Appendix F16
Environmental Resources Management 2010
Browse Upstream LNG Development: Light Impact Assessment, Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited, pp.
Browse FLNG Development Draft Environmental Impact Statement EPBC 2013/7079 November 2014
Browse Upstream LNG Development Light Impact Assessment
FINAL
0117125
Woodside
October 2010 FINAL REPORT
Woodside
Browse Upstream LNG Development
Light Impact Assessment
December 2010
Reference: 0117125
Environmental Resources Management Australia 6th Floor, 172 St Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000 Telephone +61 8 9321 5200 Facsimile +61 8 9321 5262 www.erm.com
Browse Upstream LNG Development
Light Impact Assessment
FINAL
Woodside
Approved by: Justin Chidlow December 2010 Position: Project Manager Signed:
Date: 2 December, 2010 Approved by: Megan Lawson Position: Partner Director Signed: 0111634
Date: 2 December, 2010 www.erm.com
Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd Quality System
Quality-ISO-9001-PMS302
This report has been prepared in accordance with the scope of services described in the contract or agreement between Environmental Resources Management Australia Pty Ltd ABN 12 002 773 248 (ERM) and the Client. The report relies upon data, surveys, measurements and results taken at or under the particular times and conditions specified herein. Any findings, conclusions or recommendations only apply to the aforementioned circumstances and no greater reliance should be assumed or drawn by the Client. Furthermore, the report has been prepared solely for use by the Client and ERM accepts no responsibility for its use by other parties. FINAL CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 METHODOLOGY 4
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED LIGHT SOURCE(S)
2.1 LIGHT SOURCES 5 2.1.1 NAVIGATIONAL LIGHTING 6 2.1.2 FUNCTIONAL LIGHTING 6 2.1.3 FLARING 6
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE POTENTIAL PHYSICAL CHANGE TO THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
3.1 LIGHT CHARACTERISTICS AND MODELLING 7 3.1.1 LINE OF SIGHT ASSESSMENT 8 3.1.2 LIGHT DENSITY (LUX) 12 3.1.3 LIGHT WAVELENGTH 13
4 IDENTIFICATION OF LIGHT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
4.1 ZOOPLANKTON 18 4.1.1 INTRODUCTION 18 4.1.2 NORTH-WEST MARINE REGION & UPSTREAM DEVELOPMENT AREA 19 4.1.3 IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT 19 4.2 CORALS 19 4.2.1 INTRODUCTION 19 4.2.2 NORTH-WEST MARINE REGION & UPSTREAM DEVELOPMENT AREA 20 4.2.3 IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT 21 4.3 FISH 21 4.3.1 INTRODUCTION 21 4.3.2 NORTH-WEST MARINE REGION & UPSTREAM DEVELOPMENT AREA 21 4.3.3 IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT 22 4.4 MARINE REPTILES 23 4.4.1 SEA SNAKES 23 4.4.2 TURTLES 24 4.5 SEABIRDS AND MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS 30 4.5.1 INTRODUCTION 30 4.5.2 SEABIRDS 30 4.5.3 MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS 31 4.6 MARINE MAMMALS 34 4.6.1 INTRODUCTION 34 4.6.2 CETACEANS 34 4.6.3 DUGONGS 35 4.6.4 IMPACT OF ARTIFICIAL LIGHT 36
5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
5.1 POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SENSITIVE RECEPTORS 37 5.1.1 ZOOPLANKTON 37 5.1.2 CORALS 38 5.1.3 FISH 38 5.1.4 MARINE REPTILES 38 5.1.5 SEABIRDS AND MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS 40 5.2 MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT 40
6 RESIDUAL RISK AND CONCLUSION
7 REFERENCES
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 2.1 SOURCE AND DURATION OF LIGHTING FOR EACH PHASE OF THE UPSTREAM DEVELOPMENT 5
TABLE 3.1 LIGHT SOURCE SUMMARY FOR INFIELD PLATFORMS 8
TABLE 3.2 TYPICAL LUX LEVELS (MICRON TECHNOLOGY 2007) 12
TABLE 4.1 RECEPTOR IDENTIFICATION 18
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 3.1 THEORETICAL VISIBILITY OF LIGHT SOURCES ON THE LOWER, MIDDLE AND UPPER DECKS AND FLARE TOWER OF THE INFIELD PLATFORMS 10
FIGURE 3.2 THEORETICAL VISIBILITY OF LIGHT FROM THE LOWER, MIDDLE AND UPPER DECKS AND FLARE TOWER FROM THE DRILL RIG LOCATED AT THE WESTERN MANIFOLD WITHIN THE CHANNEL OF SCOTT REEF 11
FIGURE 3.3 LUX LEVELS FROM THE DRILL RIG AT SOUTH LAGOON, SCOTT REEF 14
FIGURE 3.4 MODELLED LUX LEVELS FROM THE TOROSA INFIELD PLATFORM 15
FIGURE 3.5 MODELLED LUX LEVELS FROM A DRILL RIG AT THE WESTERN MANIFOLD AND AT A HYPOTHETICAL MANIFOLD LOCATION CLOSEST TO SANDY ISLET 16
FIGURE 3.6 SPECTRAL SIGNATURE OF DRILL RIG LOCATED AT SCOTT REEF 17
FIGURE 4.1 MAJOR ROUTES OF THE EAA FLYWAY AND POTENTIAL FLIGHT PATHS IN THE NORTH-WEST MARINE REGION (ADAPTED FROM MILTON 2003 AND BAMFORD ET AL. 2008) 33
1 INTRODUCTION
Woodside Energy Ltd (Woodside) proposes to develop the Torosa, Brecknock, and Calliance Gas Fields within the Browse Basin, approximately 290 km off the Kimberley coast in Western Australia. These three gas fields form the Browse Upstream LNG Development (the Upstream Development).
This document examines the light emissions from activities associated with the proposed Upstream Development and their potential impact on identified receptors.
1.1 METHODOLOGY
The following methodology has been prepared by Environmental Resources Management Australia (ERM) to determine the likely impact of artificial light pollution on marine life in proximity to the Upstream Development:
1) Define and describe the proposed light source(s) (Section 2).
2) Describe the potential physical change to the site and surrounding areas (Section 3).
3) Identify the light sensitive receptors based on their likely habitation relative to the proposed light sources, and describe their known susceptibility to light pollution (Section 4).
4) Identify the potential impacts resulting from the proposed light source(s) and identify and recommend appropriate methods of mitigation (Section 5).
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 4
2 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED LIGHT SOURCE(S)
Light spill can be defined as any light emitted from an artificial light source which is extraneous to that required to illuminate a particular object, surface or plane.
Project components of the Upstream Development are to be artificially lit to varying extents during all phases of the development, therefore generating light spill. Light emissions will occur from temporary and permanent infrastructure including vessels.
This section discusses the sources of light associated with the proposed Upstream Development.
2.1 LIGHT SOURCES
Sources of artificial light for the development will include:
• navigational and functional lighting on vessels, drill rigs, infield platforms and central processing facilities (CPF)
• flaring on the infield platforms and CPF.
The location and source of lighting for each phase of the development are described in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 Source and Duration of Lighting for Each Phase of the Upstream Development
Activity Source Location Duration Construction & Operation Decommissioning Commissioning
Functional and Brecknock, Temporary 9 9 9 Navigation lighting: Calliance, Torosa Drill rig
Functional and Brecknock, Long-term 9 9 Navigation lighting: Calliance, Torosa, Infield platforms and Shelf CPF
Functional and All Long-term 9 9 9 Navigation lighting: (intermittent and transient) Vessels
Flaring Brecknock, Continuous 9 9 Calliance, operational Drill rig Torosa purge (2 m flare Infield platforms height) and intermittent CPF controlled and emergency
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 5
2.1.1 Navigational Lighting
The lighting of drill rigs, vessels and offshore platforms is required to satisfy the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA), Prevention of Collision Convention (Marine Order 30, Issue 7) requirements and the International Association of Marine Aids to Navigation and Lighthouse Authorities (IALA) “Recommendations for the marking of offshore structures”.
2.1.2 Functional Lighting
Functional lighting is required on vessel, drill rigs, infield platforms and CPF at levels that provide a safe working environment for personnel. Lighting typically consists of bright white (metal halide, halogen, fluorescent) lights, used in accordance with safety requirements.
2.1.3 Flaring
Controlled flaring is part of the operational procedure of start-up and shutdown and will occur infrequently, approximately <1% of the time. Flaring will only be undertaken to safely dispose of vapours and liquids containing hydrocarbons that are produced or released during emergency situations, upsets and shutdowns of the platforms, thus this form of light is regarding as being temporary. The height of the emergency flare on infield platforms will be approximately 50 m. The continuous operational purge flare is 2 m in height and light from this source is expected to be minimal.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 6
3 DESCRIPTION OF THE POTENTIAL PHYSICAL CHANGE TO THE EXISTING ENVIRONMENT
The Upstream Development is located within the North-west Marine Region and covers a broad area from 3 nm from the Kimberley coast, along the continental shelf and the marginal Ashmore Terrace to the edge of the continental slope. The region is relatively shallow, with water depths of less than 500 m over more than 50% of its area.
The North-west Marine Region is large in area and contains a range of marine habitats including internationally significant breeding and feeding grounds for a number of EPBC Act listed threatened and migratory marine species such as humpback whales, turtles, dugongs, whale sharks, seabirds and migratory shorebirds.
The Upstream Development will be located in close proximity to a number of sensitive receptors, namely Scott Reef, but also Seringapatam Reef and the Lacepede Islands.
The amount of light spill emanating from development activities will vary according to the number of light sources, wavelength and intensity of light sources, location of and/or placement of fittings and the method of light switching (rapid or gradual turning on of light sources). These aspects of light pollution may have different effects on the receiving environment and receptors.
The likely impact that light from the Upstream Development will have on the existing environment is discussed below.
3.1 LIGHT CHARACTERISTICS AND MODELLING
There are three factors that are used in assessing the impact of artificial light on receptors. These are:
• line of sight
• light density
• light wavelength
Light characteristics and modelling of light sources for the Upstream Development are based on lighting data (lux levels and wavelength) obtained whilst drilling the Torosa South-1 appraisal well on the edge of the South Reef lagoon and ambient data when no activities were occurring at Scott Reef (SKM and ERM 2008). The rig light level data is comparable to the type of rig that will be used for development drilling and the light output for the infield platforms and CPF.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 7
An assessment of ecological receptors for light within the Upstream Development identified Scott Reef and in particular Sandy Islet, where green turtles are known to nest, as the main ecological receptor (Section 4.4). Hence, modelling of light for this assessment is focused on the facilities near Scott Reef which are:
• drill rig while operating for approximately 12 months at both the western manifold and eastern manifold within the channel between the North and South Reefs (one rig drilling at any one time)
• Torosa, Brecknock and Calliance permanent infield platforms
Light from the CPF, located on the continental shelf was not modelled as it will be 90 km from Scott Reef.
Light from vessels associated with the development has not been assessed due to its temporary and transient nature.
3.1.1 Line of Sight Assessment
A line of sight assessment was used to determine the potential extent of visibility of the proposed light sources. Line of sight is calculated using a Line of Sight Calculator (Kagstrom 2005) based on the following key factors:
• The location and height above sea level of the light source;
• The distance between the light source and the viewing location and height (where the light is viewed from), and;
• The curvature of the earth’s surface.
Lighting on infield platforms will be located at three main working levels as described in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Light Source Summary for Infield Platforms
Light Source Level Height Above Sea Level
Main Deck (lower deck) 18.6 m
Drill Floor (middle deck) 30 m
Derrick (upper deck) 48 m
Flare Tower 137 m
The line of sight assessment shows that the theoretical limit of visibility for a rig or infield platform can extend up to 26.6 km for lights located on the upper deck, which are approximately 48 m above sea level. Lights of the lower and middle decks would be visible at distances of 16.6 km and 21 km, respectively. The flare tower will be approximately 137 m above sea level, and the theoretical limit of visibility for light emissions from the top of this structure is
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 8
44.9 km. Two types of flaring will occur during operation. There will be a continual purge flare of 2 m in height which will be visible up to 45.2 km. During emergencies, a flare of up to 50 m in height may be required, which would be visible up to 54.2 km away.
Deck lighting from the Brecknock and Calliance platforms will not be visible at Scott Reef (Figure 3.1). Light from the flare tower (emergency and purge flare) from the Brecknock platform may be visible from the southern portion of South Reef. While the deck light sources on the Torosa platform may be visible from North Reef and parts of South Reef, deck lighting will not be visible from Sandy Islet. Light sources from the flare tower at Torosa platform will be visible from all areas of Scott Reef and Seringapatam Reef (Figure 3.1). Deck and flare tower lighting from the temporary drill rig located at the western manifold location within the Scott Reef channel will be visible from all areas of Scott Reef (Figure 3.2). Although light will be visible from the Torosa platform and the drill rig operating in the channel within parts of Scott Reef and at Sandy Islet at the closest source (Sandy Islet while drilling at the western manifold), the light will appear as a small lit object, much less apparent than a quarter moon (refer to Section 3.1.2). Due to the height of Sandy Islet (maximum 5 m above sea level), lighting from some decks are not expected to be visible from small areas on the western side of the islet (Figure 3.2).
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 9
Figure 3.1 Theoretical Visibility of Light Sources on the Lower, Middle and Upper Decks and Flare Tower of the Infield Platforms
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 10
Figure 3.2 Theoretical Visibility of Light from the Lower, Middle and Upper Decks and Flare Tower from the Drill Rig Located at the Western Manifold within the Channel of Scott Reef
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 11
3.1.2 Light Density (Lux)
The density of light (Luminous flux density) is used as a measure of the intensity, as perceived by the human eye, of light that arrives at or leaves a surface. The density of light is measured in Lux (lumens/m2), where one Lux is one lumen of light density per square meter. Illuminance is the total amount of light when it arrives at a surface and luminous emittance as it leaves the surface. Light density decreases as distance increases from the source of light.
Light glow, also referred to as cumulative luminous flux density, is the overall light dispersed into the atmosphere from a light source and is a summation of light spill and light emanating from the illuminated surfaces. Light glow is highly variable and is compounded by the scattering of light off airborne particulate matter, such as clouds and sea spray. Currently there is no sufficiently accurate method of calculating the potential glow of a proposed facility, particularly without a detailed lighting design.
The baseline survey of light density at Scott Reef was undertaken during a “new moon” to determine the darkest natural conditions which ranged between 0.00 and 0.01 Lux (SKM and ERM 2008). Table 3.2 shows that typical night time background Lux readings range from 0.1 to 0.0001 which would be applicable to all areas within the Upstream Development given the lack of artificial light sources in the area and has been used as the background levels for this light impact assessment.
Table 3.2 Typical Lux levels (Micron Technology 2007)
Light Type Luminous Flux Density (LUX) Direct sunlight 100,000 - 130,000 Full daylight, indirect sunlight 10,000 - 20,000 Overcast day 1,000 Very dark day 100 Twilight 10 Deep twilight 1 Full moon 0.1 Quarter moon 0.01 Moonless clear night sky 0.001 Moonless overcast night sky 0.0001
Lux levels from the development can be predicted by mapping the light characteristics from data collected whilst drilling the Torosa South-1 well. The light density of the rig lighting was highest at 8.9 Lux, located 100 m from the rig and lowest at 0.03 Lux at the extremities of the survey grid approximately 1.4 km from the rig (Figure 3.3) (SKM and ERM 2008). The results demonstrate that light density from the rig attenuated to below 1.00 Lux at a distance of 300 m. Also, at the extremities of the survey grid (between 1 and 1.4 km) Lux readings generally ranged between 0.03 and 0.1 Lux.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 12
Modelling of the rig Lux data for the Torosa platform (Figure 3.4) and a drill rig located on the Torosa western manifold (Figure 3.5) predicted that light levels up to 800 m from the rig or Torosa platform are > 0.1 Lux which is comparable to ambient light levels during full moon to twilight. Out to 1.2 km from the light sources there is an almost imperceptible change, indiscernible from background light levels and comparable to ambient light levels during a quarter moon to full moon night sky (0.01 Lux – 0.1 Lux). Up to 12.6 km, Lux levels are <0.01, which is comparable to a moonless clear night sky to quarter moon sky. Beyond 12.6 km there is no measurable change to the background light levels.
To further investigate that light spill from a facility will have a limited influence on marine receptors at Sandy Islet, a feasible hypothetical manifold location was chosen as close as possible to Sandy Islet (Figure 3.5). Modelling of light spill at this location indicated that the maximum density of light reaching Sandy Islet is <0.01 Lux (comparable to the light level on a night with a clear sky and a quarter moon) (Figure 3.5).
3.1.3 Light Wavelength
The wavelength (spectral signature) of a light source is determined by what range of nanometres (nm) within the electromagnetic spectrum the light is emitted. The wavelength at which fauna can sense light is an important consideration in determining their corresponding attraction and sensitivity to light emissions. The wavelength at which light is visible varies from species to species, for example, the human visible light range, is approximately between 400 – 700 nm, while for turtles it is 340 – 700 nm.
The measured spectral signature of light emissions from the rig drilling at Torosa South-1 was between 530 – 620 nm (Figure 3.6) (SKM and ERM 2008). The wavelength transmission was shown to attenuate, over increasing distance from the rig, to levels similar to ambient conditions at the extremities of the sampling grid (1.4 km).
Light emitted from a natural gas flare has a peak spectral signature in the range of 750 – 900 nm (Hick 1995 in Pendoley 2000).
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 13
Figure 3.3 Lux Levels from the Drill Rig at South Lagoon, Scott Reef
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 14
Figure 3.4 Modelled Lux Levels from the Torosa Infield Platform
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 15
Figure 3.5 Modelled Lux Levels from a Drill Rig at the Western Manifold and at a Hypothetical Manifold Location Closest to Sandy Islet
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 16
Figure 3.6 Spectral Signature of Drill Rig Located at Scott Reef
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 17
4 IDENTIFICATION OF LIGHT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
Artificial light can disrupt biological processes that rely on natural light or visual cues. Marine fauna that are known to be sensitive to light and may be disorientated, attracted to or repelled by light spill, include marine mammals, fish, marine reptiles, birds, plankton and corals.
Deep-sea organisms (below the photic zone) are unlikely to be affected by the artificial light emitted by the Upstream Development due to light attenuation as depth increases. Shallow water organisms (including nocturnal species) will be less sensitive to artificial light because light is never completely absent in the photic zone (sun and moon/star light).
Species expected to inhabit or migrate through the proposed development area that may be impacted by artificial light are identified in Table 4.1 and discussed further below.
Table 4.1 Receptor Identification
Species Documentation of susceptibility to light impacts in the literature
Zooplankton Limited
Corals Limited
Fish* Limited
Marine Reptiles* Available
Seabirds and Migratory Shorebirds* Available
Cetaceans* None
* Includes species protected under EPBC Act
4.1 ZOOPLANKTON
4.1.1 Introduction
Zooplankton include representatives of all the major invertebrate phyla, and include both holoplankton (permanent members of the plankton) and meroplankton (temporary members of the plankton). Meroplankton consists of larval and juvenile stages of animals that adopt a different life habit once they mature. Numerous fish species are planktonic in the early stages of their development (Swadling et al. 2008). Zooplankton generally feed on phytoplankton, detritus and other zooplankton, and as a result are primarily found in the upper water column where food resources are most abundant.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 18
4.1.2 North-West Marine Region & Upstream Development Area
The seas surrounding Australia contain a relatively low zooplankton biomass, particularly in the open ocean (Tranter 1962). Spatial and temporal patterns in the distribution and abundance of macrozooplankton on the North-west Shelf are influenced by sporadic climatic and oceanographic events, with large inter-annual changes in assemblages (Wilson et al. 2003). Amphipods, euphausiids, copepods, mysids and cumaceans are among the most common components of the zooplankton in the region (Wilson et al. 2003).
Zooplankton biomass and abundance within the South Reef lagoon tends to be greater in summer than in winter, and is dominated by calanoid and cyclopoid copepods (Brinkman et al. 2009). The community composition of the surface mixed layer at the deep-water sites resembled that observed in the lagoon, with larvaceans the most abundant of the non-copepod plankton in both the lagoon and deeper waters. Jaspers et al. (2009) also found that larvaceans comprised a large proportion of the summer plankton in the Indian Ocean, and it is suggested that, in terms of total production, these animals will exceed the contribution by copepods. Sampling of the deep channel between North Reef and South Reef suggest that zooplankton is more concentrated in the mixed layer of the deep channel than at other locations in the Scott Reef area (Brinkman et al. 2009).
4.1.3 Impact of Artificial Light
Light has been reported as a fundamental factor controlling the daily vertical migration of zooplankton (Haney 1993). Light not only serves as the proximate cue triggering the ascent of zooplankton, but it also reduces the amplitude of migration if light levels are sufficiently high at night. Plankton migrate closer to the surface on dark nights than they do on clear, moonlit nights (Dietz 1962). Alterations of the ascent and descent cycles of marine plankton, may indirectly affect the feeding of marine species. Some species of plankton have been reported foraging in darkness to avoid predation, only to be intensively predated when illuminated by a rising full moon (Gliwicz 1986).
4.2 CORALS
4.2.1 Introduction
Corals are made up of colonies of individual polyps, which asexually divide to form new polyps thereby increasing the overall coral colony size (Veron 2000). Corals belong to two groups; the soft octocorals, and the hard scleractinian corals which secrete an external limestone skeleton. Scleractinian corals are important reef builders and under suitable conditions can form geological structures (ie reef) over time. Some soft corals (especially those in the family
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 19
Alcyoniidae) may also contribute to reef-building. Coral reefs support a range of species providing shelter, feeding, spawning and nursery areas, resulting in the large and diverse community for which they are renowned. Species using reef habitat for food and shelter include those with protected status under the EPBC Act such as marine turtles and sea snakes. Whilst individual coral species are not protected under the EPBC Act, the heritage value of coral reefs is recognised by designation of Marine Protected Areas and listing on Heritage registers
Population maintenance and recovery of corals is through release of larvae or release of eggs and sperm (broadcast spawning) which undergo fertilisation and development in the water column. Most reef-building corals (ie about 75%) "broadcast spawn" by releasing gametes into the water column. Corals that do not broadcast spawn are called “brooders”. These corals release sperm but harbour the eggs, allowing larger, negatively buoyant, planulae larvae to form which are later released ready to settle.
4.2.2 North-West Marine Region & Upstream Development Area
Coral reefs in the North-west Marine Region fall into two general groups: the fringing reefs around coastal islands and the mainland shore; and large platform reefs, banks and shelf-edge atolls offshore. The Kimberley coast supports extensive reef systems, north of Cape Leveque (Masini et al 2008). Coral reefs are also well developed around offshore islands including Ashmore, Cartier, Hibernia, Seringapatam and Scott Reefs, Browse Island and the Rowley Shoals. Coral distribution is likely driven by water depth and availability of hard substratum for anchorage.
The export pipeline corridor is predominantly soft substratum, supporting patchy sparse soft corrals and occasional hard corals in the shallower depths. Surveys around the interfield pipeline route and gas fields at the CPF observed no soft corals, and are assumed to be limited to scattered isolated individuals if present (Gardline 2009). Deepwater environments were also observed to be unsuitable habitat for hard coral growth and none were recorded in the deepwater habitats of the development area. (Hudson and Fletcher 2006, URS 2007a, Gardline 2009).
A diverse assemblage of 306 hard coral species from 60 genera and 14 families have been recorded at Scott Reef from shallow and deep water environments (Gilmour et al. 2009a). Coral populations at Scott Reef rely on self- replenishment, with broadcast spawners spawning twice a year with gametogenesis cycles during spring and autumn; unlike single mass spawning events at most other reefs around Australia (Gilmour et al. 2009a, 2009b). Brooders are likely to have multiple gametogenic cycles and spawn several times throughout the year (Gilmour et al. 2008, 2009a).
Since 1994, Scott Reef’s coral communities have been subject to three major disturbances: a widespread thermal-induced bleaching event in 1998 resulted in a 75% decrease in cover of hard and soft corals and sponges in shallow
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 20
waters (<10 m); a Category 5 cyclone (Cyclone Fay) in 2004 caused major physical damage to coral communities on the exposed eastern flank of the reef; and a less severe cyclone in 2007 (Cyclone George) caused further localised damage, particularly to very shallow (<5 m) exposed coral communities (Gilmour et al. 2008). Despite these disturbances, the cover of hard corals at reef slope sites was 37% in 2008 (Gilmour et al. 2009a), which is close to that in the years prior to the bleaching. However, some areas of Scott Reef, notably large areas of North Reef lagoon are still in the early stages of recovery (Gilmour et al. 2009a). The cover of soft corals in 2008, was half that prior to the bleaching, and whereas the recovery of hard corals has accelerated in recent years, the recovery of soft corals each year has remained static since the bleaching. This is probably due to the slow growth rates and limited sexual reproduction of these taxa (Fabricius 1995).
4.2.3 Impact of Artificial Light
The closest coral habitat to the Upstream Development area is located within the Scott Reef system (Figure 3.5Figure 3.5).
The environmental factors that provide cues for corals to synchronise reproductive cycles are likely to include sea temperature, lunar tidal or nocturnal moonlight cycles, and daily light/dark cycles (Harrison and Wallace 1990). Therefore, artificial light sources that impede or disturb natural lighting cycles may affect spawning.
4.3 FISH
4.3.1 Introduction
Fish communities occupy a range of habitats from highly diverse coral reefs, where up to 200 species may be present on less than a hectare of coral reef, to deep-water habitats below the euphotic zone (>200 m depth in open ocean), and to the open-water pelagic zone. Fish play an important ecological role and form vital links in many trophic ecosystems where small predators such as herring and sardines feed on plankton and are subsequently preyed upon by higher predators such as sharks, tuna and mackerel.
4.3.2 North-West Marine Region & Upstream Development Area
Provincial bioregionalisation of Australia’s demersal continental slope of the North-west Marine Region is based on the distribution of demersal fish, and includes three areas: the Timor Province, North Western Transition and North Western Province.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 21
The North-west Marine Region contains a diverse range of fish of tropical Indo-west Pacific affinity (Allen et al. 1988). There is an estimated 1,431 species in the North-west Marine Region (Last et al. 2005). Last et al. (2005) described the Timor Province as the most strongly defined province for demersal slope fish species in the area, with the Timor Province, North Western Transition and North Western Province being characterised by the highest level of endemism and species diversity of anywhere else along the Australian continental slope.
Fish assemblages within the Upstream Development areas occupy a diverse range of habitats from shallow water coral reef species at Scott Reef to open water pelagics at all other development locations and are typical of the fish communities and species represented within the Timor Province and North- west Shelf Province.
Three threatened fish species: the whale shark (Rhincodon typus), the green sawfish (Pristis zijsron) and the dwarf sawfish (Pristis clavata) listed as Vulnerable under the EPBC Act and may occur in, or migrate through, the Upstream Development areas. In addition, three fish species listed under the EPBC Act as Migratory Marine Species may also occur within the Upstream Development area: the whale shark (Rhincodon typus) and two species of mako sharks; longfin mako (Isurus paucus) and shortfin mako (Isurus oxyrinchus).
A total of 721 species have been recorded in both shallow and deeper waters from Scott Reef and its surrounds (Gilmour et al. 2009c). This compares with 568 and 569 fish species recorded at Ashmore Reef and Rowley Shoals respectively (Gilmour et al. 2009c). EPBC Act-protected marine species that are known to, or may, occur in the Scott Reef area include a number of species of pipefish and seahorse.
4.3.3 Impact of Artificial Light
The response of fish to light emissions has been shown to differ depending on species and habit. Artificial lighting can change ambient light regimes and pose risks of increased mortality through changes to natural night time distribution and consequently alter predator and prey relationships (Nightingale and Simenstad 2001b; Marchesan et al. 2006).
Artificial light may also exclude nocturnal foragers/predators from an area, allowing diurnal species to benefit from increased access to resources. An estimate on the effective range of light traps at the water surface in attracting fish larvae and juveniles is approximately 90 m (Milicich et al. 1992). Due to the greater propagation of light from above water lights and the reflective properties of light on the sea surface, the range of attraction from such sources compared to underwater lights on fish traps is unknown but likely to be on the order of at most a few hundred metres and probably less.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 22
4.4 MARINE REPTILES
Sea snakes and marine turtles are two groups of marine reptiles known to inhabit the North-west Marine Region and may be potentially affected by artificial light sources from the Upstream Development.
4.4.1 Sea Snakes
Introduction
Sea snakes are essentially tropical in distribution, and habitats reflect influences of factors such as water depth, nature of seabed, turbidity and season (Heatwole and Cogger 1993). Sea snakes are abundant throughout the shallow seas and inshore waters of tropical Australia, and twenty species are reported to occur in the North-west Marine Region (Wilson and Swan 2003). They occur widely from coral reefs to turbid inshore waters and estuaries, but there are few species known from the region that inhabit deep-water, oceanic environments. Tagging experiments on Ashmore Reef have revealed that some species of sea snake remain resident in localised areas for some years (Guinea and Whiting 2005). All sea snakes are listed marine species under the EPBC Act.
North-West Marine Region & Upstream Development Area
Sea snakes were recorded in abundance along the Kimberley coastline and offshore to Scott Reef during aerial and vessel marine megafauna surveys (Jenner and Jenner 2009a, SKM 2009, RPS 2010b). Clusters in the distribution of sea snakes were recorded, but there were no patterns identified in the location of clusters over time. The majority of sightings were in waters between 10 and 50 m deep (RPS 2010b). Sea snakes are therefore likely to be present in the shallow waters of the export pipeline; however, abundance of sea snakes the deep-water areas of the Upstream Development is likely to be small.
Six species have been identified at Scott Reef: the olive sea snake (Aipysurus laevis), turtle-headed sea snake (Emydocephalus annulatus), dusky sea snake (Aipysurus fuscus), Dubois’ sea snake (Aipysurus duboisii), slender neck sea snake (Hydrophis coggeri), and the horned sea snake (Acalyptophis peronii) (URS 2006, 2007b, Minton and Heatwole 1975). Of these, only the dusky sea snake is restricted to the North-west Marine Region. Surveys did not identify any areas of Scott Reef supporting large sea snake aggregations or critical habitats for juveniles and adults; in general, juveniles and adults shared the same reef habitats (URS 2006; 2007b). The more complex habitats, with coral stands and sand and rubble bottoms, appeared to support more sea snakes than the more impoverished or damaged habitats.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 23
The surveys also did not detect a peak in either sea snake numbers or activity periods at Scott Reef, leading to the conclusion that the snakes that were seen are resident on the reef and that there is very limited exchange with other reefs in the region. This is supported by a study of the olive sea snake in northern Australia, which found there to be low gene flow among populations from the offshore reefs and shoals in the Timor Sea (Lukoschek et al. 2007). Courtship and mating behaviours were reported in pairs of olive, turtle- headed and Dubois’ sea snakes in September and in pairs of turtle-headed sea snakes in November. Dusky sea snakes have been reported mating in May at Ashmore Reef (URS 2007b).
Impact of Artificial Light
Sea snakes are known to inhabit the Upstream Development area. The effect of artificial light on sea snakes is largely unknown; however, they may experience indirect effects such as changes in predator-prey relationships, disorientation, attraction or repulsion.
4.4.2 Turtles
Introduction
There are seven species of marine turtles worldwide and they are found in every major ocean. All species are internationally listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2010), the Convention of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS) and the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species of Fauna and Flora (CITES).
Marine turtles are long-lived and may take between 20 and 50 years to reach sexual maturity (Miller 1997). All species share similar life cycle characteristics, which include migration for breeding from foraging areas to mating and nesting areas. Habitat-use varies, depending on the stage of the life-cycle. All species, with the exception of flatback turtles (Natator depressus), have an oceanic pelagic stage before they move into coastal or nearshore waters to begin the breeding cycles.
North-West Marine Region and Upstream Development Area
Six species of marine turtle occur in Australian waters, five of which have been recorded in the North-west Marine Region and known to be present in the Upstream Development area. They are listed vulnerable or endangered species under the EPBC Act: the vulnerable green turtle (Chelonia mydas), vulnerable hawksbill turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata), vulnerable flatback turtle (Natator depressus), endangered loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) and the endangered leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea).
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 24
Owing to their migratory habits, all five species of turtle could be present, albeit in low densities, in open ocean habitats across the region, including the deep-water development areas. There is not likely to be turtle feeding habitat in the deep-water development areas, and it is unlikely that turtles would use these areas for any significant period of time. There is suitable feeding habitat along the shallower parts of the export pipeline route, and this may mean a higher use by all species. Aerial and vessel surveys conducted along the coastline of the Dampier Peninsula and offshore to Scott Reef in 2009 recorded turtles concentrated in nearshore areas along the coastline where water depths were less than 30 m, and around Scott Reef (RPS 2010c). There were only occasional sightings between the Lacepede Islands and Scott Reef. However, turtle numbers at Scott Reef increase during the nesting season, with aggregations reported to occur in shallow reef flat habitat bordering Sandy Islet. A long-term monitoring program at Scott Reef has recorded green turtles and a single hawksbill turtle nesting on Sandy Islet (Guinea 2009).
Green Turtles
Green turtles are found in tropical and subtropical waters throughout the world. Western Australia supports one of the largest green turtle populations remaining in the world (Limpus 2009b). The Lacepede Islands in Western Australia have been identified as critical nesting and inter-nesting habitat for the green turtle (Environment Australia 2003). They comprise the largest green turtle rookeries in Western Australia, with nightly nesting effort numbering in the thousands (DEWHA 2008). Nesting surveys in December 2009 found the highest density of emergent/nesting green turtles on the north-eastern beach of West Lacepede Island (RPS 2010c).
Genetic studies of the green turtle populations in Western Australia, based on mitochondrial DNA from female turtles, indicate that there are five discrete genetic stocks, described as Management Units (MU), in the eastern Indian Ocean; these include a North-west Shelf MU (Lacepede Islands, North West Cape and Barrow Island), a Scott Reef-Browse Island MU, and an Ashmore Reef MU (Dethmers et al. 2006).
It is recognised that various rookeries within a management unit need to be managed as a single population. If an MU was to become extinct, it would unlikely be re-colonised in a timeframe relevant for conservation (up to hundreds or possibly thousands of generations) (FitzSimmons and Jensen 2008, Moritz et al. 2002).
The North-west Shelf MU is a large geographically widespread MU, comprising many rookery sites in close proximity to each other. In contrast, the Scott Reef-Browse Island MU comprises fewer nesting turtles and is geographically isolated from other MUs. At present the complete geographic scope of the Scott Reef-Browse Island MU cannot be confirmed due to limited DNA sampling from other rookeries in the region (eg Cartier Island and the Maret Islands). On current information, any impacts to the rookeries at either Scott Reef or Browse Island could have important implications for the entire
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 25
MU. Turtles from this MU are thought to migrate to foraging grounds at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands to the west, and to foraging grounds in the Northern Territory (Pendoley 2005, FitzSimmons and Jensen 2008). Scott Reef is listed on the Register of the National Estate, with its heritage value including the provision of ‘breeding habitat for the nationally vulnerable green turtle'. Preliminary estimates of the abundance of green turtles at Scott Reef, based on limited data from the tagging and mark/recapture of individuals, vary from 389 to 1476, which regionally is not large compared to the Lacepede Islands and surrounding areas (Guinea 2009).
Migration and movement of green turtles is seasonal at Scott Reef. The results from a monitoring program during 2006, 2008 and 2009 indicate that the summer months from late November to February are the preferred breeding season for green turtles (Guinea 1995, 2006a, 2006b, 2006c, 2009).
Hawksbill Turtles
Hawksbill turtles are found in tropical, subtropical and temperate waters, with nesting mainly confined to tropical beaches (Limpus and Miller 2008). Australia has the largest breeding population of hawksbill turtles in the world, and the largest rookeries (Limpus 2008). There are two genetically separate subpopulations in Australia; one encompassing the northern Great Barrier Reef, Torres Strait and Arnhem Land, and the other on the North West Shelf of Western Australia. Around 3000 females nest in Western Australia each year (DEH 2005). The key nesting and inter-nesting areas are the Dampier Archipelago, North-west Cape, and Thevenard, Barrow, Lowendal and Montebello islands. Reefs west of Cape Preston and south to Onslow are important feeding grounds for this species (DEH 2005; Pendoley 2005). Only one individual hawkbill has been recorded nesting at Sandy Islet over three years of monitoring.
Hawksbill turtles migrate up to 2400 km between foraging areas and nesting beaches (Limpus and Miller 2008). Satellite tracking has shown that hawksbill turtles nesting on Varanus Island and Rosemary Island in Western Australia feed between 50 km and 450 km from their nesting beaches (Pendoley 2005). Hawksbill turtles may pass through the deep-water and nearshore Upstream Development areas; however, there were no confirmed sightings of hawksbill turtles in surveys conducted in the nearshore waters of the Dampier Peninsula in 2009 (RPS 2010c).
Flatback Turtles
The flatback turtle is found only in the tropical waters of northern Australia, Papua New Guinea and Irian Jaya, and is one of only two species of marine turtle without a global distribution (Limpus 2007b). Nesting is only known to occur in Australia, with six major nesting aggregations recognised, including the Kimberley region. Nesting sites are widely distributed along the mainland coast and among offshore islands. Flatback turtles make long reproductive migrations similar to other species of sea turtles, although these movements are restricted to the continental shelf.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 26
The North-west Marine Region is an important nesting area for flatback turtles, with nesting occurring mainly in December and January. The major rookeries are on the mid-eastern coast of Barrow Island and at Mundabullangana Station near Cape Thouin on the mainland (Prince 1994a, 1994b) (>500 km south of Broome). Nesting also occurs at other locations along the mainland coast and islands of tropical Western Australia, including the Lacepede Islands. Nesting surveys in December 2009 found East Lacepede Island to be used almost exclusively by flatback turtles, but at low densities (RPS 2010c).
Eighteen flatback turtles were observed during three vessel transect surveys between July and October 2009 offshore from the Dampier Peninsula (between Coulomb Point and Cape Boileau) to approximately the 50 m isobath (RPS 2010c). All sightings were of isolated individuals and were relatively evenly distributed over the three surveys. It is therefore likely that individual flatback turtles will be present in the Upstream Development area, at least in the shallow waters of the export pipeline route, and will occasionally occur in the deeper waters of the development area. There have been no sightings of flatback turtles in or around Scott Reef.
Loggerhead Turtles
Loggerhead turtles have a global distribution (Limpus 2008), and occur throughout eastern, northern and western Australia (Limpus 2008). Loggerhead turtles make well-known reproductive migrations between foraging and nesting areas of over 2600 km (Limpus 2008). In Western Australia, they nest in low numbers on the Muiron Islands and on the beaches of North-west Cape (DEWHA 2009a). There has been one reported loggerhead nesting at Ashmore Reef (Guinea 1995). Surveys in the nearshore waters of the Dampier Peninsula in 2009 recorded numerous loggerhead turtles (25% of all turtles recorded) (RPS 2010c), indicating that they will be present in the Upstream Development area, at least in the shallow waters of the export pipeline route. Loggerhead turtles have not been observed in or around Scott Reef.
Leatherback Turtles
Leatherback turtles are the largest of all marine turtles. They are pelagic feeders, and spend much time in the open ocean in tropical, subtropical and temperate waters throughout the world (Limpus 2009a). Leatherback turtles have been recorded feeding in the coastal waters of all Australian States and Territories. It is thought is that they migrate from Australian waters to breed at larger rookeries in neighbouring countries such as Indonesia, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands (DEWHA 2009b). Leatherback turtles are not known to nest in Western Australia, but may occasionally occur in the waters of the Upstream Development areas. However, no leatherback turtles were observed during megafauna surveys of the development areas (Jenner and Jenner 2009a 2009b, SKM 2009; RPS 2010c).
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 27
Impact of Artificial Light
The Scott Reef-Browse Island Management Unit (MU) comprises fewer nesting turtles and is geographically isolated from other MU’s within the North-west Shelf. As such, any impacts from light to the rookeries at either Scott Reef could have important implications for the entire MU. The occurrence of individuals from the remaining four turtle species is expected to only be infrequent and transitional.
The primary affect of exposure to artificial light on marine turtles is a change to their natural behaviour, particularly when nesting and hatching. The severity and range of light pollution effects on the behaviour of marine turtles are influenced by many variables such as:
• turtle vision;
• maturity of the turtle (adult and hatchling); and
• application of light on turtles.
Marine turtle behaviour is largely guided by light cues and they have a tendency to orientate towards brightness (Witherington and Martin 2003). Turtles do not perceive light in the same way as humans and light commonly used for illumination purposes, such as bright, white metal halide lights, are particularly problematic for turtles (Pendoley 2005). Research suggests that generally marine turtles are most sensitive to short-wavelength light in the near-ultraviolet to yellow region of the visible spectrum, from 340 to 700 nm (Witherington and Martin 2003). Marine turtle hatchlings commonly show a greater spectral sensitivity within the violet and blue region of the spectrum and are typically more sensitive to wavelengths in the range of 300 to 500 nm (Witherington 1997, Witherington and Martin 2003). Hatchlings are also sensitive to light direction and are thought to integrate light cues over an area of acceptance with a narrow vertical component and a broad horizontal component (Pendoley 2005). It is widely believed that light closest to the horizon plays the greatest role in determining orientation direction.
Mature Turtles
Witherington and Martin (2003) list three specific impacts of light to adult marine turtles:
• disruption of the nest-site selection
• nesting behaviour abandonment and abbreviation
• sea finding.
Although adult marine turtles typically require, among other factors, a dark location to lay eggs, nesting populations of marine turtles have been known to continue to nest despite the introduction of artificial light (eg at Varanus
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 28
Island and Barrow Island) (Pendoley 2005). Similarly, despite the perceived reliance on brightness for correct seaward orientation in adult turtles, Witherington and Martin (2003) note that sea-finding behaviour is rarely disrupted by artificial lighting. Adult turtles attempting to return to the sea after nesting are not misdirected nearly as often as hatchlings emerging on the same beaches.
Hatchlings
Hatchlings differ to adults in that they primarily use light as a cue to locate the ocean and are often attracted or disoriented by light, rather than being deterred by it. Disoriented hatchlings may perish from exhaustion, dehydration, or predation.
Tuxbury and Salmon (2004) suggest that artificial lights disrupt orientation and subsequent seaward crawling by competing with co-occurring natural cues. It has been found that the diffuse glow from light sources can cause disorientation to hatchlings up to 4.8 km from the light source (Limpus 2006. In: EPA, 2006). Studies have demonstrated that when on land, hatchlings were not significantly affected by artificial light at a distance of 800m, where the light density was up to 0.07 Lux (Pendoley 2005).
Once entering the ocean, little is known of the extent to which hatchlings still use vision over wave direction and the earth’s magnetic field (Lohmann 1992) for orientation and consequently, the impact of light pollution on their behaviour. It is thought that their vision is limited in the water and the other more dominant navigational cues take over (Lohmann and Lohmann 1992). An offshore light source ocean based pilot trial conducted by ERM (2007) indicated that despite tidal activity, star or moon light, less than 20% of hatchlings were attracted to an unfiltered light source located between 440 and 550 m from shore.
Light generated by flaring events may not affect hatchlings as much as other light sources. With the most disruptive wavelengths to marine turtle hatchlings to be in the range of 300 to 500 nm, spectral analysis of flares on Thevenard Island on the North-west Shelf (Pendoley 2000) suggests that flare light does not contain a high proportion of light wavelengths within this range. However, Pendoley (2000) did find in a study of the influence of gas flares on Thevenard Island that, in the absence of illumination from the moon, the glow from the pit and tower flares may influence the orientation of turtles at close range (30-100 m).
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 29
4.5 SEABIRDS AND MIGRATORY SHOREBIRDS
4.5.1 Introduction
Seabirds and migratory shorebirds encompass species that inhabit either pelagic and/or coastal environments. A large portion of the seabirds and most shorebirds sighted are recognised as migratory species. Migratory birds mostly travel between sites through ‘flyways’. The East Asian-Australasian (EAA) flyway extends from north-eastern Asia and western Alaska in the north to Australia and New Zealand in the south, encompassing 23 countries (Bamford et al. 2008).
Many migratory seabirds and shorebirds are protected under the international Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (Bonn Convention) and through bilateral agreements. The bilateral agreements protect migratory species that migrate between the respective countries; Australia – Japan Migratory Bird Agreement (JAMBA), China – Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (CAMBA) and the Republic of Korea – Australia Migratory Bird Agreement (ROKAMBA). Migratory bird habitats may also be identified as important bird areas (IBAs) under the Ramsar Convention. All shorebirds and seabirds Milton (1998), Smith et al. (2004), WAM (2006) and Jenner at al. (2009) identified are protected by the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation (EPBC) Act, and all migratory species are listed under JAMBA, CAMBA, and/or ROKAMBA.
Recent surveys around Ashmore Reef, Seringapatam Reef, Scott Reef and the wider Browse Basin region conducted by Milton (1999), Smith et al. (2004), WAM (2006) and Jenner at al. (2009) have reported sightings of 42 species of seabirds and shorebirds.
4.5.2 Seabirds
Seabirds include pelagic and coastal species, generally forage offshore and may spend considerable periods at sea. Non-breeding birds will collect together mostly outside the breeding season in areas where prey species are densely aggregated. Seabirds nest in colonies, which can vary in size from a few dozen birds to millions. Many species will also undertake annual migrations of thousands of kilometres. Seventeen of the twenty six seabird species Milton (1998), Smith et al. (2004), WAM (2006) and Jenner at al. (2009) have identified in the Ashmore Reef, Seringapatam Reef, Scott Reef and the wider Browse Basin region surveys are migratory; two of which are listed as threatened under the EPBC Act: the endangered Abbott’s booby (Papasula abbotti) and vulnerable Christmas Island frigatebird (Fregata ariel).
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 30
North-West Marine Region & Upstream Development Area
The Lacepede Islands are an important breeding site for seabirds including lesser frigatebirds, brown boobies, bridled terns, roseate terns and common noddies (DEWHA 2008). The Lacepede Islands support some of the largest brown booby colonies in Western Australia. In 1982, 7370 and 10,300 nesting pairs were counted on West Lacepede and Middle Lacepede Islands respectively (Burbridge et al. 1987). During the same survey, 2700 nesting pairs of lesser frigatebirds were counted on West Lacepede Island (no nests were present on Middle Lacepede Island).
Other offshore islands in the North-west Marine Region that support breeding populations of seabirds include Adele Island, Bedout Island, and the Montebellow/ Barrow Islands. Brown boobies, masked boobies and lesser frigatebirds have been observed to breed on Adele Island and on Bedout Island (Burbridge et al. 1987); the Dampier Archipelago/Cape Preston region is a nesting area for at least 16 species of seabirds (CALM 2005); and the Montebello/Barrow islands region contains significant rookeries for at least 15 species of seabirds.
Seabirds around Scott Reef are predominately associated with Sandy Islet, and occur in small numbers in comparison to other breeding and roosting sites in the region. Crested terns, brown boobies and common noddies are among the dominant species (Smith et al. 2004, WAM 2006, Jenner et al. 2009). Many species roost on Sandy Islet at night, presumably foraging during the day. All species recorded from Scott Reef are previously known from Northern Australian waters.
4.5.3 Migratory Shorebirds
Shorebirds are usually associated with wetland or coastal environments, utilising these habitats for feeding, nesting or migratory stopovers. In coastal environments, shorebirds generally feed during low tide on exposed intertidal mudflats and find areas in which to roost at high tide. Many shorebird species undergo annual migrations, typically breeding at high latitudes of the northern hemisphere and migrating south for the non-breeding period. Of the sixteen shorebirds Milton (1998), Smith et al. (2004), WAM (2006) and Jenner at al. (2009) identified in the Ashmore Reef, Seringapatam Reef, Scott Reef and the wider Browse Basin region surveys, only one species is not migratory: the Australian pratincole (Stiltia Isabella).
North-West Marine Region and Upstream Development Area
Ashmore Reef (approximately 200 km north-east of the Torosa Development area) is recognised as an internationally important site for five species of migratory shorebird (ruddy turnstone, grey plover, greater sand plover, sanderling and grey-tailed tattler). It is also regarded as supporting some of the most important seabird rookeries on the North-west Shelf. Species include
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 31
sooty, crested and bridled terns, common noddies, brown and masked boobies and the intermediate egret (Milton 1999; Commonwealth of Australia, 2002). The sand flats of Ashmore and Cartier islands are recognised as particularly important for feeding migratory shorebirds during non-breeding periods. However, the sand flats are also an important staging point during the migration between the Northern Hemisphere and Australia. The Lacepede Islands are also an important site in the EAA Flyway for the grey-tailed tattler during the southern migration and the ruddy turnstone during both the southern migration and during non-breeding periods (Bamford et al. 2008).
On the mainland, Roebuck Bay/Eighty Mile Beach has been identified as one of the most important areas in the EAA Flyway for migratory shorebirds, with a single count of 336,000 on Eighty Mile Beach and 170,900 in Roebuck Bay (Bamford et al. 2008), representing over 30 species.
Although not within a recognised EAA flyway (Figure 4.1), migratory shorebirds are occasionally observed in very low numbers at Scott Reef, and Sandy Islet may be used as a resting point during the migration between the Northern Hemisphere and Australia. However, given its small size, Sandy Islet is not capable of supporting large numbers of migratory shorebirds. Potential flight paths of some species, such as the Grey-tailed tattler and the Ruddy turnstone may traverse in the vicinity of Scott Reef on their way to the mainland to Barrow Island.
Impact of Artificial Light
The flight paths of migratory birds that use the EAA Flyway, particularly those that fly between Ashmore Reef and the WA coastline could potentially pass through the limit of visibility zones for temporary and permanent light sources associated with the Upstream Development. Migratory birds move seasonally, often across hemispheres with vision playing a significant role in their behaviour and navigation. Migratory birds are therefore especially vulnerable to increasing sources and extents of artificial lighting. Light from marine structures has been shown to attract and also disorientate migrating birds with birds that migrate during the night more likely to be affected (Verhejen 1985, Wiese et al. 2001, Gauthreaux and Belser 2006). This can result in direct mortality from collisions (Rich and Longcore 2006), or may have indirect adverse effects from disorientation and/or delays leading to exhaustion and depletion of energy reserves. Light from flaring events has been shown to attract migrating birds, which can lead to mortalities through collision or incineration (Wiese et al. 2001).
Birds may also be indirectly attracted to the light source as lighted structures in marine environments tend to attract marine life at all trophic levels, creating food sources and shelter for seabirds. Sources of artificial light may also provide enhanced capability for sea birds to forage at night. However, artificial lighting may interfere with a bird’s internal magnetic compass. Migratory birds require light from the blue-green part of the spectrum for magnetic compass orientation (Wiltschko and Wiltschko 1995, 2001, Muheim et al. 2002) whereas red light, the long-wavelength component of light, is more likely to disrupt magnetic orientation.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 32
Light related impacts were recorded from a study in the North Sea, where a potential impact zone of 3-5 km (radius) was nominated by Marquenie et al. (2008), for offshore platform illumination. Birds travelling within this zone were noted to deviate from their intended route and either circle or land on the nearby platform.
Figure 4.1 Major Routes of the EAA Flyway and Potential Flight Paths in the North- west Marine Region (Adapted from Milton 2003 and Bamford et al. 2008)1
1 Bird species documented by Bamford et al. (2008) to use nesting and foraging sites in the region were used to predict potential flight paths, based on the assumption that bird species that were identified to occur at multiple sites would have flown directly between each pair of sites
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 33
4.6 MARINE MAMMALS
4.6.1 Introduction
Marine mammals occurring in the North-west Marine Region that are likely to occur in the Upstream Development Area have been identified using a search of the DEWHA Protected Matters database and supplemented with marine megafauna surveys. These include dugongs, whales and dolphin species. All are listed as migratory or cetacean species under the EPBC Act and are protected by Commonwealth and Western Australian legislation.
4.6.2 Cetaceans
Cetaceans have wide distributions associated primarily with seasonal feeding and migration patterns that are linked to their reproductive cycles. Twenty- seven cetacean species are known to occur in the North-west Marine Region, Of these, there are two migratory species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act: the endangered blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus), and the vulnerable humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae).
Blue Whale
Blue whales are the largest living animal and can grow to a length of over 30 m and weigh an average of 100 to 120 tonnes. There are two recognised subspecies in Australia; the 'true' blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus intermedia) and the ‘pygmy' blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda). Both sub- species are long-lived, with the true blue whales living up to 90 years and the pygmy blue whales to about 50 years (DEWHA 2009b).
North-West Marine Region and Upstream Development Area
Blue whales are found in all oceans of the world, though little is known about migratory paths, resting areas and feeding, breeding or calving aggregations. Based on acoustic data from 2006 to 2008, between 95 and 506 pygmy blue whales are estimated to migrate through the Scott Reef area during each of the northern and southern migrations (McCauley 2009). Many of these animals appear to migrate in deeper water to the west of Scott Reef, but some have passed to the east of Scott Reef. Estimates of pygmy blue whale numbers migrating along the Western Australian coast suggest that only a portion of the population that passes north and south off Exmouth each year passes by Scott Reef (McCauley 2009).
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 34
Humpback Whale
Humpback whales have a maximum recorded length of 17.4 m and an average weight of 25 to 30 tonnes (DEWHA 2009c). In Australia, there are two genetically distinct populations of humpback whales, one on the west coast and one on the east coast. There is very little genetic exchange between the two, even in their Antarctic feeding grounds (DEWHA 2009c). Their distribution is influenced by migratory pathways and aggregation areas for resting, breeding and calving. Humpback whales migrate annually between summer feeding grounds in Antarctica and tropical breeding aggregation areas in winter. The precise timing of the migration period varies between years, influenced by water temperature, sea ice distribution, predation risk, prey abundance and the location of feeding grounds (DEWR 2007).
North-West Marine Region & Upstream Development Area
Information about humpback whale utilisation of the North-west Marine Region has increased considerably since the mid-1990s. The Kimberley is the northern migration destination and calving ground for the largest population of humpback whales in the world. High concentrations of humpback whales are observed in Camden Sound and Pender Bay between June and October each year (DEWHA 2009c). While some females will calve and rest outside this area, most whales seen outside of this area are migrating animals, with some being known to migrate through the development area.
4.6.3 Dugongs
Dugongs (Dugong dugon) are large herbivorous mammals whose diet comprises almost exclusively of seagrass. They are therefore generally restricted to coastal or shallow water habitats with sufficient seagrass, and the largest dugong concentrations typically occur in wide, shallow, protected areas such as bays (Marsh et al. 2002). Dugongs are identified as migratory species under the EPBC Act, and are classified as vulnerable on the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List of Threatened Species (IUCN 2010).
For many dugong populations, there is seasonal migration. For example, at the high-latitude limits of their range, such as Shark Bay in Western Australia, there is evidence that dugongs may make seasonal migrations to warmer waters. Results from satellite tracking studies of dugongs showed that they moved over 100 km to the warmer, north-western part of Shark Bay during winter, returning to the south-eastern part of the bay during the onset of warmer conditions in summer (Anderson 1986, Marsh et al. 2002). At least some individual dugongs undertake long-distance movements of hundreds of kilometres (Preen 1995; Preen 2001; Hodgson 2007; Campbell and Holley 2009). The reasons for such movements are unknown but may be associated with the ephemeral nature of their seagrass food source.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 35
North-West Marine Region & Upstream Development Area
Dugongs were observed in the surveys conducted by RPS and SKM in shallow waters along the export pipeline route, predominantly in depths less than 20 m (SKM 2009, RPS 2010a). In the deeper waters of the export pipeline route, only occasional individuals are likely to occur because dugongs are not a deep-water species. For example, only one group of four individuals was recorded near the 50 m isobath north-west of James Price Point, and a single animal was sighted 80 km west of James Price Point in 70 to 80 m water depth (RPS 2010a). It is believed that individuals are migratory between feeding grounds
The nearest known population of dugongs to the deep-water development areas is at Ashmore Reef, with an estimated population of between 10 and 60 individuals (Whiting and Guinea 2005). A dugong has been recorded 130 m east of Ashmore Reef, indicating that dugongs may also use other shallow shoals on the Sahul Banks (Whiting and Guinea 2005).
No dugongs or evidence of dugongs (eg feeding trails or faecal pellets) have been recorded at Scott Reef despite numerous marine mammal surveys in the area (eg Jenner et al. 2009, RPS 2010a). Seagrass at Scott Reef is sparsely distributed and of low density, and is significantly less abundant than the seagrass communities recorded at Ashmore Reef (Skewes et al. 1999, URS 2006). As a result it is highly unlikely that Scott Reef could sustain a dugong population.
4.6.4 Impact of Artificial Light
Marine mammals, including dugong and cetacean species are known to migrate through the development area, and are known to utilise acoustic senses to monitor their surroundings rather than visual sources (Simmonds et al. 2004). There is no evidence to suggest that cetaceans or other marine mammals have any specific sensitivity to artificial light emissions. Light is not considered to have an impact on marine mammal behaviour; therefore, cetaceans are not considered further in this assessment.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 36
5 IMPACT ASSESSMENT
As discussed in Section 4, marine fauna that use visual cues for orientation, navigation, or other purposes may be disoriented by, attracted to, or repelled by artificial light sources. The effects on marine fauna of increased artificial lighting are dependent on:
• The density and wavelength of the light and the extent to which light spills into areas that are significant for breeding and foraging;
• The timing of overspill relative to breeding and foraging activity, and;
• The resilience of the fauna populations that are affected.
The anticipated impact on species identified as likely to occur within the light impact area of the Upstream Development (Section 3) and with known susceptibility to light impact (Section 4) is discussed below.
Note that as flaring will only occur during emergency situations, upsets and shutdowns of the platforms (approximately <1% of the time), any associated impact is expected to be temporary and is unlikely to have a significant impact on receptors. While, the potential impact of flaring is discussed where possible, the following impact assessment is based on business as usual operations.
5.1 POTENTIAL IMPACT ON SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
5.1.1 Zooplankton
Artificial light emissions from permanent and temporary platforms and vessels during development activities could suppress the migration of zooplankton from deep water to the surface, thereby affecting the local food supply of nocturnal plankton-feeders.
The illumination of marine waters in close proximity to development platforms could also provide increased feeding opportunities for predators; however, given that this light will be constant, it is more likely that plankton will avoid affected areas. As such, the potential for increased predator activity is not likely to result in a significant impact on the plankton population.
Given that the relatively small impact area that light from the Upstream Development will have in relation to zooplankton habitat, the potential affects as discussed about are expected to be highly localised and will not have a significant impact on zooplankton.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 37
5.1.2 Corals
Light levels from drilling within the Scott Reef channel between North and South Reef and from the Torosa platform that reach the area of Scott Reef are estimated to be <0.01 Lux (Figure 3.4 and Figure 3.5). This light density is equivalent to that of a moonless clear night sky light.
Light emissions from the Upstream Development are unlikely to disturb coral spawning activity.
5.1.3 Fish
The effect of light emissions from the Upstream Development on fish is expected to differ depending on species and habit. Broadly, artificial lighting will change ambient light regimes and pose risks of increased mortality through changes to natural night time distribution and consequently alter predator and prey relationships. Artificial light may also exclude nocturnal foragers/predators if present, allowing diurnal species to benefit from increased access to resources.
The potential disturbance to fish of light emissions from rigs, platforms and vessels is expected to be restricted to localised attraction, extending 90-100 m from the source. As such, any impacts to fish, including those listed under the EPBC Act, arising from light emissions are considered to be minor and localised to a small proportion of the population.
5.1.4 Marine Reptiles
Sea Snakes
Light emissions from the Upstream Development may indirectly affect sea snakes through changes in predator-prey relationships and disorientation. Attraction or repulsion to light sources may also occur. However, any potential impact on sea snakes will be localised and is not expected to have a significant effect.
Turtles Light emissions from the Upstream Development may affect the behaviour of marine turtles, particularly when nesting and hatching. Only one nesting site, used predominantly by Green Turtles, Sandy Islet, is located within the area to be affected by light pollution.
Flaring is only expected to occur on an infrequent basis (<1% of the operational time), and light wavelengths from flares outside sensitive range for turtles. No disturbance to marine turtles from flaring is expected.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 38
The potential impact on turtles both when nesting and hatching on Sandy Islet, and more generally when in the marine environment are discussed below.
Sandy Islet
Modelling results indicate that a facility located within the channel between North and South Reef will appear from Sandy Islet as a small lit object and that the maximum predicted light levels reaching the Islet will be <0.01 Lux (comparable to the light level on a night with a clear sky and a quarter moon). Given this, no disturbance to adult marine turtles nesting behaviour is expected. This is also supported by observations at other nesting sites along the north-west coast indicating that adults continue nesting despite the introduction of artificial light (Section 4.4.2).
Similarly, light is not expected to be of sufficient density (<0.01 Lux) to alter hatchling behaviour whilst on shore. In addition, lights from the upstream Development are not expected to be visible from nests on part of the west side of Sandy Islet. For those reasons, any possible attraction of turtle hatchlings to an offshore facility whilst onshore at Sandy Islet is not expected to interrupt their seaward movement. As the proposed Upstream Development facilities are to be located more than 5 km from Sandy Islet, light glow is not predicted to affect hatchlings onshore. However, given the unpredictability of light glow and the variabilities with calculating potential glow from a facility, there are uncertainties with predicting disturbances to marine turtle hatchings emerging on Sandy Islet.
Marine Environment
Light spill of greater than 0.01 Lux is expected to extend only 1.2 km radially from Upstream Development facilities. Also, wavelength transmission has been modelled to attenuate to levels that are similar to ambient conditions at approximately 1.4 km from the light source (Section 3.1). Within this area (~1.4 km radius from light sources), adult turtles may temporarily alter their normal behaviour if they become attracted to the light spill from infrastructure. However, relative to habitat, the zone of influence is small and therefore, potential attraction is only expected to occur as a temporary disruption to a small portion of the adult turtle population.
Hatchlings within a 1.4 km radius area (>0.01 Lux radius) from light emitting facilities may become disorientated, thereby experiencing fatigue and increasing their exposure to predation. However, onshore hatching sites will be greater than 5 km from light sources and the actual number of hatchlings affected is predicted to be small and any disturbance minor and temporary.
As described for hatchlings onshore at Sandy Islet, light glow may have some influence on marine turtle hatchlings whilst in the water. Given the unpredictability of light glow and the variabilities with calculating potential glow from a facility, there are uncertainties with predicting disturbances to marine turtle hatchings in the water and therefore a precautionary approach to the level of risk has been applied.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 39
5.1.5 Seabirds and Migratory Shorebirds
The natural behaviour of migratory birds may be affected when entering the potential zone of impact (3 – 5 km radius) from infrastructure illumination. Intermittent and infrequent flaring events at night may temporarily increase the zone of impact, due to the brightness of the flare. Given that only a small number of individuals are expected to pass within the potential zone of impact whilst in transit, any behavioural disturbances such as disorientation and attraction are considered minor and temporary. Physical affects such as exhaustion and mortality may also potentially affect a small proportion of the population.
Birds roosting at night on Sandy Islet are unlikely to be disturbed by artificial light given the low level of artificial light (<0.01 Lux) that would be received at Sandy Islet from any permanent or temporary infrastructure in the area.
5.2 MITIGATION AND MANAGEMENT
The impact assessment indicates that only minor behavioural disturbance is expected to occur to marine fauna as a result of light emissions from infrastructure associated within the Torosa gas field development, while impacts from light emissions from the Brecknock and Calliance facilities are predicted to be limited to offshore receptors only (Figure 3.1). Whilst the inherent risk is therefore low, the following preventive and mitigation measures are recommended to be implemented to further minimise the risk and extent of impacts of artificial light on marine fauna:
• Locating permanent and temporary facilities in areas distant (as far as practicable) to sensitive receptors such as Sandy Islet.
• Designing lighting on permanent facilities with the objective to reduce light spill while meeting workplace health and safety, and navigational requirements.
• Selectively using commercially available long wavelength light sources (High Pressure Sodium Vapour and Low Pressure Sodium Vapour) in favour of commercially available short wavelength light sources (Metal Halide, Fluorescent and Halogen).
• Minimising activities at night during the peak turtle nesting periods.
• Using non reflective surface treatments.
• When possible, switching off infield platform lights except for navigational and helicopter warning lights.
With the Torosa development anticipated to be approximately 10 years subsequent to the development of Brecknock and Calliance fields, there is an opportunity to further investigate the potential effects of artificial light from the development on marine turtles. Management and monitoring programs may include:
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 40
• Development and implementation of long term turtle monitoring programs to monitor nesting behaviour and success rates
• further investigation into the role of the green turtle population at Scott Reef in relation to Browse Island
• further investigation into light spill and glow response to turtles at Sandy Islet
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 41
6 RESIDUAL RISK AND CONCLUSION
With the implementation of the prevention measures detailed, the level of residual risk associated with the lighting proposed for the development is rated as low for all receptors. No significant impacts to EPBC Act listed species, migratory species or the surrounding marine environment have been identified. This assessment has been derived from a conservative assessment based on known data.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 42
7 REFERENCES
Anderson PK 1986. Dugongs of Shark Bay, Australia - seasonal migration, water temperature and forage. National Geographic Research, vol. 2, no. 44, pp. 473-490.
Bamford M, Watkins D, Bancroft W, Tischler G and Wahl J 2008. Migratory shorebirds of the East Asian - Australasian flyway; population estimates and internationally important sites. Wetlands International – Oceania. Canberra, Australia.
Brinkman R, McKinnon AD, Furnas M and Patten N 2009. Technical Report - Project 3.1 Understanding water column and pelagic ecosystem processes affecting South Scott Lagoon. Report produced for Woodside Energy Ltd, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Perth, Western Australia. 104pp.
Burbridge AA, Fuller PJ, Lane JAK and Moore SA 1987, Counts of nesting boobies and lesser frigate-birds in Western Australia. Emu, vol. 87, pp. 128-129.
Campbell R and Holley D 2009. Progress Report – Movement behaviours and habitat usage of West Kimberley dugongs: a community based approach. 5pp.
Commonwealth of Australia 2002. Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve and Cartier Island Marine Reserve (Commonwealth Waters) Management Plans. Environment Australia, Canberra, Australia.
Dietz RS 1962. 'The sea's deep scattering layers', Scientific American,
Department of Conservation and Land Management (CALM) 2005. Indicative Management Plan for the proposed Dampier Archipelago marine park and Cape Preston marine management area. Department of Conservation and Land Management, Perth, Australia. 145pp.
Dethmers KM, Broderick D, Moritz C, FitzSimmons NN, Limpus CJ, Lavery S, Whiting S, Guinea M, Prince RIT and Kennett R 2006. The genetic structure of Australasian green turtles (Chelonia mydas): exploring the geographical scale of genetic exchange. Molecular Ecology, vol. 15, pp. 3931-3946.
Department of Environment and Heritage (DEH) 2005. Draft Recovery Plan for marine turtles found in Australia: Olive Ridley Turtle Lepidochelys olivacea, Loggerhead Turtle Caretta caretta, Flatback Turtle Natator depressus, Green Turtle Chelonia mydas, Hawksbill Turtle Eretmochelys imbricata & Leatherback Turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), Department of Environment and Heritage, Canberra, Australia, viewed 29 July 2009, http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/rec overy/marine-turtles/pubs/marine-turtle.pdf.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 2008. The North-West Marine Bioregional Plan – Bioregional Profile: A
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 43
Description of the Ecosystems, Conservation Values and Uses of the North- west Marine Region. Australian Government, Tasmania, Australia.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 2009a. Caretta caretta. Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, Australia, viewed 29 July 2009, http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 2009b. Balaenoptera musculus. Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, Australia, viewed 19 June 2009, http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA) 2009c. Megaptera novaeangliae. Species Profile and Threats Database. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, Australia, viewed 19 June 2009, http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.
Department of Environment and Water Resources (DEWR) 2007. The Humpback Whales of Eastern Australia Factsheet, viewed 19 June 2009, http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/publications/pubs/eastern- humpback-whales.pdf.
Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) 2006. Gorgon Gas Development, Barrow Island Nature Reserve, Chevron Australia, Report and recommendations of the Environmental Protection Authority, Bulletin 1221 June 2006. Western Australia.
Environment Australia 2003. Recovery Plan for marine turtles in Australia. Marine Species Section Approvals and Wildlife Division, Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, Canberra, Australia. 49pp.
Fabricius KE 1995. Slow population turnover in the soft coral genera Sinularia and Sarcophyton on mid- and outer-shelf reefs on the Great Barrier Reef. Marine Ecology Progress Series, vol. 126, pp. 145-152.
FitzSimmons N and Jensen MP 2008. Western Australian Green Turtles (Chelonia mydas): genetic analyses to define breeding populations and characterise foraging populations. University of Canberra, Canberra, Australia. 36pp.
Gardline 2009. Browse LNG Development environmental survey June to July 2009 environmental baseline report. Gardline Marine Services Pty. Ltd. Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited. 271pp.
Gilmour JP, Travers MJ, Underwood JN, McKinney DW, Gates EN, Birrell CL and Fitzgerald KL 2008. The status of shallow-water coral and fish communities at Scott Reef: 2008. AIMS SRRP Annual Report 2008 – Project 1. Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 44
Gilmour JP, Travers MJ, Underwood JN, McKinney DW, Meekan MG, Gates EN and Fitzgerald KL 2009a. Long-term monitoring of shallow-water coral and fish communities at Scott Reef. AIMS SRRP Annual Report September 2009 – Project 1. AIMS Document No SRRP-RP-RT-032. Project 1 Report to the Browse Joint Venture Partners. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia. 224pp.
Gilmour JP, Smith LD and Brinkman RM 2009b. Biannual spawning, rapid larval development and evidence of self-seeding for scleractinian corals at an isolated system of reefs. Marine Biology, vol. 156, no. 6, pp. 1297-1309.
Gilmour JP, Travers MJ, Underwood JN, McKinney DW, Gates EN, Fitzgerald KL and Birrell CL 2009c. AIMS SRRP Technical Report, Project 1 – Long-term monitoring of shallow-water coral and fish communities at Scott Reef. Report produced for the Browse Joint Venture Partners. Australian Institute of Marine Science, Perth, Australia. 83pp.
Gliwicz ZM 1986. ‘A lunar cycle in zooplankton’, Ecology 67, pp. 883–97.
Guinea ML 1995. The sea turtles and sea snakes of Ashmore Reef National Nature Reserve. Northern Territory University, Darwin, Australia.
Guinea ML 2006a. Scott Reef Browse Island Survey September 2–10, 2006. Interim Report to URS. Charles Darwin University, Australia. DRIMS# 3119536.
Guinea ML 2006b. Scott Reef sea turtle and sea snake survey 23–29 November 2006. Interim Report to URS. Charles Darwin University, Australia. DRIMS# 4056439.
Guinea ML 2006c. Sea turtles, sea snakes and dugongs of Scott Reef, Seringapatam Reef and Browse Island with notes on West Lacepede Island. Report to URS. Charles Darwin University, Australia.
Guinea ML 2009. Long Term Marine Turtle Monitoring at Scott Reef. Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited.
Guinea ML and Whiting SD 2005. Insights into the distribution and abundance of sea snakes at Ashmore Reef, The Beagle - Records of the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory, Supplement 1. pp 199-205.
Harrison PL and Wallace CC 1990. Reproduction, dispersal and recruitment of scleractinian corals, in: Dubinsky (ed) Chapter 7, Coral Reefs. Elsevier Science, Amsterdam, Netherlands. pp. 133-207.
Heatwole H and Cogger HG 1993. Family Hydrophiidae, in: Glasby CG, Ross GJB and Beesley PL (eds) Fauna of Australia Volume 2A: Amphibia and Reptilia. AGPS Canberra. 439pp.
Haney JF 1993 ‘Environmental control of diel vertical migration behaviour’, Arch. Hydrobiol. Beih. Ergebn. Limnol 39, pp. 1–17.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 45
Hick P 1995. Spectral measurement of illumination sources at Thevenard Island: a preliminary study of the probable effects of gas flares and oil facility lights on green turtles and a subsequent revisit to measure a range of gas-flow rates. CSIRO unpu. report.
Hodgson AJ 2007. The distribution, abundance and conservation of dugongs and other marine megafauna in Shark Bay Marine Park, Ningaloo Reef Marine Park and Exmouth Gulf. WA Department of Environment and Conservation, Denham, Western Australia. 47pp.
Hudson I and Fletcher C 2006. Browse area ecological review, Serpent Project. 20pp.
IUCN 2010, Red List of Threatened Species 2010. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, viewed 20 June 2010, http://www.iucnredlist.org/apps/redlist/search#.
Jaspers C, Nielsen TG, Carstensen J, Hopcroft RR and Møller EF 2009. Metazooplankton distribution across the Southern Indian Ocean with emphasis on the role of Larvaceans. Journal of Plankton Research, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 525-540.
Jenner KCS and Jenner MN 2009a. Humpback whale distribution and abundance in the near shore SW Kimberley during winter 2008 using aerial surveys. Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited. 37pp.
Jenner KCS and Jenner MN 2009b. Near-shore vessel surveys in the SW Kimberley region during the humpback whale southern migration, 2008. Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited. 29pp.
Jenner KCS, Jenner MN and Pirzl R 2009. A study of cetacean distribution and oceanography in the Scott Reef/Browse Basin development areas during the austral winter of 2008. Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited. 121pp.
Kagstrom M 2005. Line Of Sight Calculator. Freeware software.
Last P, Lyne V, Yearsley G, Gledhill D, Gomon M, Rees T and White W 2005. Validation of national demersal fish datasets for the regionalisation of the Australian continental slope and outer shelf (>40 m depth). Department of Environment and Heritage and CSIRO Marine Research. National Oceans Office, Hobart, Australia. 99 pp.
Leis JM, Sweatman HPA and Reader SE 1996 ‘What the pelagic stages of coral reef fishes are doing out in the blue water: Daytime field observations of larval behavioural capabilities’, Marine and Freshwater Research, 47, pp. 401-411.
Levy O, Appelbaum L, Leggat W, Gothlif Y, Hayward DC, Miller DJ and Hoegh-Guldberg O 2007. Light-Responsive Cryptochromes from a Simple Multicellular Animal, the Coral Acropora millepora. Science 318(5849): 467-470.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 46
Limpus CJ 2006. Marine Turtle Conservation and Gorgon Gas Development, Barrow Island, Western Australia. May, 2006. Report to Environmental Protection Authority and Department of Conservation and Land Management, Western Australia.
Limpus CJ 2007b. A biological review of Australian marine turtle species. 5. Flatback turtle, Natator depressus (Garman). The State of Queensland. Environmental Protection Agency.
Limpus CJ 2008. A biological review of Australian marine turtle species. 1. Loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta (Linneaus). The State of Queensland. Environmental Protection Agency, Australia.
Limpus CJ and Miller JD 2008. Australian Hawksbill Turtle Population Dynamics Project. Report prepared for the Japan Bekko Association. 130pp.
Limpus CJ 2009a. A biological review of Australian marine turtle species. 6. Leatherback turtle, Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli). The State of Queensland. Environmental Protection Agency, Australia.
Limpus CJ 2009b. A biological review of Australian marine turtle species. The State of Queensland. Environmental Protection Agency, Australia.
Lohmann KJ 1992. How sea turtles navigate. Scient. Am. 266: pp. 100–106.
Lohmann KJ and Lohmann CMF 1992. Orientation to oceanic waves by green turtle hatchlings.J. exp. Biol. Iss. 171, pp. 1–13.
Lukoschek V, Waycott M and Marsh H 2007. Phylogeography of the olive sea snake, Aipysurus laevis (Hydrophiinae) indicates Pleistocene range expansion around northern Australia but low contemporary gene flow. Molecular Ecology, vol. 16, pp. 3406-3422
Marsh H, Penrose H, Eros C and Hugues J 2002. Dugong Status Report and Action Plans for Countries and Territories. United Nations Environment Programme, Nairobi, Kenya. 163pp.
Marquenie J, Donners, M, Poot H, Steckel W, de Wit B and Nam A 2008. Adapting the spectral composition of artificial lighting to safeguard the environment. Petoleum and Chemical Industry Conference Europe – Electrical and Instrumentation Applications, 5th PCIC Europe.
McCauley RD 2009. Sea noise logger deployment Scott Reef: 2006-2008 – whales, fish and seismic surveys. Centre for Marine Science and Technology (CMST). Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited. 88pp.
Micron Technology Inc. (2007). MicronLux and Light: Illumination, Exposure, and Sensitivity Micron. http://www.micron.com/innovations/imaging/lux, viewed 11:15 am 14/6/2008.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 47
Milicich MJ, Meekan MG and Doherty PJ 1992. Larval supply: a good predictor of recruitment in three species of reef fish (Pomacentridae)’, Mar Ecol Prog Ser. 86, pp. 153-166
Miller JD 1997. Reproduction in sea turtles, in: Lutz P and Musick JA (eds) The Biology of Sea Turtles. CRC Press Inc, Boca Raton, USA. pp. 51-82
Minton SA and Heatwole H 1975. Sea snakes from three reefs of the Sahul Shelf, in: Dunson WA (ed) The Biology of Sea Snakes. University Park Press, Baltimore, USA. pp. 141-144.
Milton DA 1999. Survey and Stock Size Estimates of the Shallow Reef (0-15 m) and Shoal Area (15-50 m Deep) Marine Resources and Habitat Mapping within the Timor Sea. Volume 3: Seabirds and Shorebirds of Ashmore Reef. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, Australia.
Moritz C, Broderick D, Dethmers K, FitzSimmons N and Limpus C 2002. Population genetics of Southeast Asian and Western Pacific green turtles, Chelonia mydas, Final Report to UNEP/CMS, Report to Environment Australia. UNEP/CMS, viewed 9 July 2010, http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/mpa/publications/pubs/ashmore- turtles.pdf.
Muheim R, Bäckman J and Ǻkesson S 2002. Magnetic compass orientation in European robins is dependent on both wavelength and intensity of light. The Journal of Experimental Biology 205:3845–3856.
Nightingale B and Simenstad C 2001b. Overwater structures: Maine issues. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife/Washington Department of Transportation White Paper, 133 pp.
Pendoley K. 2000. ‘The influence of gas flares on the orientation of green turtles hatchlings at Thevenard Islands, Western Australia’, in Pilcher, N & Ismail, G (eds), Sea turtles of the Indo-Pacific: Research Management and Conservation. Academic Press, London.
Pendoley KL 2005. Sea Turtles and the Environmental Management of Industrial Activities in North West Western Australia. PhD Thesis, Murdoch University.
Preen AR 2001. Dugongs in the Shoalwater Bay Area. Report to the Royal Australian Navy.
Preen AR 1995. Diet of Dugongs: are they omnivores? Journal of Mammalogy, vol. 76, pp. 163-171.
Prince RI 1994a. The Flatback Turtle Natator depressus in Western Australia: new information from the Western Australian Marine Turtle Project, in: James R (ed) Proceedings of the Australian Marine Turtle Conservation Workshop, Gold Coast 14-17 November 1990. Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage and Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Australia. pp. 146-153.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 48
Prince RI 1994b. Status of the Western Australian marine turtle populations: the Western Australian Marine Turtle Project 1986-1990, in: Russell J (ed) Proceedings of the Australian Marine Turtle Conservation Workshop, Gold Coast 14-17 November 1990. Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage and Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Australia. pp. 1-14.
Rich C and Longcore T 2006. Ecological consequences of artificial night lighting. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
RPS 2010a. Nearshore Regional Survey Dugong Report. Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited. 57pp. RPS 2010b. Marine Megafauna Report. Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited. 137pp.
RPS 2010c. Woodside Browse Turtle Studies Field Report 2 (Lacepede Islands). Report Produced for Woodside Energy Limited. 38pp.
Simmonds M, Dolman S and Weilgart L. (eds), 2004. ‘Oceans of noise’, A Whale and Dolphin Society science report, Wiltshire
Sinclair Knight Merz (SKM) 2009. Aerial survey of Inshore Marine Megafauna Along the Dampier Peninsula. Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited.
Skewes TD, Gordon SR, McLeod IR, Taranto TJ, Dennis DM, Jacobs DR, Pitcher CR, Haywood M, Smith GP, Poiner IR, Milton D, Griffin D and Hunter C 1999a. Survey and stock size estimates of the shallow reef (0-15 m) and shoal area (15-50 m deep) marine resources and habitat mapping within the Timor Sea. Volume 2. Habitat Mapping and Coral Dieback. Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra, Australia.
SKM and ERM 2008. Torosa South-1 (TS-1) Pilot Appraisal Well. Environmental Monitoring Programme - Development of Methodologies (Part1). Report produced for Woodside Energy by Sinclair Knight Mertz and Environmental Resources Management. Unpublished
Smith L, Gilmour J, Rees M, Lough J, Halford A, Underwood J, VanOppen M and Heyward A 2004. Biological and Physical Environment at Scott Reef 2003– 2004, III: Biological Environment. Unpublished Australian Institute of Marine Science report produced for Woodside Energy Limited. 75pp.
Stedman 2002. Stedman's Medical Dictionary. Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 27th New edition of Revised edition.
Swadling KM, Slotwinski AS, Ritz DA, Gibson JAE and Hosie GW 2008. Guide to the marine zooplankton of south eastern Australia, Version 1.0. Tasmanian Aquaculture and Fisheries Institute, viewed 12 June 2009, www.tafi.org.au/zooplankton.
Tranter DJ 1962. Zooplankton abundance in Australasian waters. Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, vol. 13, pp 106–142.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 49
Tuxbury SM and Salmon M 2004. Competitive interactions between artificial lighting and natural cues during sea finding by hatchling marine turtles. Biological Conservation (2005) 121: pp. 311–316.
URS 2006. Report on Environmental Surveys Undertaken at Scott Reef in February 2006. Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited. 136pp. DRIMS # 2513703.
URS 2007a. Scott Reef Environmental Survey 5: ROV inspection of deep water outer reef habitats June 2007. Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited. DRIMS # 3614838.
URS 2007b. Scott Reef Environmental Surveys - September and November 2006. Report produced for Woodside Energy Limited. 150pp. DRIMS# 3353687.
Veron JEN 2000. Corals of the world (Vol 1,2,3) - M Stafford-Smith (ed). Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville, Australia.
Western Australian Museum (WAM) 2006. A Marine Biological Survey of Mermaid Reef (Rowley Shoals), Scott and Seringapatam Reefs. Marine Survey Team, Aquatic Zoology. Western Australian Museum, Perth, Australia. Unpublished preliminary report.
Whiting SD and Guinea ML 2005. Dugongs of Ashmore Reef and the Sahul banks: a review of current knowledge and a distribution of sightings. The Beagle - Records of the Museums and Art Galleries of the Northern Territory. Supplement 1, pp. 207-210.
Wiese FK, Montevecci WA, Davoren GK, Huettmann F, Diamond AW and Linke J 2001. Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the northwest Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin 42:1285-1290
Wilson S and Swan G 2003. A complete guide to reptiles of Australia. Reed New Holland Publishers (Australia) Pty Ltd. 480pp.
Wilson SG, Carleton JH and Meekan MG 2003, Spatial and temporal patterns in the distribution and abundance of macrozooplankton on the southern North West Shelf, Western Australia. Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science, vol. 56, pp 897-908.
Wiltschko W and Wiltschko R 1995. Migratory orientation of European robins is affected by the wavelength of light as well as by a magnetic pulse. Journal of Comparitive Physiology A 177:363–369.
Wiltschko W and Wiltschko R 2001. Light dependent magnetoreception in birds: the behavior of European robins, Erithacus rubecula, under monochromatic light of various wavelengths and intensities. The Journal of Experimental Biology 204:3295–3302.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 50
Witherington BE 1997. The problem of photopollution for sea turtles and other nocturnal animals. In: Clemmons JR, Buchholz R (eds) Behavioral approaches to conservation in the wild. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p 303-328
Witherington BE and Martin RE 2003. Understanding, Assessing, and Resolving Light-Pollution Problems on Sea Turtle Nesting Beaches. Third Edition. Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI) Technical Report TR-2: 73. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA 0117125/FINAL/2 DECEMBER 2010 51
ERM has over 100 offices across the following countries worldwide
Argentina Malaysia Australia Mexico Belgium The Netherlands Brazil New Zealand Canada Peru Chile Poland China Portugal Colombia Puerto Rico Ecuador Russia France Singapore Germany South Africa Hong Kong Spain Hungary Sweden India Taiwan Indonesia Thailand Ireland UK Italy United Arab Emirates Japan US Kazakhstan Vietnam Korea Venezuela
ERM’s Perth Office
Level 6, 172 St Georges Tce Perth WA 6000 T: 9321 5200 F: 9321 5262 www.erm.com
ERM consulting services worldwide www.erm.com