Maui’s And Mining: A Review Of Marine Mineral Mining Activity On The West Coast Of New Zealand And Its Potential Impacts.

By Kirsten Thompson, March 2012 Prepared for Department of Conservation Auckland Area Office under contract. Wild Nature, email: kirsten.thompson@xtra.co.nz Tel. +64 (0)277470458, Skype:kirsten.thompson1

2

Table of Contents

List of Figures and Tables .............................................................................................................4

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................5

2.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................6 2.1 Background ................................................................................................................................ 6 2.2 Overview of Maui’s dolphin ecology and conservation ................................................................ 6 2.3 Maui’s dolphin protection .......................................................................................................... 8 2.4 Other cetacean species in New Zealand waters ........................................................................... 9

3.0 Marine Mineral Extraction ................................................................................................ 12 3.1 Process and legislation ............................................................................................................. 12

3.1.1 National Legislation ...................................................................................................................... 12 3.1.2 Permitted activities ...................................................................................................................... 13 3.1.3 International Legislation .............................................................................................................. 14 3.1.3 Code of conduct ........................................................................................................................... 14 3.1.4 Monitoring ................................................................................................................................... 14

3.2 Existing mining operations along the west coast of the North Island .......................................... 15 3.2.1 Scale, location and companies operating .................................................................................... 15 3.2.2 Mineral types ............................................................................................................................... 15

3.3 Mining Methods Used off the West Coast of the North Island ................................................... 17 3.3.1 Prospecting and Exploration ........................................................................................................ 17 3.3.2 Active Mining Proposed ............................................................................................................... 20 3.3.3 Summary of Current Surveying Methods and Activity on the West Coast North Island ............. 21

4.0 Assessment of Environmental Effects of Mineral Mining ................................................... 24 4.1 Acoustic Disturbance ................................................................................................................ 24

4.1.1 Geomagnetic surveys .................................................................................................................. 24 4.1.2 Drilling ......................................................................................................................................... 24 4.1.3 Suction sampling ......................................................................................................................... 25 4.1.4 Sonar ........................................................................................................................................... 25 4.1.5 Seismic surveying ........................................................................................................................ 25 4.1.6 Vessel traffic ................................................................................................................................ 26 4.1.7 Dredging ...................................................................................................................................... 26

4.2 Benthic Disturbance ................................................................................................................. 26 4.3 Increased Turbidity .................................................................................................................. 27 4.4 Pollution .................................................................................................................................. 27

5.0 Assessment of Potential Impact of Mineral Mining on Maui’s dolphin and Other Marine Mammals ...................................................................................................................... 29

4.1 Acoustic Disturbance ................................................................................................................ 29 4.2 Benthic Disturbance and Associated Impacts ............................................................................ 32 4.4 Physical Presence ..................................................................................................................... 32

6.0 Conclusions ...................................................................................................................... 33

7.0 Literature Cited ................................................................................................................. 34

8.0 Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................... 40

Appendix I – Rio Tinto Ltd. and Iron Ore NZ Ltd. Mineral Mining Areas ....................................... 41

Appendix II – FMG Pacific Ltd. Mineral Mining Area ................................................................... 42

3

Appendix III – Trans Tasman Resources Ltd. Mineral Mining Area ............................................... 43

4

List of Figures and Tables Figure 1. Location of the Maui’s dolphin Marine Mammal Sanctuary established in 2008 by the

Department of Conservation…………………………..………………………………...……..9 Figure 2. Step-wise phases of mineral extraction, permitting and licencing…..….……12 Figure 3. Schematic sketch of the Vibrocore drilling method…………………………..……..18 Figure 4. Reverse-circulation drilling method…………………………………………………..…….18 Figure 5. Sonic drilling method…………………………………………………………………..…..……..19

Table 1. A summary of cetacean species and their threat rankings according to the NZ National Classification System and IUCN threat status…………………………………..……..10

Table 2. A summary of mining permits and companies operating along the west coast of the North

Island……………………………………………………………………………………..…………...…16 Table 3. A summary of marine mineral mining activity off the west coast of the North Island where

information is available at time of report writing (March 2012)……………..22 Table 4. Suggested levels of sound exposure for marine mammals based on Gordon et al. (2007). ……………………………………………………………………………………………………….………..30

Table 5. A summary of likely activities associated with mineral mining off the west coast of the North

Island and the associated acoustic disturbance to cetaceans…………..…….31

Citation: Thompson, K.F. 2012. Maui’s dolphins and mining: a review of marine mineral mining activity on the west coast of New Zealand and its potential impacts. Report to the Department of Conservation Auckland Area Office, March 2012.

5

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Maui’s dolphin is an endemic cetacean sub-species with a severely depleted population of around 55 individuals inhabiting in a restricted range along the west coast of the North Island. The population is under pressure from a number of stressors, particularly set-net fishing. The death of only one individual has been shown to affect population stability, already known to be in continued decline. In an attempt to manage this threat, the New Zealand government has established fishing restrictions and the North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary, which includes restrictions on mining activities (2 nm and 4 nm from the coast) and seismic survey activity (12 nm). However, the recent interest in mineral resources along the coast of the North Island, particularly between the Manukau Harbour entrance (to the north) and New Plymouth (to the south), has led to prospecting and exploration. The main target of this mineral exploration is iron sands or titanomagnetite. Currently there are three companies actively engaged in exploration adjacent to or within the Marine Mammal Sanctuary, using a variety of techniques to further quantify mineral resources in the area. The dolphins predictable occupy the northern extent of this mining zone. To the southern extent of Maui’s dolphin range, there is also both active and proposed exploration continuing down the coast to Wanganui. The level to which this activity may impact upon the recovery of this dolphin is unknown, although the findings of this review suggest that detrimental effects could be significant. In all likelihood, the results from current mineral exploration will reveal sizable mineral resources. It is probable that applications for permits and consents to initiate active mining will be submitted to the New Zealand Department of Economic Development and local authorities, respectively, within three years (2015). Consent to initiate active mining will be dependent on the advice and knowledge of local authority planners. The implication of current and projected mining activities on marine mammals, particularly the Maui’s dolphin is in some cases little known, and in others, troubling. It is likely that overall, marine mammal habitat on the west coast of the North Island will be degraded as a consequence of increases in acoustic and particulate pollution, benthic disturbance and an increase in vessel traffic throughout the area. This will have a variety of effects, with differing predicted responses depending on the species. It is suggested that further knowledge is required of the actual proposed methods used in mineral mining before decisions are made on consents to engage in this activity. The future survival of the Maui’s dolphin is bleak. The cumulative stress associated with mineral mining in an already restricted habitat is likely to further restrict population recovery. New Zealand marine mammal protection legislation (both the Act and Regulations) attempts to reduce the impacts from vessels, aircraft and injury or death to marine mammals, but does not address the negative effects of marine mining within their habitat. However, international legislation such as UNCLOS (1982) does specify that member States are required to protect both endangered species and the marine habitat they occupy.

6

2.0 INTRODUCTION

2.1 Background New Zealand is increasingly being seen as a lucrative source of minerals due to its diverse geology and dynamic tectonic plate history. The New Zealand Minerals Industry Association describes New Zealand's metallic mineral resources alone at more than NZ$85.5 billion. As a result, interest in this resource has increased from both local and overseas companies. In 2007, the Ministry of Economic Development received only a single permit application for both marine and terrestrial mining. In comparison, 42 permit applications were received in 2011. As a result of this increase, concerns have been raised over the impact this activity may have on our vulnerable endemic species. New Zealand has an extremely productive marine ecosystem with particularly rich marine mammal diversity. Of the 86 globally recognised species, 43 species are found in New Zealand waters. Eight of these are considered to be threatened by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species and three endemic species are known to be at risk of extinction (Baker et al. 2010). The impact of marine mineral extraction on New Zealand cetaceans is as yet unknown, particularly in the case of species such as the Maui’s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori maui), where approximately 55 individuals remain, in what is known to be a restricted range on the west coast of the North Island (Hamner et al. 2012). According to the Department of Conservation Marine Mammal Action Plan for 2005 – 2010, Maui’s dolphin is not only a Priority 1 Species but coastal development is also a Priority 1 Issue (Suisted & Neale 2004). Accordingly, the purpose of this report is to:

Assess current marine mineral extraction on the west coast of the North Island, both location and methods,

Review existing guidelines and laws attempting to regulate this extraction,

Assess proposed marine mineral extraction,

Review the potential impacts that this extraction may have on Maui’s dolphin and other marine mammals inhabiting the ecosystem off the west coast of the North Island

The review focuses on extraction of minerals such as sand, metals, gravel etc. and not large-scale offshore oil and gas exploration.

2.2 Overview of Maui’s dolphin ecology and conservation Maui’s dolphins are classified as critically endangered by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) and Nationally Critical by the NZ Threat Classification System (Pilcher & Baker 2000; Baker et al. 2010). As a small endemic and coastal cetacean with a restricted range, they are known to be at high risk of extinction (Reeves et al. 2000). Based on both aerial and boat survey data, Maui’s dolphins are known to be distributed along the west coast of the North Island between Maunganui Bluff to New Plymouth. Highest densities are reported along a 75 nm stretch of coast between Manukau to just south of Port Waikato (Oremus et al. 2012, Ferreira & Roberts 2003). This range is known to be significantly contracted in comparison to earlier distributions (DuFresne 2010). However, a number

7

of recent sightings have been confirmed by photographic evidence, as far south as the Kapiti Coast (pers. comm., P. Brown, DOC). Genetic and morphological evidence support the proposal that Maui’s dolphin are a separate sub-species from the Hector’s dolphin (C. hectori hectori) of the South Island (Baker et al. 2002) with fixation of a unique mtDNA haplotype. Hector’s dolphins show a high degree of site fidelity and restricted long-shore home ranges of 30 - 40 km (Brager et al. 2002; Rayment et al. 2009). This extreme natal fidelity and philopatry is thought to have resulted in the short range isolation of the Maui’s dolphin, even across relatively short distances of coastline between the North and South Islands (Pichler & Baker 2000). A recent study of Maui’s dolphin movements and behaviour indicates that although their distribution is restricted in comparison with Hector’s dolphins, individuals do move long distances throughout the extent of their range (Oremus et al. 2012). A lack of genetic sub-structuring suggests that these clumped distributions may be driven by patchy food distribution and/or social factors. It seems that individuals of the Genus Cephalorhynchus are capable of occasional long-distance movements and occasional visits from neighbouring populations have been observed in Hector’s dolphin population studies (Bejder & Dawson 2001). In fact, it is likely that these dolphin speciation process may have involved a historical pattern of global radiation by colonisation using ‘stepping stones’ of suitable habitat (Pichler et al. 2001). Recent genetic monitoring suggests such a long-distance movement of individuals is likely to have occurred. Two females with mtDNA haplotypes typical of the West Coast South Island Hector’s dolphin population were found within the Maui’s population in 2011. However, there is as yet no evidence to suggest that there is gene flow from other populations without further genetic monitoring. The provision of such ‘stepping stone’ habitats may be a key factor in promoting migration from Hector’s dolphin populations and subsequent possible gene flow. Maui’s dolphins occupy inshore coastal areas and are most often seen within 1.5 km of the shore although there are a reliable number of sightings further offshore (> 7. 4 km) particularly, although not exclusively, in winter (DuFresne 2010). Hector’s dolphins exhibit both seasonal and diurnal patterns of movement and it is likely that this may be the case in Maui’s (Stone & Yoshinaga 1995; Rayment et al. 2010). Hector’s dolphins in the South Island are more likely to be seen closer inshore in summer in ≤ 20 m depth (Brager et al. 2003). Although the dolphins were more evenly distributed throughout their range in winter, this range appears to extend further from the shore and cover deeper waters of ≥ 100 m depth. The diet of Hector’s dolphin is comprised of benthic and small pelagic fish and squid. Composition and is thought to be more varied on the east coast of the South Island than the west (eight species contributing 80% of diet by mass in the east in comparison to four species in the west) (Dawson & Slooten 1996). There is currently limited information available on the diet of Maui’s dolphins, but the stomach contents of two beach-cast animals contained largely benthic fish species (P. Brown, pers. comm.).

Like many other cetaceans there appears to be sexual segregation between groups of hector’s dolphins (Webster et al. 2009) and relatively low fecundity with a modelled maximum possible population growth of 1.8 – 4.9 % per annum (Slooten & Lad 1991).

8

2.3 Maui’s dolphin protection The future status of the Maui’s dolphin is thought to be dependent on the elimination of all sources of anthropogenic mortality (Slooten et al. 2006; Baker et al. 2010). Entanglement in fishing gear, particularly coastal set-netting, is the primary known cause of mortality. In 2003 fisheries restrictions were established along key areas of the west coast in order to protect Maui’s dolphins from this by-catch mortality. In October 2008, the Ministry of Fisheries brought in further restrictions on set-netting, drift-netting and trawling. This included extending the set net ban into some harbours and out to 7nm from shore as well as increasing restrictions on trawling and drift netting. The West Coast North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary (WCNIMMS) was established in late 2008 in an effort to complement these fisheries restrictions and offer further degree of protection. The Sanctuary extends along the shore from Maunganui Bluff in Northland to Oakura Beach, Taranaki, in the south and is one of New Zealand’s five marine mammal sanctuaries (Fig. 1). The Sanctuary's offshore boundary extends from mean high water springs to the 12 nm territorial sea limit (total area = approximately 1,200,086 hectares or approximately 12,000 km2). The purpose of the Sanctuary is to protect all marine mammals but particularly Maui’s dolphins by regulating acoustic seismic surveys in the whole of the sanctuary plus restricting mining activities in part of the Sanctuary (Marine Mammal Protection (West Coast North Island Sanctuary) Notice 2008). The mineral mining exclusion zone extends offshore 2 nm (and out to 4 nm between Te Waha Point and Ruapuke Beach Road). Mineral mining activities are prohibited within this zone unless it is a minimum impact activity or mining for petroleum. The efficacy of protection afforded by the WCNIMMS is unknown. According to a recent estimate conducted in 2011 (Hamner et al. 2012), the Maui’s dolphin population is in continued decline with approximately 55 animals in comparison to 111 in 2004 (Slooten et al. 2006). In 2012, one animal (of unknown sub-species identity) was caught in a commercial set-net south of the sanctuary, raising questions as to whether the extent of fisheries restrictions is sufficient to eliminate this risk. There are a number of acts and regulations for which Maui’s dolphin protection falls under although the New Zealand Marine Mammal Protection Act (1978) and the New Zealand Marine Mammal Protection Regulations (1992) are the main legislative process for issuing permits and regulating disturbance.

9

Figure 1. Location of the Maui’s dolphin Marine Mammal Sanctuary established in 2008 by the Department of Conservation.

2.4 Other cetacean species in New Zealand waters According to both sightings and stranding data, there are 43 species of cetacean within New Zealand EEZ (see Table 1) (Baker et al. 2010; NZCeTA unpublished data). Many of these species are known to be either resident or migrant in the waters off the coast of the North Island. In particular, the humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) exhibits a bi-annual migration up this coast between its feeding grounds in the Antarctic and calving grounds in the Pacific Islands. This population is known to be endangered with an abundance estimate of only 3520 individuals and no discernable trend in recovery from whaling (Constantine et al. in press). Southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) are also known to increasingly frequent coastal waters of mainland New Zealand throughout the year. Having been the target of large-scale whaling, this species has been severely depleted to less than 5% of the pre-whaling abundance in New Zealand waters (Carroll et al. 2011a). Genetic monitoring suggests that individuals breeding in the sub-Antarctic Auckland Islands are now slowing recolonising mainland New Zealand, a former calving ground before whaling (Carroll et al. 2011b).

10

Table 1. A summary of cetacean species and their threat rankings according to the NZ National Classification System and IUCN threat status (based on Baker et al. (2010) and New Zealand Cetacean Tissue Archive). Full criteria and assessment for NZ classification can be found in Baker et al. (2010): NC = nationally critical; NE = nationally endangered; M = migrant, V = vagrant. IUCN Red List Categories: DD = data deficient; CE = critically endangered; E = endangered; V = vulnerable; LC = least concern (www.iucnredlist.org). Species known or potentially resident, migrant or vagrant along the west coast of the North Island marked by *. Distribution of other species not marked is unknown.

Scientific name Common name

NZ National Classification Status

IUCN Red List Category

Resident:

Baleanoptera brydei/edeni Bryde’s whale NC DD

Cephalorhynchus hectori maui Maui’s dolphin* NC CE

Orcinus orca Type A killer whale* NC DD

Cephalorhynchus hectori hectori Hector’s dolphin NE E

Eubalaena australis southern right whale* NE LC

Tursiops truncatus bottlenose dolphin* NE DD

Caperea marginata pygmy right whale DD DD

Hyperoodon planifrons southern bottlenose whale* DD LC

Kogia breviceps pygmy sperm whale* DD DD

Lagenorhynchus cruciger hourglass dolphin DD LC

Mesoplodon bowdoini Andrew’s beaked whale* DD DD

Mesoplodon densirostris Blainville’s beaked whale* DD DD

Mesoplodon grayi Gray’s beaked whale* DD DD

Mesoplodon hectori Hector’s beaked whale* DD DD

Mesoplodon layardii straptoothed whale* DD DD

Tasmacetus shepherdii Shepherd’s beaked whale* DD DD

Mesoplodon traversii spade-toothed whale DD DD

Ziphius cavirostris Cuvier’s beaked whale* DD LC

Balaenoptera bonaerensis dwarf minke* NT DD

Balaenoptera acutorostrata southern minke whale NT DD

Delphinus delphis common dolphin* NT LC

Globicephala melas long-finned pilot whale* NT DD

Lagenorhynchus obscurus dusky dolphin NT DD

Lissodelphis peronei southern right whale dolphin NT DD

Physeter macrocephalus sperm whale* NT V

Pseudorca crassidens false killer whale NT DD

Migrant:

Balaenoptera borealis

sei whale M E

11

Scientific name Common name

NZ National Classification Status

IUCN Red List Category

Migrant cntd:

Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda pygmy blue whale* M E

Balaenoptera musculus intermedia Antarctic blue whale* M E

Balaenoptera physalus Fin whale M E

Globicephala macrorhynchus short-finned pilot whale* M DD

Megaptera novaeangliae humpback whale* M E

Vagrant:

Berardius arnuxii Arnoux’s beaked whale* V DD

Grampus griseus Risso’s dolphin V LC

Kogia simus dwarf sperm whale* V DD

Lagenodelphis hosei Fraser’s dolphin V LC

Mesoplodon ginkgodens ginkgo-toothed whale* V DD

Mesoplodon peruvianus Lesser/pygmy beaked whale V DD

Orcinus orca Type B, C, and D killer whale* V DD

Pepenocephala electra melon headed whale V LC

Phocoena diotropica spectacled porpoise V DD

Stenella attenuata pan-tropical spotted V LC

Stenella coeruleoalba striped dolphin V LC

Steno bradenensis rough-toothed dolphin V LC

Mesoplodon mirus True’s beaked whale V DD

12

3.0 Marine Mineral Extraction

3.1 Process and legislation Both terrestrial and marine mineral extraction follows a step-wise process from prospecting phase through to active mining where minerals are removed (Fig. 2). During each phase, there is an escalation in works and different methods are used to assess or extract minerals from the seabed. Quantifying potential resources typically takes around 7 years before the active mining phase begins.

Figure 2. Step-wise phases of mineral extraction, permitting and licencing.

3.1.1 National Legislation All permits are issued by the Crown Mineral Authority according to the following acts and regulations:

Continental Shelf Act (1964),

Mining Licence Act (1971),

PROSPECTING

Typically 2 yrs duration (occasionally extended)

Determines the presence/absence of resource

Involves geomagnetic surveys and reconnaissance drilling

EXPLORATION

Typically 4 - 5 yrs duration (extension possible)

Categorisation of resource and determining its financial viability

Involves geochemical surveys and further drilling

ACTIVE MINING

Typically 4 yrs duration (extension possible)

Active removal of resources

Dredging?

LICENCE TYPE

PROSPECTING LICENCE

EXPLORATION LICENCE CONTINENTAL SHELF LICENCE

MINING PERMIT/LICENCE

13

Resource Management Act (1991),

Crown Minerals Act (1991),

Minerals Programme For Minerals Other Than Coal And Petroleum (1996),

Crown Minerals (Minerals Fees) Regulations (2006) – governs fees associated with the permits,

Crown Minerals (Minerals and Coal) Regulations (2007) – governs requirements and procedure,

Minerals Programme for Mineral (excluding Petroleum) (2008) – governs the allocation of permits,

Minerals and Coal Digital Data Submissions Standards (2011), A mining ‘licence’ is different from a ‘permit’ in that it is issued according to the Mining Licence Act (1971) and cannot be extending either by duration or land area. Once a permit/licence is issued by the Crown Mineral Authority (or in some cases before) the company then applies for resource consent to the relevant Regional Council, if the area of exploration is within 12nm of the shore. Outside 12 nm, consents must be processed by Maritime New Zealand and the Environment Protection Authority. Active use of the permit is prohibited until relevant consent is granted. Resource consent is issued according to a number of legislative directives including the following acts and policy statements:

Resource Management Act (1991) (RMA)

Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act (2011), which repealed the former Foreshore and Seabed Act (2004)

NZ Coastal Policy Statement 2010 The above legislation and local characteristics of the area are used to inform the Regional and District Coastal Plans. An Assessment of Environmental Effects and Environmental Monitoring Plans must accompany each resource consent application. Resource consents are sometimes granted with certain Council stipulations in an attempt to reduce the impact on marine mammals e.g. Rio Tinto Ltd must ‘ stop sampling activities immediately if any humpback whale, southern right whale, Maui’s dolphin or cow/calf pair of whale species are sighted within 50 m of the sampling operation, until they have moved out side this zone’.

3.1.2 Permitted activities

Certain mining activities are permitted according to the RMA:

Section 95E(2)(a) and 104(2), a consent authority ‘may disregard an adverse effect of the activity on the person if a rule or national environmental standard permits an activity with that effect,

There are no national environmental standards for mineral mining in New Zealand but some regional coastal plans do give details of permitted disturbance and discharge activities. For example, the Regional Coastal Plan for Taranaki (Rule C3.1) provides for disturbance of the seabed by drilling as a permitted activity provided it meets conditions including that the diameter of the drill hole is 1.5 m or less.

Rule C2.2 provides for the discharge of uncontaminated water or storm water into water as a

14

permitted activity provided it meets conditions including that the discharge is able to be discharged through a 600 mm pipe, and that the discharge shall not exceed stated limits (15 g/m3 for oil and grease and 100 g/m3 for suspended solids).

3.1.3 International Legislation In addition to the above national legislation, marine mineral mining activities also falls within the jurisdiction of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)(1982) which dictates that member States must:

Article 192, ‘without qualification’, ‘ protect and preserve the marine environment’,

Article 194(1), ‘also take all measures consistent with the Convention that are necessary to ‘ prevent, reduce and control pollution of the marine environment’

Article 194(5), ‘without qualification’, ‘protect and preserve rare or fragile ecosystems as well as the habitat of depleted, threatened or endangered species and other forms of marine life’

Guideline for companies engaged in mineral mining can be found in the London Convention (1972) and Protocol (1982) On The Prevention Of Marine Pollution By Dumping Wastes And Other Matter, which are governed by the International Maritime Organisation.

3.1.3 Code of conduct The Australasian Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) defines regional guidelines for mining companies in the JORC Code (2004) (Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves). In addition to these, an international voluntary code for marine mining companies aimed at reducing environmental impacts has been endorsed by the International Seabed Authority and the International Society for Marine Minerals and distributed in 2010 (The International Marine Minerals Society’s Code for Environmental Management of Marine Mining).

3.1.4 Monitoring During any phase of marine mineral mining, companies must submit annual reports to the NZ Ministry of Economic Development. In addition, a ‘digital data report’ must detail the findings of the surveys or extraction, which remains confidential for 5 years during subsequent permit applications and works. On a permit becoming inactive, these reports are then publicly released. When resource consent is granted by a regional authority, conditions of the consents may include monitoring of e.g. water discharged during sample collection using suction in the case of Rio Tinto Ltd. in the Mokau Block. The consent holder must collect two 1-litre samples during works and pass them onto the authority for geochemical analysis. The cost of this geochemical monitoring is stipulated and is payable to the regional authority. Consents are also given for a certain number of samples or volume of material. In the case of Trans Tasman Resources Ltd. prospecting consent, the actual number of samples taken was deemed significantly larger than consent was granted for. During the active extraction phase, regional councils monitor the scale of the minerals extracted and companies must submit environmental monitoring reports e.g. sand extraction in the Kaipara Harbour, consent has been given to extract 2 million m3 over a 20 year period so companies involved must submit a report every 500,000 m3.

15

At present there is no on-board independent observer programme to monitor vessels engaged in mining activities.

3.2 Existing mining operations along the west coast of the North Island

3.2.1 Scale, location and companies operating There are thirteen active permits held by eight companies in operation off the west coast of the North Island from the North Cape to Ohau Pt in the south. There are a further four permit applications which have been submitted and are yet to be approved by the Department of Economic Development. Three of these are Continental Shelf Licences and one is an Exploration Licence. Information on these submissions is restricted until their approval. Applications are typically processed within six months. Active permits cover a minimum total benthic area of 56,385.3 km2. This includes activity on the continental shelf covering 31,314 km2, which is 22 km from the coast. This gives a total area of 25071.3 km2 within the coastal zone (defined as 22km from the shore). There are eight companies, holding eight permits for either mineral prospecting or exploration, that are either contiguous to or within the Marine Mammal Sanctuary, covering a benthic area of approximately 14,921.3 km2 (See Table 2.). Six companies, working in four locations, have been granted resource consent to either actively engage in mineral extraction or further exploration. These are Mt Rex Ltd. and Winstone Aggregates Ltd. (sand mining at Tapora Island, Kaipara Harbour); Rio Tinto Ltd. and Iron Ore NZ Ltd. (exploration off Mokau); Fortescue Metals Group Ltd. (FMG Ltd.)(prospecting for iron sand off Waitara, Taranaki) and Trans Tasman Resources Ltd. (prospecting for iron sand Port Waikato – Mokau and Rangitikei to Oeo).

3.2.2 Mineral types Typically prospecting permits target a number of minerals including: Lead, Zinc, Bismuth, Ilmenite, Silver, Aluminium, Tin, Copper, Platinum Group Metals, Iron sand, Antimony, Tantalum, Nickel, Tungsten, Molybdenum, Rare Earths, Magnesium, Garnet, Titanium, Gold, Zircon, Rutile, Iron, Molybdenum, Gemstones, Zinc, Andesite, Clay - High Quality, Diamond, Marl, Marble, Dunite, Aggregate, Zeolite, Silica, Tuff, Clay - Low Quality, Ignimbrite, Topaz, Bismuth, Conglomerate, Argillite, Volcanic Ash, Scoria, Granite, Coal - Hard/Semi-Hard Coking, Tungsten, Sandstone, Kauri gum, Apatite, Peat, Magnesium, Titanium, Gold, Zircon, Rutile, Iron, Perlite, Silica Sand, Decorative Stone, Basalt, Diatomite, Limestone, Siltstone, Mudstone, Dolomite, Feldspar, Sand, Gravel, Rhyolite, Decorative Pebbles, Sulphur, Quartz, Lead, Slate, Schist, Monazite, Phosphate, Coal - Lignite, Fireclay, Pumice, Bentonite, Serpentinite, Dacite, Talc.

Active exploration will then further target minerals depending on the data gained from prospecting. For example, throughout the Mokau block, Rio Tinto and Iron Ore NZ Ltd are assessing the financial viability of extracting Iron sand, Magnesium, Garnet, Titanium, Gold, Zircon, Rutile and Iron. Iron sand is the colloquial name for titanomagnetite, a compound containing oxides of iron and titanium. The raw materials are processed on shore and the iron recovered for use in the production of steel. Iron sand can also contain oxides of vanadium (vanadiferous titanomagnetite).

16

Table 2. A summary of mining permits and companies operating along the west coast of the North Island (Source: NZ Ministry of Economic Development).

Permit No.

Contiguous or within Sanctuary (Yes/No) Location Permit Type

Resource Consent Status G = granted S = submitted NS = not submitted U = unknown Permit Holder

Total Area covered (km

2)

Expiry Date

50960 Yes – partial to the north Northland Prospecting NS FMG Pacific LTD 8204.0 Aug 2013

Unknown Yes

Kaipara Harbour, Tapora Island Active sand extraction - terrestrial G

Mt Rex Ltd Winstone Aggregates Ltd ~ 5.0 Unknown

Unknown Yes Outside Kaipara Harbour Feasibility study of sand extraction NS McCallum Brothers Ltd. 200.0 Unknown

51496 Yes Manukau Exploration G Rio Tinto Ltd (60%) Iron Ore NZ Ltd (40%) 548.2 Sept 2014

50383 Yes

Northern block: Port Waikato – Mokau Southern block: Rangitikei River - Oeo Prospecting G

Trans Tasman Resources Ltd. 6319

March 2012

51498 Yes Mokau Exploration G Rio Tinto Ltd (60%) Iron Ore NZ Ltd (40%) 736.0 Sept 2014

52887 Yes Waitara Exploration G FMG Pacific Ltd. 650.1 Dec 2016

51536 Yes – partial to the south Cape Taranaki Prospecting NS

Ironsands Offshore Mining Ltd 2361.0 Aug 2013

50753 No South Taranaki Continental Shelf Licence U Trans Tasman Resources Ltd 31314.0 Dec 2014

53942 Offshore Northland Continental Shelf Licence Application U Unknown Unknown Submitted Sept 2011

54068 No - south South Taranaki Exploration Application U Unknown Unknown Submitted Nov 2011

52728 Offshore Taranaki Continental Shelf Licence Application U Unknown Unknown Submitted May 2010

52727 Offshore Taranaki Continental Shelf Licence Application U Unknown Unknown Submitted May 2010

3.3 Mining Methods Used off the West Coast of the North Island This section is a synthesis of the methods described in both resource consent applications made by mineral exploration companies intending to work on the west coast of the North Island, and peer reviewed literature. It describes the methods used or likely to be used in mineral exploration, where known, and is by no means an exhaustive list.

3.3.1 Prospecting and Exploration Prospecting generally involves both reconnaissance drilling to recover sediment samples for analysis onshore, geomagnetic studies and seismic surveys. Resource consents typically stipulate a maximum volume of sediment sample removal allowable per day e.g. 1 m3/day for sand sampling in the Kaipara (S. Morgan, pers. comm.) and a total number of core samples allowable for a particular application e.g. Permit 50383, 600 cores in total for area of 6319 km2. Exploration uses the same methods as prospecting but sampling intensity is increased. For example, the first round of reconnaissance drilling may be designed to sample 1 core per 1km2 grid-square with a second round at 0.5 km2 grid-square distances.

3.3.1.2 Airborne geomagnetic surveys

Magnetic Anomaly Detection (MAD) uses airborne magnetometers as passive instruments to detect variations in the Earth’s background magnetic field indicating mineral deposits (Skone, 2008). Data is then processed to produce a geophysical map of the target area. The magnetometer can be either towed under a small aircraft (in the case of a ‘bird’) or a fixed part of the aeroplane (‘stinger’). Protocol from such surveys in the Great Australian Bight suggest the survey aircraft fly at an altitude of 150 m above sea level at a speed of 140 knots with a line spacing of 2,000 m (Environment Plan for the Fugro Airborne Magnetic Survey in the Great Australian Bight, 2008).

3.3.1.3 Vibrocore drilling

Vibrocore sampling is designed for shallow soil sampling in water depths of up to 200 m and a target depth of 10 m below sea floor (Fig. 3). A single 2 – 10 m long core tube (guided by a cable) is driven into the subsoil by the force of gravity, enhanced by vibration energy that is created by a vibrator at the top of a tube. The vibrations cause a thin layer near the inner and out wall of the tube to mobilise, reducing friction and allowing it to penetrate the surface. The continuous sample core is sometimes removed in a plastic sleeve and is typically 100 mm in diameter and 0.2 m3 in volume. When the core is removed, the hole created collapses in on itself leaving a slight depression in the seabed. The sample is then collected for analysis and processed onshore and no materials are returned to the sea. Sampling sites are generally discrete and around 200 m from each other.

18

3.3.1.4 Reverse circulation drilling

Reverse circulation sampling is used for unconsolidated sediment samples and is a method used for sampling along the Taranaki coast where six discrete samples per hole are taken at depth of approximately 6 m.

The RC system uses a series of water jets to drive a hole into the substrate and samples are withdrawn using an air-lift system. The RC tube is generally around 70 – 80 mm in diameter. When the RC tube is removed from the seabed the hole that has been created, collapses in on itself leaving a slight indentation in the seabed around 250mm deep and 400mm in diameter.

Figure 3. Schematic sketch of the Vibrocore drilling method. (Source: Patzold, Köbke & Partner Engineers).

Figure 4. Reverse-circulation drilling method. (Source: www.midnightsundrilling.com).

19

Reverse circulation drilling often uses a drilling ‘mud’ (e.g. Liqui-Pol®,“Quik-Foam® or AquaGel®), which is mixed with water and pumped down into the hole to stick the sand together and assist with bringing it to the surface. Liqui-Pol® is a high molecular weight polymer, which because of its viscosity also provides stability to the borehole. Quik-Foam® is foaming agent that increases cutting capacity and is cited as being ‘biodegradable’. AquaGel® is similarly used as a viscosifier.

3.3.1.5 Sonic drilling

Sonic drilling involves sending high frequency vibrations down a drill ‘string’ (or sampling rod) to the drill bit. The vibrations are set to frequencies that suit the specific geology (generally between 50 – 120 Hz). The vibrations resonate and magnify the amplitude of the drill bit, which then fluidizes the seafloor. Sonic drilling is deemed more efficient and faster than alternative types of drilling and has the ability to recover samples to 100 m depth. Prospecting and exploration drilling for minerals using this method will typically use a 100 mm (4 inch) drill bit within a 150mm (6 inch) external diameter sleeve. Samples are collected for analysis onshore and no materials are discharged at sea.

Sampling generally occurs at discrete distances between 100 -200 m. Drilling muds are sometimes, but not always, used with sonic drilling in order to aid recovery of the sample although this method is thought to be more efficient than other drilling techniques in this regard.

3.3.1.6 Diamond drilling Diamond drilling uses a circular drill-bit composed of industrial diamonds set into a metallic matrix, on the end of a drill pipe. The drill bit moves with a circular action and the drill pipe is washed with water, or drilling muds, to wash the cuttings from the pipe. The core is collected in the drill pipe. Diamond drilling is used for collecting harder substrates and is considered slower than other methods.

3.3.1.7 Suction sampling Sediment samples can be collected via a hose connected to a pump located on the deck of an anchored

Figure 5. Sonic drilling method. (Source: www.vrtaci-technika.cz).

20

vessel. Divers direct the intake of the hose over the seabed. Samples are filtered on deck through collection filters and seawater, containing fine sediment particles, is then discharged onsite.

This method is generally used for collecting samples to supplement another method such as Vibrocore sampling. Around 5 m3 of material is collected at each sampling location and around 4 m2 of seabed is disturbed. The density of sampling locations of suction sampling is generally determined by that of the initial sampling method.

3.3.1.8 Side-scan sonar and multi-beam sonar The topography and sedimentary environment of the seafloor can be mapped using side-scan sonar and continuous seismic profiling, which are usually ‘ground- truthed’ with core samples obtained from drilling. Side-scan sonar uses a towed sonar device to emit a conical or fan-shaped pulse of sound through the water across a wide angle, which is perpendicular to the sensor. The strength of the ‘echo’ returning to the sonar device is assimilated into a ‘picture’ of the sea floor. The device can be towed or mounted to the hull of the vessel. Bathymetric data is collected using multi-beam sonar, which also emits a fan-shaped pulse of sound but instead measures the time elapsed between emission and detection of the pulse. The frequency of the sound used in both types of sonar is generally between 100 – 500 kHz but depends on the resolution required – higher frequencies give better resolution but less range. The actual frequency used in mineral prospecting is 100 kHz according to literature (Hildebrand 2003; Huff 2008).

3.3.1.9 Seismic surveying Seismic surveying is a technique involving the venting of high-energy air pressure to generate seismic waves in the sea floor. The resulting waves are used to create a picture of geological structure and type. Low frequency (< 200 Hz), high intensity (190 – 250 dB) pulses of sound are emitted every few seconds by an array of pneumatic air guns (Richardson et al. 1995). The array is towed behind a small ship and the sound pressure created depends on the size of the array. As the frequency of the sound created by the air gun is much lower than that involved in sonar, it can propagate over much greater distances, sometimes hundreds of kilometres depending on the acoustic characteristic of the benthic topography (Di Iorio & Clark 2010).

3.3.1.10 Bottom sampling grabs

Grabs such as the ‘Van Veen’ system are also used in sampling sediments. The heavy grabs are deployed from the side of the vessel and generally sample 0.1m2 of sediment with a maximum penetration of 0.2 m. A ‘Cactus-grab’ collects around 0.5 m2 of sediment from a maximum depth of 0.7 m.

3.3.2 Active Mining Proposed There is very little literature on the specific methods of active mining of iron sands from coastal areas. Based on available literature for marine mining for aggregate and terrestrial mining for iron sands in Taranaki, it is likely that the material will be dredged from the seabed. The raw iron sand is then

21

transported to processing plants where a series of separation processes produce a magnetic concentrate, which is then pumped in slurry form for stockpiling. At the terrestrial iron sands mining site, Taharoa, the slurry is pumped via a 2 km pipeline to a single bouoy mooring. The M.V. Taharoa Express then further concentrates the slurry using a ‘de-watering’ facility, which is then exported. The M.V. Taharoa Express is a 259 m bulk carrier registered in Panama is reported as a ‘dedicated slurry carrier’. Most, if not all, of the passages of this vessel are between Taharoa and Japan (Maritime New Zealand, 2004). In 2004, this vessel was involved in an incident at Taharoa, when engine failure during berthing manoeuvres resulted in Maritime New Zealand intervention - both anchors were deployed before the vessel grounded (Maritime New Zealand, 2004). The cause of this incident was cited as ‘inadequate maintenance’ although there are no reports of that this is still the case. NZ Steel Ltd. website describes the company is investigating the acquisition of a second vessel for this use.

The scale of proposed mining on the west coast will depend on the activity’s economic viability. The relatively rapid escalation in activity over this area suggests significant deposits of iron sand available for extraction. Trans Tasman Resources Ltd website refers to ‘very large and very low cost iron ore reserves’ off the west coast of the North Island on the area covered by the southern block of their permit.

3.3.3 Summary of Current Surveying Methods and Activity on the West Coast North Island

Activity and companies involved in marine mineral mining has been summarised (See Table 3). Marine activity extends from approximately 10 m depth to 65 m depth. Geomagnetic surveys and shallow seismic surveys in the permits described in this report were completed in early 2010. A variety of drilling methods are used at different sampling densities. Excluding terrestrial mining of iron sands off Tapora Island, consents have been issued for up to 1516 m2 of seafloor disturbance with the removal of up to 6030 m3 volume of sediment. In the area north of New Plymouth these values equate to 1276 m2 seafloor disturbance and 3730 m3 sediment. This surveying will involve the use of at least four vessels. The location and extent of these activities are shown in Appendix I – III (Source: Department of Economic Development).

22

Table 3. A summary of marine mineral mining activity off the west coast of the North Island where information is available at time of report writing (February 2012). (Source: Resource consent applications, assessment of environmental effect reports and certification of compliances).

Permit No. Block name Company Name Methods, Scale and Date of Completion

Mineral Targeted

Water Depth Range

Working regime

51498 & 51498

Manukau & Mokau Rio Tinto Ltd. & Iron Ore NZ Ltd.

Vibracore drilling (in progress)

Suction sampling (in progress)

Vibrocore - 150 samples by Sept 2012 and 300 samples by Sept 2014 (85 mm diameter sample to 10 m depth giving ~ 0.2 m

3 per

sample and disturbing ~ 2 m2

seafloor)

Suction - 10 samples by Sept 2012 and 20 samples by Sept 2014 (5 m

3

per sample disturbing ~ 4 m2

seafloor)

Iron sand, Magnesium, Garnet, Titanium, Gold, Zircon, Rutile 10 – 50 m Daylight hours

52887 Waitara FMG Pacific Ltd.

Airborne geomagnetic survey (protocol unknown) (completed 2010)

Shallow seismic survey (completed 2010)

Sonic drilling – ‘possibly’ using drilling muds (prospecting) within 0.7 nm of mineral exclusion zone of WCNIMMS (progress unknown)

400 samples from 30 location (100 mm drill, 40 m deep, disturbing 150 mm seafloor)

If ‘water – based environmentally sensitive’ drilling muds are used up to 240 m

3 would be discharged

(8 m3/location)

Platform = 41m self propelled barge, plus support vessel

Principally iron sand but also:

Lead, Zinc, Bismuth, Magnesium, Titanium, Ilmenite, Silver, Aluminium, Tin, Rutile, Copper, Iron, Platinum, Antimony, Gold, Tantalum, Nickel, Tungsten, Molybdenum, Rare Earths

~ 20 – 65 m 24 hrs

23

Permit No. Block name Company Name Methods, Scale and Date of Completion

Mineral Targeted

Water Depth Range

Working regime

50383

Northern block: Port Waikato – Mokau Southern block: Rangitikei River - Oeo Trans Tasman Resources Ltd.

Geomagnetic surveys (completed)

Vibrocore drilling

Reverse circulation drilling

Diamond drilling – ‘possibly’ using drilling muds

35 (1 m depth) samples (completed – more taken than consented for)

Northern block: 140 samples (< 80 m deep at 60-500 m spacings); 200 samples (100 mm diameter holes at 6 m depth 60-500 m spacings); 150 samples (100 mm diameter holes at 30 m deep, 60-500 m spacings)(thought to be in progress)

Southern block: 200 samples 100 - 125 mm diameter (depth < 80m); up to 400 samples (< 6 m deep (in progress)

Platform = unknown vessel

Principally iron sands but also:

Lead, Zinc, Bismuth, Ilmenite, Silver, Aluminium, Tin, Copper, Platinum, Antimony, Tantalum, Nickel, Tungsten, Molybdenum, Rare Earths, Magnesium, Garnet, Titanium, Gold, Zircon, Rutile

Northern block: ~20 – 65 m Southern block: ~20 – 65 m Unknown

Unknown Kaipara Harbour Mt Rex Ltd Winstone Aggregates Ltd

Excavation from Tapora Island and transportation to mainland

20 million m3 over 20 years Iron sands Onshore Daylight hours

4.0 Assessment of Environmental Effects of Mineral Mining

The potential effects of mineral mining exploration methods described in Section 3.3 are discussed in terms of types of disturbance to the environment. An assessment of the impact of this disturbance will depend on the extent and scale of the activity, and whether there is any information to quantify the disturbance. As exploration is an escalation of the scale and intensity of sampling, it will have a larger impact than prospecting. Active mining, in turn, further escalates activity on the coast, particularly in the number (and size) of vessels that are engaged in removing large volumes of benthic material and transporting it for processing. The scale at which this may occur is unknown

4.1 Acoustic Disturbance Underwater sounds can are classified according to whether they are continuous or transient (pulses). Sound in the marine environment is a measurement of sound pressure levels on a logarithmic scale of decibels (dB), compared to a 1 μPa (micro Pascal) reference. This measurement is therefore described with units of dB re 1 μPa. Transient or pulsed sounds may occur singly or as part of a repeating pattern and are sometimes described by their total energy which is proportional to the time for which the sound it emitted. Ambient noise from natural sources such as wave action, precipitation and biological activity is different in various areas of the world (Popper & Hastings 2009). The degree to which human activities raise noise in the marine environment will depend on the characteristics of the activity.

4.1.1 Geomagnetic surveys The acoustic disturbance associated with light aircraft flights over the sea will depend on the aircraft type and the flying height. The noise associated with a fixed wing aircraft (e.g. De Havilland Twin Otter), recorded at depths or three and eight metres, is in the range of ~ 126 dB 1 Pa, and is inversely proportional to flying height (Nowacek et al. 2007). Penetration of sound from aircraft into the marine environment depends on the angle of the source. At angles of >13° from vertical most sound is reflected from the surface of the water.

4.1.2 Drilling Although vibrocore drilling is commonly used in many applications from geophysical sediment testing to the laying of pipelines, there is no information on the associated acoustic output. Vibration rates of a typical marine vibrocore system are 2800 – 3500 vibrations per minute. The most significant noise associated with vibrocoring is likely to be through the vibrations both on the sampling tube and propogation through the sea floor. In addition there will be on board engine noise of the system. However, the frequencies and intensities of these are unknown.

Similarly, there is little information on the noise associated with reverse circulation drilling or diamond drilling of the type that is used off the west coast, particularly in the marine environment. One report testing noise output on a large terrestrial reverse circulation drilling rig completed test health and safety rules suggested ‘hearing protection requirements and mandates hearing protection to be worn within a fifty-foot (50') radius of equipment in operation’.

25

4.1.3 Suction sampling Again, there is no specific data on noise generated by suction sampling. However, the Assessment of Environmental Effects submitted to Taranaki Regional Council by Rio Tinto Ltd. states that ‘manufacturer’s data indicates that the pump will generate noise levels of 62 dB at a reference distance of 7 m, which equates to an air-borne sound power level of 87 dB re 20 μPa. Assuming that all the sound energy from the pump will be transmitted into the water via the vessel, the underwater noise level of the pump at 1 m is calculated to be 113 dB re 1 μPa.’ However, there is no record of the frequencies transmitted by this system, which will affect the range to which the sound will travel.

4.1.4 Sonar

The acoustic output of sonar used in geological surveying is generally within the intensity range of 150 - 235 dB re 1 Pa and of 100 kHz in frequency (Hildebrand 2003). How this will affect the general ecosystem around the survey area is relatively unstudied in comparison to high intensity seismic surveying. It is particularly difficult to extrapolate data between studies. A review of the effects of acoustic disturbance associated with active sonar on fish described in some cases individuals suffer a range of impacts from behavioural responses to temporary hearing loss (Popper & Hastings 2009).

4.1.5 Seismic surveying Seismic surveying is classed as a high intensity activity with peak source levels from the gun array sometimes exceeding 250 dB re 1 Pa. Surveying uses repeated loud bursts of energy at low frequencies (5 – 300 Hz) and may involve many thousand signals over several weeks. The survey is designed to direct these signals downward from the array to maximize the energy reflect from the strata under the seafloor. Sound levels in the surrounding water can range and higher frequencies have been recorded up to 15 kHz (Goold & Fish 1998). Although efforts to study the effect this noise on marine mammals have increased in recent years, effects on other species are generally unknown. Seismic surveys can illicit varying responses from fish species ranging from behavioural (e.g. startle responses) to temporary and permanent hearing loss (McCauley et al. 2003; Popper et al. 2003; Popper & Hastings 2009).

26

4.1.6 Vessel traffic Current prospecting and exploration activities off the west coast of the North Island involve at least four vessels and potentially more providing additional support. One is known to be 41 m long and in all likelihood, the others will be of similar size. Commercial ships create ocean noise at low frequencies (5 – 500 Hz) (Hildebrand 2003). This noise is generated by propeller action (cavitation), propulsion machinery and hydraulic flow over the hull. Gross tonnage of ships may be more important in contributing to general ocean noise although smaller vessels can significantly contribute to localised ambient noise conditions. Should active mineral mining occur, it is certain that vessel traffic will significantly raise localized ambient noise.

4.1.7 Dredging Should mineral mining become an active industry in coastal areas, the associated noise associated with dredging and the vessels engaged in transportation of materials may be significant. Reported source levels for dredging operations involved in deepening harbours, reclaiming land and mining the seabed range from 160 to 180 dB re 1μPa with peak intensity at frequencies 50 - 500 Hz (Greene and Moore 1995). The potential scale of operation of the west coast is unknown.

4.2 Benthic Disturbance Although the area disturbed by sampling and the volume of benthic material removed during prospecting and exploration may constitute a small proportion of the total area of the west coast, consent has been given for around 1800 individual sampling locations. It is likely that at these sampling locations there will not only be the disturbance to the seafloor from the removal of the sample but also some associated build up of ‘cuttings’ or ‘tailings’ which are deposited within a localised area. During drilling or suction sampling it is also likely that a ‘sand plume’ is formed as the sediment is mobilised (Kim & Lim 2009). This suspended material may smother nearby reef structures. Studies of the impact of sand dredging indicate that the effect on marine fauna is variable. A comprehensive review of 122 technical reports and peer-reviewed articles was conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey with a view to evaluating the effects of sand removal on benthic communities on the northeast Atlantic continental shelf. Most literature described areas of sand dredging where wave action is thought to be equivalent to the west coast of the North Island. A lowering of both infaunal richness and density as a result of dredging is evident in most studies reviewed (Brooks et al. 2004). Changes in the composition of benthic assemblages occur post-dredging and there are no consistent patterns observed in studies estimating the recovery of these systems. Some studies indicated that infaunal recovery might take between three and 10 years, depending on the species. The degree to which the community is disrupted depends on the relative amount of habitat destroyed. Mobile polychaetes and crustaceans appear to be the first to recolonise with molluscs being slower to appear in impacted areas (Dubois et al. 2009). The process and speed of benthic recolonisation is also affected by the season in which mining activities occur (Diaz et al. 2004). Moreover, the recovery of benthic areas post-mining, may be hindered by the effects of complex natural disturbances in dynamic environments where, for example, successional storms and related current scouring promote seabed movement (Jewett et al. 1999). These severe storms are thought to ‘reset’ the successional clock.

27

These changes in benthic communities are likely to elicit indirect effects at higher trophic levels, for example fish and crustaceans using the area as a feeding ground. Many fish use coastal and continental shelf areas as nursery grounds and, depending on the life history of the demersal stage, these species may be significantly impacted by sand mining activities (Diaz et al. 2004). For example, juvenile red snapper (Lutjanus campechanus) are known to exploit sandy shoal areas for feeding as their diet is dominated by small crustaceans common this type of sediment (Szedlmayer & Conti 1999). In addition to disturbances to benthic communities from direct removal of organisms, mining will also impact physical factors, changing depth and turbidity, which in turn will lead to direct and indirect effects on the ecology of the area (Dubois et al. 2009). Even small changes in depth can influence primary production in coastal sand bank areas. Dubois et al. (2009) suggest this is likely to be the case on Ship Shoal, a study site at up to 10 m depth. However, the effect of changes in depth due to the large-scale removal of sand along the west coast is unknown. It is likely that there will be a number of cumulative impacts on higher trophic levels as a result of the bottom-up effects induced by altering the community composition of benthic fauna.

4.3 Increased Turbidity During both reconnaissance drilling and suction sampling, it expected that disruption of the seafloor will result in ‘sand plumes’ or an increase in turbidity in the water column due to the suspension of fine particles. The impact of these plumes and the associated settling of suspended particles may be localised during prospecting and exploration, depending on the intensity of sampling. During active mining the scale of this turbidity will be considerably increased and the biological and physical processes associated are unknown. Sediment plumes are likely to remain suspended at abyssal depths for long periods and re-settling of particles is dependent on grain-size and water depth (Rolinski et al. 2001). However, the spatial scale of the impact from these plumes during active mining is unknown (Clark et al. 2012). Large-scale increases in water turbidity are likely to significantly impact on benthic communities as the particles settle. Changes in primary production and finer particle size will likely influence the benthic community by reducing overall biomass and altering its composition (Ahnert & Borowski 2000; Dubois et al. 2009). In addition, some marine fish species inhabiting areas of elevated turbidity can have a reduction in overall fitness due to decreased rates of activity resulting from lower feeding rates (Leahy et al. 2011).

4.4 Pollution There are a number of potential sources of pollution associated with all phases of marine mineral mining. They relate to a general increase in vessel activity in the area in addition to the actual methods used. An increase in both the number of large vessels and the time spent consistently in the area will proportionally increase the possibility of spills and accidents, particularly during larger scale mining and transportation. It is also likely that during drilling there will be the discharge of drilling ‘muds’, the scale of which will depend on the methods used and the intensity of sampling. During active mining phase, the disturbance of the seafloor may facilitate the mobilisation of previously settled pollutants. This may have variable and long-term effects on benthic communities. Certain pollutants such as heavy metals bioaccumulate, particularly in organisms such a bivalve molluscs (mussels and clams), where the substances are then found in elevated levels in tissues.

28

There is exhaustive array of studies describing the lethal and sub-lethal impacts associated with the bioaccumulation of contaminants in fauna with examples ranging from reductions in fecundity to lethal toxicity (Ellis 1987; Koboyashi & Okamura 2004). Such effects may persist for many years after periods of sustained pollution resulting from mineral mining or pollution ‘events’ (Riba et al. 2004; Churchill et al. 2004; Carr et al. 2003)

29

5.0 Assessment of Potential Impacts of Mineral Mining of Maui’s Dolphins and other Marine Mammals

Small coastal cetaceans are increasingly being recognised as a high-risk group due to their, often restricted, ranges and the impact of multiple human threats. Unfortunately there is no international legislation to protect these vulnerable animals and it becomes the responsibility of the nations involved to protect their habitat from human encroachment. Although some methods used during the three stages of mineral evaluation and mining may be of less impact than others, it is expected that there will be overall habitat degradation should mineral mining proceed. The following chapter gives a synthesis of available literature on these potential and known impacts.

4.1 Acoustic Disturbance

Acoustic pollution in the marine environment is of special concern in cetacean management as they are a particularly vocal taxonomic group. Noise from a single seismic survey used to discover oil and gas deposits can cover and area of 300 000 km3, raising ambient noise continuously for many days at a time (Weilgart 2007). Sound travels well in the marine environment and in some cases can be heard 3 000 km away due to its acoustic propagation through the sound channel in the ocean (Nieukerk et al. 2004). In recent years the number of studies investigating the potential and measureable effects on cetaceans has increased, and results vary depending on the species, received sound characteristics (Nowacek et al. 2007). In general there are typically four categories of effect or response to anthropogenic sound in marine mammals:

A. Physical (including physiological) effects – e.g. damage to body tissues, gross damage to

hearing and both permanent threshold shifts (PTS) and temporary threshold shifts (TTS) (Gordon et al. 2003). A threshold shift is where sensitivity to a certain frequency is reduced. Another physiological effect can be the cumulative effect of an increase in background noise result chronic stress that may lead to a reduction in overall viability of a population

B. Perceptual effects – e.g. increased background noise in the marine environment can reduce

an animal’s ability to detect other sounds by ‘masking’ (Kastelein & Wensveen 2008). This may reduce the effectiveness of communication between group members and echolocation during foraging (Di Iorio & Clark 2010).

C. Behavioural effects – e.g. altered respiratory and dive patterns (Hastie et al. 2003),

disruption of foraging (Richardson et al. 1990) or nursing (Nowacek et al. 2007) and displacement from particular habitats (Morton 2002)

D. Indirect effects – e.g. a reduction in prey availability leading to reduced foraging rates.

The degree to which the anthropogenic sound affects the species or population depends on the type of noise (frequency range, intensity and regularity/pattern), the acoustic dynamics of the seabed topography and the vocal communication of the species in question. In general, cetaceans are most sensitive to sounds within the range of their vocalisation. Large baleen whales or mysticetes are known ‘moan’ within the lower frequency ranges (20 – 200 Hz) (Mellinger & Clark 1997) and chirps of up to 1 kHz (Dudzinski et al. 2009). Odontocete communication uses higher frequencies with delphinids producing a variety of whistle, chirp and pulses in the range of 5 – 150 kHz depending on the species. Beaked whales, or ziphiids, vocalise within the higher frequency ranges, generally above 20 kHz (Johnson et al. 2004). Maui’s and Hector’s dolphins communicate using almost exclusively in high frequency ultrasonic clicks of around 125 kHz (Rayment et al. 2009). In this regard, the impact of

30

anthropogenic sound on Maui’s dolphins is most likely to be similar to that of another coastal species, the harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena), which has a similar vocal range. Because of its vulnerability in certain areas of its range, porpoise are similarly impacted upon by coastal development and a number of studies have tried both to measure and mitigate for this. In harbour porpoise, TTS is induced a much lower intensities than in other species (Gordon et al. 2007). There are some existing and suggested threshold levels of sound exposure for marine mammals (See Table 4). Table 4. Suggested levels of sound exposure for marine mammals based on Gordon et al. (2007).

Source Level Effect NMFS (2003) 180-190dB re 1uPA General non specific risk

Schlundt et al. (2000) 195dB re 1μPa2s TTS

NOAA(2006) 215 dB re 1μPa2s PTS

(Lucke et al., 2007) 165dB re 1μPa2s

TTS harbour porpoise

(Lucke et al., 2007) 185db re 1μPa

2s

PTS harbour porpoise

The impact of prospecting and exploration off the west coast of the North Island will depend on the intensity of the activity or ‘received level’ (RL). Key activities resulting in the production of ocean noise will be seismic surveying, sonar, drilling, suction sampling and vessel activity. However, in most cases the expected RL of these activities is unknown. Moreover, larger scale mining and extraction methods will produce a variety of ocean noise, all of which at the time of writing this report, are difficult to quantify. A summary of the methods, their associated noise outputs (where known), and predicted impacts are shown in Table 5. This summary should be used as a guide to the potential impacts of mining activities and is no means an exhaustive list of all acoustic disturbances likely to be associated with mining off the west coast. Resource consents for exploration drilling recommend searching for cetacean presence within a 50 m radius both before and during the activity, and immediate cessation should any animal come within this area. The information presented here suggests that this distance is nominal and not sufficient to prevent the negative impacts associated with acoustic disturbance to cetaceans from similar sources.

31

Table 5. A summary of likely activities associated with mineral mining off the west coast of the North Island and the associated acoustic disturbance to cetaceans. Only a few examples of potential impacts are given and this is by no means an exhaustive list.

Mining Activity Characterisation of Sound (if known)

Predicted Impact Range

Cetacean Species Most Vulnerable to Impact

Examples of Potential Impacts and Response

Potential Level of Impact

Geomagnetic surveying 126 dB 1 Pa Localised to transect All

Behaviour change (e.g. Patenaude et al. 2002) LOW

Reconnaissance drilling and sampling Unknown Unknown All

Behavioural changes, masking e.g.(Bailey et al. 2010)

Proximity dependent

Suction sampling 113 dB re 1 μPa, frequency UNKNOWN Localised All

Avoidance and habitat degradation

Proximity dependent

Sonar mapping 150 - 235 dB re 1 Pa, ~100 kHz Unknown

Particularly Maui’s dolphin, beaked whales and delphinids

Habitat degradation as a result of ‘masking’ (Kastelein & Wensveen 2008) Behavioural changes and avoidance of the area e.g. (Kastelein et al. 2006) TTS and PTS in Maui’s if comparing to harbour porpoises (Lucke et al. 2007) HIGH

Shallow seismic surveying

250 dB re 1 Pa, 5 – 300 Hz with some energy at 150 kHz Extensive All, particularly mysticetes

Behavioural changes including displacement from habitat, changes in vocalisation, TTS, PTS (Gordon et al. 2003; Stone 2003; Di Iorio & Clark 2010; Risch et al. 2012) HIGH

Vessel activity Intensity variable, 5 – 300 Hz Potentially extensive All

Avoidance, general habitat degradation and behavioural changes (Nowacek et al. 2001; Hastie et al. 2003).

Potentially HIGH

Active mineral extraction: Dredging operations

160 to 180 dB re 1μPa, 50 - 500 Hz (other methods of extraction unknown) Potentially extensive

All, particularly mysticetes or baleen whales – migrating humpbacks, blue whales.

Habitat degradation, avoidance and behavioural responses (Richardson et al. 1990), potential for indirect effect due to the negative effects on prey (Popper & Hastings 2009)

Potentially HIGH

4.2 Benthic Disturbance and Associated Impacts Removal of the seafloor and the associated smothering from sand plumes during prospecting and exploration for minerals is likely to have a localised impact on benthic communities. However, this local impact is likely to contribute to an overall degradation of Maui’s dolphin habitat. Moreover, any larger scale removal of sand from the seabed is likely to change benthic community composition, and in turn lead to alterations in the availability of Maui’s dolphin prey (Diaz et al. 2004; Dubois et al. 2009). These changes may have significant effects and coupled with other stressors can lead to an overall decline in population viability as is described in other vulnerable coastal cetacean populations such as the Indo-pacific humpback dolphin (Sousa chinensis) and finless porpoise (Neophocaena phocaenoides) in Hong Kong (Jefferson et al. 2009) and Taiwan respectively (Dungan et al. 2011). Recovery of seafloor benthic communities is likely to be between three and 10 years (Brooks et al. 2004) and how this will be reflected in cetacean prey communities is unknown. Furthermore, changes in benthic topography will occur with the removal of sand. The effect of these topographical changes on the cetacean community off the coast of the North Island is unknown. Maui’s dolphins, like all odontocetes, are vulnerable to bio-accumulating toxins persisting in their environment. A combination of their elevated trophic position and longevity increases the risk posed by raised levels of contaminants in prey. Therefore, large-scale mobilisation of contaminants as a result of benthic disturbance during mining may pose an additional and little known threat to Maui’s dolphin population recovery.

4.4 Physical Presence Although most dolphins are known to be attracted to the presence of boats, commonly approaching vessels to bow-ride, it is known that this behaviour effects the behavioural budget of the population involved (Lusseau & Higham 2004). Any increase in vessel traffic is likely to affect cetaceans in the vicinity to varying degrees. The presence of larger ships engaged in mining or transportation off the west coast of the North Island will increase vessel collision risks for larger baleen whales such as humpback, southern right and blue whales (Laist et al. 2001). In addition, there will be an increase in the potential for pollution through marine accidents and spillages.

33

6.0 Conclusions The Maui’s dolphin is an endemic cetacean sub-species with a severely depleted population of around 55 individuals inhabiting in a restricted range along the west coast of the North Island. The population is under pressure from a number of stressors, particularly set-net fishing. The death of only one individual has been shown to affect population stability, already known to be in continued decline. In an attempt to manage this threat, the New Zealand government has established fishing restrictions and the North Island Marine Mammal Sanctuary, which includes restrictions on mining activities (2 nm and 4 nm from the coast) and seismic survey activity (12 nm). However, the recent interest in mineral resources along the coast of the North Island, particularly between the Manukau Harbour entrance (to the north) and New Plymouth (to the south), has led to prospecting and exploration. The main target of this mineral exploration is iron sands or titanomagnetite. Currently there are three companies actively engaged in exploration adjacent to or within the Marine Mammal Sanctuary, using a variety of techniques to further quantify mineral resources in the area. The dolphins predictable occupy the northern extent of this mining zone. To the southern extent of Maui’s dolphin range, there is also both active and proposed exploration continuing down the coast to Wanganui. The level to which this activity may impact upon the recovery of this dolphin is unknown, although the findings of this review suggest that detrimental effects could be significant. In all likelihood, the results from current mineral exploration will reveal sizable mineral resources. It is probable that applications for permits and consents to initiate active mining will be submitted to the New Zealand Department of Economic Development and local authorities, respectively, within three years (2015). Consent to initiate active mining will be dependent on the advice and knowledge of local authority planners. The implication of current and projected mining activities on marine mammals, particularly the Maui’s dolphin is in some cases little known, and in others, troubling. It is likely that overall, marine mammal habitat on the west coast of the North Island will be degraded as a consequence of increases in acoustic and particulate pollution, benthic disturbance and an increase in vessel traffic throughout the area. This will have a variety of effects, with differing predicted responses depending on the species. It is suggested that further knowledge is required of the actual proposed methods used in mineral mining before decisions are made on consents to engage in this activity. The future survival of the Maui’s dolphin is bleak. The cumulative stress associated with mineral mining in an already restricted habitat is likely to further restrict population recovery. New Zealand marine mammal protection legislation (both the Act and Regulations) attempts to reduce the impacts from vessels, aircraft and injury or death to marine mammals, but does not address the negative effects of marine mining within their habitat. However, international legislation such as UNCLOS (1982) does specify that member States are required to protect both endangered species and the marine habitat they occupy.

34

7.0 Literature Cited Ahnert, A. and C. Borowski. 2000. Environmental risk assessment of anthropogenic activity in the deep

sea. Journal of Aquatic Ecosystem Stress and Recovery 7: 299-315. Bailey, H., B. Senior, D. Simmons, J. Rusin, G. Picken, and P. M. Thompson. 2010. Assessing underwater

noise levels during pile-driving at an offshore windfarm and its potential effects on marine mammals. Marine Pollution Bulletin 60:888–897. Elsevier Ltd.

Baker, A. N., A. N. H. Smith, and F. B. Pichler. 2002. Geographical variation in Hector's dolphin:

Recognition of new subspecies of Cephalorhynchus hectori. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 32:713–727.

Baker, C. S., B. L. Chilvers, R. Constantine, S. DuFresne, R. H. Mattlin, A. van Helden, and R. Hitchmoughc.

2010. Conservation status of New Zealand marine mammals (suborders Cetacea and Pinnipedia), 2009. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 44:101–115.

Bejder, L., and S. Dawson. 2001. Abundance, residency, and habitat utilisation of Hector's dolphins

(Cephalorhynchus hectori) in Porpoise Bay, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 35:277–287.

Brager, S., J. A. Harraway, and B. F. J. Manly. 2003. Habitat selection in a coastal dolphin species

(Cephalorhynchus hectori ). Marine Biology 143:233–244. Brager, S., S. M. Dawson, E. Slooten, S. Smith, G. S. Stone, and A. Yoshinaga. 2002. Site fidelity and along-

shore range in Hector's dolphin, an endangered marine dolphin from New Zealand. Biological Conservation 108:281–287. Elsevier.

Brooks, R. A., S. S. Bell, C. N. Purdy and K. N. Sulak. 2004. The benthic community of offshore sand banks:

a literature synopsis of the benthic fauna resources in potential MMS OCS sand mining areas. (Geological Survey Outer Continental Shelf Ecosystem Program February 2004). 343pp.

Carr, R.S., M. Nipper and G.S. Plumlee. 2003. Survey of marine contamination from mining-related

activities on Marinduque Island, Phillipines: porewater toxic and chemistry. Aquatic Ecosystem Health & Management 6: 369-379.

Carroll, E., N.J. Patenaude, S.J. Childerhouse, S.D. Kraus, R.M. Fewster, C.S. Baker. 2011a. Abundance of

the New Zealand subantarctic southern right whale population estimated from photo-identification and genotype mark-recapture. Marine Biology DOI: 10.1007/s00227-011-1757-9

Carroll, E., N. Patenaude, A. Alexander, D. Steel, R. Harcourt, S.J. Childerhouse, S. Smith, J. Bannister, R.

Constantine and C.S. Baker. 2011b. Population structure and individual movement of southern right whales around New Zealand and Australia. Marine Ecology Progress Series 432: 257-268. DOI: 10.3354/meps09145

Churchill, R.C., C.E. Meathrel and P.J. Suter. 2004. A retrospective assessment of gold mining in the Reedy Creek sub-catchment, northeast Victoria, Australia: residual mercury contamination 100

35

years later. Environmental Pollution 132: 355-363.

Clarke, M.R., T.A. Schlacher, A.A. Rowden, K.I. Stocks, M. Consalvey. 2012. Science Priorities for Seamounts: Research Links to Conservation and Management. PLoS ONE 7: e29232 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0029232

Constantine, R., J. A. Jackson, D.S. Steel, L. Brooks, C.S. Baker, D. Burns, P. Clapham, N. Hauser, B. Madon,

D. Mattila, M. Oremus, M. Poole, J. Robbins, K. Thompson and C. Garrigue. 2012. Abundance of humpback whales in Oceania using photo-identification and microsatellite genotyping. Marine Ecology Progress Series. In Press

Dawson, S. M., and Slooten, E. (1996). “The Downunder Dolphin: The story of Hector’s Dolphin . ”

Canterbury University Press, Christchurch. Di Iorio, L., and C. W. Clark. 2010. Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication.

Biology Letters 6:51–54. Diaz, R., G. Cutter Jr, and C. Hobbs III. 2004. Potential impacts of sand mining offshore of Maryland and

Delaware: Part 2-Biological considerations. Journal of Coastal Research:61–69. Dubois, S., C. G. Gelpi, R. E. Condrey, M. A. Grippo, and J. W. Fleeger. 2009. Diversity and composition of

macrobenthic community associated with sandy shoals of the Louisiana continental shelf. Biodiversity and Conservation 18:3759–3784.

Dudzinski, K. M., J. A. Thomas, and J. D. Gregg. 2009. Communication in Marine Mammals. Pages 260–

269 in W. F. Perrin, B. Wursig, and J. G. M. Thewissen, editors. Encycopedia of Marine Mammals, 2nd edition. Academic Press, San Diego, CA.

DuFresne, S. 2010. Distribution of Maui’s dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori maui) 2000 - 2009. DOC

Research & Delopment Series 322. 24pp. Dungan, S., K. Riehl, A. Wee, and J. Wang. 2011. A review of the impacts of anthropogenic activities on

the critically endangered eastern Taiwan Strait Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins (Sousa chinensis) Journal of Marine Animals and Their Ecology 4:3–9.

Ellis, D.V. 1987. Decade of environmental impact at marine and coastal mines. Marine Mining 6: 385-

417. Ferreira, S. M. and C. C. Roberts. 2003. Distribution and abundance of Maui’s dolphins (Cephalorhynchus

hectori maui) along the North Island west coast, New Zealand. DOC Science Internal Series 93. 18pp. Goold, J.C. & P.J. Fish. 1998 Broadband spectra of seismic survey air-gun emissions, with reference to

dolphin auditory thresholds. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 103: 2177–2184.

Gordon, J., D. Gillespie, J. Potter, A. Frantzis, M. P. Simmonds, R. Swift, and D. Thompson. 2003. A review of the effects of seismic surveys on marine mammals. Marine Technology Society Journal 37:16–34.

36

Greene, C. R. J. and S. E. Moore 1995. Man-made Noise. Pp 101-158 in Marine Mammals and Noise. W. J. Richardson, C. R. J. Greene, C. I. Malme and D. H. Thomson (ed.), Academic Press, San Deigo.

Hamner, R.M., M. Oremus, M. Stanley, P. Brown, R. Constantine, and C.S. Baker. 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.

Hastie, G. D., B. Wilson, L. H. Tufft, and P. M. Thompson. 2003. Bottlenose dolphins increase breathing

synchrony in response to boat traffic. Marine Mammal Science 19:74–084. Wiley Online Library. Hildebrand, J. 2003. Sources of Anthropogenic Sound in the Marine Environment. Scripps Institution of

Oceanography, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA. 16pp. Huff. 2008. Marine Habitat Mapping Technology for Alaska. Pages 29–45 in Marine Habitat Mapping

Technology for Alaska. Alaska Sea Grant. Jefferson, T. A., S. K. Hung, and B. Würsig. 2009. Protecting small cetaceans from coastal development:

Impact assessment and mitigation experience in Hong Kong. Marine Policy 33:305–311. Jewett, S.C., H.M. Feder and A. Blanchard. 1999. Assessment of the benthic environment following

offshore placer gold mining in the northeastern Bering Sea. Marine Environmental Research 48: 91-122.

Johnson, M., P. T. Madsen, W. M. X. Zimmer, N. A. De Soto, and P. L. Tyack. 2004. Beaked whales

echolocate on prey. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271:S383–S386. Kastelein, R. A., and P. J. Wensveen. 2008. Effect of Two Levels of Masking Noise on the Hearing

Threshold of a Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) for a 4.0 kHz Signal. Aquatic Mammals 34:420–425.

Kastelein, R. A., N. Jennings, W. C. Verboom, D. de Haan, and N. M. Schooneman. 2006. Differences in

the response of a striped dolphin (Stenella coeruleoalba) and a harbour porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) to an acoustic alarm. Marine Environmental Research 61:363–378.

Kim, C. S., and H.-S. Lim. 2009. Sediment dispersal and deposition due to sand mining in the coastal

waters of Korea. Continental Shelf Research 29:194–204. Koboyashi, N. and H. Okamura. 2004. Effects of heavy metals on sea urchin embryo development.

Chemosphere 55: 1403-1412. Laist, D. W., A. R. Knowleton, J. G. Mead, A. S. Collet, and M. Podesta. 2001. Collisions between ships and

whales. Marine Mammal Science 17:35–75. Leahy, S., M.I. McCormick, M.D. Mitchell and M.C.O. Ferrari. 2011. To fear of to feed: the effects of

turbidity on perception of risk by a marine fish. Biology Letters 7: 811-813. Lucke, K., Lepper, P. A., Blanchet, M., and Siebert, M. (2007). Testing the auditory tolerance of harbour

37

porpoise hearing for impulsive sounds. In Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life (Nyborg, Denmark).

Lusseau, D., and J. E. S. Higham. 2004. Managing the impacts of dolphin-based tourism through the definition of critical habitats: the case of bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops spp.) in Doubtful Sound, New Zealand. Tourism Management 25:657–667.

Maritime New Zealand, 2004. Accident Report: Taharoa Express, Engine Failure at Taharoa on 22 February 2004. Report No. 043390.

McCauley, R. D., J. Fewtrell, and A. N. Popper. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113:638.

Mellinger, D. K., and C. W. Clark. 1997. Methods for automatic detection of mysticete sounds. Marine

and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology 29:163–181. Morton, A. 2002. Displacement of Orcinus orca (L.) by high amplitude sound in British Columbia, Canada.

ICES Journal of Marine Science 59:71–80. Nieukirk, S.L. K. M. Stafford, D. K. Mellinger, R. P. Dziak and C.G. Fox. 2004. Low-frequency whale and

seismic airgun sounds recorded in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. Journal Acoustic Society America 115: 1832-1843.

NMFS (2005). Assessment of acoustic exposures on marine mammals in conjunction with USS Shoup

active sonar transmissions in the Eastern Strait of Juan de Fuca and Haro Strait, Washington, 5 May 2003. (National Marine Fisheries Service, Office of Protected Resources), p. 13.

NOAA (2006). Small Takes of Marine Mammals Incidental to Specified Activities; Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) Antisubmarine Warfare (ASW) Exercise Training Events Within the Hawaiian Islands Operating Area (OpArea). Federal Register 71 (No.78).

Nowacek, S. M., R. S. Wells, and A. R. Solow. 2001. Short-term effects of boat traffic on bottlenose dolphins, Tursiops truncatus, in Sarasota Bay, Florida. Marine Mammal Science 17:673–688.

Nowacek, D., L.H. Thorne, D.W. Johnston and P.L. Tyack, 2007. Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic

noise. Mammal Review 37: 81-115. Oremus, M., R.M. Hamner, M.Stanley, P. Brown, Baker, C.S. and Constantine, R. (in review) Distribution,

group characteristics and movements of the critically endangered Maui’s Dolphin (Cephalorhynchus hectori maui). Endangered Species Research.

Patenaude, N.J., W.J.Richardson, M.A. Smultea, W.R. Koski, G.W. Miller, B. Wursig, & Greene, C.R. Jr.

2002 Aircraft sound and disturbance to bowhead and beluga whales during spring migration in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea. Marine Mammal Science 18: 309–355.

Pichler, F. B., and C. S. Baker. 2000. Loss of genetic diversity in the endemic Hector's dolphin due to

fisheries-related mortality. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 267:97–102.

38

Pichler, F. B., D. Robineau, R. N. Goodall, M. A. Meyer, C. Olivarria, and C. S. Baker. 2001. Origin and

radiation of Southern Hemisphere coastal dolphins (genus Cephalorhynchus). Molecular Ecology 10:2215–2223.

Pipeline Working Group of the Offshore Soil Investigation Forum. 2004. Guidance Notes On Geotechnical Investigations For Marine Pipelines. Prepared by The Society for Underwater Technology Offshore Site Investigation and Geotechnics Committee.

Popper, A. N., and M. C. Hastings. 2009. The effects of human-generated sound on fish. Integrative Zoology 4:43–52.

Popper, A., J. Fewtrell, M. Smith, R. McCauley and D. Robert. 2003. Anthropogenic Sound: Effects on

the Behavior and Physiology of Fishes. Marine Technology Society Journal 37(4): 35 – 40.

Rayment, W., S. Dawson, and E. Slooten. 2010. Seasonal changes in distribution of Hector's dolphin at

Banks Peninsula, New Zealand: implications for protected area design. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 20:106–116. Wiley Online Library.

Rayment, W., S. Dawson, E. Slooten, S. Bräger, S. D. Fresne, and T. Webster. 2009. Kernel density

estimates of alongshore home range of Hector's dolphins at Banks Peninsula, New Zealand. Marine Mammal Science 25:537–556.

Rayment, W., S. Dawson and L. Slooten. 2009. Trialing an automated passive acoustic detector (T-POD)

with Hector’s dolphins (Cephalorhynchus hectori). Journal Marine Biology Association UK 89 :1015-1022.

Reeves, R.R., S.M. Dawson, T.A.Jefferson, L.Karczmarski, K.Laidre, G. O’Corry-Crowe, L. Rojas-Bracho, E.R.

Secchi, E. Slooten, B.D. Smith, J.Y. Wang and Zhou, K. 2000. Cephalorhynchus hectori ssp. maui. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. <>. Downloaded on 21 February 2012.

Riba, I., M.C. Casado-Martinéz, J. Blasco and T.A. DelValls. 2004. Bioavailability of heavy metals bound to

sediments affected by a mining spill using Solea senegalensis and Scrobicularia plana. Marine Environmental Research 58: 359-399.

Richardson, J. W., Greene Jr, C. R., Malme, C. I. and Thomson, D. H. 1995. Marine mammals and

noise. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Richardson, W. J., B. Wursig, and C. R. Green. 1990. Reactions of Bowhead Whales, Balaena mysticetus to Drilling and Dredging Noise in the Canadian Beaufort Sea. Marine Environmental Research 29:135–160.

Risch, D., P. J. Corkeron, W. T. Ellison, and S. M. Van Parijs. 2012. Changes in Humpback Whale Song

Occurrence in Response to an Acoustic Source 200 km Away. PLoS ONE 7:e29741. Rolinksi, S., J. Segschneider and J. Sündermann. 2001. Long-term propogation of tailings from deep-sea

39

mining under variable conditions by means of numerical simulations. Deep Sea Research II 48: 3469-3485.

Slooten E, F. Lad. 1991. Population biology and conservation of Hector’s dolphin. Canadian Journal of

Zoology 69: 1701–1707. Slooten, E., S. Dawson, W. Rayment, and S. Childerhouse. 2006. A new abundance estimate for Maui’s

dolphin: What does it mean for managing this critically endangered species? Biological Conservation 128:576–581.

Skone, S. 2008. Mitigating geomagnetic noise in airborne magnetic using GPS. 21st International Technical Meeting of the Satellite Division of the Institute of Navigation, ION GNSS: 1861 – 1866. Stone, C. J. 2003. The effects of seismic activity on marine mammals in UK waters, 1998 - 2000. Pages 1–

78. JNCC. Stone, G., and A. Yoshinaga. 1995. Diurnal movement patterns of Hector's dolphin as observed from

clifftops. Marine Mammal Science 11:395–402. Suisted, R., and D. Neale. 2004. Department of Conservation Marine Mammal Action Plan for 2005–

2010. New Zealand Department of Conservation. 89pp. Szedlmayer, S.T. and J. Conti. 1999. Nursery habitats, growth rates and seasonality of age-0 red snapper,

Lutjanus campechanus, in the northeast Gulf of Mexico. Fishery Bulletin 97:626-635. Vrbancich, J., R. J. Whiteley, P. Caffi, and D. W. Emerson. 2011. Marine seismic profiling and shallow

marine sand resistivity investigations in Broken Bay, NSW, Australia. Exploration Geophysics 42:227. Webster, T. A., S. M. Dawson, and E. Slooten. 2009. Evidence of Sex Segregation in Hector's Dolphin

(Cephalorhynchus hectori). Aquatic Mammals 35:212–219.

40

8.0 Acknowledgements The author would like to thank the following people for assistance in gather information on Department of Economic Development Permits, local authority resource consents and unpublished literature: Phil Brown; DOC; Callum Lilly, DOC Taranaki; Bill Trusewich, Auckland Council; Sam Morgan, Auckland Council; Judi Brennan, DOC; Erin Zyderfelt, Taranaki Regional Council; Rochelle Constantine, University of Auckland; Colin McLellan, Taranaki Regional Council; Tony Ridge, West Coast Regional Council; Consents Department, Northland Regional Council; Consent Department, Waikato Regional Council; Elva Conroy, Auckland Council; Tracey Gilmore, Ministry of Economic Development.

41

Appendix I – Rio Tinto Ltd. and Iron Ore NZ Ltd. Mineral Mining Areas

MANUKAU BLOCK PERMIT NO: 51496

MOKAU BLOCK PERMIT NO: 51498

42

Appendix II – FMG Pacific Ltd. Mineral Mining Area

WAIATARA PERMIT NO: 552887

43

Appendix III – Trans Tasman Resources Ltd. Mineral Mining Area

NORTHERN AND SOUTHERN TENEMENTS PERMIT NO: 50383

NORTHERN ZONES OF INTEREST IN RESOURCE CONSENT PERMIT NO: 50383

44

SOUTHERN ZONES OF INTEREST IN RESOURCE CONSENT PERMIT NO: 50383