MARINE DISCHARGE CONSENT APPLICATION DECK DRAINAGE · Discharges of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage to the marine environment will be at most intermittent

SLR Ref: 740.10078.00000 Version No: ‐v1.0 March 2018

MARINE DISCHARGE CONSENT APPLICATION ‐ DECK DRAINAGE

Taranaki Basin

Prepared for:

OMV New Zealand Limited

The Majestic Centre

Level 20, 100 Willis Street

PO Box 2621, Wellington 6015

New Zealand

OMV New Zealand Limited Marine Discharge Consent Application ‐ Deck Drainage Taranaki Basin

SLR Ref No: 740.10078.00000‐R01Filename: 740.10078.00000‐R01‐v1.0 Marine Discharge Consent

20180326 (FINAL).docx March 2018

740.10078.00000‐R01‐v1.0 Marine Discharge Consent 20180326 (FINAL).docx Page 2

PREPARED BY

SLR Consulting NZ Limited Company Number 2443058 5 Duncan Street Port Nelson 7010, Nelson New Zealand T: +64 274 898 628 E: [email protected] www.slrconsulting.com

BASIS OF REPORT

This report has been prepared by SLR Consulting NZ Limited with all reasonable skill, care and diligence, and taking account of the timescale and resources allocated to it by agreement with OMV New Zealand Limited. Information reported herein is based on the interpretation of data collected, which has been accepted in good faith as being accurate and valid.

This report is for the exclusive use of OMV New Zealand Limited. No warranties or guarantees are expressed or should be inferred by any third parties. This report may not be relied upon by other parties without written consent from SLR

SLR disclaims any responsibility to the Client and others in respect of any matters outside the agreed scope of the work.

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Reference Date Prepared Checked Authorised

740.10078.00000‐R01‐v1.0 26 March 2018 SLR Consulting NZ Ltd Dan Govier Dan Govier




EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


OMV New Zealand Limited (OMV New Zealand) is applying for a Marine Discharge Consent (hereafter referred to as a Discharge Consent) under Section 38 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (EEZ Act). This Discharge Consent is to permit the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drains of a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) associated with an Exploration and Appraisal Drilling (EAD) Programme. This discharge is the activity that is the subject of this application. No other activities are the subject of this application.

The EAD Programme includes the drilling of up to nine exploration wells and three appraisal wells within OMV New Zealand’s permit areas. These wells are located within the Taranaki Basin and are anticipated to commence in 2019. Drilling will be completed as a part of one or more drilling campaigns over the duration of the relevant exploration permits. This could be as late as end of 2025.

The EAD Programme in the Taranaki Basin will require a number of approvals under the EEZ Act. Applications for these approvals in relation to the EAD Programme will be lodged with the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) in the future. All of the activities that will be the subject of the other applications are outside the scope of the consent sought in this application.

As such, the scope of matters that have been assessed is confined to matters which are directly relevant to the activity for which consent is sought. It is also reflected in the draft conditions which have been prepared and which are attached at Appendix A. The scope of the application will also be relevant to the matters that can be raised by submitters and considered by the decision maker for this marine consent.

An Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) has been undertaken as part of this Impact Assessment (IA) to identify the relative significance of the potential effects from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substance from the deck drains of a MODU. When considering the effects on the environment from the proposed discharge the following conclusions are made:

1. The mitigation measures in place on the MODU will ensure that the probability of a loss of containment of a harmful substance to deck is As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP);

2. If a loss of containment of harmful substance to deck occurs, there will only be trace amounts left following clean up;

3. Should any trace amounts of harmful substances make it into the deck drainage system, the concentrations of harmful substance within the product will be diluted in the settling tank. Upon discharge to the marine environment, the harmful substance would be further diluted, to the extent that ecotoxicity risk to the marine environment is negligible;

4. The discharges of trace amounts of harmful substances will be immeasurable in the receiving water well within the 200 m zone of influence due to the low volume of harmful substance and the high energy Taranaki marine environment; and

5. Discharges of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage to the marine environment will be at most intermittent.

The risk to receptors, and the effects on the environment and existing interests, from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is negligible.

This application has addressed the matters set out in sections 39, 59, 60 and 61 of the EEZ Act as summarised in Table 1 to Table 4.


SLR Ref No: 740.10078.00000‐R01Filename: 740.10078.00000‐R01‐v1.0 Marine Discharge Consent 20180326 (FINAL).docx

March 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Table 1 S39 Legislative Requirements

Section 39 of the EEZ Act How this Requirement is Met

(1) An impact assessment must –

(1)(a) – describe the activity (or activities) for which consent is sought; and

This application seeks Discharge Consent to discharge trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drains of a MODU which will be utilised during the EAD Programme. This activity is classified as a discretionary activity under regulation 16(1) of the D&D Regulations. A full description of the activity is included within Section 3.

(1)(b) – describe the current state of the area where it is proposed that the activity will be undertaken and the environment surrounding the area; and

The proposed EAD Programme will be undertaken within the Taranaki Basin. Three Areas of Interest (AOI) have been identified (north, central and south) which encapsulates the well locations and has been used to focus the study area. Section 5 contains a detailed description of the current state of the area within the three AOIs and the surrounding environments.

(1)(c) – identify persons whose existing interests are likely to be adversely affected by the activity; and

When identifying persons whose existing interests are likely to be adversely affected by this Discharge Consent application the physical extent of the potential effects from the activity have been considered (Section 4.1).

(1)(d) – identify the effects of the activity on the environment and existing interests (including cumulative effects and effects that may occur in New Zealand or in the sea above or beyond the continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone); and

An ERA, (Section 7), has been undertaken as part of this IA to identify the effects of the activity on the environment and existing interests. The conclusion of the ERA is that the risks to receptors, and hence effects on the environment and existing interests, from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage are negligible.

(1)(e) – identify the effects of the activity on the biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems, and processes; and

The ERA contained within Section 7 of this IA has been split into the various sections, including Section 7.2.1 (Physical Environment), Section 7.2.2 (Biological Environment) and Section 7.2.3 (Marine Conservation and Sensitive Sites). The overall conclusion of the ERA is that the risks to the receptors from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage are negligible. As such, there are no adverse effects of the activity on section 39(1)(e) matters.

(1)(f) – identify the effects of the activity on rare and vulnerable ecosystems and habitats of threatened species; and

An associated assessment on these receptors is contained within Sections 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.3. The overall conclusion of the ERA is that the risk from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances is negligible, as are the effects on relevant resources.



March 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



(1)(g) – describe any consultation undertaken with persons described in paragraph (c) and specify those persons who have given written approval to the activity; and

OMV New Zealand has undertaken an engagement process with a number of groups during 2017 and 2018, including iwi that hold special interest and cultural significance in this offshore area Section 4.

No persons have provided written approvals at the time of lodgement of this Discharge Consent application.

(1)(h) – include copies of any written approvals to the activity; and

As described above, no written approvals have been obtained at the time of lodgement of this application.

(1)(i) – specify any possible alternative locations for, or methods for undertaking, the activity that may avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects; and

There are no alternative locations that this activity could occur as the activity will be limited to where the MODU is located, which is limited by the location of potential hydrocarbons. An assessment of alternative methods has been undertaken within Section 3.9. Draft conditions of consent are attached at Appendix A

(1)(j) – specify the measures that could be taken to avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects identified (including measures that the applicant intends to take).

A number of measures will be implemented on the MODU, which include physical barriers (Section 3.2) and systems and procedures (Section 3.3). These measures will further prevent the risk for a loss of containment of a harmful substance to ALARP.

(2) An impact assessment must also, –

(2)(a) – if it relates to an application for a Marine Discharge Consent, describe the effects of the activity on human health

The pathways for the proposed activity affecting human health relates to either direct exposure to the discharge, or from the consumption of fish caught (Section 7.3). This concludes that potential effects from the discharge on human health are negligible. Risks to human health on the MODU are otherwise managed under the HSW Act.

(2)(b) – if it relates to an application for a Marine Dumping Consent, –

(i) describe the effects of the activity on human health; and

(ii) specify any practical opportunities to reuse, recycle, or treat the waste or other matter:

Section 39(2)(b) is not applicable to this application as it is not for a Marine Dumping Consent.



March 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



(2)(c) – if it relates to any other application, describe the effects on human health that may arise from the effects of the activity on the environment.

Section 39(2)(c) is not considered applicable to this application as the effects of the activity on human health is provided for under section 39(2)(a), which is discussed above.

(3) – An impact assessment must contain the information required under subsections (1) and (2) in –

(3)(a) – such detail as corresponds to the scale and significance of the effects that the activity may have on the environment and existing interests; and

This IA has considered the scale and significance of the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances within deck drainage from a MODU associated with the EAD Programme. The ways in which the information required under section 39(3)(1) and (2) has been provided for within this application is discussed above.

The information contained within the IA has been prepared to provide sufficient detail for the EPA and those persons who have existing interests to understand the nature of the activity (Section 3) and the effects on the marine environment and existing interests (Section 7).

(3)(b) – sufficient detail to enable the Environmental Protection Authority and persons whose existing interests are or may be affected to understand the nature of the activity and its effects on the environment and existing interests.

(4) – The impact assessment complies with subsections (1)(c) to (f) and (2) if the Environmental Protection Authority is satisfied that the applicant has made a reasonable effort to identify the matters described in those provisions.

OMV New Zealand has undertaken a comprehensive assessment of the existing environment (Section 5) and existing interests (Section 4.1) that are associated with the AOIs. A detailed ERA has been undertaken within Section 7. It is considered that the information contained within these sections will provide the EPA with sufficient information to consider the application under sections 39(1)(c) to (f) and 39(2).

(5) – The measures that must be specified under subsection (1)(j) include any measures required by another marine management regime and any measures required by or under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 that may have the effect of avoiding, remedying, or mitigating the adverse effects of the activity on the environment or existing interests.

Other marine management regimes considered relevant to the EAD Programme are discussed in Section 2.4. Although outside the scope of this application, several additional approvals are required under the EEZ Act and other marine management regimes, and these will provide additional measures to avoid, remedy, or mitigate adverse effects from the overall EAD Programme on the environment and existing interests.



March 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


Table 2 S59 Considerations


(2) – If the application relates to a section 20 activity (other than an activity referred to in section 20(2)(ba)), a Marine Consent Authority must take into account –

The matters listed within section 59(2) are required to be taken into account by the EPA as per section 59(2A).

(2)(a) – any effects on the environment or existing interests of allowing the activity, including –

(i) cumulative effects; and

(ii) effects that may occur in New Zealand or in the waters above or beyond the continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone; and

As discussed within Table 1, in relation to section 39(1)(d) of the EEZ Act, an ERA has been undertaken as part of this IA that identifies the effects of the activity on the environment and existing interests (Section 7). This ERA assesses the potential effects on the environment and existing interests, and in particular Section 7.2.6 considers the potential cumulative effects from allowing the activity.

The overall result of the ERA, including potential cumulative effects, is that the risks to the receptors from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage are negligible. Not only are the risks negligible, but the potential effects of any discharge have also been assessed as being negligible.

(2)(b) – the effects on the environment or existing interests of other activities undertaken in the area covered by the application or in its vicinity, including –

(i) the effects of activities that are not regulated under this Act; and

(ii) effects that may occur in New Zealand or in the waters above or beyond the continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the Exclusive Economic Zone; and

There are a number of other user/activities within the wider Taranaki Basin area, including other offshore oil & gas operations and fishing activities. However, these activities are dispersed over a wide area of the Taranaki Basin, and with the exception of fishing activities (Section 5.5), there are no other activities which occur within the direct vicinity of the well locations associated with this application.

The potential cumulative effects in the Taranaki Basin are discussed within Section 7.2.6. This section concluded that the potential for any cumulative effects on the marine environment arising from the deck drainage system is negligible.

(2)(c) – the effects on human health that may arise from effects on the environment; and

As outlined within section 59(2A)(a), the EPA must take into account the matters within section 59(2) except (2)(c). Therefore, this subsection is outside the scope of this application. However, assessment of the effects on human health of the discharge of harmful substances is are required under section 39(2(a)A)(b) and are discussed there



March 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



(2)(d) – the importance of protecting the biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems, and processes; and

Section 5 contains a detailed description of the existing environment which has been split into wider sections detailing the physical environment, biological environment and marine conservation and sensitive sites. These sections include information relating to the biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems and processes.

Based on the existing environment sections, the ERA has been split into the same sections; Section 7.2.1 (Physical Environment), Section 7.2.2 (Biological Environment) and Section 7.2.3 (Marine Conservation and Sensitive Sites). The overall conclusion of the ERA is that the risks to receptors, including biological diversity and integrity of marine species, ecosystems, and processes, from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage are negligible, which will in turn ensure that the importance of protecting these matters is appropriately taken into account.

(2)(e) – the importance of protecting rare and vulnerable ecosystems and the habitats of threatened species; and

Similar to section 59(2)(d), any potential rare and vulnerable ecosystems and habitats of threatened species have been identified and outlined in the existing environment section (Section 5). An associated assessment on these receptors is contained within Sections 7.2.1, 7.2.2 and 7.2.3. The overall conclusion is that the risks to receptors, including rare and vulnerable ecosystems and habitats of threatened species, from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage are negligible. This will ensure that the importance of protecting these matters is appropriately taken into account

(2)(f) – the economic benefit to New Zealand of allowing the application; and

This application is for a minor component of the total activities proposed for the EAD Programme. It is not possible to make a distinction between the economic benefit of this activity and that of the entire EAD Programme. As such, a discussion on the economic benefits that could arise from a successful drilling programme is contained within Section 6.

(2)(g) – the efficient use and development of natural resources; and

Although this Discharge Consent application does not specifically provide detail on the efficient use and development of natural resources, the overarching EAD Programme and future regulatory applications will further discuss this and how they will be used and developed in the future should a well be commercially successful.

(2)(h) – the nature and effect of other marine management regimes; and

Section 2.4 provides a summary of other marine management regimes relevant to the EAD Programme. OMV New Zealand will comply with the relevant provisions of these marine management regimes which will provide additional measures of avoiding, remedying, or mitigating adverse effects from all proposed activities on the environment and existing interests. These regimes support and reinforce the assessment of effects and OMV’s approach.



March 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



(2)(i) – best practice in relation to an industry or activity; and

The Ministry for the Environment has developed “Environmental Best Practice Guidelines for the Offshore Petroleum Industry” (MfE, 2006).

These guidelines recognise that exploration activities are generally short‐term events that result in minimal and transient environmental impact. As such, the guidelines refer specifically to petroleum development and production activities. These guidelines provide four key requirements for development and production activities: environmental assessment, health, safety and environment case, monitoring and reporting, and training and education.

Although these guidelines are for production and development activities, OMV New Zealand is committed to following industry best practice and undertakes these requirements as a standard practice throughout all operations.

(2)(j) – the extent to which imposing conditions under section 63 might avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity; and

A set of proposed conditions from OMV New Zealand has been included in Appendix A which have been developed in accordance with section 63 of the EEZ Act to avoid, remedy or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity.

(2)(k) – relevant regulations (other than EEZ policy statements); and

The applicable regulations and laws relevant to this activity have all been considered within Section 2.4.

In addition to the various measures proposed by OMV New Zealand (Section 3.2 and 3.3), compliance with regulations and laws outlined within Section 2.4 will provide assurance that adverse effects from the activity is adequately avoided, remedied or mitigated.

(2)(l) – any other applicable law (other than EEZ policy statements); and

(2)(m) – any other matter the Marine Consent Authority considers relevant and reasonably necessary to determine the application.

It is considered there are no other matters relevant to this Discharge Consent application that have not already been covered in this IA.

(2A) – If the application is for a Marine Discharge Consent, the EPA must take into account –

(2A)(a) – the matters described in subsection (2), except paragraph (c); and

The matters within section 59(2) have all been discussed in detail above, and within the relevant sections of the IA, excluding paragraph (c).



March 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



(2A)(b) – the effects on human health of the discharge of harmful substances if consent is granted.

The potential effects on human health from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drains of a MODU is discussed in detail within Section 7.3. The potential pathways for human health effects is limited to either direct exposure to the discharge, or from the consumption of fish caught that have been exposed and contaminated by the discharge. This section concludes that the potential effects of the activity on human health are negligible.

(3) – the Marine Consent Authority must have regard to –

(3)(aa) – EEZ policy statements; and There are no relevant EEZ policy statements available at the time of drafting this Discharge Consent application.

(3)(a) – any submissions made and evidence given in relation to the application; and

This paragraph is not discussed within this IA, as the content of submissions and evidence is not yet known. However, should this Discharge Consent application be publicly notified, this will allow the public an opportunity to submit on the application, which will ensure the EPA has regard to any submissions received, albeit that the scope of matters raised in submissions will be limited to matters directly relevant to the activity for which consent is sought.

(3)(b) – any advice, reports, or information sought under this Part and received in relation to the application; and

This paragraph is not discussed within this IA. However, OMV New Zealand will endeavour to answer any questions raised by the EPA throughout the Discharge Consent review process.

(3)(c) – any effects on a person’s existing interest if the person has given written approval to the proposed activity.

OMV New Zealand has undertaken an engagement process with a number of groups during 2017 and 2018, including iwi that hold special interest and cultural significance in this offshore area Section 4.

No persons have provided written approvals at the time of lodgement of this Discharge Consent application.

(4) – When considering an application affected by section 74, the Marine Consent Authority must also have regard to the value of the investment in the activity of the existing consent holder.

This paragraph is not relevant to this application as OMV New Zealand does not hold a Marine Consent that is about to expire relating to the proposed activities.

(5) – Despite subsection (3), the Marine Consent Authority must not have regard to ‐

(5)(a) – trade competition or the effects of trade competition; or



March 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



(5)(b) – the effects on climate change of discharging greenhouse gases into the air; or

Trade competition, or the effects of trade competition, and the effects on climate change of discharge greenhouse gases into the air have not been discussed within this IA as they are outside the scope of this application and the EPA must not have regard to them.

No written approvals have been obtained at the time of lodgement of this application (5)(c) – any effects on a person’s existing interest if the person has given written approval to the proposed activity.

(6) – Subsection (5)(c) does not apply if the person has given written approval by the person withdraws the approval by giving written notice to the Marine Consent Authority ‐

No written approvals have been obtained at the time of lodgement of this application. Therefore, subsection (6) is not considered relevant to this application.

(6)(a) – before the date of the hearing, if there is one; or

(6)(b) – if there is no hearing, before the Marine Consent Authority decides the application.



In considering the effects of an activity on existing interests under section 59(2)(a), a marine consent authority must have regard to –

(a) – the area that the activity would have in common with the existing interest; and

The existing interests within or near the AOIs are discussed within Section 4.1, which were identified to include the deep‐water commercial fishers, customary fishers and the associated quota holders.

Due to the highly mobile nature of the fish which are targeted by fishers in the AOIs, it is considered that existing interests are not restricted to the areas subject to this application, and they can occur at the same time as the proposed activity within the wider Taranaki region.

(b) – the degree to which both the activity and the existing interest must be carried out to the exclusion of other activities; and

(c) – whether the existing interests can be exercised only in the area to which the application relates; and



March 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



(d) – any other relevant matter. Nevertheless, an assessment on the effects from the activity on these existing interests is contained within Section 7.2.5. In addition, even though under the EEZ Act some iwi groups are not considered by definition as holding an existing interest for the location of the proposed wells, an assessment on the cultural environment is provided within Section 7.2.4. The result of these assessments is that any environmental risk to the recreational and commercial fishing or to the cultural environment is negligible.



(1) When considering an application for a marine consent, a marine consent authority must –

(1)(a) – make full use of its powers to request information from the applicant, obtain advice, and commission a review or a report; and

OMV New Zealand will respond to any request for further information should the EPA see the need for this additional information in relation to this application.

(1)(b) – base decision on the best available information; and

A MODU has yet to be contracted to undertake the EAD Programme; therefore, this application is made on the basis of a typical MODU deck drainage system (Section 3.2). As part of the MODU selection process OMV New Zealand have placed strict environmental and operational requirements which the MODU suppliers must be able to comply with before they progress to the next stage in the contracting process.

In terms of the harmful substances used during drilling campaigns, OMV New Zealand has reviewed the harmful substances used during previous drilling campaigns to inform this application (Section 3.7), and provide a basis for an assessment of environmental effects from the discharge.

Considering the above, it is believed the best available information has been utilised and provided as part of this Discharge Consent application for the EPAs review and consideration in the decision making process.

(1)(c) – take into account any uncertainty or inadequacy in the information available.

In order to take into account any uncertainty in the information provided, the assessments within this IA have favoured a conservative approach, such as the rainfall scenarios calculated within Section 3.5, and the harmful substance dilution calculations found within Section 3.7.



March 2018

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY



(2) – If, in relation to making a decision under this Act, the information available is uncertain or inadequate, the Marine Consent Authority must favour caution and environmental protection.

As discussed in relation to section 61(1)(b) of the EEZ Act above, it is considered that the information provided within this application is the best information available at the time of submission and is adequate for the EPA to make their decision.

(3) – If favouring caution and environmental protection means that an activity is likely to be refused, the Marine Consent Authority must first consider whether taking an adaptive management approach would allow the activity to be undertaken.

This subsection does not apply to this Discharge Consent application as per section 61(4) which is discussed below.

(4) – subsection (3) does not ‐

(4)(a) – apply to an application for –

(i) a Marine Dumping Consent or

(ii) a Marine Discharge Consent; or

(iii) a Marine Consent in relation to an activity referred to in section 20(2)(ba); or

Subsection (3) has not been considered as this application is for a Marine Discharge Consent.

(4)(b) ‐ limit section 63 or 64 A set of proposed conditions has been included within Appendix A which has been developed in accordance with section 63 of the EEZ Act. However, section 64 does not apply to a Marine Discharge Consent as per section 64(1AA).

(5) – in this section, best available information means the best information that, in the particular circumstances, is available without unreasonable cost, effort, or time.

As discussed in relation to section 61(1)(b) of the EEZ Act above, it is considered that the information provided within this application is the best information available at the time of submission.




CONTENTS


1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 20

2 LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK ............................................................................................................ 22

2.1 Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 ................ 22

2.2 Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects – Discharge and Dumping) Regulations 2015 ...................................................................................................... 23

2.3 Other Regulatory Approvals Required ...................................................................................... 24

2.4 Other Marine Management Regimes ....................................................................................... 25

2.4.1 Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 25

2.4.2 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 25

2.4.3 Resource Management Act 1991 26

2.4.4 Crown Minerals Act 1991 26

2.4.5 Maritime Transport Act 1994 26

2.4.6 Biosecurity Act 1993 27

2.4.7 Other Relevant Marine Management Regimes 27

2.4.8 International Conventions 28

2.5 Information Requirements ....................................................................................................... 29

3 ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION ................................................................................................................. 30

3.1 Proposed Operations ................................................................................................................ 30

3.2 Typical MODU Deck Drainage System ...................................................................................... 33

3.2.1 Deck Drainage System Design 33

3.2.2 Storage for Harmful Substances 34

3.2.3 Direct Overboard Discharge 34

3.3 Systems and Procedures ........................................................................................................... 35

3.3.1 OMV New Zealand Environmental Policies 35

3.3.2 Assurance Tasks 36

3.3.3 Training, Competency and Drills 36

3.3.4 Spill Kits 36

3.3.5 Helicopter Refuelling 37

3.4 Possible Discharged Harmful Substances ................................................................................. 37

3.4.1 Selection of Harmful Substances 37

3.4.2 Specific Harmful Substances 37




CONTENTS


3.5 Discharge Volumes ................................................................................................................... 38

3.6 Zone of Influence ...................................................................................................................... 40

3.7 Harmful Substances Dilution Calculations ................................................................................ 40

3.8 Assessment of Barriers – Bowtie .............................................................................................. 44

3.8.1 Hazard 45

3.8.2 Top Event 45

3.8.3 Threat 45

3.8.4 Control 45

3.9 Assessment of Alternatives ....................................................................................................... 47

4 EXISTING INTERESTS AND ENGAGEMENT ...................................................................................... 48

4.1 Existing Interests ....................................................................................................................... 48

4.2 Engagement .............................................................................................................................. 50

5 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT .............................................................................................................. 52

5.1 Physical Environment ................................................................................................................ 52

5.1.1 Meteorology 52

5.1.2 Air Quality 54

5.1.3 Currents and Waves 54

5.1.4 Thermoclines and Sea Temperature 56

5.1.5 Water Quality 58

5.1.6 Bathymetry and Geology 59

5.1.7 Seabed Substrate 62

5.2 Biological Environment ............................................................................................................. 64

5.2.1 Benthic Invertebrates 64

5.2.2 Cetaceans 65

5.2.3 Pinnipeds 81

5.2.4 Seabirds 82

5.2.5 Marine Reptiles 86

5.2.6 Fish 87

5.2.7 Cephalopods 91

5.2.8 Plankton and Primary Productivity 91

5.3 Marine Classification and Sensitive Sites .................................................................................. 93

5.3.1 New Zealand Marine Environmental Classification 93




CONTENTS


5.3.2 Sensitive Environments 95

5.4 Cultural Environment ................................................................................................................ 99

5.4.1 Customary Fishing and Iwi Fisheries Interests 101

5.4.2 Interests under the Marine & Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 103

5.5 Socio‐Economic Environment ................................................................................................. 107

5.5.1 Recreational Fishing 107

5.5.2 Commercial Fishing 107

6 ECONOMIC BENEFITS .................................................................................................................. 109

7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT – POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS .................................................. 110

7.1 Environmental Risk Assessment Methodology ...................................................................... 110

7.2 Receptors ................................................................................................................................ 112

7.2.1 Physical Environment 113

7.2.2 Biological Environment 114

7.2.3 Marine Environmental Classifications and Sensitive Sites 119

7.2.4 Cultural Environment 119

7.2.5 Socio‐economic Environment 120

7.2.6 Cumulative Effects 121

7.3 Effects on Human Health ........................................................................................................ 121

7.4 Summary of Environmental Risk Assessment ......................................................................... 122

8 CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................. 123

9 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................ 124




CONTENTS


DOCUMENT REFERENCES

TABLES

Table 1 S39 Legislative Requirements ............................................................................................................. 4 Table 2 S59 Considerations ............................................................................................................................. 7 Table 3 S60 Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 11 Table 4 S61 Considerations ........................................................................................................................... 12 Table 5 Proposed Well Names, Locations and Water Depths ...................................................................... 31 Table 6 Rainfall Calculations ......................................................................................................................... 39 Table 7 Ecotoxicity Data for 9.1 HSNO Classified Harmful Substances Typically used in Drilling

Operations ........................................................................................................................................ 41 Table 8 Harmful Substance Concentration Calculations within Discharge ................................................... 42 Table 9 Existing Interests as defined in the EEZ Act associated with this Discharge Consent Application ... 48 Table 10 Rainfall Statistics for Northern, Central and Southern Taranaki Coastal Sites ................................. 53 Table 11 Proportion of Days where Detectable Amounts of Rainfall Occurred at the Three Onshore

Monitoring Locations Investigated ................................................................................................... 53 Table 12 Seasonal Average Sea Surface Temperatures (°C) at Taranaki Oil and Gas Fields ........................... 57 Table 13 Maari Field Water Sample Chemical Analysis .................................................................................. 58 Table 14 Description of the Likely Seabed and Substrate for Each AOI .......................................................... 63 Table 15 Criteria used to assess the Likelihood of Cetacean Species Being Present in the AOIs ................... 67 Table 16 Likelihood of Occurrence of Marine Mammals in the AOIs ............................................................. 70 Table 17 Beaked Whale Ecology of Relevance to the AOIs ............................................................................. 76 Table 18 Seabirds that could be Present in the AOIs ...................................................................................... 83 Table 19 Fish Species Potentially Present in the AOIs .................................................................................... 88 Table 20 Fish Species Potentially Spawning in the AOIs ................................................................................. 89 Table 21 Schedule 6 Sensitive Environment Definitions ................................................................................. 95 Table 22 Iwi Interests in the Vicinity of the AOIs .......................................................................................... 100 Table 23 Applications under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 in the Vicinity of the

AOIs ................................................................................................................................................ 104 Table 24 Current Total Allowable Commercial Catch Allocations for Finfish ............................................... 107 Table 25 Criteria for Assessing Potential Consequence Levels. Adapted from MacDiarmid et al. (2012) ... 111 Table 26 Criteria for Assessing Consequence Likelihood. Following MacDiarmid et al. (2012) ................... 112 Table 27 Overall Risk of Residual Impacts. Following MacDiarmid et al. (2012) .......................................... 112

FIGURES

Figure 1 OMV New Zealand’s Proposed EAD Well Locations and three AOI’s in the Taranaki Basin ............ 32 Figure 2 Covered and Bunded Pallets............................................................................................................. 34 Figure 3 Generic Bowtie Diagram ................................................................................................................... 44 Figure 4 Harmful Substance Bowtie Diagram for the Deck Drainage System during the EAD Programme .. 46 Figure 5 Ocean Circulation Around the New Zealand Coastline .................................................................... 56 Figure 6 Average New Zealand Sea Surface Temperatures for Winter (left) and Summer (right) ................ 57 Figure 7 Bathymetry of the Area of Interest .................................................................................................. 60 Figure 8 New Zealand's Sedimentary Basins .................................................................................................. 61 Figure 9 Cetacean Sightings in the Vicinity of the Area of Interest ................................................................ 68




CONTENTS


Figure 10 Cetacean Stranding events in the Vicinity of the Area of Interest ................................................... 69 Figure 11 New Zealand Marine Environmental Classifications around the AOIs ............................................. 94 Figure 12 Rohe Moana in the Vicinity of the AOIs ......................................................................................... 102 Figure 13 Fisheries Management Areas Surrounding the AOIs ..................................................................... 108

APPENDICES

Appendix A Proffered Conditions

ABBREVIATIONS AND DEFINITIONS

ALARP As Low As Reasonably Practicable

AOI Area of Interest

CMA Coastal Marine Area

D&D Regulations Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects – Discharge and Dumping) Regulations 2015

DOC Department of Conservation

EAD Exploration and Appraisal Drilling

EC50 Effects Concentration

EEZ Exclusive Economic Zone

EEZ Act Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012

EPA Environmental Protection Authority

ERA Environmental Risk Assessment

ESRP Emergency Spill Response Plan

FPSO Floating Production Storage and Offloading

FTE Full Time Equivalent

HSNO Act Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act (1996)

HSSE Health, Safety, Security and Environment

HSW Act Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

IA Impact Assessment

IOPP International Oil Pollution Prevention

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

LC50 Lethal Concentration

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 as Modified by the Protocol of 1978

MODU Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit




CONTENTS


NIWA National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research

O&G Oil and Gas

OIW Oil‐In‐Water

OMV New Zealand OMV New Zealand Limited

OSCP Oil Spill Contingency Plan

OWS Oily Water Separator

PEP Petroleum Exploration Permit

PMP Petroleum Mining Permit

SDS Safety Data Sheet

TRC Taranaki Regional Council

UNCLOS United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982

IMPORTANT AND FREQUENTLY USED MAORI TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Hapū Sub‐tribe – section of a large kinship group and the primary political unit in traditional Māori society. A number of related hapū usually shared adjacent territories forming an iwi.

Iwi Tribe or extended kinship group. Often refers to a large group of people descended from a common ancestor and associated with a distinct territory.

Kaitiakitanga Guardianship.

Mana whenua Territorial rights, authority over land or territory.

Mauri Life principal or life force. The essential quality and vitality of a being or entity. Also used for a physical object or ecosystem in which this essence is located.

Pā Fortified village.

Tangata whenua People born of the whenua, i.e. of the placenta and of the land where the people’s ancestors have lived and where their placenta are buried.

Taonga Treasure. Applied to anything considered to be of value including socially or culturally valuable objects, resources, phenomenon, ideas and techniques

Tauranga waka Canoe landing place.

Wāhi tapu Sacred place – subject to long‐term ritual restrictions on access or use.

Whānau Extended family or family group.





1 Introduction

OMV New Zealand Limited (OMV New Zealand) is applying for a Marine Discharge Consent (hereafter referred to as a Discharge Consent) under Section 38 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012 (EEZ Act). This Discharge Consent is to permit the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drains of a Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) associated with an Exploration and Appraisal Drilling (EAD) Programme. This discharge is the activity which has been assessed for the purpose of the EEZ Act and this application. No other activities are the subject of this application.

OMV New Zealand has been operating in New Zealand since 1999 when they became the operators of the Maari Field following the acquisition of Cultus Petroleum of Australia, resulting in a 30% share in the Field. The Maari Field is New Zealand’s largest oil field which produces crude oil from the Maari, Mangehewa and Manaia reservoirs. Production at the Maari Field commenced in February 2009, with OMV New Zealand now owning a 69% share in the Field.

Since OMV New Zealand began operating in New Zealand it has expanded into a range of other assets through subsequent acquisitions. This includes a 10% share in the Māui Field and a 26% share in the Pohokura gas field and onshore production station. From the Maari Field (oil), Pohokura (gas) and Māui (gas), OMV New Zealand is the largest producer of liquid hydrocarbons and the third largest natural gas producer in New Zealand. OMV New Zealand is a subsidiary of OMV Upstream, which is part of the OMV Group, one of Austria’s largest listed industrial companies.

OMV New Zealand is actively searching for additional oil and gas resources within New Zealand and currently holds interest in nine Petroleum Exploration Permits (PEP). OMV New Zealand completed a development drilling campaign during 2014/15 to further develop the Maari Field. This programme included the drilling of new production wells from the Maari Wellhead Platform.

In order to grow OMV New Zealand’s, and New Zealand’s, hydrocarbon reserves OMV New Zealand are proposing to undertake an EAD Programme starting in 2019. This EAD Programme includes the drilling of up to nine exploration wells and three appraisal wells within OMV New Zealand’s permit areas. These wells are located within the Taranaki Basin, in six of the nine permit areas in which OMV New Zealand holds interest.

OMV’s PEP’s include a number of obligations which require OMV New Zealand to drill at least one well in each of these exploration permits or surrender the permit.

All activities associated with this Discharge Consent application will be undertaken in the Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and are outside the Coastal Marine Area (CMA), although as noted earlier the only activity which is the subject of this application and assessment is the potential discharge of harmful substances from the deck of the MODU.

Section 2 of this document describes the legislative framework that the Impact Assessment (IA) has been prepared in accordance with. This section confirms how OMV New Zealand will comply with all relevant regulatory requirements.

Section 3 provides a detailed description of the proposed activity in the context of the EAD Programme.

Section 4 considers the existing interests in relation to the proposed activity as well as the engagement process OMV New Zealand has undertaken.





Section 5 describes the existing environment in relation to the proposed activity. This includes the physical, biological, sensitive, cultural and socio‐economic environments.

Section 6 discusses the potential economic benefits of the project in the context of the proposed activity, which is only a small part of the EAD Programme.

Section 7 details the risk assessment component of the IA. This describes the potential environmental effects and the mitigation measures which OMV New Zealand will implement to avoid, remedy or mitigate any significant environmental effects from the proposed activity.

Section 0 provides an overall summary of the IA.

Section 9 summarises the references cited in this document.

Appendix A outlines the conditions that OMV New Zealand has proffered.





2 Legislative Framework

This is an application for consent to discharge trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drains of a MODU. The following sections detail the requirements within the EEZ Act and Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Discharge and Dumping) Regulations 2015 (D&D Regulations), along with other marine management regimes within the legislative framework that assists in avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects associated with the proposed activity on the environment or existing interests.

The proposed activity is described in detail in Section 3 of this application.

2.1 Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012

The EEZ Act came into force in 2013 and established the first comprehensive environmental consenting regime for activities within New Zealand’s EEZ and continental shelf. Section 10(1) of the EEZ Act defines the purpose of the EEZ Act as:

(1) The purpose of this Act is –

(a) to promote the sustainable management of the natural resources of the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf; and

(b) in relation to the exclusive economic zone, the continental shelf, and the waters above the continental shelf beyond the outer limits of the exclusive economic zone, to protect the environment from pollution by regulating or prohibiting the discharge of harmful substances and the dumping or incineration of waste or other matter.

(2) In this Act, sustainable management means managing the use, development, and protection of natural resources in a way, or at a rate, that enables people to provide for their economic well‐being while –

(a) sustaining the potential of natural resources (excluding minerals) to meet the reasonably foreseeable needs of future generations; and

(b) safeguarding the life‐supporting capacity of the environment; and

(c) avoiding, remedying, or mitigating any adverse effects of activities on the environment.

Section 20 of the EEZ Act contains a number of activities that cannot be undertaken within the EEZ or in or on the continental shelf unless the activity is classified as a permitted activity, or authorised by a Marine Consent, or covered under section 21, 22 or 23 of the EEZ Act. The present application does not relate to a section 20 activity.

Section 20B of the EEZ Act restricts the discharge of harmful substances from structures and submarine pipelines into the sea or into or onto the seabed of the EEZ unless the discharge is classified as a permitted activity, or authorised by a Marine Consent (or a Discharge Consent), or covered under section 21, 22 or 23 of the EEZ Act.





This application is for the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drains of a MODU and therefore is an activity restricted by section 20B of the EEZ Act. The D&D Regulations determine how this activity is classified and considered.

Sections 38 and 39 of the EEZ Act sets out what information is required to make an application for a marine consent. Table 1 summarises how these requirements are met in this application document.

Sections 59, 60 and 61 of the EEZ Act also sets out information the decision maker must take into consideration when deciding on a notified application. Table 2, Table 3 and Table 4 summarises how these requirements are met in this application document.

2.2 Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects – Discharge and Dumping) Regulations 2015

The D&D Regulations sets out provisions for the discharge of harmful substances from offshore structures.

This application is for discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drains of a MODU. Regulation 16 of the D&D Regulations classifies discharges from petroleum extraction activities as discretionary or non‐notified discretionary activities. While this activity does not relate to petroleum extraction activities, it does relate to discharge from deck drains. Regulation 16(1) reads as follows:

(1) The discharge of harmful substances described in regulation 4(a) and (b) from offshore processing drainage, displacement water, and production water is classified as a discretionary activity under the Act, unless subclause (2) or (3) applies.

“Offshore processing drainage” is defined in the D&D Regulations as—

(a) means water from hazardous and non‐hazardous deck drains; but

(b) does not include oil mixed with water from machinery spaces.

This definition means that all water that runs off a drilling rig incidental to its drilling activities is “offshore processing drainage”, whether it runs off from hazardous or non‐hazardous deck drains. Hazardous and non‐hazardous deck drains are not defined in the EEZ Act or D&D Regulations. “Offshore processing drainage” is referred to as “deck drainage” in this application as deck drainage is a more accurate representation of the activity.

The activity does not meet the requirements of either 16(2) or 16(3) as the discharge is not as a result of a test flow of an exploration well, and a MODU is not an existing structure. Therefore, the activity is a discretionary activity.

Regulation 16(1) also defines harmful substances in terms of those substances described in regulation 4(a) and (b). That is:

(a) substance that is ecotoxic to aquatic organisms and is hazardous for the purposes of the Hazardous Substances (Minimum Degrees of Hazard) Notice 2017;

(b) oil;

(c) garbage;





(d) sediments from mining activities other than petroleum extraction.

The MODU will use and store some harmful substances. All such substances will be stored, transported and used as required under other legislation and under other EEZ Act approvals. Neither OMV New Zealand nor anyone else can guarantee the absolute absence of even trace amounts of harmful substances entrained in water that runs off the decks to the deck drains. Normal use of any substance may conceivably lead, for example, to occasional drips and other minor spills to deck that may contaminate deck drainage to some minor extent, even after cleaning.

Therefore, a Discharge Consent for the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substance from the deck drains of a MODU is required by regulation 16 of the D&D Regulations from the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA).

In terms of the present application and marine consent process, this means:

The scope of assessment by OMV relates only to the activity for which marine consent is required and sought, and issues and effects which are directly relevant to that activity;

It will constrain the issues that can be validly raised in submissions (for example any issues or concerns about effects of the wider EAD programme will be irrelevant to the present application and out of scope); and

It will in turn have implications for the scope of issues and effects that can be taken into account by the EPA decision‐making body that hears and determines the application.

2.3 Other Regulatory Approvals Required

This application is for discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drains of a MODU. As described in Section 3 of this document, this activity is for the incidental discharge from deck drains that will occur as a consequence of having a MODU in the EEZ. The MODU will be in the EEZ as part of the EAD Programme. Other approvals under the EEZ Act will be required for the EAD Programme, including Marine Consent for activities restricted by section 20, Marine Discharge Consent for activities restricted by section 20B, and an Emergency Spill Response Plan (ESRP). All other required EEZ Act approvals will follow the non‐notified decision‐making route.

The content of these related applications are outside the scope of this application. This application is exclusively for the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drains of a MODU. Any risks associated with mobilising and demobilising a MODU, drilling in the EEZ, or emergency response plans will be addressed through separate applications to the EPA at a later date.

OMV New Zealand acknowledges that the activity that is the subject of this application cannot commence in the EEZ unless all other approvals are in place. Without Marine Consent for the MODU to be used to drill an exploration or appraisal well in the EEZ, this activity will not be carried out. Similarly, all the processes and practices to avoid or mitigate any adverse effects from a loss of containment of harmful substance on the MODU will be the subject of the ESRP, which must also be approved by the EPA before any activities can commence.





2.4 Other Marine Management Regimes

Section 39(1)(j) and 39(5) of the EEZ Act requires the identification of measures required by other marine management regimes and any measures required by or under the Health and Safety at Work Act 2015 (HSW Act) that may have the effect of avoiding, remedying, or mitigating the adverse effects of the activity on the environment or existing interests. These are discussed in the following sections.

2.4.1 Health and Safety at Work Act 2015

The HSW Act is the principal legislation for managing health and safety at work in New Zealand. The primary set of regulations under the HSW Act relating to this application is the Health and Safety at Work (Petroleum Exploration and Extraction) Regulations 2016. There are a number of measures under these regulations that can have the effect of avoiding, remedying, or mitigating adverse effects on the environment, including:

The requirement for a Safety Case to be submitted and approved. The Safety Case must identify hazards that have the potential to cause multiple fatalities on or near the MODU, describe how the hazards are controlled, and describe the safety management system in place to ensure the controls are effectively and consistently applied;

The requirement to ensure wells are designed, constructed, operated, maintained, suspended, and abandoned in a way that risks from the wells are reduced to a level that is As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP);

The requirement for a well examination scheme that requires an independent and competent person to examine all wells; and

The requirement for reporting of all notifiable incidents.

2.4.2 Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996

The Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996 (HSNO Act) determines what substances are classified as ‘hazardous substances’. The classifications are specified within the Hazardous Substances (Classification) Notice 2017, and are represented firstly by a number (identifying the class and subclass of the hazard), then a letter (ranking the hazard) and finally an associated hazard phrase.

The classification most relevant to this application is classified as 9.1 relating to aquatic ecotoxicity which has been split into four rankings, as follows:

9.1A – substances that are very ecotoxic in the aquatic environment;

9.1B – substances that are ecotoxic in the aquatic environment;

9.1C – substances that are harmful in the aquatic environment; and

9.1D – substances that are slightly harmful to the aquatic environment or are otherwise designed for biocidal action.

The above classifications have been used in this application to assess the toxicity of harmful substances in the aquatic environment in the context of deck drain discharge.

Most hazardous substances likely to be used will be approved under group standard approvals. These group standard approvals exclude substances that contain persistent organic pollutants.





The substance must comply with the relevant provisions of EPA notices, including those relating to the labelling, packaging, disposal, and the restrictions on supply, storage and use.

2.4.3 Resource Management Act 1991

The arrival and subsequent offloading (float‐off) and later reloading (float‐on) of a MODU in the CMA will likely trigger the requirement for a Resource Consent under the Resource Management Act 1991. It is likely that an incoming MODU will arrive in New Zealand waters aboard a Heavy Lift Vessel as opposed to a wet tow. The Heavy Lift Vessel requires sheltered coastal waters of adequate depth to safely float‐off and later float‐on the MODU.

OMV New Zealand will apply for Resource Consent prior to the arrival of the MODU at a later date.

2.4.4 Crown Minerals Act 1991

The exploration and appraisal drilling programme is located across six permits which have been granted to OMV New Zealand under the Crown Minerals Act 1991. The permit which contains the Maari well head platform, Tiro Tiro Moana, and the Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) vessel Raroa is the only one which is a Petroleum Mining Permit (PMP); the remaining five permits are all classified as PEPs. The permit numbers are as follows:

PMP38160 (Maari);

PEP51906 (Cascade);

PEP57075 (Cloudy Bay);

PEP60091 (Te Whatu);

PEP60092 (Ridgeline); and

PEP60093 (Toutouwai).

OMV New Zealand has a number of conditions on these permits. These conditions include a number of obligations, which in turn include the requirement for OMV New Zealand to drill at least one well in each of these exploration permits or surrender the permit.

In addition to those permits listed above, section 101B of the Crown Minerals Act relates to interfering with structures or operations within the offshore area. An application will be made to the Chief Executive of the Ministry for Business, Innovation, and Employment to establish a 500 m Non‐Interference Zone around the MODU utilised for the EAD Programme. This will reduce the potential for adverse effects to occur from the proposed operations by limiting the interference and exposure of unauthorised personnel.

2.4.5 Maritime Transport Act 1994

The Maritime Transport Act regulates maritime activities in New Zealand waters to enable the implementation of New Zealand’s obligations under international maritime agreements and conventions. This is achieved through the implementation of maritime rules and marine protection rules which are administered by Maritime New Zealand. These rules include, but are not limited to, procedures relating to ship operations, health and safety of ship’s personnel, navigation safety, the management of operations wastes from vessels and offshore platforms and oil pollution prevention and responding to oils spills.





2.4.5.1 Oil Spill Contingency Plan

Marine Protection Rule: Part 131 requires offshore installations to have an Oil Spill Contingency Plan (OSCP) that will support the efficient and effective response to an oil spill. OMV New Zealand will assist the MODU Operator to prepare an OSCP for approval prior to the commencement of drilling. The OSCP will detail the processes on board the MODU that may constitute an oil spill hazard and will provide procedures that the operator and personnel on board will follow in the event of an oil spill. It is considered that these procedures will assist in avoiding, remedying and mitigating potential effects from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drains associated with this application as it will ensure the quantity of oil potentially discharged is minimised as far as practicable.

An OSCP for the EAD Programme will be submitted to Maritime New Zealand for approval at a later date.

2.4.5.2 Oil Pollution Prevention Certification

Marine Protection Rule: Part 131 requires offshore installations to have an International Oil Pollution Prevention Certification (IOPP). The IOPP certificate is issued to the MODU after an appointed surveyor has inspected it and found it to be in compliance with the relevant MARPOL requirements. The IOPP certificate gives details of all oily water separation and filtering equipment and also the associated monitoring equipment required.

The MODU operator is required to have an up to date IOPP certificate prior to entering New Zealand waters.

2.4.6 Biosecurity Act 1993

The Biosecurity Act 1993 provides the legal framework for the Ministry for Primary Industries, and others, to help keep harmful organisms out of New Zealand. This is achieved through pre‐border risk management and standard setting, border management, readiness and response, and long term pest management.

The Craft Risk Management Standard – Biofouling on Vessels Arriving to New Zealand has been issued under the Biosecurity Act 1993. This standard requires a vessel that arrives in New Zealand to have a ‘clean hull’ which is when no biofouling of live organisms is present other than that within the thresholds provided in the standard.

In addition to the Craft Risk Management Standard, the Ministry for Primary Industries has developed the Import Health Standard: Ballast Water from All Countries which sets out the minimum requirements that must be met for vessel ballast water loaded within the territorial waters of a county other than New Zealand and intended for discharge into New Zealand waters.

This marine management regime is important for the overall EAD Programme as it will necessitate measures to be put in place prior to the MODU entering New Zealand waters. However, it is considered that the Biosecurity Act does not provide measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects from this specific application relating to discharges of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drains of the MODU.

2.4.7 Other Relevant Marine Management Regimes

The EEZ Act includes a list of other legislation which are incorporated into the broad definition of a marine management regime. The relevant Acts are briefly addressed below in regards to how the regimes provide further measures to avoid, remedy, or mitigate the adverse effects of the activity on the environment and existing interests:





Continental Shelf Act 1964 – the Continental Shelf Act makes provision as to the exploration and exploitation of the continental shelf of New Zealand and for matters connected with that purpose. Permits are not granted under the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (discussed below). As such, it is considered that this Act does not provide any measures that assist with avoiding, remedying or mitigating the adverse effects of the discharges associated with this Discharge Consent application;

Safety zones are also made under the Continental Shelf Act and include areas around Maui A and B, Pohukura, Kupe, Umuroa and Maari offshore installations. These zones have been established to protect the offshore installations and to reduce the risk of a maritime casualty and resulting marine pollution.

Fisheries Act 1996 – the Fisheries Act governs fisheries management throughout New Zealand’s territorial sea and EEZ. The purpose of the Act is to provide for the utilisation of fisheries resources while ensuring sustainability. An assessment of the fishing activities that are undertaken around the three Area of Interests (AOI) outlined in Section 4. The Act itself does not provide mitigation measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate effects on the environment and existing interests from the activity. However, the management of the fisheries under the Act has provided useful baseline information in determining the potential effects from this application, and those existing interests in and around the three AOIs;

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 – this Act acknowledges the importance of the marine and coastal area to all New Zealanders while providing for the recognition of the customary rights of iwi, hapū and whānau in the CMA. OMV New Zealand has undertaken an assessment (Section 5.4.2) of the applications made under this Act that are relevant to the AOI’s;

Marine Mammals Protection Act 1978 – the Marine Mammals Protection Act provides for the protection, conservation and management of marine mammals. This Act has been considered when assessing the effects from this application on marine mammals and the development of measures to avoid, remedy and mitigate these effects, as seen within Section 7.2.2.2;

Wildlife Act 1953 – the Wildlife Act deals with the protection and control of wild animals and birds and the management of game. It is considered that the discharges associated with this Discharge Consent application will not affect wildlife that are protected under the Wildlife Act. Further discussion on the potential effects from the discharge is found within Section 5.2.6.2. In addition, it is not considered that this Act will provide further measures to avoid, remedy or mitigate any potential effects from the discharges associated with this application.

2.4.8 International Conventions

In addition to the New Zealand legislation discussed above, there are international conventions and regulations which are important to consider when assessing effects on the environment and existing interests; these include:

International Regulations for the Prevention of Collisions at Sea 1972 – these regulations set out the navigational rules to be followed by ships and vessels at sea to prevent collisions and are implemented by the Maritime Transport Act and its associated rules and regulations. These regulations won’t specifically assist in avoiding, remedying or mitigating potential effects from this Discharge Consent application; however, they will be important in maintaining safe operating procedures to ensure collisions don’t occur during the EAD Programme;

International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 as Modified by the Protocol of 1978 (MARPOL) – MARPOL is the main international convention covering prevention of pollution of the marine environment by ships from operational or accidental causes. The Annexes of MARPOL that New Zealand is a party to are given effect to by current legislation, including the Resource Management Act, Maritime Transport Act and the EEZ Act; and





United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea 1982 (UNCLOS) – UNCLOS lays down a comprehensive regime of law and order in the world’s oceans and seas establishing rules governing all uses of the oceans and their resources. The convention is in force through current legislation, such as the Crown Minerals Act, Maritime Transport Act and the EEZ Act, along with their relevant rules and regulations. These pieces of legislation provide measures to avoid, remedy and mitigate effects from this application and are discussed elsewhere in this Legislative Framework section.

2.5 Information Requirements

An application for Marine Consent must include an IA that addresses the matters in section 39 of the EEZ Act. In addition, an application for Discharge Consent of trace amounts of harmful substances must include the matters outlined in Regulation 35. Furthermore, the EPA must take into account the matters outlined in section 59(2).

To ensure this IA has provided the required information, the tables at the end of the Executive Summary identifies the information required, along with cross‐references to the relevant sections within the IA which detail the information.





3 Activity Description

OMV New Zealand is proposing to undertake a multi‐well EAD Programme in the Taranaki Basin from 2019 to determine the presence of hydrocarbons within a number of identified geological structures and to investigate the production potential within the PEPs which OMV New Zealand operate Figure 1. As outlined in Section 2.3 the scope of this Discharge Consent application is limited to the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substance from the deck drains of a MODU under section 16(1) of the D&D Regulations. This is the activity to which the application relates. Consent is not sought for any other activities within this application.

This section outlines:

The overall EAD Programme (Section 3.1);

The physical layout of a typical MODU deck drainage system (Section 3.2);

Systems and procedures to reduce risk of harmful substances in the deck drainage (Section 3.3);

Detailed examples of the types of harmful substances that could be entrained in deck drainage (Section 3.4);

The volumes of deck drainage (Section 3.5);

The zone of influence in the receiving environment (Section 3.6);

The potential concentration of trace amounts of harmful substances in deck drainage (Section 3.7);

An assessment of barriers in place to restrict the discharge of harmful substances from the deck drains (Section 3.8); and

An assessment of alternatives, as required under section 34A(3) of the EEZ Act (Section 3.9).

The information contained in this Discharge Consent application has been provided based on OMV New Zealand’s experience from previous drilling campaigns conducted in the Taranaki basin.

3.1 Proposed Operations

The EAD Programme includes the drilling of up to nine exploration wells and three appraisal wells (Figure 1) within OMV New Zealand’s permit areas. These wells are located within the Taranaki Basin in six of the nine permit areas OMV New Zealand holds an interest. The coordinates and water depths of the proposed well locations are listed in Table 5.

Three AOIs (north, central and south) have been identified which encapsulate the proposed well locations and will be the focus study area for all of the regulatory applications that OMV New Zealand submit to the relevant Regulators (Figure 1).

The northern AOI encompasses PEP 60092 (Ridgeline), PEP 57075 (Cloudy Bay) and PEP 60093 (Toutouwai) and includes the following wells:

Well A;

Well B;

Well C; and

Well D.





The central AOI encompasses PEP 60093 (Toutouwai) and includes the following wells:

Well E (Appraisal);

Well F;

Well G (Appraisal);

Well H; and

Well I.

The southern AOI encompasses PEP 51906 (Cascade), PEP 60091 (Te Whatu) and PMP 38160 (Maari) and includes the following wells:

Well J;

Well K (Appraisal); and

Well L.

Table 5 Proposed Well Names, Locations and Water Depths

Well Name Water Depth (m) Easting (NZTM) Northing (NZTM)

Northern AOI

A 156 1631589 5726591

B 133 1656985 5725352

C 135 1647945 5705768

D 158 1593893 5702617

Central AOI

E 140 1613498 5669767

F 136 1612536 5664757

G 133 1610407 5660872

H 128 1623366 5659874

I 126 1627893 5661191

Southern AOI

J 110 1626985 5591170

K 102 1620964 5570475

L 110 1597705 5564406

MODU will be selected that will be capable of drilling the proposed exploration and appraisal wells and that meet the structural specifications for environmental protection proposed in this application. It is possible that more than one MODU would be used under this marine discharge consent for the EAD Programme. Drilling is anticipated to commence in 2019, and will be completed as a part of one or more drilling campaigns over the subsequent duration of the relevant exploration permits. Based on the current PEPs, the drilling of any of the wells listed in Table 5 could occur up to 2025.





Figure 1 OMV New Zealand’s Proposed EAD Well Locations and three AOI’s in the Taranaki Basin





3.2 Typical MODU Deck Drainage System

A MODU has not yet been contracted to undertake the EAD Programme. As part of the MODU selection process OMV New Zealand have placed strict environmental and operational requirements which the MODU suppliers must be able to comply with before they progress to the next stage in the contracting process. This application is made on the basis of a typical MODU deck drainage system.

Where limits are placed on the structural details or specifications of the MODU, they will be met through the OMV New Zealand MODU rig selection process.

3.2.1 Deck Drainage System Design

The deck drainage system on‐board a MODU is designed to manage the potential risk of a loss of containment of a harmful substance from discharging to the marine environment to ALARP. Open deck areas have coaming on their peripheries that act as bund walls. This prevents any rainwater, deluge water or washwater from discharging directly over the sides of the MODU.

Open deck areas are identified as either hazard areas, or non‐hazard areas.

3.2.1.1 Drainage from Hazard Areas

The drill floor, mud treatment room, cement unit house, shale shaker room, well test area, moon pool area and pipe rack area are defined as hazard areas and drains from these areas are routed to a drainage water treatment system. This system is made up of multi‐chambered settling tanks. From here all water is put through an Oily Water Separator (OWS) fitted with an inline Oil‐in‐Water (OIW) monitor. The OWS allows water to be discharged overboard when the discharge has less than 15 ppm OIW content. If the OIW content is greater than 15 ppm the contaminated water is redirected back to the settling tank where further separation occurs, until the discharge stream has OIW concentrations of less than 15 ppm. This system will meet the criteria required by the regulations 17 and 18 of D&D Regulations that are classified as permitted activities.

Any oil that is retained following treatment by the OWS is transferred to IBCs (Intermediate Bulk Container) or a similar storage container, for removing to shore for disposal at a consented facility. All discharges to sea via the OWS is recorded in the MODU Oil Record Book as required by the EEZ D&D Regulation 23 requirements. Likewise, all oil returned to shore is also recorded in the MODU Oil Record Book.

A typical MODU OWS treatment system is capable of treating approximately 10 m3 per hour or 240 m3 per day. Indicative volumes that could be discharged, under scenario’s ranging from the most likely to the highest rainfall scenario, are provided in Section 3.5.

The discharge point for the deck drainage from hazard areas on the MODU is likely to be at least 3 m below the lowest astronomical tide level.

3.2.1.2 Drainage from Non‐Hazard Areas

Some MODU route drainage from the remaining non‐hazard areas directly overboard (i.e. not via a water treatment system). Non‐hazard areas are clearly demarcated. To eliminate the risk of discharge of harmful substances from non‐hazard areas, no harmful substances are permitted to be handled or stored in non‐hazard areas.





3.2.2 Storage for Harmful Substances

The MODU selected for the EAD Programme will have a sack store which is not open to the elements, for the storage of all drilling related harmful substances. Any additional storage space required will be in covered bunded pallets (Figure 2) within bunded hazard areas, to ensure the containers of harmful substances are not directly exposed to any rainwater. It should be noted that any ecotoxic substance (i.e. any substance classified as 9.1 in accordance with the HSNO Act) will not be stored on the deck in a hazard area. As already stated, no harmful substance of any sort will be stored or handled in any non‐hazard area.

Figure 2 Covered and Bunded Pallets

3.2.3 Direct Overboard Discharge

Under exceptional circumstances the deck drainage system could be by‐passed. There are two primary situations where this could occur – during deluge and during extended periods of torrential rainfall.

The deluge system is a Safety Critical Element activated by the detection of fire or heat by the automated monitoring system on board the MODU. Deluge systems pump large volumes of seawater and generally have two main functions. It can be used to prevent the spread of a fire or be used as a heat shield for cooling purposes, for example to minimise the potential for a pressure vessel to explode. Deluge water volumes are pumped so quickly and in such large volumes that they may need to bypass the deck drainage water treatment systems outlined in Section 3.2.1. Deluge would only ever occur in emergency situations and the likelihood of harmful substances being discharged under this scenario are negligible.

The second scenario where the deck drainage water treatment system could potentially be bypassed is during extended torrential rainfall events. During these circumstances the large volumes of rainfall could overload the deck drainage system to the extent that the stability of the MODU is at risk. In this scenario the decision will be made by the Offshore Installation Manager to discharge deck drainage directly overboard.





The valves that allow the discharge of the contents of the deck drainage system directly overboard (by‐passing the OWS) are padlocked shut and managed under the locked open / locked close isolation register under normal operational procedures. These valves can only be unlocked and opened by authority of the Offshore Installation Manager under the Permit to Work1 system. Only the Offshore Installation Manager can implement this action through the measures discussed in this section. The likelihood of harmful substances being discharged under this scenario are negligible.

Any direct overboard discharge from the hazard areas would be recorded in the Oil Record Book as required by the D&D Regulations.

OMV New Zealand has been involved in a number of drilling programmes in New Zealand and expects to be able to select and contract a MODU with a deck drainage system able process all anticipated volumes of rainwater and deluge during the EAD Programme.

3.3 Systems and Procedures

In addition to the physical systems in place there are a number of systems and procedures in place, proposed, and required by other regulation that reduce risk of harmful substances entering the deck drainage. The following systems and procedures are incorporated as part of best practice in relation to the oil and gas industry as outlined within section 59(2)(h) and (i) of the EEZ Act.

3.3.1 OMV New Zealand Environmental Policies

For OMV New Zealand, Health, Safety, Security and Environment (HSSE) is an integral part of business processes and no other business objective takes priority.

OMV New Zealand is committed to continuous improvement in HSSE performance, and this is applied to all operations. Risks to employees, contractors and the environment are identified, assessed and managed to ALARP in accordance with leading industry practices. Overall, OMV New Zealand’s goal is to eliminate or minimise risks and to prevent accidents, injuries or harm and everyone who works for, or is contracted to OMV New Zealand is expected to take on this goal as a personal obligation and challenge.

Adherence to OMV New Zealand’s HSSE policy uses numerous methods, including, but not limited to:

Ensuring compliance with all applicable laws, regulations and standards within all levels of the business;

Ensuring all design and construction is undertaken to maintain the highest level of safety and that all equipment is maintained to operate safely within the design constraints;

Requiring all contractors to meet the HSSE contractor management standards prior to award of contracts;

Actively communicating HSSE policy and objectives to employees, contractors and stakeholders and engaging in relevant HSSE training;

Providing systems and training to ensure that all incidents including incidents, near misses, dangerous occurrences, hazards, concerns and complaints are reported, adequately investigated and steps taken to prevent recurrence; and

1 Permit to work is a core element of a safe system of work that, along with risk assessment and isolation planning, enables reduction of health, safety and environmental risks to ALARP.





Conducting regular monitoring, periodic reviews and audits to ensure that the policy and associated HSSE management systems are correctly implemented, maintained and, where necessary, improved.

Any activities that are undertaken at an OMV New Zealand workplace or work site, or on a MODU contracted to OMV New Zealand, must be assessed such that potentially harmful consequences to health, safety, security and the environment are identified and managed so as to be eliminated or reduced to ALARP.

3.3.2 Assurance Tasks

As part of best practice, assurance tasks will be implemented on the MODU to confirm that all systems are meeting their performance standards. Such assurance tasks include:

Planned maintenance of the deck drainage system (including OWS and OIW monitor);

Regular calibration of the OIW in‐line monitor;

Regular additional water quality checks by competent personnel as specified in respective operational procedures when water is discharged to assure calibration; and

Stock management and maintenance of a harmful substance register, as required for the ESRP.

Additionally, daily checks will be made to ensure there has been no loss of containment of any substances in the covered bunded pallets, bunded areas and peripheral coaming and that tidy housekeeping of these areas is in place.

Daily monitoring of the OWS and OIW are also a requirement for the MODU to comply with its IOPP certificate under Marine Protection Rule Part 131 (as outlined in Section 2.4.5).

Prior to any deck‐washing or any planned operation of the deluge system all hazard and non‐hazard decks will be checked again for cleanliness or any loss of containment.

3.3.3 Training, Competency and Drills

All personnel on the MODU will be suitably trained, assessed for competency, and drilled in the correct procedures for notification, containment, isolating, cleaning, disposing and reporting of any loss of containment to deck of a harmful substance.

3.3.4 Spill Kits

If a loss of containment to deck of a substance occurs the substance will be captured and cleaned‐up using one or more of the spill kits that are located around the MODU.

Spill kits will be placed in close proximity to all stored substances located on the MODU. Operational procedures will be in place to ensure that appropriate spill kits are nearby for the types of substances stored at each location. Likewise, if any spill kits are used, they will be replenished as part of daily inspections.

Should a spill kit be used to clean up a loss of containment event for a substance, the spent spill kit contents would be taken to shore to an approved/consented treatment facility for disposal as per Safety Data Sheet (SDS) requirements and as per the garbage management plan, as required under regulation 29 of the D&D Regulations.





As per Section 3.3.3, all personnel onboard the MODU will be trained to use these spill kits. All details about spill kits including contents and locations will be provided in the ESRP and OSCP for the MODU.

3.3.5 Helicopter Refuelling

No helicopter refuelling will be permitted on the MODU.

3.4 Possible Discharged Harmful Substances

The MODU will use and store harmful substances on‐board during the EAD Programme. All such substances will be stored, transported, used and handled as required under the HSNO Act, HSW Act and Marine Protection Rules: Part 131. As outlined in Sections 2.3 and 2.4.5, the EAD Programme will be conducted in accordance with an approved ESRP and OSCP.

Despite the various measures and precautions outlined above, OMV New Zealand cannot guarantee the absolute absence of trace amounts of harmful substances in water that runs off hazard areas into deck drains. Therefore, the activity described in this application is to discharge trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drains.

If a loss of containment of harmful substance to the deck occurs, there will be trace amounts left following clean up that are too minor in local concentration to be observed by eye, or to be absorbed or collected through the use of spill kits and cleaning procedures.

3.4.1 Selection of Harmful Substances

The selection of harmful substances stored on the MODU is driven by operational requirements of the MODU, the design of the well to be drilled and the geology of the formation being drilled. Wherever possible the least harmful substance that is technically capable of performing the specific role will be selected.

All harmful substances to be used as part of the EAD Programme will have to be approved under the HSNO Act. The use of these substances during any EAD Programme will be in accordance with all of the requirements under HSNO controls and the relevant WorkSafe regulations. These requirements are summarised in Section 2.4.2.

3.4.2 Specific Harmful Substances

OMV New Zealand has reviewed the harmful substances used during previous drilling campaigns to inform this application and to determine concentrations that may be discharged in trace amounts in the deck drainage discharge. This IA has been based on assumptions of worst case scenario for the most ecotoxic harmful substances (i.e. 9.1A and 9.1B classified harmful substances) to determine any potential adverse environmental effects from discharges of deck drainage containing trace amounts of harmful substances.

OMV New Zealand has not yet contracted a MODU and at this early planning stage of the EAD Programme, does not have the final well designs. Therefore, the final list of harmful substances is not currently available. Prior to the EAD Programme commencing, and following contracting of the MODU, OMV New Zealand (in conjunction with the MODU Operator) will provide the EPA with all relevant details for each harmful substance as part of the ESRP. The ESRP is required to be approved by the EPA under regulation 24 of the D&D Regulations prior to drilling activities commencing and will include all harmful substances located on the MODU for both MODU operations and drilling activities. The SDS for all harmful substances will be included in the ESRP.





For the purpose of the assessment undertaken on harmful substances in Section 3.7, the harmful substances selected include drilling, cementing and completion substances. These harmful substances were selected as they are considered to have the highest potential to enter the deck drainage system in trace amounts.

There will be other harmful substances located on the MODU for general operations (i.e. disinfectant, air freshener, paint etc.); however, these have not been included in the assessment. This is due to the fact that they will be stored in areas (i.e. accommodation block, or specific chemical stores) that if a loss of containment occurred, would not enter the deck drainage system.

3.5 Discharge Volumes

The discharge volumes from the MODU while at each well location will depend on volume of water entering the deck drainage system. Water discharged via the deck drainage system includes rainwater, wash‐down water, sea spray and water from deluge operations.

To determine the potential impact on the marine environment from this activity, an assessment of rainfall volumes that could occur (i.e. highest rainfall and most likely rainfall) is provided in Table 6.

Ten years of rainfall data has been utilised from several representative locations around the Taranaki region where sufficient rainfall data was available from the Taranaki Regional Council (TRC). Locations that are representative of the AOI’s (i.e. north, central and south) have been selected.

The rainfall data used in the calculations have focused on three factors:

The average daily rainfall;

The 90th percentile rainfall (i.e. 90% of the daily rainfall is below this number); and

The average frequency of rainfall (i.e. the percentage of days it actually rains).

To quantify the potential volume of stormwater discharge, the largest MODU included in the OMV New Zealand rig selection process has been utilised, which has a main deck surface area of 5,826 m².

Exact timeframes required to drill each well are not precisely known at this stage; however, three scenarios have been used for the following calculations. These three scenarios are probabilities associated with the length of time to complete drilling a well, that being:

90% of the time, the drilling will be completed within 30 days (p90);

50% of the time, the drilling will be completed within 40 days (p50); and

10% of the time, the drilling will be completed within 50 days (p10).





Table 6 Rainfall Calculations

Location m3 over 30 days (p90)

m3 over 40 days (p50)

m3 over 50 days (p10)

Motonui (North AOI) ‐ Assuming rainfall every day of campaign

Average daily rainfall rate (3.96 mm/day) 693 925 1,156

90th percentile (13 mm/day) 2,272 3,030 3,787

Assuming rainfall occurs only at the average frequency (53%) for this site

Average daily rainfall rate (3.96 mm/day) 367 490 612


Kapoaiaia (Central AOI) ‐ Assuming rainfall every day of campaign

Average daily rainfall rate (3.67 mm/day) 642 856 1,070

90th percentile (11.2 mm/day) 1,958 2,610 3,263



90th percentile (11.2 mm/day) 1,037 1,383 1,728

Patea (South AOI) ‐ Assuming rainfall every day of campaign





90th percentile (9 mm/day) 833 1,111 1,389

Note: Green highlight is highest rainfall scenario for stormwater discharge, while yellow highlight is most likely stormwater discharge scenario.

The highest volume scenario would be when a well takes 50 days to complete in near torrential rain (the 90th percentile has been used for this situation) for every day of the drilling programme. Whereas, the most likely scenario would be the time period most likely to drill a well (30 days), with an average daily rainfall using the average frequency of rain.

The likelihood of the highest rainfall scenarios (i.e. 90th percentile) occurring needs to be considered, as this rainfall scenario has only occurred for approximately 10% of the days for which the data record exists. Therefore, the actual likelihood of having a high rainfall event every day for 50 days is very unlikely. As a result, it is considered appropriate to utilise the ‘most likely’ scenario in Table 6 (shown in yellow) to predict the stormwater discharge volumes from the MODU in the Taranaki region.

The volumes provided Table 6 have been calculated for the entire drilling period at each well and are not shown as daily volumes. The most likely scenario for rainfall during a 30 day drilling programme at one of the northern wells would result in a stormwater discharge of 367 m3, which equates to 12.23 m3/day. A typical MODU OWS treatment system is capable of treating approximately 10 m3 per hour or 240 m3 per day. This means that the typical MODU OWS treatment system is capable of processing a typical day’s rainfall in just over an hour.





However, some context needs to be placed around these discharge volumes in Table 6 and the activities OMV New Zealand are applying for regulatory approval for with this Discharge Consent application. OMV New Zealand is not proposing to discharge the volumes listed in Table 6 as the total volume of harmful substances. Table 6 simply outlines indicative stormwater discharge volumes based on highest rainfall scenarios in the Taranaki region during the EAD Programme.

The actual volume of (or concentration of) any potential harmful substance discharge has been estimated in Section 3.7 to determine the worst case scenario. The only mode of a harmful substance entering the deck drainage system is through a loss of containment, which would be cleaned up before it could enter the deck drainage system.

If a loss of containment of harmful substances did occur, any residue that may be left following the clean‐up, as per the standard operational procedures, would be heavily diluted given the potential volumes of stormwater in a rainfall event typical of the Taranaki region. In addition, any discharge of a harmful substance, albeit very limited, would be further and rapidly diluted when mixed in the high energy marine environment, both temporally and spatially.

3.6 Zone of Influence

A 200 m zone of influence for deck drainage system discharge has been assumed for this IA. This is based on plume modelling of discharges from the FPSO Raroa in the Maari Field (MSL, 2011). This figure is considered to be conservative because:

The plume modelling in the Maari Field is for a discharge volume over 840 times greater than the likely volume of discharge considered in this Discharge Consent application (i.e. 10,300 m3/day vs 12.23 m3/day). Hence, dilution rates in the sea would be much greater given the lower discharge volume over a similar sized receiving environment;

The plume modelling in the Maari Field assumed a large difference in temperature between the discharge and receiving environment (up to 65oC for the discharge vs 14oC for the receiving environment), which was shown to dissipate to approximately 14.4oC at 200 m. This shows that the receiving environment mixes the discharge plume very quickly within a relatively short distance from the discharge point; and

The plume modelling in the Maari Field assumed a mostly surface water plume due to the lower density of the much warmer discharged water, as warm water is less likely to have significant vertical mixing through the water column. The discharge from the deck drainage system will likely mix vertically through the water column more than a surface plume (as well as mixing horizontally) which will further reduce the zone of influence.

3.7 Harmful Substances Dilution Calculations

The most harmful substances in the aquatic environment are those that are classified as 9.1A under the HSNO Act. As outlined in Section 3.4.2, OMV New Zealand has reviewed the harmful substances used during previous drilling campaigns to inform this application. This has informed calculations that determine the concentrations of trace amounts of harmful substances that could potentially be discharged in the deck drainage from the MODU. This assessment has assumed worst case scenario for a range of harmful substances in trace quantities (i.e. 9.1A, 9.1B, 9.1C and 9.1D classified harmful substances) to determine potential adverse environmental effects on the marine environment.





Table 7 outlines a selection of typical 9.1 classified harmful substances, providing a range of classifications and ecotoxicological limits for specific harmful substances that are commonly used during exploration or appraisal drilling activities. This ecotoxicity information has been used to determine potential environmental effects for this Discharge Consent application.

The actual harmful substances used to inform this assessment may not be selected for OMV New Zealand’s EAD Programme. However, the substances assessed have all been previously approved for use within the Maari Field by the EPA. Although the harmful substances used below may not be within the final list of substances associated with the EAD Programme, it is considered that the results of this assessment will reflect the final harmful substances selected and used for the EAD Programme.

Table 7 Ecotoxicity Data for 9.1 HSNO Classified Harmful Substances Typically used in Drilling Operations

Product Name

HSNO approval codes

Intended Use

Form HSNO Classification

Algae1 Fish1 Invertebrate1

CI‐111

HSR002496

Organic acid corrosion inhibitor

Liquid

Easily soluble in cold water

9.1A EC50 (48 hr)

0.22 mg/L

(no species provided in SDS)

LC50 (96 hr)

21 mg/L


EC50 (48 hr)

2.9 mg/L


NALCO® EC6145A

HSR002681

Scale inhibitor

Liquid

Completely soluble

9.1B EC50 (96 hr)

1.88 mg/L

(Selenastrum sp.)

No appropriate information available

EC50 (48 hr)

242 mg/L

(Daphnia sp.)

FR‐46

HSR002503

Friction reducer

Liquid

Soluble in water

9.1C No available information

LC50 (96 hr)

48 mg/L

(Catla catla)

LC50 (96 hr)

81 mg/L

(Crangon crangon)

FE‐1A Acidizing Composition

HSR002496

Additive Liquid

Soluble in water

9.1D EC50 (48 hr2)

90 mg/L

(Microcystis aeruginosa)

LC50 (96 hr)

75 mg/L

(Pimephales promelas)

LC50 (96 hr)

32 mg/L

(Artemia salina)

1 ‐ These values refer to the most ecotoxic active ingredient in the product, not the product in its entirety.

2 – No exposure time was provided; however, 48 hr is assumed as a conservative figure to provide a worst case scenario.

The Lethal Concentration (LC50) and Effects Concentration (EC50) values in Table 7 are based on 48 or 96 hour exposure times at the listed concentrations. This means the test organism was subjected to the stated concentration of the particular harmful substance in question, over the time period defined (i.e. 48 or 96 hr). The values provided in Table 7 refer to the most ecotoxic active ingredient in the product, not the product in its entirety.

LC50 is the statistically derived dose at which 50% of the test organisms would be expected to die and is normally provided in mg/L. This reflects the concentration of harmful substance required to kill 50% of the test organisms within the test sample after the prescribed exposure time (i.e. 48 or 96 hours).

EC50 is the concentration of a harmful substance which results in a 50% reduction in algae growth rate or invertebrate mobilisation (i.e. the concentration of the substance at which 50% of the test organisms stop moving).





To provide a worst case assessment on the potential environmental effects from trace amounts of a harmful substance being discharged from the deck drains of a MODU, the following assumptions have been made:

The maximum total volume of any harmful substance left behind as a residue on the deck following clean‐up is 250 ml and this volume is immediately entrained within the deck drain system. This is a conservative assumption. In reality, any substance contained on the deck would slowly pass through the settling tank system and be diluted further;

The 9.1A classified harmful substances onboard the MODU will be the most ecotoxic substances. Harmful substances presented in Table 7 define the classifications/results for the most ecotoxic constituent (active ingredient) within the named substances;

A deck drainage system settling tank capacity of 5 m3 has been assumed. It has also been assumed that this tank will only be half full (i.e. 2.5 m3). This is based on the tank that was present on the ENSCO‐107 (5 m3 maximum volume), being at 50% capacity. OMV New Zealand will contract a MODU for the EAD Programme which will have similar or larger settling tank capacity; and

Settling tanks allow oily water to float at the surface for skimming and removal. Water is discharged from lower in the tank. Any harmful substance that sinks will have a higher chance of being discharged than a harmful liquid or powder that floated. For the purpose of this assessment, it has been assumed that any harmful substance that makes it into the tanks will be discharged, instead of removed.

Table 8 Harmful Substance Concentration Calculations within Discharge

Product Name and HSNO Classification

Active Ingredient and Percentage within the Product

Specific Gravity Maximum Concentration (250 mL contained within 2.5 m3 tank)

Maximum Concentration of Active Ingredient

CI‐111

(9.1A)

2‐mercaptoethanol

(30%)

1.06 106 mg/L 31.8 mg/L

NALCO® EC6145A

(9.1B)

Sodium Diethylenetriaminepenta (Methylenephosphonate)

(30%)

1.148 114.8 mg/L 34.4 mg/L

FR‐46

(9.1C)

Ammonium Sulfate

(30%)

1.30 130 mg/L 39.0 mg/L

FE‐1A Acidising Composition

(9.1D)

Acetic acid

(60%)

1.0753 107.53 mg/L 64.5 mg/L

In order to compare the assumed 250 mL of harmful substance within the 2,500 L (2.5 m3) settling tank to the ecotoxicological thresholds, the specific gravity needs to be used to calculate the weight of the substance in order to get comparable units of measurement. For example, using the specific gravity of 1.06 obtained from the SDS for CI‐111, 250 mL of CI‐111 would have a mass of 265 g, or 265,000 mg. Therefore, there could be 265,000 mg of CI‐111 within the 2,500 L deck drainage system settling tank, giving a concentration of 106 mg/L as seen in column 4 of Table 8.





Once the concentration of the harmful substance has been calculated as per the above example, the actual percentage of the harmful component (identified in Table 8 in column two as the ‘active ingredient’) within the overall product needs to be considered as the harmful substances are generally made with a variety of components. Looking at CI‐111 again, the active ingredient within this harmful substance is 2‐mercaptoethanol which makes up 30% of the harmful substance according to the SDS. Therefore, in this example, the overall concentration for the active ingredient (harmful component) within the 2,500 L deck drainage system settling tank is 31.8 mg/L.

Of the harmful substances listed in Table 7, CI‐111 (HSNO classification of 9.1A) has the lowest LC50 and EC50 values for algae, fish and marine invertebrates (and therefore has the highest ecotoxicity). When the LC50 and EC50 values for each substance (Table 7) are compared to the maximum concentration of the harmful ingredient that could possibly be reached in the discharge tank prior to discharge occurring (Table 8), three of the harmful substances exceed those thresholds seen within Table 7, with the greatest exceedances relating to CI‐111.

Assuming a loss of containment to deck of CI‐111 occurs and 250 ml of residue remains following clean‐up, at most, there would be a concentration of 31.8 mg/L of the active ingredient (2‐mercaptoethanol) in the settling tank (2.5 m3 volume). A comparison has been undertaken below comparing this maximum concentration with the ecotoxicology values provided in Table 7:

The EC50 value for algae for this substance is 0.22 mg/L, based on a 48 hour exposure time. Therefore, the maximum concentration within the discharge is approximately 144 times greater than the concentration required to reduce 50% of the algae growth rate (after 48 hours of constant exposure);

The EC50 value for invertebrates for this substance is 2.9 mg/L, based on a 48 exposure time. Therefore, the maximum concentration within the discharge is approximately 11 times greater than the concentration required to stop the movement of 50% of test invertebrates (after 48 hours of constant exposure); and

The LC50 value for fish for this substance is 21 mg/L, based on a 96 hour exposure time. Therefore, the maximum concentration within the discharge is approximately 1.5 times greater than the concentration required to kill 50% of the fish test subjects (after 96 hours of constant exposure).

The above calculations are based on the maximum concentration of the harmful substance contained within the settling tank. The discharge only has the potential to affect aquatic life upon its discharge to the ocean. Once discharged the substance would be significantly diluted immediately due to the high energy receiving environment.

The LC50 value is derived from a mathematical calculation of the concentration of a harmful substance at which 50% of the test subjects would die after being exposed to for a prolonged period of time (96 hours). However, the maximum concentration of the harmful substance within the discharge associated with this application will effectively be an instantaneous concentration at the point at which the discharge entered a much larger receiving environment. Upon entering the marine environment, the discharge, and any harmful substance within it, would be immediately diluted, and would become ever more diluted with time and further mixing. Upon discharge to the marine environment the harmful substance would be immediately diluted to the extent that ecotoxicity risk to the marine environment would be considered negligible.

The example calculations above have focused on the most harmful substance, based on its classification (9.1A), to provide a worst case scenario. The other products, classified from 9.1B to 9.1D under the HSNO Act, progressively get less ecotoxic to the marine environment based on the figures presented within Table 7 and Table 8.





Based on these examples it is concluded that, should any trace amounts of harmful substance make it into the deck drainage system, the concentrations of the active ingredient within the harmful substance would be diluted in the settling tank. As the contents of the settling tank were discharged to the marine environment any harmful substance would be significantly further diluted, to the extent that ecotoxicity risk to the marine environment is considered to be negligible.

3.8 Assessment of Barriers – Bowtie

OMV New Zealand has applied the internationally accepted bowtie risk assessment methodology to assess risks specifically for the EAD Programme in regards to deck drainage and the potential for a harmful substance discharge.

Essentially the bowtie diagram provides a visual representation of the potential hazards involved in an activity and the proactive and reactive hazard management that will be implemented during the EAD Programme (Figure 3). OMV New Zealand applies the bowtie methodology to the approved Maari Field safety case documents as required by WorkSafe New Zealand. The bowtie diagram shown in Figure 4 that is specific to the EAD Programme has been included in a similar manner as other OMV New Zealand activities and to provide an overview of plausible hazard scenarios that may occur in a single diagram. This diagram identifies the potential threats and clearly defines the range of control measures that will be in place (Section 3).

To provide further context and understanding of the bowtie methodology (Figure 3), a summary is provided in the subsections below for each of the different components that make up the bowtie diagram. This approach provides context and certainty around the control measures that will be implemented during the EAD Programme.

Figure 3 Generic Bowtie Diagram





3.8.1 Hazard

A hazard is any activity or agent that can cause harm or damage to humans, property, or the environment. In this case the hazard is the harmful substance. The bowtie diagram has been developed around managing and controlling this hazard, to prevent it escalating into an ‘undesired event’, or the ‘top event’ which is a release of trance amounts of harmful substance to the marine environment from the deck drains on the MODU.

3.8.2 Top Event

The top event occurs when control over the ‘hazard’ is lost. In this instance the ‘top event’ is a discharge of trace amounts of harmful substance from deck drains to the marine environment. This would only occur if all the controls (also known as barriers) on the left hand side of the bowtie diagram were breached.

3.8.3 Threat

The ‘threat’ in a bowtie diagram can lead to the ‘top event’ occurring (i.e. discharge of trace amounts of harmful substance to the marine environment). As is the case in Figure 4, there are a range of barriers noted as ‘controls’ to the “threat” within a bowtie diagram which may prevent the top event occurring.

In the bowtie diagram (Figure 4) which is specific to this Discharge Consent application, the two ‘threats’ that may lead to a release of harmful substance to the marine environment include:

Loss of containment of harmful substance on open deck areas; and

MODU stability at risk.

3.8.4 Control

‘Controls’ (or barriers) interrupt a particular ‘threat’ (or scenario) (Section 3.8.3) eventuating so that these ’threats’, do not result in the ‘top event’ occurring.

A number of different ‘controls’ detailed in Figure 4 will be implemented during the EAD Programme, and these are a combination of operational procedures and mitigation measures which can include human behaviour/activities and use of hardware/technology. The controls listed within Figure 4 are essentially barriers to prevent any discharge of a harmful substance to the marine environment occurring. These barriers have been described in detail in Sections 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4.



March 2018

Page 46

Figure 4 Harmful Substance Bowtie Diagram for the Deck Drainage System during the EAD Programme

Legend




Page 47

3.9 Assessment of Alternatives

As per section 39(1)(i) of the EEZ Act, OMV New Zealand has considered possible alternative locations for, or methods for undertaking, the activity that may avoid, remedy, or mitigate any adverse effects, which is discussed in this section.

The only alternative to avoid the discharge of harmful substances residue from deck drainage is to collect all deck drainage water which may accumulate on the MODU and return it to shore for suitable disposal at a consented facility onshore. This would include potentially large volumes of rainwater (Section 3.5).

It is not considered practical to transport all deck drainage water back to shore for the following reasons:

In order for all deck drainage to be collected and stored for offtake a specially designed zero discharge MODU would have to be contracted for the EAD Programme. Whilst this type of MODU is available on the market, even zero discharge MODU’s are unlikely to be capable of containing all rainwater all of the time. Furthermore, it may not be possible to secure one for the EAD Programme;

A significant range of adverse health, safety and environmental exposure risks associated with pumping the scale of deck drainage water from the MODU to offshore supply vessel/s and likewise from the supply vessel to suitable road tankers for disposal;

Significant additional supply vessel voyages required between the proposed drilling locations and ports (with associated health, safety and environmental risks); and

Increased fuel usage of the offshore supply vessel/s associated with deck drainage water transport and disposal.




Page 48

4 Existing Interests and Engagement

4.1 Existing Interests

When determining what groups would be considered as existing interests for the EAD Programme in relation to the deck drainage Discharge Consent application, the physical extent of the potential effects from the activity were considered.

Section 3.6 has identified that under worst case discharge conditions, the potential effects from this application are expected to be limited to within 200 m of the discharge point; however, this actual effects are anticipated to be significantly less than the assessment based on the conservative assumptions used and taking into account the dilution calculations provided in Section 3.7.

The EEZ Act defines existing interests, in relation to New Zealand, or the continental shelf (as applicable), the interest a person has in the details listed in Table 9.

Table 9 Existing Interests as defined in the EEZ Act associated with this Discharge Consent Application

Existing Interest Definition Relevance to this Application

(a) Any lawfully established existing activity, whether or not authorised by or under any Act or regulations, including rights of access, navigation, and fishing.

This includes the commercial fishers who hold quota and use the area as part of their fishing activity (i.e. deep‐water trawlers chasing jack mackerel) and those vessels which navigate through the area. Further discussion on commercial fishing activities is found within Section 5.5.2.

(b) Any activity that may be undertaken under the authority of an existing marine consent granted under section 62.

No marine consents are currently granted for the area immediately surrounding the proposed wells, or within the associated 200 m zone of influence.

(c) Any activity that may be undertaken under the authority of an existing resource consent granted under the Resource Management Act 1991.

The proposed well locations (Figure 1), and the associated 200 m zone of influence is situated a significant distance offshore from the jurisdiction of the Resource Management Act 1991.

(d) The settlement of a historical claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.

The Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Act 2016 gives effect to the Taranaki Iwi Deed of Settlement and includes a number of statutory acknowledgement areas, one of which is the Taranaki Iwi Coastal Marine Area. These statutory acknowledgement areas are recognised under the Resource Management Act and the Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga Act. However, as these statutory acknowledgement areas are related to the CMA, it is considered that (d) does not apply.




Page 49

Existing Interest Definition Relevance to this Application

(e) The settlement of a contemporary claim under the Treaty of Waitangi as provided for in an Act, including the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992.

Iwi hold customary fishing rights under the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998. These regulations stem from the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 and provide for the customary harvesting of kaimoana for special occasions. Under these regulations iwi may issue permits to harvest kaimoana in a way that exceeds levels permitted in standard practice in order to provide for hui (a gathering or meeting), tangi (funeral) or as koha (a gift, donation, or contribution).

In addition to the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992, under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004, recognised iwi were allocated fisheries assets such as fishing quota. Each iwi were also assigned income shares in Aotearoa Fisheries Limited. Aotearoa Fisheries Limited harvests, procures, farms, processes, and markets kaimoana in New Zealand and internationally, and is managed and overseen by Te Ohu Kai Moana (the Māori Fisheries Commission). A further discussion on customary fishing is included within Section 5.4.1.

The fishing interests outlined above are considered to be existing interests for the purposes of the EEZ Act and this application.

(f) A protected customary right or customary marine title recognised under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011.

This does not apply to this Discharge Consent application as there are no customary rights or customary marine titles within the area surrounding the proposed well locations or the 200 m zone of influence.

Based on the definition of existing interests, those groups that have existing interests within the zone of influence around the proposed wells are the deep‐water commercial fishers, customary fishers and the associated quota holders.

Maritime traffic (commercial shipping etc.) is not considered to be an existing interest in relation to this specific application as the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances residue through the deck drainage system will have no effect on their operations.

A number of iwi groups are located inshore of the three AOIs that hold special interest in this offshore area through their exercise of mana whenua and mana moana. Even though under the EEZ Act some of these iwi groups are not considered by definition as holding an existing interest for the location of the proposed wells, OMV New Zealand has still engaged specifically with these groups as if they were considered as an existing interest.

The cultural environment around the northern, central and southern AOI is identified within Section 5.4 and identifies which iwi are present, the customary fishing rights that are recognised in the area, and the cultural interests in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011. In addition, an assessment of the recreational and commercial fishing operations in and around the AOIs has been undertaken and assessed within Section 5.5.

A discussion on the effects from the discharge of remobilised harmful substance traces from the deck drainage system on existing interests is found within Section 7.2.4.




Page 50

4.2 Engagement

OMV New Zealand has undertaken an engagement process which has included government departments and key local groups who were either identified as being interested parties or those groups with existing interests within the areas inshore of the northern, central and southern AOI’s during 2017 and 2018. This engagement has specifically focused on this application for the deck drainage Discharge Consent.

OMV New Zealand operate the Maari Field and have undertaken seismic surveys in the wider offshore Taranaki region over the last several years, which have allowed OMV New Zealand to develop relationships with iwi and stakeholders throughout the wider Taranaki region. During these engagements, OMV New Zealand has always remained open that the next steps following the processing of the seismic data could be the potential for exploration and appraisal drilling programmes on the permits, as per the requirements of OMV New Zealand’s work programmes. OMV New Zealand is committed to effective engagement as part of their operational and exploration activities, not just in New Zealand but wherever they operate in the world. The groups listed below have been engaged with by OMV New Zealand in relation to the activities in this deck drainage Discharge Consent application. It is noted that not all groups have been met with face to face prior to the submission of this application; however, the engagement process is ongoing and it is envisaged that OMV New Zealand will meet with these groups as soon as the opportunity allows.

The following groups have been engaged with, advised, or a request to meet has been made:

Ngati Mutunga;

Ngati Tama;

Manukorihi hapu

Otaraoa hapu;

Ngati Rahiri hapu;

Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa;

Te Kāhui o Taranaki;

Te Korowai o Ngaruahine Trust;

Ngati Ruanui;

Te Kaahui o Nga Rauru;

Manawhenua ki Mohua;

Ngati Tama Ki Te Waipounamu;

Te Ohu Kaimoana;

Deepwater Fisheries Group;

Egmont Seafoods;

Department of Conservation – Taranaki;

Department of Conservation – Golden Bay;

Environmental Protection Authority; and

Taranaki Regional Council.




Page 51

As discussed and identified throughout this IA, the Discharge Consent application is for the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drains of a MODU. This impact assessment has identified that the potential effects on the marine environment are very limited and confined, both in spatial scale (Section 3.6) and severity (Section 3.7). Therefore, the engagement process for this deck drainage Discharge Consent application has been limited and targeted at certain key groups.




Page 52

5 Existing Environment

As discussed in Section 3.1, three AOIs have been defined around the proposed well locations and will be used as part of the assessment of effects within this IA (Figure 1). The three AOI’s cover a large spatial area, so the assessment provided within this existing environment section is extensive to account for the large geographical area.

5.1 Physical Environment

Data for existing fields and past exploration wells is used as a proxy to estimate the expected conditions within the three AOIs. Each AOI has been used to describe the general area in which each of the wells is located.

5.1.1 Meteorology

The climate of New Zealand varies from warm subtropical in the upper north to cool temperate in the lower south (NIWA, 2018). Anticyclones are a major feature in the region as they migrate eastwards across the country every six to seven days. Overall, anticyclones follow northerly paths in the spring and southerly paths in the autumn and winter. As each anticyclone moves off the east coast, north‐westerly winds bring a cold front across the country. Cold fronts are followed by troughs of low pressure characterised by increased cloud cover, intensifying north‐westerly winds and precipitation that persists until the front passes eastward (Te Ara, 2018). After the front has passed, the weather conditions change again to cold showery south‐westerly winds, before the arrival of the next anticyclone.

The AOIs are located in the ‘South‐west North Island’ climate zone. Weather in this zone is often quite windy and with few climatic extremes (NIWA, 2018a); Taranaki is one of the windiest regions in New Zealand (Chappell, 2014). Within this climatic zone the most settled weather occurs in summer and early autumn, with winter months the most unsettled time of the year (NIWA, 2018a).

Conditions at the Tui Field are indicative of conditions expected in the central AOI. From October to February here, west‐south westerly winds are most prevalent. Autumn and winter winds are from the southeast and west‐southwest sectors. The strongest winds at the Tui field are from the southeast; with the strongest recorded wind speed being approximately 79 knots. In general, September is the windiest month and January the calmest (MSL, 2006).

Conditions at the Māui field are indicative of conditions expected at the southern AOI. The general direction of wind at the Māui Field is from the southwest and southeast sector, with maximum wind speeds recorded in June (49.5 knots) (RPS, 2004); however, a maximum wind speed gust of 94 knots was reported to have occurred in 1981 at the Māui‐A platform (Chappell, 2014). Winter and spring are the windiest months (average speed of 17.1 and 17.5 knots respectively), followed by autumn (average speed 16.5 knots) and summer (average speed 15.1 knots) (RPS, 2004).

Conditions at the Maari Field are indicative of conditions expected at the southern AOI. The wind profile at Maari shows a bimodal wind distribution, with the primary winds from the west‐northwest sector and from the southeast sector. Wind speeds up to approximately 50 knots have been recorded; however, such winds are rare, with the majority of winds approximately 11 to 28 knots (MSL, 2014).

The well locations in the Northern AOI are expected to be similar to those in the central and southern AOI, whereby they experience reasonably windy conditions on account of their exposed offshore location.




Page 53

Periods of high rainfall occur in Taranaki when a slow‐moving anticyclone lies to the east of New Zealand, allowing warmer moist northerly air from the tropics to flow over the country. Heavy rain can occur if these conditions are associated with slow moving fronts lying north‐south near Taranaki, or when depressions move across the region. When the airflow over New Zealand is from the northeast, rainfall in Taranaki tends to be scattered and light until the next frontal zone crosses the region. In Taranaki, westerly airstreams are associated with periods of unsettled showery weather. In these situations, a belt of high pressure lies to the north of the country, while to the south migratory depressions move steadily eastwards. The westerly airstream frequently contains rapidly moving cold fronts bringing periods of heavier showers to western New Zealand. Rain frequency and intensity increases inland towards Mount Taranaki (Chappell, 2014).

There is currently no rainfall monitoring and recording equipment at any of the offshore installations in the South Taranaki Bight or at the Pohokura Field. Rainfall records for onshore sites across the Taranaki region are recorded by the TRC. A sample of ten years’ worth of hourly rainfall data totals (2008 to 2018) were accessed from TRC for three sites on the coast at a southern (Patea), central (Kapoaiaia) and northern location (Motonui). This data has been summarised in Table 10 and was also used to calculate the proportion of days where recordable rainfall occurred at each location (Table 11). It is considered that these three locations are representative of the southern, central and northern AOI respectively.

Table 10 Rainfall Statistics for Northern, Central and Southern Taranaki Coastal Sites

Motonui (North) (mm/day) Kapoaiaia (Central) (mm/day) Patea (South) (mm/day)

Minimum 0 0 0

Maximum 109.50 110.50 97.50

Mean 3.97 3.67 2.89

50th percentile 0 0.20 0

90th percentile 13 11.20 9

99th percentile 40.72 39.67 31.19

Table 11 Proportion of Days where Detectable Amounts of Rainfall Occurred at the Three Onshore Monitoring Locations Investigated

Motonui (North) (mm/day) Kapoaiaia (Central) (mm/day) Patea (South) (mm/day)

Proportion of days where rainfall occurred

0.53 0.50 0.54




Page 54

5.1.2 Air Quality

Although there is no description of air quality in the offshore Taranaki region, due to the offshore nature of the three AOIs, the air quality is expected to be high compared to populated areas such as cities and towns.

Tonkin & Taylor (2015; 2015a) stated background levels of air contaminants are low in the South Taranaki Bight, with marine aerosols in the form of naturally occurring salt spray making up the majority of background fine particulate. Although no specific air quality data is available for the proposed well locations, the offshore nature of the AOIs suggest that the conclusions reached by Tonkin & Taylor (2015; 2015a) are applicable. Indeed, OMV New Zealand’s proposed well locations are further offshore than the location assessed by Tonkin & Taylor (2015; 2015a) and therefore less land‐based pollutants are expected. It is also worth noting that air quality in the Taranaki region is generally considered to be ‘excellent’ on account of the windy, exposed nature of the coast, absence of heavy industry, and low population/vehicle numbers (TRC, 2011; TRC, 2018). Even though Port Taranaki and New Plymouth’s CBD have recorded the poorest air quality readings for the Taranaki region, air quality in these areas is still considered as ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ (TRC, 2018).

5.1.3 Currents and Waves

New Zealand’s coastal current regime is dominated by three components; wind‐driven flows, low‐frequency flows and tidal currents. The net current flow is a combination of all of these components, often further influenced by the local bathymetry.

New Zealand lies in the pathway of eastward‐flowing currents driven by winds that blow across the South Pacific Ocean (Brodie, 1960; Te Ara, 2018a). As a result, New Zealand is exposed to the southern branch of the South Pacific subtropical gyre, driven by the southeast trade winds to the north and the Roaring Forties westerly winds to the south (Gorman et al., 2005; Te Ara, 2018a).

The main ocean currents around New Zealand are illustrated in Figure 5. The eastward flow out of the Tasman Sea splits into two currents across the top of the North Island; the West Auckland Current flowing from Cape Reinga towards Kaipara, and the East Auckland Current flowing from North Cape towards the Bay of Plenty (Brodie, 1960; Heath, 1985; Stanton, 1973). As the West Auckland Current travels south, it is met in the North Taranaki Bight by the north‐flowing Westland Current. The Westland Current flows from the west coast of the South Island up to the west coast of the North Island where it weakens and becomes subject to seasonal variability. As a result of local weather conditions and seasonality, the convergence zone of the two currents is highly variable (i.e. the northern limit of the Westland Current and the southern limit of the West Auckland Current) (Brodie, 1960; Ridgway, 1980; Stanton, 1973).

Seasonal variation in the West Auckland Current and Westland Current results in varying temperatures and salinity off the Taranaki coastline. During winter, the West Auckland Current extends further south, bringing with it warmer waters. In contrast, the West Auckland Current is weaker in the summer months and the Westland Current dominates, bringing with it colder waters (Ridgway, 1980; Stanton, 1973).




Page 55

Currents that traverse across the three AOIs are predominately influenced by the D’Urville and Westland Currents in the south, and the West Auckland Current in the north. Tidal currents on the Continental Shelf around Taranaki have been reported at speeds of approximately 0.07 ms‐1, with internal tides generating currents up to 0.3 ms‐1 along the shelf edge (Orpin, 2015). Measurements of current speed and direction for the southern AOI and central AOI are available for both the Māui and Maari Fields respectively; however, it is important to note that the current measurements at the Māui Field represent surface current speed while measurements at Maari Field represent depth averaged current speed; these two data sets are therefore not directly comparable. No current data exists for the northern AOI.

Although variable between months, surface currents within the Māui Field predominantly flow towards the north and south‐southeast, with average surface current speeds of 0.24 ms‐1 (maximum 1.44 ms‐1) (RPS, 2014). Depth‐averaged currents at Maari show a bimodal current distribution, with dominant flows directed towards the west and east‐southeast as a result of local and regional wind‐stresses on the ocean surface in combination with tidal flows. The majority of currents at Maari flow with a current speed of between 0.05 and 0.2 ms‐1 (MSL, 2014).

Due to its exposure to long period swells originating from the Southern Ocean, as well as locally generated seas, the Taranaki Bight is considered to have a high energy wave climate (ASR, 2004; ASR, 2014a; Hume, et al., 2015). The majority of the wave energy arrives from the west and southwest, with southerly waves able rapidly rise. In general wave height in the Taranaki Bight shows a seasonal cycle, with mean significant wave heights peaking in late winter (August and September) and lowest in late summer (MacDiarmid et al., 2015), although large wave conditions can arise at any time of the year. The largest waves are found off the western end of Cape Egmont, with wave height decreasing further south as a result of increasing shelter from prevailing south‐westerly swells (MacDiarmid et al., 2015). Significant wave heights in excess of 8 m can occur during stormy conditions, particularly in the winter and early spring (MacDiarmid et al., 2015).

Representative of the central AOI, mean significant wave height at the Tui field is 2.86 m. The wave climate is seasonal, with the June the most energetic month (mean wave height 3.23 m), and the calmest month is January (mean 2.36 m) (ASR, 2004).

For the southern AOI, the wave height and direction at the Maari Field is continuously monitored by a wave rider buoy. The largest recorded significant wave height at Maari was 6.71 m; however, average significant wave height is considerably lower at 2.2 m. The largest waves occurred from the west‐south westerly and south easterly sectors. Mean spectral wave periods are typically in the range of 4 – 8 seconds (ASR, 2004a).




Page 56

Figure 5 Ocean Circulation Around the New Zealand Coastline

Source: http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/map/5912/ocean‐currents‐around‐new‐zealand

5.1.4 Thermoclines and Sea Temperature

Sea surface temperatures in New Zealand waters show a north to south gradient; warmer waters are found in the north, cooling towards the south (Te Ara, 2018b).

Sea surface temperature maps have been produced by National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA) using temperature data extracted from daily NOAA satellite transmissions. Sea surface temperature in winter (August) and summer (February) averaged over data collected between 1993 and 2002 shows winter temperatures in the Taranaki Bight of approximately 13 – 14 °C and summer temperatures of approximately 18 – 20 °C (Figure 6). Metocean data for the Pohokura (North Taranaki Bight but in the CMA), Māui A, Māui B, Maari, Kupe, Tui, and Ruru fields and wells (MSL, 2012) support the general findings shown Figure 6; this data has been summarised in Table 12.

Near‐bed water temperatures throughout New Zealand’s continental shelf appear to be constant year‐round at approximately 13.5 °C (typical range 12.5 – 14.5 °C) (ASR, 2004a). Near‐bed water temperatures are not widely available; however, metocean monitoring at the Maari Field has shown near‐bed temperatures to be relatively constant throughout the year, with a range of 1.7 °C (12.7 – 14.4 °C) (ASR, 2004a).




Page 57

During spring and summer months, thermal stratification of the water column can develop as a result of solar heating in the upper water column. The profile of the thermocline varies with surrounding environmental conditions, for example storm conditions can cause significant vertical mixing and breakdown of the thermal structure, and tides and currents can either enhance or damage the structure of the thermocline. As a result, a well‐defined thermocline is not always present (ASR, 2004a). Below the thermocline, water temperature typically falls fairly rapidly along a vertical gradient which decreases with increasing depth (Garner, 1969).

Figure 6 Average New Zealand Sea Surface Temperatures for Winter (left) and Summer (right)

Source: Te Ara, 2018b

Table 12 Seasonal Average Sea Surface Temperatures (°C) at Taranaki Oil and Gas Fields

Season Pohokura Māui A Māui B Maari Kupe Tui

Summer 19.0 17.9 17.7 17.3 17.8 17.9

Autumn 18.1 17.5 17.3 17.0 17.1 17.4

Winter 14.1 14.2 14.0 13.9 13.5 14.2

Spring 14.8 14.2 14.1 13.8 14.0 14.2

Source: MetOcean Solutions Limited




Page 58

5.1.5 Water Quality

Water samples collected from the Maari Field in 2003 have indicated that the water column is a well‐mixed open‐ocean environment. Chemical analyses of these samples (presented in ASR (2003)) are provided in Table 13. ASR (2003) observed that the upper water column at the control site differed to that of the Maari Field sample stations; however, these differences were attributed to higher levels of biological activity at the control site.

Table 13 Maari Field Water Sample Chemical Analysis

Parameter measured

Units Sample stations

G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9 G10

pH pH 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1 8.1

Turbidity NTU 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.2

Total Ammoniacal‐N

g.m‐3 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.02

Nitrate‐N + Nitrite‐N

g.m‐3 0.045 0.044 0.047 0.046 0.045 0.046 0.045 0.046 0.047 0.037

Nitrate‐N g.m‐3 0.04 0.04 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.041 0.04 0.041 0.033

Nitrite‐N g.m‐3 0.005 0.004 0.006 0.005 0.004 0.005 0.005 0.006 0.007 0.003

Dissolved reactive phosphorous

g.m‐3 0.01 0.009 0.009 0.008 0.008 0.009 0.008 0.009 0.009 0.005

Total organic carbon

g.m‐3 3.1 3.3 3.2 3.7 2.7 3 3.4 2.7 3.1 2.7

Source: ASR (2003)

Information on water quality within the Taranaki offshore region is limited; however, the following general assumptions can be made:

The proposed well locations and three AOIs are in the offshore marine environment and therefore away from any major influence (such as dilution and sedimentation effects) from riverine inputs;

The three AOIs in the Taranaki region have fresh seawater inputs derived from the Tasman Sea; and

Nutrient levels are expected to be highest in the southern AOI due to upwelling conditions around Farewell Spit as a result of the Kahurangi Upwelling (see Section 5.2.8).

Based on these assumptions and physical analysis results presented in ASR (2003), water quality at the three AOIs is expected to be high, with slightly elevated nutrient levels potentially occurring in the southern AOI compared to the central and northern AOI. Sediment and nutrient input from terrestrial systems and riverine input is not expected to affect water quality in the offshore environment in any of the AOIs.




Page 59

Salinity levels within the three AOIs are expected to vary slightly throughout the year. RPS (2014) reported that salinity at the Māui Field ranges from a minimum of 34.7 psu in August to a maximum of 35.4 psu in September. Salinity at the Tui Field lies within the range of 34.9 – 35.2 psu (ASR, 2004). These results are considered to be representative of the central AOI. Areas of reduced salinity are typically limited to coastal margins (ASR, 2004) that are influenced by freshwater inputs from river systems. Due to the offshore nature of the proposed well locations and the three AOIs, the salinity at each of the three AOIs is expected to be similar to that reported in ASR (2004) and RPS (2014). Salinities ranging from 34.8 – 35.5 psu are considered to be ‘oceanic’, meaning they are not obviously diluted by fresh‐water run‐off from land (Garner, 1969). The results from the Tui fields are generally aligned with oceanic salinities and are also considered representative of the northern and southern AOI.

5.1.6 Bathymetry and Geology

New Zealand is surrounded by the continental shelf, which is a flat, gently sloping zone, which extends from the coast out to a water depth of approximately 100 – 160 m. Beyond the continental shelf, the gradient of the seabed steepens and passes into the continental slope which descends relatively rapidly from the edge of the shelf down to depths in excess of 4,000 m. At the foot of the slope, the seaward gradient flattens out into the ocean basins which are a wide undulating but relatively flat, lying at depths of 4,000 – 5,000 m (Te Ara, 2018c).

The surface of the continental shelf is predominantly flat (punctuated by local banks and reefs), whereas the slope is irregular with large marine valleys (submarine canyons). These tend to occur in slope areas of relatively steep gradient (e.g. off Kaikoura) and generally run form the edge of the continental shelf to the foot of the continental slope (Te Ara, 2018c). There are no submarine canyons in the vicinity of the three AOIs.

The width of New Zealand’s continental shelf varies: in the North Taranaki Bight (northern AOI) the shelf is broad, narrowing around Cape Egmont (central AOI) before widening again across the South Taranaki Bight (southern AOI) (MacDiarmid et al., 2015). The Taranaki Continental Shelf has a 150 km wide opening to the Tasman Sea, occupying 30,000 km², and slopes gently towards the west with an overall gradient of <0.1° and locally less than 0.5° (Nodder, 1995). The bathymetry across the three AOIs is shown in Figure 7, whilst the ranges of water depths are detailed below:

Northern AOI – 100 m to 200 m;

Central AOI – 100 m to 150 m; and

Southern AOI – 100 m to 160 m.




Page 60

Figure 7 Bathymetry of the Area of Interest

There are eight sedimentary basins underlying New Zealand’s continental shelf with known or potential hydrocarbons present (Figure 8). To date, commercial quantities of oil and gas have only been produced from the Taranaki Basin; however, discoveries have been made in the East Coast Basin, Canterbury Basin, and Great South Basin (NZP&M, 2014).




Page 61

The three AOIs traverse the Taranaki Basin, which lies at the southern end of a rift that developed sub‐parallel to the Tasman Sea rift and now separates Australia from New Zealand. The Taranaki Basin occupies the site of a late Mesozoic extension on the landward side of the Gondwana margin, and covers approximately 330,000 km². The structure of the basin is controlled by movements along the Taranaki, Cape Egmont and Turi fault zones. Jurassic to earliest Cretaceous Murihiku marine and non‐marine rocks form basement of the earliest basin‐fill (NZP&M, 2014).

Coastal basement rocks in the Taranaki Basin originate from a number of different terranes. Crustal slabs can comprise of sedimentary, plutonic, and volcanic rocks. The terranes around New Zealand are grouped into the Palaeozoic (540 – 300 million years ago) Western Province, and the Permian to early Cretaceous (300 – 100 million years ago) Eastern Province. At the boundary between these two provinces is a zone of volcanic arc rocks which form the western section of the Taranaki Peninsula. The Waikato coastline to the north‐east is greywacke Eastern Province terrain (Morton & Miller, 1968).

Figure 8 New Zealand's Sedimentary Basins

Source: NZP&M, 2018




Page 62

5.1.7 Seabed Substrate

Particle grain size is widely used to characterise the physical structure of marine sediments, and sediment organic matter provides an indication of the level of organic enrichment. The combined results from these two measurements provide an indication of sediment health and the source of potential stressors (SLR, 2017). Visual observations of sediment cores and video sled tows undertaken during offshore environmental benthic monitoring programmes provide an overview of general seabed characteristics.

In accordance with the EEZ Act, benthic monitoring programmes are required for both production and exploration wells, and these monitoring reports have been used to determine seabed substrate, largely through the collection of sediment cores. Where possible, pre‐drill monitoring reports that have been conducted in recent years have been used to characterise the expected seabed and substrate characteristics for each AOI; however, limited information is currently available for the northern AOI so some assumptions have been made.

OMV New Zealand has proposed a baseline benthic monitoring programme for the northern AOI which will provide the first benthic environmental data set for this region. This information will be incorporated into the future Marine Consent and Discharge Consent applications. There is currently no representative data available for the northern AOI

National Aquatic Biodiversity Information System has mapped seabed sediments throughout New Zealand’s EEZ. Based on the National Aquatic Biodiversity Information System sediment distribution maps, the expected seabed sediments throughout the three AOIs are similar in nature, being comprised of mud, and areas of gravel/sand mixed with mud.

The substrate within each of the AOI’s based on previous monitoring studies have been summarised in Table 14 below.




Page 63

Table 14 Description of the Likely Seabed and Substrate for Each AOI

Area of Interest Representative monitoring station and reference

Description of seabed and substrate

Southern Manaia‐2 (SLR, 2016) Seabed is characterised by relatively flat, soft muddy sediments frequently interrupted by mound/hollow features and small burrow holes. Muds are light‐brown to light‐grey coloured and cohesive, often with sediments deeper in the cores being very cohesive compared to the surface. Sediments are uniform throughout the sampled locations. Sediment grain size is dominated by the two smallest size fractions (‘very fine sands’ and ‘silt/clay’) with the majority of particles (greater than 80%) from these size classes. Organic content within the sediments is significantly lower than control sites (possibly due to lower proportion of silt and clay).

Whio‐1 (SLR, 2016a) Seabed is composed largely of soft mud sediments that are relatively flat in appearance but frequently interrupted by bioturbation (animal burrows and larger feeding holes and mounds). Sediment grain size is dominated by very fine sands and silts/clays.

South Control (SLR, 2016) Seabed is characterised by relatively flat, soft muddy sediments frequently interrupted by mound/hollow features and small burrow holes Muds are uniformly light grey in colour and relatively cohesive. Sediment grain size is composed of a greater proportion of ‘silt/clay’ with less ‘very fine’ and ‘fine’ sand particles than at Manaia‐2.

Maui Field (SLR, 2017c&d) The seabed is characterised by relatively flat soft muds with evidence of bioturbation in the form of burrows and large mounds and hollows. The seabed sediments are comprised of well‐oxygenated tan/light‐grey coloured sediments that are cohesive. Sediments are dominated by the smallest silt/clay size fraction.

Central Tui (Johnston et al., 2013) In general the seafloor is relatively flat and punctuated by bioturbation in the form of burrow holes. Sediment cores are uniform in texture and colour throughout the depth of the cores. Sediment grain size is unimodal, peaking in the finest size fraction ‘silt/clay’. Sediment organic content is naturally patchy, but overall is characterised as a moderately depositional, low‐flow sedimentary environment.

Matuku‐1 (SLR, 2016c) Seabed is comprised of largely flat muddy sediments, interrupted by biogenic mounds. Sediments are light‐grey coloured and cohesive, grading to a light brown towards the surface. Sediment grain size is dominated by ‘silt/clay’ with 80 – 85% of sediment particles being from this smallest size fraction.

Northern Pending further investigation

OMV New Zealand will undertake a baseline environmental study throughout the northern AOI to characterise the environmental conditions, seabed habitat and marine communities present in the AOI. This environmental data will be incorporated into the Marine Consent and Discharge Consent applications.




Page 64

5.2 Biological Environment

5.2.1 Benthic Invertebrates

The three AOIs cover a wide geographical range across the Taranaki Basin. Under the New Zealand Marine Environment Classification scheme (Snelder et al., 2005) there are a range of classifications that represent each of the AOIs and these are discussed further below. The classification from the New Zealand Marine Environment Classification in relation to the three AOIs is presented in Figure 11.

In contrast to near‐shore communities, offshore benthic communities in the Taranaki region are characterised by low numbers and species diversity (Anderson et al., 2013; MacDiarmid et al., 2015). The offshore Taranaki benthic environment is characterised by both soft sediment habitats, hard rock habitats and mudstone habitats (Anderson et al., 2015; Handley, 2006; TRC, 2009; Shell Todd, 2002).

5.2.1.1 Northern AOI

The northern AOI is classified under Class, 22, Class 55, Class 60, Class 63 and Class 64 which are further described in Section 5.3.1.

OMV New Zealand will undertake an extensive baseline monitoring programme in this region to determine benthic habitats and communities throughout this area in relation to each of the proposed exploration well locations.

Inshore of the northern AOI (i.e. beyond the 20m isobath and approximatively 4 km offshore), the offshore benthic ecosystems in the North Taranaki Bight is generally characterised by soft sand/mud substrates supporting limited species diversity and abundance. These ecosystems are dominated by polychaete worms, heart urchins and hermit crabs (TRC, 2009; Shell Todd, 2002). Based on the findings from pre‐ and post‐drill surveys of existing well sites in the Taranaki Basin, it is assumed that polychaetes will be the most prevalent taxa in the benthic communities of the northern AOI, followed by molluscs, crustaceans and echinoderms (REM, 2015, SLR, 2015, SLR, 2016, SLR 2016b, SLR, 2017).

5.2.1.2 Central AOI

The central AOI is classified under Class 60 and Class 63 (Section 5.3.1).

Based on the geographic location, the central AOI is expected to exhibit similar benthic characteristics to the Pateke, Oi and Matuku exploration wells, the Tui Field, and the north control stations. All stations showed relatively flat seabed comprised of fine silty/soft mud sediment dominated by polychaete worms, followed by bivalves, ophiuroids (brittle stars), crustaceans, amphipods and ostracods (REM, 2015, SLR, 2015, SLR, 2016, SLR 2016b, SLR, 2017).

The north control site has shown similar community structure to the exploration well sites and production fields. The proportion of polychaetes within the benthic communities was highest at the well stations; whereas, crustaceans, amphipods and ostracods contributed to a higher percentage of the community structure at the north control site (SLR, 2017a; 2017b).




Page 65

5.2.1.3 Southern AOI

The southern AOI is also classified under Class 60 and Class 63 (Section 5.3.1).

The southern AOI is located in the same area as the Maari Field and is expected to have similar benthic communities to the Maari Field, Whio‐1, Manaia‐2 and the south Control monitoring stations which have been identified as part of annual field production monitoring and pre‐ and post‐drill monitoring programmes. These monitoring programmes have shown that the seabed in this region is comprised of soft muds that are reasonably flat in relief, with biological communities dominated by polychaete worms and bivalves (SLR, 2016c; SLR, 2017c; SLR, 2017d). These habitats are considered to be representative of the southern AOI.

The benthic communities, at Manaia‐2, Whio‐1, Tui and South Control are dominated by polychaete worms (>54% of the community), while molluscs (mainly bivalves) accounted for 8‐16% and crustaceans (such as shrimps, amphipods and cumaceans) accounted for 12‐22% of the benthic communities. Other taxa such as ascidians (sea squirts), nematodes, bryozoa and cnidarians (sea anemones) were the least abundant groups and collectively made up less than 4% of the community (SLR, 2016c; SLR, 2017c; SLR, 2017d).

Video sled imagery collected during previous monitoring indicates that epifauna are relatively sparse but small whelks are frequently observed and sponges and sea pens are occasionally present. Video evidence of other taxa such as shrimps, larger worms (indicated by the presence of conical shaped mounds) and more mobile fish taxa including flatfish, gurnard, and spiny dogfish was also noted.

5.2.2 Cetaceans

Both toothed whales (suborder Odontoceti) and baleen whales (suborder Mysticeti) comprise the 48 cetacean species that have been recorded in New Zealand waters (Baker et al., 2016).

Baleen whales are characterised by the presence of plates of baleen in the mouth and occur throughout the world in a range of habitats from more coastal areas out to the deep pelagic waters (Clapham et al., 1999). The majority of baleen whales undertake large seasonal migrations between high latitude summer feeding grounds and winter mating and calving areas in warmer, low latitude waters. Although migration route varies between species, high mobility and movements across international boundaries is a general feature of most baleen whales (Clapham et al., 1999).

The annual migrations of most species of baleen whale in the southern hemisphere are somewhat predictable whereby whales travel south in spring to feed in Antarctic waters over summer and return north to temperate and tropical breeding grounds in autumn and winter (DOC, 2007). In New Zealand waters, Bryde’s and pygmy blue whales are an exception as they do not exhibit clear migratory patterns and instead are resident or semi‐resident to particular habitats or areas. More detailed descriptions of the known migratory pathways are provided in the individual species accounts below.

Toothed whales have teeth instead of baleen, and use specialised echolocation. They are found across a range of habitats and in all oceans (Hooker, 2009), and, unlike the baleen whales, do not carry out large migrations, instead most species tend to remain resident to an area (Berkenbusch et al., 2013). The toothed whale assemblage in New Zealand is diverse and ranges from large deep‐diving sperm whales to smaller social dolphins (Berkenbusch et al., 2013).

The sections below summarise which cetacean species could be present within the AOIs. Due to the highly mobile nature and large home ranges of cetaceans the northern, central and southern AOIs have been assessed as one entire AOI.




Page 66

5.2.2.1 Cetacean species that could be present in the Area of Interest

As ecological research on cetaceans is notoriously difficult and expensive (largely due to their large home ranges and extended periods of time spent submerged), knowledge of cetacean distribution is typically amassed over long temporal periods using a combination of data collection techniques (e.g. stranding data, opportunistic sightings and systematic survey data). For this reason, it is important to assess multiple data sources when considering cetacean distribution in any one location. This approach has been used to predict which cetacean species may be present within the combined AOIs; where data sources for this assessment included:

Sightings data:

From previous seismic surveys (obtained from the Department of Conservation (DOC) marine mammals sightings database);

From opportunistic sightings (obtained from the DOC marine mammals sightings database); and

From all OMV New Zealand work vessels (obtained from the DOC marine mammal sightings database). OMV New Zealand requires that all vessels working on their behalf record any marine mammal sightings which are then provided to DOC.

Stranding data (obtained from the DOC marine mammals stranding database); and

Knowledge of migration paths and habitat preferences of each species (obtained from published literature).

Despite these data sources representing the best possible information, it is important to exercise some caution as:

1. Data gaps in sighting data do not necessarily indicate an absence of cetaceans, but typically reflect a lack of observation effort; and

2. Although stranding data gives a broad indication of species occurrence, dead animals can wash ashore well away from where they died; and that prior to death, sick or diseased animals may be outside their normal distributional range.

Figure 9 provides a summary of all sightings from the DOC marine mammal sightings database in the vicinity of AOIs, while Figure 10 provides a summary of the DOC stranding records along the coastline of the AOIs.

The criteria used to assess the likelihood of a species being present in the AOIs are presented in Table 15.




Page 67

Table 15 Criteria used to assess the Likelihood of Cetacean Species Being Present in the AOIs

Criteria Description

Likely Species that are represented in the DOC sightings and/or stranding record from the AOIs and which are not classified as ‘Vagrant’, or ‘Data Deficient’ in the New Zealand Threat Classification System (Baker et al., 2016).

Possible Species that are represented in the DOC sightings and/or stranding record from the AOIs and which are classified as ‘Data Deficient’ in the New Zealand Threat Classification System (Baker et al., 2016).

Occasional Visitor

Species that are represented in the DOC sightings and/or stranding record from the AOIs, but are listed as ‘Migrant’ in the New Zealand Threat Classification System (Baker et al., 2016). Note that this criteria does not preclude some ‘Migrant’ species from being assessed as being ‘likely’ to occur in the AOIs.

Rare Visitor

Species that are present in the DOC sightings and/or stranding record from the AOIs, or reportedly occur in the AOIs, or whose known range is directly adjacent to the AOIs, but are listed as ‘Vagrant’ in the New Zealand Threat Classification System (Baker et al., 2016).

Unlikely Those species not represented in the DOC sightings and/or stranding record from the AOIs.

Note: Where only very small numbers of sightings or stranding’s present in the DOC Stranding’s and Sighting Databases, likelihood determination has been adjusted to take any additional information into consideration.

The findings of our assessment are summarised in Table 16, and a basic ecological summary for those species assessed as being ‘likely’, ‘possible’ or occasional visitors’ to the AOIs is provided in the sub‐sections below.




Page 68

Figure 9 Cetacean Sightings in the Vicinity of the Area of Interest




Page 69

Figure 10 Cetacean Stranding events in the Vicinity of the Area of Interest



March 2018

Page 70

Table 16 Likelihood of Occurrence of Marine Mammals in the AOIs

Common Name Scientific Name NZ Conservation Status

(Baker et al., 2016) Qualifier * IUCN Conservation Status

www.redlist.org DOC Stranding database

(No. of events near AOIs**) DOC Sightings database

(No. of reports in AOIs) Presence in the AOI

Andrew's beaked whale Mesoplodon bowdoini Data deficient SO Data deficient (4) Possible

Antarctic blue whale Balaenoptera musculus intermedia Migrant TO Critically endangered (5) (****) Occasional visitor

Antarctic fur seal Arctocephalus gazella Vagrant SO Least Concern Unlikely

Antarctic minke whale Balaenoptera bonaerensis Not threatened DP, SO Data deficient (2) Likely

Arnoux's beaked whale Berardius arnuxii Migrant SO Data deficient (6) Occasional visitor

Blainville's/Dense beaked whale Mesoplodon densirostris Data deficient SO Data deficient Unlikely

Bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus Nationally endangered CD, Sp, SO Least concern (16) (1) Likely

Bryde's whale Balaenoptera edeni Nationally critical SO Data deficient (2) (2) Possible ***

Common dolphin Delphinus delphis Not threatened DP,SO Least concern (77) (37) Likely

Crab eater seal Lobodon carcinophaga Vagrant SO Least concern Unlikely

Cuvier's beaked whale Ziphius cavirostris Data deficient SO Least concern (20) (1) Likely ***

Dusky dolphin Lagenorhynchus obscurus Not threatened SO Data deficient (32) (2) Likely

Dwarf minke whale Balaenoptera acutorostrata Not threatened DP, SO Least concern (12) Likely

Dwarf sperm whale Kogia sima Vagrant SO Data deficient Unlikely

False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens Not threatened DP, SO Data deficient (3) (1) Likely

Fin whale Balaenoptera physalus Migrant TO Endangered (4) (2) Occasional visitor

Fraser’s dolphin Lagenodelphis hosei Vagrant SO Least concern Unlikely

Gingko‐toothed whale Mesoplodon ginkgodens Vagrant SO Data deficient (3) Rare visitor

Gray's beaked whale Mesoplodon grayi Not threatened DP, SO Data deficient (36) Likely

Hector's beaked whale Mesoplodon hectori Data deficient SO Data deficient Unlikely

Hector's dolphin Cephalorhynchus hectori hectori Nationally endangered CD Endangered (14) (1) Possible ***

Hourglass dolphin Lagenorhynchus cruciger Data deficient SO Least concern Unlikely

Humpback whale Megaptera novaeangliae Migrant SO Least concern (5) (2) Occasional visitor

Killer whale Orcinus orca Nationally critical DP, SO, Sp Data deficient (2) (4) Likely

Leopard seal Hydrurga leptonyx Vagrant SO Least concern Unlikely

Lesser/pygmy beaked whale Mesoplodon peruvianus Vagrant SO Data deficient Unlikely

Long‐finned pilot whale Globicephala melas Not threatened DP, SO Data deficient (72) (7) Likely

Maui’s dolphin Cephalorhynchus hectori maui Nationally critical CD Not assessed (18) (2) Possible ***

Melon‐headed whale Peponocephala electra Vagrant SO Least concern Unlikely

New Zealand sea lion Phocarctos hookeri Nationally critical RR Endangered Unlikely

New Zealand fur seal Arctocephalus forsteri Not threatened Inc, SO Least Concern (many) Likely

Pantropical spotted dolphin Stenella attenuata Vagrant SO Least concern (1) Rare visitor

Pygmy blue whale Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda Migrant SO Data deficient (3) (****) Likely ***

Pygmy killer whale Feresa attenuata Vagrant DP, SO Data deficient Unlikely

Pygmy right whale Caperea marginata Data deficient SO Data deficient (18) Possible

Pygmy sperm whale Kogia breviceps Not threatened DP, SO Data deficient (16) Likely

Risso's dolphin Grampus griseus Vagrant SO Least concern (2) Rare visitor

Ross seal Ommatophoca rossii Vagrant SO Least concern Unlikely

Rough‐toothed dolphin Steno bredanensis Vagrant SO Least concern Unlikely

Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis Migrant TO Endangered (1) (7) Occasional visitor



March 2018

Page 71

Common Name Scientific Name NZ Conservation Status

(Baker et al., 2016) Qualifier * IUCN Conservation Status

www.redlist.org DOC Stranding database

(No. of events near AOIs**) DOC Sightings database

(No. of reports in AOIs) Presence in the AOI

Shepherd's beaked whale Tasmacetus shepherdi Data deficient SO Data deficient (6) Possible

Short‐finned pilot whale Globicephala macrorhynchus Migrant SO Data deficient (1) (1) Occasional visitor

Southern bottlenose whale Hyperoodon planifrons Data deficient SO Least concern (2) Possible

Southern elephant seal Mirounga leonina Nationally critical RR, SO Least concern (1) Rare visitor ***

Southern right whale Eubalaena australis Nationally vulnerable RR, SO Least concern (1) (3) Possible ***

Southern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis peronii Not threatened DP,SO Data deficient (8) Occasional visitor ***

Spade‐toothed whale Mesoplodon traversii Data deficient SO Data deficient Unlikely

Spectacled porpoise Phocoena dioptrica Data deficient SO Data deficient (1) Possible

Sperm whale Physeter macrocephalus Not threatened DP, TO Vulnerable (28) (1) Likely

Strap‐toothed whale Mesoplodon layardii Data deficient SO Data deficient (13) Possible

Striped dolphin Stenella coeruleoalba Vagrant SO Least concern (1) Rare visitor

Subantarctic fur seal Arctocephalus tropicalis Vagrant SO Least concern Unlikely

True’s beaked whale Mesoplodon mirus Data deficient SO Data deficient Unlikely

Weddell seal Leptonychotes weddelli Vagrant SO Least concern Unlikely

* Qualifiers to the New Zealand Threat Classification System are as follows: Secure Overseas (SO), Threatened Overseas (TO), Data Poor (DP), Conservation Dependent (CD), Sparse (Sp), Range Restricted (RR), Increasing (Inc)

** Stranding data from the following locations was deemed to be of relevance to the AOIs: South Waikato, Taranaki, Whanganui/Manawatu, Outer Marlborough Sounds, Golden Bay, Tasman Bay.

*** Likelihood determination has been adjusted to take into consideration information in addition to the DOC Stranding and Sighting Databases.

**** The number of sightings of blue whales is difficult to interpret as the DOC Sighting Database records most sightings as Balaenoptera musculus (i.e. without subspecies identification). In total the data base holds 130 sighting records for Balaenoptera musculus spp. Based on the recent findings of Torres et al. (2017), it is likely that the majority of these sightings are of Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda (pygmy blue whales).




Page 72

5.2.2.2 Baleen whales (suborder Mysticeti)

Southern right whale (Eubalaena australis)

Southern right whales exhibit a seasonal distribution, spending summer months in latitudes between 40 and 50 °S (Oshumi & Kasamatsu, 1986). Southern right whales move north in late autumn along coastal routes and south to pelagic feeding areas in spring (Braham & Rice, 1984). While on seasonal feeding grounds the whales feed on dense euphausiid (krill) and copepod aggregations (Tormosov et al., 1998; Rowantree et al., 2008). Southern right whales are specialised ‘skimmers’ that feed by swimming slowly with their mouths wide open through prey aggregations, usually below the sea surface (Braham & Rice, 1984).

Southern right whales are the only baleen whale known to breed in New Zealand waters; coastal waters around mainland New Zealand represent a historic calving ground for this species, with recent evidence suggesting a slow recolonization of this breeding range (Patenaude, 2003; Carroll et al., 2014). The majority of southern right whale sightings around the New Zealand mainland occur in winter (60%) and spring (22%) with nearly all sightings occurring close to the coast (Patenaude, 2003).

Southern right whales have been sighted within the AOIs and one southern right whale stranding has been reported inshore of the AOIs. Based on this, it is possible that southern right whales could be present in the AOIs during the EAD Programme.

Pygmy right whale (Caperea marginata)

Pygmy right whales are the smallest, most cryptic and least known of the living baleen whales (Fordyce & Marx, 2012). Although little is known of this species due to the lack of stranding records, they are known to have a worldwide distribution and a diet consisting largely of calanoid copepods (Reilly et al., 2008) and euphausiids (Kemper, 2002).

In New Zealand, sightings typically occur near Stewart Island and Cook Strait (Kemper, 2002). Kemper (2013) suggests an association between pygmy right whales and areas of high marine productivity.

There have been no sightings of pygmy right whales in the AOIs; however, a number of stranding’s have been reported inshore of the AOIs. Stranding’s occurred predominantly in Golden Bay, as well as in Taranaki and the outer Marlborough Sounds. Based on the stranding records pygmy right whales could be present in the AOIs during the EAD Programme.

Minke whales (Balaenoptera acutorostrata and B.bonaerensis)

Antarctic minke whales (B. bonaerensis) and dwarf minke whales (B. acutorostrata) both occur in New Zealand waters.

The DOC sighting and stranding data indicate that the distribution of minke whales extends around mainland New Zealand and throughout New Zealand’s subantarctic waters. There were 60 reported sightings of minke whales (both species) in New Zealand’s EEZ between 1970 and 2013, the majority of which were in spring (38%). This timing aligns well with the southern migration towards the Antarctic feeding grounds (Berkenbusch et al., 2013).




Page 73

Minke whales feed on planktonic crustaceans and small schooling fish (e.g. anchovy and herring), with fish comprising a higher proportion of their diet compared to other baleen whales. Squid form a large part of the diet of minke whales feeding in Antarctic waters (Dawson, 1985).

There have been no sightings of minke whales (of either species) within the AOIs; however, 14 stranding events (two Antarctic minke and 12 dwarf minke) have been reported inshore of the AOIs. Minke whales have stranded predominantly in Golden Bay, with South Waikato, Taranaki and Tasman Bay also represented in the stranding record. Based on this, it is likely that minke whales will utilise habitat within the AOI during the EAD Programme.

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis)

Sei whales tend to prefer warmer water temperatures than other baleen whales (Mizroch et al., 1984); their preferred water temperature is between eight and 18 °C (Horwood, 2002). Sei whales from the South Pacific migrate to subantarctic feeding grounds during late summer, spending the remainder of the year in subtropical waters (Miyashita et al., 1995). Sei whales are surface feeders and have a diet that consists mostly of krill, copepods, and small fish (Baker, 1999).

Sei whales have been sighted within the AOIs and there has been a stranding event for this species in Golden Bay. As a result, sei whales may be occasional visitors to the AOI during the EAD Programme.

Bryde’s whale (Balaenoptera edeni)

Bryde’s whales are one of the most common large whale species in New Zealand waters (Dawson, 1985). Unlike other baleen whales, Bryde’s whales do not undertake seasonal migrations; instead they remain in waters between 15 and 20°C (Best, 2001) while undertaking local seasonal movements based on prey distribution (Kato, 2002; Reikkola, 2013).

There have been two Bryde’s whale sightings from within the AOIs. Two stranding events have occurred along the coast at Foxton Beach (South Taranaki Bight) and Mokau (North Taranaki Bight). Based on these records, it is possible that Bryde’s whales will utilise the AOIs during the EAD Programme.

Blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus)

There are two subspecies of blue whale known from New Zealand waters; the pygmy blue whale (B. musculus brevicauda) and the Antarctic blue whale (B. musculus intermedia). These two subspecies are difficult to distinguish without the use of genetic techniques, hence stranding and sighting data has not consistently differentiated between the two.

In the last five years, research expeditions in the South Taranaki Bight have identified a population of resident or semi‐resident pygmy blue whales that (as evident from acoustic data and visual sightings) are present here throughout most of the year and are non‐migratory (Olson et al., 2008, Torres et al., 2017). Data collected since 2012 has identified the South Taranaki Bight as a blue whale foraging ground, with data suggesting whales target the krill Nyctiphanes australis. The absolute distribution of blue whales in the South Taranaki Bight has been found to vary with oceanographic patterns and the subsequent distribution of prey. In El Nino conditions whales tend to be located west of the Bight, but inside the Bight during more typical weather patterns (Torres & Klinck 2016). In February 2016 a field survey gathered the first evidence of breeding behaviour in the waters within and to the west of the South Taranaki Bight with 1) a high density of mother/calf pairs being observed and 2) documentation of the first ever aerial footage of blue whale nursing behaviour (Torres & Klinck 2016).




Page 74

The International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species currently lists the Antarctic blue whale as “Critically Endangered” and the pygmy blue whale as “Data Deficient”. In contrast, the New Zealand Threat Classification System classifies blue whales as “Migrant”. In light of the new evidence for blue whale breeding behaviour in the South Taranaki Bight, it is possible that the New Zealand Threat Classification status for blue whales may change in the future.

Krill make up the majority of the diet of blue whales which they capture via lunge feeding at the surface or to depths of 100 m. Feeding bouts typically last 10 – 20 minutes, although blue whales are capable of carrying out dives to depths of up to 500 m that last for as long as 50 minutes (Todd, 2014). Large aggregations of prey are particularly important to the maintenance and distribution of these whales on account of this species having the highest prey demand of any predator (Rice, 1978; DOC, 2007). Aggregations of blue whales are known to occur in areas of high prey concentrations that coincide with upwelling zones (Fiedler et al., 1998; Burtenshaw et al., 2004; Croll et al., 2005; Gill et al., 2011) and it is thought that this is the reason for such concentrations of blue whales in the South Taranaki Bight (Torres et al., 2017).

There have been a high number of blue whale sightings from within the AOIs as well as a number of stranding events from coastal areas inshore. Stranding events have occurred in South Waikato, Taranaki, Whanganui/Manawatu, the outer Marlborough Sounds, and Tasman Bay. Based on these records, it is likely that blue whales, particularly pygmy blue whales, will be present in the AOIs, with the highest densities occurring in the southern AOI during the EAD Programme.

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus)

After blue whales, fin whales are the second largest species of cetacean (Dawson, 1985). Like most baleen whales fin whales carry out migrations, moving to lower latitudes in winter for breeding.

The diet of fin whales varies with location; in the southern hemisphere their diet is dominated by krill, whereas elsewhere they consume a range of prey including fish, squid, krill, and other crustaceans (Miyashita et al., 1995; Shirihai & Jarrett, 2006). Krill aggregations in the South Taranaki Bight may be significant for feeding fin whales (Torres, 2012).

Sightings of fin whales have been made within the AOIs and strandings have occurred along the coastline in Taranaki, Golden Bay, and Tasman Bay. Fin whales are believed to occasionally visit the AOI.

Humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae)

Humpback whales are distributed throughout the North Atlantic, North Pacific, and Southern Hemisphere (Gibbs & Childerhouse, 2000) and undertake the longest migration of any mammal (Jackson et al., 2014), feeding in the circumpolar waters of the Antarctic in summer and migrating to breeding grounds in sub‐tropical or tropical waters in winter (Dawbin, 1956).

Individuals from the ‘Southwest Pacific Ocean’ population are known to migrate through New Zealand waters (Berkenbusch et al., 2013). Northern migrating humpbacks move along the South Island’s east coast where they divide into two groups, with one continuing up the east side of the North Island and the other passing through Cook Strait and up the west side of the North Island (Dawbin, 1956). On their southern migrations the whales pass along the west cost of the North and South Islands and form large aggregations near the south‐west of the South Island before moving further south. The remaining whales follow the east coast of the North Island as far south as East Cape before moving offshore (Dawbin, 1956).




Page 75

On their migrations, humpback whales can spend considerable time in coastal regions over the continental shelf (Jefferson et al., 2008). Annual winter surveys of humpback whales occurred in Cook Strait over the 12 years from 2004 – 2015. During this period, 659 whales were observed (Gibbs et al, 2017); with the number of individuals recorded yearly ranging from 15 (in 2006) to 137 (in 2015) (DOC, 2015). From this data the calculated rate of increase was 13% (5‐22%, 95% Confidence Interval), suggesting the beginning of population recovery.

Humpback whales are occasionally seen in coastal Taranaki waters, particularly between the months of May and August on their northern migration. Humpback whales have been sighted within the AOIs and there have been a number of stranding events inshore; four in Taranaki and one in Tasman Bay. Based on this assessment it is considered that humpback whales will be occasional visitors to the AOIs during the EAD Programme (particularly during winter months).

5.2.2.3 Toothed whales (suborder Odontoceti)

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)

Sperm whales have a wide geographical and latitudinal distribution. They forage primarily for squid by carrying out long dives that can last over an hour (Evans & Hindell, 2004; Gomez‐Villota, 2007). Smaller volumes of various species of fish also contribute to the diet of sperm whales (Gaskin & Cawthorn, 1967).

Systematic surveys of sperm whale distribution in New Zealand are limited to the Kaikoura region which is home to a small number of resident male sperm whales that feed in the submarine canyons (Arnold, 2004).

While sperm whales do not carry out large scale migrations like those of the baleen whales, smaller movements occur, with males and females in the Southern Hemisphere moving southward from the equator during winter months (April – September), returning north in summer (October – March) (Berzin, 1971).

In Taranaki, Torres (2012) reported that sperm whale sightings typically occurred in deep offshore water and were limited to the summer months. There has been one sperm whale sighting reported in the AOIs, and 28 stranding events along the coast. The majority of sperm whale stranding events occurred in Taranaki and Golden Bay; however, stranding records also exist for South Waikato, Whanganui/Manawatu, and Tasman Bay. Based on these records, sperm whales are likely to be present in the AOI during the EAD Programme.

Pygmy sperm whales (Kogia breviceps)

Pygmy sperm whales are seldom seen at sea on account of their low profile in the water and lack of a visible blow; for this reason, little information is available on this species. Prey items of pygmy sperm whales include cephalopods, fish and occasionally crustaceans (Shirihai & Jarrett, 2006). They are deep divers but do not restrict their feeding only to deeper areas (Dawson, 1985).

Despite no live sightings being recorded for the AOIs, 16 strandings of pygmy sperm whales have been reported on the coast (from South Waikato, Taranaki and Whanganui/Manawatu). Pygmy sperm whales are therefore likely to occur in the AOI during the EAD Programme.




Page 76

Beaked whales (Family Ziphiidae)

Although, thirteen species of beaked whales have been reported in New Zealand (Baker et al., 2016), their elusive behaviour at sea means that very little is known about their distributions here (Baker, 1999). One live sighting of a beaked whale has been made within the southern AOI; this was of a pair of Cuvier’s beaked whales observed travelling close to the Maui‐B Platform. The majority of knowledge about beaked whales comes from stranded individuals. Table 17 outlines those species that have stranded inshore of the AOI’s and provides a brief account of the ecology of each species. They are deep divers and feed predominately on deep‐water squid and fish species. From the assessment provided in Table 17, the following conclusions can be drawn for the EAD Programme:

Two species are likely to be present in the AOIs ‐ Gray's beaked whale and Cuvier’s beaked whale;

Four species could possibly be present in the AOIs ‐ Andrew's beaked whale, Strap‐toothed whale, Southern bottlenose whale and Shepherd's beaked whale;

One species could occasionally visit the AOIs ‐ Arnoux's beaked whale;

One species may be a rare visitor to the AOIs ‐ Gingko‐toothed whale; and

Five species are unlikely to occur in the AOIs ‐ Blainville's/Dense beaked whale, Hector's beaked whale, Lesser/pygmy beaked whale, True’s beaked whale, Spade‐toothed whale.

Table 17 Beaked Whale Ecology of Relevance to the AOIs

Species No. of stranding events near AOIs Ecology

Arnoux's beaked whale

(Berardius arnuxii)

Whanganui/Manawatu x 4

Taranaki x 1

Marlborough Sounds x 1

TOTAL = 6

Circumpolar distribution in deep, cold temperate and subpolar waters. Considered to be naturally rare throughout its range; however, higher densities may occur seasonally in Cook Strait (Taylor et al., 2008). New Zealand has the highest number of stranding recorded for this species (Jefferson et al., 1993).

Andrew's beaked whale

(Mesoplodon bowdoini)

Golden Bay x 1


Taranaki x 2

TOTAL = 4

Found between 32°S and 55°S in the southern hemisphere. Presumed to inhabit deep, offshore waters (Pitman, 2002). Based on the global stranding record, New Zealand might represent an area of concentration (Taylor et al., 2008).

Gingko‐toothed whale

(Mesoplodon ginkgodens)

Golden Bay x 1

Tasman Bay x 1

Taranaki x 1

TOTAL = 3

Most stranding and capture records for this species are from the tropical and warm temperate waters of the Indo‐Pacific (esp. Japan). Only a few records from New Zealand. Biology is unknown (Taylor et al., 2008).

Gray's beaked whale

(Mesoplodon grayi)

Golden Bay x 4

Tasman Bay x 11

Marlborough Sounds x 1


Taranaki x 10

South Waikato x 2

TOTAL = 36

A Southern hemisphere species with a circumpolar distribution south of 30°. Many sightings are from Antarctic and subantarctic waters. Many stranding records are from coastline of New Zealand implying they may be fairly common here. Occurs in deep waters beyond the shelf edge (Taylor et al., 2008).

Acoustic recordings of this species have recently been made in Cook Strait (Goetz, 2017).




Page 77

Species No. of stranding events near AOIs Ecology

Strap‐toothed whale

(Mesoplodon layardii)

Golden Bay x 5

Tasman Bay x 1


Taranaki x 4

TOTAL = 13

Occur between 35‐60°S in cold temperate waters. Stranding seasonality suggest this species may migrate. Prefer deep waters beyond the shelf edge. Probably not as rare as other Mesoplodon sp. (Taylor et al., 2008). Feeds on squid (Sekiguchi et al., 1996).


Southern bottlenose whale

(Hyperoodon planifrons)

Golden Bay x 1


TOTAL = 2

Circumpolar distribution in southern hemisphere, south of 30°. Common in Antarctic waters in summer. Typically occurs over submarine canyons in waters deeper than 1,000 m (Taylor et al., 2008).

Shepherd's beaked whale

(Tasmacetus shepherdi)

Tasman Bay x 1


Taranaki x 4

TOTAL = 6

A circumpolar distribution in cold temperate waters is presumed. All stranding events have occurred south of 30°, the majority from New Zealand. Thought to be relatively rare. Occur in deep water usually well offshore. Diet contains fish, squid and crabs (Taylor et al., 2008).

Cuvier's beaked whale

(Ziphius cavirostris)

Golden Bay x 1

Tasman Bay x 4


Taranaki x 5

South Waikato x 2

TOTAL = 20

Thought to have the largest range of any beaked whale; found in deep waters (> 200 m) of all oceans in both hemispheres. Thought to prefer steep bathymetry near the continental slope in water depths greater than 1,000 m. Feed mostly on squid and dive up to 40 minutes. Global abundance is likely to be well over 100,000 (Taylor et al., 2008). Genetic studies suggest little movement of individuals between ocean basins (Dalebout et al., 2005).


Hector’s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori hectori and C. hectori maui)

There are two subspecies of Hector’s dolphin; the South Island Hector’s dolphin (C. hectori hectori) and the Maui’s dolphin (C. hectori maui). In general, Maui’s dolphins are present on the west coast of the North Island, and South Island Hector’s dolphins are present around the South Island. Over the last 40 years, numbers of both subspecies have significantly declined, largely on account of high levels of by‐catch in coastal fisheries (Currey et al., 2012). The two subspecies cannot be readily differentiated at sea which complicates sightings records; however, there is no evidence to suggest that the ecology of the two subspecies is substantially different (Torres, 2012). Both subspecies have coastal distributions thought to be largely constrained within the 100m isobath (Slooten et al., 2006; Du Fresne, 2010) although Maui’s dolphins have been observed out to 12 Nm offshore during research surveys (DOC, 2017) and South Island Hector’s dolphins have been observed out to 20 Nm offshore (MacKenzie & Clement, 2014). Sightings of both subspecies out to 24 Nm have been reported (Du Fresne, 2010). Offshore sightings for both subspecies are more common in winter.




Page 78

Three populations are of relevance to the three AOIs; the West Coast South Island population, East Coast South Island population and the Maui’s dolphin. The West Coast South Island population extends from Milford Sound to Farewell Spit and numbers 5,490 individuals (MacKenzie & Clement, 2016). The East Coast South Island population extends from Farewell Spit to Nugget Point and is estimated to consist of 8,968 individuals (Mackenzie & Clement, 2016). In the top of the South Island, the main concentration of dolphins is at the eastern entrance to Cook Strait in Clifford and Cloudy Bays. Hector’s dolphins are also occasionally observed in Tasman and Golden Bays.

Maui’s dolphins are found only along the West Coast of the North Island, with a population strong‐hold between Manukau Harbour and Port Waikato (Slooten et al., 2005). Their total population distribution is slightly wider; extending from Maunganui Bluff to Whanganui (Currey et al., 2012). The most recent Maui’s dolphin population estimate for individuals aged one year and over is 63 individuals (95% CI = 57–75) (Baker et al., 2016a). Maui’s dolphins are thought to occur in very low densities in Taranaki waters (Currey et al., 2012); the possible capture of a Maui’s dolphin in a commercial set net off Cape Egmont in January 2012 confirms their presence in coastal Taranaki waters (DOC 2017a); although the dolphin was disposed of so the actual genetic makeup could not be confirmed. South Island Hector’s dolphins have been genetically identified off the west coast of the North Island (Hamner et al., 2012), confirming some movement between populations.

Analysis of the stomach contents of Hector’s dolphins has identified their diet to consist of a range of fish species, with red cod, ahuru, arrow squid, sprat, sole, and stargazer contributing to 77% of their total diet (Miller et al., 2013). The relative importance of each prey species varies between locations, with javelinfish being of greater importance for west coast dolphins, while demersal prey is more commonly consumed in the east (Miller et al, 2013).

The offshore nature of the three AOIs serves to reduce the likelihood of encountering this threatened species during OMV New Zealand’s EAD Programme. However, an increase in potential overlap with dolphin habitat occurs where the northern and central AOI approaches the coast, in particular the West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary. It is also possible that the southern AOI overlaps with the transit route occasionally used by South Island Hector’s dolphins as they travel to the North Island; however, these long‐range movements are thought to occur only very occasionally (see Hamner et al., 2012).

Three sightings of Hector’s/Maui’s dolphins have been reported in the AOIs: two sightings were of solitary animals seen during oil and gas operations (drilling and production), and one of ten individuals was made from the Maui‐B Platform. Despite their low densities off the Taranaki coast, it is possible that both subspecies could occasionally be present in the AOIs. A number of stranding events have been reported inshore (in Golden Bay, Tasman Bay, the outer Marlborough Sounds, Whanganui/Manawatu, Taranaki and South Waikato). It is therefore possible that Hector’s/Maui’s dolphins could be present in the AOIs during the EAD Programme.

Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis)

Common dolphins are abundant and widespread throughout tropical and temperate oceans of the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean, and occur in waters encompassing all regions of New Zealand (Berkenbusch et al., 2013). They occur in water depths ranging from 6 – 141 m (Constantine & Baker, 1997). Total abundance of the New Zealand population is unknown (Berkenbusch et al., 2013) although based on the frequency of sightings it is likely that numbers are substantial.

The diet of common dolphins consists of small schooling fish and squid (Rossman, 2010), with stomach content analysis of common dolphins in New Zealand indicating that jack mackerel, anchovy, and arrow squid are their primary prey species (Meynier et al., 2008).




Page 79

Common dolphins are highly social and often form large groups consisting of thousands of individuals. Individuals within these large groups will often forage co‐operatively; with observed tactics including co‐operative rounding up of schooling fish into bait balls (Stockin, 2008). Common dolphins throughout New Zealand have also been observed in mixed species aggregations with Bryde’s whales (Stockin, 2008).

Common dolphins are the most frequently encountered cetacean species in the South Taranaki Bight (Torres, 2012). Most sightings occur over summer months, but this seasonality could be a reflection of observational bias (Torres, 2012). There have been a large number of common dolphin sightings within the AOIs, with the single largest sighting estimated at 420 individuals including calves. Stranding events are also relatively common inshore, with stranding events reported from Golden Bay, Tasman Bay, the outer Marlborough Sounds, Whanganui/Manawatu, Taranaki, and South Waikato. Based on these records, common dolphins are likely to be present throughout the AOI’s during the EAD Programme.

Pilot whales (Globicephala macrorhynchus and G. melas)

There are two species of pilot whale: the long‐finned pilot whale (Globicephala melas) and the short‐finned pilot whale (G. macrorhynchus). Both species are present in New Zealand waters (Berkenbusch et al., 2013) although the short‐finned pilot whale is less frequently encountered here as it prefers warmer subtropical habitat in deep offshore waters (Berkenbusch et al., 2013). Pilot whale sightings occur in New Zealand waters during all seasons (Berkenbusch et al., 2013), with sightings of pilot whales in Taranaki waters reasonably common, particularly in summer (Torres, 2012).

Pilot whales feed predominantly on cephalopods, with long‐finned pilot whales also feeding on a number of fish species, particularly mackerel, cod, and dogfish (Olson, 2009). Both long and short‐finned pilot whales forage at depth; with deep dives known to reach several hundred meters (Berkenbusch et al., 2013).

Pilot whales are highly social, often travelling in large groups of over 100 individuals (DOC, 2017b). These whales commonly strand on New Zealand coasts; with the stranding rate peaking in spring and summer (O’Callaghan et al., 2001). Farewell Spit is a recognised hotspot for pilot whale mass stranding incidents, where data from 1937 to 2017 revealed that at least 30 mass stranding events had occurred; the largest of which involved approximately 416 individual whales. Long‐finned pilot whales accounted for virtually all of these stranding events with only one short‐finned pilot whale mass stranding recorded in 1977. November, December and January are the most common months in which mass stranding events occur (DOC, 2017b).

Sightings of pilot whales have been reported in the three AOIs, including a sighting of a group of approximately 100 animals near the Maui‐A Platform. Pilot whales are the most commonly stranding species along the coastline adjacent to the AOIs. A total of 77 stranding events have occurred, of which 72 have involved long‐finned pilot whales, one involving short‐finned pilot whales, and the remainder unable to be identified to species level. While the majority of these stranding events have occurred in Golden Bay, stranding records also exist for Taranaki, Whanganui/Manawatu, and Tasman Bay. Based on the stranding and sighting database it is likely that both species of pilot whales will utilise waters within the AOI during the EAD Programme.




Page 80

Dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus)

Dusky dolphins are a Southern Hemisphere species present year round in New Zealand waters (Berkenbusch et al., 2013). They are a coastal species that occur in waters above the continental slope and shelf in water depths less than 2,000 m, usually in the cooler waters of the South Island and lower North Island (Wűrsig et al., 2007). There is a resident dusky dolphin population in Admiralty Bay (Marlborough Sounds) from April to July (Wűrsig et al., 2007) and a substantial population in the Kaikoura area which has been estimated at 12,000 individuals, with approximately 2,000 present at any one time (Markowitz et al., 2004). Dusky dolphins tend to spend more time in offshore waters during winter months. Little is known about dusky dolphin movements, but photo‐identification data confirms that individuals travel up to 1,000 km between locations around the South Island (Wűrsig et al., 2007).

Dusky dolphins have been sighted within the southern and central AOIs while stranding events have also occurred in the vicinity. Stranding events mainly occurred in Tasman Bay, with Golden Bay, Whanganui/Manawatu and Taranaki also known stranding locations. On the basis of these observations, dusky dolphins are likely to be present in the AOI during the EAD Programme.

Southern right‐whale dolphin (Lissodelphis peronii)

Southern right whale dolphins are thought to be circumpolar and common throughout their range (Lipsky, 2002). Around New Zealand, the southern right whale dolphin is seldom observed at sea; however, from the occasional sightings that have been made it is apparent that these dolphins sometimes travel in large groups of up to 1,000 individuals (Baker, 1999).

No live sightings of this species have been reported in the three AOIs, but eight stranding events have been reported inshore. Most of these events occurred in Golden Bay, with one each also occurring in Tasman Bay and the outer Marlborough Sounds. Based on this assessment, this species is expected to occasionally visit the AOI during the EAD Programme.

Killer whale (Orcinus orca)

Killer whales are distributed throughout all marine regions from the equator to polar waters (Reeves et al., 2017). Small groups of killer whales are typical around New Zealand where they travel an average of 100 – 150 km per day (Visser, 2000). The mobility of this species and their opportunistic foraging behaviour (Visser, 2000) indicates that killer whales can readily move between areas to maximise foraging opportunities and avoid disturbance.

Killer whales form social groups ranging from larger temporary aggregations of over 20 individuals to small, stable units and ‘resident societies’ (Ford, 2009). Smaller groups are usually based on maternal descent, and usually consist of a matriarch and up to four generations of her offspring (Berkenbush et al., 2013).

The diet and foraging strategy of killer whales differs based on family groups, with foraging strategy also differing based on prey type. In general, the diet of killer whales consists of four types: sharks, rays, fin‐fish, and cetaceans. Rays are the most common prey type and food sharing is common amongst killer whales (Visser, 2000).

Killer whales have been sighted within the three AOIs, including one sighting of 25 individuals from the Maui‐B Platform. At least one calf was noted in this group. Although killer whales are rare in the stranding records, two stranding events have been reported inshore of the southern AOI; one in Tasman Bay and one from Taranaki. Killer whales are likely to utilise waters of the AOI during the EAD Programme.




Page 81

False killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens)

This species is widespread in tropical and warm temperate waters (Baird, 2009). False killer whales feed on cephalopods, fish (including tuna), and other cetaceans (Baird, 2009) and carry out foraging dives down to water depths of 500 m (Shirihai & Jarrett, 2006).

One sighting (of seven individuals) of false killer whales has been reported in the AOI, and three stranding events have been reported: one each in South Waikato, Taranaki and Whanganui/Manawatu. On the basis of this assessment, this species is likely to be present in the AOI during the EAD Programme, particularly over the summer months when sea surface temperatures are warmer.

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus)

Bottlenose dolphins occur globally in cold temperate and tropical seas, with New Zealand representing the southernmost extent of their range (DOC, 2017c). They occur in shallow coastal regions, including inshore waters, estuaries and lagoons (Berkenbusch et al., 2013), and although considered a coastal species, their distribution does extend to some offshore areas (Jefferson et al., 2008). Torres (2012) documented two sightings of offshore bottlenose dolphins in the South Taranaki Bight with both sightings involving groups of more than 50 individuals.

Bottlenose dolphins have a varied diet consisting of a variety of fish and squid, including benthic and pelagic species. Foraging dives range from short dives in shallow habitats to depths of over 500 m (Wells & Scott, 2009).

Bottlenose dolphins have been sighted in the three AOIs and 16 stranding events have been recorded inshore. The majority of stranding events occurred in Tasman Bay; however, strandings have also occurred in Golden Bay, the outer Marlborough Sounds, Whanganui/Manawatu and Taranaki. Based on this assessment, bottlenose dolphins are likely to occur in the AOIs during the EAD Programme.

Spectacled porpoise (Phocoena dioptrica)

Spectacled porpoises occur only in cold temperate waters (Hammond et al., 2008), with their distribution thought to be restricted to the circumpolar subantarctic (Baker, 1999; Goodall, 2002).

No live sightings of spectacled porpoises have been made from the three AOIs; however, one stranding event has been reported inshore. It is therefore possible that spectacled porpoises will be present within the AOIs from time to time during the EAD Programme.

5.2.3 Pinnipeds

Nine species of pinniped are known from New Zealand waters based on the criteria in Table 16 for the presence of pinnipeds in the northern, central and southern AOIs.

Only the New Zealand fur seal is discussed further as it is the only pinniped species that is likely to occur in all of the AOIs. All other species are routinely only found along the southern coast of the South Island, or in the subantarctic.

5.2.3.1 New Zealand fur seal

The New Zealand fur seal is native to both New Zealand and Australia. Within New Zealand this species is widespread around rocky coastlines on the mainland and offshore islands (Wilson, 1981).




Page 82

New Zealand fur seals forage on a range of species, with the relative importance of each prey item varying by season. Arrow squid are important prey items in summer and autumn, lanternfish are taken year‐round, barracouta and jack mackerel are major contributors to the summer diet, while pink cod, ahuru, and octopus are important winter prey species (Harcourt et al., 2002). In general, the diet of New Zealand fur seals shifts from a squid dominated diet in summer and autumn, to mixed fish dominated in winter (Harcourt et al., 2002). New Zealand fur seals are among the deepest and longest diving fur seals (Mattlin et al., 1998); maximum female dives last for approximately 9 minutes to depths of 312 m, while maximum dives carried out by males last for approximately 15 minutes to depths greater than 380 m (Page et al., 2005). Foraging habitats vary with season and sex although inshore and deeper offshore foraging habitat is used throughout the year (Harcourt et al., 2002). Females tend to forage over continental shelf waters, with males using deeper continental shelf breaks and pelagic waters (Page et al., 2005). Foraging trips often last for a number of days (Page et al., 2005) and GPS tagged animals have shown females to forage up to 78 km from breeding colonies (Harcourt et al., 1995), foraging further offshore in winter (Harcourt et al., 2002).

The breeding season for New Zealand fur seals occurs from mid‐November to mid‐January, with peak pupping in mid‐December (Crawley & Wilson, 1976). Pups are suckled for approximately 300 days and during this time adult females alternate between foraging at sea and returning to shore to feed their young (Boren, 2005).

There are six breeding colonies in the vicinity of the northern, central and southern AOIs (listed below) where this species may utilise the waters of the three AOIs during the EAD Programme:

Sugar Loaf Islands, New Plymouth;

Stephens Island, outer Marlborough Sounds;

Tonga Island, Tasman Bay;

Separation Point, Golden Bay;

Pillar Point, just south of Farewell Spit; and

Archway Islands, just south of Farewell Spit.

5.2.4 Seabirds

5.2.4.1 Species present

The marine waters of New Zealand support the most diverse seabird collection worldwide; 86 species utilise New Zealand’s marine environment (DOC, 2018d), with 84 species breeding along New Zealand’s coast (Taylor, 2000). The New Zealand seabird community also supports the world’s highest level of endemism (Forest and Bird, 2014) with near to half of the species present in New Zealand classified as endemic (35 species) (Taylor, 2000). ‘Seabirds’ covers those species that spend some part of their life cycle feeding over open marine water; this is compared to ‘waders’ that feed in the intertidal (Taylor, 2000). The seabirds present in New Zealand include albatross, skua, cormorants/shags, fulmars, petrels, prions, shearwaters, terns, and penguins.

DOC has assessed each New Zealand seabird species and assigned a threat classification. Many of the birds present in New Zealand have a threatened classification (i.e. classified as nationally critical, nationally endangered, or nationally vulnerable), with several of these amongst the rarest and most critically endangered of New Zealand’s breeding birds (Taylor, 2000).




Page 83

The Taranaki Bight is visited by a number of seabirds that either pass through the region or use the area as a foraging destination. Approximately 60% of New Zealand’s seabirds regularly forage more than 50 km from shore, while the remaining feed over inshore waters and are only occasionally sighted away from land (Taylor, 2000).

Various references (e.g. Scofield and Stephenson (2013); Robertson et al. (2017); New Zealand Birds Online, 2018) have been used to identify the seabirds that are most likely to be observed in and around the northern, central and southern AOIs. However, similar to the marine mammals, seabirds have a large home range so the three AOIs have been considered as one for this assessment. A summary of the seabirds including their threat classifications (both the IUCN and New Zealand Threat Status) is presented in Table 18.

Within its Draft Costal Plan, TRC has identified a number of seabirds as being regionally significant on account of their costal indigenous biodiversity values (TRC, 2016). These species have been identified in the tables below by an asterisk. Grey‐faced petrels are also considered to be ‘regionally distinctive’ within the Taranaki Draft Coastal Plan.

Table 18 Seabirds that could be Present in the AOIs

Common name Scientific name IUCN threat status NZ threat status

(Robertson et al., 2017)

Antipodean albatross* Diomedea antipodensis antipodensis

Vulnerable Nationally critical

Gibson’s albatross Diomedea antipodensis gibsoni

Not assessed Nationally critical

Salvin’s mollymawk Thalassarche salvini Vulnerable Nationally critical

Black petrel* Procellaria parkinsoni Vulnerable Nationally vulnerable

Campbell Island mollymawk

Thalassarche impavida Vulnerable Nationally vulnerable

Flesh‐footed shearwater* Puffinus carneipes Least concern Nationally vulnerable

Grey‐headed mollymawk* Thalassarche chrysostoma Endangered Nationally vulnerable

Hutton’s shearwater Puffinus huttoni Endangered Nationally vulnerable

Little blue penguin* Eudyptula minor Least concern Declining

Sooty shearwater/Muttonbird*

Puffinus griseus Near threatened Declining

White‐capped/shy mollymawk

Thalassarche cauta steadi Not assessed Declining

Northern giant petrel* Macronectes halli Least concern Recovering

Broad‐billed prion* Pachyptla vittata Least concern Relict

Cook’s petrel Pterodroma cookii Vulnerable Relict

Fairy prion* Pachyptila turtur Least concern Relict

Fluttering shearwater* Puffinus gavia Least concern Relict

Grey‐backed storm petrel Garrodia nereis Least concern Relict

Mottled petrel Pterodroma inexpectata Near threatened Relict




Page 84

Common name Scientific name IUCN threat status NZ threat status

(Robertson et al., 2017)

Northern diving petrel* Pelecanoides urinatrix urinatrix

Not assessed Relict

White‐faced storm petrel* Pelagodroma marina maoriana

Not assessed Relict

Antarctic prion* Pachyptila desolata Least concern Naturally uncommon

Brown skua/southern skua Catharacta antarctica lonnbergi

Not assessed Naturally uncommon

Buller’s mollymawk Thalassarche bulleri bulleri Not assessed Naturally uncommon

Buller’s shearwater* Puffinus bulleri Vulnerable Naturally uncommon

Grey petrel Procellaria cinerea Near threatened Naturally uncommon

Northern royal albatross* Diomedea sanfordi Endangered Naturally uncommon

Snare’s petrel Daption capense australe Not assessed Naturally uncommon

Southern royal albatross* Diomedea epomophora Vulnerable Naturally uncommon

Westland petrel Procellaria westlandica Endangered Naturally uncommon

Arctic skua Stercorarius parasiticus Least concern Migrant

Cape pigeon Daption capense capense Not assessed Migrant

Pomarine skua Coprotheres pomarinus Not assessed Migrant

Short‐tailed shearwater Puffinus tenuirostris Least concern Migrant

Snowy albatross Diomedea exulans Vulnerable Migrant

Southern giant petrel Macronectes giganteus Least concern Migrant

Wilson’s storm petrel Oceanites oceanicus Least concern Migrant

Black‐browed mollymawk Thalassarche melanophris Least concern Coloniser

Indian ocean yellow‐nosed mollymawk

Thalassarche carteri Endangered Coloniser

Australasian gannet Morus serrator Least concern Not threatened

Grey‐faced petrel* Pterodroma gouldi Least concern Not threatened

White‐chinned petrel Procellaria aequinoctialis Vulnerable Not threatened

White‐headed petrel Pterodroma lessonii Least concern Not threatened




Page 85

5.2.4.2 Seabird breeding sites

New Zealand has the highest number of endemic breeding seabirds in the world (Taylor, 2000) and supports approximately 14 million pairs of breeding seabirds (Forest & Bird, 2014). Although the Taranaki region lacks suitable predator‐free breeding habitat for many species (MacDiarmid et al., 2015), regions like the Tasman and Marlborough provide important breeding habitat. Most seabirds have strong natal site fidelity and typically return to, or in the general vicinity of the same breeding colony where they were reared (Taylor, 2000). Due to its offshore nature there are no seabirds breeding within the northern, central or southern AOI.

5.2.4.3 Little penguin foraging

Historically little blue penguins (Eudyptula minor) were thought to forage within 30 km of their nest during the chick rearing stage (Hoskins et al., 2008; Agnew, 2014; Pelletier et al., 2014), with unusually long foraging trips of up to 118 km only recorded for the closely related Australian little blue penguins (Eudyptula novaehollandiae) (Wiebkin et al., 2005). Recent GPS tracking studies carried out by Poupart et al. (2017) has however suggested that little blue penguins in New Zealand waters are capable of, and routinely carry out, large foraging trips of up to 214 km from breeding colonies. Tracked penguins from colonies within the Marlborough Sounds frequently utilised South Taranaki Bight waters as foraging grounds. Long‐distance foraging trips were found to be particularly important during the egg incubation stage (Poupart et al., 2017); where eggs are typically laid in July to November with incubation lasting up to 36 days (NZ Birds Online, 2018). Following the incubation period chicks are fed by both parents who carry out foraging trips closer to the nesting site (Poupart et al., 2017). Based on the findings of Poupart et al. (2017) there is potential for little blue penguins nesting along the Taranaki coastline and within the Marlborough Sounds to utilise the waters of the AOI’s during the EAD Programme.

5.2.4.4 Important Bird Areas

Forest and Bird, Birdlife International and Birds New Zealand have identified a number of areas within New Zealand as ‘Important Bird Areas’. These areas have been identified as internationally important for bird conservation. For New Zealand, the Important Bird Area Program has to date identified and described 97 terrestrial sites that are considered to be of global significance (including offshore islands), 44 sites on inland rivers and in coastal areas such as harbours, estuaries and lagoons, 26 seaward extensions for foraging of limited range species and coastal and continental shelf areas, and 43 areas for pelagic seabirds (Forest & Bird, 2014). It is worth noting that Important Bird Areas are not areas that have been officially protected under legislation; their function is to help focus and facilitate conservation action for a network of sites that are significant for the long‐term viability of naturally occurring bird populations (Forest & Bird, 2014).

Only the sites at sea (seaward extensions and pelagic areas) are of relevance to the three AOIs. Seaward extensions are those areas out from colonies that are important to seabirds, including parts of the marine environment that are used by the colony for feeding, maintenance behaviours and social interactions. The boundaries of these areas are typically limited to the foraging range, depth, and/or habitat preferences of the species concerned; however, the extensions also cover the passage of pelagic species in and out of their colonies (Forest & Bird, 2014). The West Coast North Island and Cook Strait Important Bird Areas are of relevance to the three AOIs.

The West Coast North Island Important Bird Area covers the coastline of the Manawatu region and meets the global criteria A4ii. An A4ii criterion means that the area supports one percent of the world population of one or more congregator species. Of particular importance to the West Coast North Island Important Bird Area are feeding aggregations of Australasian gannets and New Zealand fairy terns (note that New Zealand fairy terns are not found within the AOIs due to their coastal distribution) (Forest and Bird, 2014a).




Page 86

The Cook Strait Important Bird Area covers the entire Cook Strait and South Taranaki Bight areas. This area is used by seabird colonies for feeding, maintenance behaviours and social interactions, and also encompasses the passage of pelagic species to and from colonies and congregations close to breeding islands (Forest & Bird, 2014a). Cook Strait has been identified as an Important Bird Area based on the following listing criteria:

A1: supports more than threshold numbers of one or more globally threatened species (sooty shearwater, black‐backed gull, black‐fronted tern, Antipodean albatross, Northern royal albatross, white‐capped albatross, Salvin’s albatross, Westland petrel, white‐chinned petrel, Buller’s shearwater and Hutton’s shearwater);

A4ii: contains more than 1% of the global population of one or more congregator species (fairy prion, fluttering shearwater, Australasian gannet, Westland petrel and Hutton’s shearwater); and

A4iii: contains 10,000 pairs of seabirds, or 20,000 individuals of water‐birds (sooty shearwater and ‘others’).

5.2.5 Marine Reptiles

Five species of marine turtle and four of sea snakes and kraits have been recorded in New Zealand waters (Hitchmough et al., 2015); the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta), green turtle (Chelonia mydas), hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea), leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), yellow‐bellied sea snake (Pelamis platurus), Saint Grion’s sea krait (Laticauda colubrina), common sea krait (L. laticaudata) and the banded sea krait (L. colubrina) (DOC, 2018e, 2018f). Marine reptiles are ectotherms; that is they rely on ambient temperature to regulate physiological processes required for reproduction and survival (Hochscheid et al., 2002). As a result of this lifestyle, marine reptiles are generally found in warm temperate to tropical waters. The exception to this is the leatherback sea turtle which has a lower thermal tolerance (DOC, 2018). Due to their preference for more tropical waters most of New Zealand’s marine reptiles are found off the northeast cost of the North Island (DOC, 2018e). All marine reptiles in New Zealand waters are self‐introduced and therefore considered native and fully protected under the Wildlife Act 1953 (Godoy, 2016; DOC, 2018e).

Information on the distribution of marine reptiles is limited and to date the only assessment for sea turtles in New Zealand waters is for green turtles. Godoy et al. (2016) has recently contradicted the conclusions of Gill (1997) and demonstrated that New Zealand is in fact a temperate intermediary habitat for green turtles, with individuals actively migrating to New Zealand waters with a year round presence in northern waters.

Leatherback turtles range globally throughout pelagic and coastal waters of tropical and temperate regions (Benson et al., 2011) and undertake extensive seasonal foraging migrations into productive cold‐temperate waters as far south as New Zealand (Cariol & Vader, 2002). These migrations have been suggested to occur in summer and autumn based on records of adults encountered off the North Island (Gill, 1997). Godoy (2016) suggests that New Zealand may be an important seasonal foraging ground for adult leatherback turtles.

While the distribution of other marine reptiles in New Zealand waters is relatively unknown, considering the findings of Godoy et al (2016) and Godoy (2016), it is possible that other marine reptile species could also actively utilise New Zealand waters. There are no records of marine reptiles breeding in New Zealand waters and it is unlikely breeding occurs here (Godoy, 2016).

Marine reptiles do occasionally visit the south‐western coast of the North Island, although mainly during summer months when the warmer currents push down the western side of New Zealand. Leatherback turtles and yellow bellied sea snakes have been observed in Taranaki waters (DOC, 2018g); however, they are rare visitors and are not routinely present as far south as the AOIs.




Page 87

5.2.6 Fish

Fish populations across the northern, central and southern AOI are represented by various demersal and pelagic species, most of which are widely distributed from north to south and from shallow coastal water to beyond the continental shelf edge. A large proportion of New Zealand’s fish are categorised as ‘widespread’ (approximately 30% of described species), that is they occur in all three major oceans or in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans; however, there is also a large proportion of fish that are classified as endemic (approximately 22% of described species) (Roberts et al., 2015).

The three AOIs lie largely within the neritic zone of the ocean ‐ the relatively shallow part of the ocean that extends from the intertidal out to the shelf break (approximately 200 m water depth). This zone is an area of high primary productivity and supports a number of commercially and recreationally important fish species. The fish found within the neritic zone are highly mobile, do not have fixed territories, and often school (Roberts et al., 2015).

Over the summer months when warmer currents move down from the north, a number of larger pelagic species visit the waters across the three AOIs. The most common of these species are sunfish, flying fish, marlin, albacore tuna, skipjack tuna, mako sharks and blue sharks.

Video sled surveys carried out around Taranaki’s oil and gas platforms as part of annual monitoring programmes have also revealed a number of fish species present around the platforms and throughout the Taranaki Bight, including gurnard, mackerel, sharks, sea perch, dogfish, and unidentified species of flatfish (SLR, 2017, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c). Kingfish have also been observed in large numbers surrounding the Maari Platform, particularly during summer months (M. Park, pers. obs.).

Given a lot of fish along the west coast of the North Island are highly mobile and have large geographic ranges, a general summary of the fish species potentially present all of the AOIs is presented in Table 19. The information for this summary table was collated from the Ministry for Primary Industry New Zealand fish guides (McMillan et al., 2011; 2011a) and more than 35 years of trawl surveys as reported in Anderson et al. (1998), Bagley et al. (2000), Hurst et al. (2000, 2000a), and O’Driscoll et al. (2003). Fish species caught in the trawl surveys were only listed in Table 19 if their depth distribution was similar to that of the proposed well locations (i.e. all fish found in waters less than 200 m but more than 50 m). The present total (as of 2013) for the number of fish species within New Zealand’s EEZ is 1,262 (Roberts et al., 2015), therefore it is worth noting that the table below is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of all species present within the three AOIs, but instead simply lists the main species.




Page 88

Table 19 Fish Species Potentially Present in the AOIs

Common Name

Albacore tuna2 Jack mackerel (Trachurus declivis)1,2 Sea perch1,2

Barracouta1,2 Jack mackerel (T. novaezelandiae)1,2 School shark1,2

Bass2 John dory1,2 Shorttail stingray1,2

Blue cod1,2 Kahawai1,2 Silver conger2

Blue mackerel1,2 Kingfish2 Silver dory1,2

Blue shark1,2 Leatherjacket1,2 Silverside1,2

Blue warehou1,2 Lemon sole2 Silver warehou1,2

Butterfly perch1,2 Ling1,2 Skipjack tuna2

Broadnose sevengill shark2 Mako shark1,2 Slender tuna1

Brown stargazer2 Murphy’s mackerel1,2 Smooth skate1,2

Capro dory2 Northern spiny dogfish1,2 Snapper1,2

Carpet shark1,2 Opalfish (Hemerocoetes sp.)2 Snipefish1,2

Common roughy2 Orange perch1 Spiny dogfish1,2

Conger eels1 Pilchard1,2 Spotted stargazer1,2

Cucumberfish1,2 Porbeagle shark1,2 Southern conger2

Dark ghost shark1,2 Porcupine fish1,2 Southern lemon sole1

Eagle ray1,2 Ray’s bream2 Spotted gurnard1,2

Electric ray1,2 Redbait1,2 Tarakihi1,2

Frostfish1,2 Red cod1,2 Thresher shark1,2

Gemfish1,2 Jock stewart1 Trevally1,2

Giant stargazer1,2 Rig1,2 Two saddle rattail2

Gurnard1,2 Rough skate1,2 White trevally2

Hapuku1,2 Rubyfish1,2 Witch2

Hoki1,2 Scaly gurnard1,2

Note: Data from Trawl surveys (Anderson et al., 1998; Bagley et al., 2000; Hurst et al., 2000, 200a; O’Driscoll et al., 2003)1. McMillan et al., 2011, 2011a, 2011b2

5.2.6.1 Spawning and pupping sites

Areas utilised by fish for spawning and pupping (the birth of live young) may be disproportionately important to fish populations as any disruption to spawning or pupping activity may result in a reduction in recruitment (Morrison et al., 2014).

Spawning activities range from single pairs to small localised groups of spawning fish or even large spawning aggregations. Large aggregations may involve large‐scale migrations (i.e. transient aggregations) or short‐distance migrations of local fish (i.e. resident aggregations) (Morrison et al., 2014).




Page 89

Knowledge on spawning and pupping areas of New Zealand’s fishes is typically limited; detailed information on spawning activity is only well known for a few commercially important species such as orange roughy, hoki and snapper. Data on the presence of spawning and pupping locations usually relies on reported catch of spent or ripe‐running females from research trawls (Hurst et al., 2000a). Species potentially spawning/pupping within all of the AOIs have been provided Table 20 based on Morrison et al. (2014), Hurst et al. (2000a) and O’Driscoll et al. (2003). Large harbours along the west coast of the North Island (in particular Kawhia Harbour), Tasman Bay, and the Marlborough Sounds are important nursery grounds for a number of fishes (e.g. snapper, school shark, and elephant fish) (Hurst et al., 2000). Adults migrate in to these sheltered bays to spawn/pup and therefore they may be present within each of the AOIs during such movements.

Table 20 Fish Species Potentially Spawning in the AOIs

Species potentially spawning Spawning season

Barracouta Late winter/spring (July/August – September/October)

Blue mackerel November – April

Blue warehou Later winter – late summer

Gurnard December – February

Jack mackerel (T. declivis) Spring

Jack mackerel (T. novaezelandiae) Spring

John dory Summer (peak in February)

Murphy’s mackerel Later winter – summer

Tarakihi Summer – autumn

5.2.6.2 Protected Species

There are eight species of fish listed as protected under Schedule 7A of the Wildlife Act. These are: basking shark, deepwater nurse shark, great white shark, manta ray, oceanic white‐tip shark, spiny‐tailed devil ray, spotted black grouper, and whale shark. In addition to the protection offered under the Wildlife Act, the great white sharks, basking sharks and oceanic white‐tip sharks are also protected under the Fisheries Act 1996, prohibiting New Zealand flagged vessels from taking these species from all waters, including beyond New Zealand’s EEZ. Of these protected species, the great white shark and basking shark have the greatest potential to occur in the three AOIs.

DOC aims to update the New Zealand Threat Classification status for all of New Zealand’s species over a 5‐year cycle for each group; however, the threat status of marine fish has not been updated since the 2005 cycle (Hitchmough et al., 2005).

5.2.6.3 Freshwater Eels

Within New Zealand waters there are two main species of freshwater eel; the endemic long‐finned eel (Anguila dieffenbachii) and the short‐finned eel (A. australis schmidtii). As well as being found in New Zealand, the short‐finned eel also occurs throughout Australia. A third species, the spotted eel (A. reinhardtii), has recently been found in northern rivers of New Zealand, where it is thought to be a new arrival from Australia (Te Ara, 2018d).




Page 90

Intraspecific interactions and competition between long‐finned and short‐finned eels is reduced by the apparent differences in preferred habitat, with long‐finned eels preferring swift stony rivers and short‐finned eels more commonly occurring in silty backwaters and lakes. Despite this, long‐finned and short‐finned eels are often found together in the same water body (Jellyman, 1977).

Under the New Zealand Threat Classification System (Goodman et al., 2013) long‐finned eels are classified as ‘Declining’ and short‐finned eels as ‘Not Threatened’. Both species are commercially harvested and managed under New Zealand’s Quota Management System (Jellyman, 2012).

Although considered a freshwater species, long‐finned and short‐finned eels have a catadromous life history; they carry out oceanic spawning at great distances from their typical freshwater habitat (Jellyman, 2012). Therefore there is the potential that these eels could pass through the AOI’s on their migration pathways during the EAD Programme.

Little is known of the marine component of their life cycle; however, three distinct migrations have been observed in New Zealand:

Elvers (juvenile two year old eels) move from the marine environment into freshwater habitats from October to December. These young eels move at night, during floods, or on overcast days (Jellyman, 1977) during which time they find suitable cover and feeding grounds in the lower reaches of streams. Here they remain for the next four to five years (Cairns, 1950);

Following the influx of the elvers, the four to five year old eels begin an upstream migration. This migration further upstream occurs annually in January (Cairns, 1950);

The third migration involves the movement of sexually mature adult eels (known to Māori as tuna heke or tuna whakaheke) to spawning grounds. This migration occurs in February and March, with the majority of eels having migrated by April, and follows a distinct pattern. Mature females begin by moving to brackish waters where they join the mature males. First to enter the sea are short‐finned males followed by short‐finned females (Cairns, 1950; Todd, 1981). Long‐finned eels show a similar pattern whereby the males migrate before the females, with this migration occurring after that of the short‐finned eels (Cairns, 1950; Todd, 1981). It has been suggested that the movement of sexually mature adult eels is influenced by the lunar cycle (Todd, 1981). Adult eels move to the sub‐tropical Pacific Ocean and although the exact location and migration route for spawning is not known (as eel spawning has never been observed), deep ocean trenches (DOC, 2018h) near Fiji and New Caledonia are thought to be important spawning grounds (NIWA, 2018b). Short‐finned and long‐finned eels are semelparous; that is they breed only once at the end of their life (DOC, 2018h), resulting in no southern migration of adults returning to New Zealand; and

A fourth, unobserved migration occurs involving the leptocephalus young (transparent leaf‐shaped eel larvae). The leptocephalii reach New Zealand waters by drifting on ocean currents. Once reaching New Zealand coastal waters they morph into eel‐shaped ‘glass eels’ and move into river mouths and estuaries (Te Ara, 2018d). Glass eels are generally sedentary during their first year in fresh water (Jellyman, 1977). Following a year spent in river mouths and estuaries the glass eels commence their freshwater life‐cycle as elvers (see first point).




Page 91

5.2.7 Cephalopods

All cephalopods consist of a mantle, head, and eight arms (and two long tentacles in the case of some squid). New Zealand cephalopods include the cuttlefish, squid and octopus.

In total 42 octopus species are recognised from New Zealand waters; of these, 68% are endemic (O’Shea, 2013). Octopuses mainly live on the seafloor and are the largest predators on reefs, feeding on crustaceans and shellfish (Te Ara, 2018e). They also fall prey to pilot whales which feed mainly on arrow squid and common octopus (Beatson et al., 2007). Due to their affiliation with reef habitats, the northern, central and southern AOIs are not considered to be important habitats for octopuses; however, benthic surveys for offshore monitoring surrounding the Taranaki oil fields have caught the odd small octopus, more specifically the species Macroctopus maorum (pers. obs. N. Pannell, SLR).

New Zealand has a diverse assemblage of squid and related groups; more than 85 species have been found in New Zealand, the majority of which are open‐sea animals (Te Ara, 2018f). The New Zealand squid fishery appears amongst the top five fishery in New Zealand and focusses on two species of arrow squid; Gould’s arrow squid (Nototodarus gouldi) and Sloan’s arrow squid (Nototodarus sloanii) (MPI, 2018). These species are found across the continental shelf in water depths up to 500 m, but are most commonly caught in waters less than 300 m (MPI, 2018). N. sloanii is primarily found in in the south‐east coast of the South Island, the south‐east coast of the North Island and it has been reported on the west coast of the North Island as far north as Cape Egmont; where it forms less than 10% of the arrow squid catch. In comparison, N. gouldi is found off the west and east coast of the North Island, and the central, north‐west, and north‐east coasts of the South Island as far south as Banks Peninsula) (Smith et al., 1987).

Squid have a rapid growth rate and are thought to only live for a year (MPI, 2018). The majority of fishing activity takes place in the summer months from January through to May. Arrow squid have been caught within the Taranaki Bight during research trawl surveys (Bagley et al., 2000); however, arrow squid are not commercially targeted here as 95% of New Zealand’s squid catch is taken by deepwater trawls from southern and sub‐Antarctic fishing grounds, while jigging coastal vessels catch the rest in calmer, more northern waters (Deepwater Group, 2018).

5.2.8 Plankton and Primary Productivity

‘Plankton’ is the collective term for drifting organisms that inhabit the pelagic zone (water column) of the world’s oceans. Plankton fulfils the primary producer role in the ocean and forms the basis of the marine food web. Plankton travel with the ocean currents and although some plankton can move vertically within the water column, their horizontal distribution is primarily determined by surrounding currents. There are four broad functional planktonic groups (Nybakken & Bertness, 2005):

Phytoplankton – free‐floating organisms capable of photosynthesis. Includes diatoms and dinoflagellates;

Zooplankton – free‐floating animals. Includes copepods, jellyfish and larval stages of larger animals (meroplankton);

Bacterioplankton – bacteria that are free floating within the plankton and usually of a size range from 0.2 – 2.0 µm; and

Viroplankton – viral organisms in the size range of 0.02 – 0.2 µm that cannot survive without infecting a host.




Page 92

The productivity of the ocean is the result of many factors; namely ocean currents, climate and bathymetry which cause upwelling and create nutrient rich waters. Such conditions are ideal for the growth of plankton and plankton‐consuming animals (MacKenzie, 2014). The semi‐enclosed area of the South Taranaki Bight and Western Cook Strait is one of the most biologically productive coastal regions in New Zealand due to various features including the Kahurangi upwelling, sediment discharges from the Kapiti Coast, coastal erosion and surf zone sediment re‐suspension, phytoplankton blooms in Tasman and Golden Bays, and energetic mixing of waters in Cook Strait (MacKenzie, 2014).

The Kahurangi upwelling originates off Cape Farewell on the northern part of the South Island’s west coast. The system is described by MacKenzie (2014) and is summarised as follows. The upwelling generates a short and tightly coupled food chain leading from plankton through to higher trophic levels. Cool, nutrient rich water (from up to 100 m deep) is brought to the sun‐lit surface layers via upwelling, resulting in the stimulation of phytoplankton growth. A turbulent wake containing a number of eddies then streams off the Kahurangi Shoals, moving the highly productive plume into the Taranaki Bight and the western approaches of Cook Strait. Zooplankton grazers exploit the increasingly abundant phytoplankton biomass associated with the maturing eddies. As eddies migrate north eastward there are characteristic changes in the species makeup of the zooplankton communities that have important effects on the pelagic food chain (Bradford‐Grieve et al., 1993).

Of particular importance is Nyctiphanes australis, a resident species of krill that is an important food source for fish, seabirds, squid and baleen whales. Recent studies by Torres et al. (2017) have identified the South Taranaki Bight as a hot‐spot for pygmy blue whales; with high abundances of N. australis a driving factor.

Further information on the phytoplankton and zooplankton that will be present throughout the three AOIs is provided in the sub‐sections below.

5.2.8.1 Phytoplankton

Phytoplankton forms the base of the marine food chain and uses solar energy to fix atmospheric carbon dioxide into particulate organic carbon. The level of primary productivity ultimately determines the commercial fisheries in the surrounding waters (Cushing, 1971).

Chlorophyll‐α concentration used as a proxy for near‐surface phytoplankton abundance (Murphy et al., 2001; Pinkerton et al., 2006). In general there is considerable spatial, seasonal, and inter‐annual variability in the distribution of phytoplankton around New Zealand as a whole with chlorophyll‐α abundance highest in the spring and autumn and lowest in winter

5.2.8.2 Zooplankton

Zooplankton provide an important role in phytoplankton grazing and nutrient recycling (Boyd & Smith, 1983) and provide an important food source for animals higher up in the food chain such as marine mammals (i.e. baleen whales) and commercially important fisheries. Along New Zealand’s west coast, the biomass of zooplankton communities is generally low (Foster & Battaerd, 1985); however, high biomasses have been observed in the Western Cook Strait region (e.g. Bradford et al., 1986; James & Wilkinson, 1988), suggesting this region is an area of enhanced productivity (Foster & Battaerd, 1985). Bradford and Roberts (1978) has suggested that the Taranaki Bight and Cook Strait regions are one of only four coastal regions in which zooplankton biomass exceeds 300 mg m‐3.




Page 93

Foster and Battaerd (1985) conducted zooplankton tows across the South Taranaki Bight and Cape Farewell as far north as approximately the Tui Field (i.e. central AOI). Although the authors do not report on the species present, the following general conclusions were made: there is an increase in occurrence of copepod nauplii ‘down‐stream’ of the Kahurangi Upwelling indicating the start of zooplankton response to enhanced grazing conditions; the zooplankton present are mostly neritic species; and there was an abundance of faecal pellets indicating active phytoplankton grazing by crustaceans, probably euphausiids (Foster & Battaerd, 1985).

Recent sampling by MacDiarmid et al. (2015a) of zooplankton communities in the South Taranaki Bight was in agreement with the findings of Foster & Battaerd (1985).

As mentioned previously, the euphausiid N. australis, a valuable prey item thought to support large numbers of blue whales (See Section 5.2.2.2), is also a dominant feature of the South Taranaki zooplankton communities and is thought to be present in the Bight throughout the year (Bartle, 1976).

The zooplankton communities present in the southern AOI are expected to be similar to those presented above from Bradford‐Grieve et al., (1993) and MacDiarmid et al. (2015a). Based on available literature, it is considered that zooplankton communities in the northern and central AOI will be less diverse and of lower biomass than those in the southern AOI under the influence of the Kahurangi Upwelling.

5.3 Marine Classification and Sensitive Sites

5.3.1 New Zealand Marine Environmental Classification

The New Zealand Marine Environment Classification covers New Zealand’s CMA and EEZ and provides a spatial framework for structured and systematic management. Geographic domains are divided into classes that have similar environmental and biological characters (Snelder et al., 2005). Classes are characterised by physical and biological factors such as depth, solar radiation, sea surface temperatures, waves, tidal current, sediment type, seabed slope and curvature.

According to this classification, the northern, central and southern AOIs consist mostly of Class 60, 63 and 64 characteristics (Figure 11). These classifications are also useful in providing a general understanding of what marine species could be present within each of the AOI’s, specifically when data is limited (i.e. northern AOI) These classes are described in further detail below following the definitions by NIWA (Snelder et al., 2005).

It is worth noting that although a large proportion of the northern AOI has been classified by Snelder et al. (2005) as being within class 64, this area is believed to be more akin to class 60 as per the surrounding area. Class 64 identifies more coastal areas, with shallow water (mean of 38 m); whereas, the proposed wells that are located in this area are in depths ranging from 133 m to 156 m. Therefore, although a discussion is included below around class 64 for completeness, the northern AOI is considered to more appropriately fall within class 60.

Class 60 is an extensive central coastal environment that occupies moderately shallow waters (mean = 112 m) on the continental shelf. It experiences moderate annual solar radiation and wintertime sea surface temperatures, and has moderately average chlorophyll‐α concentration. Common fish species include barracouta, red gurnard, john dory, spiny dogfish, snapper and sea perch. Arrow squid are also frequently caught in trawls. The most commonly represent benthic invertebrate families are Dentaliidae, Cardiidae, Carditidae, Nuculanidae, Amphiruridae, Pectinidae, and Veneridae.




Page 94

Class 63 is an oceanic, shelf and sub‐tropical front environment that is extensive on the continental shelf. Waters are moderate in depth (mean 754 m) and experience moderate annual radiation, wintertime sea surface temperatures and chlorophyll‐α concentration. Characteristic fish species include orange roughy, Johnson’s cod, Baxter’s lantern dogfish, hoki, smooth oreo, and javelin fish. The most commonly represented invertebrate families are Carditidae, Pectinidae, Dentaliidae, Veneridae, Cardiidae, Serpulidae, and Limidae.

Class 64 represents shallow waters (mean = 38 m). Here seabed slopes are low but orbital velocities are moderately high and the annual amplitude of sea surface temperature is high. Chlorophyll‐α reaches its highest average concentration in this class. Commonly occurring fish species are red gurnard, snapper, john dory, trevally, leather jacket, barracouta and spiny dogfish. Arrow squid are also frequently caught in trawls. The most commonly represented invertebrate families are Veneridae, Mactridae, and Tellinidae.

Figure 11 New Zealand Marine Environmental Classifications around the AOIs




Page 95

5.3.2 Sensitive Environments

Schedule 6 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects – Permitted Activities) Regulations 2013 describes 13 sensitive biogenic environments. These environments were identified by the Ministry for the Environment in consultation with the National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research.

The ‘sensitivity’ of an environment is defined as the tolerance of a species or habitat to damage from an external factor combined with the time taken for its subsequent recovery from damage sustained as a result of the external factor. The rarity of a particular habitat was also taken into account when considering its tolerance; an external factor is more likely to damage a higher proportion of a population of habitat as rarity increases, therefore a rare habitat has a lower tolerance rating (MacDiarmid et al., 2013).

Table 21 provides details on the environments considered sensitive under the EEZ Regulations and the indicators used to identify their presence. An assessment of the potential presence of each sensitive environment within the northern, central and southern AOI has been provided in the following sub‐sections.

Table 21 Schedule 6 Sensitive Environment Definitions

Sensitive Environment Indicator of existence of sensitive environment

Stony coral thickets or reefs

A stony coral reef or thicket exists if –

A colony of a structure‐forming species covers 15% or more of the seabed in a visual imaging survey of 100 m² or more; or

A specimen of a thicket‐forming species is found in two successive point samples; or

A specimen of a structure‐forming species is found in a sample collected using towed gear.

Xenophyophore beds A xenophyophore bed exists if average densities of all species of xenophyophore found (including fragments) equal or exceed one specimen per m² sampled.

Bryozoan thickets A bryozoan thicket exists if –

Colonies of large frame‐building bryozoan species cover at least 50% of an area between 10 m² and 100 m²; or

Colonies of large frame‐building bryozoan species cover at least 40% of an area that exceeds 10 km²; or

A specimen of a large frame‐building bryozoan species is found in a sample collected using towed gear; or

One or more large frame‐building bryozoan species is found in successive point samples.

Calcareous tube worm thickets

A tube worm thicket exists if –

One or more tube worm mounds per 250 m² are visible in a seabed imaging survey; or

Two or more specimens of a mound‐forming species of tube worm are found in a point sample; or

Mound‐forming species of tube worm comprise 10% or more by weight or volume of a towed sample.

Chaetopteridae worm fields A chaetopteridae worm field exists if worm tubes or epifaunal species –

Cover 25% or more of the seabed in a visual imaging survey of 500 m² or more; or

Make up 25% or more of the volume of a sample collected using towed gear; or

Are found in two successive point samples.

Sea pen fields A sea pen field exists if ‐

A specimen of sea pen is found in successive point samples; or

Two or more specimens of sea pen per m² are found in a visual imaging survey or a survey collected using towed gear.




Page 96

Sensitive Environment Indicator of existence of sensitive environment

Rhodolith (maerl) beds A rhodolith bed –

Exists if living coralline thalli are found to cover more than 10% of an area in a visual imaging survey;

Is to be taken to exist if a single specimen of a rhodolith species if found in any sample.

Sponge gardens A sponge garden exists if metazoans of classes Demospongiae, Hexactinellida, Calcerea, or Homoscleromorpha –

Comprise 25% or more by volume or successive point samples; or

Comprise 20% or more by volume of any sample collected using towed gear; or

Cover 25% or more of the seabed over an area of 100 m² or more in a visual imaging survey.

Beds of large bivalve molluscs

A bed of large bivalve molluscs exists if living and dead specimens –

Cover 30% or more of the seabed in a visual imaging survey; or

Comprise 30% or more by weight or volume of the catch in a sample collected using towed gear; or

Comprise 30% or more by weight or volume in successive point samples.

Macro‐algae beds A macro‐algae bed exists if a specimen of a red, green, or brown macro‐algae is found in a visual imaging survey or any sample.

Brachiopods A brachiopod bed exists if one or more live brachiopods –

Are found per m² sampled using towed gear; or

Are found in successive point samples.

Deep‐sea hydrothermal vents

A sensitive hydrothermal vent exists if a live specimen of a known vent species is found in visual imaging survey or any sample. See Schedule 6 for a list of known vent species.

Methane or cold seeps A methane or cold seep exists if a single occurrence of one of the taxa listed in Schedule 6 is found in a visual imaging survey or any sample.

5.3.2.1 Stony coral thickets or reefs

Coldwater corals include the Scleractinia (stony corals), Octocorallia (soft corals), Antipatharia (black corals), and Stylasteridae (hydrocorals). Stony corals provide the most complex habitats and can form three‐dimensional reefs or thickets (Roberts et al., 2006). They are fragile, sessile, slow‐growing, long‐lived and have limited larval dispersal and a restricted distribution (Consalvey et al., 2006). The distribution of stony corals is determined by the presence of favourable conditions such as high nutrient and food supply, currents or mixing to deliver food and nutrients, and low sedimentation rates (Roberts et al., 2006). Corals are protected in New Zealand waters under the Wildlife Act, 1953. Johnston (2016) reported stony corals to be present in the vicinity of the AOIs, so although their presence in the AOIs is unlikely it cannot be completely ruled out.

A one‐off record of black coral by‐catch in the South Taranaki Bight was made in 2009 (NABIS, 2018). This record was based on fisheries observer data which was collected in December 2009 while the vessel was trawling for jack mackerel (at 40.15667, 174.075); however, black corals have not been recorded in the Taranaki Bight since.




Page 97

5.3.2.2 Xenophyophore beds

Xenophyophores are large single celled protozoans that live on the seabed and form an external test of mineral grains, sponge spicule fragments, and organic debris (Hayward et al., 2012) and as a result are often mistakenly identified as broken and decaying parts of other animals (Tendal, 1975). Seven species of xenophyophore have been recorded in New Zealand including three endemic species (MacDiarmid et al., 2013). They are particularly abundant below areas of high surface productivity (Hayward et al., 2012). Johnston (2016) has reported a xenophyophore bed offshore of the Taranaki Bight; however, this recording was in water depths in excess of 1,200 m and as such these beds are not expected to be present within the AOIs.

5.3.2.3 Bryozoan thickets

Bryozoans are suspension feeding organisms that are colonial, benthic or epibiotic on algae, seagrass, and animals. Habitat‐forming bryozoans are defined as frame‐building species that dominate square metres of seafloor. They are most commonly found in temperate continental shelf environments where there is suitable stable substrate and relatively fast and consistent water movement (MacDiarmid et al., 2013). New Zealand has a particularly abundant and diverse assemblage of habitat‐forming bryozoans (MacDiarmid et al., 2013), with important species including Cinctipora elegans, Celleporaria agglutinans, and Hippomenella vellicata (Wood et al., 2012). Bryozoans have been reported by Johnston (2016) in close proximity to the AOIs.

5.3.2.4 Calcareous tube worm thickets

Worms of the family Serpulidae secrete calcium carbonate to form hard‐cased tubes. A number of these species occur in New Zealand waters from the intertidal to abyssal depths, but mainly in coastal waters (MacDiarmid et al., 2013). The mound forming species Galeolaria hystrix is the best described example of mounds in New Zealand, and can be found from the Taranaki coast down to Stewart Island (Morton, 2004; Davidson et al., 2010) at depths down to 30 m (Davidson et al., 2010). All proposed well locations are significantly deeper than 30 m. Records of calcareous tube worms in Johnston (2016) have been made within the CMA (on the rocky shore within and south of the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area); therefore, it is unlikely this sensitive environment will be present within the AOIs.

5.3.2.5 Chaetopteridae worm fields

Chaetopteridae tube worms belong to a family of filter‐feeding polychaetes that form burrows in soft sediment (Johnston, 2016). Little is known of their role in New Zealand, although worm fields have been reported as widespread in a number of regions, particularly the species Phyllochaetopterus socialis on the South Island’s east coast (MacDiarmid et al., 2013). The Taranaki Bight was not identified by MacDiarmid et al. (2013) as an area of importance for chaetopteridae tube worms; however, Johnston (2016) reported a number of catches of chaetopteridae tube worms in close proximity to the central AOI (west of Cape Egmont). Based on the records presented in Johnston (2016), there is potential for chaetopteridae tube worms to be present within the AOIs.

5.3.2.6 Sea pen fields

Sea pens are colonial marine cnidarians that occur on fine gravels, soft sand, mud, and the abyssal ooze in areas where turbulence is unlikely to dislodge their anchoring peduncle but where a current exists to ensure a continuous flow of food (MacDiarmid et al., 2013). Sea pens have been reported by Johnston (2016) in close proximity to the AOIs, particularly the central AOI. The sea pen species Virgularia gracillima has also been reported to be widespread throughout the Taranaki offshore soft sediment communities (e.g. SLR, 2017, 2017a, 2017b, 2017c). All reports have been for individual sea pens; therefore it is not possible to determine if sea pen ‘fields’ (as defined in the Schedule 6 criteria) occur in the northern, central and southern AOIs.




Page 98

5.3.2.7 Rhodolith beds

Rhodoliths are free‐living calcified red algae that form structurally and functionally complex habitats and support high benthic diversity (MacDiarmid et al., 2013). Rhodolith beds provide refuge for juvenile fish and settlement habitat for shellfish larvae (Nelson et al., 2012), and are often associated with areas of high fisheries productivity (MacDiarmid et al., 2013). These areas have been identified as important nursery areas for commercial species such as scallops, crabs and fish, and are home to high densities of broodstock bivalves (Nelson, 2009). Although there is little information with regard to the location or extent of rhodolith beds in New Zealand, Taranaki has not been included by MacDiarmid et al (2013) as a known location. Johnston (2016) did not record any rhodoliths in the EEZ of the Taranaki Bight. Based on the findings of MacDiarmid et al (2013) and Johnston (2016), it is unlikely that rhodolith beds will be present within the AOIs.

5.3.2.8 Sponge gardens

Sponges are found throughout a variety of environments including shallow coastal rocky reefs, seamounts, hydrothermal vents and oceanic ridges. In New Zealand, demosponges dominate the shelf and coastal area in water depths down to 250 m. Deeper waters are dominated by the hexactinellid (glass) sponges (MacDiarmid et al., 2013). Examples of known locations of sponge gardens in New Zealand include the North Taranaki Bight (MacDiarmid et al., 2013), with the Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protection Area particularly well known for its diverse sponge communities. Although there is potential for sponge gardens to be present in the AOIs; to date, all records are for shallow coastal waters (Johnston, 2016).

5.3.2.9 Beds of large bivalve molluscs

When bivalve molluscs form aggregations on the seabed, the aggregations are referred to as ‘beds’ (for infaunal species such as cockles) or ‘reefs’ (for emergent species such as mussels). The presence of bivalve beds/reefs may result in complex biogenic structures in what would otherwise be a homogenic habitat; modifying the surrounding habitat and influencing the communities present (MacDiarmid et al., 2013). In New Zealand, bivalve beds/reefs mainly occur in water depths less than 250 m on the continental shelf (Rowden et al., 2012). Suspension feeders are particularly well represented on the west coast of the North Island out to mid‐shelf depths (Rowden et al., 2012). Common species include horse mussels, scallops and dredge oysters (MacDiarmid et al., 2013), with Johnston (2016) reporting Glycymeris modesta, Scalpomactra scalpellum, Nemocardium pulchellum, Notocallista multistiata and Tawera spissa as the most common mollusc taxa within the wider Taranaki Bight. As all of the proposed well locations are within the preferred water depth of bivalves (i.e. deepest water depth is approximately 175 m) it is possible that this sensitive habitat will be present in the AOIs. Furthermore, Johnston (2016) states that bivalves were the most common of the possible habitat indicators in the Taranaki Bight and has recorded bivalves as present in the general vicinity of the three AOIs. However, it is worth noting that these records are based on presence/absence data, so it is not possible to determine whether records relate to bivalve beds/reefs or individuals (Johnston, 2016).

5.3.2.10 Macro‐algae beds

Macro‐algae beds occupy areas of hard rocky substrate from the intertidal down to depths of 200 m. Small foliose brown, red and green algae, as well as large brown algae/kelp form dense beds and are important components of reef ecosystems (MacDiarmid et al., 2013). While MacDiarmid et al. (2013) reported that macro‐algae beds are present throughout New Zealand’s EEZ; no specific Taranaki sites were mentioned. There were no reports of red, brown or green macro‐algae beds in the vicinity of the AOIs by Johnston (2016). Based on the reported literature and the offshore nature of the northern, central and southern AOIs, it is unlikely that macro‐algae beds will be present.




Page 99

5.3.2.11 Brachiopods

Brachiopods, commonly referred to as lamp shells, are small bilaterally symmetrical filter feeders that superficially resemble bivalve molluscs (Lee & Smith, 2007; Tracey et al., 2011). They typically anchor to hard substrates such as on rocks, gravel, or shell debris by a muscular stalk. Brachiopods occur throughout New Zealand at all depths in areas of significant water movement that are free of fine sediment (Lee & Smith, 2007). While brachiopods have been found at all depths, the majority of species occur in depths less than 500 m (MacDiarmid et al., 2013). The presence of both live and dead brachiopods increases habitat complexity (MacDiarmid et al., 2013). Diverse and numerically abundant brachiopod assemblages have not been reported for the Taranaki Bight (MacDiarmid et al., 2013); however, two records of brachiopods have been made in close proximity to the AOIs (Johnston, 2016).

5.3.2.12 Deep‐sea hydrothermal vents

The distribution of deep‐sea hydrothermal vents is related to tectonic plate boundaries, with New Zealand deep‐sea hydrothermal vents forming at the subduction zone of the Pacific Plate under the Australian Plate (De Ronde et al., 2001). This occurs to the north of New Zealand along the Kermadec Volcanic Arc (GNS, 2017), well away from the three AOIs.

5.3.2.13 Methane or cold seeps

Methane or cold seeps occur when methane‐rich fluids escape into the water column from underlying sediments. Active seeps are usually associated with gas hydrates in the Gas Hydrate Stability Zone; typically, in the upper 500 m of sediments beneath the seabed in water depths of at least 500 m (Pecher & Henrys, 2003). Active and relict cold seeps have been confirmed at the Hikurangi Margin on the North Island’s east coast (Greinert et al., 2010). No methane or cold seeps have been identified in the Taranaki Basin (Johnston, 2016). Furthermore, it is unlikely that cold seeps will be present within the three AOIs due to the relatively shallow waters.

5.4 Cultural Environment

Aotearoa’s (New Zealand) marine environment is highly valued by all Māori communities and plays an important role in historic and present day culture. The values placed on the marine environment stem in particular from the importance of estuaries and coastal waters as a valuable source of kaimoana (seafood). The marine environment is also regarded as a sacred and spiritual pathway which provides a means of transportation and communication (Nga Uri O Tahinga Trust, 2012). Many of Aotearoa’s ika (marine fauna) play important roles in legends. In particular, Māori have a deep spiritual connection with whales and dolphins, which are thought to provide safety at sea and reportedly, guided the founding waka (canoes) on their great journey to Aotearoa from ancestral homelands in the Pacific.

Māori believe in the importance of protecting Papatuanuku (the earth) including the footprints and stories left by ancestors. In accordance with this, the role of kaitiakitanga (guardianship) is passed down between generations. Kaitiakitanga is central to the preservation of wāhi tapu (sacred places or sites) and taonga (treasures).

This section provides a brief overview of the iwi (tribes) along the stretch of coastline inshore of the northern, central and southern AOIs and describes their rohe (area of interest) and any marine attributes of particular cultural interest. The three AOIs are of relevance to seventeen iwi as listed in Table 22. A summary of the iwi that OMV New Zealand has engaged with as part of this Discharge Consent application is provided in Section 4.



March 2018

Page 100

Table 22 Iwi Interests in the Vicinity of the AOIs

Iwi (tribal group) Region/s Coastal Statutory Acknowledgement Areas Taonga species* Further comments

Ngāti Tama Taranaki Mimi‐Pukearuhe coastal marginal strip; Mohakatino coastal marginal strip; and the CMA adjoining the rohe.

Traditional kaimoana, e.g. mako, tāmure (snapper), and araara (TRC, 2010).

Coastal waahi tapu sites include tauranga waka (canoe berths) and pā sites (Māori villages) at Titooki, Whakarewa, Otumatua and Pukearuhe) (TRC, 2015). A unique fishing technique from the coastal cliffs was developed to catch

mangō, tāmure, and araara. The Paraninihi Marine Reserve is located within the Ngāti Tama rohe and is managed using an “integrated management approach” involving Ngāti Tama Iwi Authority alongside DOC and the Paraninihi Marine Reserve Conservation Board.

Ngāti Mutunga Taranaki Mimi‐Pukearuhe coastal marginal strip; Waitoetoe Beach Recreation Reserve; Onaeroa coast marginal strip; and the CMA adjoining the rohe.

Traditional kaimoana, e.g. mako, tāmure, kahawai and araara (Ngāti Mutunga Iwi, 2015).

Ngāti Mutunga has strong cultural, historical and spiritual links to the marine environment. They rely heavily on natural coastal resources as a food supply with kaimoana gathering still occurring in accordance with traditional

values and tikanga (teachings). Ngā Mutunga used the cliffs to fish mangō, tāmure, araara, and kahawai; these cliffs also hold numerous tauranga waka (canoe berths).

Te Atiawa (Taranaki) Taranaki Waiwhakaiho River Mouth; and the CMA from Herekawe Stream to Onaero River.

Traditional kaimoana. Within this rohe lies the Ngā Motu/Sugar Loaf Islands Marine Protected Area. As with all coastal iwi, many heritage features including wāhi tapu and traditional food gathering sites lie along the coastline of this rohe.

Taranaki Iwi Taranaki Nga Motu; Paritutu to Oakura River; Oakura River to Hangatahua River; and Kapoaiaia River to Moutoti River.

Traditional kaimoana e.g. paua, kina, kōura, kūkū, pūpū (molluscs/snails), ngākihi (limpets), pāpaka (paddle crab), toretore (sea anemones), tāmure, kahawai, pātiki, and mako (shark).

The CMA is known to Taranaki iwi as Ngā Tai a Kupe (the shores and tides of Kupe) and contains a number of kaimoana reefs, wāhi tapu sites and tauranga waka. Taranaki Iwi places substantial historical and spiritual importance on the Ngā Motu (Sugar Loaf) Islands (Taranaki Iwi Trust, 2013). The Tapuae Marine Reserve is encompassed by this rohe.

Ngāruahine Taranaki Taungatara Stream; Kapuni Stream; Kaupokonui Stream; Ohunuku Otakeho; Waingongoro River; and Puketapu.

Traditional kaimoana. Collectively made up of various hapu, including Kanihi‐Umutahi, Okahu‐Inuawai, Ngati Manuhiaka, Ngati Tu, Ngati Haua and Ngati Tamaahuroa‐Titahi.

Ngāti Ruanui Taranaki

Whanganui

Tangahoe River; Patea River; Whenuakura River; and Te Moananui a Kupe o Ngāti Ruanui (the CMA).

Hapuku, kahawai, kanae, marari (butterfish), moki, paraki, para (frostfish), pātiki, patukituki (red cod), pioke (rig), reperepe (elephantfish), tuna, kaaeo, koeke (shrimp), wheke, koiro (conger eel), koura, kaunga (hermit crab), papaka parupatu (mud crab), pāpaka (paddlecrab), kotere (sea anemone), rore (sea cucumber), patangatanga (starfish), kina, kūkū, paua, pipi, pūpū, purimu (surf clams), tuangi (cockles), tuatua, waharoa (horse mussel), waikaka (mud snail), tio, and tupa (scallop).

The resources found within Te Moananui a Kupe have provided the people of Ngāti Ruanui with a constant supply of food resources. The reefs provided koura, paua, kina, pupu, papaka, pipi, tuatua and many other species of reef inhabitants. Hapuku, moki, kanae, mako and patiki swim between the reefs that can be found stretching out into the Ngāti Ruanui coastline. Ngāti Ruanui are partners in the South Taranaki Reef Life project. This project aims to discover and document the subtidal rocky reef communities that are found in the South Taranaki Bight.

Ngā Rauru Kītahi Manawatu/ Whanganui

Nukumaru Recreation Reserve; Tapuarau Conservation Area; Patea River; Whenuakura River; and Waitotara River.

Traditional kaimoana. Along the coastline of Ngā Rauru’s rohe lay a number of pā, kainga and marae, including Rangitaahwi and Wai‐o‐Turi which remain today. Ngā Rauru Kiitahi gathered food over a large area of coastal South Taranaki and there are many sites of cultural and spiritual significance to this iwi along their coastal rohe.

Te Tai Ihu: Rangitāne, Ngāti Kuia, Ngāti Apa, Ngāti Toa, Ngāti Koata, Ngāti Rarua, Ngāti Tama, Te Atiawa.

Marlborough/ Nelson/ Tasman

Queen Charlotte Sound; Kaka Point; Kaiteriteri; Westhaven; Wharehunga Bay; Separation Point; Port Gore; Farewell Spit; Boulder Bank; Wairau Lagoons; The Brothers; Cable Bay; Tarakaipi Island; Nga Motu Titi; Pelorus Sound; Stephens Island; French Pass; Titirangi Bay; D’Urville Island; Cullen Point; Otuhaereroa Island; Motuanauru Island

Tuangi, pipi, tuatua, pūpū, kūtai and tio, tāmure, kanae, herrings, pātiki, sole, mango (sharks), kahawai, mackerel, and warehou. Birds (harvested for a range of uses). Whales (harvested for their oil, flesh, bones and teeth). Seals (harvested for their meat and skins) (Te Tau Ihu, 2014).

Estuarine areas were especially prized sources of kaimoana and contained pā, kainga and important fishing stations. Te Tau Ihu depends on the coast for their physical and spiritual wellbeing. Coastal fisheries and other resources were managed by hapū with a kaitiaki role. Matangi Awhio was one of the most important sites in the Nelson area, consisting of a large pā and kainga complex overlooking a beach with safe landing for waka. The Marlborough Sounds formed important trade routes and allowed safe fishing and travel throughout the majority of the year. During travel between the North and South Islands deepwater fish such as ling, hake, and hoki were caught (Te Tau Ihu, 2014).

* Formal lists of taonga species are not typically available; however those species documented as providing traditional kaimoana have been included here. It is worth noting that the majority of the taonga species listed here are coastal species and therefore will not be affected by the activities associated with this Discharge Consent; however, a number of species such as para (frostfish), mango (sharks), patukituki (red cod), tarakihi, marine mammals etc. may be present within the Area of Interest and therefore affected by discharge activities.




Page 101

5.4.1 Customary Fishing and Iwi Fisheries Interests

Kaimoana provides sustenance for tangata whenua, it is an important food source for whānau (family), and is vital for provision of hospitality to manuhiri (guests) (Wakefield & Walker, 2005). Traditional management of the marine environment entails a whole body of knowledge on the sea’s natural resources, their seasonality and the manner in which they can be harvested. This customary wisdom is held sacred by tangata whenua and only passed on to those who will value it.

Under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004, recognised iwi were allocated fisheries assets such as fishing quota. Each iwi were also assigned income shares in Aotearoa Fisheries Limited. Aotearoa Fisheries Limited harvests, procures, farms, processes, and markets kaimoana in New Zealand and internationally, and is managed and overseen by Te Ohu Kai Moana (the Māori Fisheries Commission).

Separate from and in addition to commercial fisheries assets provided under the Māori Fisheries Act 2004, iwi hold customary fishing rights under the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998. These regulations stem from the Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992 and provide for the customary harvesting of kaimoana for special occasions. Under these regulations iwi may issue permits to harvest kaimoana in a way that exceeds levels permitted in standard practice in order to provide for hui (a gathering or meeting), tangi (funeral) or as koha (a gift, donation, or contribution). The sale of any kaimoana harvested under the customary permit is prohibited. The applicant/holder of a customary permit does not have to be affiliated to any iwi, however only iwi may authorise a permit within their rohe moana.

The allocation of customary fishing rights is undertaken by Tangata Kaitiaki/Tiaki in accordance with tikanga Maori. Tangata Kaitiaki/Tiaki are individuals or groups that have been appointed by local Tangata Whenua and confirmed by the Minister of Fisheries whose role is to authorise customary fishing with their rohe moana. Under the regulations, customary fishing rights can be caught by commercial fishing vessels on behalf of the holder of the customary fishing right. Customary fishing rights are in addition to recreational fishing rights and do not remove the right of Tangata Whenua to catch their recreational limits under the amateur fishing regulations.

There are three types of customary fishing rights recognised under the legislation: rohe moana mātaitai and taiapure. Only rohe moana (Figure 12) are of relevance to this Discharge Consent Application.

Rohe moana may be established under the Fisheries (Kaimoana Customary Fishing) Regulations 1998 as recognised traditional food gathering areas for which Kaitiaki (customary managers) can be appointed to manage kaimoana collection in accordance with traditional Māori principles. They allow for the establishment of management controls, the issuing of permits for customary take, the enforcement of penalties for management breaches, and for restrictions to be established over fisheries areas in order to prevent stock depletion or overexploitation. The purpose of the rohe moana is for the better provision for the recognition of Rangitiratanga (sovereignty) and of the right secured in relation to fisheries by Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi. The legally recognised boundaries of each rohe moana typically mirror the landward boundary of the CMA.

Rohe moana of relevance to the northern, central and southern AOIs are as follows:

Ngāti kinohaku, Ngāti Te Kanawa and Ngāti Peehi Rohe Moana (north of northern AOI);

Ngāti Haumia Rohe Moana (south of Cape Egmont – inshore of central and southern AOI);

Titahi‐Ngaruahine Rohe Moana (south of Cape Egmont – inshore of central and southern AOI); and




Page 102

Te Atihaunui a Paparangi and Nga Rauru Rohe Moana (extends southwest from Whanagnui – south of southern AOI).

An additional rohe moana, the ‘Deepwater Customary Pataka’ has been proposed. This pataka (food supply) represents an agreement between 16 iwi groups, Sealords and Te Ohu Kaimoana to facilitate customary fishing in deeper waters of the South Taranaki Bight. Within this rohe moana, if it is approved, it will allow the Sealords fleet tol be able to take fish for customary purposes and supply the customary catch to relevant iwi interest groups for customary events.

Figure 12 Rohe Moana in the Vicinity of the AOIs




Page 103

5.4.2 Interests under the Marine & Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 acknowledges the importance of the marine and coastal area to all New Zealanders while providing for the recognition of the customary rights of iwi, hapū and whānau in the CMA. Iwi, hapū or whānau groups may be granted recognition of two types of customary interest under the Marine and Coastal Area Act, these are 1) customary marine title, and 2) protected customary rights. The recognition that these two types of customary interest provide are summarised by the Department of Justice (2017) as outlined below.

Customary Marine Title

Customary marine title recognises the relationship of an iwi, hapū or whānau with a part of the common marine and coastal area. Public access, fishing and other recreational activities are allowed to continue in customary marine title areas; however, the group that holds customary marine title maintains the following rights:

A ‘Resource Management Act permission right’ allowing the group to say yes or no to activities that need resource consents or permits in the area;

A ‘conservation permission right’ allowing the group to say yes or no to certain conservation activities in the area;

The right to be notified and engaged with when there is an application for a marine mammal watching permit in the area;

The right to be engaged with about changes to relevant Coastal Policy Statements;

A wāhi tapu protection right allows the group to seek recognition of a wāhi tapu and restrict access to the area if required to protect the wāhi tapu;

The ownership of minerals other than petroleum, gold, silver and uranium found in the area;

The interim ownership of taonga tūturu found in the area; and

The ability to prepare a planning document that sets out the group’s objectives and policies for the management of resources in the area.

Protected Customary Rights

Protected customary rights may be granted to allow for customary activities such as the collection of hāngi stones or launching of waka in the CMA.

If a group has a protected customary right recognised, they don’t need resource consent to carry out that activity and local authorities cannot grant resource consents for other activities that would have an adverse effect on the protected customary right.

Table 23 outlines the applications made under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 and that in the vicinity of the northern, central and southern AOIs. It is noted that at the time of submission of this Discharge Consent application, the majority of these applications are still being processed.


SLR Ref No: 740.10078.00000‐R01 Filename: 740.10078.00000‐R01‐v1.0 Marine Discharge Consent 20180326 (FINAL).docx

March 2018

Page 104

Table 23 Applications under the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 in the Vicinity of the AOIs

Applicant Region Recognition Sought Application Area

Nga Tini Hapu o Maniapoto

South Waikato Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

Te Raukumara (north point), south around Kawhia Harbour to Urawhitiki point, west to Honipaka Point (north west point), south to Marokopa, thence south to Kiritehere thence to Nukuhakari, thence to Awakino, thence to Mokau, thence to Parininihi – Wai Pingoa stream (south point) including the islands Kaiwhai Island, Te Motu Island, Motukaraka Island, Ngatokakairiri Island, to the outer limits of the territorial sea (eastward and westward)

Nga Hapu o Poutama North Taranaki Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

The area from Onetai in the north to Pukearuhe in the south and extends out 12 nautical miles between these two points.

Puketapu Whanau (Te Atiawa)

North Taranaki Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

The area north east of the Waiwhakaiho river to the mouthe of the Waitara river and extends out 12 nautical miles offshore between these two points

Te Atiawa (Taranaki) Iwi North Taranaki Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

Herekawe stream in the south to Te Rau o Te Huia in the north and 12 nautical miles offshore between these points.

Ngāti Mutunga (Taranaki)

North Taranaki Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

Titoki Ridge to the Esplanade Reserve out 12 nautical miles offshore between these points.

Ngāti Tama North Taranaki Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

From south of Pariokariwa point to the southern bank of the Mokau river out 12 nautical miles offshore between these points.

Taranaki Iwi North and South Taranaki

Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

Paritūtū to Rawa‐o‐Turi stream out to 12 nautical miles offshore between these points.

Ngāti Ruanui South Taranaki Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

Northern boundary is Waingongoro River, southern boundary is Whenuakura River and out to 12 nautical miles offshore between these points.



March 2018

Page 105


Ngā Hapū ō Ngāruahine South Taranaki Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

Between the Taungatara and Waihi Rivers.

Ngaa Rauru South Taranaki Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

From Te Awanui‐a‐Taikehu (Patea River) in the north, then south to the Whanganui River and out to 12 nautical miles offshore between these points.

Ngā Wariki Ngāti Apa South Taranaki Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

The area from the coast abutting Motu Karaka in the North to the coast abutting Omarupapako in the south. The area covers all water from the coastline out to 12 nautical miles offshore.

Ngāti Hāua Hapū, Ngāruahinerangi Iwi

South Taranaki Customary Marine Title

Between the mouth of the Raoa (Rawa) stream to the mouth of the Ōtakeho stream to 12 nautical miles offshore between these points.

Rakautaua 9 Whenua Topu Trust

Whanganui Customary Marine Title

The area from the mouth of the Whangaehu River, south to the mouth of the Turakina River. This area extends out 12 nautical miles offshore between these two points.

Te Awa Tupua and Nga Hapu me Nga Uri o Te Iwi o Whanganui

Whanganui Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

Northern boundary is Kai River to the southern boundary which is the Whangaehu River ‐ out to 12 nautical miles offshore.

Te Patutokotoko Whanganui Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

The area lies on the west coast of the North Island and is bounded by the Kai Iwi River in the north and Lake Papaitonga in the south.

Rakautaua 1C Maori Reservation

Whanganui Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

Kaitoke Stream to the Whangaehu River and out 12 nautical miles offshore.

Ngati Takihiku, Ngati Hinemata, Ngati Ngaronga

Manawatu Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

CMT: 2 km north of the Rangitikei River to 500 metres south of the Otaki River. PCR: From the Rangitikei River and south of the Manawatu River, extending 12 nautical miles offshore between these two points.

Nga Hapu o Himatangi Manawatu Customary Marine Title

The area from the northern side of Te Puaha o Manawatu to the southern side of the Wangaehu awa. The area extends 12 nautical miles off shore between these two points.



March 2018

Page 106


Rangitane o Manawatu Manawatu Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

Northern bank of the Rangitikei River to the southern bank of the Manawatu River and out 12 nautical miles between the two points.

Muaupoko Manawatu Customary Marine Title

The area from the Northern Bank of the Mouth of the Manawatu River to the Southern bank of the mouth of the Waiwiri Stream. It extends to 12 nautical miles offshore between these two points.

Te Huria Matenga Trust Nelson Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

The application is for the estuary area of Cable Bay and Delaware Bay (Wakapuaka), Nelson.

Ngati Tama ki Te Tau Ihu Nelson/Tasman Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

The area along the coastline from Kahurangi Point around to Cape Souci out to 12 nautical miles.

Te Atiawa o Te Waka‐a‐Maui Trust (Mohua/Golden Bay)

Golden Bay Customary Marine Title

The area from the coastline of Westport, north up the west coast, around Farewell Spit, and along the Golden Bay coastline to Separation Point. The area covers all of the water from the coastline out to the 12 nautical mile extent.

Te Atiawa o Te Waka‐a‐Maui Trust (Whakatu/Hoiere)

Nelson/ Marlborough

Customary Marine Title

The area from Mapua Point, eastwards along the coastline, around into Te Hoiere/Pelorus Sound and out to the 12 nautical mile area. This includes Rangitoto/D'Urville Island.

Te Atiawa o Te Waka‐a‐Maui Trust (Mapua)

Nelson/Tasman Customary Marine Title

The area covers the coastline from Separation Point southwards to Mapua Point and the sea out to the 12 nautical mile extent.

Ngāti Koata Nelson/ Marlborough

Customary Marine Title and Protected Customary Rights

The waters surrounding D’Urville Island out to 12 nautical miles offshore.




Page 107

5.5 Socio‐Economic Environment

This section focuses on the users of the surrounding environment, commercially or recreationally that may be affected by the activity proposed by this Discharge Consent application. OMV New Zealand will continue to engage with existing interests (Section 4) and the local community in addition to production related activities that OMV New Zealand undertakes within the Taranaki region.

5.5.1 Recreational Fishing

While recreational fishing occurs widely off the coast of Taranaki, the significant distance from shore of the proposed well locations means that the number of recreational fishing vessels that might venture close to the proposed well locations would be minimal. Some deepwater recreational demersal fishing for hapuku, bass, gemfish and bluenose does occur out at the edge of the continental shelf off Taranaki.

Recreational game fishing for pelagic species occurs widely in offshore Taranaki waters, with fishers targeting striped marlin, albacore, bigeye and skipjack tuna, mahimahi, kingfish and mako sharks. The vast majority of the game‐fishing effort occurs within 30 km of the coast, but as technology has improved and recreational vessels have gotten larger, better equipped and more reliable; distances offshore have increased. On this basis, there is potential that recreational fishing vessels from Port Taranaki may venture into the AOI’s.

5.5.2 Commercial Fishing

The northern, central and southern AOIs are distributed over Fisheries Management Area 7 (Challenger) and Fisheries Management Area 8 (Central) (Figure 13). For the Total Allowable Commercial Catch data obtained from Ministry for Primary Industries, the top five species caught in Fisheries Management Area 7 and 8 are presented in Table 24. However, the primary commercial fishery in the southern and central AOI is a mid‐water trawl fishery for jack mackerel. This fishery operates year round, but peaks in October‐January and April‐July. The majority of commercial fishing that is undertaken in the three AOIs is mid‐water or demersal trawling; however, there is a small amount of surface longlining for species such as tuna and broadbill swordfish, as well as trolling and seining for tuna (albacore and skipjack).

Table 24 Current Total Allowable Commercial Catch Allocations for Finfish

Fisheries Management Area 7 Fisheries Management Area 8

Species Total Allowable Commercial Catch (tonnes)

Species Total Allowable Commercial Catch (tonnes)

Barracouta 1,1173 Snapper 1,300

Red cod 3,126 Leatherjacket 1,136

Spiny dogfish 1,902 Gurnard 543

Stargazer 1,122 School shark 529

Tarakihi 1,088 Kahawai 520




Page 108

Figure 13 Fisheries Management Areas Surrounding the AOIs




Page 109

6 Economic Benefits

Since OMV New Zealand began operating the Maari Field in 1999, OMV New Zealand has invested over NZ$2 billion into the New Zealand economy. In addition, more than NZ$1 billion has been paid to the New Zealand government in taxes and royalties. These figures provide an indication of what economic benefits the country can receive from a producing offshore field.

This Discharge Consent application is for a minor component of the total activities related to the EAD Programme proposed by OMV New Zealand. There will be no economic benefit with regards to the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drains of an MODU.

However, the overarching EAD Programme will provide substantial economic benefits to New Zealand. This will be assessed in future marine consent applications for the EAD drilling and associated activities.




Page 110

7 Impact Assessment – Potential Environmental Effects

This section presents an overview of the potential environmental effects that may arise from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drains of a MODU to the marine environment.

7.1 Environmental Risk Assessment Methodology

An Environmental Risk Assessment (ERA) has been undertaken to identify the relative significance of the potential effects from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substance from the deck drains of a MODU based on a likelihood and consequence approach. The joint Australian & New Zealand International Standard Risk Management – Principles and Guidelines, (AS NZS ISO 31000:2009) (ISO, 2009) have been used to develop the ERA. In particular, the ERA methodology used in this Discharge Consent application has been adapted from MacDiarmid et al. (2012) which sets out a risk assessment framework for activities in New Zealand’s EEZ and extended continental shelf. Guidance from Clark et al. (2017) has also been used to refine the ERA methodology so that it is specific and relevant to this application.

To summarise, the main steps undertaken for this ERA process are:

To identify the potential sources of risk (including magnitude, scale, frequency and intensity);

To assess the potential consequences for each risk across all potential environmental receptors (with the operational procedures and proposed mitigation measures in place) ‐ based on the criteria in Table 25;

To assess the likelihood of a consequence occurring for each receptor ‐ based on the criteria in Table 26; and

To assign an overall classification of risk for any residual impacts – based on the criteria defined in Table 27.



March 2018

Page 111

Table 25 Criteria for Assessing Potential Consequence Levels. Adapted from MacDiarmid et al. (2012)

Consequence level

Scale Duration and Recovery

Populations & Protected Species

Habitat & Ecosystem Function

Socio‐Economic Cultural

0 – Negligible Highly localised effect (<1 km2). Temporary duration (days‐weeks). No recovery period necessary

No predicted adverse effects to populations. No protected species impacted.

Undetectable, affecting <1% of original habitat area. Ecosystem function unaffected.

No disruptions to normal activities.

No cultural concerns – no degradation of Mauri (life force).

Any effects are temporary and highly localised. Importance of the environment to kaitiaki (cultural guardians) is low.

1 ‐ Minor Localised effect (1‐5 km2). Short term duration (weeks‐months). Rapid recovery would occur once activity stops (within weeks).

Possible adverse effect to populations, but not sufficient enough to be detectable. Some individuals of protected species may be impacted.

Measurable but localised, affecting 1‐5% of original habitat area. Minor changes to ecosystem function.

Short term disruptions to normal activities (weeks to months).

Minor degradation of Mauri.

Any effects are short‐term and localised. Importance of the environment to kaitiaki is low.

2 ‐ Moderate Medium scale effect (5‐20 km2). Medium term duration (months). Short term recovery period required once activity stops (within months).

Detectable impacts to populations. Could affect seasonal recruitment, but does not threaten long‐term viability. Some population level effects may become apparent for protected species.

Potential impacts more widespread, affecting 5‐20% or original habitat area. Moderate changes to ecosystem function.

Medium term disruptions to normal activities (months).

Moderate degradation of Mauri.

Any effects are of medium term and scale. Importance of the environment to kaitiaki is medium.

3 ‐ Severe Large scale effect (20‐50 km2). Long term duration (years). Substantial recovery period required once activity stops (within years).

Impacts to populations are clearly detectable and may limit capacity for population increase. Population level impacts are clearly detectable for protected species.

Widespread impacts, affecting 20‐60% of original habitat area. Severe changes to ecosystem function.

Long term disruptions to normal activities (years).

Severe degradation of Mauri.

Any effects are long term and large scale. Importance of the environment to kaitiaki is medium to high.

4 ‐ Major Very large scale effect (50‐100 km2). Extensive duration (years‐decades). Substantial recovery period required once activity stops (years to decades).

Long‐term viability of populations is clearly affected. Local extinctions are a real possibility if activity continues. Serious conservation concerns for protected species.

Activity may result in major changes to ecosystem or region, affecting 60‐90% of original habitat area. Major changes to ecosystem function.

Extensive disruptions to normal activities (years‐decades).

Major degradation of Mauri.

Any effects are extensive in term and very large scale. Importance of the environment to kaitiaki is high.

5 ‐ Catastrophic Regional effect (>100 km2). Very extensive duration (decades). Extremely long recovery period (> decades) or no recovery predicted.

Local extinctions are expected in the short‐term. Very serious conservation concerns for protected species.

Activity will result in critical changes to ecosystem or region, affecting virtually all original habitat. Total collapse of ecosystem.

Very extensive disruptions to normal activities (decades).

Catastrophic degradation of Mauri.

Any effects are very extensive in term and regional in scale. Importance of the environment to kaitiaki is very high.




Page 112

Table 26 Criteria for Assessing Consequence Likelihood. Following MacDiarmid et al. (2012)

Level/Score Description Likelihood of exposure

1 Remote Highly unlikely but theoretically possible

2 Rare May occur in exceptional circumstances

3 Unlikely Uncommon, but has been known to occur elsewhere

4 Possible Some evidence to suggest this is possible

5 Occasional May occur occasionally

6 Likely It is expected to occur

Table 27 Overall Risk of Residual Impacts. Following MacDiarmid et al. (2012)

Consequence Level

0 – Negligible 1 – Minor 2 – Moderate 3 – Severe 4 – Major 5 – Catastrophic

Likelih

ood of Consequence

1 – Remote Negligible

(0)

Low

(1)

Low

(2)

Low

(3)

Low

(4)

Low

(5)

2 – Rare Negligible

(0)

Low

(2)

Low

(4)

Low

(6)

Moderate

(8)

Moderate

(10)

3 – Unlikely Negligible

(0)

Low

(3)

Low

(6)

Moderate

(9)

Moderate

(12)

High

(15)

4 – Possible Negligible

(0)

Low

(4)

Moderate

(8)

Moderate

(12)

High

(16)

High

(20)

5 – Occasional Negligible

(0)

Low

(5)

Moderate

(10)

High

(15)

High

(20)

Extreme

(25)

6 – Likely Negligible

(0)

Low

(6)

Moderate

(12)

High

(18)

Extreme

(24)

Extreme

(30)

7.2 Receptors

As outlined in Section 3, there are a number of mitigation measures in place on the MODU in the form of both physical barriers (Section 3.2) and systems and procedures (Section 3.3). These measures will ensure that the potential for a loss of containment of a harmful substance to deck is ALARP.

If a loss of containment of harmful substance to deck occurs, there will be trace amounts left following clean up that are too minor in local concentration to be observed by eye, or to be absorbed or collected through the cleaning procedures in place on the MODU. These traces could be entrained in water that runs off the decks to the deck drains, such as might occur from deck washing or rainfall events.




Page 113

As outlined in Section 3.7, should any trace amounts of harmful substances make it into the deck drainage system, the concentrations of harmful substance within the product will be diluted in the settling tank. Upon discharge to the marine environment, the harmful substance would be further diluted to the extent that ecotoxicity risk to the marine environment is negligible. In addition, the discharges of trace amounts of harmful substances will be immeasurable in the receiving water within the 200 m zone of influence due to the high energy Taranaki marine environment (Section 3.5 and Section 3.6).

Discharges of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage will therefore be intermittent as they are reliant on a loss of containment event, a rainfall/wash‐down event and the emptying of the settlement tanks.

Given the above, the risk to receptors, and the effects on the environment and existing interests, from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is considered negligible.

7.2.1 Physical Environment

This IA has incorporated information from monitoring reports and assessments that have been undertaken for existing production platforms, FPSO’s and exploration wells in the Taranaki basin. This information, along with all available literature and databases, has been used as a proxy to define what is considered to be the expected conditions at the northern, central and southern AOI.

It is considered that sediment quality and water quality are the only parameters that could potentially be influenced by the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage.

7.2.1.1 Sediment Quality

As outlined in Section 3 and summarised in Section 7.2, the risk to receptors associated with the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is negligible. The water depths at the proposed well sites range in depth from 102 m to 158 m (Table 5). Therefore, given the water depth and high energy environment in the offshore Taranaki region, it is very unlikely that any harmful substance would come in contact with the benthic sediments that would be in concentrations that would have any measureable influence on the sediment chemistry. As a result, it is considered that the potential adverse effect on sediment quality from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drainage system would be negligible (negligible consequence x remote likelihood).

Scale Duration & Recovery



Socio‐Economic

Cultural

Consequence 0 0 0 0 0 0

Likelihood 1 1 1 1 1 1

Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0




Page 114

7.2.1.2 Water Quality

From the information provided in Section 5.1.5 it is demonstrated that the water column throughout the Taranaki region is a well‐mixed open‐ocean environment. Utilising available water quality results from physical analysis in combination with assumptions outlined in Section 5.1.5 it has been derived that the water quality throughout the three AOI’s is likely to be high, with some slight elevations of nutrient levels, particularly in the southern AOI. Likewise, given the distance from shore for the proposed well locations (38 km), there is not expected to be any sediment and nutrient input from terrestrial and riverine inputs.

As outlined in Section 3 and summarised in Section 7.2, the risk to receptors associated with the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is negligible. The dilution calculations provided in Section 3.7 indicate that if any harmful substance was to enter the marine environment through the deck drainage system, after immediate mixing in the high energy Taranaki marine environment the concentrations would be very low (i.e. trace amounts). As such, it is considered that the potential adverse effect on water quality from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drainage system would be negligible (negligible consequence x remote likelihood).




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.2 Biological Environment

7.2.2.1 Benthic Invertebrates

As described within Section 5.2.1, the northern, central and southern AOIs cover a wide geographical range across the offshore Taranaki Basin. Within the Taranaki region, offshore benthic habitats are characterised by soft sediments, hard rock and mudstone habitats, with benthic communities that are often characterised by low species abundance and species diversity.

The 12 well sites proposed in the EAD Programme cover a range of water depths from 102 m to 158 m (Table 5). Given the water depth at these sites and the high energy environment of the offshore Taranaki region, there is a very low possibility that any harmful substances will come in contact with any benthic invertebrates. Likewise, in the event of a harmful substance loss of containment to deck, any residue entering the deck drainage system is still dependent on rainfall occurring or deck washing. As such, discharge of the trace amounts of harmful substance will only occur for a relatively short period of time.

As outlined in Section 3 and summarised in Section 7.2, the risk to receptors associated with the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is negligible. As a result, it is considered that the potential adverse effect on benthic invertebrates from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drainage system would be negligible (negligible consequence x remote likelihood).




Page 115




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.2.2 Marine Mammals

A total of 48 species of cetacean’s (both toothed and baleen whales) have been recorded in New Zealand waters, of which, 24 species have been determined to have either ‘likely’ or ‘possible’ present with the three AOIs. Sections 5.2.2 and 5.2.3 describe all the marine mammal species that could potentially be present in the three AOI’s.

There is the potential for marine mammals to be exposed to extremely low concentrations of a harmful substance (assuming that a marine mammal was directly beside the discharge point at the time trace amounts of harmful substances were discharged). However, as identified in Section 3.7, the likelihood that a marine mammal is exposed to harmful substance concentrations that could be linked to health problems in exposed individuals is extremely low. This is further supported by the following considerations:

Any discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drainage system is intermittent. Additionally, densities of marine mammals in the AOI’s are typically low. The probability of direct spatial and temporal overlap between marine mammals and any discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drains is unlikely and would be extremely short‐term in the event that it does occur;

In the event that direct spatial and temporal overlap does occur between marine mammals and the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drains, external contamination of extremely diluted concentrations would not lead to health problems in exposed individuals based on the concentrations provided in Section 3.7. Ingestion represents the primary route by which marine mammals are exposed to toxins and this typically occurs through consumption of contaminated prey (Aguilar et al., 1999; Helsingen, 2011). Hence, the potential for toxicological assimilation will also depend on the behaviour of individuals at the time of exposure (i.e. animals that are foraging will be more susceptible to exposure than those that are simply travelling past the MODU) and of concentrations of contaminants in prey species. For toxins that are known to bioaccumulate through the food chain (e.g. some heavy metals and organochlorines) it follows that marine mammal species which occupy a higher trophic level (toothed whales and seals) would be subject to greater potential impacts than those at lower trophic levels (baleen whales) (Das et al., 2003); and

In addition to behaviour, the susceptibility of marine mammals to toxicological harm is also likely to be influenced by species, size, body condition, age and baseline health (Das et al., 2003). For instance, calves are likely to be more susceptible to toxins than adults, as are individuals that are suffering from existing health problems or immunosuppression.

As outlined in Section 3 and summarised in Section 7.2, the risk to receptors associated with the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is negligible. On the basis of this, and the information provided above, the ERA results indicate that the risk of residual toxicological impacts on marine mammals from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drainage is negligible (negligible consequence x remote likelihood). Therefore, it is considered that the potential adverse effect from the proposed activity on marine mammals is also negligible.




Page 116




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.2.3 Seabirds

As identified in Section 5.2.4, New Zealand’s marine waters support the most diverse seabird collection worldwide, with over 86 different species present, 84 of which breed here (Taylor, 2000). Foraging seabirds can often use MODU’s as perching opportunities to have a rest during long flights or in adverse weather conditions.

Seabirds are continuously looking for food to keep their metabolism up, and diving birds may potentially congregate around an offshore MODU if small fish start to aggregate around the MODU for both shelter and food. It is possible (although unlikely) that a diving bird will be diving in close proximity or right beside the discharge point at the same time as a discharge of a trace amounts of harmful substance. However, based on indicative concentrations of a harmful substance (Section 3.7) and intermittent nature of the discharge any exposure will only occur for a relatively short period of time.

As outlined in Section 3 and summarised in Section 7.2, the risk to receptors associated with the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is negligible. Therefore the potential risk to seabirds, should they be exposed to any harmful substances (assuming they were diving right beside the discharge point at time of discharge), is considered to be negligible (negligible consequence x remote likelihood). Based on this negligible environmental risk, it is considered that the potential adverse effect from the proposed discharge is also negligible.




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.2.4 Marine Reptiles

As outlined in Section 5.2.5, marine reptiles are only occasional visitors to the south‐western coast of the North Island. It is normally during summer months when warmer currents are present. Leatherback turtles and yellow bellied sea snakes have been observed in Taranaki waters (DOC, 2018g); however, they are rare visitors and are not routinely present as far south as the AOIs.

As outlined in Section 3 and summarised in Section 7.2, the risk to receptors associated with the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is negligible. Additionally, the presence of any marine reptiles within the 200 m zone of influence is considered to be rare. As such the potential for environmental risk following marine reptile exposure to a harmful substance is considered to be negligible (negligible consequence x remote likelihood). Due to this negligible risk of exposure, it is considered that the potential adverse effect from the proposed discharge on marine reptiles is negligible.




Page 117




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.2.5 Fish

As outlined within Section 5.2.6, the fish populations within the three AOIs are represented by various demersal and pelagic species. The AOI’s lie largely within the neritic zone of the ocean, with the fish being found in this zone being highly mobile, with no fixed territories and often schooling fish.

The fish species expected to be in and around the discharge points and zone of influence are highly mobile. Due to the intermittent nature of the discharge or trace amounts of harmful substance from deck drains the potential for them to be affected is reduced significantly as there would need to be a direct spatial and temporal overlap between the fish species and any potentially harmful substance discharged through the deck drainage system.

In addition to the above, and as discussed in Section 3.7, only very low concentrations of a harmful substance would be discharged into the marine environment. The concentration of harmful substances within a discharge which has been calculated as being very low, any discharge would then undergo very high levels of immediate dilution when it enters the sea.

Given the details provided in Section 3 and summarised in Section 7.2 any harmful substance concentration would significantly decrease with increasing distance from the discharge point. It is therefore considered that the environmental effects from a potential harmful substance discharge on fish species are negligible (negligible consequence x remote likelihood).




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.2.6 Cephalopods

Octopus and squid are the most commonly found cephalopods around the Taranaki region; however, the proposed well locations are most likely beyond what is considered core octopus habitat (i.e. around reefs). There is the potential that squid could be attracted to the lights from the MODU at night during the summer months.

Squid have rapid growth rates and are thought to only live for a year before they reproduce and die. To ensure survival of this species squid are highly fecund and use this adaptation to ensure their survival. If any squid were to come into contact with any deck discharge water it would only be for a very short duration given the high energy and well mixed marine environment that the discharge would occur.




Page 118

Given the summary provided in Section 7.2, it considered that the environmental risk to cephalopods being exposed to the trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage discharge is negligible (negligible consequence x remote likelihood). Based on this, it is also considered that the potential environmental effect from the discharge on cephalopods is also negligible.




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.2.7 Primary Producers

Section 5.2.8 provides a summary on the primary producers of the ocean (or ‘plankton’ as they are collectively known) which inhabit the pelagic zone (water column) of the world’s oceans. Plankton travel with the ocean currents, and although some plankton can move vertically within the water column, their horizontal distribution is primarily determined by surrounding currents. Therefore, if a discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage occurred, it is likely that planktonic communities would be present within the 200 m zone of influence.

The productivity of the ocean or the amount of primary producers in the water column is the result of many factors. These factors include ocean currents, climate and bathymetry that cause upwelling and create nutrient rich waters. When these conditions are present they can be ideal for the growth of plankton, which benefit the plankton‐consuming animals.

There are no known areas within the AOIs which have significant or important upwelling or primary productivity. However, the southern AOI does have higher productivity due to the Kahurangi upwelling to the south of the AOI. This upwelling results in eddies of nutrient rich water entering into the South Taranaki Bight and the southern AOI creating highly productive water. This has been to the benefit of blue whales in the area. These upwellings only occur when the right oceanographic conditions are present which bring the deep, cold nutrient rich water to the surface.

Given the operational procedures and mitigation measures detailed in Section 3 and further summarised in Section 7.2 it is considered that the environmental effect on primary producers from any discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage are negligible (minor consequence x rare likelihood).




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0




Page 119

7.2.3 Marine Environmental Classifications and Sensitive Sites

A classification for what determines a sensitive site has been determined and included within the EEZ Act (Section 5.3). From the assessment within Section 5.3.2 there is the potential that some of these sensitive environments could be present within the three AOIs.

These sensitive environments are primarily benthic based. Given the water depth of the proposed wells (102 m to 158 m (Table 5)) any discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is very unlikely to make contact with these habitats. This is supported by the fact that each of the well locations is a high energy, highly mixed marine environment and any discharge of a harmful substance would only be at a low concentration (Section 3.7) and limited to a very small physical area (Section 3.6).

Therefore, based on this information, and as summarised within Section 7.2, it is considered that the environmental effect of any potential harmful substance discharge to the marine environment through the deck drainage system would be negligible (negligible consequence x rare likelihood).




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.4 Cultural Environment

There are a number of iwi groups inshore of the AOI’s that hold special interest and cultural significance in this offshore area through their exercise of mana whenua and mana moana. Even though under the EEZ Act some of these iwi groups are not considered by definition as holding an existing interest for the location of the proposed wells (Figure 1), OMV New Zealand has undertaken to engage with these groups as if they were considered as an existing interest.

Given the likely zone of influence (as outlined in Section 3.6), the engagement with iwi has been limited to those identified in Section 4.

Mauri was created through the union of Ranginui (sky father) and Papatuanuku (earth mother) and became ora (active or life‐giving) when Tāne Mahuta (lord of the forest) separated them, giving rise to many children, each becoming the atua (god) of respective domains of the environment, for example Tangaroa became god of the sea. It is considered that unnatural changes to the marine environment can influence mauri, and it is considered that mauri is unable to protect itself against any changes. However, over time it does have the ability to mend and heal given appropriate time and conditions (ERM, 2017).

As outlined in Section 3 and summarised in Section 7.2, the risk to receptors associated with the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is negligible.

Taking these matters into consideration, it is considered that the any potential effects on the cultural environment at these offshore locations from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is considered to be negligible (negligible consequence x remote likelihood).




Page 120




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.5 Socio‐economic Environment

Section 5.5 assesses the socio‐economic environment in relation to the three AOI’s for the EAD Programme. Essentially this reflects the users of the marine environment within and surrounding the AOI’s. In this instance this includes recreational and commercial fishers.

This section focuses on the users of the surrounding environment (commercially and recreationally) that may be affected by this proposed application for Discharge Consent.

7.2.5.1 Recreational Fishing

As detailed in Section 5.5.1 most of the recreational fishing which takes place within the three AOIs is generally inshore of the proposed well locations (Figure 1). A 500 m Non‐Interference Zone will be in place around the MODU at all times whilst in New Zealand waters so no recreational fishers will be in close contact with the MODU or any discharge that may potentially occur.

Given the environmental risk to fish species from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is considered negligible (Section 7.2.2.5), it is considered that any potential risk to recreational fishing activities from the proposed activities are also negligible (negligible consequence x remote likelihood). As per the conclusion within Section 7.2.2.5, it is also considered that the potential adverse effect on recreational fishing activities is negligible.




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.5.2 Commercial Fishing

A 500 m Non‐Interference Zone will be in place around the MODU at all times whilst in New Zealand waters so no commercial fishers will be in close contact with the MODU or any discharge that may potentially occur.

As discussed in Section 7.2.2.5 the environmental risk to fish species from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is considered negligible. Given that commercial fishers target these same fish species, and that these fish species move throughout the three AOI’s, the overall risk, and potential adverse effects to commercial fishing activities are also negligible (negligible consequence x remote likelihood).




Page 121




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.2.6 Cumulative Effects

There is the potential that up to 12 wells could be drilled during the EAD Programme. These wells are distributed over a very large area in the Taranaki basin (Figure 1). It is also important to note that only OMV New Zealand may drill within their PEP’s and PMP’s, so OMV New Zealand has full control over where a well will be drilled. The zone of influence of any potential harmful substance discharge has been conservatively identified as 200 m (Section 3.6). Therefore, the actual physical effects from any harmful substance discharge would be very spatially limited around the MODU. There is therefore no overlap between well locations for the discharge described in this application.

As discussed throughout this document, numerous operational procedures and mitigation measures will be in place (Section 3 and Section 7.2) to prevent the discharge of a harmful substance through the deck drainage.

Based on all of the information above the potential for any cumulative effects on the marine environment arising from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is negligible (negligible consequence x remote likelihood).




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.3 Effects on Human Health

The pathways for effects on human health from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage relate to either direct exposure to the discharge or from the consumption of fish caught (either commercially or recreationally) that have been exposed and contaminated by the discharge.

The potential for direct exposure to the discharge of deck drainage by humans is considered to be remote given the distance offshore between the well locations (Figure 1) and the shoreline. The closest well is located approximately 38 km from the shore. With an indicated 200 m zone of influence around the MODU (Section 3.6) and the low concentrations of any harmful substance discharge (Section 3.7) the potential that any harmful substance would make its way to the shoreline is extremely remote.




Page 122

A 500 m Non‐Interference Zone will be established around the MODU while it is in New Zealand waters through section 101B of the Crown Minerals Act 1991 (as discussed within Section 2.4.4), which will further ensure that no human contact would be made with the zone of influence (200 m) should a harmful substance residue discharge occur. The Non‐Interference Zone prevents any vessels not authorised to be in the vicinity of the MODU from entering closer than 500 m. As such, it is considered that the potential for direct exposure of the users of the marine environment to a discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is extremely unlikely.

As outlined in Section 5.5.2, the main commercial fish species in the AOIs is jack mackerel, which is a highly mobile and migratory species. If jack mackerel were to enter the zone of influence it would only experience brief low‐level exposure to any harmful substance within the discharge. This exposure would only occur if trace amounts of harmful substances were being discharged from the deck drains simultaneously. No commercial fishing will take place in close proximity to the MODU due to the Non‐Interference Zone. Given these factors, the potential effects on human health from the consumption of commercial caught fish species within the Taranaki area is negligible.

Based on the above discussion and the ERA outlined within Section 7, it is concluded that the likelihood of a consequence occurring from the activities proposed is remote, and if a consequence were to occur, the effects from this would be negligible. Therefore, the overall effects from the proposed activities on human health are considered to be negligible.




Socio‐Economic

Cultural



Risk 0 0 0 0 0 0

7.4 Summary of Environmental Risk Assessment

The above ERA has been undertaken to identify the relative significance of the potential effects from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substance from the deck drains of a MODU based on a likelihood and consequence approach.

Given the assessment in this section, the potential effects on the environment and existing interests from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage are negligible.




Page 123

8 Conclusion

OMV New Zealand is applying for a Discharge Consent in accordance with the EEZ Act. This Discharge Consent is to permit the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from the deck drains of a MODU associated with an EAD Programme.

The EAD Programme in the Taranaki Basin will require a number of approvals under section 20 of the EEZ Act. Additionally, the EAD Programme may require approvals under the D&D Regulations. Applications for these approvals in relation to the EAD Programme will be lodged with the EPA in the future as non‐notified Marine Consent and non‐notified Marine Discharge Consent applications. These approvals are therefore outside the scope of this application.

An ERA has been undertaken to identify the relative significance of the potential effects from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substance from the deck drains of a MODU based on a likelihood and consequence approach. When considering the effects on the environment from the proposed discharge the following factors have been considered:

1. The mitigation measures in place on the MODU will ensure that the probability of a loss of containment of a harmful substance to deck is ALARP;

2. If a loss of containment of harmful substance to deck occurs, there will only be trace amounts left following clean up;

3. Should any trace amounts of harmful substances make it into the deck drainage system, the concentrations of harmful substance within the product will be diluted in the settling tank. Upon discharge to the marine environment, the harmful substance would be further diluted, to the extent that ecotoxicity risk to the marine environment is negligible;

4. The discharges of trace amounts of harmful substances will be immeasurable in the receiving water well within the 200 m zone of influence due to the low volume of harmful substance and the high energy Taranaki marine environment, and;

5. Discharges of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage to the marine environment will be at most intermittent.

The risk to receptors, and the effects on the environment and existing interests, from the discharge of trace amounts of harmful substances from deck drainage is assessed to be negligible.




Page 124

9 References

Agnew, P., 2014. ‘Demographic parameters, foraging and responses to environmental variation of little penguins (Eudyptula minor)’. A Thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 184pp.

Aguilar, A., Borrell, A., Pastor, T., 1999. ‘Biological factors affecting variability of persistent pollutant levels in cetaceans’. In: Reijnders, P.J.H, Aquilar, A., Donovan G.P. (eds) Chemical pollutants and cetaceans. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, Spec. Issue 1:83‐116

Anderson, O.F., Bagley, N.W., Hurst, R.J., Francis, M.P., Clark, M.R., McMillan, P.J., 1998. ‘Atlas of New Zealand fish and squid distributions from research bottom trawls’. NIWA Technical Report 42, pp. 300.

Anderson TJ, MacDiarmid A, Stewart R, 2015. ‘Benthic habitats, macrobenthos and surficial sediments of the nearshore South Taranaki Bight’. NIWA Client Report NEL2013‐012.

ASR, 2004. ‘Metocean Data Collection – Environmental measurements at Maari, Western Cook Strait, New Zealand’. Report prepared for OMV New Zealand Ltd, report no: 5370‐02, 49pp.

ASR, 2004. ‘Literature review and survey of the benthic environment and water column in the Maari field’. Report prepared for OMV New Zealand Ltd, 59pp.

Arnold, S., 2004. ‘Shining a Spotlight on the Biodiversity of New Zealand’s Marine Ecoregion’. Experts workshop on Marine Biodiversity, 27‐28 May 2003, Wellington, New Zealand.

Bagley, N.W., Anderson, O.F., Hurst, R.J., Francis, M.P., Taylor, P.R., Clark, M.R., Paul, L.J., 2000. ‘Atlas of New Zealand fish and squid distributions from midwater trawls, tuna longline sets, and aerial sightings’. NIWA Technical Report No: 72, pp. 167.

Baird, R.W., 2009. ‘False killer whale Pseudorca crassidens’. In, W. F. Perrin and B. G. Würsig and J. G. M. Thewissen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals, pp. 405–406. Academic Press, United States

Baker, A.N., 1999. ‘Whales & Dolphins of New Zealand & Australia: An identification guide’. Victoria University Press, Wellington, New Zealand.

Baker, A.N., Madon, B, 2007. ‘Bryde’s Whales (Balaenoptera Cf. Brydei olsen 1913) In The Hauraki Gulf And Northeastern New Zealand Waters’. Science for Conservation 272. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 23 p.

Baker, C. S., Chilvers, B. L., Constantine, R., DuFresne, S., Mattlin, R. H., van Helden, A., Hitchmough, R., 2010. ‘Conservation Status Of New Zealand Marine Mammals (Suborders Cetacea And Pinnipedia) 2009’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44: 101–115.

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




Page 125

Baker, C.S., Steel, D., Hamner, R., Hickman, G., Boren, L., Arlidge, W., Constantine, R., 2016a. ‘Estimating the abundance and effective population size of Maui dolphins using microsatellilte genotypes in 2015‐16, with retrospective matching to 2001‐16’. Department of Conservation, Auckland. 74 pp.

Bartle, J.A., 1976. ‘Euphausiids of Cook Strait: a transitional fauna?’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 10: 559 – 576.

Beatson, E., O’Shea, S., Ogle, M., 2007. ‘First report on the stomach contents of long‐finned pilot whales, Globicephala melas, stranded in New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 34: 51−56.

Benson, S.R., Eguchi, T., Foley, D.G., Forney, K.A., Bailey, H., Hitipeuw, C., Samber, B.P., Tapilatu, R.F., Rei, V., Ramohia, P., Pita, J., Dutton, P.H., 2011. ‘Large‐scale movements and high‐use areas of western Pacific leatherback turtles, Demochelys coriacea’. Ecosphere, 2(7): 1 – 27.

Berkenbusch, K., Abraham, E.R., Torres, L.G., 2013. ‘New Zealand marine mammals and commercial fisheries’. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 119. Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand. 113 p.

Best, P.B., 2001. ‘Distribution and population separation of Bryde’s whale Balaenoptera edeni off southern Africa’. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 220: 277 – 289.

Boren, L., 2005. ‘New Zealand fur seals in the Kaikoura region: colony dynamics, maternal investment and health’. PhD Thesis, University of Canterbury.

Boyd, C.M., Smith, S.L., 1983. ‘Plankton, upwelling, and coastally trapped waves off Peru’. Deep Sea Research Part A: Oceanographic Research Papers, 30(7): 723 – 724.

Boyd, P., LaRoche, J., Gall, M., Frew, R., McKay, R.M.L., 1999. ‘The role of iron, light and silicate in controlling algal biomass in sub‐Antarctic water SE of New Zealand’. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104(C6): 13395 – 13408.

Bradford, J.M., Roberts, P.E., 1978. ‘Distribution of reactive phosphorus and plankton in relation to upwelling and surface circulation around New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 12(1): 1 – 15.

Bradford, J.M., Lapennas, P.P., Murtagh, R.A., Chang, F.H., Wilkinson, V., 1986. ‘Factors controlling summer phytoplankton production in greater Cook Strait, New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 20(2): 253 – 279.

Bradford‐Grieve, J., Murdoch, R., and Chapman, B., 1993. ‘Composition of macrozooplankton assemblages associated with the formation and decay of pulses within an upwelling plume in greater Cook Strait, New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 27: 1 – 22.

Braham, H., Rice, D 1984. "The right whale, Balaena glacialis". Marine Fisheries Review.

Branch, T.A., Abubaker, E.M.N., Mkango, S., Butterworth, D.S., 2007. ‘Separating southern blue whale subspecies based on length frequencies of sexually mature females’. Marine Mammal Science, 23(4): 803 – 833.

Brodie, J.W., 1960. ‘Coastal surface currents around New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, 3: 235‐252.




Page 126

Brough, T.E., Guerra, M., Dawson, S.M. 2015. ‘Photo‐identification Of Bottlenose Dolphins In The Far South Of New Zealand Indicates A ‘New’ Previously Unstudied Population’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 49(1): 150 – 158.

Brown, M.R., Corkeron, P.J., Hale, P.T., Schultz, K.W., Bryden, M.M., 1995. ‘Evidence for a sex‐segregated migration in the humpback whale (Megaptera movaeangliae)’. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 259: 229 – 234.

Burtenshaw, J. C., Olesona, E. R., Hildebranda, J. A., McDonald, M. A., Andrew, R. K., Howe, M. B., Mercer, J. A., 2004. ‘Acoustic and satellite remote sensing of blue whale seasonality and habitat in the Northeast Pacific’. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 51: 967.

Cairns, D., 1950. ‘New Zealand freshwater eels’. Tuatara, 3(2): 43 – 52.

Carriol, R.P., Vader, W., 2002. ‘Occurrence of Stomatolepas elegans (CirripediaL Balanomorpha) on a leatherback turtle from Finnmark, northern Norway’. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom, 62(6): 1033 – 1034.

Carroll, E.L., Rayment, W.J., Alexander, A.M., Baker, C.S., Patenaudae, N.J., Steel, D., Constantine, R., Cole, R., Boren, L.J., Childerhouse, S., 2014. ‘Reestablishment of former wintering grounds by New Zealand southern right whales’. Marine Mammal Science, 30(1): 206 – 220.

Chappell, P.R., 2014. ‘The climate and weather of Taranaki’. NIWA Science and Technology Series number 64, 40pp.

Clapham, P., Young, S., Brownell, R., 1999. ;Baleen whales: Conservation issues and the status of the most endangered populations’. Publications, Agencies and Staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce, 104, 27pp.

Clark, M.R., Rouse, H.L., Lamarche, G., Ellis, J.I. & Hickey, C.W. 2017. Preparation of Environmental Impact Assessments: general guidelines for offshore mining and drilling with particular reference to New Zealand. NIWA Science and Technology Series Number 81. 110 pp.

Consalvey, M., MacKay, K., Tracey, D., 2006. ‘Information review for protected deep‐sea coral species in the New Zealand region’. Prepared for Department of Conservation, NIWA Client Report: WLG2006‐85, 59pp.

Constantine, R., Baker, C., 1997. ‘Monitoring the commercial swim‐with‐dolphin operations in the Bay of Islands’. DOC, Wellington, New Zealand.

Constantine, R., Aguilar Soto, N., Johnson, M., 2012. ‘Sharing the waters: minimising ship collisions with Bryde’s whales in the Hauraki Gulf’. Research Progress Report. February 2012. 22 p.

Crawley, M.C., Wilson. 1976. ‘The natural history and behaviour of the New Zealand fur seal (Arctocephals forsteri)’. Tuatara, 22(1):1 – 29.

Croll, D.A., Marinovic, B., Benson, S., Chavez, F.P., Black, N., Ternullo, R., Tershy, B.R., 2005. ‘From wind to whales: trophic links in a coastal upwelling system’. Marine Ecology Progress Series 289: 117‐130.

Currey, R.J.C., Boren, L.J., Sharp, B.J., Peterson, D., 2012. ‘A risk assessment of threats to Maui’s dolphins’. Ministry for Primary Industries and Department of Conservation. Wellington. 51 p.




Page 127

Cushing, D.H., 1971. ‘Upwelling and the production of fish’. Advances in Marine Biology, 9: 255 – 300.

Dalebout, M. L., Robertson, K. M., Frantzis, A., Engelhaupt, D., Mignucci‐Giannoni, A. A., Rosario‐Delestre, R. J. and Baker, C. S., 2005. ‘Worldwide structure of mtDNA diversity among Cuvier's beaked whales (Ziphius cavirostris): Implications for threatened populations’. Molecular Ecology, 14: 3353‐3371.

Das, K., Debacker, V., Pillet, S., Bouquegneau, J. 2003. ‘Heavy metals in marine mammals’. In Toxicology of Marine Mammals ‐ Volume 3. Vos, JG., Bossart, GD., Fournier, M., O’Shea, TJ. (eds.). Francis and Taylor, London, UK. Chapter 7

Davidson, R.J., Richards, L.A., Duffy, C.A.J., Kerr, V., Freeman, D., D’Archino, R., Read, G.B., Abel, W., 2010. ‘Location and biological attributes of biogenic habitats located on soft substrate in the Marlborough Sounds’. Prepared by Davidson Environmental Ltd for Department of Conservation and Marlborough District Council, survey monitoring report No. 575.

Dawbin, W.H., 1956. ‘The migrations of humpback whales which pass the New Zealand coast’. Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 84(1): 147 – 196.

Dawson, S., 1985. ‘The New Zealand whale & dolphin digest’. Brick Row Publishing Co. Ltd, Hong Kong.

Deepwater Group, 2018. ‘Squid (SQU)’. http://deepwatergroup.org/species/squid/

De Ronde, C.E.J., Baker, E.T., Massoth, G.J., Lupton, J.E., Wright, I.C., Feely, R.A., Greene, R.R., 2001. ‘Intra‐oceanic subduction‐related hydrothermal venting, Kermadec volcanic arc, New Zealand’. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 193: 359 – 369.

Department of Justice. 2017. https://www.justice.govt.nz/maori‐land‐treaty/marine‐and‐coastal‐area/applications/

DOC, 2007. ‘Whales in the South Pacific’. http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/conservation/native‐animals/marine‐mammals/whales‐in‐the‐south‐pacific.pdf

DOC, 2015. ‘DOC’s work with southern right whales’. [Online]. Available: http://www.doc.govt.nz/conservation/native‐animals/marine‐mammals/whales/southern‐right‐whales‐tohora/docs‐work/

DOC, 2018. ‘Maui and/or Hector’s dolphin sightings data – North Island, 1970 – January 2017’. http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/conservation/native‐animals/marine‐mammals/mauis/maui‐sightings‐map‐1970‐to‐current.pdf

DOC, 2018a. ‘Hector’s and Maui’s Dolphin Incident Database’. http://www.doc.govt.nz/our‐work/hectors‐and‐maui‐dolphin‐incident‐database/

DOC, 2018b. ‘Pilot whales’. http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native‐animals/marine‐mammals/dolphins/pilot‐whales/

DOC, 2018c. ‘Bottlenose dolphin’. http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native‐animals/marine‐mammals/dolphins/bottlenose‐dolphin

DOC, 2018d. ‘Sea and Shore Birds’. http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native‐animals/birds/sea‐and‐shore‐birds/




Page 128

DOC, 2018e. ‘Sea Turtles’. http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native‐animals/marine‐fish‐and‐reptiles/sea‐turtles/

DOC, 2018f. ‘Sea Snakes and Kraits’. http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native‐animals/marine‐fish‐and‐reptiles/sea‐snakes‐and‐kraits/ DOC, 2018g. ‘Atlas of the amphibian and reptiles of New Zealand’. http://www.doc.govt.nz/our‐work/reptiles‐and‐frogs‐distribution/atlas/

DOC, 2018h. ‘Eels’. http://www.doc.govt.nz/nature/native‐animals/freshwater‐fish/eels/

Domeirer, M.L., Colin, P.L., 1997. ‘Tropical reef fish spawning aggregations: defined and reviewed’. Bulletin of Marine Science, 60(3): 698 – 726.

Du Fresne, S., 2010. ‘Distribution of Maui’s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori maui) 2000‐2009’. DOC Research & Development Series 322.

Emama‐Khoyi, A., Paterson, A., Hartley, D., Boren, L., Cruickshank, R., Ross, J., Murphy, E. & Else, T., 2017. ‘Mitogenomics data reveal effective population size, historical bottlenecks, and the effects of hunting on New Zealand fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri)’. Mitochondrial DNA Part A, 2017. DOI: 10.1080/24701394.2017.1325478.

ERM, 2017 Maui Field Activities Impact Assessment. Shell Todd Oil Services. Final Report, April 2017.

Evans, K., Hindell, M.A., 2004. ‘The diet of sperm whales (Physeter macrocephalus) in southern Australian waters’. Journal of Marine Science 61: 1313 – 1329.

Fiedler, P.C., Reilly, S.B., Hewitt, R.P., Demer, D.A., Philbrick, V.A., Smith, S., Armstrong, W., Croll, D.A., Tershy, B.R., Mate, B.R., 1998. ‘Blue whale habitat and prey in the California Channel Islands’. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography, 45.

Ford, J.K.B., 2009. ‘Killer whale Orcinus orca’. In, W. F. Perrin and B. Würsig and J. G. M. Thewissen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals, pp. 650–657. Academic Press, United States.

Fordyce, R.E., Marx, F.G., 2012. ‘The pygmy right whale Caperea marginata: the last of the cetotheres’. Proceedings of the Royal Society B., 280: 20122645.

Forest and Bird, 2014. ‘New Zealand seabirds: important bird areas and conservation’. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, pp. 72.

Forest and Bird, 2014a. ‘New Zealand seabirds: sites at sea, seaward extensions, pelagic areas’. The Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society of New Zealand, Wellington, New Zealand, pp.91.

Foster, B.A., Battaerd, W.R., 1985. ‘Distribution of zooplankton in a coastal upwelling in New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 19: 213 – 226.

Garner, D.M., 1969. ‘The seasonal range of sea temperature on the New Zealand shelf’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 3(2): 201 – 208.




Page 129

Gaskin, D.E., Cawthorn, M.W., 1967. ‘Diet and feeding habit of the sperm whale (Physeter catodon) in the Cook Strait region of New Zealand’ New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 2: 156–179.

Gaskin, D.E., 1968. ‘Analysis of sightings and catches of sperm whales (Physeter catodon L.) in the Cook Strait area of New Zealand'. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwtaer Research, 2: 260 ‐ 272.

Gibbs, N., Childerhouse, S., 2000. ‘Humpback whales around New Zealand’. Conservation Advisory Science Notes No. 257. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. 27 p.

Gibbs, N., Dunlop, R., Gibbs, J., Heberley, J. & Olavarria, C. 2017. ‘The potential beginning of a post‐whaling recovery in New Zealand humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)’. Marine Mammal Science, Online 5 December 2017, DOI: 10.1111/mms.12468.

Gill, B.J., 1997. ‘Records of turtles and sea snakes in New Zealand, 1837 – 1996’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater, 31: 477 – 486.

Gill, P.C., Morrice, M.G., Page, B., Pirzl, R., Levings, A.H., Coyne, M., 2011. ‘Blue whale habitat selection and within‐season distribution in a regional upwelling system off southern Australia’. Marine Ecology Progress Series 421: 243‐263.

GNS, 2017. ‘Hydrothermal vents’. https://www.gns.cri.nz/Home/Learning/Science‐Topics/Ocean‐Floor/Undersea‐New‐Zealand/Hydrothermal‐Vents

Godoy, D., 2016. ‘Marine reptiles – review of interactions and populations’. Prepared for Department of Conservation, Project Code: POP2015‐06, Project No: 4658, 53pp.

Godoy, D.A., Smith, A.N.H., Limpus, C., Stockin, K.A., 2016. ‘The spatio‐temporal distribution and population structure of green turtles (Chelonia mydas) in New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, DOI: 10.1080/00288330.2016.1182034.

Goetz, K., 2017. ‘Unique research records rare whale species in Cook Strait’. NIWA media release 29 March 2017. https://www.niwa.co.nz/news/unique‐research‐records‐rare‐whale‐species‐in‐cook‐strait

Gomez‐Villota, F., 2007. ‘Sperm whale diet in New Zealand’. Unpublished MAppSc thesis. Division of Applied Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand. 221 p.

Goodall, R.N.P., 2002. ‘Spectacled porpoise Phocoena dioptrica’. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 1158‐1161. Academic Press, San Diego, California, USA

Goodman, J.M., Dunn, N.R., Ravenscroft, P.J., Allibone, R.M., Boudee, J.A.T., David, B.O., Griffiths, M., Ling, N., Hitchmough, R.A., Rolfe, J.R., 2013. ‘Conservation Status of New Zealand Freshwater Fish, 2013’. Department of Conservation, Wellington, pp. 16.

Gorman, R., Chiswell, S., Smith, M., 2005. ‘Marine weather and sea conditions of the Great South Basin’. National Institute of Water and Atmosphere.

Greinert, J., Lewis, K.B., Bialas, J., Pecher, I.A., Rowden, A., Bowden, D.A., De Batist, M., Linke, P., 2010. ‘Methane seepage along the Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand: Overview of studies in 2006 and 2007 and new evidence from visual, bathymetric and hydroacoustic investigations’. Marine Geology, 272: 6 – 25.




Page 130

Hammond, P.R., Bearzi, G., BjØrge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S., Wilson, B., 2008a. ‘Lagenorhynchus obscurus’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T11146A3257285. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T11146A3257285.en.

Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S., Wilson, B., 2008b. ‘Phocoena dioptrica’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T41715A10545460. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T41715A10545460.en.

Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K.A., Karkzmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S., Wilson, B., 2012. ‘ Lissodelphis peronii’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2012: e.T12126A17877993. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2012.RLTS.T12126A17877993.en.

Hamner, R.M., Oremus, M., Stanley, M., Brown, P., Constantine, R., Baker, C.S., 2012. ‘Estimating the abundance and effective population size of Maui’s dolphins using microsatellite genotypes in 2010–11, with retrospective matching to 2001–07’. Department of Conservation, Auckland. 44 p.

Handley, S, 2006, ‘An Analysis of Historical Impacts and Composition of the Benthic Environment of Tasman and Golden Bays’, NIWA Client Report: NEL2006 ‐ 002.

Harcourt, R.G., 2001. ‘Advances in New Zealand mammalogy 1990 – 2000: Pinnipeds’. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 31: 135 – 160.

Harcourt, R.G., Bradshaw, C.J.A., Dickson, K., Davis, L.S., 2002. ‘Foraging ecology of a generalist predator, the female New Zealand fur seal’. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 227: 11 – 24.

Hayward, B.W., Tendal, O.S., Carter, R., Grenfell, H.R., Morgans, H.E.G., Scott, G.H., Strong, C.P., Hayward, J.J., 2012. ‘Phyllum Foraminifera: foraminifera, xenophyophores’. In Gordon, D.P. (eds), ‘New Zealand inventory of biodiversity, Volume 3, Kingdoms Bacteria, Protozoa, Chromista, Plantae, Fungi. Canterbury University Press, Christchurch.

Heath, R.A., 1985. ‘A review of the physical oceanography of the seas around New Zealand — 1982’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 19: 79‐124.

Helsingen, E.B. 2011. ‘Bioaccumulation of chemical elements in grey seals (Halichoerus grypus) from the Baltic Sea’. An MSc thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Norway

Hitchmough, R., Bull, L., Cromarty, P., 2005. ‘New Zealand Threat Classification System Lists’. Science and Technical Publishing, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand, 134pp.

Hitchmough, R., Barr, B., Lettink, M., Monks, J., Reardon, J., Tocher, M., van Winkel, D., Rolfe, J., 2015. ‘Conservation status of New Zealand reptiles, 2015’. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 17, 18pp.

Hochsheid, S., Bentivegna, F., Speakman, J.R., 2002. ‘Regional blood flow in sea turtles: implications for heat exchange in aquatic ectotherm’. Physiol Biocehm Zool, 75(1): 66 – 76.

Hoskins, A.J., Dann, P., Ropert‐Coudert, Y., Kato, A., Chiaradia, A., Costa, D.P., Arnould, J.P.Y, 2008. ‘Foraging behavior and habitat selection of the little penguin Eupyptula minor during early chick rearing in Bass Strait, Australia’. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 366: 293 – 303.




Page 131

Hooker, S.K., 2009. ‘Overview toothed whales’. In, W. F. Perrin and B. Würsig and J. G. M. Thewissen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals, pp. 1173–1179. Academic Press, United States.

Horwood, J 2009, “Sei whale Balaenoptera borealis. In, Perrin,W.F.; Würsig, B.G.; Thewissen, J.G.M. (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of marine mammals”, pp. 1001–1003. Academic Press, United States

Hume, T., Ovenden, R., MacDonald, I., 2015. ‘Coastal stability in the South Taranaki Bight – Phase 1. historical and present day shoreline change’. Prepared for Trans‐Tasman Resources Ltd, NIWA Client Report No: HAM2012‐083, pp.58.

Hurst, R.J., Bagley, N.W., Anderson, O.F., Francis, M.P., Griggs, L.H., Clark, M.R., Paul, L.J., Taylor, P.R., 2000. ‘Atlas of juvenile and adult fish and squid distributions from bottom and midwater trawls and tuna longlines in New Zealand waters’. NIWA Technical Report 84.

Hurst, R.J., Stevenson, M.L., Bagley, N.W., Griggs, L.H., Morrison, M.A., Francis, M.P., Duffy, C.A., 2000a. ‘Areas of Importance for Spawning, Pupping or Egg‐laying, and Juveniles of New Zealand Coastal Fish’. NIWA Technical Report, Final Research Report for Ministry of Fisheries Research Project ENV1999/03, Objective 1, 271pp.

Jackson, J.A. Steel, D.J., Beerli, P., Congdon, B.C., Olavarria, C., Leslie, M.S., Pomilla, C., Rosenbaum, H., Baker, C.S., 2014. ‘Global diversity and oceanic divergence of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae)’. Proceedings of the Royal Society B, 281(1786): 20133222.

Jackson, J., Carroll, E., Smith, T., Zerbini, A., Patenaude, N. & Baker, C.S., 2016. ‘An integrated approach to historical population assessment of the great whales: case of the New Zealand southern right whale’. Royal Society Open Science 3: 150669. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150669.

James, M.R., Wilkinson, V.H., 1988. ‘Biomass, carbon ingestion, and ammonia excretion by zooplankton associated with an upwelling plume in western Cook Strait, New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 22(2): 249 – 257.

Jaquet, N., Dawson, S., Slooten, E., 2000. ‘Seasonal distribution and diving behaviour of male sperm whales off Kaikoura: foraging implications’. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78(3): 407 – 419.

Jefferson, T.A., Leatherwood, S., Webber, M.A., 1993. ’Marine Mammals of the World: FAO Species Identification Guide’. United Nation Environment Programme and Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN.

Jefferson, T. A., Newcomer, M. W., Leatherwood, S. and Van Waerebeek, K., 1994. ‘Right whale dolphins Lissodelphis borealis (Peale, 1848) and Lissodelphis peronii (Lacepede, 1804)’. In: S. H. Ridgway and R. Harrison (eds), Handbook of marine mammals, pp. 335‐362. Academic Press.

Jefferson, T.A., Webber, M.A., Pitman, L., 2008. ‘Marine mammals of the world: a comprehensive guide to their identification’. Elsevier 573 p

Jellyman, D.J., 1977. ‘Summer upstream migration of juvenile freshwater eels in New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 11(1): 61 ‐71.

Jellyman, D., 2012. ‘The Status of Longfin Eels in New Zealand – An Overview of Stocks and Harvest’. NIWA Client Report No: CHC2012‐006, prepared for Parliamentary Commissioner for the Environment, pp. 78.




Page 132

Jeung‐Wai, J., Norman, D. 2007. Economic Impact of the Oil and Gas Sector on the Taranaki Region and New Zealand.

Johnston, O., Elvines, D., Allen, C., Forrest, R., Newcombe, E., 2013. ‘Benthic ecological survey for the Pateke‐4H exploratory well: pre‐drill assessment June 2013’. Prepared for AWE Ltd, Cawthron Report No: 2450, 58pp.

Johnston, O., 2016. ‘Sensitive habitats and threatened species in the Taranaki Coastal Marine Area (TCMA) – database investigation’. Cawthron Report No: 2877, 28pp.

Kato, H., 2002. ‘Bryde’s whales, Balaenoptera edeni and B. brydei’. In Perrin, W. B., Würsig, B., & Thewissen, J. G. M. (Eds.), Encyclopaedia of marine mammals (pp. 171–176). San Diego, California: Academic Press.

Kato, H., & Perrin, W. F., 2009. ‘Bryde’s whales, Balaenoptera edeni/brydei’. In Perrin, W. F., Würsig, B., & Thewissen, J. G. M. (Eds). Encyclopedia of marine mammals, 2nd edition (pp 158‐163). San Diego, California: Academic Press

Kemper, K., 2002. ‘Distribution of the Pygmy Right Whale, Caperea marginata, in the Australasian Region’. Marine Mammal Science 18(1): 99 ‐ 111.

Kemper, C.F.M., Middleton, J.F., van Ruth, P.D., 2013. ‘Association between pygmy right whales (Capera marginata) and areas of high marine productivity off Australia and New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Zoology. 40:2, 102‐128

Lalas, C., Bradshaw, C., 2001. ‘Folklore and chimerical numbers: review of a millennium of interaction between fur seals and humans in the New Zealand region’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 35: 477‐497.

Lee, D., Smith, F., 2007. ‘Brachiopods or lamp shells (Phylum Brachiopoda)’. In MacDiarmid, A. (ed), ‘The treasures of the sea: a summary of the biodiversity in the New Zealand marine ecoregion’, WWF New Zealand, 193p.

Lipsky, J.D., 2002. ‘Right whale dolphins Lissodelphis borealis and L. peronii’. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals, pp. 1030‐1033. Academic Press

Luschi, P., Hays, G.C., Papi, F., 2003. ‘A review of long‐distance movements by marine turtles, and the possible role of ocean currents’. OIKOS, 103: 293 – 302.

MacDiarmid, A., Beaumont, J., Bostock, H., Bowden, D., Clark, M., Hadfield, M., Heath, P., Lamarche, G., Nodder, S., Orpin, A., Stevens, C., Thompson, D., Torres, L., Wysoczanski, R., 2012. ‘Expert Risk Assessment of Activities in the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone and Extended Continental Shelf’, prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, NIWA Client Report No: WLG2011‐39, 139pp

MacDiarmid, A., Bowden, D., Cummings, V., Morrison, M., Jones, E., Kelly, M., Neil, H., Nelson, W., Rowden, A., 2013. ‘Sensitive marine benthic habitats defined’. Prepared for Ministry for the Environment, NIWA Client Report No: WLG2013‐18.

MacDiarmid, A., Anderson, O., Beaumont, J., Gorman, R., Hancock, N., Julian, K., Schwarz, J., Stevens, C., Sturman, J., Thompson, D., Torres, L., 2015. ‘South Taranaki Bight Factual Baseline Environment Report’. Prepared for Trans‐Tasman Resources Ltd, NIWA Client Report: WLG2011‐43.




Page 133

MacDiarmid, A., Gall, M., Robinson, K., Stewart, R., Fenwick, M., 2015a. ‘Zooplankton communities and surface water quality in the South Taranaki Bight February 2015’. Prepared for Trans‐Tasman Resources Ltd, NIWA Client Report No: WLG2015‐25, 22pp.

MacKenzie, L 2014. ‘Statement of Evidence of Lincoln MacKenzie for OMV New Zealand Limited – Primary Productivity, Plankton, Toxic Algae and Nutrient Pathways’, 17 September 2014.

Mackenzie, D.L., Clement, D.M., 2014. ‘Abundance and distribution of ECSI Hector’s Dolphins’. NZ Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 123. Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand.

MacKenzie, D.I., Clement, D.M., 2016. ‘Abundance and Distribution of WCSI Hector’s Dolphins’. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 168, Ministry Primary Industries, Wellington, New Zealand.

Mattlin, R., Gales, N., Costa, D., 1998. ‘Seasonal dive behaviour of lactating New Zealand fur seals (Arctocephalus forsteri)’. Canadian Journal of Zoology, 76(2): 350‐360.

Markowitz, T., Harlin, A.D., Wűrsig, B., McFadden, C.J., 2004. ‘Dusky dolphin foraging habitat: overlap with aquaculture in New Zealand’. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 14(2): 133 – 149.

McCann, C., 1966. ‘Key to the marine turtles and snakes occurring in New Zealand’. Tuatara, 14(2): 73 – 81.

McMillan, P.J., Francis, M.P., James, G.D., Paul, L.J., Marriott, P.J., Mackay, E., Wood, B.A., Griggs, L.H., Sui, H., Wei, F., 2011. ‘New Zealand Fishes. Volume 1: A Field Guide to Common Species Caught by Bottom and Midwater Fishing’. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 68, pp. 329.

McMillan, P.J., Griggs, L.H., Francis, M.P., Marriott, P.J., Paul, L.J., Mackay, E., Wood, B.A., Sui, H., Wei, F., 2011b. ‘New Zealand Fishes. Volume 3: A Field Guide to Common Species Caught by Surface Fishing’. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 69, pp. 147.

McMillan, P.J., Francis, M.P., Paul, L.J., Marriott, P.J., Mackay, E., Baird, S‐J., Griggs, L.H., Sui, H., Wei, F., 2011a. ‘New Zealand fishes. Volume 2. A field guide to less common species caught by bottom and midwater fishing’. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 78, 184pp.

Meynier, L., Stockin, K.A., Bando, M.K.H., Duignan, P.J., 2008. ‘Stomach contents of common dolphins (Delphinus sp.) from New Zealand waters’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 42: 257 – 268.

MfE, 2006. ‘Environmental Best Practice Guidelines for the Offshore Petroleum Industry’, 2006.

Miller, E., Lalas, C., Dawson, S., Ratz, H., Slooten, E., 2013. ‘Hector’s dolphin diet: the species, sizes and relative importance of prey eaten by Cephalorhynchus hectori investigated using stomach content analysis’. Marine Mammal Science, 29(4): 606 – 628.

Miyashita, T., Kato, H., Kasuya, T., 1995. ‘Worldwide map of cetacean distribution based on Japanese sighting data’. Volume 1. National Research Institute of Far Seas Fisheries, Shizuoka, Japan. 140p.

Mizroch, S. A., Rice, D.W., Breiwick, J.M., 1984. ‘The sei whale, Balaenoptera physalus’. Marine Fisheries Review 46 (4): 20 – 24




Page 134

Morrison, M.A., Jones, E.G., Parsons, D.P., Grant, C.M., 2014. ‘Habitats and areas of particular significance for coastal finfish fisheries management in New Zealand: a review of concepts and life history knowledge, and suggestions for furture research’. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 125., 201pp.

Morton, J., Miller, M 1968. “The New Zealand Sea Shore”. Collins, London ‐ Auckland.

Morton, J., 2004. ‘Seashore ecology of New Zealand and the Pacific’. David Bateman, Auckland, New Zealand.

MPI, 2018. ‘Fishery ‐ Squid’. http://fs.fish.govt.nz/Page.aspx?pk=5&tk=1&fpid=48

MSL, 2006. ‘Tui development metocean criteria’. Prepared for New Zealand Overseas Petroleum Ltd, 187pp.

MSL, 2011. ‘Raroa FPSO Produced Water and Cooling Water Discharges. An assessment of plume dynamics’. Prepared for OMV New Zealand Ltd, MetOcean Solutions Report: 0074‐01, 12pp

MSL, 2012. Site specific water temperatures for the Taranaki Basin, 2012.

MSL, 2013. ‘Oil spill trajectory modelling – assessment of potential coastal impacts with simulation of surface release from proposed well at Pateke‐4H’. Prepared for AWE, MetOcean Solutions Report: P0116‐01, 42pp.

MSL, 2014. ‘Oil Spill Trajectory Modelling – Maari production well, New Zealand’. Prepared for OMV New Zealand, MetOcean Solutions report: P0091‐02, 50pp.

Murphy, R.J., Pinkerton, M.H., Richardson, K.M., Bradford‐Grieve, J.M., Boyd, P.W., 2001. ‘Phytoplankton distributions around New Zealand derived from SeaWiFS remotely‐sensed ocean colour data’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 35: 343 – 362.

NABIS, 2018. ‘Annual distribution of black coral’. Accessed from http://www.nabis.govt.nz/LineageDocuments/Annual%20distribution%20of%20black%20coral%20lineage.pdf

Nelson, W.A., 2009. ‘Calcified macroalgae – critical to coastal ecosystems and vulnerable to change: a review’. Marine and Freshwater Research, 60: 787 – 801.

Nelson, W.A., Neill, K., Farr, T., Barr, N., D’Archino, R., Miller, S., Stewart, R., 2012. ‘Rhodolith beds in northern New Zealand: Characterisation of associated biodiversity and vulnerability to environmental stressors’. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 99, 102pp.

New Zealand Birds Online 2018. http://nzbirdsonline.org.nz/

Nga Uri O Tahinga Trust 2012, “Tahinga Environmental Management Plan”.

Ngāti Mutunga Iwi 2014. Ngāti Mutunga Tribal Area. http://ngatimutunga.iwi.nz/tribal‐area/

NIWA, 2018. ‘Overview of New Zealand’s climate’. https://www.niwa.co.nz/education‐and‐training/schools/resources/climate/overview

NIWA, 2018a. ‘South‐west North Island’. https://www.niwa.co.nz/education‐and‐training/schools/resources/climate/overview/map_sw_north




Page 135

NIWA, 2018b. ‘Tuna – Spawning Grounds’. https://www.niwa.co.nz/te‐k%C5%ABwaha/tuna‐information‐resource/biology‐and‐ecology/spawning‐grounds

Nodder, S 1995. "Late quaternary transgressive/regressive sequences from Taranaki continental shelf, western New Zealand". Marine Geology, 123: 187‐214.

Nybakken, J.W., Bertness, M.D., 2005. ‘Marine Biology: an ecological approach’. Pearson Education Inc publishing as Benjamin Cummings, San Francisco, 6th edition.

NZGeo.com, 2016. ‘The Humpback Highway’ https://www.nzgeo.com/stories/the‐humpback‐highway/

NZP&M, 2014. ‘New Zealand Petroleum Basins – part 1’. Published by New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals, 2014/2015 revised edition, 39pp.

O’Callaghan, T.M., Baker, A.N., Helden, A., 2001. ‘Long‐finned pilot whale strandings in New Zealand – the past 25 years’. Science poster no. 52, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand. Available from http://www.doc.govt.nz/Documents/science‐andtechnical/SciencePoster52.pdf.

O’Driscoll, R.L., Booth, J.D., Bagley, N.W., Anderson, O.F., Griggs, L.H., Stevenson, M.L., Francis, M.P. 2003. ‘Areas of importance for spawning, pupping, or egg‐laying and juveniles of New Zealand deepwater fish, pelagic fish, and invertebrates’. NIWA Technical Report 119, 377p.

Olson, P.A., Bott, N., Olavarria, C., Andrews, O., Constantine, R., Schmitt, N., Ensor, P., Miller, B.S., Weir, J., Childerhouse, S., van der Linde, M., Double, M.C., 2008. ‘New Zealand blue whales: and update on residency and behavior’. International Whaling Commission, SC/66b/SH/08, 7pp.

Olson, P.A., 2009. ‘Pilot whales Globicephala melas and G. macrorhynchus’. In, Encylopedia of marine mammals, pp. 847 – 852. Academic Press, United States.

Orpin, A.R., 2015. ‘Geological desktop summary; active permit areas 50753 (55581), 54068 and 54272, South Taranaki Bight’. Prepared for Trans‐Tasman Resources Ltd, NIWA Client Report No: WLG2013‐44

O’Shea, S. 2013, ‘The Deep‐sea Finned Octopoda of New Zealand’, https://www.tonmo.com/pages/finned‐octopoda/

Oshumi, S., Kasamatsu, F., 1986. ‘Recent off‐shore distribution of the southern right whale in summer’. Reports of the International Whaling Commission Special Issue 10: 177‐186.

Page, B., McKenzie, J., Goldsworthy, S.D., 2005. ‘Inter‐sexual differences in New Zealand fur seal diving behaviour’. Marine Ecology Progress Series, 304: 249 – 264.

Patenaude, N.J., 2003. ‘Sightings of southern right whales around ‘mainland’ New Zealand’. Science for Conservation 225, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand 15 p.

Pecher, I.A., Henrys, S.A., 2003. ‘Potential gas reserves in gas hydrate sweet spots on the Hikurangi Margin, New Zealand’. 2003/23 Institute of Geological and Nuclear Sciences, Lower Hutt.

Pelletier, L., Chiaradia, A., Kato, A., Ropert‐Coudert, Y., 2014. ‘Fine‐scale spatial age segregation in the limited foraging area of an inshore seabird species, the little penguin’. Oecologia, 176: 399 – 408.




Page 136

PEPANZ 2018. http://www.pepanz.com/news‐and‐issues/issues/economic‐contribution‐to‐nz/

Perrin, W.F., 2009. ‘Minke whales Balaenoptera acutorostrata and B. bonaerensis’. In, W. F. Perrin and B. Würsig and J. G. M. Thewissen (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of marine mammals”, pp. 733–735. Academic Press, United States.

Pinkerton, M.H., Moore, G.F., Lavender, S.J., Gall, M.P., Oubelkheir, K., Richardson, K.M., Boyd, P.W., Aiken, J., 2006. ‘A method for estimating inherent optical properties of New Zealand continental shelf waters from satellite ocean colour measurements’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 40: 227 – 247.

Pitman, R.L., 2002. ‘Mesoplodont whales Mesoplodon spp’. In: W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig and J. G. M. Thewissen (eds), Encyclopaedia of Marine Mammals;. pp. 738‐742. Academic Press.

Poupart, T.A., Waugh, S.M., Bost, C., Bost, C‐A., Dennis, T., Lane, R., Rogers, K., Sugishita, J., Taylor, G.A., Wilson, K‐J., Zhang, J., Arnould, J.P.Y., 2017. ‘Variability in the foraging range of Eudyptula minor across breeding sites in central New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 44(3): 225 – 244.

Rayment, W., Davidson, A., Dawson, S., Slooten, E., Webster, T., 2012. ‘Distribution of southern right whales on the Auckland Island calving grounds’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 46: 431 – 436.

Reilly, S.B., Bannister, J.L., Best, P.B., Brown, M., Brownell, R.L., Butterworth, D.S., Clapham, P.J., Cooke, J., Donovan, G.P., Urban, J., Zerbini, A.N., 2008. ‘Caperea marginata’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T3778A10071743. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T3778A10071743.en.

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., 2008a. ‘Balaenoptera bonaerensis’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T2480A9449324. . Downloaded on 24 September 2015

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 2008b. Balaenoptera acutorostrata. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T2474A9444043. . Downloaded on 24 September 2015.

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., 2013. ‘Balaenoptera physalus’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2013: e.T2478A44210520. . Downloaded on 24 September 2015.

Reeves, R., Pitman, R.L., Ford, J.K.B., 2017. ‘Orcinus orca’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2017: e.T15421A50368125. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2017‐3.RLTS.T15421A50368125.en.

Rice, D., 1978. ‘Blue Whale’. In: Marine mammals of the Eastern Pacific and Antarctic Waters ed: D. Haley”, Pacific Search Press.

Richter, C. F., Dawson, S.M., Slooten, E., 2003. ‘Sperm Whale Watching off Kaikoura, New Zealand: Effects of Current Activities on Surfacing and Vocalisation Patterns’. Science for Conservation Report No. 219. Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand.

Ridgway, N.M., 1980. ‘Hydrological conditions and circulation off the west coast of the North Island, New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 14, 155‐167.

Roberts, J.M., Wheeler, A.J., Freiwald, A., 2006. ‘Reefs of the deep: the biology and geology of cold‐water coral ecosystems’. Science, 312, 543 – 547.




Page 137

Roberts, C.D., Stewart, A.L., Struthers, C.D. (Eds), 2015. ‘The fishes of New Zealand. Volume 1: Introduction and supplementary matter’. Te Papa Press, Wellington, Vol 1: S1 – S256.

Robertson, H.A., Baird, K., Dowding, J.E., Elliott, G.P., Hitchmough, R.A., Miskelly, C.M., McArthur, N., O’Donnell, C.F.J., Sagar, P.M., Scofield, P., Taylor, G.A., 2017. ‘Conservation Status of New Zealand Birds, 2016’. New Zealand Threat Classification Series 19. Department of Conservation, Wellington, 23p.

Rose, B., Payne, A.I.L., 1991. ‘Occurrence and behavior of the southern right whale dolphin Lissodelphis peronii off Namibia’. Marine Mammal Science, 7: 25‐34.

Rossman, M., 2010. ‘Estimated bycatch of small cetaceans in Northeast US bottom trawl fishing gear during 2000 – 2005’. Journal of Northwest Atlantic Fishery Science, 42: 77 – 101.

Rowantree, V.J., Valenzuela, L.O., Fraguas, P.F., Seger, J., 2008. ‘Foraging behaviour of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) inferred from variation of carbon stable isotope ratios in their baleen’. Report to the International Whaling Commission, SC/60/BRG23.

Rowden, A.A., Berkenbusch, K., Brewin, P.E., Dalen, J., Neill, K.F., Nelson, W.A., Oliver, M.D., Probert, P.K., Schwarz, A.M., Sui, P.H., Sutherland, D., 2012. ‘A review of the marine soft‐sediment assemblages of New Zealand’. New Zealand Aquatic Environment and Biodiversity Report No. 96.

RPS, 2014. ‘Maui Field – South Taranaki Basin: Quantitative spill modelling study’. Report No: Q0314, 102pp.

Scofield, P., Stephenson, B., 2013. Birds of New Zealand: A photographic Guide. Auckland University Press, Auckland, New Zealand.

Shirihai, H., Jarrett, B., 2006. ‘Whales, Dolphins and Other Marine Mammals of the World’. Princeton, Princeton University Press: 56‐58.

Sekiguchi, K., Klages, N.T.W., Best, P.B., 1996. ‘The diet of strap‐toothed whales (Mesoplodon Layardii)’. Journal of Zoology (London) 239: 453‐463.

Shell Todd. 2002. ‘Pohokura Gas Field Development. Volume 3: Existing environment and assessment of environmental effect and mitigation measures’

SLR, 2016. ‘Benthic Ecological Survey, Manaia‐2 Exploration Well: Post‐drill Assessment, March 2016’. SLR Report No: 740.10013.00230, 80pp.

SLR, 2016a ‘Benthic Ecological Survey for the Whio‐1 Exploration Well, Third Post‐Drill Assessment, November 2016.’ SLR Report No: 740.10013.00320‐R02, 69 pp.

SLR, 2016b ‘Benthic Ecological Survey, Tui Field Facilities, Production Discharge Monitoring, February 2016.’ Report No. 740.10040, 72pp. SLR, 2016c. ‘Benthic ecological survey Matuku‐1 Exploration Well: post‐drill assessment, March 2016’. Report No: 740.10013.00240, 74pp.

SLR, 2017. ‘Annual Production Monitoring – Benthic Ecological Survey Maari Field’, Report No: 740.10013.00340‐R01.




Page 138

SLR, 2017a. ‘Benthic Ecological Survey for the Oi‐1 & Oi‐2 Exploration Wells – Post‐Drill Assessment’. Report No: 740.10025.00100‐R01, 75pp.

SLR, 2017b. ‘Ecological Benthic Monitoring – Ruru‐2 and Ruru‐3 Exploration Wells, 2017 Post‐drill Survey’. Report No: 740.10041.0022‐R01, 82pp.

SLR, 2017c. ‘Benthic Ecological Survey for the Maui Platform Alpha – Annual Production Monitoring, Report No: 740.10041.0020‐R01, 86pp.

Slooten, E., Dawson, S.M., Rayment, W.J., Childerhouse, S.J., 2005. ‘Distribution of Maui’s dolphin, Cephalorhyncus hectori maui’. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2005/28. 21 p.

Slooten, E., Rayment, W., Dawson, S., 2006. ‘Offshore distribution of Hector’s dolphins at Bank’s Peninsula, New Zealand: Is the Banks Peninsula Marine Mammal Sanctuary large enough?’ New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 40: 333‐343.

Smith, P.J., Mattlin, R.H., Roeleveld, M.A. & Okutani, T., 1987. ‘Arrow suids of the genus Nototodarus in New Zealand waters: systematics, biology, and fisheries’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 21: 315‐326.

Snelder, T., Leathwick, J., Dey, K., Weatherhead, M., Fenwick, G., Franis, M., Gorman, R., Grieve, J., Hadfield, M., Hewitt, J., Hume, T., Richardson, K., Rowden, A., Uddstrom, M., Wild, M., Zeldis, J., 2005. ‘The New Zealand Marine Environment Classification’. Prepared for the Ministry for the Environment, 80pp.

Stanton, B.R., 1973. ‘Hydrological investigations around northern New Zealand’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 7: 85‐110.

Statistics NZ. 2018. http://www.treasury.govt.nz/economy/overview/2012/20.htm

Stockin, K.A., 2008. ‘The New Zealand common dolphin (Delphinud sp.) – Identity, ecology and conservation’. Massey University, a thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Zoology, 265pp.

Taranaki Iwi Trust 2013. Letter to Taranaki Regional Council: Proposed transfer of Sugar Loaf (Nga Motu) Islands Submission.

Taranaki Regional Council. 2016. ‘Draft Coastal Plan for Taranaki’. Prepared by Taranaki Regional Council. August 2016.

Taylor, G. A 2000, “Action plan for seabird conservation in New Zealand. Part A, Threatened seabirds”, Dept. of Conservation, Biodiversity Recovery Unit, Wellington, N.Z.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Form, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P., Pitman, R.L., 2008. ‘Physeter macrocephalus’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008. e.T41755A10554884. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T41755A10554884.en

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P., Pitman, R.L., 2008a. ‘Berardius arnuxii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T2762A9478212’. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T2762A9478212.en.




Page 139

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P., Pitman, R.L., 2008b. ‘Mesoplodon bowdoini. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T13242A3425144’. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T13242A3425144.en.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P., Pitman, R.L., 2008c. ‘Mesoplodon ginkgodens. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T13246A3427970’. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T13246A3427970.en.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P., Pitman, R.L., 2008d. ‘Mesoplodon grayi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T13247A3428839’. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T13247A3428839.en.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P., Pitman, R.L., 2008e. ‘Mesoplodon layardii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T13249A3429897’. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T13249A3429897.en.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P., Pitman, R.L., 2008f. ‘Hyperoodon planifrons. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T10708A3208830’. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T10708A3208830.en.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P., Pitman, R.L., 2008g. ‘Tasmacetus shepherdi. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T21500A9291409’. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T21500A9291409.en.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P., Pitman, R.L., 2008h. ‘Ziphius cavirostris. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T23211A9429826’. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T23211A9429826.en.

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J.K.B., Mean, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P., Pitman, R.L., 2008i. ‘Globicephala melas’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008:

e.T9250A12975001. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T9250A12975001.en

Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P., Pitman, R.L. 2008j. ‘Pseudorca crassidens’. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T18596A8495147. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T18596A8495147.en.

Te Ara, 2018. ‘Climate’. https://teara.govt.nz/en/climate/page‐1

Te Ara, 2018a. ‘Ocean currents and tides’. https://teara.govt.nz/en/ocean‐currents‐and‐tides/page‐1

Te Ara, 2018b. ‘Sea‐surface temperature – coastal fish’. https://teara.govt.nz/en/interactive/8810/sea‐surface‐temperatures

Te Ara, 2018c. ‘Sea floor geology’. https://teara.govt.nz/en/sea‐floor‐geology

Te Ara, 2018d. ‘Eels’. https://teara.govt.nz/en/eels

Te Ara, 2018e. ‘Octopus in New Zealand’. https://teara.govt.nz/en/octopus‐and‐squid/page‐4

Te Ara, 2018f. ‘Squid in New Zealand’. https://teara.govt.nz/en/octopus‐and‐squid/page‐5




Page 140

Te Tau Ihu 2014. Te Tau Ihu Statutory Acknowledgements 2014. Statutory Acknowledgements of the Resource Management Plans for Marlborough District Council, Nelson City Council and Tasman District Council.

Tendal, O.S., 1975. ‘The xenophyophores of New Zealand (Rhizopodea, Protozoa)’. Tuatara, 21(3): 92 – 97.

Tendal, O.S., Lewis, K.B., 1978. ‘New Zealand xenophyophores: upper bathyal distribution, photographs of growth position and a new species’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 12: 197 – 203.

Todd, P.R., 1981. ‘Timing and periodicity of migrating New Zealand freshwater eels (Anguilla sp.)’. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 15: 225 – 235.

Todd, B., 2014. ‘Whales and Dolphins of Aotearoa New Zealand’. Te Papa Press, Wellington, New Zealand.

Tonkin & Taylor, 2015. ‘Offshore ironsands project: air dispersion modelling study – reciprocating engines’. Prepared for Trans‐Tasman Resources Ltd, job number: 29303.v2, 33pp.

Tonkin & Taylor, 2015a. ‘Offshore ironsands project: air disperson modelling study – gas turbines’. Prepared for Trans‐Tasman Resources Ltd, job number: 29303.v2, 31pp.

Tormosov, D.D., Mikhaliev, Y.A., Best, P.B., Zemsky, V.A., Sekiguchi, K., Brownell Jr., R.L., 1998. ‘Soviet catches of Southern Right Whales Eubalaena australis, 1951–1971. Biological data and conservation implications’. Biological Conservation 86: 185–197.

Torres , L., 2012. ‘Marine mammal distribution patterns off Taranaki, New Zealand, with reference to the OMV NZ Ltd petroleum extraction in the Matuku and Maari permit areas’ Report prepared by NIWA for OMV NZ Ltd. March 2012. Report number WLG2012‐15.

Torres, L., Gill, P., Hamner, R., Glasgow, D., 2014. ‘Documentation of a blue whale foraging ground in the South Taranaki Bight’. Prepared for DOC, OSU, IFAW, Greenpeace NZ and Todd Energy, NIWA Client Report: WLG2014‐17.

Torres, L., Klinck, H., 2016. ‘Blue whale ecology in the South Taranaki Bight region of New Zealand: January‐February 2016 Field Report’. Oregon State University. March 2016.

Torres, L, Barlow, D., Hodge, K., Klinck, H., Steel, D., Baker, C.S., Chandler, T., Gill, P., Ogle, M., Lilley, C., Bury, S., Graham, B., Sutton, P., Burnett, J., Double, M., Olsen, P., Bott, N., Constantine, R., 2017. ‘New Zealand blue whales: recent findings and research progress’. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, IWC, 2017.

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., Mackay, E., Gordon, D., Cairns, S., Alderslade, P., Sanchez, J., Williams, G., 2014. ‘Coral identification guide – 2nd version’. Department of Conservation Report, Wellington, 16p.

TRC 2009. Taranaki Where We Stand – State of the Environment Report 2009. Published by the Taranaki Regional Council, 288pp.

TRC, 2010, ‘Regional Policy Statement for Taranaki’, Taranaki Regional Council, Stratford, 250p.




Page 141

TRC, 2011. ‘Regional Air Quality Plan for Taranaki’. Taranaki Regional Council, Stratford, document number: 9201097, 122pp.

TRC 2015. Taranaki Iwi Statutory Acknowledgements. http://www.trc.govt.nz/appendix‐iv/

TRC, 2018. ‘Air quality’. https://www.trc.govt.nz/environment/air/air‐quality/

Venture Taranaki 2010. The Wealth beneath Our Feet – The Value of the Oil and Gas Industry to New Zealand and the Taranaki Region

Visser, I.N., 2000. ‘Orca (Orcinus orca) in New Zealand waters’. PhD Dissertation, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.

Visser, I.N., 2007. ‘Killer whales in New Zealand waters: status and distribution with comments on foraging’. Unpublished report (SC/59/SM19) to the Scientific Committee, International Whaling Commission.

Waikato Regional Council, 2005. Waikato Regional Coastal Plan. Prepared by Policy & Transport Group for Waikato Regional Council. Document #2190276.

Wakefield, A.T., Walker, L., 2005. ‘Maori methods and indicators for marine protection: Ngati Kere interests and expectations for the Rohe Moana’. New Zealand Department of Conservation, Ngati Kere and Ministry for the Environment, Wellington, New Zealand. 66 p.

Wells, R.S.; Scott, M.D., 2009. ‘Common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus’. In, W. F. Perrin and B. Würsig and J. G. M. Thewissen (Ed.), Encyclopedia of marine mammals, pp. 249–255. Academic Press, United States.

Wiebkin, A.S., Page, B., Goldworthy, S., Ward, T., Paton, D., 2005. ‘Satellite tracking little penguins in South Australia’. New Zealand Journal of Zoology, 32: 269 – 270.

Wiseman, N., Parsons, S., Stockin, K.A., Baker, C.S., 2011. ‘Seasonal occurrence and distribution of Bryde’s whales in the Hauraki Gulf, New Zealand’. Marine Mammal Science 27: E253 – E267.

Wood, A.C.L., Probert, P.K., Rowden, A.A., Smith, A.M., 2012. ‘Complex habitat generated by marine bryozoans: a review of its distribution, structure, diversity, threats and conservation’. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems, 22: 547 – 563.

Wűrsig, B., Cipriano, F., Slooten, E., Constantine, R., Barr, K., Yin, S., 1997. ‘Dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) of New Zealand: status of present knowledge’. Reports of the International Whaling Commission, 47: 715 – 722.

Wűrsig, B., Duprey, N., Weir, J., 2007. ‘Dusky dolphins (Lagenorhynchus obscurus) in New Zealand waters. Present knowledge and research goals’. DOC Research and Development Series, 270: 1 – 28.

Zaeschmar, J., Visser, I.N., Fertl, D., Dwyer, S., Meissner, A.M., Halliday, J., Berghan, J., Donnelly, D., Stockin, K.A., 2013. ‘Occurrence of false killer whales (Pseudorca crassidens) and their association with common bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) off northeastern New Zealand’. Marine Mammal Science, 30: 594 – 608.

740.10078.00000‐R01‐v1.0 Marine Discharge Consent 20180326 (FINAL).docx

APPENDIX A

Proffered Conditions


Definitions

Consent Holder: Has the meaning given in section 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.

Discharge and Dumping Regulations: Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Discharge and Dumping) Regulations 2015.

EPA: Means the Environmental Protection Authority or any equivalent Authority having an equivalent role under the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.

ESRP: Emergency Spill Response Plan

Harmful Substance: Has the meaning given in regulation 4(a) and (b) of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects – Discharge and Dumping) Regulations 2015.

Hazard Area: Deck areas where harmful substances are stored or handled, this includes the drill floor, mud treatment room, cement unit house, shale shaker room, well test area, moon pool area and pipe rack area.

Non‐hazard Area: Deck areas where harmful substances are not stored or handled.

MODU: Mobile offshore drilling unit.

Working Day: Has the meaning given in section 4 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012.

Conditions

Pursuant to sections 62(3) and 63 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012, this marine discharge consent authorises the discharge of harmful substances in accordance with application EEZ [insert application number] subject to the following conditions:

1. The Consent Holder shall ensure that the Marine Discharge Consent is exercised in general accordance with the application for Marine Discharge Consent dated [insert date] (Report Number [insert report number]), except where modified by the conditions below.

Where information contained in the application material and/or supporting documents is contrary to the conditions of this Marine Discharge Consent, the conditions shall prevail.

2. This Marine Discharge Consent expires 31 December 2025.

3. The Consent Holder shall ensure that a copy of this Marine Discharge Consent, and any variations, are available for inspection by the EPA at the Consent Holder’s head office in New Zealand, and on any MODU undertaking activities authorised by this Marine Discharge Consent.

4. The Consent Holder shall ensure that personnel directly involved in the exercise of this Marine Discharge Consent are informed of their obligations and responsibilities in exercising this Marine Discharge Consent.

5. a) The Consent Holder shall within 20 working days of the date of commencement of this Marine Discharge Consent provide the EPA with the name and contact details of the delegated experienced


person(s) responsible for collating and reporting information on compliance management in relation to this Marine Discharge Consent.

b) The Consent Holder shall advise the EPA of any changes to the name and contact details of this person(s) within 20 working days of any changes being made.

6. The Consent Holder shall ensure that no harmful substances are stored or handled in non‐hazard areas which drain directly to the sea.

7. Any deck drain from a hazard area shall, as a minimum, including the following design requirements:

a) Full containment of deck drainage runoff directed to a settlement tank; and

b) Settlement tanks shall have a minimum combined capacity of at least 5 m³; and

c) An oil‐in‐water separator system prior to discharge; and

d) A mechanism for analysing oil‐in‐water content prior to discharge from the oil‐in‐water separator system.

8. The Consent Holder must ensure there is an approved ESRP for any MODU undertaking activities authorised by this Marine Discharge Consent.

9. The Consent Holder must include in the ESRP up‐to‐date and accurate drawings or plans showing the general arrangement of the installation, in particular, the places and systems associated with the storage or transfer of harmful substances, including tank capacity, filling arrangements, isolation valves and drainage systems highlighting the critical isolation points

10. The Consent Holder must notify the EPA, as soon as reasonably practicable but not later than the end of the following working day, after a spill into the sea of any harmful substances described in regulation 4(a) of the Discharge and Dumping Regulations becomes known to the Consent Holder.

11. a) In the event of a spill of any harmful substances described in regulation 4(a) of the Discharge and Dumping Regulations into the sea, the Consent Holder must liaise with the EPA to determine whether monitoring is likely to detect any environmental effects and, if so, agree on appropriate monitoring (if any) and timeframes and whether any other relevant authorities should be notified. Other relevant authorities may include Maritime New Zealand, regional councils, iwi entities or the Department of Conservation.

b) The results of the monitoring must be provided to the EPA on request and in a written summary report within three months of the Consent Holders receipt of the results.

12. Pursuant to sections 76 and 77 of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf (Environmental Effects) Act 2012, the EPA may serve notice on the Consent Holder of its intention to review the conditions of this Marine Discharge Consent at five yearly intervals from the grant of this consent for the following reasons:

a) To deal with any adverse effects on the environment that may arise from the exercise of this consent and which it is appropriate to deal with after the consent has been granted;

b) To impose discharge quality and/or receiving water quality monitoring requirements if the quantities or frequencies of discharges of harmful substances are shown to be greater than anticipated; or

c) To deal with any practical issues arising from the implementation of the conditions of consent.

ASIA PACIFIC OFFICES

BRISBANE

Level 2, 15 Astor Terrace

Spring Hill QLD 4000

Australia

T: +61 7 3858 4800

F: +61 7 3858 4801

CANBERRA

GPO 410

Canberra ACT 2600

Australia

T: +61 2 6287 0800

F: +61 2 9427 8200

DARWIN

5 Foelsche Street

Darwin NT 0800

Australia

T: +61 8 8998 0100

F: +61 2 9427 8200

MACKAY

21 River Street

Mackay QLD 4740

Australia

T: +61 7 3181 3300

MELBOURNE

Suite 2, 2 Domville Avenue

Hawthorn VIC 3122

Australia

T: +61 3 9249 9400

F: +61 3 9249 9499

NEWCASTLE

10 Kings Road

New Lambton NSW 2305

Australia

T: +61 2 4037 3200

F: +61 2 4037 3201

PERTH

Ground Floor, 503 Murray Street

Perth WA 6000

Australia

T: +61 8 9422 5900

F: +61 8 9422 5901

ROCKHAMPTON

[email protected]

M: +61 407 810 417

SYDNEY

2 Lincoln Street

Lane Cove NSW 2066

Australia

T: +61 2 9427 8100

F: +61 2 9427 8200

TAMWORTH

PO Box 11034

Tamworth NSW 2340

Australia

M: +61 408 474 248

F: +61 2 9427 8200

TOWNSVILLE

Level 1, 514 Sturt Street

Townsville QLD 4810

Australia

T: +61 7 4722 8000

F: +61 7 4722 8001

AUCKLAND

68 Beach Road

Auckland 1010

New Zealand

T: +64 27 441 7849

NELSON

5 Duncan Street

Port Nelson 7010

New Zealand

T: +64 274 898 628

NEW PLYMOUTH

Level 2, 10 Devon Street East

New Plymouth 4310

New Zealand

T: +64 0800 757 695