BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AT WELLINGTON

IN THE MATTER of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (“the Act”)

AND

IN THE MATTER of the applications by Trans Tasman Resources Limited (TTR) for marine and discharge consents to recover iron sand under sections 20 and 87B of the Act and

BETWEEN Trans- Tasman Resources Limited

Applicant

AND The Environmental Protection Authority

Consent Authority

AND Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of Incorporated

Submitter

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE BY ANTON LEO VAN HELDEN ON BEHALF OF ROYAL FOREST AND BIRD PROTECTION SOCIETY OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED

24 January 2017

Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand Inc. PO Box 2516 Christchurch 8140 Ph 03 9405524 Solicitor acting: Peter Anderson/Sally Gepp

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION ...... 3 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE ...... 3 SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE ...... 5 IMPORTANCE OF THE SOUTH TARANAKI BIGHT FOR CETACEANS ...... 5 Methodological Issues ...... 6 Area of assessment ...... 6 Observation and stranding data ...... 6 ...... 7 Threat status of Whales ...... 8 WHALES PRESENT ...... 11 Baleen whales ...... 11 Pygmy right whales ...... 12 Right whales ...... 12 Toothed whales ...... 12 Beaked whales ...... 13 Sperm whales ...... 14 and ...... 14 ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AREA FOR CETACEANS ...... 15 Assessment of Reports prepared for TTR ...... 18 Ching Report ...... 19 NIWA Report ...... 19 The Cawthorn Report ...... 20 Conclusion about significance of affected area for whales ...... 21 EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY ON MARINE IN THE AREA ...... 22 The Hagley Acoustics report ...... 25 Conclusion about adverse effects from noise ...... 28 REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT PLANS ...... 28 The Baseline Environmental Monitoring Plan ...... 29 Marine Mammals Monitoring Plan and Underwater Noise Monitoring Plan ...... 29 Marine Management Plan ...... 30 Lodgement Review of Effects on Plankton, Fish and Marine Mammals ...... 31 The evidence of Simon Childerhouse prepared for TTR ...... 31 IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND INTEGRITY OF MARINE , ECOSYSTEMS AND PROCESSES ...... 35 IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING RARE AND VULNERABLE ECOSYSTEMS AND THE HABITATS OF THREATENED SPECIES ...... 36 CONDITONS ...... 37 REFERENCES ...... 39

2

INTRODUCTION

1 My name is Anton Leo van Helden. I am currently employed as a Marine Advocate for Forest & Bird. I have held this position or similar positions since 2013.

2 I have a Post-Graduate Diploma in Marine Biology (2010 Victoria University of Wellington (VUW)) and a BSc in Zoology (1991 VUW).

3 I have worked as a marine mammal scientist for over 25 years.

4 Prior to working for Forest & Bird, For 23 years I was responsible for the marine mammal collections at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa. I managed data and the recovery of material from strandings over that time, and was the central contact point for the scientific response to strandings for over 20 years, and managed the New Zealand stranding database, under agreement with the Department of Conservation.

5 I have published papers on the of whales, whale distribution, anatomy and general biology of whales, anthropogenic threats to whales (persistent chemicals, vessel collision, and noise), and conservation status of New Zealand marine mammals. I have coordinated international dissections and research projects of various species (primarily beaked whales and pygmy right whales).

6 I have lectured at universities, research institutions and to the general public, both here in New Zealand and internationally, and worked with Government agencies, museums, and research institutions in New Zealand and internationally.

7 I have represented New Zealand in international workshops on whale strandings in the South Pacific, , and Australia. I have been an invited participant in international research programmes, and field research on biology (Canary Islands 2010).

8 I was the subject expert, and collection specialist for the internationally touring exhibition Whales Tohorä, that has been touring North America since 2008. I am frequently called on both here and internationally to identify species of stranded or by-caught marine mammals.

9 I am familiar with issues associated with the impacts of anthropogenic threats on marine mammals including noise. I have co-authored papers on atypical strandings of beaked whales associated with US navy sonar, and the anatomy and physiology of beaked whales and their sensitivity to anthropogenic sound. In my role at Forest & Bird I have also been involved in the redevelopment of the Code of Conduct for Seismic Surveys 2017 in New Zealand waters with the Department of Conservation.

PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF EVIDENCE

10 I have been asked by Forest & Bird to prepare evidenced related to whales / cetaceans, including dolpins and porpoises,1 with the key issues relating to:

1In my evidence I use cetaceans and whales interchangeably to include dolphins and porpoises

3

a. the importance of the area affected by the application for cetaceans; and

b. the adverse effects of the proposed application, particularly anthropogenic noise on those cetaceans.

11 To give as complete a picture as possible on the diversity of marine mammals of the South Taranaki Bight (STB), I have looked at the broader region of Cook Strait (including the STB). This broader area is in my opinion the area of significance with respect to this proposed consent, particularly as the peristent noise, and particularly low frequency sound will travel at least 10s of kilometres, coupled with the lack of other thorough systematic surveys for the region.

12 In preparing this evidence, I have reviewed the application itself and the peer reviews provided by the EPA, in addition to the following evidence:

a. a summary report that encapsulates the reporting previously published in TTRs first application by Ching et al. (the Ching Report);

b. NIWA Cetacean Habitat Models Report;

c. Cawthorn Cetacean Monitoring Report;

d. Hegley Assessment of Noise Effect;

e. The Baseline Environmental Monitoring Plan;

f. Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan and Underwater Noise Monitoring Plan;

g. Marine Mammal Management Plan; and

h. Lodgement Review of Effects on Plankton, Fish and Marine Mammals.

13 I have read the Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses Environment Court’s Consolidated Practice Note (2014). In so far as I express expert opinions, I agree to comply with that Code. In particular, except where I state that I am relying upon the specified evidence of another person as the basis for any expert opinion I have formed, my evidence is within my sphere of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions which I express.

14 My evidence addresses the following matters:

a. The whales likely to be present in the area affected by the application;

b. An assessment of the importance of the area for whales;

c. An assessment of some of the matters that need to be considered under the EEZ Act including an assessment of effects;

d. A review of the managment plans; and

e. A review of the conditions.

4

SUMMARY OF EVIDENCE

15 The broader Cook Strait Region, including the proposed Trans Tasman Resources Limited (TTRL) mining area, must be considered to have a full appreciation of the diversity of cetaceans (whales, dolphins and ) that might be impacted by the proposed mining activity. The region contains are remarkably high diversity of cetaceans, as demonstrated by the high number of species that are recorded from whale strandings in the region.

16 The proposed activity would produce additional anthropogenic noise (from the dredge and supporting vessels) in this environment that would have impacts over a footprint of at least 10s of kilometres. Such activity would likely have negative impacts on the known population, and other threatened and endangered species, and has the potentially to negatively impact a larger number of species for which much of the only available data is from strandings, including data deficient species like pygmy right whales and beaked whales.

17 The likely effects from the noise levels produced by this operation, could cause considerable behavioural changes such as the exclusion of species of whales preferred habitat across broad area and the possibility of causing long term stress related impacts. A particualar issue of concern is that the introduced additional noise in the area is projected to be a persistent 24/7 operation for 35 years.

18 There is a lack of knowledge of basic biological information on the species and populations of whales in the area and the way they use this environment. There is however information, such as the stranding record that should not be ignored, which provides considerable evidence for the presence of a large number of species within this region, that could be impacted by such activity. A precautionary approach should be applied, given the potential long term impact of the proposed activity.

19 Overall it is my opinion the evidence provided by TTRL does not adequately describe the species that could be impacted, does not describe in enough detail the full scope of the operation has downplayed the potential impacts.

20 The proposed mitigations will not provide protection from impacts of additional noise in the environment on the beahvioural responses in whales in the area. The conditions proposed may offer some new information on species presence in the region, but it is my view that thorough peer reviewed surveys are necessary to properly assess the impacts of consents of this nature.

21 It is my opinion that this proposed activity puts a large number of whale species at risk, including threatened, endangered, and recovering populations.

IMPORTANCE OF THE SOUTH TARANAKI BIGHT FOR CETACEANS

22 In this section of my evidence I assess the importance of the affected area for cetaceans. I do this by identifying the methodology that I have used and then identifying the cetaceans that are present or likely to be present in the area.

5

Methodological Issues

23 There are two issues relating to methodology that I consider it is appropriate to explain. These relate to the area of assessment and the use of both stranding and observation data.

Area of assessment

24 In assessing the importance of the area likely to be affected by the proposed mining operation for whales, I have used the Cook Strait Region, which includes the South Taranaki Bight.

25 The region also includes those areas referred to in the New Zealand whale stranding database as Taranaki, Tasman, Manawatu, Marlborough (excluding all records East and South of Port Underwood), Nelson, and Wellington (for this I have excluded all records East of Karori Light).

26 I have used the Cook Strait Region because whales have different ranges and use broader areas that include areas of significance for them over different parts of their normal activities, for feeding, breeding, calving or as part of migration routes.

27 In my opinion, the Cook Strait Region should be used to give a more complete picture of those species that have the potential to be present during some part of their lives within the proposed consent area.

Observation and stranding data

28 All cetaceans in New Zealand’s territorial seas and Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are protected under national law by the New Zealand Marine Mammal Protection Act 1978, which provides that all physical or habitat disturbances to the must be avoided or mitigated.

29 However, we know very little about the distribution and habitat use patterns of cetaceans around New Zealand, especially those that inhabit offshore waters. Therefore, attempts by government, conservation and industry stakeholders to consider risks and minimize impacts on cetaceans are limited by a lack of basic information. What little basic information we do have on the whales that inhabit our waters should not be ignored.

30 Knowledge of the distribution and relative abundance of cetacean species is important for environmental planning to help understand and potentially mitigate the impacts of anthropogenic activities (Baird et al. 2013).

31 In assessing the importance of the area for whales I have considered both observation records and stranding records.

32 At sea observations, particularly when these are from ad hoc sightings, or non- systematic surveys, are likely to provide a very incomplete picture of cetacean diversity for an area and present a biased view of the presence or absence of species.

6

33 Stranding records are important because despite their relatively large size, occurrence data for a large percentage of cetaceans remains poor. Consequently, as such stranded cetaceans provide an especially important source of occurrence data, with the entirety of knowledge for some species being based on such data.

34 Stranding records are almost always richer than live surveys, and overall strandings almost always provided better diversity information about extant cetacean communities than live surveys (Pyenson 2011).

35 A number of species of cetacean have rarely been observed at sea (beaked whales (Family Ziphiidae), pygmy Caperea marginata, pygmy breviceps) and strandings give us our primary understanding of the biology of these species.

WHALES GENERALLY

36 New Zealand is recognized as having a highly diverse cetacean fauna, and the broader area surrounding the proposed mining area can be considered a world cetacean hot spot. As discussed above, the South Taranaki Bight is a subset of the Cook Strait region, and so to more completely represent the cetacean fauna of the area it is important to consider the region as a whole.

37 There are two broad groupings of whales: baleen whales and toothed whales.

38 Baleen whales (Mysticeti) are filter feeding whales that do not have teeth but rather have large fringed plates of baleen that hang down from the upper jaw and act like a sieve to remove their small prey (Krill, shrimp, and other small crustaceans, and small fish) from the water. These generally large animals generally produce sounds at low frequencies.

39 In New Zealand waters nine species with two sub-species of are represented in three families all of which are found in the Cook Strait Region:

a. (Balaenopteridae): nine species with two sub-species: southern blue whale (sub species of blue whale), pygmy blue whale (sub species of blue whale), , , Bryde’s whale, Antarctic , dwarf minke whale, and ;

b. Right whales (): one species: The ;

c. Pygmy right whales (Cetotheridae): one species: The .

40 Toothed whales (Odontoceti) use echolocation to find food, navigate and communicate. In New Zealand there are 34 species and one additional sub-species (Maui’s ) represented in five families: 24 species and one subspecies are found in the Cook Strait region specifically:

a. Sperm whale (Physeteridae): one species recorded in the Cook Strait region: the great sperm whale;

b. The diminutive sperm whales (): one species recorded in the Cook Strait region: The ;

7

c. Porpoises (Phocoenidae): one species recorded in the Cook Strait region: the ;

d. Dolphins (Delphinidae): 12 species and one sub-species are recorded in the Cook Strait region: Hector’s dolphin, Maui’s dolphin, , long- finned , short-finned pilot whale, Risso’s dolphin, , southern , , false-killer whale, pantropical , , rough-toothed dolphin, and ;

e. Beaked whales (Ziphiidae): nine species recorded from the Cook Strait region: Arnoux’s beaked whale, southern , Andrew’s beaked whale, dense-beaked whale, ginkgo-, gray’s beaked whale, Hector’s beaked whale, strap-toothed whale, Shepherd’s beaked whale, Cuvier’s beaked whale;

Threat status of Whales

41 Before discussing the whales that are likley to be affected by the application, I discuss the threat classification for whales and its relevance to the application.

42 Conservation status of New Zealand marine mammals is determined by an expert panel for the Department of Conservation using DOC’s criteria (following Townsend 2008), additionally there is the International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Categories.

43 At least a quarter of our marine mammal speices, including whales and dolphins are threatened with extinction (MFE Report: Our marine environment 2016).

44 One third of species assessed by the IUCN are listed as Data Deficient, because of a lack of sufficient information to categorize them (Paces et al.2015). Therefore the real number of threatened species could be much higher and some species could be declining or perhaps even disappearing from our oceans without us even noticing. The term Data Deficient in the New Zealand classification system refers to species that are suspected to be threatened, but for which distribution and abundance information is unknown.

45 In line with the New Zealand Conservation Classification system it is my opinion that Data Deficient species should be treated as Threatened for the purposes of this application.

46 The New Zealand Classification system (see Baker et al. 2016) and that of the IUCN can and do differ, for example, Blue whales are listed as Endangered by the IUCN but are listed as Non-Resident Native and Migrant under the New Zealand Threat Classification criteria.

47 The Baleen whale threat classifications are discussed below.

a. Bryde’s whales edeni that are recorded from the region are also listed as Nationally Critical, and recognized as Data Deficient by the IUCN.

8

b. The southern right whale Eubalaena australis. Is listed as Nationally Vulnerable, as locally the populations of this species were hunted to near extinction. The IUCN lists them as Least Concern. Recovery of this species in New Zealand waters is seen as the reconolization of animals to waters around mainland New Zealand from the breeding population in the sub-Antarctic islands, with a few animals now regularly seen around the New Zealand mainland.

c. Of the baleen whales only the pygmy right whale Caperea marginata is listed as Data Deficient (both in the New Zealand classification system and that of the IUCN). However the population status of most baleen whales is very poorly understood for the New Zealand region.

d. The sei whale Balaenoptera borealis, Pygmy blue whale B. musculus brevicauda, Antarctic Blue whale B. m. Intermedia, Fin whale B.physalus, and Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae are all listed as Non-resident Native – Migrant under the New Zealand Classification system.

e. However the IUCN classification lists Antarctic blue whales, B. m. intermedia as Critically Endangered by the IUCN. The definition of Critically Endangered is that the species is “facing an extremely high risk of extinction” (see IUCN 2008). The Antarctic blue whale is one of two subspecies found in New Zealand waters. This subspecies has been reduced by more than 97%, to less than 3% of its original population size. The other sub-species of blue whale in New Zealand waters is the poorly known pygmy blue whale B. m. brevicauda, which is listed as Data Deficient by the IUCN, that whales of this sub-species have been reported year round in the Cook Strait region. Genetic studies suggest that the pygmy blue whale population around New Zealand may be a distinct population, separate from the population off Australia, the video recording of a nursing calf has also been reported (Torres & Klinck, 2016) may indicate that the classification status of this sub-species needs reevaluating. The IUCN lists the sei whale, and the Oceania population of humpback whale as Endangered, and the fin Whale as Vulnerable.

f. The two species of minke whale in New Zealand waters, the Balaenoptera bonarensis, is listed as Not Threatened under the New Zealand Classification but Data Deficient by the IUCN. The dwarf minke whale is listed as Taxonomically indeterminate and classified as Not Threatened. The species has been described and is widely accepted, however it carries the same name as the , and so this taxonomic distinction is yet to be clarified. The IUCN lists the common minke whale as least concern.

Toothed whale threat classifications:

48 Under the New Zealand Conservation Classification system:

a. both the killer whale and Maui’s dolphin are listed as Threatened – Nationally Critical (IUCN lists killer whale as Data Deficient and Maui’s dolphin as Critically Endangered, and

9

b. both Hector’s dolphin and bottlenose dolphin as Threatened – Nationally Endangered (IUCN lists Hector’s dolphin as Endangered and Bottlenose dolphin as Least Concern) , all are recorded from the region.

49 Under the New Zealand Classification Data Deficient odontocete species from this region are the:

a. southern bottlenose whale;

b. Andrew’s beaked whale;

c. Hector’s beaked whale;

d. the strap-toothed whale;

e. the spectacled porpoise;

f. Shepherd’s beaked whale; and

g. Cuvier’s beaked whale.

50 The ginkgo-toothed whale is listed as Non-Resident Native -Vagrant, and Gray’s beaked whale as Not threatened.

51 The IUCN lists all beaked whales apart from the southern bottlenose whale and Cuvier’s beaked whale as Data Deficient.

52 The New Zealand Conservation Classification system lists the great sperm whale as Not Threatened, whereas the IUCN list it as Vulnerable. The pygmy sperm whale is listed nationally as Not Threatened and by the IUCN as Data Deficient.

53 New Zealand’s only porpoise species the spectacled porpoise dioptrica is also recorded from the region, although this could be considered extralimital, there are now more northerly records (i.e. Coromandel). The New Zealand Conservation Status and the IUCN both lists the spectacled porpoise as Data Deficient. 54 Hector’s dolphin is listed nationally as Threatened and Endangered by the IUCN. Nationally the bottlenose dolphin is listed as Threatened, the IUCN lists common bottlenose dolphins as Least Concern, but recognises the New Zealand sub- population in Fiordland as Critical.This table presents the comparative threat status of dolphin species recorded from the Cook Strait region under the New Zealand and IUCN classifications:

10

SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME NZ Threat Status IUCN STATUS hectori hectori Hector's dolphin Nationally Endangered Endangered Cephalorhynchus hectori maui Maui's dolphin Nationally Critical Critically Endangered Delphinus delphis Common dolphin Not Threatened Least Concern Globicephala macrorhynchus Long-finned pilot whale Not Threatened Data Deficient Globicephala melas Short-finned pilot whale Non-resdient Native Migrant Data Deficient Grampus griseus Risso's dolphin Vagrant Least Concern obscurus Dusky dolphin Not Threatened Data Deficient Lissodelphis peronii Southern right whale dolphin Not Threatened Data Deficient Orcinus orca Killer whale Threatened Data Deficient Pseudorca crassidens Not Threatened Data Deficient attenuata Pantropical spotted dolphin Vagrant Least Concern Stenella coeruleoalba Striped dolphin Vagrant Least Concern Steno bredanensis Rough-toothed dolphin Vagrant Least Concern Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin Nationally Endangered Least Concern

WHALES PRESENT

Baleen whales

55 Every species of baleen whale recorded from New Zealand (nine with two sub- species) have all been recorded within this region.

56 These are the dwarf minke whale Balaenopetera acutorostra, Antarctic minke whale B. bonarensis, sei whale B. borealis, Bryde’s whale B. edeni, southern blue whale B. musculus intermedia, pygmy blue whale B. m. brevicauda, fin whale B. physalus, humpback whale megaptera novaeangliae, southern right whale Balaena australis, pygmy right whale Caperea marginata.

57 The area is important for baleen whales 32% of all baleen whale strandings recorded from New Zealand are known from this region. 40% of all recorded strandings of blue and pygmy blue whales in New Zealand are reported from the Cook Strait region, species which are now recognized as being associated with blooms of primary productivity in this region.

58 As a percentage of total recorded strandings for baleen whales in New Zealand, the Cook Strait region accounts for:

a. 15% of minke whales;

b. 23% of humpback whale;

c. 38% of fin whale;

d. 25% of Sei whales;

e. 0.2% of Brydes whales;

f. 33% of right whales; and

g. 35% of pygmy right whales.

11

Pygmy right whales

59 The pygmy right whale Caperea marginata is the smallest of the baleen whales and feeds on small swarming crustaceans (e.g. copepods and small euphausiids), and are generally associated with areas of high primary productivity (Kemper 2012). They are almost exclusively known from strandings with just a handful of live sightings worldwide. There are 22 recorded strandings of the pygmy right whale (Caperea marginata) in this region, and these include new-born calves, and cows with dependent calves. It is likely therefore that the Cook Strait Region is a significant calving area for the species. The Tasman Sea and in particular Cook Strait are seen as a significant global hotspot for this species (Kemper 2002).

Right whales

60 Historically, after wintering in the southern oceans, the southern right whales travelled up the east coast of the South Island, with large numbers then turning into Cook Strait, the warm shallow waters of Cloudy Bay providing an ideal calving area, with a proportion then carrying on through the Strait, passing between Kapiti Island and the mainland before proceeding to another major calving area in the Taranaki Bight (Patterson, 2002).

61 Southern right whales were hunted to all but extinction in the region. The main stations were in Cloudy Bay and at Kapiti, with smaller shore based stations near Whanganui (Prickett 2002).

62 The region is an area of very high productivity for swarming copepods and other small swarming crustacea like nyctiphanes australis, both of which form the diet of southern right whales. As the remnant population of southern right whale expands with the reported recolonization of the New Zealand coastal environment, it is likely that historic calving areas such as the Taranaki bight would also be recolonized.

Toothed whales

63 The types of toothed whales that are present in the area include beaked whales, dolphins, sperm whales and there is one record of a porpoise.

64 There are 24 species and one additional sub-species of toothed whale recorded from within this region.

65 These are: Arnoux’s beaked whale arnuxii, southern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon planifrons, Andrew’s beaked whale Mesoplodon bowdoini, ginkgo- toothed whale M. ginkgodens, Gray’s beaked whale M. grayi, Hector’s beaked whale M. hectori, Strap-tooth whale M. layardii, Shepherd’s beaked whale Tasmacetus shepherdi, Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris, Hector’s dolphin Cephalorhynchus hectori, Maui’s dolphin C.h. maui, common dolphin Delphinus delphis, short-finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus, long-finned pilot whale .G melas, Risso’s dolphin Grampus griseus, Dusky dolphin Lagenorhynchus obscurus, southern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis peronii, killer whale Orcinus orca, false killer whale Pseudorca crassidens, pantropical spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata, striped dolphin S. coeruleoalba, rough-toothed dolphin Steno

12

bredanensis, bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus, spectacled porpoise Phocoena dioptrica, pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps, Sperm whale Physeter microcephalus.

Beaked whales

66 Beaked whales (family Ziphiidae) are the most diverse species group in New Zealand waters after dolphins.

67 Very little is known of the life history of these cetaceans and whilst there are 22 recognized species, many are described from only a small number of records (Thompson et al. 2012),and so most beaked whales are listed as data deficient by the IUCN., Recent genetic analysis of the relatively common stranding (for New Zealand) Gray’s beaked whale Mesoplodon grayi suggests that there are potentially large numbers of this species around New Zealand (Thompson et al. 2012),. Little is still known about the spatial relationships of these species to our marine environment.

68 Thirteen species (of 22 known world wide) of beaked whale are known from New Zealand, five of these species were described from specimens collected from strandings from our shores. New Zealand has probably the most diverse fauna of this group anywhere in the world. It is clear that New Zealand is a significant region for this group. Beaked whales are generally considered to be deep water specialists although some species of Mesoplodon have been recorded in shallow water and estuaries with calves, including Gray’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon grayi) (Dalebout et al. 2010).

69 With so little known about the behavior of beaked whales we cannot discount their use of shallow waters at different times. Beaked whales are recognised as being particularly sensitive to anthropogenic sound (Pirotta et al. 2012).

70 Beaked whales are common stranders in the region, with a remarkable diversity recorded. Nine of the 13 species recorded in New Zealand are represented in the Cook Strait region, including all of the records of the poorly known ginkgo-toothed whale.

71 The beaked whale species that have live-stranded in the region include:

a. Cuvier’s beaked whale (Ziphius cavirostris),

b. Gray’s beaked whale (Mesoplodon grayi),

c. Shepherd’s beaked whale (Tasmacetus shepherdi)

d. Southern bottlenose whale (Hyperoodon planifrons).

e. Strap-toothed whale (Mesoplodon layardii),

72 Whanganui, inshore from the proposed consent area is the type location for the holotype of Shepherd’s beaked whale Tasmacetus shepherdi. This is a species for which there are few recorded at sea observations. Of the 33 recorded strandings in New Zealand 7 (or 21%) are from this region, including the holotype ( reported as a

13

pregnant female), and a very fresh dead calf of a Shepherd’s beaked whale (Tasmacetus shepherdi) at Castle Cliff, Whanganui in 1994 ( which was assumed to be alive at time of stranding).

73 Beaked whales are generally considered to be teuthophagus, showing a preference for squid, although some fish and crustacea are also recorded in their diet. The diet of beaked whales in New Zealand is not well studied. From my own observations this generally holds true for most beaked whale species here, the only obvious difference comes from my observations of stomach contents of Shepherd’s beaked whales.

74 The South Taranaki Bight is seen as a highly productive area for copepods, small euphausiids, and potentially schooling tunicates like pyrosoma sp. Schooling tunicates such as pyrosoma sp. have been found in the gut of a live stranded Shepherd’s beaked whale at Haulashore Is. in Nelson in 1994. Unlike other beaked whales Shepherd’s beaked whale has functional teeth in both the mandible (lower jaw) and maxillae (upper jaws),these form pairs top and bottom, it has been suggested that these whales may have different feeding behavior to other beaked whales and be more generalist in their feeding strategy. They are the only beaked whale species to be reported to feed on schooling tunicates, so this region may be of special significance to them.

Sperm whales

75 Sperm whales are also present in the area. The great sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus and the pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps have 42 and 27 stranding incidents respectively, including live strandings for both species.

76 The number of strandings indicates that the area is important habitat for sperm whales, that may be associated with an abundance of squid in the region.

Dolphins and porpoises

77 Sixteen dolphin species and one subspecies (Maui’s dolphin Cephaloryhnchus hectori maui) are recorded from New Zealand of these 13 species and one subspecies are recorded from the Cook Strait region. Only one species of porpoise is recorded from NZ, the spectacled porpoise Phocoena dioptrica, this has been recorded within the Cook Strait region.

78 Golden Bay is an internationally recognised hot spot for mass strandings of long- finned pilot whales Globicephala melas. 87 stranding incidents are recorded for this species, they are recorded from every month of the year. 87 records of common dolphin Delphinus delphis are recorded from strandings in the region, a large number of common dolphins are also caught annually in the Jack mackerel fishery in the region. Museum records demonstrate the historic importance of the South Taranaki Bite to Hector’s/Maui’s dolphins.

79 New Zealand’s only porpoise species is the spectacled porpoise Phocoena dioptrica, which is also recorded from the region, at the time of stranding was the most northerly record for New Zealand, there is now a more northerly record (i.e.

14

Coromandel). The Conservation Status lists the spectacled porpoise as Data Deficient.

80 Maui’s dolphin is listed as Critically Endangered by the IUCN (2008) and by Department of Conservation (DOC & Mfish 2007). The definition of Critically Endangered is that the species is “facing a very high risk of extinction” (see IUCN 2008). Hector’s dolphin is listed nationally as Threatened and Endangered by the IUCN. Nationally the bottlenose dolphin is listed as Threatened.

81 Dolphins are the most diverse group of cetaceans and have a diverse array of feeding strategies and prey preferences. Some feeding strategies have been recorded as population specific, and have been implicated in the potential evolution of speciation in Killer whales (Foote et al. 2016).

82 In my opinion, given the general lack of knowledge of the beahviour, diet and spatial use patterns of the 13 plus dolphin species that are recorded, the large number of species a precautionary approach, assuming until proven otherwise that the area is significant to them should be applied.

ASSESSMENT OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE AREA FOR CETACEANS

83 The stranding record demonstrates that there is an extraordinary diversity of marine mammals within this region.

84 Marine mammals are potential indicator species, such that their protection should also ensure the health of other key components of the marine ecosystem (Hooker and Gerber 2004).

85 If there is a high diversity of species in an area then the area is likely important to them, even over part of their lifespan.

86 There are few places in the world that could claim such a high diversity of cetacean species. Although through a lack of study the individual reasons why different species frequent this region is unknown. Reasons like availability of preferred prey, safe areas for calving, or important migratory corridors are among some possible reasons. It is therefore in my view that this area is a highly valuable area for cetaceans.

87 Many of these species recorded from this region are data deficient and most are listed as species of concern in the list of species that must be taken into consideration within the DOC Code of Conduct for the mitigation of impact from seismic surveys.

88 In 2013 a workshop was convened by the IUCN on the development of criteria for the assessment of Important Marine Mammal Areas (IMMAs). This is in line with what has been developed as Important Bird Areas (IBAs and Marine IBAs) by BirdLife international. As a first step the five criteria from the NOAA process for supplementing abundance and stock assessment for marine mammal populations in the US were used to help in this development.

89 New Zealand does not currently carry out either routine regular stock or population assessments for any New Zealand cetaceans, although some work has

15

been done to provide abundance estimates for Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins, and Southern right whales, and localised populations of Bryde’s whales and bottlenose dolphins. There are no robust population assessments for any other New Zealand cetacean species.

90 The five criteria that were considered at the workshop are useful at highlighting what could be applied here in the Cook Strait region:

a. Reproductive areas and times;

b. Feeding areas and times;

c. Migration corridors;

d. Smaller or resident populations;

e. Additional potential criteria listed were: Abundance estimates and population structure (large population, vulnerability, including social structure and food sources, rarity, uniqueness, genetic isolation) plus irreplaceability, aggregations, 3D habitat features, and sites relevant to past distributions but currently not used.

91 Survey data is the predominant tool for assessing the value of an area for cetaceans at population level. In cetaceans, congregations for feeding (such as blue whales reported by Dr. Leigh Torres) or even breeding often coincide with oceanographic features. Aggregations of large whales may occur at scales that cannot be properly perceived by observers, making such assessments difficult. For instance, blue whales and other large whales in the family, may be in close association though remote from each other, communicating with each other over tens to hundreds of kilometres.

92 A lack of systematic survey data currently limits the sort of evaluation needed to assess the real value of this area to cetaceans. Given the high diversity of cetaceans in the region it is my view that a precautionary approach must be used

93 The table below presents the species that occur in the region and the months from which they have been recorded from strandings:

16

SPECIES NAME COMMON NAME MONTH J F M A M J J A S O N D BALEEN WHALES Balaenoptera acutorostrata Dwarf minke whale Balaenoptera bonarensis Antarctic minke whale Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale Balaenoptera edeni Bryde's whale Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale B. m. brevicauda Pygmy blue whale Balaenoptera physalus Fin whale Balaenoptera sp. Unknown Balaenopterid whale Megaptera novaeangliae Humpback whale Caperea marginata Pygmy right whale Balaena australis Southern right whale BEAKED WHALES Berardius arnuxii Arnoux's beaked whale Hyperoodon planifrons Southern Bottlenose whale Mesoplodon bowdoini Andrew's beaked whale Mesoplodon ginkgodens Ginkgo-toothed whale Mesoplodon grayi Gray's beaked whale Mesoplodon hectori Hector's beaked whale Mesoplodon layardii Strap-tooth whale Mesoplodon sp. Unknown Mesoplodont whale Tasmacetus shepherdi Shepherd's beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris Cuvier's beaked whale DOLPHINS Cephalorhynchus hectori Hector's/Maui's dolphin Delphinus delphis Common dolphin Globicephala macrorhynchus Short-finned pilot whale Globicephala melas Long-finned pilot whale Globicephala sp. Unknown pilot whale Grampus griseus Risso's dolphin Lagenorhynchus obscurus Dusky dolphin Lissodelphis peronii Southern right whale dolphin Orcinus orca Killer whale Pseudorca crassidens False killer whale Stenella attenuata Pantropical spotted dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba Striped dolphin Steno bredanensis Rough-toothed dolphin Tursiops truncatus Bottlenose dolphin Unknown dolphin Unknown dolphin PORPOISE Phocoena dioptrica Spectacled porpoise SPERM WHALES Kogia breviceps Pygmy sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Sperm whale

94 If important data sets like the New Zealand Whale Stranding Database are not considered, the only likely records for many species will not be taken into account.

17

This will not give an accurate indication of the their presence in New Zealand waters and the regional picture of distribution of these species around our coasts will also be inaccurate. This has the effect of treating data deficient species as species of least concern.

95 Data Deficient under the conservation criteria of the Department of Conservation is described as:

“Taxa that are suspected to be threatened, or in some instances, possibly extinct but are not definitely known to belong to any particular category due to a lack of current information about their distribution and abundance. It is hoped that listing such taxa will stimulate research to find out the true category”.

96 The emphasis is my own, but points to two things:

a. we need to treat animals with such a listing as threatened; and

b. strandings represent the only means by which data on these species is known for the region.

Assessment of Reports prepared for TTR

97 The application by Trans-Tasman Resources Ltd includes:

a. a summary report that encapsulates the reporting previously published in TTRs first application by Ching et al. (the Ching Report);

b. NIWA Cetacean Habitat Models Report;

c. Cawthorn Cetacean Monitoring Report;

d. Hegley Assessment of Noise Effect;

e. Marine Mammals Monitoring Plan;

f. Marine Mammals Management Plan;

g. Lodgement Review of Effects on Plankton, Fish and Marine Mammals; and

h. The evidence of Simon Childerhouse prepared for TTR.

98 I have some concerns about all of these reports, which I discuss below.2

2 I also discuss the brief report on the assessment of noise effects by Hegley Acoustic Consultants (the Hegley Report) below.

18

Ching Report

99 The Ching Report relies entirely on sightings data. Whilst this data is useful it misses a large number of species that are reported from the region from strandings including live strandings. In my opinion, as demonstrated above, strandings give a better representation of the presence of species in a region, and so the diversity of species described in the Ching Report is not a good representation of the species known from the region.

NIWA Report

100 The NIWA report looks at just three species, because of their threatened status, and uses a distribution assessment made on the current distribution of species from adhoc sightings data over a time period that for two of these species, the southern right whale Balaena australis and Hector’s dolphin Cephalorhynchus hectori (and the subspecies Maui’s dolphin C.hectori maui ) comes after periods of considerable population restriction through anthropogenic impact.

101 Whaling rendered Right whales almost extinct by the 1840s (with perhaps as few as 90 individuals by 1925). This makes inferred habitat preference use models problematic. This is also coupled with non-systematic surveys and their associated bias of presence and absence.

102 The suggestion in the NIWA report that an area landward of the proposed site was once an area important for Hector’s dolphin is logical, as there are specimens in museums and historic records recorded from the region, particularly from Whanganui, an area threatened by the potential effects of the proposed mining activity.

103 Maui’s dolphin Cephalorhynchus hectori maui the sub-species of Hector’s dolphin with a population restricted to the West coast of the North Island may well have once spread further south. As this is a sub-species there is implied gene flow between populations and the threat posed to future movement of animals between populations from further degradation to the environment is a concern as it could prevent future gene flow between populations.

104 As stated in NIWAs report the entire New Zealand killer whale population is small (mean = 119 ± 24 SE) and broadly distributed around both North and South islands (Visser 2000). Little is known about killer whale distribution or habitat use patterns and, hence, conservation managers have little knowledge about their population status in different areas or exposure to various anthropogenic threats.

105 Killer whales can have considerable plasticity in targeted prey, but populations do take advantage of food sources within their home range often preferentially. New Zealand killer whales are noted for having a preferential diet of rays (Visser 2007). The area of the consent is within or adjacent to primary area for eagle ray habitat in the region. It seems unlikely that killer whales would not take advantage of an abundant preferential food source, which may be seasonal. It is unclear how much prey species inputs affected model outputs, but they appear not to have been incorporated. It should be noted that a killer whale is reported live stranding at Patea.

19

106 Physical oceanographic data, like those used, typically represent proxies for prey abundance or availability, which are expected to directly influence cetacean distributions (Redfern et al. 2006). Given prey abundance information is available to some degree, it is surprising that this has played little role in developing the presented patterns of preference.

The Cawthorn Report

107 Systematic surveys for marine mammals in New Zealand have been few however there are limitations on the value of the survey presented in the Cetacean Monitoring Report by Martin Cawthorn.

108 Good survey design is a crucial prerequisite for obtaining reliable results (Thomas et al. 2010). The surveys once every two months are not enough to evaluate the biological impact to marine megafauna. Typically, a week of surveys each month (for all months in which proposed work is to be carried out: in this case every month as it is a year round activity) with a minimum of a 4 hour flight each day over the area should be conducted.

109 One day of bad weather or foraging a few nautical miles in any direction will give the false impression that there are no animals to be concerned with. Surveys should take place the same months that mining will be happening, so in this case since they are planning to mine year round, then a survey year round is necessary to evaluate the biological impact.

110 The transects flown were a reasonable layout for the area being surveyed however it is not standard practice for them to run parallel to the shore as typically perpendicular transects so that different depth contours are evenly sampled. Many coastal cetaceans show a density gradient from high density nearshore to low density offshore, so transect lines perpendicular to shore will be preferred over lines parallel to shore (Dawson et al. 2008). It is hard to assess whether the area of the survey is narrow given the wider implications of potential noise and plume effects from the proposed consent, equally it is difficult to assess when the consent area is not shown against the area of effort.

111 Numerous other species have been recorded from the region (at least 33 species from stranding data) yet these are not remarked on at all in the report. There was no attempt to estimate the sighting probability. i.e. The probability of an observer seeing a whale or dolphin that is visible at the water surface and the proportion of time the species spends at the surface. For example, the probability of seeing a sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus, pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps or beaked whale (Family Ziphiidae) in an aerial survey like this is very low, because they spend most of their time underwater (e.g. beaked whales spend an estimate of between 5-8% of their life at the surface). As bad weather is common in the area, acoustic monitoring which is more resilient than visual surveys to bad weather, could have contributed to a more complete survey.

112 There was no attempt to estimate the sighting probability. i.e. The probability of an observer seeing a whale or dolphin that is visible at the water surface and the proportion of time the species spends at the surface. For example, the probability

20

of seeing a sperm whale, pygmy sperm whale (Kogia) or beaked whale in an aerial survey like this is very low, because they spend most of their time underwater.

113 Since all flights are daytime observations there is no assessment of how the environment may be used at night, additional surveys using passive acoustic listening systems for marine mammals should have been used to accompany a more thorough aerial survey programme, particularly given the difficulties associated with seeing deeper diving species.

114 There is very little information on the technical aspects of the survey. It is usually a standard requirement to include photos of the plane that was used, how many pilots, where the observers were sitting and who and how the data was recorded. The hardware and software for the GPS tracks would normally be described along with a map that has an overlay of the tracks. The tracks of the transects actually flown should have been documented not just the proposed lines as these can often differ quite a bit. There is no description of the way location of the animals was determined (an inclinometer?). Examples of standard practice are readily available (Thomas et al.2008; Smultea & Bacon 2012; and in Sheldon & Mocklin 2013, Jefferson et al. 2014, Jefferson et al. 2016 )

115 There is no mention of effort, it is critical to know when a survey is on or off effort, there is an assumption that each flight was in perfect conditions and that they were on effort the whole time, this would be remarkable and seems to be an omission from the report.

116 In short this aerial survey is lacking in design and implementation to deliver a meaningful picture of the megafauna of the region, and insufficient information is provided to evaluate the technical aspects of the survey.

117 For these reasons, in my opinion, the conclusions presented in Cawthorn Report have little value.

Conclusion about significance of affected area for whales

118 The stranding record shows that at a minimum of 12 species are likely to be present in any given month of the year, with January recording 28 species. This demonstrates that year round there is likely a high diversity of cetaceans using the area.

119 My view is that this demonstrates that the area is of special significance to whales despite the specific reasons for the presence of each species being currently unknown. Seasonal distribution of prey may be one factor, but various oceanographic features will play a lesser or greater role. A lack of research of the general biology and population level biology of the numerous species that inhabit the region makes making assumptions premature. I welcome further study of the species of the region, as such baseline data is an essential part in making robust management decisions for these species.

21

EFFECTS OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY ON MARINE MAMMALS IN THE AREA

120 The proposed activity may affect marine mammals directly and indirectly via the food web. Indirect effects are due to the mobilization of sediments, increase of turbidity and acoustic pollution from the activities may change marine productivity, as well as the behaviour, abundance and distribution of fish and invertebrates in the area, which would affect marine mammal foraging. This may cause marine mammals to abandon the area in search of better foraging resources. Direct effects are due to disturbance from increased traffic in the area and the dredging activity increasing background noise levels chronically during the proposed 35 years of the exploitation activity.

121 Further effects may be caused if dredging mobilises and releases to the water column pollutants such as heavy metals potentially buried in the sediment. In this case pollutants would be incorporated in the trophic web and affect marine mammals as top predators via bioaccumulation.

122 In the folllowing I will concentrate only on the direct effects of acoustic pollution, but other effects mentioned here need to be considered also.Increasing levels of anthropogenic noise have the potential to impact animals that inhabit marine environments in complex ways and their ecosystems, including through acute, chronic, and cumulative effects. Numerous studies illustrate specific adverse physiological, behavioral and ecological effects that exposure to certain noise types and levels can have on different species from invertebrates to mammals (Aguilar de Soto and Kight, 2016)

123 Marine mammals are considered vulnerable to the effects of noise pollution. This concerns in cetaceans particularly as they rely critically on sound for navigation, foraging and communication and can therefore be affected by increasing noise levels from human activities at sea (Dyndo et al. 2015). The introduction of added anthropogenic noise into a soundscape/environment can contribute to documented negative impacts on fitness (Jensen et al. 2004).

124 The introduction of added anthropogenic noise into a soundscape/environment can contribute to documented negative impacts on animal fitness (Jensen et al. 2004).

125 Of significant concern are the long term effects of persistent added anthropogenic noise in the marine environment.

126 Increasing levels of anthropogenic noise have the potential to impact the animals that inhabit marine environments in complex ways and their ecosystems, including through acute, chronic, and cumulative effects. Numerous studies illustrate specific adverse physical and behavioral effects that exposure to certain noise types and levels can have on different species.

127 Changes to the environment from introduced sound can lead to reduced ability to detect and interpret acoustic cues that animals use to select mates, find food, maintain group structure and relationships, avoid predators, navigate, and perform other critical life functions. Potential effects can range from none to altering

22

important behavioral patterns, masking, hearing impairment, habitat abandonment, or even death, in certain circumstances.

128 Sound is often of critical importance to aquatic fauna, not only for purposeful communication with conspecifics, but also in the detection of predators and prey, and for navigation and other purposes. Competing sounds that interfere with the detection or interpretation of these important cues can result in detrimental effects to aquatic species utilizing a given “acoustic habitat”.

129 Sounds utilized for purposes other than communication span frequency ranges beyond those used in vocalizations. Of growing concern is the need to address the chronic (persistent/longer-term) and aggregated or cumulative effects of rising noise levels resulting from increased human activities.

130 Adverse stress responses, which can have acute and/or chronic effects, have not typically been comprehensively addressed. Stress from cumulative effects, including behavioural disturbance (avoidance, vocalization changes, changes in swim speed and direction, alarm responses), adverse stress responses, masking, hearing impairment (temporary or permanent), and tissue damage, which can not only affect individuals but have the potential to have adverse broader population impacts.

131 The accumulation of cryptic effects (e.g., increased stress levels, missed feeding or breeding opportunities) over long periods may ultimately result in detrimental effects on the individual, which can impact the recovery, growth, or stability of a population, or ecosystems that they inhabit.

132 Complete abandonment of areas of significance for whales have been recorded, e.g. a known wintering area, (Bryant et al., 1984) in relation to increased anthropogenic activity and associated noise. However, if whales stay within an area of persistent anthropogenic sound exposure it is not an indication that they are unaffected. The necessity to forage or perform some other part of their normal behavior within the area may force them to stay in an area. Animals remaining in the area be coping in some way, some of which however may have detrimental effects on their health. It does not mean that they are unaffected by such sounds, coping may be through tolerance of the sound (like 'habituation' only without the 'no further impact' implications).

133 Long-duration exposures for any animals remaining in the area for extended periods could lead to some hearing loss or the noise may mask normal yet important sounds in their environment, as a consequence, they might actually miss alerts of other, more serious sounds, e.g. those of predators. It is not possible to assess this potential without more information. An assessment of cumulative SEL would be necessary to further assess possible impacts.

134 Studies have shown that whales may alter their vocalisation behavior in noisy habitats, and increases in vocalizations may represent an attempt by an animal to overcome ‘masking,’ when a sound is obscured or interfered with, by background noise (Weilgart 2007).

23

135 Fin whales (Balaenoptera physalus) have been recorded to reduce their calling rates in response to boat noise, and 250 male fin whales stopped singing for weeks-months over 10-20,000 sq. nm. in the presence of a seismic survey, resuming singing within hours-days after the survey ended (From Weilgart 2007 and papers therein). The sounds that would be produced in the proposed mining operation would certainly be in the hearing range of baleen whales, and would impact on at least the known population of blue whales in the region. The proposed 35 year duration of the mining operation could therefore have a lasting impact on the behavior of these animals.

136 Chronic stress has now been demonstrated in whales from exposure to noise. Northern right whales showed a significant increase in stress hormones related to chronic exposure to shipping ( Rolland et al. 2011).The main frequencies of shipping noise are low, and therefore those that would likely be produced by the proposed mining operation.

137 Other non-auditory effects of noise have been demonstrated on different fauna, including impacts on human health, those effects that are not the direct result of sound energy but are instead, the result of noise as a general stressor. Non- auditory effects of noise in humans include sleep disturbance, mental health issues, physiological responses such as increased heart rate, blood pressure, and endocrine outputs (Clark & Stansfeld 2007) these can have detrimental effects on such things as life expectancy. Long term stress response or chronic stress responses is likely in whales as demonstrated by Rolland et al. and in my opinion must be considered given the persistent nature of the additional sound that would be produced over the proposed 35 year of this mining operation.

138 Marine mammals both produce, and use, sounds spanning a wider range of frequencies and decibel levels than other marine taxa, and they use sound for a wide variety of purposes. An argument for dismissing effects of vessel noise on small toothed whales is their poor hearing at low frequencies, where large vessels radiate the most noise power, however porpoises have been shown to exhibit avoidance behavior of vessels at substantial ranges suggesting that they may respond to low levels of vessel noise (Dyndo et al. 2015). This is a particularly significant finding for New Zealand as harbour porpoises are frequently used as a proxy for Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins in assessing impacts. Also, beaked whales were observed to change diving and foraging behaviour in coincidence with intense shipping noise (Aguilar de Soto et al. 2006).

139 Baleen whales, which use low frequency sound, are expected to be most vulnerable to the relatively low frequencies of noise associated with shipping and dredging (e.g. blue whales, pygmy right whales etc.). However, changes in shipping are likely to be associated with increased levels of broadband noise from propeller cavitation resulting from higher vessel speeds. With this energy is introduced at higher frequencies in to the environment and may overlap with toothed whale ‘vocalizations’ and hearing sensitivity, with potential behavioral or physiological consequences (Pirotta et al. 2012). The study of Pirotta et al. demonstrated that broadband ship noise caused behavioural responses in whales up to at least 5.2km away from the source. This is well beyond any observable mitigation zone.

24

140 Beaked whales are recognized as highly sensitive to anthropogenic noise, such as sonar which has been shown to disrupt normal behaviours in attempting to avoid such sounds.

141 Beaked whales have been observed to avoid sites of sonar transmissions (in controlled surveys of short duration) to as far away as 16km and not return to the sites until 2-3 days had passed (Tyack et al. 2011) . Avoidance of areas of disturbance from sound would be hard to detect as beaked whales do not spend much time at the surface (6-8%), and often exhibit very discrete surface behavior.

142 Avoidance of an area where sound is being produced 24 hours a day for 35 years, such as is proposed by TTR with this consent, could completely disrupt normal behavior for beaked whales in the region for over generations.

143 The sound levels suggested by TTR (although not well described) are louder than sources used in a study that looked at the behavioural response of Baird’s beaked whale Berardius bairdii, a related species to Arnoux’s beaked whale found within the cook straight region, and Cuvier’s beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris both showed behavioural avoidance responses over at least 2.5km, with energetic fluking away from the source, and reacting to sounds as low 98dB-127dB. The response period continuing for as much as 3.8 hours after the initial reaction. Beaked whales appear to exhibit avoidance responses at relatively low received levels compared to those of other species, including blue whales. (Stimpert et al. 2014)

144 Wood et al. (2012, inc Southall) published an updated set of criteria suggesting a graded probability of response with, for most marine mammals, 10% response likelihood at an SPL of 140 dB re 1 µPa, 50% at 160 dB re 1 µPa, and 90% at 180 dB re 1 µPa. Migrating mysticetes and sensitive species, such as harbour porpoises and beaked whales, were treated separately, with a 50% likelihood of response set to an SPL of 120 dB re 1 µPa and 90% to 140 dB re 1 µPa. As has been discussed earlier a high diversity of beaked whales, and Hector’s/Maui’s dolphins are recorded for the region, long with a number of species of migratory baleen whales (and possibly resident), all of which are recognized as being sensitive to anthropogenic sound.

The Hagley Acoustics report

145 The Hagley report on the assessment of noise effects does not provide necessary information on which to make a proper assessment of the noise and is misleading.

146 Tables 1 & 2 in the report are pointless as they are making comparisons that are vey misleading, the comparisons provided only use the peak level and do not take into account the duration of the sound. So comparing dolphin or odontocete whale sounds to sonar for example where the sound produced by the dolphin may be at 20 microseconds, and that of say a Sperm whale at say 60 microseconds is compared to sound sources like sonar with a duration of a second, around 100 times the duration, and in the case of TTR the proposal is for continuous noise for 35 years. In my opinion, this is not a fair comparison and is of little value.

25

147 The report demonstrates that there is already sound in the area. Although this is true, the implication they have made is that more sound will not matter. The area proposed is actually within an area removed from current primary boat traffic and will add new sound into the environment.

148 The International Maritime Organisation has been working hard to change the outputs of noise from vessels and put new regulations in place for the development of new vessels, so other industries are working to reduce noise as they have already recognized the impact they are having on marine mammals. The problem is added noise and added persistent noise. The proposal is for the suction crawler to be active day and night, 24 hours a day for 35 years which is a considerable amount of additional noise in this environment.

149 No thorough description of the sound spectrum of the suction dredge/crawler has been provided in the report. An estimated value is given for the cutter suction dredge, but this excludes the cutter head, this is like saying “here is the noise a drill makes without a drill bit and without it actually drilling”.

150 This needs to be tested and proper descriptions given for the sound produced. No mention is made of the mechanism that will be used to keep the floating rig/vessel in place, it is likely that some dynamic positioning system will be used to achieve this and these can be quite a large source of loud sound, none of which is described in the report.

151 The sound produced by sucking material up through the hose to the floating rig from the crawler will be radiated in the entire water column, again no information is provided or modelled for this. No modelling has been provided to show the impact of these important sources of persistent noise. Sound propagation modelling should be done for all sources of noise from the operation, none of this has been provided.

152 The author has twice quoted a report and used these statements:

“ It has been reported that marine mammals tend to be adapted for living in noisy underwater environments, and typically have hearing thresholds that are much less sensitive than those adapted for the atmospheric environment, such as humans. For this reason marine species are able to tolerate much higher levels of noise.”

153 The original statement from the report referred to appears in the discussion of tertiary effects of underwater noise:

Tertiary Effects

…behavioural effects (for instance, an animal avoiding or fleeing an area as a result of underwater sound) occur at a much lower levels of sound, and hence tend to have effects on larger numbers of animals at much greater ranges. Behavioural effects as a consequence of man-made noise in the sea is consequently of increasing environmental concern. It should be noted, however, that marine mammals and fish tend to be adapted for living in noisy underwater environments, and typically have hearing thresholds that

26

are much less sensitive than animals adapted for the atmospheric environment, such as humans. For this reason marine species are able to tolerate much higher levels of noise.

154 It appears that the statement is made in the context of a comparison between atmospheric noise and underwater noise. The statement can be considered to be factually accurate when considering noise levels in terms of the absolute level of acoustic pressure. Even in the absence of any anthropogenic sources, underwater noise levels have a much higher absolute pressure than atmospheric noise levels (due to the density of the medium) and animals have indeed adapted their hearing sensitivity to deal with this.

155 However, in the context of the paragraph (and the report as whole), it is clear that the potential for tertiary or behavioural effects is a consideration and likely to occur over a large area and at lower noise levels. On this basis it would seem that it was never the intention of the authors to imply that because of their lower sensitivity, marine animals are more tolerant of the introduction of additional (anthropogenic) noise sources into their environment.

156 The report referred to was also written in 2005 when the effects of anthropogenic noise on the marine environment were only starting to be understood. The masking effects for example were seldom considered back then and even today there are considerable knowledge gaps. There is a consensus today that it is almost certainly an issue but the overall effect on populations has not been quantified and is not well understood.

157 In recent years acousticians have generally avoided any attempt to compare underwater noise and airborne noise because it can introduce confusion and is unnecessary as the regulatory and scientific communities have become more familiar with the subject and the levels that might be expected. The Code of Conduct for minimising acoustic disturbance to marine mammals from seismic survey operations created by the DOC provides much useful background.

158 Further, the particular report was issued as part of a commercial consultancy project and was never published or subject to peer review. Whist this does not detract from the accuracy or usefulness of such reports (particularly when they include good quality measured data), care must be used when referring to them, especially as they are rarely available in the public domain for more detailed scrutiny. Better material is now available that should be considered when evaluating the effects of anthropogenic noise. One useful source would be the NOAA ONS Road Map.

159 The report only concerns itself with the pressure aspect of sound although particle motion is also a component of sound. Particle motion is, for example, the component of ultrasound that is used to break up kidney stones. Particle motion has been shown to have a proven negative effect on fisheries including lobster and scallops (Day et al. 2016).

160 Particle motion is also a component of humpback whale song that may act to provide important information about the whale’s environment to the whale (Mooney et al. 2016). This has implications for the potential for both masking and

27

behavioural effects from the particle motion of the sounds produced from dredging and cutting etc.

161 This report on the impact of anthropogenic noise is inadequate and does not explain all the sources of sound, and does not demonstrate an understanding of the different ways in which numerous species could be negatively impacted by the persistent additional noise in the marine environment, with no consideration for the the cumulative stress effects on marine mammals in this environment, particularly given that the operation is proposed by TTR is a continuous operation for 24 hours per day for 35 years.

162 Certain aspects of the report as I have outlined above are misleading concerning both the biology of marine mammals, and the comparisons of sound outputs of different biological and non-biological noise sources. It is hard for non-specialists to grasp the concepts and detail of what is provided and may if taken at face value, undermine the opportunity for informed comment about activities that do in my view have potential to harm marine mammals in the area.

Conclusion about adverse effects from noise

163 It is my view that the likely direct impact from the proposed consent on cetaceans from the increased levels of anthropogenic noise may be both behavioural and physiological. Marine mamals are vulnerable to noise pollution and the noise from this consent will in likely interfere with the normal behaviours of animals over a over a broad distance, causing animals to potentially leave the area or modify their behaviour in ways that may have negative impacts on their fitness. The proposed activity may also affect marine mammals directly and indirectly via changes to the food web which would affect marine mammal foraging.

164 Long term exposure to even low level noises have the potential also to impair hearing, and cause stress related negative health effects on individuals. Such effects may have the potential to cause negative population level effects (e.g. diminished breeding success, reduce recovery rates). Baleen whales, which use low frequency sound, are expected to be most vulnerable to the relatively low frequencies of noise associated with shipping and dredging (e.g. blue whales, right whales, pygmy right whales etc.). However beaked whales that are particularly sensitive to noise pollution, and other odontocetes including Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins have the potential to be impacted by even low levels of broadband noise over many kilometres from the source.

REVIEW OF MANAGEMENT PLANS

165 I have reviewed the follpowingm angment plans and comment on them below:

a. The Baseline Environmental Monitoring Plan;

b. Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan and Underwater Noise Monitoring Plan; and

c. Marine Mammal Management Plan.

28

The Baseline Environmental Monitoring Plan

166 I have a number of concerns about the Marine Mammal Baseline Monitoring Plan. It ignores a number of taxa that are likely to be present in the region. It describes some as “only” having a seasonal presence and they give the example of migrating humpbacks. The proposed activity is not seasonal but is rather a persistent activity over 35 years. So whether or not a species is seasonal in its use of the area it will be exposed to the activity of the project over whatever duration the animals are in the area.

167 Usefully the plan shows an intention to do further research in the area, thorough and systematic aerial and acoustic surveys would be valuable. This however seems like something that should be done before bringing the application to the EPA and one that should be done by independent scientists.

168 No thorough description is provided in the plan for how these future surveys will be conducted or by whom. The acoustic survey proposed is stated to use multiple loggers, however where and how many is unclear. Unless these are the same as those proposed in the Under Water Noise Monitoring Plan (Section 14).

169 If that is the case then the proposed three loggers do not cover enough area to cover the area over which the sound generated by the proposed consent would affect. It is also unclear whether these loggers will be recording the full spectrum of sound or rather it would seem that some will be set to record low frequency sounds (suitable for blue whales) and some will be set for ultrahigh frequency sounds (suitable for Hector’s and Maui’s dolphin), this would leave large ranges of the sound scape not well covered.

170 Standard sighting datasheets proposed to be used by staff are useful, but are dependent on them being properly filled out in such a way that species recognition is possible. Nothing is offered in terms of the verification of records.

171 Even well trained Marine Mammal Officers are unlikely to see certain species as they have discrete surface behavior, and often spend little time at the surface. For example beaked whales only spend about 6-8% of their lives at the surface. Studies of dwarf sperm whales off Hawaii were shown to be highly difficult to detect in sea states greater than Beaufort 2 (Baird, 2005). A close relative of the is the pygmy sperm whale which are recorded in Cook Strait, are likely to be similarly difficult to observe at sea in similar sea states. Typically, beaked whales and pygmy sperm whales are seen only when conditions are very good, and good survey conditions are rare (Barlow , 2013).

172 In my opinion, for these reasons, the Marine Mammal Baseline Monitoring Plan is inadequate.

Marine Mammals Monitoring Plan and Underwater Noise Monitoring Plan

173 I have similar concerns about the Marine Mammal Monitoring Plan and Underwater Noise Monitoring Plan.Many potential species that could be impacted

29

by the proposed activities are ignored, including Data Deficient species such as pygmy right whales, which should be presumed threatened.

174 The potential impacts are listed. Habitat displacement is possible over broad distances with beaked whales and harbor porpoises (the proxy for Hectors dolphins) being shown to be vulnerable to disturbance and strong behavioural response over several kilometres from low levels of noise (e.g. broad \band ship noise).

175 Proposed mitigation is meaningless for species that are not detectable at such distances from the IMV and that even unlikely to be detected within the nominated mitigation zone. Mitigation is also meaningless with respect to behavioural disturbance over the scales of 10s of kilometres possible from this consent, particularly from low frequency sounds that would impact baleen whales such as blue whales.

176 The combined noise of the IMV and the crawler are not to exceed 130dB re µPa RMS linear at a distance of 500m at 10m below the surface. However without sound propagation models it cannot be determined if this would actually represent the maximum-over-depth, as it may change with depth. The 10m level may also suffer from surface interference. It is questionable that RMS linear is the appropriate measure to use given that the proposed consent is for a continuous operation, Sound Eexposure L evel (SEL)at 24 hours would be more appropriate. This would be consistent with the new NOAA guidelines and the proposed new New Zealand Code of Conduct for Seismic Surveys (still in review).

177 The proposed additional acoustic monitoring of the area is useful. Autonomous hydrophone systems have become increasingly user friendly and cheaper technology. National NZ technology such as Soundtraps could be deployed in moorings to monitor cetacean presence continuously in the area. however it is unclear how the recognition of species of whale from such loggers will affect the activities of the operation. This might mean that at the end of 35 years a report is produced that might conclude that there was an impact on whales, which would be too late.

178 In my opinion the Marine Mammal Baseline Monitoring Plan is also inadequate.

Marine Mammal Management Plan

179 The environmental management measure of soft starts only serves to help animals observed within 500m of the IMV. The soft start protocol does not expressly say that equipment would not be started at night. As this is a 24 hour operation, the periodicity for the restarting of machinery does not appear to be given, so it is uncertain as to how often this protocol would be employed, but also it must be stipulated that in line with the proposed seismic code sighting conditions should be good, and so night starts should not be allowed ( I note that this is a stipulation in Condition 60).

180 As reports of the soft start sightings will be provided to the EPA, this could provide a misleading representation of the impact of the activity, given that numerous

30

species are unlikely to be detected given the typical conditions in the region and small range over which observations will take place.

181 Soft starts and associated mitigation measures whilst beneficial to those animals directly adjacent to the site of activity, it nothing with respect to the broader problem of behavioural disturbance, as this will happen at distances well beyond 500m from the boat to distances of 10s of kilometres.

182 No mitigation, such as those suggested will manage long term stress related issues for whales from the persistent noise of the proposed activity in the environment. As there will be no cessation of activities if whales are sighted after the soft start has completed, this implies that the whales that are sighted are not affected by the sound. This describes habituation, however tolerance of the noise rather than habituation is equally (perhaps more) likely. The persistence of whales in the broader area also may represent the need of the animals to be in the area despite exposing themselves to noise levels that would otherwise cause them to move. In the same way that humans will stay in war-zones despite the obvious risks to their health.

183 The Management Plan suggests additional training for TTR staff for pre-start observation duties (8.4), they are there for not hiring Marine Mammal Observers ( MMOs) who have a required period of on water experience in the recognition and reporting of marine mammals. It is unclear how the training of such staff will be vetted to a standard that would attain the “trained” standard for an MMO as described in the New Zealand Code of Conduct for minimizing Acoustic Disturbance to Marine Mammals from Seismic Survey Operations (now being updated for 2017)

184 The mitigations proposed for entanglement appear reasonable. However if a whale does become entangled, response times by DOC and the resourcing of their efforts needs to be considered.

Lodgement Review of Effects on Plankton, Fish and Marine Mammals

185 The assertion that impacts on marine mammals will be negligible to minor for marine mammals as suggested in this review is at odds with current thinking on the potential impacts of sound on marine mammals, particularly cetaceans, and the mitigation measures proposed by TTR will do little to manage these impacts.

186 For reasons outlined in this evidence with respect to the lack of necessary detail to evaluate the impacts of sound and the species that might be impacted by them, this report does not seem to question any of the processes that have been undertaken to provide the little data the various reports offer to assess impacts on marine mammals.

The evidence of Simon Childerhouse prepared for TTR

187 Mr Childerhouse asserts that the proposed area for the mining operation is not used by many marine mammals, whether or not this is the case, it is the far greater area of influence of the activity that is important to marine mammals.

31

188 The strict view taken in this evidence is shown in 22(f) which highlights clearly that numerous new records of blue whales feeding and a record of a calf nursing, are within the STB. Given that low frequency sounds produced by this operation will extend 10’s of kilometres (if not more) into the surrounding environment, the impact on this endangered and datadeficient species alone should be of great concern.

189 Reported in this evidence are papers that look at the suitability of the near shore environment to Hector’s /Maui’s dolphins. Even though nothing is mentioned about what these papers say, if they are anything other than suitable, it must only reflect the already degraded nature of this environment, and the need for less impacts rather than increased impacts on these environments to aid in the recovery of these endangered (and critically endangered) animals.

190 The preliminary review of the DOC marine mammal sighting and stranding databases appears as an appended Map (Appendix 1). The map is very useful, however by super imposing the two data sets it can be a little misleading. The stranding data is over a much longer time period and is by its nature entirely coastal spots. The at sea sightings are not necessarily from systematic surveys and so the distribution of “effort” is patchy. This gives the overall impression that there are vast areas where whales are not present, however this represents more a lack of survey effort than any real picture of presence or absence.

191 For reasons I have outlined I also find the data from MacDiarmid et al (2015a) and Torres et al. (2015b) limited. However, the limitation that the data is from outside the proposed mining area is not in my view one of the limitations. For reasons already discussed the impact of the proposed consent will extend well beyond the narrow bounds of the consent area, so the wider area is fundamental to understanding the impacts on marine mammals.

192 For reasons outlined earlier I do not agree that the Cawthorn surveys provides reasonable evidence that the areas has few marine mammals.

193 Despite the lack of Hector’s and Maui’s dophin in the area, they were once well known in this area, these are a species that have been severely impacted by anthropogenic activities, with some populations close to the point extinction (for Maui’s dolphin). The implication is that any activity is permissible as the dolphins are not there, rather than attempting to at least allow for the possible passage of dolphins from adjacent populations and not further degrading their habitat.

194 Without dedicated surveys on a regular basis, the conclusion that the area is of no particular significance to any species, is an unsupported view. The stranding data depicts an area that is rich in marine mammals, and so a precautionary approach should be followed.

Assessment of Effects

195 Dr Childerhouse notes that dredging activity is louder than most shipping and is likely to be audible to most marine mammals over considerable distances, up to several kilometres. I agree with this and so those effects from noise, such as

32

behavioural responses, area avoidance, stress related issues, must be taken seriously.

Marine Mammal Sensitivity to Noise

196 Dr Childerhouse states that only the species that have been reported to be in the region from TTRL and NIWAs reports have been used in the assessment of species sensitivity to noise. Although in his review he does include beaked whales that had been ignored by those reports, and demonstrates that the possible noise profile of the operation is likely to affect cetaceans across the full range of species.

Standards for anthropogenic noise

197 The 2013 Code of Conduct for Minimising Acoustic Disturbance to Marine Mammals from Seismic Survey Operations (DOC 2013) has been under review, and the new proposed code has, in line also with changes overseas (NOAA’s updated regulations), paid much greater heed to the impact of behavioural disturbance in the establishment of appropriate levels, and are now more conservative and precautionary. As Dr. Childerhouse notes mining operations differ markedly from seismic surveys in that they produce sounds continuously over much longer time scales. This has implications particularly for stress and exclusion of animals from and area.

198 Gray whales stopped using Guerrero Negro Lagoon, Baja California, during a period of increased dredging and commercial shipping activity (1957-1967), but reoccupied the lagoon in later years after ship traffic abated (Bryant et al., 1984). Similar avoidance could happen here for whales, and yet without baseline knowledge we may be unaware of the impacts. And the proposed time scale of the dredging in this case is 3.5 times as long.

199 Dr. Childerhouse’s assessment of the potential effects from the proposed activity on marine mammals has put suitable emphasis on the SELas a fundamental component of the assessment, however the time scales he uses are at most 3 hours, an SEL over 24 hours seems minimally appropriate. The levels at which behavioural disturbance may occur has been demonstrated previously in my evidence with beaked whales at low sound out puts (98dB) over large distances, exceeding 2 km , and with the case of low level vessel traffic over at least 5km.

200 I agree that Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) and Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS)are probably of lower concern here, however some hearing loss from prolonged low level exposure to background noise and the potential for masking are greater in my opinion than that expressed here. The potential for stress related effects has been ignored.

201 In looking at cumulative impacts there is a suggestion that animals may have become habituated to existing noise from several decades of oil and gas operations. Habituation is perhaps misleading, as whales may actually be exhibiting tolerance for the sounds, even though it may be having some level of stress related impacts, even causing physical harm.

33

202 The proposed consent would bring considerable additional sound into this marine environment and because of the nature of that sound it would be audible over much greater distances than is suggested in this evidence. Any vessel noise will be additional noise, and be in an area where currently there is low vessel use compared to elsewhere in the region. The persistent sounds of the IMV, including the numerous sounds that have not been described but that must exist (e.g. stabilizer engine noise), and undescribed noise associated with the crawler (as described previously), are also ignored here.

Response to submissions

203 The view that killer whales remaining in the area for several months does not make them resident is peculiar, they may have large home ranges, but several months of a year spent in one spot does in my opinion suggest that they are resident for over half the year.

204 Marine mammals reported from the greater STB area are significant, and expectation that whales species are only relevant if they spend their entire time in the footprint of the consent area is untenalbe. Ein my opinion, even if they use the area for some of the time it may be significant to them.

205 Knowing what species are present around the consent area is incredibly relevant with respect to impacts of sound, the plume and whatever effects these may play directly on the whales or indirectly by affecting their environment. Particularly as both sound and the plume will extend markedly from the proposed consent area, and in the case of sound over 10’s of kilometres (at least).

206 Childerhouse describes stranding information as possibly unreliable source of information about distribution. This at odds with international reviews (Pyenson, 2011).

207 My experience with whale strandings around the world is that strandings provide in general a minimal baseline for which to determine species presence in the region. Strandings have been used to describe the distribution of species as normal practice and in many instances provide the only records of species. For example, the Spade-toothed whale Mesoplodon traversii which is still to be observed alive at sea (van Helden et al. 2012).

208 This evidence states that none of the new species identified are listed as threatened or endangered, but the New Zealand threat classification system describes Data Deficient as assumed threatened, and so an additional eight species should be treated as threatened within this region, including pygmy right whales, and six species of beaked whale.

Inadequate description of the potential impact of noise on marine mammals

209 As described in my evidence looking at the Hegley report, the description of numerous potential sources of sound are missing. How Dr. Childerhouse reaches the conclusion that the area over which the noise will be audible is likely to be relatively small, and he states a maximum of several kilometres, is unfathomable, the low frequency sounds will travel at minimum 10’s of kilometres.

34

210 I agree that for the most part physiological hearing damage Is unlikely, however the persistent effects of noise are highly likely, and potential long-term damage to hearing is possible. The suggestion that whales can move away faster than the rate of the factory and crawler assumes that impact will be in the direct vicinity of these vessels, whereas the likely impacts could be over very large areas.

211 In conclusion it is my opinion that Dr.Childerhouse has downplayed the risks and potential impacts on marine mammals. Constraining the area of concern to the footprint of the consent, despite the certainty that disturbance from this activity will extend over many kilometres, is misleading.

IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY AND INTEGRITY OF MARINE SPECIES, ECOSYSTEMS AND PROCESSES

212 At a time of biodiversity decline and the rapid spread of anthropogenic impacts, there is a need to protect our environments and the animals dependent on them. Biodiversity is being lost throughout the world and this has negative consequences for the delivery of ecosystem services and human wellbeing. The primary threat to most biodiversity is habitat loss, thus the primary response should be to safeguard these habitats. The marine environment remains among the world’s most poorly protected ecosystems (IUCN 2014). Global concern regarding environmental degredation and anthropogenic impacts on marine ecosystems has led to urgent calls to increase the global coverage of marine protected areas (MPAs) (O’Leary et al. 2016).

213 Currently New Zealand has no full protection within it’s Exclusive Economic Zone, with the only full protection being a small percentage of it’s Territorial Sea, such that only 0.48% of the total Marine space over which New Zealand has duty to preserve and protect under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is currently protected.

214 New Zealanders care deeply about our environment whether they have personal experience of it or not. Very few of us will ever see a blue whale up close, but we still care about their survival. We all know that theoretical boundaries on a map don’t mean anything to our ocean life. Fish, whales, dolphins, seabirds often live migratory lives, breeding or feeding in locations that have nothing to do with human political arrangements. New Zealander’s know that our enjoyment of the ocean depends on healthy ocean ecosystems, and that means protecting those ecosystems wherever they exist.

215 Many whale species have been hunted to the brink of extinction, and forced to extinction through anthropogenic impacts (e.g. the or Yangtze in China). We are still only beginning to understand the implications of such devestation. And yet we continue to expose populations of whales to threats from anthropogenic activities. Where the impacts are at best uncertain.

216 The role of whales, in sustaining ecosystems is only beginning to be understood. Despite their relative large size we are still discovering new species of whale. There are still species of whale, known from strandings, that have yet to be seen alive at sea. Their distributions are poorly known, and revelations of genetic distinctiveness

35

of populations is common. The impacts of shifting distributions and affecting populations of cetaceans may have uncertain outcomes for ecosystems.

217 In my life time we have gone from talking about food chains to the far more complex idea of food webs, in recognition of the growing understanding of the complexity of relationships of organisms within our marine environment. This is impacting how we approach fisheries with calls to manage fish stocks through ecosystem management and not just on a species basis. Marine mammals may function as keystone species in some marine communities, a depletion in their numbers have been implicated as the cause of major changes in species composition in ecosystems through initiating a chain of extinctions that cascade through food webs (Estes et al. 1998).

218 Habitat destruction and fragmentation have been regarded, notably by Jarred Diamond as the most important agents of species extinction in the 20th Century (Harwood 2001). It has been viewed that because whales are large and mobile, that destruction of a habitat that they use is less critical because they can migrate to other suitable areas, as the marine environment is frequently perceived as having few barriers to movement. However this presupposes that there are other suitable areas to which animals can move.Movement away from a currently used/preferred habitat is unlikely to come without cost.

219 The IUCN has stated that:

Unlike species, ecosystems do not disappear. For ecosystems, there is no equivalent to extinction-, rather they transform into novel ecosystems with different characteristic biota and mechanisms of organisation. The novel systems may retain some characteristic biota of the collapsed systems that they replace, but the abundance of those species, their interactions or ecological functions are altered beyond scientifically defined thresholds. Ecosystem collapse may in theory be reversible—given a long time frame, or through the reintroduction of native species and/or the restoration of ecosystem function. However, in most cases this is unfeasible or too expensive

220 It is therefore important to protect important areas to ensure that we minimise as much as possible the impacts on these ecosystems.

IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING RARE AND VULNERABLE ECOSYSTEMS AND THE HABITATS OF THREATENED SPECIES

221 As above it is pivotal to protect the ecosystems with as much integrity as possible, to ensure that those vulnerable species that use them are able to function with as little impact from human induced impacts as possible.

222 This Cook Strait Region is now a known area of importance for blue whales, a species hunted to near extinction over a short space of time that has shown a very slow rate of recovery. 330,000 blue whales were removed from the Southern Ocean, even now the population of blue whales in the Southern Hemisphere is suspected to be at only 3% of this number.

36

223 The Cook strait is a migratory or connecting corridor for numerous species of cetaceans. Gene flow has been demonstrated between populations of Hector’s dolphin with the remnant Maui’s dolphin population. Adding further potential barriers to gene flow in this region may remove the little opportunity that is left for the future survival of this critically endangered sub-species.

224 Data deficient species should be considered as Threatened as per the description in the New Zealand Threat Classification system, to ensure that such species are not treated as least concern and that more effort is stimulated to fill in the knowledge gaps of these species. Protecting ecosystems that are used by these species is one important way in which we can allow for the future studies that will be required to better manage anthropogenic impacts on these species.

CONDITONS

225 The various conditions that relevant to marine mammals and noise include 11-14, 20, 49, 60, and 61. I review these below.

Condition 11

226 It is disappointing that even with consultation with the Department of Conservation, important species that by their own Threat Classification standards are assumed threatened (as Data Deficient) , that these have not been incorporated into the conditions. Not just because they are thereby treated as species of least concern, but that an opportunity for determined greater study of the populations that are likely present in the area goes wanting.

Condition 12

227 The conditions here in should be amended to use appropriate SEL values given the persistent noise that the operation will produce (24/7 for 35 years). The depth level at which sound levels are measured should not be set nominally (here at 10m) but rather be set at appropriate maximum over depth levels as determined from a full proper sound propagation modeling.

228 Even if a decibel limit is set at as described at 500m, the persistent noise may travel further, even low levels such as 98dB have been demonstrated to change the behaviour of beaked whales over 2.5km (as described earlier), and even low level ship noise over distances of at least 5km. As a mitigation for a few animals near the vessels it could be beneficial however it does little to mitigate the behavioural effects that will happen over much greater scales.

229 It is unclear why one month should be allowed before monitoring of changes made to operations are conducted and then reported on. If operations are altered this should be done with full monitoring immediately to determine if such changes have made the operation non-compliant, and steps should then immediately be taken to remedy them.

230 No indication is given for what will happen to the timing of monitoring if the sea conditions are greater than Beaufort 3 when monitoring is projected to be done.

37

Condition 13

231 This seems to be consistent with most processes, although if it is non-compliant then an immediate alert could be sent to the EPA.

Condition 14

232 It is unclear why baseline monitoring should be undertaken after approval of the consent. Two years of independent monitoring should be done prior to application for the consent to provide both the EPA and the public to better determine the potential impacts on the environment.

Condition 20

233 It is unclear why a short one month window is determined, if there are issues that need addressing this leaves little time for comment or action.

Condition 49

234 I agree that training should be appropriate and of a level that will ensure that marine mammals are identified and appropriate actions are taken. This may be greater than those currently proposed within the EMMP.

Condition 60

235 I agree that any pre-start observations, and therefore soft starts, should be in daylight and during good sighting conditions.

Condition 61

236 The 30 minute time period used here although in line with the current Code of conduct for Seismic Surveys, is not adequate to give the opportunity for the resighting of numerous species, particularly deeper divers such as beaked whale and sperm whales, as normal dive times exceed 30 minutes (often at least 45 mins). The opportunity for sighting beaked whales has already been discussed as being very low (for non-specialist observers it is considered that a less than 2% chance is likely ( Dr. Peter T. Madsen, pers. Comm.) The difficulty of observing beaked whales has been well described (Barlow et al. 2006).

CONCLUSION

237 The information presented on behalf of TTRL has dismissed important sources of information on the diversity of cetacean species in the region, and have not adequately evaluated or described the potential impacts on these species. By not assessing the stranding record, the region is not recognised as an important region for a high diversity of marine mammals, including potentially important calving area for the pygmy right whale Caperea marginata.

238 The area has been dismissed as being of significance to beaked whales (Family Ziphiidae) and other cryptic species or data deficient species (e.g. pygmy sperm

38

whales Kogia breviceps) for which numerous live strandings are recorded from the region, which also includes the type locality for Shepherd’s beaked whale Tasmacetus shepherdi.

239 The reports on cetaceans TTRL have provided are not adequate to provide a picture of either the species or populations of marine mammals that may inhabit or use the region. Rather than an area lacking in marine mammals this area can more usefully be seen to be a global hotspot for cetaceans with 34 species and 2 subspecies represented.

240 The report on the impact of anthropogenic noise is inadequate and does not explain all the sources of sound, and does not demonstrate an understanding of the different ways in which numerous species could be negatively impacted by the persistent additional noise in the marine environment that TTR would produce. Further no consideration has been given to the cumulative stress effects on marine mammals in this environment, particularly given that the operation is proposed as 24 hours for 35 years.

241 It is my view that a precautionary approach would be appropriate as the potential of negative anthropogenic impacts from the proposed activity are large, and put at risk populations of a large number of whale species.

Anton van Helden

24 Janaury 2017

39

REFERENCES

Aguilar Soto, N., Johnson, M., Madsen, P. T., Tyack, P. L., Bocconcelli, A. and Borsani, J. F.(2006). Does intense ship noise disrupt foraging in deep-diving Cuvier's beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris). Mar. Mamm. Sci. 22,690 -699

Aguilar de Soto, N. & Kight, C. (2016). Physiological effects of noise. Ch. 8 in Solan, M. & Whiteley, N. (Eds) Stressors in the Marine Environment. Physiological and Ecological Responses and Societal Implications. Oxford University Press. 350 pp. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/stressors-in-the-marine-environment- 9780198718826?cc=gb&lang=en&Baird, R.W. 2005. Sightings of Dwarf (Kogia sima) and Pygmy (K. breviceps) Sperm Whales from the Main Hawaiian Islands. Pacific Science, vol. 59, no. 3:461–466

Baird, R.W., D.L. Webster, J.M. Aschettino, G.S. Schorr and D.J. McSweeney. 2013. Odontocete cetaceans around the main Hawaiian Islands: habitat use and relative abundance from small-boat sighting surveys. Aquatic Mammals 39:253-269.

Baker, C.S., Chilvers, B.L, Childerhouse, S., Constantine, R., Currey, R., Mattlin, r., van Helden, A. L., Hitchmough, R., Rolfe, J. 2016. Conservation status of New Zealand marine mammals, 2013. Department of Conservation: New Zealand Threat Classification Series 14

Barlow, J., Ferguson, M. C. , Perrin, W. F. , Ballance, L., Gerrodette, T., Joyce, G., Macleod, C. D. , Mullin, K., Palka, D. L. , and Waring, G. (2006). Abundance and densities of beaked and bottlenose whales (family Ziphiidae), J. Cetacean Res. Manage. 7, 263–270

Barlow, J. 2015 Inferring trackline detection probabilities, g(0), for cetaceans from apparent densities in different survey conditions. Marine Mammal Science Volume 31, Issue 3

Bryant, P.J., Lafferty, C.M. and Lafferty, S.K. 1984. Reoccupation of Laguna Guerrero Negro, Baja California, Mexico, by gray whales. pp. 375-387. In: M.L. Jones, S.L. Swartz, S. Leatherwood (eds.). The Eschrichtius robustus. Academic Press, San Diego, California. xxiv+600pp

Buckland ST, Anderson DR, Burnham KP, Laake JL, Borchers DL, Thomas L. Introduction to Distance Sampling: Estimating Abundance of Biological Populations. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. 2001.

Buckland, S.T., Anderson, D.R., Burnham, K.P., Laake, L.J., Borchers, D.L., and Thomas, L. (2001), An Introduction to Distance Sampling, Oxford; Oxford University Press http://cetsound.noaa.gov/Assets/cetsound/documents/Roadmap/ONS_Roadmap_Final_C omplete.pdf

Clark, C. & Stansfeld, S.A. 2007 The Effect of Transportation Noise on Health and Cognitive Development: A Review of Recent Evidence. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2007, 20, 145-158

Day, R.D., McCauley, R.D. Fitzgibbon, Q.P., Hartmann, K., and Semmens, J. M. : Assessing the impact of marine seismic surveys on SouthEast Australian scallop and lobster fisheries. FRDC Project No 2012/008. 2016

40

Dyndo, M., Wisniewska, D.M., Rojano-Don˜ ate, L., and Madsen, P.T. (2015). Harbour porpoises react to low levels of high frequency vessel noise. Sci. Rep. 5, 11083

Estes, J. A., Tinker, M.T., Williams, T. M. and DOAK, D. F. 1998. Killer whale predation on sea otters linking oceanic and nearshore ecosystems. Science 282:473–476

Foote, A. D. et al. Genome-culture coevolution promotes rapid divergence of killer whale ecotypes. Nat. Commun. 7:11693 doi: 10.1038/ncomms11693 (2016).

Harwood, J. 2001. Marine Mammals and their environment in the twenty-first centruy. Journal of Mammalogy, 82(3):630–640, 2001

Hooker, S.Kk., Gerber, L.R. (2004) Marine reserves as a tool fo eco-system based management: the potential importance of megafauna. Bioscience 54:27-39

IUCN (2016). An Introduction to the IUCN Red List of Ecosystems: The Categories and Criteria for Assessing Risks to Ecosystems. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN. vi + 14pp

Jensen F.H., Bejder L., Wahlberg M., Aguilar de Soto N., Johnson M., Madsen P.T., (2009): Vessel noise effects on delphinid communication. Marine Ecology Progress Series 395: 161–175

Jefferson, T.A., Smultea, M.A., Bacon, C.E. Southern California Bight marine mammal density and abundance from aerial surveys, 2008-2013. Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology Vol 7, No 2, 2014

Jefferson, T.A., Smultea, M.A., Courbis, S. S., Campbell, G.S. Harbor porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) recovery in the inland waters of Washington: Estimates of density and abundance from aerial surveys, 2013-2015 Can. J. Zool. 94: 505–515 (2016)

Johnson M., Madsen P.T., Zimmer W.M.X., Aguilar de Soto N., Tyack P.L., (2004): Beaked whales echolocate on prey, Proc. R. Soc. London, Ser. B271, S383–S386

Kemper CM 2002. Distribution ofthe pygmy right whale, Caperea marginata, in the Australasian region. Marine Mammal Science 18: 99111.

Kemper CM, Middleton JF & van Ruth PD (2013) Association between pygmy right whales (Caperea marginata) and areas of high marine productivity off Australia and New Zealand, New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 40:2, 102-128, DOI: 10.1080/03014223.2012.707662

Ministry for the Environment & Statistics New Zealand (2016). New Zealand’s Environmental Reporting Series: Our marine environment 2016. Available from www.mfe.govt.nz and www.stats.govt.nz.Mooney, T.A. , Kaplan, M.B., Lammers, M.O. :Singing whales generate high levels of particle motion: implications for acoustic communication and hearing? Published 2 November 2016.DOI: 10.1098/rsbl.2016.0381.

O’Leary, B.C., Winther-Janson, M., Bainbridge, J.M., Aitken, J., Hawkins, J.P., and Roberts, C. M. 2016 . Conservation Letters,, a Journal of the Society for Conservation Biology.

Pace, D.S., Tizzi, R., and Mussi B. 2015. Cetaceans Value and Conservation in the Mediterranean Sea. J. Biodivers Endanger Species. S1:004Patterson, B. 'That Glorious

41

Stinking Stuff...': Whale Fishing and the Economic Development of Early Wellington. Journal of New Zealand Studies No 1 (2002).

Prickett, N. The Archaeology of New Zealand shore whaling. DOC Science publication 2002

Pirotta, E., Milor, R., Quick, N., Moretti, D., Di Marzio, N., Tyack, P., Boyd, I., Hastie, G. (2012): Vessel noise affects beaked whale behavior: results of a dedicated acoustic response study. PLoS ONE 7(8): e42535. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042535.

Pyenson ND (2011) The high fidelity of the cetacean stranding record: insights into measuring diversity by integrating taphonomy and macroecology. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 278(1724): 3608–3616

Redfern, J.V. , M. C. Ferguson, E. A. Becker, K. D. Hyrenbach, C. Good, J. Barlow, K. Kaschner, M. F. Baumgartner , K. A. Forney, L. T. Ballance, P. Fauchald, P. Halpin, T. Hamazaki, A. J. Pershing, S. S. Qian, A. Read, S. B. Reilly, L. Torres, F. Werner. Techniques for cetacean–habitat modeling. Mar Ecol Prog Ser Vol. 310: 271–295, 2006

Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., R.L., Butterworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, A.N. 2008. Balaenoptera musculus. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T2477A9447146

Rolland, R.M., Parks, S.E., Hunt, K.E., Castellote, M., Corkeron, P.J., Nowacek, D.P., Wasser, S.K., and Kraus, S.D. (2012) Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales. Proceedings: Biological Sciences. Vol. 279, No. 1737 (22 June 2012), pp. 2363-2368

Shelden, K.E.W., and J.A. Mocklin, Editors. 2013. Feeding Ecology Study (BOWFEST) in the western Beaufort Sea. Final Report, OCS Study BOEM 2013-0114. National Marine Mammal Laboratory, Alaska Fisheries Science Center, NMFS, NOAA, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-6349.

Smultea MA, Bacon CE. A comprehensive report of aerial marine mammal monitoring in the Southern California Range Complex: 2008-2012. Prepared for Commander, U.S. Pacific Fleet, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii. Submitted to Naval Facilities Engineering Command Southwest (NAVFAC SW), EV5 Environmental, San Diego, 92132 under Contract No. N62470-10-D- 3011 issued to HDR, Inc., San Diego, California. 2012

Stimpert, A.K., DeRuiter, S. L., Southall, B. L., Moretti, D. J., Falcone, E. A., Goldbogen, J. A., Friedlaender, A., Schorr G. S.,& Calambokidis, J.: Acoustic and foraging behavior of a Baird’s beaked whale, Berardius bairdii, exposed to simulated sonar. Scientific Reports: 4:7031: OI:10.1038/srep07031 2014

Torres, L. & Klinck, H., 2016. Blue whale ecology in the South Taranaki Bight region of New Zealand January-February 2016 Field Report

Thomas L, Buckland ST, Rexstad EA, Laake JL, Strindberg S, Hedley SL, Bishop JR, Marques TA, Burnham KP. Distance software: design and analysis of distance sampling surveys for estimating population size.J Appl Ecol. 2010 Feb;47(1):5-14.

Thompson, K., Baker, C., van Helden, A., Patel, S., Millar, C., & Constantine, R. (2012). The world's rarest whale. Current Biology, 22 (21) R905-R906. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.08.055

42

Thompson, K.F., Millar, C.D., Baker, C.S., Dalebout, M., Steel, D., van Helden, A.L., Constantine, R. 2012. A novel conservation approach provides insights into the management of rare cetaceans Biol. Conserv. (2012) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2012.07.017

Tyack, P. L. & Clark, C. W. 2000 Communication and acoustic behavior of dolphins and whales. In Hearing by whales and dolphins (eds W. W. L. Au, A. N. Popper & R. R. Fay), pp. 156–224. New York, NY: Springer. (doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-1150-1_4)

Tyack, P., Zimmer, W. M. X., Moretti, D. J., Southall, B. & Claridge, D. E. Beaked whales respond to simulated and actual Navy sonar. PLoS ONE 6, e17009, doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0017009 (2011)

van Helden, A.L., Baker, A.N., Dalebout, M.L., Reyes, J.C., Van Waerebeek, K., Baker, C.S. 2002. Resurrection of Mesoplodon traversii (Gray, 1874), senior synonym of M. bahamondi Reyes, Van Waerebeek, Cárdenas and Yañez, 1995 (: Ziphiidae) Mar. Mamm. Sci., 18 (2002), pp. 609–621

Visser, I. N. Killer whales in New Zealand waters: Status and distribution with comments on foraging (SC/59/SM19). 59th Annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission Scientific Committee. International Whaling Commission, Anchorage, Alaska. 2007

Weilgart, L.S. 2007. A brief review of known effects of noise on marine mammals. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 2007, 20, 159-168. Copyright 2007 by the International Society for Comparative Psychology

43

Appendix 1: Records of cetacean species and stranding incidents for the cook strait region

COMMON # STRANDING STRANDING INCIDENTS BY SPECIES NAME NAME INCIDENTS REGION

BALEEN TOTAL ALL MANA- MARLB- WELLIN- WHALES REGIONS WATU NELSON TARANAKI TASMAN OROUGH GTON

Dwarf Balaenoptera minke acutorostrata whale 15 4 1 1 7 1 1

Antarctic Balaenoptera minke bonarensis whale 4 2 2

Balaenoptera borealis Sei whale 3 1 1 1

Balaenoptera Bryde's edeni whale 2 1 1

Balaenoptera musculus Blue whale 6 1 2 1 1 1

B. m. Pygmy brevicauda blue whale 4 2 1 1

Balaenoptera physalus Fin whale 6 1 3 1 1

Unknown Balaenoptera Balaenopt sp. erid whale 10 2 1 5 2

Megaptera Humpback novaeangliae whale 9 1 4 3 1

Caperea Pygmy marginata right whale 22 3 13 3 3

Eubalaena Southern australis right whale 1 1

BEAKED WHALES

Arnoux's Berardius beaked arnuxii whale 12 4 1 2 5

Southern Hyperoodon Bottlenose planifrons whale 1 1

44

Andrew's Mesoplodon beaked bowdoini whale 5 1 1 1 2

Ginkgo- Mesoplodon toothed ginkgodens whale 3 1 2

Gray's Mesoplodon beaked grayi whale 40 7 4 11 10 2 6

Hector's Mesoplodon beaked hectori whale 2 2

Strap- Mesoplodon tooth layardii whale 21 2 5 6 1 7

Unknown Mesoplod Mesoplodon sp. ont whale 8 1 3 2 1 1

Shepherd's Tasmacetus beaked shepherdi whale 7 1 1 4 1

Cuvier's Ziphius beaked cavirostris whale 27 8 5 5 1 8

DOLPHINS

Hector's/ Cephalorhynchu Maui's s hectori dolphin 20 2 1 11 4 1 1

Delphinus Common 1 1 delphis dolphin 87 9 4 18 23 9 4

Long- Globicephala finned macrorhynchus pilot whale 1 1

Short- Globicephala finned 1 melas pilot whale 87 13 1 8 49 3 3

Unknown Globicephala sp. pilot whale 5 1 3 1

Grampus Risso's 5 3 1 1

45

griseus dolphin

Lagenorhynchus Dusky 1 1 obscurus dolphin 53 5 2 3 15 7 1

Southern Lissodelphis right whale peronii dolphin 8 7 1

Killer Orcinus orca whale 7 1 2 2 2

Pseudorca False killer crassidens whale 2 1 1

Pantropica Stenella l spotted attenuata dolphin 1 1

Stenella Striped coeruleoalba dolphin 3 1 2

Rough Steno toothed bredanensis dolphin 1 1

Tursiops Bottlenose truncatus dolphin 21 1 8 1 5 5 1

Unknown Unknown dolphin dolphin 9 1 1 2 1 4

PORPOISE

Phocoena Spectacled dioptrica porpoise 1 1

SPERM WHALES

Pygmy sperm 1 1 Kogia breviceps whale 27 0 5 1 1

Physeter Sperm 1 macrocephalus whale 42 1 15 11 5

46