Statement of evidence of Dr Paul Richard Krause
Dated: 12 September 2014
REFERENCE: JM Appleyard ([email protected])
BG Williams ([email protected])
Before the Environmental Protection Authority
in the matter of: an application for marine consent under the Exclusive
Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental
Effects) Act 2012
between: Chatham Rock Phosphate
Applicant
and: Deepwater Group Limited
Submitter
and: Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu
Submitter
1
100058154/600288.5
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION 2
SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 3 Description of the Proposal and associated mining operation 4 Impact of sedimentation 5 Impacts of contaminants on fish 7 Impacts of physical disturbance on fish 11 Impacts of habitat change or removal on fish 13 Food web effects on fish 17 Life cycle effects 20 Combined impacts of the above effects 21
CONCLUSIONS 21
LITERATURE CITED 23
2
100058154/600288.5
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF DR PAUL RICHARD KRAUSE
INTRODUCTION
1 My full name is Dr Paul Richard Krause.
2 I am employed by Environmental Resources Management, Inc.
(ERM) located in Marina del Rey, California, USA. My position at ERM
is as a Partner within the Impact Assessment and Planning (IAP)
practice. I lead international and US focused impact assessments
and marine science projects and am the lead Partner for the USA
Marine Science Team.
3 I hold a Bachelor of Science (BSc) degree in Marine Biology and a
Master of Science (MSc) in Biology from California State University,
Long Beach, and a Doctor of Philosophy (Ph.D.) in marine ecology
and toxicology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. My
doctoral research focused on the effects of the release of oil and gas
production water on the reproduction and ecology of marine
organisms.
4 Following my graduate work I held a post-doctoral fellowship from
the National Academy of Science where I studied the effects of
industrial effluents. Following this, I was a Principal Scientist and
Laboratory Director for MEC Analytical Systems, Inc, where I ran the
largest commercial marine testing laboratory in the United States.
Prior to joining ERM in 2010, I was employed by Arcadis-US, Inc. as
a vice president where I was the global director for marine science.
5 I am a member of: The Ecological Society of America (ESA), where I
am a certified Senior Professional Ecologist; The Society of
Ecological Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC), where I am the past-
president of the Southern California Chapter, and founding member
of the Sediment Advisory Group; The International Association of
Impact Assessment (IAIA), and the Southern California Academy of
Science. I have published over 15 peer-reviewed scientific articles,
and numerous technical reports.
6 Thorough my career I have focused on marine impacts related to
sediment toxicology, direct and indirect impacts, ecology of marine
species, primarily fishes and invertebrates. I routinely work with
projects located in the Asia Pacific region including New Zealand and
Australia. I am familiar with Chatham Rock Phosphate’s Limited’s
(CRP’s) marine consent application.
7 I have reviewed the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and
the associated appendices and additional reports presented by the
EPA. In addition, I have reviewed available stock assessment and
3
100058154/600288.5
other relevant scientific literature associated with hoki, ling, hake,
and potential impacts associated with factors related to mining
operations.
8 I have generally relied on the above referenced documents, the peer
reviewed literature, available agency reports, evidence documents
from CRP, Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu (Ngāi Tahu), and Deepwater
Group Limited (DWG) experts, and my own professional experience
in developing my evidence.
SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
9 I have been asked by DWG and Ngāi Tahu to provide evidence in
support of its submission on CRP’s application for marine consent
under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf
(Environmental Effects) Act 2012. CRP has sought consent to mine
phosphate from the Chatham Rise (the Proposal).
10 My evidence includes an evaluation of the following impacts:
10.1 Sediment on the Chatham Rise on fish;
10.2 contaminant release from mining on fish
10.3 physical disturbance of mining on fish;
10.4 habitat change or removal on fish;
10.5 food web effects on fish; and,
10.6 the combined effects of the above.
11 In my evidence I concentrate on the potential impacts associated
with the proposed mining operations on three valuable commercial
fish species found on the Chatham Rise: hoki, ling, and hake -
although the general impacts to fishes of the Chatham Rise have
also been taken into consideration.
12 I am presenting this evidence as an expert witness. I have read and
agreed to comply with the Expert Witness Code of Conduct –
Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note (2011). I agree to
comply with the Code of Conduct as if these proceedings were
before the Environment Court. My qualifications are set out above.
I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are
within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material
facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions
expressed.
4
100058154/600288.5
Description of the Proposal and associated mining operation
13 The Proposal has already been discussed in some detail in the
application and EIA (as amended) and the evidence presented by
CRP, DWG, Ngāi Tahu and others.
14 In short, CRP proposes to extract phosphorite nodules from the
seabed by loosening sediments with high pressure water jets and a
drag-head cutter that is pulled (i.e., trailed) over the sea floor. The
drag head may also have cutting teeth to assist in breaking up the
sea floor.
15 The drag-head will be designed to efficiently collect phosphorite
nodules from a layer that varies in thickness from 0 to 50
centimetres (cm) (35 cm average) – with the goal being to avoid
dredging the underlying chalk/ooze layer.
16 After extracting the phosphorite nodules, the sediments will be
returned to the seabed through a pipe that is positioned
approximately 10 metres above the bottom.
17 As set out in the sediment modelling report prepared by Deltares
(2014) and in CRP’s response to further information requests made
by the EPA (2014b), it is expected that mining will not only cause
sediment plumes, but it will also cause sedimentation within and
outside the mining area. Besides increased sedimentation caused by
the return of material, there will also be some sedimentation
associated with the drag-head equipment. According to the EIA and
CRP’s response to further information requests (2014b), some
material (<25 percent (%)) may be spilled immediately behind the
drag-head.
18 Modelling conducted by Deltares (2014) predicts that about 50
percent of the total silt and clay returns from one mining block will
be deposited within 0.5 kilometres (km) of the block, 75 % within 1
km, and 90 % within 2 km. According to the model, the maximum
thickness of silt and clay deposited from a single mining cycle within
the mining block could be 25 millimetres at 10 metres (i.e., release
height) above the seabed (refer EIA).
19 One of the primary impacts associated with the mining operation will
be the physical alteration of the sediment - fine sediment consisting
of primarily silt within the mining block will be spread and deposited
over the sand with a maximum thickness around 5 to 10 cm
occurring principally within the mining blocks (refer EIA).
20 As set out in the evidence of Dr Katrin Berkenbusch, physical
changes will likely impact various benthic invertebrates some of
which are prey for valuable commercial fish, such as ling (see also
5
100058154/600288.5
Dunn et al., 2010). Indeed, as further evidenced by Mr Alistair
Dunn impacts from the mining operation has the ability to affect
fish populations including ling, although his evaluation of yields did
not take into account the additional indirect effect of loss of fish
prey on fish stocks. In my opinion, this may result in an
underestimate of calculated impacts.
Impact of sedimentation
21 Given the level of expected sedimentation and elevated total
suspended solids (TSS) predictions (CRP 2014b, and evidenced by
Mr Mike Page), there is a possibility that sedimentation from silt
and clay fractions will impact a portion of the fishery resources (with
this impact being most elevated for those individuals found within
10 m of the bottom - the primary distance off the bottom of the
discharge pipe).
22 In this zone the early life-stages (i.e., eggs and larvae) of fish are
the most vulnerable - eggs can be smothered and the delicate gills
of larval and juvenile fishes can be clogged in just a few hours after
exposure to elevated TSS levels (Newcombe and Jensen, 1996).
Elevated TSS can also affect egg development and larval survival
(FeBEC, 2010). As evidenced by Mr Page fish eggs of the hake and
ling are susceptible to sediment adhesion to the egg chorion and
juvenile gills affecting dispersal and survival.
23 Besides negative impacts to early-life, long-term chronic exposure
(weeks to months) to elevated TSS can also cause mortality in adult
fish even though fish can avoid deteriorating conditions by
swimming away (Newcombe and Jensen, 1996).
24 Despite these risks, it is unlikely that the early life-stages of hoki or
hake will be adversely impacted by sedimentation given their
general distribution, the location in the water column of the
discharge pipe (10 m above the sea floor), and the predicted
distance the sediment plume is expected to travel in both horizontal
and vertical space. In addition, hoki eggs are expected not only to
be found away from the mining activity in nearshore waters, but at
mid-water depths (Zeldis et al., 1998; Bradford-Grieve and
Livingston, 2011). As evidenced by Dr Richard O’Driscoll, hoki in
spawning condition have not been reported in the revised consent
area (see also O’Driscoll et. al. 2014).
25 As set out in the evidence of Mr Paul Starr and Dr David
Middleton, there is a high likelihood of the mining activity
producing an effect on the early life stages of ling. This is
particularly true for the ling eggs and larval stages due to the
overlap of the depths favoured by ling and the proposed depth
range being considered for mining. Ling eggs are expected to be
6
100058154/600288.5
vulnerable to sedimentation both because of this proximity to the
sediment plume and the nature of the eggs. Ling produce a sticky
egg mass that adhere to the sea floor and other hard structures.
This makes them increasingly vulnerable to adhesion of sediment to
the egg chorion (see evidence presented by Mr Page) and thus
decreased survival in areas where sediment is encountered.
26 Reproductive information is limited for hake and ling on the
Chatham Rise, so assessing potential impacts is challenging.
However, new information by O’Driscoll et. al. (2014), and
presented in the evidence of Dr O’Driscoll, suggests that hake and
ling may spawn within or in the vicinity of the revised consent area.
Dr O’Driscoll further provided evidence that about one-third of ling
spawn in to the east in the prospecting area that was removed from
the consent application. This area remains a very important ling
spawning location for this commercially important species.
27 The EIA and the evidence of Dr O’Driscoll (see also O’Driscoll et.
al., 2014) suggest that it is possible that ling eggs might occur in
the consent area and during mining. However, the potential impacts
were discounted in the report for several reasons - primarily, on the
basis that ling deposit their eggs throughout the Chatham Rise and
thus the potential proportion of ling egg stock lost in any year is
likely to be less than 0.02 % (EAI, 2014) given the proposed mining
area (10 km2). This seems to be a reasonable conclusion given the
modelling evidence and as such, the impacts associated with
sedimentation on hoki, ling, and hake early life-stages are expected
to be negligible.
28 Direct impacts associated with elevated suspended sediments can
include a decrease in prey consumption at low light intensities
caused by higher turbidity values given that high turbidity causes,
for example, impaired vision (Robertis et al., 2003). All three of the
main subject fish species (hoki, ling and hake) are found on the
Chatham Rise and within the proposed mining area at the juvenile,
sub-adult and adult life stages. Accordingly, it is possible that
elevated TSS may impede their feeding strategies assuming they do
not avoid the area, which is unlikely.
29 As presented in CRP’s response to the EPA’s request for further
information (CRP 2014b) and evidenced by Mr Page, it is likely that
some of the later life-stages for the primary commercial species
(hoki, ling, and hake) will be directly impacted through avoidance of
the sediment plume, especially where TSS concentrations are
greater than 3 mg/L. It should be noted that although fish
populations are somewhat uniform in their spatial distribution along
the Chatham Rise, they vary by age structure and season (Bull et
al., 2010; Horn and Francis, 2010; Bradford-Grieve and Livingston,
7
100058154/600288.5
2011). Thus, avoidance and displacement is only expected to impact
a percentage of the population located on the Chatham Rise during
mining operations. For instance, hake are known to migrate from
the Chatham Rise to the spawning grounds (off the west coast of
the South Island) from June through September (Dunn et al., 2010;
Horn and Francis, 2010; NDP, 2011).
30 In addition to direct impacts associated with sedimentation such as
avoidance and displacement, it is also possible that sedimentation
could affect indirectly the diet of hoki, ling, and hake by causing
some prey species to avoid the area impacted by the sediment
plume. According to Robertis et al., (2003) feeding behaviour, such
as pursuit of prey and the probability of capture for some types of
fish (e.g. piscivorous visual predators) can be impacted by elevated
turbidity levels. The cascading effects of decreased feeding
efficiency can lead to large impacts in higher trophic levels.
31 In this case, it is more likely that an increase in TSS concentration
could also directly impact zooplankton. Zooplankton are the prey of
myctophids, (also known as lantern fish) which are the primary prey
of hoki (Horn and Dunn, 2010). As noted earlier in my evidence,
sedimentation is only expected to impact the area for a limited
amount of time, so larger fish could return once the turbidity levels
subside. However, it is still possible that smaller mid-water fish
(e.g., myctophids) may not return, which would likely cause larger
fish (hoki) to move away from the area in search of food.
32 Sedimentation is also expected to impact the invertebrate
community given the expected plume (Deltares, 2014, CRP 2014b),
but the severity will depend on various factors, such as the ability of
species to adapt to changing benthic conditions, and the proximity
to the areas of heavy deposits. It is possible the larger fish (e.g.,
ling) that prey on invertebrates will also be negatively impacted as
ling primarily feed on benthic and demersal crustaceans (Dunn et
al., 2010; Horn and Francis, 2010; NDP, 2011). Although hoki and
hake primarily feed on demersal fish, they also prey on
invertebrates, so it is possible that their diet may similarly be
affected by sedimentation (Dunn et al., 2010; Horn and Francis,
2010; NDP, 2011).
Impacts of contaminants on fish
33 The potential toxicity to the aquatic environment of contaminants
associated with the extraction and return of phosphorite and other
sediments is discussed in detail in the evidence of Dr Ngaire
Phillips. I focus on the risk of such contaminants being released
and the impact it might have on fish.
8
100058154/600288.5
34 Contaminants can cause a variety of health issues for marine
animals, including adversely impacting reproduction or egg
development. Fish can be directly exposed to contaminants through
suspended sediment particles since they are desorbed from those
particles into a dissolved phase “either associated with or without
dissolved organic carbon in the case of organic contaminants”
(Bridges et al., 2008). The exposure of fish to contaminants
depends on various factors, such as the mobility of both fish and
sediments.
35 The vigorous mixing associated with the mining process and
disposal of tailings on the sea floor has the potential to release
nutrients and contaminants (e.g., arsenic, nickel, and uranium).
However, that will depend on various factors, including the sediment
chemistry. The potential for release of dissolved fractions of these
metals is high given the chemical changes expected in the mining
and disposal process.
36 In general, the seafloor in the vicinity of the proposed mining area
consists of phosphorite nodules (1-150 mm), Miocene chalks,
glauconite (an iron potassium phyllosilicate mineral) granules
(0.125-0.5 mm), volcanic glass shards, schist fragments, sandy
muds, and muddy sands. Sedimentation rates are relatively slow
(EIA, 2014). The dominant sediments consist of sand and mud (i.e.,
silts and clays).
37 According to Nodder et al., (2012), sand and mud percentages
within the consent area are typically more than 30 % across the
marine consent area, with sand increasing to more than 70 % in the
western and south-central areas. Mud percentages are around 40 %
in the western and south-central areas and higher (>50%) to the
east and north regions. Overall, the sediments consisted of around
56 % sand, 41 % mud, and 3 % gravel size material. Evaluation of
the sediment showed that chromium and vanadium were found in
the sand, while strontium and barium were identified in the silty
siliceous and carbonaceous materials (Lawless, 2012).
38 The major elements in the sediments include iron, phosphorus,
silicon, titanium, aluminium, magnesium, calcium, sodium,
potassium, sulphur, and carbon. The key trace elements include
arsenic (6 mg/kg), cadmium (0.2-0.3 mg/kg), and some mercury
(0.06 mg/kg) (EIA 2014). Uranium is also found in the sediments
(EIA, 2014; Golder Associates, 2014) in the Chatham Rise region,
but the levels (10-524 parts per million (ppm); average 200 ppm)
are low and not considered a source of radioactive particle; Uranium
levels (naturally occurring) in the ocean are around 3 mg/m3 (Seko
et al., 2003).
9
100058154/600288.5
39 In general, contaminants are often found in marine sediments
because they usually do not breakdown by natural processes.
Besides people intentionally or unintentionally releasing
contaminants into the marine environment, contaminants can also
be released by disturbing the seafloor through various activities,
such as trawling or dredging (Anderson et al., 2010) although in the
case of the Proposal I note that trawling and dredging is currently
prohibited through the existence of the Benthic Protection Area as
discussed in the evidence of Dr Berkenbusch.
40 If disturbance does occur, then according to Bridges et al. (2008),
contaminants found in re-suspended particles can be transported
great distances downstream in a dissolved form. Factors that affect
the release of contaminants include the duration of the dredging
operation, composition of the sediment being dredged (e.g., grain
size distribution), contaminants associated with the sediment,
current velocities, and a range of other physical and chemical
factors.
41 Given the operational mining processes, and the potential risk of
releasing contaminants, the applicant has done an assessment of
sediment chemistry and the potential water quality changes that
might occur during mining (EIA, 2014). The results of that
assessment indicated that it was unlikely that the disposal of
sediments would lead to anoxic (sulphide) conditions and
accordingly there would be no expected changes in pH or potential
release of trace elements. However, given the processing of nodules
and sediments, the EIA does acknowledge there could be some
compositional changes in sediment elements (even if net impacts
are expected to be negligible).
42 I, however, consider the conclusions made in the EIA study
questionable because it is not supported by environmental
information suggesting that ambient dissolved oxygen (DO)
concentrations are high enough to avoid anoxic conditions. Nor
does the evidence suggest that the current flow rates are sufficient
to flush the impacted area with highly oxygenated waters.
Ultimately I consider it likely that the tailings being deposited will be
anoxic and sulphide rich owing to the physical and chemical
processes associated with the dredging, transport, processing, and
return of sediments to the sea floor during the mining operation.
43 It is difficult to develop a scenario that provides tailings to the sea
floor in an oxic (oxygen rich) condition without aeration. It
accordingly remains likely that chemical conditions during the
dredging and deposition process will be sufficient to release bound
chemicals to the water column at bioavailable concentrations.
10
100058154/600288.5
44 The EIA states that overall concentrations of toxic elements (e.g.,
arsenic, cadmium, copper, nickel, and uranium) will be below the 99
percent trigger guidance value for the protection of marine biota in
New Zealand. Cadmium concentrations in the sediment (including
phosphorite nodules) were 1.5 mg/k, which were much lower than
the levels set by the Australia and New Zealand Environment and
Conservation Council (ANZECC/ARMCANZ, 2000).
45 As evidence by Dr Phillips, elutriate tests were conducted by
Golder Associates (2014), but samples were collected off Raglan,
North Island in a location not near the proposed mining site, which
does raise potential concerns. Although contaminant levels appear
low in the test results, it is not clear why or how these samples are
comparable to those near the mining area and further explanation is
warranted. Furthermore, Dr Phillips’ evidence correctly questions
whether the use of Raglan Harbour water was appropriate. I concur
that under the USEPA test protocols for elutriate testing it is
protocol to use site water as the diluent in the testing process. Dr
Phillips also correctly questions the use of unprocessed sediments
in the elutriate tests as it is likely there is a difference in the
composition of sediment being returned to the sea floor as tailings
(following processing). The elutriate tests presented by the applicant
only examined the potential loss of metals from the dredged
sediment. In my opinion it remains entirely plausible that the
mining and tailings disposal process will likely release toxic and
bioaccumulatable concentrations of metals that will impact fishes
within the consent area.
46 In general, elutriate tests are used to assess potential changes in
water quality caused by the disturbance of the seafloor, such as
those expected when tailings are processed and returned to the sea
floor. The test showed that the release of some trace elements could
occur, but the testing did not accurately mimic the site-specific
conditions expected. In practice, potentially occurring elements will
be dispersed as they travel with the sediment plume – although the
applicant goes on to consider they are not expected to adversely
impact marine biota (CRP, 2014a). It would be correct to identify
the location within the sediment plume dilution zone where
concentrations of contaminants would reach levels in accordance
with regulatory guidelines. To my knowledge this analysis has not
been completed.
47 The elutriate tests did show that there was a potential for the
release of several contaminants (e.g., arsenic, cadmium, copper,
and nickel) in chalk that could reach elevated levels even without
mimicking site-specific conditions. Despite this risk, the report by
Golder Associates (2014) indicates that “where possible, the mining
process will avoid the chalk layer and it is expected that only very
11
100058154/600288.5
minor amounts may be entrained in the tailings. Even if chalk
comprises part of the mined material, the levels of these elements
after dilution will not be environmentally significant.” Although, it is
likely that dilution will lower the potential levels of contaminants,
there was no discussion on how the mining process will avoid the
chalk layer. It is highly doubtful that the dredging technology will
be precise enough to avoid this layer throughout the mining area.
48 Further I note that additional information presented by CRP in its
responses to further information requests (2014a,b) indicates that
the chalk layer would, indeed, be disturbed and this could further
release contaminants above what was presented in the EIA.
49 Despite the concerns set out above, the applicant (Golder Associates
(2014)) indicates the consumption rates of marine fauna are not
anticipated to be high enough for contaminants to accumulate in
surviving benthic organisms, re-colonising organisms or pelagic
biota. Again, since elutriate tests did not mimic site-specific
conditions it is difficult to draw these conclusions from only this
evidence.
50 Golder Associates (2014) further states that substantial
bioaccumulation, at rates much higher than any recorded anywhere
in the ocean, would be required to concentrate potential
contaminants (e.g., arsenic or uranium) enough to cause a
noticeable change in tissue concentrations in biota. This seems
logical since little to no local bioaccumulation of harmful
contaminants through the food-web is expected given the current
levels (Golder Associates, 2014). Despite the above, given the
uncertainty of the site-specific conditions relative to the elutriate
testing; it is difficult to conclude that impacts to fishes will not
occur.
Impacts of physical disturbance on fish
51 The proposed mining activity on Chatham Rise is expected to
produce underwater noise. According to the EIA, and as evidenced
by Dr Diane Jones and Dr Arthur Popper, underwater noise is
anticipated to be generated from:
51.1 the drag-head and underwater pump;
51.2 the transverse thrusters and the water jets (possibly assisted
by cutting teeth within the drag-head);
51.3 the vertical transport of the mined material through the riser;
51.4 the return of processed non-phosphatic material (i.e.,
tailings);
12
100058154/600288.5
51.5 the inboard pumps;
51.6 internally located engines and associated propeller; and,
51.7 other equipment mounted on the vessel.
52 The EIA states that noise generated from a trailing suction dredge
produces sounds between 186 and 188 decibels (dB) re: 1
micropascal (μPa), which is similar to other dredges.
53 Underwater noise is generated differently depending on the activity
(e.g., marine construction, military communication such as SONAR)
and equipment usage (e.g., shipboard instruments such as
fathometers seismic air guns, pile drivers, and dredging activities).
Depending on the source, underwater noise also varies by intensity.
For example, a seismic air gun can produce a single pulse that is
around 220 to 230 dB re: 1 μPa, while dredging equipment can
produce sounds around 180 to 190 dB re: 1 μPa (EIA 2014). The
evidence of Dr Jones indicates that sound modelling included sound
in the range of 183 to 186 dB re: 1 μPa. Anthropogenic underwater
noise has the potential to impact a diversity of marine fauna in
variety of ways, such as disrupting communication, reproduction,
foraging, and navigation (Reine et al., 2014). In most ways, impacts
to marine fauna from underwater noise sources are specifically
associated with hearing. The specific hearing capabilities of fish (i.e.,
either specialists or generalists), can vary significantly among
taxonomic groups and species (e.g., Southhall et al., 2007; Popper
and Hasting, 2009).
54 According to Nedwell et al., (2008), most fish detect underwater
sound over a low frequency range of between 10 and 1000 Hz.
Underwater noise can cause a variety of responses in fish, such as
little to no change in behaviour or even immediate mortality (Popper
and Hastings, 2009). Anthropogenic underwater sound can be
disruptive to marine fauna because sound is “critically important to
aquatic animals for all aspects of their lives” (Popper and Hasting,
2009).
55 Popper and Hasting (2009) indicated that underwater noise can
cause or lead to low survival rates, temporary or permanent hearing
loss, or behavioural changes (depart the area); underwater noise
can potentially mask important biological sounds. Popper et al.,
(2006) suggested that one way to protect fish from physical damage
was to set threshold limits (sound exposure level (SEL)); the
researchers recommended setting the lower bounds at around SEL
187 dB with peak sound ( Lpeak) at 208 dB at a distance of 10 m
from the sound source (Popper et al., 2006).
13
100058154/600288.5
56 Anticipated noise generated from the proposed equipment is
basically unknown since this type of equipment has never been
measured in the field. Regardless, (and as evidenced by Dr
Popper) it is unlikely that any of the main fish species of concern
(e.g., hoki, hake and ling) will be physically impacted by mining
noise since the proposed deep-sea mining equipment is similar to a
trailing drag arm suction dredge it terms of generated sound;
dredging equipment emits sound at around 180 to 190 dB re 1 μPa
(EIA, 2014). Given these levels, it is unlikely underwater noise will
physically damage fish, especially since the levels are below the
recommend thresholds (Popper et al.,2006; Popper and Hasting,
2009), and fish are highly mobile. It should be noted that even if
the sounds were greater, it is likely fish would avoid the impact
region before physical impacts occur.
57 However, under the proposed mining schedule, the generated noise
is expected to be constant and continuous, which will trigger
avoidance and deter fish from returning during operation.
58 It is therefore possible that fish will display behaviour changes, such
as avoidance, and this may be persistent avoidance of an area due
to the continuous sound source. As previously stated, avoidance is
generally species dependent, and related to the underwater hearing
sensitivity of the species (Nedwell et al., 2008), so it is difficult to
predict how the expected sounds will specifically impact hoki, ling,
and hake within or near the mining area without species-specific
auditory data.
59 Based on available life-history information (Bull et al., 2010; Horn
and Francis, 2010; Bradford-Grieve and Livingston, 2011),
anticipated underwater noise is not expected to affect eggs and
larvae of hoki, ling, and hake because of the location of the loudest
source relative to the location of the larval stages. However, it is
likely it will impact the juvenile, sub-adult, and adult life-stages
given their spatial distributions.
60 Underwater noise levels will subside during transit to shore, but it is
difficult to predict what kind of long-term impacts to fish will result
from continuous year-round mining operations on the Chatham Rise.
Given this constant disturbance, it’s possible that fish will
permanently avoid the area.
Impacts of habitat change or removal on fish
61 The benthic physical environment and habitat on the Chatham Rise
has been well-studied over the past 50 years (Rowden et al., 2013)
and is discussed in more detail in the evidence of Dr Berkenbusch
and Dr Ashley Rowden.
14
100058154/600288.5
62 In general, the Chatham Rise is a productive submarine feature off
the coast of New Zealand that extends almost 1400 km. Some areas
of the Chatham Rise are relatively shallow (< 200 m), while others
extend down to 2000 m. As described above, the bottom sediments
are primarily composed of fine-grain sand and mud.
63 Over the years, various researchers have described the infauna (45
μm-0.5 mm), epifauna, and macrofauna (e.g., benthic and demersal
fish and mobile invertebrates) communities on the Chatham Rise.
Infauna communities vary slightly by spatial location (i.e., depth)
and substrate type (sand vs mud), but polychaetes are generally the
primary taxa found on the Chatham Rise. Other typical infauna taxa
on the Chatham Rise include bivalves, isopods, amphipods, and
crustaceans. Epifauna species on the Chatham Rise primarily consist
of various crustaceans and echinoderms, such as asteroids, conical
sponges, crabs, galatheids, and gastropods (Rowden et al., 2013).
The Chatham Rise also supports various stony corals (Goniocorella
dumosa), bryozoans, cnidarians, and brachiopods.
64 Primarily based on the comprehensive studies previously
undertaken, and the proposed mining process, it appears some of
the benthic habitat community will be adversely impacted by
proposed mining operations on the Chatham Rise. However, despite
these anticipated impacts to the benthic community, it is difficult to
assess quantitatively how these changes in the benthic community
will affect hoki, ling, and hake populations in the short and long-
term. One of the challenges in understanding the impacts is their
mobility or how likely it will be that these species will relocate to
other locations on the Chatham Rise. Nonetheless, the basic benthic
community is expected to change dramatically within both the
mining and immediate tailings disposal areas.
65 The benthic community within the proposed mining area is relatively
common in terms of species diversity within the region, but the
study by Rowden et al., (2013) clearly showed that some of these
benthic species occupy specific macro habitats within the Chatham
Rise, which again suggests that the proposed mining area is
somewhat distinctive. Overall, the analyses used in Rowden et al.,
(2013) were both comprehensive and appropriate for describing and
segregating benthic communities. However, Dr Berkenbusch
correctly states evidence that the most comprehensive descriptions
of benthic communities in the mining area do not provide a
complete characterization of epifauna or infauna, owing to sampling
and data limitations. This shortcoming is particularly important as
there are few available data for the mining area from previous
surveys. Rowden et al. (2013) suggested validating their habitat
suitability models, which is always recommended if possible. As
evidenced by Dr Rowden, the habitat suitability models used
15
100058154/600288.5
predicted the two coral-dominated communities could be more
widespread across Chatham Rise, especially northwest of the mining
area. A profound limitation of modelling is the lack of model
validation. As such, it is recommended that some groundtruthing be
conducted within the region to check the model outcomes.
66 It is expected that as the drag-head (approximately 50 tons in
weight) is slowly (0.75 meters per second (m/s)) pulled along the
bottom it will remove the existing habitat from the sea floor, and
level it. The dredge equipment will remove any three dimensional
structure (i.e. the rugosity). It will also entrain any benthic
organisms that are not highly mobile. The EIA states that direct
impacts to the benthic community will consist of:
66.1 physical burial where biota are sessile (i.e., not mobile) and
the thickness of sediment is greater than their height;
66.2 physical impacts on filter feeders and impacts on their food
availability (i.e., they filter more sediment than food);
66.3 changes in the quality of food for infauna sediment feeders;
66.4 changes in sediment physical properties leading to less
suitable habitat for some burrowing species; and
66.5 changes in pore water geochemistry, leading to unsuitable
environments for some species.
67 In addition, the EIA (2014) indicates there will be various indirect
impacts, including:
67.1 impacts resulting from species dependencies, i.e., a
detrimental impact on one benthic species may affect a
species dependent on the impacted species for food or shelter
(e.g., living in or on a coral);
67.2 trophic impacts affecting available food for other components
of the ecosystem (e.g., demersal fish species); and
67.3 biogeochemical impacts related to changes in sediment
physical and biogeochemical properties that influence trophic
components such as microbiology.
68 Based on the available information, all of these expected impacts to
the benthic community will result in a decrease in available habitat
and food resources to fishes. Immediate direct impacts to fishes are
expected to occur while the drag-head passes through the area.
16
100058154/600288.5
69 Long-term impacts are also expected to the benthic community in
terms of species diversity and relative abundance since the mining
process will grind sediments into relatively uniform sizes and then
deposit them within the path of the drag-head.
70 The mining process will change the physical properties of the
bottom (topography) and the sediments (e.g., grain size). Besides
removing the phosphorite nodules, the mining process will destroy
hard structure fish habitat, such as corals (e.g., stony coral,
gorgonian, hydrocorals and black coral), and other type of benthic
habitat found within the proposed mining area (Rowden et al.,
2013; EIA, 2014). Both provide habitat for a variety of organisms;
various taxa were positively correlated with phosphorite nodules.
Important here is the loss of food resource and habitat for that food
resource.
71 Moreover, mining could indirectly impact corals outside of the area
given the expected turbidity plume, as corals are extremely
sensitive to sedimentation and suspended sediments (Erftemeijer et
al., 2012).
72 The mining process is expected to have long-term impacts to the
benthic community since most corals are slow growing and long-
lived (van Moorsel, 1988). Given these life-history traits, it may take
a considerable period (i.e., decades) for this community to recover if
full recovery occurs at all. In general, these types of life-history
traits often make species like corals susceptible to disturbance.
73 It is expected that some benthic organisms will be destroyed by the
equipment during the mining process, such as Bryozoans, Molluscs,
Annelids, and Echinoderms. As noted elsewhere in my evidence the
dredging equipment will, on average, impact the top 35 cm, and
encompass an area 2 m wide by 5 km long per pass.
74 Long-term impacts are also expected since many of these organisms
may never recover (permanent loss) given their macro-habitat
requirements and the fact that many are correlated with
phosphorite nodules (EIA, 2014). Thus, potential recovery will
depend on, among other things, changes in the sediment
composition, and bottom topography caused by local conditions
(i.e., currents and other factors).
75 The mining process is also anticipated to have long-term impacts to
some mobile invertebrates, such as crabs and shrimp. It likely that
many of these organisms will relocate to undisturbed areas, but for
the same reasons stated above, including water quality and elevated
TSS conditions, it is possible they may never return to the area until
17
100058154/600288.5
the sediments have recovered. Further, the benthic community
structure will be altered indefinitely.
76 It should be noted that infauna, epifauna, and zooplankton (e.g.,
copepods and euphausiids) organisms are also the prey for large
predatory fishes. Zooplankton are not usually considered part of the
benthic community, but they are interrelated since larger benthic
organisms are filter feeders.
77 Taken together, it is likely that mobile fish in the area will also be
impacted by mining largely due to the fundamental change in local
habitat and loss of food resources. It is probable that fish will avoid
the area during mining to search for food, and it is possible they will
return after mining is completed, but this will depend on various
factors. As explained above, invertebrates will probably only return
to the area if conditions (sediment, topography, and water quality)
are suitable.
78 In general, the most sensitive life-stages are eggs, larvae, and
juvenile stages of both invertebrates and fish. As discussed in
previous sections, survival and recovery will depend on how these
life-stages will be able to adapt to the altered conditions or find
suitable areas to colonise away from the mining activity. Some
(e.g., cnidarians) life-stages will be more vulnerable to changing
water conditions, while others (e.g., polychaetes) will depend upon
benthic conditions especially the substrate grain size and type.
79 It should be noted the EIA does indicate mining operations will
impact the benthic community through entrainment of “all epifauna
and infauna on and in the seabed along the mining track.” The
document also notes there will be physical disturbance to the
seabed (e.g., nodule removal and sediment content changes) in
terms of loss and change (e.g., 30 km2 or 3.7% of the mining
permit area during year one). However, there was no attempt
made to quantify benthic fauna losses or changes.
80 Given the lack of available information, a quantitative assessment
would need to be conducted to estimate benthic community changes
and losses to benthic fauna, however, that has not been done here.
Food web effects on fish
81 At its simplest, understanding food-web or food chain effects is
based on the population size, species, and predator-prey
relationships. Although food-web impacts have been explored from
a fisheries perspective (e.g., Pauly et al., 1998; Conti and Scardi,
2010), this approach has rarely been applied from other
perspectives, such as dredging or deep-sea mining.
18
100058154/600288.5
82 The ramifications associated with food-web impacts caused by
anthropogenic cumulative activities can be devastating. For
example, in the Adriatic Sea, Lotze et al., (2010) indicated that
anthropogenic activities can be severe and in many ways
everlasting. Using various analytical techniques, they found that 98
percent of traditional marine resources were depleted almost 50
percent since the Roman period (Lotze et al., 2010).
83 According to Woodward (2009), it is important to first understand
biodiversity and diet requirements of the major species for the
region of interest. Besides understanding the natural system, it is
also important to recognise the major contributing anthropogenic
activities that influence the system, such as fishing, point source
input, and habitat loss. As presented in the evidence of Dr Matt
Pinkerton, trophic biodiversity is also an important concept for
understanding the ecology of a system. This underlying concept was
the basis of the trophic modelling presented by Dr Pinkerton to
define the Chatham Rise food web.
84 According to Woodward (2009), multiple ecosystem processes
operate not only simultaneously, but often there are many
alternative feeding pathways, which make it even more complicated
to model. Trophic dynamics are not usually a straight forward
concept, but more of a complicated configuration that often changes
by life-stage, geographical location, and season.
85 On the Chatham Rise, the types and number of species is well
reported but a clear understanding of the ecology of the food-web is
lacking. Inter and intra-relationship information is unavailable for
many groups, such as mesopelagic fishes and large zooplankton
(soft and hard bodied).
86 Based on the proposed mining activities, I expect that some aspects
of the food-web will be impacted more than others, but
understanding how these impacts will affect the system as a whole
is difficult given the lack of bioenergetics information. It is however
probable that the ecology of the system could be impacted given the
available interspecific relationships among species on the Chatham
Rise.
87 Some of the anticipated impacts will likely be short-term, but a few
could be long-term and far reaching. Regardless, the model used
and presented in Dr Pinkerton’s evidence (see also Pinkerton
2013) is a static model that was not designed nor intended to be
used for making predictions (Pinkerton, 2013). This is problematic
for understanding the long-term impacts of mining on the Chatham
Rise system. Ecosystems are dynamic, so it is often necessary to
19
100058154/600288.5
build several models, use a variety of datasets, and develop multiple
scenarios to make better predictions (Guenette et al., 2008).
88 Also, the model presented in Dr Pinkerton’s evidence (Ecopath)
applied diet information rather than using carbon isotope data, so
the model was unable to be validated (see also Pinkerton, 2013).
One of the main challenges with using Ecopath models are their
limitations and pitfalls (Christensen and Walters, 2004). The lack of
accuracy and uncertainty is an issue for understanding primary
production requirements and potential yields (bottom-up/top-down
approach) throughout the system (Conti and Scardi, 2010). As such,
placing fishery resources within their ecosystem context has its
limitations, especially for projecting impacts into the future.
89 Niiranen et al., (2012) emphasised that ecological models are only
as adequate as the data, but there are various analytical stochastic
techniques to treat the uncertainty and limitations of the model,
such as sensitivity analysis (Monte Carlo random parameter search
and extended Fourier Amplitude Sensitivity tests). Niiranen et al.,
(2012) emphasised that model validation and compensating for
model uncertainties are often disregarded.
90 Even with these checks, results can be wide-ranging. Niiranen et al.,
(2012) developed a Ecopath model for the Baltic Sea and found
large differences among model results ranging from relatively low
changes in cod populations to near extinction, which showed how
uncertain and sensitive these model can be to input data. Despite
the attempt of Niiranen et al., (2012) to compensate for
uncertainty, they acknowledged that static Ecopath type models
were not intended to be used as a “management tool” but rather as
method for “studying food-web dynamics under different
conditions”.
91 Based on available information and as set out elsewhere in my
evidence, it is probable that mining processes will significantly
change the seafloor in the Chatham Rise in terms of topography,
sediment proportions, and grain size. Given these anticipated
changes, it is expected that community benthic structure will
change, especially for lower trophic levels, such as zooplankton.
92 Dr Pinkerton’s evidence provides only basic trophic information,
and additional more advanced methods are needed to assess
potential changes in the system as a result of mining operations.
Many researchers have evaluated systems from a top-down
approach, but an assessment of bottom-up control (Ponsard et al.,
2000) would be required for this particular activity given the mining
processes will impact the benthic community, especially the
substrate and the organisms that rely on the substrate.
20
100058154/600288.5
93 In addition, besides evaluating basic potential changes in the food-
web structure, it is essential to evaluate the other demands on the
system that can influence species diversity and population
abundance, such as fisheries. Actually, any activity that can have an
effect on populations should be considered in an assessment.
Understanding cumulative effects is critical because small changes
can have dramatic impacts in the long-term, especially in regions
that are already stressed.
94 It is difficult to determine whether displacement /avoidance of fish
species due to mining operations could affect the overall food web in
the short or long-term. As such, a holistic approach for
understanding potential food-web changes as result of proposed
deep-sea mining is recommended that also includes an evaluation of
cumulative impacts.
95 Hoki, ling, and hake are among the most common and abundant
species on the Chatham Rise. Mining operations will likely displace
these fish. As such, it’s possible that the displacement could have
long-term implications for the ecology of the Chatham Rise.
However, without a thorough evaluation being completed it is
impossible to assess exactly what the impact might be.
Life cycle effects
96 As discussed in the above sections, life-stage effects associated with
mining activities will be dependent upon various factors, including
spatial distribution, location of the mining operations, size of the
expected plume, and other operational and biological characteristics.
In general, available life-history information indicates that hoki, ling,
and hake could be potentially impacted by mining activities with
spatial distribution changes by life-stage and season.
97 The primary life-stages that could be impacted by mining operations
include juvenile, sub-adult, and adult stages for hoki, ling, and
hake. Specifically, it is likely that juvenile, sub-adult hoki, and adult
ling and hake will be impacted by the sedimentation plume
generated by mining equipment. It is likely these species will be
directly impacted and will be displaced. It’s also possible their diet
(e.g., zooplankton and small mesopelagic fish) could be impacted
given the expected sedimentation plume and sedimentation
(sedimentation will impact some invertebrates that are diet items).
98 Physical disturbance (i.e., underwater noise) is also likely to cause
behavioural changes in juvenile, sub-adult hoki, and adult ling and
hake populations (it is expected these stages will avoid the zone of
influence).
21
100058154/600288.5
99 Mining operations are expected to change the benthic community;
primarily invertebrates. Thus, there is a potential for specific life-
stages to be negatively impacted given the lack of prey. Mining will
destroy habitat and change sediment compositions.
100 Some changes in the food-web are expected that could impact
specific life-stages - primarily the juvenile life-stage, but the sub-
adult and adult stages could also be impacted. As previously stated,
early and late life-stages of hoki, ling, and hake are found at the
proposed mining site and they are an essential component of the
benthic community. Avoidance could have long-term impacts to the
community.
Combined impacts of the above effects
101 Combined impacts of the above effects are expected in some ways,
but in general, the likely impacts associated with mining activities
will be directly related to avoidance and displacement.
102 I consider that specific life-stages of hoki, ling, and hake will avoid
the elevated TSS, mining equipment (drag-head), and underwater
noise. However, habitat changes are expected (habitat destruction,
changes, sedimentation) and this could cause long-term impacts.
103 Given the anticipated sedimentation, habitat destruction, and
elevated TSS, it highly possible that some benthic species could be
adversely impacted and these changes could have long-term
implications for various mobile fish, including as hoki, ling, and
hake.
104 In general, it is likely many benthic fish are found on the Chatham
Rise (in addition to hoki, hake and ling) because their prey is
plentiful. As such, it’s possible some mobile fish will be permanently
displaced if prey populations do not recover.
CONCLUSIONS
105 Overall, I consider the proposed mining operations will directly and
indirectly impact a variety of fauna, and specifically some particular
life-stages of commercially valuable fish, such as hoki, ling, and
hake. Potential impacts could be short or long-term.
106 In my opinion, the EIA and supporting appendices were, for the
most part, relevant, comprehensive, and current in terms of the
scientific literature but a number of information gaps remain.
107 The main direct impacts expected from the mining operations
include avoidance and displacement caused by sedimentation,
elevated TSS, mining equipment dragged along the bottom, and
22
100058154/600288.5
underwater noise. It’s also possible that various invertebrate species
(e.g., benthic species and zooplankton) and fish (e.g., myctophids)
will be significantly impacted by the mining operations through
habitat destruction and benthic substrate changes. Hoki, ling, and
hake prey on invertebrates. Short-term avoidance and displacement
of key mobile fish species (e.g., hoki, ling, and hake) could lead to
long-term permanent changes (permanent avoidance), but it will
depend on how long the displacement lasts or if the benthic
community recovers.
108 I do not expect that sediment plumes/sedimentation will impact
fragile early life-stages of hoki and hake given their distribution.
Suspended sediment is more likely to affect eggs and early life
stages of ling and other fish species through adhesion to eggs and
impacts to larval gill structures.
109 Physical disturbance (i.e., underwater noise) is expected be minimal
in terms of direct physical and lethal effects. Continued and
sustained noise from the dredging and tailings delivery operations is
likely to result in long-term avoidance of the consent mining area
during operational phases.
110 Some food-web changes are expected, but it is difficult to
understand the severity given the available information.
111 The applicant has not adequately assessed the effects and the
ecological importance of hoki, ling, and hake in the benthic
community. These three species comprise much of the benthic
population in terms of relative abundance. Impacts to these species
(e.g., prey loss) or implications associated with
avoidance/displacement could have long-term implications for the
ecology of the Chatham Rise.
Dated: 12 September 2014
_____________________________
Dr Paul Richard Krause
23
100058154/600288.5
LITERATURE CITED
Annala, J, Sullivan KJ, and O'Brien, C. (1999). Report from the Fishery
Assessment Plenary, April 1999: stock assessments and yield estimates.
Unpublished NIWA report.
Andersen, J., Korpinen, S., Laamanen, M., Wolpers, U., and Claussen, U.
(2010). Ecosystem health of the Baltic Sea. Helsinki Commission. Baltic
Sea Environmental Proceedings No. 122. 63 pp.
ANZECC (2000). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and
marine water quality. Australian and New Zealand Environment and
Conservation Council.
Ballara, SL, O’Driscoll, RL. (2014). Catches, size, and age structure of the
2011-12 hoki fishery, and a summary of input data used for the 2013
stock assessment. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2014/05.
117.
Berry, W., Rubinstein, N., and Melzian, B. (2003). The Biological Effects of
Suspended and Bedded Sediment (SABS) in Aquatic Systems: A Review.
Internal EPA Report. 58 pp.
Bradford-Grieve and Livingston (2011). Spawning fisheries and the
productivity of the marine environment off the west coast of the South
Island, New Zealand. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity
Report No. 84. 52 pp.
Bridges, T., Ells, S., Hayes, D., Mount, D., Nadeau, S., Palermo, M.,
Patmont, C., and Schroeder, P. (2008). The Four Rs of Environmental
Dredging: Resuspension, Release, Residual, and Risk. US Army Corps of
Engineers. Final Report. 64 pp.
Bruce, B., Condie, S, and Sutton, C. (2001). Larval distribution of blue
grenadier (Macruronus novaezelandiae) in south-eastern Australia: further
evidence for a second spawning area. Marine Freshwater Research 52:
603-610.
Bruce, B., Bradford, R., Daley, R., Green, M., and Phillips, K. (2002).
Targeted review of biological and ecological information from fisheries
research in the south east marine region. Final Report. 175 pp.
Bull, B. (2000). An acoustic study of the vertical distribution of hoki on the
Chatham Rise. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2000/5.
Bull B, Livingston, ME, Hurst, R, and Bagley, N. (2001). Upper-slope fish
communities on the Chatham Rise, New Zealand, 1992–99. New Zealand
Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35: 795-815.Bull et al 2001
24
100058154/600288.5
Bull, B., Livingston, M., Hurst, R., and Bagley, N. (2010). Upper‐slope fish
communities on the Chatham Rise, New Zealand, 1992–99. New Zealand
Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35 (4): 795-815.
Bulmand, C., and Blaber, S. (1986). Feeding ecology of Macruronus
novaezelandiae (Hector) (Teleostei: Merlucciidae) in South-eastern
Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 37: 621-
639.
Bustos, C.A., Landaeta, M.F. (2005). Desarrollo de huevos y larvas
tempranas de la merluza del sur, Merluccius australis, cultivados bajo
condiciones de laboratorio. Gayana 69, 402–408.
Bustos, C., Balbontin, F., and Landaeta, M. (2007). Spawning of the
southern hake Merluccius australis (Pisces: Merlucciidae) in Chilean
fjordsFisheries Research 83: 23-32.
Chatham Rock Phosphate (CRP). 2014a. Marine consent application and
Environmental Impact Assessment. Request for Further Information-
Request Nos. 8-11, 16, 19. July 2014. 62 pp.
Chatham Rock Phosphate (CRP). 2014b. Marine consent application and
Environmental Impact Assessment. Request for Further Information-
Request Nos. 3-5, 7. August 2014. 49 pp.
Christensen, V.; Walters, C.J.; Pauly, D. (2000). Ecopath with Ecosim: a
user’s guide. University of British Columbia, Fisheries Centre, Vancouver,
Canada and ICLARM, Penang, Malaysia, 125 pp. [draft available at
www.ecopath.org/].
Christensen, V., and C.J. Walters. (2004). Ecopath with Ecosim: Methods,
capabilities and limitations. Ecological Modelling 172: 109–139.
Colman, J.A. (1998). Spawning areas and size and age at maturity of hake
(Merluccius australis) in the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone. New
Zealand Fisheries Assessment Research Document 98/2. 17 p.
(Unpublished report held in NIWA library, Wellington.)
Conti, L.; Scardi, M. (2010). Fisheries yield and primary productivity in
large marine ecosystems. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 410: 233-244.
Daley, R.K.; Ward, R.D.; Last, P.R; Reilly, A.; Appleyard, S.A.; Gledhiu,
D.C. (2000). Stock delineation of the pink ling (Genyptem blacodes) in
Australian waters using genetic and morphometric techniques. FRDC
Project-no-971117. CSIRO, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia.
Dalton, C., Mokiao-Lee, A., Sakihara, T., Weber, M., Roco, C., Han, Z.,
Dudley, B., MacKenzie, R., and Hairston, N. (2013). Density- and trait-
25
100058154/600288.5
mediated top–down effects modify bottom–up control of a highly endemic
tropical aquatic food web. Oikos 122: 790–800.
Deltares (2014) Modelling investigations on mine tailing plume dispersion
on the Chatham Rise Report prepared by Deltares for Chatham Rock
Phosphate Ltd, Delatres Report.1209110-000-ZKS-007: 72.
Dunn, MR, Connell, AM, Forman, J, Stevens, DW, Horn PL. (2010). Diet of
two large sympatric teleosts, the ling (Genypterus blacodes) and hake
(Merluccius australis). PloS one 5: e13647-e13647.
Dunn, A. (2002). Updated catch-per-unit-effort indices for hoki
(Macruronus novaezelandiae) on the west coast South Island, Cook Strait,
Chatham Rise, and sub-Antarctic for the years 1990 to 2001.New Zealand
Fisheries Assessment Report 2002/47. 51 p.
EIA. (2014). Marine Consent Application and Environmental Impact
Assessment. Proposed Mining Operations, Chatham Rise. Chatham Rock
Phosphate, Ltd. May, 2014. 497pp.
Erftemeijer, P.,Riegl, B., Hoeksema, B., and Todd, P. (2012).
Environmental impacts of dredging and other sediment disturbances on
corals: A review. Marine Pollution Bulletin 64: 1737–1765.
FeBEC. (2010). Sediment Dose Response Study. Technical Report.
Prepared for Femern A/S, Doc. No.E4-TR-036.: 147.
FAO. (2005). Review of the state of world marine fishery resources. FAO
Fisheries Technical Paper 457. Rome. 235 pp.
Fishbase (2014). www.fishbase.org/. Fishbase Organization. Access on 16,
July 2014.
Francis, M.P., Hurst, R.J., McArdle, B., Bagley, N.W., and Anderson, O.F.
(2002). New Zealand demersal fish assemblages. Environmental Biology of
Fishes 62(2): 215-234.
Golder Associates (2014). Chatham Rise sediments: Review of sediment
chemistry and effects of mining. Report prepared by Golder Associates
(NZ) Limited Chatham Rock Phosphate. May 2014.
Graham, DH. (1939). Breeding habits of the fishes of Otago Harbour and
adjacent seas. Transactions and Proceedings of the Royal Society of New
Zealand 69: 361-372.
Gunn, J., Bruce, B., Furlani, D., Thesher, R., and Blaber, S. (1989). Timing
and Location of Spawning of Blue Grenadier,Macruronus novaezelandiae
26
100058154/600288.5
(Teleostei : Merlucciidae), in Australian Coastal WatersAust. J. Mar.
Freshwater Res. 40, 97-112.
Guenette, S., Christensen, V., and Pauly, D. (2008). Trophic modelling of
the Peruvian upwelling ecosystem: Towards reconciliation of multiple
datasets. Oceanography 79: 326-335.
Horn, P.L. (1993). Growth, age structure, and productivity of ling,
Genypterus blacodes (Ophidiidae), in New Zealand waters. New Zealand
Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 27: 385-397.
Horn, P.L. (1997). An ageing methodology, growth parameters and
estimates of mortality for hake (Merluccius australis) from around the
South Island, New Zealand. Marine and Freshwater Research 48: 201–209.
Horn, PL. (2005). A review of the stock structure of ling (Genypterus
blacodes) in New Zealand waters. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment
Report 2005/59. 41 p.
Horn, P.L. (2008). Stock assessment of hake (Merluccius australis) in the
Sub-Antarctic for the 2007–08 fishing year. New Zealand Fisheries
Assessment Report 2008/49. 66 p.
Horn, P.L.; Sullivan, K.J. (1996). Validated ageing methodology using
otoliths, and growth parameters for hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae) in
New Zealand waters. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater
Research 30: 161–174.
Horn and Francis (2010). Stock assessment of hake (Merluccius australis)
on the Chatham Rise for the 2009-2010 fishing year. New Zealand
Fisheries Assessment Report 2010/14. 65 pp.
Horn, P., and Dunn, M. (2010). Inter-annual variability in the diets of hoki,
hake, and ling on the Chatham Rise from 1990 to 2009. Minstry of
Fisheries, Wellington. 57 pp.
Horn PL, Dunn MR, and Ballara SL. (2013). Stock assessment of ling
(Genypterus blacodes) on the Chatham Rise (LIN 3&4) and in the Sub-
Antarctic (LIN 5&6) for the 2011-12 fishing year. New Zealand Fisheries
Assessment Report 2013/6. Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington.
Hurst RJ, Stevenson ML, Bagley NW, Griggs LH, Morrison MA, and Francis
MP. (2000). Areas of importance for spawning, pupping or egg-laying, and
juveniles of New Zealand coastal fish. Final Research Report prepared by
NIWA for Ministry of Fisheries Research Project ENV 1999/03 Objective 1.
December 2000.
27
100058154/600288.5
Impacts of Mining Scenarios Workshop (2014). 23 July 2014, 0900-1330.
4 pp.
Kerstan, M., and Sahrhage, D. (1980). Biological investigations on fish
stocks in the waters off New Zealand. (Bundesforschungsanstalt fiir
Fischerei, Hamburg.) Mitt. Inst. Seefisch. No. 29.
Kenchington, T., and Augustine, O. (1987). Age and Growth of Blue
Grenadier, Macvuronus novaezelandiae (Hector), in South-eastern
Australian Waters. Aust. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 1987, 38, 625-46.
Livingston, M.E., Scholfield, K.A., and Sullivan, K.J. (1992). The
discrimination of hoki groups in New Zealand waters using morphoetrics
and age-growth parameters. N.Z. Fisheries Assessment Research
Document 92/18. 30 pp.
Livingston, M.E. (2000). Links between climate variation and the year class
strength of New Zealand hoki (Macruronus novazealandiea) Hector. New
Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 34: 55-69.
Lotze, H., Coll, M., and Dunne, J. (2010). Historical Changes in Marine
Resources, Food-web Structure and Ecosystem Functioning in the Adriatic
Sea, Mediterranean. Ecoystems (doi:10.1007/s10021-010-9404-8).
Macdonald, R., Morton, B., Addison, R., and Johannessen, S. (2002).
Marine environmental contaminant issues in the North Pacific: What are
the dangers and how do we identify them? North Pacific Marine Science
Organization. 27 pp.
McClatchie S, Pinkerton, M, and Livingston, ME. (2005). Relating the
distribution of a semi-demersal fish, Macruronus novaezelandiae, to their
pelagic food supply. Deep-Sea Research Part I 52: 1489-1501.
Mitchell, SJ. (1984). Feeding of ling Genypterus blacodes (Bloch &
Schneider) from 4 New Zealand offshore fishing grounds. New Zealand
Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 18: 265-274.
Murdoch, R., and Quigley, B. (1994) Patch study of mortality, growth and
feeding of the larvae of the southern gadoid Macruronus novaezelandiae.
Marine Biology 121 : 23-33.
Nedwell, J.R. (2008). Modelling and measurement of underwater noise
associated with the proposed Port of Southampton capital dredge and
redevelopment of berths 201/202 and assessment of the disturbance to
salmon. Subacoustech Report No. 805R0444. 91 pp.
28
100058154/600288.5
Newcombe, C.P., and J.O.T. Jensen. (1996). Channel suspended sediment
and fisheries: a synthesis for quantitative assessment of risk and impact.
North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 16:693-727.
Niiranen, S., Blenckner, T., Hjerne, O., Tomczak, M. (2012) Uncertainties
in a Baltic Sea Food-Web Model Reveal Challenges for Future Projections.
AMBIO 2012, 41:613–625.
NDP. (2011). National Deepwater Plan. National Fisheries Plan for
Deepwater and Middle-depth Fisheries. New Zealand Government. 51 pp.
Nodder SD, Bowden DA, Pallentin A, Mackay K (2012). Seafloor Habitats
and Benthos of a Continental Ridge: Chatham Rise, New Zealand. Seafloor
Geomorphology as Benthic Habitat. Elsevier Inc. 763-776pp.
O’Driscoll, R.L., Bagley, N.W., and Baird, S.J. 2014. Spawning area of fish
on the Chatham Rise, 2001-2104. Prepared by NIWA for the Chatham
Rock Phosphate. Client Report WLG2014-58.
O’Driscoll, R.L., Booth, J.D., Bagley, N.W., Anderson, O.F., Griggs, L.H.;
Stevenson, M.L.; Francis, M.P. (2003). Areas of importance for spawning,
pupping or egg-laying, and juveniles of New Zealand deepwater fish,
pelagic fish, and invertebrates. NIWA Technical Report 119. 377 p.
O’Driscoll, R.L.; MacGibbon, D.; Fu, D.; Lyon, W.; Stevens, D.W. (2011). A
review of hoki and middle depth trawl surveys of the Chatham Rise,
January 1992–2010. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2011/47.
72 p. + CD.
Page, M. (2014a). Effects of total suspended solids on marine fish - Eggs
and larvae on the Chatham Rise. Report WLG2012-61 prepared by NIWA
for Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, April 2014.
Page, M. (2014b). Effects of total suspended solids on marine fish –
Pelagic, demersal and bottom fish species avoidance of TSS on the
Chatham Rise. Report WLG2014-7 prepared by NIWA for Chatham Rock
Phosphate Limited, April 2014.
Patchell, GJ. (1987). Collected reports on fisheries for ling, hoki and hake.
Fisheries Research Centre Internal Report No. 66.
Pauly, D., Christensen, V., Dalsgaard, J., Froese, R., and Torres, F. (1989).
Fishing down marine food webs. Science 279, NO. 5352: 860-863.
Pinkerton, MH. (2013). Ecosystem Modelling of the Chatham Rise. Report
prepared by NIWA for Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited. April 2013.
29
100058154/600288.5
Popper, A, Carlson, T, Hawkins, A, and Southall, B. (2006). Interim criteria
for injury of fish exposed to pile driving operations: a white paper.
Available at: www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/84A6313A-9297-42C9-
BFA6-750A691E1DB3/0/BA_PileDrivingInterimCriteria.pdf
Popper, A. N., and M. C. Hastings. (2009). The effects of anthropogenic
sources of sound on fishes. Journal of Fish Biology 75: 455-489.
Reine, K., Clarke, D., Dickerson, C., and Wikel, G. (2014). Characterization
of Underwater Sounds Produced by Trailing Suction Hopper Dredges
During Sand Mining and Pump-out Operations. US Army Corps of
Engineers. 109 pp.
Robertis, A., Clifford H. Ryer, Adriana Veloza, and Richard D. Brodeur.
(2003). Differential effects of turbidity on prey consumption of piscivorous
and planktivorous fish. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 60: 1517.1526.
Rowden A, Leduc D, Torres L, Bowden D, Hart A, Chin C, Davey N, Wright
J, Carter M, Crocker B, Halliday J, Loerz A, 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, and Northcote, L. (2013). Benthic communities on
MPL area 50270 on the Chatham Rise. A NIWA report prepared for
Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, May 2013.
Rowden A, Leduc D, Torres L, Bowden D, Hart A, Chin C, Davey N, Nodder
S, Pallentin, A, Mackay K, Northcote L, and Sturman J. (2014). Benthic
epifauna communities of the central Chatham Rise Crest. A NIWA report
prepared for Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, March 2014.
Scannell, P. W., and Jacobs, L. L. (2001). Technical Report: No. 01-06
Effects of Total Dissolved Solids on Aquatic Organisms. In Alaska
Department of Fish and Game: Division of Habitat and Restoration.
Retrieved from
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/library/pdfs/habitat/01_06.pdf
Seko, N., Bang, L.T., and Tamada, M. (2003). Aquaculture of Uranium in
Seawater by a Fabric-Adsorbent Submerged System. Nucl. Technol. 144,
274.
Seafood New Zealand (2014). http://www.seafoodnewzealand.org.nz/
Access on 20 July 2014.
Stevens, D, Hurst, R, and Bagley, N. (2011). Feeding habits of New
Zealand fishes: a literature review and summary of research trawl
database records 1960 to 2000. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and
Biodiversity Report No. 85.
30
100058154/600288.5
Southall, B. L., A. E. Bowles, W. T. Ellison, J. J. Finneran, R. L., Gentry, C.
R. Greene, Jr., D. Kastak, D. R. Ketten, J. H. Miller, P. E. Nachtigall, W. J.
Richardson, J. A. Thomas, and P. L. Tyack. (2007). Marine mammal
exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals
33:411-521.
Szefer, P., Szefer, K., and Falandysz, J. (1990). Uranium and thorium in
muscle tissue of fish taken from the southern Baltic. Helgoländer
Meeresuntersuchungen 44: 31-38.
Udden JA. (1914). Mechanical composition of clastic sediments. Bulletin of
the Geological Society of America 25: 655–744.
Van Moorsel, G.N.M. (1988). Early maximum growth of stony corals
(Scleractinia) after settlement on artificial substrata on a Caribbean reef.
Marine Ecology Progress Series 50: 127-135.
Wentworth CK. (1922). A scale of grade and class terms for clastic
sediments. Journal of Geology 30: 377–392.
Wilber, DH, and Clarke, DG. (2001). Biological effects of suspended
sediments: a review of suspended sediment impacts on fish and shellfish
with relation to dredging activities in estuaries. North American Journal of
Fisheries Management 21: 855-875.
Woodward, G. (2009). Biodiversity, ecosystem functioning and food webs
in fresh waters: assembling the jigsaw puzzle. Freshwater Biology (2009)
54, 2171–2187.
Zeldis, J.R. (1993). Applicability of egg surveys for spawning stock
biomass estimation of snapper, orange roughy, and hoki in New Zealand.
Bulletin of Marine Science 53 (2): 864-890.
Zeldis, J.R., Murdoch, R. C., Cordue, P.L., Page, M.J. (1998). Distribution
of hoki (Macruronoust novaezelandiae) eggs, larvae, and adults off
Westland, New Zealand, and the design of an egg production survey to
estimate hoki biomass. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science
55: 1682-1694.