EP Summary (pdf 1.7 MB)

NTT-5000-ENV-PLN-10726809

THE THREE WHATS What can go wrong? What could cause it to go wrong? What can I do to prevent it?

Subject to employee confidentiality obligations.

Once printed, this is an uncontrolled document unless issued and stamped Controlled Copy or issued under a transmittal.

Integrated Gas

GULPENER 2D MARINE SEISMIC SURVEY Environment Plan Summary

Review record

Rev Date Reason for issue Author Reviewer/s Approver

A 27/05/2016 Issued for internal review V. Brady TH, LF, EB, SS, LR, BM, RO

E. Brand

B 02/06/2016 Issued to regulator V. Brady TH, EB, SS, CZ, TO E. Brand

0 13/07/2016 Reissued to address regulator comments V. Brady TH, EB, SS,

CZ, TO E. Brand

Gulpener 2D Marine Seismic Survey EP Summary NTT-5000-ENV-PLN-10726809

Released on 15/07/2016 – Revision number 0 – Issued to regulator Process Owner is Geophysical Operations Project Manager Origin Energy Resources Limited: ABN 66 007 845 338 Page 2 of 70 Once printed, this is an uncontrolled document unless issued and stamped Controlled Copy or issued under a transmittal. Based on template: OEUP-INT1000-TMP-BUS-004_Revision 0_19/05/2014_Upstream Information Management & Engineering Systems Manager

Table of contents

1. Introduction 7

2. Proponent 7

3. Location 7

4. Activity Description 9

4.1 Timing 9 4.2 Survey Programme 9

4.2.1 Seismic Lines 10 4.2.2 Seismic Source 10 4.2.3 Streamers 11 4.2.4 Data Collection and Analysis 11

4.3 Bathymetry Programme 11 4.3.1 Single-Beam Echo Sounder 11 4.3.2 Multi-Beam Echo Sounder 11 4.3.3 Side-Scan Sonar 12

4.4 UXO Programme 12 4.5 Vessels 12

4.5.1 Survey Vessel 12 4.5.2 Support Vessels and Crew 13 4.5.3 Maritime Safety 13

4.6 Survey Summary 14

5. Stakeholder Consultation 14

5.1 Identification of new stakeholders during survey activity 16 5.2 Ongoing consultation 16

6. Existing Environment 26

6.1 Conservation Values and Sensitivities 26 6.1.1 Commonwealth Marine Reserves 26 6.1.2 World, Commonwealth and National Heritage Places 26 6.1.3 Wetlands of International Importance 26 6.1.4 Northern Territory Protected Areas 26 6.1.5 Indigenous Protected Areas 27 6.1.6 Key Ecological Features 27

6.2 Cultural Environment 27 6.2.1 Maritime Archaeological Heritage 27 6.2.2 Indigenous Heritage 28

6.3 Physical Environment 28 6.3.1 Climate 28 6.3.2 Winds 28 6.3.3 Ocean Currents 28 6.3.4 Bathymetry 28 6.3.5 Seabed Sediments 28 6.3.6 Coastal Environment 29

6.4 Biological Environment 29 6.4.1 Benthic habitats and species assemblages 29 6.4.2 Pelagic and Demersal Invertebrates 30 6.4.3 Fish 30 6.4.4 Mammals 31 6.4.5 Marine Reptiles 33 6.4.6 Birds 35 6.4.7 Threatened Ecological Communities 36

6.5 Socio-economic Environment 37 6.5.1 Settlements 37 6.5.2 Shipping 37



6.5.3 Tourism and Recreation 37 6.5.4 Recreational Fishing 37 6.5.5 Petroleum Exploration and Production 37 6.5.6 Commercial Fisheries 38

7. Environmental Impact Assessment 38

7.1 Planned events 45 7.1.1 Underwater sound from the seismic surveys 45 7.1.2 Underwater sound from the bathymetric surveys 54

7.2 Unplanned events 55 7.2.1 Interference with third-party (merchant and fishing) vessels 55 7.2.2 Introduction of invasive marine species 56 7.2.3 Vessel strike or entanglement with marine fauna 57 7.2.4 Diesel spill (vessel to vessel collision or grounding) 57

8. Hydrocarbon Spill Preparedness and Response 58

9. Implementation Strategy 59

9.1 Environmental Management System 59 9.2 Key Roles and Responsibilities 59 9.3 Training and Awareness 60 9.4 Emergency Response and Preparedness 60 9.5 Incident Recording and Reporting 60 9.6 Environmental Monitoring 60 9.7 Audit and Review 61

10. Further Information 61

11. References 62

Tables

Table 1: Distance to key features in the region 9

Table 2: Summary of acquisition paramaters 14

Table 3: Stakeholder consultation summary 17

Table 4: Summary environmental impact assessment 41

Table 5: Summary of Fish Injury Exposure Guidelines for Seismic Airguns (Popper et al. 2014) 46

Table 6: Summary of Injury and Behavioural Criteria for Cetaceans 51

Table 7: Summary of Impact Ranges for Low and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans for a 2,600 in3 Airgun Array Volume52

Table 8: Summary of Impact Ranges for Marine Turtles for a 2,600 in3 Airgun Array Volume 53

Figures

Figure 1: Location of the Gulpener 2D Marine Seismic Survey 8

Figure 2: Typical marine seismic survey reflection schematic 10

Figure 3: The MV Pacific Finder seismic survey vessel (example vessel only. Picture used with permission of CGG) 13

Figure 4: Origin’s risk consequence categories 39

Figure 5: Origin’s risk management categories 40



Abbreviations and Acronyms

Abbreviation DefiniIton

2D Two Dimensional

AAPA Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority

ADF Australian Defence Force

AFMA Australian Fisheries Management Authority

AHS Australian Hydrographic Service

AIS Automatic Identification System

ALARP As Low as Reasonably Practicable

AMCC Australian Marine Mammal Centre

AMOSC Australian Marine Oil Spill Centre

AMSA Australian Maritime Safety Authority

RPS APASA RPS Asia Pacific Applied Science Associates

AQIS Australian Quarantine Inspection Service

BIA Biologically Important Area

BoM Bureau of Meteorology (Cth)

BPC Border Protection Command

CFA Commonwealth Fisheries Association

CMR Commonwealth Marine Reserve

COLREG Convention of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea

Cth Commonwealth

CSG Coal Seam Gas

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

DEC Western Australian Department of Environment and Conservation

DEWHA Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (Cth) (former, now DoE)

DFWA Department of Fisheries Western Australia

DoD Department of Defence (Cth)

DoE Department of Environment (Cth)

DoF Department of Fisheries (WA)

DoT Department of Transport (NT)

DPA Defence Practice Area

DPIF Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries (NT)

DSEWPaC Department of Environment, Water, Population and Communities (Cth) (former, now DoE)

DTWA Department of Transport Western Australia

EP Environment Plan

EPBC Act Environment Protection Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth)

ERC Emergency Response Coordinator

ERP Emergency Response Plan

ERT Emergency Response Team




GL Gigalitres

GMDSS Global Maritime Distress Safety System

GPS Global Positioning System

HSE Health, Safety and Environment

HSEMS Health, Safety and Environment Management System

IFAW International Fund for Animal Welfare

IMS Invasive Marine Species

IPA Indigenous Protected Area

IUCN International Union for Conservation Nature

ITOPF International Tankers Owners Pollution Federation

JBG Joseph Bonaparte Gulf

KEF Key Ecological Features

km Kilometres

LNG Liquified Natural Gas

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas

m Metres

MARPOL International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

MBES Multi-beam echo sounders

MFO Marine Fauna Observer

MGO Marine gas oil

MSS Marine seismic survey

NATPLAN National Plan for Maritime Environmental Emergencies

NFP Not for profit

NLC Northern Land Council

nm Nautical miles

NMSC Australian National Marine Safety Committee

NOPSEMA National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority

NNTT National Native Title Tribunal

NPF / NPFI Northern Prawn Fishery / Industry

NTSC Northern Territory Seafood Council

OIW Oil in Water

OPGGS Act Offshore Petroleum & Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 (Cth)

OPGGS(E) Offshore Petroleum & Greenhouse Gas Storage (Environment) Regulations 2009 (Cth)

OPEP Oil Pollution Emergency Plan

OSMP Operational and Scientific Monitoring Plan

PJ Petajoule

PMST Protected Matters Search Tool

PTS Permanent Threshold Shift

RFPA Reef Fish Protection Area




RMS Root mean square

SBES Single-beam echo sounders

SDS Safety Data Sheet

SEL Sound exposure level

SOPEP Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan

SPL Sound pressure level

SRD Streamer Recovery Device

SSS Side Scan Sonar

TO Traditional Owner

TTS Temporary Threshold Shift

UHF Ultra High Frequency

UXO Unexploded ordnance

VHF Very High Frequency

WA Western Australia/n

ZPI Zone of Potential Impact



1. Introduction

Origin Energy Resources Limited (Origin) is proposing to undertake the Gulpener two-dimensional (2D) marine seismic survey (herein referred to as the ‘survey’) in the Joseph Bonaparte Basin off western Northern Territory, within permit NT/P84.

Up to 2,000 line kilometres (km) of data will be acquired in water depths ranging from approximately 10 to 50 metres (m). The eastern side of the survey ‘acquisition area’ is approximately three nautical miles (nm) (5.8 km) west of the nearest landfall on the Northern Territory coast between Pearce Point and Channel Point (Figure 1).

Surrounding the acquisition area is an ‘operational area’, within which all ancillary operations associated with the survey (e.g. line turns and streamer maintenance) will be contained. However, the vessel may sail beyond the operational boundaries, for the purposes of turning the vessel during times of unfavourable environmental conditions and/or due to operational constraints.

The survey is expected to take place over approximately two to three weeks during the period 1 March 2016 to 31 July 2017. Preferred acquisition timing is between 15 June and 31 July, 2016, outside of the Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF) season, and during the optimal metocean conditions. However, exact timing is contingent on receipt of environmental approvals, confirmation of contractor resources and fair sea state conditions that are suitable for marine seismic acquisition.

The Environment Plan (EP) for the activity was approved by the National Offshore Petroleum Safety and Environmental Management Authority (NOPSEMA) on 23 May 2016.

2. Proponent

Origin Energy (ASX: ORG) is the leading Australian integrated energy company, with market leading positions in energy retailing (approximately 4.2 million customers), power generation (approximately 6,000MW of capacity owned and contracted) and natural gas production (1,093 PJ of 2P reserves and annual production of 82 PJe). To match its leadership in the supply of green energy, Origin also aspires to be the number one renewable energy company in Australia.

Through Australia Pacific LNG, Origin’s incorporated venture with ConocoPhillips and Sinopec, Origin is developing Australia’s largest coal seam gas (CSG) to liquefied natural gas (LNG) project, based on the country’s largest 2P CSG reserves base.

Origin’s gas exploration and production portfolio includes acreage in the Otway, Bass, Cooper/ Eromanga, Surat, Denison, Perth, Beetaloo and Bonaparte Basins in Australia, and the Taranaki, Northland, and Canterbury Basins of New Zealand.

3. Location

The area defined as the ‘acquisition area’ is located entirely within Commonwealth waters of the Bonaparte Basin (Figure 1). The acquisition area of 2,850 km2 is the polygon in which active seismic data acquisition will be conducted. The water depth of the acquisition area varies between 10 and 50 m. Areas shallower than 10 m water depth are excluded from the acquisition area. The Cultural Exclusion Zone, which is defined as a 500m buffer around Emu Reef and Howland Shoals, is also excluded from the acquisition area (Figure 1).

The area defined as the ‘operational area’ encompasses the acquisition area and includes a buffer area for conducting ancillary operations, such as line-turns and maintenance. The operational area generally encompasses a 10 km buffer around the acquisition area, although the buffer is narrower adjacent the Northern Territory coast. The operational area is 4,470 km2 (including the acquisition area). Activities conducted in the operational area include vessel approach, vessel turns, testing of the seismic source and maintenance operations. The vessel may sail beyond the operational area boundaries, for the purpose of vessel turns, during times of unfavourable environmental conditions (e.g. weather or currents) or due to operational constraints (e.g. equipment maintenance/repair or obstructions). However, the source will not be activated outside of the operational area under any circumstances.

The water depth of the operational area varies from 10 to 70 m, with the deepest water in the north. Coordinates of the acquisition area are provided in Figure 1. The proximities of the acquisition area to key features in the region are listed in Table 1.

Gulpener 2D seismic survey location Figure 1



Table 1: Distance to key features in the region

Locality Distance from acquisition area

Nearest landfall 5.8 km (3.1 nm) east

Darwin (direct) 165.3 km (89.2 nm) north-east

Commonwealth Marine Reserves

Joseph Bonaparte Gulf (JBG) Intersects permit

Oceanic Shoals 150.53 km (81.2 nm) north-west

Kimberley 302.15 km (163 nm) west

Coastal towns

Wadeye (Port Keats) 13.48 km (7.3 nm) south-south-east

Oil and gas infrastructure

Blacktip to Cosmo Howley gas pipeline Intersects south-west corner of permit NT/P 84

Ichthys gas pipeline 110.1 km (59.4 nm) north

4. Activity Description

4.1 Timing Origin has identified the preferred timing through balancing operational requirements with environmental and socio-economic constraints. Key species presence and fisheries activity in the operational area throughout the year indicate:

• Sea state conditions optimal for survey occur from May to October inclusive. Beyond this time, the risk of cyclonic conditions increases significantly.

• Advice from the NT Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries is that the peak period for reef fish aggregation and spawning is from October to March inclusive.

• Foraging by the Green and Olive Ridley Turtle may occur in the operational area throughout the year.

• The only fishery considered likely to operate in the vicinity of the operational area is the Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF). There are two fishing seasons (AFMA 2016): 1 April to 15 June, 1 August to end of November.

4.2 Survey Programme The survey proposed by Origin is a typical 2D survey; using technical methods and procedures that are similar to most others conducted in Australian marine waters. No unique or unusual equipment or operations are proposed.

The survey vessel will acquire the seismic data by towing up to two acoustic source units operating alternatively, one discharging as the other recompresses. Each unit consists of up to three arrays of variously sized airguns. There will be one hydrophone ‘streamer’ cable; approximately 4,000 – 8,000 m long and towed behind the vessel at approximately 5-15 m below the water surface (depending on bathymetry, whilst maintaining a minimum of 5m from the seafloor at all times). The vessel will tow the streamer along pre-determined lines within the acquisition area.

A series of acoustic pulses (nominally discharged every 8 to 10 seconds) will be directed by the source down through the water column and seabed. The released sound will be attenuated and reflected at geological boundaries and the reflected signals are detected using hydrophones arranged along the streamer behind the vessel. The reflected sound will be evaluated to provide information on the structure and composition of the geological formations, to identify and map hydrocarbon reserves below the seabed (Figure 2).

The survey will be conducted 24 hours a day, except when sea states exceed operational limits.



Figure 2: Typical marine seismic survey reflection schematic

4.2.1 Seismic Lines

The proposed survey will use conventional methods of data acquisition where data are acquired along straight lines, along various azimuths, with air guns in use within the acquisition area. The number and direction of seismic lines has yet to be finalised; however, up to 2,000 line kilometres will be acquired. It is anticipated that some sections of the lines, as currently defined, will not be able to be acquired. Some lines will have to be moved off course to avoid shoals; others will require truncation at their southern and western extents due to the proximity of shallow coastal waters. This will be determined by the proposed bathymetry programme.

4.2.2 Seismic Source

The seismic source consists of individual airguns arranged in an array. The airguns in the array are strategically arranged to direct most of the energy vertically downward rather than sideways. The exact parameters of the airgun arrays will be finalised and made available after Origin has chosen the seismic contractor. A generic description of possible airgun arrays is provided below.

• A typical array/s will be towed at depths ranging from 4 to 9 m, approximately 100 m to 150 m astern the seismic vessel.

• The arrays are suspended at a controlled depth under the surface floats, which will be illuminated by lights activated at night by solar switches. Acoustic pulses are generated nominally every 25m or less, approximately every 8-10 seconds. The distance and time between pulses may be adjusted during the survey to improve data quality.

• The array/s will be separated by either barovane doors or booms attached to the vessel. This will typically result in a spread behind the vessel of up to 300 m wide.



For the Gulpener 2D seismic survey, the total volume of the airgun arrays used in the survey will be 2,600 in3 (cubic inches), with a nominal operating pressure of 2,000 pounds per square inch (psi). This is the smallest possible source size required to meet the technical objectives of the survey. The acoustic sources will not be discharged in less than 10 m of water.

4.2.3 Streamers

The single streamer will be approximately 4,000 – 8,000 m long. It will have depth controllers, not more than 300 m apart and Streamer Recovery Devices (SRD), not more than 600 m apart. The SRDs, or similar technology, will be attached to the streamer and, if the streamer sinks below a pre-determined depth, it will deploy an automatic pressure-activated airbag to float the streamer back to the surface. In waters too shallow for the SRD to work effectively, an alternative streamer recovery procedure will be used.

The streamer will nominally be towed between 5 and 15 m below the water’s surface, depending on bathymetric conditions. The streamer will not be towed less than 5 m above the seabed.

The streamer medium will be either a solid foam construction or gel-filled. The streamer will display appropriate navigational safety measures, such as a light and reflective tail buoy.

4.2.4 Data Collection and Analysis

Acoustic pressure will be measured by hydrophones in the streamer and transmitted by fibre optics to the recording room on the seismic survey vessel. These data will be checked by the on-board processing department for quality control and merged with navigation data to correctly position the data in time and space.

After the data are successfully acquired it will be further processed at a facility on-shore, to obtain a 2D image of the sub-surface geology. The 2D image of the subsurface will be then be interpreted by Origin geoscientists to assess gas prospectivity.

4.3 Bathymetry Programme The water depth of the operational area varies between 10 and 70 m, including reefs, shoals and banks. Acquisition will be limited to water depths of between 10 and 50 m. Prior to the acquisition of seismic in shallow waters, defined as water depths between 10 and 20 m, the accuracy of the admiralty charts and other available bathymetric data will be confirmed. In these shallow waters, defined as the Bathymetry Verification Zone, a Single-Beam Echo Sounder (SBES), Side Scan Sonar (SSS) or Multi-Beam Echo Sounder (MBES) will be used to confirm the bathymetry along planned 2D seismic lines. In addition, a more extensive bathymetric measurement programme may be undertaken prior to seismic acquisition in order to further understand the shoals and shallow regions within the acquisition area. This programme will be obtained prior to the seismic survey, either completed weeks ahead of the seismic survey or on a line-by-line basis just ahead of the seismic vessel. It will likely be acquired by the guard vessel or a smaller support vessel; however, the seismic vessel may be used for this larger bathymetric programme, if operationally efficient and safe to do so. The bathymetric survey would run for approximately seven days.

4.3.1 Single-Beam Echo Sounder

Single-Beam Echo Sounders (SBES) transmit sound energy and analyse the return signal that has bounced off the seafloor or other objects. The system’s transducer, typically hull mounted, emits sound waves from directly beneath the ship’s hull straight down into the water. The sound reflects off the seafloor and a signal returns to the transducer. The time for the acoustic signal to travel from the transmitter to the seafloor (or object) and back to the receiver is measured, analysed and recorded.

The data received produces individual soundings (depths) along the vessels track that can be used to map the bathymetry.

SBES can be single or dual frequency; typically emitting sound at frequencies between 3 kHz and 1 mHz, with a typical noise source level (SPL) of about 200 dB re 1μPa at 1m (0-peak) (TGS 2013).

4.3.2 Multi-Beam Echo Sounder

Multi-Beam Echo Sounders (MBES), like other sonar systems, transmit sound energy and analyse the return signal that has bounced off the seafloor or other objects. The system’s transducers, either hull-mounted or mounted in an over-the-side arrangement, emit sound waves from directly beneath a ship's hull to produce fan-shaped coverage of the seafloor. The time for the acoustic signal to travel from the transmitter to the seafloor (or object) and back to the receiver is measured, analysed and recorded.

Post-processing of the recorded data onboard the vessel produces a “swath” of soundings (i.e. water depths) along the survey lines. The coverage area on the seafloor is dependent on the depth of the water, typically two to four times the water depth. Many MBES systems are capable of recording acoustic backscatter data. Multibeam backscatter data have sufficient intensity that can be processed



to create low resolution imagery, similar to a side scan sonar image. Backscatter is co-registered with the bathymetry data and is often used to assist with bathymetric data interpretation, post-processing and seabed classification, based on its reflection strength and character.

Bathymetric information acquired using an MBES would operate at 200 – 400 kHz, with a typical noise source level (SPL) of about 216 to 241 dB re 1 μPa (peak) (SCAR 2002, Hammerstad 2005).

4.3.3 Side-Scan Sonar

Side Scan Sonars (SSS) are also used to create bathymetric maps of the ocean floor. The method uses pulses of sound shot sub-horizontally across the sea bottom from a towed transducer or ‘towfish’. The sound pulses reflect off of seabed features or other objects that project above the bottom. The strength and travel time of reflected pulses are recorded and processed into an image of the seabed.

The energy transmitted from SSS is formed into the shape of a fan that sweeps the seafloor; typically from directly under the towfish to a range of 100 m either side. The strength of the return echo is continuously recorded, creating a "picture" of the ocean bottom.

SSS typically comprise three basic components: towfish, transmission cable, and topside processing unit. If used for the survey, the likely arrangement will comprise a towfish system with the SSS unit towed approximately 50 m astern the vessel.

The SSS transducers will be capable of operation at a frequency of approximately 120 kHz and a noise source level (SPL) of approximately 200 to 220 dB re 1μPa at 1m (0-peak).

4.4 UXO Programme The Commonwealth Department of Defence has advised that unexploded ordnance (UXO) may be present on and/or in the seafloor in the project acquisition and operational areas. As there is an increased risk of interaction with the seafloor in shallow waters (<20m), an additional UXO survey may be required in this Bathymetric Verification Zone. The UXO survey may be completed weeks prior to the seismic survey or on a line-by-line basis a few days ahead of the seismic vessel.

The UXO survey shall require a magnetometer survey to check for the presence and/or existence of UXO and other metallic debris. The UXO survey may be obtained, in conjunction with the bathymetry survey, utilising the seismic vessel prior to the seismic vessel, or may be completed using the guard vessel or an additional support vessel.

The UXO survey will require the utilisation of a magnetometer to measure the total magnetic field strength to investigate ferrous objects lying on, or buried immediately below, the sea floor. The sensor will be towed as close to the seafloor as possible and sufficiently far away from the vessel to isolate the sensor from the magnetic field of the survey vessel. The use of a gradiometer system, which measures magnetic gradient between two or more closely spaced magnetometers, should be considered if more precise results are required.

Note that due to the presence of UXO, the survey vessel or any support vessels shall only drop anchor in a location that has been cleared of UXO via the use of a magnetometer.

There will be no emissions or energy released as part of any required magnetometer surveys, other than standard routine vessel emissions if the survey is carried out separate to the seismic/bathymetry surveys.

4.5 Vessels 4.5.1 Survey Vessel

The survey will be conducted using a seismic survey vessel. The survey vessel will be approximately 70 m long and approximately 20 m wide and carry up to a total of 60 persons. While the specific survey vessel that will be used for this survey is yet to be determined, it is likely to be similar to the MV Pacific Finder (Figure 3).



Figure 3: The MV Pacific Finder seismic survey vessel (example vessel only. Picture used with permission of CGG)

Given the duration of the survey, it is unlikely that the vessel will require refuelling in order to complete the survey. However, if the survey duration is extended due to unexpected events, such as inclement weather, then the survey vessel will refuel at sea or in port. The vessel will bunker with marine gas oil or marine diesel oil.

4.5.2 Support Vessels and Crew

At least one vessel will support the survey vessel.

The primary support vessel (guard vessel) will be approximately 30 m long and 10 m wide and may carry up to a total of 15 persons. The guard vessel shall be capable of towing the seismic vessel if required, and the crew will be experienced in towing operations.

If additional support vessel/s are required, they will be sourced locally; from Darwin, if practicable. Any support vessel/s are likely to be approximately 20 m long and 6 m wide, have a rope hauler and carry up to seven persons.

4.5.3 Maritime Safety

The vessel and towed array of equipment will operate in accordance with the Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea (COLREGs 1972).

The guard vessel will actively monitor and enforce a safety zone around the survey vessel. The survey vessel operator will issue a vessel positioning notification to the Australian Hydrographic Service (AHS) at least 21 days prior to commencement of the operation, who will in turn publish the survey location in the Notice to Mariners (published fortnightly). A daily Auscoast warning of the survey vessel’s location will also be issued to all vessels by RCC Australia through the Global Maritime Distress Safety System (GMDSS) communication network. The warning will provide details of the safe distance to be maintained around the seismic survey vessel and towed equipment.

The Master and Officer of the Watch of the survey vessel are responsible for maintaining control of the seismic fleet vessel operation and for establishing and maintaining communication with other vessels and marine traffic during the survey. The guard vessel and support vessel, if used, shall follow all instructions from the survey vessel and communicate with other marine traffic during the survey.

Supplementary to radar detection, the support and the guard vessels will have transmitting beacons fitted for the duration of the survey. The vessels will use either Automatic Identification System (AIS) transponders or radio global positioning system (GPS) transponders. The addition of this equipment and the data it transmits provides accurate real-time updates of the position of all project vessels relative to the survey vessel and the towed seismic spread.



All vessels will be capable of communicating and operating both on dedicated ultra-high frequency (UHF) working channels or maritime very high frequency (VHF) working channels (typically monitoring Channel 16 and working on 74).

4.6 Survey Summary Table 2 summarises the proposed survey parameters.

Table 2: Summary of acquisition parameters

Parameter Detail

Earliest commencement date 1 March 2016

Latest completion date 31 July 2017

Duration of survey Approximately 2 to 3 weeks

Water depths 10 – 50 m

Acquisition area 2,850 km2

Operational area 4,470 km2

Operating period 24 hours, 7 days per week

Survey contractor Unknown at the time of writing

Seismic source

Total volume of single source array 2,600 in3

Nominal source operating pressure 2,000 psi

Nominal source interval 25 m, or less, horizontal distance (8 – 10 seconds)

Compressed air source depth Approximately 4 – 9 m below sea surface. Minimum 5 m above seabed.

Lines/streamers

Number of sail lines To be confirmed, up to a total length of 2,000 km

Line spacing Minimum 900 m to ~ 1,500 m

Orientation Various

Number of streamers 1

Streamer length Approximately 4,000 – 8,000 m. Length may be adjusted throughout the survey to enable safe acquisition in shallow water.

Streamer depth (approx.) 5 – 15 m depending on bathymetry. Minimum 5 m above seabed.

Survey vessel details

Name TBC.

Vessel speed (up to) 8 – 9 km/h (i.e. nominally 4 – 4.5 knots)

Refuelling At sea or in port

Support vessels Minimum one guard vessel capable of performing both guard and scouting duties. Possible additional support vessels if required.

5. Stakeholder Consultation

For the purpose of stakeholder consultation to support environment planning for the Gulpener 2D seismic survey, Origin has identified and consulted with “relevant persons whose functions, interests or activities may be affected by the activities to be carried out under the EP”.



Stakeholders were initially identified using Origin’s existing stakeholder database which has been built upon knowledge gained from its ongoing activities in the Otway Basin since 2000, including:

• Halladale and Speculant gas development (current);

• Enterprise 3D seismic survey (2014);

• Geographe pipeline installation (2013);

• Geographe drilling (2012-13);

• Astrolabe 3D seismic survey (2013); and

• Speculant 3D transition zone seismic survey (2010).

Whilst the above activities were focused on the Otway basin, many stakeholders operate on a national basis and were, therefore, a relevant starting point in assessing stakeholders for the Gulpener survey.

In addition, stakeholders previously identified by Origin for engagement regarding development of the EP for the Breakwater-1 Site Survey in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf were also assessed for relevance.

Research was undertaken to ascertain whether there were any other stakeholders (not previously identified) whom may be impacted by the proposed survey. Commencing with a preliminary scan of potential environment and social impacts or activities that may be unique to this project or location, Origin then undertook further research to identify stakeholders in the following key groups:

• Northern Territory government Ministers and Departments;

• Commonwealth and Northern Territory commercial fisheries, fishing associations and fishers;

• Recreational fishing groups;

• Indigenous Traditional Owner groups;

• Tourism operators;

• Recreational activity operators and associations (including diving and sailing); and

• Organisations with conservation interests.

The initial scan was verified and supplemented with detailed research from the Gulpener EP full environment scan, including identification of Indigenous Protected Areas (IPA), identification of potentially impacted commercial and recreational fisheries.

Given the location of the Zone of Potential Influence (ZPI – the area potentially impacted in the remote scenario of a significant diesel spill from the seismic vessel), proximity to the coast and identification of Indigenous Protection Areas, Traditional Owners who maintain a primary custodianship role of the sea and land in that region were identified as key stakeholders.

Following local protocols, initial contact to identify relevant Traditional Owners and to commence engagement with them was made through the Northern Land Council (NLC). This process is ongoing.

Ongoing engagement with NLC will occur before, during and after the survey to seek NLC's guidance for engagement with Traditional Owners and provide ongoing feedback on the engagement progress and outcomes.

Since 2003, the Thamarrurr indigenous land and sea rangers have been managing country in the Thamarrurr IPA, which covers more than 712 km2 and includes parts of the of the Moyle and Little Moyle River floodplains and nearby coastal areas. Given their intimate knowledge of sea and country and their direct custodianship role, they are a key stakeholder and Origin engaged with them directly to explain the proposed survey, and listen to their questions and concerns.

Following engagement with Thamarrurr indigenous land and sea rangers, Origin applied to the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority (AAPA) for verification of whether the Emu Reef was a registered sacred site. AAPA confirmed the Emu Reef was not a registered sacred site. Nonetheless, Origin is both cognisant and respectful of the cultural values held in the area to local Traditional Owners (TOs) and indigenous people, and will adopt the acceptable practice of buffer zone(s) in relation to activity within proximity to Emu Reefs. Subsequent engagement with Thamarrurr indigenous land and sea rangers and TOs took place to explain the survey activity, likely nature of future development should the survey prove successful and buffer zones around Emu Reef. The TOs questions were answered and they accepted Origin’s recommended buffer zones.



A summary of key stakeholder consultation undertaken to date, together with an assessment of feedback, is presented in Table 3 below. This table focuses on key stakeholders who have been identified as ‘relevant persons’ whose functions, interests or actives may be affected by the survey.

In order to inform assessment of the potential for cumulative impacts from multiple seismic surveys, Origin engaged with seismic contracting companies operating in Australian waters and other petroleum tenement holders in the JBG to identify marine seismic surveys that have the potential to occur concurrently. This engagement revealed that two of the seismic contractors operating in Australian waters (TGS and Polarcus) and two petroleum companies (Santos and ConocoPhillips) could potentially undertake seismic surveys concurrently with the Gulpener seismic survey.

The Santos, ConocoPhillips and Polarcus surveys are at least 200km from the operational area. No cumulative impacts due to sound emissions or simultaneous operations are predicted at this distance. It is also highly unlikely that the Gulpener survey will result in simultaneous operations with the proposed TGS seismic survey. The very large area and long timeframe of the TGS survey should allow for the acquisition programme to be managed to avoid concurrent operations.

5.1 Identification of new stakeholders during survey activity Whilst the survey is in operation, identification of any new stakeholders who may be impacted by the survey activity will occur through the following processes:

• Commercial fishers:

o Notice to Mariners via AMSA protocols shall be issued before the survey commences and then following completion of the survey.

o Survey acquisition vessel and guard vessel shall communicate directly using standard marine radio protocols, with any sighted commercial fishers.

• Tourism operators:

o Notice to Darwin Harbour Master of survey dates and locations, at start of survey to enable communication with cruise operators departing from Darwin Port.

o Notice to Mariners via AMSA protocols shall be issued before the survey commences and then following completion of the survey.

o Survey acquisition vessel and guard vessel shall communicate directly using standard marine radio protocols, with any sighted tourism operators.

• Recreational fishing / activity:

o Signage at public boat ramps in the survey vicinity to advise timing and location of survey and toll free phone number to call for further information.

o Survey acquisition vessel and guard vessel shall communicate directly using standard marine radio protocols, with any sighted tourism operators.

5.2 Ongoing consultation Ongoing engagement of stakeholders will occur during the preparation, execution and close-out of the survey. A stakeholder communications and consultation timeline shall be prepared after determination of the successful survey contractor and scheduled start date.

Ongoing engagement will be guided by a Stakeholder Engagement Plan (SEP). The SEP includes a revised stakeholder list, timelines, consultation approach, key concerns and messages, record keeping protocols and objection assessment and response.

Any new objections, concerns or claims that may be raised by a stakeholder are:

• captured in the stakeholder log;

• raised with the relevant survey project team member responsible for reviewing, assessing, researching the matter as applicable and preparing a response;

• tabled at a weekly project review meeting, where the response is also discussed; and

• added to the project action tracker until a response to the stakeholder is issued and the matter subsequently closed.



Table 3: Stakeholder consultation summary

Stakeholder Functions, Interests, Activities Potential Impacts, Concerns, Claims of Stakeholder Origin’s Assessment and Response

Commonwealth Government

Australian Fisheries Management Authority (AFMA)

Australian Government agency responsible for the efficient management and sustainable use of Commonwealth fish resources on behalf of the Australian community.

No response. Relevant fisheries identified in EP and direct engagement carried out with commercial fishers and associations.

Border Protection Control (BPC) Command

Australian border protection No response. Will continue to inform. Operational notifications will be sent to Australian Hydrographic Service and AMSA.

Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA)

Maritime safety, adherence to advice, protocols, regulations

No response. Final version of Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (OPEP) to be provided, as per MOU entered into December 2014.

Department of Defence (DoD)

Information on offshore exploration issues within Infrastructure Division's responsibilities.

No objections. Advised unexploded ordnance (UXO) may be present on seafloor and risk of disturbing UXO is low provided no contact with seafloor. Advised restricted air spaces and Defence Practice Area (DPA) exist over and within survey area. Provided detailed information on types of UXO and confirmed location of Darwin AWR West Defence Practice Area, Will respond to Origin’s request for information on Defence operations in survey area from 15 June to 31 July, when staff has returned from leave. Require Origin to provide minimum 14 days notice of survey start to ensure no conflict with Defence training activities.

Given advice from DoD that all UXO is on ocean floor and provided no part of survey equipment comes into contact with ocean flow, the risk of disturbing ordnance is low. DoD confirmed approximate alignment of Darwin AWR West Defence Practice Area (DPA) with map on DoD website and provided further information on types of UXO. DoD will provide further confirmation on any operations planned for survey area during 15 June to 31 July, when available. Given shared operational area with defence activities, ongoing engagement before (minimum of 14 days), during and after survey will be incorporated into operational planning.

Australian Hydrographic Service (AHS)

Issues fortnightly notices to mariners for relevant nautical products.

No concerns raised. Requested Origin to provide update 2 – 3 weeks before commencement so they can issue notices to mariners.

Given communications responsibilities to mariners of AHS, ongoing engagement before, during and after survey will be incorporated into operational planning.

Northern Territory Government




Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries (DPIF)

The conservation and sustainable development of the NT’s fish and aquatic resources.

Offered general observations with specific response to be given once EP submitted to DPIF. Acknowledged 2D surveys may not have as great an impact as 3D but consider there is potential for adverse impacts including reduction of catch of Demersal fishery operators in survey area. Suggested Origin contact Northern Territory Seafood Council (NTSC) regarding survey timing, to reduce potential impacts. Concerned about long term impacts of seismic surveys on fish catch and populations on ecosystem and catchability / economic perspectives which should be addressed in the EP and would like to see further research projects on long-term cumulative effects of 2D & 3D seismic surveys on fish stocks off WA, NT and QLD. Replied to Origin’s query on Reef Fish Protection Area (RFPA) at Moyle/Port Keats, advising it has robust levels of golden snapper (and other species) and is an important recruitment source, spawning aggregations occur more frequently in wet season (October to March), aggregations occur randomly throughout RFPA. DPIF would prefer no seismic activity within RFPA but recognise importance of seismic program and future development opportunities and if RFPA cannot be avoided, would prefer avoiding peak spawning periods. Advised the avoidance of surveying in RFPA during the peak spawning season is much appreciated.

Origin acknowledged DPIF for their support in providing contact details of commercial fisher licence holders and operators to facilitate Origin’s stakeholder engagement. Reviewed feedback, carried out further research reviews. Advised regulatory framework for EP approval is Commonwealth not NT. Overall assessment is minimal or no impact on NT fisheries or fishers. Nevertheless, given feedback from NTSC, Origin sought data from DPIF on Black Jewfish and Golden Snapper aggregations and seasonal patterns within Moyle / Port Keats Reef Fish Protection Area (RFPA) to assist development of targeted mitigation measures. DPIF had limited data but advised they would prefer no survey over RFPA or if unavoidable, survey not done in wet season 1 October to 31 March due to peak spawning time. Origin considered possibility of excluding RFPA from survey area but technical objectives of the survey require data from this area. Origin is committed to minimizing any potential impacts to spawning aggregations of reef fish in the RFPA, therefore the seismic source will not be activated within the RFPA during the primary spawning season, i.e. from 1 October to 31 March. Stakeholder engagement with DPIF and potentially impacted fishers will be ongoing before, during and after survey.

Northern Land Council (NLC)

Independent statutory authority of the Commonwealth, responsible for assisting aboriginal peoples in the Top End of the Northern Territory to acquire and manage their traditional lands and seas.

None communicated. Ongoing engagement with NLC will occur before, during and after the survey to seek NLC's guidance for engagement with Traditional Owners and provide ongoing feedback to NLC on engagement progress and outcomes. As at 13/1/2016, no response has been received from NLC.




Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority - NT (AAPA)

Independent statutory authority established under the Northern Territory Aboriginal Sacred Sites Act, responsible for overseeing the protection of Aboriginal sacred sites on land and sea across the whole of Australia’s Northern Territory.

Provided revised Abstract of Record to Origin after Origin's request for clarification and revised letter. Initial advice is there is no record of sacred sites within the area. This does not necessarily mean that there are no sacred sites located in this area, but rather reflects the situation that the Aboriginal custodians for this area have not sought protection of sites under Northern Territory law and no other information on the location of sites is available to the Authority. AAPA highly recommends seeking an Authority Certificate for any proposed works or use.

Origin sought clarification from AAPA on Abstract of Record as the Emu Reef sacred site as advised by the Thamarrurr Marine Rangers did not appear in the AAPA Abstract of Record. Revised map was provided by AAPA and Origin sought a revised letter to accompany the revised map and received the same on 14/01/2016. Whilst an Authority Certificate has been recommended by AAPA, it is not a legal requirement and Origin deem the survey activities to be of low impact / likelihood and at this time will not submit a formal application for AAPA certification. Nonetheless Origin is both cognisant and respectful of the cultural values held in the area to local Traditional Owners and indigenous people, and will adopt the acceptable practice of buffer zone(s) in relation to activity within proximity to Emu Reef. Ongoing engagement with AAPA and NLC and Traditional Owners will occur before the survey.

Department of Mines and Energy - NT Government

NT Government Department responsible for NT minerals and energy policy and regulation.

Appreciated being consulted and understood Commonwealth permit / legislation. Advised NT Act not applicable provided air guns not activated in NT waters, weren't aware of implications of sacred sites and referred Origin to AAPA.

Survey area is not within NT waters and comes under Commonwealth regulatory framework. Nevertheless due to coastal proximity, engagement will continue before, during and after the survey.

Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory

NT Government Department responsible for parks and wildlife.

Provided input of reports from 1990s re waterbirds. Information supplied by stakeholder has been reviewed by Origin Environment team and considered in EP development. Notwithstanding, survey comes under Commonwealth regulatory framework, given the coastal proximity, Origin will continue to inform stakeholder until survey completion.




Tourism NT NT Government Department responsible for tourism

Advised the big cruise ships in the wet season are not likely in JBG; expedition ships more likely, some stop at Wadeye / Port Keats but some just pass through and not all go through JBG, schedules exist for 2016 but won't have firm itineraries until closer to departure date and they can work around Origin's survey plans. Provided Origin information of cruise tour operators. Tourism NT can assist in further identifying these once survey window is confirmed. Advised that Tourism Top End industry association has a regular newsletter and Origin should also check yachting activity. Advised that overall, not particularly concerned about survey impact on tourism.

Operational procedures will ensure communication of confirmed survey times to identified tourism operators to enable consultation to plan for avoiding simultaneous operations. Day to day communications protocols from the survey and guard vessel will ensure safe operations should there be tourism operators not known to Origin or who have not responded to Origin's communications.

Department of Lands, Planning & Environment, NT

NT Government department responsible for lands, planning & environment

None communicated Notwithstanding, survey comes under Commonwealth regulatory framework, given the coastal proximity, Origin will continue to inform stakeholder until survey completion

Department of Transport - NT

NT Government Department responsible for territory transport needs and safety. Oil spill emergency response plan key contact.

None communicated Notwithstanding, survey comes under Commonwealth regulatory framework, given the coastal proximity, Origin will continue to inform stakeholder until survey completion. Noted and updated OPEP where appropriate from department feedback.

Western Australian Government

Department of Fisheries Western Australia (DFWA)

WA dept fisheries, no regulatory role in this survey but 'relevant person'

DFWA considers itself 'relevant person' and provided qualified advice. Advised other WA organisations to consult and fisheries in, or in close proximity to survey area. Stated seismic surveys may alter fish behaviour during spawning and pre-spawning, provided spawning /aggregation times and requested survey activities don't occur during these times. Provided guidance and preferences regarding biosecurity management and reporting. Requested full range of mitigation strategies are included in the EP, along with stakeholder described impacts, objections and claims. Requested written response that addresses all impacts described in DFWA letter.

Survey not in WA waters and, therefore, comes under Commonwealth regulatory framework. However, Origin acknowledges WA Fisheries as 'relevant person', responded to all matters raised and will continue to inform and engage.




Department of Transport - Western Australia (DTWA)

WA dept transport, no regulatory role in this survey

Advised as the survey will be in Commonwealth waters, any required notices will be promulgated by the Australian Hydrographic Office, not in DTWA jurisdiction, approval required from AMSA. Would still like to receive updates.

Survey not in WA waters; however, as requested, Origin will continue to inform stakeholder until survey completion.

Commercial Fishers

Commonwealth Fisheries Association (CFA)

Peak NFP body representing the collective rights, responsibilities and interests of a diverse commercial fishing industry in Commonwealth regulated fisheries.

No response. Relevant fisheries identified in EP and direct engagement carried out with commercial fishers and specific regional and fishery associations.

Bonaparte Fish Group Round Table

Collective of parties with different uses and interests in the marine environment in Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, who meet to share information, questions, concerns, feedback etc.

No responses from individual group members or the group as a collective.

Not applicable.

Northern Prawn Fishing Industry Pty Ltd

Collective of trawler operators, processors and marketers acting together as a single voice for the industry in the Northern Prawn Fishery, which spans the pristine waters from Cape York to the Kimberley’s.

Depending on timing the survey will impact on fishing as it takes place in all of the eastern area of JBG including area adjacent existing platform and NPFI will provide more data on precise area of fishing grounds. Stated impact of seismic on crustaceans, particularly prawns, is unknown as there is little research. Therefore, to minimise potential for any interaction as much as possible between seismic surveys and prawn populations when they are most active and abundant, would strongly prefer the survey take place between late November and end of March when the season is closed. If not possible, the second preference is between mid June and end of 3rd week in July to ensure no displacement of NPFI trawling activities. Advised 80% of northern prawn sector are NPIF members which equates to 6 key operators.

Reviewed survey timing considerations, reviewed prawn research and provided detailed reply to general concerns raised (no specific research cited by NPFI). No research that Origin is aware of shows impact on prawn species and, given mitigation measures, risk is reduced to ALARP. Origin's preferred timing is aimed at avoiding the prawn season (among other factors). However, given a part of the survey area may be used by NPFI members, depending on survey timing, Origin will maintain ongoing engagement with potentially impacted commercial fishers to avoid or reduce possible simultaneous operations.




Northern Territory Seafood Council (NTSC)

Peak Fishing Industry association NT representing commercial fishers with Commonwealth and Territory licences. Member of Bonaparte Fish Group Round Table.

Feedback that the survey area in Origin’s original map is large and, therefore, potentially impacts many fisheries. However, no fishery is entirely dependent on the survey area for their fishing grounds. Advised 95% of NT Fisheries licence holders are members of NTSC and has distributed Origin’s survey information to members with email addresses. Advised preferred survey timing outside of fishery seasons and catchability concerns, particularly during key seafood market demand periods. Discussed overfished Black Jewfish and Golden Snapper, Moyle/Port Keats Reef Fish Protection Area (RFPA) and commercial and recreational fisher concerns about seismic surveys on this area, regardless of what the research says. Keen to work cooperatively and input into EP development where possible. EP should address transparent risk assessment for potential environmental and socio-economic impacts on NT fisheries (all species, not just endangered) and include documented consultative procedures. Believes there are short comings in seismic survey impact research (including NT species research), therefore, additional precaution recommended in managing disturbance. Advised concerns regarding Black Jewfish and Golden Snapper with emphasis on impact to Coastal Line Fishery including noise disturbance, catchability, restricted access, loss or damage to fishing gear. Referenced NOPSEMA Guidance note re Ecologically Sustainable Development in feedback on EP inclusions that must be considered in development of EP.

Reviewed NTSC feedback, analysed timing options based on different stakeholder activity and environmental conditions, reviewed survey data needs and reduced survey and operational area and revised map, applied indicative transects to map along with shallow water exclusion zones and reef protected areas. Provided a summary of scientific literature available on Golden Snapper and Black Jewfish, as well as current knowledge available on biological and behavioural impacts to fish from seismic air sources. Advised that any fish species and fishery impacts are short term and recoverable. Also explained Origin’s proposed mitigation strategies. Confirmed the EP presents detailed description of existing environment including fish species, assemblages and fisheries; explained approach to EP assessment of impacts, risks and development of mitigation strategies; confirmed specific risk of seismic sound impacting fish populations is included in EP risk assessment; research referenced (19/11/2015) whilst not specifically assessing impacts to tropical reef fishes, the context is still reasonable to consider and covers a range of deleterious impacts. Given concerns regarding Black Jewfish and Golden Snapper in Moyle/Port Keats RFPA, and feedback from NTDPIF, Origin will not activate seismic source in RFPA from 1 October to 31 March. Origin is seeking approval for 2-3 week survey sometime from 1 March 2016 to 31 July 2017 (whilst noting RFPA exclusion) but considering multiple environment and social potential impacts, Origin's preferred survey timing is 15 June to 31 July outside NPFI season and during optimal metocean conditions. Exact timing will depend on approvals, contractor availability, and sea conditions. Explained assessment of, and engagement with, Coastal Line Fishery operators and will continue to engage to avoid /reduce any potential impact. Believe mitigation strategies in EP follow NOPSEMA Guidance Note N04750-GN1344 and appreciate ongoing co-operation.




A Raptis & Sons Operate commercial Prawn Trawling fleet in Commonwealth Prawn Fishery. NT Demersal Fishery License.

Operate 13 prawn and 1 demersal trawl vessel in the eastern part of survey area; prefer Origin avoids the prawn trawl season 1 April - 15 June & 1 Aug - 30 Nov. Advised Origin that NTSC and NPFI cover their operations and to engage with them. Met A Raptis at Seafood Directions Conference in Perth to consult. Confirmed timing preference of mid June to early July. After viewing revised survey & operational area map, advised the near shore area is a fishing interest to them but a small number of vessels. Don't like seismic but will work in with Origin.

Reviewed operational flexibility around 2D surveys and ability to consult in advance of planning survey transects. No research that Origin is aware of shows impact on prawn species and, given mitigation measures, risk is reduced to ALARP. Origin's preferred timing is aimed at avoiding the prawn season (among other factors). However, given a part of the survey area may be used by stakeholder, depending on survey timing, Origin will maintain ongoing engagement to avoid or reduce possible simultaneous operations.

Australia Bay Seafoods Pty Ltd

Operate commercial Prawn Trawling fleet in Commonwealth Prawn Fishery. 3 x Demersal Fishery Licenses

Advised their fishing licences allow them to fish as far south as 13.30 degrees south in the area advised (info sheet V1) but active operations only take place as far as south as 13 degrees so they should not be affected by the survey. Would like ongoing updates. After Origin provided revised survey area map, advised their fin fish vessels operate on the northern boundary of the proposed survey and doesn't believe their operations will be affected. Would appreciate ongoing correspondence, or at least through NTSC.

Reviewed operational flexibility around 2D surveys and ability to consult in advance of planning survey transects. No research that Origin is aware of shows impact on prawn species and, given mitigation measures, risk is reduced to ALARP. Origin's preferred timing is aimed at avoiding the prawn season (among other factors). However, given a part of the survey area may be used by stakeholder, depending on survey timing, Origin will maintain ongoing engagement to avoid or reduce possible simultaneous operations.

Oil spill preparedness and response agencies

Australian Marine Oil Spill Centre Pty Ltd (AMOSC)

AMOSC and Industry Consultation under the OPGGS Act 2011 (August 2012)

Agreed to response approach. Provided info on mobilisation timing and personnel available.

Noted and updated OPEP where appropriate.




Department of Transport – NT

Oil pollution emergency response. Advised correct reference to Dept of Transport in Origin’s OPEP. Advised they are currently having their plan re-written, with a completion date around February, so there may be a slight change to your interface section. Advised under OPEP external contacts section, the NT EPA manage the pollution hotline number, so can you change out Northern Territory Department of Transport (DLP Marine) and replace with NT Environment Protection Authority. No further comments.

Noted and updated OPEP where appropriate. Given coastal proximity, Origin will continue to inform stakeholder until survey completion.

Adagold Aviation Oil pollution emergency response. Agreed to response approach. Confirmed contact details. No concerns raised.

No action required.

Community, tourism, recreation

Tourism Top End NT tourism department No response by any tourism operators. Origin will send reminder email and revised information sheet and map after survey timing is confirmed. Will also request Tourism Top End place notice in their email newsletter as advised by NT Department of Tourism (V Smith).

NT Guided Fishing Industry Association

NT fishing tours association

Amateur Fishermen’s Association NT

Amateur fishers association - NT

Darwin Sub Aqua Club

Recreational dive club

Dive Industry Association of Australia

Recreational dive association

Recfishwest Amateur fishers association - WA

Conservation interests




Thamarrurr Marine Rangers, Wadeye

Traditional Owners responsible for monitoring and protecting land and sea in Thamarrurr IPA

Welcomed Origin’s visit at Wadeye and keen to learn more about Origin’s project including what development may occur in the future. Discussed important totemic species - turtles and dugongs, TOs advised Origin that Emu Reefs is a sacred site, discussed several Traditional Owner (TO) groups in area who they recommend that Origin meet and suggested questions TOs may ask. Subsequent engagement with Thamarrurr indigenous land and sea rangers and TOs took place to explain the survey activity, likely nature of future development should the survey prove successful and buffer zones around Emu Reef. The TOs questions were answered and they accepted Origin’s recommended buffer zones.

Origin will continue to engage with TMR before, during and after the survey, specifically in relation to Origin’s initiated inclusion zones around Emu Reef which is designed to ensure no connectivity with the Sacred Site. Origin will explore the possibility of engaging services of Thamarrurr Marine Rangers for scouting near shore seas for recreational fisher activity. This will be subject to reassessment of needs after exact survey timing is determined, suitable vessel availability from Thamurrurr and meeting all Origin HSE requirements.

Charles Darwin University; Australian Institute of Marine Science (AIMS); CSIRO. (All members of Bonaparte Fish Group Round Table)

Bonaparte Fish Group Round Table. A collective of parties with different uses and interests in the marine environment in Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, who meet to share information, questions, concerns, feedback etc.

No response. Origin will continue to inform and engage, where relevant.

International Fund for Animal Welfare (IFAW)

IFAW works to rescue and protect animals with a focus on marine mammals and the protection of whales and dolphins in Australia

No response. Origin will continue to inform and engage, where relevant.

Northern Territory Environment Centre

Non-Government organisation (NGO) No response. Origin will continue to inform and engage, where relevant.



6. Existing Environment

The physical, biological and socio-economic environment in and around the operational area and the ‘region’ in general are described in this chapter, together with the values and sensitivities of the region.

6.1 Conservation Values and Sensitivities 6.1.1 Commonwealth Marine Reserves

The North Commonwealth Marine Reserves (CMR) Network comprises eight CMRs, including one CMR, the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, in the southern Joseph Bonaparte Basin. There is currently no management plan in force for the North Marine Region; however, transitional arrangements allow ‘mining operations’ (DSEWPaC 2012a).

The JBG CMR covers an area of 8,597 km2 (Multiple Use Zone – 6,346 km2; Special Purpose Zone – 2,251 km2) in water depths from approximately 5 to 75 m. The Special Purpose Zone (IUCN VI) of the JBG CMR is located within the NT/P 84 permit (acquisition) area. The acquisition and operational areas also overlap part of the Multiple Use Zone (IUCN VI) of this reserve.

No physical modification of habitat in the JBG CMR will occur as a result of the seismic survey. As such, the risk of significant impacts to shallow water ecosystems and communities of the Northwest Shelf Transition Province are predicted to be negligible.

6.1.2 World, Commonwealth and National Heritage Places

The only Commonwealth Heritage Area in the vicinity of the operational area which is connected to the JBG is the Bradshaw Defence Area, located approximately 75 km south of the acquisition area. The Bradshaw Defence Area is outside of the ZPI.

There are no marine or coastal World Heritage Areas in the vicinity of the operational area. The nearest World Heritage property is Kakadu National Park, which is approximately 250 km to the east-north-east. The Kakadu World Heritage Area is outside the ZPI.

The nearest places of National Heritage to the operational area (DoE 2015a) are:

• The West Kimberley – approximately 90 km south-west of the acquisition area.

• Kakadu National Park – approximately 250 km east-north-east of the acquisition area.

The Kakadu and West Kimberley heritage places are outside the ZPI.

6.1.3 Wetlands of International Importance

There are no marine or coastal Wetlands of International Importance (Ramsar-listed wetlands) in the vicinity of the operational area. The nearest Wetland of International Importance is the Ord River Floodplain Ramsar Site, located on the eastern side of Cambridge Gulf (WA), approximately 90 km to the south-south-west of the acquisition area.

6.1.4 Northern Territory Protected Areas

There are a number of NT protected areas and sites of conservation significance in the vicinity of the operational area (NT Parks and Wildlife Commission 2015):

• Moyle/Port Keats Reef Fish Protection Area – located within the acquisition area.

• Channel Point Coastal Reserve – located 53 km north-east of the acquisition area.

• Keep River National Park (proposed extension) – located 100 km south of the acquisition area.

• Indian Island Conservation Area – located 124 km north-east of the acquisition area

• Sites of Conservation Significance:

Legune coastal floodplain – located 77 km south of the acquisition area

Hyland Bay and associated coastal floodplains – located 3 km east of the acquisition area

Anson Bay and the associated coastal floodplains – located 9 km east of the acquisition area

Fog Bay – located 77 km north-north-east of the acquisition area

Finniss River coastal floodplain – located 77 km north-north-east of the acquisition area

6.1.4.1 Moyle/Port Keats Reef Fish Protection Area

The Moyle/Port Keats Reef Fish Protection Area (RFPA) includes Emu Reef and Howland Shoals. It is designed to protect known aggregations of black jewfish (Protonibea diacanthus) and golden snapper



(Lutjanus johnii) and to provide proactive protection to more pristine stocks west of Darwin that may be supplying recruits to Anson Bay, Peron Islands and the Dundee/Fog Bay area. The establishment of the RFPA in 2013 was in response to the outcomes of an ecological risk assessment on a number of common coastal reef fish stocks in the Darwin marine / coastal area undertaken in 2009, and the subsequent NT DPIF consultation papers in 2012 and 2013 (DPIF 2012, 2013).

The acquisition area overlays the Moyle/Port Keats Reef Fish Protection Area.

6.1.4.2 Channel Point Coastal Reserve

Channel Point Coastal Reserve is a small intact example of the Northern Territory's isolated coastline. It protects 250 ha of coastal habitats opposite the Peron Islands, between the Daly River mouth and Channel Point. Wadjigan and Kiuk people are Aboriginal custodians and spokespeople for this area.

6.1.5 Indigenous Protected Areas

Indigenous Protected Areas (IPAs) are part of Australia’s National Reserve System - a nation-wide network of reserves especially set up to protect examples of Australia’s unique landscapes, plants and animals for current and future generations. IPAs are areas of indigenous-owned land and/or sea where traditional owners have entered into a legally binding agreement with the Commonwealth Government to promote biodiversity and cultural resource conservation. Funding for IPAs has been provided by the Australian Government through the Caring for Country initiative. The majority of IPAs are declared as mainly International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Category V protected areas, to protect land and seascape values and/or Category VI protected areas, managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems (DoE 2015b).

The IPA status doesn’t change the legal basis of these existing reserves, but through co-management agreements, formally recognises the connection and contribution Indigenous people make to their management.

IPAs in proximity to the activity include:

• Marri-Jabin (Thamarrurr - Stage 1) (NT) – located 5 km east of the acquisition area; and

• Balanggarra (WA) – located 95 km southwest of the acquisition area.

6.1.5.1 Marri-Jabin IPA

Marri-Jabin was declared in October 2010, as the first stage of the Thamarrurr IPA. It covers more than 712 km2 and includes parts of the of the Moyle and Little Moyle River floodplains and nearby coastal areas. The Thamarrurr indigenous land and sea rangers have been managing country in the Thamarrurr region since 2003. The ranger programme is now one of the largest indigenous employers in the Wadeye aboriginal community, providing numerous jobs for indigenous rangers.

Marri-Jabin is recognised nationally for its many significant species, including the vulnerable red goshawk, the water mouse and the endangered northern quoll. The region’s floodplains and wetlands support up to 500,000 magpie geese and its wetlands are recognised as nationally important. Estuarine crocodiles breed on the floodplains and vulnerable flatback and endangered olive ridley turtles nest along the beaches.

6.1.6 Key Ecological Features

The National Conservation Values Atlas (DoE 2015d) was accessed to determine the presence of key ecological features (KEF) within or proximal to the operational area. KEFs are elements of the Commonwealth marine environment that, based on current scientific understanding, are considered to be of regional importance for either the region's biodiversity or ecosystem function and integrity.

The operational area does not intersect any KEF. The closest KEF to the operational area is the Carbonate bank and terrace system of the Sahul Shelf. At its closest point, it is approximately 96 km west of the acquisition area, located within the North-west Marine Region.

6.2 Cultural Environment 6.2.1 Maritime Archaeological Heritage

All shipwrecks and associated artefacts over 75 years old, and those declared by the Minister, in Commonwealth waters are protected under the Historic Shipwrecks Act 1976 (Cth). Similarly, all shipwrecks in Northern Territorial waters are protected under the Heritage Act 1995 (NT). A search of the Australian Historic Shipwrecks Database identified nine documented shipwrecks in the JBG (DoE 2015e). However, no historic shipwreck is documented within the operational area. The nearest shipwreck is that of the Polpye, a wooden schooner, which was lost in waters near Wadeye in 1913.



6.2.2 Indigenous Heritage

The indigenous inhabitants of Wadeye include multiple language groups, with the main language that is spoken being Murrinh Patha.

A search of the National Native Title Tribunal (NNTT) database indicates there are no claims for Native Title over the operational area (NNTT 2015).

None of the following occur within the operational area:

• registered application as per the Register of Native Title Claims;

• scheduled application as filed with the federal court;

• registered Indigenous Land Use Agreements as per the Register of ILUAs; or

• ILUAs notified (but not registered) by the Tribunal.

Sacred sites specific to different Indigenous groups are located within the vicinity of the operational area (WEL 2004).

6.3 Physical Environment 6.3.1 Climate

The JBG is situated in a tropical region that experiences a monsoonal climate with two predominant seasons. A hot and wet summer is experienced from October to March; the high humidity and thunderstorm activity is caused by steady west to north-westerly winds that bring moisture from the Timor Sea. From April to September the weather is dry and warm, influenced by the easterly winds generated from inland Australia.

6.3.2 Winds

Winds across the region are relatively strong (maximum mean 14.7 knots; maximum 50.9 knots) and vary seasonally, blowing from the west-north-west during September to March and from the south-east during April to August. March, September and August are considered transitional months when the winds swing round to the alternate seasonal direction (RPS APASA 2014).

During the wet season, cyclones are a feature of the region. On average there are 7.7 days per season when cyclones exist in the region which typically occur between December and April bringing gale force winds and severe storms. Cyclones in the region typically form south of the equator in the Timor or Arafura seas when sea temperatures are above 26.5ºC and head east (BOM 2015).

6.3.3 Ocean Currents

Regional thermohaline currents occur in waters outside the JBG. Typically when the northwest monsoon terminates in March, a strong westerly current forms off the shelf edge, called the Holloway Current. The Holloway Current typically persists until December, when the northwest monsoon recommences. It is suggested by Condie (2011) that an offshore westward current persists throughout the year.

The JBG is protected from swell generated in the Southern Ocean and swells affecting the area are limited to those generated by cyclones or prolonged strong winds. Sea waves, which are usually short period (1–8 second) waves, are generated by local synoptic winds and reflect wind directionality. Persistent strong winds capable of generating significant seas are generally associated with the south-easterly trade winds which dominate during winter or dry season months. However, the small south-easterly fetch limit the development of large seas throughout the JBG. Larger seas typically occur during the winter, from June to August. Seas are calmest from April to May (Commonwealth of Australia 2012).

6.3.4 Bathymetry

The JBG is an extensive, shallow (generally < 100 m) carbonate-dominated margin adjacent to the Sahul Shelf. The north-western margin of the shelf/slope drops off into the Timor Trough (~3,000 m). The western boundary of the gulf joins with the Indian Ocean, while the northern boundary joins with the Timor Sea. The JBG receives significant loads of sediment from the numerous rivers in the region (Lees 1992 in Przeslawski et al. 2011), and is dominated by tidal and wind-driven currents according to the season (Przeslawski et al. 2011). Water depths within the acquisition area range from 10 to approximately 50 m.

6.3.5 Seabed Sediments

The geomorphology of the JBG has been influenced by sea level rise on a geological timescale. Approximately 18,000 years ago the region was characterized by a semi-enclosed body of brackish



water located in the current outer JBG, a region currently known as the Bonaparte Depression (Yokoyama et al. 2001 in Przeslawski et al. 2011). As the sea level rose, the JBG opened to the Timor Sea, and a peninsula formed approximately 12,000 years ago where the Van Diemen Rise currently exists. Further sea level rise resulted in inundation of most parts of the JBG-Timor Sea, until the present sea level approximately 6,000 years ago. The rising sea level likely drowned existing coral reefs, as confirmed by large quantities of coral rubble collected from survey GA-325 at 90 m. These drowned reefs now provide habitat for the modern biota of the JBG (Przeslawski et al. 2011).

The JBG includes 10 geomorphic features, with the inner JBG comprising mostly shelf, the outer JBG comprising basin, and the outer JBG-Timor Sea comprising banks and terraces separated by deep/hole/valley features. Each geomorphic feature is associated with particular environmental factors (e.g. depth, substrate) (Heap & Harris 2008) (Przeslawski et al. 2011). The majority of the operational area overlies the shelf geomorphic feature, with small pockets of banks/shoals, reef and deep hole/valleys to the south. The banks/shoals were defined as local or regional areas of elevated seafloor with one or more steep sides, and valleys as tapered depressions on the shelf characterised by laterally converging contours of increasing depth (Przeslawski et al. 2011). Some banks, approximately 100km north of the operational area are reported to support extensive hard substrate communities including living hard corals (Przeslawski et al. 2011). Seabed mapping surveys carried out by Przeslawski et al. 2011 identified that dominant fauna on these banks were sponges, octocorals and hard corals, with higher epibenthic species richness when compared to other geomorphic features in the JBG (i.e. terraces, ridges, plains and valleys) (Przeslawski et al. 2011).

6.3.6 Coastal Environment

The lower part of the JBG is relatively shallow with a coastline dominated by sand banks, extensive mudflats, mangrove systems, tidal creeks and the estuaries of the Victoria River system and the Cambridge Gulf. Waters are extremely turbid in this part of the JBG due to the large tides and periodic flow of sediment-laden water from the Victoria River system and Cambridge Gulf (Przeslawski et al. 2011).

The coastal areas in the vicinity of the survey include extensive floodplains, tidal flats, beaches, rocky headlands and estuarine wetland systems. Coastal sand dunes are present in a number of areas. Fourteen species of mangroves are known from the area. There are a number of coastal islands in close proximity, including Turtle Point and Clump, Driftwood, Peron and Quoin Islands. Many of the wetland and intertidal areas are internationally recognised as Important Bird Areas (IBAs).

6.4 Biological Environment A search of the EPBC Act Protected Matters Search Tool (PMST) lists 28 threatened and 51 migratory species that may occur in or near the ZPI. Note that as the search included some areas of land, a number of terrestrial species were recorded. Excluding terrestrial species, there are 15 threatened and 41 migratory species that may occur in or near the ZPI. These species are described in this section.

6.4.1 Benthic habitats and species assemblages

Benthic communities of the JBG are exposed to strong tidal currents, high turbidity, and substantial sediment mobility, with levels of disturbance decreasing offshore. High turbidity exists in the inner JBG, particularly during the wet season, with peak turbidity recorded 3 km from the coast, and much lower levels recorded ~ 30 km offshore (WEL 2004). Most of the operational area can be characterised as Plains, with areas of Banks/Shoals and Reefs in the southern part of the acquisition area.

Plains are the shallowest and least complex geomorphic feature regarding bedform and relief, with ~99% of plains comprising homogenous flat soft-sediments. Plains have the lowest number of epifauna (14.9 ± 8.6 species per ~100 m sled tow). Large sponges and octocorals are rare.

Banks are elevated features with a relatively high proportion of hard substrate. The generally hard substrate of the banks support patches of moderately dense octocoral and sponge gardens which in turn provide habitat for other epifauna and cryptofauna. As such, banks are home to the highest number of epifaunal species (56.7 ± 26.7 species per ~ 100 m sled tow, mean ± S.D.). Infaunal species richness is moderately high in bank sediments (29 ± 13.3 species per grab). Very few macroalgae (e.g. Halimeda) or reef-forming hard corals were recorded (Przeslawski et al. 2011).

Previous surveys in the JBG have shown that seagrass and macroalgae are limited to coastal habitats. Species composition of bycatch from the prawn fishery is distinctly different from that of other tropical regions in northern Australia (Tonks et al. 2008), indicating that the biota in the inner JBG differs from the biota from other areas in the Timor Sea (Heyward et al. 1997; Van Andel & Veevers 1967). Prawns represent one of the dominant epifauna of the soft sediment expanses, while diverse infaunal communities are dominated by polychaetes and other crustaceans (WEL 2001, cited in Przeslawski et al. 2011).



A geophysical survey and sampling of sediment and infauna have been completed along the Blacktip to Cosmo Howley Pipeline. This pipeline passes close to the southern boundary of the operational area (Figure 1), where infaunal benthic assemblages are likely to be broadly similar to those present in similar seabed habitats of the operational area. The geophysical survey identified the seabed along the pipeline route as either:

• flat and featureless seabed containing soft to firm silty clay; and

• areas of hummocky seabed containing megaripples/sand waves.

Subcropping/outcropping of indurated gravelly clay containing hard and soft corals was identified only within 700m of the coastline.

Significant positive correlations were observed between the coarsest sediment fraction gravel (very coarse sands and above) and both abundance and species richness. This contrasts with another study conducted in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf which found that infauna species richness and abundance increased with distance from the mouth of the Victoria River, which coincided with an increasing proportion of fine particles in the sediment (BBG 2000).

6.4.2 Pelagic and Demersal Invertebrates

A total of 50 invertebrate species from 20 families were recorded in bycatch subsamples from 53 prawn trawls in the JBG assessed by Tonks et al. (2008). Portunidae (swimming crabs) and Penaeidae (Penaeid shrimps) were the most speciose, represented by 13 and eight species respectively. Squillid mantid shrimps (Squillidae), cuttlefish (Sepiidae) and hairy crabs (Pilumnidae) were represented by five, four and three species respectively. No other invertebrate family was represented by more than two species.

6.4.3 Fish

Seven species of fishes listed as Threatened were recorded in the PMST. Five of these are also listed as Migratory. Five other Migratory species are listed for the area. Four of these species are also listed as Threatened under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000. The speartooth shark was not recorded in the PMST but is listed as potentially occurring in the ZPI in DoE (2015). There were also 35 listed Syngnathid (seahorses, pipefish, pipehorses) and Solenostomid (ghost pipefish) fish.

The great white shark (Carcharodon carcharias) is listed as Vulnerable and Migratory under the EPBC Act. It is widely, but not evenly, distributed in Australian waters. Areas where observations are more frequent include waters in and around some fur seal and sea lion colonies such as the Neptune Islands (South Australia), areas of the Great Australian Bight, as well as the Recherche Archipelago and the islands off the lower west coast of Western Australia (Malcolm et al. 2001). It is possible, although unlikely, that great white sharks could be present in the operational area. As the operational area is towards the northern limit of the known distribution of this species, they are likely to be present only as transients. There are no identified biologically important areas for this species within or in the vicinity of the operational area.

The shortfin mako shark is an oceanic species known to occur in both tropical and temperate waters. It is normally oceanic and cosmopolitan in its distribution and is widespread in Australian waters, occurring from the surface to water depths of at least 500 m. It is occasionally found close inshore where the continental shelf is narrow. It is not normally found in waters below 16 °C (Cailliet et al. 2009).

The longfin mako is a widely distributed but rarely encountered oceanic tropical shark. This species is a deep-dwelling shark and appears to be cosmopolitan in tropical and warm temperate waters; however, its distribution remains unclear within Australia and it is often confused with the more common shortfin mako (Reardon et al. 2006). Whilst both species may potentially transit the operational area and surrounding waters, the area does not represent critical habitat (key feeding, breeding or pupping areas) for the species.

Four species of sawfish and two river sharks listed under the EPBC Act are known to occur in the North Marine Region. While relatively little is known about the distribution and abundance of sawfishes and river sharks in northern Australian waters, the North Marine Region is considered an important area for the species group as the region and adjacent waters contain nationally and globally significant populations of sawfish and river shark species (DSEWPaC 2012a). Sawfish and river sharks may occur in the vicinity of the operational area as identified in the PMST report. The dwarf sawfish has been recorded in the Keep River and the Legune Wetlands (within the ZPI).

The whale shark has a broad distribution in tropical to warm temperate oceanic and coastal waters. It is a migratory species, visiting aggregation areas such as Ningaloo Reef on a seasonal basis. Offshore sightings are not uncommon; however, they are more commonly observed in coastal waters sitting high in the water column. Whale sharks are not known to aggregate in the operational area; however, there



have been sightings from the Blacktip Wellhead Platform, approximately 70 km east of the acquisition area (pers. comm. Hall, A, 2015). They may transit through the area during the proposed activities. There are no BIAs for whale sharks in the region.

Both the inshore manta ray and giant manta ray are migratory species, which may be present in the operational area. Manta rays typically aggregate around food sources, prompting a seasonal trend in distribution. Mostly rays are found in inshore waters, around coral reefs and rocky reefs in coastal waters. Long term sighting records suggest that inshore manta rays are mostly resident in tropical and subtropical waters (Marshall et al. 2009; Marshall et al. 2011a). Both species may potentially occur in the vicinity of the operational area.

There have been numerous analyses of the spatial variation in fish assemblage structure across northern Australia (Rainer and Munro 1982, Stobutzki et al. 2003, Tonks et al. 2008). The demersal fish assemblage of the JBG has been reasonably well studied through prawn bycatch assessments undertaken for the NPF. Zhou et al. (2015) reported all fish species incidentally caught in the JBG fishery and recorded as part of the NPF Bycatch Monitoring (Observer) Program between 2001 and 2005. This dataset reported a total of 150 fish species, comprised of 12 elasmobranchs and 138 teleost species.

Tonks et al (2008) sampled the bycatch from 53 prawn trawls in the JBG, including numerous trawls around the 20m contour near the south western coastline of the JBG. This study recorded 195 taxa (85 families), of which 171 were identified to species (Tonks et al. 2008). A total of 112 teleost species from 61 families were recorded, with nine species occurring in more than 80% of trawls. The teleost species with the highest mean catch rates were Glassy Bombay duck (Harpadon translucens), Threadfin scat (Rhinoprenes pentanemus), Largehead hairtail (Trichiurus lepturus), Blackfin threadfin (Polydactylus nigripinnis) and Smooth croaker (Johnius laevis).

A benthic sampling program of inshore areas between Cape Ford (immediately north east of the operational area) and north east of Darwin has also been undertaken by the Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory (Smit et al. 2000). Fishes were found at 36.5 per cent sites (58 of 162). Species richness for the study area was poor and comprised nine orders, 20 families, 32 genera and 41 species. Perciformes (Perches and allies) and pleuronectiformes (Flatfishes) were the most dominant orders, with respectively 22 and 6 species. The dominant families were gobiids (gobies), bothids (Lefteye flounders) and ophichthids (Snake eels).

The family Syngnathidae is a group of bony fishes that includes seahorses, pipefishes, pipehorses and sea dragons. Along with syngnathids, members of the related Solenostomidae family (ghost pipefish) are also found in the North Marine Region. Biologically important areas have not yet been identified for seahorse and pipefish species in the North Marine Region. However, sea horses and sea dragons often occupy the edges of seagrass, kelp bed, mangrove and coral reef habitats.

6.4.3.1 Commercial and recreational fishery species

Barramundi (Lates calcarifer) and threadfin salmon (Eleutheronema tetradactylum) are the most commercially important fish species in the JBG. Both of these species generally occur in the estuaries of the JBG, and are targeted under the Kimberley Gillnet and Barramundi Fisheries.

Golden snapper and black jewfish are important targets for recreational fishers around reefs and shoals and have been identified as species of concern by the Northern Territory Seafood Council (NTSC). The Black Jewfish is identified by the Fisheries Research and Development Council as overfished in the Northern Territory. The Moyle/Port Keats Reef Fish Protection Area was declared to protect spawning stocks of these species.

Red-legged banana prawns, tiger prawns (Penaeus esculentus) and blue endeavour prawns (Metapenaeus endeavouri) are the key prawn species targeted in the Northern Prawn Fishery (NPF). The red-legged banana prawn is the key target species in the JBG section of the NPF, with a minor contribution of white banana prawns.

6.4.4 Mammals

Three species of mammals listed as threatened were identified in the PMST, including two also listed as migratory. An additional six species were also listed as migratory, along with five listed cetaceans and the dugong being identified as having a potential to be present.

6.4.4.1 Blue whale

The blue whale is a cosmopolitan species, found in all oceans except the Arctic, but absent from some regional seas such as the Mediterranean, Okhotsk and Bering Seas. There are two recognised sub-species of blue whale in Australian waters; the true blue whale (Balaenoptera musculus intermedia) and the pygmy blue whale (B. musculus brevicauda). The pygmy blue whale is mostly found north of 55°S, while true blue whales are mainly sighted south of 60°S.



Pygmy blue whales are known to migrate between warm water (low latitude) breeding grounds and cold water (high latitude) feeding grounds. During the northern migratory pathway along the Western Australian coast, pygmy blue whales aggregate in the Perth Canyon to feed from January to May (McCauley & Jenner 2010). They then move up the coast passing Exmouth in the period April to August, to their northern destinations in the Banda and Molucca Seas (Indonesia), confirming these locations as their likely calving areas (Double et al. 2012). It is considered unlikely that pygmy blue whales would occur in the vicinity of the operational area. No known migration, aggregation or breeding areas are located within the vicinity of the operational area.

6.4.4.2 Humpback whale

The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) migrates annually from feeding grounds in Antarctic waters during the summer months to their breeding and calving grounds in the North-West Marine Region between July and September (DSEWPaC 2012b). The Kimberley Region between Broome and the northern end of Camden Sound is particularly important for breeding and calving. Relatively few humpback whales have been known to travel north of Camden Sound (Jenner et al. 2001). As the operational area is over 700 km north-east of Camden Sound it is considered unlikely that the operational area provides important habitat for this species.

The survey is not near a calving, resting, foraging area, or a confined migratory pathway. It is considered unlikely that humpback whales would occur in the vicinity of the operational area.

6.4.4.3 Bryde’s whale

Bryde’s whales (Balaenoptera edeni) are found year-round in waters between 40°S and 40°N, both oceanic and inshore, primarily in temperatures exceeding 16.3 °C (Kato 2002). This species appears to be limited to the 200 m depth contour, moving along the coast in response to availability of suitable prey, whilst the offshore form is found in deeper waters (500 to 1,000 m) (Best et al. 1984).

The nearest known area of aggregation for this species is near Ningaloo Reef. It is, therefore, possible that the coastal form of this species could be encountered migrating through or in the vicinity of the operational area; however, it is not likely to use the area for feeding, breeding or resting.

6.4.4.4 Dugong

The Dugong (Dugong dugon) is migratory and typically inhabits seagrass meadows in coastal waters, estuarine creeks and streams. Seagrass is the preferred food, but they are also known to eat algae and macroinvertebrates (DSEWPaC 2012c).

The dugong ranges from the tropical and subtropical edge of the Indian Ocean and extends into the Pacific Ocean. Throughout the Northern Territory dugong are found in areas of the Gulf of Carpentaria around the Sir Edward Pellew Islands and the mouth of the Limmen Bight River. LDM (1994) noted that though not abundant in the JBG, dugongs have been reported to occur along the coastline from Cape Hay to Point Pearce, with the main populations concentrated around Docherty Island. This was confirmed by a survey undertaken in May 2004 by Mick Guinea (Charles Darwin University).

Due to the highly turbid nature of inshore waters in the vicinity of the operational area, extensive seagrass meadows are unlikely to occur. As such, it is considered that the region would not be important for dugongs. They may be encountered in small numbers.

6.4.4.5 Australian snubfin, Australian humpback and Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins

The Australian snubfin dolphin (Orcaella heinsohni) occurs in waters off the northern half of Australia, from approximately Broome on the west coast to the Brisbane River on the east coast (DSEWPaC 2012b). Cambridge Gulf (approximately 80 km southwest of the operational area is recognised as a Biologically Important Area (BIA) for breeding, calving and foraging. Beagle and Pender Bays on the Dampier Peninsula and tidal creeks around Yampi Sound and between Kuri Bay and Cape Londonderry are also important areas for Australian snubfin dolphins (DEWHA 2008).

Whilst the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf CMR is listed as an important area of foraging habitat for the Australian snubfin dolphin this is likely due to the overlap of the Cambridge Gulf BIA with the south western extremity of the CMR.

Australian humpback dolphins are known to occur along the northern coastline of Australia, extending to Exmouth Gulf on the west coast, and the Queensland/ NSW border region on the east coast (DSEWPaC 2012b). Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins inhabit shallow coastal, estuarine, and occasionally riverine habitats, in tropical and subtropical regions. There is no BIA for Australian humpback dolphins in or around the operational area.

Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) occur in four main regions around Australia, being the eastern Indian ocean, the Tasman Sea, the Coral Sea and the Arafura/Timor Sea (DSEWPaC 2012b). The species are generally distributed in the tropical waters of the North-West Marine Region,



along the Pilbara and Kimberley coasts and inhabiting shallow coastal waters along the continental shelf (DSEWPaC 2012b). There is no BIA for Indo-Pacific bottlenose dolphins in or around the operational area.

6.4.4.6 Killer whale

The killer whale is a wide ranging species, recorded in all state waters within Australia, although the total number of killer whales in Australian waters is unknown (DoE 2015f). Reported sightings appear to be concentrated around Tasmania and animals are known to frequent waters in the Antarctic south of 60°S (around Heard and Macquarie Islands). Their preferred habitat includes oceanic, pelagic and neritic (relatively shallow waters over the continental shelf) regions, in both warm and cold waters; however, they may be more common in cold, deep waters. Killer whales are most often seen along the continental slope and on the shelf, particularly near seal colonies (DoE 2015f). Little is known of either local or seasonal killer whale movements; however, it is thought that they undertake seasonal migration depending on food supply.

No areas of significance and no determined migration routes have been identified for this species within Australian waters (DoE 2014). While these species of cetacean may transit the operational area, they are not known to use the area for feeding, breeding or resting and the waters surrounding the operational area are unlikely to represent an important habitat for this species. Significant numbers of this species are not expected to be encountered.

6.4.4.7 Other listed cetaceans

Common Dolphin

Common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) is an abundant species, widely distributed from tropical to cool temperate waters, and generally further offshore than the bottlenose, although small groups may venture close to the coast and enter bays and inlets. They have been recorded in waters off all Australian states and territories.

Risso’s Dolphin

Risso’s dolphin (Grampus griseus) is a widely distributed species found in deep waters of the continental slop and outer shelf from the tropics to temperate regions. The species prefer warm temperate to tropical waters with depths greater than 1,000 m, although they do sometimes extend their range into cooler latitudes in summer (Bannister et al. 1996).

Spotted dolphin

Spotted dolphin (Stenella attenuata) are mostly found in oceanic tropical zones between about 40° N and 40° S, inhabiting both near-shore and oceanic habitats. In Australia, Pantropical Spotted Dolphins have been recorded off the Northern Territory, Western Australia down south to Augusta, Queensland and NSW. They have a preference for tropical and subtropical waters of 22°C or greater; however, are occasionally found in temperate waters (Bannister et al. 1996).

Bottlenose dolphin

Bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus) has a worldwide distribution from tropical to temperate waters. While the species is primarily coastal, they are found inshore, on the shelf and offshore. Two subspecies are known to occur in Australia: T. t. truncatus, a warm water, inshore ecotype, and T. t. aduncus, usually found in colder and deeper waters.

The inshore bottlenose dolphin, T. t. aduncus, is found in New South Wales north of Port Macquarie, through Queensland and Northern Territory into Western Australia and south to Perth. Typically it is limited to waters water of <10 metres in depth; however, it may range to approximately 10 km offshore in oceanic waters.

6.4.4.8 Water Mouse

The water mouse (Xeromys myoides) is a small rodent known to occur in mangroves and associated saltmarsh, sedgelands, clay pans, heathlands and freshwater wetlands in the Northern Territory, central south Queensland and south-east Queensland. Within its range, it is patchily distributed and nowhere is it particularly abundant (Gynther & Janetzki 2008).

It is known to occur in Anson Bay and the associated coastal floodplains (within the ZPI).

6.4.5 Marine Reptiles

Six species listed as Threatened were recorded in the PMST. All of these are also listed as Migratory, along with the salt-water crocodile. In addition, three species of monitor are listed as Threatened under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000.



6.4.5.1 Loggerhead Turtle

Loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta) are listed as Endangered and Migratory under the EPBC Act. They have a global distribution throughout tropical, sub-tropical and temperate waters (DoE 2015g). In Australia, they generally occur around coral and rocky reefs, seagrass beds and muddy bays throughout eastern, northern and western Australia.

The main Australian breeding areas for loggerhead turtles are generally confined to southern Queensland and Western Australia (Cogger et al. 1993). No known nesting or inter-nesting areas have been identified in or around the operational area; however, oceanic waters to the north west of the ZPI have been identified as a BIA for foraging.

6.4.5.2 Green Turtle

Green turtles (Chelonia mydas) are listed as Endangered and Migratory under the EPBC Act. They are generally found in tropical and subtropical waters at around 20°C although the species can be present in temperate waters. They are known to nest, forage and migrate across tropical northern Australia (DoE 2015h).

Green turtles are common in the North-West Marine Region and North Marine Region, with the JBG Commonwealth Marine Reserve identified as an important foraging area for the species (DoE 2015h). The operational area lies within a foraging BIA for green turtle.

6.4.5.3 Leatherback Turtle

The leatherback turtle (Dermochelys coriacea) is listed as Endangered and Migratory under the EPBC Act. It has the widest distribution of any marine turtle, and can be found in tropical, subtropical and temperate waters throughout the world (Marquez 1990). It is the largest of all turtle species, reaching up to 1.6 m carapace length. The species can utilise colder waters than other species due to physiological adaptations and is regularly observed in temperate as well as tropical waters around Australia (DoE 2015i).

No major nesting has been recorded in Australia, with isolated nesting recorded in Queensland and the Northern Territory (Limpus 2009). This species nests only in the tropics. The waters of the operational area do not represent critical habitat for the species, although the foraging habits of the species suggest it may occur in low numbers while transiting the area. There are no BIAs in the vicinity of the operational area.

6.4.5.4 Hawksbill Turtle

Hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata) are listed as Vulnerable and Migratory under the EPBC Act. They have a large migratory pattern, and are found in both tropical and temperate waters where they are known to forage in coral and rocky reef habitats. The North-West Marine Region supports one of the largest nesting populations of hawksbill turtles in the world with significant rookeries occurring at Varanus and Rosemary Islands. The breeding stock that nests adjacent to the North Marine Region at Arnhem Land is associated with the rookeries of the Torres Strait and the northern Great Barrier Reef (Limpus 2009). Although hawksbill turtles are known to nest any time of the year, the peak nesting period in northern Australia occurs between July and October (DoE 2015j).

No BIAs have been identified in or around the operational area.

6.4.5.5 Olive Ridley Turtle

The olive ridley turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) is listed as Endangered and Migratory under the EPBC Act. They are the smallest Australian marine turtle, and are the most numerous of all marine turtles. Nesting aggregations occur worldwide, with two large rookeries identified in northern Australia: Arnhem Land and north-east Arnhem Land. Nesting occurs all year round (DoE 2015k).

The operational area lies within a foraging BIA for Olive Ridley turtles. Olive ridley turtles have been sighted foraging in the JBG; in Arnhem Land in the north-west (including Cobourg Peninsula, Melville Island and Bathurst Island) and north-east (Wessel Islands); and in the Gulf of Carpentaria, from Blue Mud Bay to Mornington Island (Commonwealth of Australia 2012).

6.4.5.6 Flatback Turtle

Flatback turtles (Natator depressus) are listed as Vulnerable and Migratory under the EPBC Act. They are endemic to the northern Australian and southern New Guinea continental shelf, with all breeding occurring on Australian beaches (Limpus et al. 1988). Nesting occurs between December and January with significant flatback turtle rookeries located in the Kimberley region, specifically near Cape Domett and Lacrosse Island in the JBG (Limpus 2008; DoE 2015l).

Flatback turtles differ from other species of marine turtle in that post-hatchlings do not go through an oceanic dispersal but are believed to follow a surface water dwelling life over the continental shelf and



remain within pelagic habitats (Limpus et al. 1994a; Walker 1994). Flatback turtles forage over soft-bottom habitats across the northern Australian continental shelf and as far north as New Guinea and Indonesia (Limpus 2009). They prefer inshore waters and bays where their feeding ground is the shallow, soft-bottomed seabed, away from reefs (DoE 2015l).

6.4.5.7 Turtle nesting areas proximal to the operational area

Marine turtle nesting occurs at scattered locations along the coast adjacent to the eastern part of the operational area. With the exception of Hyland Bay (south of Cape Dombey) and Anson Bay, which both had almost no turtle nesting, most of the rest of the coastal sections had lower (mostly) to medium density nesting on the beaches scattered along its length. Although most nesting is at low densities on scattered sandy beaches, there are some areas that have high density nesting, such as, North Peron Island (within the ZPI) (Chatto & Baker 2008).

North Peron Island (approximately 35 km northeast of the operational area) is one of the three or four best areas for turtle nesting along the NT western coast (within the ZPI). Nesting on North Peron Island has been recorded by Chatto and Baker (2008) from February to September for flatback turtles. There is no nesting in December or January and there are no available nesting records for adjacent coastal areas for October and November.

Of the sites most relevant to the operational area greater nesting was recorded at the Turtle Point area than at Whale Flat Island between 1992 and 1999 (Chatto & Baker 2008). The highest number of turtle tracks/nests recorded from these two combined coast sections was around 100 in a September survey in 1993.

A large flatback turtle rookery is located at Cape Domett (WA), approximately 80 km southwest of the operational area. Although limited research has been conducted on the species in this area, this is thought to be among the largest of all known flatback nesting populations, with an estimated yearly population in the order of several thousand turtles (Whiting et al. 2008 in DEC 2012).

Chatto and Baker (2008) identified the Turtle Point area (approximately 70 km south of the operational area) and the Whale Flat Island area (approximately 50 km south-south-east of the operational area) as having high significance for flatback turtle nesting within the Cambridge-Bonaparte Bioregion. Both Turtle Point and Whale Flat Island are within the ZPI.

No BIAs (nesting, internesting or foraging) for the flatback turtle intersect the operational area. Foraging and interesting BIAs are mapped for the JBG.

6.4.5.8 Saltwater crocodile

The saltwater (or estuarine) crocodile (Crocodylus porosus) has a tropical distribution that extends to northern Australia, where it currently inhabits coastal areas ranging from Broome in north-west Western Australia, across the Northern Territory, and down the east coast of Queensland to Rockhampton (Webb & Manolis 1989). Saltwater crocodiles can be found in tidal rivers, coastal floodplains and channels, billabongs, swamps up to 150 km inland from the coast, as well as far out to sea. The species is found in most major river systems within the region (DSEWPaC 2012a). The lower reaches of the Moyle and Little Moyle Rivers and estuaries are a major breeding area for saltwater crocodiles (within the ZPI). High densities of crocodiles are also found in the Daly, Reynolds and Finniss Rivers.

6.4.5.9 Monitors

Monitors, such as Merten’s water monitor (Varanus mertensi), Mitchell’s water monitor (Varanus mitchelli) and the floodplain monitor (Varanus panoptes) have broad distributions across the top end of Australia. In the Northern Territory all species are recorded in similar areas including coastal beaches, floodplains, grasslands, woodlands and catchments of all rivers flowing to the Timor Sea, Arafura Sea and the Gulf of Carpentaria.

6.4.5.10 Sea snakes

The short-nosed seasnake (Aipysurus apraefrontalis) was not listed in the PMST, but is listed as Critically Endangered in the wider area. This species of seasnake generally prefer reef flats or shallow waters along the outer reef edge in water depths to 10 m. This species is endemic to Western Australia, and has been recorded from Exmouth Gulf, Western Australia (Storr et al. 2002) to the reefs of the Sahul Shelf (DoE 2016). Most specimens have been collected from Ashmore and Hibernia Reefs (Minton & Heatwole 1975), over 660 km north west of the operational area, although some are from the Arafura Sea (Shuntov 1971).

6.4.6 Birds

No species listed as threatened were recorded in the PMST. However, two species (curlew sandpiper and the eastern curlew) listed as critically endangered under the EPBC Act have been reported from



the ZPI. Seventeen species were listed as Migratory in the PMST. The red knot and the Terek sandpiper were not reported in the PMST but are known to occur within the ZPI. Six of these species are considered Vulnerable under the Territory Parks and Wildlife Conservation Act 2000.

Migratory shorebird species are present in Australia during the non-breeding period, from as early as August to as late as April/May each year. Immature birds of some species will remain at feeding and roosting sites in Australia until they reach maturity (DEWHA 2009).

The ZPI lies within the East Asian – Australasian (EAA) Flyway, which is described in detail by Bamford et al. (2008). A number of locations within the ZPI are considered significant under the Draft EPBC Act policy statement 3.21 (DEWHA 2009), noting that no contact to riverine floodplains is predicted by the OSTM:

• Turtle Point is identified as an internationally important site for migratory shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway (Terek sandpiper).

• Anson Bay (south) is identified as an internationally important site for migratory shorebirds in the East Asian-Australasian Flyway (black-tailed godwit).

• The Legune coastal floodplain is an internationally recognised Important Bird Area.

• The floodplains of the Moyle and Little Moyle Rivers are internationally-recognised Important Bird Area due to the occurrence of globally significant numbers of magpie geese, pied herons and great knots.

• Anson Bay and the Daly and Reynolds rivers floodplains are an internationally-recognised Important Bird Area.

The EPBC Act PMST identified 21 bird species as possibly occurring in or around the operational area. Three of these species are marine birds, with the remainder identified as wetland birds.

The curlew sandpiper (Calidris ferruginea) is widespread around the coast of Australia and further inland, although in smaller numbers. Curlew sandpipers mainly occur on intertidal mudflats in sheltered bays and estuaries, inlets, lagoons, swamps, lakes, ponds, salt works, sewage farms, dams, waterholes and bore drains (DoE 2015n). In the Northern Territory, curlew sandpipers have been recorded from most coastal areas with all sites in the Northern Territory considered important non-breeding and stop-over areas.

The eastern curlew (Numenius madagascariensis) has a primarily coastal distribution and found in all states and territories of Australia. Eastern curlews are continuous in their distribution across the Top End of Australia and are patchily distributed elsewhere. This species is rarely recorded inland (DoE 2015n). In the Northern Territory, eastern curlews have been recorded all along the coast and on many offshore islands foraging in mangroves, intertidal flats and saltmarshes where they feed on crabs and molluscs.

Eastern great egrets are widespread in Australia. They occur in all states/territories of mainland Australia and in Tasmania. In Australia, the largest breeding colonies, and greatest concentrations of breeding colonies, are located in near-coastal regions of the Top End of the Northern Territory. Minor breeding sites are widely scattered across the species' distribution and include sites in the Kimberley region of Western Australia (DoE 2015o)

The little tern (Sternula albifrons formerly known as Sterna albifrons) is widespread in Australia, with breeding sites distributed from north-west Western Australia, around the northern and eastern Australian coasts, to south-eastern Australia and Tasmania (Higgins & Davies 1996). The species forages in the North Marine Region and breeds in areas adjacent to the region. The little tern is commonly seen in sandy coastal habitats and in mangrove-mudflat habitats along the coast, or in bays and estuaries, generally within 1 km of the coast (Chatto 2001). In the Northern Territory, breeding colonies of this species have been recorded on sandy beaches, often mixed with shells or coral rubble, just above the high-tide mark among the dunes, or on open blow-out areas among or behind the dunes. Breeding has been recorded in 44 colonies in the Northern Territory and is likely to occur at many more sites (Chatto 2001). Of the 44 recorded colonies, 20 comprised 11–100 birds and one colony had at least 150 pairs (Chatto 2001). The northern Australian breeding population has an extended breeding season covering most of the year. Breeding occurs from April to early January, with the main periods being late April–July and September – early January (Chatto 2001).

6.4.7 Threatened Ecological Communities

No listed threatened ecological communities were identified in the PMST.



6.5 Socio-economic Environment 6.5.1 Settlements

The operational area bounds a remote section of Northern Territory coastline that is largely inhabited by Indigenous Australians. The nearest town is Wadeye (also known as Port Keats), situated on the western edge of the Daly River approximately 230 km (by air) south-west of Darwin. The road to Wadeye is regularly impassable during the wet season. Wadeye also has a temporary Australian Defence Force (ADF) radar site that is used during exercises conducted in the top end of Australia.

The local community is serviced by the Thamarrurr Regional Council. The Thamarrurr region is often referred to as Port Keats. The land within the council boundaries is inalienable freehold held under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976. A statutory land trust, known as the Daly River Land Trust, holds the land on behalf of the traditional owners. Within Thamarrurr there are 20 clan groups, which are considered the traditional owners, each with separate estates. Wadeye is on land of the Kardu Diminin clan group (Ivory 2005).

6.5.2 Shipping

The Port of Wyndham (south west of the operational area) is the only deep water port between Broome and Darwin. The port exports live cattle and nickel. Imports include fuel oil, ammonium nitrate for the mining industry and general cargo.

A search was undertaken of the AMSA Vessel Tracking Data spatial data set (AMSA 2015) in the vicinity of the operational area. This data set is considered to be representative of the commercial vessel traffic expected to be encountered during the survey. This dataset indicates that the survey is unlikely to encounter commercial shipping traffic throughout the duration of the activity.

6.5.3 Tourism and Recreation

The Northern Territory is a popular tourist destination for both Australian and international tourists with approximately 1.36 million tourists visiting year end 2015 (Tourism NT 2015). Tourism is generally restricted to the dry season, with the majority >60% of tourists arriving between April and September. The majority of tourist activities are based on fishing, sightseeing, riding and hunting. Indigenous cultural tours also operate across the Territory and are aimed at providing visitors with the opportunity to experience Indigenous culture and remote areas.

The JBG has not been significantly developed for tourism due to its inaccessibility. Access to the gulf region is generally restricted to vessel or helicopter for up to five months of the year, with road access to areas of Indigenous freehold land requiring permission from the Northern Land Council. Charter vessels and cruise ships departing from Darwin, Broome and Derby occasionally visit the Gulf with fishing, sightseeing and camping being the main activities undertaken.

6.5.4 Recreational Fishing

The JBG is a very isolated area with few population centres and only limited access to the coast. Consequently, recreational boating and fishing in the region is limited to areas near coastal access points.

There is a boat ramp / barge landing area in Sandfly Creek north of the town of Wadeye, giving access to coastal fishing locations such as Docherty Island, Peron Islands, Cape Ford, Dundee/Fog Bay and Victoria and Fitzmaurice rivers.

A recreational boat ramp and jetty are located at Anthon Point, near Wyndham Port, giving access to the Cambridge Gulf. Fishing is also common on the inland areas of the Ord, Victoria, Keep, and Daly Rivers.

A small recreational boat ramp services the waters of Anson Bay, including Channel Point, Daly River mouth and the Peron Islands. The area is generally only accessible from May to October or when road conditions allow access.

Charter fishing and tourism operators out of Darwin and the Kimberley generally target offshore reefs and shoals or areas of high scenic value. These areas are generally sparse within the JBG.

6.5.5 Petroleum Exploration and Production

Petroleum exploration activities have been undertaken within the Bonaparte Basin since the late 1940s. By the end of 2000 the Bonaparte Basin had produced 11 gigalitres (GL) of oil but only 0.11 billion cubic metres (BCM) of gas. It is estimated that remaining reserves are in the vicinity of 33.42 GL of oil and 669 BCM of gas (Geoscience Australia 2015).

There are several production fields located in the Bonaparte Basin which include the following:



• GDF SUEZ Bonaparte propose to develop the Petrel, Tern and frigate gas fields, located approximately 300 km west of Darwin in 85 to 105 m of water. The Petrel field is on the maritime boundary between Northern Territory and Western Australia while the Tern and Frigate fields are in federal waters administered by the Western Australian Government.

• Eni has been producing gas within the Blacktip field since 2009. The field is located approximately 110 km off the northern coast of Australia in approximately 50 m of water. Produced gas is exported via an export pipeline to the onshore processing facility at Wadeye.

• The Bayu/Undan and INPEX Ichthys pipeline (proposed) traverse the Bonaparte Basin for onshore processing in Darwin.

Several exploration wells exist within the operational area.

Origin engaged with seismic contracting companies operating in Australian waters and other petroleum tenement holders in the JBG to identify marine seismic surveys that have the potential to occur concurrently with the survey. This engagement revealed that two of the seismic contractors operating in Australian waters (TGS and Polarcus) and two petroleum companies (Santos and ConocoPhillips) could potentially undertake seismic surveys concurrently with the Gulpener seismic survey.

The potential surveys of Polarcus and ConocoPhillps are greater than 300km from the Gulpener acquisition area. Santos has identified two potential surveys, the most distant of which is greater than 250 km within NTP/85 and the nearest of which is greater than 150km from the acquisition area within WA-459-P.

TGS have identified that the likelihood of the Gulpener survey resulting in simultaneous operations with their seismic survey is highly unlikely. TGS have indicated that the very large acquisition area and timeframe of their proposed seismic survey is likely to enable adjustments to the acquisition programme to avoid concurrent operations.

6.5.6 Commercial Fisheries

The operational area is overlapped by the jurisdiction of several Commonwealth and State/Territory managed fisheries. The Northern Territory demersal fish fishery boundary is the only state or territory fishery that overlaps the acquisition area. However, it is unlikely that commercial demersal fishers will fish in the near vicinity of the acquisition area given the distance from the Port of Darwin, which is the only catch landing point currently used by fishery operators (DPIF 2014). Historically, commercial fishing effort in the vicinity of the acquisition area has been considered to be low and interactions with commercial fishers are considered unlikely.

Fine scale fishing effort for the JBG prawn fishery was assessed using vessel monitoring system (VMS) data collected by AFMA between 1999 and 2012, as described in Jarrett et al. (2015). These data demonstrate that over the 13 seasons from 1999 to 2012 the closest prawn fishing activity to a seismic line proposed for the survey was greater than 20km NE, near Cape Ford, where a low fishing effort occurred. The core area of high fishing effort for red-legged banana prawns in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf is more than 100km west of the acquisition area.

7. Environmental Impact Assessment

For the Gulpener 2D Marine Seismic Survey, Origin has undertaken its environmental impact assessment in accordance with the following methodology.

• Planned events are those impacts that will occur as a consequence of undertaking the activity (i.e. noise and light emissions).

Planned events are assessed for their consequence to determine their impacts (defined as a change to the environment, whether positive or negative). No assessment of likelihood is required, given that the event will occur. Consequence is rated from minor through to catastrophic, as outlined in Figure 4.

• Unplanned events are those impacts that may occur as a result of undertaking the activity (i.e. unauthorised release of chemicals or hydrocarbons) and as such have an element of risk associated with them (i.e. the likelihood that the event could be realised).

Unplanned events are assessed for their known risk (the effect of uncertainty on objectives), based on an assessment of consequence and likelihood. The assignment of likelihood and consequence is based on the knowledge and experience of those involved in the risk assessment as well as utilising historical data on event probabilities (e.g. vessel collision frequencies). Risk is rated from low through to extreme, as outlined in Figure 5.

Gulpen

Released onProcess OwOrigin EnergOnce printedand stampeBased on tem

ner 2D Mar

n 15/07/2016 – Rewner is Geophysicagy Resources Limd, this is an uncond Controlled Copyplate: OEUP-INT1000

The purposeanalysis, abunplanned e

Risk evaluatestablished be considere

The EP provpracticable (

A summary environment

For those risand 7.2 belo

Figure 4: O

rine Seism

evision number 0 al Operations Pro

mited: ABN 66 007ntrolled documenty or issued under 0-TMP-BUS-004_Revi

e of impact anout the sorts o

events are sub

tion involves cwhen the coned.

vides detailed (ALARP) and

of the environtal risk or impa

sks and impacow

rigin’s risk co

ic Survey

– Issued to regulaoject Manager 845 338 t unless issued a transmittal. ision 0_19/05/2014_

d risk evaluatof controls reqbject to this ste

comparing thetext was cons

analysis to dethat all risks a

nmental impacact is provided

cts that are gre

onsequence

EP Summ

ator

_Upstream Informatio

ion is to assisquired to reducep in the same

level of risk fosidered. Based

emonstrate thaare acceptable

ct assessmentd in Table 4.

eater than low

categories

ary

on Management & En

t in making dece an impact oe manner.

ound during thd on this comp

at all risks aree.

that have bee

w or minor, furt

NTT-500

ngineering Systems M

ecisions, baseor risk to ALAR

he analysis proparison, the ne

e reduced to as

en prepared fo

ther detail is p

00-ENV-PLN-

Page

Manager

ed on the outcoRP. Planned a

ocess with riseed for treatm

s low as reaso

or each identif

provided in Sec

-10726809

e 39 of 70

omes of and

k criteria ent can

onably

fied

ctions 7.1



Figure 5: Origin’s risk management categories



Table 4: Summary environmental impact assessment

Impact or risk Potential consequences

Key avoidance, mitigation & management measures Residual ranking

Planned events

Underwater sound from the seismic surveys

Temporary and localised disturbance, physiological or pathological impacts to sound-sensitive fauna.

• The seismic airgun array will be designed to direct sound energy downwards and reduce horizontal spreading; this will reduce horizontal sound propagation and reduce impacts to fauna in the water column, e.g. cetaceans.

• Activation of the seismic source will not be undertaken outside of the survey operational area. • Activation of the seismic source will not be undertaken in the Moyle / Port Keats Reef Fish Protection Area (RFPA) between 1 October

and 31 March. • No section of line will be resurveyed using the seismic source within 4 hours. • Activation of the seismic source will not occur within 6km of areas subject to long term prawn trawling activity, during prawn fishing

season. • The survey operations will be conducted in accordance with EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 (Section A.2 to A.3), using MMOs to

implement the policy. This involves:

o Use of a trained crew. o Pre-start up visual observation. o Soft-start procedure. o Start-up delay procedure. o Operations procedure. o Stop-work procedure. o Night-time and low-visibility procedures.

• A shut down zone and soft start procedure will be implemented to minimise acoustic disturbance to marine turtles. • If the Australian snubfin dolphin, Australian humpback dolphin or dugong are sighted within 109 m from the source, within the last 10

minutes prior to activating the source, the soft start procedure will be extended until the dolphins and/or dugongs are outside of range. • If the Australian snubfin dolphin, Australian humpback dolphin or dugong are sighted within 109 m from the source, the acoustic

source will be shut down. • Whale precaution zones for the survey are based on a precautionary approach and will be as follows:

o observation zone: 3+ km horizontal radius from the acoustic source

o shut-down zone: 1 km horizontal radius from the acoustic source.

• Concurrent seismic surveys by other operators will be avoided, including maintaining a minimum separation distance of 40km between seismic vessels, with time share operations implemented if required.

• Vessel crew are inducted in their responsibilities as required regarding vessel / marine fauna interactions. • The shallowest sail-lines will be deviated to avoid areas <10 m water depth within the operational area. • One trained MFO will be stationed on an elevated platform and observing during all seismic survey activities conducted in daylight

hours. • Updated information will be provided four weeks prior to the start of the survey to relevant commercial and recreational fisheries

regarding survey details (including timing and duration).

Moderate





Underwater sound from the bathymetric surveys

Temporary and localised physiological or behavioural impacts to noise-sensitive marine fauna

• Interactions between the survey vessel and cetaceans within the operational area will be consistent with EPBC Regulations 2000 – Part 8, Division 8.1, (Regulation 8.04) – Interacting with cetaceans:

o survey vessel will not travel at greater than 6 knots within 300 m of a cetacean (caution zone) and minimise noise; and

o survey vessel will not approach closer than 50 m for a dolphin and/or 100 m for a whale (with the exception of animals bow riding).

• Updated information will be provided four weeks prior to the start of the survey to relevant commercial and recreational fisheries regarding survey details (including timing and duration).

• In the event that the bathymetric survey utilises MBES or SSS, simultaneously with the seismic sources, a minimum distance of 2 km between vessels will be implemented.

• The seismic source will not be activated over the same part of the acquisition line as the MBES or SSS within 4 hours.

Moderate

Light emissions

Attractant to fauna, temporary disruption to behaviour of light sensitive fauna

• All adjustable external work lights will be directed onto the deck where practicable for safe operations. • Vessel lighting will be managed in accordance with maritime safety standards.

Minor

Atmospheric emissions

Temporary and localised reduction in air quality.

• Marine-grade (low sulphur) diesel will be used. • Fuel use will be monitored and abnormally high consumption investigated in order to minimise excessive air pollution. • Vessel engines and machinery will be maintained in accordance with the vessel’s planned maintenance system. • Only a MARPOL-approved incinerator is used to incinerate solid waste. Oil and other noxious liquids will not be incinerated.

Minor

Cooling and brine water discharge

Temporary and localised elevation in surface water temperature and salinity.

• Cooling water and reverse osmosis systems will be maintained in accordance with the vessel’s planned maintenance system. Minor

Sewage, grey water and putrescible waste discharge

Temporary and localised reduction in water quality from increased nutrient and pathogen load. Increase in scavenging behaviour or marine fauna and seabirds.

• All sewage and grey water is discharged via a MARPOL-approved sewage treatment plant. • The sewage treatment plant will be maintained in accordance with the vessel’s planned maintenance system. • No discharge of sewage and putrescible waste will take place within 12 nm of land. • Putrescible waste will be macerated to <25 mm in size prior to discharge.

Minor





Bilge water drainage

Temporary and localised reduction in water quality from trace volumes of hydrocarbons and chemicals.

• All bilge water is treated through an oil-in-water (OIW) treatment system, with no water discharges greater than 15 ppm OIW. • Oil captured from the OIW treatment system will be transferred to shore for disposal. • Chemical storage and fuel transfer areas are bunded.

Minor

Unplanned events

Hazardous and non-hazardous solid waste discharges

Temporary and localised water pollution. Fauna injury or death.

• A Vessel Waste Management Plan will be in place and implemented (for vessels >400 gross tonnes or certified to carry 15 persons or more):

o Crew are inducted into waste management procedures.

o A Safety Data Sheet (SDS) register is maintained and available in key locations.

o Garbage Record Book will be maintained.

• Hydrocarbon and chemical storage areas are bunded and drain to the bilge water tank. • Spills on deck are rapidly cleaned up by a competent deck crew that has access to appropriate response resources.

Low

Seabed disturbance

Temporary and localised turbidity and displacement of seabed habitat.

• Vessel anchoring will only occur in an emergency and outside of <20 m deep in the Moyle / Port Keats Reef Fish Protection Area (RFPA).

• A bathymetric survey will be carried out in shallow waters within the operational area (i.e. <20 m water depth) to confirm depths. • No survey vessel/s shall enter the 500m Emu Reef or Howland Shoals Cultural Buffer Zone. • Large bulky items will be securely stored on the deck. • A streamer tow depth of at least 5 m above the seabed will be maintained at all times. • Anchoring will only occur in an area cleared of UXO via a magnetometer survey. • Independent engines provide redundant propulsion in the event of propulsion failure. • The location of suspected shipwrecks not marked on admiralty charts will be reported to authorities.

Low

Interference with third-party (merchant and fishing) vessels

Exclusion from fishing grounds. Damage to and/or loss of fishing equipment. Loss of commercial fish catches. Disruption to commercial shipping activities.

• Ongoing stakeholder consultation will take place with potentially impacted commercial fishers. • Survey vessel shall not acquire data simultaneously within 40 km of another seismic vessel in the event that another vessel is

acquiring data. • The vessel and streamers will be readily identifiable to other vessels through the use of anti-collision monitoring equipment. • The survey vessel location will be communicated to other users via the Notice to Mariners and AusCoast warnings. • Vessels will employ standard maritime safety measures (e.g. lighting, 24-hr visual, radio and radar watch). • The support vessels will liaise/interact with third-party vessels to avoid damage to the seismic survey streamers and/or the third-party

vessels and their equipment.

Medium





Introduction of invasive marine species

Loss of diversity and abundance of native species.

• Vessels will have anti-fouling paint applied to their hulls and internal niches. • Vessels are cleared to enter Australian waters (if previously mobilised from outside Australian waters) in accordance with the

Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements.

Medium

Vessel strike or entanglement with marine fauna

Injury or death to marine fauna

• When streamer deployed, the seismic vessel will comply with EPBC Policy Statement 2.1 (Part A) to reduce the potential for marine fauna interactions.

• Cetacean observations will be reported to the Department of the Environment. • Incidents of vessel strike or streamers causing known or suspected injury or death to threatened fauna will be reported to the

Department of the Environment within 2 hours. • Turtle guards will be fitted to tail and head buoys to reduce likelihood of entanglement.

Medium

Diesel spill (vessel-to-vessel collision or vessel grounding)

Injury or death to marine fauna through ingestion or contact. Habitat damage in the case of shoreline contact.

• As per ‘Interference with third-party vessels’. • Acquisition will be limited to water depths greater than 10 m. • The vessel bunkering procedure will be implemented. • Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (SOPEP) and Emergency Response Plan (ERP) will be in place, and implemented in the

event of a diesel spill. • Diesel spill will be promptly reported internally and externally in accordance with the project Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (OPEP). • Operational and scientific monitoring will take place to support the spill response and characterise environmental impacts.

Medium

Diesel spill (refuelling)

Injury or death to marine fauna through ingestion or contact. Habitat damage in the case of shoreline contact.

• The vessel bunkering procedure will be implemented. • Refuelling will occur during daylight hours only, under suitable metocean conditions. • No refuelling will be undertaken within 12 nm of land or protected area. • Diesel spill will be promptly reported internally and externally in accordance with the project Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (OPEP). • Operational and scientific monitoring will take place to support the spill response and characterise environmental impacts.

Low

Oil spill response

Will depend on response type but may include increased vessel or aircraft traffic, generation of oily wastes, impacts from use of dispersants and wildlife stress due to handling.

• Consultation undertaken with AMSA and the NT DoT, to ensure that response arrangements are interfaced. • AMSA to be notified immediately (<1 hr) when a spill is detected. • Vessel SOPEP to be implemented immediately in the event of a spill. • Financial Assurance is in place to cover the costs of response. • Wastes managed in accordance with NATPLAN Management and Disposal of Oil Spill Debris.

Low



7.1 Planned events 7.1.1 Underwater sound from the seismic surveys

The following activities will generate underwater sound within and in the vicinity of the acquisition area during seismic data acquisition:

• sound pulses from the seismic airgun array.

• sound pulses during the bathymetric survey from the use of the Single Beam Echo Sounder (SBES), Multi-beam Echo Sounder (MBES) and Side Scan Sonar (SSS):

during the seismic survey on a line by line basis ahead of the seismic survey vessel commencing data acquisition along a line; or

prior to the seismic survey over a period of seven days.

• engine noise transmitted through the hull and propeller noise from the survey and support vessel(s).

The dominant source of underwater sound during the seismic survey will be from the operation of the seismic source (airgun arrays), which is proposed to be in frequent operation for the duration of the two to three week survey. The seismic contractor has not been selected at time of writing and, therefore, the configuration of the successful contractor airgun arrays is unknown. For accurate imaging in shallow waters, Origin anticipates using airgun arrays with a maximum volume of 2,600 in3. The EP impact assessment is based on modelled outputs from a 2,600 in3 airgun.

The survey vessel will tow up to two acoustic units, each comprising up to three arrays (i.e. up to six arrays), which will be fired at regular intervals producing pulses of high intensity (sound energy), low frequency noise. Seismic pulses typically have ~ 98% of the signal power in dominant frequencies less than 200 Hz; predominantly in the 6 to 100 Hz range (McCauley 1994), which is the range most useful for seismic data imaging. The array comprises a series of airguns that are fired in pre-determined order to achieve the desired sound energy and frequency of discharges (shot point interval) with minimal interference. The volume of the airgun array (in cubic inches) is a useful indicator of sound energy (in dB); however, the configuration of individual arrays has a significant effect on the actual power output. Sound energy levels for particular guns must be modelled to determine the array-specific power outputs.

Actual sound levels are significantly lower than the theoretical maximum because the cumulative sound pressure levels (energy from all air guns firing together) are computed on the assumption that the seismic array is a point source. However, each seismic array is typically spread over 10’s m and it is not possible for all air guns to be 1 m from a single point simultaneously. This is important in understanding that modelled gun power levels are inherently conservative and, therefore, sound transmission loss modelling, (estimating the propagation of sound through the water), starts with an inflated source level.

The survey vessel and the support vessel(s) will generate low levels of machinery noise, especially when using propulsion thrusters. This sound source will be at a much lower level than that emitted from the active airgun arrays. While these sources are in operation, the underwater sound generated by vessels will be a negligible addition to the cumulative underwater sound levels.

There will be very limited periods of time when the seismic source or bathymetric equipment are not operational e.g. during maintenance, refuelling and marine fauna shut-downs, during which engine noise will be the major source. However, it is unlikely that engine noise levels will be greater than that of any other vessel normally operating in the area. The assessment of underwater sound from general vessel operations below is, therefore, based upon underwater sound from the airgun arrays being the dominant sources.

7.1.1.1 Fish

Underwater noise levels significantly higher than ambient levels can have a negative impact on fish, ranging from physical injury or mortality, to temporary effects on hearing and behavioural disturbance effects. The hearing system of most fishes is sensitive to sound pressures between 50 and 500 Hz, the lower end of which (< 200 Hz) overlaps the predominant frequency range of seismic noise emissions (Ladich 2012; McCauley et al. 2000). Sound is perceived by fish through the ears and the lateral line (the acoustico-lateralis system) which is sensitive to vibration.

Sound criteria for harm to fish species have been sourced from the sound exposure guidelines for fish proposed by the ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC 1, Animal Bioacoustics Working Group (Popper et al. 2014). The guidelines represent the Working Group’s consensus efforts to establish broadly applicable guidelines for fish and marine turtles, with specific criteria relating to mortality and potential mortal injury, recoverable injury and temporary threshold shift (TTS) (Table 5).



It is important to note that the intent of Popper et al. (2014) in proposing these guidelines was as “a first step in setting guidelines that may lead to the establishment of exposure standards for fish (and sea turtles)”. Therefore, it is considered that these guidelines represent a highly precautionary approach in the assessment of potential effects from exposure to underwater sound from seismic sources. They do not represent a likely mortal impact zone.

The Working Group defines the criteria for injury and TTS as follows:

• mortality and mortal injury.

• recoverable injury – injuries, including hair cell damage, minor internal or external hematoma, etc. None of these injuries are likely to result in mortality.

• TTS – short or long-term changes in hearing sensitivity that may or may not reduce fitness (defined as any persistent change in hearing of 6 dB or greater).

It is important to note that the intent of Popper et al. (2014) in proposing these guidelines was as “a first step in setting guidelines that may lead to the establishment of exposure standards for fish (and sea turtles)”. Therefore, it is considered that these guidelines represent a highly precautionary approach in the assessment of potential effects from exposure to underwater sound from seismic sources. They do not represent a likely mortal impact zone.

Table 5: Summary of Fish Injury Exposure Guidelines for Seismic Airguns (Popper et al. 2014)

Group Type of Fish Mortality and Potential Mortal Injury (dB re1 µPa)

Impairment(dB re1 µPa)

Recoverable Injury TTS

1 Fish: no swim bladder (particle motion detection)

>213 dB peak >213 dB peak >186 dB SELcum

2 Fish: swim bladder is not involved in hearing (particle motion detection)

>207 dB peak >207 dB peak >186 dB SELcum

2 Fish: swim bladder involved in hearing (primarily pressure detection)

>207 dB peak >207 dB peak 186 dB SELcum

The predicted sound pressure level of 207 dB re 1 µPa at which both mortal and potential mortal injuries and recoverable injuries are possible for fishes with swim bladders is based on studies of Halvorsen (2011, 2012a, 2012b) which extensively investigated the effects of simulated pile driving impulsive sounds upon juvenile Chinook salmon as well as on Nile tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus), hybrid striped bass (Morone chrysops x Morone saxatilis), lake sturgeon (Acipenser fulvecens), and hogchoker (Trinectes maculatus).

There are several reasons why caution is required when applying the sound criteria developed by Popper et al. (2014) to fish populations exposed to seismic sound. Firstly the species assessed by the Halvorsen studies are predominantly temperate freshwater species and extrapolation to the diverse fish assemblages of the JBG will likely be inaccurate. Secondly, the sound exposure criteria of Popper at el (2014) are based on measured exposure of fishes to pile driving, which is a significantly different exposure regime to a seismic survey. Current pile driving exposure criteria assume that both the source and the exposed fish are stationary over the duration of driving the pile. However, seismic arrays are towed at a speed of about 4 knots, meaning that an array would move about 33 m between shots given a shot frequency of once every 16 seconds.

Nevertheless the criteria proposed by Popper et al. (2014) for mortal, potential mortal and recoverable injury from seismic sound are the same as those presented for pile driving. The main reason for this extrapolation between two activities with significantly different exposure regimes is that there are relatively few data regarding effects of seismic airguns on fish mortality and damage to organ systems. Available studies are summarised below, Note that mortality has not been identified in any of these studies.

• Weinhold and Weaver (1972, cited in Turnpenny et al. 1994) did not observe lethal effects for caged coho salmon smolts exposed to airguns at distances ranging from 1 to 10 m.

• Santulli et al. (1999) did not report any observed pathological injury but found evidence of biochemical stress responses in caged European sea bass (Dicentrarchus labrax) exposed to a moving seismic airgun array Biochemical markers returned to pre-exposure levels within 72 h of exposure.

• Wardle et al. (2001) used video and telemetry to make behavioural observations of marine fishes (primarily juvenile saithe, adult pollock, juvenile cod, and adult mackerel) inhabiting an inshore



reef off Scotland before, during, and after exposure to discharges of a stationary airgun. Pollock did not move away from the reef in response to the seismic airgun sound, and their diurnal rhythm did not appear to be affected. Fish exhibited startle responses (“C-starts”) to all received levels. There were also indications of behavioural responses to visual stimuli. If the seismic source was visible to the fish, they fled from it. However, if the source was not visible to the fish, they often continued to move toward it.

• McCauley et al. (2003) exposed caged fishes to sound pressures up to 190 dB re 1 μPa rms and found damage to their sensory epithelia up to 58 days after air–gun exposure. There was no mortality and the fishes continued to feed for the whole post exposure time.

• Popper et al. (2005) found that adult northern pike Esox lucius and lake chub Couesius plumbeus exhibited TTS of 10 to 15 dB, followed by complete recovery within 24 h, after exposure to five discharges from a seismic airgun. The broad whitefish Coregonus nasus showed no TTS. No damage to the ears of the fishes was found, including those that exhibited TTS.

• Boeger et al. (2006) reported that there was no mortality or external damage to coral reef fishes in field enclosures before, during and after exposure to seismic airgun sound. Most of the airgun array discharges resulted in startle responses although these behavioural changes lessened with repeated exposures, suggesting habituation.

• A study conducted by Casper et al. (2012) did not identify any mortal or potentially mortal injuries in the four fish species studied exposed to piling noise levels above a peak SPL of 207 dB re 1 µPa.

• Extensive studies undertaken on tropical reef fish at Scott Reef during the Maxima seismic survey found that the effect of the survey was clearly non-lethal and there was no statistical evidence of an impact on either diversity or abundance of shallow water coral reef slope associated fish communities (Miller and Cripps 2013).

• A recent study by Wagner et al. (2015) exposed gobies to seismic sound at a level greater than the mortality and potential mortality guidelines proposed by the Popper et al. (2014). Fish were monitored for 60 hours post exposure and no mortality, significant hair cell loss or otolith damage was observed.

As such, lethal effects to fishes from seismic testing have not been observed from any study of seismic sound. Sub-lethal effects have been documented. Whilst the ecological effects of sub-lethal effects have not been well studied it is possible that they could expose some fishes to increased mortality via increased predation through lowered fitness (Popper and Hastings, 2009) depending on the fishes’ life history.

With this context in mind, the criteria suggested by Popper et al (2014) predict that the maximum impact distance range at which mortality or potential mortal injury to the most sensitive fish species (swim bladder is involved in hearing) is possible is 67 to 108m from the source at 20m water depth, based on sound transmission loss modelling undertaken for the survey. This is also the maximum distance predicted for a recoverable injury.

The effects of underwater noise on fish within the vicinity of the Gulpener 2D MSS will vary depending on the size, age, sex and condition of the receptor among other physiological aspects, and the topography of the benthos, water depth, sound intensity and sound duration. The effect of noise on a receptor may be either physiological (e.g. injury or mortality) or behavioural. Behavioural changes are expected to be localised and temporary, with displacement of pelagic or migratory fish likely to have insignificant repercussions at a population level (McCauley 1994; McCauley and Kent 2012; Popper et al. 2007; Popper et al. 2015). Pelagic species in open waters are typically highly mobile, and are likely to move away from the source if the received sound levels become uncomfortable (McCauley et al. 2000).

As described in section 6.4.3 existing datasets indicate an assemblage of 175 predominantly demersal fish species for the JBG. None of these species are known to be endemic to the JBG. Review of all 175 fish species identified 48 of the 175 species (27 per cent) as likely to be site attached based on limited ability to move away from a seismic source to a distance at which the risk of pathological effects would be negligible (>108 m). Such species may be reef associated, have limited mobility or demonstrate a retreat response to threats.

Of these, 26 species were considered to be reef associated, seventeen likely to exhibit a retreat response and five as having limited mobility. The survey avoids operations near reefs and shoals at distances which would introduce risk of physiological effects (108 m). As such, with exclusion of reef species, only 22 site attached species (13 per cent) where found to occupy habitats that are likely to be impacted by sound from seismic source at levels which may risk mortal, potential mortal and



recoverable injury using the highly conservative criteria of Popper et al. (2014). None of these species are listed as threatened under state or federal legislation.

As outlined by Popper et al. (2014) from a conservation perspective, the immediate impact of man-made sounds on individuals or on schools of fish is less important than the long term impact on populations and ecosystems, either alone or in combination with other stresses (which will often include fishing). An assessment of risks to populations of site attached species from seismic sound was undertaken, informed by impact assessment studies of prawn trawling on populations of fish bycatch in JBG and north marine area. Such studies include application of the Ecological Risk Assessment for the Effects of Fishing (ERAEF) framework (Griffiths et al. 2007) and sustainability assessments undertaken by the FRDC (Jarret et al. 2015).

Most recently the CSIRO has applied a Sustainability Assessment for Fishing Effect (SAFE) assessment to populations of bycatch fish species in the JBG banana prawn fishery (Zhou et al 2015) using by-catch rates in the four years from 2010 to 2013. Based on this assessment the authors concluded that prawn fishing intensity at 2010-2013 level had a low impact on fish populations caught as bycatch and would not affect the long-term sustainability of the bycatch species evaluated. Given that fish bycatch in the JBG prawn fishery amounts to several thousand tonnes annually, and that mortality of individual fishes has not been recorded for any seismic survey, it can be concluded that impacts to populations of any fishes assessed in the SAFE analysis of Zhou et al. (2015) from the survey will be negligible.

The acquisition area overlays the Moyle / Port Keats Reef Fish Protection Area (RFPA), which was established for the protection of black jewfish and golden snapper. The establishment of the RFPA in 2013 was in response to the outcomes of an ecological risk assessment (DPIF 2012, 2013) which confirmed heavy and increasing pressure on the stocks from commercial and recreational fishing in waters adjacent to the greater Darwin area (DPIF 2012). The two main target species, black jewfish and golden snapper, were considered to be at high risk of overfishing under the existing management arrangements and (DPIF 2012). The Moyle / Port Keats RFPA is precautionary closure area to provide proactive protection to more pristine stocks West of Darwin that may be supplying recruitment to Anson Bay, Peron Islands and Dundee/ Fog Bay area (DPIF 2013).

Black jewfish form aggregations in shallow coastal waters. An acoustic tagging study in 2008 investigating the temporal and spatial scale of aggregations around Darwin which revealed no movement between aggregations, suggesting they may be distinct (Phelan 2008). Golden snapper have a tendency to congregate in large schools in relatively shallow water around snags and pinnacles (Hay et al. 2005). However, neither species is site-attached to the extent that they could not avoid an approaching source of disturbance such as a seismic array.

Phelan (2008) found no consistent patterns in bottom topography at the Chambers Bay and Channel Point aggregation sites. The aggregation sites at Chambers Bay was characterised by a flat mud bottom with small rocky outcrops in shallow (<10m) water, while the site at Channel Point consisted of deep (30m) trench that sloped steeply from a flat shallow (5m) shelf. As such, it appears that aggregation site habitat requirements for this species are variable in NT waters. Stakeholder consultation with the Northern Territory Seafood Council and Northern Territory Department of Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries (DPIF) has identified concerns regarding potential impacts of seismic sound to spawning aggregations of reef fish, including the Golden Snapper (Lutjanus johnii) and Black Jewfish (Protonibea diacanthus). Advice from NT DPIF is that reef fish spawning aggregations occur more frequently during the ‘wet’ season from October to March. Aggregations appear to occur at random locations throughout the Moyle/Port Keats Reef Fish Protection Area during this period. To minimise risks to spawning reef fish in the RFPA activation of the seismic source will not be undertaken in the RFPA between 1 October and 31 March

Black jewfish and golden snapper populations within the operational area and the RFPA are mobile fish species, which are expected to avoid the approaching seismic noise source actively well before it reaches the range within which temporary physiological effects may be realised.

No population level effects are predicted for fish species of commercial and recreational importance and no impact is expected on the Moyle / Port Keats RFPA. In addition, the 500 m buffer around Emu Reef and Howland Shoals will act to provide further protection for any black jewfish and golden snapper aggregating in these areas , and for any potentially present site-attached fish species present . Any noise stress will be temporary as the vessel traverses each survey line due to the short pulses associated with the use of the bathymetric survey equipment; therefore, site-attached individuals would only be exposed to a few pulses.

Sharks are sensitive to low frequency sounds between 40 to 800 Hz; sensed solely through the particle-motion component of an acoustic field (no sound pressure). However, sharks do not appear to be attracted by continuous signals or higher frequency sounds which presumably they cannot hear (Popper and Løkkeborg 2008). Hearing studies show that elasmobranchs may detect particle motion associated with sound from 50 Hz to 500 Hz (Normandeau Associates 2012). As elasmobranchs



(sharks and rays) do not possess swim bladders, and hence internal organs that have a disparity of acoustic impedance between water and gas filled chambers, these fish are not susceptible to physiological trauma associated with high underwater noise levels (McCauley 1994; Normandeau Associates 2012).

No specific information is available on hearing range in smalltooth sawfish, thus inferences must be made by examining available data on other elasmobranchs. Sawfish likely hear sounds within a very low frequency range similar to sharks (600 or 800 Hz) and rely on water particle motion to sense these sounds (Myrberg et al., 1976; Myrberg, 2001; Casper et al., 2003; Casper and Mann, 2006). Therefore, sound from airguns for the survey is likely within the audible range of sawfish.

Behavioural effects (strong behavioural avoidance) in fish, including sharks, are predicted to occur up to 740 m from the seismic source. However, the proposed operational area does not contain biologically important habitat for any of the threatened sawfish or shark species that may occur in the region and these species are not expected to occur in large numbers in the operational area. Sharks and sawfish (if present) are expected to avoid the noise as the airgun array approaches. Coupled with their lack of a swim bladder and their known avoidance response to sudden sound increases, it is anticipated that the survey will have minimal effect on shark and ray populations or their normal movements through the region. No effects are predicted at a population level for whale sharks, river sharks or sawfish.

7.1.1.2 Fish Larvae and Eggs

Sound-induced mortality in larval fish, where observed, has been in the range of 0.5 to 3 m around the source, in association with relatively high peak energy levels; however, damage may occur out to approximately 5 m (Payne 2009). Studies to date that have investigated the effects of noise from airguns on fish and invertebrate eggs / larvae have indicated that any effect is likely to be highly localised (typically within 1.5 to 5 m of the source) and very small when compared to total population sizes, mortality rates or events such as storms, cyclones or natural shifts in oceanographic patterns (Swan et al. 1994). The risk, therefore, of mortality of fish and invertebrate eggs / larvae is considered restricted to the immediate vicinity of the seismic source and population level effects are significantly reduced by larval drift in surface currents and the moving source.

7.1.1.3 Commercially Fished Species

Underwater noise generated by the seismic airgun is likely to affect the behaviour of fish in shallower parts of the survey area. The affected fish may include commercially exploited species and there is potential for short-term changes in catchability during the survey. A series of studies have been undertaken to determine the effects of seismic surveys on fish catches and distribution, primarily in the United States and Europe (e.g. California: Greene 1985, Pearson et al. 1992; Norway: Dalen and Knutsen 1987, Lokkeborg and Soldal 1993, Engås et al. 1996, Engås and Løkkeborg 2002; and UK Pickett et al. 1994). While the conclusions from these studies are largely ambiguous, due to the inherently high levels of variability in catch statistics, one study noted that pelagic species appear to disperse, resulting in a decrease in reported catches during the surveys (Dalen and Knutsen 1987).

A number of studies have examined the potential effects of seismic surveys on catch levels in fisheries targeting benthic crustaceans such as prawns and rock lobster. Andriguetto-Filho et al. (2005) investigated the effect of seismic surveys on prawn fisheries in relatively shallow waters (2 to 15 m) in Camamu Bay, north-western Brazil. Catch rates were found to be unaffected.

La Bella et al. (1996) reported that no apparent changes in trawl catches were found in short-finned squid (Illex coindetti) nor in Norway lobster (Nephrops norvegicus) the day after a seismic survey.

Parry and Gason (2006) investigated the effect of seismic airgun discharges on southern rock lobster (Jasus edwardsii) via statistical analysis of the coincidence between seismic surveys and changes in commercial catch rates in western Victoria between 1978 and 2004. There was no evidence that catch rates of rock lobsters in western Victoria were affected by seismic surveys in the weeks or years following the surveys.

A study undertaken by the CSIRO and Geoscience Australia (Thomson et al. 2014) examined fisheries catches (10 species of interest) and catch rates for potential effects from 183 seismic surveys undertaken in the Gippsland Basin (Bass Strait). This study found no clear or consistent relationships between seismic surveys and subsequent fisheries catch rates (Thomson et al. 2014).

As described in section 6.5.6, the closest historical area prawn fishing activity to a seismic line proposed for the survey is greater than 20km NE, near Cape Ford, where a low fishing effort has previously occurred. The core area of high fishing effort for red-legged banana prawns in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf is more than 100km west of the acquisition area.

Sound transmission loss modelling undertaken for the survey indicates that sound from the seismic array is predicted to attenuate in the inshore direction to levels equivalent to a prawn trawler (at 30m)



at a distance of 5-6 km from the seismic source and attenuate to well within the range of ambient sound levels within 10 km. As the closest prawn fishing area is 20km from the closest seismic line, sound levels at this location due to seismic acquisition are likely to be at or below the low range of ambient levels. Given that the received sound levels are likely to be at or below the low range of ambient levels it can be surmised that a significant change to prawn distribution or abundance in fishing areas as a result of the seismic survey is highly unlikely to occur.

In addition to impacts on adults of a fishery species, any reduction in spawning or recruitment success may reduce the yield of a species in subsequent years. This can, in turn, contribute to longer-term impacts due to a reduction in spawning stock for the following year. Studies show that effects on fish eggs and larvae populations within survey areas are insignificant, especially when considered with respect to population size and the natural mortality rates for these organisms.

Localised effects on the catchability of commercially important fish species within the operational area will be limited to a small radius on the seabed around the location of the airgun. Effects will be temporary as the seismic vessel traverses each survey line, and fish are expected to move away as the airgun array approaches. The fish are expected to resume normal behaviour (and catchability) within days after the survey vessel has passed. However, commercial fishing effort in the vicinity of the acquisition area has historically been considered to be low and interactions with commercial fishers considered unlikely. In addition, the RFPA is a closure area for all recreational fishers and for all demersal fishing methods used by commercial fishers. Therefore, no predicted effects to commercially or recreationally caught fish species at a population level, or indirectly to their catch rates for commercial and recreational fishers, are expected.

7.1.1.4 Marine mammals

Marine mammals use sound for foraging, orientation, communication, navigation, echolocation of prey and predator avoidance (Richardson et al. 1995) and, therefore, are sensitive to underwater noise. High levels of anthropogenic underwater sound can potentially have negative impacts; ranging from changes in their acoustic communication, displacing them from an area, and in more severe cases causing physical injury or mortality (Richardson et al. 1995).

High levels of sound exposure can cause an instantaneous auditory injury resulting in a PTS that persists once sound exposure has ceased. Lower noise levels or shorter exposures to noise have the potential to cause a TTS where animals would experience temporary auditory injury, and from which they would recover fully, particularly as they move away from the source.

In considering behavioural responses in cetaceans, Southall et al. (2007) discussed a range of likely behavioural reactions that may occur. These include orientation or attraction to a noise source, increased alertness, modification of characteristics of their own sounds, cessation of feeding or social interaction, alteration of movement/diving behaviour, temporary or permanent habitat abandonment and in severe cases, panic, flight stampede or stranding. Behavioural effects may result in animals being displaced from preferred foraging grounds to potentially less optimal areas, experiencing increased competition or greater energy costs associated with finding food. The effect may be a reduction in the individual’s long-term fitness and survival.

Southall et al. (2007) classified marine mammals into five functional hearing groups based on similarities in known or expected hearing capabilities, as well as underwater and aerial hearing for relevant groups. The key marine mammal species within the Gulpener 2D MSS operational area that may be affected by underwater noise from seismic operations have been classed into the functional hearing groups as follows:

• low-frequency (7 Hz to 22 kHz) cetaceans (baleen whales): limited to transiting individuals for humpback, pygmy blue, Bryde’s (however, encounters unlikely due to absence of migration, aggregation/resting, feeding, calving areas); and

• mid-frequency (150 Hz to 160 kHz) cetaceans: limited to transiting individuals for killer whales, coastal dolphins (Australian snubfin, Australian humpback and Indo-Pacific humpback dolphins) and dugong.

Frequency weighting for the marine mammal groupings identified above provides a sound level referenced to an animal’s hearing ability for either individual species or classes of species, and therefore a measure of the potential of the sound to cause an effect. The measure that is obtained represents the perceived level of the sound for that animal. This is an important consideration because even apparently loud underwater sound may have no effect on an animal if it is at frequencies outside the animal’s hearing range.

The auditory injury (PTS-onset) and TTS/fleeing criteria described by Southall et al. (2007) were applied for mid and low-frequency cetaceans, as shown in Table 6.



Table 6: Summary of Injury and Behavioural Criteria for Cetaceans

Species Group SEL dB re 1 µPa2.s

Low-Frequency Cetaceans

PTS-onset/injury 198 (Mlf weighted)

TTS-onset/ Fleeing response1 183 (Mlf weighted)

Likely avoidance of area2 152 3

EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 Threshold 160 4

Mid-Frequency Cetaceans

PTS-onset/injury 198 (Mmf weighted)

TTS onset/ Fleeing response1 183 (Mmf weighted)

Likely avoidance of area2 170 3 (severity scaling of 6)

Possible avoidance of the area2 160 3 (severity scaling of 5)

Note 1: Based on the single pulse criteria for the onset of TTS in studies by Southall et al. (2007).

Note 2: Derived from Southall et al. (2007) severity scaling behavioural response. Likely avoidance indicates avoidance of the area; possible avoidance indicates a change in swimming behaviour but not avoidance.

Note 3: Derived from Southall et al. (2007) severity scaling behavioural response and converted to SEL (of the pulse) from root mean square (RMS) (over the duration of the pulse) by subtracting 10 dB for mid-frequency cetaceans and 8 dB for low-frequency cetaceans (based on the longer ranges for low-frequency cetaceans).

Note 4: Based on 160 dB re 1 µPa2.s for 95% of shots at 1 km.

The results of the sound transmission loss modelling for the 2,600 in3 array have been used to determine impact ranges for low and mid-frequency cetaceans. The impact ranges indicate that injury/PTS-onset would only occur in animals at extremely close ranges to the seismic source (18 to 21 m across water depths of 10 to 30 m within the operational area). Impact ranges for TTS-onset are also very small and are predicted to occur within 45 to 109 m of the seismic source). However, it is considered highly unlikely that a cetacean would be exposed to these levels due to the implementation of shut-down buffer zones as required under EPBC Policy Statement 2.1. It is, therefore, unlikely that an animal will be within this range of the seismic vessel at the commencement of the survey as soft-start procedures would encourage the animal to move away.

In terms of a behavioural response in low frequency cetaceans, levels at which likely avoidance could occur are predicted up to 848 to 1,011 m from the source. However, given the spatial and temporal separation between the operational area and the migration of humpback and pygmy blue whales (Section 6.4.4), it is very unlikely that these whales will be encountered during the Gulpener 2D MSS.

In terms of a behavioural response, levels at which likely avoidance in mid-frequency cetaceans could occur are predicted between 88 and 256 m from the source in water depths of 10 to 30 m. Possible avoidance may occur between 445 and 510 m from the source. .



Table 7: Summary of Impact Ranges for Low and Mid-Frequency Cetaceans for a 2,600 in3 Airgun Array Volume

Marine Mammal Group

Threshold Description

Threshold Value

(dB re 1 µPa2.s)

Impact Distance Range (m)

P1

(10 m)

P2

(20 m)

P3

(30 m)

Low-frequency Cetaceans (Mlf)

Injury 198 SEL 18 to 21 m 20 m 20 m

TTS-onset / Fleeing 183 SEL 45 to 73 m 61 to 109 m 74 to 109 m

Likely Avoidance 152 SEL 848 m 893 to 927 m 1,011 m

EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 Threshold 1

160 SEL > 1 km

(141 dB SEL at 1 km)

> 1 km


> 1 km


Mid-frequency Cetaceans (Mmf)

Injury 198 SEL 18 to 21 m 20 m 20 m

TTS-onset / Fleeing 183 SEL 45 to 73 m 61 to 109 m 74 to 109 m

Likely Avoidance 170 SEL 88 to 142 m 127 to 256 m 198 to 256 m

Possible Avoidance 160 SEL 455 m 445 to 503 m 471 to 510 m

Note 1: 160 dB re 1 µPa2.s for 95% of shots at 1 km.

Of all dolphins with distributions which overlap the operational area, only the Australian snubfin dolphin and Australian humpback dolphin are reliant upon near-shore, estuarine environments. The best available information also suggests that these species are likely to occur in small, isolated populations (Parra et al. 2006a; Cagnazzi 2011; Cagnazzi et al. 2013). Given this ecology, and the near shore location of the survey, there is greater potential for short term impacts due to sound from the seismic source to any local populations of the Australian snubfin dolphin and Australian humpback dolphin than for other dolphin species. As such, it is proposed to apply a shutdown zone for these species based on the modelled TTS for mid-frequency cetaceans of 109m. Additionally, the dugong (Dugong dugon) displays a similar dependency on near shore shallow water habitat (Department of the Environment 2016) as the Australian snubfin dolphin and Australian humpback dolphin. As such, the same shutdown radius of 109m is proposed for the dugong.

Other oceanic dolphins identified as potentially occurring in the operational area have very broad distributions and habitat requirements. All of these species are known to ride the bow waves of vessels (Bannister et al. 1996, Perrin 1998, Ross 2006, Hawkins and Gartside 2009, Barkaszi et al 2012, Barry et al 2012 ). Bow riding of seismic vessels is also a common occurrence, though likely to occur less frequently when the source is operating.

7.1.1.5 Marine Turtles

The ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC 1, Animal Bioacoustics Working Group has proposed a guideline for mortality and potential mortal injury for marine turtles of 207 dB re 1 μPa (zero to peak) based upon piling studies (Popper et al. 2014). There have been no studies conducted on hearing loss or the effects of exposure to intense sounds on hearing in any turtles. Therefore, Popper et al (2014) have extrapolated from fish, based on the rationale that the hearing range for turtles is more similar to that of fishes than of any marine mammal.

There are no specific guideline values proposed by the Working Group for behaviour due to the limitations described above (Popper et al. 2014). Therefore, the assessment of the potential effects on behaviour for marine turtles is based on a strong avoidance response of 175 dB re 1 μPa from a field study of the effects of seismic pulses on marine turtles (McCauley et al. 2000). The study by McCauley et al. (2000) estimated that a typical seismic source operating in 100 to 120 m water depth could affect the behaviour of marine turtles at a distance of about 2 km and that they would probably avoid the source at around 1 km.

Marine turtles appear to use acoustic cues in perception of their local and distant environment on their long (sometimes thousands of kilometres) migrations between nesting and foraging sites (Swan et al. 1994). Marine turtles can detect sounds below 1000 Hz (Bartol et al. 1999). Studies using auditory brainstem responses of juvenile green and olive ridley turtles have shown that juvenile turtles have a 100 to 800 Hz bandwidth, with best sensitivity between 600 and 700 Hz, while adults have a bandwidth of 100 to 500 Hz, with the greatest sensitivity between 200 and 400 Hz (Bartol and Ketten 2006). As discussed previously, the sound from seismic operations is primarily low frequency (between 2 to 200 Hz); therefore, there is a degree of overlap of the frequencies generated by the seismic survey and the audible frequency range of marine turtles (Ridgway et al. 1969).



The JBG CMR is recognised as an important foraging area for green and olive ridley turtles and BIAs for foraging green and olive ridley and inter-nesting flatback turtles overlap the operational area. Turtle Point and the Whale Flat Island area were recognised by Chatto and Baker (2008) as having a high nesting significance for flatback turtles. Low density nesting of flatback turtles occurs at a number of other locations along the coastline, including Hyland Bay, Peron Islands, Cape Ford and Fog Bay, peaking in July. It is possible that inter-nesting flatback turtles may be encountered in the survey; however, it will likely be limited to individuals migrating/transiting through the survey area. Foraging green and olive ridley turtles may be encountered due to the overlap of the larger foraging BIAs for both species with the operational area.

The results of the noise modelling for the 2,600 in3 array have been used to determine impact ranges for marine turtles for mortality and potential mortal injury and for a strong behavioural avoidance response. Mortality and potential mortal injury are predicted to occur within a small radius of within 45 to 125 m of the seismic source; however, it is unlikely that turtles will remain close enough to the source to suffer physiological trauma.

Based on the preceding analysis, the most likely impacts to foraging or inter-nesting turtles would be short-term behavioural responses of individuals up to 542 m from the airgun array. In cases where individual turtles cannot or do not avoid the airgun array, TTS or PTS could occur. Soft-start procedures implemented for the survey will gradually ensonify the immediate area and are expected to encourage turtles to move away from the increasing noise.

In general, the seismic survey would not be expected to result in the long-term or permanent displacement of turtles from preferred coastal habitats or nearshore or inshore hard substrate habitats. During the seismic survey, the source vessel typically travels at speeds of about 4 to 4.5 knots (8 to 9 km/hr). Assuming that behavioural responses could extend in a 542 m radius from the airgun array, the duration of disturbing sound levels for a stationary sea turtle would range from about 8 to 10 minutes. No effects on turtle breeding success or to populations are predicted.

Table 8: Summary of Impact Ranges for Marine Turtles for a 2,600 in3 Airgun Array Volume

Guideline Description Guideline Value

(dB re 1 µPa)

Impact Range (m)

P1

(10 m)

P2

(20 m)

P3

(30 m)

Mortality and potential mortal injury >210 dB peak SPL 45 to 83 m

54 to 110 m

63 to 125 m

Behaviour: strong avoidance >175 dB SPL (rms) 104 to 252 m

145 to 466 m

203 to 542 m

7.1.1.6 Crocodiles

Hearing in crocodiles is generally thought to be good; however, there are very few studies that have measured hearing range; with the exception of a study on Caiman hearing (Wever 1971). The best sensitivity was found to be in the mid-range from 150 Hz to 3 kHz, with a moderate rate of decline for low tones and rapid loss for high tones (Wever 1971). Crocodiles also have a membrane that covers their ears when they are submerged. Crocodile hearing sensitivity could be comparable with mid-frequency cetaceans (150 Hz to 160 kHz); however, crocodiles are not dependent on using their hearing to engage in key biological processes (e.g. feeding or communication) in the same way as mid-frequency cetaceans. It is, therefore, unlikely that saltwater crocodiles would be adversely affected by underwater sound from Gulpener 2D MSS in nearshore waters of >10 m water depth.

7.1.1.7 Planktonic Invertebrates

Plankton including fish eggs and invertebrate larvae, become very widely dispersed and are transported by prevailing wind and tide driven currents. They cannot take evasive behaviour to avoid seismic sources. However, the potential for population level noise effects is extremely limited due to their reduced sensitivity to noise and their widespread distribution. This means that only a small percentage of a cohort will be exposed at any one time. Invertebrate plankton species that have gas filled flotation organs (such as cephalopods) are more likely to be affected by underwater noise.

Previous studies on the effects of noise from airguns on planktonic invertebrates and fish eggs / larvae have indicated that any effect is likely to be highly localised (typically within 1.5 to 5 m of the source) (Swan et al. 1994). Any loss of plankton from an area due to noise disturbance would be anticipated only in the immediate vicinity (up to 5 m from the source) of the seismic source. The effect will be short-term with any organisms removed, quickly replaced due to their often rapid generational turnover times. Adverse effects on planktonic invertebrate populations are, therefore, deemed unlikely.



7.1.2 Underwater sound from the bathymetric surveys

The bathymetric survey, using the SBES, MBES and SSS, will be conducted during the seismic survey on a line by line basis ahead of the seismic survey vessel commencing data acquisition along a line; or prior to the seismic survey over a period of seven days. These bathymetric instruments generate sound for acoustic imaging of the seabed. The maximum water depth in the bathymetric survey would occur is 20m.

Anthropogenic underwater sound may disturb normal behaviours of sensitive marine species and at high levels may have physiological impacts on sensitive groups. It is unlikely that mortality, physical or auditory injury or PTS would be experienced by species exposed to sound from the bathymetric survey equipment, due to the high frequencies generated by bathymetric survey equipment and the smaller area of ensonification. Animals might move away from the source, experience short-term, recoverable threshold shift (temporary hearing loss), experience masking of biologically relevant sounds or may show no obvious effects.

Single beam echo sounders map virtually a point beneath the ship as it passes. Full ocean depth sounders have maximum source levels from 200 to 230 dB re 1 μPa.m (zero to peak); with shallow water units have lower source levels (SCAR 2002). Because of beam shaping in modern SBESs, this level applies only to the main beam directed downwards. Levels may be much lower away from the main beam so there is a very small horizontal radius of influence for most modern SBESs. This means that horizontal source levels around a vertically-directed echo sounder may be 40 dB lower than the main beam so the area of high sound pressures around a ship will be quite small. The zone of maximum intensity will be dictated by the beam width, for example a 5˚ beam width will mean that the area of >75% intensity will be a circle of radius 8.7 m in 100 m of water (240 m2), and for a beam width of 2˚ in 100 m water depth, this falls to a circle of 3.49 m radius (38 m2) (SCAR 2002). Therefore, the zone of influence of most SBESs will be a much smaller region directly below the vessel in water depths of approximately 10 to 20 m within the operational area.

MBES and SSS are used to obtain greater areal coverage of the seabed. These units direct sound pulses and receive echoes from transducers pointing sideways from the ship or towed body. The pulses are transmitted at regular intervals and echoes recorded against time. Echoes from an object near the ship are displayed ahead of those further out. Multi-beam echo-sounders typically ensonify a broad swath of the bottom perpendicular to the movement of the vessel, but a very narrow swath in the direction of travel of the vessel. Multibeam surveys can have a footprint from 2 to 7.4 times water depth wide and with a beam width of 1.5˚ (SCAR 2002). So for a survey mapping the seabed in 20 m of water (the maximum depth in which the bathymetric survey would occur), this would ensonify a moving area from 40 to 148 m wide in the direction of the moving vessel, depending on the system used.

The SSS operating frequency range for the bathymetric survey is approximately 120 kHz, with a maximum source level of 220 dB re 1 μPa.m (zero to peak SPL). The size of the area affected by SSS will depend on the power, frequency and beam pattern of the sounders and the duration of ensonification will depend on vessel speed. However, due to the high frequencies used and the highly directional nature of most SSS, the area affected will be quite small below the vessel (SCAR 2002). The intermittent nature of SSS signals results in lower received noise levels than would occur for continuous signals (such as in seismic surveys) (JNCC et al. 2010).

The MBES proposed for the bathymetric survey produces a source level somewhat lower than seismic airgun arrays, seismic pulses are of much higher energy and peak in lower frequency bands. Seismic pulses typically have 98% of the signal power in dominant frequencies less than 200 Hz; predominantly in the 6 to 100 Hz range. The MBES proposed for the Gulpener 2D MSS operates at much higher frequencies than airgun arrays and are of much lower power.

7.1.2.1 Fish

Available scientific information on hearing sensitivity for fish families relevant to the operational area and the RFPA (i.e. Lutjanidae (includes golden snapper), Sciaenidae (includes black jewfish/croakers)) is up to 1,000 Hz (Tavolga and Wodinsky 1963; Ramcharitar et al. 2006). These fish are those that possess swim bladders, but which is not involved in hearing, and are less sensitive that those where the swim bladder is structurally connected to the inner ear. The key species of concern in the operational area are black jewfish and golden snapper, particularly within the Moyle / Port Keats RFPA, and protected species of sawfish, whale shark and some river/estuarine sharks. Acoustic signals from the SSS and SBES are less likely to be detectable by these fish species due to the high frequencies of these pieces of equipment, and the lower sensitivity of these species (i.e. sharks and rays not possessing a swim bladder, and jewfish/snapper having a swim bladder that is not connected to the ear and, therefore, not involved in hearing).

As described above, the source levels of the MBES are much lower than those of seismic airguns and the area of ensonification would be extremely small and limited to a narrow swathe of approximately < 5 m in the direction of the moving vessel by 148 m along the horizontal axis. Furthermore, the likely



presence of sawfish, sharks and rays within the area is relatively low and limited to anecdotal sightings of individuals, with sawfish and river/estuarine sharks recorded from rivers/estuaries and the immediate nearshore areas rather than further offshore in the vicinity the operational area. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that underwater sound generated by the SSS, SBES and MBES would have any significant impact on fish species.

7.1.2.2 Cetaceans

Baleen whales produce low frequency sounds at frequencies up to 8 kHz and may have some auditory sensitivity to frequencies above 22 kHz, the functional hearing range is thought to be about 7 Hz to 22 kHz (Southall et al., 2007). Most of the odontocete species (including dolphins) belong to the mid-frequency hearing group, and have functional hearing from about 150 Hz to 160 kHz (Southall et al., 2007). The proposed SSS is outside of the frequency hearing range of low and mid frequency cetaceans (Southall et al., 2007) that may be present in or in the vicinity of the survey area, and so highly improbable that underwater sound generated by the SSS the would have any significant impact on cetaceans.

In an attempt to obtain a degree of understanding of the relative impacts of both SSS and MBES on cetaceans and range of effect, Lurton and De Ruiter (2011) examined limit ranges for behavioural response and physical injury for various source levels and frequencies. Modelling carried out for MBES studies has indicated that the onset of auditory damage in cetaceans (i.e. PTS) would only occur in the relatively narrow area (or ‘cone’) that is ensonified (modelled as 10 to 100 m), meaning that the animal would have to be directly below the vessel to be exposed to injurious noise levels (Kremser et al., 2005; Lurton and DeRuiter, 2011).

The operational area is not a known area of occurrence for low-frequency cetaceans (humpback and pygmy blue whales) and there are no important habitats present. Mid-frequency cetaceans could be encountered; however, the frequency range for MBES is outside (much lower) than the hearing frequency range for this group of cetaceans. For the SBES, the zone of influence will be a very small area directly below the vessel in shallow water depths (approximately 10 to 20 m). It is, therefore, highly improbable that underwater sound generated by the MBES would have any significant impact on cetaceans.

7.1.2.3 Marine Turtles

Acoustic signals from the SSS and SBES are not likely to be detectable by marine turtles due to the high frequencies of these pieces of equipment and so potential impacts from underwater sound from these sources are not anticipated. Although the MBES frequency range may overlap the hearing range for marine turtles, the source level is much lower than that of a seismic airgun and the pulse lengths are short. The area of ensonification would be extremely small and limited to a narrow swathe of approximately < 148 m wide by 5 m in the direction of the moving vessel. It is, therefore, highly unlikely that underwater sound generated by the MBES would have any significant impact on marine turtles.

7.1.2.4 Other Megafauna

Other megafauna which may occur in the operational area on occasion, for example crocodiles and dugongs, are very unlikely to remain on the seabed directly under the vessel in shallow water, or to pass under the vessel while the bathymetric equipment is active. At worst, temporary hearing effects on individuals may occur, but are not expected have a lasting effect, or to lead to indirect mortality.

7.2 Unplanned events 7.2.1 Interference with third-party (merchant and fishing) vessels

The seismic vessel will acquire data over a two to three week period and will operate 24 hours a day for the duration of this period. There will also be one or more support vessels to manage interactions with other vessels and fishing activity interactions, and to assist with streamer recovery if required.

Other marine users such as commercial and recreational fishing vessels, commercial shipping and oil and gas titleholders may be temporarily displaced by the presence of the survey vessel, and the streamers extending 4,000 to 8,000 m behind the vessel present a navigational hazard to other users. Underwater sound from the seismic vessel may also affect the catchability of fish if they are avoiding the sound; potential impacts to commercially fished species could occur from an accidental diesel spill.

The known and potential risks of interaction with third-party vessels are:

• temporary and intermittent displacement of other marine users from the operational area;

• damage to or loss of fishing gear (risk of gear, particularly fish traps and long lines, snagging on the seismic streamers); and



• indirect effects of underwater noise and accidental diesel spill disturbance on target fish populations.

A search was undertaken of the AMSA Vessel Tracking Data spatial data set (AMSA 2015) in the vicinity of the operational area, which indicates that the survey is unlikely to encounter commercial shipping traffic throughout the duration of the activity. The Port of Wyndham (south west of the operational area) is the only deep water port between Broome and Darwin.

Recreational fishing occurs in the region; however, these activities are limited to areas near coastal access points and are restricted from operation within the Moyle/Port Keats RFPA. Commercial Spanish mackerel fishing, aquarium fish and trepang collection are permitted in the Northern Territory RFPAs; however, commercial fishing data to date have not been reported for the Moyle/Port Keats RFPA.

As described in section 7.1.1.3, the distribution of prawn fishing activity is not known overlap the acquisition area and the nearest historical prawn fishing area is sufficiently displaced to present negligible risks to the prawn population from seismic sound.

Interactions between the survey vessel and third-party vessels are, therefore, unlikely to occur, due to the limited presence of shipping and fishing vessels and to the slow moving nature of the seismic survey vessel within the operational area. It is also unlikely that fishing gear (such as trawl nets) would be damaged, as trawling is not known to occur within the aquisition area and is not permitted within the RFPA.

Proposed control measures to mitigate these risks and to address stakeholder concerns, include marine notices, advising relevant fishing parties of the seismic vessel schedule to assist fisheries license holders in planning their activities and maintaining a communications protocol to manage interactions with fishing vessels.

7.2.2 Introduction of invasive marine species

Invasive marine species (IMS) are marine plants or animals that have been introduced into a region beyond their natural range and have the ability to survive, reproduce and establish. More than 200 non-indigenous marine species including fish, molluscs, worms and a toxic alga have been detected in Australian coastal waters (AMSA 2010).

The following activities have the potential to result in the introduction of invasive marine species (IMS):

• Discharge of vessel ballast water containing foreign species; and

• Translocation of species through biofouling of the vessel hull or niches (e.g. sea chests, bilges or strainers) or attached to trailing equipment (e.g. streamer).

The known and potential environmental impacts of IMS introduction (assuming their survival, colonisation and spread) include competition with native species for resources, reducing native species diversity and abundance.

The survey vessel to be contracted for the survey may be mobilised from international waters which introduces the risk of translocating IMS to the operational area. The support vessels are likely to be mobilised from local ports, so their risk of introducing IMS is far less if they originate from a clean port.

Establishment of IMS requires the following three steps (AQIS 2009):

• Colonisation and establishment of the marine pest on a vector (e.g. vessel hull or streamer) in a donor region (e.g. home port);

• Survival of the settled marine species on the vector during the voyage from the donor to the recipient region; and

• Colonisation (e.g. dislodgement or reproduction) of the marine species in the recipient region, followed by successful establishment of a viable new local population.

Successful IMS invasion as a result of the proposed survey is highly unlikely to occur as the first two steps required for successful IMS invasion are unlikely to materialise, as outlined below:

• There is a low risk of colonisation and establishment of the marine vector:

The survey vessel, if mobilised from international waters, must first dock at an Australian port whereby the relevant State or Territory’s agencies will determine the vessel’s compliance with the Commonwealth biosecurity standards. The Northern Territory Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries routinely screens vessels wishing to enter Darwin marinas. All vessels that have travelled internationally that cannot demonstrate that they have been cleaned or antifouled in Australia will be requested to undergo a hull inspection and treatment of internal



seawater systems. Upon successful completion of inspection and treatment, the skipper will be issued with a Clearance Certificate allowing access into Darwin marinas (DPIF 2016).

The survey vessel will have a current International Anti-fouling system certificate.

• Survival of the settled marine species on the vector during the voyage from the port to the recipient region is unlikely:

The vessels will be travelling from port to the survey location at a speed that is likely to prevent fouling species adhering to the hull (enhanced through the application of anti-fouling paint).

The survey will comply with the Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements (DAFF 2011).

7.2.3 Vessel strike or entanglement with marine fauna

Collisions between the survey vessel and sensitive marine fauna, or entanglement in towed equipment, are possible during the survey, and could lead to injury or death of individuals. Fauna at highest risk of collision are those that spend considerable time in surface waters, are slow moving and large, for example, dugongs, whale sharks and marine turtles. However, these fauna are mobile and would be expected actively to avoid the slow-moving survey vessel. There is a very low chance that animals would be struck or become entangled in the streamer being towed behind the vessel.

Collisions between vessels and cetaceans occur more frequently where high vessel traffic and cetacean habitat coincide (WDCS 2006). There have been recorded instances of cetacean deaths in Australian waters (e.g. a Bryde’s whale in Bass Strait in 1992) (WDCS 2006), though the data indicate this is more likely to be associated with container ships and fast ferries. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society (WDCS) (2006) also indicates that some cetacean species, such as humpback whales, can detect and change course to avoid a vessel. The Australian National Marine Safety Committee (NMSC) reports that during 2009, there was one report of a vessel collision with an animal (species not defined) (AMMC 2010).

When the survey vessel is stationary or slow moving, the risk of collision with cetaceans is extremely low, as the vessel’s size and underwater seismic noise ‘footprint’ will alert cetaceans to its presence and thus illicit avoidance.

It is considered that a greater risk of cetacean collision would occur with the support vessels, as they can travel at higher speeds to effectively patrol the requested clearance zone around the survey vessel and towed array.

There are no known incidents of collisions with whales, for any seismic surveys undertaken within Australian waters.

7.2.4 Diesel spill (vessel to vessel collision or grounding)

Accidental hydrocarbon spillage may involve the loss of marine gas oil (MGO) following tank rupture due to collision between vessels or the grounding of a vessel. The credible worst case scenario for a collision or grounding, as defined by AMSA (2013), would involve the loss of the entire contents of the single largest fuel tank of the design vessel. Vessel collision resulting in the loss of large volumes of liquid hydrocarbons is an extremely unlikely event. DNV (2011) estimates that the likelihood of a collision involving a survey vessel at sea for eight weeks (1,344 hours) resulting in a spill is <1.9 × 10-5 and given the duration of the survey is approximately three weeks, the probability of such a collision during the survey is <0.7 × 10-5.

The grounding of the vessel is also considered highly unlikely given that prior to the acquisition of seismic in shallow waters (defined as water depths between 20 m and 10 m) the accuracy of the admiralty charts and other available bathymetric data will be confirmed with a Single-Beam Echo Sounder, Side Scan Sonar or Multi-Beam Echo Sounder. In addition, a more extensive bathymetry programme may be undertaken prior to seismic acquisition in order to further understand the shoals and shallow regions within the acquisition area.

In the remote event of a spill due to tank rupture, impacts would depend largely on the location and the volume of diesel released. Diesel is a light oil and would rapidly evaporate and dissipate in the warm air and sea temperatures of the region. Most of the seismic lines are relatively distant from sensitive resources. Furthermore, in the event of a serious vessel collision or grounding that resulted in the release of large volumes of diesel, a spill response will be initiated in accordance with NATPLAN to minimise potential effects on sensitive resources.

Origin commissioned RPS APASA to undertake an oil spill modelling assessment (RPS APASA 2015) of the seasonal risk and potential exposure to the surrounding waters and shorelines from a hypothetical 196 m3 surface release of MGO over six hours, representing a hypothetical total loss of containment from the largest fuel tank of the nominal survey vessel. The assessment was completed



for the three distinct seasons; summer (September to February), winter (May to July) and transitional (March, April and August). The spill modelling was performed using an advanced three-dimensional trajectory and fates model, SIMAP (Spill Impact Mapping Analysis Program). The SIMAP model calculates the transport, spreading, entrainment and evaporation of spilled hydrocarbons over time, based on the prevailing wind and current conditions and the physical and chemical properties (RPS APASA 2015).

Results indicated that low (0.5-10 g/m2), moderate (10-25 g/m2) and high (>25 g/m2) oil exposure on the sea surface could potentially contact the mainland under summer and transitional conditions. Under winter conditions, only low sea surface exposure was observed along the mainland from approximately Docherty Island to Cape Scott. Under all seasonal conditions, sea surface oil was predicted to reach the mainland after a minimum of three hours following the time of release. The relatively small spill volume and evaporative nature of MGO meant that surface oil did not persist beyond 10 days (post release) above visible levels (0.5 g/m2).

The overall probability of shoreline contact (above 100 g/m2) was 82%, 43% and 7% during summer, transitional and winter periods, respectively. The average length of shoreline contacted by oil above 100 g/m2 (from a single simulation) ranged from 7 km (summer months) to 6.1 km (winter season), Shoreline contact above 1,000 g/m2 was observed along a maximum length of 1.5 km during both summer and transitional periods. No contact above 1,000 g/m2 was predicted during winter period.

7.2.4.1 Management of impacts and risks from emergency spill response activities

In the event of an oil spill, a number of potential responses may be initiated, as described in Section 0 below. The response strategy will be dependent on advice from the Combat Agency, the location and size of the spill, the potential for sensitive environmental features to be impacted, and the resources available. These responses generally involve additional vessels and may involve booms and field survey teams. Extra activities associated with any response strategy introduce additional risks to marine fauna and habitats, as well as increasing the likelihood of many of the risks described in this EP, including:

• Increased vessel or aircraft traffic

• Generation of oily wastes

• Impacts from use of dispersants

• Wildlife stress due to handling.

Controls to manage these risks will involve notification and consultation with AMSA and the Northern Territory Department of Transport to ensure that response arrangements are interfaced and implementation of controls described in the vessel SOPEP. Wastes would be managed in accordance with NATPLAN Management and Disposal of Oil Spill Debris. Sufficient financial assurance to cover the costs of response will be held, in accordance with the requirements of the OPGGS Act.

Given that an oil spill requiring a response is highly unlikely and that the vessel’s SOPEP and the OPEP (see Section Error! Reference source not found. and Appendix A) would be implemented the risk is considered to be low. A NEBA analysis would be undertaken shortly after the time of the spill to ensure environmental impacts arising from the response strategy are minimised.

8. Hydrocarbon Spill Preparedness and Response

In order to encompass the nature and scale of the survey and respond to the identified credible spill scenarios, a project specific Oil Pollution Emergency Plan (OPEP) has been established and details response measures to minimise the impacts of a marine oil spill on sensitive resources. The OPEP encompasses multiple levels of planning and response capability. The hierarchy of protection priorities for the OPEP, reflecting NATPLAN criteria, is as follows:

Priority 1 Protection of human life, health and personal safety

Priority 2 Containment of the pollution source on board the vessel

Priority 3 Prevention of a slick reaching environmentally sensitive locations

Priority 4 Prevention of impacts to commercial/industrial resources, properties and assets

Priority 5 Protection of cultural, recreational and human amenity resources

The specific objectives of a response to any oil spill relating to the survey are:

• Prevent any further discharge of oil from the vessel;



• Contain any spilled oil products on board the vessel;

• Limit the spread of oil at sea;

• Recover spilled oil, as far as safely practicable within the capabilities of the vessel resources, to prevent oil reaching environmentally sensitive areas or impacting on commercial or other values of the area; and

• Ensure rapid notifications of any spill or potential spill in accordance with regulatory requirements and to facilitate any escalation of the response beyond Tier 1.

The NATPLAN identifies three levels of incidents as follows:

• Level 1 Incidents are generally able to be resolved through the application of local or initial resources only (e.g. first-strike capacity).

• Level 2 Incidents are more complex in size, duration, resource management and risk and may require deployment of jurisdiction resources beyond the initial response.

• Level 3 Incidents are generally characterised by a degree of complexity that requires the Incident Controller to delegate all incident management functions to focus on strategic leadership and response coordination and may be supported by national and international resources. Such a spill is not considered a credible for the survey due to the low volumes of fuel available and standard operating procedures initiated under the SOPEP.

In the event of a marine oil spill, the selection of response strategies will be made by the incident controller, being either the vessel master for a Level 1 spill or the Combat Agency appointed incident controller in the event of a Level 2 spill. Each of the potential response strategies that may be applicable to a spill during the Gulpener 2D survey is discussed in the OPEP, which includes an assessment of the potential benefits and risks of the response, along with a Net Environmental Benefit Assessment.

Where Origin is required to provide response support it will utilise existing contracts with the Australian Marine Oil Spill Centre (AMOSC) based in Geelong, Freemantle, Exmouth and a small supply in Broome and response support contractors engaged on the recommendation of AMOSC, to provide environmental advice including Net Environmental Benefit Analysis.

Scientific (Type 2) monitoring following a significant spill is the responsibility of Origin and a scientific monitoring plan has been included in the OPEP. To enable rapid implementation of scientific monitoring, an Operational and Scientific Monitoring Program (OSMP) Implementation Plan has been developed. The OSMP implementation plan contains information and arrangements for resources required to execute scientific monitoring at the time of an incident including vessels, consultants and laboratories.

9. Implementation Strategy

Origin retains responsibility as the Titleholder of the activity and is responsible for ensuring that the survey is implemented in accordance with the performance outcomes outlined in this EP. Day-to-day management of the survey vessel, however, will be the responsibility of the survey contractor.

9.1 Environmental Management System Origin’s Health, Safety and Environmental (HSE) Policy commitments are communicated and implemented through its HSE Management System (HSEMS). Origin’s HSEMS is based on the continual improvement methodology of Commit-Plan-Do-Check and Review. The HSEMS is aligned with recognised international and national standards including ISO 14001, OHSAS 18001, ISO 31000 and AS 4801.

9.2 Key Roles and Responsibilities The organisational structure for the survey consists of onshore and offshore Origin and survey contractor representatives.

Day-to-day implementation of the EP will occur on the survey vessel under the leadership of the Party Chief and the Client Site Representative. The Origin Project Manager will have oversight of the performance of the project against the EP and other project plans, and will initiate reviews and audits as required. In the event of a vessel incident, the Origin Emergency Response Team (ERT) will work together with HSE and technical advisors and government combat agencies as required to respond.



9.3 Training and Awareness During its contractor selection process, Origin will conduct thorough due diligence to ensure that the chosen contractor has in place procedures to ensure the correct selection, placement, training and ongoing assessment of employees, with position descriptions (including a description of HSE responsibilities) for key personnel being readily available.

A shore-based desktop exercise of Origin’s Emergency Response Plan (ERP) will be conducted by Origin prior to the survey commencing.

All offshore personnel working on the survey and support vessels will be provided with Origin ‘Leading HSE’ training. A survey-specific HSE induction for the same personnel will also be undertaken prior to the survey.

Regular (quarterly) training of vessel crew in SOPEP procedures is a MARPOL requirement for vessels over 400 GRT (Annex 1, Regulation 37). During its contractor selection process, Origin will ensure that the chosen contractor has been implementing this requirement.

Only appropriately qualified and experienced MFOs will be hired by the survey contractor. There is now a large pool of such personnel in Australia spread across various consultancies. The MFOs will provide an information session to control room operators and other essential personnel at the start of the survey regarding their fauna observation duties and the communication protocols required with the control room operators to ensure shut downs and power downs occur efficiently.

Environmental matters will be included in daily toolbox talks as required by the specific task being risk assessed (e.g. waste management). Environmental issues will also be addressed in Weekly HSE Meetings, where each shift will participate with the Client Site Representative, Party Chief and Vessel Master in discussing HSE matters that have arisen in the previous week, and issues to consider for the following week.

9.4 Emergency Response and Preparedness Survey-specific emergency response procedures for the proposed survey are included in the Survey HSE Plan. The Survey HSE Plan contains instructions for vessel emergency, medical emergency, search and rescue, reportable incidents, incident notification and emergency contact information. This is linked to HSEMS Standard 7 (Hazard and risk management) and Standard 14 (Crisis and emergency management).

In the event of an emergency of any type, the Vessel Master will assume overall onsite command and act as the Emergency Response Coordinator (ERC) and in accordance with survey contractor’s procedures. All persons aboard the vessel/s will be required to act under the ERC’s directions. The survey vessel Client Site Representative will maintain communications with the Origin Emergency Team Leader and/or other emergency services in the event of an emergency. Emergency response support will be provided by Origin as required by the situation.

The survey and support vessels will have equipment aboard for responding to emergencies, including but not limited to lifesaving appliances, medical equipment, fire fighting equipment and oil spill response equipment.

It is the duty of the Vessel Master to act as the focal point for all actions and communications with regards to any emergency, including response to adverse weather or sea state, to safeguard his vessel, all personnel on board and environment.

9.5 Incident Recording and Reporting All breaches of the EP are considered non-compliances. Non-compliances may be identified during an audit, inspection, crew observation or as a consequence of an incident.

All EP non-compliance issues must be communicated immediately to appropriate offshore and onshore management personnel. This expectation will be reinforced at inductions, daily toolbox meetings and weekly HSE meetings. Any EP non-compliances will be investigated as per the survey contractor’s and Origin’s investigation procedures. Following an investigation, remedial actions will be developed to prevent recurrence and these actions will be tracked to completion.

Recordable and reportable environmental incidents will be reported to NOPSEMA and other regulatory agencies in accordance with detailed requirements listed in the EP.

9.6 Environmental Monitoring Origin will maintain a quantitative record of emissions and discharges as required under Regulation 14(7) of the OPGGS(E). This record will include all emissions and discharges to the air and water and



can be monitored and audited against the environmental performance standards. Results will be reported in the end-of-survey EP performance report submitted to NOPSEMA.

9.7 Audit and Review Environmental performance of the survey will be reviewed in a number of ways to ensure that:

• Environmental performance standards to achieve the environmental performance outcomes are being implemented, reviewed and where necessary amended;

• Potential non-compliances and opportunities for continuous improvement are identified; and

• All environmental monitoring requirements have been met before completing the activity.

The following arrangements will be established to review environmental performance of the activity:

• An inspection(s) of the vessels will be carried out before or during the survey to ensure that procedures and equipment for managing routine discharges and emissions are in place to enable compliance with the EP.

• A summary of the EP commitments for the activity will be distributed aboard the survey vessel, and implementation of the environmental performance standards will be monitored by the Client Site Representative.

Any non-compliance with the environmental performance standards outlined in this EP will be subject to investigation and follow-up action.

10. Further Information

For further information, please contact:

Linda French Community Relations Specialist 321 Exhibition Street, Melbourne VIC 3000 Phone: 1800 797 011 Email: community.team@ originenergy.com.au



11. References

ABARES. 2015. Fishery status reports 2015. Research by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics and Sciences. October 2015

AFMA 2016. Northern Prawn Fishery. Available from: http://www.afma.gov.au/fisheries/northern-prawn-fishery/. Accessed on: Mon 4 Jan 2016.

AMSA 2010. Protecting our seas. https://www.amsa.gov.au/community/kids-and-teachers-resources/kids/teachers/edukit_request/documents/Protecting-Our-Seas.pdf

AMSA 2011. The effects of maritime oil spills on wildlife including non-avian marine life. https://www.amsa.gov.au/community/kids-and-teachers-resources/kids/teachers/Tech_Paper/index.html

AMSA 2013. Technical Guideline for the Preparation of Marine Pollution Contingency Plans for Marine and Coastal Facilities. Australian Maritime Safety Authority. Canberra.

AMSA 2015. Historic Vessel Tracking Request. https://www.operations.amsa.gov.au/Spatial/CraftTrackingRequest

Andriguetto-Filho, JM, Ostrensky, A, Pie, MR, Silva, UA, and Boeger, WA (2005). Evaluating the impact of seismic prospecting on artisanal shrimp fisheries. Continental Shelf Research, 25(14): 1720-1727.

AQIS 2009. National Biofouling Management Guidance for the Petroleum Production and Exploration Industry. Australian Quarantine Inspection Service. Canberra.

Australian Marine Mammal Centre (2010). National Marine Mammal Database. Available at: https://data.marinemammals.gov.au/nmmdb/events/?event_type=9&spatial_sw=-44.11177,112.14844&spatial_ne=-9.69318,155.03906&temporal_date_start=2009&temporal_date_end=2010

Ballou TG, Hess SC, Dodge RE, Knap AH, Sleeter TD 1989. Effects of untreated and chemically dispersed oil on tropical marine communities: A long-term field experiment. In Proceed 1989 Intern Oil Spill Conf, San Antonio, Texas. Am Petroleum Inst, Washington, DC: 447-454.

Bannister, J.L., Kemper, C.M. and Warnecke R.M. 1996. The Action Plan for Australian Cetaceans. The Director of National Parks and Wildlife Biodiversity Group. Environment Australia. Canberra.

Barry, S. B., Cucknell, A. C. and Clark, N. 2012. A direct comparison of bottlenose dolphin and common dolphin behaviour during seismic surveys when air guns are and air not being utilised. In The effects of noise on aquatic life. Ed: A. N. Popper and A. Hawkins. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology 730.

Bartol, S.M. and Ketten, D.R. 2006. Turtle and tuna hearing. In: Swimmer, Y. and R. Brill, eds. Sea turtle and pelagic fish sensory biology: Developing techniques to reduce sea turtle bycatch in longline fisheries. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-PIFSC-7. Pp. 98-105. Internet website: http://www.pifsc.noaa.gov/tech/NOAA_Tech_Memo_PIFSC_7.pdf

Bartol, S.M., Musick, J.A. and Lenhardt, M. 1999. Auditory evoked potentials of the loggerhead sea turtle (Caretta caretta). Copeia 99(3): 836-840.

Barkaszi, M.J., M. Butler, R. Compton, A. Unietis, and B. Bennet. 2012. Seismic survey mitigation measures and marine mammal observer reports. U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study BOEM 2012-015. 28 pp + apps.

BBG, 2000. Environmental Baseline Surveys in Joseph Bonaparte Gulf in June 2000. Unpublished report for Woodside Energy Limited.

Best, P.B., D.S. Butterworth and L.H. Rickett 1984. An assessment cruise for the South African inshore stock of Bryde’s Whales (Balaenoptera edeni). Report of the International Whaling Commission. 34:403-423.

Blondeau-Patissier, D, Dekker, A, Schroeder, T, Brando V. 2011. Phytoplankton dynamics in shelf waters around Australia. In Australia, state of the environment SEWPaC.

BoM (Bureau of Meteorology) (2015). Tropical Cyclones Affecting the Northern Territory. Available online at: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/history/nt.shtml.



Boeger, W.A., Pie, M.R., Ostrensky, A. and Cardoso, M.F. (2006). The Effect of Exposure to Seismic Prospecting on Coral Reef Fishes. Brazilian Journal of Oceanography, 54(4): 235-239.

Bolle, L.J., de Jong, C.A.F., Bierman, S.M., van Beek, P.J.G., van Keeken, O.A. 2012. Common sole larvae survive high levels of pile-driving sound in controlled exposure experiments. PLoS One 7(3): e33052.BOM 2015. Bureau of Meterology. A WWW databased accessed in October 2015.http://www.bom.gov.au/index.php?ref=logo

Cailliet, G.M., Cavanagh, R.D., Kulka, D.W., Stevens, J.D., Soldo, A., Clo, S., Macias, D., Baum, J., Kohin, S., Duarte, A., Holtzhausen, J.A., Acuña, E., Amorim, A. and Domingo, A. 2009. Isurus oxyrinchus. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Cagnazzi, D. (2011). PhD thesis, Southern Cross University, Lismore, Australia, 199pp.

Cagnazzi, D., Parra, G.J., Westley, S. & Harrison, P.L. (2013). PLoS ONE 8: e56729.

Casper, B.M. and D.A. Mann. 2006. Evoked potential audiograms of the nurse shark (Ginglymostoma cirratum) and the yellow stingray (Urobatis jamaicensis). Environmental Biology of Fishes 76:101-08.

Casper, B.M., P.S. Lobel, and H.Y. Yan. 2003. The hearing sensitivity of the little skate, Raja erinacea: A comparison of two methods. Environmental Biology of Fishes 68:371-379.

Casper, B.C., A.N. Popper, F. Matthews, T.J. Carlson, and M.B. Halvorsen. 2012. Recovery of barotrauma injuries in Chinook salmon, Oncorhynchus tshawytscha from exposure to pile driving sound. PLoS ONE, 7(6): e39593. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0039593?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+plosone%2FEcology+(PLoS+ONE+Alerts%3A+Ecology).

Chatto, R 2001. The distribution and status of colonial breeding seabirds in the Northern Territory. NT Parks and Wildlife Commission, Palmerston, technical report no. 70.

Chatto, R and Baker, B. 2008. The Distribution and Status of Marine Turtle Nesting in the Northern Territory. Parks and Wildlife Service. Department of Natural Resources, Environment, the Arts and Sport.

Cogger, HG 2000, Reptiles and amphibians of Australia, 6th edn, Reed New Holland, Sydney

Commonwealth of Australia 2012. Marine bioregional plan for the North Marine Region. Prepared under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999.

Condie, S.A. 2011. Modelling seasonal circulation, upwelling and tidal mixing in the Arafura and Timor Seas. Continental Shelf Research, Vol 31, issue 14.

Connell DW, Miller GJ 1981. Petroleum hydrocarbons in aquatic ecosystems - Behaviour and effects of sublethal concentrations pt 1. CRC Crit Rev Environ Control 11:37-104.

Dalen, J. and Knutsen, G.M. 1987. Scaring effects in fish and harmful effects on eggs, larvae and fry by offshore seismic explorations. pp. 93-102 in Merklinger, H.M. (ed.), Progress in underwater acoustics. Plenum Press, New York.

Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry (DAFF) 2011. Australian Ballast Water Management Requirements. http://www.agriculture.gov.au/SiteCollectionDocuments/ballast-water-mgmt-requirement.pdf

Department of the Environment (2016). Dugong dugon in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Wed, 18 May 2016

DERM 2010. National recovery plan for the water mouse (false water rat) Xeromys myoides. Report to Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Department of the Environment and Resource Management, Department of the Environment and Resource Management. Brisbane.

DEC 2012. Ord River and Parry Lagoons nature reserves management plan 77 2012, Department of Environment and Conservation, Perth.

DEWHA 2008. EPBC Act Policy Statement 2.1 - Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales September 2008. Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Canberra. 14 pp. http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/pubs/seismic-whales.pdf.



DEWHA 2009. Draft Significant impact guidelines for 36 migratory shorebird species. Migratory species. EPBC Act policy statement 3.21. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts

DNV 2011. Assessment of the Risk of Pollution from Marine Oil Spills in Australian Ports and Waters. Final Report. Report No PP002916, Rev 4. Report for Australian Maritime Safety Authority. Det Norske Veritas. London.

DoE 2014. Orcinus orca — Killer Whale, Orca in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.

DoE 2015. Draft Recovery Plan for Sawfish and River Sharks. Department of the Environment.

DoE 2015b. Australia’s National Heritage List. A WWW database accessed at http://www.environment.gov.au/heritage/places/national-heritage-list. Department of the Environment. Canberra.

DoE 2015c. Indigenous Protected Areas. WWW database accessed at: https://www.environment.gov.au/indigenous/ipa/index.html. Department of the Environment. Canberra.

DoE 2015d. National Conservation Values Atlas http://www.environment.gov.au/webgis-framework/apps/ncva/ncva.jsf. Department of the Environment. Canberra.

DoE 2015e. Australian National Shipwreck Database. https://dmzapp17p.ris.environment.gov.au/ shipwreck/public/wreck/search.do;jsessionid=624517E77FC8FA606AA179083E0882B1. Department of the Environment. Canberra.

DoE 2015f. Orcinus orca in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.. Department of the Environment

DoE 2015g. Marine turtles in Australia, Loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta). A WWW document accessed at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/turtles/loggerhead.html. Department of the Environment. Canberra.

DoE 2015h. Marine turtles in Australia, Green turtle (Chelonia mydas). A WWW document accessed at http://www.environment.gov.au/coasts/species/turtles/green.html. Department of the Environment. Canberra

DoE 2015i. Dermochelys coriacea – Leatherback Turtle. http://www.environment. gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1768. Department of the Environment

DoE 2015j. Eretmochelys imbricata – Hawksbill Turtle. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1766. Department of the Environment.

DoE 2015k. Lepidochelys olivacea – Olive Ridley Turtle, Pacific Ridley Turtle. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=1767. Department of the Environment.

DoE 2015l. Natator depressus – Flatback Turtle. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=59257. Department of the Environment.

DoE 2015m. Calidris ferruginea in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:27:49 +1100.

DoE 2015n. Numenius madagascariensis in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Tue, 3 Nov 2015 19:53:24 +1100.

DoE 2015o. Ardea modesta in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. Accessed Fri, 30 Oct 2015 12:32:35 +1100

DoE 2016. Aipysurus apraefrontalis — Short-nosed Seasnake in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of the Environment, Canberra. Available from: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat.

Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries (DPIF) (2012). Proposed Future Management Arrangements for the Northern Territory Guided Fishing Tour Industry. Consultation paper, September 2012, Northern Territory Government.

DPIF 2013. Protecting our Reef Fish and the future quality of our recreational fishery. Second consultation paper, Northern Territory Government.



DPIF 2014. Fishery Status Reports 2012. Northern Territory Government, Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries. Fishery Report No.113.

DPIF 2016. NT Department of Primary Industry and Fisheries (DPIF): Vessel Inspections and Treatments. Available from: http://www.nt.gov.au/d/Fisheries/index.cfm?header=Vessel%20Inspections. Accessed on Mon 4 Jan 2016.

Double, M.C., Jenner, K.C.S., Jenner, M-N., Ball, I., Laverick, S. and Gales, N. 2012. Satellite tracking of pygmy blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda) off Western Australia. Australian Marine Mammal Centre, Kingston.

DSEWPaC 2012a. Marine bioregional plan for the North Marine Region prepared under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities. Canberra.

DSEWPaC 2012b. Species group report card: Cetaceans. Supporting the marine bioregional plan for the North Marine Region. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra.

DSEWPaC 2012c. Species report card – dugong. Supporting the marine bioregional plan for the North-west Marine Region. Commonwealth of Australia 2012. Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities

Engås, A. and Løkkeborg, S. 2002. Effects of seismic shooting and vessel-generated noise, on fish behaviour and catch rates. Bioacoustics 12(2-3): 313-316.

Engås, A., Løkkeborg, S., Ona, E., Soldal, A.V. 1996. Effects of seismic shooting on local abundance and catch rates of cod (Gadus morhua) and haddock (Melanogrammus aeglefi nus). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 53: 2238-2249.

French-McCay, DP 2009. ‘State-of-the-art and research needs for oil spill impact assessment modelling’, Proceedings of the 32nd Arctic and Marine Oil Spill Program (AMOP) Technical Seminar, Environment Canada, Ottawa, pp. 601–653.

Fry, D. B. (1913). On the status of Chelonia depressa Garman. Records of the Australian Museum 10, 159-85.

Geoscience Australia 2015. Bonaparte Basin. http://www.ga.gov.au/scientific-topics/energy/province-sedimentary-basin-geology/petroleum/offshore-northwest-australia/bonaparte

Goold, J.C. 1996. Acoustic assessment of populations of common dolphin (Delphinus delphis) in conjunction with seismic surveying. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the United Kingdom. 76:811-820.

Greene, C.R. 1985. A pilot study of possible effects of marine seismic air-gun array operation on rockfish plumes. Prepared for the Seismic Steering Committee by Greeneridge Sciences, Inc., Santa Barbara, California.

Gynther, I.C.& H. Janetzki . 2008. Water mouse Xeromys myoides. In: Van Dyck, S. and Strahan, R. (eds) The Mammals of Australia (3rd ed.). Page(s) 664-666. Sydney, NSW, Reed New Holland.

Hall, A. 2015. Pers. comm. Email corresp[ondence between Andrew Hall (Eni) and Vicki Brady (Origin), 25 November 2015.

Halvorsen MB, Casper BM, Woodley CM, Carlson TJ, Popper AN (2011) Predicting and mitigating hydroacoustic impacts on fish from pile installations. NCHRP Res Results Digest 363, Project 25–28, National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Halvorsen, M.B., B.M. Casper, C.M. Woodley, T.J. Carlson, and A.N. Popper. 2012. Threshold for onset of injury in Chinook salmon from exposure to impulsive pile driving sounds. PLoS ONE, 7(6) e38968. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0038968.

Halvorsen MB, Casper BC, Matthews F, Carlson TJ, Popper AN (2012b) Effects of exposure to pile driving sounds on the lake sturgeon, Nile tilapia, and hogchoker. Proc Roy Soc B 279:4705–4714

Hammerstad, E. 2005. EM Technical Note on sound levels from Kongsberg multibeams. Retrieved from http://www.km.kongsberg.com, pp. 1-3.

Hastings, M. C., Reid, C. A., Grebe, C. C., Hearn, R. L. and Colman, J. G. 2008. The effects of seismic airgun noise on the hearing sensitivity of tropical reef fishes at Scott Reef, Western Australia.



Underwater Noise Measurement, Impact and Mitigation, Proceedings of the Institute of Acoustics 30 (5).

Hastings, M.C. and Miksis-Olds, J. (2012). Shipboard assessment of hearing sensitivity of tropical fishes immediately after exposure to seismic air gun emissions at Scott Reef. In: Popper, A.N., Hawkins, A.D. (Eds.), Effects of Noise on Aquatic Life. Springer Science and Business Media, New York, pp. 239–243.

Hawkins, A.D. 1993. Underwater sound and fish behaviour. p. 715 in Pitcher, T.J. (ed.), Behaviour of teleost fishes. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Hawkins, E. R. and Gartside, D. F. 2009. Interactive Behaviours of Bottlenose Dolphins (Tursiops aduncus) During Encounters with Vessels. Aquatic Mammals 2009, 35(2), 259-268, DOI 10.1578/AM.35.2.2009.259

Hay, T., Knuckey, I., Calogeras, C. and Errity, C. (2005). Northern Territory Coastal Reef Fish: Population and Biology of the Golden Snapper. Fishnote No. 21, November 2005. Fisheries Research, Darwin.

Heyward, A.J., Pinceratto, E.J., Smith, L. (eds) (1997). big bank shoals of the Timor sea: an environmental resource atlas. bhp petroleum, Melbourne.

Higgins P.J. and Davies S.J.J.F. (Eds) 1996. Handbook of Australian, New Zealand and Antarctic Birds. Oxford University Press, Melbourne.

Ivory, B. 2005.Indigenous Governance and Leadership: A case study from the Thamurrurr (Port Keats) region in the Northern Territory. ICGP & WA and Australian Government Partners Workshop Perth, WA.

Jenner, K.C.S., Jenner, M-N., and K.A. McCabe 2001. Geographical and temporal movements of humpback whales in Western Australian waters. APPEA Journal 38(1): 692-707.

Joint Nature Conservation Committee (JNCC), Natural England (NE) and Countryside Council for Wales (CCW) (2010). The protection of marine European Protected Species from injury and disturbance. Guidance for the marine area in England and Wales and the UK offshore marine area. June 2010.

Kato, H. 2002. Bryde’s Whales Balaenoptera edeni and B. brydei. In: Perrin W.F., B. Wrsig and H.G.M. Thewissen, eds. Encyclopedia of Marine Mammals. Page(s) 171-177. Academic Press.

Kostyuchenko, L.P. 1973. Effects of elastic waves generated in marine seismic prospecting on fish eggs in the Black Sea. Hydrobiological Journal 9: 45-48.

Kremser, U., Klemm, P. and Kötz, W.-D. (2005). Estimating the risk of temporary acoustic threshold shift, caused by hydroacoustic devices, in whales in the Southern Ocean. Antarctic Science, 17(1), 3-10.

La Bella, G, Cannata, S, Froglia, C, Modica, A, Ratti, S, and Rivas, G (1996). First assessment of effects of air-gun seismic shooting on marine resources in the Central Adriatic Sea. Society of Petroleum Engineers. International Conference on Health, Safety and Environment, New Orleans, Louisiana, 9-12 June, pp. 227-238.

Ladich, F. 2012. Effects of noise on sound detection and acoustic communication in fishes. In Brumm, H. (ed.), Animal communication and noise. Springer-Verlag, Berlin/Heidelberg.

Laist, D.W., Knowlton, A.R., Mead, J.G., Collet, A.S., & Podesta, M. 2001. Collisions between Ships and Whales, Marine Mammal Science, Vol. 17, Issue 1, pp35-75.

Lane, A, and P.L. Harrison (2000) Effects of oil contaminants on survivorship of larvae of the scleractinian reef corals Acropora tenuis, Goniastrea aspera and Platygyra sinensis from the Great Barrier Reef. In 9th International Coral Reef Symposium. Bali. Last, P.R. Stevens J.D. 1994. Sharks and Rays of Australia. Melbourne, Victoria: CSIRO.

LDM 1994. Exploration drilling, EP32 and EP57 Joseph Bonaparte Gulf Northern Territory environmental review report. Report to: Teikoku oil by Le Provost Dames and Moore.

Limpus, C. J. (2007). A Biological Review of Australian Marine Turtles. Environmental Protection Agency, Queensland Government.

Limpus CJ 2008. A biological review of Australian Marine Turtles. 1. Loggerhead Turtle Carettacaretta (Linneaus). Queensland Environment Protection Agency. Available from: http://www.epa.qld.gov.au/publications/p02785aa.pdf/A _Biological_Review_Of_Australian_Marine_Turtles_1_Loggerhead_Turtle_emCaretta_Caretta/em_Linnaeus.pdf



Limpus, CJ 2009, A biological review of Australian marine turtles, Queensland Government Environment Protection Agency, Brisbane.

Løkkeborg, S. and Soldal, A.V. 1993. The influence of seismic exploration with airguns on cod (Gadus morhua) behaviour and catch rates. ICES Marine Science Symposium 196: 62-67.

Lurton, X. and DeRuiter, S. (2011). Sound radiation of seafloor-mapping echosounders in the water column, in relation to the risks posed to marine mammals. International Hydrographic Review, (November), 7-17.

Malcolm, H., Bruce, B. D., and Stevens, J. D. 2001. A Review of the Biology and Status of White Sharks in Australian Waters. Report to Environment Australia, Marine Species Protection Program, CSIRO Marine Research. Hobart, pp 113.

Marquez, R. 1990. FAO Species Catalogue; Sea Turtles of the World. An annotated and illustrated catalogue of the sea turtle species known to date. FAO Fisheries Synopsis. 125 (11):pp 81. Rome: Food and Agriculture Organisation of United Nations.

Marshall, AD, Compagno, LJV & Bennett, MB. 2009, 'Redescription of the genus Manta with resurrection of Manta alfredi (Krefft, 1868)(Chondrichthyes; Myliobatoidei; Mobulidae)' Zootaxa, vol. 2301, pp. 1-28.

Marshall, A., Kashiwagi, T., Bennett, M. B., Deakos, M. H., Stevens, G., McGregor, F., Clark, T., Ishihara, H. & Sato, K. 2011. Manta alfredi. In IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. Version 2011. 1. Available at www.iucnlist.org (accessed 3 February 2011).

McCauley, R.D., 1994. Environmental implications of offshore oil and gas development in Australia – seismic surveys. pp. 20–121 in Swan, J.M., Neff, J.M. and Young, P.C. (eds.), Environmental implications of offshore oil and gas development in Australia. Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Sydney.

McCauley. R. 2008. Radiated underwater noise measured from the drilling rig ocean general, rig tenders Pacific Ariki and Pacific Frontier, fishing vessel Reef Venture and natural sources in the Timor Sea, northern Australia. CMST report C98-20. Centre for Marine Science and Technology, Curtin University of Technology.

McCauley, R.D., J. Fewtrell, and A.N. Popper. 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 113(1):638-642.

McCauley R.D., Fewtrell J., Duncan A.J., Jenner C., Jenner M-N., Penrose J.D., Prince R.I.T., Adhitya A., Murdock J. and McCabe K. 2000. Marine seismic surveys: Analysis and propagation of airgun signals; and effects of airgun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Prepared for the Australian Petroleum Exploration Association.

McCauley, R.D., Jenner, M-N., Jenner, C., McCabe, K.A. and Murdoch, J. (1998). The response of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: Preliminary results of observations about a working seismic vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA Journal, 1998, 692-707.

McCauley, R.D. and Jenner, C. 2010. Migratory patterns and estimated population size of pygmy blue whales (Balaenoptera musculus brevicauda) traversing the Western Australian coast based on passive acoustics. Paper SC/62/SH26 presented to the IWC Scientific Committee.

McCauley RD and Kent CS (2012). A lack of correlation between airgun signal pressure waveforms and fish hearing damage. In: Popper AN, Hawkins AD (eds) The effects of noise on aquatic life. Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, New York, p 245–250.

Mercurio, P. Negri, AP. Burns, KA. and Heyward, AJ. 2004. The ecotoxicology of vegetable versus mineral based lubricating oils: 3. Coral fertilization and adult corals. Environmental Pollution 129 183–194

Miller, I. and Cripps, E. (2013). Three dimensional marine seismic survey has no measurable effect on species richness or abundance of a coral reef associated fish community. Marine Pollution Bulletin 77, 63-70.

Minton, S.A. & H. Heatwole 1975. Sea snakes from three reefs of the Sahul Shelf. In: Dunson, W. A., ed. The Biology of Sea Snakes. Page(s) 141-144. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Myrberg, A.A., Jr. (2001). The acoustical biology of elasmobranchs. Environmental Biology of Fishes 60:31-45.

Myrberg, A.A., Jr., C.R. Gordon, and A.P. Klimley (1976). Attraction of free ranging sharks by low frequency sound, with comments on its biological significance. In: Schuijf, A. and A.D. Hawkins, eds. Sound reception in fish. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Pp. 205-228.



Negri, A.P., Heyward, A.J., 2000. Inhibition of fertilization and larval metamorphosis of the coral Acropora millepora (Ehrenberg, 1834) by petroleum products. Mar. Poll. Bull. 41, 420–427.

NOAA 2010. Oil Spills in Coral Reefs: Planning and Response Considerations. Report to US Department of Commerce.

Normandeau Associates, Inc. 2012. Effects of noise on fish, fisheries, and invertebrates in the US Atlantic and Arctic from energy industry sound-generating activities. A Literature Synthesis for the US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.

NNTT 2015. Native Title claims map. A WWW database accessed at http://www.nntt.gov.au/mediation-and-agreement-making-services/geospatial-services/maps/pages/national-maps.aspx. National Native Title Tribunal. Canberra.

NT Parks and Wildlife Commission 2015. Parks and Reserves. Website: http://www.parksandwildlife.nt.gov.au/parks

Parra, G.J., Corkeron, P. J. & Marsh, H. (2006). Biological Conservation 129: 167-180.

Parry, GD and Gason, A (2006). The effect of seismic surveys on catch rates of rock lobsters in western Victoria, Australia. Fisheries Research, 79: 272-284.

Payne, J.F., Coady, J. and White, D. 2009. Potential effects of seismic airgun discharges on monkfish eggs (Lophius americanus) and larvae. Environmental Studies Research Funds Report No. 170. National Energy Board, Alberta.

Pearson, W.H., Skalski, J.R. and Malme, C.I. (1992). Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on behaviour of captive rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 49: 1434-1356.

Perrin, W.F. (1998). Stenella longirostris. Mammalian Species 599: 1-7.

Phelan, M. (2008). Assessment of the implications of target fishing on black jewfish (Protonibea diacanthus) aggregations in the Northern Territory. Fishery Report No. 91.

Pickett, G.D., Eaton, D.R., Seaby, R.M.H. and Arnold, G.P. 1994. Results of bass tagging in Poole Bay during 1992. Lowestof, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Directorate of Fisheries Research, Laboratory Leaflet 74.

Popper, A.N., Smith, M.E., Cott, P.A., Hanna, B.W., MacGillivray A.O., Austin, M.E, Mann, D.A. (2005). Effects of exposure to seismic airgun use on hearing of three fish species. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 117(6), June 2005.

Popper A.N., Halvorsen, M.B., Kane, E., Miller, D.D., Smith, M.E., Stein, P. and Wysocki, L.E. (2007). The effects of high-intensity, low-frequency active sonar on rainbow trout. J Acoust Soc Am 122:623–635.

Popper, A.N. and Løkkeborg, S. 2008. Effects of anthropogenic sound on fish. Bioacoustics 17: 214-217.

Popper, A.N. and M.C. Hastings. 2009. The effects of anthropogenic sources of sound on fishes. J. Fish Biol. 75(3):455-489.

Popper, A.N., Hawkins, A.D., Fay, R.R., Mann, D.A., Bartol, S., Carlson, T.J., Coombs, S., Ellison, W.T., Gentry, R.L., Halvorsen M.B., Løkkeborg, S., Rogers, P.H., Southall, B.L., Zeddies, D.G., Tavolga, W.N. (2014). ASA S3/SC1.4 TR-2014, Sound Exposure Guidelines for Fishes and Sea Turtles: A Technical Report prepared by ANSI-Accredited Standards Committee S3/SC1 and registered with ANSI. Acoustical Society of America, ASA Press.

Popper, A.N., Carlson, T., Gross, J.A., Hawkins, A.D., Zeddies, D.G. and Powell, L. (2015). Effects of Seismic Air Guns on Pallid Sturgeon and Paddlefish. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, 875:871-878.

Przeslawski, R., Daniell, J., Anderson, T., Barrie, J.V., Battershill, C., Heap, A., Hughes, M., Li, J., Potter, A., Radke, R., Siwabessy, J., Tran, M., Whiteway, T., Nichol, S. 2011. Seabed habitats and hazards of the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf and Timor sea, Northern Australia. Geoscience Australia, record 2011/40, 69pp.

Rainer, S. F. and Munro, I. S. R. 1982. Demersal fish and cephalopod communities of an unexpoited coastal environment in northern Australia. Aus. J. Mar. Freshw. Res. 38: 133-44.

Ramcharitar, J., Gannon, D. and Popper, A. 2006. Bioacoustics of fishes of the family Sciaenidae (croakers and drums). Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 135:1409-1431.



Raymont, J. E. G. 1983. Plankton and Productivity in the Oceans. Volume 2 – Zooplankton. 2nd edition, viii, 824 pp. Pergamon Press, 1983

Reardon, M.B., Gerber, L. and Cavanagh, R.D. 2006. Isurus paucus. In: IUCN 2012. IUCN Red List of Threatened Species.

Richardson, W. J., Greene, C. R., Maime, C. I. and Thomson, D. H. 1995. Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press, San Diego, California.Ridgway, S.H., Wever, E.G., McCormick, J.G., Palin, J. and Anderson, J.H. 1969. Hearing in giant sea turtle (Chelonia mydas). Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 64: 884-890.Rogers, D., Hassell, C., Oldland, J., Clemens, R., Boyle, A. And Rogers, K. 2010. Monitoring Yellow Sea migrants in Australia (MYSMA): North-western Australian shorebird surveys and workshops, December 2008. Department of Water, and the Arts. Heidelberg, Victoria, Arthur Rylah Institute.

RPS APASA 2014. Personal communication between Nathan Benfer and Chris Ryan, March 2014

Ross, G.J.B. (2006). Review of the Conservation Status of Australia's Smaller Whales and Dolphins. Page(s) 124. Report to the Australian Department of the Environment and Heritage, Canberra

RPS APASA 2015. Gulpener 2D Seismic Survey: Quantitative Spill Modelling Study. Report prepared by RPS APASA for Origin Energy Resources Ltd.

Santulli, A., C. Messina, L. Ceffa, A. Curatolo, G. Rivas, G. Fabi, and V. Damelio. 1999. Biochemical responses of European sea bass (Dicentrachus labrax) to the stress induced by offshore experimental seismic prospecting. Mar. Poll. Bull. 38(12):1105-1114.

SCAR 2002. Impacts of marine acoustic technology on the Antarctic environment. SCAR Ad Hoc Group on marine acoustic technology and the environment.

Schroeder, T., A. Dekker, and C. E. Rathbone (2009), Remote sensing for light attenuation mapping in the North Marine Region. CSIRO Wealth from Oceans Flagship Report to the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, 25 pp, CSIRO Land and Water, Canberra (ACT, Aus.).

Shuntov, V.P. (1971). Sea snakes of the North Australian Shelf. Ekologiya. 4:65-72.

Slotte, A., Kansen, K., Dalen, J. and 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: 143-150.

Smit, N., Billyard, R. and Ferns, L. 2000. Beagle Gulf Benthic Survey: Characterisation of soft substrates. Technical Report No. 66 (2000) Parks and Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory

Southall, B.L., Bowles, A.E., Ellison, W.T., Finneran, J.J., Gentry, R.L., Greene Jr., C.R., Kastak, D., Ketten, D.R., Miller, J.H., Nachtigall, P.E., Richardson, W.J., Thomas, J.A. and Tyack, P.L. 2007. Marine mammal noise exposure criteria: Initial scientific recommendations. Aquatic Mammals 33(4): 411-509.

Storr, G.M., L.A. Smith & R.E. Johnstone (2002). Snakes of Western Australia. Page(s) 309. Perth, Western Australia: Western Australian Museum.

Stobutzki, I., P. Jones and M. Miller, 2003. A comparison of fish bycatch communities between areas open and closed to prawn trawling in an Australian tropical fishery. ICES J. Mar. Sci. 60:951-966.

Swan, J.M., Neff, J.M. and Young, P.C. 1994. Environmental implications of offshore oil and gas development in Australia: The findings of an independent scientific review. Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Sydney.

Tavolga, W.N. and Wodinsky, J. (1963). Auditory capacities in fishes: Pure tone thresholds in nine species of marine teleosts. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 126:177-240.

TGS 2013. Request for Incidental Harassment Authorization for the Non-Lethal Taking of Whales and Seals in Conjunction with a Proposed Marine 2D Seismic Program Chukchi Sea, Alaska 2013. Prepared by SES, ASRC Energy Services, and Entiat River Technologies. Revised April 5, 2013. 142 pp.

Theobald, P.D., Lepper, P.A., Robinson, S.P. and Hazelwood, R.A. 2009. Cumulative noise exposure assessment for marine using Sound Exposure Level as a metric. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference and Exhibition on "Underwater Acoustic Measurements: Technologies and Results", Napflion, Greece, June 2009.



Thomson, R.B., Sporcic, M., Foster, S.D., Haddon, M., Potter, A., Carroll, A., Przeslawski, R., Knuckey, I., Koopman, M. & Hartog J. 2014. Examining Fisheries Catches and Catch Rates for Potential Effects of Bass Strait Seismic Surveys. CSIRO and Geoscience Australia. Hobart and Canberra.

Tonks, M.L., Griffiths, S.P., Healesa, D.S., Brewer, D.T., and Dell, Q. 2008. Species composition and temporal variation of prawn trawl bycatch in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf, northwestern Australia. Fisheries Research 89: 276-293.

Tourism NT 2015. NT snapshot. http://www.tourismnt.com.au/en/research/nt-snapshot

Van Andel, T. H., & Veevers, J. J. (1967). Morphology and sedments of the Timor Sea. Bureau of Mineral Resources, Geology and Geophysics: Bulletin, 83, 173.

Wagner, T.L., Cooper, C.D., Gross, J.A. and Coffin, A.B. (In press). The effect of seismic waterguns on the inner ears of round goby. Journal of Great Lakes Research, In press.

Wardle, C.S., T.J. Carter, G.G. Urquhart, A.D.F. Johnstone, A.M. Ziolkowski, G. Hampson, and D. Mackie. 2001. Effects of seismic airguns on marine fish. Cont. Shelf Res. 21(8-10):1005-1027.

WDCS. 2004. Oceans of Noise. A WWW publication accessed at http://www.wdcs.org. Whales and Dolphin Conservation Society. United Kingdom.

Webb, G & Manolis, SC 1989, Crocodiles of Australia, Reed Books Pty Ltd, Sydney.

WEL 2004. Existing Marine Environment. Blacktip Environmental Impact Statement: Woodside Energy Limited

Wever, E.G. 1971. Hearing in the Crocodilia. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 68, No. 7, pp 1498-1500.

Woodside, 2007. Maxima 3D Seismic Survey: Scott Reef. Final Adaptive Management Program. Woodside Energy Ltd, Perth, Western Australia, Australia, 29 pp.

Zhou, S., Buckworth, R.C., Miller, M., and Jarrett, A. 2015. A SAFE analysis of bycatch in the Joseph Bonaparte Gulf fishery for Red-legged Banana Prawns. CSIRO Oceans and Atmosphere Flagship, Brisbane, Australia.