transcript of proceedings environmental · pdf filetranscript of proceedings ... level 28,...

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY

HEARING

Trans-Tasman Resources Limited

Marine Consent Application

HEARING at

CLIFTONS CONFERENCE CENTRE

LEVEL 28, THE MAJESTIC CENTRE

88/100 WILLIS STREET

WELLINGTON

on 23 May 2017

DECISION-MAKING COMMITTEE:

Mr Alick Shaw (Chairperson)

Mr Kevin Thompson (EPA Board Representative)

Ms Sharon McGarry (Committee Member)

Mr Gerry Te Kapa Coates (Committee Member)

Hearing Proceedings

Day 20 Tuesday, 23 May 2017

Time Name Representing Topic Documents Submitted /

Presented

Transcript Ref.

Page no's

11.01 am Alick Shaw - DMC Chair Housekeeping 3166

11.04 am Anton van Helden Royal Forest and

Bird Protection

Society New

Zealand

Marine mammals 3168

11.34 am DMC Questions 3175

12.25 pm Lunch 3192

2.01 pm Matthew Brown TTRL Spatial mapping 3192

2.22 pm DMC Questions 3198

2.36 pm Alick Shaw - DMC Chair Housekeeping 3204

2.45 pm Adjourn 3207

166

The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17

[11.01 am]

MR SHAW: Mr van Helden, Mr Anderson is joining us this morning?

MR ANDERSON: I'm over here. 5

MR SHAW: Oh, he's over there. He's not in the usual place. All right, all good.

(off mic conversation)

10

MR SHAW: Well, it'll stop you from rolling Jaffas down the floor, won't it? So that's

all good. Sorry, are there any housekeeping matters that people wish to

raise or procedural issues?

MR HOLM: Yes, just two housekeeping matters, sir. One is Matt Brown would be 15

available to present his spatial mapping today if that suited the inquiry,

just to save some time tomorrow.

MR SHAW: Yes.

20

MR HOLM: He's ready to go if that is acceptable to you.

MR SHAW: I think that would be helpful, yes, is the answer.

MR HOLM: Secondly, Commissioner McGarry yesterday asked us to point out the 25

references to the crawler and we've just emailed that into ...

MR SHAW: Gen.

MR HOLM: It's a short page-and-a-half statement from Mr Humpheson just pointing 30

out where it was in the evidence.

MR SHAW: Okay, that's cool.

MR HOLM: As Commissioner McGarry requested yesterday. 35

MR SHAW: Yes.

MR HOLM: So that will show where the crawler noise was taken into account. That

was all, sir. 40

MR SHAW: Any matters from anybody else? Mr McCabe, your finger is poised over

the button?

MR McCABE: Yes, sir, just a bit of a challenge there. Ms Haazen was coming down 45

this afternoon to be here tomorrow to be present while the spatial

mapping evidence was brought forward, so that's a bit of a challenge.


MR SHAW: So she's not coming until tomorrow?

MR McCABE: She's coming this afternoon, sir.

5

MR SHAW: Well, do you know what time?

MR McCABE: Landing about 2.00 pm.

MR SHAW: Well, it will be the first business after lunch, I think, by the look of it. Is 10

that going to work for you, Mr Holm?

MR HOLM: That's fine, sir.

MR SHAW: Yes. Certainly, we will do our best to accommodate her. 15

MR McCABE: Thank you, sir.

MR SHAW: I think that's reasonable. Anything else from anyone else?

Mr Anderson? 20

MR ANDERSON: Dr Duncan was requested to provide a report on dredging noise, which

has been sent.

MR SHAW: I'm sorry, say again? 25

MR ANDERSON: Dr Duncan, I think Commissioner McGarry requested the paper on

dredging noise?

MR SHAW: Yes. 30

MR ANDERSON: That's been provided to Gen.

MR SHAW: To Gen, okay. Nothing further? Okay, Mr van Helden. Mr van Helden,

we will dispense with issues around introduction and qualification. It's 35

already been done. You're returning, so just move straight to the --

MS POLIN: Do you want more copies?

MR SHAW: I don't know. What's in this bundle? 40

(off mic conversation)

MR VAN HELDEN: Are we ready to go?

45

MR SHAW: When Saioa's finished.


MR VAN HELDEN: Okay.

MR SHAW: Okay, Mr van Helden.

[11.05 am] 5

MR VAN HELDEN: Good morning. I'll just essentially run through a summary of my

evidence with some notes that I think are worth making. Firstly, the

proxies for hearing ranges that Dr Childerhouse has used, interestingly

he made some comments yesterday which I will further elaborate on, but 10

the hearing range for the fur seal I think he agrees there's a better proxy

available. So, I would assert that.

He's been very selective still in terms of the representation of the hearing

ranges and presenting various species that are applicable in this region. I 15

think that it's important. He made a point yesterday saying that it was

somewhat irrelevant to incorporate or use figures for pygmy right

whales, Bryde's whales and sei whales as they represented only a very

tiny percentage of the data points in the region - and I'll get back to that -

but that really we should only rely on empirical measures, and the 20

empirical measures, none are available for baleen whales, so that's

including blue whales. There are no empirical measures because of the

size of the animals. In fact, there's no really good empirical data for

sperm whales either. The only empirical data is based on one calf,

which is hardly representative of an animal that can grow to 20 metres in 25

length.

The point of that really is that there are considerable issues. It's

important to consider hearing ranges but also to consider the other data

and the context in which they are used, particularly if we're going to refer 30

to the NOAA criteria, which bounds these different animals into

different hearing range groups, different frequency groups. It's also that

that information needs to be taken within the context that it was

provided in the reference documents. Particularly Erbe 2016 makes it

very clear that there are differences between using physiological 35

methods and behavioural methods and, in fact, making assumptions

around hearing ranges generally with the assertion by her in that paper

that we can expect a hearing range that all cetaceans, all marine

mammals, are likely to hear below 100 hertz. So, a lot of the baleen

whale stuff, for example, is done based on vocalisations, their vocal 40

ranges, but as we know even our vocal ranges, we respond to things well

outside of that range. That becomes important if we're considering the

ideas of behavioural disturbance.

The summary data of strandings and sightings and the conflation of 45

those was talked to yesterday and, in fact, it was immediately made

apparent why one shouldn't do that when Dr Childerhouse suggested that


we don't use the hearing ranges for pygmy right whales, for example, as

they only represent 1 per cent of the dataset. But those datasets are very

different and we also need to look at those datasets within the context of

what we know about those particular species. With the case of pygmy

right whales, one of the most poorly known baleen whales on the planet, 5

probably the most poorly known baleen whale on the planet, we know

almost nothing about their populations. What we do know is based on

strandings and 35 per cent of all the strandings in New Zealand for that

species and most of the strandings worldwide are known from New

Zealand, South Australia and Tasmania. So, 35 per cent of all the 10

strandings for that species are recorded within the South Taranaki, STB,

Cook Strait region, including, as I've said previously, mothers and

calves, neonates and juveniles. So, this has the likelihood of being a

significant area for that species with respect to behaviours like calving.

15

[11.10 am]

The point really being that we can look at the sighting data and the

sighting data, whilst useful as a point of saying somebody on this day

saw this species, there is far less rigour around the identification of those 20

species from transiting ships than there are in terms of how that's been

approached with the stranding record, for example.

Also, there are no surveys for the region of any substance. The only

survey which has been put forward by TTR was that of Martin 25

Cawthorn. Mr Cawthorn's survey, I've previously discussed many of its

limitations, but to refer to some of the processes within that, for instance,

he used transects offshore of 2 nautical miles apart, which gives us an

area of span of some 3,800 metres. That has been reported as a distance

in papers - Forney 2014 I can think of - where that reports as being even 30

too far apart to recognise or reliably see large animals. So, the potential

for missing smaller animals is clear, and for animals, as Dr Childerhouse

reported yesterday, the difficulty of seeing things like beaked whales that

spend a considerable amount of their time submerged.

35

Now I really want to get to what I think is the crux of this, which is that

Dr Childerhouse in talking about the NOAA criteria has conflated some

things. It's when the interim criteria are talked about, and this is really

crucial. That is talking about a document that dates from two expert

meetings that took place in 1997 and 1998. They were the best expert 40

knowledge at that time and those limits were set at that time based on the

ideas of that time. These were substantially updated by Southall in 2007,

and Brandon Southall himself has made considerable strides and there

have been a lot of publications since to discuss the measures therein and

how they might be applied in a management sense but also how they are 45

applied within the NOAA criteria.


The NOAA criteria up until 2013 still applied a 120-decibel lower limit

for disturbance. What Dr Childerhouse perhaps should have referred to

was the draft criteria. The draft criteria have actually now been

published, so they're now published criteria which are used by NOAA.

These have no reference to a 120-decibel limit for disturbance, in fact, 5

because the NOAA regulations only reflect the management requirement

in that sense to deal with permanent threshold shift. So they're only

looking at permanent damage to hearing in whales.

With respect to the behavioural impacts, it's a much more precautionary 10

approach in that they are talking about looking at the impacts at

population levels based on the understanding of the behaviours, and it's

important to understand the behaviours of the animals within a given

population. This was referred to by Dr Erbe yesterday but it is

absolutely relevant because the idea of behavioural disturbance is now 15

implicitly concerned with the nature of how animals are either used to

particular sounds or naïve to particular sounds, including how juveniles

may be affected by sound. So it's important to understand the use of an

area by a population or a species to determine what the actual impacts

will be. 20

The permanent threshold shift criteria, because there are no empirical

measurements for that in marine mammals, in fact, because that would

be a very cruel thing to do to a captive animal, to push it to a level where

you knew you were damaging its hearing, so they are based on a 25

temporary threshold shift model. These, in fact, come back to this

hearing range problem just a little bit in that the hearing ranges are

determined based on in many cases behavioural and physiological

experiments.

30

[11.15 am]

So the empirical models, which are only on toothed whales, remember,

and pinnipeds, are based in captive environments where the animals are

potentially -- it's affected by the age of those animals, the pool, so the 35

confines of that animal. So they may be unwilling to produce sounds

that are harmful to them in that environment and may, in fact, in animals

that are born in captivity have the problem of having impeded hearing

because of that very circumstance.

40

So the real issue is that we are not talking about the application of the

NOAA criteria. The new NOAA criteria are only set to look at

permanent threshold shift. The spreadsheet that Dr Childerhouse

referred to as having filled out yesterday, it would be really interesting to

see how he has applied that because that uses the 24-hour cumulative 45

threshold isopleth. So that's how it's designed within that spreadsheet is

to use that criteria of sound exposure levels over a 24-hour period, which


is table 4, I think. We referred to it yesterday. Sorry, I'll just flick to it to

be certain. Sorry, table 3. It's in Dr Childerhouse's evidence, where at

least it demonstrates that there is a need to look at that 24-hour period

when considering the effects on marine mammals.

5

So, I think that's the critical thing with regards to the NOAA criteria. It's

not that they are waiting around to define a simple limit for behavioural

disturbance. The behavioural disturbance, that limit of 120 decibels, has

been used historically but our understanding of behavioural disturbance

now is so much greater that they don't wish to apply that sort of a limit. 10

They want to look at that in the context of how that will affect certain

populations. So there isn't somehow going to pull out of the hat a new

single figure. It's very easy for regulators to want a single figure, but it's

not the most appropriate mechanism.

15

So, with respect to Dr Childerhouse saying we haven't actually suggested

anything better than condition 12, actually we've consistently said that

there should be proper modelling and there should be proper surveys and

that would be part of a proper, normal Environmental Impact

Assessment. Even if we were working within the US framework, they 20

are working in the context of what is called allowable take. So they're

looking at a population, and bear in mind that there are other pieces of

legislation which impact on that, for instance, that it's not to have an

impact on the survivability of that population. There are various other

pieces which I've put in my evidence, but the significant detail with that 25

is that allowable take is based on sound and thorough surveys for

particular populations and that is the way it's applied.

So, to be able to take one part of a model and then say, "Well, that's

applicable to the New Zealand framework" is very hard. For me that's 30

hard to digest because it's based on a framework which requires really

rigorous survey work which is done every few years. It's reported on

annually. I talked about that if not in my previous supplementary

evidence, in my evidence before that anyway. In earlier evidence I

discussed that. 35

[11.20 am]

The point is that we're in a situation in New Zealand where no thorough

survey work has been done for marine mammals and we have a lot of 40

marine mammals in New Zealand. We're blessed in that sense in New

Zealand to have one of the greatest, most diverse fauna of marine

mammals anywhere in the world, and the South Taranaki Bight, as

shown, demonstrates that this is an area that is important to marine

mammals. Quite how many are resident year round or use it is, I admit, 45

up for debate, but I have suggested that at least 14 species use the area

on a regular, continuous period throughout the year and others use it as


part of their migratory corridors, which I think is important. This is a

year-round activity that's being proposed, so animals that spend a portion

of their time in the area is a significant part and we have no way of

knowing that that's a significant part of their environment because no

studies have been done. It's very hard to make an assessment of what 5

that impact might be.

I would point out that doing thorough survey work doesn't necessarily

answer the questions around behaviour. Behavioural studies demand a

different application, so the very nature of survey work means that you 10

have to cover a broad area in a systematic way, which doesn't necessarily

allow for the exploration of behaviours. So, although behaviours may be

recorded as part of that sort of activity, further work would be required.

Now, we know, for example, from Leigh Torres' work that blue whales

are present, probably year round, and that they are probably calving in 15

the area, nursing in the area and definitely feeding in the area. So those

are all behaviours that we have information on, although we don't have a

systematic survey for blue whales in the area.

Now, there are different ways that that can be approached through an 20

extensive network of passive acoustic listening stations, and the reason

why you need a reasonable network of these is because to pick up the

high frequency group of cetaceans or even mid-frequency group of

cetaceans is dependent on their orientation in terms of the production of

their sound to being able to be picked up in any particular hydrophone. 25

That is, the directionality is important. So, if you only have one listening

station your capacity to pick up those animals is considerably reduced.

What has been done with Kim Goetz and her study in the Cook Strait

has not been a study to look at abundance and distribution of marine 30

mammals but to record the nature of the soundscape of Cook Strait. But

what it has shown is that there are species present year round, and that's

absolutely consistent, at least for some of those species, with what we

know from the stranding record.

35

I'll point out with the stranding record there's a view that somehow the

stranding record represents animals that have either died and floated in

from elsewhere or have come in especially to die in this region. But I

point out that actually the stranding record also demonstrates that it's as

equally likely that they were present in the area and that they came in 40

there to live. To make some kind of value judgement that they're just not

present seems a poor one to me given that is the only regular dataset we

have over a long period of time.

The last point that I really want to make is with respect to condition 12. 45

Well, I was going to make some comment about the assertion that

condition 12 was based on expert conferencing last time and, therefore,


it should stand for all time, which I felt was the assertion in

Dr Childerhouse's evidence and which is why I contacted Bernd Würsig

because I simply know him and could ask that, but I've no interest in, as

you say, any sort of tit for tat around that. But it did seem relevant to say

that actually none of that group has been contacted since. 5

[11.25 am]

MR SHAW: Can I just say to you, Mr van Helden, you're welcome to say what you

wish in respect of your communications with Dr Würsig. That was not 10

the point I was making yesterday. The point I was making yesterday is

that given the limited information that we have in front of us, and

certainly we don't have the doctor in front of us --

MR VAN HELDEN: No, that's true. 15

MR SHAW: -- there will be questions as to the weight that can be given to those

matters when we get to deliberation. But you're free to press on with

making the point you wish to make. I've no intention to stop people

from doing that. 20

MR VAN HELDEN: Okay, all right. Well, I considered Dr Childerhouse's evidence and in

part it seemed to rely on the fact that the condition was based on ideas

set forth last time. I can see that if it was 2013 the NOAA criteria, as I

said, at that time would have included the 120-decibel limit, which it no 25

longer does. The assertion that the Southall 2007 paper is the

benchmark, well, as I put in my evidence, Southall himself says that

there has been such a considerable amount of new evidence that they've

had to revisit a lot of that work. We can see the results of that in things

like the NOAA criteria but not restricted to the new NOAA criteria. We 30

can see how that's been applied in Europe or is looking to be applied in

Europe. We can see how that's been looked at in other review papers.

For example, under the US system, they don't recognise temporary

threshold shift as being injurious. I can understand that in the sense that 35

it's designed to be recoverable from. That's what temporary has to do,

but there is a considerable amount of new work that shows that

temporary threshold shift, when animals are exposed over a long period

of time to persistent noise, that that can result in losses of hearing in

different parts of their range. So that would mean permanent threshold 40

shift. As such, German regulations look at temporary threshold shift as

being injurious. Other papers: Tougaard et al, 2015, suggested that some

range in between may be an appropriate level to set.

I will point out that in the summary in my evidence it says six months 45

when I'm talking about the noise monitoring. That was supposed to read

six weeks in respect to what I had put. In the body of the document I


said one month duration or longer, but the six months has crept in there

as an error. I do think that there are certain --

MR SHAW: Paragraph reference there just to make sure we've got the right ...?

5

MR VAN HELDEN: So, paragraph 9, line 2 of that, it says, "An extended period, six months"

but that should read, "Six weeks".

MR SHAW: Okay, thank you.

10

MR VAN HELDEN: There are, in my view, issues with condition 12 because condition 12 is

based on the idea of a set limit based on the 120 reflected to a limit of

135 at 500 metres or 130 at 500 metres and that that is not based in the

best science available to us now. I can see how that was the best science

perhaps available in 2013, but we have come a long way since then. So, 15

therefore, I understand the reticence of Dr Erbe, for example, in saying,

"Well, we wouldn't set simply a threshold number" and I think this is the

important issue and where I hold to the view that a proper and full

impact assessment must involve the consideration of the populations in

the region and the way that they use it to determine what the real impacts 20

on that population will be for any given population in the South Taranaki

Bight.

[11.30 am]

25

So, that's my problem with condition 12. I can understand the desire for

a simple number. It gives a target as has been proposed, but I don't think

it's defensible in terms of the latest scientific knowledge.

With respect to if that was to go forward and say we were to accept 120 30

decibels as a limit for behavioural disturbance -- which as I've said I

don't believe is appropriate because we certainly know that animals are

affected at levels much, much lower than that. We certainly know that

for beaked whales. We know it for blue whales. In fact, there was a

news report today that I got sent of a new paper on humpback whales 35

showing similar responses to certainly sounds outside of their hearing

range but also being affected and moving away from sounds at much

lower levels than what would be considered the behavioural disturbance,

that 120 threshold.

40

So, this is the regulatory body. This is applying an old regulation from

another country, but if that was what was chosen then I think we need to

certainly consider the way in which condition 12 is applied with respect

to the monitoring, that the monitoring should be over a period of, as I

suggested, six weeks and on a regular basis so that we can see that that is 45

being complied with. My reading of the condition is there is nothing in

there to say that anything would stop if that was the case. So I've not


argued but it seems likely to me that the only way that you could manage

that would be to say that if the operation is not compliant with

condition 12 that you would have to stop. Now, I don't know how

feasible any of that is; I don't see that as my role. But I do say that to not

do so would put animals at risk. 5

That's me.

MR SHAW: The extent to which the risk to these animals might be reduced, were

there to be a cessation of work in the event that those limits are 10

breached?

MR VAN HELDEN: Well, this is the point is that we don't --

MR SHAW: It is the point, yes. 15

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes. Well, the point is, though, we don't know what these animals do

now and it's important to understand what these animals do now to

determine what level of impact there might be. We also know that very

little changes in the sound source can create considerable impacts in 20

terms of transmission loss over much greater distances. So, a few

decibels, 3 decibels SEL, is a doubling of the sound in the environment.

That's not insignificant.

MR SHAW: I just want to tick off a couple of things before I turn to my colleagues. 25

MR VAN HELDEN: Sure.

MR SHAW: It does go to this question as to how conservative the proposition in

condition 12 is. What you say is it doesn't mean that it is either good 30

enough or appropriate for the task.

MR VAN HELDEN: That's right.

MR SHAW: But let's deal with those things one at a time. Is it, in your estimation, 35

the most conservative of any condition that has been proposed or

suggested in respect of activities?

MR VAN HELDEN: I don't know.

40

MR SHAW: The reason I ask that, Mr van Helden, and this is not a matter for you to

answer in the end, it's a matter that the DMC and so forth have to do

when they go through the overall decision making, but when we consider

the nature of the legislation, yes, caution is required of us when we're

assessing environments where we don't know everything, and there's 45

most things we don't know everything. That's why people like you are


around us, Mr van Helden, so that we wind up incrementally knowing a

bit more from time to time.

[11.35 am]

5

MR VAN HELDEN: I hope so.

MR SHAW: But if we go back to that question of the purpose of the Act and I leave it

there, it is about managing the effects of environment while conducting

certain permitted activity, accepting all the caveats that go with that. So 10

there's a presumption that things are going to happen there and I'm trying

to understand from you the circumstances in which you could envisage

this sort of activity, seabed mining of some sort, might be permitted.

Just confine yourself to your area of expertise.

15

MR VAN HELDEN: My view as a biologist is that whilst I don't think we need to know every

detail about an environment, we should do some due diligence with

respect to doing a proper assessment of what is likely to be there and that

that should have some rigour in terms of how that is designed and then

delivered. So, when we have limited data, and this has been my point 20

with respect to the stranding data, given the paucity of other sources of

data we need to look at that data and give it some weight. Over 25 years

of working on stranded cetaceans in New Zealand, it has been clear to

me that these animals are here and that's the best data we have to say that

they're present, and that we as humans have an impact on them, whether 25

it be from fishing, whether it be from their ingestion of plastics, and the

potential for noise is a thing which has been only relatively recently

acknowledged.

So, in my experience of looking at the anatomy particularly of beaked 30

whales in relation to ways in which they could be injured through sound

has made me conscious that we need to do more about understanding

these animals in their environment. I've been involved in studies in the

Canary Islands looking at these animals and the data there is really

valuable, but we don't have baseline data in New Zealand and there are 35

few opportunities for us to collect that data. There is an opportunity

perhaps here where that is called for, where there is a call to collect

better data on which we can make better decisions.

At the moment, my view is that there are a lot of whales out there and 40

that those whales are important. I can hold to that. If we look at the

status of some of these whales in terms of world stocks, we know that

blue whales were hammered and we're not learning a lot of lessons in

this. So, they didn't start whaling blue whales in the Southern Ocean

until 1900 pretty much, or thereafter, but by 1933 they were pretty much 45

gone, 350,000 blue whales extracted out of the Southern Ocean and we

have populations of maybe a few thousand now. So that's a long time to


recover and they're not doing that great, and here we know in the South

Taranaki Bight we have a population of blue whales. The movements of

those whales may come in and out of the Bight, but it is clearly

significant to them at some portion of their lives and they are there year

round and breeding and feeding. 5

[11.40 am]

So, that is something that we know about. We know about the blue

whales. I've spent most of my life working on species which are so 10

enigmatic that they're only known from strandings. I can think with

respect to pygmy right whales that I've worked on I know of four

instances where photographs have been taken of these animals in the

wild. With respect to some of the beaked whales, some of them have yet

to be seen alive. So, we are impacting as humans on these animals out 15

in the wider world and so I think we have a responsibility to do what we

can to study them in their environment before we do things that may

impact them further. We know that these animals are being impacted. I

hope that answers your question. I feel like there is need and perhaps

this is an opportunity, but also there is a responsibility, in my view. 20

MR SHAW: Okay. Look, we'll move first to Mr Coates.

MR COATES: Good morning again.

25

MR VAN HELDEN: Good morning.

MR COATES: I just wanted to get to this business of back calculating from a received

level to a source level, just talking about the back calculation and the

validity of that as a tool. 30

MR VAN HELDEN: The only way that this is valid as a tool is to demonstrate what level you

would need to meet that level, what output level you would need. I

mean, that's just an equation. Do I think it's relevant? It's not relevant -

as I feel like we've constantly demonstrated - given what we know of the 35

sorts of machines that are used in this environment are unlikely to meet

it. So the back calculations which have been used have been applied just

using the various models that have been offered. For a long time, we

were to believe that 188 decibels was the likely source level of the

operation, until I pointed out that the spherical spreading model was not 40

the most appropriate model to use.

Now we've gone and got another model and now the likely output of the

operation is 171. It seems coincident to me that the likely output is now

consistent with the back calculation. That seems remarkable, but there 45

you go.


MR COATES: You've said now that the 135 decibels should probably be in fact 120.

MR VAN HELDEN: I'm not making any statement on what that level should be. It was

referred to that that was discussed in a workshop. It wasn't discussed in

a workshop. That was discussed in expert conferencing. I think a 5

workshop on that might give us some view, but all the workshopping

that has been done with respect to the development of NOAA criteria

with respect to the development of other legislative processes elsewhere

in the world has suggested that setting a level for behavioural

disturbance is inappropriate, because even when you see things -- so a 10

classic example of this is really looking at the right whales in Boston

Harbour. This is an example where you would say that the disturbance

from -- that they were unaffected by shipping because they're present and

shipping happens.

15

When 9/11 happened - and this is a paper I have referred to, Roland et al

2011, I think 2011 - they had been in the process of measuring the

cortical steroid levels or glucocorticoid levels, hormones, to look at the

stress levels in right whales in that area.

20

[11.45 am]

What they found when 9/11 happened was that there was a sudden drop

in those stress hormones. The view of that is that what is the only thing

that has stopped? Shipping stopped. These animals were prepared to 25

so-called tolerate, they were habituated, if you like, to the environment

of Boston Harbour. However, it had come at a cost to those animals,

because increased stress has impacts on our cognitive abilities, it has

impacts on fertility rates, on all sorts of other functions.

30

So I think it's important to realise that just because there is no observed

change in animal behaviour, it does not mean that there is no impact.

That has been part of the problem with trying to set some sort of

behavioural threshold limit and why it is really the up-to-date science on

that is that you shouldn't be setting a behavioural limit, at least not 35

without taking into consideration the various behaviours of the animals

and the populations in that region.

I come back to the idea of allowable take: it's the number of animals that

may be displaced or die - this is the idea of take - or removed from that 40

population as a consequence of the actions of the activity. Without

knowing those things, it is very hard to -- so I don't think that a future

workshop, given the nature of the incredible number of -- the new

NOAA criteria went through three levels of peer review, and even then

it's still got to be taken in consideration of the context within which it is 45

used, which is in the context of allowable take.


MR COATES: When you talk about allowable take, are you talking about that in terms

of commercial whaling or cultural harvest or --

MR VAN HELDEN: No, I'm talking about that in terms of anything that would remove an

animal from a population, so that might be -- and this is where 5

cumulative effects also come into consideration, because it's not just the

effect of -- how many animals are already at risk from being removed

from this population from fishing or how many animals are removed, if

you like, if there was an indigenous whaling programme in Alaska and

there was also a mining operation. All of those things are contributors to 10

what would be considered take on those animals.

MS McGARRY: Is it almost like a measure of acceptable loss of a population --

MR VAN HELDEN: That's right. 15

MS McGARRY: -- so you come up with a --

MR VAN HELDEN: So you need to understand what the population is to know what an

acceptable loss may be. That will be relative to the rate of reproduction 20

of the species, it'll be relative to the number of animals that are there in

the first place, the way that they use the particular area. For instance, if

it is used for calving, then you are going to put more juveniles and

females at risk than you are perhaps adult males.

25

MS McGARRY: Sorry, just to jump in. So presumably an allowable take concept would

only be acceptable for a species that wasn't rare or endangered?

MR VAN HELDEN: No, it's still used in the case of animals that are rare and endangered, but

obviously the thresholds are set much, much more rigorously. Where it 30

is likely to impact on a rare population, the likelihood is that the amount

of allowable take may be close to zero and therefore the activity would

probably not proceed. So that's the way that it's used and so that's not

really applicable in the New Zealand context to date.

35

MR COATES: Thank you, Mr van Helden.

MR SHAW: Nothing more? Dr Thompson.

MR THOMPSON: Mr van Helden, you mentioned before that before the blue whale 40

harvesting started, there were 350,000 whales.

MR VAN HELDEN: There were at least -- certainly 350,000 were taken out of the Southern

Ocean.

45


MR THOMPSON: Okay, at least. Now there is just a fraction of that number and you can

conclude, if you like, that the reduction in population is a direct result of

the harvesting.

MR VAN HELDEN: I would say so. 5

MR THOMPSON: How has the environment moved between 1900 and today? What

number would the environment sustain?

[11.50 am] 10

MR VAN HELDEN: I don't think there's any reason to say that it wouldn't sustain those sorts

of numbers. There are other impacts on those, obviously climate change

being a significant one and krill harvests being a significant one these

days, so those are human-induced impacts. There is actually some 15

thought to the fact that by reducing the number of blue whales, that was

a contribution to climate change, because they represent significant

carbon sinks and blue whales represent much more significant -- so you

could take a number of minke whales, for example, to make up the size

of a blue whale. A blue whale is a very large animal. They represent a 20

significant carbon sink with respect to a minke whale and one blue

whale represents a lot more carbon than minke whales.

It's an interesting idea and there are papers that look at these things in the

way that the distribution or the cycling of carbon and iron and various 25

other things in the ocean with respect to the way whales poo. All of this

stuff actually comes down to the impacts we have had, not just on these

animals, but on our planet as a result of that. A lot of it is very poorly-

known and beginning to become pretty relevant.

30

MR THOMPSON: Now, the South Taranaki Bight, in particular the bit off the Kahurangi

rise, is regarded as a very important feeding area for blue whales.

MR VAN HELDEN: It seems to be.

35

MR THOMPSON: If we have 350,000 of them, would that sustain that number or --

MR VAN HELDEN: We are talking about across the Southern Ocean, yes.

MR THOMPSON: Yes, I understand that. 40

MR VAN HELDEN: I don't think the South Taranaki Bight itself would likely sustain 350,000

blue whales.

MR THOMPSON: No, no. 45

MR VAN HELDEN: It would be one hell of a whale-watching industry though.


MR THOMPSON: Wouldn't it? But what I'm getting at though is that we are trying to

preserve now - and I'm just trying to understand this - feeding grounds

for a very small population of blue whales, but those feeding grounds

sustained a much, much larger number. Has something happened to 5

them to --

MR VAN HELDEN: What I don't know is whether or not that has behaviourally changed.

What we know is we now have blue whales that are feeding there and

feeding there year round. Historically we have very little data on that, 10

other than that we know that the Perano whalers, for example, would see

these animals. In fact, they referred to these slightly smaller blue whales

as tadpoles, which I think is kind of interesting. I only know that

because I sat next to the whalers for a week or two doing the Cook Strait

whale survey, sitting and looking into Cook Strait looking for humpback 15

whales, which we know have reduced significantly in number.

But we also know that not just blue whales, but the South Taranaki Bight

was a significant area for calving and right whales. Right whales are

incredibly depleted. Cloudy Bay, Kapiti Coast and South Taranaki Bight 20

were significant calving areas for right whales; that we have from

historic recordings. So, yes, that area would have sustained a lot more

whales than it currently does, in a similar way that we have depleted all

sorts of things at levels that may seem remarkable. For instance, in a

very short space of time fur seals were basically exterminated from the 25

sub-Antarctic islands in the space of a few years, 7.5 million pelts were

shipped to China. We have impacted these animals. Some of them are

recovering and some of them are recovering in areas and some of them

are recovering almost not at all, in the same way that the removal of

animals from the Southern Ocean has impacted different populations in 30

different ways.

We know that the humpback whales off the east coast of Australia - and

some of those are the ones that pass through Cook Strait - have

recovered pretty well. The Oceania population, some that pass perhaps 35

up the West Coast of New Zealand, but certainly pass through the

Kermadec region, the Oceania population is nowhere near as well-

recovered, and so it's important to try and understand those sorts of

differences.

40

[11.55 am]

But a lot of this information has been unavailable to us because whales

are notoriously difficult to study. The advances in technology in the last

15 years even has really transformed the way that we understand the 45

lives of these animals, from our capacity to record them with passive

acoustic monitoring, to be able to deploy DTAGS, like I did in the


Canary Islands and has been done around the world. A piece of

technology developed by Mark Johnson, a Kiwi, has transformed the

way that we understand the lives of these animals.

For instance, the idea that was held for a long time was that beaked 5

whales effectively only live at depth. We know they have to come to the

surface. What we do know is they only spend about 5 per cent to 8 per

cent of their life at the surface, which is remarkable for an animal that

has to breathe, but it's also now shown us that they feed at altitude, that

is distance above the bottom, so relative to the water depth that they're 10

in. Also we know from these that they don't produce sounds near the

surface and we know that they spend very little time at the surface. That

helps us understand why they are almost never detected in surveys. In

fact, there's some figure that they may be detected in surveys only 1 per

cent to 2 per cent of the time. 15

Yet we develop legislation or we develop -- I'm thinking now of the code

of the conduct, which has been revised, and you can now see the

technical working group reports for that on the DOC website, although

the new code has yet to be -- even the draft of that has yet to be released, 20

but you can see the amount of consideration that goes into this. The fact

is that a lot of species which are listed as species of concern by the

Department of Conservation are actually not able to be detected by

current methods.

25

So in my view, it potentially puts a lot of animals at risk to these human

behaviours, these human activities, and yet there is very little work that

goes into studying the populations and lives of these animals. I think

that that should be, in my view, part of a normal impact assessment, to

provide some of that data. I understand that TTR hired Mr Cawthorn to 30

do the aerial survey. I'm looking at the aerial survey. It is even Bernd

Würsig in the previous period, so that was a survey done for the previous

application. Bernd Würsig in that previous application in his evidence

says that he thought that the methodology was not up to scratch.

35

There's lots of things in that previous evidence which I'm sort of

surprised haven't been applied to the current application. If there's a lot

of weight put on the 135 threshold suggested, that was based on Dr

Würsig and his discussions with colleagues, Adam Frankel and Chris

Clarke elsewhere, that was where it was derived from. Also the other 40

pieces of information that are in Mr Würsig's previous evidence I think

are pretty valid. For instance, he says that there would be little value in

doing modelling that was based on spherical or cylindrical spreading and

that more complex and proper sound modelling, using proper sources,

would be appropriate. That's in the previous and yet in this application 45

we had none of that. I mean, they didn't do anything more.


MS McGARRY: Mr van Helden, we have said all the way through that if any party wants

to put any of that evidence before us, we will consider it, but we will not

be going back and looking over our shoulders.

MR VAN HELDEN: No, no, that's fine. 5

MS McGARRY: No, it's in your hands if you wish to put forward the evidence of any

witness that was given last time. That's up to you to produce that.

MR VAN HELDEN: Sure. 10

MR SHAW: Though we are getting well and truly to the finishing line in producing

any new evidence at all.

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, I appreciate that. 15

MR THOMPSON: I've just got one further question and you may not be able to answer it.

There's been a lot of talk about condition 12 and you've spoken a lot

about it. Are you able to improve on it?

20

MR VAN HELDEN: I think I've discussed how I think --

[12.00 pm]

MR THOMPSON: You've talked around it, but -- 25

MR VAN HELDEN: No, I think certainly to improve condition 12 will be with respect to --

now, I don't believe it's appropriate to set a threshold for behavioural

disturbance, which is what this is based on, so I don't believe that that's

appropriate. If, however, you choose to impose a threshold, I would 30

hope that it would be lower than 135, but I'm not really prepared to

speculate on setting a limit there because that is inconsistent with what

the scientific approach would be.

However, the way to, I think, at least look at condition 12 is to say that 35

the monitoring needs to be more thorough, in line with what I have

suggested, that a six-week period of monitoring would be appropriate

and I think that there needs to be some stipulation to say that the

operation will cease if it's not complied with. Without that, I'm not sure

that I see much merit, but the other point which I have made is that - and 40

I have that from my earlier submission - with respect to condition 12 is

that where the sound is measured, it should be at maximum over depth.

I have discussed that previously.

MR THOMPSON: Thank you. 45

MR SHAW: Ms McGarry.


MS McGARRY: I just want to make sure I've got the sightings and the stranding issue put

to bed. Really yesterday, talking with Dr Childerhouse, when he was

going to reproduce that bigger map that had all of the sightings and

strandings and separate those out into stars and dots with colours. 5


MS McGARRY: Did that give you some comfort that that will allow us to make a better

visual assessment of the stranding and the sighting data? 10

MR VAN HELDEN: I think for me personally, it doesn't change things greatly. I do

appreciate that you understand the implications of it, that that was clear

from asking for that. I think all of the strandings, by the fact that they're

strandings, are around the coastline, so everything else is a sighting. 15

That in a sense makes it perhaps obvious, but the problem is the

conflating of them as all sightings and then working on that basis. So

the sightings are from -- they're not from surveys. I admit that we have

to have the caveats around strandings, but you may as well have two

maps, one with sightings with different species and one with strandings, 20

but I think the sightings data itself is dangerous in that it sort of implies

that there has been effort, consistent effort, across the region and that

simply is not the case.

I think that it has been something that has been referred to by Dr 25

Childerhouse himself with respect to the blue whales, saying that there

have been over 30 years of sightings data, but actually that is a similar

sort of conflating idea. No, there have been sightings over a period of 30

years, but the effort to get those sightings has not been from any sort of

concerted or consistent effort. 30

MR SHAW: Look, all good, but we're into really highly repetitive material now.

MR VAN HELDEN: I get that.

35

MR SHAW: Everything you've said, you've said many times to us now, yes.

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, but that was a question of clarity and I'm trying to --

MR SHAW: Quite, yes. 40

MR VAN HELDEN: -- make sure that that is there.

MS McGARRY: Understood.

45

MR VAN HELDEN: Good.


MS McGARRY: The question about the 135 decibels, there's two parts to that, isn't there?

There's one, whether it's achievable, and I think that's outside your area

of expertise, so I'm not going -- I mean, you obviously have a view on

that, that it's not achievable on the basis of the review of the modelling.

Don't answer that question, it's not a question. That's the first part. I just 5

want to be clear. I don't want to go on to whether this is achievable.

MR VAN HELDEN: Okay.

MS McGARRY: The second part is whether or not that level in itself provides a certain 10

level of protection for species and it's that second part that you're trying

to get us to understand, that if we don't understand what's there and we

don't understand what the likely effects of that sound level is, then we

can't assess the level of protection. Is that in a nutshell what you're

trying to say? 15

[12.05 pm]

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, I think that's right.

20

MS McGARRY: Yes, so that parks the achievable side, because you have made comment

on that. I've tried to think about this in my mind, about analogies to this,

say with the air discharge consent or a water discharge consent, and as a

biologist, you'd be familiar with that kind of assessment. For example, if

somebody was discharging out of a chimney some harmful substances, 25

you would have limits placed on the stack and perhaps at certain

distances from the discharge and those would be based on understanding

the population you're affecting, around the number of people, the

distance away, and then you would have limits placed in terms of

understanding what the harmful level of the sulphur or whatever the 30

material was discharged.


MS McGARRY: So the same with the water discharge, you could say the same things, 35

harmful substances coming from a pipe, you would need to understand

what's within cooee of your discharge and what exposure time, so very

analogous, isn't it, to this situation?

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, I think that's analogous. 40

MS McGARRY: So for us to put on a limit of 135, again you're saying to us we need to

understand what's there that could possibly be affected with some level

of certainty and then to know what level of harm is acceptable or what is

the result of that result. 45


MR VAN HELDEN: Yes. I think that that level of harm is based on how animals use that

space, so in the same way that your decision to place your chimney stack

right next to a children's playground is different to placing it somewhere

where there are no people, right? Yes.

5

MS McGARRY: Yes, okay. I've got another question. Taking that from the context, I

think the other questions this morning are grappling with the issue of the

context of where this activity is sitting and how that context sits. I guess

maybe internationally we've been told this is a hotspot, but then when I

look at the De Beers operation, that too sits in a hotspot of some 37 10

species of cetacean. So if we just accept that internationally New

Zealand is a hotspot, then we look at New Zealand itself and what the

Taranaki Bight represents on a national level. We've scratched away at

this throughout the hearing and I think some of the questions asked just

before really is, in your view, you've told us that it's an important area 15

for certain species. In the context of New Zealand, is the whole of New

Zealand in this kind of level of importance?

MR VAN HELDEN: I think there are bound to be areas that are more significant for certain

species. I think that the way that we look at this is that there has not 20

been a proper evaluation of that and that that would be a useful thing to

look at. It's been done in sort of various ways to look at areas of

significance based on stranding records and other things. I think

certainly the South Taranaki Bight/Cook Strait region stands out and that

perhaps is in part because it also represents a significant migratory 25

corridor that is monitorable and we know it has historic significance for

certain species in terms of the whaling of right whales, for example.

We also know that it's been depleted of Hector's/Māui's dolphins,

common dolphins that are caught in the jack mackerel fisheries. There 30

are all sorts of other things. But, yes, it occurs to me, it strikes me that

that's a pretty significant area in terms of species numbers, but we are

scratching the surface in terms of knowing what species are still there in

terms of how they use that.

35

Some of the really exciting work for me has come from the recordings

from Cook Strait that show that we have year-round permanent

populations of Cuvier's beaked whales, Gray's beaked whales. Yes, I'm a

beaked whale enthusiast, I have spent most of my life looking at it, but

that's remarkable. It's not essentially surprising, but it is wonderful to 40

have that confirmed. The point is we don't have -- I think when we look

at areas, we need to look at what they are significant for. I would look

at, for instance, the areas in the Bay of Plenty, which is where there are

high numbers of mother/calf pairs, strandings for different beaked

whales. That may be a significant area for beaked whale and for beaked 45

whale calving.


[12.10 pm]

So these things not only need to be looked at in the context of what

species are present, but how the area is being used and at what times.

5

MS McGARRY: Yes. I think I am more scratching at how significant is the Taranaki

Bight in a national sense for cetaceans in general. I understand what

you're saying, that different species are going to use different areas, but a

lot of your evidence seems to be -- and Dr Torres's evidence also said

that other than the canyon off Kaikoura, where there's also upwellings of 10

nutrients, this was probably one of the sort of significant areas in New

Zealand. You've answered that in a roundabout way, so we'll just leave

that where it is.

In terms of the krill, could I go back to the evidence before us and the 15

documents that sit under the application? There's two spot samplings on

krill and all that tells us really, that it was an incredibly high biomass in

terms of a national sense.

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, and not -- 20

MS McGARRY: And a kind of indication of where it was.


25

MS McGARRY: We've got a sort of circle on a plan and that's about all we've got. So my

question to you is in terms of the krill, how critical is where it is in that

biomass to supporting populations, which I think gets back to Dr

Thompson's --

30

MR VAN HELDEN: Oh, I think that's really significant, and I think that would be -- in the

way that Leigh Torres's approach, even though she admitted that

basically the inputs weren't very good, but the modelling approach is a

way to look for some of those important areas. Another area which I

think would be highly significant is there is a similar sort of area off 35

South Westland, off Fiordland. That is an area which I think would be

incredibly interesting to look at, but we haven't done so. But certainly

you're also looking at it in terms of what animals are likely to be feeding

on what particular things and that there is an abundance of krill there

that's significant to this blue whale population, certainly. 40

It's probably less significant to some of the migratory great whales that

are passing through, so humpback whales are possibly not feeding as

they come through - and probably not - but it's important to them for

other reasons. But there are also, from my reading of the various reports 45

on invertebrates for the region and primary productivity, that it's also a

significant area for copepods, calanoid copepods, and that is the primary


food source for pygmy right whales. So it's no surprise to me that when

I correlate that with the stranding data that I see pygmy right whales in

the region. I don't know if I'm --

MS McGARRY: So it's another important part of the picture. I'm trying to look at these -- 5

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes. So looking at primary productivity is useful, looking at areas where

there is high density fishing traffic is another one, is another good

indicator for where there is likelihood to be marine mammals, because a

lot of marine mammals eat fish. If you have areas where there is high 10

squid productivity, you are likely to see squid-feeding cetaceans, and a

lot of them are, so pilot whales. There has been some talk of squid in

this area. Certainly we have also an extensive canyon, it's the start of

Cook Strait, if you like, to the east, so animals will use that probably for

part of the time, but may also seek shallower water for periods where 15

they may be calving, which would be independent of food availability,

possibly.

MS McGARRY: You've emphasised to us the continuous nature of the operation and the

noise and that that's your real concern here. So that takes me back to Dr 20

Childerhouse's table 3. I checked with him yesterday that I was reading

that correctly when you start getting to those 24 hours, but when you

look at that and think about it and you think about an animal and their

ability to move and avoid, that they can move, but then the question is

where else can they move to and how long is the exclusion. So I just 25

sort of want to understand that, that if we're looking at 24-hour exposure

levels up to 169 decibels at 10 kilometres, then --

[12.15 pm]

30

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes.

MS McGARRY: -- effectively would that, in your view, mean that even if the krill went

into that area, an animal would be likely to stay out or would an animal

only expose itself for that kind of 24-hour duration to those levels in 35

order to do something like feed or nurse? It's all very well to say

"avoid", but to me that doesn't say much.

MR VAN HELDEN: No, and it might not avoid, because it may to go into that area to feed or

do whatever it has to do. The interesting thing for me is that that is the 40

metric which is used by NOAA, for example, with respect to a

permanent threshold shift, is the 24-hour accumulated sound exposure

level. The spreadsheet, which is a simplified version of the NOAA

criteria to be applied by people that Dr Childerhouse said he had filled

out, is designed to deliver a 24-hour cumulative sound exposure level, 45

isopleth map, so not the 120, 125 that was in the AECON report, but

rather based on these exposure levels.


That's what they would use for a permanent threshold shift, so that's not

a map that we currently have and I think that that would be an

appropriate thing to see. But with respect to permanent threshold shift,

there are some views that that may be limited to within ranges, but 5

certainly the disturbance is likely to happen, could happen at levels that

are significantly lower. So I'm not sure I'm addressing your question

properly, but --

MS McGARRY: Yes, I'm not sure anybody can. I think we'll just leave it there, but -- 10

MR VAN HELDEN: No, but I guess the point is --

MS McGARRY: But that's all we've got in terms of guidance at the moment.

15

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, yes.

MS McGARRY: Without the isopleth, this is all --

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes. I mean, to have a visual representation of what those PTS isopleths 20

would be, given that that is what -- I mean, that's the criteria used. If you

wanted to do it for 120, then you've got to -- the kind of behavioural

thing, you're not getting to 120 any time soon in using this context.

MS McGARRY: Thank you. 25

MR SHAW: Just tell me something: Whale Watch in Kaikoura, subject to a resource

consent?

MR VAN HELDEN: I don't know. 30

MR SHAW: Don't know?

MR VAN HELDEN: I haven't been involved in that, but yes --

35

MR SHAW: No, nor I. I was just --

MR VAN HELDEN: Certainly it should be part, I would imagine, of their marine mammal

permitting.

40

MR SHAW: Presumably you're not in a position to tell us whether any limits -- I

mean, there are distance limits imposed by DOC, aren't there, in respect

of the approach to animals?

MR VAN HELDEN: Certainly. 45

MR SHAW: Do you know whether any noise limits are imposed or anticipated?


MR VAN HELDEN: I'm not involved. I haven't been involved in that permitting process at

all, but we're talking --

MR SHAW: Or indeed whether or not the noise inherent in that industry had been 5

recorded and its impacts?

MR VAN HELDEN: Oh, that there is a lot more literature on. I'm not completely up with the

play on that, but we can certainly show that bearing in mind that these

are -- well, for some you can see where there is continuous vessel traffic 10

is another way to look at it, where we can see the animals, even when

they don't move out of the area, suffer injurious effects. There's been

some work looking at the population of bottlenose dolphins in Doubtful

Sound, for example, and how the potential impact of tourism on that that

would be -- I think David Lusseau, who's now gone on to look at and 15

develop criteria in Scotland, may be a useful person to discuss that with.

MR SHAW: Because it does head back into that territory there, and which prompted

the question from me, that you were discussing with my colleagues

earlier and that is the relatively high populations that exist in some very 20

busy places and busy in terms of other activity. You were talking about

Boston Harbour and so on.

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, and potentially that they are constrained by some system that we

might not be completely certain as to why they use a particular area. 25

This was addressed in this paper I referred to earlier that I just read

online this morning.

[12.20 pm]

30

That looked at humpback whale populations up in Alaska and that area

and the use of fiords at different times. They didn't use them necessarily

in relation to the potential krill aggregations, for example, or fish

aggregations or prey aggregations, but that they used them for some

other purpose. It could be that they have some other behavioural 35

function and this has been --

MR SHAW: So in some cases, despite the disturbance, they will make a decision to

remain?

40

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, to remain, even though that may incur some cost, so reduced

fertility and various other things that may be affecting --

MR SHAW: Again, which you're saying we don't really know what that cost

genuinely represents? 45


MR VAN HELDEN: We can't strongly evaluate it and that's part of the problem, so that by the

time that you would have evaluated whether or not there was a problem,

it's probably too late. An example where there was displacement in

animals coming back, there are two examples from lagoons in Baja,

California, one the Guerrero Negro lagoon, which was a -- 5

MR SHAW: Which we've heard evidence on, yes.

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, and there's another one which was reported on by Jones, 1994,

which -- I can't quite remember the name of the particular lagoon, but a 10

separate one, but a similar result. There was a salt-mining operation. It

displaced animals for a period of five years while that went on and then

they came back. That's great that they came back, but there's no certainty

that that would be the case and when you've got an activity over a long

period of time that does have the potential, in my view, to displace 15

animals, yes. But as I say, they might not leave and also then they may

incur the costs of that. But if they are displaced, it's where they go to

and it may be an area which is less productive, so their capacity, that

may also have physiological costs to those animals as well.

20

MR SHAW: All right, I think I'm done. Are there questions from other parties for ...

you've sent them? Right, okay. If you'll just give me a moment, folk.

Mr van Helden, this question is from Mr McCabe on behalf of

KASM/Greenpeace:

25

"Following Dr Thompson's question around whether the contemporary

environment could sustain the historic populations of blue whales, is

there research relating to the role played by whales by way of a nutrient

recycling feedback loop potentially improving the ecosystem health of

the oceans?" 30

MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, there are studies that say that sort of thing. That's partly what I was

alluding to with the whale poop comment and that certainly there's

suggestions for that with blue whales, but there are papers relating to

dynamic transfer of iron, for example, with sperm whales and other 35

things, yes.

MR SHAW: Okay, thank you, Mr van Helden. Is there anything else, Gen? That was

that the only one we had? Anything from you, Mr Holm? No. No

further from you, Mr Anderson? No. All right, thank you, Mr van 40

Helden.

MR VAN HELDEN: Thanks.

MR SHAW: We are now looking at maps shortly. I think we might take a wee break 45

and come back. Gen, has lunch been organised or -- 1.00 pm to 2.00


pm, is it? Look, I think we'll take a short break in any case. Give us, I

don't know ... Ms Haazen arrives --

MR McCABE: I imagine she'll be here around 2.00 pm-ish.

5

MR SHAW: Around 2.00 pm?

MR McCABE: Yes, 2.00 pm, 2.30 pm.

MR SHAW: Look, I think we'll do that. We'll break and come back at 2.00 pm. 10

We've got the bulk of it out of the way and we'll start, Mr Holm, with the

mapping question and then move forward. By that stage, I expect Dr

Mitchell will be back with us. That's okay with you, Mr Anderson, that

works for you?

15

MR ANDERSON: That's fine with me.

MR SHAW: Okay. Mr McCabe, all good?

MR McCABE: Yes. 20

MR SHAW: Okay. Thank you all very much.

ADJOURNED [12.25 pm]

25

RESUMED [2.01 pm]

MR SHAW: Right. It feels like a premier performance, but no God Save the Queen

to stand up for beforehand. Over to you; let's do it. It's a shame it's not a

full house. 30

MR BROWN: That's fine. Good afternoon. My approach to you to present the actual

interactive map that was requested under minute 41 was a request that

TTR provide a spatial map to help show graphically a lot of the

information that has been provided to the DMC. Some considerable 35

thought went into how we present that map, not only to the DMC and the

EPA, but also to the general public as well.

In terms of a spatial map, the data that has been produced and provided

to you is all existing data and information that has been provided to you 40

either through other technical reports or inferred from other information

that has been provided. That was covered off in the memo and the

appendix in terms of the sources of those data.

The data was produced in a geographical information system by a third 45

party. TTR felt that we should go to a third party to produce this

information and, where possible, we took that information from public


sources such as MPI, New Zealand Petroleum Minerals, Department of

Conservation, and that was produced by the third party, the GIS experts.

It was decided to use the system to show you the spatial context, because

that's how a lot of the files are dealt with and used, but, for the general 5

public to be able to use that, we had to transfer that information into a

format that anyone could use. Not everyone has GIS software, so one of

the functions in the GIS is that you can save the view in the files that you

have as an interactive PDF file, which is before you now and which was

supplied to you as part of your request. 10

The amount of data that was requested by the DMC was quite substantial

and so therefore it produced a rather busy map and a map that's rather

heavy in its data usage. Where possible, we tried to meet every

requirement or request that DMC has asked for in terms of that 15

information, and we've put that forward as best as we can.

My understanding is there was some limitation in terms of the file size

that we could produce; my understanding was it was 10 megabyte.

Anything over that could have caused some issues with the EPA website 20

and lodging that. We've tried to endeavour to keep that under that 10

megabyte limit. However, it's an interactive map and it's something that

you can start off and then you can constantly build onto.

[2.05 pm] 25

Because the information requested by the DMC covered spatially quite a

large area, it was decided that we'd do this in two maps, so we have a

large regional map that covers from the Kāwhia to the north, right down

to the Kapiti in the south. Because some of the information requested 30

does spatially cover a large area, for instance the set net bands, some of

the information around mammals are Māui dolphin sightings and some

of the other general information round the South Taranaki Bight.

In there as well, on the second page, is more what we call the local map. 35

When people first see this map, they will be downloading a map that has

all the information loaded on it straight away. That's why it looks so

busy. My comment is that people do need to take time to go through

this, because it's not something you can just look at and, within five, ten

minutes, understand how it all works. It is quite a complicated map to 40

deal with, as you can see.

To be interactive with the map we've carried over a number of the layers,

that you can turn on or off, that relate to that specific data that was

requested by the DMC. That is covered off very easily by what is 45

labelled as the regional map and, sitting underneath this are a number of

94


files that you can click on and click of. Sitting under that as well is what

we call the study area map, which is map 2, which is more detailed.

For the sake of saving time, I've turned off a lot of those layers in that

more study area map, to make it a little bit easier to show how 5

interactive it actually is.

Sitting underneath, how both those layers work is very similar for the

regional map as it is for the study area map. What I'll do is I'll just focus

on the study area map, because that shows the more detailed information 10

that you may be interested in as well.

MS McGARRY: That's the first one?

MR BROWN: That's the second page. 15

MS McGARRY: The second one.

MR BROWN: Yes. Which is what you're currently seeing on your screen in front of

you now. 20

Sitting under the study area map is a number of layers. To save the

amount of data that this file will use we've collated all the legends and

scale and everything into a single layer, as you can see that there. One of

the best ways to deal with, or to operate this, is to turn layers on and off 25

so you can actually see what you're seeing, so toggling them on and

toggling them off is very useful.

As you can see, they sit there on the right-hand side. You can zoom,

which is a function, so you can actually zoom in to greater detail, if the 30

user so wishes, and you're able to scan around and move it. It being a

PDF file, you can't actually change what you're looking at, in terms of

you can't change these layers, so it's very much a fixed view that you

have.

35

The layers have been grouped as best as we have been able to

understand, in terms of the logical nature of presenting the data. Under

this, you'll have a number of annotated layers. To turn on the proposed

monitoring locations ... let me just turn that on.

40

MR THOMPSON: Excuse me, Matt, I don't know whether I'm the little boy with the

emperor's clothes or not, but I've just got a PDF, I think, end of story: no

ability to do anything, other than to make it bigger or smaller.

MR BROWN: You may struggle in terms of a tablet form, so you may actually have to 45

use it on a PC, and it may be requiring a version of PDF, which you're

able to --


MR THOMPSON: I think that's what we've all got; iPads, and I think we're just looking at a

fixed PDF.

MR BROWN: Okay. It possibly could be the fact that you are looking at it on a tablet 5

rather than on a PC.

MR McCABE: Can I say, sir, that my Mac is not able to open the functions either.

MR BROWN: Okay. Well, I wasn't aware that Macs couldn't. It should be able to, if 10

it's a PDF file.

MR SHAW: Could I ask you to pause? Gen, you're looking perturbed.

MS HEWETT: We discovered this as well, but there's a shortcut, and I think it's control 15

H. I don't know if that would work. Then it would show up all the

symbols on the side.

MR BROWN: The layers. I am a bit surprised by that because I have opened it up with

my Mac at home and this is on a tablet as well, is it? Okay. 20

[2.10 pm]

(off-mic conversation)

25

The whole issue is around it is that for a spatial map, or a lot of this data

to be done, it had to be done in a GIS, and this was on the only capability

to be able to transfer it over. With people who are always using GIS,

like myself and the people that produce all of this for us, this is probably

second-nature. I understand with people who maybe struggle around a 30

computer, that may be a little bit difficult, but it is usable for other

people and it should be (overspeaking)

MR SHAW: Look, I have difficulty reading a bus timetable, let alone a map, let alone

one of this complexity. 35

MR BROWN: Okay. Moving through, we've grouped the layers as logically as we can

in terms of the data that was requested. Under these layers we have a

plus sign, which allows you to expand that and close that down to save a

view. So you're able to see a lot of the data in terms of those physical 40

features, such as the bathymetry, the currents, beach profile locations,

reef, and the seabed ecosystem.

As I stated before, my recommendation is that people do require turning

on and off these layers, turning everything on and bringing everything in, 45

so they can understand it. As I said, it's not a five-minute exercise; there

is an extremely large amount of information that has been presented to


you in this interactive map. It is a very powerful tool, but you do need to

take that time to go through it to make sure that you understand what

you're turning on, what you're turning off.

The layers have been described as best as we can to ensure people 5

understand what layer it is, so there's all the technical terms that were

provided for the layers, such as the NIWA ones.

MR SHAW: Could I just ask you to pause again? Gen?

10


That is all you wanted? Away you go. Sorry.

MR BROWN: So therefore it's not something that people can just look at within five 15

minutes and get an understanding of it.

As I said before, the information that's been provided to you has come

from the source, so NIWA has provided a lot of this information directly

to the third-party GIS company to be able to produce it, and has taken 20

TTR out of the loop in terms of passing that information on.

One of the requests was plume, so the information that was requested by

yourselves was for plume data. The plume data actually had quite a

large number of images associated with that technical report, and we've 25

produced these in this interactive map as well. However, given the

limitation in terms of the file size, we have only shown all the

information around, or the images of those plumes coming from site A,

which is the nearest site which had the greatest effect.

30

As you can see, the plume has a large number of layers associated with

it, and it allows the user to switch on and compare the effect of the

plume from the worst-case scenario to the original application that was

presented. Currently, I've got on the mining median surface that was

presented in 2016. We've tried to keep the naming of these layers as 35

simple as we can so people can understand that.

[2.15 pm]

You'll see, there's "Mining median", there's also the "Worst-case", and 40

that should be highlighted as 2017. You also have "Background" and

then you have "Mining and background" as well. The two layers that

I've got on at the moment are the "SSC mining median surface" and the

"SSC mining worst-case median surface". You'll be seeing uppermost

layer, so if I turn that off. As I said, you'll be able to toggle on and off 45

and see what the difference is and compare what they look like. You can

do that and compare that with all those different types.


We've tried to have the layers, which allows you to see like for like from

the original plume model that was done to the worst-case scenario, so

users can toggle that on and off and see what that difference actually

looks like rather than reading it off a technical map. 5

Also, part of the request was the optics associated with that, and, again,

we've tried to show what the optics look like from line A, or site A.

Again, we've tried to show what it looks like for both, with some of that

naming there as well. 10

I highly recommend, if people are looking at these images, that they do

need to refer back to the technical report. So if they're interested in the

plume then they need to go back to the original plume report to

understand the technical nature of how these images were derived. 15

One thing you will note is that the resolution is slightly better in what's

provided to you in electronic form than what is shown actually in the

maps, particularly in the plume. All it is, is just that we've used a finer

resolution to actually show this image. They are the same shape, they 20

are the same limits and everything, but they are just a little bit smoother

because they've got smaller pixels.

You will be able to read the legend of the optics and of the plume and of

the PSD from the legend, so you need to have that up to be able to 25

compare that. You should be able to compare the changes in your optic

levels with what is shown actually in that legend there.

Nature of the GIS. They showed the power of as a symbol, like an arrow

sign; that just symbolises that is to the power of; it's just a function of 30

what the GIS actually produces. So there is a significant amount of

information there.

We have not produced or shown anything new, in terms of the layers or

the information presented that has been part of the TTR hearing; all it is, 35

is the information that has been provided to TTR by third party

consultants, such as NIWA. Where there is information that has been

provided to TTR, or where we have taken information from an

unverified site ... and I'll just show you which one that looks like, is the

recreational fishing. I have noted in the memo, and it's stated in here, 40

that this information is best-available information.

That information has been taken from just basically a hard copy, and

we've tried to digitise where those locations were in a general sense,

because we didn't have an actual GIS file or any co-ordinates to be able 45

to put that into the GIS system. So the recreational fisheries, as I stated,

was part of the information that was provided to the DMC through


another party, and that's just been digitised, and that's best-available

information. That goes for some of these locations for crayfish as well.

That also is true, the same, for ... whereabouts is that one? I've also

showed some time series locations as well, that is in relation to the 5

sediment modelling. You'll note in the technical report, there are a

number of charts or graphs of time series of background sea levels and

what the modelling shows in terms of what would be produced through

the TTR proposed operations.

10

[2.20 pm]

You can see that is shown - as I toggle on and off on that map in front of

you - as those, I think, red dots.

15

These are labelled as well, so you can actually turn on the label to be

able to see that. There we go. So you can actually see where those are.

Those correlate, as I said, to the plume modelling technical report

produced by NIWA, so what you see there, those locations have been

supplied by NIWA to us. Some of these locations, such as the Crack, 20

have been under best-available information; we weren't provided any of

that location data. So, yet again, those locations were produced from

visualising off a hardcopy map that was provided to the DMC. As far as

we're concerned, they're there and they're shown in the actual time series

maps within that technical report, but unverified. 25

Yes. I think, just in summary, there's a heck of a lot of information that's

been provided in these spatial maps. It is probably easier to use, if you're

a GIS user, to use them in GIS. We've tried to show as best as we can a

lot of information in a single map, therefore that's why there are a lot of 30

layers and that's why people do need to take the time to appreciate what's

actually there.

Yes, I think that covers off what I wanted to say.

35

MR SHAW: Sharon, have you got any questions?

MS McGARRY: Just listening to what you've had to say, in terms of the question we're

asking ourselves, or what aspect we're looking at, we're best to go back

to the data first and then decide which layers here might assist us 40

visually to ...

MR BROWN: That's one way of looking at it. You can also look at the map and want

to see -- because the layers are annotated as descriptively as we can, you

can click those two layers on and then go back to the actual technical 45

report and see what sits behind that in terms of the technical aspects of

the plume itself and/or the background SSC information.


MS McGARRY: So this has picked up everything in terms of every site that's been

sampled, whether it's a benthic site or whether it's a sediment, core, all

those layers; every bit of data, basically, that's in the technical report is

represented here in terms of its location? 5

MR BROWN: In terms of those technical reports. I haven't put in drill data location

sites as well - that would just completely pepper the whole site - but it

includes all the environmental monitoring, location sites, sample sites; as

much as we can, covered off what was requested under minute 41, and 10

provided to you into this map.

MS McGARRY: In terms of the time series that you talked about at those points for the

SSC, were they provided, available for the worst-case scenario, or are

they -- 15

MR BROWN: I believe so, yes.

MS McGARRY: For both, yes. Okay thank you.

20

MR SHAW: Dr Thompson? Gerry, any from you?

MR COATES: No. It looks pretty clear.

MS McGARRY: Or not, depending if the layers are on. 25

MR SHAW: As the case may be. And a good piece of work.

MR BROWN: One note I could raise is that it's a map that you can continue to build on.

We have this in our own GIS system. We've just grabbed a lot more 30

information, like there was a lot of work trying to get the NIWA plume

information into the GIS system, because they use a proprietary type of

software and to convert that back into a GIS took a significant amount of

work to be able to do that.

35

[2.25 pm]

But now, once we've got it, it's a very powerful tool, and something you

can constantly build on and develop.

40

MR SHAW: Anyone else with any questions? I think we're not going to go through

the performances of putting those questions through the Chair, I think

that anyone in the room who can usefully ask a question, please do. Mr

McCabe?

45

MS McGARRY: I've just got one more too.


MR SHAW: Sorry. I'll come back to you.

MS McGARRY: That's all right. In terms of what you said about the unverified

information from other parties in the hearing, maybe you could just

elaborate on that for us as to what was included? We made some 5

requests from, for example, the recreational fishers; I think Ms Pratt had

some input in co-ordinating that and providing that information. Maybe

you could just clarify for us what was included?

MR BROWN: In terms of the locations for where the Crack was located, no co-10

ordinates were provided to the DMC, as far as I'm aware, or to any other

parties, therefore we had to take that location of that site. We just had to

basically look at it off a hardcopy map and then transpose that into a

GIS.

15

MS McGARRY: Then you've marked with the fish symbols and things in the crayfish

area, those are just, basically, you were provided with stuff from

submitters and you've just transposed that into the system?

MR BROWN: Exactly. Correct. Where that's happened we've actually said, "Best-20

available information" in terms of labelling that in the layer itself. So

that was recreational fisheries. A couple of these time series locations,

such as the Crack 1 and the Crack 2, as well as the crayfish locations as

well.

25

We've also tried to not duplicate symbols and colours, where possible, so

they should visually stand out. So you know, for instance, you've got a

crayfish tail, you've got a fish symbol, it should be pretty visible, and

understand what it actually means.

30

MS McGARRY: In the project reef, I don't think you were provided with co-ordinates for

that in light of protecting the site.

MR BROWN: No.

35

MS McGARRY: And I don't think anybody even gave us a cross on a hard map.

MR BROWN: No.

MS McGARRY: So the project reef isn't represented on there at all? 40

MR BROWN: No. My understanding is, it is somewhere close to source A, this symbol

here, but without any definitive co-ordinates or location on a map we

cannot assume it.

45


MS McGARRY: And you've included all of those sites provided entirely; there's been no

question of what does or doesn't meet any threshold, it's all just been put

on?

MR BROWN: It's just the data placed onto a visual map. 5

MS McGARRY: Thank you.

MR McCABE: Thank you, sir. Mr Brown, you say that the spatial mapping is a

powerful tool, and indeed it is, when you've got the functionality of it, 10

and there's a lot of information in there. In your opinion, would this tool,

or excerpts from this tool, have been useful during the consultation and

notification period prior to lodgement to enable interested parties to form

pictures in their minds while assessing what exists in the area, and the

potential effects of the proposed activity? 15

MR BROWN: In my opinion, no, because I believe that it probably would have

overwhelmed people. I think we focused on the key points around the

consultation in those effects, and we tried to keep it as focused as we

could. A lot of this information also has come out from the hearing as 20

the hearing has been progressed as well. We couldn't show the

recreational fishing locations because we didn't have that information, as

such. We had a good idea where they were, but to have something

provided by a third party during the hearing was very helpful.

25

MR McCABE: If I could just follow that with: certainly, it may have been

overwhelming and difficult for some users to use but, if this was

available at the beginning of the hearing, or actually as part of the

application, and the experts had the ability to utilise this tool and, as you

said, there was an ability for the process to add to the content within 30

these spatial maps, would that have been useful for the Decision-making

Committee and for experts to really flesh out --

[2.30 pm]

35

MR SHAW: With the greatest of respect, Mr McCabe, it's difficult enough for us to

know what's going on inside our own heads in terms of this material; it's

a pretty tall order to ask somebody else to speculate. No, quite seriously,

and I want to go back to the point I made at the outset, that all of this is

material which we've already seen in evidence; It's just a consolidated 40

way of doing it. We thought it would be helpful to us during the course

of deliberation, and of course everything that we do has to be shared

with everybody else. But there's nothing new here at all, other than the

particular method of presentation.

45

MR McCABE: Certainly --


MR SHAW: I think it goes without saying that there are many things that, during the

course of the hearing, are presented and produced in different ways,

including evidence from submitters, which shine lights where they

haven't been before. That's true, for example, in respect of the issues

around recreational fishing, because they weren't known, at least not to 5

the parties who were drawing up the original material. I'm not sure

where we get to with this approach to the questions. Perhaps if you can

explain to us what you're trying to understand?

MR McCABE: Yes. I guess my point is, sir, that on this side of the table, and I imagine 10

to some extent on the side of the DMC, there's been a fumbling around

in the dark looking for the light switch to find out what's out there and

where we're going with this. The point I'm trying to make, sir, is that

this way of presenting the information would have been very helpful, to

submitters at least, earlier on in the phase. I'm just now learning that I 15

can turn the functionality on, after two or three attempts earlier.

Closings are in two days and there's no use to submitters of this spatial

mapping, essentially.

MR SHAW: We asked for it to assist us in our deliberations. I don't think there's any 20

Eureka moment. You used the example of the light switch; it's more a

dimmer or a power board in which we're raising and lowering lights

here, isn't it, in terms of the --

MR McCABE: I think it's a floodlight, sir, myself, but, yes. 25

MR SHAW: Look, much of what you're saying goes without question, yes; the more

information one can have available, the better. I can't remember whether

it was Mr Currie, but one of counsel remarked that this has been an

iterative process. It has, including the way that we're presenting 30

information, or getting information presented to us, as well as the extent

of that information. No apologies for that because that's our job, that's

what differs: the inquiry approach differs from others in that regard, and

I think that's what we're doing. And I'm not trying to cut you off, Mr

McCabe. 35

MR McCABE: Yes. I'm not giving evidence here. I've got a view on it and I don't know

whether it's appropriate to share it or not, but --

MR SHAW: Well, I go back to what I said yesterday, I think the time to appropriately 40

share these things now is in closing, and so it's a matter, I think, for you

to share with your counsel. When I invited questions, I was talking more

about accessibility than probative value in terms of it.

MR BROWN: Understood, sir. 45


MR SHAW: Any other questions? Nothing more from you? Look, Ms McGarry has

just raised something which I think is of some importance. I don't know

the extent to which the Applicant would be happy if Mr Brown were to

outside the context of the hearing proper, if people are having difficulty

accessing the material that they would wish to do -- because, really, it's 5

between now and Thursday that this is of any value to submitters. It's

going to be considerable value to us, by the way. Whether or not that

would be doable? Or would you want to --

MR HOLM: No problem with that, subject to Mr Brown's availability; he can assist 10

anyone.

MR BROWN: That's fine.

MR SHAW: Would that be helpful, Mr McCabe? 15

MR McCABE: I think there's the ability to download Acrobat Reader which would open

the function. I'll have a go at that. If I have difficulty, maybe I'll meet

the Applicant.

20

MR SHAW: Okay. But anyway, the offer is on the table.

MR McCABE: Thank you. I appreciate that.

[2.35 pm] 25

MR SHAW: Yes, Ms McGarry?

MS McGARRY: I just have one final question, it's really in the same vein as that, Mr

Brown, that you're confident that, during our deliberations, if we have 30

access to somebody in the EPA with GIS skills, and obviously a machine

running the package, that with that assistance, we'll be able to navigate

our way round it?

MR BROWN: Absolutely. And I'm happy to assist. 35

MS McGARRY: Yes. I don't think that person could be you, but the question was

whether somebody --

MR BROWN: Well, with the EPA person who can assist you. 40

MS McGARRY: -- with just a good working knowledge of GIS.

MR BROWN: I'm not too sure where the EPA actually carry GIS as a software.

45

MS HEWETT: Some do.


MS McGARRY: Yes.

MR SHAW: I'm sure, if we conduct a search, we'll find someone, won't we?

MS McGARRY: Yes. I'm reasonably familiar with GIS, but there's no insider knowledge 5

here, it's just a general GIS package, isn't it?

MR BROWN: Correct.

MS McGARRY: Yes, thanks. 10

MR SHAW: So it's a navigational issue?

MR BROWN: Correct.

15

MR SHAW: Thanks. All right. Any more from anyone else? Mr Holm, is there

anything you wish to add?

MR HOLM: No, thank you, sir.

20

MR SHAW: All right. Well, thank you very much. I don't know that we have

anything more happening today, do we?

MS McGARRY: No.

25

MR SHAW: We are coming to the point then where we will move tomorrow -- do

you know when the material from the planners' caucus, which can't have

been a very large one, is going to be back with us?

MR HOLM: Can I just check with Dr Mitchell? 30

MR SHAW: Yes. I was just looking at Dr Mitchell when I asked that.

DR MITCHELL: We met for four hours, or thereabouts, this morning. The intention is,

where we got to anyway in terms of how we thought we would proceed, 35

is that the mediator, Mr Rainey, is going to send you an email this

evening. That email will identify that there are, I think, five issues that

Dr Lieffering and myself are not agreed upon, but the balance of the

conditions have been agreed as between the two of us, subject to each of

us having the time to carefully read and make sure they're correct. 40

It's my intention tomorrow to table yet another set of conditions, and I

only do that, not to overwhelm you with paper, but so that you can

follow where we've got to in terms of the progress that we have made.

45

MR SHAW: I presume that that would occur prior to closing statements from

anybody?


DR MITCHELL: My understanding is that we're scheduled first thing in the morning

tomorrow.

MR SHAW: Indeed. Dr Mitchell, I would appreciate if the report from the mediator 5

made formal acknowledgment of the extent to which the views of others

who were not present in caucusing were able to be taken into account. I

refer specifically, of course, to Ms Anderson's contribution, which I

think you will have received.

10

DR MITCHELL: I received that early this morning.

MR SHAW: Yesterday, or early this morning.

DR MITCHELL: We didn't discuss that; the mediator had to leave to catch a plane to 15

Auckland - he's doing a mediation there tonight - so we haven't been able

to consider that. I do acknowledge that I got an email from Gen while

the mediation was on, asking me to pass a copy of it to Dr Lieffering, but

I didn't get that email until after we'd left.

20

MR SHAW: Well, perhaps if you could cast your eye over her comments. By any

means, it's not a document that carries the detail that you and Dr

Lieffering have been dealing with. If you feel there are matters there that

need to be considered, those comments related to that can come

separately. 25

DR MITCHELL: It was certainly my intention to address anything in that that I had a view

on, or whatever, but we haven't got to the point of being able to discuss

it (overspeaking)

30

MR SHAW: We'll be asking the same thing, obviously, of Dr Lieffering.

DR MITCHELL: Indeed. I'm not sure that he yet has a copy of it. Gen asked me to give

him a copy but I didn't because I didn't get the email until after he'd left.

So I don't know whether you want me to follow that up and send it to 35

him electronically?


Okay. 40

MR SHAW: All right. So we're going to begin tomorrow. Mr Brown has gone - and

I mean this in the nicest possibly way - which is great, because it gives

us a bit more time.

45

[2.40 pm]


We haven't heard from Mr Young, have we, Gen, so we can't assume

he's going to be here? So we would move to Dr Mitchell and Dr

Lieffering and then a break for the afternoon, and then we'll hear from

Ms Carruthers closing for Origin. And I think that's the extent of the

day's work. You'll send Mr Young an email this evening, will you, Gen, 5

and just check, or have you already done that, I presume, have you?


Okay, thank you, and if you'll just let us know. I think we are looking 10

like hearing from Dr Mitchell and Dr Lieffering, in that order, tomorrow,

to be followed by Ms Carruthers in closing.

Nothing else from anyone? It'll be an afternoon session only, 1.00 pm.

Ms Haazen, she's in shortly, is she? 15

MR McCABE: Yes, she's in a taxi now, I believe, sir.

MR SHAW: I've already asked if people can close tomorrow, Dr Thompson, and the

answer was no. That's an answer reinforced, I presume, because there 20

was the question of Mr Currie coming in by Skype from New York,

wasn't there?

MR McCABE: Yes, I don't think we're ready to do closing tomorrow, Sir.

25

MR SHAW: Here's Ms Haazen now. Look, I think things are as they are. It would be

nice if we could hear from some others tomorrow, but we can't, and so

the order of batting: you and Mr Anderson have changed places, I gather.

Ms Haazen, welcome. And so we'll be hearing first from KASM and

Greenpeace. 30

MR McCABE: I think that's the plan at this stage, sir.

MR SHAW: And then we'll be hearing from Mr Anderson, and then we will be

hearing from Fisheries Submitters, Mr Makgill, and then Mr Holm. 35

Now, just before we do disappear for the day, I want to reinforce the fact

that the provision we've made for closing, the only questions that will be

coming from the Panel will be questions of clarification - we won't be

asking any substantive questions at all - and we certainly aren't going to 40

be debating issues with counsel during closing.

On that basis, we are expecting people to stick within the time limits,

and so that's an hour and a half for KASM/Greenpeace, an hour and a

half for Fisheries and an hour, I think, for Mr Anderson, which he's 45

agreed to, for Forest and Bird, and three hours for the applicant.


Now, we will not have much flexibility to show a great deal of latitude

in respect of those times, but I think they should be adequate. And, if

they are more than you need, people over here would greatly appreciate

any time that's not needed being returned, if you like, to the pool,

because we are pushing things for Thursday. 5

And, yes, a reminder from my colleague: please make sure you either

arrange for or arrange with Gen to make sure there are sufficient copies

of closing statements for everybody concerned. Have you got things

sorted in terms of contact with Mr Currie? 10

MR McCABE: Yes, I think so, sir. Yes. We'll sort that tomorrow.

MR SHAW: Okay. All right. Mr Holm?

15

MR HOLM: Sir, just one final point: Dr Mitchell advises me that he'll circulate the

next set of conditions either tonight or first thing in the morning so that

they're available to everyone before we start.

MR SHAW: First thing tomorrow is what Mr Holm has said, yes. Okay. Look, I'm 20

sorry this week is stop-start and it's pretty frustrating for all of us, but

there we go. Thank you all very much and we'll see you tomorrow.

MATTER ADJOURNED AT 2.45 PM UNTIL

WEDNESDAY, 24 MAY 2017 25