Marine Georesources & Geotechnology

ISSN: 1064-119X (Print) 1521-0618 (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/umgt20

A Review of Some Environmental Issues Affecting

Marine Mining

Derek V. Ellis

To cite this article: Derek V. Ellis (2001) A Review of Some Environmental Issues
Affecting Marine Mining, Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 19:1, 51-63, DOI:
10.1080/10641190109353804

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10641190109353804

Published online: 31 Oct 2008.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 229

View related articles

Citing articles: 6 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=umgt20
Marine Georesources and Geotechnology, 19:51-63, 2001
Copyright 0 2001 Taylor & Francis
1064-119X/Ol $12.00 + .OO

A Review of Some Environmental Issues Affecting

Marine Mining

DEREK V. ELLIS
Biology Department, University of Victoria, Victoria, B.C., Canada

This article reviews information recently available from existing marine and coastal
mining for responses to environmental issues affecting marine mining at diyerent
depths. It is particularly but not exclusively concerned with those issues aflecting
seabed biodiversity impact and recovery. Much injbrmation has been gathered in the
past I0 years from shallow mining operations,for construction aggregate, diamonds,
and gold, ,from coastal mines discharging tailings to shallow and deep water, and
from experimental deep mining tests. The responses to issues identijied are summar-
ized in a series ojeight tables intended to jacilitate site-specific consideration. Since
impacts can spread widely in the surface mixing layer S M L , and can afect the
biologically productive euphotic zone, the main issues considered arise from the
depth of mining relative to the S M L of the sea. Where mining is below the S M L ,
the issue is whether it is environmentally better to bring the extraction products to
the surjace vessel jor processing (and waste discharge), or to process the extraction
products as much as possible on the seabed. Responses to the issues need to be site-
specijic, and dependent on adequate preoperational environmental impact and recov-
ery prediction. For deep tailings disposal from a surface vessel, there are four
important environmental unknowns: ( I ) the possible growth of “marine snow”
(bacterialjocs) utilizing the enormous quantities offine tailings particles (hundreds
or thousands of metric tons per day) as nuclei for growth, ( 2 ) the possibility that
local keystone plankton and nekton species may migrate diurnally down to and
beyond the depth of deep discharge and hence be subjected to tailings impact at
depth, ( 3 ) the burrow-up capability of deep benthos and their ability to survive high
rates of tailings deposition, and ( 4 ) the pattern and rate of dispersion of a tailings
density current through the deep water column from discharge point to seabed.
Actions to obtain relevant information in general and site-spec$cally are suggested.

Keywords benthos burrow-up, biodiversity recovery, density current, diurnal

migration, marine snow, seabed biodiversity, surface mixing layer, tailings

Marine mining in recent years has encompassed several kinds of activity. There has
been relatively shallow extraction involving aggregate for construction, sand for
beach nourishment, and placer beds for diamonds, gold, and tin. There is now
considerable information available about the environmental impacts of this shallow
water mining, and seabed biodiversity recovery from the extraction. Significant
review articles are by Newell, Seiderer, and Hitchcock (1998) on aggregate removal,
Garnett (1996) and Garnett and Ellis (1995) on gold mining, and a series of articles
on sand extraction by the U.S. Army Corps of Coastal Engineering Research Center.

Address correspondence to Derek V. Ellis, Biology Department, University of Victoria,

P.O. Box 3020, Victoria, B.C. V8W 3N5, Canada. E-mail: dvellis@uvic.ca

51
52 D. V . Ellis

Of this latter series, Salomon, Naughton, and Taylor (1982) is especially interesting,
as the biodiversity surveys involved were initiated weekly for three weeks beginning
one week after extraction ceased. Very few surveys have considered that biodiversity
recovery starts that quickly, and, consequently, they have missed the very early
stages of recovery.
In deep water, there have been the Red Sea Pilot Mining Project for metalli-
ferous muds and several other deep premining tests, with the environmental aspects
first brought together by Thiel, Foell, and Schriever (1991). A more recent compre-
hensive review of deep sea mining tests and assessment surveys is largely directed at
future manganese nodule mining (Morgan, Odunton, and Jones, 1999). This review
has broad deep sea mining implications, providing projections of tailings discharge
rates and reviewing biological impacts. It should be noted that discharge rates from
seabed processing are mentioned at the rate of 52,000 t (metric tons)/day, and surface
discharge rates at 1600 t/day. These are very large quantities of fine particles to
resuspend into the water column, with subsequent redeposition either nearby
(seabed processing) or widely (surface processing). A multi-authored book reporting
the Disturbance and Recolonization (DISCOL) project is in press (H. Thiel, personal
communication).
In addition, in the past 10 years, many coastal mines have developed significant
information about the environmental impact of mine tailings placed in the sea, and
about the process and rate of seabed biodiversity recovery afterwards. Of these, the
Island Copper Mine in Canada is especially useful as an information source (Ellis,
2000; Ellis et al., 1995) for shallow tailings placement (50-150m). The Misima Gold
and Silver Mine in Papua New Guinea (NSR, 1997; Jones and Ellis, 1995) is the
equivalent environmental data source for deep tailings placement (>1000m).
Thus, there is now considerably more information on tailings impact and sub-
sequent seabed recovery than was available to Thiel (199 1) or in the 1991 Deep Sea
Biology Symposium (Proceedings not seen), which made some pronouncements
about the depth at which tailings from deep sea mining should be returned to the
sea. There has been concern expressed that species of plankton and nekton can
migrate diurnally to 1000-1500 m depth (H. Thiel, personal communication). If
these are keystone predators at any depth during their vertical migrations, an
impact on them from increased suspended solids can be expected to have ramifica-
tions on the water column ecosystem at those depths.
This article draws on these information sources for a review of environmental
issues primarily affecting seabed biodiversity, whether the marine mining operations
are shallow or deep. While the issues are generalized, the resolutions must be site-
specific. The collated issues and potential remedial actions are used to generate a
series of summary tables, which should be applicable at any mining development. At
some sites, specific issues might at first sight appear to be locally trivial. However, if
the issues raised are thought through in detail, they might indicate important envir-
onmental side effects, inexpensive to avoid, but expensive to resolve.
Note that this review encompasses recovery of seabed biodiversity both during
and after mining operations. There is considerable information available on the
recovery of impacted seabeds, especially where the impact is physical rather than
chemical (i.e., where there is habitat change rather than contamination). The
references already cited provide relevant information regarding recovery from
mining activities. There is much more information, not reviewed here, on recovery
from impact arising from nonmining dredging. In marine mining, the impact is likely
 Environmental Issues Afecting Marine Mining 53

to be physical, due partly to the extraction process and partly to replacement of the
processed material back to the seabed without chemical additions.
Deep sea sediment faunas are believed generally to be exposed to very low
sediment rates, but the known occurrence of benthic storms (see references in
Morgan et al., 1999), that is, high current events with their potential consequences
for massive sediment resuspension and deposition means that natural worst case
sedimentation may be much faster than average rates. The extent to which deep
sea benthos can tolerate some tailings deposition by their ability to burrow-up is
not known. Shallow water benthos may be able to tolerate as much as -3040 cm/yr
deposition (Newell et al., 1998; Ellis, 2000).
The DISCOL mining tests suggest that deep sea benthos recovery is not that
much slower in starting than in shallow water, at least in terms of the concept of
“sustainable ecological succession” (Ellis, 2000). In other words, once primary
opportunist species have started to sustain themselves, then the overall succession
has reached a sustainable stage and will inevitably progress to the equilibrium
(climax) community. The equilibrium community for sediment benthos, however,
has long been known to be highly variable (e.g., Petersen and Jensen, 191l), hence it
is very difficult to measure when that equilibrium has been attained. Measuring
whether the primary opportunist species are being sustained is a simple derivative
from repetitive benthic surveys.
In spite of the advances over the past 10 years in knowledge and understanding
of marine mining environmental issues, there are, nevertheless, many environmental
unknowns for marine mining. In view of this, the precautionary principle applies,
that is, if the environmental impact is uncertain, take careful precautions to predict,
assess, and avoid problems.

Three Basic Categories of Environmental Issues (Table 1)

Category I . Environmental Parameters Aflecting Impact and Recovery

The most important determining environmental factor is the relationship between
the depth of mining and the vertical extent of the SML of seawater (Figure 1). The
SML is the shallowest of many layers of seawater which progressively increase in
density with depth. Seasonal temperature (or salinity) changes may create temporary
pycnoclines (sharp density gradients) seasonally isolating the deeper part of the
SML from the surface, but the overall SML extends to the depth of the shallowest
permanent pycnocline. Any discharge into this layer, whether mining-derived
turbidity or processing chemicals, can spread widely throughout (with dispersion,
dilution, and possibly decomposition), unless properly engineered and targeted, or

Table 1
Three basic categories of environmental issues for marine mining
1. Environmental parameters and mining actions affecting impact on and recovery
of the marine ecosystem.
2. Depth effects on the cost-efficiency of environmental assessment.
3. Preliminary assessments in relation to mining plans.
54 D. V. Ellis

Surface

- 100 rn

Figure 1. The surface mixing layer of the seas is the upper layer above the shallowest of the
permanent pycnoclines.

until the discharged particles can eventually drop through a density barrier (a
pycnocline) to the seawater layer below.
Turbidity arises from particles of the mined deposit becoming suspended in
the water column. Water turbidity has a variety of impacts, ranging from reducing
biological productivity, to smothering seabed benthos as the particles settle (Newel1
et al., 1998). Turbidity is particularly impacting in clear water at the sea surface, in
shallow water, and in clean coastal water. If mining is within the SML, then turbidity
from extraction and tailings disposal and any dissolved toxins can potentially dis-
perse widely within the layer. The same problems arise if the mining is below the
SML, and the extracted materials are brought onto the surface vessel for processing
and then the wastes discharged into the surface layer.
If turbidity from extraction and processing can be kept below the SML, then
these shallow water effects can be eliminated. There may still be some deeper effects.
If tailings descend in a density current to the seabed, they can smother the benthos
there. Alternatively, if the tailings are widely dispersed, they could conceivably
function as physical nuclei for the development of bacterial marine snow (Amy et
al., 1987; Alldredge and McGillivary, 1991; Ellis and Heim, 1985), the effects of
which in the deep sea (on diurnally migrating keystone predators for example) are
unknown. The results of the Red Sea Pilot Mining Project are ambiguous in this
context; the tailings descended in a slightly spreading density current to the depth
where they disappeared from the acoustic record (Amann, 1989).
With the deep tailings placement system at the Misima Mine (NSR 1997), there
was a tendency for plumes of fine tailings to disperse at deep pycnoclines. A similar
dispersal of fines will probably occur from an open water density current forming
from tailings discharged at depth from a surface mining vessel.
It may be considered that surface turbidity increases coming from marine placer
mining in naturally highly turbid environments will have trivial if any environmental
impact. Local organisms will be adapted to the conditions, and the amount of
discharged particles will be trivial compared to the level naturally occurring. That
may be so if the naturally high turbidity is consistently present, but the onus should
be on the miner to document whether the turbidity is consistently present or not
(e.g., in nearshore, open coast, placer mining for diamonds and gold). The organisms
present may be adapted to surviving periodic, rather than continuous, high turbid-
ities, and may require periods of clear water to survive.
 Environmental Issues Afecting Marine Mining 55

Table 2
Environmental issues arising from mining depth
Issue 1. If miring is deep, and below the biologically productive surface mixing layer.
Actions.
1. Keep tailings below the surface mixing layer by robot mining and separation, but
ascertain whether sensitive deep sea habitats, especially breeding grounds, will be
affected.
2. If the surface vessel must be used for separation processes and wastes produced on
board which must be discharged back to the sea, then discharge them at depth at
least below the shallowest permanent pycnocline.
Issue 2. If mining is in the surface mixing layer.
Action.
Discharge wastes below the surface by an outfall designed to place the tailings where
they will have minimum impact, usually into the area of extraction.

The appropriate summary of issues is shown in Table 2. Basically, the resolution is

that if mining is below the SML, return the tailings there, but predict their flow pattern
and impact and take other precautionary actions if necessary. If mining is within the
surface mixing layer, take particular care with turbidity control (see later Tables) and
targeting the deposition site as was acheived at WestGold (Garnett, 1996).

Category 2. Depth Efects on the Cost-EJgiciency of Environmental Assessment

The deeper that environmental probes have to be lowered into the sea, the more
costly the instrumentation and the more time (another cost) is required for each drop
and recovery. For sheltered shallow water work to say 100 m depth, a 4-10 m power
boat may be usable, but at greater depths, and with wind and wave exposure, larger
vessels will be needed. A coastal waters tug-boat can be modified for marine
sampling, with appropriate daily charge-out rates. For very deep sampling, say
1OOOm depth, a properly equipped oceanographic vessel will be needed. For reviews
of benthic sampling methods see Holme and McIntyre (1984).
Currently, the traditional over-the-side sampling bottles and limited sensor
devices are being replaced by multiple-sensor, continuously-profiling probes, and
by in situ probes and samplers left in place for eventual recovery. Nevertheless,
where large samples are required, as in seabed sampling, geological corers and
seabed grabs may still be needed. Grabs are particularly slow to use at great
depths since, generally, they cannot be free-falled; they descend like a falling-leaf,
tangling cable and can land upside down and inoperative.
The resolution is to develop new surrogate measures of water and seabed par-
ameters of concern, documented by means of remote in situ or mobile samplers, with
real-time readouts on a sampling vessel or in a home laboratory. Examples would be
transmissible videotaped images of cut away seabed profiles (Cruickshank, 2000)
showing physical layering of sediments and inhabiting organisms, or acoustic pro-
files with sufficient sensitivity to show the macrobenthos present. If biodiversity
samples must be taken, it may be possible to assess biodiversity by microbiological
 56 D. V , Ellis

indicators, rather than larger organisms, as at the Misima mine (NSR, 1997; and
Jones and Ellis, 1995).

Category 3. Preliminary Assessments in Relation to Mining Plans (Table 3)

The key issue here is that the environmental impact/recovery assessment sampling
design needs to be set at least 1-2 years prior to the start of mining. The reason is
that other uses and potential uses of the area, especially sustainable uses such as
fisheries, must be documented and evaluated, and plans for minimizing impact must
be developed. It is inherently far less costly to avoid or minimize impact, than to
attempt to recover the impacted use later and to deal with class action law suits. The
deepest mine sites may appear to have no other resource value, but the precautionary
principle applies, just in case the local ecosystem supports species with values as
genetic or chemical resources.
Table 3 provides a summary of inventory components. Although fishery uses are
the most apparent, their feedstock and spawning habitat are also important. It
should not be overlooked that fishery uses include subsistence, artisanal, and com-
mercial uses, and that local subsistence or even artisanal fisheries may not be readily
apparent if conducted periodically, for example, at night, or following storms, or
during seasonal upwelling events.
The second important issue in this context is that, with some marine mining,
such as shallow water gold placer extraction, operational plans are not necessarily set
well in advance, as they must be onland. Ongoing exploration can indicate a pre-
viously unpredicted mining site within the general area. For the environmental
assessor this brings the risk that monitoring sites which have been set to function
as unchanging reference sites for comparison purposes may be changed, and may
even be mined.
The resolution is fairly simple. The initial state-of-the-ecosystem assessment
should encompass a grid of sampling stations (Figure 2), which by statistical analysis
of particle size or biodiversity data can be grouped into most similar sites. More than
one reference area away from the initial mining sites can be picked within each

Table 3
Environmental issues to be considered prior to starting extraction procedures
~~~~

Issues. The issues here are the sustainable value of seabed biological resources, and
the starting of assessments of the extent and state of other usable resources in good
time (i.e., at least 1-2 years prior to extraction starting).
Actions.
During mine prospecting and development, inventory
a. fisheries (current or potential),
b. feedstock value of area for resource species,
c. breeding grounds for resource or feedstock species,
d. gene engineering potential of species present, and
e. other site specific issues (e.g., seasonal feeding/breeding grounds for migrating
resource species such as fish, waterfowl, whales, etc.).
 Environmental Issues Afecting Marine Mining 57

First
Mining Area

I
Reference Area 1
Referince Area 2

Figure 2. Seabed environmental reference areas can be set for demonstrating the environmen-
tal impact and recovery from marine mining. These reference areas should be set from sys-
tematic grid-based surveys prior to mining.

similar area. If mining then affects one of the reference sites, then the built-in
redundancy allows others to continue as measures of the unaffected ecosystem state.
There is a further point here, that comes from the well-documented ability of the
shallow benthic habitat to recover its biodiversity to within the range of numbers of
species and numbers of organisms of unaffected areas within 1-5 years (e.g., Ellis,
2000) depending on the particle size of the deposits (gravels are slower than sand and
silts). If a mined-out site is beyond impacting distance from later mined sites, it will
have recovered its biodiversity after a few years and thus can be used as a secondary
reference site.
The information on the nature and rate of recovery of seabed biodiversity
suggests that shallow water mining could be undertaken in separated sites with as
little disturbance as possible of the earlier by the later (partially achieved at
WestGold). Shallow water mining need not be required to proceed as the underwater
equivalent of strip mining onland, progressively extracting and replacing in long
strips. Underwater, there would inevitably be prolonged disturbance downcurrent.
The situation may be different for deep water mining. A recent prediction (Morgan
et al., 1999) is for strip mining in long swaths (100kms by 20m). Under such con-
ditions, later nearby swaths, may affect and delay the recovery of previous swaths.

Other Environmental Issues

For Processing Procedures on the Seabed (i.e., by underwater robot miner) (Table 4 )
The basic issue is to limit impact from any processing wastes. The resolution with an
underwater miner is to return wastes with a well-directed pipe and minimum particle
suspension to the extraction site, or to an adjacent site just previously mined. The
projections by Morgan and others (1999) of 54,000 t/day of deep sea sediment for
manganese nodule mining, of which 52,000 t/day could be redeposited on the seabed
by the remote vehicle separating nodules from sediment, indicates the scale of the
58 D. V . Ellis

Table 4
Environmental issues for processing procedures on the seabed
Issues.
1. Limit impact from processing wastes.
2. Facilitate biological recovery.
3. Monitor that the resolutions are working or need improvement.
Actions.
1. Return wastes with well-directed pipe and minimum particle suspension to the
extraction site, or to an adjacent site just previously mined (i.e., progressive back-
fill).
2. Predict by premining surveys the efficiency of waste return, and rate and type of
resource recovery, and monitor the predictions. Adjust system if needed.

issue. The alternative of returning such amounts of fine particles from surface pro-
cessing needs very careful environmenal consideration (see below).
The second issue is to facilitate biodiversity recovery. Good premining surveys
and knowledge of the processing procedures, hence discharge characteristics, will
show the characteristics of the seabed premining and can allow predictions of the
postmining conditions and its recovery type and rate (see below).

For Processing Procedures on a Surface Vessel (Table 5 )

The issue here is where to discharge the processing wastes? Should discharge be at
surface as has been frequent in the past or just below surface and directed to back-
filling the extraction cuts as at WestGold (Garnett, 1996)? Specifically for deep
mining, should tailings discharge be below the surface mixing layer as in the Red

Table 5
Environmental issues for processing procedures on a surface vessel
Issues. The main issue here is the depth of the extraction site relative to the depth of
the surface mixing layer.
Actions.
1. If extraction site below the surface mixing layer.
0 Discharge wastes below surface mixing zone.

0 Predict by premining surveys whether wastes can be directed back to extraction

site, or should be dispersed as widely as possible in water column.

0 During operations, monitor the predictions and adjust the mining system if

necessary.
2. If extraction site within the surface mixing layer.
0 Discharge wastes below the water surface, to deposit as close as possible to the

extraction site.
0 Monitor that the discharge system is working as intended and adjust system if

necessary.
 Environmental Issues Aflecting Marine Mining 59

Sea Pilot Project (Amann, 1989), or even below the depths (1000-1500m) reached by
vertically migrating plankton and nekton?
A further option is to determine by premining surveys whether wastes can be
directed back to the extraction site, or should be dispersed as widely as possible in
the water column. Unconventional as it may seem, there may be some merit in
dispersing vessel-produced processing wastes from a deep mining operation. The
benthos can tolerate some deposition, by burrowing up faster than particles deposit.
The resolution is to determine benthic tolerance rates to particle deposition, and to
engineer an outfall to disperse so widely that the tolerance rates are not exceeded.
This is not a simple matter, and requires predictions of benthos burrow-up rates.
Predictions will also be needed of tailings impact on water column plankton and
nekton (especially keystone species affecting the ecosystem). Dispersed tailings
could have direct effects on plankton as suspended solids, or indirect effects as the
physical nuclei for the development of marine snow (Amy et al., 1987; Aldredge and
MacGillivary, 1991), and hence could cause unusually high rates of chemosynthetic
microbiological primary production at depth. Diverse bacterial populations do occur
in these deep sea waters (a review is provided in Morgan et al., 1999).
If the extraction site is within the surface mixing layer, then the example of
WestGold (Garnett, 1996) has shown that a backfilling, turbidity-constraining, dis-
charge system is effective at relatively little cost over a surface discharge system.
In all cases, whatever options are chosen and implemented, the system developed
should be monitored and the mining system adjusted if necessary.

Issues Affecting Seabed Resource Recovery (Table 6)

The issue here is that seabed biodiversity can recover to a sustainable succession
within a few (1-5) years if the seabed is allowed to stabilize after mining (Ellis, 2000
in press; Newel1 et al., 1998). The DISCOL experiment shows that this may also
apply to deep sea benthic biodiversity. If the eventual stabilized sediment habitat is
similar to the premining habitat, the original biological resources may also return to
sustainability.
There are several actions required. By appropriate premining physical surveys of
the seabed habitat, and knowledge of the processing system and discharge pipe

Table 6
Environmental issues related to seabed resource recovery
Issue. Seabed biodiversity can recover within a few years if the seabed is allowed to
stabilize after mining. If the stabilized habitat is similar to the premining habitat, the
original biological resources may also return to sustainability.
Actions.
1. By appropriate premining physical surveys and design of processing system and
discharge pipe, predict and minimize habitat changes.
2. By appropriate premining biodiversity surveys, predict type and rate of biodiver-
sity recovery on the predicted habitat.
3. Monitor biodiversity recovery and adjust mining system if needed.
60 D . V . Ellis

requirements, it should be possible to predict and minimize habitat changes. Simi-

larly by appropriate premining biodiversity surveys, it will be possible to predict the
type and rate of biodiversity recovery on the predicted habitat. Finally, as usual, the
predicted habitat and biodiversity recovery should be monitored, and system adjust-
ments made if necessary.

Issues Aflecting Environmental Assessment and Monitoving (Table 7 )

The main issues are to determine the state of the ecosystem (which is inherent within
many of the issues already mentioned), and then to predict and minimize changes
arising from mining. As in Tables 2-6, whatever mining system and precautions are
implemented, the environmental consequences need monitoring, and adjustments to
the mining system must be implemented if needed.
The actions to be undertaken are as follows. First undertake appropriate state-
of-the-ecosystemassessment during mine prospecting and development as summar-
ized in Table 3 above. This will include water column and seabed assessments.
Following state-of-the-ecosystemassessment, it is possible to finalize the continuing
monitoring instrumentation and timing.
Changes to habitat characteristics (especially particle type) and biodiversity to
be induced by mining need prediction, so also do the types and rates of recovery of
the ecosystem.
Also at the premining state, test and reference monitoring stations for the
preliminary mining plan should be set, with redundancy in reference stations to
accommodate changes in the mining plan.
The monitoring should be conducted regularly, with timing determined by the
parameters being monitored (e.g., seabed biodiversity should be monitored annually
1-2 months after any seasonal larval settling period). Results should be documented

Table 7
Issues for environmental assessment and monitoring
Issues.
1. Determine the state of the ecosystem and its biological resources prior to mining.
2. Predict and minimize changes arising from mining (both impact and recovery).
3. Monitor those changes.
4. Adjust the mining system if necessary.
Actions.
1. Untertake appropriate state-of-the-ecosystem assessment during mine develop-
ment. This will include water column and seabed assessments. Set assessment
and monitoring instrumentation and timing.
2. Predict changes to be induced by mining, and types and rates of recovery of the
ecosystem.
3. Establish test and reference monitoring stations for the preliminary mining plan,
with redundancy in reference stations to accommodate changes in the mining
plan.
4. Monitor with rapid feedback to mine manager, and annual reviews and reports.
 Environmental Issues Aflecting Marine Mining 61

and with feedback to the mine manager along with any recommendations for adjust-
ments in the mining system.
It is important that any benthic biodiversity assessments document the actual
species present (and their numbers and biomass), and not just the type of species
expressed by high order taxonomic groupings such as crustacea or nematodes.
Species identifications provide biological information about the trophic status of
the ecosystem or the ecological succession being sustained, hence, they give more
information about the state of impact or recovery. Reducing the time and cost of
benthic impact and recovery surveys by not identifying, counting, and weighing
collected specimens to species loses information that is available at little extra cost
compared to the initial cost of ocean-going shiptime for benthic surveys (Ellis, 2000;
Ellis and Macdonald, 1998). Also, a reference set of collected identified specimens
should be archived for quality control of identification consistency between repeat
surveys.

Some Major Environmental unknowns for Deep Marine Mining (Table 8)

With the current progress towards permitting deep marine mining within national
Exclusive Economic Zones, it is important to build on the several environmental
reviews to date to identify remaining issues which may turn out to produce unex-
pected problems. Table 8 identifies four such issues.
The phenomenon of marine snow in this context is important, since enormous
numbers of dispersed particles could be introduced into the water column by a free-
falling tailings density current. The relevant action is to conduct appropriate bioassays
to determine the water quality parameters under which the problem might occur.
Open water nekton and plankton conduct vertical migrations down to depths
of 1000-1500m, hence they could be exposed to deep tailings discharges. If such
migrators are keystone species at any depth (not necessarily the depth at which
impacted), then there would be ecosystem consequences. The appropriate action is
to take acoustic recordings of vertical migration in mining areas, ground truthing
which species are involved and whether they are keystone species at depths along
their daily movements.
Deep sea benthos may appear unlikely to have much capability to burrow-up
under tailings deposition, hence would be smothered by almost any level of tailings
placement. Eventually behavioral tests may be needed to predict an area of impact.
An initial action though could be for a functional anatomist to check existing deep
sea specimens for the presence of muscular systems facilitating burrowing and loco-
motion. These are likely to be functional in predator avoidance and are likely to be
present in some form, hence they may be usable in burrow-up responses to sudden
deposition events.
The final and perhaps most important unknown is the behavior of a tailings
density current free-falling through open water, and the extent to which it disperses
prior to reaching the seabed. There are well-developed mathematical models for
predicting near-field and far-field behavior of tailings density currents along the
seabed (e.g., Hesse and Ellis, 1995: NSR, 1997). It should not be difficult to adapt
these to modeling open water density currents to provide site-specific estimates of
the location, spread, rate, and progressive contouring of tailings deposition on the
seabed.
62 D . V. Ellis

Table 8
Major environmental unknowns for deep mining
Issue 1.
Marine snow (bacterial flocs growing explosively on enormous amounts of dispersed
tailings particles).
Action.
Laboratory tests to determine if such flocs can grow.
Issue 2.
The extent and depth of vertical migration of nekton and plankton, especially of
keystone species, and whether such species are affected by tailings particles with or
without bacterial flocs.
Action.
Acoustic recordings of vertical migration, ground-truthing which species are
involved and whether these are keystone species substantially controlling the eco-
systems in which they feed.
Issue 3.
The burrow-up capability of deep sea benthos and ability to survive high rates of
tailings deposition.
Action.
Anatomical examination of deep benthos to determine whether functional muscle
systems are present allowing locomotion and burrowing. Behavioral tests of burrow-
up capability if practical.
Issue 4.
The nature and rate of tailings dispersal from a free-falling density current, and
whether the density current will reach the seabed and in what pattern of deposition.
Action.
Site specific mathematical modeling of density current flow and dispersion based on
various outfall depths.

Conclusion
It is possible to adapt environmental protection procedures to marine mining, as
shown by the WestGold placer mining operation in Alaska, 1986-1990, and the Red
Sea Pilot Mining Project 1980. Considerably more seabed impact and recovery
information is available in 2000 from tailings disposal (Ellis and Robertson, 1999)
than even 10 years ago. It should be possible at any projected marine mining site to
develop cost-efficient methods of protecting other resource use.

References
Alldredge, A. L. and P. McGillivary. 1991. The attachment probabilities of marine snow and
their implications for particle coagulation in the ocean. Deep Sea Research 38(4A):431-
443.
 Environmental Issues A f e c t i n g Marine Mining 63

Amann, H. 1989. The Red Sea Pilot project: Lessons for future ocean mining. Marine Mining
8(1):1-22.
Amy, P. S., B. A. Caldwell, A. H. Seldner., R. Y . Morita, and L. J. Albright. 1987. Microbial
activity and ultrastructure of mineral-based snow from Howe sound, British Columbia.
Canadian Journal Fisheries Aquatic Science 44:1135-1142.
Cruickshank, M. J. 2000. A new sand delineation tool for deposits at 100 M . Presentation at the
30th Underwater Mining Institute, January 23-25, 2000.
Ellis, D. V. 2000. Effect of mine tailings on the biodiversity of the seabed: Example of Island
Copper Mine, Canada. In C . Sheppard, (Ed.), Seas at the Milleuium, 3 vols. Elsevier
press.
Ellis, D. V. and C. Heim. 1985. Submersible surveys of benthos near a turbidity cloud. Marine
Pollution Bulletin 16:197-203.
Ellis, D. V. and V. MacDonald. 1998. Rapid preliminary assessment of seabed biodiversity for
the marine and coastal mining industries. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 16:307-
319.
Ellis, D. V., T. E. Pedersen, G. W. Poling, C. Pelletier, and I. Horne. 1995. Review of 23 years
of STD: Island Copper Mine, Canada. Marine Georesources & Ceotechnology
13( 1&2) :59- 100.
Ellis, D. V. and J. D. Robertson. 1999. Underwater placement of mine tailings: Case examples
and principles. Pp. 123-141 in J. M. Azcue, (Ed.), Environmental impacts of mining
activities: Emphasis on mitigation and remedial measures. Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Garnett, R. H. T. 1996. Marine dredging j o r gold, ofSshore Alaska. 1996 Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC 8008.
Garnett, R. H. T. and D. V. Ellis. 1995. Tailings disposal at a marine placer mining operation
by WestGold, Alaska. Marine Georesources & GeotechnoZogy 13(1&2):4 1-58.
Hesse, C. A. and D. V. Ellis. 1995. Quartz Hill, Alaska: A case history of engineering and
environmental requirements for STD in the USA. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology
13(1&2):135-182.
Holme, N. A. and A. D. McIntyre. 1984. Methods f o r the study of marine benthos. IBP
Handbook 16. Blackwell, UK.
Jones, S. G. and D. V. Ellis. 1995. Deep water STD at the Misima gold and silver mine, PNG.
Marine Georesources & Geotechnology 13(1&2):183-200.
Morgan, C. L., N. A. Odunton, and A. T. Jones. 1999. Synthesis of environmental impacts of
deep seabed mining. Marine Georesources & Geotechnology, 17(4):307-356.
Newell, R. C., L. J. Seiderer, and F. D. R. Hitchcock. 1998. The impact of dredging works in
coastal waters: Review of the sensitivity to disturbance and subsequent recovery of bio-
logical resources on the sea bed. Oceanography and Marine Biology: An Annual Review 36:
127-178.
NSR. 1997. Review of submarine tailings disposal. Report to Placer Pacific Ltd.
Petersen, C. J. G. and P. B. Jensen. 1911. Valuation of the sea, I: Animal life of the sea bottom,
its food and quantity. Rept. Danish Biological Station No. 20.
Salomon, C. H., S. P. Naughton, and J. L. Taylor. 1982. Benthic community response to
dredging borrow pits, Panamu City Beach, Florida. M.R.82-3. US. Army Corps of
Coastal engineering Research Center. Fort Belvoir, VA.
Thiel, H., E. J. Foell, and G. Schriever. 1991. Potential environmental effects of deep seabed
mining, No. 26. Berichte Zentrum fur Meeres- und Klimaforschung, Universitat
Hamburg.