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 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 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, 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 Upwelling and the prevailing winds along the (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 Australian Bight’, Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans, vol. 111, no. C08007 | Middleton, JF., & Bye, JAT., (2007) ‘A review of the shelf-slope circulation along Australia’s southern shelves: Cape Leeuwin to Portland’, Progress in Oceanography, 75(1) | Pattiaratchi, C., (2007) Understanding areas of high productivity within the South-west Marine Region, report prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, University of Western Australia | Ward, T.M., McLeay, L.J., Dimmlich, W.F., Rogers, P.J., McClatchie, S., Matthews, R., Kämpf, J. & van Ruth, P.D., (2006) ‘Pelagic ecology of a northern boundary current system: effects of upwelling on the production and distribution of sardine (Sardinops sagax), anchovy (Engraulis australis) and southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) in the Great Australian Bight’, Fisheries Oceanography, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 191–207 4 Bannister, J.L., (2004) Southern right whale aerial survey and photoidentification, 2003, final report to Environment Australia, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra | Flaherty, T., (1999), ‘Spare a thought for squid sucking denizens’, Australian Marine Conservation Society Bulletin, vol. 20, pp. 9–10; Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, | Butler, A., Althaus, F., Furlani, D., & Ridgway, K., (2002) Assessment of the Conservation Values of the Bonney Upwelling Area, Report to Environment Australia, for the Commonwealth Marine Conservation Assessment Program 2002- 2004, Canberra | Dimmlich, W., & Jones, G.K.s (1997) Australian Salmon (Arripis truttacea) and Herring (A. georgiana). SA Fisheries Assessment series 97/08, SARDI Aquatic Sciences, South Australia | Edyvane, K., & Baker, J., (1996) Marine Biogeography of Kangaroo Island: Progress Report to Environment Australia (formerly The Australian Nature Conservation Agency) Project D801Report S.A. Benthic Surveys 1994/5, SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), | Ward, T., Dimmlich, W., McLeay, L., & Rogers, P., (2000) Pilchard (Sardinops sagax), Fisheries Assessment Series 2000/06, SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide | Wenju, C., Schahinger, R., & Lennon, G., (1990) Layered models of coastal upwelling: a case study of the South Australian region, in: Davies, A. (ed.) Modelling Marine Systems Volume 1. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida | Edyvane, K., (1999) Conserving Marine Biodiversity in South Australia – Part 2: Identification of Areas of High Conservation Value in South Australia, SARDI Report Number 39, PIRSA

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 3

40,000 shots at this biologically significant level (over 300 per day on average). For an area of about 18,000km2 an organism present within the area would experience 20,000 shots. For an area of 48,000km2 an organism present within the area would hear 100 shots in the course of the survey.5 As part of the consultation process the Migratory Wildlife Network requested that Bight Petroleum model the number of shots on organisms present within the area would receive under their proposal, as this would provide a more accurate and meaningful measure of the development footprint. This information has not been transparently provided for the Minister and the Department to review.

1.5 Street address of the site No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

1.6 Lot description No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

1.7 Local Government Area and Council contact (if known) No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

1.8 Time frame Migratory Wildlife Network comment: While the document suggests that the time frame between 1st January and 17th May has been chosen to avoid whale aggregations, we would urge the Department to review information to see if the timeframe is based on ship availability. We are concerned that we are not able to verify the unpublished whale sighting survey data on which this assertion has been made; especially as it contradicts previously held information about blue whale aggregations in the region. We have not been able to confirm the vessel to be used in the survey as this information has not been transparently provided.

1.9 Alternatives to proposed action

X Migratory Wildlife Network comment: Yes, there are feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action, but these have not been detailed by Bight Petroleum for the Minister and the Department to review. We have provided further comment in 2.2 1.10 Alternative time frames etc X Migratory Wildlife Network comment: Yes, there are feasible alternatives to the proposed timeframe, but these have not been detailed by the Bight Petroleum for the Minister and the Department to review. We have provided further comment in 2.3 1.11 State assessment No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

1.12 Component of larger action

X Migratory Wildlife Network comment: Yes, the proposed action is a component of a larger action, but the details have not been provided for the Minister and the Department to review. We have provided further comment in 2.7

5 McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M-N., Penrose, J.D., Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, A., Murdoch, J., & McCabe, K., (2000) Marine seismic surveys: a study of environmental implications, APPEA Journal, 40, pp: 692-708

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 4

1.13 Related actions/proposals

X Migratory Wildlife Network comment: Yes, the proposed action is related to other actions or proposals in the region. The Minister and the Department should be aware that the activities overlap the recently negotiated south west region Commonwealth Marine Protected Areas.

This region is also drawing significant attention for the petroleum industry as a ‘new frontier’ for oil and gas exploration. The local community, aware of this, are asking for safe guards to be put in place to ensure that exploration and production go forward with the lowest possible risk to the marine environment and the wildlife of the region.

Any decision the Minister and the Department makes now will impact expectations and industry plans for all future related proposals. We also believe that the decisions made by the Minister and the Department over matters of National Environmental Significance (NES) will set appropriate baseline conditions for this region as exploration and production proposals continue to develop with this region. 1.14 Australian Government No Migratory Wildlife Network comment funding

1.15 Great Barrier Reef Marine No Migratory Wildlife Network comment Park

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 5

2 Detailed description of proposed action

2.1 Description of proposed action Migratory Wildlife Network comment: The geophysical method commonly used in surveying is called ‘seismic reflection’. The technique involves releasing pulses of acoustic energy along designated lines. The energy penetrates sub-surface rocks and is reflected back to the surface where it can be detected by acoustic receivers. Analysis of seismic reflections provides a profile of the underlying rock strata and identification of any configurations that are favourable to hydrocarbon accumulations. In the marine environment seismic surveys are typically conducted using ship-borne air guns as the acoustic energy source, projecting regularly repeating sound pulses that ensonify the water column for many hundreds of kilometres. A streamer of hydrophones to receive reflected energy are towed behind the vessel, extending for several kilometres. While Bight Petroleum have provided cursory details of the equipment to be used for the Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey and indicate that Curtain University has modelled the array to 2.s. they have failed to answer fundamental questions during their consultation process. generate a source Sound Exposure Level of 228db re 1 μPa On page 5 Bight Petroleum claims “there is no significant evidence of lethal and sub-lethal impacts” of seismic exploration carried out in the natural environment with acoustic pulses generated from compressed air, especially when key mitigation procedures such as survey timing, soft starts (ramp-ups) and the “stand- off” factor of the source itself are in place.” This statement shows a lack of understanding of the body of evidence of the effects of underwater noise on marine life, and indeed on the general acceptance by the international policy community that this is an issue that must be addressed.

Concerns over effects of seismic surveys have been expressed by the Convention of Migratory Species (CMS), the United Nations (U.N. General Assembly (UNGA) and UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)), the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), the International Maritime organization (IMO), the OSPAR Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North- East Atlantic and the Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (HELCOM) and by the International Whaling Commission (IWC). As recently as three weeks ago the Convention on Biological Diversity considered a synthesis on the impacts of underwater noise on marine and coastal biodiversity and habitats (UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/12, also provided in annex II to UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/6) noting “... that anthropogenic noise may have both short- and long-term negative consequences for marine animals and other biota in the marine environment, that this issue is predicted to increase in significance, and that uncontrolled increase in anthropogenic noise could add further stress to oceanic biota”. Parties were encouraged to “... take measures, as appropriate, to minimize the significant adverse impacts of anthropogenic underwater noise on marine biodiversity, including best available technologies () and best environmental practices (BEP), drawing upon existing guidance”.6

Aware of these international discussions and the Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) Scientific Synthesis on the Impacts of Underwater Noise on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity and Habitats7, early in 2012 the Migratory Wildlife Network specifically noted and requested the following from Bight Petroleum within the context of their consultation process: 1. Content and propagation of noise sources can vary from the acoustic modelling on which permits were granted, for instance high-frequency noise and horizontal propagation being present in seismic surveys given permits on the basis surveys were only emitting low-frequency sound directed vertically downward. The potential for impact from horizontal propagation should also be modelled. Specifically, we requested information on the following:

6 Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/12 : Scientific Synthesis on the Impacts of Underwater Noise on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity and Habitats, at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-16/information/sbstta-16-inf-12-en.pdf | Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) Meeting Report of the 11th Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/cop/cop-11/official/cop-11-01-add2-en.pdf 7 Subsidiary Body on Scientific, Technical and Technological Advice (SBSTTA) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (2012) UNEP/CBD/SBSTTA/16/INF/12 : Scientific Synthesis on the Impacts of Underwater Noise on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity and Habitats, at: http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/sbstta/sbstta-16/information/sbstta-16-inf-12-en.pdf

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 6

a. modelling of actual exposure to (numbers of and duration of) shots; b. a a2.s. and frequencies used across a staggered array cycle; c. number of array cycles/per minute/s; and d. octualperating dB reenvelope 1μP of sound pressure levels and frequencies at different depths and water temperatures 2. Soft-starts that assume animals will move away if the noise source is gradually increased have never been proven as an immediate mitigation and the animals displaced by these methods have not been independently assessed for longer-term impacts. It is possible that soft-starts could do more harm than good if animals approach a quieter sound out of curiosity and depending on the complexity of the sound field may reduce their ability to detect the correct direction to move away. Soft start protocols for all the EPBC listed species should be detailed, with alternate contingencies planned if species react adversely. 3. Plans for 24 hour visual detection of all the EPBC listed species, 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). 4. Even though there is strong argument that modelling safe distances is a complex and often impossible science in open sea conditions, in the case of EPP-41 and EPP-42 it is simply not possible to create a large enough safety zone without displacing certain wildlife from the critical habitat of the upwelling system. However, this is a requirement. Plans for establishing an adequate safety zone should be identified. 5. We requested specifications (including age) of the equipment to be used and the name of the vessel conducting the survey 6. Finally, the Migratory Wildlife Network very specifically requested that: a. Bight Petroleum transparently provide copies of the draft Environmental Plan and the EPBC Act Referral documentation, before submission to NOPSEMA and the EPBC Act Referral Unit, with sufficient time to allow for public comment to be submitted and for Bight Petroleum to appropriately adapt the documents before submission; and that b. the final copy of Bight Petroleum’s Environmental Plan, in full, is made transparently available as it is submitted to NOPSEMA. The evidence we provided, both in writing and verbally, has been academically robust warranting detailed attention within Bight Petroleum’s draft Environmental Plan and the EPBC Act Referral documentation. That we took the time to raise concerns before the Referral document was developed should have ensured that the Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey proposal was exemplary. However, Bight did not make the requested documentation available for comment (arguably a precondition of ‘consultation’) and the modelling by Curtain University remains an unpublished, confidential document. The Referral documentation as submitted to the Minister and the Department does not address the majority of our reasonable requests.

2.2 Alternatives to taking the proposed action Migratory Wildlife Network comment: There are feasible alternatives to taking the proposed action, but these have not been detailed for your review. Controlled source alternatives Controlled sources generally put the same level of geophysically useable energy into the water as impulsive sources like airguns, but over a longer period of time, and a resulting lower peak sound levels that can be hundreds of times quieter, resulting in a 10,000 fold reduction in the area of ensonification. Controlled sources can produce sound over the frequency range desired, generating signals designed to minimize the impact on marine wildlife while maximize their data collection usefulness. Also, controlled sources, by using a sweep rather than an impulse, can reduce the amplitude (peak levels) by 30 dB by spreading out the energy over time. In certain situations and with certain non-airgun source types, placing the sources and/or receivers near or on to the sea floor can reduce the required source level, as well as the amount of sound that needs to travel through the water column.

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 7

Some of the controlled source alternatives that should have been explained for the Minister and the Department to review include Electro-mechanical marine vibrators, Controlled-Source Electromagnetics and Deep Tow Array Geophysical Systems.

Electro-mechanical marine vibrators Electro-mechanical marine vibrators can operate close to the sea-bed and accomplish increased penetration and offer the opportunity to reduce the peak sound levels introduced into the water column and to tune the frequencies transmitted to exactly the band-width required for operations. By using a sweep instead of an impulse source, the peak levels of sound generated can be reduced by 30 dB. This is done by spreading out the energy over time. A sweep that is 10 seconds has the same amplitude, after correlation, that a short 40 millisecond pulse generated by the airgun has. The use of pseudo noise sequences could reduce the acoustic footprint further (perhaps by an additional 20 dB/Hz by spreading out frequencies over time), but more research is needed to fully understand how to implement these sequences in an effective and optimized way. Marine vibrators have the advantage of being more vertically directional in deeper water. A combination of fiber optic sensors with a reduced bandwidth seismic source, such as a marine vibrator, could make the most optimal use of these technologies.8

Controlled-Source Electromagnetics The use of Controlled-Source Electromagnetics (CSEM) methods for exploration has emerged in the last ten years as a practical tool for oil and gas applications.9 Since 1998 major petroleum exploration companies have allocated significant resources to evaluating the potential of this technology.10 More than 220 marine CSEM surveys have been acquired worldwide by industry since 200011 and pre-drill prediction success rates have very favourably been reported throughout the industry. 12 Front-loading the exploration workflow with the use of silent technologies could optimize the exploration process and require less sound. The most useful CSEM survey technique uses a neutrally- buoyant towed horizontal electric dipole source and multi-component electric and magnetic receivers on the seabed.13 The continuously towed source transmits a high- current low-voltage waveform at a low fundamental frequency, typically from 0.1 to 0.5 Hz. Low frequencies are needed to provide adequate signal penetration to deep sub- seafloor targets. Given the significant historical investment in 2D and 3D seismic surveys throughout this region, it is plausible that CSEM would be sufficient to provide the fine detail required for test drills in this case. Conversely, 3D seismic activities could be optimised based on the results from 3D CSEM. 14 Deep Tow Array Geophysical Systems

8 Spence, J., Fischer, R., Bahtiarian, M., Boroditsky, L., Jones, N., & Dempsey, R. (2007). Review of Existing and Future Potential Treatments for Reducing Underwater Sound from Oil and Gas Industry Activities. NCE Report, 07-001. | Weilgart, L., (2010) Report Of The Workshop On Alternative Technologies To Seismic Airgun Surveys For Oil And Gas Exploration And Their Potential For Reducing Impacts On Marine Mammals, Held by Okeanos - Foundation for the Sea Monterey, California, USA, 31st August – 1st September 9 Chave, AD., Constable, SC., and Edwards, RN., (1991) Electrical exploration methods for the seafloor. In Electromagnetic Methods in Applied Geophysics 2, 931-966, M. Nabighian (ed). Society of Exploration Geophysicists, Tulsa | Constable, S. (2006) Marine electromagnetic methods - A new tool for offshore exploration. The Leading Edge 25, 438-444. 10 Srnka, LJ., Carazzone, JJ., Ephron, MS., and Eriksen, EA., (2006) Remote reservoir resistivity mapping. The Leading Edge 20, 972-975 11 Eidesmo, T., Ellingsrud, S., MacGregor, L. M., Constable, S., Sinha, M. C., Johansen, S., Kong, FN., and Westerdahl, H. (2002) Sea bed logging (SBL), a new method for remote and direct identification of hydrocarbon filled layers in deepwater areas. First Break 20, 144-152 | Ellingsrud, S., Eidesmo, T., Johansen, S., Sinha, MC., MacGregor, MC., and Constable S., (2007) Remote sensing of hydrocarbon layers by seabed logging (SBL): Results from a cruise offshore Angola. The Leading Edge 21, 972-982 12 Srnka, LJ., Carazzone, JJ., Ephron, MS., and Eriksen, EA., (2006) Remote reservoir resistivity mapping. The Leading Edge 20, 972-975 13 Constable S. and Srnka, LJ., (2007) An introduction to marine controlled source electromagnetic exploration for hydrocarbons. Geophysics 72, (Issue 2, March-April) 14 Constable, S., & Srnka, L. J. (2007). An introduction to marine controlled-source electromagnetic methods for hydrocarbon exploration. Geophysics,72(2), WA3-WA12. | MacGregor, L., & Sinha, M. (2002). Use of marine controlled‐source electromagnetic sounding for sub‐basalt exploration. Geophysical Prospecting,48(6), 1091-1106. | Srnka, LJ., Carazzone, JJ., Ephron, MS., and Eriksen, EA., (2006) Remote reservoir resistivity mapping. The Leading Edge 20, 972-975 | Nekut, A. G., & Spies, B. R. (1989). Petroleum exploration using controlled-source electromagnetic methods. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(2), 338-362.

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 8

The Deep Tow Array Geophysical System (DTAGS) are designed to be towed at an altitude of 100 metres at full ocean depth (6,000 metres) with a sub-bottom penetration of 500 metres. The system consists of a sound source, multi-channel streamer, and telemetry system that is compatible with operation in the deep ocean environment. DTAGS provide high resolution data to describe the geologic, geophysical, and geoacoustic character of the deep ocean sea floor and its upper subbottom structure. The DTAGS system operates over The source system, a Helmholtz resonator transducer and power amplifier system, has been antested acoustic to a depthband ofof 2604,500 to m650etres Hz. 15with a peak source level of 201 dB/1 μPa @ 1 m.

Airgun design can be optimized to reduce unwanted energy Seismic airguns produce broad-band acoustic energy (>200Hz) and in directions (both horizontal and vertical to the plane of interest) that are not of use. Airgun arrays typically produce high amplitude sound with source levels in the region of 220– output has highest energy at relatively low frequencies of 10–200 Hz, which overlaps extensively with the low frequency sound produced by baleen whales248 in the dB 12re.– 1500 μPa Hz @ bandwidth.1 m. The acoustic Airgun arrays can also produce significant high frequency sound energy, with airgun sound dominating frequencies up to 22 kHz within a few kilometres of the source. 16 It is possible to reduce this unnecessary acoustic energy through array, source, and receiver design optimization. Lower source levels could be achieved through better system optimization such as better pairing of source and receiver characteristics, and better system gain(s), or new receiver technologies, such as fiber optic receivers to allow the use of quieter sources through a higher receiver density and/or a lower system noise floor.17

That Bight Petroleum have provided no information on plans to optimise the technology being proposed nor the use of alternative technologies, in this section or Section 4, calls into question if there is a genuine intent to mitigate impact as much as possible.

2.3 Alternative locations, time frames or activities that form part of the referred action Migratory Wildlife Network comment: The timeframe proposed overlaps with significant EPBC listed species presence, yet no alternative timeframes have been suggested. We are concerned that we are not able to verify the unpublished whale sighting survey data on which the timing assertion has been made; especially as it contradicts previously held information about blue whale aggregations in the region. Nor are we able to confirm the vessel to be used in the survey as this information has not been transparently provided.

Bight Petroleum should be questioned if their proposed timeline actually relates to the convenience of vessel availability. If this is so, then the reasons for the proposal timing should have been transparently states.

15 Ker, S., Marsset, B., Garziglia, S., Le Gonidec, Y., Gibert, D., Voisset, M. and Adamy, J. (2010), High-resolution seismic imaging in deep sea from a joint deep-towed/OBH reflection experiment: application to a Mass Transport Complex offshore Nigeria. Geophysical Journal International, 182: 1524–1542 | Gettrust, JF., and Wood, WT., (2003) High-Resolution, Deep-Tow Seismic Systems for Geotechnical/Geohazard Studies in Deep Water, Offshore Technology Conference, 5 May-8 May 2003, Houston, Texas | Spychalski, SE., (2003) Unveiling a new deep water acoustic receiver and deep water acoustic source, Offshore Technology Conference, 5 May-8 May 2003, Houston, Texas | Ellingsrud, S., Eidesmo, T., Johansen, S., Sinha, M. C., MacGregor, L. M., & Constable, S. (2002). Remote sensing of hydrocarbon layers by seabed logging (SBL) Results from a cruise offshore Angola. The Leading Edge, 21(10), 972-982. 16 Greene, CR., and Richardson, J., (1988) Characteristics of Marine Seismic Survey Sounds in the Beaufort Sea Canada USA. J.ACOUST. SOC. AM., 83 | Richardson, WJ., and Wursig, B., (1997) Influences of Man-Made Noise and Other Human Actions on Cetacean Behaviour. Marine and Freshwater Behaviour and Physiology, 29 | Weilgart, L., (2010) Report Of The Workshop On Alternative Technologies To Seismic Airgun Surveys For Oil And Gas Exploration And Their Potential For Reducing Impacts On Marine Mammals, Held by Okeanos - Foundation for the Sea Monterey, California, USA, 31st August – 1st September | Gulland, JA. And Walker, CDT., Marine Seismic Overview, in: Mark L. Tasker, & C.R. Weir (eds.), PROCEEDINGS OF THE SEISMIC AND MARINE MAMMALS WORKSHOP, London, 23–25 June 1998 (2001) | Thompson, TJ., Winn, H E., and Perkins, PJ., (1979) Mysticete Sounds, in Behaviour of Marine Animals, Volume 3: Cetaceans, (H.E. Winn & B. J. Olla, eds.) | Goold, JC., and Fish, PJ., (1988) Broadband Spectra of Seismic Survey Air-Gun Emissions, with Reference to Dolphin Auditory Thresholds. Journal Of The Acoustical Society oOf America, 103 | 17 Weilgart, L., (2010) Report Of The Workshop On Alternative Technologies To Seismic Airgun Surveys For Oil And Gas Exploration And Their Potential For Reducing Impacts On Marine Mammals, Held by Okeanos - Foundation for the Sea Monterey, California, USA, 31st August – 1st September

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 9

2.4 Context, planning framework and state/local government requirements No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

2.5 Environmental impact assessments under Commonwealth, state or territory legislation No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

2.6 Public consultation (including with Indigenous stakeholders) Migratory Wildlife Network comment: At the time that Bight Petroleum were granted permits to explore EPP41 and EPP42, Minister Ferguson committed that: “The exploration activities to be undertaken in the Bight region will also be subject to additional conditions, attached to the two permits, recognising the region’s importance in terms of tourism, and the marine environment. [and that] ... Local communities can have confidence that the highest and most stringent safety standards will apply to exploration, with any future work subject to further environmental and regulatory approval processes.”18

With this assurance the Migratory Wildlife Network proceeded into the consultation process to receive such confidence. That Bight Petroleum suggests in their Referral documentation that they have “consulted extensively” is disconcerting.

We strongly contend that Bight Petroleum has not “consulted extensively” with relevant stakeholders as they seek to portray. We detail the communications between Bight Petroleum and the Migratory Wildlife Network below, as evidence that there has been limited, but unsatisfactory communication, but not consultation.

We are deeply concerned about the implied assumption from Bight Petroleum in both their rebuttal correspondence to the Kangaroo Island Council19 and their EPBC Referral documentation that the community and stakeholders must prove risk and potential harm over activities we have no control over, rather than Bight Petroleum being legislatively bound to give evidence of risk mitigation of their proposed activities as a response to these concerns.

Bight Petroleum’s consultation process In October 2011, the Migratory Wildlife Network received correspondence from Bight Petroleum, asking the organisation provide details of our concerns about their proposal. Their letter provided a cursory (2 paragraph) overview of their plans and an indication that they were considering the impacts to whales. They made no mention of the impact to the general marine environment nor to any other EPBC listed species. Further correspondence was received in May revising the proposed timeframe. In this correspondence Bight Petroleum informed the Network that their plan was to: “... acquire our seismic survey sometime during the period January to April 2013. This is the preferred time of year to avoid key cetacean migration times and is also generally the period of less severe weather which is beneficial for operational safety reasons. The survey itself is expected to last no longer than 2 months. We intend to acquire a single 3D seismic survey of between 2600 and 3000 square kilometres over EPP41 and EPP42. This survey exceeds our minimum licence commitments because we would like to acquire sufficient data to guide our exploration efforts for a number of years rather than returning to acquire more data within one or two years. Our licence commitment requires that we acquire the survey by July 2013.

18 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 19 Correspondence from Bight Petroleum, dated 5th September 2012 at: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20120912%20Council%20Agenda%20- %20Late%20Items%20&%20Attachments.pdf

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 10

We plan to use a specialised seismic survey vessel, which will travel at about 4.5 knots towing up to 14 streamers up to 8 km long containing hydrophones (sound receivers) separated at up to 120m spacing. The acoustic signal will be produced by two alternating acoustic arrays, each totalling no more than 4130 cubic inches, which will emit signals that have been computed by Curtin University Centre for Marine Science and Technology at a Sound Energy Level (SEL) of 229dB re 1μPa2.s.”20 Bight Petroleum also provided a map of the area, which sits over the Kangaroo Island Pool, Kangaroo Island Canyons and Eyre Peninsula Upwellings.

As this was the extent of the information provided, neither letter provided sufficient information to allow the Migratory Wildlife Network to make an informed assessment of how the company proposed to mitigate risks to marine species or the marine environment. Therefore, in response to their request for us to detail our concerns we provide considered information about the significant number of pinniped, cetacean, fish and bird species which rely on the region, as well general comments about the technologies to be employed. We requested the opportunity to comment on their EPBC Referral document and NOPSEMEA Environmental Plan before these were finalised and submitted. We are aware that a number of other Stakeholders requested the same courtesy. At no time did we suggest we opposed Bight Petroleum activities outright. We made it clear that we sought to be involved in a genuine consultation to reduce risk to the highest possible extent.

Bight Petroleum met with a number of stakeholders on 14th June 2012, including the Migratory Wildlife Network, where they provided generalist information of how seismic survey activities are conducted but no detail of the specifics of their proposal beyond what had been previously communicated in the October 2011 and May 2012 correspondence (relevant paragraph copied above). During the face to face meeting we specifically asked for genuine consultation on the details of their EPBC Referral documentation and NOPSEMEA Environmental Plan before these were finalised and submitted. They gave a verbal indication that they would consider this request.

Following the stakeholder meeting, we corresponded with Bight Petroleum once again, with our specific request that Bight Petroleum make transparently available for comment the following: 1. Modelling of the potential for impact from horizontal propagation; 2. Modelling of the actual exposure to (numbers of and duration of) shots; 3. Detail of the a 2.s. and frequencies used across a staggered array cycle 4. Detail of the number of array cycles/per minute/s; 5. Detail of the operatingctual dB reenvelope 1μPa of sound pressure levels and frequencies at different depths and water temperatures; 6. Specifications (including age) of the equipment to be used; 7. Name of the vessel conducting the survey; 8. Detail of soft start protocols for all the species outlined in the Migratory Wildlife Network comment document; 9. Detail of plans for 24 hour visual detection of all the EPBC listed species, 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 10. Detail of plans for establishing an adequate safety zone. Once again, the Migratory Wildlife Network very specifically requested that:

20 Correspondence from Bight Petroleum, dated 4th May 2012

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 11

11. Bight Petroleum transparently provide a copy of the draft Environmental Plan and the EPBC Act Referral documentation, before submission to NOPSEMA and the EPBC Act Referral Unit, with sufficient time to allow for public comment to be submitted and for Bight Petroleum to appropriately adapt the documents before submission; and that 12. the final copy of Bight Petroleum’s Environmental Plan, in full, is made transparently available as it is submitted to NOPSEMA.

The evidence we provided Bight Petroleum in our initial comment document and during the stakeholder meeting was carefully put and academically robust, warranting detailed attention within their EPBC Act Referral documentation and NOPSEMA Environmental Plan. None of our requests would have caused Bight Petroleum confidentiality issues.

Requests 1-5 could have been addresses simply by making their Curtin University modelling available for us to see. It seems that this work had been done in 2011 (given they reference it in their correspondence) and we can find no legitimate reason to keep this information confidential.

Despite a number of attempts to make contact since the stakeholder meeting we have received no further communication from Bight Petroleum. We are aware of a lengthy rebuttal sent by Bight Petroleum to the where they simply refute a number of concerns put forward by the Council without a single reference to substantiate their position. This rebuttal correspondence is on the public record at: http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20120912%20Council%20 Agenda%20-%20Late%20Items%20&%20Attachments.pdf21

We are also concerned to see a similar, unsubstantiated rebuttal within section 2.6 of their EPBC Referral documentation, further reinforcing the inadequacy of their consultation process. Anecdotally we are aware that regional fisheries interests have also been disregarded. Rock lobster fishermen have had a voluntary closure over the grounds for nearly a decade and were setting up to renter the grounds in this season. Similarly, we understand the pilchard fishery has not been fully consulted. Possibly most striking is the impact to the southern Bluefin tuna fishery who holds a twin concern that the Bight Petroleum’s activities will drive the migrating stocks south of the fishing ground, but also that the seismic survey will interest the seasonal towing to the farms are through the survey area. The industry tow an average 10,000 fish/tow, at one knot with each tow taking 10-15 days, approximately 30 times throughout the seasons between 1st December and 30th April.22 The industry believes that there is evidence that the seismic activity has an effect on the fish behaviour, and they also hold serious concerns that these impacts are experienced by southern Bluefin tuna.

Bight Petroleum’s interpretation of significant impact and burden of proof The Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities provides the definition of significant impact as follows: A significant impact is an impact which is important, notable, or of consequence, having regard to its context or intensity. Whether or not an action is likely to have a significant impact depends upon the sensitivity, value, and quality of the environment which is impacted, and upon the intensity, duration, magnitude and geographic extent of the impacts.23

21 Correspondence from Bight Petroleum, dated 5th September 2012 at http://www.kangarooisland.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/20120912%20Council%20Agenda%20- %20Late%20Items%20&%20Attachments.pdf 22 B. Jeffries, pers comm., 29th October 2012 | KIMAG, pers comm.., 12th September 2012 23 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012) EPBC Act Glossary, at: http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/about/glossary.html#significant

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 12

By the definition the concerns raised by the Migratory Wildlife Network and the Kangaroo Island Council qualify as variously important, notable, or of consequence, yet Bight Petroleum dismiss all of these concerns without substantiating their position with peer reviewed or independent evidence. Their stance appears to be that merely refuting a concern legitimately put forward is sufficient evidence of the rightness of their case.

We are particularly concerned with the statement (within para 3, page 6) that “[a]ll the EPBC threatened and migratory species can swim away from the sound source at a speed significantly greater than 4.5knots (approx. 9km/hr) and hence achieve a stand-off distance at which the sound levels can be “tolerated” as an unacceptable basis from which to make their plans.

Given that Minister Ferguson has committed that the local community “... can have confidence that the highest and most stringent safety standards will apply to exploration, with any future work subject to further environmental and regulatory approval processes”24, we urge the Department to carefully consider the veracity of the evidence being put forward by Bight Petroleum, and proceed on the basis that they have not met a basic burden of proof.

2.7 A staged development or component of a larger project Migratory Wildlife Network comment: The information announced by the Minister for Resources and Energy, Martin Ferguson on 8th July 2011 was that EPP41 (released as S10-1) and EPP42 (released as S10-2) straddling the Duntroon and Ceduna Sub-basins of the Bight Basin off South Australia was awarded to Bight Petroleum as follows: For EPP41: “The company proposes a guaranteed work program of 768 km2 of new 3D seismic surveying, bathymetry survey, geochemical sampling survey, an exploration well and geotechnical studies to an estimated value of A$63.625m. The secondary work program consists of 1969 km2 of new 3D seismic surveying, two exploration wells and geotechnical studies to an estimated value of A$156.2m. There was one other bid for this area.”24 EPP42: “The company proposes a guaranteed work program of 235 km of new 2D swath seismic surveying, bathymetry surveying, geochemical sampling surveying and geotechnical studies at an estimated value of A$3.975m. The secondary work program consists of an exploration well, 405 km of new 2D swath seismic surveying and geotechnical studies to an estimated value of A$49.9m. There were no other bids for this area.” 24 The Minister also announced that in addition to the standard exploration permit terms and conditions, the permits awarded to Bight Petroleum were subject to the following conditions: • 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; • independent certification by the original provider, prior to installation, that each blowout preventer has been satisfactorily tested to design pressures; • 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 • 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. 24

24 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 13

That these conditions clearly relate to ‘secondary work program’ contained within the one permit to Bight Petroleum indicates that the activity contained in this Referral is a component of a larger project, yet the company’s Referral documentation is silent on this ‘secondary work program’. It is unacceptable that all the activities contained within the two permits are not described in full in this Referral. This is particularly pertinent because research indicates that there is “a moderate to high risk of fault reactivation” occurring at present day, “leading to potential seal breach and hydrocarbon migration in the Bight Basin”.25 The breached hydrocarbon trap encountered in the Jerboa-1 well indicate that seal failure caused by fault reactivation is potentially a significant issue in the Bight Basin.26

25 J. Macdonald, G. Backé, R. King, S. Holford and R. Hillis (2012) Geomechanical modelling of fault reactivation in the Ceduna Sub-basin, Bight Basin, Australia, Geological Society, London, Special Publications, v.367, p71-89 26 S. Reynolds, R. Hillis and E. Paraschivoiu (2003) In situ stress field, fault reactivation and seal integrity in the Bight Basin, South Australia, Exploration Geophysics 34(3) 174 - 181 | S. D. Reynolds, E. Paraschivoiu, R. R. Hillis, G. W. O'Brien (2005) A Regional Analysis of Fault Reactivation and Seal Integrity Based on Geomechanical Modeling: An Example from the Bight Basin, Australia, in P. Boult and J. Kaldi , eds.Evaluating fault and cap rock seals : AAPG Hedberg Series, no. 2 , p. 57 - 71 | Hillis, R.D. and Reynolds, S.D., (2003) In Situ Stress Field, Fault Reactivation and Seal Integrity in the Bight Basin. South Australia, Department of Primary Industries and Resources. Report Book.

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 14

3 Description of environment & likely impacts

3.1 Matters of national environmental significance

3.1 (a) World Heritage Properties Description No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

3.1 (b) National Heritage Places Description No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

3.1 (c) Wetlands of International Importance (declared Ramsar wetlands) Description No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

3.1 (d) Listed threatened species and ecological communities Description Migratory Wildlife Network comment: The Migratory Wildlife Network provided detail information to Bight Petroleum about each of the following EPBC listed species. It was our expectation that Bight Petroleum would address threat mitigation for each of these within their EPBC Referral documentation.

Australian sea-lion (Neophoca cinerea) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’ and ‘marine’ 27 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ (A2bd+3d) 28 Australian sea-lions (Neophoca cinerea) prefer the sheltered side of islands and avoid exposed rocky headlands that are preferred by the New Zealand Fur Seal (). An important feature of colony sites used for breeding are shallow, protected pools in which pups congregate around rock or vegetative shelter. There are breeding and pupping sites for at Cave Point and Cape Bouguer and haul out sites for Australian sea lion occur at Cave Point, Cape Bouguer, , North Casuarina and South Casuarina Islet, Paisley Islet (West Bay Islet) and . West Bay Islet always contains a small number of bull male sea lions, and a large number of sea lion bones. It is speculated that this islet may be a place where old male sea lions from other colonies go to die. Around Kangaroo Islands the Australian sea-lion's range also appears to have a strong association with the upwelling system. There is also significant Australian Sea Lion habitat in the Marine Group Marine Park, with approximately half of the Australian population of New Zealand Fur Seals. and within Thorny Passage Marine Park.29

Females' movements appear to be no greater than 60 km from their natal site. Males disperse approximately 200 km from natal sites. Adult females have been recorded to move pups away from

27 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012) Neophoca cinerea in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra 28 Goldsworthy, S., & Gales, N., (2008) Neophoca cinerea. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 29 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Gales, N. (1990) Abundance of Australian sea lions Neophoca cinerea along the southern Australian coast, and related research. Report to the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management. South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and South Australian Wildlife Conservation Fund | Gales, N.J., Shaughnessy, P.D., & Dennis, T.E., (1994) 'Distribution, abundance and breeding cycle of the Australian sea lion Neophoca cinerea (Mammalia: Pinnipedia)', Journal of Zoology, London, 234, pp: 353-370 | Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2008). The South-West Marine Bioregional Plan: Bioregional Profile: A Description of the Ecosystems, Conservation Values and Uses of the South-West Marine Region, Canberra | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Neophoca cinerea in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 15

the natal area to other haul-out areas to continue nursing when pups, at approximately 2–3 months of age, can make short distance movements. The breeding cycle of the Australian sea-lion is unusual within the pinniped family, in that it is an 18 month cycle and is not synchronised between colonies. The duration of the breeding season can range from 5 to 7 months and has been recorded for up to 9 months at Seal Bay on Kangaroo Island. Young can be born anytime from January to June after a gestation period of about 12 months. Despite the fact that females give birth to only one young and may not breed again for two to three years, pup mortality is high in the first six months after birth. About 10 days after the pup is born its mother starts going to sea to feed, spending about 2 days at sea and about 1.5 days back ashore, until the pup is weaned. Females nurses pups for 15-18 months but some pups can be nursed for up to 23 months by the quarter of females who do not pup each breeding season. The breeding cycle of Australian sea-lion (January - June birthing, and 15-18 month nursing, before weaning) means that each of the pupping grounds, and the fishing ground associated with them should be considered critical habitat year round.30

Great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’ and ‘migratory’31 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Vulnerable’ (A2cd+3cd) 32 Great white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) are widely, but not evenly, distributed in Australian waters. Areas where observations are more frequent in the region include waters in and around some fur seal and sea-lion colonies and areas of the Great Australian Bight. Great white sharks can be found from close inshore around rocky reefs, surf beaches and shallow coastal bays to outer continental shelf and slope areas and are often found in regions with high prey density, such as pinniped colonies. They also make open ocean excursions and can cross ocean basins (for instance from South Africa to the western coast of Australia and from the eastern coast of Australia to New Zealand). Reported sightings of large great white sharks in the middle and upper reaches of and , where pinnipeds do not commonly occur but dolphins are frequently sighted, suggests that dolphins may also be important prey. Juveniles appear to aggregate seasonally off the coast off the Goolwa region of South Australia.33

30 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Campbell, R.A., Gales, N.J., Lento, G.M., & Baker, C.S., (2008) 'Islands in the sea: extreme female natal site fidelity in the Australian sea lion, Neophoca cinerea', Biology Letters, Issue 23, pp: 139-142 | Dennis, T., & Shaughnessy, P., (1996) ‘Status of the Australian sea-lion, Neophoca cinerea, in the Great Australian Bight’, Wildlife Research 23(6) pp: 741-54 | Gales, N. (1990) Abundance of Australian sea lions Neophoca cinerea along the southern Australian coast, and related research. Report to the Western Australian Department of Conservation and Land Management. South Australian National Parks and Wildlife Service and South Australian Wildlife Conservation Fund | Higgins, L.V., & Gass, L., (1993) 'Birth to weaning: parturition, duration of lactation, and attendance cycles of Australian sea lions (Neophoca cinerea)', Canadian Journal of Zoology, 71 pp: 2047-2055 | Gales, N.J., Shaughnessy, P.D., & Dennis, T.E., (1994) 'Distribution, abundance and breeding cycle of the Australian sea lion Neophoca cinerea (Mammalia: Pinnipedia)', Journal of Zoology, London, 234, pp: 353-370 | Goldsworthy, S., & Gales, N., (2008) Neophoca cinerea. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 | Campbell, R.A., N.J. Gales, G.M. Lento & C.S. Baker (2008). Islands in the sea: extreme female natal site fidelity in the Australian sea lion, Neophoca cinerea. Biology Letters. 23:139-142 | Shaughnessy, P. (2002) Ranking of South Australian Seal Colonies, Report to Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia. October 2002 | Costa, DP., LD. Rea, M. Kretzmann & PH. Thorson (1990). Seasonal changes in the diving pattern and energetics of the Australian sea lion, Neophoca cinerea, South Australia, Department of the Environment | Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2005). Commonwealth Conservation Advice on Australian Sea-lion (Neophoca cinerea), Canberra | Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2005). Commonwealth Listing Advice on Australian Sea-lion (Neophoca cinerea), Canberra | Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2008). The South-West Marine Bioregional Plan: Bioregional Profile: A Description of the Ecosystems, Conservation Values and Uses of the South-West Marine Region, Canberra 31 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Carcharodon carcharias in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra 32 Fergusson, I., Compagno, L.J.V. & Marks, M., (2009) Carcharodon carcharias. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 33 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Bruce, B.D., Stevens, J.D., & Bradford, R.W., (2005) Identifying movements and habitats of white sharks and grey nurse sharks, Report to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra | Bruce, B.D., Stevens, J.D., & Bradford, R.W., (2005) Site Fidelity, Residence Times and Home Range Patterns of White Sharks around Pinniped Colonies, Final Report to the Australian Government Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra | Bruce, G.D., Stevens, J.D., & Malcolm, H., (2006) 'Movements and swimming behaviour of white sharks (Carcharodon carcharias) in Australian waters', Marine Biology, Issue 150, pp: 161-172 | Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2009) White Shark Issues Paper, Canberra | Malcolm, H., Bruce, B.D., & Stevens, J., (2001) A Review of the Biology and Status of White Sharks in Australian Waters, Environment Australia, Canberra; Environment Australia (2002) White Shark (Carcharodon carcharias) Recovery Plan, Canberra | Department of the Enviroment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (2009). White Shark Issues Paper. Canberra

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 16

Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’34 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ (A1abd) 35 EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 - clearly identified biologically important habitat blue whales (feeding) and there is a high likelihood of encountering blue whales if activities are undertaken between November – April Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) distribution in the region to the south and west of Kangaroo Island is well documented, with visitations predictable each year. The observed whales have been sighted within 15 km of the 200m depth contour, with most of the sightings concentrated inshore of the Kangaroo Island Canyons. Large surface krill swarms have also been identified in the regions where the blue whales have been sighted and recent research confirms the nutrient-rich water from the Kangaroo Island Pool is a critical feeding habitat of the blue whales. The krill aggregation may drift either inshore or offshore of the shelf break depending on wind direction, explaining the depth range of sightings (82 to 1548m) and the high proportion (50 percent) of all sightings west of Kangaroo Island in depths >200m. However, the presence of complex cross-shelf canyons in this area, similar to those linked to the upwelling on the Bonney Coast, and reports of blue whale sightings westward almost to 131°E leave open the possibility of upwelling west of the ‘cold pool’, and the extension of blue whale foraging habitat further west.36

Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’37 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ (A1ad) 38 EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 - clearly identified biologically important habitat blue whales (feeding, migratory and resting) and there is a medium - high likelihood of encountering blue whales if activities are undertaken between December – April. Sei whales (Balaenoptera borealis) have been sighted 20–60 km offshore on the continental shelf in the Bonney Upwelling (off the coast of south-western Victoria and south-eastern South Australia) between December and April, presumably feeding. Sei whales have also been reported 200 nautical miles (nm) south-west of . The extent of occurrence and area of occupancy of sei whales in Australian waters cannot be easily confirmed due to the rarity of sightings records, however given the known overlaps of sightings timing with blue whale sightings it should be presumed that they are present.39

Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’40 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ (A1d) 41

34 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Balaenoptera musculus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra 35 Reilly, SB., Bannister, JL., Best, PB., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., RL., Butterworth, DS., Clapham, PJ., Cooke, J., Donovan, GP., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, AN., (2008) Balaenoptera musculus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. 36 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Butler, A., Althaus, F., Furlani, D., Ridgway, K., (2002) Assessment of the conservation values of the Bonney Upwelling area. A component of the Commonwealth Marine Conservation Assessment Program 2002–2004, Report to Environment Australia. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart | Gill, P.C., Morrice, M.G., Page, B., Pirzl, R., Levings, A.H., & Coyne, M., (2011) ‘ Blue whale habitat selection and within-season distribution in a regional upwelling system off southern Australia’, Marine Ecology Progress Series, 421, pp: 243–263 | Morrice, M.G., Gill, P.C., Hughes, J., & Levings, A.H., (2004) Summary of aerial surveys for the Santos Ltd EPP32 seismic survey, 2–13 December 2003. Report WEG-SO 02/2004 to Santos Ltd. Whale Ecology Group, Deakin University, Warrnambool 37 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012) Balaenoptera borealis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra 38 Reilly, SB., Bannister, JL., Best, PB., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., RL., Butterworth, DS., Clapham, PJ., Cooke, J., Donovan, GP., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, AN., (2008) Balaenoptera borealis. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. 39 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Gill, P.C. (2002). A blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) feeding ground in a southern Australian coastal upwelling zone. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. 4:179-184 | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Balaenoptera borealis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Department of the Environment and Heritage (2005a). Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan 2005 - 2010. [Online]. Department of the Environment and Heritage. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia 40 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012) Balaenoptera physalus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra 41 Reilly, SB., Bannister, JL., Best, PB., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., RL., Butterworth, DS., Clapham, PJ., Cooke, J., Donovan, GP., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, AN., (2008). Balaenoptera physalus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 17

EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 - clearly identified biologically important habitat blue whales (feeding, migratory and resting) and there is a medium - high likelihood of encountering blue whales if activities are undertaken between December – April. Reliable estimates of fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) population size in Australia are not currently possible. The proportion of time that this species spends at the surface varies considerably depending on their behaviour and local ecology (e.g. whether they are travelling or foraging; depth at which prey occurs) making accurate population estimates difficult. Fin whales in the Bonney Upwelling are sometimes seen in the vicinity of blue and sei whales. Areas of upwelling and interfaces between mixed and stratified waters, such as the Kangaroo Island Pool, may be an important feature of fin whale feeding habitat. Overlaps of sightings with blue whales cannot be ignored.42

Southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’43 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Least Concern’ 44 EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 - clearly identified biologically important habitat blue whales (migratory and resting) and there is a high likelihood of encountering blue whales if activities are undertaken between May – October. Southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) are seasonally present on the Australian coast between about May and November. One of a number of major calving areas is in South Australia at the Head of the Great Australian Bight. Smaller numbers of calving females are also regularly seen at . Southern right whale mating and calving grounds are occupied during the austral winter and early-mid spring. Peak periods for mating are from mid-July through August as documented in population biology studies at the Head of the Great Australian Bight. Researchers contend that southern right whales exhibit a strong tendency to return to the same breeding location. This is particularly evident for reproductively mature females, where 92 percent showed a tendency to return to the calving area. Around 85 percent of calves born at the Head of the Bight also exhibited fidelity to their birthing location, making the Head of the Bight and their migration route (as heavily pregnant females travelling northward or mothers with infant claves travelling south to their sub-Antarctic feeding grounds) through the Kangaroo Island Pool region a critical habitat for this species.45

Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) and dwarf sperm whale (Kogia simus) EPBC Act - Physeter macrocephalus: ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’; Kogia breviceps and Kogia simus: ‘cetacean’46 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - Physeter macrocephalus: ‘Vulnerable’ (A1d); Kogia breviceps

42 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Gill, P.C. (2002). A blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) feeding ground in a southern Australian coastal upwelling zone. Journal of Cetacean Research and Management. 4:179-184 | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Balaenoptera borealis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Department of the Environment and Heritage (2005a). Blue, Fin and Sei Whale Recovery Plan 2005 - 2010. Department of the Environment and Heritage. Canberra, Commonwealth of Australia 43 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012) Eubalaena australis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra 44 Reilly, SB., Bannister, JL., Best, PB., Brown, M., Brownell Jr., RL., Butterworth, DS., Clapham, PJ., Cooke, J., Donovan, GP., Urbán, J. & Zerbini, AN., (2008) Eubalaena australis. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 45 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Bannister, J.L., (2001) ‘Status of southern right whales (Eubalaena australis) off southern Australia’, Journal of Cetacean Research and Management (Special Issue 2), pp: 103- 110 | Bannister, J.L., (2003) Southern Right Whale aerial survey and photo-identification, southern Australia 2002, Final Report to Environment Australia, Western Australian Museum, Perth | Burnell, S.R., (1999) The population biology of southern right whales in southern Australian waters, Ph.D. Thesis. University of Sydney, Sydney | Butler, A., Althaus, F., Furlani, D., Ridgway, K., (2002) Assessment of the conservation values of the Bonney Upwelling area. A component of the Commonwealth Marine Conservation Assessment Program 2002– 2004, Report to Environment Australia. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart | Payne, R., (1986) ‘Long term behavioral studies of the southern right whale (Eubalaena australis)’, Report to the International Whaling Commission (special issue 10), pp:161-167 46 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Physeter macrocephalus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Kogia breviceps in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Kogia sima in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 18

and Kogia simus: ‘Data deficient’47 The high productivity upwelling zones in deeper waters off southern and western Kangaroo Island may be critical habitat sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus), pygmy sperm whale (Kogia breviceps) and dwarf sperm whale (Kogia simus). Researchers have reported that each of these specieis have been found south-west of Kangaroo Island. It is possible that sperm and beaked whale strandings along the South Australian coast were due to these species aggregating in and around the Murray and Kangaroo Island Canyon system. Aerial surveys have identified beaked whales and sperm whales in deeper waters (1000 to 2000 m), and dolphins pods (with up to 300 in a group) have also been also seen documented between the 100 and 200-m depth contours. 48

Leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’ 49 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Critically Endangered’ (A1abd) 50 Leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea) are recorded as occasional visitors to north-eastern Kangaroo Island with isolated sightings reported in most years, supported by South Australian Museum records. It is possible these sighting have also included green turtles (Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), although this is difficult to confirm.51 All three turtle species are also listed as ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.

Southern giant-petrel (Macronectes giganteus) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’ 52 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Least concern’53 The Kangaroo Island Pool is an important aggregation the southern giant-petrel (Macronectes giganteus) recorded in Flinders Chase National Park and surrounds. The proposed activities may impact on important prey for this species.

Shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta cauta) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’ 54 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Near threatened’55

47 Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008. Physeter macrocephalus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 | Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008. Kogia breviceps. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 | Taylor, B.L., Baird, R., Barlow, J., Dawson, S.M., Ford, J., Mead, J.G., Notarbartolo di Sciara, G., Wade, P. & Pitman, R.L. 2008. Kogia sima. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 48 Kemper, C., & Ling, J., (1991) ‘Whale strandings in South Australia (1881-1989)’, Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, 115(1), pp: 37-52 | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Butler, A., Althaus, F., Furlani, D., Ridgway, K., (2002) Assessment of the conservation values of the Bonney Upwelling area. A component of the Commonwealth Marine Conservation Assessment Program 2002–2004, Report to Environment Australia. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart | Bannister, J., Kemper, C., & Warneke, R., (1996) The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans, Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra 49 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Dermochelys coriacea in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Chelonia mydas in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Caretta caretta in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra 50 Sarti Martinez, AL. (2000) Dermochelys coriacea. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. 51 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Limpus, C., (2008) A biological review of Australian marine turtle species: 1. Loggerhead turtle, Caretta caretta (Linneaus), Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane | Limpus, C., (2008) A biological review of Australian marine turtles: 6. Leatherback Turtle Dermochelys coriacea (Vandelli), Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane | Limpus, C., (2008) A biological review of Australian marine turtles: 2. Green turtle Chelonia mydas (Linnaeus), Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane | Zepf, A. (2012) pers comm., Email correspondence on file with the author 52 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Macronectes giganteus in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra 53 BirdLife International 2009. Macronectes giganteus. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 54 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Thalassarche cauta cauta in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 19

Shy Albatrosses (Thalassarche cauta cauta) appear to occur over all Australian coastal waters below 25° S. It is most commonly observed over the shelf waters around and southeastern Australia. It appears to be less pelagic than many other albatrosses, ranging well inshore over the continental shelf, even entering bays and harbours. South-western Kangaroo Island is one of approximately 20 areas within south-eastern South Australia, in which “higher occurrence” records of the at-sea distribution of the shy albatross are recorded.56 The proposed activities may impact on important prey for this species.

Black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’57 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ ( A4bd)58 Black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris) migrate northward towards the end of the breeding season and the species is common in the non-breeding period at the continental shelf and shelf-break of South Australia, Victoria, Tasmania, western and eastern Bass Strait and NSW. Individuals are also observed at these times in lesser numbers at the continental shelf break of southern and south-western Western Australia and south-eastern Queensland, and over open waters south and east of Tasmania, including over the South Tasman Rise. The proposed activities may impact on important prey for this species.

Wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans (sensu lato)) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’59 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ (C2a(ii))60 The wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans (sensu lato)) feeds mainly in pelagic, offshore and inshore waters, from the sea surface or just below it with shallow dives from heights of 2-5 m. They regularly feed in sheltered harbours and straits and are known to be seasonally present in the region.61 The proposed activities may impact on important prey for this species.

Yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche chlororhynchos) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’62 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Endangered’ (A4bd;B2ab(v))63 The region may also be seasonally important to the yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche chlororhynchos).64 The proposed activities may impact on important prey for this species.

Nature and extent of likely impact Migratory Wildlife Network comment: In the ocean, acoustic energy (sound) propagates efficiently, travelling fast and potentially over great distances. Sea water being a denser medium than air, sound travels almost five times faster through sea

55 BirdLife International 2010. Thalassarche cauta. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 56 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Thalassarche cauta cauta in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra 57 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Thalassarche melanophris in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide 58 BirdLife International 2010. Thalassarche melanophrys. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 59 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide 60 BirdLife International 2010. Diomedea exulans . In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 61 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide 62 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Thalassarche chlororhynchos in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide 63 BirdLife International 2010. Thalassarche chlororhynchos. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 64 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 20 water than through air, and can travel hundreds of kilometers with little loss in energy. Sound propagation can be affected by many factors, including frequency of the sound, water depth and also density differences within the water column that vary with temperature and pressure. It is important to recognize that sound arriving at an animal is subject to propagation conditions that can be quite complex. The region and type of propagation can significantly affect the characteristics of arriving sound energy, making petroleum industry generalizations about the level of impact difficult to assert.65 During seismic surveys, a predominantly low frequency high intensity sound pulse is emitted every few seconds by an array of guns, with the sound pressure depending on the size of the array. For the Bight Petrorum proposed survey the noise pulses will happen every 11 seconds, contiuously over a 24 hoiur period expect for shut-dowqn periods, and will extend over 70 days for a total of 55 survey days.

While most studies have focused on the effects of exposure to a given level of transient sound (often a single pulse only), McCauley (2000) took the analysis a step further, creating a map showing the cumulative exposure likely over the course of a full seismic survey, whatever its duration. This is most relevant to resident species (such as Australian sea-lions or rock lobster), which may be exposed to the full survey, or to migratory species that have come to a specific habitat for a necessary function such as feeding or breeding (such as blue whales, or migrating southern right whales). McCauly’s exposure model looked at how many individual air gun shots would be received at a level of 155dB re 1µPa2.s (equivalent energy) or higher over the course of a four-month survey. For an area roughly 5,400km2 an organism present within the area would be subject to 40,000 shots at this biologically significant level (over 300 per day on average). For an area of about 18,000km2 an organism present within the area would experience 20,000 shots. For an area of 48,000km2 an organism present within the area would hear 100 shots in the course of the survey.66 Bight Petroleum proposes a single 2 month long, 3D seismic survey over an area of 3,000km2 in water depths from about 130 metres to 2400 metres, and using two alternating acoustic arrays, emitting signals 2.s. As part of the consultation process the Migratory Wildlife Network requested that Bight Petroleum model the number of shots on organisms present within the area would receive under their proposal,of 229dB as re this 1μPa would provide a more accurate and meaningful measure of the development footprint. This information has not been transparently provided for the Minister and the Department to review.

Almost all regulation of seismic surveys (as well as other particularly intense sound sources) involves the use of varying shut-down or low power distances from sighted whales. The implication behind these regulations is that inside these ranges sound levels have the potential to be harmful to these mammals, while outside they should fall within agreeably ‘safe’ levels of risk. Accounting for uncertainty and variability is increasingly recognized as a critical component of advice that scientists must provide policy makers in order for informed management decisions to be made. Plausible scenarios must tested and tried, and policy makers must be responsive to these conclusions.67 The current EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 – Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales is widely used by industry to cover their impact to wildlife, yet the policy does not address other species of national significance, no longer represents industry best practice and is not be precautionary enough for the circumstances relating to EPP 41 and EPP 42.

Wildlife responses to noise fall into three main categories: behavioral, acoustic and physiological. 1. Behavioral responses include changes in surfacing, diving and heading patterns. Migrating whales have been shown to execute significant course and speed changes to avoid close encounters with operating seismic arrays. There are also observations of whales at the surface approaching an operating seismic array to within 100 metres, then swimming quickly away by changing direction. Similar behavioral reactions have been demonstrated with toothed whales, dolphins and porpoises.

65 Urick, R.J., (1983) Principles of Underwater Sound, McGraw-Hill Co, New York 66 McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, A.J., Jenner, C., Jenner, M-N., Penrose, J.D., Prince, R.I.T., Adhitya, A., Murdoch, J., & McCabe, K., (2000) Marine seismic surveys: a study of environmental implications, APPEA Journal, 40, pp: 692-708 | 67 Weir, C.R., & Dolman, S.J., (2007) 'Comparative review of the regional marine mammal mitigation guidelines implemented during industrial seismic surveys, and guidance towards a worldwide standard', Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 10, pp: 1–27 | Weilgart, L.S., (2007) ‘The impacts of anthropogenic oceans noise on cetaceans and implications for management’, Canadian Journal of Zoology, 85, pp: 1991-1116

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 21

2. Acoustic responses include changes in type or timing of vocalizations relative to the noise source. 3. Physiological responses include auditory threshold shifts and ‘stress’. Animals exposed to elevated noise levels can suffer permanent hearing threshold shifts, temporary hearing threshold shifts changing the ability of an animal to hear, usually at a particular frequency. Masking can occur when an extraneous sound covers or ‘masks’ a desired signal (such as the call of another whale).68

Rolland et al (2012) indicate the impact of prolonged noise exposure may have a more serious impact of cetaceans, and therefore perhaps other marine mammals as well, than has previously been thought. This is especially pertinent for resident species dependant on certain habitats, such as the Australian sea-lion. Acoustic studies have shown that right whales alter their vocalization behaviour in noisy habitats by increasing both the amplitude and frequency of their stereotyped upcalls (the main contact sounds used by these whales). It is not material to the point of the research if the ensonification is as a result of seismic surveys or heavy shipping traffic. This point of the finding is that the habitat was ‘noisy’. A comparison of three right whale habitats along the east coast of the USA and Canada found that the Bay of Fundy had the highest levels of background low frequency noise associated with heavy shipping traffic, and that the frequencies of right whale upcalls were significantly higher in this habitat. Northern right whales congregate during late summer in the Bay of Fundy, Canada, to feed and nurse their calves, and since 1980, the New England Aquarium (Boston, MA, USA) had been conducting population surveys annually in this critical right whale habitat. As all shipping traffic was halted in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, the researchers noted a marked decrease noise produced by ship traffic in the Bay of Fundy – specifically a noticeable decrease in low-frequency background noise. A study of stress-related faecal hormone metabolites was also underway throughout the 2001 field season and over the four subsequent years. When the acoustic recordings and ship traffic data was analyzed alongside the faecal glucocorticoid (fGC) they revealed measures of physiological stress in the whales before and after 9/11. Researchers saw a significant decrease in stress-related fGC hormone levels in right whales that corresponded with post-9/11 decrease in background underwater noise.69

The production of stress hormones is a key physiological step in balancing the expenditure of energy of all vertebrates. It involves an endocrine system response in which occurs a release of corticosteroids. These hormones facilitate the ability of an individual to survive exposure to a threat. While this response is effective in the presence of short-term stressors, chronic levels of stress can result in various pathological dysfunctions, including an increase in blood glucose, or the inhibition of reproduction, immune function, or growth. If this continues for a long time (chronic stress), it can cause damage to an individual's physical and mental health. The release of corticosteroids in humans is known to lead to structural changes in brains, ultimately producing impairments in working memory and spatial memory, as well as increased aggression. 70 This research is particularly relevant to the consideration of marine mammals in the region during the proposed seismic surveys, and should be especially considered if marine mammals are utilising the region as critical habitat – which is definitely the case for blue, sperm, beaked, fin and sei whales (feeding), southern right whales (pregnant females migrating, or months with infant calves migrating) and Australian sea-lion (feeding and nursing young). Preventing these animals access to this habitat during such critical functions could well have serious impacts on the individuals and populations. 71

68 Gordon, J.C.D., Gillespie, D., Potter, J., Frantzis, A., Simmonds, M.P., & Swift, R., (2004) 'A review of the effects of Seismic Survey on Marine Mammals', Marine Technology Society Journal, 37(4), pp: 14-34 | Weir, C.R., & Dolman, S.J., (2007) 'Comparative review of the regional marine mammal mitigation guidelines implemented during industrial seismic surveys, and guidance towards a worldwide standard', Journal of International Wildlife Law and Policy, 10, pp: 1–27 | Gedamke,J., Gales, N., & Frydman, S., (2010) Assessing risk of baleen whale hearing loss from seismic surveys: The effect of uncertainty and individual variation, Journal of Acoustical Society of America, 129 (1), pp: 496–506 | Di Iorio, L. & Clark, C.W., (2009) Exposure to seismic survey alters blue whale acoustic communication, Biology Letters, 23rd September 2009 69 Rolland, RM., Parks, SE., Hunt, KE., Castellote, M., Corkeron, PJ., Nowacek, DP., Wasser, SK., & Kraus, SD., (2012) Evidence that ship noise increases stress in right whales, Proc. R. Soc: B, Published online before print February 8, 2012 70 de Kloet, E. R., Oitzl, M. S., & Joëls, M. (1999). Stress and cognition: are corticosteroids good or bad guys?. Trends in neurosciences, 22(10), 422-426 | Lupien, S. J., & McEwen, B. S. (1997). The acute effects of corticosteroids on cognition: integration of animal and human model studies. Brain Research Reviews, 24(1), 1-27. | McEwen, B. S. (2000). Effects of adverse experiences for brain structure and function. Biological psychiatry, 48(8), 721-731. 71 Hoyt, E. (2005). Marine protected areas for whales, dolphins, and porpoises: a world handbook for cetacean habitat conservation. Earthscan/James & James | Simmonds, M. P. (2006). Into the brains of whales. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 100(1), 103-116.

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 22

Researchers have extrapolated a strong likelihood that whales at a kilometer or more from seismic surveys could be susceptible to acoustic trauma and temporary threshold shift to the extent that it could compromise the individual and possibly the population. Given the emergent information about elevated stress hormones a precautionary position is warranted. In some research studies dolphins and porpoises have shown the most significant avoidance behavior (rather than baleen whales), suggesting that different taxonomic groups of cetaceans may adopt different strategies for responding to acoustic disturbance from seismic surveys. However, researchers also caution that sort-term proxies such as avoidance behaviors should not be considered sufficiently robust to assess the extent and biological significance of long-term individual and population-level impacts, and that there are serious concerns about populations threats from reduced prey availability, physical trauma, communication distress and stress. They further caution that there may have been serious underestimations of noise-induced strandings or mortalities in the past, as many impacts will take place below the sea-surface.72

There have been surprisingly few studies of the effects of seismic testing on pinnipeds, even though members of this group have good underwater hearing and their feeding grounds will often overlap with seismic survey areas. Pinnipeds have been shown to exhibit strong avoidance behaviour, swimming rapidly away from the seismic noise sources. The potential impact of seismic survey noise on pinnipeds could include pathological injury to individuals, behavioural avoidance of individuals (and subsequent displacement from key habitat), masking of important environmental or biological sounds and indirect effects due to effects on predators or prey. The pathological effects of loud low frequency sounds on pinnipeds are not well documented, but include cochlear lesions following rapid rise time explosive blasts, temporary threshold shifts. In some studies seals hauled out (possibly to avoid the noise) those that remained in the water seemed to have returned to pre-trial behaviour within two hours of the guns falling silent.73 However, the implications of the Rolland et al (2012) research are also relevant to the consideration of pinnipeds in the region. Preventing these animals access to this habitat during such critical functions could well have serious impacts on the individuals and populations.

3.1 (e) Listed migratory species Description Migratory Wildlife Network comment: The Migratory Wildlife Network provided detail information to Bight Petroleum about each of the following EPBC listed species. It was our expectation that Bight Petroleum would address threat mitigation for each of these within their EPBC Referral documentation.

See comments made under the ‘Listed migratory species’ section 3.1(d) for the following: (Carcharodon carcharias) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’ and ‘migratory Blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’ Sei whale (Balaenoptera borealis) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’ Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’ Southern right whale (Eubalaena australis) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’ Sperm whale (Physeter macrocephalus)

72 Stone, C.J., & Tasker, M., (2006) The effects of seismic airguns on cetaceans in UK waters, Journal of Cetacean Research and Management, 8(3), pp: 255–263 | Punt, A.E., &Donovan, G.P. (2007) 'Developing management procedures that are robust to uncertainty: Lessons from the International Whaling Commission', ICES Journal of Marine Science, 64, pp: 603–612 | Nowacek, D.P., Thorne, L.H., Johnston, D.W., & Tyack, P.L. (2007) 'Responses of cetaceans to anthropogenic noise', Mammal Review, 37, pp: 81–115 73 Bohne, B.A., Bozzay, D.G., & Thomas, J.A., (1986) Evaluation of inner ear pathology in Weddell seals, Antarctic Journal of the United States, 21(5), pp: 208. | Bohne, B.A., Thomas, J.A., Yohe, E., & Stone, S., (1985) Examination of potential hearing damage in Weddell seals (Leptonychotes weddellii) in McMurdo Sound, Antarctica, Antarctica Journal of the United States, 19(5), pp: 174-176 | Harris, R. E., Miller, G. W. and Richardson, W. J. (2001) ‘Seal Responses to Airgun Sounds During Summer Seismic Surveys in the Alaskan Beaufort Sea’, Marine Mammal Science, 17, pp: 795–812. | Kastak, D., Schusterman, R.J., Southall, B.L. & Reichmuth, C.J. (1999) ‘Underwater temporary threshold shift in three species of pinniped’, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 106, pp: 1142–1148.

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 23

EPBC Act - Physeter macrocephalus: ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’ Southern giant-petrel (Macronectes giganteus) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’ Shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta cauta) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (endangered)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’ Black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’ Wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans (sensu lato)) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’ Yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche chlororhynchos) EPBC Act - ‘Nationally threatened (vulnerable)’, ‘marine’ and ‘migratory’

The coastal river systems of north-western, western and south-western Kangaroo Island provide habitat for many migratory birds including the black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris) (CMS-ACAP), common greenshank (Tringa nebularia) (CMS, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA), curlew sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) (CMS, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA), fleshy-footed shearwater (Ardenna carneipes) (JAMBA, ROKAMBA), Latham’s snipe (Gallinago hardwickii) (CMS, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA), (Pandion haliaetus) (CMS), eastern reef egret (Egretta sacra) (CAMBA), painted snipe (Rostratula australis) (CAMBA), red-necked stint (Calidris ruficollis) (CMS, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres) (CMS, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA), sharp-tailed sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos) (CMS, CAMBA, JAMBA, ROKAMBA), short-tailed shearwater (Ardenna tenuirostris) (JAMBA, ROKAMBA), shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta cauta) (CMS-ACAP), southern giant-petrel (Macronectes giganteus) (CMS-ACAP), wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) (CMS-ACAP, JAMBA), white-bellied sea eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster) (CMS, CAMBA), yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche chlororhynchos) (CMS-ACAP) that are all also listed as ‘migratory’ under EPBC.74

Nature and extent of likely impact Migratory Wildlife Network comment: See comments made under the ‘nature and extent of likely impact’ section 3.1(d)

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

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

74 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra - Individual records for: Thalassarche melanophris - black- browed albatross; Tringa nebularia - common greenshank; Calidris ferruginea - curlew sandpiper; Ardenna carneipes - fleshy-footed shearwater; Ardenna tenuirostris- short-tailed shearwater; Gallinago hardwickii - Latham’s snipe; Pandion haliaetus – osprey; Egretta sacra - eastern reef egret; Rostratula australis - painted snipe; Calidris ruficollis - red-necked stint; Arenaria interpres - ruddy turnstone; Actitis hypoleucos - sharp-tailed sandpiper; Thalassarche cauta cauta - shy albatross; Macronectes giganteus - southern giant-petrel; Diomedea exulans (sensu lato) - wandering albatross; Haliaeetus leucogaster - white-bellied sea eagle; Thalassarche chlororhynchos - yellow-nosed albatross | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 24

3.1 (f) Commonwealth marine area Description Migratory Wildlife Network comment: The Migratory Wildlife Network provided detail information to Bight Petroleum about each of the following additional species. It was our expectation that Bight Petroleum would address threat mitigation for each of these within their EPBC Referral documentation.

Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) EPBC Act - ‘Conservation dependent’75 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Critically Endangered’ (A2bd) 76 Southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) are a highly migratory species who form a single widely distributed population in the southern, temperate oceans, but with a single known spawning ground in the Indian Ocean, between Java and northern Western Australia.77 Southern Bluefin Tuna migrate along the west coast and across the Great Australian Bight and around Tasmania to, and then along the southeastern Australian coastline to northern New South Wales. Juveniles of one to two years of age inhabit inshore waters in Western Australia and South Australia.78 After five years of age, southern Bluefin tuna are seldom found in nearshore surface areas, and their distribution extends over the southern circumpolar area throughout the Pacific, Indian and Atlantic Oceans.79 Southern bluefin tuna are known to be migrating through the Great Australian Bight region between November and May.

Southern right whale dolphins (Lissodelphis peronii) EPBC Act - ‘cetacean’80 IUCN Red List of Threatened Species - ‘Data deficient’81 A pod of southern right whale dolphins (Lissodelphis peronii), an Antarctic species rarely recorded in Australia, has been observed 92 nautical miles south of Cape Gantheame This is one of very few records of the species in South Australian waters. At least two records are known from the Kangaroo Island area, and may indicate that the waters off southern Kangaroo Island provide important seasonal habitat for this species.82

Other cetaceans The region also supports pygmy right whale (Caperea marginata), orca (Orcinus orca), dusky dolphin (Lagenorhynchus obscurus), Bryde's whale (Balaenoptera edeni), that are various listed as ‘cetacean’ and ‘migratory’ under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act, 1999.83 The high productivity upwelling zones in deeper waters off southern and western Kangaroo Island may be part of the critical habitat for beaked whales, Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus), false

75 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Thunnus maccoyii in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra 76 Collette, B., Chang, SK., Di Natale, A., , W., Juan Jorda, M., Miyabe, N., Nelson, R., Uozumi, Y. & Wang, S. (2011) Thunnus maccoyii. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2. 77 Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2010) Commonwealth Listing Advice on Thunnus maccoyii (Southern Bluefin Tuna). 78 Collette, B., Chang, S.-K., Di Natale, A., Fox, W., Juan Jorda, M., Miyabe, N., Nelson, R., Uozumi, Y. & Wang, S. 2011. Thunnus maccoyii. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 | Honda, K., A.J. Hobday, R. Kawabe, N. Tojo, K. Fujioka, Y. Takao & K. Miyashita (2010). Age-dependent distribution of juvenile southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) on the continental shelf off southwest Australia determined by acoustic monitoring. Fisheries Oceanography. 19(2):151-158. 79 Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna, 2009, Report of the Fourteenth Meeting of the Scientific Committee. 5-11 September 2009, Republic of Korea. Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna 80 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (2012). Lissodelphis peronii in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra 81 Hammond, P.S., Bearzi, G., Bjørge, A., Forney, K., Karczmarski, L., Kasuya, T., Perrin, W.F., Scott, M.D., Wang, J.Y., Wells, R.S. & Wilson, B. 2008. Lissodelphis peronii. In: IUCN 2011. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011.2 82 Clarke, R., (2000) ‘First record of the southern right whale dolphin, Lissodelphis peronii (Lacepede, 804) (Odonoceti: Delphinidae), from waters off South Australia’, Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, 124(2), pp: 177-178 | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Kemper, C., & Ling, J., (1991) ‘Whale strandings in South Australia (1881- 1989)’, Transactions of the Royal Society of South Australia, 115(1), pp: 37-52 83 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra - Individual records for: Caperea marginata - pygmy right whale; Orcinus orca – orca; Lagenorhynchus obscurus - dusky dolphin; Physeter macrocephalus - sperm whale | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 25

killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens), short and long finned pilot whale species (Globicephala macrorhynchus and Globicephala melas) common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) and bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus, possibly Tursiops aduncus).84

Seabirds and migratory shorebirds The prey species might be impacted for the Antarctic tern (Sterna paradisaea), Australian fairy tern (Sternula nereis nereis) (at paisley islet / west bay islet), Australian white ibis (Threskiornis molucca), Australasian (Australian) gannet (Morus serrator), Baillon’s crake (Porzana pusilla), black-browed albatross (Thalassarche melanophris), Cape Barren goose (Cereopsis novaehollandiae), Cape petrel (Daption capense), common greenshank (Tringa nebularia), crested tern (Thalasseus bergii), curlew sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea), eastern reef egret (Egretta sacra), fleshy-footed shearwater (Ardenna carneipes) , fluttering shearwater (Puffinus gavia), hooded plover (Thinornis rubricollis), Latham’s snipe (Gallinago hardwickii), (Eudyptula minor), musk duck (Biziura lobata), osprey (Pandion haliaetus), Pacific gull (Larus pacificus), painted snipe (Rostratula australis), red-capped plover (Charadrius ruficapillus), red-necked stint (Calidris ruficollis), (Neophema petrophila), ruddy turnstone (Arenaria interpres), sharp-tailed sandpiper (Actitis hypoleucos), short-tailed shearwater (Ardenna tenuirostris), shy albatross (Thalassarche cauta cauta) silver gull (Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae), southern giant- petrel (Macronectes giganteus), wandering albatross (Diomedea exulans (sensu lato), whiskered tern (Chlidonias hybridus), white-bellied sea eagle (Haliaeetus leucogaster), white-faced storm- petrel (Pelagodroma marina) and yellow-nosed albatross (Thalassarche chlororhynchos) are all listed as ‘marine’ under EPBC.85

There are important breeding sites along this whole coastline and feeding and stopover areas for migratory oceanic birds, along the northwest, west, and southwest Coasts of Kangaroo Island. In addition to those species listed as ‘nationally threatened’, ‘migratory’ or ‘marine’ In Flinder’s Chase National Park coastal river systems and estuaries wading birds / wetland birds that are present include Australian spotted crake (Porzana fluminea), Australasian grebe (Tachybaptus novaehollandiae), Australian Shelduck, (Tadorna tadornoides), black cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), black swan (Cygnus atratus), black-fronted dotterel (Elseyornis melanops), blacktailed native hen (Gallinula ventralis), chestnut teal (Anas castanea), dusky moorhen (Gallinula tenebrosa), Eurasian coot (Fulica atra), grey teal (Anas gracilis), little black cormorant (Phalacrocorax sulcirostris), little pied cormorant (Microcarbo melanoleucos), masked lapwing (Vanellus miles), Pacific black duck (Anas superciliosa), pied cormorant (Phalacrocorax varius), purple swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus), rufous night heron (Nycticorax caledonicus), sooty oystercatcher (Haematopus fuliginosus), white-faced heron (Egretta novaehollandiae), yellow-billed spoonbill (Platalea flavipes). also provide habitat for the sooty oystercatcher. There are important breeding areas for Australian wood duck (Chenonetta jubata), masked lapwing (Vanellus miles) in the coastal river systems of north-western, western and/or south-western Kangaroo Island. Australian wood duck (Chenonetta jubata) and Lewin’s rail (Lewinia pectoralis) are also recorded in the region.86

84 Butler, A., Althaus, F., Furlani, D., Ridgway, K., (2002) Assessment of the conservation values of the Bonney Upwelling area. A component of the Commonwealth Marine Conservation Assessment Program 2002–2004, Report to Environment Australia. CSIRO Marine Research, Hobart | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Bannister, J., Kemper, C., & Warneke, R., (1996) The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans, Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra 85 Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide | Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra - Individual records for: Biziura lobata - musk duck; Cereopsis novaehollandiae - Cape Barren goose; Charadrius ruficapillus - red-capped plover; Chlidonias hybridus - whiskered tern; Chroicocephalus novaehollandiae - silver gull; Daption capense - Cape petrel; Eudyptula minor - little penguin; Globicephala macrorhynchus - Short-finned pilot whale; Globicephala melas - Long-finned pilot whale; Grampus griseus - Risso's dolphin; Kogia simus - dwarf sperm whale;; Larus pacificus - Pacific gull; Morus serrator - Australasian (Australian) gannet; Neophema petrophila - rock parrot; Pelagodroma marina - white-faced storm-petrel; Porzana pusilla - Baillon’s crake; Pseudorca crassidens - false killer whale; Puffinus gavia - fluttering shearwater; Sterna paradisaea - Antarctic tern; Sternula nereis nereis - Australian fairy tern; Thalasseus bergii - crested tern; Thinornis rubricollis - hooded plover; Threskiornis molucca - Australian white ibis 86 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, 2012, Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra - Individual records for: Australian spotted crake (Porzana

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 26

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

Fish Fish species that utilise reefs and/or sand habitats along the western, north-western and/or south- western sides of Kangaroo Island include, but are not limited to, snapper (Pagrus auratus), West Australian salmon (Arripis truttacea), trevally (Pseudocaranx dentex and Pseudocaranx wrighti), flathead (Platycephalus species), ocean leatherjacket (Meuschenia sp) and other leatherjacket species, snook (Sphyraena novaehollandiae), western blue groper (Achoerodus gouldii), blue- throated wrasse (Notolabrus tetricus) and other wrasse species, sea sweep (Scorpis sp), blue morwong (Nemadactylus valenciennesi), redfish, silver drummer, tommy ruff (Arripis georgianus), yellow-eye mullet (Mugilidae sp), black bream (Acanthopagrus species), gummy shark (Mustelus antarcticus) and whaler shark (Carcharhinidae sp). Blue-eye trevalla (Hyperglyphe antarctica) hapuku, and blue warehou occur in deeper waters off southern Kangaroo Island, with at least blue warehou spawning in the region. Maupertuis Bay, Rocky River Mouth, Sandy Beach, Knapman’s Creek mouth, Breakneck Creek mouth, mouth, West Bay, Cape Kersaint, Stun’sail Boom River Mouth, Hanson Bay and between Kirkpatrick Point and Weirs Cove provide habitat for one or more of the life stages of school whiting, West Australian salmon, tommy ruff, yellow-eye mullet, flathead species and whaler sharks. All of these species, as well as yellow-eye mullet, snapper, mulloway, trevally, snook, flounder species and whaler sharks, are reported to utilise the unvegetated sandy bottom habitats along south-western Kangaroo Island. Estuarine areas such as the mouths of the South West River and Stun’sail Boom River are reported to provide habitat for all life stages of black bream and yelloweye mullet, including spawning and nursery areas for black bream.87

Nature and extent of likely impact Migratory Wildlife Network comment: In addition to the comments made under the ‘nature and extent of likely impact’ section 3.1(d) the wide range of susceptibility among fish to seismic sounds should also be noted. It would appear that finned fish seem more sensitive to disturbance than crustaceans and molluscs. Fish with swim-bladders are more susceptible to anthropogenic sounds than those without this organ. That seismic surveys are going to disrupt local fish abundance in the regions is difficult to refute. No investigations appear to have been undertaken on long-term effects of seismic surveying on fishing success, although such impact cannot be discounted. Disruption of behaviour during critical periods such as mating, spawning and migration could be particularly important. The success of a species is also dependent upon both its prey and predators. If

fluminea), Australasian grebe (Tachybaptus novaehollandiae), Australian Shelduck, (Tadorna tadornoides), black cormorant (Phalacrocorax carbo), black swan (Cygnus atratus), black-fronted dotterel (Elseyornis melanops), blacktailed native hen (Gallinula ventralis), chestnut teal (Anas castanea), dusky moorhen (Gallinula tenebrosa), Eurasian coot (Fulica atra), grey teal (Anas gracilis), little black cormorant (Phalacrocorax sulcirostris), little pied cormorant (Microcarbo melanoleucos), masked lapwing (Vanellus miles), Pacific black duck (Anas superciliosa), pied cormorant (Phalacrocorax varius), purple swamphen (Porphyrio porphyrio melanotus), rufous night heron (Nycticorax caledonicus), sooty oystercatcher (Haematopus fuliginosus), white-faced heron (Egretta novaehollandiae), yellow-billed spoonbill (Platalea flavipes), Australian wood duck (Chenonetta jubata), masked lapwing (Vanellus miles) | Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, Adelaide 87 Bruce, B., Neira, F., & Bradford, R., (2001) ‘Larval distribution and abundance of blue and spotted warehous (Seriolella brama and S. punctata: Centrolophidae) in south-eastern Australia’, Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research, 52, pp: 631-636 | Bryars, S., (2003) An Inventory of Important Coastal Fisheries Habitats in South Australia, Fish Habitat Program, Primary Industries and Resources, South Australia | Pogonoski, J.J., Pollard, D.A., & Paxton, J,R., (2002) Conservation Overview and Action Plan for Australian Threatened and Potentially Threatened Marine and Estuarine Fishes, Environment Australia, Canberra | Robinson, A., Canty, P., Mooney, P., & Ruddock, P., (1996) South Australia’s Offshore Islands, South Australian Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Adelaide, South Australia

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 27 these are affected, for example driven away by a seismic survey, then there may be consequences for species which rely upon them as prey. Behavioural responses of fish to seismic noise is varied and include leaving the area of the noise source changes in depth distribution, spatial changes in schooling behaviour , and startle response to short range start up or high level sounds. In some cases behavioural responses were observed at up to 5 km distance from the firing airgun array. However, the ecological significance of such effects is expected to be lower than for marine mammals, except in cases where they influence reproductive activity. An important study conducted in the Barents Sea 7 days before, 5 days during, and 5 days after seismic shooting with air guns was conducted in the mid 1990s. The study was to determine whether seismic exploration affected abundance or catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus) and found that seismic shooting severely affected fish distribution, local abundance, and catch rates in the entire investigation area of 40 x 40 nautical miles. Trawl catches of cod and haddock and longline catches of haddock declined on average by about 50 percent (by mass) and longline catches of cod were reduced by 21 percent. Reductions in catch rates were observed 18 nautical miles from the seismic shooting area (3 x10 nautical miles), but the most pronounced reduction occurred within the shooting area, where trawl catches of both species and longline catches of haddock were reduced by about 70 percent and the longline catches of cod by 45 percent. Abundance and catch rates did not return to preshooting levels during the 5-day period after seismic shooting ended. There was also a significantly greater decrease in larger fish than small of the same species.88 In another study Norwegian sandeel (Ammodytes marinus) trawlers show a temporary drop in the sandeel landings for a period after their seismic experiment, but the impacts to these species appears to have been less marked than the cod and haddock.89 A later study has shown a strong likelihood of damage to the ears of at least some fin fish, which must be considered with similar seriousness as is applied to marine mammals. The study indicated that regeneration did not counteract the loss of cells resulting from intense exposure to sound and that damage continued to accrue well after exposure.90 Such impacts could have significant implications for the behaviour and fitness of populations of fish species. Although the effects of airgun noise on spawning behaviour of fish have not been quantified to date, researchers believe that if fish are exposed to powerful external forces on their migration paths or spawning grounds, they may be disturbed or even cease spawning altogether. The magnitude of effect in these cases will depend on the biology of the species and the extent of the dispersion or deflection. Fish larvae with swim-bladders may be more receptive to the sounds produced by seismic airgun arrays, and the range of effects may extend further for these species than for others.91

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

88 Engås, A., Løkkeborg, S., Ona, E., & Vold Soldal, A., (1996) 'Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefinus)', Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 53, pp: 2238-2249 89 Hassel, A., Knutsen, T., Dalen, J., Skaar, K., Løkkeborg, S., Misund, O.A., Østensen, Ø., Fonn, M., & Haugland, E.K., (2004) 'Influence of seismic shooting on the lesser sandeel (Ammodytes marinus)', ICES Journal of Marine Science, 61, pp: 1165-1173. 90 McCauley, R.D., Fewtrell, J., & Popper, A.N., (2003) 'High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears', Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 113(1), pp: 638-642 91 Harwood, J., & Stokes, K. (2003) 'Coping with uncertainty in ecological advice: Lessons from fisheries', Trends in Ecological Evolution, 18, pp: 617–622 | Hirst, A.G., & Rodhouse, P.G., (2000) 'Impacts of geophysical seismic surveying on fishing success', Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries, 10, pp: 113-118 | Løkkeborg, S., & Soldal, A.V., (1993) The influence of seismic exploration with airguns on cod (Gadus morhua) behaviour and catch rates, ICES Mar. Sci Symp., 196, pp: 62-67 | Pulfrich, A., (2010) Proposed Seismic Survey in the Pletmos Inshore Area off the South Coast, South Africa, Marine Faunal Assessment, Pices Environmental Services, at http://www.ccaenvironmental.co.za/Currentpercent20Projects/Downloads/Bayfield/Appendixpercent204percent20- percent20Marinepercent20fauna.pdf | Santulli, A., Modica, A., Messina, C., Ceffa, L., Curatolo, A., Rivas, G., Fabi, G. & D’amelio, V. (1999) Biochemical Responses of European Sea Bass (Dicentrarchus labrax L.) to the Stress Induced by Off Shore Experimental Seismic Prospecting, Marine Pollution Bulletin, 38(12), pp: 1105-1114 | Skalski, J.R., Pearson, W.H., & Malme, C.I., (1992) Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on catch-per-unit-effort in a hook-and -line fishery for Rockfish (Sebastes spp.) Can J. Fish. Aquat. Sci., 49, pp: 1357-1365 | Slotte, A., Hansen, K., Dalen, J. & Ona, E. (2004) Acoustic mapping of pelagic fish distribution and abundance in relation to a seismic shooting area off the Norwegian west coast, Fisheries Research, 67, pp: 143–150

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 28 greater leg loss but no acute or longer term mortality and no changes in embryo survival or post hatch larval mobility.92 The ecological significance of these sub-lethal or physiological effects should be considered important in considering the impact to fisheries quotas.

3.1 (g) Commonwealth land Description No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

3.1 (h) The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Description No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

3.2 Nuclear actions, actions taken by the Commonwealth (or Commonwealth agency), actions taken in a Commonwealth marine area, actions taken on Commonwealth land, or actions taken in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park

3.2 (a) Is the proposed action a nuclear action? X No Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

3.2 (b) Is the proposed action to be taken by the X No Commonwealth or a Commonwealth Yes (provide details below) agency? If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

3.2 (c) Is the proposed action to be taken in a No Commonwealth marine area? X Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(f)) See comment under 3.3 (a), 3.3 (b)

3.2 (d) Is the proposed action to be taken on X No Commonwealth land? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(g)) No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

3.2 (e) Is the proposed action to be taken in the X No Great Barrier Reef Marine Park? Yes (provide details below) If yes, nature & extent of likely impact on the whole environment (in addition to 3.1(h)) No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

3.3 Other important features of the environment 3.3 (a) Flora and fauna Migratory Wildlife Network comment:

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

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 29

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. The region hosts aggregations of krill, small pelagic fish, and squid, which attract marine mammals, sharks, predatory fish and seabirds.93

Refer also to Migratory Wildlife Network comments made in 3.1 (d), 3.1 (e) and 3.1 (f).

3.3 (b) Hydrology, including water flows Migratory Wildlife Network comment: Bight Petroleum’s Referral documentation indicates the importance of this region for marine biodiversity. 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.94

3.3 (c) Soil and Vegetation characteristics Bight Petroleum’s Referral documentation indicates the importance of this region for marine biodiversity.

3.3 (d) Outstanding natural features Bight Petroleum’s Referral documentation indicates the importance of thesis region for marine biodiversity.

3.3 (e) Remnant native vegetation No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

3.3 (f) Gradient (or depth range if action is to be taken in a marine area) No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

93 Bannister, J.L., (2004) Southern right whale aerial survey and photoidentification, Southern Australia 2003, final report to Environment Australia, Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra | Flaherty, T., (1999), ‘Spare a thought for squid sucking denizens’, Australian Marine Conservation Society Bulletin, vol. 20, pp. 9–10; Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia | Butler, A., Althaus, F., Furlani, D., & Ridgway, K., (2002) Assessment of the Conservation Values of the Bonney Upwelling Area, Report to Environment Australia, for the Commonwealth Marine Conservation Assessment Program 2002- 2004, Canberra | Dimmlich, W., & Jones, G.K.s (1997) Australian Salmon (Arripis truttacea) and Herring (A. georgiana). SA Fisheries Assessment series 97/08, SARDI Aquatic Sciences, South Australia | Edyvane, K., & Baker, J., (1996) Marine Biogeography of Kangaroo Island: Progress Report to Environment Australia (formerly The Australian Nature Conservation Agency) Project D801Report S.A. Benthic Surveys 1994/5, SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide | Ward, T., Dimmlich, W., McLeay, L., & Rogers, P., (2000) Pilchard (Sardinops sagax), Fisheries Assessment Series 2000/06, SARDI (Aquatic Sciences), Adelaide | Wenju, C., Schahinger, R., & Lennon, G., (1990) Layered models of coastal upwelling: a case study of the South Australian region, in: Davies, A. (ed.) Modelling Marine Systems Volume 1. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida | Edyvane, K., (1999) Conserving Marine Biodiversity in South Australia – Part 2: Identification of Areas of High Conservation Value in South Australia, SARDI Report Number 39, PIRSA 94 Kaempf, J., Doubell, M., Griffin, D., Matthews, R.L., & Ward, T.M., (2004) ‘Evidence of a large seasonal coastal upwelling system along the southern shelf of Australia’, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 31, no. L09310 | McClatchie, S., Middleton, J.F., & Ward, T.M., (2006) ‘Water mass analysis and alongshore variation in upwelling intensity in the eastern Great Australian Bight’, Journal of Geophysical Research - Oceans, vol. 111, no. C08007 | Middleton, JF., & Bye, JAT., (2007) ‘A review of the shelf-slope circulation along Australia’s southern shelves: Cape Leeuwin to Portland’, Progress in Oceanography, 75(1) | Pattiaratchi, C., (2007) Understanding areas of high productivity within the South-west Marine Region, report prepared for the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, University of Western Australia | Ward, T.M., McLeay, L.J., Dimmlich, W.F., Rogers, P.J., McClatchie, S., Matthews, R., Kämpf, J. & van Ruth, P.D., (2006) ‘Pelagic ecology of a northern boundary current system: effects of upwelling on the production and distribution of sardine (Sardinops sagax), anchovy (Engraulis australis) and southern bluefin tuna (Thunnus maccoyii) in the Great Australian Bight’, Fisheries Oceanography, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 191–207

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 30

3.3 (g) Current state of the environment Migratory Wildlife Network comment: There is evidence of natural leakage through tarballs being found on the South Australian coastline since settlement. A recent paper by MacDonald et al (2012) indicates that there may be weaknesses in the geological faults already present in the Ceduna Sub-Basin and that interference in any of the non- confined basins could create more extensive leaks.95 The paper details the current stress framework, through modelling, that each section appears to be undergoing. We believe that are careful examination of this evidence should be a prerequisite of any further referral activities Bight Petroleum Corp might bring forward for their test drills. Refer also to Migratory Wildlife Network comments made in 3.1 (d), 3.1 (e) and 3.1 (f).

3.3 (h) Commonwealth Heritage Places or other places recognised as having heritage values No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

3.3 (i) Indigenous heritage values No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

3.3 (j) Other important or unique values of the environment Bight Petroleum’s Referral documentation indicates the importance of this region for marine biodiversity. We urge the Minister and the Department to carefully consider the implications of the activity in relation to the marine protected area that it overlaps.

3.3 (k) Tenure of the action area (eg freehold, leasehold) No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

3.3 (l) Existing land/marine uses of area Migratory Wildlife Network comment: This region is known to be an aggregation and spawning ground for number of commercial and non- commercial fish species. The gross value of fisheries production in South Australia between 2008–09 and 2009–10 was $394.4 million. The wild-catch sector accounted for the largest proportion of this value at $201.4 million or 51 percent of the state’s total production value. Aquaculture production was valued at $193 million, accounting for the remaining 49 percent of the state’s total fisheries value.

The most valuable wild-caught fisheries product in South Australia is rock lobster, which accounted for 43 percent of the total value of wild-catch production in the state in 2009–10. South Australian aquaculture production in 2009–10 included increases in the value of oyster production of $2.2 million and abalone production of $2.8 million compared with 2008–09. Species of specific importance to the regional fin fishing community include ocean leatherjacket, reef fish such as redfish, southern blue morwong, western blue groper and other wrasse species, King George whiting, garfish, Australian salmon, various leatherjacket species, rock ling, conger eel, boarfish, red ‘mullet’, snook, swallowtail and several other species. Additionally, hapuku, pink ling, blue-eye trevalla and warehou species (e.g. blue warehou) are caught by Commonwealth fisheries in the western Kangaroo Island area. School shark and gummy shark are the two main sharks species taken in the area (mainly in Commonwealth waters), but bronze whaler and/or black whaler, saw shark, whiskery shark and wobbegong are also taken in smaller numbers. Southern calamari is also an important fishery. In the in the deeper waters off South-western Kangaroo Island ocean leatherjackets, blue-eye trevalla, redfish, hapuku, southern blue morwong, western blue groper and other wrasse species, king george whiting, Australian salmon, rock ling, knifejaw, boarfish, sweep, rock ling and conger eel, black bream and mullet (at river outlets), blue-eye trevalla, hapuku, pink ling, and warehou species (e.g blue warehou) are taken.

95 Macdonald, J., Backé, G., King, R., Holford, S., and Hillis, R., (2012) Geomechanical modelling of fault reactivation in the Ceduna Sub-basin, Bight Basin, Australia, Geological Society, London, Special Publications v.367, p71-89;

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 31

Southern bluefin tuna, school shark and gummy shark , dog sharks, bronze whaler and/or black whaler, saw sharks, wobbegong sharks and various skate and ray species and arrow squid are also caught commercially. The eastern Great Australian Bight also supports Australia’s largest finfish fishery based on sardines (Sardinops sagax) and anchovies (Engraulis australis) - species generally associated with largescale upwelling along the eastern boundaries of ocean basins. The upwelling in the Kangaroo Pool region is the main reason for the increased catch of these species in this region. Peak spawning season of sardines and anchovies in the shelf water off South Australia was from January to March, corresponding to the peak upwelling period. Research has suggested that the spawning biomass of sardines in the waters off South Australia was an order of magnitude higher than elsewhere in southern Australia.96

We understand from charts provided by the Australian Southern Bluefin Tuna Industry Association 97 that the proposed survey area covers the major towing area for the tuna pontoons on their trip from the fishing ground to the growout areas off Port Lincoln.

98

As these tows are at a maximum of one knot, it seems to us that the normal response that the fish can swim away from the noise is no longer valid.

3.3 (m) Any proposed land/marine uses of area No Migratory Wildlife Network comment

96 Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences (2011) Australian fisheries statistics: 2010, Fisheries Research and Development Corporation, Canberra: Baker, J.L. (2004) Towards a System of Ecologically Representative Marine Protected Areas in South Australian Marine Bioregions - Technical Report, Coast and Marine Conservation Branch, Department for Environment and Heritage, South Australia | Department of Primary Industry and Resources, South Australia (2000) Fact Sheet: Pacific Oyster Aquaculture in South Australia, Department of Primary Industry and Resources, Adelaide | Dimmlich, W., Breed, W., Geddes, M., & Ward, T., (2004) ‘Relative importance of gulf and shelf waters for spawning and recruitment of Australian anchovy, Engraulis australis, in South Australia’, Fisheries Oceanography 13(5), pp: 310-323 | EconSearch Pty Ltd (2004) The Economic Impact of Aquaculture on the South Australian State and Regional Economies, 2002/03, Aquaculture Group, PIRSA Fisheries, Adelaide | Maunsell Australia Pty Ltd (2004) Assessment and Reporting of the Ecologically Sustainable Development of Australia Aquaculture – an Industry Perspective, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Western Australia; Oysters South Australia (2012) Economic Importance (industry website) at: http://www.oysterssa.com.au/thesaway3.php; PIRSA Fisheries (2012) South Australian Shellfish Quality Assurance Program: Monitoring the Environment, PIRSA Fisheries, Adelaide, at: http://www.oysterssa.com.au/media/files/502.pdf 97 Jeffriess, B., pers comm 29th October 2012 98 Jeffriess, B., pers comm 29th October 2012

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 32

4 Measures to avoid or reduce impacts

Migratory Wildlife Network comment: As we have mentioned in Section 1.8 and 2.3 we question Bight Petroleum’s assertion that the time period selected to conduct seismic testing in the area can be considered a period “low occurrence” for blue whales, sperm whales or other cetacean species, or that “there is a low likelihood of encountering a diversity of cetaceans in the Bight Basin during the MSS”. It is our understanding that both assertions are based on an incredibly sparse dataset and unpublished reports. We strongly urge the Minister and the Department to verify the efficacy of these claims.

Bight Petroleum state that: “the Lightning MSS will adopt … control measures… as outlined in EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 - Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales.” However, we believe that the adaptive management controls proposed by Bight Petroleum are not sufficient, nor in line with the spirit of these guidelines.

There is very limited evidence to suggest that blue whales are any less likely to be present during the months of January to March than during April to May and it is inconsequential whether blue whales observed in the seismic survey area are suspected to be travelling or feeding. The observed behaviour of blue whales is highly subjective, as a whale considered to be ‘migrating’ could easily be travelling between krill swarms as part of a wider foraging strategy. In this respect, the very presence of blue whales should be cause enough to prompt additional observation surveys.

During Bight Petroleum’s consultation process we very reasonably suggested that Bight Petroleum plan for 24 hour visual detection of all the EPBC listed species, 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). It seems quiote obvious to us that the minimum number of observers that should be required on the seismic vessel should at least ensure the best possible 360 degree and a continuous watch. The proposed number fails seriously short of this basic provision. We are aware that a minimum, four professional observers (two on watch at any time) was established as a precedent for the Origin seismic survey in the Otway basin (Referral 2012/6421) specifically to avoid impacts on blue whales.

We strongly contest Bight Petroleum’s reference to peak periods for sperm whales in the proposed survey. Sperm whales are known to be present in the region throughout the year. Therefore, all additional management measures under consideration for these so-called peak periods should be applied throughout the entire duration of the seismic survey.

The descriptions and personal observations of Passive Acoustic Monitoring (PAM) provided by Bight Petroleum are misleading and not substantiated with a refereed body of evidence. We also find their interpretation of key authors, such as Bingham et al. (2011) is academically inaccurate99. They have neglected to inform the Minister and the Department that PAM should be used as a complimentary measure alongside visual monitoring. As sperm whales are deep diving cetaceans that spend less time surfacing, visual observers are only likely to detect a small proportion of whales and combined acoustic monitoring will greatly increase the likelihood of detecting sperm whales that enter either the 2km low- power zone or 500m shutdown zone. This is increasingly being recognised by regulatory regimes across the world including in the US, UK and New Zealand. Bight Petroleum’s discounting of PAM runs counter to regulatory best practice in many parts of the world.

99 Bingham, G., (2011). Status and Applications of Acoustic Mitigation and Monitoring Systems for Marine Mammals: Workshop Proceedings; November 17-19, 2009, Boston, Massachusetts. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 33

Furthermore, Bight Petroleum’s assertions are based on a factually incorrect understanding of PAM. For sperm whales, there is comprehensive evidence from combined visual and acoustic surveys that PAM using towed hydrophones is much more effective, usually by at least an order of magnitude, at detecting whales than visual methods100. The poor performance of visual methods is due to the whales spending long periods underwater and out of sight. It is true that there are periods when sperm whales are not vocal, but the fact that acoustic methods detect many more animals than visual ones is a clear motivation for the use of PAM. Sperm whales that are not vocalising are generally at the surface and so a combination of visual and acoustic methods offers the best chance of detection.

Methods based on towed hydrophones are well developed and although Bight Petroleum claim that ‘… existing systems cannot estimate the distance, depth or abundance of the whale from the hydrophone’ this is not the case. Target motion analysis of multiple bearings to vocalising sperm whales is standard practice for acoustic surveys that have estimated whale abundance based on measurements of perpendicular distance from the hydrophone. There is a level of uncertainty associated with such measurements but it is not clear whether this is more or less than for visual observations which also often have large errors in distance. 101

Towed PAM has been demonstrated to be effective for some species and especially for sperm whales. If it has not proven effective for the seismic industry this is most likely due to insufficient attention to the equipment and operator training. PAM relies on good reliable equipment and experienced operators. It is therefore not the method that is the problem but the way this has been implemented by the industry. Bight Petroleum should establish a workshop of experts on PAM to discuss ways in which this can be implemented effectively and reliably during their surveys. There is currently no incentive for the seismic operator to ensure that PAM gear is properly functional because acoustic detections may cause delays and additional expense.

However, the adaptive management procedures proposed by Bight Petroleum are based on a subjective assessment of whether seismic operation should continue at night based on visual observations of sperm whales during the day. Even if seismic surveys in high density areas are avoided during periods of darkness and poor visibility, when these areas are surveyed the reliance on visual observations will mean that only a limited proportion of whales entering the low-power or shutdown zones will have been detected. The use of combined PAM and visual observations would reduce the probability that whales will enter these zones without being detected.

A shutdown strategy based on detecting whales will reduce the risk of an individual whale being exposed to noise levels likely to cause injury. However the mitigation actions outlined by Bight Petroleum do nothing to reduce the effects of lower levels of exposure, such as behavioural changes, stress or reduced feeding activity, which still remain a concern. For example Miller et al. (2009) noted from the Gulf of Mexico studies that sperm whales ‘are affected at ranges well beyond those currently regulated due to more subtle effects on their foraging behavior’.

Bight Petroleum suggest an approach to mitigation that is unlikely to be effective as a result of unsupported assumptions about the likely effects of seismic on sperm whales. For a proper evaluation by regulators and other stakeholders there should be a fully specified mitigation approach that includes estimates of the risk reduction that is likely to be achieved.

100 Gillespie D. (1997). An acoustic survey for sperm whales in the Southern Ocean sanctuary conducted from the RSV Aurora Australis. Rep Int Whal Comm, 47, 897–907 | Leaper, R., Gillespie, D. and Papastavrou, V. (2000). Results of passive acoustic surveys for odontocetes in the Southern Ocean. J. Cetacean Res. Manage., 2(3), 187-196 | Barlow, J. & Taylor, B.L. (2005). Estimates of Sperm Whale Abundance in the Northeastern Temperate Pacific from a Combined Acoustic and Visual Survey. Marine Mammal Science, 21(3), 429–445 101 Leaper, R., Burt, L., Gillespie, D. and Macleod, K. (2011). Comparisons of measured and estimated distances and angles from sightings surveys. J. Cetacean Res. Manage., 11(3), 229-238 | Lewis, T., Gillespie, D., Lacey, C., Matthews, J., Danbolt, M., Leaper, R., Mclanaghan, R. and A. Moscrop. (2007). Sperm whale abundance estimates from acoustic surveys of the Ionian Sea and Straits of Sicily in 2003. J. Mar. Biol. Ass. U.K., 87, 353-357 | Leaper, R., Gillespie, D. and Papastavrou, V. (2000). Results of passive acoustic surveys for odontocetes in the Southern Ocean. J. Cetacean Res. Manage., 2(3), 187-196

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 34

Once again, we reiterate that during the conservation process, the Migratory Wildlife Network requested that Bight Petroleum: 1. Model the potential for impact from horizontal propagation; 2. Model the actual exposure to (numbers of and duration of) shots; 3. Provide d 2.s. and frequencies used across a staggered array cycle 4. Provide detail of the numberactual dB of re array 1μPa cycles/per minute/s; 5. Provide detail of the operating envelope of sound pressure levels and frequencies at different depths and water temperatures; 6. Provide specifications (including age) of the equipment to be used; 7. Provide the name of the vessel conducting the survey; 8. Provide detail of soft start protocols for all the species outlined in the Migratory Wildlife Network comment document; 9. Provide detail of plans for 24 hour visual detection of all the EPBC listed species, 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 10. Provide detail of plans for establishing an adequate safety zone.

These requests were reasonable and should not have impeded Bight Petroleum being able to present an appropriately robust Referral to the Minister and the Department.

That we are able to provide the Minister and Department with documentation that such requests and founded concerns have been disregarded in this Referral documentation - and that we have been able to point out such significant failings in the Referral case - leads us to believe that the efficacy of the EPBC Referral process is not taken seriously by the industry. Bight Petroleum appears certain that their claims and assertions will not be objectively reviewed or carefully scrutinized. We urge the Minister and the Department to take this opportunity, presented through strong evidence, to make an appropriately precautionary decision that reinforces the efficacy of Australia’s environmental laws

Migratory Wildlife Network Comment on Bight Petroleum – Lightening 3D Marine Seismic Survey (EPP-41 & EPP-42) (Bight Basin) (Reference: 2012/6583) Page 35

5 Conclusion on the likelihood of significant impacts 5.1 Do you THINK your proposed action is a controlled action? No, complete section 5.2 X Yes, complete section 5.3

5.2 Proposed action IS NOT a controlled action. We do not believe that Bight Petroleum’s assessment is correct. This should be a Controlled Action

5.3 Proposed action IS a controlled action

Matters likely to be impacted World Heritage values (sections 12 and 15A) National Heritage places (sections 15B and 15C) Wetlands of international importance (sections 16 and 17B) X Listed threatened species and communities (sections 18 and 18A) X Listed migratory species (sections 20 and 20A) Protection of the environment from nuclear actions (sections 21 and 22A) X Commonwealth marine environment (sections 23 and 24A) Great Barrier Reef Marine Park (sections 24B and 24C) Protection of the environment from actions involving Commonwealth land (sections 26 and 27A) Protection of the environment from Commonwealth actions (section 28) Commonwealth Heritage places overseas (sections 27B and 27C)

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”.102

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.

Please refer to our summary comments on pages 1 and 2.

102 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 36