69688 Cohabitation and Cooperation Between Oil Activities and Marine Protected Areas November 2007 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Contents 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................2 1.1 Background ...........................................................................................................2 1.2 This Report ...........................................................................................................2 2 Oil and Gas Impacts ........................................................................................................3 2.1 Seismic Surveys .....................................................................................................3 2.1.1 Types of marine seismic surveys ..........................................................................3 2.1.2 Noise source......................................................................................................4 2.1.3 Noise signal recording.........................................................................................5 2.1.4 Noise characteristics ...........................................................................................6 2.1.5 Sensitive receptors .............................................................................................7 2.2 Exploration and Appraisal Drilling ........................................................................... 16 3 Synthesis of International Practise for Seismic Survey Management .................................... 18 3.1.1 Administering Agency ....................................................................................... 19 3.1.2 Status ............................................................................................................. 19 3.1.3 Legislative basis and objectives of legislation ....................................................... 19 3.1.4 Area of application ........................................................................................... 20 3.1.5 Taxa protected................................................................................................. 20 3.1.6 Monitoring, Start-Up And Shutdown Requirements ............................................... 20 3.1.7 Use of safety zones .......................................................................................... 24 3.1.8 Special requirements for selected areas and/or times ........................................... 26 3.1.9 Summary ........................................................................................................ 27 4 Marine Protected Areas.................................................................................................. 36 4.1 Definition of a Marine Protected Areas .................................................................... 36 4.2 Activities permitted within a Marine Protected Area .................................................. 36 4.3 Mining activities in Marine Protected Areas.............................................................. 38 4.4 Legislation for Marine Protected Areas in Madagascar............................................... 42 4.5 Comparison of Activities to Conservation Objectives and the Precautionary Principle .... 43 4.6 Case Studies........................................................................................................ 44 4.6.1 Great Barrier Reef Marine Park........................................................................... 44 4.6.2 The Great Australian Bight Marine Park............................................................... 46 4.6.3 Management measures other than zoning ........................................................... 49 5 Recommendations......................................................................................................... 52 5.1 Zoning of MPAs.................................................................................................... 52 5.2 Seismic guidelines ................................................................................................ 52 5.3 Guidelines for assessment against conservation objectives........................................ 52 Tables Table 1 Potential impacts of seismic surveying on marine mammals ............................................8 Table 2 Synthesis of international practises for management of marine seismic surveys .............. 28 Table 3 IUCN Marine Protected Area Categories ...................................................................... 37 Table 4 Activities permitted and activities excluded from proposed Commonwealth of Australia Marine Protected Areas.................................................................................................. 41 Table 5 Zones within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia............................................ 45 Table 6 Zones within the Great Australian Bight Marine Park, Australia ...................................... 47 Table 7 Summary of management tools applied in management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park .................................................................................................................. 50 Figures Figure 1 Illustration of 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional surveys.................................................4 Figure 2 Sketch of a Bolt-PAR air gun cross-section before firing and after firing...........................5 Figure 3 Power-frequency-time matrix plot of average background noise preceding average maximum seismic pulse power at 750 m range from a 2120 cui air-gun array ........................7 Figure 4 Proportion of marine mammal sightings occurring within specified distances of the airguns during surveys................................................................................................... 12 Figure 5 Area surrounding the acoustic source that must be monitored for the presence of whales, showing the three safety zones as described in the Australian seismic guidelines. ..... 26 Figure 6 Zoning within the Great Australian Bight Marine Park, Australia .................................... 49 Page 1 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Introduction Background Numerous studies have shown that Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) established for the protection of biodiversity can provide substantial benefits to ecology, fisheries and socio-economic welfare1. The declaration made in Durban by his Excellency President of Madagascar in 2003, to increase the protected area surface up to 6 million hectares introduces a challenge for the development of the oil sector in Madagascar. It induces and increases overlapping between oil areas and newly or to be created protected areas. A number of human activities threaten biodiversity, including coastal development and over-fishing. Traditionally both scientists and policymakers have focussed on marine pollution as the most important problem affecting marine biodiversity. Moreover they have focussed on oil pollution and major incidents such as the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska. Such spills can kill birds and other wildlife and destroy marine habitat, for years even decades2. Despite the obviousness of oil spills, however, they are a relatively small ocean pollution problem. Accidental spills and shipping are responsible for only about 12% of all marine pollution, while offshore oil and gas exploration and production are responsible for another 1%. Instead 77% of all marine pollution comes from land-based sources3. Regardless of whether the conflict between biodiversity conservation and oil and gas activities is real or perceived, delaying or preventing the creation of MPAs (so as to allow for oil and gas activities) would mean that the opportunity to obtain ecological and socio-economic benefits may be lost. Importantly, however, the creation of MPAs that completely exclude of oil and gas activities from may also result in the opportunity for substantial economic and social benefits to be lost. This report examines the potential for an alternative ‘third way’ of cohabitation between marine protected areas and oil and gas activities. This Report This report is has been prepared pursuant to Contract No TA-P102457-TAS-TF053709 and has been jointly funded by the World Bank (Africa Region, Madagascar Country Office) and Office des Mines Nationales et de Industries Stratégiques (OMNIS). A copy of the Terms of Reference is provided as Attachment 1. The purpose of this report is to provide a synthesis of sound international and Australian practises for the cohabitation of oil and gas activities with marine protected areas. This is addressed by: 1 Lutchman I., Albersberg B., Hinchley D., Miles, G., Tiraa A and Wells S. (2005). Marine Protected Areas: Benefits and Costs for Islands. http://www.icran.org/Report/MPA_Cost/mpa_cost.pdf 2 Refer for example to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Trustee Council http://www.evostc.state.ak.us/ 3 Craig RK. (2005). Protecting International marine biodiversity: International treaties and national systems of Marine Protected Areas. Journal of Land Use 20(2):337 – 373. http://law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol20_2/craig.pdf Page 2 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation 1. An overview of potential adverse environmental effects associated with oil and gas activities. This discussion is primarily on the evaluation of seismic surveys effects due to the stage of exploration and the interest in seismic surveys expressed during the workshops held 17th and 18th July 2007. 2. A synthesis of international seismic management practises 3. Summary of approaches to management of MPAs 4. Case studies of MPA management 5. Recommendations for cohabitation of MPA and oil and gas activities. Oil and Gas Impacts Environmental assessments of oil and gas activities have been conducted in almost all jurisdictions worldwide. Consequently there is a large body of information readily available through internet resources. It is not the intention to reproduce a detailed assessment of oil and gas activities as part of this report rather to establish the key factors and uncertainties that are relevant to cohabitation of MPAs and oil and gas activities. Seismic Surveys Seismic surveys are the main tool used by the oil industry in locating hydrocarbon accumulations. The seismic data that arises out of these surveys can be used to map the reservoirs and define possible drilling targets several thousand meters below the surface. Specialised vessels of the type required to complete these surveys normally carry a complement of 30 to 40 crew. The basic principle of seismic surveys is illustrated in Figure 1. A strong sound pulse is sent out from the seismic source towed behind the survey vessel. This pulse is reflected from the boundaries separating the geological layers in the subsurface, and the reflected signals are recorded by many hydrophones towed in a cable several kilometres long. The reflection points at each strata boundary (CDP-points) from many shot points are combined in the subsequent processing in order to achieve the required final seismic data. Types of marine seismic surveys Marine seismic surveys are commonly either two-dimensional (2D) or three- dimensional (3D), and the type of survey used not only affects the type of data collected but can also affect the extent and duration of exposure to high sound levels. Two-dimensional surveys employ a single airgun array and hydrophone streamer, and are conducted along single lines, or pre-determined tracks within an open grid, to produce a vertical slice or 2D image through the earth’s crust. The source in this type of survey is often made as strong as possible for maximum penetration. Two-dimensional seismic surveys provide little or no information about the true position of reflecting points in the sub-surface and are typically used for speculative surveys covering large geographical areas. Three-dimensional seismic surveys are characterised by the need to record a grid of data, with each grid being close enough to allow processing along both grid axes (, and where each grid point is the centre of a grid cell (usually 25 m by 25 m). The appropriate processing grids can be used to produce a 3-D reconstruction of the Page 3 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation traversed surface, giving a much higher resolution than conventional 2-D surveys. By their nature, 3D surveys require accurate positioning and use multiple parallel hydrophone streamers often in conjunction with multiple airgun arrays. Tracklines are often separated by 50 or 100 m. Three-dimensional seismic surveys are typically used to define potential and / or existing hydrocarbon deposits and fewer exploration wells are needed as a result. However, in some cases 3D surveys are used in the early stages of exploration, with the extra cost being balanced by the quality and quantity of data produced. The source used during 3D surveys is often less strong than those used in conventional 2D surveys because subsequent processing is able to handle the resulting difference in data quality. However, the staggered firing of multiple arrays, to reduce signal interference, increases the period of noise exposure. Additionally, the need to grid concentrates seismic activity in a small area for a prolonged period, subjecting resident fauna to high levels of sound for protracted periods. Figure 1 Illustration of 2 dimensional and 3 dimensional surveys In areas where there is limited room for a survey vessel to manoeuvre, such as in shallow waters or around navigation hazards seabed cable surveys can be used. This technique involves hydrophone cable being deposited on the seafloor with the airgun source towed separately by a dedicated vessel. Noise source The airgun is the preferred source for marine seismic surveys. Other sources, such as the Water-gun, Vaporchock or Maxipulse (chemical explosives) have been used in the past, but are now considered obsolete. The operating principle of the airgun (the bolt airgun system) is shown in Figure 2. High- pressure air, of about 140 Atm is supplied continuously to the airgun. In the Page 4 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation charging state, this will force the piston downward and fill both chambers with compressed air. The total area of the upper piston is slightly larger than the lower, and this will keep the piston in this closed position, ready for firing. When the airgun is triggered, air is released through the ports. The sudden release of air results in a rapidly expanding bubble, which produces the primary noise pulse. The amount of air released into the water is determined by the volume of the lower chamber, and this will range from 0.5 to 10 litres. In order to increase the total emitted energy, several airguns of differing sizes are mounted together in arrays. Such airgun arrays may consist of 10 to 30 airguns or more, and have a total volume of up to 100 litres. Normally all airguns in the array are fired such that the peak pressure from each one coincide when measured vertically under the centre of the array. Due to the lateral separation of the guns, destructive interference will reduce the pressure at points away from the vertical axis. The resultant pressure will be dependent on the frequency, and also vary with the angle away from the vertical axis. Figure 2 Sketch of a Bolt-PAR air gun cross-section before firing and after firing.4 Noise signal recording The seismic signal, reflected by the many boundaries in the subsurface geology, is received by the hydrophone cable, and fed back to the recording instruments on the seismic vessel. The hydrophone cable is often 3,000 to 6,000 m long, and is constructed as many groups of hydrophones. The spacing between the groups can be 25 m or shorter, dependent on the purpose of the seismic survey. Each group contains many hydrophones, spaced less than 1 m apart. The hydrophone cable must be towed at constant depth, normally between 6 to 8 m. To compensate for minor adjustments, automatic cable levellers, or "birds" are used. These devices are attached externally to the cable, and have "wings" controlled by a pressure sensitive device that forces the cable to be at the right depth. The end of the hydrophone cable is marked with a tail buoy, the purpose of which is both to give a warning to shipping about the presence of the cable in the water. 4 Figure obtained from http://www.bolt-technology.com Page 5 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Additionally, the tail buoy acts as a platform for surface positioning systems so that the location of end of the cable can be monitored. The hydrophone cable is not considered to be of any environmental hazard, but represents potential obstacle for fishing activities. Noise characteristics Source levels of airguns and arrays are normally reported as the level at 1 m from the array. To avoid confusion with the different methods of measurement this is often written as dB re 1µPa 1m. In general, commercial airgun arrays output sound in the range of 218-228 dB re 1µPa 1m dB (increase by 13 dB for RMS and 28 dB for peak to peak). These figures from McCauley (2000)5 compare fairly well with measurements reported by Caldwell (2002)6 of 240-246dB (peak to peak). Although the direction of greatest sound intensity is downwards, a considerable amount of energy is radiated in directions away from the beam axis. Sound levels measured to the side is the sound of most interest, as this is what travels through the water to affect animals at distance. Generally the sound radiated horizontally will be 12 to 20 dB lower than that directed straight down. Also, depending on the type of airgun array, horizontal sound levels are loudest either fore-and-aft (2D array) or abeam (3D array) of the ship; this variation is in the range of 2 to 8 dB7. The noise from seismic surveys may be detected many kilometres from the source. McCauley et al (2007)8 measured the received air gun array signal parameters from 15 seismic surveys in Australian waters. Measurements included airgun arrays from 1115 to 4900 cui (18.3 to 80.3 L) at ranges of ranges of hundreds of meters to thousands of kilometers along travel paths of 15 m to full ocean depth. They found that for any given array there may be large (±9 dB) difference in the received level between consecutive signals, especially if two 3D arrays are operated alternatively. At a nominal range, differences of up to 40 dB were found when comparing small arrays operating in shallow water with large arrays in deeper water. For example, a 2500-cui array transmitting in 70 m water had no waterborne energy at 20-km range whereas a 4900- cui array operating on the shelf slope was detectable via a deep sound channel path at 2000 km. This large variation in received levels under different scenarios implies similar differences in environmental implications. 5 McCauley RD, Fewtrell J, Duncan AJ, Jenner C, Jenner M - N, Penrose JD, Prince, RIT, Adhitya A, Murdoch J & McCabe K, 2000. Seismic surveys: analysis and propagation of air - gun signals; and effects of air - gun exposure on humpback whales, sea turtles, fishes and squid. Australian Petroleum Production Exploration Association. 6 Caldwell J. 2002. Does airgun noise harm marine mammals? The Leading Edge, April 75 – 78. http://www.geophysicalservice.com/images/caldwell.pdf 7 Ibid 8 McCauley, RD., Fewtrell, J., Duncan, AJ., Jenner, C., Jenner, M-N., Penrose, JD., Prince, RIT., Adhitya, A., Murdoch, J and McCabe, K., 2000. Marine Seismic Surveys – A Study of Environmental Implications. APPEA Journal 2000. Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, Sydney Page 6 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Figure 3 Power-frequency-time matrix plot of average background noise preceding average maximum seismic pulse power at 750 m range from a 2120 cui air-gun array9 Sensitive receptors Studies of environmental issues relating to seismic surveys have largely focused on the potential effects of acoustic disturbance to fauna from the sound waves associated with the seismic energy source. However acquiring data to define how sound effects marine fauna is difficult to do because of the logistical problems associated with marine experiments. These problems become even greater as the size of the animal increases, consequently the most precise information on sound effects generally relates to smaller species, such as fish, while data regarding the sensitivity to sound of larger species, such as whales, is generally based on observations. As noted by McCauley in 1994 the number of actual experiments and studies into the effect of seismic surveys is relatively limited. There are a larger number of informed reviews that draw on these studies and known anatomy of species to predict likely impacts. Then there is an even larger number of reviews of reviews and finally a vast library of comments and reports (for example the search terms “marine seismic survey impactsâ€? returned 950,000 results using the googleâ„¢ internet search engine). A selection of recent informative reviews of seismic survey effects is provided as attachment to this text10. 9 Goold, J.C. and P.J. Fish. 1998. Broadband spectra of seismic survey air-gun emissions, with reference to dolphin auditory thresholds. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103(4):2177-2184. 10 SCAR 2002. http://www.scar.org/treaty/acoustics_2002.pdf Canadian Science Advisory http://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/csas/Csas/DocREC/2004/RES2004_121_e.pdf UK Marine Mammal Commission 2006 http://www.mmc.gov/sound/fullsoundreport.pdf IWC http://www.iwcoffice.org/_documents/sci_com/SCRepFiles2006/Annex%20K[FINAL]sq.pdf DNV 2007. Effects of seismic surveys on fish, fish catches and sea mammals. Report for the Cooperation group - Fishery Industry and Petroleum Industry. Report no.: 2007-0512 http://www.olf.no/?50345.pdf Page 7 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation 0DULQH PDPPDOV All marine mammals vocalise and different species use sound for communication to differing extents. For example, the Odontocete (toothed) cetaceans depend on sound as a means of detecting prey and have sophisticated adaptations for echolocation. The large Mysticete (baleen) whales produce sound below the human hearing range and it is speculated that this is used for communication over vast distances in the ocean. The extent and importance of underwater sound to the dugong, is less well known. In terms of noise impacts, marine mammals can only be affected by frequencies that they can hear. Acoustics, rather than be viewed as a single ‘sense’, is best viewed as several layers of sense with higher frequencies being as different to lower frequencies, in terms of detection, as sight is to sound. This complicates the issue of impact assessment as different species use a wide range of frequencies ranging from about 12 Hz to over 100 kHz. Different species ideally need to be considered on the merits of their individual biology. There is, however, little data on many species and the practical reality of seismic survey impact-mitigation is that it needs to operate on the basis of generic best practice. Nonetheless, there is scope for separately considering some groups with different behavioural and biological characteristics. &DWHJRULVLQJ LPSDFWV It is normal when assessing impacts to categorise them into short or long-term and direct or indirect impacts. For the purpose of this assessment, direct impacts are also divided into physiological impacts and behavioural impacts as these two issues are treated quite differently in legislation and in terms of developing impact mitigation measures. Short-term direct impacts would include acoustic trauma, which affects hearing and can cause temporary or permanent damage to hearing cells. Short-term behavioural impacts include disturbance, which could be manifested as localised avoidance, abandonment of feeding areas or any other human-induced behavioural change. This also includes masking effects, where noise interferes with an animal’s ability to hear other members of its species or detect its prey. Short-term impacts, compared to long-term impacts are, by their ephemeral nature, less likely to result in a significant biological impact as long as they are managed in a way that does not cause irreversible long-term damage. They are also easier to monitor and can be mitigated directly. Table 1 Potential impacts of seismic surveying on marine mammals Short-term Long-term Direct Physiological Damage to hearing Cumulative hearing damage Acoustic masking Non-acoustic impacts Gordon et al 2005 http://www.pelagosinstitute.gr/en/pelagos/pdfs/Gordon%20et%20al.%202004,%20Review%20of%20Sei smic%20Surveys%20Effects.pdf Page 8 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Behavioural Localised avoidance Increased energy demand Halting feeding Increased risk of predation Increased stress Decreased ability to detect prey Habituation Starvation Indirect Loss of habitat Lowered immunity Loss of prey Increased risk of predation Loss of habitat for prey Starvation Long-term direct impacts are less well understood and might be considered to represent increased risk of significant biological impact if a particularly sensitive population of a species is regularly exposed to seismic survey noise. The effect could be exacerbated if the animal is permanently resident. Long-term physiological impacts might include incremental hearing damage resulting in the premature death of animals and an increase in overall mortality as a result of increased predation risk and an inability to feed. Non-physiological impacts such as behavioural disturbance also have the potential to act over the longer term depending on the regularity of exposure and the sensitivity of a species. Indirect impacts on marine mammals are dependent on there being an impact on their prey, their habitat or the habitat of their prey. Short- and long-term risks to the prey of marine mammals (e.g. fish, squid and crustaceans) are similar to those outlined for marine mammals. Any indirect impacts might lower the feeding potential of any area and have knock-on effects for marine mammals. 'LUHFW SK\VLRORJLFDO LPSDFWV Hearing impacts most relevant to seismic surveys are usually subdivided into two key areas: Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS) and Permanent Threshold Shift (PTS). When animals are subjected to noise that damages inner ear functions, the threshold (lowest sound level) at which they can subsequently hear a particular frequency is raised. Temporary threshold shift (TTS) is the mildest form of hearing impairment that can occur during exposure to a strong sound11. While experiencing TTS, the hearing threshold rises and a sound must be stronger in order to be heard. TTS can last from minutes or hours to (in cases of strong TTS) days. However, it is a temporary phenomenon, and is generally not considered to represent physical damage or “injuryâ€?. Rather, the onset of TTS is an indicator that, if the animals is exposed to higher levels of that sound, physical damage is ultimately a possibility. The magnitude of TTS depends on the level and duration of noise exposure, among other considerations12. For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after exposure to the noise ends. Due to difficulties associated with experiments involving large whales there is no direct data regarding the level of noise likely to cause TTS in baleen whales. Only a few data on sound levels and durations necessary to elicit mild TTS have been obtained for 11 Kryter, K. D. (1985). "The Handbook of Hearing and the Effects of Noise" (2nd ed.). Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 12 Richardson, W J., Greene, C.R. Jr., Malme, C.I., and Thomson, D.H. (1995). "Marine Mammals and Noise." Academic Press, New York. Page 9 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation marine mammals, and none of the published data concern TTS elicited by exposure to multiple pulses of sound, such as would occur from piling. Schlundt et al, (2000)13 exposed bottlenose dolphins and white whales to tones in the range 0.4-75 kHz with levels up to 202 dB re 1µPa, in order to investigate hearing threshold changes. They did find the whales exhibited TTS, but that the hearing of all subjects returned to normal within a few days. This suggested that these whales had not suffered any sub-lethal effects from exposure. For toothed whales exposed to single short pulses, the TTS threshold appears to be, to a first approximation, a function of the energy content of the pulse (Finneran et al. 2002)14. In their review of published experiments Gordon et al (2004)15 considered the potential for TTS from impulse noises and concluded that the threshold for TTS for small toothed whales was approximately 195 dB re 1 µPa. This value is consistent with the review and calculations contained within Richardson and Moulton (2006)16, who considered the TTS threshold for impulse noises to be 192 to 202 dB re 1 µPa, and reasonably consistent with the value presented by DEWR17 of 186 dB re 1 µPa. Using calculations derived from acceptable human exposure limits the US National Marine Fisheries Service concluded that cetaceans should not be exposed to pulsed underwater noise at received levels exceeding 180 dB re 1 Pa (rms). The 180 dB (rms) levels are not considered to be the levels above which TTS might occur. Rather, they are the received levels above which, in the view of a panel of bioacoustics specialists convened by NMFS before any TTS measurements for marine mammals were available, one could not be certain that there would be no injurious effects, auditory or otherwise, to marine mammals. As discussed above, TTS data that have subsequently become available imply that, at least for dolphins, TTS is unlikely to occur unless the dolphins are exposed to noise pulses stronger than 180 dB re 1 Pa rms. Marine mammals are occasionally curious of active airguns or even approach them while they are firing and there are plenty of similar anecdotal accounts from the crew of seismic vessels for other marine mammals, including Mysticete whales. This has been an issue of some contention because whilst it is interesting that marine mammals will approach airguns occasionally, it is not possible to assume that they are beyond harm. It might be reasonable to assume that most marine mammals would avoid venturing too close to an airgun array to be injured, and ‘too close’ might be considered a received level of about 193 dBre1 Pa or no closer than 200 to 1000m. 13 Schlundt, C. E., J. J. Finneran, D. A. Carder, and S. H. Ridgway. 2000. Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds of bottlenose dolphins and white whales after exposure to intense tones. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 107, 3496-3508. 14 Finneran, J. J., C. E. Schlundt, R. Dear, D. A. Carder, and S. H. Ridgway. 2002. Temporary shift in masked hearing thresholds in odontocetes after exposure to single underwater impulses from a seismic watergun. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 111, 2929-2940. 15 Gordon, J. Gillespie, D. Potter, J. Frantzis, A. Simmonds, M. P. Swift, R. Thompson, D. 2004. A Review of the Effects of Seismic Surveys on Marine Mammals. Marine Technology Society Journal 37: 16-34. 16 Richardson WJ and Moulton V (2006), DRAFT Environmental Assessment of a Planned Low-Energy Marine Seismic Survey by the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the South Pacific Ocean, Appendix A. http://www.nsf.gov/geo/oce/pubs/scripps_seismic_southpac_dec2006_EA.pdf 17 DEWR, 2007 Background paper to EPBC Policy Statement 2.1 Interaction between offshore seismic exploration and whales. http://www.environment.gov.au/epbc/publications/seismic/pubs/seismic-whales- background.pdf Page 10 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation %HKDYLRXUDO LPSDFWV There are no reliable published thresholds for disturbance as the vulnerability of animals to disturbance depends on a complex array of factors. These would include the behaviour of the animal at the time of exposure; the age and sex of the animal; whether it has a calf present; whether it is aware of the approach of the noise source or associates it with any threat; and whether it has habituated or not. Behavioural responses to airgun noise include swimming away from the source, rapid swimming on the surface and breaching (McCauley et al., 1998, 2000). The level of noise at which response is elicited varies between species and even between individuals within a species18. Stone (2003)19 suggests that different groups of cetaceans adopt different strategies for responding to acoustic disturbance from seismic surveys with baleen and killer whales displaying localised avoidance, pilot whales showing few effects and sperm whales showing no observed effects. Richardson HW DO (1995 at p. 300) notes that: µ%DOHHQ ZKDOHV VHHP TXLWH WROHUDQW RI ORZ DQG PRGHUDWH OHYHO QRLVH SXOVHV IURP GLVWDQW VHLVPLF VXUYH\V 7KH\ XVXDOO\ FRQWLQXH WKHLU QRUPDO DFWLYLWLHV ZKHQ H[SRVHG WR SXOVHV ZLWK UHFHLYHG OHYHOV DV KLJK DV  G% UH —3D DQG VRPHWLPHV HYHQ KLJKHU¶ A comprehensive study carried out by McCauley, HW DO (1998)20 monitored the effects of seismic survey noise on humpback whales in the Exmouth Gulf region of Western Australia whales were reported to approach single airguns, perhaps mistaking the sound for a whale breach which has similar source levels and characteristics. Changes in behaviour of some migrating humpback whales were recorded at distances of 5 to 8 km and some exhibited avoidance at about 3 km from source. Blue whales ‘call’ in the frequency range 10 to 20hz at noise levels of up to 183 dB re 1µPa. It is probable that they can hear over a much wider range that encompasses, at least in part, the frequency at which the airguns will operate. McCauley21 has summarised reported observations of blue whales and seismic made by McDonald HW DO (1995) as follows: µ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—3D SS DW WKH ZKDOH RU WR PHUFKDQW VKLSSLQJ QRLVH HVWLPDWHG WR EH XS WR  G% UH —3D PVS DW WKH ZKDOH 7KH SHDNSHDN OHYHOV DUH DSSUR[LPDWHO\  G% DERYH WKH PVS YDOXH 7KXV WKH UHFHLYHG DLUJXQ OHYHO DW ZKLFK QR GHWHFWDEOH UHVSRQVHV ZHUH REVHUYHG ZDV DURXQG  G% UH —3D PVS¶ Based on this it would be expected that blue whales would show no detectable response beyond a range of 3 to 5 km from the source, depending on heading of the source and seabed conditions. Toothed whales produce a wide range of whistles, clicks, pulsed sounds and echolocation clicks. The frequency range of toothed whale sounds excluding echo location clicks are mostly 18 Richardson et al., op cit. 12 19 Stone CJ., 2003. The Effects of Seismic Activity on Marine Mammals in UK Waters. JNCC Report No. 323. Joint Nature Conservation Committee, Aberdeen 20 McCauley, RD., Jenner, MN., Jenner. C., McCabe KA and Murdoch J., 1998. The response of humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae) to offshore seismic survey noise: preliminary results of observations about a working vessel and experimental exposures. APPEA Journal, 38 (1): 692-707. 21 Ibid Page 11 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation <20 kHz with most of the energy typically around 10 kHz, although some calls may be as low as 100 to 900 Hz. Source levels range from 100 to 180 dB re 1 µPa22. The sounds produced other than echo location clicks are very complex in many species and appear to be used for communication between members of a pod in socialising and coordinating feeding activities. There is little systematic data on the behavioral response of toothed whales to seismic surveys. Richardson et al (1995) reports that sperm whales appeared to react by moving away from surveys and ceasing to call even at great distances from a survey. However in a recent study supported by the US Minerals Management Service23 two controlled exposure experiments were carried out (including one with three simultaneously tagged whales) to monitor the response of sperm whales to seismic source. The whales were exposed to a maximum received level of 148 dB re 1µPa. There was no indication that the whales showed horizontal avoidance of the seismic vessel nor was there any detected change in feeding rates of the tagged sperm whales. Smaller toothed cetaceans have poor hearing in the low frequency range of air-gun array noise (10 to 300 Hz) and seismic operators sometimes report dolphins and other small toothed whales near operating airgun arrays. However there is a component of seismic pulses in the higher spectrum and in general most toothed whales to show some limited avoidance of operating seismic vessels. Goold (1996)24 studied the effects of 2D seismic surveys on common dolphins in the Irish Sea. The results indicated that there was a local displacement of dolphins around the seismic operation. This observation is consistent with data compiled by Stone (2003)25 from marine mammal observers onboard seismic vessels in the North Sea that shows a significant portion of the population of small toothed whale species tend to move away from operating airguns (refer to Figure 4). Figure 4 Proportion of marine mammal sightings occurring within specified distances of the airguns during surveys26 $FRXVWLF PDVNLQJ Masking is likely to occur when a noise is close to the frequency of interest and overlaps with the ‘masking band’ for that frequency. Masking only occurs when the signal to noise ratio is poor that is, when an animal close to a loud sound may not be able to hear other sounds of interest to it such as others of its species, its prey, returning echolocation pulses or predators. The point at which this happens is known as the ‘critical ratio’. The critical ratio for most 22 Richardson et al 1995. op cit. 12 23 Madsen et al 2006 http://www.awionline.org/oceans/Noise/IONC/Docs/Madsen_2006.pdf Jochens, A.E. and D.C. Biggs (eds.). 2003. Sperm whale seismic study in the Gulf of Mexico; Annual Report: Year 1. U.S. Dept. of the Int., Min. Manage. Serv., Gulf of Mexico OCS Region, New Orleans, LA. OCS Study MMS 2003-069. 139 p. 24 Goold, J.C. 1996. Acoustic assessment of populations of common dolphin Delphinus delphis in conjunction with seismic surveying. J. Mar. Biol. Assoc. U.K. 76:811-820. 25 Stone 2003. op cit. 19 26 Ibid. Page 12 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation species is unknown and it is uncertain whether marine mammals rely on the detection of very low sound levels as part of their ecology. Masking is considered likely to be more of an issue at the lower frequencies where the masking bandwidth is generally wider than at high frequencies. These are also the frequencies at which seismic produces the loudest broadband sounds. Gordon et al27 suggest that structured, stereotyped and repeated sounds may have built-in redundancy (i.e. animals are likely to be adapted to ignore such sounds). Effects of masking are also reduced when sounds come from different directions and may only be a problem when an animal tries to hear a sound from the direction of a noise source. There are no direct data on masking associated with seismic sound and most studies relate to tonal and continuous sound, which is largely not relevant to seismic surveys. It is not possible, therefore, to reliably quantify potential impacts or significance from masking. )LVK The variation among fishes in respect to sensitivity to sound is immense, and is in part due to the diversity of anatomical structures involved in detection28. Fish that have morphological adaptations to link the otolithic hearing organs to their swimbladders or have gas filled bullae are considered ‘hearing specialists’. Audiograms of ‘hearing specialists’ show high sensitivity to sounds with sound levels as low as 60 dB re 1 Pa (msp to tones) across a broad frequency range. Fish of the family Clupeoidea, which includes herring (Clupea harengus), anchovy (Engraulis australis), pilchard (Sardinops sagax) and sprat (Sprattus sprattus) are examples of hearing specialists having highly specialised auditory systems. Many fish have a swimbladder (rather than the bulla of Clupeoidea) that is physically linked to the inner ear. The swimbladder is a gas-filled cavity that from a hearing point of view, can act to transfer an impinging sound wave’s pressure information, as driven by the swimbladder, to the fish ear end organs or otolith systems29. Fish with the prootic bulla generally have higher sensitivity than those with a swimbladder, and those with a swimbladder usually have greater sensitivity than non-specialists with no swimbladder. A number of experimental studies on fish subjected to individual air-gun shots at various depths and ranges have indicated that the shots were not lethal and resulted in no gross pathological damage30. Those fish without swim bladders and invertebrates are more resistant to the effects of seismic activity31. Modelling the fish ear predicted that at ranges less than 2 km from a seismic source the ear would begin to experience a rapid increase in displacement parameters. Most ears work by a set of hairs, attached to an otolith or in fluid, that move back and forward with the passing sound waves that translates into nerve impulses. The displacement 27 Gordon et al. op cit. 15 28 Popper, AN. and. Fay RR. 1993. Sound detection and processing by fish: critical review and major research questions. Brain Behav. Evol. 41: 14-38 29 Popper & Fay, 1993. op cit 28. 30 Swan JM., Neff JM and Young PC., (Eds) 1994. Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas Development in Australia – the Findings of an Independent Scientific Review, Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Sydney 31 Ibid Page 13 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation parameters are measurements of these movements. Loud noise pushes the hairs too far so they may become numb and take time to recover, or become graunched and don’t recover, resulting in deafness. Captive fish exposed to short range air gun signals were seen to have some damaged hearing structures, but showed no evidence of increased stress32. In a separate more recent study Popper et al (2005) examined threshold shifts for three fish exposed to airgun shots. They found that two of the three did show some degree of TTS, with recovery within 24 hours of exposure, while there was no threshold shift in the third species. It was concluded that these three species are not likely to be substantially impacted by exposure to an airgun array. However care must be taken in extrapolation to other species and to fishes exposed to airguns in deeper water or where the animals are exposed to a larger number of airgun shots over a longer period of time. Studies have shown that fish will demonstrate behavioural responses to seismic noise33. McCauley’s research on captive fish34 showed a generic fish ‘alarm’ response of swimming faster, swimming to the bottom, tightening school structure, or all three, at an estimated 2 to 5 km from a seismic source. The caged fish also demonstrated a ‘startle’ response, evidenced by sharp ‘c-turns’ away from the noise source, at a sound level of 182 to 195 dB re 1 Pa which is equivalent to about 0.2-0.8 km from a seismic source. A study by Pearson et al35 observed that all startle and alarm responses exhibited by the fish ceased within minutes after exposure to the air-gun noise, indicating that ‘any affects were transient in nature and some degree of habituation to the air-gun ‘shots’ did occur.’ Under experimental conditions, sub-lethal and/or physiological effects, including effects on hearing, have sometimes been observed in fish exposed to airgun noise36. The experimental design of these various experiments and the lack of consistent units for reporting received sound energy levels have made it difficult to determine either what intensity of sound was responsible for the observed damage to ear structures, or the biological significance of the damage that was observed. Simulated field experiments attempting to study such effects have been inconclusive. Currently, there is insufficient information to evaluate the likelihood of sub-lethal or physiological effects under field operating conditions. The ecological significance of these effects, where they occur, could range from trivial to important, depending on their nature (DFO, 2004). 32 McCauley RD., Fewtrell, J and Popper AN., 2003. High intensity anthropogenic sound damages fish ears, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Vol 113 (1): 638-642 33 Gausland, I., 2000. Impact of seismic surveys on marine life. The Leading Edge, August 2000, 903- 905. http://www.olf.no/?18379.pdf 34 Ibid 35 Pearson WH, Skalski JR & CI Malme, 1992. Effects of sounds from a geophysical survey device on behaviour of captive rockfish (Sebastes spp.). Can. J. Fisheries and Aquatic Sci 49: 1343 - 1356. 36 For example: Wardle CS, Carter TJ, Urquhart GG & Johnstone ADF, 2001. Effects of seismic air guns on marine fish.Cont. Shelf Res. 21: 1005 – 1027; BjartiT, 2002. Experiment on how seismic shooting affects caged fish. Faroese Fisheries Lab (Aberdeen University). http://www.anp.gov.br/brasil- rounds/round6/guias/SISMICA/SISMICA_R6/biblio/Biblio2004/An%20experiment%20on%20how%20 seismic%20shooting%20affects%20caged%20fish%20.pdf Page 14 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation The threshold received sound exposure levels (SELs) that could result in various sub- lethal and/or physiological effects are: • onset of short term reversible loss in hearing sensitivity (temporary threshold shift - TTS) at >180 dB re 1 Pa2.s (site-attached species); • onset of longer term loss in hearing sensitivity (TTS/permanent threshold shift – PTS) at >187 dB re 1 Pa2.s (site-attached species); and • TTS onset but no injury to non-auditory tissues to ~ 1 kg sized fish at >200 dB re 1 Pa2.s (site-attached species). ,QYHUWHEUDWHV Most marine invertebrates have poorly developed mechano-sensory systems and would therefore be little affected by seismic noise. Except for larvae, fish eggs and other minute planktonic organisms within perhaps a few metres of survey activity, no planktonic organisms are likely to be significantly affected by airgun array discharges. Several studies have shown that cephalopods respond to sound. Recently McCauley et al37 reported several squid responding strongly to a single 20 cui air-gun starting up 30 m away. At the initiation of the first air-gun signal several caged squid fired their ink sacs and jetted to the cage end furthermost from the air-gun. On presentation of signals more gently ramped up, by starting from a longer range, caged squid did not show the vigorous startle response seen from the nearby startup, but did show behavioural changes suggestive of avoidance behaviour at around 156-161 dB re 1µPa msp, received levels. Budelmann (1983) has summarised hearing in Crustacea. He points out that all Crustacea possess statocyst organs, which are functionally similar to those of cephalopods. These organs consist of one to many dense calcareous stones (statoliths) overlying a membrane with cuticular hairs38. Motions of the statoliths cause shearing forces on the hairs, which results in a nervous signal. This system is functionally similar to the otolith-macula system of fishes. It is possible that the differential statolith-cuticular hair shearing forces can be set up by an impinging sound wave exciting the statolith and not the hair-cell, due to their different densities. Therefore it is possible that these systems can respond to the particle motion component of sound waves. There is no evidence that this occurs in Crustaceans. One of the most detailed studies to date on the effects of seismic airgun energy on crustaceans is that of Christian et al. (2003)39 that conducted experiments on snow crabs before and after controlled exposures to seismic pulses from 40 cubic inch (cui) and 200 cui airguns. No marked decrease in catch rate was detected after seismic acquisition had commenced, but the apparent lack of impact was not statistically conclusive. Another experiment involved caged snow crabs located 50 m beneath a seven gun array, in which no immediate startle responses were observed via video camera. Stress indicators in the haemolymph of adult male snow crabs (proteins, enzymes, cell type count) were monitored immediately and 12 weeks after their 37 McCauley et al 2000. op cit 8 38 Budelmann 1983; Sekiguchi and Terazawa, 1997 39 Christian JR, Mathieu A, Thomson DC, White D and . Buchanan RA 2003. Effect of Seismic Energy on Snow Crab (Chionoecetes opilio). http://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/NE23-122-2003E.pdf Page 15 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation exposure to 197-225 dB re 1 Pa (0-p) energy. No significant differences were detected between exposed and unexposed control crabs. The snow crab exposure experiments also included exposing adult male crabs, egg- carrying females and fertilized snow crab eggs to 200 pulses (one every 10 seconds) from the same 40 and 200 cubic inch airguns. These produced received sound pressure levels of 197 to 225 dB re 1 Pa (0-p). While neither acute nor chronic mortality occurred to the adult male or female crabs, a single egg mass exposed to this intense energy was shown to develop a higher proportion of less-developed eggs than for an unexposed egg mass. However, the exposure regime used for this experiment was far above that experienced by benthic fauna from typical seismic surveys, thereby increasing the chance of detecting a sound-induced effect. Hence, the majority of benthic crustaceans will only exhibit a behavioural response to airgun pulses at extremely close range, which means that only surveys run in very shallow water will have any effect. A conservative figure for the minimum depth for a response would be at 15 metres from the array (McCauley, 199440). Any disturbance to benthic crustaceans immediately beneath an airgun array would be extremely short-lived as they would be only exposed to one or two pulses before the source moves out of the potential range within which any disturbance may occur. There is very limited published literature on the potential impacts of seismic pulses on sessile benthic organisms, including scleractinian corals. For hard corals, it is anticipated that some protection against the seismic source will be provided by the calciferous skeleton surrounding the polyps. As the polyps do not contain voids or internal airspaces, thus, it is thought that any vibration caused by pressure pulses from an airgun discharge will not be significant enough to remove or damage polyps from the protection of the calcium carbonate skeleton. Soft corals are more directly exposed to the sound impulses, however the relatively slow period of the seismic pulse is not considered sufficient to cause physiological damage to these organisms. Exploration and Appraisal Drilling Once seismic surveys have identified a prospective subsurface structure, drilling is needed to confirm whether it contains hydrocarbons. Drilling programs can be categorised into three types: 1. exploration drilling: drilling programs in mature or semi-mature basins where previous drilling experience or seismic surveys have been undertaken 2. wildcats: drilling programs in areas with no previous exploration history 3. appraisal drilling: drilling programs undertaken to assess the spatial extent and hydrocarbon reserves of known fields. 40 McCauley, RD., 1994. The environmental implications of offshore oil and gas development in Australia – seismic surveys. In: Swan, JM., Neff, JM. and Young, PC., (eds.). Environmental Implications of Offshore Oil and Gas Development in Australia – The Findings of an Independent Scientific Review, pp19–122. Australian Petroleum Exploration Association, Sydney. Page 16 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation In general, exploration activity in place in waters less than 1km deep. However, in some cases exploration and appraisal drilling occurs in waters in excess of 1km, and occasionally drilling exceeds 3km. If no hydrocarbons are found, the well is plugged and abandoned. In the event hydrocarbons are found the well is still generally plugged. However, depending on whether the well will be used for development/production, plugging may be suspended. Before drilling takes place, the industry needs to gather information about the nature of the seabed surface, ocean conditions, weather conditions and, most importantly, any potential effects on marine wildlife and plant life. This information is collected through a variety of means including site surveys, preliminary exploration activities and seismic surveys. Once this data has been obtained, collated and analysed, the decision is taken on whether to proceed. If the conditions are right to continue with the project, the next stage is to drill an exploration well down into the rock formations beneath the seabed. Exploration wells are typically drilled vertically using a mobile offshore drilling unit (MODU). All MODUs are supported by at least two supply vessels. These vessels tow the MODU to the drilling location, and transfer equipment between rigs and the mainland. One vessel is constantly on stand-by near the MODU. Different types of offshore rigs used to drill exploration wells are listed below. Jackups: These are usually towed to the drill location. Once a jack up platform is in position, the three legs are jacked down from the unit to the sea floor to take the weight of the platform (referred to as ‘pre-loading’) and the hull is jacked-up clear of the sea surface. These are generally used in waters to about 160m deep. Drill ship: These look like ordinary ships but have a derrick on top, which drills through a hole in the hull. Drill ships are either anchored or positioned with computer- controlled propellers along the hull, which continually correct the ships drift. These are often used to drill ‘wells in deep waters (over 1km). Semi submersible: These are mobile structures, some with their own locomotion. Their superstructures are supported by columns sitting on hulls or pontoons which are ballasted below the water surface, providing stability in rough, deep seas. They are held stationary by a series of eight large anchors and chains with the support vessels deploying and retrieving the anchors. Semi submersible platforms have also been used in water depths less than 50m. If an exploration or wildcat well yields positive results, the next stage is to drill a number of appraisal wells at different points in the seabed to establish the size and structure of the reservoir and identify the recovery factor. Once this data has been obtained and analysed, the decision must be taken whether to develop the field. This depends on numerous factors including environmental acceptability. At times an appraisal well may be used to undertake extended production testing to facilitate a better assessment of the commercial viability of a reservoir or to determine Page 17 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation the optimum way of bringing the reservoir into production. To achieve these objectives it may be necessary to produce oil for three or more months. The program will involve: • drilling of a horizontal well or directional drilling (it is important to note that an appraisal well may begin as a vertical well and then be deviated from the vertical to close to horizontal within the hydrocarbon-bearing stratum) • production of hydrocarbons to the surface • processing the hydrocarbons to stabilize it on the MODU. Most exploration and appraisal activities are short term in nature, typically completed within 15 to 60 days depending on the wells depth, substratum type and the technical difficulty encountered. Impacts of the activity tend to be focused on a particular site and occur within a one kilometre radius of that site. The major potential environmental effects from offshore drilling operations result from the discharge of waste, including drilling fluids and drill cuttings. Other potential impacts include noise, benthic disturbance from anchor damage and oil spills. Synthesis of International Practise for Seismic Survey Management Guidelines for the management of offshore seismic surveys have been identified for Australia, Brazil, Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and some jurisdictions of the United States (Gulf of Mexico and California). Investigations did not result in data on guidelines for seismic survey activities in the jurisdiction of Denmark, Norway or South Africa. In the case of South Africa, individual exploration programmes are subject to environmental assessment, with seismic survey operators sometimes delaying survey programmes to avoid whale migration periods and with observers onboard seismic vessels responsible for monitoring marine mammals and reporting any observable reactions. It is reasonable to assume that ad hoc cetacean protection arrangements, possibly voluntary, may exist in other jurisdictions. A detailed comparison of the component elements of each of the guidelines reviewed is presented in Table 2, noting: 1. Identification of the managing authority 2. The title of the guidelines 3. The status (Draft/Final) and proclamation date 4. The legislative basis to the guidelines 5. The objective of that legislation 6. The geographical area to which the guidelines applied 7. The objective of the guidelines 8. The taxa to which the guidelines applied 9. The taxa which were specifically excluded from the guidelines 10. Observer competency and training requirements 11. Pre-start visual monitoring 12. Requirements for visual observations during survey 13. Aerial surveys and stand off vessels requirements Page 18 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation 14. Night and low visibility visual monitoring requirements 15. Shut-down and re-start procedures requirements 16. Allowance for species specific protection in certain areas and in certain seasons Administering Agency There was no consistent pattern for the responsibility for administration of the respective national guidelines. In the case of Australia, Brazil and New Zealand, the primary responsibility is vested with environmental management and conservation agencies, while in Canada it was the national fisheries regulator. The Joint Nature Conservation Council (JNCC) is responsible for development and implementation of the guidelines in the UK, in association with the UK Department of Trade (DTI) and Industry. It is understood that the JNCC has no statutory authority for imposition of its guidelines, but this is addressed via DTI regulations making observation of the guidelines a condition of exploration approvals. Responsibility for the development and imposition of procedures in the US is somewhat confused, essentially shared between two Acts of Congress (the Marine Mammal Protection Act [MMPA] and the Endangered Species Act) and a number of government agencies. US agencies with responsibilities in this area include the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), both within the Department of Commerce; the Minerals Management Service, within the Department of the Interior; and to a lesser extent, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), also within the Department of the Interior. For example, under the MMPA, the Secretary of Commerce is responsible for cetaceans and pinnipeds, except walruses, while the Secretary of the Interior is responsible for walruses and sirenians Status None of the identified guidelines have been in effect for more than a few years, with no evidence of any being in place in a formal sense before 2001, although informal procedures may have existed before then. Considering their age it may be concluded that none of the present guidelines should be considered as mature or thoroughly tested. With the exception of the US guidelines, all others appear to be promulgated as standard procedures. This compares to the case of the US where guidelines appear to be developed and posted on the basis of individual applications to conduct seismic operations. The Canadian guidelines follow closely those of the US. The New Zealand requirements were developed through a multi-party forum and were finalized in February 2006. Legislative basis and objectives of legislation Dependent upon the jurisdiction, guidelines derive their authority from legislation focused upon environment protection and biological conservation, management of petroleum resources or fisheries, and in the case of the US, legislation dealing specifically with marine mammal protection. It should be noted, however, that in this Page 19 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation case the US Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) is only one of the legislative bases for the US measures. As would be expected, the MMPA specifically deals with protection of marine mammals, some of the specific concerns and objectives being that: • certain species and population stocks of marine mammals are, or may be, in danger of extinction or depletion as a result of human activities; • marine mammal species and population stocks should not be permitted to diminish beyond the point at which they cease to be a significant functioning element in the ecosystem of which they are a part, and they should not be permitted to diminish below their optimum sustainable population level; and • there is inadequate knowledge of the ecology and population dynamics of marine mammals. The MMPA established a moratorium, with certain exceptions, on the taking of marine mammals in US waters and by US citizens on the high seas. The stance of the MMPA is effectively replicated by the Australian EPBC Act, in so much as the EPBC Act prohibits the killing, injury or harassment of any cetaceans anywhere within the Australian waters. As with the MMPA extending its related provisions to US citizens anywhere on “the high seasâ€?, the EPBC Act also extends to control activities by Australian citizens or companies in waters beyond Australian waters. Area of application In most cases the guidelines applied in waters within the respective national jurisdiction. The only apparent exception to this was the US guidelines, which appear to be applied to specified areas (i.e. Gulf of Mexico and Gulf of California). Taxa protected In all cases except Australia, the guidelines state that they are designed to protect “marine mammalsâ€? and then specifically mention whales, dolphins/porpoises and seals. Australia guidelines apply to large whales (which includes including the larger Delphinidae species such as killer whales, false killer whales and pilot whales). None of the guidelines specifically mention sirenians (dugongs and manatees). Only the two US guidelines and those of Canada note protection of sea turtles. Monitoring, Start-Up And Shutdown Requirements 9LVXDO PRQLWRULQJ All national guidelines reviewed base their monitoring and mitigation measures upon visual observation of a pre-defined whale/marine mammal exclusion zone. Some of the national guidelines require that the marine mammal observers (MMOs) be dedicated to the task, whereas other do not specify and so it may be assumed that this Page 20 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation function may be performed, for example, by other personnel standing watch on the bridge of the survey vessel. The UK guidelines stipulate the use of suitably qualified or experienced MMOs in areas/times of “sufficiently highâ€? cetacean sensitivities. The New Zealand guidelines require that a dedicated marine mammal coordinator be present on the vessel and that this person is to be responsible for supervision of marine mammal observations and reporting. In areas of high ecological importance the an independent trained marine mammal observer or someone experienced in marine mammal observations may be requested by the authorizing department. The Australian guidelines require that MMOs should be trained and experienced in whale identification and behaviour, distance estimation, and are capable of making accurate identifications and observations. Within Australia the oil and gas industry companies have developed a training package for identification and observation of whales. Otherwise, only the UK, Canadian and two US guidelines promulgate any standard training or competency requirements for whale observers. In the case of the Gulf of Mexico and Canadian guidelines, all whale observers must have completed a protected species observer course, The Gulf of California guidelines stipulate a minimum of four dedicated whale observers, however only one of the need be approved by the NMFS. The UK guidelines stipulate at least two MMOs be onboard during the Northern summer. None of the other guidelines provide detail on any minimum number of observers. Regarding observer procedures, the US guidelines for the Gulf of Mexico are the most detailed; also defining where observers are to view from and the minimum watch rotation standards to be adhered to. This level of detail reflects the codified, formalised context of environmental protection characteristic of the United States, a legalistic approach not necessarily resulting in more beneficial environmental outcomes. All guidelines focus upon visual observation procedures, with some specifying that binoculars are to be used. The US Gulf of California guidelines stipulate the use of infra-red (IR) or other night vision devices during night-time operations. 3UHVWDUW PRQLWRULQJ DQG VWDUWXS SURFHGXUHV All guidelines require a period of visual observation before activation of the seismic source. This period is 30 minutes for all countries. For the UK, Canadian and Gulf of Mexico procedures, a zone of 500 m, centred upon the seismic array, is monitored. The New Zealand guidelines state two exclusion zones; one for 1,500 m that applies only to ‘species of concern’ (i.e. all species commonly known as whales as well as Hector’s and Maui’s dolphins); the other for 200 m applies to all other marine mammals. An exclusion zone of only 50 m applies for the Gulf of California, although this reflects the lower power energy source understood to be in use for seismic in that state. Page 21 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation All guidelines require ‘soft start’ or ‘ramp up’ procedures. These generally require source power to be built up slowly starting with the smallest air gun and gradually adding others, the time period for a soft start is generally 20-40 minutes, with the rationale being that this is long enough to allow marine mammals to leave the vicinity and short enough to minimise unnecessary noise. Generally, soft starts are to be used even if no listed species have been observed in the respective exclusion zones; this is listed in nearly all the guidelines and assumed in the other. Some of the guidelines indicate that soft starts should only occur during conditions of daylight. Although this is not stipulated by the Australian guidelines, it is implied by the requirement that the exclusion zone is to be continuously monitored during start-up. Ramp-up of arrays begins with the smallest airgun (typically 80 cui), with others added in sequence such that the source level is increased in steps not exceeding 6 dB per 5 minute period. The assumption that ramp-ups are effective has not been formally tested but several studies on the effects of anthropogenic noise on marine mammals indicate that marine mammals do move away from loud human sources. In addition, three species of baleen whale have been the subject of tests involving single airgun exposures, which is equivalent to the first stage of ramp-up. All three species were observed to move away at the onset of these sources. The NMFS has therefore concluded that ramp-ups do encourage marine mammals to move away from a source before its levels become potentially injurious, unless some over-riding biological response keeps them from leaving the area. While some species may detect and genuinely choose to ignore loud airgun signals, toothed whales and dolphins with relatively insensitive low frequency hearing (below 300 Hz) and/or swimming very close to the surface may not receive or perceive the acoustic energy because it is beyond their optimal hearing range and/or highly attenuated. This may explain why reports of dolphins bow-riding both seismic survey vessels as well as a range of noisy ships are not uncommon. However, the observing period and the power-down/shut- down criteria provide protection to non-responding mammals, such as those that do not hear the sound because of a hearing impairment, or chose not to react to the sound and risk exposure to temporary threshold shifts because of behavioural or physiological factors. A ramp-up study was proposed by the US Minerals Management Service (MMS) in 1999 but this has not been funded to date because the NMFS considers that testing ramp-up effectiveness is difficult without first establishing some mode of dose response (NMFS 2004a). This type of information is currently being obtained by the sperm whales Seismic Study (SWSS) in the Gulf of Mexico. Airgun operations are powered down if cetaceans are visually detected inside the safety radius. Power-down procedures typically leave one 50-80 cubic inch airgun continuing to operate throughout the interruption. If the whale continues to remain inside the safety radius after the array is powered-down, airgun operations will be fully shut-down. Airgun activity after power-down or shut-down do not resume until the whale is deemed to have cleared the safety radius (i.e. by visual observation of its departure, or if it has not been seen inside the zone for 15 minutes (small odontocetes) or 30 minutes (mysticetes and large odontocetes including sperm, pygmy sperm, dwarf sperm, beaked and bottlenose whales). Page 22 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation If a listed species is observed within the exclusion zone during start up, all guidelines require the seismic source to be shut down. Restart may occur once the nominated exclusion zone has been observed to be clear of nominated taxa for a specified period. In the case of Australia, Canada and the Gulf of Mexico, this period is 30 minutes following the last whale sighting; the United Kingdom guidelines specify 20 minutes. The Australian guidelines require that at night-time or at other times of low-visibility (e.g. during fog or periods of high winds), start up may be only be commenced: • provided that there have not been 3 or more whale instigated power-down or shut-down situations during the preceding 24 hour period; or • if operations were not previously underway during the preceding 24 hours, the vessel (and/or a spotter vessel or aircraft) has been in the vicinity (approx 10 km) of the proposed start up position for at least 2 hours (under good visibility conditions) and no whales have been sighted. /LQH VXUYH\ SURFHGXUHV As noted, visual monitoring is to be continual during start-up. Once surveying has commenced, revised visual monitoring regimes come into effect. For Australia, visual observations of 10 minute duration per hour will occur, however if a species nominated in the guidelines is sighted, continual observations should occur until two hours have passed since the last observation. New Zealand requires continual visual observations during daylight hours, as do the US procedures. The British guidelines do not require whale observers to be on watch during all daylight hours. If a listed species is observed within the nominated exclusion zone, all except the UK guidelines state that air gun firing is to cease. The Gulf of California procedures also permit changes in course and/or speed to keep the exclusion zone clear. As noted, this exclusion zone is: 50 m for the Gulf of California; 500 m for Australia, Canada and the Gulf of Mexico; 1,000 m for New Zealand, except for cow/calf pairs where it is 1,500 m. The shutdown/re-start requirements are all very similar, stating that the seismic sources won’t be started until listed species move out of the exclusion zone and are not sighted for between 15 minutes (small odontocetes and pinnipeds; Gulf of California guidelines) to 30 minutes (listed species, Australian, New Zealand and Gulf of Mexico guidelines; mysticetes and large odontocetes, Gulf of California guidelines). The UK guidelines differ, with 20 minutes after last sighting considered adequate. Once shutdown for any reason (e.g. marine mammal avoidance, maintenance, fault, line turn), it is expected in all guidelines that a full soft start will be used; however operations in the Gulf of Mexico are exempt if visual surveys are continued throughout the silent period and no listed species are observed in the exclusion zone. The Australian and New Zealand guidelines permit continued discharges during line turns. The UK guidelines permit this for turns taking less than five minutes; for turns of longer duration the seismic source should be shutdown r else reduced in source power level to 160 dB (re 1 µPa at 1 m), with suitable ramp up before resumption of Page 23 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation operations. The 160 dB source procedure is also permitted in the Canadian and Gulf of Mexico procedures. All guidelines require documentation and reporting of nominated species observed during survey activities. The UK guidelines are the only set that deals with ‘undershoot’ operations, where the seismic source may be towed by one vessel and the receiving array is towed by another. In these circumstances the guidelines require the whale observer to be onboard the seismic source vessel. Use of safety zones Following the recent UK DPI organised review of the 1998 JNCC guidelines, the 500 m radius safety zone adopted for the 2004 revision has remain unaltered. In the US, both the NFMS and MMC are continuing to support academic and naval research studies to help determine appropriate radii for the safety zones of loud sources including airgun arrays. The current interim 180 dB criterion used by the US NMFS for cetaceans was adopted before any data had become available on Temporary Threshold Shift (TTS), or its dependence on exposure duration, for any marine mammal species. The interim criterion was based largely on professional judgment and incorporates a substantial precautionary element. Some TTS data, including information about the relationship of TTS thresholds to exposure duration, have subsequently become available for odontocetes and pinnipeds. Richardson et al. (1995) noted, based on terrestrial mammal data, that the magnitude of TTS in marine mammals was expected to depend on the level and duration of noise exposure, among other considerations. Subsequent studies of TTS in marine mammals have confirmed this. For sound exposures at or somewhat above the TTS threshold, hearing sensitivity recovers rapidly after the noise exposure ends. For toothed whales exposed to single short pulses, the TTS threshold appears to be a function of the energy content of the pulse41. To produce a brief, mild TTS in these species, available data indicates the received level of a single seismic pulse needs to be in the order of 210 dB re 1 µPa (rms), which approximates to 221-226 dB re 1 µPa peak to peak). Exposure to several seismic pulses at received levels near 200-205 dB re 1 µPa (rms) might result in slight TTS in a small odontocete, assuming the TTS threshold is (to a first approximation) a function of the total received pulse energy (Finneran et al. 2002, in NFMS 2004a). Seismic pulses with received levels of 200-205 dB re 1 µPa or more are usually restricted to a radius of no more than 100 m around or below a seismic vessel (NMFS 2004a). While those odontocetes which chose to bow-ride or otherwise linger close to the vessel and its operating airguns must be at increased risk from TTS, the NMFS has noted that such animals are typically at or very close to the surface and 41 Finneran, J.J.,. Carder, DA.,. Schlundt CE and Ridgway SH. 2005. Temporary threshold shift in bottlenose dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) exposed to mid-frequency tones. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 118(4):2696-2705. http://www.awionline.org/oceans/Noise/IONC/Docs/Finneran_TTS_dolphins_2005.pdf Page 24 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation thus not exposed to strong sound pulses given the pressure-release effect at the air- water interface. While there are no direct or indirect experimental data that can help deduce the sound levels and properties that cause TTS in any baleen whale, most mysticetes tend to avoid seismic survey vessels and the ramp-up phase also allows them to move away and avoid exposure to the full output of the towed array. The Australian Department of the Environment and Water considered the available data and adopted a cautious approach that is aimed at preventing TTS impacts to baleen whales caused by the cumulative or additive effect of multiple air-gun (DEWR 2007)42. The DEWR use the criterion of 160 dB re 1 Pa2·s. Using this threshold, a baleen whale could be exposed to 33 minutes of 160 dB re 1 Pa2·s shots every 10 seconds (i.e stay within 1 km of the survey vessel as traveled approximately 6 km) before levels sufficient to cause TTS would be reached. Australian guidelines recognise three separate zones (refer to Figure below for an illustration of these zones. In the observation zone whales and their movements must be monitored to determine whether they are approaching or entering the low power zone. When a whale is sighted within or appears to enter the low power zone, the acoustic source must be powered down immediately to the lowest possible setting (e.g. a single small gun firing at ~10s intervals). When a whale is sighted within or appears to enter the shut-down zone, the acoustic source must be shut down immediately completely. The Canadian Science Advisory Secretariat in their review of seismic and marine mammal management actions (CSAS 2004)43 recommended that a similar zoned approach be adopted. 42 DEWR Policy Statement. op cit 17 43 Canadian Science Advisory op cit. 10 Page 25 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Figure 5 Area surrounding the acoustic source that must be monitored for the presence of whales, showing the three safety zones as described in the Australian seismic guidelines. Special requirements for selected areas and/or times Some of the guidelines require more stringent protection measures at certain times and/or in specified locations. The Australian, New Zealand and UK guidelines deal with area/season/species requirements by imposing limits on highly sensitive areas that include migratory routes and feeding, breeding or resting areas. As noted previously, the New Zealand guidelines afford extra protection to cow/calf pairs. Both Australia and the UK require extra visual observation effort at specified times. The British guidelines stipulate that extra observers are to be carried onboard seismic survey vessels operating above 57º North latitude over the period April to September. This is considered to reflect more the extended period of daylight in high latitudes over the summer months, and hence the provision of extra observers reduces individual workloads to manageable levels by reducing the watch keeping burden. For Australia, visual surveillance is expected to be conducted for least 30 minutes of every hour when operating near migratory paths (not necessarily active) (cf 10 minutes per hour normally), or continuously in feeding, breeding or resting areas and during peak Humpback migration periods. The Australian guidelines are the only ones that make mention of aerial surveying or surveys from a stand-off vessel. It is envisaged that these would be employed in areas/times of high sensitivity (e.g. feeding, breeding and resting areas and active migratory routes). Page 26 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Summary It is known that the transmission and attenuation of seismic signals can vary considerably and that the main cause of variation is source size, water depth and local environmental conditions. This transmission variation is sufficient to imply that management criteria cannot be applied uniformly to all seismic surveys since surveys with smaller sources operating in shallow water are not comparable with larger sources operating in deeper water. Mitigation of seismic environmental impacts are primarily achieved by removing timing overlaps with critical biological events, and secondarily by technical mechanisms to reduce the received sound exposures at nearby animals or by having in place stop work procedures to shut down operations if certain animals approach too closely Technical mechanisms to reduce exposures from seismic surveys include ramp up procedures, sources with lower amplitude but longer signals, and the design of arrays of air guns. Visual observations, listening for vocalising animals or using sonar to search for them can be used to monitor fauna around seismic vessels. All fauna monitoring techniques have degree of shortcomings, none cover all scenarios and multiple techniques will be most effective at identifying fauna close to seismic operations. Page 27 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Table 2 Synthesis of international practises for management of marine seismic surveys JURISDICTION Australia United Kingdom US (Gulf of Mexico) US (Gulf of California) Canada New Zealand Brazil MANAGING Department of the Joint Nature Minerals Management National Marine Department of Fisheries New Zealand IBAMA- the Brazilian AUTHORITY Environment and Water Conservation Service (MMS), Fisheries Service and Oceans (DFO) Department of Institute for the Resources Committee and Department of the (NMFS), National Conservation Te Papa Environment and Department of Trade Interior. Oceanic and Atawhai Natural Renewable and Industry Atmospheric Resources (JNCC/DTI) Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce. TITLE OF EPBC Act Policy Guidelines for Implementation of Small Takes of Marine Not known Guidelines for NB: The Brazilian GUIDELINES Statement 2.1 – Minimising Acoustic Seismic Survey Mammals Incidental to Minimising Acoustic guidelines were not Disturbance to Marine Mitigation Measures Specified Activities; Disturbance to Marine actually viewed, Interaction between Mammals From Seismic and Protected Species Oceanographic Surveys Mammals from Seismic offshore seismic Surveys Observer Program in the Southern Gulf of Survey Operations exploration and whales California STATUS In use since July 2007 In use since 1995, with Effective Date: 1 March Not stated Not known In use since July 2006 Not known most recent 2004 revision promulgated April 2004. LEGISLATIVE BASIS Environment Protection The Wildlife and Endangered Species Act Marine Mammal Not stated Not known and Countryside Act 1981 (ESA). Protection Ac (and Northern Ireland Biodiversity equivalent) prohibits Conservation Act 1999 deliberate killing, Marine Mammal (.the Act.) injuring or disturbance Protection Act of any cetacean. (MMPA). It is a binding condition Code of Federal for seismic surveys Regulations Title 30 . under the Petroleum Mineral Resources Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001 that the JNCC Guidelines be followed. Page 28 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation JURISDICTION Australia United Kingdom US (Gulf of Mexico) US (Gulf of California) Canada New Zealand Brazil OBJECTIVE OF Protection of cetaceans in Minimising the risk of Protection of all marine Preventing non- Protection of all marine Not stated Not known LEGISLATION Australian waters acoustic disturbance to mammals, and sea approved harassment of mammals, and sea marine mammals turtles. marine mammals by US turtles. including seals, whales, citizens engaging in dolphins and porpoises specified activities from seismic surveys. (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographical region. Preventing significant impact upon marine mammal stocks. AREA OF Australian waters. Southern North Sea, Gulf of Mexico Southern Gulf of Canadian waters, New Zealand waters APPLICATION Central and northern California North Sea, Moray Firth, north and west of Shetland, west of the Hebrides, and the Irish Sea Basin OBJECTIVE/S OF Provide practical These guidelines are Protection of all marine To ensure seismic Not stated To minimise the risk of standards to minimise the aimed at minimising the mammals, including survey activities would seismic surveys causing GUIDELINES risk of acoustic injury to risk of acoustic dolphins, and sea turtles have no more than a impact on marine whales in the vicinity of disturbance to marine by implementing negligible impact on the mammals (whales, seismic survey mammals including existing seismic survey affected marine dolphins and seals) operations; seals, whales, dolphins mitigation measures mammal stocks; and without unduly affecting and porpoises from would not have an normal operations. seismic surveys. In unmitigable adverse Provide a framework that addition to keeping impact on the minimises the risk of noise levels at lowest availability of species or biological consequences practicable levels the stocks for subsistence from acoustic disturbance recommendations uses. from seismic survey contained in the sources to whales in guidelines should assist biologically important in ensuring that marine habitat areas or during mammals in areas of critical behaviours; proposed airgun activity are protected against Page 29 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation JURISDICTION Australia United Kingdom US (Gulf of Mexico) US (Gulf of California) Canada New Zealand Brazil possible injury TAXA NOT Small cetaceans (such as Not stated Not stated Not stated Not stated Not stated dolphins) and other (SPECIFICALLY) marine species (such as PROTECTED turtles, pinnipeds and dugong) TARGETED TAXA Baleen whales All marine mammals, Baleen whales Baleen whales Baleen whales Whales All whales, porpoises including seals, whales, and Toothed whales, dolphins and porpoises, Beaked whales Beaked whales Beaked whales Dolphins including beaked whales dolphins. but not including Sperm, pygmy sperm Sperm, pygmy sperm Sperm, pygmy sperm Seals dolphins. and dwarf sperm and dwarf sperm and dwarf sperm whales. whales. whales. All Delphinids, All Delphinids, All other Delphinids,. including, but not including, but not limited to, killer and limited to, killer and pilot whales, and all of pilot whales, and all of the dolphin species. the dolphin species. Seals OBSERVER A trained, independent All observers must have All visual observers At least one observer is A designated marine An oceanographer or observer should be used attended a short course must have completed a to be an experienced mammal co-ordinator biologist acting as COMPETENCY AND for visual monitoring. on observation and protected species marine mammal should be responsible cetacean observer must TRAINING reporting procedures. observer-training observer approved by for ensuring that marine be on the bridge, but course. the NMFS. mammal observations not continuously. REQUIREMENTS For sensitive areas, are carried out as observer must also be an Operators may engage described in these experienced cetacean trained third party guidelines throughout biologist or an observers, may utilize the duration of seismic experienced crewmembers after survey operations. training as observers, or observer (i.e. one with may use a combination The presence of an at least three seasons of both third party and independent trained worth of experience). crew observers. marine mammal observer or someone experienced in marine mammal observations may be requested by Page 30 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation JURISDICTION Australia United Kingdom US (Gulf of Mexico) US (Gulf of California) Canada New Zealand Brazil DOC for seismic survey operations undertaken in those areas identified as ecologically important. PRE-START VISUAL During daylight hours At least 30 minutes Visual observers are During daylight At least 30 minutes of observations are to begin before starting seismic required on all seismic conditions, vessel based prestart observations. MONITORING at least 30 minutes prior sources, should make a vessels conducting observers are to watch to ‘soft start’ with visual check from a operations in water for marine mammals Focus on 1.5 km radius particular focus on the suitable high depths greater than 200 near the seismic vessel for both reporting area within a 3 km radius observation platform to m) throughout the Gulf during operating periods purposes and to gauge of the survey vessel. see if there are any of Mexico and in and for 30 minutes prior need for delayed start. marine mammals within offshore continental to the start of airgun Can only commence if 500 m. shelf water depths less operations after an there are no whales than 200 m in the extended shutdown. sighted within 2 km. Eastern Planning Area of the Gulf of Mexico. At least four whale observers should be At least two visual available on board the observers will be survey vessel. required on watch aboard seismic vessels At least two observers at at all times during any one time are to daylight hours) when monitor marine seismic operations are mammals near the in progress. seismic source vessel during all daytime Visual monitoring is to airgun operations and begin 30 minutes before during any nighttime the beginning of ramp- start-ups. up and continue until seismic operations cease or sighting conditions do not allow observation of the sea surface (e.g., fog, rain, darkness). Observers are to look for whales, other marine mammals, and sea turtles using the hand- Page 31 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation JURISDICTION Australia United Kingdom US (Gulf of Mexico) US (Gulf of California) Canada New Zealand Brazil held binoculars. Observers are to watch from a position that allows 360o coverage. SIZE AND RANGE OF 500 m from the centre of 500 m from the centre Radius of 500 m 50 m from the array for Radius of 500 m 1.5 km for cow/calf 500 m from the array. the array for shut down of the array . but only surrounding the centre marine mammals and surrounding the centre pairs; 1 km for other EXCLUSION ZONE applies during start-up of an airgun array and sea turtles (NB: of an airgun array and marine mammals procedures the area within the distances of 17 m and the area within the Power of array is to be immediate vicinity of 54 m from the arrays are immediate vicinity of reduced to lowest the survey vessel. predicted, respectively, the survey vessel. possible setting if whale for received sound approaches within 2 km levels of 190 and 180 of array. Note this is dB re 1 µPa rms (the based on a received level criteria for onset of of 160 dB re 1 µPa at 2 Level A harassment for km. Where modeling can pinnipeds and cetaceans demonstrate that the respectively). received acoustic signal Exclusion zone is only at 1km will not likely monitored exceed 160dB re 1 Pa2·s for 95% of the time, then during daylight the conditions. AERIAL SURVEY Where the likelihood of Not stated Not stated Not stated Not stated Not stated Not known AND encountering whales is high, spotter STAND-OFF VESSEL vessels/aircraft could be PROCEDURES used to assist in detecting the presence of whales. Spotter vessels and aircraft may be usefully employed to determine the presence and likelihood of encountering whales during day and night-time operations, information that can then be used to re-design the survey or Page 32 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation JURISDICTION Australia United Kingdom US (Gulf of Mexico) US (Gulf of California) Canada New Zealand Brazil tracks to be run to avoid whales that are in the vicinity. Spotter vessels/aircraft should maintain continuous contact with the seismic survey vessel. An MMO should be employed on board both the vessel and aircraft. NIGHT/LOW Night-time or low- Encourage operators to No requirement for If airguns are to be No requirement for Consideration should be Not known VISIBILITY visibility operations may use PAM visual observers during ramped-up at night, two visual observers during given to the use of proceed provided that periods of reduced observers are to monitor periods of reduced passive acoustic VISUAL there have not been 3 or visibility. for marine mammals for visibility monitoring (PAM) MONITORING more whale instigated 30 minutes before during periods when the power-down or shut- commencement and likelihood of detecting down situations during during the ramp-up marine mammals is low the preceding 24 hour using night vision because of visibility period. equipment (e.g. constraints (i.e. at night binocular image or in poor weather Where conditions allow, intensifiers). conditions). observations to spot whales should be Visual monitoring for maintained with a marine mammals is to particular focus on the be conducted at night, low power and shut-down but not necessarily by zones. experienced observers. If whales are detected then operations should stop until visibility improves. SHUTDOWN/RE- If a whale is sighted There is no requirement All airguns are to be Airgun operations are to A seismic vessel should Airguns are to be START within the 3km to shutdown the seismic shutdown when a whale be shutdown shut down the acoustic shutdown if cetaceans observation zone the source if marine is detected entering or immediately cetaceans source if any group of are sighted within 500 REQUIREMENTS operator of the acoustic mammals approach within the exclusion or pinnipeds are seen Species of Concern m of the array. source will be placed on itonce it is operating at zone. within or about to enter containing cow-calf stand-by to power down full power. the appropriate pairs are detected within the acoustic source. An exclusion zone. 1.5 km of the survey additional trained crew vessel while survey Page 33 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation JURISDICTION Australia United Kingdom US (Gulf of Mexico) US (Gulf of California) Canada New Zealand Brazil additional trained crew Any shutdown due to a vessel while survey member or marine whale sighting within work is occurring at full mammal observer should If marine mammals are the exclusion zone must If a marine mammal is power. Operations also be brought to the present, the start of the be followed by a 30- detected outside of but should not recommence bridge to continuously seismic sources should minute all-clear period is likely to enter the until the group has been monitor the whale whilst be delayed until they and then a standard, full exclusion zone, and if seen to move outside the in sight. have moved away, ramp-up. the vessels course 1.5 km range, or has not allowing at least 20 and/or speed cannot be been seen within this If a whale is sighted minutes after the last Any shutdown for other changed to avoid this, range for 30 minutes. within or is immediately sighting. reasons (such as a the airguns are to be approaching the low mechanical or electronic shutdown before the For all other instances power zone (2 km radius After any break in firing failure) resulting in the mammal enters the where Species of or 160 dB) the acoustic of any duration a visual cessation of the sound exclusion zone. Concern are detected source should be powered check should be made source for a period while the acoustic down to the lowest for marine mammals greater than 20 minutes, Once the mammal has source is operating at possible setting. within the 500 m must also be followed been observed to have full power, a shut down exclusion zone. by full ramp-up cleared the exclusion distance of 1 km should If a whale is sighted or procedures. zone, or if it has not be applied. The acoustic enters within the shut- Seismic source should been seen within the be kept operating at full source should remain down zone (500 m radius Periods of airgun zone for 15 minutes shut down until the from the array), the power for turns taking silence not exceeding 20 (small odontocetes and less than 20 minutes and Species of Concern acoustic source should be minutes will not require pinnipeds) or 30 have moved outside the shut down completely. shutdown for line ramp-up for the minutes (mysticetes and changes taking more 1 km radius, or has not resumption of seismic large odontocetes), the been seen within this Power-up of the acoustic than 20 minutes, operations if visual array can be restarted. source with soft-start alternatively, output range for 30 minutes, surveys are continued after which operations procedures should only power can be reduced to throughout the silent If the exclusion zone occur after the whale has 160 dB and then has not been visible for can recommence. period (requiring been observed to move increased in stages.. daylight and reasonable the required 30 minute There should be outside the low power sighting conditions); period (e.g. during continued discharge of zone, or when 30 minutes and no whales, other darkness or fog), re-start the acoustic source have lapsed since the last marine mammals, or sea is not to commence during line whale sighting. turtles are observed in unless at least one turns/changes. the exclusion zone. If airgun has been firing whales, other marine continuously during the mammals, or sea turtles interruption of seismic are observed in the activity exclusion zone during the short silent period, resumption of seismic survey operations must be preceded by ramp- Page 34 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation JURISDICTION Australia United Kingdom US (Gulf of Mexico) US (Gulf of California) Canada New Zealand Brazil up. AREA/SEASON/SPECI The sensitivity of Southern North Sea and Not stated Not stated Not stated The Guidelines identify Not known ES cow/calf pairs to Irish Sea Basin: Seismic areas of ecological disturbance when resting surveys using large importance for marine SPECIFIC during migrations sources such as those mammals in New REQUIREMENTS requires that a substantial for 2D or 3D seismic Zealand waters. These buffer of 20 km around surveys may require a areas should be avoided these resting areas be dedicated MMO. where possible to applied. minimise the likelihood Central and northern of encountering In or near migratory North Sea, Moray Firth, ’Species of Concern’. In paths, other than non- Cardigan Bay, west of these areas the DOC peak humpback migration Britain: Seismic surveys may recommend further paths, 30 minutes per using large sources such precautions in addition hour observation by a as those for 2D or 3D to those outlined in trained and dedicated these guidelines. cetacean observer will seismic surveys will normally be required. require a dedicated observer. In feeding, breeding or resting areas, continuous All surveys requiring observation by a cetacean observer taking place observer will be required. between 1 April and 1 October north of 57° Additional surveillance will require two from an aircraft and/or dedicated observer (due stand-off vessel may be to the longer daylight required as a permit hours). condition in sensitive areas/periods. Page 35 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Marine Protected Areas Definition of a Marine Protected Areas A marine protected area (MPA) is defined by the World Conservation Union (IUCN) as: An area of land and/or sea especially dedicated to the protection of biological diversity, and of natural and associated cultural resources, and managed through legal or other effective means. Although MPAs vary enormously it is possible to discern two main groups: 1. Large multiple use MPAs: these may or may not have zones for spatially separating conflicting interests while still meeting conservation objectives 2. Small single use MPAs: these typically are established to provide protection to a specific iconic feature or threatened community. The key characteristics that define a ‘Marine Protected Area’ are that the MPA: • has been established especially for the conservation of biodiversity • is able to be classified into one or more of the six IUCN Protected Area Management Categories reflecting the values and objectives of the MPA • must have secure status which can only be revoked by a legislative process • contributes to the representativeness, comprehensiveness or adequacy of the national system. Activities permitted within a Marine Protected Area The term ‘Marine Protected Area’ is misleading to the extent that it can convey the impression that no activities are permitted within these areas. This is not case. In practice, the types of activities that are permitted within a Marine Protected Area depend on the reasons for protecting that area. For example, if the objective of setting up the MPA is to protect a representative sample of biodiversity, there may be no need to prohibit extractive activities that are well managed and do not affect that biodiversity. Conversely, in other cases, it may be necessary to restrict even non- extractive uses such as ecotourism and scientific research in the MPA in order to achieve its objectives. The World Conservation Union (IUCN) has categorised protected areas into seven types based on management objectives. The categories range from highly protected areas (IUCN category Ia) managed primarily for scientific research or environmental monitoring through to sustainable multiple use areas (IUCN category VI) accommodating a wide spectrum of human activities. All categories are important and are needed for conservation and sustainable development. While they imply a gradation of management or levels of protection, they are not a hierarchical structure as MPAs across all categories must be established primarily for the purpose of biodiversity conservation. A single MPA may contain zones of different protection categories. Zoning is a management tool for spatial control of activities with defined activities permitted (sometimes with associated conditions) or Page 36 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation prohibited from specified geographic areas. It is often used to separate potentially conflicting activities. Table 3 IUCN Marine Protected Area Categories Ia Strict nature Managed primarily for scientific research or reserve environmental monitoring. Ib Wilderness area Protected and managed to preserve its unmodified condition. II National Park Protected and managed to preserve its natural condition. III Natural Monument Protected and managed to preserve its natural or cultural features. IV Habitat/species Managed primarily, including (if necessary) through management area active intervention, to ensure the maintenance of habitats or to meet the requirements of specific species. V Protected Managed to safeguard the integrity of the traditional landscape/seascape interactions between people and nature. VI Managed resource Managed to ensure long-term protection and protected area maintenance of biological diversity with a sustainable flow of natural products and services to meet community The IUCN note in their ‘Guidelines for Marine Protected Areas’44 that zoning is one of the most important issues facing most MPAs and is usually the best way to reconcile an array of different uses of an MPA. Key inputs to zoning decisions will include: • Known conservation values and proposed conservation objectives • Existing and potential resource use, including consideration of socio-economic assessments • Management effectiveness and the ease of compliance and enforcement, Category Ia assignment is generally applied on areas that contain some outstanding or representative ecosystems, geological or physiological features or species. This highly protected category may be applied to a reserve in its entirety or to zones within larger multiple use reserves. 44 IUCN 2007 http://www.iucn.org/bookstore/HTML- books/BP3%20Guidelines_for_marine_protected_areas/Pag-003/cover.html, Accessed September 2007. Page 37 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Category VI reserves or zones are managed mainly for the sustainable use of natural ecosystems based on the key principle of protecting and maintaining the biological diversity and other natural values of the area. Where the oil and gas industry has a prospective interest, and the activities are consistent with the objectives of the MPA, then oil and gas activities can occur within category VI MPAs. Such activities would still be subject to attainment of the appropriate approvals, licences and permits Where there is limited information on resource and biodiversity values, the general approach is often to apply large IUCN category VI protected areas. Over time the zoning and management arrangements may then be reviewed as additional information becomes available. Zones may be altered and different IUCN categories may be applied by successive management plans for a reserve. This approach provides for the development of MPAs that meet conservation objectives and certainty for industry development in the Region subject to the appropriate approvals, licences and permits. Within this framework Category VI reserves or zones can provide for a range of resource use activities and still protect ecosystem function by providing varying levels of protection and use throughout the area. Accordingly, broader community support for MPAs is achieved allowing larger areas to be declared as reserves. While a greater variety of activities are allowed in a category VI reserve or zone, many activities can be carried on only under a permit or if it is otherwise authorised by a management plan for the reserve. Activities can be prohibited or restricted or controls placed on how some activities are carried on consistent with biodiversity conservation objectives. Most MPAs are “multiple use areasâ€? where a mix of activities take place. Zoning is usually an important tool for making this work in a way that does not compromise the objectives of the MPAs. This is done by allocating resources spatially and temporally and therefore taking account of both coincident and sequential uses. The development and maintenance of a successful zoning scheme to manage activities in an MPA needs to take into account a wide range of variables which include knowledge of; the physical and biological characteristics of the area, user activities resources and perceptions, conflicts between different users and conflict between users and the environment. Mining activities in Marine Protected Areas IUCN's World Commission on Protected Areas (WCPA) has put forward a position statement that defines its the position towards mining (which is taken to include oil activities) and in, and adjacent to, protected areas45. This position statement acknowledges the increasing application of “best practicesâ€? environmental approaches and lower impact technology within the mining industry as well as examples of support 45 The WCPA is the world’s largest network of protected area professionals with 1,300 members in 140 countries. Page 38 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation for conservation activities. However, WCPA also notes that exploration and extraction of mineral resources can have serious long-term consequences on the environment. The guiding principle adopted in this statement is that any activity within a protected area has to be compatible with the overall objectives of the protected area. For this reason, this statement is based on the IUCN Protected Area Management Categories, which reflect management objectives focused on the protection and maintenance of biodiversity and associated natural and cultural values. The position statement is reproduced below. Position Statement Page 39 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation WCPA (The World Commission on Protected Areas) believes: 1. A comprehensive approach to planning should be adopted where possible to establish an adequate and representative protected area system set within the broader landscape. Assessment should be based on good science including assessments of natural and mineral values. This is particularly relevant to the establishment of new protected areas. 2. Exploration and extraction of mineral resources are incompatible with the purposes of protected areas corresponding to IUCN Protected Area Management Categories I to IV, and should therefore be prohibited by law or other effective means. 3. In Categories V and VI, exploration and minimal and localised extraction is acceptable only where this is compatible with the objectives of the protected area and then only after environmental impact assessment (EIA) and subject to strict operating, monitoring and after use restoration conditions. This should apply “best practiceâ€? environmental approaches. 4. Should exploration be permitted in category V and VI, an EIA should be required following such exploration before extraction is permitted. Approval for exploration should not imply automatic approval for extraction. 5. Proposed changes to the boundaries of protected areas, or to their categorisation, to allow operations for the exploration or extraction of mineral resources should be subject to procedures at least as rigorous as those involved in the establishment of the protected area in the first place. There should also be an assessment of the impact of the proposed change on the ability to meet the objectives of the protected area. 6. Exploration and extraction of mineral resources, and associated infrastructure, which are outside of, but negatively affecting the values for which protected areas were established should be subject to EIA procedures which consider, inter alia, the immediate and cumulative effects of the activity on the protected area, recommend operating and after use conditions, and ensure that the values of the protected areas are safeguarded. 7. In recognising the important contribution the mining industry can play, opportunities for co-operation and partnership between the mining industry and protected area agencies should be strongly encouraged. Collaboration with the mining industry should focus on securing respect and support for this position statement; broadening the application of best environmental practice for mining activity; and exploring areas of mutual benefit. The Australian Government has released a Fact Sheet detailing its’ policy with regards to zoning of Representative MPAs46 (A copy of which is provided as an Attachment to this report). This states that: ‘Areas known to be prospective for oil and gas development will not be assigned to IUCN Category 1a’. It then goes on to state: 46 ‘Representative’ MPAs are those created for the purpose of protecting a representation of one or more habitat types. Page 40 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation ‘Category VI managed resource protected areas will apply to areas where the oil and gas industry has a prospective interest. Certain kinds of fishing may also be allowed, consistent with protecting benthic habitats and other identified conservation values. … Category VI habitat protection zones will exclude all forms of commercial fishing and aquaculture. Oil and gas exploration and production will be allowed consistent with Australian Government energy security policies and existing lease, permit and licence arrangements, and environmental management requirements. This option will apply to areas where it is highly likely the area would be re-assigned to category 1a as more information about the specific ecological values in the area is gathered and prospectivity is understood’. Category VI reserves or zones can provide for a range of resource use activities and still protect ecosystem function by providing varying levels of protection and use throughout the area. Accordingly, broader community support for MPAs is achieved allowing larger areas to be declared as reserves. Table presents a summary of Activities permitted and activities excluded from proposed Commonwealth of Australia Marine Protected Areas. Note that all allowable activities remain subject to existing regulations and conditions set under management plans and permits. Activities not meeting these conditions will not be issued a permit to access the MPA. All allowable activities will be required to provide monitoring of impacts to ensure ongoing compatibility with biodiversity conservation objectives and effective compliance and enforcement. Table 4 Activities permitted and activities excluded from proposed Commonwealth of Australia Marine Protected Areas Managed Resource Managed Resource Strict Nature Zone Protected Zone Protected Zone ‘no commercial fishing’ Activity IUCN VI IUCN VI IUCN 1a Mining exploration and development 9 9 8 Commercial fishing excepting those fishing activities listed below 9 8 8 demersal trawl 8 danish seine 8 auto longline 8 mesh netting 8 demersal longline 8 All commercial fishing All commercial fishing activities disallowed activities disallowed scallop dredging 8 trotline 8 Aquaculture 9 Page 41 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Recreational and charter Fishing 9 9 8 Shipping and general transit 9 9 9 Research and monitoring 9 9 9 Commercial tourism and 9 filming 9 9 Whale watching 9 9 9 Legislation for Marine Protected Areas in Madagascar Formal MPAs in Madagascar have been created through decrees, and are in accordance with guidelines issued by the national protected area agency ANGAP in 1992. The new Code des Aires Protegées recognises that protected areas must address research, education and economic development as well as conservation, and use the participatory approach, in fulfilment of the obligations under the international conventions to which Madagascar is a party. Legislation to apply the Code to MPAs is being finalised, and will specify how MPAs should be established and managed, whether they be under ANGAP or other entities. The Gestion Locale Securisée (GELOSE) of 1996 allows for delegation of the management of natural resources to local communities, and is being used at MPAs where villages play an important role in management. Madagascar also has customary law that can be used for designating local protected areas. A dina, or social convention, can be developed by communities according to their needs and enforced by themselves. Six villages near Toliara have set up a dina that is being successfully used to protect Nosy Ve Island and its surrounding reefs. Access to the MPA and its surrounding reefs, and exploitation of marine resources, are controlled through this. A dina must not contradict the official legislation. Biosphere Reserves Biosphere reserves are designated by the UNESCO at the request of the State concerned. Biosphere reserves, each of which remains under the sole sovereignty of the State where it is situated and thereby submitted to State legislation only. UNESCO have endorsed a Statutory Framework for the World Network of Biosphere Reserves47 that includes the biosphere should: • contribute to the conservation of landscapes, ecosystems, species and genetic variation; • foster economic and human development which is socio-culturally and ecologically sustainable; • provide support for demonstration projects, environmental education and training, research and monitoring related to local, regional, national and global issues of conservation and sustainable 47 http://www.unesco.org/mab/doc/statframe.pdf Page 42 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation To meet UNESCO Framework the Biosphere reserve should include the three functions noted above, through appropriate zonation, that recognises: • a legally constituted core area or areas devoted to long-term protection, according to the conservation objectives of the biosphere reserve, and of sufficient size to meet these objectives; • a buffer zone or zones clearly identified and surrounding or contiguous to the core area or areas, where only activities compatible with the conservation objectives can take place; • an outer transition area where sustainable resource management practices are promoted and developed. Mining Activities All mining activities in Madagascar including exploration are subject to the requirements of environmental assessment. This was confirmed in the Arrete of 2000 which gives certain definitions to the activities, responsibilities and programmes of the Ministry of Energy and Mines and to the Ministry of Forests and Environment. The environmental impact assessment that is applied to oil and gas activities is considered to be robust and capable of achieving outcomes of adequate environmental protection. Furthermore international mining companies are typically well aware of the technical aspects of environmental assessment and have capacity to conduct the necessary studies. However international companies often have to balance a number of commercial considerations. A key factor in the considerations is certainty of process, where there are stated conservation objectives that must be met and if the environmental assessment is able to demonstrate that they can be met then environmental approvals will be provided. Comparison of Activities to Conservation Objectives and the Precautionary Principle Although oil and gas companies have a vested interest in promoting ecologically sustainable practices. The level of uncertainty surrounding the nature and extent of the impact that their activities may have on the marine environment needs to be acknowledged. It is important to recognise that this uncertainty also makes it difficult for governments to establish that there is a case for prohibiting oil and gas activities from MPAs or to evaluate the economic costs and benefits of alternative options for management of MPAs. The establishment of ‘no-take’ MPAs is seen as a less informationally demanding, more ‘precautionary approach’, to protecting biodiversity and critical marine habitats than multiple use management regulations. At the same time, however, it is also important to recognise that although the implementation of a ‘strong’ version of the precautionary approach, which reverses the burden of proof and requires proof that activities will not damage the environment, has the potential to reduce risks to the environment, it also has the potential to create socio-economic risks by preventing activities from occurring which would generate net benefits for the community as a whole. Page 43 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation The ‘precautionary principle’, requires that where there is a credible threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason to postpone measures to prevent environmental degradation. This establishes a threshold of risk (i.e. … a credible threat of serious or irreversible damage to the environment) before reversing the burden of proof and requiring proof that activities will not damage the environment, thereby: • ensuring that measures to protect the environment will be taken if there is a credible threat of serious or irreversible impact on the environment • avoiding the ‘regulatory risk’ that the application of a ‘strong’ version of the precautionary principle may prohibit some activities from occurring which generate net benefits for the community as a whole, despite their adverse effects on the environment (i.e. by limiting the application of the precautionary principle to those cases where there is a threat of serious or irreversible damage). In the case of MPAs, where it is accepted that conservation standards are more stringent, it may be necessary to establish thresholds based on the stated conservation objective for the MPA or individual zones. Case Studies Great Barrier Reef Marine Park The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park was established in 1975 for the broad purpose of conservation of the Great Barrier Reef (GBR). It is a legislative requirement that zoning plans be prepared for the purpose of: • regulation of the use of the marine Park so as to protect the GBR while allowing reasonable human use of the GBR region • regulation of activities that exploit the resources of the GBR region so as to minmise the effects of those activities on the GBR • the reservation of some areas of the GBR for their appreciation and enjoyment by the public • the preservation of some areas of the GBR in its natural state undisturbed by man except for the purposes of scientific research. Through the use of zoning, conflicting activities are separated, areas are provided which are suitable for particular activities and some areas are protected from use. Levels of protection within the Park vary from almost complete absence of restriction on activity in 'General Use' zones to 'Preservation' zones in which almost no human activity is permitted. Oil and gas exploration and production is specifically prohibited within the GBR Marine Park (other than for approved research purposes). In the zoning plans which have been developed so far, there are three major categories of zones. These are listed in Table 5 below. Page 44 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Table 5 Zones within the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, Australia Zones Use Equivalent IUCN Category Preservation zones and Scientific Reserve/Strict Nature Reserve. Category I Scientific Research zones Only scientific research permitted. Marine National Park National Park. Major uses permitted are Category II zones (there are 3) scientific, educational and recreational. General Use zones (there Managed Nature Reserve and Resource IUCN Categories IV, and VI are 2) Reserve. They aim to maintain sustainable use levels. Commercial and recreational fishing are generally permitted, although bottom trawling is prohibited in one of these zones. The first zoning plan for a section of the GBR Marine Park came into effect in 1981. It is relevant to review the aspects of zoning that have worked well and the lessons learnt over the intervening years as described by Day (2002)48. Relevant aspects that worked well: 1. The multiple use approach means the entire GBR is managed as an integrated whole, not just a series of isolated protected areas surrounded by ’a sea’ of unmanaged activities. It was considered that such broad area integrated management with zoning more effective than a series of small, isolated highly protected areas because: a) ecologically it recognises temporal/spatial scales at which ecological systemsoperate and ensures the entire GBR remains viable as a functioning ecosystem b) practically it is easier to manage; it buffers and dilutes the impacts of activities in areas adjacent to highly protected ’core’ areas; and c) socially helps to resolve and manage conflicts in the use of natural resources and ensures all reasonable uses can occur with minimal conflict. 2. Each zone has a specific written objective that clarifies the purpose of that zone. In all cases, the objective for each zone has objective, and all zones contribute to conservation to varying degrees. 3. Clear zoning provisions provide unambiguous advice for each zone as to what is allowed to occur (if an activity is not specified, it is not allowed unless deemed appropriate as ’any other purpose’ see below). As required by the Act, there is a list of ’use and entry’ provisions for each zone that clearly stipulate what activities may be undertaken, either: a) without a permit, or 48 http://ioc3.unesco.org/marinesp/files/tmp/Zoning%20lessons%20learnt.pdf Page 45 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation b) only with a permit (i.e. written permission is required; therefore conducting that activity in that zone without a valid and appropriate permit is an offence). 4. The process for the development of zoning plans is stipulated in the legislation and includes a minimum of two statutory phases of public participation. GBRMPA has been commended over the years for its public involvement in planning and zoning processes. This has included a variety of brochures, booklets and other media to involve the public effectively and as far as practicable in the planning process. 5. Special Management Areas (allow special management areas to be declared if required outside the statutory zoning process such as: a) Shipping Areas (allow the navigation of ships in excess of 1500 tonnes); b) Seasonal Closure Areas (allow closures not exceeding 6 months in a year if essential for such aspects as breeding or spawning sites); c) Fisheries Experimental Areas (allows research into the effects of fishing through the temporary opening of areas ’closed’ to fishing or the closure of ’open’ areas); and d) Defence Areas (enables the conduct of Defence training or operations without conflicts with other users). Lessons learnt: 1. As far as practicable, the pattern of zones within a multiple use marine protected area should avoid sudden transitions from highly protected areas to areas of relatively little protection. The concept of ’buffering’ (i.e. a gradation in zone types) should be applied wherever possible. 2. Experience has shown that too many zone types with only minor differences can confuse the users as well as complicate enforcement. 3. As far as practicable, significant breeding or nursery sites should be included either within ’no take’ zones, some other form of protective zoning (e.g. a ’no public access’ zone) or within an appropriate seasonal closure so that they are given a high degree of protection on either a permanent or seasonal basis. 4. As far as practicable, representative examples of all marine communities in any marine protected area should be included within two or more ’no take’ zones. The Great Australian Bight Marine Park The Great Australian Bight Marine Park is in the Great Australian Bight stretching from 200 km west of Ceduna in South Australia following the coast to the Western Australian border. The Park includes a 20 nautical wide strip extending to 200 nautical miles offshore (refer to figure). The Park is made is made up of adjoining Commonwealth and South Australian protected areas. The entire park is assigned to the IUCN category VI ‘Managed Resource Protected Area’. The Park is part of Australia’s National Representative System of Marine Page 46 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Protected Areas. As part of the National Representative System the overarching goal of park management is to help safeguard the marine biological diversity of the Great Australian Bight. This means that uses of the Park, including oil activities, will be allowed if they generally: • entail no disturbance or minimal disturbance to habitat for marine mammals inside the Marine Mammal Protection Zone and the benthos inside the Benthic Protection Zone • do not threaten the ecosystems overlapping the Park, and are exempt from approval or are approved under Commonwealth laws designed to protect the environment • contribute to regional and national development, and have previously occurred inside the area now covered by the Park or cannot reasonably occur outside the Park. The Commonwealth waters component of the Marine Park comprises two overlapping zones that form a T shape. Directly adjacent to the South Australian Marine Park is the Marine Mammal Protection Zone that extends from three nautical miles to approximately 12 nautical miles offshore. This area is primarily intended to provide for undisturbed calving for the southern right whale and protection of Australian Sea-lion colonies. To the west of the Head of Bight is the Benthic Protection Zone, a 20 nautical mile- wide representative strip of the ocean floor extending 200 nautical miles from the edge of the State Park (at three nautical miles) directly south to the edge of the Exclusive Economic Zone of Australia. This area aims to protect a sample of the unique and diverse plants and animals that live on, and are associated with, the ocean floor. The Commonwealth waters component encompasses the waters, sea-bed and the subsoil to a depth of 1000 metres below the sea bed. The Australian and South Australian governments manage their respective components of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park cooperatively in accordance with management plans to protect conservation values while allowing ecologically sustainable uses. These uses must be consistent with protecting the area’s ecological values and contribute to regional and national development. The plans regulate recreational, scientific and commercial uses of the Great Australian Bight Marine Park using four distinct management areas or ‘zones’, illustrated by Figure 6 and described in Table 6. Table 6 Zones within the Great Australian Bight Marine Park, Australia Zone Objective Restrictions applied to oil and gas Sanctuary To provide the highest level Mineral or petroleum exploration or Zone of habitat protection as a extraction activities are prohibited representative example of the habitats and ecosystems typical of the Great Australian Bight region. Conservation To protect southern right There will be no mineral or petroleum Page 47 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Zone Objective Restrictions applied to oil and gas Zone whales and their calves exploration or extraction activities in moving between the that part of the Conservation Zone breeding areas along the which lies within the Whale cliff coast west of the Head Sanctuary. of Bight by providing a In other parts of the Conservation seasonal reserve between Zone, mineral or petroleum these areas. exploration, extraction and construction activities are to be confined to the period when whales are not present (usually between 1 November and 30 April). Should the need arise, and subject to a satisfactory outcome from an environmental impact assessment, an easement for a pipeline to shore is permitted providing it is no greater than 800 m in width and not within 1.5 nm of a known sea lion breeding colony or haul out site. From 1 May to 31 October inclusive there is no access by boat without the written permission of the Director of National Parks and Wildlife, Marine For the protection of marine There is a moratorium on mineral or Mammal mammals petroleum exploration or extraction Protection activities within the Marine Mammal Zone Protection Zone. Benthic To protect a sample of the Mineral or petroleum exploration or Protection unique and diverse plants extraction activities may be carried Zone and animals that live on, with approval from the Governor- and are associated with, the General, and subject to attainment of ocean floor. all other necessary permits and approvals. Page 48 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Figure 6 Zoning within the Great Australian Bight Marine Park, Australia Management measures other than zoning Zoning is a key measure for the management of large-scale MPAs. However, other anagement tools are also important and may be used conjunction with zoning. Table 7 indicates the various tools applied in management of the GBR Marine Park49. 49 Adapted from Day 2002 op cit 48. Table 3 Page 49 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Table 7 Summary of management tools applied in management of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Summary of the main management tools for the GBR Marine Park Management tool What the tool aims to do Primary area Who the tool applies to Prime responsibility Legislative of operation Head of Power GBRMP Act and regulations Provides the legislative basis for the Marine Entire Marine Park All Marine Park users GBRMPA Administrative Park and the managing Authority and GBRMPA (the Arrangements Orde: managing Authority) (thro’Executive Council) Zoning plans Indicates where users can go and what is Each of the Sections of the All Marine Park users GBRMPA Great Barrier Reef allowed and what requires a permit Marine Park Marine Park Act 19 (the GBRMP Act 19 Plans of Management Indicates what users can do in specifically Each of the Sections of the All users of the designated GBRMPA GBRMP Act 1975 designated areas Marine Park planning areas (additional to zoning provisions) Site plans Detailed plans for designated areas Designated local areas All users of the QPWS (State) State legislation designated sites Designated areas Set additional requirements/ restrictions in Designated local areas All users of the GBRMPA GBRMP Act 1975 specific areas designated areas/sites Permits Regulate activities and locations of permittees The zones and locations The permittee (e.g. a GBRMPA/~S GBRMP Act 1975 by specifying conditions specified in the permit of tourist operator) operation Best Environmental Guidelines advising environmentally Entire Marine Park All Marine Park and Industry N/a (Self-regulatory Practices/Codes of practice responsible ways to conduct activities island NP visitors Economic instruments (e.g. Regulate use Entire Marine Park Most commercial GBRMPA GBRMP Act 1975 Environment Management operations Charge) Impact assessment Determining and minimising any impacts Designated sites/ locations Applicants for permission GlIRMPA/EPA GBRMP Act 1975; State legislation Page 50 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Surveillance/ patrolling Systematic observation to determine extent, All areas of MP (effort All Marine Park and GBRMPA and QPWS GBRMP Act 1975; nature and purpose of activities in the Marine concentrated in high use areas island NP visitors (i.e. Day-to-day State legislation Park and enforcement ’hotspots’) management) Enforcement Apprehension of deliberate, blatant and Whenever and Any deliberate. blatant GBRMPA and QPWS GBRMP Act 1975; persistent offenders wherever required and persistent offenders (i.e. Day-to-day State legislation management) Research and monitoring Provide a good basis for effective Specified research and Depends whether it is CRC for the G1IRWHA GBRMP Act 1975 management monitoring sites long-term or site-specific Education, interpretation and Provide users with information to assist them Primary areas for Targeted Marine Park GlIRMPAfflPWS1 GBRMP Act 1975 extension and managers visitor contact and island NP visitors DDM Page 51 of 57 Marine Protected Areas and Hydrocarbon Exploration and Extraction Cohabitation Recommendations Zoning of MPAs Lessons learnt from management of MPAs suggest that large multiple use MPAs that are zoned for integrated management are more effective than a series of smaller isolated highly protected areas. Zones established within MPAs should be consistent with IUCN MPA categories and each zone should have clear documented conservation objectives. Oil and gas activities should be permitted within IUCN category V and VI zones where it is consistent with the stated conservation objectives for that zone. Where MPAs are established in areas of oil and gas prospectivity (i.e. where tenements have been released) it is recommended that zoning should be set at IUCN Category VI. The category should be reviewed once specific information on prospectivity and ecological values in the area is gathered and understood. Seismic guidelines Documented guidelines should be established for the management of marine seismic surveys in Malagasy waters. The guidelines should recognise and adopt as necessary international best practises with regards to: • Exclusion areas and seasonal restrictions to avoid potential impacts to marine mammals • Start up procedures • Line procedures • Standoff distances at which airgun source is to be shutdown • Monitoring procedures • Audit and reporting protocols Guidelines for assessment against conservation objectives A document should be prepared for use by regulatory agencies, and for information of companies, that provides clear guidance as to the standards and methods to be applied in evaluating the predicted level of environmental impact against conservation objectives of MPAs. This should include guidelines for the application of the precautionary principle. Page 52 of 57 ATTACHMENT A TERMS OF REFERENCE TERMS OF REFERENCE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE SERVICE BY AN INTERNATIONAL CONSULTANT AS PART OF ENVIRONMENT – OIL SECTOR-RELATED DIALOGUE (VISITS OF OIL SITES IN CLIFF HEAD/AUSTRALIA AND ORGANISATION OF A NATIONAL WORKSHOP IN ANTANANARIVO, MADAGASCAR) Introduction The declaration made in Durban by his Excellency President of Madagascar in 2003, to increase protected area surface up to 6 million hectares, leads to another challenge for the development of the presently booming oil sector in Madagascar. It induces and increases overlapping between overall oil areas and newly or to be created protected areas. Dialogues and workshops have been organised to define issues and to find solutions for a better cohabitation of both sectors. Officials are working on a common ground to get to the same goal “rational management of natural resources to benefit national economic growthâ€?. The recent international invitation for tenders launched by OMNIS on oil permit delivery in Madagascar offshore basin, especially in Morondava basin (Mozambique canal), gave rise to international oil companies’ interest and enthusiasm. Environmental issue is nevertheless crucial and touches in particular “nearshoreâ€? or “transitionâ€? areas, characterised by mangroves and coral reefs. Such areas are part of the sites the Environment sector plans to protect, and this may affect negotiation processes for oil licence delivery. This kind of environment can be found in many countries that actually produce oil, and cohabitation and cooperation between oil activities and environment protection have been proved to be feasible. Madagascar lacks experience of this new “spatial conflictâ€? issue but plans to implement appropriate regulations. Therefore, the World Bank, through a World Bank/WWF Forestry Alliance grant aimed at facilitating Environment, Mining and Oil dialogue, intends to have Malagasy officials working in both sectors (Environment and Oil) profit by other countries experience. Visits of sites will allow them to get references and learn lessons for future decision makings. Study visit organization and progress Thus, study visits will be organised for Malagasy officials and will include sites presenting the issue in Madagascar and Cliff Head/Australia. The goal is to learn lessons from existing situations in Madagascar and from the experience of a country with similar ecological context, in order to identify steps Madagascar would undertake as regards to marine and coastal environment area. The situation of the different environmental elements is to be observed on the fields to understand possible interactions and bad functioning, and at the end, to ensure coherence and coexistence of both sectors classified high priority by the Government. Visits will include 2 separate phases. During the first phase, analyses and studies are carried out in 2 areas in Madagascar where oil blocks partly coincide with existing or being created marine coastal protected areas. Morondava coastal area and Sahamalaza new Marine Park have been chosen, and visits take place on May 10 – 11, 2007 for the former and May 14 – 16, 2007 for the latter. The second phase consists in visiting a case of oil production area in a similar site. The different arrangements and regulations implemented by the host country to manage marine environment and oil sectors will be studied. Cliff Head (Australia) oil exploitation area has been chosen for the following reasons: 1. its site represents a typical case of cohabitation and cooperation between oil production and land and marine coastal protected areas, 2. Australian environmental regulations are well organized. An agreement in principle for the site visit has been given by Roc Oil Pty Ltd which will facilitate the organization of meetings with Australian environment authorities. Consultant’s mission goals The consultant’s mission will concern the second phase of the study tours (trip to Cliff Head only). It will consist in: • assisting and advising the Malagasy delegation in order to facilitate visits and meetings in Cliff Head • bringing out orientation main lines for management of both sectors in case of intervention area overlapping • outlining regulations texts on cohabitation and cooperation between oil activities and land and marine coastal protected areas • drafting a project of conflicts settlement process in case oil blocks and land and marine coastal areas overlap • conducting a validation workshop to be held in Antananarivo and preparing the final report Job description The following list is not exhaustive. The consultant will have to: • together with Roc Oil company, organize the program of visit to Cliff Head, Australia (field trips, meetings with environment authorities and experts involved, etc…) and provide assistance to the Malagasy delegation during their stay, • prepare, for the delegation, the necessary technical documents (synthesis of international experience as regards resolving conflicts between protected area and oil activities, Roc Oil exploitation case study, etc…), • analyze and synthesize Malagasy regulation texts relating to protected area management and resolving conflicts with other activity sectors (mining and oil), • establish a synthesis of sound international and Australian practices, • elaborate a project of regulation texts on cohabitation and cooperation between oil activities and land and marine coastal protected areas, on the basis of the surveys and case studies, • prepare a project of processes for resolving conflicts in case of oil blocks and land and marine coastal areas overlap, • identify possible requirements for capacity strengthening, • organize a workshop to introduce these projects of processes and texts, to be adjusted and modified according to the workshop recommendations