Trans-Tasman Resources Limited application for seabed mining consent by Christine Cheyne
A third marine consent application for seabed mining is currently being considered by the EPA. This brief article provides some background and highlights the challenges for robust impact assessment associated with such applications.
Background
In late October, Statistics New Zealand and the Ministry for the Environment released the report Our marine environment 2016 which highlights the alarming and continuous decline of marine seabirds and mammals. Ninety percent of New Zealand’s seabird and shorebird species are threatened with, or at risk of extinction. The report is the first report to be produced under the Environmental Reporting Act 2015, which came into force in June 2016. It notes
Multiple, cumulative human pressures are causing changes to New Zealand’s oceans, coastal marine habitats, and wildlife – these changes are serious threats to the benefits current and future generations will receive from our marine environment (page 7).
The top three issues are
The data available in report are important when assessing effects of activities in the coastal marine area and EEZ. However, the report notes that national data on many issues are limited; as a result, it was necessary to draw on scientific literature and expert opinion.
A lack of knowledge about the effects of seabed mining led the Environmental Protection Authority to decline the two applications (one by Trans Tasman Resources Ltd (TTRL) in 2013 and one by Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd in 2015) for seabed mining. However, in August 2016 TTRL submitted to the EPA a revised application for marine consents and marine discharge consents to extract and process iron sand within the South Taranaki Bight[1].
The EEZ legislation requires applicants for marine consents to provide an assessment of environmental effects similar to that required under the Resource Management Act 1991. TTRL seeks to extract and export up to 5 million tonnes of iron sand per year for up to 35 years. Submissions on the application were initially due by 14 October 2016. However, the Decision-Making Committee (DMC) extended the public submission period to 14 November 2016 following a request from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui for a longer timeframe.
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui requested an extension to the deadline because it was concerned it could not make an informed submission in the available time due to the size of the application, the publication of the EPA’s Key Issues report on 30 Sept, and also the need to consult the hapū of Ngāti Ruanui. While the Key Issues report itself is concise (around 40 pages), it is accompanied by several technical reports commissioned by the EPA. Together, the Key Issues report and the EPA- commissioned reports highlight some critical concerns with the impact assessment information in TTRL’s application.
Challenges to robust impact assessment
There are numerous challenges to robust impact assessment of the proposed ironsand mining. The following is a brief discussion of some of these, in no order of importance. First, barriers to informed public participation in the application process have been created by the timeframe and also by the quantity and technical complexity of information in the application, compounded by gaps in publicly disclosed information.
TTRL’s main impact assessment document is just over 300 pages with appendices of over 500 pages and four volumes of supporting reports. In addition, there are several further reports which form part of the application submitted to the EPA but which TTRL had requested be permanently prohibited from public disclosure. These were referred to as the “sensitive information” reports.
The EPA agreed that commercially sensitive information could be withheld from the public unless a confidentiality agreement was signed. This approach was taken to ensure that the information was still available to be tested and evaluated.
However, Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (KASM), Ngāti Ruanui and fishing company Talleys Group Ltd appealed the EPA decision to the Environment Court, claiming that the public could not make a submission on the proposal without access to the full application. On 8 November (less than a week before the 14 November submission deadline), the Environment Court ruled that the redacted information must be made public, saying that the public interest significantly outweighed any trade secret by a considerable margin. Two days later, on 10 November, following a request from KASM, Ngati Ruanui and Talley’s Group Ltd, the EPA cancelled the DMC’s earlier decision allowing the suite of application documents to contain redacted information, and extended the submission deadline to December 12.
As noted earlier, the initial timeframe for making submissions was seen as a major impediment by some parties. TTRL indicated that it would support an extension as long as it was limited to Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui only and subject to it engaging with TTRL before lodging its submission. In the event, the extension was granted to all submitters. This highlights the challenges facing participants in the hearing process who seek to make submissions on the assessment of the impacts of the proposed seabed mining operation. The quantity of information provided by the applicant (over 2000 pages) is daunting let alone the technical content. Of course, this is not uncommon to resource consents especially those applications handled by the EPA. However, it is significant that the deadline for submissions on the TTRL application has now been extended twice.
Second, there is no independent scientific assessment of the environmental assessment by the applicant. In any hearing, the applicant’s impact assessment is undoubtedly focused on ensuring that impacts are minimised and readily mitigated. The EPA emphasises that its Key Issues report is not an assessment of the effects of the application but a ‘road map’ to guide the DMC about relevant issues. It identified the following six issues:
It also noted that there if issues are not discussed in the Key Issues report they may warrant consideration.
The DMC therefore relies on other parties to provide information to address any limitations of the applicant’s impact assessment and key issues raised by the EPA.
Third, in addition to the gaps in publicly disclosed information, there is the wider challenge of the lack of scientific understanding about the marine environment and the uncertainty about impacts. A report commissioned by the EPA[2] considers that the potential key effects on benthic ecology are minor and that there will be “probable” recovery of benthic biota once mining ceases. However, given the 35 year timeframe for the consent “probable” recovery may be very delayed and take a long time. The qualifier “probable” indicates recovery is not guaranteed. The expert notes that change to the seafloor habitat “is certain to occur” and acknowledges that will be loss of primary productivity of benthic flora due to “reduced seafloor irradiance and euphotic zone depth resulting from decreased light penetration through the water column”. He notes that sediment deposition “which is certain to occur within the mining area and may possibly occur in the surrounding region (with the likelihood generally diminishing with increasing distance from the mining area)” will lead to loss of benthic biota but states “This is considered to be of minor consequence given the probable rapid recovery/recolonisation of benthic biota once mining ceases and the broad areas of similar benthic communities outside of the areas at risk of impact”. The lack of certainty is a concern. The expert also notes the impact of toxicants liberated from mined sediments and again considers these to be of minor consequence. He also notes the mortality of benthic biota due to toxic effects from unplanned releases of chemicals, oils and lubricants”.
Fourth, there is imbalance in the resourcing of information about impacts on conservation values. As indicated above, of particular concern are the impacts on benthic environment and threatened marine mammals and seabirds. Yet, the main government department which is a voice for conservation decided not to lodge a submission on the TTRL marine consent application. With no input from the Department of Conservation in the submissions process to ensure that impact assessment is robust and addresses conservation concerns, the efforts of iwi non-government organisations such as Forest and Bird and Kiwis Against Seabed Mining, and private individuals, are now critical.
Impact assessment professionals (some of whom have a first-hand involvement in this hearing through their assistance to the applicant and the DMC or perhaps submitters) arguably have a responsibility to address these issues in order to foster best practice and robust policy in relation to impact assessment involving the EEZ.
[1] For details of the application and other documentation see http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/whats-going-on/current-applications/ttr-2016/Pages/default.aspx
[2] Aecom Consulting Services, September 2016, Review of Benthic Ecology Available at http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/EEZ000011/AECOM_Lodgement_Review_of_Benthic_Ecology.pdf
Background
In late October, Statistics New Zealand and the Ministry for the Environment released the report Our marine environment 2016 which highlights the alarming and continuous decline of marine seabirds and mammals. Ninety percent of New Zealand’s seabird and shorebird species are threatened with, or at risk of extinction. The report is the first report to be produced under the Environmental Reporting Act 2015, which came into force in June 2016. It notes
Multiple, cumulative human pressures are causing changes to New Zealand’s oceans, coastal marine habitats, and wildlife – these changes are serious threats to the benefits current and future generations will receive from our marine environment (page 7).
The top three issues are
- Global greenhouse gas emissions (causing ocean acidification and warming
- Threats to native marine birds and mammals (many of which are at risk of extinction)
- Degradation of coastal marine habitats and ecosystems (including through seabed dredging).
The data available in report are important when assessing effects of activities in the coastal marine area and EEZ. However, the report notes that national data on many issues are limited; as a result, it was necessary to draw on scientific literature and expert opinion.
A lack of knowledge about the effects of seabed mining led the Environmental Protection Authority to decline the two applications (one by Trans Tasman Resources Ltd (TTRL) in 2013 and one by Chatham Rock Phosphate Ltd in 2015) for seabed mining. However, in August 2016 TTRL submitted to the EPA a revised application for marine consents and marine discharge consents to extract and process iron sand within the South Taranaki Bight[1].
The EEZ legislation requires applicants for marine consents to provide an assessment of environmental effects similar to that required under the Resource Management Act 1991. TTRL seeks to extract and export up to 5 million tonnes of iron sand per year for up to 35 years. Submissions on the application were initially due by 14 October 2016. However, the Decision-Making Committee (DMC) extended the public submission period to 14 November 2016 following a request from Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui for a longer timeframe.
Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui requested an extension to the deadline because it was concerned it could not make an informed submission in the available time due to the size of the application, the publication of the EPA’s Key Issues report on 30 Sept, and also the need to consult the hapū of Ngāti Ruanui. While the Key Issues report itself is concise (around 40 pages), it is accompanied by several technical reports commissioned by the EPA. Together, the Key Issues report and the EPA- commissioned reports highlight some critical concerns with the impact assessment information in TTRL’s application.
Challenges to robust impact assessment
There are numerous challenges to robust impact assessment of the proposed ironsand mining. The following is a brief discussion of some of these, in no order of importance. First, barriers to informed public participation in the application process have been created by the timeframe and also by the quantity and technical complexity of information in the application, compounded by gaps in publicly disclosed information.
TTRL’s main impact assessment document is just over 300 pages with appendices of over 500 pages and four volumes of supporting reports. In addition, there are several further reports which form part of the application submitted to the EPA but which TTRL had requested be permanently prohibited from public disclosure. These were referred to as the “sensitive information” reports.
The EPA agreed that commercially sensitive information could be withheld from the public unless a confidentiality agreement was signed. This approach was taken to ensure that the information was still available to be tested and evaluated.
However, Kiwis Against Seabed Mining (KASM), Ngāti Ruanui and fishing company Talleys Group Ltd appealed the EPA decision to the Environment Court, claiming that the public could not make a submission on the proposal without access to the full application. On 8 November (less than a week before the 14 November submission deadline), the Environment Court ruled that the redacted information must be made public, saying that the public interest significantly outweighed any trade secret by a considerable margin. Two days later, on 10 November, following a request from KASM, Ngati Ruanui and Talley’s Group Ltd, the EPA cancelled the DMC’s earlier decision allowing the suite of application documents to contain redacted information, and extended the submission deadline to December 12.
As noted earlier, the initial timeframe for making submissions was seen as a major impediment by some parties. TTRL indicated that it would support an extension as long as it was limited to Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Ruanui only and subject to it engaging with TTRL before lodging its submission. In the event, the extension was granted to all submitters. This highlights the challenges facing participants in the hearing process who seek to make submissions on the assessment of the impacts of the proposed seabed mining operation. The quantity of information provided by the applicant (over 2000 pages) is daunting let alone the technical content. Of course, this is not uncommon to resource consents especially those applications handled by the EPA. However, it is significant that the deadline for submissions on the TTRL application has now been extended twice.
Second, there is no independent scientific assessment of the environmental assessment by the applicant. In any hearing, the applicant’s impact assessment is undoubtedly focused on ensuring that impacts are minimised and readily mitigated. The EPA emphasises that its Key Issues report is not an assessment of the effects of the application but a ‘road map’ to guide the DMC about relevant issues. It identified the following six issues:
- The discharges of sediment including its off-site dispersion – referred to as the ‘sediment plume’ – and the various direct and indirect effects of this sediment;
- The proposed environmental triggers/limits and the adaptive management approach;
- The physical seabed and subsoil disturbance effects as a result of the extraction and structures (anchor placement and removal);
- Effects on Māori existing interests;
- The exclusionary effects in and around the project area; and
- The economic benefits to New Zealand.
It also noted that there if issues are not discussed in the Key Issues report they may warrant consideration.
The DMC therefore relies on other parties to provide information to address any limitations of the applicant’s impact assessment and key issues raised by the EPA.
Third, in addition to the gaps in publicly disclosed information, there is the wider challenge of the lack of scientific understanding about the marine environment and the uncertainty about impacts. A report commissioned by the EPA[2] considers that the potential key effects on benthic ecology are minor and that there will be “probable” recovery of benthic biota once mining ceases. However, given the 35 year timeframe for the consent “probable” recovery may be very delayed and take a long time. The qualifier “probable” indicates recovery is not guaranteed. The expert notes that change to the seafloor habitat “is certain to occur” and acknowledges that will be loss of primary productivity of benthic flora due to “reduced seafloor irradiance and euphotic zone depth resulting from decreased light penetration through the water column”. He notes that sediment deposition “which is certain to occur within the mining area and may possibly occur in the surrounding region (with the likelihood generally diminishing with increasing distance from the mining area)” will lead to loss of benthic biota but states “This is considered to be of minor consequence given the probable rapid recovery/recolonisation of benthic biota once mining ceases and the broad areas of similar benthic communities outside of the areas at risk of impact”. The lack of certainty is a concern. The expert also notes the impact of toxicants liberated from mined sediments and again considers these to be of minor consequence. He also notes the mortality of benthic biota due to toxic effects from unplanned releases of chemicals, oils and lubricants”.
Fourth, there is imbalance in the resourcing of information about impacts on conservation values. As indicated above, of particular concern are the impacts on benthic environment and threatened marine mammals and seabirds. Yet, the main government department which is a voice for conservation decided not to lodge a submission on the TTRL marine consent application. With no input from the Department of Conservation in the submissions process to ensure that impact assessment is robust and addresses conservation concerns, the efforts of iwi non-government organisations such as Forest and Bird and Kiwis Against Seabed Mining, and private individuals, are now critical.
Impact assessment professionals (some of whom have a first-hand involvement in this hearing through their assistance to the applicant and the DMC or perhaps submitters) arguably have a responsibility to address these issues in order to foster best practice and robust policy in relation to impact assessment involving the EEZ.
[1] For details of the application and other documentation see http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/whats-going-on/current-applications/ttr-2016/Pages/default.aspx
[2] Aecom Consulting Services, September 2016, Review of Benthic Ecology Available at http://www.epa.govt.nz/EEZ/EEZ000011/AECOM_Lodgement_Review_of_Benthic_Ecology.pdf