RANGITOTO CHANNEL DREDGING ENVIRONMENTAL … · This report has been prepared by Kennedy...

KENNEDY ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED

RANGITOTO CHANNEL CAPITAL WORKS DREDGING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Appendices D and E

Prepared for Ports of Auckland Limited

November 2019

iii KENNEDY ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED

RANGITOTO CHANNEL DREDGING ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Limitations This report has been prepared by Kennedy Environmental Limited (KEL) under contract for its client. The report has been prepared to a specific scope of work. The report cannot be relied upon by a third party for any use without written consent of KEL and or its client.

This report may not be reproduced or copies in any form without the permission of the client. Such permission is to be given only in accordance with the terms of the client’s contract with KEL.

Document Revision History Revision Author Version Date of release

1 P Kennedy Issue to N Ironside POAL for Review 23 August 2019

2 P Kennedy Issue to N Ironside POAL for Review 30 September 2019

3 P Kennedy Issue to N Ironside POAL 14 October 2019

4 P Kennedy Issue to A Blomfield Bentley 25 October 2019 5 P Kennedy Issue to A Blomfield Bentley 18 November 2019

Bibliographic Reference This report should be referenced as:

KEL 2019. Rangitoto Channel Capital Works Dredging Environmental Assessment. Prepared for Ports of Auckland Limited by Kennedy Environmental Limited, November 2019.

iv KENNEDY ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED


Table of Contents Limitations ................................................................................................................................................... iii Document Revision History .......................................................................................................................... iii Bibliographic Reference ............................................................................................................................... iii List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. vii List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. viii List of Abbreviations & Units ........................................................................................................................ x 1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Rangitoto Channel Dredging ......................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Unitary Plan Assessment Requirements ..................................................................................... 1 1.3 Report Contents ............................................................................................................................... 3

2 PROPOSED DREDGING ............................................................................................................................... 4 2.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4 2.2 Dredging Location ........................................................................................................................... 5 2.3 Timing of Dredging. ......................................................................................................................... 5 2.4 Capital Dredging Areas and Volumes .......................................................................................... 7 2.5 Dredging Depths .............................................................................................................................. 7 2.6 Method of Dredging ......................................................................................................................... 8

3 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................................... 8 3.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 8 3.2 Tides and Currents .......................................................................................................................... 9 3.3 Geological Environment ............................................................................................................... 10 3.4 Channel Sediments ....................................................................................................................... 10 3.5 Sediment Physical Characteristics.............................................................................................. 11 3.6 Waitemata Group Material ........................................................................................................... 16

4 SEDIMENT QUALITY ................................................................................................................................. 17 4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 17 4.2 Sources of Contaminants ............................................................................................................. 17 4.3 Organic Carbon .............................................................................................................................. 18 4.4 Trace Elements .............................................................................................................................. 18 4.5 Hydrocarbons ................................................................................................................................. 21 4.6 Organochlorine Compounds ........................................................................................................ 23 4.7 Antifoulants ..................................................................................................................................... 24 4.8 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 24

5 WATER QUALITY ....................................................................................................................................... 24 5.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 24 5.2 Water Quality Information ............................................................................................................. 25 5.3 Turbidity and Total Suspended Solids........................................................................................ 25 5.4 Nutrients .......................................................................................................................................... 29 5.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 30

6 INTERTIDAL & BENTHIC ECOLOGY OF THE NAVIGATION PRECINCT ........................................................ 30

v KENNEDY ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED


6.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 30 6.2 Supporting Studies for this Application ...................................................................................... 31 6.3 Intertidal Ecology ........................................................................................................................... 31 6.4 Sub-tidal Habitats .......................................................................................................................... 32 6.5 Epifauna .......................................................................................................................................... 34 6.6 Infauna ............................................................................................................................................ 39 6.7 Overview ......................................................................................................................................... 44 6.8 Biosecurity ...................................................................................................................................... 44 6.9 Sensitive Habitats and Conservation Significance ................................................................... 49

7 OTHER FAUNA .......................................................................................................................................... 50 7.1 Seabirds .......................................................................................................................................... 50 7.2 Fish .................................................................................................................................................. 52 7.3 Marine Mammals ........................................................................................................................... 56 7.4 Terrestrial Biosecurity ................................................................................................................... 58 7.5 Summary ......................................................................................................................................... 59

8 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF PROPOSED DREDGING............................................................................ 59 8.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 59 8.2 Physical Effects .............................................................................................................................. 60 8.3 Water Quality Effects – Suspended Sediment .......................................................................... 60 8.4 Water Quality Effects – Contaminants ....................................................................................... 64 8.5 Effects of Sedimentation ............................................................................................................... 69 8.6 Ecological Effects - Seabirds ....................................................................................................... 72 8.7 Ecological Effects - Marine Mammals ........................................................................................ 74 8.8 Ecological Effects - Fish ............................................................................................................... 76 8.9 Ecological Effects - Biosecurity Risks ........................................................................................ 79 8.10 Ecological Effects - Habitat Changes ....................................................................................... 81 8.11 Ecological Effects - Food Web/Ecosystem Effects ................................................................ 84 8.12 Effects on Ecological Values ..................................................................................................... 84

9 MITIGATION & MONITORING .................................................................................................................. 85 9.1 Monitoring ....................................................................................................................................... 85 9.2 Mitigation ......................................................................................................................................... 88

10 SUMMARY & CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................. 89 10.1 Ecological Environment .............................................................................................................. 89 10.2 Sediment and Sediment Quality ............................................................................................... 90 10.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................................................... 90 10.4 Effects of Suspended Sediment ................................................................................................ 90 10.5 Effects of Sedimentation ............................................................................................................ 91 10.6 Effects on Sediment Quality ...................................................................................................... 91 10.7 Effects of other Water Quality Changes .................................................................................. 91 10.8 Effects of Noise ............................................................................................................................ 91 10.9 Barge and Vessel Movement .................................................................................................... 92

vi KENNEDY ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED


10.10 Biosecurity .................................................................................................................................. 92 10.11 Recolonisation ........................................................................................................................... 92 10.12 Monitoring and Mitigation ......................................................................................................... 93

11 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 93 Appendix A : Dredging areas and depths and 2004-2007 dredging areas. .............................................. 104 Appendix B : FNB and Rangitoto Channel Sediment sampling and quality characterisation programme. .................................................................................................................................................................. 105 Appendix C : Visual assessment of marine habitats Rangitoto Channel & Fergusson Wharf (Ramboll 2019). ........................................................................................................................................................ 106 Appendix D : Rangitoto Channel benthic community composition (Marlow 2019). ................................ 107 Appendix E : Survey of non-indigenous biota in the WCNP (Woods et al. 2019a). .................................. 108 Appendix F : Example photographs from seabed locations visited during the Fugro survey (refer Appendix C) in 2019. ................................................................................................................................. 109 Appendix G : Example photographs from seabed locations visited during seabed surveys reported in Marlow (2019) and Woods et al. (2019a). ................................................................................................ 110

105 KENNEDY ENVIRONMENTAL LIMITED


Appendix D: Rangitoto Channel benthic community composition (Marlow 2019).

REPORT NO. 3367

RANGITOTO CHANNEL BENTHIC COMMUNITY COMPOSITION REPORT

CAWTHRON INSTITUTE | REPORT NO. 3367 JULY 2019

RANGITOTO CHANNEL BENTHIC COMMUNITY COMPOSITION

JOSEPH MARLOW

Prepared for Ports of Auckland Ltd

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: Olivia Johnston

APPROVED FOR RELEASE BY: Roger Young

ISSUE DATE: 16 July 2019

RECOMMENDED CITATION: Marlow J 2019. Rangitoto Channel benthic community composition. Prepared for Ports of Auckland Ltd. Cawthron Report No. 3367. 12 p. plus appendices.

© COPYRIGHT: This publication must not be reproduced or distributed, electronically or otherwise, in whole or in part without the written permission of the Copyright Holder, which is the party that commissioned the report.


v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1

2. METHODS ..................................................................................................................... 1

2.1. Sample sites ................................................................................................................................................... 1

2.2. Macrofauna communities ............................................................................................................................... 1

2.3. Sediment analysis .......................................................................................................................................... 2

2.4. Multivariate analyses ...................................................................................................................................... 3

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 4

3.1. Infaunal community composition .................................................................................................................... 5

3.2. Invasive species ........................................................................................................................................... 10

3.3. Comparison with previous studies ................................................................................................................ 10

4. REFERENCES .............................................................................................................11

5. APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................13

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of seven macrofaunal survey locations within the Rangitoto Channel, Hauraki Gulf, April 2019. .................................................................................................................. 2

Figure 2. Average total infaunal abundance, taxonomic richness, diversity and evenness at sample sites within the Rangitoto Channel. ........................................................................ 4

Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCO) depiction of infaunal community similarities among samples. .................................................................................................................. 7

Figure 4. Distance based redundancy analysis (dbRDA) ordinations of fitted models for assemblage composition. ................................................................................................... 9

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. The most common taxa (100 or more individuals) in infaunal samples from the Rangitoto Channel. ............................................................................................................. 5

Table 2. Five most common taxa at each survey site. ...................................................................... 8

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Example images of sediment types (within van Veen grabs) seven sites sampled in the Rangitoto Channel in 2019. ........................................................................................ 13

Appendix 2. Species list and abundance for each infauna sample. ...................................................... 15 Appendix 3. Results from SIMPER analysis of species composition similarity and dissimilarity

within and between sites, respectively.. ............................................................................ 21


1

1. INTRODUCTION

The Rangitoto Channel in the inner Hauraki Gulf provides access to the Port of

Auckland for large commercial vessels. The channel was last dredged in 2004–2007

in order to increase capacity for larger container vessels (up to 4100 containers). It is

now 200 m wide and allows one-way passage of vessels of up to 12.5 m draught.

Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL) is currently in the process of applying for capital

dredging consent to deepen the Rangitoto Channel and a small area near Fergusson

Container Terminal. Cawthron institute was commissioned by POAL to update

ecological survey work (previously extensively done in 2001) and to characterise

benthic macrofauna communities within the Rangitoto Channel.

2. METHODS

2.1. Sample sites

Seven sites (Figure 1) along the length of the Rangitoto Channel were selected to

represent a variety of substrate types and epifaunal assemblages. Selection was

based on data from previous surveys and the sites selected (from south to north)

were:

• B1010: shell hash & no epifauna

• B1168: shell hash, soft sediment & sponge beds

• B1236: shell hash & soft sediment

• B1297: variable; shell hash, coarse sand, soft sediment & sponge beds

• B1338: shell hash, soft sediment & no epifauna

• B1405: shell hash, soft sediment & moderate epifauna cover

• B1543: soft sediment & minimal epifauna.

See Appendix 1 for images of sediment types.

2.2. Macrofauna communities

In April 2019 at each of the seven survey locations, five replicate substrate samples

were obtained using a van Veen grab sampler. Photographs were taken of the

sediment surface within the grab to provide qualitative characterisation of substrate

type. The sediment within the grab was sub-sampled to 100 mm depth using a

113 cm2 core to obtain infauna. Core samples were gently washed over a 0.5 mm

sieve and preserved in a 95% ethyl alcohol and 5% glyoxal solution. Samples were

transported to Cawthron where they were microscopically examined; taxa were

identified to the lowest practical taxonomic resolution and numbers of individuals

JULY 2019 REPORT NO. 3367 | CAWTHRON INSTITUTE

2

(abundance) were calculated for each sample. Previous work has established the

presence of significant sponge beds and other large epifauna at the survey sites;

however, large epifauna were not detected within the van Veen grabs. Therefore, any

epifauna (e.g. small solitary ascidians) were included in the infauna analysis.

Figure 1. Map of seven macrofaunal survey locations within the Rangitoto Channel, Hauraki Gulf,

April 2019.

2.3. Sediment analysis

In addition to the infaunal sub-sampling of each grab sample, a sediment subsample

was retained for grain size analysis at Hill Laboratories Ltd. Each sediment sub

sample was characterised by the proportion of sediment grain sizes:

• > 2 mm = Gravel

• < 2 mm to > 1 mm = Coarse Sand

• < 1 mm to > 500 μm = Medium Sand

• < 500 μm to > 250 μm = Medium/Fine Sand

• < 250 μm to > 125 μm = Fine Sand


3

• < 125 μm to > 63 μm = Very Fine Sand

• < 63 μm = Mud (Silt and Clay)

Size classes are from Udden-Wentworth scale.

2.4. Multivariate analyses

Multivariate analyses were performed using PRIMER v7 software (Clarke & Gorley

2015) in order to determine differences in benthic community composition among

sites. All data were square-root transformed to preserve information on relative

abundance while reducing the influence of overly-abundant species. Differences in

community composition among sites were assessed using a one-way permutational

multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA) based on a resemblance matrix

constructed using Bray-Curtis similarity coefficients (Anderson 2014). If a significant

difference was detected among sites a further pair-wise PERMANOVA was conducted

to determine which sites were significantly different. These differences were

represented visually using principal coordinate analysis (PCO) with overlaying

Pearson’s correlation vectors (r ≤ 0.7). The extent to which sediment grain size

influenced species composition was analysed using a distance-based multiple linear

regression model (DISTLM; Anderson 2004). In order to find the most parsimonious

model, Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC), a step-wise procedure, adjusted for small

sample sizes (AICc), was used (Burnham & Anderson 2004). The results from this

analysis were represented graphically with a distance-based redundancy ordination

(dbRDA), and 2D bubble plots to identify differences in substrate composition. Finally,

an analysis of similarity percentages (SIMPER) was used to determine which taxa

contributed the most similarity/dissimilarity (in terms of abundance) within/among

sites.


4

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A total of 7073 individual specimens across 174 different taxa were observed within

the 35 sediment samples (Appendix 1). The majority of infauna (54.2%) were

polychaete worms, followed by amphipods (13.6%), ophiuroids (8.1%), oligochaetes

(4.4%) and bivalves (3.1%).

Infaunal composition was variable across samples, with numbers of taxa per sample

ranging from 10 to 58 (average of 35.1 ± 12.6 (SD)) and numbers of individuals per

sample ranging from 23 to 558 (average of 204.4 ± 123.2). Abundance and taxonomic

richness were highest at B1168 where the respective average number of taxa and

individuals per sample was 49.6 (± 8.1) and 349.8 (± 134.9). Conversely, B1543 was

the most depauperate survey location with an average of 18.2 (± 6.7) taxa and 49.8

(±18.7) individuals per sample (Figure 2).

In contrast, differences in species diversity and evenness among sites were less

pronounced. Shannon-Wiener diversity index (H’) ranged from 2.4 at B11543 to 3.0 at

B1168, indicating relatively high species diversity across all sites. There was a slight

trend for a decline in species diversity from south to north, but also a large amount of

variation among samples. Pielou’s evenness index ranged from 0.71 at B1405 to 0.86

at B1297, indicating a fairly uniform distribution of species at most sites (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Average total infaunal abundance, taxonomic richness, diversity and evenness at sample

sites within the Rangitoto Channel. Error bars represent standard deviation.


5

3.1. Infaunal community composition

The most common taxa (Table 1) were polydorid worms (Spionidae), many species of

which bore and inhabit calcareous shells and substrates (Sato-Okoshi et al. 2008).

Other notable polychaetes were two spionids, Prionospio spp., and the capitellid

worms Heteromastus filiformis and Barantolla lepte. Both spionid and capitellid worms

are often used as indicators of stress due to their capacity to opportunistically

recolonise and dominate disturbed sediments. Exceptionally high abundances of

capitellids are also often associated (e.g. Wong & O’Shea 2011) with organic

enrichment. However, the moderate densities and lack of dominance by these worms

in the current survey are not indicative of enrichment or stress. The majority of the

other common taxa were also surface deposit feeders or scavengers (e.g.

Amphiuridae and Ischyroceridae) that feed on organic matter on or within the

sediment.

Table 1. The most common taxa (100 or more individuals) in infaunal samples from the Rangitoto Channel. ‘N’ is the total number of organisms counted across all samples.

Group Taxa N

Polychaeta: Spionidae Polydorid 649

Polychaeta: Syllidae Exogoninae 618

Ophiuroidea Amphiuridae 581

Amphipoda Ischyroceridae 492

Polychaeta: Capitellidae Heteromastus filiformis 428

Polychaeta: Paraonidae Paraonidae 396

Polychaeta: Syllidae Syllidae 393

Polychaeta: Spionidae Prionospio sp. 361

Oligochaeta Oligochaeta 313

Polychaeta: Capitellidae Barantolla lepte 218

Polychaeta: Spionidae Prionospio multicristata 126

Hemichordata Hemichordata 119

Polychaeta: Cirratulidae Cirratulidae 117

Isopoda Anthuridae 103

Amphipoda Amphipoda (juv.) 101

Polychaeta: Serpulidae Hydroides elegans 100

Multivariate analysis found that there were significant differences in infaunal

community composition among sites (PERMANOVA, Pseudo-F(6,34) = 3.9682, p =

0.001). The subsequent pairwise test showed that the majority of survey sites were

significantly different (p < 0.05) from each other with respect to their community

composition. The only exception was the infaunal communities at B1405 and B1297

which were not significantly different from each other (p = 0.22), although this appears

to be due to large within-site variability at each of the respective sites (Figure 3).


6

The PCO (Figure 3), illustrates the differences in community composition both within

replicates and among sites. At the 30% similarity level, the species composition at

B1543 (the most northerly site) was distinctly different from the other six sites.

However, a lack of overlap at the 50% level demonstrates community variability within

this site. The other six sites showed a moderate degree of within site similarity, with all

samples clustering within the 30% grouping. Furthermore, infaunal communities

B1168 and B1010 (with the exception of one B1168 sample) shared at least 50%

similarity as did the majority of B1236 and B1338 samples. Pearson’s correlation

vectors (>0.7) indicated that these clusters were associated with relatively higher

abundances of certain infauna taxa:

• B1543: Theora lubrica (Bivalvia)

• B1236 & B1338: Prionospio spp. and polydorids (Polychaeta)

• B1168 & B1010: Leptochiton inquinatus (Polyplacophora), Ischyroceridae

(Amphipoda), Exogoninae and Hesionidae (Polychaeta).

Community composition differences and similarities were further highlighted by the

SIMPER analysis (full results Appendix 3). Samples from B1168 and B1010 showed

the least variation in species composition, with an average within-site similarity of 59.1

and 57.4%, respectively. Conversely, samples from B1297 and B1543 showed the

lowest levels of within-site similarity at 33.4 and 35.5%, respectively. The largest

differences between sites were attributed to B1543 which was 79.2-84.2% different

from all the other sites. This appears to be due to the relatively low abundances or

absence of many taxa that were common at many other sites (e.g. Amphiuridae,

Exogoninae, Oligochaeta, Polydorid, Prionospio spp. and Syllidae) and high

abundances of Theora lubrica which was less common at other sites (Table 2). All

other between sites comparisons showed a lesser degree of dissimilarity (50.1-

65.3%), with B1168 and B1010 being the most similar. These sites shared high

abundances of Amphiuridae and Exogoninae but differed in their relative abundance

of Heteromastus filiformis, Ischyroceridae, Oligochaeta and Cirratulidae.


7

Figure 3. Principal component analysis (PCO) depiction of infaunal community similarities among

samples. On the left, samples are plotted by site with dotted lines representing 30 (green) and 50 % (blue) similarity. Overlaid vectors represent individual taxa that have a Pearson’s correlation coefficient of greater than 0.7 with either of the PCO axes.


8

Table 2. Five most common taxa at each survey site. N = average abundance across five replicates.

Site Taxon Group Taxon N

B1010 Ophiuroidea Amphiuridae 42

Polychaeta Exogoninae 37



Polychaeta Syllidae 17

B1168 Polychaeta Exogoninae 48



Polychaeta Heteromastus filiformis 26

Polychaeta Paraonidae 24

B1236 Polychaeta Polydorid 23

Polychaeta Prionospio sp. 15










Polychaeta Syllidae 28








Polychaeta Exogoninae 17

B1543 Bivalvia Theora lubrica 12

Amphipoda Phoxocephalidae 5

Polychaeta Polydorid 5

Bivalvia Montacuta sp. 2

Ostracoda Ostracoda 2


9

The DISTLM analysis found that sediment grain size explained 21.5% of the variation

in infauna community composition. The best model selected by the analysis shows

that the relative proportion of fine sand (125–63 µm) explained 14.8% and gravel

(> 2 mm) explained 6.7%. Figure 4 demonstrates that higher abundances of T. lubrica

were particularly associated with a greater substrate proportion of fine sand while

Exogoninae and Hesionidae were associated with a greater proportion of gravel.

Figure 4. Distance based redundancy analysis (dbRDA) ordinations of fitted models for

assemblage composition. Overlapping 2D bubbles represent substrate proportion of fine sand (left) and gravel (right). Overlaid vectors represent individual taxa that have a Pearson’s correlation coefficient of greater than 0.7 with either of the PCO axes.


10

3.2. Invasive species

As might be expected for one of New Zealand’s busiest international shipping

channels, benthic composition wasn’t entirely indigenous. Single specimens of the

invasive Mediterranean fanworm (Sabella spallanzanii) and the invasive ascidian

Styela clava were found at site B1168. Both these taxa have recently established in

the region; S. clava was first detected in the Viaduct harbour in 2005 and S.

spallanzanii was first detected at the entrance of the same harbour in 2009

(McFadden et al. 2007; Read et al. 2011). In addition to S. spallanzanii and S. clava,

14 specimens of the polychaete Leonnates sp. (Nereididae family) were found across

four sites (B1543, B1338, B1405 & B1236). Prior to 2017 no species of this

tropical/subtropical genus had been found in New Zealand waters. Leonnates sp. was

first found in Henderson Creek, Waitemata Harbour in October 2017 during routine

benthos sampling by NIWA and has since been recorded in the Viaduct area, Okura,

Waiwera Mahurangi (NIWA comm.) and the western Coromandel (Cawthron data).

There is currently some uncertainty over the identity of this species; initial taxonomic

work on the specimen found in Henderson Creek identified the worm as L.

stephensoni (Read 2017) which is endemic to Australia. However, L. stephensoni is

taxonomically very similar to L. persicus which is known to be a globally invasive

species (Sato & Kubo 2009). Cawthron is currently undertaking a molecular analysis

to determine whether the Leonnates sp. from the Rangitoto Channel is L. stephensoni

or L. persicus.

More established New Zealand invasives were the barnacle Balanus trigonus, and the

bivalves Theora lubrica and Limaria orientalis. These species are found throughout

New Zealand waters and were encountered in a previous survey during 2001 (Kingett

Mitchell 2001).

3.3. Comparison with previous studies

A previous comprehensive study of the benthic composition of the Rangitoto Channel

and port approaches prior to dredging in 2004–2007 (Kingett Mitchell 2001) found (to

varying degrees) similar macrofaunal community composition. However, differences in

survey locations, grab size and the level of taxonomic identification between the

studies make confident quantitative comparisons problematic. Similarities between the

2001 and 2019 surveys include:

• Infauna primarily dominated by polychaetes

• Dominance of syllid worms at southern sites

• Relatively high abundance of capitellid worms (primarily Heteromastus filiformis

and Barantolla lepte) across the survey region

• High amphipod abundance, however;

o Ischyroceridae were the most abundant in the present survey


11

o Ischyroceridae were not identified in 2001 (they may have been

recorded as an unidentified amphipod)

• Amphiurid brittle stars abundant at most sites in both surveys;

o Similar trend of decreasing abundance from south to north in 2001 and

2019

• High abundances of T. lubrica in the north of the Rangitoto Channel.

Differences include:

• Considerably higher abundances of polydorid polychaetes in the present study

• Molluscs accounted for less than 5% of all infauna, considerably less than in 2001

when molluscs comprised 15-20% of all infauna;

o In 2001, there were particularly high abundances of the gastropods

Pisinna olivacea impressa and Maoricolpus roseus roseus and the

bivalve Nucula hartivigiana at mid-channel sites

o While these taxa were observed in this survey (P. impressa recorded

as gastropod: microsnail), they were considerably less abundant

• Oligochaetes accounted for 4.4% of all infauna in 2019 but were almost absent

from surveys in 2001

Although it is difficult to make robust temporal comparisons between the two surveys

due to methodological differences, similarities suggest that recolonisation has

occurred and that the benthic communities are recovering. Furthermore, recovery

appears to be slowest among mollusc taxa, with boring polydorid worms potentially

benefiting from increase in habitat availability post-dredging.

4. REFERENCES

Anderson MJ 2004. DISTLM v. 5: a FORTRAN computer program to calculate a

distance-based multivariate analysis for a linear model. Department of

Statistics, University of Auckland, New Zealand 10:2016.

Anderson MJ 2014. Permutational multivariate analysis of variance (PERMANOVA).

Wiley StatsRef: Statistics Reference Online 14:1-5.

Burnham KP and Anderson DR 2004. Multimodel inference: understanding AIC and

BIC in model selection. Sociological Methods and Research 33: 261–304.

Clarke KR, Gorley RN 2015 Getting started with PRIMER v7. PRIMER-E: Plymouth,

Plymouth Marine Laboratory.


12

Keeley NB, Macleod CK, Forrest BM 2012. Combining best professional judgement

and quantile regression splines to improve characterisation of macrofaunal

responses to enrichment. Ecological Indicators 12: 154-166.

Kingett Mitchell 2001. Assessment of the effects of the Rangitoto shipping lane

deepening project on natural resources. Report prepared by Kingett Mitchell for

Ports of Auckland Limited.

McFadden A, Rawdon T, Gould B, Border P 2007. Response to a marine incursion

Styela clava. Surveillance-Wellington 34:4.

Read GB, Inglis G, Stratford P, Ahyong ST 2011. Arrival of the alien fanworm Sabella

spallanzanii (Gmelin, 1791) (Polychaeta: Sabellidae) in two New Zealand

harbours. Aquatic Invasions 6: 273-279.

Read GB 2017. Notes on the Australian polychaete Leonnates stephensoni Rullier,

1965, collected from Henderson Creek monitoring site in Waitemata Harbour,

New Zealand. Marine Exotic Species Note 99. National Institute of Water and

Atmospheric Research, New Zealand.

Sato-Okoshi W, Okoshi K, Shaw J 2008. Polydorid species (Polychaeta: Spionidae) in

south-western Australian waters with special reference to Polydora uncinata

and Boccardia knoxi. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United

Kingdom 88: 491-501.

Sato M, Kubo A 2009. New records of the nereidid polychaete Leonnates persicus

from Japan, Korea, and Thailand, with a redescription of the holotype.

Zoological Science 26: 798-804.

Wong KL, O'Shea S 2011. The effects of a mussel farm on benthic macrofaunal

communities in Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine

and Freshwater Research 45: 187-212.


13

5. APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Example images of sediment types (within van Veen grabs) seven sites sampled in the Rangitoto Channel in 2019.


15

Appendix 2. Species list and abundance for each infauna sample.

Taxa

B1168-A

B1168-B

B1168-C

B1168-D

B1168-E

B1543-A

B1543-B

B1543-C

B1543-D

B1543-E

B1338-A

B1338-B

B1338-C

B1338-D

B1338-E

B1010-A

B1010-B

B1010-C

B1010-D

B1010-E

B1297-A

B1297-B

B1297-C

B1297-D

B1297-E

B1405-A

B1405-B

B1405-C

B1405-D

B1405-E

B1236-A

B1236-B

B1236-C

B1236-D

B1236-E

Amphipoda

Ampelisca sp. 1 1 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1

Aoridae 2 0 1 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 2

Atylidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 1 12 1 0 0 2 0 0

Caprellidae 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 3 0 0 0

Corophiidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 5 0 0 8 1 17 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0

Gammaridae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ischyroceridae 40 5 3 20 112 1 5 0 0 0 101 8 2 0 1 9 29 23 53 27 12 1 0 0 13 1 1 2 14 7 0 0 2 0 0

Leucothoidae 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Liljeborgiidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2

Lysianassidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Melitidae 1 0 6 7 5 0 6 0 0 1 1 2 2 1 2 5 1 0 1 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 4 2 0 0 0 3 0 0

Oedicerotidae 2 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 0

Pardaliscidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

Phoxocephalidae 3 0 1 1 2 0 10 3 3 9 0 6 2 3 5 1 2 3 6 1 1 0 1 7 0 3 2 0 0 1 0 2 6 1 1

Amphipoda 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 2 13 0 9 10 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 4 15 0 2 0 2 4 2

Amphipoda (juv.) 6 0 0 0 24 0 0 0 0 0 12 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 31 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Anthozoa

Edwardsia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Anthozoa 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ascidiacea

Styelidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Styela clava 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ascidiacea 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ascidian (colonial) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ascidian (solitary) 6 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 88 0 0 1 0 0

Asteroidea

Patiriella regularis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Asteroidea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bivalvia

Anomia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Anomiidae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 0 1 5 0 1

Purpurocardia purpurata

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Corbula zelandica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Scintillona zelandica 0 3 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hiatella arctica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arthritica bifurca 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Arthritica sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


16

Taxa

B1168-A

B1168-B

B1168-C

B1168-D

B1168-E

B1543-A

B1543-B

B1543-C

B1543-D

B1543-E

B1338-A

B1338-B

B1338-C

B1338-D

B1338-E

B1010-A

B1010-B

B1010-C

B1010-D

B1010-E

B1297-A

B1297-B

B1297-C

B1297-D

B1297-E

B1405-A

B1405-B

B1405-C

B1405-D

B1405-E

B1236-A

B1236-B

B1236-C

B1236-D

B1236-E

Lasaeidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Melliteryx parva 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 1 4 1 0 2 2

Limaria orientalis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

Gonimyrtea concinna 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Montacuta sp. 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Trichomusculus barbatus

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Linucula hartvigiana 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nuculidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Pecten novaezelandiae 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Leptomya retiaria retiaria

1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Theora lubrica 5 1 0 0 3 29 4 16 5 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0

Diplodonta sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

Bassina yatei 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dosina zelandica 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dosinia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dosinia sp. (Juvenile) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ruditapes largillierti 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Tawera spissa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bivalvia indent. 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Bivalvia Unid. (juv) 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mytilidae (Juvenile) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Bryozoa

Bryozoa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bryozoa (encrusting) 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Bryozoa (Erect) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Bryozoa unid. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cirripedia

Balanus sp. 6 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Balanus trigonus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Copepoda 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Crustacea

Nebaliacea 1 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0

Tanaidacea 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mysidacea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Cumacea 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 5 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Decapoda

Callianassidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0

Pontophilus australis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0

Diogenidae 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 3 0 1 0 0

Notomithrax minor 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0


17

Taxa

B1168-A

B1168-B

B1168-C

B1168-D

B1168-E

B1543-A

B1543-B

B1543-C

B1543-D

B1543-E

B1338-A

B1338-B

B1338-C

B1338-D

B1338-E

B1010-A

B1010-B

B1010-C

B1010-D

B1010-E

B1297-A

B1297-B

B1297-C

B1297-D

B1297-E

B1405-A

B1405-B

B1405-C

B1405-D

B1405-E

B1236-A

B1236-B

B1236-C

B1236-D

B1236-E

Paguridae 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Palaemon affinis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Petrolisthes novaezelandiae

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Liocarcinus corrugatus 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Upogebia sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Pilumnus novaezelandiae

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Anomura 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Brachyura (juv.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Decapoda ident. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Echinoidea

Echinocardium cordatum

0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gastropoda

Cominella adspersa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sigapatella novaezelandiae

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sigapatella tenuis 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Pelicaria vermis vermis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maoricolpus roseus roseus

30 14 1 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Gastropoda (micro snails)

1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hemichordata 0 6 1 17 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 3 2 0 0 2 4 0 16 16 10 3 5 2 5 2

Holothuroidea

Taeniogyrus dendyi 0 3 1 2 4 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 8 2 0 3 1 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 4

Hydrozoa 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0

Isopoda

Anthuridae 11 7 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 19 4 8 6 16 0 2 1 2 1 2 0 0 1 1 7 1 2 1 1 4 0 0 0 1

Arcturidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Natatolana sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Munnidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Valvifera 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Nematoda 0 1 10 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 2 7 8 1 2 2 7 3 0 10 0 0 5 2 7 0 0 0 0 0

Nemertea 1 3 2 3 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 5 2 5 0 1 4 0 4 0 0 1 0 5 0 0 2 8 0 2 0 0 1 3

Oligochaeta 8 4 0 12 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 17 47 14 30 35 27 8 25 13 2 5 3 1 7 8 11 3 10 0 2 0 2 9 5

Ophiuroidea

Amphiuridae 36 40 18 47 16 0 1 0 0 0 19 4 3 8 6 37 17 35 81 39 15 31 1 0 5 10 15 17 7 11 9 6 14 13 20

Opisthobranchia

Philine auriformis 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Philine sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Opisthobranchia Unid. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ostrocoda

Diasterope grisea 5 2 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 8 2 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 0


18

Taxa

B1168-A

B1168-B

B1168-C

B1168-D

B1168-E

B1543-A

B1543-B

B1543-C

B1543-D

B1543-E

B1338-A

B1338-B

B1338-C

B1338-D

B1338-E

B1010-A

B1010-B

B1010-C

B1010-D

B1010-E

B1297-A

B1297-B

B1297-C

B1297-D

B1297-E

B1405-A

B1405-B

B1405-C

B1405-D

B1405-E

B1236-A

B1236-B

B1236-C

B1236-D

B1236-E

Parasterope quadrata 7 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 0 0

Trachyleberis lytteltonensis

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ostracoda 3 1 1 2 5 1 0 5 0 5 2 0 1 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 1 3 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 2 0

Phoronida 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 0 0 1 0 2 6 0 2 0 1 0 0 0

Platyhelminthes 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Polychaeta

Pholoidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phyllodocida 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Ampharetidae 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0

Barantolla lepte 14 14 3 6 8 0 0 1 0 0 16 8 0 4 5 9 6 13 9 4 2 7 2 0 9 8 14 8 27 13 1 1 2 2 2

Capitella sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0

Capitellidae 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 4 0 0 6 0 0 2 1 0 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Heteromastus filiformis 34 28 29 16 22 0 1 1 0 0 0 14 5 7 8 7 7 11 0 1 6 6 0 0 23 0 40 48 32 39 5 3 8 16 11

Notomastus sp. 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phyllochaetopterus socialis

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phyllochaetopterus sp. 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Chrysopetalidae 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Cirratulidae 38 21 8 12 0 1 1 3 1 3 0 1 0 1 0 3 2 1 0 2 2 0 1 0 2 1 2 3 0 1 0 2 2 0 3

Cossura consimilis 0 1 1 2 0 0 4 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Dorvilleidae 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0

Eunice sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Glyceridae 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 2 0 10 0 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 5 6 1 2 0 0 1 1

Goniadidae 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 5 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Hesionidae 3 2 3 3 2 0 1 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 2 1 0 0 1 0 0

Microphthalmus sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Lumbrineridae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Maldanidae 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 0 0 0 0 0 5 1 3 0 0 0 0 0

Aglaophamus sp. 0 2 2 0 1 1 1 1 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Ceratonereis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Leonnates sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 2 1

Nereididae (juvenile) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Onuphis aucklandensis 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Armandia maculata 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 0

Orbinia papillosa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Orbiniidae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Orbiniidae juv. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phylo felix 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phylo novazealandiae 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phylo sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Myriochele sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 11 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 0 0


19

Taxa

B1168-A

B1168-B

B1168-C

B1168-D

B1168-E

B1543-A

B1543-B

B1543-C

B1543-D

B1543-E

B1338-A

B1338-B

B1338-C

B1338-D

B1338-E

B1010-A

B1010-B

B1010-C

B1010-D

B1010-E

B1297-A

B1297-B

B1297-C

B1297-D

B1297-E

B1405-A

B1405-B

B1405-C

B1405-D

B1405-E

B1236-A

B1236-B

B1236-C

B1236-D

B1236-E

Owenia petersenae 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 7 1 0 4 0 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0

Aricidea sp. 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Paraonidae 41 23 18 24 15 0 1 0 0 0 5 7 8 12 5 21 9 11 15 2 13 13 1 0 6 4 22 16 15 33 8 6 12 19 11

Lagis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0

Phyllodocidae 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0

Pisionidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Polynoidae 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sabellariidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Euchone sp. 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Sabella spallanzanii 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sabellidae 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Hydroides elegans 14 4 3 1 2 0 2 0 0 0 3 0 3 5 15 8 0 0 0 9 0 0 7 6 1 6 0 2 3 1 2 0 1 2 0

Serpulidae 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0

Spirorbidae 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sigalionidae 0 1 0 0 1 2 2 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Paraprionospio sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Polydorid 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 12 4 5 46 13 116 12 15 1 1 0 0 0 4 67 0 1 0 171 56 8 0 1 39 2 5 30 38

Prionospio aucklandica 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Prionospio australiensis 9 2 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0

Prionospio multicristata 10 4 2 5 6 0 1 0 0 2 15 14 8 6 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 0 9 11 0 1 6 0 4 4 5

Prionospio sp. 6 3 3 8 4 0 0 1 2 1 27 48 4 17 18 6 1 5 4 5 2 11 4 0 11 18 11 45 18 1 20 10 12 20 15

Prionospio tridentata 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Prionospio yuriel 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 5 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 0 0 0 1

Scolelepis sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Spiophanes kroyeri 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Exogoninae 95 28 24 73 22 0 0 0 1 0 33 11 7 8 13 47 37 49 31 23 0 10 4 0 10 0 12 26 36 11 2 0 1 3 1

Syllidae 50 24 4 17 8 0 0 0 0 0 5 2 7 9 118 19 9 25 24 9 9 0 1 4 8 1 6 16 9 4 0 0 3 0 2

Terebellidae 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 0

Terebellides sp. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

Polyplacophora

Leptochiton inquinatus 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 5 4 5 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 0

Porifera

Sycon sp. 3 0 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 2

Porifera 8 2 2 27 15 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 1 1 6 2 4 0 0 1 2 0 1 3 1 0 5 2 1 1 1 0 1 0

Pycnogonida 1 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Sipuncula 24 28 3 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0 0 0 0 1


21

Appendix 3. Results from SIMPER analysis of species composition similarity and dissimilarity within and between sites, respectively. Displayed are taxa that cumulatively contribute up to 50 % similarity/dissimilarity. SIMPER based on square-root abundance data.

Within sites: Site B1168 Average similarity: 59.11

Species Av.Abund Av.Sim Sim/SD Contrib% Cum.%

Exogoninae 6.63 5.08 5.20 8.60 8.60

Amphiuridae 5.48 4.54 5.56 7.68 16.29

Heteromastus filiformis 5.04 4.48 6.01 7.58 23.87

Paraonidae 4.84 4.15 7.52 7.03 30.90

Syllidae 4.18 2.80 3.70 4.74 35.64

Ischyroceridae 5.07 2.72 2.10 4.60 40.23

Barantolla lepte 2.90 2.25 5.63 3.81 44.04

Cirratulidae 3.41 1.92 1.15 3.24 47.28

Porifera 2.95 1.87 2.25 3.16 50.44

Site B1543 Average similarity: 35.51


Theora lubrica 3.17 9.15 2.69 25.76 25.76

Polydorid 1.82 4.18 1.11 11.76 37.53

Cirratulidae 1.29 4.13 4.27 11.64 49.16

Aglaophamus sp. 1.28 4.08 3.71 11.50 60.66



Polydorid 5.70 5.03 4.13 9.51 9.51

Prionospio sp. 4.50 4.37 2.71 8.26 17.77

Oligochaeta 4.32 4.01 1.98 7.57 25.35

Exogoninae 3.63 3.77 9.42 7.12 32.46

Prionospio multicristata 2.98 3.22 3.73 6.09 38.55

Anthuridae 3.13 3.18 6.00 6.01 44.56

Paraonidae 2.68 3.10 4.86 5.86 50.41


22



Exogoninae 6.06 6.59 7.65 11.47 11.47

Amphiuridae 6.27 6.30 5.61 10.97 22.44

Ischyroceridae 5.13 5.04 4.11 8.78 31.22

Oligochaeta 4.51 4.51 3.47 7.85 39.07

Syllidae 4.05 4.13 5.63 7.19 46.25

Paraonidae 3.24 2.99 2.69 5.21 51.47



Oligochaeta 1.81 3.03 3.26 9.07 9.07

Syllidae 1.77 2.33 1.04 6.99 16.06

Prionospio sp. 2.01 2.07 1.05 6.21 22.27

Paraonidae 2.13 1.92 1.00 5.74 28.02

Amphiuridae 2.54 1.90 0.97 5.68 33.70

Nematoda 1.79 1.86 1.09 5.58 39.28


Hydroides elegans 1.22 1.67 0.43 5.00 49.46

Owenia petersenae 1.53 1.54 1.13 4.62 54.08




Paraonidae 4.06 3.94 3.60 8.11 16.53


Amphiuridae 3.42 3.87 4.78 7.96 32.45

Prionospio sp. 3.90 3.34 1.76 6.87 39.32

Exogoninae 3.58 2.48 1.14 5.11 44.43

Polydorid 4.88 2.27 0.62 4.66 49.09

Syllidae 2.49 2.15 3.28 4.42 53.52



Prionospio sp. 3.89 7.13 8.27 13.59 13.59

Amphiuridae 3.45 5.95 13.98 11.33 24.92

Polydorid 4.31 5.79 1.60 11.03 35.94

Paraonidae 3.28 5.70 18.43 10.85 46.80



23

Between sites:

Sites B1168 & B1543 Average dissimilarity = 83.49

Site B1168 Site B1543 Species Av.Abund Av.Abund Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.%

Exogoninae 6.63 0.20 4.91 3.64 5.88 5.88

Amphiuridae 5.48 0.20 4.11 4.01 4.92 10.81

Heteromastus filiformis 5.04 0.40 3.66 3.75 4.38 15.19

Paraonidae 4.84 0.20 3.59 5.41 4.30 19.49

Ischyroceridae 5.07 0.65 3.34 1.34 4.00 23.50

Syllidae 4.18 0.00 3.10 3.40 3.71 27.21

Porifera 2.95 0.00 2.29 1.86 2.74 29.95

Sipuncula 3.03 0.00 2.23 2.02 2.67 32.62

Barantolla lepte 2.90 0.20 2.05 3.85 2.45 35.07

Cirratulidae 3.41 1.29 1.95 2.44 2.34 37.41

Hemichordata 2.36 0.00 1.90 1.41 2.27 39.68

Theora lubrica 0.99 3.17 1.86 1.20 2.23 41.91

Maoricolpus roseus roseus 2.59 0.00 1.86 1.80 2.22 44.14

Nematoda 1.75 0.00 1.53 1.24 1.83 45.97

Oligochaeta 2.00 0.00 1.47 1.57 1.77 47.73

Polydorid 0.00 1.82 1.43 1.58 1.71 49.44

Prionospio multicristata 2.25 0.48 1.35 2.22 1.62 51.06



Polydorid 0.00 5.70 3.18 1.88 5.64 5.64

Ischyroceridae 5.07 3.06 2.28 1.27 4.05 9.69

Exogoninae 6.63 3.63 1.73 1.58 3.07 12.76

Cirratulidae 3.41 0.40 1.69 1.97 3.01 15.77

Sipuncula 3.03 0.00 1.61 1.92 2.86 18.63

Amphiuridae 5.48 2.67 1.57 1.97 2.79 21.42

Syllidae 4.18 4.03 1.57 1.20 2.78 24.20

Oligochaeta 2.00 4.32 1.53 1.35 2.72 26.92


Prionospio sp. 2.15 4.50 1.39 1.46 2.46 32.04


Hemichordata 2.36 0.40 1.18 1.34 2.10 36.54

Paraonidae 4.84 2.68 1.15 2.82 2.04 38.58

Porifera 2.95 1.15 1.02 1.21 1.82 40.40

Amphipoda (juv.) 1.47 0.69 0.90 0.85 1.60 42.00

Nematoda 1.75 0.68 0.89 1.23 1.57 43.58

Anthuridae 1.88 3.13 0.85 1.59 1.51 45.09

Amphipoda 0.66 1.29 0.82 1.06 1.45 46.54


Taeniogyrus dendyi 1.23 0.00 0.70 1.79 1.25 49.06

Balanus trigonus 0.00 1.23 0.66 0.79 1.16 50.23


24



Oligochaeta 0.00 4.32 4.24 2.23 5.15 5.15

Polydorid 1.82 5.70 3.76 1.21 4.57 9.72

Prionospio sp. 0.68 4.50 3.74 1.91 4.55 14.27

Syllidae 0.00 4.03 3.65 1.34 4.44 18.71

Exogoninae 0.20 3.63 3.24 3.55 3.94 22.64

Theora lubrica 3.17 0.20 2.92 1.84 3.55 26.19

Anthuridae 0.20 3.13 2.77 3.51 3.37 29.56

Ischyroceridae 0.65 3.06 2.59 0.86 3.15 32.71


Paraonidae 0.20 2.68 2.48 2.72 3.01 38.74

Amphiuridae 0.20 2.67 2.38 2.54 2.89 41.62



Hydroides elegans 0.28 1.91 1.63 1.49 1.98 48.55

Nemertea 0.20 1.58 1.33 1.97 1.62 50.17




Ischyroceridae 5.07 5.13 1.60 1.45 3.19 6.52

Oligochaeta 2.00 4.51 1.44 1.41 2.88 9.40

Cirratulidae 3.41 1.11 1.41 2.16 2.81 12.21

Amphipoda (juv.) 1.47 2.60 1.35 1.19 2.70 14.92

Sipuncula 3.03 0.68 1.22 1.39 2.43 17.35

Porifera 2.95 1.17 1.09 1.32 2.18 19.53



Hemichordata 2.36 0.77 1.07 1.35 2.14 26.00

Exogoninae 6.63 6.06 1.01 1.62 2.02 28.02

Leptochiton inquinatus 0.40 2.07 0.90 2.47 1.80 29.82


Corophiidae 0.00 1.62 0.89 1.10 1.78 33.38

Paraonidae 4.84 3.24 0.89 1.36 1.77 35.15

Amphiuridae 5.48 6.27 0.87 1.14 1.73 36.88

Syllidae 4.18 4.05 0.85 1.42 1.69 38.58

Amphipoda 0.66 1.23 0.77 0.87 1.54 40.12

Melitidae 1.67 1.54 0.70 1.40 1.39 41.51

Prionospio australiensis 1.28 0.00 0.65 1.47 1.30 42.81

Nematoda 1.75 1.86 0.63 1.42 1.27 44.08

Ostracoda 1.48 0.48 0.57 1.54 1.15 45.23

Ampelisca sp. 1.03 0.00 0.57 1.58 1.14 46.36

Parasterope quadrata 1.13 0.00 0.56 1.45 1.12 47.48

Glyceridae 0.77 1.12 0.54 1.17 1.08 48.56

Aoridae 1.11 0.20 0.53 1.60 1.06 49.62

Anthuridae 1.88 0.97 0.53 1.14 1.05 50.68


25



Amphiuridae 0.20 6.27 5.52 3.97 6.53 6.53

Exogoninae 0.20 6.06 5.35 5.95 6.33 12.86

Oligochaeta 0.00 4.51 4.17 3.30 4.94 17.80

Ischyroceridae 0.65 5.13 4.07 2.84 4.81 22.61

Syllidae 0.00 4.05 3.67 5.17 4.34 26.95

Paraonidae 0.20 3.24 2.78 2.47 3.29 30.24

Theora lubrica 3.17 0.40 2.59 1.73 3.07 33.30


Amphipoda (juv.) 0.00 2.60 2.38 1.16 2.82 38.94


Nematoda 0.00 1.86 1.71 2.47 2.02 43.20


Corophiidae 0.28 1.62 1.43 1.07 1.70 46.74

Polydorid 1.82 0.40 1.42 1.64 1.67 48.41

Melitidae 0.69 1.54 1.31 1.16 1.55 49.96

Prionospio sp. 0.68 1.98 1.23 1.74 1.45 51.42



Polydorid 5.70 0.40 3.28 1.78 5.80 5.80

Ischyroceridae 3.06 5.13 2.49 2.34 4.40 10.20

Amphiuridae 2.67 6.27 2.25 2.04 3.97 14.17


Prionospio sp. 4.50 1.98 1.63 1.52 2.87 20.13

Syllidae 4.03 4.05 1.62 1.26 2.87 23.00

Exogoninae 3.63 6.06 1.60 1.94 2.83 25.82

Amphipoda (juv.) 0.69 2.60 1.54 1.15 2.73 28.55

Anthuridae 3.13 0.97 1.31 2.21 2.32 30.87


Oligochaeta 4.32 4.51 1.09 1.49 1.93 35.08


Amphipoda 1.29 1.23 0.96 1.26 1.70 38.61

Corophiidae 1.21 1.62 0.93 1.22 1.64 40.25

Nematoda 0.68 1.86 0.87 1.54 1.53 41.78



Nebaliacea 1.28 0.00 0.79 1.53 1.40 46.21

Diogenidae 0.85 0.63 0.79 0.67 1.39 47.60




26



Exogoninae 6.63 1.66 3.38 1.85 5.23 5.23

Ischyroceridae 5.07 1.61 2.71 1.19 4.19 9.42


Amphiuridae 5.48 2.54 2.32 1.34 3.59 16.65

Paraonidae 4.84 2.13 1.96 1.35 3.03 19.68

Cirratulidae 3.41 0.77 1.94 1.80 3.00 22.69

Sipuncula 3.03 0.20 1.80 1.70 2.78 25.47

Maoricolpus roseus roseus

2.59 0.00 1.63 1.69 2.53 27.99

Syllidae 4.18 1.77 1.63 1.49 2.52 30.52

Polydorid 0.00 2.24 1.38 0.75 2.13 32.65

Hemichordata 2.36 0.91 1.38 1.24 2.13 34.78

Porifera 2.95 1.03 1.37 1.15 2.12 36.90

Melitidae 1.67 0.00 1.21 1.39 1.87 38.77



Nematoda 1.75 1.79 0.94 1.11 1.46 43.67

Amphipoda (juv.) 1.47 0.00 0.93 0.69 1.43 45.10


Hesionidae 1.60 0.40 0.87 1.73 1.35 47.85

Nemertea 1.58 0.65 0.82 1.79 1.27 49.12

Prionospio australiensis 1.28 0.00 0.82 1.47 1.26 50.38



Theora lubrica 3.17 0.00 5.03 1.38 6.13 6.13

Polydorid 1.82 2.24 3.18 1.29 3.87 10.00

Amphiuridae 0.20 2.54 2.81 1.36 3.42 13.42

Syllidae 0.00 1.77 2.66 1.50 3.23 16.65

Oligochaeta 0.00 1.81 2.54 3.26 3.09 19.74

Paraonidae 0.20 2.13 2.38 1.59 2.89 22.63


Nematoda 0.00 1.79 2.23 1.62 2.72 28.23

Phoxocephalidae 1.93 0.93 2.17 1.31 2.64 30.86

Prionospio sp. 0.68 2.01 2.14 1.55 2.60 33.47


Exogoninae 0.20 1.66 2.12 1.32 2.57 38.62

Ischyroceridae 0.65 1.61 2.00 1.20 2.43 41.05


Owenia petersenae 0.00 1.53 1.83 1.81 2.23 45.67

Aglaophamus sp. 1.28 0.48 1.53 1.17 1.87 47.54

Ostracoda 1.09 0.95 1.53 1.07 1.86 49.39

Diasterope grisea 0.80 1.13 1.48 1.21 1.80 51.20


27



Polydorid 5.70 2.24 3.91 1.45 6.17 6.17

Prionospio sp. 4.50 2.01 2.39 1.20 3.78 9.95

Ischyroceridae 3.06 1.61 2.34 0.93 3.70 13.64

Oligochaeta 4.32 1.81 2.31 1.42 3.64 17.28


Syllidae 4.03 1.77 2.03 0.84 3.20 23.69

Anthuridae 3.13 0.68 1.97 2.28 3.10 26.79

Exogoninae 3.63 1.66 1.79 1.20 2.83 29.62

Amphiuridae 2.67 2.54 1.59 1.48 2.51 32.12


Paraonidae 2.68 2.13 1.24 1.09 1.96 36.55



Nematoda 0.68 1.79 1.12 1.43 1.77 42.10


Nebaliacea 1.28 0.00 1.05 1.46 1.66 45.52

Melitidae 1.25 0.00 1.04 3.43 1.63 47.15


Nemertea 1.58 0.65 0.98 1.52 1.54 50.25



Exogoninae 6.06 1.66 3.57 2.03 5.52 5.52

Amphiuridae 6.27 2.54 3.23 1.38 5.00 10.53

Ischyroceridae 5.13 1.61 2.99 1.52 4.63 15.16

Oligochaeta 4.51 1.81 2.22 1.69 3.44 18.60

Amphipoda (juv.) 2.60 0.00 2.04 1.12 3.16 21.76

Syllidae 4.05 1.77 1.79 1.60 2.76 24.52

Polydorid 0.40 2.24 1.49 0.78 2.30 26.83

Paraonidae 3.24 2.13 1.46 1.10 2.26 29.09



Corophiidae 1.62 0.00 1.30 1.06 2.02 35.37

Melitidae 1.54 0.00 1.26 1.17 1.95 37.32




Amphipoda 1.23 0.60 1.05 1.16 1.63 44.11

Prionospio sp. 1.98 2.01 0.93 1.33 1.43 45.54

Aricidea sp. 1.15 0.00 0.91 1.42 1.41 46.95


Myriochele sp. 0.00 1.33 0.89 0.80 1.38 49.72

Nematoda 1.86 1.79 0.86 1.18 1.34 51.05


28



Polydorid 0.00 4.88 2.95 0.90 5.57 5.57

Exogoninae 6.63 3.58 1.89 1.20 3.57 9.14

Ischyroceridae 5.07 1.96 1.88 1.11 3.55 12.69

Cirratulidae 3.41 1.03 1.48 2.09 2.79 15.48

Sipuncula 3.03 0.80 1.24 1.34 2.34 17.82



Prionospio sp. 2.15 3.90 1.19 1.77 2.25 24.67

Amphiuridae 5.48 3.42 1.12 1.60 2.11 26.78

Syllidae 4.18 2.49 1.11 1.31 2.09 28.87

Porifera 2.95 1.13 1.08 1.22 2.04 30.91

Hemichordata 2.36 2.63 1.00 1.37 1.88 32.79

Amphipoda 0.66 1.46 0.86 1.06 1.62 34.41


Nematoda 1.75 1.26 0.83 1.20 1.56 37.57

Ostracoda 1.48 0.00 0.80 3.15 1.52 39.08

Ascidian (solitary) 1.04 1.23 0.77 1.26 1.46 40.54

Oligochaeta 2.00 2.21 0.77 1.10 1.46 42.00

Amphipoda (juv.) 1.47 0.00 0.76 0.70 1.44 43.44

Paraonidae 4.84 4.06 0.74 1.13 1.39 44.83

Nemertea 1.58 0.85 0.72 1.89 1.36 46.19

Melitidae 1.67 1.03 0.71 1.24 1.34 47.53

Aoridae 1.11 0.60 0.69 1.86 1.31 48.84

Atylidae 0.00 1.29 0.67 1.12 1.27 50.10



Polydorid 1.82 4.88 4.78 0.87 5.70 5.70


Paraonidae 0.20 4.06 3.63 2.81 4.32 15.11


Amphiuridae 0.20 3.42 3.11 3.54 3.71 22.73

Prionospio sp. 0.68 3.90 3.05 1.79 3.64 26.37

Exogoninae 0.20 3.58 2.99 1.92 3.57 29.94

Theora lubrica 3.17 0.20 2.93 1.71 3.49 33.42

Hemichordata 0.00 2.63 2.40 1.89 2.85 36.28

Syllidae 0.00 2.49 2.24 3.53 2.66 38.94

Oligochaeta 0.00 2.21 2.18 1.55 2.59 41.53

Ischyroceridae 0.65 1.96 1.43 1.54 1.71 43.24

Anthuridae 0.20 1.41 1.29 1.17 1.53 44.77




Amphipoda 0.20 1.46 1.21 1.06 1.44 50.68


29



Polydorid 5.70 4.88 3.15 1.36 5.94 5.94


Ischyroceridae 3.06 1.96 1.62 0.90 3.06 13.32

Oligochaeta 4.32 2.21 1.62 1.46 3.05 16.36

Syllidae 4.03 2.49 1.47 0.81 2.78 19.14

Hemichordata 0.40 2.63 1.46 1.99 2.76 21.90

Prionospio sp. 4.50 3.90 1.27 1.22 2.40 24.30


Exogoninae 3.63 3.58 1.23 1.19 2.32 28.94

Anthuridae 3.13 1.41 1.08 1.99 2.03 30.98


Paraonidae 2.68 4.06 1.04 1.73 1.97 34.94

Amphipoda 1.29 1.46 0.93 1.18 1.75 36.69


Nemertea 1.58 0.85 0.85 1.79 1.61 39.91



Atylidae 0.40 1.29 0.78 1.24 1.48 44.37

Nebaliacea 1.28 0.28 0.75 1.40 1.42 45.79

Corophiidae 1.21 0.00 0.75 1.02 1.41 47.20

Diogenidae 0.85 0.40 0.73 0.68 1.39 48.59

Nematoda 0.68 1.26 0.73 1.17 1.38 49.97

Amphiuridae 2.67 3.42 0.73 1.80 1.37 51.34


30



Polydorid 0.40 4.88 3.16 0.88 5.57 5.57


Ischyroceridae 5.13 1.96 2.01 1.85 3.55 13.22

Exogoninae 6.06 3.58 1.76 1.12 3.11 16.33

Amphiuridae 6.27 3.42 1.74 1.73 3.07 19.40

Amphipoda (juv.) 2.60 0.00 1.60 1.14 2.83 22.23

Oligochaeta 4.51 2.21 1.46 1.44 2.58 24.80

Prionospio sp. 1.98 3.90 1.38 1.79 2.44 27.24

Hemichordata 0.77 2.63 1.29 1.87 2.28 29.52

Syllidae 4.05 2.49 1.10 1.37 1.94 31.47

Corophiidae 1.62 0.00 1.02 1.10 1.80 33.26

Amphipoda 1.23 1.46 0.99 1.22 1.75 35.01

Paraonidae 3.24 4.06 0.93 1.29 1.64 36.66




Melitidae 1.54 1.03 0.81 1.21 1.42 42.68

Nematoda 1.86 1.26 0.77 1.29 1.35 44.04


Glyceridae 1.12 1.34 0.72 1.35 1.28 46.64

Aricidea sp. 1.15 0.00 0.71 1.50 1.26 47.90

Nemertea 1.00 0.85 0.70 1.24 1.23 49.13

Atylidae 0.20 1.29 0.68 1.05 1.20 50.33



Polydorid 2.24 4.88 4.30 0.85 7.02 7.02


Exogoninae 1.66 3.58 2.05 1.37 3.35 15.53

Prionospio sp. 2.01 3.90 2.00 1.22 3.27 18.80

Paraonidae 2.13 4.06 1.98 1.19 3.23 22.03

Amphiuridae 2.54 3.42 1.74 1.32 2.83 24.86


Hemichordata 0.91 2.63 1.68 1.47 2.75 30.43

Ischyroceridae 1.61 1.96 1.36 1.42 2.22 32.65


Nematoda 1.79 1.26 1.08 1.21 1.76 36.25

Oligochaeta 1.81 2.21 1.07 1.45 1.74 37.99

Syllidae 1.77 2.49 1.02 1.42 1.67 39.66

Amphipoda 0.60 1.46 1.02 1.17 1.66 41.32

Myriochele sp. 1.33 0.20 0.96 0.88 1.57 42.89



Atylidae 0.28 1.29 0.93 1.11 1.51 47.50

Phoronida 1.13 1.06 0.90 1.25 1.46 48.96



31



Exogoninae 6.63 1.03 3.64 2.78 5.91 5.91

Ischyroceridae 5.07 0.28 3.07 1.44 4.98 10.89

Polydorid 0.00 4.31 2.83 1.97 4.59 15.48

Syllidae 4.18 0.63 2.24 2.12 3.64 19.12

Cirratulidae 3.41 0.91 1.80 1.98 2.93 22.05

Sipuncula 3.03 0.20 1.77 1.74 2.88 24.93


Porifera 2.95 0.60 1.53 1.44 2.48 29.98


Amphiuridae 5.48 3.45 1.37 1.56 2.22 34.62

Nematoda 1.75 0.00 1.27 1.26 2.06 36.68

Prionospio sp. 2.15 3.89 1.16 2.23 1.89 38.57

Melitidae 1.67 0.35 1.07 1.36 1.73 40.30

Hemichordata 2.36 1.81 1.04 1.89 1.70 41.99


Paraonidae 4.84 3.28 1.04 1.70 1.68 45.37

Amphipoda 0.66 1.25 0.95 1.48 1.55 46.92

Hesionidae 1.60 0.20 0.95 2.61 1.54 48.45

Anthuridae 1.88 0.60 0.94 1.70 1.52 49.97

Amphipoda (juv.) 1.47 0.00 0.90 0.70 1.47 51.44


32

Sites B1543 & B1236 Average dissimilarity = 79.17 Site B1543 Site B1236 Species Av.Abund Av.Abund Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.%

Amphiuridae 0.20 3.45 4.31 4.06 5.44 5.44

Prionospio sp. 0.68 3.89 4.29 3.40 5.42 10.87

Paraonidae 0.20 3.28 4.08 4.11 5.16 16.03

Theora lubrica 3.17 0.28 3.89 1.71 4.91 20.94

Polydorid 1.82 4.31 3.74 1.46 4.73 25.67


Hemichordata 0.00 1.81 2.49 2.73 3.14 32.85

Oligochaeta 0.00 1.61 2.01 1.58 2.54 35.38



Aglaophamus sp. 1.28 0.00 1.72 3.08 2.17 42.17

Amphipoda 0.20 1.25 1.44 1.63 1.82 44.00

Melliteryx parva 0.28 1.17 1.42 1.42 1.80 45.80


Ostracoda 1.09 0.77 1.31 1.33 1.66 49.24

Montacuta sp. 0.92 0.00 1.21 0.74 1.53 50.77



Syllidae 4.03 0.63 2.56 1.06 4.72 4.72

Polydorid 5.70 4.31 2.48 1.28 4.56 9.28

Oligochaeta 4.32 1.61 2.36 1.47 4.34 13.62

Ischyroceridae 3.06 0.28 2.21 0.84 4.07 17.68

Exogoninae 3.63 1.03 2.04 2.06 3.76 21.44

Anthuridae 3.13 0.60 1.94 2.23 3.57 25.01

Prionospio sp. 4.50 3.89 1.20 1.25 2.20 27.21



Hemichordata 0.40 1.81 1.11 2.17 2.04 33.43


Diogenidae 0.85 0.55 0.99 0.75 1.82 37.25


Amphiuridae 2.67 3.45 0.92 1.58 1.70 40.66

Corophiidae 1.21 0.35 0.92 1.10 1.69 42.35


Nebaliacea 1.28 0.20 0.91 1.38 1.68 45.72


Melitidae 1.25 0.35 0.88 2.62 1.62 48.96

Amphipoda 1.29 1.25 0.87 1.18 1.60 50.56


33



Exogoninae 6.06 1.03 3.83 3.84 5.87 5.87

Ischyroceridae 5.13 0.28 3.65 3.24 5.60 11.46

Polydorid 0.40 4.31 2.89 1.82 4.43 15.89

Syllidae 4.05 0.63 2.59 2.79 3.96 19.85

Oligochaeta 4.51 1.61 2.28 1.70 3.49 23.34

Amphiuridae 6.27 3.45 2.15 1.69 3.29 26.63

Amphipoda (juv.) 2.60 0.00 1.96 1.16 3.01 29.63


Prionospio sp. 1.98 3.89 1.43 2.48 2.19 34.22

Nematoda 1.86 0.00 1.41 2.48 2.16 36.38


Corophiidae 1.62 0.35 1.19 1.10 1.82 40.02


Melitidae 1.54 0.35 1.13 1.21 1.74 43.56

Amphipoda 1.23 1.25 1.11 1.80 1.70 45.26




Hemichordata 0.77 1.81 0.82 1.30 1.26 51.00


Site B1297 Site B1236

Species Av.Abund Av.Abund Av.Diss Diss/SD Contrib% Cum.%

Polydorid 2.24 4.31 3.95 1.50 6.21 6.21

Amphiuridae 2.54 3.45 2.39 1.30 3.76 9.98

Prionospio sp. 2.01 3.89 2.36 1.11 3.72 13.70


Paraonidae 2.13 3.28 1.97 1.04 3.09 20.24

Nematoda 1.79 0.00 1.71 1.68 2.68 22.93


Syllidae 1.77 0.63 1.59 1.41 2.50 27.95

Exogoninae 1.66 1.03 1.49 1.69 2.34 30.30


Ischyroceridae 1.61 0.28 1.42 1.07 2.24 34.80


Myriochele sp. 1.33 0.48 1.38 1.15 2.18 39.20

Hemichordata 0.91 1.81 1.28 0.95 2.02 41.22



Oligochaeta 1.81 1.61 1.07 1.20 1.69 46.54

Diasterope grisea 1.13 0.40 1.02 1.20 1.61 48.15

Phoronida 1.13 0.20 1.01 1.14 1.59 49.74



34



Polydorid 4.88 4.31 3.69 1.13 6.61 6.61


Exogoninae 3.58 1.03 2.19 2.08 3.91 15.21


Syllidae 2.49 0.63 1.46 1.90 2.62 21.15

Ischyroceridae 1.96 0.28 1.33 1.65 2.38 23.53


Hemichordata 2.63 1.81 1.17 2.30 2.09 27.71

Oligochaeta 2.21 1.61 1.14 1.24 2.04 29.74

Prionospio sp. 3.90 3.89 1.11 1.25 1.99 31.73

Paraonidae 4.06 3.28 1.10 1.47 1.98 33.71

Amphipoda 1.46 1.25 0.97 1.24 1.73 35.44


Anthuridae 1.41 0.60 0.91 1.21 1.64 38.76

Nematoda 1.26 0.00 0.90 1.07 1.62 40.38

Atylidae 1.29 0.28 0.89 1.15 1.60 41.98

Paguridae 0.86 0.00 0.82 0.62 1.47 43.45

Nemertea 0.85 0.83 0.79 1.20 1.42 44.87


Capitella sp. 0.92 0.20 0.75 0.81 1.35 47.61

Phoronida 1.06 0.20 0.75 1.25 1.34 48.95

Glyceridae 1.34 0.68 0.74 1.31 1.33 50.27



Appendix E: Survey of non-indigenous biota in the WCNP (Woods et al. 2019a).

Benthic sampling of Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket for marine non-indigenous

species Waitematā Harbour

Prepared for Ports of Auckland Ltd

April 2019

© All rights reserved. This publication may not be reproduced or copied in any form without the permission of the copyright owner(s). Such permission is only to be given in accordance with the terms of the client’s contract with NIWA. This copyright extends to all forms of copying and any storage of material in any kind of information retrieval system.

Whilst NIWA has used all reasonable endeavours to ensure that the information contained in this document is accurate, NIWA does not give any express or implied warranty as to the completeness of the information contained herein, or that it will be suitable for any purpose(s) other than those specifically contemplated during the Project or agreed by NIWA and the Client.

Prepared by: Chris Woods Kimberley Seaward Matt Smith

For any information regarding this report please contact: Chris Woods Marine Ecologist Marine Ecosystems and Biosecurity +64-3-348 8987 [email protected] National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd PO Box 8602 Riccarton Christchurch 8011 Phone +64 3 348 8987

NIWA CLIENT REPORT No: 2019065CH Report date: April 2019 NIWA Project: POA19501

Quality Assurance Statement

Reviewed by: Jeanie Stenton-Dozey

Formatting checked by: Rachel Wright

Approved for release by: Helen Rouse

Benthic sampling of Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket for marine non-indigenous species

Contents

Executive summary ............................................................................................................. 5

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6

1.1 The survey ................................................................................................................. 6

2 Methods .................................................................................................................... 9

3 Results .................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Non-indigenous species detected .......................................................................... 13

3.2 Specimens retained for formal taxonomic identification ....................................... 19

3.3 Native species encountered during benthic sampling ........................................... 19

4 Summary ................................................................................................................. 20

5 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................. 21

6 Glossary of abbreviations and terms ........................................................................ 22

7 References ............................................................................................................... 23

Appendix A Benthic sampling coordinates ........................................................... 24

Appendix B Benthic survey field datasheet template ........................................... 26

Appendix C Predominant sediment and habitat types at benthic sampling locations encompassing the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour ................................................................................................. 27

Appendix D Images of benthic sled contents prior to sorting ................................ 30

Tables Table 3-1: Non-indigenous marine species detected during benthic sampling in the

Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour. 13

Figures Figure 1-1: Images of Rangitoto Channel (top) and Ferguson North berth pocket area

(bottom) in Waitematā Harbour subject to dredging operations. 8 Figure 2-1: Epibenthic sled (left) and example of retrieved sled contents being examined

for marine non-indigenous species during a MHRSS survey (right). 9 Figure 2-2: Pre-allocated benthic sampling locations encompassing the Rangitoto Channel

and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour. 10

Benthic sampling of Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket for marine non-indigenous species

Figure 3-1: Achieved benthic sampling locations encompassing the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour. 12

Figure 3-2: Distribution of the non-indigenous bryozoan Amathia verticillata detected during benthic sampling in the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour and representative image of this organism. 14

Figure 3-3: Distribution of the non-indigenous crab Pyromaia tuberculata detected during benthic sampling in the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour and representative image of this organism. 15

Figure 3-4: Distribution of the non-indigenous sabellid polychaete Sabella spallanzanii detected during benthic sampling in the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour and representative image of this organism. 16

Figure 3-5: Distribution of the non-indigenous solitary ascidian Styela clava detected during benthic sampling in the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour and representative image of this organism. 17

Figure 3-6: Distribution of the non-indigenous colonial ascidian Symplegma brakenhielmi detected during benthic sampling in the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour and representative image of this organism. 18

Figure 3-7: Distribution of the non-indigenous whelk Tritia burchardi detected during benthic sampling in the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket in Waitematā Harbour and representative image of this organism. 19

Benthic sampling of Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket for marine non-indigenous species 5

Executive summary To assist in resource consenting for Port of Auckland development and dredging operations in Waitematā Harbour, Ports of Auckland Ltd (POAL) contracted the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA) to conduct a benthic sampling survey within specific port and shipping channel areas that are to be subject to dredging operations, as well as nearby associated areas that will not be subject to dredging operations, to obtain a representative understanding of the marine non-indigenous species (NIS) present in the specified areas.

Within the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area, NIWA conducted benthic sampling at 50 discrete sampling locations. A total of six NIS were detected during benthic sampling within the Rangitoto Channel; no NIS were detected in the Ferguson North berth pocket area. The six NIS detected were as follows: 1) the bryozoan Amathia verticillata; 2) the crab Pyromaia tuberculata; 3) the sabellid polychaete Sabella spallanzanii; 4) the solitary ascidian Styela clava; 5) the colonial ascidian Symplegma brakenhielmi; and 6) the whelk Tritia burchardi. All six NIS have previously been recorded from Waitematā Harbour.

Sabella spallanzanii was the commonest NIS detected (24% detection rate compared to 2–4% for the other NIS). The six NIS detected occurred at relatively low abundance (<10 individual per 100-m benthic sled tow); these abundances are comparable to abundances detected during previous bi-monthly surveys within Waitematā Harbour for NIS as part of the Ministry for Primary Industries Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) programme, apart from S. spallanzanii which was detected at lower abundance compared to previous MHRSS surveys.

6 Benthic sampling of Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket for marine non-indigenous species

1 Introduction Ports of Auckland Limited (POAL) is the Auckland Council-owned company administering Auckland's commercial freight and cruise ship harbour facilities. POAL has two commercial harbours (not counting ferry terminals), with a large container and international trade port in Waitematā Harbour (Auckland) and a smaller regional port in Onehunga.

To assist in resource consenting for Port of Auckland development and dredging operations in Waitematā Harbour, POAL contracted the National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd (NIWA) to conduct a benthic sampling survey within specific port and shipping channel areas that are to be subject to dredging operations, as well as nearby associated areas that will not be subject to dredging operations, to obtain a representative understanding of the marine non-indigenous species (NIS) present in the specified areas.

1.1 The survey The survey was a one-off sampling survey of the benthos within specific areas within the Rangitoto Channel (west of Rangitoto Island running into the Waitematā Harbour entrance) and the Ferguson North berth pocket area (within the Commercial Harbour area of Waitematā Harbour) to obtain an understanding of the NIS present in those areas, as well as nearby associated areas that will not be subject to dredging operations for comparison purposes (Figure 1-1). The survey is one component of a larger benthic ecological survey programme that POAL is undertaking.

The benthic sampling method and equipment employed for the survey are the same as those employed in the current national Marine High Risk Site Surveillance (MHRSS) programme (Woods et al. 2018). The MHRSS programme, operating since 2002 and conducted by NIWA on behalf of the Ministry for Primary Industries (MPI), is undertaken at 11 high-risk coastal locations throughout New Zealand, one of which being Waitematā Harbour. Using the MHRSS programme benthic sampling method, shown to have high NIS detection efficacy, allows comparison of results by POAL with NIS distribution and abundance sampled over 15 years in Waitematā Harbour.

The marine NIS of most concern for Waitematā Harbour are those identified by MPI as primary target pest species for the MHRSS programme; species which are listed on the Unwanted Organisms register but have not yet been detected in New Zealand.

1. The northern Pacific seastar Asterias amurensis*.

2. The European green crab Carcinus maenas*.

3. The green alga Caulerpa taxifolia*.

4. The Chinese mitten crab Eriocheir sinensis*.

5. The Asian clam Potamocorbula amurensis*.

Additionally, four secondary MHRSS programme target species are known to be established in New Zealand’s coastal waters and are all established in the Waitematā Harbour.

1. The Australian droplet tunicate Eudistoma elongatum.

2. The Asian date mussel Arcuatula senhousia.


3. The Mediterranean fanworm Sabella spallanzanii*.

4. The clubbed tunicate Styela clava.

*Notifiable organism under Biosecurity (Notifiable Organisms) Order 2016

These primary and secondary target species were of focus during the benthic survey for NIS in Waitematā Harbour. Additionally, all other marine organisms recognised by the NIWA field survey team as being NIS already established in New Zealand waters (e.g., Charybdis (Charybdis) japonica, Pyromaia tuberculata, Symplegma brakenhielmi), were also recorded if detected during the survey. Any organism not recognised by the NIWA field survey team that was suspected of being a NIS would be retained (or a representative sample thereof), preserved and sent to NIWA’s Marine Invasives Taxonomic Service (MITS, which acts as a national identification and clearing house for marine NIS in New Zealand) for expert identification.


Figure 1-1: Images of Rangitoto Channel (top) and Ferguson North berth pocket area (bottom) in Waitematā Harbour subject to dredging operations. Areas subject to dredging operations are indicated in colour (colour key indicates dredging depth) and non-dredge areas are indicated as clear marked areas (Source: Ports of Auckland Ltd).


2 Methods MHRSS programme methodology for benthic sampling for NIS uses a stainless steel epibenthic sled (36 cm mouth width x 18 cm mouth height x 55 cm length (= 0.04 m2 internal volume)) with 2-mm stainless steel mesh basket (see Figure 2-1) deployed at discrete sampling locations. At each sampling location, the epibenthic sled is towed at a speed of ~2 kn for a duration of 2 min, providing a tow length of ~100 m and effective tow area of 36 m2.

Figure 2-1: Epibenthic sled (left) and example of retrieved sled contents being examined for marine non-indigenous species during a MHRSS survey (right). (Source: Chris Woods/NIWA).

The epibenthic sled is highly effective at sampling a relatively large benthic area and associated biota, including shallow-burrowing organisms (i.e., 1–2 cm substratum depth). The sled will effectively retain organisms >2 mm in size. The epibenthic sled is not designed to sample any deep-burrowing organisms (i.e., >2 cm substratum depth), biota <2 mm in size (although some of these smaller organisms some may be retained if caught/entrapped with other material in the sled), or highly mobile species (e.g., fast benthic fish), and its effectiveness is compromised in complex environments such as rocky reef or macroalgal stands (which does not typically apply for the areas concerned in this report).

Prior to the survey, 50 discrete benthic sampling locations were pre-allocated haphazardly within the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area, as well as within the shipping channel up to Wynyard Wharf (Figure 2-2), by using a grid overlaid on the survey area in Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The appropriateness of these sampling locations was confirmed with POAL prior to the survey. The coordinates for each pre-allocated sampling location were uploaded to the chart plotter of the NIWA survey boat used, allowing the skipper to accurately position the boat for sampling. Where a pre-allocated sampling point was not accessible at, or inappropriate/unsafe to sample at the time of the survey (e.g., underwater obstruction), that sampling location was relocated to a nearby location and the new coordinates recorded. Refer to Appendix A for benthic sampling location coordinates.


Figure 2-2: Pre-allocated benthic sampling locations encompassing the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour.


Sampling was conducted over a two-day period (28th February and 1st March 2019). For each sampling location, the following variables were recorded as per MHRSS methodology: date of sampling; sample location identifier (location number); geographic coordinates of both start and endpoints for each benthic sled tow (latitude and longitude, as decimal degrees); boat sounder depth (m); water transparency (m); water salinity; water temperature; wind speed (kn) and direction; seabed type; habitat type; and biota of interest. Refer to Appendix B for an example of the data sheet used in the survey.

As requested by POAL, the contents of each sled tow were photographed prior to sorting to provide an additional record of biota (and associated habitat) sampled. All survey samples were then sorted onboard the NIWA survey boat in a 2 mm stainless steel mesh box sieve and any NIS detected recorded and enumerated (for both solitary and colonial organisms (as discrete colonial units for the latter) on a scale of 1–10, 10–100 or >100 organisms) on the sample data sheet against the sample location at which it was found, linking the specimen(s) to an exact location and date of collection. Native biota like the primary and secondary target NIS were also recorded and enumerated as a means of confirming that the sampling technique employed is valid for detecting like-NIS. Any organisms not recognised by the NIWA survey team but suspected of being a NIS were collected (or a representative sample thereof) for formal taxonomic identification.

Any specimen retained for formal taxonomic identification was allocated a waterproof label with a unique identifying number (the ‟sample lot code” including the identity of the survey location) and placed in an individual container for return to the NIWA laboratory. The sample lot code was then recorded on the sample data sheet against the sample in which it was found, linking the specimen to its exact location and date of collection. The sample lot code, date of collection, sample number, number of specimens retained and a description of the specimens (minimally the relevant taxon) were also recorded on a field sample register sheet, providing a list of all specimens retained during the survey.

At the end of each survey day, any specimens retained were returned to the NIWA laboratory and their labels and sample lot codes checked against the sample register. Specimens were then preserved in the chemical appropriate to that taxon, and all samples are entered in a sample record sheet, showing the number of individuals of each taxon present in that sample (as identified by the sample lot code). All specimens were then submitted to MITS as soon as practicable (shipments will need to be accompanied by Dangerous Goods documentation appropriate to the fixing and preserving chemicals used).


3 Results Benthic sampling was achieved at all 50 sampling locations (Figure 3-1). Only one sampling location, B1395, had to be re-located (to a minor extent) from its pre-allocated position due to its location in a disused cable zone.

Figure 3-1: Achieved benthic sampling locations encompassing the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour. Benthic tow starting-points are indicated with red filled circles; tow direction (and length) to endpoint is indicated by the black tail for each starting-point. Sampling location B1395 which was re-located from its original pre-allocated position is indicated in yellow.


The predominant seabed type at most locations was sand with shell hash as a secondary type, or shell hash as the predominant type (Appendix C). Most locations sampled did not appear to possess significant exposed habitat (i.e., mostly buried bivalve shells and shell hash), although some locations did possess sponge beds (B1135, B1168, B1286 and B1297, and B1183, B1405 and B1419 to a lesser extent), live large bivalves such as scallops and horse mussel (B1405) and minor ascidian beds (B1389, B1405 and B1419) (Appendix C). Refer to Appendix D for representative images of benthic sled contents prior to sorting for further clarification of seabed and habitat types encountered during benthic sampling.

3.1 Non-indigenous species detected

A total of six NIS were detected during benthic sampling within the Rangitoto Channel; no NIS were detected in the Ferguson North berth pocket area. The six NIS detected were as follows: 1) the bryozoan Amathia verticillata; the crab Pyromaia tuberculata; the sabellid polychaete Sabella spallanzanii; the solitary ascidian Styela clava; the colonial ascidian Symplegma brakenhielmi; and the whelk Tritia burchardi. All six NIS have previously been recorded from Waitematā Harbour. These species, their detection rate and location of detection are listed in Table 3-1, with their respective distributions provided in Figures 3-2 to 3-7.

Table 3-1: Non-indigenous marine species detected during benthic sampling in the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour.

Non-indigenous species

Common name Detection rate (% of locations sampled)

Sampling locations detected at

Amathia verticillata

Spaghetti bryozoan

4% B1361, B1389

Pyromaia tuberculata

Tuberculate pear crab

2% B1183

Sabella spallanzanii

Mediterranean fanworm

24% B1135, B1183, B1268, B1297, B1374, B1375, B1389, B1405, B1419, B1451, B1477, B1543

Styela clava Clubbed tunicate 4% B1168, B1297

Symplegma brakenhielmi

- 4% B1297, B1375

Tritia burchardi Australian dog whelk

2% B1183

Sabella spallanzanii was the commonest NIS detected (24% detection rate compared to 2–4% for the other NIS). The six NIS detected occurred at relatively low abundance (<10 individual per 100-m benthic sled tow); these abundances are comparable to abundances detected during previous MHRSS surveys within Waitematā Harbour, apart from S. spallanzanii which was detected at lower abundance compared to MHRSS surveys (e.g., it occurs at abundances up to 100 individuals per benthic sled tow in previous MHRSS surveys, source: https://www.marinebiosecurity.org.nz/).


3.1.1 Amathia verticillata The spaghetti bryozoan Amathia verticillata is a biofouling species that grows on a range of hard substratum. It is an erect, un-calcified bryozoan, with colonies made of irregularly branching stolons with particle-feeding zooids attached. Colonies may resemble masses of gelatinous noodles up to 1 m long. It can have negative impacts by clogging and fouling aquaculture and fishing gear and overgrowing and killing other sedentary species (Fofonoff et al. 2019). It was detected at two sampling locations in the Rangitoto Channel to the west of Rangitoto Island (Figure 3-2), growing on exposed shell hash. This NIS has been present in the Waitematā Harbour since 1960 and also occurs in the Bay of Islands, Whāngārei Harbour, Gulf Harbour Marina, Tauranga and Nelson harbours (source: https://www.marinebiosecurity.org.nz/).

Figure 3-2: Distribution of the non-indigenous bryozoan Amathia verticillata detected during benthic sampling in the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour and representative image of this organism. Red filled circle = presence; blue cross = absence. Image source: C Woods (NIWA).


3.1.2 Pyromaia tuberculata The tuberculate pear crab Pyromaia tuberculata is a relatively small (typically less than 2 cm in carapace width) free-living crab whose impacts in invaded ecosystems are largely unknown (Fofonoff et al. 2018). It was detected at one sampling location in the Rangitoto Channel to the southeast of North Head (Figure 3-3), associated with exposed shell hash and small amounts of sponge. This NIS has been present in Waitematā Harbour since 2003 and also occurs in the Bay of Islands, Whāngārei, Kaipara, Manukau and Tauranga harbours and Port Taranaki (source: https://www.marinebiosecurity.org.nz/).

Figure 3-3: Distribution of the non-indigenous crab Pyromaia tuberculata detected during benthic sampling in the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour and representative image of this organism. Red filled circle = presence; blue cross = absence. Image source: C Woods (NIWA).


3.1.3 Sabella spallanzanii The Mediterranean fanworm Sabella spallanzanii is a tube-building biofouling species that grows on a range of hard substratum, and to a lesser extent in soft substratum attached to buried hard material. It is a particle-feeding sabellid polychaete species that may grow up to almost 1 m in tube length and form dense canopy ‘forests’ and clumps of individual worms. It can have negative impacts by competing with native filter-feeding organisms for food and space, altering hydrodynamic flows, propagule recruitment, benthic biogeochemical fluxes and in high densities is likely to impact commercially important species (mussels, oysters, scallops, etc.) (e.g., Holloway and Keough 2002). This species poses a significant threat to the New Zealand aquaculture industry (Soliman and Inglis 2018); it has been detected on mussel farms near Auckland and the Coromandel Peninsula where it is subject to management control. It was detected at 24 sampling locations in the Rangitoto Channel from the top of the northern strait of the channel to southeast of North Head (Figure 3-4), growing on exposed shell hash and larger (alive and dead) bivalves (e.g., horse mussel). This NIS has been present in the Waitematā Harbour since 2009 and also occurs in a range of New Zealand locations from Whangaroa Harbour in Northland to Lyttelton Harbour/Whakaraupō in the South Island (source: https://www.marinebiosecurity.org.nz/).

Figure 3-4: Distribution of the non-indigenous sabellid polychaete Sabella spallanzanii detected during benthic sampling in the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour and representative image of this organism. Red filled circle = presence; blue cross = absence. Image source: C Woods (NIWA).


3.1.4 Styela clava The clubbed tunicate Styela clava is a biofouling species that grows on a range of hard substratum, and to a lesser extent in soft substratum attached to buried hard material. It is a particle-feeding stalked solitary ascidian with a tough leathery body wall (often with conspicuous bumps), growing up to 20 cm long and can form dense aggregations. Like S. spallanzanii, this species can have negative impacts by competing with native filter-feeding organisms for food and space, altering hydrodynamic flows, propagule recruitment, benthic biogeochemical fluxes and in high densities is likely to impact commercially important species (mussels, oysters, scallops, etc.) (e.g., Lützen 1999, Le Blanc et al. 2007). This species poses a significant threat to the New Zealand aquaculture industry (Soliman and Inglis 2018); it has been detected on mussel farms near Auckland and the Coromandel Peninsula and has recently also been detected in several Pelorus Sound bays in the Marlborough Sounds. It was detected at two sampling locations in the Rangitoto Channel east of Takapuna Head and southeast of North Head (Figure 3-5), growing on exposed shell hash and larger (alive and dead) bivalves (e.g., horse mussel). This NIS has been present in Waitematā Harbour since 2002 and also occurs in a range of New Zealand locations from the Bay of Islands in Northland to Otago Harbour in the South Island (source: https://www.marinebiosecurity.org.nz/).

Figure 3-5: Distribution of the non-indigenous solitary ascidian Styela clava detected during benthic sampling in the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour and representative image of this organism. Red filled circle = presence; blue cross = absence. Image source: C Woods (NIWA).


3.1.5 Symplegma brakenhielmi The colonial ascidian Symplegma brakenhielmi is a biofouling species that grows on a range of hard substratum. It is an encrusting, gelatinous ascidian, with colonies made of discrete particle-feeding zooids; the zooids do not form common systems and zooid inhalant and exhalant siphons open separately to the test surface. Colonies are often yellow, orange or maroon in colour and usually less than 10 cm in diameter. The impacts of this species in invaded ecosystems are largely unknown although its rapid growth and encrusting nature are likely to affect other encrusting biofouling species. It was detected at two sampling locations in the Rangitoto Channel to the east of St Leonards Beach and Takapuna Head (Figure 3-6), growing on exposed shell hash and bivalve shells. This NIS has been present in Waitematā Harbour since 2016, where it has rapidly spread throughout the harbour, and also occurs in Whāngārei Harbour (source: https://www.marinebiosecurity.org.nz/).

Figure 3-6: Distribution of the non-indigenous colonial ascidian Symplegma brakenhielmi detected during benthic sampling in the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour and representative image of this organism. Red filled circle = presence; blue cross = absence. Image source: C Woods (NIWA).


3.1.6 Tritia burchardi The Australian dog whelk Tritia burchardi is a relatively small (typically less than 1.5 cm in shell length) free-living gastropod whose impacts in invaded ecosystems are largely unknown (Townsend et al. 2010). It is a very active scavenger that may burrow into soft marine sediments. It was detected at one sampling location in the Rangitoto Channel to the southeast of North Head (Figure 3-7), associated with exposed shell hash and small amounts of sponge. This NIS has been present in Waitematā Harbour since 2009 and also occurs in the Bay of Islands and Whāngārei Harbour (source: https://www.marinebiosecurity.org.nz/).

Figure 3-7: Distribution of the non-indigenous whelk Tritia burchardi detected during benthic sampling in the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket in Waitematā Harbour and representative image of this organism. Red filled circle = presence; blue cross = absence. Image source: C Woods (NIWA).

3.2 Specimens retained for formal taxonomic identification One specimen was retained for formal taxonomic identification in the field. This was a small bivalve mollusc somewhat like the primary target NIS Potamocorbula amurensis (Asian clam). This specimen was formally identified by MITS as the native Corbula zelandica.

3.3 Native species encountered during benthic sampling A range of native species that can be considered functionally like the primary and secondary target NIS were detected during benthic sampling, giving confidence to the likelihood that the sampling technique employed here would have detected these target species if they were present. These native organisms included ascidians (e.g., Synoicum kuranui), bivalves (e.g., Corbula zelandica), crabs (Halicarcinus sp., Nectocarcinus integrifrons and Notomithrax sp.) and starfish (e.g., Coscinasterias muricata and Patiriella regularis). Further detail on these native species is contained within the electronic database provided along with this report to POAL.


4 Summary Benthic sampling at 50 discrete locations within the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour detected a total of six NIS. These NIS (Amathia verticillata, Pyromaia tuberculata, Sabella spallanzanii, Styela clava, Symplegma brakenhielmi and Tritia burchardi) have previously been detected in Waitematā Harbour during previous MHRSS surveys.

No primary MHRSS target NIS were detected during sampling. Only two (Sabella spallanzanii and Styela clava) of the four secondary MHRSS target NIS were detected; the Australian droplet tunicate Eudistoma elongatum and the Asian date mussel Arcuatula senhousia were not detected, although these latter two NIS have been detected in Waitematā Harbour during previous MHRSS surveys.

Sabella spallanzanii was the commonest NIS detected (24% detection rate compared to 2–4% for the other NIS). The six NIS detected occurred at relatively low abundance (<10 individual per 100-m benthic sled tow); these abundances are comparable to abundances detected during previous bi-monthly surveys within Waitematā Harbour for NIS as part of the MHRSS programme, apart from S. spallanzanii which was detected at lower abundance compared to previous MHRSS surveys.


5 Acknowledgements Thank you to Oliver Evans, Darren Parsons and John Mark Woolley (NIWA) for assisting with the field survey. Thank you to Jeanie Stenton-Dozey for reviewing a draft of this report.


6 Glossary of abbreviations and terms GIS Geographic Information Systems

MITS Marine Invasives Taxonomic Service

NIS Non-indigenous species

NIWA National Institute of Water & Atmospheric Research Ltd

POAL Ports of Auckland Ltd


7 References Fofonoff P.W., Ruiz G.M., Steves B., Simkanin C., Carlton J.T. (2018) National Exotic Marine

and Estuarine Species Information System. http://invasions.si.edu/nemesis/. Access Date: 26-Mar -2019.

Fofonoff P.W., Ruiz G.M., Steves B., Simkanin C., Carlton J.T. (2019) National Exotic Marine and Estuarine Species Information System. http://invasions.si.edu/nemesis/. Access Date: 26-Mar -2019.

Holloway, M.G., Keough, M.J. (2002) An introduced polychaete affects recruitment and larval abundance of sessile invertebrates. Ecological Applications, 12(6): 1803–1823.

Le Blanc, A.R., Bourque, D., Landry, T., Davidson, I., MacNair, N.G. (2007) The predation of zooplankton by the blue mussel (Mytilus edulis) and the clubbed tunicate (Styela clava). Canadian Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 2684: 18 p.

Lützen, J. (1999) Styela clava Herdman (Urochordata, Ascidiacea), a successful immigrant to North-West Europe: ecology, propagation and chronology of spread. Helgolander Meeresun, 52: 383–391.

Soliman, T., Inglis, G.J. (2018) Forecasting the economic impacts of two biofouling invaders on aquaculture production of greenlipped mussels Perna canaliculus in New Zealand. Aquaculture Environment Interactions, 10: 1–10.

Townsend, M., Marshall, B.A., Greenfield, B.L. (2010) First records of the Australian dog whelk, Nassarius (Plicarcularia) burchardi (Dunker in Philippi, 1849) (Mollusca: Gastropoda) from New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 44(4): 343-348, DOI: 10.1080/00288330.2010.511676.

Woods, C., Seaward, K., Pryor Rodgers, L., Inglis, G. (2018) Marine High Risk Site Surveillance Programme: Annual Synopsis Report for all High Risk Sites 2017–18 (SOW18048). MPI Technical Paper No: 2018/45. 34 p. + Appendices. ISBN No: 978-1-77665-943-2 (online).


Appendix A Benthic sampling coordinates Note: Sampling location B1395 which was re-located from its original pre-allocated position during field work is indicated in yellow highlight.

Sampling location Start latitude Start longitude End latitude End longitude

B1001 -36.840687 174.789497 -36.83951 174.78831

B1006 -36.839887 174.78275 -36.83848 174.78297

B1008 -36.839854 174.784992 -36.8396 174.78679

B1010 -36.83982 174.787234 -36.83812 174.78648

B1020 -36.839651 174.798444 -36.83899 174.80037

B1037 -36.838868 174.790576 -36.83746 174.79111

B1041 -36.838801 174.79506 -36.83722 174.79422

B1047 -36.838699 174.801786 -36.83786 174.80321

B1050 -36.838648 174.805149 -36.83831 174.80679

B1057 -36.838153 174.778225 -36.83865 174.77962

B1060 -36.838102 174.781588 -36.83938 174.78073

B1100 -36.837151 174.78493 -36.83752 174.7869

B1107 -36.836795 174.80847 -36.83568 174.8071

B1119 -36.836401 174.77482 -36.83635 174.77626

B1125 -36.8363 174.781546 -36.83632 174.78346

B1135 -36.835826 174.812932 -36.83464 174.81166

B1149 -36.835583 174.769194 -36.83573 174.77062

B1168 -36.834805 174.820757 -36.83431 174.82293

B1171 -36.834799 174.761327 -36.83454 174.76284

B1183 -36.833955 174.817373 -36.83329 174.81906

B1200 -36.832067 174.822935 -36.83254 174.8211

B1211 -36.830231 174.825134 -36.83165 174.82561

B1218 -36.829278 174.828475 -36.82834 174.82958

B1236 -36.82564 174.830631 -36.81966 174.83327

B1258 -36.8211 174.832765 -36.81705 174.83084


Sampling location Start latitude Start longitude End latitude End longitude

B1268 -36.818431 174.830459 -36.8136 174.83039

B1286 -36.81481 174.831494 -36.82419 174.83168

B1297 -36.812159 174.828067 -36.81232 174.8305

B1314 -36.808572 174.826861 -36.80727 174.82678

B1321 -36.806822 174.823457 -36.80538 174.82369

B1338 -36.803252 174.821131 -36.80179 174.82099

B1350 -36.800583 174.818826 -36.79916 174.81891

B1361 -36.797931 174.815401 -36.79644 174.81494

B1374 -36.795246 174.814217 -36.7936 174.81412

B1375 -36.794396 174.810834 -36.79304 174.81095

B1389 -36.791693 174.810771 -36.79218 174.81271

B1395 -36.79013 174.80985 -36.79105 174.80849

B1405 -36.787256 174.806184 -36.78756 174.8082

B1419 -36.784536 174.80724 -36.78536 174.80554

B1434 -36.780949 174.806036 -36.7797 174.80863

B1451 -36.777293 174.809311 -36.77586 174.80971

B1467 -36.773655 174.811467 -36.77417 174.80958

B1477 -36.771802 174.814784 -36.77059 174.81562

B1490 -36.768181 174.815819 -36.76905 174.8143

B1505 -36.764525 174.819094 -36.76602 174.81801

B1516 -36.761788 174.82127 -36.76275 174.81965

B1522 -36.760835 174.824608 -36.76178 174.82313

B1533 -36.758098 174.826783 -36.75926 174.82539

B1543 -36.755378 174.827839 -36.75661 174.8264

B1555 -36.75264 174.830014 -36.75404 174.82888


Appendix B Benthic survey field datasheet template Note: sediment type = seabed type; shelly gravel = shell hash.


Appendix C Predominant sediment and habitat types at benthic sampling locations encompassing the Rangitoto Channel and Ferguson North berth pocket area in Waitematā Harbour Seabed type categories: Sandy mud; Muddy sand; Sand; Sandy gravel; Shell hash; Sand foul; Sand reef; Reef; Other (Please state); and Mud. Habitat type categories: Seagrass bed; Oyster bed (Pacific or Flat oysters); Horse mussels; Scallops; Large bivalves (Cockles, Pipis or Others); Algae, Sponge bed; and Nothing. Secondary (i.e., present but to a lesser extent) category variables are indicated in brackets ().

Sampling location

Seabed type1 Habitat type

B1001 Sand (Shell hash) Nothing

B1006 Sand Nothing

B1008 Other – hard clay Nothing

B1010 Sand (Shell hash, Other – hard clay)

Nothing

B1020 Sand Nothing



B1047 Sand Nothing


B1057 Sand Nothing


B1100 Sand Nothing


B1119 Sand Nothing

B1125 Sand Nothing

B1135 Sand (Shell hash) Sponge bed

B1149 Sand Nothing

B1168 Sand (Shell hash) Sponge bed

B1171 Sand Nothing

1 In some instances, seabed sediment collected in the benthic sled during the tow sample may not be retained in the sled during retrieval (i.e., it may be washed out through to the sled’s 2-mm mesh whilst being hauled back up to the boat).


Sampling location


B1183 Sand (Shell hash) Nothing (small amount of sponge)



B1218 Sand Nothing




B1286 Sand Sponge bed

B1297 Sand (Shell hash, Other – hard clay)

Sponge bed


B1321 Shell hash Nothing



B1361 Muddy sand (Shell hash) Nothing



B1389 Shell hash Small number of ascidians


B1405 Sand (Shell hash) Scallops (live), horse mussel and small number of sponges and ascidians

B1419 Sand (Shell hash) Small amount of sponge and ascidians








Sampling location








Appendix D Images of benthic sled contents prior to sorting Note: these images are lower resolution versions of original (higher resolution) images provided to POAL separately.

B1001 B1006

B1008 B1010

B1020 B1037


B1041 B1047

B1050 B1057

B1060 B1100

B1107 B1119


B1125 B1135

B1149 B1168

B1171 B1183

B1200 B1211


B1218 B1236

B1258 B1268

B1286 B1297

B1314 B1321


B1338 B1350

B1361 B1374

B1375 B1389

B1395 B1405


B1419 B1434

B1451 B1467

B1477 B1490

B1505 B1516


B1522 B1533

B1543 B1555

RANGITOTO CHANNEL DREDGING ENVIRONMENTAL … · This report has been prepared by Kennedy...

Documents

Transcript of RANGITOTO CHANNEL DREDGING ENVIRONMENTAL … · This report has been prepared by Kennedy...