UNDER THE Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (the Act)
IN THE MATTER OF A Decision-making Committee appointed to consider a marine consent application by Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited to undertake mining of phosphorite nodules on the Chatham Rise
STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF THOMAS FRANCIS HOURIGAN FOR THE CROWN 12 September 2014
CROWN LAW TE TARI TURE O TE KARAUNA PO Box 2858 WELLINGTON 6140 Tel: 04 472 1719 Fax: 04 473 3482
Counsel acting: Jeremy Prebble Email: [email protected] Telephone: 04 494 5545
Eleanor Jamieson Email: [email protected] Telephone: 04 496 1915
CONTENTS
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3
INTRODUCTION 5
Qualifications and experience 5
Code of Conduct 6
Material considered 6
SCOPE OF EVIDENCE 8
DEEP-SEA CORAL HABITATS AND THE SIGNIFICANCE 8 OF THE CHATHAM RISE AREA FOR CORALS
Deep-sea corals – important structural components of 8 deepwater benthic communities
Chatham Rise deep-sea coral resources potentially 10 affected by the proposed activities
Other vulnerable epifaunal species 13
Modelling coral and epifaunal community distribution 14
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED MINING 16 OPERATION ON DEEP-SEA CORALS
Direct mining impacts 16
Indirect impacts, e.g. sedimentation, ecological processes 16 affected
Cumulative impacts 19
RECOVERY, RESTORATION AND PROPOSED MINING 19 EXCLUSION AREAS
Recovery 19
Restoration 20
Proposed mining exclusion areas 20
CONSENT CONDITIONS 21
REFERENCES 23
APPENDIX 1 – MAJOR DEEP-SEA CORAL GROUPS 28
APPENDIX 2 – CORALS IDENTIFIED FROM SEAFLOOR 29 IMAGES IN THE CRP APPLICATION AREA
DOCDM-1464041 2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A. In this evidence I address matters related to potential impacts on deep-sea corals raised by Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited’s (CRP) application for marine consent for mining operations on the Chatham Rise. My review is based primarily on information provided by CRP on survey data, predicted habitat suitability, and proposed measures for mitigating mining impacts, including mining exclusion areas in the CRP application area (revised to be the mining permit [MP 55549], minerals prospecting license [MPL 50270] and the western prospecting permit [PP 55971]) (the application area).
B. Species belonging to seven families of corals have been recorded to occur in the application area and could potentially be affected by the proposed mining activities. At least 10 of these species in six families are protected under the Wildlife Act 1953. Of these, the branching stony coral Goniocorella dumosa (G. dumosa) may be particularly significant, due to the size of its colonies, its abundance and density in certain discrete habitats, and its likely contribution to structuring habitats for other species. In addition to G. dumosa, other protected coral taxa observed include several taxa of solitary stony cup corals, species belonging to at least three gorgonian families, one species of black coral, and at least two genera of stylasterid corals.
C. The primary G. dumosa habitat in the application area consists of the coral, along with other sessile invertebrates, including sponges, ascidians and bryozoans growing directly on the phosphorite nodules, which provide a hard substrate for attachment. These coral-dominated communities appear to have the highest species diversity of large invertebrates among the epifaunal communities observed in the remotely-operated vehicle (ROV) and camera sled surveys conducted on the Chatham Rise. These communities dominated by the coral G dumosa have evidently not been reported elsewhere in the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). G. dumosa is the major structure-forming coral in this depth range in New Zealand and the Chatham Rise may represent a nationally or regionally important habitat for this species. The most significant coral-related impacts of the proposed mining operations are likely to be to the stony coral G. dumosa and associated communities.
D. As acknowledged in the application, because of the apparent tight association between the primary habitat-forming stony coral, G. dumosa, and the target
DOCDM-1464041 3
phosphorite nodules on which it grows, mining operations that remove these nodules are expected to permanently destroy the coral and the habitat for the coral and associated communities within the mined area. There is likely to be a one-to- one trade-off between mining and the permanent loss of coral habitat.
E. Although no sedimentation impact studies have been conducted on G. dumosa, most corals are also sensitive to impacts of sedimentation. Sediments can interfere with the feeding of adult corals, and deep-sea corals buried by sediments will die after several days. Sediments in the water column or deposited on surfaces can also interfere with coral reproduction, as well as with settlement and survival of coral larvae. Mining activities are expected to result in sediments suspended or deposited that are likely to damage or destroy additional corals in areas adjacent to the mining tracks.
F. Any decisions on mining should not be premised upon expectations of significant restoration. While the proposal to explore hard-substrate habitat creation that might encourage natural recolonization is scientifically interesting, there is insufficient information on their potential for success. I am not aware of any examples of successful deep-sea coral restoration. The results of these experiments would not be seen for many years. Therefore, such untested experiments should not be relied upon as mitigation measures.
G. Protecting areas that include G. dumosa habitat in mining exclusion areas (referred to as “no-mining areas” in Dr. Rowden’s statement of evidence), along with adequate buffer zones to reduce potential sediment impacts, is the most effective approach to ensure conservation of high-value deep-sea coral habitat should mining proceed. The mining exclusion areas proposed by the applicant do not appear to include significant amounts of verified G. dumosa habitat nor predicted G. dumosa-dominated epifaunal communities (e.g., epifaunal community “o” – image level). Habitat suitability prediction modelling results alone should not be relied on to identify these areas. Ground truthing of predictions is strongly recommended, especially as coral areas outside the Mid-Chatham Rise Benthic Protection Area (BPA) may have been already impacted by bottom-trawling.
H. Any no-mining areas established to protect corals, should include a significant buffer zone to prevent secondary impacts from sedimentation. Consideration should also be given to temporal restrictions that would avoid mining operations during the sensitive periods of coral spawning and recruitment, if these are known.
DOCDM-1464041 4
I. Direct and indirect adverse impacts of mining operations on G. dumosa habitats are likely to add to ongoing damage to the protected coral and associated communities caused by bottom trawl fisheries. The CRP application is mostly within the BPA and is expected to reduce the conservation value of that BPA as a measure to prevent impacts to benthic epifauna, including deep-sea corals.
INTRODUCTION
Qualifications and experience
1 My full name is Thomas Francis Hourigan. I work for the United States National Marine Fisheries Service, part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). For the last six years I have served as Chief Scientist for NOAA’s Deep Sea Coral Research and Technology Program. Since 2009, I also hold an Affiliate Faculty Appointment in the Department of Environmental Science and Policy, at George Mason University. I hold the degrees of Bachelor of Arts in Biology from the University of California at Los Angeles, and a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Hawaii.
2 I have over 30 years of experience in the field of marine ecology, with the last 10 years focussed on deep-sea coral ecosystems. I have worked for the U.S. government since 1990 at the intersection of environmental research, management, and policy. Since 1998 my primary focus has been on the research and conservation of biologically-diverse marine communities, particularly shallow- water coral reefs and deep-sea coral ecosystems. From 2001-2007, I managed the National Marine Fisheries Service’s components of NOAA’s Coral Reef Conservation Program – which included significant shallow-water coral reef restoration activities.
3 I have authored or co-authored peer-reviewed papers, reports and one book chapter on deep-sea corals. I co-chaired the U.S. Interagency Board on Deep-Sea Corals and Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems (2007-2010) and am a member of the Stakeholder Advisory Group for the South Pacific Vulnerable Marine Ecosystems Project led by NIWA. I have served as a U.S. technical expert to consultations on deep-water biodiversity by the Convention on Biological Diversity, the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the North Pacific Marine Science Organization, and other organizations.
4 I do not have direct knowledge of the Chatham Rise, nor its benthic communities, and must rely on reports and publications for this information. I am a marine
DOCDM-1464041 5
ecologist who has reviewed studies of deep-sea ecosystems, particularly deep-sea corals, including anthropogenic impacts on these deepwater communities. I also helped lead a technical working group that investigated impacts of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill in Gulf of Mexico on deepwater benthic resources, including deep-sea corals, as part of a comprehensive Natural Resource Damage Assessment.
5 I am not an expert on deepwater mining, but I am well acquainted with environmental assessment approaches. As an International Environmental Policy Analyst with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), I led U.S. interagency reviews of environmental assessments for major multilateral development bank projects. I give my best judgement from reading of the literature and knowledge of the potentially-affected animals.
6 This evidence is presented in my personal capacity and any conclusions, as well as any views or interpretations expressed herein, are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Government, the U.S. Department of Commerce, or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Code of Conduct
7 I have read the Environment Court’s Code of Conduct for Expert Witnesses in the Environment Court Consolidated Practice Note (November 2011), and I agree to comply with it. My qualifications and experience as an expert are set out above. I confirm that the issues addressed in this brief of evidence are within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the opinions expressed.
Material considered
8 In preparing this evidence I have read and given consideration to:
a. the Marine Consent Application (comprising the Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and Appendices 31-35iii, dated May 2014) (hereafter referred to as the application); with special attention to the following appendices:
i. Appendix 13 – Data on the Chatham Rise benthos: Macro-faunal and in-faunal communities (Beaumont et al. 2013a);
DOCDM-1464041 6
ii. Appendix 15 – Benthic communities on MPL area 50270 on the Chatham Rise (Rowden et al. 2013);
iii. Appendix 16 – Benthic epifauna communities of the central Chatham Rise crest (Rowden et al. 2014a);
iv. Appendix 30 – Potential for recolonisation and recovery by benthic communities following mining disturbance on the Chatham Rise (Beaumont & Rowden 2013); and
v. Appendix 32 – Developing spatial management options for the central crest of Chatham Rise (Rowden et al. 2014b);
b. Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited (CRP) ‘Response to the Decision Making Committee’s Request for Further Information (Part 2)’ and lodged on the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) website under the heading “Further information - Response 7”;
c. Statements of Evidence of the following expert witnesses for CRP, all as lodged on the EPA website as at 29 August 2014:
i. Dr. Ashley Rowden – in relation to benthic macrofauna communities;
ii. Dr. Judith Hewitt – in relation to potential impacts of sediment deposition and suspended sediment on seafloor animals;
iii. Paul Kennedy – in relation to research Program, mining system and mining plan;
iv. Carmen Taylor – in relation to conditions and Statutory Compliance;
v. Raymond Wood – in relation to mine plan, spatial planning and monitoring; and
d. EPA Staff Report, Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited Marine Consent Application, August 2014.
DOCDM-1464041 7
SCOPE OF EVIDENCE
9 My evidence addresses the potential effects of the proposed mining operation on deep-sea corals. In particular:
a. importance and vulnerability of deep-sea coral habitats and the significance of the Chatham Rise area for corals;
b. potential effects of the proposed mining operation on deep-sea corals and associated epifaunal benthic communities, including direct effects of mining extraction and indirect effects due to sedimentation; and
c. comment on proposed mitigation measures, particularly recolonization and CRP’s proposed mining exclusion areas as they relate to deep-sea corals.
10 I do not address infaunal benthic communities.
DEEP-SEA CORAL HABITATS AND THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE CHATHAM RISE AREA FOR CORALS
Deep-sea corals – important structural components of deepwater benthic communities
11 Deep-sea corals, also known as deepwater or cold-water corals, are a taxonomically and morphologically diverse collection of organisms in the Phylum Cnidaria (Roberts et al. 2009) distinguished from shallow-water tropical corals by their occurrence in deeper or colder oceanic waters and the lack of symbiotic algae (zooxanthellae). They are an important component of deepwater benthic communities around the world (Roberts et al. 2009) and in New Zealand (Consalvey et al. 2006; Tracey et al. 2011; Baird et al. 2013). Most species (with the exception of sea pens and a few gorgonian species) depend upon the availability of hard substratum for attachment and growth.
12 There is general scientific consensus on the taxa that are considered “deep-sea corals” (Cairns 2007; Appendix 1). Of particular ecological importance and conservation concern are those colonial deep-sea coral species that provide vertical structure above the seafloor that can be utilized by other species – often referred to as “structure-forming” or “habitat-forming” deep-sea corals. Structure-forming deep-sea corals include both branching stony corals that form a structural framework (e.g., Lophelia pertusa) as well as individual colonies of corals, such as
DOCDM-1464041 8
gorgonians and other octocorals, black corals, gold corals, and lace corals (Appendix 1).
13 Cairns et al. (2011) identified 243 octocoral species, 58 black coral species, and 110 azooxanthellate stony coral species from New Zealand waters. New Zealand also has an estimated 59 species of stylasterid corals (Cairns 2011b), which represents around 27% of the world’s known stylasterids.
14 The calcified skeletons of certain branching stony corals (Order Scleractinia) can form large reef-like structures in deep water. In New Zealand, the five principal stony corals that are known to contribute to “reef-like” structures are Solenosmilia variabilis, Goniocorella dumosa, Madrepora oculata, Oculina virgosa, and Enallopsammia rostrata (Tracey et al. 2011, Baird et al. 2013). Gorgonians (Order Gorgonacea = Alcyonacea [in part]), gold corals (a small number of species in the zoanthid family Parazoanthidae), and black corals (Order Antipatharia) often have branching tree- like forms and either occur singly or form thickets of many colonies. The three- dimensional features formed by many deep-sea corals provide habitat for numerous fish and invertebrate species and, like shallow-water tropical corals, appear to enhance the biological diversity of many deepwater ecosystems (Roberts et al. 2009).
15 Deep-sea corals are generally slow-growing in comparison to shallow-water tropical corals; they are also fragile – making them and their associated communities vulnerable to human-induced impacts, particularly physical disturbance. Damages from bottom-contact fishing gear, especially bottom-trawls, are the best documented impacts (Roberts et al. 2009). Recovery of deep-sea coral habitats from disturbance is expected to be very slow (Roberts et al. 2009; Williams et al. 2010).
16 This combination of habitat importance and vulnerability has led to the inclusion of some deep-sea coral habitats as examples of conservation priorities in national (e.g., NOAA 2010) and international marine management efforts. Habitats formed by deep-sea corals have been identified as examples of ecologically and biologically significant marine areas (EBSAs) under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 2009) and as indicators of the presence of deep-sea vulnerable marine ecosystems (FAO 2009).
DOCDM-1464041 9
Chatham Rise deep-sea coral resources potentially affected by the proposed mining activities
17 Information available about corals on the Chatham Rise is reviewed by Rowden et al. (2013; Appendix 15) and Rowden et al. (2014a; Appendix 16) and in the evidence presented by Dr. Ashley Rowden. Primary sources for the central crest of the Chatham Rise are surveys conducted during the 1981 expeditions on R/V Sonne (Kudrass and von Rad 1984), two Ocean Survey 20/20 surveys in 2007 and 2013, and ROV surveys conducted for CRP. A compilation of additional records from numerous sources throughout the New Zealand region has been analysed by Tracey et al. (2011) and Baird et al. 2013.
18 The deep-sea corals observed to occur in the application area are outlined in Rowden et al. (2013; Appendix 15) and Rowden et al. (2014a; Appendix 16) and shown in Appendix 2. The list includes stony corals (Order Scleractinia) including the branching stony coral Goniocorella dumosa (G. dumosa), a black coral (Order Antipatharia), octocorals (Order Alcyonacea – gorgonians (formerly Order Gorgonacea) and soft corals), and stylasterid corals (Order Anthoathecata – hydrocorals) representing at least 10 species belonging to protected coral groups under the Wildlife Act. In addition to these species, Baird et al. (2013) list a number of additional coral species from the Chatham Rise Fishery Management Area that includes the CRP application area. Some of these species may also occur within or near the proposed mining area.
19 Of the species reported by Rowden et al. (2013 and 2014a) in surveys of the application area, the stony branching coral G. dumosa (Figure 1) appears to be the most abundant epifaunal deep-sea coral species observed in surveys (Rowden et al. 2013). Rowden et al. (2014a) state that this coral “was most abundant in the center of the permit area, but was also present in lower abundance at the eastern and western edges of the permit area.” This coral would therefore be likely to be impacted by the proposed mining activities. It was absent from all transects outside the mining permit area, except for two transects in survey area Q located immediately to the west of the permit area.
20 G. dumosa has been identified as one of the five most significant habitat-forming species of stony coral in New Zealand waters (MacDiarmid et al. 2013). The species occurs throughout the EEZ, generally at depths around 300-500 m on slopes and rises (Tracey et al. 2011). Tracey et al. (2011) reported most records for this species from the Chatham Rise, and modelling predicted the highest
DOCDM-1464041 10
probability of occurrence along the Chatham Rise. This suggests that the G. dumosa habitats found along the Chatham Rise may represent nationally or regionally important habitats.
Figure 1. Colony of the protected coral Goniocorella dumosa. This species of branching stony coral forms large bushy colonies up to 40 cm in size (Cairns et al. 2011). Photo courtesy of NIWA.
21 G. dumosa occurs predominantly in the South Pacific, with most records from around New Zealand. It has also been recorded as far west as the Indian Ocean off South Africa, as far east as Ecuador, and in the northern hemisphere off China, Japan and Korea (Cairns 1995). Roberts et al. (2009) identify it as one of the world’s six most significant cold-water framework-forming (and thus habitat- forming) azooxanthellate scleractinian species. It has been reported to be the primary framework-forming coral of the largest known deepwater coral reef within the New Zealand EEZ, reported to cover 9.2 km2 on the Campbell Plateau (Squires 1965). Recent multibeam surveys on the Campbell Plateau appear to confirm these reef-like structures or bioherms (“coppice” in Squires’ terminology), the only place where such large structures have been observed (Mackay et al. in press). Elsewhere, G. dumosa has been observed in individual colonies or as smaller
DOCDM-1464041 11
coral thickets or patches, especially on the slopes of seamounts (Cairns et al. 2011; Tracey et al. 2011).
22 Burgess and Babcock (2005) reported on the reproductive biology of G. dumosa based on histological examination of samples collected from the Graveyard seamount complex on the northern slope of the Chatham Rise. They concluded that this species was a broadcast spawner, with spawning likely to occur in late April or May, based on the maturity of the gametes observed in the colonies.
23 The G. dumosa colonies observed in surveys of the application area do not appear to have built a reef-like structure, but rather occur as mostly individual colonies growing primarily on larger phosphorite nodules (Rowden et al 2013, Rowden et al. 2014a). This association of G. dumosa colonies with phosphorite nodules in this area had previously been reported by Kudrass and von Rad (1984) and Dawson (1984).
24 Rowden et al. (2014a) analyzed epibenthic macrofauna identifiable from images collected in ROV and towed camera transects conducted on the Chatham Rise crest. Using multivariate statistical analyses they identified 13 distinct epifaunal community types based on benthic invertebrates observed in individual images. They also analyzed sequential images at the scale of complete transects – resulting in 12 epifaunal communities at this larger spatial scale.
25 Two of the epifaunal communities identified at the image-level and observed within the marine consent area (communities “o” and “n”) were characterized by high densities of the stony coral G. dumosa. Community “o” was characterized by the highest densities of G. dumosa, which Rowden et al. (2014a) characterized as fitting the classification of a “coral thicket” (MacDiarmid et al. 2013). Community “l” discriminated at the transect-level was also dominated by G. dumosa and encrusting bryozoan/sponge/ascidian epifauna – similar to the image-level communities “o” and “n”. These communities had a patchy distribution associated with the presence of phosphorite nodules and included a number of associated sessile taxa, including bryozoans, sponges, hydroids and ascidians.
26 While the stony coral G. dumosa itself occurs elsewhere in New Zealand, the faunal assemblages represented by these two communities (“o” and “n”) with high densities of G. dumosa were observed primarily in the mining permit area and “have not been recorded in previous surveys elsewhere either on the Chatham Rise or at other locations in New Zealand waters” (Rowden et al. 2014a).
DOCDM-1464041 12
27 These coral-dominated communities would also appear to meet the criteria set out by the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD 2009) for “Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas” (EBSAs) in the deep sea (CBD 2009; Ardron et al. 2014). They represent rare or distinct habitats with comparatively higher diversity, composed of fragile, slow-growing species.
Other vulnerable coral epifaunal species
28 In addition to G. dumosa, among the other coral species observed within the application area, the gorgonians (e.g., bamboo and primnoid corals), the black coral Leiopathes sp., and the stylasterid corals are likely to be the most important (Figure 2). Of these, only the stylasterid corals were noted by Rowden et al. (2014a) as occurring in significant numbers on the photo-surveys within the application area. Kudrass and von Rad (1984) and Dawson (1984) reported unidentified gorgonians associated with G. dumosa in patches of dense growth associated with the phosphorite nodules. Dawson described these patches as “epifaunal oases.”
a. Stylasterid corals occur generally as small colonies 10-20 cm in size, and may not provide the same habitat functions as certain larger coral species such as G. dumosa. They may, however, be particularly vulnerable in that most species reproduce by brooding larvae to an advanced planular stage, which upon release usually settle a short distance from the parent. This can result in limited distributions and high regional endemicity (Brooke and Stone 2007; Cairns 2011a).
b. Black corals in the genus Leiopathes are branching corals that can grow to 2m in height (Cairns et al. 2011) and reach very old ages, with one colony from Hawaii estimated to be over 4,000 years old (Roark et al. 2009). These appear to be relatively rare in the areas surveyed (Rowden 2014a).
c. Primnoid and isidid gorgonians can occur in either branching tree-like forms or unbranched whip-like forms (Cairns et al. 2011). Some species can grow to relatively large sizes and branching forms often serve as hosts for numerous associated invertebrate species. They can occur singly or in thickets and may provide shelter for certain fish species. Rowden et al. (2014a) did not report significant associations of gorgonians with G. dumosa patches as previously noted by Dawson (1984).
DOCDM-1464041 13
Figure 2. Examples of New Zealand corals in the taxonomic groups reported from the Chatham Rise crest. a) Stylasterid coral – Calyptopora sp.; b) Stylasterid coral – Lepidotheca sp.; c) Black coral – Leiopathes sp.; d) primnoid gorgonian corals; e) isidid bamboo coral. Source: Cairns et al. 2011. Note: These are provided for illustrative purposes only and do not imply that these are the same species observed on the Chatham Rise.
29 Although not corals, sponges can also provide important three-dimensional structure in many deep water benthic communities, and are thought to play similar ecological roles to deep-sea corals (Hogg et al. 2010). Although much less is known about deep-sea sponges, they have been identified as habitat for managed fish stocks in certain regions and face many of the same threats as deep-sea corals. The EIA also notes that “[l]arge (>1 m) hexactinellid sponges (Hyalscus sp.) are locally common in the centre and toward the western end of the Chatham Rise and have been noted within CRP’s proposed marine consent area” (p. 114).
Modelling coral and epifaunal community distribution
30 Rowden et al. (2014a; Appendix 16) developed models to predict the distribution of suitable habitat for epifaunal communities, including the two epifaunal communities dominated by the coral G. dumosa (image-level communities “o” and “n”), as well as for suitable habitat for the occurrence of the stony coral itself.
31 Predictive models can play an important role in extrapolating information on faunal distributions from existing observations over a larger geographic area and provide
DOCDM-1464041 14
insights into ecological requirements (Yeeson et al. 2012). As such, habitat suitability models can provide important information for managing resources. All modelling requires validation, ideally independent in situ field validation.
32 The Boosted Regression Tree (BRT) model approach used by Rowden et al. (2014a) is appropriate for the data available. However, as with all model outputs, care must be taken when interpreting predicted habitat suitability for G. dumosa or associated epifaunal communities (e.g., epifaunal community “o” – image level) in areas that have not been surveyed. The BRT modelling approach generally over- predicts presence. Field validation is needed to test and improve the predictive power of such models (Rowden et al. 2014 a; Ardron et al. 2014). Such validation has not yet been done for these models, however, Rowden et al. (2014) and Dr. Rowden’s statement of evidence have recommended such field validation studies.
33 The BRT models predict that within the application area, the majority of the suitable habitat for G. dumosa and associated epifaunal communities (Community “n” & “o”) is within the current mining permit area (MP 55549).
34 The models further suggest that there might be an area of suitable habitat for G. dumosa and associated epifaunal communities (Community “n” & “o”) on the north-facing slope to the northwest of the application area (Rowden et al. 2014a). This would seem to be a high priority area for additional surveys. In the meantime, however, the model results alone should not be used to imply that there are other unimpacted G. dumosa habitats on the central crest of the Chatham Rise. The predicted suitable habitat is in an area that has not been surveyed and could be an artefact of the model. In addition, even if the model were correct, the predicted suitable habitat is in an area where significant bottom-trawling has already occurred, and coral habitats there may have been damaged.
35 It appears that a principal environmental factor determining the distribution of G. dumosa in the Chatham Rise areas surveyed is the presence of phosphorite nodules. The fact that this parameter did not emerge as significant in the predicted habitat suitability for either G. dumosa or the communities it dominated (“o” and “n”) raises questions about how much credence can be given to the model results. As noted by Dr. Rowden in his testimony, while sediment type data are included in the models, they are “perhaps the least reliable of the environmental layers because they are interpolated from relatively few point samples across the model domain.”
DOCDM-1464041 15
36 These BRT models with predicted habitat suitability for different communities served as the basis for subsequent spatial management options proposed by Rowden et al. (2014b; Appendix 32 – see section on “Proposed Mining Exclusion Areas” below).
POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF THE PROPOSED MINING OPERATION ON DEEP-SEA CORALS
Direct mining impacts
37 The proposed mining operations will remove phosphorite nodules and associated seabed sediment using a drag-head. The applicant acknowledges that mining operations will kill all infauna and epifauna (therefore all corals) within the mining tracks. The application indicates that during the initial 15 years of mining, about 450 km2 of seabed would be mined.
38 Recovery of species (including coral) that depend on hard substrate is unlikely in areas where mining has removed the phosporite nodules that support the growth of these species. As identified in the EIA (p. 316), the “near total removal of phosphorite nodules from this habitat will result in an altered ‘stable-state’, and the new benthic community is predicted to be more similar to that of soft sediment habitats.” The resulting habitat will be significantly less diverse than the original habitat. Possible recolonization is discussed in further detail below in the sections on “Recovery of impacted corals and associated epifaunal communities” and “Restoration.”
Indirect impacts, e.g., sedimentation, ecological processes affected
39 The primary indirect impact to deep-sea corals is likely to be due to increased sedimentation resulting from the mining activities in adjacent areas. The application identifies that non-phosphatic material will be returned close to the seabed, which will result in a sediment plume. Sediment dispersal modelling predicts that deposition will be greatest at the point of disposal and that deposition of 90% of silt- and clay-sized particles (which remain within the modelling domain) will be deposited within 3 km of the mining tracks (paragraph 8, statement of evidence of Ms. Jaimie Lescinki for CRP). Additional, long-term increases in sedimentation may result from decreased sediment stability following the mining activity.
DOCDM-1464041 16
40 Sedimentation is considered a major threat to shallow-water corals, although different species are known to have different tolerances for sediment loads (Fabricius 2005; Erftemeijer 2012).
41 There have been few studies of impacts of sediments on deepwater corals in general, and none to my knowledge of G. dumosa in particular. Several laboratory studies with the deep-sea coral Lophelia pertusa have indicated that this species can tolerate some levels of exposure to sediments. Brooke et al. (2009) exposed fragments of adult colonies of the deep-sea coral L. pertusa from the Gulf of Mexico to a range of sediment loads in the laboratory. Exposure for 14 days to sediment concentrations of 245 mg/l and greater resulted in < 50% survival. In a second experiment, fragments that were completely buried in sediment for four days did not survive. Similarly, Allers et al. (2013) exposed small branches of L. pertusa to relatively high levels of sediment and monitored their physiology over 11 days. The corals were relatively resilient to sedimentation, however when completely buried they died after about 24 hours. Larsson et al. (2013) found that fragments of L. pertusa exposed to suspended particles (<63 µm) for 12 weeks were able to survive and shed sediments, although growth appeared to be affected at the highest sediment concentrations (25 mg/l).
42 In addition to smothering adult corals, increased sedimentation is likely to be particularly detrimental to successful coral reproduction if it occurs during spawning or during settlement (Richmond 2005). Rates of fertilization and embryogenesis are affected by suspended sediments (Humphrey et al., 2008). Juvenile corals are particularly susceptible to sedimentation. The tolerance of coral recruits to sediment is at least one order of magnitude lower than that of adult corals (Fabricius 2005). Sediment accumulation physically blocks access to suitable settlement substrata (Birrell et al., 2005) and alters surface microbial communities which disrupts chemical cues for settlement and metamorphosis (Negri et al., 2001, Webster et al., 2004).
43 Larsson et al. (2013) presented preliminary evidence that larvae of the deep-sea coral L. pertusa might be particularly vulnerable to high sediment particle concentrations.
44 Once settled, juvenile corals are vulnerable to sedimentation as their small size precludes passive shedding and smaller energy reserves limit active removal. On the Great Barrier Reef, Fabricius and De’ath (2004) reported reduced coral recruitment rates (the number of corals entering adult stage) for sensitive species in
DOCDM-1464041 17
communities exposed to high sediments, e.g., species richness of soft corals and sea fans declined by up to 60% as turbidity increased.
45 In her statement of evidence, Dr. Judith Hewitt indicates that the area predicted to be covered by 1-5 cm of additional sedimentation is between 13-18 km2 per mining block (paragraph 32). For comparison, on the Norwegian Continental Shelf, where impacts to the deep-sea stony coral L. pertusa are of concern, oil companies use 6.3mm as a threshold level for burial in risk assessments of drilling discharges (Smit et al. 2008).
46 In addition to the measures outlined in the EIA, the primary approaches to avoiding or mitigating impacts of sedimentation on corals or other vulnerable benthic communities consist of the following:
a. ensuring adequate buffer zones between potential sources of sedimentation and vulnerable benthic communities. I am aware that the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management requires that any deepwater oil and gas drilling or proposed discharge location for muds and cuttings in the Gulf of Mexico must maintain a buffer of at least 610m from features or areas that could support high-density deepwater corals and other associated high-density hard bottom communities (BOEM 2010); and
b. avoiding mining activities during sensitive periods. For example, Burgess and Babcock (2005) suggested that G. dumosa is likely to spawn in late April or May coinciding with pelagic biomass accumulations at the end of summer. A potential mitigation strategy for minimizing sedimentation impacts to reproduction, particularly impacts on fertilization success, might include avoiding mining activities for one or two months before and after the suspected spawning period. The United States Coral Reef Task Force has recognized such seasonal protection measures as an important strategy in mitigating impacts to shallow-water corals, and recommended that U.S. Federal agencies include requirements or recommendations to avoid any adverse effects to the reproduction, recruitment and survival of corals and other coral reef species to the maximum extent practicable in the terms of authorizations to conduct activities (e.g., permits, licenses, funding etc.) (USCRTF 2004). I am not aware, however of this approach being used for deepwater corals.
DOCDM-1464041 18
Cumulative effects
47 The impacts of mining on deep-sea corals and associated communities should be evaluated together with past, on-going, and potential future cumulative impacts to these organisms and their habitats. Historically, physical disturbance caused by bottom-contact fishing gear, especially bottom trawls, has been the primary anthropogenic impact to deep-sea coral habitats on the Chatham Rise and elsewhere within the New Zealand EEZ (Clark and O’Driscoll 2003, Clark and Rowden 2009, Williams et al. 2010). On the Chatham Rise, the majority of historical trawling appears to have been directed toward the flanks of the Rise rather than the central portion where the application area is located (Beaumont et al. 2013b).
48 The majority of the application area is within the Mid-Chatham Rise Benthic Protected Area (BPA) – established in 2007 to protect selected deepwater benthic habitats from impacts of bottom trawling. This protection may have contributed to the continued existence of relatively rich G. dumosa habitat patches. Mining in these areas would negate any benefits that such habitats have gained by being included in the BPA.
49 In addition to fishing, ocean acidification due to increased concentrations of
atmospheric CO2 is expected to represent an important future threat to deep-sea corals, reducing their ability to produce carbonate skeletons (Guinotte et al. 2006; Maier et al. 2009). Aragonite concentrations decrease with increasing depth, and it is predicted that deeper water coral populations will be adversely affected first by ocean acidification. The populations of G. dumosa on Chatham Rise occur at a shallower depth than most other New Zealand framework-forming stony corals (e.g., Solenosmilia variabilis), and the calcium carbonate skeleton it creates is likely to be less susceptible to dissolution sue to increasing ocean acidification (Tracey et al. 2013).
RECOVERY, RESTORATION AND PROPOSED MINING EXCLUSION AREAS
Recovery
50 Recovery of coral-dominated habitats damaged by mining operations is not expected. There is generally limited information on recovery times for deepwater communities. As noted by Clark and Rowden (2009), slow growth rates and high longevity of corals and other habitat-forming species mean that recovery is likely to
DOCDM-1464041 19
be very slow and benthic community structure may never return to the pre-impact state even under the best conditions. Since mining operations will remove the phosphorite nodules upon which the coral G. dumosa depends for hard substratum, recolonization of mined areas is not expected. Beaumont & Rowden (2013; Appendix 30) present a useful discussion of the constraints to the recolonization of G. dumosa following removal of the surface nodules.
Restoration
51 I am not aware of any examples of successful restoration of deepwater coral habitats. Therefore, decisions on mining activities should not be made with the expectation that habitats can be restored.
52 The proposal to explore hard-substrate habitat creation options and techniques that might encourage natural recolonization is intriguing. L. pertusa, the dominant reef- forming deep-sea coral in the North Atlantic, readily colonizes artificial structures (e.g., shipwrecks and oil platforms) raised above the sediment in the Gulf of Mexico (Larcom et al. 2014). L. pertusa occurs at similar depths to G. dumosa and larval recruitment appears to be sufficient in the Gulf of Mexico for relatively long distance larval transport (10-100s of km). There is, however, no assurance that such unassisted recolonization of new substrata would occur in the case of another species of coral. In contrast to L. pertusa, assisted restoration efforts off the US East Coast with a different stony coral species, Oculina varicosa, have been largely unsuccessful (Brook et al. 2007). Results are unpredictable, and given the large area of planned mining impact, it is difficult to expect that restoration will be able to compensate in a cost-effective manner for the coral habitat destroyed. However, as a small scale research effort it may provide important insights.
53 I note CRP proposing monitoring of recolonization in the proposed conditions of consent (attached to Carmen Taylor’s evidence (29 August 2014) condition 36(d)). If consent is granted such monitoring should continue for as long as possible as evidence of recolonization may not be discernible in the 15 years proposed. Such monitoring should also explicitly require consideration of sedimentation effects.
Proposed mining exclusion areas as they relate to deep sea corals
54 Based on the information presented by Rowden et al. (2013 & 2014a), the epifaunal communities dominated by the stony coral G. dumosa (particularly community “o” (image level, and perhaps to a lesser extent community “n”) and community “l” (transect level)) should be considered potential conservation priorities. These
DOCDM-1464041 20
communities also included abundant encrusting bryozoans, sponges and ascidians. Dawson (1984) noted similar associations with the phosphorite nodules which he described as “epifaunal oases” and considered likely to be important as feeding areas for small fishes.
55 The spatial management approach outlined in Rowden et al. (2014b), which is used to 1) identify areas of biodiversity importance; 2) identify areas of economic value (in this case predicted mining prospectivity); and 3) optimize outcomes using a multiple criteria site selection tool such as Marxan or Zonation, is addressed by Dr. John Leathwick in his evidence. Inclusion of areas of potential hard ground (as predicted by analysis of seismic reflection) appears to have been considered in determining the proposed mining exclusion areas. This is valuable, since they may represent substrata for attachment for deep-sea corals, including G. dumosa.
56 The proposed mining exclusion areas derived from the Zonation model, however, do not appear to adequately capture either the areas of greatest abundance of G. dumosa identified in the surveys, or the epifaunal community “o” of which it is a dominant constituent. The proposed mining exclusion areas also contain no grid cells with > 0.5 habitat suitability values (i.e., where communities or taxa are more, rather than less, likely to be present) for the dominant sensitive epifaunal community type (Community “o” – based on the highest presence of the coral G. dumosa – Table 3.3 in Rowden et al. 2014b). With the possible exception of the small mining exclusion area “OO”, it does not appear that the current proposed mining exclusion areas will be likely to protect a significant amount of G. dumosa or epifaunal community “o” habitat.
CONSENT CONDITIONS
57 In summary, if the application is to be approved, the Decision-making Committee may wish to consider the following measures in the conditions to attempt to reduce potential impacts of mining operations on communities dominated by the stony coral G. dumosa:
a. the spatial management options should be reviewed and potentially revised to include the G. dumosa-dominated epifaunal community type “o” in mining exclusion areas;
b. in order to help reduce potential adverse impacts of sedimentation on corals:
DOCDM-1464041 21
a. in determining blocks to be initially mined, it would be prudent to avoid mining operations in mining blocks immediately adjacent to the mining exclusion area “OO” until experience and monitoring indicate that significant sedimentation will not adversely impact corals that may occur in this area. Area “OO” is one of the smallest proposed mining exclusion areas, yet modelling predicts that it may have suitable habitat for coral-dominated communities;
b. all mining exclusion areas should include buffer zones to take into account the potential sedimentation effects coming from adjacent mining areas; and
c. restricting mining activities during periods when the dominant coral, G. dumosa is likely to spawn.
58 Further, as noted above, if consent is granted such monitoring should continue for as long as possible as evidence of recolonization may not be discernible in the 15 years proposed in the conditions proposed in Ms Taylor’s evidence. Such monitoring should also explicitly require consideration of sedimentation effects.
59 I am available to discuss the draft consent conditions further during expert caucusing.
Dated: 12 September 2014
______Thomas F Hourigan
DOCDM-1464041 22
REFERENCES
Allers, E., RMM Abed, LM Wehrmann, T Wang, AI Larsson, A Purser, D de Beer (2013). Resistance of Lophelia pertusa to coverage by sediment and petroleum drill cuttings. Mar. Pollution Bull. 74(1). 132-140.
Ardron, J.A., M.R. Clark, A.J. Penney, T.F. Hourigan, A.A. Rowden, P.K. Dunstan, L.E. Watling, T.M. Shank, D.M. Tracey, M.R. Dunn, S.J. Parker. (2014). A systematic approach towards the identification and protection of vulnerable marine ecosystems. Marine Policy 49:146–154.
Baird S.J., D. Tracey, S. Mormede, M. Clark (2013) The distribution of protected corals in New Zealand waters. NIWA report no. WLG2012-43 prepared for the Department of Conservation, February 2013. 96 pp.
Birrell, C. L., Mccook, L.J., Willis., B.L., 2005. Effects of algal turfs and sediment on coral settlement. Marine Pollution Bulletin 51, 408-414.
Brooke S, C.C. Koenig, and A.N. Shepard. (2005). Oculina banks restoration project: description and preliminary assessment. Proceedings of the 57th Gulf and Caribbean Fisheries Institute p. 607-620.
Brooke S, & Stone R (2007) Reproduction of deep-water hydrocorals (family Stylasteridae) from the Aleutian Islands, Alaska. Bull Mar Sci 81(3): 519–532.
Brooke, S.D., Holmes, M.W., &Young, C.M. (2009). Sediment tolerance of two different morphotypes of the deep-sea coral Lophelia pertusa from the Gulf of Mexico. Marine Ecology Progress Series 390: 137–144.
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) 2010. Deepwater Benthic Communities Notice to Lesees NTL No. 2009-G40, implemented January 27, 2010. http://www.boem.gov/Regulations/Notices-To-Lessees/2009/09-G40.aspx.
Burgess, S.N. & Babcock, R.C. (2005). Reproductive ecology of three reef-forming, deepsea corals in the New Zealand region. Cold-water corals and Ecosystems. Springer-Verlag, Berlin Heidelberg. 701-713 p.
Cairns, S.D. 2007. Deep-water corals: an overview with special reference to diversity and distribution of deep-water scleractinian corals. Bulletin of Marine Science, 81(3): 311-322.
DOCDM-1464041 23
Cairns SD (2011a) Global Diversity of the Stylasteridae (Cnidaria: Hydrozoa: Athecatae). PLoS ONE 6(7): e21670.
Cairns SD (2011b) Presentation to the Marine Conservation Think Tank: Deep-Sea Coral Research to Enhance Conservation. Auckland, December 2&3, 2011.
Cairns SD, D. Fautin, D. Gordon, B. Horvath, D. Opresko, J. Sanchez, F. Sinniger, D. Tracey (2011) Phylum Cnidaria: Anemones, corals, jellyfish, hydroids. NIWA 95 pp.
Clark, M.R. and R. O'Driscoll (2003). Deepwater fisheries and aspects of their impact on seamount habitat in New Zealand. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science 31: 441–458.
Clark, M.R. and A.A. Rowden (2009). Effect of deepwater trawling on the macroinvertebrate assemblages of seamounts on the Chatham Rise, New Zealand. Deep-Sea Research I 56: 1540–1544.
Consalvey, M.; MacKay, K.; Tracey, D. (2006). Information review for protected deep-sea coral species in the New Zealand region. NIWA Client Report prepared for Department of Conservation. WLG2006-85. 60 p.
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) (2009) Azores Scientific Criteria and Guidance: for Identifying Ecologically or Biologically Significant Marine Areas and Designing Representative Networks of Marine Protected Areas in Open Ocean Waters and Deep Sea Habitats. CBD, Montreal, Canada: 12 pp.
Dawson, E. (1984) The benthic fauna of the Chatham Rise: An assessment relative to possible effects of phosphorite mining. Geologisches Jahrbuch, D65: 209–231.
Erftemeijer PLA, B. Riegl, BW Hoeksema, PA Todd (2012) Environmental impacts of dredging and other sediment disturbances on corals: a review. Mar Pollut Bull 64: 1737– 1765.
Fabricius, K.E., (2005). Effects of terrestrial runoff on the ecology of corals and coral reefs: review and synthesis. Marine Pollution Bulletin 50, 125-146.
Fabricius, K.E. and De’ath, G. (2004) Identifying ecological change and its causes: a case study on coral reefs. Ecological Applications 14: 1448-1465.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (2009) International Guidelines for the Management of Deep-sea Fisheries in the High Seas. Rome, FAO. 2009. 73p.
DOCDM-1464041 24
Guinotte, J.M., J. Orr. S. Cairns, A. Freiwald, L. Morgan, and R. George (2006) Will human induced changes in seawater chemistry alter the distribution of deep-sea scleractinian corals? Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 4: 141–146.
Hewitt, J., Julian, K., Bone, E.K. (2011) Chatham–Challenger Ocean Survey 20/20 Post- Voyage Analyses: Objective 10 – Biotic habitats and their sensitivity to physical disturbance. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report.
Hogg, M.M., Tendal, O.S., Conway, K.W., Pomponi, S.A., van Soest, R.W.M., Gutt, J., Krautter, M. and Roberts, J.M. (2010) Deep-sea Sponge Grounds: Reservoirs of Biodiversity. UNEP-WCMC Biodiversity Series No. 32. UNEP-WCMC, Cambridge, UK. 84 pp.
Humphrey, C., Weber, M., Lott, C., Cooper, T., Fabricius K., 2008. Effects of suspended sediments, dissolved inorganic nutrients and salinity on fertilisation and embryo development in the coral Acropora millepora (Ehrenberg, 1834). Coral Reefs 27, 837- 850.
Kudrass H-R, Von Rad U (1984). Underwater television and photography observations, side-scan sonar and acoustic reflectivity measurements of phosphorite-rich areas of the Chaham Rise (New Zealand). Geologisches Jahrbuch D65: 69-89.
Larcom, EA, DL McKeana, JM Brooks, CR Fisher (2014) Growth rates, densities, and distribution of Lophelia pertusa on artificial structures in the Gulf of Mexico. Deep-Sea Res. I – 85:101-109.
Larsson, AI & A Purser (2011) Sedimentation on the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa: Cleaning efficiency from natural sediments and drill cuttings. Marine Pollution Bull., 62:1159-1168.
Larsson, AI, D van Oevelen, A Purser & L Thomsen (2013). Tolerance to long-term exposure of suspended benthic sediments and drill cuttings in the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa. Marine Pollution Bull., 70:176-188.
MacDiarmid A, Bowden D, Cummings V, Morrison M, Jones E, Kelly M, Neil H, Nelson W, Rowden A (2013) Sensitive marine benthic habitats defined. NIWA Client Report prepared for Ministry for the Environment. 72p.
Mackay, K.A, AA Rowden, HC Bostock and DM Tracey (in press) Revisiting Squires’ coral coppice, Campbell Plateau, New Zealand. New Zealand J. Marine & Freshwater Research, 2014.
DOCDM-1464041 25
Maier, C., Hegeman, J., Weinbauer, M. G., and Gattuso, J.-P. (2009) Calcification of the cold-water coral Lophelia pertusa, under ambient and reduced pH, Biogeosciences, 6:1671- 1680.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (2010) NOAA Strategic Plan for Deep-Sea Coral and Sponge Ecosystems: Research, Management, and International Cooperation. Coral Reef Conservation Program. NOAA Tech. Memo. CRCP-11. 67 pp.
New Zealand Department of Conservation (NZ DoC) (2010) 2010 Amendment of Schedule 7A of the New Zealand Wildlife Act 1953.
Richmond, R.H. ( 2005). Coral reproduction and recruitment as tools for studying the ecotoxicology of coral reef ecosystems. Pp. 331-338, InG. Ostrander, ed. Techniques in Aquatic Toxicology, Vol. II. CRC Press.
Roark E.B, T.P. Guilderson, R.B. Dunbar, S.J. Fallon, and D.A. Mucciarone (2009) Extreme longevity in proteinaceous deep-sea corals. Proc. Natl. Acad. Science (PNAS) March 31, 2009 vol. 106 no. 13 5204-5208.
Roberts, JM, A Wheeler, A Freiwald, S Cairns (2009) Cold-water Corals: the biology and geology of deep-sea coral habitats. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press. 352 pp.
Smit, M.G.D., Holthaus, K.I.E., Trannum, H.C., Neff, J.M., Kjeilen-Eilertsen, G., Jak, R.G., Singsaas, I., Huijbregts, M.A.J., Hendriks, A.J., (2008) Species sensitivity distributions for suspended clays, sediment burial, and grain size change in the marine environment. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 27, 1006–1012.
Squires, D.F., 1959. Deep sea corals collected by the Lamont GeologicalSquires, D.F. (1965). Deep-water coral structure on the Campbell Plateau, New Zealand. Deepsea Research 12: 785-788.
Tracey, D.M., Rowden, A.A., Mackay, K.A., Compton, T. (2011) Habitat-forming cold- water corals show affinity for seamounts in the New Zealand region. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 430: 1–22.
Tracey, D.; Bostock, H.; Currie, K.; Mikaloff-Fletcher, S.; Williams, M.; Hadfield, M.; Neil, H.; Guy, C.; Cummings, V. (2013). The potential impact of ocean acidification on deep-sea corals and fisheries habitat in New Zealand waters. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 117. 101 pp.
DOCDM-1464041 26
U.S. Coral Reef Task Force (USCRTF) (2004). Resolution 12-1: Recommendations to Help Protect Coral Spawning and Recruitment Events http://www.coralreef.gov/meeting12/res12-1.pdf.
Williams A, Schlacher TA, Rowden AA, Althaus F, Clark MR, Bowden DA, Stewart R, Bax NJ, Consalvey M, Kloser RJ (2010). Seamount megabenthic assemblages fail to recover from trawling impacts. Marine Ecology 31: 183-199.
Yesson C, Taylor ML, Tittensor DP, Davies AJ, Guinotte J, et al. (2012) Global habitat suitability of cold-water octocorals. Journal of Biogeography 39: 1278–1292.
DOCDM-1464041 27
APPENDIX 1
Major deep-sea coral groups (phylum Cnidaria). *Gorgonians were previously separated out into their own Order Gorgonacea, but are now generally included in the Order Alcyonacea.
Common Class Subclass Order Additional Information Name A few species form deep-water reef-like structures known as Scleractinia Stony corals bioherms, coral banks, or lithoherms. Only a few zoanthids in the Hexacorallia family Parazoanthidae (e.g., Zoantharia Gold corals genus Kulamanamana & Savalia) form rigid skeletons. Many branching forms. Certain Anthozoa— Antipatharia Black corals species harvested for jewelry in corals, sea Hawaii. anemones, sea pens True soft Most are not major structure- Alcyonacea* corals forming species. (including Gorgonians, Many branching forms. At least Gorgonacea) sea fans, sea 12 families contain major whips structure-forming species. Octocorallia Unlike other species, sea pens are found on soft sediments. Pennatulacea Sea pens Contribution as habitat and to biodiversity is not well understood. Can form branching colonies. Hydrozoa— Anthoathecata Stylasterids or May be confused with stony hydroids and Hydroidolina (Family lace corals corals but the resemblance is hydromedusae Stylasteridae) superficial.
DOCDM-1464041 28
APPENDIX 2
Corals identified from seafloor images in the CRP Application Area (Data from Rowden et al. 2014a)
Anthozoan corals Coral Order Coral Family Coral Taxon Notes Anthomastus sp. True soft corals do not have rigid Order Alcyonacea skeletons and are likely to have Family Alcyoniidae (soft corals) unidentified alcyoniid relatively limited contribution to soft corals structured habitats. Callogorgia spp. Protected coral group under the Family Primnoidae Wildlife Act. These gorgonians can Order Alcyonacea primnoid gorgonians reach relatively large sizes, and (Gorgonacea – sometimes occur in aggregations. gorgonian corals) Family Isididae isidid gorgonians They are known to serve as habitat (bamboo corals) for other species. Protected coral group under the Wildlife Act. Branching black Order Antipatharia Leiopathes sp. corals. Species in this genus grow Family Leiopathidae (black corals) very slowly and colonies can live for hundreds to more than 1000 years in age. Protected coral group under the Wildlife Act. This branching stony coral is considered a major habitat- Goniocorella dumosa forming species in New Zealand waters. It was the most abundant Family epifaunal taxon observed in surveys Caryophylliidae within MPL Area 50270 (Rowden et Order Scleractinia al. 2013). (stony corals) Stephanocyathus spp. Protected coral group under the Wildlife Act. These are solitary cup caryophylliid cup corals. They are generally small in corals size and contribute less to habitat- Flabellum rubrum formation than do the branching corals. Family Flabellidae = Monomyces rubrum Flabellum spp. Hydrozoan corals Calyptopora spp. Protected coral group under the Wildlife Act. These stylasterid Lepidotheca spp. corals are fragile and can contribute Order Family Stylasteridae Unidentified to a certain extent to increasing Anthoathecata (stylasterid corals) stylasterid coral habitat complexity. Most species brood their larvae and appear to have limited larval dispersal.
DOCDM-1464041 29