transcript of proceedings environmental protection ... · transcript of proceedings environmental...

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY

HEARING

Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited

Marine Consent Application

HEARING at

NORWOOD ROOM, RA VANCE STAND,

BASIN RESERVE, WELLINGTON

on 21 OCTOBER 2014

DECISION-MAKING COMMITTEE:

Neil Walter (Chairperson)

Dr Nicki Crauford (EPA Board Representative)

Dr Gregory Ryder (Committee Member)

Lennie Johns (Committee Member)

David Hill (Committee Member)

Norwood Room, RA Vance Stand, Basin Reserve, Wellington 21.10.14

[9.00 am]

CHAIRPERSON: Right, good morning and welcome to day 13 of the

hearing. We begin with testimony from Mr Tomoana on behalf of

Ngāti Kahungunu and then we have a series of expert witnesses on the 5

effects of the mining proposal on marine mammals. The report of the

expert conferencing group on that topic was tabled last week together

with some supplementary papers.

And just one point to note on timing, we will try and break for lunch at 10

12.45 today and we will just take our chances on when the tea break

comes up - try and aim for a natural break in the proceedings. So first

and I understand Mr Tomoana does have another commitment so we

will go straight to you, Mr Tomoana, for your testimony.

15

MR TOMOANA: Kia ora tātou. Thank you very much, Mr Chair, for

allowing me this time, nga mihi ki a koutou katoa. Ngāti Kahungunu

respectfully request of this panel that the proposal to mine Chatham

Rock be declined. Our statement has been forwarded and I will just

take it as read. 20

But just in context we see ourselves as kaitiaki over this whole area

based on our whakapapa to Tangaroa. Ranginui and Papatūānuku at 70

offspring, 13 of which are kaitiaki over the sea and the fishes and the

seabed. Everybody knows Tangaroa but then the Atua, (ph 2.00) he is 25

the god over ocean currents, tides, winds, moons. Atua (ph 2.07) over

whales, Puwhakahara over porpoises and dolphins, Arawaru over

shellfish, Te Kahu (ph 2.14) over sharks and so on and so forth.

Rūamoko (ph 2.17) of course being God of the underworld and of the

volcanic and earthquake creations and movements within the bosom of 30

Papatūānuku.

So based on that whakapapa we take our kaitiaki, our guardianship

role, seriously over the area concerned and we believe that the activity

will detract from the fishery itself and not only make it harder to catch 35

fish but destroy the market value and the brand that we have as a clean,

green country and especially a clean green fishery.

Now, Ngāti Kahungunu has worked with other iwi over the last 20 or

30 years to achieve fisheries settlement. The settlement was full and 40

final. Ngāti Kahungunu though is very susceptible to the fishery

because, unlike other iwi, Ngāti Kahungunu have only claimed the

fisheries and allowed all hapu to claim the lands. So we feel the impact

and the effect of any fishing changes, the vagaries of the fishing season,

any impacts externally on our fishery. An example I give to you is that 45

foreign charter workers were being mistreated and we supported


greater safety and greater parity for them but in the event foreign

charter vessels were banned or will have to be reflagged in our water.

It has a dramatic impact on Ngāti Kahungunu income of 3 to 5 hundred

thousand every year.

[9.05 am] 5

Now, we believe that any brand destruction by mining that the plume

will cause in that area will have definite impact on our brand and will

have definite impact on the ability to catch fish and the disruptiveness it

will bring to the fishery. We have three fishing boats that work 10

between the Chathams and Napier on a regular basis, on a daily basis.

the Moutiara. (ph 0.34) the Explorer and Stella B. (ph 0.37) We are

attempting to be good corporate citizens so we go longlining and we

don’t trawl that area any more.

15

Ngāti Kahungunu, along with Ngāi Tahu and other major fisheries

settlement players, work together with the fishing industry to create

benthic protected areas to show our corporate citizenship and our

kaitiaki and our sustainability over the fisheries. This works in the face

of that and we are worried that it will undo the good intent of the 20

fishing industry in creating those benthic protected areas.

Just in our own fisheries history we have shown care in shelving hoki

quota when we thought hoki was being overfished. That came back

and now hoki quota is on the increase. We worked with other iwi to 25

also shelve crayfish quota in our area and that fishery has come back.

The longfin eel is under immense pressure so after the last 20 years we

haven’t, we have got a moratorium on catching any of our eel quota.

We have 22 tonne annually we can catch, we leave it swimming, we

are trying to repatriate the longfin eel fishery. 30

We are testing new nets. We are testing new cod ends. We have been,

through our major companies, our shareholding in our major

companies, looking at precision fishing so that our brand and our

market will be known throughout the world as one of the best fisheries, 35

best caught fish, the best presented fish that there is.

I was the chairman of Te Ohu Kaimoana three years ago and at that

time I represented Te Ohu Kaimoana indigenous nations in the

International Whaling Conferences looking at the movement of whales 40

and looking at the protection of whales and looking at the burgeoning

interest in whale watching, and we support the view of Ngāi Tahu and

others about the interference in the passage of whaling. So again we

are vulnerable to any impacts and change in fisheries management and

particularly we are worried about the image and the brand. 45


Our contract fishers are Sealord so with all their boats in that area too.

We are very concerned that the interruption of fishing would diminish

the ability to become better fishers. Hawke’s Bay Seafoods as well.

We hire 160 workers in the Napier area. Any impact on that fishery

itself, because we mainly fish in that area, will have detriment to the 5

economy of our whānau.

There have been questions about compensation in case there is

detrimental impacts on the fishery. Well, our full and final settlement

was about fish, it wasn’t about compensation. We wanted to retain fish 10

and go on, fish was king in our view and that was what the whole

settlement was about.

Apart from that I would just like to thank the panel for the opportunity

to present. We have presented our report and that is my proposal for 15

this morning, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Tomoana. We will start with any questions

from the Committee and then from the parties to the application.

20

MR JOHNS: Tena koe, Ngahiwi.

MR TOMOANA: Kia ora.

MR JOHNS: (Māori content 4.37) 25

[9.10 am]

MR TOMOANA: Kia ora. Well, as I stated earlier, we are duty bound,

whakapapa bound to protect the fisheries, the environment that the fish 30

live in and the people that depend on the fish to either eat or for work.

So we see this right as comes from whakapapa because part of it is a

commercial right but there is a social obligation around that to make

sure that our people are employed in that industry so we take our

responsibility seriously and that is why we are here today, just to 35

present to the panel that we take our role very seriously.

We went to the Privy Council twice to protect our fisheries’ rights. We

went to the United Nations with Ngāi Tahu to protect our rights over

the foreshore and seabed. We will go to any degree in order to protect 40

our rights. It all comes from customary rights, it all comes from

whakapapa.

MR JOHNS: Kia ora.

45

CHAIRPERSON: Nicki, any questions?


DR CRAUFORD: In your submission you are suggesting a contingency fund

be set up, could you elaborate on that?

MR TOMOANA: Yes, in the event of it being a disaster I suppose, and I just 5

look at other disasters that have happened, the Rena disaster there has

been no contingency, there has been no best practice, there has been no

minimum standards. So in the event that it does go ahead we would

anticipate and would work with all agencies and organisations to ensure

that there is minimum standards adhered to and a contingency fund for 10

anything that might go wrong.

DR CRAUFORD: And who would assess (INDISTINCT 2.26 STATIC

INTERFERENCE)

15

MR TOMOANA: - - - but it wouldn’t be them solely there would be a whole

lot of other interest groups that would be prepared to work with

Chatham Rock to establish some sort of regime that may redress that.

DR CRAUFORD: Other interest groups like such as whom? 20

MR TOMOANA: Well, there could be other – it’s not just about the Chatham

Rock in this case, it’s about oil exploration and other explorations too,

so there may be a national regime that is set up.

25

DR CRAUFORD: Okay.

MR TOMOANA: At the moment there is no minimum standards, they talk

about best practice yet there is no modelling around it. In Australia

they have minimum standards and in every other country they have 30

minimum standards and best practice, in New Zealand we don’t, so

that’s a real concern for us.

DR CRAUFORD: So you think the government should set it up and that oil

companies and Chatham Rock should have to pay into that? 35

MR TOMOANA: Yes.

DR CRAUFORD: Any idea what that should be, I mean you talk about the

Rena, it could be quite a large amount of money? 40

MR TOMOANA: Well, I mean we are the only country in the world that

doesn’t have the sort of minimum standard requirements and it’s about

sending some sort of alert to the industry that they are going to have to

stump up if they want to explore for minerals in our waters. 45


DR CRAUFORD: Thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Nicki. Greg?

DR RYDER: Did I hear you say you had three vessels that operate? 5

MR TOMOANA: We have three vessels that chug backwards and forwards

between the Chathams and Napier on a fortnightly basis so they are

week out, week back, week out and so they are always traversing that

area. 10

DR RYDER: And do they work around the application area?

MR TOMOANA: Yes, so they will trawl – well, they are not trawling,

longline through it. We will set lines through it and around it all the 15

way to the Chathams. What we have achieved with the Chathams, we

are able to present fish onto the Chathams now and we have created 30

jobs on the Chathams by working in with the three Chatham iwi, and so

that’s an area not just important to us but important to the Chatham iwi

but I don’t propose to talk on their behalf. 20

We just did a quick calculation yesterday just from the three boats that

are working there we probably amass about a $1 million worth of

export from that area. It’s a very lucrative area, not just that area itself

but the whole trajectory from Napier through to the Chathams. 25

[9.15 am]

DR RYDER: Thank you.

30

MR TOMOANA: So you couldn’t isolate it to just that area.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Greg. David?

MR HILL: No, I have no questions, Mr Tomoana, thank you very much. 35

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you. I have no notified questions but does any party

have a question to address to Mr Tomoana? I think we are letting you

off lightly out of recognition of your time pressures, Mr Tomoana.

40

MR TOMOANA: Thank you very much, I appreciate it.

CHAIRPERSON: But thank you very much indeed on behalf of the

Committee.

45

MR TOMOANA: Thank you.


CHAIRPERSON: Now, the first expert witness on the effects of the proposal

on marine mammals is Associate Professor Liz Slooten called by the

Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. I understand also that Dr Darlene

Ketten, who will be giving her testimony by audio link later today, will 5

be listening in from hereon from Boston I think, and if so I extend a

warm virtual welcome to Dr Ketten now. Mr Currie, would you like to

introduce your witness.

MR CURRIE: Yes, good morning, Mr Chair, and for the record Associate 10

Professor Slooten is giving evidence on behalf Kiwis Against Seabed

Mining, Greenpeace and the Deep Sea Conservation Coalition. Good

morning, Associate Professor Slooten, and I understand you have

produced a supplementary statement of evidence, do you have that in

front of you? 15

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I do, thank you.

MR CURRIE: Thank you, and I understand you have a short presentation

which you will be showing as part of your initial presentation, thank 20

you, and then after your presentation will you please remain for

questioning by the Decision Making Committee and by the parties.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Thank you. This is my first day at

the hearing so I am not sure if you would like me to read the entire 25

statement or perhaps just the key points, the executive summary at the

beginning, and the presentation is just a short animation, it will take a

few minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: The key points would be great. 30

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Sure, thank you. So the key points

in this evidence are that insufficient information has been provided on

marine mammals on the Chatham Rise and that in order to assess the

probable impacts on marine mammals baseline surveys would need to 35

be carried out, visual and acoustic surveys.

I have listed in the key points in the evidence starting on page 2 the

potential impacts on marine mammals, most of which were discussed

although some of them very briefly at the expert caucusing meeting last 40

week. So these include permanent hearing impairment and that would

happen close to the mining operation. Temporary hearing impairment

or TTS, temporary threshold shift, which we discussed at the expert

caucusing would happen within three kilometres of the proposed

mining operation and especially within one and a half kilometres. 45

Behavioural responses the consensus was that these would range out to


about 30 kilometres, that is a more difficult area because different

species and even different individuals within species will react very

differently to noise. But approximately a 30 kilometre radius would be

the area over which you would expect marine mammals to show

behavioural responses. And that would include marine mammals 5

leaving the area and a range of other behavioural responses that I have

listed further down in the evidence.

The next item is compromised ability to communicate and orient. So

those species that use echo location obviously are very sensitive to 10

noise in their environment and if there is a lot of noise close to the

animals they won’t be able to hear each other’s communication signals,

and they may not be able to hear their own echo location signals, and

therefore be able to tell what is around them in terms of ships, the

substrate, food, prey, organisms et cetera. 15

And so I have mentioned there a reduction in their capability to listen

passively for prey and natural sounds. So some of these marine

mammals, the odontocetes do echo location but also listen passively for

sea noise, ship noise et cetera, and some of the species don’t have echo 20

location and only are able to listen passively for prey and natural

sounds that may act as navigational aids.

The next item on the list is distraction, annoyance and stress responses

and then there is habitat degradation including direct damage to the 25

benthic communities from mining and indirect impacts caused by the

sediment plume which of course will reach far beyond the mining area

itself. Marine - - -

[9.20 am] 30

DR CRAUFORD: Sorry, I am having difficulty hearing you.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I am sorry, I keep moving this away

because it sounds very loud to me but not to you obviously, I will move 35

it closer again.

Okay, so the second to last bullet point on that list of potential impacts

is marine mammal collisions with vessels and mining equipment. And

then, very importantly, we need to consider cumulative impacts not 40

only of the various different potential impacts of the mining operation

itself but also those impacts together with existing impacts including

fishing that are already happening in the area.


So point 8 there is that only noise impacts were discussed in any detail

at the marine mammal expert meeting on the 15 October last week. So

we spent - - -

MR HILL: Excuse me, Dr Slooten, I am not sure where you are reading from 5

- - -

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Okay, I am point 8 on page 2.

MR HILL: From what? 10

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: It is the supplementary evidence.

MR HILL: Sorry, the supplementary. Well, it would help if we had it.

15

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Okay, I assumed you had it already.

So we were told that - - -

MR CURRIE: Maybe just pause until we give out the supplementary and I

apologise - - - 20

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, we have a supplement to the supplementary paper

there.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: So this went online yesterday 25

afternoon, is that right?

MR CURRIE: Not online, professor, it was submitted.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Okay. 30

MR CURRIE: So, Committee, we are looking at page 2.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes, page 2, point 8.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, we are fine now, thank you.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Thank you. So only noise impacts

were discussed in any detail at the marine mammal caucusing meeting

last week, so we spent almost the whole day talking about noise and 40

then had maybe an hour or so talking about all of the other potential

impacts combined. And also another sort of omission is that we talked

mostly about sound pressure levels, ie loudness but not sound exposure

levels, not cumulative noise received by marine mammals.

45


So point 9, there is that no empirical data are available on the noise

generated by the proposed mining operation. The noise modelling

exercise included extrapolating noise from a shallow water gravel

mining operation by a vessel called the Sand Falcon, and this

extrapolation did not include noise caused by movement of the 5

phospherite bearing material through the pipe leading to the ship, so

coming from the seafloor and going to the ship, and then the second

pipe that will return waste material to the seafloor. This is obviously a

very important component of the noise and unfortunately no empirical

data appear to be available to really draw any conclusions about how 10

much noise might be generated by these pipes.

Point 10, an assessment of the potential impacts of noise produced by

the proposed mining operation would require acoustic measurements

from a mining operation similar to the one proposed. If such 15

information is available, for example by obtaining acoustic

measurements from any similar operation that might be happening

around the world, it is important that this be obtained in order to reduce

the uncertainties about the potential impacts. If the proposed mining

operation is unlike any other marine mining operation in the world 20

right now then this further increases the level of uncertainty about the

potential impacts on marine mammals.

So overall there is a high level of uncertainty about noise and the other

impacts on marine mammals and this is in part due to uncertainties 25

about the technical specifications of the proposed mining operation. So

we don’t yet have a great deal of information about either the noise

from the vessel, the noise from the pumps including the dredge pump,

and in particular about the travel of material through pipes of about

450 metres long each way leading to and from the seafloor. 30

Other uncertainties relate to a lack of data on the environmental

sensitivities. So, for example, very little is known about what marine

mammals are actually found on the Chatham Rise and, even further, in

terms of the ecological linkages between the benthic organisms, fish, 35

squid and therefore leading up the food chain towards the marine

mammals.

So there are a number of potentially serious impacts on marine

mammals and a more rigorous environmental impact assessment would 40

be needed to assess the severity of those impacts of this development

on marine mammals. So I will leave it there I think and take any

questions you might have and we can dig into further detail from the

rest of the document if you wish.

45

[9.25 am]


CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. David, would you like to kick off?

MR HILL: Thank you, Dr Slooten. I guess first off, since we have only just

received this supplementary statement of evidence, from paragraphs 12 5

onwards is this a repeat of your earlier evidence or is this new material?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I have done what the other experts

have done but I haven’t called it what they have called it because I was

told that we were allowed to lodge supplementary material at the last 10

hearing, the TTR hearing. We were told explicitly that we could do an

executive summary, so it’s exactly the same as the other expert

statements, it’s just called “supplementary”.

MR HILL: Sorry, that’s not quite what I asked. Is it different from your 15

primary statement?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: So it includes material from the

expert caucusing just as the other experts have done.

20

MR HILL: Okay, well, obviously we haven’t read it so it is a bit hard to ask

questions on it so maybe I will just take you - - -

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Okay. Would you like me to read it,

how much time do we have, we have until 11, right? 25

MR HILL: Why don’t I just take you to the expert witness statement and we

will just ask some questions about that and then you can elaborate in

terms of both of your statements of evidence?

30

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Okay.

MR HILL: And I just want to, I guess, focus on the areas of recorded

disagreement so that we get some understanding as to the basis for that

from your point of view. So on issue 1A, if you have got that in front 35

of you?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I will find that document – thank

you.

40

MR HILL: On 1A, the first area of disagreement is under the “expert opinion

conclusion” column, which is column 5, and it relates to the inability to

reach agreement on the significance of noise from the riser pipe, can

you just explain your position on that?

45


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Sure. So in the case of the sound

recordings that were used for the modelling this was a gravel mining

operation with a vessel called the Sand Falcon operating in water about

25 - - -

5

MR HILL: So it was a matter of comparability of the recordings?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes.

MR HILL: Okay. 10

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: So that vessel was operating in

water about 25 metres deep, so there were pipes leading to and from

that vessel as well, but because the water was so shallow the sound

recordings they made were unable to distinguish, readily distinguish the 15

sound from the pipes from the sounds from the dredge pumps and the

vessel itself. So we don’t appear to have any sound recordings that are

directly relevant to this operation.

MR HILL: But it was an issue of disagreement so who was agreeing and who 20

was disagreeing with that?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I see what you mean. That’s a very

good point that I can’t readily answer. So the statement here - - -

25

MR HILL: It is all right, if you can’t answer don’t go there, that is fine.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: The statement here says that we

were unable to reach agreement on the significance of the noise from

the riser pipes. I don’t think any of the experts would disagree that we 30

don’t have empirical data. In fact somewhere in here it says that we

don’t have empirical data on the noise that might come from these riser

pipes. So we are in an information vacuum and so it is not surprising

that there would be disagreement. If we had some hard data to go on in

terms of the noise from these riser pipes then there would be less 35

disagreement.

MR HILL: All right, thank you. Now, under the second column over the page

under the “facts” column, there is a specific issue that you have raised

and you just mentioned it just before you finished your introduction, 40

with respect to sound exposure levels, can you just tell us a little bit

more about that?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Sure. So the NOAA guidelines of

2013 include sound exposure levels as well. So, as I understand it, if 45

we were talking about human beings, say in a work environment, then


we would be looking at their exposure to noise over an eight hour

period or whatever period that they are at work. We wouldn’t just be

considering how loud the noise is that they might be exposed to. We

would also consider how long a period they are exposed to that noise.

5

And this is important in particular because there is new information

that I have detailed in this document that shows that animals respond

more than you would expect. So there is a hypothesis that I have listed

here called the Equal – I will see if I can find it - that assumes that the

same cumulative amount of noise, regardless of whether it’s relatively 10

quiet noise happening over a long period or a very loud noise

happening for only an hour, that these are equivalent.

[9.30 am]

15

In fact what we are finding now is that animals will response more

strongly than what you would expect to exposure to relatively quiet

noises if they happen over a long period.

MR HILL: Okay. 20

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: So it’s very important to consider

the length of time the NOAA, so that’s the US NIWA equivalent,

National Oceanicographic and Atmospheric Administration, debated

this for a lengthy period because obviously whether you integrate the 25

amount of noise over an hour or over 10 hours or over 24 hours will

make quite a difference in terms of what noise levels would be

acceptable. And they settled on an hour because marine mammals are

relatively mobile animals so you can’t expect them to just sit in one

location for 8 hours as a human being might at their place of work, but 30

you also can’t expect to just look at the loudness of the noise and

ignore that these animals would be exposed for a period of time.

So NOAA have struck on the consensus of an hour period and to cut

right to the chase the noise levels that we considered in the expert 35

caucusing of – we would expect there to be 120dB at 29 kilometres

approximately. If you did that over the course of an hour then all of

those noise levels would increase by approximately 10 or 20dB.

MR HILL: Yes. Now whilst this is predicated on yourself were you the only 40

expert in that group that disagreed on that point?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I’m not being evasive here. I

honestly cannot remember.

45

MR HILL: Okay, well that is evasive but that’s fine. Yes, all right.

55


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I know that I disagreed but I can’t

remember if anybody else disagreed.

MR HILL: Now if we move to the last column which is the draft conditions 5

column over the page there’s obviously a difference of opinion between

Drs Ketten, Hoover and Humpheson (ph 1.53). Well Mr Humpheson

and your – well, not necessarily yourself but with the others

participating with respect to the merits of monitoring up to 200kHz.

10

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes that’s a really interesting area.

So we discussed right at the beginning if you read Dr Ketten’s reports

(INDISTINCT 2.19 – that??) she talks about the range of interest to

marine mammals goes up to 200kHz. And then she mentions that the

information that we have about noise from dredging operations only 15

goes to 40kHz and when you look at the documents where that noise

level comes from, there’s one in particular by Robinson et al that

includes the information from the Sand Falcon and several other gravel

and sand dredges and then if you look towards the end of that Robinson

et al document you find the calibration curves for the hydrophones and 20

you find that actually the hydrophones stop being sensitive at 40kHz.

And they did some smaller amount of work in that Robinson et al

report up to 200kHz and there’s no indication of any drop-off in that

work with hydrophones that actually go right up to 200kHz. So in 25

terms of the impacts on marine mammals it is of interest to find out

what’s happening right up to 200kHz.

The comment here was about whether that would be expensive or

practical, not about whether that would be of interest to – in terms of 30

marine mammal impacts.

MR HILL: No, but it’s also about whether there’s a need to monitor above

100kHz.

35

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes so to my mind if you’re putting

out equipment that can monitor up to 100kHz it’s not really any more

difficult, any more expensive or less practical to monitor up to 200kHz.

MR HILL: All right, thank you. 40

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: And sorry the majority of the group

except those 2, 3 people stated agreed that we should monitor up to

200kHz because that’s of interest for marine mammals. Those are the

noises that they will hear and those 3 people mentioned said that would 45

be expensive and impractical and let’s stick with the 100kHz.


MR HILL: Yes, thank you for that. We move over to issue 1(c) which is the

physiological effects of underwater noise and again I think there’s only

– again if we move over into the conditions column and it’s on – let’s

just talk page 2 where you’re promoting a slightly different variant on 5

that. Would you just talk to us about that?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes so that discussion began with

Dr Ketten mentioning that the wording she used initially was that she

was concerned about TTS temporary hearing loss out to 3 kilometres 10

and especially within 1 and a half kilometres and especially for highly

sensitive species. By the way there’s a kind of minor typo there. It

says “a sensitive species”. The “a” should go. It’s “sensitive species”

plural.

[9.35 am] 15

So the initial wording by Dr Ketten was concern which in my mind

would indicate high likelihood of TTS. That wording was changed to

there is potential for TTS which in my mind would mean low

likelihood so I asked can we use some wording that indicates that this 20

is a moderate risk. We can’t quantify it, we can’t tell you it’s

50 percent likely or 60 percent likely or 70 percent likely. But when

we need to indicate that this not just a potential that wording seemed

too extremely different. If at the other end of the range from concern

so I recommended some wording that was halfway between and a bit 25

more quantitative and suggested moderate risk. So it’s a wording issue

rather than anything else.

MR HILL: All right. I don’t think there’s any subsequently important

recorded ones - - - 30

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: No, I can’t find any.

MR HILL: - - - because those are the main ones. Can I ask you just a generic

question? I mean one of the things that’s been puzzling me and seems 35

to be a conversation is, is there an assumption that marine mammals

will not if you like hear a vessel approaching as it comes onto the

mining site and presumably will not just stop and start. It will I

imagine just keep on going and ramp up in terms of the noise

environment anyway as it begins to mine when it gets on station. 40

Does that make a difference in terms of – I mean it’s not as though

animals will be unaware of a vessel in the area as it steams in and

steams away again. Is that sort of taken into consideration in - - -

45


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: That’s an excellent question. We

didn’t discuss it at any length at the expert meeting last week but it’s in

the various documents under “distraction”. So if you imagine you have

a very loud noise right next to you then you’re not going to be nearly as

well able to perceive a less loud noise like a vessel approaching. So 5

while in the absence of the mining noise it is probably reasonable to

suggest that there’s a low likelihood that whales would blunder into the

pipes and ropes and various other equipment and paraphernalia and the

vessels themselves.

10

They still might because for example Right Whales and Humpback

Whales both of which are very slowly recovering on the New Zealand

mainland coast are famous for blundering into all sorts of things

including mussel farms, including vessels, including other kinds of

static fishing gear. So they still might blunder into those ships and 15

equipment, but if you now stick a really loud source of noise right there

they would be much more likely to blunder into those items because

they’re distracted by the noise and the echo-locating species like Sperm

Whales and Beaked Whales furthermore because they now can’t hear

their own echo-location. 20

And this would actually be a good place to show that animation which

is an animation from Dr Chris Clark, there it is appearing on the screen

now. So it comes from an article by Hatch et al which I’ve referred to

definitely in the longer evidence and I think here too. Yes there it is. 25

Hatch, Clark and a number of other authors. And what you’re seeing

there is a shipping lane with vessels moving through the area.

The stationery noisy thing above the shipping lane is an LNG tanker

that’s loading or off-loading so that’s why it’s stationary. The other 30

ones move around. And the tiny little noise blobs are Right Whales.

And so the one take home message from this is that where a vessel –

where the noise from a vessel goes right over the top, here we go,

here’s a really large vessel that’s – the noise from the mining operation

that we’re talking about would be louder than that very noisy vessel 35

that’s just gone through.

And where the noise from a vessel overlaps the noise from the whales

themselves the whales cannot hear each other. So Chris Clark mostly

in that article is talking about communication space and how the 40

communication space for those Right Whales is being modified by the

vessel traffic that’s coming through.

[9.40 am]

45

DR RYDER: I don’t – I’m not sure I understand the - - -


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Okay, let’s talk about this one for a

while.

MR HILL: - - - implications, because, because from what I’m, what I’m 5

looking at, I don’t see a behaviour response from the whale dots.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I would need to ask either Laila

Hatch or Chris Clark for more information about that work, but – so

what’s going on here is, he’s talking about whether these whales can 10

still hear each other’s signals, so there’s the loud ship which would be

equivalent or probably not quite as loud as the mining operation that

we’re talking about.

MR HILL: Right, all right, thank you, Dr Slooten. 15

DR RYDER: Good morning, Dr Slooten.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Hi Greg.

20

DR RYDER: It’s got makings of a video game that part.


DR RYDER: I just got a few questions, mainly in relation to food concerns 25

which you didn’t get around to touching on in the conferencing – well

not to any great degree, but – and a few bits around monitoring which I

think I might start with, and the first question is, are you aware of or –

of any marine mammal monitoring programmes around New Zealand’s

coastline that that you would consider comprehensive and sufficient? 30

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Certainly, so there have been several

surveys for Hector’s dolphin in coastal waters and Otago University

has carried out a series of those, one in the mid-80s, mid to late 80s and

one in the late 90s to early 2000s, there’s been some more recent 35

dolphin surveys carried out by Cawthron Institute, and they’ve gone

further offshore, they’ve gone to about 20 nautical miles offshore to the

100 metre depth contour line. So there are marine mammal’s surveys

happening in New Zealand that are relevant to this proposal.

40

DR RYDER: Are there any that incorporate noise monitoring in terms of an

act – physical activity?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: We’re just starting some work

actually right now with one of the other staff at Otago University, 45

Professor Steve Dawson who you’ll know and with a PhD student,


Tom Broe (ph 2.27). We’re working on a report for Port Lyttelton

where there is repairs to the port for earthquake damage repairs

basically taking place and lots and lots of pile driving, and so we will

be making sound recordings there with calibrated hydrophones and also

we’ll be putting out passive acoustic monitoring devices to monitor the 5

noise made by the pile driving and also the dolphin movements through

the area.

The big – you may get onto this in a moment, but the big sadness for

me is that, all of these NIWA vessels that have gone to the Chatham 10

Rise repeatedly to take benthic samples, plankton samples, various

other samples, haven’t carried a couple of marine mammal observers

and one person with a hydrophone array, we would have actually had

some data in front of us.

15

DR RYDER: So that video you showed just before, the size of the blob if you

like with the vessels, so that’s picking up sound or vibration or some

sort of acoustic - - -

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes, so- - - 20

DR RYDER: - - - signal.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: - - - Chris Clark has put an array of

hydrophones in that area, so there’s a, if you imagine like a possum 25

trapping grid of possum traps, now imagine bottom mounted

hydrophone devices and then after several months you collect those

devices and download the data onto a computer and then he can pick up

where the whales are and where the ships were.

30

DR RYDER: Right, and those sort of – that sort of equipment would operate

at depth?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Absolutely, yes it’s totally practical

and we discuss that, so that point that your colleague just mentioned 35

about, “Should we be doing this up to 200 kilohertz or 100 kilohertz”

that was the discussion we were having with the expert group was

about, “How would you do that?” Would you use bottom mounted

hydrophones? Would you use towed hydrophone arrays?

40

Our group have used towed hydrophone arrays extensively, including

on a yacht in 2003, we trail – towed a hydrophone array to Tonga and

then spent four months doing research there on sperm whales and

humpback whales, so we have the technology without any doubt at all

and we have it in New Zealand and we have the expertise to use the 45

technology right here in New Zealand.


[9.45 am]

DR RYDER: Okay. All right, thanks for that. Is it – I’m just trying to get an

idea on the issue of scale of effect and if we’re looking at just for the 5

moment looking at – if marine mammals chose to avoid the area that’s

subject to mining, I’m trying to get a feel for what sort of area of, and

it’s probably the wrong way of describing it, but the area of seabed

required for a large marine mammal in terms of what resource it

requires for feeding. I know they are mobile and they move around, so 10

their feeding grounds are probably going to vary, but if we were to, for

arguments sake, an area of the Chatham Rise is excluded by marine

mammals because they’re disturbed by the noise or whatever, how do

we sort of put that into some sort of scale in terms of effect on those

animals? 15

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: That’s another excellent question,

and if we had more data I’d be able to answer it. So at the expert

meeting we very briefly touched on that point that really what we

would need for the Chatham Rise, at the moment we have a species list, 20

we have a list that says these are the species that have been seen on the

Chatham Rise at least once. We have no indication that this is

necessarily a complete species list and we certainly have absolutely no

indication of what amounts of time are these animals spending there,

how important is this area for these animals. So Simon Childerhouse, in 25

his evidence, has discussed this in a bit more detail than I have, but

we’re really lacking in information there.

So for example, what we do know is that it’s quite a popular area for

sperm whales and beaked whales, there are numerous sightings of 30

sperm whales and beaked whales in the area, and they are across

seasons. Lee Torres analysed the data for seasonal trends and found

that we don’t really know about surge effort during summer and winter,

so we can’t make any firm conclusions even as to whether sperm

whales are more common there in summer or winter, but if they’re 35

anything like the sperm whales at Kaikoura, which our research group

has been studying since 1990, then you will get substantial numbers of

sperm whales on the Chatham Rise throughout the year.

So in Kaikoura we were expecting, when we started the research there 40

in 1990, that at least the large males would disappear there in winter

and would move to Tonga and other such places to breed, and that at

least the large males would leave there in the middle of summer and go

to the Antarctic to feed, and they don’t, a lot of individuals just stick

around in Kaikoura, possibly in order to grow larger so that they can 45

compete better for mates before they go to the islands.


So if the Chatham Rise is anything like Kaikoura, then these sperm

whales are spending a lot of time there. Certainly, and again Simon

Childerhouse has touched on this, it’s clear that the abundance of

marine mammals in that area is high enough that this clearly is an 5

important feeding area, but that’s as far as we can go, we can’t give you

any quantitative information to say that is 10% of the range of your

average sperm whale in New Zealand waters or that is 100% of the

range of that animal.

10

DR RYDER: In terms of food, have you – or Dr Pinkerton from NIWA

produced this trophic model for the Chatham Rise area, and I’m

wondering whether you’ve had a chance to look at his - - -

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I have a very passing familiarity 15

with that, so all I can really tell you is that, as I understand it, very little

sampling has taken place actually on the Chatham Rise, and that a lot

of the information that’s gone into the model is from other sampling

around the New Zealand EEZ in similar water depths and similar

ecological ranges. Is that a fair comment? You probably know more 20

about Pinkerton’s model than I do.

DR RYDER: Well, one of the things that came out of his work was that the

disturbance of the benthic environment was, in his view, unlikely to

cause flow on effects through the food chain, if you like, affecting 25

some of the larger higher trophic level species, such as pelagic fish and

the like, and consequently unlikely to affect marine mammals and

birds, so I’m just wondering whether you had a view on that?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I’d be interested to know what he’s 30

basing that on, but I can’t, I’m sorry, answer that question. I will look

into it and I will answer that question later, but I would need to have

another careful look at Pinkerton’s work.

[9.50 am] 35

DR RYDER: The report by, is it Southall, that’s been quoted quite a bit by

some of the witnesses still to come, and I think you’ve noted in your

evidence that that work, I think it was 2007, it’s been updated by the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Report, and I was 40

wondering, I had a quick look at that last night and it does quote

Southall’s report quite a lot, so I’m wondering what’s so different about

this new report, but I also note that that NOA report is still a draft

guidelines, so they’re not actually ratified.

45


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes, and both are under review, so

Dr Ketten told us during the expert caucusing that the Southall et al

experts, of which she is one, are currently reviewing that work. So, for

example, they are very unhappy, Southall et al are very unhappy about

the widespread use of M-weighting, they had never intended for that to 5

be used in the way that it’s being used, and there are various other

things that they want to update about those guidelines. So it’s a watch

this space on Southall et al.

Even if we take it completely at face value, there is no hard and fast 10

kind of distance or noise level that you can say below 120 dB we don’t

have to worry and above 120 dB there will be behavioural effects. We

discussed this at some length in the expert caucusing, but unfortunately

Southall doesn’t give us a nice, hard and fast noise level, and also

unfortunately it doesn’t take into account sound exposure, the duration 15

of the sound exposure.

So the NOA guidelines are certainly better and more recent, there are

also extensive expert comments on those NOA guidelines, so as you

say it’s a draft guideline. Once those NOA guidelines are finalised then 20

I think we will have something better to work with.

DR RYDER: Okay.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: But in any case, in this case there is 25

such great uncertainty about what noise will actually be generated that

all of these discussions about what noise is important to a marine

mammal are not quite irrelevant but almost irrelevant, we really have

no clue. All we really know is that the noise will be incredibly loud,

nearly 200 dB at source, and the low frequency component will travel 30

probably hundreds of kilometres.

So imagine a rock concert in your neighbourhood, now imagine you

drive 30 kilometres away and you can still hear it, that is the level of

noise that we are talking about. Indeed at 30 kilometres away there are 35

still likely to be detectable behavioural responses by marine mammals.

The range over which they can hear these noises, especially the low

frequency component, is likely to be hundreds of kilometres away.

DR RYDER: You are suggesting I think in your evidence that there needs to 40

be three or four years of monitoring to get a decent baseline.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Ideally, in order to get some

information on seasonal movements. So you were asking before about

how important is this area to, say, sperm whales, well it might be much 45

more important this year than it is next year due to food availability or


oceanographic conditions. So, you know as well as I do that in terms of

sample size you’d want to have three samples at a minimum so that you

know, if there any outliers, you know which is the outlier, ideally you’d

have five, but being realistic three would be the lowest sample size you

would want for seasonal information. 5

DR RYDER: Okay, thanks. Finally, just wondering how you determine if a

marine mammal has hearing loss?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Oh, dear, no we need to ask Dr 10

Ketten that when she comes online. She’s the expert on that. So she’s

an anatomist who does things like autopsy, hundreds I think in her

statement, of marine mammals, so if you had a marine mammal sitting

on a beach and you had reason to believe that noise was implicated in

its death, you would lop off the head and send it to Darlene or get 15

Darlene to come to you and autopsy that head. She is your woman on

how do you determine that an animal has suffered permanent hearing

loss.

Another way to detect that is through experimentation, so last year in 20

December we had a large marine mammal conference that’s held every

two years and it was in Dunedin last year, and one of the talks there

showed a bottlenose dolphin in a tank in an experimental set up, and it

had been trained to clasp onto a plate so that its head was in exactly the

position – you know exactly where its head is, and then they were 25

playing these animal noises similar to seismic survey noises, and then

they were noting whether it was responding to the noise or not.

[9.55 am]

30

So what you find is that at some point you get a temporary threshold

shift where the animal stops responding for a while and then starts

responding again, and with seals they have found that sometimes the

tipping point from temporary to permanent hearing loss can be very

unpredictable, so you’ll have this animal in a tank and you’ll keep 35

exposing it to noise and it keeps recovering, and you expose it to more

noise and it recovers, and then at some point, wham, no more hearing

for this animal.

So that’s the short version, is it’s either through anatomy or through 40

experimentation. Both of these fields are still developing, but if you

want the detail then ask that question again of Dr Ketten.

DR RYDER: Okay, thank you.

45


CHAIRPERSON: Thanks. I don’t have a question, but I do look to you to tell

us when the noises behind and around us get to an unacceptable level.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Thank you. I’ll do my best.

5

CHAIRPERSON: Nicki?

DR CRAUFORD: I just wanted to talk a little bit about some of the areas that

you didn’t get to talk about in the arena, but just to summarise where I

think we’ve got to, you’re saying that there’s uncertainty as to the noise 10

level caused by the vessel and the machinery on it, but we do know that

it will be very loud and it will potentially be very loud for quite a large

distance away from the mining area.

How important is it that we have greater certainty as to the baseline 15

data? So we don’t really know which whales are present or indeed how

important the area is to the whales that are present, is that right?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: That’s right, yes.

20

DR CRAUFORD: So given that this is – I guess, you’ve ranked that, as I

understand it here, a third order issue?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Now, that was an interesting one

because we didn’t discuss that at the expert meeting and that wording 25

was not included in the first joint statement that was circulated, and I

have no idea where that wording popped up or where it comes from or

who decided that these were second or third order level importance.

DR CRAUFORD: So would you agree it’s a third order issue? 30

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I don’t think we have the

information to decide, but – so is that more important than noise, I

guess is what you’re asking me?

35

DR CRAUFORD: Well, I guess, yes, and how much additional – I mean I

know we don’t necessarily understand which whales use the area and

how important it is to them, but we do know the noise will be loud, and

what additional information will that provide us, I guess, is my

question. 40

You’re saying you’d need to take information for sort of three years,

take three years to collect, no doubt it would be extremely expensive to

collect, what additional information will that give us over and above

the fact that this is going to be very noisy and potentially repel animals 45

from the area?


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: That’s a very good question. In

terms of the noise itself the main piece of missing information is the

pipe noise. So all we know from - - -

5

DR CRAUFORD: Sorry, the what noise?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: The noise from the pipes that pump

the material up and down to the vessel.

10

DR CRAUFORD: Not the pumps, the pipes?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Well, the pump, so the pump noise

has been extrapolated from pumps of 2.7 kilowatts on the Sand Falcon,

and that’s been extrapolated, bumped up if you like, to a pump that is 15

thought to be 12 megawatts, so there’s an uncertainty there. I mean,

ideally we would stick a 12 megawatt pump on the Chatham Rise and

make some sound recordings, that would be a lot better than modelling

that sound, but the more serious uncertainty with regard to the noise

itself is the noise from the pipes. 20

[10.00 am]

So what we do know from other dredges is that the noise of sand and

gravel moving through pipes makes a higher frequency noise than the 25

machinery, the dredges and pumps and vessels make, and in this case

these pipes will be more than 400 metres long, so that means two

things:

(1) It means that there will be more noise because the pipes are much, 30

much longer, therefore the amount of pump capacity to get the material

from the seafloor up to the vessel that pump capacity is much higher

(12 megawatts instead of 2.7 megawatts). To put that into perspective

the engines on the Arahura Interisland ferry are 16 megawatts, so

you’re talking something with the power of a large vessel, sitting on the 35

seafloor and making a noise, that’s an uncertainty as to how much

noise does that make. I’m not a mining expert but it would – I’m sure

there is some mining operation somewhere in the world that is more

similar to this one that’s proposed for the Chatham Rise than the Sand

Falcon data, those are so different, it’s barely worth using them at all. 40

So what we do know is that, pipe nose is higher frequency. In this case

will be considerable because of the length of the pipes and the power

needed to pump the material to the vessel. Also in this case we’re not

talking sand or gravel we’re talking phosphorite nodules, which will 45


bang against the walls of the pipes. So there’s considerable uncertainty

about what noise would be generated through these pipes.

And the second important thing is that, this noise will be generated

throughout the water column, so the two sources of noise that we have 5

some information on are the vessel at the water surface and the pump at

the seafloor, but we really have no information on that noise from the

pipes that will be generated throughout the water column, this will be a

whole other kettle of fish.

10

DR CRAUFORD: So going back to my question, which was, how important

relative to that, is understanding the baseline data?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes, so in terms of what we know

about the noise on a scale of 10s perfect, zero is no information, we’re 15

loitering somewhere around the two or three level, and in terms of the

marine mammals maybe at the four or five level, not quite a passing

grade, we’ve got a list of species but we really don’t know how many

individuals, what proportion of the population, so some of these species

are already on the threatened list and it would be really nice, especially 20

for those endangered and threatened species to know more about how

important that area is for those and will we be slowing the recovery for

example for humpback whales and white whales by doing this.

DR CRAUFORD: So without that baseline data then, what we don’t know is 25

how many whales will be affected rather than, you know, that’s going

to be the biggest issue - - -


30

DR CRAUFORD: - - - rather than - - -

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: We won’t know how many whales

are affected and we won’t know – so if some of these populations are

either declining or very slowly recovering and we don’t know to what 35

extent this operation on top of other existing impacts will affect that

rate. Whilst either slow down their recovery or cause continued decline.

DR CRAUFORD: So we don’t know how many whales would be affected or

indeed how important this area is to them. 40

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: How much they will be affected,

yes.

DR CRAUFORD: And I was going to ask you about the conservation status 45

of some of these whales as well, there are some that are endangered.


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes, so Leigh Torres has given a

really nice summary of both the status on the Department of

Conservation listing scheme, which is slightly different from the IUCM

listing scheme. So we could go over those if you like, I would go and 5

look up - - -

DR CRAUFORD: No that’s fine.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: - - - Leigh Torres’s report. 10

DR CRAUFORD: Okay, thanks very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Lennie (INDISTINCT 4.07).

15

MR JOHNS: No questions.

CHAIRPERSON: I have notification of questions from CRP, Mr Winchester.

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you, sir. Good morning, Professor Slooten, now 20

you’ve expressed different views in the conferencing statement from

some of the other experts and it seems that in terms of the difference of

views it’s most frequently you. Do you, do you use different literature,

is there a reason why you express different views from other experts?

25

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: To some extent yes, so if you look

at the literature I’ve looked at, it’s probably broader than some of the

other experts. But also the areas of expertise of those different experts

are overlapping but different. So Dr Keating’s research mainly focuses

on anatomy, experimentation and laboratory settings and acoustics, so 30

she is a specialist in that area.

[10.05 am]

I’m a field biologist who uses acoustic methods including hydrophone 35

arrays and directional and non-directional hydrophones in order to

assess population, size, behaviour, movements and so on of marine

mammals in the field.

And then I use those data from the field on population size, 40

reproduction, survival et cetera in risk assessment models to look at for

example are Hectors dolphin populations or Sperm whale populations

increasing or decreasing? So our skill sets are different. So even if

those 5 or 6 people read the exact same papers they’re not necessarily

going to come to the same conclusion. 45


And if we had more data you would reduce that disagreement

considerably. More information on both the noise and the marine

mammal populations would absolutely reduce that disagreement.

MR WINCHESTER: And would you describe yourself as a cetacean acoustics 5

expert?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I would describe myself as a field

biologist who uses acoustic techniques so in terms of if you want a kind

of car rally analogy, I’m the person driving the rally car. I’m not the 10

guy in the pit stop who can change the wheels in 2 minutes or knows

exactly how to rebuild the engine. So I’m a user of acoustic methods,

not an acoustic engineer for sure. Whereas say Darren Humpheson is

that, more of an engineering type but he doesn’t have experience with

marine mammals. So all of the experts are different in their skill set. 15

MR WINCHESTER: Yes, thank you. And the cetacean species that you’ve

had most experience with and that’s occupied most of your research

time is the Hectors Dolphin isn’t it?

20

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: It’s the Hectors Dolphin since 1984

when I started my PhD on them. Sperm Whales in Kaikoura since

1990, since when I started work at Otago University as a junior lecturer

there we started the Sperm Whale project at Kaikoura and that’s still

ongoing. In fact Professor Dawson and a couple of our students are in 25

Kaikoura now doing further field work there and then as I explained

before the field trip that we did to Tonga was on Humpback and Sperm

Whales.

Also I’ve done some field trips to the Auckland Islands on Right 30

Whales and with my students I’ve done projects on Dusky Dolphins,

Bottle nosed Dolphins, New Zealand Sea Lions and New Zealand Fur

Seals.

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you. Now your experience of whales and marine 35

mammals on the Chatham Rise is limited to desktop analysis of

published and other data isn’t it?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes, unfortunately that’s all we’ve

got is desk top analyses. 40

MR WINCHESTER: And in your evidence you’re critical of the use of

incidental sightings as base information. But in the case of the

Chatham Rise where there’s no formal survey data, incidental sightings

such as those reported by Leigh Torres and the Berkenbusch paper do 45


provide some base information such as occurrence, seasonality, species

that are present doesn’t it?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes, so basically we have a species

list. As Leigh Torres makes it clear in her paper we can’t really make 5

any firm conclusions about seasonality of those sightings because we

don’t know anything about sighting effort. So if you did a normal

research survey that was designed from the outset to determine what

marine mammals were present in an area and how many individuals

were present there then you would record how much time you are 10

searching and exactly where you are searching.

So as Leigh Torres has explained in this case we don’t have this

information. So in a place where you see a marine mammal then you

know there is a marine mammal there. You don’t necessarily have 15

confidence in the species identification so some of these sightings were

made by captains of cargo vessels for example. So you know that they

saw a whale, you don’t necessarily know whether it was a Humpback

Whale or a Sabe Whale that they saw. And in places where they saw

nothing you know nothing. You don’t know that there weren’t whales 20

there. It could have been as I’ve listed under point 15, and this list is

also in my previous evidence from about a month ago, it could be that

no ships went through that area.

[10.10 am] 25

It could be that the only ship time in the area was at night or in other

conditions where visibility is limited. For example fog and rough

weather. Fog is not very common off the Chatham Rise, but rough

weather is pretty much ubiquitous. It could be that there were no 30

marine mammal observers on watch. It could be that there were

insufficient observers to keep a watch during all daylight hours.

MR WINCHESTER: Yes.

35

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: And the list goes on.

MR WINCHESTER: Yes, we’ve read that.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: And so in a proper scientific survey 40

you would estimate the last three of those things on the list which are

that there was someone on watch but they were looking elsewhere at

the time the whale was visible or the surfacing was too brief and

cryptic. So you would estimate those things. What you would do is

you would estimate on the track line what proportion of Beak Whales 45


for example are visible on the track line and how does that drop-off

with distance away from the track line of the vessel or aeroplane?

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you. So you don’t think that use of incidental

sightings is a sound basis for reaching an expert opinion? 5

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: No.

MR WINCHESTER: No. Well why did you rely on the DOC database of

incidental and other sightings when you gave expert evidence in the 10

Crest Energy and TTR case Dr Slooten?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: You’ll have to refresh my memory

there. That’s a few years ago. What did I say at the Crest hearing

about the DOC database? 15

MR WINCHESTER: Well that was the basis that you used to express expert

opinions in both of those cases.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: So in that case as in this one it’s all 20

we’ve got and it’s better than nothing.

MR WINCHESTER: Right.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: But it’s seriously flawed. 25

MR WINCHESTER: Oh so your evidence in those cases wasn’t reliable?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Well if you go back to that list

under point 15 about in places - - - 30

MR WINCHESTER: No, no. Answer my question Dr Slooten.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: In places where you don’t see –

where you don’t have a sighting on the map you know nothing. You 35

don’t know that the animal is absent. In a place where you do have a

sighting on the map you know that there was a dolphin there. You

don’t know necessarily – it depends on who made the observation

whether you trust the species identification.

40

MR WINCHESTER: Well my question is, it was good enough for you to give

advice as an expert in the TTR hearing using an incidental sightings

data - - -

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: TTR or Crest? 45


MR WINCHESTER: Trans-Tasman Resources.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I said the exact same thing there.

That these incidentals observations are not a proper basis for drawing

conclusions about what marine mammals are in the area and how often 5

they are there, what number of individuals are there and therefore how

important the area is to marine mammals.

MR WINCHESTER: Now you said earlier when you were presenting a

summary of your evidence that the sediment plume will move far 10

beyond the mining area. Do you recall saying that?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes, that’s right, yes.

MR WINCHESTER: And what’s the basis for that opinion? 15

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: There’s been sediment plume

modelling right? And sediment plumes – like certainly in the case of

TTR mining was at 12 nautical miles offshore and the sediment plume

was expected to go all the way to the coastline. So in this case we had 20

a very brief discussion about this at the expert caucusing. In this case

the sediment plume is thought to be limited to waters at depth. It’s not

thought to go right to the surface of the water, but it’s certainly

expected to spread well below the mining area itself. You can’t put

that amount of sediment in the water and expect it to just stay put. 25

MR WINCHESTER: So that’s your understanding.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: That’s my understanding and we

discussed about – I don’t know if you know about the deep scattering 30

layer? It’s a layer of fish, squid and other organisms that migrates up

and down during the day and we had some very brief discussion about

the deep scattering layer may move into the area of the sediment plume

and then may move out again. And these are important because species

like Dusky Dolphins feed on the deep scattering layer and they do so at 35

night when it comes closer to the water surface when there isn’t any

daylight. So there’s the potential for the lantern fish and other

organisms that live in the deep scattering layer to move into the water

level where the sediment plume is and then move out again and become

accessible to Dusky Dolphins and other species. 40

[10.15 am]

And of course species like Sperm Whales and Beaked Whales dive

well beyond 400 metres so on the Chatham Rise they can’t go below 45

400 metres or they’d hit the sea floor but off the Chatham Rise they


would easily dive to – Sperm Whales have been known to dive to

2000 meters. So these species will certainly have access to that

sediment plume directly themselves, not just their food.

MR WINCHESTER: And what’s going to happen then? So you say they’re 5

going to contact the sediment plume and you say that with some degree

of certainty. What’s the impact?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: So in terms of the pollution issues

that have been discussed by Dr Barrie Peake and others there’s issues 10

in terms of potential bio-accumulation of uranium and other elements

that are found in the sediments that are of course there now but the

amount of contact between those elements and the water column and

therefore fish and other organisms including benthic organisms that

contact isn’t very great. 15

Whereas if you start digging that material up and then bringing it up to

the vessel, crunching it down into smaller particle sizes and making it

go back down to the seafloor now that material will be much more

available to the water column and therefore will be taken up by benthic 20

organisms and fish, and there’s the potential for those elements to bio-

accumulate up the food chain into predators such as marine mammals

and seabirds as well.

MR WINCHESTER: I see. And you’re aware that there’s been expert 25

caucusing on issues such as bio-accumulation?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I believe so.

MR WINCHESTER: Yes. 30


MR WINCHESTER: And there’s also been very detailed caucusing

undertaken on the sediment plume and what it does and what it’s 35

predicted to do. You know that?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I know that that has taken place, but

I don’t have a detailed knowledge of that area.

40

MR WINCHESTER: No. And it’s your evidence then that cetaceans and

Beaked Whales and Sperm Whales are going to – are they going to

seek out the sediment plume to dive through? Do you think that’s

likely?

45


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I honestly don’t know. I would

need to do some research to see how they – whether there’s been any

research on other mining operations to see whether they do that or not.

MR WINCHESTER: Yes. 5

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: So I’m not suggesting that they’re

going to seek out the sediment plume, but I’m suggesting that the

animals are found in the area. They dive easily deep enough to make

contact with that sediment plume so there’s a possibility there that they 10

would do that.

MR WINCHESTER: I see. Now you refer at paragraph 19.3 of your

supplementary statement to a potential impact of marine mammal

collisions with vessels and mining equipment, but that’s not a major 15

risk is it?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: That’s thought to be a minor risk so

the expert group agreed that that was a relatively minor risk.

20

MR WINCHESTER: And you agreed that?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: And I agree with that.

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you. 25

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: And as I mentioned just before that

minor risk is increased by the fact that there’s a very loud noise

happening right next to those items of machinery so that makes it more

likely. So in the absence of any noise if the ship and the dredge and the 30

pipes are just sitting there and it’s not operational that risk would be

relatively minor. The noise generated by the operation makes it

somewhat more likely.

MR WINCHESTER: And you’re aware that the ship moves when it’s mining 35

at the speed of one knot?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Very slowly. Yes. Exactly. Of

course there will be other vessels moving to and from the slow mining

vessel. 40

MR WINCHESTER: Really?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: As I understand it there will be

people moving backwards and forwards and materials move backwards 45

and forwards.


MR WINCHESTER: Really? You’re not confused with the TTR operation?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Are all of these movements thought

to happen with helicopters or by the vessel? I understand that the 5

vessel’s going to be mining for 4 or 5 days and then is going to go back

to port to offload. So there’s absolutely no other vessels associated

with this operation that would be a great surprise.

MR WINCHESTER: I see. Thank you for that. Now at your paragraph 19.4 10

you refer to a risk of consequences of chemical pollution caused by

antifouling and oils from the vessels used in the operation. Is there

anything in particular about this vessel and its oils that are different

from all other vessels that are using the Chatham Rise in terms of

antifouling and oils? 15

[10.20 am]

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: No, this would just be one extra

vessel, one extra-large vessel, but it’s a matter of cumulative impact 20

rather than anything that’s different in any way from other vessels.

MR WINCHESTER: Yes. Now you were asked some questions by Dr Ryder

about the NOAA guidelines and I think you confirmed to him that, that

they’re draft and the guidelines haven’t been adopted and seem to be 25

receiving a lot of critiques that’s your understanding of their status?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I wouldn’t have said “critiques”, I

would say that there’s been, just as we have with the expert caucusing

for this hearing, there’s been discussion with some experts expressing 30

their congratulations and others expressing “room for improvement”. I

wouldn’t have said “all of that discussion was critique”.

MR WINCHESTER: I see. And there are two noise metrics or sound metrics

used in the NOAA guidelines aren’t there? 35

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: You’re referring to the exposure

levels and pressure levels or - - -

MR WINCHESTER: It’s – yes, that’s right. 40

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes, right.

MR WINCHESTER: And the reason for that is because sound exposure

levels are not always reliable for citations are they? 45


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I’m not sure what you mean by that

statement, try again.

MR WINCHESTER: Well - - -

5

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: You thinks - why do you think

sound exposure levels are not reliable for citations?

MR WINCHESTER: I’m asking you, whether you - - -

10

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: You’re asking me.

MR WINCHESTER: - - - whether you agree.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I see, maybe it’s – so you’re 15

interpreting the statements I made before, which were that, it’s not only

the loudness of the noise, the sound pressure level, but also the duration

of the exposure, the sound exposure level that’s important, is that what

you mean?

20

MR WINCHESTER: I’m asking you your opinion as to whether you

understand that sound exposure levels are not always a reliable metric

for citations?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: That is far too vague a statement for 25

me to comment on scientifically I’m sorry.

MR WINCHESTER: All right.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Do you want to me be more 30

specific? No?

MR WINCHESTER: I want to move on thanks, now you express some

reservations, indeed probably more than reservations in your paragraph

15, about the reliability of a marine mammal observer system and you 35

listed a range of potential issues with that system.

So in terms of monitoring, you think that it has little merit as a

monitoring tool?

40

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I do, yes.


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: If I was going to give a really short 45

statement I would say it was more of a public relations exercise than a


scientifically worthwhile exercise or worthwhile in terms of monitoring

impacts.

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you. And in terms of passive acoustic monitoring

and you, you deal with that in your – or with Issue 1C and you disagree 5

in terms of the final column about the draft conditions, is the reason

why passive acoustic monitoring isn’t useful because the ability of that

to detect the presence of marine mammals will be impacted by the

sound of the mining operation, so it’ll – it essentially masks the ability

of passive acoustic monitoring to detect the mammals? 10

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: No not necessarily, that is definitely

an issue, but the main reason why passive acoustic monitoring isn’t

perfect in that, is that it relies on the animals to be making sound for a

large part of the time, and really the only species that is in that area that 15

does that is sperm whales.

So sperm whales produce noise for about 75/80 percent of the time,

basically they are echo locating most of the time that they are diving so

they’re spending 40-50 minutes, sometimes longer underwater, making 20

echolocation clicks almost that whole time, and then they spend about

10 minutes at the surface, usually not echo locating during that time. So

sperm whales are highly vocal, they’re vocal almost all the time, and

are readily detectible with passive acoustic monitoring.

25

Beaked whales by comparison which are also common in the area and

both sperm whales and beaked whales are particularly sensitive to

noise.

[10.25 am] 30

Beaked whales are only vocal for about 25% of the time, so if the

passive acoustic monitoring was perfect and they detected absolutely

every whale in the area, and as you’ve just pointed out, that’s going to

be limited because there’s noise being generated in the area, but if it 35

was absolutely perfect you would have roughly a 25% chance of

detecting a beaked whale.

Then if you go to point 50 of the supplementary evidence that you have

in front of you there’s a passage literally quoted from Barlow and 40

Gessner, 2006, and that’s about the probability of detection with visual

monitoring. So a moment ago you asked what did I think of visual

monitoring, and you read the whole passage yourself, but to cut to the

chase, what Barlow and Gessner have done here is they’ve used

detection probabilities for beaked whales from scientific surveys which 45

are in the order of 23-45% sighting probability if the whale is on the


track line of the vessel, it drops off with distance from the vessel, and

then they talk about for this kind of marine mammal observer situation,

you won’t see any beaked whales at night, so that halves the sighting

probability.

5

He then goes through the different types of binoculars used, the

weather conditions, usually these MMO operations are happening

through all kinds of weather conditions, right up to Beaufort 7-8, you

wouldn’t do that for a scientific survey, and the bottom line is that in

Barlow and Gessner’s view, the probability of an MMO detecting a 10

beaked whale is only about 1-2%.

So you wouldn’t want to think that in the safety zone, which would be

more appropriately called endanger zone, in the safety zone you have

some kind of 100% or close to it probability of detecting marine 15

mammals, even if you used visual observers and passive acoustic

monitoring together, you would still have a very, very poor probability

of detecting marine mammals.

So that means that you wouldn’t want to interpret the 1.5 kilometres or 20

3 kilometres, whatever is decided on, as the limit of the safety zone as

an area where you have the ability to detect all marine mammals in that

area and therefore either shut down the mining operation to stop the

noise or not start it or use a slow ramp up if you start it.

25

This is really more of a feel good, PR exercise rather than a

scientifically credible exercise. There’s more literature on this from

Russell Leaper, which I have referred to, who presented some

information at the International Whaling Commission this year, and

from Lindy Weilgart, all of those people saying the probability of 30

observers like that detecting marine mammals is very, very low.

MR WINCHESTER: Have you finished?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes, for sure. I can go on longer if 35

you’d like me to?

MR WINCHESTER: Yes, I can tell.

Now, you’ve made the observation earlier in your evidence and 40

expressed some disappointment that NIWA vessels were not carrying

marine mammal observers or passive acoustic monitoring equipment,

but I ask the question, Professor Slooten, what’s the point if it’s not

reliable? What are you going to achieve?

45


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I’m not sure I understand that

question. So, if those NIWA vessels had carried proper scientifically

trained observers, such as have been used in other such surveys in New

Zealand waters and such are carried out routinely by NOA on a daily

basis, that if they had carried two marine mammal observers – so now 5

we’re talking scientists, not MMOs, that you would carry on a

commercial operation, like a seismic survey vessel, if they had carried

trained, experienced scientists with the big eye binoculars that J Barlow

refers to, and if they had towed a hydrophone array, we would now

have data on what marine mammals are on the Chatham Rise. We 10

wouldn’t have to rely on basically sightings made by the general

public.

MR WINCHESTER: I see.

15

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: We would have scientific data.

MR WINCHESTER: So if the observers are sufficiently well trained, they’re

scientists, then it can have some value?

20

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Absolutely.

MR WINCHESTER: I see.

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: So that whole paragraph 50 is about 25

if you have scientists using proper equipment and proper procedures,

you’d expect to detect 23-45% of the beaked whales in an area, and if

you use the normal MMO protocol you’d expect that to drop to one-

two percent, so the reasons why are outlined in this paragraph.

30

[10.30 am]

MR WINCHESTER: Now - - -

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: They relate to weather conditions, 35

training of the observers, the equipment used and so on.

MR WINCHESTER: Yes, thank you, we’ve read that. Now can I ask you to

look at Issue 1D of the joint statement, and there’s an agreement in the

second column, it’s the last bullet point, “Sudden onset sounds are 40

more likely to cause behavioural change than continuous sounds”.

In the context of your understanding about the Chatham Rock proposal,

is it your understanding that essentially the sudden onset sound would

be the starting up of the pumps and commencement of mining? 45


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: That would certainly be one example

of a sudden onset sound. Another sudden onset sound might be relating

to engineering issues, like a pump breaking down or – we had some

discussion about that at the TTR hearing about, if you blow an O ring

in one of the items of equipment that will make a different loudness of 5

sound, a different frequency and it will be more sudden in its onset.

MR WINCHESTER: Okay. And in terms of the Chatham Rock operation

rather than TTR, it’s your understanding isn’t it that, once the mining

operation commences, it runs continuously for four-five days. 10

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes, and then stops and then starts

up again several days later, so there’ll be lots of stopping and starting

as I understand it.

15

MR WINCHESTER: Yes, separated by many days, that’s how the mining

operation works, doesn’t it?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: As I understand it, yes.

20

MR WINCHESTER: Yes. Can I ask you about your paragraph 38 of your

supplementary statement and you say, “It’s important to avoid activities

like shipping and mining or through areas with relatively high marine

mammal densities”, what about fishing activity because aren’t fishing

and marine mammals both competing for the same thing? 25

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Well certainly the high intensity of

fishing activity at the Chatham Rise would indicate that this is a, an

area with a rich ecosystem and that maybe the reason why the marine

mammals are reasonably common there as well. So what was your 30

question about fishing in terms of, you’re talking about vessel strikes

and their probability with fishing vessels or - - -

MR WINCHESTER: Well I’m just saying you’ve singled out mining as being

- - - 35

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I see what you mean, I’ve left out

fishing out of that sentence – yes, so it says, “activities like”.

MR WINCHESTER: Okay. And you would include fishing activity in that 40

list?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes, so fishing activity is an existing

human activity in that area and this mining proposal obviously will be

considered in the light of existing activities in that same area. 45


MR WINCHESTER: And in terms of relative risk, is it your understanding

that at the moment fishing boats are greater risk of death or injury to

marine mammals than - - -

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: You mean in - - - 5

MR WINCHESTER: - - - than other activities?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: - - - terms of the speed, you mean in

terms of the dredging vessel will be slow and the fishing vessels are - - 10

-

MR WINCHESTER: Well in terms of things - - -

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: - - - faster, moving through the area? 15

MR WINCHESTER: - - - things like entanglement, vessel strike - - -

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: They’re obviously towing fishing

gear which has a greater risk of entanglement than something static. 20

MR WINCHESTER: Yes. And you’re aware of the extent of seal bycatch in

the hoki industry aren’t you?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Yes, for sure. 25

MR WINCHESTER: Now paragraph 29 of your summary statement you

make reference to the increasing concern about potential impacts of

noise on fish, have you read Dr Popper’s evidence?

30

[10.35 am]

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I have, but I haven’t paid nearly as

much attention to those documents from the other expert groups as I

have to the marine mammal information. 35

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you, that’s – I think we’re nearly there.

Just a question about your paragraph 46 and it’s under the heading

“Cumulative Impacts”, and the final sentence of your paragraph 46 40

over on page 13 says, “In response many countries are adopting

precautionary management principles”, this seems to be a relatively

general statement, what’s the basis for specific application to Chatham

Rock or the EEZ Act?

45


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: So the statement is about the ability

of research to detect population change, so immediately above that last

sentence I’m talking about how populations of marine mammals can

decline very markedly to the point that we’re now talking serious risk

of extinction. So for example, a 50 percent decline in 15 years could 5

not be detected for 90 percent of US beached whale population, so even

with really thorough, I mean the US really have this whole area sorted

out in terms of doing regular population surveys.

So this situation would not arise in the US where someone is 10

considering a mining operation in an area without a marine mammal

survey having been conducted in that area.

Even in the US where they do regular surveys, it could take 15 years to

detect a large decline, like a 50 percent decline in a beached whale 15

population and a 70 – this would be 72 percent for large whale

populations.

So for those reasons the US are saying, basing your management on an

– on either having detected a decline in a population or your expected 20

ability to detect a decline in a population is not a particularly safe thing

to do because even in the best possible situation where you’ve got

really thorough, world best practice marine mammal surveys being

taking place, even then your ability to detect population declines is not

very good. So in the US they’ve taken the next logical step and have 25

said, “We need to make precautionary decisions because of that

difficulty of detecting declines”.

In this case, with a species list, about the only thing we could detect

would be one of those species to disappear from the Chatham Rise – 30

we don’t have absolutely no ability to detect population declines

because we don’t have any estimates of current population size.

MR WINCHESTER: Or indeed the cause of that population decline.

35

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: That – exactly, so that would be even

worse. So let’s imagine we detect a population decline, then you’d still

need to prove that it was caused by one or other human activity or some

other natural process.

40

MR WINCHESTER: Yes. Now just to finish off I hope, in terms of what

you’re suggesting around the need for additional research and

monitoring and data gathering, is it my understanding that you’re

suggesting that it should take approximately 10 years of intensive study

to gather sufficient information before you can make an educated 45

assessment of effects of this proposal?


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: That would be what you’d need if

you wanted to detect effects on survival rates or reproductive rates.

MR WINCHESTER: I see. 5

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: If you wanted to detect effects in

terms of behavioural changes, you could do that literally instantly. You

could compare the behaviour of marine mammals with and without the

noise – you’ll be familiar with the BACI research protocols of, 10

Before/After Control Impact, so a very simple, it wouldn’t take more

than a few months research project with that approach, would detect

behavioural changes, no problem there.

[10.40 am] 15

If you wanted to detect changes in terms of population size, so numbers

of sperm whales on the Chatham Rise now and then be able to detect

any changes if mining goes ahead that would take on the order of 3

years because you need to get down that seasonal component. If you 20

get a change for example in the first year of mining you won’t know if

that’s because of the mining or because of (INDISTINCT 0.28) or you

know there’s something unusual about that particular year.

So if you want to detect effects in terms of the use of a particular 25

species like Sperm Whales or Right Whales of that area you’re talking

3 years. If you wanted to detect impacts on survival and reproductive

rates then you’d be talking the 10-year timeframe.

MR WINCHESTER: Okay. And that’s what you say in your paragraph 55. 30

“These data are critical in terms of the conservation management of

marine mammals and would take a decade or more to collect”. In the

context of this application are you saying, and is it your evidence, that

that study would need to occur before mining could commence?

35

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Really what I’m saying is that to

commence in the hope of being able to detect effects, in other words an

adaptive management approach, is not realistic for this species group of

marine mammals. So for marine mammals it simply takes too long.

The timeframe for being able to detect impacts on reproduction and 40

survival is far too long to consider adaptive management.

So what I’m saying here is the decision, and I’m very glad I’m not

sitting at the top table there because the decision-making committee has

the very difficult job of trying to make this decision in the absence of 45


many of the pieces of information that you’d want to have in front of

you, but you have to make that decision now.

You might require further population surveys but you shouldn’t be

waiting for science to be able to detect impacts on survival and 5

reproduction because that will take too long. That timeframe is too

long. That scientific timeframe is too long to consider adaptive

management for marine mammals. That might be realistic for fish or

benthic organisms but not for marine mammals.

10

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you. And in terms of your understanding of the

mining operations and the mitigation measures that are proposed how

would an extensive research programme change that?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: In what sense how would an 15

extensive research programme change that?

MR WINCHESTER: Well would it make any difference? I think Dr

Crawford asked you the question in terms of your understanding of the

mining operation and about what’s proposed by way of mitigation. 20

Going and gathering further information would that make a significant

difference to the operational aspects of the mining?

ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: I think to have more information

about both the noise that would be generated and about the marine 25

mammal populations, if I were part of the decision-making committee I

would insist on more information on both of those before making a

decision. But in terms of if and when mining takes place what research

would we then do and what effects would we then detect? – as I said

before behavioural impacts would be relatively easy to detect and it 30

wouldn’t take much time.

Population level changes in terms of habitat use would take on the

order of 3 years, so if you wanted a “before” data you’ll need to get

started now and research on reproduction and survival, the timeframe 35

for that is a decade or more and is probably impractical. So if I were

on the decision-making committee I would insist on some before data

on both noise and marine mammal populations.

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you Professor Slooten. Thank you sir. That’s 40

all.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Winchester. Does any other party have a

question to address to Dr Slooten? If not, thank you on behalf of the

Committee Dr Slooten. 45


ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SLOOTEN: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: And the next expert witness is Mr Tara Ross-Watt called

by the Deepwater Group, Ngai Tahu, Ngāti Kahungunu and Te Ohu

Kaimoana. Mr Christensen, could I ask you to introduce Mr Ross-5

Watt.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Thank you very much sir. He’s just making his way to

the stand now.

10

[10.45 am]

CHAIRPERSON: And what I suggest is that if you could make your

presentation Mr Ross-Watt and we’ll probably then break for morning

tea, work up some difficult questions for you and then resume the 15

session.

MR ROSS-WATT: I’d appreciate that. Am I going to be introduced or

should I just keep going?

20

MR CHRISTENSEN: I think Mr Ross-Watt the Committee’s seen your

evidence in chief and has read that, and I note that you do introduce

some of your relevant experience and qualifications in your summary

statement. So perhaps if I just invite you to read that to the Committee,

thank you. 25

MR ROSS-WATT: Thank you and good morning all. My name is Mr Tara

Ross-Watt. I hold a Master’s Degree in Marine Resource Management

and a Diploma in Applied Marine Science. I’ve set out my

qualifications and experience in some detail in my statement of 30

evidence. I would like to draw your attention to the following.

I am currently Managing Director of Ocean Science Consulting NZ.

The core focus of company business is the provision of specialist

environmental services for offshore industries, particularly marine 35

mammal acoustics and mitigation. I have worked as a consultant

marine ecologist and in a number of senior advisory roles in marine

science, policy and regulation for New Zealand central government

agencies with marine environmental responsibilities including Maritime

New Zealand, Ministry of Fisheries, the Department of Conservation 40

and the Environmental Protection Authority.

My responsibilities in central government included contributing to the

development of the exclusive economic zone legislation and regulations

as well as managing marine environmental impacts and providing 45

technical advice for offshore oil and gas exploration and production,

commercial shipping, seabed mining, marine renewable energy and

marine disposal of wastes.


My regulatory responsibilities included the review of environmental

impact assessments for oil and gas projects including marine mammal

impact assessments for seismic surveys and provided departmental

advice on several seabed minerals initiatives such as Neptune Minerals, 5

Nautilus Minerals, Placer Deposits during their initial planning stages.

I served as one of the government representatives to the Neptune

Minerals technical advisory group. I also worked on other

intergovernmental initiatives such as Ocean Survey 2020 and Officials 10

Antarctica Committee.

In my role at Maritime New Zealand I had primary responsibility for

administration of marine dumping predominantly disposal of dredge

spoil in the exclusive economic zone. I was head of delegation to the 15

International Maritime Organisation or the IMO London, London

Convention annual and Scientific Group meetings from 2008 to 2011,

and was elected First Vice Chair to the Governing Body of the London

Convention in 2010. I was also part of the New Zealand delegation to

meetings at the IMO Marine Environment Protection Committee, the 20

Australian Maritime Safety Authority Environmental Science

Coordinators Group and the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional

Environment Programme.

I authored the 2006 New Zealand Marine Oil Spill Response Strategy, 25

and the 2012 Code of Conduct for Minimising Acoustic Disturbance to

Marine Mammals as well as its accompanying Reference Document. I

co-authored the 2006 Environmental Best Practice Guidelines for the

Offshore Petroleum Industry, and contributed to the 2007 Illegal Oil

Discharges from Vessels Investigation Manual, an initiative of the 30

INTERPOL Environmental Crimes group ‘Project Clean Seas’, on

which I was the New Zealand representative. I was also Project

Manager for the successful submission to the IMO for the establishment

of the Taranaki Precautionary Area for Shipping in 2007.

35

I was asked by Te Runanga o Ngāi Tahu to prepare evidence on

applicable international marine management regimes for the Chatham

Rock Phosphate project and whether the proposed activity follows

industry best practised. I considered the following sources of

international best practises: The Noumea Convention, London Protocol, 40

International Seabed Authority, International Marine Mineral Society,

the Marine Stewardship Council and the European Commission.

I have also specifically reviewed regulatory regimes which apply to the

marine mammals including measures established by the Department of 45

Conservation under the Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 and

information on international best practices provided by parties to the

Convention on the Biological Diversity in relation to minimising and

mitigating the significant adverse effects of anthropogenic underwater

noise on marine and coastal biodiversity. 50


This summary outlines the key outlines of my statement of evidence

which also reflects some additional matters that have arisen

subsequently.

5

The EPA must take into account best practice in relation to an industry

or activity in the decision-making process for marine consent

applications. There are a number of areas where I expected the

application and supporting documentation to have included

consideration of, and proposed application of, best practices as found in 10

international instruments, guidance, codes, standards, or literature. I

also expected that assessment methodology and mitigation in

management measures would be developed in accordance with

established best practice, particularly in relation to marine mammals

and the assessment of radiological risks. 15

My evidence addresses where the applicant has not identified best

practice or relevant management regimes, or applied associated robust

management methodologies.

20

[10.50 am]

For example: disposal activities associated with the Chatham Rock

Phosphate application should be assessed for consistency against the

Noumea Convention for the protection of the natural resources and 25

environment of the South Pacific region, otherwise known as the

Noumea Convention. New Zealand’s obligations under the Noumea

Convention require the risks associated with the release of uranium to

be fully assessed as a precondition for mining activities commencing.

30

The CLP proposal does not consider the relevance of the approaches of

the London Protocol as a model of best international practice. The

London Protocol, to which New Zealand is a party, sets the framework

for marine disposal of waste particularly in one important regard. The

de minimis concept for radioactive matter. Revised International 35

Atomic Energy Agency or IAEA guidance on determining the

suitability of materials for disposal at sea under the London Convention

and the London Protocol, a radiological assessment procedure – which

is actually revised IAEA Tech doc 1375 – incorporates a new

methodology to assess radiological doses to marine flora and fauna for 40

the purposes of the London Convention and Protocol which was

adopted by parties in October 2013.

The International Seabed Authority or ISA is the most important forum

for the development of international best practices in deep-sea mining. 45

New Zealand has treaty obligations under the United Nations

convention on the law of the sea to manage seabed minerals activities

no less effectively than the ISA, and the CLP proposal as proposed is

unlikely to meet the standards developed by the Authority for reasons

detailed below. 50


While a commitment to following the requirements of the International

Marine Mineral Society’s code for environmental management of

marine mining, or the IMMC, is expressed, the approach proposed in

the CLP application appears inconsistent with the environmental 5

rehabilitation criteria contained in the code. In my opinion the

applicant has not demonstrated compliance with any of the seven

criteria stipulated in the IMMC with sufficient certainty or adequacy as

to be considered good industry practice.

10

This is particularly the case as restorative efforts need to be

commensurate with the nature of the operation and the rate and type of

disturbance.

Based on comparison with best practice approaches for managing 15

seabed mining activities the application for commercial mining appears

premature. The outcomes of the applicant’s impact assessment process

will more appropriately serve as the basis for identifying areas for

multiyear research in order to develop adequate baseline data including

disturbance response experiments and identification of viable and 20

ecologically self-sustaining preservation zones.

Following this a precautionary and staged approach to development

would be necessary, first involving development and testing of

equipment that is at this point unproven at the proposed depths. And 25

subsequently a 3-year pilot mining stage prior to consideration of a

marine consent for the commercial levels of mining.

Even at that point a staged approach to production mining similar to

that currently proposed by CLP would still be required. Such a 30

modified approach is more appropriate based on the significant

uncertainties and unknowns that have been identified and would

provide for the requirement to favour caution and environmental

protection.

35

It would be consistent with the approach of the ISA which is to, and I

quote: “Ensure slow measured development and sufficient regulatory

control of a project before it advances to the stage where if problems

arise it can no longer be clawed back, modified or terminated” – as

summarised in the ISA technical study 11 by Clark et al. 40

While the ISA’s work is focussed on the high seas the approach is taken

to understanding the nature of the environment and assessing and

managing effects and risks associated with seabed mining have direct

application in the deep-water environment of the Chatham Rise in my 45

opinion. Therefore I would have expected the applicant to have

referred to and have drawn upon the relevant rules, procedures and

general approaches established and being developed by the ISA to

manage nodule exploration and mining in the development of the CLP

application and the environmental monitoring and management plan 50


due to the similarities with phosphate mining activities, effects and

sensitivities.

Another key concern of the ISA is to ensure protection for large areas

of mining management areas. For example the Clarion-Clipperton 5

Zone environmental management plan, adopted in 2012, is underpinned

by a consensus agreement that 30 to 50 percent of the total management

area must be protected. This is to provide minimum, viable self-

sustaining populations unaffected directly or indirectly by mining

activities with a network of areas capturing the full range of habitats 10

and communities. There are requirements for areas to be at least 200

kilometres by 200 kilometres plus a 100 kilometre buffer zone to

protect against the adverse effects of sediment discharges totalling 400

by 400 kilometres.

15

In addition preservation reference zones must include nodule habitat as

refuge and for wreck (ph 4.45) recolonisation. The benthic habitat

within and around the CLP consent area would likely meet the criteria

for being classified as a vulnerable marine ecosystem for the purposes

of fisheries management in the South Pacific, based on the 20

identification of communities A, D, F, J, L, N, O, P, and Q in the CRP

EIA.

[10.55 am]

25

Draft regulation 31(4) for prospecting and end exploration for

polymetallic nodules published by the ISA in 2013 states that “if it is

determined that certain proposed exploration activities would have

serious harmful effects on vulnerable marine ecosystems, those

activities are managed to prevent such effects or not authorised to 30

proceed”. In my opinion it is difficult to envisage how the decision-

makers could be satisfied that the destruction and adverse effects that

will be experienced in the CRP mining footprint would be acceptable

and sustainable.

35

Significant technological development and refinement appears to be

necessary for systems used in CRP mining activities before there can

be certainty about adverse effects on the natural resources of the

Chatham Rise.

40

A recently published European Commission-funded ECORYS report

focused on mining in water depths comparable to the CRP project. This

study indicates that the kind of systems proposed by CRP to extract

nodules and carry them to the surface need to undergo significant

development and demonstration before the technology could be 45

considered proven, and as such there is a high degree of uncertainty

about operations and effects.


There is some degree of agreement between experts that the Chatham

Rise may be a critical marine mammal feeding ground and the presence

of juveniles in the stranding record indicates potential importance of

the region for reproduction too. However, the significance of the

Chatham Rise for marine mammals has not been adequately 5

determined in the application.

As a consequence of a general lack of systematically surveyed baseline

data for marine mammals, not only is regional usage uncertain, but it

would be impossible to monitor for impacts arising from mining 10

operations. In the absence of this data the potential for acoustic

disturbance to marine mammals cannot be adequately considered.

Similarly, other direct or indirect impacts to marine mammals arising

from mining, such as benthic habitat destruction or modification and 15

the associated trophic impacts on prey species have not been

sufficiently demonstrated.

The proposed mitigation measures for marine mammals are inadequate

and should be strengthened based on and consistent with the 20

established best practice approach adopted by the Department of

Conservation for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals

from seismic surveys. This will be broadly consistent with international

best practices.

25

Prior to consent being granted I would make the following

recommendations. Any marine consent should be based on the staged

approach outlined within my evidence and consistent with a

precautionary measured direction being developed by the ISA in

relation to mining activities of polymetallic nodules. This would 30

involve development of baseline data over the entire marine consent

area at a sufficient level to understand seasonality, interconnectedness

and sensitivity to disturbance from mining effects, as well as to be able

to detect impacts after activities have commenced.

35

Undertaking before/after control impact, basically disturbance/response

experiments, and the identification of viable, self-sustaining areas of

nodule habitat to act as refuges and reserves for recolonisation of key

communities.

40

Technology would need to be field tested and monitored, followed by

three years of pilot mining at a scale comparable to production mining

in order to demonstrate credibility and competence; and if prior stages

are successful and impacts are demonstrated to be acceptably low, the

marine consent application for production levels of mining should be 45


similarly staged to ensure risks are managed through all phases of

commercial development.

A specific assessment of radiological risks for marine fauna should be

undertaken following the International Atomic Energy Agency 5

approach adopted by parties to the London Protocol in 2013.

A restoration plan should be developed consistent with IMMC

standards, with methodology proven to be viable before production

mining activities commence so as to ensure compliance with the 10

relevant mining permit condition is possible.

There should be proper consideration given to the potential adverse

impacts of benthic habitat destruction, including serious harm to

protected cold water corals, and modification within the mid-Chatham 15

Rise BPA in relation to MSC certifications of hoki, hake, ling and

orange roughy.

The marine mammal mitigation measures I originally proposed in my

statement of evidence were expanded upon during the expert 20

conferencing. I refer the Decision-Making Committee to the

agreements reached during caucusing in this regard for what I now

consider is a more appropriate and comprehensive suite of mitigation

measures.

25

While no consensus could be reached on an appropriate mitigation zone

for tooth whales, at a practical and precautionary level I would suggest

that the simplest option to implement would be a consistent

1.5 kilometre mitigation zone for all species.

30

To clarify, the suite of measures would include a mitigation zone of

1.5 kilometres be set initially within which detection of marine

mammals would delay the start or shut down of active operations. The

mitigation zone be reassessed on the basis of measurement of actual

sound produced by the mining operation. Observers trained to the 35

Department of Conservation standards for seismic surveys, as a

minimum, and dedicated in their role.

[11.00 am]

40

Incorporation of passive acoustic detection sufficient to provide range

and direction to the vocalising animals. Pre-start observations to be a

minimum of two hours, stop/start procedures for mining equipment to

minimise exposure to physiological damage by gradually increasing the

operating power. 45


I also recommend that the Decision-Making Committee consider

whether certain and irreversible serious harm to protected deep water

species and vulnerable mean ecosystems is acceptable as an inherent

part of an activity in the EEZ.

5

As a final observation on best practices, in case it has not come to light

in evidence or the hearing process, I would like to draw the Decision-

Making Committee’s attention to the enabling management of Offshore

Mining Project, a four year government funded initiative launched in

2012 and being led by NIWA. The project has only come to my 10

attention again in recent weeks through informal discussions with

colleagues about progress in general.

This research programme, developed in partnership with the mining

industry, government agencies, iwi and NGOs, aims to develop, 15

validate and implement science based guidelines for effective

environmental management of offshore mineral and hydrocarbon

extraction. The guidelines will be based on both the environmental risk

assessment and the environmental impact assessment processes, the

results of which will assist the development of effective environmental 20

management plans.

The project will identify gaps in understanding of the environmental

impacts of offshore mineral extraction and will address some critical

gaps already known, these include modelling sediment and 25

contaminant plume from mining operations, quantifying potential

chemical pollution from seafloor disturbance, and defining the spatial

extent of ecological impact.

Priorities for future research to guide improved understanding and 30

management of environmental impacts will be identified, including

techniques developed with the industry to avoid or mitigate risks. The

project will develop monitoring approaches and provide advice on

aspects of spatial management for the exploited and protected areas

where there are potential conflicts of resource use. 35

This initiative is aimed at addressing many of the issues and

management challenges that the Decision-Making Committee is

considering in relation to the CRP application. It may be that there is

relevant information or outcomes available at this point that could 40

provide guidance or help to address uncertainty in the decision-making

process.

This may provide answers to key questions, such as defining standards

for baseline surveys, sampling design and monitoring methodologies, 45

determining what metrics could be used as indicators and establishing


thresholds relevant for the Chatham Rise ecology, defining research

objectives and methodologies for structured disturbance experiments

and considering the role and importance of kaitiakitanga in the project.

Thank you. 5

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much, Mr Ross-Watt, and I’m sorry I didn’t

give you your full surname previously, I hadn’t seen the hyphen before.

Okay, so I suggest we break until, let’s say, 11.20 am and resume the

session with questions from the Committee first, then from parties. 10

Thank you.

ADJOURNED [11.03 am]

RESUMED [11.22 am] 15

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, we’ll begin with questions from the Committee,

Mr Ross-Watt. David?

MR HILL: Thank you, Mr Ross-Watt. I’ve only got one question for you I 20

think because I think a lot of the other issues are undoubtedly going to

be raised in questions by parties. It really is on, unfortunately the page

numbers have dropped off, but it’s your recommendations which, I’m

not sure where they start, bullet points under 18(e) on the penultimate

page - - - 25

MR ROSS-WATT: I’m with you, yes, I’ve got it.

MR HILL: On the summary statement, it’s a very simple question, which is in

the first bullet point there you, in parenthesis there you indicate that 30

detection would delay the start or shut down of active operations, and

I’m just thinking in terms of practicalities, in terms of the – I think we

had a bit of a discussion with Dr Slooten on that, but surely then

following up that you’re going to have a problem in terms of start-up

and noise and so on, and I just wonder whether you’ve sort of given 35

any thought to how practicable a shut down and start up would be in

that sort of circumstance?

MR ROSS-WATT: Well, I’d suggest that it’s imminently practicable and

achievable. What I’ve done is I’ve pretty much pulled forward the key 40

parts of how seismic surveying operations are managed. It’s exactly the

same process if they’re – there is a pre-start observation period where

you look for marine mammals in relevant mitigation zones and

presence within that zone would delay the start, and also once an

operation is active, if a marine mammal approaches within a certain 45

marine mammal mitigation zone, then the activity is ceased, and then


you go through normal start up procedures again, so this is exactly how

the oil and gas industry operates with very, very large vessels towing

10s of kilometres of streamers and they can manage that perfectly well

in their environment.

5

MR HILL: In terms of detection, what sort of detection is proposed?

MR ROSS-WATT: In terms of what detection?

MR HILL: Well, of marine mammals in the area, assuming they’re not on the 10

surface?

[11.25 am]

MR ROSS-WATT: So following standard best practices, so a combination of 15

marine mammal observers on the vessel, scanning the horizon,

basically looking for visual cues at the surface and also passive

acoustic detection underwater, now this could either be from equipment

that is deployed from the vessel itself, on a hydrophone, on a wire or

you could actually put out arrays of passive acoustic detectors on the 20

seafloor.

MR HILL: And just can I ask on the question of arrays, do arrays give you a

3D picture or is it simply that it would detect an animal somewhere in

the water column at a certain distance away. 25

MR ROSS-WATT: It really depends upon configuration. What you need is to

be able to triangulate. Now some arrays can do this with hydrophones

within the, within one string, others will rely on two strings and

triangulating between the two. But basically it relies on a vocalising 30

citation and it can triangulate to give you range and distance.

MR HILL: And vocalisation is the only means of detection at this stage?

MR ROSS-WATT: There is another one which is active sonar, but then you 35

are – you know, you’re putting more energy into the environment to

detect animals, so that’s not currently favoured, we’re using passive

techniques.

MR HILL: All right, thank you very much. 40

DR RYDER: Yes, Mr Ross-Watt, that – just following on paragraph 18, sub

clause A, I just want to go through those three subsections in that, and

the first one at the bottom, the last sentence of that or the last section of

the first sentence you got, “Self-sustaining areas of nodule habitat”, 45

now what – I don’t know what you mean by that.


MR ROSS-WATT: Basically there is an association between the actual

nodules themselves and the benthic ecology that is dependent on this,

so fauna settles on those nodules and then creates a habitat around

them. So the approach of the ISA is to say, “Well, if there is an 5

association between the actual physical structure of the nodules and the

benthic ecology then you have to protect certain areas of those nodule

bearing habitats”, so it’s not a – you couldn’t go into an area and

remove all of the nodules because that would basically wipe out that

entire community. 10

So it’s about reserving areas that potentially could be commercially

minable and actually setting them aside in order to provide for “intact

communities” that are self-sustaining.

15

DR RYDER: But by meaning “self-sustaining” you mean, leaving nodules that

wouldn’t be affected by mining around it or - - -

MR ROSS-WATT: Absolutely, completely unaffected by mining, and they

have to be large enough areas – I mean, you could leave a very small 20

area intact, that would be viable because it just didn’t – it, it couldn’t

reproduce at a sufficient rate or it couldn’t function as a – basically it

would continue to deteriorate over time just because of its small size.

DR RYDER: You mean the, the biological community associated with - - - 25

MR ROSS-WATT: Yes, yes.

DR RYDER: Okay. So moving onto the next Roman numeral two, you got

there, “Terminology would need to be field tested and monitored 30

followed by three years of pilot monitoring” and I’m just wondering

why three years.

MR ROSS-WATT: I haven’t plucked this figure out of thin air, this is what

the ISA and also the European Commission are identifying as an 35

appropriate level of time, in order to demonstrate credibility and

competence and that - - -

DR RYDER: And that’s out of the ISA document?

40

MR ROSS-WATT: Yes

DR RYDER: Thank you. So then going onto the last Roman numeral three, it

says, “If prior stages are successful and impacts are demonstrated to be

acceptably low”, now how do you define “acceptably low”? 45


MR ROSS-WATT: I wouldn’t like to venture an opinion on that, at this stage

I don’t have the information in front of me, but what I would say - - -

DR RYDER: It’s based on each case site specific - - -

5

MR ROSS-WATT: It’s a case by case basis, it’s about ensuring that the

predicted effects are within the bounds, you know, in reality they are

within the bounds of predictions, and that the activities are sustainable

at, you know, its very essence.

10

DR RYDER: Okay. Well just moving on then – excuse me – to sub clause C,

and you – it’s got there about “a restoration plan should be developed”.

Now the evidence or a lot of the evidence we’ve been looking at,

suggests that restoration of the mined footprint area, in terms of

restoring it back, is something that – was it – used to be like with hard 15

substrates and the biological community associated with its substrates

would seem an unlikely scenario in the short to medium term, possibly

long term, would you accept that?

MR ROSS-WATT: I accept that it would take a very long time to demonstrate 20

that, yes, which is why I would have thought that more effort would

have gone in the early stages given that this restoration was a condition

not only for the prospecting permit but also of the mining permit.

[11.30 am] 25

DR RYDER: Okay, and then D, there should be proper consideration given to

the potential adverse impacts of benthic habitat destruction and

modification. Now, I mean that is what this whole process is about,

this hearing, is looking at that. I mean this hearing, in a sense, forms a 30

part of that assessment, wouldn’t you agree?

MR ROSS-WATT: Absolutely I would agree that but my point of putting this

paragraph in is it’s not just about the habitat destruction and the

modification, it’s really about this MSC certification, potential effect 35

on the MSC certification that I have concerns about based on

conversations I have had with, you know, the standards director of

MSC and also the lead auditor within the New Zealand assessment

process.

40

DR RYDER: Okay. Finally in paragraph 19 you talk there about bringing our

attention to the Enabling Management of Offshore Mining project, a

government funded initiative being led by NIWA. I am just wondering

what arm of NIWA is involved in that and are any of the scientists who

have been a part of this hearing, are they involved in that project, do 45

you know?


MR ROSS-WATT: I think some of them are, I think a lot of them are not. I

think there is a lot of NIWA scientists that were involved in this project

that haven’t been involved in CRP but, to be honest, I actually don’t

know. I was involved in some of the early meetings when I worked for 5

government, there is a group called MINEMAG, (ph 1.35) and forgive

me but I can’t remember what it exactly stands for, but it’s a

government cross-agency group looking at mining management. And

it is my understanding that this project was something that sits

underneath that umbrella, so agencies such as MfE and EPA are 10

involved in it. At this project level it’s a very interdisciplinary

initiative, Cawthron is involved, there is stakeholder groups like WWF,

so it’s quite a collaborative and far reaching project.

The reason it has come to my attention lately is I know that that was, 15

just through a casual conversation with, you know, one of my former

colleagues, that there has been a meeting recently where they reported

on progress and it just seemed to me that since so much effort and

government money is being spent on this exact scenario, and it’s two

years now into its schedule, it’s half way through the preliminary 20

funding round, that there may actually be some really useful and

relevant information that you could draw upon to help you in your

decision making.

DR RYDER: Okay, but that won’t be available for at least another two years 25

by the looks of it?

MR ROSS-WATT: Well, what comes out at the end of it I don’t know but I

mean what I am getting at is that at this stage I think there has been

literature reviews done I think, you know, has been looking at 30

international practices. I think there has been some consideration been

given already to the kinds of questions that you are going to be

grappling with. So I think what I am getting at is an interim, although

it is not a finished project, I think there could well be useful

information in there to help you. 35

DR RYDER: All right, thank you.

DR CRAUFORD: Yes, a couple of questions, first of all, just following on

from Dr Ryder’s questions, the concept of a pilot study. I mean very 40

attractive in the sense of providing a means of gauging what the impact

would be on the environment but is that realistic with a mining project

of this nature which is so capital intensive?

MR ROSS-WATT: I wouldn’t like to venture an opinion on that. What I 45

have been asked to do in this work in my engagement is look at how


these kinds of activities are being managed around the world at the best

practice level. And what I can say is that in waters much deeper than

this, 4 to 6 thousand metres, the international community is saying this

is what is best practice, this is what is necessary in order to conduct

your activities in this area. 5

So what I would suggest is that when you look at a project like

Chatham Rock Phosphate is that you would need to be satisfied that

there were reasons why it wouldn’t be held to that same high bar. That

you would look at what is different about operating in the Chatham 10

Rise that means you wouldn’t have to go through this bells and whistles

approach that the international community is saying this is what you

need to do in order to conduct your activities.

DR CRAUFORD: So the international community is saying that this is best 15

practice but are you aware that there are organisations that are actually

following this best practice because it doesn’t sound terribly practical?

MR ROSS-WATT: I think it is still in its infancy really, you know, there are

projects that are in stages of development. I can’t give you any specific 20

details but just from my general reading of it there are things that are

being developed, that are coming on stream that are following these

practices, yes.

DR CRAUFORD: There are? 25

MR ROSS-WATT: I believe so, yes. I think - - -

DR CRAUFORD: But you don’t know?

30

MR ROSS-WATT: - - - the Clarion-Clipperton Zone I think that licences

have been issued, that there are projects being developed but I don’t

think anyone is actually beyond the research stage at the moment.

They are actually undertaking the research that would underpin this

kind of level of management. 35

[11.35 am]

DR CRAUFORD: Okay, so it probably hasn’t started yet.

40

MR ROSS-WATT: I mean there was one research project that was announced

recently, I think there were 37 scientists involved, it was about five

years multi-government, multi-agency and, you know, that’s where the

rubber is meeting the road, you know, they are actually investing in

those levels of baseline data acquisition and understanding. 45


DR CRAUFORD: So that’s probably more at a government level which may

account for it because - - -

MR ROSS-WATT: I think the governments are sponsoring certain elements

of it but one of the names that comes to mind to Lockheed Martin, I 5

think is involved in - - -

DR CRAUFORD: Okay, which are big - - -

MR ROSS-WATT: Yes, I mean this is a serious environment and it requires 10

serious resources. And if you want to operate in those environments

with the level of certainty that the public expects then you have to be

well resourced for that.

DR CRAUFORD: Thank you for that. Also in your evidence you mention 15

this European Commission study and then you mention it again in your

summary. Now, was this the one that you said that you had only just

received and you hadn’t had time to review it yet? I am just flicking

through your evidence and trying to remember which one it was.

20

MR ROSS-WATT: Yes, it is, and sorry for the confusion. Yes, I reviewed an

earlier version of it which was released, it was published in March, and

then basically at the very end of my evidence preparation it came to my

attention that the final document had come out and I just simply didn’t

have time to incorporate that and meet the deadline that had been 25

imposed.

DR CRAUFORD: And have you had a chance to look at it now?

MR ROSS-WATT: I have, not in great detail but I have. There is not 30

significant change, basically one of the examples dropped out but there

is no major change. The key message is that - they talk about

technology readiness levels and they are still at the experimental proof

of concept stage for most of the systems. And what is key about that is

that the actual final technology has a great deal of influence over the 35

ultimate effects so unless you have an understanding of that you don’t

understand the effects.

DR CRAUFORD: And my understanding was that Boskalis were intending to

use the first phase of the mining as a bit of a pilot to refine their - - - 40

MR ROSS-WATT: Yes, I think what I would suggest in that case is that rather

than that being done as a part of a commercial mining permit, that the

way the international community is approaching this is that you do that

before, what they call a tenured mining permit is issued. So going back 45

to that - - -


DR CRAUFORD: Sorry, what did you call it?

MR ROSS-WATT: The ISA is calling it a tenured mining permit. So that’s,

you know, your commercial point so everything that happens before 5

that is still under the exploration and prospecting.

DR CRAUFORD: Okay. Also I wanted to talk a little bit about the vulnerable

marine ecosystem. You don’t define it in your paper, you refer to

Parker et al, can you tell me what the definition of a vulnerable marine 10

ecosystem is?

MR ROSS-WATT: Not off the top of my head I can’t, no.

DR CRAUFORD: So I would need to look at that reference. 15

MR ROSS-WATT: You would need to look at Parker et al for that, yes. But

what I did is when I looked at that, the things that were listed in the

definition and then I cross-referenced that to the community types

which had been identified in the NIWA work. I could very clearly 20

identify which ones would have basically meant that that definition

would apply.

DR CRAUFORD: Okay, thank you for that.

25

MR ROSS-WATT: Thank you.

MR JOHNS: Yes, thank you, Mr Chair. Hello, Mr Ross-Watt. Well, you

have answered one of my questions already so I need an answer to the

other one. The second one is in relation to your comment at the - well, 30

the very last sentence I guess on the final page of your summary. I just

really want to know what you mean by that, “It is the importance of

kaitiakitanga in the project”?

MR ROSS-WATT: I think that other people within, you know, the TRoNT 35

project would be able to better describe that to you. Certainly Ngāi

Tahu feels that they have a role to play, a guardianship and

management role to play in activities that happen within their rohe and

they certainly consider that this is within their area of responsibility.

40

I think at a general level I am aware of conversations that are

happening within the EMOM (ph 4.42) project where this has been

identified as a significant issue, that Māori should be involved in the

management and the development of these activities. And I can’t tell

you any more detail than that but I would refer you onto that, you 45


know, the relevant people within that group. I think there is actually a

team looking at it.

[11.40 am]

5

MR JOHNS: Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

CHAIRPERSON: This is a request rather than a question, we are looking,

obviously as we have to, at industry best practice as part of the process.

Boskalis mentioned a recent study in the Netherlands on deep sea 10

mining and I think undertook to provide a copy to us through CRP, the

European Commission-funded study that you’ve just discussed and

which is in para 15, would it be possible to provide us, through the

Secretariat, with a copy of that?

15

MR ROSS-WATT: Absolutely, yes.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much indeed. Okay, I turn now to CRP who

notified us of questions.

20

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you, sir.

Morning Mr Ross-Watt.

MR ROSS-WATT: Morning James. 25

MR WINCHESTER: Now, just turning to your summary of evidence that

you’ve gone through this morning, your paragraph 10, and your

suggestion is a three year pilot mining stage prior to consideration of a

marine consent for commercial levels of mining, do I understand that 30

you’re suggesting that the committee should grant a marine consent for

a three year pilot project and then require Chatham Rock to come back

at a later stage and get another marine consent for the full project?

MR ROSS-WATT: No, not necessarily. I think what I’m suggesting to the 35

Committee is that if you were to grant a consent you would need to be

looking forward over a multiyear process where the consent was based

on stages, and each stage, the successful implementation of each stage

would then allow movement into the next stage.

40

So the first stage would be about building baseline data, the next stage

about pilot mining and then the next stage – the application as is being

applied for today for commercial mining, so breaking it down into the

various stages.

45


MR WINCHESTER: So loosely adaptive management is what you’re

suggesting?

MR ROSS-WATT: It’s not quite adaptive management, although in my

evidence I call it a kind of adaptive management approach, yes. I mean 5

I don’t think you can necessarily adaptive manage the mining stage, so

this is an alternate approach to adaptive management that may achieve

the same outcome.

MR WINCHESTER: Based on your understanding of the definition of 10

adaptive management in the EEZ Act, you’d accept that it gives three

examples of what adaptive management can include, but it doesn’t

necessarily preclude other forms of adaptive management, does it?

MR ROSS-WATT: No. I think what I would say in terms of adaptive 15

management is the expert caucusing on conditions, there didn’t seem to

be any consensus that what was being proposed was adaptive

management as such in its classic sense for the purposes of an

application.

20

MR WINCHESTER: When you’re talking about the classic sense, are you

referring to what the Supreme Court talked about in the King Salmon,

Sustain Our Sounds’ case?

MR ROSS-WATT: I am not aware of the specifics of that, what I am talking 25

about is adaptive management being a way of scaling back activities in

order to avoid or mitigate undesired effects, unpredicted effects.


30

MR ROSS-WATT: My understanding is, in terms of the Chatham Rock

Phosphate application, in terms of the commercial mining, is that it has

to achieve a certain level in order to be viable and profitable and you

can’t scale back significantly the level of production, which means that

the adaptive management in the classic sense is that you have 35

encountered unplanned and unpredicted impacts, you then scale your

activity back in order to be within the envelope of predictions that you

had to start with. My understanding is that that’s not an option for this

project.

40

MR WINCHESTER: Yes, and based on your understanding of the definition

of the term in the Act, that’s only one of the examples of adaptive

management, isn’t it, that you’ve just talked about?

MR ROSS-WATT: Yes. 45


MR WINCHESTER: Now, you’ve talked about the NIWA project on enabling

management of offshore mining, what’s your understanding of how the

project is developed and how information or data has been fed into it?

MR ROSS-WATT: I haven’t been involved in that project since some very, 5

very early meetings, so I’m not aware of how they’ve managed data,

how they’ve gone about the project and what outcomes have arisen

from that. My identifying it to the Decision-Making Committee is not

because I know that there’s something that’s going to be useful, it just

seems that there is a very good opportunity there with the best minds in 10

the country looking at the subject for two years, there is likely to be

some information which is going to be helpful.

[11.45 am]

15

MR WINCHESTER: Yes. And are you aware that Chatham Rock Phosphate

has provided all its data and information to NIWA for use of this

project?

MR ROSS-WATT: No. 20

MR WINCHESTER: No. And that might, in terms of a specific example,

might provide some, some good guidance and some direction for the

outcome of this study, couldn’t it?

25

MR ROSS-WATT: Quite possibly.

MR WINCHESTER: Yes. Now there were some questions about what you’ve

recommended in terms of conditions, and I think it might have been Dr

Ryder you had a discussion with about “stopping and starting” and you 30

– mining activities and you gave the example of seismic surveys, in

terms of their ability to stop and start, do you recall that?

MR ROSS-WATT: Yes.

35

MR WINCHESTER: Now seismic surveys have a less consistent sound profile

than Chatham Rock’s activities, don’t they?

MR ROSS-WATT: Yes.

40

MR WINCHESTER: Yes. And so what we’ve got with Chatham Rock other

than start up is a relatively consistent sound profile produced by the

mining operation, is that your understanding?

MR ROSS-WATT: Yes. 45


MR WINCHESTER: So in terms of - is it a “startle” effect that you’re

concerned about, in terms of - - -

MR ROSS-WATT: One of the things that - - -

5

MR WINCHESTER: - - - the need to stop and start?

MR ROSS-WATT: One of the things that’s in the back of mind is that that we

don’t actually have full certainty over all species or individuals and

how they’re going to react to sound. And there is certainly evidence 10

that certain species will be attracted to sound and will be drawn closer

and closer to increasing noise levels for one reason or another, which

we’re yet to determine.

What I’m identifying in my, in my suggestions here is that, you would 15

treat this activity in a consistent manner that other industrial activities

are treated in the absence of full complete understanding about marine

mammal impacts and reactions.

MR WINCHESTER: And which of the species that you’re aware of are 20

attracted to ever increasing - - -

MR ROSS-WATT: I’ve noted - - -

MR WINCHESTER: - - - (INDISTINCT 2.31)? 25

MR ROSS-WATT: - - - in my evidence two examples, one was mainly from

Australian research, it as humpbacks, but the other one from a survey

here in New Zealand last season, it was white whales.

30

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you.

MR ROSS-WATT: So they are ones that are present within the Chatham Rise.

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you. In answer to some questions from the panel 35

you were talking about the Clifford and Clarion area example, is that

related to manganese nodule mining?

MR ROSS-WATT: Yes, nodule mining, yes.

40

MR WINCHESTER: And - - -

MR ROSS-WATT: Poly – polymetallic nodules.

MR WINCHESTER: Right. And the water depth there is around 5,000 45

metres?


MR ROSS-WATT: I think 4,000-6,000 or something like that, yes.

MR WINCHESTER: And what are the areas of the mining licenses or the

exploration or development licenses that are involved there, are you 5

aware?

MR ROSS-WATT: Sorry, I’m not – understand the question, what areas?

MR WINCHESTER: Well, in terms of the area with the licenses - - - 10

MR ROSS-WATT: And geographical?

MR WINCHESTER: Yes, what sort of area do they cover roughly?

15

MR ROSS-WATT: That I can’t say of the top off my head, I mean I think the

– it’s a very substantial management area in total.


20

MR ROSS-WATT: When I mention in my evidence this 400 x 400 kilometre

area for protection, I realise it’s of a different scale, but what I was

trying to get at by mentioning that was actually the buffer zone that

they were suggesting in order to avoid sedimentary affects was a 100

kilometres which is at a pretty high level of consensus agreement 25

within that group.

So I do acknowledge that the Clarion and Clifford zone is a much

bigger area, but you would have to treat – the key thing to take from

how these activities are managed and the same as any other activity is 30

managed, it’s a case by case basis, so you take the approaches that are

being developed and being applied elsewhere and you apply them in as

relevant circumstances to the application that’s in front of you.

MR WINCHESTER: I think my understanding is that the, the licence areas are 35

in the order of 50,000 square kilometres, so proportionally turn to those

protection areas, they’re not completely out of order are they in terms

of the scale in relation to the size of the activity?

MR ROSS-WATT: I think that the key thing is that the size of the 40

preservation areas, the size of protected areas, are intended to be 30-50

percent of the total management area, I think that’s the key lesson to

learn.

[11.50 am] 45


MR WINCHESTER: Yes, and one final question about passive acoustic

monitoring do you feel confident to answer questions about it?

MR ROSS-WATT: I am not a marine mammal expert and neither am I a

marine mammal acoustician but what I have done for several years now 5

is work with information that has been provided by those specialists in

order to develop management methodologies so I am confident to

answer in as much as I have developed regulations that require their use

but if you wanted me to get into technical detail about PAMS then no I

probably would not be comfortable. 10

MR WINCHESTER: No, I will not ask you to do that. My question is around

the recommendation for passive acoustic monitoring in terms of mining

operations that is something that you have agreed to?

15

MR ROSS-WATT: Yes.

MR WINCHESTER: Based on your understanding or the predicted noise

from the pumps of the mining operation and the ship is that not going

to provide higher ambient noise levels than what might be detected by 20

passive acoustic monitoring?

MR ROSS-WATT: We are probably straying into an area of technical

understanding that I lack. - - -

25

MR WINCHESTER: Okay.

MR ROSS-WATT: - - - What I would suggest is that there are other options, it

is just not about deploying a PAM system within the insonified area.

You could actually deploy it remotely from a chase vessel, you could 30

deploy arrays, there may be ways that if it does not work in an

operational sense, from the easiest implementation method which is

over the back of the vessel. If it does not work there are other options

which could be looked at.

35

MR WINCHESTER: I think you say and it is in your evidence-in-chief that

the successful detection of whale sound using passive acoustic

detectors is also influenced by ambient noise and you make reference

to rain, thunderstorms and shipping in the environment that can mask

sounds through additional noise. I am just trying to tease out the 40

practicality of the condition in terms of achieving anything.

MR ROSS-WATT: What I would say is that neither passive acoustic detection

nor marine mammal observation visual are fool proof, but what they

allow is some degree of confidence that you are at least going to be 45

detecting some marine mammals. At the end of the day the only way


that you can avoid impacts is to not do the activity. If you are starting

from the premise that the activity is going to occur, you look at what

possible mitigation measures you can impose which would reduce

those impacts to the greatest degree possible. Passive acoustic

monitoring while it is imperfect at least increases your chances of 5

detecting marine mammals and mitigating effects.

MR WINCHESTER: I see so you detect or you interpret data and that gives

you a snapshot or a database and then what?

10

MR ROSS-WATT: Well it does two things depending on the specification of

the system you could be detecting 20 kilometres out so you could be

building your level of understanding of regional usage. The other thing

it can be doing is detecting marine mammals that are within a zone that

you think impacts maybe being felt by the animal and in which case 15

you would implement management measures as a result of that such as

shutting down or reusing power.

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you, Thank you, Mr Ross-Watt, thank you, sir.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks Mr Winchester, does any other party have a

question for Mr Ross-Watt?

MR CURRIE: A few questions if I may sir, thank you. Good morning, Dr

Ross-Watt, it is Duncan Currie from Kiwis Against Seabed Mining and 25

the Deep Sea Conversation Coalition.

MR ROSS-WATT: Morning.

MR CURRIE: I have just two brief areas of questions to follow ups and 30

answers I think you gave to the Committee and my friend. Firstly are

you aware of any deep seabed mining taking place at the moment?

MR ROSS-WATT: I am not sure what the definition of deep is, I believe in

Namibia they are mining for diamonds in about 160 metres water 35

depth.

MR CURRIE: Anything in the region of 400 metres or deeper for example?

MR ROSS-WATT: In the Ecory’s Report they point to a prototype being 40

tested at 410 metres but that is the only activity, as far as I am aware

there is no mining going on at these depths. I have not come across

anything.

MR CURRIE: No, thank you. Turning to some questions you answered 45

earlier about your subparagraph E of paragraph 18 of the your evidence


you are talking about marine mammal mitigation measures were you

present during Associate Professor Slooten’s evidence this morning?

MR ROSS-WATT: For part of it, I arrived half way through.

5

[11.55 am]

MR CURRIE: Have you had a chance to read her evidence submitted this

morning?

10

MR ROSS-WATT: No, I am afraid I have not.

MR CURRIE: So when she says, for example, “that the probability of

detecting beak whales is 24 to 48 times lower for mitigation monitoring

than for research vessel surveys”, would that be consistent with your 15

understanding?

MR ROSS-WATT: Yes, I think we both quoted the same reference for that in

our evidence separately.

20

MR CURRIE: So when you suggest a mitigation zone of 1.5 kilometre, what

confidence do you have that marine mammals would be detected in any

significant numbers within that 1.5 kilometre zone?

MR ROSS-WATT: I think it will be fair to say that it is of a lower end of 25

probability. It is not a certainty, it is of the lower end of probability.

MR CURRIE: Thank you, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much. Any further questions? If not, thank 30

you very much Mr Ross-Watt, on behalf of the Committee and the

hearing.

MR ROSS-WATT: Thank you.

35

CHAIRPERSON: Much appreciated. So as I mentioned we have to break for

lunch by 12.45, but we have got about 50 minutes to go until then, so if

Dr Ketten is on the line, and if CRP are agreeable, we could perhaps

begin with her presentation and whatever questions we have time for

before lunch, with the risk or likelihood, whichever way you look at it, 40

that there may need to be some further questioning after lunch. CRP,

that is okay from your point of view?

MR WINCHESTER: Yes, well I think Dr Ketten is on the line, and we may

as well make use of the time, sir, it is a decent chunk of time so we 45

should be able to achieve something. Are you there Dr Ketten?


DR KETTEN: Yes.

MR WINCHESTER: I am sorry, we are having trouble picking you up.

5

DR KETTEN: Let me try it again. Can you hear me now?

MR WINCHESTER: Yes, that is much clearer, thank you.

DR KETTEN: All right, I am speaking more loudly, so I will try to maintain 10

this tone.

MR WINCHESTER: You are coming through loud and clear. Now for the

record, Dr Ketten, you have produced a statement of evidence dated 7

October 2014, and that attaches a report that you produced. And you 15

have also participated in the joint statement of the experts in the field of

marine mammals, dated 15 October 2014. That is correct?

DR KETTEN: That is correct.

20

MR WINCHESTER: Yes, now, you have been listening in this morning to the

evidence that has been given by other experts in the field of marine

mammals, and you have also had the opportunity to read the

supplementary statements and summaries statements which were

prepared and circulated yesterday evening our time. Do you have any 25

comments you would like to make before commencing your

presentation and your summary of evidence?

DR KETTEN: Yes, a few comments please. Just a few clarifications that all

fall under my discipline. Sorry I am getting feedback can we remove 30

that it is distracting. Can you still hear me?

MR WINCHESTER: Yes, thank you. It is fine at this stage - - -

DR KETTEN: Good, thank you. There have been a number of terms that 35

have come up listening to this mornings, and first let me say thank you

very much to the Committee for the welcome, even if I am just a

disembodied voice, I appreciate the opportunity to participate. In

particular I wanted to try to clarify some terminology. The discussion

about SEL has come up several times and I think there may not be a 40

complete understanding of that. That involves signal equivalent level

over time and it was originally designed for the work place, for human

standards where you have a clearly controlled understanding of the

exposure for the individual, and at what levels over what period of

time. 45


SEL does not come in a single flavour. It actually comes in cumulative

or averaged, and within the other thing that has been mentioned a

number of times, the NOAA draft guidelines, it specifically mentions

that unfortunately the assumption that this is involved with the equal

energy hypothesis has been disproven for humans in particular, and it 5

has also found to be unreliable for marine mammals.

[12.00 pm]

That statement is in the NOAA draft. Sorry, I am trying to shift

through since I was not expecting to come on quite so quickly. Yes, 10

here it is. On page 13 of the NOAA draft, it states specifically that “as

has been shown to be the case with humans and terrestrial mammals,

the EEH (that is the equal energy hypothesis) does not always hold true

within marine mammals due to the inherent complexity of predicting

threshold shifts”. Then it gives a number of factors. It is for that 15

reason that there are two metrics that are recommended within this

draft, guidelines by NOAA that have not yet been accepted, and those

are peak spectra as well as SEL cumulative, not averaged.

In my assessment I used as is traditional for humans and for other 20

mammals that are done experimentally, the peak spectra, so my

remarks are based on that criteria as the more conservative and more

robust one that is available currently.

Some of the other things that have come up are, and I will elaborate on 25

this during my presentation, but TTS I want to make clear, as well as

PTS, is not uniform, not all sounds have the same impact across all

species. It is very species specific and is dependent upon the animals

ability to hear the signal, which differs of course across species.

30

The other things that are important to keep in mind are that frequencies

attenuate, or their loudness decays over distance. And again, all

frequencies are not created equal. Low frequencies because of long

wave lengths travel farther through water, but it does not mean the

loudness does not decay, it means it decays more slowly than the 35

loudness of high frequencies. So those are the just the three key points

that particularly stood out as I was listening to some of the other

testimony.

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you. And in terms of your credentials and the 40

way that they were described by Dr Slooten, do you have any comment

you would like to make?

DR KETTEN: Well yes, it is more of a personal comment. I very much

appreciate Liz’s assessment of me, I appreciate her noting where I have 45

an area of expertise. I would not describe myself as an anatomist. My


training relevant to this hearing is primarily in auditory physiology. It

is in part experimental, but unfortunately, I spend a lot of time inside

both dead and quite near live whales. We do what is called auditory

brain stem response measurements, we being people in my lab and

myself, on animals, which is another method of measuring hearing. 5

And my own background starting as an undergraduate was in aquatic

biology, and then I did my masters at MIT in plankton biology actually,

but then went over to what some people have referred to as the darker

side of large mammal hearing. And I have spent over 25 years

involved both in human and experimental and marine mammal hearing. 10

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you. Now if you have no further comments

perhaps we could bring up your presentation on screen and you could

take us through that.

15

DR KETTEN: Right, let me just get mine started as well please. Okay, let me

know please when it is online.

MR WINCHESTER: It is up, and you have got your first slide showing.

20

DR KETTEN: Right this slide basically is a schematic to demonstrate the

differences of the influence of sound from its physical impacts which

are quite close to the source, and depending upon the level of the

source and its frequency and the animal, this is from the receivers

perspective. That is the most critical issue to keep in mind is that what 25

is really important is not the source level so much as how that source

level propagates and the level at which it is received, and whether or

not the animal that is receiving it is sensitive to that frequency.

So moving from the centre of the screen off to the right its physical and 30

then behavioural effects, and then ambient. Ambient is of course what

is the natural background noise, or in some cases it is also referred to as

compound ambient, which is all of the possible noise sources outside

those that you are trying to model, or understand. Closest to the source

is where there may be a potential for injury and permanent threshold 35

shift.

[12.05 pm]

Let me make the point here, that threshold shift is noise induced, it’s 40

not the same thing as acoustic trauma, it is not exactly physical trauma

to the ear, it is changes in the ear that may be irreversible and they are a

threshold shift, which means that not necessarily that the hearing goes

away entirely, so much as you become relatively insensitive.

45


As you move further away sound levels too that you are capable of

hearing become temporarily threshold shift. Past that and within the

reaction zone is what is referred to as “masking”, that is noises that will

compete. And again, just like with the hearing abilities there also is a

sensitivity and acuteness or acuity that different animals have for 5

picking out signals in noise.

Dolphins for instance have been tested and found to be like bats, other

eco-locators to be particularly good at picking up signals in noise. So

it’s a bit harder to mask for them. We don’t know anything about 10

baling whales and their ability to detect signals in noise or to avoid

masking. We do know that pinnipeds are very close to land mammals,

that is seals and sea lions and that it is similar to humans in their ability.

Past that, we see reaction, and then finally the detection limit after 15

which a sound will not be audible, even if it is within your hearing

range, if the levels are too low especially if they’re approaching

ambient you probably will not detect them.

One of the things that I would point out is another comment that came 20

out, is trying to determine if a behavioural reaction that may be

observed, you will notice there are no numbers about distances on this,

that is because it is all relative to the hearer. But at greater and greater

distances, especially if you do not have any information about other

sounds that are coming in from any other source, trying to determine if 25

a behavioural reaction is due to the particular source that you are

interested in, unless you can get a temporal correlation.

So this is just to give an idea that as the sound travels through water or

through air for that matter, and as it attenuates it has essentially no 30

potential at some point for a physical impact but it may have the

behavioural effects, until eventually those are not really considered

either.

The other think that is important here, as I mentioned before, is you 35

will notice that high frequencies would be towards that inner ring in

general, simply because they attenuate very rapidly in water, whereas

low frequencies, although the level goes down, they do carry further

with a higher level.

40

Next slide please. I will assume they are up. So what you should be

seeing is human hearing and hearing with zones. This graph is taken

straight from the publication of the NIOSH standards. The axis that

says “threshold DBSPL” normally that would now read DB re 20

micropascal. The 20 micropascal is a reference pressure for measuring 45

sound pressure levels in air. This is an older graph.


Across the bottom are frequencies, and the bottom orange line – also

could someone please interrupt me if you are not seeing what I am

seeing.

5

MR WINCHESTER: No, we have got it, thank you.

DR KETTEN: The bottom orange line is a human hearing curve, and you will

see what says “functional hearing range” – as the curve goes higher,

that is the threshold at which you have to hear it, and at some point we 10

refer to it audio physiology as being past the functional range, because

at those ends of your inner ear you have so few unirons associated with

it that you do not really hear those except at extremely loud levels.

You can see where the curve dips below zero, that is an arbitrary mark 15

that was created around the 1930s for human hearing at its best

frequency, which is between two and five kilohertz. Off to the right,

and then there is a bump and curve, and that is what is called a notch.

Since this is for the average adult, as we age presbycusis it’s called, we

lose hearing particularly at high frequencies. So we have this notch as 20

a result simply of being exposed to sound over and over.

The dynamic range of the ear, which is about 120 dB is about as much

as the ear can take before you start doing moderate damage.

25

Now if we can go onto the next slide please? And I just realised I have

to remember to change them as well. I’m so used to seeing them come

up on the screen.

[12.10 pm] 30

All right, this one is essentially the same set of curves, except what I

want to point out here is, it had been mentioned and this is just

coincidental that I had this on the graph, that there is no point at which

you can say there is no hearing loss, at least from all the auditory data 35

that we have now on a wide range of animals including dolphins, we

can say that there are some types of frequencies and their intensity

combination that will not produce hearing loss.

Above those levels you’ll notice that the line for the orange grouping 40

tends to parallel the lower absolute hearing curve – again we’re looking

at humans – that there is a low risk of loss, that’s because in about the

80-100 decibel range over your sensitivity, is where you start to enter

that zone of uncertainty of whether or not you might got temporary

threshold shift. Temporary and permanent threshold shifts are 45

probabilities, they are not absolutely certainties – I cannot give you a


sound byte that I can say, “Absolutely you’re going to get temporary

threshold shift and/or absolutely you’re not”, except in that no hearing

loss zone.

Even at that, it’s always possible for somebody to have a hypersensitive 5

ear, but typically these would be the three zones, no hearing loss and

80-100 dB we start getting into a low risk zone for all typical

individuals of any given species and then up above that is a higher risk

where you have increasing probabilities of getting permanent threshold

shifts from noise exposures. 10

Okay, also please feel free to interrupt me as we go along or if I’m

making something perfectly obscure.

This next slide is the thresholds of hearing damage and pain that have 15

been accumulated through experiments. At the very bottom of the slide

what you see are a couple of points, first of all exposures have been

studied primarily in animals that we can control in the laboratory, the

key animals tested and land animals are cats, guinea pigs, chinchillas,

mice and one thing that’s important about that, if you look at the curves 20

you see the cat is really sensitive at high frequencies that we don’t hear,

and in fact anybody that has a dog and a dog whistle has had the

experience of blowing on it very hard, your dog is ready to bite you in

the leg, when in fact you can’t hear a thing and that’s because they can

hear frequencies that our ears cannot transduce. 25

We’re receiving that sound energy but it doesn’t get into our ears

because we don’t have the transduction mechanism for it. On the other

hand, at the lower ends, we have better hearing than the cat, but we do

use these as models for predicting hearing loss. 30

Notice also at the top there are high risk thresholds, rock concerts are

right on the border of that, and the other thing that this points out is

that, gunshots are something which is called “impulse noise”, they’re

sudden or instantaneous “boom” rise times, and those the ear can’t 35

adapt to and therefore at the same levels they will have a greater effect

on the ear, it’s called “impulse noise” and impulse noise even at the

same levels is a bigger problem for all mammalian ears.

Anything that is inaudible, regardless of its level, except for something 40

that’s associated for instance with explosives, is not going to have any

harm. So if you’re hearing curve does not detect, your hearing ability

does not detect a signal, regardless of its level it’s not going to be a

problem.

45


Now that takes me to the next thing which are species comparisons,

this is a rather complex table but we don’t really need to pay attention

to all of the columns. Mostly what I’m trying to do here is to give you

background that wasn’t included but that will help I think clarify some

of the points that were made in my submission for evidence. 5

What you should see from this is that we’re going to progressively

smaller body mass animals, from squirrel/monkeys at the bottom or

smallest to humans at the top, and I picked out 500 hertz because that

was a test frequency across all of the species, but then also if you look 10

over at the greenish column, the TTS 30, what you see there is at the

bottom, four relatively short exposures in these studies – you get a 30-

40 dB shift in the hearing, that’s the threshold shift, that

squirrel/monkey at the bottom had to have 30 decibels higher sound

levels in order to detect the sound after it had been exposed for, for two 15

hours, at a level of 100 dB.

[12.15 pm]

For a human, a similar or even far longer exposures only produced a 20

10-30 dB shift approximately, and that’s true progressively as you go

up that column, even though they’re at the same exposure levels – in

part that’s because of the differences in the frequencies they can detect,

but it’s also a question of body mass and resistivity.

25

And basically we can summarise differences amongst species about

their tendency to have a temporary threshold shift with the next slide.

So what you can see here is the top line is basically what I just showed

you on that table, and I’ve highlighted in dark orange the other key

points, which is that, first of all you don’t lose across all of your 30

hearing ability if you have a relatively narrow band exposure. It’s the

peak spectre or the peak frequency of whatever the sound is coming in,

in comparison to how well you hear it.

So maximum loss is going to occur near the centre of the peak frequent 35

– or peak frequency, and as I’ve said now several times, at the bottom

interspecies differences, loss is inversely related to body mass, the

bigger you are the more resistant you are to having a temporary

threshold shift or a permanent one from noise, and also at a given

frequency it depends completely on your hearing threshold and varies 40

with species.

So that now takes us to the next slide and what you should take from

this is that, I don’t think this is a joke, but in fact this slide actually

gives you a pretty good idea of what we’re facing with trying to 45

understand marine mammals and hearing. The importance of this is


that, the consensus is that all marine mammals evolve from land

mammals, and even though we’re dealing with really big whales it is in

fact a mammal ear, so we’re able to extrapolate some information from

land mammals and what we know about their tendency to hearing loss

and also to apply it to these. 5

But we do have to keep in mind several things, one is that, hearing is a

particularly well developed sense, since sound conveys far more

information and far farther than vision – than light in water. Hearing

has become arguably the premier sense for most marine mammals, as 10

opposed to vision, but it is a mammal ear and therefore it’s subject to

all of the same biomechanics.

So the next slide – what we know about, particularly pinniped and

citation hearing, that is whales, dolphins, seals, sea lions, comes from a 15

variety of source, at the moment, although we have several hundred

species that we’re trying to deal with, we have at least 18 marine

mammal species that have been tested, both as was mentioned earlier

by behavioural tests, I think it was Liz who mentioned that there are

animals trained to use byte plate, that type of work – we have an animal 20

captive in a pool, they’re trained to go to a byte plate and they press a

paddle if they hear a sound or in some other way demonstrate that they

heard the sound, that’s a behavioural audiogram, just like you’re going

into a booth.

25

But we do want to get more information and in particularly on stranded

animals, that’s how we do test for hearing loss in fact, it’s what’s called

“auditory brainstem response” or “auditory evoked potentials” – on the

right you see a human, this is a test that we developed for humans that

are not responsive, babies are now tested in the States and I believe in 30

New Zealand as well, routinely to detect hearing loss early, and the

same types of techniques, these are non-invasive, you put a surface

pick up for the neural activity, put a sound in, the animal has brainwave

and auditory peripheral responses, so we have a lot of data and these

types of studies in particular are used, both behavioural and ABR and 35

AEP, to test for threshold shifts.

One thing that’s very important, Liz mentioned a “permanent threshold

shift”, there has been to the best of my knowledge only one animal that

has sustained a permanent threshold shift in these tests. No tests around 40

the world that are being done on marine mammals for threshold shifts

have ever intentionally taken it to a permanent threshold shift. They are

all temporary threshold shifts, they are all in the range of, up to about

maximum of 20 decibels, most of them are threshold shifts under 10

dB, because we’re very precautionary about what we might do to the 45

hearing of these animals and consequently we don’t have quite the


equivalent of the land mammal data, where they look for 30-50 decibel

shifts before they declare it a clear temporary threshold shift.

[12.20 pm]

5

Next slide please. Now, one of the things that we also have then are

animals like this beaked whale that you see, which we haven’t been

able to test reliably. One beaked whale individual has been tested well

and we think we have a beaked whale hearing curve for one species,

but if you’d click that please, you should now see the inside of a 10

beaked whale head, and this is part of the type of research that I do, is

to basically, like the clockmaker’s kid, I take the heads apart in the

post-mortem, as Lou has mentioned, but we look at those components

for modelling and if we can go onto the next slide, that allows us then

to develop models in the context of sound characteristics in water. 15

This is a kind of intimidating slide, even to me after a couple of

decades of doing this, but bear with me on this, I’ll try to keep it quick

because I want to stay within my 15 minutes, the decibel is the measure

that we used for sound pressure levels. Mammal ears, unlike the fish 20

ears that Art Popper explained to you, mammal ears work on intensity,

intensity is pressure times velocity and that comes down to this first

equation you see, I = P2 over C row, C is the speed of sound and the

medium and row is the density of the medium.

25

So if you move down a little in that, you can see intensity in ear and

then look at the denominator, 340 metres per second times .0013 grams

per CC, and compare that with the speed of sound which is four and a

half times faster in water than it is in air, and of course water is several

magnitudes denser. 30

The reason I have this slide in there is, one problem often I trying to go

from land mammals over to marine mammals is people have an idea,

particularly about the decibels in air that they know are harmful, if you

think back to those other graphs that I just showed you. So when you 35

hear about a level of 120 decibels in air, that’s really 20 micropascal,

and you hear about a sound in water that’s 160 or so, then it sounds like

you’re subjecting an animal to horrendous noise. The catch with this is,

and it’s a bit of a perversity of acoustics, decibels in air and water are

not equal. 40

If you look at those two denominators again, sound pressure, if we take

the same ear and put it in air and in water, it has to have the same

intensity for the same level of perception. So it really is interested in

the intensity, but when we measure it in decibels we have to make a 45

correction for how that’s measured in air versus water. The sound


pressure has to be nearly 60 times greater and when you convert that

into decibels, it means that you have to add numerically because of the

difference in the reference, which is 20 micropascals in air and looking

to the right of the screen you see its 1 micropascal in water.

5

All of that comes down mathematically to mean that for exactly the

same perception, the same amount of pressure, the same intensity at the

ear, a number that you see in air of like 100 dB is the same exposure as

161.5 dB in water. So please keep that – about 62 dB correction in

mind. If we thought back to that other graph I showed you where we 10

started seeing pain around 120-160, then add 62 to that and you’ll get

the number we’re looking for in water.

Okay, next slide. This is what is known as the Wenz Curve, this is a

modification of it that was in the National Resources Console, and it’s 15

been coloured to make it a little clearer, but it’s still a pretty

complicated graph. Wenz Curves were designed in 1962 to describe

various conditions in natural ambience, so you see the sea states on the

right and you see two boundaries for a natural low and a natural high

for various conditions. 20

Now, if you’ll click for me you should see, first we have the fish, what

these ovals represent is approximately the soundscape that the fish uses

and perceives across frequencies. So fish are relatively insensitive

compared to the mammals, when we get to those, and they have a 25

moderate spread according to the species, from low frequencies to a

lower-mid frequency range – around two to three kilohertz, down to

probably around 50 hertz.

[12.25 pm] 30

Click again. Turtles. We really don’t know much about sea turtles, but

we do know from the few species, about four of them that have been

tested – they have a much narrower range and, frankly, I have to admit

we don’t really know what turtles are doing with their ears, but this 35

oval represents what we do know to date, but they’re within, essentially

the fish range.

Now, clicking again, you should see a brownish oval come up and that

represents the pinnipeds. Pinnipeds have an amphibious ear, have a 40

sort of average ability typically to hear moderately well in air or

moderately well in water and they divide along those lines – some

groups will hear better under water than in air, and others will hear

better in air than under water, but notice that of course like most cases,

mammals have a much broader frequency range – they go much higher 45


and much lower than the fishes, although the levels at which they hear

or are sensitive, are less.

Clicking again. Now we come to the Odontocete’s – the tooth whales –

the echo locaters, and as you can see they’re father down the scale in 5

terms of where they’re exploiting sound, so that actually they’re using

much higher frequencies, even though they use lower frequencies than

bats, they have the same principle – their frequencies are associated in

part with their prey, so you have their best sensitivities out where that

dolphin is placed at the very highest frequencies, even though they may 10

hear towards low, but that’s where their hearing is pretty poor.

And then the last click, which is for the Mysticetes or Baleen Whales,

those animals as they get bigger – It’s consistent also with land

mammals – the largest ones hear better at lower frequencies. It’s 15

dotted because we don’t know absolutely the sensitivity exactly where

they fit along these Wenz curves, but you’ll notice the other animals

are exploiting the Wenz curves and moving down they can get to better

sensitivities as they go higher, considering the frequencies that we

know certainly from vocalisations and from some of the models are up 20

towards this low frequency and to the left, and consequently we’ve

arbitrarily placed them where we think, conservatively, they would

have their best hearing thresholds.

Next slide please. Now, this one is a summary of what we know about 25

marine mammal hearing thresholds. You’ll notice there’s a black line

in there which is a human. The orange curves are representative of the

pinniped species. This, of course, is not all the frequencies of species

we know, but just representative ones. We’ve got porpoises, killer

whale and dolphins – is that me creating the feedback, or someone 30

else? I can’t find the source of a lot of static.

All right. One question that came up was why 100 kHz rather than

200 kHz and if you look at the hearing curves here you’ll see that it’s

only the porpoise that goes out to 200 kHz. I can clarify one of, at least 35

that question that came up earlier, and that is there are no species

resident on, at least from the surveys that I saw, that would have any

hearing out to 200 kHz. There is the possibility for a Harbour Porpoise

or a Hector’s Dolphins possibly, but since they are not there, it was my

suggestion, and two of the other experts agreed, that it was unnecessary 40

to go out to 200 kHz – let me turn down my sound a bit, maybe that

will help.

The other things you should take away from this, is look at the

difference at the bottom of the curves between the pinnipeds and the 45

dolphins and whales, and you’ll see that the dolphins and whales have a


best sensitivity around 40 dB re one micro Pascale and just as I

mentioned before as an amphibious ear, they are going to be less

sensitive, but they’re also primary able to hear in what we call

ultra sonics, that is over 20 kHz for the, both for the pinnipeds and for

the dolphins. 5

Their hearing rolls off though pretty quickly at the low end, so they

have very poor hearing – it’s past their functioning hearing – over

500 Hz approximately in both cases.

10

[12.30 pm]

The human is superimposed there, not because we hear underwater, but

I’ve also got watts per metre square there so we could impose some

land mammal as well as marine mammal. The blue whale and minky 15

whale curves are from models and that gives you an idea that’s

consistent with what we saw in the other thresholds, they’ve got about

the same range in terms of octaves as the whales – as the killer whale

and the porpoise and a dolphin, but it’s shifted to much lower

frequencies, and they have much better frequency sensitivity at low 20

frequencies and essentially nothing in the ultrasonic.

Next slide – the key to understanding or to estimating what is the

potential impact from sound at the physiological level, is to compare

those ears with the operational sounds. Sound becomes a noise when it 25

is annoying. A sound per say, it may be fine for one animal but it’ll be

a noise for another. So what we have to do is to, in a literal sense, look

at the sound levels and the sound frequency distributions as though we

were hearing it through those whale ears.

30

So we have RMS, root mean square, sound pressure levels on the left

and then frequencies across the ordinate and what you’ve got is three

different types of sounds that were modelled by JASCO Corporation,

Craig McPherson et al 2014, which I refer to several times in my

evidence – clearly there are peak spectre at several points, at 90 hertz, 35

at 20 hertz, at 250 hertz and then moving out along 1,000 hertz or 1

kilohertz, what we can see is particularly the dredge pumps have

relatively high levels, these are the levels at source, that is within one

metre of the source, so that’s important to keep in mind.

40

Now if we now go to the next slide – what I’ve done to try to

summarise the decision points for what we think could be temporary

threshold shift, going back again to the NOAA guidelines, those have

surprisingly and perhaps it’s one of the points, in fact major points of

discussion, what NOAA is currently recommending, is that for 45


temporary threshold shift onset, the lowest number they have is 195 dB

for peak spectre.

I took more conservative values and instead said for my criteria going

back through the literature which is indicated in my evidence, all of the 5

levels at which there had been a temporary threshold shift onset, which

was between 160-180. The preponderance of all the existing data is

180 dB peak or higher, may has induced a temporary threshold shift in

both seals and in citations, but there have been two cases where there

was a threshold shift at 160. 10

So the pink, tan and green spots and smears are what represent those

spectre at source, running across the top and their levels, and then that

grey band is a 100 dB under. So where you see hearing curves crossing

into that grey domain, those animals are not going to be subject to even 15

a temporary threshold shift.

Where you see animals below that grey, the farther down they are the

higher their probability of having some temporary threshold shift, and

then if the – beyond it to the right, as long as there are no spectre out 20

there, then in fact there should be no temporary threshold shift, but you

can see if you continue that even out to the right it would fall into all of

the hearing curves would be well into the grey and therefore are in the

“no known zone” for temporary threshold shift.

25

So looking at those spectre we’re most concerned and I should clarify

that as well, concern means, “is there a possibility” and “how does that

relate to probabilities”, not an absolute certainty, but we’re most

concerned for the baling whales, the minky whale being the smallest

and probably the highest frequency ability and the blue whale having 30

probably the best low frequency ability amongst the bailings, and we’re

less – far less concerned about the toothed whales and the pinnipeds on

that basis.

[12.35 pm] 35

Now, for the last two slides, going to the next one, what’s shown here

is from JASCO also I asked them to provide me a comparison of the

operations, their sounds at various distances for 250 hertz, one

kilohertz, 10 kilohertz at 50 and 100 kilometres. This is concerning 40

behavioural responses. As I mentioned one of the problems is to try to

determine whether behavioural response is coming from the source of

interest or just in general and one of the metrics that is often used is

how close is the noise at what distance to ambient?

45


So this shows that for the operation, the full operation, the orange and

the red dots, we see that at the 50 kilometre mark it is above the higher

ambient noise level by approximately 10 dB, and then as you get

farther away to 100 kilometres it drops to within the conventional

zones for ambient, although there are high noise and low noise zones. 5

The orange line that’s running across is McPherson et al’s estimate of

the Chatham Rise ambient noise. We don’t have explicit data or we

don’t have empirical data for that, but that is their estimation from the

data that they could find from other regional seas and similar depths. 10

So what we’re seeing is that as you get farther out then the noise does

converge with ambient, although particularly full operation at

50 kilometres could have a significant value above.

15

Now, the next one is then, to look at those distances and the attenuation

or decay of sound, so you see the 250, one kilohertz, and then I

requested also 10 kilohertz and 20 kilohertz from their modelling to

show me the sound levels as the distance from source, and the black

arrows are at the points at which those reach 90 dB, which is 20

approximately midline ambient.

So at these distances what we’re seeing is that, of course, as I’ve

mentioned before, the high frequencies drop off far faster than the low

frequencies and that we’re essentially at ambient within around 25

500 metres for those animals that are sensitive only to the – are best

sensitive at high frequencies, animals that would be sensitive to the low

frequencies could conceivably hear just above ambient out to about 30-

40 kilometres, but then again it’s not at a level that is likely to produce

a behavioural reaction, and I think that is my last slide. 30

Sorry, yes, summary and conclusions. So the very last slide is, my basic

conclusions are that the principle species of concern are the Mysticetes,

the baleen whales, because of their probable very good sensitivity at

lower frequencies, we don’t have a hearing curve, only the models for 35

baleen whales I remind you, but we do have some confidence in those

models and also we have data from their vocalisations as I showed you

on that composite chart.

The probability then needs to be looked at for any animal having a 40

frequency shift or a behavioural reaction, how long will they be in the

presence of that noise, and again that’s a good reason why cumulative

FEL is not the best metric, because as the NOA guidelines also

emphasise these are very mobile animals. Whether they will approach

or come anywhere within a potentially hazardous zone or a reaction 45

zone is going to depend upon the individual and their species


characteristics, but it appears that odontocetes have relatively poor

hearing below one kilohertz they are of far less concern, and that’s

where the 500 metre suggestion came from, is because of the

distribution of intensities and where you would be well beyond any

potential for any temporary threshold shift. 5

Behavioural effects, as those graphs have shown, are possible to occur

between 3-30 kilometres, but that will be different for the different

types of ears, the odontocetes versus the Mysticetes versus the

pinnipeds, because they all have a different capacity to hear that sound, 10

and that is my last slide. I hope I stayed close to the 15 minutes.

CHAIRPERSON: Well, if you didn’t, Dr Ketten, that doesn’t matter at all.

Neil Walter here, Chair of the Committee, and I do want to say thank

you for a fascinating presentation. I admit when I looked through the 15

papers originally I felt a bit apprehensive, but you really brought it to

life.

DR KETTEN: Thank you.

20

CHAIRPERSON: Looking around the room I can’t see any sign at all of even

a temporary threshold shift, let alone pain or damage. We’re so close to

our time limit for lunch that people might suspect that we’ve been

working in collusion, but I wondered if it’s convenient to you, could we

take the break now and resume in one hour for questions? 25

DR KETTEN: I am happy to accommodate you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much indeed. Okay, we’ll adjourn now and see

you back here in one hour’s time. Thanks. 30


ADJOURNED [12.40 pm]

35

RESUMED [1.40 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, let’s resume. Dr Ketten, are you still with us?

Dr Ketten, Neil Walter here, are you back with us? On morning report

they shift to another item immediately, but I don’t have one up my 40

sleeve, I am afraid.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

DR KETTEN: Hello. 45


CHAIRPERSON: Yes, hi, Dr Ketton, Neil Walter here, so you’re back with

us?

DR KETTEN: Yes, I was, there was a problem with the plug on my headset

not working properly, I’ve just switched to another one, so sorry about 5

the delay.

CHAIRPERSON: No, that’s good, you’re coming through loud and clear. So

we’ll begin with questions from the Committee. David, do you want to

kick off? Even if you don’t, would you like to? 10

MR HILL: Yes, Dr Ketten, it’s David Hill here, how are you?

DR KETTEN: Well thanks.

15

MR HILL: I haven’t a clue what time it is over there, Dr Ketten, can you just

tell us?

DR KETTEN: 2043.

20

MR HILL: Yes, okay, that’s not too bad.

DR KETTEN: May I comment on that?

MR HILL: If I can just, I think I’ve got three or four questions, one of which 25

is more I’ll ask you to take me through the figure 5, Wenz Curves, but

we’ll get to that in a couple of minutes.

Now, at the beginning of your introduction and before I could grab my

pen, you were explaining I think the two metrics that you thought were 30

the appropriate metrics, and I got peak spectral for the first one, but I

didn’t get the second one, can you just repeat what the second one was?

Was it SEL peak?

DR KETTEN: No, sir. 35

MR HILL: No, I didn’t think so.

DR KETTEN: SEL cumulative.

40

MR HILL: Cumulative.

DR KETTEN: It’s a question of what has been used, the way that those two

metrics came about is those have been used in the captive animal

studies for temporary threshold shift. Conventionally for human 45

hearing we now use both peak spectra, seldom use SEL cumulative, but


are looking at another component, which is called transfer functions. I

won’t go into those. In the marine mammal field they followed the

original two metrics that had been used originally for humans.

MR HILL: So do we need to take any notice of those? 5

[1.45 pm]

DR KETTEN: Well the peak spectra is still the most universal. The problem

with SEL cumulative is you have to have a defined exposure time and 10

you also have to know waiting functions. Waiting function are species

specific and at the moment we have no defined waiting functions for

any marine mammal species. That’s being worked on. Within the next

few years we may have them, but without those components to feed

into the metric it isn’t exactly anything except a guesstimate. 15

MR HILL: Okay. And just as you were speaking there – do I not recall, and

I’m not sure whether I recall properly or not, but I think from – and I

don’t know whose evidence it was in but didn’t somebody use an M

weighted metric? 20

DR KETTEN: Yes. That is in some of the original submissions by

Dr Childerhouse. That’s an excellent report and he did use M

weighting. That is something that the NOAA draft guidelines looked at

and modified. I chose not to use those and I can say in part because I 25

was on the committee that originally came up with those. We intended

them as a concept not as an exact measure. They been applied not only

by Dr Childerhouse but by many other people writing environmental

impact statements but frankly the originators don’t have that much

confidence in them and we hope to look at those more carefully and 30

give them a better statistical database.

MR HILL: So what your advice to us with respect to that M weighting is that

we should just ignore them?

35

DR KETTEN: My professional judgment is that – sorry, yes. I would listen

to the arguments in favour of them, but I believe you can rely on the

peak spectra instead since those do – are comparable across many

species.

40

MR HILL: All right. Thank you for that. Now if I might just take you to

your supplementary JASCO report and the figure 5 which is – and it’s

only figure 5 just because I think it’s got more elements on it so just to

help me understand that. Can you just talk me through how to interpret

this? 45


DR KETTEN: Yes sir. I’m sorry if you’ll give me a moment to get to that

figure. I didn’t have that sitting on my lap.

MR HILL: And the reason that I’m sort of suggesting we talk about that one

is because it has specific wind and climatic lines on it. 5

DR KETTEN: Yes. All right, figure 5. So what you are seeing are the

original wind curves, those dark black high and low lines. Then what

has been added on to it – well, winds the dotted - - -

10

MR HILL: Sorry, let’s just start with the black lines then. Those are

described as the limits of prevailing noise. Just how are those limits

established?

DR KETTEN: In 1962 when these were published those were the limits of 15

prevailing noise in quiet environments across a number of oceans. You

can get an idea of how that was done based on the smaller orange lines.

They’re wind dependent noise – sorry, the Tasman Sea, Indian Ocean,

Remote Deep and Timor.

20

MR HILL: Right.

DR KETTEN: Those four curves came from work by Doug Catto (ph 4.01)

and were added in because of being relevant to the hemisphere. But

what Wentz (ph 4.07) did was to take Atlantic, Pacific, the essentially 25

natural noise sources.

So there is a bottom to all of this which are the quietest and typically in

the ocean deeps and then there are surface noise as well and then on top

of those you’ll see rain, heavy and moderate as natural sources. Heavy 30

precipitation. Then wind dependent bubble and spray noise which is

towards right-hand end and primarily at higher frequencies. And then

the most extreme natural noises which are only of course intermittent

like earthquakes and explosions which are the purple inverted U

towards the left. 35

[1.50 pm]

MR HILL: And do we read this at any particular depth or is this a – how do

we sort of interpret this in terms of well yes, question is the noise 40

registered at the surface or where?

DR KETTEN: No, it’s both surface and deep and you can get the best feeling

for that by looking at the yellow and blue arcs. You’ll see usual traffic

noise - - - 45


MR HILL: Yes.

DR KETTEN: - - - deep versus shallow. So this is intended to represent the

entire water column, essentially to give a broad spectrum noise

throughout. 5

MR HILL: All right, thank you for that. No, that’s helpful I hadn’t actually

appreciated that it had the entire spectrum. So I had actually read those

deep and shallow at the end of those labels. Thank you very much.

10

DR KETTEN: I apologise for the complexity of those graphs needing to be

brought to bear, but they’re a fairly common use in acoustics,

underwater acoustics, and although they are complex they’re worth

some time to devote to them since it is very relevant to what you can

hear. 15

MR HILL: Yes. If I can then just ask you a couple of specific questions. In

the expert conferencing you were satisfied I think with a one and a half

kilometre mitigation zone for Baleen Whales but you were

recommending a half kilometre mitigation zone for Toothed Whales. 20

First question is whether that is your position?

DR KETTEN: Yes sir, that’s correct.

MR HILL: And what’s the purpose – I mean what do we do with that 25

mitigation zone? What is its purpose?

DR KETTEN: The intention of the mitigation zone of those two numbers is

the zones at which two different sensitivity groups, the Toothed Whales

versus the Baleen Whales could encounter sound pressure levels at 30

frequencies that they can hear well that could result if they remained

for any substantial period of time in a temporary threshold shift. It’s

because the – sorry, go ahead.

MR HILL: No, I was going to say so practically what’s the flow-on 35

consequence of adopting such a zone? Is this a no work zone

effectively, if whales come within those parameters?

DR KETTEN: That’s a difficult question to answer. There are several

possibilities. One is that a work stoppage would be required if a 40

particular species came within that zone or it could be said that the

work stoppage didn’t need to occur unless the animal appeared to

remain for some specified period of time. That’s a judgment call that I

can provide some advice on but I don’t think is within my preview to

determine. Those are the two usual options. 45


MR HILL: Right and would that be determined on behavioural reactions or

any particular signal?

DR KETTEN: No sir. There are several sets of zones that I recommended or

that I considered to be important within my assessment. The first is 5

those that are related to the physical potential for injury or for hearing

loss even temporarily. 500 is the proximity that’s of concern for

odontocetes and if they’re out beyond that the likelihood of temporary

threshold shift, much less permanent, is so low that it’s not significant.

10

The one and a half kilometre is for the Baleen Whales because of their

increased sensitivity to lower frequencies. I’m sorry, I’m not sure I

answered your question appropriately.

MR HILL: No that’s all right. I think I appreciate what you’re saying there. 15

DR KETTEN: Sorry to interrupt. You’d asked about behaviour. Behaviour

goes out a greater distance so it would be a behavioural observation

beyond that.

20

MR HILL: Right, so if beyond that, one observed some sort of erratic or

apparently disturbed behaviour the response would be to do something

else?

DR KETTEN: Yes sir. 25

MR HILL: Okay. Dr Slooten in her presentation this morning talked about

the 400 metre riser and the as yet – I suppose it’s unanalysed,

unassessed implications of noise that might stem from that riser

throughout the 400 metre water column. Have you any comment on 30

that?

DR KETTEN: Yes sir. I certainly can speak for the conference of experts on

this.

35

[1.55 pm]

My component of that discussion was that and she particularly

mentioned again today and during the conference, about concerns about

very high frequencies coming from any solid materials banging against 40

the side of the riser. That certainly is a possibility but, as one of my

graphs showed and as the graphs from JASCO show, high frequencies

drop out very quickly.

The expectation that any banging that would occur in the riser is going 45

to exceed the noise of the pumps I think is extraordinarily unlikely. So


in terms of a major concern about that from the riser we have two

effects, one, that high frequencies that might be created will not

propagate nearly as far as those from the pumps and, secondly, that the

general overall noise is going to be very much smaller.

5

The other concern was about pipe resonances and considering the

problem of the pipe not being hollow, those are also relatively small.

So in general considering the probable physics, of course there is no

known data for that, it’s a reasonable question to raise but considering

the physics I think it is a far less significant sound source than either 10

the ship under what was referred to as dynamic positioning or the pump

noise at full power.

MR HILL: All right, thank you very much, Dr Ketten, that is all from me,

thank you. 15

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, David. Greg?

DR RYDER: Yes, Dr Ketten, excuse me, it is Greg Ryder from the

Committee. I have just got one question and it is in relation to your 20

summary and conclusions where, in the last two points, you summarise

potential effects associated with exposure to sound and for over

10 kilohertz, if animals remain close to the source and you got there

within 500 metres and then behavioural effects may occur at three to 30

kilometres in the sensitive species. 25

And I note in the evidence of Dr Slooten where she has cast some

doubt on the effectiveness of CRP’s proposal to have a buffer zone of

200 metres for monitoring the presence of marine mammals in and

around the vessel. So I am just interested to know what your thoughts 30

are on having a buffer zone of 200 metres, given what you have got

there in your summary in terms of potential effects, and the usefulness

of observers for detecting the presence of marine mammals and

whether you know of any other methods that could be used to provide a

more effective means of detecting the presence of marine mammals? 35

DR KETTEN: All right, let me take that as a two part question please.

DR RYDER: Sure.

40

DR KETTEN: First of all may I get a clarification of exactly what is meant by

a buffer zone in this case?

DR RYDER: Well, my understanding is that if an observer was to view a

marine mammal within 200 metres of the vessel there would be no 45

commencement of operation.


DR KETTEN: Yes, if it is related to commencement of operation, again there

are several possibilities. Within 500 metres at full power that would

not be a good condition for any marine mammal to remain for any

protracted period of time. If an animal is within 200 metres one option 5

would be, as you have suggested, not to start up until the animal clears

that 500 metre zone. The second is that you can begin with what is

known as ramp up or slow start and watch the animal carefully. So

those would be the choices for mitigation within that buffer zone. And

then - - - 10

DR RYDER: Sorry. That would be for those animals that you could observe

on the surface so what about if there were animals at depth?

DR KETTEN: Yes, that is an important consideration. As far as mitigation 15

certainly observers are the tried and true method. Let me make this

caveat. I am familiar with a number of mitigation processes and also

various methods but I am not an expert in that area. So I can make

comments based on the familiarity that I do have with programmes that

underway and other environmental impact statements and the results, 20

but I do defer to people who are far more familiar with the technologies

and have actually employed them.

[2.00 pm]

25

The other question that has come up has been about PAM systems,

passive acoustic monitoring. In my experience the majority of

observation programmes now employ both because together the

additive benefits certainly improve probability of detection, at exactly

what level I don’t know. 30

One thing I do want to comment on is the question of animals that

might be covert species. Beaked whales were originally thought to be

but there has been a behavioural response study that’s been in process

for the last five years, they have a great many publications now, and 35

it’s been found from that essentially all beaked whales vocalise while

they are foraging. That is any of their major dives. The dives typically

last around 40 to 45 minutes and they vocalise consistently for 30

minutes on average.

40

So the probability of detection of that kind of species or at least for that

particular group of species, the ziphiuds, (ph 1.13) is now substantially

improved. Those and the sperm whales are the two species in the area

that would go on protracted dives and be difficult to detect. So there is

that balance of the probability of detection against the hazard. 45


DR RYDER: But there are monitoring means of detecting them while they are

under water even if you can’t see them, so you have equipment to do

that?

DR KETTEN: That’s what the passive acoustic monitoring is for is to detect 5

the vocalisations of various species. Some species more reliably

vocalise than others, like the beaked whales that I just mentioned.

Baleen whales tend to vocalise. It is more common for marine

mammals to vocalise under water. I shouldn’t say that for the

pinnipeds, cetaceans vocalise more often. 10

DR RYDER: So does that equipment allow you to detect how far away from

the vessel or the operation the animal is?

DR KETTEN: I don’t have the expertise to answer that for certain. What I 15

know, somewhat naively, is that it depends upon the directivity of the

pickup system and whether you have more than one but I have to

actually defer that question and suggest that you ask one of the other

experts in the technology of these systems.

20

DR RYDER: All right, I will do that, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Greg. Nicki?

DR CRAUFORD: Hello, Dr Ketten, Nicki Crauford from the Committee here. 25

I would like to ask you about the pumps. Am I right in assuming that

the greatest noise is likely to be from the pumps?

DR KETTEN: Yes, based on the JASCO modelling that is the loudest source

and it has the broadest spectrum. 30

DR CRAUFORD: And I understand that they modelled based on a 12

megawatt pump. I guess given that the mining operation hasn’t been

done at this depth before and I guess we couldn’t consider the mining

operation to be finalised, we don’t know what the final configuration 35

would look like, would you have a concern if it was larger than

12 megawatts? How would that impact?

DR KETTEN: Well, if it is larger than 12 megawatts it’s going to change the

spectrum and power or the intensity at source. So it would need to 40

certainly be considered. My understanding is that this is the spec for

the pumps that are to be used and I would note also that I requested that

the modelling be done at full power. I am not in any sense an expert in

mining but I would not expect it to be operating consistently at full

power, although this is the conservative position of the model that was 45

done by JASCO.


So your question is quite appropriate if there is any plan to use other

power levels, either up or down, that would require a revision of the

model and, of course, the very best would be to have absolute data on

the pumps themselves. 5

DR CRAUFORD: I asked the question because my understanding is that there

is still some uncertainty as to what the configuration would look like

and what the pumps might look like so thank you for that.

10

[2.05 pm]

Can I also ask that you said – you say that, that you think the impacts

on baleen whales is likely to be moderate given that they’re transitory

and sparse in the operational area, do you see a need to have greater 15

certainty in relation to the baseline data as to the types of marine

mammals in the area and how often they’re there?

DR KETTEN: At the moment I am finding it interesting hearing the New

Zealand experts on population distributions, debating this question. I 20

am not a New Zealand scientist and am not that familiar with your

distributional data. I did read the Torres papers, I read some of the

Pinkerton material and Mr Cawthorn’s report, and I heard during the

expert conferencing very strong opinions on both sides.

25

I had thought that the Torres report and the earlier reports on which it

was based were fairly comprehensive, but if others who are population

specialists have some doubts about that, I would have to say that it

would certainly be an advantage to get rid of the doubts that they have

by more comprehensive surveys, if that’s possible. 30

DR CRAUFORD: So would it be fair enough to say that the likelihood of

impact assessment that you made of moderate could be influenced by

population analysis of marine mammals?

35

DR KETTEN: Yes, it could be influenced, let me qualify that – what I read in

the materials of several papers was, that there was no evidence of a

“critical habitat”, by that I mean a habitat in which there are behaviours

such as foraging or mating or anything else where animals tend to be

resident for protracted periods of time and that if you alter the 40

behaviour during that time you could significantly alter the population,

but in the absence of that, I don’t have such great concerns.

DR CRAUFORD: Okay.

45

DR KETTEN: There are always going to be uncertainties.


DR CRAUFORD: Yes, of course. My only other question relates to the other

areas of potential concern that I believe you didn’t really get much time

to discuss at the expert conferencing and I wonder if you have any

comments on that – they may not be your specialist area, but if you 5

have any comments on any of those such as, ecological impact,

pollution, conservation status of the marine mammals and so forth.

DR KETTEN: I swear that I’m not saying this because acoustics is my area,

but I think noise is the biggest problem to address – I’m sorry – 10

concerning the others, I’m in agreement with the expert conference

statements, the likelihood of entanglement or ship strikes is quite small

and vanishingly small I would say.

Certainly effects on other trophic levels are a critical issue, and I 15

thought that those had been fairly well addressed from what I read

about the earlier expert testimonies in other areas besides marine

mammals. The one issue that’s been raised today, while I’ve been

listening, has been the question of the plume and I am reluctant to

automatically assume, considering the differences in the sediments 20

and/or substrates that there may be at Chatham Rise, that that is

automatically the same kind of plume distribution that exists elsewhere.

There’s one other factor that I should have mentioned before, if you’ll

allow me, and that is, concerning the transitory nature of animals, it’s 25

not just in the entire Chatham Rise but also at various depths, the closer

an animal gets to the pump, of course, higher the probability it

encounters a sound level that could be harmful.

The two animals that are likely to dive to those depths are both animals 30

that dive at the edges, beaked whales for instance typically do dives

below 1,000 metres down to nearly 2,000 metres in depth, they don’t

like to dive in shallow water. Sperm whales may dive in shallower

water but they too are continental edge divers. So I think they’re less

likely to be foraging even though they’re the ones that could be down 35

for longer lengths of time.

[2.10 pm]

So the distributions and their behaviours related, are critical issues here. 40

DR CRAUFORD: Okay, but really they’re all secondary issues by comparison

to the noise?

DR KETTEN: Yes. 45


DR CRAUFORD: Okay, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Nicki.

MR JOHNS: Thank you, Chair, hello Dr Ketten’s, its Lennie Johns speaking 5

from the Committee, I just want to follow up on behavioural effects

and I just want to get a sense really of – I mean, we’ve heard a bit of

talk about “erratic and disturbed” behaviour, but I just really want to

get a sense of what that actually looks like for a whale and how would I

know that it’s upset, disturbed and erratic, acting in an erratic way? 10

DR KETTEN: Well, in that case, typically you want to have a trained observer

who knows – who is familiar with the usual surface times versus dive

times and surfacing or at-surface behaviours, for instance like the rather

gorgeous displays that humpback whales do as opposed to the very, 15

very covert activities of a beaked whale. Beaked whales for instance

come typically to the surface, will rest there just with their blow holes

exposed or a bit of surface swimming and then dive again, other

animals often do “fluke-ups” as they dive.

20

If you saw an animal surfacing rapidly, planning, if you saw them

leaping or if you saw them in a resting posture and they suddenly in a

obviously startled reaction that would be a significant behaviour –

those are sort of trivial examples but behavioural specialists can give

you a better list than I. 25

MR JOHNS: Okay, thank you very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Dr Ketten, Neil Walter here again, look, just to ask whether

you’ve – and I should I know this from your CV whether you’ve got a 30

lot of experience in this kind of – as an advisor or expert witness in this

kind of application?

DR KETTEN: Not in mining per se. I’ve been an expert witness and reviewer

for, environmental impact statements for – and for court hearings, for a 35

number of all relevant documents, for the National Oceanographic and

Atmospheric Administration, for the US Military, for the Australian

Navy, for – heavens, for oil and gas, exploratory operations – I’m

sorry, of the top of my head it’s a little difficult to think of all of them,

but, yes, simply - - - 40

CHAIRPERSON: No look, let me say that - - -

DR KETTEN: - - - for the last 20 years.

45


CHAIRPERSON: - - - that’s fine for my purposes. As a Committee we will

eventually have to decide whether consent should be granted to the

application and if so, on what conditions and with what controls, and

there have been a number of comments and questions there obviously

quite a few differences of view as to the adequacy of the information 5

available, both on the noise that’s going to be produced by this project

and its effect and it’s likely effect, and then on the numbers and types

and habits of the marine mammals out there.

This will sound very similar to Dr Crauford’s question, what I’m 10

wondering is, on the basis of the experience you’ve had with this kind

of question, is there any general advice you can give us as to essentially

how much information is enough, you know, what levels of assurance

and certainty and levels of information should we be looking for as we

start to frame our decision, and that’s an open question just as to 15

whether you have any general advice you can provide us?

DR KETTEN: Yes, thank you, I’ll try to be succinct, it’s a very large and

important question.

20

In my opinion, and were I having to try to make this decision, my

primary concern would be, “What is the actual spectre of the

operations” and if I became convinced that it was appropriate to go

ahead I would likely require that there be some recording of that

information so that it can be compared relatively quickly with the 25

model, to see if the projections are accurate.

It is a somewhat unique proposition in my experience, this combination

of dredging and depth, and consequently there isn’t a simple go to past

publication on it. The information that’s available for both seismic and 30

sonar and current more shallow mining operations and dredging

operations I think is quite appropriate.

[2.15 pm]

35

I do not have a problem with the extrapolation to depth because

fortunately you’re dealing with a water column in which propagations

can be fairly robustly modelled so I have some confidence in the model

being accurate, but of course I would like to see that confirmed.

40

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much Dr Ketten. That’s appreciated. And so

I now turn to the coalition of the Deep-sea Conservation Coalition,

Kiwis Against Seabed Mining, Greenpeace and the Environmental

Defence Society for the first questions.

45

MR CURRIE: Thank you Mr Chair. And good evening Dr Ketten.


DR KETTEN: Good evening.

MR CURRIE: Can you hear me?

5

DR KETTEN: Yes sir.

MR CURRIE: Good thank you. Firstly Dr Ketten you were asked by the

Committee just now about monitoring. Are you aware that the mining

will continue at night time? 10

DR KETTEN: Yes sir.

MR CURRIE: How do you estimate the chances of seeing a marine mammal

at night time? 15

DR KETTEN: There are a variety of ways that that can be done and the

typical condition is that marine mammals do not forage overnight, so

they would not probably be moving about in the area and be more

difficult to detect. Although it is – let me rephrase that. It is certain 20

that they are more difficult to detect at night than during the day but

their level of activity is also down. I would defer to those who have

done observations directly - - -

MR CURRIE: Do you accept that marine mammals - - - 25

DR KETTEN: - - - again I say I am not an expert in.

MR CURRIE: Thank you. Do you accept that marine mammals may transit

through the area at night? 30

DR KETTEN: I frankly don’t know.

MR CURRIE: Thank you. Have you read Associate Professor Slooten’s

evidence Dr Ketten? Her supplementary evidence. 35

DR KETTEN: I read her original evidence and I only received the supplement

today and have only skimmed it.

MR CURRIE: Have you been following the discussion this morning? Were 40

you online then?

DR KETTEN: Yes.

MR CURRIE: So when she says in paragraph 50 of her supplementary 45

evidence stating I think Barlow et al that the overall probability of


detecting Beaked Whales is likely to be 24 to 48 times lower for

mitigation monitoring than for research vessel surveys, do you agree or

disagree with that statement?

DR KETTEN: I have no data to address that. 5

MR CURRIE: Thank you.

DR KETTEN: I do know that detection has improved as a result of the BRS

studies and that that has been looked at preferentially compared to 10

other species. So I would suggest – say again the reference please and

the year?

MR CURRIE: Barlow et al 2006 I believe. Barlow and Cheesener (ph 3.07)

2006. 15

DR KETTEN: Barlow and Gisiner.

MR CURRIE: Yes.

20

DR KETTEN: Yes, in fact I think you’ll find that there’s a 2011 and 2012 set

of papers that show improvements in Beaked Whale observations

because they specifically as a result of the issues with sonar for Beaked

Whales have worked diligently to improve ability to detect them.

25

MR CURRIE: And to what order of magnitude - - -

DR KETTEN: Their sounds are now more readily detected. Sorry?

MR CURRIE: Thank you. Sorry about that. What order of magnitude 30

improvement have we experienced then since 2006?

DR KETTEN: I’m sorry, I can’t give you an example.

MR CURRIE: What degree of improvement have we experienced since 2006? 35

DR KETTEN: Sorry sir, maybe my answer didn’t come through clearly. I

said I don’t have those data. I can’t give you an exact answer to that.

You need to refer to the literature.

40

MR CURRIE: Thank you doctor. Another question you were asked by the

Committee referred to habitat and I believe I heard you say there is no

evidence of critical habitat. By that do you mean that no studies have

been made or are you aware of studies saying that this is not a critical

habitat for any species? 45


DR KETTEN: What I have learned from the information that was available

for the population distributions and behaviours associated comes

largely from Torres et al and Dr Cawthorn’s report and those did not

identify critical habitats, so I’m relying upon that data.

5

MR CURRIE: I see. Are you familiar Leigh Torres’ work?

DR KETTEN: I’m familiar with a few publications that I - - -

MR CURRIE: Are you aware for example that she published a paper 10

published last year finding that the South Taranaki Bight is an

important foraging area for Blue Whales? Are you aware of that

paper?

DR KETTEN: I’m sorry no, and I don’t know where the South Taranaki 15

Bight is.

[2.20 pm]

MR CURRIE: No. Okay. Well my next question was that if that paper came 20

out prior to another seabed mining application would you have any

concerns that a similar research of the relevant Chatham Rise area may

find indeed that this is a foraging habitat for a species of marine

mammals?

25

DR KETTEN: Well it’s difficult to answer that definitively not having read

the paper, not knowing the proximity of the location you’ve referred to,

the Taranaki Bight, compared to Chatham Rise or the topography and

the animals. So I don’t have all of the data.

30

There are going to be areas for feeding and there are going to be areas

that are transient or migratory and that would be certainly an

improvement in the data if you can differentiate those.

MR CURRIE: Thank you doctor. In your statement of evidence at page 10 35

you state that I quote, “this point underscores the need for baseline

measures of normal behaviour for these species in this region in order

to determine whether any anthropogenic activity has a significant

impact. In the absence of normative data it will be difficult to

accurately assess impacts in the long-term”. My question is what do 40

you mean by “normative data” in that context?

DR KETTEN: This is a worldwide problem. We too often do not have long-

term data. For example people often will contact me about stranding’s

and say this is an abnormal stranding. My first question is, “What’s the 45

stranding rates over the last 10 years?”


So in the absence of long-term data as baseline it’s difficult to

determine if there has been a significant change at a population level in

behaviour or any other particular activity. Essentially that is an

unknown that’s common to most locations and I thought it appropriate 5

to note it here. That was not intended to indicate that it was a

particularly differential problem for this area.

MR CURRIE: So you are saying in summary that, in that context, you are

saying that there is not the necessary data on long-term behaviour, is 10

that correct?

DR KETTEN: Basically if there are surveys or observations being made my

recommendation would be that progressively over time you compare

numbers and behaviours so that graph be your base, that should this 15

question arise again for any other activity you’d have that normative

data.

MR CURRIE: Are there any surveys showing short term behaviour?

20

DR KETTEN: Not that I’m aware of, but that does not mean that they don’t

exist.

MR CURRIE: So you go onto say - - -

25

DR KETTEN: I’m not an expert in this location.

MR CURRIE: No. So you go on to say there has not been a systematic

survey throughout region, that’s correct isn’t it?

30

DR KETTEN: I have heard that assessment – the problem there is the

definition of systematic. However many surveys over what period of

time is considered to be sufficient and I heard opposing views on that

by those individuals who work primarily in population assessments.

That’s not my area of expertise. 35

MR CURRIE: Are you aware of any surveys that you or any other marine

mammal could qualify as being systematic in this area?

DR KETTEN: I believe that the Torres et al data is systematic. The question 40

is whether it is considered to be sufficient by the experts.

MR CURRIE: Did the applicant or any of its experts go out and carry out the

survey of marine mammals in the area prior to lodging the application?

45

DR KETTEN: I don’t know.


MR CURRIE: Thank you. Moving to your presentation doctor, I’m looking

at page 8, well my page 8, which I believe is the chart showing the

distance from source in kilometres. The blue red and green and purple

lines. Are you familiar with that chart? 5

DR KETTEN: Sorry are you talking about the third – are you talking about

my slides themselves?

MR CURRIE: The slide, yes, you showed at the beginning of your 10

presentation and it shows the distance from source and - - -

DR KETTEN: Is this blue, red, green, purple?

MR CURRIE: Correct, yes. 15

DR KETTEN: Yes all right.

MR CURRIE: Okay. My first question to you is why do the sound levels

appear to begin about 130dB rather than 194dB on the left-hand side of 20

the scale?

[2.25 pm]

DR KETTEN: Those are RMS at source re one metre, so it’s another form of 25

metric. Because to look at the decay you have to use a root mean

square.

MR CURRIE: So what level are we starting with?

30

DR KETTEN: It is apparently around 136.

MR CURRIE: So how far from the source is that, are you aware?

DR KETTEN: No. 35

MR CURRIE: Okay, thank you. Then the blue and the - - -

DR KETTEN: You see, it is not an exact distance it is a root mean square

averaged over distance. 40

MR CURRIE: Thank you. So the red and the blue lines appear in my chart to

extend to about 130 kilometres and then they stop, is there any reason

they stop or is that simply just - - -

45


DR KETTEN: At that point you are well below ambience, that is the point at

which they no longer went, and they know longer conveyed the model.

You will notice that is well below 80.

MR CURRIE: Are you aware of any measurements of ambient noise in the 5

area for the applicant?

DR KETTEN: No, there is no ambient noise otherwise it would not have been

necessary to model.

10

MR CURRIE: I’m not sure I understand your answer. Are you saying there is

no noise or example of fishing boats or shipping in the area?

DR KETTEN: Sorry, I thought you asked for an ambient noise measure, that

would require actual recordings over time to provide an ambient. 15

MR CURRIE: I see, and those recordings have not been done.

DR KETTEN: To the best of my knowledge they have not.

20

MR CURRIE: No, thank you, doctor. Moving to the chart immediately above

that, which is on my page 8, it’s the chart – the top says “Limits of

Pervading Noise” and it’s the rather complicated chart with two black

lines descending from the top left to the bottom right.

25

DR KETTEN: Correct, that is the Wentz curve.

MR CURRIE: Thank you, yes. There is an orange dot and I think there is a

red dot placed there, one is full operation at 50 kilometres and one is, I

think it’s the orange dot and the red dot is full operation at 100 30

kilometres, can you see the ones I’m referring to?

DR KETTEN: Yes.

MR CURRIE: Why did they not place any similar dots for distances closer 35

than 50 or 100 kilometres, such as 10 kilometres or 3 kilometres

indeed?

DR KETTEN: Well in this case the chart was concerned with what happens at

distance, as I hoped I had mentioned, this was largely to consider the 40

distances at which you might have behavioural complications, since we

have a better handle about distances at which levels would be into the

concern for a temporary threshold shift. So the question was how far

out – this particular question was at what point how far out are you well

within the natural ambient. 45


MR CURRIE: I see, so this chart does not answer the question what are the

levels at closer distances that 50 kilometres?

DR KETTEN: No, definitely not.

5

MR CURRIE: Okay, thank you doctor.

DR KETTEN: That wasn’t the issue to address, the specific question I

requested was at what point are these well below the natural probable

ambient. 10

MR CURRIE: Thank you. My next question relates to temporary threshold

shift. Can you advise roughly what decibel level does temporary

threshold shift arise – or can it arise, do we know that?

15

DR KETTEN: Based on all of the studies that have been done on odontocetes

and pinnipeds, the minimum at which it is possible for it to arise is

above 160 dB re 1 micropascal, and the usual is above 180 dB, the

majority. As I mentioned there have been one or two cases at 160, the

majority are above 180 dB, and the current guidelines that are 20

consistent both for (INDISTINCT 4.35) et al 2007 as well as the

NOAA (ph) guideline that are draft at the moment, the minimum is 195

dB peak, re 1 micropascal. All of those numbers are peak.

MR CURRIE: So at 160 dB, how far would that be, assuming 194 level is 25

correct, how far from the source would that be?

[2.30 pm]

DR KETTEN: Yes, that’s actually addressed in JASCO’s report, I think it is 30

figure 4.6– let me just check – I’m sorry, it’s table 6 and table 7 and

that’s reached for the dredge maintaining station, distance is

approximately 0.04 kilometres, 160 is the 200 metres for the dredge

fully operational.

35

You’ll see that it gets down to 150 at 600 and that’s in fact the source,

it gets below 150 at 600 metres, and that’s the source for the decision

for the suggestion of the 500 metre limit.

MR CURRIE: This is the table on page 21 of the JASCO report is that right? 40

DR KETTEN: It’s – I’m – on my copy it’s on page 19, but it maybe it’s –

4.6.2 source two, dredge fully operational.

MR CURRIE: Yes, thank you doctor. So between a 140 dB and 150 dB, how 45

much louder is the noise level at 150 dB than 160 dB?


DR KETTEN: Well, it’s a log rhythmic scale.

MR CURRIE: So it doubles every 2 dB roughly, is that correct?

5

DR KETTEN: Yes.

MR CURRIE: Right, so the - - -

DR KETTEN: The problem with loudness is, it’s a percept, and that that’s – 10

it’s difficult to give an exact magnitude because again we’re talking

about, versus the hearing curve.

MR CURRIE: Yes. So the difference between 140 dB and 150 dB – put it this

way, so 150 dB is roughly eight times the sound level of 140 dB then, 15

would that sound about right?

DR KETTEN: Yes sir, however the important thing to consider is that, as a

frequency gets out towards the end of your hearing curve, that

difference is less possible to detect. It’s at your peak sensitivities that 20

you may fine distinctions – or perceptions I should say, of decibel

values.

MR CURRIE: You agreed in the, in the joint witness statement, did you not,

that temporary threshold shift can occur within three kilometres, did 25

you not?

DR KETTEN: I believe – let me just check – I think at one of those points, I

had suggested it should be 500 rather than the closer – I’m having

trouble finding my copy of the expert testimony. 30

MR CURRIE: And Liz Slooten considered there is a moderate risk of TTSs

(ph 2.56) within three kilometres of the proposed mining operation,

how do you characterise of TTSs in three kilometres based on your

current knowledge? 35

DR KETTEN: With the – I concurred with the remainder of the conference

committee – the conference of experts, that it should be potential rather

than moderate. I appreciate her wanting to attempt to quantify but I

didn’t think that was appropriate and that the appropriate term is 40

“potential” since this is a question of probabilities, that probabilities

differ amongst species and there was no way to say that it was

moderate across the board. TTS is very species specific.

MR CURRIE: So given the current knowledge, is it precautionary in your 45

view to state that the risk maybe moderate?


DR KETTEN: No, I – moderate implies a grade from “severe” to “negligible”

and that is not an appropriate statement to make broadly.

MR CURRIE: But you agree it is possible and you agree that the – it varies 5

from species to species?

DR KETTEN: I agree that it is possible for it to be moderate.

MR CURRIE: Thank you. 10

DR KETTEN: For some species at some distance. It’s necessary to qualify

TTS, it’s not a, a “stop and go” proposition.

MR CURRIE: Thank you, Doctor. And just one other question, reverting back 15

to your tables, and I’m looking at this – at the charts that you showed

the Committee this morning – I’m referring to the one headed “Marine

Mammal Hearing Thresholds” with the blue and dark blue and the light

blue lines and the various other coloured lines, you familiar with that?

20

DR KETTEN: Yes, sir.

MR CURRIE: Thank you, it’s on page 6 of – at least my copy – now I’m

looking at the dolphin line which appears to be marked with squares - -

- 25

DR KETTEN: Yes.

[2.35 pm]

30

MR CURRIE: - - - it appears to me that that dolphin line does go to the right

of the 100 kilohertz frequency, am I mistaken?

DR KETTEN: No, that’s correct.

35

MR CURRIE: And are you familiar that the Leigh Torres study sighted a

number of dolphins including duskies and bottlenosed common

dolphins as well as false killer whales in the region, are you aware of

that?

40

DR KETTEN: Yes.

MR CURRIE: So do you accept then that indeed some species may be in the

vicinity that can hear thresholds of above 100 kilohertz frequency?

45


DR KETTEN: Yes, let me first state that the name porpoise is sitting in the

wrong position, I am sorry I didn’t catch this earlier, it’s slipped. It

should be for the triangles.

And the answer to your question is notice the steepness of those lines at 5

the right hand side of all of the (INDISTINCT 1.07) curves.

Essentially those don’t mean that the animal can hear, it means that the

ear is capable at incredibly loud. Notice the top point there is around

130 dB, that’s the level at which the animal responded whereas at its

best sensitivities it’s down at 40. So it’s what is called roll off. The 10

animal has almost no functional hearing at those levels.

MR CURRIE: So to do be specific then and taking this from your table 4.4.2,

this 130 dB at eight kilometres, so are you saying that it is potential that

some of these species may be able to hear sounds at eight kilometres 15

from the site?

DR KETTEN: Yes, similarly to what I pointed out is called functional hearing

versus non-functional hearing. It would be difficult for the animal to

distinguish a sound at that level. 20

MR CURRIE: And coming in closer than eight, say three kilometres, the

sound level would be that much higher, would it not?

DR KETTEN: The sound level would be higher depending upon the 25

comparison to ambient it may or may not be more difficult to

distinguish.

MR CURRIE: So is it still your view that there is no point in monitoring for

frequencies above 100 kilohertz? 30

DR KETTEN: Yes. Would you like me to elaborate?

MR CURRIE: Please do.

35

DR KETTEN: Yes, because we are at a point where the species in the vicinity

are expected to have such poor hearing and the levels will fall off.

They fall off progressively closer to the source the higher the frequency

gets. This is not an area of peak sensitivity for the animal and

consequently it’s unlikely, it’s the differential between their sensitivity 40

and the level received. If you are right at the brink of threshold at the

received level the animal is not going to have much capacity to react.

MR CURRIE: But could a dolphin or a false killer whale hear sounds at over

100 decibels at a distance of say – well, at a decibel level of 150 dB? 45


DR KETTEN: Barely.

MR CURRIE: And could they hear it at 158 dB?

DR KETTEN: I’m sorry I don’t understand the point of the question? 5

MR CURRIE: Well, in other words, I mean what level would you have a

cause for concern at, say 120 kilohertz for the sake of argument?

DR KETTEN: A level of concern would have to be 80 dB over their threshold 10

or greater.

MR CURRIE: Thank you, doctor. And on page 4 of your evidence you state

that sperm whales do not typically forage in the vicinity of the

proposed operations. I believe from later evidence that you have given 15

today, can you state that with certainty or are you simply citing other

experts for that proposition?

DR KETTEN: I believe I stated that with the references on which I was

relying. On page 10 and 11 and so on I specifically stated that it was 20

Cawthorn (2014), Torres et al (2014), there is Baker et al (2010) as

well. So, as I have mentioned, I do not consider myself an expert,

certainly not in the populations and their distributions in this area. I

was brought in to assess the probability of acoustic impacts and I am

relying on other experts for that. 25

[2.20 pm]

MR CURRIE: All right, we will keep with acoustic impacts then, doctor,

thank you. Turning to the JASCO report. 30

DR KETTEN: Sorry to interrupt you, you are certainly welcome to ask the

questions, I just don’t want to overstep my expertise in replying.

MR CURRIE: Well, do you take issue with Associate Professor Slooten 35

saying sperm whales do indeed dive to a 450 metre depth?

DR KETTEN: No, I certainly don’t take issue that they dive to a 450 metre

depth. I thought the question was whether they forage frequently in the

area of Chatham Rise which is a somewhat different question. 40

MR CURRIE: Do you know whether they do that or not?

It is a different question, do you know whether they forage at all in the

Chatham Rise, are you aware of any research showing they do or do 45

not forage in the Chatham Rise?


DR KETTEN: Based on the research that I have cited they are no common

foragers in that area. I defer to the experts to make judgements about

whether that data is sufficient.

5

MR CURRIE: All right, I will ask Mr Cawthorn, thank you for that. Turning

to noise then, Dr Ketten, you were asked some questions by the

Committee about the riser pipes. Is it conceivable to you that the noise

of the sediment and rocks and so on going up the pipe for 450 metres

and sediment going back down another pipe could give rise to 10

significant noise levels?

DR KETTEN: Based on the physics of sound and the dimensions that I have

seen I consider that extremely unlikely in comparison to the ship

position dredge pump. 15

MR CURRIE: Are you a physicist, Dr Ketten?

DR KETTEN: I have training in acoustic physics. I do not classify myself as

a physicist, I don’t have a degree in physics. 20

MR CURRIE: Can you estimate or tell us the lowest frequency that you

would expect to hear from the riser pipes?

DR KETTEN: No, sir, that is a complex modelling problem, I wouldn’t 25

venture a guess just out of the blue, I have not looked at that.

MR CURRIE: Thank you.

DR KETTEN: There are others better qualified to consider that. 30

MR CURRIE: I will leave it there, thank you, doctor, no further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Currie. Mr Prebble, does the Crown have

any questions? 35

MR PREBBLE: Just a few, yes. I will try and be brief. .


40

MR PREBBLE: Hello, Dr Ketten, Jeremy Prebble here for the Crown.

Dr Ketten, you would agree that your evidence now needs to be read in

light of the key findings in the expert conferencing statement?

DR KETTEN: Yes. 45


MR PREBBLE: And I think we have probably covered most of this but in

terms of your area of specialisation I think I heard you say it was

auditory physiology, is that right?

DR KETTEN: That’s my principal specialisation, yes. 5

MR PREBBLE: And so the substance of your evidence, as I have understood

it, has been focused on a detailed analysis of PTS and TTS primarily?

DR KETTEN: Of the probability of those given the circumstances of the 10

probable sound sources and their spread, yes.

MR PREBBLE: Thank you. And we have heard a little bit about the

information that I understand you are relying on, the information in

terms of probable population levels, I note at page 3 of your report you 15

state there is little evidence for probable population level impact to the

majority of species, and what I am hearing is you are primarily relying

on that Torres et al (2013) report for that, appendix 20?

DR KETTEN: Not exactly for that statement, sorry, there is a confusion of 20

terms here. One question is the population distributions. The other

question is the probability of a sufficient – sorry, I am getting feedback.

There is a concept that is current within the question of impact should

not be looking at a single individual potential for impact but over a 25

population over time, which is now unfortunately (INDISTINCT 5.00)

which is population level impact or biologically significant impact.

[2.45 pm]

30

That does not mean exactly that I am relying upon the population

distributions from other individuals that were cited, rather it means

what is the probability of a large number of animals with a relatively

short period of time having some significant impact.

35

If it turned out that the distributions were wildly wrong that had been

reported to date, and which I read, then there would have to be a

revision of the consideration?

MR PREBBLE: In terms of the underlying distribution that is where you rely 40

on those other reports that have been previously been done like the

Torre’s report?

DR KETTEN: Yes, sir.

45


MR PREBBLE: Just to clarify that Torre’s Report which is at appendix 20 are

you aware that that states in its executive summary on page six that due

to limited citation distribution data over The Chatham Rise it is

difficult to assess the impact from the dredging operations and disposal

systems on citations? 5

DR KETTEN: Yes, sir. That is an appropriate precaution if the data is not as

complete as they had hoped, but that is a major concern across all,

particularly citation studies.

10

MR PREBBLE: At page 10, halfway down of your report that is attached to

your evidence you state: “However despite these data gaps and the

differences among reports it is possible to address,” – oh sorry no, not

there, page 10, slightly higher up you say: “This point underscores the

need for baseline measures of normal behaviour for these species in 15

this region in order to determine whether any anthropogenic activity

has a significant impact, in the absence of normative data it will be

difficult to accurately assess impacts in the long term”.

You have had a question on this but just for clarities sake, can you 20

please explain what you mean there by baseline measures?

DR KETTEN: Yes, there is not a long term record of behaviours or

differences in behaviours over seasons and years for this area as I

mentioned earlier, that is often a common problem and ideally if at this 25

point going forward unless there is continuing observations it is going

to be difficult to determine in the long term what changes may occur or

may not occur.

That apparently is a phrase which I managed to make perfectly obscure, 30

I could have more succinctly said, my advice, if asked, would be to try

to have continuing studies in the area since Chatham Rise seems to be

an area that is not as well documented as some other areas.

MR PREBBLE: Right, thank you. And then at page 10 and this is the third 35

paragraph now you state that: “Despite data gaps indifference among

reports it is possible to address acoustic concerns for the majority of

species regardless of numbers and absent audiograms” – you would

agree would you not that that statement needs to be read carefully in

light of other statements in your evidence that calls for caution and the 40

need for adequate baseline data?

DR KETTEN: No, I would disagree with that because while the primary

approach in that case then is to look at it, even if you do not have an

audiogram as for example the dusky dolphin, there is enough known 45

about the ear of that animal that it fits an auditory type for which we do


have representative data from other dolphin species so that is what I

meant by based on groupings of auditory types even if there is a species

present for which we do not have exact data for instance, the southern

fur seal, we have northern fur seals that have been more extensively

investigated directly. They are a good surrogate because of having 5

similar ears.

MR PREBBLE: Right, and you have set out in your evidence a number of

possible audiograms for marine mammals, you would agree with the

exception of tests on a few stranded juvenile whales and dolphins all 10

data were mostly obtained from captive animals with prior test

experience?

DR KETTEN: Recently there have been a number of ABR studies on wild

animals that have come inshore and then been re-released. Previously 15

it was all captive animals, as well as modelling done with the anatomy,

but now we have a composite of three sets of data.

[2.50 pm]

20

MR PREBBLE: Just for clarity, from those that are tested how many

individuals have been tested from each species, do you know?

DR KETTEN: No, I do not know the absolute numbers. The bottlenose

dolphin is sometimes referred to as the white rat of the sea, and there 25

certainly have been dozens of those. There have been probably close to

one dozen harbour porpoise tested. We do not have data for sperm

whale, fur seals, there are quite a number of animals in that broad

species category. I am sorry I cannot give you exact data, I would have

to look those numbers up. 30

MR PREBBLE: That’s okay, thank you. Just a couple of questions now in

the conferencing statement, and looking at issue 1C, you have

suggested that, “If consent is granted in the operation operates at that

noise level of 195.8 dB then a mitigation zone of 1.5 kilometres be 35

established for baleen whales…”

DR KETTEN: Sorry, sir, could I ask for just a moment, I just had to pull that

out – 1C you said? I apologise for the pause, I just want to make sure I

am on the right page. 40

MR PREBBLE: Absolutely, yes, 1C, and this is the mitigation zone of 1.5

kilometres for baleen whales.

DR KETTEN: Yes. 45


MR PREBBLE: Now, I think you have been asked about this already, but my

understanding is that passive acoustic monitoring is useful here given it

is not possible to rely only on observer effort to reliably detect these

cryptic creatures?

5

DR KETTEN: Yes, and the 500 metres for toothed whales, sorry, is that –

what exactly is the question please?

MR PREBBLE: The question I guess, I was just interested in is the logic

behind this condition and whether it logically applies both to the start-10

up operation and while the mining operation is continuing, because it

has been raised before and I just wasn’t clear on what your answer on

that was.

DR KETTEN: The 1.5 kilometre and my proposal of 500 metres were set 15

based on the increasing probability of temporary threshold shift, and

the reason that I have disagreed is because 1.5 kilometres is appropriate

for baleen whales, with toothed whaled 500 metre would be sufficient

but certainly detection within 1.5 would be particularly precautious.

20

MR PREBBLE: And in terms of those areas, 1.5 kilometres and 500 metres,

do you consider that logically the idea or rationale behind them is to

avoid having the operation either starting up or continuing while those

creatures are within those distances?

25

DR KETTEN: That is certainly a reasonable consideration, yes.

MR PREBBLE: Thank you. Just on issue 1D then, as a group you agree that

sudden onset sounds are likely to cause behavioural change more than

continuous sound? 30

DR KETTEN: That’s a typical observation, not only for citations but most

animals, including humans. Sorry, I should have just simply said yes.

MR PREBBLE: No, that’s fine. I’m just interested in how you consider this 35

particular operation, given that we are dealing with mining for five

days and then absence of the mining operation for five days.

DR KETTEN: It does offer the opportunity for a refractory period, and the

question of animals habituating to it, so having a break is to my mind 40

concerning acoustic effects. And their usual phenomena is that it is

advantageous to have breaks between operations.

MR PREBBLE: So when the operation starts up again, that would be again a

sudden onset sound that would need a period of lead-in, like you 45

referred to earlier?


DR KETTEN: Sudden onset acoustically means – we use the term also rise-

time, means that you go from zero to the probable peak level very

quickly. Impulse noise for instance has a micro second rise time

whereas broad spectra have a much slower rise time, and then there is 5

the option for ramp up where the sound sources are gradually brought

up to full power, or whatever the operational power is, so that the

sound levels increase slowly.

So you have brought up the question of sudden onset, which to my ear 10

means a very fast rise time or coming up almost instantaneously to full

power. That would be something to be considered in the operational

protocols.

[2.55 pm] 15

MR PREBBLE: Designing it in a way that ensures that you bring it up slowly

do you mean by that?

DR KETTEN: Correct. In terms of the animal’s behaviour you’d want to 20

avoid the stress of a startled response.

MR PREBBLE: Just a last question. We’ve heard a bit about behavioural

responses. I understand that you agreed with the expert group that the

threshold for behavioural responses of concern would be likely to occur 25

between 120 and 135dB, is that right?

DR KETTEN: Yes.

MR PREBBLE: Yes. Thank you. Those were my questions. 30

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you Mr Prebble. - - -


35

CHAIRPERSON: - - - - Does any other party have a question to address to Dr

Ketten? If not, Dr Ketten your testimony has been very useful to us

and on behalf of the Committee I want to extend our appreciation, both

for your contribution at the filing of evidence and expert conferencing

stages. And for your presentation and very patient answers to questions 40

today. So thank you and we wish you a very good evening.

DR KETTEN: Thank you. I enjoyed the experience.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. And the next witness on my list is Dr Childerhouse 45

and I invite Mr Prebble to introduce him.


MR PREBBLE: While he’s doing that sir I’ll just confirm that the Committee

have both his 20 October summary of evidence and his 17 September

main body of evidence. And we filed yesterday, even though it’s a

summary, we filed it in advance for the Committee’s convenience and 5

also served it on the other parties to this his summary.

So Dr Childerhouse if you could confirm that you are the author of the

20 October summary of evidence and the 17 September statement of

evidence. 10

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, I can.

MR PREBBLE: And if you could proceed to read through your summary of

evidence thank you. 15

CHAIRPERSON: And highlighting the main points if you could Dr

Childerhouse.

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Thank you. I’ll see how I go with that. Thank you 20

for the opportunity today to speak to you. I’ll proceed with reading my

summary of evidence.

Essentially this document summarises my statement of evidence of the

17th of December 2014 and where relevant updates it in relation to the 25

joint witness statement arising from the marine mammal expert

conferencing which I participated in.

With respect to the significance of the Chatham Rise and CRP consent

area to marine mammals I consider it is appropriate to characterise the 30

Chatham Rise as a significant habitat for marine mammals. Despite a

lack of systematic information about marine mammals and in particular

their distribution and abundance within the region there is sufficient

existing information to make an overall assessment that the Chatham

Rise represents a significant marine mammal habitat. 35

At least 27 different marine mammal species are recorded there, two of

which are listed as nationally critical and two as nationally endangered

in New Zealand, and a further species four are listed internationally as

endangered and one is vulnerable. 40

Furthermore parts of the Chatham Rise are important as foraging and/or

feeding areas for some species and are also likely to support mother

calf groups for some species including Sperm Whales as indicated in

Torres et al. And also Dusky Dolphins. The Chatham Rise has also 45

been identified as an important habitat for Southern Right Whales and


Sperm Whales based on modelling of historic distribution of whaling

catches by Torres et al.

The significance of The Rise for marine mammals is consistent with

the known high productivity of the area, the high diversity and 5

abundance of marine mammals, historic whaling data, information

from non-systematic opportunistic sightings and stranding’s, and

general understanding of New Zealand marine mammal biology and

ecology.

10

However a lack of any dedicated marine mammal survey effort in the

region means it is difficult to precisely quantify the significance of the

Chatham Rise to marine mammals and more specifically to identify

particular areas of the Chatham Rise that might represent areas of

particular importance to species such as key foraging grounds. 15

[3.00 pm]

This is particularly true for the proposed Chatham Rock Phosphate

consent area and its vicinity for which we have no dedicated marine 20

mammal surveys. I also note that the issue of significance of the

proposed consent area was not covered during the marine mammal

conferencing due to a lack of time. But just as an aside I note that the

joint witness statement did conclude that there’s insufficient data

available for most marine mammal species to determine the 25

significance of the area to them.

With respect to potential impacts the CRP mining operation has the

potential to impact on marine mammals with the factors most likely to

impact on being noise and to a lesser extent ecological effects. I 30

consider ship strike and entanglement are unlikely to represent risk to

marine mammals as was agreed at the marine mammal caucusing.

In essence to assess the effects of an activity it’s important to have an

understanding of several key issues. Essentially which marine 35

mammals are likely to occur in the area, numbers, how often they’re

there, and how significant the area is to them. In this respect there are

proxies such as are they known to feed there? To breed there? Or to

migrate through it?

40

It’s also important to understand the impact itself, for example sound.

There’s a variety of characteristics you’d need to understand before you

could fully assess that impact. And then finally the piece of

information that pulls it together is information about the threshold at

which you might see an impact on marine mammals and how this 45

might impact the animals in the area.


The joint witness statement from the conferencing noted and agreed

insufficient data are available for most marine mammal species that use

the proposed area to determine their status, abundance or the

significance of the area to them. I agree with the statement but would 5

expand it to say that there is insufficient data available on any marine

mammal species that may use the proposed area. Again highlighted by

the fact that a lack of systematic survey data from the proposed consent

area.

10

While I acknowledge some difficulties may arise in an undertaking

dedicated to marine mammal surveys in such large open ocean

situations I do not believe these are insurmountable. I believe more

robust and systematic surveys could and should have been done better

to inform the current consent process. Mr Cawthorn’s evidence 15

identifies some possible methods for marine mammal surveys but then

discounts these as being extremely expensive, time consuming and

difficult to achieve. While I agree that such surveys can be expensive

and time consuming modern techniques are making surveys

considerably easier and cheaper to undertake and are not difficult to 20

achieve. Simply adding a systematic marine mammal survey

component to all of the previous CRP vessel expeditions to the

proposed mining area could have been undertaken at relatively little

additional cost as the majority of costs associated with marine mammal

surveys are generally related to the cost of vessel charters. 25

This lack of any data means it is difficult to clearly identify which

species are likely to be present in the area and more importantly the

specific significance of the proposed mining area to marine mammals.

The latter is needed to accurately assess any impact from noise on 30

marine mammals. In particular as the threshold level for impact will

vary between species and even within species groups but between

different behavioural states. This is a reoccurring theme. I think we’ve

had talked about during the course of today’s discussions.

35

Just as an example of that behavioural state is important because if a

whale for instance is migrating it may be disturbed by sounds in a

different way than a whale that’s feeding or breeding. In some cases

they’re more likely to show disturbance. In other cases they may be

less likely to show disturbance. So it’s very much a context driven 40

assessment.

With respect to sound levels, the experts at the marine mammal

conferencing agreed that the best available information on the sound

source characteristics was provided in the Jasco report which I should 45

add I’ve referenced in my document as McPherson et al 2014 and that


the maximum broadband sound level of 195.8dB. There are some

uncertainties associated with this including that it’s a model estimate

scaled up from a significantly smaller power operation. It’s 27

megawatts was the empirical data scaled up to 12 megawatts and it was

done in significantly shallower water. 25 metres for the example that 5

was used as a base model and scaled up to 400 metres of water. And I

guess fundamentally that there are no actual empirical measurements of

what the sound level’s likely to be for this operation.

[3.05 pm] 10

This level is reasonably close to the level of 194 dB that I used in my

original statement of evidence which was based on Mr Humpheson’s

extrapolation from HR Wallingford report.

15

I haven’t recalculated the tables 3, 4 and 5 in my statement, but would

note, this means the distances in my table are conservative and the

received sound levels would be slightly higher at the same distances if I

recalculated using the 195.8 level.

20

As set out in my statement of evidence there are three different types of

effects, a “permanent threshold shift”, “temporary threshold shift” and

“behavioural response thresholds” – I won’t talk much more about PTS

and TTS I think we’ve had a good discussion of those this morning –

particularly with respect to “behavioural response shifts”, those that 25

I’m interested in are those that result in significant behavioural

disturbance, such as avoiding or leaving an area, affecting

communication or echolocation and altering the behavioural state.

The joint witness concluded that permanent physical damage is 30

unlikely as a result of the proposed operations. The operations are not

predicted to generate noise at a level resulting in this type of effect –

well I would note that it is possible, but only if sensible – “sensitive”,

not “sensible” that’s for sure – sensitive marine mammals remain in the

immediate proximity of the sound source which is unlikely. 35

The joint witness statement records that TTS is possible for some

species dependent on their sensitivity and proximity to the source and

the joint witness statement notes that there is potential for TTS within

three kilometres and particularly with 1.5 kilometres for sensitive 40

species, noting that one member believe that potential should be

moderate risk.

With respect to behavioural effects of sound, my statement of evidence

discusses work that’s been done to assess behavioural effects of noise 45

and the noise levels at which these may occur. Behavioural effects from


sound can vary, from negligible through to significant. Southall et al, as

has been talked about this morning, present a severity scale of

behaviour responses to anthropogenic noise, ranked from zero

reflecting no reaction, to 9 reflecting significant reaction or very

significant reaction such as flight, panic or stranding events. 5

I provided a brief summary of these behavioural categories here for

consideration because I didn’t do that in my original evidence.

In essence 1-3 are considered minor, 4-6 scores are considered 10

moderate and 6-7 and above are likely to be severe.

Southall themselves who developed them described that the intent of

the scaling was to delineate those behaviours that are relatively minor

0-3. Those with higher potential to affect foraging, reproduction or 15

survival 4-6 and those considered likely to affect these vital rates 7 and

above.

Based on this assessment I believe that a sound threshold level for

behavioural disturbance should be set at a level that has a higher 20

potential to affect foraging, reproduction or survival which is in

essence a score of 4 or above on that scale.

Based on a quantitative evidence of sound levels that led to behavioural

disturbance scores of 4-6 and above (provided in Southall et al), I 25

conclude that marine mammals should not be exposed to continuous

sound sources above a received level 120 dB, as this is the threshold at

which significant behavioural disturbance occurs – and some examples

of that could be avoiding or leaving an area, affecting communication

or echolocation and altering behavioural state. 30

I also provide table 15 taken from Southall et al to describe how I reach

the 120 dB level, and I reproduce that as table 1 at the end of my

evidence.

35

I have this on the screen as well, I thought I might just try and provide

a little bit of direct description for this, so this is table 5 taken from

Southall, it’s in essence a summary of studies that have looked at

behavioural disturbance for marine mammals. On the left hand side we

can see the response scores, from 9 down to zero with the lower end 40

zero being no reaction and 9 being a strong reaction.

Along the top you can see the received RMS sound pressure levels,

essentially the loudness of the source that was – that the marine

mammals were exposed to. 45


And the area that I kind of particularly interested in, were scores

between 4 and 6, which are those that have a higher potential to affect

foraging, reproduction and survival, because I think those are the kind

of key things we need to start looking at if we want to assess

behavioural disturbance and potential flow on effects. 5

So just – once we have established that we are looking at, well perhaps

I should provide a bit more explanation for the numbers in this table.

In essence the numbers in bold are the numbers of animals that were

affected by that level of sound and the observed response they had to it 10

so the further up the page you get, the stronger the response and the

further to the right, the louder the sound source.

[3.10 pm]

15

DR CRAUFORD: Sorry to interrupt but this is three kilometres?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: No, this is within any distance so this is not with a

specified distance, - - -

20

DR CRAUFORD: Okay.

DR CHILDERHOUSE: - - - this is exposure to sound levels, so essentially

this is a composite of many different studies and I guess Dr Ketten was

involved in this and probably produced some information that was 25

considered in this, I am not sure.

So in essence I was looking at response scores of four and above to try

and indicate a significant behavioural disturbance and then the red box

I have shown in there starts to occur at 120 dB and goes up to 150. I 30

chose 120 dB as it is the level where you start to see more consistent

scores above four and also almost 50 percent of the responses for

scores four and above occur there.

I mean it is also interesting to note that even at these high levels 35

between 120 and 150 you can get some low level reactions but

conversely at lower sound levels between 110 and 90 you can get some

high level responses to lower sound sources. That was one of the

reasons I chose to put it at 120 because I think that was a conservative

balance at which point the studies would suggest half the animals in the 40

study showed a significant behavioural disturbance.

Thank you, I will continue reading my evidence. The joint witness

statement noticed that while there was no definitive information on the

level at which behavioural effects will occur for any given species it is 45

expected that the threshold for behavioural responses will likely be


between 120 and 135 dB. My estimate of 120 is the lower end of the

threshold. The joint witness statement records agreement that it is

likely that there will be behavioural effects on some species as a result

of the proposed operation and that the principle concerns for Baleen

whales that are likely to have better hearing at the principle frequencies 5

proposed produced by the operation.

Again, it further concluded that behavioural effects will likely occur at

greater distance than physiological effects and Dr Ketten has talked

about that previously. The experts were unable to determine the 10

precise distance at which significant behavioural response may occur

and therefore considered it is not possible to set a mitigation distance.

This lack of specificity primarily stems from two key pieces of missing

information including a lack of definitive knowledge of the level at

which marine mammals show significant behavioural response, 15

although in the table I have produced you can see there is a summary of

the behavioural responses that have been recorded at least up to 2007,

the considerable variation and responses between species, individuals

in behaviour.

20

My personal feeling is this disagreement really was reflected on the

fact we could not agree on a definitive level, not that there was not a

level at which they show disturbance. Given the agreed uncertainty

about the actual noise level at which marine mammals will demonstrate

significant behavioural responses I consider setting a conservative level 25

of 120 is appropriate.

Using the sound propagation data provided in table seven of the

JASCO Report which again is the McPherson et al 2014 as referenced.

The sound from the mining operation would be later than 120 dB to a 30

distance of 29 kilometres from the source and create an insonified area

of 21,000 square kilometres. I believe this means significant

behavioural disturbance could result from the operation across this

large area for sensitive species such as Baleen whales.

35

I would note that if you apply the higher and less conservative

threshold value of 135 dB than the distance of significant behavioural

disturbance reduces to approximately five kilometres from the

operation covering a total area of approximately 50 square kilometres.

Something that is important to bear in mind is that the difference 40

between 120 and 135 dB appears superficially small at only 15 dB, as it

is logarithmic scale the increase actually reflects a massive increase in

power with 135 dB being 32 times louder than 120. So it’s not a small

difference between those two scales.

45

[3.15 pm]


The joint witness statement concluded that insufficient data available

for most marine mammal species that used the proposed area to

determine their status or significance area to them and therefore until

further data available unable to make specific conclusions. 5

I guess the question of whether a significant behavioural disturbance

for marine mammals over an area of 2100 square kilometres, or in fact

even 50 square kilometres is acceptable really comes down to context.

For example, the outcome of this assessment is likely to differ, as if the 10

sonified area is of low significance and has few marine mammals, then

such a zone of disturbance may be considered acceptable. However, if

the zone is of high significance with many marine mammals then it is

likely to be unacceptable.

15

In the absence of reliable information about the exact significance of

the proposed mining area to marine mammals, this question is difficult

to resolve.

With respect to conditions, a more detailed assessment of impacts of 20

noise would require systematic surveys of the proposed mining area

and its surrounds to establish its use and particular significance for

marine mammals. This would allow for more complete consideration

of the extent to which noise generated by the application will have an

adverse effect on marine mammals. 25

The information could then be used to derive conditions that require

operational noises to not exceed a level where unacceptable

behavioural effects might eventuate. However, if such conditions are

specified on the basis of limited information currently available, they 30

could potentially allow noise exposure that will adversely affect marine

mammals or alternatively limit noise unduly. Therefore, as set out in

my statement of evidence, I have not proposed such a condition and nor

could the experts involved in the marine mammal conferencing.

35

I have also provided a brief summary of the conditions that were

provided and agreed by the expert panel. Essentially the first one is

just simply agreeing about the source characteristics and verifying

empirically that the estimated noise level that is reported by Chatham

Rock Phosphate is in fact the noise that the operation generates when it 40

starts. It is a reasonably simple thing just to simply measure the noise

produced by the operation once it starts.

Why this is important is that obviously if the noise from the operation

is louder than we have assumed in this assessment, then the assessment 45

of any of the effects we have made could be invalid.


There was also some disagreement among the experts about the upper

frequency range for monitoring, either the 100 or 200 kilohertz range.

Essentially some believe 200 kilohertz would be expensive and may

not be practical or necessary, while others believe the full range of 5

marine mammal acoustic sensitivity could be measured. I am of the

belief that if you are interested in understanding marine mammal

effects you are better to measure across the whole range of the sensitive

frequencies for those species rather than just a component of that.

10

It is also particularly important for calculating broad band source levels

which are a composite of all the sound level being produced into the

ocean.

With respect to issue 1C, Physiological Effects. A condition is 15

proposed that marine mammals in the vicinity of the operation do not

get physiological damage from the operational noise, and therefore a

mitigation zone set as 1.5 kilometres from the source for baleen whales.

Essentially this condition would require that if baleen whales were 20

detected, either visually or acoustically within 1.5 kilometres of the

mining vessel then if the mining vessel was preparing to start they

would be unable to do so until the whales left the area, or if mining was

underway they would have to stop until whales moved further than the

1.5 kilometres from the vessel. And a 500 metre mitigation zone was 25

proposed for tooth whales but was not agreed by the experts, as there

was no agreement about the distance from which temporary threshold

shift may occur.

With respect to 1D, Behavioural Effects. No specific was agreed but 30

the discussion centred around potentially setting a mitigation zone that

would minimise behavioural effects. As discussed above in 1 C, the

idea being that mining could be delayed starting or halted if operating

to minimise significant behavioural disturbance.

35

Given the uncertainty around the threshold level for behavioural

effects, which are estimated at between either five kilometres or 29

kilometres from the source and the practical considerations around

monitoring and compliance of such zones, the experts did not agree on

the mitigation zone, but did agree that behavioural effects would be 40

seen at greater distances than physiological effects.

[3.20 pm]

I would also like to briefly refer to the conditions proposed by Mr Chris 45

Rendall in Appendix 1 in his addendum to the statement of evidence on


17 September. Due to a lack of time the marine mammal expert

conferencing group only considered a few conditions during

discussions as noted above and Mr Rendall’s were not reviewed. I

guess in essence I think the proposed conditions 1, 2 and 7 in his

addendum are useful. Condition 2 would be particularly useful and 5

specifically exploring additional mitigation options.

Proposed condition 3 is very similar to that agreed by the experts of the

noise source characteristics and I believe the condition proposed by the

experts is an improvement. Proposed 4 is a place holder condition 10

referring to the setting of specific limits for noise. The concerns I have

about setting limits in the present circumstances are set out above.

And proposed conditions 5 and 6 relate to pre-commencement baseline

monitoring and ongoing monitoring, which I believe is essential given 15

that there has been no baseline survey data collected in the proposed

mining area. And proposed condition 8 relates to independent

monitoring of the operation once it is going and ongoing reporting

requirements.

20

And just a correction to my previous statement of evidence, paragraph

37 of my statement I note that sperm whales are included in my Figure

1, when in fact they weren’t. But the vocal hearing range of sperm

whales is between 100 Hz and 330 kHz and does overlap with the

frequency range of sound produced by dredges. 25

Thank you for patience and attention.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much, Dr Childerhouse, I think you have

earned a break. And although coat tailing is not the flavour of the 30

month I think we can probably curtail on that. I suggest we break now

and come back at 3.35 pm. So decided, thank you.

ADJOURNED [3.22 pm]

35

RESUMED [3.38 pm]

CHAIRPERSON: Okay, we will resume the session and Committee first.

Greg?

40

DR RYDER: On page 10 of your summary of evidence, condition 1(c), you

talk about that mitigation exclusion zone set at 1.5 kilometres, and I am

just curious to know how that would work in the real world type

operation in terms of, well first of all you do talk about compliance of

those monitoring conditions but I am also interested to hear how you 45


actually monitor the effectiveness of these proposed exclusion zones as

well.

[4.00 pm]

5

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Certainly, perhaps a good example and a very relevant

example is the seismic code of conduct for minimising disturbance to

marine mammals in New Zealand which is a code developed by DOC

recently, and enacted under the EEZ Act which basically sets up rules

for mitigating seismic surveys. In there it has a mitigation zone similar 10

to this, at 1.5 kilometres, an exclusion zone, and that is monitored by

independent marine mammal observers which are placed on the seismic

vessels, which are keeping an eye out during all daylight hours.

And if they see a marine mammal within the mitigation zone, it can be 15

bigger or smaller depending on the species, then they can direct the

vessel to shut down their seismic source, and then they monitor the

movements of that animal and once it has either moved out of the zone

or it has disappeared and has not been seen for a specified period of

time the vessel is allowed to restart operations. 20

So that is kind of a really practical way of doing it.

DR RYDER: Is that sort of work happening now?

25

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, that is happening. Every seismic survey in New

Zealand, I should correct myself, every level one seismic survey, which

is the highest kind of noise seismic surveys have, to marine mammal

observers on board, and to passive acoustic monitoring operators. The

seismic source must, is only allowed to operate when PAM is ongoing, 30

and if PAM stops for any reason the source has to stop as well.

So yes, two people monitoring during the day, and PAM monitoring 24

hours a day.

35

DR RYDER: And has there been any feedback as to how effective the

monitoring program is?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I am not sure how you would measure effectiveness,

because it is kind of hard to know how many you are missing, but 40

certainly - - -

DR RYDER: Well, that is one of the whole problems.

DR CHILDERHOUSE: But certainly most surveys that I am familiar with 45

would have resulted in one or more shutdowns of the seismic source at


some time when marine mammals come within the detected mitigation

zone. How many they are missing I cannot really tell you, but what I

can tell you is that our experience of our passive acoustic monitoring

provider is that there are normally something in the order of four times

more detections made by passive acoustic monitoring than there are by 5

marine mammal observers, visual observers.

So that is kind of a parallel example that is operating in New Zealand

now.

10

DR RYDER: Okay, thanks for that. We have had a bit of talk about these

draft NOAA guidelines, and they are sort of being drafted at the

moment and currently under some sort of formal review. I do not know

whether you are familiar with those. And I know they do refer to the

2007 report, and you have got that table 15 still up there and just 15

wondering how that sort of information is treated in those NOAA

guidelines?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: To be honest, I am not intimately familiar with the

new draft guidelines, so I cannot really comment how they have been 20

integrated in there, other than to say this Southall et al source is still

considered to be the preeminent source for these kind of summaries,

but obviously there has been some subsequent work since then. But

yes, no, look I apologise, I cannot really comment on the draft NOAA

guidelines. 25

Again, they are draft guidelines and they are out for comment now.

Again, my understanding of them is they are mainly aimed at seismic

surveys, and also for pulse sounds rather than continuous sound, but I

am happy to be corrected on that. 30


MR HILL: Dr Childerhouse, I just want to talk a little bit more about this table

15 in Southall, and the 120 that you are recommending. And I was just 35

having a look at your table 2 from your evidence-in-chief, which is the

120. But just on this table, can you just help me in terms of, I mean

just looking at the numbers, the numbers just seem as though they are

rather bizarre, to put it mildly. What sort of sample size did he or she

use, or they perhaps is a better term, what sort of sample size does this 40

constitute?

[3.45 pm]

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I am sorry I cannot tell you that off the top of my 45

head but my understanding is they are sub, the small numbers


bracketed below in bold number reflect references for those and so it

looks like to me, again I would need to go back to the original

reference but that probably represents 10 different studies that was used

to report on that data.

5

This was a pretty comprehensive review at the time, there is something

in the order of a dozen or more authors I think, to that Southall report.

MR HILL: I guess my next question is just looking at the response scores on

the left hand side, obviously not all the boxes are filled in so that raises 10

some questions, but the cut-off box that you have got in orange there, I

am just curious as to what the logic of actually having that is when you

have got level six responses which I understood to be reasonably

significant responses, a substantial number in actual fact on that line

right down to 90 decibels. What is the logic for 120 rather than any 15

other number along that line?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: That is a really good question and again the previous

experts have also talked about it. There is no kind of definitive value

for what constitutes behavioural effect for noise. It does vary between 20

species and as an example this table is for low frequency citation so

essentially it is Baleen whales so this is a composite of different

species, perhaps different age classes, even different behavioural

groups.

25

That is why you see that range but I guess your question is, it is

reasonable, I guess that is why the experts themselves have no – why

Southall themselves did not pick a single value. I have tried to show

some rationale for why I think 120 is a reasonable value to use and in

essence it is the level at which you start to see about 50 percent of the 30

animals responding, showing significant behavioural responses.

MR HILL: All right, just for the moment anyway just put the number aside,

where does that number apply, does that apply at the edge of the

mitigation zone or since this is RMS and the number is presumably not 35

RMS?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: No, so this is basically the received level at the

animal so the source level is the noise the operation generates and then

this is the received level that the animal would hear so if they are 40

hearing this level or above, then they are going to show behavioural

disturbance, if they are hearing this level, or below this level.

MR HILL: So we back calc (ph 3.00), I mean I am thinking in terms of how

do we set a condition relative, we obviously cannot set it on the animal 45

so it has to be set at source?


DR CHILDERHOUSE: An example, is perhaps a condition that was

developed for the TTR model which essentially had the same dilemma

and so what they did is they - - -

5

MR HILL: Well there is no dilemma in there as I understand it.

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Not at the end no, but the dilemma was the same for

us, what is the level at which behavioural disturbance becomes an issue

so they figured out what that level they thought was and then they 10

figured out what distance from the source that level occurred and then

said right well now we would recommend a mitigation zone.

MR HILL: Let me just short circuit that because if you are recommending a

number than should you not be recommending the number that we 15

actually should think about adopting rather than us trying to figure out

what it is that we should then adopt?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Certainly, I mean I believe 120 is the appropriate

level to use, it is a level at which - - - 20

MR HILL: Yes, but not 120 at source?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: No 120 received level so because we are talking

about the distance, the received level at the animal so you can, as you 25

say you can back calculate to figure out what that might be but it is

actually easier to calculate, you know what the – well we have a model

estimate of what the source level is and we can figure out based on

propagations how that sound level decays further away from the source

and in fact what we find is that at 29 kilometres from the source there is 30

still 120 dB broad band level.

That is the level, that is the point where I would argue within that range

you are seeing behaviour disturbance. The expert panel was unable to

reach agreement about a mitigation zone for that. I mean you could 35

have argued that you set a mitigation zone at 29 kilometres if you

accept 120 as your level, but there is no practical way of implementing

that or monitoring that reliably while the operation is going.

[3.50 pm] 40

MR HILL: All right, well I can’t go any further than that, thank you.

DR CRAUFORD: You start your evidence by talking about whether the

application area is an important area for marine mammals and I guess – 45

and you conclude that there really isn’t very much evidence, one way


or another, and that there’s potentially the need for further information,

further data on that.

Given the time it would take to collect that information and potentially

the cost involved, I assume that you would be happy to make the 5

assumption that we should assume that it is a significant area for

marine mammals?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Well – excuse me – well that, I think the key issue is

that there has been no monitoring for marine mammals anywhere 10

within the proposed mining area. And so in the absence of any

information it would be practical to assume that it’s an area of

significance and then try and assess any impacts based on that.

DR CRAUFORD: So, yes, so you’re saying we haven’t really got any choice, 15

we have to assume it’s a reasonably significant area.

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I mean, I believe that’s the appropriate option to take

at this time. I mean, to be fair there are ways you could collect

information reasonably quickly, to try and inform this question – it’s 20

going to be help us today, but there’s – I mean passive acoustic

monitoring has been talked about and I provide some examples in my

evidence where you could deploy a bottom mounted acoustic recorder

in that kind of spot and put it out for months, a month – several months

or a year, depending on what your timeframe – that would already give 25

you kind of, a quite a bit additional amount of information, that would

give you the idea about what animals are vocalising in the area, which

is a surrogate for what animals are there, would start giving you some

idea about seasonality of the animals in that area, whether there’s times

of year when there are more or less of them. 30

If you put several across the area you might be able to look at areas of

high or low density and it would start to give you an idea about

potential baselines that you might use in informing your assessment of

impact. 35

DR CRAUFORD: Did you consider putting that in your conditions?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: It is in the conditions, I guess it’s related – there’s a –

in 1A I believe which is about, is really about monitoring the sound 40

source itself – there is something in there and there is also, under the

conditions proposed by Rendall there’s some - - -

DR CRAUFORD: That doesn’t suggest doing that prior to – it doesn’t suggest

getting baseline information prior to mining though does it, is what 45

you’re suggesting there here?


DR CHILDERHOUSE: I think proposed conditions 5 and 6 of Chris

Rendall’s addendum, provide quite a lot of guidance about pre-

commencement baseline monitoring and ongoing monitoring.

5

DR CRAUFORD: But you didn’t do – you didn’t come to that conclusion in

the expert conferencing?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: No, the expert conferencing never got to the issue of

conditions during discussions, so it did - - - 10

DR CRAUFORD: So it never got to baseline issue – that’s right - - -

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Sorry, baseline issues, yes - - -

15

DR CRAUFORD: - - - that’s right, yes, right.

DR CHILDERHOUSE: - - - so they, they discuss some conditions to some of

the specific issues we did - - -

20

DR CRAUFORD: Yes, to the noise, but they didn’t get baseline, yes, yes,

sorry.

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, yes, sorry.

25

DR CRAUFORD: But you would recommend that?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I think so, I think it’s essential. If you want to

manage – if you want to try and understand any impact from this kind

of operation you need to have some pre-start data, I mean there’s kind 30

of no other way to do it, otherwise you’ve got nothing to start with. If

you just start measuring once the operations going, you really got

nowhere to compare it to, and so I think pre-start or pre-operational

data is essential.

35

DR CRAUFORD: Just in relation to your conditions on page 10, 1C, just

halfway down, “If mining was underway they should stop”. Is it likely

that marine mammals would actually approach the mining area whilst

it’s underway?

40

DR CHILDERHOUSE: It’s a possibility. I mean so even with - - -

DR CRAUFORD: So they might be attracted to the noise?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, just like you see dolphins bow riding potential 45

from boats, there’s a real range of responses possible from animals. So


that, for instance the seismic code of conduct has different ranges for

different species, and some, like delphinids and other species, they are

– the operation is not shutdown if it’s – unless it’s – I am sorry, I forget

the exact numbers – but something like 200 metres away.

5

[3.55 pm]

So those are the kind of considerations you need to make if you are

looking at a condition like that. The condition here specifically is for

baleen whales because those are the species we think are likely to be 10

the most sensitive to the noise types.

DR CRAUFORD: Well, they would be the most sensitive but also wouldn’t it

be a bit noisy for them there? I mean, really, would they be attracted to

go that close to one and a half kilometres? It is going to be - - - 15

DR CHILDERHOUSE: It seems unlikely.

DR CRAUFORD: It does seem unlikely.

20

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I mean most animals reactions to a loud noise source

and people’s would be to move away and that would be what I would

expect.

DR CRAUFORD: Okay. So if it is not going to happen it won’t matter if it’s 25

the condition anyway, will it? And then my final question relates to

your evidence and paragraph 56 where you talk about the actual mining

vessel and the size of the pumps for CRP’s project has not yet been

confirmed. I mean in the conditions it says, “Within three months the

consent holder should take empirical measurements of the noise 30

generated by the mining operation”, so you are suggesting in the

conditions or the expert conferencing is that the mining can go ahead

without knowing exactly what the noise conditions are and then find

out three months later, is that what you are suggesting?

35

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Not quite. I guess what I am saying or what the

group actually concluded was that we have assessed the impact of this

operation based on the estimate of what CRP have said their noise level

is going to be. So if it is that level or quieter then perhaps we can have

some confidence about the assessment we have made but if the 40

operation turns out to actually be louder than that then our assessment

becomes invalid. And so a possibility might be to limit the operation to

that level at which we have assessed it.

DR CRAUFORD: Yes, okay. 45


DR CRAUFORD: To ensure we have - - -

DR CRAUFORD: So put that condition in provided that the pump output isn’t

expected to be more than 12 megawatts?

5

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, or probably rather than the megawatt value,

what would be useful would be the decibel value to say that the

Chatham Rock Phosphate have identified which is - - -

DR CRAUFORD: Thank you very much. 10

CHAIRPERSON: Mr Currie, you had a couple of questions on behalf of the

coalition.

MR CURRIE: Thank you, Mr Chair. Yes, good afternoon, Dr Childerhouse. 15

Firstly, with respect to the expert conferencing and the questions

Dr Crauford asked you, on page 9 it states that it was agreed that the

lack of baseline data hampers all effective assessment of probable

impacts on the marine mammal population in the vicinity, so that much

was agreed, is that correct, by all the experts? 20

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, that is correct.

MR CURRIE: Thank you. Dr Childerhouse, have you had some personal

experience with conducting marine mammal surveys? 25

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, I have.

MR CURRIE: And in paragraph 4 you talk about surveys and their

practicality, don’t you? 30

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Sorry, sir, paragraph 4 of my?

MR CURRIE: Paragraph 4 of your supplementary evidence.

35

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Supplementary.

MR CURRIE: You, for example, say that the difficulty is not insurmountable,

I believe more robust and systematic surveys could and should have

been done to better inform the current consent process”. 40

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, sorry, I am not sure if I am looking at the right

paragraph.

MR CURRIE: Paragraph 14 of your supplementary statement. 45


DR CHILDERHOUSE: Oh, 14, certainly, yes.

MR CURRIE: Thank you. Assuming hypothetically your company was or

you or your associates were asked to conduct a survey, can you give us

a rough estimate of what that may cost? The kind of survey that would 5

have properly informed this DMC of the kind of questions that you

state have not been answered?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I don’t believe I can quickly for the simple reason, I

think as I allude here, the single biggest cost associated with marine 10

mammal surveys is generally vessel charter because it requires large

stable platforms to undertake surveys. If those charter costs can be

undertaken alongside other monitoring work you can significantly

reduce their cost.

15

[4.00 pm]

It would really be quite a detailed plan to try and sit down and figure

out what it might cost, personnel, equipment, vessel time. Again you

would have to – I’m sorry I’m not trying to be difficult, but you’d have 20

to know exactly what you wanted to answer and then you could do it.

But there are cheaper alternatives such as passive acoustic monitoring

and bottom mounted essentially could be deployed during other

monitoring trips or other visits to the area. Or even by the mining 25

vessel itself and then recovered at a later date. There are reasonably

low costs associated with that. You need to purchase a unit and you

need to undertake the analysis.

MR CURRIE: Some experts for example have suggested that the benthic 30

voyages could also have the qualified marine mammal experts on

board. Is that the kind of study you’re talking about that could have

been done at low cost?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes. I think I refer to that specifically in my original 35

evidence that I believe it would have been possible to include marine

mammal experts on those voyages. They could have particularly been

used to deploy acoustic loggers reasonably easily, but if you had

marine mammal observers on board or passive acoustic monitoring

under towed arrays you could have collected a reasonable amount of 40

information up to this point.

MR CURRIE: You were an expert at the TTR marine consent hearing were

you?

45

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes I was.


MR CURRIE: Do you recall that the applicant there did undertake a visual

survey?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, my understanding in fact Mr Cawthorn I think 5

undertook some aerial surveys of the proposed TTR mining area over a

period of a year or longer perhaps.

MR CURRIE: Thank you. And my last question on that issue is would you

anticipate insuperable difficulties in finding qualified observers to 10

participate in such a survey?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: No, I think Mr Ross-Watts this morning talked about

using observers qualified under the New Zealand code of conduct for

seismic surveys. There are in the order of 40 people qualified in New 15

Zealand and elsewhere that could fill those roles and there are training

courses ongoing that could bring new people into the fold if they were

required and if you wanted to use that as a benchmark for training.

There are other benchmarks you could choose to us as well.

20

MR CURRIE: Thank you and turning then to behavioural effects. You

answered questions by members of the Committee about that. Can you

describe what some of the behavioural effects that could happen may

be?

25

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Well there really is a range. Perhaps the best way is

to point to my summary of evidence in page 6 where I cite the Southall

criteria which are essentially a kind of breakdown of 9 different

groupings of activities that have been considered minor through to

severe impacts and those are all really laid out there. But in essence 30

those kinds of behavioural changes can correspond to animals leaving

the area, changing their foraging behaviour, changing their foraging

times, if it’s an area of particular importance for a certain reproductive

state such as cow calves or something like that you can expect to have

effects across any number of different biological values. 35

MR CURRIE: Thank you. My last question relates to your paragraph 26 of

your summary of evidence and specifically you describe an insonified

area of 2100 square kilometres. Are you familiar with any other project

in New Zealand or elsewhere with a source of a similar size of 194dB, 40

hypothetical or postulate 194dB giving rise to such an insonified area

of that kind of size?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I’m not quite sure I understand your question.

45


MR CURRIE: Are you familiar with any other project that has resulted in a

similar insonified area?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: No I’m not in New Zealand. I guess I caveat that with

seismic surveys which are considerably louder than these sources. 5

They have an insonified area that would be probably larger than this.

MR CURRIE: Thank you, doctor. No further questions.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much Mr Currie. CRP, do you have any 10

questions.

MR HARWOOD: Thank you, sir, I have a few questions.

[4.05 pm] 15

Pause

Dr Childerhouse, are you familiar with this report?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I haven’t read it in detail but I was aware of its

existence, yes. 20

MR HARWOOD: Thank you. Would you be able to advise the Committee

what you know of this report? I just think you’re in a better position to

describe it than I am.

25

DR CHILDERHOUSE: To be honest I’ve really just seen it so I’d prefer not

to.

MR HARWOOD: Okay.

30

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Probably you’re more familiar with it than I am.

MR HARWOOD: Okay. Well the cover page there it says it from the

Ministry of Primary Industries and the title is “New Zealand Marine

Mammals and Commercial Fishers” dated December 2013. That’s what 35

it says isn’t it?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes.

MR HARWOOD: Thank you. Now for the purpose of these questions I 40

wanted to narrow my questions to several species and thankfully

Dr Huber identified four cetacean species than he considered most

likely to be affected by the project. They were Sperm Whales, Pilot

Whales, Beaked Whales and Southern Right Whales. Would you agree

with that summary at all? 45


DR CHILDERHOUSE: No I wouldn’t.

MR HARWOOD: Okay. Is there something else – another species that you’d

like to add to that list or?

5

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I think those species are certainly ones that we would

have concerns about because those are probably the ones that we’re

most familiar with on the Chatham Rise, but it’s the Baleen Whales

that are particularly the ones we’ve been discussing most of today that

have sensitivity to noise and the low frequency noise particularly 10

generated from the operation.

MR HARWOOD: Okay, thank you for that. I’m only going to ask you

questions about your summary and I think it’s commendable that

you’ve managed to distil your evidence down to 14 pages so well done. 15

But starting at paragraph 15 you say there in the last sentence

essentially migrating whales may not be disturbed by sounds as much

as feeding or mating whales could be. It’s my understanding of the

evidence that the Baleen Whales are likely to be transient in the

Chatham Rise. Is that correct? 20

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Again this is – some of the Baleen Whales are likely

to be transient in the area but it’s quite possible others may be resident.

Examples of this is Leigh Torres’ modelling work showed that

Southern Right Whales – I forget the words she used but an area of 25

significance related to feeding I think on the south side of the Chatham

Rise which is suggestive that there are Right Whales there probably for

months at a time during the feeding period.

There’s also recent work by Leigh Torres again suggesting – not even 30

suggesting clearly demonstrating that there are Blue Whales resident

year round in the South Taranaki Bight. There’s perhaps possibility to

suspect that those same species may be around New Zealand waters in

other parts of New Zealand. The traditional mantra about Baleen

Whales is that they feed in Antarctic waters in the summer time and 35

then they transit through the temporal waters to tropical waters to breed

in the winter time, but the more we understand about Baleen Whales

the more we know that not all components of those populations make

those full migrations every year and that some of them in fact stay in

the breeding grounds, some stay in the feeding grounds and some can 40

even be found around the temperate waters including New Zealand

year around.

MR HARWOOD: Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Just in relation to

Southern Right Whales I was interested in that modelling research by 45

Torres but if we could turn please to page 19 of the report that I gave


you. Now there’s a picture there of New Zealand and that has a bunch

of little points on it and those are the observations I understand from

the entirety of reported sightings over the last 30 years and you can see

that Southern Right Whales have been spotted down by the sub-

Antarctic islands and then essentially along both coastlines of New 5

Zealand without any sightings there on the Chatham Rise. Is that how

you would interpret that?

[4.10 pm]

10

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I would certainly agree that that is what this figure

shows, but it is important to qualify that with where the data source is

associated with this record. Essentially my understanding without

reading the whole thing is that these are pretty much opportunistic

sighting records from probably mainly fisheries’ observers or members 15

of the public. And they don’t actually cover the whole of the EEZ. So it

is kind of a bit – I think as I have said in my evidence that these show

where animals have been seen, but that is only because people have

been there looking. There is essentially no one looking or has looked

on the Chatham Rise for those species is my understanding. So you 20

wouldn’t expect to see any dots there even if they did happen to be

there.

MR HARWOOD: And baleen whales spend most of their time on the surface

is that right? 25

DR CHILDERHOUSE: But they feed at depth, as Dr Ketten has said, but,

yes, again, different species have different times. Sperm whales, for

example, will spend 10 to 15 minutes at the surface and maybe 40 to 50

minutes diving. Right whales, if they are with a calf, might spend a lot 30

longer at the surface. It is a very context-driven thing.

MR HARWOOD: In your experience, is it relatively easy to spot a southern

right whale?

35

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, certainly, when they are at the surface, yes.

MR HARWOOD: Great, so just by way of comparison, would you mind,

please, turning to page 27 and you will see a similar figure for sperm

whales. 40

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes.

MR HARWOOD: And you can see there for sperm whales there are

observations sort of in a bit of a ring around the crest of the Chatham 45

Rise there. Now that would suggest to me that, you know, if there are


whales to be seen, they are in fact being caught by the observers that

are out in the Chatham Rise, would you agree with that?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Again, I would qualify it. Where there are boats

looking for whales and there are whale there, you will see them. I guess 5

what is clear and I what I did not distil really from the Chatham Rock

Phosphate application was there is no fishing boat or effort from the

Chatham Rock phosphate mining area which I believe most of these

sightings come from, so if you haven’t had anyone looking in these

areas, you would not have expected to get any sightings from them. So 10

the fact that there are no dots in some of these areas does not

necessarily mean there are no whales there. It means no one has looked.

MR HARWOOD: No, thank you.

15

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Or maybe that someone has looked and they aren’t

there.

MR HARWOOD: No, thank you, that is useful. Now if there were large

aggregations of baleen whales on the crest of the Chatham Rise or the 20

Chatham Rise generally, do you think we would know about it by now?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Well, I don’t think so, if we haven’t looked. For

instance, the blue whales that have been recently kind of confirmed as

being resident in the South Taranaki bight have only been confirmed 25

recently within the last year or so. But those whales have probably been

there for a lot longer. But it is only we have collected enough data to

actually look out there that we have been able to confirm that they are

there.

30

It is a big ocean. Most people out there aren’t actually looking for

whales. They are involved in fishing activities or they are involved in

transit activities. So even if people go past big aggregations of whales,

they often don’t recognise them as such, or even if they do recognise

them, they don’t report them. So I guess I don’t think it is fair to 35

characterise the fact that there may be big aggregations out there that

we are not seeing. It is possible. Sorry, I am not sure I got that right. I

just think that because we haven’t looked out there in a systematic and

robust way, it is very hard for us to say there is nothing there.

40

MR HARWOOD: Yes, no, that is right. I am interested, I suppose, in the

likelihood of that fact being the case. And just going back to your blue

whales example, do you know the difference between observer courage

on fishing vessels in South Taranaki and the Chatham Rise, and are

they comparable – if they’re comparable level of fishing effort for a 45

start?


[4.15 pm]

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I can’t answer that specifically, but my – I’m

reasonably familiar with the data that’s been collected in the South 5

Taranaki Bight, because it’s been – most of its been collected by

marine mammal observers on seismic surveys, and so that data’s

reasonably well documented.

So I think, they’re probably not good – they’re not comparable 10

examples, most of the data is from seismic survey, dedicated marine

mammal observers in Taranaki and from fishing boat observers

concerned with monitoring fishing operations in the Chatham Rise.

MR HARWOOD: Okay, thank you. Now if marine mammals are feeding in 15

an area or looking for an area to feed, would you say it’s a reasonable

presumption that they’ll move to areas where there’s lots of their food?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, it makes sense that animals will go where their

food is, yes. 20

MR HARWOOD: Yes. And beaked whales, sperm whales and pilot whales

eat fish and squid, is that right?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, a range of species, but probably primarily fish 25

and squid.

MR HARWOOD: And if we know where their food is, that would be a good

indication of where feeding whales might concentrate?

30

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, certainly that stands to reason, but again it’s

very easy to characterise them as just eating commercial product of

species, and we know that in fact a huge proportion of the diet of most

marine mammals is non-commercial species which don’t really turn up

in any of the fishery stock assessments or any other things because 35

they’re not really of interest to the commercial fisheries.

MR HARWOOD: Okay. And is it your understanding that commercial

fishing is concentrated on the flanks of the Chatham Rise rather than

the crest? 40

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, again I’m not – I haven’t – I’m not that familiar

with it, but my understanding is its concern – it’s on the flanks and

there’s also long lining on some of the crest, or significant parts of the

crest, particularly the eastern end I believe. 45


MR HARWOOD: Yes. And if were to assume that fishermen target greater

concentrations of fish that will be a reasonable proxy that fish

concentrations are in fact greater on the flanks than the crest, could you

- - -

5

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I guess that would be true for commercial fish

species, yes.

MR HARWOOD: Yes, okay. And it was – do you understand that Richard

O'Driscoll’s evidence was that the marine consent area is not 10

particularly important for any of the commercial fish species that he

looked at, and he looked at a large number and that included squid,

have you had a chance to read Dr O'Driscoll’s evidence?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I haven’t read it in detail, but when he talks about 15

squid I’m assuming he’s probably referring to arrow squid which is the

commercially taken squid, there’s dozens of other species of non-

commercial squid which aren’t targeted by any fishery.

MR HARWOOD: Okay, thank you. Please turn to paragraph 20 of your 20

summary, and it’s the list of behavioural responses to anthropogenic

noise – I had a question about – just for my understanding, but are

those affects sort of lineally related to increase in sound as such, so if

you go from 4-6 is that likely to be because the sound is high?

25

DR CHILDERHOUSE: No, these scales are not related to sound at all. These

are – and again, these are Southall’s criteria, not mine – but they try to

create a scale, a score of different reactions that can be monitored in

marine mammals and try to kind of associate those with different levels

of disturbance and impact on marine mammals. 30

MR HARWOOD: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: I’m just checking our impulse sound here, I hope you got

that. 35

MR HARWOOD: And in the zone where there could be behavioural changes,

do you have any idea what those behavioural changes might be?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Sorry I’m not sure, do you mean in reference to this - 40

- -

MR HARWOOD: Sorry, the - - -

DR CHILDERHOUSE: - - - list here or - - - 45


[4.20 pm]

MR HARWOOD: Sorry, just setting that list aside for a second, I will come

back to it but in your expertise the marine mammals that might fall

within the zone where there could be a behavioural change, I think you 5

said it was out to 29 kilometres, do you have any idea what those

behavioural changes might be?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I can certainly speculate on that but the expert panel

when they talked about this said and I quote under issue 1D for the 10

expert conference: “Behavioural changes could include altered diving,

foraging, pod cohesion, masking of significant acoustic queues, eg

communication, echo location from prey, reproduction, spatial

distribution and habitat list” – and those were, that was one of the facts

agreed by the expert working group as potential behavioural effects. 15

MR HARWOOD: Thank you and I understand just return to paragraph 20 that

it items four to six which are of concern. Do you consider that any of

those effects are likely to lead to population level effects for any marine

mammal species? 20

DR CHILDERHOUSE: No, I think that is unlikely unless, I mean I guess

again we had a little bit of a discussion about what is a population. A

population has many different meanings from an entire species which

could have a global distribution to the population of animals such as the 25

population in the Kaikoura region and so it really depends on the scale

you are asking at.

If you are talking about the species level changes then no, it is unlikely

there will be population level effects, but if the population you are 30

interested in is the population that occupies the proposed mining area

then there is a possibility of population level effects I guess although

without knowing what the population is in that area would make it

really hard to answer.

35

MR HARWOOD: Thank you, and just while we are on issue 1D, the last

bullet point of the second column says, “sudden onset sounds are more

likely to cause behavioural change than continuous sounds”, the

converse would also be true that steady sounds would be less likely to

cause behavioural change? 40

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Let me think about that, yes, I think that follows. I

guess the example is that a level of noise that goes from zero, and again

Dr Ketten talked about this and gave some really good examples. A

sound source that goes from nothing to X in a very short time is likely 45

to illicit a startle response as we can kind of imagine.


Once it reaches that level if it stays at that level for a long time it might

be that it does not illicit nearly as much a response because there is no

startle response associated with it. Animals might get used to it or

show different kinds of effects, depending what that noise is the longer 5

that goes on it can also lead to behavioural effects.

MR HARWOOD: Thank you, and so is your understanding that for this

activity there will be sound produced from the ship driving and arriving

to the mining site, it puts down its dredger so there is already some 10

sound, the dredger goes on, the sound increases that runs for four and a

half days, the dredger comes up, the sound from the dredger gets turned

off, the ship sounds the same the whole time, then it drives back to Port

and offloads its cargo over a period of six day and returns is that your

roughly your understanding of how the project works and what the 15

sound generation might be like?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, it is.

MR HARWOOD: Would you agree there is little chance or certainly 20

infrequent onset of loud sounds from the project?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I guess the vessel noise, yes, will be relatively

constant or the vessel noise which is involved in the transit and then

setting up the operation, the concern is the starting up of the pumps 25

which is a major source of noise in the environment, and one way to

allay that is to simply undertake soft starts which is something that is

being proposed in the conditions which essentially would start them up

at a very low level with a low sound level and then finally wind them

up until they are at full production and maximum noise. 30

That is exactly what is done with seismic surveys in New Zealand as a

matter of requirement now and so a similar operation could help a

mining operation.

35

[4.25 pm]

MR HARWOOD: In a 10 day cycle there is only one increase of sound from

the pump being turned on each 10 days, that is that right, is it?

40

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, assuming it runs constantly, I mean it may be

they have to shut down from time to time with breakages like anything

else, but again if they consider undertaking soft starts each time they do

that then the sudden sound associated with those pumps starting would

be more gradual and less likely to have an effect. 45


MR HARWOOD: Thank you, and the effects from sound would be only

when mining occurs, like the four and half to five days out of 10 and

excluding any other down times due to weather and anything else?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Again, that would depend on the response of the 5

animals, I mean it’s hard to say. I guess it could be that animals will –

if worse-case scenario, the animals don’t like being in the area while

the operation is going they could leave, and then when the vessel leaves

they could come back and keep working there, and then they could

come and go. 10

With kind of worse-case scenarios they may not come back at all, but I

guess arguably it is better to have an operation running half the time

than it is to be running all the time, would be my feeling.

15

MR HARWOOD: Thank you for that. Just moving to paragraph 28 of your

summary, page 9, and just in your penultimate sentence in that

paragraph you say “if the zone is of a high significance with many

marine mammals then it is likely to be unacceptable.” What do you

mean by “many marine mammals” what sort of numbers are we 20

talking?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Well I guess I haven’t specified that specifically.

Again it really would depend on what the Decision Making

Committee’s guidance is on that. Because I guess I posed this 25

paragraph as it gives you a kind of range of options to consider, and if

there was nothing in the area, no marine mammals in the area at all we

probably wouldn’t be having this discussion. If we knew that to be the

case. The reality is we don’t know what is there, and so it makes it

difficult to actually assess what the impacts will be in the absence of 30

knowing what is there.

Sorry, I keep harping back to that.

MR HARWOOD: No, that’s fine. Now where was I, so perhaps I think you 35

had a couple of examples of areas that are important to marine

mammals, and they were Kaikoura and the Sub-Antarctic Islands. Are

you talking about areas like those which would be – you know if the

marine consent area had a similar level of marine mammals as those

two areas, is that kind of what you are a thinking of marine mammals? 40

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I guess I hadn’t really thought about it in those terms.

I mean those are both sites of key breeding or feeding sites for different

species, it’s not necessarily related to the number of animals there

necessary as to what they are doing there. Yes, I’m coming back to try 45

and define how many may be.


MR HARWOOD: No, that’s fine, there is no need to try and, I’m not asking

you to make up numbers on the spot, I was just looking for an

indication, but that is fine. Now those two areas, Kaikoura and the

Sub-Antarctic Islands, they are both well known as important habitats, 5

is that right

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, I guess the Auckland Islands is an important

breeding ground for southern right whales, but only been known

since1995 I guess, which is actually when the first surveys went down 10

there and it was kind of determined, and I guess Kaikoura has been

well known for a long time.

MR HARWOOD: I understand that southern right whales were first noticed

in the Sub-Antarctic Islands sometime during World War II or 15

thereafter, is that consistent with your understanding of that?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, they were certainly reported from coast watching

stations down there.

20

MR HARWOOD: Yes, and was it those observations and others that triggered

the need to, or triggered someone’s curiosity to then undertake the

systematic surveys to work out what the - - -

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I think the original motivation for work down there 25

was RNZAF surveys that detected a large number of whales down

there when they were on fisheries patrols I think. I think that is what

suggested that there might be lots there. - - -

MR HARWOOD: Okay. 30

DR CHILDERHOUSE: - - - We have known it was a whaling station in the

19th Century, so there were whales there at that time.

[4.30 pm] 35

MR HARWOOD: And so it was sort of incidental knowledge that perhaps

pricked someone’s interest to look further into the southern right whale

population down there?

40

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, very much like what Leigh Torres in the South

Taranaki Bite region. There were anecdotal reports coming from

seismic surveys about blue whales out there which stimulated her to go

out and look and when she started undertaking some systematic survey

work she kind of confirmed that they were. 45


MR HARWOOD: And in 30 years of data collection on the Chatham Rise to

date there has been no similar sort of indication or trigger point that

might suggest that the marine consent area is an area worth undertaking

other surveys because there is a suspicion that it is an area of particular

importance for a marine mammal species. Is that right? 5

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Well, I guess we have known that the flanks of The

Rise have good reports of sperm whales there. So that has I guess

stimulated Leigh Torres again to look at describing critical habitat for

sperm whales and right whales out around there, which the modelling 10

work she did suggested they were important habitats for both those

species, so I guess they kind of did stimulate her to undertake that

work.

But again, I guess it comes back to the fact that there is information 15

from the Chatham Rise at a very broad scale level, where fishing boats

go. But there is not any information about the areas where the fishing

boats do not go, which is very much the CRP proposed mining area.

MR HARWOOD: Thank you. Now, just a couple and then I will finish up. 20

Looking at the MPI report I gave you, and it does not actually matter

which map we look at, but I am not sure if you have one of them in

front of you, if you do not, how about page 19, that was the southern

right whales one. Now, were you here this morning when Associate

Professor Slooten described the data from these sightings as simply a 25

list of species, did you hear that?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, I did.

MR HARWOOD: Now, on its face it appears to me that the sightings did not 30

only record the location of where they were taken, but also the time of

year, is that your understanding as well?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, I guess they will have a position and a date and

a species associated with all those points as a minimum. 35

MR HARWOOD: So you would not agree that the incidental sightings, the

starter is not just a species list, is it?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: No, I guess there is some more information in there. 40

But it is opportunistic data, and I guess I provided some of my thoughts

about the limitations of this opportunistic data set in my original

evidence, and if I can I might just go back to that now, and just

highlight some of my concerns with this.

45


Because it really is opportunistic data which is not a substitute for

dedicated systematic surveys. And just to be quick, the data sets that

you have been pointing to are useful but they have non-random spatial

and temporal coverage, and a very variable effort. So it is very hard to

just look at those and say there is some here and there is not some here. 5

They are all opportunistic sightings so primarily undertaken by

fisheries observers, who are generally involved in fisheries reporting

rather than marine mammal observing. So most of their time is head

down in the factory rather than actually up on the bridge looking for 10

whales.

There are also impacts of survey methods that influence these results.

For instance, observations from a seismic vessel in an area might be

lower than you would expect because whales might have headed away. 15

Observations from a fishing boat might be increased for some species

because they come towards the offal discharge or something.

And I guess the key point is that this is presence only data, so it only

tells you where we have seen things, and kind of all the empty space on 20

there does not really give you any information about what might be

there, unless you have associated effort data to say we have actually

had 100 days of looking in this area and we have seen no marine

mammals, at which point you might have some confidence that there

are none there. 25

But with zero effort in that area you certainly would not have any

confidence about saying that.

MR HARWOOD: Right, thank you for that. Now for the DMC making its 30

decision, would you say that other activities that take place in the EEZ,

and their effects, might provide some useful context to take into

account?

[4.35 pm] 35

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Are you referring to cumulative impacts or relative?

MR HARWOOD: Relative, yes.

40

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Certainly, it could provide some useful information.

MR HARWOOD: Thank you. And fishing is probably the most widespread

and significant activity in the EEZ at the moment, would you agree

with that? 45


DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, I believe so.

MR HARWOOD: Could you please turn to page 52 of that report and it’s

table 6 that I’m looking at – and I read the description of table 6 to be

all captures of marine mammals and commercial fisheries between the 5

1992/93 and 2011 and 2012 fishing years, that’s just from the first

sentence, is that a fair summary of that?

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, that looks like an accurate representation.

10

MR HARWOOD: And just looking at the figures there starting at the top,

3,595 fur seals were caught, 298 New Zealand sea lions, 27 pilot

whales, we’ve got a humpback whale in there, a sperm whale and so

on, that’s what it says isn’t it?

15

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, it reports a lot of captures in commercial

fisheries of marine mammals.

MR HARWOOD: Could you please advise of the conservation status of New

Zealand sea lions? 20

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Nationally critical under the New Zealand threat

management status as I understand it.

MR HARWOOD: Thank you, and the experts on marine mammals, the 25

conferencing statement and there’s no suggestion that CRP’s activity

will lead to any fatalities for marine mammals, is that - - -

DR CHILDERHOUSE: No. The expert panel discussed the potential impacts

of entanglement and ship strike and considered those to be very low 30

risk as I recall.

MR HARWOOD: And the risk of physical effects was within I think one and

a half kilometres from the - - -

35

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Yes, temporary threshold shift within 1.5 kilometres

of the operation, yes, and unlikely permanent threshold shift.

MR HARWOOD: Thank you very much for your answers, Dr Childerhouse,

those are all my questions, thank you, sir. 40

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Mr Harwood, does any other party have a

question for Dr Childerhouse?

MR CHRISTENSEN: Sir, one very brief topic if I may, with your leave? 45


CHAIRPERSON: Sure.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Dr Childerhouse, I was interested in your

supplementary statement today and in particular paragraph 20 where

you describe the Southall 9 point scale, and I’d ask you to turn to that 5

please and I’m interested in looking at – well your comment as to

whether or not it’s always clear and agreed amongst practitioners what

constitutes a minor – and I’m looking at the difference between 3 and 4

on that scale – is it always clear, what’s a minor change in low

commotion and dive versus a moderate change? 10

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I guess maybe some background before I do this –

these criteria were developed to try and come up with some consistent

criteria to evaluate a whole range of different papers, so they could be

evaluated in a consistent way, and these were what Southall came up 15

with.

I would agree that the difference between a minor change and low

commotion and a moderate change and low commotion would be hard

to assess in a field situation. 20

I would hope that they – there are some more detailed explanations

about exactly how they did this, but yes, there are some quite subtle

differences between some of these categories potentially.

25

MR CHRISTENSEN: And my reason for asking that, is – when I look at table

15, you’ve told us that the points on the scale that your concern with

are the behavioural change – moderate behavioural change ones, 4, 5

and 6, and you’ve highlighted them there for us, but my proposition is

that, if one person’s minor is another person’s moderate, and if we look 30

at the 1,117 reported level 3 effects, is it possible that to another

observer some of those effects might be seen as being in the moderate

category in 4, and if that was so, is it possible that the type of received

RMS sound pressure level with which we might need to be concerned

might be considerably less than 120, perhaps somewhere in the order of 35

100.

[4.40 pm]

DR CHILDERHOUSE: I guess to your first question about how they 40

determined what fitted into what criteria, I do not how they did that

other than what we have all got in front of us about how they

characterised that and I am assuming they would have done it as

systematically and consistently as possible but there is an element of

subjectively potentially to that. If they have some very strict definitions 45


that would’ve helped them but I do not have those and they certainly

were not available in the published document.

Regarding your kind of second question about could some of those

categories have been moved up or down a level it is certainly possible if 5

they had been done by a different person if they did not have strict

criteria about it. I guess my expectation would be the authors of Southall

et al are, many of them are the world leaders in marine mammal

bioacoustics and anthropogenic impacts so I imagine they would have

been pretty consistent about how they applied it. Certainly the criteria 10

themselves are, there are subtleties between them in some cases that

would be challenging to I guess confidently allocate.

MR CHRISTENSEN: All right, thank you.

15

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Mr Christensen, okay, Dr Childerhouse, thank you

very much for your testimony and for answering those questions.

DR CHILDERHOUSE: Thank you all very much and good luck with your

deliberations. 20

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, our last expert witness for today is a very

patient Mr Martin Cawthorn and would invite CRP to introduce him?

MR WINCHESTER: Afternoon Mr Cawthorn. 25

MR CAWTHORN: Good afternoon.

MR WINCHESTER: Now can you confirm please you have produced a

statement of evidence dated 25th of August 2014 and you have also 30

participated in the joint statement of the marine mammals experts dated

the 15th of October 2014?

MR CAWTHORN: That is correct.

35

MR WINCHESTER: You have not prepared a summary of evidence but

perhaps you might use your 15 minutes of allocated time to talk to your

evidence and your participation in the conferencing and possibly

volunteer any comments you have having heard the evidence of your

colleagues today. 40

MR CAWTHORN: Thank you very much, yes I apologise for not having

produced a summary but having produced my evidence somewhat

early, the 25th of August and then I went away to Europe and returned

about a week ago. 45

CHAIRPERSON: We have enough paper to keep us going Mr Cawthorn.


MR CAWTHORN: Thank you. If I may I will work through the executive

summary and one or two other parts of my evidence and then proceed

with comments as I have been requested. The evidence I have produced

describes the distribution patterns of marine mammals over The 5

Chatham Rise, two datasets of incidental signings of citation species

were used to describe their distribution.

My own dataset or the dataset I compiled of incidental sightings from

ships in transit to or from New Zealand Ports and other commercial 10

vessels and the Department of Conversation DOC citation sightings

data. The datasets provided about 137 records of 12 different species

and beaked whales is one group within the study area which consists of

an approximately 100 kilometre buffer area of the Chatham Rock

Phosphate Mining Permit area. 15

Most of the sightings of citations within the study are of sperm whales

and pilot whales which feed along the flanks of The Chatham Rise as I

am sure everybody is now aware. The various species of dolphins,

beaked whales, killer whales and baleen whales including southern 20

right whales either use The Chatham Rise or transit it during their

northward and southern migrations. The southern margin and the south

eastern end of The Chatham Rise are foraging grounds for southern

right whales and beak whales respectively.

25

[4.45 pm]

The presence of CRP’s mining vessel, as well as fishing vessels is, in

my view, unlikely to substantially increase the risk of ship strikes on

whales or any form of entanglement. Noise displacement, should it 30

occur, should be of relatively short duration over a small area during

the four to five day mining period, this was a similar view as expressed

by Dr Cadden. As the (INDISTINCT 00.32), the blue whales, fin,

(INDISTINCT 00.33) and minky whales and humpbacks will be in

transit in the vicinity of The Chatham Rise and dolphins feed in the 35

upper part of the water column, in my view, they are unlikely to be

affected by any suspended sediment from the mining operation in the

top centre of The Chatham Rise.

Mitigation methods should ensure that no mining begins when any 40

whales are within a buffer zone around the vessel and thus the

equipment on the seabed. I think that pretty much covers the basis of

my evidence, if you would like I can go through briefly picking out the

major points but otherwise it is fair to say that I find Dr Childerhouse’s

summary evidence is very good, very comprehensive and most of 45

which I agree entirely. The conferencing was extremely useful, in my


view, but I have to say at the outset that I am not a marine acoustician, I

have no pretence to having any expertise in the field and any questions

that I might receive I will bounce back directly onto those experts if

that is okay by you, thank you.

5

CHAIRPERSON: That is fine.

MR CAWTHORN: Yes, in the scope of the evidence I discuss the prevalence

and distribution of marine mammals on The Chatham Rise, as I was

commissioned to do, the conservation significance of marine mammals 10

that are present on The Rise, the likely impacts of the proposed mining

activity and mitigation effectiveness, and I also responded to aspects of

the submissions concerning marine mammals. I don’t think there is a

great deal to be gained by me, sorry, by the assembled people for me to

go through all my evidence but I would be more than happy to answer 15

questions if I can.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks very much, Mr Cawthorn, and it is good to see

someone who came to whale watching from a quite different angle than

the current generation of whale watchers. Greg? 20

DR RYDER: Yes just turning to the conferencing notes for marine mammal

experts and, excuse me, issue 1(c) and I am looking in particular at the

draft conditions appropriate if consent granted and I just wanted to

confirm really and in that far right hand column under ‘Agreed’, and 25

this is to do with some draft conditions, you were in agreement to those

suggested conditions there?

MR CAWTHORN: 1(c) the right hand column - - -

30

DR RYDER: Yes, so I am on page 4 - - -

MR CAWTHORN: - - - yes, I have it yes - - -

DR RYDER: - - - in the far right under ‘Agreed’ and there is about six bullet 35

points - - -

MR CAWTHORN: - - - yes, that is correct.

DR RYDER: - - - right and can I also just confirm you said you are not an 40

expert in acoustics but - - -

MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

DR RYDER: - - - so do I take it you haven’t had any experience in the use of 45

passive acoustic monitoring techniques?


MR CAWTHORN: That is correct, yes.

DR RYDER: So you are not familiar with the technique at all or its

effectiveness? 5

MR CAWTHORN: No, I am familiar with the basic techniques and have been

on cruises where we have deployed the equipment and I have seen the

results but I wouldn’t claim to have any technical expertise.

10

DR RYDER: You have got experience in visual monitoring of marine

mammals?

MR CAWTHORN: Substantial.

15

DR RYDER: Okay, and so you think that in a technique of itself has benefit

and I am interested in knowing what sort of distance under various sea

conditions you can observe mammals from, marine mammals?

[4.50 pm] 20

MR CAWTHORN: It depends entirely on the height above the water. That is

your horizon distance. If the conditions are ideal and you have the

right binoculars you could see whales. We have seen whales in the

Antarctic, for example, I have seen blue whales at eight miles. And 25

then anything within that. Does that answer the question?

DR RYDER: Yes, thank you. The previous witness talked about the current

programme of trained observers in New Zealand, I think he said there

was about 40 trained observers, do you have any experience with those 30

or the level of expertise that those people have?

MR CAWTHORN: With some of them. I know some of them personally, yes.

DR RYDER: And you feel they are suitable to undertake this sort of 35

monitoring on a large vessel? I suppose I am trying to work out

whether they have the level of training to be able to identify a range of

marine mammal species rather than perhaps just the common ones that

might be expected to be there.

40

MR CAWTHORN: Those experienced observers I know well have a perfect

ability to recognise those animals at range, yes.


45

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you, Greg. David?


MR HILL: Yes, Mr Cawthorn, I am just trying to work out what you are here

to tell us. Clearly you have put the datasets together and so you have

done the overall plots or distribution or - - -

5

MR CAWTHORN: I have done some. These data were collected from original

sightings forms which - if I could go back a step to give you the history

- in the 1960s established a sighting scheme that hinged around

lighthouses, all vessels at sea both commercial fishing, merchant

vessels, naval vessels and others. And people who volunteered to go 10

on the scheme were trained in identification and they filled out a

standard observer form. These records of incidental sightings, and I am

fully aware of the limitations these sightings, these were done because

we had absolutely no other way of collecting the data at the time.

15

But they resulted in a very large number of observations of marine

mammals from which we were able to derive - as the previous speaker

said, we were able to derive some seasonality, directions of movement

and a variety of other features. I have a copy of this form here if you

would like me to pass it across to you. 20

But significant on the form were the two little boxes on the top right

hand corner which had the hours on watch and the distance deemed (ph

3.33) during the watch. That is to say there was a measure of effort

given. The difficulty is that the most competent and reliable observers 25

filled those in, often people didn’t, but from naval vessels and other

vessels those data were filled in.

They appear not to have made the transition to electronic form when

the data were put onto disk at NIWA which is unfortunate but they still 30

exist, I think, and it would be worthwhile recovering those. But these

data, along with the information that was collected by, as we were then,

the Whaling Division of the Ministry of Agricultural and Fisheries

Science and Research Division. These formed the basis for our

observations of sperm whales around New Zealand which was put in 35

place simply because at that stage New Zealand was a whaling nation

and we were required to provide as much information as we could for

the management of the fishery which, as you probably know, took

place from Tory Channel.

40

[4.55 pm]

MR HILL: Can I take it, Mr Cawthorn, that you spent quite a bit of time at

sea?

45

MR CAWTHORN: Yes, indeed. Far too much my wife says.


[4.55 pm]

MR HILL: I wasn’t going to say that. But as an old salt I imagine you’ve got

numbers of anecdotes from people you spoken to over the years about 5

whales, that’s other than the data sets. I’m just wondering from that

basis of experience whether there’s anything you can tell us about the

Chatham Rise and whale observations on the Chatham Rise?

MR CAWTHORN: Yes, well, the best compilation of these is in this paper, 10

the New Zealand Marine Mammals and Fisheries’ paper that was

circulated just a little while ago by Berkenbusch et al.

And these observations as you will note are all colour coded which

gives at least the seasonal distribution of animals and you can see how 15

they accord with the sort of northward and southward migration. So

you’ll get a bimodal distribution and a percent frequency sighting. And

they provide basically a foundation upon which you can then build up

really meaningful research cruises and I’m the first to admit that these

data do not provide you with what we’ve heard about with the 20

structured information derived from research cruises, but they are a

very valuable database.

MR HILL: I was particularly interested in the conversation that Mr Hawthorn

was having with Dr Childerhouse on the Southern Right Whale and the 25

apparent lack of sightings in the Chatham Rise area. Is it from your

knowledge basis and without confirmed sightings but are there if you

like anecdotal evidence of Southern Rights in that area?

MR CAWTHORN: There are some, not a lot. You will probably be aware 30

that Southern Rights were virtually extirpated by about 1850 and have

been making a slow recovery which was then impeded by the Soviet

whaling fleet operating illegally in the 1960s and the Soviet whaling

fleet came up along the New Zealand coast after having spent some

time around the Auckland Islands from which it removed a substantial 35

number of Right Whales. They did the same thing in Tristan da Cunha

and those illegal extractions were of an order which were staggering

and this is one of the reasons why many of these whales have not

recovered as well as they might.

40

But it’s good to note that Right Whales and most of the other large

whales are certainly increasing in some areas faster than others and

then the New Zealand area sadly not as fast as they might, but they are

on the way back along with Humpbacks and other species.

45

MR HILL: Thank you, Mr Cawthorn.


MR CAWTHORN: Thanks.

DR CRAUFORD: Given the – I appreciate the explanation of the data that

you’ve got and that you’ve pulled as much as you can together, I guess 5

my question is do you think that the data that there is on population is

sufficient as a baseline to then consider what the impact of mining

might be?

MR CAWTHORN: No not entirely. I would prefer to see some dedicated 10

surveys over the Chatham Rise area.

DR CRAUFORD: Before mining takes place?

MR CAWTHORN: Yes, ideally. This might not be possible because as I 15

mentioned in my evidence surveys over an area so large with such

inclement weather the normal weather is about 2 to 3 metres of sea and

about 20 knots. That precludes things like aerial surveys where we

work to Beaufort 4 which is very low and it makes life very, very

difficult in an area like that. But vessels at sea with reasonable 20

observational platforms can gather the data. I’m also very aware that

observational data plus electronic monitoring, particularly from things

sonar buoys or distributing recording instruments is exceedingly

valuable.

25

DR CRAUFORD: I guess that could take quite a while and cost quite a bit?

MR CAWTHORN: It could.

DR CRAUFORD: Or do you think it can be done expediently? 30

[5.00 pm]

MR CAWTHORN: I don’t know whether you’d get it done expediently but I

think if you could incorporate the marine observations with the vessels 35

that are going to be working there or something similar and it wouldn’t

be that difficult to deploy electronic recorders over the area. I don’t

know how many you would need, but you could probably get away

with something like three to four hundred thousand, something like

that. 40

DR CRAUFORD: I realise that you are agreeing with Dr Ketten that you don’t

think that noise will be a substantial problem and that other impacts are

probably likely to be minimal. But I guess in terms of a precautionary

measure, would you agree that some baseline information would be 45

useful in order that the impacts can be measured?


MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

DR CRAUFORD: Thank you.

5

CHAIRPERSON: Lennie?

MR JOHNS: Hello, Mr Cawthorn, I take you read Mr Childerhouse’s

summary statement, pages 6 to 7?

10

MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

MR JOHNS: I’m just interested in your views based on your experience and

observations, in terms of the accuracy of some of these descriptions in

terms of the behavioural response levels. Have you actually observed 15

those sorts of behaviours?

MR CAWTHORN: Yes, but I agree entirely with Simon that it is very, very

difficult to categorise whale behaviour and I was thinking while the

discussion was underway that if you are looking at minor changes in 20

locomotion or moderate locomotion and diet changes a minor change

could be a slow relaxed turn away off a particular course on

experiencing some sort of sound, or it could be a rapid change, or even

a full reversal of course, who knows.

25

Extensive changes, a lot of these changes can be determined from the

respiration rates of whales, if they are frightened of something or if

they are distressed they will pant so you get an increased respiration

rate.

30

MR JOHNS: Okay.

MR CAWTHORN: These are visible and easily recorded. Severe or sustained

avoidance of sound sources, these are all very difficult to quantify,

because if you have a vessel operating and the whales approaching it, I 35

would assume that they would probably start listening rather than

vocalising and they would move away from the sound source before

you are able to see them. Unless of course you could pick them up on

some electronic monitoring equipment at an earlier point.

40

MR JOHNS: Okay, thanks very much.

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Lennie. Mr Currie on behalf of the Coalition.

MR CURRIE: Thank you, sir. Good afternoon, Mr Cawthorn. Now firstly on 45

your paragraph 8 about mitigation, you say that mitigation methods


should ensure that no mining begins when any whales are within a

buffer area around the vessel and plus the equipment on the seabed.

MR CAWTHORN: Sorry, could you - - -

5

MR CURRIE: Paragraph 8 on page 5 of your statement.

MR CAWTHORN: Thank you.

MR CURRIE: Have you been present all day today? 10

MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

MR CURRIE: And you have heard the various discussions about

observations? 15

MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

MR CURRIE: I just heard you tell the Committee – you gave an example of

seeing whales in the Antarctic at some distance. 20

MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

MR CURRIE: I presume that was in calm waters was it?

25

MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

MR CURRIE: I think you just said that normal weather on the Chatham Rise

is two or three metres of swell.

30

MR CAWTHORN: That’s correct.

MR CURRIE: So how far could you expect to see a whale in two or three

metres of swell on a clear day?

35

MR CAWTHORN: Well it depends if you are at the top of the master or some

position like that, you would still have a good horizon distance if a

whale came up and blew clearly, it might be possible to see it out to

three or four miles, something like that.

40

MR CURRIE: But you may also miss the whale.

[5.05 pm]

MR CAWTHORN: You might miss it, yes. 45


MR CURRIE: And CRP intends to mine at night, do they not?

MR CAWTHORN: Pardon?

MR CURRIE: CRP – the company intends to mine at night? 5

MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

MR CURRIE: It will be very difficult to see a whale at night, would it not?

10

MR CAWTHORN: Yes, it is.

MR CURRIE: In paragraph 73, Mr Cawthorn, you talk about - - -

MR CAWTHORN: Is this of my evidence? 15

MR CURRIE: Again, of your evidence, yes.

MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

20

MR CURRIE: Page 18.

MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

MR CURRIE: You say that “no dedicated systematic marine mammal surveys 25

across the Chatham Rise have ever been undertaken”.

MR CAWTHORN: That’s correct.

MR CURRIE: And you cite some reasons, what do you mean by, for example, 30

“lack of funding”, who’s lack of funding by whom?

MR CAWTHORN: Well in the period that I was involved in this, in all the

sea going work that I did, there was no specific funding for marine

mammal research, none. 35

MR CURRIE: You don’t mean by the applicant in this case?

MR CAWTHORN: No, no, no, no - - -

40

MR CURRIE: I see.

MR CAWTHORN: - - - no, no.

MR CURRIE: And what do you mean by “initial lack of qualified observers”? 45


MR CAWTHORN: There was – at the time that up un – well, up until the –

when was that, 1986 when the observer scheme was put in place,

people trained and then two years later they were let loose into the

fishery, there had been no suitably qualified people.

5

MR CURRIE: But they’ve trained since then, has it?

MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

MR CURRIE: And you were involved in the TTR application were you not? 10

MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

MR CURRIE: And an aerial survey was conducted there wasn’t it?

15

MR CAWTHORN: Yes, it was.

MR CURRIE: So it can be done can it not?

MR CAWTHORN: Yes, it can, yes, but I have to say that the TTR area is as 20

different from the Chatham Rise as chalk is from cheese, in terms of

conditions.

MR CURRIE: Yes. Be more difficult but not impossible?

25

MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

MR CURRIE: And when you say in paragraph 80 that “to complete dedicated

marine mammal surveys of the marine consent area will be

prohibitively costly”, you mean it would be expensive? 30

MR CAWTHORN: It would be.

MR CURRIE: It’s a matter of resources isn’t it?

35

MR CAWTHORN: Yes, it is, yes.

MR CURRIE: It would be a reasonable thing to do it, would it not?

MR CAWTHORN: Yes, certainly. 40

MR CURRIE: In paragraph 53 of your evidence – I apologise to go back –

you say that “whales are therefore very sensitive to any sounds

different from or above the ambient level”.

45

MR CAWTHORN: In my experience that’s correct.


MR CURRIE: Why did you or other people associated with CRP not

undertake noise measurements to ascertain the ambient level?

MR CAWTHORN: I have to say that I was commissioned by CRP some 5

considerable time after all the survey work had been completed. Why

NIWA did not who – NIWA who were involved in this, why they

didn’t take that into account I do not know.

MR CURRIE: Thank you. No further questions. 10

CHAIRPERSON: Thanks, Mr Currie. Crown?

MS JAMIESON: It’s me, thank you, sir, and I just have one question, Mr

Cawthorn, now I don’t know if you’ve been asked to have – look at any 15

of the proposed conditions that CRP are proposing for this application,

have you had a look at those, at the latest version I think is attached to

Carmen Taylor’s evidence?

MR CAWTHORN: I don’t have Carmen Taylor’s evidence, I’m sorry. 20

MS JAMIESON: Okay. Well that probably doesn’t matter because all I want

to do is ask you, based on your experience how you’d interpreted term

that appears in those conditions, so one of the conditions there, if I

might explain, give you a little a bit of background to that and I – I 25

haven’t got a spare copy of them, but let me know if you want to have a

look at it, but I don’t think you’ll need to.

One of them is a condition that is an adaptive management condition,

proposed by the applicant, and the applicant proposes that certain 30

consequences should follow, should there be an unexpected adverse

impact generally, but particularly an unexpected disruption to marine

mammals, can you tell me what you would say would be an unexpected

disruption to marine mammals please?

35

[5.10 pm]

MR CAWTHORN: I would suspect that if it was known that a pod of animals

was coming into an area to feed or something similar, and then there

was a sudden burst of activity and sound and everything, every animal 40

turned around and went away, that would qualify I would think.

MS JAMIESON: So just thinking about that a little bit further, you might say,

and it goes back to what I think you have already said would be helpful

about needing baseline information to determine if something is 45

unexpected you really need to know what you expect, don’t you?


MR CAWTHORN: Yes.

MS JAMIESON: Thank you, that is all my questions.

5

CHAIRPERSON: Does any other party have a question of Mr Cawthorn?

MR CHRISTENSEN: I think even this time I am on the list.

CHAIRPERSON: You are, my mistake. 10

MR CHRISTENSEN: Thank you, sir, that is all right. I just have one topic,

Mr Cawthorn. And my friend, Mr Currie, started you down this path

but I want to look a bit further into the distance on it. We’re talking

about on The Rise, you talk about normal conditions being seas of two 15

to three metres and perhaps 20 knots of wind and I understand that the

proposal from CRP is that their cut-off for operations would be four

metre seas. Is it reasonable to assume that at four metre seas you might

be dealing with wind at 25 or 30 knots, perhaps something like that?

20

MR CAWTHORN: Oh yes.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Or even more?

MR CAWTHORN: Yes. 25

MR CHRISTENSEN: How realistic is it do you think to be able to observe in

those conditions whales at 1500 metres from the mining vessel?

MR CAWTHORN: Well, again, you have got this problem, if there is 30

sufficient altitude you can see over the seas into the swells, but it would

be very difficult.

MR CHRISTENSEN: Can you explain how in a practical sense the marine

mammal observers work in that sort of situation, and what I am 35

particularly looking for your comment on is where contemplating

conditions that would mean that there would be some sort of clearance

required in terms of the marine mammal observers would need to be

saying “I can see 1500 metres distant all around the vessel and I can

confirm there are no whales, therefore you may start up”. Is that how it 40

works in practice?

MR CAWTHORN: I imagine so, yes.

MR CHRISTENSEN: And presumably given that we are looking at a 45

condition which is designed to ensure that throughout periods of


mining there are not any whales within the 1500 metres. How does that

work practically? How do the marine mammal observers actually

operate?

MR CAWTHORN: You mean on a vessel that is involved in extraction or 5

something similar?

MR CHRISTENSEN: Yes.

MR CAWTHORN: Well, Simon Childerhouse did explain how they operate 10

on seismic vessels. That is a little bit different from working on

something like a stationary vessel, I guess. But what they would

normally do is that they would normally work in watches of two,

possibly, and they would be rotated through the day to ensure that they

are sort of fresh observers, and if one of them saw anything that he or 15

she would deem that the vessel should cease operations they will say

so. That is the way it works on the oil and gas fields, but in this case I

am not sure.

MR CHRISTENSEN: No. In four metre seas with 30 plus knot winds is it 20

always clear to an observer where a point 1500 metres from the vessel

is in the sea?

MR CAWTHORN: No, no.

25

MR CHRISTENSEN: So how does an observer know that the whale that they

might happen to spy is at 1200 or 1700 metres from the vessel?

MR CAWTHORN: The observers are remarkably, well the trained and highly

qualified observers I know are very competent. Most of the time when 30

the particular observers I know are taking observations of animals like

that they will use something like a sextant and they will very, very

quickly drop an angle onto the animal and from that they can calculate

the distance quite accurately.

35

[5.15 pm]

MR CHRISTENSEN: Okay, thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Thank you very much. If there are no further questions? 40

MR HILL: Might I just have one question, which might have two parts to it.

It just follows up that line – the first quick one was, how reliable are

range finding binoculars these days?

45

MR CAWTHORN: They are pretty good.


MR HILL: And my second question is, in a 30 knot wind, how long would

you expect the spout to actually last so that you could actually detect it?

MR CAWTHORN: I would think probably four or five seconds. 5

MR HILL: Yes. So long enough to see it?

MR CAWTHORN: Mm.

10

MR HILL: Thank you.

CHAIRPERSON: Okay. I will try again. If there are no more questions, that

brings your appearance to a conclusion. Thank you very much indeed,

Mr Cawthorn. Thank you. Much appreciated by the Committee and I 15

am sure by the hearing. Thank you very much.

Okay. So tomorrow’s session begins with the remaining expert

witnesses on the project’s impacts on marine mammals and maybe fish

as well I think in Dr Hooper’s case. Then in the afternoon we have 20

submitters representing the Forest and Bird Society and the

Environment and Conservation Organisations of New Zealand.

I have just got one question of Mr Winchester, and that is how CRP is

going on the revised paper on proposed conditions? 25

MR WINCHESTER: Sir, I was actually absent this afternoon to try and sort

that out, so the short answer is updated conditions will be circulated

this evening to counsel for the various parties and to the CRP email

address. There will also be an updated monitoring plan circulated as 30

well. So I will head back to the office and prepare that and get it

circulated.

CHAIRPERSON: So that will go to EPA?

35

MR WINCHESTER: It will, sir.

CHAIRPERSON: Yes, okay. Thank you very much indeed. All right. I look

forward to seeing you tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock.

40

MR WINCHESTER: Thank you, sir.

MATTER ADJOURNED AT 5.17 PM UNTIL

WEDNESDAY, 22 OCTOBER 2014

transcript of proceedings environmental protection ... · transcript of proceedings environmental...

Documents