Original source · versioned page text
2019-01-14 General Committee Agenda - Attachment 3 to Item 2 - Monitoring of Noosa River Oyster Reefs Nov 2018
Text sections have not been matched to the original PDF pages. Use the original document to check page numbers.
Attachment 3 to Item 2
General Committee Meeting Agenda
14 January 2019
Monitoring of the Noosa River Oyster Reefs;
November 2017 - November 2018
Report to Noosa Council, and Queensland
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
Dr Ben Gilby
Prof Thomas Schlacher,
Dr Andrew Olds,
Mr Nicholas Ortodossi,
Mr Ashley Rummell,
Dr Christopher Henderson,
Mr Thomas Brook,
Miss Cassandra Duncan,
Ms Felicity Hardcastle.
December 2018
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of the other 30 sections
Section 2
Table of Contents
Executive summary 3
Introduction and context 4
Noosa River oyster reef restoration monitoring schedule 9
Monitoring criteria 1- Oyster restoration unit location stability 12
Monitoring criteria 2- Natural recruitment processes 21
Monitoring criteria 3- Community use and enjoyment of the declared fish habitat area 25
Monitoring criteria 4- Other potential effects 28
Conclusions 29
References 29
Appendices 30
2
Section 3
Executive summary
1) Background & Rationale
The principle objective of the Noosa Oyster Reef Restoration Project is to restore
ecologically-functioning oyster reefs to the Noosa River Estuary. Reef units were
installed in November 2017 to begin the restoration. An annual monitoring is part of
the approval (OPW17/0016) that needs to report on: a) reef unit stability; b) oyster
spat recruitment processes; c) lack of negative community usage; and d) impact on
marine plants and shoreline erosion. This report addresses these requirements,
reporting on the findings of two mandated monitoring events (May 2018, Nov. 2018)
done by USC. The methods used were precisely those prescribed in the approved
monitoring schedule, with no modifications.
2) Stability and Position
The reef units can be considered stable. The mean recorded change in position over
12 months was 0.16 m (+/- 0.12 m SD). All oyster reef restoration units moved less
than 0.65 m over one year. No reef unit moved from the designated resource
allocation areas at any site. No reef unit was physically displaced from its anchor
points in the sediment or removed otherwise.
3) Recruitment
Substantial spat fall and oyster growth was found in both monitoring events. In May
2018, an average spat fall of 387.5 oysters/m2 (+/- 537.7 oysters/m2 SD) was
recorded, and in November 2018 it was 306.1 oysters/m2 (+/- 575.1 oysters/m2 SD).
There was a significant increase in the size of newly recruited oysters on the reefs.
Here oysters increased in size from 14.3 mm (+/- 6.5 mm SD) in May 2018, to 19.1
mm (+/- 8.9 mm SD) in November 2018. The favourable spat fall and oyster growth
are an encouraging bellwether for the reefs to develop into biologically stable
systems over the coming years.
4) Interaction with Public
There were signs of damage to a few reef units most likely caused by boat propellers
and anchors, evident during the November 2018 monitoring event. We repaired
these units where possible. Limited data suggest that the use of the oyster reefs by
recreational fishers possibly appears to have increased over time. We suggest that
closer monitoring of this aspect may be useful in coming years.
5) Marine Plants & Shoreline Erosion
Whilst there was some change to the edges of seagrass beds, there were no
significant changes to the distribution, cover, or species composition of existing
seagrass beds or mangroves forests within 50 m of each reefs. We found no
shoreline erosion in the vicinity of the reef units. At two sites in Lake Weyba and
Weyba Creek dugong grass Halophila ovalis was found near reef sites where it was
not recorded at the time of reef placement.
6) Conclusions
Overall, the results of the 2018 monitoring of the Noosa oyster reefs are encouraging
and positive. Two of the targets have been fully met (reef unit stability, no impact on
plants and shorelines). The target of oyster and other invertebrate growth is tracking
very favourably. The observation of reef unit damage from anchoring needs
consideration of closer monitoring and possibly targeted education / information may
be considered for this issue. The next scheduled monitoring event is mandated for
May 2019.
3
Section 4
Introduction and context
Oyster reef restoration in the Noosa River;
The principal objective of the Noosa River Oyster Reef Restoration project is to restore
natural oyster reef habitat in the Noosa Estuary. This requires the addition of suitable hard
substrate for oyster spat to settle, and allowing natural recruitment and reef-formation
processes to recover to areas that historically supported oyster reefs.
The oyster settlement substrate comprises oyster reef restoration units. These units are
made from the most suitable recruitment material - oyster shells held together by a natural
coir fiber bag. The units are raised above the muddy and sandy marine substrates, thereby
mimicking the vertical relief of the original oyster reefs to facilitate natural recruitment
processes (Figure 1, 2). We expected that natural recruitment processes would cement the
dead shell together and form part of the mosaic of habitats within the estuary including both
soft and hard structural habitat types, thereby creating a structurally diverse mosaic of
habitats that is predicted to be beneficial to a range of fish species, including species of
harvested in commercial and recreational fisheries (e.g. yellowfin bream, estuary cod, tailor,
mangrove jack, and moses perch).
The restoration sites that were chosen as locations for oyster reef restoration in the Noosa
River (Figure 3) because they:
1) are in reaches of the lower Noosa River estuary and in Weyba Creek from which
oysters were harvested historically;
2) are within the depth range known to be suitable for oyster reefs to grow;
3) are in locations where viable oyster larvae were recorded during recent recruitment
studies; and
4) have an extent where the final restored area will not exceed the historical areal
extent of oyster reefs before commercial harvesting took place.
Figure 1 Coir mesh bag filled with recycled oyster shells; the principle restoration unit
4
Section 5
Figure 2 Approved coastal engineering drawing of the oyster reef restoration units installed in the Noosa River
5
Section 6
Figure 3 Map of oyster restoration sites and marine habitats in the Noosa River
6
2 ' ~
RE Sa mo.
Ne oh PRT 4
De See dae ees eas
thee ithe —
fhe os ; ci ~
ete (cen mic
Nc hae 7 Pe ae
SSE re! he P Pe | € ]
a 7 gh de hg
wel Shaw! > _ ot ~ +) ~
eed : OM alte ey
WER eres om : ¥ MEN EE Pe
ee birt - fi Sri AS 9 owe
sana is Ray ‘ ; co = a TR Pn egos aT
af eee © 1 ag SBF 4 se ATED
se S oo oe ss sie ‘ah pe?
N Wists oN i Sh a of ot Ls Y
hb
ety aa 4 7 AH ane e [a4 a 1 ry re 4 ’ -\
Ros Ses ioe et fF Pie
i Ne Syl arenes oe eee do A é or at
i be aATann ee a - tins wid Pea * ae? vt Pod Pe a ‘3
ie Tipo = a SEGRE ray at Dc | eee) ae PS
| s a a i "a al x
re eee og SS ig CE PE ace hs pF SR ae
Saf “be > Tes ‘o ee lon BT A, aes “ihe, FS Rex: Re Pom
ie ay ee eee eh RR eS am
ae a ‘ : = ones ne ie ted - VP OVa™ Pae
" a oe eae ht a S/R ee ee be Fae ee:
4 a fa Ae ie th. ie ys x y PM F inet Peer ae
oe , ee od bg yaihiee shear agg ato, ee ee ay Poy SBT Ee Dol ae
eh. P he ar eee oS aaa Mey hile, —— r a. read Fey ons A
eS oP Pe ae a ms ted - rus, A a Mair. id Cees apes
te ” A IS a ‘Pe ay Pty a a be ied A a 4 = ht a Pe Ss Soe
a SN Lt ed ep, Sn i BY J , FP ReaD Pe
eins PO gE otal oY Ni Pe ee ad PAB ay A pee on fy
a SS yt ae PR ea Sas eee io a ae ic ellie 2
aca oe: oi Fr. ARM Tie ee a en ee F Bee Rt ee ca
Pe wre ye re So Se A$ es ye. hv ee pe Ary ae a >
CY) oe de ee Fae Pe xT sD) a ome Ss oe
= ee: a a een Titel Bey a Se
: y ae TS 26 RESTS 2 a
| ~ — ~ ~ rs San! yy Me . : ad Pl “~ + d
J ¥ pets he ae ers eer
j ad i139 iid Ae) ce a Dt aerernd wy
Eee a] “ C as ret id eg a :
; ea ee TY fey - r a a’
p *”; ro ry ~ Poe dl oe i
‘ Ea ye : = |
a " , ¢
- = SE ta ie barn er oe :% J =
Pooky ° hae By : re + Sem
eS | e ge hk ) b
, te if > nord
ae _ * wer » Me
eX. F m wr 4 .
; se ’ Ne
#3: a 3
at a
at ed »
oo Te ~
0 0.5 1 1.5 2km
“U S( @ Oyster Reefs | pag “yo ——5
@® Seagrass
@™ Mangroves
Figure 3 Map of oyster restoration sites and marine habitats in the Noosa RiverSection 7
Oyster reef unit installations
The installation of oyster reef units to the Noosa River was done during a period of three
days, from 20 to 22 November 2017 (Figure 4). All works and surveys were conducted by a
team comprising professionals of Noosa Jetty Builders, and marine scientists from the
University of the Sunshine Coast. All oyster reef units and signs were installed exactly
according to specifications set out in the permit conditions and any instructions provided
regarding procedures (Table 1). All reef units are located to avoid any damage to marine
plants or surrounding ecosystem (Table 1, Figure 4). Key observations during the placement
of the reef units and associated signage include the following:
• No marine plants were disturbed during the installation of the reef units or signs.
Before each reef unit was placed on the seafloor, we carefully examined the site to
ascertain that no seagrass, mangrove aerial roots, or any other marine vegetation
was present. This ensured that no direct placement impacts occurred at any of the
sites (Table 1).
• All operations were localised to the immediate site where reef units were sunk onto
the seabed. Thus, no habitat outside the RAA area was impacted in any form by the
reef units or the signage.
• Poles holding the signs were installed using a narrow water jet ‘spear’. Use of this
gear ensured that only a very narrow (< 20 cm diameter in all cases) area of the
seabed was disturbed (Figure 4). Sign posts were then driven further into the
substrate, to a mean depth of 2.7 m (min 1.8 m, max 3.5 m; Table 1), using a post
driver (Figure 4).
• According to engineering specifications, we used marine grade hardwood stakes
(sourced from the Australian Hardwood Stake Company) to secure the reef units on
the seafloor. The stakes were hammered into the seabed to a mean depth of 0.9 m
(min 0.5 m, max 1.2 m) - depending on hardness of the seabed (Table 1), at a mean
angle of 82.4º (min 75 º, max 90 º).
• Pre- and post-installation photographs and videos of all sites are available
electronically (OneDrive folder). Full access to the all electronically stored imagery
has been provided to Noosa Council. In addition, we are happy to grant access to
whoever may require it (please email: [email protected]).
Figure 4 The resulting very small footprint of sign posts following installation by the water jet
(left) and a completed oyster reef in Weyba Creek (right).
7
Section 8
Table 1. Completed oyster-reef installations in the Noosa River, listing their exact position, the date of placement, characteristics of posts and
stakes driven into the seabed to secure signage and reef units, and any presence and/or damage to marine vegetation.
Site Position Installation Depth to Stakes to secure reef units Presence of, or damage
Number Latitude Longitude date which sign Depth of Angle of stake to, marine plants and/or
post is driven stake into relative to adjacent habitats or
into the seabed seabed (degrees) ecosystems.
seabed (m) (m)
1 reef units not installed - seabed not compact enough
2 -26.38333096 153.045835 20/11/17 2.8 1.2 79 None
3 -26.38673804 153.043291 20/11/17 2.8 1.2 75 None
4 -26.39367197 153.044599 20/11/17 2.9 1.1 84 None
5 -26.394757 153.049933 20/11/17 2.4 0.5 82 None
6 -26.39245399 153.051636 20/11/17 3.2 1.2 85 None
7 -26.39351204 153.054941 20/11/17 3.3 1.2 77 None
8 -26.39491903 153.061679 20/11/17 2.4 1.2 90 None
9 -26.38954598 153.070696 21/11/17 1.8 0.5 86 None
10 -26.38452999 153.071546 21/11/17 2.0 0.6 87 None
11 -26.39817104 153.080595 21/11/17 2.3 0.5 76 None
12 -26.40045603 153.077035 21/11/17 2.9 0.5 79 None
13 -26.41099703 153.071263 22/11/17 3.5 1.2 87 None
14 -26.41184301 153.0712 22/11/17 3.2 0.5 83 None
15 reef units not installed – presence of seagrass
16 -26.43981904 153.062079 22/11/17 2.9 0.6 84 None
8
Section 9
Noosa River oyster reef restoration monitoring schedule
As part of the development approval for installing the oyster reefs, the stakeholders report
yearly (in December) to Queensland Department of Agriculture and Fisheries on the
progress of the oyster restoration project, especially relating to;
1. Oyster restoration unit stability (i.e. oyster reef restoration units remain within the
allocated resource allocation areas);
2. Restoration of natural recruitment processes over long term (i.e. spat recruitment
rates demonstrate that the biogenic matrix will be sufficient to hold the structure of
the oyster reef restoration units in place following complete degradation of the
supporting coir material during the establishment phase and to facilitate ongoing
natural recruitment processes);
3. Equitable Community Impacts (i.e. ensuring fair community use of the river system is
not impacted by placement of the Oyster Reef Restoration Units within the Resource
Allocation Areas - to be monitored using a council operated community feedback
system); and
4. No negative impact on marine plants or shoreline erosion (i.e. ensuring the oyster
restoration units do not impede natural marine plant growth or accelerate coastal
erosion processes).
These performance objectives are quantified using established monitoring protocols for
oyster reef restoration, and follow international best practice for monitoring restored oyster
habitats (Baggett et al. 2014). The monitoring program is designed to be adaptive, with
annual reviews against the performance objectives for the project (See Table 2 for detailed
monitoring requirements).
Two monitoring events occurred in 2018; one 6 months post installation in May 2018, and
the other 12 months post installation in November 2018. The results of these monitoring
events are covered in this report. There have also been detailed surveys of the fish and
crustacean assemblages associating with the reefs throughout 2018. Although the details of
these surveys are not covered in this report, they are available from USC upon request.
9
Section 10
Table 2 Noosa oyster reef restoration monitoring schedule as agreed to by all stakeholders
in RAA 2016CA0575, and including mark-ups from Department of Agriculture and Fisheries
dated 6 January 2017.
Performance objective Monitoring method Frequency Corrective action where
performance objective is not met
1. Oyster Restoration Unit location stability
Oyster restoration units Visually inspect the stability of Every 6 months A professional coastal engineer
remain within the designated oyster reef units and record the for a minimum of shall be consulted to suggest
Resource Allocation Areas. precise GPS position (± cm three years remedial action for any oyster reef
scale), and size of each unit Additional restoration units that collapse, or
(following international best monitoring will be shift by > 1 m.
practice: Baggett et al. 2015). conducted within
Use GIS software to contrast 2 weeks of Any oyster reef restoration units that
the position, footprint, size and substantial rainfall move outside the designated
area of oyster reef restoration events (i.e. events Resource Allocation Areas within 3
units between monitoring that exceed 50- years will be removed. A
events and assess any potential year Average professional ecologist will confirm
movement. Rainfall Intervals). the cause of the shift.
2. Natural Recruitment Processes
Oysters and other sessile Quantify the recruitment of Every 6 months We will contrast: 1) the rate of
benthic invertebrates recruit oysters and other sessile for a minimum of oyster recruitment; 2) the cover of
to reef restoration units to benthic invertebrates to reef three years, oysters and all other sessile benthic
establish a biogenic matrix, restoration units, and measure unless otherwise invertebrates; and 3) the stability of
which binds oyster shells in changes in the cover of oysters detailed within the biogenic matrix among oyster
place, prior to degradation of and other sessile benthic corrective actions reef restoration units and between
coir material. invertebrates over time monitoring events.
(following international best
1
The Key Performance practice: Baggett et al. 2015). Any restoration units that fail to
Indicators for this are: meet the Key Performance
1.) Oyster recruitment: The monitoring methods for Indicators within 3 years will be
successful recruitment of each Indicators are: removed.
oyster spat in at least 1 out of 1.) Oyster recruitment: marked
the 3 years (i.e. 33% of the oyster shells will be fastened to If major damage occurs to the coir
time) post deployment the outside of restoration units. mesh of any oyster reef restoration
(following international best These shells will be harvested units before a stable biogenic matrix
practice of 40%: Baggett et al. at regular intervals (15 oyster has formed, and loose oyster shells
1
2015). ; shells per location on each are being lost from the structure, it
event – i.e. 5 shells per unit) will be repaired in-situ by hand
2.) Cover of oysters and and the density and size of weaving. Any such repairs will be
other sessile benthic recruits recorded; conducted carefully, and by hand, to
invertebrates: an upward ensure that there is no damage to
trend in the cover of sessile 2.) Cover of oysters and other established areas of biogenic
benthic invertebrates growing sessile benthic invertebrates: matrix.
on restoration units; and photographs of ten quadrats (25
cm x 25cm), distributed in a
3.) Establishment of stable stratified random design, across
biogenic matrix: structural each oyster reef restoration unit
rigidity of oyster restoration will be taken at regular intervals
units, denoting a stable to quantify the change in cover
biogenic matrix after 3 years of oysters and other sessile
post deployment, which is benthic invertebrates (Baggett
1
sufficient to hold oyster shells et al. 2015) .
in place.
3.) Establishment of stable
biogenic matrix: assess the
structural integrity of each
oyster reef restoration unit and
monitor the degradation of coir
material. Structural integrity will
be quantified by measuring the
proportion of oyster shells (from
10 shells that are selected at
random at each location), which
can be removed easily by hand
manipulation. The rate of coir
degradation will be measured
10
Section 11
by monitoring changes to the
condition of coir mesh over time
from the ten photo-quadrats,
which are collected twice per
year to assess changes in the
cover of benthic invertebrates at
each oyster reef restoration
unit.
3. Community use and enjoyment of the declared Fish Habitat Area
Oyster restoration units do Maintain records of community Annual reporting Complaints: within 3 months of
not significantly impair feedback, evidence of of all complaints, receiving each complaint, an
community use and vandalism, and vessel strikes cases of willful investigation (including interview
enjoyment of the declared on the trial oyster reef vandalism, and with the complainant if possible) will
Fish Habitat Area, particularly restoration units. Records will instances of be conducted to determine whether
fishing activities. be comprehensive and include, vessel strike complaints are directly related to
as a minimum set: received for the oyster reef restoration units.
1) the number and type of three-year trial Potential response actions will be
complaints received (also, to period. provided to the Department of
allow the Department to gauge Agriculture and Fisheries in the
the success, any positive annual report. If complaints persist,
comments should also be and grievances exceed the direct
provided); benefit of oyster reef restoration, the
2) the type, nature, and severity particular oyster reef restoration unit
of any acts of willful will be removed as soon as
vandalism; and practical, and prior to the 4th
3) the type and severity of any anniversary post deployment.
vessel strike.
Willful vandalism and vessel
Strikes
If there are consistent and / or
significant cases of willful vandalism
to, or instances of vessels striking,
the oyster reef restoration units, the
cause of the impact will be identified
and used to guide the delivery of a
community education campaign
aimed at reducing these types of
incidents. If the education campaign
does not reduce cases of willful
vandalism and / or instances of
vessel strike, the oyster reef
restoration units that are
responsible will be removed prior to
the 4th anniversary post
deployment.
4. Other potential effects:
Oyster reef restoration Map the area of marine plant Annually for a Where monitoring shows that there
units do not cause a habitats (seagrass, mangroves) in minimum of three are substantial, and consistent,
decline in the extent of the immediate vicinity (i.e. with a years, or until any losses of marine plants, or erosion
marine plants within a 50 50 m buffer) of each oyster failed restoration of estuarine shorelines, in the
m radius of the restoration restoration area, using high- units have been immediate vicinity of oyster reef
units, and are not resolution GPS (cm scale) and removed. restoration units, and these
attributed to erosion of field-validated aerial imagery changes can unambiguously be
adjacent shorelines or (sourced from Nearmap). Monitor attributed to oyster reef restoration
other ambient changes in the composition activities, the problem units that are
environmental impacts. coverage and condition of responsible for such impacts shall
seagrass within 50 m radius be removed (as soon as practical
around the oyster reefs. Map the and prior to the following annual
location and condition of estuarine reporting anniversary).
shorelines that occur in the
immediate vicinity (i.e. with a 50 m
buffer) of each oyster reef, using
high-resolution GPS (cm scale)
and field-validated aerial imagery
(sourced from Nearmap).
11
Section 12
Monitoring criteria 1- Oyster restoration unit location stability
Performance objective
Oyster restoration units remain within the designated Resource Allocation Areas.
Monitoring method and frequency
Visually inspect the stability of oyster reef units and record the precise GPS position (± cm
scale), and size of each unit (following international best practice: Baggett et al. 2015). Use
GIS software to contrast the position, footprint, size and area of oyster reef restoration units
between monitoring events and assess any potential movement.
Frequency: Every 6 months for a minimum of three years. Additional monitoring will be
conducted within 2 weeks of substantial rainfall events (i.e. events that exceed 50-year
Average Rainfall Intervals).
Was the performance objective met?
No units moved outside of the RAA area, and all repairable reefs were repaired. Therefore,
all aspects of this performance objective were met, and no further action is necessary.
Supporting Evidence
No oyster restoration units moved beyond the RAA areas, and no units moved more than 1
m during either monitoring event (Table 3). Maps of each of the sites (Figures 5 to 18) are
provided below to support this lack of movement of bags. High-resolution maps and csv files
of the locations of the reefs at all three survey points (following installation, and at 6 and 12
month monitoring events) are available from USC upon request.
12
Section 13
Table 3 List of reef site sites and reef units, their positions as given by the coastal surveyor,
and the distance these units had moved from the initial installations (as recorded by the
coastal surveyor) to the 6 and 12 month monitoring events. Distances measured are from
the center points of oyster restoration units.
Easting Northing Distance moved Distance moved 12
Site Surveyor ID (GDA94) (GDA94) 6 months (m) months (m)
2 2.1 504557.693 7081870.54 0.01 0.12
2.2 504562.401 7081871.525 0.09 0.04
2.3 504561.797 7081866.981 0.11 0.06
3 3.1 504297.232 7081482.809 0.05 0.17
3.2 504300.191 7081487.149 0.21 0.08
3.3 504302.058 7081482.224 0.30 0.03
4 4.1 504447.682 7080720.227 0.39 0.09
4.2 504451.864 7080722.81 0.33 0.28
4.3 504452.517 7080718.084 0.13 0.17
5 5.1 504977.921 7080596.146 0.20 0.02
5.2 504980.268 7080598.985 0.08 0.11
5.3 504983.03 7080596.309 0.28 0.37
6 6.1 505140.806 7080848.337 0.19 0.09
6.2 505147.768 7080846.296 0.20 0.42
6.3 505142.59 7080842.496 0.20 0.14
7 7.1 505475.222 7080728.716 0.02 0.21
7.2 505481.921 7080724.223 0.06 0.07
7.3 505476.882 7080722.755 0.20 0.20
8 8.1 506148.168 7080578.329 0.44 0.11
8.2 506151.843 7080583.145 0.12 0.16
8.3 506154.632 7080579.701 0.57 0.65
9 9.1 507047.3 7081174.147 0.24 0.22
9.2 507052.487 7081172.727 0.46 0.12
9.3 507048.33 7081169.39 0.03 0.15
10 10.1 507131.275 7081731.424 0.10 0.21
10.2 507136.871 7081731.471 0.18 0.11
10.3 507135.843 7081726.658 0.27 0.10
11 11.1 508035.278 7080213.498 0.03 0.17
11.2 508040.293 7080216.237 0.15 0.14
11.3 508038.955 7080212.182 0.23 0.07
12 12.1 507678.59 7079963.401 0.17 0.07
12.2 507684.058 7079964.39 0.18 0.11
12.3 507683.416 7079959.64 0.06 0.10
13 13.1 507103.328 7078792.463 0.20 0.12
3.2 507107.243 7078796.008 0.16 0.08
13.3 507107.661 7078790.417 0.06 0.15
14 14.1 507090.833 7078704.893 0.18 0.25
14.2 507094.457 7078706.761 0.20 0.39
14.3 507094.824 7078701.819 0.12 0.13
16 16.1 506199.719 7075595.579 0.21 0.07
16.2 506204.963 7075595.325 0.18 0.04
16.3 506200.595 7075590.153 0.16 0.19
Mean 0.18 0.16
StDev 0.12 0.12
13
Table 3 List of reef site sites and reef units, their positions as given by the coastal surveyor,
and the distance these units had moved from the initial installations (as recorded by the
coastal surveyor) to the 6 and 12 month monitoring events. Distances measured are from
the center points of oyster restoration units.
Easting Northing Distance moved _ Distance moved 12
Site Surveyor ID — (GDA94) (GDA94) 6 months (m) months (m)
2 2.1 504557.693 7081870.54 0.01 0.12
2.2 504562.401 7081871.525 0.09 0.04
2.3 504561.797 7081866.981 0.11 0.06
3 3.1 504297.232 7081482.809 0.05 0.17
3.2 504300.191 7081487.149 0.21 0.08
3.3 504302.058 7081482.224 0.30 0.03
4 4.1 504447.682 7080720.227 0.39 0.09
4.2 504451.864 7080722.81 0.33 0.28
4.3 504452.517 7080718.084 0.13 0.17
5 5.1 504977.921 7080596.146 0.20 0.02
5.2 504980.268 7080598.985 0.08 0.11
5.3 504983.03 7080596.309 0.28 0.37
6 6.1 505140.806 7080848.337 0.19 0.09
6.2 505147.768 7080846.296 0.20 0.42
6.3 505142.59 7080842.496 0.20 0.14
7 7.1 505475.222 7080728.716 0.02 0.21
7.2 505481.921 7080724.223 0.06 0.07
7.3 505476.882 7080722.755 0.20 0.20
8 8.1 506148.168 7080578.329 0.44 0.11
8.2 506151.843 7080583.145 0.12 0.16
8.3 506154.632 7080579.701 0.57 0.65
9 9.1 507047.3 7081174.147 0.24 0.22
9.2 507052.487 7081172.727 0.46 0.12
9.3 507048.33 7081169.39 0.03 0.15
10 10.1 507131.275 7081731.424 0.10 0.21
10.2 507136.871 7081731.471 0.18 0.11
10.3 507135.843 7081726.658 0.27 0.10
11 11.1 508035.278 7080213.498 0.03 0.17
11.2 508040.293 7080216.237 0.15 0.14
11.3 508038.955 7080212.182 0.23 0.07
12 12.1 507678.59 7079963.401 0.17 0.07
12.2. 507684.058 7079964.39 0.18 0.11
12.3 507683.416 7079959.64 0.06 0.10
13 13.1 507103.328 7078792.463 0.20 0.12
3.2. 507107.243 7078796.008 0.16 0.08
13.3 507107.661 7078790.417 0.06 0.15
14 14.1 507090.833 7078704.893 0.18 0.25
14.2 507094.457 7078706.761 0.20 0.39
14.3 507094.824 7078701.819 0.12 0.13
16 16.1 506199.719 7075595.579 0.21 0.07
16.2 506204.963 7075595.325 0.18 0.04
16.3 506200.595 7075590.153 0.16 0.19
Mean 0.18 0.16
StDev 0.12 0.12
13Section 14
Figure 5 Map of (A) mangrove edges and (B) oyster reef unit positions (at installation, and
at 6 and 12 months post installation) at site 2 in the Noosa River.
Figure 6 Map of (A) aerial extents of seagrass and mangrove edges and (B) oyster reef unit
positions (at installation, and at 6 and 12 months post installation) at site 3 in the Noosa
River.
14
Section 15
Figure 7 Map of (A) mangrove edges and (B) oyster reef unit positions (at installation, and
at 6 and 12 months post installation) at site 4 in the Noosa River.
Figure 8 Map of (A) aerial extents of seagrass and mangrove edges and (B) oyster reef unit
positions (at installation, and at 6 and 12 months post installation) at site 5 in the Noosa
River.
15
Section 16
Figure 9 Map of (A) aerial extents of seagrass and mangrove edges and (B) oyster reef unit
positions (at installation, and at 6 and 12 months post installation) at site 6 in the Noosa
River.
Figure 10 Map of (A) aerial extents of seagrass and mangrove edges and (B) oyster reef
unit positions (at installation, and at 6 and 12 months post installation) at site 7 in the Noosa
River.
16
Section 17
Figure 11 Map of (A) mangrove edges and (B) oyster reef unit positions (at installation, and
at 6 and 12 months post installation) at site 8 in the Noosa River.
Figure 12 Map of (A) mangrove edges and (B) oyster reef unit positions (at installation, and
at 6 and 12 months post installation) at site 9 in the Noosa River.
17
Section 18
Figure 13 Map of (A) mangrove edges and (B) oyster reef unit positions (at installation, and
at 6 and 12 months post installation) at site 10 in the Noosa River.
Figure 14 Map of (A) mangrove edges and (B) oyster reef unit positions (at installation, and
at 6 and 12 months post installation) at site 11 in the Noosa River.
18
Section 19
Figure 15 Map of (A) aerial extents of seagrass and mangrove edges and (B) oyster reef
unit positions (at installation, and at 6 and 12 months post installation) at site 12 in the
Noosa River.
Figure 16 Map of (A) aerial extents of seagrass and mangrove edges and (B) oyster reef
unit positions (at installation, and at 6 and 12 months post installation) at site 13 in the
Noosa River.
19
Section 20
Figure 17 Map of (A) aerial extents of seagrass and mangrove edges and (B) oyster reef
unit positions (at installation, and at 6 and 12 months post installation) at site 14 in the
Noosa River.
Figure 18 Map of (A) vegetation monitoring area (note there was no seagrass or mangroves
at this site) and (B) oyster reef unit positions (at installation, and at 6 and 12 months post
installation) at site 16 in the Noosa River.
20
Section 21
Monitoring criteria 2- Natural recruitment processes
Performance objective: Oysters and other sessile benthic invertebrates recruit to reef
restoration units to establish a biogenic matrix, which binds oyster shells in place, prior to
degradation of coir material. The Key Performance Indicators for this are:
1. Oyster recruitment: successful recruitment of oyster spat in at least 1 out of the 3
years (i.e. 33% of the time) post deployment (following international best practice of
40%: Baggett et al. 2015);
2. Cover of oysters and other sessile benthic invertebrates: an upward trend in the
cover of sessile benthic invertebrates growing on restoration units; and
3. Establishment of stable biogenic matrix: structural rigidity of oyster restoration
units, denoting a stable biogenic matrix after 3 years post deployment, which is
sufficient to hold oyster shells in place.
Monitoring method: Quantify the recruitment of oysters and other sessile benthic
invertebrates to reef restoration units, and measure changes in the cover of oysters and
other sessile benthic invertebrates over time (following international best practice)(Baggett et
al., 2015). The monitoring methods for each Indicators are:
1. Oyster recruitment: marked oyster shells will be fastened to the outside of
restoration units. These shells will be harvested at regular intervals (15 oyster shells
per location on each event – i.e. 5 shells per unit) and the density and size of recruits
recorded;
2. Cover of oysters and other sessile benthic invertebrates: photographs of ten
quadrats (25 cm x 25cm), distributed in a stratified random design, across each
oyster reef restoration unit will be taken at regular intervals to quantify the change in
cover of oysters and other sessile benthic invertebrates (Baggett et al., 2015).
3. Establishment of stable biogenic matrix: assess the structural integrity of each
oyster reef restoration unit and monitor the degradation of coir material. Structural
integrity will be quantified by measuring the proportion of oyster shells (from 10 shells
that are selected at random at each location), which can be removed easily by hand
manipulation. The rate of coir degradation will be measured by monitoring changes to
the condition of coir mesh over time from the ten photo-quadrats, which are collected
twice per year to assess changes in the cover of benthic invertebrates at each oyster
reef restoration unit.
Frequency: Every 6 months for a minimum of three years, unless otherwise detailed within
corrective actions
Was the performance objective met?
We identified significant oyster spat settlement and growth at all oyster reefs. Whilst this has
not yet proliferated to cover of oysters on the outside of the restoration units, or to fully
cementing shells within the units together, these positive spat fall and growth results indicate
that these performance criteria are likely to be met in the coming years. Therefore, no further
action is necessary at this early stage of the project.
Supporting evidence
Oyster recruitment
We collected shells from two sources;
1. 5 shells collected from within the coir bags at each oyster restoration unit (henceforth
‘bags’), and
2. 5 shells collected from ‘oyster necklaces’ which were strings of drilled oyster shells
tied together with fishing line and then affixed to the top of the oyster restoration units
during installation (henceforth ‘necklaces’).
All live oysters growing on the shells were identified to species, counted, and their height
measured, and the density of oysters calculated as number of oysters per square meter of
shell (as recommended by Baggett et al., 2015).
21
Section 22
We identified significant oyster settlement during both monitoring events on both necklaces
and in the oyster restoration unit bags (Figure 19, Figure S1, Table 4, Table 5). Overall, we
identified an average of 387.5 spat/m2 in May 2018, 306.1 oysters/m2 in November 2018,
and 349.9 oysters/m2 across both monitoring events (Table 4). Whilst we identified some
changes in the densities of oysters at specific restoration sites (Figure S1, Table 5), with
some sites showing increased oyster density between sampling events, and others lower
oyster density, the overall pattern was for a reduction in oyster density between monitoring
events 1 and 2 (Table 4). This change was, however, offset by a significant change in the
size-frequency distribution of oyster shells on the reefs (Figure 20, Figure S2). Here oysters
increased in size from 14.3 mm (+/- 6.5 mm SD) in May 2018, to 19.1 mm (+/- 8.9 mm SD)
in November 2018. Consequently, it is likely that intermediate sized oysters (6-15 mm in
length) in May 2018 grew to the larger sizes (i.e. <30 mm) by November 2018, and that the
smaller oysters (<6mm) either grew to an intermediate size, or did not survive the winter.
Consequently, despite a reduction in overall average density, this was offset by a larger
average oyster size during the second monitoring event.
Figure 19 Example images of juvenile oysters growing on shells collected from within the
oyster reef restoration units.
Table 4 List of oyster quantification methods, and the average densities (with standard
deviations) of oysters during both monitoring events, and for all monitoring events in 2018.
Monitoring event 1 Monitoring event 2 Overall (both events)
2 2 2
Average (spat/m ) StDev Average (spat/m ) StDev Average (spat/m ) StDev
Necklaces 543.7 643.5 493.9 513.4 525.8 599.3
Bags 272.9 413.3 230.9 438.2 251.9 425.9
All 385.7 537.7 306.1 475.1 349.9 511.7
22
Section 23
Table 5 Summary of average oyster density (with standard deviation) across all oyster
restoration sites. Note that all sites recorded significant spat settlement. Necklaces were
unrecoverable from three sites in November 2018 sue to anchor damage.
May 2018 Nov 2018
Bags Necklace Bags Necklace
2 2 2 2
Site Avg (spat/m ) StDev Avg (spat/m ) StDev Avg (spat/m ) StDev Avg (spat/m ) StDev
2 114.7 153.4 159.9 413.5 135.7 153.3 212.5 316.4
3 131.5 132.8 217.9 219.4 37.9 82.4 320.2 364.6
4 49.6 75.1 229.0 274.9 72.4 92.7 317.6 305.0
5 544.8 307.4 1399.2 961.6 473.1 315.7 550.5 601.5
6 165.8 181.3 475.0 562.5 282.8 323.9 No shells recoverable
7 191.1 279.7 664.4 363.3 94.5 195.3 No shells recoverable
8 810.0 944.4 1229.5 527.7 1101.2 984.6 0.0 0.0
9 300.5 374.0 611.7 861.9 57.8 172.3 672.9 278.2
10 145.7 156.9 842.1 722.7 82.1 131.5 No shells recoverable
11 279.8 321.7 409.9 377.3 178.6 277.4 666.1 764.4
12 340.5 308.6 825.5 548.3 86.5 126.6 758.9 511.0
13 589.8 527.2 551.3 316.8 475.4 518.8 1056.5 425.7
14 142.0 178.3 428.7 675.4 117.2 164.2 793.7 468.3
16 15.5 60.0 0 0 37.8 79.2 45.5 150.8
0.35
Proportion of oysters
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0-2
2-4
4-6
0-2
2-4
4-6
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-40
40-50
10-15
15-20
20-25
25-30
30-40
40-50
6-10
6-10
>50
>50
May 2018 November 2018
Size Range
Figure 20 Size frequency distribution of oyster shells across all samples taken in May and
November 2018.
Cover of oysters and other sessile invertebrates
At this stage, we were not able to identify any significant settlement of invertebrates on the
outside of the coir bags. This is unsurprising as significant growth of invertebrates on the
outside of the coir mesh bags was not expected within the first year, and therefore not a
compulsory success criteria for the first year in the monitoring program. We anticipate,
however, that given the positive indications of spat recruitment and oyster growth, that it is
likely that this target will be achieved fully in the coming years. We were, however, able to
use the quadrat samples (see figure 21) to show that there has been no significant
degradation of the coir mesh, that it is still strong, and that the gauge of the rope has not
been narrowed by any natural decomposition as yet. Similarly, we not that there is minimal
macroalgal coverage on the bags (<1% in all cases), meaning that there is no significant
fouling occurring that would limit the settlement of oysters either on, or into, the oyster
restoration units into the future.
Establishment of stable biogenic matrix
The development of the reefs is in the early stages, therefore 100% of randomly selected
oyster shells were still easily moved during both monitoring events. This is unsurprising as
the development of stable biogenic matric was not expected within the first year. We
anticipate, however, that given the positive indications of spat recruitment and oyster growth,
that this performance criteria will likely will be achieved in the coming years.
23
Section 24
Figure 21 Example images of quadrat photos taken on oyster reef restoration units, here at
reefs 13 (top row) and 16 (bottom row). We did not identify any significant growth of
invertebrates on the outside of the oyster reef units, but there was also no significant
degradation of the coir mesh noted.
24
Section 25
Monitoring criteria 3- Community use and enjoyment of the declared fish
habitat area
Performance objective: Oyster restoration units do not significantly impair community use
and enjoyment of the declared Fish Habitat Area, particularly fishing activities.
Monitoring method: Maintain records of community feedback, evidence of vandalism, and
vessel strikes on the trial oyster reef restoration units. Records will be comprehensive and
include, as a minimum set:
1. the number and type of complaints received (also, to allow the Department to gauge
the success, any positive comments should also be provided);
2. the type, nature, and severity of any acts of wilful vandalism; and
3. the type and severity of any vessel strike.
Frequency: Annual reporting of all complaints, cases of willful vandalism, and instances of
vessel strike received for the three-year trial period.
Was the performance objective met? Noosa Council holds the data / information on any
complaints from the public. We did not identify any willful vandalism of the reefs, but we did
identify several instances of boat propeller and anchor strikes in the November 2018
monitoring event.
Supporting Evidence
Noosa Council is the designated contact for comments regarding the oyster reef restoration
project in the Noosa River, and of how this project affects the use and enjoyment of the
declared fish habitat area by the community. This is clearly stated on the signage at each
oyster reef restoration site (Figure 22).
We identified some damage to oyster reefs during the monitoring events (summarized in
Table 6). During the monitoring event in May 2018, only one reef required repairs. In
November 2018, most reefs required repair, and some coir bags were unrepairable. It is
likely that the majority of damage to the oyster reefs is caused by being struck by boat
propellers (especially at sites where bags were torn), and/or poorly placed or dragging boat
anchors (especially at sites where bags were torn and/or moved from their position on the
reef). During the November 2018 monitoring event, four of the reefs were also badly fouled
by fishing line and/or abandoned crab pots. This fishing gear was removed from the reefs
and disposed of. Combined, this damage resulted oyster spat necklaces being impossible to
retrieve from some reefs (see monitoring criteria 2, Table 5).
Members of the USC team have conducted several surveys on the fish fauna associated
with the oyster reefs in the Noosa River, beyond the monitoring events detailed here. In
association with these surveys, team members have taken note of the number of reefs
where fishing activities have been occurring (Table 7). Whilst this is simply a snapshot view
of the types of activities taking place around the reefs, it is indicative of the potential damage
occurring to the reefs. The key observation is a general increase in the number of fishing
boat at the reefs with time since installations. This is likely due to 1) the general public
becoming increasingly familiar with the locations and benefits of the reefs, 2) media reports
of the positive results regarding fish assemblages coming to light, and 3) the timing of
September school holidays.
Whilst we did not identify any acts of willful vandalism of the oyster reef restoration units
during our monitoring events, many marker buoys (placed on the corner of the reef units; a
compulsory condition of the development approval) were missing during monitoring events.
These were immediately replaced by the USC team. Some buoys were, however, removed
from sites the night after being reinstalled, thereby indicating very regular removal of reef
hardware by members of the public at some sites. This lack of buoys on the corner of the
oyster reefs is likely a contributor to some of the reefs being hit by boat propellers etc. No
25
Section 26
site signage was damaged or modified during the past year, so no maintenance or
replacement has been necessary (Figure 22).
Figure 22 Oyster reef restoration signage being installed at an oyster reef restoration site in
the Noosa River, with text on the sign indicating the contact details at Noosa Council for
comments on the broader oyster restoration project.
26
Section 27
Table 6 List of recorded damage and repairs to oyster reefs during both monitoring events
Site Damage May 2018 Repairs conducted Damage November 2018 Repairs conducted
2 None NA All top bags torn. Buoy Repairs to bags
missing. completed where
possible. Replaced buoy.
3 None NA All top bags torn. Buoy Repairs to bags
missing. completed where
possible. Replaced buoy.
4 None NA Bottom right, and top right Repairs to bags
bag torn. Middle reef unit completed where
covered by significant possible. Crab pot
sand. Right hand reef unit removed.
and nearby buoy tangled
with crab pot.
5 Reef struck by boat which Reef repaired and put All top bags torn. Buoy Repairs to bags
broke mooring, one buoy back in place. missing. completed where
missing Replaced buoy. possible.
6 None NA Middle top bag ripped. Repaired bag.
7 None NA Middle top bag ripped. Repaired bag.
8 Right hand bag moved and Repaired and put back Right hand top bag torn. Repaired bag, replaced
torn, 1 buoy missing on reef. Replaced Buoy missing. buoy.
buoy.
9 Right hand bag moved and Repaired and put back Left hand top bag torn, Repaired bags.
torn, 2 buoys missing. on reef. Replaced right hand reef significantly
buoys. covered by sand, middle
top bag ripped.
10 One buoy missing. Replaced buoy. Top middle bag destroyed, Repaired bag, replaced
significant covering by buoy.
sand. Buoy missing.
11 Two buoys missing. Replaced buoys. Top middle bag torn. Repaired bag.
12 None NA Right top bag torn. Repaired bag.
13 None NA None NA
14 None NA None NA
16 None NA None NA
Table 7 List of days USC team members have surveyed the reefs, and the number of reefs
upon which fishing activities have been noted during these surveys.
Date of field work Number of days Sites visited Activity being completed Sites with boats
present
25-26 November 2017 2 3-8 Ecological function study 0
27-30 November 2017 4 All Fish surveys 0
29-30 December 2017 2 All Fish surveys 2
29-30 January 2018 2 3-8 Ecological function study 0
15-16 February 2018 2 All Fish surveys 1
26-27 March 2018 2 3-8 Ecological function study 2
29-30 March 2018 2 All Fish surveys 1
31 May, 1 June 2018 2 3-8 Ecological function study 0
15-18 May 2018 4 All Fish surveys 2
20-22 May 2018 3 All 6 month monitoring 3
27-28 June 2018 2 All Fish surveys 4
16-17 August 2018 2 All Fish surveys 2
1-2 October 2018 2 All Fish surveys 2
19-20 November 2018 2 All Fish surveys 3
26-27 November 2018 2 All 12 month monitoring 1
27
Section 28
Monitoring criteria 4- Other potential effects
Performance objective
Oyster reef restoration units do not cause a decline in the extent of marine plants within a 50
m radius of the restoration units, and are not attributed to erosion of adjacent shorelines or
other ambient environmental impacts.
Monitoring method
Map the area of marine plant habitats (seagrass, mangroves) in the immediate vicinity (i.e.
with a 50 m buffer) of each oyster restoration area, using high-resolution GPS (cm scale)
and field-validated aerial imagery (sourced from Nearmap) (NearMap, 2018). Monitor
changes in the composition coverage and condition of seagrass within 50 m radius around
the oyster reefs. Map the location and condition of estuarine shorelines that occur in the
immediate vicinity (i.e. with a 50 m buffer) of each oyster reef, using high-resolution GPS
(cm scale) and field-validated aerial imagery (sourced from Nearmap).
Frequency
Annually for a minimum of three years, or until any failed restoration units have been
removed.
Was the performance objective met?
All aspects of this performance objective were met, so no further action is necessary.
Supporting evidence
Mangroves and seagrasses were successfully mapped at each site using the described
methods (Figures 8-21). We identified no significant change in the distribution of mangroves
or seagrasses within the 50 m monitoring area (Table 8; t test, P>0.9), or any erosion to
nearby shorelines. Whilst the footprint of seagrass was lower at some sites, there was no
loss of seagrass attributable to the installation of the reefs (i.e. significant decline of
seagrass away from the reefs, especially within the RAA areas). Photographs of the
mangrove fringe and shoreline within the 50 m monitoring area both before the installation,
and during the 12 month monitoring event are available from USC upon request.
Table 8 Extent of seagrass and length of mangrove edge at within 50m of each oyster
restoration site at installation and 12 months post installation.
Mangroves at Mangroves at 12 Seagrass at Seagrass at 12
2 2
Reef installation (m) months (m) installation (m ) months (m )
2 113.9 119.4 0 0
3 92.0 87.9 1995.9 1443.6
4 135.6 133.8 0 0
5 162.3 175.2 0 0
6 39.4 43.6 1372.1 1590.0
7 43.1 48.2 1480.8 1913.5
8 108.8 112.0 0 0
9 180.8 181.8 0 0
10 110.7 114.4 0 0
11 138.5 137.5 0 0
12 114.4 116.9 151.9 499.0
13 81.7 82.3 2105.0 1707.5
14 134.5 136.2 854.6 765.5
16 0 0 0 0
28
Section 29
No change to seagrass composition or density was identified at any restoration sites. All
sites were dense (>70% cover) and long (>20 cm) eelgrass (Zostera capricorni) (except for
sites 13 and 16- see below). During the 12 month monitoring event, we identified small (leaf
height <1 cm), low coverage (<5%) growth of dugong grass Halophila ovalis inside the RAA
area at site 13, and some small patches within the rocky shore adjacent to site 16. This
seagrass was not present at the sites during installation (Table 1). The growth of seagrass at
these sites is likely due to lower runoff in Lake Weyba and Weyba Creek over the past yeah,
and especially in the past 6 months, and the stabilizing and baffling effects of the reefs on
surrounding sediments (especially at site 13). Further monitoring will be required on these
growing seagrasses.
Conclusions
In this report, we show that;
1. Oyster restoration units have not moved from the RAA area, nor have they moved
greater than 1 m within the RAA area.
2. There has been significant spat settlement and oyster growth at all oyster reef
restoration sites. Whilst this has not yet proliferated to coverage of invertebrates on
the outside of the coir bags, or to the proper stabilisation of shell within the bags (i.e.
cementing of the biogenic reef matrix), these oyster growth results are a positive sign
for the likely success of the reefs in achieving these performance criteria in the near
future.
3. Whilst we did not identify any wilful damage to the oyster restoration units, we did
identify that marker buoys were regularly removed from the oyster restoration sites,
and there have been several instances of boat propeller and anchor strikes on the
reefs. This was repaired where possible.
4. There has been no significant change to the distribution, composition or quality of
seagrass or mangroves around the oyster reef sites. Similarly, there has been no
shoreline erosion at oyster reef sites.
Consequently, two of the four monitoring targets reported on here have been fully met, the
third relating to oyster and invertebrate growth is tracking very favorably with the criteria
likely to be met in the coming years, and the final relating to community usage may require
closer monitoring.
We identified some damage to the oyster reef units from boating activities (principally anchor
and prop damage) at many sites during the November 2018 monitoring event. We have
some evidence to suggest that the use of oyster reefs by fishers has increased over time,
and that some of the ecological benefits of the reefs might therefore be being offset by
fishing. The three reefs more distant from the main boating activities in Lake Weyba and
Weyba Creek (due to the combined effects of limits on access to hire boats, and difficulty of
access due to shallow waters) are the most intact oyster reefs, with no damage recorded in
either 2018 monitoring events. Whilst these reefs do not necessarily have the highest rates
of settlement (the exception being reef number 13, which has the highest average live oyster
density), their success might be the most guaranteed as they are less likely to be damaged
by the sorts of impacts occurring on reefs in the central stretch of the river.
References
BAGGETT, L. P., POWERS, S. P., BRUMBAUGH, R. D., COEN, L. D., DEANGELIS, B. M.,
GREENE, J. K., HANCOCK, B. T., MORLOCK, S. M., ALLEN, B. L., BREITBURG,
D. L., BUSHEK, D., GRABOWSKI, J. H., GRIZZLE, R. E., GROSHOLZ, E. D., LA
PEYRE, M. K., LUCKENBACH, M. W., MCGRAW, K. A., PIEHLER, M. F., WESTBY,
S. R. & ZU ERMGASSEN, P. S. E. 2015. Guidelines for evaluating performance of
oyster habitat restoration. Restoration Ecology, 23, 737-745.
NEARMAP. 2018. NearMap photomaps [Online]. Available: http://www.nearmap.com.au/
[Accessed November 2018].
29
Section 30
Appendices
1500 1500 1500
Oysters/m2
Oysters/m2
Oysters/m2
1000 1000 1000
500 500 500
0 0 0
B N B N B N B N B N B N
May November May November May November
1500
Oysters/m2
1000
500
0
B N B N
May November
1500 1500 1500 1500
Oysters/m2
Oysters/m2
Oysters/m2
Oysters/m2
1000 1000 1000 1000
500 500 500 500
0 0 0 0
B N B N B N B N B N B N B N B N
May November May November May November May November
1500.0 1500 1500
Oysters/m2
Oysters/m2
Oysters/m2
1000.0 1000 1000
500.0 500 500
0.0 0 0
B N B N B N B N B N B N
May November May November May November
1500 1500
Oysters/m2
Oysters/m2
1000 1000
500 500
0 0
B N B N B N B N
May November May November
1500.0
Oysters/m2
1000.0
500.0
0.0
B N B N
May November
Figure S1 Map of oyster reef restoration sites with average (+/- SD) values for oyster
density during May and November 2018 monitoring events in the oyster reef bags (B) and
on the oyster necklaces (N).
30
Section 31
40 40 40
Oyster length
Oyster length
Oyster length
30 30 30
20 20 20
10 10 10
0 0 0
B N B N B N B N B N B N
May November May November May November
40
Oyster length
30
20
10
0
B N B N
May November
40 40 40 40
Oyster length
Oyster length
Oyster length
Oyster length
30 30 30 30
20 20 20 20
10 10 10 10
0 0 0 0
B N B N B N B N B N B N B N B N
May November May November May November May November
40 40 40
Oyster length
Oyster length
Oyster length
30 30 30
20 20 20
10 10 10
0 0 0
B N B N B N B N B N B N
May November May November May November
40 40
Oyster length
Oyster length
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
B N B N B N B N
May November
May November
40
Oyster length
30
20
10
0
B N B N
May November
Figure S2 Map of oyster reef restoration sites with average (+/- SD) values for oyster length
during May and November 2018 monitoring events in the oyster reef bags (B) and on the
oyster necklaces (N).
31