IN THE MATTER of the Exclusive Economic Zone and ...€¦ · M.R., & McMillan, P.J. (1998). Atlas...

Counsel: Myregel Carambas, Solicitor / Morgan Slyfield, Barrister Email: [email protected] Tel: 64-4-474 5439 Environmental Protection Authority Grant Thornton House, 215 Lambton Quay Private Bag 63002, Wellington 6140

IN THE MATTER of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

(Environmental Effects) Act 2012

AND

IN THE MATTER of a Decision-Making Committee appointed by the

Environmental Protection Authority to consider a marine

consent application by Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd to

undertake activities in the Chatham Rise restricted by the

Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

(Environmental Effects) Act 2012

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF MICHAEL EDWARD HUBER (MARINE

MAMMALS)

12 September 2014

1

INTRODUCTION

1. My name is Michael Edward Huber.

2. I am the ANZ Region Techncal Director, Marine Science, and am employed

by Jacobs Group Australia (Jacobs).

3. I have been engaged by the Environmental Protection Authority (“EPA”) to:

(a) prepare a review report of the application information provided by

Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited in terms of the information principles

under section 61 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental

Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act (“the Act”) in relation to marine

mammals;

(b) prepare, at a later date, at the direction of the Decision-Making

Committee, a report that critically appraises the application information

in terms of the assessment of effects of the activity on marine

mammals considering submissions, further information received, the

EPA staff report, applicant’s evidence; and

(c) participate in expert conferencing, and the hearing of the marine

consent application, if directed to do so by the Decision-Making

Committee.

4. I have prepared, in conjunction with Miles Yeates, Tobias Probst and Gareth

Taylor, a report entitled Review of Technical Reports Relating to CRP Marine

Consent Application. Marine Science (Marine Mammals, Fish and Plankton,

and Benthic Ecology), dated February 2014. During the preparation of the

report I engaged with my colleagues in drafting, reviewing and revising the

reports through an iterative process of exchanging draft reports or sections of

reports, literature searches and reviews, and discussion of various issues

relevant to the reports. I also engaged with Miles Yeates in reviewing and

addressing comments made by my Jacobs colleagues Dr Greg Barbara and

Mr Bruce Clarke as part of Jacobs’ internal quality control process. I also

engaged with Miles Yeates in reviewing and addressing comments provided

by the EPA on a first version of the final report submission.

2

5. I have prepared, in conjunction with Miles Yeates and Gareth Taylor, a

further report entitled Assessment of Effects on Marine Mammals from the

Chatham Rocks Phosphate Limited Marine Consent Application, dated 11

September 2014. During the preparation of the report I engaged with my

colleagues in drafting, reviewing and revising the reports through an

iterative process of exchanging draft reports or sections of reports, literature

searches and reviews, and discussion of various issues relevant to the

reports. I also engaged with Miles Yeates in reviewing and addressing

comments made by my Jacobs colleagues Dr Greg Barbara and Mr Bruce

Clarke as part of Jacobs’ internal quality control process. I also engaged

with Miles Yeates in reviewing and addressing comments provided by the

EPA on a draft of the report.

6. A link to the first report is provided in Annexure A to this statement of

evidence.

7. The second report is provided as Annexure B to this statement of

evidence.

QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

8. I have the following qualifications and experience relevant to the evidence I

have provided:

(a) A Bachelor of Science in Oceanography (magna cum laude) from the

University of Washington, August 1975; a Bachelor of Science in

Zoology from the University of Washington, December 1975; and a

Doctor of Philosophy in Oceanography from Scripps Institution of

Oceanography, University of California San Diego, December 1983;

(b) After completing my undergraduate studies and before completing my

post-graduate studies I was employed for 8 months by Dames and

Moore consulting engineers to manage a water quality analysis

laboratory on the Trans-Alaska Oil Pipeline project. After completing my

postgraduate studies I held teaching and research positions in marine

science at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California

San Diego, from 1983-1988. During this period I also held teaching

positions in zoology at San Diego State University, and in

oceanography at Southwestern College (Chula Vista, California).

3

(c) From 1988 to 1994 I was a Lecturer/Senior Lecturer in the Biology

Department of the University of Papua New Guinea. During this period I

also served as Head of Department of the Motupore Island Research

Department, responsible for the management and academic direction

of marine biology and fisheries field research facilities including the

research station on Motupore Island. During this period I also

sometimes conducted marine environmental science consultancies,

consisting of baseline surveys, environmental impact assessments, and

sustainable development/conservation project, through the University’s

commercial arm.

(d) From 1994 to 1998 I was the Scientific Director of the Orpheus Island

Research Station, a marine science field research facility operated by

James Cook University of North Queensland. During this period I held a

concurrent appointment as Senior Lecturer in Marine Biology, and also

sometimes conducted marine environmental science consultancies,

including baseline surveys, environmental impact assessments,

sustainable development/conservation, and coastal management

training projects, through the University’s commercial arm.

(e) From 1998 to 2006 I was Senior Partner of Global Coastal Strategies, a

marine environmental science consultancy that I founded. After 2006

this ceased to be a full-time role, however I continue to conduct

consultancy projects in this role from time to time, primarily for United

Nations and other international organisations.

(f) Since 2006 I have been employed by SKM as a marine environmental

scientist. I also serve as SKM’s global Practice Leader for Marine

Ecology, a role that involves overseeing the technical quality of SKM’s

capabilities and products.

(g) I am co-author of the university textbook Marine Biology, which is

revised and updated every 2-3 years (currently in 9th edition). This

requires that I maintain a broad overview of current developments in a

wide range of marine science disciplines;

(h) On a number of projects I have been engaged as a consultant in

technical disciplines directly relevant to my role in this application,

including the use of hydrodynamic modelling, assessment of the

4

environmental impacts of sediment plumes, dredging, underwater

noise, and contaminant discharges, the design and implementation of

marine environmental monitoring programs, and the development of

environmental management plans. I have listed some indicative

relevant projects that I have worked on at Annexure C.

(i) I have previously appeared as an expert witness before a Decision-

Making Committee appointed by the Environmental Protection Authority

to determine a marine consent application by Trans-Tasman

Resources Ltd to undertake activities in the South Taranaki Bight

restricted by the Act; and

(j) My relevant advisory and independent review experience includes:

- In 2014 I served on a review team engaged by the Australian

Department of Environment to conduct an independent review of

institutional and legal arrangement for environmental management of

the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage Area.

- In 2014 I was one of three International Experts in a review team

engaged by the Australian Department of Environment to conduct an

independent review of the draft Great Barrier Reef Region Strategic

Assessment prepared by the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

Authority.

- In 2013 I served on an review team engaged by the Australian

Department of Environment to conduct an independent review of the

draft Great Barrier Reef Coastal Zone Strategic Assessment prepared

by the Queensland Government.

- I have been engaged on a number of occasions by United Nations

organisations to advise on marine environmental issues. Examples of

these are provided in Annexure C.

(k) I am a member of a number of relevant associations and hold

registrations including:

- Environment Institute of Australia and New Zealand

- American Association for the Advancement of Science

5

- Pacific Science Association

- International Society for Reef Studies

- Member Emeritus and Past Chairman, United Nations Group of

Experts on the Scientific Aspects of Marine Environmental Protection

(GESAMP)

- Lifetime Instructor’s Credential in marine science from the California

Community Colleges system.

CODE OF CONDUCT

9. I confirm that I have read, and agree to comply with, the Code of Conduct for

Expert Witnesses as contained in the Environment Court Consolidated

Practice Note 2011.

10. In particular, unless I state otherwise below, this evidence is within my

sphere of expertise and I have not omitted to consider material facts known

to me that might alter or detract from the opinions I express.

SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

11. When authoring the report described at paragraph 4 above, I relied upon the

information sources cited in Annexure A.

12. When authoring the report described at paragraph 5 above, I relied upon

(citations are as provided in the report):

(a) The CRP Marine Consent application, with specific reference to the IA

(CRP 2014) and appendices relevant to impacts on marine mammals,

their prey and habitats, most notably Torres et al. 2013 (Appendix 20),

Chiswell 2013 (Appendix 8), Deltares 2014a (Appendix 10), Golder

2014a (Appendix 11), Beaumont et al. 2013 (Appendix 14), Pinkerton

2013 (Appendix 22), Hadfield 2013 (Appendix 23), Hadfield et al. 2013

(Appendix 24), Deltares 2014b (Appendix 25), Deltares 2014c

(Appendix 26) and Golder 2014b (Appendix 35i);

(b) Several CRP responses to further information requests of the EPA;

(c) Submissions relating to marine mammals and their habitats;

6

(d) The EPA staff report, with specific reference to Section 6 and Appendix

6.; and

(e) Published literature relevant to the scope of the review.

Michael Edward Huber

12 September 2014

1

ANNEXURE A

REPORT PREPARED FOR THE EPA

1. Review of Technical Reports Relating to CRP Marine Consent Application.

Marine Science (Marine Mammals, Fish and Plankton, and Benthic

Ecology):

2. http://www.epa.govt.nz/eez/EEZ000006/EEZ000006_Marine_Science_Tec

hnical_Postlodgement_Review_Jacobs_SKM_11_06_2014.pdf

3. Information I relied upon in preparation of the report:

a. Anderson, O.F., Bagley, N.W., Hurst, R.J., Francis, M.P., Clark,

M.R., & McMillan, P.J. (1998). Atlas of New Zealand fish and squid

distributions from research bottom trawls. NIWA Technical Report

42. ISSN 1174-2631.

b. ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). Australian and New Zealand

Guidelines for Fresh and Marine Water Quality (Vol. 1 Chapters 1-

7). Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation

Council and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of

Australia and New Zealand.

c. Baird, S.J. (2014). Ling longline effort and catch data summary

relevant to Chatham Rise Phosphate Ltd mining permit and licence

areas. NIWA Client Report No. WLG-2014-11, March 2014, 28 pp.

d. Beaumont, J., Nodder, S., Schnabel, K. (2013a). Data on the

Chatham Rise benthos: macro-faunal and infaunal communities.

NIWA Client Report No. WLG2011-7, April 2013. 47 pp.

e. Beaumont, J., Baird, S., Hayden, B. (2013b). Biological and fishing

data within the Minerals Prospecting Licence 50270 area on the

Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report No. WLG2011-10. April 2013,

38 pp.

f. Beaumont, J., Rowden, A.A. (2013). Potential for recolonisation and

recovery by benthic communities following mining disturbance on

the Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report No. WLG2013-7, June 2013,

35 pp.

http://www.epa.govt.nz/eez/EEZ000006/EEZ000006_Marine_Science_Technical_Postlodgement_Review_Jacobs_SKM_11_06_2014.pdf

http://www.epa.govt.nz/eez/EEZ000006/EEZ000006_Marine_Science_Technical_Postlodgement_Review_Jacobs_SKM_11_06_2014.pdf

2

g. Bradford, R.W., Bruce, B.D., Chiswell, S.M., Booth, J.D., Jeffs, A.,

Wotherspoon S. (2010). Vertical distribution and diurnal migration

patterns of J. edwardsii phyllosomas off the east coast of the North

Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and

Freshwater Research 39(3): 593-604.

h. Deltares (2014a). Chatham Rise Rock Phosphates Project - Phase

2: Oceanographic study. Deltares Report Reference 1207562-000-

ZKS-0012, March 2014, 62 pp.

i. Deltares (2014b). Modelling investigations on mine tailing plume

dispersion on the Chatham Rise. 1209110-000-ZKS-0007, March

2014, 131 pp. + appendices.

j. DOC (2013). Viewed at 09:55 on 01/05/2014, retrieved from:

http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/getting-

involved/consultations/2013/nztcs-marine-invertebrates-list.xls

k. Dunn, M.R. (2009). Feeding habits of the ommastrephid squid

Nototodarus sloanii on the Chatham Rise, New Zealand. New

Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 43: 1103-

1113.

l. Freeman, D.J., Marshall, B.A., Ahyong, S.T., Wing, S.R.,

Hitchmough, R.A. (2010). The conservation status of New Zealand

marine invertebrates, 2009. New Zealand Journal of Marine and

Freshwater Research 44: 129-148.

m. Golder (2014a). Review of sediment chemistry and effects of

mining. Golder Associates Report Number: 1178207517/013_Rev 4,

May 2014, 43 pp + appendices.

n. Golder (2014b). Predicted Distributions for fisheries of the Chatham

Rise. Golder Associates Report Number 11178207517/017, April

2014, 66 p + appendix.

o. Hadfield, M. (2013). Ocean model simulations of sediment plume

behaviour. NIWA Client Report No. WLG2010-71, April 2013, 23 pp.

3

p. Hadfield, M., Rickard, G., Nodder, S. (2013). Oceanographic models

of Chatham Rise for sediment dispersal estimates. NIWA Client

Report No. WLG2010-70, April 2013, 27 pp.

q. Hewitt, J.E., Lohrer, A.M. (2013). Impacts of sedimentation arising

from mining on the Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report No.

HAM2012-132, July 2013, 36 pp.

r. Kenex Ltd. (2010). Genesis of the Chatham Rise Deposit: A

synthesis of current literature. September 2010.

s. Leathwick, J., Francis, M., Julian, K. (2006). Development of a

demersal fish community map for New Zealand’s Exclusive

Economic Zone. NIWA client report HAM2006-062, 38 pp.

t. MacDiarmid, A. (2013). Possible impacts of phosphorite nodule

mining on red rock lobsters around the Chatham Islands. NIWA

Client Report No. WLG2012-50, April 2013, 12 pp.

u. Mestre, N., Calado, R., Soares, A.M. (2014). Exploitation of deep-

sea resources: The urgent need to understand the role of high

pressure in the toxicity of chemical pollutants to deep-sea

organisms. Environmental Pollution 185: 369-371.

v. Murphy, R.J., Pinkerton, M.H., Richardson, K.M., Bradford‐Grieve,

J.M. & Boyd, P.M. (2001). Phytoplankton distributions around New

Zealand derived from SeaWiFS remotely‐sensed ocean colour data,

New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35 (2):

343-362.

w. Nodder, S.D. (2013). Natural sedimentation on the Chatham Rise.

NIWA Client Report No. WLG2012-42, April 2013, 29 pp.

4

ANNEXURE B

REPORTS PREPARED FOR THE EPA

ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON MARINE MAMMALS FROM THE CHATHAM RISE PHOSPHATE LIMITED MARINE CONSENT APPLICATION

1

11 September 2014

Review by Dr Michael Huber, Mr Miles Yeates and Dr Gareth Taylor (Jacobs)

2

2

Executive Summary

Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited (CRP) proposes to mine phosphorite deposits from the crest of 1.

the Chatham Rise, a subsea geological feature which extends 1,000 km east of New Zealand's

South Island towards (and beyond) the Chatham Islands. Mining is proposed mostly at depths

between 350 m and 450 m, initially within a 820 km2 Mining Permit Area. Subsequent mining may

occur throughout a wider Revised Marine Consent Application Area based on the results of

environmental monitoring. In accordance with Section 44 of the EEZ Act, Jacobs has been

engaged by the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) to complete an independent review of

CRP's marine consent application, with a focus on assessing the likely effects on marine

mammals. Material considered in the review included the Impact Assessment (IA), supporting

technical reports, CRP responses to EPA information requests, CRP statements of evidence and

the EPA staff report.

The Chatham Rise is located coincident with, and is likely to influence the formation of, a physical 2.

oceanic feature known as the Subtropical Front. This is the boundary between warm, saline

subtropical waters to the north and the less saline sub-Antarctic waters to the south. At the

Subtropical Front, oceanic upwelling occurs, resulting in the transport of nutrients deep oceanic

waters to surface waters. This promotes primary production in the euphotic zone, which flows

through the food web.

No systematic survey for marine mammals has been completed as part of the studies supporting 3.

the IA, with the description of marine mammal distribution based on 2 incidental sightings

databases. At least twelve species of cetaceans, plus a group of beaked whale species (family

Ziphiidae), have been observed around the Chatham Rise: the blue whale, sei whale, minke

whale, humpback whale, southern right whale, sperm whale, killer whale, pilot whales (possibly 2

species), false killer whale, bottlenose dolphin, common dolphin (possibly 2 species), dusky

dolphin, and beaked whales (group of species). The New Zealand fur seal and New Zealand sea

lion (also known as Hooker’s sea lion) also occur on the Chatham Rise. Some marine mammal

species simply migrate through the area, others live mainly in the surface waters of the area,

while others conduct deep dives of several hundreds of metres to feed at mesopelagic depths.

The Chatham Rise has a diverse and productive mesopelagic zone, with cephalopod 4.

assemblages comprised of several species of squid. Sperm whales, beaked whales and pilot

whales feed on these squid at mesopelagic depths, and squid are likely to play an important role

in sustaining some marine mammal populations within and around the revised marine consent

application area. Fossilised bones of marine mammals are present within and surrounding the

revised marine consent application area and have significant cultural value for Te Rūnanga o

Ngāi Tahu (Jolly 2014).

3

3

CRP’s proposal has the potential to affect marine mammals through ship strike, the disturbance of 5.

prey (fish and squid) or their habitats, the creation of underwater noise, disturbance of fossilised

remains on the seafloor of cultural value and the interruption of migration behaviour.

We are in general agreement with CRP’s (2014) assessment that the risk of ship strike associated 6.

with the project is low, at least on time scales of months to years. This is because project-related

increases in shipping will be negligible, and the mining vessel speed during mining is very low

(approximately 1 knot). We anticipate that the environmental risk of ship strike is highest for

southern right whales, given the time spent near the surface and their conservation status. We

also assess the risk of marine mammal entanglement within the mining equipment to be low.

While a collision between a moving whale and the very slowly moving pipes and tensioned wires

associated with the mining equipment cannot be discounted, this is likely to be of insignificant

consequence in terms of environmental effects.

Sediment plumes associated with discharged waste water have the potential to disrupt some 7.

marine mammal behaviours, including feeding and migration. Modelling has predicted that

sediment plumes will generally be confined to the deepest 50 m of the water column. Therefore,

the depths affected by turbidity plumes will be beyond those generally used by most seals and

dolphins and the primary consideration for direct impacts from suspended sediments will be for

deep-diving whale species such as sperm whales, pilot whales and beaked whales. Suspended

sediment plumes of the concentrations predicted are unlikely to cause impacts on whales, and in

any case the plumes could be easily avoided. Having reviewed the various technical reports on

the predicted impacts of mining on fish spawning, eggs and larval stages (as prey for marine

mammals), and applying our knowledge of the environmental management of dredging projects,

our assessment is that such impacts are unlikely, and if present, will be of a small scale.

Underwater noise from the proposed mining activity is a potential risk to marine mammals. The IA 8.

and supporting information has not related predicted underwater noise to accepted effects

threshold criteria. We have therefore completed such a comparison, and assessed the predicted

underwater noise from the mining as unlikely to result in temporary or permanent hearing loss for

marine mammals. The most likely behavioural effect is avoidance of the mining area. If

operationally feasible, a soft-start procedure that results in reduced noise generation at the

commencement of mining operations should be implemented.

There is uncertainty in the significance of the Chatham Rise as a marine mammal habitat. The 9.

presence of the Subtropical Front and abundance of deep-diving whale species which feed on the

productive food webs in the area suggest that the area could be of national significance for some

marine mammal species. A lack of understanding of the significance of the habitat is the most

challenging aspect of the assessment, when considering criteria under s59 of the EEZ Act. If the

area is of national significance for some species, then the disturbance associated with decadal-

4

4

long mining, particularly on southern right whales, sperm whales, beaked whales and pilot

whales, is the primary mode of potential impact. However, there is uncertainty about this, due to

the lack of dedicated marine mammal surveys in the area. We have assessed the impacts of ship

strike, entanglement, and mining related disturbance through suspended sediment plumes and

underwater noise to be low when considered individually. However, effects on marine mammals

are still possible if the modes of impact interact cumulatively, or in the event that the revised

marine consent application area is a high-quality or otherwise significant habitat for some marine

mammal species, where large numbers of individuals congregate or important ecological aspects

of the species life cycle occur.

5

5

Glossary

Beaked whales: toothed whales with elongated beaks which are members of the family Ziphiidae,

comprising 21 species, 13 of which are known to occur in New Zealand

Cetaceans: members of the order Cetacea (whales, dolphins and porpoises)

Demersal fish: fish that feed and live on or near the bottom

Euphotic zone: The surface layer of the ocean where there is sufficient light to support

photosynthesis, typically to a depth of 200 m

Mesopelagic zone: The water column at depths between 200 and 1,000 m Mining Permit Area: an area comprising 820 km2 of the Chatham Rise for which CRP holds Mining Permit 55549. The Mining Permit Area is located within and forms part of the broader Marine Consent Application Area

Original Marine Consent Application Area: the marine consent application area, as outlined in CRP’s

original marine consent application, comprising 10,199 km2 of the Chatham Rise

Revised Marine Consent Application Area: the marine consent application area, as revised (reduced

in area) by CRP in their notice of change of application area, dated 1 August 2014. The Revised

Marine Consent Application Area is equivalent to the Original Marine Consent Application Area with

the removal of PP55967 from its eastern extent

List of acronyms

EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zone

EEZ Act: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012

EPA:– New Zealand Environmental Protection Authority

IA: Impact Assessment (CRP 2014 and supporting studies)

PP: Peak Pressure

PTS: Permanent Threshold Shift

SEL: Sound Exposure Level

TSS: Total Suspended Solids

TTS: Temporary Threshold Shift

6

6

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................... 2 GLOSSARY .......................................................................................................................... 5 LIST OF ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 7 DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL ........................................................................................... 7

Description of existing environment ................................................................................... 7 Available information ...................................................................................................... 7 Uncertainty in the information......................................................................................... 9

INFORMATION USED TO ASSESS EFFECTS .................................................................. 10 ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS ON MARINE MAMMALS ..................................................... 11

Summary of CRP’s assessment ................................................................................... 11 Independent Assessment ............................................................................................. 12

Mitigation of effects.......................................................................................................... 23 Existing controls ........................................................................................................... 23 Additional controls ........................................................................................................ 23

Residual effects ............................................................................................................... 24 Overview ...................................................................................................................... 24 Scale and significance ................................................................................................. 25

DISCUSSION...................................................................................................................... 26 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................... 28

7

7

Introduction

Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited (CRP) proposes to mine phosphorite deposits from the crest of 11.

the Chatham Rise, a subsea geological feature which extends 1,000 km east of New Zealand's

South Island towards (and beyond) the Chatham Islands. CRP has submitted an application to

the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for a marine consent under the Exclusive Economic

Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (EEZ Act) to conduct the

phosphorite mining. Mining is proposed to mainly occur at depths from 350 m to 450 m, initially

within an 820 km2 Mining Permit Area. CRP is also seeking a marine consent for subsequent

mining in a wider Revised Marine Consent Application Area, the size of which was reduced from

that initially proposed through an amendment (dated 1 August 2014) to the original marine

consent application, resulting in the removal of PP55967 at the eastern extent of the Original

Marine Consent Application Area. Mining within the Revised Marine Consent Application Area

outside of the 820 km2 Mining Permit Area is proposed to be subject to the results of future

monitoring, resource and environmental investigations.

In accordance with Section 44 of the EEZ Act, Jacobs New Zealand Limited (Jacobs) has been 12.

engaged by the EPA to complete an independent review of CRP's marine consent application.

Jacobs (2014a) has previously reviewed the technical reports prepared by CRP to support the 13.

preparation of the Impact Assessment (IA; CRP 2014), and provided comments on the adequacy

of the information and the significance of uncertainties in information gaps.

This review provides a critical appraisal of the application and the conclusions of the IA with a 14.

focus on assessing the likely effects on marine mammals. The review applies the decision-making

criteria under Section 59(2) of the EEZ Act, provides an assessment of residual effects after

CRP’s proposed mitigation measures, and provides recommendations for further management.

Description of proposal

Description of existing environment

Available information

The Chatham Rise is located within New Zealand’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and extends 15.

approximately 1,000 km from the east coast of the South Island to its eastern limit, and includes

the Chatham Islands. The Chatham Rise is the most significant known phosphorite deposit in

New Zealand’s EEZ (CRP 2014, p. 418).

The Chatham Rise is located coincident with, and is likely to influence the formation of, a physical 16.

oceanic feature known as the Subtropical Front. This is the boundary between warm, saline

8

8

subtropical waters to the north and the less saline sub-Antarctic waters to the south (Pinkerton

2013). The predominant direction of current flow at the Chatham Rise is from east to west. At the

Subtropical Front, oceanic upwelling occurs, resulting in the transport of nutrients from deep

oceanic waters to surface waters. This promotes primary production through photosynthesis in

the euphotic zone, which subsequently flows through the food web (Pinkerton 2013).

The IA provides some description of the marine mammals that are likely to occur or have been 17.

observed incidentally by passing ships or fishing vessels along the Chatham Rise (Torres et al.

2013). No systematic survey for marine mammals has been completed as part of the studies

supporting the IA. Marine mammal surveys can be completed with a variety of methods, including

vessel-based, acoustic or aerial survey techniques. The description of marine mammal

distribution in the IA was based on 2 incidental sightings databases, maintained by Martin

Cawthorn (from ships passing to and from New Zealand ports), and the Department of

Conservation (primarily from fishing vessels).

At least twelve species of cetaceans, plus a group of beaked whale species (family Ziphiidae) 18.

have been observed around the Chatham Rise between 1981 and 2007 (Torres et al. 2013). They

are the blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis), minke whale

(Balaenoptera bonaerensis), humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae), southern right whale

(Eubalaena australis), sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), killer whale (Orcinus orca), pilot

whales (Globicephala, possibly 2 species), false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), bottlenose

dolphin (Tursiops truncatus), common dolphin (Delphinus, possibly 2 species), dusky dolphin

(Lagenorhynchus obscurus) and beaked whales (group of species, 13 of which are known to

occur in New Zealand; (Thompson et al. 2012).

The Crown, in its submission on the application, provided further details on the marine mammals 19.

sightings database records held by the Department of Conservation, including some updated data

not included in the IA. Different cetacean species have different habitat utilisation behaviours on

the Chatham Rise. Some species simply migrate through the area, others live mainly in the

oceanic surface waters, while others conduct deep dives of several hundreds of metres to feed at

mesopelagic depths.

Pinnipeds (seals and sea lions) are also found in the waters of the Chatham Rise. Key pinniped 20.

species include the New Zealand fur seal (Arctocephalus forsteri) and New Zealand sea lion

(Phocartos hookeri, also known as Hooker’s sea lion).

Much of the Revised Marine Consent Application Area is subject to a benthic protection area 21.

management regime, which prohibits the use of bottom trawling to protect the benthic

environmental values.

9

9

Habitat modelling conducted by Torres et al. (2013) predicted the Chatham Rise to be an 22.

important foraging habitat for southern right whales, particularly along the southern slope, during

the summer and autumn months. The Chatham Rise is also a migration corridor for several

species of whales migrating between the northern breeding grounds and feeding grounds in the

Southern Ocean (Cawthorn 2014; Torres et al. 2013).

The Chatham Rise has a diverse and productive mesopelagic zone, with cephalopod 23.

assemblages comprised of several species of squid (Pinkerton 2013). Sperm whales, beaked

whales and pilot whales feed on these squid at mesopelagic depths, and the squid are likely to

play an important role in sustaining some marine mammal populations within and around the

Revised Marine Consent Application Area.

The Chatham Rise has been subject to extensive commercial fishing effort for many decades, 24.

with long lining and trawling the primary fishing methods (CRP 2014, p. 194). Trawlers have

sometimes recovered fossilised marine mammal bones, which have significant cultural value for

Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (Jolly 2014). Fossils have been recovered from within the Revised

Marine Consent Application Area, and within an area located immediately to its east.

CRP’s proposal has the potential to affect marine mammals through the disturbance of prey (fish 25.

and squid), the creation of underwater noise from the mining vessel or dredging equipment

(disrupting communication and navigation), disturbance of fossilised remains on the seafloor of

cultural value and the interruption of migration behaviour.

Uncertainty in the information

Our initial review of technical reports associated with the marine consent application was 26.

focussed on identifying gaps in the information, particularly in relation to completing a subsequent

assessment of effects on marine mammals (Jacobs 2014). We identified that a low reliance

should be placed on the incidental sightings databases for the purposes of characterising marine

mammal populations and habitat use in and around the Revised Marine Consent Application

Area. The absence of dedicated surveys in the IA necessitates the assumption that the area is a

habitat of unknown importance for all marine mammal species likely to occur within similar waters

of New Zealand. Here, we discuss the potential importance of the Chatham Rise for particular

species of marine mammals as part of our assessment of effects.

Since our initial review, additional information has been provided by CRP in the form of a 27.

statement of evidence from Cawthorn (2014), which suggests that dedicated surveys in the

vicinity of the Revised Marine Consent Application Area would be logistically difficult and costly.

Jacobs accepts that there are costs and logistical difficulties in studying marine mammal habitat

utilisation in waters of mesopelagic depths at distances of several hundred kilometres from New

10

10

Zealand. We have taken such matters into account when considering whether the information

presented in the marine consent application is the best available information.

Jacobs (2014) also identified that the assessment of underwater noise impacts on marine 28.

mammals did not refer to the well-accepted threshold criteria developed by Southall et al. (2007),

and that it was unclear whether sonar (a form of underwater noise) was proposed as part of the

mining activity. CRP has provided additional information on underwater noise (Wallingford 2014a,

b) but does not appear to have addressed the information gap relating to sonar. A comparison of

the predicted underwater noise produced by mining with the Southall et al. (2007) or other effects

threshold criteria has also not been provided, so we have completed such a comparison as part of

our assessment of effects posed by the proposed mining activity.

Information used to assess effects

Jacobs reviewed the following documents supplied by the EPA and made publicly available on its 29.

website, pertaining to marine mammals:

a) The CRP Marine Consent application, with specific reference to the IA (CRP 2014) and

appendices relevant to impacts on marine mammals, their prey and habitats, most notably

Torres et al. 2013 (Appendix 20), Chiswell 2013 (Appendix 8), Deltares 2014a (Appendix 10),

Golder 2014a (Appendix 11), Beaumont et al. 2013 (Appendix 14), Pinkerton 2013 (Appendix

22), Hadfield 2013 (Appendix 23), Hadfield et al. 2013 (Appendix 24), Deltares 2014b

(Appendix 25), Deltares 2014c (Appendix 26) and Golder 2014b (Appendix 35i).

b) Several CRP responses to further information requests of the EPA.

c) Submissions relating to marine mammals and their habitats.

d) Applicant’s evidence relevant to the potential impacts on marine mammals, their prey or

habitats, including that of Lescinski (2014), Spearman (2014), Jones (2014), Cawthorn (2014)

and Pinkerton (2014).

e) The EPA staff report, with specific reference to Section 6 and Appendix 6.

In order to assess if the best available information has been used to assess the effects of the 30.

CRP application, Jacobs also referred to available literature relevant to the scope of the review.

11

11

Assessment of effects on marine mammals

Summary of CRP’s assessment

CRP has assessed the potential effects of their proposal on marine mammals and identified the 31.

following potential modes of effect on marine mammals:

a. The creation of underwater noise, which can affect a wide range of mammal species, interfering

with communication, feeding, navigation and migratory behaviour.

b. Disruption of migration and feeding behaviour due to the physical presence and disturbance

associated with the mining equipment, including suspended sediment plumes.

c. Disruption of food sources (including zooplankton, fish and squid), through suspended

sediment plumes, underwater noise, or removal of benthic habitats (reducing prey abundance

and diversity for demersal and pelagic species)

d. Introduction of pollutants into the environment (through the spill of contaminants)

The IA assesses the magnitude of these effects to be small, largely due to the mobility of marine 32.

mammals, allowing them to avoid areas affected by mining activities. The IA also describes that a

mitigation zone will be visually scanned for at least 10 minutes before mining activities commence

(CRP 2014, p. 349). Cawthorn (2014) states this “will ensure that the area in and around the

vessel, and thus the mining activity on the seabed, is clear of marine animals before operations”.

Noise was assessed in the IA to have potential effects including masking of mammal 33.

communications, hearing threshold shifts and changes in behaviour (CRP 2014, p. 346). The IA

concluded the potential effects of increased underwater noise were low and that the percentage

of the marine mammal population affected would be small to negligible. Effects were also

considered by CRP to be recoverable and unlikely to affect species at the population level.

Torres et al.(2013) stated that the most likely effect of noise would be the avoidance of the area 34.

where mining is taking place or more energy being expended to make louder, more frequent calls

to achieve effective communication.

CRP has assessed that there is a low risk of oil spill during mining operations (CRP 2014, p. 358). 35.

If this does occur toxins could bioaccumulate in cetaceans and have long-term effects on

individuals and populations (Torres et al., 2013).

There is little assessment provided in the IA of the potential indirect impacts of mining on marine 36.

mammals through effects on their prey. Demersal fishes and squids are known to occur at high

abundances and diversity across the Chatham Rise (O’Driscoll 2014; O’Driscoll and Ballara

2014), and are an important source of food for some deep-diving whale species. The IA suggests

that key foraging areas for such whales are located in the deeper sections of the Chatham Rise

12

12

(between 500 to 800 m), where the steep rock formations drop off into deeper oceanic waters.

The Revised Marine Consent Application Area occurs at the crest of the rise, and it is suggested

that squid and fish are of less importance as a food source for marine mammals in such areas

(Cawthorn 2014).

CRP recognised in the IA that fossilised whale bones are present on the Chatham Rise (CRP 37.

2014, p. 72), but did not conduct an assessment of the effects of mining on their integrity or

cultural value in the event that mining was to proceed.

Independent Assessment

Jacobs has independently assessed the potential effects of CRP’s proposed mining activities on 38.

marine mammals, based on a review of the IA, applicant evidence, public submissions, additional

information provided by CRP in response to information requests of the EPA and published

literature. This assessment considers the potential direct and indirect effects of mining activities

on marine mammals, through:

a) disturbance of the seabed;

b) increased shipping;

c) the installation and operation of mining equipment in the oceanic environment;

d) the generation of underwater noise;

e) the creation of suspended sediment plumes;

f) increased anthropogenic activity; and

g) cumulative interactions with other activities in the area.

Collisions between marine mammals and ships have been recorded in many locations around the 39.

world, and can result in serious injury or death of marine mammals (e.g. Laist et al. 2001;

Panigada et al. 2006; Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007). The risk of ship strike is generally a function

of a range of inter-related factors, including the amount of vessel traffic in an area, vessel design

(hull shape and propulsion method), vessel speed, species-specific behavioural characteristics

(including time spent near the surface), water depth, general patterns of bathymetry and the

abundance of marine mammals. In general, an increase in the volume of shipping, the speed at

which ships operate, or the abundance of marine mammals will result in an increase in the risk of

ship strike. However, the behaviour of some marine mammal species such as the southern right

whale makes them particularly vulnerable to ship strike, even in the absence of intense shipping

activity, as they tend to spend long periods of time near the surface (e.g. Van Waerebeek et al.

2007).

13

13

We are in general agreement with the assessment of Cawthorn (2014) and Torres et al. (2013) 40.

that the risk of ship strike associated with the CRP project is relatively low, at least when

considered over timeframes of months to years. This is because of the following key attributes of

the project:

a) The project-related increase in vessel traffic across the Chatham Rise will be small as only a

single mining vessel will be used. The vessel will transit between the mining area and port

every 4-5 days. The Chatham Rise is currently used extensively by a large commercial

fishing fleet, and the addition of a single mining vessel is considered to result in small

additional risks for ship strike during transit.

b) During mining operations, the mining vessel will be travelling at very slow speeds (~ 1 knot),

limiting the risk and severity of any ship strike on whales, as reduced vessel speed

decreases the probability of severe trauma from ship strike (Dolman et al. 2006; Vanderlaan

and Taggart 2007). The imposition of a 10 knot speed limit on large vessels in the United

States, for example, reduced ships strike mortality of northern right whales in Seasonal

Management Areas by an estimated 36 to 90% (Conn and Silber 2013; Laist et al. 2014; van

der Hoop et al. 2014. Van der Hoop et al. (2014) suggest that the speed limit provides a low

level of protection for humpback, minke, sei, and fin whales, but not for blue or sperm

whales.

While it is possible that at least 1 boat strike on marine mammals will occur over the decadal life 41.

of the project, we consider that the risk at an individual and population scale is small. The greatest

potential for boat strike will be while the mining vessel is in transit between the mining area and

port. The risk of boat strike at this time will be similar to that of any ship of a similar size and

speed passing through the area.

From a conservation perspective, the risk of ship strike to southern right whales would be that of 42.

greatest concern, due to their low population numbers, conservation significance, and behavioural

traits, which make them particularly vulnerable to boat strikes. However ship movements occur

through New Zealand waters in areas where southern right whales occur, and thus the additional

risk from the CRP proposal is likely to be very small overall. Cawthorn (2014) presents evidence

that 123 vessels performed 18,568 fishing events in the Chatham Rise fisheries management

area during the 2008 calendar year, and have no history of whale strikes. While fishing vessels

are likely to be smaller and more manoeuvrable than the proposed mining vessel, such

information provides further confidence that the overall risk of boat strike is low. The risk of ship

strike for seals and dolphins is likely to be considerably lower than that for most whales, as

dolphins and seals are generally more agile than whales and less likely to be struck by ocean-

going ships. While boat strikes do occur on dolphins (e.g. Van Waerebeek et al. 2007), we

consider the overall risk of this from the CRP project to be minimal.

14

14

From time to time marine mammals can become entangled in nets, ropes, buoys or other 43.

equipment that is installed into the marine environment (Johnson et al. 2005). Such

entanglements can cause injury or death to the individual marine mammals affected. The risk of

entanglement is generally a function of the abundance of marine mammals in an area and the

design of equipment installed into the marine environment, with loose lines or netting most likely

to result in an entanglement. Our assessment of the CRP proposal is that the risk of

entanglement of marine mammals from mining related equipment will be low. The pipes

transporting mined sediment from the sea floor to the vessel and back to the sea floor following

processing activities will be approximately 750 mm in diameter (CRP 2014, p. 49), which is most

likely to be too wide to result in entanglement. Such pipes will also be maintained in a taught

state, further reducing the risk of entanglement. There will be at least 4 wires, presumably of

considerably smaller diameter than the riser and sinker pipes connected to the pump frame and

suction pipe for lifting and towing (CRP 2014, p. 50), and it appears likely that 2 additional wires

will be needed for the sinker pipe and sediment diffuser, though these are not mentioned in the

IA. These may pose a slightly greater risk of entanglement, however they will also be kept taught

during mining, which will help prevent entanglement (Cawthorn 2014). Marine mammals would

need to be directly below the mining vessel for entanglement to occur. While a collision between a

moving whale and the very slowly moving pipes and wires cannot be discounted, this is likely to

be of insignificant consequence in terms of environmental effects.

The mining activity involves the extraction of sediment from the sea floor and the return of 44.

processed sediment to the sea floor via a discharge pipe located approximately 10 m above the

sea bed. The discharge of processed sediments and associated seawater are predicted to

produce a suspended sediment plume, which could adversely affect sensitive organisms at

distances of approximately 7 km from the discharge (CRP 2014, p. 307). A commissioned peer

review of the sediment dispersion modelling (Spearman 2014) concluded that the model

significantly over-estimated the distribution of suspended sediment plumes, and that such plumes

will be much less extensive than predicted in the IA.

Sediment plumes have the potential to disrupt some marine mammal behaviours, including 45.

feeding and migration. Modelling predicting that sediment plumes will generally be confined to the

deepest 50 m of the water column (Lescinski 2014). Therefore, the proportion of the water column

affected by turbidity plumes will be small, and the primary consideration for direct impacts from

suspended sediments will be for deep-diving whale species such as sperm whales, pilot whales

and beaked whales. Suspended sediment plumes of the concentrations predicted are unlikely to

cause any significant impacts on whales directly. Echolocation used by some marine mammals is

an effective means of locating prey in turbid waters (Hanke and Dehnhardt 2013). In any event,

sediment plumes could easily be avoided by whales capable of diving to mesopelagic depths.

15

15

Sediment plumes have the potential to disrupt the ecology of mesopelagic ecosystems, including 46.

taxonomic groups such as squids and fishes which are a primary source of prey for some whale

species. Given the small spatial scale of predicted sediment plumes in comparison with the

Chatham Rise, effects are most likely to take the form of a temporary displacement of prey fish

and squid from the immediate vicinity of mining activities, up to a distance of a few kilometres.

Such effects will reduce the abundance of prey for marine mammals within the immediate vicinity

of the mining activities, as fish have been demonstrated to avoid suspended sediment plumes,

even in the absence of light (at night or at depths below the photic zone; Appelberg et al. 2005,

cited in CRP Response to Information Requests 14, 15, 35, 36). This displacement would tend to

increase prey abundance at the periphery of the plume.

Long-term effects of mining on the abundance of marine mammal prey (e.g. fish and squid) 47.

through impacts on spawning activities or larval survivorship are additional potential modes of

effect. Such effects may also be relevant to marine mammals which prey on fish and squid at

shallow depths, where those prey species have a mesopelagic life phase. However, having

reviewed the various technical reports on the predicted impacts of mining on fish spawning, eggs

and larval stages (e.g. Page 2014), and applying our knowledge of the environmental

management of dredging projects, our assessment is that such effects are unlikely, and if present,

will be of a small scale. Sediment plumes are predicted to last for several days following the

cessation of mining activity (IA, p. 308), so will reduce during times when the mining vessel is in

transit between the mining area and port, although the modelling Deltares (2014b) predicts that

clay particles can remain in the model domain between mining cycles.

The production of underwater noise from the proposed mining activity is a potential risk to marine 48.

mammals, both from the perspective of acute or short-term effects (physical damage to tissues,

hearing loss) and longer-term disruption of natural behaviours (communication, navigation,

avoidance of the sound source). Southall et al. (2007) established sound threshold criteria which

are widely accepted and used as a basis for assessing the effects of underwater noise on marine

mammals. NOAA (2013) has released draft threshold criteria for marine mammals which take into

account more recent information. These were released for public comment and have not yet been

accepted as final criteria, but are included here for information. The IA does not compare

predicted underwater sound levels to such guideline criteria.

Southall et al. (2007) and NOAA (2013) present threshold criteria for temporary and permanent 49.

hearings loss, i.e. temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift (PTS) for both

impulsive sounds (e.g. pile driving, explosives) and non-pulsed (more or less continuous) sounds.

Very high sound intensities can cause more severe effects such as lung and other organ trauma,

however the sound generated by mining is unlikely to reach these levels based on comparisons

with dredging and shipping noise (NRC 2003; Richardson et al. 1995; Wallingford 2014a). The

16

16

underwater noise generated by the mining equipment will be more or less continuous while

mining is in progress. Southall et al. (2007) and NOAA (2013) present threshold criteria in terms

of both peak pressure (PP), the maximum instantaneous sound pressure generated by a source,

and sound exposure level (SEL), which integrates the received sound energy over a given time

period. For continuous sound sources, SEL is generally the most precautionary metric (Southall et

al. 2007).

Southall et al. (2007) and NOAA (2013) also present separate criteria for different functional 50.

hearing groups. Those relevant to the application are low-frequency cetaceans, comprising

baleen whales, mid-frequency cetaceans, comprising most toothed whales and dolphins, and

pinnipeds. High-frequency cetaceans include true porpoises and river dolphins which are not

expected to occur in the area.

Predicted sound levels generated by mining in the IA and Wallingford (2014a, b) are not 51.

expressed in the metrics used for the impact threshold criteria of Southall et al. (2007) and NOAA

(2013), but instead are expressed as root mean square sound pressure level (SPLRMS), which is

the average sound pressure over some time period. We have estimated the SPLRMS predictions of

Walingford (2014b) for broadband sound using the formula SEL = SPLRMS + 10 log (T), where T is

the time in seconds (Madsen 2005). Southall et al. (2007) recommend using a 24-hour integration

period. NOAA (2013) accepts this when the exposures of cetaceans can be predicted as a

function of distance from the sound source, but notes that it is not appropriate for mobile

cetaceans where the distance from the source may be highly variable. In such cases, NOAA

(2013) recommends using a one-hour integration period.

Converting SPLRMS to SEL over 1 hour of exposure, the estimated distance from the source to 52.

selected SPLRMS ranges presented graphically in Wallingford (2014b, Figure 3.2) yields the

following results:

a. SEL levels of 192-196 dB re 1 µPa2-s (156 160 dBRMS re 1 µPa) are predicted within

approximately a 1.5 km radius of mining

b. SEL levels of 187-191 dB re 1 µPa2-s (151 155 dBRMS re 1 µPa) are predicted within

approximately a 3 km radius of mining

c. SEL levels of 182 186 dB re 1 µPa2-s (146 150 dBRMS re 1 µPa) are predicted within

approximately a 15 km radius of mining

d. SEL levels of approximately 162-166 dB re 1 µPa2-s (151 155 dBRMS re 1 µPa) or less are

predicted on the steep slope of the Chatham Rise north and south of the mining activities.

It should be noted that Southall et al. (2007) and NOAA (2013) recommend the use of weighting 53.

curves in applying the SEL criteria, which correct for the reduced sensitivity of marine mammal

hearing at frequencies outside their peak hearing range. The weighting curves differ among

17

17

functional hearing groups, and between the Southall et al. (2007) and NOAA (2013) criteria. The

weighting curves reduce the contribution of sound frequencies below 100 Hz to the total SEL,

particularly for mid-frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds, which hear at higher frequencies than

low-frequency cetaceans. Even low-frequency cetaceans have reduced hearing sensitivity below

100 Hz, though not to the extent of mid-frequency cetaceans and pinnipeds (NOAA 2013;

Southall et al. 2007). Since most of the sound energy expected to be produced by mining is at

frequencies below 100 Hz, this will reduce the distances at which the above SELs are received by

marine mammals.

Table 1 shows the Southall et al. (2007) and NOAA (2013) threshold criteria and our assessment 54.

of the vulnerability of effects on hearing by functional hearing group. As noted, the SEL estimates

in Paragraph 52 above do not include a correction for reduced hearing sensitivity at low

frequencies; in the case of the draft NOAA (2013) criteria, no sound energy at frequencies below

100 Hz is including in the calculation of SEL for mid-frequency cetaceans when weighting is

applied.

In all cases, the risk of TTS and PTS will reduce for exposures of less than 1 hour. This mitigates 55.

the risk to the extent that marine mammals avoid the mining noise. This is particularly relevant to

the effectiveness of soft-start procedures (which do not appear to be proposed by CRP) to allow

animals to move away when mining commences.

Southall et al. (2007) acknowledge that little information is available regarding hearing in beaked 56.

whales and that the criteria shown in Table 1 may not be sufficiently precautionary. Beaked

whales are most likely to use the slope of the Chatham Rise to the south-east of the Revised

Marine Consent Application Area (Torres et al. 2013), at sufficient distance that effects of mining-

generated noise are unlikely. There is some uncertainty about the reliability of such conclusions,

as surveys have not been completed to verify this assumption. At least some species of beaked

whales appear to be particularly sensitive to sonar noise, which has been implicated in strandings

(Aguilar Soto et al. 2006; DeRuiter et al. 2013; Southall et al. 2007; Tyack et al. 2006). The IA

does not present information on the potential use of sonar, the potential effects of which would be

a function of the sonar power and frequency.

In addition to causing hearing loss, underwater sound has the potential to mask biologically useful 57.

sounds such as echolocation and communication, to cause behavioural changes such as

avoidance or altered diving or communication, and to cause stress. There are no available

threshold criteria for these behavioural effects for continuous sounds (Southall et al. 2007).

Southall et al. (2007) do present behavioural criteria for single pulsed sounds, which in both low-

and mid-frequency cetaceans are 224 dB re 1 µPa for PP and 183 dB re 1 µPa2-s for SEL. In

pinnipeds the criteria are 212 dB re 1 µPa for PP and 171 dB re 1 µPa2-s for SEL. Some

behavioural effects of mining noise, in particular avoidance of the mining area, are therefore likely.

18

18

However, marine mammals are known to respond more strongly to pulsed than continuous noise

(Richardson et al. 1995; NRC 2003; Southall et al. 2007), and again the effects of applying

weighting curves to the modelled SEL levels will reduce the predicted effects. We consider

behavioural disturbance that is ecologically significant to marine mammals at a population level to

be unlikely.

19

19

Table 1 Peak pressure (PP) and sound exposure level (SEL) impact threshold criteria of Southall et al. (2007) and NOAA (2013) for temporary (TTS) and permanent (PTS) hearing loss, and assessment of potential effects based on model predictions of Wallingford (2014b).

Functional hearing group

Taxa Estimated SEL

(no weighting)

Southall et al. (2007) criteria

NOAA (2013) draft criteria

Our assessment of vulnerability to impacts

Low-frequency

cetaceans

Baleen whales

(blue whale, sei

whale, minke

whale, humpback

whale, southern

right whale)

192-196 dB re 1 µPa2-s within ~1.5 km

radius of mining

187-191 dB re 1 µPa2-s within ~3 km

radius of mining

182 186 dB re 1 µPa2-s within ~15 km

radius of mining

162-166 dB re 1 µPa2-s or less (steep

slope of the Chatham Rise north and

south of the mining activities).

TTS:

PP: 224 dB re 1 µPa

SEL:195 dB re 1 µPa2-s

PTS:



TTS:



PTS:



Potential for TTS at distances up

to 15 km with a one-hour

exposure using unweighted

model predictions. Actual

distances will be considerably

reduced by application of

weighting curve due to reduced

sensitivity of low-frequency

cetaceans to frequencies

<100 Hz. Lower NOAA (2013)

TTS criterion is offset by a

weighting curve with a greater

correction for low-frequency

sensitivity. PTS unlikely.

Mid-frequency

cetaceans

Toothed whales

and dolphins

(sperm whale,

pilot whales, killer

whale, false killer

whale, bottlenose

dolphin, common

dolphin, dusky

dolphin, beaked

whales)


radius of mining


radius of mining


radius of mining




TTS:

PP: 224 dB re 1µPa

SEL: 195 dB re 1µPa2-s

PTS:



TTS:

PP: 224 dB re 1µPa


PTS:



Minimal potential for TTS at

distances up to 1.5 km with a

one-hour exposure. NOAA

(2013) weighting curve does not

include any energy at

frequencies <100 Hz in SEL

calculation. PTS unlikely.

20

20

Functional hearing group

Taxa Estimated SEL

(no weighting)

Southall et al. (2007) criteria

NOAA (2013) draft criteria

Our assessment of vulnerability to impacts

Pinnipeds (in

water)

Seals and sea

lions (New

Zealand fur seal,

New Zealand sea

lion)


radius of mining


radius of mining


radius of mining




TTS:



PTS:


SEL: 203 dB re 1 µPa2-s

TTS:

PP: 229 dB re 1µPa


PTS:



TTS or PTS unlikely at any

modelled distance.

21

21

The submission of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu raised concerns that the Chatham Rise is 58.

used by marine mammals for their lifecycle and that fossilised remains of marine

mammals on the sea floor have significant cultural value and should not be disturbed.

Based on the information in the submission, IA and that presented by Jolly (2014), it

would appear that there are indeed areas of fossilised marine mammal remains on the

sea floor and that these items of cultural value would be disturbed or destroyed by

mining activities, should the proposal proceed. We do note that some of the locations at

which fossilised remains have been recorded are located outside of the Revised Marine

Consent Application Area (but were within the Original Marine Consent Application

Area). In the absence of dedicated surveys for such cultural items, it is not possible to

make definitive conclusions about the distribution and abundance of fossilised whale

remains within the Revised Marine Consent Application Area. We accept that effects

through direct disturbance will occur without appropriate mitigation measures to identify

and avoid such items.

With the exception of fossilised whale bones, the potential effects of mining activities on 59.

marine mammals are considered to be low, when considered individually (ship strike,

entanglement, suspended sediment plumes and underwater noise). However, effects

on marine mammals are still possible if the modes of impact interact cumulatively, or in

the event that the Chatham Rise in or around the Revised Marine Consent Application

Area is a high-quality or otherwise significant habitat for some marine mammal species,

where large numbers of individuals congregate or important stages of a species’ life

cycle occur.

There is limited information available to assess the value of the Chatham Rise as a 60.

marine mammal habitat, which is relevant when considering the vulnerability to mining

activities of important ecological processes supporting marine mammal populations.

Two incidental sightings databases have been used to inform the assessment of

potential effects, and no systematic surveys of marine mammals on the Chatham Rise

have been completed. While several species of marine mammals have been sighted in

the vicinity of the Revised Marine Consent Application Area, the significance of the

area as a marine mammal habitat is difficult to determine in the absence of more

detailed studies. The presence of the Subtropical Front and associated upwelling

suggests that the Chatham Rise and the Revised Marine Consent Application Area

could be particularly important as a feeding ground for some species of marine

mammals, but such statements would be speculative in the absence of additional

studies.

In its submission, the Crown stated that “it is highly likely that the Chatham Rise is of 61.

national significance for marine mammals”. This assessment was based upon “existing

information about the productivity of the Chatham Rise, previous whaling data, and a

general understanding of New Zealand marine mammal biology and ecology”. If the

Chatham Rise is indeed of national significance for marine mammals, then there is a

22

22

higher risk than would otherwise be the case that the cumulative effects of mining

activities over decadal timeframes will alter the ecology of marine mammals in the area.

Such effects, if manifested, would be species-specific, and depend on the ecology of

marine mammals using the area (e.g. whether marine mammals are migrating through

the area, or utilise it as an important feeding ground).

For those species for which it is reasonable to assume a presence at the Chatham 62.

Rise, or have been recorded on the incidental sightings databases, we consider that

sperm whales, pilot whales, beaked whales and southern right whales are most likely to

be affected by the project’s activities (Table 2). Each taxonomic group has different

sensitivities to the potential modes of effect associated with the project, and is known to

be present in the area for extended periods of time (rather than just migrating through

the area).

Southern right whales are listed as nationally endangered and are particularly 63.

vulnerable to boat strike (Van Waerebeek et al. 2007). Mortality of only a small number

of individuals could be expected to hamper the recovery of this species. Sperm whales,

pilot whales and beaked whales are likely to be utilising the Chatham Rise as a

productive feeding area, targeting squid or fish at mesopelagic depths (Cawthorn

2014). Any effect on squid and fish, or the food chains supporting them, would be likely

to have some flow-on effect on these species. Beaked whales are known to be

particularly sensitive to underwater noise including sonar and there is limited

information available on their conservation significance at the Chatham Rise or more

broadly, due to their cryptic behaviour. A summary of the characteristics of these whale

species in relation to potential modes of impact is provided in Table 2. Beaked whales

are probably the taxonomic group most likely to be impacted by the proposal. However,

their susceptibility will depend on the extent and characteristics of sonar use, which are

not provided in the application or supporting evidence.

Table 2. Characteristics of 4 taxonomic groups of marine mammals of the Chatham Rise.

Feed at mesopelagic depths affected by mining (fish/squid)

Known to have vulnerability to boat strike

Known to be particularly sensitive to noise

Likely to be present in significant numbers

NZ conservation status

Sperm whale X X X Not

threatened

Pilot whales X X Not

threatened

Southern

right whale

X X Nationally

endangered

Beaked

whales

X X X Data deficient

23

23

Mitigation of effects

Existing controls

CRP’s proposal states that to mitigate the effects of noise on marine mammals they will 64.

establish a mitigation zone of a 200 m radius around the mining vessel and that this

area will be visually scanned for at least 10 minutes prior to commencement of a

mining cycle (CRP 2014, p. 349). If marine mammals are observed, mining will not start

until they have left the area or have not been observed for at least 30 minutes.

However, once mining commences, there do not appear to be any proposed measures

to alter mining operations if a marine mammal is sighted within 200 m of the mining

vessel.

The proposed mitigation measure therefore appears to aim to reduce the risk of whales 65.

close to the vessel being surprised by the sudden commencement of mining activities,

and thus the exposure to the effects of underwater noise. Given the significant depths

in the areas where mining is proposed, the extended dive times of several species and

that marine mammal observers will only be able to see marine mammals in the top 10

m of the water column at most, the mitigation measure is unlikely to be particularly

effective in detecting whales in the mitigation zone. Indeed, those whales closest to one

of the noise sources (the dredge head) will not be visible from aboard the mining

vessel. We therefore have difficulty accepting the conclusion of Cawthorn (2014) that

the mitigation measure “will ensure that the area in and around the vessel, and thus the

mining activity on the seabed, is clear of marine animals before operations”.

The risk of ship strike of marine mammals will in principle be greater when the vessel is 66.

transiting from the mining area to the phosphorite offloading facility due to the higher

vessel speed. The IA (CRP 2014, p. 16) indicates that the vessel will operate in

compliance with the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978, including provisions for safe

distances and reporting of ship strikes. With these measures in place, we concur with

Cawthorn (2014) and Torres et al. (2013) that the incremental risk posed by the mining

vessel transiting to shore is negligible.

Additional controls

Marine mammals which utilise mesopelagic depths may be visible at the surface for 67.

only short periods, and marine mammals in general are difficult to see unless weather

and sea conditions are ideal. Beaked whales, which are perhaps the most sensitive

taxonomic group to underwater noise, are secretive and rarely seen by vessel-based

observers (e.g. Johnson et al. 2004). We therefore consider that the proposed

mitigation zone of 200 m will provide little benefit in reducing the impact of mining

activities on marine mammals. Passive acoustic monitoring is an option to improve the

detection of marine mammals in the vicinity of the mining operation. As noted by

24

24

Cawthorn (2014), this may be of limited practicality given the rough sea states that

generate a high level of background noise, in addition to the mining operation itself,

which will generate elevated noise. Waves generate primarily low-frequency sound

(Wenz 1962 in NRC 2003), as will the mining activity, so it is still likely to be feasible to

discriminate the higher-frequency vocalisations of toothed whales, dolphins and

pinnipeds. Sub-surface deployment of the hydrophones may reduce interference from

wave-generated noise, although that might be counteracted by placing them nearer the

dredge head. Overall, we think there is merit in trialling the application of passive

acoustic monitoring to improve the detection of marine mammals in the vicinity of the

mining operation. Such methods have been successfully implemented in other offshore

situations (Baumgartner et al. 2013; Ford et al. 2010; Mellinger et al. 2002, 2007; ).

If operationally feasible, a soft-start procedure that results in reduced noise generation 68.

at the commencement of a mining cycle should be implemented. This will allow marine

mammals to move away from the sound source and reduce exposures.

Although we consider the risk of entanglement of marine mammals to be low, the IA 69.

(CRP 2014, p. 50) states that the mining vessel will be able to retrieve the dredge head

from the seabed in approximately 15 minutes. Acoustic monitoring to detect distress

calls, or other means to detect entanglement, would allow rapid retrieval of the dredge

head, which should be accompanied by established procedures to release entangled

marine mammals. The potential for barometric trauma cause by the rapid depth change

would need to be considered before implementing this measure.

In terms of adaptive management, the mining vessel will provide a useful platform for 70.

the collection of habitat utilisation data for marine mammals during mining activities.

The collection of baseline data prior to mining activities would provide some basis for

making comparisons with information collected during mining, and determine the level

of disturbance that may be occurring to marine mammals. Such monitoring could focus

on identifying whether the Revised Marine Consent Application Area is a critical habitat

for any particular marine mammal species.

Residual effects

Overview

Implementation of the proposed marine mammal mitigation zone prior to the 71.

commencement of mining activities will result in a minimal reduction in the risk of

underwater noise to marine mammals. The IA states that “cumulative injury” from noise

is unlikely to occur. Having reviewed the information that is available on underwater

noise, we consider that the mining method does not present a significant risk to marine

mammals at a population level, provided that sonar is not intended to be used. In

relation to noise, residual effects are therefore similar to those in place prior to the

25

25

implementation of mitigation measures, and reasonably low overall (provided that sonar

is not intended to be used). The most significant potential effect relates to the unknown

ecological importance of the Revised Marine Consent Application Area as a habitat for

certain marine mammal species. The ongoing disturbance of a critical habitat can

reasonably be expected to cause effects of a higher magnitude than the ongoing

disturbance of general oceanic habitat which has no particular ecological value.

However, any conclusions about the significance of the Revised Marine Consent

Application Area for particular marine mammal species are partly speculative, due to

the limited information available.

More broadly across all potential modes of effect, we consider that there is minimal 72.

reduction of potential risks to marine mammals from the mitigation measures proposed

by CRP. The residual impacts are a function of underwater noise (which is

unavoidable), ships transiting to and from port (unavoidable aspect of the project),

turbidity plumes potentially affecting prey (difficult to mitigate) and general disturbance

from a new mining activity within an area that currently is not subject to anthropogenic

disturbance beyond the activities of fishing.

Scale and significance

The geographic scale of residual effects is relatively small given the large expanse of 73.

the Chatham Rise and its associated ecological processes. The temporal scale of

residual effects is large, given that mining is proposed to occur over decades, with

mining activities taking place continuously except when the mining ship is in transit to

and from port. Scientific understanding of the Chatham Rise as a habitat for marine

mammals is limited and thus there is uncertainty associated with the scale and

significance of residual effects. We predict that such effects are likely to be low (in the

event that the Revised Marine Consent Application Area is not a critical habitat for

marine mammals) to moderate (in the event that the Revised Marine Consent

Application Area contains critical habitats for marine mammal species). A high risk

rating would not be appropriate in our view on the information available, given the large

scale of the Chatham Rise habitat and the relatively small part of it that would be

disturbed by mining activities. From the information available, it is reasonable to

assume that the Chatham Rise is an important feeding area for some species of marine

mammals, with habitat values structured around the presence of the Subtropical Front,

and productive food webs that it supports. We also note the concerns of Te Rūnanga o

Ngāi Tahu in relation to the disturbance of fossilised marine mammal remains and

concur that the disturbance of these items of high cultural value is likely, without the

development of specific mitigation measures.

26

26

Discussion

Jacobs has completed an assessment of the CRP project in relation to the criteria 74.

under s59 and s60 of the EEZ Act. These sections of the EEZ Act outline the matters

the EPA must take into account in deciding the marine consent application.

Section 59(2)(a) requires the EPA to consider any effects on the environment or 75.

existing interests of allowing the activity, including cumulative effects and effects that

may occur in New Zealand or in the waters above and beyond the continental shelf

beyond the outer limits of the EEZ. CRP has described the likely effects of the proposal

on marine mammals, and concluded that the effects on marine mammals will be

relatively minor, and manageable by mitigation actions, approval conditions and

monitoring. Such conclusions are generally considered to be appropriate (with the

exception of the effectiveness of the 200 m mitigation zone), but with a high degree of

uncertainty given the lack of information on the importance of the Chatham Rise and

Revised Marine Consent Application Area to marine mammals. Effects on other

existing interests are primarily associated with the potential to disturb fossilised remains

of whales on the sea floor in the vicinity of the Revised Marine Consent Application

Area. Such remains have significant cultural value to Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, and

would be difficult to mitigate.

Section 59(2)(b) requires the EPA to consider the effects on the environment or 76.

existing interests of other activities undertaken in the area covered by the application or

in its vicinity, including the effects of activities not regulated under the EEZ Act, and

effects that may occur in New Zealand or in the waters above or beyond the continental

shelf beyond the outer limits of the EEZ. The primary consideration for this section is

the activity of shipping, which will marginally increase in the area as a result of the

activity. This is not expected to cause significant impact on marine mammals as the

incremental increase is negligible. While collisions between marine mammals and ships

can occur, Jacobs’ view is that project-related increases in shipping do not pose a

material risk to marine mammals of the area, given the low magnitude of the increase.

The Chatham Rise is stated to be a migration corridor in the IA and no systematic

survey has occurred to confirm the distribution and abundance of mammals in relation

to the Revised Marine Consent Application Area or within the shipping route proposed.

Section 59(2)(d) requires the EPA to consider the importance of protecting the 77.

biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes. The

Chatham Rise has been identified as a migration corridor and feeding ground for

marine mammals. At least 12 species of whales and dolphins have been identified in

the area, as well as the beaked whale species group. Two threatened marine mammal

species have been sighted on the Chatham Rise: the killer whale and the southern right

whale, which are nationally critical and nationally endangered respectively (Baker et al.

2010). They are stated to not have been seen within the Revised Marine Consent

27

27

Application Area; however, with no systematic surveys undertaken, uncertainty exists in

relation to their distribution and it should be assumed these species potentially occur in

that area. We have assumed that these species are present in completing our

assessment of effects. The biological diversity of marine mammals is unlikely to be

affected by the proposed mining activity, as the complete exclusion of species currently

found in the area, or a mining-related reduction in their abundance at a population

level, are unlikely.

Section 59(2)(e) requires the EPA to consider the importance of protecting rare and 78.

vulnerable ecosystems and the habitats of threatened species. Impacts on 2

threatened species, the killer whale and southern right whale, as well as more common

species, have been considered in the application. The assessment concludes that the

most likely effects will be noise-related. We anticipate that there is an increased risk to

southern right whales in particular from boat strike. But given that only a single mining

vessel is involved, and that the risk of ship strike is generally limited to periods of transit

to and from port, we consider the increased risk to be relatively low. We do not

anticipate that killer whales will be particularly vulnerable to impacts from the mining

activity.

Section 59(2)(h) requires the EPA to consider the nature and effect of other marine 79.

management regimes. Though the scope of this report is not focussed on benthic

ecology, there is a benthic protection area located within the Revised Marine Consent

Application Area, which prohibits bottom trawling to protect benthic habitats that

provide habitat for demersal fish and squid, which in turn are prey for several marine

mammal species. Though this management regime does not directly protect marine

mammals, it offers protection to the food webs supporting them, and the removal of

benthic habitats through mining could result in indirect effects on marine mammals.

Section 59(2)(j) requires the EPA to consider the extent to which imposing conditions 80.

under section 63 might avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse impacts of the activity.

CRP has described a set of generic conditions in Section 11.4.4 of the IA (CRP 2014).

These conditions provide a framework to address relevant issues for marine mammals,

such as a visual survey of a 200 m radius of the vessel for 10 minutes before mining

operations commence. As we have noted, visual monitoring of an exclusion zone for

such a short period is unlikely to be effective in detecting marine mammals near the

mining operations. Passive acoustic monitoring for periods of at least 30 minutes to

detect marine mammals below the surface should be considered, as should soft-start

procedures if feasible. Many of the other modes of impact are unable to be mitigated

and are expected to have minor effects on marine mammals, especially when

considered in isolation. Options to reduce the disturbance of fossilised marine mammal

remains on the sea floor, which have significant cultural value, should be further

explored. This may include conducting more detailed surveys prior to mining activities

and consultation with relevant stakeholders.

28

28

Jacobs’ review of CRP’s application with regard to effects on marine mammals 81.

concludes that the risk of environmental effects on marine mammals is generally low,

based on the information presented in the IA, submissions and CRP evidence. The

exception to this is the presence of fossilised remains of whales on the sea floor in the

vicinity of the Revised Marine Consent Application Area. Such items are of significant

cultural value, and are highly likely to be destroyed by mining activities unless specific

methods to identify them and avoid them are developed.

As no systematic surveys for marine mammals were undertaken to guide the 82.

assessment, there is considerable uncertainty in relation to the distribution and

abundance of marine mammals on the Chatham Rise. We accept that the completion

of systematic surveys would be complex and expensive. However, given the decadal

duration of the proposed project, and the presence of the Subtropical Front which

drives production processes supporting marine mammal populations, we consider that

further surveys prior to the commencement of mining activities are warranted. This will

provide a basis to test assumptions in the IA, and describe the baseline situation prior

to mining-related disturbance.

There do not appear to be any mitigation measures proposed for the period after 83.

mining activities commence. We interpret this to mean that CRP would find such an

approach (stopping and starting the mining equipment) impractical, or that there will be

a reliance on marine mammals avoiding the area once mining commences.

References

Aguilar Soto, N.A., Johnson, M., Madsen, P.T., Tyack, P.L., Bocconcelli, A., Borsani, 84.

J.F. (2006). Does intense ship noise disrupt foraging in deep-diving Cuvier’s beaked

whales (Ziphius cavirostris)? Marine Mammal Science 22:690-699.

Baker C.S., Chilvers B.L., Constantine R., DuFresne S., Mattlin R.H., van Helden A., 85.

Hitchmough R. (2010). Conservation status of New Zealand marine mammals

(suborders Cetacea and Pinnipedia), 2009. New Zealand Journal of Marine and

Freshwater Research 44: 101-115.

Baumgartner, M.F., Fratantoni, D.M., Hurst, T.P., Brown, M.W., Cole, T.V.N., Van 86.

Parijs, S.M., Johnson, M .(2013). Real-time reporting of baleen whale passive

acoustic detections from ocean gliders. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

134(4): 1814-1823.

Beaumont, J., Baird, S., Hayden, B. (2013). Biological and fishing data within the 87.

Minerals Prospecting Licence 50270 area on the Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report

No. WLG2011-10. April 2013, 38 pp.

29

29

Cawthorn, M.W. (2014). Statement of Evidence of Martin William Cawthorn for 88.

Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, 25 August 2014, 31 pp.

Chiswell, S.M. (2013) Physical oceanographic data available on the Chatham Rise. 89.

NIWA Client Report No. WLG2011-9, April 2013.

Conn, P.B., Silber, G.K. (2013). Vessel speed restrictions reduce risk of collision-90.

related mortality for North Atlantic right whales. Ecosphere 4(4):43.

CRP (2014). Marine Consent Application and Environmental Impact Assessment. 91.

Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, 497 pp.

Deltares (2014a). Chatham Rise Rock Phosphates Project Phase 2: Oceanographic 92.

study. Deltares Report Reference 1207562-000-ZKS-0012, March 2014, 62 pp.

Deltares (2014b). Modelling investigations on mine tailing plume dispersion on the 93.

Chatham Rise. Deltares Report Reference 1209110-000-ZKS-0007, March 2014,

131 pp. + appendices.

Deltares (2014c). Chatham Rise Rock Phosphates Project Phase 2 Resuspension 94.

Study. Deltares Report Reference 1207562-000-ZKS-0014, May 2014, 42 pp.

DeRuiter, S.L., Southall, B.L., Calambokidis, J., Zimmer, W.M., Sadykova, D., 95.

Falcone, E.A., Friedlander, A.S., Joseph, J.E., Moretti, D. Schorr, G.S., Thomas, L.,

Tyack, P.L. (2013). First direct measurements of behavioural responses by Cuvier’s

beaked whales to mid-frequency active sonar. Biology Letters 9:20130223.

Dolman, S., Williams-Grey, V., Asmutis-Silvia, R., Isaac, S. (2006). Vessel collisions 96.

and cetaceans: What happens when they don’t miss the boat. Whale and Dolphin

Conservation Society, Chippenham, UK, 25 pp.

http://uk.whales.org/sites/default/files/whales-and-ship-strikes.pdf.

Ford J.K.B., Koot, B., Vagle, S., Hall-Patch, N., Kamitakahara, G. (2010). Passive 97.

acoustic monitoring of large whales in offshore waters of British Columbia. Canadian

Technical Report of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 2898, 38pp.

Golder (2014a). Review of sediment chemistry and effects of mining. Golder 98.

Associates Report Number: 1178207517/013_Rev 4, May 2014, 43 pp +

appendices.

Golder (2014b). Draft environmental management and monitoring plan. Golder 99.

Associates (NZ) May 2014, 12 pp.

Hadfield, M. (2013). Ocean model simulations of sediment plume behaviour. NIWA 100.

Client Report No. WLG2010-71, April 2013, 23 pp.

Hadfield, M., Rickard, G., Nodder, S. (2013). Oceanographic models of Chatham 101.

Rise for sediment dispersal estimates. NIWA Client Report No. WLG2010-70, April

2013, 27 pp.

http://uk.whales.org/sites/default/files/whales-and-ship-strikes.pdf

30

30

Hanke, W. and Dehnhardt, G. (2013). Sensory biology of aquatic mammals. Journal 102.

of Comparative Physiology A 199: 417-420.

Jacobs (2014). Review of technical reports relating to CRP marine consent 103.

application marine science (marine mammals, fish and plankton, and benthic

ecology), 39 pp.

Johnson, M., Madsen, P.T., Zimmer, W.M.X., Aguilar de Soto, N., Tyack, P.L. (2004). 104.

Beaked whales echolocate on prey. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B

271:S383-S386.

Johnson, A., Salvador, G., Kenney, J., Robbins, J., Kraus, S., Landry, S., Clapham, 105.

P, (2005). Fishing gear involved in entanglements of right and humpback whales.

Jolly, D. (2014). Cultural Impact Assessment Report. Prepared for Chatham Rock 106.

Phosphate on behalf of Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu, 18 pp. Marine Mammal Science

21(4): 635-645.

Jones, D. (2014). Statement of Evidence of Diane Jones for Chatham Rock 107.

Phosphate Limited, 28 August 2014, 9 pp.

Laist, D., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S., Podesta, M. (2001). Collisions 108.

between ships and whales. Marine Mammal Science, 17, 35-75.

Laist, D.W, Knowlton, A.R., Pendleton, D. (2014). Effectiveness of mandatory vessel 109.

speed limits for protecting North Atlantic right whales. Endangered Species Research

123:133-147.

Lescinski, J. (2014). Statement of Evidence of Jamie Lescinski for Chatham Rock 110.


Madsen, P.T. (2005). Marine mammals and noise: Problems with root mean square 111.

sound pressure levels for transients. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America

134(3): 3952-3957.

Mellinger, D. K., Thode, A., Martinez, A. (2002). Passive acoustic monitoring of 112.

sperm whales in the Gulf of Mexico, with a model of acoustic detection distance.

Proceedings, Twenty-first Annual Gulf of Mexico Information Transfer Meeting,

January 2002. U. S. Department of the Interior Minerals Management Service, New

Orleans LA pp. 493–501.

Mellinger, D.K., Stafford, K.M., Moore, S.E., Dziak, R.P., Matsumoto, H. (2007). An 113.

overview of fixed passive acoustic observation methods for cetaceans.

Oceanography. 20(4): 36-45. 114.

NOAA (2013). Draft guidance for assessing the effects of anthropogenic sound on 115.

marine mammals. Acoustic threshold levels for onset of permanent and temporary

threshold shifts. Draft: 23 December 2013. US National Oceanic and Atmospheric

31

31

Association. Available at:

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/draft_acoustic_guidance_2013.pdf (accessed

9 September 2014)

NRC (2003). Ocean noise and marine mammals. National Research Council of the 116.

National Academies. National Academies Press, 221 pp.

O’Driscoll, R. (2014). Statement of Evidence of Richard O’Driscoll for Chatham Rock 117.


O’Driscoll, R.L., Ballara, S.L. (2014). The Chatham Rise and hoki role in hoki biology 118.

and distribution. NIWA Client Report No. WLG2014-15, April 2014, 33 pp.

Page, M. (2014). Statement of Evidence of Mike Page for Chatham Rock Phosphate 119.

Limited, 28 August 2014, 23 pp.

Panigada, S., Pesantea, G., Zanardellia, M., Capouladec, F., Gannierd, A., 120.

Weinriche, M.T. (2006). Mediterranean fin whales at risk from fatal ship strikes.

Marine Pollution Bulletin 52(10): 1287-1298.

Pinkerton, M.H. (2013). Ecosystem modelling of the Chatham Rise. NIWA Client 121.

Report No. WLG2013-17, April 2013, 183 pp.

Pinkerton, M. (2014). Statement of Evidence of Matt Pinkerton for Chatham Rock 122.


Richardson, W.J., Greene, C.R.J., Malme, C.I., Thomson, D.H. (1995). Marine 123.

mammals and noise. Academic Press, San Diego, 576 pp.

Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J.J. Gentry, R.L., Greene, C.R. 124.

Jr., Kastak, D., Ketten, D.R., Miller, J.H., Nachtigall, P.E., Richardson, W.J., Thomas,

J.A., Tyack, P.L. (2007). Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific

recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33:411-521.

Spearman, J. (2014). Statement of Evidence of Jeremy Spearman for Chatham Rock 125.


Thompson, K., Baker, C.S., van Helden, A., Patel, S., Millar, C., Constantine R. 126.

(2012). The world’s rarest whale. Current Biology 22: R905-R906.

Torres, L.G., Halliday, J., Sturman, J. (2013). Distribution patterns of cetaceans on 127.

the Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report No. CRP12302. April 2013.

Tyack, P.L., Johnson, M., Aguilar Soto, N., Sturlese, A, Madsen, P.T., 2006 Extreme 128.

diving behaviour of beaked whale species known to strand in conjunction with use of

military sonars. The Journal of Experimental Biology 209: 4238–4253.

Van Waerebeek, K., Baker, A.N., Félix, F., Gedamke, J., Iñiguez, M., Sanino, G.P., 129.

Secchi, E., Sutaria, D., van Helden, A., Wang, Y. (2007). Vessel collisions with small

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/acoustics/draft_acoustic_guidance_2013.pdf

32

32

cetaceans worldwide and with large whales in the Southern Hemisphere, an initial

assessment. Latin American Journal of Aquatic Mammals 6(1): 43-69.

Van der Hoop, J.M., Vanderlaan, S.M.A., Cole, T.V.N., Henry, A.G. Hall, L., Mase-130.

Guthrie, B., Wimmer, T., Moore, M.J. (2014). Vessel strikes to large whales before

and after the 2008 Ship Strike Rule. Article first published online 1 May 2014. DOI:

10.1111/conl.12105

Vanderlaan, A.S.M., Taggart, C.T. (2007). Vessel collisions with whales: the 131.

probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science.

23(1):144-156.

Wallingford (2014a). Chatham Rock Phosphate Underwater Sound Modelling. HR 132.

Wallingford, Attachment A to CRP Response to Information Request No. 36.

Wallingford (2014b). Chatham Rock Phosphate Addendum to RT004 Underwater 133.

Sound Modelling. HR Wallingford, Attachment B to CRP Response to Information

Request No. 36.

1

1

ANNEXURE C

INDICATIVE RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE

2010-2014

Project Manager and Technical Lead, Environmental Management Program (Marine Ecology) for Dredging and Disposal, Hay Point Coal Terminal Expansion Project. Relevant components include impact assessment of blasting and pile driving noise on marine mammals, turtles and fish; aerial and land-based surveys of marine mammals and other megafauna; water quality monitoring; ecological monitoring of infauna and epibenthic communities; management and risk assessment of non-indigenous marine species; and preparation and implementation of an Environmental Management Plan.

2010-2014

Project Manager and Marine Technical Lead, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, Vinh Tan 3 thermal power station, Vietnam. Relevant components include direction and interpretation of hydrodynamic modelling of dredging and cooling water plumes, design and interpretation of infauna and epibenthic surveys, and assessment of sediment contamination.

2012-2013

Project Manager, Improved Dredge Material Management for the Great Barrier Reef Region Project, for the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. The project included commissioning, oversight and interpretation of hydrodynamic modelling of sediment plumes; comparative risk assessments of sea disposal of dredged material at alternative spoil grounds; and development of a framework for water quality monitoring of dredging and disposal operations.

2009 Lead Author, Baseline desktop fisheries study, Port Hedland Outer Harbour Development, Western Australia.

2000-2009

Marine Ecologist, Vavouto Industrial Complex, Koniambo Nickel Project (New Caledonia). Project work included application of hydrodynamic modelling of dredging plumes and offshore wastewater discharge in impact assessment; development of Environmental Management Plan including design and implementation of baseline monitoring; and assessment of effects of underwater noise from dredging, shipping and pile driving on marine mammals and turtles.

2006-2009

Project Director and Senior Scientist, Water quality and ecological risk assessment and monitoring, Gold Coast Desalination Plant.

2008-2009

Project Manager, Sediment quality assessment and development of Long-Term Management Plan, and Sea Dumping Permit application for Port of Weipa, Queensland.

2007 Lead Author, international literature review of best environmental practice in infrastructure development in sensitive marine areas, for Woodside Petroleum.

IN THE MATTER of the Exclusive Economic Zone and ...€¦ · M.R., & McMillan, P.J. (1998). Atlas...

Documents

Transcript of IN THE MATTER of the Exclusive Economic Zone and ...€¦ · M.R., & McMillan, P.J. (1998). Atlas...