preliminary comment on proposed exploration in permit...

Migratory Wildlife Network Bureau | ABN 622 452 921 82 Bureau office: RSD 426 Newland Service, Via Kingscote, 5223, Australia | P +618 8121 5841 | F +618 8125 5857 | E [email protected] | W www.wildmigration.org

3rd June 2012

Preliminary Comment on Proposed

Exploration in Permit Blocks EPP41 and EPP42 by Bight Petroleum

This document constitutes the Migratory Wildlife Network’s preliminary comments based on the limited information that has been made available to us about the proposed exploration by Bight Petroleum in Permit Blocks EPP41 and EPP42.

The Migratory Wildlife Network believes that the risks inherent in petroleum

operations off the western end of Kangaroo Island must be managed to ensure there is no impact to ‘nationally threatened’, “migratory’ or ‘marine’ wildlife. Given that such a significant number of species in this region are listed as ‘nationally threatened’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC), and that each of these species is using the region as critical habitat, an extremely precautionary approach is warranted. There is significant evidence of potential for lethal and sub-lethal impact of seismic exploration on the wildlife detailed within this submission for the EPBC Act Referral to be a ‘Controlled Action’ or rejected. EPP41 and EPP42 are within a clearly identified biologically important habitat for these species (feeding, migratory and resting).

At a minimum, the concerns we raise warrant the highest level of scrutiny to the proposed activities. If the activities are approved the highest level of risk management, monitoring and reporting should be mandatory.

The evidence we have provided is sufficiently robust to warrant detailed attention within Bight Petroleum’s draft Environmental Plan and the EPBC Act Referral documentation. That we have raised such concerns warrants that these documents should be made available for further comment. Therefore the Migratory Wildlife Network formally requests that:

1. Bight Petroleum transparently provides a copy of the draft Environmental Plan and the EPBC Act Referral documentation, before submission to National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) and the EPBC Act Referral Unit, with sufficient time to allow for public comment to be submitted and for Bight Petroleum to appropriately adapt the documents before submission.

2. the final copy of Bight Petroleum’s Environmental Plan, in full, is made transparently available as it is submitted to the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA).

Please be advised that the comments and concerns raised with our preliminary

submission are not our final comment. We retain the right to add to or amend these concerns as more information is made available to us.

Margi Prideaux Policy and Negotiations Director


Page | 2

Preliminary Comment on Proposed Exploration in Permit Blocks EPP41 and EPP42

by Bight Petroleum

Completed: 3rd June 2012

The standing of the Migratory Wildlife Network in matters relating to proposed exploration in Permit Blocks EPP41 and EPP42 by Bight Petroleum

The Migratory Wildlife Network is a ‘relevant person’ as defined by 11A(d) of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations, 2009, as an organisation “whose functions, interests or activities may be affected by the activities to be carried out under the environmental plan”. The organisation supports non-governmental organizations (NGOs), wildlife scientists and wildlife policy experts from around the world, to coordinate and progress migratory wildlife conservation.

Members of the Network work loosely together to advance insitu conservation and protection for migratory species and their habitats and to increase coordination on species work across the biodiversity cluster of Multilateral Environment Agreements (MEAs), as well as through the United Nations Environment Programme Major Groups Process. The Migratory Wildlife Network pays specific attention to progressing policy and conservation through the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS).

Further information about the Migratory Wildlife Network is available through the organisation’s website www.wildmigration.org

Australia’s international commitments flow to Bight Petroleum The Australian Federal Government is a signatory to the Japan-Australia Migratory

Bird Agreement (JAMBA), China-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) and Republic of Korea-Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA), as well as the Partnership for the East Asian-Australasian Flyway, the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatross and Petrels (CMS-ACAP) and the Convention on Migratory Species (CMS). It is our belief that the commitments made under each of these agreements obligate the Australian Government to protect important habitat for the species protected by the agreements, and to consult with other Range States of these agreements to ensure that any decisions taken by Australia will not impact on the efforts of other signatories to the agreements to protect the agreement species within their own jurisdictions.

This obligation naturally flows to Bight Petroleum in the development of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999 (EPBC) Referral documentation and the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) Environmental Plan, as each of the agreement Secretariats are very clearly a ‘relevant person’ as defined by 11A(d) of the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations, 2009, as organisations “whose functions, interests or activities may be affected by the activities to be carried out under the environmental plan”.

Summary of information provided to date This document is based on the limited information that has been provided by Bight

Petroleum to describe proposed activities in Permit Blocks EPP41 and EPP42 (through letters of October 2011 and May 2012).

Permit blocks EPP41 and EPP42 are both within the Commonwealth marine environment and directly overlap the Kangaroo Island Pool, Kangaroo Island Canyons and Eyre Peninsula Upwellings. Therefore the EPBC Act process should be concerned with all activities carried out by the Bight Petroleum that might impact matters of national environmental significance, including:


Page | 3

listed threatened species and ecological communities; migratory species protected under international agreements; and the Commonwealth marine environment. Bight Petroleum has informed us that the plan is to:

“... acquire our seismic survey sometime during the period January to April 2013. This is the preferred time of year to avoid key cetacean migration times and is also generally the period of less severe weather which is beneficial for operational safety reasons. The survey itself is expected to last no longer than 2 months. We intend to acquire a single 3D seismic survey of between 2600 and 3000 square kilometres over EPP41 and EPP42. This survey exceeds our minimum licence commitments because we would like to acquire sufficient data to guide our exploration efforts for a number of years rather than returning to acquire more data within one or two years. Our licence commitment requires that we acquire the survey by July 2013. We plan to use a specialised seismic survey vessel, which will travel at about 4.5 knots towing up to 14 streamers up to 8 km long containing hydrophones (sound receivers) separated at up to 120m spacing. The acoustic signal will be produced by two alternating acoustic arrays, each totalling no more than 4130 cubic inches, which will emit signals that have been computed by Curtin University Centre for Marine Science and Technology at a Sound Energy Level (SEL) of 229dB re 1μPa2.s.” (Correspondence from Bight Petroleum, dated 4th May 2012. Provided in full as Annex A)

Bight Petroleum have shown us a map of the area (provided in full as Annex B), which sits over the Kangaroo Island Pool, Kangaroo Island Canyons and Eyre Peninsula Upwellings.

The Kangaroo Island Canyons, a small group of narrow, steep-sided canyons, together with the Kangaroo Island Pool, the seasonal Eyre Peninsula Upwelling and the prevailing winds along the Great Australian Bight (moving in an anticlockwise circulation, with south-easterly winds along the eastern end of the gulf), create conditions that support the region’s productivity and marine life aggregations along the shelf and shelf break west of Kangaroo Island. Researchers have confirmed an average of two to three wind-driven Eyre Peninsula Upwelling events a year in the summer/autumn. Other Eyre Peninsula Upwelling events seem to be influenced by the distribution of near-bed temperatures in the region. Data shows that the colder water found to the west of Kangaroo Island are the source water for subsequent upwelling events off the Eyre Peninsula, drawn from the Kangaroo Island Pool and created during a prior upwelling event before being transported into the Eyre Peninsula.1 The region hosts aggregations of krill, small pelagic fish, and squid, which attract marine mammals, sharks, predatory fish and seabirds.2

While this is a region of significant importance, supporting a number of different

1 Kaempf, J., Doubell, M., Griffin, D., Matthews, R.L., & Ward, T.M., (2004) ‘Evidence of a large seasonal coastal upwelling

system along the southern shelf of Australia’, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, no. L09310 | McClatchie, S., Middleton, J.F., & Ward, T.M., (2006) ‘Water mass analysis and alongshore variation in upwelling intensity in the eastern Great Australian Bight’, Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans, vol. 111, no. C08007 | Middleton, JF., & Bye, JAT., (2007) ‘A review of the shelf-slope circulation along Australia’s southern shelves: Cape Leeuwin to Portland’, Progress in Oceanography, 75(1) | Pattiaratchi, C., (2007) Understanding areas of high productivity within the South-west Marine Region, report prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, University of Western Australia | Ward, T.M., McLeay, L.J., Dimmlich, W.F., Rogers, P.J., McClatchie, S., Matthews, R., Kämpf, J. & van Ruth, P.D., (2006) ‘Pelagic ecology of a northern boundary current system: effects of upwelling on the production and distribution of sardine (Sardinops sagax), anchovy (Engraulis australis) and southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) in the Great Australian Bight’, Fisheries Oceanography, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 191–207

2 Bannister, J.L., (2004) Southern right whale aerial survey and photoidentification, Southern Australia 2003, final report to Environment Australia, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra | Flaherty, T., (1999), ‘Spare a thought for squid sucking denizens’, Australian Marine Conservation Society Bulletin, vol. 20, pp. 9–10; Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia | Butler, A., Althaus, F., Furlani, D., & Ridgway, K., (2002) Assessment of the Conservation Values of the Bonney Upwelling Area, Report to Environment Australia, for the Commonwealth Marine Conservation Assessment Program 2002-2004, Canberra | Dimmlich, W., & Jones, G.K.s (1997) Australian Salmon (Arripis truttacea) and Herring (A. georgiana). SA Fisheries Assessment series 97/08, SARDI Aquatic Sciences, South Australia | Edyvane, K., & Baker, J., (1996) Marine Biogeography of Kangaroo Island: Progress Report to Environment Australia (formerly The Australian Nature Conservation Agency) Project D801Report S.A. Benthic Surveys 1994/5, SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide | Ward, T., Dimmlich, W., McLeay, L., & Rogers, P., (2000) Pilchard (Sardinops sagax), Fisheries Assessment Series 2000/06, SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide | Wenju, C., Schahinger, R., & Lennon, G., (1990) Layered models of coastal upwelling: a case study of the South Australian region, in: Davies, A. (ed.) Modelling Marine Systems Volume 1. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida | Edyvane, K., (1999) Conserving Marine Biodiversity in South Australia – Part 2: Identification of Areas of High Conservation Value in South Australia, SARDI Report Number 39, PIRSA


Page | 4

wildlife aggregations, we are concerned that Bight Petroleum’s main criteria for choosing the timing appears to focus on solely blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) aggregations. The information provided to us is based on an unpublished and thus far unavailable, but new “... baseline aerial monitoring programme in conjunction with experienced researchers and observers over a 5 month period to gain a better understanding of cetacean activity, and blue whales in particular, along the entire coast between Portland and the head of the Great Australian Bight near Ceduna.” It is possible that this new survey information reveals an appropriate window for blue whales, but without access to the information, we must assume it has not encompassed the other migratory and marine species who are dependent upon the regions and the especially the Eyre Peninsula Upwellings.

In advance of these documents, we are prepared to provide the following summary of our concerns to date. We trust that the breadth and depth of our comments in this submission indicate the level of concern we hold about the proposed activities, and that appropriate consideration of these concerns will be reflected in the both Bight Petroleum’s EPBC Act Referral documentation and Environmental Plan.

EPBC Act listed species

Australian sea-lion (Neophoca cinerea) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’ and ‘marine’ 3 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ (A2bd+3d) 4

Australian sea-lions (Neophoca cinerea) prefer the sheltered side of islands and avoid exposed rocky headlands that are preferred by the New Zealand Fur Seal (Arctocephalus forsteri). An important feature of colony sites used for breeding are shallow, protected pools in which pups congregate around rock or vegetative shelter. There are breeding and pupping sites for Australian sea lion at Cave Point and Cape Bouguer and haul out sites for Australian sea lion occur at Cave Point, Cape Bouguer, Cape du Couedic, North Casuarina and South Casuarina Islet, Paisley Islet (West Bay Islet) and Cape Borda. West Bay Islet always contains a small number of bull male sea lions, and a large number of sea lion bones. It is speculated that this islet may be a place where old male sea lions from other colonies go to die. Around Kangaroo Islands the Australian sea-lion's range also appears to have a strong association with the upwelling system. Females' movements appear to be no greater than 60 km from their natal site. Males disperse approximately 200 km from natal sites. Adult females have been recorded to move pups away from the natal area to other haul-out areas to continue nursing when pups, at approximately 2–3 months of age, can make short distance movements.

The breeding cycle of the Australian sea-lion is unusual within the pinniped family, in that it is an 18 month cycle and is not synchronised between colonies. The duration of the breeding season can range from 5 to 7 months and has been recorded for up to 9 months at Seal Bay on Kangaroo Island. Young can be born anytime from January to June after a gestation period of about 12 months. Despite the fact that females give birth to only one young and may not breed again for two to three years, pup mortality is high in the first six months after birth. About 10 days after the pup is born its mother starts going to sea to feed, spending about 2 days at sea and about 1.5 days back ashore, until the pup is weaned. Females nurses pups for 15-18 months but some pups can be nursed for up to 23 months by the quarter of females who do not pup each breeding season. The breeding cycle of Australian sea-lion (January - June birthing, and 15-18 month nursing, before weaning) means that each of the pupping grounds, and the fishing ground associated with them should be considered critical habitat year round.5

3 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012) Neophoca cinerea in Species Profile and

Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra 4 Goldsworthy, S., & Gales, N., (2008) Neophoca cinerea. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 5 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine

Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Campbell, R.A., Gales, N.J., Lento, G.M., & Baker, C.S., (2008) 'Islands in the sea: extreme female natal site fidelity in the Australian sea lion, Neophoca cinerea', Biology Letters, Issue 23, pp: 139-142 | Dennis, T., & Shaughnessy, P., (1996) ‘Status of the Australian sea-lion, Neophoca cinerea, in the Great Australian Bight’, Wildlife Research 23(6) pp: 741-54 | Gales, N. (1990) Abundance of Australian sea lions Neophoca cinerea along the southern Australian coast, and related research. Report to the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management. South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and South Australian Wildlife Conservation Fund | Higgins, L.V., & Gass, L., (1993) 'Birth to weaning: parturition, duration of lactation, and attendance cycles of Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea)', Canadian Journal of Zoology, 71 pp: 2047-2055 | Gales, N.J., Shaughnessy, P.D., & Dennis, T.E., (1994) 'Distribution, abundance and breeding cycle of the Australian sea lion Neophoca cinerea (Mammalia: Pinnipedia)', Journal of Zoology, London, 234, pp: 353-370 | Goldsworthy,


Page | 5

Great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’ and ‘migratory’6 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Vulnerable’ (A2cd+3cd) 7

Great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) are widely, but not evenly, distributed in Australian waters. Areas where observations are more frequent in the region include waters in and around some fur seal and sea-lion colonies and areas of the Great Australian Bight. Great white sharks can be found from close inshore around rocky reefs, surf beaches and shallow coastal bays to outer continental shelf and slope areas and are often found in regions with high prey density, such as pinniped colonies. They also make open ocean excursions and can cross ocean basins (for instance from South Africa to the western coast of Australia and from the eastern coast of Australia to New Zealand). Reported sightings of large great white sharks in the middle and upper reaches of Spencer Gulf and Gulf St Vincent, where pinnipeds do not commonly occur but dolphins are frequently sighted, suggests that dolphins may also be important prey. Juveniles appear to aggregate seasonally off the coast off the Goolwa region of South Australia.8

Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) EPBC Act - ‘Conservation dependent’9 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Critically Endangered’ (A2bd) 10

Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) are a highly migratory species who form a single widely distributed population in the southern, temperate oceans, but with a single known spawning ground in the Indian Ocean, between Java and northern Western Australia.11 Southern Bluefin Tuna migrate along the west coast and across the Great Australian Bight and around Tasmania to, and then along the southeastern Australian coastline to northern New South Wales. Juveniles of one to two years of age inhabit inshore waters in Western Australia and South Australia.12 After five years of age, southern Bluefin tuna are seldom found in nearshore surface areas, and their distribution extends over the southern circumpolar area throughout the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans.13

Southern bluefin tuna are known to be migrating through the Great Australian Bight region between November and May.

S., & Gales, N., (2008) Neophoca cinerea. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 | Campbell, R.A., N.J. Gales, G.M. Lento & C.S. Baker (2008). Islands in the sea: extreme female natal site fidelity in the Australian sea lion, Neophoca cinerea. Biology Letters. 23:139-142 | Shaughnessy, P. (2002) Ranking of South Australian Seal Colonies, Report to Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia. October 2002 | Costa, DP., LD. Rea, M. Kretzmann & PH. Thorson (1990). Seasonal changes in the diving pattern and energetics of the Australian sea lion, Neophoca cinerea, South Australia, Department of the Environment | Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2005). Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Australian Sea-lion (Neophoca cinerea), Canberra | Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2005). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Australian Sea-lion (Neophoca cinerea), Canberra | Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2008). The South-West Marine Bioregional Plan: Bioregional Profile: A Description of the Ecosystems, Conservation Values and Uses of the South-West Marine Region, Canberra

6 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Carcharodon carcharias in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

7 Fergusson, I., Compagno, L.J.V. & Marks, M., (2009) Carcharodon carcharias. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2

8 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Bruce, B.D., Stevens, J.D., & Bradford, R.W., (2005) Identifying movements and habitats of white sharks and grey nurse sharks, Report to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra | Bruce, B.D., Stevens, J.D., & Bradford, R.W., (2005) Site Fidelity, Residence Times and Home Range Patterns of White Sharks around Pinniped Colonies, Final Report to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra | Bruce, G.D., Stevens, J.D., & Malcolm, H., (2006) 'Movements and swimming behaviour of white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) in Australian waters', Marine Biology, Issue 150, pp: 161-172 | Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2009) White Shark Issues Paper, Canberra | Malcolm, H., Bruce, B.D., & Stevens, J., (2001) A Review of the Biology and Status of White Sharks in Australian Waters, Environment Australia, Canberra; Environment Australia (2002) White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery Plan, Canberra | Department of the Enviroment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2009). White Shark Issues Paper. Canberra

9 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Thunnus maccoyii in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

10 Collette, B., Chang, SK., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Juan Jorda, M., Miyabe, N., Nelson, R., Uozumi, Y. & Wang, S. (2011) Thunnus maccoyii. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2.

11 Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2010) Commonwealth Listing Advice on Thunnus maccoyii (Southern Bluefin Tuna). 12 Collette, B., Chang, S.-K., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Juan Jorda, M., Miyabe, N., Nelson, R., Uozumi, Y. & Wang, S.

2011. Thunnus maccoyii. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 | Honda, K., A.J. Hobday, R. Kawabe, N. Tojo, K. Fujioka, Y. Takao & K. Miyashita (2010). Age-dependent distribution of juvenile southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) on the continental shelf off southwest Australia determined by acoustic monitoring. Fisheries Oceanography. 19(2):151-158.

13 Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, 2009, Report of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Scientific Committee. 5-11 September 2009, Republic of Korea. Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna


Page | 6

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’14 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ (A1abd) 15 EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 - clearly identified biologically important habitat blue whales (feeding) and there is a high likelihood of encountering blue whales if activities are undertaken between November – April

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) distribution in the region to the south and west of Kangaroo Island is well documented, with visitations predictable each year. The observed whales have been sighted within 15 km of the 200m depth contour, with most of the sightings concentrated inshore of the Kangaroo Island Canyons. Large surface krill swarms have also been identified in the regions where the blue whales have been sighted and recent research confirms the nutrient-rich water from the Kangaroo Island Pool is a critical feeding habitat of the blue whales. The krill aggregation may drift either inshore or offshore of the shelf break depending on wind direction, explaining the depth range of sightings (82 to 1548m) and the high proportion (50 percent) of all sightings west of Kangaroo Island in depths >200m. However, the presence of complex cross-shelf canyons in this area, similar to those linked to the upwelling on the Bonney Coast, and reports of blue whale sightings westward almost to 131°E leave open the possibility of upwelling west of the ‘cold pool’, and the extension of blue whale foraging habitat further west.16

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’17 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ (A1ad) 18 EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 - clearly identified biologically important habitat blue whales (feeding, migratory and resting) and there is a medium - high likelihood of encountering blue whales if activities are undertaken between December – April.

Sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis) have been sighted 20–60 km offshore on the continental shelf in the Bonney Upwelling (off the coast of south-western Victoria and south-eastern South Australia) between December and April, presumably feeding. Sei whales have also been reported 200 nautical miles (nm) south-west of Port Lincoln. The extent of occurrence and area of occupancy of sei whales in Australian waters cannot be easily confirmed due to the rarity of sightings records, however given the known overlaps of sightings timing with blue whale sightings it should be presumed that they are present.19

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’20 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ (A1d) 21

14 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Balaenoptera musculus in Species

Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra 15 Reilly, SB., Bannister, JL., Best, PB., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., RL., Butterworth, DS., Clapham, PJ., Cooke, J., Donovan, GP.,

Urbán, J. & Zerbini, AN., (2008) Balaenoptera musculus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2.

16 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Butler, A., Althaus, F., Furlani, D., Ridgway, K., (2002) Assessment of the conservation values of the Bonney Upwelling area. A component of the Commonwealth Marine Conservation Assessment Program 2002–2004, Report to Environment Australia. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart | Gill, P.C., Morrice, M.G., Page, B., Pirzl, R., Levings, A.H., & Coyne, M., (2011) ‘ Blue whale habitat selection and within-season distribution in a regional upwelling system off southern Australia’, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 421, pp: 243–263 | Morrice, M.G., Gill, P.C., Hughes, J., & Levings, A.H., (2004) Summary of aerial surveys for the Santos Ltd EPP32 seismic survey, 2–13 December 2003. Report WEG-SO 02/2004 to Santos Ltd. Whale Ecology Group, Deakin University, Warrnambool

17 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012) Balaenoptera borealis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

18 Reilly, SB., Bannister, JL., Best, PB., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., RL., Butterworth, DS., Clapham, PJ., Cooke, J., Donovan, GP., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, AN., (2008) Balaenoptera borealis. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2.

19 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Gill, P.C. (2002). A blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) feeding ground in a southern Australian coastal upwelling zone. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. 4:179-184 | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Balaenoptera borealis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Department of the Environment and Heritage (2005a). Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan 2005 - 2010. [Online]. Department of the Environment and Heritage. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia

20 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012) Balaenoptera physalus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

21 Reilly, SB., Bannister, JL., Best, PB., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., RL., Butterworth, DS., Clapham, PJ., Cooke, J., Donovan, GP.,


Page | 7

EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 - clearly identified biologically important habitat blue whales (feeding, migratory and resting) and there is a medium - high likelihood of encountering blue whales if activities are undertaken between December – April

Reliable estimates of fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) population size in Australia are not currently possible. The proportion of time that this species spends at the surface varies considerably depending on their behaviour and local ecology (e.g. whether they are travelling or foraging; depth at which prey occurs) making accurate population estimates difficult. Fin whales in the Bonney Upwelling are sometimes seen in the vicinity of blue and sei whales. Areas of upwelling and interfaces between mixed and stratified waters, such as the Kangaroo Island Pool, may be an important feature of fin whale feeding habitat. Overlaps of sightings with blue whales cannot be ignored.22

Southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’23 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Least Concern’ 24 EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 - clearly identified biologically important habitat blue whales (migratory and resting) and there is a high likelihood of encountering blue whales if activities are undertaken between May - October

Southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) are seasonally present on the Australian coast between about May and November. One of a number of major calving areas is in South Australia at the Head of the Great Australian Bight. Smaller numbers of calving females are also regularly seen at Encounter Bay. Southern right whale mating and calving grounds are occupied during the austral winter and early-mid spring. Peak periods for mating are from mid-July through August as documented in population biology studies at the Head of the Great Australian Bight. Researchers contend that southern right whales exhibit a strong tendency to return to the same breeding location. This is particularly evident for reproductively mature females, where 92 percent showed a tendency to return to the Head of the Bight calving area. Around 85 percent of calves born at the Head of the Bight also exhibited fidelity to their birthing location, making the Head of the Bight and their migration route (as heavily pregnant females travelling northward or mothers with infant claves travelling south to their sub-Antarctic feeding grounds) through the Kangaroo Island Pool region a critical habitat for this species.25

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) and dwarf sperm whale (Kogia simus)

EPBC Act - Physeter macrocephalus: ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’; Kogia breviceps and Kogia simus: ‘cetacean’26

Urbán, J. & Zerbini, AN., (2008). Balaenoptera physalus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2

22 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Gill, P.C. (2002). A blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) feeding ground in a southern Australian coastal upwelling zone. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. 4:179-184 | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Balaenoptera borealis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Department of the Environment and Heritage (2005a). Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan 2005 - 2010. Department of the Environment and Heritage. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia

23 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012) Eubalaena australis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

24 Reilly, SB., Bannister, JL., Best, PB., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., RL., Butterworth, DS., Clapham, PJ., Cooke, J., Donovan, GP., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, AN., (2008) Eubalaena australis. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2

25 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Bannister, J.L., (2001) ‘Status of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) off southern Australia’, Journal of Cetacean Research and Management (Special Issue 2), pp: 103-110 | Bannister, J.L., (2003) Southern Right Whale aerial survey and photo-identification, southern Australia 2002, Final Report to Environment Australia, Western Australian Museum, Perth | Burnell, S.R., (1999) The population biology of southern right whales in southern Australian waters, Ph.D. Thesis. University of Sydney, Sydney | Butler, A., Althaus, F., Furlani, D., Ridgway, K., (2002) Assessment of the conservation values of the Bonney Upwelling area. A component of the Commonwealth Marine Conservation Assessment Program 2002–2004, Report to Environment Australia. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart | Payne, R., (1986) ‘Long term behavioral studies of the southern right whale (Eubalaena australis)’, Report to the International Whaling Commission (special issue 10), pp:161-167

26 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Physeter macrocephalus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Kogia breviceps in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Kogia sima in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra


Page | 8

IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - Physeter macrocephalus: ‘Vulnerable’ (A1d); Kogia breviceps and Kogia simus: ‘Data deficient’27

The high productivity upwelling zones in deeper waters off southern and western Kangaroo Island may be critical habitat sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) and dwarf sperm whale (Kogia simus). Researchers have reported that each of these specieis have been found south-west of Kangaroo Island. It is possible that sperm and beaked whale strandings along the South Australian coast were due to these species aggregating in and around the Murray and Kangaroo Island Canyon system. Aerial surveys have identified beaked whales and sperm whales in deeper waters (1000 to 2000 m), and dolphins pods (with up to 300 in a group) have also been also seen documented between the 100 and 200-m depth contours. 28

Southern right whale dolphins (Lissodelphis peronii), EPBC Act - ‘cetacean’29 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Data deficient’30

A pod of southern right whale dolphins (Lissodelphis peronii), an Antarctic species rarely recorded in Australia, has been observed 92 nautical miles south of Cape Gantheame This is one of very few records of the species in South Australian waters. At least two records are known from the Kangaroo Island area, and may indicate that the waters off southern Kangaroo Island provide important seasonal habitat for this species.31

Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’ 32 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Critically Endangered’ (A1abd) 33

Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) are recorded as occasional visitors to north-eastern Kangaroo Island with isolated sightings reported in most years, supported by South Australian Museum records. It is possible these sighting have also included green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), although this is difficult to confirm.34 All three turtle species are also listed as ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

27 Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L.

2008. Physeter macrocephalus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 | aylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008. Kogia breviceps. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 | Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008. Kogia sima. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2

28 Kemper, C., & Ling, J., (1991) ‘Whale strandings in South Australia (1881-1989)’, Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, 115(1), pp: 37-52 | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Butler, A., Althaus, F., Furlani, D., Ridgway, K., (2002) Assessment of the conservation values of the Bonney Upwelling area. A component of the Commonwealth Marine Conservation Assessment Program 2002–2004, Report to Environment Australia. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart | Bannister, J., Kemper, C., & Warneke, R., (1996) The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans, Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra

29 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Lissodelphis peronii in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

30 Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2008. Lissodelphis peronii. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2

31 Clarke, R., (2000) ‘First record of the southern right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis peronii (Lacepede, 804) (Odonoceti: Delphinidae), from waters off South Australia’, Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, 124(2), pp: 177-178 | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Kemper, C., & Ling, J., (1991) ‘Whale strandings in South Australia (1881-1989)’, Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, 115(1), pp: 37-52

32 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Dermochelys coriacea in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Chelonia mydas in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Caretta caretta in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

33 Sarti Martinez, AL. (2000) Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. 34 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine

Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Limpus, C., (2008) A biological review of Australian marine turtle species: 1. Loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta (Linneaus), Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane | Limpus, C., (2008) A biological review of Australian marine turtles: 6. Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli), Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane | Limpus, C., (2008) A biological review of Australian marine turtles: 2. Green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus), Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane | Zepf, A. (2012) pers comm., Email correspondence on file with the author


Page | 9

Southern giant-petrel (Macronectes giganteus) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’ 35 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Least concern’36

The Kangaroo Island Pool is an important aggregation the southern giant-petrel (Macronectes giganteus) recorded in Flinders Chase National Park and surrounds. The proposed activities may impact on important prey for this species.

Shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta cauta) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’ 37 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Near threatened’38

Shy Albatrosses appear to occur over all Australian coastal waters below 25° S. It is most commonly observed over the shelf waters around Tasmania and southeastern Australia. It appears to be less pelagic than many other albatrosses, ranging well inshore over the continental shelf, even entering bays and harbours. South-western Kangaroo Island is one of approximately 20 areas within south-eastern South Australia, in which “higher occurrence” records of the at-sea distribution of the shy albatross are recorded.39 The proposed activities may impact on important prey for this species.

Black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’40 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ ( A4bd)41

Black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris) migrate northward towards the end of the breeding season and the species is common in the non-breeding period at the continental shelf and shelf-break of South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, western and eastern Bass Strait and NSW. Individuals are also observed at these times in lesser numbers at the continental shelf break of southern and south-western Western Australia and south-eastern Queensland, and over open waters south and east of Tasmania, including over the South Tasman Rise. The proposed activities may impact on important prey for this species.

Wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’42 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ (C2a(ii))43

The wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) feeds mainly in pelagic, offshore and inshore waters, from the sea surface or just below it with shallow dives from heights of 2-5 m. They regularly feed in sheltered harbours and straits and are known to be seasonally present in the region.44 The proposed activities may impact on important prey for this species.

35 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine

Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Macronectes giganteus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

36 BirdLife International 2009. Macronectes giganteus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 37 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine

Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Thalassarche cauta cauta in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

38 BirdLife International 2010. Thalassarche cauta. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 39 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine

Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Thalassarche cauta cauta in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

40 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Thalassarche melanophris in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide

41 BirdLife International 2010. Thalassarche melanophrys. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 42 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) in

Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide

43 BirdLife International 2010. Diomedea exulans . In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 44 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine

Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide


Page | 10

Yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche chlororhynchos) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’45 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ (A4bd;B2ab(v))46

The region may also be seasonally important to the yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche chlororhynchos).47 The proposed activities may impact on important prey for this species.

Other species of significance The region also supports pygmy right whale (Caperea marginata), orca (Orcinus

orca), dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus), Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni), that are various listed as ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.48 The high productivity upwelling zones in deeper waters off southern and western Kangaroo Island may be part of the critical habitat for beaked whales, Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus), false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), short and long finned pilot whale species (Globicephala macrorhynchus and Globicephala melas) common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus, possibly Tursiops aduncus).49

The prey species might be impacted for the Antarctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), Australian fairy tern (Sternula nereis nereis) (at paisley islet / west bay islet), Australian white ibis (Threskiornis molucca), Australasian (Australian) gannet (Morus serrator), Baillon’s crake (Porzana pusilla), black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris), Cape Barren goose (Cereopsis novaehollandiae), Cape petrel (Daption capense), common greenshank (Tringa nebularia), crested tern (Thalasseus bergii), curlew sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea), eastern reef egret (Egretta sacra), fleshy-footed shearwater (Ardenna carneipes) , fluttering shearwater (Puffinus gavia), hooded plover (Thinornis rubricollis), Latham’s snipe (Gallinago hardwickii), little penguin (Eudyptula minor), musk duck (Biziura lobata), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Pacific gull (Larus pacificus), painted snipe (Rostratula australis), red-capped plover (Charadrius ruficapillus), red-necked stint (Calidris ruficollis), rock parrot (Neophema petrophila), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), sharp-tailed sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos), short-tailed shearwater (Ardenna tenuirostris), shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta cauta) silver gull (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae), southern giant-petrel (Macronectes giganteus), wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans (sensu lato), whiskered tern (Chlidonias hybridus), white-bellied sea eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster), white-faced storm-petrel (Pelagodroma marina) and yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche chlororhynchos) are all listed as ‘marine’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.50

The coastal river systems of north-western, western and south-western Kangaroo

45 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Thalassarche chlororhynchos in Species

Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide

46 BirdLife International 2010. Thalassarche chlororhynchos. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 47 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine

Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide 48 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Species Profile and Threats Database,

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra - Individual records for: Caperea marginata - pygmy right whale; Orcinus orca – orca; Lagenorhynchus obscurus - dusky dolphin; Physeter macrocephalus - sperm whale | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide

49 Butler, A., Althaus, F., Furlani, D., Ridgway, K., (2002) Assessment of the conservation values of the Bonney Upwelling area. A component of the Commonwealth Marine Conservation Assessment Program 2002–2004, Report to Environment Australia. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart | Bannister, J., Kemper, C., & Warneke, R., (1996) The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans, Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide

50 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra - Individual records for: Biziura lobata - musk duck; Cereopsis novaehollandiae - Cape Barren goose; Charadrius ruficapillus - red-capped plover; Chlidonias hybridus - whiskered tern; Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae - silver gull; Daption capense - Cape petrel; Eudyptula minor - little penguin; Globicephala macrorhynchus - Short-finned pilot whale; Globicephala melas - Long-finned pilot whale; Grampus griseus - Risso's dolphin; Kogia simus - dwarf sperm whale;; Larus pacificus - Pacific gull; Morus serrator - Australasian (Australian) gannet; Neophema petrophila - rock parrot; Pelagodroma marina - white-faced storm-petrel; Porzana pusilla - Baillon’s crake; Pseudorca crassidens - false killer whale; Puffinus gavia - fluttering shearwater; Sterna paradisaea - Antarctic tern; Sternula nereis nereis - Australian fairy tern; Thalasseus bergii - crested tern; Thinornis rubricollis - hooded plover; Threskiornis molucca - Australian white ibis


Page | 11

Island provide habitat for many migratory birds including the black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris) (CMS-ACAP), common greenshank (Tringa nebularia) (CMS, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA), curlew sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) (CMS, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA), fleshy-footed shearwater (Ardenna carneipes) (JAMBA, ROKAMBA), Latham’s snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) (CMS, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA), osprey (Pandion haliaetus) (CMS), eastern reef egret (Egretta sacra) (CAMBA), painted snipe (Rostratula australis) (CAMBA), red-necked stint (Calidris ruficollis) (CMS, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres) (CMS, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA), sharp-tailed sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos) (CMS, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA), short-tailed shearwater (Ardenna tenuirostris) (JAMBA, ROKAMBA), shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta cauta) (CMS-ACAP), southern giant-petrel (Macronectes giganteus) (CMS-ACAP), wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) (CMS-ACAP, JAMBA), white-bellied sea eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) (CMS, CAMBA), yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche chlororhynchos) (CMS-ACAP) that are all also listed as ‘migratory’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.51

Casuarina Islets, Cape du Couedic and Cape Bouguer is a breeding site for New Zealand fur seal (Arctocephalus forsteri). A new colony was discovered in 1995, in Libke Cave and is assumed to be receiving immigrants from nearby colonies. Other important colonies include those at Berris Point, Cape Gantheaume, Cave Point, and there are haul out sites at Cape Borda, Paisley Islet (West Bay Islet), Cape Bouguerm, an the chasm on the eastern coast of South Casuarina Islet. Cape Bouguer is a haul out site for the Australian fur seal (Arctocephalus pusillus), although it has not been recorded as breeding in South Australia. Both New Zealand fur seal and Australian fur seal are listed as ‘marine’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

Fish species that utilise reefs and/or sand habitats along the western, north-western and/or south-western sides of Kangaroo Island include, but are not limited to, snapper (Pagrus auratus), West Australian salmon (Arripis truttacea), trevally (Pseudocaranx dentex and Pseudocaranx wrighti), flathead (Platycephalus species), ocean leatherjacket (Meuschenia sp) and other leatherjacket species, snook (Sphyraena novaehollandiae), western blue groper (Achoerodus gouldii), blue-throated wrasse (Notolabrus tetricus) and other wrasse species, sea sweep (Scorpis sp), blue morwong (Nemadactylus valenciennesi), redfish, silver drummer, tommy ruff (Arripis georgianus), yellow-eye mullet (Mugilidae sp), black bream (Acanthopagrus species), gummy shark (Mustelus antarcticus) and whaler shark (Carcharhinidae sp). Blue-eye trevalla (Hyperglyphe antarctica) hapuku, and blue warehou occur in deeper waters off southern Kangaroo Island, with at least blue warehou spawning in the region. Maupertuis Bay, Rocky River Mouth, Sandy Beach, Knapman’s Creek mouth, Breakneck Creek mouth, Ravine des Casoars mouth, West Bay, Cape Kersaint, Stun’sail Boom River Mouth, Hanson Bay and between Kirkpatrick Point and Weirs Cove provide habitat for one or more of the life stages of school whiting, West Australian salmon, tommy ruff, yellow-eye mullet, flathead species and whaler sharks. All of these species, as well as yellow-eye mullet, snapper, mulloway, trevally, snook, flounder species and whaler sharks, are reported to utilise the unvegetated sandy bottom habitats along south-western Kangaroo Island. Estuarine areas such as the mouths of the South West River and Stun’sail Boom River are reported to provide habitat for all life stages of black bream and yelloweye mullet, including spawning and nursery areas for black bream.52

There are important breeding sites along this whole coastline and feeding and

51 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Species Profile and Threats Database,

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra - Individual records for: Thalassarche melanophris - black-browed albatross; Tringa nebularia - common greenshank; Calidris ferruginea - curlew sandpiper; Ardenna carneipes - fleshy-footed shearwater; Ardenna tenuirostris- short-tailed shearwater; Gallinago hardwickii - Latham’s snipe; Pandion haliaetus – osprey; Egretta sacra - eastern reef egret; Rostratula australis - painted snipe; Calidris ruficollis - red-necked stint; Arenaria interpres - ruddy turnstone; Actitis hypoleucos - sharp-tailed sandpiper; Thalassarche cauta cauta - shy albatross; Macronectes giganteus - southern giant-petrel; Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) - wandering albatross; Haliaeetus leucogaster - white-bellied sea eagle; Thalassarche chlororhynchos - yellow-nosed albatross | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide

52 Bruce, B., Neira, F., & Bradford, R., (2001) ‘Larval distribution and abundance of blue and spotted warehous (Seriolella brama and S. punctata: Centrolophidae) in south-eastern Australia’, Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 52, pp: 631-636 | Bryars, S., (2003) An Inventory of Important Coastal Fisheries Habitats in South Australia, Fish Habitat Program, Primary Industries and Resources, South Australia | Pogonoski, J.J., Pollard, D.A., & Paxton, J,R., (2002) Conservation Overview and Action Plan for Australian Threatened and Potentially Threatened Marine and Estuarine Fishes, Environment Australia, Canberra | Robinson, A., Canty, P., Mooney, P., & Ruddock, P., (1996) South Australia’s Offshore Islands, South Australian Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Adelaide, South Australia


Page | 12

stopover areas for migratory oceanic birds, along the northwest, west, and southwest Coasts of Kangaroo Island. In addition to those species listed as ‘nationally threatened’, ‘migratory’ or ‘marine’ In Flinder’s Chase National Park coastal river systems and estuaries wading birds / wetland birds that are present include Australian spotted crake (Porzana fluminea), Australasian grebe (Tachybaptus novaehollandiae), Australian Shelduck, (Tadorna tadornoides), black cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), black swan (Cygnus atratus), black-fronted dotterel (Elseyornis melanops), blacktailed native hen (Gallinula ventralis), chestnut teal (Anas castanea), dusky moorhen (Gallinula tenebrosa), Eurasian coot (Fulica atra), grey teal (Anas gracilis), little black cormorant (Phalacrocorax sulcirostris), little pied cormorant (Microcarbo melanoleucos), masked lapwing (Vanellus miles), Pacific black duck (Anas superciliosa), pied cormorant (Phalacrocorax varius), purple swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus), rufous night heron (Nycticorax caledonicus), sooty oystercatcher (Haematopus fuliginosus), white-faced heron (Egretta novaehollandiae), yellow-billed spoonbill (Platalea flavipes). Casuarina Islets also provide habitat for the sooty oystercatcher. There are important breeding areas for Australian wood duck (Chenonetta jubata), masked lapwing (Vanellus miles) in the coastal river systems of north-western, western and/or south-western Kangaroo Island. Australian wood duck (Chenonetta jubata) and Lewin’s rail (Lewinia pectoralis) are also recorded in the region.53

Preliminary comment on proposed exploration in Permit Blocks EPP41 and EPP42 by Bight Petroleum

In the ocean, acoustic energy (sound) propagates efficiently, travelling fast and potentially over great distances. Sea water being a denser medium than air, sound travels almost five times faster through sea water than through air, and can travel hundreds of kilometers with little loss in energy. Sound propagation can be affected by many factors, including frequency of the sound, water depth and also density differences within the water column that vary with temperature and pressure. It is important to recognize that sound arriving at an animal is subject to propagation conditions that can be quite complex. The region and type of propagation can significantly affect the characteristics of arriving sound energy, making petroleum industry generalizations about the level of impact difficult to assert.54 During seismic surveys, a predominantly low frequency high intensity sound pulse is emitted every few seconds by an array of guns, with the sound pressure depending on the size of the array. Surveys typically operate 24 hours/day over a period of one to four months.55

While most studies have focused on the effects of exposure to a given level of transient sound (often a single pulse only), McCauley (2000) took the analysis a step further, creating a map showing the cumulative exposure likely over the course of a full seismic survey, whatever its duration. This is most relevant to resident species (such as Australian sea-lions or rock lobster), which may be exposed to the full survey, or to migratory species that have come to a specific habitat for a necessary function such as feeding or breeding (such as blue whales, or migrating southern right whales). McCauly’s exposure model looked at how many individual air gun shots would be received at a level of 155dB re 1µPa2.s (equivalent energy) or higher over the course of a four-month survey. For an area roughly 5,400km2 an organism present within the area would be subject to 40,000 shots at this biologically significant level (over 300 per day on average). For an area of about 18,000km2 an organism present within the area would experience 20,000 shots. For an area of 48,000km2 an organism present within the area would hear 100 shots in the course of the

53 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Species Profile and Threats Database,

Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra - Individual records for: Australian spotted crake (Porzana fluminea), Australasian grebe (Tachybaptus novaehollandiae), Australian Shelduck, (Tadorna tadornoides), black cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), black swan (Cygnus atratus), black-fronted dotterel (Elseyornis melanops), blacktailed native hen (Gallinula ventralis), chestnut teal (Anas castanea), dusky moorhen (Gallinula tenebrosa), Eurasian coot (Fulica atra), grey teal (Anas gracilis), little black cormorant (Phalacrocorax sulcirostris), little pied cormorant (Microcarbo melanoleucos), masked lapwing (Vanellus miles), Pacific black duck (Anas superciliosa), pied cormorant (Phalacrocorax varius), purple swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus), rufous night heron (Nycticorax caledonicus), sooty oystercatcher (Haematopus fuliginosus), white-faced heron (Egretta novaehollandiae), yellow-billed spoonbill (Platalea flavipes), Australian wood duck (Chenonetta jubata), masked lapwing (Vanellus miles) | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide

54 Urick, R.J., (1983) Principles of Underwater Sound, McGraw-Hill Co, New York 55 McCauley, R.D., (1994) Seismic surveys. In: Swan, J.M., Neff, J.M., Young, P.C. (Eds.).Environmental implications of offshore

oil and gas development in Australia - The findings of an Independent Scientific Review, APEA, Sydney, Australia, 695 pp


Page | 13

survey.56 Bight Petroleum proposes a single 2 month long, 3D seismic survey over an area of between 2600 km2 and 3000km2 over EPP41 and EPP42, in water depths from about 140 metres to 2400 metres, and using two alternating acoustic arrays, emitting signals of 229dB re 1μPa2.s.

Almost all regulation of seismic surveys (as well as other particularly intense sound

sources) involves the use of varying shut-down or low power distances from sighted whales. The implication behind these regulations is that inside these ranges sound levels have the potential to be harmful to these mammals, while outside they should fall within agreeably ‘safe’ levels of risk. Accounting for uncertainty and variability is increasingly recognized as a critical component of advice that scientists must provide policy makers in order for informed management decisions to be made. Plausible scenarios must tested and tried, and policy makers must be responsive to these conclusions.57 The current EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 – Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales is widely used by industry to cover their impact to wildlife, yet the policy does not address other species of national significance, no longer represents industry best practice and is not be precautionary enough for the circumstances relating to EPP 41 and EPP 42.

Wildlife responses to noise fall into three main categories: behavioral, acoustic and

physiological. 1. Behavioral responses include changes in surfacing, diving and heading

patterns. Migrating whales have been shown to execute significant course and speed changes to avoid close encounters with operating seismic arrays. There are also observations of whales at the surface approaching an operating seismic array to within 100 m, then swimming quickly away by changing direction. Similar behavioral reactions have been demonstrated with toothed whales, dolphins and porpoises.

2. Acoustic responses include changes in type or timing of vocalizations relative to the noise source.

3. Physiological responses include auditory threshold shifts and ‘stress’. Animals exposed to elevated noise levels can suffer permanent hearing threshold shifts, temporary hearing threshold shifts changing the ability of an animal to hear, usually at a particular frequency. Masking can occur when an extraneous sound covers or ‘masks’ a desired signal (such as the call of another whale).58

Rolland et al (2012) indicate the impact of prolonged noise exposure may have a more serious impact of cetaceans, and therefore perhaps other marine mammals as well, than has previously been thought. This is especially pertinent for resident species dependant on certain habitats, such as the Australian sea-lion. Acoustic studies have shown that right whales alter their vocalization behaviour in noisy habitats by increasing both the amplitude and frequency of their stereotyped upcalls (the main contact sounds used by these whales). A comparison of three right whale habitats along the east coast of the USA and Canada found that the Bay of Fundy had the highest levels of background low frequency noise associated with heavy shipping traffic, and that the frequencies of right whale upcalls were significantly higher in this habitat. Northern right whales congregate during late summer in the Bay of Fundy, Canada, to feed and nurse their calves, and since 1980, the New England Aquarium (Boston, MA, USA) had been conducting population surveys annually in this critical right whale habitat. As all shipping traffic was halted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the researcher noted a marked decrease noise produced by ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy – specifically a noticeable decrease in low-frequency background noise. A study of stress-related faecal hormone metabolites was also underway throughout the 2001 field season and

56 McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M-N., Penrose, J.D., Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, A., Murdoch, J., &

McCabe, K., (2000) Marine seismic surveys: a study of environmental implications, APPEA Journal, 40, pp: 692-708 | 57 Weir, C.R., & Dolman, S.J., (2007) 'Comparative review of the regional marine mammal mitigation guidelines implemented

during industrial seismic surveys, and guidance towards a worldwide standard', Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 10, pp: 1–27 | Weilgart, L.S., (2007) ‘The impacts of anthropogenic oceans noise on cetaceans and implications for management’, Canadian Journal of Zoology, 85, pp: 1991-1116

58 Gordon, J.C.D., Gillespie, D., Potter, J., Frantzis, A., Simmonds, M.P., & Swift, R., (2004) 'A review of the effects of Seismic Survey on Marine Mammals', Marine Technology Society Journal, 37(4), pp: 14-34 | Weir, C.R., & Dolman, S.J., (2007) 'Comparative review of the regional marine mammal mitigation guidelines implemented during industrial seismic surveys, and guidance towards a worldwide standard', Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 10, pp: 1–27 | Gedamke,J., Gales, N., & Frydman, S., (2010) Assessing risk of baleen whale hearing loss from seismic surveys: The effect of uncertainty and individual variation, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 129 (1), pp: 496–506 | Di Iorio, L. & Clark, C.W., (2009) Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication, Biology Letters, 23rd September 2009


Page | 14

over the four subsequent years. When the acoustic recordings and ship traffic data was analyzed alongside the faecal glucocorticoid (fGC) they revealed measures of physiological stress in the whales before and after 9/11. Researchers saw a significant decrease in stress-related fGC hormone levels in right whales that corresponded with post-9/11 decrease in background underwater noise.59

The production of stress hormones is a key physiological step in balancing the expenditure of energy of all vertebrates. It involves an endocrine system response in which occurs a release of corticosteroids. These hormones facilitate the ability of an individual to survive exposure to a threat. While this response is effective in the presence of short-term stressors, chronic levels of stress can result in various pathological dysfunctions, including an increase in blood glucose, or the inhibition of reproduction, immune function, or growth. If this continues for a long time (chronic stress), it can cause damage to an individual's physical and mental health. The release of corticosteroids in humans is known to lead to structural changes in brains, ultimately producing impairments in working memory and spatial memory, as well as increased aggression. This research is particularly relevant to the consideration of marine mammals in the region during the proposed seismic surveys, and should be especially considered if marine mammals are utilising the region as critical habitat – which is definitely the case for blue, sperm, beaked, fin and sei whales (feeding), southern right whales (pregnant females migrating, or months with infant calves migrating) and Australian sea-lion (feeding and nursing young). Preventing these animals access to this habitat during such critical functions could well have serious impacts on the individuals and populations.

Researchers have extrapolated a strong likelihood that whales at a kilometer or more

from seismic surveys could be susceptible to acoustic trauma and temporary threshold shift to the extent that it could compromise the individual and possibly the population. In some research studies dolphins and porpoises have shown the most significant avoidance behavior (rather than baleen whales), suggesting that different taxonomic groups of cetaceans may adopt different strategies for responding to acoustic disturbance from seismic surveys. However, researchers also caution that sort-term proxies such as avoidance behaviors should not be considered sufficiently robust to assess the extent and biological significance of long-term individual and population-level impacts, and that there are serious concerns about populations threats from reduced prey availability, physical trauma, communication distress and stress. They further caution that there may have been serious underestimations of noise-induced strandings or mortalities in the past, as many impacts will take place below the sea-surface.60

There have been surprisingly few studies of the effects of seismic testing on pinnipeds, even though members of this group have good underwater hearing and their feeding grounds will often overlap with seismic survey areas. Pinnipeds have been shown to exhibit strong avoidance behaviour, swimming rapidly away from the seismic noise sources. The potential impact of seismic survey noise on pinnipeds could include pathological injury to individuals, behavioural avoidance of individuals (and subsequent displacement from key habitat), masking of important environmental or biological sounds and indirect effects due to effects on predators or prey. The pathological effects of loud low frequency sounds on pinnipeds are not well documented, but include cochlear lesions following rapid rise time explosive blasts, temporary threshold shifts. In some studies seals hauled out (possibly to avoid the noise) those that remained in the water seemed to have returned to pre-trial behaviour within two hours of the guns falling silent.61 However, the implications of the Rolland et al (2012) research are also relevant to the consideration of pinnipeds in the region.

59 Rolland, RM., Parks, SE., Hunt, KE., Castellote, M., Corkeron, PJ., Nowacek, DP., Wasser, SK., & Kraus, SD., (2012) Evidence

that ship noise increases stress in right whales, Proc. R. Soc: B, Published online before print February 8, 2012 60 Stone, C.J., & Tasker, M., (2006) The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in UK waters, Journal of Cetacean Research and

Management, 8(3), pp: 255–263 | Punt, A.E., &Donovan, G.P. (2007) 'Developing management procedures that are robust to uncertainty: Lessons from the International Whaling Commission', ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, pp: 603–612 | Nowacek, D.P., Thorne, L.H., Johnston, D.W., & Tyack, P.L. (2007) 'Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise', Mammal Review, 37, pp: 81–115

61 Bohne, B.A., Bozzay, D.G., & Thomas, J.A., (1986) Evaluation of inner ear pathology in Weddell seals, Antarctic Journal of the United States, 21(5), pp: 208. | Bohne, B.A., Thomas, J.A., Yohe, E., & Stone, S., (1985) Examination of potential hearing damage in Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii) in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, Antarctica Journal of the United States, 19(5), pp: 174-176 | Harris, R. E., Miller, G. W. and Richardson, W. J. (2001) ‘Seal Responses to Airgun Sounds During Summer Seismic Surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea’, Marine Mammal Science, 17, pp: 795–812. | Kastak, D., Schusterman, R.J., Southall, B.L. & Reichmuth, C.J. (1999) ‘Underwater temporary threshold shift in three species of pinniped’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, pp: 1142–1148.


Page | 15

Preventing these animals access to this habitat during such critical functions could well have serious impacts on the individuals and populations.

There is a wide range of susceptibility among fish to seismic sounds. It would

appear that finned fish seem more sensitive to disturbance than crustaceans and molluscs. Fish with swim-bladders are more susceptible to anthropogenic sounds than those without this organ. That seismic surveys are going to disrupt local fish abundance in the regions is difficult to refute. No investigations appear to have been undertaken on long-term effects of seismic surveying on fishing success, although such impact cannot be discounted. Disruption of behaviour during critical periods such as mating, spawning and migration could be particularly important. The success of a species is also dependent upon both its prey and predators. If these are affected, for example driven away by a seismic survey, then there may be consequences for species which rely upon them as prey. Behavioural responses of fish to seismic noise is varied and include leaving the area of the noise source changes in depth distribution, spatial changes in schooling behaviour , and startle response to short range start up or high level sounds. In some cases behavioural responses were observed at up to 5 km distance from the firing airgun array. However, the ecological significance of such effects is expected to be lower than for marine mammals, except in cases where they influence reproductive activity. An important study conducted in the Barents Sea 7 days before, 5 days during, and 5 days after seismic shooting with air guns was conducted in the mid 1990s. The study was to determine whether seismic exploration affected abundance or catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and found that seismic shooting severely affected fish distribution, local abundance, and catch rates in the entire investigation area of 40 x 40 nautical miles. Trawl catches of cod and haddock and longline catches of haddock declined on average by about 50 percent (by mass) and longline catches of cod were reduced by 21 percent. Reductions in catch rates were observed 18 nautical miles from the seismic shooting area (3 x10 nautical miles), but the most pronounced reduction occurred within the shooting area, where trawl catches of both species and longline catches of haddock were reduced by about 70 percent and the longline catches of cod by 45 percent. Abundance and catch rates did not return to preshooting levels during the 5-day period after seismic shooting ended. There was also a significantly greater decrease in larger fish than small of the same species.62 In another study Norwegian sandeel (Ammodytes marinus) trawlers show a temporary drop in the sandeel landings for a period after their seismic experiment, but the impacts to these species appears to have been less marked than the cod and haddock.63 A later study has shown a strong likelihood of damage to the ears of at least some fin fish, which must be considered with similar seriousness as is applied to marine mammals. The study indicated that regeneration did not counteract the loss of cells resulting from intense exposure to sound and that damage continued to accrue well after exposure.64 Such impacts could have significant implications for the behaviour and fitness of populations of fish species. Although the effects of airgun noise on spawning behaviour of fish have not been quantified to date, researchers believe that if fish are exposed to powerful external forces on their migration paths or spawning grounds, they may be disturbed or even cease spawning altogether. The magnitude of effect in these cases will depend on the biology of the species and the extent of the dispersion or deflection. Fish larvae with swim-bladders may be more receptive to the sounds produced by seismic airgun arrays, and the range of effects may extend further for these species than for others.65

62 Engås, A., Løkkeborg, S., Ona, E., & Vold Soldal, A., (1996) 'Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of

cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)', Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53, pp: 2238-2249

63 Hassel, A., Knutsen, T., Dalen, J., Skaar, K., Løkkeborg, S., Misund, O.A., Østensen, Ø., Fonn, M., & Haugland, E.K., (2004) 'Influence of seismic shooting on the lesser sandeel (Ammodytes marinus)', ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61, pp: 1165-1173.

64 McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., & Popper, A.N., (2003) 'High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears', Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(1), pp: 638-642

65 Harwood, J., & Stokes, K. (2003) 'Coping with uncertainty in ecological advice: Lessons from fisheries', Trends in Ecological Evolution, 18, pp: 617–622 | Hirst, A.G., & Rodhouse, P.G., (2000) 'Impacts of geophysical seismic surveying on fishing success', Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 10, pp: 113-118 | Løkkeborg, S., & Soldal, A.V., (1993) The influence of seismic exploration with airguns on cod (Gadus morhua) behaviour and catch rates, ICES Mar. Sci Symp., 196, pp: 62-67 | Pulfrich, A., (2010) Proposed Seismic Survey in the Pletmos Inshore Area off the South Coast, South Africa, Marine Faunal Assessment, Pices Environmental Services, at http://www.ccaenvironmental.co.za/Currentpercent20Projects/Downloads/Bayfield/Appendixpercent204percent20-percent20Marinepercent20fauna.pdf | Santulli, A., Modica, A., Messina, C., Ceffa, L., Curatolo, A., Rivas, G., Fabi, G. & D’amelio, V. (1999) Biochemical Responses of European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) to the Stress Induced by Off Shore Experimental Seismic Prospecting, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 38(12), pp: 1105-1114 | Skalski, J.R., Pearson, W.H., & Malme, C.I., (1992) Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on catch-per-unit-effort in a hook-and -line fishery for Rockfish (Sebastes spp.) Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 49, pp: 1357-1365 | Slotte, A., Hansen, K., Dalen, J. & Ona, E. (2004)


Page | 16

While many studies have sighted evidence that there has be little impact to crustaceans in the days and weeks after seismic testing, an important study carried out in Canada on rock lobster (Homarus americanus) has brought forward important information that sub-lethal effects are observed with respect to feeding and serum biochemistry and that impacts have been observed weeks to months after exposure. A cellular change was also noted in the digestive gland of animals exposed 4 months previously, which may be linked to organ 'stress'. Whiles these studies are not conclusive, they do indicate caution. The effects of seismic survey energy on snow crab (Chionoecetes opilo) on the Atlantic coast of Canada, for example ranged from no physiological damage but effects on developing fertilized eggs at 2 m range to possible bruising of the heptopancreas and ovaries, delayed embryo development, smaller larvae, and indications of greater leg loss but no acute or longer term mortality and no changes in embryo survival or post hatch larval mobility.66 The ecological significance of these sub-lethal or physiological effects should be considered important in considering the impact to fisheries quotas.

Minimum considerations for mitigation of impact We believe that each of the concerns we outline below should be considered in

detail within Bight Petroleum’s draft Environmental Plan and the EPBC Act Referral documentation for all of the species we have highlighted in this preliminary submission.

1. The Migratory Wildlife Network believes that the risks inherent in petroleum operations off the western end of Kangaroo Island must be managed to ensure there is no impact to all ‘nationally threatened’, ‘migratory’ or ‘marine’ wildlife present in the region.

2. An extremely precautionary approach is warranted in the face of new and important information such as revealed in the recent study by Rolland et al (2012). There is significant evidence of potential for lethal and sub-lethal impact of seismic exploration on the wildlife detailed within this submission for the EPBC Act Referral to be a ‘Controlled Action’ or rejected. EPP41 and EPP42 are within a clearly identified biologically important habitat for these species (feeding, migratory and resting). Before the the activities are approved through the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) Environment Plan process the highest level of risk management, monitoring and reporting should be mandatory.

3. We are aware that, in addition to the standard exploration permit terms and conditions, the permits awarded to Bight Petroleum Corp are subject to additional conditions, including: a. a well-design and integrity-monitoring plan to assure well integrity

within each well drilled, to include detail of maintenance for the active life of the well including quarterly compliance reporting;

b. independent certification by the original provider, prior to installation, that each blowout preventer has been satisfactorily tested to design pressures;

c. a report detailing hydrocarbon spill mitigation technologies and risk mitigation processes that it will deploy throughout the drill and maintain for the active life of the well; and

d. a report delineating relevant operational risks identified and associated risk mitigation strategies and processes that will be deployed by the permittee and any third party contractors involved in the drilling operation.

Stakeholders should be given the opportunity to comment on the additional conditions as part of Bight Petroleum’s Environmental Plan.

4. Content and propagation of noise sources can vary from the acoustic

Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast, Fisheries Research, 67, pp: 143–150

66 Christian, J.R., Mathieu, A., Thomson, D.H., White, D. & Buchanan, R.A., (2003) Effects of Seismic Energy on Snow Crab (Chionoecetes opilio). Report from LGL Ltd. Og Oceans Ltd. for the National Energy Board, File No.: CAL-1-00364, 11 April 2003 | Parry, G.D., & Gason, A., (2006) 'The effect of seismic surveys on catch rates of rock lobsters in western Victoria', Australia, Fisheries Research, 79, pp: 272–284 | Payne, J.F., Andrews, C.A., Fancey, L.L., Cook, A.L., & Christian, J.R., (2007) 'Pilot study on the effect of seismic air gun noise on lobster (Homarus americanus)', Can. Tech. Rep. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 2712: v + 46.


Page | 17

modeling on which permits were granted, for instance high-frequency noise and horizontal propagation being present in seismic surveys given permits on the basis surveys were only emitting low-frequency sound directed vertically downward. The potential for impact from horizontal propagation should also be modeled, and made transparently available for comment

5. The actual exposure to (numbers of and duration of) shots is modelled and made available for comment.

6. Ramp-up and soft-starts that assume animals will move away if the noise source is gradually increased have never been proven as an immediate migration and they the animals displaced by these methods have not been independently assessed for longer-term impacts. It is possible that soft-starts could do more harm than good if animals approach a quieter sound out of curiosity and depending on the complexity of the sound field may reduce their ability to detect the correct direction to move away. Ramp-up and soft-start protocols for all the species outlines in this submission should be detailed, with alternate contingencies planned if species react adversely. These protocol should be made transparently available for comment

7. Plans for 24 hour visual detection of all species, including but not limited to beaked whales, sperm whales, beaked whales, great white sharks, southern bluefin tuna or Australian sea-lions, especially under conditions of poor visibility (including high winds, night conditions, sea spray or fog) should be made transparently available for comment.

8. Even though there is strong argument that modeling safe distances is a complex and often impossible science in open sea conditions, in the case of EPP41 and EPP42 it is simply not possible to create a large enough safety zone without displacing cetaceans from critical habitat of the upwelling system. However, this is a requirement. Plans for establishing an adequate safety zone should be made transparently available for comment.

The evidence we have provided is sufficiently robust to warrant detailed attention within Bight Petroleum’s draft Environmental Plan and the EPBC Act Referral documentation.

The Migratory Wildlife Network requests that: 9. Bight Petroleum transparently provides a copy of the draft

Environmental Plan and the EPBC Act Referral documentation, before submission to NOPSEMA and the EPBC Act Referral Unit, with sufficient time to allow for public comment to be submitted and for Bight Petroleum to appropriately adapt the documents before submission.

10. the final copy of Bight Petroleum’s Environmental Plan, in full, is made transparently available as it is submitted to NOPSEMA.

Please be advised that the comments and concerns raised with our preliminary submission are not our final comment. We retain the right to add to or amend these concerns as more information is made available to us.

Bight Petroleum Pty Ltd, Level 12, 115 Grenfell Street, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia T +61 8 8104 3260 www.bightpetroleum.com

Dr Margi Prideaux Migratory Wildlife Network Penneshaw LPO 641 Kangaroo Island SA 5222 [email protected] 4 May 2012 Dear Dr Prideaux, Proposed Marine Seismic Survey Further to our letter of 25 October 2011 we would like to thank you for your feedback on our proposed marine seismic survey. At that time there was a possibility that the survey would be conducted in the second quarter of 2012. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of updates to our plans and to provide you with another opportunity to offer any further feedback should you wish to do so. Feedback that you have already provided will be included in our submissions. As described in our previous letter, Bight Petroleum has been awarded two Exploration Permits for Petroleum (EPP41 and EPP42) in the Eastern Bight Basin, with a commitment to conduct a three dimensional (3D) seismic survey in the first year of the licences. We were granted approval to delay our survey to the first part of 2013, which has had several significant environmental benefits. Firstly, it has allowed us to avoid operating at the same time as another survey which is currently nearing completion further to the West in the Great Australian Bight. Secondly, it has given us the opportunity to carry out an extensive baseline aerial monitoring programme in conjunction with experienced researchers and observers over a 5 month period to gain a better understanding of cetacean activity, and blue whales in particular, along the entire coast between Portland and the head of the Great Australian Bight near Ceduna. Our updated plan is to acquire our seismic survey sometime during the period January to April 2013. This is the preferred time of year to avoid key cetacean migration times and is also generally the period of less severe weather which is beneficial for operational safety reasons. The survey itself is expected to last no longer than 2 months. We intend to acquire a single 3D seismic survey of between 2600 and 3000 square kilometres over EPP41 and EPP42. This survey exceeds our minimum licence commitments because we would like to acquire sufficient data to guide our exploration efforts for a number of years rather than returning to acquire more data within one or two years. Our licence commitment requires that we acquire the survey by July 2013.

Margi

Text Box

Annex A


A map showing the location of our survey is shown in Attachment 2 and, for your convenience, the coordinates of the survey area are as follows:

Latitude Longitude Latitude Longitude

35 49 48.66S 135 01 39.94E 35 24 00.60S 134 33 33.88E

35 39 02.87S 135 08 27.83E 35 27 31.06S 134 41 46.88E

35 43 56.17S 135 20 09.02E 35 38 25.49S 134 34 48.96E

35 35 56.80S 135 25 09.82E 35 49 48.66S 135 01 39.94E

35 16 14.61S 134 38 31.30E

As well as operating within the above polygon, the vessel will also be in turns up to 10 kilometres outside the survey area and, on occasions, may transit in the vicinity of the area. The survey will thus be conducted more than 100 kilometres from the Western coast of Kangaroo Island and 70 kilometres from the southern tip of Eyre Peninsula, in water depths from about 140 metres to 2400 metres. We plan to use a specialised seismic survey vessel, which will travel at about 4.5 knots towing up to 14 streamers up to 8 km long containing hydrophones (sound receivers) separated at up to 120m spacing. The acoustic signal will be produced by two alternating acoustic arrays, each totalling no more than 4130 cubic inches, which will emit signals that have been computed by Curtin University Centre for Marine Science and Technology at a Sound Energy Level (SEL) of 229dB re 1μPa2.s. Further information about Marine Seismic surveys is available at: http://www.appea.com.au/images/stories/Policy_-_Environment/Seismic_and_the_Marine_Environment.pdf

You may wish to take particular note of Page 7 of the document, which provides a brief summary of blue whale sightings made during a previous seismic survey in this area to the West of Kangaroo Island. A more detailed report can be found on the PIRSA website at: http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/27149/epp32report_bluewhales.pdf As you may be aware, the relevant legislation (Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 [OPGGS Act]) and supporting regulations require Bight Petroleum to prepare and seek Government approval for an Environmental Plan (EP) that will govern the proposed survey operations. As part of the process of preparing the Environmental Plan, Bight Petroleum is seeking to consult with relevant stakeholders to identify any issues, values or sensitivities with respect to the proposed survey operations and the existing natural and socio-economic environment of the survey area. The proposed survey will also be referred under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act in accordance with guidelines issued by the Australian Government in relation to managing interactions with marine mammals. These guidelines are available at: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/seismic.html To assist us with preparing our Environmental Plan and submitting our EPBC Referral, Bight Petroleum would be grateful if you, on behalf of your organization, would provide us with feedback on the proposed operations that you consider relevant to your current activities and interests in and around the survey area. For your added information the attached appendix contains an updated list of other stakeholders whose views we are seeking.

http://www.appea.com.au/images/stories/Policy_-_Environment/Seismic_and_the_Marine_Environment.pdf

http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/27149/epp32report_bluewhales.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/seismic.html


We look forward to your response. In the meantime, should you have any comments or queries please do not hesitate to contact either myself on general and corporate matters or John Hughes ([email protected], phone: 0428 786 781) on operational or specific environmental matters. Further information regarding Bight Petroleum is available at www.bightpetroleum.com Yours sincerely,

Iain MacDougall Chief Operating Officer Bight Petroleum Pty Ltd Phone: 08 8104 3235 (direct) e-mail: [email protected] Attachments:

Stakeholder Distribution List

Location Map showing licence areas and proposed survey area

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.bightpetroleum.com/

mailto:[email protected]


Attachment 1: Stakeholder Distribution List

Australian Conservation Foundation

Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF)

Australian Government Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism (DRET)

Australian Government Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population & Communities (DSEWPaC)

Australian Government Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA)

Australian Marine Conservation Society

Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)

Australian Seafood Industry Council (ASIC)

Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Association (ASBTIA)

Blue Whale Study Inc. (Deakin Whale Ecology Group)

Boating Industry Association of SA

City of Port Lincoln

Commonwealth Fisheries Association

Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO)

Conservation Council of SA

Defence Science and Technology Organization (DSTO)

District Council of Lower Eyre Peninsula

Eyre Regional Development Board

Federal Member for Grey

Federal Member for Mayo

Flinders Ports Pty Ltd

Flinders University Cetacean Ecology, Behaviour and Evolution Lab (CEBEL)

Geoscience Australia

Great Australian Bight Industry Association (GABIA)

Greenpeace Australia

International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)

Kangaroo Island Council

The Lukin Group

The Marine Fisheries Association of SA

Migratory Wildlife Network

National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA)

The Nature Conservancy

Pew Environmental Group

Port Lincoln Aboriginal Community

Primary Industries and Regions SA (PIRSA) – Fisheries & Aquaculture

Resource Assessment Group (RAG)

The Rock Lobster Advisory Council

SA Aquaculture Council Inc.

SA Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)

SA Department of Manufacturing, Innovation, Trade, Resources and Energy (DMITRE) – Petroleum

SA Minister for Mineral Resources & Energy – The Hon. Tom Koutsantonis

SA Minister for Agriculture Fisheries and Forests – The Hon. Gail Gago

Senator Penny Wright


Shipping Australia

Small Pelagic Concession Holders (19 organizations)

South Australia Research and Development Institute (SARDI)

South Australian Chamber of Mines and Energy (SACOME)

South Australian Museum

South Australian Recreational Fishing Advisory Council

South East Trawl Fishing Industry Association

Southern Squid Jig Fishery

State Member for Finniss

State Member for Flinders

State Member for Goyder

The Sustainable Shark Fishing Association

Tourism SA

The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society

The Wilderness Society (South Australia) Inc.

Tuna Boat Operators Association SA

Wildcatch SA

WWF Australia

EPP41 & EPP42

134 30 00E 135 00 00E 135 30 00E 136 00 00E 136 30 00E 137 00 00E 137 30 00E

134 30 00E 135 00 00E 135 30 00E 136 00 00E 136 30 00E 137 00 00E 137 30 00E

36 0

0 00

S35

30

00S

35 0

0 00

S

36 0

0 00

S35

30

00S

35 0

0 00

S34

30

00S

TRUE NORTH IS SHOWNFOR THE CENTRE OF THE MAP

Kangaroo Island

Eyre

Peninsula

105 km

105 km

0 20 40 60 80 100

KILOMETRES

Yorke

Peninsula

64km

64 km

61 km61km

SURVEY AREA

SURVEY AREA

EPP 41

EPP 42

200 m

1000 m

2000 m

EPP41 & EPP42

134 30 00E 135 00 00E 135 30 00E 136 00 00E 136 30 00E 137 00 00E 137 30 00E

134 30 00E 135 00 00E 135 30 00E 136 00 00E 136 30 00E 137 00 00E 137 30 00E

36 0

0 00

S35

30

00S

35 0

0 00

S

36 0

0 00

S35

30

00S

35 0

0 00

S34

30

00S

Anna 1

Borda 1

Curramulka 2

Duntroon 1 Echidna 1

Edithburgh 1

Eyre Peninsula Petroleum

Gravestock 1

Greenly 1

Investigator 1Investigator 2

Minlaton 1

Minlaton 2Minlaton Northwest 1

Minlaton South Bore 1

Peninsula Oil 1

Peninsula Oil 2

Platypus 1

Ramsay Oil Bore 1

Sleaford 1

Sleaford 2

Sleaford 4

Stansbury West 1

SYC 101

Vivonne 1

27 April 2012

Margi

Text Box

Annex B

preliminary comment on proposed exploration in permit...

Documents