transcript of proceedings environmental · pdf filetranscript of proceedings ... level 28,...
TRANSCRIPT
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AUTHORITY
HEARING
Trans-Tasman Resources Limited
Marine Consent Application
HEARING at
CLIFTONS CONFERENCE CENTRE
LEVEL 28, THE MAJESTIC CENTRE
88/100 WILLIS STREET
WELLINGTON
on 23 May 2017
DECISION-MAKING COMMITTEE:
Mr Alick Shaw (Chairperson)
Mr Kevin Thompson (EPA Board Representative)
Ms Sharon McGarry (Committee Member)
Mr Gerry Te Kapa Coates (Committee Member)
Hearing Proceedings
Day 20 Tuesday, 23 May 2017
Time Name Representing Topic Documents Submitted /
Presented
Transcript Ref.
Page no's
11.01 am Alick Shaw - DMC Chair Housekeeping 3166
11.04 am Anton van Helden Royal Forest and
Bird Protection
Society New
Zealand
Marine mammals 3168
11.34 am DMC Questions 3175
12.25 pm Lunch 3192
2.01 pm Matthew Brown TTRL Spatial mapping 3192
2.22 pm DMC Questions 3198
2.36 pm Alick Shaw - DMC Chair Housekeeping 3204
2.45 pm Adjourn 3207
Page 3166
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
[11.01 am]
MR SHAW: Mr van Helden, Mr Anderson is joining us this morning?
MR ANDERSON: I'm over here. 5
MR SHAW: Oh, he's over there. He's not in the usual place. All right, all good.
(off mic conversation)
10
MR SHAW: Well, it'll stop you from rolling Jaffas down the floor, won't it? So that's
all good. Sorry, are there any housekeeping matters that people wish to
raise or procedural issues?
MR HOLM: Yes, just two housekeeping matters, sir. One is Matt Brown would be 15
available to present his spatial mapping today if that suited the inquiry,
just to save some time tomorrow.
MR SHAW: Yes.
20
MR HOLM: He's ready to go if that is acceptable to you.
MR SHAW: I think that would be helpful, yes, is the answer.
MR HOLM: Secondly, Commissioner McGarry yesterday asked us to point out the 25
references to the crawler and we've just emailed that into ...
MR SHAW: Gen.
MR HOLM: It's a short page-and-a-half statement from Mr Humpheson just pointing 30
out where it was in the evidence.
MR SHAW: Okay, that's cool.
MR HOLM: As Commissioner McGarry requested yesterday. 35
MR SHAW: Yes.
MR HOLM: So that will show where the crawler noise was taken into account. That
was all, sir. 40
MR SHAW: Any matters from anybody else? Mr McCabe, your finger is poised over
the button?
MR McCABE: Yes, sir, just a bit of a challenge there. Ms Haazen was coming down 45
this afternoon to be here tomorrow to be present while the spatial
mapping evidence was brought forward, so that's a bit of a challenge.
Page 3167
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MR SHAW: So she's not coming until tomorrow?
MR McCABE: She's coming this afternoon, sir.
5
MR SHAW: Well, do you know what time?
MR McCABE: Landing about 2.00 pm.
MR SHAW: Well, it will be the first business after lunch, I think, by the look of it. Is 10
that going to work for you, Mr Holm?
MR HOLM: That's fine, sir.
MR SHAW: Yes. Certainly, we will do our best to accommodate her. 15
MR McCABE: Thank you, sir.
MR SHAW: I think that's reasonable. Anything else from anyone else?
Mr Anderson? 20
MR ANDERSON: Dr Duncan was requested to provide a report on dredging noise, which
has been sent.
MR SHAW: I'm sorry, say again? 25
MR ANDERSON: Dr Duncan, I think Commissioner McGarry requested the paper on
dredging noise?
MR SHAW: Yes. 30
MR ANDERSON: That's been provided to Gen.
MR SHAW: To Gen, okay. Nothing further? Okay, Mr van Helden. Mr van Helden,
we will dispense with issues around introduction and qualification. It's 35
already been done. You're returning, so just move straight to the --
MS POLIN: Do you want more copies?
MR SHAW: I don't know. What's in this bundle? 40
(off mic conversation)
MR VAN HELDEN: Are we ready to go?
45
MR SHAW: When Saioa's finished.
Page 3168
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MR VAN HELDEN: Okay.
MR SHAW: Okay, Mr van Helden.
[11.05 am] 5
MR VAN HELDEN: Good morning. I'll just essentially run through a summary of my
evidence with some notes that I think are worth making. Firstly, the
proxies for hearing ranges that Dr Childerhouse has used, interestingly
he made some comments yesterday which I will further elaborate on, but 10
the hearing range for the fur seal I think he agrees there's a better proxy
available. So, I would assert that.
He's been very selective still in terms of the representation of the hearing
ranges and presenting various species that are applicable in this region. I 15
think that it's important. He made a point yesterday saying that it was
somewhat irrelevant to incorporate or use figures for pygmy right
whales, Bryde's whales and sei whales as they represented only a very
tiny percentage of the data points in the region - and I'll get back to that -
but that really we should only rely on empirical measures, and the 20
empirical measures, none are available for baleen whales, so that's
including blue whales. There are no empirical measures because of the
size of the animals. In fact, there's no really good empirical data for
sperm whales either. The only empirical data is based on one calf,
which is hardly representative of an animal that can grow to 20 metres in 25
length.
The point of that really is that there are considerable issues. It's
important to consider hearing ranges but also to consider the other data
and the context in which they are used, particularly if we're going to refer 30
to the NOAA criteria, which bounds these different animals into
different hearing range groups, different frequency groups. It's also that
that information needs to be taken within the context that it was
provided in the reference documents. Particularly Erbe 2016 makes it
very clear that there are differences between using physiological 35
methods and behavioural methods and, in fact, making assumptions
around hearing ranges generally with the assertion by her in that paper
that we can expect a hearing range that all cetaceans, all marine
mammals, are likely to hear below 100 hertz. So, a lot of the baleen
whale stuff, for example, is done based on vocalisations, their vocal 40
ranges, but as we know even our vocal ranges, we respond to things well
outside of that range. That becomes important if we're considering the
ideas of behavioural disturbance.
The summary data of strandings and sightings and the conflation of 45
those was talked to yesterday and, in fact, it was immediately made
apparent why one shouldn't do that when Dr Childerhouse suggested that
Page 3169
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
we don't use the hearing ranges for pygmy right whales, for example, as
they only represent 1 per cent of the dataset. But those datasets are very
different and we also need to look at those datasets within the context of
what we know about those particular species. With the case of pygmy
right whales, one of the most poorly known baleen whales on the planet, 5
probably the most poorly known baleen whale on the planet, we know
almost nothing about their populations. What we do know is based on
strandings and 35 per cent of all the strandings in New Zealand for that
species and most of the strandings worldwide are known from New
Zealand, South Australia and Tasmania. So, 35 per cent of all the 10
strandings for that species are recorded within the South Taranaki, STB,
Cook Strait region, including, as I've said previously, mothers and
calves, neonates and juveniles. So, this has the likelihood of being a
significant area for that species with respect to behaviours like calving.
15
[11.10 am]
The point really being that we can look at the sighting data and the
sighting data, whilst useful as a point of saying somebody on this day
saw this species, there is far less rigour around the identification of those 20
species from transiting ships than there are in terms of how that's been
approached with the stranding record, for example.
Also, there are no surveys for the region of any substance. The only
survey which has been put forward by TTR was that of Martin 25
Cawthorn. Mr Cawthorn's survey, I've previously discussed many of its
limitations, but to refer to some of the processes within that, for instance,
he used transects offshore of 2 nautical miles apart, which gives us an
area of span of some 3,800 metres. That has been reported as a distance
in papers - Forney 2014 I can think of - where that reports as being even 30
too far apart to recognise or reliably see large animals. So, the potential
for missing smaller animals is clear, and for animals, as Dr Childerhouse
reported yesterday, the difficulty of seeing things like beaked whales that
spend a considerable amount of their time submerged.
35
Now I really want to get to what I think is the crux of this, which is that
Dr Childerhouse in talking about the NOAA criteria has conflated some
things. It's when the interim criteria are talked about, and this is really
crucial. That is talking about a document that dates from two expert
meetings that took place in 1997 and 1998. They were the best expert 40
knowledge at that time and those limits were set at that time based on the
ideas of that time. These were substantially updated by Southall in 2007,
and Brandon Southall himself has made considerable strides and there
have been a lot of publications since to discuss the measures therein and
how they might be applied in a management sense but also how they are 45
applied within the NOAA criteria.
Page 3170
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
The NOAA criteria up until 2013 still applied a 120-decibel lower limit
for disturbance. What Dr Childerhouse perhaps should have referred to
was the draft criteria. The draft criteria have actually now been
published, so they're now published criteria which are used by NOAA.
These have no reference to a 120-decibel limit for disturbance, in fact, 5
because the NOAA regulations only reflect the management requirement
in that sense to deal with permanent threshold shift. So they're only
looking at permanent damage to hearing in whales.
With respect to the behavioural impacts, it's a much more precautionary 10
approach in that they are talking about looking at the impacts at
population levels based on the understanding of the behaviours, and it's
important to understand the behaviours of the animals within a given
population. This was referred to by Dr Erbe yesterday but it is
absolutely relevant because the idea of behavioural disturbance is now 15
implicitly concerned with the nature of how animals are either used to
particular sounds or naïve to particular sounds, including how juveniles
may be affected by sound. So it's important to understand the use of an
area by a population or a species to determine what the actual impacts
will be. 20
The permanent threshold shift criteria, because there are no empirical
measurements for that in marine mammals, in fact, because that would
be a very cruel thing to do to a captive animal, to push it to a level where
you knew you were damaging its hearing, so they are based on a 25
temporary threshold shift model. These, in fact, come back to this
hearing range problem just a little bit in that the hearing ranges are
determined based on in many cases behavioural and physiological
experiments.
30
[11.15 am]
So the empirical models, which are only on toothed whales, remember,
and pinnipeds, are based in captive environments where the animals are
potentially -- it's affected by the age of those animals, the pool, so the 35
confines of that animal. So they may be unwilling to produce sounds
that are harmful to them in that environment and may, in fact, in animals
that are born in captivity have the problem of having impeded hearing
because of that very circumstance.
40
So the real issue is that we are not talking about the application of the
NOAA criteria. The new NOAA criteria are only set to look at
permanent threshold shift. The spreadsheet that Dr Childerhouse
referred to as having filled out yesterday, it would be really interesting to
see how he has applied that because that uses the 24-hour cumulative 45
threshold isopleth. So that's how it's designed within that spreadsheet is
to use that criteria of sound exposure levels over a 24-hour period, which
Page 3171
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
is table 4, I think. We referred to it yesterday. Sorry, I'll just flick to it to
be certain. Sorry, table 3. It's in Dr Childerhouse's evidence, where at
least it demonstrates that there is a need to look at that 24-hour period
when considering the effects on marine mammals.
5
So, I think that's the critical thing with regards to the NOAA criteria. It's
not that they are waiting around to define a simple limit for behavioural
disturbance. The behavioural disturbance, that limit of 120 decibels, has
been used historically but our understanding of behavioural disturbance
now is so much greater that they don't wish to apply that sort of a limit. 10
They want to look at that in the context of how that will affect certain
populations. So there isn't somehow going to pull out of the hat a new
single figure. It's very easy for regulators to want a single figure, but it's
not the most appropriate mechanism.
15
So, with respect to Dr Childerhouse saying we haven't actually suggested
anything better than condition 12, actually we've consistently said that
there should be proper modelling and there should be proper surveys and
that would be part of a proper, normal Environmental Impact
Assessment. Even if we were working within the US framework, they 20
are working in the context of what is called allowable take. So they're
looking at a population, and bear in mind that there are other pieces of
legislation which impact on that, for instance, that it's not to have an
impact on the survivability of that population. There are various other
pieces which I've put in my evidence, but the significant detail with that 25
is that allowable take is based on sound and thorough surveys for
particular populations and that is the way it's applied.
So, to be able to take one part of a model and then say, "Well, that's
applicable to the New Zealand framework" is very hard. For me that's 30
hard to digest because it's based on a framework which requires really
rigorous survey work which is done every few years. It's reported on
annually. I talked about that if not in my previous supplementary
evidence, in my evidence before that anyway. In earlier evidence I
discussed that. 35
[11.20 am]
The point is that we're in a situation in New Zealand where no thorough
survey work has been done for marine mammals and we have a lot of 40
marine mammals in New Zealand. We're blessed in that sense in New
Zealand to have one of the greatest, most diverse fauna of marine
mammals anywhere in the world, and the South Taranaki Bight, as
shown, demonstrates that this is an area that is important to marine
mammals. Quite how many are resident year round or use it is, I admit, 45
up for debate, but I have suggested that at least 14 species use the area
on a regular, continuous period throughout the year and others use it as
Page 3172
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
part of their migratory corridors, which I think is important. This is a
year-round activity that's being proposed, so animals that spend a portion
of their time in the area is a significant part and we have no way of
knowing that that's a significant part of their environment because no
studies have been done. It's very hard to make an assessment of what 5
that impact might be.
I would point out that doing thorough survey work doesn't necessarily
answer the questions around behaviour. Behavioural studies demand a
different application, so the very nature of survey work means that you 10
have to cover a broad area in a systematic way, which doesn't necessarily
allow for the exploration of behaviours. So, although behaviours may be
recorded as part of that sort of activity, further work would be required.
Now, we know, for example, from Leigh Torres' work that blue whales
are present, probably year round, and that they are probably calving in 15
the area, nursing in the area and definitely feeding in the area. So those
are all behaviours that we have information on, although we don't have a
systematic survey for blue whales in the area.
Now, there are different ways that that can be approached through an 20
extensive network of passive acoustic listening stations, and the reason
why you need a reasonable network of these is because to pick up the
high frequency group of cetaceans or even mid-frequency group of
cetaceans is dependent on their orientation in terms of the production of
their sound to being able to be picked up in any particular hydrophone. 25
That is, the directionality is important. So, if you only have one listening
station your capacity to pick up those animals is considerably reduced.
What has been done with Kim Goetz and her study in the Cook Strait
has not been a study to look at abundance and distribution of marine 30
mammals but to record the nature of the soundscape of Cook Strait. But
what it has shown is that there are species present year round, and that's
absolutely consistent, at least for some of those species, with what we
know from the stranding record.
35
I'll point out with the stranding record there's a view that somehow the
stranding record represents animals that have either died and floated in
from elsewhere or have come in especially to die in this region. But I
point out that actually the stranding record also demonstrates that it's as
equally likely that they were present in the area and that they came in 40
there to live. To make some kind of value judgement that they're just not
present seems a poor one to me given that is the only regular dataset we
have over a long period of time.
The last point that I really want to make is with respect to condition 12. 45
Well, I was going to make some comment about the assertion that
condition 12 was based on expert conferencing last time and, therefore,
Page 3173
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
it should stand for all time, which I felt was the assertion in
Dr Childerhouse's evidence and which is why I contacted Bernd Würsig
because I simply know him and could ask that, but I've no interest in, as
you say, any sort of tit for tat around that. But it did seem relevant to say
that actually none of that group has been contacted since. 5
[11.25 am]
MR SHAW: Can I just say to you, Mr van Helden, you're welcome to say what you
wish in respect of your communications with Dr Würsig. That was not 10
the point I was making yesterday. The point I was making yesterday is
that given the limited information that we have in front of us, and
certainly we don't have the doctor in front of us --
MR VAN HELDEN: No, that's true. 15
MR SHAW: -- there will be questions as to the weight that can be given to those
matters when we get to deliberation. But you're free to press on with
making the point you wish to make. I've no intention to stop people
from doing that. 20
MR VAN HELDEN: Okay, all right. Well, I considered Dr Childerhouse's evidence and in
part it seemed to rely on the fact that the condition was based on ideas
set forth last time. I can see that if it was 2013 the NOAA criteria, as I
said, at that time would have included the 120-decibel limit, which it no 25
longer does. The assertion that the Southall 2007 paper is the
benchmark, well, as I put in my evidence, Southall himself says that
there has been such a considerable amount of new evidence that they've
had to revisit a lot of that work. We can see the results of that in things
like the NOAA criteria but not restricted to the new NOAA criteria. We 30
can see how that's been applied in Europe or is looking to be applied in
Europe. We can see how that's been looked at in other review papers.
For example, under the US system, they don't recognise temporary
threshold shift as being injurious. I can understand that in the sense that 35
it's designed to be recoverable from. That's what temporary has to do,
but there is a considerable amount of new work that shows that
temporary threshold shift, when animals are exposed over a long period
of time to persistent noise, that that can result in losses of hearing in
different parts of their range. So that would mean permanent threshold 40
shift. As such, German regulations look at temporary threshold shift as
being injurious. Other papers: Tougaard et al, 2015, suggested that some
range in between may be an appropriate level to set.
I will point out that in the summary in my evidence it says six months 45
when I'm talking about the noise monitoring. That was supposed to read
six weeks in respect to what I had put. In the body of the document I
Page 3174
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
said one month duration or longer, but the six months has crept in there
as an error. I do think that there are certain --
MR SHAW: Paragraph reference there just to make sure we've got the right ...?
5
MR VAN HELDEN: So, paragraph 9, line 2 of that, it says, "An extended period, six months"
but that should read, "Six weeks".
MR SHAW: Okay, thank you.
10
MR VAN HELDEN: There are, in my view, issues with condition 12 because condition 12 is
based on the idea of a set limit based on the 120 reflected to a limit of
135 at 500 metres or 130 at 500 metres and that that is not based in the
best science available to us now. I can see how that was the best science
perhaps available in 2013, but we have come a long way since then. So, 15
therefore, I understand the reticence of Dr Erbe, for example, in saying,
"Well, we wouldn't set simply a threshold number" and I think this is the
important issue and where I hold to the view that a proper and full
impact assessment must involve the consideration of the populations in
the region and the way that they use it to determine what the real impacts 20
on that population will be for any given population in the South Taranaki
Bight.
[11.30 am]
25
So, that's my problem with condition 12. I can understand the desire for
a simple number. It gives a target as has been proposed, but I don't think
it's defensible in terms of the latest scientific knowledge.
With respect to if that was to go forward and say we were to accept 120 30
decibels as a limit for behavioural disturbance -- which as I've said I
don't believe is appropriate because we certainly know that animals are
affected at levels much, much lower than that. We certainly know that
for beaked whales. We know it for blue whales. In fact, there was a
news report today that I got sent of a new paper on humpback whales 35
showing similar responses to certainly sounds outside of their hearing
range but also being affected and moving away from sounds at much
lower levels than what would be considered the behavioural disturbance,
that 120 threshold.
40
So, this is the regulatory body. This is applying an old regulation from
another country, but if that was what was chosen then I think we need to
certainly consider the way in which condition 12 is applied with respect
to the monitoring, that the monitoring should be over a period of, as I
suggested, six weeks and on a regular basis so that we can see that that is 45
being complied with. My reading of the condition is there is nothing in
there to say that anything would stop if that was the case. So I've not
Page 3175
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
argued but it seems likely to me that the only way that you could manage
that would be to say that if the operation is not compliant with
condition 12 that you would have to stop. Now, I don't know how
feasible any of that is; I don't see that as my role. But I do say that to not
do so would put animals at risk. 5
That's me.
MR SHAW: The extent to which the risk to these animals might be reduced, were
there to be a cessation of work in the event that those limits are 10
breached?
MR VAN HELDEN: Well, this is the point is that we don't --
MR SHAW: It is the point, yes. 15
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes. Well, the point is, though, we don't know what these animals do
now and it's important to understand what these animals do now to
determine what level of impact there might be. We also know that very
little changes in the sound source can create considerable impacts in 20
terms of transmission loss over much greater distances. So, a few
decibels, 3 decibels SEL, is a doubling of the sound in the environment.
That's not insignificant.
MR SHAW: I just want to tick off a couple of things before I turn to my colleagues. 25
MR VAN HELDEN: Sure.
MR SHAW: It does go to this question as to how conservative the proposition in
condition 12 is. What you say is it doesn't mean that it is either good 30
enough or appropriate for the task.
MR VAN HELDEN: That's right.
MR SHAW: But let's deal with those things one at a time. Is it, in your estimation, 35
the most conservative of any condition that has been proposed or
suggested in respect of activities?
MR VAN HELDEN: I don't know.
40
MR SHAW: The reason I ask that, Mr van Helden, and this is not a matter for you to
answer in the end, it's a matter that the DMC and so forth have to do
when they go through the overall decision making, but when we consider
the nature of the legislation, yes, caution is required of us when we're
assessing environments where we don't know everything, and there's 45
most things we don't know everything. That's why people like you are
Page 3176
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
around us, Mr van Helden, so that we wind up incrementally knowing a
bit more from time to time.
[11.35 am]
5
MR VAN HELDEN: I hope so.
MR SHAW: But if we go back to that question of the purpose of the Act and I leave it
there, it is about managing the effects of environment while conducting
certain permitted activity, accepting all the caveats that go with that. So 10
there's a presumption that things are going to happen there and I'm trying
to understand from you the circumstances in which you could envisage
this sort of activity, seabed mining of some sort, might be permitted.
Just confine yourself to your area of expertise.
15
MR VAN HELDEN: My view as a biologist is that whilst I don't think we need to know every
detail about an environment, we should do some due diligence with
respect to doing a proper assessment of what is likely to be there and that
that should have some rigour in terms of how that is designed and then
delivered. So, when we have limited data, and this has been my point 20
with respect to the stranding data, given the paucity of other sources of
data we need to look at that data and give it some weight. Over 25 years
of working on stranded cetaceans in New Zealand, it has been clear to
me that these animals are here and that's the best data we have to say that
they're present, and that we as humans have an impact on them, whether 25
it be from fishing, whether it be from their ingestion of plastics, and the
potential for noise is a thing which has been only relatively recently
acknowledged.
So, in my experience of looking at the anatomy particularly of beaked 30
whales in relation to ways in which they could be injured through sound
has made me conscious that we need to do more about understanding
these animals in their environment. I've been involved in studies in the
Canary Islands looking at these animals and the data there is really
valuable, but we don't have baseline data in New Zealand and there are 35
few opportunities for us to collect that data. There is an opportunity
perhaps here where that is called for, where there is a call to collect
better data on which we can make better decisions.
At the moment, my view is that there are a lot of whales out there and 40
that those whales are important. I can hold to that. If we look at the
status of some of these whales in terms of world stocks, we know that
blue whales were hammered and we're not learning a lot of lessons in
this. So, they didn't start whaling blue whales in the Southern Ocean
until 1900 pretty much, or thereafter, but by 1933 they were pretty much 45
gone, 350,000 blue whales extracted out of the Southern Ocean and we
have populations of maybe a few thousand now. So that's a long time to
Page 3177
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
recover and they're not doing that great, and here we know in the South
Taranaki Bight we have a population of blue whales. The movements of
those whales may come in and out of the Bight, but it is clearly
significant to them at some portion of their lives and they are there year
round and breeding and feeding. 5
[11.40 am]
So, that is something that we know about. We know about the blue
whales. I've spent most of my life working on species which are so 10
enigmatic that they're only known from strandings. I can think with
respect to pygmy right whales that I've worked on I know of four
instances where photographs have been taken of these animals in the
wild. With respect to some of the beaked whales, some of them have yet
to be seen alive. So, we are impacting as humans on these animals out 15
in the wider world and so I think we have a responsibility to do what we
can to study them in their environment before we do things that may
impact them further. We know that these animals are being impacted. I
hope that answers your question. I feel like there is need and perhaps
this is an opportunity, but also there is a responsibility, in my view. 20
MR SHAW: Okay. Look, we'll move first to Mr Coates.
MR COATES: Good morning again.
25
MR VAN HELDEN: Good morning.
MR COATES: I just wanted to get to this business of back calculating from a received
level to a source level, just talking about the back calculation and the
validity of that as a tool. 30
MR VAN HELDEN: The only way that this is valid as a tool is to demonstrate what level you
would need to meet that level, what output level you would need. I
mean, that's just an equation. Do I think it's relevant? It's not relevant -
as I feel like we've constantly demonstrated - given what we know of the 35
sorts of machines that are used in this environment are unlikely to meet
it. So the back calculations which have been used have been applied just
using the various models that have been offered. For a long time, we
were to believe that 188 decibels was the likely source level of the
operation, until I pointed out that the spherical spreading model was not 40
the most appropriate model to use.
Now we've gone and got another model and now the likely output of the
operation is 171. It seems coincident to me that the likely output is now
consistent with the back calculation. That seems remarkable, but there 45
you go.
Page 3178
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MR COATES: You've said now that the 135 decibels should probably be in fact 120.
MR VAN HELDEN: I'm not making any statement on what that level should be. It was
referred to that that was discussed in a workshop. It wasn't discussed in
a workshop. That was discussed in expert conferencing. I think a 5
workshop on that might give us some view, but all the workshopping
that has been done with respect to the development of NOAA criteria
with respect to the development of other legislative processes elsewhere
in the world has suggested that setting a level for behavioural
disturbance is inappropriate, because even when you see things -- so a 10
classic example of this is really looking at the right whales in Boston
Harbour. This is an example where you would say that the disturbance
from -- that they were unaffected by shipping because they're present and
shipping happens.
15
When 9/11 happened - and this is a paper I have referred to, Roland et al
2011, I think 2011 - they had been in the process of measuring the
cortical steroid levels or glucocorticoid levels, hormones, to look at the
stress levels in right whales in that area.
20
[11.45 am]
What they found when 9/11 happened was that there was a sudden drop
in those stress hormones. The view of that is that what is the only thing
that has stopped? Shipping stopped. These animals were prepared to 25
so-called tolerate, they were habituated, if you like, to the environment
of Boston Harbour. However, it had come at a cost to those animals,
because increased stress has impacts on our cognitive abilities, it has
impacts on fertility rates, on all sorts of other functions.
30
So I think it's important to realise that just because there is no observed
change in animal behaviour, it does not mean that there is no impact.
That has been part of the problem with trying to set some sort of
behavioural threshold limit and why it is really the up-to-date science on
that is that you shouldn't be setting a behavioural limit, at least not 35
without taking into consideration the various behaviours of the animals
and the populations in that region.
I come back to the idea of allowable take: it's the number of animals that
may be displaced or die - this is the idea of take - or removed from that 40
population as a consequence of the actions of the activity. Without
knowing those things, it is very hard to -- so I don't think that a future
workshop, given the nature of the incredible number of -- the new
NOAA criteria went through three levels of peer review, and even then
it's still got to be taken in consideration of the context within which it is 45
used, which is in the context of allowable take.
Page 3179
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MR COATES: When you talk about allowable take, are you talking about that in terms
of commercial whaling or cultural harvest or --
MR VAN HELDEN: No, I'm talking about that in terms of anything that would remove an
animal from a population, so that might be -- and this is where 5
cumulative effects also come into consideration, because it's not just the
effect of -- how many animals are already at risk from being removed
from this population from fishing or how many animals are removed, if
you like, if there was an indigenous whaling programme in Alaska and
there was also a mining operation. All of those things are contributors to 10
what would be considered take on those animals.
MS McGARRY: Is it almost like a measure of acceptable loss of a population --
MR VAN HELDEN: That's right. 15
MS McGARRY: -- so you come up with a --
MR VAN HELDEN: So you need to understand what the population is to know what an
acceptable loss may be. That will be relative to the rate of reproduction 20
of the species, it'll be relative to the number of animals that are there in
the first place, the way that they use the particular area. For instance, if
it is used for calving, then you are going to put more juveniles and
females at risk than you are perhaps adult males.
25
MS McGARRY: Sorry, just to jump in. So presumably an allowable take concept would
only be acceptable for a species that wasn't rare or endangered?
MR VAN HELDEN: No, it's still used in the case of animals that are rare and endangered, but
obviously the thresholds are set much, much more rigorously. Where it 30
is likely to impact on a rare population, the likelihood is that the amount
of allowable take may be close to zero and therefore the activity would
probably not proceed. So that's the way that it's used and so that's not
really applicable in the New Zealand context to date.
35
MR COATES: Thank you, Mr van Helden.
MR SHAW: Nothing more? Dr Thompson.
MR THOMPSON: Mr van Helden, you mentioned before that before the blue whale 40
harvesting started, there were 350,000 whales.
MR VAN HELDEN: There were at least -- certainly 350,000 were taken out of the Southern
Ocean.
45
Page 3180
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MR THOMPSON: Okay, at least. Now there is just a fraction of that number and you can
conclude, if you like, that the reduction in population is a direct result of
the harvesting.
MR VAN HELDEN: I would say so. 5
MR THOMPSON: How has the environment moved between 1900 and today? What
number would the environment sustain?
[11.50 am] 10
MR VAN HELDEN: I don't think there's any reason to say that it wouldn't sustain those sorts
of numbers. There are other impacts on those, obviously climate change
being a significant one and krill harvests being a significant one these
days, so those are human-induced impacts. There is actually some 15
thought to the fact that by reducing the number of blue whales, that was
a contribution to climate change, because they represent significant
carbon sinks and blue whales represent much more significant -- so you
could take a number of minke whales, for example, to make up the size
of a blue whale. A blue whale is a very large animal. They represent a 20
significant carbon sink with respect to a minke whale and one blue
whale represents a lot more carbon than minke whales.
It's an interesting idea and there are papers that look at these things in the
way that the distribution or the cycling of carbon and iron and various 25
other things in the ocean with respect to the way whales poo. All of this
stuff actually comes down to the impacts we have had, not just on these
animals, but on our planet as a result of that. A lot of it is very poorly-
known and beginning to become pretty relevant.
30
MR THOMPSON: Now, the South Taranaki Bight, in particular the bit off the Kahurangi
rise, is regarded as a very important feeding area for blue whales.
MR VAN HELDEN: It seems to be.
35
MR THOMPSON: If we have 350,000 of them, would that sustain that number or --
MR VAN HELDEN: We are talking about across the Southern Ocean, yes.
MR THOMPSON: Yes, I understand that. 40
MR VAN HELDEN: I don't think the South Taranaki Bight itself would likely sustain 350,000
blue whales.
MR THOMPSON: No, no. 45
MR VAN HELDEN: It would be one hell of a whale-watching industry though.
Page 3181
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MR THOMPSON: Wouldn't it? But what I'm getting at though is that we are trying to
preserve now - and I'm just trying to understand this - feeding grounds
for a very small population of blue whales, but those feeding grounds
sustained a much, much larger number. Has something happened to 5
them to --
MR VAN HELDEN: What I don't know is whether or not that has behaviourally changed.
What we know is we now have blue whales that are feeding there and
feeding there year round. Historically we have very little data on that, 10
other than that we know that the Perano whalers, for example, would see
these animals. In fact, they referred to these slightly smaller blue whales
as tadpoles, which I think is kind of interesting. I only know that
because I sat next to the whalers for a week or two doing the Cook Strait
whale survey, sitting and looking into Cook Strait looking for humpback 15
whales, which we know have reduced significantly in number.
But we also know that not just blue whales, but the South Taranaki Bight
was a significant area for calving and right whales. Right whales are
incredibly depleted. Cloudy Bay, Kapiti Coast and South Taranaki Bight 20
were significant calving areas for right whales; that we have from
historic recordings. So, yes, that area would have sustained a lot more
whales than it currently does, in a similar way that we have depleted all
sorts of things at levels that may seem remarkable. For instance, in a
very short space of time fur seals were basically exterminated from the 25
sub-Antarctic islands in the space of a few years, 7.5 million pelts were
shipped to China. We have impacted these animals. Some of them are
recovering and some of them are recovering in areas and some of them
are recovering almost not at all, in the same way that the removal of
animals from the Southern Ocean has impacted different populations in 30
different ways.
We know that the humpback whales off the east coast of Australia - and
some of those are the ones that pass through Cook Strait - have
recovered pretty well. The Oceania population, some that pass perhaps 35
up the West Coast of New Zealand, but certainly pass through the
Kermadec region, the Oceania population is nowhere near as well-
recovered, and so it's important to try and understand those sorts of
differences.
40
[11.55 am]
But a lot of this information has been unavailable to us because whales
are notoriously difficult to study. The advances in technology in the last
15 years even has really transformed the way that we understand the 45
lives of these animals, from our capacity to record them with passive
acoustic monitoring, to be able to deploy DTAGS, like I did in the
Page 3182
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
Canary Islands and has been done around the world. A piece of
technology developed by Mark Johnson, a Kiwi, has transformed the
way that we understand the lives of these animals.
For instance, the idea that was held for a long time was that beaked 5
whales effectively only live at depth. We know they have to come to the
surface. What we do know is they only spend about 5 per cent to 8 per
cent of their life at the surface, which is remarkable for an animal that
has to breathe, but it's also now shown us that they feed at altitude, that
is distance above the bottom, so relative to the water depth that they're 10
in. Also we know from these that they don't produce sounds near the
surface and we know that they spend very little time at the surface. That
helps us understand why they are almost never detected in surveys. In
fact, there's some figure that they may be detected in surveys only 1 per
cent to 2 per cent of the time. 15
Yet we develop legislation or we develop -- I'm thinking now of the code
of the conduct, which has been revised, and you can now see the
technical working group reports for that on the DOC website, although
the new code has yet to be -- even the draft of that has yet to be released, 20
but you can see the amount of consideration that goes into this. The fact
is that a lot of species which are listed as species of concern by the
Department of Conservation are actually not able to be detected by
current methods.
25
So in my view, it potentially puts a lot of animals at risk to these human
behaviours, these human activities, and yet there is very little work that
goes into studying the populations and lives of these animals. I think
that that should be, in my view, part of a normal impact assessment, to
provide some of that data. I understand that TTR hired Mr Cawthorn to 30
do the aerial survey. I'm looking at the aerial survey. It is even Bernd
Würsig in the previous period, so that was a survey done for the previous
application. Bernd Würsig in that previous application in his evidence
says that he thought that the methodology was not up to scratch.
35
There's lots of things in that previous evidence which I'm sort of
surprised haven't been applied to the current application. If there's a lot
of weight put on the 135 threshold suggested, that was based on Dr
Würsig and his discussions with colleagues, Adam Frankel and Chris
Clarke elsewhere, that was where it was derived from. Also the other 40
pieces of information that are in Mr Würsig's previous evidence I think
are pretty valid. For instance, he says that there would be little value in
doing modelling that was based on spherical or cylindrical spreading and
that more complex and proper sound modelling, using proper sources,
would be appropriate. That's in the previous and yet in this application 45
we had none of that. I mean, they didn't do anything more.
Page 3183
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MS McGARRY: Mr van Helden, we have said all the way through that if any party wants
to put any of that evidence before us, we will consider it, but we will not
be going back and looking over our shoulders.
MR VAN HELDEN: No, no, that's fine. 5
MS McGARRY: No, it's in your hands if you wish to put forward the evidence of any
witness that was given last time. That's up to you to produce that.
MR VAN HELDEN: Sure. 10
MR SHAW: Though we are getting well and truly to the finishing line in producing
any new evidence at all.
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, I appreciate that. 15
MR THOMPSON: I've just got one further question and you may not be able to answer it.
There's been a lot of talk about condition 12 and you've spoken a lot
about it. Are you able to improve on it?
20
MR VAN HELDEN: I think I've discussed how I think --
[12.00 pm]
MR THOMPSON: You've talked around it, but -- 25
MR VAN HELDEN: No, I think certainly to improve condition 12 will be with respect to --
now, I don't believe it's appropriate to set a threshold for behavioural
disturbance, which is what this is based on, so I don't believe that that's
appropriate. If, however, you choose to impose a threshold, I would 30
hope that it would be lower than 135, but I'm not really prepared to
speculate on setting a limit there because that is inconsistent with what
the scientific approach would be.
However, the way to, I think, at least look at condition 12 is to say that 35
the monitoring needs to be more thorough, in line with what I have
suggested, that a six-week period of monitoring would be appropriate
and I think that there needs to be some stipulation to say that the
operation will cease if it's not complied with. Without that, I'm not sure
that I see much merit, but the other point which I have made is that - and 40
I have that from my earlier submission - with respect to condition 12 is
that where the sound is measured, it should be at maximum over depth.
I have discussed that previously.
MR THOMPSON: Thank you. 45
MR SHAW: Ms McGarry.
Page 3184
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MS McGARRY: I just want to make sure I've got the sightings and the stranding issue put
to bed. Really yesterday, talking with Dr Childerhouse, when he was
going to reproduce that bigger map that had all of the sightings and
strandings and separate those out into stars and dots with colours. 5
MR VAN HELDEN: Sure.
MS McGARRY: Did that give you some comfort that that will allow us to make a better
visual assessment of the stranding and the sighting data? 10
MR VAN HELDEN: I think for me personally, it doesn't change things greatly. I do
appreciate that you understand the implications of it, that that was clear
from asking for that. I think all of the strandings, by the fact that they're
strandings, are around the coastline, so everything else is a sighting. 15
That in a sense makes it perhaps obvious, but the problem is the
conflating of them as all sightings and then working on that basis. So
the sightings are from -- they're not from surveys. I admit that we have
to have the caveats around strandings, but you may as well have two
maps, one with sightings with different species and one with strandings, 20
but I think the sightings data itself is dangerous in that it sort of implies
that there has been effort, consistent effort, across the region and that
simply is not the case.
I think that it has been something that has been referred to by Dr 25
Childerhouse himself with respect to the blue whales, saying that there
have been over 30 years of sightings data, but actually that is a similar
sort of conflating idea. No, there have been sightings over a period of 30
years, but the effort to get those sightings has not been from any sort of
concerted or consistent effort. 30
MR SHAW: Look, all good, but we're into really highly repetitive material now.
MR VAN HELDEN: I get that.
35
MR SHAW: Everything you've said, you've said many times to us now, yes.
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, but that was a question of clarity and I'm trying to --
MR SHAW: Quite, yes. 40
MR VAN HELDEN: -- make sure that that is there.
MS McGARRY: Understood.
45
MR VAN HELDEN: Good.
Page 3185
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MS McGARRY: The question about the 135 decibels, there's two parts to that, isn't there?
There's one, whether it's achievable, and I think that's outside your area
of expertise, so I'm not going -- I mean, you obviously have a view on
that, that it's not achievable on the basis of the review of the modelling.
Don't answer that question, it's not a question. That's the first part. I just 5
want to be clear. I don't want to go on to whether this is achievable.
MR VAN HELDEN: Okay.
MS McGARRY: The second part is whether or not that level in itself provides a certain 10
level of protection for species and it's that second part that you're trying
to get us to understand, that if we don't understand what's there and we
don't understand what the likely effects of that sound level is, then we
can't assess the level of protection. Is that in a nutshell what you're
trying to say? 15
[12.05 pm]
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, I think that's right.
20
MS McGARRY: Yes, so that parks the achievable side, because you have made comment
on that. I've tried to think about this in my mind, about analogies to this,
say with the air discharge consent or a water discharge consent, and as a
biologist, you'd be familiar with that kind of assessment. For example, if
somebody was discharging out of a chimney some harmful substances, 25
you would have limits placed on the stack and perhaps at certain
distances from the discharge and those would be based on understanding
the population you're affecting, around the number of people, the
distance away, and then you would have limits placed in terms of
understanding what the harmful level of the sulphur or whatever the 30
material was discharged.
MR VAN HELDEN: Sure.
MS McGARRY: So the same with the water discharge, you could say the same things, 35
harmful substances coming from a pipe, you would need to understand
what's within cooee of your discharge and what exposure time, so very
analogous, isn't it, to this situation?
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, I think that's analogous. 40
MS McGARRY: So for us to put on a limit of 135, again you're saying to us we need to
understand what's there that could possibly be affected with some level
of certainty and then to know what level of harm is acceptable or what is
the result of that result. 45
Page 3186
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes. I think that that level of harm is based on how animals use that
space, so in the same way that your decision to place your chimney stack
right next to a children's playground is different to placing it somewhere
where there are no people, right? Yes.
5
MS McGARRY: Yes, okay. I've got another question. Taking that from the context, I
think the other questions this morning are grappling with the issue of the
context of where this activity is sitting and how that context sits. I guess
maybe internationally we've been told this is a hotspot, but then when I
look at the De Beers operation, that too sits in a hotspot of some 37 10
species of cetacean. So if we just accept that internationally New
Zealand is a hotspot, then we look at New Zealand itself and what the
Taranaki Bight represents on a national level. We've scratched away at
this throughout the hearing and I think some of the questions asked just
before really is, in your view, you've told us that it's an important area 15
for certain species. In the context of New Zealand, is the whole of New
Zealand in this kind of level of importance?
MR VAN HELDEN: I think there are bound to be areas that are more significant for certain
species. I think that the way that we look at this is that there has not 20
been a proper evaluation of that and that that would be a useful thing to
look at. It's been done in sort of various ways to look at areas of
significance based on stranding records and other things. I think
certainly the South Taranaki Bight/Cook Strait region stands out and that
perhaps is in part because it also represents a significant migratory 25
corridor that is monitorable and we know it has historic significance for
certain species in terms of the whaling of right whales, for example.
We also know that it's been depleted of Hector's/Māui's dolphins,
common dolphins that are caught in the jack mackerel fisheries. There 30
are all sorts of other things. But, yes, it occurs to me, it strikes me that
that's a pretty significant area in terms of species numbers, but we are
scratching the surface in terms of knowing what species are still there in
terms of how they use that.
35
Some of the really exciting work for me has come from the recordings
from Cook Strait that show that we have year-round permanent
populations of Cuvier's beaked whales, Gray's beaked whales. Yes, I'm a
beaked whale enthusiast, I have spent most of my life looking at it, but
that's remarkable. It's not essentially surprising, but it is wonderful to 40
have that confirmed. The point is we don't have -- I think when we look
at areas, we need to look at what they are significant for. I would look
at, for instance, the areas in the Bay of Plenty, which is where there are
high numbers of mother/calf pairs, strandings for different beaked
whales. That may be a significant area for beaked whale and for beaked 45
whale calving.
Page 3187
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
[12.10 pm]
So these things not only need to be looked at in the context of what
species are present, but how the area is being used and at what times.
5
MS McGARRY: Yes. I think I am more scratching at how significant is the Taranaki
Bight in a national sense for cetaceans in general. I understand what
you're saying, that different species are going to use different areas, but a
lot of your evidence seems to be -- and Dr Torres's evidence also said
that other than the canyon off Kaikoura, where there's also upwellings of 10
nutrients, this was probably one of the sort of significant areas in New
Zealand. You've answered that in a roundabout way, so we'll just leave
that where it is.
In terms of the krill, could I go back to the evidence before us and the 15
documents that sit under the application? There's two spot samplings on
krill and all that tells us really, that it was an incredibly high biomass in
terms of a national sense.
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, and not -- 20
MS McGARRY: And a kind of indication of where it was.
MR VAN HELDEN: Sure.
25
MS McGARRY: We've got a sort of circle on a plan and that's about all we've got. So my
question to you is in terms of the krill, how critical is where it is in that
biomass to supporting populations, which I think gets back to Dr
Thompson's --
30
MR VAN HELDEN: Oh, I think that's really significant, and I think that would be -- in the
way that Leigh Torres's approach, even though she admitted that
basically the inputs weren't very good, but the modelling approach is a
way to look for some of those important areas. Another area which I
think would be highly significant is there is a similar sort of area off 35
South Westland, off Fiordland. That is an area which I think would be
incredibly interesting to look at, but we haven't done so. But certainly
you're also looking at it in terms of what animals are likely to be feeding
on what particular things and that there is an abundance of krill there
that's significant to this blue whale population, certainly. 40
It's probably less significant to some of the migratory great whales that
are passing through, so humpback whales are possibly not feeding as
they come through - and probably not - but it's important to them for
other reasons. But there are also, from my reading of the various reports 45
on invertebrates for the region and primary productivity, that it's also a
significant area for copepods, calanoid copepods, and that is the primary
Page 3188
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
food source for pygmy right whales. So it's no surprise to me that when
I correlate that with the stranding data that I see pygmy right whales in
the region. I don't know if I'm --
MS McGARRY: So it's another important part of the picture. I'm trying to look at these -- 5
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes. So looking at primary productivity is useful, looking at areas where
there is high density fishing traffic is another one, is another good
indicator for where there is likelihood to be marine mammals, because a
lot of marine mammals eat fish. If you have areas where there is high 10
squid productivity, you are likely to see squid-feeding cetaceans, and a
lot of them are, so pilot whales. There has been some talk of squid in
this area. Certainly we have also an extensive canyon, it's the start of
Cook Strait, if you like, to the east, so animals will use that probably for
part of the time, but may also seek shallower water for periods where 15
they may be calving, which would be independent of food availability,
possibly.
MS McGARRY: You've emphasised to us the continuous nature of the operation and the
noise and that that's your real concern here. So that takes me back to Dr 20
Childerhouse's table 3. I checked with him yesterday that I was reading
that correctly when you start getting to those 24 hours, but when you
look at that and think about it and you think about an animal and their
ability to move and avoid, that they can move, but then the question is
where else can they move to and how long is the exclusion. So I just 25
sort of want to understand that, that if we're looking at 24-hour exposure
levels up to 169 decibels at 10 kilometres, then --
[12.15 pm]
30
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes.
MS McGARRY: -- effectively would that, in your view, mean that even if the krill went
into that area, an animal would be likely to stay out or would an animal
only expose itself for that kind of 24-hour duration to those levels in 35
order to do something like feed or nurse? It's all very well to say
"avoid", but to me that doesn't say much.
MR VAN HELDEN: No, and it might not avoid, because it may to go into that area to feed or
do whatever it has to do. The interesting thing for me is that that is the 40
metric which is used by NOAA, for example, with respect to a
permanent threshold shift, is the 24-hour accumulated sound exposure
level. The spreadsheet, which is a simplified version of the NOAA
criteria to be applied by people that Dr Childerhouse said he had filled
out, is designed to deliver a 24-hour cumulative sound exposure level, 45
isopleth map, so not the 120, 125 that was in the AECON report, but
rather based on these exposure levels.
Page 3189
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
That's what they would use for a permanent threshold shift, so that's not
a map that we currently have and I think that that would be an
appropriate thing to see. But with respect to permanent threshold shift,
there are some views that that may be limited to within ranges, but 5
certainly the disturbance is likely to happen, could happen at levels that
are significantly lower. So I'm not sure I'm addressing your question
properly, but --
MS McGARRY: Yes, I'm not sure anybody can. I think we'll just leave it there, but -- 10
MR VAN HELDEN: No, but I guess the point is --
MS McGARRY: But that's all we've got in terms of guidance at the moment.
15
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, yes.
MS McGARRY: Without the isopleth, this is all --
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes. I mean, to have a visual representation of what those PTS isopleths 20
would be, given that that is what -- I mean, that's the criteria used. If you
wanted to do it for 120, then you've got to -- the kind of behavioural
thing, you're not getting to 120 any time soon in using this context.
MS McGARRY: Thank you. 25
MR SHAW: Just tell me something: Whale Watch in Kaikoura, subject to a resource
consent?
MR VAN HELDEN: I don't know. 30
MR SHAW: Don't know?
MR VAN HELDEN: I haven't been involved in that, but yes --
35
MR SHAW: No, nor I. I was just --
MR VAN HELDEN: Certainly it should be part, I would imagine, of their marine mammal
permitting.
40
MR SHAW: Presumably you're not in a position to tell us whether any limits -- I
mean, there are distance limits imposed by DOC, aren't there, in respect
of the approach to animals?
MR VAN HELDEN: Certainly. 45
MR SHAW: Do you know whether any noise limits are imposed or anticipated?
Page 3190
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MR VAN HELDEN: I'm not involved. I haven't been involved in that permitting process at
all, but we're talking --
MR SHAW: Or indeed whether or not the noise inherent in that industry had been 5
recorded and its impacts?
MR VAN HELDEN: Oh, that there is a lot more literature on. I'm not completely up with the
play on that, but we can certainly show that bearing in mind that these
are -- well, for some you can see where there is continuous vessel traffic 10
is another way to look at it, where we can see the animals, even when
they don't move out of the area, suffer injurious effects. There's been
some work looking at the population of bottlenose dolphins in Doubtful
Sound, for example, and how the potential impact of tourism on that that
would be -- I think David Lusseau, who's now gone on to look at and 15
develop criteria in Scotland, may be a useful person to discuss that with.
MR SHAW: Because it does head back into that territory there, and which prompted
the question from me, that you were discussing with my colleagues
earlier and that is the relatively high populations that exist in some very 20
busy places and busy in terms of other activity. You were talking about
Boston Harbour and so on.
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, and potentially that they are constrained by some system that we
might not be completely certain as to why they use a particular area. 25
This was addressed in this paper I referred to earlier that I just read
online this morning.
[12.20 pm]
30
That looked at humpback whale populations up in Alaska and that area
and the use of fiords at different times. They didn't use them necessarily
in relation to the potential krill aggregations, for example, or fish
aggregations or prey aggregations, but that they used them for some
other purpose. It could be that they have some other behavioural 35
function and this has been --
MR SHAW: So in some cases, despite the disturbance, they will make a decision to
remain?
40
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, to remain, even though that may incur some cost, so reduced
fertility and various other things that may be affecting --
MR SHAW: Again, which you're saying we don't really know what that cost
genuinely represents? 45
Page 3191
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MR VAN HELDEN: We can't strongly evaluate it and that's part of the problem, so that by the
time that you would have evaluated whether or not there was a problem,
it's probably too late. An example where there was displacement in
animals coming back, there are two examples from lagoons in Baja,
California, one the Guerrero Negro lagoon, which was a -- 5
MR SHAW: Which we've heard evidence on, yes.
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, and there's another one which was reported on by Jones, 1994,
which -- I can't quite remember the name of the particular lagoon, but a 10
separate one, but a similar result. There was a salt-mining operation. It
displaced animals for a period of five years while that went on and then
they came back. That's great that they came back, but there's no certainty
that that would be the case and when you've got an activity over a long
period of time that does have the potential, in my view, to displace 15
animals, yes. But as I say, they might not leave and also then they may
incur the costs of that. But if they are displaced, it's where they go to
and it may be an area which is less productive, so their capacity, that
may also have physiological costs to those animals as well.
20
MR SHAW: All right, I think I'm done. Are there questions from other parties for ...
you've sent them? Right, okay. If you'll just give me a moment, folk.
Mr van Helden, this question is from Mr McCabe on behalf of
KASM/Greenpeace:
25
"Following Dr Thompson's question around whether the contemporary
environment could sustain the historic populations of blue whales, is
there research relating to the role played by whales by way of a nutrient
recycling feedback loop potentially improving the ecosystem health of
the oceans?" 30
MR VAN HELDEN: Yes, there are studies that say that sort of thing. That's partly what I was
alluding to with the whale poop comment and that certainly there's
suggestions for that with blue whales, but there are papers relating to
dynamic transfer of iron, for example, with sperm whales and other 35
things, yes.
MR SHAW: Okay, thank you, Mr van Helden. Is there anything else, Gen? That was
that the only one we had? Anything from you, Mr Holm? No. No
further from you, Mr Anderson? No. All right, thank you, Mr van 40
Helden.
MR VAN HELDEN: Thanks.
MR SHAW: We are now looking at maps shortly. I think we might take a wee break 45
and come back. Gen, has lunch been organised or -- 1.00 pm to 2.00
Page 3192
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
pm, is it? Look, I think we'll take a short break in any case. Give us, I
don't know ... Ms Haazen arrives --
MR McCABE: I imagine she'll be here around 2.00 pm-ish.
5
MR SHAW: Around 2.00 pm?
MR McCABE: Yes, 2.00 pm, 2.30 pm.
MR SHAW: Look, I think we'll do that. We'll break and come back at 2.00 pm. 10
We've got the bulk of it out of the way and we'll start, Mr Holm, with the
mapping question and then move forward. By that stage, I expect Dr
Mitchell will be back with us. That's okay with you, Mr Anderson, that
works for you?
15
MR ANDERSON: That's fine with me.
MR SHAW: Okay. Mr McCabe, all good?
MR McCABE: Yes. 20
MR SHAW: Okay. Thank you all very much.
ADJOURNED [12.25 pm]
25
RESUMED [2.01 pm]
MR SHAW: Right. It feels like a premier performance, but no God Save the Queen
to stand up for beforehand. Over to you; let's do it. It's a shame it's not a
full house. 30
MR BROWN: That's fine. Good afternoon. My approach to you to present the actual
interactive map that was requested under minute 41 was a request that
TTR provide a spatial map to help show graphically a lot of the
information that has been provided to the DMC. Some considerable 35
thought went into how we present that map, not only to the DMC and the
EPA, but also to the general public as well.
In terms of a spatial map, the data that has been produced and provided
to you is all existing data and information that has been provided to you 40
either through other technical reports or inferred from other information
that has been provided. That was covered off in the memo and the
appendix in terms of the sources of those data.
The data was produced in a geographical information system by a third 45
party. TTR felt that we should go to a third party to produce this
information and, where possible, we took that information from public
Page 3193
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
sources such as MPI, New Zealand Petroleum Minerals, Department of
Conservation, and that was produced by the third party, the GIS experts.
It was decided to use the system to show you the spatial context, because
that's how a lot of the files are dealt with and used, but, for the general 5
public to be able to use that, we had to transfer that information into a
format that anyone could use. Not everyone has GIS software, so one of
the functions in the GIS is that you can save the view in the files that you
have as an interactive PDF file, which is before you now and which was
supplied to you as part of your request. 10
The amount of data that was requested by the DMC was quite substantial
and so therefore it produced a rather busy map and a map that's rather
heavy in its data usage. Where possible, we tried to meet every
requirement or request that DMC has asked for in terms of that 15
information, and we've put that forward as best as we can.
My understanding is there was some limitation in terms of the file size
that we could produce; my understanding was it was 10 megabyte.
Anything over that could have caused some issues with the EPA website 20
and lodging that. We've tried to endeavour to keep that under that 10
megabyte limit. However, it's an interactive map and it's something that
you can start off and then you can constantly build onto.
[2.05 pm] 25
Because the information requested by the DMC covered spatially quite a
large area, it was decided that we'd do this in two maps, so we have a
large regional map that covers from the Kāwhia to the north, right down
to the Kapiti in the south. Because some of the information requested 30
does spatially cover a large area, for instance the set net bands, some of
the information around mammals are Māui dolphin sightings and some
of the other general information round the South Taranaki Bight.
In there as well, on the second page, is more what we call the local map. 35
When people first see this map, they will be downloading a map that has
all the information loaded on it straight away. That's why it looks so
busy. My comment is that people do need to take time to go through
this, because it's not something you can just look at and, within five, ten
minutes, understand how it all works. It is quite a complicated map to 40
deal with, as you can see.
To be interactive with the map we've carried over a number of the layers,
that you can turn on or off, that relate to that specific data that was
requested by the DMC. That is covered off very easily by what is 45
labelled as the regional map and, sitting underneath this are a number of
Page 3194
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
files that you can click on and click of. Sitting under that as well is what
we call the study area map, which is map 2, which is more detailed.
For the sake of saving time, I've turned off a lot of those layers in that
more study area map, to make it a little bit easier to show how 5
interactive it actually is.
Sitting underneath, how both those layers work is very similar for the
regional map as it is for the study area map. What I'll do is I'll just focus
on the study area map, because that shows the more detailed information 10
that you may be interested in as well.
MS McGARRY: That's the first one?
MR BROWN: That's the second page. 15
MS McGARRY: The second one.
MR BROWN: Yes. Which is what you're currently seeing on your screen in front of
you now. 20
Sitting under the study area map is a number of layers. To save the
amount of data that this file will use we've collated all the legends and
scale and everything into a single layer, as you can see that there. One of
the best ways to deal with, or to operate this, is to turn layers on and off 25
so you can actually see what you're seeing, so toggling them on and
toggling them off is very useful.
As you can see, they sit there on the right-hand side. You can zoom,
which is a function, so you can actually zoom in to greater detail, if the 30
user so wishes, and you're able to scan around and move it. It being a
PDF file, you can't actually change what you're looking at, in terms of
you can't change these layers, so it's very much a fixed view that you
have.
35
The layers have been grouped as best as we have been able to
understand, in terms of the logical nature of presenting the data. Under
this, you'll have a number of annotated layers. To turn on the proposed
monitoring locations ... let me just turn that on.
40
MR THOMPSON: Excuse me, Matt, I don't know whether I'm the little boy with the
emperor's clothes or not, but I've just got a PDF, I think, end of story: no
ability to do anything, other than to make it bigger or smaller.
MR BROWN: You may struggle in terms of a tablet form, so you may actually have to 45
use it on a PC, and it may be requiring a version of PDF, which you're
able to --
Page 3195
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MR THOMPSON: I think that's what we've all got; iPads, and I think we're just looking at a
fixed PDF.
MR BROWN: Okay. It possibly could be the fact that you are looking at it on a tablet 5
rather than on a PC.
MR McCABE: Can I say, sir, that my Mac is not able to open the functions either.
MR BROWN: Okay. Well, I wasn't aware that Macs couldn't. It should be able to, if 10
it's a PDF file.
MR SHAW: Could I ask you to pause? Gen, you're looking perturbed.
MS HEWETT: We discovered this as well, but there's a shortcut, and I think it's control 15
H. I don't know if that would work. Then it would show up all the
symbols on the side.
MR BROWN: The layers. I am a bit surprised by that because I have opened it up with
my Mac at home and this is on a tablet as well, is it? Okay. 20
[2.10 pm]
(off-mic conversation)
25
The whole issue is around it is that for a spatial map, or a lot of this data
to be done, it had to be done in a GIS, and this was on the only capability
to be able to transfer it over. With people who are always using GIS,
like myself and the people that produce all of this for us, this is probably
second-nature. I understand with people who maybe struggle around a 30
computer, that may be a little bit difficult, but it is usable for other
people and it should be (overspeaking)
MR SHAW: Look, I have difficulty reading a bus timetable, let alone a map, let alone
one of this complexity. 35
MR BROWN: Okay. Moving through, we've grouped the layers as logically as we can
in terms of the data that was requested. Under these layers we have a
plus sign, which allows you to expand that and close that down to save a
view. So you're able to see a lot of the data in terms of those physical 40
features, such as the bathymetry, the currents, beach profile locations,
reef, and the seabed ecosystem.
As I stated before, my recommendation is that people do require turning
on and off these layers, turning everything on and bringing everything in, 45
so they can understand it. As I said, it's not a five-minute exercise; there
is an extremely large amount of information that has been presented to
Page 3196
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
you in this interactive map. It is a very powerful tool, but you do need to
take that time to go through it to make sure that you understand what
you're turning on, what you're turning off.
The layers have been described as best as we can to ensure people 5
understand what layer it is, so there's all the technical terms that were
provided for the layers, such as the NIWA ones.
MR SHAW: Could I just ask you to pause again? Gen?
10
(off-mic conversation)
That is all you wanted? Away you go. Sorry.
MR BROWN: So therefore it's not something that people can just look at within five 15
minutes and get an understanding of it.
As I said before, the information that's been provided to you has come
from the source, so NIWA has provided a lot of this information directly
to the third-party GIS company to be able to produce it, and has taken 20
TTR out of the loop in terms of passing that information on.
One of the requests was plume, so the information that was requested by
yourselves was for plume data. The plume data actually had quite a
large number of images associated with that technical report, and we've 25
produced these in this interactive map as well. However, given the
limitation in terms of the file size, we have only shown all the
information around, or the images of those plumes coming from site A,
which is the nearest site which had the greatest effect.
30
As you can see, the plume has a large number of layers associated with
it, and it allows the user to switch on and compare the effect of the
plume from the worst-case scenario to the original application that was
presented. Currently, I've got on the mining median surface that was
presented in 2016. We've tried to keep the naming of these layers as 35
simple as we can so people can understand that.
[2.15 pm]
You'll see, there's "Mining median", there's also the "Worst-case", and 40
that should be highlighted as 2017. You also have "Background" and
then you have "Mining and background" as well. The two layers that
I've got on at the moment are the "SSC mining median surface" and the
"SSC mining worst-case median surface". You'll be seeing uppermost
layer, so if I turn that off. As I said, you'll be able to toggle on and off 45
and see what the difference is and compare what they look like. You can
do that and compare that with all those different types.
Page 3197
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
We've tried to have the layers, which allows you to see like for like from
the original plume model that was done to the worst-case scenario, so
users can toggle that on and off and see what that difference actually
looks like rather than reading it off a technical map. 5
Also, part of the request was the optics associated with that, and, again,
we've tried to show what the optics look like from line A, or site A.
Again, we've tried to show what it looks like for both, with some of that
naming there as well. 10
I highly recommend, if people are looking at these images, that they do
need to refer back to the technical report. So if they're interested in the
plume then they need to go back to the original plume report to
understand the technical nature of how these images were derived. 15
One thing you will note is that the resolution is slightly better in what's
provided to you in electronic form than what is shown actually in the
maps, particularly in the plume. All it is, is just that we've used a finer
resolution to actually show this image. They are the same shape, they 20
are the same limits and everything, but they are just a little bit smoother
because they've got smaller pixels.
You will be able to read the legend of the optics and of the plume and of
the PSD from the legend, so you need to have that up to be able to 25
compare that. You should be able to compare the changes in your optic
levels with what is shown actually in that legend there.
Nature of the GIS. They showed the power of as a symbol, like an arrow
sign; that just symbolises that is to the power of; it's just a function of 30
what the GIS actually produces. So there is a significant amount of
information there.
We have not produced or shown anything new, in terms of the layers or
the information presented that has been part of the TTR hearing; all it is, 35
is the information that has been provided to TTR by third party
consultants, such as NIWA. Where there is information that has been
provided to TTR, or where we have taken information from an
unverified site ... and I'll just show you which one that looks like, is the
recreational fishing. I have noted in the memo, and it's stated in here, 40
that this information is best-available information.
That information has been taken from just basically a hard copy, and
we've tried to digitise where those locations were in a general sense,
because we didn't have an actual GIS file or any co-ordinates to be able 45
to put that into the GIS system. So the recreational fisheries, as I stated,
was part of the information that was provided to the DMC through
Page 3198
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
another party, and that's just been digitised, and that's best-available
information. That goes for some of these locations for crayfish as well.
That also is true, the same, for ... whereabouts is that one? I've also
showed some time series locations as well, that is in relation to the 5
sediment modelling. You'll note in the technical report, there are a
number of charts or graphs of time series of background sea levels and
what the modelling shows in terms of what would be produced through
the TTR proposed operations.
10
[2.20 pm]
You can see that is shown - as I toggle on and off on that map in front of
you - as those, I think, red dots.
15
These are labelled as well, so you can actually turn on the label to be
able to see that. There we go. So you can actually see where those are.
Those correlate, as I said, to the plume modelling technical report
produced by NIWA, so what you see there, those locations have been
supplied by NIWA to us. Some of these locations, such as the Crack, 20
have been under best-available information; we weren't provided any of
that location data. So, yet again, those locations were produced from
visualising off a hardcopy map that was provided to the DMC. As far as
we're concerned, they're there and they're shown in the actual time series
maps within that technical report, but unverified. 25
Yes. I think, just in summary, there's a heck of a lot of information that's
been provided in these spatial maps. It is probably easier to use, if you're
a GIS user, to use them in GIS. We've tried to show as best as we can a
lot of information in a single map, therefore that's why there are a lot of 30
layers and that's why people do need to take the time to appreciate what's
actually there.
Yes, I think that covers off what I wanted to say.
35
MR SHAW: Sharon, have you got any questions?
MS McGARRY: Just listening to what you've had to say, in terms of the question we're
asking ourselves, or what aspect we're looking at, we're best to go back
to the data first and then decide which layers here might assist us 40
visually to ...
MR BROWN: That's one way of looking at it. You can also look at the map and want
to see -- because the layers are annotated as descriptively as we can, you
can click those two layers on and then go back to the actual technical 45
report and see what sits behind that in terms of the technical aspects of
the plume itself and/or the background SSC information.
Page 3199
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MS McGARRY: So this has picked up everything in terms of every site that's been
sampled, whether it's a benthic site or whether it's a sediment, core, all
those layers; every bit of data, basically, that's in the technical report is
represented here in terms of its location? 5
MR BROWN: In terms of those technical reports. I haven't put in drill data location
sites as well - that would just completely pepper the whole site - but it
includes all the environmental monitoring, location sites, sample sites; as
much as we can, covered off what was requested under minute 41, and 10
provided to you into this map.
MS McGARRY: In terms of the time series that you talked about at those points for the
SSC, were they provided, available for the worst-case scenario, or are
they -- 15
MR BROWN: I believe so, yes.
MS McGARRY: For both, yes. Okay thank you.
20
MR SHAW: Dr Thompson? Gerry, any from you?
MR COATES: No. It looks pretty clear.
MS McGARRY: Or not, depending if the layers are on. 25
MR SHAW: As the case may be. And a good piece of work.
MR BROWN: One note I could raise is that it's a map that you can continue to build on.
We have this in our own GIS system. We've just grabbed a lot more 30
information, like there was a lot of work trying to get the NIWA plume
information into the GIS system, because they use a proprietary type of
software and to convert that back into a GIS took a significant amount of
work to be able to do that.
35
[2.25 pm]
But now, once we've got it, it's a very powerful tool, and something you
can constantly build on and develop.
40
MR SHAW: Anyone else with any questions? I think we're not going to go through
the performances of putting those questions through the Chair, I think
that anyone in the room who can usefully ask a question, please do. Mr
McCabe?
45
MS McGARRY: I've just got one more too.
Page 3200
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MR SHAW: Sorry. I'll come back to you.
MS McGARRY: That's all right. In terms of what you said about the unverified
information from other parties in the hearing, maybe you could just
elaborate on that for us as to what was included? We made some 5
requests from, for example, the recreational fishers; I think Ms Pratt had
some input in co-ordinating that and providing that information. Maybe
you could just clarify for us what was included?
MR BROWN: In terms of the locations for where the Crack was located, no co-10
ordinates were provided to the DMC, as far as I'm aware, or to any other
parties, therefore we had to take that location of that site. We just had to
basically look at it off a hardcopy map and then transpose that into a
GIS.
15
MS McGARRY: Then you've marked with the fish symbols and things in the crayfish
area, those are just, basically, you were provided with stuff from
submitters and you've just transposed that into the system?
MR BROWN: Exactly. Correct. Where that's happened we've actually said, "Best-20
available information" in terms of labelling that in the layer itself. So
that was recreational fisheries. A couple of these time series locations,
such as the Crack 1 and the Crack 2, as well as the crayfish locations as
well.
25
We've also tried to not duplicate symbols and colours, where possible, so
they should visually stand out. So you know, for instance, you've got a
crayfish tail, you've got a fish symbol, it should be pretty visible, and
understand what it actually means.
30
MS McGARRY: In the project reef, I don't think you were provided with co-ordinates for
that in light of protecting the site.
MR BROWN: No.
35
MS McGARRY: And I don't think anybody even gave us a cross on a hard map.
MR BROWN: No.
MS McGARRY: So the project reef isn't represented on there at all? 40
MR BROWN: No. My understanding is, it is somewhere close to source A, this symbol
here, but without any definitive co-ordinates or location on a map we
cannot assume it.
45
Page 3201
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MS McGARRY: And you've included all of those sites provided entirely; there's been no
question of what does or doesn't meet any threshold, it's all just been put
on?
MR BROWN: It's just the data placed onto a visual map. 5
MS McGARRY: Thank you.
MR McCABE: Thank you, sir. Mr Brown, you say that the spatial mapping is a
powerful tool, and indeed it is, when you've got the functionality of it, 10
and there's a lot of information in there. In your opinion, would this tool,
or excerpts from this tool, have been useful during the consultation and
notification period prior to lodgement to enable interested parties to form
pictures in their minds while assessing what exists in the area, and the
potential effects of the proposed activity? 15
MR BROWN: In my opinion, no, because I believe that it probably would have
overwhelmed people. I think we focused on the key points around the
consultation in those effects, and we tried to keep it as focused as we
could. A lot of this information also has come out from the hearing as 20
the hearing has been progressed as well. We couldn't show the
recreational fishing locations because we didn't have that information, as
such. We had a good idea where they were, but to have something
provided by a third party during the hearing was very helpful.
25
MR McCABE: If I could just follow that with: certainly, it may have been
overwhelming and difficult for some users to use but, if this was
available at the beginning of the hearing, or actually as part of the
application, and the experts had the ability to utilise this tool and, as you
said, there was an ability for the process to add to the content within 30
these spatial maps, would that have been useful for the Decision-making
Committee and for experts to really flesh out --
[2.30 pm]
35
MR SHAW: With the greatest of respect, Mr McCabe, it's difficult enough for us to
know what's going on inside our own heads in terms of this material; it's
a pretty tall order to ask somebody else to speculate. No, quite seriously,
and I want to go back to the point I made at the outset, that all of this is
material which we've already seen in evidence; It's just a consolidated 40
way of doing it. We thought it would be helpful to us during the course
of deliberation, and of course everything that we do has to be shared
with everybody else. But there's nothing new here at all, other than the
particular method of presentation.
45
MR McCABE: Certainly --
Page 3202
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MR SHAW: I think it goes without saying that there are many things that, during the
course of the hearing, are presented and produced in different ways,
including evidence from submitters, which shine lights where they
haven't been before. That's true, for example, in respect of the issues
around recreational fishing, because they weren't known, at least not to 5
the parties who were drawing up the original material. I'm not sure
where we get to with this approach to the questions. Perhaps if you can
explain to us what you're trying to understand?
MR McCABE: Yes. I guess my point is, sir, that on this side of the table, and I imagine 10
to some extent on the side of the DMC, there's been a fumbling around
in the dark looking for the light switch to find out what's out there and
where we're going with this. The point I'm trying to make, sir, is that
this way of presenting the information would have been very helpful, to
submitters at least, earlier on in the phase. I'm just now learning that I 15
can turn the functionality on, after two or three attempts earlier.
Closings are in two days and there's no use to submitters of this spatial
mapping, essentially.
MR SHAW: We asked for it to assist us in our deliberations. I don't think there's any 20
Eureka moment. You used the example of the light switch; it's more a
dimmer or a power board in which we're raising and lowering lights
here, isn't it, in terms of the --
MR McCABE: I think it's a floodlight, sir, myself, but, yes. 25
MR SHAW: Look, much of what you're saying goes without question, yes; the more
information one can have available, the better. I can't remember whether
it was Mr Currie, but one of counsel remarked that this has been an
iterative process. It has, including the way that we're presenting 30
information, or getting information presented to us, as well as the extent
of that information. No apologies for that because that's our job, that's
what differs: the inquiry approach differs from others in that regard, and
I think that's what we're doing. And I'm not trying to cut you off, Mr
McCabe. 35
MR McCABE: Yes. I'm not giving evidence here. I've got a view on it and I don't know
whether it's appropriate to share it or not, but --
MR SHAW: Well, I go back to what I said yesterday, I think the time to appropriately 40
share these things now is in closing, and so it's a matter, I think, for you
to share with your counsel. When I invited questions, I was talking more
about accessibility than probative value in terms of it.
MR BROWN: Understood, sir. 45
Page 3203
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MR SHAW: Any other questions? Nothing more from you? Look, Ms McGarry has
just raised something which I think is of some importance. I don't know
the extent to which the Applicant would be happy if Mr Brown were to
outside the context of the hearing proper, if people are having difficulty
accessing the material that they would wish to do -- because, really, it's 5
between now and Thursday that this is of any value to submitters. It's
going to be considerable value to us, by the way. Whether or not that
would be doable? Or would you want to --
MR HOLM: No problem with that, subject to Mr Brown's availability; he can assist 10
anyone.
MR BROWN: That's fine.
MR SHAW: Would that be helpful, Mr McCabe? 15
MR McCABE: I think there's the ability to download Acrobat Reader which would open
the function. I'll have a go at that. If I have difficulty, maybe I'll meet
the Applicant.
20
MR SHAW: Okay. But anyway, the offer is on the table.
MR McCABE: Thank you. I appreciate that.
[2.35 pm] 25
MR SHAW: Yes, Ms McGarry?
MS McGARRY: I just have one final question, it's really in the same vein as that, Mr
Brown, that you're confident that, during our deliberations, if we have 30
access to somebody in the EPA with GIS skills, and obviously a machine
running the package, that with that assistance, we'll be able to navigate
our way round it?
MR BROWN: Absolutely. And I'm happy to assist. 35
MS McGARRY: Yes. I don't think that person could be you, but the question was
whether somebody --
MR BROWN: Well, with the EPA person who can assist you. 40
MS McGARRY: -- with just a good working knowledge of GIS.
MR BROWN: I'm not too sure where the EPA actually carry GIS as a software.
45
MS HEWETT: Some do.
Page 3204
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
MS McGARRY: Yes.
MR SHAW: I'm sure, if we conduct a search, we'll find someone, won't we?
MS McGARRY: Yes. I'm reasonably familiar with GIS, but there's no insider knowledge 5
here, it's just a general GIS package, isn't it?
MR BROWN: Correct.
MS McGARRY: Yes, thanks. 10
MR SHAW: So it's a navigational issue?
MR BROWN: Correct.
15
MR SHAW: Thanks. All right. Any more from anyone else? Mr Holm, is there
anything you wish to add?
MR HOLM: No, thank you, sir.
20
MR SHAW: All right. Well, thank you very much. I don't know that we have
anything more happening today, do we?
MS McGARRY: No.
25
MR SHAW: We are coming to the point then where we will move tomorrow -- do
you know when the material from the planners' caucus, which can't have
been a very large one, is going to be back with us?
MR HOLM: Can I just check with Dr Mitchell? 30
MR SHAW: Yes. I was just looking at Dr Mitchell when I asked that.
DR MITCHELL: We met for four hours, or thereabouts, this morning. The intention is,
where we got to anyway in terms of how we thought we would proceed, 35
is that the mediator, Mr Rainey, is going to send you an email this
evening. That email will identify that there are, I think, five issues that
Dr Lieffering and myself are not agreed upon, but the balance of the
conditions have been agreed as between the two of us, subject to each of
us having the time to carefully read and make sure they're correct. 40
It's my intention tomorrow to table yet another set of conditions, and I
only do that, not to overwhelm you with paper, but so that you can
follow where we've got to in terms of the progress that we have made.
45
MR SHAW: I presume that that would occur prior to closing statements from
anybody?
Page 3205
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
DR MITCHELL: My understanding is that we're scheduled first thing in the morning
tomorrow.
MR SHAW: Indeed. Dr Mitchell, I would appreciate if the report from the mediator 5
made formal acknowledgment of the extent to which the views of others
who were not present in caucusing were able to be taken into account. I
refer specifically, of course, to Ms Anderson's contribution, which I
think you will have received.
10
DR MITCHELL: I received that early this morning.
MR SHAW: Yesterday, or early this morning.
DR MITCHELL: We didn't discuss that; the mediator had to leave to catch a plane to 15
Auckland - he's doing a mediation there tonight - so we haven't been able
to consider that. I do acknowledge that I got an email from Gen while
the mediation was on, asking me to pass a copy of it to Dr Lieffering, but
I didn't get that email until after we'd left.
20
MR SHAW: Well, perhaps if you could cast your eye over her comments. By any
means, it's not a document that carries the detail that you and Dr
Lieffering have been dealing with. If you feel there are matters there that
need to be considered, those comments related to that can come
separately. 25
DR MITCHELL: It was certainly my intention to address anything in that that I had a view
on, or whatever, but we haven't got to the point of being able to discuss
it (overspeaking)
30
MR SHAW: We'll be asking the same thing, obviously, of Dr Lieffering.
DR MITCHELL: Indeed. I'm not sure that he yet has a copy of it. Gen asked me to give
him a copy but I didn't because I didn't get the email until after he'd left.
So I don't know whether you want me to follow that up and send it to 35
him electronically?
(off-mic conversation)
Okay. 40
MR SHAW: All right. So we're going to begin tomorrow. Mr Brown has gone - and
I mean this in the nicest possibly way - which is great, because it gives
us a bit more time.
45
[2.40 pm]
Page 3206
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
We haven't heard from Mr Young, have we, Gen, so we can't assume
he's going to be here? So we would move to Dr Mitchell and Dr
Lieffering and then a break for the afternoon, and then we'll hear from
Ms Carruthers closing for Origin. And I think that's the extent of the
day's work. You'll send Mr Young an email this evening, will you, Gen, 5
and just check, or have you already done that, I presume, have you?
(off-mic conversation)
Okay, thank you, and if you'll just let us know. I think we are looking 10
like hearing from Dr Mitchell and Dr Lieffering, in that order, tomorrow,
to be followed by Ms Carruthers in closing.
Nothing else from anyone? It'll be an afternoon session only, 1.00 pm.
Ms Haazen, she's in shortly, is she? 15
MR McCABE: Yes, she's in a taxi now, I believe, sir.
MR SHAW: I've already asked if people can close tomorrow, Dr Thompson, and the
answer was no. That's an answer reinforced, I presume, because there 20
was the question of Mr Currie coming in by Skype from New York,
wasn't there?
MR McCABE: Yes, I don't think we're ready to do closing tomorrow, Sir.
25
MR SHAW: Here's Ms Haazen now. Look, I think things are as they are. It would be
nice if we could hear from some others tomorrow, but we can't, and so
the order of batting: you and Mr Anderson have changed places, I gather.
Ms Haazen, welcome. And so we'll be hearing first from KASM and
Greenpeace. 30
MR McCABE: I think that's the plan at this stage, sir.
MR SHAW: And then we'll be hearing from Mr Anderson, and then we will be
hearing from Fisheries Submitters, Mr Makgill, and then Mr Holm. 35
Now, just before we do disappear for the day, I want to reinforce the fact
that the provision we've made for closing, the only questions that will be
coming from the Panel will be questions of clarification - we won't be
asking any substantive questions at all - and we certainly aren't going to 40
be debating issues with counsel during closing.
On that basis, we are expecting people to stick within the time limits,
and so that's an hour and a half for KASM/Greenpeace, an hour and a
half for Fisheries and an hour, I think, for Mr Anderson, which he's 45
agreed to, for Forest and Bird, and three hours for the applicant.
Page 3207
The Majestic Centre, Wellington 23.05.17
Now, we will not have much flexibility to show a great deal of latitude
in respect of those times, but I think they should be adequate. And, if
they are more than you need, people over here would greatly appreciate
any time that's not needed being returned, if you like, to the pool,
because we are pushing things for Thursday. 5
And, yes, a reminder from my colleague: please make sure you either
arrange for or arrange with Gen to make sure there are sufficient copies
of closing statements for everybody concerned. Have you got things
sorted in terms of contact with Mr Currie? 10
MR McCABE: Yes, I think so, sir. Yes. We'll sort that tomorrow.
MR SHAW: Okay. All right. Mr Holm?
15
MR HOLM: Sir, just one final point: Dr Mitchell advises me that he'll circulate the
next set of conditions either tonight or first thing in the morning so that
they're available to everyone before we start.
MR SHAW: First thing tomorrow is what Mr Holm has said, yes. Okay. Look, I'm 20
sorry this week is stop-start and it's pretty frustrating for all of us, but
there we go. Thank you all very much and we'll see you tomorrow.
MATTER ADJOURNED AT 2.45 PM UNTIL
WEDNESDAY, 24 MAY 2017 25