Statement of evidence of Dr Paul Richard Krause

Dated: 12 September 2014

REFERENCE: JM Appleyard (jo.appleyard@chapmantripp.com)

BG Williams (ben.williams@chapmantripp.com)

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.