IBP1406_12

RESULTADOS DO MONITORAMENTO DE BIOTA MARINHA DURANTE ATIVIDADE DE PERFURAO NA BACIA DE CAMPOS, BRASIL. RESULTS OF THE MARINE BIOTA MONITORING DURING DRILLING ACTIVITY ON CAMPOS BASIN, BRAZIL. PETTA, C. B.; BASTOS, F.; DANIELSKI, M.; FERREIRA, M.; GAMA, M.; COELHO, A. P.; MAIA, D. Introduction Marine biota monitoring is considered an important tool for species conservation, as it increases knowledge on their behavior, identifies possible changes and allows the assessment of the impact caused by noise pollution (BAPTISTA & GAUNT, 1997). Among the marine mammals found in Brazil, cetaceans are the main group of potential interference with noisy activities, since their distribution ranges from shallow to deep waters along the continental shelf and in areas further from shore. In addition, they use acoustic perception for essential functions like intraspecies communication and localization of predators and preys (VILARDO, 2006). However, chelonians, fish and marine birds may also be affected by the oil and gas offshore activities. It is well known that drilling rigs and ships aggregate several species of fish, providing a direct and indirect source of food, offering protection, shade or even working like a reproduction resource, in case of species that keep the demersal adherent eggs (SILVA, M.H., 2008). Suspended solids may account for some of the direct lethal action of drilling fluids at high concentrations, but components such as chloride are probably the main active agents at lower concentrations. Crude oil can be toxic to fish in different ways. Some of its components are volatile and dissolve in water, meaning they can travel through watercourses and soils, causing widespread contamination. Heavy metals are associated with drilling activity. Since metals do not degrade, they can be toxic, carcinogenic and can bio-magnify through food chains. Process chemicals used in drilling mud also have a wide variety of impacts on fish and wildlife communities (YUKON, 2002.). Birds may be affected in case of accidental oil spills, affecting their capacity of flying and feeding. Spills are direct mortality threats through oiling and poisoning by ingestion as animals try to clean themselves and as toxins build up in fish-eating birds. Migrating birds are also attracted to the lighted platforms during nocturnal migration, circling the platforms out of confusion, and dying of exhaustion (MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE, 2005). Seabirds can also be attracted because of structural stimuli, food concentrations, oceanographic processes and flares. Availability of refuge and food are the most important reasons why birds persist at offshore platforms following an initial attraction, and their presence in the structure may lead to immediate or long-term detrimental impacts on their lives, such as hypothermia, exhaustion and starvation due to the hydrophobic nature of oil, causing plumage to lose waterproofing, insulation and buoyancy, oil ingestion and inhalation while preening feathers, or by ingesting contaminated prey. (WIESE et al., 2001)

Marine mammals and chelonians can be affected specially during noisy activities like transportation, installations and fixing of offshore structures and during drilling activity, causing temporary or even permanent avoidance of the area (RICHARDSON et al.,1995; MILTON E LUTZ, 2003). It is also noted that source levels, directionality, maximum detection distances, and functions of most marine animal sounds are unknown or poorly documented, and generally it is not possible to evaluate with accuracy the severity of animal sound masking by man-made noise (PETERSEN, D.; DAVID, A. and JUREVICIUS, D., 2011). Usually marine mammals and turtles tend to avoid noisy areas, especially when there are sudden changes on frequency. Depending on the circumstances, the response to noise is highly variable among species and even within the same species (JACQUES WHITFORD, 2006 apud CANADANEWFOUNDLAND& LABRADOR OFFSHORE PETROLEUM BOARD, 2006). Since cetaceans use auditory perception for essential functions of their way of life, they can be affected by noisy activities. Underwater noise impacts on marine mammals are often divided into behavioral and physiological impacts. Physiological effects can be a temporary threshold shift (TTS) as the hearing loss is temporary, or a permanent threshold shift (PTS), if the noise exposure exceeds the critical sound energy level, and the hair cells become permanently damaged (PETERSEN, D.; DAVID, A. and JUREVICIUS, D., 2011). Damage to structures in the auditory tract, caused by activities with a high degree of noise, may also cause a significant impact on animal behavior (VILARDO, 2006). Behavioral responses to noise include changes in vocalization, resting, diving and breathing patterns, changes in mother-infant spatial relationships, and avoidance of the noise source. Masking of biologically important sounds may interfere with communication and social interaction, and cause changes in behavior as well (PETERSEN, D.; DAVID, A. and JUREVICIUS, D., 2011). Recently studies demonstrated that collisions between marine mammals and vessels are not uncommon (LAIST et al., 2001; FLIX e WAEREBEEK, 2005; PANIGADA et al., 2006; VANDERLAAN & TAGGART, 2007). Most data have been associated to adults at rest or juveniles and new-borns, probably because they stay longer on the surface than solitary adults (LAIST et al., 2001), but collisions with small cetaceans have been also documented (WELLS & SCOTT, 1997). For chelonians, small and fast vessels can cause traumas (WITZELL, 2007), since it is pretty difficult to see them when they come to the surface to breath. The Environmental Monitoring Project (PMA) aims to report environmental changes arising from drilling activity, in relation to the marine fauna. This project can also help in the monitoring of accidental spills. Since the professionals spend 6 hours of the day monitoring the ocean around the rigs, they can locate and identify oil stains, notify the responsible onboard, and also help in the monitoring of the oil stain. Such Project has been developed onboard a drilling unit working in Campos Basin. The results presented here were collected during the drilling activity in Bijupir & Salema fields, by Shell Brasil Petroleo Ltda, from July 13th to October 8th, 2011.

Materials and Methods The drilling well is located in the Bijupir & Salema fields, Campos Basin, Rio de Janeiro, Southeast region of Brazil (Geographic coordinates: -22 39 35,92 / -40 24 36,81 ; distance from coast: 93,7 km; water depth: 770 meters). The data was collected by two professionals, in shifts of 14 days each. The monitoring has been done during daylights, in an average of 5.5 hours/day, using binoculars and photograph cameras. The information collected during sightings includes species, group size, distance of the unit, behavior and location, among others. This methodology aims not only the quantification and identification of species, but also the verification and record of their behavior due to the presence of the platform and its associated activities (AECOM, 2011).

Map 1 Localization of the block. Results and Conclusion The period considered for this monitoring was 485 hours of observation, in 90 days. A total of 167 animal sightings were recorded, encompassing 18 sightings of marine mammals (11%), 65 sightings of birds (39%), 82 sightings of fish (49%) and 2 sightings of turtles (1%).

Total of sightings
1% 11% 39% Birds Fish 49%

Marine Mammals
Turtles

Graphic 1 Total of sightings during the environmental monitoring. Most sightings (46%) were done with good visibility, 32 % with moderate visibility and 22% with bad visibility. No incidents with the marine biota related to the drilling activity were reported during the monitoring.

Visibility
22,00%
46,00% Good Moderate 32,00%

Bad

Graphic 2 Visibility during sightings. The marine mammals sightings included 7 sightings (38,88%) of Humpback whales (Megaptera novaeangliae), 1 sighting (5,56%) of Spinner dolphin (Stenella longirostris), 1 sighting (5,56%) of Pantropical-spotted-dolphin (Stenella attenuata), 5 sightings (27,78%) of individuals belonging to the family Delphinidae, and 4 sightings (22,22%) of non-identified individuals belonging to the order Cetacea. The animals were recorded at distances ranging from 3m to 1500m from the drilling unit. In its majority, animals were sighted in groups, but single individuals were also recorded. The humpback whale (Megaptera novaeangliae) was the most sighted specie during this monitoring, and could be seen in groups of 2 animals or single individuals. The most common behaviors recorded include blow, splash and dorsal fin exposure.

Marine Mammal Sightings

5,56% 5,56%

22,22%

38,88%

Megaptera novaeangliae Delphinidae Cetacea

27,78%

Stenella longirostris Stenella attenuata

Graphic 3 Percentage of marine mammal sightings according to species. The record of the fish fauna was made in relation to the species observed in the vicinity of the drilling unit, species close to the surface and eventually caught by fishing vessels around the unit. 82 records of fish fauna included species like Strongylura sp. (55%), Coryphaena hippurus (21%), Thunnus sp. (11%), Exocoetus volitans (7,3%), Mola mola (2,4%), among others like Caranxcrysos, Balistes sp. and Chondrichthyes, with 1,1% each. The sighting of fish fauna is complex, as it is made from the surface, and species observed not always correspond to the most frequent species in the region.

1,10%

1,10% 2,40%

Fish Sightings
1,10%

11,00% 7,30%

Thunnus sp.
Exocoetus volitans Strongylura sp. Coryphaena hippurus

21,00%

55,00%

Mola mola

Caranxcrysus
Balistes sp. Chondrichthyes

Graphic 4 Percentage of fish sightings according to species. 65 records of birds allowed the identification of 6 different species, including a terrestrial one. 40% of individuals were identified as Yellow-nosed Albatross (Diomedea chlororhynchos), 23,08% as Great Shearwater (Puffinus gravis), 10,77% as Masked booby (Sula dactylatra), 6,16% as Magnificent Frigatebird (Fregata magnificens), 1,53% as Corys Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) and 7,69% as Common pigeon (Columba livia). In 7 sightings (10,77%), the identification of species

was not possible, and the animals were classified as belonging to the gender Diomedea sp. These animals were recorded at distances ranging from 0 meters (when the animal was sighted perched to the drilling unit) to 1000 meters from the unit. The most common behaviors recorded included displacement, feeding and rest.

Bird Sightings
6,16% 7,69% 1,53% Diomedea chlororhynchos

10,77%

40,00%

Puffinus gravis Sula dactylatra Diomedea sp.

23,08% 10,77%

Columba livia Fregata magnificens

Calonectris diomedea

Graphic 5 Percentage of bird sightings according to species. There were 2 sightings for turtles, one of Leatherback sea turtle (Dermochelys coriacea), and one of Hawksbill sea turtle (Eretmochelys imbricata). The reduced number of turtle sightings can be explained mainly by the small size of these animals (in most cases) and also by the lower rate of aerial behavior. Turtles can be sighted when the animal comes to the surface for breathing, but it is very difficult to observe them from the drilling units. The frequency of marine biota records is not directly related to the frequency of occurrence of species in the region. The sighting capacity of the professionals onboard becomes reduced due to the behavior of different species and also to the distance of the animals in relation to the drilling unit. The absence of aerial behaviors may difficult the animal sighting, especially in long distances. No changes in animal behavior, such as escape, avoidance or increase of aerial behaviors, were recorded during this monitoring. Changes in vocalization patterns could not be analyzed since there was no bio-acoustic monitoring. No accidental oil spills or incidents were recorded during the drilling activity either.

Pictures

Picture 1 Stenella atenuatta

Picture 2 Stenella longirostris

Picture 3 Strongylura sp.

Picture 4 Coryphaena hippurus

Picture 5 Diomedea sp.

Picture 6 Puffinus gravis

Picture 7 Columba livia

Picture 8 Megaptera novaeangliae

Bibliography AECOM do Brasil. Relatrio de Avaliao e Acompanhamento dos Projetos Ambientais, Perfurao do Poo BJ-P Campos de Bijupir & Salema. Protocolado junto CGPEG/IBAMA em novembro de 2011. BAPTISTA, L. F. &. GAUNT, S. L. L., 1997. Bioacoustics as a tool in conservation studies. In: Behavioral Approaches to Conservation in the Wild (J.R. Clemmons & R. Buchholz eds.) Cambridge. Univ. Press, Cambridge. pp 212-242.
CANADA-NEWFOUNDLAND & LABRADOR OFFSHORE PETROLEUM BOARD, 2006. SDL 1040 Delineation Drilling Program. C-NLOPB. Screening Report. 29p. FLIX, F. E WAEREBEEK, K.V. 2005. Whale mortality from ship strikes in Ecuador and West frica. The Latin America Journal of Aquatic Mammals, 4(1):55-60. LAIST, D.W.; KNOWLTON, A.R.; MEAD, J.G.; COLLET, A.S.; PODESTA, M. 2001. Marine Mammals Science 17(1):35-75. MILTON. S. & LUTZ, P. 2003. Natural and Human Impacts on Turtles. In: NOAAs Office of Response and Restoration (org.). Oil and sea turtles: Biology, planning, and response. pp.27-34.

MINERALS MANAGEMENT SERVICE. Final Report. 2005. Interactions Between Migrating Birds and Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms in the Northern Gulf of Mexico.
PANIGADA, S., PESANTE, G., ZANARDELLI, M., CAPOULADE, F., GANNIER, A., AND WEINRICH, M.T. 2006. Mediterranean fin whales at risk from fatal ship strikes. Marine Pollution Bulletin 52(10): 1287-1298.

PETERSEN, D.; DAVID, A. and JUREVICIUS, D., 2011. Methodology for environmental impact assessment of underwater noise on marine mammals. APPEA Journal 2011, pp. 467-478.
RICHARDSON, J.W., GREENE, JR., C.R., MALME, C.I., AND THOMSON, D.H. 1995. Marine mammals and noise. Academic Press. 576p.

SILVA, M. H. 2008. Peixes associados Plataforma de Petrleo PXIV. Universidade do Vale do Itaja/Petrobrs.
VANDERLAAN, A. S. M. AND C. T. TAGGART. 2007. Vessel collisions with whales: the probability of lethal injury based on vessel speed. Marine Mammal Science 23:144-156.

VILARDO, C. 2006. Os Impactos Ambientais da Pesquisa Ssmica Martima. Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Projeto Final de Curso para o Programa de Formao Profissional em Cincias Ambientais, 116p.
WELLS, R.S. & SCOTT, M.D. 1997. Seasonal incidence of boat strikes on bottlenose dolphins near Sarasota, Florida. Marine Mammals Science 13(3):475-480.

WIESE, F. K.; MONTEVECCHI, W. A.; DAVOREN, G. K.; HUETTMANN, F.; DIAMOND, A. W. and LINKE, J. 2001. Seabirds at risk around offshore oil platforms in the north-west Atlantic. Marine Pollution Bulletin Vol. 42, No. 12, pp. 1285-1290.
WITZELL, W.N. 2007. Kemps Ridley (Lepidochelys kempii) shell damage. Marine Turtle Newsletter 115:16-17.

YUKON. Fish and Wildlife Management Board. 2002. The Effects of Oil and Gas Activity on Fish and Wildlife: a review of selected literature. Whitehorse, Yukon Territory, Y1A 2H5. 87pp.