655 http://www.springerplus.com/content/3/1/655. Tuck, I.D.; Hewitt, J. 2012. Monitoring change in benthic communities in Spirits Bay. Final Research Report for Ministry of Research Project BEN2009-02. (Unpublished report held by Ministry of Fisheries, Wellington).

26 Tyler-Walters, H.; Arnold, C. 2008. Sensitivity of intertidal benthic habitats to impacts caused by access to fishing grounds. CCW Policy Research Report No. 08/13. Report to Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru / Countryside Council for Wales from the Marine Life Information Network (MarLIN). Marine Biological Association of the UK, Plymouth. ix + 39 pp. Visser, I. N.; Zaeschmar, J.; Halliday, J.; Abraham, A.; Ball, P.; Bradley, R.; Daly, S.; Hatwell, T.; Johnson, T.; Johnson, W.; Kay, L.; Maessen, T.; McKay, V.; Peters, T.; Turner, N.; Umuroa, B.; Pace, D. S. 2010. First record of predation on false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) by killer whales (Orcinus orca). Aquatic Mammals, 36(2): 195-204. Withers, K.; Tunnell, J. W. Jr. 1998. Identification of tidal flat alterations and determination of effects on biological productivity of these habitats within the Coastal Bend. Publication CCBNEP – 26. Center for Coastal Studies Texas A&M University-Corpus Christi. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, Texas. xxvi + 184 pp. Wood, A. C. L; Probert, P. K.; Rowden, A. A.; Smith, A. M. 2012. Complex habitat generated by marine bryozoans: a review of its distribution, structure, diversity, threats and conservation. Aquatic Conserv: Mar. Freshw. Ecosyst.: DOI: 10.1002/aqc.2236. Zeldis, J. R 2004. New and remineralised nutrient supply and ecosystem metabolism on the northeastern New Zealand continental shelf. Continental Shelf Research 24: 563-581. Zeldis, J.; Gall, M.; Greig, M.; Pinkerton, M.; Richardson, K. 2001: La Niña shuts down upwelling in north eastern New Zealand. In: Changes in the marine environment. Proceedings of the Annual Conference of the Australian Marine Sciences Association run in association with the New Zealand Marine Sciences Society, Townsville, Australia (3–6 July 2001). Townsville, Australian Marine Sciences Association. P. 39. Zeldis, J.R., Walters, R.A., Greig, M.J.N., Image, K. 2004. Circulation over the northeastern New Zealand continental slope, shelf and adjacent Hauraki Gulf, from spring to summer. Continental Shelf Research (24): 543-561. Zemke-White, W. L.; Speed, S. R.; McClary, D. J. 2005. Beach-cast seaweed: a review. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2005/44. 47 p.