surf clams (qma 2 and qma 3) – final advice paper - Ministry of ...

SURF CLAMS (QMA 2 AND QMA 3) – FINAL ADVICE PAPER
Figure 1. Location of Quota Management Area 2 (QMA 2) and 3 (QMA 3) boundaries.
Executive Summary
1 The New Zealand surf clam fishery comprises seven shellfish species found
within the surf zone of many beaches. These species were brought into the Quota
Management System (QMS) in 2004 and are considered to have commercial
development potential.
2 After assessing new survey information, the Ministry of Fisheries (MFish)
recommends that you set new Total Allowable Catches (TACs), Total Allowable
Commercial Catches (TACCs), and sector allowances for some of these species in
Quota Management Area (QMA) 2 and QMA 3 (Figure 1) as follows (Table 1):
Table 1. Recommended TACs, sector allowances and TACCs for surf clam stocks in
QMA 2 and QMA 3.
Stock TAC (t) Customary
Allowance
(t)
PDO 2
SAE 2
MDI 2
DAN 2
SAE 3
MMI 3
DAN 3
509
132
66
64
483
65
55
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
Recreational
Allowance
(t)
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
TACC (t) Other sources
of fishing –
related
466
125
63
61
459
62
52
mortality (t)
25
7
3
3
24
3
3
1

3 An Initial Position Paper (IPP), released 11 January 2010, proposed two
options for each stock: retain existing TACs and allowances; or increase TACs, retain
existing non-commercial sector allowances, increase TACCs and provide for other
sources of fishing-related mortality
4 MFish received eight submissions expressing a variety of views on the IPP.
One submission noted the TACs proposed for QMA 3 did not take into account the
different spatial coverage of previous surveys compared to the most recent survey
from which the current TAC estimates are derived. MFish acknowledges this and has
amended the TACs and TACCs proposed in the IPP to reflect the different spatial
coverage of the two surveys.
5 Having considered all submissions, MFish recommends you increase the
TACs and TACCs for surf clam stocks as set out in Table 1 because:
a) Best available information suggests the these surf clam stocks are
effectively in a virgin state, and the current biomasses would support
an increase in harvestable yield;
b) Increased TACs for these surf clam stocks would not have an adverse
impact on the sustainability of the surf clam stocks in either QMA in
the short to medium-term;
c) Increased TACs would not have an adverse impact on customary and
recreational utilisation opportunities;
d) The recommended TACCs would provide the industry with more
harvest opportunities from the fishery to derive greater economic
return, and reflect the developing nature of the fishery.
6 There is no new information to suggest that the existing sector allowances for
customary and recreational are inadequate and should be changed. Two submissions
highlight the potential for customary fishers to utilise commercial vessels to access
surf clam stocks. Surf clam stocks that have previously been considered inaccessible
to customary and recreational sector shellfish collection methods may become
accessible under such arrangements. If so, adjustments to allocations within the TAC
may need to be considered in the future.
7 Whether you choose to retain the current TACs, or increase the TACs for each
surf clam stock, MFish recommends you retain the current deemed value rates for surf
clams in QMAs 2 and 3. There is no information to suggest that the existing annual
and interim deemed value rates for QMA 2 and QMA 3 are not providing fishers with
the appropriate incentives to balance catch with ACE.
2

Introduction
8 There are seven main species of subtidal surf clams in New Zealand,
including: Paphies donacina (PDO), Spisula aequilatera (SAE), Mactra discors
(MDI), Mactra murchisoni (MMI), Dosinia anus (DAN), Dosinia subrosea (DSU),
and Bassina yatei (BYA). The current TAC and associated sector allowances for each
of these surf clam species in QMAs 2 and 3 are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. TAC and sector allowances (tonnes) for surf clams in QMAs 2 and 3.
QMA 2 QMA 3
Species
TAC TACC Customary Recreational TAC TACC Customary Recreational
Allowance Allowance
Allowance Allowance
Paphies donacina (PDO) 23 5 9 9 150 108 21 21
Spisula aequilatera (SAE) 1 1 - - 264 264 - -
Mactra discors (MDI) 1 1 - - 1 1 - -
Mactra murchisoni (MMI) 3 3 - - 44 44 - -
Dosinia anus (DAN) 18 18 - - 4 4 - -
Dosinia subrosea (DSU) 1 1 - 1 1 - -
Bassina yatei (BYA) 1 1 - - 1 1 - -
9 The current TACs were set in 2004 based on limited and uncertain information
regarding yield estimates across entire QMAs and are consequently conservative. The
only previous biomass estimate in QMA 2 was from a brief survey off Nuhaka in
1991. The survey estimated biomass in the survey area at approximately 64 tonnes.
A previous biomass survey in QMA 3 occurred in 1991 at 3 sites in Pegasus Bay.
The survey estimated biomass across these 3 sites at approximately 211 tonnes.
Reason for Reviewing the Surf Clam Catch Limits
10 Surfco Ltd. (Surfco), a commercial stakeholder group comprising the majority
of surf clam quota holders, provided MFish with new survey information of surf clam
biomasses and distributions in QMAs 2 and 3. The surveys were conducted by
NIWA and shows substantial abundances that could support the development of the
subtidal surf clam fishery. The MFish Shellfish Working Group peer reviewed the
research and confirmed the survey results were robust enough to inform a TAC
review. Reviewing the TACs for QMA 3 surf clam stocks was also a high priority
action identified in the draft Southern Shellfish Fisheries Plan developed by MFish
and stakeholders in 2009.
Consultation
11 MFish released an IPP for public consultation on 11 January 2010. The IPP
was published on the MFish external website and sent to persons and organisations
with an interest in reviews of fisheries’ sustainability measures and those having an
interest in the surf clams specifically, including tangata whenua, and environmental,
recreational and commercial sector stakeholders.
3

Initial MFish View
12 MFish’s initial view in the IPP was to increase the current TAC limits for a
number of surf clam stocks in QMA 2 and QMA 3. The view was based on best
available information that suggested the current biomass of each these surf clam
stocks would support an increase in harvestable yield. Best available information
suggests an increase in harvestable yield would not have an adverse impact on the
sustainability of each of the surf clam stocks in either QMA in the short to mediumterm,
or on customary and recreational utilisation opportunities. The recommended
TACs would provide the industry with more harvest opportunities from the fishery to
derive greater economic return, and reflect the developing nature of the fishery.
Submissions Received
13 MFish received eight submissions on the IPP from:
• Mahia Iwi Trust (MIT)
• Isaac Piper (Piper)
• Rongomaiwahine Iwi (Rongomaiwahine)
• Seafood Industry Council (SeaFIC)
• Surfco Ltd. (Surfco)
• Te Kupenga Whiturauroa a Maui (Te Kupenga)
• Te Ohu Kai Moana Trustee Limited (TOKM)
• Turanganui a Kiwa Regional Customary Fisheries Forum (TKRCFF)
Overview of Submissions
14 Two submissions (MIT and Rongomaiwahine) support Option 1 (status quo)
to retain the TAC, TACC and sector allocations for the surf clam stocks in QMA 2.
MFish received no submissions supporting Option 1 in QMA 3. MIT and
Rongomaiwahine note their concern that a TAC review in 5 years time may not
adequately protect against the sustainability risks associated with the proposed
increase in harvest. They would prefer yearly monitoring be in place to show that the
biomass is available for harvest. They also have concerns about the potential effects
of fishing to the substrate and the amount of sand and substructure that is moved
when harvesting 700 tonnes of surf clams.
15 Three submissions (Surfco, Te Kupenga and TKRCFF) support Option 2 of
increasing the TAC, TACC and provide for other sources of fishing-related mortality
for surf clam stocks. TKRCFF support the increase if done gradually. TKRCFF
indicate their support for Option 2 for each stock in QMA 2 and QMA 3 is conditional
on whether MFish is confident that the information available provides certainty that
the proposed increases will not deplete surf clam levels below a sustainable level.
Surfco supports Option 2 in both QMA 2 and QMA 3, while Te Kupenga indicated its
support for Option 2 in QMA 2. Surfco considers Option 2 in both QMAs to be
conservative and notes that had all areas in each QMA been included in the biomass
4

surveys, the MCY estimates would have been much greater for a number of surf clam
species. In addition, survey dredges were assumed to be 100% efficient, making
MCY estimates even more conservative.
16 Two submissions (SeaFIC and TOKM) support neither Option 1 nor Option 2,
as they consider the options to be too conservative, and to unreasonably limit
development opportunities. Both SeaFIC and TOKM submit that additional options
proposing larger TAC increases should have been considered.
17 SeaFIC states that rather than signalling a particular preference at this time,
they would prefer the appropriate Fisheries Managers at MFish to enter into
constructive dialogue with quota owners on the optimal management regime that
supports fisheries development and investment whilst ensuring the sustainability of
the fishery. SeaFIC considers that the IPP did not indicate the intention of quota
owners to develop new areas of each QMA within any proposed TAC increase, or that
quota owners could spread catch between sub populations, which would substantially
reduce sustainability concerns for the use of higher TAC options.
18 TOKM propose an alternative option that increases the surf clam TACs (more
than proposed in Option 2) in both QMA 2 and QMA 3 (Table 3). Compared to
MFish’s proposed Option 2 their proposal provides for greater customary allowances
while reducing the TACCs slightly.
Table 3. TOKM proposed TACs, sector allowances and TACCs for surf clam stocks in
QMA 2 and QMA 3.
Fishstock TAC
(tonnes)
Customary
Allowance
(tonnes)
Recreational
Allowance
(tonnes)
TACC
(tonnes)
Other
sources of
mortality
(tonnes
PDO 2 525 20 9 471 25
SAE 2 142 20 - 115 7
MDI 2 69 5 - 61 3
DAN 2 67 5 - 59 3
SAE 3 435 40 - 374 21
MMI 3 51 5 - 44 2
DAN 3 56 5 - 48 3
19 According to TOKM, surf clam stocks that may have been previously
inaccessible to customary and recreational sector shellfish collection methods (due to
their subtidal location) may now become more available to iwi customary noncommercial
purposes. Iwi are beginning to work with their commercial entities or
asset holding companies to gain access to fish, and have the potential to utilise their
commercial fishing vessels, or any other vessel to harvest fish. Additionally, iwi can
also use commercial premises to process and store fish for customary purposes. Te
Kupenga note that any hapu wishing to maximise their customary/commercial
integration should be encouraged where there are mutual benefits and no risk to the
sustainability of the current surf clam stocks.
20 One submission (Piper) did not indicate support for either option. Piper
considered the TAC and TACCs proposed for QMA 3 did not take into account the
different spatial coverage of the new survey compared with the survey coverage on
5

which the original TACs were based. Piper suggests that the original survey estimates
should be retained for areas where the surveys do not overlap and be added to the
TACs and TACCs for QMA 3.
MFish Discussion of Issues Raised
21 Independence of research: Te Kupenga and TKRCFF question the
independence of the research provided by Surfco, and MFish’s confidence in the
estimates of biomass and potential yield of the surf clam stocks in each QMA.
22 The research provided by Surfco to MFish was conducted by NIWA and the
methodology and results of the survey were independently peer reviewed by the
Shellfish Working Group. The methodology and results were both considered robust
and able to be used to inform a review of the TACs of a number of the surf clam
stocks in both QMA 2 and QMA 3.
23 Biomass and yield estimates: Surfco note that only five of the thirteen
beaches sampled during the 2008 exploratory survey in QMA 2 were included in the
2008 biomass survey. Similarly, in QMA 3 high densities of surf clams are known to
extend further south of the 2007 survey area. Surfco consider that had all the areas
been included in the biomass surveys, the estimated biomass of many of the surf clam
stocks would have likely been much greater, and in turn the maximum constant yield
(MCY) 1 estimates much larger. Therefore, using the upper bound fishing mortality
(F0.1) estimates for each species would not have been unreasonable as the basis for
proposed TAC increases.
24 MFish acknowledged in the IPP that there are likely additional areas of surf
clam abundance outside of the recent biomass surveyed regions. However, MFish
also notes there is no quantitative data to provide reliable estimates of biomass for
each species in these other areas that have not been surveyed. Surf clam populations
are known to have patchy and discrete distribution which makes these estimates of
biomass difficult to generate. Large uncertainties surround fishing mortality estimates
used to calculate yield, and without any reliable estimates of biomass in these other
areas, they would result in unsubstantiated yield estimates.
25 Uncertainty is also inherent in any biomass estimates temporally for these
species (due to known periodic high mortality events, e.g. erosion via storms). Thus
uncertainties are introduced by temporal variation, fishing mortality estimates in the
known biomass, and the extent of any unknown biomass. These uncertainties justify
a cautious approach to calculating potential yield without excluding future increases
as better information becomes available.
26 Proposal to add previous TAC to new MCY estimates: Piper suggests that
original biomass survey estimates should be retained for areas where the previous
surveys and the 2007 survey do not overlap. Two of the three original survey areas
overlap with the 2007 survey area in QMA 3. The surveys overlap for the Waikuku
and Kainga beaches but not for Leithfield beach (surveyed only in the original 1991
survey). Piper proposes these original estimates (in this case Leithfield) be added to
1 Maximum constant yield (MCY) is considered the maximum constant catch that can be harvested
each year that is estimated to be sustainable at all probable future levels of species biomass.
6

the TACs and TACCs for QMA 3.
27 MFish notes that there is additional survey information available from
Leithfield beach for SAE 3, MMI 3, and DAN 3 that provides MCY estimates north
of the area sampled in the 2007 survey. These previous MCY estimates were used as
a basis to set the TACs for each species in 2004 and were reviewed by the Shellfish
Working Group at that time. For SAE 3, MMI 3, and DAN 3, of the potential yield
for each stock, approximately 25.9% (68t), 37.7% (17t) and 51.1% (2t) was available
in Leithfield beach. MFish proposes to add that additional yield to the TACs
proposed under Option 2.
28 MFish notes that previous biomass surveys can be used to guide management
decisions. Abundance of surf clam populations is known to fluctuate widely and may
have changed since the earlier survey. However, MFish considers that available
biomass is substantial in this area and the original TACs were set conservatively for
the entire QMA.
29 Dredging efficiency: Surfco note that analysis of the 2007 and 2008 surveys
in QMA 3 and QMA 2, respectively, assumed a dredge efficiency of 100%. Previous
trials with the same dredge indicated that the dredge efficiency was actually closer to
65%. Surfco consider that if the analysis of projected biomass had been corrected for
fishing efficiency, the biomass of all species would have likely been increased by
approximately one third because efficiency and biomass are inversely related.
30 MFish considers dredge efficiencies are likely to vary depending on a number
of factors such as sediment type, species composition and wave climate. Previous
trials were restricted to the Manawatu coast, whilst biomass and yield estimates are
from a range of locations. The reasons why a conservative dredge efficiency of 100%
was applied to the 2007 and 2008 surveys are still considered valid.
31 Customary allocation: MFish acknowledges the submissions from TOKM
and Te Kupenga noting that new previously inaccessible surf clam beds may become
available to customary fishers in the future. At this time, the anticipated harvest by
customary using commercial gear and facilities is unquantifiable. MFish will
continue to monitor customary permit information and will propose adjustments to
allocations within TACs if appropriate.
32 Monitoring: TKRCFF request that MFish start formal work on the
development of a robust commercial, recreational and customary
database/information system to assess the efficacy of the current assessment
methodology. TKRCFF maintain there must be a system in place to ensure the areas
where surf clams are taken are identified and that follow up research to ensure the
levels are sustainable.
33 MFish notes there is no administrative regime that monitors catch across all
sectors to enable such a system to be implemented. Commercial harvest is currently
monitored and their activities are restricted to areas that have received sanitation
clearance. Reporting of customary take is improving under customary permit records,
which will provide additional information on abundance of species being harvested.
No reporting of recreational catch currently occurs; instead harvest is estimated via
surveys. MFish are recommending a biomass survey be conducted in approximately
7

5 years time to reassess the status of the surf clam stocks in QMA 2 and QMA 3 and
any potential changes in biomass estimates to inform a TAC review. The proposed
TAC increases for each stock are considered conservative and create a low risk to the
sustainability of each surf clam stock.
Environmental impacts
34 Impact of dredging: MIT, Rongomaiwahine and TKRCFF all express concern
about the amount of sand and substructure that has to be moved when harvesting,
particularly if combined TACs were increased to 700 tonnes in QMA 2.
35 MFish notes that research has concluded that use of the hydraulic rabbit
dredge in the surf clam fishery has little adverse effect on the surf zone substrate
where surf clams are found. There is little evidence of dredge tracks on the substrate
within 20 minutes of use and no evidence within 24 hours. These shallow water
environments are subject to frequent natural disturbance and tend to recover faster
from the effects of mobile fishing compared to those in deeper water. Similarly, the
species that live in these systems are adapted to natural turbulence and shifting sand.
Future development of the surf clam fisheries
36 Surfco and SeaFIC both consider that the IPP did little to explore and discuss
alternative management options with stakeholders and fishery managers. Surfco
considers that the lack of initiative by MFish for any research planning meetings to
explore future research needs, a good management strategy plan or an appropriate
harvest strategy model erodes the confidence of the commercial sector to undertake
long term investment in the management and development of this fishery.
37 SeaFIC considers a potential Current Annual Yield (CAY) harvesting
strategy 2 to be costly and that for the developing surf clam fishery this approach could
remove incentives for future investment. They note the fishery already incurs high
costs associated with establishing sanitation programs, investment in harvesting
technology and depuration plans. SeaFIC considers that it is the intention of quota
owners to develop a harvest approach based on a rotational paddock system, which
would have s 14 implications around harvest strategies.
38 Surfco agrees with the Shellfish Working Group that a MCY harvesting
strategy may not be the best approach for the dynamic nature of surf clam
populations. Surfco state their preferred management strategy would be the use of
rotational harvesting with a CAY approach. However, Surfco considers that for a
CAY strategy to work Surfco participants would need to use their own vessels to
determine the fishable biomass prior to each fishing season, rather than being reliant
on third party research providers; an approach that may become prohibitively
expensive.
39 MFish is aware of and supports the intention of quota holders to develop
alternative management strategies and rotational harvesting strategies. MFish notes
neither SeaFIC nor Surfco have provided specific plans to this effect, and that for
2 A current annual yield (CAY) strategy recognises that fish populations fluctuate in size annually, so
that to get the best yield from a fishery the catch is modified every year based on annual biomass
surveys.
8

QMA 2, shellfish sanitation zones are not even in place at this time.
40 MFish considers both the MCY and CAY harvesting strategies have benefits
and limitations in terms of utilisation opportunities and sustainability risks. MFish
will work with industry to provide advice on either approach. A rotational harvesting
system can be implemented under s 14 of the Fisheries Act 1996 (“the Act”) under
both harvesting strategies if this is a tool that industry wishes to develop and utilise.
In the interim, QMA-wide TACs set under s 13 the Act provide scope for the surf
clam fishery to develop, and for rotational and other practices to be developed.
Submissions outside the scope of the IPP proposal
41 MFish considers the following issues raised by submitters fall outside the
scope and intention of the IPP proposal:
• Retention of current regulations that restrict commercial harvest spatially: MIT,
Rongomaiwahine and Te Kupenga request that MFish acknowledge and uphold
regulation 12 in the Fisheries (Central Area Commercial Fishing) Regulations
1986 that restricts the commercial take and possession of all shellfish (except rock
lobsters) from the area between Paritu and the mouth of the Nuhaka River, or
from the waters within 2 nautical miles of both Mahia Peninsula and Portland
Island.
• MFish is not considering reviewing this regulation. Commercial fishers are
required to abide by all local regulations that prohibit the commercial harvest of
shellfish in an area.
• Trading ACE across sectors: Surfco would like MFish to explore the notion of
trading ACE across sectors to provide mechanisms for all stakeholders to be
involved in the development of the surf clam fishery, such as providing
allowances to customary and recreational users. Surfco suggests that, for
example, 5% of the TAC could each be allocated to customary and recreational
allowances, and any unused catch could be transferred to the other sectors as
ACE.
• MFish notes that such an approach is not possible under the Act.
Background Information
The Surf Clam Fishery
42 Although surf clam stocks overseas support major fisheries, the New Zealand
surf clam stocks have not become the focus of much commercial development. Prior
to QMS introduction, only a few commercial fishers had the required permits to target
surf clams, and there were difficulties in adapting overseas dredge design to suit New
Zealand fisheries. In addition, the cost of entry to surf clam fisheries is relatively high
because of the required shellfish sanitation surveys.
43 Before commercial harvesting can begin each harvest area must meet specific
shellfish sanitation requirements monitored by the New Zealand Food Safety
Authority (NZFSA). Sanitation review applications are expensive and can take a
minimum of 12 months to process, require ongoing monthly and annual testing, and
9

annual reporting. Every fisher/harvester must apply for shellfish sanitation clearances
individually and cannot piggyback off other applications. Each harvester must do all
the relevant testing and analyses themselves.
44 In QMA 2 there are currently no harvesting areas that have shellfish sanitation
clearance for the extraction of surf clams. In QMA 3 the shellfish sanitation areas
equate to approximately 26 nautical miles at this time.
45 Reported commercial landings for each surf clam species in QMA 3 since
their introduction into the QMS in 2004-05 are shown in Table 4. There have been no
reported landings of surf clams in QMA 2.
Table 4. Reported commercial landings (tonnes) of surf clams, by species, from the
2004-05 to 2007-08 fishing years in QMA 3. No landings denoted by “–“.
Species Fishing Year
2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08
Paphies donacina (PDO) 0.005 - 1.17 3.17
Spisula aequilatera (SAE) 0.018 - 0.61 3.91
Mactra discors (MDI) - - - 0.005
Mactra murchisoni (MMI) 0.046 - 7.48 36.90
Dosinia anus (DAN) 0.007 - 0.86 0.77
Dosinia subrosea (DSU) - - - 0.015
Bassina yatei (BYA) - - - -
46 The TACC has not been fully caught for surf clam stocks in QMA 3 in
previous years mainly due to the developing nature of the fishery. Additionally,
market opportunities for SAE are currently hindered because of the presence of pea
crabs in the clams, which make the clams undesirable in the marketplace. Finally,
the required acquisition of shellfish sanitation clearance for the area a harvester
wishes to fish can create an economic disincentive to enter these fisheries because of
the financial and time investment required.
47 Customary and recreational harvesting of surf clams has been confined largely
to the accessible intertidal species Paphies subtriangulata (intertidal tuatua) and P.
ventricosum (toheroa). The subtidal surf clam species included in this review are
usually inaccessible to both customary and recreational fishers as the clams are
located offshore, with the exception of the deepwater tuatua P. donacina (PDO) in
Pegasus Bay and a few other sites. In QMA 3, PDO ecologically replaces P.
subtriangulata and is an important handpicked resource by local iwi.
48 Offshore surf clams may also be harvested by customary or recreational
fishers when stranded ashore in high tides after storms. This is considered to be
natural mortality as the majority of stranded shellfish die, regardless.
49 The recreational fishing surveys funded by MFish have estimated recreational
tuatua landings in QMA 2 and QMA 3 (Table 5). These estimates do not differentiate
between the deepwater tuatua PDO and tuatua P. subtriangulata, which has not been
considered for QMS introduction to date. However, NIWA advises 3 that tuatua
3 Cranfield, H. J. and K.P. Michael 2002: Potential area boundaries and indicative TACs for the seven species of
surf clam. NIWA unpublished report to the Ministry of Fisheries. 14 p.
10

eported in QMA 3 will most likely be the deepwater tuatua (PDO). Landings in
QMA 2 could include both species.
Table 5. Estimated recreational catches (tonnes) of tuatua (species not defined) in
QMA 2 and 3 for three summers between 1991 and 1994 from MFish funded
recreational fishing surveys. No data is denoted by “–“.
QMA 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94
2 - 49 7
3 21 - -
Biological Characteristics of Surf Clams
50 Surf clams are found in and immediately beyond the surf zone of exposed
sandy beaches. Onshore winds and waves form stable circulation cells that retain
nutrients within the surf zone to fertilize rich blooms of surf diatoms, which are the
food source for the filter-feeding surf clams.
51 Surf clam species are distributed to depths of 10 m, each within a distinct
depth zone. The various surf clam species follow the same order of depth succession
throughout New Zealand, but the depth distribution of each species may vary between
locations. The clear zonation of species with depth allows individual species to be
targeted during harvest.
52 Three families of subtidal surf clams occur in New Zealand: Veneridae,
Mactridae, and Mesodesmatidae. The venerids include Bassina yatei – the frilled
venus shell (BYA), Dosinia anus – the ringed Dosinia (DAN), and Dosinia subrosea
– the silky Dosinia (DSU). The mactrids include: Mactra murchisoni – the large
trough shell (MMI), Mactra discors – the trough shell (MDI), and Spisula aequilatera
– the triangle shell (SAE). Mesodesmatidae includes Paphies donacina – the deep
water tuatua (PDO).
53 Venerid clams dominate the beaches of northern New Zealand, whereas the
mactrids dominate the central and southern beaches. The mesodesmatid, P. donacina,
is most common in beaches of central New Zealand. At the northern locations, the
venerids, D. anus and D. subrosea, make up the major proportion of surf clam
biomass, and D. anus is abundant at all other North Island locations. The mactrids and
mesodesmatid become increasingly abundant south of Ohope (Bay of Plenty). The
mesodesmatid (P. donacina) is most abundant around central New Zealand from
Nuhaka on the east coast, south to the Kapiti coast, Cloudy Bay and as far south as
Pegasus Bay, Canterbury. The mactrids (M. murchisoni, M. discors, and S.
aequilatera) are most abundant in the South Island. M murchisoni and M. discors
dominate in southern New Zealand (Blueskin Bay, Te Waewae, and Oreti) where they
account for more than 80% of the total biomass.
54 Surf clams are broadcast spawners, producing larvae that are planktonic for 18
– 30 days. Spawning is likely to occur in the spring and summer months and,
depending on the species of surf clam, spat may recruit from the intertidal to the
deeper water of the outer region of the surf zone. Recruitment of spat can naturally
vary greatly from year to year, and between beaches. This can result in little or no
recruitment for several years on some beaches.
55 The maximum size attained by the seven species of surf clam at different sites
11

across New Zealand shows a general trend towards most species growing to a larger
size on South Island beaches compared with North Island beaches.
56 Growth data from mark-recapture experiments at both North Island and South
Island sites show that individual growth is highly variable and may change with
depth. A combination of barriers to gene flow (interbreeding of individuals in separate
populations) and different environmental conditions may account for these differences
in maximum size and growth rate.
57 Maximum age has been estimated from shell sections and from the numbers of
age classes and this estimate used to infer the probable rate of mortality. Surf clam
populations are subject to localised catastrophic mortality from erosion during storms,
high temperatures and low oxygen levels during calm summer periods, blooms of
toxic algae and excessive freshwater outflow.
Surf Clam Stock Status
58 According to the MFish Plenary reports for each surf clam species, because of
the relatively low levels of exploitation of each species, it is likely that all surf clam
stocks in QMA 2 and QMA 3 are still effectively in a virgin state. However, because
recruitment of surf clams is variable and natural mortality caused by storm and other
events may be high, biomass is likely to be highly variable both spatially and
temporally.
QMA 2
59 A 2007 biomass survey 4 of surf clams at five locations in QMA 2 has
estimated the current combined biomass of six species across the five locations at
7581 (t). Most of the biomass is attributable to PDO in the shallowest depth strata
(i.e. low water to 4 m) of Whakiki Lagoon and Nuhaka. The mean biomass
contributed from PDO was estimated at 5651.8 t, followed by DAN (945.9 t), MDI
(472.1 t) and SAE (471.1 t). All biomass estimates were calculated with a greater
precision than the MFish target coefficient of variation of 20%, except for DSU,
which was rarely found.
60 A mean maximum constant yield (MCY 5 ) was estimated for each of the six
main species of subtidal surf clams sampled (Table 6) under varying estimates of
fishing mortality (F0.1). MCY is considered the maximum constant catch that can be
caught each year that is estimated to be sustainable at all probable future levels of
species biomass. F0.1 was calculated using growth data from the Wellington west
coast and Cloudy Bay in the South Island.
4
Triantafillos, L. 2008. Survey of subtidal surf clams in Quota Management Area 2, June – August
2007. NIWA Client Report WLG2008/72.
5
MCY = 0.25* F0.1*B0, where B0 = virgin biomass
12

Table 6. Mean values and 95% confidence intervals of MCY (tonnes) for each surf clam
6
species in QMA 2 based on variable estimates of F0.1 .
Species Value of F0.1 Mean MCY
95% Confidence Intervals
Lower Higher
Paphies donacina (PDO) 0.36 508.7 320.9 696.4
0.52 734.7 463.5 1006.0
Spisula aequilatera (SAE) 1.12 131.9 92.0 171.9
1.56 183.7 128.1 239.4
Mactra discors (MDI) 0.56 66.1 40.7 91.5
0.87 102.7 63.2 142.1
Mactra murchisoni (MMI) 0.7 5.9 4.8 7.1
0.89 7.5 6.1 9.0
Dosinia anus (DAN) 0.27 63.8 42.5 85.2
0.54 127.7 85.0 170.4
Dosinia subrosea (DSU) 0.27 0.4 0.2 0.6
0.54 0.8 0.3 1.3
QMA 3
61 A 2007 biomass survey 7 of surf clams (between Ashley River to six nautical
miles south of the Waimakariri River in Pegasus Bay) in QMA 3 has estimated the
current combined biomass of four species at 3189.6 t, most of which was attributable
to SAE in the two shallowest depth strata (i.e. low water to 4 m). The mean biomass
contributed by SAE was estimated at 1567.2 t, followed by DAN (844.9 t), MMI
(444.1 t) and PDO (320.8 t). All biomass estimates were calculated with a greater
precision than the MFish target coefficient of variation of 20%, except for BYA,
which was rarely found.
62 A mean maximum constant yield (MCY 8 ) was estimated for four of the six
main species of subtidal surf clams sampled (Table 7) using F0.1 values calculated
using growth data from Cloudy Bay, South Island.
Table 7. Mean values and 95% confidence intervals of MCY (tonnes) for each surf clam
9
species in QMA 3 based on variable estimates of F0.1 .
Species Value of F0.1 Mean MCY
95% Confidence Intervals
Lower Higher
Paphies donacina (PDO) 0.36 28.9 23.1 34.6
0.52 41.7 33.4 50
Spisula aequilatera (SAE) 1.06 415.3 384 446.5
1.37 536.8 496.4 577.1
Mactra murchisoni (MMI) 0.43 47.7 43.1 52.4
0.57 63.3 57.1 69.5
Dosinia anus (DAN) 0.25 52.8 48.4 57.2
0.42 88.7 81.3 96.1
6 Estimates of F0.1 were calculated based on natural mortality rates from the Wellington west coast and
Cloudy Bay. Cranfield, H.J., Michael, K.P., and D.R. Stotter. 1993. Estimates of growth, mortality,
and yield per recruit for New Zealand surf clams. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Research
Document 93/20.
7 Triantafillos, L. 2008. Survey of subtidal surf clams in Pegasus Bay, November – December 2007.
NIWA Client Report WLG2008/24.
8 Ibid, no. 5.
9 Ibid, no. 6.
13

Areas of Uncertainty
63 MFish notes that there is uncertainty around the fishing mortality (F0.1)
estimates used, as:
• F0.1 values used in the 2007 east coast North Island survey report (QMA 2)
are assumed to be similar to those from previous work on the Wellington
west coast;
• F0.1 values used in the 2007 Pegasus Bay survey report (QMA 3) are
assumed to be similar to those from previous work in Cloudy Bay
(QMA 7);
• Mortality and recruitment of surf clams are known to be highly variable;
• Mortality was estimated from growth rings that were assumed to be annual
(this assumption may be incorrect) and used to calculate F0.1;
• There is no data on dredge mortality, which could affect the estimate of
F0.1;
• The range of natural mortality estimates used to determine F0.1 may be too
small, and the range of F0.1 could be restricted more than is appropriate;
• There are no current biomass trends for the surf clam fisheries in QMA 2
and QMA 3.
64 MFish acknowledges the estimates of biomass in QMA 2 and QMA 3 found in
these studies are considered conservative because:
• Each estimate was restricted to the sites sampled during the biomass
surveys, whereas surf clams were also found at additional sites sampled
during the initial exploratory surveys;
• Surf clams are known to exist outside the surveyed sites and;
• The analysis was undertaken assuming a dredge efficiency of 100%, when
previous trials using a similar research dredge indicated that the dredge
efficiency was actually closer to 65% 10 , which would reduce the estimate
of F0.1. However, anecdotal evidence suggests that commercial dredges
are more efficient than research dredges.
32 This combination of uncertainties makes it difficult to discern whether the
stock MCY estimates from the 2007 and 2008 surveys are too conservative or an
overestimate of likely yield potential. MFish considers the use of the lower F0.1
estimates to be more appropriate when estimating MCY based on these uncertainties.
33 A number of surf clam stocks in QMA 2 and QMA 3 (MMI 2, DSU 2, and
PDO 3) were not considered for TAC review because of the uncertainties noted
10 Michael, K.P., Olsen, G.P., Hvid, B.T., and H.J. Cranfield. 1990. Design and performance of two
hydraulic subtidal clam dredges in New Zealand. New Zealand Fisheries Technical Report 21, 16 p.
14

above, and the low MCY estimates contained in the new survey information, which
did not support a review or change of their current TACs. The MCY estimates for
PDO 3 from the 2007 survey are smaller than the current TAC, however; biomass of
PDO is known to increase to the south 11 (e.g. New Brighton) outside of the areas
sampled in the 2007. MFish considers the current TAC appropriate for PDO 3 based
on these areas of higher density.
Management Options
Basis for Setting Total Allowable Catch (TAC): Section 13 management
65 TACs are set under section 13 of the Act. In general, TACs are set in
accordance with the provisions of s 13(2) of the Act in a manner that would maintain,
or more the stock towards, a biomass at or above the level that can support MSY.
This is not possible for surf clam stocks, since the available information on the above
surf clam stocks in QMA 2 and QMA 3 does not enable reliable estimate of BCURRENT
and BMSY.
66 Where reliable estimates of BCURRENT and BMSY are not available, s 13(2A) of
the Act provides for the Minister to use the best available information to set a TAC
that is not inconsistent with the objective of maintaining the stock at or above, or
moving the stock towards or above, BMSY.
67 Section 13(2A) and 13(3) provide that:
“(2A) For the purposes of setting a total allowable catch under this section, if the
Minister considers that the current level of the stock or the level of the stock
that can produce the maximum sustainable yield is not able to be estimated
reliably using the best available information, the Minister must—
(a) not use the absence of, or any uncertainty in, that information as a reason
for postponing or failing to set a total allowable catch for the stock; and
(b) have regard to the interdependence of stocks, the biological
characteristics of the stock, and any environmental conditions affecting the
stock; and
(c) set a total allowable catch—
(i) using the best available information; and
(ii) that is not inconsistent with the objective of maintaining the stock at
or above, or moving the stock towards or above, a level that can
produce the maximum sustainable yield.
(3) In considering the way in which and rate at which a stock is moved towards
or above a level that can produce maximum sustainable yield under
subsection (2)(b) or (c), or (2A) (if applicable), the Minister shall have regard
to such social, cultural, and economic factors as he or she considers relevant.”
68 The best available information is the MCY estimates derived from the biomass
surveys. These provide a guide on a sustainable yield for the surf clam fishery and
can be used as a proxy for BMSY. The MCY estimates set out above are considered
conservative and to be consistent with the objective of maintaining the stocks at, or
above, or moving the stock towards or above a level that can produce the MSY when
11 Cranfield, H.J., Michael, K.P., and A. Dunn. 2002. The distribution, abundance, and size of tuatua
(Paphies donacina) on New Brighton Beach, Christchurch, in 2001. New Zealand Fisheries
Assessment Report 2002/5. 24p.
15

applied over a short-medium time horizon.
69 Information on relevant social, cultural and economic factors is set out under
each option for your consideration.
TAC Setting
70 MFish consulted on two management options for QMA 2 and 3 (Table 8).
Option 1:
Retain the existing TACs and sector allowances for surf clam stocks
in QMA 2 and QMA 3.
Option 2: Increase the TACs, provide for other sources of fishing-related
mortality, retain the existing customary and recreational allowances,
and increase the TACCs for a number of surf clam stocks in QMA 2
and QMA 3.
Table 8. Options (tonnes) for setting TACs, sector allowances and TACCs for surf
clam stocks in QMA 2 and QMA 3.
Stock TAC (t) Customary
Allowance (t)
PDO 2
Option 1 (status quo)
Option 2
SAE 2
Option 1 (status quo)
Option 2
MDI 2
Option 1 (status quo)
Option 2
DAN 2
Option 1 (status quo)
Option 2
SAE 3
Option 1 (status quo)
Option 2
MMI 3
Option 1 (status quo)
Option 2
DAN 3
Option 1 (status quo)
Option 2
23
509
1
132
1
66
18
64
264
415
44
48
4
53
9
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Recreational
Allowance (t)
9
9
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
TACC (t)
5
491
1
125
1
63
18
61
264
394
Other sources
of fishingrelated
mortality (t)
71 As a result of information provided in submissions, an additional option
(Option 2b) for surf clam stocks in QMA 3 is proposed (Table 9):
-
-
-
-
44
46
4
50
0
25
0
7
0
3
0
3
0
21
0
2
0
3
16

Table 9. Modified Option 2 (Option 2b) for setting TACs, sector allowances and TACCs
for surf clam stocks in QMA 3.
Stock TAC (t) Customary
Allowance
(t)
SAE 3
MMI 3
DAN 3
Option 1
483
65
55
-
-
-
Recreational
Allowance
(t)
-
-
-
TACC (t) Other sources
of fishing –
related
459
62
52
mortality (t)
72 Retaining the current TACs for the above surf clam stocks in QMA 2 and
QMA 3 will result in no change to the sustainability of these fisheries. The MFish
Science Group Report from the Fisheries Assessment Plenary (May 2009: stock
assessments and yield estimates) state the current TACs are sustainable and that the
surf clam stocks in both QMA 2 and QMA 3 are still effectively in their virgin state.
73 Retaining the current TACs may limit the ability of commercial harvesters to
maximise the value of harvested catch, as it would constrain development of the
fishery. There are additional concerns that the current TACs do not reflect abundance
and mix of species in each QMA, further hindering development of the fisheries.
Option 2
74 Under Option 2 the surf clam TACs would be increased and set at the lower
mean MCY estimates from the recent biomass surveys in QMA 2 and QMA 3 (Tables
6 and 7) for PDO 2, SAE 2, MDI 2, DAN 2, SAE 3, MMI 3, and DAN 3.
75 Option 2 poses a greater sustainability risk than Option 1 to the surf clam
stocks, but this risk is considered to be low. Under Option 2 there will be greater
fishing impacts on the benthic environments (see Environment Impacts) that have
been given sanitation clearance. The level of risk is dependent on the size of the
sanitation areas where harvesting can occur and the amount of surf clams that are
extracted from these areas. MFish acknowledges these risks are likely to decrease as
more areas are given sanitation clearance and commercial fishers can spread their
catch across sub-populations.
76 The sustainability risks are considered low in the short-medium term in both
QMA 2 and QMA 3 because proposed increases in TACs are based on the lower and
more conservative MCY estimates because of the uncertainties associated with fishing
mortality (F0.1).
77 Increasing the TACs for these selected stocks will enable industry to develop
the surf clam fisheries and increase the potential economic value derived from these
stocks, while allowing for continued monitoring to improve current information. This
option is unlikely to affect access by other fishing sectors because surf clams are
generally inaccessible to traditional hand-gathering methods due to their subtidal
location.
24
3
3
17

Option 2b – SAE 3, MMI 3, DAN 3
78 Option 2b provides a larger TAC for each of SAE 3, MMI 3, and DAN 3.
These TACs are comprised of lower mean MCY estimates from the recent biomass
surveys plus the addition of MCY estimates from Leithfield beach from an earlier
biomass survey (north of the 2007 survey area). The sustainability risks under this
option are considered low as both MCY estimates were estimated conservatively
based on the areas surveyed.
79 Option 2b poses a greater sustainability risk than either Option 1 or Option 2
to the surf clam stocks in QMA 3, but as with Option 2 this risk is considered to be
low. The impacts on sustainability and environment are the same as for Option 2, but
MFish acknowledges commercial fishers in QMA 3 already have sanitation clearance
in a number of areas and spread their catch across various sub-populations.
80 The impacts on utilisation opportunities under Option 2b are the same as for
Option 2, but Option 2b provides for greater flexibility to commercial harvesters in
terms of spreading an increased catch across sub-populations and increasing the
potential economic value derived from these fisheries. This option is unlikely to
affect access by other fishing sectors because surf clams are generally inaccessible to
traditional hand-gathering methods due to their subtidal location.
TACCs and Allowances
81 When setting a Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC), s 21 of the Act
prescribes that the Minister shall take account of the TAC and shall make allowances
for Maori customary non-commercial interests, recreational fishing interests, and for
any other sources of fishing-related mortality, before setting the TACC.
82 The Act does not provide an explicit statutory mechanism to apportion
available catch between sector groups either in terms of a quantitative measure or
prioritisation of allocation. Accordingly, the Minister has the discretion to make
allowances for various sectors based on the best available information.
83 Under Option 1 MFish proposes no change to the existing sector allowances
for surf clam stocks in QMA 2 and QMA 3.
84 Option 2 (in both QMA 2 and QMA 3) proposes changes to the TACCs and to
provide for other sources of fishing-related mortality for surf clam stocks. Sections
20 and 21 of the Act provide for the Minister to vary a TACC after allowing for noncommercial
fishing interests and fishing related mortality.
Customary Maori and recreational allowances
85 MFish proposes to retain the existing customary Maori and recreational
allowances for the reviewed surf clam stocks in QMA 2 and QMA 3 under both
Options 1 and 2.
86 Information on catch levels of Maori customary and recreational fishers is
limited and uncertain. The species’ compositions of customary and recreational
harvests have likely been constrained to P. donacina, which is more accessible close
18

to shore than the other surf clam species. Customary permit information shows no
evidence of customary catch of these species.
87 When allowing for Maori customary interests you must take into account any
relevant mätaitai reserve and any area closure or fishing method restriction or
prohibition under s 186A. MFish notes there are a number of mätaitai within both
QMA 2 (Moremore mätaitai reserve, Napier) and QMA 3 (Mataura River, Puna-wai-
Toriki mätaitai) where commercial fishing is prohibited. Additionally, there is a
section 186A closure (Kaikoura-Wakatu Quay) where no person may take any species
of fish, aquatic life, or seaweed.
88 When allowing for recreational interest, the Minister is required to take into
account any regulations that prohibit or restrict fishing in the areas concerned. There
are a number of regulations within both QMA 2 and QMA 3 that would affect
recreational utilisation of surf clams. However, the key impact on recreational harvest
of surf clams is accessibility of the stocks to hand-gathering methods.
89 The key impact on Maori customary and recreational access to surf clam
stocks is the accessibility of the stocks to non-commercial harvesting methods. Surf
clams are not accessible to traditional hand-gathering methods used to take shellfish
because of their depth. MFish acknowledges both TOKM and Te Kupenga’s
submissions that greater integration between customary and commercial Maori
fishing sectors is occurring and that this relationship may increase the accessibility of
surf clam stocks to the Maori customary sector. At this stage, MFish considers there
is insufficient information to modify Maori customary allowances for the surf clam
stocks because anticipated harvest by customary using commercial gear and facilities
is unquantifiable. MFish will continue to monitor customary permit information and
review sector allowances if considered appropriate.
Other sources of fishing-related mortality
90 When the original TACs for surf clam stocks were set, MFish did not make an
allowance for other sources of fishing-related mortality for surf clam stocks. The
level of mortality from this source was estimated to be low given the size of the
proposed TACs. Today, the quantity of surf clam mortality as a result of interaction
with commercial dredges (but not being caught) is still considered low. The
proportions of damaged surf clams in earlier gear trials (pre-1990) ranged between 0 –
21% 12 depending on species and dredge design, but advances in technology and
hydraulics have likely reduced the level of fishing-related mortality. Anecdotal
evidence suggests that commercial dredges have a higher efficiency than research
dredges used in other studies, which likely reduces the level of fishing mortality
further.
91 However, MFish considered other sources of fishing-related mortality to be an
area requiring research if TACs were to be increased in the future. There is no new
information that quantifies the level of fishing-related mortality as a result of
interaction with commercial dredges.
12 Beentjes, M.P., and S.J. Baird. 2004. Review of dredge fishing technologies and practice for
application in New Zealand. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2004/37.
19

92 In the absence of relevant research results, MFish proposed to include a new
allowance for other sources of fishing-related mortality that is equivalent to
approximately 5% of the proposed TAC for each surf clam stock to account for the
potential mortality that may occur. MFish considers that research to better understand
fishing-related mortality should be done in the future to improve potential yield
estimates of these stocks.
Total Allowable Commercial Catch (TACC)
93 Under Option 2, MFish proposed to increase the TACCs for PDO 2, SAE 2,
MDI 2, DAN 2, SAE 3, MMI 3, and DAN 3.
94 The proposed TACCs will provide industry with the opportunity to initiate
development of the surf clam fisheries in QMA 2 and further expand and develop the
surf clam fisheries in QMA 3. This will provide opportunities for additional return to
the local fishing sectors through increased employment of additional crew, processing
of landed surf clams, and other benefits to the economy.
Environmental Impacts
95 Setting or varying sustainability measures under the Act require consideration
of the potential impacts of increased fishing effort on the benthic environment under
each TAC option.
96 Surf clam fishers in New Zealand use hydraulic rabbit dredges, which liquefy
the sediment and dislodge the shellfish from the sediment with the bit as the dredge
moves forward pushing the surf clams, sediment and debris on to the filtration grill.
Wash-back water jets force sediment and debris down through the grill while large
surf clams pass over the grill and into the catch bag located at the aft of the dredge.
Any remaining sediment is washed out of the catch bag.
97 Previous research has concluded that use of the hydraulic rabbit dredge in the
surf clam fishery has little adverse effect on the surf zone substrate where surf clams
are found. 13 There is little evidence of dredge tracks on the substrate within 20
minutes of use and no evidence within 24 hours. These shallow water environments
are subject to frequent natural disturbance and tend to recover faster from the effects
of mobile fishing compared to those in deeper water. Similarly, the species that live
in these systems must adapt to turbulence and shifting sand. Research has concluded
that the rabbit dredge has little adverse effect on the surf zone substrate. 14
98 Other statutory obligations in respect of setting a TAC and addressing the
environmental principles of the Act are set out and discussed in Appendix 1.
Other Management Controls
Deemed Values
99 MFish proposes to leave the current annual and interim deemed value rates
unchanged for surf clams under all proposed options in QMA 2 and QMA 3. MFish
13 Ibid, no. 12.
14 Ibid, no. 12.
20

eviewed the deemed value rates for all surf clam stocks in April 2009 and notes there
has been no catch in excess of ACE in any surf clam stock. MFish received no
information in submissions that provided additional data on landed prices or ACE
prices.
100 MFish implemented a backstop differential deemed value into all surf clam
stocks in April 2009 to provide the appropriate incentive for commercial fishers to
balance catch with ACE. This approach limited incentives to fish on deemed values
even if there are sudden changes in value of surf clams as the fishery develops. The
differential deemed value rates limit harvesting by non-ACE holders, particularly if
the NZFSA were to change any regulations around gaining shellfish sanitation
clearances, making them easier to obtain. Without ACE, under the current backstop
differential deemed values, harvesters face the highest rate after the first kilogram is
caught.
Potential Future Development
101 The settings of these surf clam stock TACs, using the current MCY estimates,
are considered to have a low sustainability risk in the short-medium term. MCY
estimates must be set sufficiently low to ensure that the future sustainability of the
populations is not compromised, particularly in times of low abundance. MFish
recommends a biomass survey be conducted in approximately 5 years time to reassess
the status of the surf clam stocks in QMA 2 and QMA 3 and any potential changes in
MCY estimates to inform a TAC review.
102 If further development of the fisheries is desirable to maximise yield, a more
robust approach would be to move to a Current Annual Yield (CAY) harvesting
strategy to maximise yield in years of high productivity. A CAY strategy recognises
that fish populations fluctuate in size annually, so that to get the best yield from a
fishery the catch is modified every year. This management strategy costs more as it
involves conducting annual biomass surveys and recalculating yield to account for the
variability in surf clam populations from year to year. SeaFIC considers these costs
could remove incentives for future investment. However, Surfco notes a CAY in
combination with rotational harvesting is their preferred approach provided the annual
biomass surveys can be conducted by quota participants to reduce costs.
103 MFish acknowledges there are no reliable estimates of natural mortality and
commercial dredge efficiency for these surf clam stocks. Therefore, MFish is of the
view that more accurate information for the surf clam stocks in QMA 2 and QMA 3
should be obtained. This information will better inform MFish and the industry when
assessing the sustainability of the fishery in the longer term, and when determining
MCY or CAY harvest size.
104 The additional information should include more specific fishery estimates for
growth, natural mortality and dredge efficiency, and could be considered within the
context of a research programme that explores the most appropriate management
strategy for these fisheries, including supporting information needs.
105 MFish notes that industry in QMA 3 has indicated, through a draft Southern
Shellfish Fisheries Plan, their interest in considering the use of rotational harvesting
strategies as the surf clam fisheries develop. This strategy is also supported by Surfco
21

and SeaFIC submissions. Such a strategy may be beneficial to avoid potential
localised depletion of stocks and to maximise catch per effort during harvest and may
be used under either a MCY or CAY harvesting strategy.
Conclusion
106 Having considered best available information and the information in
submissions, MFish recommends that you: increase TACs and TACCs for surf clam
stocks in QMA 2 as set out in Table 8, page 16 (that is, Option 2), and; increase TACs
and TACCs for surf clam stocks in QMA 3 as set out in Table 9, page 16 (that is,
Option 2b). This is because the:
a) surf clam stocks are effectively in a virgin state, and the current
biomasses would support an increase in harvestable yield;
b) increased TACs for each surf clam stock would not have an adverse
impact on the sustainability of the surf clam stock in either QMA in the
short to medium-term;
c) increased TACs would not have an adverse impact on customary and
recreational utilization opportunities; and
d) recommended TACCs would provide the industry with more harvest
opportunities from the fishery to derive greater economic return, and
reflect the developing nature of the fishery.
107 MFish also recommends you retain existing deemed values because there is no
information to suggest that the existing annual and interim deemed value rates for
each surf clam stock in QMA 2 and QMA 3 are not providing fishers with the
appropriate incentives to balance catch with ACE.
Recommendations
108 I recommend that you:
i. Agree to set a TAC of 509 tonnes for PDO 2 and within this set:
a) A customary allowance of 9 tonnes;
b) A recreational allowance of 9 tonnes;
c) An allowance for other fishing-related mortality of 25 tonnes; and
d) A TACC of 466 tonnes.
ii. Agree to set a TAC of 132 tonnes for SAE 2 and within this set:
a) A customary allowance of 0 tonnes;
b) A recreational allowance of 0 tonnes;
c) An allowance for other fishing-related mortality of 7 tonnes; and
22

d) A TACC of 125 tonnes.
iii. Agree to set a TAC of 66 tonnes for MDI 2 and within this set:
a) A customary allowance of 0 tonnes;
b) A recreational allowance of 0 tonnes;
c) An allowance for other fishing-related mortality of 3 tonnes; and
d) A TACC of 63 tonnes.
iv. Agree to set a TAC of 64 tonnes for DAN 2 and within this set:
a) A customary allowance of 0 tonnes;
b) A recreational allowance of 0 tonnes;
c) An allowance for other fishing-related mortality of 3 tonnes; and
d) A TACC of 61 tonnes.
v. Agree to set a TAC of 483 tonnes for SAE 3 and within this set:
a) A customary allowance of 0 tonnes;
b) A recreational allowance of 0 tonnes;
c) An allowance for other fishing-related mortality of 24 tonnes; and
d) A TACC of 459 tonnes.
vi. Agree to set a TAC of 65 tonnes for MMI 3 and within this set:
a) A customary allowance of 0 tonnes;
b) A recreational allowance of 0 tonnes;
c) An allowance for other fishing-related mortality of 3 tonnes; and
d) A TACC of 62 tonnes.
vii. Agree to set a TAC of 55 tonnes for DAN 3 and within this set:
a) A customary allowance of 0 tonnes;
b) A recreational allowance of 0 tonnes;
c) An allowance for other fishing-related mortality of 3 tonnes; and
d) A TACC of 52 tonnes.
23

AND
viii. Agree to retain the current deemed value rates for each of these surf clam
stocks for the 2010-11 fishing year.
Leigh Mitchell
for Chief Executive
APPROVED / NOT APPROVED / APPROVED AS AMENDED
Hon David Carter
Minister of Fisheries
/ / 2010
24

Appendix 1
Statutory Considerations
a) Section 5(a) of the Act requires the Minister to act in a manner consistent with
New Zealand’s international obligations relating to fishing. MFish considers
the management options proposed in this paper are consistent with these
provisions.
b) Section 5(b) of the Act requires the Minister to act in a manner consistent with
the provisions of the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act
1992. MFish considers the management options proposed in this paper are
consistent with these provisions.
c) Section 8(1) of the Act states the purpose of the Act as being to provide for
the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. Option 2
seeks to enable the commercial sector to derive greater value from the surf
clam fisheries in QMA 2 and QMA 3 to reflect the available resources while
mitigating the effects of fishing on the surf clam stocks and the benthic
environment. The Act includes obligations to avoid, remedy, or mitigate any
adverse effects of fishing on the aquatic environment. This paper discusses
those effects and proposed management measures when decisions are made
about the sustainable utilisations of the surf clam stocks in QMA 2 and
QMA 3.
d) Section 9 of the Act requires the Minister to take into account the following
environmental principles:
- Section 9(a) requires associated or dependent species to be maintained
above a level that ensures their long-term viability. MFish has no
evidence that associated or dependent species will be threatened under the
proposed TAC. While the effects of a higher catch level on associated or
dependent species is likely to increase, it is anticipated that the effects of
fishing on some bycatch species will remain low overall and unlikely to
hinder their long-term viability.
- Section 9(b) requires biological diversity of the aquatic environment to be
maintained. MFish has no evidence that biological diversity will be
threatened under the proposed TAC. While the effects of a higher catch
level on biological diversity are likely to increase, it is anticipated that the
effects of fishing on some bycatch species will remain low overall and
unlikely to hinder their long-term viability.
- Section 9(c) requires habitat of particular significance for fisheries
management to be protected. MFish has not identified any habitats of
particular significance with regards to these surf clam stocks. MFish notes
that dredging can have adverse effects on benthic environments, however,
surf clam dredging occurs in the surf zone; an area that is subject to
frequent natural disturbance and tend to recover faster from the effects of
mobile fishing compared to those in less dynamic environments.
e) Section 10 of the Act sets out information principles which require decisions
to be based on the best available information, consider any uncertainty in that
25

information, and applying caution when information is uncertain, unreliable,
or inadequate. The absence of, or uncertainty in, any information should not
be used as a reason for postponing or failing to take any measure to achieve
the purpose of the Act. The best available information, which includes the
recent biomass surveys for surf clam stocks in QMA 2 and QMA 3, is
incorporated into the assessment of management options proposed in this
paper. Uncertainties in the information held by MFish are described and
discussed in the paper.
f) Section 11 of the Act sets out matters the Minister must take into account
when modifying sustainability measures.
- Section 11(1)(a) requires the Minister to take into account any effects of
fishing on any stock and the aquatic environment. MFish considers the
options presented in this paper will not change the non-commercial and
commercial fishing methods used to harvest surf clams in QMA 3. The
effects of fishing on the stock and the aquatic environment under the
current TACs in QMA 2 and QMA 3 are non-existent and minimal,
respectively. MFish notes that hydraulic dredging under a higher catch
level will have an impact on the benthic environment within both QMA 2
and QMA 3 where surf clam harvesting occurs and as the fisheries develop
and expand their sanitation areas. The impacts are considered minimal as
these shallow water environments are subject to frequent natural
disturbance, and the species that live in these systems must adapt to
turbulence and shifting sand even with-out dredging activities.
- Section 11(1)(b) requires the Minister to take into account any existing
controls under the Act that apply to the stock or area concerned. MFish
notes that existing controls relating to surf clams, include deemed values,
method restrictions (i.e. dredge size), and areas closed to all harvesting
activities (e.g. do not have sanitation approval, mätaitai reserves, marine
reserves).
- Section 11(1)(c) requires the Minister to take into account the natural
variability of the stock concerned. MFish recognises that surf clam stocks
can be inherently variable and that discrete surf clam beds are prone to
fluctuations in abundance that can render them susceptible to fishing. The
natural variability of the surf clams stocks, and other biological
characteristics, have been discussed in the paper.
- Section 11(2)(a) requires the Minister to have regard to any regional
policy statement, regional plan, or proposed regional plan under the
Resource Management Act 1991. MFish is not aware of any statements
and plans under the Resource Management Act 1991 that are specifically
relevant to setting TACs for surf clam stocks in QMA 2 or QMA 3.
- Section 11(2)(b) requires the Minister to have regard to any management
strategy or management plan under the Conservation Act 1987. MFish is
not aware of any management strategies or plans under the Conservation
Act 1987 that are relevant to the management options proposed for the surf
clam stocks in QMA 2 or QMA 3.
26

- Section 11(2)(c) requires the Minister to have regard to sections 7 and 8 of
the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act 2000. None of the options in this
proposal will have any effect on these provisions. The surf clam QMAs 2
and 3, and fishstock areas, do not overlap the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park
area.
- Sections 11(2A)(a) and (c) require the Minister to take into account any
conservation services or fisheries services, and any decisions not to require
conservation services or fisheries services. MFish is aware of a number of
marine reserves in QMA 2 and QMA 3 where no person may remove any
species of fish, aquatic life or seaweed. These reserves do not affect the
surf clam fishery in either QMA.
- Sections 11(2A)(b) requires the Minister to take into account any relevant
fisheries plans approved under part III of the Act. No fisheries plan for, or
including, surf clams has been approved by the Minister. However, a draft
Southern Shellfish Fisheries Plan is discussed in the paper.
g) Section 13 of the Act requires the Minister to set a TAC for every stock
managed under the quota management system. Refer to the Management
Options section of the paper for a discussion of other Section 13
considerations.
h) Section 20 of the Act requires the Minister to set a TACC for each stock
managed under the quota management system, and provides discretion to vary
a TACC for any stock. Refer to the Management Options section of the paper
for a discussion of Section 20 considerations.
i) Section 21 of the Act sets out matters the Minister must take into account
when setting or varying a TACC under Section 20. Refer to the Management
Options section of the paper for a discussion of Section 21 considerations.
j) Section 75 provides for the Minister to set deemed values. Refer to the
Management Options section of the paper for a discussion of Section 75
considerations.
27