in the matter - epa...ribaldo, silver warehou, giant stargazer, and white warehou may spawn in...

BEFORE THE EPA CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE MARINE CONSENT APPLICATION IN THE MATTER of the Exclusive Economic Zone and Continental Shelf

(Environmental Effects) Act 2012 AND IN THE MATTER of a decision-making committee appointed to consider a

marine consent application made by Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited to undertake rock phosphate extraction on the Chatham Rise

__________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF EVIDENCE OF RICHARD O’DRISCOLL FOR

CHATHAM ROCK PHOSPHATE LIMITED

Dated: 28 August 2014

__________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________

Barristers & Solicitors

J G A Winchester / H P Harwood Telephone: +64-4-499 4599

Facsimile: +64-4-472 6986

Email: [email protected]

DX SX11174 P O Box 2402 Wellington

24805206

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................................................................................... 3

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 5

Qualifications and experience ......................................................................... 5

Code of conduct ................................................................................................ 7

Role in marine consent application ................................................................. 7

Scope of evidence ............................................................................................. 7

FISH DISTRIBUTION ON THE CHATHAM RISE ................................................... 8

HOKI ON THE CHATHAM RISE ............................................................................. 12

FISH SPAWNING ON THE CHATHAM RISE ......................................................... 17

COMMERCIAL FISHERY CATCHES IN THE REVISED CONSENT AREA ......... 22

CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................... 23

RESPONSES TO SUBMISSIONS........................................................................... 25

The Crown .......................................................................................................... 25

Hokotehi Moriori Trust ...................................................................................... 26

Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri Iwi Trust............................................................ 27

Deepwater Group ............................................................................................... 27

Ryca Investments Limited ................................................................................ 28

Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (KASM) ............................................................ 28

Environmental and Conversation Organisations of NZ Incorporated (ECO)

................................................................................................................... 27

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ 30

TABLES ................................................................................................................... 34

24805206

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. The Chatham Rise is an important area for fish and fisheries. More than

250 fish species or groups of species have been caught in research trawls

on the Chatham Rise from 200–800 m depth, and, of these, at least 63

species have been taken within CRP licence area 50270.

2. I analysed the spatial distribution and relative biomass within the CRP

mining and prospecting permit and licence areas for 45 species (43 fish

species, NZ southern arrow squid, and scampi). The 43 fish species

represented 97.4% of the total fish catch taken during annual (January)

trawl surveys on the Chatham Rise from 1992–2010. For 32 of these

species biomass and distribution was estimated separately for juveniles

and adults.

3. None of the 45 species examined had more than 10% of its total Chatham

Rise estimated biomass within the CRP mining and prospecting permit

and licence areas (combined area including prospecting permit area

55971, mining permit area 55549, and licence area 50270, but excluding

prospecting permit area 55967 which was withdrawn on 1 August 2014,

hereafter referred to as the revised consent area) when data from the 10

most recent surveys (2005–14) were averaged (the revised consent area

represented 3.7% of the area of the core 200–800 m survey). When data

were examined by year, there were five instances when a species/maturity

grouping had more than 10% of its estimated biomass within the revised

consent area.

4. The species/maturity groupings with the greatest concentration within the

revised consent area were juvenile and adult lookdown dory, adult

silverside, banded bellowsfish, juvenile white warehou, juvenile spiny

dogfish, scampi, and juvenile ling. The risk of mining activities may be

greater for these species because of the spatial overlap with the revised

consent area. For many other fish species, risks are lower because

densities within the revised consent area were lower than those across the

whole Chatham Rise. However, the potential effect will also depend on the

spatial and temporal scale of the impact, and the biology, behaviour, and

24805206

life history of the population – including potential within-year movement

into and out of the revised consent area.

5. The Chatham Rise is the main area of residence (adult home ground) for

the eastern hoki stock and the major juvenile area for hoki of both stocks.

It is also an important hoki fishing area. Commercial catches of hoki from

within the revised consent area have been very low.

6. Young hoki move to the Chatham Rise from spawning grounds elsewhere.

Some spawning (ripe and running ripe) hoki are caught on the western

Chatham Rise, but are seldom reported from other parts of the Rise. No

spawning hoki have been detected within the revised consent area.

7. Estimates from comparable summer research trawl surveys suggest that

in most years more than 80% of New Zealand hoki between 2 and 3 years

old are found on the Chatham Rise. Hoki from 1–2 years old (1+) are

mainly caught at depths of 200–400 m on the western Chatham Rise.

Larger hoki inhabit progressively deeper water and their spatial distribution

expands. On average, for trawl surveys from 2005–14, 3.9% of the

biomass of juvenile hoki and 3.7% of the biomass of adult hoki on the

Chatham Rise was within the revised consent area, indicating that hoki

densities within the revised consent area were similar to average densities

over the whole Chatham Rise.

8. Information on the areas of importance for spawning, pupping or egg-

laying, and juveniles of New Zealand fish was summarised by Hurst et al.

(2000b) and O’Driscoll et al. (2003). I updated this information based on

analysis of gonad stage data from research trawls and observed

commercial catches from July 2001 to July 2014. Although available data

were sparse, there was no evidence that the revised consent area was

particularly important as a spawning ground for any of the 29 species

examined. Hake, ling, spiny dogfish, lookdown dory, sea perch, Bollons’s

rattail, dark ghost shark, hapuku, long-nosed chimaera, pale ghost shark,

ribaldo, silver warehou, giant stargazer, and white warehou may spawn in

and/or around the revised consent area.

9. I summarised catch and effort data from commercial fishing on the

Chatham Rise (Fisheries Management Area 4) from the 10 most recent

24805206

fishing years (1 October 2003 to 30 September 2013). There were a total

of 9 trawls, 70 line sets, and one pot set within the revised consent area in

this period. Most commercial fishing effort in the revised consent area

(86%) was with bottom longlines targeting ling.

10. A total catch of 165.6 t was estimated to have been caught in the revised

consent area from 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2013. This included

49 species or species groups of fish and invertebrates. Most of the catch

from the revised consent area was ling (36.9% of total by weight), followed

by hoki (21.3%), spiny dogfish (15.4%), javelinfish (6.7%), and sea perch

(5.2%).

.

11. For all species caught, catches in the revised consent area over the past

10 years contributed less than 0.5% of the catch of that species from the

associated Quota Management Area (QMA), and less than 0.1% of the

total catch of that species from the New Zealand EEZ.

INTRODUCTION

Qualifications and experience 12. My full name is Richard Lyell O’Driscoll. I am a Programme Leader

responsible for Fisheries Assessment and Monitoring at the National

Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research Limited (NIWA), based in

Wellington. I have been at NIWA since October 2000. I was Group

Manager for Middle Depth Fisheries and Acoustics from 2004 to 2012, a

Principal Scientist since 2010, and in my current Programme Leader role

for the last two years.

13. I was awarded a PhD in Marine Science from the University of Otago in

1997, and completed a two-year post-doctoral fellowship at Memorial

University of Newfoundland (Canada) before starting at NIWA. I am an

active member of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea

(ICES) Working Group on Fisheries Acoustics Science and Technology,

and an editor for ICES Journal of Marine Science. I was a member of the

New Zealand delegation at the Fish Stock Assessment Working Group of

the Commission for Conservation of Antarctic Marine Living Resources

(CCAMLR) from 2002–06, and I convened the CCAMLR Subgroup on

Acoustic Survey and Analysis Methods from 2006–09. In 2009, I was a

24805206

member of the Stock Assessment Advisory Group formed by the (then)

Ministry of Fisheries to establish a 10-year research programme for

deepwater fisheries.

14. My area of research expertise is in estimating abundance and distribution

of fish populations. I currently lead projects to estimate abundance of

major deepwater commercial fish species using trawl and acoustic

surveys. I am also involved in biodiversity research programmes in the

Ross Sea (Antarctica) and around New Zealand seamounts. I have 16

years’ experience in the field of fisheries science. I am author of 30

publications in the international scientific literature, and over 100 research

reports. I have extensive sea-going and practical fisheries experience both

in New Zealand and overseas, including two Antarctic voyages.

15. I have been involved in the research trawl survey to estimate hoki and

middle-depth fish abundance on the Chatham Rise since 2001, and I have

managed or directed this project since 2005. I have personally participated

in eight research voyages to the Chatham Rise. I am an author on 10

annual Fisheries Assessment Reports describing fish abundance and

distribution on the Chatham Rise (Livingston et al. 2004, Stevens &

O’Driscoll 2006, 2007, Stevens et al. 2008, 2009a, 2009b, 2011, 2012,

2013, 2014) and, in 2011, was lead author on a review of hoki and middle

depth trawl surveys of the Chatham Rise from 1992–2010 (O‘Driscoll et al.

2011). In 2003, I was first author on a NIWA Technical Report describing

areas of importance for spawning, pupping, egg-laying, and juveniles of

New Zealand deepwater fish, pelagic fish, and invertebrates (O’Driscoll et

al. 2003).

16. I have a specific research interest in hoki. I coordinate the provision of

biological inputs for hoki assessment, including summaries of data from

commercial fisheries and abundance indices from research surveys. I am

an author on annual Fisheries Assessment Reports describing input data

used in hoki assessment (Ballara et al. 2010, 2011, Ballara & O’Driscoll

2012a, 2012b, 2014), and write sections of the annual Plenary Report on

hoki (e.g., Ministry for Primary Industries 2014). I am a co-author of a book

chapter on biology and fisheries of New Zealand hoki in a book on ‘Hakes’

to be published by Oxford University Press (Livingston et al. in press).

24805206

Code of Conduct 17. I confirm that I have read the Code of Conduct for expert witnesses

contained in the Environment Court of New Zealand Practice Note 2011

and that I have complied with it when preparing my evidence. Other than

when I state that I am relying on the advice of another person, this

evidence is entirely within my area of expertise. I have not omitted to

consider material facts known to me that might alter or detract from the

opinions that I express.

Role in marine consent application

18. I reviewed and contributed to sections 6.5.2 (Mesopelagic Fish), 6.6 (Fish).

And 6.7 (Commercial Fisheries and Fishing) of the Environmental Impact

Assessment. I was the lead author of four supplementary reports

commissioned by Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited: describing hoki

distribution and biology on the Chatham Rise (O’Driscoll & Ballara 2014);

describing fish distribution on the Chatham Rise from trawl surveys

(O’Driscoll et al. 2014a); summarising commercial fishing catch in the

consent area (O’Driscoll & MacGibbon 2014); and updating information on

fish spawning areas on the Chatham Rise (O’Driscoll et al. 2014b).

Scope of evidence

19. In this brief of evidence, I will:

(a) summarise fish distributions on the Chatham Rise in relation to

the revised consent area;

(b) describe the role of the Chatham Rise for New Zealand hoki;

(c) provide information on areas of importance to spawning fish on

the Chatham Rise;

(d) quantify the level of recent commercial fishing effort and catch

within the revised consent area; and

(e) respond to aspects of some of the submissions

24805206

20. More detailed evidence on the ling fishery on the Chatham Rise is

provided by my colleague, Ms Suze Baird. I will not comment on the

potential impacts of mining activities on fish populations. Evidence on the

effects of total suspended solids on fish will be provided by my colleague,

Mr Mike Page. The outcomes of a modelling exercise to estimate potential

population impacts on hoki, hake, and ling are presented by my colleague,

Mr Alistair Dunn.

FISH DISTRIBUTION ON THE CHATHAM RISE

21. The best available information on the spatial distribution of demersal

(near-bottom dwelling) fish on the Chatham Rise comes from a time-series

of research trawl surveys carried out annually from 1992 to 2014. With 23

consecutive surveys to date, the Chatham Rise series is the longest

annual series in New Zealand fisheries. Details of the design and methods

of the Chatham Rise trawl survey are described by O’Driscoll et al. (2011).

Trawl survey data were collected using a stratified random design, which

ensures spatial coverage of all regions of the Chatham Rise from 200–

800 m depths (Figure 1). All surveys were carried out from RV Tangaroa

at the same time of year (January) using standardised bottom trawl gear

and protocols.

Figure 1: Map of Chatham Rise showing stratification of core trawl survey area.

22. The Chatham Rise trawl time series from 1992–2010 was reviewed by

O’Driscoll et al. (2011). A total of 558 species or species groups of fish

and invertebrates were recorded in the first 19 surveys. This total included

286 species or groups of fish. An Ocean Biogeographical Information

System (OBIS) output (in April 2014) of species sampled by research trawl

24805206

in the CRP licence area 50270 showed 63 fish species were recorded in

the licence area (appendix 1 of Page 2014a).

23. O’Driscoll et al. (2011) estimated biomass trends and spatial and depth

distributions for 142 species or groups. Of these, 45 species (see Table 1

attached to my evidence) had sufficient information to estimate scaled

length frequency distributions by year. This included 43 fish species, along

with NZ southern arrow squid and scampi. The 43 fish species in Table 1

represent 97.4% of the total fish catch taken during trawl surveys on the

Chatham Rise from 1992–2010.

24. I summarised data from the 45 species in Table 1 in relation to the CRP

mining and prospecting permit and licence areas. Length of 50% maturity

(defined as the length at which 50% of individuals of that species are

sexually mature) was available for 32 of the 45 selected species from

Hurst et al. (2000a) and O’Driscoll et al. (2003), and for these 32 species

biomass and distribution was estimated separately for juveniles and adults

(defined as those below and above the length of 50% maturity

respectively).

25. For most of the 45 species in Table 1, the Chatham Rise surveys provided

a reasonable estimate of population biomass within the depth range.

However, some species may extend shallower than 200 m (12 species) or

deeper than 800 m (12 species), while the biomass of 16 species was only

poorly estimated.

26. For each Chatham Rise trawl survey in the last 10 years (from 2005 to

2014), I calculated the fraction of total core (200–800 m) survey biomass

of each of the 45 selected species (Table 1) that occurred in each of four

CRP areas (prospecting permit area 55971; licence area 50270;

prospecting permit area 55967 which was subsequently withdrawn; and

the combined CRP area). There was only one tow in mining permit area

55549 in 10 years so it was not possible to estimate the proportion of

biomass in this area. Following the withdrawal of prospecting area 55967

from the consent application on 1 August 2014, I also calculated the

fraction of survey biomass within the revised consent area (Table 2). For

the 32 species where length at maturity was available biomass was

estimated separately for juveniles and adults.

24805206

27. Methods are described in detail by O’Driscoll et al. (2014a). To account

for the potential bias caused by unequal sampling probability, biomass

estimates in CRP areas were estimated using a statistical method called

inverse distance weighted interpolation. A minimum of three tows within a

CRP area were required to estimate biomass. Because there was often

fewer than three tows within the smaller CRP areas in one year, data were

aggregated in 5 year and 10 year blocks to estimate average biomass

within each area over these periods. For each survey/species/maturity

grouping, the proportion of biomass within each CRP area was given

relative to the biomass within the whole (core 200–800 m) survey area.

This was tabulated as the ratio of biomass in CRP area to the biomass in

the core survey area. Instances where the estimated proportion of

biomass in the CRP area was high relative to the ratio of the seabed area

to the trawl survey area were highlighted (e.g., Table 2).

28. Only 27 of the 971 valid core biomass tows carried out from 2005–14 fell

within the revised consent area.

29. When data were averaged across the last 10 years (Table 2), none of the

45 species examined were found to have more than 10% of its total

estimated Chatham Rise biomass within the revised consent area (which

represented 3.7% of the area of the core survey). The species/maturity

grouping with the greatest concentration within the revised consent area

was adult silverside (10.0% of average biomass within revised consent

area), followed by juvenile white warehou (7.6%), juvenile lookdown dory

(7.5%), banded bellowsfish (7.2%), and adult lookdown dory (7.0%).

30. When data were examined by year, there were five instances when a

species/maturity grouping had more than 10% of its estimated Chatham

Rise biomass within the revised consent area: juvenile white warehou in

2007 (14.7%) and 2009 (13.5%), adult silverside in 2006 (12.2%) and

2011 (10.5%), and adult red cod in 2010 (11.6%).

31. To evaluate the relative overlap between the spatial distribution of the

selected 45 species and each of the CRP areas, taking account of the

yearly variability in distribution and biomass, I ranked each

species/maturity grouping in each area based on the number of years

24805206

estimated proportion of biomass in an area was 1.5–2.5 times higher

(highlighted yellow in Table 2) and more than 2.5 times higher (highlighted

red) than that expected given the relative seabed areas. For example, for

licence area 50270, which represented 2.07% of the survey area, cells

were highlighted in yellow when the proportion of estimated biomass in the

licence area was between 3.11% and 5.17% (ratio 50270 from 0.0311–

0.0517), and highlighted in red when the estimated proportion of biomass

was greater than 5.17% (ratio 50270 greater than 0.0517). These

‘highlighting thresholds’ (1.5 and 2.5) were arbitrary, but rankings of

species/maturity groupings were not particularly sensitive to the choice of

thresholds.

32. Scampi, adult silverside, juvenile and adult smooth skate, adult deepsea

cardinalfish, banded bellowsfish, juvenile hake, juvenile and adult

lookdown dory, and sea perch were found at higher densities in

prospecting permit area 55971, but, on average, the proportion of the total

Chatham Rise biomass of these groups in this area was always less than

4% (Table 2). Adult silverside, banded bellowsfish, juvenile and adult

lookdown dory, juvenile white warehou, Bollons’s rattail, juvenile spiny

dogfish, juvenile ling, and adult arrow squid were concentrated in licence

area 50270, but this area always accounted for less than 6% of average

Chatham Rise biomass of these groups (Table 2). Species with greatest

spatial overlap with the revised consent area tended to be those with a

shallower distribution on the Chatham Rise.

33. I make no attempt to evaluate effect of mining activities on fish

populations. The effect of any such activities will depend on the spatial

and temporal scale of the impact, and the biology, behaviour, and life

history of the population. However, I have assumed that there will be a

greater risk for species which were relatively more abundant within the

revised consent area, and lower risk for species with higher densities

outside the consent. Under this assumption, I conclude that the risk is

greater for groups like juvenile and adult lookdown dory, adult silverside,

banded bellowsfish, juvenile white warehou, juvenile spiny dogfish,

scampi, and juvenile ling. For many other species risks are probably lower

because fish densities within the revised consent area were lower than

those across the whole Chatham Rise survey area.

24805206

34. An important caveat to the above conclusions is that the distributional data

evaluated came from only one time period (January) and the distribution of

fish species may change over an annual cycle. At other times of the year

there may be a greater or a lesser proportion of the fish within the revised

consent area. Little information exists to quantitatively evaluate the spatial

distribution of species on the Chatham Rise at other times of the year.

Data from commercial fisheries on the Chatham Rise are available

throughout the year, but the spatial distribution of commercial effort varies

within and between years (e.g., Ballara & O’Driscoll 2014), effort within the

revised consent area has been relatively low (O’Driscoll & MacGibbon

2014), and not all by-catch species are reported on a tow-by-tow basis.

However, maps of juvenile and adult fish distributions based on data from

all research trawls and observed commercial trawls before June 2001

(O’Driscoll et al. 2003) show patterns that were broadly similar to January

distributions of these species in 2005–14 (appendix A of O’Driscoll et al.

2014a).

HOKI ON THE CHATHAM RISE

35. Hoki are New Zealand’s largest finfish fishery, with a current catch limit of

150,000 t for the whole EEZ. The species is also a key biological

component of the upper slope marine ecosystem at depths from 200–

800 m. Hoki are assessed as two stocks: western and eastern. The

Chatham Rise is the main area of residence (adult home ground) for the

eastern hoki stock and the major juvenile area for hoki of both stocks. It is

also an important hoki fishing area.

36. Hoki catches on the Chatham Rise peaked at about 75,000 t in 1997–98

and 1998–99, and have been stable at between 36,000 t and 38,000 t

over the past 7 years. The Chatham Rise was the largest New Zealand

hoki fishery from 2006–07 to 2009–10, but more recently has been

surpassed by the west coast South Island. In 2012–13 the Chatham Rise

contributed about 28% of the total New Zealand hoki catch. Commercial

catches of hoki from within the revised consent area have been very low

(Figure 2), with few trawls targeting hoki in this area (Beaumont et al.

2013, O’Driscoll & MacGibbon 2014). Much of the revised consent area

lies within the Mid Chatham Rise Benthic Protected Area (BPA) where

bottom trawling has been prohibited since November 2007. However,

24805206

even in the three years before the establishment of the BPA, there was

relatively little trawling in the revised consent area.

Figure 2: Reported commercial catches of hoki on the Chatham Rise 1990–2013.

Colours show summed hoki catch in pixels of 0.2 degree latitude by 0.2 degree

longitude. Outline of original consent area shown for reference.

37. Hoki are caught from the Chatham Rise throughout the year, with a

decrease during the spawning season from July to September. The fishery

is mainly a bottom trawl fishery, targeting hoki, with most tows carried out

from vessels from factory freezer trawlers 60–70 m in length (Ballara &

O’Driscoll 2014).

38. Most hoki caught in the Chatham Rise fishery are relatively young fish,

less than 8 years old (Ballara & O’Driscoll 2014). In many years, more

than half of the Chatham Rise catch (by number) is made up of hoki aged

3 years and younger.

39. The main hoki spawning grounds are on the west coast South Island

(western stock) and in Cook Strait (eastern stock), but some spawning

also occurs on the east coast South Island, and on the Puysegur Bank in

Southland (O’Driscoll & Ballara 2014). A few hoki in spawning condition

have also been recorded on the northwestern Southern Plateau, the

western Chatham Rise, and on the east coast North Island (O’Driscoll &

Ballara 2014), but these are not considered to be important spawning

areas.

40. An analysis of hoki gonad stage data, collected by observers from 1990 to

2013, shows that spawning (ripe and running ripe) hoki are caught on the

western Chatham Rise (mainly west of the Mernoo Bank), but are seldom

reported from other parts of the Rise (Figure 3). Observations of spawning

24805206

hoki on the western Chatham Rise are associated with known east coast

South Island spawning areas (Livingston 1990, O’Driscoll 2003). There

have been very few hoki gonad stage data collected by observers within

the revised consent area, and no spawning hoki were detected in this

region (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Observations of spawning hoki on the Chatham RiseData are from observed

catches for fishing years 1989/90–2012/13. Blue dots show records of ripe (observer

stage 3) female hoki. Red circles show observations of running ripe (observer stage 4)

females. Grey circles show trawl locations where gonad stages were recorded but no

spawning hoki were observed. Outline of original consent area shown for reference.

41. The Chatham Rise is the major juvenile (‘nursery’) area for hoki of both

stocks. Based on trawl surveys from 1982–89, Livingston et al. (1992)

estimated that 90% of juvenile hoki (less than 65 cm) are located on the

Chatham Rise. I reviewed this estimate based on data on the numbers-at-

age of hoki from comparable summer research trawl surveys since 1991

(O’Driscoll & Ballara 2014). Catches of juvenile hoki varied considerably

between surveys, reflecting the variability in year-class strength. More hoki

between ages 1 and 2 years (1+) were caught on the Chatham Rise than

in the other areas, and by ages 2 to 3 years (2+), more than 80% of the

observed 2+ hoki were on the Chatham Rise, except in 1993 and 2010,

when relatively high numbers of 2+ hoki were observed in Southland

and/or Sub-Antarctic. However, even in these two years, about two-thirds

(64–66%) of the observed 2+ hoki were on the Chatham Rise.

42. The Chatham Rise is the main area of residence for the eastern hoki

stock. The eastern hoki stock is smaller than the western stock. The most

recent hoki stock assessment (McKenzie in press) estimates that adult

(spawning) biomass in the eastern stock in 2013 was 263,000–313,000 t,

24805206

compared to 434,000–721,000 t in the western stock. Adult fish from the

eastern stock are also taken from the east coast of the North and South

Islands and year round in Cook Strait, but the volume of catches from

these areas is much lower than those from the Chatham Rise (Ballara &

O’Driscoll 2014). The Chatham Rise is primarily a feeding area for adult

hoki, with fish migrating away from the Chatham Rise to spawn.

43. I examined spatial distribution of hoki on the Chatham Rise using two main

data sources: 1) Tangaroa bottom trawl surveys from 1992–2014; and 2)

observations from commercial catches from 1990–2013. Trawl surveys

were carried out at the same time of year (January) using standardised

trawl gear and protocols. A much greater volume of data is available from

commercial catches, and data cover all months of the year. However

commercial data are restricted to areas where fishing operations took

place, and there have been changes in fishing practices and gear over

time.

44. Both data sources showed similar spatial patterns. Hoki from 1–2 years

old (1+) are mainly caught at depths of 200–400 m on the western

Chatham Rise, particularly around the Mernoo, Veryan and Reserve

Banks (Figures 4–5). Larger hoki inhabit progressively deeper water and

their spatial distribution expands (Figure 4–5). Hoki of ages 2–3 years (2+)

occurred in 72% of research bottom trawls on the Chatham Rise, with

highest catches from 400–600 m depths, west of 180°. Hoki 3 years and

older are widespread on the Chatham Rise, occurring in 95% of research

trawls.

45. Mean catch rates of 1+ hoki from trawl survey tows within the revised

consent area were lower than those from the whole Chatham Rise, while

mean catch rates of 2+ and 3++ hoki were similar. On average, for trawl

surveys from 2005–14, 3.9% of the biomass of juvenile hoki and 3.7% of

the biomass of adult hoki on the Chatham Rise was within the revised

consent area (see Table 2).

46. Little information exists on the vertical distribution of hoki on the Chatham

Rise. Acoustic data suggest that hoki are typically close to the seabed

during the day, but move away from the seabed at night (e.g., Bull 2000).

24805206

Figure 4: Catch rates of hoki from Chatham Rise trawl surveys 1992–2014 with top 1%

of catches replaced by the 99% quantile, and circle sizes re-scaled to show spatial

distribution of lower density catches. Outline of original consent area shown for

reference.

24805206

Figure 5: Observed commercial catches of hoki on the Chatham Rise by age class.

Data are from observed commercial trawls from 1990–2013 where hoki were measured.

Outline of original consent area shown for reference.

FISH SPAWNING ON THE CHATHAM RISE

47. Information on the areas of importance for spawning, pupping or egg-

laying, and juveniles of New Zealand fish was summarised by Hurst et al.

(2000b) and O’Driscoll et al. (2003). Hurst et al. (2000b) provided data for

35 important inshore fish species (defined as those which occur in under

200 m), while O’Driscoll et al. (2003) looked at 32 important deepwater fish

species (occurring from 200 to 1500 m depth) and 4 pelagic fish species.

Three species (ling, hake, and silver warehou) were included in both

reports. The main data sources for both reports were published and

24805206

unpublished literature (including university theses and local body reports)

and the (then) Ministry of Fisheries research trawl survey (trawl),

commercial scientific observer trawl (obs and obs_lfs) and tuna longline

(l_line) databases, all of which are maintained by NIWA. The date of data

extraction for spawning summaries presented by Hurst et al. (2000b) was

up to 4 April 2000 for research data and to 20 December 1999 for

observer data. The date of data extraction for spawning summaries

presented by O’Driscoll et al. (2003) was 30 June 2001.

48. Information on spawning areas was not updated as part of the initial

consent application, except for hoki (O’Driscoll & Ballara 2014). In

response to Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) request number 34,

I summarised all available data on occurrence of spawning fish from

research trawl and observed commercial catch data from 1 July 2001 to

28 July 2014 (O’Driscoll et al. 2014b).

49. Maps of observations of spawning (ripe and running ripe) and spent

females on the Chatham Rise were produced for 29 fish species (Table 3).

Background data showing all positions where fish of a given species were

staged were also plotted to represent the distribution of possible

observations.

50. Gonad stage information from within the revised consent area was only

available for 14 of the 29 species from research trawls, and only 2 of 29

species from observer records since July 2001 (Table 3). No data were

available for the other species, because these were not caught and/or not

staged within the revised consent area.

51. Individual female hake in spawning condition were observed inside the

revised consent area in both research trawl and observer data, and spent

female hake were observed in the revised consent area in research trawl

data and close to the revised consent area in observer data. Spawning

and spent spiny dogfish, spent hoki, spent lookdown dory, and spent sea

perch were also observed inside the revised consent area in research

trawl data. An important caveat is that most of the research trawl data

evaluated came from only one time period (January), and many species

are known not be spawning at this time of year. There were no records of

spawning or spent fish of other species inside the revised consent area,

24805206

but there was evidence of potential spawning of Bollons’s rattail, dark

ghost shark, hapuku, ling, long-nosed chimaera, pale ghost shark, ribaldo,

silver warehou, giant stargazer, and white warehou in the surrounding

area from observations of spawning or spent fish nearby.

52. None of the other species examined showed evidence of spawning on the

mid-Chatham Rise. Black oreo, smooth oreo, and orange roughy spawn

along the flanks of the Chatham Rise, around the 1000 m isobath.

53. Maps in Hurst et al. (2000) and O’Driscoll et al. (2003) from data before

2001 also show observations of ling, hake, white warehou, silver warehou,

giant stargazer, and lookdown dory in spawning condition on the mid-

Chatham Rise.

54. As noted in paragraph 40 above, and shown in Figure 3, no spawning hoki

have been recorded from within the revised consent area. Although

spawning and spent hake were observed within the revised consent area,

most of the hake spawning on the mid Chatham Rise appears to occur in

deeper water to the north of the revised consent area (Figure 6).

Prospecting permit area 55967, which was withdrawn from the revised

consent application on 1 August 2014, appears to be an important

spawning area for ling (Figure 7), sea perch, and possibly hapuku.

55. Although available data were sparse, there was no evidence that the

revised consent area was an important spawning ground for any of the 29

species examined.

24805206

Figure 6: Distribution of female hake in spawning and spent condition from research

trawls and observed catches from 2001–14. Grey shading shows all positions where

gonad stage information was recorded (O'Driscoll et al. 2014b). Original consent area is

shown. The purple box is prospecting permit area 55967 which was withdrawn from the

consent application on 1 August 2014.

24805206

Figure 7: Distribution of female ling in spawning and spent condition from research

trawls and observed catches from 2001–14. Grey shading shows all positions where

gonad stage information was recorded (O'Driscoll et al. 2014b). Original consent area is

shown. The purple box is prospecting permit area 55967 which was withdrawn from the

consent application on 1 August 2014.

24805206

COMMERCIAL FISHERY CATCHES IN THE REVISED CONSENT AREA

56. I summarised all commercial catch data from the revised consent area

from the 2003/04 to 2012/13 fishing years (O’Driscoll & MacGibbon 2014).

This was based on an extract (on 27 June 2014) from the Ministry for

Primary Industries (MPI) warehou database of effort, estimated catch,

landings, and daily processed data for any commercial fishing trip that

spent any time in Fisheries Management Area (FMA) 4 from 1 October

2003 to 30 September 2013. A fishing year is defined as 1 October to 30

September (e.g., the 2012/13 fishing year is from 1 October 2012 to 30

September 2013), so this extract represented data from the last 10 fishing

years.

57. Fishing events were identified that fell within each of the four original CRP

areas (prospecting permit area 55971, mining permit area 55549, licence

area 50270, and the withdrawn prospecting permit area 55967), and an

area requested by CRP which was defined as a box extending 20 km

beyond the boundary of mining permit 55549 in all directions. Allocation of

fishing events within areas was based on start positions for line and pot

events (finish positions were not recorded for these gear types) and mid

positions for trawl events (which had both start and finish positions).

58. There were a total of 9 trawls, 70 line sets, and one pot set within the

revised consent area from 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2013 (Table

4).

59. Catch summaries within each area from line and pot events were based

on estimated catches. Catch summaries from trawl events were based on

daily processed catches, using a statistical method to allocate daily

catches between trawl events occurring on the same day (O’Driscoll &

MacGibbon 2014).

60. Catches were summarised by fishing year. This differs from the report by

Baird (2014) which includes summaries of ling longline catch and effort

data by calendar year (i.e., 1 January to 31 December). Catches within the

revised consent area were compared to estimates of catch by Quota

Management Area (QMA), and within the whole of the New Zealand

24805206

Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ), obtained from figures provided by MPI

from Monthly Harvest Return (MHR) forms.


consent area from 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2013 (Table 5). This

included 49 species or species groups of fish and invertebrates. Most of

the catch from the revised consent area was ling (36.9% of total by

weight), followed by hoki (21.3%), spiny dogfish (15.4%), javelinfish

(6.7%), and sea perch (5.2%).




total catch of that species from the New Zealand EEZ (Table 5).

63. The total catch taken by longline in the revised consent area over the past

10 years was 99 t. This was mainly ling (59.3%), spiny dogfish (25.3%),

and sea perch (7.0%). Recent levels of longline fishing in the revised

consent area account for less than 1% of the ling longline effort in the

Chatham Rise ling fishery.

64. The total trawl catch in the revised consent area over the past 10 years

was 64 t, with the major species in the trawl catch were hoki (54.8%),

javelinfish (17.1%), silver warehou (5.0%), white warehou (3.5%), and ling

(3.4%). There was no trawl fishing in the revised consent area since

2006/07. Much of the revised consent area lies within the Mid Chatham

Rise Benthic Protected Area (BPA) where bottom trawling and dredging

has been prohibited since November 2007. However, even in the three

years before the establishment of the BPA, there was relatively little

trawling in the revised consent area.

CONCLUSIONS

65. The Chatham Rise is an important area for fish and fisheries. More than

250 fish species or groups of species have been caught in research trawls

on the Chatham Rise, and of these, at least 63 species have been taken

within CRP licence area 50270.

24805206

66. None of the 45 species (43 important commercial and non-commercial fish

species, NZ southern arrow squid, and scampi) examined in detail had

more than 10% of its total estimated biomass within the revised consent

area when data from the 10 most recent January Chatham Rise trawl

surveys (2005–14) were averaged. The species/maturity groupings with

the greatest concentration within the revised consent area were juvenile

and adult lookdown dory, adult silverside, banded bellowsfish, juvenile

white warehou, juvenile spiny dogfish, scampi, and juvenile ling. The risk

of mining activities may be greater for these species because of the spatial

overlap with the revised consent area. For many other fish species risks

are lower because densities within the revised consent area were lower

than those across the whole Chatham Rise. However, the potential effect

of any mining activities will also depend on the spatial and temporal scale

of the impact, and the biology, behaviour, and life history of the population.

67. The Chatham Rise is the main area of residence (adult home ground) for

the eastern hoki stock and the major juvenile area for hoki of both stocks.

It is also an important hoki fishing area.

68. Young hoki move to the Chatham Rise from spawning grounds elsewhere.

Some spawning (ripe and running ripe) hoki are caught on the western

Chatham Rise, but are seldom reported from other parts of the Rise. No

spawning hoki have been detected within the revised consent area.

69. Estimates from research trawl surveys suggest that in most years more

than 80% of New Zealand hoki between 2 and 3 years old are found on

the Chatham Rise. Hoki from 1–2 years old (1+) are mainly caught at

depths of 200–400 m on the western Chatham Rise. Larger hoki inhabit

progressively deeper water and their spatial distribution expands. On

average, for January trawl surveys from 2005–14, 3.9% of the biomass of

juvenile hoki and 3.7% of the biomass of adult hoki on the Chatham Rise

was within the revised consent area. However, commercial catches of hoki

from within the revised consent area have been very low.

70. An updated analysis of gonad stage data from research trawls and

observed commercial catch suggested that spawning of hake, ling, spiny

dogfish, lookdown dory, sea perch, Bollons’s rattail, dark ghost shark,

hapuku, long-nosed chimaera, pale ghost shark, ribaldo, silver warehou,

24805206

giant stargazer, and white warehou may occur in and/or around the

revised consent area. Although the available data were sparse, there was

no evidence that the revised consent area was an important spawning

ground for these, or any of the 29 species examined.

71. There has been very little commercial fishing effort within the revised

consent area in the 10 most recent fishing years (2003/04 to 2012/13).

Most fishing effort in the revised consent area was with bottom longlines

targeting ling. Recent levels of longline fishing in the revised consent area

account for less than 1% of the ling longline effort in the Chatham Rise ling

fishery. The amount of trawling in the revised consent area was very low

(only 9 tows in the past 10 fishing years).


consent area from 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2013. This included

49 species or species groups of fish and invertebrates. Most of the catch

from the revised consent area was ling (36.9% of total by weight), followed

by hoki (21.3%), spiny dogfish (15.4%), javelinfish (6.7%), and sea perch

(5.2%).




total catch of that species from the New Zealand EEZ.

RESPONSES TO SUBMISSIONS The Crown 74. In paragraph 5 of Part 2 of the Crown’s submission, the Crown states that

“Around 20% of bottom longlining activity on the Chatham Rise during the

last five years has occurred within the marine consent area.” This estimate

of 20% does not match with our analysis. O’Driscoll & MacGibbon (2014)

found that were 3053 longline sets on 1054 vessel days within the original

consent area from 1 October 2003 to 30 September 2013. This equates to

an average of 105 vessel days of longline fishing within the original

consent area per year for the last 10 years. Horn & Ballara (2012) reported

a total of 5204 longline vessel days targeting line in the Chatham Rise

fishery (LIN3 and LIN4) from 2003/04 to 2008/09, an average of 867

vessel days per year. Therefore, I conclude that recent levels of longline

24805206

fishing in the original consent area accounts for only about 12% of the ling

longline vessel days in the Chatham Rise fishery. Less than 1% of the ling

longline effort on the Chatham Rise is within the revised consent area.

75. In paragraph 9 of Part 2 of the Crown’s submission, the Crown states that

“Each year, between 30,000–40,000 tonnes of fish are taken commercially

on the Chatham Rise”. This is an underestimate. Based on an extract of

Monthly Harvest Return (MHR) data from the Ministry for Primary

Industries on 27 June 2014, I estimated that between 70,000 t and

75,000 t of commercial catch has been taken annually from the Quota

Management Areas (QMAs) associated with the Chatham Rise in each of

the past 5 years (2008/09 to 2012/13). Annual commercial catches of hoki

alone from the Chatham Rise have been between 36,500 t and 39,100 t in

the last 5 years (see table 3 on p 407 of Ministry for Primary Industries

(2014)). I do not have data available to evaluate the Crown’s estimate of

the export value of Chatham Rise fisheries being $130m per annum. I note

that the same estimated export value for the Chatham Rise fisheries is

given in paragraph 9 of the Deepwater Group submission.

Hokotehi Moriori Trust

76. In paragraphs 42 and 44 of Hokotehi Moriori Trust’s submission, the Trust

notes that hoki, silver warehou, and ling spawn in the western part of the

Chatham Rise. I am not certain what the figure of “90% chance of capture”

in paragraph 42 refers to in relation to hoki and silver warehou? No

spawning hoki have been detected within the revised consent area

(O’Driscoll & Ballara 2014), so mining activities are unlikely to impact hoki

spawning.

77. Hokotehi Moriori Trust also notes in paragraph 44 that important orange

roughy spawning grounds occur on the Graveyard Seamount Complex

and Box Hill Complex. These orange roughy spawning areas are 70–100

km north of the boundaries of the revised consent area, are much deeper

than the revised consent area (around 800–1000 m depth), and are well

outside the modelled extent of the sedimentation plume.

24805206

Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri Iwi Trust

78. Ngati Mutunga o Wharekauri Iwi Trust requested a more detailed

characterisation of the commercial fishing activities in the full marine

consent area, and an up-to-date evaluation of the spawning areas used by

commercial species in the marine consent area and across the Chatham

Rise (Section 4.4 of their submission). These analyses have now been

carried out (O’Driscoll & MacGibbon 2014, O’Driscoll et al. 2014b).

79. The Wharekauri Trust expressed specific concern about the impact of

mining on bluenose and orange roughy. Our data suggest that the risks of

serious impact to either the orange roughy or bluenose fisheries are

probably low. Research trawl surveys on the Chatham Rise found that

only 0.8% of the estimated orange roughy abundance between 200 and

800 m on the Chatham Rise was in the revised consent area (Table 2),

and there has been no commercial catch of orange roughy from the

revised consent area over the past 10 years (Table 3). The distribution of

bluenose was not considered by O’Driscoll et al. (2014a), but no bluenose

has been taken commercially from the revised consent area from 1

October 2003 to 30 September 2013 (Table 3).

Deepwater Group

80. The Deepwater Group asserts that the Chatham Rise is a recognised

“hotspot” habitat for juvenile fish (paragraph 10.2 of Deepwater Group

submission). However, of the 32 species where biomass could be

estimated separately for juveniles and adults from the Chatham Rise trawl

survey, only 7 species (white warehou, lookdown dory, ling, spiny dogfish,

smooth skate, silverside, and dark ghost shark) had higher average

densities of juveniles within the revised consent area than over the entire

200–800 m Chatham Rise survey area (Table 2). Juvenile hoki and hake

densities within the revised consent area were similar to average densities

of juvenile hoki and hake over the Chatham Rise. The other 23 species

examined had lower estimated juvenile densities within the revised

consent area than was average for that species across the Chatham Rise.

I conclude that there is no evidence that the revised consent area is a

particular “hotspot” for juvenile fish on the Chatham Rise.

24805206

81. In paragraph 11.2 of their submission, the Deepwater Group gives an

example that notes that “if juvenile hoki are adversely affected by mining,

hoki stock abundance and catches may be reduced across the entire New

Zealand fishery.” Only 3.9% of the estimated biomass of juvenile hoki on

the Chatham Rise in the past 10 years was in the revised consent area

(Table 2). Because the revised consent area is a relatively small

percentage of the overall area on the Chatham Rise used by juvenile hoki,

I agree with the conclusion of the Crown that “the risk of a serious impact

to the hoki fishery is probably low” (paragraph 14 of Crown submission).

Ryca Investments Limited

82. In paragraphs 5 and 6 of their submission, Ryca Investments Limited note

concern about potential damage to juvenile hoki from mining activities.

The Chatham Rise is the major juvenile area for New Zealand hoki.

However, the revised consent area is only a small percentage of the

overall area on the Chatham Rise used by juvenile hoki. As noted in

paragraph 81 above, only 3.9% of the estimated biomass of juvenile hoki

on the Chatham Rise in the past 10 years was in the revised consent area

(Table 2). Therefore, I agree with the conclusion of the Crown that “the risk

of a serious impact to the hoki fishery is probably low” (paragraph 14 of

Crown submission).

Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (KASM)

83. In their submission, KASM state that “fishing grounds near the subtropical

front and particularly the Chatham Rise provide 60% of New Zealand’s fish

catch.” This is factually incorrect. As noted in my response to the Crown

submission in paragraph 73 above, and based on an extract of Monthly

Harvest Return (MHR) data from the Ministry for Primary Industries on

27 June 2014, I estimated that between 70,000 t and 75,000 t of

commercial catch has been taken annually from the Quota Management

Areas (QMAs) associated with the Chatham Rise in each of the past 5

years (2008/09 to 2012/13). This represents only about 20% of the annual

commercial catch taken within the New Zealand Exclusive Economic Zone

(EEZ) in the past 5 years.

Environmental and Conservation Organisations of NZ Incorporated (ECO)

24805206

84. I found that Section 6.1 of the submission by ECO was factually correct.

The estimates provided for the magnitude of the Chatham Rise fisheries

(70,000 t), and the proportion of the catch taken from the Chatham Rise

relative to the total New Zealand commercial catch (20%) were consistent

with my estimates (see paragraph 75 above). However, the submission by

ECO makes no attempt to quantify the impact of the mining activities,

which are spatially restricted on the Chatham Rise, relative to the overall

Chatham Rise fisheries.

Richard O’Driscoll

28 August 2014

24805206

REFERENCES (cited in this evidence)

1. Ballara, S.L.; O’Driscoll, R.L. (2012a). Catches, size, and age structure of

the 2009–10 hoki fishery, and a summary of input data used for the 2011

stock assessment. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2012/19.

109 p.

2. Ballara, S.L.; O’Driscoll, R.L. (2012b). Catches, size, and age structure of

the 2010–11 hoki fishery, and a summary of input data used for the 2012

stock assessment. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2012/23.

117 p

3. Ballara, S.L.; O’Driscoll, R.L. (2014). Catches, size, and age structure of the

2011–12 hoki fishery, and a summary of input data used for the 2013 stock

assessment. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2014/05. 117 p.

4. Ballara, S.L.; O’Driscoll, R.L.; Fu, D. (2010). Catches, size, and age

structure of the 2007–08 hoki fishery, and a summary of input data used for

the 2009 stock assessment. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report

2010/18. 98 p.

5. Ballara, S.L.; O’Driscoll, R.L.; Fu, D. (2011). Catches, size, and age

structure of the 2008–09 hoki fishery, and a summary of input data used for

the 2010 stock assessment. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report

2011/8. 116 p.

6. Beaumont, J.; Baird, S.; Hayden, B, (2013). Biological and fishing data

within the Minerals Prospecting Licence 50270 area within the Chatham

Rise. NIWA Client Report WLG2011-10 prepared for Chatham Rock

Phosphate Limited, April 2013. 42 p.

7. Bull, B. (2000). An acoustic study of the vertical distribution of hoki on the

Chatham Rise. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2000/5. 59 p.

8. Hurst, R.J.; Bagley, N.W.; Anderson, O.F.; Francis, M.P.; Griggs, L.H.;

Clark, M.R.; Paul, L.J.; Taylor, P.R. (2000a). Atlas of juvenile and adult fish

and squid distributions from bottom and midwater trawls and tuna longlines

in New Zealand waters. NIWA Technical Report 84. 162 p.

9. Hurst, R.J.; Stevenson, M.L.; Bagley, N.W.; Griggs, L.H.; Morrison, M.A.;

Francis, M.P; Duffy, C.A. (2000b). Areas of importance for spawning,

pupping or egg-laying, and juveniles of New Zealand coastal fish. Final

Research Report prepared by NIWA for Ministry of Fisheries Research

Project ENV 1999/03 Objective 1, December 2000. 57 pp + figs.

Unpublished report held by Ministry for Primary Industries, Wellington.

24805206

10. Livingston, M.E. (1990). Spawning hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae

Hector) concentrations in Cook Strait and off the east coast of the South

Island, New Zealand, August-September 1987. New Zealand Journal of

Marine and Freshwater Research 24: 503–517.

11. Livingston, M.E.; Hurst, R.J.; O’Driscoll, R.L.; McKenzie, A.; Ballara, S.L.;

Horn, P.L. (in press). Biology and fisheries of New Zealand hoki

(Macruronus novaezelandiae). Chapter in book on ‘Hakes’ to be published

by Oxford University Press

12. Livingston, M.E.; Schofield, K.A.; Sullivan, K.J. (1992). The discrimination of

hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae) groups in New Zealand using

morphometrics and age-growth parameters. New Zealand Fisheries

Assessment Research Document 92/18. 29 p. (Unpublished report held in

NIWA library, Wellington.)

13. Livingston, M.E.; Stevens, D.W.; O’Driscoll, R.L.; Francis, R.I.C.C. (2004).

Trawl survey of hoki and middle depth species on the Chatham Rise,

January 2003 (TAN0301). New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report

2004/16. 71 p.

14. McKenzie, A. (in press). Assessment of hoki (Macruronus novaezelandiae)

in 2013. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report.

15. Ministry for Primary Industries (2014). Report from the Fisheries

Assessment Plenary, May 2014: stock assessments and yield estimates.

Compiled by the Fisheries Science Group, Ministry for Primary Industries,

Wellington, New Zealand. 1381 p.

16. O’Driscoll, R.L. (2003). Acoustic survey of spawning hoki off the east coast

South Island in September 2002. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment

Report 2003/28. 26 p.

17. O’Driscoll, R.L.; Bagley, N.W.; Baird, S.J. (2014b). Spawning areas of fish

on the Chatham Rise 2001–2014. NIWA Client Report WLG2014-58

prepared for Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, August 2014. 42 p.

18. O’Driscoll, R.L.; Ballara, S.L. (2014). The Chatham Rise and hoki: role in

hoki biology and distribution. NIWA Client Report WLG2014-15-rev

prepared for Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, March 2014. 33 p.

19. O’Driscoll, R.L.; Booth, J.D.; Bagley, N.W.; Anderson, O.F.; Griggs, L.H.;

Stevenson, M.L.; Francis, M.P. (2003). Areas of importance for spawning,

pupping or egg-laying, and juveniles of New Zealand deepwater fish,

pelagic fish, and invertebrates. NIWA Technical Report 119. 377 p.

24805206

20. O’Driscoll, R.L.; Edwards, C.T.T; Bagley, N.W. (2014a). Fish distribution on

the Chatham Rise from trawl surveys. NIWA Client Report WLG2014-32

prepared for Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, June 2014. 95 p.

21. O’Driscoll, R.L.; MacGibbon, D.J. (2014). Estimated commercial catches in

the Chatham Rock Phosphate consent area 2003/04 to 2012/13. NIWA

Client Report WLG2014-57 prepared for Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited,

July 2014. 18 p.

22. O’Driscoll, R.L.; MacGibbon, D.; Fu, D.; Lyon, W.; Stevens, D.W. (2011). A

review of hoki and middle depth trawl surveys of the Chatham Rise, January

1992–2010. New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2011/47. 814 p.

23. Page, M. (2014a). Effects of total suspended solids on marine fish: pelagic,

demersal and bottom fish species avoidance of TSS on the Chatham Rise.

NIWA Client Report WLG2014-7 prepared for Chatham Rock Phosphate

Limited, February 2014. 25 p.

24. Page, M. (2014b). Effects of total suspended solids on marine fish: eggs

and larvae on the Chatham Rise. NIWA Client Report WLG2012-61-rev

prepared for Chatham Rock Phosphate Limited, April 2014. 22 p.

25. Stevens, D.W., O’Driscoll, R.L. (2006). Trawl survey of hoki and middle

depth species on the Chatham Rise, January 2005 (TAN0501). New

Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2006/13. 73 p.

26. Stevens, D.W., O’Driscoll, R.L. (2007). Trawl survey of hoki and middle

depth species on the Chatham Rise, January 2006 (TAN0601). New

Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2007/5. 73 p.

27. Stevens, D.W.; O’Driscoll, R.L.; Dunn, M.R.; Ballara, S.L.; Horn, P.L.

(2013). Trawl survey of hoki and middle depth species on the Chatham

Rise, January 2012 (TAN1201). New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report

2013/34. 103 p.

28. Stevens, D.W.; O’Driscoll, R.L.; Dunn, M.R.; Ballara, S.L.; Horn, P.L.

(2012). Trawl survey of hoki and middle depth species on the Chatham

Rise, January 2011 (TAN1101). New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report

2012/10. 98 p.

29. Stevens, D.W.; O’Driscoll, R.L.; Dunn, M.R.; MacGibbon, D.; Horn, P.L.;

Gauthier, S. (2011). Trawl survey of hoki and middle depth species on the

Chatham Rise, January 2010 (TAN1001). New Zealand Fisheries

Assessment Report 2011/10. 112 p.

30. Stevens, D.W.; O’Driscoll, R.L.; Horn, P.L. (2009a). Trawl survey of hoki

and middle depth species on the Chatham Rise, January 2007 (TAN0801).

New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report 2009/18. 86 p.

24805206

31. Stevens, D.W.; O’Driscoll, R.L.; Horn, P.L. (2009b). Trawl survey of hoki



32. Stevens, D.W., O’Driscoll, R.L.; Gauthier, S (2008). Trawl survey of hoki



33. Stevens, D.W.; O’Driscoll, R.L.; Oeffner, J.; Ballara, S.L.; Horn, P.L. (2014).

Trawl survey of hoki and middle depth species on the Chatham Rise,

January 2013 (TAN1301). New Zealand Fisheries Assessment Report

2014/02. 110 p.

24805206

Table 1: List of the 45 species considered by O’Driscoll et al. (2014a) Distribution column indicates whether core 200-800 m Chatham Rise survey area is appropriate for the species: appropriate = species is well covered by survey area; <200 = species is also found shallower than 200 m; >800 = species is also caught deeper than 800 m (from O’Driscoll et al. 2011). Estimated column indicates the relative precision of trawl survey abundance estimates: very well, mean CV <20%; well, mean CV 20-30%; moderately well, mean CV 30-40%; poor, mean CV >40% (from O’Driscoll et al. 2011). Length at 50% maturity from Hurst et al. (2000a) and O’Driscoll et al. (2003): for elasmobranchs (sharks, skates, and chimaeras) there are separate values for males (M) and females (F); NA = no length at maturity available.

Species code

Common name Scientific name Distribution Estimated

Length of 50%

maturity (cm)

BAR Barracouta Thyrsites atun <200 poor 56 BBE Banded bellowsfish Centriscops humerosus appropriate very well NA BOE Black oreo Allocyttus niger >800 moderately well 34 BYS Alfonsino Beryx splendens appropriate poor 34 CAS Oblique banded rattail Coelorinchus aspercephalus appropriate very well NA CBI Two saddle rattail Coelorinchus biclinozonalis <200 moderately well NA CBO Bollons’s rattail Coelorinchus bollonsi appropriate very well NA CFA Banded rattail Coelorinchus fasciatus >800 well NA COL Oliver’s rattail Coelorinchus oliverianus appropriate well NA CYP Longnose velvet dogfish Centroscymnus crepidater >800 poor M62, F81 EPT Deepsea cardinalfish Epigonus telescopus >800 poor 46 ETB Baxter’s lantern dogfish Etmopterus baxteri >800 moderately well M56 F64 ETL Lucifer dogfish Etmopterus lucifer appropriate very well NA GSH Dark ghost shark Hydrolagus novaezealandiae <200 very well M52, F61 GSP Pale ghost shark Hydrolagus bemisi >800 very well M59, F69 HAK Hake Merluccius australis appropriate very well 76 HOK Hoki Macruronus novaezelandiae appropriate very well 66 JAV Javelin fish Lepidorhynchus denticulatus appropriate very well NA JMM Slender jack mackerel Trachurus murphyi appropriate poor 39 LCH Long-nosed chimaera Harriotta raleighana >800 very well NA LDO Lookdown dory Cyttus traversi appropriate very well 33 LIN Ling Genypterus blacodes appropriate very well 68 LSO Lemon sole Pelotretis flavilatus <200 well 18 NOS NZ southern arrow squid Nototodarus sloanii appropriate well 31 OPE Orange perch Lepidoperca aurantia <200 poor 21 ORH Orange roughy Hoplostethus atlanticus >800 poor 30 RBM/SRB Ray's bream Brama australis pelagic moderately well 43 RBT Redbait Emmelichthys nitidus <200 poor 26 RCO Red cod Pseudophycis bachus <200 poor 51 RHY Common roughy Paratrachichthys trailli appropriate poor NA RIB Ribaldo Mora moro >800 very well 45 SBW Southern blue whiting Micromesistius australis appropriate poor 38 SCI Scampi Metanephrops challengeri appropriate very well NA SDO Silver dory Cyttus novaezealandiae <200 poor NA SND Shovelnose spiny dogfish Deania calcea >800 well M78, F100 SOR Spiky oreo Neocyttus rhomboidalis >800 poor 30 SPD Spiny dogfish Squalus acanthias <200 very well M58, F72 SPE Sea perch Helicolenus spp. appropriate very well NA SSI Silverside Argentina elongata <200 well 19 SSK Smooth skate Dipturus innominatus appropriate well M93, F112 SSO Smooth oreo Pseudocyttus maculatus >800 poor 40 STA/GIZ Giant stargazer Kathetostoma giganteum <200 very well 45 SWA Silver warehou Seriolella punctata appropriate poor 47 TAR/NMP Tarakihi Nemadactylus macropterus <200 poor 31 WWA White warehou Seriolella caerulea appropriate moderately well 40

24805206

Table 2: Estimated trawl survey biomass and proportion in CRP areas averaged over years 2005–14. - indicates fewer than 3 tows within an area so ratio not calculated. Note that biomass of ‘all’ fish may be greater than sum of juvenile and adults where fish have not been measured. Values highlighted in yellow indicate that the biomass of a species/maturity grouping in the CRP area was 1.5–2.5 times higher than that expected given the ratio of the seabed areas. Values highlighted in red indicate that the biomass of a species/maturity grouping in the CRP area was more than 2.5 times higher than that expected given the ratio of the seabed areas.

Common name Maturity

Mean survey

biomass (t)

Mean survey CV (%)

Ratio 55971

Ratio 55549

Ratio 50270

Ratio revised

CRP

Barracouta Juvenile 7 29 0.0012 - 0.0024 0.0058 Adult 1 679 62 0.0014 - 0.0025 0.0059 All 1 687 62 0.0014 - 0.0025 0.0059 Banded bellowsfish All 1 111 15 0.0215 - 0.0426 0.0715 Black oreo Juvenile 12 069 32 0.0014 - 0.0021 0.0043 Adult 1 674 37 0.0011 - 0.0012 0.0027 All 13 743 31 0.0014 - 0.0020 0.0041 Alfonsino Juvenile 7 681 66 0.0042 - 0.0037 0.0109 Adult 4 944 70 0.0014 - 0.0030 0.0061 All 12 626 69 0.0031 - 0.0034 0.0090 Oblique banded rattail All 1 322 16 0.0115 - 0.0226 0.0405 Two saddle rattail All 427 32 0.0038 - 0.0023 0.0072 Bollons’s rattail All 9 549 11 0.0137 - 0.0327 0.0553 Banded rattail All 245 26 0.0023 - 0.0051 0.0098 Oliver’s rattail All 1 933 24 0.0046 - 0.0096 0.0183 Longnose velvet dogfish Juvenile 153 36 0.0063 - 0.0048 0.0134 Adult 606 46 0.0104 - 0.0064 0.0202 All 764 36 0.0087 - 0.0058 0.0175 Deepsea cardinalfish Juvenile 73 37 0.0042 - 0.0048 0.0107 Adult 3 27 0.0217 - 0.0077 0.0333 All 80 36 0.0039 - 0.0042 0.0097 Baxter’s lantern dogfish Juvenile 199 43 0.0026 - 0.0026 0.0061 Adult 986 43 0.0016 - 0.0018 0.0040 All 1 194 38 0.0017 - 0.0018 0.0042 Lucifer dogfish All 198 20 0.0101 - 0.0121 0.0265 Dark ghost shark Juvenile 4 145 19 0.0143 - 0.0226 0.0439 Adult 5 962 16 0.0159 - 0.0229 0.0457 All 10 125 15 0.0152 - 0.0229 0.0451 Pale ghost shark Juvenile 846 18 0.0054 - 0.0120 0.0215 Adult 2 723 13 0.0111 - 0.0245 0.0426 All 3 647 11 0.0095 - 0.0211 0.0368 Hake Juvenile 234 22 0.0199 - 0.0148 0.0384 Adult 1 286 19 0.0079 - 0.0230 0.0367 All 1 519 17 0.0097 - 0.0218 0.0370 Hoki Juvenile 62 318 16 0.0142 - 0.0196 0.0393 Adult 35 728 10 0.0100 - 0.0208 0.0368 All 98 046 12 0.0127 - 0.0200 0.0384 Javelin fish All 13 152 15 0.0106 - 0.0297 0.0484 Slender jack mackerel Juvenile 0 0 - - - - Adult 157 64 0.0021 - 0.0021 0.0053 All 159 62 0.0021 - 0.0021 0.0053 Long-nosed chimaera All 890 19 0.0057 - 0.0140 0.0245 Lookdown dory Juvenile 2 902 13 0.0194 - 0.0454 0.0750 Adult 3 065 10 0.0180 - 0.0411 0.0697 All 5 967 11 0.0187 - 0.0432 0.0723 Ling Juvenile 904 16 0.0152 - 0.0331 0.0586 Adult 7 540 9 0.0116 - 0.0239 0.0419 All 8 444 9 0.0120 - 0.0249 0.0437 Lemon sole Juvenile 0 0 - - - - Adult 48 30 0.0070 - 0.0219 0.0376 All 49 29 0.0066 - 0.0209 0.0362 NZ southern arrow squid Juvenile 814 38 0.0044 - 0.0094 0.0171 Adult 80 24 0.0157 - 0.0313 0.0525 All 897 35 0.0049 - 0.0112 0.0195 Orange perch Juvenile 5 52 0.0042 - 0.0026 0.0082 Adult 721 61 0.0060 - 0.0244 0.0413 All 731 60 0.0056 - 0.0235 0.0395 Orange roughy Juvenile 8 70 0.0095 - 0.0067 0.0197 Adult 49 60 0.0020 - 0.0026 0.0058 All 57 69 0.0031 - 0.0032 0.0078 Ray's bream Juvenile 238 39 0.0063 - 0.0108 0.0213

24805206

Common name Maturity

Mean survey

biomass (t)

Mean survey CV (%)

Ratio 55971

Ratio 55549

Ratio 50270

Ratio revised

CRP

Adult 317 43 0.0080 - 0.0196 0.0341 All 564 41 0.0072 - 0.0156 0.0283 Redbait Juvenile 3 49 0.0024 - 0.0038 0.0080 Adult 41 57 0.0068 - 0.0036 0.0120 All 56 55 0.0056 - 0.0032 0.0104 Red cod Juvenile 719 55 0.0032 - 0.0054 0.0115 Adult 169 51 0.0043 - 0.0084 0.0178 All 889 52 0.0034 - 0.0060 0.0127 Common roughy All 5 000 77 0.0009 - 0.0020 0.0042 Ribaldo Juvenile 42 27 0.0042 - 0.0057 0.0121 Adult 373 17 0.0049 - 0.0068 0.0145 All 418 16 0.0048 - 0.0066 0.0141 Southern blue whiting Juvenile 28 69 0.0046 - 0.0025 0.0083 Adult 15 80 0.0099 - 0.0074 0.0213 All 44 72 0.0063 - 0.0042 0.0126 Scampi All 21 24 0.0327 - 0.0243 0.0656 Silver dory All 520 55 0.0019 - 0.0041 0.0091 Shovelnose spiny dogfish Juvenile 1 986 22 0.0033 - 0.0046 0.0097 Adult 1 958 25 0.0047 - 0.0057 0.0128 All 4 004 18 0.0038 - 0.0050 0.0108 Spiky oreo Juvenile 1 021 41 0.0012 - 0.0025 0.0047 Adult 4 108 40 0.0018 - 0.0035 0.0068 All 5 135 39 0.0017 - 0.0033 0.0063 Spiny dogfish Juvenile 2 245 32 0.0116 - 0.0350 0.0568 Adult 5 087 20 0.0089 - 0.0234 0.0398 All 7 370 16 0.0097 - 0.0270 0.0451 Sea perch All 5 006 12 0.0163 - 0.0246 0.0476 Silverside Juvenile 1 29 0.0079 - 0.0279 0.0474 Adult 171 26 0.0266 - 0.0567 0.0999 All 240 22 0.0176 - 0.0399 0.0685 Smooth skate Juvenile 625 35 0.0263 - 0.0214 0.0549 Adult 752 52 0.0193 - 0.0226 0.0509 All 1 396 23 0.0222 - 0.0224 0.0528 Smooth oreo Juvenile 1 487 62 0.0005 - 0.0005 0.0013 Adult 213 64 0.0006 - 0.0005 0.0013 All 1 700 62 0.0005 - 0.0005 0.0013 Giant stargazer Juvenile 181 28 0.0062 - 0.0056 0.0165 Adult 2 253 23 0.0055 - 0.0054 0.0131 All 2 434 22 0.0056 - 0.0054 0.0134 Silver warehou Juvenile 20 865 49 0.0040 - 0.0072 0.0131 Adult 3 918 41 0.0049 - 0.0227 0.0326 All 24 783 43 0.0041 - 0.0096 0.0161 Tarakihi Juvenile 0 0 - - - - Adult 146 56 0.0010 - 0.0019 0.0043 All 147 54 0.0010 - 0.0019 0.0042 White warehou Juvenile 613 33 0.0150 - 0.0530 0.0762 Adult 1 786 35 0.0144 - 0.0186 0.0381 All 2 399 31 0.0145 - 0.0274 0.0478

24805206

Table 3: Summary of observations of spawning and spent fish in revised consent area. Y indicates observations within the revised consent area; N indicates no observations within revised consent area; * indicates no observations in revised consent area, but observations nearby; - indicates no information.

Research trawl Observer

Common name Staged Spawning Spent Staged Spawning Spent

Alfonsino Y N N N - - Baxter’s dogfish N - - - - - Black oreo N - - N - - Black shark N - - - - - Bollons’s rattail Y N * - - - Dark ghost shark Y * N - - - Hake Y Y Y Y Y * Hapuku N - - N * - Hoki Y * Y Y * Y Javelinfish N - - - - - Ling Y * * N * * Long-nosed chimaera N * * - - - Lookdown dory Y * Y N * * Lucifer dogfish N - - - - - Oblique banded rattail N - - - - - Oliver’s rattail N - - - - - Orange roughy N - - N - - Pale ghost shark Y * N - - - Ray’s bream Y N N N - - Ribaldo N - * N - * Sea perch Y * Y N * * Shovelnose dogfish N - - N - - Silver warehou Y N * N * * Smooth oreo N - - N - - Smooth skate Y N N - - - Spiky oreo N - - N - - Spiny dogfish Y Y Y - - - Giant stargazer N * * N * * White warehou Y N N N * *

Table 4: Summary of the number of commercial fishing events reported within the revised consent area by form type in 2003/04 to 2012/13. Form type: CELR, catch effort landing return; LCER, line catch effort return; LTCER, line trip catch effort return; TCEPR, trawl catch effort processing return.

Form type

Fishing method

Prospecting Permit 55971

Mining Permit 55549

Licence 50270

Revised consent

area

CELR Pot 1 0 0 1 LCER Line 20 4 45 69 LTCER Line 0 1 0 1 TCEPR Trawl 7 1 1 9 Total All 28 6 46 80

24805206

Table 5: Summed commercial catches (t) for CRP areas from 2003/04 to 2012/13. Area “55549+20” is mining permit area 55549 with an additional 20 km buffer zone. Total catches (t) within the equivalent Quota Management Area (QMA) and entire Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) are also provided along with proportion (P) of the total revised consent area catch relative to QMA and EEZ catch. Catches are rounded to nearest 10 kg (0.01 t), therefore catches of 0.00 t are less than 5 kg. - indicates reliable QMA or EEZ estimates were not available from Monthly Harvest Returns.

Code Common name 55971 catch

55549 catch

50270 catch

Revised CRP

catch

55549 +20

catch

QMA catch

EEZ

catch

P

CRP:

QMA

P

CRP:

EEZ

LIN Ling 28.69 2.32 30.15 61.16 169.28 21 724 147 808 0.0028 0.0004 HOK Hoki 28.46 6.77 0.00 35.23 82.32 366 300

# 1 111 333 0.0001 0.0000

SPD Spiny dogfish 5.30 1.31 18.87 25.48 48.09 8 191 62 715 0.0031 0.0004 JAV Javelinfish 9.29 1.67 0.06 11.02 11.17 10 649 28 670 0.0010 0.0004 SPE Sea perch 2.45 0.57 5.55 8.57 31.55 6 143 12 876 0.0014 0.0007 SWA Silver warehou 3.22 0.03 0.00 3.25 3.45 42 991 93 412 0.0001 0.0000 RIB Ribaldo 0.64 0.00 1.67 2.31 12.96 2 418 9 887 0.0010 0.0002 WWA White warehou 2.25 0.04 0.00 2.29 2.14 2 128 21 052 0.0011 0.0001 RAT Rattails 0.94 1.27 0.02 2.23 5.23 5 665 20 148 0.0004 0.0001 HAG Hagfish 2.17 0.00 0.02 2.19 0.10 - - - - HCO Hairy conger 0.39 0.02 1.56 1.97 10.51 - - - - SSO Smooth oreo 1.70 0.00 0.00 1.70 3.32 70 019* 157 047* 0.0000 0.0000 GSP Pale ghost shark 1.18 0.19 0.30 1.67 3.09 5 607 8 275 0.0003 0.0002 SSK Smooth skate 0.17 0.05 1.21 1.43 2.62 3 706 6 226 0.0004 0.0002 LDO Lookdown dory 0.69 0.10 0.01 0.80 1.51 210 4 393 0.0038 0.0002 HAK Hake 0.47 0.04 0.25 0.76 4.76 7 192 88 577 0.0001 0.0000 SCH School shark 0.14 0.03 0.58 0.75 2.31 1 596 32 729 0.0005 0.0000 OSD Other sharks & dogs 0.30 0.03 0.22 0.55 0.56 801 2 370 0.0007 0.0002 GSH Dark ghost shark 0.17 0.00 0.15 0.32 1.10 3 203 19 982 0.0001 0.0000 LCH Long-nosed chimaera 0.29 0.02 0.00 0.31 0.37 409 783 0.0008 0.0004 SCO Swollenhead conger 0.05 0.04 0.20 0.29 1.35 - - - - BSH Seal shark 0.11 0.06 0.12 0.29 1.54 527 2 637 0.0006 0.0001 RBM Rays bream 0.17 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.23 - 2 348 - 0.0001 RSK Rough skate 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.16 0.17 15 054 18 179 0.0000 0.0000 STA Giant stargazer 0.08 0.06 0.00 0.14 0.31 2 447 31 688 0.0001 0.0000 TOA Toadfish 0.08 0.04 0.00 0.12 0.20 - - - - FHD Deepsea flathead 0.06 0.01 0.00 0.07 0.11 - - - - WSQ Warty squid 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.06 0.08 141 402 0.0004 0.0001 SSI Silverside 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.18 58 936 0.0007 0.0000 DWD Deepwater dogfish 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.02 366 556 0.0001 0.0001 RCO Red cod 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 41 058 68 041 0.0000 0.0000 SQU Arrow squid 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 - 545 638 - 0.0000 HAP Hapuku 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.17 1 885

+ 16 207

+ 0.0000 0.0000

SND Shovelnose dogfish 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.34 282 1 034 0.0001 0.0000 RUD Rudderfish 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.09 105 348 0.0003 0.0001 CDL Cardinal fish 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 448 14 254 0.0001 0.0000 BEL Bellowsfish 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.19 - - - - DWE Deepwater eel 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 - - - - CRB Crab 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - HPB Hapuku & bass 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 1 885

+ 16 207

+ 0.0000 0.0000

ONG Sponges 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 - - - - SCI Scampi 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 617 7 537 0.0000 0.0000 BBE Banded bellowsfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.42 - - - - RHY Common roughy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - URO Sea urchin 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - SBK Spineback 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - SBW Southern blue whiting 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 51 167 228 0.0000 0.0000 CBE Crested bellowsfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - YBO Yellow boarfish 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - - - - Total 89.78 14.79 61.06 165.63 402.05 622 714 2 710 104 0.0002 0.0001

* MHR catches for oreo species are for unspecified oreos (OEO) which includes smooth oreo (SSO), black oreo (BOE), and spiky oreo

(SOR) combined. +

MHR catches for hapuku and bass are combined (HPB) so include hapuku (HAP), bass (BAS), and combined grouping (HPB). # Estimated catch for hoki from Chatham Rise and east coast South Island in Ministry for Primary Industries (2014).

in the matter - epa...ribaldo, silver warehou, giant stargazer, and white warehou may spawn in...

Documents