Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) 29th October 2012 Migratory Wildlife Network Bureau Office 437 Berrymans Road, Gosse 5223 South Australia Phone: 08 8212 5841 Fax: 08 8215 5857 Email: [email protected] The Migratory Wildlife Network believes that the risks inherent in petroleum operations off the western end of Kangaroo Island must be managed to ensure there is no impact to matters of National Environmental Significance (NES). Given that such a significant number of species in this region are listed as ‘nationally threatened’ under the EPBC Act, and that each of these species is using the region as critical habitat, an extremely precautionary approach is warranted. We provide well defended information that “[t]here is a real chance or possibility” that the Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) will have a significant impact on threatened species, migratory species and the Commonwealth marine environment. The proposed action is: • likely to “reduce the area of occupancy” and “adversely affect habitat critical to the survival of” blue whales and sperm whales; • may “disrupt the breeding cycle” of southern right whales and Australian sea-lion; • likely to “modify an area of important habitat” and “disrupt the lifecycle (feeding)” of blue whales, sei whales, fin whales, southern right whales, sperm whales, great white sharks and Australian sea-lion; • may “disturb an important or substantial area of habitat such that an adverse impact on the marine ecosystem functioning or integrity in a Commonwealth marine area results” • and have a “substantial adverse effect on a population of cetaceans including its life cycle (feeding) and spatial distribution”.1 In our comments on: • Sections 2.1, 3.1 (d), 3.1 (e), 3.1 (f), 3.3 (a), 3.3 (j) and 3.3 (l) we detail our concerns about the proposed action to matters of NES and our requests for reasonable levels of relevant information. • Sections 2.2, 2.3 and 2.7 we highlight important information that was not provided to the Minister and Department. • Section 2.6 we reveal the apparent attitude of Bight Petroleum to stakeholder consultation and their stance on ‘burden of proof’. We believe that all of these comments reveal strong deficiencies in the Referral documentation and that collectively they call into question be underlying assumptions made by Bight Petroleum. 1 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2009) Department of Environment, Water, Heritage, and the Arts. Matters of National Environmental Significance: Significant Impact Guidelines 1.1. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia. Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 1 The proposed activity clearly qualifies as a ‘significant impact’ (as defined by the Department and detailed in our comment on Section 2.6). Given the high conservation value and the importance of the area to a range of listed species there are sufficient grounds to reject the proposal. If this is not deemed possible, we urge the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities to assess the proposal as a ‘Controlled Action’, with further robust, independent and transparent assessment required through an Environmental Impact Statement or a Public Environment Report that must publically detail: 1) a programme of baseline data gathering and an independent assessment of the impact for all the permit activities, that should include, but not be limited to: a) analysis of all available technologies for gathering the required data, and for each: i) modelling of the potential for impact from horizontal noise propagation; ii) modelling of the actual exposure to (numbers of and duration of) shots for all species listed as matter of NES; iii) d 2.s. and frequencies used across a staggered array cycle or relevant equivalent for each technology; iv) detail of the numberactual dB of re array 1μPa cycles/per minute/s or relevant equivalent for each technology; v) detail of the operating envelope of sound pressure levels and frequencies at different depths and water temperatures; vi) specifications (including age) of the equipment to be used; vii) name of the vessel proposed for the survey; b) detail of soft start protocols for all species of NES; c) detail of plans for 24 hour visual detection of all species of NES, including but not limited to blue, fin, sei, beaked and sperm whales, southern right whale dolphins, seabirds, great white sharks, southern bluefin tuna and Australian sea-lions, especially under conditions of poor visibility (including high winds, night conditions, sea spray or fog); and d) detail of plans for establishing an adequate safety zone for all species of NES; 2) permit condition requirements already established, including: a) a well-design and integrity-monitoring plan to assure well integrity within each well drilled, to include detail of maintenance for the active life of the well including quarterly compliance reporting; b) independent certification by the original provider, prior to installation, that each blowout preventer has been satisfactorily tested to design pressures; c) a report detailing hydrocarbon spill mitigation technologies and risk mitigation processes that it will deploy throughout the drill and maintain for the active life of the well; and d) a report delineating relevant operational risks identified and associated risk mitigation strategies and processes that will be deployed by the permittee and any third party contractors involved in the drilling operation;2 3) plans for full, independent and transparent monitoring of all at-sea activities and observer cover for all matters of NES; and 4) plans for a transparent process for regular real-time public reporting of activity progress and all impacts encountered. The Migratory Wildlife Network has chosen to present our detailed comments to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities and the Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (hereinafter referred to as the Minister and the Department) in the same format as Referrals are received to make the specifics of our concerns easy to associate with the information provided within Bight Petroleum’s Referral documentation. Where we have no specific comment to portray we have marked the field with ‘No Migratory Wildlife Network comment’. 2 Ferguson, Hon M., (2011) Petroleum Exploration Permits Granted From 2010 Acreage Release, Media Release: 08 July 2011, Minister for Resources and Energy, Minister for Tourism, Department of Energy, Minister for Tourism, Canberra, at: http://minister.ret.gov.au/MediaCentre/MediaReleases/Pages/PetroleumExplorationPermitsGrantedFrom2010AcreageRelease.aspx Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 2 Project title: Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) Reference: 2012/6583 1 Summary of proposed action 1.1 Short description No Migratory Wildlife Network comment 1.2 Latitude and longitude No Migratory Wildlife Network comment 1.3 Locality and property description Migratory Wildlife Network comment: The Kangaroo Island Canyons, a small group of narrow, steep-sided canyons, together with the Kangaroo Island Pool, the seasonal Eyre Peninsula Upwelling and the prevailing winds along the Great Australian Bight (moving in an anticlockwise circulation, with south-easterly winds along the eastern end of the gulf), create conditions that support the region’s productivity and marine life aggregations along the shelf and shelf break west of Kangaroo Island. Researchers have confirmed an average of two to three wind-driven Eyre Peninsula Upwelling events a year in the summer/autumn. Other Eyre Peninsula Upwelling events seem to be influenced by the distribution of near-bed temperatures in the region. Data shows that the colder water found to the west of Kangaroo Island are the source water for subsequent upwelling events off the Eyre Peninsula, drawn from the Kangaroo Island Pool and created during a prior upwelling event before being transported into the Eyre Peninsula.3 The region hosts aggregations of krill, small pelagic fish, and squid, which attract marine mammals, sharks, predatory fish and seabirds.4 1.4 Size of the development Migratory Wildlife Network comment: footprint or work area We note that the area to be surveyed will be 3,000 km2 and that the (hectares) expected days of acquisition will be 55, with 2.s. sound pulses every 11 seconds over a 24 hour period. Noting that McCauley’s (2000) exposure model looked at how many 229dBindividual re 1μPa air gun shots would be received at a level of 155dB re 1µPa2.s (equivalent energy) or higher over the course of a four-month survey. For an area roughly 5,400km2 an organism present within the area would be subject to 3 Kaempf, J., Doubell, M., Griffin, D., Matthews, R.L., & Ward, T.M., (2004) ‘Evidence of a large seasonal coastal upwelling system along the southern shelf of Australia’, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, no. L09310 | McClatchie, S., Middleton, J.F., & Ward, T.M., (2006) ‘Water mass analysis and alongshore variation in upwelling intensity in the eastern Great