Counsel: Myregel Carambas, Solicitor / Morgan Slyfield, Barrister Email: Myregel.Carambas@epa.govt.nz 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 (EFFECTS ON

PLANKTON, FISH AND CEPHALOPODS)

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 plankton and

fish. The scope of the report also included cephalopods (squids and

octopuses);

(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 plankton, fish,

and cephalopods, 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 Plankton and Fish 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 an 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.

(l) 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

Impact Assessment (IA; CRP 2014a) and relevant appendices, most

notably Torres et al. 2013 (Appendix 20), Chiswell 2013 (Appendix 8),

Nodder et al. 2013 (Appendix 9), Deltares 2014a (Appendix 10), Golder

2014a (Appendix 11), Beaumont et al. 2013a (Appendix 13), Beaumont

et al. 2013b (Appendix 14), Rowden et al. 2013 (Appendix 15), Golder

2014b (Appendix 17), O’Driscoll and Ballara 2014 (Appendix 18), Baird

2014a (Apendix 19), Pinkerton 2013 (Appendix 22), Hadfield 2013

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

(Appendix 25), Deltares 2014c (Appendix 26), Page 2014a (Appendix

6

27), Page 2014b (Appendix 28), MacDiarmid 2014 (Appendix 31) and

Golder 2014c,d,e (Appendices 35i, 35ii, 35iii);

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

(c) Submissions relating to fish, plankton, cephalopods and their habitats.

(d) Applicant’s evidence relevant to the potential impacts on fish, plankton,

cephalopods, 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; and

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

Michael Edward Huber

12 September 2014

1

ANNEXURE A

REPORTS 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.

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 PLANKTON AND FISH 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 on 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, and initially within an 820 km2 Mining Permit Area. Subsequent

mining may occur in a wider Revised Marine Consent Application Area based on the results of

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 fish, plankton and

cephalopods (squids and octopuses). Material considered in the review included the Impact

Assessment (IA), supporting technical reports, CRP responses to 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 of 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. The

Chatham Rise is recognised as an area of high productivity, which in turn supports fisheries on a

large geographic scale. Mesozooplankton, dominated by copepods, and macrozooplankton,

dominated by krill, jellyfish, salps, siphonophores and arrow worms are of particular trophic

importance (Pinkerton 2013).The Chatham Rise is inhabited by a variety of cephalopods,

including squids and octopuses, which an important food source for fish, marine mammals and

sea birds.

Fish communities of the Chatham Rise are relatively well understood, as annual research trawls 3.

have been completed in the area since 1992. Over 250 fish species have been recorded on the

Chatham Rise, with this diversity thought to be driven by high levels of production. There are

several commercial fish species on the Chatham Rise, including hoki, hake, ling, and silver

warehou as well as orange roughy and oreos in deep waters. The Chatham Rise is an important

habitat for juvenile hoki of both the eastern and western stocks. Estimates from research trawls

indicate that more than 80% of New Zealand hoki between the ages of 2 and 3 years are found

on the Chatham Rise. The unique benthic habitats of the Chatham Rise provide an important

structural habitat for demersal fish and cephalopods.

Jacobs considers that the impacts of suspended sediment plumes from mining on pelagic and 4.

demersal organisms will be limited to the deepest 50 m of the water column, as predicted by

modelling. As the euphotic zone does not extend to these depths, we concur with CRP’s

conclusion that there will be no effects on primary production by phytoplankton. Suspended

sediment plumes are expected to have an influence on the distribution of demersal fish and

3

3

cephalopods, which are likely to move away from plumes. Given the large spatial extent of the

Chatham Rise as a fish and cephalopod habitat, the effects of suspended sediment plumes are

expected to be minor at a large spatial scale, and moderate but temporary at a local scale. We

consider that increased rates of sedimentation will have a moderate effect on benthic habitats for

demersal fishes and cephalopods that are adjacent to mined areas.

Benthic habitat destruction by mining will be severe and longer lasting for demersal fish and 5.

cephalopods than the temporary effects of suspended sediment plumes. Benthic seascapes

comprised of sponge beds, corals and other fauna provide structural habitat for a variety of

demersal fishes and cephalopods. The loss of this habitat from mining is highly likely to hamper

recovery of these species, at least to the abundance and diversity that existed prior to mining.

While recovery of benthic habitats can be expected for some community types, the decadal

timeframes of recovery will significantly limit ecological benefits of the recovery process. Hard

phosphorite nodule substrates occupied by corals are unlikely to recover. We assess the effects

of the loss of benthic habitats for demersal fishes and cephalopods to be high, particularly in

relation to the maintenance of diversity. The proposed mining does not appear to be consistent

with management of much of the Revised Marine Consent Application Area as a benthic

protection area.

Jacobs agrees with CRP’s assessment that underwater noise is unlikely to have major effects on 6.

plankton, fish and cephalopods. Accordingly, we assess the effect of underwater noise on fish,

cephalopods and plankton to be low to moderate. We also agree, based on additional information

provided by CRP in response to EPA information requests, that toxic effects from the release of

dissolved metals during re-deposition of processed sediment on plankton, fish and cephalopods

are highly unlikely.

There are limited opportunities to implement mitigation measures to reduce the effects on fish, 7.

cephalopods and plankton. Disturbance of benthic habitats and production of suspended

sediment plumes are unavoidable consequences of the proposed mining. There has been a

reduction in the size of the marine consent application area during the assessment process,

which will help mitigate the spatial scale of effects to some extent. In relation to relevant

assessment criteria under the EEZ Act, we consider that highest risks for plankton, fish and

cephalopods relate to the loss of supporting benthic habitat.

4

4

Glossary

Benthic: living on the bottom or within the sediments.

Cephalopod: marine molluscs of the class Cephalopoda. They include squids, octopuses, cuttlefishes

and nautilus.

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.

Macrozooplankton: zooplankton in the size range 20 200 mm

Mesozooplankton: zooplankton in the size range 0.2 20 mm

Mesopelagic zone: The water column at depths between 200 and 1,000 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 Revised 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

Pelagic fish: fish that live primarily within the water column

Phytoplankton: a highly diverse group of protists that drift in the water column and perform primary

production via photosynthesis

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

Trophic: refers to the food web

Zooplankton: animals and other non-primary producers that live in the water column and swim too

weakly to swim against currents

5

5

List of acronyms

EEZ: Exclusive Economic Zone

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

EPA: Environmental Protection Authority

IA: Impact Assessment (CRP 2014 and supporting studies)

TSS: Total Suspended Solids

6

6

Table of Contents

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 GLOSSARY 4 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 FISH AND PLANKTON 11

Summary of CRP’s assessment 11 Independent assessment 12 Mitigation of effects 15

Existing controls 15 Additional controls 17

Residual effects 17 Overview 17 Scale and significance 18

DISCUSSION 18 REFERENCES 22

7

7

Introduction

Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited (CRP) proposes to mine phosphorite deposits from the crest of 8.

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 primarily at depths between 350 m and 450 m, initially

within an 820 km2 Mining Permit Area. CRP is also seeking 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 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 9.

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

Jacobs (2014) has previously reviewed the technical reports prepared by CRP to support the 10.

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

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

This review provides a critical appraisal of the application and the conclusions of the IA, with a 11.

focus on assessing the likely effects on fish, plankton and cephalopods (squids and octopuses).

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 12.

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).

8

8

The Chatham Rise is located coincident with, and is likely to influence the formation of, a physical 13.

oceanographic 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. 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). Thus, the Chatham Rise is an

area of high productivity, which in turn supports fisheries on a large geographic scale (Page

2014a). Zooplankton biomass correlates with net phytoplankton production on the Chatham Rise

and forms an important part of the food web (Pinkerton 2013). Mesozooplankton, dominated by

copepods, and to a lesser extent amphipod crustaceans, and macrozooplankton, dominated by

krill (euphausid crustaceans) and gelatinous zooplankton including sea jellies (jellyfish), salps,

siphonophores and arrow worms (chaetognaths) are of particular trophic importance (Pinkerton

2013).

The Chatham Rise is inhabited by a variety of cephalopods. The squid most commonly captured 14.

in trawls is the arrow squid (Nototodarus sloanii; CRP 2014, p. 151). Other commonly captured

species include warty squid (Onykia ingens, O. robsoni), red squid (Ommastrephes bartrami) and

giant squid (Architeuthis; CRP 2014). Octopuses occur most commonly within the central area of

the Chatham rise at depths between 250 and 500 m (CRP 2014, p. 152). The dwarf octopus

(Octopus mernoo) is common at shallow depths, while Granelodone spp. dominates waters

deeper than 500 m. The distribution of other octopuses is similar to that of sponges, suggesting

that sponge beds provide an important structural habitat for at least some species of octopus.

Cephalopods are a food source for fish, marine mammals and sea birds. Although many

octopuses are benthic rather than pelagic, they may still be trophically important to pelagic

species. The long-finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas), for example, is known to feed on the

New Zealand octopus (Pinnoctopus cordiformis) on the seabed (Beatson et al. 2007; Beatson and

O’Shea 2009).

Fish communities of the Chatham Rise are relatively well understood, as annual research trawls 15.

have been completed in the area since 1992 (O’Driscoll and Ballara 2014). Over 250 fish species

have been recorded on the Chatham Rise, with this diversity thought to be driven by high levels of

production (Pinkerton 2013). There are several commercial fisheries on the Chatham Rise, with

targeted species including hoki, hake, ling, silver warehou and scampi, as well as orange roughy

and oreos in deep waters. Mesopelagic fish, which include small species preyed upon by

commercially exploited species such as hoki, were more common on the western Chatham Rise

than in the east (CRP 2014, Figure 73). Catch rates of hoki follow a broadly similar pattern

(O’Driscoll and Ballara 2014).

9

9

The Chatham Rise is an important habitat for juvenile hoki of both the eastern and western 16.

stocks. Estimates from research trawls indicate that more than 80% of New Zealand hoki between

the ages of 2 and 3 years are found on the Chatham Rise (O’Driscoll and Ballara 2014).

While the impacts of mining on benthic communities are outside of the scope of this review, 17.

benthic communities are relevant in that they provide habitat for demersal fishes and

cephalopods, which in turn are food for pelagic squids and fishes. Information on the type and

significance of benthic communities within the Revised Marine Consent Application Area is

patchy, with surveys of the sea floor only completed within some areas where mining is proposed.

While 6 dedicated field surveys have been completed to collect new information from the Revised

Marine Consent Application Area and surrounding locations, a large proportion of this survey

effort appears to have been focussed on the mineable resource and site characterisation, with

only 2 surveys collected benthic environmental information (CRP 2014, Table 3).

Benthic communities in the Mining Permit Area and potentially other parts of the Revised Marine 18.

Consent Application Area will be directly disturbed by mining, and adjacent areas will be indirectly

affected by suspended sediment plumes and increased rates of sedimentation. Benthic

communities are an integral part of the ecosystem diversity and integrity, and contribute to the

diversity of demersal fish and cephalopod assemblages. The available information suggests that

unique benthic assemblages may be present within and adjacent to the Revised Marine Consent

Application Area (Beaumont et al. 2013a; Rowden et al. 2013, 2014a).

Uncertainty in the information

In our previous review of the completeness of technical information provided in the marine 19.

consent application (Jacobs 2014), we identified a lack of information on key aspects of the

environment within and adjacent to the Original Marine Consent Application Area and that this will

present challenges for reaching informed conclusions regarding the environmental effects of the

proposed mining activity. Since then, CRP has modified the Original Marine Consent Application

Area, removing the most eastern block, PP55967, for which little information was available. This

has reduced some of the uncertainty around the environmental values to be disturbed by mining

activities within the Revised Marine Consent Application Area. However, some of the conclusions

and assumptions of the IA are still subject to uncertainty, due to the limited information available

on the environmental values of the proposed mining area.

For site-attached fish species associated with benthic habitat features such as coral thickets and 20.

sponge beds, it can be assumed that direct disturbance by mining will result in acute effects.

Structurally complex habitats are used by many demersal fish and crustaceans for predation

abatement and to feed (Caddy 2012). The lack of existing information presented in the IA on such

communities constrains the assessment of effects on biological diversity and integrity of marine

ecosystems.

10

10

The food web modelling (Pinkerton 2013) is subject to some uncertainty, as are all models. 21.

However, the assessment of relative importance of various trophic groups within the Chatham

Rise ecosystem makes a useful contribution to the assessment of effects and we consider it to

represent the best available information.

The mining process has the potential to release naturally occurring metals and into the water 22.

column as part of the phosphorite extraction process. If present in biologically available forms at

concentrations above those at which toxic effects may occur, such contaminants may have an

acute (lethal) or chronic (sub-lethal) effect on plankton, fish and/or cephalopods. In our previous

review of the technical information provided in the marine consent application (Jacobs 2014), we

concluded that the information in the application regarding the elutriate testing and dilution

modelling of dissolved arsenic, cadmium, copper and nickel released into the water column at

concentrations above recognised guideline levels for the protection of marine life

(ANZECC/ARMCANZ 2000) did not represent the best available information as defined in the

EEZ Act.

CRP’s response to EPA information requests 8-11, 16 and 19 provided additional information on 23.

the sediment chemistry and dilution modelling, including new near-field modelling linked to far-

field modelling. We now consider that the sediment chemistry and dilution modelling information

presented in the application represents the best available information.

Information used to assess effects

Jacobs reviewed the following documents supplied by the EPA and made publicly available on its 24.

website, pertaining to fish, plankton and cephalopods:

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

CRP 2014a) and relevant appendices, most notably Torres et al. 2013 (Appendix 20),

Chiswell 2013 (Appendix 8), Nodder et al. 2013 (Appendix 9), Deltares 2014a (Appendix 10),

Golder 2014a (Appendix 11), Beaumont et al. 2013a (Appendix 13), Beaumont et al. 2013b

(Appendix 14), Rowden et al. 2013 (Appendix 15), Golder 2014b (Appendix 17), O’Driscoll

and Ballara 2014 (Appendix 18), Baird 2014a (Apendix 19), Pinkerton 2013 (Appendix 22),

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

25), Deltares 2014c (Appendix 26), Page 2014a (Appendix 27), Page 2014b (Appendix 28),

MacDiarmid 2014 (Appendix 31) and Golder 2014c,d,e (Appendices 35i, 35ii, 35iii).

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

c) Submissions relating to plankton, fish, cephalopods and their habitats.

11

11

d) Applicant’s evidence, including that of Baird (2014b), Dunn (2014), Hewitt (2014), Jones

(2014), Lescinski (2014), MacDiarmid (2014), O’Driscoll (2014), Page (2014c), Pinkerton

(2014), Popper (2014a), Spearman (2014), and Tuck (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 25.

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

Assessment of effects on fish and plankton

Summary of CRP’s assessment

CRP has completed an assessment of the effects of mining on fish, plankton and cephalopods in 26.

the IA (CRP 2014). This has considered the effects of suspended sediment plumes and

sedimentation, underwater noise, removal of benthic habitat, and the toxic effects of contaminants

in processed mine sediment and waters discharged at 10 m above the sea floor.

Modelling of the predicted suspended sediment plume shows that the highest total suspended 27.

solids (TSS) concentrations will be 10 m above the sea bed and sediment plumes will only reach

the deepest 50 m of the water column. Thus, CRP (2014, p. 318) concluded that suspended

sediment plumes produced by mining will not have an impact on primary production in the

euphotic zone.

Nutrients have the potential to be suspended by the proposed mining activities; however, the IA 28.

states that nutrients will remain within the mesopelagic zone below the euphotic zone so will not

affect primary production (CRP 2014, p. 298).

CRP (2014, pp. 318 321) assesses that elevated TSS concentrations will not have an impact on 29.

fish eggs. While it is possible for sediment adhesion to fish eggs to occur, affecting their

buoyancy, the IA states that there is no information indicating that eggs of any key fish species

are susceptible to sediment adhesion.

CRP (2014, pp. 321 322) concludes that fish larvae may be adversely affected by high 30.

concentrations of suspended sediment; but that this will occur only within a few meters of the sea

bed in close proximity to the mining activity. Thus this mode of impact is not assessed as being

significant as the area affected is small, compared with the broader Chatham Rise habitat.

In the water column within 50 m of the seabed there is the potential for mining to have adverse 31.

effects on fish and other demersal species, through the clogging of gills and decreases in water

quality associated with the suspension of sediments and the release of metals from the

discharged sediment and seawater. Effects on benthic habitats, used by demersal fishes and

12

12

cephalopods can also be expected from sedimentation and direct disturbance from mining. The IA

acknowledges that effects of suspended sediment on fish can occur and the degree of impact can

depend on whether the organisms are mobile and can avoid the plume. Such behaviour may

influence the distribution of fish and cephalopod assemblages as they actively avoid the plume.

MacDiarmid (2013) assessed lobster larvae to be unaffected by the proposed mining. Lobster 32.

larvae are generally at shallower depths than the predicted sediment plume, and are unlikely to

occur to spend time over the crest of the Chatham Rise .

Page (2014c) assesses the effects of mining on zooplankton as low because zooplankton 33.

biomass is concentrated in the upper 100 m of the water column, above the predicted sediment

plume. This physical separation of zooplankton/phytoplankton and suspended sediment plume is

the primary means by which impacts are assessed to be avoided.

Noise may have some effect on fish, but trauma or hearing loss is not expected due to the 34.

relatively low sensitivity of fish to noise and the low noise levels predicted to be produced by

mining relative to thresholds for effect (Popper 2014a, b). Unlike marine mammals, most fishes

detect sound through particle motion rather than a pressure wave, and particle motion attenuates

much more rapidly than sound pressure waves (Popper (2014a,b). predicts that there will be

inconsequential effects on fishes that hear through particle motion but species that detect

pressure waves will show some behavioural responses including displacement at distances of 15

km and possibly up to 30 km from the mining. Popper (2014a,b) concludes that such behavioural

effects are unlikely to be of long-term consequence.

CRP’s response to an EPA information requests 8-11, 16, 19 provided additional information on 35.

sediment chemistry and dilution rates for dissolved metals predicted in the discharge. The results

show that at a distance of “a few hundred metres from the discharge” dilution rates of 750 times

will be achieved, reducing the concentrations of dissolved metals to below the 99%

ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines. The applicant’s assessment concluded that toxic effects

due to the release of metals from processed sediment were highly unlikely.

Independent assessment

The Deep Sea Conservation Coalition submission asserts that mining-generated sediment 36.

plumes will adversely affect primary production in the Chatham Rise area. However, the

suspended sediment plumes and nutrients generated by mining, are predicted to be limited to the

deepest 50 m of the water column. As the euphotic zone usually extends to no more than 200 m

depth, we concur with CRP’s conclusion that there will be no effects on primary production.

Although CRP (2014, pp. 318-322) assesses sediment plume effects on fish eggs and larvae to 37.

be minor, Page (2014a) notes that the commercial fish species black and smooth oreo, ling, hake,

silver warehou, giant stargazer and barracouta spawn on the mid-Chatham Rise in the vicinity of

13

13

the Original Marine Consent Application Area. Page (2014a) concludes that ling and hake eggs

and larvae could be affected by the mining-generated sediment plume, but this is highly uncertain

because of a lack of empirical studies. We concur with this conclusion. The effects at a population

level would also depend on the relative importance of the affected area for ling and hake eggs

and larvae; we are not aware of any available information to address this.

Suspended sediment plumes can be expected to have an influence on the distribution of 38.

demersal fish and cephalopods, which are likely to avoid the plume. Given the large spatial extent

of the Chatham Rise as a fish and cephalopod habitat, the effects of suspended sediment plumes

can be expected to be minor at a poplation scale, and moderate but temporary at a local spatial

scale. The moderate risk reflects the potential for a reduction in fish abundance and diversity over

a scale of several kilometres. The ecological effects of avoidance behaviour are likely to be a

reduction in abundance and diversity of demersal fish and cephalopods for a period of weeks to

months within a few kilometres of mining activities. While mining will cease temporarily to

transport product back to port, it will recommence in 4-5 days, leaving little opportunity for site-

specific recovery between mining cycles. We note, however, that Spearman (2014) concluded

that the plume modelling significantly over-predicted the spatial extent of the sediment plume, due

to overly coarse resolution in the sediment transport model, the exclusion of some sediment

fractions in the original model and the application of conservatively low values of settling velocity

which did not take into account sediment flocculation. This suggests that the effect of plumes will

in fact be less than predicted in the IA. Overall, while we expect the sediment plumes to have

some effects on demersal fish and cephalopods, our assessment is that these will be relatively

minor in scale and magnitude.

Jacobs considers that the destruction of benthic habitats as part of the mining activity will be more 39.

significant and longer lasting for demersal fish and cephalopods than the temporary effects of

TSS plumes. In addition, fish and cephalopods associated with benthic habitats the proposed

operation are likely to be entrained during dredging, resulting in mortality. Opportunistic

scavenger species could also be attracted to organic matter in the suspended sediment plume

produced by mining and be entrained. Because the Revised Marine Consent Application Area

represents a relatively small proportion of broadly similar habitat on the crest of the Chatham

Rise, we assess the population-level effects of this entrainment as low to moderate. This

assessment has a high uncertainly, however, as there is insufficient information regarding the

water intake velocity, habitat associations and densities of demersal fish and squid and their likely

attraction or avoidance behaviour.

Benthic seascapes comprised of sponge beds, cold-water corals and other benthic fauna provide 40.

structural habitat for a variety of demersal fishes and cephalopods. While some demersal fish and

squid are likely to move away as the mining plant approaches, the habitat loss from mining is

14

14

highly likely to hamper their recovery, at least to the abundance and diversity that existed prior to

mining.

While recovery of benthic habitats can be expected for some community types, the decadal 41.

timeframes estimated in the IA, with which we concur, will significantly reduce any ecological

benefits from the recovery process. Moreover, the hard phosphorite nodules that provide

substrate for corals and other fauna are unlikely to recover following the mining process, except

perhaps on geological time scales. In this context, we assess the likely effects of benthic habitat

loss as high for demersal fish and cephalopods, particularly in relation to the maintenance of

diversity. This is because the complexity and uniqueness of the benthic community appears to

partially underpin the abundance and diversity of demersal assemblages.

Fish have a varying degree of physical and behavioural tolerance to underwater noise, and are 42.

most vulnerable to the effects intense sound pulses generated by activities such as underwater

piling ((CRP 2014, p. 350; Popper 2014 a,b). No such activities are proposed by CRP, with

underwater noise sources limited to the mining vessel at the surface, and the mining plant at the

seabed. Jacobs agrees with the assessment that noise is unlikely to have major effects on fish,

although we consider the 15 km distance at which behavioural effects as relatively high.

Squids are known to react to underwater noise (McCauley et al. 2000; Mooney et al. 2010, 2012; 43.

Packard et al. 1990). Like most fishes, squids detect sound via particle motion (Kaifu et al. 2008;

Mooney et al. 2010), and because of the rapid attenuation of particle motion from the source we

expect mining noise effects on squids to be low.

Page (2014c) assesses the effects of mining on zooplankton to be low because zooplankton 44.

biomass is concentrated in the upper 100 m of the water columns. There are, however, many

mesopelagic zooplankton including krill (Castro and Huber 2013), which are important in the

Chatham Rise food web (Pinkerton 2013). Because of the spatially wide distribution of

zooplankton populations and their constant transport through the region by currents, the

proportion of the population potentially affected by sediment plumes, noise, or entrainment would

be vanishingly small.

Water quality is an important environmental value of marine ecosystems, and high concentrations 45.

of biologically available contaminants such as metals and metalloids can have toxic effects on

biota fauna. The ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines outline a management framework

recommended for the application of guidelines to protect and manage environmental values of

waterways, including marine areas. Some metals are toxic to a range of biota in certain forms by

disrupting metabolic processes and can be toxic at low concentrations (e.g. mercury, cadmium

and copper). Other metals are generally non-toxic, such as iron. The ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000)

guidelines provide a basis for assessing the concentration above which contaminants may be

expected to impact on biota. Different levels of protection afforded to biota are outlined in the

15

15

guidelines, based on laboratory experiments assessing the toxicity of contaminants. The 95%

protection level is applied most commonly to slightly to moderately disturbed ecosystems.

Concentrations of contaminants below the 95% protection guideline can be expected to protect

95% of species exposed to the waters containing the contaminant. A higher degree of protection

(99%) may be recommended in the ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines where the

contaminant (e.g. mercury) is known to bioaccumulate. In any case, the 99% protection level is

appropriate for application to the Chatham Rise, given its remoteness and lack of anthropogenic

sources of contamination.

The mining process has the potential to release naturally occurring metals into the water column. 46.

CRP’s response to EPA information requests 8-11, 16, 19 provided additional information on

sediment chemistry and predicted dilution rates of dissolved metals in the discharge. The

modelling predicts that at a distance of “a few hundred metres from the discharge” dilution rates of

750 times will be achieved, reducing the concentrations of dissolved metals to below the 99%

ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000) guidelines. Jacobs agrees that, on the basis of the additional

information provided, toxic effects of waste water discharges on plankton, fish and cephalopods

are highly unlikely, in particular because these organisms are highly unlikely to remain in the

discharge plume for extended periods, and the re-deposited sediment in close proximity to the

discharge will be de-faunated so that benthic prey that could accumulate metals will not be

available until after the mining vessel moves on.

The consent application assesses the effects of artificial lighting on seabirds, but not on plankton, 47.

fish or cephalopods. Many fish species are attracted to artificial light (Nightengale et al. 2006),

and the attraction of squid to artificial light is well known and used in commercial squid fisheries.

Many zooplankton are also attracted to night lighting. This could have adverse effects such as

making them more vulnerable to predation, affecting night vision, or attracting them away from

productive foraging areas. These effects would be localised in a very small area around the

mining vessel and highly unlikely to have an impact at the population level.

Mitigation of effects

Existing controls

The IA acknowledges that ling spawn in the eastern prospecting permit area, which has been 48.

removed from the Original Marine Consent Application Area, and suggests that mining could be

conducted in other parts of the Revised Marine Consent Application Area during the spawning

period. The IA also states that if mining continue during spawning it would affect only 0.01% of the

population’s egg stock being lost. This is likely to represent a negligible impact at a population

level.

16

16

No specific mitigation measures for plankton, fish or cephalopods are proposed in the application, 49.

which is largely focused on mitigation of effects on the benthic environment.

Where mitigation cannot prevent adverse impacts, CRP has proposed environmental 50.

compensation by establishing a trust that will receive $200,000 per annum to facilitate ecological

sustainability and enhancement and provide funds for targeted research on the impacts of CRP’s

mining operations.

Consent conditions are proposed using adaptive management guided through monitoring of the 51.

environmental effects of the project. CRP also proposes to collect baseline oceanographic

information, monitoring water turbidity and changes in benthic ecology.

Proposed Condition 14 in CRP (2014) relates to monitoring of TSS and states that adaptive 52.

management must be undertaken if TSS exceeds 50 mg/L above background levels. No

information is provided on the derivation of this threshold, although CRP (2014, p. 323) cites a

threshold value of 50 mg/L recommended by FeBEC (2013) as a threshold for avoidance

behaviour in adult fishes. FeBEC (2013) also recommends effects threshold values as low as

2 mg/L for eggs and larvae of some fish species, and the recommended thresholds are for total

TSS, not above-background levels. Jacobs does not consider setting fixed above-background

trigger values for management responses baseline data, to be good practice. Our recommended

approach is establish trigger values on the basis of percentiles of the intensity and duration of

baseline data.

CRP does not provide any information on whether mining will continue during the time taken to 53.

respond and implement adaptive management responses. Proposed Condition 32(a)(i) states that

data for turbidity, current speed and direction, temperature, conductivity and pressure monitoring

will be retrieved every 6 months. This would mean that detection of TSS concentrations above the

proposed threshold could take as long as 6 months, with a further delay in deciding and

implementing management responses. At least in the early stages of mining the frequency should

be much higher to ensure adverse effects are not occurring to allow adaptive management to

occur and prevent adverse effects to the environment.

Implementing proposed Condition 14 on the basis of Proposed Condition 32(a)(i) would require 54.

the establishment of a correlation between turbidity and TSS using baseline data, and confirmed

after the commencement of mining to rule out the possibility that differences in suspended

sediment characteristics between baseline and mining conditions render the baseline correlation

invalid.

Proposed Condition 32(a)(i) stipulates that the water quality monitoring moorings can be moved 55.

over the life of the project. This would likely prevent gaining a good understanding of the temporal

17

17

and spatial variability of sediment plumes generated by mining. No information is provided on the

selection of monitoring locations.

Additional controls

If a trust is to be established for environmental compensation (monitoring), Jacobs suggests that 56.

a technical panel is established allocate funding to achieve the best compensatory outcomes. It

should be acknowledged that research is not necessarily compensation and any studies should

be used to inform implementation of more direct compensation measures (e.g. artificial substrates

to promote recovery). It is not known whether a fixed payment of $200,000 per year will be

sufficient to compensate for CRP’s mining activities.

Additional mitigation measures could include reducing the spatial extent of the area to be mined 57.

or avoiding areas of key habitat altogether or during key periods (e.g. spawning). CRP has

already reduced the area from the original marine consent application. There are unlikely to be

effective mitigation measures that can reduce the effects of mining activities on plankton and

cephalopods, besides reducing the area of benthic habitat disturbed and mitigating water quality

impacts. Increasing the speed of recovery through the establishment of hard-bottom substrates

may be beneficial, but is not proven in this environment. If such an approach was effective, a

return of benthic communities to the successional states present prior to mining would more than

likely still take decades to occur.

Although Jacobs concluded that the effects of artificial lighting would likely be negligible at a 58.

population level, we consider it best practice to implement mitigation measures to minimise light

spill into waters around the mining vessel. We consider the approach proposed in Golder (2014d),

modified to consider plankton, fish and cephalopods, to be good practice.

Residual effects

Overview

The only recommended mitigation measure directly addressing fish, plankton and cephalopods is 59.

to minimise light spill around the mining vessel.

Likely indirect and/or cumulative effects include: 60.

a. Destruction of habitat for demersal fishes and cephalopods, and associated fauna and habitats

(e.g. octopus residing within sponge beds)

b. Temporary changes in fish behaviour and distribution due to noise and suspended sediment

plumes.

18

18

c. Possible long-term changes in fish distribution as a result of benthic habitat loss and noise

disturbance.

We assess the residual effects from the proposed activity to include loss of hard substrate in the 61.

mining area, smothered areas surrounding mining areas, loss of benthic habitat that facilitates fish

species including larvae of commercial species. As ling are identified to spawn in on the Chatham

Rise crest the altered habitat may affect subsequent spawning and such changes are considered

to be a residual effect. Effects on ling reproductive success if mining continues in proximity to

spawning areas during the spawing season would also be a residual effect.

Scale and significance

With regard to benthic communities CRP (2014, p. 427) states that the “loss is proportionally 62.

small when compared with the area that has been affected by fishing activities”. With regards to

the scope of this report (plankton, fish and cephalopods), Jacobs considers that the proportional

direct effects are likely to be lower due to those organisms being able to migrate from the area.

However, it should also be recognised that the benthic protection area has significantly limited the

impact of fishing activities within the Revised Marine Consent Application Area, and that mining

will by definition, result in destruction of benthic habitats.

Discussion

Jacobs has completed an assessment of the CRP application in relation to the criteria under s59 63.

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. A summary of our findings is provided in

Table 1 and described in the following text.

19

19

Table 1 Jacobs assessment of the effects and level of certainty for various modes of impact on fish, plankton and cephalopods.

Mode of impact Magnitude of effect

Level of certainty

Mitigation Residual effect Comments

TSS plumes affecting

plankton and pelagic fish

and cephalopods

Low High Not necessary Low Sediment plume is not predicted to extend

more than 50 m above seabed.

TSS plumes affecting

demersal fish and

cephalopods, including

spawning areas

Low to Moderate High Avoiding

spawning areas.

Establishing TSS

thresholds at

certain distances.

Low to Moderate Effect of a small scale in relation to broader

Chatham Rise. Effects likely to be sub-lethal

and temporary.

Destruction of benthic

habitats for demersal fish

and cephalopods from direct

mining activities.

Entrainment of fish in

dredging equipment.

High (demersal

fish and

cephalopods)

Moderate Mining exclusion

areas.

High Benthic communities of the marine consent

application area are not well studied,

particularly as habitat for demersal fish and

cephalopods. Diversity is known to be high.

Mining will destroy habitat, with very slow

recovery.

Destruction of benthic

habitats for demersal fish

and cephalopods from

sedimentation adjacent to

mined areas.

Moderate

(demersal fish

and cephalopods)

Moderate Not practical

(mitigating effects

of sedimentation)

Moderate Sedimentation rates are predicted by

modelling at various distances from the

source. But the composition of benthic

communities and their sensitivity to

sedimentation is not well understood.

Underwater noise displacing

fish and cephalopods

Low to moderate High Not practical Low Noise will not affect fish and cephalopods at

distances of 15 km or more. Some

behavioural effects can be anticipated at

distances within 15 km from the mining

operation.

20

20

Section 59(2)(a) requires the EPA to consider any effects on the environment or 64.

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. In relation to fish, cephalopods and plankton, we

consider that the most significant effect will be caused by a loss of benthic habitat

diversity and structure, an important aspect of the environment for demersal fish and

cephalopods. Mining will cause a reduction in the abundance and diversity of demersal

fish and cephalopods. The information that is available on the demersal fish and

cephalopod assemblages of the Chatham Rise suggests that such assemblages are

diverse and of relatively high trophic importance as prey for marine mammals,

predatory fishes and squids. Recovery of benthic habitats, and thus demersal fish and

cephalopod assemblages that they support, is likely to occur over a period of decades,

or not at all in the case of hard phosphorite substrates.

Section 59(2)(d) requires the EPA to consider the importance of protecting the 65.

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

destruction of benthic habitats through the mining process is the primary concern in

relation to this criterion, as these habitats. Are important for demersal fish and

cephalopods. It is difficult to see how the biological diversity and integrity of benthic

species, ecosystems and processes within the mined areas can be protected. The

proposal is unlikely to affect the high primary production of the Chatham Rise, as it is

supported by oceanographic processes which will not be significantly affected by

mining. Biological diversity plankton, fish and cephalopods on the Chatham Rise is

high, with over 250 fish species recorded. The area a spawning ground for ling and

hake. The application states the timing of mining may but not necessarily will be

managed to reduce disturbance during the ling spawning period.

Section 59(2)(e) requires the EPA to consider the importance of protecting rare and 66.

vulnerable ecosystems and the habitats of threatened species. While research trawls

have collected extensive information on demersal fish and cephalopods, the

importance of the existing benthic communities in providing habitat for these species is

uncertain. Additional surveys of benthic habitats and the associated demersal fish and

cephalopod assemblages, prior to the commencement of mining, is a potential

approach to reducing this uncertainty.

Section 59(2)(h) requires the EPA to consider the nature and effect of other marine 67.

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. Though this management regime does not

directly protect demersal fish and squid, it offers protection to the habitats supporting

21

21

them, and the removal of these habitats by mining could result in indirect effects on

demersal fish and squid.

Section 59(2)(j) requires the EPA to consider the extent to which imposing conditions 68.

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 of the IA (CRP 2014).

These conditions are generally aimed at reducing the risk of accidents and offsetting

impacts through funding environmental research. The primary impact of the mining,

removal of the benthic habitats, cannot be mitigated in mined areas, except for further

reducing the consent application area. However, given the significant capital

investment required for the project, CRP states that it is not economically feasible to

proceed with the proposal on a smaller scale than proposed (CRP 2014, p. 402). The

proposed conditions provide a suitable framework to address relevant issues for fish,

cephalopods and plankton, such as the development of an environmental monitoring

and management plan and establishment of a technical peer review group. The

establishment of appropriate thresholds to monitor and manage the effects of mining on

water quality and minimise the disturbance of habitats for demersal fish and

cephalopods, would be a sound approach in further development of a management

and monitoring plan.

Jacobs has reviewed the IA and supporting documents of CRP’s marine consent 69.

application to determine whether the activity on fish, plankton and cephalopods have

been accurately assessed. We have concluded that the key assessments in relation to

the impact of underwater noise, sediment plumes, and sediment chemistry are

accurate, and generally likely to be low.

The Chatham Rise supports diverse and probably unique benthic assemblages which 70.

support a productive food web and marine ecosystem, including demersal fish and

cephalopods. Mining will remove this benthic habitat from sections of the Chatham

Rise, reducing habitat complexity and diversity and disrupting trophic structure at a

local scale, or more broadly if spawning areas are affected. There is uncertainty around

the significance of the benthic communities in supporting demersal fish and cephalopod

assemblages due to a lack of dedicated surveys in the Revised Marine Consent

Application Area. There are no practical mitigation measures available to reduce the

direct effects of mining on benthic habitats for demersal fish and cephalopods. While an

adaptive management approach has been proposed, it is difficult to see how this will

achieve the protection of species diversity and ecological integrity over the decadal

timeframes of the project. The proposal also appears to be inconsistent with the current

management of much of the Revised Marine Consent Application Area as a benthic

protection area.

22

22

References

ANZECC/ARMCANZ (2000). Australian and New Zealand Guidelines for Fresh and 71.

Marine Water Quality (Vol. 1 Chapters 1-7)

Baird, S.J. (2014a). Ling longline effort and catch data summary relevant to Chatham 72.

Rise Phosphate Ltd mining permit and licence areas. NIWA Client Report No. WLG-

2014-11, March 2014, 28 pp.

Baird S.J. (2014b). Statement of Evidence of Susan Jane Baird for Chatham Rock 73.

Phosphate Limited, 25 August 2014, 26 pp.

Beatson, E.L., O’Shea, S., Ogle, M. (2007). First report on the stomach contents of 74.

long-finned pilot whales, Globicephala melas, stranded in New Zealand. New

Zealand Journal of Zoology 34: 51-56.

Beatson, E.L., O’Shea, S. (2009). Stomach contents of long-finned pilot whales, 75.

Globicephala melas, mass-stranded on Farewell Spit, Golden Bay in 2005 and 2008.

New Zealand Journal of Zoology 36: 47-58.

Beaumont, J., Nodder, S., Schnabel, K. (2013a). Data on the Chatham Rise benthos: 76.

macro-faunal and infaunal communities. NIWA Client Report No. WLG2011-7, April

2013. 47 pp.

Beaumont, J., Baird, S., Hayden, B. (2013b). Biological and fishing data within the 77.

Minerals Prospecting Licence 50270 area on the Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report

No. WLG2011-10. April 2013, 38 pp.

Caddy J.F. (2012). Why do assessments of demersal stocks largely ignore habitat? 78.

ICES Journal of Marine Science 2013:1-13.

Castro, P., Huber, M.E. (2013). Marine Biology, 9th Edition. McGraw-Hill, 462 pp. 79.

Chiswell, S.M. (2013). Physical oceanographic data available on the Chatham Rise. 80.

NIWA Client Report No. WLG2011-9, April 2013.

CRP (2014). Marine consent application and environmental impact assessment. 81.

Chatham Rock Phosphate, 497 pp.

Deltares (2014a). Chatham Rise Rock Phosphates Project Phase 2: Oceanographic 82.

study. Deltares Report Reference 1207562-000-ZKS-0012, March 2014, 62 pp.

Deltares (2014b). Modelling investigations on mine tailing plume dispersion on the 83.

Chatham Rise. Deltares Report Reference 1209110-000-ZKS-0007, March 2014,

131 pp. + appendices.

Deltares (2014c). Chatham Rise Rock Phosphates Project Phase 2 Resuspension 84.

Study. Deltares Report Reference 1207562-000-ZKS-0014, May 2014, 42 pp.

23

23

Dunn, A. (2014). Statement of evidence of Alistair Dunn for Chatham Rock 85.

Phosphate Limited, 29 August 2014, 15 pp.

FeBEC (2013) Fish Ecology in Fehmarnbelt. Environmental Impact assessment 86.

Report, Report no. E4TR0041 Volume I: 254 pp.

Golder (2014a). Review of sediment chemistry and effects of mining. Golder 87.

Associates Report Number: 1178207517/013_Rev 4, May 2014, 43 pp +

appendices.

Golder (2014b). Predicted distributions for fisheries of the Chatham Rise. Golder 88.

Associates Report Number 11178207517/017, April 2014, 66 p + appendix.

Golder (2014c). Draft environmental management and monitoring plan. Golder 89.

Associates (NZ) May 2014, 12 pp.

Golder (2014d). Draft vessel lighting management plan. Golder Associates (NZ) May 90.

2014, 17 pp.

Golder (2014e). Draft vessel lighting management plan. Golder Associates (NZ) May 91.

2014, 13 pp.

Hadfield, M. (2013). Ocean model simulations of sediment plume behaviour. NIWA 92.

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

Hadfield, M., Rickard, G., Nodder, S. (2013). Oceanographic models of Chatham 93.

Rise for sediment dispersal estimates. NIWA Client Report No. WLG2010-70, April

2013, 27 pp.

Hewitt, J.E. (2014). Statement of Evidence of Judith Elaine Hewitt for Chatham Rock 94.

Phosphate Limited, 28 August 2014, 24 pp.

Jacobs (2014). Review of technical reports relating to CRP marine consent 95.

application marine science (marine mammals, fish and plankton, and benthic

ecology), 39 pp.

Jones, D. (2014). Statement of Evidence of Diane Jones for Chatham Rock 96.

Phosphate Limited, 28 August 2014, 9 pp.

Kaifu, K., Akamatsu, T., Segawa, S. (2008). Underwater sound detection by 97.

cephalopod statocyst. Fisheries Science 74:781-786.

Lescinski, J. (2014). Statement of Evidence of Jamie Lescinski for Chatham Rock 98.

Phosphate Limited, 29 August 2014, 66 pp.

MacDiarmid, A. (2013). Possible impacts of phosphorite nodule mining on red rock 99.

lobsters around the Chatham Islands. NIWA Client Report No. WLG2012-50, April

2013, 12 pp.

24

24

MacDiarmid, A. (2014). Statement of Evidence of Dr Alison MacDiarmid for Chatham 100.

Rock Phosphate Limited, 25 August 2014, 13 pp.

McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M.-N., Penrose, J.D., 101.

Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, A., Murdoch, J., McCabe, C. (2000) Marine seismic surveys:

analysis and propagation of air gun signals; and effects of air-gun exposure on

humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Report on research conducted for

The Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association. CMST Report 99-

15, 185 pp.

Mooney, T.A., Hanlon, R.T., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Madsen, P.T., Nachtigall, 102.

P.E., Ketten, D.R. (2010). Sound detection by the longfin squid (Loligo pealeii)

studied with auditory evoked potentials: sensitivity to low-frequency particle motion

and not pressure. Journal of Experimental Biology. 213: 3748-3759.

Mooney, T.A. Hanlon, R., Madsen, P.T., Christensen-Dalsgaard, J., Ketten, D.R., 103.

Nachtigall, P.E. (2012). Potential for sound sensitivity in cephalopods. Pp. 125-128

in: Popper, A.N., Hawkins, A. (eds.) The effects of noise on aquatic life. Advances in

Experimental Medicine and Biology 730.

Nightingale, B., Longcore, T., Simenstad, C.A. (2006). Artificial night lighting and 104.

fishes. Pp/ 257-276 in: Rich, C.; Longcore, T. (eds.) Ecological consequences of

artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, USA.

Nodder, S., Pallentin, A., Mackay, K., Bowden, D. (2013). Seafloor morphology and 105.

substrate characterisation on Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report No. WLG2013-22,

May 2013, 38 pp.

O’Driscoll, R.L., Ballara, S.L. (2014). The Chatham Rise and hoki role in hoki biology 106.

and distribution. NIWA Client Report No. WLG2014-15, April 2014, 33 pp.

O’Driscoll, R. (2014). Statement of evidence of Richard O’Driscoll for Chatham Rock 107.

Phosphate Limited, 28 August 2014, 38 pp.

Page, M. (2014a). Effects of total suspended solids on marine fish: eggs and larvae 108.

on the Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report No. WLG2012-61, April 2014, 22 pp.

Page, M. (2014b). Effects of total suspended solids on marine fish: pelagic, demersal 109.

and bottom fish species avoidance of TSS on the Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report

No. WLG2014-7, April 2014, 22 pp.

Page, M. (2014c). Statement of Evidence of Mike Page for Chatham Rock 110.

Phosphate Limited, 28 August 2014, 23 pp.

Pinkerton, M.H. (2013). Ecosystem modelling of the Chatham Rise. NIWA Client 111.

Report No. WLG2013-17, April 2013, 183 pp.

25

25

Pinkerton, M. (2014). Statement of Evidence of Matt Pinkerton for Chatham Rock 112.

Phosphate Limited, 29 August 2014, 32 pp.

Popper, A. (2014a). Statement of Evidence of Professor Emeritus Arthur Popper for 113.

Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, 28 August 2014, 9 pp.

Popper, A.N. (2014b). Potential effects of dredging on fishes of the Chatham Rise. A 114.

report prepared for Chatham Rock Phosphate, Attachment C to CRP Response to

Information Request No. 36.

Rowden, A., Leduc, D., Torres, L., Bowden, D., Hart, A., Chin, C., Davey, N., Wright, 115.

J., Carter, M., Crocker, B., Halliday, J., Loerz, A-N., Read, G., Mills, S., Anderson,

O., Neill, K., Kelly, M., Tracey, D., Kaiser, S., Gordon, D., Watkins S., Horn P.,

Pallentin, A., Nodder, S., Mackay, K., Northcote, L. (2013). Benthic communities of

MPL area 50270 on the Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report No. WLG2012-25, May

2013, 102 pp.

Rowden, A., Leduc, D., Torres, L., Bowden, D., Hart, A., Chin, C., Davey, N., 116.

Nodder, S., Pallentin, A., Mackay, K., Northcote, L., Sturman, J. (2014a). Benthic

epifauna communities of the central Chatham Rise Crest. NIWA Client Report No.

WLG2014-9, March 2014, 113 pp.

Rowden, A., Lundquist, C., Baird, S., Woels, S. (2014b). Developing spatial 117.

management options for the central crest of Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report No.

WLG2014-19, May 2014, 54 pp.

Spearman J (2014). Statement of Evidence of Jeremy Spearman for Chatham Rock 118.

Phosphate Limited, 28 August 2014, 16 pp.

Torres, L.G., Halliday, J., Sturman J. (2013). Distribution patterns of cetaceans on 119.

the Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report No. WLG2011-67, April 2013, 45 pp.

Tuck, I. (2014). Statement of Evidence of Dr Ian Tuck for Chatham Rock Phosphate 120.

Limited, 28 August 2014, 38 pp.

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.