GAS IMPORT JETTY AND PIPELINE PROJECT ......JASCO Applied Sciences for Ashurst. 2 Attachment 1 Gas...

1

GAS IMPORT JETTY AND PIPELINE PROJECT ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS STATEMENT

INQUIRY AND ADVISORY COMMITTEE

TECHNICAL NOTE

TECHNICAL NOTE NUMBER: TN 043

DATE: 26 October 2020

LOCATION: Gas Import Jetty Works

EES/MAP BOOK REFERENCE: Technical Report A - Annexure J Underwater Acoustic

Modelling

SUBJECT: Response to RFIs 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83 – Section 9.2

Underwater acoustic modelling and Section 9.3 Underwater

noise impact assessment

SUMMARY Responses relate to subsections: Underwater acoustic

modelling and Underwater noise impact assessment

REQUEST: This technical note has been prepared in response to the

Request for Further Information 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83

provided to the proponents by the Crib Point Inquiry and

Advisory Committee dated 16 September 2020

NOTE:

1. Craig McPherson and Klaus Lucke of Jasco Applied Sciences (Australia) Pty Ltd have

provided responses to RFIs 78, 79, 80, 81, 82 and 83 in the form of a memorandum. A

copy of the memorandum is provided at Attachment 1 of this technical note.

CORRESPONDENCE: N/A

ATTACHMENTS: 1 Attachment:

1. Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project: Response to

Request for Further Information, 16 September 2020.

Document 02226, Version 1.0. Technical report by

JASCO Applied Sciences for Ashurst.

2

Attachment 1

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project: Response to Request for Further Information, 16 September 2020. Document 02226, Version 1.0. Technical report by JASCO Applied

Sciences for Ashurst

Version 1.0 i

Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project

Response to Request for Further Information, 16 September 2020

Submitted to:

Ashurst Melbourne

Authors:

Craig McPherson Klaus Lucke

19 October 2020

P001487-001 Document 02226 Version 1.0

JASCO Applied Sciences (Australia) Pty Ltd Unit 1, 14 Hook Street

Capalaba, Queensland, 4157 Tel: +61 7 3823 2620

www.jasco.com

http://www.jasco.com/

Version 1.0 i

Suggested citation:

C.R. McPherson and K. Lucke. 2019. Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project: Response to Request for Further Information, 16 September 2020. Document 02226, Version 1.0. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for Ashurst.

Disclaimer:

The results presented herein are relevant within the specific context described in this report. They could be misinterpreted if not considered in the light of all the information contained in this report. Accordingly, if information from this report is used in documents released to the public or to regulatory bodies, such documents must clearly cite the original report, which shall be made readily available to the recipients in integral and unedited form.

JASCO APPLIED SCIENCES Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project

Version 1.0 ii

Contents

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 1

2. UNDERWATER ACOUSTIC MODELLING ......................................................................... 2

2.1. Requests 78 and 79 .................................................................................................................... 2

2.2. Request 80 .................................................................................................................................. 2

3. UNDERWATER NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT ................................................................. 6

3.1. Request 81 .................................................................................................................................. 6

3.2. Request 82 .................................................................................................................................. 7

3.3. Request 83 .................................................................................................................................. 8

3.3.1. Summary .......................................................................................................................... 8

3.3.2. Background ...................................................................................................................... 9

3.3.3. Behavioural Responses To Underwater Noise ................................................................ 9

3.3.4. Impact Assessment ........................................................................................................ 11

LITERATURE CITED ...................................................................................................... 12

APPENDIX A. SOUND FIELD MAPS ................................................................................ A-1

Figures

Figure 1. Scenario 4 – Petroleum carrier + FSRU + LNG Carrier, SPL: Sound level contour map showing unweighted maximum-over-depth results. Isopleth for marine mammal (120 dB re 1 µPa) behavioural criteria, used as a guide for penguins, is shown. ............................................. 10

Figure A-1. Scenario 1 – Petroleum carrier, SEL24h: Sound level contour map showing maximum-over-depth results. ..........................................................................................................................A-1

Figure A-2. Scenario 1 – Petroleum carrier, SEL24h: Sound level threshold map for maximum-over-depth results. PTS threshold for mid–frequency cetaceans and otariids was not reached. ..A-2

Figure A-3. Scenario 1 – Petroleum carrier, SPL: Sound level contour map showing unweighted maximum-over-depth results. Isopleth for marine mammal (120 dB re 1 µPa) behavioural criteria is shown. .............................................................................................................................A-3

Figure A-4. Scenario 2 – FSRU, SEL24h: Sound level contour map showing maximum-over-depth results..............................................................................................................................................A-4

Figure A-5. Scenario 2 – FSRU, SEL24h: Sound level threshold map for maximum-over-depth results. PTS threshold for mid–frequency cetaceans and otariids was not reached ......................A-5

Figure A-6. Scenario 2– FSRU, SPL: Sound level contour map showing unweighted maximum-over-depth results. Isopleth for marine mammal (120 dB re 1 µPa) behavioural criteria is shown. .............................................................................................................................................A-6

Figure A-7. Scenario 3 – FSRU + LNG Carrier, SEL24h: Sound level contour map showing maximum-over-depth results. .........................................................................................................A-7

Figure A-8. Scenario 3 – FSRU + LNG Carrier, SEL24h: Sound level threshold map for maximum-over-depth results. PTS threshold for mid–frequency cetaceans and otariids was not reached ...A-8

Figure A-9. Scenario 3 – FSRU + LNG Carrier, SPL: Sound level contour map showing unweighted maximum-over-depth results. Isopleth for marine mammal (120 dB re 1 µPa) behavioural criteria is shown. .........................................................................................................A-9

Figure A-10. Scenario 4 – Petroleum carrier + FSRU + LNG Carrier, SEL24h: Sound level contour map showing maximum-over-depth results. .................................................................................A-10

Figure A-11. Scenario 4 – Petroleum carrier + FSRU + LNG Carrier, SEL24h: Sound level threshold map for maximum-over-depth results. PTS threshold for mid–frequency cetaceans and otariids was not reached ........................................................................................................A-11


Version 1.0 iii

Figure A-12. Scenario 4 – Petroleum carrier + FSRU + LNG Carrier, SPL: Sound level contour map showing unweighted maximum-over-depth results. Isopleth for marine mammal (120 dB re 1 µPa) behavioural criteria is shown.........................................................................................A-12


Version 1.0 1

1. Introduction

This report provides responses to the information requests relevant to the underwater acoustic modelling (Koessler et al. 2019b), and the underwater noise impact assessment (Lucke and McPherson 2020), included in the EES as Technical Report A, Annexure A-J and A-I respectively.


Version 1.0 2

2. Underwater Acoustic Modelling

2.1. Requests 78 and 79

Request 78:

Update the sound level contour maps (Figures 3 to 14) to depict the entire extent of sound exposure levels (SEL24h) and marine mammal behaviour response criterion of 120 dB 1µPa (SPL) under the various scenarios.

Request 79:

Provide the contour maps correctly displaying the extent of the maximum-over depth results.

Response:

The extent of view on maps has been changed to show all mapped contours, with revised maps presented in Appendix A. The details for the maps are as follows:

• Figures A-1, A-4, A-7, and A-10: Maximum-over-depth SEL24h sound level contours, unweighted and showing no isopleths associated with sound level thresholds, but to provide context for the maps showing the sound level thresholds

• Figures A-2, A-5, A-8, and A-11: SEL24h sound level threshold map, showing maximum-over-depth frequency weighted SEL24h isopleths associated with sound level thresholds for potential injury and impairment in marine mammals.

• Figures A-3, A-6, A-9 and A-12: SPL sound level contour map showing unweighted maximum-over-depth SPL results, including the isopleth for the marine mammal behavioural response criteria, 120 dB re 1 µPa.

2.2. Request 80

Request:

Provide advice on the potential impact from modelled sound exposure levels and responses to the behaviour of megafauna, particularly species heavily reliant on sound and frequencies for communication.

Response:

Summary of results

A conservative proxy source representing the FSRU, LNG and Petroleum carriers considered in the study was applied.

The results for the NMFS (2018) criteria applied for marine mammal PTS considers SEL for continuous sources, PTS is not predicted at any range for mid-frequency cetaceans. Behavioural responses, which are not necessarily equivalent to disturbance, in marine mammals could occur between 1.42 and 2.09 km, depending upon the scenario.

Because of the attenuating effect of bathymetry, the maximum ranges to thresholds, summarised below, were predicted to occur within the deeper waters of the channel to the southeast and northeast of the Crib Point Jetty. Ranges to impact thresholds in other directions will be smaller than these Rmax

values.


Version 1.0 3

The impact assessment determined:

• No severe behavioural responses of marine mammals are expected.

• The risk of TTS can realistically be dismissed for all marine mammal species.

• Acoustic masking and stress can be expected being of low severity; moreover, they would be acute effects which disappear as soon as the animals leave the impact range (acoustic masking) or may persist and wane over a short period thereafter. Chronic (i.e. lasting) effects are not expected.

• There is no reason for concern that the Project could have measurable negative consequences for individuals or populations of marine mammals.

Context for modelled exposure levels

As stated in Koessler et al. (2019a) noise from the FSRU and other vessels is likely to be generated by onboard pumps, generators, and associated machinery within the vessel(s). Furthermore, the FSRU may also generate underwater noise associated with the seawater discharge from regasification process. During regasification operations seawater used for heating to convert LNG back to gaseous state will be discharged from six discharge ports located below the water line.

The Monopole Source Level (MSL) values and spectra used to make predictions of the noise emission for a moored vessel at the Crib Point terminal for the GJIPP were selected based on a review of publicly available data and JASCO’s own internal database of vessel MSLs. This review yielded no MSL data and spectra for the considered vessel types and operations, namely moored and offloading Floating Storage and Regasification Units (FSRUs), liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers and Petroleum carriers. Due to the lack of information about MSL for the three vessels, the use of a proxy source derived from one of the only published measurement studies on an industrialised vessel, a Floating Production Storage and Offload (FPSO) facility, was used. An FPSO is a heavily industrialised vessel, typical a converted oil transport tanker, with purpose-built topside facilities which separate, stabilise and dehydrate oil and gas drawn from the subsea fields.

The processing and treatment systems on an FPSO include:

• Oil processing system for the recovered crude oil including crude stabilisation, dehydration, storage with inert gas blanketing;

• Gas treatment system, including dehydration, compression for gas lift and reinjection;

• Gas flare system; and

• PW treatment system for the reduction of entrained hydrocarbon and gas within the separated produced formation water for its disposal.

Considering to the equipment located on, and operations performed on an FPSO, it is considered based upon JASCO’s experience to be a conservative proxy for the three vessels considered in this project. In addition, it is also likely that the petroleum and LNG carriers are quieter than a re-gasifying FRSU, as they have less equipment and processing systems onboard.

This project applied a single MSL derived from measured levels of two Floating Production Storage and Offload (FPSO) facilities detailed in Erbe et al. (2013) as a proxy for each vessel considered in the study. The MSL source level used was 173.9 dB re 1 μPa2m2. This MSL for a FPSO was used for all vessels, including moored LNG carriers, in the four scenarios considered by Koessler et al. (2019a). Therefore, the modelled scenarios, particularly those which include more than one vessel, all represented by the same proxy source, which might over-represent the actual MSL’s of the vessels, is likely a conservative approach.

In addition to this, a far-field source level is a calculated by considering sound level(s) measured in the far-field and scaled back to a standard reference distance of 1 metre from the acoustic centre of the source. A large vessel, such as an FSRU, LNG or petroleum carrier is at close range, a large and distributed sound source, with underwater sound from the expected to originate primarily from onboard equipment vibrations, but in the case of the FSRU, also directly into the water via the subsurface discharge ports. The dominant vibration sources (e.g. pumps, generators, and machinery)


Version 1.0 4

are located on or below the main deck of the vessels, leading to different sections of the platform vibrating in different ways, and thus transmitting sound into the water column to a different extent in different places.

There are no measurements or finite element analysis modelling available which would allow the vessels to be modelled as a distributed source at close range, therefore the only valid approach to take is to represent it as a point source, using the far-field source level, even though this results in an over-estimate of the sound levels at close range.

If a vessel is manoeuvring using either a propeller or thrusters, then the individual propellor or thruster can be modelled as point sources, with the sound field at all distances from the centre of the vessel being determined by the combined sound field of the individual thrusters. However, as none of the modelling scenarios included propellors or thrusters, this is not an applicable approach.

Therefore, the ranges presented are from the centre of large vessels, using proxy MSL values, and thus potentially conservative, particularly for scenarios when more than one vessel is present.

Explanation of impacts

The most likely and most relevant impact of underwater sound emitted at the Gas Import Jetty on marine mammals is behavioural disturbance. In general, behavioural reactions to underwater sound can range from subtle responses (such a short orientation behaviour) with no ecological relevance for the animals to severe responses (such as flight). The severity of the responses is highly context specific, meaning that animals will react differently depending on their age, gender, motivation, previous experience and many other factors. As a rule, it can be expected that the severity of the responses will increase with increasing received sound levels. The sound generated at the Gas Import Jetty (the sound source) is loudest at the sound source and gradually diminishes with increasing distance from the sound source. Marine mammals approaching the sound source will experience this gradual increase in sound level which, at some point may trigger a deflection of their swimming path to avoid higher noise levels in the proximity of the sound source. Stronger, i.e. more severe behavioural reactions usually occur at a sudden onset of an unfamiliar stimulus (including underwater sound); however due to the continuous (i.e. almost constant) nature of the noise emissions from the Project and the gradual decrease over distance no severe behavioural responses of marine mammals are to be expected.

The occurrence and severity of behavioural responses of marine mammals to underwater sound also depend on the ambient noise level, i.e. the already existing underwater sound. While there is no information on the existing ambient noise level in Western Port Bay it is clear that this area is not an acoustically pristine environment with no other anthropogenic (i.e. human-made) sound present. In a pristine environment it is more likely that a ‘new’ sound would trigger a behavioural response and that such responses can be more severe as compared to an already ‘disturbed’ environment such as Western Port Bay with its existing port infrastructure and vessel traffic (commercial and recreational). Animals entering the area would already necessarily have encountered vessel noise from the shipping routes along the South Australian coastline. Even if marine mammals are entering the Western Port Bay for the first time, they would therefore not be acoustically naïve, i.e. with no prior experience to the presence of underwater sound. This does not imply that they would not react to the sound generated at Gas Import Jetty, but they are more likely to be accustomed to human-made noise, i.e. they may have habituated and would be therefore less likely to show (severe) responses.

The ecological consequence of behavioural reactions for marine mammals depends on the function the area has for them. It is unclear what the ecological role of Western Port Bay exactly is for marine mammals but the relatively low frequency of their occurrence in the area indicates that Western Port Bay is not of primary importance for them. However, a cautious approach to the impact assessment has assumed that all marine mammals could occur in Western Port Bay. A report (Understanding the Western Port Environment – A summary of current knowledge and priorities for future research) issued by Melbourne Water (2011) states:

“Although a variety of marine mammal species have been reported in Western Port (Menkhorst 1995, Chidgey and Crockett 2010) and the largest Australian Fur Seal Arctocephalus pusillus doriferus colony in the world is just outside the western entrance (Kirkwood et al 2010), it appears to have relatively little significance as marine mammal habitat. Australian Fur Seals and Bottlenose Dolphins Tursiops truncatus are the most frequently reported marine mammals in Western Port, but neither are


Version 1.0 5

abundant there (Dann et al. 1996). Although a number of other species of marine mammal have been reported, those that occur more frequently appear to be only passing through the southern part of the bay on their way elsewhere.”

If dolphins (MF or HF cetaceans) use the area to forage (using their echolocation) they will not be impeded by the presence of the sound as they use a different frequency spectrum than the sound generated by the activities at Gas Import Jetty. Seals are not known to use sound in the context of foraging. Their prey (mainly fish) may be found in different parts of Western Port Bay and prey distribution could be altered in a response to the sound. However, it is unlikely that the overall fish/prey density will be greatly changed in response to the addition of the sound from Gas Import Jetty to the existing soundscape in Western Port Bay. Consequently, dolphins and seals may have to shift their foraging activities to other areas within Western Port Bay but their foraging success is likely to be unchanged. Killer whales have been reported to occur in Port Philip Bay and hunt for seals, e.g., off Seal Rock, Phillip Island. While sightings have also been reported for Western Port Bay it is unclear what ecological role the Bay plays for this species. There is no reason for concern that the planned activities at the Gas Import Jetty would have measurable negative consequences for individuals or populations of these marine mammal species.

It is unclear what role Western Port Bay plays for larger whales (LF cetaceans) such as humpback or southern right whales which enter the area which makes it highly speculative to discuss the potential ecological consequence of behavioural disturbance for these animals. Moreover, their hearing sensitivity is not known. Humpback whales are regularly seen in Western Port Bay, even though in small numbers. As cited above, Western Port Bay does not seem to play an important function in their lives (e.g. for nursing their calves or as a foraging ground) and animals only passing through on the migratory route. Similar to dolphins and seals, the severity of behavioural responses is likely to be low for most of the affected area with no measurable effect on the fitness of the animals to be expected.

Other noise induced impacts on marine mammals include a temporary or permanent impairment of the animals hearing. These effects (temporary threshold shift (TTS) and permanent threshold shift, (PTS)) are extremely unlikely to occur because of the planned activities at the Gas Import Jetty in any marine mammal species. The threshold used as a criterion for onset of TTS assumes that an animal remains within the proximity of the sound source (such as the FSRU) over a period of 24 hours. This is an unlikely scenario even in the most unusual encounter of solitary dolphins swimming in harbour areas over longer periods of time (none of which has ever been reported for Western Port); no animal has ever been documented to stay within a short distance to a structure as the FSRU for extended periods of time. No larger cetacean would be likely to remain in the proximity of the sound source for an extended period (hours) and clearly not over an entire day. The risk of TTS caused by the activities at the Gas Import Jetty can realistically be dismissed for all marine mammal species.

Acoustic masking and stress are the other potential impacts that could be caused by the noise emitted from the Gas Import Jetty. Acoustic masking reduces the range over which an animal can hear a sound (e.g. from a mate) which makes communicating over longer distances more difficult. The severity of acoustic masking depends on the received sound level and also on the overlap between the masking noise and the signal the animal is listening to. Stress responses of marine mammals are likely comparable to human responses, i.e. it can affect the animals’ metabolism (e.g., an increase heart rate) and as a chronic effect lead to, e.g., a higher susceptibility to other impacts (such as diseases, i.e. a suppressed immune system). While these impacts cannot be assessed quantitatively due to the lack of information on the ambient noise level, they can be qualitatively discussed. Both acoustic masking and stress can be expected being of low severity due to the relatively low levels generated by the planned activities (i.e. compared to other anthropogenic sound sources, some even being present in Western Port Bay); moreover, they would be acute effects which disappear as soon as the animals leave the impact range (acoustic masking) or may persist and wane over a short period thereafter. Chronic (i.e. lasting) effects are not expected. There is no concern that these impacts would have measurable negative consequences for individuals or populations of these marine mammal species.


Version 1.0 6

3. Underwater noise impact assessment

3.1. Request 81

Request: Confirm whether measurements of underwater noise will be taken post construction and operation, and the details of monitoring to validate any findings and predictions of the underwater acoustics assessment. Response: Measuring the ambient noise environment and conducting post-construction monitoring is a good approach to take to validate the predictions, and provide a comparison of the conditions before and after to validate the impact assessment considerations.

An ambient noise study should follow leading practice concepts, such as those outlined in McPherson et al. (2017), and specifically:

• be conducted for a period (likely at least a month), using a moored autonomous recorder at a fixed location.

• determine the Power Spectral Density (PSD) percentiles for the acoustic environment for the monitoring period to provide context to the impact assessment and modelling results.

• Include the arrival, and departure of a petroleum tanker, representing current port operations.

Post-construction monitoring should have characterise the typical soundscape of the port, along with a full cycle of operation for the FSRU and LNG tanker, with the monitoring program ideally being conducted for a minimum of a month with a moored autonomous recorder at a fixed location. The deployment period should include the following operations:

• Typical port noise, and the operation of the FSRU without any tankers present

• FSRU berthed (re-gasifying) and offloading (Scenario 1)

• The arrival and departure of an LNG tanker at the FSRU

• The unloading of the LNG tanker at the FSRU (Scenario 3)

• The arrival, and departure of a petroleum tanker

• The unloading of a petroleum tanker (Scenario 1)

Careful scheduling will be required to ensure Modelling Scenario 4, FSRU berthed (re-gasifying), LNG carrier offloading, petroleum carrier offloading, is characterised, due to the frequency of the different operations.

Outputs of the monitoring program will include PSD percentiles for the full period, plus each specific operation of interest, for comparison to the ambient noise study.

In addition, post-construction monitoring will be required to include a detailed measurement study of the FSRU during normal operations, (re-gasifying) and offloading using both a fixed measurement location and measurements at a number of ranges. This approach is required to be completed to validate the modelling, and follows best practice guidelines, and is typically implemented to validate modelling, and follows the concepts from ([ISO] International Organization for Standardization 2019, ANSI 12.64-2009 R2014).

a. This will be achieved through taking measurements at a number of ranges using a mobile measurement system to determine a Radiated Noise Level (RNL). This system must not be influenced by current movement and flow noise.

i. From this a Monopole Source Level (MSL) will be determined through back propagation.

ii. This MSL can be compared to the proxy used in the modelling


Version 1.0 7

b. The measured sound levels at different ranges, with the aid of the fixed location autonomous recorder data, can validate the transmission loss modelling for the environment (An example of the approach for a seismic survey airgun source is provided in Austin et al. 2012).

3.2. Request 82

Request:

Explain what baseline data has been collected to quantify temporal and spatial distribution of marine mammals and the likely impact of underwater acoustics to mammals. Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 page 7 of Annexure A-I notes that sound from the Crib Point Jetty “…will be audible to marine mammals in most circumstances”, however the impacts to behaviour “cannot be assessed quantitatively due to the lack of information on the ambient noise level” and based on hearing sensitivity of potentially impacted species may "experience acoustic masking”.

Response:

No data has been gathered to quantify temporal and spatial distribution of marine mammals. Information of the species present were defined in the Marine Ecology report (‘Underwater Noise Impact Assessment’); the list of species was provided by an expert commissioned by the client (Scott Chidgey, on behalf of AECOM) and supplemented by information gathered from peer-reviewed scientific publications. However, peer-reviewed scientific information specifically on the presence of marine mammal species in Western Port Bay is scarce as most scientific observation studies of marine mammals are designed to cover large area, most often offshore areas. Therefore, in the absence of location-specific peer-reviewed information, the impact assessment had to rely on general, wide-scale information about the abundance of marine mammals and supplement this with sighting reports such as provided by the client and anecdotal information. The impact assessment has assumed all of the potential species could be present, which is a cautious approach.

To provide context, the noted section is contained within Section 3.1.1 and 3.1.2, which states: The predicted range of audibility for sound emitted by the activities at the Gas Import Jetty is expected to exceed the range of onset of behavioural responses for all cetaceans and pinnipeds. The exceedance of this range, however, cannot be assessed quantitatively due to the lack of information on the ambient noise level and, for baleen whales, the lack of robust information on their hearing sensitivity. It is likely that the sound will be audible to marine mammals in most circumstances if they are entering the Western Port Bay area.

This means that the sound levels emitted by the activities could be heard by marine mammals at ranges greater than those predicted for behavioural response. The range at which they might be able to hear the activities is unable to be predicted, as the ambient noise level is unknown, and, in the case of baleen whales, the lack of robust information on their hearing sensitivity.

The consequence of acoustic masking for individual marine mammals is considered to be minor and negligible on a population level.


Version 1.0 8

3.3. Request 83

Request:

Explain if impacts to penguins on Barralier Island from the Project have been considered in the underwater acoustic assessment.

Response:

The response is contained within the following sections.

3.3.1. Summary

A colony of little penguins (Eudyptula minor) is located on Barrallier Island in the northern part of Western Port. Penguins are diving birds which readily transit between air and water and enact parts of important behaviours such as travelling between their colony and foraging grounds mostly underwater. While immersed they are potentially at risk of experiencing noise-induced effects from the planned activities by the Project in the Western Port.

There is no information on the hearing sensitivity of little penguins, their behavioural responses to underwater noise or any other noise-related effect and only very limited information on other penguin species. Information on hearing capabilities and behavioural responses of other pursuit diving bird species represents the best available proxy for the potential hearing sensitivity of little penguins and informs determining a preliminary threshold for onset of noise-induced effects.

The noise emitted by planned activities by the Project in Western Port Bay has the potential for causing stress, behavioural reactions and auditory masking in little penguins transiting the area, however the risks have been assessed as being minor to moderate severity (short-lived and spatially limited moderate response). The Underwater Noise Impact Assessment (Lucke and McPherson 2020) states there is no information on stress, auditory masking or noise-induced hearing impairment for diving birds, but empirical information has become available with regard to hearing sensitivity of diving birds and behavioural responses of penguins.

The most relevant and likely noise-induced effect relevant to penguins are behavioural responses. Onset levels for behavioural responses are likely to differ between impulsive and non-impulsive sounds – with non-impulsive sounds being relevant to the assessment of the Project. However, there is no empirical information on behavioural responses in diving birds to non-impulsive sound. Based on information on behavioural reactions documented for Gentoo penguins in response to noise bursts (i.e. impulsive sound, Sørensen et al. 2020) an onset level for moderate behavioural responses in little

penguins of SPL 120 dB re 1 µPa is proposed, which is considered a conservative approach. This

conservative approach is proposed in the absence of alternative information. Noise-induced behavioural responses depend on the auditory (hearing) perception of the signal and, moreover, are assumed to vary between individuals and are highly context specific.

The underwater noise propagation modelling predicts that the North Arm will not be ‘blocked’ by the

120 dB re 1 µPa isopleth for the worst-case scenario, SPL Scenario 4 (see Figure A-12). Therefore,

the emitted noise is unlikely to cause a blockage of the transit pathway for penguins between their colony and foraging grounds. Penguins can be expected to show increasing avoidance with gradually increasing received sound levels when approaching the sound source. As the waterway between their colony and open waters is wide enough it is reasonable to assume that little penguins will divert their travel path away from the source while keeping the overall travel direction (i.e. transiting between colony and open waters); strong behavioural responses are not likely to occur.

The risk assessment shows that behavioural responses of little penguins to the underwater sound emitted by the planned activities are likely to occur, of minor to moderate severity (short-lived and spatially limited moderate response) with no effect on the breeding cycle, their population size or continuity.

There is no indication that the noise emitted by the planned activities at Gas Import Jetty can cause hearing impairment in little penguins.


Version 1.0 9

3.3.2. Background

This report assesses the potential impacts of underwater sound on marine fauna as a result of the operation of the Gas Import Jetty and Pipeline Project in Western Port Bay, VIC.

The species considered in this report is the little penguin (Eudyptula minor), specifically a colony located on Barrallier (synonymous: Barrilliar) island, one of several small gravelly islands in Western Port Bay located 1 km northwest of French Island. This addendum was requested as little penguins were not specifically considered in the Underwater Noise Impact Assessment (Lucke and McPherson 2020) and additional scientific information has become available since which is relevant to assessing the potential noise-induced effects on this species.

The impact assessment of underwater noise on little penguins is based on model-predicted sound levels for the planned operation at the Gas Import Jetty (Koessler et al. 2019a) and their spatial extent.

This section provides scientific background information on behavioural responses of little penguins and an impact assessment of the planned activities at the Gas Import Jetty in Western Port Bay for little penguins.

3.3.3. Behavioural Responses To Underwater Noise

3.3.3.1.1. Severity and Context Specificity

The intensity of behavioural responses of marine fauna to sound exposure ranges from subtle responses, which may be difficult to observe and have little implication for the affected animal, to obvious responses, such as prolonged, large-scale avoidance, outright panic, or flight. With regard to effects of underwater sound on marine fauna, most effort focussed on marine mammals so far. There have been historical (Southall et al. 2007) and ongoing current efforts to describe and quantify the severity of such variable responses by marine mammals and their implications at the individual and population levels (Pirotta et al. 2018); comparable studies on penguins or diving birds do not exist.

With regard to noise-induced behavioural responses, it is most relevant considering whether an animal’s response intensity scales with stimulus type or with the received level of the sound stimulus at the receiver. There is considerable and evolving data (mostly on marine mammals) supporting the conclusion that reactions will differ between individual animals and can vary even contextual factors related to the exposure configuration and internal behavioural features of the subject can interact with the relative amplitude of noise exposure and can strongly affect response probability (Ellison et al. 2012). There is increasing scientific evidence showing that while the onset of behavioural responses depends to some extent on received sound level, various contextual factors also influence response probability, including the activity state of animals exposed to different sounds, the type of sound, spatial relations between a sound source and receiving animals, the gender, age, and reproductive status of the receiving animal and the and novelty of or previous exposure to the sound (Ellison et al. 2012, DeRuiter et al. 2013, Goldbogen et al. 2013, Friedlaender et al. 2016, DeRuiter et al. 2017, Dunlop et al. 2018).

While there is little information on behavioural responses of penguins to underwater sound (below), the most relevant question with regard to the potential effect of underwater noise generated by activities at the planned LNG terminal is if this could create a functional blockage of the waterway, i.e. causing the penguins to avoid swimming past the new terminal on their transit between their colony and feeding grounds in open waters.

3.3.3.1.2. Penguin Behavioural Responses

Pichegru et al. (2017) investigated the behavioural response of breeding endangered African penguins (Speniscus demersus) to seismic surveys (i.e., powerful repetitive impulsive signals) within 100 km of their colony in South Africa. Penguins showed a strong avoidance of their preferred foraging areas during seismic activities; foraging took place significantly farther from the survey vessel when in operation, while increasing their overall foraging effort and energy expenditure. The birds reverted to normal behaviour when the operation ceased.


Version 1.0 10

Sørensen et al. (2020) exposed gentoo penguins (Pygoscelis papua) in an enclosed environment (a pool) to artificial sounds (tone bursts, i.e. a series of impulsive sounds, with main acoustic energy between 0.2 to 6 kHz) at levels between 100 to 120 dB re 1 µPa (SPL). The penguins showed a graded reaction to the noise bursts, ranging from no reactions at 100 dB to a change of swim direction and change of speed in more than 60% of the playbacks at 120 dB re 1 µPa.

Animals can be assumed to be able detecting the increase in SPL when approaching the sound source, i.e. swimming along a gradient of increasing noise levels the closer they come to it. It is unknown if any penguin would show onset of behavioural responses to non-impulsive (continuous) noise at the same level as to impulsive noise. Due to lack of more specific information it is assumed that little penguins, despite the difference in signal type, may display behavioural reactions at levels similar to Adelie penguins (Sørensen et al. 2020).

The model-predicted sound levels for the planned operation at the Gas Import Jetty exceed 120 dB SPL up to a distance of 2.42 km or 2.09 km (Rmax and R95, respectively) (see Koessler et al. 2019a) – in a straight line from Gas Import Jetty across to French Island, the proposed behavioural threshold for little penguins does not extent across the North Arm, with about 2 km left between the isopleth and the shoreline, as shown in Figure 1.

The route for little penguins transiting from their colony on Barrallier island to forage in open waters off Phillip Island/ in Bass Strait is through the North Arm of Western Port Bay. Alternatively, animals may also swim along the eastern side of French Island to transit between their colony and open waters.

Figure 1. Scenario 4 – Petroleum carrier + FSRU + LNG Carrier, SPL: Sound level contour map showing unweighted maximum-over-depth results. Isopleth for marine mammal (120 dB re 1 µPa) behavioural criteria, used as a guide for penguins, is shown.


Version 1.0 11

3.3.4. Impact Assessment

The risk assessment shows that little penguins are almost certainly able to hear the sound emitted by the planned activities at Gas Import Jetty in the Western Port. Auditory perception of a sound, however, does not represent an impact per se but is the necessary condition for any direct effects to occur. The perception of a sound becomes relevant for the receiving animal if the sound exceeds the threshold for any other noise-related impacts.

At close ranges, it is theoretically possible that vocal emissions or sound perception of little penguins are acoustically masked. There is, however, no evidence that any bird species uses sound underwater actively (for communication purposes) or passively (e.g., to avoid an approaching predator). Accordingly, while it is impossible to assess the true potential acoustic masking effect originating from exposure to noise from the planned activities at Gas Import Jetty, this effect is most likely negligible.

Due to the limited information about acoustically induced stress responses in marine mammals, a conservative approach would be to assume that any moderate or severe behavioural response is also associated with a stress response.

The limited scientific information on behavioural responses of penguins to underwater sound indicates that the response, while species- and context specific, is likely to occur at ranges of up to 2 km. The response severity will range from subtle (with no risk implication for the receiving animal) at the farthest distance to minor or moderate at close proximity to the sound source. The most likely response is diversion of the swimming path (short-lived, maximum duration determined by the animals’ speed of passing the area) and no blockage effect of the Western Port waterway is expected. No long-term effects are expected on the individual or population level, i.e. animals are not expected to interrupt their breeding cycle, show reduced breeding success and no effects or population size or continuity are expected.

There is no indication that the noise emitted by the planned activities at Gas Import Jetty can cause hearing impairment in little penguins.


Version 1.0 12

Literature cited

[ISO] International Organization for Standardization. 2019. ISO 17208-2:2019. Underwater acoustics – Quantities and procedures for description and measurement of underwater sound from ships – Part 1: Requirements for precision measurements in deep water used for comparison purposes. https://www.iso.org/standard/62409.html.

[NMFS] National Marine Fisheries Service (US). 2018. 2018 Revision to: Technical Guidance for Assessing the Effects of Anthropogenic Sound on Marine Mammal Hearing (Version 2.0): Underwater Thresholds for Onset of Permanent and Temporary Threshold Shifts. US Department of Commerce, NOAA. NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-OPR-59. 167 p. https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/webdam/download/75962998.

ANSI 12.64-2009. R2014. Grade C – Survey Method - Quantities and Procedures for Description and Measurement of Underwater Sound from Ships – Part 1: General Requirements. Acoustical Society of America.

Austin, M.E., A.O. MacGillivray, and N.R. Chapman. 2012. Acoustic transmission loss measurements in Queen Charlotte Basin. Canadian Acoustics 40(1): 27-31. https://jcaa.caa-aca.ca/index.php/jcaa/article/view/2503.

Erbe, C., R.D. McCauley, C.R. McPherson, and A. Gavrilov. 2013. Underwater noise from offshore oil production vessels. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 133(6): EL465-EL470. https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4802183.

Koessler, M., C. McPherson, and K. Lucke. 2019a. AGL Gas Import Jetty Facility; Underwater Acoustic Modelling. Document Number 01816, Version 1.1. Draft. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for AECOM. 28 pp p.

Koessler, M.W., C.R. McPherson, and K. Lucke. 2019b. AGL Gas Import Jetty Facility; Underwater Acoustic Modelling. Document Number 01816, Version 1.1. Draft. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for AECOM.

Lucke, K. and C.R. McPherson. 2020. AGL Gas Import Jetty Facility: Underwater Noise Impact Assessment. Volume 02019, Version 2.0 DRAFT. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for AECOM Australia Pty Ltd.

McPherson, C.R., H. Yurk, G.R. McPherson, R.G. Racca, and P. Wulf. 2017. Great Barrier Reef Underwater Noise Guidelines: Discussion and Options Paper. Document Number 01130. Technical report by JASCO Applied Sciences for Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority. http://hdl.handle.net/11017/3245.

Melbourne Water. 2011. Understanding the Western Port Environment – A summary of current knowledge and priorities for future research. Melbourne.

Pichegru, L., R. Nyengera, A.M. McInnes, and P. Pistorius. 2017. Avoidance of seismic survey activities by penguins. Scientific Reports 7: 16305. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16569-x.

Sørensen, K., C. Neumann, M. Dähne, K.A. Hansen, and M. Wahlberg. 2020. Gentoo penguins (Pygoscelis papua) react to underwater sounds. Royal Society Open Science 7(2): 191988. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191988.

https://www.iso.org/standard/62409.html

https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/webdam/download/75962998

https://jcaa.caa-aca.ca/index.php/jcaa/article/view/2503

https://jcaa.caa-aca.ca/index.php/jcaa/article/view/2503

https://doi.org/10.1121/1.4802183

http://hdl.handle.net/11017/3245

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16569-x

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-16569-x

https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.191988


Version 1.0 A-1

Appendix A. Sound field maps

Maps of the estimated sound fields showing the full modelled extent for the SEL24h and SPL sound fields, along with the threshold contours for SPL, have been presented for all modelling scenarios in Figures A-1 to A-12.


Version 1.0 A-1

Figure A-1. Scenario 1 – Petroleum carrier, SEL24h: Sound level contour map showing maximum-over-depth results.


Version 1.0 A-2

Figure A-2. Scenario 1 – Petroleum carrier, SEL24h: Sound level threshold map for maximum-over-depth results. PTS threshold for mid–frequency cetaceans and otariids was not reached.


Version 1.0 A-3

Figure A-3. Scenario 1 – Petroleum carrier, SPL: Sound level contour map showing unweighted maximum-over-depth results. Isopleth for marine mammal (120 dB re 1 µPa) behavioural criteria is shown.


Version 1.0 A-4

Figure A-4. Scenario 2 – FSRU, SEL24h: Sound level contour map showing maximum-over-depth results.


Version 1.0 A-5

Figure A-5. Scenario 2 – FSRU, SEL24h: Sound level threshold map for maximum-over-depth results. PTS threshold for mid–frequency cetaceans and otariids was not reached


Version 1.0 A-6

Figure A-6. Scenario 2– FSRU, SPL: Sound level contour map showing unweighted maximum-over-depth results. Isopleth for marine mammal (120 dB re 1 µPa) behavioural criteria is shown.


Version 1.0 A-7

Figure A-7. Scenario 3 – FSRU + LNG Carrier, SEL24h: Sound level contour map showing maximum-over-depth results.


Version 1.0 A-8

Figure A-8. Scenario 3 – FSRU + LNG Carrier, SEL24h: Sound level threshold map for maximum-over-depth results. PTS threshold for mid–frequency cetaceans and otariids was not reached


Version 1.0 A-9

Figure A-9. Scenario 3 – FSRU + LNG Carrier, SPL: Sound level contour map showing unweighted maximum-over-depth results. Isopleth for marine mammal (120 dB re 1 µPa) behavioural criteria is shown.


Version 1.0 A-10

Figure A-10. Scenario 4 – Petroleum carrier + FSRU + LNG Carrier, SEL24h: Sound level contour map showing maximum-over-depth results.


Version 1.0 A-11

Figure A-11. Scenario 4 – Petroleum carrier + FSRU + LNG Carrier, SEL24h: Sound level threshold map for maximum-over-depth results. PTS threshold for mid–frequency cetaceans and otariids was not reached


Version 1.0 A-12

Figure A-12. Scenario 4 – Petroleum carrier + FSRU + LNG Carrier, SPL: Sound level contour map showing unweighted maximum-over-depth results. Isopleth for marine mammal (120 dB re 1 µPa) behavioural criteria is shown.

GAS IMPORT JETTY AND PIPELINE PROJECT ......JASCO Applied Sciences for Ashurst. 2 Attachment 1 Gas...

Documents

Transcript of GAS IMPORT JETTY AND PIPELINE PROJECT ......JASCO Applied Sciences for Ashurst. 2 Attachment 1 Gas...